IWA Conferences

Performance evaluation of a novel open trickling filter for the post-treatment of

anaerobic effluents from small communities
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: IWA-8661R1

Full Title: Performance evaluation of a novel open trickling filter for the post-treatment of
anaerobic effluents from small communities

Article Type: Full Paper

Keywords: Domestic sewage; UASB reactor; open trickling filter; performance evaluation;
organic matter; ammonia

Corresponding Author: Marcos von Sperling, PhD

Federal University of Minas Gerais
Belo Horizonte, MG BRAZIL

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Federal University of Minas Gerais

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Paulo de Castro Vieira, MSc

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Paulo de Castro Vieira, MSc

Marcos von Sperling, PhD

L. C.M. Nogueira

B. F.S. Assis

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Abstract: The objective of the work is to evaluate the performance of an innovative design of a
trickling filter (TF) for small population sizes, which has been implemented for the post-
treatment of sanitary effluent from a UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor.
The unit, named open trickling filter (OTF), operates with no side walls, no perforated
bottom slab and no secondary settler. The OTF packing was 3.5m high, composed of
crushed stone, with a distribution system made of channels with V-notch weirs. The
OTF was operated with mean surface hydraulic loading rates of 4.1 m3.m-2.d-1 and
9.0 m3.m-2.d-1, corresponding to population equivalents of approximately 250 and 550
inhabitants, respectively. For the surface hydraulic loading rate of 4.1 m3.m-2.d-1, the
median removal efficiencies obtained by the OTF and global system (UASB+OTF)
were 24 and 83% for TSS, 44 and 78% for COD, 34 and 75% for BOD, 41 and 41% for
TKN, 40 and 40% for N-ammonia. Considering the great simplicity, no mechanization
and small footprint of the system, these results can be considered satisfactory,
suggesting that the open trickling filter is suitable for small communities, especially at
developing countries.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and Preprint Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript
Click here to download Manuscript: Performance evaluation OTF - Vieira and von Sperling - full version.doc

Performance evaluation of a novel open trickling filter for the

post-treatment of anaerobic effluents from small communities
P.C. Vieira*, M. von Sperling*, L.C.M. Nogueira* and B.F.S. Assis*

* Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering; Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio
Carlos 6627 – Escola de Engenharia, Bloco 1 - sala 4622; 31270-901 - Belo Horizonte – Brazil. Tel.:+55 31
3409-1935 (e-mail: marcos@desa.ufmg.br)

Abstract
The objective of the work is to evaluate the performance of an innovative design of a trickling
filter (TF) for small population sizes, which has been implemented for the post-treatment of
sanitary effluent from a UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor. The unit, named open
trickling filter (OTF), operates with no side walls, no perforated bottom slab and no secondary
settler. The OTF packing was 3.5m high, composed of crushed stone, with a fixed distribution
system made of channels with V-notch weirs. The OTF was operated with mean surface hydraulic
loading rates of 4.1 m3.m-2.d-1 and 9.3 m3.m-2.d-1, corresponding to population equivalents of
approximately 250 and 550 inhabitants, respectively. For the surface hydraulic loading rate of 4.1
m3.m-2.d-1, the median removal efficiencies obtained by the OTF and overall system (UASB+OTF)
were 24 and 83% for TSS, 44 and 79% for COD, 42 and 82% for BOD, 40 and 40% for N-
ammonia. For the surface hydraulic loading rate of 9.3 m3.m-2.d-1, the median removal efficiencies
obtained by the OTF and global system (UASB+OTF) were 14 and 76% for TSS, 28 and 76% for
COD, 25 and 86% for BOD, 15 and 15% for N-ammonia. Considering the great simplicity, no
mechanization and small footprint of the system, these results can be considered satisfactory,
suggesting that the open trickling filter is suitable for small communities, especially at developing
countries.

Keywords
Domestic sewage; UASB reactor; open trickling filter; performance evaluation; organic matter;
ammonia.

INTRODUCTION

Simple biological post-treatment options for anaerobic effluents usually have limitations in terms of
organic matter and especially ammonia removal. Trickling filters (TF) are one of the good post-
treatment choices, due to their inherent simplicity, relatively low footprint and low mechanization
level (Kassab et al., 2010; von Sperling & Chernicharo, 2005). Complementary organic matter and
suspended solids removal can be obtained in the TF, but nitrification is not always achieved (unless
very low loading rates are applied), with probable causes being oxygen transfer limitations and also
inhibition due to hydrogen sulphide present in the anaerobic effluent.

