Skip to main content
Log in

Integrated attached and suspended biomass moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: performance and biokinetic study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A new moving bed membrane bioreactor (MBMBR) configuration was developed for the treatment of real municipal wastewater. A regular membrane bioreactor (RMBR) and an integrated moving bed membrane bioreactor (IMBMBR) were operated to evaluate carbon and nutrient removal, nitrification and denitrification, microbial community, kinetics behavior, and membrane fouling. The results showed that the quality of the effluent was significantly better with the IMBMBR. The removal efficiencies of COD and BOD5 with the IMBMBR were 90.94 ± 4.4% and 95.39 ± 3.96%, respectively, compared to 87.65 ± 4.8% and 93.84 ± 3.52%, with the RMBR. The IMBMBR configuration membrane showed less fouling than the RMBR. The attenuation of membrane fouling in IMBMBR is likely due to the lower concentrations of extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). In terms of biokinetics, modified Stover-Kincannon and second-order models fitted the experimental data more smoothly than the first-order model did. The results of this research indicate that the wastewater treatment sector can achieve a more acceptable effluent quality by replacing RMBR with IMBMBR.

Graphical Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Jahan N et al (2022) A Comprehensive review on the sustainable treatment of textile wastewater: zero liquid discharge and resource recovery perspectives. Sustainability 14(22):15398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Roy H et al (2023) Microbial fuel cell construction features and application for sustainable wastewater treatment. Membranes 13(5):490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Islam MS et al (2017) Dynamics of microbial community structure and nutrient removal from an innovative side-stream enhanced biological phosphorus removal process. J Environ Manage 198:300–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang Y et al (2017) A comparative study of microbial dynamics and phosphorus removal for a two side-stream wastewater treatment processes. RSC Adv 7(73):45938–45948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Saidulu D, Majumder A, Gupta AK (2021) A systematic review of moving bed biofilm reactor, membrane bioreactor, and moving bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment: comparison of research trends, removal mechanisms, and performance. J Environ Chem Eng 9(5):106112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Rahman TU et al (2023) The advancement in membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology toward sustainable industrial wastewater management. Membranes 13(2):181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deng L et al (2022) Recent advances in attached growth membrane bioreactor systems for wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ 808:152123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu T et al (2020) Simultaneous nitrification and denitrification process using novel surface-modified suspended carriers for the treatment of real domestic wastewater. Chemosphere 247:125831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sonwani RK et al (2020) Biodegradation of Congo red dye in a moving bed biofilm reactor: performance evaluation and kinetic modeling. Biores Technol 302:122811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dargahi A et al (2021) Moving-bed biofilm reactor combined with three-dimensional electrochemical pretreatment (MBBR–3DE) for 2, 4-D herbicide treatment: application for real wastewater, improvement of biodegradability. RSC Adv 11(16):9608–9620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chyoshi B et al (2022) Fate and removal of emerging contaminants in anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor filled with thermoplastic gel as biofilm support. Chemosphere 300:134557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mannina G et al (2017) Moving bed membrane bioreactors for carbon and nutrient removal: the effect of C/N variation. Biochem Eng J 125:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhu J et al (2020) Impacts of bio-carriers on the characteristics of soluble microbial products in a hybrid membrane bioreactor for treating mariculture wastewater. Sci Total Environ 737:140287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao D et al (2021) Effects of coarse and fine bubble aeration on performances of membrane filtration and denitrification in moving bed membrane bioreactors. Sci Total Environ 772:145513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Leyva-Díaz J et al (2014) Comparative kinetics of hybrid and pure moving bed reactor-membrane bioreactors. Ecol Eng 70:227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yang X et al (2020) Treatment of textile wastewater by CAS, MBR, and MBBR: a comparative study from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Water 12(5):1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sakcharoen T, Ratanatamskul C, Chandrachai A (2021) Factors affecting technology selection, techno-economic and environmental sustainability assessment of a novel zero-waste system for food waste and wastewater management. J Clean Prod 314:128103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Di Trapani D et al (2014) Comparison between moving bed-membrane bioreactor (MB-MBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems: influence of wastewater salinity variation. Biores Technol 162:60–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Di Trapani D et al (2015) Effect of C/N shock variation on the performances of a moving bed membrane bioreactor. Biores Technol 189:250–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Song W et al (2017) Membrane fouling mitigation in a moving bed membrane bioreactor combined with anoxic biofilter for treatment of saline wastewater from mariculture. Biores Technol 243:1051–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Erkan HS et al (2020) Performance evaluation of conventional membrane bioreactor and moving bed membrane bioreactor for synthetic textile wastewater treatment. J Water Process Eng 38:101631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Giberti M et al (2019) Predicting wastewater treatment plant performance during aeration demand shifting with a dual-layer reaction settling model. Water Sci Technol 81(7):1365–1374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhong S et al (2021) Machine learning: new ideas and tools in environmental science and engineering. Environ Sci Technol 55(19):12741–12754

    Google Scholar 

  24. Seid-mohammadi A et al (2021) Kinetic study of real landfill leachate treated by non-thermal plasma (NTP) and granular sequential batch reactors (GSBR). J Water Process Eng 43:102245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Asgari G et al (2023) The best location for the application of static magnetic fields based on biokinetic coefficients in complete-mix activated sludge process. Sci Rep 13(1):5091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leyva-Díaz J et al (2013) Comparative kinetic study between moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor and membrane bioreactor systems and their influence on organic matter and nutrients removal. Biochem Eng J 77:28–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Apha A, Awwa WPCF (2017) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 23rd ed. American Public Health Association, Washington DC

  28. Li XY, Yang SF (2007) Influence of loosely bound extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) on the flocculation, sedimentation and dewaterability of activated sludge. Water Res 41(5):1022–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72(1–2):248–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nielsen SS (2017) Correction to: food analysis laboratory manual. In: food analysis laboratory manual. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44127-6_32

  31. Pahlavanzadeh S et al (2018) Performance and kinetic modeling of an aerated submerged fixed-film bioreactor for BOD and nitrogen removal from municipal wastewater. J Environ Chem Eng 6(5):6154–6164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shitu A et al (2020) Performance of novel sponge biocarrier in MBBR treating recirculating aquaculture systems wastewater: microbial community and kinetic study. J Environ Manage 275:111264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grau P, Dohanyos M, Chudoba J (1975) Kinetics of multicomponent substrate removal by activated sludge. Water Res 9(7):637–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kincannon DF, Stover EL (1982) Design methodology for fixed film reaction-RBCs and biological towers. Civil engineering for practicing and design engineers 2(3):107–124

  35. Sohail N et al (2020) Performance comparison of three different reactors (MBBR, MBR, and MBBMR) for municipal wastewater treatment. Desalin. Water Treat 174:71–78

  36. Khan SJ et al (2011) Performance of suspended and attached growth MBR systems in treating high strength synthetic wastewater. Biores Technol 102(9):5331–5336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodríguez-Hernández L, Esteban-García A, Tejero I (2014) Comparison between a fixed bed hybrid membrane bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: a pilot-scale study. Biores Technol 152:212–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Meng F et al (2017) Fouling in membrane bioreactors: an updated review. Water Res 114:151–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen F, Bi X, Ng HY (2016) Effects of bio-carriers on membrane fouling mitigation in moving bed membrane bioreactor. J Membr Sci 499:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang C et al (2022) Insights on fouling development and characteristics during different fouling stages between a novel vibrating MBR and an air-sparging MBR for domestic wastewater treatment. Water Res 212:118098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duan L et al (2013) The characteristics of extracellular polymeric substances and soluble microbial products in moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor. Biores Technol 148:436–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ahmadi M et al (2019) Process performance and multi-kinetic modeling of a membrane bioreactor treating actual oil refinery wastewater. J Water Process Eng 28:115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ahmadi E et al (2015) Study of moving bed biofilm reactor in diethyl phthalate and diallyl phthalate removal from synthetic wastewater. Biores Technol 183:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Rajagopal R et al (2013) Substrate removal kinetics in high-rate upflow anaerobic filters packed with low-density polyethylene media treating high-strength agro-food wastewaters. J Environ Manage 116:101–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Njoya M et al (2021) Performance evaluation and kinetic modeling of down-flow high-rate anaerobic bioreactors for poultry slaughterhouse wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(8):9529–9541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yousefzadeh S et al (2017) A comparative study of anaerobic fixed film baffled reactor and up-flow anaerobic fixed film fixed bed reactor for biological removal of diethyl phthalate from wastewater: a performance, kinetic, biogas, and metabolic pathway study. Biotechnol Biofuels 10(1):1–15

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  47. Faekah IN, Fatihah S, Mohamed ZS (2020) Kinetic evaluation of a partially packed upflow anaerobic fixed film reactor treating low-strength synthetic rubber wastewater. Heliyon 6(3):e03594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Jagaba AH et al (2022) Combined treatment of domestic and pulp and paper industry wastewater in a rice straw embedded activated sludge bioreactor to achieve sustainable development goals. Case Stud Chem Environ Eng 6:100261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Abyar H et al (2017) Kinetic evaluation and process analysis of COD and nitrogen removal in UAASB bioreactor. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 78:272–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mullai P, Yogeswari M (2015) Substrate removal kinetics of hydrogen production in an anaerobic sludge blanket filter. Sep Sci Technol 50(7):1093–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Swain G et al (2020) Collective removal of phenol and ammonia in a moving bed biofilm reactor using modified bio-carriers: process optimization and kinetic study. Biores Technol 306:123177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Burman I, Sinha A (2020) Performance evaluation and substrate removal kinetics in an up-flow anaerobic hybrid membrane bioreactor treating simulated high-strength wastewater. Environ Technol 41(3):309–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Swain G et al (2021) Removal of Acid Orange 7 dye in a packed bed bioreactor: process optimization using response surface methodology and kinetic study. Bioresour Technol Rep 13:100620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hassani AH et al (2014) Utilization of moving bed biofilm reactor for industrial wastewater treatment containing ethylene glycol: kinetic and performance study. Environ Technol 35(4):499–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ahmadi M, Amiri P, Amiri N (2015) Combination of TiO 2-photocatalytic process and biological oxidation for the treatment of textile wastewater. Korean J Chem Eng 32:1327–1332

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This paper has been prepared from a Ph.D. thesis (Kamran Tari) and supported by Hamadan University of Medical Sciences (Ph.D. dissertation no. 990209707) and the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) (Grant No. 99005732).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Kamran Tari: designed and write proposal, methodology, analyze data, writing—original draft. Mohammad Reza Samarghandi: resources, supervision, project administration. Reza Shokoohi: data curation, validation, review and editing. Ghorban Asgari: data curation, review and editing. Eskandar Poorasgari: formal analysis. Saeid Afshar: supervision, investigation. Pezhman Karami: investigation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohammad Reza Samarghandi.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This declaration is not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• A new moving bed membrane bioreactor (MBMBR) configuration was developed.

• The IMBMBR configuration showed less fouling than the regular membrane bioreactor (RMBR).

• Coexistence of attached and suspended biomass increased the performance of IMBMBR.

• Modified Stover-Kincannon and second-order models fitted the experimental data.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tari, K., Samarghandi, M.R., Shokoohi, R. et al. Integrated attached and suspended biomass moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal wastewater treatment: performance and biokinetic study. Biomass Conv. Bioref. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-05020-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-023-05020-z

Keywords

Navigation