Open trickling filter: an innovative, cheap and simple form of posttreatment of sanitary effluents from anaerobic reactors at small

communities
P.C. Vieira* and M. von Sperling*
* Department of Sanitary and Environmental Engineering; Federal University of Minas Gerais, Av. Antnio Carlos 6627 Escola de Engenharia, Bloco 1 - sala 4622; 31270-901 - Belo Horizonte Brazil. Tel.:+55 31 3409-1935 (email: marcos@desa.ufmg.br)

Abstract
The objective of the work is to evaluate the performance and cost savings of an innovative design of a trickling filter (TF) for small population sizes, developed at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, called open trickling filter (OTF). The OTF had no side walls and no perforated bottom slab, and was applied for the post-treatment of sanitary sewage from a UASB reactor. The OTF had crushed-stone packing (3.5m high) and was operated with an average surface hydraulic loading rate of 4.1 m3.m-2.d-1 and an average volumetric organic loading rate of 0.10 kgBOD.m-3.d-1. The approximate population equivalent was 250 inhabitants. The system was operational for approximately one year. The average concentrations obtained at the OTF effluent were 48 mgTSS.L-1, 132 mgCOD.L-1, 51 mgBOD.L-1, 19 mgTKN.L-1, 16 mgNH4+-N.L-1 and 10 mgNO3--N.L-1, leading to compliance to local discharge standards. An analysis of the constructions costs indicated savings of 74% compared to conventional trickling filters. Based on the positive attributes (performance, compactness, simplicity and reduced capital costs), it is believed that the proposed open trickling filter is a good alternative for the post-treatment of anaerobic effluents at small communities, especially in developing countries.

Keywords
Domestic sewage, UASB reactor, open trickling filter, performance, construction cost

INTRODUCTION In warm-climate regions, trickling filters (TF) are being frequently used for the post-treatment of anaerobic effluents, with the following advantages: satisfactory removal efficiencies of suspended solids and organic matter; possibility of full or partial nitrification, depending on the loading rates; sludge production equivalent to aerobic systems; moderate operational complexity; low construction, operation and maintenance costs; operational flexibility; no power consumption; compact physical structure; stable and reliable operation; low local environmental impacts, including odours, noise and visual nuisances (Kassab et al, 2010; Chernicharo, 2006). In order to enhance the capabilities and reduce the limitations of TF acting as post-treatment of anaerobic effluents, recent research efforts have dealt with innovative and different configurations for the filter media, packing height and influence of secondary settlers (Chernicharo & Almeida, 2010; Almeida et al, 2008; Santos, 2005, Silva & Gonalves, 2005). However, conventional trickling filters have large amounts of concrete, what increases their constructions costs. Besides this, nitrification is not always achieved, with oxygen limitations being one of the reasons for the poor performance in terms of ammonia removal. In conventional trickling filters, air circulates through the open surface area at the top of the filter and the side wall openings that are part of the underdrain system. Good aeration is essential to maintain aerobic conditions inside the filter media, promote better removal efficiencies and prevent bad odours (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003, WEF, 2000). Oxygen is supplied to important groups of aerobic bacteria present in the biofilm, which are responsible for the oxidation of organic matter and nitrogen (Gujer, 2010; USEPA, 2009; Wik, 2003). In many aerobic systems, the oxygen transfer rate to the cells is the limiting factor, determining the rate of biological conversion processes (Gonalves et al, 2001). Thus, efficiency in the supply of dissolved oxygen (DO) for the bacteria

becomes a dominant factor, especially for the slow-growing nitrifying bacteria. Increasing oxygen transfer is likely to enhance the filter performance, especially in terms of nitrification. In this sense, removing the side walls is likely to enhance the circulation of air inside the media, thus allowing a better aeration. Another important aspect related to conventional trickling filters is the amount of concrete involved in their construction, which is responsible for relatively high construction costs. Side walls have thicknesses around 0.20 and 0.25 m, which, multiplied by the total wall perimeter and height results in substantial quantities of concrete. Besides that, conventional trickling filters require a false bottom comprised of a perforated slab, with thickness values around 0.30 m, in order to support the weight of the filter medium (usually crushed stones). In order to address the needs for improving ventilation (enhance performance) and reducing the amount of concrete (reduce costs), whilst still keeping the inherent simplicity required for TF, a new version of trickling filter, without side walls and false bottom, was conceived by von Sperling at the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil, named open trickling filter (OTF). Concrete side walls have been substituted by a simple wired fence supported by simple pillars made of 100mm PVC pipes filled with concrete. The perforated concrete false bottom slab has been replaced by an underdrain layer comprised of coarse stones. Additionally, as a means of introducing further simplifications, the conventional rotating distributors have been replaced by fixed distributors (channels with V-notch weirs). The objective of this paper is to present the conception of the OTF as a post-treatment of the sanitary effluent from a UASB reactor, operational results and a cost comparison with conventional trickling filters.

