Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 DOI 10.

1007/s00449-009-0387-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in xed bed reactors

Rangaraj Ganesh Rajagopal Rajinikanth Joseph V. Thanikal Ramamoorty Alwar Ramanujam Michel Torrijos

Received: 28 May 2009 / Accepted: 8 October 2009 / Published online: 30 October 2009 Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract The treatment of winery wastewater in three upow anaerobic xed-bed reactors (S9, S30 and S40) with low density oating supports of varying size and specic surface area was investigated. A maximum OLR of 42 g/l day with 80 0.5% removal efciency was attained in S9, which had supports with the highest specic surface area. It was found that the efciency of the reactors increased with decrease in size and increase in specic surface area of the support media. Total biomass accumulation in the reactors was also found to vary as a function of specic surface area and size of the support medium. The StoverKincannon kinetic model predicted satisfactorily the performance of the reactors. The maximum removal rate constant (Umax) was 161.3, 99.0 and 77.5 g/l day and the saturation value constant (KB) was

162.0, 99.5 and 78.0 g/l day for S9, S30 and S40, respectively. Due to their higher biomass retention potential, the supports used in this study offer great promise as media in anaerobic xed bed reactors. Anaerobic xed-bed reactors with these supports can be applied as high-rate systems for the treatment of large volumes of wastewaters typically containing readily biodegradable organics, such as the winery wastewater. Keywords Anaerobic xed bed reactor Floating supports Specic surface area Winery wastewater Biomass attachment Kinetic model

Introduction Anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater has become a viable technique thanks to the development of a range of high-rate reactors based on such technology as anaerobic lters, UASB, uidized or expanded beds [1]. High-rate anaerobic reactors offer the advantage of high-load systems requiring much less volume and space. Such advantages are of interest to those industries which produce large amounts of highly concentrated wastewater, notably the food, paper, and pulp industries [2]. High-performance anaerobic treatment in xed-bed reactors has been applied very successfully to wastewater from agribusiness industries that use agricultural products containing typically high concentrations of organic substrates that are readily degraded by anaerobic bacteria [3, 4]. Winery wastewater is a classic example of such agribased waste. Wine production is one of the foremost agriindustries in Mediterranean countries, and it has also acquired importance in a large number of countries in other parts of the world (e.g. Australia, Chile, United States,

R. Ganesh R. Rajinikanth M. Torrijos (&) Laboratoire de Biotechnologie de lEnvironnement, INRA, UR50, Avenue des Etangs, 11100 Narbonne, France e-mail: torrijos@supagro.inra.fr R. Ganesh e-mail: sairganesh@yahoo.com R. Ganesh R. A. Ramanujam Department of Environmental Technology, Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai 600020, India R. A. Ramanujam e-mail: ra_ramanujam@yahoo.com R. Rajinikanth Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India e-mail: rrajinime@yahoo.co.in J. V. Thanikal Department of Civil Engineering, Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore 641006, India e-mail: jthanikal@gmail.com

123

620

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628

South Africa and China), with increasing impact on the economy of these countries. The high amount of efuent produced, along with the seasonal nature of wine production, raises specic problems for the treatment process. These relate to the volume and composition of the wastewater produced and consequently treatment plants must be versatile in relation to the loading regime and at the same time be able to cope with a succession of start-ups and closedowns, including periods of inactivity [5, 6]. Thus, in winery wastewater treatment, involving efuent with high COD but low nitrogen and phosphorus content, anaerobic digestion offers advantages over aerobic treatment. Wineries have seasonal activity producing wastewater mainly during harvesting and at the time of winemaking. The wastewater can be treated as it is produced or can be stored for treatment over several months. Anaerobic digesters have the advantage of re-starting rapidly after a shutdown [7]. Several treatment alternatives for winery wastewater have been proposed by many authors based on both aerobic and anaerobic processes. Based on aerobic systems are conventional activated sludge systems [8, 9], SBR systems [10, 11], jet-loop reactors [6, 12], aerobic biolm systems such as RBC [13] and more recently advanced treatment systems such as moving bed biolm reactors [14], xed bed biolm reactors (FBBR) [15] and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems [16]. Based on anaerobic systems are anaerobic lters [17], UASB [18, 19], hybrid reactors [20] and anaerobic SBR [21]. The use of conventional activated sludge systems is sometimes problematic due to bad settling properties of the sludge caused by the development of lamentous bacteria or the formation of dispersed ocs, resulting in an efuent with a high solids concentration and turbidity [16]. Aerobic biolm systems such as FBBR are an alternative to the conventional activated sludge plants as these systems offer advantages such as low reactor volume requirements; reduction of bulking problems; the absence of return ow and backwashing due to the high void ratio of the lling media and an easier management with respect to the conventional activated sludge plants [15]. Compared to aerobic processes, anaerobic process do not require oxygen and therefore are less energy intensive and sludge production is much less making the process simpler and cheaper [16, 22]. Anaerobic upow reactor is a packed-bed reactor where biomass can be retained or attached to packings. Because of the retained biomass associated with the packings the process is stable with respect to high organic loadings, shock loadings or changes in pH and temperature [23]. The different types of support material studied in xed-bed reactors include Raschig rings, pall rings, string-shaped plastic media saddles, plastic cylinders, clay blocks [17,

2326]. The characteristics of the support material used determine biomass retention and, hence, the efciency of the treatment system [25]. The major factors inuencing bacterial attachment include roughness, porosity, surface area, surface charge, hydrophily, surface energy and chemical composition. Along with these, many other features also inuence biomass retention capability: microcrystals, macro- and micro-pores, bers, ridges and degree of smoothness of the support material [2730]. The aim of the work presented here was to study the treatment of winery wastewater using anaerobic xed-bed reactors with small oating supports. The inuence of the size and specic surface area of the supports on biomass retention and reactor performance was investigated. Kinetic model application was carried out for the prediction of the performance of the reactors.

Materials and methods Reactor details Three upow anaerobic xed-bed reactors of similar dimensions (1,000 mm height 9 125 mm diameter) were used for the study. The reactors were made of Plexiglas with an effective volume of 10 l. The reactors were equipped with hot water jackets to maintain a mesophilic temperature of 35 C. The feed wastewater was pumped into the bottom of the reactor by means of a peristaltic pump. A perforated plate was placed at the bottom to obtain uniform ow of feed across the reactor. The reactor liquid was recirculated from the top to the bottom by means of a recirculation pump at a rate of 10 l/h, with a liquid upow velocity between 0.8 and 0.9 m/h throughout the experiment. Provision was made in the reactor, at the top and above the support medium level, for collection of efuent, which passed through a U-tube for separation of gas. Temperature and pH were measured online with the help of probes inserted through the top of the reactor. Each reactor was lled with randomly distributed supports to 80% of reactor volume. The schematic diagram of the reactor is shown in Fig. 1. Characteristics of support media Three small polyethylene oating carriers (S9, S30 and S40) were used as media for biomass immobilization and retention. The main characteristics of the supports are shown in Table 1. The supports were cylindrical in shape and bafed with compartments. These supports are suitable thermoplastic materials as biological carriers and are inexpensive, nontoxic and non-reactive in most biological applications.

123

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 Table 2 Characteristics of feed winery wastewater Parameter pH Total suspended solids (mg/l) Volatile suspended solids (mg/l) Total COD (mg/l) Soluble COD (mg/l) TOC (mg/l) Value 811

621

150200 100130 18,00021,000 17,20020,000 4,4005,140

Analytical methods Efuent samples were analyzed for alkalinity, TSS and VSS according to the procedures given in Standard Methods [32]. Total and Soluble COD was measured by colorimetric method using Hach 01,500 mg/l vials. Volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration was measured using a gas chromatograph (GC-8000, Fisons instruments) equipped with a ame ionization detector and an automatic sampler (AS 800, Fisons instruments). The column used was a semi-capillar Econocap FFAP (Alltech) column with 15 m length, 0.53 cm diameter and Phase ECTM 1000 lm 1.2 lm. The temperature of the spitless injector was 250 C, the temperature of the detector was 275 C. The temperature increased from 80 to 120 C in 3 min. The carrier gas was nitrogen (25 kPa). The volume of sample injected was 1 ll. The calibration was made from a mixture of 6 acids (standard solution): acetic (C2), propionic (C3), butyric (C4), isobutyric (iC4), valeric (C5) and iso-valeric (iC5) acids at 1 g/l each. The calibration range was 0.251 g/l by dilution of the standard solution. The internal standard method (1 g of ethyl-2-butyric acid in 1 l of water acidied with 50 ml of H3PO4) was used to measure total VFA concentration by mixing 1/1 volume of the internal standard solution and the sample or the standard solution. The margin for error of this measurement was between 2 and 5% with a quantication threshold of 0.1 g/l. Quantication of attached/entrapped solids At the end of the experiment, the reactors were emptied to quantify the amount of volatile solids inside the reactors. Supports were removed by batches of 1 L (645, 23 and 11 numbers, respectively, for S9, S30 and S40) starting from the top (near the outlet) to the bottom (above the sludge bed). To estimate total solids, the supports were placed in aluminum foil and oven dried for 24 h. To estimate the volatile solid content, oven-dried solid samples were scrapped from the supports and ignited at 550 C for 2 h.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the anaerobic xed bed reactor

Table 1 Characteristics of supports Media S9 S30 S40 Dimension (D) 9 H (mm) 997 30/35 9 29 40/45 9 35 Surface area (m2/m3) 800 320 305 Density (kg/m3) 0.92 0.94 0.95

Feed characteristics and reactor inoculum To simulate winery wastewater, diluted wine with a COD concentration of around 20 g/l was used as feed for the experiments. The feed was made alkaline with the addition of NaOH (0.51.0 ml 10 N NaOH/l feed), and was supplemented with nutrients corresponding to a COD/N/P ratio of 400/7/1 [9]. Due to the low nutrient content present in winery wastewater, the addition of nitrogen and phosphate sources is recommended for cellular growth in the biological treatment process [14, 16, 31] to maintain a minimum COD:Tot N:P ratio of 400:7:1. The main characteristics of the feed are given in Table 2. Sludge from a large-scale anaerobic reactor treating distillery vinasse was used as inoculum for the reactors. One liter of concentrated sludge with a volatile solids (VS) content of 40 g/l was used to inoculate each reactor, thus providing an initial VSS concentration of 4 g/l in the reactors.

123

622 Fig. 2 Typical operating strategy of the reactors, example of reactor with S9

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628

Experimental design The experimental protocol was designed to examine the effect of increasing organic loading rates (OLR) on COD removal efciency in the three upow anaerobic xed-bed reactors lled with the different polyethylene oating carriers, the aim was to attain the maximum loading rate while maintaining 80% removal efciency. The inuent COD was maintained constant and OLR was gradually increased over time by decreasing the hydraulic retention time (HRT).

however, quite rapid given the type of wastewater employed (ethanol, which is readily biodegradable, is the primary constituent of winery wastewater). The OLR was gradually increased by 1020% once a week, provided that COD removal efciency remained above 80%. An 80% removal efciency was considered as the threshold level, both for safe operation and from an economical point of view. In cases where the COD remained high after an OLR increase, the OLR was temporarily decreased by 1020% to ensure lower COD at outlet with corresponding removal efciency higher than 80%. The main results for the three reactors with the different supports are summarized in Table 3. Biodegradability of winery efuent

Results and discussion Operation of the reactors The same operational strategy was employed for all the three reactors and Fig. 2 shows the example of the reactor lled with S9. Initially, the reactor with S9 was operated at a low OLR of around 0.4 g/l day. During the rst 2 weeks of operation at this loading rate, the efuent COD remained quite high, then decreased gradually from 2.7 to 0.30.4 g/l, corresponding to a removal efciency of 98%. This period of 2 weeks, considered as the acclimation phase, was, Figures 2 and 3 show, respectively, the variations with OLR for non VFA-COD and VFA-COD in the efuent at the reactor outlet. At low OLR (below 6 g/l day), the non VFA-COD at outlet (Fig. 3), which was at fairly constant and very low values, can be considered as the non-biodegradable COD fraction of winery wastewater. The average non-biodegradable COD in the treated efuent was 320 mg/L. The soluble COD removal rate of 98.4% shows that winery wastewater is highly biodegradable, with refractory soluble COD representing less than 1.6% of

