Xian May 2005

INNOVATIONS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT THE MOVING BED BIOFILM PROCESS

Hallvard degaard
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering NO-7491 Trondheim, NORWAY hallvard.odegaard@ntnu.no
1

Where is Norway and were is Trondheim ? Far north

Norway and water

The country is situated far north (55-70 oN), but the Golf stream gives a pleasant climate The country has as an abundance of water resources both fresh and saline water The country has an extremely long coastline with long fjords and thousands of islands The country is sparsely inhabited (4 mill) except for the south-eastern region around Oslo

My wastewater treatment philosophy

Take out the particles first Then deal with the solubles

Enhanced primary
Make use of the concentrate

Removal of solubles
Carbon source

Carbon

Biogas Heat

Organic concentrate
4

Nutrients

Phosphorus Nitrogen

Expected trend: From area consuming open activated sludge plants to compact, covered biofilm reactor plants

THE REASONS FOR THE GROWING INTEREST IN BIOFILM REACTORS

1. Less space required 2 Final result less dependent upon biomass separation
Activated sludge system Biofilm system

Bio

Sep

Bio

Sep

3.000-8.000 mg/l

100-200 mg/l

3. More specialized biomass at a given point in reactor train C,N,DN C,N,DN C,N,DN
6

DN

THE PRINCIPLE OF THE MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR (MBBR)

Aerobic reactor

Anoxic reactor

THE MOVING BED BIOFILM PROCESS (The Kaldnes-process)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ANOX KALDNES BIOFILM CARRIERS

Material : Polyethylene PEHD (density 0,95 g/cm3)

K1
Carrier Design K1 K2 K3 Biochip

Diam/Length (mm)

9/7
2 3

15/15
) (m2/m3)

25/12
(m2/m3)

48/2,2

K2
(m /m Specific biofilm area 500 Effective in bulk Effective at 67 % 335 filling fraction (m2/m3)

350 235

500 335

(1200) -

MBBRs UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Aerobic reactor with aeration system and vertically mounted cylindrical bar sieves
10

Anoxic reactor with horizontally mounted shaft mixers and rectangular mesh sieves

BOD/COD removal
a)

Nitrogen removal
g)

b)

h) Chem.

COD

c)

i)

(Chem.)

COD

Nitrification
d) Chem.

i) j) (Chem.)

COD

e)

f)

11

TYPICAL MOVING BED PROCESSES FOR DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS

PROCESSES FOR BOD/COD REMOVAL

(Coag.) MBBR followed by biomass separation Coagulant only if P-removal is required

MBBR pre-treatment to activated sludge For upgrading of AS plants

Coag. High rate MBBR followed by coagulation/ flocculation/separationbiomass 12

THE INFLUENCE OF COD LOADING RATE ON COD REMOVAL RATE

)
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

140
Obtainable removal rate (CODin-SCODout ) [g/m2*d]

Filtered COD removal rate [g SCOD/m2*d]

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0

K1

K2

100%

K1

K2

100%

0 20 40 60 80 100 Filtered COD loading rate [g SCOD/m2*d]

50

100

150
2

200

Total COD loading rate [g COD/m *d]

13

Soluble COD removal rate versus soluble COD loading rate

Soluble COD removal rate versus obtainable COD removal rate

CLARIFICATION CHALLENGES
At high loading rates, clarification may represent a challenge
100 %
v=0.05 m/h

100 % SS-removal in settling tank 80 % 60 % 40 %

v=0.05 m/h

SS-removal in settling tank

v=0.35 m/h

80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0% 0

v=0.65 m/h

20 % 0%

v=0.16 m/h v=0.16 m/h w/polymer v=0.35 m/h

20 40 2 Bioreactor loading [g COD/m *d]

60

10 20 2 Bioreactor loading [g COD/m *d]

30

14

Clarification problem may, however, be solved by coagulation

THE BASIS FOR A HIGH RATE SECONDARY TREATMENT PROCESS

Let particulate organic matter be removed by coagulation Let soluble organic matter be removed by biodegradation (MBBR) Minimize sludge production use polymer coagulation Minimize cost by use of compact unit processes (i.e. flotation)
Total COD in wastewater - 100% SCOD PCOD

0.1 m True solution Degradable in MBBR

1 m

Particulate fraction (colloids & SS)

Coagulation

Flocculation

We want:
MBBR
Chemicals

We dont want:
MBBR

15

Chemicals

THE HIGH RATE MBBR PROCESS

Coagulant Fe+polymer

Air

Secondary treatment standard + 90 % P-removal) could be reached at the following process conditions (total residence time ~ 1 hr): Fine sive
* HRT:10 min * 0.8 mm

MBBR
* HRT: 15 45 min * 20-25 g CODfiltered/m2d (15-20 g BOD5 filtered/m2d) * 65-85 g CODtot/m2d (45-60 g BOD5 tot/m2d) * Sludge production: 0.5 g DS/g CODf, removed

Coagul/Floccul.
* HRT: 5-10 min * 5 mg polym/g SS + 35 mg Fe/g SS
(~1 mg pol./l+7 mg Fe/l at 200 mg SS/l)

Flotation
* HRT: 20-25 min * vf = 5-15 m/h

16

Sludge production in separation step: 1.0 g DS/g SSremoved

MOVING BED BIOFILM MEMBRANE REACTOR (MBB-MR)

Permeate

MBBR 1 Fine sieve

MBBR 2

Aeration Aeration

Aeration Aeration Concentrate Air scouring

17

Transformation of COD in MBBR

Influence of MBBR loading (HRT)
80 70 Amount of COD (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 >1 m 0.1-1 m Size fraction (m)
Raw water HRT = 0.75 h HRT = 1 h HRT = 3 h HRT = 4 h

<0.1 m

18

Performance - example
MBBR
700 Concentration (mg/l) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Four compartments HRT ~3 hrs 50% filling fraction (Kaldnes K1)

a)

Membrane reactor:

Zenon Zeeweed 500 Flux: 25 LMH Recovery: 95%

Parameter

Average inlet concentration (mg/l)

Average removal (%)

Time (days)
Raw water COD Raw water FCOD MBBR FCOD Permeate COD

6 Membrane tank SS (g/l) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 Time (days)

Membrane tank Raw water MBBR

600

19

COD FCOD BOD FBOD SS NH4-N Tot P

392 213 322 172 199 10,8 4,6

92 99 100 95 69

b)

500 400 300 200 100 0 30 40 MBBR SS (mg/l)

Challenge : Membrane fouling

Trans membrane pressure after backwash development for different hydraulic retention times in the bioreactors feeding the operation Trans membrane pressure versus membrane membrane reactor with biological treated water. time as a function of the MBBR loading (HRT) - Small pilot 0 0 tra n s m e m b ra n e p re s s u re -0.1 -0.2 -0.3
HRT = 4h

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

-0.4 -0.5

HRT = 0h

HRT = 1h

HRT = 3h

-0.6 operation time (days)

Membrane fouling increases with increasing loading (decreasing HRT)

20

On-going research will reveal the role of particles and PSD in this?

NITRIFICATION

Biofilm reactor with plug flow

Nitrification rate limited in plug flow biofilm reactor limited by: 1.

Rate limited by

Organic matter Oxygen

2.

3. Ammonium

21

FACTORS DETERMINING THE NITRIFICATION RATE

1. The load of organic matter 2. The ammonium concentration (< 3 mg NH4-N/l) 3. The oxygen concentration
2.5

Nitrification rate, g NH4-N/m2d

a)
D7 O B
1 .0

2.5

Ammonia removal rate g NH4-N/m2d

2.0
g .0 0 d=

/m

2d

b)
2.0 DO=9mg/l

1.5
ga r O

loa c i n

1.5

DO=6mg/l

2 .0

1.0

3 .0

4 .0

1.0

DO=3mg/l

0.5

5 .0

6.0

0.5 0.4g BOD/m2d 0.0 0 1 2 3 4

7 .0

0.0 0

10

22

Oxygen concentration, mg O2/l

Ammonium concentration, mg NH4-N/l

INFLUENCE OF OXYGEN ON NITRIFICATION RATE

(Practical excperiences)

23

NITRIFICATION PERFORMANCE AT Givaudan WWTP SWITZERLAND

10oC

1.17 g NH4-N/m2d

24

Coag.

N-removal
MBBR pre-denitrification Coagulation if P-removal required

(Coag.)

Coag.

MBBR post-denitrification Carbon source addition required Coagulation if P-removal required May be operated with CEPT Activated sludge for nitrification MBBR post-denitrification Carbon source required Coagulation if P-removal required Hybrid process pre-denitrification in activated sludge. MBBR carriers in last part of reactor to enhance nitrification

(Coag.)

(Coag.)

Coag.
MBBR combination-denitrification Carbon source required Coagulation if P-removal required May be operated with CEPT

25

The combined pre- and postdenitrification MBBR

Recirculation of NO3-N Carbon

26

The Lillehammer plant

Carbon Coagulant

Pumping Grit PreMoving bed reactors station rem- settling oval

Flocculation Post-settling tanks tanks

27

The Nordre Follo plant

Carbon Coagulant

Pumping Grit Prestation rem- settling oval

Moving bed reactors

Floccu Flotation lation tanks tanks

28

The Gardermoen plant

Carbon Coagulant

Pumping Grit Prestation rem- settling oval

Moving bed reactors

Floccu Flotation lation tanks tanks

29

30

Design values and performances

Parameter
Design HRT (hrs) Normal flow Max flow Chemicals consumpt. Coagulant kg PAX/kg Premoved Carbon source g CODadded/g NOx-Nequiv Efficiency, 2002 Average in-out conc. and treatment efficiency COD (mg/l) Tot N (mg/l) Tot P (mg/l)

