A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 323

Performance evaluation of a UASB – activated sludge

Water Science and Technology Vol 43 No 11 pp 323–328 © 2001 IWA Publishing and the authors
system treating municipal wastewater
M. von Sperling*, V.H. Freire and C.A. de Lemos Chernicharo
*Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas Gerais
Av. Contorno 842 – 7o andar, 30110-060 Belo Horizonte, Brazil (E-mail: marcos@desa.ufmg.br)

Abstract Recent research has indicated the advantages of combining anaerobic and aerobic processes
for the treatment of municipal wastewater, especially for warm-climate countries. Although this configuration
is seen as an economical alternative, is has not been investigated in sufficient detail on a worldwide basis.
This work presents the results of the monitoring of a pilot-scale plant comprising of an UASB reactor
followed by an activated sludge system, treating actual municipal wastewater from a large city in Brazil. The
plant was intensively monitored and operated for 261 days, divided into five different phases, working with
constant and variable inflows. The plant showed good COD removal, with efficiencies ranging from 69% to
84% for the UASB reactor, from 43% to 56% for the activated sludge system only and from 85% to 93% for
the overall system. The final effluent suspended solids concentration was very low, with averages ranging
from 13 to 18 mg/l in the typical phases of the research. Based on the very good overall performance of the
system, it is believed that it is a better alternative for warm-climate countries than the conventional activated
sludge system, especially considering the total low hydraulic detention time (4.0 h UASB; 2.8 h aerobic
reactor; 1.1 h final clarifier), the savings in energy consumption, the absence of primary sludge and the
possibility of thickening and digesting the aerobic excess sludge in the UASB reactor itself.
Keywords Municipal wastewater; anaerobic processes; aerobic processes; UASB; activated sludge;
post-treatment

Introduction
The activated sludge process has been widely applied for the treatment of domestic and
industrial wastewaters, due to its high efficiency, operational flexibility, possibility for
nutrient removal, among other advantages. However, there are some disadvantages, name-
ly: high mechanisation level, high construction and operational costs, sophisticated
operation and the need for treating a substantial amount of sludge (von Sperling, 1997).
In the past few years, the high-rate anaerobic processes, especially the UASB (Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket) reactor has shown to be a technology capable of overcoming
some of the disadvantages of the mechanised aerobic systems, especially because of the
absence of energy consumption and lower excess sludge generation. Nevertheless, the
treated effluent is usually unable to comply with most existing discharge standards
(Chernicharo, 1997).
Aiming at balancing the advantages and disadvantages of both systems, recent research
has indicated the benefits in combining the processes, with the anaerobic stage being fol-
lowed by the aerobic stage. The advantages of the combination are: (a) lower energy con-
sumption; (b) lower chemical consumption for dewatering; (c) less sludge to be disposed
of; (d) less equipment required; (e) higher operational simplicity (von Sperling and
Chernicharo, 1998).
Figure 1 presents the flowsheets of a conventional activated sludge plant and the UASB-
activated sludge system. In either case, the sludge lines are also taken into account. In the
alternative of UASB-activated sludge, an important feature of the system is the return of the
aerobic excess sludge to the anaerobic reactor, where the solids undergo stabilisation, con-
siderably simplifying the plant flowsheet and the sludge processing. This approach of 323
A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 324

M. von Sperling et al.

Figure 1 Comparison between the flowsheets of a conventional activated sludge system and an UASB-
activated sludge system

returning the activated sludge wastage to the UASB reactor has been tested experimentally
by Souza and Foresti (1996) and Charleston et al. (1996) and showed to give good results.
In spite of the various advantages of the combined interaction of the UASB and the acti-
vated sludge systems, it has been the subject of little investigation for municipal waste-
water treatment, even at a worldwide level. Some of the research undertaken is described
below.
Colleti et al. (1997) investigated under laboratory scale an activated sludge plant, treat-
ing the effluent from a compartmentalised UASB reactor, which received municipal waste-
water. The main objective was to determine the stoichiometric and kinetic coefficients of
the activated sludge process working as a post-treatment of the UASB reactor. The system
achieved removal efficiencies of 95% (BOD) and 88% (COD).
Souza and Foresti (1996) worked with a system composed of a UASB reactor followed
by two aerobic Sequencing Batch Reactors in parallel. The system received synthetic
wastewater. The removal efficiencies averaged 95% for COD and 85% for TKN.
Silva et al. (1995) investigated a pilot-scale UASB-activated sludge system, receiving
324 an influent comprised of approximately 90% of industrial wastewater flow. The UASB
A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 325

reactor achieved removal efficiencies around 70% for COD and 80% for BOD. The activat-
ed sludge process was predominantly very unstable and subjected to filamentous bulking.
In the more stable periods the removal efficiencies for the aerobic stage alone averaged
42% for COD and 63% for BOD. The instability was attributed to the high percentage of
industrial wastewater flow.
Passing et al. (1999) presented one-year operational data from a full-scale UASB-
activated sludge plant treating domestic wastewater for a design population of 100,000

M. von Sperling et al.

inhabitants in Brazil. The average effluent concentrations were 174 mg/l (COD) and
47 mg/l (BOD). The plant had not yet needed wastage of the aerobic excess sludge.
The present paper investigates the performance of a pilot-scale UASB-activated sludge
plant operated for a period of 261 days. The plant received actual municipal wastewater
pumped from the main intercepting line of a large city in Brazil (Belo Horizonte, 2.0 mil-
lion inhabitants). The plant is situated in the Pilot Installations Laboratory of the
Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering, Federal University of Minas
Gerais, Belo Horizonte.

Methodology
The UASB reactor has a volume of 416 L, feeding, besides the activated sludge system,
other post-treatment lines. The activated sludge reactor has a volume of 23 L. The average
frequency of sampling was 2 to 3 times per week. The aeration was by diffused air, and the
DO level was kept around 2.0 mg/l. The operating period of 261 days was divided into the
following five phases (see also Table 1):
• Phase I: Unseeded start-up of the activated sludge system (UASB reactor had been
already previously started-up). Constant inflow.
• Phase II: Reduction of the Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) in all units. Constant
inflow.
• Phase III: Same average HRT as in previous phase. Variable inflow, simulating a typical
diurnal pattern (peristaltic pump adjusted to follow a polynomial curve).
• Phase IV: Reduction of the HRT (volume) of the settler in the UASB reactor. This reduc-
tion was to force a lowering in the COD removal efficiency of the UASB reactor, aiming
at exciting the activated sludge system more. Variable inflow (same flow and pattern as
in previous phase).
• Phase V: 20% of the inflow by-passing the UASB reactor and entering the activated
sludge system, in order to further excite the activated sludge system. Variable inflow
(same flow and pattern as in previous phase).
Table 1 Main characteristics of the five operational phases

Average hydraulic retention time (h)

Duration UASB Aerobic Final Total

Phase (days) reactor reactor settler HRT Remarks

I 62 6.0 3.7 1.5 11.2 Constant inflow

II 48 4.0 2.8 1.1 7.9 Constant inflow
III 69 4.0 2.8 1.1 7.9 Variable inflow
IV 52 4.0 2.8 1.1 7.9 Reduction in volume of UASB settler
V 30 4.0 2.8 1.1 7.9 20% raw sewage by-pass to activated sludge

Results and discussion

The summary statistics of the results from each operational phase are presented in Table 2.
The average COD removal efficiencies are summarised in Table 3. Figure 2 presents the 325
A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 326

Table 2 Summary statistics from the five operational phases

Operational phases

Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV Phase V

Parameter Statistics Infl InAS Effl Infl InAS Effl Infl InAS Effl Infl InAS Effl Infl InAS Effl
M. von Sperling et al.

COD average 958 137 105 734 114 50 555 85 56 386 119 58 557 180 128
(mg/L) stand.dev 881 63 66 542 47 16 239 18 25 174 22 26 135 69 40
number 14 15 16 7 8 8 17 18 19 14 15 15 13 13 13
COD average 269 64 60 255 58 40 262 53 30 206 62 30 243 66 63
filtered stand.dev 140 46 37 179 30 22 112 15 16 83 24 17 85 14 17
(mg/L) number 16 16 16 7 8 8 16 18 18 15 15 15 13 12 13
SS average 443 25 23 251 32 13 115 21 15 120 34 18 141 53 99
(mg/L) stand.dev 385 10 17 379 12 6 67 5 12 44 11 10 58 26 59
number 15 16 16 8 8 8 18 20 19 15 15 15 13 12 13
VSS average 329 20 17 205 28 12 99 19 14 107 31 16 129 46 48
(mg/L) stand.dev 278 7 12 291 10 6 48 4 10 38 13 9 51 22 24
number 14 16 16 8 8 8 18 20 19 15 15 15 13 12 13
MLSS average 562 1414 1415 1335 1055
(mg/L) stand.dev 401 317 528 469 656
number 7 8 18 13 13
MLVSS average 430 1235 1218 1158 928
(mg/L) stand.dev 363 280 441 418 573
number 7 8 18 13 13

Infl: influent to UASB; InAS: influent to activated sludge (effluent from UASB); Effl: final effluent, from activated sludge

Table 3 Average COD removal efficiencies in four operational phases

Phase UASB Activated sludge UASB – activated sludge

II 84 % 56 % 93 %
III 85 % 43 % 91 %
IV 69 % 51 % 85%
V 68 % 50 % –

box-and-whisker plot of the final effluent COD distribution in the five operational phases.
The box-and-whisker plot shows the minimum and maximum values (whiskers), together
with the 25, 50 and 75 percentiles (box). The stepwise reduction in the average COD and SS
concentrations, from the influent, effluent from UASB and final effluent are shown in
Figures 3 and 4, respectively. Figure 5 plots the time series of the MLVSS concentration in
the reactor of the activated sludge system. Other parameters have been monitored and
analysed, being covered in detail in Freire (1999). BOD data has been collected, but the

326 Figure 2 Box-and-whisker plot of the distribution of the final effluent COD in four operational phases
A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 327

M. von Sperling et al.

Figure 3 Average COD values in the various stages of the treatment line, according to the operational
phase

Figure 4 Average SS values in the various stages of the treatment line, according to the operational phase

Figure 5 Time series of the MLVSS concentration in the reactor of the activated sludge system

number of samples is insufficient to support the same level of interpretation. Due to

practical difficulties, sludge settleability tests and microbiological analyses have not been
undertaken. In Figures 2, 3 and 4, only Phases II to V have been considered. Phase I was not
included, because it did not represent a typical operation of the plant, being mainly associ-
ated with the specific condition of the start-up of the activated sludge plant.
Based on the tables, figures and additional analysis, the following comments are made:
• The average final effluent COD concentrations in Phases II, III and IV were around
55 mg/l, well below the discharge standard of 90 mg/l, set out by the State
Environmental Agency.
• The Analysis of Variance undertaken with the final effluent COD indicated that there
were no significant differences between Phases II, III and IV (Phase V is untypical, 327
A042 6/6/01 5:44 pm Page 328

because of the raw sewage by-pass to the activated sludge). An important consequence
of this analysis is the conclusion that the variable inflow did not affect the performance
of the activated sludge process.
• The reduction of the HRT in the UASB settler (Phase IV) resulted in a decrease in the COD
removal efficiency of the UASB reactor, from 85% to 69%. However, the activated sludge
was able to cope with the load increase, and the final effluent quality was not affected (as
shown by the Analysis of Variance mentioned above).
M. von Sperling et al.

• Phase I showed lower COD removal efficiencies in the activated sludge system, resulting
from the acclimation of the biomass during the start-up period.
• The final effluent concentrations of SS during Phases II, III and IV were able to satisfy
commonly applied international discharge standards.
• The higher values of SS in the final effluent during Phase V, which was characterised by
the by-pass of 20% of raw sewage to the activated sludge, was due to sludge bulking. The
bulking was only occasional during the other phases, but was systematic in Phase V.
• The MLVSS concentration in the reactor of the activated sludge system had average values
around 1000 mg/l, but was highly variable during the operational phases. It took approxi-
mately 60 days for the biomass to reach the average value. This average value of 1000 mg/l
was half of the design value adopted for the plant (2000 mg/l). However, the F/M ratio in
Phases II, III and IV was within typical design values of conventional activated sludge plants.

Conclusions
In the more typical operational phases (II, III and IV), the overall performance was very
good, as seen by the following results:
• Average COD removal efficiencies between 85% and 93%.
• Average final effluent COD concentrations between 50 and 58 mg/l.
• Average final effluent SS concentrations between 13 and 18 mg/l.
The combined system (UASB - activated sludge) showed to be a very good alternative
for the treatment of municipal wastewaters, based on the performance of the system and the
compactness of the treatment units (total hydraulic retention time of 7.9 h, computing the
UASB reactor, activated sludge reactor and final clarifier).

References
Charleston, L.O., Robles, A.N. and Bohórquez, S.S. (1996). Efectos de lodos activados de purga sobre el funcionamien-
to de un reactor UASB piloto y las características del lecho de lodo granular. XXV Interamerican Congress on
Sanitary and Environmental Engineering (Proceedings). Mexico, 3–7 November 1996 (in Spanish).
Chernicharo, C.A.L. (1997). Princípios do Tratamento Biológico de Águas Residuárias – Reatores Anaeróbios. Vol 5.
Departamento de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental – UFMG (in Portuguese).
Coletti, F.J., Povinelli, J. and Daniel, L.A. (1997). Pós-tratamento por lodos ativados de efluentes provenientes de
processos anaeróbios de tratamento de esgoto sanitário; Determinação de constantes cinéticas. Anais: 19o
Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Foz do Iguaçu, set/97 (in Portuguese).
Freire, V.H. (1999). Avaliação do desempenho de um sistema combinado UASB-lodos ativados no tratamento de eflu-
entes sanitários e modelagem do sistema de lodos ativados. MSc Dissertation,
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil (in Portuguese).
Passing, F.H., Vilela, L.C.H. and Ferreira, O.P. (1999). ETE – Piracicamirim - nova concepção de sistema de tratamento
de esgotos sanitários – partida, operação e monitoramento de desempenho. Anais: 20º Congresso Brasileiro de
Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Rio de Janeiro, Maio/99 (in Portuguese).
Souza, J.T. and Foresti, E. (1996). Domestic sewage treatment in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket – sequencing
batch reactor system. Wat. Sci. Tech., 33(3), 73–84.
Silva, S.M.C.P. da, Além, S.P.; Jr., A.S.G. (1995). Avaliação do Sistema Reator UASB e Processo de Lodos Ativados
para Tratamento de Esgotos Sanitários com Elevada parcela de Contribuição Industrial. Anais: 18º Congresso
Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental, Salvador, Bahia, set/95 (in Portuguese).
Von Sperling, M. (1997). Princípios do tratamento biológico de águas residuárias. 4. Lodos ativados. Departamento de
Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental – UFMG. 415 p. (in Portuguese).
Von Sperling, M. and Chernicharo, C.A.L. (1998). Selection of wastewater treatment systems in urban areas.
Comparison between conventional aerobic systems (activated sludge) and anaerobic-aerobic systems (UASB-
activated sludge). Anais, V Taller – Seminario Latinoamericano de Digestion Anaerobia, Viña del Mar, 27–30 Out
328 1998.