METHODS Experimental site and UASB reactor The research was conducted in the Centre for Research and Training on Sanitation UFMG/COPASA, located in the city of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The combined system under evaluation (UASB reactor followed by OTF without secondary settlement stage) receives sanitary sewage after preliminary treatment (coarse and medium screens and grit chambers). The UASB reactor that precedes the OTF is divided into two compartments, each one with 5.0 m height and a net volume of 7.2 m3. The mean inflow to each compartment was 34 m.d-1, what led to a mean hydraulic retention time of 5.0 h and an upflow velocity of 1.0 m.h-1. Characteristics of the open trickling filter In order to improve the conditions for nitrification in the OTF, a packing height of 3.5 m was adopted, which is higher than the usual height of 1.8 to 2.4 m for conventional TFs (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). This total height was comprised of three layers (Figure 1). The top layer (0.5 m) was composed of coarse stones, aiming at facilitating the distribution of the influent along the surface area. The middle layer (2.2 m) comprised the actual filter media, with crushed stones between 38 and 76 mm. The bottom layer (0.8 m), also made of coarse stones, acted as the filter underdrain. Figure 2a presents a view of the UASB reactor and OTF, and Figure 2b presents a detailed view of the filter. Inflow is distributed up to a distance of 0.5 m from the side walls, in order to reduce the risks of spillage through the wall surfaces.

Square plan (3.20 m x 3.20 m) Influent Top layer distribution of influent Coarse stones (> 76 mm) (0.50 m height) Total height (3.50 m) Filter media net reaction volume Crushed stones (38 to 76 mm) (2.20 m height) Underdrain coarse stones (> 76 mm) (0.80 m height) Effluent

Figure 1. Cross-section of the open trickling filter

PVC pipes with concrete OTF (250 p.e.) No side walls

UASB reactor (2 compartments of 250 p.e. each)

2a

2b

Filter media (crushed stones)

Bottom layer (coarse stones)

Figure 2. (a) View of the UASB+OTF system. (b) Detailed view of the OTF (250 inhabitants) The main characteristics of the OTF investigated are given in Table 1. Table 1- Main characteristics of the Open Trickling Filter.
Total height (m) Top layer height (coarse stone > 76 mm) Filter medium (crushed stone 38 to 76 mm) height Bottom layer height (coarse stone > 76 mm) height Total width (m) Total volume (m) Net volume (m3) Net width (m) Net surface area (m) 3.50 0.50 2.20 0.80 3.20 35.84 21.17 2.80 7.84 2,3 60 8 2.80 0.30 0.20

Filter

Length (m) Distribution system Channels with weirs Diameter (mm) Quantity Length (m) Effluent collection Bottom channels Width (m) Height (m) Note: the filter is square (width = length). Net volume = Net height x Net area

Monitoring Monitoring of raw sewage (RS) and of the effluents from the UASB reactor and OTF was undertaken with simple and composite samples (24 hours - under refrigeration), three times a week. The physical and chemical parameters analysed here are: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), Ammonia nitrogen (N-ammonia) and Nitrate (NO3--N). All analyses were made according to the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (APHA, 2005). The results presented in this paper refer to the period of 29/09/2010 to 12/05/2011 (seven and a half months), after a start-up period of four months, followed by two months of refurbishment work in the OTF.

Costs estimates In order to evaluate the savings with the implementation of the open trickling filter (OTF) as compared to the conventional trickling filter (TF), cost estimates were made for tanks with the same dimensions. The values comprise only construction costs associated with the tanks themselves (OTF and TF), and not with the full wastewater treatment plant. The items covered were: concrete (concrete + steel + forms) for the side walls and support pillars for the TF and OTF; underdrain slab for the TF (thickness of 20 cm); underdrain for the TF (thickness of 30 cm); packing material for the filter bed (crushed stone and coarse stone) for TF and OTF; rotating distributor (carbon steel rotary arm distributor coated with epoxy paint) for TF; PVC pipes (60 mm diameter) for the channel distribution system of the OTF; split boxes of 150 and 300 mm for the OTF channel distribution system; PVC-coated wired fence and steel cables to support the OTF side walls. The unit costs for each item were provided by the engineering firm which built the OTF and is experienced in building conventional TFs. RESULTS System performance The mean values of the operating conditions during the evaluation period are presented in Table 2. According to Metcalf & Eddy (2003), the loading rates can be classified as low or standard rate for the organic loading rate and intermediate rate for the hydraulic surface loading. Under these conditions, between full and partial nitrification is expected (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003). The mean flow of 33m.d-1 corresponds to an equivalent population of approximately 250 inhabitants, what leads to the following per capita area and volume requirements: 0.04m2 of total surface area per inhabitant and 0.140 m of total volume per inhabitant). Table 2 Mean values of the loading rates applied to the OTF
Hydraulic surface Flow loading rate HLR -1 (m.d ) (m.m-2.d-1) 33 (6) 4.1 (0.6) ( ) Standard Deviation Hydraulic volumetric loading rate VLR (m. m-3.d-1) 1.6 (0.2) Volumetric organic loading rate OLR (kg DBO.m-3.d-1) 0.10 (0.03) Influent Influent COD/BOD BOD/TKN 2.8 (0.4) 2.3 (1.1)

Table 3 presents a summary of the effluent concentrations and removal efficiencies obtained in each stage and in the overall system. It should be noted that, differently from conventional trickling filters, there was no secondary sedimentation tank after the OTF, for the sake of simplicity in terms of applicability to small communities. Figure 3 shows box-plots of effluent concentrations compared with discharge standards established by the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil (DN-CERH COPAM 01/2008). It is seen that the UASB reactor already provides good removal efficiencies for suspended solids (median of 78%) and organic matter (median of 73% for BOD and 63% for COD), but the OTF gives an additional important polishing. In terms of TKN and ammonia, the removal takes place only at the OTF, due to nitrification (as seen by the nitrate production). Table 3 Synthesis of the concentrations and efficiencies obtained in the UASB-OTF system.
Raw sewage Effluent UASB Effluent OTF Concentration Concentration Removal Concentration Removal Parameter n (mg.L-1) (mg.L-1) (%) (mg.L-1) (%) Mean Mean Median Mean Median TSS 56 232 (104) 68 (57) 78 48 (23) 24 COD 49 457 (142) 189 (87) 63 132 (84) 44 BOD 38 238 (71) 68 (29) 73 51 (32) 34 TKN 60 26 (7) 29 (6) 19 (7) 41 N-ammonia 56 23 (5) 26 (5) 16 (5) 42 NO3 -N 52 0.06 (0.11) 0.04 (0.06) 10 (5.2) Raw Sewage: After preliminary treatment; n = number of samples; ( ) Standard Deviation. Global Removal (%) Median 83 78 75 41 42 -

In terms of suspended solids in the effluent from the OTF, the compliance with the discharge

standard of 100 mgTSS.L-1 was 95%. Although this standard is somewhat relaxed compared with international legislations, the compliance level is considered high for the reality of a developing country. The concentrations of COD in the effluent from the OTF led to a compliance of 81% with the discharge standard of 180 mg.L-1. For BOD, the compliance with the discharge standard of 60 mg.L-1 was 76%. As mentioned, there was no secondary sedimentation tank after the OTF, and better results would probably be obtained if this unit were included in the treatment line. The results of ammonia concentrations in the OTF effluent showed a compliance rate of 85% with the discharge standard of 20 mgNH4+-N.L-1. The OTF showed an average removal efficiency of 42% in terms of the effluent from the UASB reactor. This is an advantage of the investigated system, since most of the simple post-treatment options for UASB effluents are not able to remove ammonia (Chernicharo, 2006).
600 500 400

1000 900 800 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

RS UASB OTF

420 360
BOD (mg.L-1)

TSS (mg.L-1)

COD (mg.L-1)

700

300 240 180 120 60 0

300 200 100 0

RS
45 40
N-ammonia (mg.L-1)

UASB

OTF
35 30
NO3-N (mg.L-1)

RS

UASB

OTF

60 50
TKN (mg.L-1)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

40 30 20 10 0 RS UASB OTF

25 20 15 10 5

RS

UASB

OTF

0 RS UASB OTF

25%

50%

90%

10%

Min

Max

75%

Standard

Figure 3. Box-plot of the concentrations obtained in the monitoring of the UASB/OTF system. It is believed that the ammonia removal efficiencies of were determined by OLR and the BOD/TKN ratio applied in the filter. For the removal of both BOD and ammonia TFs, using stone packing, it is recommended to use OLRs of 0.08 to 0.25 kgBOD.m-3.d-1, according to Metcalf & Eddy (2003) and WEF (1992). The average OLR applied in the OTF was 0.10 kgBOD.m-3.d-1. For the BOD/TKN ratio, the lower the value, the smaller the growth rates of the heterotrophic microorganisms, thus decreasing the competition for oxygen and space in the packing with the autotrophic microorganisms (nitrifying bacteria). Thus, the reaction volume of the filter and the good performance of the UASB reactor were important factors for achieving partial nitrification. As presented in the time series graphs (Figures 4 a, b and c), the highest concentrations of BOD, COD and TSS in the OTF effluent occurred in the first month of operation (October/2010), in the rainy months (December/2010, January and February/2011) and when concentrations of the UASB reactor effluent increased (approximately when excess sludge removal from the UASB reactor was required). It is possible that these factors may have contributed to the washout of solids and biofilm that was under formation, worsening the OTF performance. Through a visual analysis of the ammonia time series (Figure 4e) it is observed that after the second month of operation, the concentrations in the effluent from the OTF tended to stabilize. At the same time, nitrate production increased, indicating the establishment of nitrification. This is likely to be associated with the increased biofilm formation (in terms of thickness and microbial population). An increase in abundance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria and nitrite in the biofilm of the OTF was observed over time, together with an increase of the populations of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria

(Nitrosomonas) with greater filter depths (results not shown here). The partial nitrification has probably been enhanced by the natural ventilation that takes place through the open side area of the trickling filter.
250 200

500 400

BOD (mg.L-1)

COD (mg.L-1)

150 100 50 0

300 200 100 0

4(a)

30
OTF

60

90

120 150 Days

180

210

240

4(b)
UASB

30
OTF

60

90 120 Days

150

180

210

240

UASB

Moving average UASB

Moving average OTF

Moving average UASB

Moving average OTF

350 300

60 50

TSS (mg.L-1)

250 200 150 100 50 0 0 30

OTF

TKN (mg.L-1)
60 90 120 150 180 210 240

40 30 20 10 0

4(c)
UASB

Days
Moving average UASB Moving average OTF

4(d)

30
OTF

60

90 120 Days

150

180

210

240

UASB

Moving average UASB

Moving average OTF

40 35

35 30

N-ammonia (mg.L-1)

NO3-N (mg.L-1)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 30
OTF

25 20 15 10 5 0

4(e)

60

90 120 Days

150

180

210

240

4(f)

0
UASB

30
OTF

60

90 120 Days

150

180

210

240

UASB

Moving average UASB

Moving average OTF

Moving average UASB

Moving average OTF

Figure 4. Time series of BOD, COD, TSS, TKN, N-ammonia and NO3-N concentrations at UASB and OTF effluents, with 4-term moving averages. Day 1: 29/09/2010. Evaluation of construction costs The unit costs used to estimate the construction costs of the filter units according to the conventional and open trickling filter concepts are presented in Table 4, together with the quantity required for each item (each system treats the equivalent for 250 inhabitants). The costs estimated for the implementation of both filters were $5,123.00 for the OTF and $19,849.00 for the TF. The resulting per capita costs were US$20p.e.-1 for OTF and US$79p.e.-1 for TF. The savings with the implementation of OTF, compared with the conventional TF, were substantial (74%). It should be noted that these are the costs directly associated with the trickling filters only, and do not include preliminary treatment, pre-treatment by UASB reactors, secondary sedimentation tanks if existent, influent pumps, operator house, internal roads, etc. As shown in Figure 5, it is seen that the items with higher contributions to the construction costs of the conventional TF were the concrete and the rotary distributor, representing respectively 47% and 30% of the total budget. For the implementation of the OTF the most expensive items were concrete support pillars and the bottom slab (39%) followed by the coated wired fence (35%). It is observed that the major physical changes made in the OTF resulted in cost reductions of 60% by replacing the side walls with coated wired screens, 92% with the use of coarse stone instead of false bottom slab and 96% with the implementation of the distribution system of fixed channels with weirs.

