This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Special Theme Review
Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: a review
Mohini Singh, R. K. Srivastava Article first published online: 31 AUG 2010 DOI: 10.1002/apj.490
Copyright © 2010 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Issue Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering Special Issue: Festschrift in Honor of Professor Nabil Esmail Volume 6, Issue 1, pages 3–13, January/February 2011
Additional Information (Show All) How to Cite
Get PDF (226K) Keywords: SBR; nutrient removal; granulation; SBBR; ASBR; GAC-SBR
Wastewater treatment has been a challenge throughout the years due to varying influent characteristics and stringent effluent regulations. In response to this dilemma, a reliable, cost-effective and high-efficiency sequencing batch reactor (SBR) technology has been recently developed. SBRs are variations of the activated sludge process that operates on a fill-and-draw basis. It combines both aerobic–anaerobic phases in one unit and saves up to 25% of the aeration costs concomitant with low sludge production. Consequently, simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal from the wastewater could be achieved by adjusting the actual operating cycle. This review paper discusses the technical description and operational flexibility of SBR for the treatment of wide range of effluent under different operational conditions, together with its modifications that could increase the effectiveness of SBR systems in the future. Copyright © 2010 Curtin University of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
During the past hundred years, the conventional suspended-growth activated sludge processes have been widely used for the wastewater treatment. A typical activated sludge treatment is characterized by relatively high energy consumption and biomass production, leading to high operation costs and problems with the disposal of large amount of sludge. The technological development, improvement of operation conditions and enforcement of strict legislations in the recent years have led to the replacement of conventional suspended-growth activated sludge system by robust cost-effective and high-efficiency sequencing batch reactor (SBR), particularly in areas characterized by low or varying flow conditions. SBRs are basically suspended growth biological wastewater treatment reactors, in which all the metabolic reactions and solid–liquid separation takes place in one tank and in a well-defined and continuously repeated time sequence.1 It is assumed that the periodic exposure of the microorganisms to defined process conditions is effectively achieved in a fed batch system wherein exposure time, frequency of exposure and amplitude of the respective concentration can be set independent of the inflow pattern.2 The SBR processes are known to save more than 60% of the expenses required for conventional activated sludge process in operating cost and achieve high effluent quality in a very short aeration time. Whereas, the conventional activated sludge systems require about 3–8 h of aeration.3 Initially, the technology was intended for small communities and high-strength industrial wastes but more recently there has been extensive application with other dilute waste sources. A SBR with suspended biomass configuration can perform relatively better in terms of carbon removal over conventional suspended growth systems.4 More than 90% biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) removal has been reported while the conventional processes are capable of removing 60–95% of BOD.5 Also, significant reduction in suspended solids (SS) concentration (<10 mg/L) have been investigated.6
1 of 9
9/23/2011 12:15 PM
10 A low COD/NH 4 -N ratio can result in a rapid C deficit.12 The inclusion of anoxic period right after the aeration period enhances the N-removal efficiency. Controlling the time of mixing and/or aeration produces the degree of treatment required. The principal advantages of EBPR are the reduction of chemical cost and lower sludge production as compared to chemical precipitation. The time dedicated to react can exceed 50% of total cycle time. and also. Excess waste activated sludge is also removed. the period lasts for 25% of the full cycle time. ASM2 was modified as ASM2d to evaluate the performance of SBR for simultaneous N and P removal by incorporating denitrification via PAOs.11 Likewise. aerobic and anaerobic. whereas the anaerobic phase is characterized by alkalinity production corresponding to the end of denitrification.11 + − + Biological phosphorus removal Phosphorus removal is desired to control eutrophication because it is a limiting nutrient in most freshwater systems and leads to significant changes in water quality. anoxic or aerobic conditions.19 Due to the complexity of processes and the excessive number of process components involved in EBPR. The on/off cycling of air and mixers provides nitrification. temperature of wastewater. its purpose is to complete the fill cycle before switching to another unit.1. (3) Settle: During this phase. By manipulating these periods. cycle length of SBR and type of inoculum. dissolved oxygen (DO). On adjusting the ratio to 11. This phase is generally required when several SBRs are in operation. react. (5) Idle: The period between draw and fill is termed as idle. influent COD:N:P ratio. The fill mode can be kept either aerated or nonaerated depending upon the wastewater characteristics. (4) Draw (decant): After the settle phase. http://onlinelibrary. N removal via nitrite showed promising results for the process optimization.5% has been reported. which require two different conditions. The simulation and modeling approach have been well utilized for optimizing the SBR for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and N removal by adjusting the DO set points. The process of simultaneous nitrification–denitrification (SND) is usually controlled by carbon and nitrogen (C/N) ratio in the SBR.com/doi/10. in the presence of a low biodegradable COD/Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) ratio. anoxic