See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265208578

2011 REVIEW ON TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

WASTEWATER USING SEQUENTIAL BATCH
REACTOR (IJSTM)

DATASET SEPTEMBER 2014

READS

241

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Suresh Sundaramurthy ravi kant Tripathi

Maulana Azad National Institute of Technol Maulana Azad National Institute of Technol
68 PUBLICATIONS 275 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Suresh Sundaramurthy
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 29 February 2016
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

REVIEW ON TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL

WASTEWATER USING SEQUENTIAL BATCH REACTOR

S. Suresh*, Ravi Kant Tripathi and M. N. Gernal Rana

Department of Chemical Engineering, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology,
Bhopal-462 051, India.
*Corresponding author e-mail: sureshpecchem@gmail.com/sureshs@manit.ac.in

ABSTRACT Keywords: Sequencing batch reactor,

laboratory scale-SBR, pilot-scale-SBR,
This review mainly focuses an
wastewaters, parameters.
overview of sequential batch reactor
(SBR) technology as an alternative method
1. INTRODUCTION
for treating industrial effluents. SBR
Industrialization and population
technology has been gaining popularity,
growth continued, the problem of many
mainly because of aerobic-anaerobic
toxic organic compounds and
phases in one unit with aeration costs and
eutrophication has proven to be treatable
low sludge production. SBR is a time-
using biological treatment process.
based treatment technology as compare to
Biodegradation is found to be environment
the conventional area-based activated
friendly and cost effective treatment in
sludge processes. The review carried out
comparison to chemical processes.
here shows the efficiency and flexibility of
Anaerobic or aerobic wastewater treatment
this technology, as it is able to treat
is traditionally applied for treatment of
different kinds of effluents such as
medium to high strength wastewaters [1].
tannery, paper mill, automobile, distillery,
In biological treatment processes, the
aquaculture, brewery, dairy, dye & textile,
sludges are generated which useful and can
petrochemical, polyaromatic hydrocarbon,
be recycled as fertilizer, building material
complex chemical wastewater and other
and bio-fuel. However, biological
types of industrial wastewater etc., under
treatment processes also have some
different conditions. The review includes
disadvantages: Transformation rates of
relevant experiments carried out at the
insoluble inorganic matter by
laboratory, pilot/full scales-SBR and also
microorganisms are too low to be of
putting the effectiveness of sequential
practical importance. Thus, insoluble
systems for treatment of industrial
inorganic matter is typically removed by
wastewater, through displaying results
preliminary physical unit operations for
presented in literature on the performance
further treatment and disposal. Besides,
of these systems. The SBR treatment
biological treatment processes are not
process is increasingly recognized as the
efficient for treating wastewater containing
core method of an advanced technology
high concentration of chemical substances
for environmental protection and resource
of high toxicity.
preservation and it represents, combined
In 1920s, sequential batch reactors
with other proper methods, a sustainable
(SBRs) are used all over the world. The
and appropriate wastewater treatment
Europe and China as well as the United
system for developing countries.
States are being used successfully to treat
both municipal and industrial wastewater.
High strength wastewaters are currently

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 64

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
produced from various industrial plants
including dairy, paper mill, tanneries and
textiles, are using SBRs as practical
wastewater treatment alternatives [2].
Generally, untreated wastewater contains
high levels of organic material, numerous
pathogenic microorganisms, as well as
nutrients and toxic compounds.
Wastewaters generated from these
processes contain a large number of
pollutants at high concentrations and have
adverse environmental impacts.
According to a 1999 U.S. EPA report [3],
an SBR is no more than an activated
sludge plant that operates in time rather
than space Irvine and Davis [4] and Liu
and Liu [5] described its operation.
SBR technology differs in various
ways from conventional technologies used
in biological treatment of wastewater. The
flexibility of operation (change of
sequence phase and metabolic function),
possibility of operation at low retention
time, control over microbial population
and running with various reactor
configurations. The initial application of
SBR is reported in sewage treatment
especially for nutrient removal [6-7]. The
SBR system is distinguished by controlled
short term unsteady state conditions
leading in the long run to a stable steady
state with respect to composition and
metabolic properties of the microbial
population growing in the reactor [8].
Nitrification, denitrification and
clarification, can be carried out in the same
reactor. Finally, flow equalization and
attenuation of peak pollutant loads are
inherent in the SBR.
The wastewater generated from
various industries constitute with various
organic substances, inorganic salts, organic
solvents, etc. which result in high COD,
low BOD, high salt content (TDS), toxic
[9] and inhibitory substances in
wastewater which inhibit the biological
process when they serves as microbial
substrates. Alternative approaches like
discontinuous processes (SBR
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
technology), which promote the
mineralization of the industrial wastewater
containing toxic compounds seem to be
promising. Full-scale SBRs treating
municipal wastewater have been
investigated and shown to have high
treatment performance for BOD, resulting
in excellent effluent quality [10].
1.1. SEQUENCING BATCH
REACTOR (SBR)
Among the activated sludge system,
SBR system is gaining increasing
popularity in terms of lab-scale scientific
studies to full-scale applications for
domestic and industrial wastewater
treatment plants. The advantages of SBR
system [2] are as follows: Simple and cost
effective; Ability to combine aerobic and
anoxic phases in a single reactor; High
degree of process flexibility in terms of
sequence and cycle time; Near ideal
quiescent settling conditions; More
resistant to fluctuating influent loading.
Fig. 1. Fill and draw were carried out by
peristaltic pumps and mixing by overhead
stirrers with stainless steel paddles. Air
was supplied by a compressor at via a
solenoid valve to a coarse bubble diffuser,
flow was regulated by a flow meter.
Operation of the peristaltic pumps, stirrers
and solenoid valves were controlled by
means of a timer, the operation sequence is
shown in Fig. 2. The reactors were run at
constant temperature. A SBR is an
activated sludge system running on the fill
and draw principle. In the SBR operation,
the aeration and sedimentation processes
are carried out sequentially in the same
tank rather than simultaneously in separate
tanks as for the conventional activated
sludge system [2, 11]. The operation of the
SBR system is commonly carried out
sequentially in five phases namely, FILL,
REACT, SETTLE, DRAW and IDLE,
respectively.
The design and operation of
industrial wastewater treatment plants are
a challenge to wastewater and process
engineers. SBR is an a novel
Page 65
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
environmental biotechnology has been
extensively reported in SBR and is tailored
for treating a wide variety of wastewaters.
Norcross [12] and Ketchum [13] reported
the design and physical features of SBR.
Singh and Srivastava [11] reviewed
operational flexibility of SBR for the
treatment of wide range of effluent under
different operational conditions, together
with its modifications of SBR systems. Liu
and Liu [5] reviewed the instability
problem of aerobic granular sludge SBR
from the perspective of filamentous
growth in the system.
Excellent COD, BOD, TS, TKN, TP,
oil & grease and other removals were
observed when the laboratory/pilot/full
scale-SBRs was used to treat an agro
industrial wastewater, palm oil refinery
effluent [14]; Piggery [15-16]; Dairy [17-
23]; Petrochemical [24]; Textile [25-30];
Complex chemical [31]; Tannery [32];
Aquaculture [33]; Paper mill [34];
Brewery [35-36]; Automobile [37]; Work
Camp Wastewater [8]; Coke oven [38];
River sediments [39]; Distillery [40].
In this paper, focused on the
overview of sequencing batch reactor for
various industrial wastewaters and
understands the various effects of chemical
oxygen demand (COD), biological oxygen
demand (BOD), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
(TKN), total phosphorus (TP), Total solids
(TS), oil & grease and other performances.
2. APPLICATION OF SBR TO
TREATMENT OF VARIOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS
2.1. Dairy wastewater
Dairy industry wastewaters are
characterized by their high content in
nutrients, especially nitrogen (400 mg/l
TKN and 20-50 mg/l TP). The SBR
system would be more suitable to treat
daily industry wastewater because of its
ability to reduce nitrogen compounds by
nitrification and denitrification [41],
however, SBR system still has some
disadvantages such as high sludge volume
index [42].
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
Omil et al. [19] described the design
of full scale-SBR for treatment of dairy
wastewater for 61.4% total nitrogen
removal is possible in a very effective and
economical way. Some of characteristics
and removal efficiency of dairy
wastewater by SBR are shown in Table. 1.
Mohsani and Bazari [20] reported that
removal of dairy wastewater using
laboratory scale ASBR (Anaerobic SBR).
Fig 3. shows that the percentage removal
of COD at various influent COD (mg/l)
with hydraulic retention time (HRT).
When influent 1000 mg/l COD, the
removal was increase to decrease with
increase of influent COD upto 2500mg/l.
Mohsani and Bazari [20] found to be
influent COD (1000 mg/l) have maximum
reduction of COD wherelse, decrease with
increasing influent COD (mg/l) and also
when dissolved oxygen increased with 3 to
7.5 mg/l, the percentage reduction was
increased with increasing DO level in the
dairy wastewater. The maximum COD
reduction was greater than 90% with
minimum influent COD (mg/l).
Sirianuntapiboon et al. [21] examined
treatment efficiencies in two types of SBR
systems. The conventional SBR and
attached microbial (MSBR) systems for
treatment of dairy wastewater. For the
MSBR system, plastic media with a total
surface area of 2.7 m2 was installed on the
bottom of the reactor. Both SBR reactors
(each of 25 l capacity) were made from
acrylic plastic. The dimensions of each
reactor were 0.29 m 0.35 m, the working
volume being 20 l. Sirianuntapiboon et al.
[21] attached growth system was applied
in the conventional SBR reactor by
installing plastic media on the bottom of
the SBR reactor to increase the system
efficiency, bio-sludge quality and to
reduce the excess bio-sludge. Fig. 4. shows
both SBR and MSBR systems for removal
efficiencies with different organic loading
(g BOD/m3 d). The COD, BOD5, total
TKN and oil & grease removal efficiencies
of the MSBR system, under a high organic
Page 66
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
loading of 1340 g BOD5/m3 d, were
89.30.1, 83.00.2, 59.40.8, and
82.40.4%, respectively, while they were
only 87.00.2, 79.90.3, 48.71.7 and
79.310%, respectively, in the
conventional SBR system. The amount of
excess bio-sludge in the MSBR system
was about 3 times lower than that in the
conventional SBR system. Fig. 5. shows
that hydraulic retention time affects the
various removal efficiencies of COD,
BOD5, TKN and oil & grease in SBR and
MSBR system for treatment of dairy
wastewater. At HRT ~12 days maximum
removals was found and after that, there
was slight variation in the removal
efficiencies. Sirianuntapiboon et al. [21]
concluded that while compared to
conventional SBR, the MSBR efficiencies
were higher because of reduced the excess
bio-sludge means of attached growth. In
this study, the conclusion was that an SBR
is a good system for the primary and
secondary treatment of diary wastewater.
A similar result was obtained by Neczaj et
al. [23] for dairy and leachate in a
laboratory scale-ASBR (Anaerobic SBR).
Mohamed and Saed [43] demonstrated
treatment of dairy wastewater by
laboratory scale-SBR. The cycle of period
in SBR: 30 min aeration feed, 12 h
reaction with oxygen, 1h settling period
without oxygen, 30 min draw without
oxygen and 15 min idle phase. Mohamed
and Saed [43] was found to be 96.7%
NH3-N, 94% COD and 96% SS removal.
Dugba and Zhang [17] evaluated the
temperature-phased anaerobic sequential
batch reactor (AnSBR) for dairy
wastewater treatment. Thermophilic
(55oC)-mesophilic (35oC) system was
tested at different hydraulic retention time
(HRT) (3 and 6 days) and loading rates (2-
8 g/l day). Both thermophilic and
mesophilic system was found to be more
effective in solids removal, biogas
production and coliform bacteria
destruction.
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
Mohan et al. [22] setup laboratory
scale-AnSBR (Anaerobic SBR) to be used
to treat wastewater generated in the dairy
industry. Volatile fatty acid (VFA), biogas
production are estimated at organic
loading (3.5 kg COD/m3 day) was 1.05
mmol H2/ m3 min and 3010 mg/l
respectively. The percentage reduction
COD with 65% with influent 10400 mg/l
COD. Whichard et al. [7] investigated the
treatability of a wastewater from dairy
industry in a laboratory scale-SBR. 98%
COD removal, 98% soluble inorganic
nitrogen removal and 79-84% total solids
removal efficiency was achieved in the
reactor. Finally, Ghough et al. [44]
developed an equation for BOD prediction
in dairy wastewater treated by SBR at the
95% confidence level.
2.2. Dye & textile wastewater
The kind of industrial activity
associated with textiles can lead to major
negative impact on the environment, both
in terms of pollutant discharge as well as
of water and energy consumption. The
major pollutant types identified in textile
wastewater are organic load, colour,
nutrients (N and P), sulfur, toxicants, and
refractory organics [45]. Dye colour is
sensitive to redox and anaerobic treatments
are effective at decolourising [46]. There
are cases in the literature describing the
effective performance of the SBR
technology for the treatment of dye/textile
wastewater [25-30]. In experimental
studies with laboratory scale SBR and 60-
70 days retention time, [25] reached
removal efficiency of 76.4% TOC, 60-
70% COD and 78.1% SS. Fongsatitkul et
al. [26] investigated textile wastewater by
s ingle process as well as in association
with chemical oxidation at different
conditions. Single biological(SBR)
process, the high reduction in 83.3%COD,
94.1% TKN, 77.4% TP and 35.5% colour
was found in the period of 60 days. They
concluded that process was found to be
independent of variation in the anoxic time
period, however, an increase in solids
Page 67
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
retention time (SRT) improved COD and
Colour removal, although it reduced the
nutrient (TKN and TP) removal efficiency.
Abu-Ghunmi and Jamrah [28] examined
the feasibility of initial substrate and cell
growth in the ration of 0.13-0.5. The
composition of the influent was 400-1520
mg/l COD, pH-9.5 and 1-3mg/l DO. A
pilot scale-SBR with simulated sludge,
removals efficiency was 80-95% COD and
95% BOD. Table 1. Summarizes some of
characteristics and removal percentages of
dye/textile wastewaters by laboratory and
pilot/full scale-SBR. Kapdan et al. [27]
studied the biological treatment of textile
wastewater with an AnSBR (Anaerobic
SBR). They found that 85% colour
removal and 90% COD in a 12-72 h cycle.
2.3. Paper mill wastewater
Pulp and paper making industry is
know to generate large quantities of highly
polluted wastewater, especially the lignin-
derived dissolved organic compounds used
and/ or formed during the paper production
processes [34]. Thompson et al. [47] that
reviews the treatment of pulp and paper
mill effluents and Mace and Mata-Alvakez
[48] reviews the various industrial
wastewaters by SBR technology. Primary
clarification is the main treatment applied
to pulp and paper mill wastewater and it
can sometimes be followed by secondary
treatment, generally of a biological nature
[48]. However, problems encountered in
the treatment of kraft mill effluents by
conventional activated sludge process are
the settlement characteristics of the sludge
as well as the formation of filamentous
microorganism. Table 1. summarizes some
of characteristics and removal percentages
of paper mill effluent by laboratory and
pilot/full scale-SBR.
Tsang et al. [34] studied various
parameter affects the SBR performances
for treatment of paper mill effluent. In that
view, Fig. 6. shows the effect of
temperature on percentage of COD
removal and sludge settling, in terms of
sludge volume index (SVI). Temperature
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
not only affects the metabolic activities of
the microbial population but also
influences the gas-transfer rates and the
settling characteristics of activated sludge.
An increase in temperature generates two
reciprocal effects on biochemical
reactions. Furthermore, sludge is difficult
to settle as higher temperature maintained
during the settling phase of SBR. Tsang et
al. [34] have observed the SVI had
significant difference at various
temperatures (35oC>30oC>25oC).
Although the COD removal efficiency and
the effluent quality were satisfied among
various temperatures, higher SVI value
was obtained at higher temperature
resulting in poor sludge settleability.
Furthermore, the SVI value at higher
temperature was more unstable than that at
lower temperature due to the fluctuation of
microbial growth under the higher
temperature. Tsang et al. [34] have
observed of activated sludge using
microscopic, indicated the flocculation of
bacteria was looser at higher temperature
(35oC) than that at lower one (25oC).
Loose sludge leads to poor settling
characteristic, resulting in higher
concentration of suspended solid (SS) and
COD in the effluent. Tsang et al. [34] was
found to be unstable SVI and loose floc of
sludge under higher temperature indicated
that high temperature (>30oC) was not
appropriate for the treatment of pulp and
paper mill effluent. Therefore, they
concluded that temperature should be
controlled if possible between 25 oC and
30 oC ensuring the stable operation of SBR
process with effective treatment
performance. Tripathi and Allen [49]
investigated the effect of temperature in
laboratory scale-SBR over 40 weeks for
bleached kraft pulp mill effluent. They
found that 63-75% COD and 60-70%
AOX removal efficiency at the different
temperature (35 oC and 60 oC). Tripathi
and Allen [49] concluded that long-chain
fatty acid removal was better at
thermophilic condition than the mesophilic
Page 68
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
condition and at 35oC and 45oC, %COD
was significantly higher and AOX removal
decreased with temperature increases.
2.4. Piggery wastewater
In the conventional system would be
the application of post-denitrification with
the addition of an external carbon source,
which leads to more complex mixture,
high operational cost [48]. For the piggery
wastewater, nutrient contents are very
higher and SBR system has most suitable
technology for above problem solving
[50]. Jern et al. [15] investigated piggery
wastewater treatment carbon and solids
removal in a laboratory scale-ASBR with a
cycle length of 24h, 58% COD, 82% BOD
and 79% SS removals were reached. A
study concerning the use of internal carbon
sources for biological nutrient removal
from piggery wastewaters by Bortone et al.
[51]. The initial concentration are 844 mg/l
NH4+-N, 10580mg/l total COD. The result
was obtained with 24h total cycle, 93%
COD, 88-93% total nitrogen and 95%
phosphorus removals. Su et al. [16]
investigated an SBR for insitu studies of
piggery wastewater. The pilot scale-SBR
which was about 37.5 m3 and HRT was 3
days. Removal efficiency of 94.5% COD,
36.3-52.9% total nitrogen, 88.7% BOD,
61.1% phosphorus and 93.4% SS were
reached. However, total nitrogen and
phosphorus removal was poor while
compared to COD, BOD and SS removal.
Masse et al. [52] used an ASBR, without
agitation, for treating piggery wastewater
at psychrophilic temperatures (20 oC), with
organic loads of 0.71.2 g COD/l day. The
reactor was efficient in retaining the
biomass and attained 73% of total organic
matter removal (as COD). Ndegwa et al.
[53] using a 12 l ASBR with sludge
circulation (500 ml/min) to treat dilute
swine slurries at temperatures of 20 oC and
35 oC, on investigating COD reduction and
biogas production interaction, obtained
COD reduction of 90 and 84% for
hydraulic times of 7.2 and 9.1 days,
respectively.
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
2.5. Brewery wastewater
Some of applications of SBR
technology to the biological treatment of
brewery wastewaters are shown in Table.1.
Ling and Lo [54] investigated some
experiments with laboratory scale aerobic
SBR to study the treatment of brewery
wastewater. The suspended and attached
growth-SBR with HRT 0.56-6.06 days was
tested for removal efficiency of over 90%
of TOC, BOD5, COD and SS. Wang et al.
[35] have studied treatment of brewery
wastewater in the laboratory scale-SBR
with 239 mg/l influent COD. They found
that removals of 88.7% COD and 88.9%
NH4+-N efficiency. Rodrigues et al. [55]
was used the SBR for the post treatment
process of brewery wastewater. They
found that maximum rate of 0.175 kg
NH4+-N/kg of VSS day. The removal of
97% nitrification efficiency was achieved
in the SBR technology. Xiangwen et al.
[36] carried out experiments with pilot
scale-ASBR (Anaerobic SBR) with the
HRT of 1 day (with removals of COD
>90%). The production of biogas was 2.4
l/day with VFA < 200 mg/l and SVI 28.88
mg/l. Xiangwen et al. [36] compared with
other reactors treating the same type of
wastewater, OLR in ASBR was relatively
low due to batch ASBR. Low effluent
COD was also expected to meet the local
strict discharge permission. Xiangwen et
al. [36] soluble COD in the effluent was
normally less than 150 mg/l. They
concluded that highest treatment efficiency
compared to other conventional treatment
method. The process of brewery
wastewater treatment was to be controlled
by effective feedback controller system
based on DO concentration [53]. The
fixed-film SBR was used for post
treatment of brewery wastewater with
removal of 92% COD.
2.6. Tannery wastewater
Generally, tannery wastewater
contains mainly high CODs and range of
chrome contents. Carucci et al. [56]
studied the laboratory scale-SBR was fed
Page 69
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online)
in the tannery wastewater with anoxic-
aerobic conditions. Good nitrification was
obtained and denitrification was effective
when COD/TKN ratio in the influent was
higher than 8. Ganesh et al. [32]
investigated tannery wastewater in a
laboratory scale-SBR with the influent
1908 mg/l COD. The removals of 80-82%
COD, 80% TKN with SVI of 110-50 mg/l.
they concluded that cycle of period and
HRT are 12 h and 2 days was optimum
with maximum removal efficiency.
2.7. Others industrial wastewater
SBR technology has also been used
for the treatment of other types of
wastewater, such as petrochemical [24];
complex chemical [31]; hypersaline[9];
aquaculture [33]; automobile [37]; Work
camp wastewater [8]; coke oven [38, 57];
river sediments [39]. Table 1. shows that
some significant examples of SBR
technology applied to various types of
industrial wastewater.
Petrochemical wastewaters are
considered to be the complex and hard to
treat among the complex industrial wastes.
The COD value of high level
petrochemical wastewater is 17500 mg/l.
Hudson et al. [24] studied in the laboratory
scale-SBR for the treatment petrochemical
wastewater in the HRT of 53 h. 93% COD
was achieved in this treatment method.
Mohan et al. [22] studied complex
chemical which was obtained in the
common effluent treatment plant by
laboratory scale-SBR. At cycle period 24h
and 1 day of HRT, the removals was
79.9%COD and 87.9% BOD. Mohan et al.
[22] used an AnSBBR to treat hypersaline
and low biodegradable wastewater. The
reactor presented improvement in substrate
removal efficiency with a maximum of
51% and after introducing recirculation to
the system a biogas yield of 0.023 m/h,
due to the improved mass transfer between
the substrate present in the bulk liquid and
the attached biofilm. Fig. 7. shows
substrate degradation (COD reduction)
profile during reactor operation. (a) during
International Journal of Science Technology & Management
IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com
total operation phase of reactor; (b) during
single cycle operation (OLR1:2.4 Kg
COD/m3-day; OLR2: 3.5 Kg COD/m3-
day; OLR3: 4.7 Kg COD/m3-day) [22].
They concluded that increased the organic
loading with decrease percentage removal
of COD.
Boopathy et al. [33] investigated
aquaculture wastewater which was influent
1201 mg/l COD in the laboratory scale-
SBR. The removal efficiency was 97.3%
COD and 99.99% total nitrogen. They
suggested that maximum removal of
nutrient was achieved by SBR compared to
physicochemical method. Oliveira et al.
[37] studied the automobile wastewater
treatment in the laboratory scale-SBR with
the removal efficiency of 88% COD.
Papadimitriou et al. [38] operated in 12 h
cycles including five sequential stages: fill,
react, settle, draw and idle. Each cycle
consisted of 2 h mixed fill, 6 h react
aeration with 1 h anoxic stage, 2 h
sedimentation, 1.5 h draw of the
supernatant and 0.5 h idle for treatment of
coke oven wastewater. They found to be
92% COD removal efficiency in the
laboratory scale-SBR. Rezaee et al. [8]
studied work camp wastewater in the
laboratory scale-SBR. 87% COD, >95%
NO3-N and 90% BOD removal efficiency.
Aerobic biodegradation of low molecular
weight polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
by bacteria and microorganisms has been
documented in the various researchers and
high-molecular weight PAHs has proven
to be more recalcitrant to biological
degradation [50]. The bio-slurry process
has been carried out using the continuous
flow-completely stirred tank reactor
(CSTR) [58], the SBR [58] as well as
batch systems [59]. SBR technology was
selected among different alternatives due
to its widely proved ability in the
depuration of streams containing toxic or
bio-recalcitrant compounds [56, 60] and
hydrocarbon-contaminated sediments [61].
With respect to the typical cycle of a SBR
for wastewater treatment, in the soil or
Page 70
ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

sediment slurry-SBR (SS-SBR) [39] no effective than conventional SBR system

settle phase is foreseen, whereas, at the
end of the react phase, a known volume of
slurry is withdrawn from the tank and
discharged or eventually delivered to a
further treatment process. The feasibility
of this process was demonstrated on real
sediment, although lightly contaminated
by PAHs (below 20 mg/kg) by Chiavola et
al. [39]. Wastewater is the most important
waste stream in the distillation industry
contains very high chemical oxygen
demand COD due to number of organics
such as polysaccharides, carbohydrates,
reduced sugars, dissolved lignins, proteins,
waxes, resin acids, etc. Farima et al. [4]
studied in a pilot scale-SBR for treatment
of distillery effluent. 70-80% COD
reduction was achieved. The average
applied loading rate was 4 kg COD m-3 d-1
and after a shock load condition (15 g
CODT /l d). The results obtained show the
feasibility of this anaerobic discontinuous
process for distillery effluent treatment.
3. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY
The SBR is a cost effective and
reliable technique for the removal of
pollutants from industrial wastewater. It
provides provision for flexibility in
variation of operating conditions to
achieve desired results for it is time
oriented rather than space oriented.
Compared to conventional continuous
processes its hardware is simple. A new
development has taken place in the
treatment process for the dye or textile
wastewater under microaerophilic aerobic
condition. Hybrid system was more
used for work camp effluents for removal
of nutrients [8]. Mohseni and Bazari [20]
suggested that influent COD (mg/l) affect
the performance of the SBR system in
terms of COD removal for the milk
industry wastewater. Sirianuntapiboon et
al. [21] concluded that, in milk industry
wastewater, percent removal of BOD5,
COD, TKN, and oil & grease increased
with decreasing organic loading (g
BOD/m3 day) in SBR and MSBR systems.
They suggested, when the attached growth
SBR has efficiency than conventional SBR
because of more microbial activity in the
biofilm. In complex chemical wastewater
from common effluent treatment plant,
substrate degradation (COD reduction)
increased, when the organic loading (kg
COD/m3 day) decreased [31]. In the paper
mill wastewater, optimum temperature was
30oC for the maximum removal of COD
by Tsang et al. [34]. Finally, automation of
SBR operations has made their
implementation much easier and has
definitely contributed to the development
of SBR technology.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to express their
thanks to the funding agencies, Ministry of
Human Resource Development,
Government of India. One of the author,
Dr. S. Suresh, is thankful to MANIT
Bhopal for providing financial R&D
project [Grants in Aid Scheme] for
carrying out this research work.

4. REFERENCES
[1] Kleerbezem R.; Beckers, J.; Hulshoff Pol, L.W.; Lettinga, G., High rate treatment of
terephthalic acid production wastewater in a two stage anaerobic bioreactor.
Biotechnol. Bioeng, vol. 91 (2), 2005, p 169179.
[2] Subbaramaiah V.; Suresh, S.; Mall, I. D.; Srivastava, V. C., Application of sequential
batch reactor (SBR) for the wastewater treatment: A review. National Symposium on
Reaction Engineering (NSRE-2010), National Institute of Technology Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, India. Jan 22-23, 2010.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 71

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

[3] Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, 1999. Sequencing Batch Reactors.United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Washington, D.C.EPA 932-F-99-
073 September 1999.
[4] Irvine, R.L. and . Davis W.B., Use of Sequencing Batch Reactor for Wastewater
Treatment-CPC International, Corpus Christi, TX. Presented at the 26th Annual
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue, University, West Lafayette, IN. 1971.
[5] Liu Y., Liu Q-S., Causes and control of filamentous growth in aerobic granular
sludge sequencing batch reactors. Biotechnology Advances, Vol . 24, 2006, p 115
127.
[6] Kolb, F. R.; Wildere. P. A., Activated carbon sequencing batch reactor to treat
industrial wastewater. Wat Sci Tech, vol. 35, 1997, p 169-176.
[7] Wilderer, P.A.; Irvine R.L.; Goronszy M., Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology.
Scientific and Technical Report No. 10, IWA Publishing, London, UK, 2001.
[8] Rezaee, A.; Khavanin, M. A., Treatment of Work Camp Wastewater Using a
Sequencing Batch Reactor Followed by a Sand Filter. American Journal of
Environmental Sciences, vol. 4 (40), 2008, p 342-346.
[9] Mohan, S. V.; Chandrashekara N. R.; Krishna K. P.; Madhavi, B.T.V.; Sharma, P.N.,
Low-biodegradable composite chemical wastewater treatment by biofilm configured
sequencing batch reactor (SBBR). Journal of Hazardous Materials, vol. 144, 2007,
p 108117.
[10] Irvine, R. L.; Ketchum, Jr.; L. H.; Arora, M. L.; Barth, E. F., An organic loading
study of full-scale sequencing batch reactors. Journal WPCF, Vol. 57, 1985, p 847-
53.
[11] Singh M.; Srivastava, R. K., Sequencing batch reactor technology for biological
wastewater treatment: a review. Asia-Pacafic Journal of Chemical Engineering,
2010, p 1-11.
[12] Norcross, K. L., Sequencing batch reactors: An overview. Water Science &
Technology, vol. 26, 1992, p 2523.
[13] Ketchum, L. H., Jr. Design and physical features of sequencing batch reactors.
Water Science and Technology, Vol. 35 (1), 1997,p 11.
[14] Chin, K. K.; Ng, W. J.; Ma, A. N., Palm oil refinery treatment by sequencing batch
reactors. Biological Wastes, vol. 20, 1987, p 101-109.
[15] Jern, N. W., Aerobic Treatment of Piggery Wastewater with the Sequencing Batch
Reactor. Biological Wastes, vol. 22, 1987, p 285-294.
[16] Su, J-J; Kungb C.-M.; Lina J.; Liana W.-C.; Wu J.-F., Utilization of sequencing
batch reactor for in situ piggery wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental
Science and Health, Part A, vol. 32 (2), 1997, p 391 405.
[17] Dugba P.N.; Zhang R., Treatment of dairy wastewater with two-stage anaerobic
sequencing batch reactor systems - thermophilic versus mesophilic operations.
Bioresource Technology, Vol. 68, 1999, p 225-233.
[18] Whichard, D.P.; Nancy, Dr.; Love, G., Nitrogen Removal From Dairy Manure
Wastewater Using Sequencing Batch Reactors. July 16, 2001.
[19] Omil F.; Juan M.; Arrojo, G. B.; M!endez, R., Anaerobic filter reactor performance
for the treatment of complex dairy wastewater at industrial scale. Water Research,
Vol. 37, 2003, p 40994108.
[20] Mohseni, B. A.; Bazari, H., Biological Treatment Of Dairy Wastewater By
Sequencing Batch Reactor. Iranian J Env Health Sci Eng, Vol. 1, (2), 2004, p 65-69.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 72

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

[21] Sirianuntapiboona S.; Jeeyachokb, N.; Larplai, R., Sequencing batch reactor biofilm
system for treatment of milk industry wastewater. Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 76, 2005, p 177183.
[22] Mohan, S.; Venkata, V.; Babu, L.; Sarma. P.N., Anaerobic biohydrogen production
from dairy wastewater treatment in sequencing batch reactor (AnSBR): Effect of
organic loading rate. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 41, 2007, p 506515.
[23] Neczaj, E.; Kacprzak, M.; Kamizela, T.; Lach, J.; Okoniewska. E., Sequencing batch
reactor system for the co-treatment of landfill leachate and dairy wastewater.
Desalination, Vol. 222, 2008, p 404409.
[24] Hudson, N.; Doyle, J.; Lant, P.; Roach, N.; Bruyn B. de; Staib.C., Sequencing batch
reactor technology: the key to a BP refinery [Bulwer Island] upgraded environmental
protection system a low cost lagoon based retro-fit. Water Science and Technology
Vol. 43 No 3, 2001, p 339346.
[25] Shaw, C.B.; Carliel, C.M.; Wheatley A.D., Anaerobic/Aerobic Treatment Of
Coloured Textile Effluents Using Sequencing Batch Reactors. Water Research, Vol.
36, 2002, p 19932001.
[26] Fongsatitkula P.; Elefsiniotisb, P.; Yamasmitc,A.; Yamasmitd N., Use of
sequencing batch reactors and Fentons reagent to treat a wastewater from a textile
industry. Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 21, 2004, p 213220.
[27] Kapdan, I. K.; Alparslan S., Application of AnaerobicAerobic Sequential Treatment
System To Real Textile Wastewater For Colour And COD Removal. Enzyme and
Microbial Technology, vol. 36, 2005, p 273279.
[28] Abu-Ghunmi, L.N.; Jamrah, A.I., Biological treatment of textile wastewater using
sequencing batch reactor technology. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, Vol
11, 2006, p 333 - 343.
[29] Isik, M.; Sponza, D.T., Biological treatment of acid dyeing wastewater using a
sequential anaerobic/aerobic reactor system Anaerobic/aerobic sequential treatment of
a cotton textile mill wastewater. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 38, 2006,
p 887892.
[30] El-Gohary, F.; Tawfik A., Decolorization and COD reduction of disperse and
reactive dyes wastewater using chemical-coagulation followed by sequential batch
reactor (SBR) process. Desalination, vol. 249, 2009, p 11591164.
[31] Mohan, S. V.; Chandrashekara N.R.; Krishna K. P.; Madhavi, B.T.V.; Sharma, P.N.,
Treatment of complex chemical wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
with an aerobic suspended growth configuration. Process Biochemistry, vol. 40,
2005 p 15011508.
[32] Ganesh, R.; G. Balaji, R.; Ramanujam,A., Biodegradation of tannery wastewater
using sequencing batch reactorRespirometric assessment. Bioresource
Technology, vol. 97, 2006, p 18151821.
[33] Boopathy, R.; Bonvillain, C.; Fonteno,t Q.; Kilgen,M., Biological treatment of low-
salinity shrimp aquaculture wastewater using sequencing batch reactor, International
Biodeterioration & Biodegradation . Vol. 59, 2007, p 1619.
[34] Tsang, Y.F.; Hua, F.L.; Chua, H.; Sin S.N.; Wang Y.J., Optimization Of Biological
Treatment Of Paper Mill Effluent In A Sequencing Batch Reactor. Biochemical
Engineering Journal, Vol. 34, 2007, p 193199.
[35] Wang, S-G.; Liu, X.-W.; Gong We.-X.; Gao B.-Y.; Yu H.-Q.; HuaZhan D., Aerobic
granulation with brewery wastewater in a sequencing batch reactor. Bioresource
Technology, Vol. 98, 2007, p 21422147.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 73

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

[36] Xiangwen, S.; Dangcong P.; Zhaohua T.; Xinghua J., Treatment of brewery
wastewater using anaerobic sequencing batch reactor (ASBR). Bioresource
Technology, Vol. 99, 2008, p 31823186.
[37] Oliveira, R. P.; Ghilardi J. A;. Ratusznei, S.M., Rodrigues J. A.D.; Zaiat, M.; Foresti,
E., Anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor applied to automobile industry
wastewater treatment: Volumetric loading rate and feed strategy effects. Chemical
Engineering and Processing, Vol. 47, 2008, p 13741383.
[38] Papadimitriou, C.A.; Samaras, P.; Sakellaropoulos, G.P., Comparative study of
phenol and cyanide containing wastewater in CSTR and SBR activated sludge
reactors. Bioresource Technology, vol. 100, 2009, p 3137.
[39] Chiavola, A.; Baciocchib, R..; Gavascib R., Biological treatment of PAH-
contaminated sediments in a Sequencing Batch Reactor. Journal of Hazardous
Materials, Vol. 184, 2010, p 97104.
[40] Farina, R.; Cellamare, C. M.; Stante, L.; Giordano, A., Treatment of distillery
wastewater by a pilot scale anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Simposio
Internazionale di Ingegneria Sanitaria Ambientale Taormina, Palazzo dei Congressi
23-26 giugno, ANDIS 067, 2004.
[41] Metcalf & Eddy Inc., Wastewater Engineering Treatment Disposal and Reuse, third
ed. McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1991, p 532537.
[42] Kagi, F., Uygur, A., Nutrient removal performance of a sequencing batch reactor as
a function of the sludge age. Enzyme and Microbial Technology, vol. 31, 2002, p
842847.
[43] Mohamed, F.; Saed, M., Wastewater management in a dairy farm. Water Sci.ence
& Technology, Vol. 32 (11), 1995, p 1.
[44] Ghough, R. H.; Samkutty, P. J.; McGrew, P.; Arauz, J.; Adkinson, R. W., Prediction
of effluent biochemical oxygen demand in a dairy plant SBR wastewater system.
Journal of Environmental Science Health A scale, vol. 35 (2), 2000, p 169.
[45] Delee W.; ONeill F.R.; Hawkes H.M., Pinheiro., Anaerobic treatment of textile
effluents: a review. Journal of Chemical Technology and Biotechnology vol. 73,
1998, p 323.
[46] Beydilli, M.I,; Pavlostathis, S.G.; Tincher, W.C., Decolorization and toxicity
screening of selected reactive azo dyes under methanogenic conditions. Water
Science Technology, Vol. 38, 1998, p 22532.
[47] Thompson, G.; Swain, J.; Kay, M.; Forster, C. F., The treatment of pulp and paper
mill effluent: A review. Bioresource Technology, Vol. 77, 2001, p 275.
[48] Mace, S.; Mata-Alvarez, J.R., Utilization of SBR technology for wastewater
treatment: an overview. Industrial Engineering Chemistry Research, Vol. 4, 2002, p
5539-5553.
[49] Tripathi, S.; Allen, D., Comparison of mesophilic and thermophilic aerobic
biological treatment in sequencing batch reactors treating bleached kraft pulp mill
effluent. Water Research, Vol. 33 (3), 1999, p 836.
[50] Ferrarese E.; Andreottola, G., Opera, I.A., Remediation of PAH-contaminated
sediments by chemical oxidation. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 152, 2008, p
128139.
[51] Bortone, G.; Gemelli, S.; Rambaldi, A.; Tilche, A., Nitrification, denitrification and
biological phosphate removal in sequencing batch reactors treating piggery
wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. Vol. 26,1992, (5-6), 977.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 74

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

[52] Masse, D.I.; Droste, R.L.; Kennedy, K.; Patni, N.K.; Munroe, J.A., Potential for the
psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of swine manure using a sequencing batch reactor.
Can. Agric. Eng, vol. 39, 1997, p 2533.
[53] Ndegwa, P.M.; Hanilton, D.W.; Lalman,J.A.; Cumba, H.J., Optimization of
anaerobic sequencing batch reactors treating dilute swine slurries. Transaction
ASAE, vol. 48, 2005, p 15751583.
[54] Ling, L.; Lo, K. V., Brewery wastewater treatment using suspended and attached
growth sequencing batch reactors. J. Environ. Sci. Health A, Vol. 34 (2), 1999, p
341.
[55] Rodrigues, A.C.; Brito, A. G.; Melo, L. F., Post treatment of a brewery wastewater
using a sequencing batch reactor. Water Environment and Research, Vol. 73 (1),
2001, p 45.
[56] Carucci, A.; Chiavola, A., Majone, M.; Rolle E., Treatment of tannery wastewater in
a sequencing batch reactor. Water Science Technology, Vol .40, 1999,p 253259.
[57] Yu, H. Q.; Gu, G. W., Treatment of phenolic wastewaters by sequencing batch
reactors with aerated and unaerated fills. Waste Management, Vol. 16, 1996, p 561.
[58] Cassidy, D.P.; Efendiev, S.; White, D.M., Comparison of CSTR and SBR bioslurry
reactor performance . Water Research. Vol. 34, 2000, p 43334342.
[59] Abbondanzi, F.; Bruzzi, L.; Campisi,, T.; Frezzati,A.; Guerra R.; Iacondini, A.,
Biotreatability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in brackish sediments:
Preliminary studies of an integrated monitoring. International of Biodeterioration and
Biodegradation, Vol . 57, 2006, p 214221.\
[60] Ma, G; Love, N.G., Creating anoxic and microaerobic conditions in sequencing
batch reactors treating volatile BTEX compounds. Water Science & Technology,
vol. 43, 2001, p 275282.
[61] Giordano, S.; Stante,L.; Pirozzi, F.; Cesaro, R.; Bortone, G., Sequencing batch
reactor performance treating PAH contaminated lagoon sediments. Journal of
Hazardous Materials , Vol.119, 2005, p 159166.
[62] Nguyen, A. L.; Duff, S. J. B.; Sheppard, J. D., Application of feedback control
based on dissolved oxygen to a fixed-film sequencing batch reactor for treatment of
brewery wastewater. Water Environmental Research, Vol. 72, 2000, p 75.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 75

 ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

Table 1. Characteristics and removal percentages of various industrial wastewaters by laboratory and pilot/full scale-SBR.
Type of pH T (0C) COD Scale and Total HRT (%) Nutrient Removal Reduction in the References
industrial (mg/l) Reactor cycle (d) Removal (%) or production properties of
wastewater conditions time COD rate and others (%) sludge (mg/l) or
(h) others (%)
Piggery 7-8 - - Lab scale 24 3 58 BOD removal-82, Sludge from Jern et al. [15]
ASBR , SS removal-79% activated sludge
W.V-5 VSS removal-75% plant

Piggery - - 10580 Laboratory 24 10 93 Total N removal-88- - Bortone et al. [51]

scale, W.V- 93, TP removal-95
3.5
Piggery 7.11 25 3769 Pilot scale - 3 94.5 Nitrogen [NH4+-N, - Su et al. [16]
1214 SBR, W.V- NO3-N, and TKN]
0.08 37500 and phosphorus were
36.3-52.9 and 61.1,
BOD removal- 88.7
Dairy - 35-55 - Lab scale - 3-6 - Volatile solids Sludge municipal Dugba and Zhang
two-stage removal-29.3-30.2 plant [17]
AnSBR
system,
W.V-15
Paper mill - 35-60 Lab. scale 8 0.5 63-75 AOX removal-60-70 - Tripathi and Allen
SBR, W.V- [49]
1.5
Brewery - - - Lab. Scale - 0.56- >90 TOC, BOD5, SS - Ling and Lo [54]
SBR 6.06 removal >90
Brewery - 25-35 - - - - BOD removal-92% Post treatment Nguyen et al. [62]
Petrochemical 6.5 - 1400 lab scale - 53 h 93 - - Hudson et al. [24]
9.5 SBR, W.V-
10

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 76

 ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

Dairy <7 20 - Lab scale - 3 98 Soluble inorganic Sludge from Whichard et

SBR, nitrogen removal-98, aeration basin, al.[18]
W.V-3.5 solid removal-79-84. specific growth rate
KL-0.01 [max]-1.84 d-1
Brewery - - - - - - - 97% nitrification Post treatment, Rodrigues et al.
efficiency maximum rate of [55]
0.175 kg NH4
N/kg of VSS day
Textile 9.4 371 3547 Lab scale - 2.6 60-70 TOC removal- - Shaw et al. [25]
0.05 SBR,W.V- 76.4%, SS removal-
10.5 78.1
Dairy 7.68 37 3000- Full scale - 1.6 > 90 NH4N removal- - Omil et al. [19]
18000 SBR, W.V- 25.5%, total N
14000 removal 61.34
Textile 8.7 2832 773 Lab scale 24 83.3 TKN ,TP and colour Sludge from Fongsatitkul et al.
10.8 1290 SBR,W.V- removal- 94.1, 77.4, domestic Plant [26]
10, 2b 35.5
Milk factory - - 400- Lab scale 7 - >90 - - Mohseni and
2500 ASBR,W.V- Bazari [20]
22.5 3-7.5b

Distillery 7.2 35 15- Pilot scale - - 70 80 - Methane removal - Farina et al. [40]
7.8 125 AnSBR, 300 up to 350 l
W.V-180 methane /kg COD
Complex 7.1 262 6000 Lab scale 24 1 79.9 BOD87.89 SVI-50 to 100ml/g Mohan et al.[31]
chemical 0.2 SBR,W.V- Sulphate8
1.7
Milk industry 4.0 3435 5000 MSBR and 24 - 97.9 BOD5, TKN and oil Sludge from Sirianuntapiboon
7.0 10,00 conventional & grease removal sewage plant, et al. [21]
0 SBR, W.V- efficiencies of, Max. organic
20 97.90.1, 79.31.0 loading
and 94.80.5%, of 680 g BOD5/m3

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 77

 ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

respectively, d
Textile 7 28 800- Pilot scale 12-72 2 90 - Colour removal: 85 Kapdan et al. [27]
1200 AnSBR,
W.V-6
Textile 9.5 40-60 400- Pilot scale 27 - 80-95 BOD95 S0/X0-0.13 to 0.5 Abu-Ghunmi and
1520 SBR, Jamrah [28]
W.V-5, 0.18-
0.56a, 13b
Tannery 7-7.7 1908 Bench scale 12 2 80-82 TKN-80 SVI-110 to 50ml/g Ganesh et al. [32]
SBR, W.V-8, NH3-N-83.4
KL- 191.7
Acid dyeing 6.5-8 - 2000 Lab scale - 3.3 97 Methane gas Colour removal-87 Isik and Sponza
UASB production=437 ml [29]
reactor W.V- CH4/d, VFA
2.5 l production=40mg
CH3COOH/l
Aquaculture 7.8 22 120 Lab. scale - - 97.3 Total Ammonia Carbon level 1201 Boopathy et al.
SBR, W.V- 99.99 to 32 mg/l [33]
19, 0.15.5b NO399.87
Dairy 6.1 29 10400 Lab. scale 12 1 65 H2 production rate Dewatered sludge; Mohan et al. [22]
AnSBR,W.V 1.2 mmol/min volumetric H2
-2.3 Volatile Fatty Acids production
[VFA] production rate=1.105 mmol
3010 mg/l H2/m3-min OLR
3.5 Kg COD/m3-
day
Paper mill 6.2 251 1200 Lab scale - 1.6-3 93.10.3 OLR-1.9 kg Sludge from Tsang et al. [34]
6.6 1400 SBR, W.V-4, BOD/m3 day municipal plant,
2b SVI-52.71.3ml/g
Brewery - - 239 Lab scale 6 - 88.7 NH4+-N88.9 SVI-87.5 to 32ml/g Wang et al.
SBR, 91a [35]

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 78

 ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

Dairy and low 1820 - Lab scale 24 12 98.4 TKN removal-79.2, Sludge from Neczaj et al. [23]
Leachate ASBR, W.V- BOD removal-97.3 municipal plant
3.5
Automobile - 301 1400 Lab scale 8 - 88 - Volumetric loading Oliveira et al. [37]
AnSBBR, rate [VLR] of 3.09
W.V-5 mg COD/l day
Work Camp 7.5- 202 350- Pilot scale 24 - 87 NO3-N removal->95, - Rezaee et al. [8]
8.2 450 SBR ,W.V- BOD removal- 90
20, 2b
Brewery 67 331 - Pilot scale - 1 >90% - VFA < 200 mg/l, Xiangwen et al.
AnSBR, Biogas production [36]
W.V-45 2.4 L/Ld,
SVI 28.88 mg/l
Textile 8.8 22 - 29 5951 Lab scale - 5h 68.2 Colour removal: 97, Sludge from El-Gohary and
9.4 31 SBR, W.V-4, BOD removal- 76.3 sewage plant Tawfik [30]
< 4-6b
Coke oven - 4000 Bench scale 12 - 92 - Sludge from Papadimitriou et
6500 SBR,W.V-5 municipal al. [38]
plant
River 7.85 202 200- bench-scale 7 70 - 80% for Fluorene, Total PAH Chiavola et al.
sediments 4000 SS- anthracene, pyrene concentration of 70 [39]
SBR,W.V-5 and crysene mg/kg as dry
weight
a b
W.V-Working volume (l); Settling velocity (m/h); Dissolved oxygen (DO, mg/l); TKNTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen; HRTHydraulic Retention
Time; SVISludge Volume Index; TSSTotal Suspended Solid; VFAVolatile Fatty Acids; KL-Oxygen mass transfer coefficient (h-1);OLR-
Organic loading rate; PAH-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; TP-total phosphate; AOX-Adsordable halogenated compounds; ASBR-aerobic
sequencing batch reactor; AnSBR-anaerobic sequencing batch reactor; UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; AnSBBR- anaerobic
sequencing batch biofilm reactor; SS-SBR sediment slurry sequencing batch reactor.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 79

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

Fig. 1. Experimental Setup for laboratory scale sequential batch reactor [25].

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 80

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

Influent FILL
REACT
wastewater

Aerobic
Anaerobic
Aerobic

Mixing Mixing
Aeration Aeration
IDLE
SETTLE

Mixing
Aeration DECANT
- Mixing
Waste - Aeration
Sludge

- Mixing
- Aeration

Treated
wastewater
Fig. 2. Sequential batch reactor operating for each tank for one cycle for the five discrete time
periods of Fill, React, Settle, Draw, and Idle.

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 81

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

100
90

Percent removal (COD) 80

70
60
50 COD:1000 mg/l
COD:1500 mg/l
40 COD:2000 mg/l
30 COD:2500 mg/l

20
10
0
3 4 5 61 2 7
Time of aeration (h)
Fig. 3. Milk industry wastewater-ASBR: Performance of the reactor under different COD
concentrations [20].

COD BOD TKN Oil & grease

COD BOD TKN Oil & grease
100
95
90
85
Percent removal

80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
500 1000 1500
Organic loading (g BOD/m3 d)
Fig. 4. Milk industry wastewater: Percent removal of BOD5, COD, TKN, and oil & grease
with various organic loading in SBR and MSBR systems. Initial conditions: COD-5000-
10000 mg/l, BOD5-3000-5000 mg/l, TKN-50-150mg/l and Oil & grease-3000-7000 mg/l
[21].

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 82

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

COD COD BOD BOD

TKN TKN Oil & grease Oil & grease
100
95
90
85
Percent removal

80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
0 10 20 30
Time (days)
Fig. 5. Milk industry wastewater: Percent removal of BOD5, COD, TKN, and oil & grease
with various retention times in SBR and MSBR systems. Initial conditions: COD-5000-
10000 mg/l, BOD5-3000-5000 mg/l, TKN-50-150mg/l and Oil & grease-3000-7000 mg/l
[21].
100 120

100
80
Percent removal (COD)

80
60
SVI (ml/g)

60
40
40

20
20

0 0
20 25 30 35 40
Temp. (0 C)
Fig. 6. Paper mill wastewater: Percent removal of COD and sludge volume index under
various temperatures. An experimental error was calculated by standard deviation. Average
initial COD: 1213.9107.7 mg/l [34].

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 83

ISSN: 2229-6646 (online) IJSTM Vol. 2, Issue 1, February 2011
www.ijstm.com

60

50
Percent removal (COD)
40

30
OLR 1
20 OLR 2
OLR 3
10

0
1 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 24
Cycle period (h)

Fig. 7. Composite chemical wastewater-SBBR: Substrate degradation (COD reduction)

profile during reactor operation (a) during total operation phase of reactor; (b) during single
cycle operation) (OLR1:2.4 Kg COD/m3-day; OLR2: 3.5 Kg COD/m3-day; OLR3: 4.7 Kg
COD/m3-day) [9].

International Journal of Science Technology & Management Page 84