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

net/publication/51488125

Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Technology: Process Applications, Design, and

Performance

Article  in  Water Environment Research · June 2011

DOI: 10.2175/106143010X12851009156286 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

75 15,849

2 authors:

James Mcquarrie Joshua Boltz

Metro Wastewater Reclamation District Arizona State University
30 PUBLICATIONS   188 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   576 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Biofilm Reactor Modeling View project

Biofilm Reactor Technology and Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Boltz on 21 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Technology:
Process Applications, Design,
and Performance
James P. McQuarrie1, Joshua P. Boltz2*
ABSTRACT: The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) can operate as a
2- (anoxic) or 3-(aerobic) phase system with buoyant free-moving plastic
biofilm carriers. These systems can be used for municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment, aquaculture, potable water denitrification, and, in
roughing, secondary, tertiary, and sidestream applications. The system
includes a submerged biofilm reactor and liquid–solids separation unit.
The MBBR process benefits include the following: (1) capacity to meet
treatment objectives similar to activated sludge systems with respect to
carbon-oxidation and nitrogen removal, but requires a smaller tank volume
than a clarifier-coupled activated sludge system; (2) biomass retention is
clarifier-independent and solids loading to the liquid–solids separation unit
is reduced significantly when compared with activated sludge systems; (3)
the MBBR is a continuous-flow process that does not require a special
operational cycle for biofilm thickness, LF, control (e.g., biologically
active filter backwashing); and (4) liquid–solids separation can be
achieved with a variety of processes, including conventional and compact
high-rate processes. Information related to system design is fragmented
and poorly documented. This paper seeks to address this issue by
summarizing state-of-the art MBBR design procedures and providing the
reader with an overview of some commercially available systems and their
components. Water Environ. Res., 83, 560 (2011).
KEYWORDS: biofilm, carbon oxidation, nitrification, denitrification,
partial nitritation, Anammox, moving bed biofilm reactor.
doi:10.2175/106143010X12851009156286
Introduction and Background
The moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) can be operated as a
2- (anoxic) or 3- (aerobic) phase system with buoyant free-moving
plastic biofilm carriers that require energy (i.e., mechanical
mixing or aeration) for uniform distribution throughout the bulk
phase. Information related to system design is fragmented and
poorly documented. The authors recently have made contributions
to establishing a uniform approach to MBBR process design by
composing relevant sections in a prominent North American
design guide (see Boltz, Morgenroth, deBarbadillo, Dempsey,
McQuarrie, Ghylin, Harrison, and Nerenberg, 2010). Similar
design guidance also exists in North Europe (see Ødegaard et al.,
2009). These systems can be used for municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment, aquaculture, potable water denitrification,
1
Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, Denver, Colorado.
2
CH2M HILL, Inc., Tampa, Florida.
* CH2M HILL, Inc., 4350 West Cypress Street, Suite 600, Tampa, Florida
33607, USA; e-mail: jboltz@ch2m.com.
560
and in roughing, secondary, tertiary, and sidestream applications.
The process includes a submerged biofilm reactor and liquid–
solids separation unit. More than 600 MBBRs were operating in
50 different counties in 2009. According to Rusten et al. (2006),
the first MBBR installed in Norway (European Patent
No. 0.575,314; U.S. Patent No. 5,458,779) has been inspected
routinely, and no performance-influencing plastic biofilm carrier
wear had been observed after 15 years of continuous operation.
Process benefits include the following:
(1) Ability to meet treatment objectives similar to activated
sludge, with respect to 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5) and nitrogen removal, in a smaller tank volume
(Andreottola et al., 2000).
(2) Biomass retention is clarifier-independent.
(3) MBBR is a continuous-flow process that does not require a
special operational cycle for biofilm thickness control.
(4) Liquid–solids separation can be achieved with sedimentation
basins, dissolved air flotation, ballasted flocculation, granular
media filtration, cloth-disc filtration, and membrane (UF/MF)
filtration.
(5) MBBRs are well-suited for retrofit installation.
Research and development supporting the MBBR-process
resulted from a political agreement among North-European
countries to make an approximately 50% reduction in nutrient
discharge to the North Sea during the period 1985 to 1995 (Hem et
al., 1994).
General Description
An MBBR may be a single reactor or configured as several
reactors-in-series. Typically, each MBBR has a length-to-width
ratio (L:W) in the range 0.5:1 to 1.5:1. Plans with a L:W greater
than 1.5:1 can result in the free-moving plastic biofilm carriers
being non-uniformly distributed throughout the bioreactor. As a
result, the system is subjected to poor oxygen transfer efficiency
and reduced hydraulic capacity of the plastic biofilm carrier
retention screens. The MBBRs contain a plastic biofilm carrier
volume up to 67% of the empty bed liquid volume (or carrier fill).
Plastic biofilm carrier retaining screens typically are installed with
one MBBR wall and allow treated effluent to flow through to the
next treatment step. Aerobic MBBRs use a diffused aeration
system to uniformly distribute plastic biofilm carriers and meet
process oxygen requirements. Plastic biofilm carriers in denitri-
fication MBBRs are distributed by mechanical mixers. Biofilm
thickness is controlled by air flow or mechanical mixing energy.
Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6
 McQuarrie and Boltz

Table 1.—Plastic biofilm carrier characteristics reported by the manufacturer.

Bulk Specific Dimensions Carrier

Manufacturer Name Surface Area1 (Depth; Diameter) Photograph

Veolia Inc. AnoxKaldnesTM K1 500 m2/m3 7 mm; 10 mm

or K1 Heavy

AnoxKaldnesTM K3 500 m2/m3 12 mm; 25 mm

AnoxKaldnesTM 1,200 m2/m3 2 mm; 48 mm

Biofilm Chip (M)

AnoxKaldnesTM 900 m2/m3 3 mm; 45 mm

Biofilm Chip (P)

AnoxKaldnesTM 800 m2/m3 4 mm; 25 mm

MatrixTM Sol

Headworks BIO ActiveCellTM 450 * 402 m2/m3 15 mm; 22 mm

(* Licensed by: (450 m2/m3 reported
Infilco Degremont, by IDI)
Inc.)
ActiveCellTM 515 * 485 m2/m3 15 mm; 22 mm
(515 m2/m3 reported
by IDI)

ActiveCellTM 920 680 m2/m3 15 3 15 3 10 mm

(L 3 W 3 D)

AqWise ABC4TM 600 m2/m3 14 mm; 14 mm

ABC5TM 650 m2/m3 12 mm; 12 mm

Entex Technologies, BioportzTM 589 m2/m3 14 mm; 18 mm

Inc.

Siemens Water CM-10DTM 750 m2/m3 9 mm; 13 mm

Technologies
Corp.

Biowater Technology BWT15TM 828 m2/m3 15 3 15 3 5 mm

(L 3 W 3 D)

BWTXTM 640 m2/m3 15 3 15 3 10 mm

(L 3 W 3 D)

June 2011 561

McQuarrie and Boltz
Figure 1—Three axes of rotation for commercially available plastic biofilm carriers typical of MBBRs. Bulk-phase
water may flow through the channels formed inside the carriers or around its exterior, as indicated by the arrows. The
effect of carrier rotation on fluid velocity in the vicinity of the biofilm surface is uncertain.
The MBBR components are submerged. Plastic biofilm carriers
must be removed from the MBBR before service or repair of the
diffuser grid, unless the grid has been installed with a swing arm.
Mechanical mixers can be removed by a hoist and crane assembly.
The following includes a general description of MBBR compo-
nents, process, and process mechanical design information.
Plastic Biofilm Carriers. Plastic biofilm carriers described
here typically are extruded or molded from virgin high-density
polyethylene, but may be recycled high-density polyethylene. No
long-term experience exists for operating MBBRs that use
recycled plastic biofilm carriers. Some plastic biofilm carriers
are manufactured with an increased density (e.g., 0.98 g/cm3 for
heavy biofilm carriers). Heavier media has an increased capital
cost, but reduces carrier propensity to float and, thereby, (mixing)
power required to uniformly distribute the carriers. Table 1
summarizes the characteristics and manufacturers of some
commercially available plastic biofilm carriers. These carriers
are slightly buoyant and have a specific gravity between 0.94 and
0.96 g/cm3. Both native and biofilm-covered plastic biofilm
carriers have a propensity to float. Distribution mechanisms
include the aeration system, liquid recirculation, and mechanical
mixing. Plastic biofilm carriers typically used in MBBRs have
channels along the media interior that forms a protected surface.
Biofilms primarily develop on the protected surface inside of the
plastic biofilm carrier (Bjornberg et al., 2009). The free-moving
carriers rotates freely within these bioreactors. Figure 1 concep-
tualizes three axes of rotation for these plastic biofilm carriers.
Depending on the direction of flow and relative angle of the
plastic biofilm carrier, advection of water through the free-moving
plastic biofilm carrier channels may be promoted or deterred.
Bulk-liquid hydrodynamics influences mass transfer and, conse-
quently, substrate flux; therefore, bulk-liquid hydrodynamics
leads to uncertainty when designing biofilm reactors such as
MBBRs (Boltz and Daigger, 2010). The effective specific surface
areas of some commercially available plastic biofilm carriers also
are listed in Table 1. Plastic biofilm carriers have a bulk specific
surface area, net specific surface area, bulk-liquid volume
displacement, and net liquid volume displacement (see Boltz,
562
Morgenroth, deBarbadillo, Dempsey, McQuarrie, Ghylin, Harri-
son, and Nerenberg [2010] for definitions). The bulk-liquid
volume displacement resulting from plastic biofilm carriers is in
the range 0.10 to 0.15 (0.15 is typical). The bulk specific surface
area is based on 100% carrier fill, is characteristic of a specific
plastic biofilm carrier, and is reduced proportionately to the
carrier fill. For example, a plastic biofilm carrier with a 500-m2/
m3 bulk specific surface area has a net specific surface area of
250 m2/m3 at 50% carrier fill. The net liquid volume displacement
at 50% carrier fill is 0.0725 for a 0.15-bulk-liquid volume
displacement.
Plastic Biofilm Carrier Retention Screens. Plastic biofilm
carriers are retained by cylindrical or flat-panel screens (see
Figure 2). The screens and their supporting structural assemblies
typically are constructed of stainless steel. In aerated MBBRs,
cylindrical screens typically extend horizontally from a concrete
wall into an upward air flow. In anoxic MBBRs, wall screens
typically are bracket-mounted to the concrete wall that separates
the pre-denitrification MBBR from the downstream treatment
step. The brackets extend outward from the wall and create
approximately a 0.15- to 0.30-m space between the screen and
wall (see Figure 2, right). A wall is used to separate denitrification
(anoxic) and BOD5/nitrification (aerobic) MBBRs to provide
structural support for the screen brackets and panels, and promote
a completely mixed bulk-liquid. An air-sparge header (Figure 2,
right) is used to periodically scour the vertical screen and remove
debris. The frequency and duration of air sparging may be
controlled manually or by timer. A typical scouring airflow rate is
approximately 170 Nm3/h (100 scfm). The stainless-steel screens
are fabricated of wedge-wire or perforated plates.
Aeration System. Low-pressure airflow enters an aerobic
MBBR through down pipes, a network of air piping, and a grid of
diffusers that are attached to the tank bottom. Multiple drop pipes
equipped with flow-control valves are connected to a diffuser grid
that is configured to promote the rolling water circulation pattern,
which uniformly distributes plastic biofilm carriers. Historically,
process oxygen requirements and the distribution of plastic
biofilm carriers in MBBRs have been achieved with coarse-
Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

Figure 2—(Left) Horizontal cylindrical screens over a coarse-bubble diffuser grid. The diffuser grid provides process
air, promotes a rolling water circulation pattern, and induces air scour that will dislodge a majority of material that
accumulates on the screens. (Right) Vertical flat-panel wall screens with a single air-sparging header. Air is
intermittently blown through this pipe typically for 5 minutes per hour. Photographs courtesy Johnson (2009).
bubble diffusers made of stainless-steel pipes having circular
orifices. Coarse-bubble diffusers have the inherent advantage of
being less affected by scaling and fouling, as a result of the large
dimension and turbulent airflow through the discharge orifice
(Stenstrom and Rosso, 2008). Coarse-bubble diffusers require less
maintenance than fine-bubble diffusers. Fine-bubble diffusers
have better oxygen transfer efficiency (OTE) than coarse-bubble
diffusers. However, the freely moving plastic biofilm carriers
affect OTE in an MBBR. This effect is discussed later in this
manuscript. Air diffusers used in MBBRs typically are designed
with a structural end-support that enables the diffuser to withstand
the weight imparted by plastic biofilm carriers.
Mechanical Mixing Devices. Denitrification MBBRs use
mechanical mixers to agitate the bulk of the liquid and uniformly
distribute plastic biofilm carriers. The majority of existing
operating denitrification MBBRs makes use of submersible rail-
mounted mechanical mixers. State-of-the art submersible me-
chanical mixers (used in MBRs) generally have a maximum 120-
rpm impeller speed and a minimum of three blades per impeller.
These features are designed to meet process objectives, while
minimizing the potential for impeller damage resulting from
abrasion induced by the plastic biofilm carriers.
Process Flow Sheets and Bioreactor Configurations
Relevant considerations when selecting an MBBR configuration
include site-specific treatment objectives, wastewater characteris-
tics, site layout, existing basin configuration (if a retro-fit), system
hydraulics, existing treatment scheme (if applicable), and the
potential to retrofit existing tanks. Figure 3 illustrates carbon
oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification MBBR flow sheets.
While the process mechanical features of a MBBR are generally
consistent, little research exists describing the bacteriological
characteristics of biofilms grown in carbon oxidation, nitrification,
denitrification, and combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
MBBRs. Table 2 describes some characteristics of biofilm
variability in two combined carbon-oxidation and nitrification
MBBRs preceded by two pre-denitrification MBBRs operating in
series at the Williams-Monaco Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP), Henderson, Colorado. The system’s biofilm character-
June 2011
McQuarrie and Boltz
istics are pictured from the first reactor (R1) to the fourth reactor
(R4), left to right. Plastic biofilm carriers in the first pre-
denitrification MBBR (R1) have a brownish color and have 150%
more biomass than the dark biofilm in the second pre-denitrification
MBBR (R2), a color that is characteristic of anaerobic conditions.
The first aerobic MBBR (R3) has the thickest biofilm in the reactor
series. The final MBBR (R4) has approximately 50% of the
biomass in the first aerobic MBBR (R3).
Carbon-Oxidation (5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Removal). Carbon-oxidizing MBBRs are classified as low-,
medium-, or high-rate bioreactors. Low-rate MBBRs promote
nitrification. Medium-rate MBBRs typically are designed for an
organic loading in the range 5 to 10 g BOD5/m2?d (at 10uC).
Higher-rate systems require chemically enhanced liquid–solids
separation and/or flotation. In the absence of site-specific pilot-
scale observations or a calibrated mathematical model, high-rate
MBBRs typically are designed to receive a filtered BOD5 load in
the range 15 to 20 g/m2?d (at 15uC). This corresponds to total
BOD5 loads as high as 45 to 60 g/m2?d (at 15uC) (Ødegaard,
2006). These high loadings results in very short bioreactor
hydraulic retention times (HRTs). Therefore, the potential for
short-circuiting should be considered. High-rate MBBRs should
be configured as two reactors in series to avoid short-circuiting.
The system HRT should be no less than 30 minutes.
Figure 4 illustrates filtered-COD flux (i.e., COD passing a 1.2-
mm pore opening glass-fiber filter) as a function of filtered-COD
load for two types of plastic biofilm carriers. The plastic biofilm
carriers has a different specific surface area. Ødegaard et al.
(2000) demonstrated that, approximately, a maximum value of 30-
g/m2?d filtered COD flux was attainable for filtered COD loading
greater than 60 g/m2?d, and that a total COD load up to a 60-g/
m2?d resulted in nearly complete COD removal when coupled
with an effective liquid–solids separation unit. The reported
maximum flux was determined by operating the experimental
MBBR with a 6.2–6.4 g/m3 bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen
concentration and an average water temperature of 11uC. The
MBBRs require a relatively high bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen
concentration for nitrification (i.e., 4 to 6 g/m3), but a 2- to 3-g/m3
dissolved oxygen concentration has been proven sufficient for
563
McQuarrie and Boltz

Figure 3—Typical process flow sheets for carbon oxidation, nitrification, combined carbon oxidation and nitrification,
and denitrification in an MBBR treating municipal wastewater (Ødegaard, 2006). Rectangular tanks with crosses are
MBBRs and rectangular tanks with mixers are anoxic. Reprinted with permission from IWA publishing.

564 Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

 McQuarrie and Boltz

Table 2—Example of variation of biofilm through a four MBBR series.

