Chernicharo Et Al Anaerobic Sewage Treatment 2015

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283980170
Anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the

art, constraints and challenges
ARTICLE in REVIEWS IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND BIO/TECHNOLOGY SEPTEMBER 2015
Impact Factor: 3.33 DOI: 10.1007/s11157-015-9377-3
CITATION
READS
439
4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Jules van Lier
Adalberto Noyola
Delft University of Technology
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de M
395 PUBLICATIONS 6,204 CITATIONS
85 PUBLICATIONS 887 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Thiago Ribeiro
Federal University of Minas Gerais
4 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.
Available from: Jules van Lier

Retrieved on: 10 April 2016
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

DOI 10.1007/s11157-015-9377-3
REVIEW PAPER
Anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the art, constraints

and challenges
C. A. L. Chernicharo . J. B. van Lier . A. Noyola .
T. Bressani Ribeiro
Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract The interest in high-rate anaerobic (pre)treatment of sewage using UASB reactors is steadily
growing since its introduction in the mid-1980s.
Today there are hundreds of full-scale plants in
operation in various parts of the tropical world,
notably in Latin America and India. The main
advantage of UASB technology is the very low or
even zero energy demand, leading to an up to tenfold
drop in operational costs compared to activated
sludge. This paper presents a literature review
focussing on current design criteria and post-treatment
options, alongside discussing the centralized and
decentralized approach. The current limitations and
C. A. L. Chernicharo (&) T. Bressani Ribeiro

Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering,
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antonio Carlos,
6.627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, MG 31270-901, Brazil
e-mail: calemos@desa.ufmg.br
J. B. van Lier
Section Sanitary Engineering, Department of Water
Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Geosciences, Delft University of Technology,
PO Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
J. B. van Lier
Unesco - IHE, PO Box 3015, 2601 DA Delft,
The Netherlands
A. Noyola
Instituto de Ingeniera, Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de Mexico, Circuito Escolar, Ciudad Universitaria,
04510 Coyoacan, Mexico, D.F., Mexico
constraints regarding temperature, nutrients, pathogen

removal, odour nuisance, operational constrictions
and methane emissions are also presented and discussed. Further, recent challenges in relation to energy
recovery from biogas, sludge and scum are discussed,
alongside with advances related to recovery of
dissolved methane and sludge management. Finally,
the paper provides some outlooks for upcoming
developments.
Keywords Anaerobic digestion Domestic
wastewater Anaerobic sewage treatment Biogas
Full-scale reactors UASB reactor
1 Introduction
With the emergence of the upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) technology in the 1980s (Lettinga
et al. 1980), several countries, especially those in Latin
America and India, began to adopt anaerobic sewage
treatment technology to the flowsheets of sewage
treatment plants (STP). Anaerobic sewage treatment,
in various cases followed by units of aerobic posttreatment systems, was regarded an alternative to the
traditional wastewater treatment systems used historically, such as the mechanized activated sludge and the
land-based pond systems. The favourable climate
conditions and the large investments in research and
development, made Latin America, notably Brazil,
123
Colombia and Mexico, to become the present frontrunner in the proper use of UASB reactor systems for
the treatment of municipal wastewater.
In Brazil, the use of UASB reactors for wastewater
treatment was introduced in the early 80s, when
research by several groups of academics and engineers
in the area of wastewater treatment started. During its
introduction, the inappropriate use of UASB reactors
damaged the credibility of this technology within state
water companies and environmental protection agencies. However, this has been restored in recent decades
as a result of the intensification of studies and research in
the area, and also due to the experience gained in the
operation of full-scale plants. Undoubtedly, a great
contribution to the consolidation and dissemination of
the anaerobic technology for the treatment of domestic
sewage in Brazil came from the National Research
Programme on Basic SanitationPROSAB, which was
carried from 1997 to 2007 (Chernicharo et al. 2001).
Likewise, the Indian government launched an
important programme to improve the water quality
of the Yamuna River basin in 1990, called Yamuna
Action PlanYAP, which was based on the previous
experience with the Ganga Action Plan. Under this
YAP, the government decided to implement 16 fullscale UASB reactors with a total capacity of
598,000 m3 day-1, recognizing the technology as a
standard method for sewage treatment in India (Uemura and Harada 2010).
A recent survey in the Latin American region
(Noyola et al. 2012) identified three major technologies
for municipal wastewater treatment: stabilization
ponds, activated sludge (extended aeration and conventional processes) and UASB reactors. A survey of 2734
treatment facilities was carried out in six countries in the
region (Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic,
Guatemala and Mexico). The distribution by number of
these three technologies were 38, 26 and 17 %,
corresponding altogether to 81 % of the surveyed
facilities (Fig. 1a). It is worth noticing that the UASB
system, although a newcomer in the field of municipal
sewage treatment with no more than 25 years of
application within this specific market, took the third
place, behind more than a century old processes.
However, this picture changes when the technologies
in Latin America are ordered by treatment capacity
(design flow). In such case, both versions of activated
sludge turn out to be the most important, followed by
stabilization ponds, enhanced primary treatment and
123
UASB in the fourth place, i.e. 58, 15, 9 and 7 % of the

total design flow in the sample (Fig. 1b). It is clear that
stabilization ponds, and even UASB, are widely applied
in the region, but in small facilities. In fact, the survey
also found that 67 % of the STPs in Latin America are
small, with design flows of less than 25 L s-1, and 34 %
are very small, less than 5 L s-1.
UASB reactors used for the treatment of domestic
wastewater are now considered a consolidated technology in Latin America, where several large fullscale plants, treating a population equivalent up to one
million inhabitants (Onca STP, Belo Horizonte,
Brazil), have been in operation for more than 10 years.
The costs of a treatment plant with UASB reactor
followed by aerobic biological treatment usually allow
capital expenditures (CAPEX) savings in the range of
2050 % and operational expenditures (OPEX) savings above 50 %, in comparison with a conventional
activated sludge plant (von Sperling and Chernicharo
2005; Chernicharo 2006). This is considered one of the
reasons for the increase in wastewater treatment
coverage in Latin America. The cost-effectiveness of
UASB technology was demonstrated, not only at the
expense of activated sludge processes but also in
comparison to pond systems (Oomen and Schellinkhout 1993). In fact, land based treatment systems are
considered very expensive near urban areas where
land prices are high. For that reason, large-scale pond
systems are hardly applied near the urban areas in
India. Similarly, the Dutch consultant DHV performed
an economic assessment for the best possible treatment solution for the urbanised centres in the irrigated
agricultural sites of the Fayoum, 80 km south of Cairo,
Egypt. In this study, pond systems were rapidly
discarded because of a too high demand of valuable
agricultural land. Comparing conventional activated
sludge with a UASB system followed by a stone-filled
trickling filter showed 40 % less CAPEX and about
90 % less OPEX, mainly related to avoidance of fossil
energy use for sewage treatment.
Table 1 summarizes the recent literature reports on
the performance of full-scale municipal anaerobic
sewage treatment plants, notably employing UASB
reactors.
In the last 10 years, several review papers have
been published discussing the anaerobic sewage
treatment feasibility (Aiyuk et al. 2006; Foresti et al.
2006; Gomec 2010; Chong et al. 2012). This review
article focuses on practical aspects of the most

Fig. 1 Major technologies
for municipal wastewater
treatment in Latin American
region. a Distribution of
treatment technologies
according to their type,
b accumulated flow treated
per each type of technology.
Source: Noyola et al. (2012)
employed anaerobic system treating domestic wastewater, i.e. the UASB reactor, bringing together compiled information regarding design criteria and current
limitations and constraints, notably in full-scale
applications. The paper also evaluates matters regarding odour and methane emissions reported in the
literature, as well as operational constraints, challenges and perspectives regarding treatment and
recovery of nutrients.
2 State of the art of anaerobic sewage treatment

2.1 Current design criteria
Given the increasing importance of the UASB reactor
for sewage treatment, several measures should be
taken in relation to the adequate design and operation
of the system. One of the most important aspects of the
anaerobic process applying UASB reactors is its
123

Table 1 Performance of the more recently installed full-scale anaerobic sewage treatment plants treating municipal sewage in
different parts of the world
Location
STP
Effluent concentration
COD
(mg l-1)
BOD
(mg l-1)
India
UASB
202
60
India
Brazil
UASB
ST ? AnF
139567
473
57159
Removal efficiency
Population equivalent
(inhabitants)
References
TSS
(mg l-1)
COD
(%)
BOD
(%)
TSS
(%)
150
63
67
70
93,500
Pandey and Dubey

(2014)
72452
190
2975
39
4579
4070
36
2,141
Khan et al. (2014)

Silva et al. (2013)
Brazil
UASB
283
132
58
49
3,047
Silva et al. (2013)
Brazil
UASB
114
38
132
79
84
59
70,000
Rosa et al. (2012)
Brazil
UASB
251
98
85
65
74
71
24,000
Oliveira and von

Sperling (2011)
India
UASB
515
115
113
41
50
47
Mungray and Patel

(2011)
India
UASB
405
153
167
44
40
36
Mungray and Patel

(2011)
5575
160240
45
60
34
Walia et al. (2011)
77
320,000
WERF (2010)
58
68
56
544,000
Franco (2010)
India
UASB
145250
Colombia
UASB
60
Brazil
UASB
170
66
75
Brazil
UASB
247
97
112
62
67
54
van Lier et al. (2010)
India
UASB
285
121
357
46
41
49
van Lier et al. (2010)
Brazil
UASB
190
70
60
60
65
61
1,000,000
Chernicharo et al.
(2009)
Pena et al. (2006)
Barea and Alem
Sobrinho (2006)
Colombia
UASB
144
Brazil
UASB
181
75
81
58
65
127
64
74
51
24,719
Brazil
UASB
106
69
72
72
150,000
Carraro (2006)
Brazil
UASB
161
66
77
78
Tachini et al. (2006)
India
UASB
403
130
380
47
50
55,000570,000
Sato et al. (2006)
Middle
East
UASB
221
83
63
71
70
85
Nada et al. (2006)
India
UASB
61
61
66
Khalil et al. (2006)
Jordan
UASB
632
180
58
62
Halalseh et al. (2005)
Brazil
Brazil
UASB
UASB
237
202
64
127
80
60
67
69
52
61
3,808
18,000
Colombia
UASB
177
Mexico
UASB
69
72
66
78
69
9,000
Busato (2004)
Florencio et al.
(2001)
Pena et al. (2000)
7080
Monroy et al. (2000)
ability to develop and maintain sludge with excellent

settling characteristics. From the foregoing, the
scheme of a UASB sewage treatment plant (STP) as
depicted in Fig. 2 can be considered as a standardised
concept. Notwithstanding, some factors such as local
practice, contractors experience, available funds,
effluent requirements, etc. determined the exact configurations and dimensions of the functional units at
specific sites (van Lier et al. 2010).
123
Therefore, when designing a UASB system a

number of parameters need to be evaluated. The most
critical design aspects are well explained by van
Haandel and Lettinga (1994) and von Sperling and
Chernicharo (2005). In order to cope with this, the
Brazilian Association of Technical Standards has
recently published a technical standard Hydraulic
and sanitary engineering design for wastewater treatment plants, under the code ABNT NBR
Fig. 2 General process configuration of a UASB based STP. Source: van Lier et al. (2010)
12209:2011. This standard was updated and for the

first time included hydraulic and process engineering
design criteria for UASB reactors, among other
technologies. Specifically in the case of UASB
reactors, the main design criteria can be summarized
as shown in Table 2.
In the case of typical domestic sewage, the
concentration of organic matter is low, usually below
1000 mgCOD l-1, and therefore the resulting applied
volumetric organic load is also very low, most of the
times ranging from 2.0 to 3.5 kgCOD m-3 day-1.
Since the use of higher volumetric organic loading
rates would result in excessive hydraulic loads and,
consequently, in high upflow velocities, the reactor is
always designed based on the volumetric hydraulic
load and not on the organic load (von Sperling and
Chernicharo 2005). Meanwhile, in many arid climate
countries with limited water supply, sewage concentrations can be much higher, up to 2500 mgCOD l-1
(Halalsheh et al. 2005a). Resulting implications are
below discussed in the topic Temperature Constraints.
Regarding the excess sludge withdrawal, the
aforementioned standard recommends at least one
discharge point per 100 m2 bottom area. In addition,
there should be discharge pipes with a minimum
diameter of 100 mm at two different heights, close to
the bottom and between 0.8 and 1.3 m above the
bottom. With respect to the management of biogas, it
is recommended that STPs with average flow capacity
above 250 l s-1, without gas utilization, must have at
least two flares, one as backup. The biogas pipeline
must be designed with a maximum velocity of 5 m s-1

from the average gas flow, and a minimum diameter of
50 mm.
Regarding the Indian experience, Table 3 summarizes the design criteria and basic assumptions used in
the Indian UASB reactor designs. As reported by van
Lier et al. (2010), in addition to the UASB tank itself,
pre-treatment functional units, such as grit removal
systems and screens, as well as post-treatment units
are of crucial importance for the overall performance
of the STP.
2.2 Current post-treatment facilities
Considering the intrinsic limitations associated with the
anaerobic systems and the stringent discharge standards, it is imperative to include a post-treatment stage
for the effluents from anaerobic reactors. In addition, the
need to develop technologies that are more appropriate
to the reality of developing countries is still a concern.
Therefore, the polishing stage has the purpose to
improve the microbiological quality of the effluents,
in view of the public health risks and limitations
imposed on the use of treated effluents in agriculture. In
an environmental approach, the post-treatment need to
guarantee the effluent quality in terms of organic matter
and nutrients, in view of the environmental damages
caused by the discharge of these remaining pollutants
into the receiving surface water.
Post-treatment options for anaerobically pre-treated sewage is well discussed in the literature, with the
123

Table 2 Main design criteria adopted in Brazilian UASB reactors, according to national standard ABNT NBR 12209:2011
Parameter
Unit
Value
Comment
Hydraulic retention time (HRT)
610a,b
6 h for sewage temperature [25 C