Regarding possible configurations, TF can be designed for the combined secondary removal of
BOD and ammonia, known as single-stage systems, or systems that perform the tertiary nitrification
system (two stages). The system of single stage, covered in this work, usually consists of parallel
TF units receiving primary treatment effluent, with lower loading rates compared with TFs for the
exclusive removal of organic matter. For single-stage systems, it is expected that the removal of
BOD occurs mainly in the upper layers of the support medium, and nitrification with low
concentrations of organic matter in the lower layers (Metcalf Eddy &, 2003; WEF, 1992; USEPA,
1991).
In order to enhance the applicability and reduce the limitations of TF acting as post-treatment of
anaerobic effluents, recent research efforts have dealt with innovative and different configurations
for the filter media, packing height and the investigation of the real need of secondary settlers
(Rodriguez et al., 2011; Chernicharo & Almeida, 2010; Almeida et al., 2008; Santos, 2005, Silva &
Gonçalves, 2005; Porto et al., 2002). However, conventional trickling filters have large amounts of
concrete, what increases their constructions costs. Besides this, nitrification is not always achieved,
with oxygen limitations being one of the reasons for the poor performance in terms of ammonia
removal.

In conventional trickling filters, air circulates through the open surface area at the top of the filter
and the side wall openings that are part of the underdrain system. Good aeration is essential to
maintain aerobic conditions inside the filter media, promote better removal efficiencies and prevent
bad odours (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). In many aerobic systems, the oxygen transfer rate to the cells is
the limiting factor, determining the rate of biological conversion processes (Gonçalves et al., 2001).
Thus, efficiency in the supply of dissolved oxygen (DO) for the bacteria becomes a dominant factor,
especially for the slow-growing nitrifying bacteria. Increasing oxygen transfer is likely to enhance
the filter performance, especially in terms of nitrification (Gujer, 2010; USEPA, 2009; Wik, 2003).
In this sense, removing the side walls is probably a good way of increasing the circulation of air
inside the media, thus allowing a better aeration.

In order to address the needs for improving ventilation (enhance performance) and reducing the
amount of concrete (reduce costs), whilst still keeping the inherent simplicity required for TFs, a
new version of trickling filter, without side walls and false bottom, was conceived by von Sperling
at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Side walls have been substituted by a simple
wired fence supported by simple pillars made of PVC pipes filled with concrete. The bottom slab
has been replaced by an underdrain layer comprised of coarse stones. Additionally, as a means of
introducing further simplifications, the conventional rotating distributors have been replaced by
fixed distributors (channels with V-notch weirs). Finally, the last stage of economic savings was the
fact that no secondary sedimentation tanks were included. Because of the absence of side walls, the
unit was called open trickling filter (OTF). Vieira and von Sperling (2012) present a comparison of
construction costs between open trickling filters units and conventional trickling filter units,
indicating substantial savings for the former (74%).

The objective of this paper is to present a performance evaluation of the OTF as post-treatment of
the sanitary effluent from UASB (Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor, operating with two
distinct loading rates.

METHODS

Experimental site and UASB reactors

The research was conducted at the Centre for Research and Training on Sanitation
UFMG/COPASA. The system under evaluation (UASB reactor followed by OTF without secondary
settlement stage) receives sanitary sewage from the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil, after preliminary
treatment (coarse and medium screens and grit chambers). The UASB reactors operated with
average hydraulic retention time of 6 h and upflow velocities of approximately 1 m/h.

Characteristics of the open trickling filter

In order to improve the conditions for nitrification in the OTF, a packing height of 3.5 m was
adopted, which is higher than the usual height of 1.8 to 2.4 m for conventional TFs (Metcalf &
Eddy, 2003). This total height was comprised of three layers. The top layer (0.5 m) was composed
of coarse stones, aiming at facilitating the distribution of the influent along the surface area. The
middle layer (2.2 m) comprised the actual filter media, with crushed stones between with 38 and 76
mm. The bottom layer (0.8 m), also made of coarse stones, acted as the filter underdrain. Additional
construction details and cost estimates are presented elsewhere (Vieira and von Sperling, 2012).
Figures 1 and 2 show schematics and views of the OTF.
Square plan
(3.20 m x 3.20 m)

Influent

Top layer – distribution of influent

Coarse stones (> 76 mm)
(0.50 m height)

Total height Filter media – net reaction volume

(3.50 m) Crushed stones (38 to 76 mm)
(2.20 m height)

Underdrain – coarse stones (> 76 mm)

(0.80 m height)

Effluent

Figure 1. Cross-section of the open trickling filter.