and anaerobic conditions. the SND–SBR system was reported to completely remove COD and NH 4 -N without leaving any NO 2 -N in the effluent.wiley. Nitrification is performed by nitrifying autotrophic bacteria. the behavior of PAOs did not always appear quite predictable. The length of the fill period depends on the number of tanks.. Halobacter halobium added to the activated sludge culture of saline wastewater has been reported to improve the nutrient removal performance of the SBR. The change in the length of fill could alter productivity of the SBR process during optimization. cations in wastewater. save operation time and energy. The treatment is controlled by air.21 2 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM . the clarified supernatant is discharged from the reactor as effluent. the system could achieve biological nutrient removal using alternations of anoxic and aerobic periods within the treatment cycle.17 Several factors have been reported to affect P removal such as wastewater composition.9 The critical analysis of characteristic points on their profiles can even reflect the process of nitrification and denitrification. systematic assessment of operating strategies becomes impractical. The settle period last between 0.15 An established SND technology thus.8 SBR has proven to be a viable alternative to the continuous-flow systems in biological nutrient removal (BNR) by introducing anaerobic. The addition of pure culture of Acinetobacter lwoffii to anaerobic/aerobic SBR inoculated initially with mixed culture significantly enhanced the EBPR rate. decant and idle periods. Essentially.7 (2) React: During react.490/full SEQUENCING BATCH REACTOR Jump to… SBRs are considered as fill and draw version of the activated sludge process. Various modeling approaches such as the Activated Sludge Model No. 2 (ASM2) although provide an acceptably reliable description for N transformations. pH showed a rapid increase due to CO 2 stripping. The organisms responsible for this task are the phosphorus accumulating organisms (PAOs). considerable emphasis has been placed on reducing the quantities of nutrients discharged. in order to encourage the P uptake. the amount of external C source has been reduced to 5%. methanol. settle. mainly Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) because they lead to problems of eutrophication and undesirable changes in aquatic population. The P-removal efficiency as high as 90% have been reported in SBR. anoxic and aerobic reactions in a single tank during a treatment cycle.5 and 1. The withdrawal mechanism should be designed and operated in a manner that prevent floating material to be discharged. a salt tolerant organism. the entire aeration tank acts as a clarifier without any inflow or outflow. acetate and propionate in case of dilute wastewater. with reduced anoxic P uptake. solids retention time (SRT). Many studies therefore have been stimulated on understanding. In the aerobic phase. Usually. to produce anaerobic. By adjusting the ratio. BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL Jump to… In recent years. Reactions for substrate removal initiated during fill are completed during react. developing and improving the biological nutrient removal process.18 Similarly. and replace the traditional two-stage biological nitrification and denitrification process.14 However. it encompasses an intricate array of biochemical processes to be sustained in an appropriate sequence of aerobic. The adjustment control of the ratio is enviable while using ORP and pH as control parameters in both the anoxic and oxic phases. It is basically a batch reactor that operates under a series of periods that constitute a SBR cycle.. The system achieved complete PO 4 −3 -P removal within 35 days of operation. maximum efficiency achieved is only 10–20%. Addition of acetate is reported to enhance the rate of denitrification to four times than methanol. Quiescent conditions developed give rise to the better solid separation than that of conventional clarifiers. There can be two or more cycles per day depending upon the operational strategies desired. SBR technology description The process involves the following five stages: (1) Fill: During fill. which subsequently is removed from the system as a result of sludge wasting. The physical and chemical changes taking place due to microbial activity can be detected through on-line monitoring the pH. generally lacked sufficient reliability for the fate of P. whereas denitrification is conducted by heterotrophic bacteria. whereas in conventional activated sludge systems. which can utilize nitrate in place of oxygen under anaerobic/anoxic conditions. denitrification and phosphorus removal. for strong wastewater with high organic concentration.20 In the light of above research. and oxidation–reduction potential (ORP). causing an unbalanced SND. volume of the SBRs and the flow rate of the effluent.16 The EBPR consist of incorporating the P present in influent into cell biomass. the influent wastewater is added to the biomass that was left in the tank from the previous cycle. The removal of P by a biological process is known as enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR). a high total nitrogen (TN) removal efficiency of up to 95. The time dedicated to draw can range from 5 to 30% of the total cycle time with 45 min being a typical draw period. either on or off. which are obligate aerobes. wastewater flow to the tank is restricted while aeration and mixing continues. In a multitank system.1002/apj.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: . mainly because they did not incorporate sufficient experimental support.5 h and prevent the solid blanket from floating due to gas buildup. The cycle generally consists of fill. It may be either the raw wastewater or the primary effluent.13 yet this phase require the addition of external C sources such as glucose. Biological nitrogen removal The N removal basically involves the aerobic conversion of ammonia to nitrates (nitrification) and anoxic conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas (denitrification).
the termination times of nitrification.3 0.25 Lee et al.114 Garrido et al.117 Maranon.102 Sirianuntapiboon and Hongsrisuwan122 Tilche et al.8 97.87 — 3 3 10 — — — 26 20 14.29 Significant P removal can also be attained by using PAOs capable of denitrification in a single-sludge system coexisting with nitrifers.75 137 2.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: . Table 1.7 — 94. pH is reported as ideal parameter during the oxic phase while ORP during the anoxic phase.1 — 95 93.8 — 30.103 Villaverde et al.8 67 — — 98. the alternate aerobic.119 Obaja et al.67 0.7 94 86 78 88 87 93 84 75.3 0..28 More than 98% removal of N and P has been achieved from piggery wastewater by optimizing cycle time and process modeling intended for better understanding of reactor behavior.6 21 50b 35.7 Hamamoto et al. Researchers have performed wastewater treatment studies for a large spectrum of wastes.4 18 12 8 6 10. N and P.26 Furthermore. the system should be operated with the shortest possible cycle time at high recycle ratios. very good preliminary results have been achieved.22 Similarly.7 43 54.105 Yu et al.75 — 1.2 d — 88.30 Shin et al.625 0.5 79.95 0.4 8 — 8 6 4 12 12 3. ORP and oxygen uptake rate (OUR) profiles.322 — 1.109 Debik and Manav110 Hamamoto et al.100 Kargi and Uygur45 Kargi and Uygur101 Kuba et al.1 92 98.1002/apj.5 702 — 7.112 Industrial wastewater Andreottola et al.7 — 94 96 100 92 75.5 86 39 99. ranging from simple domestic sewage to different industrial effluents for removing organics. the laboratory scale SBRs and process conditions have shown a very high degree of biological nutrient removal even on very unfavorable domestic wastewater that was low in biodegradable COD. http://onlinelibrary.5 — 89 75 97 98 68.25 The incorporation of anoxic phase in anaerobic–aerobic SBR has shown an increase in the ratio of anoxic phosphate uptake to the aerobic phosphate uptake from 11 to 64%.2 97 36 — 60 80 — 96 57 94 99 100 — — — 98.83 12 — 25 — — 10 10 — 12 16 — 20 7 10–15 97 97.1 98.24 Moreover.1 — 90 75.0 a 93.102 Tam et al.33 Li et al.121 Sirianuntapiboon et al.8 95. This will lead to an increase in reactor productivity (in terms of C.1 25 56.wiley. carbon oxidation.29 3970 — 2800 2638 1668 28 760 252 4455 150–500 55 170–200 350 256 548 567 1650 900 140 21 21 d d d d Influent TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) t c (h) Operation HRT (d) SRT (d) Removal efficiency C (%) N (%) P (%) 400 513 169 c 53 a 21 — 41.4 — 0. However. 31–33 A summary of several works focusing on operational strategy and removal efficiency of SBRs for treatment of synthetic. anoxic and anaerobic phases with careful optimization of order and duration of different reaction stages are imperative.118 1400 46 180 1000–4000 740 1400–2400 4700 2870 1345 1536 Obaja et al. Summary of experimental studies on SBR References COD (mg/L) Synthetic wastewater Akin and Ugurulu99 Coelho et al. N and P removal can also be achieved by employing pH and ORP values as control parameters.6 86 90 99 88 88 63.6 60 119 40 60d 42 630 — 41 d a 632 1200 400 600 2200 300 1500 400 300 15 15 — 6 — 20 5.7 3.8 80 63.com/doi/10.30 The efficiency of nutrient removals is affected by variations in the influent composition.37 Lemaire et al. with extremely high N and P containing wastewater.27 Using pH.23 If N removal without EBPR is the main objective.115 Kabacinski et al..5 35–55 26 40 — — 150 90 30 — 10 450 12 24 24 6 6 8 6 48 24 8 7 8 24 24 24 1 44 4.4 60–99 74 97 95 97 84.104 Wang et al.6 2153 3 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM . N and P removal) and a good adaptation of load variation.416 1 0. The conventional anaerobic–aerobic processes incorporating an anoxic zone for denitrification have been already applied for N and P removal in full-scale wastewater treatment plants. longer cycle time should be selected to operate with minimum (sludge) recycle ratio. urban and industrial wastewater is given in Table 1. as well as endogenic and exogenic denitrification during SBR cycle could be identified. such as from abattoirs.490/full SIMULTANEOUS NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL Jump to… Previously.7 — 11 11 — 16 47 15 91 97 98 97 94 97 95 — 69 69.5 7.5 — 6 8 24 12 — 8 8 — — 1 — — — — 3 0.9 5 4.2.111 Rim et al.113 Choi et al. et al. if EBPR along with N removal is required.2 78.5 443 296 200 545 200 563 139 79 b 71 d 7 6.9 — 8.116 Keller et al.100 Keller et al.26 Sirianuntapiboon et al.3 75 83 61 52 78 96 96 55.5 15 5.5 45 91 d 12 7 9.34 — 20 15 25 28 — 23 — — — 95 — 91 — 95 93.8 53.106 Urban wastewater Bernades and Klapwijk107 Chang and Hao108 Choi et al.6 98 99.120 Schwarzenbeck et al.
chemical addition. 94 and 97%. chemical oxidation with fenton's reagent prior to biological treatment in SBR has been considered as the best option. conditioning. SBR and coagulation was investigated for the treatment of landfill leachate. settle. Therefore.15 + −3 -P were effectively removed due to high C/N ratio and readily biodegradable organic. The fill strategy and the cycle time control are important factors to be taken into consideration while optimizing the treatment process.38 During the biodegradation of toxic compounds like 4-nitrophenol (4NP).41 The phase duration within a cycle has been reported to strongly influence the treatment efficiency of SBRs. as it saves 25% of the aeration costs as well as reduces the amount of sludge produced. By increasing the HRT of leachate. 76. After thickening. etc. the refractory organic and inorganic compounds from leachate was removed by combining electro-fenton oxidation and SBR process.36 Another study evaluated the effects of aeration rates on the performance of intermittently aerated SBRs. the combined process of air stripping. A complete operational cycle of the laboratory-scale SBR system. However. the degradation of 4-CP was more strongly inhibited by 2. land application. The most appropriate mode was with 19 h aeration time and 2 h anoxic phase. TN and Total Phosphorus (TP) from slaughterhouse wastewater were up to 97. processing and disposal of sludge. phenol and COD removal efficiency decreased. around 90 and 75% color removal was achieved for violet and black dye. The SBR effluent after chemical pretreatment achieved 68. incineration. the aerated SBR proved successful as the nonaerated one accumulated phenol to concentration inhibitory to microorganisms. The air stripping and fenton process as pretreatment steps removed 96.4-DCP) showed that at short feeding time.4-dichlorophenol (2. The SBRs can well accomplish low sludge production by increasing the sludge age.42 Similarly. The nonaerated fill mode has shown better results at lower influent phenol concentration as it had no filamentous bacterial growth. The NH 4 -N and PO 4 aerobic and anoxic modes.4% reduction in Total Chemical Oxygen Demand (TCOD). 64 and 57%. 1. the biological treatment of landfill leachates usually result in low nutrient removal because of its high COD.. the most intricate and expensive aspect of wastewater treatment is the collection.57 The anaerobic–anoxic sequencing batch reactor (A 2 SBR) process has been recently proposed as an attractive process because of low sludge production and saving aeration cost for complete phosphorus and nitrogen removal. In a study. The optimum aeration rate of 0. The additional anoxic and oxic phases provided removal of excess N and P from synthetic + wastewater.2.56 Some authors have discussed the beneficial effects of performing the biological nitrogen removal process via nitrite.com/doi/10.wiley. the 24 h cyclic anaerobic–aerobic SBR was evaluated to study the biological color removal from textile effluent.58 4 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM .43 The finding also concluded that N and COD removal efficiencies of SBR decreases with increased organic loading or decreased Hydraulic Residence Time (HRT). The five-step operation was found efficient in successful biotreatment of leachate as well. both long feed phase and high-acclimatized biomass concentration reduced the substrate concentration peak and thereby improved the process efficiency. However.3 and 61.46 The efficiency of such process can be further improved by using ultrasound pretreated raw landfill leachates.8% COD. respectively. respectively.15 Likewise..55 In addition. With 6 h cycle and 1050 mg/L of phenol concentration. More than 97% reduction in COD and 99% removal of nitrate during denitrification has been reported within 10 days of reactor operation. the four-step (An/Ox/Ax/Ox) and the five-step (An/Ax/Ox/Ax/Ox) phases. whereas the longer feeding increased its removal rate.45 However. Using a 24-h cycle. the highest nutrient removals were achieved by using the five-step operation with percent COD. NH 4 -N. ammonia/air stripping and chlorination. The efficiency of the system can be further improved by installing some pretreatment unit prior to the SBR. The HRT and organic loading are thus important variable that influences the SBR operation. Schematic diagram of overall SBR operating cycle. But at higher phenol concentration.34 While designing the fill strategy for the treatment of toxic wastewater. viz. Beyond this concentration.48 Figure 2.37 The operation sequence of the SBR system is given in Fig. the best approach would be to modify the aerobic treatment processes to reduce biosolids production. anoxic react. respectively.47 Similarly.4-DCP.51 Similarly. swine wastewater is also considered notorious wastewater for biological treatment process due to extremely strong concentration. fenton.54 Thickening.53 Nevertheless. its biodegradability and concentration should be taken into account.39 The essential role of feeding time for treating toxic wastewater has also been recognized. the influence of HRT and filling strategy (short filling period and filling during the reaction period) with and without mixing phase in the SBR cycle was studied.e. In another experiment.37 During the treatment of synthetic phenolic wastewater. i.35 With effluent concentration from 100 to 1000 mg/L.6% ammonia and 60. respectively. around 80% removal was achieved. for the treatment of textile wastewater. 