b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/biombioe

Review

Applicability and trends of anaerobic granular

sludge treatment processes

Seung Joo Lim*, Tak-Hyun Kim

Research Division for Industry & Environment, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, 29 Geumgu, Jeongeup,
Jeollabuk-do 580-185, Republic of Korea

article info abstract

Article history: Anaerobic granular sludge treatment processes have been continuously developed,
Received 28 June 2012 although the anaerobic sludge granulation process was not clearly understood. In this
Received in revised form review, an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB), an expanded granule sludge blanket
10 November 2013 (EGSB), and a static granular bed reactor (SGBR) were introduced as components of a
Accepted 18 November 2013 representative anaerobic granular sludge treatment processes. The characteristics and
Available online 12 December 2013 application trends of each reactor were presented. The UASB reactor was developed in the
late 1970s and its use has been rapidly widespread due to the excellent performance. With
Keywords: the active granules, this reactor is able to treat various high-strength wastewaters as well
Anaerobic digestion as municipal wastewater. Most soluble industrial wastewaters can be efficiently applied
Granule using a UASB. The EGSB reactor was developed owing to give more chance to contact be-
UASB tween wastewater and the granules. Dispersed sludge is separated from mature granules
EGSB using the rapid upward velocity in this reactor. The EGSB reactor shows the excellent
SGBR performance in treating low-strength and/or high-strength wastewater, especially under
low temperatures. The SGBR, developed at Iowa State University, is one of anaerobic
granular sludge treatment processes. Although the configuration of the SGBR is very
simple, the performance of this system is similar to that of the UASB or EGSB reactor. The
anaerobic sludge granulation processes showed excellent performance for various
wastewaters at a broad range of organic loading rate in lab-, pilot-scale tests. This leads to
erect thousands of full-scale granular processes, which has been widely operated around
the world.
ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

has been used to treat industrial wastewaters as well as do-

1. Introduction
Anaerobic treatment is the history of wastewater treatment
itself. Jewell [1] stated that a septic tank is the simplest, oldest,
and most widely used process. Anaerobic treatment has been
rapidly developed since the late 1960s. Anaerobic digestion
mestic wastewater for decades [2e6]. Anaerobic treatment of
organic compounds has many advantages over aerobic
treatment. Anaerobic treatment requires low energy con-
sumption and low macro/micro-nutrients and provides low
waste biological solids. It is expected that excellent perfor-
mance at a high loading rate and the improved dewaterability

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ82 63 570 3357; fax: þ82 63 570 3348.
E-mail addresses: seungjoolim@gmail.com, 931546@naver.com (S.J. Lim).
0961-9534/$ e see front matter ª 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.11.011
190 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
after anaerobic treatment. In addition, anaerobic treatment is
the capacity of a storage unfed for several months and gen-
erates biogas. However, anaerobic treatment has to overcome
some disadvantages such as process sensitivity, vulnerability,
odor problems, the requirement of a long start-up period, and
post treatments for discharge standards. Several investigators
researched anaerobic digestion of toxic or xenobiotic com-
pounds [5,7,8]. When starting up full-scale anaerobic treat-
ment processes, the sufficient inoculation must be provided to
overcome these drawbacks. Lettinga [8] reported that an
anaerobic digestion process generates ions such as ammo-
nium, phosphate, or sulfide, and requires additional post
treatments for the sustainable environmental protection. For
odor problems, physicochemical or biological processes can
effectively prevent odors arising from anaerobic digestion [8].
In fact, anaerobic digestion is a very stable process if operating
parameters are sufficiently understood [2,9]. Since Young and
McCarty [10] first developed the anaerobic filter (AF), several
investigators have developed high-rate anaerobic digesters. In
the Netherlands, the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor was developed in the late 1970s, and was later modi-
fied or combined with other process to treat various types of
wastewater [8,11,12]. Specifically, the modified UASB reactors
were used to treat recalcitrant organic matter and/or solids in
the influent [13,14]. Chernicharo and Machado [15] treated
municipal wastewater using a UASB/AF system. According to
their results, the removal efficiency of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) was 95% and the concentration of suspended
solids (SS) in the effluent was kept below 25 mg L1. Alrajoula
et al. [13] showed that the AF can efficiently polish SS from the
UASB effluent. The objectives of this review article were to
compare the characteristics and performance between the
UASB and expanded granule sludge bed (EGSB) reactors, and
to present not only application to various types of wastewater
but also research trends of each reactor. In addition, the in-
formation about anaerobic sludge granulation and the static
granular bed reactor (SGBR), one of modified UASB reactors,
were discussed in this review.
2. Anaerobic sludge granulation
Anaerobic sludge granulation is quite complex and is affected
by many physicochemical parameters. Although several hy-
potheses have continuously been made regarding the granu-
lation process in various anaerobic digesters, the granulation
process is still not clearly understood [16e19]. Most microor-
ganisms that are able to form granules can be classified as
denitrifying bacteria, nitrifying bacteria, acidifying bacteria,
and/or methanotrophs. However, the characteristics of
anaerobic granules can be affected by several parameters
such as the species of organisms and the growth/decay rate of
organisms in granules [8]. Nicolella et al. [20] showed a
concentration-flow rate diagram for application of floc and
biofilm reactors (Fig. 1). As shown in Fig. 1, anaerobic granular
sludge can be maintained under high strength and low flow
rate conditions of wastewater. In other words, anaerobic
granular sludge reactors can treat high-strength organic
wastewaters without recirculation or external separation.
Fig. 1 e Concentration-flow diagram for sludge granulation
[20].
2.1. Inorganic composition
The inorganic fraction of anaerobic granules can be severely
affected by several parameters such as the composition of
wastewater and process conditions. The ash content in the
granules grown on a complex wastewater was lower than that
in the granules grown on a simple wastewater such as acetate,
propionate, or butyrate. In addition, the sizes of the granules
grown on a complex substrate were bigger than those of
granules grown on a simple substrate [19,21e27]. When the
density of the granules is high, the difference in their shape
and/or density under various conditions can be determined
since the granules have low porosity. Ash mainly consists of
calcium, potassium, and iron [19,24,28e30]. If the ash content
in the granules is high, the ash can act as an inhibitor of the
transportation of the substrate, gases, and metabolites be-
tween the cells and bulk solution. An increase in the ash
content results in an increase in the density of the granule. On
the other hand, there is no relationship between the ash
content and the strength of the granule [25]. Some researchers
reported that FeS contributes to a black color [24]. However,
Kosaric et al. [31] stated that other parameters might be of
more importance in creating the black color of the granules.
2.2. Extracellular polymer substances
Extracellular polymer substances (EPS) play very important
roles in forming and maintaining anaerobic granules. EPS
mainly consist of polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, phenols,
and nucleic acids. They also contain organic debris, phages,
and lysed cells [32]. It is well known that the surface charge of
microorganisms is commonly negative. This implies that pos-
itive charges or EPS/polymers are required to form stable
granules. Zhou et al. [33] showed that the EPS content and
surface charges of substrates are very important when forming
granules based on the DerjaguineLandaueVerweyeOverbeek
(DLVO) theory in a UASB reactor. Several investigators pre-
sented that EPS can protect bacteria from the surroundings,
and that the interaction with the granules contributes to the
sludge granulation [24,34,35]. The organic content of the EPS
ranges approximately 0.6%e20% of volatile suspended solids,
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
but it is highly dependent upon the analysis procedures and
granule conditions [24,26,30,36e38]. The amount of EPS in a
thermophilic anaerobic digester is usually smaller than that
under the mesophilic conditions [39]. In addition, EPS are
affected by the composition of wastewater. Shen et al. [38] re-
ported that the concentration of carbohydrates was increased
by adding iron and yeast. However, it was not clear whether a
specific species produced EPS or all microorganisms can extract
EPS to make granules [39].
2.3. Granule structure
In granule studies, cavities and holes are commonly observed
on the granule surfaces [35,40]. It has been suggested that
cavities on the granules are used as the transporting channel
of gases, substrate, or metabolites. Through the transmission
electron microscopy observation of granules, the micro-
colonies of syntrophic bacteria have often been observed in
the internal structure of the granules [35,40]. A distinct local-
ization of the acidifying bacteria and hydrolytic bacteria in the
outer layer of the granules grown on lactate or propionate was
observed, whereas methanotrophs were predominant in the
inner layer of the granules [28,29]. Macleod et al. [40] observed
syntrophic bacterial consortia in granules. According to their
research, acidifying bacteria and hydrogen consuming bacte-
ria co-existed in the outer layer of the granules and most of
the acetate utilizing bacteria were located in the granule core.
However, Grotenhuis et al. [41] showed that there was no
spatial orientation of microorganisms. Scanning electron mi-
crographs showing cavities on the granule surface are pro-
vided in Fig. 2 [42,43].
2.4. Granulation process
While many investigators have continuously researched the
anaerobic granulation process, this process is still not clearly
understood [5,17,20,33]. Costerton et al. [44] hypothesized the
Fig. 2 e Scanning electron micrographs showing cavities of granules (a) [42], (b) [43].
191
existence of four steps for anaerobic granulation: first, the
transportation of a cell to the surface of an uncolonized inert
material or another cell; second, the initial reversible
adsorption into the substratum by physicochemical forces;
third, an irreversible adhesion of cells onto the substratum by
microbial appendages and/or polymers attaching the cells to
the substratum; and fourth, the multiplication of cells and the
development of granules. Cells can transport using various
types of ways: diffusion (Brownian motion), advection (con-
vection), or active transportation by their flagella. The initial
adsorption can be usually described using the DLVO theory. In
this theory, there is a weak substratum attraction when cells
are initially located from a certain distance. Next, repulsion
occurs when electrostatic interactions dominate. Finally, a
strong irreversible attraction is obtained when the van der
Waals forces are predominant. An irreversible adhesion is
established by the bacterial holdfast or polymers. However, it
is not clear whether bacteria are first adhered reversely and
then produce the EPS, or if they make the EPS first and then are
adhered irreversibly. After being adhered, the cells are divided
within the granules and are trapped in the EPS.
3. Anaerobic granular reactors
3.1. UASB reactor
A schematic diagram of the UASB reactor is shown in Fig. 3. The
UASB reactor was developed by Lettinga and his co-workers in
the Netherlands (Wageningen University) in the late 1970s [45].
A granule was first reported by Young and McCarty [10] in an AF
system, and was observed in South Africa during Lettinga’s trip
there before developing the UASB reactor. The UASB reactor,
however, was not developed at that time due to a lack of funds
and experiences for the granules. The first UASB reactor was
applied for treating a beet sugar refinery wastewater in the
Netherlands. After the first pilot-scale UASB reactor was
192 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
Fig. 3 e A schematic diagram of the UASB reactor.
successfully operated, many full-scale UASB reactors were
used to treat various types of industrial wastewater. The first
publication on the UASB reactor was written in German in the
late 1970s, and an official international journal appeared in
1980 [45]. There had been some USB reactors used during the
early 1970s, but these reactors were given no attention at that
time [45]. However, several full-scale reactors have been oper-
ated all over the world, especially Europe, South America,
South Asia, and South East Asia [46,47]. As of 2001, 1215 full-
scale high-rate anaerobic reactors such UASB have been glob-
ally operated, and most reactors consist of UASB and EGSB
developed by Lettinga [48]. Most applications were brewery,
beverage, distillery, fermentation, food leachate, pulp, dairy,
textile, and paper wastewaters [49e51]. These wastewaters
account for approximately 90% of all applications. Only the
United States did not stubbornly adopt the use of the UASB
reactor for a long period [47].
The UASB reactor is very simple. This reactor does not
require any mixing device and is equipped with a set of Gas
Liquid Solid Separator (GSS) to separate solids (granules) from
the effluent. In addition, it is easy to withdraw gas out of the
reactor. The typical upflow velocity is 0.5 m h1 to 1.0 m h1,
and the ratio of height to depth is 0.2e0.5. The UASB reactor is
usually designed to treat high-strength organic wastewaters
with an organic loading rate (OLR) of 10 kg m3 d to
15 kg m3 d. Singh et al. [52] reported that the dead space of
the UASB reactor is 10%e11%. The dead space of a UASB is
dependent upon the operating temperature. The volume of
mixing zone is smaller and the by-pass flow in the reactor is
increased as the temperature is lowered. On the other hand,
some investigators concluded that the flow of a UASB reactor
exhibits the behavior between completely mixed and plug
flow [53,54]. Lettinga and Holshoff Pol [55] organized the in-
formation about the design factors and concentrations of
various types of wastewater. Hulshoff Pol et al. [25] estimated
the minimum effective diameter for spherical granules using
the Stock’s law. Assuming that an anaerobic granule used in a
UASB reactor is a sphere, a settling velocity for spherical
granules with the minimum effective diameter was 20 m h1.
In contrast, Tiwari et al. [56] reported that the design factors of
a UASB reactor have not been established well and that they
were depended upon empirical design factors.
Advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion
treatment using a UASB reactor are shown in Table 1. UASB
reactors are extensively used in anaerobic digestion for
treating high-strength liquid waste with a short hydraulic
retention time (HRT) as they can retain high biomass con-
centrations with high specific activity in the form of granular
sludge. UASB reactors are less sensitive to fluctuations of the
environmental parameters (e.g., acidity, HRT) than a contin-
uous stirred tank reactor (CSTR), resulting in a more stable
performance. In view of power requirement, the UASB reactor
is very economical compared to other high-rate anaerobic
processes. The UASB is if power failure occurs, the process
does not suffer since it is already anaerobic in nature and little
electrical equipment is involved. The amount of sludge in a
UASB is smaller than that in a conventional activated sludge
process (ASP) because the approximately 5%e10% of organic
matter transferred to sludge in anaerobic treatment. The
stabilized sludge after anaerobic digestion shows better
dewaterability than the destabilized sludge. The produced
methane gas can be utilized for an energy source of power
generation. This reduces the operational costs of a UASB. The
construction of a UASB is simple, and the operation and
maintenance costs of a UASB are relatively cheap. Thousands
of full-scale UASB reactors that have been installed and
operated around the world for last few decades verify the
performance of a UASB. However, the UASB takes a long start-
up period before reaching the steady-state. The UASB reactor
usually starts with 10%e30% of the reactor volume inoculated
granules. The greater the amounts of granules inoculated, the
greater the loading rate that can be initially treated in a UASB
reactor [42]. The low performance at a low loading rate is
usually shown because of the low activity of the granules. It is
necessary that the effluent after anaerobic digestion including
a UASB reactor be treated before discharging into a river or the
environment. This post treatment processes should include
the treatment of organic matter, solids, nutrient, and patho-
gens. When there exists the high concentration of sulfur in the
influent, it is possible that odor problems including hydrogen
sulfide can be serious. Several investigators have been
continuously research to overcome these drawbacks. Un-
solved problems in a UASB and recent research results to
resolve drawbacks are shown in Table 2. Some researchers
added natural or artificial additives to enhance the granule
sizes in a UASB reactor [56,71]. When using natural additives,
a UASB reactor can enhance both the granule sizes and the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiency. Unlike a
usual UASB reactor, this reactor can be applied to treat low
strength wastewater (OLR: 1.48 kg m3 d1), where the COD
removal efficiency was 95%e98% after adding natural ionic
polymer additives. Artificial materials supplementing deficit
granules have been continuously studied for decades. When
starting a UASB reactor after inoculation, the concentration of
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2 193

Table 1 e Advantages and disadvantages of anaerobic digestion treatment using a UASB reactor.
Advantage Disadvantage
 Excellent performance  Long start-up period
- Long solids retention time - Takes long start-up period before the reactor reaches the steady-state
- Even at high loadings and low temperatures
 Low energy consumption  Low performance at very low loadings
- Energy consumption is very low, especially electricity - The activity of granules is lower
 Low sludge production  Post treatment for discharge standards
- The sludge production is low when compared to - Organic matter, solids, nutrient, and pathogens are treated after the
aerobic processes UASB process for discharge standards
 Low macro/micro nutrient requirement  Low pathogen removal
- Anaerobic sludge requires lower nutrient - Pathogen removal is very low in anaerobic digestion treatment
under mesophillic conditions
 Production of valuable by product e Biogas  Odor problems
- Produced methane reduces the operating costs - Hydrogen sulfide can be problem under anaerobic digestion
 Low hydraulic retention time  Low nutrient removal
- High-rate anaerobic digestion process - Nutrient removal is very low in anaerobic digestion treatment
 Improved sludge dewaterability
- Smaller volume of stabilized sludge
 Simple reactor construction
- Construction is very simple
- Low requirement of operating and maintaining
reactors
 Verified reactor performance and design
- Thousands of full-scale UASB reactors are operated
around the world

sludge was at least 10 000 mg L1 to 20 000 mg L1 [72,73]. of methanogens because it caused the formation of an
However, anaerobic digested sludge, waste activated sludge, elastic hydrophilic layer and a hydrophobic inner core. From
and/or cow manure can be used for inoculation when granular the results of the addition of Reetha extract, the similar effects
sludge is not available for the start-up [74,75]. The use of were shown (Tiwari et al. [56]). Wang et al. [59] used cationic
artificial materials for inoculation is summarized in Table 3 polymer to shorten the start-up a UASB reactor. According to
[42]. Addition of additives such as natural polymer, cationic their research, the organic loading capacity increased from
polymer, and hybrid polymer enhances the start-up and the 19.2 g L1 d1e25.6 g L1 d1 with a dose of 20 mg L1. Jeong
granulation process in a UASB reactor. Thaveesri et al. [57] et al. [60] reported that the granule was formed within 5 min
reported that the addition of chitosan can prevent wash-out when hybrid polymer was added in a UASB reactor. Several
investigators have been continuously developing modified
UASB reactors for treating various types of wastewater. The
UASB reactor was combined with the AF by Guiot et al. [76].
Table 2 e Unsolved problems in a UASB and recent According to their research, solids in the influent can accu-
research results to resolve drawbacks. mulate in the UASB such that they have latent effects and are
Drawback Method Reference continuously degraded in the AF. An integrated AF-UASB
Long start-up Addition of additives hybrid system was satisfactory to removal of organic matter
period -Natural polymer and solids. Sawajneh et al. [61] showed that organic matter
Chitosan [57] and solids in municipal wastewater were successfully
Reetha extract [56] removed at 15  Ce21  C using an integrated AF-UASB hybrid
Bamboo charcoal [58] system. A combination of the advantages of the two-stage
-Cationic polymer [59]
process with the advantages of UASB reactors for the treat-
-Hybrid polymer [60]
Low performance Modification of reactor design
ment of a carbohydrate rich substrate can make the efficient
at very low -Hybrid reactor production of hydrogen and methane in a two-step process at
loadings AF þ UASB [57,61] a high rate possible [14]. A two-stage UASB can control the
UASB-septic tank [14] acidification in the first reactor and prevent the overloading
-Two-stage UASB [12,49,51] and/or inhibition of methanogenesis in the second reactor.
-Two-phase UASB [62e64]
When the concentration of organic matter in the influent is
-Two-phase UASB-septic tank [50]
very high, a two-phase UASB can be operated to separate
Post treatment Connection of another process
for discharge -UASB þ ASP [65] fermentation from methanogenesis. Investigators showed
standards -UASB þ Pond [66] that high concentration of COD caused by food waste
-UASB þ Biofilter [67] leachate, distillery wastewater, and dairy wastewater can be
-UASB þ SBR [68] successfully treated using two-phase UASB reactors [62e64].
-UASB þ DHS [69] For more than a hundred years, the septic tank has been
-UASB þ MBR [70]
widely applied for the onsite anaerobic pre-treatment of
194 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2

Table 3 e Summary of successful granule formation using non-granular materials [42].

Wastewater Reactor Temp. ( C) Inoculum Granulation OLR COD removal
volume (L) period (kg m3 d1) efficiency (%)
(months)
VFA mixture 30 30 Digested sludge >3.0 50
Acetate þ Yeast extract 5.75 55 Digested sludge 3.6 31 >93
Acetate þ Yeast extract 5.75 55 Cow manure 3.6 51 >96
Glucose 20 35 Digested sludge 5.0 15e20 >90
Glucose 30 35 Activated sludge 1.5 12 >85
Brewery 20 35 Digested sludge 1.5 26e32 >90
Brewery 607 000 19e23 Digested sludge þ 12 3e8 >90
Activated sludge
Citrate 48 35 Activated sludge 2 22 >90
Citrate 6000 35 Activated sludge 4 12e15 >85
Distillery 24000 30 Digested sludge 6 12e24 >85
Slaughterhouse 21000 15e27 Digested sludge 9 3e4 >90
Terephthalate production 20 000 35 Digested sludge 6 12e20 >90
Sugar molasses 11.4 30 Digested sludge 1.5 13 >90

sewage. A significant improvement of septic tanks was ach-
ieved during the last two decades by applying an upward flow
and a gas/solids/liquid separation device at the top, which
results in the so-called a UASB-septic tank system. The reactor
is operated in upflow mode as a UASB reactor, resulting in
both an improved physical removal of solids and an improved
biological conversion of the dissolved components, and
sludge gradually accumulates and stabilizes in the reactor, as
in a septic tank. To meet stringent discharge standards, the
concentration in effluent requires the UASB connect to
another process such as an ASP, a stabilization pond, a bio-
filter, a sequence batch reactor (SBR), and a rotating biological
contactor (RBC). However, most of post treatment processes
were not completely developed, and some of them were
applied in a full-scale process [65e70].
The economic evaluation of municipal wastewater using a
UASB was well reviewed in Sato et al. [77]. As costs for the
determining system of erecting any wastewater treatment
process is mainly caused by CAPEX (capital costs) and OPEX
(operating costs), it is necessary that two variables be carefully
considered. In addition, each variable is affected by many
parameters such as currency, climate conditions, location and
area of local community, and public concern. Schellingkout
and Collazos [78] reported that a full-scale UASB reactors and
facultative ponds in Bucaramanga, Colombia, installed for
treating municipal wastewater. According to their research,
one UASB reactor costs was 181 $ US m3 reactor. In Colombia,
equipment is more expensive than in Europe or North Amer-
ica, but labor considerably cheap. Souza [79] showed the
conclusion that the UASB reactor costs in Brazil was
280 $ US m3 reactor to 350 $ US m3 reactor. Vieira and Souza
[80] reported that the cost involved in installing a system, the
labor fee, and the materials was approximately 300 $ US m3
reactor or 10 $ US capita1 for the treatment of a
200 L capita1 d1 sewage contribution. Sperling [81]
mentioned that the construction cost of a UASB reactor is in
the range of 20 $ US capita1 to 40 $ US capita1. This cost is a
low cost compared with 60 $ US capita1 to 120 $ US capita1
for an ASP. The comparison of capital and operational costs of
ASP, extended aeration, lagoon, and UASB reactor is available.
Generally, when comparing total costs (capital costs and
operating costs) between UASB and ASP, total costs in an ASP
are higher than those in a UASB [77]. Bacquet et al. [82]
compared total costs in an ASP to those in a UASB. The basic
assumptions for costs comparison are as follows:
 1 000 000 unit per capita loading plant municipal treatment
 Analyzed CAPEX (capital costs) calculated from total in-
vestment costs using 6% APR
 Economic life time for civil works: 30 years
 Economic life time for mechanical equipment: 20 years
 Sell price of electricity: 0.12 $ US kWh1
 Cost price of electricity: 0.06 $ US kWh1
 Influent characteristics
Flow rate: 150 000 m3 d1
COD: 722 mg L1
BOD: 386 mg L1
SS: 317 mg L1
NH3eN: 35 mg L1
 Effluent characteristics
Flow rate: 150 000 m3 d1
BOD: 15 mg L1
SS: 10 mg L1
NH3eN: 2 mg L1
According to their report, total costs (10 400 000 $ US) in a
UASB are 22% less than those (13 000 000 $ US) in an ASP.
While capital costs are similar (approximately 9 000 000 $ US),
operating costs in an ASP are higher than those in a UASB. In
the recent, power costs have been increasing dramatically,
thereby increasing total costs of systems. Large amount of
power is required in an ASP for aeration and mixing.
Conversely, the power requirement in a UASB is very low.
Methane gas produced in anaerobic digestion reduces the
costs of anaerobic treatment. In terms of power requirement,
the UASB is inexpensive compared to other aerobic/anaerobic
reactors. In addition, low sludge production reduces the costs
for sludge dewatering/disposals. The sludge disposal is much
easier and cheaper for anaerobic systems with much smaller
volumes of stabilized sludge.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
3.1.1. Application and development trends
Mijaylova-Nacheva and Canul-Chuil [83] treated aliphatic
compounds using an anaerobic reactor packed with granular
activated carbon and granular sludge. According to their
research, the COD removal efficiency was up to 94% at an OLR
of 1.24 kg m3 d. Leal et al. [84] applied the UASB for treating oil
and grease in dairy wastewater, and a hydrolytic enzyme was
added to the UASB reactor to evaluate the performance of the
enzyme on oil and grease. The average COD removal effi-
ciency was 90% in this study when the enzyme was added.
Several investigators reported hydrogen production in a
UASB. Gavala et al. [85] showed that the amount of hydrogen
produced in a mesophilic UASB reactor was greater than that
in a CSTR. So was a thermophilic CSTR. Leitao et al. [86]
studied both organic and hydraulic shock on the robustness
of the UASB. The concentration of COD in the influent was
approximately 800 mg L1. The performance of the UASB
reactor was not affected until the HRT reached around 6 h. It
was shown that the detoxifying performance of UASB reactors
is excellent. Anaerobic granules can degrade biocides up to
99% using a glucose supplemented continuous UASB reactor
[87]. Donlon et al. [88] also showed that UASB reactors can
rapidly detoxify nitroaromatic compounds.
Wang et al. [12] investigated the anaerobic treatment of a
real coal gasification wastewater using the two-stage contin-
uous UASB with a step-feed, and evaluated the process effi-
ciencies in comparison with the results from single-feed
operation. The maximum COD and total phenols removal ef-
ficiencies reached 60% and 63% under the condition of influent
flow distribution ratio of 0.2 and influent COD concentration
of 2500 mg L1, while the maximum COD and total phenols
removal efficiencies were 50% and 50% at a total HRT of 48 h
under single-feed conditions. El-Sheikh et al. [49] used two-
stage UASB reactors to treat tannery wastewater. The sys-
tem successfully treated the tannery wastewater, although
the influent concentration of COD was very high. Senthilku-
mar et al. [51] operated the two-stage pilot-scale UASB reactor
for the treatment of a textile dyeing wastewater. The
maximum COD and color removal efficiency were 88.5% and
91.8% at a HRT of 24 h. Ye et al. [11] investigated the treatment
of a fresh leachate with high-strength organic matter and
calcium from a municipal solid waste incineration plant using
a UASB reactor. When the reactor was fed with raw leachate
(COD: as high as 70 390 mg L1 to 75 480 mg L1) at an OLR of
12.5 kg m3 d1, the COD removal efficiency was up to 82.4%.
The average methane yield per removed COD was 0.31 L g1,
and 88.6% of the removed COD was converted into methane
with an OLR of 12.5 kg m3 d1 or lower. Anaerobic ammo-
nium oxidation (ANAMMOX) is one of promising bioprocesses
for the treatment of ammonium-rich wastewaters since a
high-rate is one of the prime objectives during the ANAMMOX
process. The nitrogen removal rate of conventional nitrogen
removal biotechnologies are usually less than 0.5 kg m3 d1,
while the ANAMMOX process can obtain higher than
5 kg m3 d1 when combining with other reactors such as an
upflow biofilter, UASB, and gas-lift reactor. Tang et al. [89e91]
investigated the performance of high-loaded ANAMMOX
combined with UASB reactors. A high-rate performance with
a nitrogen removal rate of 74.3 kg m3 d1e76.7 kg m3 d1
195
was accomplished in a lab-scale ANAMMOX combined with
UASB reactors, which was three times as high as the reported
value before. The concentrations of biomass in the reactors (as
volatile suspended solids) were as high as 42.0 g L1e57.7 g L1
with the specific ANAMMOX activity approaching
5.6 kg kg1 d1. Decentralized wastewater management is
inevitable for comprehensive sustainable wastewater treat-
ment and environmental protection. Anaerobic technologies
are the core of sustainable decentralized wastewater treat-
ment systems. Several investigators showed that the UASB
can feasible treat municipal wastewater [92,93]. Turkdogan-
Aydinol et al. [94] reported that municipal wastewater was
successfully treated using a UASB at a broad OLR of
0.57e11.78 kg m1 d1 below 20  C. The experimental results
were followed by the modified Stover-Kincannon model.
Al-Jamal and Mahmoud [95] studied a UASB-septic tank
system for anaerobic sewage treatment at a sewage temper-
ature of 17  C. The modification of the one-stage UASB reactor
into a UASB-septic tank system remarkably improved the
UASB reactor performance [96]. According to their research,
the average removal efficiencies of COD, BOD, and SS were
51%, 45%, and 74%, respectively. This study suggests that the
design of the UASB-septic tank at a HRT of 2 d is adequate and
more economical [95]. Luostarinen et al. [50] also applied the
two-phased UASB-septic tank system for the treatment of
kitchen waste with black water at low temperature
(10  Ce20  C). According to their research, two-phased UASB-
septic tanks were reliable and efficient for removing solid and
dissolved organic material from a mixture of kitchen waste
and black water. It was shown that no significant effect on the
solid and dissolved organic material removal in the two-
phased system as temperature decreased from 20  C to 10  C.
3.2. EGSB reactor
The EGSB reactor is a family of the UASB reactor. With a high
recycle ratio, the upflow of this reactor is typically maintained
at higher than 6 m h1. This enables the EGSB reactor to suf-
ficiently contact the granules to wastewater since the ratio of
height to width is 4e5. In the meantime, the upflow of an
UASB reactor ranges from 0.5 m h1 to 1.0 m h1. The defini-
tive feature of an EGSB reactor is the high upflow velocity. It
contributes to separating dispersed sludge from mature
granules in the EGSB, subsequently withdrawing suspended
solids out of the reactor. Additionally, due to the high velocity,
the granules are expanded and the hydraulic mixing is
intensified, giving the granules a greater chance to contact
with the wastewater. Thus, this reactor is capable of treating
high-strength organic wastewaters (up to an OLR of
30 kg m3 d1). The EGSB also treats low strength wastewaters
where the influent COD concentrations are less than
1000 mg L1 to 2000 mg L1, especially at low to mid temper-
ature [8,97]. Unlike the UASB, various types of the modified
EGSB do not exist. Based on the UASB reactor and AF, some
modified EGSB reactors were attempted [98]. However, there
are still no definite differences between the UASB and EGSB
models. It is exemplified well that the hydraulic flow pattern
can be expected between a completely mixed and dispersed
plug flow in the EGSB. This is highly dependent upon the
196 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
recycle ratio. A schematic diagram of the EGSB reactor is
shown in Fig. 4.
3.2.1. Application and development trends
Several investigators have continuously applied for the
treatment of various wastewaters using the EGSB or modified
EGSB processes. Nún  ez and Martı́nez [99] treated a slaugh-
terhouse wastewater using an EGSB reactor. According to
their research, the COD, SS, and fats removal efficiencies were
67%, 90%, and 85%, respectively. Also, there was no accumu-
lation of fats in the EGSB. In a test on the removal of milk fats
using the EGSB reactor, most fats were adsorbed on the
granules and slowly decomposed [100]. This implies that the
EGSB reactor has a filtration capacity by controlling the recycle
ratio. dos Santos et al. [101] showed that it was possible to
treat a triazine contained azo dye using a thermophilic EGSB
reactor. To activate this reaction, anthraquinone-2,6-disulfo-
nate was used as a redox mediator, and the color removal
efficiency was up to 95% in this study. For the case of long-
chain fatty acids, the COD removal efficiency ranged 66%e
73% under thermophilic conditions, while that 44%e69%
under mesophilic conditions [102]. However, the white-
absorbed granules were observed due to the use of long-
chain acids. Dinsdale et al. [103] reported that the mixture of
short-chain organic acids such as maleic, oxalic, and fumaric
acid can be effectively removed and that the COD removal
efficiency was 98% at an OLR of 10 kg m3 d1. In comparison,
when acetic, propionic, butyric, maleic, glyoxylic, and benzoic
acid were mixed, the COD removal efficiency was 90% at an
OLR of 3 kg m3 d1. A toxicity test in the EGSB reactor showed
that industrial streams containing formaldehyde can be
Fig. 4 e A schematic diagram of the EGSB reactor.
treated using an anaerobic process, combining high density
granules and the recycling ratio. Hydrogen and methanol can
be obtained as intermediate products, and the formaldehyde
toxicity is in part reversible because the methane production
rate recovers after formaldehyde conversion [104]. Several
investigators reported the effects of temperature on perfor-
mance, especially under psychrophilic conditions. It was
shown that the EGSB reactor is a feasible system to treat high-
strength wastewaters at low temperatures [7,105e109]. Under
psychrophilic conditions, chemical and biological reactions
proceed much slower than those under mesophilic condi-
tions, suggesting that most reactions in the biodegradation of
organic matter require more energy to proceed [110]. However,
Connaughton et al. [111] showed that there was little differ-
ence between mesophilic and psychrophilic conditions. The
influent was a brewery wastewater and the COD loading rate
was 4.47 kg m3 d1. Both reactors showed excellent COD
removal efficiencies (85%e93%). The specific methanogenic
activities and gas production rates were also similar. Anaer-
obic treatment of a phenol-containing wastewater using UASB
and/or EGSB-based bioreactors has usually been carried out
under mesophilic conditions (>25  C). However, in the
northern hemisphere, most wastewaters are released at
ambient or sub-ambient temperatures (<18  C), which re-
quires that the wastewaters be heated prior to treatment.
Scully et al. [112] studied the anaerobic treatment of phenol
from 9.5  C to 15  C using an EGSB bioreactor. They concluded
that it was possible to treat phenol EGSB-based bioreactors at
15  C. When phenol was treated at 15  C, the phenol removal
efficiency was 99% and the phenol concentration in the
effluent was below 4 mg L1 at a phenol loading rate of
2 kg m3 d1. The methane production rate was
12e20 mL g1 d1 in the phenol EGSB-based bioreactor. The
ANAMMOX process is a novel and promising alternative in
that the aeration and carbon source demand are reduced by
over 50% and 100%, compared to conventional nitrification
and denitrification processes. To let the ammonium concen-
tration in the effluent remain below the discharge standard,
the ANAMMOX granular sludge in the reactor should pose a
high specific conversion rate and substrate affinity. Since the
EGSB reactor has been successfully applied in the anaerobic
process, it was introduced to develop the ANAMMOX pro-
cesses [113]. When the nitrogen loading rate and nitrogen
removal rate were 27.31 kg m3 d1 and 25.86 kg m3 d1, the
ammonium concentration in the effluent was 11.9 mg L1 and
the nitrogen removal efficiency was up to 94%. Jianlong and
Jing [114] showed that the removal efficiencies of total nitro-
gen, ammonium, and nitrite were 54.3%, 21.7%, and 99.9%,
respectively, using an EGSB combined with the ANAMMOX
process. In this study, the COD removal efficiency was 84% at
the influent COD concentration of 500 mg L1. Chu et al. [115]
reported that a membrane-coupled EGSB can treat domestic
wastewater under low to moderate temperature conditions.
According to their research, the cake layer on the membrane
caused the most serious problem, showing the highest resis-
tance in a hollow fiber membrane. The COD removal efficiency
was proportional to the upflow velocity. Guo et al. [116] com-
bined an EGSB reactor with granular activated carbon for the
fermentative hydrogen production from a molasses contain-
ing wastewater. Compared to other types of hydrogen
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
production reactors, the EGSB system is more competitive. It
was possible to efficiently obtain hydrogen using an EGSB
reactor from a stressful environment due to the protection of
granular activated carbon media. With the high biomass
retention at an OLR, the EGSB system is a promising high-
efficiency bioprocess for hydrogen production from high-
strength wastewaters. The UASB reactor is one of effective
anaerobic treatment processes. However, when the OLR is
below 1 kg m3 d1e2 kg m3 d1, the biogas production is
limited. For the case of the EGSB reactor, even though the OLR
is low, the removal efficiency of organic matter is not severely
affected because of the greater mixing in the reactor.
Domestic wastewater has a low amount of organic matter
with a typical COD concentration in the range of
250 mg L1e500 mg L1. In some places, the COD concentra-
tions are shown to be lower than 250 mg L1. Inorganic com-
pounds such as ammonium and phosphate are removed to a
limited extent during the anaerobic treatment. Thus, an
integration of EGSB and nutrient removal process can be a
feasible alternative for domestic wastewater treatment.
Zeolite is a well-known material for its ability to remove
ammonia from wastewater. Li et al. [117] investigated the
performance of an EGSB reactor coupled with zeolite bed
filtration for treating low strength domestic wastewater at
35  C for 7 months. The integrated system could effectively
decrease the COD concentration up to 71.6%. Ammonia and
phosphate were completely decreased in this system.
3.3. Comparison between the UASB and EGSB reactors
Although both the UASB and EGSB reactors make use of
granules to usually treat high-strength wastewaters, they
have differences in several parameters such as the reactor
geometry, operational condition, and application. Two com-
mercial processes, are predominant in Europe, the Biothane
UASB process has an impressive track record for various kinds
of industrial wastewaters in the UASB market. Meanwhile, the
Biobed EGSB technology was developed lately and has over-
taken the Biothane UASB. Some characteristics between the
Biothane UASB and Biobed EGSB reactors are compared in
Table 4 [118].
Zoutberg and Frankin [119] showed an example of
installing and operating the Biobed EGSB. It was possible to
treat effluent of a factory producing formaldehyde from
methanol using the Biobed EGSB. This effluent mainly con-
sisted of formaldehyde of 5000 mg L1 and methanol of
10 000 mg L1, and the removal efficiencies were above 99%.
Table 4 e Comparison of characteristics between
Biothane UASB and Biobed EGSB reactor [105].
 
Biothane UASB Biobed EGSB
Parameter
OLR (kg m3 d1) 10 30
Height (m) 5.5e6.5 12e18
Sensitivity for toxin  þþ
Component
Vliquid settler 1.0 10
Vliquid reactor <1.0 <6.0
Vgas reactor <1.0 <7.0
197
Another also showed similar removal efficiencies (98%) for
formaldehyde of 10 000 mg L1 and methanol of 20 000 mg L1
[120]. Several investigators reported the results from a com-
parison between the UASB and EGSB reactors. Jeison and
Chamy [121] showed that both the UASB and EGSB reactors
have excellence performance. They tested using low-strength
and high-strength organic matter, and observed similar sized
granules between the two. From the results of this study, there
was no great difference between them. The ash content and
the granule activity were very similar. In addition, the COD
and solids removal efficiencies were slightly different from
each other. On the other hand, Kato et al. [122] reported that
the COD removal efficiency was affected for low-strength
(below 200 mg L1) wastewater treatment using the UASB
reactor. While when the EGSB was used to treat low-strength
wastewater, the COD removal efficiency can maintained up to
154 mg L1 (7.4 kg m3 d1) without any detrimental effect.
Palm oil mill effluent is a viscous brown liquid containing fine
suspended solids, and the pH ranges 3.5 to 4.2. The COD
concentration and the lipids concentration in palm oil mill
effluent is usually 16 000 mg L1 to 100 000 mg L1 and
10 000 mg L1 to 17 000 mg L1. Several investigators reported
the treatment of palm oil mill effluent using either the UASB
or the EGSB reactors. Fang et al. [123] compared these two
types of reactors under controlled conditions. The perfor-
mance of the UASB and EGSB reactors for the continuous
treatment of both palm oil mill effluent and deoiled palm oil
mill effluent were compared in terms of methane production
rate, methane yield, organic loading rate, process stability,
and COD removal efficiency. They found that the COD
reduction was greater than 90% in both the UASB and EGSB
reactors. In addition, a similar amount of methane could be
obtained from treating palm oil mill effluent. However, for the
case of treating deoiled palm oil mill effluent, it was found that
the UASB reactor was more stable than the EGSB reactor. Fang
et al. [124] also applied the UASB and EGSB reactors for the
treatment of potato juice and a by-product of potato-starch
processing, and compared their performance in terms of the
amount of biogas production. Potato juice could be treated
using a UASB reactor at the highest OLR of 5.1 kg m3 d1 with
a value of methane yield per volatile solids of 240 mL g1. The
EGSB reactor can be operated at the highest OLR of
3.2 kg m3 d1 with a value of methane yield per volatile solids
of 380 mL g1. The UASB reactor tolerated at higher volatile
fatty acid concentrations in comparison with the EGSB
reactor. Meanwhile, The UASB obtained lower methane yield
than the EGSB reactor did under stable conditions.
3.4. SGBR reactor
The SGBR was developed by Ellis and his co-workers in the
United States (Iowa State University) in 2000 [125]; U.S. Patent
No. 6 709 591. The SGBR is filled with active anaerobic gran-
ules, and most granules proliferate at the top of the reactor
since it is operated in downflow mode. This reactor is one of
modified anaerobic granule reactors and is suitable for the
treatment of low to mid-strength wastewaters. The greatest
advantage of this system is that the configuration of this
system is very simple. Without any additional mixing system
or power, this reactor is able to effectively remove organic
198 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2

matter and separate solids/liquid/gas [126]. In other words,

the SGBR does not require recirculation pumps, GSS devices,
complex underdrain systems, and influent distribution sys-
tems. This system has only a feeding pump and bypass line for
dislodging the trapped granules in the underdrain. However,
granules in the SGBR are often clogged when wastewater
contains the high concentration of solids or the granules
rapidly grow due to a high organic loading rate. To repeat, to
continuously operate this system without backwashing, it is
necessary that the removal rate of solids in the SGBR be faster
than the input rate of solids in the influent. However, as the
hydrolytic process of solids is usually a rate-limiting step in
the anaerobic process, the SGBR needs a periodic backwashing
to withdraw solids out of the reactor. Lim et al. [9] stated that a
periodic backwashing allows granules to be relocated and
condensed in the reactor. In addition, the COD removal effi-
ciency after backwashing in a SGBR was a function of recovery
time, not an OLR. This is mainly due to the high activity of the
granules in the SGBR. The SGBR process is commonly per-
formed under room temperatures and showed excellent COD
removal efficiency with a dense bed of anaerobic granules. In
addition, the SGBR already demonstrated the capability of
treatment of organic matter at ambient (approximately 25  C)
or mesophilic temperatures (approximately 35  C) with
various substrates [127e129]. Often, the effluent COD con-
centration in the SGBR can maintain very low due to the high
density of granules and the long solid retention time. This
system can obtain a long solid retention time (greater than
300 d), which is greater than in a similar system [130]. Lim Fig. 5 e A schematic diagram of the SGBR.
et al. [9] reported that the average solid retention time of the
SGBR was 421 d. The flow of an SGBR is certainly still not
understood. Lim [131] showed that the flow of an SGBR is close
treated swine wastewater at 16  C and 24  C using a SGBR. Ac-
to a quasi plug-flow from the results of vertical profile tests.
cording to their research, the temperatureeactivity coefficient
Lim et al. [132] developed the SGBR model to simulate the COD
was determined to be 1.09. The average COD removal effi-
concentration in the effluent using the general transport
ciencies at 16  C and 24  C were 88.5% and 68.0%, and the
equation. In the SGBR model, advection, diffusion, and
removal efficiencies were proportional to the OLR. Lim et al. [132]
degradation by microorganisms were considered, and this
elucidated why the COD removal efficiency was proportional to
model elucidated the movement and the fates of contami-
an OLR using the SGBR model. Turkdogan-Aydinol et al. [134]
nants in this system. A schematic diagram of the SGBR pro-
compared the COD removal efficiency between the SGBR and
cess is shown in Fig. 5.
UASB reactors. They concluded that the performance of the
SGBR was superior to that of the UASB. Evans and Ellis [135] also
3.4.1. Application and development trends
compared the performance between the SGBR and UASB re-
Mach [125] compared the performance of two SGBR reactors at a
actors. Sucrose and non fat dry milk were used as substrates.
room temperature. According to his results, the performance in
According to their research, the COD removal efficiency in the
a SGBR was a function of the configuration of reactor. A greater
SGBR was 90.7%, whereas that in the UASB reactor was 77.5%.
ratio of height to width showed a greater performance owing to
Evans [130] summarized the operational results of the SGBR for
the plug flow in the SGBR. Although the wastewater consisting of
various types of wastewater (Table 5).
a high sulfate concentration was treated using a SGBR, no
harmful effects were observed. It was hypothesized that
hydrogen sulfide produced was successfully separated and
scrubbed, and thereby it did not have any adverse effects on the 4. Conclusions
granules in the SGBR [130]. Evans [130] treated a synthetic
wastewater consisted of non fat dry milk (COD: 1000 mg L1) Anaerobic treatment is a practical and useful process to treat
using a SGBR. In this study, the COD removal efficiency was municipal and/or industrial wastewaters. Although this pro-
greater than 90%. Park et al. [133] treated dairy wastewater using cess has several advantages, many engineers or system de-
a pilot-scale SGBR. They reported that the COD and BOD removal signers have preferred to use aerobic processes rather than
efficiencies were greater than 90% under a broad range of OLR anaerobic processes. This is mainly because there were some
ranging from 0.63 kg m3 d1e9.72 kg m3 d1. The SGBR was misunderstandings of the anaerobic processes, in addition to a
robust to temperature fluctuations. Removal of organic matter lack of knowledge. However, as several investigators have
was stable in the range of temperature (10  Ce29  C). Lim et al. [9] continuously researched high-rate anaerobic treatment
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2 199

references
Table 5 e Some operational results of the SGBR for various
wastewaters [130].
Wastewater HRT (h) OLR COD
[1] Jewell WJ. Anaerobic sewage treatment. Environ Sci
(kg m3 d1) removal
Technol 1987;21(1):14e21.
efficiency (%)
[2] Stronach SM, Rudd T, Lester JN. Anaerobic digestion
Non fat dry milk 5e36 0.7e4.8 91.7e97.3 processes in industrial wastewater treatment. 1st ed. New
Non fat dry milk 5e36 0.7e4.0 93.9e96.6 York: Springer-Verlag; 1986.
Sucrose þ non fat 18e48 2.5e5.0 93.5e95.3 [3] Lester JN, Soares A, San Martin D, Harper P, Jefferson B,
dry milk Brigg J, et al. A novel approach to the anaerobic treatment of
Slaughterhouse 16e48 1.3e4.6 91.8e94.2 municipal wastewater in temperate climates through
(pilot) primary sludge fortification. Environ Technol
Slaughterhouse 8e48 0.4e7.1 83.7e95.7 2009;30(10):985e94.
(lab.) [4] McCarty PL, Smith DP. Anaerobic wastewater treatment.
High sulfate waste 18 4.0 97.3 Environ Sci Technol 1996;20(12):1200e6.
stream [5] Speece RE. Anaerobic biotechnology for industrial
Municipal 12e48 0.08e0.8 56.5e81.6 wastewaters. 1st ed. Nashville, TN: Archae Press; 1996.
wastewater [6] Urban I, Weichgrebe D, Rosenwinkel KH. Anaerobic
treatment of municipal wastewater using the UASB-
processes, anaerobic treatment became one of alternatives to technology. Water Sci Technol 2007;56(10):37e44.
treat municipal wastewater and various types of toxic waste- [7] Enright AM, McHugh S, Collins G, O’Flaherty V. Low-
temperature anaerobic biological treatment of solvent-
water. As a representative high-rate anaerobic process, the
containing pharmaceutical wastewater. Water Res
characteristics and applications of the UASB and EGSB reactors 2005;39(19):4587e96.
were investigated and the performances were compared. The [8] Lettinga G. Sustainable integrated biological wastewater
UASB reactor has been used for treating various high-strength treatment. Water Sci Technol 1996;33(8):85e98.
wastewaters in the field. The capital and operating costs of a [9] Lim SJ, Fox P, Ellis TG. A kinetic evaluation of anaerobic
UASB are very competitive with other biotechnological pro- treatment of swine wastewater at two temperatures in a
temperate climate zone. Bioresour Technol
cesses. This indicates why this reactor has become the most
2011;102(4):3724e9.
widespread in the high-rate anaerobic treatment process. The
[10] Young JC, McCarty PL. The anaerobic filter for wastewater
EGSB reactor has efficiently treated high-strength wastewater treatment. J Water Pollut Control Fed 1969;41:R160e73.
using expanding granules. In addition, this reactor is also able [11] Ye J, Mu Y, Cheng X, Sun D. Treatment of fresh leachate
to be applied for low-strength wastewater (<1000 COD mg L1), with high-strength organics and calcium from municipal
especially under low temperatures. The SGBR, developed at solid waste incineration plant using UASB reactor.
Iowa State University, has shown excellent performance Bioresour Technol 2011;102(9):5498e503.
[12] Wang W, Han H, Yuan M, Li H, Fang F, Wang K. Treatment
similar to the UASB and EGSB reactors. Several types of
of coal gasification wastewater by a two-continuous UASB
wastewater, including municipal to industrial wastewaters, system with step-feed for COD and phenols removal.
were successfully treated using the SGBR. To more develop Bioresour Technol 2011;102(9):5454e60.
anaerobic granular processes, mathematical models should be [13] Alrajoula M, Halalsheh M, Fayyad M. Anaerobic filter for
achieved. Mathematical models provide the information about polishing effluent of UASB reactor treating strong sewage at
various mechanisms in anaerobic granular processes. The cost- 23 degree C. Water Sci Technol 2009;59(10):1975e81.
benefit analysis under organic loadings and various tempera- [14] Kongjan P, O-Thong S, Angelidaki I. Performance and
microbial community analysis of two-stage process with
ture conditions takes into consideration.
extreme thermophilic hydrogen and thermophilic methane
production from hydrolysate in UASB reactors. Bioresour
Technol 2011;102(5):4028e35.
Conflict of interest [15] Chernicharo CAL, Machado RMG. Feasibility of the UASB/AF
system for domestic sewage treatment in developing
countries. Water Sci Technol 1998;38(8e9):325e32.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest
[16] Fang HHP. Microbial structure and activity of UASB granules
including any financial, personal, or other relationships with treating different wastewaters. Water Sci Technol
other people or organizations. The authors assign the copy- 1994;30(12):87e96.
right to the publisher. [17] Schmidt JE, Ahring BK. Granular sludge formation in upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnol
Bioeng 1996;49(3):229e46.
[18] Thaveesri J, Gernaey K, Kaonga B, Boucneau G, Verstaete W.
Acknowledgments Organic and ammonium nitrogen and oxygen in relation to
granule sludge growth in lab-scale UASB reactors. Water Sci
Technol 1994;30(12):43e53.
This research was supported by the Nuclear R&D program
[19] Wu WM, Hickey RF, Zeikus JG. Characterization of
through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
metabolic performance of methanogenic granules treating
funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. brewery wastewater: role of sulphate reducing bacteria.
Some parts of content in this research were derived from Appl Environ Microbiol 1991;57(12):3438e49.
“Comparisons between the UASB and the EGSB Reactor” has [20] Nicolella C, van Loosdrecht MCM, Heijnen JJ. Wastewater
written by Seung Joo Lim at Iowa State University, and most of treatment with particulate biofilm reactors. J Biotechnol
content in the paper were improved by recent references. 2000;80(1):1e33.
200 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
[21] Ahring BK, Schmidt JE, Winther-Nielsen M, Macario AJL.
Effect of medium composition and sludge removal on the
production, composition, and architecture of thermophilic
(55 C) acetateutilizing granules from an upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol
1993;59(8):2538e45.
[22] Alibhai KRK, Forster CF. An examination of the granulation
process in UASB reactors. Environ Technol Lett
1986;7(1e12):193e200.
[23] Alphenaar PA, Perez MC, Lettinga G. The influence of
substrate transport limitation on porosity and
methanogenic activity of anaerobic sludge granules. Appl
Microbiol Biotechnol 1993;39(2):276e80.
[24] Dolfing J, Griffioen A, van Neerven ARW,
Zevenhuizen LPTM. Chemical and bacteriological
composition of granular methanogenic sludge. Can J
Microbiol 1985;31(8):744e50.
[25] Hulshoff Pol LW, van de Worp JJM, Lettinga G, Beverloo WA.
Physical characterization of anaerobic granular sludge. In:
EWPCA water treatment conference anaerobic treatment, a
grown-up technology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: RAI
Halls; 1986.
[26] Ross WR. The phenomenon of sludge pelletisation in the
anaerobic treatment of a maize process waste. Water SA
1984;10(4):197e204.
[27] Schmidt JE, Macario AJ, Ahring BK, de Macario EC. Effect of
magnesium on methanogenic subpopulations in a
thermophilic acetate-degrading granular consortium. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1992;58(3):862e8.
[28] Fukuzaki S, Chang Y, Nishio N, Nagai S. Characteristics of
granular methanogenic sludge grown on lactate in a UASB
reactor. J Ferment Bioeng 1991;72(6):465e72.
[29] Fukuzaki S, Nishio N, Nagai S. Chemical composition and
kinetic properties of granular methanogenic sludge grown
on propinate. J Ferment Bioeng 1991;72(5):405e7.
[30] Shen CF, Kosaric N, Blaszczyk R. Properties of anaerobic
granular sludge as affected by yeast extract, cobalt and iron
supplement. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 1993;39(1):132e7.
[31] Kosaric N, Blaszczyk R, Orphan L, Valladarfs J. The
characteristics of granules from upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket reactors. Water Res 1990;24(12):1473e7.
[32] Stal LJ, Bock E, Bouwer EJ, Douglas LJ, Gutnick DL,
Heckmann KD, et al. Cellular physiology and interactions of
biofilm organism. In: de Bont JAM, Visser J, Mattiasson B,
Tramper J, editors. Structure and function of bioflm.
Chichester: Wiley; 1989.
[33] Zhou W, Imai T, Ukita M, Sekine M, Higuchi T. Triggering
forces for anaerobic granulation in UASB reactors. Process
Biochem 2006;41(1):36e43.
[34] Forster CF. Anaerobic upflow sludge blanket reactor:
aspects of their microbiology and their chemistry.
J Biotechnol 1992;17(3):221e31.
[35] Morgan JW, Evison LM, Forster CF. The internal architecture
of anaerobic sludge granules. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
1991;50(2):211e26.
[36] Grotenhuis JTC, Smit M, Plugge CM, Xu YS, van
Lammeren AA, Stam AJ, et al. Bacteriological composition
and structure of granular sludge adapted to different
substrates. Appl Environ Microbiol 1991;57(7):1942e9.
[37] Morgan JW, Forster CF, Evison L. A comparative study of the
nature of biopolymers extracted from anaerobic and
activated sludge. Water Res 1990;24(6):743e50.
[38] Shen CF, Kosaric N, Blaszczyk R. The effect of selected
heavy metals (Ni, Co and Fe) on anaerobic granules and
their extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). Water Res
1993;27(1):25e33.
[39] Schmidt JE, Ahring BK. Extracellular polymers in granular
sludge from different sludge upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactors. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
1994;42(2e3):457e62.
[40] Macleod FA, Guiot SR, Costerton JW. Layered structure of
bacterial aggregates produced in an upflow anaerobic
sludge bed and filter reactor. Appl Environ Microbiol
1990;56(6):1598e607.
[41] Grotenhuis JTC, Kissel JC, Plugge CM, Stams AJM,
Zehnder AJB. Role of substrate concentration in particle size
distribution of methanogenic granular sludge in UASB
reactors. Water Res 1991;25(1):21e7.
[42] Hickey RF, Wu WM, Veiga MC, Jones R. Start-up, operation,
monitoring and control of high-rate anaerobic treatment
systems. Water Sci Technol 1991;24(8):207e55.
[43] Wiegant WM, De Man AWA. Granulation of biomass in
thermophilic upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors
treating acidified wastewaters. Biotechnol Bioeng
1986;28(8):1286e7.
[44] Costerton JW, Cheng KJ, Geesey GG, Ladd TI, Nickel JC,
Dasgupta M, et al. Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease.
Annu Rev Microbiol 1987;41:435e64.
[45] Lettinga G, van Nelsen AFM, Hobma SW, de Zeeuw W,
Klapwijk A. Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB) reactor
concept for biological wastewater treatment, especially for
anaerobic treatment. Biotechnol Bioeng 1980;22(4):699e734.
[46] Kato MT, Field JA, Kleerebezem R, Lettinga G. Treatment of
low strength soluble wastewater in UASB reactors. J
Ferment Bioeng 1994;77(6):679e86.
[47] Lettinga G. Anaerobic digestion and wastewater treatment
systems. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 1995;67(1):3e28.
[48] Franklin RJ. Full-scale experiences with anaerobic
treatment of industrial wastewater. Water Sci Technol
2001;44(8):1e6.
[49] El-Sheikh MA, Saleh HI, Flora JR, Abdel-Ghany MR.
Biological tannery wastewater treatment using two stage
UASB reactors. Desalination 2011;276(1e3):253e9.
[50] Luostarinen S, Sanders W, Kujawa-Roeleveld K, Zeeman G.
Effect of temperature on anaerobic treatment of black water
in UASB-septic tank systems. Bioresour Technol
2007;98(5):980e6.
[51] Senthilkumar M, Gnanpragasam G, Arutchelvan V,
Nagarajan S. Treatment of textile dyeing wastewater using
two-phase pilot plant UASB reactor with sago wastewater
as co-substrate. Chem Eng J 2011;166(1):10e4.
[52] Singh KS, Viraraghavan T, Bhattacharyya D. Sludge blanket
height and flow pattern in UASB reactors: temperature
effects. J Environ Eng 2006;132(8):895e900.
[53] Bolle WL, van Breugel J, van Eyebergen GC, Kossen NW,
Zoetemeyer RJ. Modelling the liquid flow in up-flow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor. Biotechnol Bioeng 1986;28(11):1615e20.
[54] Heertjes PM, Kuijvenhoven LJ, van der Meer RR. Fluid flow
pattern in upflow reactors for anaerobic treatment of beet
sugar factory wastewater. Biotechnol Bioeng
1982;24(2):443e59.
[55] Lettinga G, Holshoff Pol LW. UASB-process design for
various types of wastewaters. Water Sci Technol
1991;24(8):87e107.
[56] Tiwari MK, Guha S, Harendranath CS, Tripathi S. Enhanced
granulation by natural ionic polymer additives in UASB
reactor treating low-strength wastewater. Water Res
2005;39(16):3801e10.
[57] Thaveesri J, Daffonchio D, Liessens B, Vandermeren P,
Verstraete W. Granulation and sludge bed stability in
upflow anaerobic sludge bed reactors in relation to surface
thermodynamics. Appl Environ Microbiol
1995;61(10):3681e6.
[58] Cao Y, Zhang M, Shan S. Effect of two-added powdered
bamboo-charcoal on sludge granulation of UASB reactor.
Trans Chin Soc Agr Eng 2010;26(5):246e50.
 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
[59] Wang Y, Show KY, Tay JH, Sim KH. Effects of cationic
polymer on start-up and granulation in upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactors. J Chem Technol Biotechnol
2004;79(3):219e28.
[60] Jeong HS, Kim YH, Yeom SH, Song BK, Lee SI. Facilitated
UASB granule formation using organic-inorganic hybrid
polymers. Process Biochem 2005;40(1):89e94.
[61] Sawajneh Z, Al-Omari A, Halasheh M. Anaerobic treatment
of strong sewage by a two stage system of AF and UASB
reactors. Water Sci Technol 2010;61(9):2399e406.
[62] Shin HS, Bae BU, Lee JJ, Paik BC. Anaerobic digestion of
distillery wastewater in a two-phase UASB system. Water
Sci Technol 1992;25(7):361e71.
[63] Ince O. Performance of two-phase anaerobic digestion
system when treating dairy wastewater. Water Res
1998;32(9):2707e13.
[64] Shin HS, Han SK, Song YC, Lee CY. Performance of UASB
reactor treating leachate from acidogenic fermenter in the
two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste. Water Res
2001;35(14):3441e7.
[65] Mungray AK, Patel K. Coliforms removal in two UASB þ ASP
based systems. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation
2011;65(1):23e8.
[66] Walia R, Kumar P, Mehrotra I. Performance of UASB based
sewage treatment plant in India: polishing by diffusers an
alternative. Water Sci Technol 2011;63(4):680e8.
[67] Pontes PP, Chernicharo CADL. Characterization and
removal of specific organic constituents in an
UASBdtrickling filter system treating domestic wastewater.
Environ Technol 2011;32(3e4):281e7.
[68] Moawad A, Mahmoud UF, El-Khateeb MA, El-Molla E.
Coupling of sequencing batch reactor and UASB reactor for
domestic wastewater treatment. Desalination
2009;242(1e3):325e35.
[69] Tandukar M, Ohashi A, Harada H. Performance comparison
of a pilot-scale UASB and DHS system and activated sludge
process for the treatment of municipal wastewater. Water
Res 2007;41(12):2697e705.
[70] Qiu G, Song Y, Zeng P, Duan L, Xiao S. Combination of
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and membrane
bioreactor (MBR) for berberine reduction from wastewater
and the effects of berberine on bacterial community
dynamics. J Hazard Mater 2013;246-247:34e43.
[71] Yu HQ, Fang HH, Tay JH. Effect of Fe2þ on sludge granulation
in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Water Sci
Technol 2000;41(12):199e205.
[72] Lettinga G, Hobma SW, Hulshoff Pol LW, de Zeeuw W, de
Jong P, Grin p, et al. Design, operation and economy of
anaerobic treatment. Water Sci Technol
1983;15(8e9):177e95.
[73] Wu W, Hu J, Gu X, Zhao Y, Zhang H, Gu G. Cultivation of
anaerobic granular sludge in UASB reactors with aerobic
activated sludge as seed. Water Res 1987;21(7):789e99.
[74] Hulshoff Pol LW, Dolfing J, de Zeeuw W, Lettinga G.
Cultivation of well adapted pelletized methanogenic sludge.
Biotechnol Lett 1982;4(5):329e32.
[75] Hulshoff Pol LW, de Zeeuw W, Velzeboer CTM, Lettinga G.
Granulation in UASB-reactors. Water Sci Technol
1983;15(8e9):291e304.
[76] Guiot SR, van den Berg L. Performance of upflow anaerobic
reactor combining a sludge blanket and a filter treating
sugar waste. Biotechnol Bioeng 1985;27(6):800e6.
[77] Sato N, Okubo T, Onodera T, Agrawal LK, Ohashi A,
Harada H. Economic evaluation of sewage treatment
processes in India. J Environ Manage 2007;84(4):447e60.
[78] Schellingkout A, Collazos CJ. Full-scale application of the
UASB technology for sewage treatment. Water Sci Technol
1992;25(7):159e66.
201
[79] Souza ME. Criteria for the utilization, design, and operation
of UASB reactors. Water Sci Technol 1986;18(12):55e69.
[80] Vieira SMM, Souza ME. Development of technology for the
use of the UASB reactor in domestic sewage treatment.
Water Sci Technol 1986;18(12):109e21.
[81] Sperling M. Comparison among the most frequently used
systems for wastewater treatment in developing countries.
Water Sci Technol 1996;33(3):59e72.
[82] Bacquet G, Heffernan B, van der Lubbe J. Performance and
economics of large scale up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
STPs. Available from: http://www.iwawaterwiki.org/xwiki/
bin/download/Articles/PerformanceandEconomicsofLarge
ScaleUASBSewageTreatmentPlants/IWA16oct11h30Room3
UASBPresentation.pdf; [accessed 11.02.13].
[83] Mijaylova-Nacheva P, Canul-Chuil A. Anaerobic
biodegradation of chlorinated aliphatic compounds using
packed bed reactors. Water Sci Technol
2006;54(10):193e200.
[84] Leal MCMR, Freire DMG, Cammarota MC, Sant’Anna Jr GL.
Effect of enzymatic hydrolysis on anaerobic treatment of
dairy wastewater. Process Biochem 2006;41(5):1173e8.
[85] Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Ahring BK. Biological hydrogen
production in suspended and attached growth anaerobic
reactor systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2006;31(9):1164e75.
[86] Leitao RC, Santaellla ST, van Haandel AC, Zeeman G,
Lettinga G. The effects of hydraulic and organic shock loads
on the robustness of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactors treating sewage. Water Sci Technol
2006;54(2):49e55.
[87] Wu WM, Bhatnagar L, Zeikus JG. Performance of anaerobic
granules for degradation of pentachlorophenol. Appl
Environ Microbiol 1993;59(2):389e97.
[88] Donlon BA, Razo-Flores E, Lettinga G, Field JA. Continuous
detoxification, transformation, and degradation of
nitrophenols in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng 1996;51(4):439e49.
[89] Tang C, Zheng P, Hu B, Chen J, Wang J. Influence of
substrates on nitrogen removal performance and
microbiology of anaerobic ammonium oxidation by
operating two UASB reactors fed with different substrate
levels. J Hazard Mater 2010;181(1e3):19e26.
[90] Tang C, Zheng P, Wang C, Mahmood Q. Suppression of
anaerobic ammonium oxidizers under high organic content
in high-rate Anammox UASB reactor. Bioresour Technol
2010;101(6):1762e8.
[91] Tang C, Zheng P, Wang C, Mahmood Q, Zhang J, Chen X,
et al. Performance of high-loaded ANAMMOX UASB reactors
containing granular sludge. Water Res 2011;45(1):135e44.
[92] Draaijer H, Mass JAW, Schaapman JM, Khan A. Performance
of the 5 MLD UASB reactor for sewage treatment at Kanpur,
India. Water Sci Technol 1992;25(7):123e33.
[93] Seghezzo L, Zeeman G, van Lier JB, Hamelers HVM,
Lettinga G. A review: the anaerobic treatment of sewage in
UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresour Technol
1998;65(3):175e90.
[94] Turkdogan-Aydinol FI, Yetilmezsoy K, Comez S, Bayhan H.
Performance evaluation and kinetic modeling of the stat-up
pf a UASB reactor treating municipal wastewater at low
temperature. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 2011;34(2):153e62.
[95] Al-Jamal W, Mahmoud N. Community onsite treatment of
cold strong sewage in a UASB-septic tank. Bioresour
Technol 2009;100(3):1061e8.
[96] Mahmoud N. High strength sewage treatment in a UASB
reactor and an integrated UASB-digester system. Bioresour
Technol 2008;99(16):7531e8.
[97] Lettinga G, Field J, van Lier J, Zeeman G, Hulshoff Pol LW.
Advanced anaerobic wastewater treatment in the near
future. Water Sci Technol 1997;35(10):5e12.
202 b i o m a s s a n d b i o e n e r g y 6 0 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 8 9 e2 0 2
[98] Saravanan V, Sreekrishnan TR. Modelling anaerobic biofilm
reactor e a review. J Environ Manage 2006;81(1):1e18.
[99] Nún ez LA, Martı́nez B. Anaerobic treatment of
slaughterhouse wastewater in an expanded granular sludge
bed (EGSB) reactor. Water Sci Technol 1999;40:99e106.
[100] Petruy R, Lettinga G. Digestion of a milk-fat emulsion.
Bioresour Technol 1997;61(2):141e9.
[101] dos Santos AB, Cervantes FJ, Yaya-Beas RE, van Lier JB.
Effect of redox mediator, AQDS, on the decolourisation of a
reactive azo dye containing triazine group in a thermophilic
anaerobic EGSB reactor. Enzyme Microb Technol
2003;33(7):942e51.
[102] Hwu CS, van Lier JB, Lettinga G. Physicochemical and
biological performance of expanded granular sludge bed
reactors treating long-chain fatty acids. Process Biochem
1998;33(1):75e81.
[103] Dinsdale RM, Hawkes FR, Hawkes DL. Anaerobic digestion
of short chain organic acids in an expanded granular sludge
bed reactor. Water Res 2000;34(9):2433e8.
[104] Gonzalez-Gil G, Kleerebezem R, van Aelst A, Zoutberg GR,
Versprille AI, Lettinga G. Toxicity effects of formaldehyde
on methanol degrading sludge and its anaerobic conversion
in BioBed expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactors.
Water Sci Technol 1999;40(8):195e202.
[105] Colllins G, Woods A, McHugh S, Carton MW, O’Flaherty V.
Microbial community structure and methanogenic activity
during start-up of psychrophilic anaerobic digesters
treating synthetic industrial wastewaters. FEMS Microbiol
Ecol 2003;46(2):159e70.
[106] Collins G, Foy C, McHugh S, Mahony T, O’Flaherty V.
Anaerobic biological treatment of phenolic wastewater at
15e18  C. Water Res 2005;39(8):1614e20.
[107] Collins G, Foy C, Mchony T, O’Flaherty V. Anaerobic
treatment of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol in an expanded granular
sludge bed-anaerobic filter (EGSB-AF) bioreactor at 15  C.
FEMS Microbiol Ecol 2005;53(1):167e78.
[108] Connaughton S, Collins G, O’Flaherty V. Development
of microbial community structure and activity in a high-
rate anaerobic bioreactor at 18  C. Water Res
2006;40(5):1009e17.
[109] Rebac S, van Lier JB, Lens P, Stams AJM, Dekkers F,
Swinkels KTM, et al. Psychrophilic anaerobic treatment of
low strength wastewaters. Water Sci Technol
1999;39(5):203e10.
[110] Lettinga G, Rebac S, Zeeman G. Challenge of psychrophilic
anaerobic wastewater treatment. Trends Biotechnol
2001;19(9):363e70.
[111] Connaughton S, Collins G, O’Flaherty V. Psychrophilic and
mesophilic anaerobic digestion of brewery effluent: a
comparative study. Water Res 2006;40(13):2503e10.
[112] Scully C, Collins G, O’Flaherty V. Anaerobic biological
treatment of phenol at 9.5e15  C in an expanded granular
sludge bed (EGSB)-based bioreactor. Water Res
2006;40(20):3737e44.
[113] Chen T, Zheng P, Tang C, Wang S, Ding S. Performance of
ANAMMOX-EGSB reactor. Desalination
2011;278(1e3):281e7.
[114] Jianlong W, Jing K. The characteristics of anaerobic
ammonium oxidation (ANAMMOX) by granular sludge from
an EGSB reactor. Process Biochem 2005;40(5):1973e8.
[115] Chu LB, Yang FL, Zhang XW. Anaerobic treatment of
domestic wastewater in a membrane-coupled expanded
granular sludge bed (EGSB) reactor under moderate to low
temperature. Process Biochem 2005;40(3e4):1063e70.
[116] Guo W, Ren N, Wang X, Xiang W, Meng Z, Ding J, et al.
Biohydrogen production from ethanol-type fermentation of
molasses in an expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)
reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(19):4981e8.
[117] Li X, Guo L, Yang Q, Zeng G, Liao D. Removal of carbon and
nutrients from low strength domestic wastewater by
expanded granular sludge bed-zeolite bed filtration (EGSB-
ZBF) integrated treatment concept. Process Biochem
2007;42(8):1173e9.
[118] Zoutberg GR, Eker Z. Anaerobic treatment of potato
processing wastewater. Water Sci Technol
1999;40(1):297e304.
[119] Zoutberg GR, Frankin R. Anaerobic treatment of chemical
and brewery wastewater with a new type of anaerobic
reactor; the Biobed EGSB reactor. Water Sci Technol
1996;34(5e6):375e81.
[120] Zoutberg GR, de Been P. The Biobed EGSB (expanded
granular sludge bed) system covers shortcomings of the
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor in the chemical
industry. Water Sci Technol 1997;35(10):183e8.
[121] Jeison D, Chamy R. Comparison of the behaviour of
expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB) and upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket (UASB) reactors in dilute and concentrated
wastewater treatment. Water Sci Technol 1999;40(8):91e8.
[122] Kato MT, Field JA, Lettinga G. The anaerobic treatment of
low strength wastewaters in UASB and EGSB reactors.
Water Sci Technol 1997;36(6e7):375e82.
[123] Fang C, O-Thong S, Boe K, Angelidaki I. Comparison of UASB
and EGSB reactors performance for treatment of raw and
deoiled palm oil mill effluent (POME). J Hazard Mater
2011;189(1e2):229e34.
[124] Fang C, Boe K, Angelidaki I. Biogas production from potato-
juice, a by-product from potato-starch processing in upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) and expanded granular
sludge bed (EGSB) reactors. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(10):5734e41.
[125] Mach KF. Development of the static granular bed reactor.
Master’s thesis. IA, USA: Iowa State University; 2000.
[126] Roth MJ. Development of the static granular bed reactor for
full-scale application. Master’s thesis. IA, USA: Iowa State
University; 2003.
[127] Debik E, Park J, Ellis TG. Leachate treatment using the static
granular bed reactor. In: The 78th annual technical
exhibition and conference of the water environment
federation, Washington, D.C., USA 2005.
[128] Debik E, Coskun T. Use of the static granular bed reactor
(SGBR) with anaerobic sludge to treat poultry
slaughterhouse wastewater and kinetic modeling.
Bioresour Technol 2009;100(11):2777e82.
[129] Jung JY, Ellis TG, Mach KF, Park KY. Treatment of packing
plant wastewater using an anaerobic sequencing batch
reactor and static granular bed reactor. In: Asian-Pacific
regional conference, Bangkok, Thailand 2003.
[130] Evans KM. Fundamentals of the static granular bed reactor.
Ph.D. thesis. IA: Iowa State University; 2004.
[131] Lim SJ. Swine wastewater treatment by the static granular
bed reactor. Master’s thesis. IA: Iowa State University; 2008.
[132] Lim SJ, Fox P, Ellis TG. Evaluation of a static granular bed
reactor using a chemical oxygen demand balance and
mathematical modeling. Bioresour Technol
2011;102(11):6399e404.
[133] Park J, Oh JH, Lally MF, Hobson KL, Ellis TG. Static granular
bed reactor (SGBR) treatment of industrial wastewater. In:
82nd annual technical exhibition and conference. Orlando,
FL, USA 2009.
[134] Turkdogan-Aydinol FI, Evans EA, Park J, Evans KM, Kemp J,
Ellis TG. Evaluation of SGBR and UASB reactors to treat pulp
and paper wastewater. In: 80th annual technical exhibition
and conference. San Diego, CA, USA 2007.
[135] Evans EA, Ellis TG. Experimental validation of the static
granular bed reactor for industrial waste anaerobic
treatment. J Environ Eng 2010;136(10):1139e46.