Anaerobic processes as the core technology for sustainable domestic

wastewater treatment: Consolidated applications, new trends,

perspectives, and challenges
Eugenio Foresti*, Marcelo Zaiat & Marcus Vallero
Departamento de Hidraulica e Saneamento, Escola de Engenharia de Sao Carlos, Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Av. Trabalhador Sao-Carlense, 400 Centro, 15566-590, Sao Carlos, SP, Brazil (*author for correspondence:
e-mail: eforesti@sc.usp.br; phone: +55 16 3373 9671; fax: +55 16 3373 9550)
Key words: anaerobic processes, domestic sewage, improved anaerobic reactor design, post-treatment,
resources recovery, sustainability
Abstract
Anaerobic digesters have been responsible for the removal of large fraction of organic matter (minerali-
zation of waste sludge) in conventional aerobic sewage treatment plants since the early years of domestic
sewage treatment (DST). Attention on the anaerobic technology for improving the sustainability of sewage
treatment has been paid mainly after the energy crisis in the 1970s. The successful use of anaerobic reactors
(especially up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors) for the treatment of raw domestic sewage in
tropical and sub-tropical regions (where ambient temperatures are not restrictive for anaerobic digestion)
opened the opportunity to substitute the aerobic processes for the anaerobic technology in removal of the
inuent organic matter. Despite the success, euents from anaerobic reactors treating domestic sewage
require post-treatment in order to achieve the emission standards prevailing in most countries. Initially, the
composition of this euent rich in reduced compounds has required the adoption of post-treatment (mainly
aerobic) systems able to remove the undesirable constituents. Currently, however, a wealth of information
obtained on biological and physical-chemical processes related to the recovery or removal of nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulfur compounds creates the opportunity for new treatment systems. The design of DST
plant with the anaerobic reactor as core unit coupled to the pre- and post-treatment systems in order to
promote the recovery of resources and the polishing of euent quality can improve the sustainability of
treatment systems. This paper presents a broader view on the possible applications of anaerobic treatment
systems not only for organic matter removal but also for resources recovery aiming at the improvement of
the sustainability of DST.
1. The emergence of anaerobic process
for domestic sewage treatment
The proposition of anaerobic processes as the
core technology for domestic sewage treatment
(DST) is quite recent. This proposition derives
from a more general concept of sustainable envi-
ronmental protection and resource conservation
(EPRC) applied for wastewaters and solid
wastes, as proposed by Lettinga et al. (1997).
The application of anaerobic processes, however,
can be traced to the time of the rst engineered
wastewater treatment plants (McCarty 1982). For
instance, anaerobic processes have been exten-
sively applied for the digestion of primary and
secondary sludge in wastewater treatment plants
based on conventional aerobic systems such as
the activated sludge and trickling lter systems.
The settleable solids fraction in the raw sewage
(separated in primary settlers) corresponds to
Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology (2006) 5:319 Springer 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11157-005-4630-9
about 4050% of the total inuent organic mat-
ter, whereas the organic-rich supernatant is trea-
ted in aerobic units, where a considerable
fraction of dissolved organics is converted into
biological solids. A fraction of produced biologi-
cal solids is returned to the aeration units (acti-
vated sludge systems) but ultimately most of it is
discharged from secondary settlers as excess
sludge. Therefore, the suspended solids fraction
(sum of primary and secondary sludges) may ac-
count for about 4060% of the total organic
matter (present in raw sewage) to be treated in
anaerobic digesters before nal disposal. Thus, it
is evident that anaerobic processes have played
an important role in the organic load abatement
and sludge manageability, mainly in large
conventional aerobic treatment plants.
Since about 1882 experiments had been car-
ried out on the aeration of settled sewage with
research eorts in the last two decades of the
nineteenth century concentrated on wastewater
treatment by the promising biological ltration
theories (Cooper 2001). Important developments
of the activated sludge process and its many vari-
ants (including anaerobic sludge digesters) has
turned it into the main technique for secondary
sewage treatment and has had probably the big-
gest impact of all processes on environmental
improvement in the past century. In the last half
of the past century, however, economical con-
straints, due to the sharp increase in energy pri-
ces and environmental sustainability awareness,
stimulated an impressive development of anaero-
bic processes for wastewater treatment. Unques-
tionably the greatest development for success of
the anaerobic digestion was the design of new
reactor concepts (as compared to the aerated
units) that allowed the retention of a high con-
centration of biomass, enabling a sharp decrease
in the hydraulic retention time (HRT) needed to
achieve acceptable waste removal eciencies un-
der anaerobic conditions (McCarty 1982).
From 1950 to 1980, several anaerobic reactor
congurations were developed for industrial
wastewater treatment (McCarty 1982): (1) the
anaerobic clarigester, that couples a sedimenta-
tion zone on top of the reaction zone; (2) the
anaerobic contact process, that incorporates a
separate settler for retaining and returning the
biomass to the anaerobic reactor (Seyfried et al.
1984; Anderson & Donnelly 1977); (3) the anaer-
obic lter, that is an up-ow reactor with a xed
bed for anaerobic biolm attachment (Young &
McCarty 1969); (4) the anaerobic expanded/uid-
ized bed reactor, that is an up-ow reactor with
expanded/uidized bed for anaerobic biolm
attachment (Switzenbaun & Jewell 1980); (5) the
up-ow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reac-
tor, that is an up-ow reactor equipped with an
internal solid/liquid/gas (SLG) separation device
to keep the biological solids inside the reaction
zone (Lettinga et al. 1980); (6) the anaerobic
rotating biological reactor, that contains rotating
biodiscs in a air-tight tank (Blanc et al. 1983;
Tait & Friedman 1980); (7) and the anaerobic
baed reactor, that is a series of up- and down-
ow chambers separated by baes to provide the
SLG separation along the reactor length (Bach-
mann et al. 1985).
In any case, anaerobic digestion was consid-
ered to be feasible for high-strength wastewater
and only for temperature conditions above
2025 C (Kalogo & Verstraete 2001) so that the
rst anaerobic reactor congurations were
designed for industrial wastewater treatment. The
use of anaerobic processes for the treatment of
high-strength industrial wastewater, especially
those from food processing and pulp and paper
industries, became a very attractive option be-
cause expensive aeration equipment (used in aer-
obic processes) are not needed, resulting in lower
investment and energy costs. In addition, the net
production of excess sludge is also lower and the
methane gas produced can be used as energy
source. The anaerobic digestion of high strength
wastewater in temperate climate countries is the
appropriate choice because the great volume of
methane gas produced is used to heat the reactor
to a desired operational temperature (3035 C).
More recently, however, the anaerobic pro-
cesses proved also to be suited for the treatment
of low-strength domestic sewage, notwithstand-
ing that the successful full-scale application and
operation of anaerobic reactors is still restricted
to tropical regions (no need for heating), where
sewage temperatures generally exceed 20 C
(Lettinga 2001). Nevertheless, the presence of
suspended solids (including fats) in raw sewage is
a drawback for its treatment in anaerobic reac-
tors. The suspended solids correspond to about
50% of the total chemical oxygen demand
(COD) of sewage, making hydrolysis the limiting
4
step. Therefore, some anaerobic reactor congu-
rations successfully applied for industrial waste-
water treatment may not be applied to raw
sewage treatment, as the suspended solids in sew-
age clog xed beds (Zaiat et al. 2000; Jawed &
Tare 2000), or they cannot be properly retained
(and therefore digested) in anaerobic reactors
operated at high up-ow velocities (Mahmoud
et al. 2003).
Research and application on the anaerobic
treatment of DST have put little emphasis on the
possibilities of improving bioreactor design and
treatment systems in order to further improve
their performance in comparison to existing
anaerobic reactors congurations. This paper pre-
sents the possibilities of pre- and post-treatment
and new reactor congurations both to enhance
organic matter conversion and to recover energy
and resources, viz. nitrogen, phosphorus and sul-
fur compounds.
Specic aspects of reactor congurations for
DST including post-treatment options are pre-
sented in other sections of this special issue of
Re/Views in Environmental Science and Bio/Tech-
nology.
Thus, a broader view on the possible applica-
tions of anaerobic technology to promote a more
sustainable DST is presented. In this paper, sus-
tainability in DST is based on at least three
important issues: (1) public health protection, (2)
environmental protection, and (3) resource recov-
ery. In addition, economical limitations play a
key role on what sustainable DST is, as develop-
ing countries cannot aord the complete attain-
ment of these three issues, because construction
and maintenance of high-tech DST are very
expensive. In this paper, a sustainable system is
considered as the best aordable (low-cost) pro-
cess for public health and environmental protec-
tion as well as resource recovery.
2. Anaerobic technology as a tool to promote
a sustainable DST
The ideal situation for DST systems would be
the complete removal of pathogens (health pro-
tection) and the highest removal of COD (envi-
ronmental protection) with recovery of energy
(methane or hydrogen) and compounds of inter-
est: nitrogen (as NH
4
+
, NO
2
)
, and NO
3
)
),
phosphorus (as phosphate) and sulfur (as S
0
).
As such, in terms of sustainability the use of
anaerobic reactors as the core unit of a DST
system is most suited for this purpose. In addi-
tion to the removal of organic matter with low
(if any) energy consumption and with a net pro-
duction of methane gas, the presence of phos-
phate, nitrogen and sulfur reduced compounds
in the euent opens the opportunity for the
development of economically feasible processes
to recover these compounds of interest. In fact,
the development of post-treatment units of
anaerobic reactors is not only important to
improve the euent quality for environmental
protection, but also to achieve the recovery of
resources.
It is well known that existing anaerobic reac-
tors applied to DST produce euents that can-
not be directly discharged in supercial water
bodies (Figure 1). The euent quality from
anaerobic reactors treating domestic sewage can
vary widely depending on several factors,
including: local conditions, inuent characteris-
tics, reactor design, operational parameters, etc.
As such, a general anaerobic reactor euent
quality cannot be dened strictly. From most
data available, however, anaerobic euents are
normally launched with a COD from 100 to
200 mg L
)1
, total suspended solids (TSS) from
50 to 100 mg L
)1
(Passig et al. 2000; Vieira
1998; van Haandel & Lettinga 1994;); ammonia
from 30 to 50 mg L
)1
(Kobayashi et al. 1983;
Torres & Foresti 2001), and phosphorus from
10 to 17 mg L
)1
(Torres & Foresti 2001).
Sulde concentrations depend on the inuent
sulfate concentration and on the extension of
the prevalence of sulde generation over metha-
nogenesis, as sulfate reduction occurs preferably
over methanogenesis when organic carbon is
available in the inuent (Lens et al. 2000). In
addition, it is well known that biological pro-
cesses, either aerobic or anaerobic, are ineec-
tive for appropriated pathogens removal, except
in stabilization ponds (von Sperling 1996).
Therefore, anaerobic reactor euents still repre-
sent a real risk to health (presence of patho-
gens) and environment (high-residual COD and
nutrients). Consequently, anaerobic reactors
must be combined with other technologies in
order to pursue the presented ideal situation for
DST systems.
5
3. Application of anaerobic reactors for sewage
treatment
3.1. Successes and constraints in the use
of anaerobic reactors for DST
The increasing use of anaerobic reactors as the
rst unit of DST systems is mainly due to
the successful use of UASB reactors for indus-
trial wastewater treatment. The earlier reports on
the application of UASB reactors for DST are
from the beginning of the eighties (Lettinga et al.
1982). At the moment, the UASB reactor is
undoubtedly the most successful reactor for the
treatment of raw domestic sewage, due to both
the absence of a xed bed (avoiding clogging)
and the presence of a SLG separator on the reac-
tors top that prevents excessive solid losses.
Even so, this application of the UASB reactor is
still conned to tropical and sub-tropical coun-
tries, where most developing countries are
located. In fact, these countries constitute a privi-
leged niche for the advantageous application of
anaerobic process as the core technology for
DST. At temperatures higher than 20 C and
HRT in the range of 610 h, removal eciencies
from 65% to 80% for COD and BOD, and from
67% to 90% for TSS have been obtained with
UASB reactors (Wiegnant 2001; Foresti 2002).
Despite the recognized success of the UASB
reactor as the most ecient and used anaerobic
unit for the treatment of raw sewage, some limi-
tation of this reactor conguration are evident.
Scum formation inside the GLS separator and
high losses of volatile suspended solids (VSS) in
the euent are serious issues that deserve proper
attention for the improvement of reactor design,
thus presumably enabling enhanced reactor per-
formance.
3.2. Options of pre-treatment
The negative eects of poorly biodegradable sus-
pended solids on the methanogenic activity of the
sludge were observed since the rst experiences
using the UASB reactor for the treatment of
DST (Lettinga et al. 1982). Many alternatives
were suggested to improve the digestion of
suspended solids.
Organic Carbon (OC)
Organic Nitrogen (ON)
Organic Sulfur (OS)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH
4
+
)
Sulfate (SO
4
2-
)
Phosphate (PO
4
3-
)
Input of compounds
in raw sewage
OC CH
4
/ CO
2
/ OC
effluent
ON NH
4
+
OS HS
-
/ H
2
S
SO
4
2-
HS
-
/ H
2
S
NH
4
+
Output of
compounds in
anaerobically
treated sewage
HS
-
/ H
2
S
dissolv.
PO
4
3-
OC
e
CH
4
CO
2
H
2
S
H
2
Sludge ready
for
dewatering
Anaerobic
reactor
Organic Carbon (OC)
Organic Nitrogen (ON)
Organic Sulfur (OS)
Ammonia nitrogen (NH
4
+
)
Sulfate (SO
4
2-
)
Phosphate (PO
4
3-
)
Input of compounds
in raw sewage
OC CH
4
/ CO
2
/ OC
effluent
ON NH
4
+
OS HS
-
/ H
2
S
SO
4
2-
HS
-
/ H
2
S
NH
4
+
Output of
compounds in
anaerobically
treated sewage
HS
-
/ H
2
S
dissolv.
PO
4
3-
OC
e
CH
4
CO
2
H
2
S
H
2
Sludge ready
for
dewatering
Anaerobic
reactor

Figure 1. Input and output of compounds in an anaerobic reactor treating domestic sewage.
6
3.2.1. Two-stage anaerobic process
In order to overcome this problem, two-stage
anaerobic processes have been proposed to retain
and degrade suspended solids from sewage (van
Haandel & Lettinga 1994; Zeeman et al. 1997).
In the rst stage, the particulate organic matter
is entrapped and partially hydrolyzed into solu-
ble compounds, which are then presumably di-
gested in the second stage. According to Zeeman
et al. (1997), the combined system (two-stage
anaerobic process) resulted in high removal e-
ciency as compared to a single anaerobic reactor
(one phase UASB system).
3.2.2. Chemically assisted sedimentation
Another option is the use of chemically assisted
sedimentation of raw domestic sewage followed
by anaerobic reactors. For instance, raw domes-
tic wastewater was treated by the combination of
a chemically enhanced primary treatment
(CEPT) followed by an UASB reactor (Kalogo
& Verstraete 2000). The CEPT (fed with either
FeCl
3
or moringa oleifera seeds) increased the
soluble COD/VSS ratio of the supernatant and a
net COD removal rate of 71% was achieved
when a HRT of 2 h and volumetric loading rate
of 4 g COD L
)1
day
)1
was applied. In another
work integrating CEPT + UASB + zeolite
cartridge, a CEPT (fed with FeCl
3
and an anio-
nic organic occulant) removed an average 73%
of the COD, 85% of the total suspended solids
and 80% of PO
4
3)
present in the wastewater
(Aiyuk et al. 2004). The UASB system received a
low COD (140 mg L
)1
) and with an HRT of 5 h
a very low euent COD of approximately
50 mg L
)1
was produced. Finally, the regenera-
ble zeolite cartridge removed almost 100% of
NH
4
from the UASB euent. The authors claim
low construction and operating costs (estimated
at e 0.070.1 per m
3
wastewater treated), pro-
posing this treatment system for developing
countries.
3.2.3. Forced screening
Alternatively to two-stage or CEPT units, the
adoption of screens to reduce the size of inuent
particulate matter (suspended solids) has been
used (mainly in lab-scale and pilot plants) for the
removal of a fraction of suspended solids that
interfere in the operation of pumps and other
equipments (Zaiat et al. 2000). Nevertheless, even
pre-screened sewage contains a substantial frac-
tion of suspended solids and fatty matter. Cur-
rently, experiments on the use of forced screening
to reduce the size of suspended solids from raw
sewage for the improvement of hydrolysis in an
UASB reactor are under investigation at the
Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil.
3.2.4. Two-step (sedimentation + digestion)
process
The rst researchers that inferred about the need for
a pre-treatment for anaerobic DST were Lettinga
et al. (1982), who suggested the use of a two-step
process: primary sedimentation for suspended solids
separation and separate digestion of sludge fol-
lowed by a methanogenic step. To the best of our
knowledge, there are no reports on further devel-
opments of two-steps processes for DST, probably
because practitioners and designers of the coun-
tries where anaerobic reactors are applied look
mainly for low-cost and easy operation DST
systems. It is worth noting that the separation of
suspended solids in a primary sedimentation step
is a common practice in the design of aerobic
treatment systems. However, in a scenario where
the same primary settlers used in conventional aer-
obic systems are adopted (that means, primary
sedimentation and heated digesters), the problems
due to hydrolysis (known as the limiting step) in
anaerobic reactors can be minimized. In addition,
the adoption of pre-treatment units for solids
separation would allow the use of reactor congu-
rations other than the UASB reactor, allowing
thereby the use of attached growth biomass reac-
tors for sewage treatment, such as anaerobic lters
(AF) and horizontal-ow anaerobic immobilized
biomass (HAIB) reactors (Zaiat et al. 2000). As
mentioned before, xed-lm reactors are especially
sensitive to inuent suspended solids that cause
bed clogging. On the other hand, the previous re-
moval of suspended solids would probably allow
expanded/uidized bed (Switzenbaun & Jewell,
1980) and expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)
(Kato 1994) reactors to operate at higher super-
cial velocities, increasing mass transfer and the
overall kinetic.
Therefore, the prior removal of suspended
solids seems to be an ecient way to either
enhance the performance of UASB reactors or to
allow the use of xed bed anaerobic reactors.
7
3.2.5. Pre-treatment as a tool to allow anaerobic
DST in temperate climate countries
It is well known that low temperatures restrict
the anaerobic sewage treatment in temperate cli-
mate countries, mainly because the hydrolysis
step occurs at very low rates. This is particularly
true for suspended solids, oil and lipids. It is be-
lieved, however, that low temperatures would not
be a hindrance for the anaerobic treatment of
pre-treated domestic sewage. If a primary solid
separation step is designed (as in aerobic reac-
tors) the problems due to hydrolysis (known as
the limiting step at low temperatures) in anaero-
bic reactors can be minimized. Although the
activity of the biomass would remain low at psy-
chrophilic conditions, the amount of biomass
could be conceivably increased in reactor setups
in order to achieve the needed overall removal
rates of dissolved organic matter. It is worth not-
ing that methanogenesis at very low temperatures
(<10 C) has been reported (Nozhevnikova et al.
2000). There are even reports on successful meth-
anogenesis of low-strength wastewater at psy-
chrophilic conditions (1012 C) in an EGSB
reactor with volatile fatty acids (VFA) removal
eciencies exceeding 90% (Rebac et al. 1999),
encouraging for positive expectations for the
application of anaerobic reactors for sewage
treatment in temperate climate regions. A two-
step system (anaerobic lter followed by an
anaerobic hybrid reactor) provided suitable COD
removal (71% for total COD) in the treatment of
domestic sewage at 13 C (Elmitwalli et al. 2002).
Thus, ecient pre-treatment units would allow a
broader range of temperatures for the ecient
use of anaerobic reactors for DST.
4. Improvement of UASB reactor design for DST
As already pointed out, anaerobic reactor de-
signs were conceived primarily for the treatment
of high-strength wastewater. For instance, the
UASB reactor was not designed for wastewaters
where the composition does not favor the forma-
tion of granules, despite the success of this appli-
cation for domestic wastewater treatment. As
such, there is so far no reactor concepts specially
designed for the treatment of sewage, although
some adaptations in established reactors concepts
were proposed:
4.1. Tilted plates
Tilted plates were installed on top of the SLG
separator of an UASB reactor in order to pro-
mote the retention of occulant biomass prone to
be washed-out from conventional UASB reactors
(Cavalcanti 2003). The results obtained in this
work showed that indeed the retention of solids
is improved with a better design of the settling
zone resulting in enhanced reactor performance,
mainly when operating at short HRT (<8 h).
Under shorter HRTs, euent COD values ob-
tained in a UASB reactor with tilted plates were
about half of those obtained with no tilted plates
(Cavalcanti 2003).
4.2. Hybrid UASB reactor
Another interesting example of improved reactor
design for the treatment of domestic wastewater
is the incorporation of a xed bed (e.g., foam
matrices) lling the outer layer of the SLG sepa-
rator of an UASB reactor (Elmitwalli et al. 2002;
Passig & Campos 2004). Recent results at our
laboratories showed that an almost solid-free
euent was produced in such a unit (data not
shown). In addition, if this chamber is aerated, it
would be possible to proceed with nitrication
and sulde oxidation, eliminating one of the
important sources of odor in the UASB euent.
4.3. Perforated submerged outlet devices
Generally the euent liquid is collected super-
cially in open channels, causing problems of odor
nuisance and, if poorly designed or constructed,
preferential ow patterns may occur, resulting in
reactor bulk short-circuits. The use of perforated
submerged tubes discharging in ooded channels
is a promising alternative because: (1) it de-
creases the losses in suspended solids in UASB
euents, and (2) minimizes the emission of H
2
S
to the atmosphere caused by the turbulence in
the existing euent collecting channels. With
well-designed ooded outlet devices, a consider-
able fraction of the suspended solids can be re-
tained inside the reactor, reducing the euent
TSS concentration (and accordingly, the raw
COD). In this case, a signicant increase of
oated material on the reactor surface may
occur. To solve that, the use of appropriate
8
devices must be designed in order to remove
oated solids from inside the reactor, so this
material can be directed to drying beds or other
convenient units of the sludge management
sub-system.
5. Post-treatment: COD polishing technologies
5.1. Biological post-treatment systems
Additional COD (and BOD) and VSS removal
have been obtained by coupling aerobic processes
after the anaerobic reactor. Polishing ponds (PP;
Cavalcanti 2003), trickling lter (TF)systems
(Chernicharo & Nascimento 2001), submerged
aerated lters (SAF; Gonc alves et al. 1998), acti-
vated sludge systems (ASS; Passig et al. 2000; von
Sperling et al. 2001), rotating biological contac-
tors (RBC; Tawc et al. 2002, 2003, 2004;
Castilho et al. 1997), wetlands (Kaaseva 2004;
Mbuligue 2004, de Sousa et al. 2001), radial-ow
aerobic immobilized biomass reactor (RAIB;
Vieira et al. 2003) and sequencing batch reactors
(SBR Torres & Foresti 2001; Sousa & Foresti
1996) are among the most used post-treatment
units or systems for anaerobic euents treatment.
In most cases, any of these alternatives produce
euents low in COD and TSS. In comparison to
these alternatives, multifunctional SBR, which
operates in alternating anaerobicaerobic condi-
tions in the same batch cycle, are more compact
and allows the removal of not only the remaining
COD but also nutrients (Callado & Foresti 2001).
Although not extensively reported in the litera-
ture, most of the existing full-scale DST plants in
Brazil include an UASB reactor followed by acti-
vated sludge systems, submerged aerated lters or
stabilization ponds. These systems attain euents
with low-residual COD (<50 mg L
)1
) and the
produced methane is normally burned in ares
due to the low biogas production. Therefore, a
better utilization of the biogas (e.g., as electron
donor in reductive processes) remains an impor-
tant issue for its wise use in sustainable DST.
5.2. Physical-chemical post-treatment systems
Additional COD and SSV (and phosphorus)
removal can be obtained also by the use of physi-
cal-chemical treatment in dissolved air otation
(DAF) systems after an anaerobic reactor (Penetra
et al. 1999). Reali et al. (2001) obtained 73% COD
removal, 86% phosphorus removal and 98% tur-
bidity removal in a DAF with FeCl
3
as coagulant
(dosages from 65 to 30 mg L
)1
) plus 0.4 mg L
)1
of nonionic polymer. Indeed, excellent euent
quality was achieved in this system, with residual
COD of 23 mg L
)1
and residual phosphate of
0.9 mg L
)1
(Reali et al. 2001). Phosphate enriched
sludge is obtained from the otation chamber sur-
face, allowing the recovery of an important
resource. However, the removal of nitrogen is very
poor. In addition, the use of chemicals represents
a drawback in respect to costs and sustainability
issues when using DAF for the post-treatment of
anaerobic euents.
Finally, it must be pointed out that most of
these COD polishing units only allow the recov-
ery of compounds of interest such as nitrogen,
phosphorus and sulfur if the post-treated eu-
ents are used for irrigation.
6. Biogas production and recovery
Considerable losses of methane observed in
UASB reactors treating sewage are mainly due to
inappropriate GLS separator device design, con-
struction, and operation. Moreover, the inevita-
ble loss of dissolved methane in the euent
represents a considerable fraction of the total
methane produced from low-strength wastewa-
ters (Kobayashi et al. 1983). Apart from modi-
cations in reactor setup, research is oriented to
the improvement of the hydrolysis of particulate
matter in order to improve the production and
recovery of methane (Zeeman & Sanders 2001).
As stated before, the adoption of proper pre-
treatment systems for solids retention and diges-
tion would improve the performance of the
anaerobic reactor and also allow a more ecient
recovery of methane. In fact, primary sludge
digesters have been successfully used for organic
matter removal and methane recovery (Speece
1988).
Therefore, more ecient SLG separators,
modications in the design of anaerobic reactors
for improved particulate matter hydrolysis, or
modications in the DST system by the adoption
of primary suspended solids separation and diges-
tion would conceivably improve the treatment
9
system performance in terms of the production
and recovery of methane.
7. Opportunities for nutrients (N, S, P) recovery
and removal
7.1. Nitrogen
The recovery of nitrogen is quite complex due to
the high solubility of all nitrogen forms of inter-
est (NH
4
+
, NO
2
)
, NO
3
)
). It must be remem-
bered that N
2
is not a useful end product,
although this gaseous form is easily and safety
removed from an environmental standpoint in
the liquid phase (Figure 2). Currently, scientists
and practitioners pursue ways to remove nitro-
gen in its dissolved form from anaerobic eu-
ents. Thus, adsorption seems to be the most
appropriated method for nitrogen recovery (Fig-
ure 2). Hence, adsorption of nitrogen in its more
reduced form (NH
4
+
) is advantageous because
this form predominates in anaerobic reactor
euents. Recent publications present the use of
zeolite column for NH
4
+
adsorption followed by
recovery of nitrate during column regeneration.
This seems to be a promising method for full-
scale applications (Aiyuk et al. 2004), including
the possibility of nitrogen recovery use as a soil
fertilizer.
7.2. Advances in nitrogen removal
The few alternatives already proved to be e-
cient at lab-scale for nitrogen recovery in the
form of dissolved nitrogen (NH
4
+
, NO
2
)
,
NO
3
)
), such as adsorption columns (Aiyuk et al.
2004), would be costly for developing countries
and their adoption may constitute a drawback at
the current stage of development. Therefore, the
formation of N
2
obtained by the biological con-
version of both reduced and oxidized nitrogen
forms seems to be the most economical way to
remove nitrogen from domestic sewage.
Conventional nitrogen removal processes are
based in two distinct biological processes: nitrica-
tion and denitrifrication. Initially, nitrication and
denitrication occurred in separate tanks, as it was
believed that specic environmental conditions for
each process were of ultimate importance for
successful conversion to gaseous N
2
(Metcalf &
Eddy 2002). The rst progress towards a unique
treatment unit for nitrogen removal was through
the development of a modied activated sludge
process able to promote organic carbon, nitrogen
and phosphorus removal in the same system setup,
in the so-called Bardenpho process (Barnard
1984). In the Bardenpho process, nitrication and
phosphorus uptake occur in aerated zones of a
reactor, whereas denitrication occurs in anoxic
zones of the same reactor. Variations of the
NH
4
+
NO
2
-
NO
3
-
N
2
O
2 O
2
Electron donor
Electron donor
biogas
NH
4
+
entrapped
and concentrated
in a column (ex.
zeolite)
Nitrogen recovered
as a concentrated
stream of NO
3
-
O
2
NO
3
-
SO
4
2-
N
2
/ S
0
N
2
/ NO
3
-
H
2
Sor CH
4
N
2
/ S
0
3
4
5
2
1
6
NH
4
+
NO
2
-
NO
3
-
N
2
O
2 O
2
Electron donor
Electron donor
biogas
NH
4
+
entrapped
and concentrated
in a column (ex.
zeolite)
Nitrogen recovered
as a concentrated
stream of NO
3
-
O
2
NO
3
-
SO
4
2-
N
2
/ S
0
N
2
/ NO
3
-
H
2
Sor CH
4
N
2
/ S
0
3
4
5
2
1
6
Figure 2. Possible ways for nitrogen removal/recovery from anaerobically treated sewage. Compounds in bold boxes are present in
anaerobic reactor euents. Dotted lines refer to processes where the recovery of the compound of interest is possible. (1) Conven-
tional nitrication + denitrication for N removal. (2) Partial nitrication + denitrication (e.g., SHARON + denitrication
with methanol). (3) Chemolithotrophic denitrication of nitrite with ammonia as e-donor (ANAMMOX). (4) Sulfate reduction via
ammonia oxidation (SURAMMOX). (5) Chemolithotrophic denitrication with sulde or methane. (6) Regenerable zeolite column
to entrap and concentrate ammonia, followed by N recovery as nitrate-rich stream Aiyuk et al. 2004.
10
Bardenpho process setup segregate aerated from
anoxic tanks, as reviewed in Metcalf and Eddy
(2002). In one of the various possible system con-
gurations, raw sewage (as the carbon source) is
added in the rst anoxic zones, avoiding the need
of addition of an external electron donor.
The use of conventional nitrication and
denitrication processes without the addition of
an external electron donor for nitrogen removal
is not wise when an anaerobic reactor is the rst
biological unit in DST. This is because the
amount of organic matter in the euent from
the anaerobic reactor is normally lower than that
needed for denitrication. Moreover, the organic
fraction of the euent from an anaerobic reactor
is not readily biodegradable. This could be cir-
cumvented by the use of raw sewage. However,
in order to provide enough organic matter read-
ily available for denitrication, a big fraction of
raw sewage must be derived for the nitrication/
denitrication tank. Such a concept is similar to
the aforementioned Bardenpho process based on
conventional aerobic technology, making unnec-
essary the anaerobic step, as it would treat only
a small fraction of the raw sewage.
Thus, for nitrogen removal from anaerobic
euents of DST in the traditional nitrication/
denitrication design, there is a need for an exter-
nal electron donor. This would open the opportu-
nity to explore the use of electron donors
produced in anaerobic reactors. Among such elec-
tron donors, VFA, methane, ammonia and sul-
de are the natural candidates (Figures 1 and 2).
7.2.1. VFA as e-donor
VFA can be produced in hydrolytic reactors
receiving domestic sewage. In this way, only a
part of the inuent goes to the methanogenic
reactor, but the very diluted nature of the eu-
ent makes such an alternative unpractical. On the
other hand, concentrated streams of VFA (higher
than 1000 mg L
)1
) can be produced by the
hydrolysis and fermentation of the settleable sol-
ids separated in a primary sedimentation tank
(Banister & Pretorius 1998; Ferreiro & Soto
2003; A

lvarez et al. 2003). The preference for

VFA is justied because they are among the
most appropriate electron donors for denitrica-
tion (Jonsson et al. 1996). Euents from such
hydrolytic-fermentative units, however, may also
contain high ammonia concentration, as found
by Banister and Pretorius (1998). Therefore, the
need for adding a complementary amount of an
external carbon source will probably remain, un-
less ammonia is removed (for instance, by
adsorption) from the VFA rich stream.
7.2.2. Methane as e-donor
Although methane can be used as an electron
donor for denitrication, the metabolic routes in-
volved in the process are still not completely
understood. In the presence of low oxygen con-
centrations, the use of methane in the denitrify-
ing process may occur according to two main
mechanisms: (1) denitrifying organisms use meth-
ane as electron donor and nitrate/nitrite as elec-
tron acceptors, and oxygen does not participate
in the process; and, (2) methanotrophic bacteria
produces intermediate organic compounds (e.g.,
methanol) under low partial oxygen pressure that
are utilized by aerobic, anaerobic or facultative
denitrifying bacteria. Both mechanisms have been
demonstrated in lab-scale experiments (Thalasso
et al. 1997; Costa et al. 2000; Islas-Lima et al.,
2004). Denitrication using methane as the sole
electron donor under anoxic denitrifying condi-
tions is reported to be dependent on the methane
partial pressure (Islas-Lima et al. 2004).
In our lab, experiments using methane as an
electron donor in a bench scale reactor operating
in alternating aerated and non aerated steps
showed that denitrication with methane pro-
ceeds at similar rates as that obtained when
using methanol or ethanol as electron donors
(data not shown). As such, small concentrations
of oxygen were presumably present at the begin-
ning of the anoxic step. Interestingly, the denitri-
cation with methane in experiments with the
absence of oxygen was much slower than that
obtained with methanol and ethanol (Santos
et al. 2004). At rst sight, this would suggest that
methane is rstly converted to methanol, al-
though this has not been proved so far. In con-
trast, other researchers arm that denitrication
with methane in the absence of oxygen proceeds
satisfactorily (Islas-Lima et al. 2004). Dierent
experimental setup might explain the dierent re-
sults, as Islas-Lima et al. (2004) found that the
denitrication rate was independent of the meth-
ane partial pressure when superior or equal to
8.8 kPa. As such, further research is warranted in
order to understand the use of methane as an
11
electron donor. In practice, the nitrication and
denitrication can be carried out in the same
reactor unit (e.g., SBR reactors), so that there
will always have low amounts of oxygen remain-
ing from the former nitrication step, guarantee-
ing enough amounts of oxygen to promote the
methanol formation. Nevertheless, the use of
methane for denitrication has not been tested in
full-scale plants so far, despite the availability of
methane from anaerobic reactors treating domes-
tic sewage. Currently the biogas is usually burned
in ares.
7.2.3. Reduced sulfur compounds as e-donor
Interactions between the sulfur and nitrogen
cycles represent a real possibility of promoting
the removal of both compounds from wastewa-
ters (Figure 2). Denitrication using sulde as
electron donor has already been suggested by
Hulsho Pol et al. (1998), whereas the simulta-
neous organic nitrogen and sulfate removal in an
anaerobic reactor was reported by Fdz-Polanco
et al. (2001). Liquid euents of anaerobic reac-
tors contain both sulfur and nitrogen in their
most reduced forms (ammonia and sulde,
Figure 1). The autotrophic oxidation of ammo-
nia to nitrite and nitrate occurs mainly in aero-
bic environments. Therefore, any sulde present
in the liquid is also oxidized. However, the
advantageous use of the interactions between
sulfur and nitrogen requires one of them to be in
a reduced form (electron donor) and the other to
be in an oxidized form (electron acceptor). Theo-
retically, it is possible to derive part of the
anaerobic euent that is rich in reduced forms
of both sulfur and nitrogen to promote denitri-
cation and sulfate reduction in a separate tank
or in the anoxic zone or stage of a biological
reactor. Another possibility is to return the bio-
gas that contains methane and sulde to the
denitrication reactor, which is currently being
researched in our labs.
7.2.4. Simultaneous nitricationdenitrication
Recent studies have demonstrated the possibility
of the occurrence of simultaneous nitrication
denitrication (SND). The SND process requires
smaller installations than the conventional pro-
cess and can represent a considerable economy,
mainly due to the lower oxygen consumption
(Watanabe et al. 1995; Munch et al. 1996; Zhao
et al. 1999). Although it is an intrinsically biolog-
ical process, SND can be explained considering
the nature of the phenomena that cause it to be
physical or biochemical. For some authors, SND
occurs as a consequence of the existence of oxy-
gen gradient concentrations inside granules and
biolms due to diusional limitations. Nitrifying
microorganisms are located at regions of high
oxygen concentration while denitrifying microor-
ganisms would be located at regions of low oxy-
gen concentration. Other authors indicate there
are microorganisms able to nitrify and denitrify
under dierent environmental conditions in re-
spect to oxygen and carbon source (Zhao et al.
1999). Some claimed advantages of SND are: (1)
for continuously fed reactors, SND eliminates
the need of another reactor; (2) there is no need
to change the operating conditions to provide a
suitable environment for the biomass either of
the desired processes (nitrication or denitrica-
tion); (3) the time needed for full nitrication
and denitrication in SBR is shorter; and (4)
there is a considerable reduction in costs in view
of the fact that the requirement of oxygen and
alkalinity is lower (Mu nch et al. 1996). These au-
thors report on the application of bench-scale
sequencing batch reactors for the complete treat-
ment of pre-screened domestic sewage. They ob-
served the occurrence of aerobic denitrication at
the beginning of the aerobic step. They also veri-
ed that nitrite predominates as the oxidized
nitrogen species.
However, most of the information available
on SND refers to raw domestic sewage or syn-
thetic substrate treatment. There is no report so
far on the application of SND for anaerobic
euents from full-scale DST plants.
7.2.5. Denitrication over nitrite
The single-reactor high-activity ammonium
removal over nitrite (SHARON) process is an
alternative to conventional nitrication based on
the fact that nitrication can be shortened if
nitrite-oxidizing organisms are eliminated from
the reactor (Figure 2). In this case, the second
step (nitrate production) does not occur and ni-
trite is the predominant oxidized form of nitro-
gen (Hellinga et al. 1998). The process operates
at high temperature (3040 C) and pH (78)
thus requiring strict operational conditions. The
ANAMMOX (anaerobic ammonia oxidation)
12
process involves the oxidation of ammonia to
nitrogen gas using nitrite as the electron acceptor
(Schmidt et al. 2003; Mulder et al. 1995). Both
processes can be combined in a so-called com-
pletely autotrophic nitrogen removal over nitrite
(CANON) process. In this process, a small frac-
tion of the nitrogen involved in the reaction is
released as nitrate (Khin & Annachhatre 2004;
Pynaert et al. 2002).
7.3. Phosphorus
7.3.1. Enhanced biological phosphorus removal
Enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR)
has been achieved under alternating anaerobic-
aerobic conditions using polyphosphate-accumu-
lating organisms (PAO) in the presence of an
easily assimilating organic carbon source (Comeau
et al. 1986). Most of the knowledge on the EBPR
process derived from modications on activated
sludge systems aiming to improve nutrient
removal. According to Zeng et al. (2004), the prin-
ciples of nutrient removal (nitrogen and phospho-
rus) are well known, but recent ndings have
revealed the existence of a much more intricate
system of biochemical processes involving simulta-
neous nitrogen and phosphorus removal. SBR
reactors appear to be the most appropriate tech-
nology to provide biological nutrient removal
(Surampalli et al. 1997). The imposition of a series
of aerobic intercalated by anoxic steps in the same
batch cycle of a SBR causes the gradual selection
of a specialized biomass able to promote the phos-
phorus luxury up-take, with the result that phos-
phorus is almost completely removed from the
liquid (Kuba et al. 1996). In addition, nitrogen can
be also removed by SND with phosphorus
removal (Kuba et al. 1996). Despite the great
number of reports on the use of SBR systems for
integrated carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus re-
moval, there are only a few reports on the use of
SBR for carbon polishing and nutrients removal
when an anaerobic reactor is installed as a pre-
treatment unit for DST. For instance, Callado and
Foresti (2001) operated a system composed by an
anaerobic SBR followed by another SBR operat-
ing under alternating anoxic/aerobic conditions.
The synthetic inuent (composed of carbohy-
drates: glucose, starch and cellulose; protein: meat
extract; lipids: soy bean oil, and drops of deter-
gent) simulated domestic sewage and had a COD
concentration of 820 mg L
)1
. The anaerobic SBR
operated in cycles of 12 h and delivered an euent
with a COD concentration of about 240 mg L
)1
, a
NH
4
+
concentration of about 35 mg L
)1
and
phosphate concentration of about 25 mg L
)1
. The
second SBR operated in 4 steps: 3-h aeration/3-h
anoxic/3.5-h aeration/2-h sedimentation with the
addition of 500 mg L
)1
of acetate in the anoxic
step (for denitrication and phosphorus removal).
These intercalating aerobic/anoxic steps produced
a high euent quality, with euent COD concen-
tration of about 45 mg L
)1
, NH
4
+
concentration
of about 2 mg L
)1
and phosphate concentration
of about 1 mg L
)1
(Callado & Foresti 2001).
Thus, the SBR looks very attractive for simulta-
neous carbon polishing and nitrogen and phos-
phorus removal for anaerobically treated sewage.
The drawback of this process is the need of an eas-
ily degradable carbon source at the beginning of
the anoxic cycle phase. Therefore, research must
be oriented into the substitution of external car-
bon source by soluble organic matter released in
other units of a treatment system (e.g., methane or
VFA from an anaerobic euent; Figure 1). The
use of carbon sources produced in the DST plant
would then increase the sustainability of this
technology for nutrients removal.
7.3.2. Physical-chemical methods
In addition to biological processes for phospho-
rus removal, promising physical-chemical technol-
ogies such as the DAF with the addition of
coagulants and polymers were developed, as
already presented in this text (Figure 3). High-
phosphate removal using physical-chemical units
is also reported for a CEPT (before an UASB
reactor) also using ferric chloride as the coagulant
(Aiyuk et al. 2004). Therefore, phosphate can be
easily removed in physical-chemical methods be-
cause phosphate precipitates are formed when a
coagulant is added. Thus, the obvious drawback
of such technologies is that the addition of costly
coagulant is needed. In addition, nitrogen com-
pounds are not removed in these systems.
7.3.3. Struvite formation
Finally, the controlled formation of struvite
(MgNH
4
PO
4
6H
2
O) in high pH environments
(Figure 3) opens the opportunity for the simulta-
neous removal of ammonia and phosphate (in
the form of crystals). Formation of struvite has
13
already been demonstrated in a uidized bed
reactor using dewatered ltrate anaerobic sludge
digestion (sewage treated in activated sludge sys-
tems and the produced sludge is digested) where
magnesium hydroxide is added in a magnesium
to phosphate ratio of 1:1 and the pH is adjusted
to between 8.2 and 8.8 with the addition of so-
dium hydroxide (Ueno & Fuji 2001). A retention
time of 10 days allowed the growth of pellets be-
tween 0.5 and 1.0 mm in size. The recovered
struvite contained only minute traces of toxic
substances and was used to enhance existing fer-
tilizers, which are widely used on paddy rice,
vegetables and owers (Ueno & Fuji 2001). The
formation of struvite from anaerobic reactor
euents, however, has so far not yet been dem-
onstrated, probably because the diluted stream
would make the process costly.
7.4. Sulfur
7.4.1. Partial sulde oxidation to elemental sulfur
The conversion of soluble sulde (HS
)
) into col-
loidal elemental sulfur in the liquid phase is possi-
ble in micro-aerated reactors and this technology
is already available (Vallero et al. 2003; Figure 4).
Based on the ability of colorless bacteria to oxi-
dize sulde partially to elemental sulfur, an aero-
bic biotechnological sulde- removing method
was developed (Buisman et al. 1990). In order to
obtain S
0
as a product, sulde oxidation must be
terminated at the sulfur formation step. This can
be accomplished, for example, by applying high
sulde loads or low oxygen concentrations (Ste-
fess et al. 1996). The application of such technol-
ogy for the low sulde containing anaerobic
euents, however, seems doubtful. Nevertheless,
PO
4
3-
Poliphosphate precipitation
(luxury phosphorus uptake)
Electron
donor ex. VFA
Struvite formation
Mg
2+
/ NH
4
+
/ high pH
Phosphate precipitation
Coagulant
ex. FeCl
3
e.g. Separation of
phosphate precipitate by
DAF (Penetra et al., 1999)
All phosphate precipitates, if
properly enriched (e.g. K
+
),
can be used as fertilizer, thus
being a path for P recovery
PO
4
3-
Poliphosphate precipitation
(luxury phosphorus uptake)
Electron
donor ex. VFA
Struvite formation
Mg
2+
/ NH
4
+
/ high pH
Phosphate precipitation
Coagulant
ex. FeCl
3
e.g. Separation of
phosphate precipitate by
DAF (Penetra et al., 1999)
All phosphate precipitates, if
properly enriched (e.g. K
+
),
can be used as fertilizer, thus
being a path for P recovery
Figure 3. Possible ways for phosphorus removal/recovery from anaerobically treated sewage. Compounds in bold boxes are present
in anaerobic reactor euents. Dotted lines refer to processes where the recovery of the compound of interest is possible.
HS
-
/ H
2
S
S
0
+ Fe
2+
S
0
O
2
SO
4
2-
O
2
Fe
3+
settler
S
0
rich sludge
O
2
S
0
rich sludge
settler
S-free stream
HS
-
dissolved in the
liquid
H
2
S present in the
biogas
MeS
Heavy Metal
(ex. Fe
2+
)
HS
-
dissolved in
the liquid
NO
3
-
N
2
/ S
0
HS
-
/ H
2
S
S
0
+ Fe
2+
S
0
O
2
SO
4
2-
O
2
Fe
3+
settler
S
0
rich sludge
O
2
S
0
rich sludge
settler
S-free stream
HS
-
dissolved in the
liquid
H
2
S present in the
biogas
MeS
Heavy Metal
(ex. Fe
2+
)
HS
-
dissolved in
the liquid
NO
3
-
N
2
/ S
0
Figure 4. Possible ways for sulfur removal/recovery from anaerobically treated sewage. Compounds in bold boxes are present in
anaerobic reactor euents. Dotted lines refer to processes where the recovery of the compound of interest is possible.
14
the post-treatment of anaerobic euents are car-
ried out in aerobic reactors, so that necessarily
sulde is re-oxidized back to sulfate, which does
not oer any environmental risk at low concen-
trations. A possible option would be to introduce
modications in the outlet devices of the existing
anaerobic reactor congurations in order to pro-
mote oxygen limited regions so that the forma-
tion of S
0
is favored, thus, enabling its separation
from the liquid phase before post-treatment units.
7.4.2. Formation of metal-sulde precipitates
The soluble sulde (HS
)
) can be easily removed
by means of the formation of insoluble metal
precipitates (Johnson & Hallberg 2005). This
would require, however, the addition of an exog-
enous source of heavy metals (e.g., Fe
2+
), so that
this process is economically and environmentally
not viable. Nevertheless, there are alternative
ways to promote the formation of metal precipi-
tates, thereby removing sulde from anaerobic
euents. For instance, one could consider stu-
ing the channel receiving anaerobic euent with
scrap iron llings, so that the euent could ow
through this material provoking sulde entrap-
ment. To the best of our knowledge, however,
this has not been tested for domestic sewage
anaerobic treatment so far.
7.4.3. Gaseous sulde scrubbing and subsequent
elemental sulfur formation
One of the most promising technologies for sulde
removal from biogases is a two-step process where
gaseous sulde is dissolved into the liquid in the
rst step, followed by sulde oxidation to elemen-
tal sulfur (Figure 4). An alternative to the biologi-
cal oxidation of sulde is the chemical oxidation
of aqueous sulde to elemental sulfur by ferric sul-
fate at low pH, which yields elemental, ortho-
rhombic a-sulfur (de Smul & Verstraete, 1999).
The process can be coupled to a membrane-as-
sisted extraction (e.g., permeable silicon) of H
2
S
out of the liquid. After the removal of the sulfur
from the ferric solution, the ferric solution can be
regenerated by aeration (de Smul & Verstraete
1999). Currently experiments are being carried out
in our laboratories feeding biogas from a UASB
reactor treating sewage into a Fe
3+
-fed scrubber
based on a previous work from Oprime et al.
(2001). Excellent sulde removal (higher than 99%)
is obtained due to the immediate formation of insol-
uble elemental sulfur. The formed ferrous iron is
then directed to an oxygen-fed column for the
regeneration to ferric iron (Figure 4).
8. Development of new reactor congurations
Attempts to develop new reactor congurations
or to redesign the existing anaerobic reactors for
DST are dicult due to the complex characteris-
tic of domestic sewage. As stated before, sus-
pended solids and lipids (oil and grease) are the
main constituents of domestic sewage that hin-
ders the anaerobic process in high rate reactors.
They are normally present in higher proportion
(in respect to the easily biodegradable organic
matter fraction) than in most industrial wastewa-
ters where anaerobic processes are successful.
Thus, anaerobic reactors in DST are hindered by
the hydrolysis rather than by the cellular reten-
tion time which is true for most industrial waste-
waters.
The rst emerging question refers in the
improvement of existing reactor congurations in
order to improve their performance, as already
presented for the UASB reactor (see item 4). In
fact, the best use of UASB reactors is for high
strength wastewaters and its successful use for
DST is associated with their capacity to retain
and digest a signicant fraction of the inuent
TSS.
A second emerging question is whether pre-
treatment systems are to be adopted to allow
anaerobic xed-lm reactors for DST. It is well
known that xed lm reactors are particularly
sensitive to suspended solids that tend to accu-
mulate on the bed, deteriorating the reactor per-
formance. Therefore, the previous removal of
TSS is mandatory if xed-bed anaerobic reactors
are to be used as the core unit in DST.
As xed-bed reactors are appropriated for the
treatment of low strength wastewaters with low
concentration of TSS, they seem to be suitable
for treatment of solid-free sewage. This would
open the possibility for the application of anaer-
obic technology to the removal of a fraction of
inuent organic matter from sewage in temperate
climate countries, substituting partially the role
of the activated sludge system. In any case, post-
treatment units have to be adopted. However, it
is worthy of note that excess sludge produced in
15
activated sludge systems is one of the main prob-
lems that wastewater treatment plants face nowa-
days, so that the substitution of high sludge
producing aerobic technology for low sludge pro-
ducing anaerobic technology must be pursued.
Information on the performance of xed lm
reactors for the anaerobic treatment of sus-
pended solids free domestic wastewater at low
temperatures (lower than 15 C) are scarce, prob-
ably because temperate climate countries have
adopted the aerobic technology for soluble
organic matter removal. The development of
xed-lm reactors operating at high supercial
velocities and high cellular retention times seems
to be a proper way to overcome kinetic and mass
transfer limitations imposed by low ambient tem-
peratures.
Current research pays attention to the selec-
tion of packing material for the xed bed in or-
der to not only seek the highest cellular retention
time possible but also favor the best arrangement
of microorganisms, resulting in an organization
in the most favorable way to enhanced mass and
energy uxes and turnovers (Picanc o et al. 2001).
8.1. Rational basis to develop new anaerobic
reactors
A desirable situation for the development of new
reactor congurations for DST would be the
establishment of rational criteria to design and
scale-up anaerobic reactors based on mathemati-
cal models extracted from bench or pilot-scale
plants. The estimated kinetic parameters for
complex sewage degradation and mass transfer
parameters would be used for design purpose. As
mass transfer phenomena interfere with biochem-
ical kinetic, most of the data available in the lit-
erature are not useful for scale-up reactors since
they are apparent and not intrinsic kinetic
parameters (Zaiat et al. 1997). To obtain intrinsic
parameters, the knowledge of the hydrodynamic
behavior of the reactor is essential.
In this sense, Zaiat et al. (2000) developed
and applied the HAIB reactor for the anaerobic
treatment of pre-screened domestic sewage. The
authors used kinetic parameters obtained from
bench-scale experiments to design a pilot-scale
HAIB reactor. Although the procedure adopted
was considered consistent, accumulation of a
hardly biodegradable material in the xed bed
tended to deteriorate the reactor performance in
a way that was not predictable by the model. Al-
though not tested so far, the application of xed-
bed reactors for pre-treated solid-free sewage,
using the same design procedures used by Zaiat
et al. (2000), seems to be feasible.
Attention must also be paid to the develop-
ment of post-treatment units that incorporate the
recent advances in nitrogen, phosphorus and sul-
fur removal/recovery. Despite the wealth of
information recently gathered on nutrients
removal/recovery, little is known about funda-
mentals and applications for the case of anaero-
bic reactor euents treating domestic sewage.
Insights on fundamentals such as the physiology
and ecology of involved microbial population
growing on anaerobically treated sewage will
surely improve the design of post-treatment units
for nutrients removal/recovery.
The biggest constraint for the development of
new reactor congurations for DST on the basis
of rational criteria are: (1) the complexity and
variability of domestic sewage; (2) the use of
mixed authochtonous microorganisms; (3) the
complexity of some operating parameters; (4)
the poor quantication of active biomass in the
reactor, currently expressed as VSS; and (5) the
parameters (COD, BOD) used to quantify or-
ganic matter, which simplies excessively the
mathematical model, possibly masking important
information about organic matter degradation in
the reactor (such as hydrolysis). A rational model
that considers all the pathways and microorgan-
isms involved in the process is dicult to obtain
making the determination of all parameters with
precision troublesome. Moreover, the application
of an extremely complex model can be impracti-
cal for design proposals. Thus, the challenge is
the development of rational models that consider
the complexity of anaerobic digestion, the physi-
cal and chemical interactions in the reactor and,
at the same time, be practical and applicable for
design and scale-up purposes.
It is obvious that it is impossible to consider
all the variables related to anaerobic conversion
processes in the development of a mechanistic
model. The model must be based on the main
aspects that aect the overall organic matter con-
version and the stability of the process, neglect-
ing the less signicant interactions. According
to Wentzel and Ekama (1997), the art of
16
constructing the conceptual and mechanistic
models is in eliminating those process and com-
pounds that contribute little or nothing to fulll-
ing the objectives set for the model: it is a waste
of time and eort to develop a complicated mod-
el where a simple one is adequate.
9. Conclusions
The use of anaerobic processes as the core tech-
nology can improve the sustainability of DST.
The most successful anaerobic reactors in use for
this purpose were not developed for domestic
wastewater treatment, so their performance for
organic matter removal can be improved if re-
search eorts are driven to suit their design to
the specic characteristics of domestic sewage. It
is also evident that research in post-treatment of
euents from anaerobic reactors treating domes-
tic sewage has to incorporate recent insights ob-
tained on physical-chemical and biological
processes for nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur
recovery or removal. The consideration of such
new insights would lead to the improvement of
the sustainability of DST systems. Another ap-
proach where research must be oriented is on
pre-treatment units for solids separation and
digestion (obtaining reduced compounds). Such
an approach would lead to drastic changes in the
treatment systems, as for instance innovative
high rate anaerobic reactor congurations more
suitable to solid-free wastewaters.
References
Aiyuk S, Amoako J, Raskin L, van Haandel A & Verstraete W
(2004) Removal of carbon and nutrients from domestic
wastewater using a low investment, integrated treatment
concept. Water Res. 38(13): 30313042
A

lvarez JA, Zapico CA, Go mez M, Presas J & Soto M (2003)

Anaerobic hydrolysis of a municipal wastewater in a pilot-
scale digester. Water Sci. Technol. 47(12): 223230
Anderson GK & Donnelly T (1977) Anaerobic digestion of high
strength industrial wastewaters. The Public Health Engineer
5(3): 6471
Bachmann A, Beard VL & McCarty PL (1985) Performance
characteristics of the anaerobic baed reactor. Water Res.
19(1): 99106
Banister SS & Pretorius WA (1998) Optimization of primary
sludge acidogenic fermentation for biological nutrient
removal. Water SA. 24(1): 3541
Blanc FC, OShaughnessy JC & Corr SH (1983) Treatment of
beef slaughtering and processing wastewaters using rotating
biological contactors. In: Proceedings 38th Industrial Waste
Conference (pp. 1012). Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN, Butterworth Publishers
Barnard JL (1984) Design and operation of Bardenpho plants
in an African country (South Africa). Water Poll. Control
83(4): 443449
Buisman CJN, Geraats BG, Ijspeert P & Lettinga G (1990)
Optimisation of sulphur production in a biotechnological
sulphide removing reactor. Biotech. Bioeng. 35: 5056
Callado NH & Foresti E (2001) Removal of organic carbon,
nitrogen and phosphorus in sequential batch reactors inte-
grating the aerobic/anaerobic processes. Water Sci. Technol.
44(4): 263270
Castilho A, Cecchi F & Mata-Alvarez J (1997) A combined
anaerobic-aerobic system to treat domestic sewage in coastal
areas. Water Res. 31(12): 30573063
Cavalcanti PFF (2003) Integrated application of the UASB
reactor and ponds for domestic sewage treatment in tropical
regions. PhD Thesis, Sub-department of Environmental
Technology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands
Chernicharo CAL & Nascimento MCP (2001) Feasibility of a
pilot-scale UASB/trickling lter system for domestic sewage
treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 44(4): 221228
Comeau Y, Hall K, Hanncock R & Oldhan W (1986)
Biochemical model for enhancing biological phosphorus
removal. Water Res. 20(2): 15111521
Cooper PF (2001) Historical aspects of wastewater treatment
In: Lens P, Zeeman G & Lettinga G (Eds) Descentralised
Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and Implementa-
tion (pp 1138). IWA Publishing, London, UK
Costa C, Dijkema C, Friedrich M, Garc a-Encina P, Fdz-
Polanco F & Stams AJM (2000) Denitrication with methane
as electron donor in oxygen-limited bioreactors. Appl.
Microb. Biotechnol. 53(6): 754762
de Smul A & Verstraete W (1999) The phenomenology and the
mathematical modeling of the silicone-supported chemical
oxidation of aqueous sulde to elemental sulfur by ferric
sulphate. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 74: 456466
de Sousa JT, van Haaandel AC & Guimaraes AA (2001) Post-
treatment of anaerobic euents in constructed wetland
systems. Water Sci. Technol. 44(4): 213219
Elmitwalli TA, Oahn KLT, Zeeman G & Lettinga G (2002)
Treatment of domestic sewage in a two-step anaerobic lter/
anaerobic hybrid system at low temperature. Water Res. 36:
22252232
Fdz-Polanco F, Fdz-Polanco M, Fernandez N, Uruen a MA,
Garcia PA & Villaverde S (2001) New process for simulta-
neous removal of nitrogen and sulphur under anaerobic
conditions. Water Res. 35(4): 11111114
Ferreiro N & Soto M (2003) Anaerobic hydrolysis of primary
sludge: Inuence of sludge concentration and temperature.
Water Sci. Technol. 47(12): 239246
Foresti E (2002) Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage:
established technologies and perspectives. Water Sci. Tech-
nol. 45(10): 181186
Gonc alves RF, de Arau jo VL & Chernicharo CAL (1998)
Association of a UASB reactor and a submerged aerated
biolter for domestic sewage treatment. Water Sci. Technol.
38(89): 189195
Hellinga C, Schellen AAJC, Mulder JW, van Loosdrecht MCM
& Heijnen JJ (1998) SHARON process: an innovative
17
method for nitrogen removal from ammonium-rich waste
water. Water Sci. Technol. 37(9): 135142
Hulsho Pol LW, Lens PNL, Stams AJM & Lettinga G (1998)
Anaerobic treatment of sulphate-rich wastewaters. Biodeg-
radation 9: 213224
Islas-Lima S, Thalasso F & Go mez-Hernandez (2004) Evidence
of anoxic methane oxidation coupled to denitrication.
Water Res. 38: 1316
Jawed M & Tare V (2000) Post-mortem examination and
analysis of anaerobic lters. Biores. Technol. 72(1): 7584
Johnson DB & Hallberg KB (2005) Acid mine drainage
options: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 338: 314
Jonsson K, Johansson P, Christensson M, Lee N, Lie E &
Welander T (1996) Operational factors aecting phosphorus
removal at the treatment plant in Helsingborg, Sweden.
Water Sci. Technol. 34(12): 6774
Kalogo Y & Verstraete W (2000) Technical feasibility of the
treatment of domestic wastewater by a CEPS-UASB system.
Environ. Technol. 21(1): 5565
Kalogo Y & Verstraete W (2001) Potentials of anaerobic
treatment of domestic sewage under temperate climate
conditions In: Lens P, Zeeman G & Lettinga G (Eds)
Descentralised Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and
Implementation (pp 181204). IWA Publishing, London, UK
Kaseva ME (2004) Performance of a sub-surface ow con-
structed wetland in polishing pre-treated wastewater a
tropical case study. Water Res. 38: 681687
Kato MT (1994) Anaerobic treatment of low strength soluble
wastewaters. PhD Thesis. Agricultural University, Wagenin-
gen, The Netherlands
Khin T & Annachhatre (2004) Novel microbial removal
processes. Biotechnol. Adv. 22: 519532
Kobayashi HA, Stenstron MK & Mah RA (1983) Treatment of
low strength wastewater using the anaerobic lter. Water
Res. 17(8): 903909
Kuba T, van Loosdrecht MCM & Heijnen JJ (1996) Phospho-
rus and nitrogen removal with minimal COD requirement by
integration of denitrifying dephosphatation and nitrication
in a two-sludge system. Water Res. 30(7): 17021710
Lens PNL, Omil F, Lema JM & Hulsho Pol LW (2000)
Biological removal of organic sulfate-rich wastewaters In:
Lens PNL & Hulsho Pol LW (Eds) Environmental Tech-
nologies to Treat Sulfur Pollution: Principles and Engineer-
ing (pp 153173). IWA publishing, London, UK
Lettinga G, van Velasen AFM, Hobma SW, de Zeeuw W &
Klapwijk (1980) Use of the upow sludge blanket (USB)
reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment, specially
for anaerobic treatment. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 22: 699734
Lettinga G, Roersma R, Grin P, de Zeew W, Hulshof Pol LL,
van Velsen L, Hobma S, Zeeman G et al. (1982) Anaerobic
treatment of low strength waste waters. In: Hughes E,
Staord DA, Wheatley BI, Baader W, Lettinga G, Nyns EJ,
Verstraete W & Wentworth RL (Eds) Anaerobic Digestion
1981 (pp 271291). Elsevier Biomedical Press BV, Amsterdam
Lettinga G, Hulsho Pol LW, Zeeman G, Field J, van Lier JB,
van Bunsen JCL, Janssen AJH & Lens P (1997) Anaerobic
treatment in sustainable environmental production concepts.
In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Anaerobic Diges-
tion, Vol. 1, pp. 3239
Lettinga G (2001) Potential of anaerobic pre-treatment
(AnWT) of domestic sewage under tropical conditions In:
Lens P, Zeeman G & Lettinga G (Eds) Descentralised
Sanitation and Reuse: Concepts, Systems and Implementa-
tion (pp 205216). IWA Publishing, London, UK
Mahmoud N, Zeeman G, Gijzen H & Lettinga G (2003) Solids
removal in upow anaerobic reactors, a review. Biores.
Technol. 90: 19
Mbuligue SE (2004) Comparative eectiveness of engineered
wetland system in the treatment of anaerobically pre-treated
domestic wastewater. Ecol. Eng. 24(45): 269284
Mulder A, van de Graaf AA, Robertson LA & Kuenen JG
(1995) Anaerobic Ammonium oxidation discovered in a
denitrifying uidized bed reactor. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.
16(3): 177183
McCarty PL et al. (1982) One hundred years of anaerobic
treatment. In: Hughes E, Staord DA, Wheatley BI, Baader
W, Lettinga G, Nyns EJ, Verstraete W & Wentworth RL
(Eds) Anaerobic Digestion 1981 (pp 322). Elsevier Biomed-
ical Press BV, Amsterdam.
Metcalf & Eddy (2002) Wastewater Engineering: Treatment
and Reuse, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mu nch EV, Lant P & Keller J (1996) Simultaneous nitrication
and denitrication in bench-scale sequencing batch reactors.
Water Res. 30(2): 277284
Nozhevnikova AN, Rebac S, Kotsyrurbenko OR, Parshina SN,
Holliger C & Lettinga G (2000) Anaerobic production and
degradation of volatile fatty acids in low temperature
environments. Water Sci. Technol. 41(12): 3946
Oprime MEAG, Garcia O & Cardoso AA (2001) Oxidation of
H
2
S in acid solution by Thiobacillus ferrooxidans and
Thiobacillus thiooxidans. Proc. Biochem. 37(2): 111114
Passig FH, Villela LH & Ferreira OP (2000) Piracimirim sewage
treatment plant Conception utilizing anaerobic process
followed by aerobic process Evaluation of operational
conditions and compatibility of the processes. In: Foresti
et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the IV Latin-American Workshop
and Seminar on Anaerobic Digestion, Vol. 1, pp. 5359
Passig FH & Campos JR (2004) Hybrid anaerobic reactor for
domestic sewage treatment. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IWA
Leading-Edge Conference on Water and Wastewater Treat-
ment Technologies, Vol. 1, pp. 229233
Penetra RG, Reali MAP, Foresti E & Campos JR (1999) Post-
treatment of euents from anaerobic reactor treating
domestic sewage by dissolved-air otation. Water Sci. Tech-
nol. 40(8): 137143
Picanc o AP, Vallero MVG, Gianotti EP, Zaiat M & Blundi CE
(2001) Inuence of porosity and composition of supports on
the methanogenic biolm characteristics developed in a xed
bed anaerobic reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 44(4): 197204
Pynaert K, Wiels S, Sprengers R, Boeckx P, van Cleemput O
& Verstraete W (2002) Oxygen-limited nitrogen removal in a
lab-scale rotating biological contactor treating an ammo-
nium-rich wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 45(1): 357363
Reali MAP, Penetra RG & Carvalho ME (2001) Flotation
technique with coagulant and polymer application applied to
the post-treatment of euents from anaerobic reactor
treating sewage. Water Sci. Technol. 44(4): 205212
Rebac S, van Lier J, Lens P, Stams AJM, Dekkers F, Swinkels
KTHM & Lettinga G (1999) Psychrophilic anaerobic treat-
ment of low strength wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 39:
203210
Santos SG, Varesche MBA, Zaiat M & Foresti E (2004)
Comparison of methanol, ethanol and methane as electron
donors for denitrication. Environ. Eng. Sci. 21(3): 313320
Schmidt I, Sliekers O, Schmidt M, Bock E, Fuerst J, Kuenen
JG, Jetten MSM & Strous M (2003) New concepts of
microbial treatment processes for the nitrogen removal in
wastewater. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 27(4): 481492
18
Seyfried CF, Bode H & Saake MM (1984) Anaerobic treatment
of pectin wastes: experiences with full scale and semi-
technical plant. Water Sci. Technol. 16(12): 343356
Sousa JT & Foresti E (1996) Domestic sewage treatment in an
up-ow anaerobic blanket sequencing batch reactor system.
Water Sci. Technol. 33(3): 7384
Speece RE (1988) A survey of anaerobic sludge digesters and
diagnostic activity assays. Water Res. 22(3): 365372
Stefess GC, Torremans RAM, de Schrijver R, Robertson LA &
Kuenen JG (1996) Quantitative measurement of sulphur
formation by steady-state and transient-state continuous
cultures of autotrophic Thiobacillus species. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 45: 169175
Surampalli RY, Tyagi RD, Scheible OK & Heidman JA (1997)
Nitrication, denitrication and phosphorus removal in
sequential batch reactors. Biores. Technol. 61(2): 151157
Switzenbaun MS & Jewell WJ (1980) Anaerobic attached-lm
expanded-bed reactor treatment. J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed.
52(3): 19531965
Tait SJ & Friedman AA (1980) Anaerobic rotating contactor
for carbonaceous wastewaters. J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed.
52(8): 22572269
Tawk A, Klapwijk B, el-Gohary F & Lettinga G (2002)
Treatment of anaerobically pre-treated domestic sewage by a
rotating biological contactor. Water Res. 36: 147155
Tawk A, Zeeman G, Klapwijk B, Sanders W, El-Gohary F &
Lettinga G (2003) Treatment of domestic sewage in a
combined UASB/RBC system. Process optimization for
irrigation purposes. Water Sci. Technol. 48(1): 131138
Tawk A, Klapwijk B, van Buuren J, El- Gohary F & Lettinga
G (2004) Physico-chemical factors aecting the E. coli
removal in a rotating biological contactor (RBC) treating
UASB euent. Water Res. 38: 10811088
Thalasso S, Vallecillo A, Garcia-Encina P & FDZ-Polanco F
(1997) The use of methane as the sole carbon source for
wastewater denitrication. Water Res. 31: 5560
Torres P & Foresti E (2001) Domestic sewage treatment in a
pilot system composed of UASB and SBR reactors. Water
Sci. Technol. 44(4): 247253
Ueno Y & Fuji M (2001) Three years experience of operating
and selling recovered struvite from full-scale plant. Environ.
Technol. 22(11): 13731381
Vallero MVG, Sipma J, Annachhatre A, Lens PNL & Hulsho
Pol LW (2003) Biotechnological treatment of sulfur-contain-
ing wastewaters. In: FingermanM&NagabhushanamR(Eds)
Recent Advances in Marine Biotechnology, Vol. 8: Bioreme-
diation (pp 233268). Science Publishers, Eneld, NH, USA
van Handel AC & Lettinga G (1994) Anaerobic sewage
treatment. A practical guide for regions with a hot climate.
John Willey & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK
Vieira SMM (1988) Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage in
Brasil Research results and full-scale experience. In: Vieira
et al. (Eds) Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium
on Anaerobic Digestion (pp 185196). Pergamon Press, New
York
Vieira LGT, Fazolo A, Zaiat M & Foresti E (2003) Integrated
horizontal-ow anaerobic and radial-ow aerobic reactors
for the removal of organic matter and nitrogen from
domestic sewage. Environ. Technol. 24: 5158
von Sperling M (1996) Comparison among the most frequently
used systems for wastewater treatment in developing coun-
tries. Water Sci. Technol. 33(3): 5972
von Sperling M, Freire VH & Chernicharo CAL (2001)
Performance evaluation of a UASB-activated sludge system
treating municipal wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 43(1):
323328
Watanabe Y, Okabe S, Hirata K & Masuda S (1995)
Simultaneous removal of organic materials and nitrogen
by micro-aerobic biolms. Water Sci. Technol. 31(1):
195203
Wentzel MC & Ekama GA (1997) Principles in the modelling of
biological wastewater treatment plants. In: Cloete TE &
Muyima NYO (Eds) Microbial Community Analysis: The
Key to the Design of Biological Wastewater Treatment
Systems (pp 7382). IWA Scientic and Technical Report no.
5, IWA Publishing, Cambridge, UK
Wiegant WM (2001) Experience and potential of anaerobic
treatment in tropical regions. Water Sci. Technol. 44(8):
107113
Young JC & McCarty PL (1969) The anaerobic lter for waste
treatment. J. Wat. Pollut. Control Fed. 41(5): 160173
Zaiat M, Vieira LGT & Foresti E (1996) Intrinsic kinetic
parameters of substrate utilization by immobilized anaerobic
sludge. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 53: 220225
Zaiat M, Passig FH & Foresti E (2000) Treatment of domestic
sewage in horizontal-ow biomass reactor. Environ. Technol.
21(10): 11391145
Zeeman G, Sanders WTM, Wang KY & Lettinga G (1997)
Anaerobic treatment of complex wastewater and waste
activated sludge Application of an upow anaerobic solid
removal (UASR) reactor for the removal and pre-hydro-
lysis of suspended COD. Water Sci. Technol. 35(10): 121
128
Zeeman G & Sanders W (2001) Potentials of anaerobic
digestion of complex waste(water). Water Sci. Technol.
44(8): 115122
Zeng RJ, Zhiguo Yuan & Keller J (2004) Improved under-
standing of the interactions and complexities of biological
and nitrogen phosphorus removal processes. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Bio/Technol. 3(3): 265272
Zhao HW, Mavinic DS, Oldham WK & Koch FA (1999)
Controlling factors for simultaneous nitrication and deni-
trication in a two-stage intermittent aeration process
treating domestic sewage. Water Res. 33(4): 961970
19