Table 4 - Unit costs for the construction of TF and OTF (250 inhabitants)
Item Sub-item Conventional TF Unit price Quantity (US$) 12.3 m $767m-3 27.44 m 7.84 m 7.84 m2 2.8 m $40m-3 $255m-2 $169m-3 $2,147m-1 Open TF Unit price Quantity (US$) 3.38 m 23.52 m 6.27 m 61.44 m 18 m $595m-3 $40m-3 $40m-2 $29m-2 $12.00m-1

Side walls Support pillars and bottom slab Crushed stone and coarse Packing stone material Crushed stone Conventional underdrain Underdrains Underdrain slab Coarse stone Underdrain Coated fabric, wire and Screen steel cable Rotating distributor Distribution system Channels with weirs Reference date: May 2011 Concrete
22500 20000

Costs (US$)

17500 15000 12500 10000 7500 5000 2500 0

OTF 844 250 0 1796 221 2011 TF 1094 0 3319 0 6012 9423

Packing material Coarse stone Underdrains Screen Distribution Systems Concreting

Figure 5. Estimated costs with the construction of OTF and traditional TF (250 inhabitants).

Dimensioning for other population sizes at small communities In order to increase the applicability of the present study, the design for other population sizes (50 to 300 inhabitants) is presented. The maximum population size for each unit was considered to be 300 inhabitants, compatible with this research (for a community of, say, 600 inhabitants, two units would need to be implemented). At all cases, only small population sizes are indicated for the utilisation of such a simple trickling filter concept. Design was based on values from this study: volumetric organic loading rate of 0.10 kgBOD.m-.d- for the net volume; resulting hydraulic surface loading rate of 4.1 m.m-.d- for the net surface area; per capita wastewater flow of 130 L.hab-.d-; raw sewage BOD of 238 mg.L-; BOD removal efficiency of 71% in the UASB reactor; total filter height of 3.50 m; net height of 2.70 m (38 to 76 mm crushed stone size); drainage layer of 0.80 m (> 76 mm stone size); surface square format; 0.40 m on each surface dimension without feeding (to be kept dry to avoid side spillages). Of course other design values may be possible, but those presented above are supported by the current study. Figure 6 presents the resulting total and net area and volume for the population range of 50 to 300 inhabitants. The difference between total and net volume is the 0.80m-high underdrain layer, and the difference between total and net surface area is the area without feeding (0.20 m on each side, that is, 0.40 m in the length and in the width). Since the design is based on loading rates, the areas and volumes follow a linear trend with population.

Figure 6. Total and net surface area and volume for the OTF applied to the post-treatment of anaerobic effluents at small communities OLR of 0.10 kgBOD.m-.d- and HLR of 4.1 m.m-.d-.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL REMARKS The new design of a trickling filter, the so-called open trickling filter (OTF), evaluated in this study, treating the sanitary effluent from a UASB reactor (250 p.e.), operating without a secondary settler and subjected to a surface hydraulic loading rate of 4.1 m.m-.d-1 and a volumetric organic loading rate of 0.10 kgBOD.m-.d-1 led to mean effluent concentrations of 48 mgTSS.L-1, 132 mgCOD.L-1 and 51 mgBOD.L-1. The performance of the combined system (UASB reactor + OTF) showed good compliance levels to the regional discharge standards - 95% for TSS (standard of 100 mgTSS.L-1), 81% for COD (standard of 180 mgCOD.L-1) and 76% for BOD (standard of 60 mgBOD.L-1), especially considering the reality of a developing country (Brazil). An important point is the performance of the OTF on the partial removal of ammonia (mean removal efficiency of 42%). The average concentration of 16 mgNH4+-N.L-1 obtained in the OTF effluent was associated with a compliance level of 85% with the standard of 20 mgNH4+-N.L-1. It is considered that this percentage of compliance is good, again taking into account the reality of a developing country, and the difficulty of removing ammonia in most simple wastewater treatment processes. The removal efficiency of ammonia was probably related to the open side area for ventilation (no walls improved oxygenation and nitrification), larger than usual height of the OTF (leading to a larger reaction volume), and the good performance of the UASB reactor in removing organic matter (COD and BOD). The estimated construction costs for the implementation of the OTF unit and the traditional TF unit for a population of 250 inhabitants were US$20.inhabitant-1 for OTF and US$79.inhabitant-1 for TF. The savings with the implementation of the OTF represented 74% of the costs associated with the conventional trickling filter, because of the substitution of the concrete side walls for coated wired screen, the usage of coarse stones instead of concrete slab and underdrain and the implementation of a fixed distribution system of channels with weirs. The construction of OTF is very simple and can be made by any local builder, because no special material or equipment is required. As a result of the above mentioned points, it can be concluded that the novel concept of open trickling filter represents a simple, cheap and compact type of post-treatment of anaerobic effluents in developing countries, leading to satisfactory removals of organic matter and solids and partial removal of ammonia. This paper reports only a simple evaluation of treatment performance and constructions costs. More investigation is still necessary on the behaviour of the system under other loading conditions (OLR