Lillehammer
3,2 2,0

Nordre Follo
5,0 3,3

Gardermoen
6,3 4,4

26,8 4.25 (ethanol) In 386 34.6 4.38 Out 32 4.5 0.10 % 91 85 97

17,0 5.5 (methanol) In 452 30 4.86 Out 30 8.0 0.27 % 94 73 94

17,5 4.9 (glycol) In 583 51 7.01 Out 32 10 0.17 % 94 81 98

31

% 100 80 60 40 20

NITROGEN REMOVAL 2004

Required: 70 %

Lillehammer average:89,0 %

100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0%

Nordre Follo average:77,1 %

100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0%

Gardermoen average:81,4 %
. n ja 1. s. de 1. v. no 1. t. ok 1. p. se 1. . g au 1. l. ju 1. . n ju 1. . ai m 1. r. ap 1. . ar m 1. . b fe 1. . n ja 1.

32

THE LILLEHAMMER WWTP TREATMENT OPERATED AT AND ABOVE DESIGN LOAD

POST-DENITRIFICATION MODE
100 80 1300 1100 100
Actual TN removal

80
Design avg. TN removal Design TN load

Total N removal, %

TN-load (kg N/d)

900 700 500 300

60 40 20 0 1
Design HRT: 3.5 hours Design TN-removal: 70%

60
Actual TN load

40 20

100 18/7 1/8 1/9

0 1/10 17/10

Total empty bed HRT, hours

Date, 1997

33

Treatment efficiency versus total bioreactor residence time (based on empty reactor)

Day to day removal efficiency of tot N at actual load compared to design load

TN removal (%)

Operating data at Lillehammer WWTP

Operated at design load in post-DN mode (without pre-coagulation)
Bioreactor residence time (hrs) Average Minimum Maximun 3.3 1.6 4.5 Influent tot N conc. mg N/l 27 16 48 Effluent tot N conc. mg N/l 6.0 2.9 12.7 Removal % 76 48 91 Ethanol consumpt. kg /kg Nrem. 1.48 0.55 2.58 (3.1)1 (1.2)1 (5.4)1 Temperature o C 13.7 11.6 15.7

Operated at 60 % of design load in combination-DN mode at low temperatures

Temperature o C Average Minimum Maximum 6,3 6,0 6,5

Average influent inorg. N conc., mg N/l 17,2 16,1 17,7

Average effluent inorg. N conc., mg N/l 3,1 2,2 4,1

Removal inorg. N % 92,0 74,5 87,6

Fraction of denitrification in pre-DN, % 16 15 17

34

OPERATING DATA AT LILLEHAMMER WWTP

Lillehammer, train 1, Nov. 1999

2,0 1,8 Removal rate, g NH4-N/m2/d 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0
2

4
R4

Removal rate, g NO3-Neq/m2/d

R4 + R5

Daytime averages R7+R8

3
Added C/N, g BSCOD/g NO3-Neq Effl. FCOD, mg/L Temp., deg C

3.4 58 11.2

5.1 49 11.1 3.1 32 10.2

Temp. 11 deg C

0
2,5 3,0

Ammonium load, g NH4-N/m /d

Load, g NO3-Neq/m2/d

Very high nitrification rates even at temperatures as low as 11 oC When calculated on reactor 4 alone, maximum rate was ~1.5 g NH4-N/m2.d When calculated on both reactor 4 and 5 it was ~1.2 g NH4-N/m2.d up to which nitrification was close to complete.

1. point: DN close to complete because BSCOD added in excess (C/N=6,4) 2. point: Insufficient amount of available BSCOD leading to BSCOD limitation and low DN (60 %) 3. point: C/N-ratio is only slightly higher than 2. but high DN (3.5 g NO3-Nequiv./m2d) because no BSCOD limitation prevailed

35

DN-RATES VERSUS TEMPERATURE OBTAINED WITH VARIOUS EXTERNAL CARBON SOURCES

36

CONCLUSIONS
1. The MBBR has established itself as a well-proven, robust and
compact reactor in all applications of wastewater treatment where a biological process is needed (presently > 300 plants in 22 countries).

2. The primary advantage over activated sludge processes is its compactness and no need for sludge recirculation. The advantage of the process over other biofilm processes is its flexibility. The process is favorably used for activated sludge plant upgrade 3. In Europe the MBBR processes are normally combined with chemical P-removal and flotation is favorably used for biomass separation in several cases 4. When using MBBR for N-removal, a combined pre- and postdenitrification is normally recommended because this process combination is superior with respect to process control and performance

37