Hareketli Yataklı Biyofilm Reaktöründe Hidrolik Bekleme Süresinin Arıtma Performansı ve Biyofilm Oluşumu Üzerindeki Etkileri

Abstract

Hareketli yataklı biyofilm reaktörler (HYBR), hem evsel hem de endüstriyel atıksıların arıtımındaki yüksek performansları nedeniyle tercih edilen kompakt ve etkili bir atıksu arıtma prosesidir. HYBR’lerin yoğun olarak uygulanmasına rağmen, bağlı biyokütle konsantrasyonu ve biyofilmin çamur bekleme süresi (SRT) gibi ana tasarım parametrelerinin değişen işletme koşullarında arıtma performansına etkileri üzerine literatürde kapsamlı bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, %50 doluluk oranında taşıyıcı plastik malzeme içeren ve sentetik atıksu arıtan aerobik bir HYBR sisteminde, farklı hidrolik bekletme sürelerinin (HRT) ve buna bağlı olarak farklı organik yükleme hızlarının (OLR) proses performansına, plastik taşıyıcı malzeme üzerine yapışan heterotrofik bakteri miktarına ve arıtma performansına etkileri araştırılmıştır. HBYR, HRT 3 saat ve OLR değeri 13.3 g/(m².gün) olduğunda dahi, ortalama %97 KOİ giderim verimini koruyarak yüksek bir performans göstermiştir. Fakat, HRT değerinin 1 saat’e düşürülmesi ve OLR değerinin 40 g/(m².gün)'e çıkarılmasıyla KOİ giderim verimini %65 seviyelerine düşürmüştür. Ayrıca, bu çalışma HRT ve OLR değerlerinin bağlı heterotrofik biyokütle miktarı ve biyofilmin çamur yaşı üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. HYBR'de HRT değerini 24 saatten 1 saate düşürmek (ve OLR'yi 0,1'den 40 g/(m².gün)'e çıkarmak) bağlı biyokütle konsantrasyonunu %62 arttırmış ve ve biyofilm SRT'sini 3,5 kat düşürmüştür. Bu çalışmada elde edilen bulgular yüksek hızlı HYBR prosesinin yüksek OLR ve düşük HRT değerlerinde bile yüksek giderim performansta çalışabileceği gerçeğine ışık tutmaktadır. Fakat yüksek performansta çalışan enerji etkin yüksek-hızlı HYBR proseslerinin sürdürülebilir ve yaygın kullanımı için ilave pilot-ölçekli çalışmalara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır.

Keywords

• organik yükleme hızı
• organik madde giderimi
• biyofilm reaktörü
• bağlı biyokütle
• biyofilm SRT

Impacts of Hydraulic Retention Time on Treatment Performance and Biofilm Formation in Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor

Abstract

Moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBRs) are compact and high-performing wastewater treatment technology preferred for their effectiveness in treating both domestic and industrial effluents. Despite the widespread application of MBBRs, the literature lacks comprehensive investigation into the influence of key design parameters, such as attached biomass concentration and sludge retention time (SRT) of biofilm, on treatment performance across varying operational conditions. This study explored the impact of varying hydraulic retention time (HRT) and organic loading rates (OLRs) on the process performance, amount of heterotrophic bacteria attached to plastic carriers and SRT of the biofilm in an aerobic MBBR (with a 50% fill ratio of plastic carriers) treating synthetic wastewater. The MBBR exhibited robust performance, maintaining a high average COD removal efficiency of 97%, even when operated at an HRT of 3 h and a COD loading rate of 13.3 g/(m2⋅d). However, reducing the HRT to 1 h and increasing the OLR to 40 g/(m².d) resulted in a decrease in COD removal efficiency to 65%. This study also demonstrated that HRT and OLR values have a significant effect on the amount of attached heterotrophic biomass and the biofilm SRT. Decreasing the HRT value from 24 to 1 h (and increasing the OLR from 0.1 to 40 g/(m².d)) in MBBR increased the attached biomass concentration by 62% and decreased biofilm SRT by 3.5 times. These findings highlight the fact that high-rate MBBRs can perform well even at high loading rates and low HRT values. However, future pilot-scale studies are needed for the sustainable and widespread use of high performing energy efficient high rate-MBBR processes.

Keywords

• organic loading rate
• organic matter removal
• biofilm reactor
• attached biomass
• biofilm SRT

References

1. Ali, M., Aslam, A., Qadeer, A., Javied, S., Nisar, N., Hassan, N., Hussain, A., Ali, B., Iqbal, R., & Chaudhary, T. (2024). Domestic wastewater treatment by Pistia stratiotes in constructed wetland. Scientific Reports, 14, 7553.
2. Widyarani, Wulan, D. R., Hamidah, U., Komarulzaman, A., Rosmalina, R. T., & Sintawardani, N. (2022). Domestic wastewater in Indonesia: Generation, characteristics and treatment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29, 32397–32414.
3. Morello, R., Di Capua, F., Aktan, Ç. K., Yilmaz, T., Esposito, G., Pirozzi, F., Fratino, U., Spasiano, D., & Sahinkaya, E. (2024). Unravelling the impact of oxic-settling-anaerobic cycle implementation and solid retention time on sludge generation, membrane operation, and contaminant removal in membrane bioreactors. Chemical Engineering Journal, 496, 153800.
4. Lu, J., Lu, Q., Hu, Q., & Qiu, B. (2024). Recovery of organic matters by activated sludge from municipal wastewater: Performance and characterization. Environmental Research, 252, 118829.
5. Barwal, A., & Chaudhary, R. (2014). To study the performance of biocarriers in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology and kinetics of biofilm for retrofitting the existing aerobic treatment systems: A review. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 13, 285–299.
6. Lu, L., Guest, J. S., Peters, C. A., Zhu, X., Rau, G. H., & Ren, Z. J. (2018). Wastewater treatment for carbon capture and utilization. Nature Sustainability, 1, 750–758.
7. Sarpong, G., & Gude, V. G. (2020). Near future energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment schemes. International Journal of Environmental Research, 14, 479–488.
8. Werkneh, A. A. (2022). Application of membrane-aerated biofilm reactor in removing water and wastewater pollutants: Current advances, knowledge gaps and research needs—a review. Environmental Challenges, 8, 100529.

