See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259811916

“Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor- A Novel Wastewater Treatment Reactor”

(2013)

Article · December 2013

CITATIONS READS

9 2,855

2 authors, including:

Dr. Nitin W. Ingole

Prof. Ram Meghe Institute of Technology & Research
127 PUBLICATIONS   264 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Presently I am working on treatment of pharmasuetical wastewater by sonication technique View project

Environmental engineering-Water treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Nitin W. Ingole on 22 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at http://www.urpjournals.com
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology
Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

ISSN 2249–9695
Original Article
Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor – A Novel Wastewater Treatment Reactor
S. P. Burghate1*, Dr. N. W. Ingole2
1*
Department of Civil Engineering, Government Polytechnic, Amravati, INDIA
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Prof. Ram Meghe Institute of Technology and Research, Badnera, INDIA
*
Corresponding Author: e-mail: spburghate@rediffmail.com, Tel +91-9422914630
Received 25 November 2013; accepted 02 December 2013
Abstract
Various types of reactors are in use for wastewater treatment. Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor (FBBR) is one of the recent
methods used in this field. The basic concept of the process consists of passing wastewater up through a packed bed of
particles at a velocity sufficient to fluidize the particles. As the flow of the wastewater passes upward through the
biological bed, very dense concentrations of microorganisms growing on the surface of the bed particles consume the
biodegradable waste contaminants in the liquid. Various types of packing materials can be used. e.g. sand, glass beads,
plastic, etc. FBBR combines the best features of activated sludge and trickling filtration into one process. The efficiency of
the FBBR is 10 times that of the activated sludge system and it typically occupies about 10% of the space required by
stirred tank reactors of similar capacities.
In this paper, the FBBR is reviewed along with its advantages, disadvantages, types and applications. Also design of FBBR
is briefly reviewed.
Keywords: Biofilm, Carrier media, Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor (FBBR); Reactor, Upflow
© 2013 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved
1. INTRODUCTION respect to flow, the packed bed reactor can be operated in
Wastewater treatment involving physical unit operations either the down flow or up flow mode.
and chemical and biological unit processes is carried out in The fluidized bed reactor is similar to the packed bed
vessels or tanks commonly known as “reactors”. The reactor in many respects, but the packing material is
principle types of reactors used for the treatment of expanded by the upward movement of fluid (air or water)
wastewater are – batch reactor, complete mix reactor through the bed. The expanded porosity of the fluidized bed
(continuous flow stirred tank reactor – CSTR), plug flow packing material can be varied by controlling the flow rate
reactor, complete mix reactors in series, packed bed reactor of the fluid.
and fluidized bed reactor [1]. In this paper, the FBBR is reviewed along with its
In batch reactor, flow is neither entering nor leaving the advantages disadvantages, types and applications. Also
reactor i.e. flow enters, is treated, and then is discharged design of FBBR is reviewed in brief.
and the cycle repeats. The liquid contents of the reactor are 2. FLUIDIZED BED BIOFILM REACTOR (FBBR)
mixed completely. In the continuous flow stirred tank The Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor (FBBR) is a recent
reactor, it is assumed that complete mixing occurs process innovation in wastewater treatment, which utilizes
instantaneously and uniform throughout the reactor. Fluid small, fluidized media for cell immobilization and retention
particles leave the reactor in proportion to their statistical [2]. Main application of the fluidized bed biofilm reactor is
population. In plug flow reactors, particles pass through the in the field of biological treatment of wastewater. Aerobic
reactor with little or no longitudinal mixing and exit from as well as anaerobic fluidized bed biofilm reactors (FBBRs)
the reactor in the same sequence in which they entered. The have received increasing attention for being an effective
particles retain their identity and remain in the reactor for a technology to treat water and wastewater [3,4,5,6,7]. Its
time equal to the theoretical detention time. The series of most important features are - the fixation of
complete mix reactors is used to model the flow regime that microorganisms on the surface of small-sized particles,
exist between the ideal hydraulic flow patterns leading to high content of active microorganisms and large
corresponding to the complete mix and plug flow reactors. surface area available for reaction with the liquid; the high
The packed bed reactor is filled with some type of packing flow rate (low residence time) which can be achieved,
material such as rock, slag, ceramic, plastic, etc. With leading to high degree of mixing (decreased external mass
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
145
transfer resistances) and to large reduction in size of the
plant; and the removal of risk of clogging [8].
The basic concept of the process consists of passing
wastewater up through a packed bed of particles at a
velocity sufficient to impart motion to or fluidize the
particles. As the flow of the wastewater passes upward
through the biological bed, very dense concentrations of
organisms growing on the surface of the bed particles
consume the biodegradable waste contaminants in the
liquid. Fig. 1 is a schematic of the basic unit of the process,
showing the entire fluidized bed reactor with the
wastewater flowing upwards through the bed, fluidizing the
particles in the liquid. Above the bed is a clear water zone
wherein the particles separate from the liquid.
Fig. 1: Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor
From a biological point of view, the attached
microorganisms on the suspended particles may include
any of the aerobic, facultative, or anaerobic organisms
typically found in trickling filters and suspended growth
type of treatment systems. The predominating species
would depend entirely on the waste contaminant being
consumed and whether an aerobic or anaerobic
environment is maintained, as well as other factors that
affect biological growth [9].
Fluidized beds combine the best features of activated
sludge and trickling filtration into one process. Offering a
fixed film and a large surface area, fluidized bed systems
offer the stability and ease of operation of the trickling
filter as well as the greater operating efficiency of the
activated sludge process. More importantly, treatment is
accomplished in significantly less space and time, which
can be translated into less cost than conventional treatment.
The primary reason for this savings in space, cost, and
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
146
treatment time is that the measured concentration of active
biomass in the fluidized bed system reported is in the order
of 8,000 mg l-1 – 40,000 mg l-1, which is usually greater
than conventional treatment systems such as the complete-
mix activated sludge process in which the MLSS ranges
between 3,000 mg l-1 – 6,000 mg l-1 or the pure oxygen
systems where the MLSS ranges from 6,000 mg l-1 – 8,000
mg l-1 [10]. The reason for this is that the available surface
area per unit of volume of reactor for biological growth in
the fluidized bed system is much greater than either
trickling filters or rotating biological contactors. This area
is estimated to be about 3,290 m2 m-3, which is far greater
than that of trickling filter (82.25 m2 m-3) or of the rotating
disc (164.5 m2 m-3). Fluidized beds with attached microbial
growth on carrier particles have been found to be extremely
efficient for biodegradation of liquid waste. Both aerobic as
well as anaerobic degradation can effectively be obtained.
In capital cost including land, tanks, pumps, clarifiers and
solid separators, works out at 1/4th the cost of that for the
conventional suspended growth process. The operating cost
is slightly lower for the same capacity [11]. In anaerobic
fluidized bed biofilm reactor, biomass concentrations
exceeding 30,000 mg l-1 have been reported and organic
removal efficiencies of 80 percent were achieved at
loadings of 4 kg COD m-3 d-1 on dilute wastewaters [12].
Because of the high-rate nature of the fluidized bed
process, pure oxygen can also be used just as in other pure-
oxygen systems for the aerobic BOD removal.
The efficiency of the FBBR can be as much as 10 times
that of the activated sludge system and it typically occupies
about 10% of the space required by stirred tank reactors of
similar capacities [13].
2.1 Brief History
Biological fluidized beds (BFB) originate from
observations of denitrification made whilst using activated
carbon to remove organic compounds from chemically
treated sewage [14]. Initially BFBs were developed for
denitrification of fully nitrified sewage effluents and later
developed for carbonaceous oxidation and nitrification of
settled sewage.
Patents for biological fluidized beds are vested in
Ecolotorol Inc. of New York who have exclusively licensed
Dorr-Oliver Inc. to exploit the use of the process under the
trade names OXITRON and ANITRON. Dorr-Oliver have
been involved in pilot scale research and built many
demonstration and full-scale plants in the USA and Canada
[14].
2.2 Advantages of FBBR
FBBR has various advantages. Some of them are listed
below.
1. As the media on which microorganisms grow is in
fluidized state, the surface of the media available for
the development of microorganisms is quite large
which leads to high concentration of microorganisms
and thus high flow rate can be achieved in FBBR.
2. Because of large concentration of microorganisms,
FBBR bears high potential for the removal of various
parameters such as BOD, COD, nitrogen, etc.
3. Size of the FBBR plant is small as compared to other
types of the reactors and hence the space requirement
 is less.
4. FBBR is capable of accepting shock loads.
5. Treatment by FBBR is economical where land cost is
high.
6. If FBBR is operated properly, there is no need to
provide secondary setting tank, which leads to a saving
in the total cost of plant.
7. FBBR provides an extraordinarily long SRT for
microorganisms necessary to degrade the xenobiotic
and toxic compounds.
8. The system operation is simple and reliable.
2.3 Disadvantages
Main disadvantage of FBBR is the pumping power required
to operate and the proper design of inlet and outlet
arrangement for proper distribution of flow.
2.4 Types of FBBR
FBBRs can be classified into two types as –
A. Aerobic FBBR, and
B. Anaerobic FBBR.
2.4.1 Aerobic FBBR
Two common types of FBBR are available for applications
as carbon oxidation and nitrification, which require oxygen
to sustain microbial activities [2].
Oxygenated FBBR
Aerated FBBR
2.4.1.1 Oxygenated FBBR
In an oxygenated FBBR, high purity liquid oxygen is used
to maximize the transfer and utilization of oxygen in the
reactor. To avoid excessive biofilm detachment from the
fluidized media by gas effervescence, the oxygen is added
and dissolved into the wastewater in an external,
pressurized oxygenator prior to FBBR treatment.
Fluidization of bioparticles in an oxygenated FBBR is
maintained by recirculation of reactor effluent. This
practice also ensures that oxygen is not a rate-limiting
factor by diluting out the feed substrate concentration.
Because the expanded bed height in an oxygenated FBBR
increases as the bed matures, it is intentionally controlled
through intermittent removal of overgrown particles [2].
2.4.1.2 Aerated FBBR
In this type, the air is directly injected into an aerated
FBBR through an internal draft tube to promote
oxygenation and mixing. Fluidization of bioparticles in an
Table 1: Reactor Specifications and Three-phase Reactor Operating Conditions
Reactor Specifications
Bed Volume 14 L Sand size
Sedimentation Tanklume 2L Sand quantity
Reactor Dimensions Feed flow rate
Diameter 14 cm Aeration rate
Height 70 cm --
2.4.2 Anaerobic FBBR
The Anaerobic FBBR is similar in physical design to the
aerobic FBBR. This FBBR is operated at higher up-flow
liquid velocity of about 20 m s-1 to provided about 100%
bed expansion. Effluent recycle is used to provide
sufficient up-flow velocity. Reactor depth ranges from 4 to
6 m.
Activated carbon has been used in many Anaerobic FBBRs
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
147
aerated FBBR is concomitantly maintained by gas
effervescence and liquid circulation. Therefore,
recirculation of reactor effluent is not needed. Furthermore,
biofilms are continuously removed from the fluidized
media by bioparticles collision, attrition, and gas
effervescence, thereby eliminating the requirements for
intentional expanded bed height control.
Three-Phase Biofilm Fluidized Bed Reactor
Biofilm fluidized bed reactors are usually operated in a
two-phase (solid-liquid) mode at both the laboratory and
plant scale [15]. Thus, the solid carrier is usually fluidized
by the upflow velocity of recirculation liquid. If needed,
oxygen is supplied in a separate gas-liquid absorber,
located in the recycle loop. The advantages of the two-
phase design are –
uniform, nonturbulent fluidization is achieved;
flexibility in the rate of oxygen supply is obtained;
aerator design is independent of the reactor; and
carrier losses are minimal.
Alternatively, the possibility exists of operating an aerobic
biofilm fluidized bed as a three-phase system in which the
air stream is introduced directly into the reactor to provide
the necessary convection for suspending the solid phase.
Such application has only seldom been reported in the
literature, but it offers some advantages –
fluidization is created by the rising gas bubbles;
liquid recycle is not needed;
oxygen transfer occurs throughout the reaction zone;
and
the overall design is simplified.
Ryhiner et al., [15] operated a biofilm fluidized sand bed
column reactor (14 L) in the three-phase mode on a soluble
glucose-yeast hydrolysate substrate in which the biofilm-
sand phase (1-2.5 L) was suspended by direct aeration of
the bed. The reactor as shown in Fig. 2 was built from
tubular Plexiglas with a conical bottom section and a
conical upper settling zone The reactor specifications and
operating conditions are summarized in Table 1 .
In this study, within two weeks a tight biofilm was formed
whose activity resulted in 90% reduction, with loads of
10.7 kg TOC m-3 d-1. The residence time was 1 h.
Three-phase Reactor Operating Conditions
0.2 – 0.3 mm
1 2.5 L settled volume
14 – 1.4 L h-1
23 40 L min-1
--
for treating industrial and hazardous waste streams [1]. The
main limitation with activated carbon is the higher cost, but
for certain type of industrial and hazardous waste streams
the use of activated carbon is a necessity.
The start up of Anaerobic FBBR must be done with more
care than the other types of Anaerobic reactors/ a higher
application rate is recommended at first to select for
bacteria that more readily attach to the reactor packing
under highly turbulent condition. In a laboratory study by
the start up and performance of an anaerobic FBBR was
compared to that for an Anaerobic UASB reactor and up
flow packed bed reactor. All three could achieved COD
loading of 10 kg COD m-3 d-1 at 350C in three months with
an COD concentration of 500 mg l-1 and a time of 12 hr.
The COD removal efficiency was best for the FBBR and
UASB reactors, about 96% compared to 90 % for the up
flow packed bed reactor [16].
Fig. 2: Construction of the Three-phase Fluidized Sand Bed.
The advantages for the anaerobic FBBR process include the
ability to provide high biomass concentrations and
relatively high organic loading high mass transfer
characteristics, the ability to handle shock loads due to its
mixing and dilution with recycle, and minimum space
requirements. The process is best suited for soluble
wastewater due to its inability to capture solids. Care must
also be taken in the inlet and outlet design to assure good
flow distribution. Other disadvantages include the pumping
power required to operate the fluidized bed, the cost of
reactor packing, the need to control the packing level and
wasting with bio growth and the length of starting time.
2.5 Packing Materials
Various medias have been tried in FBBR. e.g. sand, glass
beads, activated carbon, plastic beads/chips, etc. Most of
the studies have considered the sand as biofilm carrier
media. Eldyasti et al., [17] carried out the study for
denitrifying fluidized bed bioreactors (DFBBRs) using
maxi-blast plastic (MX), multi-blast plastic (MB), natural
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
148
zeolite (NZ), and lava rock (LR). The work showed that the
particles with sphericity of 0.9 (MB and NZ) maintained a
fluffy protruding biofilm and achieved slightly higher
nutrient removal efficiencies as compared to the particles
with sphericity of 0.5 (MX and LR) which exhibited a
patchy biofilm at low C/N ratio. As a results, lower
detachment rate and biomass yields were observed for MB
and NZ of 0.12 g VSS/g COD, as compared to
0.19 g VSS/g COD for both the MX and LR. This study
showed that increasing the biofilm thickness, though not
significantly impacting nutrient removal efficiencies, would
decrease the annualized energy costs and therefore reduce
the long-term operational cost. Moreover, MB appears to
be the superior media.
2.6 Biofilm Kinetics
The expansion and mixing characteristics of a fluidized bed
containing bioparticles, with wide size and density
distribution, were examined using laboratory-scale
fluidized bed by Kyoung et al, [18]. The bioparticles were
partially segregated and intermixed according to size along
the length of the bed. Generally, larger bioparticles with
thicker biofilm stayed at the top of the bed due to a
decrease in their effective density and terminal settling
velocity. Although larger bioparticles contributed more
biomass per mass of sand (supporting medium), a bed with
bigger bioparticles did not always reflect a higher biomass
concentration due to the higher expandability of lighter
bioparticles. For instance, the biomass concentration
decreased rapidly for a bed containing large bioparticles
contributing more than 100 mg of biomass/g sand, even at
low upflow velocities in this case.
Bed expansion characteristics with respect to upflow
velocity could be described as the classic Richardson and
Zaki equation.
U n
…..(Richardson and Zaki equation)
Vi
where, U = Superficial liquid upflow velocity (L T -1);
Vi = Extrapolated velocity when porosity is unity (L T -1);
n = Expansion index; and
ε = Bed porosity.
The expansion index for the uniform bed can be estimated
from the correlation by Richardson and Zaki
n 4.45Rt 0.1 ; 1 < Rt < 500
where, Rt = terminal Reynolds number (dVtρ/µ);
d = diameter of bed particle (L);
Vt = terminal settling velocity of the bed particle (L T -1);
ρ = density of fluid (M L-3);
µ = dynamic viscosity of fluid (M L-1 T-1).
Most previous investigators described the hydrodynamic
behaviour of the bed in terms of the characteristic spherical
bioparticle. The size of this characteristic bioparticle is
commonly determined by the Sauter-mean diameter.
ni di3
d sm
ni di2
where, dsm = Sauter-mean diameter (L);
ni = number of bioparticles; and
di = diameter of bioparticle i (L).
However, the expansion indices could not be correlated
with the terminal Reynolds number of the characteristic
bioparticle with the Sauter-mean diameter. Further, the
bioparticle volume calculated from the Sauter-mean
diameter was about 25% more than the bioparticle volume
calculated from the bioparticle distribution of the bed. The
terminal settling velocities of the characteristic bioparticles
were lower than the characteristic velocities extrapolated
from the log voidage versus log upflow velocity graphs.
Therefore, the characterization of biological fluidized beds
containing widely different bioparticles with a single
characteristic bioparticle defined by the Sauter-mean
diameter should not be used. More comprehensive study is
needed in correlating the expansion index for biological
fluidized beds containing a wide range of bioparticle sizes
[18].
Rabah et al., [13] investigated the biomass concentration
and the biofilm characteristics in a high performance FBBR
used for the denitrification of exceptionally high nitrate
wastewater (1000 mg N L-1) by using two laboratory-scale
fluidized bed biofilm reactors. The researchers stated that
the average biomass concentration in the FBBR decreased
with the increase of the superficial velocity in the range of
45-65 m h-1 at all applied nitrogen loadings (i.e. 6, 8, 12
and 16 kg N m-3.d-1).
Shieh [10] proposed a kinetic model for the Fluidized Bed
Biofilm Reactor, to provide a rational basis for design
purpose. The proposed model was derived through the
principles of solid-liquid fluidization and heterogeneous
catalysis. Various parameters affecting the performance of
the process are discussed and experimental data of
biological denitrification collected from several facilities
are used to verify the proposed model.
Author considered a FBBR operated under the steady state
condition in which each spherical media with a uniform
size is covered with a uniform layer of biofilm and the
wastewater is passing upward through the reactor in a plug
flow mode (Fig. 3). Assuming that the substrate conversion
reactions that follow intrinsic zero-order kinetics are
limited by the diffusion of the substrate within the biofilm
and the internal mass transfer resistances are such that the
substrate penetrates only partially into the biofilm (Fig. 4).
Fig. 3: Schematic of FBBR & Bioparticle.
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
149
Fig. 4: Partial Penetration of Substrate into the Biofilm
Author derived the relation –
Sb0.55 Kt S a0.55
where, K 1.657 (1 ) ( k ) 0.55 ( D) 0.45 / (rp ) 0.9
and t Z / v residence time (T )
where,
D is the effective diffusivity of substrate in the biofilm,
L2/T;
k is the intrinsic zero-order rate constant, M/M-T;
r is the radial distance measured from the center of the
media, L;
rp = rm + δ = the bioparticle radius, L;
rm is the media radius, L;
S is the substrate concentration in the biofilm, M/L3;
Sb is the ambient substrate concentration at depth Z, M/L3;
Sa is the inlet substrate concentration, M/L3;
v is the superficial velocity, L/T;
Z is the reactor depth, L;
ρ is the biofilm dry density, M/L3;
δ is the biofilm thickness, L.
Thus the concentration profile of the substrate through the
reactor can be described by a 0.55-order equation. The
proposed model is capable of describing the observed
kinetic behavior of a FBBR. Biofilm thickness and media
size are the two most important parameters affecting the
performance of a FBBR. An optimal value exists for each
parameter under a given set of operating conditions that
maximizes the substrate conversion rate. The model
provides the rational basis for design purpose.
Biofilm structure was quantitatively analyzed to detect
differences in biofilm structure due to sand size (effective
diameter D10 of 0.23 and 0.60 mm) and location within a
fluidized sand filter vessel [19]. Researchers stated that
biofilms from reactor vessels using 0.60 mm sand size had
thin, smoother biofilms which was attributed to higher
shear environments, in contrast to the thick, rough, porous
films that were measured on the 0.23 mm sand samples.
Also they found that biofilm surface area per biofilm
volume remained fairly constant regardless of sand size and
sampling location.
Tavares et al., [20] investigated the effect of superficial
velocity on biofilm growth in an aerobic three-phase
fluidized bed reactor. Spherical shape polymer particles
(2.7 mm diameter and density of 1180 kg.m-3) were used as
support material. The results indicate that biofilm
accumulation decreases when gas superficial velocity
increases in the range of 0-20 m.h-1. However, COD
removal efficiencies were particularly independent of air
superficial velocity.
2.7 Fluidization of Biomass Covered Particles
The design and analysis of the of the fluidized bed
biological treatment processes requires knowledge of the
steady state and dynamic expansion properties of the
growth support medium . The fluidization behavior of clean
spherical or near spherical is well defined. Models are
available in the literature to accurately predict steady state
expanded bed porosity as a function of flow velocity and
particle size distribution, and the dynamic response of
porosity to sudden changes in hydraulic flux.
When the particles are covered with biological film,
however, the fluidization behavior is not as well defined,
particle size and density, and unexpended porosity, key
inputs to all models, cannot be easily measured. Models
developed for the fluidization of clean media cannot be
used directly with bioparticles. Stevens et al., [21] extended
three commonly used models for clean particles to steady
state and step up and step down dynamic responses with
biomass covered particles. They used both clean sand and
sand covered with bio film during two different pilot
fluidized bed nitrification runs in 1980 and 1982 at
Madison, Wisconsin. The results and analysis presented
demonstrated that standard methods of estimating the
fluidization properties of clean media can be extended to
include biofilm covered particles. Modification is necessary
to accommodate uncertainties associated with the biofilm.
With these modifications, fluidization behavior can be
predicted within 1 to 2 percent of the total bed height. The
calculations proposed can easily be programmed for
microcomputer applications and are suitable for design
computations.
Munif et al., [22], developed a simple correlation to predict
the bed voidage (fluidized bed height) for both three-phase
and two-phase biological fluidized bed. This proposed
correlation is based on a relationship between the effective
up-flow superficial liquid velocity and the corresponding
upflow superficial liquid velocity in a three-phase FBBR.
The proposed correlation is –
1
17.3 L L (U L' ) 2 (U t U t' ) 2 (
0.336
LU L d bp d bp
where,
-3
L = Fluid Density (ML );
L = Dynamic Viscosity of Fluid (ML T );
UL = Effective Upflow Superficial Liquid Velocity (LT -
1
);
dbp = Diameter of Bioparticle (L);
= Exponent;
' The anaerobically treated landfill leachate was further
U = Upflow Superficial Liquid Velocity for Three
L treated by a zeolite fixed bed reactor. Excellent ammonia
Phase System (LT-1);
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
150
Ut = Terminal Settling Velocity for Two Phase System
-1
(LT );
Ut' = Terminal Settling Velocity for Three Phase System
-1
(LT );
'
(L G) = Bed Voidage in Three Phase system;
bp = Bioparticle Density (ML-3);
g = Acceleration due to Gravity (LT -2).
2.8 Applications of FBBR
Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactors have been extensively
studied in wastewater treatment due to their advantages
such as accumulation of a large amount of biomass on the
support media, high organic loading rates, a high specific
surface area, short retention times, and mixing
characteristics [23]. Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactors can be
used for BOD removal, Nitrification and Denitrification.
Aerobic FBBRs are frequently used to treat groundwater
contaminated with hazardous substances. In these
applications activated carbon is used for the packing to
provide both carbon adsorption and biological degradation
[24].
2.8.1 BOD Removal
The FBBRs are quite effective in the removal of BOD. It is
possible to degrade wastewaters containing high organic
loads (such as waste from milk industry) in three phase
fluidized bed bioreactor, since hydrodynamics and
operational conditions, such as surface area of support
particles, are assured in order to maintain enough viable
biomass inside the reactor [25].
