Sequencing Batch Reactor

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill and draw type modified activated sludge
process, where four basic steps of filling, aeration, settling and decantation take place
sequentially in a batch reactor.

From: Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2011

Related terms:

pH, Activated Sludge, Adsorption, Biomass, Effluent, Enrichment, Micro-Organ-

ism, Waste Water Treatment

View all Topics

Learn more about Sequencing Batch Reactor

Olive Processing Waste Management

In Waste Management Series, 2006

Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)

A sequencing batch reactor is an activated sludge type wastewater treatment system
that can carry out various treatment operations in one tank. A specific volume of
wastewater, called a batch, is first screened to remove larger particles within the
water. The reactor is a tank into which air is pumped to ensure that a sufficient
supply of oxygen is present for aerobic biochemical processes to occur. The addition
of oxygen allows microorganisms to consume dissolved organic matter in the
wastewater that are not removed by a screening or settling process. After a specified
period of aeration, the wastewater in the reactor is allowed to settle. The sludge that
settles on the bottom now primarily consists of the microorganisms that have fed
on the organics in the wastewater. Sequencing batch reactors utilize an activated
sludge treatment process. After the treated effluent is discharged, all but a small
portion of the sludge, which is rich in microorganisms, is removed from the reactor.
This helps quickly reestablish a population of microorganisms within the next batch
of wastewater delivered to the reactor, reducing the amount of time necessary for
treating each batch. Usually more than one reactor is needed so that while one
batch of wastewater is being treated, additional flow can be directed elsewhere. The
number of reactors ultimately depends on the expected volume of wastewater flow
and the amount of time allowed for treatment of each batch in the reactor. A longer
retention period produces less sludge and cleaner effluent.

The main advantage of sequencing batch reactors is that they produce effluent low
in organic compounds and thus can be used to meet strict effluent standards. The
system can be effectively used as part of a larger system when the removal of the
nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus are required. Other advantages are that it can
be located on a small area of land, and it is relatively easy to expand this system by
adding additional reactors. However, the operation of this system is more complex
than others. The system does tend to be more costly to construct and operate than
most others, yet it usually has fewer maintenance problems over its lifetime.

A study on a bubble-column reactor for treating OMWW is described by Hamdi M.

and Ellouz R. (1992a). The reactor design serves for the growth of the mold culture
A. niger, with the use of carrier bodies, which is said to promote fermentation on
OMWW by eliminating hardly degradable constituents. The study is directed toward
the pretreatment of OMWW by the use of a special mold structure and not towards
reduction of pollutant load.

> Read full chapter

Food Waste Treatment Methodologies

Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis, ... Demetrios Ladas, in Waste Management for the Food
Industries, 2008

Sequencing batch reactor

A sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a fill-and-draw activated sludge system. The
unit processes involved in the SBR and conventional activated sludge systems are
identical. Although aeration and sedimentation/clarification are carried out in both
systems, there is one important difference; in conventional plants, the processes are
carried out simultaneously in separate tanks, whereas in SBR operation the processes
are carried out sequentially in the same tank (Metcalf and Eddy, 1991).

Research on SBR reactors began in the 1970s, simultaneously with the development
of other discontinuous processes. Even in 1914, the reactors based on active biomass
designed by Arden and Lockett were operated according to the principles of SBR
technology (Mace and Mata-Alvarez, 2002).

This technology has been gaining popularity through the years, because of the
following benefits and advantages:

1 lower cost than conventional biological treatment

2 less land requirements than those by conventional methods

3 capable of handling wide swings in hydraulic and organic loadings

4 easier to control filamentous growth and settling problems

5 less equipment to maintain

6 less operator attention

7 greater operator flexibility

8 biomass cannot be washed out

9 bad settling can be recognized and corrected

10 powdered activated carbon can be added.

All SBR systems have five steps in common carried out in the following sequence:
fill, react (aeration), settle (sedimentation/clarification), draw (decant), idle. The use
of SBR technology to treat the wine waste was investigated.