2).1002/apj. shrimp aquaculture wastewater having high C/N ratio was treated sequentially. land filling. respectively. particularly under operational conditions with mixing and aeration phases in the SBR cycle. The expense of excess sludge treatment has been estimated to be 50–60% of the total cost of municipal wastewater treatment. which includes equalization. organics removal efficiency improved.8 L/min produced the best system performance. NO 3 -N and PO 4 + − −3 -P removals of 94. a variety of sludge handling and disposal options are available that include digestion. the three-step anaerobic (An)/anoxic (Ax)/oxic (Ox). Total Biochemical Oxygen Demand (TBOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). the system with filling over the reaction period showed better results. Experiments on treating a mixture of 4-chlorophenol (4-CP) and 2. the anoxic phenol degradation at different cycle length and influent phenol concentration was studied. draw and idle sequences were evaluated. At lower HRT. 90. Efforts have been made to reduce N and P with intermittent feeding method by dividing each 24-h SBR cycle into four sub-cycles each with anoxic period of 1 h and aerobic period of 3 h (Fig. dewatering and drying are primarily used to remove moisture from sludge. a best operative strategy for N and COD removal from combined wastewater of landfill leachate and milk industry was determined. http://onlinelibrary.50 Likewise. especially for the removal of N compounds and organic matter. the aerated mode reduced the react time for phenol removal.40 Step feeding could also greatly improve the N-removal efficiency exceeding more than 98% while requiring a small amount of external C source. the removal efficiency for violet dye was reduced from 90 to 75% when the aeration phase was increased from 10 to 12 h.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: . raising the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the mixed liquor also reduces the excess sludge production. Figure 1. aerobic react. the fill strategy (aerated or nonaerated) showed no effect on phenol degradation. the efficiency of different operational modes with aerobic fill. Removals of COD.44 The system performance is also affected by number of operating stages and the total cycle time employed. high NH 4 -N content and presence of toxic compounds such as heavy metals.490/full SBR: DIFFERENT MODES OF OPERATION Jump to… The design and operation of SBR must consider the biological process requirement and the hydraulic regime to maintain the quality of treatment. Out of three operations.52 However. But the application depends largely on sludge constituents that vary with the source of wastewater and treatment processes applied.49 Application of coagulation/flocculation (C/F) followed by SBR process is most suitable for the treatment of hard to biodegrade wastewater such as from dyes industry. With 10 h aerated reaction phase.
71 settling time72.60 Its high settling capacity results in less sludge production and enables the system to withstand high-strength wastewater and shock loadings. These granules are actually a dense microbial consortia packed with different bacterial species that perform different roles in degrading the complex industrial wastes. Studies have shown that the variation of the wastewater could disrupt the granule stability. 60 as the SBR operation conditions (cyclic feeding and starvation.65 organic loading rate. findings have shown that even at high shear force.65 5 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM .70 hydraulic cycle time.61 It prevents sludge washout and maintains low TSS in the treated effluent.wiley.66 hydrodynamic shear force. Some factors affecting the process of granulation are substrate composition.66 However. Microscopic investigations have shown that it is a gradual progression from seed sludge to compact aggregates.66 Some researchers consider shear force (described in terms of superficial upflow gas velocity) as necessary parameter in aerobic granulation.490/full GRANULATION IN SBR Jump to… Granulation involves cell-to-cell interactions resulting in regular. aerobic granular sludge has a regular.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: . This suggests that DO is more significant to granule formation than shear force.70 The granulation technology could be used for the treatment of toxic organic wastewater too. Reduction in settle-time in SBR cycle can convert flocculating sludge to granular sludge... http://onlinelibrary.62 Contrary to this.72 Aerobic granulation is driven by selection pressure and the settling time acts as a major hydraulic selection pressure on microbial community. dense and strong structure granules with good settling properties. the granules failed to develop at a DO concentration less than 5 mg/L. which controls the formation and characteristics of the granules.61–63 It is widely used in treating high-strength wastewaters containing organics. and toxic substances64. high shear stress and short settling time) promote development of granules. further to granular sludge and finally to mature granules. The low superficial gas velocities results in granular instability.59 Compared to conventional activated flocs.67. 68 feeding strategy. 62 and volume exchange ratio. the stability of granules is dependent on the wastewater characteristics.69 dissolved oxygen.77 Another finding correlated it with organic loading and concluded that high loading would be favorable for granule stability.73 The performance of the SBR process is determined by the physical characteristics of granules.1002/apj. dense and strong physical structure.75 The high volume exchange ratio also results in rapid granulation76 and increase in influent C/N ratio with a large percentage of granules in the sludge are favorable for SND. The treatment however requires the seeding enrichment for obtaining biomass with improved settleability and higher degradation activity. despite the control for balanced nutrient supply. Batch incubation experiments showed that the p-nitrophenol (PNP) degrading granules developed by implementing progressive decreases in settling time and stepwise increases in PNP concentration were distinct in shape and capable of nearly completing PNP removal. Aerobic granulation in SBRs has been reported by many researchers. N and P. A short settling time preferentially selects for the growth of fast settling bacteria and the sludge with a poor settleability is washed out.com/doi/10.74 Granules with greater sizes or fast settling properties are known to have an advantage over flocs of slower settling velocity.