The system was used for the treatment of municipal
wastewater of Nassau County, New York, at its 60 mgd
treatment plant at Bay Park, New York. Using a pilot plant
of 72,000 gal d-1, the 94 mg l-1 of incoming primary soluble
BOD effluent was being reduced to 11 mg l-1 in 16 min
total detention time [10].
Chun et al. evaluated the treatment of an equalized
slaughterhouse wastewater by a combined chemical
coagulation/flocculation-Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor
( 2 n 2 n ' 4.8) (FBBR) process. The observed BOD5, grease and NH3-N
'
(L G) )
g( bp L ) removals were 71-93%, 29-84%, and 20-73% respectively.
Mokadam et al., [26], conducted the laboratory study to
observe the performance of Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor
for COD removal and obtained 82% and 98% COD
removal in 20 min. and 30 min of treatment times
respectively.
Mustafa et al., [23], investigated the use of combined
anaerobic fluidized bed and zeolite fixed bed system in
-1 -1 sanitary landfill leachate treatment. Anaerobic treatability
studies were successfully performed in the anaerobic
fluidized bed biofilm reactor. The COD removal was
attained upto 90% with increasing organic loading rates as
high as 18 g COD L-1 d-1 after 80 days of operation. Good
biogas production yield of 0.53 L biogas per gram removed
COD with methane (CH4) content of 75% was obtained.
removal (>90%) was obtained with the untreated zeolite.
For urban wastewater treatment, Wang et al., [27]
conducted a novel four-stage step-feed wastewater
treatment system combined with a fluidized bed laboratory
experiment to investigate chemical oxygen demand (COD),
NH4+-N, and total nitrogen (TN) removal performance. The
removal rates of COD, NH4+-N and TN were 88.2%,
95.7%, and 86.4% with effluent concentrations of COD,
NH4+-N and TN less than 50, 8, and 10 mg l-1, respectively
were observed.
2.8.2 Nitrogen Removal
2.8.2.1 Denitrification
Population changes, closing of small works and the desire
for improved river quality have led to increased flows to
many sewage-treatment works. This increase has in some
instances caused the BOD loading rate to become too great
to allow full nitrification to occur. Consequently many
effluents contain relatively high concentrations of ammonia
nitogen and the situation will deteriorate as loading rates
increase further.
The presence of ammonia nitogen in sewage treatment
works‟ effluents, and consequently in receiving water
courses, has been shown to have three main effects. Firstly,
the amount of oxygen required to nitrify the ammonia
nitogen can reduce the DO concentration to an
unacceptably low level. Secondly, the presence of ammonia
nitogen in abstracted water increases the cost of
chlorination and, can, if action is not taken, lead to the
formation of harmful chloramines. Thirdly, the direct toxic
effects of ammonia nitogen on freshwater fauna.
There are two possible solutions to the problem. The
existing works can either be extended, so that the loading
rate is reduced to allow full nitrification, or a „tertiary‟
treatment package plant can be added to the works to
remove some or all of the ammonia nitogen. There are,
therefore, considerable savings to be made if some form of
„add on‟ nitrification plant can be established. Biological
Fluidized Beds have potential as nitrification plants.
From the review and laboratory study conducted by the
authors [16], it was observed that Fluidized Bed Biofilm
Reactor is the better option for denitrification of wastewater
keeping in view the limits of different inhibitors, studying
the kinetics of biofilm development, concentration of
carbon source and nitrate and the effect of these on the
denitrification rates.
The laboratory fluidized bed was run to study its behaviour
for COD removal and denitrification [28]. The fluidized
bed system obtained about 98% and 99% of removal
efficiency at 5 min. and 10 min. of treatment times
respectively for an influent NO3–Nconcentrationof50mg l-1.
Rabah et al, [13] investigated the denitrification of high
strength nitrate wastewater with specific emphasis on the
effect of nitrogen loading rate and the superficial velocity
by using two laboratory-scales high performance fluidized
bed biofilm reactors with sand as the biofilm carrier.
Researchers, for a loading rate of 6.3 kg-N m-3 d-1 achieved
complete denitrification with a removal efficiency of 99.8
% and an effluent concentration of 2 mg N l-1 at superficial
velocity of 45, 55 and 65 m h-1.
A fluidized bed reactor for nitrification with chalk as the
biomass carrier and the sole buffer agent was studied [29].
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
151
Chalk dissolution in the reactor was found to follow the
stoichiometric ratio of 1 mole of CaCO3 dissolved for each
mole of NH+4 oxidized. Nitrification was found to be
limited by either the chalk dissolution rate or dissolved
oxygen concentration depending on the type chalk used. A
maximum nitrification rate of 1.44 g NH+4 –N l-1 d-1 was
observed.
Simultaneous Nitrification – Denitrification (SND) in a
fluidized bed reactor had been studied and run successfully
[30]. Researchers observed the evidence that both types of
activity occurred throughout FBR.
Mauro et al., [31] investigated the biological phosphorous
removal in fluidized bed biological reactor. The reactor
worked effectively and the highest phosphate uptake rates
have been observed when strict anaerobic conditions were
reached during the anaerobic phase.
Burghate et al., [32] carried out the study to determine the
potential of FBBR for denitrification using burnt brick fine
granules as a biofilm carrier media. The maximum average
nitrate nitrogen removal efficiency observed was 91.91% at
HRT of 30 minutes and optimum as 86.84% at HRT of 10
minutes. For nitrogen loading rates varying from 0.48 kg N
m-3d-1 to 28.80 kg N m-3d-1, the denitrification rates
observed were varying from 0.44 kg N m-3d-1 to 17.26 kg N
m-3d-1. The optimum nitrate nitrogen loading rate and
denitrification rate observed were 10.08 kg N m-3d-1 and
8.75 kg N m-3d-1 respectively. This indicates that the FBBR
has great potential for removal of nitrate. Similar study was
carried out by Burghate et al., [33] and achieved the nitrate
removal efficiency of 95.98% and 90.17% at HRT 30
minutes and 10 minutes respectively in FBBR using fly ash
as biofilm carrier media.
2.8.3 Other Applications
Joachim et al., [34] investigated the suitability of a
fluidized bed reactor to remove dichloromethane
biologically from activated carbon. Researchers concluded
that biological regeneration of dichloromethane loaded
activated carbon leads to an adsorption capacity
comparable to that of freshly activated carbon.
