Application of a Rotating Biological Contactor and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Hybrid in Bioremediating Surimi Processing Wastewater

  • Radhika P. Keluskar
  • Sourav Ghosh
  • Madhu K. Mani
  • Binaya B. NayakEmail author
Research Article


Surimi processing wastewater characteristically contains high quantities of organic materials. Continuous discharge of this wastewater into the ocean, especially from near-shore facilities, causes serious harm to the marine environment. A combination of rotating biological contactor and moving bed biofilm reactor processes was used in the present study for the treatment of surimi processing wastewater. Using this combined continuous system, 100% protein, 96% influent NH4+-N and 85% COD were removed from the effluent (COD/TKN ratio 2.1:1) in a hydraulic retention time of 48 h, without adding an external carbon source. Therefore, an odour-free treated effluent was generated. Results suggest effective remediation of surimi processing wastewater using this combination system and better performance as compared to reactors previously reported.


Bioremediation Rotating biological contactor Moving bed biofilm reactor Surimi processing wastewater Simultaneous nitrification–denitrification 



This work was supported by the National Fund for Basic, Strategic and Frontier Application Research in Agriculture (NFBSFARA), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi, India, for financial grant [NFBSFARA/WQ-2022/2011-12].

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to publish this manuscript.

Supplementary material

40011_2019_1074_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1787 kb)


  1. 1.
    Vidal-Giraud B, Chateau D (2007) World Surimi Market. Globefish Research Programme, Rome. FAO 89:125Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lin TM, Park JW, Morrisey MT (1995) Recovered protein and reconditioned water from surimi processing water. J Food Sci 60:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morrison G, Fatoki OS, Persson L, Ekberg A (2001) Assessment of the impact of point source pollution from the Keiskammahoek Sewage Treatment Plant on the Keiskamma River—pH, electrical conductivity, oxygen- demanding substance (COD) and nutrients. Water SA 27:475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jamieson BL, Gagnon GA, Goncalves AA (2017) Physicochemical characterization of Atlantic Canadian seafood processing plant effluent. Mar Pollut Bull 116:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chowdhury P, Viaraghavan T, Srinivasan A (2010) Biological treatment processes for fish processing wastewater—a review. Bioresour Technol 101:439–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kapoor A, Kuiper A, Bedard P, Gould WD (2003) Use of a rotating biological contactor for removal of ammonium from mining effluents. Eur J Mineral Process Environ Protect 3:88–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dabi N (2015) Comparison of suspended growth and attached growth wastewater treatment process: a case study of wastewater treatment plant at MNIT, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. Eur J Adv Eng Technol 2:102–105Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Najafpour GD, Zinatizadeh AAL, Lee LK (2006) Performance of a three-stage aerobic RBC reactor in food canning wastewater treatment. Biochem Eng J 30:297–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ebrahimi A, Najafpur GD, Anazadeh M, Ghavami M (2018) Optimization of whey treatment in rotating biological contactor: application of Taguchi method. Iran J Energy Environ 9:146–152Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    DiL Palma, Merli C, Paris M, Petrucci E (2003) A steady-state model for the evaluation of disk rotational speed influence on RBC kinetic: model presentation. Bioresour Technol 86:193–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ødagaard H, Gisvold B, Helness H, Sjøvold F, Liao Z (2000) High rate biological/chemical treatment based on the moving bed biofilm process combined with coagulation. In: Hahn HH, Hoffmann E, Ødagaard H (eds) Chemical water and wastewater treatment VI. Springer, Berlin, pp 245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kulikowska D, Kaczówka E, Pokój T, Gusiatin Z (2009) Application of moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for high-ammonium landfill leachate nitrification. New Biotechnology. Abstracts of the 14th European Congress on Biotechnology Barcelona, Spain 25:S351–S352Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mishra SS, Markande AR, Keluskar RP, Karunasagar I, Nayak BB (2015) Simultaneous nitrification and denitrification by novel heterotrophs in remediation of fish processing effluent. J Basic Microbiol 55:772–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thangam EB, Rajkumar GS (2000) Studies on the production of extracellular protease by Alcaligenes faecalis. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 16:663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Markande AR, Kapagunta C, Patil PS, Nayak BB (2016) Effective remediation of fish processing waste using mixed culture biofilms capable of simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. J Basic Microbiol 56:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joo HS, Hirai M, Shoda M (2005) Characteristics of ammonium removal by heterotrophic nitrification-aerobic denitrification by Alcaligenes faecalis No. 4. J Biosci Bioeng 100:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    APHA, AWWA, WEF (2005) Standards methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edn. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kruger NJ (2002) The Bradford method for protein quantitation. In: Walker JM (ed) The protein protocols handbook, 2nd edn. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, pp 15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morrissey MT, Park JW, Huang L (2000) Surimi processing waste: its control and utilization. In: Park JW (ed) Surimi and surimi seafood. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 127–166Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tacharatanamanee R, Cherdrungsi K, Youravong W (2004) Fractionation of proteins in surimi waste water using membrane filtration. J Teknologi 41:1–10Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Islam MS, Khan S, Tanaka M (2004) Waste loading in shrimp and fish processing effluents: potential source of hazards to the coastal and nearshore environments. Mar Pollut Bull 49:103–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sikorski ZE, Lolakowska A, Pan BS (1990) The nutritive composition of the major groups of marine food organisms. In: Sikorski ZE (ed) Resources nutritional composition and preservation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    da Silva Gonçalves, Manetti A, Hornes MO, Mitterer ML, Queiroz MI (2011) Fish processing wastewater treatment by combined biological and chemical processes aiming at water reuse. Desalin Water Treat 29:196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hamlin HJ, Michaels JT, Beaulaton CM, Graham WF, Dutt W, Steinbach P, Losordo TM, Schrader KK, Main KL (2008) Comparing denitrification rates and carbon sources in commercial scale upflow denitrification biological filters in aquaculture. Aquac Eng 38:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhao H, Zhang K, Rong H, Zhang C, Yang Z (2013) Effect of carbon nitrogen ratio on simultaneous nitrification and denitrification via nitrite technology in sequencing batch biofilm reactor and the process control. Adv Mater Res 777:232–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (1991) Chapter 8: Biological unit processes. In: Wastewater engineering: treatment, disposal, and reuse, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Radhika P. Keluskar
    • 1
  • Sourav Ghosh
    • 1
  • Madhu K. Mani
    • 1
  • Binaya B. Nayak
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.ICAR-Central Institute of Fisheries Education (CIFE)MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations