w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Integrated application of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket

reactor for the treatment of wastewaters

Muhammad Asif Latif, Rumana Ghufran, Zularisam Abdul Wahid, Anwar Ahmad*
Faculty of Civil Engineering & Earth Resources, University Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Lebuhraya Tun Razak, 26300 Gambang, Kuantan,
Pahang, Malaysia

article info abstract

Article history: The UASB process among other treatment methods has been recognized as a core method
Received 27 December 2010 of an advanced technology for environmental protection. This paper highlights the treat-
Received in revised form ment of seven types of wastewaters i.e. palm oil mill effluent (POME), distillery wastewater,
24 May 2011 slaughterhouse wastewater, piggery wastewater, dairy wastewater, fishery wastewater
Accepted 31 May 2011 and municipal wastewater (black and gray) by UASB process. The purpose of this study is to
Available online 12 June 2011 explore the pollution load of these wastewaters and their treatment potential use in upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket process. The general characterization of wastewater, treatment
Keywords: in UASB reactor with operational parameters and reactor performance in terms of COD
UASB reactor removal and biogas production are thoroughly discussed in the paper. The concrete data
Industrial wastewater illustrates the reactor configuration, thus giving maximum awareness about upflow
Agro wastewater anaerobic sludge blanket reactor for further research. The future aspects for research
Municipal wastewater needs are also outlined.
COD ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Biogas

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4684
1.1. Characterization and environmental impacts of wastewaters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4684
2. Treatment potential of UASB process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4685
3. Operation and performance of UASB reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4688
3.1. Organic loading rates and COD removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4688
3.2. Flow rate and hydraulic retention time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4692
3.3. Upflow velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4693
3.4. pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4693
3.5. Operating temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4693
3.6. Mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4694
4. Research needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4694
5. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4695
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4695
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4695

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ60 9 5493012; fax: þ60 9 5492998.

E-mail address: anwarak218@yahoo.co.uk (A. Ahmad).
0043-1354/$ e see front matter ª 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2011.05.049
4684 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Nomenclature
AF anaerobic film
AS activated sludge
BOD biochemical oxygen demand (g L1)
COD chemical oxygen demand (g L1)
CODdiss dissolved chemical oxygen demand (g L1)
CRT cell residence time (days)
CUASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket at Canakkale
FOG fat, oil and grease (g L1)
HRT hydraulic retention time (days)
IUASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket at Istanbul
L length (cm)
OLR organic loading rate (kgCOD m3 d1)
Q flow rate (L d1)
SBR sequencing batch reactor
SCOD soluble chemical oxygen demand (g L1)
1. Introduction
At the beginning of 21st century, the world is facing environ-
mental crisis in terms of water quality and global warming,
caused by continuous population growth, industrialization,
food production practices, increased living standards and
poor water use strategies. The rapid industrialization, urban-
ization, and population growth resulted in increasing volumes
of untreated domestic and industrial wastewater being dis-
charged into the rivers and canals and consequently deterio-
rating surface and groundwater quality. The polluted water
quality would prolong to affect the groundwater, threatening
to drinking water safety and thus the health of urban and rural
residents along with adverse effect on ecosystem, particularly
aquatic life and biospheres. The lack of wastewater manage-
ment has direct impact on biological diversity of the aquatic
ecosystems, disrupting the fundamental integrity of our life
support systems, on which a wide range of sectors from urban
development to food production and industry depend. It is
essential to consider the wastewater management as a part of
integrated, ecosystem based management to operate across
sectors and borders, freshwater and marine.
The wastewater is a mixture of sewage, agricultural
drainage, industrial waste effluents and hospitals discharge.
Untreated wastewater may contain different range of patho-
gens including bacteria, parasites, and viruses, toxic chemicals
such as heavy metals and organic chemicals from agriculture,
industrial and domestic sources (Andrew et al., 1997; Drechsel
and Evans, 2010). In order to minimize the environmental
contaminants and health hazards, the treatment of these
pollutants needs to be brought down to permissible limits for
safe disposal of wastewater (Poots et al., 1978; Manju et al., 1998).
1.1. Characterization and environmental impacts of
wastewaters
The production of palm oil from the fruit Elaeis guineensis is the
main industry in Southeast Asia (Ma, 2000). The effluent during
SS suspended solids (g L1)
T-P total phosphorous (g L1)
T-N total nitrogen (g L1)
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen (g L1)
TS total solids (g L1)
TSS total suspended solids (g L1)
TUASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket at Tekirdag
TVS total volatile solids (g L1)
UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
V volume (L)
VS volatile solids (g L1)
Vs superficial velocity (m h1)
VSS volatile suspended solids (g L1)
Vup upflow velocity (m h1)
W width (cm)
WW wastewater
and after processing contains large amount of free and dis-
solved oil and fatty acids, crude oil solids, starches, proteins and
plant tissues (Cheah et al., 1998). Similarly, distillery effluents
are highly polluted and fall under medium to high-strength
wastewaters as many kinds of raw materials are used for
different types of alcohols (Ince et al., 2005). Effluent from a wine
distillery consists first and foremost of organic acids with a lofty
soluble biodegradable chemical oxygen demand (COD) fraction
of 98% (Moosbrugger et al., 1993). The seasonal nature of
distillery industries creates specific problems for the treatment
processes in terms of wine distillery wastewater (Coetzee et al.,
2004; Eusébio et al., 2004). Moreover, slaughterhouse waste-
water holds high amount of suspended and colloidal compo-
nents in the form of fats, proteins and cellulose, which have
adverse effects on the environment (Lettinga et al., 1997; Núñez
and Martı́nez, 1999). These organic matters can be treated by
means of anaerobic digestion as they have high concentrations
of biodegradable organic contents, sufficient alkalinity, and
suitable concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and micro-
nutrients for the bacterial growth (Massé and Masse, 2001).
Single-phase, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) type
anaerobic digesters are considered to be impractical, because
the fat present may form thick foam inside the reactor,
compromising the operation (Chen and Shyu, 1998; del Pozo
et al., 2000; Torkian et al., 2003; Barreto, 2004). Moreover, accu-
mulations of suspended solids lead to a reduction in meth-
anogenic activity and biomass washout (Sayed and de Zeeuw,
1988; Hansen and West, 1992). Discharge of slaughterhouse
wastewater without treatment is degrading the aquatic envi-
ronment and polluting the irrigation water (Michael et al., 1988).
Piggery wastes are also distinguished as rich in organic
matters and pathogenic organisms. The disposal of piggery
wastes without ample treatment can have a drastic effect on
the environment and human health (Sánchez et al., 2005).
This waste is a mixture of manure (feces and urine) and food
waste from instance swill and sugar cane molasses (Sánchez
et al., 2001). However, UASB reactor has rarely been used for
the treatment of piggery waste because of rich nitrogenous
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
compounds, the active biomass densification, granular
process, and consequently the microorganism retention in the
reactor difficult. The UASB process seems to be very efficient
for the treatment of carbohydrate containing wastewaters.
Limited work has been done on the application of this reactor
for the treatment of piggery wastes (Sánchez et al., 2005).
Dairy wastewater is generated either from milk or cheese-
producing industries. Dairy wastewater, from the milk
industry has COD of 30 g L1 whereas, in case of cheese-
producing industries the generated wastewater generally
contains surplus cheese whey with a COD value of 50 g L1
(Nemerow, 1987). Dairy wastewater is generally characterized
by its relatively high temperature and variation in organic
contents. Due to very small and medium size dairy industries
which normally do not have an economic incentive to further
use of cheese whey, it is necessary to choose the whey as
waste stream (Mockaitis et al., 2005). Due to high organic
contents, whey causes several environmental problems for
surface water and soil while disposing (Patel and Madamwar,
1998; Kosseva et al., 2003). Dairy wastewaters may also cause
serious problems in terms of organic load on the local
municipal wastewater treatment plant (Papachristou and
Lafazanis, 1997). Dairy wastewater has been widely treated
using coagulation/flocculation and sedimentation process.
The main shortcomings of these methods are high coagulant
cost, large amount of sludge production, and the poor removal
of dissolved COD. Therefore, biological treatment is usually
recommended for such wastewaters (Vidal et al., 2000).
Several studies have been done with the aim of adapting
anaerobic high-rate digesters, especially UASB reactors for the
treatment of dairy wastewater. Conventionally, UASB reactors
are inoculated with granular sludge that has high methano-
genic activity. It has been proved that it was not possible to
maintain granular biomass with dairy wastewater in long term
operation (Marques et al., 1990; Yang and Anderson, 1993). Full-
scale UASB reactor has been successfully engaged for the
treatment of dairy wastewater (Malina and Pohland, 1992). The
use of a laboratory-scale hybrid UASB reactor for treatment of
dairy wastewater at an operational temperature of 30  C was
previously investigated by Ozturk et al. (1993). The treatment of
multiple fat containing wastewaters should be done in UASB
reactors inoculated with flocculent biomass that has a high
hydrolytic and acidogenic capacity (Sayed, 1987).
In fishery wastewaters the contaminants are undefined
mixtures of mostly organic substances. It is difficult to char-
acterize the extent of the problem created by this wastewater
as it depends on the effluent potency, wastewater discharge
rate and engrossing capacity of the receiving water bodies
(Gonzalez, 1996). Moreover, wastewaters generated from
fishmeal industry contain high organic suspended solids,
proteins and salinity close to seawater (Vidal et al., 1997).
Recently, anaerobic granular sludge treatment of fishmeal
wastewaters is supposed to be an optimal process. However,
few studies have been performed so far on the application of
anaerobic granular sludge to the removal of organic pollutants
in highly saline wastewaters (Jeison et al., 2008; Lei et al.,
2008). During aerobic treatment of hyper saline wastewaters
that is under high saline conditions, cell plasmolysis, defi-
ciency of filamentous micro-organisms and lack of protozoa
will occur simultaneously (Lei et al., 2008). Although, findings
4685
still have many disagreements. The sludge degranulation was
really observed while treating saline tannery soaked liquor in
UASB reactor (Huang et al., 2009).
Black water contains half the load of organic material in
domestic wastewater with a major fraction of the nutrients as
nitrogen and phosphorus (Otterpohl et al., 1999; Kujawa-
Roeleveld and Zeeman, 2006). The risk of dispersion of
diseases, due to exposure to micro-organisms in the water,
will be a critical phase if the water is to be reused for toilet
flushing or irrigation. In contrast, gray water has a high
potential of reuse because it contains the major fraction
(approximately 70%) of domestic wastewater and remains
relatively less polluted (Leal et al., 2007). There is a risk that
micro-organisms in the water will be increased in the form of
aerosols that are generated when the toilets are flushed
(Feachem et al., 1983; Christova-Boal et al., 1996; Albrechtsen,
1998). Both inhaling and hand to mouth contact can be
dangerous (Ince et al., 2005). The resulting effluent stream
from the process is polluted with a COD of 20e30 mg L1 and
pH of 3e4 (Wolmarans and de Villiers, 2002). In warm climate
countries, the high-rate anaerobic process (like UASB) shows
satisfactory treatment performance, even for diluted
domestic wastewater, with many advantages, including
reduction of green house gas emissions, reduced excess
sludge productions, stabilized sludge and low space require-
ments as compared to conventional digestion systems (van
Lier and Huibers, 2004). General characterization of different
wastewaters used in UASB reactor is shown in Table 1.
During the treatment of complex wastewaters containing
significant amounts of fat (e.g. slaughterhouse, dairy), the
continuous operation of UASB reactors has shown to cause
problems of scum and sludge layer on top of the reactors with
succeeding biomass washout (Hwu, 1997; Petruy, 1999; Nadais
et al., 2005a,b). The high COD accumulation in sludge bed has
also been reported to lead unstable performance of reactors on
long run. Research on anaerobic degradation of complex fat
containing wastewater showed that the initial removal
mechanism was mainly adsorption (Riffat and Dague, 1995;
Hwu, 1997; Nadais et al., 2003). The sharp adsorption of
organic matter occurs in the sludge bed but is not followed by
an immediate biological degradation of the adsorbed organic
matter since the kinetics of biological degradation is much
slower than the adsorption phenomena (Nadais, 2002). As
a consequence heavy accumulation of organic matter in
continuous treatment systems has been observed both at lab
and full-scale UASB reactors treating complex fat containing
substrates. According to Jeganathan et al. (2006) the factor that
most influences high-rate reactor performance is the FOG (fats,
oils and greases) accumulation rather than the FOG concen-
tration in the reactor feed. The substrates that pose more
problems in the anaerobic degradation of dairy wastewater are
the fatty matters and the long chain fatty acids resulting from
milk fat hydrolysis, especially oleic acid (Petruy, 1999).
2. Treatment potential of UASB process
Anaerobic treatment of wastewaters is nowadays widely
accepted as a proved technology and extensively used. One of
the main factors leading to the success of anaerobic treatment
 4686
Table 1 e General properties of wastewaters used for UASB process.
Type of COD BOD TS TSS VSS T-P T-N pH Oil & Reference
wastewater grease

Palm oil mill effluent 30e70 11e30 30e65 9e25 as SS e e 0.5e0.9 3.5e4.5 5e13 as oil Borja et al. (1996)
95 22 35 12 as SS e e e 4.35 10.6 Chaisri et al. (2007)
50 25 BOD3 40.5 18 as SS 34 as 0.02 0.75 4.7 e Ma (1999)
TVS
80 21 BOD5 70 45 37 e e 5 11 Siang (2006)

Distillery WW 100e120 30 51.5e100 e 2.8 e e 3e4.1 e Nataraj et al. (2006)

Wine distillery WW 3.1e48 0.21e8.0 11.4e32 2.4e5.0 1.2e2.8 0.24e65.7 0.1e64 3.53e5.4 e Bustamante et al. (2005)
Vinasse 97.5 as SCOD 42.23 3.9 e e e e 4.4 e Martin et al. (2002)

w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Raw spent wash 37.5 e 2.82 e e 0.24 2.02 4.2 e Ramana et al. (2002)
Molasses WW 80.5 e 109 e 2.5 e 1.8 5.2 e Jimenez and Borja (1997)
Alcohol Distillery 11e33 6e16 e e e 0.3e0.7 0.12e0.25 4e7 3 Ince et al. (2005)

Dairy WW 3.38 1.94 1.56 0.83 0.75 0.022 0.051 as TKN 7.9 0.26 Tawfik et al. (2008)
5.4e77.3 e 3.9e58.9 3.1e48.7 0.5e5.6 4.3e8.7 0.4e5.7 Kalyuzhnyi et al. (1996)
as VS
74.5 e e 9.38 as SS 8.3 0.124 0.15 as TKN 3.92 e Ergüder et al. (2001)

Fishery WW 0.17 0.12 e 25 e e e 6.85 e Huang et al. (2009)

Fish canning 3.3 1.73 5.99 e e e 0.21 as TKN 6.4 1.0 as FOG Prasertsan et al. (1994)
1.5 0.82 5 e e e 0.13 as TKN 6.9 0.66 as FOG
Slaughterhouse WW 1.5e2.2 0.49e0.65 e 40e50 e 0.012e0.02 0.12e0.18 6.8e7.1 0.05e0.1 Sayed et al. (1984)
as SS as TKN as grease
Poultry slaughter WW 7.3 5.5 2.7 0.94 0.82 0.01 0.08 6.6 0.31 Chávez et al. (2005)
Slaughterhouse WW 6.2 2.3 e 6.3 5.3 0.04 0.21 as 6.6 0.6 Caixeta et al. (2002)
Organic N
Slaughterhouse WW 4.4 e 3.9 0.40 as SS 0.60 as VS e e 6.8 e Seif and Moursy (2001)

Piggery manure and WW 4.8e12.6 56e58 1.9e43.2 1.72e33.1 0.2e1.52 0.8 as 5e5.9 e Sánchez et al. (1995)
Organic N
10.19 e 7.21 1.64 1.17 0.42 0.34 6 e Sánchez et al. (2005)
65 59 53 38 3 6.8 7.8 e Angelidaki et al. (2002)

Muncipal WW 2.6 1.1 e 0.85 e 0.02 0.13 as TKN 6.35 0.26 as FOG Halalsheh et al. (2008)
0.53 0.24 e 0.26 as SS e e 0.046 as TKN e e Tandukar et al. (2005)
0.45 0.22 e 0.19 e 0.0034 0.05 as TKN e e Moawad et al. (2009)

All values are in g L1 except pH.

 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
was the introduction of high-rate reactors in which biomass
retention and liquid retention are uncoupled (Lettinga et al.,
1980; de Zeeuw, 1988). High-rate anaerobic reactors, that can
retain biomass, have a high treatment capacity and hence low
site area requirement (Droste, 1997). Several processes have
thus been developed to operate anaerobic digestion reactors,
each of them having several advantages. Musee et al. (2006)
identified waste-generating mechanisms, analyzed the cau-
ses, and then derived options for feasible waste minimization
alternatives. One of the most common is the UASB process
that has successfully been used to treat a variety of waste-
waters, but is often limited by poor biodegradability of
complex organic substrates (Goodwin and Stuart, 1994;
Seghezzo et al., 1998; Goodwin et al., 2001; Wolmarans and
de Villiers, 2002; Coetzee et al., 2004).
The UASB reactor exhibits positive features, such as high
organic loading rates (OLRs), short hydraulic retention time
(HRT) and a low energy demand (Borja and Banks, 1994;
Metcalf and Eddy, 2003). Anaerobic sludge in UASB reactors
spontaneously immobilizes into well settling granular sludge.
It has been widely adopted for treatment of medium to high-
strength industrial wastewaters (Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol,
1991; Fang et al., 1995). UASB reactor was developed by
Lettinga et al. (1980) whereby this system has been successful
in treating a wide range of industrial effluents including
those with inhibitory compounds. The underlying principle
of the UASB operation is to have an anaerobic sludge which
exhibits good settling properties (Lettinga, 1995) and effi-
ciently retains complex microbial consortium without the
need for immobilization on a carrier material (for example, as
a biofilm) by formation of biological granules with good
settling characteristics. Performance depends on the mean
cell residence time and reactor volume depends on the
hydraulic residence time, therefore, UASB reactor can effi-
ciently convert organic compounds of wastewater into
methane in small ‘high-rate’ reactors. Approximately 60% of
the thousands of anaerobic full-scale treatment facilities
worldwide are now based on the UASB design concept,
treating a various range of industrial wastewaters (Jantsch
et al., 2002; Karim and Gupta, 2003). Moreover, previous
research studies also indicate the feasibility of this process to
treat domestic effluents (Behling et al., 1997; Singh and
Viraraghavan, 2000). The key feature of this system is the
microbial aggregation into a symbiotic multilayer structure
called a granule and retention of highly active biomass with
good settling abilities in the reactor (Schmidt and Ahring,
1996). Improved process knowledge and operational details
on formation of stable granules have made the possibility of
high organic loadings and resulting in a more sustainable
operation. The long hydraulic retention times are known to
be unfavorable for sludge granulation in UASB reactors
(Alphenaar et al., 1993) whereas, very short hydraulic reten-
tion times give rise to possibility of biomass washout. Both
scenarios are unfavorable to good performance of the UASB
reactor, although granulation has been reported to be
necessary for successful domestic wastewater treatment in
UASB reactors (Aiyuk and Verstraete, 2004; van Haandel
et al., 2006).
The success of the UASB reactor also relies on the estab-
lishment of a dense sludge bed in the bottom of the reactor
4687
where all biological processes take place. This sludge bed is
basically formed by accumulation of incoming suspended
solids and bacterial growth. In upflow anaerobic systems,
under certain conditions, it was also observed that bacteria
can naturally aggregate in flocks and granules (Hulshoff Pol
et al., 1983; Hulshoff Pol, 1989). These dense aggregates are
not susceptible to washout from the system under practical
reactor conditions. Retention of active sludge, either granular
or flocculent, within the UASB reactor enables good treat-
ment performance at high organic loading rates. The main
reason for the success of the UASB reactor is its relatively
high treatment capacity compared to other systems (Driessen
and Yspeert, 1999). Natural turbulence caused by the influent
flow rate and biogas production provides good wastewater-
biomass contact in UASB systems (Heertjes and van der
Meer, 1978). Therefore, less reactor volume and space are
required while, at the same time, high grade energy is
produced as biogas. Several configurations can be imagined
for a wastewater treatment plant including a UASB reactor. In
any case, there must be a sand trap, screens for coarse
material, and drying beds for the sludge. The UASB reactor
may replace the primary settler, the anaerobic sludge
digester, the aerobic step (activated sludge, trickling filter,
etc.), and the secondary settler of a conventional aerobic
treatment plant. However, the effluent from UASB reactors
usually needs further treatment, in order to remove remnant
organic matter, nutrients and pathogens. This post-
treatment can be accomplished in conventional aerobic
systems like stabilization ponds, activated sludge plants, and
others. The economics of anaerobic treatment in UASB
reactors were thoroughly discussed by Lettinga et al. (1983).
The advantages and disadvantage of UASB reactors are
shown in Table 2.
In particular, the UASB reactor is a reliable and simple
technology for wastewater treatment (van Haandel and
Lettinga, 1994). Several full-scale plants have been in opera-
tion and many more are presently under construction, espe-
cially under tropical or subtropical conditions (van Haandel
et al., 2006). The UASB system has become the most widely
applied reactor technology for high-rate anaerobic treatment
of industrial effluents. Its relative high treatment capacity
compared to other systems permits the use of compact and
economic wastewater treatment plants. Compared to aerobic
system, it has slow growth rate, mainly associated with
methanogenic bacteria. Therefore, it requires a long solids
retention time, and also only a small portion of the degradable
organic waste is being synthesized to new cells. So far, UASB
process technique has been applied for the treatment of palm
oil mill effluent, distillery wastewater, slaughterhouse
wastewater, piggery wastewater, dairy wastewater, fishmeal
process wastewater, municipal wastewater, potato waste
leachate, coffee production wastewater, petrochemical
wastewater, low strength wastewaters like real cotton pro-
cessing wastewater and synthetic wastewater. The key design
parameters of UASB reactor used by different researchers are
shown in Table 3. The most commonly used operational
parameters like pH, mixing; operational temperature,
hydraulic retention time and organic loading rates are
extensively discussed in Table 4 along with COD removal and
biogas production.
4688 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Table 2 e Advantages and disadvantages of UASB reactor.
Advantages
1. Good removal efficiency can be achieved in the system,
even at high loading rates and low temperatures.
2. The construction and operation of these reactors is relatively
simple and low demand for foreign exchange due to
possible local production of construction material, plant
components, spare parts and low maintenance.
3. Anaerobic treatment can easily be applied on either
a very large or a very small scale.
4. When high loading rates are accommodated, the area
needed for the reactor is small thus reducing the capital cost.
5. As far as no heating of the influent is needed to reach
the working temperature and all plant operations can be
done by gravity, the energy consumption of the reactor
is less. Moreover, energy is produced during the process in
the form of methane.
6. Reduction of CO2 emissions due to low demand for foreign
(fossil) energy and surplus energy production.
7. Much less bio-solids waste generated compared with
aerobic process because much of the energy in the
wastewater is converted to a gaseous form and resulting
in very little energy left for new cell growth.
8. The sludge production is low, when compared to aerobic
methods, due to the slow growth rates of anaerobic bacteria.
The sludge is well stabilized for final disposal and has good
dewatering characteristics. It can be preserved for long
periods of time without a significant reduction of activity,
allowing its use as inoculum for the startup of new reactors.
9. Can handle organic shock loads effectively.
10. Low nutrients and chemical requirement especially in the
case of sewage, an adequate and stable pH can be
maintained without the addition of chemicals.
11. Macronutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and
micronutrients are also available in sewage, while toxic
compounds are absent.
Disadvantages
1. Pathogens are only partially removed, except helminthes
eggs, which are effectively captured in the sludge bed.
Nutrients removal is not complete and therefore a
post-treatment is required.
2. Due to the low growth rate of methanogenic organisms,
longer startup takes before steady state operation, if activated
sludge is not sufficiently available.
3. Hydrogen sulphide is produced during the anaerobic
process, especially when there are high concentrations of
sulfate in the influent. A proper handling of the biogas is
required to avoid bad smell and corrosion.
4. Post-treatment of the anaerobic effluent is generally
required to reach the surface water discharge standards
for organic matter, nutrients and pathogens.
5. Proper temperature control (15e35  C) required for
colder climates.
3. Operation and performance of UASB
reactor
3.1. Organic loading rates and COD removal
Organic loading rate is an important parameter significantly
affecting microbial ecology and performance of UASB
systems. This parameter integrates reactor characteristics,
operational characteristics, and bacterial mass and activity
into the volume of media (Torkian et al., 2003). Various studies
have proven that higher OLRs will reduce COD removal effi-
ciency in wastewater treatment systems (Patel and
Madamwar, 2002; Torkian et al., 2003; Sánchez et al., 2005).
However, gas production will increase with OLR until a stage
when methanogens could not work quick enough to convert
acetic acid to methane. Moreover, organic loading rate can
also be related to substrate concentration and HRT, thus
a good balance between these two parameters has to be
obtained for good digester operation. Short HRT will reduce
the time of contact between substrate and biomass.
Palm oil mill effluent treatment has been successful with
UASB reactors, achieving COD removal efficiency up to 98.4%
with the highest operating OLR of 10.63 kgCOD m3 d1 (Borja
and Banks, 1994). However, reactor operated under overload
conditions with high volatile fatty acid content became
unstable after 15 days. Due to high amount of POME discharge
daily from milling process, it is necessary to operate treatment
system at higher OLR. Borja et al. (1996) implemented a two-
stage UASB system for POME treatment with the objective of
preventing inhibition of granule formation at higher OLRs
without removing solids from POME prior to treatment. This
method is desirable since suspended solids in POME have high
potential for gas production while extra costs for sludge
disposal can be avoided. Results from this study showed the
feasibility of separating anaerobic digestion into two stages
(acidogensis and methanogenesis) using a pair of UASB reac-
tors. The methanogenic reactor was found to adapt quickly
with the feed from the acidogenic reactor and also tolerate
higher OLRs. It was suggested that OLR of 30 kgCOD m3 d1
could ensure an overall of 90% COD reduction and efficient
methane conversion. UASB reactor is advantageous for its
ability to treat wastewater with low suspended solid content
(Kalyuzhnyi et al., 1998) and provide higher methane
production (Kalyuzhnyi et al., 1996). Whereas, the packing
material in anaerobic filter reactors clogged because of sus-
pended solids and resulted in less biogas production (Stronach
et al., 1987). Moreover, suspended and colloidal components
of POME in the form of fat, protein, and cellulose have an
adverse impact on UASB reactor performance and can cause
deterioration of microbial activities and washout of the active
biomass (Borja and Banks, 1994; Torkian et al., 2003). However,
the reactor might face long startup periods if seed sludge is
not granulated. A study by Goodwin et al. (1992) has proved
that reactors seeded with granulated sludge can achieve high
performance levels within a shorter startup period. It could
also acclimatize quickly to gradual increase of OLR
(Kalyuzhnyi et al., 1996).
The use of two identical UASB reactors by Goodwin and
Stuart (1994) operated in parallel as duplicates for 327 days
for the treatment of malt whisky pot ale, achieved COD
reductions of up to 90% for at influent concentrations of
3.5e5.2 g L1. When the OLRs of 15 kgCOD m3 d1 and above
were used, the COD removal efficiency dropped to less than
20% in one of the duplicate reactors. A mesophilic two-stage
system consisting of an anaerobic filter (AF) and an UASB
reactor was found suitable for anaerobic digestion of distillery
waste, enabling better conditions for the methanogenic phase
(Blonskaja et al., 2003). An advanced version of UASB system
was reported by Driessen and Yspeert (1999), wherein they
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9 4689

Table 3 e UASB reactor specifications and working parameters.

Type of Phase Reactor Diameter Height Flow HRT Upflow Sampling Reference
wastewater volume (L) (cm) (cm) rate (L d1)a (d) velocity (m h1)a ports

Palm oil Two 12 13 90 11.76 1 e 6 Borja et al. (1996)

mill effluent 5 9 78 4.9 1 e 6
Single 10 9e12 140 3 3.33 e 4 Chaisri et al. (2007)
Single 14 18.5 52 383.26b 0.53 0.59 3 Siang (2006)

Distillery Single 1.05 6.2 34.8 0.5 2 e e Goodwin et al. (2001)

WW Two 10.2 9 160 4 2.5 e 15 Laubscher et al. (2001)
Three 2.3 5 83 1.84 1.25 2 e Keyser et al. (2003),c
IUASB-Single 143,000 1102 1500 47,667 3 e e Ince et al. (2005)
TUASB-Single 476,000 2010 1500 119,000 4 e e
CUASB-Single 190,000 1270 1500 38,000 5 e e

Dairy WW Phase 1 12.3 15 70 3.5 3.5 e 4 Luostarinen and

Phase 2 3.2 9 50 2.13 1.5 e 3 Rintala (2005)
Single 31.7 15.4 170 e 0.11 Nadais et al. (2005a,b)
Intermittent 6 9.4 86.4 12 0.5 e e Nadais et al. (2005a)
Single 5 10 70 5 1 e 5 Tawfik et al. (2008)

Fishery WW Single 7.85 10 100 e e 5 Huang et al. (2009)

Slaughterhouse Single 31,840 260 600 96,485 0.33 e 5 Sayed et al. (1984)
WW Single 3 6.7 85 24 0.13 e e Chávez et al. (2005)
Three 7.2 15 41 7.9e12.4 0.91e0.58 e 3 Caixeta et al. (2002)
Single 1000 e e 10,000 0.1 0.33e1.0 9 Torkian et al. (2003)
Two 2 8 15 0.59 3.4 e 6 Ruiz et al. (1997)

Piggery WW Single 5 15 30 1 5 e e Sánchez et al. (2005)

Single 3.78 6W, 6L 105 6 0.63 2 as Vs 6 Huang et al. (2005)
Single 800  103 940 1160 e e e e Miranda et al. (2005)
Two 1 3.9 84 3 0.33 e 4 Hendriksen and
2 5.7 78 4.37 0.46 e 4 Ahring (1996)

Municipal WW Two 2.5 6 100 2 1.25 e 5 Ag dag

 and
and waste Sponza (2005)
Single 40 16 240 121 0.33 e e El-Gohary and
Two 25 11 300 119 0.21 e e Nasr (1999)
Single 55 28 89 172 0.32 e 1 Behling et al. (1997)
Single 8 10 100 11.4 0.7 e 5 Singh and
Viraraghavan (1998)
Threed 46 15W, 25L 125 e 0.17e0.13 0.31e0.43 4 Moawad et al. (2009)
Single 15.7 10 200 80 0.196 0.426 7 Uemura and
Harada (2000)
Single 2.3 5 90 6 0.33 1 e Aiyuk and
Verstraete (2004)

a Some values calculated by Eqs. (2) and (3).

b Total flow rate (influent and recycled).
c Design adopted from Trnovec and Britz (1998).
d Only UASB data.

used an internal circulation reactor characterized by biogas
separation in two stages within a reactor with a high height/
diameter ratio and the gas driven internal effluent circulation.
This system could handle high upflow liquid and gas velocities
making possible treatment of low strength effluents at short
hydraulic retention times as well as treating high-strength
effluents from brewery at very high volumetric loading rates
up to 35 kgCOD m3 d1.
A three-phased UASB reactor used by Caixeta et al. (2002)
for slaughterhouse wastewater treatment at an OLR of
2.7e10.8 kgCOD m3 d1 and average COD removal efficien-
cies of 85, 84 and 80% and BOD5 of approximately 95% at
three different HRT of 22, 18 and 14 h, respectively. Syutsubo
et al. (1997) reported a COD loading of 30 kgCOD m3 d1 with
a COD removal efficiency of 85% at sludge loading rates
(SLRs) up to 3.7 gCOD g1 VSSd1 using thermophilic reactors
(Syutsubo et al., 1998). Organic loading rates (OLRs) up to
104 kgCOD m3 d1 have been reported for anaerobic diges-
tion of sugar substrate under thermophilic conditions
(Wiegant and Lettinga, 1985). Torkian et al. (2003) concluded
that results under steady state condition where OLRs were
between 13 and 39 kgSCOD m3 d1 and HRT of 2e7 h.
Removal efficiencies in the range of 75e90% were achieved at
feed SCOD concentrations of 3e4.5 g L1. According to Soto
et al. (1997), excellent stability and high treatment effi-
ciency can be achieved with hydraulic residence times as low
as 2 h at an OLR of 6 kgCOD m3 d1 with the percent COD
removals being 92e95%. Sayed et al. (1987) treated effluent
 4690
Table 4 e Operation and performance of UASB reactor with various wastewaters.
Type of Reactor Phase Influent OLR HRT Temperature COD Biogas CH4 Average Reference
wastewater type COD (kgCOD (days) ( C) removal (L d1) (L d1) CH4%
(g L1) m3 d1) (%)

POME POME UASB Single 42.5 10.63 4 35 96 11.5 6.9 60 Borja and Banks (1994)
POME UASB Two 30.6 30 1.02 35 90 10 7 70 Borja et al. (1996)
POME UASB Single 50 15.5 3.33 28 80.5 14 7 50 Chaisri et al. (2007)

Distillery WW Recalcitrant UASB Single 10 19 0.53 55 <67 6.4 3.5 55 Harada et al. (1996)
distillery WW
Distillery WW AF-UASB Two 8.51e16.8a 4 19e10 36  1.5 47 0.091e0.39 0.06e0.26 65 Blonskaja et al. (2003)
13.6b 2.2 20 36  1.5 93 5.3 3.45 65
Malt whisky UASB Single 21.05c 10.2 2.1 35 93 4.7 e e Goodwin et al. (2001)
distillery pot ale 32.86d 4.69 7 35 88 1.3 e e
Malt whisky WW UASB Two 20.92 17.2 1.22 35  1.5 92 310e 238f 77f Uzal et al. (2003)
Grape wine UASB Single 30 18 1.67 34e36 90  3 e e e Wolmarans and

w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
distillery WW de Villiers (2002)
Grain distillation WW UASB Two 5.1g 18.4 0.28 35 90  3 e e e Laubscher et al., 2001
Winery effluent UASB Three 6.4 5.1 1.25 35 86 2.3h e e Keyser et al. (2003)
Raki & Cognac IUASB Single 33 11 3 36  1 85 0.078i 0.045 74 Ince et al. (2005)
distilleries TUASB 32 8.5 4 36  1 60e80 0.078i 0.045 74
CUASB 23 4.5 5 36  1 70e80 0.071i 0.041 74

Dairy WW Dairy WW UASB Single 37 6.2 6 35 98 e e e Gavala et al. (1999)