Hirata et al., [35] studied the treatment of phenolic
wastewater in complete mixing type three-phase fluidized
bed which contained both biofilm and suspended sludge.
Researchers proved that almost 100 % of phenol removal
could be attained at a larger specific biofilm surface area
per volumetric phenol loading rate than 80 m2 (kg-PhOH)-1
d-1 without suspended sludge.
Sen et al., [36], investigated the anaerobic treatment of
synthetic textile wastewater containing a reactive azo dye,
namely Remazol Brilliant Violet 5R with the help of
fluidized bed reactor. 300 mg l-1 dye was removed in the
anaerobic FBR system. COD and colour reduction in the
system were approximately 60 and 94% respectively.
For the biological treatment of the wastewater containing
highly concentrated thiocyanate, microorganisms for
thiocyanate biodegradation were isolated and the biofilm
reactor charged with fluidized-carriers of tube chip type
was studied by Jeong et al., [37] . In a bench scale biofilm
reactor for the commercial plant design, the biofilm reactor
system showed that thiocyanate of 7000 mg l−1 was
successfully degraded to more than 99.9% of removal
efficiency within 36 h of total hydraulic retention time. removed the Nitrate-Nitrogen with a detention time of 10
Four anaerobic fluidized bed reactors filled with activated minutes.
carbon (R1), expanded clay (R2), glass beads (R3) and Table 2: Design Criteria
sand (R4) were tested for anaerobic degradation of LAS.
Facility Type / Value
the maximum COD and LAS removal efficiencies were
mean values of 97 ± 2% and 99 ± 2%, respectively, to all Feed Pumps
reactors demonstrating the potential applicability of this Type Vertical turbine
reactor configuration for treating LAS. The use of glass Number 5
beads and sand appear attractive because they favor the Capacity 3-38 L s-1
development of biofilms capable of supporting LAS 2-170 L s-1
degradation [38].
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a suspected human Denitrification Reactors
carcinogen that has traditionally been treated in water using Number 3
ultraviolet irradiation (UV). A research study was carried
Type Expanded bed biofilm
out by Webster et al., [39] to examine the application of a
laboratory-scale fluidized bed reactor (FBR) as an Capacity 7.5 ml d-1 each
alternative technology for treating NDMA to part-per- Dimensions 6.3 m X 3.6 m
trillion (ng l-1) concentrations in groundwater. With a
Media
hydraulic residence time (HRT) of 20 min, the FBR was
found to be an effective means to treat 10–20 μg l-1 of Type Sand
NDMA to effluent concentrations less than 100 ng l-1. Effective Size 0.6 mm
When the HRT was increased to 30 min and oxygen and Uniformity Coefficient 1.25
propane addition rates were optimized, the FBR system Depth 1.2 m
demonstrated treatment of the NDMA to effluent Loading
concentrations of less than 10 ng l-1. The data suggest that
the FBR technology can be a viable alternative to UV for Hydraulic Loading 0.4 cm s-1
removing NDMA from groundwater. Nitrate Loading 3.0 kg m-3d-1
Empty bed contact time 10 min
Methanol System
Control Feed forward
Design Rates, M:N 3:1
Average Dosage 60 mg l-1
Feed Rate 1,740 L d-1
Storage 19,000 L
Backwash Recovery system
Backwash Basin
Number 2
Dimensions 18 m X 21 m X 2.4m SWD
Storage time 12 hours
Fig. 5: Process Flow Diagram, Rancho California Return water pumps 1 @ 12.5 L s-1
Denitrification Facility A summary of the Rancho California Denitrification
2.9 Design of FBBR Facility design Criteria is shown in Table 2.
MacDonald, [40] reported the design criteria and evaluated The Dorr-Oliver designed oxygenator used at Coleshill was
the operating performance of upflow-expanded bed biofilm installed at Horely (Fig.6). To supply the required DO
reactors for denitrification at Rancho California concentration it was buried in the ground in order to utilize
Wastewater Reclamation plant (Riverside County, Southern the effect of the hydrostatic head. Oxygen flow into the
California), which has a design capacity of 23.6 MLD. The oxygenator was governed by a two-term controller
reactor is designed for a loading of 3.0 kg of NO 3 – N per receiving a signal from a DO probe at the top of the
day per m-3 of expanded bed volume. The upflow velocity column.
is 0.4 cm s-1 and the reactor has an empty bed contact time Recycle flow is required to fluidize the bed, as the feed
of 10 minutes at design flow. Each reactor has a design flow may not always be sufficient, and for oxygen
capacity of 7.5 ml d-1. The biofilm is grown on a medium transport. Nitrification of 1 mg l-1 of amm.N requires 4.3
of sand with an effective size of 0.6 mm and a uniformity mg l-1 DO. For effluents containing more than
coefficient of 1.2. The reactor has a concrete perforated approximately 15 mg l-1 of amm.N the feed has to be
underdrain, 0.6 meter support gravel, and 1.2 meters of diluted with recycled effluent so that enough DO is present
sand. Following two-month startup period, the facility for full nitrification.
consistently removed 95-100% of the nitrate nitrogen. A The sand cleaning pump is used to ensure that growth of
process Flow diagram is shown in Fig. 5. The reactor biomass, and consequent expansion of the bed, does not
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
152
cause sand to be lost from the reactor. Coated sand is drawn
out of the
reactor and the biomass is separated from the sand by the
shear forces in the centrifugal pump. The sand/biomass
mixture is returned to the top of the reactor where a stilling
box arrangement allows the sand to return to the reactor
and the biomass to be wasted.
Design parameters arising from the results are shown in
Table 3.
Table 3 : Design Parameters for Horley
Sr. Parameters Value
1No. Biomass volatile solids 12 g l-1
2 Hydraulic retention 30 mins
3 period
Amm.N in feed 30 mg l-1
4 Amm.N in effluent 1 mg l-1
5 Nitrification rate 0.12 g NH3-N (g
-1 -1
6 Amm.N loading rate BVS*)
1.44 g NHd 3-N m-3d-1
7 Upflow velocity 28 m h-1
*BVS = Biomass volatile solids measured in the fluidized
state. As the volatile matter accounts for about 80% of the
bacteria. MLSS = BVS X 1.25.
In a study, by Seifi et al., [41] for the removal of NH4+,
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand) and TN (Total Nitrogen)
is modeled in a three phase fluidized bed biofilm reactor.
The equations of the model were derived using proper
assumptions and solved by finite difference method. A set
of experimental results in the literature from a bench scale
bioreactor was used to verify the model. The model
predicted the NH4+, COD, NO3- and TN profiles along the
height of the bioreactor reasonably well.
Fig. 6: Flow Sheet for Horley Fluidized-Bed Plant
3. CONCLUSION
By considering the advantages of FBBR, it suits in the
modern methods of wastewater treatment. FBBRs can
maintain a high effective concentration of microorganisms
and provides stability against shock and toxic load.
Today, the load of pollutants in natural waterbodies has
increased manifold. There are two possible solutions to the
problem. The existing works can either be extended, so that
the loading rate is reduced, or an „advanced‟ treatment
plant can be added to the works to remove the pollutants.
There are, therefore, considerable savings to be made if
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
153
some form of „add on‟ advanced plant can be established.
FBBRs have this potential.
Research is carried out on FBBR in past and recent. But
there is a need to find an effective method of measuring
and controlling biofilm growth, to optimize the hydraulic
loading on the process. Also efforts should be made to
standardize the design procedure of FBBRs.
S. P. Burghate received M. E. (Environmental
Engineering) from Government College of Engineering,
Amravati, Maharashtra, India in 1992. He is Lecturer in the
Department of Civil Engineering, at Government
Polytechnic, Amravati, Maharashtra, India. His research
interests include treatment of water and wastewater, solid
waste management. He has published 5 papers in National
and International journals. He has also presented 6 research
articles in national and international conferences. He is a
Life Member of professional bodies like, IE (India), ISTE
(India), and IWWA.
Dr. N. W. Ingole is a Professor and Head in the
Department of Civil Engineering, Prof. Ram Meghe
Institute of Technology and Research, Badnera, Amravati,
Maharashtra, India. He has more than 24 years of
experience in teaching and research. His current area of
research includes treatment of water and wastewater, solid
waste management, Quality Engineering, Neural Networks,
Optimization and Simulation. He has published more than
63 papers in refereed National and International journals of
repute. He has also presented more than 10 research articles
in national and international conferences. He has written a
book titled “Environmental Chemistry and Pollution
Control”. He is life member of National and International
Professional Societies, Fellow of Institution of Engineers
(India). He is recipient of many National and International
awards. He has also got “Promising Engineering Teacher in
Engineering Colleges Award”. He is currently dealing with
few projects sponsored by government of India.
REFERENCES
1. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., “Wastewater Engineering:
Treatment and Reuse,” Fourth Edition, Tata McGraw
Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, pp
1819, 2003
2. Shieh W. K. and Chun T. Li.; “Performance and
Kinetics of Aerated Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor,”
Journal of Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp 65-78, 1989
3. Shieh W. K. and Keenan J. D., “Fluidized Bed Biofilm
Reactor for Wastewater Treatment,” Adv. in Biochem
Engineering, Vol. 33, pp 131-169, 1986
4. Schugerl K., “Biofluidization : Application of the
Fluidization Technique in Biotechnology,” Can.
Journal Chem. Engineering, Ottawa, Canada, Vol.
67(2), pp 178-184, 1989
5. Schugerl K., “Three Phase Biofluidization :
Application of three Phase Fluidization in the
Biotechnology – a Review,” Chem. Engineering Sci.,
Vol. 52(21/22), pp 3661-3668, 1997
6. Mishra P. N. and Sutton P. M., “Biological Fluidized
Beds for Water and Wastewater Treatment : A State –
of - the - Art Review,” Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation, H. W. Rossmoore, eds., Elsevier, New
 York, pp 340-357, 1990
7. Lazarova L., Capdeville B. and Nikolov L., “Influence
of Seeding Conditions on Nitrite Accumulation in a
Denitryfying Fluidized Bed Reactor”, Journal of Water
Resources, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp 1189-1197, 1994
8. Traverso Pietro G. and Cecchi Franco, “Encyclopedia
of Environmental Control technology – Wastewater
Treatment Technology,” Vol . 3, pp 295-324, 1992
9. Brosilow Benjamin J., Schnitzer Michael, Tarre
Sheldon, Green Michal ; “A Simple Model Describing
Nitrate and Nitrite Reduction in Fluidized Bed
Biological Reactors”, Journal of Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp 543-548, 1997
10. Stathis T. C., “Fluidized Bed for Biological
Wastewater Treatment,” Journal of Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. EE1, pp
227-241, 1980
11. Mahajan S. P., “Pollution Control in Process
Industries,” Fifteenth Edition, McGraw Hill
Publishing Company Limited,NewDelhi,pp75-76, 2002
12. Eckenfelder W. Wesley, Jr., “Industrial Water
Pollution Control,” Third Edition, McGraw Hill Book
Company, Singapore, pp 395-396, 2000
13. Rabah Fahid K. J. and Dahab Mohamed F., “Biofilm
and Biomass Characteristics in High Performance
Fluidized-Bed Biofilm Reactors”, Journal of Water
Research, Vol. 38, pp 4262-4270, 2004
14. Williams S. C., Harrington D. W., Cooper P. F. and
Quinn J. J.; “High-Rate Nitrification in Biological
Fluidized Bed at Horley STW – An Interim Report,”
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, pp 81-
89, 1986
15. Ryhiner G., Petrozzi S. and Dunn I. J.; “Operation of
Three-Phase Biofilm Fluidized Sand Bed Reactor for
Aerobic Wastewater Treatment,” Biotechnology and
Bioengineering, Vol. 32, pp 677-688, 1988
16. Burghate Satish, Ingole Nitin and Mokadam Arun;
“Denitrification by Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor
(FBBR) – An Overview”, Environmental Pollution
Control Journal, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp 30-36, 2003
17. Eldyasti Ahmed, Nakhla George and Zhu Jesse,
“Influence of Particles Properties on Biofilm Structure
and Energy Consumption in Denitrifying Fluidized
Bed Bioreactors (DFBBRs)”, Bioresource
Technology, Vol.126, pp 162-171, 2012
18. Kyoung S. R and Johannes B. Neethling.; “Biological
Fluidized Beds Containing Widely Different
Bioparticles,” Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 120, No. 6, pp 1416-1426, 1994
