1.

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Background
For India, a country with a rapidly expanding population and fast industry and
urbanization, wastewater management is a major concern. As the nation moves toward
being a major economic force in the world, worries about environmental sustainability
specifically, efficient wastewater management are growing more pressing.
India produces a significant amount of wastewater every day, mostly from industrial,
agricultural, and residential sources. As urbanization continues at an unprecedented
rate, the amount of wastewater produced has increased dramatically. India is estimated
to create more than 72,000 million liters of sewage per day (MLD), a number that is
expected to increase as a result of urbanization and population expansion.
India has been working to increase the size of its wastewater treatment infrastructure
in order to address the growing wastewater crisis. The nation currently has a large
number of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) dispersed throughout its industrial
and urban environments. These facilities use a variety of treatment techniques,
including membrane bioreactors, oxidation ponds, and activated sludge processes &
different types of reactor technologies to clean wastewater and prepare it for safe
disposal or reuse.
India's population is growing at an exponential rate, which makes wastewater
treatment even more difficult. The pressure on current wastewater treatment systems
increases as migratory populations move into urban centers in search of greater
economic opportunities. In addition to increasing the amount of wastewater produced,
this population growth highlights how urgent it is to improve treatment capabilities in
order to protect public health and the environment.
1.2 Current Scenario of sewage & its treatment
The data on the inventory of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) in India for the years
2020–21 was provided to CPCB by SPCBs and PCCs. The following are some brief
observations:
i. There are 1,631 STPs (including projected STPs) encompassing 35 States and UTs
with a 36,668MLD total capacity. There are 1,631 STPs total; of those, 1,093 are
functioning, 102 are non-operational, 274 are being built, and 162 are being proposed
for construction.
ii. Of the 1,093 STPs in service, 900 have a compliance status accessible, and only
578, with a total capacity of 12,200 MLD, are deemed to be in accordance with the
approved norms set forth by the SPCBs / PCCs.
iii. The projected amount of sewage generated by urban centers is 72,368 MLD.
When compared to the STP inventory from 2014, it is noted that the capacity for
sewage treatment has increased by 50%. The table below provides comparison
statistics between the years 2014 and 2020.

1
 Table 1: Comparative Statistics on the Inventory for the years 2014 and 2020 (STP Inventory, CPCB, 2021)
SI. No. STP Status 2014 2020
Nos. of Capacity Nos. of Capacity
STPs (MLD) STPs (MLD)
1. Operational 522 18883 1093 26869
2. Actual Utilization - - 1093 20235
3. Compliance - - 578 12197
4. Non-operational 79 1237 102 1406
5. Under Construction 145 2528 274 3566
Total (SI. No.1+4+5) 746 22648 1469 31841
6. Proposed 70 628 162 4827

1.3 Research Gap

Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the functioning, treatment
technology, and inlet-outlet water characteristics of India's sewage treatment plants;
nevertheless, several research gaps have been observed with respect to the effective
comparison of STPs because of various circumstances.
Lack of comprehensive nationwide data: There is a significant gap in India's
research landscape regarding the absence of a unified database encompassing the
various scales of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs). This gap inhibits holistic analysis
and comparison across regions, age of STP, land area & scales.
Impact of diverse climatic conditions: India experiences a wide range of climatic
conditions, yet there is limited research investigating how these conditions affect the
performance and efficiency of STPs. Understanding this impact is crucial for
optimizing STP design and operation nationwide.
Variation in influent water quality: The quality of influent water varies significantly
across different regions in India due to diverse industrial activities, agricultural
practices, and demographic factors. However, there is a lack of research examining
how these variations affect the efficacy of STPs and the quality of treated effluent.
Limited insight into patented technologies: Innovative solutions such as the
patented technology, Organica, a division of L&T, hold promise for enhancing
wastewater treatment efficiency. However, there is a research gap concerning the
implementation and performance of such patented technologies in the Indian context.
1.4 Objectives