7 h for sewage temperature 2225 C
Upflow velocity at average flow
m h-1
B 0.7
Less than 1.2 m h-1 for the maximum peak flow
Useful depth
46
The minimum useful depths of digestion and settling

compartments are 2.5 and 1.5 m, respectively
Feed inlet density
m2 per feed point
2.03.0
The minimum inlet pipe internal diameter shall be 75 mm
Angle of gas collector
Degrees
C50
The UASB reactors must have scum removal device
Based on above design criteria and typical characteristics of Brazilian sewage, the UASB per capita costs usually vary between 15
and 25 US$/inhabitant for the construction costs and 1.31.9 US$/inhabitant.year for the operation and maintenance costs (basis: US$
1.00 = R$ 3,13; July 2015) (adapted from von Sperling and Chernicharo 2005)
a
Values in terms of average flow
This range means a recommended VHL (volumetric hydraulic load) between 2.4 and 4 m3 m-3 day-1
Table 3 Design criteria adopted in most of the Indian UASB reactors

Parameter
Unit
Hydraulic retention time
Value
Comment
812
HRT at average flow
HRT at peak flow
Upflow velocity
Maximum velocity through the apertures to the
settler
m h-1
m h-1
0.50.6
5
Values at average flow
Feed inlet density
m2 per feed
point
Maximum feed inlet density
Angle of gas collector
Degrees
50
Centre-to-centre distance between gas domes
4.0
Gas hood width
0.44
Overlap of gas collector over deflector beam
0.15
Settling zone surface
75
The clear distance between gas domes shall be

3.0 m
Percentage of total surface
Adapted from van Lier et al. (2010)
various papers addressing the available technologies

and discussing important experimental results, revealing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative (Chernicharo 2006; Foresti 2006; Chan et al.
2009; Kassab et al. 2010; Khan et al. 2011; Chong
et al. 2012). It is worth mentioning the most frequently
applied flow sheets of the so-called combined systems
(anaerobic/aerobic), such as: UASB ? Polishing
Ponds;
UASB ? Overland
Flow
System;
UASB ? Wetlands; UASB ? Trickling Filter (TF);
123
UASB ? Activated
Sludge
(AS);
and
UASB ? Flotation Unit (von Sperling and Chernicharo 2005). These alternatives allow the achievement of the necessary efficiencies to comply with the
discharge standards in most of developing countries.
Table 4 summarizes the main results regarding
demo and full-scale systems and lists the qualitative
ranges of effluent concentration and typical removal
efficiencies considering systems properly designed
and operated (Chernicharo 2006).
9.19.8
13.64477
UASBPolishing ponds
(kgCOD m-3 day-1)
3181194
Inf.
(mg l-1)
COD
180270
149510
Eff.
17549333
(m3)
1.112.4
(day)
2040
[8793]
89 [62]
(mg l-1)
TSS
100180
[7083]
184 [59]a
(mg l-1)
COD
4070
[7787]
54 [67]a
(mg l-1)
BOD
50-80
[7383]
136 [60]a
(mg l-1)
TSS
[Average removal efficiency (%)]
2050
[8393]
16 [94]
(mg l-1)
BOD
60150
[7588]
127 [84]
(mg l-1)
COD
HRT
Size
OLR
(h)
6.3
HRT
180270
5344
(m3)
455
Size
803
Polishing ponds
2.1
Eff.
(h)
HRT
UASB
8.5
35.113
UASBActivated sludge systems (AS)
Inf.
(m3)
Size
(mg l-1)
COD
(h)
(m3)
(kgCOD m-3 day-1)
HRT
Size
OLR
AS
UASB
Table 4 Main results addressed in review papers regarding the most frequently applied post-treatment flowsheets
10-15
[5065]
(mg l-1)
NH4N
515
[5085]
(mg l-1)
NH4N
Chernicharo
(2006)
102104
[35]
\1
von Sperling
and de
Andrada
(2006);
Sato et al.
(2006);
Walia et al.
(2011)
References
Chernicharo
(2006)
Mungray
and Patel
(2011)
(org/100 ml)
Helm.
eggs
[1
106107
[12]
FC
Helm.
eggs
3 9 105 [5.8]
(org/100 ml)
FC
References
123
123
Eff.
611
0.722.2
3151050
Inf.
145525
Eff.
Trickling filter employing polyurethane sponge media
Organic loading rate in kgBOD m-3 day-1
Average values
725.5
UASBConstructed wetlands (CW)
(mg l-1)
COD
43.478
(m3)
Size
(kgCOD m-3 day-1)
OLR
180270
1.85
(h)
180
13.87
HRT
450
94
3.8718.75
Size
1.2
250
107174
(m3)
16.8
303532
CW
8.4
0.46b1.4
Eff.
(m3)
UASB
7.78.5
17-22
UASBTrickling filter (TF)
Inf.
(mg l-1)
COD
Size
(kgCOD m-3 day-1)
OLR
(h)
HRT
180-270
12
Size
186
(m3)
523
TF
1.6
(m3)
UASB
35
UASBSubmerged aerated biofilms (SAB)
Inf.
(mg l-1)
Size
COD
(h)
(kgCOD m-3 day-1)
HRT
Size
(m3)
OLR
SAB
UASB
Table 4 continued
1.24.95
(h)
HRT
2.53.6
(h)
HRT
0.346
(h)
HRT
2050
[8393]
(mg l-1)
BOD
2040 [8793]
26 [88]
(mg l-1)
TSS
2060
[8093]
10 [97]
8 [91]
23 [84]a
(mg l-1)
BOD
2040
[8793]
20 [91]
45 [74]
14 [90]a
(mg l-1)
TSS
73 [67]a
(mg l-1)
COD
16 [85]a
(mg l-1)
BOD
9 [84]a
(mg l-1)
TSS
70180
[7388]
50 [88]
68 [76]
63 [79]a
(mg l-1)
COD
60150
[7588]
80 [85]
(mg l-1)
COD
25 [22]a
(mg l-1)
4.7 9 105
FC
(org/100 ml)
Helm.
eggs
[1
106107
[12]
[15
[\50]
NH4N
(org/100 ml)
Helm.
eggs
[1
106107 [12]
FC
Helm.
eggs
(org/100 ml)
FC
2 [95]
19 [27]a
(mg l-1)
NH4N
515
[5085]
(mg l-1)
NH4N
Green et al. (2006), Ruiz

et al. (2008), Dornelas
et al. (2009)
References
Chernicharo
(2006)
Almeida et al.
(2013)c
Takahashi et al.
(2011)c
Almeida et al.
(2009); Pontes and
Chernicharo
(2011)
References
Chernicharo
(2006)
Goncalves et al.
(2002)
References
Additionally, in terms of effluent quality improvement, it is worth mentioning the treatment potentials
of anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBRs).
AnMBRs can provide an alternative strategy for
domestic wastewater treatment, especially at low
temperatures, where hydrolysis of particulate matter
is the rate-limiting step (Lettinga et al. 2001b). Based
on various review papers focusing different aspects of
AnMBRs (Liao et al. 2006; Smith et al. 2012;
Skouteris et al. 2012; Lin et al. 2013; Ozgun et al.
2013), some points can be highlighted, comprising
advantages and critical obstacles to full-scale
implementation:
2.2.1 Advantages
There are broad integration possibilities of membranes with different types of anaerobic reactors
systems, both completely mixed and sludge retention systems. Recent research shows promising
potentials of integration with UASB reactors since
they provide an SS reduction by entrapment and
biodegradation in the sludge bed. This reduced SS
load to the membrane minimizes fouling due to
cake layer formation and cake compression.
In addition to reaching a high effluent quality, in
terms of COD, SS and pathogen counts, the
permeate of AnMBRs should be of interest for
agricultural use, since macronutrients are not
removed by anaerobic bioprocess.
The improved SRT may reduce the start-up period
in comparison to other anaerobic systems.
2.2.2 Critical obstacles
There is a lack of long term reliability and

operability evaluations of AnMBRs in municipal
wastewater treatment, as well as fundamental
information on cost and energy issues. Besides,
most of the research reported is restricted to benchscale experiments.
The main drawbacks such as low flux, membrane
fouling, high capital and operational costs are still
limiting the economic feasibility of AnMBRs.
Novel developments using filter cloths instead of
real membranes may importantly reduce the
capital costs (Ersahin et al. 2014).
The lower limits of HRT and temperature, as well

as the relationships among HRT, SRT and membrane fouling, have yet to be established for an
adequate treatment performance.
3 Centralised versus decentralised approach

Historically, sewerage systems were constructed to
convey sanitary flows and urban spills away from
populated areas. In the many expanding cities of the
19th and 20th century this indeed improved the
hygienic conditions considerably, leading to a drastic
drop in waterborne diseases. The collected sewage was
subsequently discharged to surface waters, threatening
the environmental health of the receiving water bodies.
The latter, however, was not yet part of governmental
regulations. In the industrialized countries of Western
Europe and Northern America, environmental regulations were only implemented in the last 34 decades of
the past century. The large cities, which were already
served with extensive sewerage systems, were also
targeted to be the first served by STPs. The huge
sewage flows of these cities had a tremendous impact
on the environmental health of the recipient water
bodies. In most cities, the first STPs were located at the
central outfall of the sewerage prior to discharge to
open surface waters. By addressing this large point
source, the environmental impact could be reduced by
implementing a single STP. As such, centralized
sewage treatment was borne, being a logic consequence of historic developments. However, this centralized approach also puts a financial burden to
authorities for constructing, maintaining, and extending these services to all citizens (Lettinga et al. 2001a).
In the past decades, the centralized treatment
approach, with its advantages of economy of scale,
developed as a kind of blue print for sanitary systems,
sewerage and treatment. Particularly in hilly areas, the
centralized sewerage systems require pumping stations
and siphons, as well as large trunk sewers in order to
collect all the sewage from the expanding cities. With
the full coverage by multi-tap drinking water supply at
household level and the increase in drinking water
consumption, the sewage outfalls became huge and so
also the required STPs. The latter became industrial
complexes consisting of advanced technology,
123
requiring highly qualified personnel. The discrepancy

between the served large areas in industrialized
countries and non-served areas in the less prosperous
countries became larger and larger. Up to date the
centralized approach is more than often considered as
the blue print for adequate sanitation and environmental protection, also in developing countries. This has
resulted in situations where governments pursue
centralized sanitation and high-level treatment but is
not able to implement this owing to huge financial
constraints (van Lier and Lettinga 1999). Painful
example can be found in the Middle East where
stringent environmental laws are indeed met at very
few centralized treatment plants in the large urban
areas of e.g. Cairo, whereas the majority of the country
is not even served by primary treatment.
Recognized constraints of the centralized approach
are:
High investments costs for (trunk) sewers, pumping stations and siphons. Regular maintenance is
indispensable and renovations are required every
6070 years.
Limited flexibility owing to long planning horizons.
Difficult to anticipate on large demographic changes.
Central outflow (even if treated) poses a high load
of pollutants to the environment. As such, more
advanced treatment is required with a higher
degree of centralization.
Gravity flow sewer systems require minimum flow
conditions to prevent sewer clogging. In (semi) arid
climate countries, which suffer from limited tap
water supply, minimum flows are not guaranteed.
Centralized systems generally consist of sewers
that carry both urban sanitation and urban drainage
of pluvial waters. This approach results in large
flows of contaminated water.
Extensive combined sewerage networks have limited hydraulic capacity. Exceeding this capacity
results in sewage overflows, contaminating the
environment.
Extensive sewerage systems are vulnerable for
ruptures and cracks, particularly in seismic sensitive areas, which may result in severe pollution of
water reservoirs and aquifers.
Urban population sense little ownership of centralized services, possibly resulting in discharges
of hazardous compounds into the sewer by
residents, industries, etc. (out of eye, out of
123
concern). Toxic discharges will constrain the STP

and the possible reuse of treatment by-products.
Combined centralized sewer systems in relation to
a fully paved urban environment results in the
possible exportation of rainwater from the residential areas, leading to decreasing groundwater
levels in the urban area.
3.1 Optimal degree of decentralisation

and existing examples
Local conditions fully determine what will be the most
proper sanitation approach taking socio-economic and
environmental constraints into account. Proper sanitation
is a function of mass flow per area per time unit, in which
socio-economic factors determine the pallet of sanitation
solutions (Letema et al. 2014). Sanitation option criteria
will finally determine what solution is most adequate at a
specific location (Malekpour et al. 2013). Generally,
economic considerations determine the pace of sewerage
infrastructure investments, meaning that the poorest
regions are often refrained from proper sanitation. A
decentralised approach may help in advancing on
localised proper sanitation, without having the need to
firstly provide a massive sewerage infrastructure (Massoud et al. 2009; Al-Shayah and Mahmoud 2008; van
Lier and Lettinga 1999; Lettinga 2006). Furthermore,
decentralized systems allow for flexibility in management and a series of processes can be combined to
progressively meet treatment goals and address environmental and public health protection requirements (Massoud et al. 2009), as depicted in Fig. 3.
With regard to water reuse, decentralisation shows
various advantages which, so far, are hardly taken into
account in sewerage master plans. Decentralisation
prevents the mixing of wastewaters coming from
households and industries, providing better opportunities for agricultural reuse (Huibers and van Lier 2005;
van Lier and Huibers 2004, 2010). Decentralisation
also offers potentials for localised water reclamation,
avoiding large sewage collection and treated water
distribution systems (van Lier and Lettinga 1999). A
decentralised approach also provides the opportunity to
keep wastes concentrated, facilitating the treatment
and recovery of valuable resources from the sewage,
such as energy and the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus (Zeeman et al. 2008; Kujawa-Roeleveld and
Zeeman 2006). The latter is currently being researched

Fig. 3 General objectives
of wastewater management
reflected on a decentralised
sanitation approach.
Adopted from Massoud
et al. (2009)
at demonstration and even full-scale in countries like

Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands (Zeeman et al.
2008). By separating the black toilet waters from the
household grey waters, dilution of the most hazardous
pollutants is prevented. In the meantime, the potentially valuable resources are kept concentrated, particularly when the black water collection systems is
operated with extreme low water volumes. This can be
achieved by using vacuum sewer systems that only use
0.71.0 l per flush (Zeeman et al. 2008). The optimal
degree and the way that decentralisation is implemented depends on a number of site-specific conditions. Interestingly, irrespective these conditions,
present research at various locations couples decentralisation to resource recovery, instead of purely
solving a sanitary problem. By adding a value chain to
the sanitary flows, the implementation of proper
sanitation systems might be enhanced, more rapidly
serving a larger share of the population. In the above
decentralised examples, anaerobic digestion plays a
central role in stabilising the (concentrated) sewage
and/or the faecal matter, meanwhile converting the
organic matter into biogas. Particularly for developing
countries, the avoidance of fossil energy for sewage
and/or slurry treatment is advantageous for any
decentralised application, lowering the threshold for
technology implementation.
4 Current limitations and constraints

Although the application of anaerobic technology for
sewage treatment has significantly expanded in the last
two decades (Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol 1991; Foresti

2001a, b; Florencio et al. 2001; Chernicharo and
Nascimento 2001; Wiegant 2001; Chernicharo et al.
2009), some limitations and constraints still need to be
solved and have guided the investigations of many
research institutions and operators, as discussed in this
section. Especially the design, operational, and managerial aspects of UASB reactor systems need improvements, since the further expansion of the technology and
its wider acceptance in the near future can be significantly hindered by sub-optimal functioning UASBs.
Research has been focused on topics aiming at
improving the design and operation of UASB reactors.
Particularly research related to scum accumulation,
biogas and waste gas management, post treatment and
energy recovery, have received most attention, as
highlighted in Fig. 4.
The main constraints that remain are the potential
odor problems and difficulties associated with it, but
also on the increasing demand for nutrient removal in
the treatment scheme, as well as on problems in
operation and maintenance as discussed below. The
overall advantages and constraints of anaerobic
sewage treatment in comparison to activated sludge
processes are listed in Table 5.
4.1 Temperature constraints
Sewage treatment by anaerobic systems in temperate
climates is still considered a challenge since municipal
wastewater belongs to the complex wastewater category
due to the high fraction of particulate organic material
(suspended solids), moderate biodegradability and low
123

Fig. 4 Topics of interest for
improvements in UASB
reactors treating domestic
wastewater. Source:
Chernicharo et al. (2013)
Table 5 Advantages and constraints of high-rate anaerobic sewage treatment systems over aerobic processes
Advantages
Constraints
Substantial (reaching 90 %) savings in operational costs as no

energy is required for aeration
The extent of organic matter removal is less than the activated

sludge processes, requiring in most cases adequate posttreatment to meet the discharge or reuse criteria
Potential reductions in investment cost considering that primary

clarification, the bioreactor, secondary clarification and the
sludge digester are combined into one tank: the UASB reactor.
However, the UASB reactor needs to be extended by a post
treatment step to reach effluent requirements
The produced methane (CH4) is of interest for energy recovery or
electricity production
The produced CH4 is partially dissolved in the effluent

(depending on the influent COD concentration and the
applicable hydraulic flow). So far no measures are applied in
full-scale plants to prevent CH4 escaping to the atmosphere
The collected CH4 is often not utilized for energy generation and
in some cases not even flared (contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions)
The technologies do not make use of high-tech equipment, except

for main headwork pumps and fine screens. The treatment
system is less dependent on imported technologies
There is little experience with full-scale application at moderate

to low temperatures
The process is robust and can handle periodic high hydraulic and
organic loading rates
Reduced gases, like H2S, that are dissolved in the effluent may
escape causing odor problems
The system is compact with HRTs of 69 h, and is, therefore,

suitable for applications in urban areas, minimizing conveyance
costs
High influent sulfate concentrations may limit the applicability of

sewage treatment as it results in the conversion of organic
BOD/COD to inorganic BOD/COD, meaning that organic
matter gets degraded meanwhile the sulfate gets reduced to the
odorous and corrosive sulfide
Small-scale applications allow decentralized treatment, making

sewage treatment less dependent on the extent of sewage
networks
The sludge production is low, well stabilized and easily
dewatered; consequently, it does not require extensive posttreatment
The valuable nutrients (N and P) are conserved which give the
treated wastewater a high potential for crop ferti-irrigation
Adapted from van Lier et al. (2008)
strength (Lettinga et al. 2001a). The suspended solids

may constitute 5065 % of the total COD. Therefore,
total COD conversion is largely limited by hydrolysis of
particulate matter. Particularly when the sewage temperature drops to \18 C, the biological conversion
capacity will determine the overall COD removal rather
than the prevailing hydrodynamic conditions. In fact,
123
because of the low temperature and the high TSS/COD

ratio, the range in which the HRT determines the
volumetric sizing of the UASB reactor, viz.
Vr = HRT.Q, is relatively small. When temperature
drops and non-digested sludge starts to accumulate in
the sludge bed, the hydrolytic and methanogenic
capacity of the sludge will gradually decrease,
deteriorating both particulate and soluble COD

removal, and eventually leading to reactor failure.
Apparently, the prime design criterion, even with dilute
domestic sewage, is the reactor solids retention time
(SRT), which should be above a minimum value in
order to maintain the methanogenic conversion capacity
of the sludge. With dilute domestic sewage under
tropical conditions, COD \ 1000 mg l-1 and
t [ 20 C, this condition will be always met. The
prevailing SRT depends on various sewage characteristics such as:
Sewage temperature.
Influent suspended solids concentration.
Rate of solids digestion in the reactor.
Filtering capacity of the sludge bed, which are
determined by the applied upflow velocities and
sludge characteristics.
Growth and decay of new sludge.
Sludge retention in the settler, determined by the
applied liquid velocities.
Withdrawal of excess sludge.
As a rule of thumb, the minimum SRT should

always be more than 3 times the doubling time (Td) of
the biomass, which is responsible for the rate-limiting
step (van Lier et al. 2008). Since bacterial growth rates
are exponentially correlated to the temperature, the
required SRT will distinctly increase when the sewage
temperature drops. Therefore, the conventional UASB
reactor design for municipal wastewater needs reconsideration when the system will be applied at low
temperatures and/or when COD concentrations exceed
1000 mg l-1. In many arid climate countries with
limited water supply, sewage concentrations range
between 1000 and 2500 mgCOD l-1, e.g. Middle
East, Northern Africa, Arabic peninsula, etc. Furthermore, the temperate climates in the Middle East and
Northern Africa are characterised by cold winters,
particularly in mountainous areas.
Experiences in Jordan and Palestine, show municipal sewage COD concentrations reaching
2500 mgCOD l-1 at TSS/COD ratios of 0.6 (Halalsheh et al. 2005a; Mahmoud et al. 2003, 2004;
Mahmoud 2008), whereas winter temperatures may
drop to 15 C. Applying the conventional UASB
reactor design, the HRT needs to be increased
reaching values of 2024 h (Halalsheh 2002). This,
obviously, will affect the hydrodynamics of the system
requesting changes in influent distribution for
preventing short-circuiting. Alternatively, the large

suspended solids load can be addressed in separate
reactor units such as a primary clarifier or enhanced
solids removal in upflow filter systems, coupled to a
sludge digester (Elmitwalli 2000). A novel approach is
to link the UASB reactor to a coupled digester with
sludge exchange (Mahmoud 2002; Mahmoud et al.
2004). With the latter system, accumulating solids will
be digested at higher temperatures, whereas the
methanogenic activity in the reactor will be increased
by a return digested sludge flow.
Because of climate constraints, the full-scale reactor in the Fayoum area, south of Cairo, Egypt, is
designed for an average HRT of 12 h. Pilot trials in
Amman showed the feasibility of the system as an
ideal pre-treatment method for a low cost reduction in
the COD-load, while generating energy for posttreatment. Table 6 briefly resumes the most important
results of the Jordan Pilot trials (Hallalsheh et al.
2005b).
With regard to the required higher SRT at low
temperatures, AnMBRs have recently emerged as a
potential technology. Aside from the current critical
obstacles to full-scale implementation, as previously
discussed, the physical biomass retention provided by
the membrane may compensate the decreased specific
methanogenic activity (SMA) and biological removal
rate at low temperatures (Ho and Sung 2010;
Martinez-Sosa et al. 2011). Recently reported research
results have demonstrated the potentials for achieving
high quality effluents using AnMBR systems under
psychrophilic conditions: Smith et al. (2013) have
observed 92 5 % COD removal in an anaerobic
bench-scale CSTR coupled with membranes at 15 C,
while Gouveia et al. (2015) obtained similar results
(87 1 %) with a pilot UASB with ultrafiltration
membranes at 18 C. Additionally, the use of
expanded granular sludge bed reactors (EGSB) in
AnMBRs was suggested as a potential technology,
based on the high COD removal efficiencies even at
low temperatures (Chu et al. 2005). Recently, Ozgun
(2015) coupled the previously mentioned UASBDigester system of Mahmoud et al. (2004) to an
external UF membrane for cost-effective water reclamation under low temperature conditions. Where the
UF membrane served as an absolute barrier leading to
COD removal efficiencies exceeding 90 %, the addition of a separate digester for non-stabilised sludge
digestion resulted in an improved filtration
123

Table 6 UASB pilot reactor trials at the AmmanZarqa, waste stabilisation pond site Khirbet As Samra, Jordan
Average influent characteristics
Treatment performance (including post-clarification)
Flow: 180,000 m3 day-1
COD Removal: up to 80 %
BOD: 500700 mg l-1
BOD Removal: up to 85 %
COD: 1.500 mg l-1

TSS: 600700 mg l-1
SS Removal: up to 80 %
Pathogens: negligible
NH4?N: 70130 mg l-1
CH4 production: 0.15 Nm3 CH4 kgCOD-1rem
N-Kj: 90200 mg l
-1
P-tot: 1040 mg l-1

Temp.: 16 (winter)28 (Summer) C
Potential CH4 production: 27,000 m3 day-1, equivalent to a potential

power supply of &5 MW-e (assuming 40 % CHP efficiency)
performance, characterised by higher membrane

fluxes and a reduced transmembrane pressure (TMP).
4.2 Restrictions for nutrients

When nutrient removal is required to meet the quality
standards of the receiving water body, the use of
anaerobic processes preceding a complementary aerobic treatment for biological nutrient removal should
be carefully analysed. Anaerobic systems present
good biodegradable organic matter removal, but the
concentrations of N and P in the effluent might even be
higher than in the influent. When considering conventional nutrient removal techniques, the sole
removal of BOD in the anaerobic reactor certainly
causes a negative effect on biological treatment
systems aiming at nutrient removal. Notably, the
effluent from the anaerobic reactor will have N/COD
and P/COD ratios much higher than the values desired
for the good performance of the mentioned conventional biological nutrient removal processes.
When nitrogen removal has to be accomplished, the
application of conventional nitrificationdenitrification processes are so far selected to complement the
UASB reactor. In such case, the anaerobic reactor
should only treat a part of the influent raw sewage
(possibly no more than 5070 %). The remaining part
(3050 %) should be directed to the complementary
biological treatment, aiming at nitrification and denitrification, so that there is enough organic matter for
the denitrification step. In this case, the big advantage
of the use of the anaerobic reactor is to receive and
stabilize the sludge generated in the complementary
treatment, eliminating the need for an anaerobic
sludge digester. For concentrated sewage, as observed
123
in the Middle East (Table 5), the recycle of nitrified

effluents to the UASB reactor for combined methanogenesisdenitrification can be considered (Kassab
2009; Kassab et al. 2010). However, as sewage is in
general a low strength wastewater, the relevance of
such concept can be questioned, since the volume of
the UASB reactor is already determined by the
hydraulic flow. Recycle of effluent would immediately
require a bigger reactor volume.
The main experiences regarding nitrogen removal
have been with the application of activated sludge plants
and, more recently, also with biological trickling filters
packed with sponge-based media (pilot and demoscale), which achieved up to 90 % ammonium-N
removal, associated with low excess sludge production
(Tawfik et al. 2006; Takahashi et al. 2011; Almeida et al.
2013). Demo-scale experiences in India even showed
complete ammonium-N removal as well as 3040 %
total N removal operating a sponge bed trickling filter
following a UASB reactor (Uemura and Harada 2010).
As the requirements of environmental agencies will
become more restrictive in the near future, the
development of research on post-treatment of UASB
effluent should be emphasized. The efforts may be on:
(1) the simultaneous removal of ammonia and nitrate
in structured bed reactor with intermittent aeration
(Gadelha et al. 2013); (2) the simultaneous removal of
ammonia and nitrate in tertiary aerobic-anoxic fixedbed reactor using biogas as electron donor (PantojaFilho et al. 2013); and (3) the use of electron donors
present in the liquid and gaseous phases of the
anaerobic chamber for denitrification in an anaerobic-anoxic reactor coupled with a nitrifying reactor
(Morgan-Sagastume et al. 1994; Souza and Foresti
2013; Okada and Foresti 2013). (4) the use of partial
nitrification to nitrite combined with ammonium
oxidation to nitrogen gas, the so-called anammox

reaction (Sanchez Guillen et al. 2014, 2015).
The metabolic routes to remove nitrogen based on
partial nitrification and anammox, like SharonAnammox and CANON processes (van Dongen et al. 2001;
Third et al. 2001) have been mainly applied to treat
concentrated nitrogen containing wastewaters, such as
sludge digester effluents at STPs (van Loosdrecht
2008). The application of the anammox process in the
main stream of STPs remains as a challenge for current
and future research. Notwithstanding, with deammonification processes (removal of nitrogen via
anammox bacteria) it is possible to remove nitrogen
on a low energy basis, instead of the conventional
nitrification and denitrification approach. The success
of such deammonification process critically depends
on stimulation of ammonium oxidizing bacteria
(AOB) and suppression of nitriteoxidizing bacteria
(NOB). Possibly, required conditions might be
achieved applying an intermittent aeration regime in
the mainstream aeration tanks (Wett et al. 2013).
In this context, a two-step process like UASBTrickling Filters with polyurethane support media can
constitute a promising alternative to remove nitrogen
as a low cost process. The hydrolysis of biomass due to
higher SRT can be an additional source of substrate in
the anoxic zones of the sponge, favouring heterotrophic denitrification (Tawfik et al. 2006; Kubota
et al. 2014; Almeida et al. 2013). These anoxic zones
would also favour the activity of ammonium to
nitrogen gasoxidizing bacteria.
The application of biological phosphorus removal
in combination with UASB technology is virtually
impossible for two main reasons: (1) the effluent of the
anaerobic reactor doesnt contain easily biodegradable
matter anymore and (2) if one would be able to
cultivate phosphorus-rich sludge in a subsequent bio-P
step by by-passing part of the influent, then stabilisation of the excess bio-P sludge in the preceding
anaerobic reactor makes no sense since all bound
phosphorus will be released. At present, phosphorus
removal in treatment plants using anaerobic reactors
seems only be effective if chemical products are used
for P precipitation (iron or aluminum salts).
By applying source separation in a decentralised
approach, P could be recovered from the concentrated
waste stream via precipitation or crystallisation techniques. The controlled formation of struvite (MgNH4PO46H2O) or MAP (magnesium, ammonium,
phosphate) crystallization process has been successfully reported for different kinds of concentrated
wastewaters (Liu et al. 2013). However, struvite
formation in an anaerobic STP has not been demonstrated so far. Very likely, the concentrations in
municipal sewage are simply too low for a costeffective precipitation process.
4.3 Restriction for pathogens and microbiological
indicators
As with most secondary treatment methods, compact
anaerobic processes are not efficient in eliminating
pathogenic organisms from the effluents and, as a
result, require a post-treatment stage if pathogen
removal is pursued. For small systems and under
proper conditions, polishing ponds can be a very
effective method for improving the microbiological
quality of anaerobic effluents (von Sperling et al.
2004). If properly designed and implemented, they can
achieve very high levels of pathogen removal, with
virtually 100 % helminth eggs and protozoan cysts
removal, and 36 log units removal for bacteria and
viruses (von Sperling and Chernicharo 2005). In
addition, the ponds also polish the anaerobic effluent
in terms of organic matter and oxidize ammonia.
Alternatively, the solubilized ammonia can be
removed mainly through algal uptake or volatilized
in the form of ammonium (NH3) due to the high pH as
a result of an intense phototrophic activity (Camargo
Valero and Mara 2007).
In situations when land availability is limited, a
compact disinfection process, such as chlorination, UV
radiation and ozonation, should be regarded as an option
for the post-treatment, as means of improving the overall
efficiency of pathogen removal, especially bacteria and
viruses. However, with regard to chlorination, the risk of
the formation of disinfectant by-products is very high,
owing to the relatively high concentrations of residual
organic matter in the UASB effluents.
Cost-effective pathogen removal along with extensive aeration of residual compounds was obtained in
the so-called Downflow Hanging Sponge (DHS)
system in combination with a UASB pre-treatment
(Uemura and Harada 2010; Tandukar et al. 2005). The
DHS is in fact a biotower trickling filter with
reinforced polyurethane as packing material. Owing
to the open structure of the DHS, the effluent is
passively fully aerated by improved convective
123
airflows. The developing aerobic biomass appeared to

be a very successful scavenger of colloidal pathogenic
biomass.
Another alternative that has been addressed in last
years is the incorporation of membranes to anaerobic
municipal wastewater treatment, especially due to the
superior effluent quality in terms of pathogen counts
when compared with conventional anaerobic processes (Liao et al. 2006; Kocadagistan and Topcu
2007; An et al. 2009). This would represent an
important upgrade alternative for existing anaerobic
STPs (Ozgun et al. 2013), although drawbacks
regarding membrane fouling is still a concern.
4.4 Restrictions for micropollutants
Micropollutants represent a group of several classes of
medicine rests (e.g., analgesics, antibiotics, lipidregulators, anti-inflammatories, synthetic hormones,
etc.), as well as substances used in cleaning and
personal care products, compounds used in the
production of resins and plastics, pesticides, and
natural hormones and their by-products (Froehner
et al. 2011; Brandt et al. 2013). They have recently
gained great interest due to their adverse effects on the
aquatic life (Kim and Aga 2007). Particularly, STPs
are considered as one of the main hotspots of
potential evolution and spreading of antibiotic resistance into the environment (Michael et al. 2013). Thus
far, STPs are not designed to specifically remove
micropollutants, especially pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDC). Therefore, any
removal that may occur is incidental to the wastewater
treatment processes and the characteristics of the
micropollutant (USEPA 2009). In this context, most
studies worldwide have assessed the behaviour of
micropollutants in activated sludge systems and
membrane bioreactors (Gulkowska et al. 2008; Sipma
et al. 2009; Li and Zhang 2010).
Since some of those compounds are hydrophilic
and designed to be biologically resistant, they are
expected to remain in the aqueous phase of the
wastewater. Nevertheless, Froehner et al. (2011)
showed that the water-soluble compounds such as
caffeine and bisphenol-A are removed almost completely, regardless of the type of treatment chosen
(aerobic or anaerobic). However, hydrophobic compounds such as hormones are not completely removed,
and for the degradation by both aerobic and anaerobic
123
pathway means the HRT is conserved as a key factor.

In this regard, Brandt et al. (2013) confirmed that the
HRT is an important parameter controlling the
removal of hydrophilic and less biodegradable contaminants, such as sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim. Meanwhile, the authors stated that UASB
reactors were not appropriate for an efficient removal
of nonylphenol, bisphenol A, diclofenac, bezafibrate,
sulfamethoxazole and trimethoprim. In this context,
the post-treatment units (polishing ponds, submerged
constructed wetlands and trickling filters) substantially increased the removal of most of the target
micropollutants present in the anaerobic effluent.
Therefore, simplified sewage treatment systems,
which are comprised of UASB reactors followed by
natural (submerged bed, polishing ponds) or compact
(trickling filter packed with sponge-based material)
post-treatment units, can remove hydrophilic and
hydrophobic pharmaceuticals and EDC as efficiently
as activated sludge systems (Brandt et al. 2013).
5 Odour nuisance
Odorous emissions are a huge concern in anaerobic
reactors treating domestic sewage, which certainly
may hamper the diffusion of the technology, especially in urbanised areas. To avoid populations
complaint, several sewage treatment plants have been
employing considerable amounts of chemical products, with the goal to minimize or mask the hydrogen
sulfide and/or other odorous emission in the vicinity.
In most cases, there is no clear identification of the
emissions source, which may be related to the influent
sewage characteristics, reactor performance or the
turbulent discharge of the effluent.
Methane and carbon dioxide are the main gaseous
products of anaerobic digestion; nevertheless,
depending on the nature of the incoming precursors,
pH and redox potential, different odor-related substances may be biologically formed in anaerobic
reactors. Most of the odorous compounds are reduced
sulfur and amino compounds, such as sulfides,
mercaptans, and amino-sulfides. Hydrogen sulfide,
resulting from the de-assimilative reduction of sulfates or thiosulfates, is the most common compound
associated with the sewage odors, but other sulfur
compounds may also contribute (van Langenhove
and de Heyder 2001). In the sewer networks and
interceptor sewers, most of the generated sulfide

occurs in the biofilm layer fixed on the walls of pipes
or sludge deposits at the bottom of the pipes (WEF
2004). Table 7 shows the typical H2S concentrations
in the atmosphere of different units of sewage
treatment plants and sewerage system.
Although there are several alternatives for the
control of odorous emissions, the selection criteria for
the most proper alternative depends on two main
criteria: gas flow and odorous gases concentration.
Regarding odor control in anaerobic reactors, several
other criteria should be considered, such as odorous
gases biodegradability, local characteristics (including
human resources), source and exact locations of
emissions and design aspects related to gas capture
and conveyance, the relative concentration of H2S in
the biogas, energy recovery plans and treatment goals
(Burgess et al. 2001; Kennes et al. 2001).
In a qualitative analysis of the main features of each
method for the treatment of odorous emissions from
sewage treatment plants, Chernicharo et al. (2010)
indicate that direct combustion, biochemical methods,
and particularly biofilters, offer the best perspectives
for the treatment of waste gases. For wide scale
implementation, particularly in developing countries,
factors like simplicity and cost efficiency are of
principal importance.
Removal of H2S in the biogas stream can be
achieved by thermal oxidation, using methane as fuel.
However, incomplete combustion of H2S may occur in
the case of conventional burners (open), leading to the

formation of sulfuric acid. To ensure complete sulfide
combustion, sealed burners must be used, with combustion chamber. The biogas energy recovery for more
value purposes (e.g., a vehicular fuel, injection into the
natural gas line) generally requires methods that
enable the selective removal of H2S and the enrichment of methane in the biogas.
Different alternatives can be considered for removing the dissolved sulfide in the reactor effluent, such as
stripping in a dissipation chamber, as reported by
Souza et al. (2012) and Gloria et al. (2014), followed
by a biological treatment step (for example, using a
biofilter). Additionally, dissolved hydrogen sulfide
reductions exceeding [80 % were observed at the
effluent discharge pipelines and splitting box of a
demo-scale UASB reactor. Solubilised H2S removal
was ascribed to high turbulence causing emissions to
the atmosphere (Campos and Pagliuso 1999; Souza
2010; Gloria et al. 2014). Effluent sulphide removal is
easily obtained when the UASB reactor is followed by
an aerobic biological step. Reduced sulphur compounds are rapidly (bio)chemically oxidised to elemental sulphur or oxygenated sulphur ions (Kobayashi
et al. 1983; Lens and Hulshoff Pol 2000). A number of
dedicated technologies are on the market to remove
sulfides from anaerobic effluents and the produced
biogas (Lens and Hulshoff Pol 2000; Noyola et al.
2006). Recent studies in this direction include aeration
of the effluent, reaching a removal efficiency of
Table 7 Typical atmosphere concentrations of H2S in different units of sewage treatment plants and sewerage system
System unit
Average concentrations or range variations

mg m
Sewerage
Pumping station
Pre-treatment
-3
References
ppm
0417
0300
70556
50400
0.57
0.4
Matos and Aires (1995)

Jobbagy et al. (1994)
Silva et al. (2007), Antunes and Mano (2004), apud
Silva et al. (2007)
13
0.72.0
4.8
3.3
Bohn (1993)
2.851.5
237
Al-Shammiri (2004)
3.5
2.4
Bohn (1993)
Dewatering
6.5
4.5
Bohn (1993)
Waste gasa
073
050
Pagliuso et al. (2002), Souza (2010), Souza et al. (2010)
Waste gasb
146730
100500
Pagliuso et al. (2002), Souza (2010)
Gas from the settling zone of the UASB reactor
Gas from the dissipation chamber downstream the UASB reactor
123
approximately 86 % (Khan et al. 2011); electrochemical technique, with a removal efficiency of approximately 82 % (Dutta et al. 2010); microaeration
technique, with a removal efficiency of around 73 %
(Krayzelova et al. 2014).
6 Operational constraints
6.1 Process operation with low skilled personnel
Lack of qualified operators seems to be one of the
major problems in the sewage sector in Latin America
and countries like India (van Lier et al. 2010). In
Brazil, only by the end of the last century decade,
sewage treatment started to become a priority by local,
state and federal authorities and, therefore, the effects
of new policies in the sanitation sector are still to come.
Although new investment plans in the last decade
facilitated the construction of several treatment plants
in all Brazilian regions, there is still a clear lack of
qualified personnel to work in these newly constructed
facilities. The result is that various plants are poorly
operated, especially regarding the correct management
of excess sludge and scum in UASB reactors.
In this respect, in order to avoid the unwanted loss
of solids in the final effluent and the problems
associated with the non removal of scum on a regular
basis, as discussed latter in this section, there is a
strong need to establish operational routines for excess
sludge management and scum removal from the inner
part of the gasliquidsolids separators (GLSS). So
far, only a few plants in Brazil have these routines
adequately implemented, either due to design constraints or to sole availability of low skilled personnel.
6.2 Design and construction

Although the design and construction of UASB
reactors have experienced improvements in the last
decade, there are some constraints that still affect the
proper operation of UASB reactors. In Brazil, the
following problems have been identified by the
authors, in some plants:
inadequate design of the preliminary treatment

units: this can allow the entrance of great amounts
of solids (debris) and sand into the anaerobic
reactor, posing serious operational problems,
123
mainly related to the proper management of sludge

and scum, and the formation of dead zones inside
the reactor.
flow variations: this is very much dependent on the
sewerage network and household connections,
which allow that huge contributions of rain water
reach the STP during the rainy season, but also on
inadequate design of the feeding pumping station,
which many times work with one single pump with
a capacity well above the maximum design flow
rate of the STP. These issues should be properly
addressed in the engineering design, otherwise the
plant will be exposed to extreme flow variations
that can negatively affect its performance.
use of inadequate materials and coatings: this can
cause corrosion problems in concrete and metal
structures;
use of inadequate sludge dewatering systems: this
can negatively impact the excess sludge management. For instance, the use of mechanized systems
is difficult to be maintained in continuous operation in many plants, even in large ones;
lack or inadequate scum removal devices: this can
pose serious difficulties to the adequate management of the scum that accumulates inside the
GLSS of UASB reactors. This can be a major
problem in various UASB reactors that were
designed and constructed in previous years. Only
more recently the reactors have been designed with
proper scum removal devices;
use of inadequate hydraulic profiles along the
treatment train: this can seriously impact the
management of dissolved gases, especially methane
and hydrogen sulfide, that can be released to the
atmosphere. In addition, uneven flow distribution
results in an uneven upflow thereby creating preferential flows and risks for sludge bed by pass.
installation of unlevelled collection weirs: this can
lead to problems of preferential fluxes inside the
settler compartment of UASB reactors, as well as
to scum accumulation near the weirs that are
positioned at higher levels.
lack of process control and data acquisition
instruments: many STPs lack basic instruments
that could significantly improve the control of the
process, such as gas analysers and on line flow
meters for the incoming wastewater and for biogas
production.
6.3 Sludge withdrawal
three-phase separators. The accumulation and irregular

removal of scum leads to blockage of the natural passage
of gas, which in turn impairs its collection and imposes
hurdles for energy recovery. This problem has been
addressed by many authors (Halalsheh et al. 2005b;
Souza et al. 2006; Pereira et al. 2009).
In terms of scum accumulation, different accumulation coefficients have been reported for the inner part
of the GLSS and for the surface of the settler
compartment, as summarized in Table 8. As it can be
noticed, values may differ substantially between the
various authors, possibly due to lack of consolidated
methodology for evaluating scum accumulation and
also because of inherent differences in each system.
Advances in scum removal from UASB reactors
have been experienced through the design of hydrostatic removal devices (Chernicharo et al. 2013),
which are based on the control of the water level
within the GLSS. It is achieved by increasing or
decreasing the pressure in the gas line situated
between the GLSS and a water seal located on the
top of each reactor. Controlling the water level within
the gas chamber allows the scum to pour into a weir,
routing the material to disposal (Fig. 5). Tests conducted in a full-scale UASB reactor (Laboreaux STP,
City of Itabira, Brazil) indicated that the appropriate
adjustment of pressure in the gas line and the resulting
level of scum within the gas chambers enabled the
effective removal of scum (Chernicharo et al. 2013).
One of the main features of UASB reactors is their

great capacity for biomass retention when operated
under suitable operating conditions, resulting in high
sludge ages and conferring a greater degree of sludge
stabilization. The excess sludge can be dried in sludge
beds and no smell is expected to arise (van Lier et al.
2010). Even though UASB reactors present a high
capacity of biomass retention, excess sludge withdrawal must be performed regularly and in a suitable
way, otherwise it may cause excessive solids loss
through the settling compartment. The consequences
of this operational failure are a deterioration of the
effluent quality and the occurrence of operational
problems in the post-treatment unit, notably in the case
of trickling filters (Chernicharo and Almeida 2010).
Although the establishment of proper operational
routines for excess sludge management is known as
one of the most important points to be improved in
sewage treatment using UASB reactors (Chernicharo
et al. 2014), this is far to be achieved, especially in
small-scale plants, where the lack of qualified personnel is more notorious.
6.4 Scum removal
A major operational limitation reported in most full-scale
plants is the removal of scum that accumulates inside the
Table 8 Scum accumulation coefficients in UASB reactors

Type of scum
Settler
GLSS
Accumulation coefficient
Reference
Value
Unit
100
mL day-1
48
cm year
-1
0.22
3
L msewage
Versiani (2005)
Van Haandel and Lettinga (1994)
Santos (2003)
1
kdCODapplied
0.16
0.32
1
L kgTSSapplied
cm month-1
12.5
cm year-1
Van Haandel and Lettinga (1994)
15.8
cm year-1
Rocha (2002)
gTS
1
kgCODapplied
0.114.0
gTS
1
kgCODapplied
6.7910.33
1
mlscum kgCODapplied
0.111.26
Souza et al. (2006)

Pereira et al. (2009)
Vieira (2014)
Source: Adapted from Souza (2006)
123
Fig. 5 Schematic representation of the device for hydrostatic removal of scum by pressure relief. Source: Rosa et al. (2012)
Another important aspect is the management of the

scum removed from the reactors, since this material is
very heterogenic and presents a high amount of coarse
material originally present in the raw sewage, which was
not retained in the screens and sieves of the preliminary
treatment. The experience so far indicates some possibilities for the management of this material, as depicted in
Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 Flow sheet of some
possibilities for scum
management
123
6.5 Other constraints

Besides the addressed technical constraints, other constraints include the (non)availability of properly trained
personnel, more specifically, personnel responsible for
monitoring and operational control of the STP. Operation
and maintenance procedures could include a broader
range of analysis in the monitoring program, such as
sulfate concentration in the influent, biogas production

and characterization, assessment of sewage BMP (biochemical methane potential) and sludge SMA, etc.
However in addition to performing analysis, a proper
interpretation of the obtained data may be identified as an
opportunity for improving the performance of the
anaerobic process.
7 Atmospheric methane emissions

Although biogas produced in UASB reactors treating
domestic wastewater usually presents high methane
contents, significant amounts of the gaseous products are
not recovered (Hartley and Lant 2006; Noyola et al.
2006; Souza et al. 2011). With municipal wastewater as
substrate, composition of the produced biogas is in the
following intervals: 7080 % CH4, 1025 % N2 and just
510 % CO2 (Noyola et al. 1988; Souza et al. 2011,
2012; Lobato et al. 2013). The concentrations of the
various gases are typical for sewage and can be ascribed
to the high hydraulic flow and the relatively low
temperature. The high N2 content can be attributed to
the solubilized N2 in the influent, which inside the UASB
escapes from the liquid when the N2 partial pressure
drops to low levels. The low CO2 content can be
attributed to the high solubility of CO2 and the high
hydraulic flow. The recovered methane in the gaseous
phase is well below the stoichiometric value of
0.35 Nm3 kg-1 COD removed, due to an important
fraction that is dissolved in the effluent. In addition, a
substantial fraction of suspended COD is non-methanized and leaves the reactor with the excess sludge.
Under the general sewage conditions in tropical countries, i.e. COD concentrations \1000 mg l-1 and temperatures around 20 C, the solubilized effluent CH4 is
between 30 and 41 % (Souza et al. 2011) or also more
than 50 % of the produced amount (Noyola et al. 1988).
In general, high rates of methane losses occur at the
exit hydraulic structures of the reactor, where the partial
CH4 pressure drops to 0, particularly under high
turbulence conditions (Souza et al. 2012). In a recent
study carried out by Souza et al. (2011), the authors found
that although COD removal in the UASB reactor was
considerably high (around 70 %), only about 36 % of the
removed COD was recovered as biogas. In relation to the
COD balance, less than 60 % of the produced methane
was effectively recovered as biogas in the gas chamber,
Fig. 7 Percent distribution of methane recovered as biogas and

methane lost in the effluent for pilot and demo-scale UASB
reactors. Source: Souza et al. (2011)
while 3640 % of the methane left the reactor dissolved

in the effluent (Fig. 7). The remaining fraction (around
5 %) was emitted as waste gas at the top part of the
reactor in the settling zone. These losses not only
represent loss of potential energy, but also contribute to
the emission of greenhouse gases.
If methane losses are not taken into account, the
theoretical estimation of biogas production for the
purpose of energy recovery can go far above the field
measurements. A model that allows a better estimation
of the methane losses, as well as the effective energy
potential from UASB reactors treating domestic
wastewater was developed by Lobato et al. (2012).
The model considers the relevant COD conversion
routes for energy potential estimation, allowing the
calculation of the effective COD fraction converted into
methane, as well as the amount of methane dissolved in
the final effluent or accounted as waste gas.
Based on the simulations performed by Lobato et al.
(2012), the following unitary relationships were obtained
for methane, biogas and energy production in UASB
reactors treating typically domestic wastewater (Table 9).
8 Challenges
8.1 Energy recovery from biogas
Energy recovery from biogas produced in anaerobic
reactors treating domestic sewage is still in early
stages. While many of the small STPs using UASB
123
179.3
28.7
28.7
145.7
96.8
28.7
26.9
133.8
26.9
173.8
The main constraints related to energy (biogas)

recovery from UASB reactors treating domestic
wastewater are related to:
47.7
Source: Lobato et al. (2012)
25.1
25.1
129.5
MJ inhab-1 year-1
89.7
26.9
8.1.1 Constraints
MJ Nm-3biogas
25.1
technology just vent the biogas, the majority of the

larger STPs burn the biogas, in order to reduce odor
and the emission of greenhouse gases (methane is the
main constituent of biogas). In both situations, the
biogas energy potential is simply wasted. However,
the high calorific value of biogas generates great
interest in exploiting this gas mixture in processes that
require the use of energy, such as its use in sewage
treatment plants, e.g., for post treatment aeration
systems. In some Indian UASB treatment plants the
generated biogas is indeed used as combustion fuel in
dual fuel biogas motors for energy generation. The use
of biogas as a source of renewable energy could enable
decentralized power generation and is in line with the
concept of sustainable development.
218.4
2.9
7.0
6.2
1.9
4.8
7.9
2.3
5.7
1.2
4.5
3.7
6.7
4.1
0.6
2.4
2.9
1.5
245.0
217.4
211.1
165.6
247.8
5.5
1
MJ kgCODremoved
MJ m wastewater
Unitary energy potential
-3
162.0
94.3
220.1
1
NLbiogas kgCODremoved
60.3
23.8
116.7
NL biogas m-3wastewater
138.3
85.6
273.9
17.1
101.6
64.8
196.0
46.4
168.3
13.9
173.9
13.6
20.8
158.3
9.9
17.7
9.8
5.2
14.1
Unitary biogas yield
NLbiogas inhab
day
1
NLCH4 kgCODremoved
-1
-1
113.4
66.0
154.1
185.8
124.2
219.1
13.7
81.3
51.8
11.1
16.7
64.2
134.6
10.2
7.4
34.8
13.3
103.7
NLCH4 m-3 wastewater
42.2
3.6
16.7
9.9
81.7
NLCH4 inhab-1 day-1

Unitary methane yield
Minimum
Maximum
123
6.8
Maximum
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Mean
Best scenario
Typical scenario
Worst scenario
Unit
Unitary relationship
Table 9 Unitary relationships for the production of methane, biogas and energy production in UASB reactors treating domestic wastewater
Minimum
Mean
high amounts of gaseous methane stay in solution

in the bulk liquid and are washed out with the
liquid effluent, resulting in high losses of energy
potential. As above discussed measurements carried out in full-scale plants in Brazil estimated that
about 3640 % of the produced methane left the
reactor dissolved in the effluent. Other losses, via
leaks and emissions via the surface of the settler
compartment can also occur.
existence of irregular connections and contributions of storm water to the sewerage system cause
very high dilutions of the wastewater, resulting in
sharp decline of the net biogas production during
the rainy seasons.
only few reactors use proper flow-meters to measure
the amount of biogas effectively produced, therefore
posing serious difficulties in relying on the database
available at the different treatment plants. Furthermore, the composition of the biogas is rarely
evaluated and as a result, the power generation
potential is unknown in most STPs.
8.1.2 Challenges
The increasing number of UASB reactors opens up a
perspective for energy recovery in such systems. In
order to make this potentiality into reality,
Direct combustion without

energy recovery
Direct combustion with heat

generation
Combined or single power and

heat generation
Open flares
Closed flares
Boilers
Thermal dryers
Internal combustion engines

Micro-turbines
Turbines
Fig. 8 Main alternatives for biogas management in STPs
improvements should be accomplished in the design

and construction of UASB reactors, seeking the use of
efficient devices for biogas collection (e.g., hermetic
biogas chambers) and for dissolved methane recovery.
There is also a strong need for a better understanding of
the behaviour of biogas production in sewage treatment
plants, since it is highly associated and influenced by
operational, regional and seasonal conditions.
Other challenges that impair the use of biogas as
energy source are (Salomon and Lora 2009):
lack and high costs of the power generation

technologies fuelled on biogas.
biogas energy recovery systems for the small and
very small scale are economically non-viable.
difficulties to ensure the proper functioning of the
biogas energy generation units in the long term.
low government investment in programs for conversion of biogas to energy.
economic viability.
dependence on local conditions.
storage and distribution of biogas.
difficulties of small units to trade carbon credits.
Improved management and training should be the

focus of a support program for small municipalities or
operators in developing countries, regardless of the
type of treatment process. Moreover, research and
technology development efforts should be encouraged
in order to provide small and reliable biogas burners
and co-generation units to small anaerobic facilities,
as well as simple means for capturing or degrading the
dissolved methane in the effluent.
8.1.3 Possibilities
The energy content of biogas, with calorific value
between 25.1 and 28.7 MJ Nm-3 (considering methane
concentrations between 70 and 80 %), can be recovered
for different applications such as: (1) direct use as fuel in
boilers, furnaces and kilns to replace other types of
fuels; (2) generate electricity for local use or sale to the

utility power network; (3) cogeneration of electricity
and heat, and (4) alternative fuel aimed at injection into
the natural gas line or use as vehicle fuel. In rural areas
the produced biogas can be used for cooking, lighting,
refrigeration of food and water heating. In addition to
these uses, the biogas generated in STPs can be used for
drying and hygienization of sludge. The main alternatives for biogas management in the plant can be
classified as follows (Fig. 8).
Because the low rates of methane production and
the loss of dissolved methane in the effluent, the
choice of cogeneration of power and heat becomes
challenging in small-scale systems. In this case, direct
combustion with thermal energy recovery seems to be
the simplest and highest cost/benefit alternative. If the
heat is used for the purpose of sludge drying, an extra
benefit will be the complete inactivation of helminth
eggs, an important issue in developing countries. In
the case of medium and large-scale STPs, cogeneration of power and heat seems to be possible and
feasible alternatives.
8.2 Energy recovery from sludge and scum
Energy sustainability is one of the main aspects to be
addressed in the future of STPs, with particular
emphasis on the use of sludge, the main byproduct
of the treatment process, as raw material for the
production of energy. This might become a paradigm
shift to the final destination of sludge, since landfills
are the common final disposal option for this material
in the region. Indeed, waste sludge should be evaluated as a source of energy after the dewatering stage.
Regarding the scum, research should be pursued in
order to characterize this material and determined its
energy potential, while inserting the disposal of scum
in operational routines of the plants.
Recent work by Rosa et al. (2015) allowed the
characterization of the energy potential of the solid
123
byproducts of a sewage treatment plant consisting of

