Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

DOI 10.1007/s11157-014-9333-7

REVIEWS

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
Anjali Barwal • Rubina Chaudhary

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) loading. Various mathematical models are also
incorporates benefits provided by both attached and described in this review paper which is generally used
suspended growth systems. It is an advanced high rate to calculate the reactor volume, effluent organic
wastewater treatment technology with high treatment concentration and substrate removal rate.
efficiency; low capital, operational, maintenance and
replacement cost; single reliable and robust operation Keywords Moving bed biofilm reactors 
procedure. Moreover, this technology is applicable to Biocarriers  Biofilms  Kinetic parameters 
wide range of wastewater flows ranging from 10,000 to Biofilm models  Other biocarriers
150,000 m3 day-1. The MBBR has proved to be
effective in removing up to 90 % chemical oxygen
demand and 95 % biochemical oxygen demand with
nutrients from the effluent stream at optimum condi- 1 Introduction
tion, provided there is sufficient retention time. It is a
cost-effective way of upgrading existing wastewater Around 85 % of the world population lives in the
treatment system as it is efficient, compact and easy to driest half of the planet. 783 million people do not
operate. This process can be provided for new sewage have access to clean water and almost 2.5 billion do
treatment works or for retrofitting existing wastewater not have access to adequate sanitation (UN Water
treatment plants where a higher treated effluent World Water Day 2013). By the year 2025, it is
standard is required without any running and capital expected that 60 % of the world population will live
cost. The performance of MBBR depends on the with water scarcity if water consumptions remain at
percent of media provided in the reactor, surface area the same current level (Judd 2006). It is expected that
of the biocarrier, dissolved oxygen and the organic with further development of human society, the need
for fresh water will keep increasing. More than 90 %
of available fresh water resources will be consumed in
A. Barwal  R. Chaudhary (&) the next 15 years (Kraume and Drews 2010). There-
Water and Wastewater Lab, Faculty of Engineering fore, water reclamation and its reuse are inevitable in
Sciences, School of Energy and Environmental Studies, the years to come. Wastewater treatment technologies
Devi Ahilya University, Takshshila Campus, Khandwa
Road, Indore 452001, Madhya Pradesh, India like trickling filters, rotating biological contactors,
e-mail: [email protected] activated sludge plants (ASPs) which have been in use
A. Barwal in wastewater treatment processes for over a century
e-mail: [email protected] needs to be upgraded and/or replaced with new and

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

more advanced treatment technologies that can pro- cooperation with a Water Treatment Research Group
vide high quality of treated water, which can be used at NTNU/SINTEF (NTNU–Norwegian University of
for domestic, industrial and agricultural purposes and Science and Technology, SINTEF–The Foundation
also for future sustainable practices. for Scientific and Industrial Research). This technol-
Currently, ASPs are well established in the practice ogy was patented as Kaldnes Moving BedTM Biofilm
of wastewater engineering. The efficiency of ASP is process. (Eur. Pat. No. 0575314, US pat. No. 5458779)
constrained by settling tank performance and depends (Ødegaard et al. 1998, Ødegaard 1999a; Rodgers and
on the settleability of its flocs. These systems cannot Zhan 2003). The first MBBR facility became opera-
be operated with biomass concentrations higher than tional in 1990 in Lardnal, Norway (Weiss et al. 2005).
5 g L-1 and require a large footprint areas for these Presently, 22 different countries from all over the
settling tank. Their higher sludge production repre- world are having more than 400 large scale wastewater
sents additional treatment costs for excess sludge treatment plants which are based on this process
disposal (Defrance et al. 2000). (Rusten et al. 2006; Kermani et al. 2008; Zafarzadeh
In the last 20 years, moving bed biofilm reactor et al. 2010; Koupaie et al. 2011).
(MBBR) has been established as a simple-yet-robust, It is one of the advanced aerobic wastewater
flexible and compact technology for wastewater treatment process having advantages of both attached
treatment (Jenkins and Sanders 2012). It has shown and suspended growth systems. It is based on the
great potential in pollution load reduction and has plastic carriers on which biomass attaches and grows
definite edge over the surface aeration system (Das (Ødegaard et al. 2000). It is a continuously operating,
and Naga 2011) and its application in wastewater non-cloggable biofilm reactor with no need for
treatment has increased over the past decade (Rodgers backwashing, low head-loss and a high specific
and Zhan 2003). MBBRs have become an interesting biofilm surface area (Rusten et al. 1998a). MBBRs
alternative for wastewater treatment as it is reliable are operated similarly to the activated sludge process.
and compact systems due to development in their Biofilm grows attached on small carrier elements
designs and operation which has resulted in decreased suspended in constant motion throughout the entire
footprints, significantly lower suspended solid pro- volume of the reactor (Kermani et al. 2008; Qiqi et al.
duction, consistent production of high quality and 2012). A screen is provided at the outfall end of the
reusable water and minimal waste disposal. reactor to keep media from passing out of the reactor.
MBBRs were designed to meet a wide range of Contrary to the activated sludge reactor, it does not
effluent quality standards, including stringent nutrient need any sludge recycle, as is the case in other biofilm
limits (Jenkins and Sanders 2012) and also applicable reactors. Since no sludge recirculation takes place,
to wide range wastewater flows ranging from 10,000 only the surplus biomass has to be separated, which is
to 150,000 m3 day-1 (Barkman 2010). During the a considerable advantage over the activated sludge
past decade, it has been successfully used for process (Ødegaard 1999b). Moreover, nitrification and
municipal as well as industrial wastewater including de-nitrification can also be successfully achieved in
pulp and paper industry wastewater (Jahren et al. biofilm-based processes since nitrifiers, which are
2002; Vaidhegi 2013), poultry processing wastewater slow growing micro-organisms, are retained by the
(Rusten et al. 1998b), phenolic wastewater (Borghei biofilm (Wang et al. 2006; Aygun et al. 2008).
and Hosseini 2004), pharmaceutical wastewater The use of MBBR has been reported in both pilot
(Brinkley et al. 2007), dairy wastewater, refinery and plant studies and full-scale plants. The reactor may be
slaughter house waste, aquaculture, potable water used for aerobic, anoxic or anaerobic processes
denitrification and in roughing, secondary, tertiary, (Ødegaard 1999b; Rusten et al. 2006). In aerobic
sidestream applications (Kermani et al. 2008; processes, the biofilm carrier movement is caused by
McQuarrie and Boltz 2011). MBBR can also be used the agitation set up by the air, while in anoxic and
in an extremely compact high-rate process (\1 h total anaerobic processes a mixer (horizontal or vertical
HRT) for secondary treatment (Ødegaard 2006). shaft) keeps the carrier in suspension (Rusten et al.
MBBR process was developed in Norway in the 2006). Figure 1 shows the aerobic and anaerobic
late 1980s by the Norwegian company Kaldnes reactor in which movement is caused by diffused
Miljǿteknologi AS (now AnoxKaldnes AS) in aeration and vertical shaft respectively.