9. Hamza, R., Rabii, A., Ezzahraoui, F., Morgan, G., & Iorhemen, O. T. (2022). A review of the state of development of aerobic granular sludge technology over the last 20 years: Full-scale applications and resource recovery. Case Studies in Chemical and Environmental Engineering, 5, 100173.
10. Cicekalan, B., Kosar, S., Cingoz, S., Eyit, N., Ersahin, M. E., & Ozgun, H. (2023). Techno-economic and environmental assessment of different municipal wastewater treatment systems. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 53, 103822.
11. Mahto, K. U., & Das, S. (2022). Bacterial biofilm and extracellular polymeric substances in the moving bed biofilm reactor for wastewater treatment: A review. Bioresource Technology, 345, 126476.
12. Li, L., He, Z., Liang, T., Sheng, T., Zhang, F., Wu, D., & Ma, F. (2022). Colonization of biofilm in wastewater treatment: A review. Environmental Pollution, 293, 118514.
13. Ødegaard, H. (2006). Innovations in wastewater treatment: The moving bed biofilm process. Water Science and Technology, 53, 17–33.
14. di Biase, A., Kowalski, M. S., Devlin, T. R., & Oleszkiewicz, J. A. (2019). Moving bed biofilm reactor technology in municipal wastewater treatment: A review. Journal of Environmental Management, 247, 849–866.
15. Czarnota, J., & Masłoń, A. (2019). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a wastewater treatment plant with MBBR technology. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska, 21, 906–925.
16. Kawan, J. A., Hasan, H. A., Suja, F., Bin Jaafar, O., & Abd-Rahman, R. (2016). A review on sewage treatment and polishing using moving bed bioreactor (MBBR). Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 11, 1098–1120.
17. Madan, S., Madan, R., & Hussain, A. (2022). Advancement in biological wastewater treatment using hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR): A review. Applied Water Science, 12, 141.
18. Abdul-Majeed, M. A., Alwan, H. H., Baki, M. I., Abtan, F. R., & Sultan, H. I. (2012). Wastewater treatment in Baghdad city using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology. Engineering and Technology Journal, 30, 1550–1561.
19. Dezotti, M., Lippel, G., & Bassin, J. P. (2018). Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). In Advances in Biological Processes for Wastewater Treatment: Emerging, Consolidated Technologies and Introduction to Molecular Techniques (pp. 37–74).
20. Gupta, B., Gupta, A. K., Ghosal, P. S., Lal, S., Saidulu, D., Srivastava, A., & Upadhyay, M. (2022). Recent advances in application of moving bed biofilm reactor for wastewater treatment: Insights into critical operational parameters, modifications, field-scale performance, and sustainable aspects. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 10, 107742.
21. Sohail, N., Ahmed, S., Chung, S., & Nawaz, M. S. (2020). Performance comparison of three different reactors (MBBR, MBR and MBBMR) for municipal wastewater treatment. Desalination and Water Treatment, 174, 71–78.
22. Santos, A. D., Martins, R. C., Quinta-Ferreira, R. M., & Castro, L. M. (2020). Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for dairy wastewater treatment. Energy Reports, 6, 340–344.
23. di Biase, A., Kowalski, M. S., Devlin, T. R., & Oleszkiewicz, J. A. (2020). Controlling biofilm retention time in an A-stage high-rate moving bed biofilm reactor for organic carbon redirection. Science of the Total Environment, 745, 141051.
24. Bal, Y., Pak, B. A., Bayrakdar, A., & Sahinkaya, E. (2025). Optimization of moving bed membrane bioreactor process for improved water and nutrient recovery from domestic wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 70, 106934.
25. APHA. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water & wastewater (21st ed.). American Public Health Association.
26. Zhang, R., Liu, Y., Huang, D., Zhang, L., Ma, X., Yu, P., Liu, C., & Wang, Y. (2025). Influence of influent load on nitrification/denitrification with MBBR for oil shale retorting wastewater treatment: Performance and microbial community structure. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 236, 4.
27. Aygun, A., Nas, B., & Berktay, A. (2008). Influence of high organic loading rates on COD removal and sludge production in moving bed biofilm reactor. Environmental Engineering Science, 25, 1311–1316.
28. Remoudaki, E., Hatzikioseyian, A., Kousi, P., & Tsezos, M. (2003). The mechanism of metals precipitation by biologically generated alkalinity in biofilm reactors. Water Research, 37, 3843–3854.
29. Hem, L. J., Rusten, B., & Ødegaard, H. (1994). Nitrification in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Research, 28, 1425–1433.
30. Bassin, J. P., Dias, I. N., Cao, S. M. S., Senra, E., Laranjeira, Y., & Dezotti, M. (2016). Effect of increasing organic loading rates on the performance of moving-bed biofilm reactors filled with different support media: Assessing the activity of suspended and attached biomass fractions. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 100, 131–141.
31. Calderón, K., Martín-Pascual, J., Poyatos, J. M., Rodelas, B., González-Martínez, A., & González-López, J. (2012). Comparative analysis of the bacterial diversity in a lab-scale moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) applied to treat urban wastewater under different operational conditions. Bioresource Technology, 121, 119–126.
32. Phanwilai, S., Kangwannarakul, N., Noophan, P., Kasahara, T., Terada, A., Munakata-Marr, J., & Figueroa, L. A. (2020). Nitrogen removal efficiencies and microbial communities in full-scale IFAS and MBBR municipal wastewater treatment plants at high COD:N ratio. Frontiers in Environmental Science and Engineering, 14, 115.
33. Li, C., Zhang, Z., Li, Y., & Cao, J. (2015). Study on dyeing wastewater treatment at high temperature by MBBR and the thermotolerant mechanism based on its microbial analysis. Process Biochemistry, 50, 1934–1941.
34. Reboleiro-Rivas, P., Martín-Pascual, J., Morillo, J. A., Juárez-Jiménez, B., Poyatos, J. M., Rodelas, B., & Gonzalez-Lopez, J. (2016). Interlinkages between bacterial populations dynamics and the operational parameters in a moving bed membrane bioreactor treating urban sewage. Water Research, 88, 796–807.
35. Yuan, H., Li, Y., & Wang, K. (2021). Effect of influent ammonia nitrogen concentration on microbial community in MBBR reactor. Water Science and Technology, 83, 162–172.
36. Aslam, Z., Alam, P., Islam, R., Khan, A. H., Samaraweera, H., Hussain, A., & Zargar, T. I. (2024). Recent developments in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for the treatment of phenolic wastewater—a review. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 105517.
37. Zhou, X., Jiang, Z., Gu, J., Bi, X., Liu, J., Wang, X., Yang, T., Shi, X., Cheng, L., & Huang, S. (2023). Performance characteristics and bacterial community analysis of a novel two-step-feed three-stage A/O-MBBR system for nitrogen removal in municipal wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 52, 103513.
38. Nourredine, H., & Barjenbruch, M. (2024). Graywater treatment efficiency and nutrient removal using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) systems: A comprehensive review. Water, 16, 2330.
39. Ahmadi, M., Izanloo, H., Mehralian, A., Amiri, H., & Sepehr, M. N. (2011). Upgrading of Kish Island Markazi wastewater treatment plant by MBBR. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 1, 243–249.
40. Abbasi, H., Élysée, C., Labelle, M.-A., Laflamme, E., Gadbois, A., Laporte, A., Dold, P. L., & Comeau, Y. (2015). Organic matter capture by a high-rate inoculum-chemostat and MBBR system. Water Quality Research Journal, 52, 166–177.
41. Ødegaard, H. (2000). Advanced compact wastewater treatment based on coagulation and moving bed biofilm processes. Water Science and Technology, 42, 33–48.