Parameter/reactor (R) R1—Anoxic R2—Anoxic R3—Aerobic R4—Aerobic

Function Denitrification Denitrification Combined carbon Combined carbon

oxidation and oxidation and
nitrification nitrification
Biomass per net 9.4 g SS /m2 6.1 g SS /m2 28 g SS /m2 12.9 g SS /m2
specific surface area
Carrier fill 57% 57% 60% 60%
Solids per unit tank 2680 g SS /m3 1740 g SS /m3 8400 g SS /m3 3870 g SS /m3
volume
Photograph of media
taken from tank

carbon oxidation MBBRs treating municipal wastewaters, as a
result of the significant particulate and colloidal COD fraction (of
total COD) (Ødegaard, 2006). The MBBRs receiving effluent
from a chemically enhanced primary treatment (CEPT) unit will
have a substantially reduced colloidal and particulate COD load.
Therefore, the majority of the COD will be soluble and may be
subject to more efficient removal with higher bulk-liquid
dissolved oxygen concentrations. The reaction rates described in
this section and the following (i.e., carbon oxidation and
nitrification) can be adjusted for temperature using eq 1, as
follows (Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard, 1995a; Salvetti et al., 2006):
kT2
~hðT2 {T1 Þ ð1Þ
kT1
Where
kT1 5 reaction rate, or constant, observed at temperature T1
(varies for function),
Figure 4—Filtered COD flux (1.2-mm pore opening) for
two types of plastic biofilm carriers with different
specific surface areas as a function of filtered COD load
(Ødegaard et al., 2000). Reprinted with permission from
IWA publishing.
kT2 5 reaction rate, or constant, observed at temperature T2
(varies for function), and
h 5 temperature coefficient (< 1.1 in the absence of a system-
specific definition).
Ødegaard (2006) observed biomass yield in a carbon-oxidizing
MBBR approximately equal to 0.5 g SS/g filtered COD
transformed.
The MBBR effluent suspended solids settling characteristics
deteriorate as BOD5 (or COD) load increases (Melin et al. 2004;
Ødegaard et al. 2000). Chemically enhanced sedimentation is,
liquid–solids separation unit process following MBBRs (Ødegaard
et al., 2010). Table 3 summarizes BOD, COD, and phosphorus
removal at four WWTPs that have an MBBR followed by
chemically enhanced secondary clarifiers. Each of the medium-
rate MBBRs were designed to receive a total BOD5 load in the
range 7 to 10 g/m2?d at 10uC.
Nitrification. Nitrification in an MBBR has been studied
extensively (Æsøy et al., 1998; Bjornberg et al., 2009, 2010; Hem
et al. 1994; Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard, 1995a). Like all biofilm
reactors, the rate of ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) oxidation in an
MBBR is influenced by organic load, bulk-liquid dissolved
oxygen concentration, bulk-liquid NH3-N concentration, temper-
ature, pH, and alkalinity. Ammonia-nitrogen oxidation has been
achieved in the MBBR process flow sheets illustrated in Figure 3
(d and e). Consistent with Boltz, Morgenroth, deBarbadillo,
Dempsey, McQuarrie, Ghylin, Harrison, and Nerenberg (2010),
(tertiary) nitrification is defined arbitrarily (Figure 3e) in this
paper as the NH3-N oxidation process in a biofilm reactor treating
secondary effluent that meets the following criteria: BOD5:TKN
# 1.0 and soluble BOD5 # 12 g/m3. Figure 5 approximates (total)
NH3-N flux in an MBBR for various BOD5 loads and bulk-liquid
dissolved oxygen concentrations. While studying a pilot-scale
combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR receiving
primary effluent, a (tertiary) nitrification MBBR receiving
secondary effluent, and maintaining a 4- to 6-g/m3 bulk-liquid
dissolved oxygen concentration in both units, Hem et al. (1994)
observed that (1) a total BOD5 load of 1 to 2 g/m2?d resulted in
nitrification rates in the range 0.7 to 1.2 g/m2?d, (2) a total BOD5
load of 2 to 3 g/m2?d resulted in nitrification rates in the range 0.3
to 0.8 g/m2?d, and (3) a total BOD5 load greater than 5 g/m2?d

June 2011 565

McQuarrie and Boltz

Table 3—MBBR coupled with chemically enhanced secondary clarification performance (adapted from Ødegaard et
al., 2004).

BOD7a COD Total phosphorus

3 3 3 3
WWTP In (g/m ) Out (g/m ) In (g/m ) Out (g/m ) In (g/m3) Out (g/m3)

Steinsholtb 398 10 833 46 7.1 0.3

Trettenc 361 4 - - 7.3 0.1
Svarstadc - - 403 44 5.1 0.25
Fryac 181 5 - - 8.6 0.21
a
BOD5/BOD7 5 ,0.86.
b
1996 to 1997.
c
Data from 2000 to 2002.

resulted in virtually no nitrification. These values were observed
in a system treating wastewater having a 15uC temperature.
Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard (1995a) described NH3-N flux (as
a function of bulk-liquid NH3-N concentration) in an MBBR as a
first-order process when bulk-liquid NH3-N is rate-limiting, and as
a zero-order process when bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen is rate-
limiting; eq 2 was proposed to describe first-order NH3-N flux.
(at 10uC) and respective conditions may be applied to combined
carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR design:
N k 5 0.40 with no primary clarifier,
N k 5 0.47 with primary clarification or pre-denitrification,
N k 5 0.50 with primary clarification and pre-denitrification, and
N k 5 0.53 with CEPT.

JNH3 {N ~k:ðSB,NH3 {N Þ n ð2Þ The calculated NH3-N flux is adjusted to reflect the influence
of site-specific wastewater temperature with eq 1. When applying
Where eq 2 to describe nitrification in an MBBR, the ratio

JNH3-N 5 NH3-N flux (g/m2?d); bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration SB,O2

k 5 variable order rate constant (m/d, when n 5 1);
SB,NH3-N 5 bulk-liquid NH3-N concentration (g/m3); and
n 5 variable-order reaction constant.
The reaction order constant, n, is assigned the value 0.7 for
MBBRs (Hem, 1991). However, the rate constant (k) value varies,
as a result of its dependence on local environmental conditions
(primarily soluble BOD5 load). The k-value is in the range 0.6 to
0.7 at 15uC (for a tertiary nitrification MBBR). Rusten, Hem, and
Ødegaard (1995a) reported other k-values in the range 0.4 to 0.7
for pilot-scale combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
MBBRs treating CEPT effluent (at 10uC). The following k-values
Figure 5—Effect of organic load and bulk-liquid dis-
solved oxygen concentration on ammonium (or total
NH3-N, TAN) flux (Rusten et al., 2006). Reprinted with
permission from IWA publishing.
,
bulk-liquid ammonia-nitrogen concentration SB,NH3 {N
is used to identify the point transitioning NH3-N flux from first-
order to zero-order kinetics. The ratio has been assigned the value 2.7
by Williamson and McCarty (1976) and 3.2 by Rusten et al. (2006)
and Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard (1995b). This transition ratio is
dependent on substrate diffusivity, temperature, and the stoichio-
metric coefficient linking electron donor to electron acceptor
utilization. To avoid arbitrarily selecting a value in the range 2.7 to
3.2, the designer can calculate the value of this transition point
according to the method summarized by Boltz, Morgenroth,
deBarbadillo, Dempsey, McQuarrie, Ghylin, Harrison, and
Nerenberg (2010). Figure 6 illustrates nitrification rates observed
at a pilot-scale tertiary nitrification MBBR (Kaldate et al., 2008).
The data are identified as being in the (first-order) NH3-N rate-
limiting region or (zero-order) oxygen rate-limiting region using
the method described by Boltz, Morgenroth, deBarbadillo, Dempsey,
McQuarrie, Ghylin, Harrison, and Nerenberg (2010). Figure 6 also
illustrates the previously described empirical MBBR nitrification
model, eq 2, applied to the pilot-plant data, and three different zero-
order regions corresponding to bulk-liquid dissolved-oxygen con-
centrations 2, 4, and 6 g/m3.
Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard (1995a) observed that a 0.5-g/m2?d
soluble BOD5 load effectively reduced the bulk-liquid dissolved
oxygen concentration available for nitrification by 0.5 g/m3, and
Rusten et al. (2006) estimated that a 1.5-g/m2?d soluble BOD5
load reduced the bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration
available for nitrification by approximately 2.5 g/m3. Ammonia-
nitrogen flux values calculated using eq 2 should be applied to
combined carbon oxidation and nitrification MBBR design only if
(1) the k-value has been determined representative of site-specific
loading and environmental conditions, and/or (2) the calculated
flux has been cross-referenced with a calibrated mathematical
model that considers competition in mixed-culture biofilms.

566 Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

 McQuarrie and Boltz

Figure 6—(Left) Observed NH3-N concentrations in a tertiary nitrification MBBR with data (reported by Kaldate et al.,
2008) separated according to the rate-limiting substrate. (Right) Empirical nitrification MBBR model (Hem et al., 1994)
for various bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentrations. Model: JNH3 {N ~k:h ðT{20Þ :ðSB,NH3 {N Þ n , n = 0.7, h = 1.09
(parameters defined by Rusten et al., 2006), k = 0.7 (nonlinear regression analysis performed using DataFit v9.0.59
(Oakdale Engineering, Oakdale, California), and T = 186C. The average bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration for
observations in the oxygen-limiting region is 6.8 g/m3.

Nordeidet et al. (1994) reported that (tertiary) nitrifying biofilm
reactors may become limited by orthophosphate availability when
bulk-liquid concentrations are less than approximately 0.15 g-P/
m3. Bjornberg et al. (2009, 2010) reported that tertiary nitrifying
MBBRs exemplify varying biofilm biomass accumulation with
temporal variability. The researchers observed that, during the
summer months (July to October), a relatively thin biofilm
existed, with an average thickness of 57 mm. On the other hand,
during the months between October and May, biofilm thickness
had an average increase in biofilm thickness of 40 mm; therefore,
the average biofilm thickness was approximately 100 mm.
Denitrification. Denitrification in an MBBR has been studied
extensively by Aspegren et al. (1998), Bill et al. (2009), Mases et
al. (2010), Rusten et al. (1996), and Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard
(1995b). The rate of denitrification in an MBBR is influenced by
the biofilm area, type of external carbon source, bulk-liquid
carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C:N), wastewater temperature, bulk-
liquid dissolved oxygen concentration, and bulk-liquid macronu-
trient concentrations. Nitrogen removal using the MBBR process
has been achieved with the flow sheets illustrated in Figure 3 (g
through k), pre-denitrification and/or post-denitrification.
Pre-Denitrification. Pre-denitrification MBBRs are upstream
of combined carbon-oxidation and nitrification MBBRs. Nitrate/
nitrite-nitrogen is supplied by an internal recirculation stream that
recirculates the nitrified MBBR effluent stream to the pre-
denitrification MBBR. The internal recirculation ratio is typically
on the order of 150 to 250% of the total MBBR influent flowrate.
Based on electron donor availability, there is a practical upper
limit to the degree of pre-denitrification. Increasing the recircu-
lation ratio beyond the effective limit has been found to reduce
overall denitrification efficiency (Ødegaard, 2006). Practically,
pre-denitrification MBBR performance is primarily dependent on
the availability of soluble BOD5 in the influent wastewater stream.
When ample soluble BOD5 concentration exists with sufficient
reactor volume, pre-denitrification MBBRs can typically achieve
60 to 70% denitrification removal (Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard,
1995b). Dissolved oxygen inhibits anoxic biochemical transfor-
mation processes. Combined carbon oxidation and nitrification
MBBRs operate with a relatively high-bulk liquid dissolved
oxygen concentration (e.g., 4 to 6 g/m3). Therefore, the presence
of dissolved oxygen in the internal recirculation stream must be
considered when evaluating a pre-denitrification MBBR volume,
plastic biofilm carrier volume, and assessing the availability of
soluble BOD5 for denitrification. A deoxygenating zone may be
required. The following denitrification rates have been observed in
full- or pilot-scale pre-denitrification MBBRs: 0.40 to 1.10 g NO3-
Neq/m2?d (Gardermoen WWTP, Gardermoen, Norway; Rusten and
Ødegaard, 2007), 0.15 to 0.50 g NO3-Neq/m2?d (Frevar WWTP,
Fredrikstand, Norway; Rusten et al., 2000), 0.25 to 0.80 g NO3-Neq/
m2?d (Crow Creek WWTP, Cheyenne, Wisconsin; McQuarrie and
Maxwell, 2003), and 0.20 to 0.40 g NO3-Neq/m2?d (pilot plant at
Nedre Romerike Avløpsselskap WWTP, Oslo, Norway; Rusten and
Paulsrud, 2008). Variation in the observed NO3-N (equivalent)
transformation rates is a result of different wastewater character-
istics and environmental conditions.
Post-Denitrification. Post-denitrification MBBRs require the
addition of an external carbon source which serves as a
supplemental electron donor, but the bioreactors do not require
the recirculation of a nitrified effluent stream to receive the
electron acceptor nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen. Typically, methanol
(MeOH), ethanol (EtOH), and/or glycerin-based substrates are
used as supplemental electron donors. However, autotrophic
denitritation and denitrification using a variety of sulfur
compounds as the electron donor is possible (Batchelor and
Lawrence, 1986). Bill et al. (2009) investigated denitrification
activity when using sulfide as the electron donor, and Kalyuzhnyi
et al. (2006) described a novel process using sulfur compounds for
nitrogen control with deammonification. Post-denitrification
MBBRs are capable of achieving nearly complete nitrate/nitrite-
nitrogen (NOX-N) reduction at a minimum HRT (Ødegaard,
2006). Figure 7 (Bill et al., 2009) illustrates NOX-N flux at 12uC
for various loading rates when methanol, ethanol, glycerol, and
sulfide are electron donors. Bill et al. (2009) observed NOX-N flux
using ethanol, which approached a maximum denitrification rate

June 2011 567

McQuarrie and Boltz

Figure 7—Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen (NOx-N) flux as a function of loading rate at 126C (Bill et al., 2009). Reprinted with
permission from IWA publishing.

of 2.5 g N/m2?d at 20uC. Similarly, Aspegren et al. (1998)
reported that a pilot-scale post-denitrification MBBR had a
maximum denitrification rate approximately equal to 2.5 and
2.0 g N/m2?d (at 16uC) when ethanol and methanol were used as
the supplemental electron donors, respectively. Waste products,
such as spent aircraft deicing fluid, have been reused beneficially
as an external carbon source in post-denitrification MBBRs
(Rusten et al., 1996).
For complete denitrification, typical loading rates applied to
post-denitrification MBBRs are in the range 1 to 2 g NO3-Neq/m2?d.
Rusten, Hem, and Ødegaard (1995b) demonstrated that effluent
NOX-N concentrations approached an asymptotic minimum value
while operating a post-denitrification MBBR with a carbon-to-
nitrogen ratio (C:N) in the range 5 to 6 g COD/g NO3-Neq. These
observations are consistent with the pilot-scale post-denitrifica-
tion MBBR investigation results reported by Aspegren et al.
(1998) and later described full-scale operating experience (Mases
et al., 2010). Lower C:N ratios can be applied to less stringent
effluent water quality standards with respect to NOX-N.
Operating a post-denitrification MBBR with a C:N ratio higher

Figure 8—(Left) Installed submersible rail-mounted mixers designed for denitrification reactors that contain free-
moving plastic biofilm carriers. (Right) Photograph of the submersible mixer shown to the left (ABS Flow Booster SB
1200 KA, ABS Group, Malmö, Sweden).

568 Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

 McQuarrie and Boltz

Table 4—Comparison of Sjölunda and Klagshamn (Malmö, Sweden) full-scale post-denitrification MBBR design
features and operational observations (adapted from Taljemark et al., 2004; Mases et al., 2010).

Sjölunda WWTP Klagshamn WWTP

Parameter (in operation since 1997) (in operation since 1999)

Flowrate (m3/d) 126 000 23 800

Volume (m3) 6300 1100
Nitrate-nitrogen load (kg/d) 1960 310
Effluent total phosphorus (g/m3) 0.21 0.15
Effluent total nitrogen (g/m3) 6.8 5.8
Carrier fill (%) 50 36
Supplemental carbon Methanol Ethanol
Average NOx-N flux (g/m2?d) 0.90 1.26
Average C:N (g COD added/g NO3-N removed) 4.4:1 5.4:1
Overall sludge yield (g SS/g COD removed) ,0.2 ,0.2
Mixing power (W/m3) 23 31
Supplemental phosphorus (non-continuous addition) Phosphoric acid Phosphoric acid

than 5 to 6 g COD/g NO3-Neq will result in an increased residual
soluble COD concentration remaining in the effluent stream. A
post-aeration zone containing media may be required to oxidize
the residual soluble COD. Post-denitrification MBBRs typically
have two equally sized anoxic zones and sometimes a post-
aeration zone. The need for a post-aeration zone may be
dependent on the liquid–solid separation unit process. A mixing
unit typical of that used in post-denitrification MBBRs is
illustrated in Figure 8.
Aspegren et al. (1998) reported an observed biomass yield
resulting from NOX-N removal in a post-denitrification MBBR
when using ethanol or methanol as the external carbon source in
the range 0.2 to 0.3 g SS/g COD transformed (0.22 is a typical
value). Little information exists describing the typical post-
denitrification MBBR startup period. Rusten, Siljudalen, and
Bungun (1995) reported that the Lillehammer WWTP required
approximately 4 to 6 weeks to reach complete NOX-N conversion.
The Sjölunda WWTP (Malmö, Sweden) and Klagshamn WWTP
(Malmö, Sweden) operate full-scale post-denitrification MBBRs
(Mases et al., 2010). The pilot study reported by Aspegren et al.
(1998) that preceded construction of these full-scale post-
denitrification MBBRs stated an 11-week startup period. Table 4
summarizes relevant design features and operational observations
reported by Mases et al. (2010) and Taljemark et al. (2004). The
Sjölunda WWTP and Klagshamn WWTP post-denitrification
MBBRs were designed to process nitrifying trickling filter
effluent with a minimum and maximum wastewater temperature
of 10 to 20uC, respectively. Nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen conversion in
these post-denitrification MBBRs has been reported to be
consistently greater than 90% when loading is in the range 0.8
to 1.2 g/m2?d. Neither of these post-denitrification MBBRs have
post-aeration MBBRs. Periodically, NOX-N conversion in both of
these post-denitrification MBBRs has been limited by the
macronutrient phosphorus. Phosphoric acid has been added, but
generally chemically enhanced primary treatment is optimized to
eliminate the rate-limiting condition. When typically operated
under conditions that exceed the stoichiometric phosphorus
requirement, Boltz, Morgenroth, Daigger, deBarbadillo, Murthy,
Sørensen, and Stinson (2011) reported that NOX-N concentrations
in the effluent stream of a post-denitrification biofilm reactor,
including the MBBR, begin to increase when the bulk-liquid
orthophosphate (PO4-P)-to-NOX-N (SPO4-P:SNOx-N) concentration
ratio is in the range 0.1 to 0.5; the researchers suggested that the
processes is PO4-P-limited when SPO4-P:SNOx-N , 0.00865.
Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) is commercially available and has been
used successfully as a supplemental phosphorus source in post-

Table 5—Preliminary treatment used at full-scale MBBR installations.