2
The goals of the project are to conduct a thorough techno-economic feasibility
assessment and performance evaluation of two to three STPs based on the various STP
technologies that are employed in Indian cities. The following are the precise goals:
1. To gather and aggregate the secondary data that is accessible for the STPs in India,
and to categorize the STPs according to their age, region, treatment technology, and
capacity.
2. Determine two to three STPs for each Indian technology, such as Advanced
Oxidation Process, Extended Aeration, Constructed Wetlands, Organica, Bio-Reactor
Technology, ASP, SBR, MBBR, MBR, UASB, and Organica, taking regional
geoclimatic conditions and operational scale variations into account.
3. To thoroughly technical and financially evaluate the selected STPs, including cost-
benefit economics, reuse potential, climate sensitivity, technological compatibility for
a variety of design flows, and acceptable design, operation, and maintenance.
4. To conduct a thorough performance evaluation of the identified STPs using the
chosen technologies, taking into account treatment efficiency, treated water reusability,
and compliance status.
5. To compile a thorough report outlining the techno-economic analysis, performance
assessment, and suitability of the STP technologies for various operational scales and
geoclimatic circumstances.
1.5 Approach of Study
Primary and secondary data on the selected STPs will be used in the research. The
procedure is shown in the figure below, and the specific stages are listed below:
1. Using secondary data and information from CPCB/SPCB, Municipal Corporations,
State PHEDs, and other pertinent agencies, a national database of STP technologies
will be created.
2. The location (region), installed capacity, treatment method, and infrastructure age
will all be taken into consideration when classifying the STPs.
3. A group of STPs representing various technologies will be chosen for a thorough
evaluation study, as shown in the table 2.
4. Each selected STP will be visited to collect all essential primary data. STP efficacy
will be assessed by sampling influent and effluent water.
5. STP samples will be tested in the lab for emerging contaminants and standard water
quality indicators such BOD, COD, DO, TSS, TDS, MPN, ammonia, TKN,
phosphorous, common ions, and heavy metals.
6. STP success will be assessed based on the effectiveness of treatment and
compliance. Reusability of treated water in a specific industry will be assessed.
7. A techno-economic assessment of each identified STP will consider technology
suitability, design, operation, and maintenance adequacy, technology suitability for

3
different design flows, climate sensitivity, cost-benefit economics, reuse opportunities,
and treated water potential.
8. Lastly, a report that includes a performance evaluation of STPs will be delivered,
along with a thorough techno-economic assessment of alternative technologies for
STPs.
Technology Name No of STPs
Activated Sludge Process 2-3

Sequential Batch Reactor 2-3

Moving Bed Biofilm 2-3 Samples STPs from:

Reactor
 Various geo-climate zone (warm, temperate,
Upflow Anaerobic Sludge 2-3 or cold)
Blanket  Varying operational scales (large, medium,
and small capacity)
Membrane Bio-Reactor 2-3
 STP ages (newly installed, mid-aged, old)
Bio-Reactor Technology 2-3

Extended Aeration 2-3

Advanced Oxidation 2-3

Processes

Constructed Wetlands 2-3

Organica 2-3

Appx: 20-25
Table 2: Treatment technologies & its numbers to be evaluated

Figure 1: Process4Flow Diagram

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Activated Sludge Process (ASP)

Hreiz et al. (2015) offers a thorough analysis of the best configuration and functioning
of activated sludge processes, emphasizing cutting-edge approaches and tactics. The
authors emphasize the significance of striking a balance between critical parameters
including MLSS content, HRT, and sludge age in order to maximize treatment
efficiency and reduce operating costs by synthesizing the body of available
knowledge. The findings highlight. For biomass to form a sticky slime layer in ASPs, a
minimum solids retention time (SRT) of three to four days is needed. However, very
high SRTs may result in to poorly settleable flocs due to a variety of factors, including
an excess of filamentous microorganisms.
Consequently, SRT was limited by El-Shorbagy et al. (2011) to 4–27 days and by
Descoins et al. (2012) to 5–35 days. Henze et al. (1987) state that the pH may become
unstable if the alkalinity falls below 1 mol/m 3 and falls to minimal amounts. In light of
this, Hakanen et al. (2008, 2011) thought of adding sodium bicarbonate to keep the
medium alkalinity within an appropriate range, which these authors define as 1.5 to 2
mol/m3. Alkalinity in the reactor was limited by Espírito-Santo and Fernandes (2006)
to be between 6 and 8 mol m3, but no chemical addition was taken into consideration
to control it.
Balku and Berber (2006) and Balku (2007) limited the average DO concentration
during the aeration-on periods to exceed 2 and 3 g m -3, respectively. They contended
that in order to prevent the formation of filamentous bacteria, which may lead to major
operational issues like bulking, such high DO concentrations are required. In their
study on the best way to regulate an ASP.
Kim et al. (2000) limited the length of the aeration-on and aeration-off intervals to be
between 0.5 and 4 hours. It was contended that a minimum of half an hour must pass
with the air on to prevent the washout of nitrifying bacteria. Their approach worked
well since even with shock loads, their bench-scale AAS was able to achieve excellent
COD and nitrate elimination efficiencies.
According to Espírito-Santo et al. (2006), the reactor's maintenance expenses will
account for 1% of the investment costs in the first ten years and 2% in the years that
follow. A maintenance cost function for the secondary settler was also provided. They
disregarded the costs associated with equipment maintenance, although their estimated
lifespan was just ten years.
2.2 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, MBBR methods were brought to the market.
Following that, a number of adjustments were made to improve the removal specific
pollutants (Li et al., 2019). Both suspended and attached growth phases are involved in
the MBBR process. According to Bering et al. (2018), biofilms are developed on tiny
plastic or sponge-based carriers that have a density that is slightly less than that of
water. These carriers are continuously stirred by mechanical means or by aeration in
anaerobic reactors.

5
Trapani et al. (2008) also looked at various fill-fractions for MBBR. They investigated
how reactor removal efficiency falls after an ideal fill-fraction. This was explained by
the significance of suspended solids in the MBBR and the competition between
suspended and attached biomass. Since suspended biomass plays a significant part in
enzymatic hydrolysis and bio-flocculation in the reactor, low suspended biomass
might reduce the MBBR removal efficiency. However, suspended growth
concentration decreases with increasing fill-fraction. A fill-fraction of 35% was shown
to have a greater COD elimination effectiveness than a fill-fraction of 66%.
Ødegaard et al. (1994) discovered that the biofilm area, and therefore the effective
carrier specific area, is one of the most crucial parameters in MBBR designing and
performance. The system performance is regulated by a particular region of the carrier
medium that permits very high biofilm concentrations in a limited reactor capacity.
According to reports, the average biofilm concentration is between 3,000 and 4,000 g
TSS m-3. These values are comparable to those found in activated sludge processes that
have high sludge ages, which is why the volumetric removal rate in the MBBR is
much higher than that of the activated sludge process. According to reports, the
MBBR carrier medium's effective area makes about 70% of its overall surface area
since there is less attachment of biofilm around the media's outside.
According to Wang et al. (2006), for effective COD removal, the reactor's dissolved
oxygen (DO) level should be maintained at or above 2 mg L -1. Additionally, they
found that the COD elimination effectiveness dropped by 13% when the DO was
reduced from 2 to 1 mg L-1, suggesting that the DO has become a limiting factor.
However, only a 5.8% improvement in COD elimination efficiency was seen when the
DO was raised from 2 to 6 mg L-1.
Application Experiment scale Performance Reference
Full Scale 91-94% COD Odegaard
Municipal removal (2006)
Wastewater Lab Scale 80% COD removal Kermani et al.
(2008)
Table 3: Comparison of MBBR performance on different scale

Barwal & Chaudhary (2014) concluded that this technique can function well under a
range of organic or inorganic load conditions. The results show that MBBR is effective
in eliminating 60–90% COD and 75–97% BOD, 40–85% TKN, and other nutrients
from municipal wastewater, to a considerable degree. Moreover, because nitrifies are
slow-growing microorganisms that are held by the biofilm, nitrification and de-
nitrification may also be successfully accomplished in this biofilm-based method.
2.3 Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
Pilot-scale research on the membrane bioreactor (MBR) method of treating
pharmaceutical wastewater in southern Taiwan was conducted by Chang et al. (2008).
Over the course of 140 days, the MBR's performance was observed. Proof was shown
that the MBR system can eliminate95% of BOD5 and 99% of COD, respectively.
According to the findings, the MBR system has a lot of promise for treating this kind
of wastewater with reliable operation and effective removal capabilities.

6
Wenzel et al. (1996) conducted research on the recovery and repurposing of water in
reactive cotton dyeing. Tight ultrafiltration membranes, nanofiltration, and RO were
the main topics of the study. The Donnan effect, which is thought to be caused by the
negatively charged dyestuff molecules' repulsion, is responsible for the very high
retentions and extremely high fluxes seen in polysulphone nanofiltration membranes
with a negatively charged polyamide covering (perhaps carboxylated). Rinse water
may be recovered using membrane filtration in the RO and nanofiltration spectrum
and then used again.
In their study, Brik et al. (2006) measured the effectiveness of a membrane bioreactor
(MBR) in treating textile wastewater and looked at the device's capacity to produce
water that satisfies reuse requirements. It was shown that even at high loading rates,
effective COD removal takes place and that the system is generally robust to changes
in loading rates. The very low apparent sludge output highlights another benefit of the
MBR technology. Hey finished by talking about wastewater reclamation is meant to
When MBR technology is coupled with other cutting-edge treatment technologies, it is
the preferred approach.
The outcomes of treating wastewater from the bottling of soft drinks and water using a
membrane bioreactor (MBR) pilot plant were examined by Matosic et al. (2009). With
an efficiency of more than 90%, MBR effectively eliminated contaminants from the
wastewater that were assessed as COD, BOD, and TOC. Membrane fouling peaked
during the first ten days of filtration and subsequently tapered down over time. Of all
the fouling mechanisms, scale precipitation accounted for 70–80% of the membrane
permeability loss, making it the most important. It was feasible to recover the
membrane's initial permeability after 60 days of nonstop filtration by thoroughly
cleaning it with hypochlorite, acid, and alkaline solutions.
The petrochemical sector has been actively working on the implementation of
membrane processes, as shown by Ravanchi et al. (2009). A thorough discussion was
held about processes such olefin/paraffin separation, light solvent separation, solvent
dewaxing, phenol and aromatic recovery, dehydrogenation, oxidative coupling of
methane, and steam reforming of methane. They conclude that, given the high energy
and capital costs associated with industrial distillation columns, membrane methods
should be suggested as a distillation column substitute in industrial applications.
A case study on a full-scale MBR system for municipal wastewater run by Aquafin in
Belgium was completed by Melin et al. in 2006. The article that is being presented
shows that MBR technology has a great deal of potential to be an important
component of wastewater reclamation and reuse projects all around the globe. The
operating processes must address a number of issues, including fouling management,
pre-treatment, maintenance, and operator training. Additionally, there may be negative
effects from the use of this technology, which highlights the need for more thorough
and practically focused MBR research.
Using cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB), PVB, and PVDF membranes, Miyoshi et al.
(2015) examined the impact of various polymeric membrane materials on the
connection between membrane pore size and fouling in an MBR. According to their
findings, membrane fouling reduced with raising the size of the holes in PVDF

7
membranes; however, CAB membranes showed the reverse trend, with smaller pores
having a lower propensity to foul than bigger pores. This suggests that various
polymeric materials have varying ideal membrane pore sizes to reduce membrane
fouling in MBR. Therefore, it is important to carefully choose MBR operation settings
for various polymeric membrane materials.
2.4 Constructed Wetlands (CWs)
As an affordable, efficient, and environmentally friendly method of treating many
wastewater kinds, CW need less upkeep and operation than other traditional treatment
systems. This technology has a great deal of potential to particularly in
underdeveloped nations (Rahman et al., 2020). According to Khalifa et al. (2020),
CWs are treatment systems that use both physical and biological treatment to remove
various contaminants (including biological, inorganic, and organic pollutants) from
wastewater. Wastewater may be naturally purified by a manmade wetland, which
mimics a natural wetland by integrating substrates, plants, microbes, and water bodies.
This method of treating wastewater is inexpensive and easy to use (Mu et al., 2021).
Constructed wetlands (CWs) are widely used to treat wastewaters of all kinds,
including industrial, household, and agricultural pollutants. This is a low-cost therapy
approach. Despite all of its advantages, CWs may release greenhouse gases (including
CO2, N2O, and CH4), which play a major role in the acceleration of global climate
change. The absence of oxygen in the surrounding air causes CH4 to develop in CWs.
With a potential for global warming that is around 298 times bigger than that of CO2,
CH4 has a significant potential influence on global warming. Therefore, in order to
lessen the effect of CWs on global warming, it is essential to restrict their CH4
emissions (Zhang et al., 2020).
CWs are a successful wastewater treatment technique that mimic the composition and
operations of natural wetlands. This is accomplished by using soil, wetland plants, and
related microbial populations, among other natural processes. The use of CWs is a
beneficial method for treating wastewater because it permits the full use of resource
production potential without causing recontamination of the surrounding area.
Additionally, the use of CWs offers a way of getting the best possible results from
resource use and sewage treatment. Numerous parameters, including matrix
composition, pollutant load, plant species, and climate, affect the effectiveness of CWs
as a wastewater treatment technology. Consequently, CWs are often used in
conjunction with further sewage treatment procedures. In order to further the area of
wastewater treatment, the study's results have been published in a scientific
publication (Yang et al., 2022).
CW is a cost-effective and ecologically sustainable wastewater treatment plant that
operates on gravity. It is capable of managing wastewater from a variety of sources,
such as runoff, stormwater, municipal, industrial, and agricultural. Its efficacy in
eliminating organic and nutritional contaminants is, however, relatively limited since
much of the treatment bed lacks appropriate electron acceptors, such as oxygen. As a
consequence, more acreage is required for treatment to be effective. Circular flow
towers, baffled sub-surface flow systems, effluent recirculation, artificial aeration,
tidal operation, bioaugmentation, electron donor supplementation, and integration with

8
other technologies are just a few of the improvements that have been suggested to
enhance CW's performance. Like the aerobic and anaerobic chambers of an MFC, the
CW bed is separated into upper aerobic and lower anaerobic zones. The two systems
are suitable for integration because of their similarities (Gupta, Srivastava, et al.,
2021).
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR) and CWs are integrated, and mixed biocarrier
is added to the MBBR to decrease its use of biocarrier and boost its ability to remove
contaminants. An integrated system takes up less room, thereby lowers the system's
total cost and improves the efficacy of nitrogen and phosphate removal (Lai et al.,
2021).
(Yakar et al., 2018a) looked at the impact of different filtering medium in the MFC-
modified Upflow CW system. The Zeolite system exhibits superior removal
effectiveness when used with medium that contains sand as cinder and maximum
power production, according to the results the Zeolite system yielded 15.1 mW/m 2.
This is because the zeolite media's greater specific area and more porous structure
have encouraged the development of electrode bacteria on the graphite surface of the
media, which has enhanced the breakdown of organic substrate and, in turn, boosted
the production of bioelectricity.
Certain macrophytes secrete rhizodeposits that encourage the development of
electrogenic active bacteria and may be used to generate bioelectricity. The
macrophyte T. orientalis, which was used by Wang et al. (2017), has a high current
density of 94.27 mA/m2 with a 21.53 mW/m3 power output. Additionally, it was
discovered that certain uncontrollable pollutants might be broken down by the bacteria
located in the rhizosphere zone. The configuration achieves a removal effectiveness of
23.9% for NH3-N, 5.8% for COD, and 7.2% for NO3-N.

2.5 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Reactor (UASB)

Lettinga et al. (1981) conducted a study in The Netherlands to investigate the
efficiency of the UASB system in treating raw home sewage under tropical climatic
settings. A 6 m3 pilot reactor was used to study the effects of digesting sewage sludge.
The reactor was maintained at a regulated temperature of 20°C and had a hydraulic
retention time (HRT) ranging from 8 to 48 hours. They achieved COD removal
efficiencies of 75% and gas production of 0.115 Nm 3 of gas per kg of COD supplied,
with a Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) of 8 hours. In a further series of studies
conducted in the same pilot plant (Grin et al., 1983), the Hydraulic Retention Time
(HRT) was set at a constant 8 hours, while the temperature varied between 9.5 and
19°C. The findings indicated that the removal efficiencies of COD and gas generation
were greater at temperatures ranging from 15 to 19°C.
Ghangrekar et al., (1996) stated that the efficacy and durability of a UASB reactor is
heavily reliant on the initial start-up process, which is primarily influenced by several
physical, chemical, and biological factors. The elements that need to be considered
include the kind of wastewaters, the operating conditions, and the characteristics,
availability, and development of active microbial populations in the seed sludge or
inoculum.

9
Halalsheh et al. (2005b) shown that the operation of UASB with hydraulic retention
times (HRTs) that are three to four times greater than those in tropical nations. The use
of reactors for the treatment of highly concentrated sewage in Jordan, at typical
ambient temperatures of 18 and 25 degrees Celsius during winter and summer
respectively, remained viable. The researchers conducted a comparison between a
single-staged and a two-staged UASB system. They discovered that there was no
notable enhancement in COD removal efficiency. This indicates that, under the
climatic circumstances in Jordan, it is preferable to run a single-stage UASB reactor
with a reasonably long HRT.
Draaijer et al. (1992) stated in his study about the the Ganga Project Directorate, who
has requested a demonstration of the Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB)
technology in Kanpur, India. Following the outcomes of this demonstration facility,
large-scale facilities will be built in Kanpur and Mirzapur. The operational period of
this demonstration facility began in April 1989 at Kanpur. The UASBR has a volume
of 1200 m3 and the plant is designed to treat 5000 m3 of raw sewage per day. The
duration of the startup phase was around 10 weeks. At a nominal hydraulic retention
time (HRT) of 6 hours, the removal rates for chemical oxygen demand (COD),
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total suspended solids (TSS) were 74%,
75%, and 75%, respectively.
Prashanth (2003) documented that approximately 10 sewage treatment facilities using
UASB technology have been established within a range of 50-300 km from Roorkee,
India. All of these plants follow a consistent sequence of operations, which includes
screening, grit removal, UASB treatment, and post-treatment using polishing ponds.
The hydraulic retention time (HRT) for each Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
(UASB) reactor ranges from 8.0 to 9.4 hours. The average clearance of BOD and TSS
has been shown to range from 78% to 89% and 78% to 93%, respectively.
Ayati and Ganjidoust (2006) compared between different modifications of an UASB
reactor and found out that a variation of the UASB reactor is the Upflow anaerobic
fixed film reactor (UAFF). This is a UASB reactor with fixed film media on the top
portion. This biomass reactor has the advantage of being both hanging and connected.
Hybrid UASB reactors provide advantages such as increased efficiency, lower HRT,
smaller reactor capacity, enhanced stability and stress resistance, increased methane
output, and less complex chemicals. This hybrid UASB reactor effectively treats
industrial effluents from various industries, such as abattoirs, dairies, distilleries, soft
beverages, petrochemical plants, pharmaceuticals, textiles, pulp and paper, vegetable
and fruit processors, tanneries, and fish processing units.
2.6 Sequencing Batch Reactor
According to Singh and Srivastava (2010) SBRs are considered as fill and draw
version of the activated sludge process. It is basically a batch reactor that operates
under a series of periods that constitute a SBR cycle. The cycle generally consists of
fill, react, settle, decant and idle periods. By manipulating these periods, the system
could achieve biological nutrient removal using alternations of anoxic and aerobic
periods within the treatment cycle. There can be two or more cycles per day depending
upon the operational strategies desired.

10
Kargy and Uygur (2003) stated that the number of operating stages and total cycle
time employed also have an impact on the system's performance. Of the three
operations—the three-step anaerobic (An)/anoxic (Ax)/oxic (Ox); the four-step
(An/Ox/Ax/Ox) and the five-step (An/Ax/Ox/Ax/Ox) phases—the five-step operation
yielded the highest nutrient removals, with percentages of 94, 90, 64, and 57%,
respectively, for COD, NH 4+-N, and PO 4−3 -P. The additional anoxic and oxic
phases removed excess N and P from synthetic wastewater.
A further investigation by Li et al., (2008) assessed how aeration rates affected
intermittently aerated SBR performance. The best results were obtained at an aeration
rate of 0.8 L/min system efficiency. From slaughterhouse wastewater, COD, TN, and
total phosphorus (TP) were removed to levels as high as 97, 94, and 97%, respectively.

Sahinkaya & Dilek, (2007) shown that feeding time plays a crucial role in the
treatment of harmful wastewater. Trials involving the treatment of a combination of
2,4-Dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP) demonstrated that although longer feeding times
enhanced the rate of 4-CP elimination, shorter feeding times resulted in a stronger
inhibition of 4-CP degradation.

The SBR method in conjunction with the use of coagulation/flocculation (C/F) is most
suited for treating difficult-to-biodegrade effluent from the dye industry as mentioned
by El-Gohary & Tawfik, (2009), for example. Following chemical pretreatment, the
SBR effluent reduced total suspended solids (TSS), total chemical oxygen demand
(TCOD), and total biochemical oxygen demand (TBOD) by 68.2, 76.3, and 61.4%,
respectively.

11
3. REFERENCES
Ayati, B., & Ganjidoust, H. (2006). Comparing the efficiency of UAFF and UASB
with hybrid reactor in treating wood fiber wastewater. Journal of Environmental
Health Science & Engineering, 3(1), 39-44.
Balku, S. (2007). Comparison between alternating aerobic–anoxic and conventional
activated sludge systems. Water research, 41(10), 2220-2228.
Balku, S., & Berber, R. (2006). Dynamics of an activated sludge process with
nitrification and denitrification: Start-up simulation and optimization using
evolutionary algorithm. Computers & chemical engineering, 30(3), 490-499.timization
(pp. 435-455). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
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.
Bering, S., Mazur, J., Tarnowski, K., Janus, M., Mozia, S., & Morawski, A. W. (2018).
The application of moving bed bio-reactor (MBBR) in commercial laundry wastewater
treatment. Science of the Total Environment, 627, 1638-1643.
Brik, M., Schoeberl, P., Chamam, B., Braun, R., & Fuchs, W. (2006). Advanced
treatment of textile wastewater towards reuse using a membrane bioreactor. Process
Biochemistry, 41(8), 1751-1757.
Chang, C. Y., Chang, J. S., Vigneswaran, S., & Kandasamy, J. (2008). Pharmaceutical
wastewater treatment by membrane bioreactor process–a case study in southern
Taiwan. Desalination, 234(1-3), 393-401.
Descoins, N., Deleris, S., Lestienne, R., Trouvé, E., & Maréchal, F. (2012, May).
Energy efficiency in waste water treatments plants: Optimization of activated sludge
process coupled with anaerobic digestion. Energy, 41(1), 153–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.078
Draaijer, H.; Maas, J.A.W.; Schaapman, J.E.; Khan, A. Performance of the 5 MLD
UASB Reactor for Sewage Treatment at Kanpur, India. Water Sci. Technol. 1992, 25,
123–133.
El-Gohary, F., & Tawfik, A. (2009). Decolorization and COD reduction of disperse
and reactive dyes wastewater using chemical-coagulation followed by sequential batch
reactor (SBR) process. Desalination, 249(3), 1159-1164.
El-Shorbagy, W., Arwani, A., & Droste, R. L. (2011). Optimal sizing of activated
sludge process with ASM3. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Eng, 11, 19-55.
Espírito-Santo, I. A. C. P., Fernandes, E. M., Araújo, M. M., & Ferreira, E. C. (2006).
How wastewater processes can be optimized using LOQO. In: Seeger, A. (eds) Recent
Advances in Optimization. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems,
vol 563. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28258-0_26

12
Ghangrekar, M. M., Asolekar, S. R., Ranganathan, K. R., & Joshi, S. G. (1996).
Experience with UASB reactor start-up under different operating conditions. Water
Science and Technology, 34(5-6), 421-428.
Grin P. C., Roersma R. E. and Lettinga G. (1983) Anaerobic treatment of raw sewage
at lower temperatures. Proc. European Symposium on Anaerobic Wastewater
Treatment (AWWT), pp. 335-347. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
Gupta, S., Srivastava, P., Patil, S. A., & Yadav, A. K. (2021). A comprehensive review
on emerging constructed wetland coupled microbial fuel cell technology: Potential
applications and challenges. In Bioresource Technology (Vol. 320). Elsevier Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.124376
Hakanen, J., Sahlstedt, K., & Miettinen, K. (2008). Simulation-based interactive
multiobjective optimization in wastewater treatment. Proc. of EngOpt.
Halalsheh, M., Sawajneh, Z., Zu’bi, M., Zeeman, G., Lier, J., Fayyad, M., Lettinga, G.,
2005b. Treatment of strong domestic sewage in a 96 m 3 UASB reactor operated at
ambient temperatures: two-stage versus single-stage reactor. Bioresource Technology
96 (5), 577e585.
Henze, M. (1994). Activated sludge model No. 2. IAWQ Scientific and Technical
Reports.
Hreiz, R., Latifi, M. A., & Roche, N. (2015). Optimal design and operation of
activated sludge processes: State-of-the-art. Chemical Engineering Journal, 281, 900-
920.
J. Hakanen, K. Sahlstedt, K. Miettinen, Wastewater treatment: new insight provided by
interactive multiobjective optimization, Decis. Support. Syst. 51 (2011) 328–337.
Kargı, F., & Uygur, A. (2003). Biological nutrient removal in sequencing batch reactor
with different number of steps. Clean technologies and environmental policy, 6, 61-65.
Kermani M, Bina B, Movahedian H, Amin MM, Nikaein M (2008) Application of
moving bed biofilm process for biological organics and nutrients removal from
municipal wastewater. Am J Environ Sci 4(6):675–682
Khalifa, M. E., El-Reash, Y. G. A., Ahmed, M. I., & Rizk, F. W. (2020). Effect of
media variation on the removal efficiency of pollutants from domestic wastewater in
constructed wetland systems. Ecological Engineering, 143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.105668
Khalil, N., Sinha, R., Raghav, A. K., & Mittal, A. K. (2008, March). UASB technology
for sewage treatment in India: experience, economic evaluation and its potential in
other developing countries. In Twelfth international water technology conference (Vol.
12, pp. 1411-1427).
Kim, H., McAvoy, T. J., Anderson, J. S., & Hao, O. J. (2000). Control of an alternating
aerobic–anoxic activated sludge system—Part 2: optimization using a linearized
model. Control Engineering Practice, 8(3), 279-289.