and HLR) and variable influent flow. Also, a more in-depth scientific investigation of the system behaviour is necessary, covering air transfer tests, determination of the microbiological composition of the biofilm and assessment of the influence of the presence of secondary sedimentation tanks. These topics will be addressed at subsequent stages of the research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank the support given by these institutions: Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientfico e Tecnolgico CNPq, Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais FAPEMIG, Fundao Nacional de Sade - FUNASA and Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais COPASA. The authors also thank Mr. Raimundo Magela (CePTS operator) for the support during the field work and for the engineering firm Engenho 9 for the cost information provided. REFERENCES
Almeida, P.G.S.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Souza, C.L. (2008). Development of compact UASB/trickling filter systems for the treatment of domestic wastewater in small communities in Brazil. Water Science and Technology, v. 59, n7, p.1431-1439. APHA (2005). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater . 21st ed, American Public Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water Environment Federation, Washington DC, USA. Chernicharo, C.A.L. (2006). Post-treatment options for the anaerobic treatment of domestic wastewater. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 5, 73-92. Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Almeida, P.G.S. (2010). Feasibility of UASB/trickling filter systems without final clarifiers for the treatment of domestic wastewater in small communities in Brazil. In: Proc. International Conference on: Sustainable Solutions for Small Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, IWA, Girona, Espanha. Gonalves, R.F.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Andrade Neto, C.O.; Alem Sobrinho, P.; Kato, M.T.; costa, R.H.R., Aisse, M.M.; Zaiat, M. (2001). Ps-tratamento de efluentes de reatores anaerbios por reatores com biofilme (Post-treatment of wastewater by anaerobic biofilm reactors). Cap. 4. In: Chernicharo, C.A.L. (coordenador). Ps-tratamento de efluentes de reatores anaerbios. FINEP/PROSAB, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 544 p. (in Portuguese) Gujer, W. (2010). Nitrification and me A subjective review. Review. Water Research,v. 44, 19 p. Kassab, G.; Halalsheh, M.; Klapwijk, A.; Fayyad; M.; van Lier; J.B. (2010). Sequential anaerobicaerobic treatment for domestic wastewater A review. Review Bioresource Technology 101, 32993310. Metcalf & Eddy (2003). Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. 4th ed. Mc Graw Hill. Santos, A.S.P. (2005). Avaliao de desempenho de um filtro biolgico percolador em diferentes meios suporte plsticos (Performance evaluation of a trickling filter media support with different plastics). Dissertao (Mestrado). COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. (in Portuguese). Silva, G.M.; Gonalves, R. F. (2005). Desempenho de um sistema UASB + filtro biolgico percolador sem etapa de decantao tratando esgoto sanitrio (Performance of a UASB + trickling filter system without secondary settler treating domestic wastewater). In: Proc. do 23 Congresso Brasileiro de Engenharia Sanitria e Ambiental ABES, Campo Grande, Brazil. (in Portuguese). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2009). Nutrient Control Design Manual: State of Technology Review Report. EPA/600/R-09/012. Office of Research and Development / National Risk Management Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. 104 p. Water Environment Federation (WEF). (1992). Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. Vol.1, 3 ed. Manual of Practice n 8, chapter 12. Alexandria, Virginia, United States. 829 p. Wik, T. (2003). Trickling filters and biofilm reactor modeling. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 2: 193212.