MBBR facility Pretreatment Details

Lillehammer WWTPa Step screens/grit removal 15 mm (coarse screens) followed by 3 mm

Lillehammer, Norway (fine screens)
Gardemoen WWTPa Step screen/grit removal 6 mm
Oslo, Norway
Crow Creek WWTPa Self-cleaning filter screen 10 mm 3 15 mm
Wyoming, United States
Yavne Municipal WWTPb Medium screen, sedimentation lagoon, 15 mm (coarse screens) and 6 mm (screens)
Yavne, Israel fine screen
Western WWTPc Step screen/grit removal 3 mm (fine screens)
Western Australia, Australia
Mao Point WWTPa Step screen/grit removal 3 mm (fine screens)
Wellington, New Zealand
a
Facility includes primary treatment.
b
Tertiary MBBR process.
c
Facility does not have primary treatment.

June 2011 569

McQuarrie and Boltz
Figure 9—(Left) Plastic biofilm carrier installation and (right) 50% carrier fill in a dry MBBR before startup.
denitrification MBBRs and other biofilm reactors. Andersson et
al. (1998) reported that supplemental phosphoric acid improved
the rate of denitrification in a full-scale post-denitrification
MBBR. The researchers observed that an influent 0.1-g/m3
orthophosphate concentration resulted in a nitrate-nitrogen
(NO3-N) removal of approximately 70% of that removed when
the influent orthophosphate concentration was 1.0 g/m3.
Design Considerations
Successful MBBR process design includes adequate prelimi-
nary treatment, provisions for handling the plastic carriers, a well-
designed aeration system and media retention screens, properly
specified/designed mechanical mixers, sufficiently low contami-
nant loading, and/or an effective liquid–solid separation system.
Preliminary and Primary Treatment. Preliminary treat-
ment, including screening and grit removal, is a necessary
component of MBBR processes to prevent plastic biofilm carrier
retention screen blinding and the accumulation of inert material,
such as rags, plastics, and sand in the MBBR tank(s). Raw
wastewater screens with bar spacing or perforation diameter no
larger than 6 to 12 mm typically are used in MBBR facilities that
include primary treatment. Fine screens (defined here as having a
3-mm-diameter perforation or bar spacing) have been used to
screen raw wastewater for secondary treatment with MBBRs
without primary clarification. Table 5 provides a list of screen
types and bar spacing for installations at selected full-scale
WWTPs using MBBRs.
Plastic Biofilm Carriers. Plastic biofilms carriers typically
are delivered to the site in sacks of known volume (e.g., 2.8 m3).
The carriers are introduced to the MBBR by mechanically
elevating the sacks and allowing the plastic biofilm carriers to fall
into the tank (see Figure 9). The quantity of plastic biofilm
carriers installed can be defined by keeping inventory of the
number of sacks emptied into each zone or by measuring the
distance from the top of the containment structure to the dry
carrier bed surface (i.e., defining a plastic biofilm carrier bed
volume). A recessed impeller pump can be used to transfer plastic
biofilm carriers from the water-filled MBBR (to perform system
maintenance). The MBBR aeration or mixing system should
remain engaged while the recessed impeller pump transfers
carriers to a temporary storage location. To ensure that the
original plastic biofilm carrier volume is returned to the emptied
zone, a dedicated basin or pad (equipped with a drain) typically is
570
used for interim plastic biofilm carrier storage. Should a carrier
volume be transferred to another MBBR for temporary storage,
the most reasonable method for attempting to restore the original
plastic biofilm carrier fill is to pump the plastic carriers back into
the emptied tank, drain both MBBRs, and measure the average
plastic carrier bed depth at several locations.
Plastic biofilm carriers typically require 4 to 6 weeks to
solubilize in the water-filled tank before any treatment operation
begins. It is common for light foam to float on the water surface
during MBBR startup, and this can be expected during the period
required for biofilm development. If necessary, a defoaming agent
may be applied. However, it is important to ensure that the
defoaming agent is compatible with the plastic biofilm carriers (by
consulting with the plastic carrier manufacturer). Even when
agitated, plastic biofilm carriers have a propensity to float when
introduced to the water-filled tank
Aeration System. MBBR aeration systems include a piping
network and air diffusers that
(1) Are capable of passing adequate air flow to meet process
oxygen requirements,
(2) Have characteristics that do not require excessive additional
blower capacity beyond a blower sized to pass air through an
aeration system that includes fine-bubble diffusers,
(3) Promote the rolling water circulation pattern that uniformly
distributes plastic biofilm carriers throughout the MBBR,
(4) Can structurally withstand the load imparted by the weight of
the biofilm-covered plastic carriers when the tank is drained,
and
(5) Require infrequent maintenance.
A rolling water-circulation pattern can be generated with a
coarse-bubble diffuser grid that covers a majority of the tank
bottom (complete floor coverage is not recommended). Drop
pipes typically are provided for every 2 to 3 diffuser laterals and
are equipped with modulated flow-control valves. There may be 2
to 4 drop pipes per MBBR. Coarse-bubble diffusers typically used
in MBBRs are 25-mm diameter stainless-steel pipes with 4- to 5-
mm diameter orifices spaced approximately 50 mm (on center)
along the underside of the diffuser pipe. The piping grid and
diffusers typically are stainless steel. Some diffusers are polyvinyl
chloride, but long-term experience with full-scale installations
was limited at the time this paper was written. The air diffuser
generally is anchored approximately 0.25 m above the tank
Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6
 McQuarrie and Boltz

Figure 10—Required screen area as a function of total flow through the screen wall (i.e., in-plant recirculation
streams, bioreactor internal recirculation streams, and forward flowing wastewater) for different screen hydraulic
loading rates (HLRs) in the range 5 to 65 m hr21. In addition, the figure allows for the determination of the total
number of screens for MBBRs having up to three screen walls given the characteristic cylindrical screen length-
diameter product. An example is illustrated in which QTOTAL = 90 m3 min.21, LSCREEN = 3.65 m, DSCREEN = 0.40 m, HLR
= 55 m hr21, and the bioreactor has two screen walls. In this case, the example MBBR requires approximately 200 m2
of screen (100 m2 per wall) with 44 screens (22 screens per wall).