UASB reactor (P2) UASB reactor (P1)

(1 compartment of (2 compartments of
550 p.e.) 250 p.e. each) OTF
P1= 250 p.e.
P2= 550 p.e.

Figure 2. View of the UASB+OTF system for the two phases of operation.

Operation and Monitoring

The OTF was operated under two different loading rates. For the first phase (P1), from 29/09/2010
to 13/07/2011 (nine and a half months), the OTF was operated with an average flow of 33 m³.d-1,
resulting in an average Hydraulic Surface Loading Rate (HLR) of 4.1 m³.m -².d and a Hydraulic
Volumetric Loading Rate (VLR) of 1.1 m³.m-3.d-1. For the second phase of operation (P2), from
26/08/2011 to 21/06/2012 (nine months), the OTF was operated with a mean HLR of 9.3 m³.m-².d,
VLR of 2.6 m³.m-3.d-1 and flow of 70 m³.d-1. Both phases (P1 and P2) covered warm (rainy) and
cold (dry) periods.

Monitoring of raw sewage (RS) and of the effluents from the UASB reactor and OTF was
undertaken with simple and composite samples (24 hours - under refrigeration), three times a week.
The physical and chemical parameters analysed were: pH, liquid temperature (T), dissolved oxygen
(DO), alkalinity (expressed in terms of CaCO3), total suspended solids (TSS), chemical oxygen
demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia
nitrogen (N-ammonia), nitrite (NO2--N) and nitrate (NO3--N). These parameters were determined
according to APHA/AWWA/WEF (2005), with the exception of NO3--N, which was determined by
the salicylate method described in Rodier (1981). The detection limits for nitrate and nitrite,
according to the methods used, were 0.1 mg.L-1 and 0.005 mg.L-1, respectively.

Data analysis

Removal rates in the two phases of operation have been calculated using the ratio of the removed
load in OTF and (i) the surface area of the OTF for N-ammonia (g N-ammonia.m-2.d-1) and by the
(ii) useful volume of the OTF for BOD (kg BOD.m-3.d-1). Also, for the calculation of the ammonia
removal rate, the specific surface area of the support medium was used (crushed stones between 38
and 76 mm, with 60 m².m-3).

Comparison between operation phases (P1 and P2) was undertaken using non-parametric tests –
Mann-Whitney (Conover, 1999) and Wald-Wolfowitz (Naghettini and Pinto, 2007; Conover, 1999),
with a 5% significance level.

RESULTS

The mean values of the operating conditions during the evaluation period are presented in Table 1.
The mean flow of 33 m³.d-1, applied in the first phase of operation (P1), corresponds to an
equivalent population of approximately 250 inhabitants, what leads to the following per capita area
and volume requirements: 0.04 m2 of total surface area per inhabitant and 0.140 m³ of total volume
per inhabitant. In the second phase of operation (P2), the mean flow of 70 m³.d-1corresponds to an
equivalent population of approximately 550 inhabitants, what leads to the following per capita area
of 0.02 m2 of total surface area per inhabitant, and volume requirements of 0.07 m³ of total volume
per inhabitant.

Table 1 – Mean values of the loading rates applied to the OTF for each phase of operation.
Phases of Flow HLR VHLR VOLR Influent Influent
operation (m³.d-1) (m³.m-2.d-1) (m³. m-3.d-1) (kgBOD.m-3.d-1) COD/BOD BOD/TKN
Phase 1 33 (6) 4.1 (0.7) 1.1 (0.2) 0.08 (0.04) 2.7 (0.5) 2.4 (1.1)
Phase 2 70 (8) 9.3 (0.7) 2.6 (0.5) 0.12 (0.04) 2.8 (0.8) 1.2 (0.3)
HLR = Hydraulic surface loading rate; VHLR = Hydraulic volumetric loading rate; VOLR Volumetric
organic loading rate; ( ) Standard Deviation.

According to Metcalf & Eddy (2003), the loading rates can be classified as “low or standard rate”
for the organic loading rate and “intermediate rate” for the hydraulic surface loading. Under these
conditions, between full and partial nitrification is expected (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). However, it
should be remembered that the volumetric organic loading rates reported by Metcalf & Eddy (2003)
are for effluents from primary sedimentation tanks (usual BOD removal efficiencies around 30%),
whereas in the present case the effluent from a UASB reactor (BOD removal efficiency around
70%) is used. The loading rates are within those expected to lead to the joint occurrence of BOD
removal and nitrification in a single stage, reported in USEPA (1991). The BOD/TKN ratio of the
influent to the OTF, which is important for nitrification, resulted in values below the maximum
recommended for single-stage nitrifying trickling filters.

