Incremento de capacidad de biorreactores convencionales por la implementación de un anillos con superficie para formación de biofilm con microorganismos.

1. 1
Compact wastewater treatment
with MBBR
DSD International Conference
Hong Kong, 12.‐14.11.2014
Hallvard Ødegaard
Prof. em. Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
CEO Scandinavian Environmental Technology (SET) AS
hallvard.odegaard@ntnu.no
SET AS

2. 2
Aerobic reactor
The principle of the moving bed biofilm reactor
(MBBR) technology
Anoxic reactor
SET AS

3. 3
The Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) in practice
SET AS

4. 4
THE MAJOR COMPONENTS
a) Tank
b) Media
c) Aeration System
d) Sieve Assemblies
e) Blowers
f) Mixers
The components of the MBBR treatment system
SET AS
Carrier filling fraction (%)
(bulk volume occupied by media
in empty reactor):
Possible filling fraction: 0 – 70 %
Normal filling fraction: 50 – 65 %

5. 5
The MBBR reactor
SET AS
Rectangular covered concrete reactors
Rectangular/Circular open concrete reactors
Circular fiber glass reactors
Circular Steel Reactors (Bolted or Welded)

6. 6
The (MBBR) carriers
Courtesy Aqwise
•650 m2/m3 bulk
•13 x 13 mm
diameter/depth
Courtesy Biowater Technology
•650 m2/m3 bulk
•18.5 x 14.5 x 7.3 mm
length/width/depth
ABC BWT S
K1 K3 K5 BiofilmChip M
• 1200 m2/m3 bulk
• 48 x 2.2 mm
diameter/depth
• 500 m2/m3 bulk
• 25 x 10 mm
diameter/depth
• 500 m2/m3 bulk
• 9.1 x 7.2 mm
diameter/depth
• 800 m2/m3 bulk
• 25 x 3.5 mm
diameter/depth
Courtesy AnoxKaldnes
Z‐MBBR
SET AS
Courtesy Qingdao Spring

7. 7
Carriers from the MBBR-based
SANI pilot at Shatin

8. 8
Aeration /oxygen transfer
• Oxygen transfer is enhanced by the
presence of carriers
• The higher the filling fraction, the better
SOTR
• Influence dependent on carrier design.
Suppliers should provide SOTR data
0,00
2,00
4,00
6,00
8,00
10,00
12,00
14,00
16,00
Renvatten, grov K3, 30% grov K3, 50% grov
gO
2
/Nm
3
m
Clean
water
K3
30 %
K3
50 %
K3
30 %
g
O
2
/Nm
3
.
m
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Christensson, 2013

9. 9
SET AS
SET AS
The sieve assembly
The mixers in anoxic reactors

10. 10
The principal moving bed reactor processes
The basic MBBR
processes
The high‐rate MBBR
processes
The IFAS
processes
SET AS

11. 11
Flow diagrams for moving bed biofilm reactor
(MBBR) processes for various applications
BOD- and N/P-removal
BOD- and NH
4-N-removal
BOD- and P-removal
BOD-removal
Pure MBBR-processes
a)
b) d)
Coag.
Coag.
c)
Pure MBBR-processes
e)
f)
g)
Pure MBBR-processes
(Coag.).
Coag. Coag
.
h)
i)
j)
COD
COD
Pure MBBR- processes
l)
k)
IFAS-processes
n)
m)
IFAS-processes
SET AS

12. 12
Aerobic COD‐removal rates (Ødegaard et al, 2004)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 20 40 60 80 100
Filtered COD loading rate [g SCOD/m2
*d]
Filtered
COD
removal
rate
[g
SCOD/m
2
*d]
K1 K2 100%
Soluble COD removal rate vs soluble COD
loading rate
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 50 100 150 200
Total COD loading rate [g COD/m2
*d]
Obtainable
removal
rate
(COD
in
-SCOD
out
)
[g/m
2
*d]
K1 K2 100%
Obtainable COD removal rate vs total COD
loading rate
SET AS
”Obtainable" COD removal rate : (CODinfluent‐SCODeffluent)*Q/A
Demonstrates removal rate of tot. COD if all particles > 1 µm were removed

13. 13
High rate MBBR systems
SET AS
Air
Coagulant
Fe+polymer
Secondary treatment
+ 90 % P-removal
could be met at a:
total HRT ~ 1 hr
The high‐rate MBBR‐coagulation process
The high‐rate MBBR ‐ AS process
MBBR
Frequently used in
industrial plants
e.g. pulp and paper