19. Teresa K. Nam, Michael B. Timmons, Carlo D.
Montemagno and Scott M. Tsukuda; “Biofilm
Characteristics as Affected by Sand Size and Location
in Fluidized Bed Vessels,” Aquacultural Engineering,
Vol. 22, Issue 3, pp 213-224, 2000
20. Tavares C. R. G, Sant‟anna G. L., Capdeville Jr and
B.; “The Effect of Air Superficial Velocity on Biofilm
Accumulation in a Three-phase Fluidized Bed
Reactor,” Water Research, Vol. 29, Issue 10, October,
pp 2229-2298, 1995
21. Stevens D. K. and Berthoues P. M.; “Fluidization of
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
154
Biomass Covered Sand Particles,” Environmental
Engineering Proceedings of the 1985 Specialty
Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, pp 246-253, 1985
22. Munif A. Abdul-Aziz and Shyam R. Asolekar; “Bed
Voidage Correlation in Fluidized Bed Biofilm
Reactor,” Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 126, No. 6, June, pp 570-574,
2000
23. Mustafa Turan, Hakki Gulsen and Mehmet S. Celik;
“Treatment of Landfill Leachate by a Combined
Anaerobic Fluidized Bed and Zeolite Column System,”
Journal of Environmental Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 5, pp 815-819, 2005
24. Sutton P. M. and P. N. Mishra; “Activated Carbon
Based Biological Fluidized Beds for Contaminated
Water and Wastewater Treatment : A State – of – the –
Art Review,” Water Science and Technology, Vol. 29,
pp 309, 1994
25. Souza R. R., Bresolin I. T. L, Bioni T. L., Gimenes M.
L and. Dias-Filho B. P; “The Performance of a Three-
phase Fluidized Bed Reactor in Treatment of
Wastewater with High Organic Load,” Brazilian
Journal of Chemical Engineering, 2004, Vol. 21,
Issue 2, pp 1-15, 2004
26. Mokadam A. M., Ingole N. W. and Burghate S. P.;
“Studies on Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor (FBBR) for
COD Removal,” Environmental Pollution Control
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 42-46, 2003
27. Wang Bing, Wang Wei, Han Hongjun, Hu Hongbo and
Zhuang Haifeng, “Nitrogen Removal and
Simultaneous Nitrification and Denitrification in a
Fluidized Bed Step – Feed Process”, Journal
ofEnvironmental Sciences, Vol.24, Issue 2, pp 303-
308, 2012
28. Ingole N. W, Mokadam A. M, and Burghate S. P.;
“Biological Fluidized Bed Treatment for COD
Removal and Denitrification,” Journal of the
Institution of Engineerrs (India), Vol. 2005, No. 1, pp
1-15, 2004
29. Green Michal, Yuri Ruskol, Ori Lahav and Sheldon
Tarre; “Chalk as the Carrier for Nitrifying Biofilm in a
Fluidized Bed Reactors,” Water Research, Vol. 35, pp
284-290, 2001
30. Sen Priyali and Steven K. Dentel; “Simultaneous
Nitrification – Denitrification in a Fluidized Bed
Reactor ,” Water Science and Technology, Vol. 38,
Issue 1, pp 247-254, 1998
31. Mauro Rovatti, Cristiano Nicolella, Attilio Converti,
Riccardo Ghigliazza and Renzo Di Felice;
“Phosphorus Removal in Fluidized Bed Biological
Reactor (FBBR),” Water Research, Vol. 29, Issue 12,
pp 2627-2634, 1995
32. Burghate S. P. and Ingole Dr. N. W.; “Denitrification
Potential of Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor”,
International Journal of Research in Environmental
Science and Technology, Vol. 3(3), pp 78-85, 2013
33. Burghate S. P. and Ingole Dr. N. W.; “Efficiency
Evaluation of FBBR for Denitrification using Fly
Ash”, Journal of Environmental Science, Computer
 Science and Engineering & Technology, Vol. 2, No.3,
pp 597-609, 2013
34. Joachim Holst, Burkhard Martens, Holger Gulyas,
NorbertGreiserand Ivan Sekoulov; “Aerobic Biological
Regeration of Dichloromethane-Loaded Activated
Carbon,” Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp 194-208, 1991
35. Hirata A., Noguchi M., Takeuchi N. and Tsuneda S.;
“Kinetics of Biological Treatment of Phenolic
Wastewater in Three-phase Fluidized Bed Containing
Biofilm and Suspended Sludge ,” Water Science and
Technology, Vol. 38, Issue 8-9, pp 205-212, 1998
36. Sen S. and Demirer G. N.; “Anaerobic Treatment of
Synthetic Textile Wastewater Containing a Reactive
Azo Dye,” Journal of Environmental Engineering
Division, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 7, pp 595-601, 2003
37. Jeong Yong-Shik,and Chung Jong Shik;
“Biodegradation of thiocyanate in Biofilm Reactor
using Fluidized Carriers”, Process Biochemistry, Vol.
41, Issue 3, pp 701-707, 2006
38. Oliveira Lorena Lima de, Costa Rachel Biancalana,
Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None declared
International Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 2013; 3(4): 145-155
155
View publication stats
Okada Dagoberto Yukio, Durate Daniele Vital Vich,
Iolanda Cristina Silveira, Silva Edson Luiz, Varesche
Maria Bernadete Amâncio , “Anaerobic Degradation
of Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Fluidized
Bed Reactor by Microbial Consortia in Different
Support Material”, Bioresource Technology, Vol.101,
Issue 14, pp 5112-5122, 2010
39. Webster Todd S., Condee Charles and Hatzinger Paul
B.; “Ex Situ Treatment of N-nitrosodimethylamine
(NDMA) in Groundwater using a Fluidized Bed
Reactor,” Water Research, Vol. 47, Issue 2, pp 811-
820, 2013
40. MacDonald D. V.; “Denitrification By an Expanded
Bed Biofilm Reactor,” Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 62, No. 6, pp 796-802, 1989
41. Seifi Mohammad., Fazaelipoor Mohammad Hassan,
“Modelling Simultaneous Nitrification and
Denitrification (SND) in a Fluidized Bed Biofilm
Reactor”, Applied Mathematical Modelling., Vol.36,
Issue 11, pp 5603-5613, 2012