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Fig. 1 Schematic showing the principle of the MBBR

MBBR process has some advantages in which the density polyethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP) or
treatment facilities can be improved to produce the polyethylene (PE) with a typical density slightly less
economic benefits by reducing the solid load of than water (density * 0.95 g cm-3) (Ødegaard
existing secondary clarifier (Kim et al. 2011). The 1999a, b). Physical property of different biofilm
basic purpose of this review is to study the application carrier is mentioned in Table 1. Biocarriers are
and performance of MBBR, various factors affecting generally shaped as small cylinders with a cross on
its performance, different biocarriers and their removal the inside of the cylinder and longitudinal ‘‘fins’’ on
efficiency and various mathematical models used for the outside (Leiknes and Ødegaard 2001, 2006;
overall kinetics of biological and biofilm reactors. Haandel and Lubbe 2012). The media now comes in
numerous brands but the original AnoxKaldnes K1
media still dominates for effluent treatment, and the
2 Biofilms and biocarriers K3 and especially the K5 carriers are often preferred in
new plants. Biofilm Chip M is specifically designed
When communities of microorganisms grow on sur- for slow growing organisms, such as nitrifiers and
faces, they are called biofilms (Das and Naga 2011). The Anammox bacteria as it offers an extremely high
biocarriers ‘‘carry’’ the microorganism through-out the specific area (Haandel and Lubbe 2012). Other
reactor (Leiknes and Ødegaard 2006). The biofilm popular media includes Hydroxyl ActiveCellTM, Bio-
grows on the protected inside surface of the biocarriers, Portz and Siemens AGAR. Based on the review, it is
therefore making the effective biofilm surface area an concluded that increase in active surface area of the
important design parameter (rates expressed as media sustaining bacteria leads to high removal
g m-2 day-1). Biofilm, growing within the internal efficiency of the organic load.
structures of the biocarriers, degrade dissolved pollu-
tants in the wastewater stream. Every biofilm carrier 2.1 Life of biocarriers
adds productivity via the provision of an active surface
area sustaining bacteria within protected cells. It is the Usually life of biocarriers available in the market
high-density population of bacteria that achieves high- varies from 10 to 30 years. The plastic media has
rate biodegradation productivity within the system. proven to have a long service life with systems in
There are different types of biocarriers available operation with no media degradation that requires
having different shapes and sizes made up of high replacement or replenishment (Ødegaard et al. 1998).

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Table 1 Physical property of different biofilm carrier elements

Model Company Material Length Diameter Specific surface References
(mm) (mm) (m2 m-3)

K1 AnoxKaldnesTM (Sweden) HDPE 7 9 500 Aygun et al. (2008);

Das and Naga (2011)
K2 AnoxKaldnesTM, (Sweden) HDPE 15 15 350 Das and Naga (2011)
K3 AnoxKaldnesTM, (Sweden) HDPE 12 25 500 Das and Naga (2011)
TM
Natrix C2 AnoxKaldnes , (Sweden) HDPE 30 36 220 Das and Naga (2011)
Natrix M2 AnoxKaldnesTM, (Sweden) HDPE 50 64 200 Das and Naga (2011)
Biofilm-Chip M AnoxKaldnesTM, (Sweden) HDPE 2,2 48 1,200 Das and Naga (2011)
Biofilm-Chip P AnoxKaldnesTM, (Sweden) HDPE 3.0 45 900 Das and Naga (2011)
FLOCOR-RMP FLOCOR-Henderson PP 10 15 260 Kermani et al. (2008, 2009)
Plastics Ltd. (UK)
FLOCOR RS FLOCOR-Henderson PP 35 ± 3 35 ± 2 C230 FLOCOR
Plastics Ltd. (UK)
FLOCOR RM FLOCOR-Henderson PP 25 ± 3 20 ± 1 C400 FLOCOR
Plastics Ltd. (UK)
BioSphere Seimens (USA) PE 5–9 13 800 BioSphereTM
BioSphere N Seimens (USA) PE 9 13 800 BioSphereTM
Spira 12 Seimens (USA) PE 12 12 650 BioSphereTM
Spira 14 Seimens (USA) PE 14 14 600 BioSphereTM
ActiveCell 450 Hydroxyl Systems Inc. (USA) HDPE – 22 402 Aquapoint
FXP-25/10 Fxsino (China) PE 10 25 600 Fxsino-MBBR carrier
Bio-media Fxsino (China) PE 9 16 [550 Fxsino-MBBR carrier
BioMini Pack Fxsino (China) PE 10 10 500 Fxsino-MBBR carrier
HDPE high density polyethylene, PP polypropylene, PE polyethylene

15 years ago, first full scale MBBR came in commer- diatomaceous earth (DE) as biomass carrier in place of
cial operation, still no wear and tear of the carriers conventional low-cost polyethylene particles. Because
have been observed (Rusten et al. 2006). of its porosity, DE has been used extensively, not only
as a filter but also as an adsorbent for metal ions and
2.2 Other efficient biocarriers used and their dyes. Total reduction of COD (84–95 %), NH4–N
removal efficiency (89–92.5 %), and turbidity (higher than 96.7 %) was
obtained over conventional polyethylene carrier.
A preliminary study was conducted by Orantes and Later, Huerta et al. (2009) tested six different
Gonzalez-Martinez (2003) to analyze the performance polypropylene biofilm carriers (with density similar to
of MBBR (total volume of 900 L) for municipal that of water) to get the best geometric characteristics
wastewater using corrugated tubing made up of and good hydrodynamics properties in relation to the
polyethylene having specific surface area of existing commercial carriers. Polypropylene polymer
590 m2 m-3. Air was provided with a fine-bubble maintains the shape of the carrier with temperature
diffuser. System was proved efficient for removal of over 100 C. Six different models (A, B, C, D, E and
organic substances. Total COD and phosphate F) were designed by them which differ from commer-
removal rates were 57 and 2 % respectively for the cially available carriers having (Area/Volume) A/V
highest organic load of 40 g COD m-2 day and ratio (m2 m-3) 834.84, 942.87, 842.36, 928.80, 845.75
79–81 % and 13–18 % respectively for the lowest and 947.37 respectively. They performed the effi-
organic load of 3–7 g COD m-2 day. ciency test of only two models B and F which were
Another study was carried out by Zhao et al. (2005) having greatest A/V ratio fed with wastewater from
to investigate the efficiency of composite-refined- water treatment plant for the duration of 7 months.

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

They observed that the model B, cylindrical in shape fill-fraction. This was attributed to competition
with horizontally divided plaque, was not a good between suspended and attached biomass and the
model, while model F, cylindrical in shape with three importance of suspended solids in the MBBR. With an
helixes, got very similar efficiency to that of the increasing fill-fraction the suspended growth concen-
commercially available carrier in BOD and 12 % tration decreases, however low suspended biomass
superior in COD removal. can decrease the MBBR removal efficiency since they
Polymeric nano-fibrous carriers were made by have a major role in enzymatic hydrolysis and bio-
Kriklavova and Lederer (2010) for the treatment of flocculation in the reactor. It was observed that a fill
industrial wastewater. Its main advantages over con- fraction of 35 % had higher COD removal efficiency
ventional biocarriers are its large active specific area than a 66 % fill-fraction. Whereas, a 66 % fill fraction
(1,000 m2 m-3), higher resistance against external had slightly better nitrification efficiency due to higher
toxic incidence and physical–chemical parameters. concentrations of slow growing nitrifies which could
Process efficiency of nano-fibre was found 92 % as be retained in the reactor. These results conclude that
compared to Anoxkaldnes—82 % for 48 h retention the fill fraction is an important parameter in MBBR
period at temperature 35–40 C. design and performance and must be chosen based on
Accinelli et al. (2012) studied the feasibility of the treatment objectives.
bioplastic based product as moving bed biofilm carrier
(MBBC) for the removal of three selected xenobiotics 3.2 Specific area of carrier media
(Bisphenol, a widely used monomer in plastic indus-
try; Oseltamivir, an antivirul drug and Atrazine, One of the most important parameter in MBBR
herbicide) from wastewater. A significant increase in designing and performance is the biofilm area and
removal efficiency was observed when MBBC were hence the effective carrier specific area. The high
inoculated with specific bacterial strains. At the specific area of the carrier media allows very high
10 days incubation period, approximately 34, 49 and biofilm concentrations in a small reactor volume which
66 % of initial radioactivity was recovered with controls the system performance. It was reported that
respect to the control (no MBBC) wastewater. typical biofilm concentration ranges from 3,000 to
4,000 g TSS m-3 which is similar to values obtained
in activated sludge processes with high sludge ages
3 Factors affecting the MBBR performance because of which the volumetric removal rate in the
MBBR is several times higher than that in the activated
3.1 Percent of reactor volume comprised of media sludge process (Ødegaard et al. 1994). The effective
area of the MBBR carrier medium is reported to be
The MBBR performance depends on the percent of 70 % of the total surface area due to less attachment of
media provided in the reactor and the organic loading. biofilm on the outer perimeter of the media. A study
To allow the free carrier suspension, the carrier filling was conducted by Bolton et al. (2006) to quantify
fraction (percentage of reactor volume occupied with biofilm activity on carriers used in wastewater treat-
carriers in empty tank) normally varies from 60 to ment systems. Fourteen different biofilm carriers were
70 % (Ødegaard 1999a, b; Leiknes and Ødegaard evaluated ranging from commercially available pro-
2001). It has also been experienced that mixing ducts to novel carrier designed. Result of their study
efficiency decreases at higher percentage fills (Weiss showed that the accumulation of biofilm depends most
et al. 2005). The constant collision of media and shear strongly on carrier surface properties, such as surface
in the process prevents substantial biofilm growth on roughness and specific surface area.
the outside of the media, making the inner effective
specific surface an important design factor. The 3.3 Presence of dissolved oxygen
varieties of size and shape provide various amounts
of effective specific surface area per volume of media. Wang et al. (2006) recommended that the dissolved
Different fill-fractions were also investigated by oxygen (DO) in the reactor be kept higher than
Trapani et al. (2008) for MBBR. They studied that 2 mg L-1 for efficient COD removal. They also
reactor removal efficiency decreases after an optimal observed that by decreasing the DO from 2 to

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

1 mg L-1 decreased the COD removal efficiency by desorption of microorganisms to the solid surface,
13 % indicating that DO became a limiting factor. On biofilm growth, thickness, biofilm adhesion as well as
the other hand, increasing the DO from 2 to 6 mg L-1 detachment to and from the solid surface or media
increased the COD removal efficiency only by 5.8 %. (Characklis 1990). The solid–liquid interface between a
Their results concluded that simultaneous nitrification surface and water medium provides an ideal environ-
and de-nitrification could be achieved in a single MBBR ment for the attachment and growth of microorganisms
reactor with an HRT of 6 h. It was apparent that the (biofilm and biomass). Other physico-chemical charac-
nitrification depended on the DO considering that DO teristics of the water medium, such as pH, nutrient
diffusion through the biofilm was the rate-determining levels, ionic strength, and temperature, also play an
step for media nitrification. The highest N-removal important role in the rate of microbial attachment to the
efficiency (89.1 % on average) was obtained when the solid surface (Rodney 2002). Whereas, biofilm detach-
DO was kept at 2 mg L-1. At lower DO concentrations ment, the inter-phase transport of biomass from an
(\1 mg L-1), anoxic conditions occurred and ammonia attached microbial film to the bulk liquid phase, has
in the effluent became higher. Later Schubert et al. generally been attributed to four different processes
(2013) also observed that with growing biofilm, DO (Characklis 1990), including grazing (the consuming of
concentration decrease rapidly (from 10 to 2 mg bacteria from the outer surface of the biofilm by
O2 L-1) due to higher bacterial activity. protozoa), sloughing (the periodic loss of large patches
of biofilm), erosion (the continuous removal of small
3.4 Flow and mixing conditions particles from the surface of the biofilm, primarily
caused by liquid shear stress), and abrasion (analogous
Adequate turbulence is ideal for efficient system to erosion, but caused by collisions of particles). Based
performance. The nature of the carrier media used on the literature review, it is concluded that among the
requires development of a very thin, evenly distributed factors affecting the biofilm reactor performance,
and smooth biofilm to enable transport of substrate and biofilm detachment is one of the least studied and
oxygen to the biofilm surface. In this regard, thick and understood. The biofilm detachment rate is a compli-
fluffy biofilms are not desired for this system. Ade- cated function of many variables, including hydrody-
quate turbulence sloughs off excess biomass and namics of the aqueous medium, flow velocity, biofilm
maintains adequate thickness of biofilm. Biofilm morphology, and support characteristics.
thickness less than 100 lm for full substrate penetra- Hosseiny and Borghei (2002) observed that in
tion is usually preferred. Adequate turbulence also MBBR, the microorganisms grow on small carrier
maintains flow velocity necessary for effective system elements that move freely with water in the reactor.
performance. Extremely high turbulence detaches Due to erosion caused by frequent collision between
biomass from the carrier and therefore is not recom- the carrier elements, very little biofilm grows on the
mended. In addition, collision and attrition of media in outside surface of carrier elements, however, floating
the reactor causes biofilm detachment from the outer microorganisms appears to have some effect on the
surface of the media. Because of this, the MBBR efficiency of organic removal.
carrier media is provided with fins on the outside to
protect biofilm loss and promote growth of biofilm
(Leiknes and Ødegaard 2001). Table 2 summarizes 4 Nitrification
the application and performance of the MBBR tech-
nology in wastewater treatment (municipal and indus- MBBRs have very favorably been used for nitrifica-
trial wastewater) process. tion with either chemical coagulation or biological
carbonaceous removal as pre-treatment (Ødegaard
3.5 Biofilm development 1999a). It is ideally suited for nitrification applications
because the process enables the proliferation of
The difference between biofilm growth and attachment nitrifying bacteria within the protected surface area
on one hand, and detachment processes on the other can of the thousands of plastic pieces, called biocarriers.
be defined as a biofilm development, which is influenced Nitrifying bacteria have relatively slower growth rates
by various processes, including adsorption and and are strongly influenced by water temperature. This

123
 Table 2 MBBR performance for BOD, COD and nutrient removal
Application Experimental details Treatment performance References

Dairy farm wastewater Pilot and full scale 40–95 % COD removal for pilot scale Rusten et al. (1992)
85–90 % COD removal for full scale
Small Municipal treatment plant Small full scale plant 96 % BOD7 removal Ødegaard et al. (1993)
94.5 % COD removal
97.1 % P-removal
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

41.5 % TKN removal

Paper Mill wastewater Pilot scale 70 % COD removal at organic load- Broch-Due et al. (1994)
25 kg COD m-3 day-1
96 % BOD7 removal
98 % toxicity removal
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale [85 % TKN removal Ødegaard et al. (1994)
Cheese Full scale 87–97 % COD removal Rusten et al. (1996)
Newsprint Mill (3 integrated mills) Pilot scale 65–75 % COD removal and 85–95 % Broch-Due et al. (1997)
BOD removal at HRT of 4–5 h
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale Filtered COD removal rate appeared to be Pastorelli et al. (1997)
proportional to OLR up to 8 g
COD m-2 day-1
Small Municipal treatment plant Small full scale plants, 3 newly [92 % BOD7 removal Rusten et al. (1997)
installed and 2 converted from
existing activated sludge plants
Chemical Industry wastewater Pilot scale 80 % (low) and 60 % (high) soluble BOD Rusten et al. (1999)
removal
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale 91–97 % BOD removal Ødegaard (1999a)
94 % COD removal and 96–98 % Total
P-removal
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale 70 % annual avg. total N removal Rusten et al. (2000)
Municipal wastewater Full scale 85–90 % COD removal Ødegaard et al. (2000)
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale 76 % Total COD removal Andreottola et al. (2000a)
71 % SCOD and 92 % Ammonium
removal
Municipal wastewater Pilot scale 60–65 % COD removal Andreottola et al. (2000b)
Pulp mill effluent (kraft pulping) Pilot scale 75 % BOD5 removal at 38 C Embley (2001)
63 % BOD5 removal at 65 C
25–30 % COD removal at both
temperatures

123
 Table 2 continued
Application Experimental details Treatment performance References

123
Synthetic wastewater with Acetate Lab. Scale 95 % P-removal Helness and Ødegaard (2001)
as Carbon source 70–90 % TKN removal
Thermo-mechanical Pulping Lab. scale 60–65 % SCOD removal at organic Jahren et al. (2002)
whitewater loading rates of 2.5–3.5 kg
SCOD m-3 d-1
Aquaculture treatment Lab. scale (reactor run with 0.59–0.75 g TAN m-2 day-1 Tal et al. (2003)
different loadings to evaluate
N-removal)
Municipal wastewater Lab. scale (13L reactor run at At DO 6 mg L-1 concentration: Wang et al. (2006)
different DO level and 78.7/77.1 % BOD/COD removal
chemical dosing)
99.2 % Ammonium removal
42.6 % TN removal
11.6 % TP removal
At optimum chemical dosing (P:Fe II)
1:1.3
76.1/73.6 % BOD/COD removal
92.1 % Ammonium removal
89.1 % TN removal
92.3 % ortho P removal
90.6 % TP removal
Municipal wastewater Full scale 91–94 % COD removal Ødegaard (2006)
73–85 % TKN removal
94–98 % P-removal
Chemical Industry wastewater Bench scale (two reactors both [90 % SCOD removal Ratcliffe et al. (2006)
having 1L volume)
Full scale Minimum 80 % COD removal
Municipal wastewater Lab. scale 96.87 % Carbon removal Kermani et al. (2008)
96.9 % COD removal
95.8 % P-removal
84.6 % Total N-removal
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol
 Table 2 continued
Application Experimental details Treatment performance References

Synthetic wastewater Lab. scale At 6 g COD m-2 day OLR; 95.1 % Aygun et al. (2008)
organic removal efficiency
At 12 g COD m-2 day OLR; 94.9 %
organic removal efficiency
At 24 g COD m-2 d OLR; 89.3 %
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

organic removal efficiency

At 48 g COD m-2 d OLR; 68.7 %
organic removal efficiency
At 96 g COD m-2 d OLR; 45.2 %
organic removal efficiency
Synthetic wastewater containing Lab. scale 98.23 % TN removal Zafarzadeh et al. (2010)
ammonium and glucose 99.75 % Ammonium removal
99.4 % SCOD removal
Combined raw effluent of pulp Full scale 50 % SCOD removal Das and Naga (2011)
mill, power house, chemical 21.53 % COD removal
recovery plant and domestic
33.5 % BOD removal
COD chemical oxygen demand, BOD biochemical oxygen demand, TKN total kjaldahl nitrogen, HRT hydraulic retention time, TAN total ammonium nitrogen, N nitrogen,
P phosphate, TN total nitrogen, TP total phosphate, SCOD soluble chemical oxygen demand, OLR organic loading rate, Lab laboratory

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Fig. 2 Influence of organic load, DO and TAN concentration on TAN removal in MBBR (Ødegaard 1999a, b; Rusten et al. 2006)

process is reliable for complete nitrification within 1.09 was calculated for the temperature coefficient at
compact tank volumes by enabling the biological 12.4 and 7.8 C respectively (Rusten et al. 1995a).
process to sustain a high-density population of nitri-
fying bacteria without relying on increased solid
retention time or mixed-liquor suspended solids 5 Denitrification
(Chemical Business 2013).
This technology has been thoroughly studied for Denitrification is the biological reduction of nitrate to
nitrification using both synthetic wastewater (Hem nitrogen gas. This four step process [NO3- ? NO2-
et al. 1994) and municipal wastewater (Rusten et al. ? NO ? N2O ? N2] returns nitrogen gas to the
1995a). As for all biofilm reactors, nitrification rates atmosphere. Using an anoxic environment, nitrate is
are influenced by the organic load, dissolved oxygen the electron acceptor that can be combined with a wide
concentration in the reactor, total ammonium nitrogen range of electron donors. Two common processes for
(TAN) concentration, temperature, pH and alkalinity. denitrification are pre-denitrification, using influent
The influence of these parameters is schematically wastewater organic substrate, and post-denitrification,
shown in Fig. 2. It demonstrates that the organic load being endogenous and/or externally driven as given by
is a key factor. Ødegaard (1999a) and Rusten et al. Metcalf and Eddy (2003).
(2006) explained that at loading over about 4 g The influence of DO on denitrification at the
BOD7 m-2 day, high oxygen concentration ([6 mg average wastewater temperature of 7.2 C was
O2 L-1) is required for nitrification to take place. It is expressed as:
reviewed that an oxygen level above 2–3 mg O2 L-1
rDN ¼ rDNMax ð1  0:66ðDOÞ0:5 Þ
is required to initiate the nitrification process. Hence,
the nitrification rate is linearly dependent upon the where, rDN is the denitrification rate and rDN,Max is the
oxygen concentration up to more than 10 mg O2 L-1. maximum denitrification rate. The denitrification rates
Nitrifiers are mesophilic bacteria and have an can be in the wide range of 10–220 g NOx-Nremoved
increasing growth rate up to about 35–40 C, where m-3 d, depending on the available carbon source
the growth rate declines rapidly. The temperature (biodegradable SCOD: 10–50 mg L-1) and water tem-
dependency of the nitrification rate in the interval 10– perature (5–15 C) (Rusten et al. 2000; Rodgers and
22 C can be modeled by the following Arrhenius Zhan 2003).
equation:

kT2 ¼ kT1 hðT2 T1 Þ

6 Biofilm kinetics
where T1, T2 are temperatures in C; kT1 reaction rate
constant at T1; kT2 reaction rate constant at T2 and h is Generally, attached growth processes provide advan-
the temperature coefficient. For MBBRs, a value of tages to suspended growth in terms of higher biomass

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

concentrations (with larger specific surface area) in

smaller reactor volumes and shorter HRTs; however
transfer of the substrates to the biofilm, both electron
donor and acceptor, is more complicated. (Grady et al.
1999; Rittmann and McCarty 2001). Biofilm kinetics
can help to describe the substrate removal rate and the
parameters which could affect the transport phenom-
enon in microbial films. Hence, it is very useful to
study and understand the mechanisms that control the
process (Hosseiny and Borghei 2002).
Substrate transport to cells in biofilms is essential to Fig. 4 The kinetic description with reaction rate as a function
of the substrate concentration (Henze et al. 1997; Andreottola
maintain a viable biofilm for wastewater treatment.
et al. 2000a; Qiqi et al. 2012)
Aggregation of cells creates significant gradients in
substrate concentrations. Mass transport of bulk
substrate from outside the biofilm to inside is driven biodegradable soluble substrate concentration (as
by concentration differences. Bacteria on the inside of mg L-1), Sf is substrate concentration within the
biofilms are often exposed to substrate concentrations biofilm (as mg L-1).
substantially lower than that measured in the bulk The substrate removal kinetics in biofilm applica-
liquid. Therefore, the rates of substrate utilization and tions is strongly dependent on the concentration of
cell growth are not uniform throughout the depth of a substrate in the wastewater being treated. This is
biofilm, but depend on the cell location within the film. illustrated in Fig. 4, which shows the development of
Three concentration profiles that are possible in a the kinetic description from a first (10 ) order expres-
biofilm are noted in Fig. 3 (Rittmann and McCarty sion at low concentrations to a zero (00 ) order
2001; Kofi 2001). They are: expression at very high concentration. The transition
from low to very high substrate concentration is
• Deep biofilm, in which the substrate concentration
described with a half (‘0 ) order expression.
approaches zero at some point in the biofilm,
The above graph also depicts that the substrate
• Shallow biofilm where substrate concentration in
removal rate is limited by the substrate concentration
biofilm (Sf) remains above zero at all points in the
only at low concentrations where a small change in
film, and
concentration gives a proportional change in the
• Fully penetrated biofilm, which occurs when the
degradation. At high substrate concentrations, the rate
substrate concentration has negligible gradient.
is limited by the diffusion of substrate into the biofilm.
where Sb is effluent or bulk substrate concentration (as Thus, as the concentration increases, the kinetics
mg L-1), S is concentration of rate-limiting substrate begins to shift from being concentration dependent to
in the bulk liquid (as mg L-1), Ss is readily being diffusion dependent and eventually the kinetics
becomes independent of the substrate concentration,
this is described by half (‘0 ) order kinetics. At very
high substrate concentration, the enzymatic efficiency
restrains the removal rate—zero (00 ) order dependence
(Andreottola et al. 2000a; Qiqi et al. 2012).

6.1 Kinetics of biological and biofilm reactors

To confront the various unique features of biofilm,

numbers of models have been proposed in the
literature to describe the overall kinetics of biofilm
reactors. Kincannon-Stover model (Hosseiny and
Fig. 3 Substrate penetration profile in a biofilm structure (Kofi Borghei 2002) is one of the best mathematical models
2001) for describing the substrate removal rate in MBBR. It

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

was used to calculate the reactor volume and effluent Their findings indicated that Kincannon-Stover model
organic concentration for MBBR operating under is more applicable model for describing the kinetics of
steady-state conditions. Broch-Due et al. (1994) has organic removal in MBBR.
studied that suspended biomass in the reactor is a Another biofilm model was developed by Plattes
significant factor in producing high and stable removal et al. (2006) for the dynamic simulation of a pilot scale
efficiency in MBBR. An equation was obtained by MBBR describing growth of biofilm on carrier ele-
Hosseiny and Borghei (2002) to study the relationship ments, attachment of particulates on biofilm, detach-
between specific substrate removal rate versus total ment of biofilm into the bulk liquid and modeling of
organic loading rate biochemical processes using activated sludge model no.

1 (ASM1). The biofilm age was calculated analogous to
ds Q UMax QS i

¼ ðSi  Se Þ ¼ V

the sludge age with the given equation:
dt V KB þ QSV
i

BSVMBBR
where, ds/dt is the specific substrate removal rate BA ¼
0:001ðm3 d 1 ÞSFdet X
(g m-2 day), UMax is maximum utilization rate con-
stant (g L-1 d), Q is flow rate, V is reactor volume (L), where, BA is biofilm age (d), BS is biofilm solids
KB is saturation constant (g L-1 d), Si is influent COD (kg m-3), VMBBR is MBBR compartment volume
concentration and Se is effluent COD concentration (m3), SFdet is detachment split fraction and X is the
(g L-1). They plotted the graph considering removal concentration of pollutants in the underflow (g m-3).
loading rate and total loading rate and obtained With the help of this model, the attachment and
Kincannon-Stover model constants UMax and KB as detachment rate were calculated by them assuming a
8.3402 and 9.4553, respectively. specific surface area of 500 m2 m-3. The estimated
Another model, the Monod equation is most biofilm age was found smaller than the sludge age
frequently used to represent microbial growth kinetics required for nitrification in typical activated sludge
(Lobry et al. 1992; Grady et al. 1999; Rittmann and plants.
McCarty 2001; Metcalf and Eddy 2003). This model Plattes Fiorelli et al. (2007) proposed another
defines the relationship between the growth rate and model using respirometric measurement principle,
the concentration of the limiting nutrient: i.e. static gas/static liquid respirometer with intermit-
tent aeration, which was used for the characterization
ds Q KXSe of the biomass in a pilot scale MBBR. Oxygen uptake
¼ ðSi  Se Þ ¼
dt V K x þ Se rate was calculated to know the variations during the
where, X is concentration of volatile suspended solid endogenous and exogenous respiration phases of the
(VSS) in reactor (g L-1), K is maximum substrate biomass. The parameter estimation resulted in a good
removal rate (d-1), Kx is effective half saturation dynamic simulation of ammonia and nitrate variations
coefficient (g L-1) and Se is concentration of limiting in the MBBR effluent. Other properties of MBBR like
nutrient (g L-1). biofilm age, biofilm composition, and both attachment
The half saturation coefficient (Kx) in the Monod and detachment rate were extracted from the model.
equation is the concentration that gives one-half the Under steady state conditions (i.e., the rate accu-
maximum specific growth rate. For suspended growth mulation term is equal to zero, dC/dt = 0) the
and simple substrates, where mass transport is often concentration of organic material being transferred
disregarded, Kx values are usually low (Rittmann and (C, in mg L-1) can be calculated by the following
McCarty 2001). The important feature of the model is equation (Metcalf and Eddy 2003)
that the growth rate is zero when there is no substrate and
Co Co
tends to an upper limit when the substrate is very high. C¼ ¼
½1 þ kðV=QÞ ½1 þ kT 
Hosseiny and Borghei (2002) studied the applica-
bility of Kincannon-Stover model and Monod model where, Co is initial concentration of organic material
on the basis of degree of regression line. They (mg L-1), V is volume of reactor (L), Q is flow
calculated the values of degree of regression line for (m3 h-1), K is first order reaction rate coefficient
both models were 0.9941 and 0.7696 respectively. (day-1).

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

For flow-through reactor, observed BOD removal complicated function of many variables, including
(either overall, including soluble and suspended solid hydrodynamics of the aqueous medium, flow velocity,
distribution, or soluble only) can be described in terms biofilm morphology, and support characteristics.
of a first-order removal function which can be Although the mechanism seems to be particle–particle
measured by the following equation collisions, there is no design rule for rate of detach-
S 1 ment. This is an important lack of knowledge, which
¼ requires further research.
So 1 þ KT
where, S is effluent BOD concentration (mg L-1), So
is influent BOD concentration (mg L-1), k is overall
first order BOD removal rate constant (day-1) and T is References
hydraulic retention time (d).
Accinelli C, Sacca ML, Mencarelli M, Vicari A (2012) Appli-
cation of bioplastic moving bed biofilm carriers for the
removal of synthetic pollutants from wastewater. Biore-
7 Conclusions
sour Technol 120:180–186
Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M, Tatano F (2000a)
This technology can work efficiently with varying Experimental comparison between MBBR and activated
organic or inorganic loads. It is concluded that MBBR sludge system for the treatment of municipal wastewater.
Water Sci Technol 41:375–382
is efficient in removing 60–90 % COD, 75–97 %
Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M (2000b) Upgrading of a
BOD, 40–85 % TKN and other nutrients up to a small wastewater treatment plant in a cold climate region
certain extent from municipal wastewater. Moreover, using a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) system. Water
nitrification and de-nitrification can also be success- Sci Technol 41:177–185
Aquapoint-Performance based wastewater treatment solutions,
fully achieved in this biofilm-based process since
LotusTM–ActiveCell—an aquapoint/hydroxyl MBBR
nitrifies, which are slow growing micro-organisms, are technology. http://www.sewageeq.com/NEW_LOTUS-
retained by the biofilm. The accumulation of biofilm ActiveCell_PAPER_7-30-08.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2013
depends most strongly on carrier surface properties, Aygun A, Nas B, Berktay A (2008) Influence of high organic
loading rates on COD removal and sludge production in
such as surface roughness and specific surface area.
moving bed biofilm reactor. Environ Eng Sci 25(9):
Based on the review, it is concluded that increase in 1311–1316
active surface area of the media sustaining bacteria Barkman E (2010) Moving bed bioreactor technology for sec-
leads to high removal efficiency of the organic load. ondary treatment of wastewater. Moltoni Infra Tech Pty.
Ltd., Perth
Moreover, one can use almost any reactor shape
BioSphereTM Moving Bed Biological Systems. Proven fixed-
and choose different operating loads in a given reactor film technology ideal for BNR upgrades and capacity
volume, simply by choice of carrier filling. Such expansions. Water Technologies, Seimens. http://www.
results clearly demonstrate the big potential of this water.siemens.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/Product_
Lines/Envirex_Products/Brochures/BS-BIOSPHERE-BR.
technology for different wastewater treatment process.
pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2013
Also for small scale sewage treatment plants, urban or Bolton J, Tummala A, Kapadia C, Dandamudi M, Belovich J
rural wastewater treatment systems etc., this technol- (2006) Procedure to quantify biofilm activity on carriers
ogy can be proved efficient for the welfare and safety used in wastewater treatment systems. J Environ Eng
132(11):1422–1430
of a public which is more and more concerned about
Borghei SM, Hosseini SH (2004) The treatment of phenolic
the environment and its protection. wastewater using a moving bed biofilm reactor. Process
Biofilm kinetics helps to describe the substrate Biochem 39:1177–1181
removal rate and the parameters which could affect the Brinkley J, Johnson CH, Souza R (2007). Moving bed biofilm
reactor technology—a full scale installation for treatment
transport phenomenon in microbial films. Hence, it is
of pharmaceutical wastewater, North Carolina American
very useful to study and understand the mechanisms Water Works Association-Water Environment Federation
that control the process. As per the literature reviewed, (NC AWWA-WEA), Annual Conference Technical
the missing gap in the biofilm research is that among Program
Broch-Due A, Andersen R, Kristoffersen O (1994) Pilot plant
the mechanisms controlling biofilm reactor perfor-
experience with an aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor for
mance, biofilm detachment is one of the least studied treatment of NSSC wastewater. Water Sci Technol 29(5/
and understood. The biofilm detachment rate is a 6):283–294

123
 Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Broch-Due A, Andersen R, Opheim B (1997) Treatment of Kim BK, Chang D, Son DJ, Kim DW, Choi JK, Yeon HJ, Yoon
integrated newsprint mill wastewater in moving bed bio- CY, Fan Y, Lim SY, Hong KH (2011) Wastewater treat-
film reactors. Water Sci Technol 35(2/3):173–180 ment in moving bed biofilm reactor operated by flow
Characklis WG (1990) Biofilm processes. In: Characklis WG, reversal intermittent aeration system. World Acad Sci Eng
Marshall KC (eds) Biofilms. Wiley, New York Technol 60:581–584
Das A, Naga RN (2011) Activated sludge process with MBBR Kofi A (2001) Evaluating biological treatment systems. Thesis,
technology at ETP. Ippta J 23(2):135–137 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Defrance L, Jaffrin MY, Gupta B, Paullier P, Geaugey V (2000) Blacksburg, Virginia, M.Sc
Contribution of various constituents of activated sludge to Koupaie EH, Moghaddam MRA, Hashemi H (2011) Compari-
membrane bioreactor fouling. Bioresour Technol son of overall performance between moving-bed and
73(2):105–112 conventional sequencing batch reactor. Iran J Environ
Embley D (2001) Moving bed bio-reactor pilot system at Irving Health Sci Eng 8(3):235–244
Pulp & Paper, Ltd., Int. Environmental, Health & Safety Kraume M, Drews A (2010) Membrane bioreactors in waste
Conference and Exhibit, Charlotte, NC, United States, water treatment—status and trends. Chem Eng Technol
p 146–154, 22–25 Apr 33(8):1251–1259
FLOCOR, Plastic Biological water filtration media, Henderson Kriklavova L, Lederer T (2010) The use of nanofibre carriers in
Plastics Ltd., http://www.hendersons.co.uk/filtration/ biofilm reactor for the treatment of industrial wastewaters,
page14.html. Accessed 18 Nov. 2013 Nanocon, Olomouc, Ceska Republika, 12–14th Oct
Fxsino-MBBR carrier http://www.fxsino.com Accessed 18 Leiknes T, Ødegaard H (2001) Moving bed biofilm membrane
Nov. 2013 reactor (MBB-M-R): characteristics and potentials of a
Grady C, Daigger G, Lim H (1999) Biological wastewater hybrid process design for compact wastewater treatment
treatment revised and expanded, 2nd edn. Marcel Deker plants. In: Luque S and Alvarez JR (eds) Proceedings of
Inc, New York Engineering with membranes (1), Granada, Spain
Haandel ACV, Lubbe JGMV (2012) Handbook of biological Leiknes T, Ødegaard H (2006) The development of a biofilm
wastewater treatment—design and optimisation of acti- membrane bioreactor. Desalination 202:135–143
vated sludge systems. Chapter-11, moving bed biofilm Lobry JR, Flandrois JP, Carret G, Pave A (1992) Monod’s
reactors, 2nd edn. IWA Publishing, London, p 359 bacterial growth model revisited. Bull Math Biol
Helness H, Ødegaard H (2001) Biological phosphorus and 54(1):117–122
nitrogen removal in a sequencing batch moving bed biofilm McQuarrie JP, Boltz JP (2011) Moving bed biofilm rector
reactor. Water Sci Technol 43(1):233–240 technology: process applications, design and performance.
Hem LJ, Rusten B, Ødegaard H (1994) Nitrification in a moving Water Environ Res 83(6):560–575
bed biofilm reactor. Water Res 28(6):1425–1433 Metcalf and Eddy (2003) Wastewater engineering—treatment
Henze M, Harremoë SP, Janssen JLC, Arvin E (1997) Biolog- and reuse, 4th edn. Tata McGraw-Hill Inc, New York city
ical and chemical wastewater treatment, 2nd edn. Springer, Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Technology (2013),
Berlin Chem. Bus. 27(3): 48–49
Hosseiny SH, Borghei SM (2002) Modelling of organic removal Ødegaard H (1999a) The moving bed biofilm reactor. In: Igar-
in a moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). Scientia Iranica ashi T, Watanabe Y, Tambo N (eds) Water environmental
9(1):53–58 engineering and reuse of water. Hokkaido Press, Sapporo,
Huerta GM, Prended-Gero B, Ortega-Fernandez F, Mesa-Fer- pp 250–305 (In Japanese)
nandez JM (2009) Design of a carrier for wastewater Ødegaard H (1999b) Advanced compact wastewater treatment
treatment using moving bed bioreactor. In: Proceedings of based on coagulation and Moving bed biofilm processes,
the 2nd International Conference on Environmental and Proceedings of International Symposium on development
Geological Science and Engineering, Trasilvania Univer- of Innovative Water and wastewater treatment technology
sity of Brasav, Romania, p 44–49 for the 21st Century, Hong Kong
Jahren SJ, Rintala JA, Ødegaard H (2002) Aerobic moving bed Ødegaard H (2006) Innovations in wastewater treatment: the
biofilm reactor treating thermo mechanical pulping whitewater moving bed biofilm process. Water Sci Technol
under thermophilic conditions. Water Res 36(4):1067–1075 53(9):17–33
Jenkins AM, Sanders D (2012) Introduction to fixed-film bio- Ødegaard H, Rusten B, Badin H (1993) Small wastewater
reactors for decentralized wastewater treatment. Contech, treatment plants based on moving bed biofilm reactors.
Engineered Solutions Water Sci Technol 28(10):351–359
Judd S (2006) The MBR book: principles and applications of Ødegaard H, Rusten B, Westrum T (1994) A new moving bed
membrane bioreactors in water and wastewater treatment. biofilm reactor-applications and results. Water Sci Technol
Elsevier Ltd., Oxford 29(10/11):157–165
Kermani M, Bina B, Movahedian H, Amin MM, Nikaein M Ødegaard H, Rusten B, Siljudalen J (1998) The development
(2008) Application of moving bed biofilm process for of the Moving Bed Biofilm Process—From Idea to
biological organics and nutrients removal from municipal Commercial Product, Proceedings of WEC/EWPCA/
wastewater. Am J Environ Sci 4(6):675–682 IWEM Speciality Conference, Innovations 2000, Cam-
Kermani M, Bina B, Movahedian H, Amin MM, Nikaeen M bridge, UK
(2009) Biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal from Ødegaard H, Gisvold B, Strickland J (2000) The influence of
wastewater using moving bed biofilm process. Iran J Bio- carrier size and shape in the moving bed biofilm process.
technol 7(1):19–27 Water Sci Technol 41(4/5):383–392

123
Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol

Orantes JC, Gonzalez-Martinez S (2003) A new low-cost bio- Rusten B, Johnson CH, Devall S, Davoren D, Cashion BS
film carrier for the treatment of municipal wastewater in a (1999) Biological pretreatment of a chemical plant
moving bed reactor. Water Sci Technol 48(11/12):243–250 wastewater in high-rate moving bed biofilm reactors.
Pastorelli G, Andreottola G, Canziani R, Frangipane EDF, Water Sci Technol 39(10/11):257–264
Pascalis FD, Gurrieri G, Rozzi A (1997) Pilot plant Rusten B, Hellstrom BG, Hellstrom F, Sehested O, Skjelfoss E,
experiments with moving bed biofilm reactors. Water Sci Svendsen B (2000) Pilot testing and preliminary design of
Technol 36(1):43–50 moving bed biofilm reactors for nitrogen removal at the
Plattes Fiorelli D, Gille S, Girard C, Henry E, Minette F, FREVAR wastewater treatment plant. Water Sci Technol
O’Nagy O, Schosseler PM (2007) Modeling and dynamic 41(4/5):13–20
simulation of a moving bed bioreactor using respirometry Rusten B, Eikebrokk B, Ulgenes Y, Lygren E (2006) Design and
for the estimation of kinetic parameters. Biochem Eng J operations of the kaldnes moving bed biofilm reactors.
33(3):253–259 Aquac Eng 34:322–331
Plattes M, Henry F, Schosseler PM, Weidenhaupt A (2006) Schubert RL, Boulestreau M, Christensson M, Lesjean B (2013)
Modelling and dynamic simulation of a moving bed bio- Novel wastewater process scheme for maximum COD
reactor for the treatment of municipal wastewater. Bio- extraction: high load MBBR followed by microsieve fil-
chem Eng J 32:61–68 tration, 9th International Conference on Biofilm Reactors,
Qiqi Y, Qiang H, Ibrahim HT (2012) Review on moving bed May 28–31, Paris, France
biofilm processes. Pak J Nutr 11(9):706–713 Tal Y, Watts JEM, Schreier SB, Sowers KR, Schreier HJ (2003)
Ratcliffe M, Rogers C, Merdinger M, Prince J, Mabuza T, Characterization of the microbial community and nitrogen
Johnson CH (2006) Treatment of high strength chemical transformation processes associated with moving bed
industry wastewater using Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor bioreactors in a closed recirculated mariculture system.
(MBBR) and powdered activated carbon (PAC) technol- Aquaculture 215:187–215
ogy. Water Environ Fed (Weftec) 11:1677–1694 Trapani DD, Mannina G, Torregrossa M, Viviani G (2008)
Rittmann B, McCarty P (2001) Environmental biotechnology: Hybrid moving bed biofilm reactors: a pilot plant experi-
principles and applications. The McGraw-Hill Companies ment. Water Sci Technol 57:1539–1546
Inc, New York UN Water World Water Day (2013) Water cooperation: facts
Rodgers M, Zhan XM (2003) Moving-medium biofilm reactors. and figures—an increasing demand. www.unwater.org/
Rev Environ Sci Bio Technol 2:213–224 water-coorperation-2013/water-coorporation/facts-and-figures/
Rodney MD (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Vaidhegi K (2013) Treatment of Bagasse based pulp and paper
Infect Dis 8(9):881–890 industry effluent using moving bed biofilm reactor. Int J
Rusten B, Ødegaard H, Lunder A (1992) Treatment of dairy Chemtech Res 5(3):1313–1319
wastewater in a novel moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Wang XJ, Xia SQ, Chen L, Zhao JF, Renault NJ, Chovelon JM
Sci Technol 26(3/4):703–711 (2006) Nutrients removal from municipal wastewater by
Rusten B, Hem LJ, Ødegaard H (1995) Nitrification of muni- chemical precipitation in a moving bed biofilm reactor.
cipal wastewater in moving-bed biofilom reactors. Water Process Biochem 41:824–828
Environ Res 67(1):75–86 Weiss JS, Alvarez M, Tang C, Horvath RW, Stahl JF (2005)
Rusten B, Siljudalen JG, Strand H (1996) Upgrading of a bio- Evaluation of moving bed biofilm reactor technology for
logical-chemical treatment plant for cheese factory enhancing Nitrogen removal in a stabilization pond treat-
wastewater. Water Sci Technol 34(11):41–49 ment plant. Water Environ Fed (Weftec) 14:2085–2102
Rusten B, Kolkinn O, Ødegaard H (1997) Moving bed biofilm Zafarzadeh A, Bina B, Nikaeen M, Attar HM, Nejad HM (2010)
reactors and chemical precipitation for high efficiency Performance of moving bed biofilm reactors for biological
treatment of wastewater from small communities. Water nitrogen compounds removal from wastewater by partial
Sci Technol 35(6):71–79 nitrification-denitrification process. Iran J Environ Health
Rusten B, McCoy M, Proctor R, Siljudalen JG (1998a) The Sci Eng 7:353–364
innovative moving bed biofilm reactor/solids contact rea- Zhao Y, Cao D, Liu L, Jin W (2005) Municipal wastewater
eration process for secondary treatment of municipal treatment by moving bed biofilm reactor with diatoma-
wastewater. Water Environ Res 70(5):1083–1089 ceous earth as carriers, China’s Sci. and Technol. Sept/Oct
Rusten B, Siljudalen JG, Wein A, Eidem D (1998b) Biological
pretreatment of poultry processing wastewater. Water Sci
Technol 38(4/5):19–28

123