Table 3 Comparison of reactor performance with the different supports used Parameters Maximum OLR attained, g COD/l day (for 80% COD removal efciency) Total reactor volatile solids, g Attached/entrapped volatile solids, g Suspended volatile solids, g Specic biomass activity, g COD/g VSS day Biomass yield, g VSS/g CODdes Maximum removal rate constant (Umax), g COD/l day Saturation value constant (KB), g COD/l day S9 42 354 302 52 1.19 0.056 161.3 162.0 S30 27 291 225 66 0.93 0.053 99.0 99.5 S40 22 225 162 63 0.98 0.060 77.5 78.0

123

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 Fig. 3 Variation of Non VFACOD at outlet with OLR

623

Fig. 4 Variation of VFA-COD at outlet with OLR

initial soluble COD. The residual COD concentrations measured were close to those reported earlier [10, 21, 33]. Between 6 and 15 g/l day, non-VFA-COD increased very little (Fig. 3) and any increase in COD at outlet was mainly linked to VFA accumulation (Fig. 4). For OLR above 15 g/l day, VFA was always in the range of 23 g COD/l and increase in COD at outlet were mainly linked to a gradual increase in the non VFA-COD, indicating the presence of other anaerobic intermediates or of non-acidied organic matter. This shows that above 15 g/l day, the acidication of the organic matter started to deteriorate and this phenomenon was more pronounced when the size of the support was bigger. Acetic acid was the major VFA component in all the reactors but there was a slight build-up in propionic, butyric and valeric acid concentrations as the OLR increased. The acetic acid concentration in S9, S30 and S40, corresponding to the maximum OLR of 42, 27 and 22 g/l day, were 1.67, 1.42 and 1.04 g/l, respectively.

Propionic, butyric and valeric acid concentrations remained less than 0.5 g/l at these OLRs. Reactor performance Figure 5, which presents the changes in COD removal efciency related to the OLR, gives an overview of the behavior of the three reactors. The maximum OLRs attained while maintaining above 80% removal efciency were 42, 27 and 22 g/l day for S9, S30 and S40, respectively. Furthermore, Fig. 5 indicates that, for a given loading rate, removal efciency was always higher and, thus, soluble COD at outlet always lower for reactor S9 compared to S30 and, similarly, for reactors S9 and S30 compared to S40. These results show that quite a high OLR could be applied to the reactors lled with the oating supports and that the reactor with S9 performed better than that with S30 which was, in turn, better than the reactor with S40. This

123

624 Fig. 5 Soluble COD removal efciency with respect to OLR

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628

Table 4 Different anaerobic reactor congurations studied for winery wastewater References This study This study This study Yu et al. [17] Muller [18] Keyser et al. [19] Andreottola et al. [20] Ruiz et al. [21] Reactor type Anaerobic xed bed Anaerobic xed bed Anaerobic xed bed Anaerobic lter UASB UASB Anaerobic hybrid (UASB ? lter) Anaerobic SBR Media S9 S30 S40 String shaped plastic media Activated microbial pellets Granular sludge Granular sludge ? Enterobacter Flocor R Anaerobic sludge OLR (kg/m3 day) 42 27 22 37.7 10 5.1 6.3 10 8.6 % COD removal 80 0.5 80 0.2 80 0.3 82 84.4 86 90 93 98

indicates that the performance of reactor was enhanced by a decrease in size and an increase in the specic surface area of the supports used. Table 4 shows a general comparison of the performances of the anaerobic xed-bed reactors used in this study with various other reactor congurations used for the treatment of winery wastewater. These congurations studied were anaerobic lters [17], UASB [18, 19], a hybrid system consisting of a UASB and an anaerobic lter [20] and an anaerobic SBR [21]. It can be seen that anaerobic xed-bed reactors offer enhanced performance in the treatment of winery wastewater in terms of high OLR and COD removal efciency. String-shaped plastic media were used by Yu et al. [17] for biomass immobilization in an anaerobic lter reactor and the results reported were similar to those in the present study, with a maximum loading rate of 37.7 kg/m3 day with 82% COD removal efciency. The performances of the other reactor congurations were much lower. Andreottola et al. [20] used a PVC-type lling material (Flocor R) with a specic surface area of 230 m2/m3 in the hybrid system (a single reactor with a combination of UASB and anaerobic lter). The

average COD loading rate attained was 10 kg/m3 day, with 93% COD removal. The comparison of the results of this study with the data from the literature clearly shows that the supports have high capability of biomass retention which facilitated the operation of the reactors at high OLRs. Higher OLR implies that for a constant volume of efuent to be treated, the reactor volume required is signicantly reduced thus contributing to substantial savings in land area and economics. Comparison with aerobic treatment systems A general comparison of the performance of different aerobic systems for the treatment of winery wastewater is shown in Table 5. For the conventional activated sludge systems [8, 9] and SBR systems [10] operated with an OLR less than 1 kg COD/m3 day, COD removal efciency of above 90% was achieved. Recently several advanced aerobic treatment systems were developed such as jet-loop reactors [12], moving bed biolm reactors [14], FBBR [15] and MBR systems [16]. These systems are also capable of achieving COD removal efciency above 90%, but at

123

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 Table 5 Comparison with aerobic reactor congurations studied for the treatment of winery wastewater References Fumi et al. [8] Brucculeri et al. [9] Torrijos and Moletta. [10] Petruccioli et al. [12] Petruccioli et al. [12] Andreottola et al. [14] Reactor type Long term-activated sludge Activated sludge Aerobic SBR Jet-loop activated sludge High rate aerobic Aerobic sequencing batch biolm Aerobic xed bed biolm (two-stage) OLR, kg COD/m3 day 0.140.4 kg BOD/m3 day 0.8 0.7 5.9 8.8 8.8 % COD removal 98 90 93 90 92.2 8699 Salient features

625

Efcient than conventional activated sludge process Very high retention time required High solids retention time (48 days) resulted in low excess sludge production Highly exible to seasonal loads Suitable for small wineries Sludge settling problems Reduction in reactor space requirement High organic load removal Online control of biodegradation process possible No sludge recycle required

Andreottola et al. [15]

1.57

91

Simple management, good settling sludge without bulking problems, no backwashing required. Rapid start-up of reactor requires previously colonized lling media.

Artiga et al. [16]

Membrane bioreactor (MBR)

2.2

97

Flexible and stable to high seasonal loads Problems with membrane modules lifetime and maintenance

relatively higher loading rates. Anaerobic xed bed reactor with the oating supports used in the present study allows operation at high OLRs (2242 kg COD/m3 day) with a removal efciency of 80%, thus contributing to lower reactor volume and land area requirements. Anaerobic xed bed reactors are advantageous than conventional aerobic systems as they are less energy intensive and produces less excess sludge. However, an aerobic post-treatment is required to make the efuent t for nal disposal. Suspended solids at outlet Efuent total suspended solids (TSS) uctuated with changes in the OLR and ranged between 600 and 1,700 mg/l, though no signicant difference between the reactors was recorded. The average efuent TSS for the entire study period was 839 425 mg/l for S9, 859 337 for S30 and 958 438 for S40, respectively. Quantication of suspended and attached/entrapped solids At the end of the experiment, the supports were removed from the reactors in batches of 1 L and the volatile solid concentration was measured in the sludge bed and in each of the 1 L support fraction. The supports used were able to retain a considerable quantity of solids. The average attached/entrapped volatile solids per support were 0.052 0.024, 1.09 0.28 and 1.65 0.33 g VS/support for S9, S30 and S40,

respectively. Table 3 shows that the total quantity of attached/entrapped solids in the reactors was, in decreasing order, S9 [ S30 [ S40 (301, 225 and 162 g, respectively) which indicates that biomass attachment increased with a decrease in the size of the supports coupled with an increase in the specic surface area. The quantity of volatile solids in suspension in the liquid phase (Table 3) was fairly similar in the three reactors (5266 g of VS) and represented, respectively, for S9, S30 and S40, 15, 23 and 28% of total VS in the reactors. Finally, thanks to the supports, the total quantity of volatile solids retained in each reactor increased signicantly in comparison to conventional CSTRs: values for the 10 l reactors S9, S30 and S40 were, respectively, 355, 290 and 225 g of volatile solids. The specic mass loading rates or specic biomass activity, that is to say the organic load in terms of g COD/day divided by the quantity of volatile solids in the reactor, were, for S9, S30 and S40, respectively, 1.19, 0.93 and 0.98 g COD/g VSS day. This specic activity is close to 0.90 g COD/g VSS day reported by Mosquera-Corral et al. [34] for the anaerobic occulent sludge used in their study. These values are quite high as a specic load between 1 and 1.5 g COD/g VSS day is generally considered to be the upper limit for the stable operation of an anaerobic reactor [2]. The VS yields for the three reactors were quite close with 0.056, 0.053 and 0.060 g VS/g COD destroyed, for S9, S30 and S40, respectively. The VS yield value obtained is in good agreement with those of Borja et al. [35] and Tatara et al. [36] where values reported by the authors were 0.06 and 0.0585 g VS/g COD removed, respectively.

123

626

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628

The higher OLR of 42 g/l day attained in S9 can thus be attributed to the greater volatile solids present in the reactor as well as to its higher biomass activity. In all three reactors, attached volatile solids were distributed almost identically throughout the reactor height. Indeed, the average volatile solids were 43.2 2.3, 26.4 4.9, and 21.8 1.2 g VS/l, indicating that there was no solids gradient. Photographs of the biocovered supports at the end of the experiments are shown in Fig. 6. Two to three biocovered supports were subjected to a normal tap water pressure jet to evaluate the level of xation of solids on the supports. It was found that most of the solids were easily removed and very little remained attached to the surface of the supports. Thus, it was found that solids retention in all the three types of support was based on entrapment rather than on actual biolm formation. Similar observations were made by Henze and Harremoes [24], Weiland [3] and Alkalay et al. [29] using other supports. They concluded that biolm thickness is of limited signicance in xed-bed reactors since it makes up only a small part of the total percentage of biomass whereas the biomass suspended/entrapped in the gaps is of major importance: biomass builds up as particles suspended in the spaces, forming the largest part and thus contributing considerably to overall activity.

Kinetic model application The most widely-used kinetic models for anaerobic lters include the Monod model [37] and the StoverKincannon model [38]. The major difference between these two models is the use of the total loading rate concept in the StoverKincannon model [39]. In the present study, the StoverKincannon model was applied to the reactors for the evaluation of kinetic constants and for predicting the performance of the reactors. In the modied StoverKincannon model, the substrate utilization rate is expressed as a function of the OLR by monomolecular kinetics, as follows: dS=dt1 V=QSi Se KB V=Umax Q Si 1=Umax 1 where dS/dt, substrate removal rate (g/l day); Umax, maximum utilization rate constant (g/l day); KB, saturation value constant (g/l day); V, volume of the reactor; Q, ow rate (l/d); Si, inuent substrate concentration (g/l); and Se, efuent substrate concentration(g/l). The plot between the inverse of the OLR V/(Q Si) and the inverse of the organic removal rate V/[Q(Si - Se)] yields a straight line, with 1/Umax as the intercept and

Fig. 6 Photographs of the biocovered supports (S9, S30, S40) Fig. 7 StoverKincannon model application to the reactors

123

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 Fig. 8 Experimental and predicted efuent COD for the reactors

627

KB/Umax as the slope (Fig. 7). For S9, S30 and S40, respectively, the maximum removal rate constant (Umax) was 161.3, 99.0 and 77.5 g/l day and the saturation value constant (KB) 162.0, 99.5 and 78.0 g/l day (Table 3). The modied StoverKincannon model was applied to xed-bed reactors treating different substrates. For example, the values of Umax and KB, respectively, were: for soybean wastewater, 83.3 and 85.5 g/l day [39]; for synthetic wastewater, 83.3 and 186.23 g/l day [40]; and for textile wastewater 31.69 and 45.37 g/l day [41]. The Eq. 2 shown below, which is the reorganized form of Eq. 1 together with the values of Umax and KB obtained from Fig. 7, is used to predict the efuent substrate concentration. Se Si Umax Si =KB Q Si =V 2

2.

3. 4.

5.

Fig. 8 shows the experimental Se values and the predicted values using Eq. 2 for the three reactors. The high correlation coefcient of 0.99 obtained indicates that the modied StoverKincannon model can be satisfactorily used for the design of anaerobic xed-reactors treating winery wastewaters. 6. Conclusion In this study, the potential for the use of upow anaerobic xed-bed reactors with low-density oating carriers as media for the treatment of winery wastewater was investigated and the following conclusions were drawn: 1. Anaerobic xed-bed reactors with small oating supports offer great promise as high-rate systems for the treatment of high COD wastewater which typically contains readily biodegradable organics, such as

winery wastewater. A maximum OLR of 42 g/l day at 80% removal efciency was attained in the reactor with the supports of smallest size and highest specic surface area. Volatile solid retention, specic biomass activity and the maximum OLR were found to increase as support size decreased and its specic surface area increased. The supports favored solids entrapment with very little or no biolm formation. Kinetic models were applied to the reactors to evaluate removal rate constants. The modied StoverKincannon model gave accurate predictions about reactor performance and thus should be of effective use when applied to the design of anaerobic xed-bed reactors treating winery wastewater. Due to their higher biomass retention potential, the supports used in this study offer great promise as media in anaerobic xed bed reactors. Anaerobic xed-bed reactors with these supports can be applied as high-rate systems for the treatment of large volumes of wastewaters typically containing readily biodegradable organics, such as the winery wastewater. Anaerobic xed bed reactor with the oating supports used in the present study allows operation at high OLRs (2242 kg COD/m3 day) with a removal efciency of 80%, thus contributing to lower reactor volume and land area requirements. Anaerobic xed bed reactors are advantageous than conventional aerobic systems as they are less energy intensive and produces less excess sludge. However, an aerobic post-treatment is required to make the efuent t for nal disposal.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their gratitude to the French Embassy in India for funding and supporting the program.

123

628

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619628 Proceedings of the Second International conference on wineries wastewater treatment, Bordeaux, France Ruiz C, Torrijos M, Sousbie P, Lebrato-Martinez J, Moletta R, Delgenes JP (2002) Treatment of winery wastewater by anaerobic sequencing batch reactor. Wat Sci Technol 45:219224 Rajeshwari KV, Balakrishnan M, Kansal A, Lata K, Kishores VVN (2000) State of the art of anaerobic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 4:135156 Choi YS, Shin EB, Chang HN, Chung HK (1989) Start-up and operation of anaerobic biolters with packing alternatives. Bioprocess Eng 4:275281 Henze M, Harremoes P (1983) Anaerobic treatment of wastewater in xed lm reactors: a literature review. Wat Sci Technol 15:1101 Young JC, Dahab MF (1983) Effect of media design n the performance of xed-bed reactors. Wat Sci Technol 15:369383 Farhadian M, Borghei M, Umrania VU (2007) Treatment of beet sugar wastewater by UAFB bioprocess. Biores Technol 98:3080 3083 Harendranath CS, Anuja K, Singh A, Gunaseelan A, Satish K, Lala K (1996) Immobilization in xed lm reactors: an ultrastructural approach. Wat Sci Technol 33:715 Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Hamdi M (2005) Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and vegetable wastes. Process Biochem 40:989995 Alkalay D, Guerrero L, Chamy R, Schiappacasse M (1997) Microbial adherence studies for anaerobic lters. Bioprocess Eng 16:311314 Agamuthu P (1999) Specic biogas production and role of packing medium in the treatment of rubber thread manufacturing industry wastewater. Bioprocess Eng 21:151155 Kalyuzhnyi S, Gladchenko M, Sklyar V, Kizimenko Y, Shcherbakov S (2001) One and two stage upow anaerobic sludge bed reactor pre-treatment of winery wastewater. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 90:107123 APHA, AWWA, WEF (1995) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC Canler JP, Alary G, Perret JM, Racault Y (1998) Aerobic biological treatment of winery efuent using tanks in series. In: 2nd international specialized conference on winery wastewater. Bordeaux, France Mosquera-Corral A, Belmar A, Decap J, Sossa K, Urrutia H, Vidal G (2008) Anaerobic treatment of low-strength synthetic TCF efuents and biomass adhesion in xed-bed systems. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 31:535540 Borja R, Sanchez E, Martin A, Jimenez AM (1996) Kinetic behaviour of waste tyre rubber as microorganism support in an anaerobic digester treating cane molasses distillery slops. Bioprocess Eng 16:1723 Tatara M, Yamazawa A, Ueno Y, Fukui H, Goto M, Sode K (2005) High-rate thermophilic methane fermentation on shortchain fatty acids in a down-ow anaerobic packed-bed reactor. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 27:105113 Williamson K, McCarty PL (1976) A model of substrate utilization by bacterial lms. J Wat Poll Cont Fed 48:916 Stover EL, Kincannon DF (1982) Rotating biological contactor scale-up and design. In: Proceedings of the rst conference on xed-lm biological processes. Kings Island, OH Yu HQ, Wilson F, Tay JH (1998) Kinetic analysis of anaerobic lter treating soybean waste. Wat Res 32:33413352 Buyukkamaci N, Filibeli A (2002) Determination of kinetic constants of an anaerobic hybrid reactor. Process Biochem 38:7379 Sandhya S, Swaminathan K (2006) Kinetic analysis of treatment of textile wastewater in hybrid column upow anaerobic xed bed reactor. Chem Eng J 122:8792

References
1. Perez M, Romero LI, Sales D (1999) Anaerobic thermophilic uidized bed treatment of industrial wastewater: effect of F:M relationship. Chemosphere 38:34433461 2. Jordening HJ, Buchholz K (2005) High-rate anaerobic waste water treatment. In: Jordening HJ, Winter J (eds) Environmental Biotechnology: concepts and applications. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim 3. Weiland P, Wulfert K (1986) Anaerobic treatment of stillage using different pilot scale xed bed reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 27:800809 4. Di Berardino S, Bersi R, Converti A, Rovatti M (1997) Startingup an anaerobic hybrid lter for the fermentation of wastewater from food industry. Bioprocess Eng 16:6570 5. Sales D, Valcarcel MJ, Perez L, Martinez de la Ossa E (1987) Activated sludge treatment of wine-distillery wastewaters. J Chem Tech Biotechnol 40:8599 6. Eusebio A, Petruccioli M, Lageiro M, Federici F, Cardoso Duarte JC (2004) Microbial characterization of activated sludge in jet-loop bioreactors treating winery wastewaters. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 31:2934 7. Moletta R (2005) Winery and distillery wastewater treatment by anaerobic digestion. Wat Sci Technol 51:137144 8. Fumi MD, Parodi G, Parodi E, Silva A, Marchetti R (1995) Optimization of long-term activated sludge treatment of winery wastewater. Bioresour Technol 52:4551 9. Brucculeri M, Bolzonella D, Battistoni P, Cecchi F (2005) Treatment of mixed municipal and winery wastewaters in a conventional activated sludge process: a case study. Wat Sci Technol 51:8998 10. Torrijos M, Moletta R (1997) Winery wastewater depollution by sequencing batch reactor. Wat Sci Technol 35:249257 11. Houbron E, Torrijos M, Moletta R (1998) Application du procede SBR aux efuentes viticoles: resultats de trois annee de suivi. In: Proceedings 2nd congress international sur le traitment des efuents vinicoles, Bordeaux, 57 May 12. Petruccioli M, Cardoso J, Eusebio A, Federici F (2002) Aerobic treatment of winery wastewater using a jet-loop activated sludge reactor. Process Biochem 37:821829 13. Malandra L, Wolfaardt G, Zietsman A, Viljoen-Bloom M (2003) Microbiology of a biological contactor for winery wastewater treatment. Wat Res 37:41254134 14. Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M, Villa R (2002) Treatment of winery wastewater in a sequencing batch biolm reactor. Wat Sci Technol 45:347354 15. Andreottola G, Foladori P, Nardelli P, Denicolo A (2005) Treatment of winery wastewater in a full scale xed bed biolm reactor. Wat Sci Technol 51:7179 16. Artiga P, Carballa M, Garrido JM, Mendez R (2007) Treatment of winery wastewaters in a membrane submerged bioreactor. Wat Sci Technol 56:6369 17. Yu HQ, Zhao QB, Tang Y (2006) Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater using laboratory-scale multi- and single-fed lters at ambient temperatures. Process Biochem 41:24772481 18. Muller D (1998) Treatment of winery wastewater using UASB approaches: capability and efciency. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on wineries wastewater treatment, Bordeaux France 19. Keyser M, Witthuhn RC, Ronquest LC, Britz TJ (2003) Treatment of winery efuent with upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)granular sludges enriched with Enterobacter sakazakii. Biotechnol Lett 25:18931898 20. Andreottola G, Nardelli P, Nardin F (1998) Demonstration plant experience of winery anaerobic treatment in a hybrid reactor. In: 21.

22.

23.

24.

25. 26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37. 38.

39. 40. 41.

123