Dairy palour WW UASB- Phase 1 0.63 0.179 3.5 20 73 e e e Sari and Jukka (2005)
Septic Phase 2 0.36 0.24 1.5 10 64 e e e
Dairy & Domestic WW UASB-AS Single 2.01 3.4 1 35 69 e e e Tawfik et al. (2008)
Dairy WW UASB Single 79 7.5 0.66 35  1 74 e 16 e Nadais et al. (2005a,b)
Dairy WW UASB Intermittent 13.5 22 2 35  1 97  1 e 54 e Nadais et al. (2005a)
Digested UASB Single 1.8 13.5 0.13 30  2 >90 e e e Ramasamy et al. (2004)
cowdung slurry
Dairy WW UASB Continuous 12.48 12.48 1 35  1 90 e e e Nadais et al. (2006)
Intermittent 12.48 12.48 1 35  1 90 e e e
Cheese whey UASB Two 55.1 11.1 4.95 e 95 e 23.4j e Ergüder et al. (2001)
Dairy manure UASB Two 17.8 8.9 2 35  1 87.3 e 0.27k e Garcı́a et al. (2008)
Fishery WW Mixed sardine and UASB Single 2.72 8 0.33 e 80e90 e e e Palenzuela-Rollon
tuna canning et al. (2002)

Slaughterhouse Slaughterhouse waste UASB Single 1.2 3.5 0.33 20 70 10,000 6500 65e70 Sayed et al. (1984)
WW Poultry slaughter WW UASB Single 5.5 28.7 0.19 as CRT 24.7 95 e e e Chávez et al. (2005),l
Slaughterhouse waste UASB Three 4.2 4.6 0.92 35 89 11.9 e e Caixeta et al. (2002)
6.5 8.7 0.75 90 10.9 e e
6.3 10.8 0.58 86 10.6 e e
Slaughterhouse WW UASB Five 2.87 30 0.1 33 90 e 280m e Torkian et al. (2003)
Slaughterhouse WW UASB-AFo Two 7.6 2.23 3.4 37 93 1.03 0.6 70.6 Ruiz et al. (1997)

Piggery WW Piggery waste UASB Single 8.12 1.62 5 30e35 75 4.1 2.37n 57.8 Sánchez et al. (2005)
Pre-settled piggery WW UASB-AS Two 2 3.17 0.63 30  1 91 1.51 0.6 39.7 Huang et al. (2005)

(continued on next page)

Table 4 (continued )
Type of Reactor Phase Influent OLR HRT Temperature COD Biogas CH4 Average Reference
wastewater type COD (kgCOD (days) ( C) removal (L d1) (L d1) CH4%
(g L1) m3 d1) (%)

Municipal WW Municipal landfill UASB-CSTR Twop 20 16 4.5 37  3 79 9.5 5.7 60.05  dag
Ag  and Sponza (2005)
leachate
Domestic WW UASB Single 0.39 1.21 0.32 30 85 26 e e Behling et al. (1997)

w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Domestic WW UASB-SBRo Three 0.37 2.93 0.125 e 57 e e e Moawad et al. (2009)
Municipal WW UASB-AS Fiveq 0.56 0.09 0.17 e 85 e e e von Sperling et al. (2001)
Municipal WW UASB Single 3.2 1.05 0.42 20  1 86 1.97 1.1 79 Singh and Viraraghavan (1998)
Sewage WW UASB Single 0.15e0.5 0.77e2.55 0.196 25e13 68  4 e 3.5 e Uemura and Harada (2000)
Sewage WW AF-UASBo Two 0.47e1.23 1.4e3.7 0.33 12e23 <50 e e e Sawajneh et al. (2010)

a Acidogenic phase.
b Methanogenic phase.
c With 70% pot ale.
d With 100% pot ale.
e At influent of COD 16 g L1.
f Stoichiometric calculations for CH4.
g At controlled conditions.
h At OLR of 6.3 kgCOD m3 d1.
i As per gVSS.
j LCH4 L1 of cheese whey.
k LCH4 g1CODremoved.
l All data in terms of BOD.
m As per SCOD.
n Per liter of influent.
o Only UASB data.
p 1st run data, total 3 runs.
q Phase 3 data.

4691
4692 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
from meat processing plant in a granular UASB reactor and
achieved COD removal efficiency of 55e85% with HRT of
0.5e0.6 days at volumetric loading rate of 11 kgCOD m3 d1.
Dague and Pidaparti (1992) concluded that operation of
reactor with hydraulic retention time of 8.8 days and OLR of
0.33 kgBOD5 m3 d1 yielded a BOD5 removal efficiency of
85e90% and biogas production of 0.51 m3CH4 kg1CODremoved.
Two-phased UASB-septic tank used by Luostarinen and
Rintala (2005) with high removal of organic matter for onsite
treatment of synthetic black water (OLR 0.301 kgCOD m3 d1)
and dairy parlor wastewater (OLR 0.191 kgCOD m3 d1) at low
temperatures (10e20  C). Moreover, CODdiss removal was
around 70% at 15  C and 10  C indicating good biological
activity of the reactor sludge. Gavala et al. (1999) concluded
that an OLR of 6.2 gCOD L1 d1 (diluted to 37 gCOD L1, with
an HRT to 6 d) may be safely used for treating dairy waste-
water and could be increased up to 7.5 gCOD L1 d1. Above
that OLR, reduced performance is observed; while for non-
diluted dairy wastewater, an HRT in excess of 30 d is required.
According to Palenzuela-Rollon et al. (2002) the application
of UASB system is a promising treatment option for fish pro-
cessing wastewater. They determined the performance of
USAB reactor for the treatment of mixed sardine and tuna
canning effluent at varying lipid levels. They stated that at low
lipid level (203e261 mg L1, 9% of total COD) approximately
78% COD removal and 61% COD conversion to methane can be
achieved with an OLR of 2.3 gCOD L1 d1 and at HRT of
7.2  2.8 h. In the case of high-lipid wastewater a two-step
UASB was recommended where the total COD removal and
conversion to methane were 92% and 47%, respectively. Punal
and Lema (1999) have used a 380 m3 UASB reactor for the
treatment of fish-canning factory wastewater. The waste-
water was a mixed effluent of tuna, sardine and mussel pro-
cessing. The total alkalinity of more than 3 gCaCO3 L1 was
maintained to operate the system properly and allow biomass
to resist load shocks. An HRT of 2 days was maintained and
the OLR was varied from 1 kgCOD m3 d1 to 8 kgCOD m3 d1.
The efficiency of the system is dependent on the nature of the
wastewater as shown in Table 4. The organic loading rate can
be calculated by the following equation,
CODin
OLR ¼
HRT
where OLR ¼ Organic loading rate (gCOD L1 d1), CODin ¼ In-
fluent COD (g L1), HRT ¼ Hydraulic retention time (days).
3.2. Flow rate and hydraulic retention time
Flow rate is also an important operating parameter which
upholds the hydraulic retention time. A lot of data has been
published regarding flow rate which also can justify by Eq. (2).
Borja et al. (1996) worked for POME at a maximum flow rate of
11.76 L d1 and 4.9 L d1 at 24 h HRT for two-stage UASB
reactor. The difference in flow rate at same HRT is due to
change in volume of the reactor from 12 to 5 L. Experiment
carried out by Siang (2006) for POME, where low HRT of 12.7 h
was worked out at recycling mode of UASB and maintained
a flow rate of 383.26 L d1. This low HRT might be due to less
height of the reactor (52 cm) and bigger diameter (18.5 cm). The
purpose of describing height/diameter combination is that,
during upflow anaerobic process if diameter will be too big then
there is a chance of liquid channeling in the reactor. Moreover,
because of channeling, the influent stream may not be in full
contact with reactor biomass which will result in low conver-
sion of organic matter into fatty acids and finally biogas
production. So, bigger reactor diameter does not encourage
more biogas production except sludge washout because of
poor mixing within the reactor. On the other hand, compara-
tively more height may encourage substrate mixing which
leads to proper contact of influent with micro-organisms
which results in more organic matter conversion into biogas.
Chaisri et al. (2007) and Laubscher et al. (2001) used almost 10 L
UASB reactors with flow rates of 3 L d1 and 4 L d1 respec-
tively. The difference in flow rate is due to the change in HRT
only which might be designed according to the type of waste-
water, where, in first case POME was used as a substrate and
distillery wastewater for later one. Ince et al. (2005) worked out
at three full-scale UASB reactors at 3e4 d HRT while change in
flow rates is due to the different reactor volumes. Torkian et al.
(2003) used a pilot scale UASB reactor for the treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater. They kept flow rate of 1000 L d1
at only 2.4 h HRT. Tawfik et al. (2008) studied on dairy waste-
water and used a flow rate of 5 L d1 and at 1 d HRT while
reactor height was also sufficient to run experiment at higher
HRTs.
In another study, Sánchez et al. (2005) used piggery
wastewater as substrate and worked at very less flow rate of
1 L d1 while keeping HRT of 5 days. They used 30 cm high and
15 cm diameter UASB reactor. This higher HRT for lower
height might has different reasons like, This long HRT for less
height might has different reasons like, the use of raw
wastewater rich in organic contents, or may be less dilution
has been done for startup of UASB reactor, or, they used very
less or no nutrients for running the experiment. Huang et al.
(2005) used 105 cm high rectangular UASB reactor and
worked only at 15 h HRT with a flow rate of 6 L d1.
The success of UASB reactor also done by using municipal
wastewater, Moawad et al. (2009) worked at two hydraulic
retention times 4 h and 3 h but they did not mention the flow
rate in their study. By using Eq. (2), the flow rate could be
(1) 270e353 L d1 while they used rectangular UASB rector. Ag  dag

and Sponza (2005) studied degradation of municipal waste-
water at two-stage UASB reactor of same volume (2.5 L) and
designed flow rate was 2 L d1 at 1.25 d HRT. The low flow rate
accompanied due to less reactor volume (2.8 L). Complete
detail of UASB reactor configuration with flow rate and HRT
designed by various researchers is shown in Table 3. Some
data regarding flow rate is calculated by Eq. (2).
By following Eq. (2), it is clear that flow rate is inversely
proportional to HRT but it is understood that volume has
direct relation with flow rate. For designing purpose, we can
calculate the flow rate by following equation.
V
Q¼ (2)
HRT
where Q ¼ Flow rate of influent stream (L d1), V ¼ Volume of
the reactor (L), HRT ¼ Hydraulic retention time (days).
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
3.3. Upflow velocity
The upflow velocity (Vup) is also an important operational
parameter in upflow digesters. It maintains the mixing and
hydraulic retention time of the substrate and biomass. A few
researches are done on upflow velocity as limited data had
shown by few researchers. Upflow velocity is directly
proportional to reactor height and inversely proportional to
hydraulic retention time at fix HRT or reactor volume, as
shown in Eq. (3). It determines the appropriate mixing of
biomass with the height of the reactor with or without chan-
neling. The permissible limit of upflow velocity is
0.5e1.5 m h1 as described by many researchers. Siang (2006)
maintained a 0.59 m h1 Vup at HRT of 13 h. Keyser et al.
(2003) reported a 2 m h1 Vup at HRT of 1.25 days which is
quite higher than limits but they used distillery wastewater as
substrate and little fluctuations might be possible with
different types of wastewaters. While treating dairy waste-
water, Nadais et al. (2005a,b) reported a 0.11 m h1 Vup without
showing hydraulic retention time. Torkian et al. (2003) treated
slaughterhouse wastewater and applied Vup from 0.33 to
1.0 m h1 while keeping a constant HRT of 2.4 h. They used
a pilot scale UASB reactor of 1 m3 capacity and height was not
shown in their study.
While treating municipal wastewater in UASB reactor,
Uemura and Harada (2000) reported 0.426 m h1 Vup at 4.7 h of
HRT. Recently, Moawad et al. (2009) used upflow velocities of
0.31e0.43 m h1 at HRT of 4e3 h. They used a rectangular
shaped UASB reactor for the treatment of municipal waste-
water. Upflow velocity can be determined by Eq. (3) on the
basis of HRT and height of the reactor.
h
Vup ¼
HRT
where Vup ¼ Upflow velocity of influent stream (m h1),
h ¼ height of the reactor (m), HRT ¼ Hydraulic retention time
(h).
The upflow velocity can also be calculated by flow rate and
cross-sectional area of the reactor,
Q
Vup ¼
A
where Vup ¼ Upflow velocity of influent stream (m h1),
Q ¼ Flow rate of influent stream (m3 h1), A ¼ Reactor’s cross-
sectional area (m2).
3.4. pH
The microbial community in the anaerobic digester is sensi-
tive to the changes of pH and methanogens are affected to
a greater extent (Grady et al., 1999). An investigation by
Beccari et al. (1996) confirmed that methanogenesis is strongly
affected by pH. As such, methanogenic activity will decrease
when pH in the digester deviates from the optimum value.
Optimum pH for most microbial growth is between 6.8 and 7.2
while the pH values less than 4 and more than 9.5 are not
tolerable (Gerardi, 2006). Several cases of reactor failure have
been reported in various studies of wastewater treatment due
to accumulation of high concentration of volatile fatty acid,
causing a drop in pH which inhibited methanogenesis (Patel
4693
and Madamwar, 2002; Parawira et al., 2006). Thus, volatile
fatty acid concentration is an important parameter to monitor
to guarantee reactor performance (Buyukkamaci and Filibeli,
2004). It was found that digester could tolerate acetic acid
concentrations up to 4000 mg L1 without inhibition of gas
production (Stafford, 1982). To control the level of volatile
fatty acid in the system, alkalinity has to be maintained by
recirculation of treated effluent (Borja et al., 1996; Najafpour
et al., 2006) to the digester or addition of lime and bicar-
bonate salt (Gerardi, 2003).
While treating slaughterhouse wastewater in UASB
reactor, the pH should be essentially constant, varying
between 7.5 and 8.5. The pH of the slaughterhouse influent is
normally corrected to 7.0 but it has little variation due to acid
forming bacteria. Caixeta et al. (2002) maintained the pH of
influent stream by adding sodium bicarbonate in first run.
However, in further two runs the influent was fed to the
reactor without any pH adjustment. The slaughterhouse
wastewater exhibited high buffering capacity without
requiring pH correction any more. Sandberg and Ahring (1992)
investigated the influence of high pH on anaerobic degrada-
tion of fish processing wastewater in a UASB reactor.
According to Boone and Xun (1987) most methanogenic
bacteria have optima for growth between pH 7 and 8, whereas
VFA degrading bacteria have lower pH optima. The optimal pH
for mesophilic biogas reactor is 6.7e7.4 (Clark and Speece,
1971). A study by Sandberg and Ahring (1992) demonstrated
that fish condensate can be treated well in a UASB reactor
from pH 7.3 to 8.2. When the pH was increased slowly to 8.0 or
more 15e17% drop in COD removal occurred. Acetate was the
only carbon source in the condensate that accumulated upon
increasing the pH. More than 99% of VFA and TMA in process
(3) wastewater were degraded up to pH 7.9. It was concluded that
gradual pH increment was essential in order to achieve the
necessary acclimatization of the granules and to prevent
disintegration of the granules and that the pH should not
exceed 8.2. Aspe et al. (2001) modeled the ammonia-induced
inhibition phenomenon of anaerobic digestion and
concluded that methanogenesis was the most inhibited stage.
(4) 3.5. Operating temperature
Temperature is an important operating parameter for anaer-
obic degradation process. The influence of temperature on
microbial growth and biodegradation rate can be described by
the Arrhenius equation (Batstone et al., 2002; Hao et al., 2002;
Siegrist et al., 2002). Operation of anaerobic reactors under
thermophilic conditions offers a number of advantages such
as increased reaction rates and improved biodegradability of
organic compounds (Rintala, 1997; Kim et al., 2002). However,
startup and operation of a thermophilic reactor is cumber-
some due to the high sensitivity of thermophilic micro-
organisms to variations in OLR, influent composition, reactor
pH, and other factors. It is generally assumed that a transition
from mesophilic to thermophilic conditions is accompanied
by a significant (over 80%) and lengthy (over 4 days) decrease
in methane production due to adaptation of methanogens to
thermophilic temperatures (van Lier et al., 1992; Visser et al.,
1993) Nevertheless, mesophilic methanogenic populations
were shown to tolerate short-term temperature are increases
4694 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
(Speece and Kem, 1970; Ahn and Forster, 2002) or sludge
exchange between mesophilic and thermophilic reactors
(Song et al., 2004).
The cost benefit analysis for POME treatment system that
utilizes biogas for electricity generation and digester effluent
for land application also showed a faster payback (Yeoh, 2004).
POME is discharged at temperatures around 80e90  C
(Zinatizadeh et al., 2006) which actually makes treatment at
both mesophilic and thermophilic temperatures feasible
especially in tropical countries like Malaysia. Various studies
have been conducted to investigate the feasibility of operating
wastewater treatment systems in the thermophilic tempera-
ture range such as sugar, high-strength wastewater (Wiegant
et al., 1985; Wiegant and Lettinga, 1985) and POME (Cail and
Barford, 1985; Choorit and Wisarnwan, 2007). It is reported
that operation at thermophilic temperature gives better
results than mesophilic temperature after startup because
methane producing bacteria produced at mesophilic temper-
ature facilitate in high methane production at thermophilic
temperature ranges (Cail and Barford, 1985).
High production of methane was also observed from the
treatment of sugar wastewater in this higher temperature
range. Effect of temperature on the performance of anaerobic
digestion was investigated. Yu et al. (2002) found that
substrate degradation rate and biogas production rate at 55  C
were higher than operation at 37  C. Studies have reported
that thermophilic digesters are able to tolerate higher OLRs
and operate at shorter HRT while producing more biogas (Ahn
and Forster, 2002; Kim et al., 2006; Yilmaz et al., 2008).
However, failure to control temperature increase can result in
biomass washout (Lau and Fang, 1997) with accumulation of
volatile fatty acid due to inhibition of methanogenesis. At high
temperatures, production of volatile fatty acid is higher
compared to mesophilic temperature range (Yu et al., 2002).
Many operators prefer to have digesters operating in meso-
philic temperature due to better process stability. Neverthe-
less, investigation on digester stability by Kim et al. (2002)
proved that disadvantages of thermophilic digesters can be
resolved by keeping microbial consortia in close proximity.
Full-scale thermophilic (50e55  C) anaerobic digestion of
wastewater from an alcohol distillery was reported by
Vlissidis and Zouboulis (1993). More than 60% removal of COD
was achieved with 76% of biogas comprising of methane
thus making it a valuable fuel. Stevens and Schulte (1979)
studied the effect of the temperature at solids retention
times of 6e55 days at organic volumetric loading rates of
0.61e4.81 kgVS m3 d1, in a complete mixed anaerobic
digester. They concluded that at organic rates in the range of
0.61e1.80 kg VS m3 d1 and temperatures lower than 25  C,
the operation is proceeded satisfactorily. Low temperature
digestion was found to require twice as long retention time as
with satisfactory production and composition of gas. In
another study, Sánchez et al. (2001) observed the effect of
temperature and substrate concentration on the anaerobic
batch digestion of piggery wastewater. The study compared
the process at mesophilic temperature (35  C) with tempera-
tures in the range of 16.8e29.5  C, and influent concentrations
in the range of 3.3e26.3 gTCOD L1. The process at mesophilic
temperature was more stable than at an ambient tempera-
ture, obtaining higher values of removal efficiency.
3.6. Mixing
Mixing provides good contact between microbes and
substrates, reduces resistance to mass transfer, minimizes
buildup of inhibitory intermediates and stabilizes environ-
mental conditions (Grady et al., 1999). When mixing is inef-
ficient, overall rate of process will be impaired by pockets of
material at different stages of digestion, whereby every stage
has a different pH and temperature (Stafford, 1982). Mixing
can be accomplished through mechanical mixing, biogas
recirculation or through slurry recirculation (Karim et al.,
2005a). Investigations have been done to observe the effects
of mixing to the performance of anaerobic digesters. It was
found that mixing improved the performance of digesters
treating waste with higher concentration (Karim et al., 2005b)
while slurry recirculation showed better results compared to
impeller and biogas recirculation mixing mode (Karim et al.,
2005c).
Mixing also improved the gas production as compared to
unmixed digesters (Karim et al., 2005b). Intermittent mixing
is advantageous over vigorous mixing (Stafford, 1982;
Kaparaju et al., 2008), where this has been adopted widely
in large-scale municipal and farm waste digesters (Stafford,
1982). Sludge granules are formed due to fluidization (Guiot
et al., 1992). Fluidization is achieved by mixing of the sludge
by the flow and gas release. Rapid mixing is not encouraged
as methanogens can be less efficient in this mode of opera-
tion (Gerardi, 2003). However, Karim et al. (2005b) mentioned
that mixing during startup is not beneficial due to the fact
that digester pH will be lowered, resulting in performance
instability as well as leading to a prolonged startup period.
Mixing in palm oil mills which depend on biogas produced
(Ma and Ong, 1985) is less efficient compared to mechanical
mixing as digesters are not perfectly mixed. The upflow
reactors with big diameters can face the problem of chan-
neling where upflow velocity, sometimes, cannot improve
the mixing of more viscous substrate. So, mixing becomes
the important functional parameter for such cases. Further
investigation on the effects of mixing should be commenced
to obtain a suitable mode of mixing for better digester
performance.
4. Research needs
The application of UASB reactors for the treatment of waste-
waters is limited so far to regions with constant and relatively
warm temperature conditions. The success of UASB reactors
is mainly dependent on OLR, HRT and operating tempera-
tures. Operating temperature can be a fixed parameter with
minor fluctuations but the key factors (OLR and HRT) deter-
mine the ultimate amount of hydrolysis and methanogenesis
in a UASB system especially at early stages. Organic loading
rate is still a challenge for researchers to produce maximum
biogas and high COD removal. The COD removal or biogas
production is inhibited by the accumulation of fatty acid
where, sometimes, system becomes unstable and results in
sludge washout. Accumulation of undegraded SS may also
induce a reduction in the methanogenic activity of the sludge,
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
a deterioration of bacterial aggregates, and the formation of
scum layers, leading to overloading of the reactor. When too
long SRTs are necessary and, therefore, only low loading rates
can be accommodated, a two-step system with additional
sludge stabilization is to be considered. Despite considerable
work devoted to the clarification of the mechanisms of sus-
pended solids removal and hydrolysis, both the physical and
the biological processes in the first step of a two-stage
anaerobic treatment need further research. The removal of
suspended solids will depend on factors like HRT, Vup, and
sludge bed distinctiveness, and also on the characteristics of
the suspended solids themselves.
Mathematical modeling of the system, including physical
and biological processes, can help to expand more approach
into the process, and will certainly provide a balance for the
adequate management of the sludge retention in UASB reac-
tors. A model should also provide a basis for deciding for one
or two-stage anaerobic systems according to wastewater
characteristics and atmospheric conditions. Mathematical
modeling can be extremely valuable in orienting future
research on UASB technology, and can serve as a design tool
for the expansion, relocate, and distribution of anaerobic
technology for direct wastewater treatment. The treatment of
different wastewater although can permit wastewaters to
flow along with the normal surface water but biogas produc-
tion should also be keep in account. The cost benefit ratio of
the UASB reactor technology can be further decreased if more
biogas will be produced.
5. Conclusions
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor is an efficient
wastewater treatment technology that connects anticipated
anaerobic decomposition to lessen the waste volume and
produce biogas. It has been broadly applied to the treatment of
wastewaters from agricultural and industrial operations.
Depending on the starting point, the waste stream may
contain inhibitory or toxic substances such as ammonia,
sulfide, heavy metals and organics. Accumulation of these
substances may cause reactor suffering or failure, as pointed
out by reduced biogas production or methane content.
Because of the difference in anaerobic micro-organisms,
wastewater composition, and experimental methods and
conditions, results from previous investigations on inhibition
of anaerobic processes vary considerably. The reactor failure
is also mainly concerned with operating parameters such as
OLR, HRT, pH, food to micro-organisms ratio, VFA to alkalinity
ratio and the flow rate. On spot and time to time analysis of
incoming wastewater stream and biomass within the reactor
are important for both lab and large-scale UASB reactors.
Acknowledgment
This work is carried out by the Faculty of Civil Engineering and
Earth Resources of University Malaysia Pahang (Malaysia). It is
the part of a Research Management Center (RMC) research
project on integrated application and design of upflow
4695
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor funded by University
Malaysia Pahang. Information provided by the library staff is
gratefully acknowledged.
references
 dag
Ag  , O.N., Sponza, D.T., 2005. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment of
municipal landfill leachate in sequential two-stage up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB)/completely stirred
tank reactor (CSTR) systems. Proc. Biochem. 40, 895e902.
Ahn, J.H., Forster, C.F., 2002. A comparison of mesophilic and
thermophilic anaerobic upflow filters treating
paperepulpeliquors. Proc. Biochem. 38, 257e262.
Aiyuk, S., Verstraete, W., 2004. Sedimentological evolution in an
UASB treating SYNTHES, a new representative synthetic
sewage, at low loading rates. Bioresour. Technol. 93, 269e278.
Albrechtsen, H.J., 1998. Water Consumption in Residences.
Microbiological Investigations of Rain Water and Greywater
Reuse Systems. Miljøstyrelsen (Miljø-og Energiministeriet) og
Boligministeriet, ISBN 87-985613-9-1 (in Danish).
Alphenaar, P.A., Visser, A., Lettinga, G., 1993. The effect of liquid
upward velocity and hydraulic retention time on granulation
in UASB reactors treating wastewater with a high sulphate
content. Bioresour. Technol. 43 (3), 249e258.
Andrew, B., Xiaodong, S., Edyveam, G.J., 1997. Removal of
coloured organic matter by adsorption onto low cost-waste
material. Water Res. 31, 2084e2092.
Angelidaki, I., Ahring, B.K., Deng, H., Schmidt, J.E., 2002. Anaerobic
digestion of olive oil mill effluents together with swine manure
in UASB reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 45 (10), 213e218.
Aspe, E., Marti, M.C., Jara, A., Roeckel, M., 2001. Ammonia
inhibition in the anaerobic treatment of fishery effluents.
Water Environ. Res. 73 (2), 154e164.
Barreto, C.O., 2004. Tratamento de efluentes na indústria
frigorı́fica e Parte 3. Revista da Carne 327, 138e141.
Batstone, D.J., Keller, J., Angelidaki, I., Kalyuzhnyi, S.V.,
Pavlostathis, S.G., Rozzi, A., Sanders, W.T.M., Siegrist, H.,
Vavilin, V., 2002. Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). IWA
Publishing, London, UK.
Beccari, M., Bonemazzi, F., Majone, M., Riccardi, C., 1996. Interaction
between acidogenesis and methanogenesis in the anaerobic
treatment of olive oil mill effluents. Water Res. 30, 183e189.
Behling, E., Diaz, A., Colina, G., Herrera, M., Gutierrez, E.,
Chacin, E., Fernandez, N., Forster, C.F., 1997. Domestic
wastewater treatment using a UASB reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 61 (3), 239e245.
Blonskaja, V., Menert, A., Vilu, R., 2003. Use of two-stage anaerobic
treatment for distillery waste. Adv. Environ. Res. 7, 671e678.
Boone, D.R., Xun, L., 1987. Effects of pH, temperature and
nutrients on propionate degradation by a methanogenic
enrichment culture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53, 1589e1592.
Borja, R., Banks, C., 1994. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill
effluent using an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor. Biomass Bioener., 381e389.
Borja, R., Banks, C.J., Sánchez, E., 1996. Anaerobic treatment of
palm oil mill effluent in a two-stage up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactor. J. Biotechnol. 45, 125e135.
Bustamante, M.A., Paredes, C., Moral, R., Moreno-Casalles, J., Pérez-
Espinosa, A., Pérez-Murcia, M.D., 2005. Uses of winery and
distillery effluents in agriculture: characterization of nutrient
and hazardous components. Water Sci. Technol. 51 (1), 145e151.
Buyukkamaci, N., Filibeli, A., 2004. Volatile fatty acid formation in
anaerobic hybrid reactor. Proc. Biochem. 39, 1491e1494.
Cail, R.G., Barford, J.P., 1985. Thermophilic semi-continuous
anaerobic digestion of palm-oil mill effluent. Agricul. Wastes
13, 295e304.
4696 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Caixeta, C.E.T., Camarota, M.C., Xavier, A.M.F., 2002.
Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: evaluation of a new
three-phase separation system in a UASB reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 81, 61e69.
Chaisri, R., Boonsawang, P., Prasertsan, P., Chaiprapat, S., 2007.
Effect of organic loading rate on methane and volatile fatty
acids productions from anaerobic treatment of palm oil mill
effluent in UASB and UFAF reactors. Songklanakarin J. Sci.
Technol. 2, 311e323.
Chávez, P.C., Castillo, L.R., Dendooven, L., Escamilla-Silva, E.M.,
2005. Poultry slaughter wastewater treatment with an up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Bioresour. Technol.
96, 1730e1736.
Cheah, S.C., Ma, A.N., Ooi, L.C.L., Ong, A.S.H., 1998.
Biotechnological applications for the utilisation of wastes
from palm oil mills. Fat Sci. Technol. 90, 536e540.
Chen, T.H., Shyu, W.H., 1998. Chemical characterization of
anaerobic digestion treatment of poultry mortalities.
Bioresour. Technol. 63, 37e48.
Choorit, W., Wisarnwan, P., 2007. Effect of temperature on the
anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill effluent. Elect. J.
Biotechnol. 10, 376e385.
Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E., McFarlane, S., 1996. An
investigation into grey water reuse for urban residential
properties. Desalination 106, 391e397.
Clark, R.H., Speece, R.E., 1971. The pH tolerance of anaerobic
digestion. Adv. Water Pollut. Res. 1, 1e14.
Coetzee, G., Malandra, L., Wolfaardt, G.M., Viljoen-Bloom, M.,
2004. Dynamics of microbial biofilm in a rotating biological
contactor for the treatment of winery effluent. Water SA 30 (3),
407e412.
Dague, R., Pidaparti, S.R., 1992. Anaerobic sequencing batch
treatment of swine wastes. In: Proceedingsof 46th Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Chelsea, pp. 751e823.
de Zeeuw, W., 1988. Granular sludge in UASB reactors. In:
Lettinga, G., Zehnder, L.I.B., Grotenhuis, J.T.C., Hulshoff Pol, L.
W. (Eds.), Granular Anaerobic Sludge; Microbiology and
Technology. Pudoc Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 132e145.
del Pozo, R., Diez, V., Beltrán, S., 2000. Pretreatment of anaerobic
of slaughterhouse wastewater that uses fixed-film reactors.
Bioresour. Technol. 71, 143e149.
Drechsel, P., Evans, A.E.V., 2010. Wastewater use in irrigated
agriculture. Irrig Drainage Syst. 24, 1e3.
Driessen, W., Yspeert, P., 1999. Anaerobic treatment of low,
medium and high strength effluent in agro-industry. Water
Sci. Technol. 40, 221e228.
Droste, R.L., 1997. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater
Treatment. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
El-Gohary, F.A., Nasr, F.A., 1999. Cost effective pre-treatment of
wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (5), 97e103.
Ergüder, E.H., Tezel, U., Güven, E., Demirer, G.N., 2001. Anaerobic
biotransformation and methane potential in batch and UASB
reactors. Waste Manag. 21, 643e650.
Eusébio, A., Petruccioli, M., Lageiro, M., Federici, F., Duarte, J.C.,
2004. Microbial characterization of activated sludge in jet-loop
bioreactors treating winery wastewaters. J. Ind. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 31 (1), 29e34.
Fang, H.H.P., Li, Y.Y., Chui, H.K., 1995. UASB treatment of
wastewater with concentrated mixed VFA. ASCE J. Environ.
Eng. 121 (2), 153e160.
Feachem, R.G., Bradley, D.J., Garelick, H., Mara, D.D., 1983.
Sanitation and Disease. Health Aspects of Excreta and
Wastewater Management. The World Bank, pp. 16e21.
Garcı́a, H., Rico, C., Garcı́a, P.A., Ric, J.L., 2008. Flocculants effect in
biomass retention in a UASB reactor treating dairy manure.
Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6028e6036.
Gavala, H.N., Kopsinis, H., Skiadas, I.V., Stamatelatou, K.,
Lyberatos, G., 1999. Treatment of dairy wastewater using an
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 73,
59e63.
Gerardi, M.H., 2003. The Microbiology of Anaerobic Digesters.
Wiley-Interscience, New Jersey, pp. 51e57.
Gerardi, M.H., 2006. Wastewater Bacteria. Wiley-Interscience,
New Jersey, pp. 19e31.
Gonzalez, J.F., 1996. Wastewater Treatment in the Fishery
Industry. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper (FAO), No. 355/FAO.
Fisheries Dept, Rome (Italy).
Goodwin, J.A.S., Stuart, J.B., 1994. Anaerobic digestion of malt
whisky distillery pot ale using upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 49, 75e81.
Goodwin, J.A.S., Finlayson, J.M., Low, E.W., 2001. A further
study of the anaerobic biotreatment of malt whisky
distillery pot ale using an UASB system. Bioresour. Technol.
78, 155e160.
Goodwin, J.A.S., Wase, D.A.J., Forster, C.F., 1992. Pre-granulated
seeds for UASB reactors: how necessary are they? Bioresour.
Technol. 41, 71e79.
Grady Jr., C.P.L., Daigger, G.T., Lim, H.C., 1999. Biological
Wastewater Treatment, second ed., revised and expanded.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Guiot, S.R., Arcand, Y., Chavarie, C., 1992. Advantages of
fluidization on granule size and activity development in upflow
anaerobic sludge bed reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 26, 897e906.
Halalsheh, M., Dalahmeh, S., Sayed, M., Suleiman, W., Shareef, M.,
Mansour, M., Safi, M., 2008. Grey water characteristics and
treatment options for rural areas in Jordan. Bioresour. Technol.
99, 6635e6641.
Hansen, C., West, G.T., 1992. Anaerobic digestion of rendering
waste in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket digester.
Bioresour. Technol. 41, 181e185.
Hao, X., Heijnen, J.J., van Loosdrecht, M.C.M., 2002. Sensitivity
analysis of a biofilm model describing a one-stage completely
autotrophic nitrogen removal (CANON) process. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 77 (3), 266e277.
Harada, H., Uemura, S., Chen, A.C., Jayadevan, J., 1996. Anaerobic
treatment of a recalcitrant distillery wastewater by
a thermophilic UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 55, 215e221.
Heertjes, P.M., van der Meer, R.R., 1978. Dynamics of liquid flow in
an up-flow reactor used for anaerobic treatment of
wastewater. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 20, 1577e1594.
Hendriksen, H.V., Ahring, B.K., 1996. Integrated removal of nitrate
and carbon in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor: operating performance. Water Res. 30 (6), 1451e1458.
Huang, J.S., Wu, C.S., Chen, C.M., 2005. Microbial activity in
a combined UASB-activated sludge reactor system.
Chemosphere 61, 1032e1041.
Huang, L., Zhang, B., Gao, B., Feng, L., 2009. Application of
anaerobic granular sludge to treatment of fishmeal industry
wastewaters under highly saline conditions. In:
International Conference on Energy and Environ. Technol.,
16e18 October, Guilin, China, pp. 433e436. doi:10.1109/
ICEET.2009.343.
Hulshoff Pol, L.W., 1989. The phenomenon of granulation of
anaerobic sludge. PhD thesis, Wageningen Agricultural
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hulshoff Pol, L.W., de Zeeuw, W.J., Velzeboer, C.T.M., Lettinga, G.,
1983. Granulation in UASB-reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 15,
291e304.
Hwu, C.S., 1997. Enhancing anaerobic treatment of wastewaters
containing oleic acid. PhD thesis, Agricultural University of
Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Ince, O., Kolukirik, M., Oz, N.A., Ince, B.K., 2005. Comparative
evaluation of full-scale UASB reactors treating alcohol
distillery wastewaters in terms of performance and
methanogenic activity. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 80,
138e144.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Jantsch, T.G., Angelidaki, I., Schmidt, J.E., de Hvidsten, B.E.B.,
Ahring, B.K., 2002. Anaerobic biodegradation of spent sulphite
liquor in a UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 84 (1), 15e20.
Jeganathan, J., Nakhla, G., Bassi, A., 2006. Long-term performance
of high-rate anaerobic reactors for the treatment of oily
wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 6466e6472.
Jeison, D., Del Rio, A., Van Lier, J.B., 2008. Impact of high saline
wastewaters on anaerobic granular sludge functionalities.
Water Sci. Technol. 57 (6), 815e819.
Jimenez, A.M., Borja, R., 1997. Influence of aerobic pretreatment with
Penicillium decumbens on the anaerobic digestion of beet molasses
alcoholic fermentation wastewater in suspended and immobilized
cell bioreactors. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 69, 193e202.
Kalyuzhnyi, S., de los Santos, L.E., Martinez, J.R., 1998. Anaerobic
treatment of raw and preclarified potatoemaize wastewater
in a UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 66, 195e199.
Kalyuzhnyi, S.V., Skylar, V.I., Davlyatshina, M.A., Parshina, S.N.,
Simankova, M.V., Kostrikina, N.A., Nozhevnikova, A.N., 1996.
Organic removal and microbiological features of UASB-reactor
under various organic loading rates. Bioresour. Technol. 55 (1),
47e54.
Kaparaju, P., Buendia, I., Ellegaard, L., Angelidaki, I., 2008. Effects
of mixing on methane production during thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of manure: lab-scale and pilot-scale
studies. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 4919e4928.
Karim, K., Gupta, S.K., 2003. Continuous biotransformation and
removal of nitrophenols under denitrifying conditions. Water
Res. 37, 2953e2959.
Karim, K., Klasson, K.T., Hoffmann, R., Drescher, S.R., DePaoli, D.
W., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2005a. Anaerobic digestion of animal
waste: effect of mixing. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 1607e1612.
Karim, K., Hoffmann, R., Klasson, K.T., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2005b.
Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: effect of mode of mixing.
Water Res. 39, 3597e3606.
Karim, K., Hoffmann, R., Klasson, T., Al-Dahhan, M.H., 2005c.
Anaerobic digestion of animal waste: waste strength versus
impact of mixing. Bioresour. Technol. 96, 1771e1781.
Keyser, M., Witthuhn, R.C., Ronquest, L.C., Britz, T.J., 2003.
Treatment of winery effluent with upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) e granular sludges enriched with Enterobacter
sakazakii. Biotechnol. Lett. 25 (22), 1893e1898.
Kim, J.K., Oh, B.R., Chun, Y.N., Kim, S.W., 2006. Effects of
temperature and hydraulic retention time on anaerobic
digestion of food waste. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 102, 328e332.
Kim, M., Ahn, Y.H., Speece, R.E., 2002. Comparative process
stability and efficiency of anaerobic digestion; mesophilic vs.
thermophilic. Water Res. 36, 4369e4385.
Kosseva, M.R., Kent, C.A., Lloyd, D.R., 2003. Thermophilic
bioremediation strategies for a dairy waste. J. Biochem. Eng.
15, 125e130.
Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Zeeman, G., 2006. Anaerobic treatment in
decentralised and source-separation based sanitation
concepts. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5, 115e139.
Lau, I.W.C., Fang, H.H.P., 1997. Effect of temperature shock to
thermophilic granules. Water Res. 31, 2626e2632.
Laubscher, A.C.J., Wentzel, M.C., Le Roux, J.M.W., Ekama, G.A.,
2001. Treatment of grain distillation wastewater in an upflow
anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) system. Water SA 27 (4), 433e444.
Leal, L.H., Zeeman, G., Temmink, H., Buisman, C., 2007.
Characterisation and biological treatment of greywater. Water
Sci. Technol. 56 (5), 193e200.
Lei, F., Xing, L.Z., Yang, H.C., Sheng, J., Huang, L., 2008. Research
on the treatment for fishmeal wastewater by coagulation
process. Indus. Saf. Environ. Prot. 34, 20e23.
Lettinga, G., 1995. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment
systems. Antonie Leeuwenhoek 67, 3e28.
Lettinga, G., Hulshoff Pol, L.W., 1991. UASB-process design for
various types of wastewaters. Water Sci. Technol. 24 (8), 87e107.
4697
Lettinga, G., Field, J., van Lier, J., Zeeman, G., Hulshoff Pol, L.W.,
1997. Advanced anaerobic wastewater treatment in the near
future. Water Sci. Technol. 35 (10), 5e12.
Lettinga, G., Hobma, S.W., Hulshoff Pol, L.W., de Zeeuw, W., de
Jong, P., Grin, P., Roersma, R., 1983. Design operation and
economy of anaerobic treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 15,
177e195.
Lettinga, G., van Velseo, A.F.M., Hobma, S.W., de Zeeuw, W., 1980.
Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB) reactor concept for
biological wastewater treatment, especially for anaerobic
treatment. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 22, 699e734.
Luostarinen, S.A., Rintala, J.A., 2005. Anaerobic on-site treatment
of black water and dairy parlour wastewater in UASB-septic
tanks at low temperatures. Water Res. 39 (2e3), 436e448.
Ma, A.N., 1999. Innovations in management of palm oil mill
effluent. The Planter 75 (881), 381e389. Kuala Lumpur.
Ma, A.N., 2000. Environmental management for the palm oil
industry. Palm Oil Develop., 1e10.
Ma, A.N., Ong, A.S.H., 1985. Anaerobic digestion of palm oil mill.
PORIM Bull. 4, 35e45.
Malina, I.F., Pohland, F.G., 1992. Anonymous, Biogas technology in
the Netherlands, anaerobic waste and wastewater treatment
with energy production. In: Design of Anaerobic Processes for
the Treatment of Industrial and Municipal Wastes.
Technomic, Lancaster, PA, pp. 119e120.
Manju, G.N., Raji, C., Anirudhan, T.S., 1998. Evaluation of coconut
husk carbon for the removal of arsenic from water. Water Res.
32, 3062e3070.
Marques, M.D., Cayless, S., Lester, J., 1990. Process aiders for start-
up of anaerobic fluidised bed systems. Environ. Technol. 11,
1093e1105.
Martin, M.A., Raposo, F., Borja, R., Martin, A., 2002. Kinetic study
of the anaerobic digestion of vinasse pretreated with ozone,
ozone plus ultraviolet, and ozone plus ultraviolet light in the
presence of titanium dioxide. Proc. Biochem. 37, 699e706.
Massé, D.I., Masse, L., 2001. The effect of temperature on
slaughterhouse wastewater treatment in anaerobic
sequencing batch reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 76, 91e98.
Metcalf, Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering, fourth ed. McGraw
Hill Inc., New York, p. 10.
Michael, N.N., Terry, W.S., Graig, L.B., 1988. Anaerobic contact
pretreatment of slaughterhouse wastewater. Proc. Ind. Waste
Conf., 1987, 42nd, p. 647.
Miranda, L.A.S., Henriques1, J.A.P., Monteggia, L.O., 2005. A full-
scale UASB reactor for Treatment of pig and cattle
slaughterhouse wastewater with a High oil and grease
content. Braz. J. Chem. Eng. 22 (4), 601e610.
Moawad, A., Mahmoud, U.F., El-Khateeb, M.A., El-Molla, E., 2009.
Coupling of sequencing batch reactor and UASB reactor for
domestic wastewater treatment. Desalination 242, 325e335.
Mockaitis, G., Ratusznei, S.M., Rodrigues, J.A.D., Zaiat, M.,
Foresti, E., 2005. Anaerobic whey treatment by a stirred
sequencing batch reactor (ASBR): effects of organic loading
rates and supplemented alkalinity. J. Environ. Manag., 1e9.
Moosbrugger, R.E., Wentzel, M.C., Ekama, G.A., Marais, G.R., 1993.
Treatment of wine distillery waste in UASB systems e
feasibility, alkalinity requirements and pH control. Water Sci.
Technol. 28 (2), 45e54.
Musee, N., Lorenzen, L., Aldrich, C., 2006. Decision support for
waste minimization in wine-making processes. Environ. Prog.
25 (1), 56e63.
Nadais, H., 2002. Treatment of dairy wastewater in UASB reactors
with intermittent operation (in Portuguese). Ph.D. thesis,
University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
Nadais, H., Capela, I., Arroja, L., 2006. Intermittent vs continuous
operation of upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactors for dairy
wastewater and related microbial changes. Water Sci.
Technol. 54 (2), 103e109.
4698 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Nadais, H., Capela, I., Arroja, L., Duarte, A., 2003. Biosorption of
milk substrates onto anaerobic flocculent and granular sludge.
Biotechnol. Prog. 19, 1053e1055.
Nadais, H., Capela, I., Arroja, L., Duarte, A., 2005a. Treatment of
dairy wastewater in UASB reactors inoculated with flocculent
biomass. Water SA 31 (4), 603e608.
Nadais, H., Capela, I., Arroja, L., Duarte, A., 2005b. Optimum cycle
time for intermittent UASB reactors treating dairy wastewater.
Water Res. 39, 1511e1518.
Najafpour, G.D., Zinatizadeh, A.A.L., Mohamed, A.R., Hasnain
Isa, M., Nasrollahzadeh, H., 2006. High-rate anaerobic
digestion of palm oil mill effluent in an upflow anaerobic
sludge-fixed film bioreactor. Proc. Biochem. 41, 370e379.
Nataraj, S.K., Hosamani, K.M., Aminabhavi, T.M., 2006. Distillery
wastewater treatment by the membrane based nanofiltration
and reverse osmosis. Water Res. 40, 2349e2356.
Nemerow, N.L., 1987. Dairy wastes. In: Industrial Water Pollution.
R E Krieger, Malabar, FL, pp. 378e391.
Núñez, L.A., Martı́nez, B., 1999. Anaerobic treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater in an expanded granular sludge
bed (EGSB) reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 40 (8), 99e106.
Otterpohl, R., Albold, A., Oldenburg, M., 1999. Source control in
urban sanitation and waste management: ten systems with
reuse of resources. Water Sci. Technol. 39, 153e160.
Ozturk, I., Eroglu, V., Ubay, G., Demir, I., 1993. Hybrid up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (HUASBR) treatment of dairy
effluents. Water Sci. Technol. 28, 77e85.
Palenzuela-Rollon, A., Zeeman, G., Lubberding, H.J., Lettinga, G.,
Alaerts, G.J., 2002. Treatment of fish processing wastewater in
a one- or two-step upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 45 (10), 207e212.
Papachristou, E., Lafazanis, C.T., 1997. Application of membrane
technology in the pre-treatment of cheese dairies wastes and
co-treatment in a municipal conventional biological unit.
Water Sci. Technol. 36, 361e367.
Parawira, W., Murto, M., Zvauya, R., Mattiasson, B., 2006.
Comparative performance of a UASB reactor and an anaerobic
packed-bed reactor when treating potato waste leachate.
Renew. Energy 31, 893e903.
Patel, P., Madamwar, D., 1998. Surfactant in anaerobic
digestion of salty cheese whey using upflow fixed film
reactor for improved biomethanation. Proc. Biochem. 33
(2), 199e203.
Patel, H., Madamwar, D., 2002. Effects of temperature and organic
loading rates on biomethanation of acidic petrochemical
wastewater using an anaerobic upflow fixed-film reactor.
Bioresour. Technol. 82, 65e71.
Petruy, R., 1999. Anaerobic treatment of protein, lipid and
carbohydrate containing wastewaters using the EGSB
technology. Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural University of
Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Poots, V.J.P., Mackay, G., Healy, J.J., 1978. Removal of basic dye
from effluent using wood as an adsorbent. J. Water Pollut.
Contr. Federation 50, 926e935.
Prasertsan, P., Jung, S., Buckle, K.A., 1994. Anaerobic filter
treatment of fishery wastewater. World J. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 10, 11e13.
Punal, A., Lema, J.M., 1999. Anaerobic treatment of wastewater
from a fish-canning factory in a full-scale upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 40 (8),
57e62.
Ramana, S., Biswas, A.K., Kundu, S., Saha, J.K., Yadava, R.B.R.,
2002. Effect of distillery effluent on seed germination in some
vegetable crops. Bioresour. Technol. 82, 273e275.
Ramasamy, E.V., Gajalakshmi, S., Sanjeevi, R., Jithesh, M.N.,
Abbasi, S.A., 2004. Feasibility studies on the treatment of dairy
wastewaters with up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors.
Bioresour. Technol. 93, 209e212.
Riffat, R., Dague, R., 1995. Laboratory studies on the anaerobic
biosorption process. Water Environ. Res. 67 (7), 1104e1110.
Rintala, J.A., 1997. Thermophilic anaerobic treatment of industrial
process waters and wastewaters. Microbiology 66 (5), 699e704.
Ruiz, I., Veiga, M.C., de Santiago, P., Blfizquez, R., 1997. Treatment
of slaughterhouse wastewater in a UASB reactor and an
anaerobic filter. Bioresour. Technol. 60, 251e258.
Sánchez, E., Borja, R., Travieso, L., Martı́n, A., Colmenarejo, M.F.,
2005. Effect of organic loading rate on the stability, operational
parameters and performance of a secondary upflow anaerobic
sludge bed reactor treating piggery waste. Bioresour. Technol.
96, 335e344.
Sánchez, E., Borja, R., Weiland, P., Travieso, L., 2001. Effect of
substrate concentration and temperature on the anaerobic
digestion of piggery waste in tropical climates. Process
Biochem. 37, 483e489.
Sánchez, E., Monroy, O., Cãnizares, R.O., Travieso, L., 1995.
Comparative study of piggery waste treatment by upflow
sludge beds anaerobic reactors and packed bed reactors. J.
Agric. Eng. Res. 62, 71e76.
Sandberg, M., Ahring, B.K., 1992. Anaerobic treatment of fish meal
process waste-water in a UASB reactor at high pH. Appl.
Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36, 800e804.
Sari, A.L., Jukka, A.R., 2005. Anaerobic on-site treatment of black
water and dairy parlour wastewater in UASB-septic tanks at
low temperatures. Water Res. 39, 436e448.
Sawajneh, Z., Al-Omari, A., Halalsheh, M., 2010. Anaerobic
treatment of strong sewage by a two stage system of AF and
UASB reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 61 (9), 2399e2406.
Sayed, S., 1987. Anaerobic treatment of slaughterhouse
wastewater using the UASB process. Ph.D thesis, Agricultural
University of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Sayed, S., de Zeeuw, W., 1988. The performance of a continuously
operated flocculated sludge UASB reactor with slaughterhouse
wastewater. Biol. Wastes 24, 213e226.
Sayed, S., de Zeeuw, W., Lettinga, G., 1984. Anaerobic treatment of
slaughterhouse waste using a flocculant sludge UASB reactor.
Agricul. Wastes 11, 197e226.
Sayed, S., van Campel, Lettinga, L., 1987. Anaerobic treatment of
slaughterhouse waste water using a granular sludge UASB
reactor. Biol. Wastes 21, 213e226.
Schmidt, J.E., Ahring, B.K., 1996. Granular sludge formation in
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 49 (3), 229e246.
Seghezzo, L., Zeeman, G., Van Lier, J.B., Hamelers, H.V.M.,
Lettinga, G., 1998. A review: the anaerobic treatment of
sewage in UASB and SGSB reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 65,
175e190.
Seif, H., Moursy, A., 2001. Treatment of slaughterhouse wastes.
In: Sixth International Water Technology Conference, IWTC,
Alexandria, Egypt.
Siang, L.C., 2006. Biodegradation of oil and grease in upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor for palm oil mill effluent
treatment. Masters degree thesis. Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, Malaysia.
Siegrist, H., Vogt, D., Garcia-Heras, J.L., Gujer, W., 2002.
Mathematical model for meso- and thermophilic anaerobic
sewage sludge digestion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 36, 1113e1123.
Singh, K.S., Viraraghavan, T., 1998. Start-up and operation of
UASB reactors at 20 C for municipal wastewater treatment. J.
Ferment. Bioeng. 85 (6), 609e614.
Singh, K.S., Viraraghavan, T., 2000. Performance of UASB reactor
at 6 to 32  C in municipal wastewater treatment. Water
Quality Res. J. Can. 35 (1), 113e124.
Song, Y.C., Kwon, S.J., Woo, J.H., 2004. Mesophilic and
thermophilic temperature co-phase anaerobic digestion
compared with single-stage mesophilic- and thermophilic
digestion of sewage sludge. Water Res. 38, 1653e1662.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 5 ( 2 0 1 1 ) 4 6 8 3 e4 6 9 9
Soto, M., Ligero, P., Vega, A., Rui, I., Veiga, M.C., Blazquez, R., 1997.
Sludge granulation in UASB digesters treating low strength
wastewaters at mesophilic and psychrophilic temperatures.
Environ. Technol. 18 (11), 1133e1141.
Speece, R.E., Kem, J.A., 1970. The effect of short-term temperature
variations on methane production. J. Water Pollut. Contr.
Federation 42, 1990e1997.
Stafford, D.A., 1982. The effects of mixing and volatile fatty acid
concentrations on anaerobic digester performance. Biomass 2,
43e55.
Stevens, M.A., Schulte, D.D., 1979. Low temperature digestion of
swine manure. J. Environ. Eng. Div. ASCE 105 (EE1), 33e42.
Stronach, S.M., Rudd, T., Lester, J.N., 1987. Start-up of anaerobic
bioreactors on high strength industrial wastes. Biomass 13,
173e197.
Syutsubo, K., Harada, H., Ohashi, A., 1998. Granulation and sludge
retainment during start-up of a thermophilic-UASB reactor.
Water Sci Technol. 38 (8e9), 349e357.
Syutsubo, K., Harada, H., Ohashi, A., Suzuki, H., 1997. Effective
start-up of thermophilic UASB reactor by seeding
mesophilically-grown granular sludge. Water Sci. Technol. 36
(67), 391e398.
Tandukar, M., Uemura, S., Machdar, I., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2005.
A low-cost municipal sewage treatment system with
a combination of UASB and the “fourth-generation” downflow
hanging sponge reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1e2), 323e329.
Tawfik, A., Sobheyb, M., Badawya, M., 2008. Treatment of
a combined dairy and domestic wastewater in an up-flow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor followed by activated
sludge (AS system). Desalination 227, 167e177.
Torkian, A., Eqbali, A., Hashemian, S.J., 2003. The effect of organic
loading rate on the performance of UASB reactor treating
slaughterhouse effluent. Res. Conserv. Recyc. 40, 1e11.
Trnovec, W., Britz, T.J., 1998. Influence of organic loading rate and
hydraulic retention time on the efficiency of a UASB reactor
treating a canning factory effluent. Water SA 24 (2), 147e152.
Uemura, S., Harada, H., 2000. Treatment of sewage by a UASB
reactor under moderate to low temperature conditions.
Bioresour. Technol. 72, 275e282.
Uzal, N., Gokacay, C.F., Demirer, G.N., 2003. Sequential anaerobic/
aerobic biological treatment of malt whisky wastewater. Proc.
Biochem. 39, 279e286.
van Haandel, A.C., Lettinga, G., 1994. Anaerobic Sewage
Treatment; A Practical Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate.
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England.
van Haandel, A., Kato, M.T., Cavalcanti, P.F.F., Florencio, L., 2006.
Anaerobic reactor design concepts for the treatment of
domestic wastewater. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 5 (1), 21e38.
van Lier, J.B., Huibers, F.P., 2004. Agricultural use of treated
wastewater: the need for a paradigm shift in sanitation and
4699
treatment. Risk Assessment of Re-use on Groundwater
Quality. In: Proceedings of Symposium HS04 Held During
IUGG2003 at Sapporo, Japan, July 2003. IAHS Publ. 285.
van Lier, J.B., Grolle, K.C.F., Stams, A.J.M., de Macario, E.C.,
Lettinga, G., 1992. Startup of a thermophilic upflow anaerobic
sludge bed (UASB) reactor with mesophilic granular sludge.
Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 37, 130e135.
Vidal, G., Aspé, E., Martı́, M.C., Roeckel, M., 1997. Treatment of
recycled wastewaters from fishmeal factory by an anaerobic
filter. Biotechnol. Lett. 19, 117e121.
Vidal, G., Carvalho, A., Mendez, R., Lema, J.M., 2000. Influence of
the content in fats and proteins on the anaerobic
biodegradability of dairy wastewaters. Bioresour. Technol. 74,
231e239.
Visser, A., Gao, Y., Lettinga, G., 1993. Effects of short-term
temperature increases on the mesophilic anaerobic
breakdown of sulfate containing synthetic wastewater. Water
Res. 27, 541e550.
Vlissidis, A., Zouboulis, A.I., 1993. Thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of alcohol distillery wastewaters. Bioresour.
Technol. 43, 131e140.
von Sperling, M., Freire, V.H., de Lemos, C.A., Chernicharo, 2001.
Performance evaluation of a UASB e activated sludge system
treating municipal wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 43 (11),
323e328.
Wiegant, W.M., Lettinga, G., 1985. Thermophilic anaerobic
digestion of sugars in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 27, 1603e1607.
Wiegant, W.M., Classen, J.A., Lettinga, G., 1985. Thermophilic
anaerobic digestion of high strength wastewaters. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 27, 1374e1381.
Wolmarans, B., de Villiers, G.H., 2002. Start-up of a UASB effluent
treatment plant on distillery wastewater. Water SA 28 (1), 63e68.
Yang, J., Anderson, G., 1993. Effects of wastewater composition on
stability of UASB. J. Environ. Eng. 119 (5), 958e977.
Yeoh, B.G., 2004. A technical and economic analysis of heat and
power generation from biomethanation of palm oil mill
effluent. Electric Supply Industry in Transition: Issues and
Prospect for Asia, 20e60.
Yilmaz, T., Yuceer, A., Basibuyuk, M., 2008. A comparison of the
performance of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic filters
treating papermill wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 156e163.
Yu, H.Q., Fang, H.H.P., Gu, G.W., 2002. Comparative performance
of mesophilic and thermophilic acidogenic upflow reactors.
Proc. Biochem. 38, 447e454.
Zinatizadeh, A.A.L., Mohamed, A.R., Abdullah, A.Z., Mashitah, M.
D., Hasnain Isa, M., Najafpour, G.D., 2006. Process modeling
and analysis of palm oil mill effluent treatment in an up-flow
anaerobic sludge fixed film bioreactor using response surface
methodology (RSM). Water Res. 40, 3193e3208.