UASB reactors and trickling filters (Laboreaux STP,
Minas Gerais, Brazil). The results indicated that both
the sludge dewatered in filter press and the scum
dewatered in drying bed have significant low calorific
values, in the order of 2.0 MJ kg-1, for these materials
analyzed with moisture content of around 60 %.
Simulation studies carried out for this same STP
(Rosa 2013) assessed the combined use of energy
derived from the biogas and sludge generated in the
plant for thermally drying the dewatered sludge. The
results showed a potential of drying and conversion of
sludge into an energetic by-product, what could
completely eliminate the generation of rejected material to be disposed off.
Although studies in this area are still in the early
stages, it is clear that there is a potential of using the
solid byproducts of STPs, after dewatering, to produce
energy for local use, substantially reducing the
transportation costs for final disposal in landfills. In
summary, Table 10 presents the main beneficial
aspects of energy recovery from sludge and scum
generated in STPs.
8.3 Dissolved effluent CH4 recovery
As discussed in previous sections, high amounts of
gaseous methane (3040 % of the produced methane)
are kept dissolved in the liquid effluent and therefore
represent a matter of strong concern to the environment and potential energy losses. So far, only the
methane recovered in the GLSS interior of UASB
reactors can be adequately managed (flared or used as
energy resource). Some alternatives to reduce the
dissolved methane content in the effluent of anaerobic
reactors have been proposed, such as micro-aeration
using biogas (Hartley and Lant 2006) and degasifying
membranes (Cookney et al. 2010), but none of them
have yet proved to be fully viable or effective. In a
recent study using membranes to remove dissolved
gas, Luo et al. (2012) obtained high removal efficiencies for methane, around 86 %; however, it is yet an
expensive technique.
In this sense, Souza et al. (2012) indicated that
significant reductions of methane and hydrogen sulfide
dissolved in the final effluent could be attained simply
by increasing the turbulence of the liquid. These gases
can be emitted to a controlled atmosphere, thereby
allowing its recovery or treatment.
Recent study carried out in a pilot-scale UASB
reactor (Centre for Research and Training in Sanitation UFMG/COPASA, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) tested
a dissipation chamber downstream the reactor to
reduce the concentration of dissolved methane in the
liquid effluent (Gloria et al. 2014). For the best
operation condition (free drop height of 1.10 m and 12
renews h-1), the median dissolved methane removal
efficiency was 73 %. This result indicates that
Table 10 Main possibilities and benefits of using sludge and scum generated in STP for energetic purposes
Direct benefit
Volume reduction of the material to be disposed in landfills
Source of thermal energy due to its combustion
Indirect benefit
Type of
benefit
Reduction of transportation costs
Economical
Reduction of generation and emission of GHG due

to the avoidance of the landfill
Environmental
Potential use of heat in heating and hygienization

processes
Economical
Reduction of volume of the final residue
Economical
Environmental
Environmental
Electricity supply due to the use of steam and syngas

generated in the sludge thermal processing
Sludge hygienization after thermal treatment
Source: Rosa (2013)
123
Reduction in electricity costs at the STP or other

units
Economical
Renewable energy aggregation in the Latin

American energy matrix
Environmental
Possibility of sludge use in agriculture, reducing the

use of natural resources
Environmental
Possibility of improvement of family agriculture
Social
Economical
dissolved methane can possibly be entirely released

from the effluent in case of more turbulent or long
discharge pipelines and this call for attention to the
proper design of these discharge structures.
9 Final remarks
The feedback of the several pioneer full-scale plants
was crucial to elucidate the limitations of the current
design and managerial approaches and helped to
improve the system, leading to standardized designs.
However, factors like odour nuisance, scum formation,
accurate hydraulic design, are still being improved by
researchers and field specialists. Of interest is that the
assets of anaerobic treatment are considered important
attributes for developing more sustainable environmental technologies in general, such as no or little
fossil fuel consumption, plane and robust technology,
and the recovery of resources. A concern of growing
interest is the emission of the potent greenhouse gas
CH4 from anaerobic reactors. Indeed, in current fullscale UASB systems, large amounts of CH4 are
dissolved in the effluent and are emitted to the
atmosphere when effluents are discharged. Current
research emphasis is therefore directed to recover also
the dissolved CH4, serving energy recovery needs
while preventing greenhouse gas emissions.
As a core technology for sustainable domestic
wastewater treatment (Foresti et al. 2006), the anaerobic
process has a key role in residual waste valorisation
(Batstone and Virdis 2014). In fact, the trends in sewage
treatment are currently evolving from public sanitation
and environmental protection towards the additional
goals of nutrient and energy recovery mainly driven by
increased cost of energy and value of nutrients.
Therefore, anaerobic processes become essential for
energy recovery and conservation of nutrients for future
recovery (McCarty et al. 2011; Batstone and Virdis
2014). Nevertheless, it can be noticed that in developing
countries the achievement of public health and environmental goals is still a challenge and needs an especial
attention. In addition, Life Cycle Assessments (LCA)
arises as an important tool to determine the most
environment-friendly treatment scheme, according to
different geographical, technical and economical settings. However, the outcome of an LCA study depends
on available data, the used weighing factors, and the
assumptions made to the data gaps.
An important limitation of the direct application of

anaerobic processes for sewage treatment is their low
effluent quality if compared with aerobic processes.
Nevertheless, nutrient conservation (nitrogen and phosphorous) turns out to be an advantage of the anaerobic
processes when the effluent is reclaimed for agricultural
irrigation. However, in such cases, sewage treatment
based only on UASB (or other anaerobic reactors) is not
able to meet the WHO guidelines (WHO 2006) for reuse
in agricultural systems, mainly due to the presence of
pathogens in the effluent. To couple with this limitation,
anaerobic membrane bioreactors and possibly posttreatment systems based on sponge-bed trickling filters
or on plug-flow raceway polishing ponds can play an
important role in the future.
References
ABNT, Associacao Brasileira de Normas Tecnicas (2011) NBR
12209: Elaboracao de projetos hidraulico-sanitarios de
estacoes de tratamento de esgotos sanitarios (Hydraulic
and sanitary engineering design for wastewater treatment
plants), 2nd edn. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro (in Portuguese)
Aiyuk S, Forrez I, Lieven DK, van Haandel A, Verstraete W
(2006) Anaerobic and complementary treatment of
domestic sewage in regions with hot climatesa review.
Bioresour Technol 97:22252241
Almeida PGS, Chernicharo C, Souza CL (2009) Development
of compact UASB/trickling filter systems for treating
domestic wastewater in small communities in Brazil. Wat
Sci Technol 59(7):14311439
Almeida PGS, Marcus AK, Rittmann BE, Chernicharo CAL
(2013) Performance of plastic- and sponge-based trickling
filters treating effluents from an UASB reactor. Wat Sci
Technol 67(5):10341042
Al-Shammiri M (2004) Hydrogen sulfide emission from the
Ardiyah sewage treatment plant in Kuwait. Desalination
170:113
Al-Shayah M, Mahmoud N (2008) Start-up of an UASB-septic
tank for community on-site treatment of strong domestic
sewage. Bioresour Technol 99:77587766
An YY, Yang FL, Bucciali B, Wong FS (2009) Municipal
wastewater treatment using a UASB coupled with crossflow membrane filtration. J Environ Eng 135:8691
Antunes R, Mano AP (2004) Odores em estacoes de tratamento de
gua, A
gua Qualidade de
aguas residuais. In: Congresso da A
toda a Vida, 7, 2004, Lisboa. Anais. Lisboa: Associacao
Portuguesa dos Recursos Hdricos (APRH) (in Portuguese)
Barea LC, Alem Sobrinho P (2006) Behavior of polishing lagoon in
metropolitan Curitiba and the possibility of using of duckweed
for improvement of effluent quality. Sanare Revista Tecnica
Sanepar Curitiba 24(24):4660 (in Portuguese)
Batstone DJ, Virdis B (2014) The role of anaerobic digestion in
the emerging energy economy. Curr Opin Biotechnol
27:142149
123

Bohn HL (1993) Bioprocessing of organic gases in waste air.
Symposium on bioremediation and bioprocessing. In:
205th National meeting. American chemical society,
Denver, pp 287289
Brandt EMF, Queiroz FB, Afonso RJCF, Aquino SF, Chernicharo CAL (2013) Behaviour of pharmaceuticals and
endocrine disrupting chemicals in simplified sewage
treatment systems. J Environ Manag 128:718726
Burgess JE, Parsons SA, Stuetz RM (2001) Developments in
odour control and waste gas treatment biotechnology: a
review. Biotechnol Adv 19(1):3563
Busato R (2004) Desempenho de um filtro anaerobio de fluxo
ascendente como tratamento de efluente de reator UASB:
estudo de caso da ETE de Imbituva. 237 (Doutorado). Setor
de Tecnologia, Universidade Federal do Parana, Curitiba,
PR (in Portuguese)
Camargo Valero MA, Mara DD (2007) Nitrogen removal in
maturation ponds: tracer experiments with 15N-labelled
ammonia. Wat Sci Technol 55(11):8185
Campos JR, Pagliuso JD (1999) Tratamento de esgotos sanitarios por processo anaerobio e disposicao controlada no
solo (Capitulo 10). PROJETO PROSAB, Rio de Janeiro (in
Portuguese)
Carraro A (2006) Evaluation of a sewage treatment system with
intermittent receipt of water treatment plant sludge following RALF and conventional aerobic biological filtration. Sanare Revista Tecnica Sanepar Curitiba
24(24):4660 (in Portuguese)
Chan YI, Chong MF, Law CL, Hassell DG (2009) A review on
anaerobicaerobic treatment of industrial and municipal
wastewater. Chem Eng J 155:118
Chernicharo CAL (2006) Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater. Rev Environ Sci
Biotechnol 5:7392
Chernicharo CAL, Almeida PGS (2010) Feasibility of UASB/
trickling filter systems without final clarifiers for the
treatment of domestic wastewater in small communities in
Brazil. In: Conference on: sustainable solutions for small
water and wastewater treatment systems. Proceedings.
Spain
Chernicharo CAL, Nascimento MCP (2001) Feasibility of a
pilot scale UASB/trickling filter system for domestic
sewage treatment. Wat Sci Technol 44(4):221228
Chernicharo CAL, van Haandel AC, Foresti, E, Cybis LF (2001)
Introducao. Cap. 1. In: Chernicharo CAL (coordenador).
Pos-tratamento de efluentes de reatores anaerobios.
FINEP/PROSAB, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 544 p (in
Portuguese)
Chernicharo CAL, Almeida PGS, Lobato LCS, Couto TC,
Borges JM (2009) Experience with the design and start up
of two full-scale UASB plants in Brazil: enhancements and
drawbacks. Wat Sci Technol 60(2):507515
Chernicharo CAL, Stuetz RM, Souza CL, Melo GCB (2010)
Alternativas para o controle de emissoes odorantes em
reatores anaerobios tratando esgoto domestico. Engenharia
Sanitaria Ambiental 15(3):229236 (in Portuguese)
Chernicharo CAL, Rosa AP, Schmidt ADUC, Borges JM,
Fonseca WF, Monteiro AD (2013) Current limitations and
the necessary improvements in the anaerobic technology
for domestic sewage treatment. In: Proceedings of the 13th
123
IWA world congress on anaerobic digestion. Santiago de

Compostela, Spain
Chernicharo, C.A.L.,Lobato, L.C., Junior, C.A.P., Barbosa,
E.V., Souza, J.R., Silva, L.R., Judice, M.A.M., Moraes,
O.J., Almeida, P.G., and Goncalves, T.C.F. (2014) Secondary sludge return for thickening and digestion in UASB
reactors: Case study of ONCA STP Brazil. In: XI Taller y
Simposio Latinoamericano de Digestion Anaerobia. Proceedings. Cuba
Chong S, Sen TK, Kayaalp A, Ang H (2012) The performance
enhancements of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactors for domestic sludge treatmenta state-of-the-art
review. Wat Res 46:34343470
Chu LB, Yang FL, Zhang XW (2005) Anaerobic treatment of
domestic wastewater in a membrane-coupled expanded
granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor under moderate to low
temperature. Process Biochem 40:10631070
Cookney J, MCadam EJ, Cartmell E, Jefferson B (2010)
Recovery of methane from anaerobic process effluent using
poly-di-methyl-siloxane membrane contactors. In: Proceedings of the 12th IWA world congress on anaerobic
digestion. Mexico
Dornelas F, Machado MB, von Sperling M (2009) Performance
evaluation of planted and unplanted subsurface-flow constructed wetlands for the post-treatment of UASB reactor
effluents. Wat Sci Technol 60(12):30253033
Dutta PK, Rabaey K, Yuan Z, Rozendal RA, Keller J (2010)
Electrochemical sulfide removal and recovery from paper mill
anaerobic treatment effluent. Wat Res 44(8):25632571
Elmitwalli T (2000) Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage at
low temperature. PhD: 113, Department of Environmental
Technology, University of Wageningen, Wageningen
Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, Tao Y, van Lier JB (2014) Applicability
of dynamic membrane technology in anaerobic membrane
bioreactors. Water Res 48(1):420429
Florencio L, Kato MT, Morais JC (2001) Domestic sewage
treatment in full-scale UASB plant at Mangueira, Recife,
Pernambuco. Water Sci Technol 44(4):7177
Foresti E (2001) Perspectives of anaerobic tratment in developing countries. In: Lettingas farewell seminar on anaerobic process, 2001, Wageningen. Proceedings of the
Lettingas farewell seminar. Wageningen, vol 1. Edited by
Lettingas Foundation, 2001, pp 120127
Foresti E, Zaiat M, Vallero M (2006) Anaerobic processes as the
core technology for sustainable domestic wastewater
treatment: consolidated applications, new trends, perspectives, and challenges. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 5:319
Franco PLP (2010) Analise da Potencialidade do Reuso Indireto
Potavel: Estudo de Caso da ETE Atuba Sul, Regiao
Metropolitana de Curitiba (Analysis of the potential indirect drinking reuse: Case study of Atuba Sul WWTP,
Curitibas Metropolitan Region). Dissertacao de Mestrado.
Universidade Federal do Parana, 238 pp (in Portuguese)
Froehner S, Piccioni W, Machado KS, Aisse MM (2011)
Removal capacity of caffeine, hormones, and bisphenol by
aerobic and anaerobic sewage treatment. Water Air Soil
Pollut 216:463471
Gadelha DAC, Moura RB, Damianovic MHRZ, Foresti E
(2013) Nitrogen removal using a structured bed intermittently aerated reactor treating UASB domestic effluent. In:

13th world congress on anaerobic digestion: recovering
(bio) resources for the World. Proceedings. Spain
Gloria RM, Motta TM, Silva PVO, Costa P, Souza CL, Chernicharo CAL (2014) Stripping and dissipation techniques
for the removal of dissolved gases from anaerobic effluents. In: XI taller y simposio latinoamericano de digestion
anaerobia. Proceedings. Cuba
Gomec CY (2010) High-rate anaerobic treatment of domestic
wastewater at ambient operating temperatures: a review on
benefits and drawbacks. J Environ Sci Health Part A
45:11691184
Goncalves RF, Veronez FA, Kissling CMS, Cassini STA (2002)
Using a UASB reactor for thickening and digestion of
discharged sludge from submerged aerated biofilters.
Water Sci Technol 45(10):299304
Gouveia J, Plaza F, Garralon G, Fdz-Polanco F, Pena M (2015)
Long-term operation of a pilot scale anaerobic membrane
bioreactor (AnMBR) for the treatment of municipal
wastewater under psychrophilic conditions. Bioresour
Technol 185:225233
Green M, Shaul N, Beliavski M, Sabbah I, Ghattas B, Tarre S
(2006) Minimizing land requirement and evaporation in
small wastewater treatment systems. Ecol Eng
26(3):266271
Gulkowska A, Leung HW, So MK, Taniyasu S, Yamashita N,
Yeung LWY, Richardson BJ, Lei AP, Giesy JP, Lam PKS
(2008) Removal of antibiotics from wastewater by sewage
treatment facilities in Hong Kong and Shenzhen, China.
Water Res 42:395403
Halalsheh M (2002) Anaerobic pre-treatment of strong sewage.
A proper solution for Jordan. PhD thesis, Department of
Environmental Technology, Agricultural University,
Wageningen
Halalsheh M, Sawajneh Z, Zubi M, Zeeman G, van Lier JB,
Fayyad M, Lettinga G (2005a) Treatment of strong
domestic sewage in a 96 m3 UASB reactor operated at
ambient temperatures: two-stage versus single-stage reactor. Bioresour Technol 96:577585
Halalsheh M, Koppes J, den Elzen J, Zeeman G, Fayyad M,
Lettinga G (2005b) Effect of SRT and temperature on
biological conversions and the related scum-forming
potential. Water Res 39:24752482
Hartley K, Lant P (2006) Eliminating non-renewable CO2
emissions from sewage treatment: an anaerobic migrating
bed reactor pilot plant study. Biotechnol Bioeng
95(3):384398
Ho J, Sung S (2010) Methanogenic activities in anaerobic
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) treating synthetic
municipal wastewater. Bioresour Technol 101:21912196
Huibers FP, van Lier JB (2005) Use of wastewater in agriculture: the water chain approach. Irrig Drain 54:S3S9
Jobbagy A, Szanto I, Varga GI, Simon J (1994) Sewer system
odour control in the Lake Balaton area. Water Sci Technol
30(1):195204
Kassab G (2009) Combined carbon and nitrogen removal in
integrated anaerobic/anoxic sludge bed reactors for the
treatment of domestic sewage. Doctoral Dissertation,
Wageningen University and Research Centre, The
Netherlands (promotor J.B. van Lier)
Kassab GH, Halalsheh M, Klapwijk A, Fayyad M, van Lier JB
(2010) Sequential anaerobic-aerobic treatment for
domestic wastewatera review. Bioresour Technol

101:32993310
Kennes C, Veiga MC, Prado O (2001) Non biological treatment
technologies. In: KenneS, C., Veiga, M.C. (Ed.). Bioreactors for waste gas treatment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Khan AA, Gaur RZ, Tyiagi VK, Khursheed A, Lew B, Mehrotra
I, Kazmi AA (2011) Sustainable options of post treatment
of UASB effluent treating sewage: a review. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:12321251
Khan AA, Gaur RZ, Mehrotra I, Diamantis V, Lew B, Kazmi
AA (2014) Performance assessment of different STPs
based on UASB followed by aerobic post treatment systems. J Environ Health Sci Eng 12:43
Kim S, Aga DS (2007) Potential ecological and human health
impacts of antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria from
wastewater treatment plants. J Toxicol Environ Health Part
B 10(8):559573
Kobayashi HA, Stenstrom MK, Mah RA (1983) Treatment of
low-strength domestic wastewater using the anaerobic filter. Water Res 17(9):903909
Kocadagistan E, Topcu N (2007) Treatment investigation of the
Erzurum City municipal wastewaters with anaerobic
membrane bioreactors. Desalination 216:367376
Krayzelova L, Jan B, Nina K, Pavel J (2014) Microaeration for
hydrogen sulfide removal in UASB reactor. Bioresour
Technol 172:297302
Kubota K, Hayashi M, Matsunaga K, Iguchi A, Ohashi A, Li Y,
Yamaguchi T, Harada H (2014) Microbial community
composition of a down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) reactor
combined with an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) reactor for the treatment of municipal sewage.
Kujawa-roeleveld K, Zeeman G (2006) Anaerobic treatment in
decentralised and source-separation-based sanitation concepts. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 5(1):115139
Lens PNL, Hulshoff Pol LW (2000) Environmental technologies to treat sulfur pollution. Principles and engineering.
IWA Publishing, London, p 547
Letema S, van Vliet B, van Lier JB (2014) Sanitation policy and
spatial planning in Urban East Africa: diverging sanitation
spaces and actor arrangements in Kampala and Kisumu.
Cities 36:19
Lettinga G (2006) A good life environment for all through
conceptual, technological and social innovations. Water
Sci Technol 54(2):19
Lettinga G, Hulshoff Pol LM (1991) UASB-process design for
various types of wastewaters. Water Sci Technol 24:87107
Lettinga G, van Velsen AFM, Hobma SW, De Zecuw W, Klapwijk
A (1980) Use of the Upflow Sludge Blanket (USB) reactor
concept for biological wastewater treatment, especially for
anaerobic treatment. Biotechnol Bioeng 22:699734
Lettinga G, van Lier JB, van Buuren JCL, Zeeman G (2001a)
Sustainable development in pollution control and the role
of anaerobic treatment. Water Sci Technol 44(6):181188
Lettinga G, Rebac S, Zeeman G (2001b) Challenge of psychrophilic anaerobic wastewater treatment. Trends
Biotechnol 198:363370
Li B, Zhang T (2010) Biodegradation and adsorption of
antibiotics in the activated sludge process. Environ Sci
Technol 44:34683473
123

Liao BQ, Kraemer JT, Bagley DM (2006) Anaerobic membrane
bioreactors: applications and research directions. Crit Rev
Environ Sci Technol 36:489530
Lin H, Peng W, Zhang M, Chen J, Hong H, Zhang Y (2013) A
review on anaerobic membrane bioreactors: applications,
membrane fouling and future perspectives. Desalination
314:169188
Liu Y, Kumar S, Kwag J, Ra C (2013) Magnesium ammonium
phosphate formation, recovery and its application as
valuable resources: a review. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
88:181189
Lobato LCS, Chernicharo CAL, Souza CL (2012) Estimates of
methane loss and energy recovery potential in anaerobic
reactors treating domestic wastewater. Water Sci Technol
66(12):27452753
Lobato LCS, Chernicharo CAL, Pujatti FJP, Martins O, Melo
GCB, Recio AAR (2013) Use of biogas for cogeneration of
heat and electricity for local application: performance
evaluation of an engine power generator and a sludge
thermal dryer. Water Sci Technol 67(1):159167
Luo G, Johansson S, Boe K, Xie L, Zhou Q, Angelidaki I (2012)
Simultaneous hydrogen utilization and in situ biogas
upgrading in an anaerobic reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng
109:10881094
Mahmoud N (2002) Anaerobic pre-treatment of sewage under
low temperature (15C) conditions in an integrated UASBdigester system. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Environmental Technology, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands
Mahmoud N (2008) High strength sewage treatment in a UASB
reactor and an integrated UASB-digester system. Bioresour Technol 99:75317538
Mahmoud N, Amarneh MN, Al-Saed R, Zeeman G, Gijzen H,
Lettinga G (2003) Sewage characteristics as a tool for the
application of anaerobic treatment in Palestine. Environ
Pollut 126:115122
Mahmoud N, Zeeman G, Gijzen H, Lettinga G (2004) Anaerobic
sewage treatment in a one-stage UASB reactor and a combined UASB digester system. Water Res 38(9):23482358
Malekpour S, Langeveld J, Letema S, Clemens F, van Lier JB
(2013) Judgment under uncertainty; a probabilistic evaluation framework for decision-making about sanitation
systems in low-income countries. J Environ Manag
118:106114
Martinez-Sosa D, Helmreich B, Netter T, Paris S, Bischof F,
Horn H (2011) Anaerobic submerged membrane bioreactor
(AnSMBR) for municipal wastewater treatment under
mesophilic and psychrophilic temperature conditions.
Massoud MA, Tarhini A, Nasr JA (2009) Decentralized
approaches to wastewater treatment and management:
applicability in developing countries. J Environ Manag
90:652659
Matos JS, Aires CM (1995) Mathematical modelling of sulphides and hydrogen sulphide gas build-up in the Cosas do
Estoril sewerage system. Water Sci Technol
31(7):255261
McCarty PL, Bae J, Kim J (2011) Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producercan this be achieved?
Environ Sci Technol 45:71007106
123
Michael I, Rizzo L, McArdell CS, Manaia CM, Merlin C,

Schwartz T, Dagot C, Fatta-Kassinos D (2013) Urban
wastewater treatment plants as hotspots for the release of
antibiotics in the environment: a review. Water Res
47:957995
Monroy O, Fama G, Meraz M, Montoya L, Macarie H (2000)
Anaerobic digestion for wastewater treatment in Mexico:
state of the technology. Water Res 34(6):18031816
Morgan-Sagastume J, Jimenez B, Noyola A (1994) Anaerobic
anoxicaerobic process with recycling and separated biomass for organic carbon and nitrogen removal from
wastewater. Environ Technol 15(3):233243
Mungray AK, Patel K (2011) Coliforms removal in two UASB ? ASP based systems. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 65:2328
Nada T, Ali HI, Farid MN, El-Gohary FA Moawad A (2006) A
full-scale application for anaerobic wastewater treatment
technology (up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket UASB) in
Egypt. Conference National Research Centre, March
1315, Cairo, Egypt
Noyola A, Capdeville B, Roques H (1988) Anaerobic treatment
of domestic sewage with a rotating-stationary fixed-film
reactor. Water Res 22:15851592
Noyola A, Morgan-Sagastume JM, Lopez-Hernandez JE (2006)
Treatment of biogas produced in anaerobic reactors for
domestic wastewater: odor control and energy/resource
recovery. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 5:93114
Noyola A, Padilla-Rivera A, Morgan-Sagastume JM, Guereca
LP, Hernandez-Padilla F (2012) Typology of municipal
wastewater treatment technologies in Latin America. Clean
Soil Air Water 40(9):926932
Okada DY, Foresti E (2013) Remocao de materia organica e de
nitrogenio de esgoto sanitario em sistema composto por
reator anaerobio/anoxico interligado a reator nitrificante.
In: Anais do III Seminario do Projeto Tematico: Producao
de bioenergia no tratamento de aguas residuarias e adequacao ambiental dos efluentes e resduos gerados. Sao
Carlos/SP, Brasil (in Portuguese)
Oliveira SC, Von Sperling M (2011) Performance evaluation of
different wastewater treatment technologies operating in a
developing country. J Water Sanit Hyg Dev 1(1):3756
Oomen J, Schellinkhout A (1993). The economic feasibility of
the UASB technology, a comparative study on costs. IBRD
workshop on UASB technology for sewage treatment,
Washington, DC
Ozgun H (2015) Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for cost-effective municipal water reuse. PhD thesis Delft University
of Technology, J.B. van Lier promotor, H. Spanjers Copromotor, 214 pp
Ozgun H, Dereli RK, Ersahin ME, Kinaci C, Spanjers H, van
Lier JB (2013) A review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment: integration
options, limitations and expectations. Sep Purif Technol
118:89104
Pagliuso JD, Passig FH, Villela LCH (2002) Odour treatment
and energy recovery in anaerobic sewage treatment plants.
In: VII Oficina e Simposio Latino-Americano de Digestao
Anaerobia, Mexico, IWA/FEMISCA
Pandey N, Dubey SK (2014) Up-flow anaerobic sludge bed
(UASB) based sewage treatment plant (STP) at Mirzapur: a
review. Int Res J Environ Sci 3(8):6771

Pantoja-Filho JLR, Moura RB, Peixoto G, Mockaitis G, Simoes
DRS, Barana AC, Foresti E (2013) A comparative study of
autotrophic and heterotrophic denitrification using reduced
sulphur and acetate as electron donors. In: 13th world
congress on anaerobic digestion: recovering (bio) resources for the world. Proceedings. Spain
Pena MR, Rodriguez J, Mara DD, Sepulveda M (2000) UASBs
or anaerobic ponds in warm climates? A preliminary
answer from Colombia use of biogas for cogeneration of
heat and electricity for local application: performance
evaluation of an engine power generator and a sludge
thermal dryer. Water Sci Technol 42(10):5965
Pena MR, Mara DD, Avella GP (2006) Dispersion and treatment
performance analysis of an UASB reactor under different
hydraulic loading rates. Water Res 40(3):445452
Pereira JO, Celani JSS, Chernicharo CAL (2009) Control of
scum accumulation in a double stage biogas collection
(DSBC) UASB reactor treating domestic wastewater.
Water Sci Technol 59(6):10771083
Pontes PP, Chernicharo CAL (2011) Characterization and
removal of specific organic constituents in an UASB e
trickling-filter system treating domestic wastewater.
Environ Technol 32(3):281287
Rocha NEP (2002) Avaliacao de um sistema de tratamento de
esgotos constitudo de reator UASB e lagoa facultativa, em
escala real. MSc thesis, Department of Sanitary and
Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (in Portuguese)
Rosa AP (2013) Aproveitamento de Biogas e lodo Excedente de
Reatores UASB Como Fonte de Energia Renovavel em
Estacoes de Tratamento de Esgoto (Use of biogas and
excess sludge from UASB reactors as renewable energy
source in sewage treatment plants). PhD Thesis, Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal
University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (in
Portuguese)
Rosa AP, Lobato LCS, Chernicharo CAL, Martins DCRB,
Maciel FM, Borges JM (2012) Improving performance and
operational control of UASB reactors via proper sludge and
scum discharge routines. Water Pract Technol 7(3):11
Rosa AP, Lobato LCS, Borges JM, Melo GCB, Chernicharo
CAL (2015) Energy potential and alternative usages of
biogas and sludge from UASB reactors: case study of
Laboreaux sewage treatment plant. Braz J Chem Eng
(submitted)
lvarez JA, Daz MA, Serrano L, Soto M (2008)
Ruiz I, A
Municipal wastewater treatment in an anaerobic digester
constructed
wetland
system.
Environ
Technol
29(11):12491256
Salomon KR, Lora EES (2009) Estimate of the electric energy
generating potential for different sources of biogas in
Brazil. Biomass Bioenergy 33:11011107
Sanchez Guillen JA, Yimman Y, Lopez Vazquez CM, Brdjanovic D, van Lier JB (2014) Effects of organic carbon
source, chemical oxygen demand/N ratio and temperature
on autotrophic nitrogen removal. Water Sci Technol
69(10):20792084
Sanchez Guillen JA, Cuellar Guardado PR, Lopez Vazquez CM,
de Oliveira LM, Brdjanovic D, van Lier JB (2015) Low-
cost Anammox cultivation in a closed sponge-bed trickling

filter. Bioresour Technol (submitted)
Santos SE (2003) Avaliacao do desempenho operacional de um
sistema reator UASBLagoa de polimento, Estudo de caso
da ETE Juramento-MG. MSc thesis, Department of Sanitary
and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas
Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Ohashi A, Harada H (2006)
Prospects for a self-sustainable sewage treatment system: a
case study on full-scale UASB system in Indias Yamuna
River Basin. J Environ Manag 80:198207
Silva MB et al (2007) Comparacao do desempenho de diferentes
filtros biologicos na remocao de H2S do ar em estacoes de
tratamento de esgoto sanitario. In: 248 Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental, Belo Horizonte,
ABES (in Portuguese)
Silva FJA, Lima MGS, Mendonca LAR, Gomes MJTL (2013)
Septic Tank combined with anaerobic filter and conventional UASBresults from full scale plants. Braz J Chem
Eng 30(1):133140
Sipma J, Osuna B, Collado N, Monclus H, Ferrero G, Comas J,
Rodriguez-Roda I (2009) Comparison of removal of
pharmaceuticals in MBR and activated sludge systems.
Desalination 250(2):653659
Skouteris G, Hermosilla D, Lopez P, Negro C, Blanco A (2012)
Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: a review. Chem Eng J 198199:138148
Smith A, Stadler LB, Love NG, Skerlos ST, Raskin L (2012)
Perspectives on anaerobic membrane bioreactor treatment
of domestic wastewater: a critical review. Bioresour
Technol 122:149159
Smith A, Skerlos SJ, Raskin L (2013) Psychrophilic anaerobic
membrane bioreactor treatment of domestic wastewater.
Water Res 47:16551665
Souza CL (2006) Estudo quantitativo e qualitativo de escuma
acumulada em reatores UASB tratando esgotos domesticos. MSc thesis, Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais,
Belo Horizonte, Brazil (in Portuguese)
Souza CL (2010) Estudo das rotas de formacao, transporte e consumo dos gases metano e sulfeto de hidrogenio resultantes do
tratamento de esgoto domestico em reatores UASB (Study of
formation, transport and consume routes of methane and
hydrogen sulfide resulting from the treatment of domestic
sewage in UASB reactors). PhD thesis, Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of
Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (in Portuguese)
Souza TSO, Foresti E (2013) Sulfide-oxidizing autotrophic
denitrification: an evaluation for nitrogen removal from
anaerobically pretreated domestic sewage. Appl Biochem
Biotech 170:10941103
Souza CL, Silva SQ, Aquino SF, Chernicharo CAL (2006)
Production and characterization of scum and its role in
odour control in UASB reactors treating domestic
wastewater. Water Sci Technol 54(9):201208
Souza CL, Chernicharo CAL, Melo GCB (2010) Methane and
hydrogen sulfide emissions in UASB reactors treating
domestic wastewater. In: 12th congress on anaerobic
digestion, Mexico, IWA
123

Souza CL, Chernicharo CAL, Aquino SF (2011) Quantification
of dissolved methane in UASB reactors treating domestic
wastewater under different operating conditions. Water Sci
Technol 64(11):22592264
Souza CL, Chernicharo CAL, Melo GCB (2012) Methane and
hydrogen sulfide emissions in UASB reactors treating
domestic wastewater. Water Sci Technol 65(7):12291237
Tachini M, Filho PB, Pinheiro A (2006) Evaluation of integrated
treatment of sanitary sewage and septic tank sludge in a
RALF: case study. Sanare Revista Tecnica Sanepar Curitiba 24(24):4660 (in Portuguese)
Takahashi M, Yamaguchi T, Kuramoto Y, Nagano A, Shimozaki S, Sumino H, Araki N, Yamazaki S, Kawakami
S, Harada H (2011) Performance of a pilot-scale sewage
treatment: an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
and a down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) reactors combined system by sulfur-redox reaction process under low
temperature
conditions.
Bioresour
Technol
102(2):753757
Tandukar M, Uemura S, Ohashi A, Harada H (2005) A low-cost
municipal sewage treatment system with a combination of
UASB and the fourth generation downflow hanging
sponge (DHS) reactors.
Water Sci Technol
52(12):323329
Tawfik A, Ohashi A, Harada H (2006) Sewage treatment in a
combined up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) system. Biochem Eng J
29:210219
Third KA, Sliekers AO, Kuenen JG, Jetten MSM (2001) The
CANON system (completely autotrophic nitrogen-removal
over nitrite) under ammonium limitation: interaction and
competition between three groups of bacteria. Syst Appl
Microbiol 24:588596
Uemura S, Harada H (2010) Application of UASB technology
for sewage treatment with a novel post treatment process.
In: Fang HHP (ed) Environmental anaerobic technology:
applications and new developments, chapter 6. World
Scientific, Imperial College Press, London. ISBN 978-184816-542-7
USEPA (2009) Occurrence of contaminants of emerging concern in wastewater from nine publicly owned treatment
works. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
van Dongen LGJM, Jetten MSM, van Loosdrecht MCM (2001)
The combined SHARON/Anammox process: a sustainable
method for N-removal from sludge water. STOWA,
Utrecht
van Haandel AC, Lettinga G (1994) Anaerobic sewage treatment: a practical guide for regions with a hot climate.
Wiley, Chichester
van Langenhove H, de Heyder B (2001) Odours in wastewater
treatment: measurement, modelling and control. In: Stuetz
RM, Frechen FB (eds) Biotechnological treatment of
sewage odours. IWA Publishing, London, p 438
van Lier JB, Huibers FP (2004) Agricultural use of treated
wastewater: the need for a paradigm shift in sanitation &
treatment. In: Steenvoorden J, Endreny T (eds) Waste
water re-use on groundwater quality. IAHS Publ. 285,
pp 518. ISBN 1-901502-52-X
van Lier JB, Vashi A, van der Lubbe J, Heffernan B (2010)
Anaerobic sewage treatment using UASB reactors: engineering and operational aspects. In: Fang HHP (ed)
123
Environmental anaerobic technology; applications and

new developments, Chapter 4. World Scientific, Imperial
College Press, London, pp 5989. ISBN 978-1-84816-5427
van Lier JB, Huibers F (2010) From unplanned to planned
agricultural reuse: making an asset out of wastewater. Irrig
Drain Syst 24(12):143152
van Lier JB, Lettinga G (1999) Appropriate technologies for
effective management of industrial and domestic wastewaters: the decentralized approach. Water Sci Technol
40(7):171183
van Lier JB, Mahmoud N, Zeeman G (2008) Anaerobic
Wastewater Treatment. In: Henze M, van Loosdrecht
MCM, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D (eds) biological
wastewater treatment, principles, modelling and design,
chapter 16. IWA Publishing, London, pp 415456. ISBN
9781843391883
van Loosdrecht MCM (2008) Innovative nitrogen removal. In:
Henze M, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic
D (eds) Biological wastewater treatment: principles,
modelling and design. IWA Publishing, London,
pp 139155
Versiani BM (2005) Desempenho de um reator UASB submetido a diferentes condicoes operacionais tratando esgotos sanitarios do Campus da UFRJ. MSc thesis, Alberto
Luiz Coimbra Institute, Federal University of Rio de
Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (in Portuguese)
Vieira A (2014) Remocao, tratamento e valoracao de escuma
proveniente de reatores UASB aplicados ao tratamento de
esgoto domestico (Removal, treatment and valuation of
scum from UASB reactors applied to the treatment of
domestic sewage). PhD thesis, Department of Sanitary and
Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas
von Sperling M, Chernicharo CAL (2005) Biological wastewater treatment in warm climate regions. IWA Publishing,
London 1452
von Sperling M, de Andrada JGB (2006) Simple wastewater
treatment (UASB reactor, shallow polishing ponds, coarse
rock filter) allowing compliance with different reuse criteria. Water Sci Technol 54(11):199205
von Sperling M, Bastos RKX, Kato MT (2004) Removal of
E. coli and helminth eggs in UASBpolishing pond systems. In: Proceedings 6th international conference on
waste stabilization ponds. IWA, Avignon, France
Walia R, Kumar P, Mehrotra I (2011) Performance of UASB
based sewage treatment plant in India: polishing by diffusers an alternative. Water Sci Technol 63(4):680688
WEF (2004) Control of odors and emissions from wastewater
treatment plants. Water Environment Federation, Alexandria
WERF (2010) Energy efficiency in wastewater treatment in
North America: a compendium of best practices and case
studies of novel approaches. Final report. Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria
Wett B, Omari A, Podmirseg SM, Han M, Akintayo O, Brandon
MG, Murthy S, Bott C, Hell M, Takacs I, Nyhuis G,
OShaughnessy M (2013) Going for mainstream deammonification from bench to full scale for maximized
resource efficiency. Water Sci Technol 68(2):283289
WHO (2006) WHO guidelines for the safe use of wastewater,
excreta and greywater, vol 2. W. H Organization, Geneva

Wiegant WM (2001) Experiences and potential of anaerobic
wastewater treatment in tropical regions. Water Sci Technol 44(8):107113
Zeeman G, Kujawa K, Mes T, Hernandez L, Graaff M, AbuGhunmi L, Mels A, Meulman B, Temmink H, Buisman C,
van Lier JB, Lettinga G (2008) Anaerobic treatment as a
core technology for energy, nutrients and water recovery

from source-separated domestic waste(water). Water Sci
Technol 57(8):12071212
123

Chernicharo Et Al Anaerobic Sewage Treatment 2015

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Chernicharo Et Al Anaerobic Sewage Treatment 2015

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the

Delft University of Technology

Universidad Nacional Autnoma de M

395 PUBLICATIONS 6,204 CITATIONS

85 PUBLICATIONS 887 CITATIONS

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

Available from: Jules van Lier

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the art, constraints

Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

C. A. L. Chernicharo (&) T. Bressani Ribeiro

constraints regarding temperature, nutrients, pathogen

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

UASB in the fourth place, i.e. 58, 15, 9 and 7 % of the

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

2 State of the art of anaerobic sewage treatment

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Pandey and Dubey

Khan et al. (2014)

Silva et al. (2013)

Rosa et al. (2012)

Oliveira and von

Mungray and Patel

Mungray and Patel

Walia et al. (2011)

van Lier et al. (2010)

van Lier et al. (2010)

Tachini et al. (2006)

Sato et al. (2006)

Nada et al. (2006)

Khalil et al. (2006)

Halalseh et al. (2005)

Monroy et al. (2000)

ability to develop and maintain sludge with excellent

Therefore, when designing a UASB system a

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

12209:2011. This standard was updated and for the

must be designed with a maximum velocity of 5 m s-1

Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Hydraulic retention time (HRT)

6 h for sewage temperature [25 C

Upflow velocity at average flow

Less than 1.2 m h-1 for the maximum peak flow

The minimum useful depths of digestion and settling

Feed inlet density

m2 per feed point

The minimum inlet pipe internal diameter shall be 75 mm

Angle of gas collector

The UASB reactors must have scum removal device

Values in terms of average flow

Table 3 Design criteria adopted in most of the Indian UASB reactors

Hydraulic retention time

HRT at average flow

HRT at peak flow

Values at average flow

Feed inlet density

Maximum feed inlet density

Angle of gas collector

Centre-to-centre distance between gas domes

Gas hood width

Overlap of gas collector over deflector beam

Settling zone surface