Table 2 presents a summary of the effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies obtained in each
stage of the treatment line and in the overall system, for each phase of operation.
Table 2 – Synthesis of concentrations and removal efficiencies obtained in the UASB-OTF system for each
operational phase.
Raw sewage Effluent UASB Effluent OTF Global
Parameter / Concentration Concentration Removal Concentration Removal Removal
n
Operation phase (mg.L-1) (mg.L-1) (%) (mg.L-1) (%) (%)
Mean Mean Median Mean Median Median
P1 51 0.3 (0.4) 0.6 (0.6) - 5.4 (0.6) - -
DO
P2 91 0.6 (0.5) 0.8 (0.5) - 5.4 (0.9 - -
P1 70 7.3 (0.2) 6.9 (0.2) - 7.6 (0.2) - -
pH
P2 88 7.3 (0.2) 7.0 (0.2) - 7.8 (0.2) - -
P1 68 196 (42) 214 (34) - 130 (40) 42 42
Alkalinity
P2 90 218 (33) 244 (32) - 201 (32) 10 10
P1 56 233 (103) 71 (58) 78 49 (24) 24 83
TSS
P2 89 219 (93) 69 (40) 73 66 (47) 14 76
P1 66 454 (137) 190 (76) 60 125 (78) 44 79
COD
P2 68 390 (117) 132 (48) 67 93 (35) 28 76
P1 59 236 (74) 72 (28) 67 49 (34) 42 82
BOD
P2 52 226 (74) 59 (15) 78 33 (10) 25 86
P1 60 31 (5) 33 (6) - 23 (8) 40 40
TKN
P2 58 32 (4) 37 (4) - 32 (4) 15 15
P1 57 25 (5) 29 (6) - 20 (6) 40 40
N-ammonia
P2 66 27 (5) 32 (4) - 27 (5) 15 15
P1 60 0.026 (0.074) 0.009 (0.044) - 0.990 (0.832) - -
NO2--N
P2 83 0.033 (0.046) 0.024 (0.026) 1.449 (1.051) - -
P1 63 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 9.16 (4.89) - -
NO3--N
P2 86 < 0.10 < 0.10 - 2.06 (1.35) - -
Raw Sewage: After preliminary treatment; P1 = first phase of operation; P2 = second phase of operation; n =
number of samples; ( ) Standard Deviation.

It is seen that the UASB reactor already provides good removal efficiencies for suspended solids
(median of 78% and 73%), COD (median 60% and 67%) and BOD (median of 67% and 78%), but
the OTF gives an additional important polishing. In terms of TKN and ammonia, the removal takes
place only at the OTF, due to nitrification (as seen by the nitrate production).

In Table 3 are presented the results of statistical significance levels (p) of the non-parametric tests
used to compare the effluent concentrations in the two operational phases. The results of the
statistical tests showed for all parameters, except for DO, TSS and COD, a significant difference (p
<0.05) between the phases.

Table 3 – Results of p-values from non-parametric tests comparing concentrations in phases of operation of
the OTF.
N-
Tests DO Alkalinity TSS COD BOD TKN Nitrite Nitrate
ammonia
Mann-Whitney 0.066 0.000 0.078 0.111 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.000
Wald-Wolfowitz 0.250 0.000 0.478 0.341 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.713 0.000
Significantly
no yes no no yes yes yes yes yes
different?

Figure 3 shows box-plots of effluent concentrations compared with discharge standards established
by the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil (DN-CERH COPAM 01/2008): 100 mgTSS.L-1, 180
mgCOD.L-1, 60 mgBOD.L-1, 20 mgN-ammonia.L-1.
 700 1000
540
P1 900
600
P2 P1 P2 480 P1 P2
800
420
500 700

COD (mg.L-1)
360

BOD (mg.L-1)
600
TSS (mg.L-1)

400
500 300
300 400 240

300 180
200
200 120
100 60
100
0 0 0
RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF

60 50
25
P1 P1 45 P1 P2
50 P1 P2
40
N-ammonia (mg.L-1)
20

NO3 -N (mg.L-1)
40 35
TKN (mg.L-1)

30 15
30 25
20 10
20
15
10 5
10
5
0 0 0
RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF RS UASB OTF