13
L. Li, G. Yan, H. Wang, Z. Chu, Z. Li, Y. Ling, T. Wu, Denitrification and microbial
community in MBBR using A. donax as carbon source and biofilm carriers for reverse
osmosis concentrate treatment, J. Environ. Sci. 84 (2019) 133–143,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2019.04.030 (China).
Lai, C., Sun, Y., Guo, Y., Cai, Q., & Yang, P. (2021). A novel integrated bio-reactor of
moving bed and constructed wetland (MBCW) for domestic wastewater treatment and
its microbial community diversity. Environmental Technology (United Kingdom),
42(17), 2653–2668. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2019.1709904
Lettinga, G.; Roersma, R.; Grin, P.; de Zeeuw, W.; Pol, H.L.; van Velsen, L.; Hobma,
S.; Zeeman, G. Anaerobic treatment of sewage and low strength wastewaters. In
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion,
Travemünde, Germany, 6–11 September 1981; pp. 271–291.
Li, C., Liang, J., Lin, X., Xu, H., Tadda, M. A., Lan, L., & Liu, D. (2019). Fast start-up
strategies of MBBR for mariculture wastewater treatment. Journal of environmental
management, 248, 109267.
Li, J., Healy, M. G., Zhan, X., Norton, D., & Rodgers, M. (2008). Effect of aeration
rate on nutrient removal from slaughterhouse wastewater in intermittently aerated
sequencing batch reactors. Water, air, and soil pollution, 192, 251-261.
Matošić, M., Prstec, I., Jakopović, H. K., & Mijatović, I. (2009). Treatment of
beverage production wastewater by membrane bioreactor. Desalination, 246(1-3), 285-
293.
Melin, T., Jefferson, B., Bixio, D., Thoeye, C., De Wilde, W., De Koning, J., ... &
Wintgens, T. (2006). Membrane bioreactor technology for wastewater treatment and
reuse. Desalination, 187(1-3), 271-282.
Miyoshi, T.; Yuasa, K.; Ishigami, T.; Rajabzadeh, S.; Kamio, E.; Ohmukai, Y.; Saeki,
D.; Ni, J.; Matsuyama, H. Effect of membrane polymeric materials on relationship
between surface pore size and membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors. Appl. Surf.
Sci. 2015, 330, 351–357.
Mu, C., Wang, L., & Wang, L. (2021). Removal of Cr(VI) and electricity production
by constructed wetland combined with microbial fuel cell (CW-MFC): Influence of
filler media. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128860
Odegaard, H., Rusten, B., Westrum, T., 1994. Ødegaard (1994) A new MBBR:
applications and results. Water Sci. Technol. 29, 10–11.
Prashant, S. (2003). Treatment of sewage using UASB process. Roorke, India.
Rahman, M. E., Halmi, M. I. E. bin, Samad, M. Y. B. A., Uddin, M. K., Mahmud, K.,
Shukor, M. Y. A., Abdullah, S. R. S., & Shamsuzzaman, S. M. (2020). Design,
operation and optimization of constructed wetland for removal of pollutant. In
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (Vol. 17, Issue 22,
pp. 1–40). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228339

14
Ravanchi, M. T., Kaghazchi, T., & Kargari, A. (2009). Application of membrane
separation processes in petrochemical industry: a review. Desalination, 235(1-3), 199-
244.
Sahinkaya, E., & Dilek, F. B. (2007). Effect of feeding time on the performance of a
sequencing batch reactor treating a mixture of 4-CP and 2, 4-DCP. Journal of
environmental management, 83(4), 427-436.
Singh, M., & Srivastava, R. K. (2011). Sequencing batch reactor technology for
biological wastewater treatment: a review. Asia‐pacific journal of chemical
engineering, 6(1), 3-13.
Wang XJ, Xia SQ, Chen L, Zhao JF, Renault NJ, Chovelon JM (2006) Nutrients
removal from municipal wastewater by chemical precipitation in a moving bed biofilm
reactor. Process Biochem 41:824–828
Wang, X., Li, D., Mao, X., Yu, E. H., Scott, K., Zhang, E., & Wang, D. (2016). Anion
exchange polymer coated graphite granule electrodes for improving the performance
of anodes in unbuffered microbial fuel cells. Journal of Power Sources, 330, 211–218.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.09.019
Wenzel, H., Knudsen, H. H., Kristensen, G. H., & Hansen, J. (1996). Reclamation and
reuse of process water from reactive dyeing of cotton. Desalination, 106(1-3), 195-
203.
Yakar, A., Türe, C., Türker, O. C., Vymazal, J., & Saz, Ç. (2018a). Impacts of various
filtration media on wastewater treatment and bioelectric production in up-flow
constructed wetland combined with microbial fuel cell (UCW-MFC). Ecological
Engineering, 117, 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.03.016
Yang, R., Liu, M., & Yang, Q. (2022). Microbial fuel cell affected the filler pollution
accumulation of constructed wetland in the lab-scale and pilot-scale coupling reactors.
Chemical Engineering Journal, 429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.132208
Zhang, K., Wu, X., Luo, H., Li, X., Chen, W., Chen, J., Mo, Y., & Wang, W. (2020).
CH4 control and associated microbial process from constructed wetland (CW) by
microbial fuel cells (MFC). Journal of Environmental Management, 260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110071

15