Oxygen transfer improvement in MBBR process
- 71 Downloads
In the last years, the upgrading of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) could be required in order to comply with the more stringent regulation requirements. Nevertheless, the main issue is related to the surface availability. A proper solution could be represented by the attached biomass processes, in particular the moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR), that have a significant footprint reduction with respect to conventional activated sludge (CAS). However, MBBR showed an important disadvantage: the poor aeration energy efficiency due to the use of coarse bubble diffusers, which guarantee high reliability and low maintenance costs with respect to fine bubble ones. Moreover, the presence of carriers inside the reactor emphasizes this aspect. The aim of this work is to verify the benefits achievable by installing a fine bubble aeration system inside a MBBR system. The comparison, in terms of oxygen transfer efficiency, between a medium bubble aeration system and a fine ceramic bubble diffuser was studied and the effect of biofilm growth on oxygen transfer was assessed. Several tests were carried out in order to test the operation of a coarse and a fine bubble side aeration at different air flow rates, both in clean water conditions, in order to evaluate the influence of carriers (Chip M type) on the aeration efficiency, both in wastewater conditions with the aim to assess the effect of bacteria growth on the carriers. The main results are the following: (i) the fine bubble system placed off-center ensured good mixing even without using the mixer; (ii) the fine bubble side aeration system compared to the coarse ones did not show significant advantages in terms of oxygen transfer efficiency; (iii) the increase in specific air flow rate negatively influenced the aeration efficiency; (iv) the presence of biomass had a positive effect on the oxygen transfer yield.
KeywordsWastewater treatment Moving bed biofilm reactor Aeration efficiency Attached biomass Coarse bubble aeration Fine bubble aeration
The authors wish to thank Veolia and AnoxKaldnes AB for giving the financial and technical support to the experimental research. A special thanks to Eng. Gianfranco Favali for his useful suggestions in writing this paper and to Eng. David Danesi that carried out the experimental activities during his Master Thesis.
- Brinkley J, Chandler HJ, Souza R (2007) Moving bed biofilm reactor technology—a full-scale installation for treatment of pharmaceutical wastewater. Proceedings of NC-AWWA-WE NC AWWA-WEA 87th Annual Conference, Charlotte, North Carolina, December 2–5Google Scholar
- Casas ME, Chhetri RK, Ooi G, Hansen KMS, Litty K, Christensson M, Kragelund C, Andersen HR, Bester K (2015) Biodegradation of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater by staged moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR). Water Res 83:293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Castro DF, Bassin JP, Dezotti M (2017) Treatment of a simulated textile wastewater containing the Reactive Orange 16 azo dye by a combination of ozonation and moving-bed biofilm reactor: evaluating the performance, toxicity, and oxidation by-products. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:6307–6316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7119-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johnson C, Boltz JP (2013) Aeration system design in integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) and moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR) using stainless steel pipe diffusers, manifold, and down pipes. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2013: Session 47 through Session 53, 3781–3808(28)Google Scholar
- Kaiser R (1969) Comparison of aeration efficiency under process conditions. Advances in water pollution research. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, PragueGoogle Scholar
- Ødegaard H (1999) The moving bed biofilm reactor. In: Igarashi T, Watanabe Y, Asano T, Tambo N (eds) Water environmental engineering and reuse of water, Hokkaido Press, pp 205–305Google Scholar
- Rosso D, Stenstrom MK (2005) Comparative economic analysis of the impacts of mean cell retention time and denitrification on aeration system. Proceedings of the IWA Specialized Biological Nutrient Removal Conference, Krakow, Poland, OctoberGoogle Scholar
- US EPA (1989) Fine pore (fine bubble) aeration systems. EPA/625/1-89/023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OHGoogle Scholar
- Weiss JS, Alvarez M, Tang C-C, Horvath RW, Stahl JF (2005) Evaluation of moving bed biofilm reactor technology for enhancing nitrogen removal in a stabilization pond treatment plant. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, WEFTEC 2005: Session 21 through Session 30, 2085–2102Google Scholar
- Zafarzadeh A, Bina B, Nikaeen M, Movahedian Attar H, Hajian nejad M (2010) Performance of moving bed biofilm reactors for biological nitrogen compounds removal from wastewater by partial nitrification-denitrification process. Iranian J Environ Health Eng 7(4):353–364Google Scholar