. BOD . such system requires the implementation of mixing to maintain mass transfer rates.490/full INNOVATIONS IN SBR DESIGN AND OPERATION Jump to… Due to stringent effluent standards imposed by the regulatory authorities. The SBBR have recently substituted conventional SBRs in treating various types of toxic industrial wastewater. operation of this reactor requires some type of agitation to improve transfer of the substrate to the micro-organisms in the granulated biomass for anaerobic degradation.3.7 m 2 surface area) in a sequencing batch reactor biofilm system has been reported to increase the system efficiency and bio-sludge quality. and operates according to the following cyclic steps: feed. Several researchers are currently focused on these upgraded hybrid systems such as Porous biomass carrier sequencing batch reactor (PBCSBR). use of plastic media at the bottom of the SBR system increased the removal efficiencies.87 The schematic diagram of experimental set-up is shown in Fig. 91.84 Use of plastic media (2. settling and discharge. consistent N and P removal was achieved with patented KMT efficiency of the system is much higher than conventional SBR. flexibility of use and high biogas yield. which is a result of the low substrate concentration since the start-up of operation. respectively. being conceptualized that provides advantages of both the suspended and attached growth phase at the same time. http://onlinelibrary.com/doi/10.7–97% COD removal efficiency. These could temporarily store the substrate during peak loading situations and utilize it as soon as the influent loading drops. ion exchange and absorption processes have been reported as basic mechanism in substrate storage.97 In a study. The system performance is directly related to biomass settling.83 Several studies have been performed by modifying the typical SBR to provide high surface area for biofilm formation. Attached-growth (biofilm) biological systems have great advantages for the treatment of high-strength wastewater because it results in higher biomass concentration per unit reactor. Figure 3. reaction.82 The biofilm are usually considered as a sink for nutrients and inorganic material.91 This fact is directly due to the lack of homogeneity in the reaction medium brought about by low biogas production.87 ® polyethylene biofilm carriers in moving-bed SBBR. The results indicated that efficiency of both systems increased with the increase of HRT or the decrease of organic loading.94 However. Use of polyurethane foam as inert support could achieve high organic matter removal efficiency and high solids retention. The anaerobic metabolism of substrate produces methane and carbon dioxide. there is an urgent need of process upgradation to improve the overall performance of the conventional SBRs. Schematic diagram of sequencing batch biofilm reactor. Self-immobilization process is not sufficient to achieve good settleability. The concept of hybrid SBR systems therefore. eliminating the settling step. Around 30 and 20% increase in the removal efficiency of direct dye was observed on adding glucose and rice noodle wastewater.6. capability of biomass immobilized in inert supports has been explored to provide biomass retention even under adverse operating conditions. However. Studies have shown that increasing the flow rate around the GAC particles results in good mass transfer of substrate from the bulk liquid.98 Figure 4.98 2+ 2+ . its potential as a media for microorganisms in attached growth system also has been evaluated. the efficiency of both SBR (using biosludge as adsorbent) and GAC-SBR systems were explored for heavy metals (Pb GAC-SBR system at same organic loading and HRT.89 Agitation may be achieved by recirculating the liquid or gas phases90 or by mechanical stirring. many scientific features still have to be studied to achieve better understanding of the operational aspects of this reactor. Figure 4 5 6 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM . 94. the powdered activated carbon (PAC) and polyurethane (PU) foam have also been employed as hybrid media and could maintain sufficient biomass in the reactor even under vigorous mixing conditions.1002/apj. The technological potentials of ASBR have already been assessed for some types of effluents such as dairy wastewater. respectively. However. The adsorption. improved sludge quality.95 Granular activated carbon sequencing batch reactor A GAC-SBR has been developed for the removal of volatile. semi-volatile and nonvolatile organic contaminants from wastewater using activated carbon via physical adsorption mechanism. Ni 2+ . which is a hybrid of SBR technology and porous biomass support system technology. Scheme of the reactor for SBR and GAC-SBR systems.85 Furthermore..Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: .91 However. It ensures carbonaceous oxidation and nitrification in a single reactor along with treatment of slowly bio-degradable substances.81 Furthermore. except that it is not aerated during reaction phase. 3. Moreover. COD and TKN were 88.79 Besides this. Together with biological treatment processes. activated carbon can increase the pollutants removal efficiency. there are several other process modifications of SBRs such as sequencing batch biofilm reactor (SBBR).wiley. The efficiency of SBBR in treating cyanide containing wastewater was evaluated. The efficiency of GAC-SBR decreases with the increase of dyestuff concentration but the addition of carbon source could improve the overall performance of the system.86 The results suggest that pollutant-removal Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor An ASBR is a high rate anaerobic process similar to aerobic SBR. disperse dyes were also reported to be effectively removed from textile wastewater with removal efficiency as high as 93%. Hence. efficient quality control of the effluent. reduced the amount of excess bio-sludge. even at low HRT. and also reduced the acclimatization period of the system.88 This has greatly improved the economics of treatment of low-strength wastewaters. The removal efficiencies of Pb depicts the scheme of the reactor for SBR and GAC-SBR systems. Ni 2+ ) removal. Sequencing batch biofilm reactor High concentration and stable activity of biomass in a bioreactor are most important conditions to remove N from high-strength wastewater.92 brewery wastewater93 and low-strength synthetic wastewater. anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) and granular activated carbon sequencing batch reactor (GAC-SBR) that are discussed below in detail.78 Similarly. The main advantages of this type of operation are its operational simplicity.6. 82 and 63%. due to its sorption capacity. The nutrient removal efficiency of this system was improved by time sequenced anoxic/oxic phases and high biomass. either on carrier materials or on carrierless form for treatment of wastewater. this high biomass density allows greater biomass concentration to be maintained in the reactor.80 Moreover. The role of GAC-SBR in the treatment of textile wastewater containing direct and disperse dyes has been well realized. the SBR system showed higher heavy metals removal efficiency than .79 Another lab-scale reactor employed eight flexible fiber bundles to enhance the surface area for biofilm formation and achieved up to 89.96 Similarly. The results showed that the SBBR with the cycle time of 48 h was capable of removing 20 mg/L of cyanide.
still a similar approach is yet to be developed for EBPR.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: .com/doi/10. http://onlinelibrary. Special thanks are extended by first author to Dr.B. whereby special natural or engineered catabolic strains could be integrated into pre-cultured degradative granules for further enhancement of their substrate conversion capabilities. Pantnagar. But the more sophisticated programmable logic control operation required at larger SBR plants tends to discourage its use for large flow-rates. It also needs to be examined to what extent aerobic microbial granules are amenable to bioaugmentation. India for providing necessary facilities during the manuscript preparation. plugging of aeration devices during selected operating cycles is another problem observed in SBR. Tirthankar Banerjee for his critical suggestions and expertise to improve this manuscript.1002/apj.. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Also.. Use of appropriate operational strategy in SBR seems to be promising as compared to conventional activated sludge systems due to its ease of automation. still the technology is considered appropriate for treatment of merely intermittent or small flow wastewater. In the last years. An extensive study on this aspect is thus warranted. Though. several engineering process features still have to be studied to achieve better insight into the operational aspects of this reactor. aeration devices and on-line computer systems. the aerobic granules have shown immense potential for treatment of wastewater containing toxic organic pollutants. the models have provided a reliable description for N transformations. However.wiley. There is the possibility of adjusting the actual length of each phase according to the treatment objectives. Acknowledgements Jump to… We are grateful to G.490/full CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE R&D AREAS Jump to… A critical analysis of literature reveals that there is a strong possibility to treat wide variety of wastewater by using SBR technology. a number of modeling approaches have been tried to systematically assess reactor design and operating strategies. REFERENCES Jump to… 7 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM . Similarly. thus allowing for system optimization. Surprisingly. thereby enabling application in real situations with an optimized procedure. there is a need for further exploration of the degradation capability to handle complex recalcitrant wastewater. Although consistent removal of N and P has been achieved by various reactor modifications. in this promising research area.
Stephenson. ChemPort.M. Burton. T.F. J. Wat. (Eds. Process Biochem.D. 35. 40(1). L. J. Lim. Sci. Environ. G. Lee. L. Sci. Ugurlu. N. M.J. M. Res. Woo. Sarioglu. 10. ChemPort. Web of Science® Times Cited: 4  J. R. J. ChemPort. M. ChemPort. 423–432. CrossRef. Ouyang. M.F.vR. Bitton.C.. CrossRef. Web of Science® Times Cited: 32  M. R. 39(6). Yang. 1999. H. ChemPort. Web of Science® Times Cited: 2  S. ChemPort. J. CrossRef. Chao. J. J. O. P. 2006. Process Biochem. 2001. Sakellarpoulos. C. 1105–1116. Tech.K. CrossRef. Lee. ChemPort.. 137–144. Luccarini. CrossRef. Venkatamohan. 2006. 61. CrossRef. Samaras. Chang. C. Web of Science® Times Cited: 36  Y. Ng. Tech. CrossRef. P. Wat. 675–686. ASM2d. L.B. ChemPort. Greenfield. Ramasamy. Annesini.C. 58(1).J. In Proceedings of the 2nd Australian Conference on Biological Nutrient Removal from Wastewater.H. Li. C. 59(1). 96(3). Yang. Water SA 2002. ChemPort.A. Chiu. 49–55. Tech. 21(1). B. Sci.  K. C.Q. Environ.Q. Sci. Wat. Vendrame. 2873–2878. 1997. 241–247.S. P. 40(5).H. Web of Science® Times Cited: 16  T. Air Soil Poll. 375–384. 2005. Jun. Scarpa.J. Wat. 2007. Wentzel. CrossRef. M. Sci.M. Tech. Res. Prasad. K. Artan. Wilderer. CrossRef.S.K. PubMed. 13(5. Chung. Web of Science® Times Cited: 30  M. Kim. D. T. Tech. CrossRef.  G.N. Scheible. Australia.R. Scientific and Technical Report. 757–765. Keller. Chang.J. Hussain. Gu. Tyagi. 2007. Web of Science® Times Cited: 15  A.623–624. Bioresour. Abstract Full Article (HTML) PDF(338K) References  H. Environ.C. Park. Marais.T. 2006. PubMed. Baudu. L.V. Araujo. 1997. H. 6). Ryu. 1599–1603. E.A. Sci. Norton. 40(8). Kuba. ChemPort  B. PubMed. Tasli. Ekama. Goronsky. Stante. Johns. Kishida. Wat.Z. Web of Science® Times Cited: 24  J. Tech. Web of Science® Times Cited: 3  R. B. 38(2).Tchobanoglous. 38(4). 41(9). 3rd edn. S. Iyenger. 34(10). J. 35. 151–157.T. ChemPort. 34(9).T.M. 98(7).Y. Biodegra. Diamadopoulos.L.P. Abstract PDF(770K) References  P.M.T. Web of Science® Times Cited: 5  G. Biotech. H. D.A. Uygur. Wat. M.O. Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology.F. B. 1993. Albury. Tewari. L. R. Bell. CrossRef. http://onlinelibrary. CrossRef. 39(1). Trondheim. Healy. ChemPort.  C.S. E. R. Tech. 2004. ChemPort. Environ. Orhon. M. Bortone. 1–8. ChemPort. Im. Kim. 42(6). F.D.J. CrossRef.H. Web of Science® Times Cited: 110  D. Subramaniam. 2005. ChemPort. J. 277–284. Krol. Heijnen. 41(1).C.F. Wat. pp. Chem. 61–68.L. P. Tilche. Web of Science® Times Cited: 27  Metcalf & Eddy. Tomie. Biosci. Health 2007.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: . 49(5. 61–66. Bungay.  M. Ho. L. Web of Science® Times Cited: 5  S. CrossRef. M. Rim. Yu. Wat. Shin. Moon. H. M. 199–206. Malaspina. Bioeng. X. Web of Science® Times Cited: 7  E.490/full  E.F. Sci. 441–448.G. A. K. Dabou. Van Loosdrecht. J. ChemPort. CrossRef. Seo. Humpries.H. Process Biochem. 1996. 1333–1338. Health 1999. ChemPort. Bioresour. Azwar. ChemPort. Subramaniam. Web of Science® Times Cited: 37  Y. 5(6). PubMed. ChemPort. 1501–1508. 2001. 1993. Kwon. 2003. Poo.G.A. CrossRef. 12(5). Lee. John Willey: New York.L. X. 173–180.  N. Web of Science® Times Cited: 2  M. Morgenroth. Sci. Ng. CrossRef. Tech. Process Biochem. S. Lim. Ong. Tech. Zhan. Process Biochem. C.C.A. 2005. Web of Science® Times Cited: 20  A. Lee.wiley. Web of Science® Times Cited: 26  M. Web of Science® Times Cited: 36 8 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM . Sudo. Heidman. Goronszy. Rao. ChemPort.A. 30.R. Wat.C.  N. 27(10). Sasaki. Web of Science® Times Cited: 9  G. Wilderer. Coelho. ChemPort. Burton) McGraw Hill: New York.. K. Tan.W. IWA Publishing: No. J. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse.C. Chen. 28(4). 1999. Irvine. Web of Science® Times Cited: 214  K. P. Piccinini. Thomas. A.: G.W. 1999. 40.. 285–290. Spagni. P. Bussoletti. McGraw Hill: New York.C. M. Y. P. K. 34(5). P. P. Gujer. Sarfaraz. Bioprocess Eng. Henze. ChemPort.M. Rizzo.K. 2004. Res. Wentzel. S. Wat.  M. London. Tech.M. 2809–2817. ChemPort.E. 1997. W. Wastewater Microbiology. J. Bioresour. P. M. G. Greenfield. 4th edn.A. Chan. J.C. Sharma. C. Casellas. Disposal and Reuse. F.N. G. Rodgers. 1–11. U.B. Yoon. ChemPort. Ramachandran Asia Pacific J. 26(9–11).1002/apj. CrossRef. 1992. Bacilieri. 1994–2001. Y. CrossRef. T.C. 1999.N. W. 1–7. 1997. 315–323. F. Madhavi. J.N. Sci. van loosdrecht. E. Blackall. 2003. A. 30(2). pp. 1993. 1994. Ho. In Wastewater Engineering: Treatment. Wat. Web of Science® Times Cited: 31  H. Web of Science® Times Cited: 34  S. ChemPort. ChemPort. Res.Y.H. 2008. Web of Science® Times Cited: 3  A. 1996. 251–261. CrossRef. International Biodeterio. ChemPort  K. 1991. Mino. Juan. Keller. S. 6). S. 314–320. Wilderer. Morgenroth. 2253–2256. Web of Science® Times Cited: 49  S. Dagot. 2008.L. C. M. Wat. K. M. Surampalli.C. 965–971. Tchobanoglous.F. S. Matsuo. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design and Operation of Small Wastewater Treatment Plants. 2000. Russo. CrossRef. O. Greenfield. 36. 2007. 2000.B. Akin. Kim.L. Song.  W.K. 1591–1600. J. 165–183. Web of Science® Times Cited: 8  C. Stensel.G.H. 1702–1710. Res. 2004. Wat. CrossRef. Norway. Wat. Gossswein. Lavagnolo. Wat. T. Sci. R.C. ChemPort. Jeon. Sim. Tech. Res. K. PubMed. H. CrossRef. C. G. M. 192. Wat. CrossRef.S. Eng.225–257. Wat. A. Sci.K.C.L. Tech. Web of Science® Times Cited: 11  M. Wat.com/doi/10. Park.
. http://onlinelibrary. K.490/full Get PDF (226K) More content like this Find more content: like this article Mohini Singh R.wiley.Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological wastewater treatment: .1002/apj. Srivastava All Authors Find more content written by: 9 of 9 9/23/2011 12:15 PM ..com/doi/10.