1 A new method to calculate the periodic steady state of sequencing batch reactors for

2 biological wastewater treatment: model development and applications

3 Davide Dionisi, *1 Adamu A. Rasheed,1 Aniruddha Majumder1

4 Abstract

5 This paper describes a new mathematical procedure to calculate the periodic steady state of

6 the sequencing batch reactor (SBR). This new procedure allows the direct calculation of the

7 steady state profiles of biomass and substrate in the SBR without calculating the dynamics of

8 the system from start up to steady state. The procedure is based on the mass balances of

9 biomass (𝑋) and substrate (𝑆) and the steady state profiles are obtained by imposing the

10 condition that the integrals of dX and dS over a complete cycle are both equal to 0. The results

11 obtained by the proposed technique are compared against the steady state results obtained

12 by dynamic simulation. The numerical accuracy of the procedure is discussed and the

13 procedure is applied to show the effect of the operating parameters (solids residence time

14 (SRT), hydraulic residence time (HRT), length of the phases and number of cycles) on the

15 steady state biomass and substrate concentrations. We show how the model can be used for

16 various applications like: optimisation of operating parameters for a minimum reactor

17 volume; simulation of the competition between filamentous and floc-forming bacteria for

18 bulking control; calculation of the minimum volumetric mass transfer coefficient required to

19 maintain a desired oxygen concentration. It is hoped that the procedure described in this

20 paper will facilitate the use of mathematical models for the design of SBR’s. Of course, it will

21 be the responsibility of the users of this new method to use it with the appropriate kinetic

22 model and parameter values.

23

1
24 1 Materials and Chemical Engineering group, School of Engineering, University of Aberdeen,

25 Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, UK

26 * Email: davidedionisi@abdn.ac.uk, phone: +44 (0) 1224 272814

27 Keywords: Sequencing batch reactors, simulation, steady state, optimisation

2
28 1. Introduction

29 How can we calculate the steady state of a sequencing batch reactor (SBR)? And what does

30 the term “steady state” mean for a SBR? For a continuous-flow chemical reactor, e.g.

31 continuously stirred tank reactor (CSTR) or plug flow reactor (PFR), assuming that the kinetic

32 model and the model parameters are known, the steady state can be calculated quite simply

33 by solving the steady state mass balances for the reactants and products. The same approach

34 can be used to calculate the steady state for continuous-flow processes for biological

35 wastewater treatment, e.g. the activated sludge process. However, calculation of the steady

36 state of SBR’s present peculiar challenges due to the operation mode of this reactor and this

37 will be the focus of this paper.

38 The SBR is a biological process designed to treat a wide range of domestic and industrial

39 wastewaters [1] and is an interesting alternative to the conventional activated sludge process

40 due to its relatively low cost and small footprints. The SBR offers flexibility, efficiency,

41 reliability and the capacity of producing high quality effluent [2-5]. In conventional activated

42 sludge systems, biological reactions and solid-liquid separations are carried out

43 simultaneously in a spatial sequence [6] whereas in SBRs both biological reactions and sludge

44 settling take place in the same tank but in a time sequence [1]. SBR is characterised by a cyclic

45 operation and each cycle is made of a sequence of phases that typically includes the following:

46 filling with the feed stream, reaction, settling and effluent withdrawal. Therefore, the SBR is

47 a continuous process without having a continuous inlet and outlet flow. It follows that the

48 profiles of biomass and substrate in a SBR will be time dependent because biomass and

49 substrate concentration will change within a cycle. However, a periodic steady state of the

50 SBR can be defined as the state when the profiles of biomass and substrate concentration do

51 not change for successive cycles. At the periodic steady state the biomass and substrate

3
52 concentration at a given time of the cycle, e.g. at the start or at the end of the reaction phase,

53 will be the same for each successive cycle.

54 In order to design a biological wastewater treatment process carried out in SBR, it is important

55 to be able to determine the periodic state of the reactor as a function of its operating

56 parameters, e.g. hydraulic residence time (HRT), solids residence time (SRT), length of the

57 phases, etc. In this way it would be possible to evaluate the effect of the choice of the

58 operating parameters of the reactor on the process performance in terms, e.g. of removal of

59 COD, nitrogen, biomass concentration. This would allow in turn to choose the operating

60 parameters in order to achieve the desired performance. This is particularly important if we

61 consider that the SBR has more degrees of freedom, i.e. design parameters, than a

62 conventional activated sludge process [7]. In a conventional activated sludge process for

63 carbon removal only, composed of reactor tank and of settling tank, there are only three

64 degrees of freedom, i.e. the reactor volume, the recycle flow rate and the waste sludge flow

65 rate. On the other hand, in a SBR for carbon removal there are many degrees of freedom,

66 such as the lengths of the various phases (the length of each phase represents one degree of

67 freedom), the number of cycles, the reactor volume and the waste sludge flow rate. Therefore

68 in the design of a SBR process there are more design parameters which have to be chosen by

69 the designer of the process. In order to do this design calculation, the first requirement is a

70 kinetic model of the biological process, with values of the kinetic parameters. Once the model

71 and the model parameters are available, the second requirement is a procedure to calculate

72 the periodic steady state of the SBR. This paper addresses this second need.

73 Considerable research effort has been put in the development of kinetic models for biological

74 wastewater treatment process in the last few decades [8-12]. In spite of this, however, and

4
75 in spite of the fact that the SBR has been used at full scale for many decades, no procedure

76 has been published which allows the use of the models to calculate the periodic steady state

77 of the SBR (an early approximate attempt to the calculation of the periodic steady state has

78 been however reported by Irvine et al. [13]). Usually, simulation of SBRs’ is carried out by

79 solving the differential equations that describe substrate and biomass (and possibly other

80 components) concentrations over time [4, 14-19]. This procedure is essentially the one that

81 is used by the commercial or academic software which simulates SBR processes. Using this

82 procedure, which we will call the dynamic procedure, the substrate and biomass profiles over

83 time from the start-up to the periodic steady state can be calculated. However, using the

84 dynamic procedure for the calculation of the periodic steady state of the SBR presents two

85 main problems. The first problem is that this procedure requires the simulation of all the SBR

86 cycles from the start-up to the final steady state. If the only aim is to calculate the steady state

87 of the SBR, this procedure generates a lot of unnecessary data and can require unnecessarily

88 lengthy simulations (note that, however, simulation of the transient conditions is required for

89 particular cases, such as presence of inhibitory substances, but this case is not considered in

90 this paper). This is particularly true considering that the dynamics of biological wastewater

91 treatment plant is slow and typically many days or weeks are required before steady state is

92 reached. In the calculation of steady state for the CSTR or for the continuous-flow activated

93 sludge process, we don’t expect and don’t need to simulate all the transient profiles. The

94 second problem in using the dynamic procedure to calculate the steady state is that this

95 procedure cannot be implemented in general use software such as Microsoft Excel and

96 therefore requires more advanced computational software such as MATLAB or others that

97 might not necessarily be easily accessible.

5
 98 Therefore, this study is aimed to develop a new mathematical procedure to calculate the

99 periodic steady state conditions (e.g. biomass and substrate concentrations) of SBRs without

100 calculating the transient dynamic profiles. This procedure can be implemented in general use

101 software such as Microsoft Excel. This paper is structured as follows:

102 - Section 2 describes the development of the new method, showing the relevant mass

103 balances and describes the solution method used and Section 3 discusses the numerical

104 accuracy of the method;

105 - Section 4 shows how this method allows the calculation of the effect of the main operating

106 parameters of the process on the periodic steady state. In particular, the effect of SRT, HRT,

107 length of the fill (feed) and reaction phases and number of cycles is calculated;

108 - Section 5 compares the results of this new method with the conventional dynamic

109 simulation method;

110 - Finally, Section 6 shows how the developed method can be used for various SBR design

111 applications like optimisation of the reaction volume, optimisation of the length of the feed

112 to minimise the occurrence of filamentous bulking, calculation of the minimum oxygen mass

113 transfer coefficient that is required to maintain a desired oxygen concentration.

6
114 2. Development of the procedure
115 2.1. Basic assumptions and kinetic model

116 The procedure to calculate the periodic steady state of the SBR developed here can be applied

117 to any sequence of phases and with any kinetic model for the biological reactions. For

118 argument’s sake and in order to reduce the number of equations and to simplify the

119 mathematical models, in this paper we have made the assumptions summarised in this

120 section and listed below. These assumptions are often made in the investigation of SBR

121 processes [1]:

122 - The sequence of phases in the SBR is assumed to be the following: fill (with reaction),

123 react, sludge withdrawal, settle, and effluent withdrawal. This sequence of phases is

124 shown in Figure 1;

125 - The reactor is completely mixed during all phases except for settle and effluent

126 withdrawal;

127 - The system operates at constant temperature and pH and the kinetic parameters are

128 constant during the cycle;

129 - There is no biomass loss during the effluent withdrawal phase (ideal settling);

130 - There are no biological reactions taking place during the settle and effluent

131 withdrawal periods.

132 As an example in this paper we have used a standard model of biological wastewater

133 treatment processes which includes the following phenomena: hydrolysis of slowly

134 biodegradable substrates, growth on soluble substrates, endogenous metabolism.

135 Endogenous metabolism is assumed to convert the biomass to carbon dioxide only, with no

136 production of inert materials. The model has been adapted from widely used models used to

137 describe biological reactions in wastewater treatment plants [20], however it is responsibility

7
138 of the user of this procedure to use the model that better fits their particular circumstances.

139 The rate equations are also based on standard activated sludge models and are shown below:

XS
 kg COD  X
140 rhydr  3   k h X (rate of hydrolysis of slowly biodegradable substrate)
 m  day  X
KX  S
X

 kg biomass   max S
141 rX    X (rate of biomass growth)
 m  s  KS  S
3

 kg biomass 
142 rend    bX (rate of endogenous metabolism)
 m 3
 day 

 kg COD   S X
143 rS  3    max  (rate of substrate removal)
 m s  KS  S Y

144 The meaning of all the parameters and variables is given in the Nomenclature section. The

145 values of the parameters used in all the simulations are shown in Table 1. The values have

146 been chosen as typical values for activated sludge systems [20], however they are used only

147 as an example, and they are not meant to be representative of any particular wastewater.

148 2.2 Mass balances

149 The development of the procedure is first shown for the case of only readily biodegradable

150 substrates in the feed, and will then be extended to slowly biodegradable substrates.

151 2.2.1 Biomass balance in SBR

152 The general mass balance for the biomass during a generic SBR cycle is shown below:

 rX  rend V
d (VX )
153 Fill, Re act ,W
 QW X W
(1)
dt

154 where the notation f ( x) Name of the phase( s ) means that the function f(x) is nonzero only during the

155 specified phase(s) and equal to 0 during the rest of the cycle. So, e.g. rX  rend V Fill, Re act ,W

156 means that the function rX  rend V is nonzero during the fill, react and sludge withdrawal
8
157 phases and equal to 0 during the rest of the cycle. Similarly, the term QW X W is nonzero only

158 during the sludge withdrawal phase and equal to 0 during the rest of the cycle. This notation

159 is used consistently throughout this paper.

160 In this paper we use the convention that all the flow rates indicate the actual flow rates of the

161 pumps during the corresponding phases and not the average daily flow rates. e.g., 𝑄𝑊

162 represents the actual flow rate with which the sludge is withdrawn from the vessel during

163 each sludge withdrawal phase.

164 Expanding the biomass balance:

 rX  rend V
dX dV
165 V X Fill, Re act ,W
 QW X W
(2)
dt dt

dV
166 Considering that:  Q fill  Qeff  Qw W
(3)
dt Fill Eff

167 Combining equations (2) and (3)

168 V
dX
dt

 X Q fill
Fill
 Qeff
Efr

 Qw W  rX  rend V Fill, Re act ,W
 QW X W
(4)

169 Rearranging equation (4) we obtain

XQ fill XQeff
 rX  rend  Fill,Re act ,W 
dX
170  (5)
dt V Fill
V Eff

171 We introduce the hydraulic retention time, HRT, and the solids retention time, SRT, defined

172 as follows:

V full
173 HRT  (6)
Q fillt fill No cycles

9
 V full X V full
174 SRT   (7)
Qw Xt w No cycles Qw t w No cycles

175 The biomass concentration used in the definition of SRT, for both the numerator and

176 denominator of equation (7), is taken during the sludge withdrawal phase, so it can be

177 simplified, as done in equation (7). Note that the definition of SRT used in this paper is slightly

178 different from the definition of SRT used in other studies [1] in that the SRT refers to the total

179 cycle and not only to the fraction of the cycle where biological reaction occurs. This choice

180 has been done to simplify the notation in the subsequent formulas and has no effect on the

181 results, since each definition of SRT can be immediately converted into the other one.

182 We can express Qfill and QW as follows:

V full
183 Q fill  (8)
HRT  t fill  N ocycles

V full
184 Qw  (9)
SRT  tw  No cycles

185 Since the overall balance of water in a cycle is:

186 Qeff t eff Nocycles  Q fillt fill Nocycles  Qwt w Nocycles (10)

187 We obtain:

Q fillt fill  Qw t w V full  1 1 

188 Qeff      (11)
t eff Nocycles t eff  HRT SRT 

189 The final expression for the biomass concentration during a cycle is obtained as:

 1 1 
 rX  rend  Fill, Re act ,W 
190 dX X 1 X 1 (12)
   
dt V HRT  t fill Nocycles V Nocycles  t eff  HRT SRT 
V full V full
Fill Eff

10
191 This equation describes the change in biomass concentration over the length of the SBR cycle.

192 Note that biomass concentration changes during the fill react and sludge withdrawal phases

193 due to the growth and endogenous metabolism reactions. Biomass concentration decreases

194 during the fill phase due to dilution and increases during the effluent withdrawal phase due

195 to the removal of the clarified effluent. Note that with this notation biomass concentration

196 does not change during settling because biomass concentration is referred to the total

197 volume of the liquid phase.

198 The steady state of the SBR is obtained when over a complete cycle the concentration of

199 biomass does not change, i.e.

200  dX  0
cycle
(13)

201 This equation means that the SBR reaches the steady state (periodic steady state) when the

202 algebraic sum of all the changes of biomass concentration over a cycle is equal to 0. This

203 ensures that biomass concentration at any given time of the cycle does not change between

204 consecutive cycles, i.e. the periodic steady state is reached.

205 By combining equation (12) and (13):

 
  1 1  
rX  rend  
X 1 X 1
206

cycle 
V HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
  
Nocycles  t eff  HRT SRT 
 dt  0

(14)
 V full V full
Fill Eff 


207 The function 𝑋(𝑡) that satisfies equation (14) is the biomass profile at the periodic steady

208 state of the SBR. Equation 14 needs to be solved together with the equations for the substrate

209 and for the ratio V / V full which are derived in the next sections.

210

11
211 2.2.2 Substrate balance in the SBR

212 The equation for the substrate concentration at the periodic steady-state can be obtained

213 with the same procedure already described for the biomass concentration. The mass balance

214 for the substrate during a SBR cycle is shown below:

d (VS )
215  rS V Fill, Re act ,W
 Q fill S feed  Qeff S  QW S W (15)
dt Fill Eff

dS dV
216 V S  rS V Fill, Re act ,W
 Q fill S feed  Qeff S  QW S W (16)
dt dt Fill Eff

217
dS
 rS Fill, Re act ,W

Q fill
S feed  S (17)
dt V Fill

218 Substituting equation (8) into (17) yields:

dS 1 S feed  S 
219  rS  (18)
dt Fill, Re act ,W
HRT  t fill  Nocycles V
V full
Fill

220 This equation shows that substrate concentration changes during the fill, react and sludge

221 withdrawal phases due to the biological reactions and increases during the fill phase due to

222 addition of the feed.

223 Similarly as for the biomass concentration, the substrate concentration at the periodic steady

224 state is obtained when over a cycle the substrate concentration at any given time does not

225 change, i.e.:

226  dS  0
cycle
(19)

227 and this means that, combining equations (18) and (19):

12
  
 1 S feed  S  
228  rS
cycle 
Fill, Re act ,W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (20)
V full 
 Fill 

229 The substrate profile S(t) that satisfies equation (20) is the substrate profile at the periodic

230 steady state of the SBR. Equation (20) must be solved simultaneously to equation (14) and to

231 the equation for V / V full , which is derived in the next section.

232 2.2.3 Volume balance in the SBR

233 The change in volume over the SBR cycle has been derived above (equation (3)) and can be

234 rearranged as follows:

 
d V 
 V full  Q fill Qeff Qw
235    (21)
dt V full V full V full
Fill Eff W

236 Substituting equations (8, 9 and 11) into equation (21), we obtain:

 
d V 
 V  1 1  1 1  1
    (22)
full
237 
dt HRT  t fill Nocycles Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT  SRT  tW  Nocycles W
Fill Eff

238 Equation (22) describes the change in volume during the SBR cycle and must be solved

239 together with equations (14) and (20).

240 2.2.4 Model summary

241 In summary, the steady state conditions can be determined by calculating the values of

242 substrate concentration 𝑆(𝑡) and biomass concentration 𝑋(𝑡) that satisfy the biomass and

243 substrate balances and the volume equation, i.e., equations (14), (20) and (22) which are

244 summarised below:

13
  
  1 1  
rX  rend  Fill, Re act ,W  V
245 X 1 X 1 (14)

cycle 
HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
   dt  0
Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT  
V full V full
 Fill W

 
 1 S feed  S  
246  rS
cycle 
Fill, Re act ,W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (20)
V full 
 Fill 

 
d V 
247  V full   1 1  1 1  1 (22)
    
dt HRT  t fill Nocycles Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT  SRT  tW  Nocycles W
Fill Eff

248 2.2.5 Extension to slowly biodegradable substrates

249 The model can be easily extended to slowly biodegradable substrates (𝑋𝑆 ). In the simulations

250 with slowly biodegradable substrates, we have assumed for simplicity, that the feed is only

251 composed of slowly biodegradable substrates, with no readily biodegradable substrates

252 (which are then formed by the hydrolysis of the slowly biodegradable ones). If slowly

253 biodegradable substrates are present, the mass balance for 𝑋𝑆 has to be introduced, based

254 on the hydrolysis kinetics as shown below:

255 The biomass balance of biomass remains the same as in the case of a readily biodegradable

256 substrate. This is because biomass growth only occurs on readily substrates produced as a

257 result of the hydrolysis.

258 Biomass balance

 
259   1 1   (14)
rX  rend  Fill Re act W  V
X 1 X 1

cycle  HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
  
Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT 
 dt  0
V full V full 
 Fill Eff 

260

261

262

14
263 Balance of slowly biodegradable substrate

 
 1 X Sfeed  X S  
264  rhydr
cycle 
Fill Re act W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (23)
V full 
 Fill 

265 Balance of readily biodegradable substrate

 
 
rS  rhydr  Fill Re act W  HRT  t  Nocycles V
1 S
266 
cycle 
dt  0 (24)
fill
V full 
 Fill 

267 The model shows that the concentration of slowly biodegradable substrates decreases due

268 to hydrolysis and increases during the feed. Readily biodegradable substrate is formed from

269 the hydrolysis of the slowly biodegradable substrate and is removed due to microbial growth.

270 Also, the concentration of readily biodegradable substrate decreases during the feed due to

271 dilution. The equation for the volume is the same as shown previously in (22).

272 So in the case of slowly biodegradable substrates in the feed, a system of four equations (14,

273 22, 23, 24) must be solved to calculate the periodic steady state of the SBR.

274 2.3 Solution of the steady state equations

275 Equation (14), (20) and (22), for the case of readily biodegradable substrates only in the feed,

276 and (14), (22), (23) and (24) for slowly biodegradable substrates, have been solved

277 numerically using Microsoft Excel. The solution procedure is summarised below:

278 1. The length of one cycle was first discretised into small time intervals 𝑑𝑡. We assumed

279 time 0 to coincide with the start of the feed;

280 2. Initial values for 𝑆, 𝑋, 𝑋𝑆 (when used) and 𝑉/𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 were assigned. Initial values for

281 𝑆, 𝑋, 𝑋𝑆 were chosen arbitrarily and their values corresponding to the periodic steady

15
282 state will be calculated later. The initial value for the 𝑉/𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 ratio was calculated from

283 the volume of feed which was added in each cycle, according to the chosen values of

284 the operating parameters;

 
d V 
 V full 
285 3. The time derivative was calculated at each time interval using equation
dt

286 (22);

287 4. The variable V over the length of the cycle was calculated by integrating equation
V full

 V 
 d 
288 (22). Integration was carried out using the formula:  V   V 
     V full  
dt
V  V   dt 
 full  t  dt  full t  
 t

289 ;

290 5. The values of the reaction rates rX , rend , rS , rhydr were calculated at each time interval

291 using their definitions;

292 6. The values 𝑋, 𝑆 (and when necessary 𝑋𝑆 ) were calculated over the length of the cycle

293 by integrating their respective differential equations (14), (22) (and when necessary

294 the corresponding equations which include 𝑋𝑆 , section 2.2.4). The integrals were

295 calculated in the same way as the integral of the volume equation, e.g.

296  X t  dt   X t   dX  dt .
 dt  t

297 The procedure described so far allows for the calculation of the time profiles 𝑋(𝑡), 𝑆(𝑡) for a

298 given set of arbitrary initial conditions. However the profiles calculated in this way will not be

299 the steady state profiles, because the steady state conditions, equations (13) and (19), will

300 not be satisfied. In order to impose the steady state conditions (13) and (19) and therefore to

16
301 calculate the steady state profiles of biomass and substrate, the following procedure was

302 used:

303 7. Each integral (  dS  0 and  dX  0 ) was calculated by adding up all the individual
cycle cycle

304 𝑑𝑋 and 𝑑𝑆 contributions calculated at points 1-6 above;

305 8. The Solver function in Excel was used to calculate the value of the initial conditions for

306 𝑆 and 𝑋 that satisfies the steady state conditions (13) and (19) (or the equivalent set

307 of equations for slowly biodegradable substrates). The profiles of 𝑋 and 𝑆 (and when

308 necessary 𝑋𝑆 ) obtained in this way represent the profiles of these variables at the

309 periodic steady state of the SBR.

310 2.4. Possible extensions of the model

311 In the previous sections we have developed the equations that give substrate and biomass

312 steady-state profiles with a typical sequence of phases under fully aerobic conditions.

313 However, the model can be easily applied to any substance (e.g. nitrogen or phosphorus), any

314 type of SBR and any metabolism, if rate equations for the relevant species are available. For

315 example, we can easily add the equation that gives the steady-state ammonia profile in a fully

316 aerobic SBR, assuming that nitrogen removal only occurs due to biomass growth (ignoring

317 nitrification) and assuming that ammonia is the only nitrogen source in the medium. The

318 equation for the ammonia profile in this case is:

 
 1 NH 3 feed  NH 3  
319  rNH 3
cycle 
Fill, Re act ,W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (25)
V full 
 Fill 

320 where rNH3 is the rate of ammonia removal, expressed, e.g., as kgN-NH3/m3.day, which is given

321 by:

17
322 rNH 3  rX  rend   0.12 (26)

323 In equation (26) we are assuming that nitrogen is only removed due to biomass growth and

324 generated due to the endogenous metabolism of the biomass. The factor 0.12 (units kg N/kg

325 biomass) derives from an assumed biomass empirical formula C5H7O2N. Equation (25) can be

326 solved together with equations (14), (20) and (22) to give the ammonia profile during the

327 cycle.

328 The model can also be easily extended to consider nitrogen removal due to nitrification and

329 denitrification, assuming appropriate kinetics for these processes, and adjusting the sequence

330 of phases in the cycle appropriately. For example, for typical nitrification and denitrification

331 cycles the sequence of phases is: anoxic fill, anoxic react, aerobic react, sludge withdrawal

332 (aerobic), settle and effluent withdrawal.

333 Another possible extension of the model is the case of “static feed” (or “static fill”). In this

334 case there is no mixing and no aeration during the feed. This means that, ideally, there is no

335 biological reaction taking place during the feed and when the mixing and aeration are

336 switched on at the start of the react phase the substrate is still present at or close to its

337 maximum possible concentration [1, 21]. Note that in this paper we are only considering

338 aerobic substrate metabolism and we are not considering phosphorus metabolism that

339 occurs in the anaerobic phase of enhanced phosphorus removal processes. If this metabolism

340 occurs, as reported in several papers (e.g. [22,23]), then substrate removal also occurs during

341 the anaerobic feed and the model developed in this section needs to be adapted accordingly.

342 Similarly, we are not considering the process of denitrification here (as discussed above),

343 which also leads to substrate removal in the absence of aeration. A static feed is particularly

344 useful when there is the need to control filamentous bulking by using substrate gradients but

345 it is not possible to have a very short feed. The model developed in this study can be easily

18
346 adapted to simulate a static feed, by assuming that there are no reactions during the feed.

347 Therefore, for a static feed with readily biodegradable substrates only in the feed the periodic

348 steady state equations for biomass and substrate are the following:

 
  1 1  
rX  rend  Re act ,W  V
349 X 1 X 1 (27)

cycle 
HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
   dt  0
Nocycles  t eff  HRT SRT  
V full V full
 Fill W 

 
 1 S feed  S  
350  rS
cycle 
Re act ,W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (28)
V full 
 Fill 

351 Equations (27) and (28) can be solved together with the equation (22) for the reactor volume

352 to obtain the desired substrate and biomass profiles at the periodic steady state. In equations

353 (27) and (28) the only difference with respect to equations (14) and (20) (feed with aeration

354 and reaction) is that there is no biomass growth and substrate removal during the feed. Note

355 that, for modelling purposes, we are assuming that the feed is perfectly mixed but that no

356 reactions take place, which is equivalent, in terms of the substrate and biomass concentration

357 at the end of the feed, to the real case of no mixing and no aeration during the feed.

358 The model can also be easily extended to consider the simultaneous presence of readily and

359 slowly biodegradable substrates in the feed. In this case, assuming the feed has a readily

360 biodegradable substrate concentration Sfeed and a slowly biodegradable substrate

361 concentration XSfeed the periodic steady state conditions for the readily and slowly

362 biodegradable substrates are the following:

 
 1 X Sfeed  X S  
363  rhydr
cycle 
Fill Re act W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (23)
V full 
 Fill 

19
  
 S feed  S  
rS  rhydr  Fill Re act W  HRT  t  Nocycles V
1
364 
cycle 
dt  0 (29)
fill
V full 
 Fill 

365 Equations (23) and (29) need to be solved together with equations (14) and (22) to obtain the

366 periodic steady state of the SBR.

367

368 3. Numerical accuracy

369 The choice of discretization step (𝑑𝑡) in solving differential equations has a significant effect

370 on the solution accuracy. The smaller the 𝑑𝑡, the higher the solution accuracy of the model

371 and vice versa. However, with a small 𝑑𝑡, the computational time will be longer. Therefore,

372 the first step in this procedure was to evaluate the effect of the discretization step 𝑑𝑡 (stage

373 1 of the solution procedure in section 2.3) on the accuracy of the numerical solution. This was

374 achieved by calculating values of 𝑋 and 𝑆 at different values of 𝑑𝑡 and comparing the obtained

375 profiles. In this case an arbitrary initial value was used for 𝑋 and 𝑆 and therefore the obtained

376 profile does not represent a steady state. Figure 2 shows the biomass concentration profiles

377 obtained at various discretization steps. The general shape of the biomass profile is as

378 expected: biomass concentration decreased during filling, due to dilution with the feed; then

379 increases for a short period of time due to removal of the substrate; then slightly decreases

380 during the rest of the reaction time due to endogenous metabolism; it is constant during

381 settling and increases during the effluent withdrawal phase, due to the removal of the

382 clarified effluent. It can be seen that the solutions were virtually the same for 𝑑𝑡 values

383 between 0.1 seconds and approximately 1 second. However, as the model was solved with

384 higher 𝑑𝑡 values, the solutions became far apart and hence less accurate. To ensure maximum

385 accuracy, in all the simulations in this paper a 𝑑𝑡 value of 0.5 second was used.

20
386 The second aspect related to numerical accuracy of the procedure was to examine how an

387 accurate solution of the steady state conditions, equations (13) and (19), could be obtained

388 with the adopted procedure. The steady state conditions require that both  dX and  dS
cycle cycle

389 are equal to 0. For given values of the SBR operating conditions and of the kinetic parameters,

390 the value of the two integrals depends only on the initial values of 𝑋 and 𝑆 at the start of the

391 cycle. Indeed, for given values of 𝑋 and 𝑆 at the start of the cycle, the profiles of X and S during

392 the cycle, and therefore the integrals of 𝑑𝑋 and 𝑑𝑆 over the full length of the cycle, are

393 calculated from the mass balances, equations (14) and (20). Figure 3 shows the effect of the

394 𝑋 and 𝑆 values at the start of the cycle on the sum of the squared integrals

 2
   
2
   
395    dX     dS   . This sum is equal to 0 only when both integrals  dX and  dS are
 cycle   cycle   cycle cycle

396 equal to 0 and so it can be used to identify the values of 𝑋 and 𝑆 at the start of the cycle that

397 give the periodic steady state. Figure 3 shows that if S at the start of the cycle is different

398 than 0 the sum of integrals will always be higher than 0, therefore the periodic steady state

399 is only possible if the substrate is entirely removed by the end of the cycle. Figure 2 also shows

400 that the biomass concentration at the start of the cycle that gives the steady state conditions

401 can be identified easily with the described procedure and it is, in this case, equal to

402 approximately 2.85 g/l.

21
403 4. Effect of the operating parameters on the steady state of the SBR

404 The aim of this section is to show how the developed procedure can be applied to the design

405 of SBR processes. Therefore, the procedure is now applied to calculate the effect of the

406 operating parameters on the periodic steady state of the SBR. In order to design a SBR

407 process, we have to assign values to a number of operating parameters which is equal to the

408 number of degrees of freedom of the process. The number of degrees of freedom of a process

409 is the total number of variables that describe that process minus the number of equations

410 that link those variables. For a SBR process such as the one simulated in this paper, the total

411 number of variables is 14, as evident from equations (1) - (20) developed in section 2:

412 𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 , 𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 , 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 , 𝑡𝑊 , 𝑄𝑤 , 𝑄𝑒𝑓𝑓 , 𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 , 𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 , 𝑋, 𝑆, 𝑉/𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙 , HRT, SRT, No cycles. The number of

413 equations that link these variables is 7: biomass balance (equation (1)), substrate balance (15),

414 volume equation (21), definitions of HRT and SRT (6, 7), the balance of the water in the reactor

415 (10), and the equation that states that the sum of the length of all the phases has to be equal

24 h
416 to the length of the cycle: t fill  t react  tW  t settle  t eff  . Therefore, in order to
No cycles

417 design an SBR process such as the one considered here we need to specify the values of 7

418 operating parameters. The operating parameters which we have fixed in this study are: HRT,

419 SRT, No cycles and the length of all phases except one. The simulations that show the effect

420 of the choice of SRT, HRT, 𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 , 𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 and No cycles are described in the next sections. In all

421 these simulations, we have used arbitrary values of the length of the phases and of the design

422 parameters SRT and HRT. Of course, it is responsibility of the user of this method to use the

423 values of these parameters which are most appropriate to the specific circumstances.

424

425

22
426 4.1. Effect of SRT

427 Figure 4 shows the effect of the SRT, for constant values of the other parameters, on the

428 steady state biomass and substrate concentration at the end of the reaction phase. In

429 practice, changing the SRT means changing the sludge withdrawal flow rate, 𝑄𝑤 , which is also

430 reported in Figure 4. The simulations have been carried out for a feed composed of either

431 readily biodegradable or slowly biodegradable substrates. The general trend is an increase in

432 biomass concentration with increasing SRT, with an asymptotic value reached at high SRT.

433 The results are virtually the same for the readily and slowly biodegradable substrates at all

434 SRT except at lower values (< 3 days), where the SRT is not long enough to ensure

435 biodegradation of the slowly biodegradable substrates, and correspondingly, biomass is

436 washed out. For readily biodegradable substrates, biomass washout only occurs at SRTs

437 shorter than 0.8 days. The trend is in agreement with the theory of activated sludge systems

438 [24], however, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time that the steady state biomass

439 concentration has been calculated for SBR’s based on kinetic models without calculation of

440 all the dynamic profiles from the start up to the final steady state. The latter approach has

441 been, on the other hand, reported in the literature and validated with experimental data [19].

442 4.2 Effect of HRT

443 Figure 5 shows the effect of HRT on biomass concentration at the end of the reaction phase

444 for the readily biodegradable and slowly biodegradable substrates, at constant values of all

445 the other design parameters. This means that, by changing the HRT, the feed flow rate during

446 the fill phase changes and the amount of substrate that is fed per day also changes. In general,

447 the biomass concentration decreases as the HRT increases. The substrate concentration at

448 the end of the reaction phase is not reported since it was virtually negligible in all the cases.

449 The effect of the HRT is due to the fact that increasing the HRT means that the amount of

23
450 substrate fed per day (the organic load rate) decreases and this causes the decrease in

451 biomass concentration. This effect of HRT on biomass concentration for SBR’s has been

452 experimentally observed [25, 26], although the HRT has usually been changed by changing

453 the number of cycles, rather than by changing the feed flow rate.

454 4.3 Effect of the length of the fill phase

455 Figure 6 shows the effect of the length of the fill phase on the biomass and substrate

456 concentration at the end of the reaction phase. Correspondingly to the changes in length of

457 the fill phase, the length of the react phase is changed accordingly, while the length of all the

458 other phases and the other design parameters are left unchanged. Therefore, changes to

459 length of the fill phase correspond to changes to the feed flow rate Qfill, so that the HRT

460 remains constant and the same amount of substrate is fed for different lengths of the fill

461 phase. It is interesting that, for slowly biodegradable substrates in the feed, the model

462 predicts an increase in substrate concentration at the end of the reaction phase as the length

463 of the fill phase increases. This is due to the fact that, since the amount of substrate fed per

464 cycle does not change with increasing lengths of the feed, then the maximum substrate

465 concentration during the cycle is lower for longer lengths of the feed. Therefore, the rate of

466 substrate removal is also lower, according to the Monod kinetics used, and this causes an

467 increase in the effluent substrate concentration. However, with the values of the parameters

468 used in this study, this increase is very modest (the maximum substrate concentration in the

469 effluent is less than 0.03 kg COD/m3). The effect of the length of the fill phase in SBR’s has

470 been investigated systematically in several studies [7, 27, 28]. These studies were focussed

471 on the effect of the fill phase on settling properties of the sludge and in general observed total

472 removal of the influent substrates for any length of the feed. This is expected, and in

473 agreement with the model simulations shown here, considering that the feed in these studies

24
474 was only composed of readily biodegradable substrates. In a study on a textile wastewater,

475 which is likely to include both readily and slowly biodegradable substrates, Penha et al.[29]

476 observed a decrease in the COD removal efficiency when the length of the feed was increased,

477 in general agreement with the simulations reported here.

478 4.3 Effect of length of the react phase

479 The effect of the length of react phase on biomass and substrate concentrations at the end

480 of the reaction phase at the periodic steady state is shown in Figure 7. Correspondingly to

481 changes in the length of the reaction phase, the length of the settling phase is changed

482 accordingly, in order to maintain the same length of the cycle. The length of all the other

483 phases and the values of all the operating parameters of the cycle are kept constant. In this

484 Figure, we also show the biomass and substrate concentration for a mixed feed, composed of

485 both slowly and readily biodegradable substrates (in equal ratio on a COD basis).

486 For the readily biodegradable feed, it can be observed that the substrate is always completely

487 removed and biomass concentration increases when the length of the react phase is

488 shortened. This is due to the fact that endogenous metabolism becomes less important if the

489 react phase is shortened. Different profiles were observed when the feed is composed of

490 slowly biodegradable substrates. In this case the effluent substrate concentration starts to

491 increase when the length of the reaction phase decreases below approximately 150 mins.

492 This is due the fact that a minimum length of the reaction phase is required to ensure

493 complete biodegradation of slowly biodegradable substrates. Corresponding to the increase

494 in effluent substrate concentration, biomass concentration decreases for short lengths of the

495 reaction phase, nearing 0 kg/m3 for lengths shorter than 50 minutes. For a mixed feed

496 composed of both slowly and readily biodegradable substrates, the biomass and substrate

497 concentration are in general in between their values for a feed composed of only slowly and

25
498 readily biodegradable substrates. These simulations show the importance of selecting the

499 right length of the reaction phase. In qualitative agreement with these simulations,

500 experimental data by Penha et al.[29] indicated an increase in COD removal with an increased

501 length of the reaction phase.

502 4.4 Effect of number of cycles

503 Figure 8 shows the effect of the number of cycles on biomass concentration at the end of the

504 reaction phase. By changing the number of cycles, the overall amount of substrate fed per

505 day was kept constant. Changing the number of cycles corresponded to decreasing the

506 lengths of all the phases in the same proportion. It is evident that the number of cycles has

507 very little effect on the biomass concentration. Indeed, from the plot increasing the number

508 of cycles from 3 to 10 per day causes a change of less than 1 % for the biomass concentration

509 with readily and slowly biodegradable feeds. This is expected since the overall amount of

510 substrate fed per day and all the other parameters, including HRT and SRT, were the same in

511 all the simulations. The substrate concentration in the effluent is not reported since it was

512 virtually 0 in all simulations. This is in general agreement with the results obtained by Sarfaraz

513 et al.[30] who reported no effect of the length of the cycle, at the same organic load, during

514 treatment of a phenolic wastewater. Similarly, Hong et al.[31] observed no effect of the length

515 of the cycle on BOD removal, even though in that study changes in the length of the cycle

516 corresponded to changes in the organic load.

517

26
518 5. Comparison with dynamic simulations

519 The procedure developed in this paper represents a direct calculation of the steady state of

520 the SBR without calculation of the dynamics of the system. As an alternative, the unsteady

521 state balances for biomass, substrate and volume, equations (12, 18 and 22) can also be

522 solved over the full length of SBR operation, from the start-up to the steady-state. In this way,

523 the steady-state can be obtained as the final condition of the simulations. An example of the

524 results of the integration of equations (12), (18) and (22) from the start-up to the final steady

525 state is shown in Figure 9. The steady state calculated with the integration of equations (12),

526 (18) and (22) has been compared with the one calculated with the procedure developed in

527 this paper for all the cases considered in this study and the results have been found to be in

528 excellent agreement, with differences between the two methods of less than 1%. It is worth

529 summarising the benefit of the procedure developed in this paper over the procedure based

530 on dynamic simulations shown in this section:

531 - The dynamic simulation procedure requires specialist software, e.g. Matlab has been

532 used for the dynamic simulations in this study. This specialist software might not be

533 generally available and its use might require specialist competence which is not always

534 available. On the other hand the new procedure developed in this study can be

535 implemented in widely available and easy to use software such as Microsoft Excel;

536 - The dynamic simulation procedure requires the simulation of all the transient from

537 the start-up to the final steady state, even though only information about the steady

538 state is required. Since achieving the steady state in biological processes requires

539 many days (e.g. about 20 days in the simulation in Figure 9), the dynamic simulation

540 may be time consuming and generates a lot of unnecessary data.

27
541 6 Applications of the model
542 The procedure developed in this paper can be used to design SBR processes and to simulate

543 the effect of the operating parameters of the cycle on the performance of the process. On

544 the basis of the simulations, the process designers can choose the values of the operating

545 parameters of the SBR that give the desired performance. Of course, users need to be

546 confident that they are using the appropriate model and the appropriate values of the kinetic

547 parameters for their particular system. Procedures for the calibration of the model

548 parameters are reported in many papers, e.g. [20]. The model can be used, for example, to

549 simulate the effect of the SRT on the extent of substrate removal, oxygen consumption or

550 biomass production. Similarly, the model can be used to simulate the effect of the length of

551 the cycle or of the number of cycles on the behaviour of the process. In the following, we will

552 show three examples of how the model can be used: optimisation of the SBR design for

553 minimum reactor volume, modelling of the competition of filaments and floc-formers for

554 bulking control and calculation of the minimum required mass transfer coefficient.

555 6.1 Optimisation of SBR design for minimum volume

556 Here we will use the procedure for the calculation of the steady state developed in this study

557 to optimise the SBR design by trying to minimise the required volume, V full. Consider the

558 typical design problem of a SBR, where we have to treat a given flow rate of wastewater per

559 day. The daily flow rate can be expressed as a function of the flow rate during the fill phase,

560 the length of the fill phase and the number of cycles as follows: Qdaily  Q fill  t fill  No cycles .

561 One of the design aims is to minimise the volume of the SBR required to treat this daily flow

Qdaily 1
562 rate, i.e., to maximise the value of the variable:  . Therefore, in order to
V full HRT

563 minimise the required volume of the SBR, the HRT has to be set to its minimum possible value.

28
564 There are several constraints on the minimum value of the HRT which is possible to achieve.

565 The first constraint comes from the basic fact that the volume of feed that can be added per

566 cycle must be lower than the total volume of the reactor, because some volume has to be left

567 in the reactor for the settled biomass. If we assume the limit case of Q fill  t fill  V full we obtain

1
568 (from equation (6)) the condition for the minimum possible HRT HRT min  which
No cycles

569 gives the maximum daily flow rate per unit of reactor volume

 Qdaily  1
570     No cycles . This equation is plotted in Figure 10 and shows the benefit
V  HRT
 full  max min

571 of increasing the number of cycles in order to reduce the required volume of the SBR.

572 However, working at low HRT with high number of cycles might not necessary be possible,

573 because of the effects of HRT and number of cycles on biomass and substrate concentration.

574 Substrate concentration in the effluent must be as low as possible, to ensure total removal of

575 the biodegradable organic matter, while biomass concentration cannot exceed certain limits

576 which would prevent good settling, since the settling velocity is inversely proportional to

577 biomass concentration [32].

578 Therefore, the procedure developed in this study was used to calculate the steady state

579 values of the biomass and substrate concentrations at the end of the reaction phase, as a

580 function of the HRT and number of cycles, for various values of the SRT. While changing the

581 number of cycles, the length of the various phases was kept in the same proportion. The

582 results of the calculations are shown in Figures 11-13, for 2, 4 and 8 cycles per day

583 respectively. For 2 and 4 cycles per day substrate removal was virtually complete for SRT

584 longer than 2 days. This is in agreement with what was observed on the effect of SRT in Figure

585 3. Similar results for substrate removal are obtained for 8 cycles per day, however in this case

29
586 substrate removal was poor even at SRT of 3 days, for very low values of the HRT. This

587 decrease in substrate removal is due to the very short length of the react phase for runs with

588 8 cycles per day. Biomass concentration increased while HRT decreased, as expected from

589 Figure 5. By increasing the number of cycles, the minimum HRT which can be applied

590 decreases, therefore a higher daily flow rate per unit of reactor volume can be obtained and

591 this corresponds to higher biomass concentration.

592 With the values of the kinetic parameters and substrate concentration in the feed used in

593 these simulations, it can be concluded that 8 cycles per day, with a very low HRT and SRT

594 higher than 3 days are the desired design parameters to obtain complete biodegradation of

595 the substrate with the minimum volume of the SBR. E.g. with 8 cycles per day, HRT=0.25 days

Qdaily
596 and SRT=5 days, we would obtain virtually complete COD removal with a ratio equal to
V full

597 4 and with a biomass concentration at the end of the reaction phase equal to approximately

598 2.2 g/l. These conditions are in principle physically achievable since they corresponds to a

Q fillt fill
599 ratio  0.5 , which means that after effluent withdrawal 50 % of the full reactor
V full

600 volume is left in the reactor, which is a realistic value and in the acceptable range for the

601 values of this parameter [16]. Since the calculated biomass concentration at the end of the

602 reaction phase is 2.2 g/l, this condition means that the biomass concentration in the reactor

603 volume left after effluent withdrawal should be 4.4 kg/m3, assuming no biomass losses with

604 the effluent. These are compatible with a sludge volume index (SVI) of up to approximately

605 230 ml/g, and this indicates that these operating conditions are compatible even with a

606 biomass that does not compact particularly well. As a reference, a sludge is considered to be

607 bulking when the SVI is higher than approximately 150 ml/g [33]. However, these operating

30
608 conditions require that settling of the biomass is quite fast, since the settling time is just 22.5

609 min, and also that the feed is very fast, since it lasts for just 2.5 mins.

610 6.2 Modelling of the competitive growth between filamentous and floc-forming microorganisms

611 Here we show that the developed method can be used for the calculation of the competition

612 between floc-forming and filamentous microorganisms, which is one of the main causes of

613 settling problems in activated sludge processes [34]. Sludge bulking occurs when sludge

614 settles slowly and thickens poorly. When this happens, effluent suspended solids and COD

615 increases due to sludge blanket overflow, and in extreme cases, washout of biomass. Settling

616 properties of activated sludge is often associated to the competitive growth of filamentous

617 and floc-forming microorganisms in the sludge culture [35, 36]. According to the kinetic

618 theory, filamentous microorganisms are slow-growing organisms with maximum growth rates

619 (µmax) and saturation constant (KS) values lower than the floc-forming bacteria thereby

620 proliferating at lower substrate concentrations. On the other hand, floc-forming

621 microorganisms have higher values of both µmax and KS and are therefore kinetically favoured

622 at higher substrate concentrations [37].

623 One of the ways to supress filamentous bulking in SBR systems is by variation of the length of

624 the fill phase (as in section 4.3) to create a high substrate concentration in the initial part of

625 the cycle and a low substrate concentration at the end of the cycle [7, 27]. This condition

626 favours the floc-formers over the filamentous bacteria because decreasing the feed length

627 increases the substrate concentration gradient.

628 In this study we have modelled filamentous and floc-forming microorganisms as two

629 populations, of concentrations Xfil and Xfloc, removing the carbon substrate S according to the

630 following Monod kinetics:

31
 S
631 rX , floc   max . floc  X floc (growth rate of floc-formers) (30)
K S . floc  S

S
632 rX , fil   max . fil  X fil (growth rate of filaments) (31)
K S . fil  S

633 The rate of substrate removal is the sum of the contributions due to the two populations:

r floc r fil
634 rS ( floc fil)   (substrate removal rate during competition) (32)
Y Y

635 The kinetic parameters used for this part of the study are reported in Table 2. According to

636 the values of the considered parameters used here, floc-formers are kinetically favoured at

637 substrate concentrations higher than 0.032 kg COD/m3 and filaments are favoured at lower

638 substrate concentrations.

639 By using the developed method, the steady state conditions for the concentrations of the two

640 populations and substrate are the ones below:

 
 1  
rX . flocC  rend  Fill, Re act ,W  V
641 X floc 1 X floc 1  1 (33)

cycle 
HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
   dt  0
Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT  
V full V full
 Fill W

 
 1  
rX . fil  rend  Fill, Re act ,W  V
642 X filL 1 X fil 1  1 (34)

cycle 
HRT  t fill Nocycles

V
   dt  0
Nocycles  teff  HRT SRT  
V full V full
 Fill W

 
 1 S feed  S  
643  rS ( floc fil)
cycle 
Fill, Re act ,W

HRT  t fill  Nocycles V dt  0 (35)
V full 
 Fill 

644 The equation for the volume is the same as previously shown (22). So in this case, a system

645 of four equations (22, 33, 34 and 35) is solved to calculate the steady state conditions using

646 the same procedure in 2.3.

647 Figure 14 shows the competition between the filamentous and floc-forming bacteria for

648 different feeding lengths in the SBR. The floc-forming bacteria outgrew the filamentous

32
649 bacteria at relatively short feeding lengths (< 40 mins), when the maximum substrate

650 concentration at the end of the feed is relatively high. However, as expected, at longer fill

651 lengths (> 50 mins), the filamentous bacteria proliferate due to the fact that the maximum

652 substrate concentration at the end of the feed is relatively low. This trend is in agreement

653 with all the cited literature above [7, 27, 36]. The same procedure can also be used to simulate

654 the competition in the presence of a slowly biodegradable substrate. In practice it might be

655 unfeasible to operate the SBR with very short feed phases. The same effect of creating

656 substrate gradients can also be obtained by using a static feed (i.e. feed without mixing and

657 aeration as described in section 2.4), because ideally during a static feed there is little or no

658 substrate removal. Obviously the model used here is a gross simplification of a complex

659 phenomenon such as filamentous bulking. Due to the simple nature of the model, the results

660 show that in all conditions either of the two populations will dominate and the other will be

661 washed out. In reality, we usually observe the coexistence of the two populations, even

662 though with different abundance. However, in spite of the simplified nature of the model,

663 this approach gives useful information on the effect of the length of the feed on filamentous

664 bulking control and the results are in qualitative agreement with experimental studies in SBRs

665 [7, 27].

666 6.3 Calculation of the aeration requirements

667 The model can also be extended to simulate the oxygen concentration profiles during a cycle

668 for various values of operating and design parameters. According to the literature, the

669 minimum oxygen concentration to be maintained in aerobic biological processes is between

670 1 and 2 mg/l [38, 39]. The rate of oxygen transfer from the gas phase to the liquid phase is

671 dependent upon the volumetric oxygen transfer coefficient, kLa [38, 39].

33
672 The mass balance for dissolved oxygen during a SBR cycle is expressed below:

dCO2  kgoxygen   S  1 
673  3
dt  m  day 
   max
KS  S
  
 1.42   X  1.42  b  X  k L a CO* 2  CO 2  (36)
 YX / S 

 max S  1 
674 where the term    1.42  X  1.42bX is the oxygen uptake rate per unit volume
K S  S  YX / S 

675  
of reactor, and k L a C O* 2  C O 2 is the oxygen transfer rate from the gas to the liquid phase,

676 where CO2* is the equilibrium concentration of oxygen in water, which in this example was

677 taken as 9.1 mg/l (corresponding to the equilibrium concentration of oxygen in water in the

678 air-water system) and CO2 is the actual concentration of oxygen in the liquid phase.

679 In the development of the model in this paper we assumed that during the settling and

680 effluent withdrawal phases no biological reactions occur, and, consequently here we assume

681 that oxygen concentration does not change during the settling and effluent withdrawal

682 phases. The consequence of this assumption is that the oxygen concentration at the start of

683 the cycle will be equal to its value at the end of the sludge withdrawal phase. In practice, this

684 assumption is questionable because during the settling and effluent withdrawal phases there

685 is no aeration but the oxygen concentration will drop due to the endogenous metabolism.

686 However, in the actual practice of the SBR operation, an aerated idle phase (not modelled

687 here) is usually added before the new feed and this will allow the oxygen concentration to

688 rise close to the saturation values. Therefore, in practice our assumption that the oxygen

689 concentration at the start of the cycle is equal to its value before the start of the settling phase

690 is probably very close to the industrial practice.

691 Based on the above equation (36), the oxygen concentration profile during a cycle at steady

692 state is obtained by applying the steady state condition below:

34
  dC
cycle
O2 0 

693  μ max S  1   (37)

  K S  S    
 1.42   X  1.42  b  X  k L a C O* 2  C O 2  dt  0
cycle   Y X/S   Fill,Re act ,W

694 Thus, the oxygen concentration profiles for a given value of kLa can easily be simulated if a

695 system of four equations (14, 20, 22 and 37) is solved using the same procedure described in

696 section 2.3.

697 Figure 15 shows the oxygen concentration profiles as a function of various values of the k La

698 for two SBRs, one operated at a lower (3 days) and one operated at a higher (10 days) SRT.

699 From the simulations, oxygen decreases during the feed and until substrate is present, then

700 rapidly increases. The minimum kLa that we need to provide is the one that ensures that

701 oxygen concentration is always higher than the minimum value. E.g. assuming that the

702 minimum acceptable value is 1 mg/l, a minimum kLa of 670 day-1 is needed for SRT=10 days.

703 If the SBR is operated at a lower SRT, the minimum required kLa is lower (355 day-1 in this

704 case), because the biomass concentration is lower and therefore the substrate removal rate

705 and the corresponding oxygen consumption rate are lower.

706 In summary, this example shows that the method developed in this paper can be easily

707 applied to the calculation of the aeration requirements for SBR processes.

35
708 7. Conclusions

709 A new method to calculate the periodic steady state of the SBR has been developed. The

710 method allows the calculation of the time profiles during the cycle of biomass and substrate

711 when the SBR has reached the periodic steady state. This new method allows the calculation

712 of the periodic steady state of the SBR without simulating the dynamic, unsteady state

713 profiles. The procedure was used to simulate the effect of the various operating parameters,

714 SRT, HRT, length of the feed, length of the reaction phase and number of cycles, on the

715 biomass and substrate concentration. A key novelty of the paper is that we have shown that

716 the new procedure is in excellent agreement with the dynamic procedure, where the steady

717 state is obtained after integration of the unsteady state dynamic equations over the whole

718 length of the SBR life, from start-up to steady state. The new procedure has the advantages

719 of being easily implemented in widely available software such as Microsoft Excel and of not

720 requiring the generation of large amounts of unnecessary data, i.e. all the data on the

721 transient dynamic of the SBR, if the steady state only is of interest. Of course, the accuracy of

722 the simulations depends on the robustness of the underlying kinetic model and on the

723 accuracy of the model parameters. The new method can be used to design the SBR and

724 optimise the choice of the design variables and an example aimed at minimising the reactor

725 volume for a given influent wastewater flow rate was shown. The method was also applied to

726 simulate the competition of filamentous and floc-forming microorganisms for filamentous

727 bulking control and to the calculation of the minimum volumetric oxygen transfer coefficient

728 required to maintain a desired oxygen concentration. It is hoped that the procedure

729 developed in this study will facilitate the use of mathematical models in the design of SBR’s.

36
730 Nomenclature

µ𝑚𝑎𝑥 Maximum specific biomass growth rate, T

𝐾𝑆 Half saturation constant for readily biodegradable substrate, ML-3

𝑏 Endogenous metabolism coefficient, T-1

𝑋 Biomass concentration, ML-3
𝑆 Readily biodegradable substrate concentration, ML-3

Sfeed Readily biodegradable substrate concentration in the feed, ML-3

NH3 Ammonia concentration (as nitrogen), ML-3

NH3feed Ammonia concentration in the feed (as nitrogen), ML-3

𝑋𝑆 Slowly biodegradable substrate concentration, ML-3

𝐾ℎ Hydrolysis rate constant, MM-1T-1

𝐾𝑋 Half saturation constant for slowly biodegradable substrate, MM-1

𝑌 Biomass yield coefficient, MM-1

𝑄 Flow rate of the wastewater, L3 T-1

𝑡 Time, T-1

𝑉 Volume of bioreactor, L3
𝑟𝑋 Biomass growth rate, ML-3 T-1
𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑑 Rate of endogenous metabolism, ML-3 T-1

𝑟𝑆 Substrate removal rate, ML-3 T-1

𝑟ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑟 Hydrolysis rate for slowly biodegradable substrate, MT-1

𝑟𝑋,𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑐 Growth rate of floc-formers, ML-3 T-1

𝑟𝑋,𝑓𝑖𝑙 Growth rate of filamentous bacteria, ML-3 T-1

𝑟𝑆(𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑐+𝑓𝑖𝑙) Total substrate removal rate (floc- formers and filaments) M L-3 T-1

rNH3 Ammonia removal rate (as nitrogen) ML-3 T-1

No cycles Number of cycles per day, T-1
HRT Hydraulic residence time, T
SRT Solid residence time, T
𝑑𝑡 Discretisation step, T

37
 𝑘𝐿 𝑎 Volumetric oxygen mass transfer coefficient, T-1
𝐶𝑂2 Actual concentration of oxygen in the liquid phase, ML-3
∗
𝐶𝑜2 Dissolved oxygen saturation concentration in liquid phase at gas-liquid
interface, ML-3
731
732 Subscripts
733
inf Influent or Fill
eff Effluent
w Sludge withdrawal or wasting
settle Settling
aer Aeration (react)
h, hydr Hydrolysis
floc Floc-forming bacteria
fil Filamentous bacteria
734

38
735 References
736 [1] P.A. Wilderer, R.L. Irvine, M.C. Goronszy, Sequencing batch reactor technology, IWA
737 Publishing, London, 2001.

738 [2] M. Oselame, H. Fernandes, R. Costa, Simulation and calibration of a full-scale sequencing
739 batch reactor for wastewater treatment, Brazil. J. Chem. Eng. 31 (2014) 649-658.

740 [3] D. Dionisi, M. Majone, V. Tandoi, M. Beccari, Sequencing batch reactor: Influence of
741 periodic operation on performance of activated sludges in biological wastewater treatment,
742 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 40 (2001) 5110-5119.

743 [4] R.L. Irvine, P.A. Wilderer, H. Flemming, Controlled unsteady state processes and
744 technologies-an overview, Water Sci. Technol. 35 (1997) 1-10.

745 [5] D.S. Lee, G. Sin, G. Insel, I. Nopens, P. Vanrolleghem, Model-based optimization of a
746 sequencing batch reactor for advanced biological wastewater treatment, Stud. Surf. Sci. Catal.
747 159 (2006) 165-168.

748 [6] E. Metcalf, M. Eddy, Wastewater Engineering–Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. McGraw-Hill,

749 Inc., New York, 1991.

750 [7] D. Dionisi, M. Majone, C. Levantesi, A. Bellani, A. Fuoco, Effect of feed length on
751 settleability, substrate uptake and storage in a sequencing batch reactor treating an industrial
752 wastewater, Environ. Technol. 27 (2006) 901-908.

753 [8] L. Fernandes, K. Kennedy, Z. Ning, Dynamic modelling of substrate degradation in

754 sequencing batch anaerobic reactors (SBAR), Water Res. 27 (1993) 1619-1628.

755 [9] M. Henze, C.L. Grady, W. Gujer, G. Marais, T. Matsuo, A general model for single-sludge
756 wastewater treatment systems, Water Res. 21 (1987) 505-515.

757 [10] M. Henze, W. Gujer, T. Mino, M. Van Loosedrecht, Activated sludge models ASM1, ASM2,
758 ASM2d and ASM3, IWA Publishing, London, 2006.

759 [11] G. Ibrahim, A. Abasaeed, Modelling of sequencing batch reactors, Water Res. 29 (1995)
760 1761-1766.

761 [12] D. Orhon, Modeling of activated sludge systems, CRC Press, 1997.

762 [13] R.L. Irvine, L.H. Ketchum Jr, T. Asano, Sequencing batch reactors for biological wastewater
763 treatment, Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18 (1989) 255-294.

764 [14] S. Velmurugan, W.W. Clarkson, J.N. Veenstra, Model-based design of sequencing batch
765 reactor for removal of biodegradable organics and nitrogen, Water Environ. Res. 82 (2010)
766 462-474.

39
767 [15] H.N. Chang, R.K. Moon, B.G. Park, S. Lim, D.W. Choi, W.G. Lee, S.L. Song, Y.H. Ahn,
768 Simulation of sequential batch reactor (SBR) operation for simultaneous removal of nitrogen
769 and phosphorus, Bioprocess Eng. 23 (2000) 513-521.

770 [16] N. Artan, D. Orhon, Mechanism and design of sequencing batch reactors for nutrient
771 removal, IWA Publishing, London, 2005.

772 [17] D. Jenkins, W.E. Garrison, Control of activated sludge by mean cell residence time, Water
773 Pollut. Control Fed. (1968) 1905-1919.

774 [18] V. Pambrun, E. Paul, M. Spérandio, Control and modelling of partial nitrification of
775 effluents with high ammonia concentrations in sequencing batch reactor, Chem. Eng. Process.
776 47 (2008) 323-329.

777 [19] D. Dionisi, L. Bornoroni, S. Mainelli, M. Majone, F. Pagnanelli, M.P. Papini, Theoretical
778 and experimental analysis of the role of sludge age on the removal of adsorbed
779 micropollutants in activated sludge processes, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 47 (2008) 6775-6782.

780 [20] IWA Task Group on Mathematical Modelling for Design and Operation of Biological
781 Wastewater Treatment, Activated sludge models ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d and ASM3, IWA
782 Publishing, London, 2000.

783 [21] B. S. McSwain, R. L. Irvine, P. A. Wilderer, The effect of intermittent feeding on aerobic
784 granule structure, Water Sci. Technol. 49, 11-12 (2004), 19-25.

785 [22] J. Bassin, R. Kleerebezem, M. Dezotti, M. Van Loosdrecht, Measuring biomass specific
786 ammonium, nitrite and phosphate uptake rates in aerobic granular sludge, Chemosphere 89
787 (2012) 1161-1168.

788 [23] M. De Kreuk, M. Pronk, M. Van Loosdrecht, Formation of aerobic granules and conversion
789 processes in an aerobic granular sludge reactor at moderate and low temperatures, Water
790 Res. 39 (2005) 4476-4484.

791 [24] M. Henze, Biological wastewater treatment: principles, modelling and design, IWA
792 Publishing, London, 2008.

793 [25] S. Mangat, P. Elefsiniotis, Biodegradation of the herbicide 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic

794 acid (2, 4-D) in sequencing batch reactors, Water Res. 33 (1999) 861-867.

795 [26] S. Kim, P. Eichhorn, J.N. Jensen, A.S. Weber, D.S. Aga, Removal of antibiotics in
796 wastewater: effect of hydraulic and solid retention times on the fate of tetracycline in the
797 activated sludge process, Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (2005) 5816-5823.

798 [27] A.M. Martins, J.J. Heijnen, M.C. Van Loosdrecht, Effect of feeding pattern and storage on
799 the sludge settleability under aerobic conditions, Water Res. 37 (2003) 2555-2570.

40
800 [28] M. Majone, P. Massanisso, A. Carucci, K. Lindrea, V. Tandoi, Influence of storage on
801 kinetic selection to control aerobic filamentous bulking, Water Sci. Technol. 34 (1996) 223-
802 232.

803 [29] S. Penha, M. Matos, F. Franco, Evaluation of an integrated anaerobic/aerobic SBR system
804 for the treatment of wool dyeing effluents, Biodegradation 16 (2005) 81-89.

805 [30] S. Sarfaraz, S. Thomas, U. Tewari, L. Iyengar, Anoxic treatment of phenolic wastewater in
806 sequencing batch reactor, Water Res. 38 (2004) 965-971.

807 [31] K.H. Hong, D. Chang, S.W. Kang, J.M. Hur, S.B. Han, Y. Sunwoo, Effect of cycle length and
808 phase fraction on biological nutrients removal in temporal and spatial phase separated
809 process, J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 14 (2008) 520-525.

810 [32] S. Cho, F. Colin, M. Sardin, C. Prost, Settling velocity model of activated sludge, Water
811 Res. 27 (1993) 1237-1242.

812 [33] O.E. Albertson, Bulking sludge control. Progress, practice and problems, Water Sci. and
813 Technol. 23 (1991) 835-846.

814 [34] A.M. Martins, K. Pagilla, J.J. Heijnen, M.C. van Loosdrecht, Filamentous bulking sludge—
815 a critical review, Water Res. 38 (2004) 793-817.

816 [35] M. Sezgin, D. Jenkins, D.S. Parker, A unified theory of filamentous activated sludge
817 bulking, Water Pollut. Control Fed. (1978) 362-381.

818 [36] A.O. Lau, P.F. Strom, D. Jenkins, The competitive growth of floc-forming and filamentous
819 bacteria: a model for activated sludge bulking, Water Pollut. Control Fed. (1984) 52-61.

820 [37] J. Chudoba, P. Grau, V. Ottova, Control of activated-sludge filamentous bulking–II.

821 Selection of microorganisms by means of a selector, Water Res. 7 (1973) 1389IN11399-
822 1398IN21406.

823 [38] M. Mandl, E. Pakostova, L. Poskerova, Critical values of the volumetric oxygen transfer
824 coefficient and oxygen concentration that prevent oxygen limitation in ferrous iron and
825 elemental sulfur oxidation by Acidithiobacillus ferrooxidans, Hydrometallurgy 150 (2014) 276-
826 280.

827 [39] L. Tribe, C. Briens, A. Margaritis, Determination of the volumetric mass transfer
828 coefficient (kLa) using the dynamic “gas out–gas in” method: Analysis of errors caused by
829 dissolved oxygen probes, Biotechnol. Bioeng. 46 (1995) 388-392.

41
830 Table 1: Values of kinetics and stoichiometric parameters and of the feed composition used
831 in all the simulations

Parameters Readily biodegradable Slowly biodegradable

Feed Feed

𝐾𝑆 (kg COD/ m3) 0.02 -

µ𝑚𝑎𝑥 (day-1) 3 3
𝑏 (day-1) 0.20 0.20
𝑌 (kg biomass/ kg COD) 0.40 0.40
𝑆𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 (kg COD/ m3) 0.5 -
𝑋𝑆𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑑 (kg COD/ m3) - 0.5
𝐾𝑋 (kg COD/ kg biomass) - 0.03
𝐾ℎ (kg COD/ kg biomass. day) - 2

832

833

42
834 Table 2: Values of kinetics and stoichiometric parameters used for floc-forming and
835 filamentous bacteria competitive modelling

Parameters Floc-Forming bacteria Filamentous bacteria

µ𝑚𝑎𝑥 (day-1) 4 2
𝐾𝑆 (kg COD/ m3) 0.04 0.004
𝑏 (day-1) 0.20 0.20
𝑌 (kg biomass/ kg COD) 0.40 0.40
836

43
 Sludge Effluent
Feed
withdrawal withdrawal

Fill React Sludge Settle Effluent

(with reaction) withdrawal withdrawal
837
838 Figure 1: Sequence of phases in the SBR consisting of fill, react, sludge withdrawal, settle and
839 effluent withdrawal.

44
840
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 290 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
841 Figure 2: Effect of discretisation step 𝑑𝑡 on the model accuracy: Biomass concentration profile
842 at periodic steady state. The five phases (Fill, reaction, sludge withdrawal, settling and
843 effluent withdrawal) over the cycle are indicated in the plot.
844

845

846

847

848

849

45
850
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 290 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
851 Figure 3: Sum of integrals for different values of biomass and substrate concentration at the
852 start of the cycle. The inserted plot on the right provides a magnified view of the curve when
853 the initial substrate concentration is 0. The start of the cycle coincides with the start of the
854 feed.
855

46
856

857
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
No Cycle 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 290 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 /𝑉𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 (0.05 – 0.000833) days-1
858 Figure 4: Effect of SRT on the steady state conditions. Top: biomass concentrations from
859 readily and slowly biodegradable substrates at the end of the cycle. Bottom: substrate
860 concentrations at the end of a cycle.

47
861
Parameter Value
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 290 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
𝑄𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 /𝑉𝐹𝑢𝑙𝑙 (0.1 – 0.005) days-1
862 Figure 5: Effect of HRT on the steady state conditions: biomass concentrations from readily
863 and slowly biodegradable substrates at the end of a cycle.
864

48
865

866
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 0 - 285 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
867 Figure 6: Effect of the length of fill phase (feeding time) on the steady state conditions.
868 Top: biomass concentration from slowly biodegradable substrates at the end of a cycle
869 Bottom: substrates concentration from slowly biodegradable substrates at the end of a cycle.

49
 3.5 Readily biodegradable Feed
Slowly biodegradable feed
3
Mixed feed
2.5
X (kg biomass/m3)
2

1.5

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
870 treact (mins)
0.6
S- from readily biodegradable feed
0.5 S- from slowly biodegradable feed
Xs- from slowly biodegradable feed
S, Xs (kg COD/m3)

0.4
S- from mixed feed

0.3 Xs- from mixed feed

0.2

0.1

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
871 treact (mins)

Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycle 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 15 - 305 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
872 Figure 7: Effect of the length of react phase (aeration time) on the steady state conditions.
873 Top: biomass concentrations from a readily biodegradable, slowly biodegradable and mixed
874 feed at the end of a cycle. Bottom: substrate concentrations at the end of a cycle. Mixed feed
875 is composed of 0.25 kg COD/m3 readily biodegradable substrates and 0.25 kg COD/m3 slowly
876 biodegradable substrates.

50
877
Parameter Value
HRT 1 day
SRT 10 days
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 1.39 % of total cycle length
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 80.6 % of total cycle length
𝑡𝑤 1.39 % of total cycle length
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 12.45% of total cycle length
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 4.17 % of total cycle length
878 Figure 8: Effect of number of cycles per day on the steady state conditions: Biomass
879 concentration from readily and slowly biodegradable at the end of a cycle.
880

51
 3
tot X
S
X (kg biomass/ m3), S (kg COD/ m3), V/V

V/V
2.5 tot

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
881 time (day)

Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 290 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
882 Figure 9: Unsteady state profiles from the dynamic simulation of the model. Simulations
883 were carried out with MATLAB (The Mathworks) using the solver ode23s.
884

52
 1.2 HRTmin 14
(Qdaily/Vfull)max 12
1

(Qdaily/Vfull)max(day-1)
10
0.8
HRTmin (days)

8
0.6
6
0.4
4
0.2 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
885 No Cycles (day-1 )
886 Figure 10: Relationship between minimum allowable HRT (HRTmin) and the number of cycles
887 per day for a fixed volume of influent

53
 1.2 2 cycles per day 1.4

1 X, 10 days SRT 1.2

X, 5 days SRT
X (kg biomass / m3)
1

Qdaily/Vfull(day-1)
0.8 X, 3 days SRT
X, 2 day SRT 0.8
0.6 Qdaily/Vfull
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
888 HRT (days)
0.6 2 cycles per day

0.5
Xs (kg COD / m3)

0.4
10 days SRT

0.3 5 days SRT

3 days SRT
0.2 2 day SRT

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
889 HRT (days)

Parameter Value
SRT 1-10 days
No Cycles 2 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 10 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 580 minutes
𝑡𝑤 10 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 90 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 30 minutes
890 Figure 11: Top: Biomass concentration vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various SRT.
891 Bottom: Residual substrate concentrations vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various
892 SRT.

54
893

1.8 4 cycles per day 2.1

1.6
X, 10 days SRT 1.8
1.4 X, 5 days SRT
X (kg biomass / m3)

1.5
X, 3 days SRT

Qdaily/Vfull(day-1)
1.2
1 X, 2 day SRT 1.2
Qdaily/Vfull
0.8 0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
894 HRT (days)
0.6 4 cycles per day

0.5
Xs (kg COD / m3)

0.4 10 days SRT

5 days SRT
0.3
3 days SRT
0.2 2 day SRT

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
895 HRT (days)

Parameter
Value
SRT
1-10 days
No Cycle
4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙
5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡
290 minutes
𝑡𝑤
5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒
45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓
15 minutes
896 Figure 12: Top: Biomass concentration vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various SRT.
897 Bottom: Residual substrate concentrations vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various
898 SRT.

55
 3.5
8 cycles per day 4
X, 10 days SRT
3 X, 5 days SRT
X, 3 days SRT
X (kg biomass / m3)
2.5 3

Qdaily/Vfull(day-1)
X, 2 day SRT
2 Qdaily/Vfull
2
1.5

1
1
0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
HRT (days)

0.6 8 cycles per day

0.5

0.4
Xs (kg COD / m3)

10 days SRT
0.3 5 days SRT
3 days SRT
0.2
2 day SRT

0.1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
HRT (days)
899
Parameter Value
SRT 1-10 days
No Cycle 8 per day
tfill 2.5 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 145 minutes
𝑡𝑤 2.5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 22.5 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 7.5 minutes
900 Figure 13: Top: Biomass concentration vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various SRT.
901 Bottom: Residual substrate concentrations vs HRT for slowly biodegradable feed at various
902 SRT.

56
 1.6 0.5

1.4
0.4
1.2
X (kg biomass/ m3)

Smax (kg COD/m3)

1 Xfloc 0.3
0.8 Xfil
S
0.6 0.2

0.4
0.1
0.2

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
903 tfill (mins)
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 2 - 200 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 95 - 293 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes
904 Figure 14: Competitive growth of filamentous and floc-forming bacteria at various fill
905 lengths. Smax is the maximum substrate concentration during the cycle (at the end of the fill
906 phase) for a readily biodegradable substrate.
907

57
 9
8

O2 concentration (mg/l)
7
6
5 kLa = 670 per day
4 kLa = 750 per day
3
kLa = 1000 per day
2
1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Cycle time (days)
908
9
8
O2 concentration (mg/l)

7
6
5 kLa = 355 per day
4
kLa = 400 per day
3
2 kLa = 500 per day
1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Cycle time (days)
909
Parameter Value
HRT 0.5 days
SRT 10 days (top figure), 3 days (bottom figure)
No Cycles 4 per day
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 30 minutes
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡 265 minutes
𝑡𝑤 5 minutes
𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑙𝑒 45 minutes
𝑡𝑒𝑓𝑓 15 minutes

910 Figure 15: Oxygen concentration profiles during the cycle for various values of kLa. All other
911 parameters are the ones reported in Table 1 assuming a readily biodegradable feed.

58