Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
, 7(4):963-972,Autumn 2013
ISSN: 1735-6865
ABSTRACT: In this study, feasibility of upgrading and retrofitting municipal wastewater treatment plants
was investigated at laboratory scale using Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) process. For this purpose,
an aerobic pilot was operated for nearly one year in different conditions, in which a moving bed carrier with a
specific biofilm surface area of 500 m2/m 3 and a filling rate of 60% was utilized. System efficiency in removal
of BOD5 and COD was examined at different hydraulic retention times (HRTs) of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 and 4 h. The
obtained results indicated high ability of the system to tolerate organic loading and to remain stable at a high
food to microorganism (F/M) ratio. The system produced effluents with good quality at low HRTs and led to
an average BOD5 removal efficiency of nearly 88% during the operational period. The Organic Loading Rate
(OLR) applied to the system had a range of 0.73-3.48 kgBOD5/m 3.day and 2.43-11.6 gBOD5/m 2.day, at which
the reactor showed a good performance and stability. In general, it was concluded that (MBBR) can be an
excellent alternative for upgrading and optimizing municipal wastewater treatment plants
Key words:MBBR,Optimization, Sewage, Biomass, Carrier
INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment is essential to safeguard human
health and environment (Borghei et al. 2008; Mokhtari
Azar 2011; Zinatizadeh et al., 2007; Sarparastzadeh et
al., 2007; Rajakumar and Meenambal, 2008; Mtethiwa
et al., 2008; Rajasimman and Karthikeyan, 2009; AlMalack, 2010; Akbarpour Toloti and Mehrdadi, 2011; ).
Accordingly, more attention should be given to
improvement of wastewater treatment process as well
as upgrading and retrofitting treatment plants (Kimura
et al. 2008; Safari et al., 2011; Sekman et al., 2011; Oyoo
et al., 2011; Onodera et al., 2012; Hatamoto et al., 2012;
Aguilar-Lopez et al., 2013; Nasrabadi et al., 2013; Khan
and Faheem, 2013 ). It should be also noted that
operation and maintenance cost of wastewater treatment
plants is much more than roads. (Tandukar et al., 2007).
Therefore, upgrading and retrofitting wastewater
treatment plants are of high importance, and nowadays
are done to meet various objectives such as increasing
963
965
350
40
300
35
30
250
25
200
150
CO D I nfluent
20
CO D Loa ding
15
100
10
50
0
0
66
132
198
264
330
Time ( days)
180
20
160
18
16
140
14
120
12
100
80
B OD Influe nt
10
B OD Loading
60
40
20
0
0
66
132
198
264
330
T im e (da ys)
Fig. 3. influent BOD concentration and BOD loading rate at different operational times
966
3500
M LS S
3000
M LVSS
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
65
130
195
T im e (da ys)
260
325
100
2.40
80
70
F/M
1.80
F/M (kgBOD/kgMLVSS.day)
90
60
50
1.20
40
30
0.60
20
10
0.00
0
0
55
110
165
220
Time (days)
275
3 30
Fig. 5. variations of Food to Microorganism Ratio and organic removal efficiency at different conditions
12.0
100
80
BOD loading
8.0
70
COD loading
60
6.0
50
30
20
2.0
90
10.0
10
0.0
0
55
110
165
220
Time (days)
275
0
330
Fig. 6. BOD and COD loading applied to the system in different operational period and system removal efficiency
967
COD effluent
BOD effluent
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Effluent (m g/L
100
0
0
55
1 10
1 65
220
275
330
effluents
during the different operational period
T ime (days)
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
Ave
Max
Min
Ave
Max
Min
Ave
Max
Min
Ave
Max
Min
Ave
Max
Min
Ave
Max
Min
HRT
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Q
60
60
60
40
40
40
30
30
30
24
24
24
20
20
20
15
15
15
COD R.E
70.48
73.13
66.08
75.10
78.72
67.84
79.19
81.78
77.65
83.49
85.71
79.43
88.23
90.94
86.09
92.30
94.54
89.50
OLR
6.33
7.46
5.45
4.05
4.80
3.18
3.24
3.82
2.64
2.37
2.98
1.81
2.10
2.48
1.77
1.58
1.87
1.20
BOD5 R.E
79.91
85.25
69.05
84.84
86.47
82.98
87.45
89.86
84.89
88.75
91.27
85.27
91.63
94.48
87.12
94.64
96.40
91.47
OLR
3.19
3.48
2.93
2.20
2.38
2.03
1.64
1.85
1.45
1.29
1.51
1.17
1.13
1.24
1.03
0.81
0.89
0.73
MLSS
2908
3027
2689
2626
2910
2396
2498
2679
2344
2311
2650
2147
2278
2494
2169
2016
2246
1848
Hydraulic retention time (h): MLSS (mg/L): MLVSS (mg/L) : T, temperature (C) : Q : LPH
COD Removal efficiency (%)
3
Organic loading rate (kgCOD/m3.day)
4
COD Removal efficiency (%)
5
Organic loading rate (kgBOD5/m 3.day)
2
968
MLVSS
1998
2196
1693
1894
2268
1506
1647
1879
1478
1566
1843
1337
1502
1681
1226
1223
1480
1029
T
19.91
23.80
16.40
20.96
24.70
16.50
21.71
24.90
18.30
20.36
24.20
16.90
19.86
23.60
16.80
20.33
24.80
15.90
pH
7.59
7.89
7.23
7.65
7.96
7.36
7.51
7.89
7.29
7.54
7.98
7.08
7.57
7.92
7.12
7.54
7.98
7.23
969
REFERENCES
CONCLUSION
MBBR is not F/M-parameter-sensitive. It can fully
maintain its stability in organic loads several times
higher than conventional systems such as activated
sludge, trickling filters, RBCs, ABF, etc. This is
considered a very important advantage of the process.
Compared to the old conventional processes, this
system requires less HRT to reduce wastewater organic
load to the optimal level. This can lead to reduced
volume of aeration tank. Therefore, MBBR can be used
to increase the capacity of WWTPs and upgrade them
to improve effluents quality. Furthermore, by
combining this system with anoxic and anaerobic
systems (in remaining aeration tank) the output nutrient
rate can be reduced to an acceptable level. Thus, the
current WWTPs can be upgraded. The specific surface
of the carriers is a crucial parameter. When selecting
carriers, enough attention should be paid to choose
the appropriate specific area in order to reduce the
required time for treatment process and consequently
reduce ase ocess and consequently,a alan tu matn
vojud dare moshkel dashtam.the treatment costs.
MBBR does not have common problems such as
sludge bulking and rising, foaming, poor sludge
settling, carriers clogging and the need for
backwashing with regard to the operational
characteristics. Strong resistance to impact and no
need to return the sludge make the system much easier
to operate. Considering the effluents quality, with HRT
of 2 h, the system meets the standards of Iran and EPA
in elimination of organic materials.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors extend their gratitude to the authorities
of Tehran Province Water and Wastewater Company
(TPWW Co.) and Shahrak Ghods Wastewater
Treatment Plant for their sincere cooperation. Our
special thanks go to Mr. Mahmood Roshanzamir for
providing invaluable assistance throughout the
research process and Ms. Narges Zaredar, whose
precious advices in better presentation of the
manuscript is commendable.
970
971
972