bottom. The coarse-bubble diffuser orifice must be smaller than
the plastic biofilm carrier to eliminate the potential for air-pipe
and orifice plugging. Typical oxygen transfer efficiency values
applied to design full-scale MBBRs with coarse-bubble diffusers
are in the range 2.5 to 3.5% per meter of water submergence. Few
investigations exist evaluating the effect of biofilm-covered
carriers and different plastic biofilm carrier volumes on oxygen
transfer efficiency in an MBBR. Pham et al. (2008) conducted
limited studies on oxygen transfer efficiency in a test column
containing plastic biofilm carriers, but a biofilm had not been
developed. The MBBR-specific coarse-bubble air diffusers have
been designed with a 0.8-alpha (a) factor and 0.95 beta (b) factor.
The minimum airflow rate required to uniformly distribute plastic
biofilm carriers is in the range 5 to 10 m3/m2?h, with a typical
design value in the range 6 to 8 m3/m2?h. Airflow typically is
governed by process oxygen requirements in carbon oxidation and
combined carbon oxidation and nitrification systems. Diffuser
grids may be placed on swing arms, which allow the diffusers to
be removed without removing plastic biofilm carriers.
Plastic Biofilm Carrier Retention Screens. Hydraulics may
limit MBBR process capacity. Screens used to retain plastic biofilm
carriers and their supporting structural assemblies typically have
two configurations—horizontal cylindrical screens (BOD5 removal
and nitrification zones) and vertical wall screens (denitrification
zones). Horizontal screens are attached to the reactor wall by cast-
in-place wall thimbles or by inserting wall sleeves through poured
or core-drilled holes in the reactor wall. The horizontal, cylindrical
screens typically are submerged (to the top of the screen) 35 to 65%
of the side water depth, but have been submerged (to the top of the
screen) as little as 15% of the side water depth.
Proper screen design primarily is related to system hydraulics.
The required screen area is based on permissible hydraulic
headloss across the MBBR screen wall. Typical screen design
allows for a maximum 50- to 150-mm headloss (at the peak
hydraulic design flow) across each screen-containing wall.
Critical screen design parameters include hydraulic loading rate
(HLR), approach velocity, and the MBBR length-to-width ratio.
The HLR and approach velocity includes forward flow and in-
plant and bioreactor internal recirculation streams. Screen HLR is
the flowrate applied per unit superficial screen area (m3/m2?h).
Approach velocity also includes the forward flow and internal
recirculation streams. This flow rate then is divided by the reactor
cross-sectional area (m3/m2?h). The HLR typically is in the range
50 to 60 m3/m2?h. Cylindrical screen diameter is manufacturer-
specific, but is typically in the range 0.28 to 0.91 m. The
horizontal screen length also varies, but is commonly in the range
1.5 to 3.0 m. Figure 10 presents required screen area as a function
of total flow through the screen wall (i.e., in-plant recirculation
streams, bioreactor internal recirculation streams, and forward
flowing wastewater) for different screen HLRs in the range to
65 m/h. In addition, the figure allows determination of the total
number of screens required when given the characteristic screen
length-diameter product. For example, knowing that QTOTAL 5
10 m3/min. LSCREEN 5 3.65 m, DSCREEN 5 0.4 m, and HLR 5
55 m/h, the total required screen area is 200 m2, and
approximately 44 screens are required for a single-stage MBBR.
The figure also allows for determination of screen number and
area for MBBRs having up to three screen walls per train.
Under all conditions, the approach velocity is typically less than
30 to 35 m/h. When an approach velocity greater than 30 to 3 m/hr

June 2011 571

McQuarrie and Boltz
Figure 11—(Left) Conventional submerged mechanical mixer typically used to agitate plastic biofilm carriers in
oxygen-deprived MBBRs. (Right) Vertical-shaft platform mounted mechanical mixer used to more gently agitate
plastic biofilm carriers in a deammonification MBBR (Rosenwinkel et al., 2004).
cannot be avoided, it may be prudent to reduce the HLR or
reconfigure the reactor flow pattern. Provisions are necessary to
facilitate both filling and draining a MBBR. Small wall openings
with screens typically are installed near the MBBR floor to allow
for water-level equalization between MBBR cells during fill and
drain periods. The designer also must consider how the tank will
be drained without plastic biofilm carrier attrition. Water can be
withdrawn from a location immediately downstream of the last
MBBR screen-containing wall, or with an under-drain system.
Underdrains also must be covered with media-retaining screens.
Scum must be removed from the system, because of its potential
to blind plastic biofilm carrier retention screens and prevent its
accumulation at the MBBR water surface.
Mechanical Mixers. Special consideration must be given to
the mechanical mixing system in denitrification MBBRs. Specific
mixer placement and tank orientation has resulted from full-scale
operational experience. Figure 11 (right) depicts a submersible
mechanical mixer specially designed for the MBBR. The mixer
uses a stainless-steel backward curve design propeller with a
round bar welded along its leading edge to avoid damage to the
plastic biofilm carriers and impeller wear. The mixer has a large-
diameter impeller with a fairly low rotational speed (90 rpm at
50 Hz and 105 rpm at 60 Hz). Because plastic biofilm carriers will
Table 6—Observed mixing energy required per unit
MBBR volume.
Operating mode, mixing energy
WWTP (media fill fraction)
NRA WWTPa Pre-denitrification, 10 W/m3 (54%)
Oslo, Norwaya Post-denitrification, 18 W/m3
(52%)–Zone 1
Post-denitrification, 5 W/m3 (14%)–
Zone 2
Sjölunda WWTPb Post-denitrification, 23 W/m3 (50%)
Malmö, Sweden
Klagshamn WWTPb Post-denitrification, 31 W/m3 (50%)
Malmö, Sweden
South Adams Countyb Pre-denitrification, 19 W/m3 (57%)
Colorado, United States
a
Measured consumption.
b
Motor label.
572
float in quiescent water, the mixers must be located near the water
surface, but not so close as to create an air-entraining vortex. In
addition, the mixer orientation has a slight negative (approxi-
mately 15 to 30 degrees) inclination, which helps to maintain the
rolling water-circulation pattern and uniformly distribute plastic
biofilm carriers throughout the MBBR (see Figure 11, left). The use
of rail-mounted units allows for easy access to the mechanical
mixer when maintenance is required. These mixers have a 20-m
maximum submergence (ABS Group, Malmö, Sweden), but no
definition of minimum distance between the mixer and tank floor
exists. Thus, denitrification MBBRs have been constructed with
shallow side water depths. For example, the MBBR at the Stillwater
Mining Company East Boulder Mine (Big Timber, Montana)
includes a denitrification zone with a 2.8-m side water depth
(AnoxKaldnes, 2006). No problems associated with air entrainment
(resulting in limited biological denitrification rates) or plastic
biofilm carrier mixing has been reported. Submersible mixers
typically used in MBBRs are to input 25 W/m3. Table 6 lists full-
scale operating systems with submersible mixers in denitrification
MBBRs and mixing energy applied per unit MBBR volume.
Liquid–Solid Separation. Moving bed biofilm reactors are
low-HRT biofilm reactors that have suspended solids remaining in
the effluent stream, as a result of biological transformation
processes. Therefore, MBBR process performance is dependent
on a liquid–solid separation unit. Åhl et al. (2006) measured the
bulk-phase particle size distribution after different MBBR HRTs
and demonstrated that particle size distribution shifts towards
larger particles with increasing HRT. Generally, the suspended
solids concentration in the MBBR effluent stream has been
reported as 150 to 250 g SS/m3 when treating medium- to high-
strength municipal wastewater (Ødegaard et al., 2010). A
characteristic MBBR effluent stream has a relatively low-
suspended solids concentration with a wide particle size
distribution (when compared with suspended-growth reactors).
Because biomass accumulation is settler-independent, the MBBR
process offers considerable flexibility, in terms of the type of unit
that can be used for liquid–solid separation. However, the wide
particle size distribution in the effluent stream requires chemical
treatment (i.e., coagulation and flocculation) and/or restricted
HLRs that are comparable with limitations imposed on activated
sludge coupled units. A variety of different liquid–solid separation
processes have been paired with MBBRs, including sedimentation
Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

