Advertisement

Experimental study of nutrient removal in an anaerobic hybrid upflow sludge blanket filtration bioreactor using response surface methodology

  • H. Hashtroudi
  • M. Mojarrad
  • A. NorooziEmail author
  • Peyman Mahmoodi
Original Paper
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

In this study, a novel laboratory-scale anaerobic hybrid upflow sludge blanket filtration bioreactor was designed and operated to improve the performance of the upflow sludge blanket filtration process for nutrient removal from municipal wastewater. The effect of operating parameters, including nutrient concentration [total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)], biomass concentration, and hydraulic retention time (HRT), on nutrient removal were evaluated using response surface methodology. An industrial moving packed bed with 550 m2/m3 total specific surface area was used as the reactor media. It was found that increasing biomass concentration and HRT improved the removal efficiency for TN and TP. The results indicated that increasing nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations resulted in decreased removal rates. Additionally, there was an acceptable level of agreement between the experimental and model data (R2: 0.9896 and 0.9907 for TN and TP, respectively). The maximum removal efficiencies under optimum conditions were predicted by Design-Expert software to be 93% and 95% for TN and TP, respectively.

Keywords

Wastewater treatment Nitrogen Media Phosphorus Design-Expert 

Abbreviations

ANOVA

Analysis of variance

COD

Chemical oxygen demand

DO

Dissolved oxygen

F/M

Food-to-microorganism ratio

HRT

Hydraulic retention time

OLR

Organic loading rate

TN

Total nitrogen

TP

Total phosphorous

WWTP

Wastewater treatment plant

PAOs

Phosphate-accumulating organisms

PHA

Polyhydroxyalkanoates

EBPR

Enhanced biological phosphorus removal

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Omrangostar Seymareh Company for providing the equipment. The anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged for their suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Abdulsalam S, Bugaje IM, Adefila SS, Ibrahim S (2011) Comparison of biostimulation and bioaugmentation for remediation of soil contaminated with spent motor oil. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghamohammadi N, Aziz HBA, Isa MH, Zinatizadeh AA (2007) Powdered activated carbon augmented activated sludge process for treatment of semi-aerobic landfill leachate using response surface methodology. Bioresource Technol 98:3570–3578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmadi M, Ganjidoust H, Ayati B (2009) USBF performance in treating sugar industries wastewater. Iran J Health Environ 1:113–120Google Scholar
  4. Akhbari A, Zinatizadeh AAL, Mohammadi P, Irandoust M, Mansouri Y (2011) Process modeling and analysis of biological nutrients removal in an integrated RBC-AS system using response surface methodology. Chem Eng J 168:269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amini M, Younesi H, Najafpour G, Zinatizadeh-Lorestani AA (2012) Application of response surface methodology for simultaneous carbon and nitrogen (SND) removal from dairy wastewater in batch systems. Int J Environ Stud 69:962–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. APHA, AWWA, WPCF (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. American Public Health Association, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  7. Ay F, Catalkaya EC, Kargi F (2009) A statistical experiment design approach for advanced oxidation of Direct Red azo-dye by photo-Fenton treatment. J Hazard Mater 162:230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azhdarpoor A, Mohammadi P, Dehghani M (2016) Simultaneous removal of nutrients in a novel anaerobic–anoxic/aerobic sequencing reactor: removal of nutrients in a novel reactor. Int J Environ Sci Technol 13:543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bezerra MA, Santelli RE, Oliveira REP, Villar LS, Escaleira LA (2008) Response surface methodology (RSM) as a tool for optimization in analytical chemistry. Talanta 76:965–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De-Bashan LE, Bashan Y (2004) Recent advances in removing phosphorus from wastewater and its future use as fertilizer (1997–2003). Water Res 38:4222–4246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernández JM, Omil F, Méndez R, Lema JM (2001) Anaerobic treatment of fibreboard manufacturing wastewaters in a pilot scale hybrid USBF reactor. Water Res 35:4150–4158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreir SLC, Bruns RE, Ferreira HS, Matos GD, David JM, Brandao GC, Da Silva EGP, Portugal LA, dos Reis PS, Souza AS, dos Santos WNL (2007) Box–Behnken design: an alternative for the optimization of analytical methods. Anal Chim Acta 597:179–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hay JXW, Wu TY, Teh CY, Jahim JM (2012) Optimized growth of Rhodobacter sphaeroides O.U.001 using response surface methodology (RSM). J Sci Ind Res 71:149–154Google Scholar
  14. Henze M, van Loosdrecht MC, Ekama GA, Brdjanovic D (2008) Biological wastewater treatment: principles, modelling and design. IWA, London, pp 155–178Google Scholar