Although the depollution of winery wastewater by sequencing batch reactor can be

very effective (elimination of organic matter: total COD 93–97%, soluble COD 95%
and 97.5% BOD5 removal), it is worth reporting its disadvantages:

1 a higher level of sophistication is required (compared to conventional systems),

especially for larger systems, of timing units and controls
2 potential of discharging floating or settled sludge during the draw or decant
phase with some SBR configurations
3 potential requirements for equalization after the SBR, depending on the
downstream processes.

> Read full chapter

An Introduction to Biological Treat-

ment and Successful Application of the
Aqua EMBR System in Treating Efflu-
ent Generated from a Chemical Manu-
facturing Unit
Nilesh Tantak, ... Pavan Raina, in Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and
Reuse, 2014

9.4.2 Sequencing Batch Reactor

The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process is one of the most popular aerobic
treatment technologies employed to treat municipal wastewater and wastewater
from a variety of industries including refineries and petrochemical plants.

This technology offers several operational and performance advantages over the
conventional ASP. The SBR process performs all the functions of a conventional
activated sludge plant (biological removal of pollutants, solid/liquid separation, and
treated effluent removal) by using a single variable volume basin in an alternating
mode of operation that dispenses with the need for final clarifiers and high-RAS
pumping capacity. With continued value addition, the performance of the SBR
system can be enhanced with a high level of process sophistication in a configuration
that is cost and space effective and offers a methodology with operational simplicity,
flexibility, and reliability that is not available in conventionally configured activated
sludge systems. Also with this advancement, it is possible to control the growth of
filamentous sludge bulking, a common problem with conventional processes and
other activated sludge systems (Mittal, 2011).

SBR utilizes a simple repeated time-based sequence that incorporates:

• Fill–aeration (for biological reactions)

• Fill–settle (for solid/liquid separation)

• Decant (for treated effluent removal).

9.4.2.1 Advantages of SBR (Mittal, 2011)

• It operates under continuous reduced loading through simple cycle adjust-
ments.
• It operates with feed-starve selectivity, So/Xo operation (control of limiting
substrate to micro-organism ratio), and aeration intensity to prevent fila-
mentous sludge bulking and ensures endogenous respiration (removal of all
available substrate), nitrification, and de-nitrification together with enhanced
biological phosphorus removal.
• It operates simultaneous (co-current) nitrification and de-nitrification by vari-
ation of aeration intensity.
• It tolerates shock load caused by organic and hydraulic load variability. The
system is easily configured and adjusted for short-term diurnal and long-term
seasonal variations.
• It eliminates the need for a secondary clarifier.

• It eliminates separate load equalization. The SBR basin is in itself an equaliza-

tion basin and a clarifier with a much lower solids flux compared to conven-
tional clarifier design.
• It provides the inherent ability to remove nutrients without chemical addition
by controlling the oxygen demand and supply.
• It provides for energy optimization through nutrient removal mechanisms.
The feed water carbonaceous BOD used in denitrification and enhanced
biological phosphorus removal reduces overall oxygen demand and energy
requirements.
• It offers capital and operating cost advantages.

> Read full chapter

Anaerobic treatment processes

Ken Anderson, ... Sinan Uyanik, in Handbook of Water and Wastewater Microbiolo-
gy, 2003

6.3 Anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR)

The anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR) process was developed by Dague's
group at Iowa State University. It is a batch-fed, batch-decanted, suspended growth
system and is operated in a cyclic sequence of four stages: feed, react, settle and
decant (Wirtz and Dague, 1996). It comprises a single tank in which all events
take place, and since a significant part of the cycle-time is spent settling the
biomass from the treated wastewater, the reactor volume requirement is higher than
for continuous flow processes. However, this disadvantage is largely offset by its
simplicity (it requires no additional biomass settling stage or solids recycle) and the
absence of feed short-circuiting which often occurs in continuous flow systems. It
has also been reported that biomass granulation (see the next section) can occur
in an ASBR after long periods (300 days) of operation. Wirtz and Dague (1996)
claimed that the time required for granulation could be shortened by approximately
2 months when granulation enhancements such as granular active carbon (GAC),
silica, polymers and ferric chloride were utilized. Operational cycle-times for the
ASBR can be as short as 6 hours (Wirtz and Dague, 1996; Banik et al., 1997).
> Read full chapter

Case Studies
In The MBR Book, 2006

Plant design and operation

As is often the case for this duty, the choice of technology at Daldowie was seen
as being between a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) and an MBR. However, the
large fluctuations in organic loading arising from periodical releases of poor-quality
effluent from the centrifuges and the belt presses meant that operation of an SBR
was seen as being more problematic than the MBR. This was principally due to the
buffering capacity offered by the MBR, which can operate at an MLSS of 12–18 g/L
rather than the 5 g/L of a conventional activated sludge process (ASP) or SBR. This
means that the MBR is relatively tolerant to significant increases in organic and
hydraulic loading, provided these do not exceed periods of 2–3 days.

The sludge treatment facility incorporates 6 dryers and 12 centrifuges and was built
to process most of the sludge produced by the city of Glasgow (>1.5 million people).
As a result, the combined effluent liquors produced from this processing require
a separate treatment facility as the liquors produced are very high in ammoniacal
nitrogen, BOD and COD. The MBR plant was built to treat the liquors to a high
enough standard to allow direct separate discharge to the river Clyde (Fig. 5.5),
the discharge consent being 20:30:8 (BOD:SS:NH3). It has been operating since
December 2001, and the most recent report is from 2003 (Churchouse and Brindle,
2003).

Figure 5.5. The Daldowie sludge liquor treatment plant:(a) under construction and
(b) operational. The photograph shows the plant with the membrane units and
manifolding to the right

The main effluent streams are centrifuge centrate and dryer condensate, although
other site liquors are also treated. The feedwater typically has a mean composition
of 280 mgN/L as NH3 and 1500 mg/L as BOD, and mean COD levels are in the
region of 2600 mg/L; corresponding permeate levels are around 100–400 mg/L COD
(hence >90% removal) with ammonia levels of 1–2 mg/L (>95% denitrification). The
maximum design flow is 12.8 MLD (yielding a minimum hydraulic retention time
(HRT) of 15 h), obtained with six dryers running without a standby, with an average of
9 MLD being sustainable according to information from site operations. Flows pass
through lamellar separators and a 3 mm screen into a central denitrification/recycle
tank. From there, flows are distributed into four combined membrane and aeration
tanks, each of 2000 m3 volume (Fig. 5.6), and a sludge recycle stream returned from
the tanks to the denitrification section. In each of the aeration tanks there are 1378
diffusers and 32 × 200-panel membrane units, giving a combined 25 600 panels in
the plant (20 480 m2). The flows thus equate to a mean design flux of 18 LMH and
a maximum of 26 LMH.

Figure 5.6. Schematic layout of the Daldowie sludge liquor treatment plant

A great deal of time, effort and money has been spent on identifying the most
appropriate polymer and its dose for chemical conditioning to be effective in the
belt press and centrifugation dewatering operations without detriment to mem-
brane permeability in the downstream MBR. Despite the problems associated with
optimising the polymer dosing, the plant has maintained reasonable performance in
terms of COD and ammonia removal. Moreover, the membranes have proven very
robust; no more than 40 of the 25 600 panels were replaced in the first 3 years of
operation, despite there being no ex situ chemical clean instigated over that period
for permeability recovery. Routine cleaning in place (CIP) with hypochlorite takes
place every 6 weeks or so.

One unusual operational problem that was encountered during an early period of
operation was an abrupt increase in differential pressures accompanied by sudden
foaming. The foam on the top of the tanks was green-grey in colour, whereas the
sludge remained brown. Samples of the foam revealed it to consist almost entirely of
non-settling discrete chlorella algae of about 15 μm diameter. The algae were neu-
trally buoyant and non-flocculating and appeared to pass through the centrifuge as
a result. The incident appeared to be due to the sludge plant processing waterworks
sludge from a site where an algal bloom had been experienced. Whilst differential
pressures had initially doubled, the foam gradually subsided over a number of days
and differential pressure gradually recovered without intervention over a 1–2 week
period.
> Read full chapter

Application of Anaerobic Membrane

Bioreactor (AnMBR) for Low-Strength
Wastewater Treatment and Energy Gen-
eration
Janardhan Bornare, ... R.R. Sonde, in Industrial Wastewater Treatment, Recycling and
Reuse, 2014

10.2.1 Latest Treatment Technologies Adopted in India

A number of newer treatment technologies have come into practice in recent times
and are becoming more popular for sewage treatment. These include the moving
bed biofilm reactor (MBBR), the fluidized aerobic bioreactor (FAB), the sequencing
batch reactor (SBR), and the membrane bioreactor (MBR). In principle, the MBBR
uses a combination of suspended and attached growth processes of biological
wastewater treatment. Such systems utilize specially designed carrier material for
the growth of biofilm, which is held in suspension within the bioreactor. The MBBR
system is a great improvement over conventional extended aeration or ASP and
provides a robust and compact facility in a fully enclosed design. No sludge recir-
culation is required to maintain an active biomass in the bioreactor as in the case of
conventional ASP. The MBBR system takes higher shock loads without reducing the
plant performance because of the large quantity of active biomass available inside
the reactor.

The SBR is a fill-and-draw activated sludge system for wastewater treatment. In this
system, wastewater is added to a single “batch” reactor, treated to remove unde-
sirable components, and then discharged. Equalization, aeration, and clarification
can all be achieved using a single batch reactor. To optimize the performance of
the system, two or more batch reactors are used in a predetermined sequence of
operations. The unit processes of the SBR and conventional activated sludge systems
are the same. The difference between the two technologies is that the SBR performs
equalization, biological treatment, and secondary clarification in a single tank using
a timed control sequence.

MBBR and SBR technologies are gaining acceptance due to a small footprint
area and recyclable quality of effluent. MBR technology, which combines the bio-
logical-ASP and membrane filtration, has also become more popular recently. In
MBR technology, the suspended solids and microorganisms are separated from
the treated water by membrane filtration. Compared with conventional wastewater
treatment processes, MBRs offer several advantages including high biodegradation
efficiency, excellent effluent quality, smaller sludge production, and compactness.
As a result, MBR can offer an attractive option for the treatment and reuse of
municipal wastewater. Because of further technical developments and significant
cost reductions to some extent, the interest in MBR technology for municipal waste-
water treatment has sharply increased; however, deployment of MBR technology
in India is facing some challenges because of huge capital requirements and the
operating cost of the technology. Other factors, such as membrane fouling, necessity
of critical pretreatment, and membrane replacement cost are also impacting on the
implementation of MBR technology in India.

> Read full chapter

Aerobic and Anaerobic Bioreactors

Mukesh Doble, Anil Kumar, in Biotreatment of Industrial Effluents, 2005

Mode of Operation
The reactors are operated in batch, continuous, or semicontinuous mode. The latter
includes semibatch, where one or more of the substrates are added initially in one
lot and one or more of the remaining substrates or nutrients are added during the
course of the reaction time, either at a fixed rate (extended fed batch) or in lots (fed
batch). The concept of the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) has gained considerable
interest, where the sequence of operations like fill, react, and part discharge are
carried out in the same reactor.

Laboratory- and pilot-scale slurry treatment has been carried out using a soil slur-
ry–sequencing batch reactor (SS–SBR), continuous-flow stirred tank reactor (CSTR),
and tanks in series. In the field, SS-SBR and CSTR are the most common. Both
modes of operation have advantages and disadvantages. Because a CSTR dilutes the
feed, the reaction rate (if it is concentration dependent) decreases, but this may be
desirable if the contaminants are toxic to the organisms or if they exhibit substrate
inhibition. CSTR requires continuous use of one vessel, which means higher operat-
ing and maintenance costs. Some disadvantages of SS–SBR are longer batch times
because of fill and discharge times, and the formation of excessive foam. However,
SS–SBR provides better operational flexibility, and the volume of slurry replaced per
treatment cycle can be adjusted to provide optimal concentrations of contaminants
and acclimated microorganisms. In addition, each treated batch can be tested before
it is discharged, and the process can be fine-tuned to achieve optimum operation.
At the beginning of each cycle, a larger amount of substrate is available for biomass
growth (feast conditions), and at the end, the low contaminant concentration reduces
bioavailability and establishes famine conditions. This cycling of feast and famine
conditions modifies the metabolic potential of the microorganisms, and hence
improves their performance in contaminant removal.

> Read full chapter

Tannery Effluent
Mukesh Doble, Anil Kumar, in Biotreatment of Industrial Effluents, 2005

Aerobic
A combination of biochemical oxidation and chemical ozonation of tannery effluent
has been found to yield excellent results, with the first part performed in an upflow
sequencing batch biofilm reactor provided with external recycle (Iaconi et al., 2002).
COD, NH4 — N, and total suspended solids (TSS) removals were 95, 98, and
99.9%, respectively. The combined process produced very low sludge, about 0.03
kg TSS/kg COD removed, which is much lower than the values reported in the
literature for conventional biological systems. Ozone helped in the mineralization
of some organic substances and the partial oxidation of some others, leading to
enhancement of the biodegradability of the effluent. The aerobic treatment of the
beam house and tanyard wastewater substreams, followed by an oxidative treatment
using ozone, and a second aerobic treatment improved the aerobic biodegradability
of refractory organic compounds. Also, full nitrification was achieved during the sub-
sequent aerobic degradation, and the remaining ammonia was completely removed
(Jochimsena et al., 1997).

A membrane sequencing batch reactor performed better than a sequencing batch

reactor in treating beam house wastewater that was collected after the oxidation of
sulfide compounds. The former reactor achieved a removal efficiency of 100% for
ammonium ion and 90% for COD, and the latter reactor achieved low ammonium
removal and 90% for COD. The sequential batch reactor exhibited a washout in 90
days, whereas the membrane bioreactor was very stable for more than 120 days of
operation (Martinez et al., 2003; Goltara et al., 2003).

A settled vegetable-tanning process effluent was treated successfully in a mixed con-

tinuous-flow laboratory-scale plant. The BOD and COD removal efficiencies were
85 to 96% and 86 to 97%, respectively, under steady-state conditions (Murugesan
and Elangovan, 1989). Activated-sludge treatment of chrome-tanning waste mixed
with sewage was able to remove 87 to 96% of BOD under steady state conditions
(Murugesan et al., 1996). About 84 to 92% of the influent BOD was removed from a
tannery effluent when it was treated in an activated sludge well mixed reactor (Ram
et al., 1999; Orhon et al., 1999).

A comparative study of tannery waste treatment was done using an upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor (UASB) and activated sludge (AS) reactor; interestingly, the
latter was found to have more advantages than the former with respect to the capital
and operating costs as well as the quality of performance (Tare et al., 2003). Total
annualized costs, including capital, operating, and maintenance costs, for the UASB
and AS plants were Indian Rs. 4.24 million/million liters per day (MLD) and Indian
Rs. 3.36 million/MLD, respectively. The treated UASB effluent had higher BOD and
COD and considerable amounts of chromium and sulfide when compared with the
AS reactor effluent.

> Read full chapter

Meat Waste Management: Treatment

Methods and Potential Uses of Treated
Waste
Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis, Demetrios Ladas, in Waste Management for the Food
Industries, 2008

Aerobic digestion
The selection of wastewater treatment process is based on the qualities of effluent
and influent volume and type of influent, investment and operating costs and so
on (Ruiz et al., 1997; Sirianuntapiboon and Yommee, 2006). The goal of wastewater
treatment is to remove the suspended materials and to eliminate the soluble organic
contaminants. Biological degradation is the main technology that makes use of
adsorption of microbes in activated sludge to oxidize and decompose the solute
or suspended protein, fat and lard and other carbohydrates (Spencer and Watson,
1997; Jian and Zhang, 1999). Aerobically treated excrement contains much less
soluble organic material than fresh or anaerobically stored excrement and thus its
application is less likely to lead to organic pollution of water courses (Owens et al.,
1973).

Aeration is a highly effective and simple method for degradation of organic pollu-
tants, including odorants, but its running cost is high. Because it is an exothermic
process, the recovery and utilization of heat can help support the treatment cost
(Svoboda and Evans, 1987). Furthermore, aerobic treatments are very effective at
reducing odors and pathogens (Skjelhaugen and Donantoni, 1998). These include
aerobic lagoon, activated sludge processes–conventional, extended aeration, com-
plete mix, oxidation ditches, sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) and trickling filters
and rotating biological contactors (RBCs) (Mittal, 2006). Brenes et al. (2000) also
reported that, aerobic systems, such as aerated lagoons or activated sludge units,
are frequently used to remove the contamination generated by wastewaters from
agro-industrial plants.

In most countries, ponds remain the main form of aerobic biological treatment
for COD removal from slaughterhouse wastewater, although a wider variety of
secondary biological systems has also been used to some extent, including trickling
filters and activated-sludge systems (Johns, 1995).

The activated sludge process is a widely used method for treating industrial and do-
mestic wastewater. One of the most common and serious problems in the operation
of activated sludge plants is the inability to separate solids from treated effluents in
the clarifier (Contreras et al., 2000). In this method, the organic material is converted
in the presence of oxygen that is forced into the process water. After primary and
secondary sedimentation, the purified water is separated from the remaining sludge.
This sludge is rich in protein and poor in fat. Aerobic activated sludge frequently
contains high numbers of pathogenic microorganisms and spoilage flora that can
cause amino acid breakdown (Stampi et al., 1992; Fransen et al., 1994, 1998).

Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) is a wastewater treatment system based on activated

sludge operated on a sequence of fill and draw cycles. SBR treatment for wastewater
produces an effluent that is better than that obtained by a secondary treatment
and can operate over a wide range of hydraulic and organic flow variations (Mace
and Mata-Alvarez, 2002). The unit processes involved in the SBR and conventional
activated sludge systems are identical. Aeration and sedimentation are carried out
in both systems. However, there is one important difference, in conventional acti-
vated sludge plants, the processes are carried out simultaneously in separate tanks,
whereas in SBR operations, the processes are carried out sequentially in the same
tank (Sirianuntapiboon and Yommee, 2006).

The SBR proved to be a very flexible tool and was particularly suitable for the treat-
ment of piggery wastewater, characterized by high nutrient content and by frequent
changes in composition and therefore affecting process conditions. Additionally,
SBR performs well with respect to standard wastewater criteria for the removal of
organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphate (Obaja et al., 2003). It is widely known that
the effect of wastewater treatment in a sequential bioreactor (SBR) greatly depends
on the optimum process parameters, i.e. aeration intensity, activated sludge loading,
hydraulic retention of wastewater in an aeration chamber and the ratio between
stirring time and aeration time (Bohdziewicz and Sroka, 2005).
Several authors studied the aerobic digestion of abattoir waste since the latter is
of high polluting potential. Owens et al. (1973) have investigated the feasibility
of treating pig excrement with two different types of aerobic systems at different
loading rates and temperatures. One was operated with floc formation and gravity
separation of liquid and suspended solid effluents and a second was operated
without floc formation or separation of the effluent into liquid and solid fractions. At
a variance of loading rate (g SSg/MLSS per day) between 0.14 and 1.30, the output
of suspended solids and chemical oxygen demands varied between 73 to 109%
and 54 to 94%, respectively. In the case of nitrogen balance, nitrogen losses from
the treatment systems did not exceed 10% except when the mixed liquor pH was
alkaline.

Sirianuntapiboon and Yommee (2006) applied a combination of a moving bio-film

(MB), made from the inner tube of used tyres, and a conventional-aerobic-SBR in
an attempt to increase the system efficiency and quality of bio-sludge due to good
sedimentation non-biodegradability and reusability of the media without any regen-
eration. As a result, the BOD5 and COD removal efficiencies of the MB-aerobic-SBR
were higher than 95% even when the system was operated with synthetic poultry
slaughterhouse waste-water containing 800 mg/l BOD5 under a very low HPT of 1.5
days (organic loading of 528 ± 50.8 g BOD5/m3 per day). Furthermore, the BOD5,
TKN and TP removal efficiencies of the MB-aerobic-SBR were about 1–2, 2–3 and
10–12% higher, respectively, than that of the conventional-aerobic-SBR, while total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and suspended solids of the MB-aerobic-SBR
under a high organic loading of 528 ± 50.8gBOD5/m3 per day were 4.1 ± 1.0, 1.5 ±
0.80 and 41 ± 2 mg/l, respectively.

Obaja et al. (2003) investigated the feasibility of using a sequencing batch reac-
tor as an efficient tool for biological carbon and nutrient removal, capable of
achieving effluents with very low nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations from
raw and digested pig manure. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal yields amounted
to approximately 100% and 98%, respectively, while complete denitrification was
obtained when the C/N ratio was equal to or higher than 1.7.

Sroka et al. (2004) reported the aerobic digestion of piggery wastewater by a com-
bination of biological treatment in an SBR and post-treatment applying reverse
osmosis. They concluded that the application of simple aerobic digestion of piggery
wastewater results in COD, total phosphorus and total nitrogen percentages of
removal of 90.2–98.9%, 59.9–87.8% and 82.1–95.5%, respectively, while sludge
loading varies between 0.05 and 0.75 g/CODdry wt.sludge per day. Furthermore, it was
reported that the treatment of piggery wastewater during reverse osmosis, after
it was treated biologically applying the activated sludge method, results in COD,
total phosphorus and total nitrogen percentages of retention of 85.8%, 97.5% and
90.0%, respectively. Moreover, Cassidy and Belia (2005) studied the formation and
performance of granular sludge in an 8 l sequencing batch reactor (SBR) treating a
beef processing plant wastewater. Even without optimization of process conditions,
removal of COD and P were over 98% and removal of N and VSS were above
97%. Nitrification and denitrification occurred simultaneously during the reaction
while aerobic granules formed from flocculating sludge within 4 days by a step-wise
reduction in the settle time from 60 to 2 min.

An innovative combination of SBR technology with another reactor was reported by

Merzouki et al. (2005). The (anaerobic–anoxic) SBR was combined with a fixed-bed
reactor operated under aerobic conditions for nitrification with the aim of treat-
ing slaughterhouse wastewater. However, the treatment could not be successfully
carried out on the raw slaughterhouse wastewater since the process displayed very
satisfactory nutrient removal performances after pre-fermentation. The removals of
COD, N-NH4 and P-PO4 achieved were 99%, 85% and 99%, respectively.

Another interesting combination of anaerobic–aerobic systems was suggested by

Del Pozo and Diez (2005). In this case, an integrated anaerobic–aerobic fixed-film
pilot-scale reactor was fed for 166 days with slaughterhouse wastewater. Organic
matter removal efficiencies of 93% were obtained for an average organic loading
rate of 0.77 kg COD/m3 per day and nitrogen removal efficiencies of 67% were
achieved for nitrogen loading rates of 0.084 kg N/m3 per day, while the nitrification
process reached an efficiency of 91% for nitrogen loads of 0.15 kg N/m3 per
day when the anaerobic–aerobic volume ratio was 2:3 and was limited by dissolved
oxygen concentration below 3 mg/l.

Wong et al. (2005) investigated the feasibility of upgrading an aerated lagoon system
to an SBR with the aim of treating piggery waste. It was reported that a continuous
flow, aerated lagoon system could be operated as a sequencing batch reactor with
improved performance. As a result, higher than 99% BOD removal efficiency was
achieved primarily under a long HRT and sufficient oxygen supply conditions,
while the COD removal percentage varied between 96 and 98%.

Table 12.6 summarizes values of organic loading rate, BOD reduction (%) and COD
reduction (%), which were observed during aerobic treatment of meat wastes.

Table 12.6. Aerobic digestion of meat wastes: BOD and COD decrease of organic
loading rate versus HRT

Treatment Organic load- HRT (days) BOD reduc- COD reduc- References
ing rate tion tion (%)
Fluidized bed 305–02 mg 8.8–30.8 71–93 − Li et al., 1986
biofilm reactor BOD/l
Activated 400–8000 g – 95 http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/mao/abatt
sludge BOD/m3 per
day
Sequencing 1.5–5 ≥95
batch reactor
 80–528g Sirianuntapi-
BOD/m3per
day boon and
Yomme,
2006
Sequencing 0.05–0.75 g 99.6 98.1 Sroka et al.,
batch reactor C0D/gdwt per
day 1986
Sequencing 0.15 g COD/g 12–36 99.5–99.6 96.9–97.3 Bohdziewicz
batch reactor TS per day and Sroka,
and reverse 2005
osmosis

HRT: hydraulic retention time.

Adapted from Sioka et al., 2004

Copyright © 2004

> Read full chapter

Commercial Technologies
In The MBR Book, 2006

4.3.6 ITT Industries

ITT Industries has a $8.0 billion turnover and offers a number of product lines
relating to water and wastewater treatment. The company acquired PCI Membranes
from Thames Water (now part of RWE) and WET, a supplier of RO systems in
2002 as well as Wedeco Disinfection in 2005. The new ITT Industries' Dual Stage
MBR systems, launched in 2005, take advantage of synergies between two of the
company's subsidiaries: Sanitaire and Aquious-PCI Membrane Systems. Sanitaire
is the world's leading supplier of aeration systems for wastewater treatment and
also supplies complete wastewater systems based on the Sanitaire ABJ sequencing
batch reactor (SBR). Aquious, a unit of ITT Advanced Water Treatment, is a relatively
new brand that envelopes ITT Industries' existing membrane filtration products and
technology. As well as retaining the manufacturing capability for tubular membranes
provided by PCI Membranes, Aquious supplies spiral-wound or HF membranes
for clean feed streams, and ceramic membranes for applications requiring high
chemical compatibility and thermal resistance.

The new Dual Stage MBR technology is targeted both at municipal and industrial
wastewater applications, particularly in food and beverage production, chemical and
pharmaceutical manufacturing, pulp and paper processing, metal finishing and steel
production. As with many other HF MBRs, biological treatment is separated from
 the membrane filtration stage to allow independent control of retention time and
aeration. The biological stage employs high-efficiency Sanitaire® diffused aeration
technology based on Gold SeriesTM diffusers. MLSS levels can be maintained at
10 000–12 000 mg/L. The membrane filtration stage employs immersed 0.05 μm
reinforced PES membranes. Membranes are supplied in two module configurations,
horizontally mounted and in single manifolds, which are open at one end and
connected to a manifold for permeate extraction under vacuum. The modules have
integral aerators, with air-scour nozzles placed within the fibre bundles (Fig. 4.30).
The company is also incorporating the Dual Stage MBR in its new Integrated Reuse
System, together with ITT RO, Ozone and UV technology.

Figure 4.30. The ITT MBR

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.