14. 14
1. The load of organic matter
2. The oxygen concentration
3. The ammonium concentration
Factors determining the nitrification rate in
MBBR’s (Hem, Rusten and Ødegaard, 1994)
Temperature dependency:
kT2 = kT1∙θ(T2‐T1) , θ = 1,06‐1,08
SET AS
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Oxygen concentration, mg O2/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 ºC
Organic load = 0.0 g BOD 5
/m
2 /d
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ammonium concentration, mg NH4-N/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 oC
0.4 g BOD5/m
2
/d
DO = 2 mg/L
DO = 6 mg/L
DO = 4 mg/L
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ammonium concentration, mg NH4-N/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 oC
0.4 g BOD5/m
2
/d
DO = 2 mg/L
DO = 6 mg/L
DO = 4 mg/L
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.7
0 2 4 6 8 10
Oxygen concentration, mg O2/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 ºC
Organic load = 0.0 g BOD 5
/m
2 /d
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ammonium concentration, mg NH4-N/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 oC
0.4 g BOD5/m
2
/d
DO = 2 mg/L
DO = 6 mg/L
DO = 4 mg/L
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Ammonium concentration, mg NH4-N/L
Nitrification
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
15 oC
0.4 g BOD5/m
2
/d
DO = 2 mg/L
DO = 6 mg/L
DO = 4 mg/L

15. 15
Influence of oxygen on nitrification rate ‐
practical experiences
SET AS

16. 16
Nitrification process design
Organic matter removal prior to nitrification:
rBOD = 3,9 g BOD5/m2d (10 oC) (kT = 1.06(T-10))
Nitrification rate (when NH4-N is the limiting substrate)
rN = k . (Sn)n
rN = nitrification rate (g NH4-N/m2.d)
SN = NH4-N concentration in the reactor
n = reaction rate order - n is normally set at 0,7
k = reactor rate constant – 0,4 – 0,6 (varies with the organic load, i.e pre-treatment)
NH4-N is only rate limiting at low NH4-concentrations (ca 1-2 mg NH4-N/l).
At higher concentrations, SN will be determined by the bulk liquid DO concentration and
Sn should be replaced by Sn,transition
Sn,transition = (DO-0,5) / 3,2
SET AS

17. 17
Nitrification rates in full‐scale plants
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2
Ammonium load, g NH4-N/m
2
/d
Removal
rate,
g
NH
4
-N/m
2
/d
R4
R4 + R5
Temp. 11 º C
Lillehammer WWTP
Intensive study at Lillehammer WWTP
• Very high max rates (1,4 g NH4/m2.d)
• Complete nitrification at < 1,2 g NH4/m2.d
(Rusten and Ødegaard, 2007)
10oC
1.17 g NH4-N/m2d
10oC
1.17 g NH4-N/m2d
Nitrification performance at Givaudan WWTP
Switzerland (Tschui, personal comm.)
Challenge: Alkalinity limitation. Recommendation > 1,5 meq./l residual alkalinity
SET AS

18. 18
N‐removal
1. If carbon source is abundant and
treatment efficiency needed is < 75 %,
pre‐DN is preferable
2. If carbon source is limited and
treatment efficiency required is
> 75 %, combined‐DN is preferable
3. If, in addition to 2., space is very
limited, post‐DN may be preferable
Choice of process is primarily dependent on availability of internal
carbon source for denitrification and treatment efficiency requirement:
C
Post-denitrification
Pre-denitrification
C
Combined denitrification
C
C
Post-denitrification
Pre-denitrification
C
Combined denitrification
Post-denitrification
Pre-denitrification
C
C
Combined denitrification
SET AS

19. 19
Denitrification
R= r/(r+1)
C/N
(g BSCOD/g N)
R= r/(r+1)
C/N
(g BSCOD/g N)
There is a limit to treatment efficiency in
conventional pre‐DN caused by the
oxygen recycle
Rusten, Hem and Ødegaard, 1995
Pre‐denitrification
rDN = k * [SCOD/(SCOD+KS,COD)]* [SNO3/(SNO3+KS,NO3)]
SET
No carbon limitation as long as:
• g CODadded/ g NO3‐Nequiv. is > 3,5
• NO3‐N may be the limiting factor at low NO3‐N
Rusten, Hem and Ødegaard, 1995
Post‐denitrification

20. 20
The combined pre‐ and post‐DN MBBR process
Recirculation of NO3‐N
DN‐rate controlled
by carbon addition
• Aerated when larger nitrification volume
is needed (winter).
• Not aerated in summer – more pre‐DN
volume – higher recycle in summer
Nitrification rate
controlled through O2
Low recirculation of oxygen
Not aerated nitrification
O2 consumption only ‐
in order to reduce the
amount of recycled O2
SET AS
Carbon

21. 21
DN‐rates with external carbon sources
(practical results from combined‐DN plant)
0
1
2
3
4
5
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Temperature, °C
Denitrification
rate,
g
NO
3
-N/m
2
/d
Ethanol
Methanol
Monopropylene glycol
Rusten et al, 1996
SET AS

22. 22
Four Norwegian combined DN‐plants
Flocc.
Secondary sed.
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AN/
AE
AE AE AN AN AE
a)
Flocc.
DAF
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AN/
AE
AE AE AN AE
b)
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AE AE AN AE
c) Secondarysed.
AN
Flocc.
Secondary sed.
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AN/
AE
AE AE AN AN AE
a)
Flocc.
DAF
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
Flocc.
Secondary sed.
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AN/
AE
AE AE AN AN AE
a)
Flocc.
DAF
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AN/
AE
AE AE AN AE
b)
Primarysed.
Chem.
Carbon
NO3 recycle
AE
AN AE AE AN AE
c) Secondarysed.
AN
Lillehammer WWTP
Nordre Follo and Gardermoen WWTP
RA2 WWTP
SET AS

23. 23
MBBR design/operating values and performances
Parameter Lille-
hammer
Nordre
Follo
Garder-
moen
NRA
Average flow (m3/h)
Max flow (m3/h)
Temperature (oC)
1200
1900
3-14
750
1125
6-14
920
1300
4-14
2300
7200
7-14
MBBR
Total volume (m3)
Carrier fill fraction (%)
Average(max) HRT (hrs)
3840
65,0
3,2 (2,0)
3710
66,2
4,9 (3,3)
5790
58.5
6,3 (4,5)
19370
42,7
8,4 (2,7)
Carbon source
g CODadded/g TNequiv
Ethanol
3.3
Methanol
(now glycol)
2.2
Glycol
2.4
Methanol
(now glycol)
-
Efficiency, 2005
Average out conc.
and treatment efficiency
BOD5
COD
Tot N
Tot P
Out Rem
mg/l %
2,2 99
35 93
2,9 92
0.12 98
Out Rem
mg/l %
2,8 98
39 91
9,7 73
0.20 96
Out Rem
mg/l %
3,2 98
25 96
7,0 87
0.18 98
Out Rem
mg/l %
4,0 95
27 93
5,0 83
0.05 99
SET AS

24. 24
MBBR biomass separation alternatives
MBBR – Coag./settling
(also Actiflo)
MBBR - settling
MBBR - flotation
MBBR – media filtration
MBBR – microscreening
(i.e. Disc filtration)
MBBR – Membrane filtration
SET AS

25. 25
Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox):
NH4
+ + NO2
- -> N2 + 2H20
Advantages
• No carbon source needed
• Less air needed (than in N/DN):
~1,8 g O2/g N (60 % less)
• Very low sludge production
~ 0,11 g SS/g NH4-N
• Less CO2 - production/
less alkalinity consumption
Disadvantages
• Some nitrate is formed:
i.e max N-removal ca 80 %
• Nitrite has to be generated
• Slow growth rate - long start-up
• Necessary to have a long SRT
(Biofilm or granules favorable)
SET AS
Primarily used for N‐removal in sludge water treatment

26. 26
Anammox with MBBR (Christensson et al, 2013)
Biofilm
Media
Liquid
Nitritation
NH4
+
NO2
‐
AOB
Anammox
N2
O2
Aerobic
Anoxic
Biofilm
Media
Liquid
Nitritation
NH4
+
NO2
‐
AOB
Nitritation
NH4
+
NO2
‐
AOB
Anammox
N2
Anammox
N2
O2
O2
Aerobic
Anoxic
MBBR
= 0.5-1.5
mg/L
AOB in biofilm = NO2
- limitation
IFAS
SET AS
Biofilm
Media
Liquid
Nitritation
NH4
+
NO2
‐
AOB
Anammox
N2
O2
Anoxic
Media
Liquid
Nitritation
NH4
+
NO2
‐
AOB
Anammox
N2
O2
Anoxic
< 0.5
mg/L
Flocs (1-3 g/L)
AOB in flocs = less NO2
- limitation

27. 27
 BioFarm concept = Providing seeded carriers for
rapid start‐up of future full‐scale ANITATM Mox units
Seeded carriers
ANITA™ Mox – Sjölunda WWTP, Malmö (Sweden)
• 4 x 50m3 MBBR
• Capacity = 200 kgN/d
• 800‐1200 mgN‐NH4/L
• 1st ANITA™ Mox reference
• Flexibility for fullscale testing
SET AS

28. 28
Full‐scale test results
ANITA™Mox ,
Sjölunda WWTP
(Christensson et al, 2013)
SET AS
• High removal rates and good
N‐removal with MBBR
• Very high removal rate with
IFAS ‐ up to 3 kg NH4‐N/m3.d
(7.5 g NH4‐N/m2.d)
• Energy consumption :
1.2 kWh/kg NH4‐N removed
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
NH4 load & removal (kgN/m
3
.d)
NH4‐load
NH4‐removal
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
930 950 970 990 1010 1030 1050 1070 1090 1110 1130 1150
%NH4 and %TN removal
Days
%TN‐removal
%NH4‐removal
%NO3‐prod : NH4‐rem
MBBR Tran-
sition
IFAS
• K5 – filling fraction 50 %
• DOMBBR = 1.0 ‐ 1.3 mg/l
• DOIFAS = 0.2 ‐ 1.0 mg/l
• MLSSMBBR = 20–400 mg/l
• MLSSIFAS = 1800 – 4600 mg/l

29. 29
Removal of pharmaceuticals
(Falås, 2013)
Comparison between activated sludge and
carrier‐based processes

30. 30
Removal og pharmaceuticals in the biomass
from an IFAS plant (Bad Ragaz WWTP, CH)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
C/Cinitial
Time (h)
Atenolol
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
C/Cinitial
Time (h)
Carbamazepine
Anoxic sludge
Oxic sludge
Carriers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
C/Cinitial
Time (h)
Mefenamic acid
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
C/Cinitial
Time (h)
Diclofenac
(Falås et al, 2014)
Where does the removal take place?

31. 31
Conclusions
1. The MBBR is a well‐proven, robust and very compact technology
(Now altogether > 800 plants in > 50 countries – 50/50 industrial/municipal).
2. The MBBR is used in pure biofilm processes as well as in hybrid processes (IFAS)
3. The combined pre‐ and post denitrification MBBR process is especially suitable
for low C/N waters and offers great flexibility in operation
4. The MBBR is very efficient in the upgrading of activated sludge plants:
a. as ”roughing” reactor before AS in order to reduce organic matter loading
b. in an IFAS‐process in order to achieve: nitrification, N‐removal and or P‐removal
5. The MBBR‐based processes are especially suitable for developing special
cultures – for instance for:
a. N‐removal by anammox processes
b. Organic micropollutants removal
SET AS

32. 32
Thanks
a lot
for listening
The Pulpit, Lysefjord, Norway

33. 33
Upgrading AS‐plants by the use of MBBR
Three options for nitrification
Pure MBBR BAS HYBAS
SET AS
IFAS
MBBR MBBR Activated sludge Activated sludge + MBBR

34. 34
SRT Vs Temperature
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Temperature, C
SRT,
d
ATV Design Curve
Nitrifier Growth Rate
Broomfield
(4.7 days at 13C)
Cheyenne (4.5 days at 9C)
Yucaipa (2.3 days at 18C)
Taos (5.2 days at 8C)
Oxford
(3.9 days at 11C) Fields Point & Flagstaff (3.3 days at 14C)
James River
(2.7 days at 14C)
Greensboro (5.25 days at 14C)
Springettsbury
(2.4 days at 10C)
Lubbock (3.8 days at 15C)
Fairplay (2.5 days at 5C)
New Castle (4.1 days at 10C)
Crestted Butte (3.2 days at 7.5C)
Mamaroneck
(1.8 days at 13C)
Georgetown (5.0 days at 9C)
SET AS
Design SRT vs temp for full scale IFAS
systems (installed by ANOXKALDNES)