  15. Jaafari J, Seyedsalehi M, Safari GH, Arjestan ME, Barzanouni H, Ghadimi S, Haratipour P (2017) Simultaneous biological organic matter and nutrient removal in an anaerobic/anoxic/oxic (A2O) moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) integrated system. Int J Environ Sci Technol 14:291–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jahren SJ, Rintala JA, Odegaard H (2002) Aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor treatingthermomechanical pulping whitewater under thermophilic conditions. Water Res 36:1067–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khorsandi H, Movahedyan H, Bina B, Farrokhzadeh H (2011a) Innovative anaerobic upflow sludge blanket filtration combined bioreactor for nitrogen removal from municipal wastewater. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:417–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Khorsandi H, Movahedyan H, Bina B, Farrokhzadeh H (2011b) Innovative anaerobic upflow sludge blanket filtration combined bioreactor for phosphorus removal from wastewater. Environ Technol 32:499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Khuri AI, Cornell JA (1996) Response surfaces: design and analyses, 2nd edn. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Liu Q, Wang XC (2014) Mechanism of nitrogen removal by a hybrid membrane bioreactor in municipal wastewater treatment. Desalin Water Treat 52:5165–5171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahvi AH, Nabizadh R, Pishrafti MH, Zarei T (2008) Evaluation of single stage USBF in removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from wastewater. Eur J Sci Res 23:204–211Google Scholar
  22. Meyers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology, process and product optimization using designed experiments, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Rajakumar R, Meenambal T, Banu JR, Yeom IT (2011) Treatment of poultry slaughterhouse wastewater in upflow anaerobic filter under low upflow velocity. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8:49–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Salama Y, Chennaou MI, Mountadar M, Rihani M, Assobhei O (2015) Influence of support media on COD and BOD removal from domestic wastewater using biological treatment in batch mode. Desalin Water Treat 54:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Seyedsalehi M, Jaafari J, Hélix-Nielsen C, Hodaifa G, Manshouri M, Ghadimi S, Barzanouni H (2018) Evaluation of moving-bed biofilm sequencing batch reactor (MBSBR) in operating A2O process with emphasis on biological removal of nutrients existing in wastewater. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15:199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shanmugam R (2010) A unique book on response surface methodology is reviewed. J Stat Comput Simul 80:1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Subramonian W, Wu TY, Chai S-P (2015) An application of response surface methodology for optimizing coagulation process of raw industrial effluent using Cassia obtusifolia seed gum together with alum. Ind Crops Prod 70:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tchobanoglus G, Burton F, Stensel HD (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 799–816Google Scholar
  29. Uan DK, Yeom IT, Arulazhagan P, Banu JR (2013) Effects of sludge pretreatment on sludge reduction in a lab-scale anaerobic/anoxic/oxic system treating domestic wastewater. Int J Environ Sci Technol 10:495–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang XY, Xia SQ, Chen L, Zhao YF (2006) Nutrient removal from municipal wastewater by chemical precipitation in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Process Biochem 41:824–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang JP, Chen YZ, Wang Y, Yuan S, Yu HQ (2011) Optimization of the coagulation-flocculation process for pulp mill wastewater treatment using a combination of uniform design and response surface methodology. Water Res 45:5633–5640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang Y, Zheng SJ, Pei LY, Ke L, Peng DC, Xia SQ (2014) Nutrient release, recovery and removal from waste sludge of a biological nutrient removal system. Environ Technol 35:2734–2742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang H, Guan Y, Li L, Wu G (2015) Characteristics of biological nitrogen removal in a multiple anoxic and aerobic biological nutrient removal process. Biomed Res Int 2015:1–8Google Scholar
  34. Wu TY, Mohammad AW, Jahim JM, Anuar N (2009) Optimized reuse and bioconversion from retentate of pre-filtered palm oil mill effluent (POME) into microbial protease by Aspergillus terreus using response surface methodology. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 84:1390–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zeng W, Li L, Yang YY, Wang XD, Peng YZ (2011) Denitrifying phosphorus removal and impact of nitrite accumulation on phosphorus removal in a continuous anaerobic–anoxic–aerobic (A2O) process treating domestic wastewater. Enzyme Microb Technol 48:134–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang J, Fu D, Xu Y, Liu C (2010) Optimization of parameters on photocatalytic degradation of chloramphenicol using TiO2 as photocatalyist by response surface methodology. J Environ Sci 22:1281–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhou Z, Xing C, Wu Z, Tang J, Zhang A, An Y (2015) A comprehensive method for the evaluation of biological nutrient removal potential of wastewater treatment plants. Desalin Water Treat 53:2931–2938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zinatizadeh AAL, Pirsaheb M, Bonakdari H, Younesi H (2010) Response surface analysis of effects of hydraulic retention time and influent feed concentration on performance of an UASFF bioreactor. Waste Manag 30:1798–1807CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Hashtroudi
    • 1
  • M. Mojarrad
    • 1
  • A. Noroozi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peyman Mahmoodi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran
  2. 2.Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringIsfahan University of TechnologyIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations