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

net/publication/282367631

The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment

Chapter · October 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1139.2722

CITATION READS

1 6,113

4 authors, including:

Gunda Mohanakrishna Srikanth Sandipam

Qatar University IndianOil R&D Centre
80 PUBLICATIONS   2,949 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   2,414 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Deepak Pant
Flemish Institute for Technological Research
234 PUBLICATIONS   8,242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

ElectroEnzeQuest View project

Microbial Electrosynthesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deepak Pant on 02 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ENVIRONMENTAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 ENVIRONMENTAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

Edited by
Ram Chandra

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20150819

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-2475-3 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been
made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright
holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this
form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may
rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or uti-
lized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopy-
ing, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the
publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://
www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,
978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For
organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at
http://www.crcpress.com
 Contents

Preface ............................................................................................................................................ vii

Editor................................................................................................................................................ix
Contributors ....................................................................................................................................xi

1 The Use of PMDE with Sugar Industries Pressmud for Composting: A Green
Technology for Safe Disposal in the Environment .........................................................1
Ram Chandra and Sangeeta Yadav

2 Advances in the Treatment of Pulp and Paper Mill Wastewater ................................ 33

Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

Sanjeev Gupta and Nishi Kant Bhardwaj

3 The Role of Cyanobacteria in the Biodegradation of Agrochemical Waste ............. 59

Surendra Singh and Pallavi Datta

4 Biomedical Waste: Its Effects and Safe Disposal ........................................................... 81

Bamidele T. Odumosu

5 Biological Nitrogen Removal in Wastewater Treatment .............................................. 95

Rima Biswas and Tapas Nandy

6 Bioconversion of Industrial CO2 Emissions into Utilizable Products ..................... 111

Shazia Faridi and Tulasi Satyanarayana

7 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment ................................... 157

Ahmed ElMekawy, Gunda Mohanakrishna, Sandipam Srikanth, and Deepak Pant

8 Microbial Genomics and Bioremediation of Industrial Wastewater....................... 185

Atya Kapley, Niti B. Jadeja, Vasundhara Paliwal, Trilok C. Yadav,
and Hemant J. Purohit

9 Persistent Organic Pollutants and Bacterial Communities Present

during the Treatment of Tannery Wastewater.............................................................. 217
Gaurav Saxena and Ram Naresh Bharagava

10 Microbial Degradation of Lignocellulosic Waste and Its Metabolic Products ...... 249
Ram Chandra, Sheelu Yadav, and Vineet Kumar

11 Advanced Oxidative Pretreatment of Complex Effluents for Biodegradability

Enhancement and Color Reduction ................................................................................ 299
Prachi Tembhekar, Kiran Padoley, Togarcheti Sarat Chandra, Sameena Malik, Abhinav
Sharma, Sanjeev Gupta, Ram Awatar Pandey, and Sandeep Mudliar

v
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 vi Contents

12 The Role of Microbes in Plastic Degradation ............................................................... 341

Rajendran Sangeetha Devi, Velu Rajesh Kannan, Krishnan Natarajan, Duraisamy
Nivas, Kanthaiah Kannan, Sekar Chandru, and Arokiaswamy Robert Antony

13 Biodegradation of Chemical Pollutants of Tannery Wastewater.............................. 371

Arumugam Gnanamani and Varadharajan Kavitha

14 Microbial Degradation Mechanism of Textile Dye and Its Metabolic

Pathway for Environmental Safety ................................................................................. 399
Rahul V. Khandare and Sanjay P. Govindwar

15 Isolation of Pure DNA for Metagenomic Study from Industrial Polluted

Sites: A New Approach for Monitoring the Microbial Community and
Pollutants.............................................................................................................................. 441
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

Ram Chandra and Sheelu Yadav

16 Biotransformation and Biodegradation of Organophosphates

and Organohalides ............................................................................................................. 475
Ram Chandra and Vineet Kumar

17 Petroleum Hydrocarbon Stress Management in Soil Using Microorganisms

and Their Products ............................................................................................................. 525
Rajesh Kumar, Amar Jyoti Das, and Shatrohan Lal

18 Recent Advances in the Expression and Regulation of Plant Metallothioneins

for Metal Homeostasis and Tolerance ............................................................................ 551
Preeti Tripathi, Pradyumna Kumar Singh, Seema Mishra, Neelam Gautam,
Sanjay Dwivedi, Debasis Chakrabarty, and Rudra Deo Tripathi

Index ............................................................................................................................................. 565

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Preface

Rapid industrialization has resulted in the generation of huge quantities of hazard-

ous waste, both solid as well as liquid, from industrial sectors such as sugar, pulp and
paper, tanneries, distilleries and textiles, petroleum hydrocarbon and agrochemicals, etc.
However, the safe disposal and proper management and utilization of hazardous waste
present not only a challenge for the country but a threat to the scientific society as well.
The management and recycling of industrial waste are essential for the sustainable devel-
opment of society. Despite regulatory guidelines for pollution control measures, these
wastes are being dumped on land or discharged into water bodies without adequate treat-
ment, which causes environmental pollution and health hazards. In-depth knowledge
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

of the physicochemical properties of various industrial waste and their chemical com-
position and environmental health hazards are still riddles to research. Therefore, it is
essential to update knowledge and information regarding all hazardous industrial waste.
Keeping the facts above in mind, a number of experts from various universities, national
research laboratories, and industries have shared their specialized knowledge in environ-
mental microbiology and biotechnology for monitoring various industrial waste and envi-
ronmental pollutants in order to update the information available to students, scientists,
and researchers. The chapters in this book cover numerous topics including biocompost-
ing of press mud, treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater, biodegradation of agro-
chemicals, and bioenergy production from industrial waste for safe recycling. The current
knowledge regarding the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) discharged from various
industrial wastes is also described in detail. This book emphasizes the relationship of
metagenomics with POPs present in the sugarcane molasses-based distillery waste and
pulp paper mill wastewater after secondary treatment. However, the fate of the metabolic
products of various hazardous pollutants is unknown. The role of bioreactors for indus-
trial wastewater treatment is presented, which currently is needed for the treatment of
complex industrial wastewater and optimization of treatment parameters. The microbes
for plastic degradation are pertinent to environmental pollution management nationally,
and it is a global concern. Furthermore, the health hazard of hospital waste is also a chal-
lenge due to the outbreak of diseases by pathogenic bacteria. The biodegradation of several
organophosphates and organohalides is still unknown. Moreover, the environmental fate
of metabolic products of organophosphates and organohalides is still a subject of research.
This book describes in detail the biotransformation and biodegradation of organophos-
phates and organohalides in the environment by different bacterial populations. The role
of metallothioneins for metal homeostasis and tolerance are discussed. This book will
benefit a wide range of readers including students, researchers, and consulting profession-
als in biotechnology, microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology. It will also be an
important tool in describing waste management techniques.

vii
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Editor

Ram Chandra is currently head and senior principal sci-

entist at Environmental Microbiology Division, Indian
Institute of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh, India. He earned his BSc (Hons) in 1984, and MSc
in 1987 from Banaras Hindu University, Uttar Pradesh,
India. Subsequently, he earned his PhD in 1994. He started
his career as Scientist B at the Industrial Toxicology
Research Centre, Lucknow in the field of biotechnology in
1989. He became a senior principal scientist (Scientist F) in
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

2009 in environmental microbiology at the Indian Institute

of Toxicology Research (IITR), Lucknow.
Dr. Chandra became a professor and head of the
Department of Environmental Microbiology (2011) at
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Central University,
Lucknow. His leading work includes bacterial degradation of lignin from pulp paper
mill waste and molasses melanoidin from distillery waste. He has published more than
90 original research papers in national and international peer-reviewed journals from
Elsevier-USA, Springer-USA, Taylor & Francis-USA, and John Wiley & Sons-USA. In addi-
tion, he has published 19 book chapters and 2 books. He has vast experience in strategic
R&D management preparation of scientific reports. Professor Chandra has earned awards
for writing 25 popular scientific articles in Hindi. He has presented more than 65 national
and international conference papers in microbiology, biotechnology, and environmental
biology. He is a life member of various scientific societies. Dr. Chandra has also trained
scientists from Germany and Nigeria under the TWAS-CSIR Fellowship program. He
has chaired various scientific sessions in different scientific conferences and has been a
guest reviewer for various national and international journals in his discipline. He was a
member of the delegation team that visited Japan for a study on environmental protection
from industrial waste. Dr. Chandra is a member of the American Society for Microbiology
(ASM), USA and life member of the National Academy of Sciences, Allahabad, India
(NASI). Based on his outstanding contribution to the field of environmental microbiol-
ogy and environmental biotechnology, Professor Chandra has been named Fellow of the
Academy of Environmental Biology (FAEB), Fellow of the Association of Microbiologists of
India (FAMI), and Fellow of the Biotech Research Society of India (FBRSI).

ix
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Contributors

Arokiaswamy Robert Antony Sekar Chandru

Department of Microbiology Department of Microbiology
Bharathidasan University Bharathidasan University
Tamil Nadu, India Tamil Nadu, India

Ram Naresh Bharagava Amar Jyoti Das

Department of Environmental Department of Environmental
Microbiology Microbiology
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

School for Environmental Sciences School for Environmental Sciences

Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
(A Central University) (A Central University)
Uttar Pradesh, India Uttar Pradesh, India

Nishi Kant Bhardwaj Pallavi Datta

Avantha Centre for Industrial Research & Department of Biological Science
Development Rani Durgavati University
Paper Mill Campus Madhya Pradesh, India
Haryana, India
Rajendran Sangeetha Devi
Rima Biswas Department of Microbiology
Wastewater Technology Division Bharathidasan University
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Tamil Nadu, India
Research Institute
Maharashtra, India Sanjay Dwivedi
Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation Division
Debasis Chakrabarty CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute
Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation Division Uttar Pradesh, India
CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute
Uttar Pradesh, India Ahmed ElMekawy
Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
Ram Chandra Research Institute
Department of Environmental University of Sadat City
Microbiology Sadat City, Egypt
School for Environmental Sciences
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University Shazia Faridi
(A Central University) Department of Microbiology
Uttar Pradesh, India University of Delhi South Campus
New Delhi, India
Togarcheti Sarat Chandra
Environmental Biotechnology Division Neelam Gautam
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation Division
Research Institute CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute
Maharashtra, India Uttar Pradesh, India
xi
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 xii Contributors

Arumugam Gnanamani Rajesh Kumar

Microbiology Division Department of Environmental Microbiology
CSIR-CLRI (Central Leather Research School for Environmental Sciences
Institute) Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Tamil Nadu, India (A Central University)
Uttar Pradesh, India
Sanjay P. Govindwar
Department of Biochemistry Vineet Kumar
Shivaji University Department of Environmental Microbiology
Maharashtra, India School for Environmental Sciences
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Sanjeev Gupta (A Central University)
Avantha Centre for Industrial Research Uttar Pradesh, India
& Development
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

Paper Mill Campus Shatrohan Lal

Haryana, India Department of Environmental Microbiology
School for Environmental Sciences
Niti B. Jadeja Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Environmental Genomics Division (A Central University)
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Uttar Pradesh, India
Research Institute
Maharashtra, India Sameena Malik
Environmental Biotechnology Division
Kanthaiah Kannan CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
Department of Microbiology Research Institute
Bharathidasan University Maharashtra, India
Tamil Nadu, India
Seema Mishra
Velu Rajesh Kannan Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation Division
Department of Microbiology National Botanical Research Institute
Bharathidasan University (NBRI)
Tamil Nadu, India Uttar Pradesh, India

Atya Kapley Gunda Mohanakrishna

Environmental Genomics Division Separation & Conversion Technologies
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological
Research Institute Research
Maharashtra, India Mol, Belgium

Varadharajan Kavitha Sandeep Mudliar

Microbiology Division Plant Cell Biotechnology Division
CSIR-CLRI (Central Leather Research CSIR-CFTRI
Institute) Karnataka, India
Tamil Nadu, India
Tapas Nandy
Rahul V. Khandare Wastewater Technology Division
Department of Biochemistry CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
Shivaji University Research Institute
Maharashtra, India Maharashtra, India

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 Contributors xiii

Krishnan Natarajan Tulasi Satyanarayana

Department of Microbiology Department of Microbiology
Bharathidasan University University of Delhi South Campus
Tamil Nadu, India New Delhi, India

Duraisamy Nivas Gaurav Saxena

Department of Microbiology Department of Environmental
Bharathidasan University Microbiology
Tamil Nadu, India School for Environmental Sciences
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
(A Central University)
Bamidele T. Odumosu
Uttar Pradesh, India
Department of Biosciences and
Biotechnology
Abhinav Sharma
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

Babcock University
Ilishan-Remo Ogun State, Nigeria Environmental Biotechnology Division
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
Research Institute
Kiran Padoley
Maharashtra, India
Environmental Biotechnology Division
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
Pradyumna Kumar Singh
Research Institute
Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation
Maharashtra, India
Division
CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute
Vasundhara Paliwal Uttar Pradesh, India
Environmental Genomics Division
National Environmental Engineering
Surendra Singh
Research Institute
Department of Biological Science
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
Rani Durgavati University
Research Institute
Madhya Pradesh, India
Maharastra, India
Sandipam Srikanth
Ram Awatar Pandey Separation & Conversion Technologies
Environmental Biotechnology Division VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research
Research Institute Mol, Belgium
Maharashtra, India
Prachi Tembhekar
Deepak Pant Environmental Biotechnology Division
Separation & Conversion Technologies CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
VITO - Flemish Institute for Technological Research Institute
Research Maharastra, India
Mol, Belgium
Preeti Tripathi
Hemant J. Purohit Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation
Environmental Genomics Division Division
CSIR-National Environmental Engineering National Botanical Research Institute
Research Institute (NBRI)
Maharastra, India Uttar Pradesh, India

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 xiv Contributors

Rudra Deo Tripathi Sheelu Yadav

Ecotoxicology and Bioremediation Division Department of Environmental Microbiology
National Botanical Research Institute School for Environmental Sciences
(NBRI) Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University
Uttar Pradesh, India (A Central University)
Uttar Pradesh, India
Sangeeta Yadav
Department of Environmental Microbiology Trilok C. Yadav
School for Environmental Sciences Environmental Genomics Division
Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University CSIR-National Environmental Engineering
(A Central University) Research Institute
Uttar Pradesh, India Maharastra, India
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:57 02 October 2015

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

7
The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial
Wastewater Treatment

Ahmed ElMekawy, Gunda Mohanakrishna, Sandipam Srikanth, and Deepak Pant

CONTENTS
7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 157
7.1.1 Major Challenges in Industrial Wastewater Treatment ................................... 158
7.2 Conventional Bioprocesses ............................................................................................... 159
7.3 Advanced Bioprocesses..................................................................................................... 160
7.3.1 Biohydrogen Production ....................................................................................... 160
7.3.2 Photo Fermentation ............................................................................................... 160
7.3.3 Anammox Process ................................................................................................. 161
7.4 Types of Bioreactors ........................................................................................................... 162
7.4.1 Free Suspended Cell Technology ........................................................................ 163
7.4.1.1 Anaerobic Digesters (AD) ...................................................................... 163
7.4.1.2 Continuous Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR) .......................................... 163
7.4.1.3 Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR) .......................................................... 163
7.4.2 Immobilized Cell Technology.............................................................................. 164
7.4.2.1 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors.......................... 164
7.4.2.2 Biofilters .................................................................................................... 166
7.4.2.3 Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC) ................................................................... 166
7.4.2.4 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR) ................................................. 167
7.4.2.5 Packed Bed Bioreactors (PBR)................................................................ 167
7.4.2.6 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) ............................................................... 167
7.5 The Main Challenges Associated with Bioreactors ...................................................... 168
7.6 Technology Integrations and Advanced Bioprocesses ................................................. 169
7.6.1 Bioelectrochemical Systems (BES) ....................................................................... 169
7.6.2 Nanotechnology ..................................................................................................... 171
7.6.3 Bioaugmentation .................................................................................................... 172
7.7 Constructed Wetlands....................................................................................................... 172
7.8 Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 173
References..................................................................................................................................... 175

7.1 Introduction
Industrialization across the globe has resulted in the contamination of soils, groundwa-
ter, sediments, surface water, and air with hazardous and toxic chemicals, which is one
of the major problems to be resolved by the research presently being carried out globally.
Providing clean and affordable water to meet human needs is another grand challenge of
157
© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
 158 Environmental Waste Management

the twenty-first century. The more the world industrializes, the more are the waste gen-
eration and contamination problems. In general, groundwater represents about 98% of the
available fresh water on the planet and thus, protecting and restoring groundwater qual-
ity is of high importance. Water supply across the globe struggles to keep up with the fast
growing demand, which is exacerbated by population growth, global climate change, and
water quality deterioration. This widespread problem represents a significant technical and
economic challenge. Globally, a huge amount of capital and resources is being spent for
treating trillions of litres of wastewater annually, consuming significant amounts of energy
(ElMekawy et al., 2013, 2014a,b). Therefore, there is a need for developing a wider applica-
tion of cost-effective, in situ remediation approaches that take advantage of natural phenom-
ena, such as bioremediation. Biological treatment is an important and integral part of any
wastewater treatment plant that treats wastewater that has soluble organic impurities or a
mix of the two sources from either municipality or industry (Pant and Adholeya, 2007). The
economic advantage of biological treatment over other treatment processes such as chemi-
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

cal oxidation, thermal oxidation, etc., in terms of capital investment and operating costs has
established its place in any integrated wastewater treatment plant (Mittal, 2011). The current
chapter describes the major existing challenges of industrial wastewater treatment and how
advanced biological processes are dealing with them. The role of different bioreactors in
treating industrial effluents has also been discussed in detail including recent advances.

7.1.1 Major Challenges in Industrial Wastewater Treatment

The principle of bioremediation lies in the implementation of the necessary processes
and actions for the transformation of a contaminated environment to its original status
(Thassitou and Arvanitoyannis, 2001). Bioventing, bioreactor operation, composting, bio-
augmentation and biostimulation, are some of the examples of biodegradation approaches.
Bioremediation mainly involves chemical transformations mediated by microorganisms
that satisfy their nutritional and energy requirements with simultaneous detoxification of
the immediate environment. Application of microbial treatment has been extensively stud-
ied for domestic, agricultural and industrial wastes and subsurface pollution in soils, sedi-
ments and marine environments. However, the ability of each microorganism to degrade
the waste fully depends on the nature of each contaminant in that particular waste (Pant
and Adholeya, 2009). Since most of the waste sources contain a wide range of components
and will not be similar in any two cases, this makes the degradation process more difficult.
The most effective approach to solve this problem is to use a mixed culture (mixture of dif-
ferent bacterial or fungal species and strains, each specific to the biodegradation of one or
more types of contaminants) (Pant et al., 2010).
The presence of excess nutrients such as sulfur, nitrogen, phosphates, ammonia, etc.,
makes the wastewater more complex and needs specific groups of bacterial population
to fulfill the treatment process. Similarly, presence of xenobiotics, pharmaceutical prod-
ucts, micropollutants, endocrine disrupting compounds, etc., makes the process more
complicated and the survival of most of the bacteria is hindered in this condition. These
components need special attention and a separate treatment approach. Similarly, the bio-
remediation approach may also be used to break down heavy metals such as arsenic, lead,
and mercury. However, some of the heavy metals such as cadmium and lead are not read-
ily absorbed or captured by microorganisms. They need a special unit of treatment pro-
cess to be included in the wastewater treatment system. Likewise, when considering any
industrial wastewater, the treatment process is completely dependent on the nature of
the waste and its constituents. A single process can never fulfill all the required criteria

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 159

for industrial or complex wastewater treatment and multiple integrated approaches were
needed to obtain good treatment efficiency (Mohanakrishna et al., 2010; Mohanakrishna
and Venkata Mohan, 2013). In the following sections, we have tried to focus on the possible
bioremediation approaches, bioreactors used for the treatment of industrial wastewater
and the recent advancements in wastewater treatment technologies.

7.2 Conventional Bioprocesses

Conventionally, biological wastewater treatment was considered majorly for the second-
ary treatment process. Primary treatment through a grit chamber and sedimentation
tank removes grit (large particles) and suspended solid particles. The effluent of primary
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

treatment mainly contains dissolved organic matter and nitrogen and phosphorus based
nutrients. The selection of a secondary treatment process is based on the nature of waste-
water and the concentration of organic matter (either chemical oxygen demand (COD)
or biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)). Low strength/lower organic loading condition
and higher biodegradable wastewater can be treated very efficiently by aerobic processes.
Wastewater with higher organic loading concentrations can be treated effectively by anaer-
obic processes. Indeed, other factors such as energy consumption, treatment time, type
of pollutants present in wastewater also influence the selection of process for the treat-
ment. In the aerobic treatment process, the bacterial biomass oxidizes the organic materi-
als present in wastewater into carbon dioxide and water. Various configurations of aerobic
processes, such as activated sludge process (ASP), trickling filter, and rotating biological
contactor (RBC), were well-known aerobic processes. ASP is a suspension configuration
and the other two have biofilm configurations.
The ASP contains aeration tanks which allows the suspended growth of bacterial bio-
mass. Supply of oxygen can be through diffused aerators or suspended aerators. Hydraulic
retention time for the domestic effluents usually ranges from 6 to 12 h, whereas for indus-
trial effluents it will be more than 24 h. An aeration step is followed by sedimentation
step for the separation of bacterial biomass and clarified wastewater/treated water as
supernatant. The separated biomass will be recycled to maintain required mixed-liquor-
suspended solids (MLSS)/biomass in the aeration tank.
The trickling filter, also called a biofilter (BF) contains a column of supporting media or
substratum that supports the growth of aerobic bacterial biofilm. Varied kinds of materi-
als have been used as supporting media such as stones, plastic discs, wooden chips etc.
The wastewater is periodically applied over the column, during which the organic matter
present in the wastewater diffuses into the bacterial film and gets oxidized. The oxygen
required for the oxidation process is normally supplied by the natural flow of air in the col-
umn. The effluents of this column are collected in a secondary clarifier. Complete details
about BFs for the treatment of emissions and effluents are discussed in a later section. The
RBC is another type of biofilm configured wastewater treatment system, which contains a
media disc or panel that rotates at a slower rate. The biofilm attached on the rotating disc
is simultaneously exposed to the wastewater and oxygen, facilitating oxidation of organic
matter present in the wastewater. In both the configurations the biomass present on the
supporting material grows with time. Periodically, portions of the biofilm removed from
the media and the sloughed off biomass is separated in the secondary clarifier (Gernaey
et al., 2004; Grady et al., 2011).

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 160 Environmental Waste Management

The above mentioned aerobic wastewater treatment processes are energy intensive.
Anaerobic digestion (AD) process requires less energy than aerobic process. Moreover,
some amount of energy can be generated in the form of methane gas from the treatment
of wastewater. Compared with aerobic treatment processes, anaerobic processes generate
less sludge (Lettinga, 1995; Juretschko et al., 2002). AD is a sequential combination of four
different processes that involve four distinct groups of microorganisms. The first stage
is hydrolysis, during which the complex or insoluble organic matter present in wastewa-
ter is broken down into soluble and simple molecules such as sugars and amino acids.
Acidogenesis is the second stage, during which sugars are converted to organic acids.
During the third stage (acetogenesis), the organic acids are converted to acetic acid and
carbon dioxide along with hydrogen and water. Finally, the methanogenesis (fourth stage)
takes place resulting in methane production and wastewater treatment (Speece, 1983; Ueno
et al., 1996; Venkata Mohan et al., 2005, 2008). For the treatment of industrial wastewater
in large scale applications, AD was found to be the more efficient process than the aerobic
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

process. Since this process is an energy source, the wastewater is considered as the renew-
able substrate (Speece, 1983, Ueno et al., 1996; Rajeshwari et al., 2000; Mohanakrishna and
Venkata Mohan, 2013). All the configurations and operating modes related to AD are dis-
cussed in the next sections.

7.3 Advanced Bioprocesses

7.3.1 Biohydrogen Production
Biological wastewater treatment systems can also be operated for hydrogen production
from the treatment. Dark fermentation and photo fermentation are found to be suitable
processes for hydrogen production. Acidogenic fermentation is also called dark fermenta-
tion. It is a truncated version of AD, in which the AD does not proceed to methanogenesis
resulting in H2 as the end product. As the hydrogen is found to have a heating value higher
than methane, the wastewater treatment systems can operate for hydrogen production. It
can be achieved by eliminating the methanogenic group of bacteria from anaerobic sludge.
As the final step is eliminated from AD, the organic acids are retained in the effluents of
acidogneic process, thus limiting the treatment efficiency. Although theoretically waste-
water treatment is limited to only 33%, several studies exhibited more than 70% treatment
efficiency (Mohanakrishna et al., 2012). The effluents of acidogenic fermentation that are
rich in organic acids can be used as suitable substrate for other energy generating pro-
cesses such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for bioelectricity generation (Mohanakrishna
et al., 2010a; Pant et al., 2013), polyhydroxyalkanoates (Reddy and Venkata Mohan, 2012),
hydrogen production by photo fermenting bacteria (Srikanth et al., 2009).

7.3.2 Photo Fermentation

Photo fermentation is a process that utilizes the organic acids present in wastewater as sub-
strate and converts them to hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Due to the operational limita-
tions of AD and dark fermentation, their effluents are often found to have a high amount of
organic acids. These can be further treated in photo fermentation to get additional energy
from the wastewater. Although, the theoretical possibility of photo biological hydrogen

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 161

production is found to be effective from organic acids, several researchers reported com-
plex wastewater and glucose as substrate using mixed bacterial communities (Srikanth
et al., 2009). This is due to the complex microbial metabolisms that take place in the system.
This process is found to be very efficient as it extends the wastewater treatment efficiency.
The process of photo biological hydrogen production and the bacteria responsible for this
are more sensitive to diverse environmental conditions, high organic loading rates, etc.
The process is readily inhibited as the turbidity or opacity of the reactor contents increases.
As this process has high stoichiometric efficiencies, extensive research is being conducted
to adapt it for commercial scale operations.

7.3.3 Anammox Process

Besides organic matter, nitrogenous compounds are also present in wastewater. Leachates
from landfills and different types of effluents such as from the petrochemical, pharmaceu-
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

tical, fertilizer and food industries, contains large quantities of ammonium. By the end of
the AD process, most of the biologically amenable nitrogen compounds are converted to
ammonium. As this ammonia causes serious environmental problems, it is also impor-
tant to treat it before disposal (Carrera et  al., 2003). Conventionally, biological nitrogen
removal takes place with nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. Several distinct groups of
bacteria act on nitrogenous compounds and converts them to molecular nitrogen. Among
the nitrification and denitrification processes, nitrification requires oxygen. Commercial
scale bioreactors such as sequencing batch reactors (SBRs), BFs, etc., are specially designed
for nitrogen removal from wastewater. Anammox is a newly discovered microbial metab-
olism discovered in 1995 in a fluidized bed bioreactor in which ammonium oxidation is
possible under anoxic or anaerobic conditions (Mulder et al., 1995). This process converts
ammonium and nitrite directly to dinitrogen (Figure 7.1). This process is estimated to be
responsible for more than 30% of the global nitrogen production. The anammox process
is being integrated with the wastewater treatment plants which proceed with two distinct
processes. In the first stage, ammonium undergoes partial oxidation forming nitrite. In the
second stage, ammonia and nitrite is converted to dinitrogen in the anammox process.
Various designs were proposed to integrate both the processes in one reactor for practical
application in wastewater treatment plants (van der Star et al., 2007).
Denitrification

N2

NO3–
NH4+
Anammox

NO2–
Nitrification

FIGURE 7.1
Biological nitrogen cycle with an emphasis on differentiation between the conventional nitrification-denitrifi-
cation process and the anammox process.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 162 Environmental Waste Management

7.4 Types of Bioreactors

Several types of bioreactors are employed in wastewater treatment, in which polluted
water is either recycled in an aerobic or anaerobic tank where free suspended microbes or
immobilized cells on a matrix are used to metabolize organic materials, forming a sludge
that is recycled or discharged. The efficiencies of both bioreactor technologies are illus-
trated in Table 7.1 in terms of chemical oxygen demand (COD).

TABLE 7.1
Overview of the Wastewater Treatment Using Different Bioreactor Technologies and Their
Performances in Terms of COD Removal Efficiency
Bioreactor COD
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Type Aeration Wastewater Source Membrane Removal (%) References

SBR Anoxic/aerobic Olive mill — 90 Chiavola et al. (2014)
Anoxic/aerobic Domestic — 83 Fernandes et al. (2013)
Anoxic/aerobic Municipal — 94 Bagheri et al. (2014)
Anaerobic/ Synthetic — 98 Puay et al. (2015)
anoxic/aerobic
Anaerobic Alcohol — 76 Intanoo et al. (2014)
Aerobic Leachate + domestic — 73 Mojiri et al. (2014)
Aerobic Swine — 76 Daverey et al. (2013)
AD Anaerobic Sewage — 43 Bajón Fernández et al.
(2014)
Anaerobic Rice straw — 57 Mussoline et al. (2012)
BF Aerobic Leachate — 80 Ferraz et al. (2014)
Aerobic Domestic — 90 Luo et al. (2014)
CSTR Aerobic Hydrocarbon-rich — 95 Gargouri et al. (2011)
industrial
Anaerobic Swine — 65 Kim et al. (2013)
PBB Aerobic Synthetic — 98 Dizge et al. (2011)
Anaerobic/ Slaughterhouse — 93 Del Pozo and Diez (2005)
aerobic
MBBR Aerobic Synthetic — 44 Shore et al. (2012)
Aerobic Coking — 89 Gu et al. (2014)
Aerobic Industrial — 90 Dvořák et al. (2014)
MBR Anaerobic Sludge Flat sheet 99 Ersahin et al. (2014)
Anaerobic Sludge Tubular UF 99 Dereli et al. (2014)
Anaerobic Synthetic municipal Tubular 95 Ho and Sung (2010)
PTFE MF
Aerobic Municipal PE MF 99 Mohammed et al. (2008)
module
Aerobic Cosmetic industry UF 83 Friha et al. (2014)
Aerobic Synthetic hypersaline PE MF flat 81 Sharghi et al. (2014)
sheet
UASB Anaerobic Palm oil mill — 62 Singh et al. (2013)
Anaerobic Distillery — 87 Sridevi et al. (2014)
Anaerobic Heavy oil — 74 G. Liu et al. (2013)
Anaerobic Berberine antibiotic — 98 Qiu et al. (2013)
Note: UF: ultrafiltration; PTFE: poly-tetrafluoroethylene; MF: microfiltration; PE: polyethylene; COD: chemical
oxygen demand.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 163

7.4.1 Free Suspended Cell Technology

7.4.1.1 Anaerobic Digesters (AD)
The AD is a multifaceted technology that requires strict anaerobic conditions with oxi-
dation reduction potential less than −200 mV to be carried out, and relies on the syn-
chronized metabolism of a mixed microbial culture to mainly convert organic material
to methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2). The produced biogas with great calorific
outcome is considered as a source of renewable energy. Normally, AD of sludge employs
airtight reactors to perform the main four steps of organic material (Figure 7.2a). Several
organic materials can be degraded anaerobically by microorganisms, apart from cel-
lulosic materials as anaerobic microbes are unable to digest lignin (Appels et  al., 2008;
ElMekawy et al., 2013).
Mainly, AD uses three modes of operation. The first one is the standard rate digestion,
in which there is no heating or mixing process of the reactor sludge, and therefore it is
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

considered the simplest mode using an extended degradation period (1–2 months) (Qasim,
1999; Tchobanoglous et al., 2003; Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006). The standard rate digestion
was upgraded to the high rate digesters, in which the reactor sludge content is mixed and
heated, in order to obtain thick and uniform sludge. The processing of the reactor content
results in a homogeneous environment, which positively reflects on the reactor volume
and the efficiency of the whole process stability (Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006). The high-
rate digester was further improved to obtain the two stage digester, by coupling the high
rate digester with a secondary digester, which is used for the digested component storage
and supernatant draw off without heating or mixing (Qasim, 1999; Tchobanoglous et al.,
2003; Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006).
The majority of high rate digesters run in the mesophilic temperature range (30–38°C)
(Qasim, 1999). AD can also be carried in the thermophilic temperature range, where the
digestion process by thermophilic bacteria, takes place at 50–57°C. The digestion rate of the
thermophilic process is faster compared with that of the mesophilic one, due to the increased
rate of biochemical reaction at elevated temperatures (Qasim, 1999; Tchobanoglous et al.,
2003; Turovskiy and Mathai, 2006).

7.4.1.2 Continuous Stirred Tank Reactors (CSTR)

Activated sludge represents the most common aerobic process used for the treatment of
agitated and aerated suspension of a mixed culture of bacterial growth that metabolizes
wastewater (Sheng et al., 2008). It has high productivity with flexible operation and poten-
tial nutrient elimination. The ASP could be operated in several operational modes, that
is, continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR), plug flow reactor, or SBR. CSTRs consist of a
constant volume tank equipped with agitation system to mix all the components together
(Figure 7.2b). They are also equipped with influent and effluent ports for the inflow of
reactants and the harvest of products, respectively (Chan et al., 2009).

7.4.1.3 Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR)

The SBR is one of the wastewater treatment processes established on the basis of ASP prin-
ciples, but differ from it in combining all of the process steps into a single tank, while tra-
ditional processes take place in several tanks (Bagheri et al., 2014). SBR has been effectively
used in industrial and municipal wastewater treatment (Mace and Mata-Alvarez, 2002;
Mohanakrishna et al., 2011; Çınar et al., 2008), and was applied in the biological treatment

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 164 Environmental Waste Management

(c)

(a)

Suspended
cells
Suspended
Sewage inlet
cells
aeration Outlets
AD
Fill stage Reaction stage Settling stage
Suspended
(b) cell
technology

Inlet Suspended
cells
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Outlet Treated water

Aeration Idle stage Excess Decant stage
sludge
CSTR

SBR

FIGURE 7.2
(See color insert.) Schematic of different types of bioreactors utilizing free suspended microbial cells for waste
treatment.

of wastewater, with the order of anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic settings for phosphorus,
nitrogen, and carbon elimination (Littleton et al., 2014).
The standard SBR technique for wastewater treatment process has five steps: fill, reaction,
settlement, draw and idle, which run consecutively in a batch reactor (Figure 7.2c) (Lee and
Park, 1999; Gali et al., 2008). Wastewater, with phosphate, ammonia, and carbon content, is
pumped to the bioreactor tank during the filling step, and then mixed with the other pre-
existing biomass (Lee and Park, 1999). The reactor is then shifted to the aerobic reaction step,
in which the existing wastewater is mechanically agitated and aerated in order to provide
several biological metabolisms to take place, such as phosphorus uptake/release, nitrification,
denitrification and carbonaceous BOD removal (Lee and Park, 1999; Mahvi 2008; Rodríguez
et al., 2011). The activated sludge is then settled under anoxic conditions in the settling stage,
without flow, mixing or aeration in the reactor, and the sludge mass (sludge blanket) is sepa-
rated from the clarified treated wastewater (Lee and Park 1999; Casellas, Dagot, and Baudu
2006), which is then removed from the bioreactor in the drawing stage (Lee and Park, 1999;
Aziz et al., 2011; Wu and Chen, 2011). The idle step takes place between the drawing and
the fill steps, in which a slight volume of the activated sludge at the SBR reactor bottom is
pumped out (wasting process) (Mahvi, 2008). The time of this step differs based on the flow
rate of the influent and the process scheme (Bagheri et al., 2014).

7.4.2 Immobilized Cell Technology

7.4.2.1 Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors
Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors are a stable technology which has oper-
ated effectively in the field of wastewater treatment for several decades (Tchobanoglous

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 165

et al., 2003). They are commonly applied as a pretreatment process prior to AD of differ-
ent types of municipal and industrial wastewater. It was observed that it is an effective
technology to overcome some of the problems accompanying the automatic aerobic set-
ups, by lowering the consumption of energy and production of sludge (Chan et al., 2009).
The UASB reactor involves the upflow of wastewater across a condensed sludge bed with
a high population of active microorganisms (Sperling and Chernicharo, 2005; Vlyssides
et al., 2009). This bioreactor depends on the formation of dense particles with minute diam-
eter (1–4 mm) developed via the spontaneous immobilization of the anaerobic consortium,
which is a vital condition for the efficient process of UASB bioreactor (Figure 7.3a). In gen-
eral, this type of bioreactor can eliminate over 60% of the COD from several wastewater
types (Chan et al., 2009).
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

(a)

Biogas collector

(b)
(f )
Sludge blanket
Filtered air
Sludge bed Treated water

UASB

Soil with Membrane module

biofilm
Odorous air
Excess sludge
BF
Immobilized
cell
(c) technology MBR
External
circuit (e)

Fixed packed bed

Wastewater Proton exchange Biofilm layer

inlet membrane (d)
Cathode
Anode with
biofilm
Aeration
Carrier PBB
MFC Biofilm layer

Aeration

MBBR

FIGURE 7.3
Schematic diagram overviews the six different types of bioreactors utilizing immobi-
lized bacterial cells for waste/wastewater treatment. (a) Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
(UASB) bioreactor; (b) biofilter (BF); (c) microbial fuel cell (MFC); (d) moving bed biofilm
reactor (MBBR); (e) packed bed bioreactor (PBB); (f) membrane bioreactors (MBR).

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 166 Environmental Waste Management

7.4.2.2 Biofilters
Biofilters are one of the main biological gaseous waste treatment and odor elimination
processes, with efficacious applications in the field of petrochemicals, tobacco industry.
These BFs also used for wastewater treatment like trickling filters (McNevin and Barford,
2000; Duan et  al., 2006). BFs were found to have economic capital and lower operating
costs, high in efficient treatment capacity and simple maintenance (Busca and Pistarino,
2003; Kikuchi, 2006). A BF is a tank of organic material cultured with microorganisms, in
which polluted air commonly flows upwards (Figure 7.3b). The stream either flows in a
counter-current or concurrent mode and contacts the liquid solution which supplies nutri-
ents and confers the suitable conditions to preserve the activity and viability of the devel-
oping biofilm. Counter-current passes the polluted gas from the bottom and liquids were
sprayed from the top of the bed. In the case of concurrent sprays of polluted air and liquid
are pumped through the top of the bed. In both the cases, the gases flow through the BF,
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

in which contaminants are exchanged with the biofilm, as they are metabolized by the
bacteria as an energy or carbon source (Ortiz et al., 2003; Ma et al., 2006).
Organic pollutants are degraded to odorless materials such as water, CO2 and biomass
by oxidative reactions. When metabolizing inorganic materials like hydrogen sulfide,
autotrophic bacteria use CO2 as a carbon source, resulting in the generation of biomass
and sulfur or sulfate (Andersson and Grennberg, 2001; Barona et al., 2004). Different bio-
logically active packing media have been employed in BFs such as soil, horse manure and
compost. Packing materials should have high liquid and gas permeabilities and surface
area as they play a vital role in water and gaseous exchange, and also should offer a favor-
able surface for biofilm development (Song and Kinney, 2000).

7.4.2.3 Microbial Fuel Cells (MFC)

The growing interest in bioelectrochemical systems (BES) technology in the application
of wastewater treatment is due to its ability to degrade highly complex waste streams/
pollutants, which can be effectively mineralized than in conventional treatment processes.
Initially, this type of bioreactor was called as MFC, where it produced energy in the form
of bioelectricity along with wastewater treatment (Logan, 2008; Rismani-Yazdi et al., 2008).
MFC operation with different kinds of wastewaters has been well studied for power gen-
eration and bioremediation aspects (Pant et al., 2010). The MFC types usually employed in
wastewater treatment are the flat plate (Min and Logan, 2004), stacked (Aelterman et al.,
2006a,b), and upflow MFCs (He et al., 2005). The organic substrate is fed into the anodic
compartment and is metabolized by the bacterial biofilm on the anode. The bacterial bio-
catalyst anaerobically digests the organic substrate to transform the chemical energy into
electrical energy, producing protons and electrons (Logan, 2008; Rismani-Yazdi et al., 2008;
Zhou et al., 2011). Compared to the well-established AD technology, restricted industrial
applications of MFC technology and wastewater treatment is rendering it an initial stage
(Aelterman et al., 2006a,b; Logan 2008; Chiranjeevi et al., 2012). To overcome this restric-
tion, MFC was integrated with different wastewater technologies in order to degrade the
complex substrates into volatile acids which are then metabolized to several value-added
products (ElMekawy et al., 2014a,b). Later, when the potential of this system in treating
complex pollutants and synthesizing a diverse range of biocommodities were observed
and renamed it as BES that covers all kinds of biologically catalyzed electrochemical sys-
tems. BES typically contains two compartments, anode and cathode, separated by a proton
exchange membrane (PEM) (Figure 7.3c). In this chapter, we try to summarize the role of

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 167

BES in waste/wastewater remediation aspects. A detailed discussion on the role of MFC

as a BES for electroremediation has been discussed in Section 7.6.1.

7.4.2.4 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR)

Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology is based on the merger between the advan-
tages of both the BF process and those of the ASP. The MBBR is similar to the activated
sludge bioreactor in terms of the whole tank volume utilization for microbial growth, which
is normally not the feature of most biofilm reactors. Alternatively, it does not require any
sludge recycle as the case of the activated sludge bioreactor. This is obtained by allowing
the growth of the microbial biomass on carriers which move freely in the liquid volume of
the bioreactor (Figure 7.3d) (Odegaard, 2006). Only the leftover biomass has to be separated
as there is no sludge recirculation, which is considered as an advantage compared with
the activated sludge technology. The bioreactor may be operated in aerobic, anaerobic, or
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

anoxic conditions, where the movement of the biofilm carrier in the aerobic condition is
carried out by the agitation effect of the air, while in anaerobic and anoxic conditions the
carriers are continuously moved by a mixing shaft. The biofilm carrier commonly used in
MBBR, that is, K1, is fabricated from polyethylene with high density (0.95 g/cm3) and has
the shape of a small pipe with an internal cross and external limbs (Odegaard, 2006).

7.4.2.5 Packed Bed Bioreactors (PBR)

Fixed bed bioreactors are progressively employed in wastewater treatment process due
to the flexible and compact features of this technology (Iliuta, 1997; Deront et  al., 1998;
Benthack et al., 2001). Packed bed bioreactors (PBRs) are tubular tanks packed with solid
particles of catalyst (Fogler, 2006), which has a high nutrient exchange per weight (Figure
7.3e). This exchange capacity depends on the solid catalyst content rather than the size of
the reactor.
The packing material is beneficial for bacterial immobilization to form biofilms for the
treatment at an industrial scale. The catalyst is packed in the column and the nutrients are
fed either from bottom or top of the reactor (Martinov et al., 2010; Venkata Mohan et al.,
2008b). There are several traditional granular packing materials such as ceramic pieces,
volcanic rocks, and clay balls. Also, the fibrous packing materials, that is, polyethylenevi-
nylacetate, were introduced with their comprehensive specific surface and plastic nature,
described to improve the cells adhesion to form a biofilm (Hadjiev et al., 2007).

7.4.2.6 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)

Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) are an integration of the traditional ASP with suspended
biomass growth and ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF) membrane systems (Judd,
2006). The biological part of the reactor is employed in the waste biodegradation and the
membrane compartment is responsible for the physical filtration of the biologically treated
water from the mixture. The conventional gravitational sedimentation clarifier in the ASP
is replaced by the membrane filtration system with a pore diameter in the range of 0.01–
0.1 μm, which allows bacteria and particles to be filtered out of a permeate (Figure 7.3f)
(Hoinkis et al., 2012). The anaerobic MBR is a combined setup of the anaerobic bioreactor
and UF or MF membrane filtration with low pressure, in which membranes can physically
filtrate suspended solids, such as biological and inert materials (Chang, 2014).

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 168 Environmental Waste Management

7.5 The Main Challenges Associated with Bioreactors

Microorganisms can grow in aerobic or anaerobic conditions in several types of bioreac-
tors, either in the form of suspended cells or immobilized cells on the surface of a solid sup-
port. AD is considered to be one of the most applied technologies for wastewater treatment
with free suspended cells. Even with the advantages of AD, some obstacles are expected
(Appels et  al., 2008). Among several limitations of bioreactors for industrial wastewater
treatment, incomplete degradation of the organic portion and the relatively slow rate can
be considered as critical challenges. Furthermore, the AD has a high cost with the process
exposure to different inhibitors (ElMekawy et al., 2013). Moreover, the produced superna-
tant has a poor quality with the presence of residual COD and by products such as organic
acids (Appels et  al., 2008). Also, some other components, such as the volatile siloxanes,
can result in serious destruction in the end user machines such as generators and boilers,
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

because of microcrystalline silica formation. The leftover sludge has an amplified con-
tent of heavy metals and different industrial pollutants as the organic fraction is reduced
during the digestion process, while the nonmetabolized fraction is left without digestion.
The AD is incapable of attaining complete degradation of several contaminants. Phenolic
components and their by-products accumulates in the reactors and then discharged in the
effluent or inhibit the biomass (Beccari et al., 1996; ElMekawy et al., 2013).
Additionally, the problem of foaming is considered as one of the most challenging for
AD technology (Subramanian and Pagilla, 2014). Foaming is a multi-phase (solid, gas, and
liquid) phenomenon resulting from the interaction of surfactants or materials with active
surfaces and also the biogas generated inside the digester. Also, foam could be affected
by the unbalanced ratio between waste activated sludge and primary sludge solids in the
reactor feed. Vagarous mixing is likely to develop the entrapment of air bubbles in the
liquid, producing foam (Campbell, 1999). Keeping extended retention time for the sludge
is one of the problems of AD technology because of the slow rate of the anaerobic biomass
growth (Ho and Sung, 2010).
The UASB reactor is one of the most well-established efficient AD technologies for
wastewater treatment with more than thousands of working UASB bioreactors world-
wide (Tiwari et al., 2006). The stability and efficiency of the UASB bioreactor relies greatly
on the early start-up, which is influenced by several chemical, biological, and physical
factors (Ghangrekar et al., 1996). These factors include the operating conditions, type of
wastewater, and growth of active biomass in the sludge (Chong et  al., 2012). The colloi-
dal and suspended constituents of wastewater in the form of protein, cellulose, and fat
have negative effect on the efficiency of the UASB bioreactor, preventing the operation
of the reactor at higher organic loads causing the decline of microbial activity and wash-
ing out of biomass (Torkian et al., 2003). The higher loads of organic materials require a
long adaptation period for the inoculated seed sludge (Mohanakrishna et al., 2011). This
delay represents the major drawback of the industrial scale application of UASB bioreac-
tors (Vlyssides et al., 2008). Also, temperature has a crucial effect on the start-up digestion
rate of sludge, where the main methanogenic bacterial component of UASB particles (35°C)
are likely to be reproducing in 72 h, while at a low temperature (10°C), the generation time
can reach 50 days (Bhuptawat et al., 2007). This is due to the direct positive effect of higher
temperatures on methanogenesis, usually accompanied with low effluent quality because
of sludge wash out (Liu and Tay, 2004).
On the contrary, there are several operational problems with bioreactor technologies
that utilize microbial biofilms (immobilized cells). One of the main challenges is the loss of

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 169

the biofilm integrity as it grows, which requires the continuous removal of biosolids either
by the start over of the system or the detachment of the biomass from the packing material
with a backwash step. In spite of the recent progress in MBRs, there are several challenges
that restrict their widespread industrial applications (Dizge et al., 2011). Membrane fouling
is considered the most important challenge as it can raise the relevant operational costs.
The fouling problem could be caused by the accumulation of the microorganisms them-
selves or their products, as well as the influent particles into the membrane pores and on
the membrane surface (Lin et al., 2009). Membrane fouling is influenced by several vari-
ables such as influent properties, operating conditions, effluent nature, membrane charac-
teristics, and cake layer (He et al., 2005; Le-Clech et al., 2006). The extracellular polymeric
substances and soluble microbial products are considered the most important source of
organic fouling, where they can be attached to the flocculated or suspended materials, to
form microbial agglomeration or to bind directly to the membrane (Choo and Lee, 1996;
Brockmann and Seyfried, 1996; He et al., 2005). Membrane fouling can lead to the regular
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

washing of the membranes, in which the operation is stopped and further costs are added
for the chemicals normally used in this process (Mohammed et al., 2008).
Moreover, the drawbacks related to the MBR reflect on its overall costs, in which the
membrane units (UF and MF) and the consumed energy for the pressure gradient lead
to high capital cost (Mohammed et al., 2008). Another disadvantage is that the activated
sludge waste could be poorly filtered and when processed at high retention time, the inor-
ganic materials accumulate in the bioreactor leading to an adverse effect on the microbial
growth or membrane composition (Cicek et al., 1999a,b).

7.6 Technology Integrations and Advanced Bioprocesses

7.6.1 Bioelectrochemical Systems (BES)
Energy generation from wastewater treatment through microbial metabolism is due to
the fermentation (substrate oxidation) of organic pollutants. Substrate falls in the meta-
bolic flux of the microbe generating energy rich reducing equivalents (protons [H+] and
electrons [e−]), which get reduced in presence of an electron acceptor to complete the elec-
tron transport chain. Separating these two processes (oxidation and reduction) by an ion
permeable membrane in a system equipped with electrodes, helps us in harnessing the
energy (Venkata Mohan et  al., 2013a,b). Protons are transported to the cathode through
the solution electrode interface across the ion selective membrane generating a potential
difference between anode and cathode against which the electrons will flow through the
circuit across the external load (current) (Pant et al., 2012). The reducing equivalents gener-
ated during the BES operation have multiple applications in energy generation as well as
in waste remediation areas. Broadly the BES application can be classified as a wastewater
treatment unit and system for the recovery of value added products, apart from power
generation. When the waste/wastewater functions as an electron donor or acceptor, its
remediation gets manifested either through anodic oxidation or cathodic reduction under
defined conditions (Pant et al., 2010). Very recently, reduction of some substrates or car-
bon dioxide (CO2) as electron acceptors during the BES operation has also been reported,
increasing its commercial viability (Rabaey and Rozendal, 2010; Pant et al., 2012).
Both the anode and cathode chambers can be an option for treating waste based on the
nature of the waste selected. Treatment of wastewater in the anode chamber is mainly

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 170 Environmental Waste Management

through microbial metabolism and partly due to the induced electrochemical oxidation
(EO) mechanism. The presence of oxidizing agents (which gain electrons) such as chlorine,
bromine, and ozone increases the potential differences between electrodes and thus the
redox potential of the system which in turn favours EO resulting in both pollutant as well
as carbon removal. Apart from EO, direct and indirect anodic oxidation (DAO and IAO)
mechanisms are two possible ways described for the pollutant treatment at the anode
of the BES (Venkata Mohan and Srikanth, 2011). When the simple organic fraction of
waste gets oxidized at the anode through microbial metabolism, the reducing equivalents
[e− and H+] formed during metabolism help in generation of primary oxidation species
under in situ biopotential (Wilk et  al., 1987; Israilides et  al., 1997; Mohanakrishna et  al.,
2010b; Venkata Mohan and Srikanth, 2011). The primary oxidants formed during DAO fur-
ther react on the anode yielding secondary oxidants such as chlorine dioxide and ozone,
which will have significant positive impact on the treatment, especially for color removal
efficiency. The reactions between water and free radicals near the anode also yield sec-
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

ondary oxidants, viz., nascent oxygen, free chlorine and hydrogen peroxide, hypochloric
acid, etc. (Venkata Mohan and Srikanth, 2011). Generally, pollutants present in waste are
adsorbed on the anode surface and get destroyed by the anodic electron transfer reactions
during DAO, while during the IAO, these pollutants will be oxidized by the oxidants (pri-
mary and secondary) formed electrochemically on the anode surface.
The cathode can also participate in effective remediation of waste streams and pollut-
ants such as azo dyes, nitrobenzene, nitrates, sulfates, etc., likewise the anode. The major
route of the wastewater treatment at the cathode is considering these pollutants as ter-
minal electron acceptors to make the electrical circuit closed in the absence of oxygen.
However, their function as electron acceptors is based on the thermodynamic hierarchy.
Unlike anode, the cathode chamber can be maintained under different microenviron-
ments (aerobic, anaerobic, and microaerophilic) to increase the treatment efficiency based
on the nature of the pollutant (Venkata Mohan and Srikanth, 2011; Srikanth et al., 2012).
Generally, oxygen is considered as the TEA at cathodes (abiotic) but in biocathodes, micro-
organisms will be used it as the catalyst for the terminal reduction reaction. Depending
on the terminal electron acceptors adopted at the cathode, they can be classified as aerobic
and anaerobic biocathodes (He and Angenent, 2006). However, the efficiency of treatment
as well as energy output varies among the microenvironments studied. Apart from the
electron acceptor conditions, the treatment in the cathode chamber is also through direct
or indirect oxidation processes (similar to the anode) based on the primary and secondary
oxidizing species (Aulenta et al., 2010; Srikanth and Venkata Mohan, 2012). The oxidizing
species also react with the primary cationic species viz., Na+ and K+, under biopotential
leading to their removal as salt. Bicarbonates will be formed from the reaction between
carbon dioxide (from air sparging or aerobic metabolism) and water which further reacts
with the cationic species forming respective salts. Maintenance of cathodic pH is very
crucial to sustain the microbial activity at the cathode, in spite of continuous reduction
reactions. The in situ bicarbonate buffering mechanism formed at the cathode helps to
overcome this drop in cathodic pH which is essential in continuing the reduction reaction
as well as in maintaining the metabolic activities of microbes. Physiologically favorable
redox conditions in the cathode chamber support the rapid metabolic activities of aerobic
consortia thus resulting in higher substrate removal (Mahmoud et al., 2014; Torres, 2014).
The anaerobic microenvironment at the cathode supports the removal of specific pol-
lutants and toxic components of wastewater, especially when they act as electron accep-
tors. Instead of oxygen, other substances such as nutrients viz., nitrogen and sulfur and
metal ions viz., iron, manganese, and chromium will act as terminal electron acceptors in

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 171

the case of the anaerobic biocathode. This helps in the removal of these toxic substances
from wastewater along with power generation (Clauwaert et al., 2007; Hamelers et al., 2010;
Huang et  al., 2011). Both the anode and cathode chambers function as anaerobic treat-
ment units in this case except for the variation of the presence of electrodes in each cham-
ber and the connection in the circuit across an external resistance/load. On the contrary,
the microaerophilic environment at the cathode switches between aerobic and anaerobic
microenvironments. This has an advantage over aerobic and anaerobic biocathode opera-
tions, especially in the wastewater treatment sector. Some pollutants such as azo dyes need
both the environments for complete mineralization. The anaerobic condition helps in split-
ting the azo bond, while the aerobic condition helps in mineralization of dye metabolites
(Venkata Mohan et al., 2013a,b). The lower DO levels maintained at cathode during this
operation helps in initiating electrochemical oxidation reactions as well as maintaining
strong reduction reactions. The survival of facultative microbes which can carry out both
metabolic functions will increase the treatment efficiency (Srikanth et al., 2012).
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

7.6.2 Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology holds great potential in advancing industrial wastewater treatment to
improve process efficiency. The unique properties of nanomaterials and their conver-
gence with current treatment technologies present great opportunities to revolutionize
wastewater treatment. Our current water treatment, distribution, and discharge prac-
tices, generally based on conveyance and centralized systems, are not very sustainable.
However, recent advancements in nanotechnology offer tremendous opportunities to
develop efficient water supply systems. The highly efficient, multifunctional processes
enabled by nanotechnology are envisaged to provide high performance and affordable
wastewater treatment solutions, generally less reliant on large infrastructures (Qu et al.,
2013). Nanotechnology based wastewater treatment helps to overcome some of the major
challenges of existing treatment technologies and also allows us the economic utilization
of unconventional water sources.
Qu and his co-workers (2013) recently reported the role of nanotechnology in wastewater
treatment in their detailed review. Various applications for the integration of nanotechnol-
ogy have been integrated into wastewater treatment but most of them are still in the labo-
ratory research stage (Table 7.2). However, some have made their way to pilot testing and

TABLE 7.2
Consolidated Table of the Most Used Nano Materials in Bioremediation, Their Specific Properties,
and Respective Applications
Material Specific Properties Applications
Silver (Ag) nano Broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, Disinfection/decontamination of
particles low toxicity to humans, wide range of wastewater; anti-biofouling agents;
Carbon nanotubes applications with ease of use solar disinfectants
TiO2 nano particles High chemical stability and selectivity;
Fullerene derivatives photocatalytic activity; low cost and
human toxicity
Carbon nanotubes High-specific surface area with accessible Detection of recalcitrant contaminants;
adsorption sites; short intra-particle adsorptive removal of contaminants;
diffusion distance; interaction with adsorptive media filters; reactive
wide range of contaminant; tunable nano-adsorbents
surface chemistry; high rate re-usability

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 172 Environmental Waste Management

commercialization among which, nanoadsorbents, nanotechnology enabled membranes,

and nanophotocatalysts are the most promising ones. These three categories could be inter-
esting in full scale application based on their current research state, cost of nanomaterials
involved, and compatibility with the existing infrastructure. Different types of carbon/
metal based nanomaterials were developed as adsorbents or membranes or photocatalysts
depending on the pollutant to be removed. The potential applications of nanomaterials in
wastewater treatment were briefed by Qu et al. (2013). Although this technology enabled
great promise in wastewater treatment processes, there are still several limitations which
have to be overcome. The challenges faced by wastewater treatment nanotechnologies are
important, but many of these challenges are perhaps only temporary, technical hurdles,
high cost, and potential environmental and human risk. The two major research hurdles
for full-scale applications of nanotechnology in wastewater treatment include (i) studies
with real wastewater under more realistic conditions and (ii) long-term efficacy of these
nanotechnologies in wastewater treatment processes.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

7.6.3 Bioaugmentation
Problems associated with the degradation of the organics under complex system conditions
by the indigenous population may be overcome by an augmentation strategy resulting in
enhancement of the process efficiency. Bioaugmentation can be explained as a process by
which the application of indigenous or wild-type or genetically modified organisms to
the bioreactor or to the polluted sites improves the performance of the ongoing biological
processes (Venkata Mohan et al., 2009). Bioaugmentation is the application/introduction
of indigenous or allochthonous wild-type or genetically modified organisms to polluted
hazardous waste sites or bioreactors in order to accelerate the removal of undesired com-
pounds (van Limbergen et al., 1998). Bioaugmentation has several advantages such as to
improve the start-up of a reactor, to enhance reactor performance, to protect the existing
microbial community against adverse effects, to accelerate the onset of degradation
and/or to compensate for organic or hydraulic overloading (Wilderer et al., 1991; Stephenson
and Stephenson, 1992; Hajji et  al., 2000; Jianlong et  al., 2002; Venkata Mohan et  al., 2007,
2009). Bioaugmentation has been also used as a treatment strategy for contaminated soils
(Newby et al., 2000; Rojas-Avelizapa et al., 2003; Shailaja et al., 2007; Rodrigo et al., 2008).
Bioaugmentation with genetically modified organisms carrying plasmid-encoded catabolic
genes has the potential to enhance the breakdown of xenobiotic compounds by increas-
ing the degradation potential of an indigenous microbial population via horizontal gene
transfer. Bioaugmentation mediated enhanced degradation of xenobiotics in a sequencing
mode activated sludge system has been shown previously (Bathe, 2004; Bathe et al., 2005).
However, bioaugmented species often fail to compete with the indigenous population and
it may also cause process inhibition (Bouchez et al., 2000). This approach involves increas-
ing the metabolic capabilities of the native microflora present in either soil or wastewater by
the addition of organisms having the specific required biological activity.

7.7 Constructed Wetlands

Constructed wetlands are emerging to be highly promising for the treatment of indus-
trial wastewaters. The process is known as an economically feasible and environmentally

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 173

friendly approach. The design of constructed wetlands consists of various common plants
such as Eichornia, Typha, Schoenoplectus, Phragmites, and Cyperus which are emergent plants.
The bed of the system is constructed with permeable substrata such as gravel (Mbuligwe,
2005; Davies et  al., 2009; Vymazal, 2009; Kumar et  al., 2011). The wastewater infiltrates
through the gravel that provides more contact to the plant roots that develop a good rhizo-
sphere zone (Haberl et al., 2003). In case of floating plants such as Eichornia, the fluffy roots
harbor rhizosphere biota. Such developed rhizosphere biota is involved in the treatment of
wastewater. In the presence of toxic effluents, the growth and treatment efficiency of plants
is affected. The combination of microorganisms and fungi helps in the sustainability of the
treatment process (Afzal et al., 2013). In the case of low toxic effluents algae is considered to
improve the dissolved oxygen concentration of the system. This also helps for the effective
biological nitrogen removal process (Venkata Mohan et al., 2010, 2011). Constructed wet-
lands are also designed to treat specific pollutants present in different types of wastewater.
Particular biological components that specifically function for specific pollutant removal
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

are used in constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment (Table 7.3).

Major research was also focused on enhanced nitrogen removal from industrial waste-
waters. Hybrid constructed wetlands were developed for wastewater containing higher
nitrogen concentrations. Varied redox conditions prevailing in the constructed wetlands
are more suitable for nitrification and denitrification processes. Single vertical flow and
horizontal vertical flow patterns were simple designs that provide anoxic/anaerobic micro-
environments due to the permanent saturation of the filtration bed of the constructed
wetlands, hence, providing suitable conditions for denitrification. Free-drain vertical flow
constructed wetlands are aerobic due to the intermittent feeding that allows oxygen dif-
fusion into the filtration bed (Vymazal, 2007). Photosynthesis of algae, cyanobacteria, and
submerged plants also helps in the nitrification process by improving the dissolved oxy-
gen levels (Venkata Mohan et al., 2010). Denitrification may take place at the bottom layer
or sediments of decaying litter material. In addition, high pH values prevail in the system
due to the photosynthetic activity of microphytes and submerged plants, which may be
involved in the volatilization of ammonia (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009). The average removal
of ammoniacal nitrogen by vertical wetlands was found to be 56%, whereas horizontal
constructed wetlands registered at 29% (Vymazal, 2013). The recirculation also enhances
the removal of total nitrogen, especially in constructed wetlands integrated with horizon-
tal flow and vertical flow (Brix et al., 2003). A study by Ayaz et al. (2012) compared removal
efficiency with and without recirculation that exhibited 100% recirculation, resulted in
about 20% increase of total nitrogen removal efficiency. In the case of Kantawanichkul and
Neamkam (2003), in their hybrid system, 100% recirculation was found to be superior to
50% and 200% recirculation in removal of total nitrogen.

7.8 Conclusions
Over the years, different types of bioreactors have played an important role in the treat-
ment of wastewater from both domestic and industrial sources. While the established
bioreactor types such as AD, CSTR, UASB, and SBR continue to function at a large scale
globally for treatment for various types of wastewater, newly emergent ones such as MFCs
and MBBRs are also making their presence felt. With new types of pollutants emerging
and more often with recalcitrant natures, it becomes imperative to tune the existing types

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 © 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

174
TABLE 7.3
Typical Examples of the Constructed Wetlands That are Reported for Treating Different Wastewaters and the Biological Components Used in the
System
Major Biological Components Specific/Major
Design of CW of CW Type of Wastewater Country Pollutants Removed Other Pollutants References
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Electrolysis-integrated Juncus effususa Synthetic wastewater China Ammonia, Sulfide Ju et al. (2014)
tidal flow constructed phosphorous
wetland (CW)
Vertical flow CW Typha domingensis, Microbacterium Textile effluents Pakistan COD, BOD TDS and TSS Shehzadi et al.
reactor arborescens TYSI04, Bacillus pumilus (2014)
PIRI30
Lagoon wetland Hydrocottle spp., Phragmites australis Municipal wastewater USA Pharmaceutically Conkle et al.
active compounds (2008)
Subsurface horizontal Canna indica, Typha latifolia, Tannery wastewater Portugal COD, BOD Ammonia Calheiros et al.
flow Constructed Phragmites australis, Stenotaphrum (2007)
wetland secundatum, and Iris pseudacorus
Ecologically engineered Eichhornia crassipes, Cyphoma Effluents of acidogenic India COD, color Nitrates Venkata Mohan
treatment system gibbosum, Asparagus, Lycopersicum fermentation and (melanoidic et al. (2010)
(EETS) esculentum, Hydrilla verticillata, Oriza domestic sewage pigment of distillery
sativa, Tagetes erecta, Cyprinus carpio wastewater)

Environmental Waste Management

EEETS Eichhornia crassipes, Cyphoma Estrogenic endocrine India Estriol (E3, natural), COD, nitrates Kumar et al. (2011)
gibbosum, Asparagus, Lycopersicum disrupting compounds 17α-ethinylestradiol turbidity
esculentum, Hydrilla verticillata, Oriza present in domestic (EE2, synthetic)
sativa, Tagetes erecta, Cyprinus carpio sewage
Surface flow CW Phragmites australis and Typha latifoli b Antibiotics in Sweden Variable for different — Berglund et al.
groundwater antibiotics between (2014)
53% and 99%
flow, flow CW system Macrophytesc Wide range of Canada COD, TKN — Brisson and
wastewater Chazarenc (2009)
Vertical flow CW Acoruscalamus L Heavily polluted river China COD, total nitrogen Total phosphorous Dong et al. (2012)
water
a Electrodes integrated in the system to supply electricity that triggered nitrogen transformations and phosphorous removal.
b 12 different types of antibiotics were treated and the removal efficiency of the antibiotics was ranged between 53% and 99%.
c Comparative study with various macrophytes used in constructed wetlands treating using wide range of wastewater.
 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 175

of bioreactors to these pollutants and also upgrade the bioreactors for improved function-
ality. The only thing which can be said with surety is that bioreactors will remain impor-
tant and continue to play a crucial role in any wastewater treatment facility.

References
Aelterman P, Rabaey K, Clauwaert P, and Verstraete W. 2006a. Microbial fuel cells for wastewater
treatment. Water Science and Technology 54(8): 9–15.
Aelterman P, Rabaey K, Pham HT, Boon N, and Verstraete W. 2006b. Continuous electricity genera-
tion at high voltages and currents using stacked microbial fuel cells. Environmental Science and
Technology 40(10): 3388–3394.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Afzal M, Khan S, Iqbal S, Mirza MS, and Khan QM. 2013. Inoculation method affects colonization
and activity of Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN during phytoremediation of diesel-contaminated
soil. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 85: 331–336.
Andersson A and Grennberg K. 2001. Isolation and characterization of a bacterial population aimed
for a biofilter treating waste-gases from a restaurant. Environmental Engineering Science 18(4):
237–248.
Appels L, Baeyens J, Degrève J, and Dewil R. 2008. Principles and potential of the anaerobic digestion
of waste-activated sludge. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 34(6): 755–781.
Aulenta F, Reale P, Canosa A, Rossetti S, Panero S, and Majone M. 2010. Characterization of an elec-
tro-active biocathode capable of dechlorinating trichloroethene and cis-dichloroethene to eth-
ene. Biosensors and Bioelectronics 25(7): 1796–1802.
Ayaz SC, Aktas Ö, Findik N, Akca L, and Kinaci C. 2012. Effect of recirculation on nitrogen removal
in a hybrid constructed wetland system. Ecological Engineering 40: 1–5.
Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, and Yusoff MS. 2011. Powdered activated carbon augmented double react-settle
sequencing batch reactor process for treatment of landfill leachate. Desalination 277(1–3):
313–320.
Bagheri M, Mirbagheri SA, Ehteshami M, and Bagheri Z. 2014. Modeling of a sequencing batch reac-
tor treating municipal wastewater using multi-layer perceptron and radial basis function artifi-
cial neural networks. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 93: 111–123.
Bajón Fernández Y, Soares A, Villa R, Vale P, and Cartmell E. 2014. Carbon capture and biogas
enhancement by carbon dioxide enrichment of anaerobic digesters treating sewage sludge or
food waste. Bioresource Technology 159: 1–7.
Barona A, Elías A, Arias R, Cano I, and González R. 2004. Biofilter response to gradual and sudden
variations in operating conditions. Biochemical Engineering Journal 22(1): 25–31.
Bathe S. 2004. Conjugal transfer of plasmid pNB2 to activated sludge bacteria leads to 3-chloroaniline
degradation in enrichment cultures. Letters in Applied Microbiology 38: 527–531.
Bathe S, Schwarzenbeck N, and Hausner M. 2005. Plasmid-mediated bioaugmentation of acti-
vated sludge bacteria in a sequencing batch moving bed reactor using pNB2. Letters in Applied
Microbiology 41: 242–247.
Beccari M, Bonemazzi F, Majone M, and Riccardi C. 1996. Interaction between acidogenesis and meth-
anogenesis in the anaerobic treatment of olive oil mill effluents. Water Research 30(1): 183–189.
Benthack C, Srinivasan B, and Bonvin D. 2001. An optimal operating strategy for fixed-bed bioreac-
tors used in wastewater treatment. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 72(1): 34–40.
Berglund B, Khan GA, Weisner SE, Ehde PM, Fick J, and Lindgren PE. 2014. Efficient removal of anti-
biotics in surface-flow constructed wetlands, with no observed impact on antibiotic resistance
genes. Science of the Total Environment 476: 29–37.
Bhuptawat H, Folkard GK, and Chaudhari S. 2007. Innovative physico-chemical treatment of wastewa-
ter incorporating Moringaoleifera seed coagulant. Journal of Hazardous Materials 142(1–2): 477–482.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 176 Environmental Waste Management

Boon N, Goris J, De Vos P, Verstraete W, and Top E. 2000. Bioaugumentation of activated sludge
by an indigenous 3-chloroaniline-degrading comamonas testosterone strain 12gfp. Applied
Environmental Microbiology 66: 2906–2913.
Bouchez T, Patureau D, Dabert P, Wagner M, Deigenes P, and Moletta R. 2000. Successful and unsuc-
cessful bioaugumentation experiments monitored by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Water
Science and Technology 41: 61–68.
Brisson J and Chazarenc F. 2009. Maximizing pollutant removal in constructed wetlands: Should we
pay more attention to macrophyte species selection? Science of the Total Environment 407(13):
3923–3930.
Brix H, Arias CA, and Johansen N-H. 2003. Experiments in a two-stage constructed wetland sys-
tem: Nitrification capacity and effects of recycling on nitrogen removal. In: Vymazal J. (Ed.),
Wetlands—Nutrients, Metals and Mass Cycling. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands,
pp. 237–258.
Brockmann M and Seyfried C. 1996. Sludge activity and cross-flow microfiltration—A non-beneficial
relationship. Water Science and Technology 34(9): 205–213.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Busca G and Pistarino C. 2003. Technologies for the abatement of sulphide compounds from gaseous
streams: A comparative overview. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries 16(5): 363–371.
Campbell G. 1999. Creation and characterization of aerated food products. Trends in Food Science and
Technology 10(9): 283–296.
Carrera J, Baeza J A, Vicent T, and Lafuente J. 2003. Biological nitrogen removal of high-strength
ammonium industrial wastewater with two-sludge system. Water Research 37(17): 4211–4221.
Casellas M, Dagot C, and Baudu M. 2006. Set up and assessment of a control strategy in a SBR in
order to enhance nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Process Biochemistry 41(9): 1994–2001.
Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL, and Hassell DG. 2009. A review on anaerobic–aerobic treatment of
industrial and municipal wastewater. Chemical Engineering Journal 155(1–2): 1–18.
Chang S. 2014. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (AnMBR) for Wastewater Treatment. Advances in
Chemical Engineering and Science 4: 56–61.
Chiavola A, Farabegoli G, and Antonetti F. 2014. Biological treatment of olive mill wastewater in a
sequencing batch reactor. Biochemical Engineering Journal 85: 71–78.
Chiranjeevi P, Mohanakrishna G, and Venkata Mohan S. 2012. Rhizosphere mediated electrogenesis
with the function of anode placement for harnessing bioenergy through CO2 sequestration.
Bioresource Technology 124: 364–370.
Chong S, Sen TK, Kayaalp A, and Ang HM. 2012. The performance enhancements of upflow anaero-
bic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge treatment—A state-of-the-art review.
Water Research 46 (11): 3434–3470.
Choo K-H and Lee C-H. 1996. Membrane fouling mechanisms in the membrane-coupled anaerobic
bioreactor. Water Research 30(8): 1771–1780.
Cicek N, Dionysiou D, Suidan M, Ginestet P, and Audic J. 1999a. Performance deterioration and
structural changes of a ceramic membrane bioreactor due to inorganic abrasion. Journal of
Membrane Science 163(1): 19–28.
Cicek N, Franco JP, Suidan MT, Urbain V, and Manem J. 1999b. Characterization and comparison of a
membrane bioreactor and a conventional activated-sludge system in the treatment of wastewa-
ter containing high-molecular-weight compounds. Water Environmental Research 71(1): 64–70.
Çınar Ö, Yaşar S, Kertmen M, Demiröz K, Yigit NÖ, and Kitis M. 2008. Effect of cycle time on bio-
degradation of azo dye in sequencing batch reactor. Process Safety and Environmental Protection
86(6): 455–460.
Clauwaert P, Rabaey K, Aelterman P, De Schamphelaire L, Pham TH, Boeckx P, and Verstraete W.
2007. Biological denitrification in microbial fuel cells. Environmental Science and Technology 41(9):
3354–3360.
Conkle JL, White JR, and Metcalfe CD. 2008. Reduction of pharmaceutically active compounds by
a lagoon wetland wastewater treatment system in Southeast Louisiana. Chemosphere 73(11):
1741–1748.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 177

Daverey A, Hung N-T, Dutta K, and Lin J-G. 2013. Ambient temperature SNAD process treating
anaerobic digester liquor of swine wastewater. Bioresource Technology 141: 191–198.
Davies LC, Cabrita G, Ferreira R, Carias C, Novais J, and Martins-Dias S. 2009. Integrated study of
the role of Phragmites australis in azo-dye treatment in a constructed wetland: From pilot to
molecular scale. Ecological Engineering 35: 961–970.
Del Pozo R and Diez V. 2005. Integrated anaerobic-aerobic fixed-film reactor for slaughterhouse
wastewater treatment. Water Research 39(6): 1114–1122.
Dereli RK, Grelot A, Heffernan B, van der Zee FP, and van Lier JB. 2014. Implications of changes in
solids retention time on long term evolution of sludge filterability in anaerobic membrane bio-
reactors treating high strength industrial wastewater. Water Research 59: 11–22.
Deront M, Samb F, Adler N, and Peringer P. 1998. Biomass growth monitoring using pressure drop
in a cocurrent biofilter. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 60(1): 97–104.
Dizge N, Tansel B, and Sizirici B. 2011. Process intensification with a hybrid system: A tubular packed
bed bioreactor with immobilized activated sludge culture coupled with membrane filtration.
Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 50(8): 766–772.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Dong H, Qiang Z, Li T, Jin H, and Chen W. 2012. Effect of artificial aeration on the performance of
vertical-flow constructed wetland treating heavily polluted river water. Journal of Environmental
Sciences 24(4): 596–601.
Duan H, Koe LCC, Yan R, and Chen X. 2006. Biological treatment of H(2)S using pellet activated car-
bon as a carrier of microorganisms in a biofilter. Water Research 40(14): 2629–2636.
Dvořák L, Lederer T, Jirků V, Masák J, and Novák L. 2014. Removal of aniline, cyanides and diphe-
nylguanidine from industrial wastewater using a full-scale moving bed biofilm reactor. Process
Biochemistry 49(1): 102–109.
ElMekawy A, Diels L, Bertin L, De Wever H, and Pant D. 2014a. Potential biovalorization techniques
for olive mill biorefinery wastewater. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 8: 283–293.
ElMekawy A, Diels L, De Wever H, and Pant D. 2013. Valorization of cereal based biorefinery byprod-
ucts: Reality and expectations. Environmental Science and Technology 47(16): 9014–9027.
ElMekawy A, Sandipam S, Vanbroekhoven K, De Wever H, and Pant D. 2014b. Bioelectro-catalytic
valorization of dark fermentation effluents by acetate oxidizing bacteria in bioelectrochemical
system (BES). Journal of Power Sources 262: 183–191.
Ersahin ME, Ozgun H, Tao Y, and van Lier JB. 2014. Applicability of dynamic membrane technology
in anaerobic membrane bioreactors. Water Research 48: 420–429.
Fernandes H, Jungles MK, Hoffmann H, Antonio RV, and Costa RHR. 2013. Full-scale sequencing
batch reactor (SBR) for domestic wastewater: Performance and diversity of microbial commu-
nities. Bioresource Technology 132: 262–268.
Ferraz FM, Povinelli J, Pozzi E, Vieira EM, and Trofino JC. 2014. Co-treatment of landfill leachate and
domestic wastewater using a submerged aerobic biofilter. Journal of Environmental Management
141C: 9–15.
Fogler HS. 2006. Elements of Chemical Reaction Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Friha I, Karray F, Feki F, Jlaiel L, and Sayadi S. 2014. Treatment of cosmetic industry wastewater
by submerged membrane bioreactor with consideration of microbial community dynamics.
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 88:125–133.
Gali A, Dosta J, Lopez-Palau S, and Mata-Alvarez J. 2008. SBR technology for high ammonium load-
ing rates. Water Science and Technology 58: 467–472.
Gargouri B, Karray F, Mhiri N, Aloui F, and Sayadi S. 2011. Application of a continuously stirred
tank bioreactor (CSTR) for bioremediation of hydrocarbon-rich industrial wastewater effluents.
Journal of Hazardous Materials 189(1–2): 427–434.
Gernaey KV, van Loosdrecht M, Henze M, Lind M, and Jørgensen SB. 2004. Activated sludge waste-
water treatment plant modelling and simulation: State of the art. Environmental Modelling and
Software 19(9): 763–783.
Ghangrekar M, Asolekar S, Ranganathan K, and Joshi S. 1996. Experience with UASB reactor start-up
under different operating conditions. Water Science and Technology 34(5–6): 421–428.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 178 Environmental Waste Management

Grady Jr CL, Daigger GT, Love NG, Filipe CD, and Leslie Grady CP. 2011. Biological Wastewater
Treatment (No. Ed. 3). IWA Publishing.
Gu Q, Sun T, Wu G, Li M, and Qiu W. 2014. Influence of carrier filling ratio on the performance
of moving bed biofilm reactor in treating coking wastewater. Bioresource Technology 166C:
72–78.
Haberl R, Grego S, Langergraber G, Kadlec RH, Cicalini A-R, Dias SM, Novais JM et  al. 2003.
Constructed wetlands for the treatment of organic pollutants. Journal of Soils and Sediments 3:
109–124.
Hadjiev D, Dimitrov D, Martinov M, and Sire O. 2007. Enhancement of the biofilm formation on
polymeric supports by surface conditioning. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 40(4): 840–848.
Hajji KT, Lépine F, Bisaillon JG, Beaudet R, Hawari J, and Guiot SR. 2000. Effects of bioaugmentation
strategies in UASB reactors with a methanogenic consortium for removal of phenolic com-
pounds. Biotechnology Bioengineering 67: 417–423.
Hamelers HVM, TerHeijne A, Sleutels TH, Jeremiasse AW, Strik DP, and Buisman CJN. 2010.
New applications and performance of bioelectrochemical systems. Applied Microbiology and
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Biotechnology 85(6): 1673–1685.

He Y, Xu P, Li C, and Zhang B. 2005. High-concentration food wastewater treatment by an anaerobic
membrane bioreactor. Water Research 39(17): 4110–4118.
He Z and Angenent LT. 2006. Application of bacterial biocathodes in microbial fuel cells. Electro-
analysis 18(19–20): 2009–2015.
He Z, Minteer SD, and Angenent LT. 2005. Electricity generation from artificial wastewater using an
upflow microbial fuel cell. Environmental Science and Technology 39(14): 5262–5267.
Ho J and Sung S. 2010. Methanogenic activities in anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) treat-
ing synthetic municipal wastewater. Bioresource Technology 101(7): 2191–2196.
Hoinkis J, Deowan SA, Panten V, Figoli A, Huang RR, and Drioli E. 2012. Membrane bioreactor
(MBR) technology—A promising approach for industrial water reuse. Procedia Engineering 33:
234–241.
Huang L, Regan JM and Quan X. 2011. Electron transfer mechanisms, new applications, and perfor-
mance of biocathode microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technology 102(1): 316–323.
Iliuta I. 1997. Performance of fixed bed reactors with two-phase upflow and downflow. Journal of
Chemical Technology and Biotechnology 68(1): 47–56.
Intanoo P, Suttikul T, Leethochawalit M, Gulari E, and Chavadej S. 2014. Hydrogen production from
alcohol wastewater with added fermentation residue by an anaerobic sequencing batch reactor
(ASBR) under thermophilic operation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39(18): 9611–9620.
Israilides CJ, Vlyssides AG, Mourafeti VN, and Karvouni G. 1997. Olive oil wastewater treatment
with the use of an electrolysis system. Bioresource Technology 61: 163–170.
Jianlong W, Xianghun Q, Libo W, Yi Q, and Hegemann W. 2002. Bioaugmentation as a tool to enhance
the removal refractory compound in coke plant wastewater. Proceedings of Biochemistry 38:
777–781.
Ju X, Wu S, Zhang Y, and Dong R. 2014. Intensified nitrogen and phosphorus removal in a novel
electrolysis-integrated tidal flow constructed wetland system. Water Research 59: 37–45.
Judd, S. 2006. In: S. Judd, (Ed.), The MBR Book: Principles and Applications of Membrane Bioreactors for
Water and Wastewater Treatment. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Juretschko S, Loy A, Lehner A, and Wagner M. 2002. The microbial community composition of a
nitrifying-denitrifying activated sludge from an industrial sewage treatment plant analyzed by
the full-cycle rRNA approach. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 25(1): 84–99.
Kadlec RH and Wallace SD. 2009. Treatment Wetlands, 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Kantawanichkul S and Neamkam P. 2003. Optimum recirculation ratio for nitrogen removal in a com-
bined system: Vertical flow vegetated bed over horizontal flow sand bed. In: Vymazal J. (Ed.),
Wetlands: Nutrients, Metals and Mass Cycling. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands,
pp. 75–86.
Kikuchi R. 2006. Pilot-scale test of a soil filter for treatment of malodorous gas. Soil Use and Management
16(3): 211–214.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 179

Kim W, Cho K, Lee S, and Hwang S. 2013. Comparison of methanogenic community structure and
anaerobic process performance treating swine wastewater between pilot and optimized lab
scale bioreactors. Bioresource Technology 145: 48–56.
Kumar AK, Chiranjeevi P, Mohanakrishna G, and Mohan SV. 2011. Natural attenuation of endocrine-
disrupting estrogens in an ecologically engineered treatment system (EETS) designed with
floating, submerged and emergent macrophytes. Ecological Engineering 37(10): 1555–1562.
Le-Clech P, Chen V, and Fane TAG. 2006. Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treat-
ment. Journal of Membrane Science 284(1–2): 17–53.
Lee DS and Park JM. 1999. Neural network modeling for on-line estimation of nutrient dynamics in
a sequentially-operated batch reactor. Journal of Biotechnology 75(2–3): 229–239.
Lettinga G. 1995. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek
67(1): 3–28.
Lin HJ, Xie K, Mahendran B, Bagley DM, Leung KT, Liss SN, and Liao BQ. 2009. Sludge proper-
ties and their effects on membrane fouling in submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors
(SAnMBRs). Water Research 43(15): 3827–3837.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Littleton HX, Daigger GT, Strom PF, and Cowan RA. 2014. Simultaneous biological nutrient removal:
Evaluation of autotrophic denitrification, heterotrophic nitrification, and biological phospho-
rus removal in full-scale systems. Water Environment Research: A Research Publication of the Water
Environment Federation 75(2): 138–150.
Liu G, Ye Z, Tong K, and Zhang Y. 2013. Biotreatment of heavy oil wastewater by combined upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket and immobilized biological aerated filter in a pilot-scale test.
Biochemical Engineering Journal 72: 48–53.
Liu Y and Tay J-H. 2004. State of the art of biogranulation technology for wastewater treatment.
Biotechnology Advances 22(7): 533–563.
Logan BE. 2008. Microbial Fuel Cells. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Luo W, Yang C, He H, Zeng G, Yan S, and Cheng Y. 2014. Novel two-stage vertical flow biofilter
system for efficient treatment of decentralized domestic wastewater. Ecological Engineering 64:
415–423.
Ma Y, Zhao J, and Yang B. 2006: Removal of H2S in waste gases by an activated carbon bioreactor.
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 57(2): 93–98.
Mace S and Mata-Alvarez J. 2002. Utilization of SBR technology for wastewater treatment: An over-
view. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research 41(23): 5539–5553.
Mahmoud M, Parameswaran P, Torres CI, and Rittmann BE. 2014. Fermentation pre-treatment of
landfill leachate for enhanced electron recovery in a microbial electrolysis cell. Bioresource
Technology 151: 151–158.
Mahvi AH. 2008. Sequencing batch reactor: A promising technology in wastewater treatment. Iranian
Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 5(2): 79–90.
Martinov M, Hadjiev D, and Vlaev S. 2010. Gas–liquid dispersion in a fibrous fixed bed biofilm reac-
tor at growth and non-growth conditions. Process Biochemistry 45(7): 1023–1029.
Mbuligwe SE. 2005. Comparative treatment of dye-rich wastewater in engineered wetland systems
(EWSs) vegetated with different plants. Water Research 39: 271–280.
McNevin D and Barford J. 2000. Biofiltration as an odour abatement strategy. Biochemical Engineering
Journal 5(3): 231–242.
Min B and Logan BE. 2004. Continuous electricity generation from domestic wastewater and
organic substrates in a flat plate microbial fuel cell. Environmental Science and Technology 38(21):
5809–5814.
Mittal A. 2011. Biological wastewater treatment. Water Toda 8: 32–44.
Mohammed TA, Birima AH, Noor MJMM, Muyibi SA, and Idris A. 2008. Evaluation of using
membrane bioreactor for treating municipal wastewater at different operating conditions.
Desalination 221(1–3): 502–510.
Mohanakrishna G, Krishna Mohan S, and Venkata Mohan S. 2012. Carbon based nanotubes and
nanopowder as impregnated electrode structures for enhanced power generation: Evaluation
with real field wastewater. Applied Energy 95: 31–37.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 180 Environmental Waste Management

Mohanakrishna G, Venkata Mohan S, and Sarma PN. 2010a. Utilizing acid-rich effluents of fermen-
tative hydrogen production process as substrate for harnessing bioelectricity: An integrative
approach. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 35(8): 3440–3449.
Mohanakrishna G, Venkata Mohan S, and Sarma PN. 2010b. Bio-electrochemical treatment of dis-
tillery wastewater in microbial fuel cell facilitating decolorization and desalination along with
power generation. Journal of Hazardous Materials 177: 487–494.
Mohanakrishna G, Subhash GV, and Venkata Mohan S. 2011. Adaptation of biohydrogen reactor to
higher substrate load: Redox controlled process integration strategy to overcome limitations.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 36: 8943–8952.
Mohanakrishna G, and Venkata Mohan S. 2013. Multiple process integrations for broad perspective
analysis of fermentative H2 production from wastewater treatment: Technical and environmen-
tal considerations. Applied Energy 107: 244–254.
Mojiri A, Aziz HA, Zaman NQ, Aziz SQ, and Zahed MA. 2014. Powdered ZELIAC augmented
sequencing batch reactors (SBR) process for co-treatment of landfill leachate and domestic
wastewater. Journal of Environmental Management 139: 1–14.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Mulder A, Van De Graaf AA, Robertson LA, and Kuenen JG. 1995. Anaerobic ammonium oxidation
discovered in a denitrifying fluidized bed reactor. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 16(3): 177–184.
Mussoline W, Esposito G, Lens P, Garuti G, and Giordano A. 2012. Design considerations for a farm-
scale biogas plant based on pilot-scale anaerobic digesters loaded with rice straw and piggery
wastewater. Biomass and Bioenergy 46: 469–478.
Newby DT, Gentry TJ, and Pepper IL. 2000. Comparison of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid degra-
dation and plasmid transfer in soil resulting from bioaugmentation with two different pJP4
donors. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 66(8): 3399–3407.
Odegaard H. 2006. Innovations in wastewater treatment: The moving bed biofilm process. Water
Science and Technology 53(9): 17–33.
Ortiz I, Revah S, and Auria R. 2003. Effects of packing material on the biofiltration of benzene, tolu-
ene and xylene vapours. Environmental Technology 24(3): 265–275.
Pant D and Adholeya A. 2007. Biological approaches for treatment of distillery wastewater: A review.
Bioresource Technology 98: 2321–2334.
Pant D and Adholeya A. 2009. Concentration of fungal ligninolytic enzymes produced during
solid-state fermentation by ultrafiltration. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 25:
1793–1800.
Pant D and Adholeya A. 2010. Development of a novel fungal consortium for the treatment of molas-
ses distillery wastewater. The Environmentalist 30: 178–182.
Pant D, Arslan D, Van Bogaert G, Alvarez Gallego Y, De Wever H, Diels L, and Vanbroekhoven K.
2013. Integrated conversion of food waste diluted with sewage into volatile fatty acids
through fermentation and electricity through a fuel cell. Environmental Technology 34(13–14):
1935–1945.
Pant D, Singh A, Van Bogaert G, Olsen SI, Nigam PS, Diels L, and Vanbroekhoven K. 2012.
Bioelectrochemical systems (BES) for sustainable energy production and product recovery
from organic wastes and industrial wastewaters. RSC Advances 2:1248–1263.
Pant D, Van Bogaert G, Diels L, and Vanbroekhoven K. 2010. A review of the substrates used in
microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for sustainable energy production. Bioresource Technology 101(6):
1533–1543.
Puay N-Q, Qiu G, and Ting Y-P. 2015. Effect of ZnO nanoparticles on biological wastewater treatment
in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR). Journal of Cleaner Production 88: 139–145.
Qasim SR. 1999. Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Design and Operation. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Qiu G, Song Y-H, Zeng P, Duan L, and Xiao S. 2013. Characterization of bacterial communities in
hybrid upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)-membrane bioreactor (MBR) process for ber-
berine antibiotic wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology 142: 52–62.
Qu X, Alvarez PJJ, and Li Q. 2013. Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treat-
ment. Water Research 47: 3931–3946.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 181

Rabaey K and Rozendal R. 2010. Microbial electrosynthesis—Revisiting the electrical route for micro-
bial production. Nature Reviews Microbiology 8: 706–716.
Rajeshwari KV, Balakrishnan M, Kansal A, Lata K, and Kishore VVN. 2000. State-of-the-art of anaero-
bic digestion technology for industrial wastewater treatment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 4(2): 135–156.
Reddy MV and Venkata Mohan S. 2012. Influence of aerobic and anoxic microenvironments on poly-
hydroxyalkanoates (PHA) production from food waste and acidogenic effluents using aerobic
consortia. Bioresource Technology 103(1): 313–321.
Rismani-Yazdi H, Carver SM, Christy AD, and Tuovinen OH. 2008. Cathodic limitations in microbial
fuel cells: An overview. Journal of Power Sources 180(2): 683–694.
Rodrigo JS, Benedict JC, Okeke BFM, Teixeira AS, Peralba MCR, and Flavio AOC. 2008. Microbial con-
sortium bioaugmentation of a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contaminated soil. Bioresource
Technology 99: 2637–2643.
Rodríguez DC, Pino N, and Peñuela G. 2011. Monitoring the removal of nitrogen by applying a
nitrification-denitrification process in a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR). Bioresource Technology
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

102(3): 2316–2321.
Rojas-Avelizapa NG, Martinez-Cruz J, Zermeno-Eguia Lis JA, and Rodriguez-Vazquez R. 2003.
Levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in Mexican soils and their biodegradation using bioaug-
mentation. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology 70(1): 0063–0070.
Shailaja S, Ramakrishna M, Venkata Mohan S, and Sarma PN. 2007. Biodegradation of di-n-
butyl phthalate (DnBP) in bioaugmented bioslurry phase reactor. Bioresource Technology 98:
1561–1566.
Sharghi EA, Bonakdarpour B, and Pakzadeh M. 2014. Treatment of hypersaline produced water
employing a moderately halophilic bacterial consortium in a membrane bioreactor: Effect of
salt concentration on organic removal performance, mixed liquor characteristics and mem-
brane fouling. Bioresource Technology 164: 203–213.
Shehzadi M, Afzal M, Khan MU, Islam E, Mobin A, Anwar S, and Khan QM. 2014. Enhanced deg-
radation of textile effluent in constructed wetland system using Typha domingensis and textile
effluent-degrading endophytic bacteria. Water Research 58: 152–159.
Sheng G-P, Yu H-Q, and Cui H. 2008. Model-evaluation of the erosion behavior of activated sludge
under shear conditions using a chemical-equilibrium-based model. Chemical Engineering Journal
140(1–3): 241–246.
Shore JL, M’Coy WS, Gunsch CK, and Deshusses MA. 2012. Application of a moving bed biofilm
reactor for tertiary ammonia treatment in high temperature industrial wastewater. Bioresource
Technology 112: 51–60.
Singh L, Siddiqui MF, Ahmad A, Rahim MHA, Sakinah M, and Wahid ZA. 2013. Application of
polyethylene glycol immobilized Clostridium sp. LS2 for continuous hydrogen production
from palm oil mill effluent in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Biochemical Engineering
Journal 70: 158–165.
Song J and Kinney KA. 2000. Effect of vapor-phase bioreactor operation on biomass accumulation,
distribution, and activity: Linking biofilm properties to bioreactor performance. Biotechnology
and Bioengineering 68(5): 508–516.
Speece RE. 1983. Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial wastewater treatment. Environmental Science
and Technology 17(9): 416A–427A.
Sperling M and Chernicharo CA. 2005. Biological Wastewater Treatment in Warm Climate Regions. IWA
Publishing, London.
Sridevi K, Sivaraman E, and Mullai P. 2014. Back propagation neural network modelling of biodeg-
radation and fermentative biohydrogen production using distillery wastewater in a hybrid
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Bioresource Technology 165: 233–240.
Srikanth S, Reddy MV, and Venkata Mohan S. 2012. Microaerophilic microenvironment at biocath-
ode enhances electrogenesis with simultaneous synthesis of polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) in
bioelectrochemical system (BES). Bioresource Technology 125: 291–299.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 182 Environmental Waste Management

Srikanth S and Venkata Mohan S. 2012. Change in electrogenic activity of the microbial fuel cell
(MFC) with the function of biocathode microenvironment as terminal electron accepting condi-
tion: Influence on overpotentials and bio-electro kinetics. Bioresource Technology 119: 241–251.
Srikanth S, Venkata Mohan S, Prathima Devi M, Peri D, and Sarma PN. 2009. Acetate and butyrate
as substrates for hydrogen production through photo-fermentation: Process optimization and
combined performance evaluation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34(17): 7513–7522.
Stephenson D and Stephenson T. 1992. Bioaugmentation for enhancing biological wastewater treat-
ment. Biotechnology Advances 10: 549–559.
Subramanian B and Pagilla KR. 2014. Anaerobic digester foaming in full-scale cylindrical digest-
ers—Effects of organic loading rate, feed characteristics, and mixing. Bioresource Technology 159:
182–192.
Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, and Stensel HD. 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse.
McGraw-Hill Education, New York.
Thassitou PK and Arvanitoyannis IS. 2001. Bioremediation: A novel approach to food waste manage-
ment. Trends in Food Science and Technology 12: 185–196.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Tiwari MK, Guha S, Harendranath CS, and Tripathi S. 2006. Influence of extrinsic factors on granula-
tion in UASB reactor. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 71(2): 145–154.
Torkian A, Eqbali A, and Hashemian S. 2003. The effect of organic loading rate on the performance of
UASB reactor treating slaughterhouse effluent. Resources Conservation and Recycling 40(1): 1–11.
Torres CI. 2014. On the importance of identifying, characterizing, and predicting fundamental phe-
nomena towards microbial electrochemistry applications. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 27:
107–114.
Turovskiy IS and Mathai PK. 2006. Wastewater Sludge Processing.Wiley, New York.
Ueno Y, Otsuka S, and Morimoto M. 1996. Hydrogen production from industrial wastewater by
anaerobic microflora in chemostat culture. Journal of Fermentation and Bioengineering 82(2):
194–197.
van der Star WRL, Abma WR, Blommers D, Mulder JW, Tokutomi T, Strous M, Picioreanu C, and Van
Loosdrecht MCM. 2007. Startup of reactors for anoxic ammonium oxidation: Experiences from
the first full-scale anammox reactor in Rotterdam. Water Research 41: 4149–4163.
Van Limbergen H, Top EM, and Verstreete W. 1998. Bioaugmentation in activated sludge: Current
features and future perspectives. Applied Microbiology Biotechnology 50:16–23.
Venkata Mohan S, Mohanakrishna G, and Sarma PN. 2008a. Integration of acidogenic and metha-
nogenic processes for simultaneous production of biohydrogen and methane from wastewater
treatment. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33: 2156–2166.
Venkata Mohan S, Mohanakrishna G, Ramanaiah SV, and Sarma PN. 2008b. Simultaneous biohy-
drogen production and wastewater treatment in biofilm configured anaerobic periodic discon-
tinuous batch reactor using distillery wastewater. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33(2):
550–558.
Venkata Mohan S, Mohanakrishna G, and Chiranjeevi P. 2011. Sustainable power generation from
floating macrophytes based ecological microenvironment through embedded fuel cell along
with simultaneous wastewater treatment. Bioresource Technology 102: 7036–7042.
Venkata Mohan S and Srikanth S. 2011. Enhanced wastewater treatment efficiency through micro-
bial catalyzed oxidation and reduction: Synergistic effect of biocathode microenvironment.
Bioresource Technology 102: 10210–10220.
Venkata Mohan S, Babu PS, and Srikanth S. 2013a. Azo dye remediation in periodic discontinuous
batch mode operation: Evaluation of metabolic shifts of the biocatalyst under aerobic, anaero-
bic and anoxic conditions. Separation and Purification Technology 118: 196–208.
Venkata Mohan S, Chandrasekhara Rao N, Prasad KK, and Sarma PN. 2005. Bioaugmentation of
anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactor (ASBBR) with immobilized sulphate reducing bacte-
ria (SRB) for treating sulphate bearing chemical wastewater. Process Biochemistry 40: 2849–2857.
Venkata Mohan S, Falkentoft CY, Nancharaiah V, Belinda S, Sturm MS, Wattiau P, Wilderer PA et al.
2009. Bioaugmentation of microbial communities in laboratory and pilot scale sequencing
batch biofilm reactors using the TOL plasmid. Bioresource Technology 100: 1746–1753.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

 The Role of Bioreactors in Industrial Wastewater Treatment 183

Venkata Mohan S, Mohanakrishna G, Chiranjeevi P, Peri D, and Sarma PN. 2010. Ecologically engi-
neered system (EES) designed to integrate floating, emergent and submerged macrophytes for
the treatment of domestic sewage and acid rich fermented-distillery wastewater: Evaluation of
long term performance. Bioresource Technology 101(10): 3363–3370.
Venkata Mohan S, Mohanakrishna G, Veer Raghavulu S, and Sarma PN. 2007. Enhancing biohydro-
gen production from chemical wastewater treatment in anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm
reactor (AnSBBR) by bioaugmenting with selectively enriched kanamycin resistant anaerobic
mixed consortia. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32: 3284–3292.
Venkata Mohan S, Srikanth S, Velvizhi G, and Babu ML. 2013b. Microbial fuel cells for sustainable
bioenergy generation: Principles and perspective applications (Chapter 11). In: Gupta VK and
Tuohy MG (Eds.), Biofuel Technologies: Recent Developments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
Vlyssides A, Barampouti E, and Mai S. 2009. Influence of ferrous iron on the granularity of a UASB
reactor. Chemical Engineering Journal 146(1): 49–56.
Vlyssides A, Barampouti EM, and Mai S. 2008. Granulation mechanism of a UASB reactor supple-
mented with iron. Anaerobe 14(5), 275–279.
Downloaded by [Deepak PANT] at 15:56 02 October 2015

Vogel TM. 1996. Bioaugmentation as a soil bioremediation approach. Current Opinion in Biotechnology
7:311–316.
Vymazal J. 2007. Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Science of the Total
Environment 380: 48–65.
Vymazal J. 2009. The use constructed wetlands with horizontal sub-surface flow for various types of
wastewater. Ecological Engineering 35: 1–17.
Vymazal J. 2013. The use of hybrid constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment with special atten-
tion to nitrogen removal: A review of a recent development. Water Research 47(14): 4795–4811.
Wilderer PA, Rubio MA, and Davids L. 1991. Impact of the addition of pure cultures on the perfor-
mance of mixed culture reactor. Water Research 25: 1307–1313.
Wilk IJ, Altmann RS, and Berg JD. 1987. Antimicrobial activity of electrolyzed saline solutions. Science
of Total Environment 63: 191–197.
Wu YC and Chen JS. 2011. Toward the identification of EMG-signal and its bio-feedback application.
International Journal of Mechatronics and Automation 1(2): 112–120.
Zhou M, Chi M, Luo J, He H, and Jin T. 2011. An overview of electrode materials in microbial fuel
cells. Journal of Power Sources 196(10): 4427–4435.

© 2016 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

View publication stats