25% 50%
50% 90%
90% 10%10%
25% 50% 90% 10% Min Max
Max 75%
75% Standard
Meta
Figure 3. Box-plot of the
Maxconcentrations obtained
Metain 45
the monitoring of the UASB/OTF system for each
Ammonium (mg.L-1)

Min 75%
N-amoniacal (mg/L)

70
operational40phase.
Ammonium (mg.L-1)

45
3560
40
3050
In terms of35suspended solids in the effluent from2540the OTF, the compliance with the discharge
30
standard of25100 mgTSS.L-1 was 95% for phase 120(P1) 30 and 85% for phase 2 (P2). Although this
15
standard is 20somewhat relaxed compared with international
1020
legislations, the compliance level is
considered 15
high
10
for the reality of a developing country.
510 It should be remembered that there is no
secondary sedimentation 0
tank in the system, and better results would probably be obtained if this
0
5
0
RS UASB OTF
unit were included in the treatment line (but of course construction
EB costs would beFBPA
UASB higher).
RS UASB OTF

The concentrations of COD and BOD in the effluent from the OTF led to high compliance levels
with the discharge standards of 180 mg.L-1 and 60 mg.L-1, respectively: COD 86% (phase 1) and
99% (phase 2); BOD 80% (phase 1) and 98% (phase 2). Again, it should be pointed out that no
secondary sedimentation tanks were included, which could assist in the removal of particulate
organic matter.

The results of N-ammonia concentrations in the OTF effluent showed a compliance rate of 60%
(phase 1: HLR 4.1 m³.m-2.d-1; VOLR 0.08 kgBOD.m-3.d-1) and only 10% (phase 2: HLR 9.3 m³.m-
2 -1
.d ; VOLR 0.12 kg BOD.m-3.d-1) with the discharge standard of 20 mgN-ammonia.L-1, with the
OTF presenting an average ammonia removal efficiency of 40% for phase 1 and 15% for phase 2.
For the operating conditions of phase 1, this can be considered an advantage of the investigated
system, since most of the simple post-treatment options for UASB effluents are not able to remove
ammonia (Chernicharo, 2006). In terms of load removal per specific surface area of the support
medium (Figure 4), median values were higher in phase 2 (0.73 gN-ammonia.m-2.d-1) compared with
phase 1 (0.60 gN-ammonia.m-2.d-1), although there was no significant difference at a 5% significance
level.
 0,30 1,6
BOD Removal Rate (g.m -3.d-1)

Specific N-ammonia Removal

0,25 1,4
0,20 1,2

Rate (g.m -2.d-1)

0,15 1,0
0,10 0,8
0,05 0,6
0,00 0,4
-0,05 0,2
-0,10 0,0
OTF-P1 OTF-P2 OTF-P1 OTF-P2
4(a) 4(b)
Figure 4. Box-plot of the (a) volumetric BOD removal rates and (b) specific surface N-ammonia removal
rates in both operational phases.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the combined system (UASB + OTF) showed satisfactory compliance levels to
the regional discharge standards: 95% (phase 1) and 85% (phase 2) for TSS (standard of 100
mgTSS.L-1), 86% (phase 1) and 99% (phase 2) for COD (180 mgCOD.L-1) and 60% (phase 1) and
98% (phase 2) for BOD (60 mgBOD.L-1).

An important point is related to the performance of the OTF on the partial removal of ammonia
(mean removal efficiency of 40% - obtained in the first operation phase, with 4.3 m3.m-2.d-1 and
0.08 kgDBO.m-3.d-1). The concentration of N-ammonia obtained in the first operation phase in the
OTF effluent was associated with a compliance level of 60% with the standard of 20 mgNH4+-N.L-
1
. It is considered that this percentage of compliance is good, taking into account the reality of a
developing country, and the difficulty of removing ammonia in various other biological wastewater
treatment processes. The removal efficiency of ammonia was probably related to the larger than
usual height of the OTF (leading to a larger reaction volume) and the absence of side walls
(possibly leading to higher aeration), and the good performance of the UASB reactor in removing
organic matter (COD and BOD).

With the purpose of adopting wastewater treatment technologies that meet the requirements of
operational simplicity, no mechanization, small footprint and satisfactory performance, the
combined system of UASB reactor and open trickling filter showed to be a promising alternative,
especially for locations with few economical resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank the support given by these institutions: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Científico e Tecnológico – CNPq, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais –
FAPEMIG, Fundação Nacional de Saúde – FUNASA, FINEP – Agência Financiadora de Estudos e
Projetos and Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais – COPASA. The authors also thank Mr.
Raimundo Magela (CePTS operator) for the support during the field work.

REFERENCES

APHA (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . 21st ed, American Public
 Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington
DC, USA.
Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Almeida, P.G.S. (2010). Feasibility of UASB/trickling filter systems without final
clarifiers for the treatment of domestic wastewater in small communities in Brazil. In: Proc.
International Conference on: Sustainable Solutions for Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems,
IWA, Girona, Espanha.
Chernicharo, C.A.L. (2006). Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater.
Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 5, 73-92.
Gonçalves, R.F.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Andrade Neto, C.O.; Alem Sobrinho, P.; Kato, M.T.; costa, R.H.R.,
Aisse, M.M.; Zaiat, M. (2001). Pós-tratamento de efluentes de reatores anaeróbios por reatores com
biofilme (Post-treatment of wastewater by anaerobic biofilm reactors). Cap. 4. In: Chernicharo, C.A.L.
(coordenador). Pós-tratamento de efluentes de reatores anaeróbios. FINEP/PROSAB, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil. 544 p. (in Portuguese).
Gujer, W. (2010). Nitrification and me – A subjective review. Review. Water Research,v. 44, 19 p.
Kassab, G.; Halalsheh, M.; Klapwijk, A.; Fayyad; M.; van Lier; J.B. (2010). Sequential anaerobic–aerobic
treatment for domestic wastewater – A review. Review Bioresource Technology 101, 3299–3310.
Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. 4th ed. Mc Graw Hill.
Porto, M.T.R.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Pontes, P.P.; Bejar, D.O. (2002). Avaliação do sistema reator UASB e
Filtro Biológico Percolador operando sob diferentes condições hidráulicas. In: Proc. XXVIII Congreso
Interamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria y Ambiental, Cancun. (in Portuguese).
Rodier (1981). Análise de Águas. Determinación de los nitratos: 2-6-xilenol: Colorimétrico – Salicílato.
Rodriguez, J.A.; Torres, P.; Duque, A. (2011). Evaluation of UASB reactor followed by trickling filter for
domestic wastewater treatment in Valle del Cauca, Colombia. In: Proc. X DAAL - Latin American
Workshop and Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion. Ouro Preto, Brazil.
Santos, A.S.P. (2005). Avaliação de desempenho de um filtro biológico percolador em diferentes meios
suporte plásticos (Performance evaluation of a trickling filter media support with different plastics).
Dissertação (Mestrado). COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Silva, G.M.; Gonçalves, R. F. (2005). Desempenho de um sistema UASB + filtro biológico percolador sem
etapa de decantação tratando esgoto sanitário (Performance of a UASB + trickling filter system without
secondary settler treating domestic wastewater). In: Proc. do 23º Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia
Sanitária e Ambiental – ABES, Campo Grande, Brazil. (in Portuguese).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009). Nutrient Control Design Manual: State of
Technology Review Report. EPA/600/R-09/012. Office of Research and Development / National Risk
Management Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 104 p.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1991). Assessment of Single-Stage Trickling
Filter Nitrification. EPA/430/09-91-005. Office Water. Washington, D.C. 105 p.
Vieira, P.C. & von Sperling, M. (2012). Open trickling filter: an innovative, cheap and simple form of post-
treatment of sanitary effluents from anaerobic reactors in small communities. Journal of Water,
Sanitation and Hygiene for Development, IWA. v. 2, p. 59-67.
Vieira, P.C.; von Sperling, M; Araújo, J.C.; Oliveira, R.C.; Silva, C.F. (2012). Avaliação da presença e
atuação de bactérias nitrificantes em Filtro Biológico Percolador com laterais abertas (Evaluation of the
presence and activity of nitrifying bacteria in trickling filter with open sides). In: Proc. XXXI Congreso
Interamericano de Ingenieria Sanitaria y Ambiental, Salvador. (in Portuguese).
Von Sperling, M.; Chernicharo, C.A.L. (2005). Biological wastewater treatment in warm climate regions.
Two volumes. IWA Publishing, London. 1496 p.
Water Environment Federation (WEF). (1992). Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Vol.1, 3ª
ed. Manual of Practice nº 8, chapter 12. Alexandria, Virginia, United States. 829 p.
Wik, T. (2003). Trickling filters and biofilm reactor modeling. Reviews in Environmental Science and
Bio/Technology 2: 193–212.