Table 7—Liquid-solid separation at MBBR installations.
MBBR facility Separation technology
Yavne Municipal WWTPa Sedimentation
Yvane, Israel
South Adams WWTPb Sedimentation
Colorado, United States
Crow Creek WWTPb Sedimentation
Wyoming, United States
Lillehammer WWTPb Chemical sedimentation
Lillehammer, Norway
Gardemoen WWTPb Coagulation/dissolved air flotation
Oslo, Norway
Sjölunda WWTPa Dissolved air flotation
Malmö, Sweden
Klagshamn WWTPa Dualmedia sand filters
Malmo, Sweden
RYA WWTPa Cloth disc filters
Göteborg, Sweden
Skreia WWTPb Ballasted flocculation (i.e., Actiflo [Veolia, Inc., Paris, France])
Oppland, Norway
a
Tertiary MBBR.
b
Multi-stage MBBRs.
basins, dissolved air flotation, ballasted flocculation units with
lamella plate settlers, deep-bed granular media filters, cloth-disc
filters, and membrane (UF/MF) filters. Representative examples
of MBBR-coupled liquid–solid separation units are summarized in
Table 7. Circular or rectangular secondary clarifiers also may be
used (especially in the case of a retrofit application, in which the
clarifiers already exist, but their existence may promote the use of
integrated fixed-film activated sludge).
Emerging Applications of Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors
High NH3-N concentration streams, such as the supernatant
from sludge dewatering facilities, typically are directed to the
secondary process. These streams can contribute up to 20% of
the secondary process nitrogen load (Rosenwinkel et al., 2005).
Szatkowska et al. (2007), who conducted pilot studies at the
Himmerfjärden WWTP near Stockholm, Sweden, described a
single-stage MBBR that removed total nitrogen from such a
sidestream during a 1-year period without the addition of an
external carbon source. Biofilms grown in the MBBR were
reported to primarily contain the autotrophic bacterium
typically referred to as ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB)
and Anammox. The so-called deammonification process relies
on a short-cut in the nitrogen cycle that is established by
oxidizing NH3-N directly with nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N) as the
electron acceptor.
Szatkowska and Plaza (2006) have proven that biofilm-
entrained Anammox will survive at temperatures below the range
30 to 35uC. Szatkowska et al. (2007) successfully operated the
pilot-scale deammonification MBBR at approximately 25uC and
achieved an average total nitrogen removal rate of 1.5 g N/m2?d.
Startup of the (biofilm-based) deammonification process requires
special attention, as a result of the oxygen inhibition of Anammox,
a need to prevent nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB) accumulation,
and difficulty in maintaining a biofilm with ample thickness to
sustain both aerobic and anaerobic redox zones. Anammox have
been developed in several other biofilm reactor types, including
granular sludge, fluidized bed biofilm reactors, airlift reactors, and
June 2011
McQuarrie and Boltz
Design rate (m3/m2?h)
1
1.0 to 1.8
1.1 to 2.2
1.3 to 2.2
3.1 to 6.4
5 to 10
8
2 to 6
45 to 70
rotating biological contactors; a system using Anammox is robust
once the bacteria has established (van der Star et al., 2007).
In early 2001, a two-stage nitrification/denitrification MBBR,
using an external carbon source, was constructed in Hattingen,
Germany, to treat supernatant from sludge dewatering facilities.
Conventional MBBR mechanical and air-induced mixing systems
were applied. In 2003, the system was converted to the four-stage
deammonification MBBR process described by Rosenwinkel et al.
(2005). The first three reactors-in-series contained plastic biofilm
carriers and were aerated. However, the tanks also were equipped
with mechanical mixers and coarse-bubble air diffuser grids. The
mechanical mixers were installed to allow for the uniform
distribution of plastic biofilm carriers during cyclic aerobic–
anaerobic conditions. The fourth reactor in the series was reported
not to contain plastic biofilm carriers and is designed for
degasification. It was found that the rigorous mixing inherent to
the system originally installed to uniformly distribute plastic
biofilm carriers exerted substantial hydrodynamic shear on the
biofilm that did not allow for development of the aforementioned
aerobic–anaerobic zones required to support the deammonifica-
tion process in a biofilm (reactor). Remedial action to reduce the
hydrodynamic shear on the biofilm included replacement of the
existing submerged mechanical mixers with a platform-mounted
vertical mixer. Figure 11 depicts the replaced conventional mixer
(left) and platform mounted vertical mixer (right).
The bulk-liquid dissolved oxygen concentration was monitored
and controlled at Hattingen by dissolved oxygen probes installed
in each MBBR. In addition, each MBBR was equipped with a pH-
measuring sensor, acid (to reduce NH3-N), and lye (to control pH)
dosing systems. Additional research describing deammonification
MBBR startup is ongoing. A rendition of this deammonification
process having the trade name DeAmmon (Läckeby Water AB/
Purac, Lund, Sweden) was designed to receive a 600-kg N/d load
and installed at the Himmerfjärden WWTP, Stockholm, Sweden,
in 2008. Another deammonification process with the trade name
ANITA Mox (Veolia, Paris, France) is commercially available.
The first full-scale ANITA Mox system was under construction at
573
McQuarrie and Boltz
the Sjölunda WWTP, Malmö, Sweden, at the time this paper was
composed.
Research Needs
Based on this review, the following research needs have been
identified:
N The role of a biofilm on MBBR oxygen transfer efficiency,
bubble hold-up, and covered plastic carrier potential for
bubble shear by randomly moving plastic biofilm carriers.
N The fate of organic particulate material in MBBRs.
N Bioreactor hydrodynamics, its influence on plastic biofilm
carrier movement, and a method for quantifying soluble
substrate availability at the biofilm surface.
N Effect that plastic biofilm carrier configuration and system
characteristics have on biofilm structure and function.
Special attention should be given to the development of
biofilms that develop controlled and sustainable redox zones
and promote different biochemical processes in a single-stage
(e.g., partial nitratation and deammonification).
N Mechanisms describing and quantifying greenhouse gas
emissions from pre-denitrification, carbon oxidation, com-
bined carbon oxidation and nitrification, tertiary nitrification,
and tertiary-denitrification MBBRs.
Summary
The MBBR can be used for municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment; aquaculture; potable water denitrification; and in
roughing, secondary, tertiary, and sidestream applications. The
process includes a submerged biofilm reactor and liquid–solid
separation unit. The MBBR process benefits include the
following:
(1) Capacity to meet similar treatment objectives as activated
sludge systems, with respect to carbon oxidation and nitrogen;
(2) Biomass retention is clarifier-independent;
(3) The MBBR is a continuous-flow process that does not require
a special operational cycle for biofilm thickness control; and
(4) Liquid–solid separation can be achieved with a variety of
processes, including conventional and compact high-rate
processes.
Despite MBBR process maturity, information related to system
design is fragmented and poorly documented, until recently. This
paper summarizes and expands on state-of-the art MBBR process
design procedures, provides the reader with an overview of some
commercially available systems and their components, and
describes new and emerging MBBR applications.
Credits
The authors gratefully acknowledge the thorough review and
constructive commentary provided by Hallvard Ødegaard, Norwe-
gian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
In addition, the authors thank Doris Brockmann, INRA–Laboratoire
de Biotechnologie de l’Environnement (LBE), Narbonne, France,
for valuable discussions related to use of MBBRs in the
deammonification process. Finally, the authors thank Entex
Technologies Incorporated (Raleigh, North Carolina), Infilco
Degremont Incorporated (Richmond, Virginia), Kruger Incorporat-
ed (Raleigh, North Carolina), and AqWise (Herzliya, Isreal) for
information supporting the development of this manuscript. A
574
portion of this material has been developed for Chapter 13: Biofilm
Reactor Technology and Design, WEF/ASCE Manual of Practice 8,
Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 5th Edition.
Submitted for publication October 31, 2009; revised manuscript
submitted November 8, 2010; accepted for publication November
15, 2010.
References
Æsøy, A.; Ødegaard, H.; Bentzen, G. (1998) The Effect of Sulphide and
Organic Matter on the Nitrification Activity in a Biofilm Process.
Water Sci. Technol., 37 (1), 115–122.
Åhl, R. M.; Leiknes, T.; Ødegaard, H. (2006) Tracking Particle Size
Distributions in a Moving Bed Biofilm Membrane Reactor for
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Water Sci. Technol., 53, 33–42.
Andersson, B.; Aspegren, H.; Nyberg, U.; la Cour Jansen, J.; Ødegaard, H.
(1998) Increasing the Capacity of an Extended Nutrient Removal
Plant by Using Different Techniques. Water Sci. Technol., 37 (9),
175–183.
Andreottola, G.; Foladori, P.; Ragazzi, M.; Tatano, F. (2000) Experimental
Comparison Between MBBR and Activated Sludge System for the
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5),
375–382.
AnoxKaldnes, Inc. (2006) Complete Treatment Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactor for Stillwater Mining Company. Installation, Operation, and
Maintenance Manual; AnoxKaldnes, Inc.: Providence, Rhode Island
(unpublished).
Aspegren, H.; Nyberg, U.; Andersson, B.; Gotthardsson, S.; Jansen, J.
(1998) Post Denitrification in a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Process.
Water Sci. Technol., 38 (1), 31–38.
Batchelor, B.; Lawrence, A. W. (1986) Autotrophic Denitrification Using
Elemental Sulfur. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 50, 1986–2000.
Bill, K.; Bott, C.; Murthy, S. (2009) Evaluation of Alternative Electron
Donors for Denitrifying Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs).
Water Sci. Technol., 60, 2647–2657.
Bjornberg, C.; Lin, W.; Zimmerman, R. (2009) Effect of Temperature on
Biofilm Growth Dynamics and Nitrification Kinetics in a Full-Scale
MBBR System. Proceedings of the 82nd Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference, Orlando, Florida,
Oct. 17–21; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia,
4407–4426.
Bjornberg, C.; Lin, W.; Zimmerman, R. (2010) Kinetic Evaluation and
Model Simulation of Temperature Impact on Biofilm Growth and
Nitrification in a Full-Scale MBBR System. Proceedings of the 83rd
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct. 2–6; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 4146–4171.
Boltz, J. P.; Daigger, G. T. (2010) Uncertainty in Bulk-Liquid
Hydrodynamics and Biofilm Dynamics Creates Uncertainties in
Biofilm Reactor Design. Water Sci. Technol., 61 (2), 307–316.
Boltz, J. P.; Morgenroth, E.; Daigger, G. T.; deBarbadillo, C.; Murthy, S.;
Sørensen, K.; Stinson, B. (2011) Process Control to Achieve
Simultaneous Low-Level Effluent Nitrogen and Phosphorus Concen-
trations with Post-Denitrification Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
(MBBR) and Biological Active Filter (BAF) Systems. Proceedings
of the IWA/WEF Nutrient Recovery and Management 2011: Inside
and Outside the Fence, Jan. 9–12, Miami, Florida; Water Environ-
ment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Boltz, J. P.; Morgenroth, E.; deBarbadillo, C.; Dempsey, M.; McQuarrie,
J.; Ghylin, T.; Harrison, J.; Nerenberg, R. (2010) Biofilm Reactor
Technology and Design. Chapter 13 in Design of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, Vol. 2, 5th ed.; WEF Manual of
Practice No. 8; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Hem, L. (1991) Nitrification in a Moving Bed Biofilm Process.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. Department of Hydraulic and
Environmental Engineering, Norwegian Institute of Technology,
Trondheim, Norway.
Water Environment Research, Volume 83, Number 6

Hem, L.; Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H. (1994) Nitrification in a Moving Bed
Reactor. Water Res., 28, 1425–1433.
Johnson, C., Kruger, Providence., Rhode Island (2009) Personal
communication.
Kaldate, A.; Holst, T.; Pattarkine, V. (2008) MBBR Pilot Study for
Tertiary Nitrification of HPOAS Wastewater at Harrisburg AWTF.
Proceedings of the 81st Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Exposition and Conference, Chicago, Illinois, Oct. 18–22;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 5080–5091.
Kalyuzhnyi, S.; Gladchenko, M.; Mulder, A.; Versprille, B. (2006)
DEAMOX—New Biological Nitrogen Removal Process Based on
Anaerobic Ammonia Oxidation Coupled to Sulphide-Driven Conver-
sion of Nitrate Into Nitrite. Water Res., 40, 3637–3645.
Mases, M.; Dimitrova, I.; Nyberg, U.; Gruvberger, C.; Andersson, B.
(2010) Experiences from MBBR Post-Denitrification Process in
Long-Term Operation at Two WWTPs. Proceedings of the Water
Environment Federation and International Water Association Biofilm
Reactor Technology Conference, Portland, Oregon, Aug. 15–18;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
McQuarrie, J.; Maxwell, M. (2003) Pilot-Scale Performance of the MBBR
Process at the Crow Creek WWTP, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Proceed-
ings of the 76th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical
Exposition and Conference, Los Angeles, California, Oct. 11–15;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Melin, E.; Ødegaard, H.; Helness, H.; Kenakkala, T. (2004) High-Rate
Wastewater Treatment Based Nitrification MBBRs. Chemical Water
and Wastewater Treatment VIII; IWA Publishing: London, United
Kingdom, 39–48.
Nordeidet, B.; Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H. (1994) Phosphorus Requirements
for Tertiary Nitrification in a Biofilm. Water Sci. Technol., 29 (10–
11), 77–82.
Ødegaard, H. (2006) Innovations in Wastewater Treatment: The Moving
Bed Biofilm Process. Water Sci. Technol., 53 (9), 7–33.
Ødegaard, H. (2008) The Use of the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
(MBBR) Technology for Industrial Wastewater Treatment. Proceed-
ings of the IWA Specialized Conference on Industrial Water
Treatment Systems, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Oct. 2–3; International
Water Association: London, United Kingdom.
Ødegaard, H.; Cimbritz, M.; Christensson, M.; Poulsen Dahl, C. (2010)
Separation of Biomass from Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBRs).
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation and International
Water Association Biofilm Reactor Technology Conference, Portland,
Oregon, Aug. 15–18; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria,
Virginia.
Ødegaard, H.; Gisvold, B.; Strickland, J. (2000) The Influence of Carrier
Size and Shape in the Moving Bed Biofilm Process. Water Sci.
Technol., 41 (4–5), 383–391.
Ødegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Storhaug, R.; Paulsrud, B. (2009) Norwegian
Water Report 168-2009 Guidelines for the Design of Wastewater
Treatment Plants; Norsk Vann BA, Hamar, Norway (in Norwegian).
Ødegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Wessman, F. (2004) State of the Art in Europe
of the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Process. Proceedings of
the 77th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct. 2–6; Water Environ-
ment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Pham, H.; Viswanathan, S.; Kelly, R. F. (2008) Evaluation of Plastic
Carrier Media Impact on Oxygen Transfer Efficiency with Coarse and
Fine Bubble Diffusers. Proceedings of the 81st Annual Water
Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference,
Chicago, Illinois, Oct. 18–22; Water Environment Federation:
Alexandria, Virginia.
Rosenwinkel, K. H.; Cornelius, A.; Ruhverband, T. (2005) Full Scale
Application of the Deammonification Process for the Treatment of
Sludge Water. Proceedings of the International Water Association
Conference on Nutrient Management in Wastewater Treatment
Processes and Recycle Streams, Krakow, Poland, Sept. 19–21;
International Water Association: London, United Kingdom.
June 2011
View publication stats
McQuarrie and Boltz
Rosenwinkel, K.-H.; Cornelius, A.; Thöle, D. (2004) Großtechnisches
Untersuchungsvorhaben zur Deammonifikation von Stickstoff in
hochbelasteten Teilströmen mit Hilfe eines Schwebebettverfahrens
(Investigation of the Full-Scale Implementation of the Deammonifi-
cation of Ammonium-Rich Side Streams Using a Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor System). Technical Report submitted to the Ministry
of the Environment, Conservation, Agriculture and Consumer
Protection in North Rhine Westfalia, Germany. (in German).
Rusten, B.; Eikebrokk, B.; Ulgenes, Y.; Lygren, E. (2006) Design and
Operations of the Kaldnes Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors. Aquacult.
Eng., 24, 322–331.
Rusten, B.; Hellstrom, B. G.; Hellstrom, F.; Sehested, O.; Skjelfoss, E.;
Svendsen, B. (2000) Pilot Testing and Preliminary Design of MBBRs
for Nitrogen Removal at the FREVAR Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Water Sci. Technol., 41 (4–5), 13–20.
Rusten, B.; Hem, L.; Ødegaard, H. (1995a) Nitrification of Municipal
Wastewater in Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors. Water Environ. Res.,
67 (1), 75–86.
Rusten, B.; Hem, L.; Ødegaard, H. (1995b) Nitrogen Removal from Dilute
Wastewater in Cold Climate Using Moving-Bed Biofilm Reactors.
Water Environ. Res., 67 (2), 65–74.
Rusten, B.; Ødegaard, H. (2007) Design and Operation of Nutrient
Removal Plants for Very Low Effluent Concentrations. Water
Practice, 1 (5), 1–13.
Rusten, B.; Paulsrud, B. (2008) Improved Nutrient Removal with Biofilm
Reactors. Proceedings of the Boosting Environmental Technologies
by Verification Conference, Representation of the State of Baden-
Württemberg to the European Union Brussels/Belgium, 21–23.
Rusten, B.; Siljudalen, J. G.; Bungun, S. (1995) Moving Bed Biofilm
Reactors for Nitrogen Removal: From Initial Pilot Testing to Start-Up
of the Lillehammer WWTP. Proceedings of the 68th Annual Water
Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference,
Miami Beach, Florida, Oct. 21–25; Water Environment Federation:
Alexandria, Virginia.
Rusten, B.; Wien, A.; Skjefstad, J. (1996) Spent Aircraft Deicing Fluid as
External Carbon Source for Denitrification of Wastewater: From
Waste Problem to Beneficial Use. Proceeding of the 51st Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, West Lafayette, Indiana, May 6–8;
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana.
Salvetti, R.; Azzellino, A.; Canziani, R.; Bonomo, L. (2006) Effects of
Temperature on Tertiary Nitrification in Moving-Bed Biofilm
Reactors. Water Res., 40, 2981–2993.
Stenstrom, M. K.; Rosso, D. (2008) Aeration and Mixing. In Biological
Wastewater Treatment—Principles, Modelling, and Design, Henze,
M., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Ekama, G., Brdjanovic, D. (Eds.);
IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.
Szatkowska, B.; Cema, G.; Plaza, E.; Trela, J.; Hultman, B. (2007) A One-
Stage System with Partial Nitritation and Anammox Processes in the
Moving-Bed Biofilm Reactor. Water Sci. Technol., 55 (8–9), 19–26.
Szatkowska, B.; Plaza, E. (2006) Temperature as a Factor Influencing the
Anammox Process Performance. Water and Environmental Manage-
ment Series, Young Researchers; IWA Publishing: London, United
Kingdom, 51–58.
Taljemark, K.; Aspegren, H.; Gruvberger, N.; Hanner, N.; Nyberg, U.;
Andersson, B. (2004) 10 Years of Experiences of a Nitrification
MBBR Process for Post-Denitrification. Proceedings of the 77th
Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and
Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct. 2–6; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
van der Star, W. R. L.; Abma, W. R.; Blommers, D.; Mulder, J.-W.;
Tokutomi, T.; Strous, M.; Picioreanu, C.; van Loosdrecht, M. C. M.
(2007) Startup of Reactors for Anoxic Ammonium Oxidation:
Experiences from the First Full-Scale Anammox Reactor in
Rotterdam. Water Res., 41, 4149–4163.
Williamson, K.; McCarty, P. (1976) A Model of Substrate Utilization by
Bacterial Films. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 48 (1), 9–24.
575