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

net/publication/273024416

Biological Nutrient Removal in Municipal Wastewater Treatment: New

Directions in Sustainability

Article in Journal of Environmental Engineering · March 2012

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000462

CITATIONS READS
37 20,175

3 authors:

Zhi-rong Hu Dwight Houweling

GL Environment Inc. Dynamita
28 PUBLICATIONS 836 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 400 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter Dold

119 PUBLICATIONS 3,483 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

External Nitrification with the Aid of Fixed Media Trickling Filters (TF) to Increase the Capacity of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Suspended Medium Activated Sludge
(AS) Systems View project

Membrane aerated biofilm reactor View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhi-rong Hu on 03 August 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Biological Nutrient Removal in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment: New Directions in Sustainability
Zhirong Hu1; Dwight Houweling2; and Peter Dold3

Abstract: To control eutrophication in receiving water bodies, biological nutrient removal (BNR) of nitrogen and phosphorus has been
widely used in wastewater treatment practice, both for the upgrade of existing wastewater treatment facilities and the design of new facilities.
However, implementation of BNR activated sludge AS systems presents challenges attributable to the technical complexity of balancing
influent chemical oxygen demand (COD) for both biological phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) removal. Sludge age and aerated/unaerated
mass fractions are identified as key parameters for process optimization. Other key features of selected BNR process configurations are
discussed. Emerging concerns about process sustainability and the reduction of carbon footprint are introducing additional challenges
in that influent COD, N, and P are increasingly being seen as resources that should be recovered, not simply removed. Energy recovery
through sludge digestion is one way of recovering energy from influent wastewater but which presents a specific challenge for BNR: gen-
eration of sidestreams with high nutrient and low COD loads. Technologies designed specifically to treat these side-stream loads are over-
viewed in this paper. Finally, relatively high levels of nitrous oxide emissions, a powerful greenhouse gas, have been shown to occur in the
BNR process under certain conditions, particularly in the presence of high nitrite concentrations. The advantages of using process modeling
tools is discussed in view of optimizing BNR processes to meet effluent requirements and to meet goals of sustainability and reducing carbon
footprints. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000462. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Biological processes; Nutrients; Municipal wastes; Municipal water; Sustainable development; Water
treatment plants.
Author keywords: Biological nutrient removal; Treatment process; Process modeling; Municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Sustainability; New direction.

Introduction 1. Environmental issues may consider the effect of greenhouse

To control eutrophication in receiving water bodies, biological nu-
trient removal (BNR) of nitrogen and phosphorus has been widely
used in wastewater treatment practice, both for the upgrade of
existing wastewater treatment facilities and the design of new
facilities. Traditionally, the complexity associated with implement-
ing BNR in wastewater treatment plants has been seen primarily in
terms of balancing competing requirements for nitrogen and phos-
phorus removal, particularly with respect to the use of influent
readily biodegradable chemical oxygen demand (rbCOD). An
increasing number of plants are overcoming this dependence on
influent COD availability by relying on external carbon sources
(methanol, sugar water) to drive BNR, but at a significant increase
to operational cost. In addition, operational costs are increasingly
being considered in light of their sustainability where environmen-
tal and social issues are being weighed in addition to the traditional
economic cost analysis, where:
1
EnviroSim Associates Ltd., McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Long-
wood Rd. South, Suite 114A, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 0A1, Canada
(corresponding author). E-mail: hu@envirosim.com
2
EnviroSim Associates Ltd., McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Long-
wood Rd. South, Suite 114A, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 0A1, Canada
3
EnviroSim Associates Ltd., McMaster Innovation Park, 175 Long-
wood Rd. South, Suite 114A, Hamilton, Ontario L8P 0A1, Canada
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 29, 2010; approved on
July 14, 2011; published online on July 16, 2011. Discussion period open
until August 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for individual
papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Environmental Engineering,
Vol. 138, No. 3, March 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9372/2012/3-307–
317/$25.00.
gas emissions in addition to the effect of nutrient loads on re-
ceiving water bodies. Environmental issues may even encom-
pass an analysis of the benefit of recovering nutrients in the
form of fertilizers.
2. Social issues may consider the opportunity cost of spending
money on improved water treatment as opposed to alternative
public services such as education or health care.
To address these challenges and to facilitate the implementation
of BNR, significant research efforts have been made and are on-
going to improve understanding of basic biological processes,
e.g., nitrification, denitrification, and excess biological phosphorus
removal (EBPR). This research has led to the development of im-
portant new BNR technologies and improvement of the ability of
engineers to design, optimize, and operate conventional BNR proc-
esses. In light of this emerging paradigm of sustainability, it is
important for engineers to understand the relevant design and
operational factors which differentiate competing BNR technolo-
gies. To address this need, this paper overviews key factors in BNR
technologies that impact operational cost, greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions (carbon footprint reduction), energy requirements (en-
ergy needs and recovery), and the ability to recover nutrients as
fertilizer. Given the increasing role of simulation in process selec-
tion, design, and optimization, an overview of the state of the art in
BNR modeling is also presented.
BNR Processes
Biological nutrient removal activated sludge (BNRAS) system has
become an established technology in wastewater treatment practice
to control eutrophication, and this development has been facilitated

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 307

Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
by an improved understanding of nitrification, denitrification and
excess biological phosphorus (P) removal (EBPR) (Ekama and
Wentzel 1999). However, the need to implement the BNRAS sys-
tem to meet more stringent effluent requirements of both nitrogen
(N) and P in a cost-effective and sustainable way has brought with it
a new set of challenges, including:
• Slow (variable) growth rates and low yield of nitrifiers (require-
ments for either long sludge age or large aerobic mass fraction
or both);
• Sludge bulking and P content in the effluent solids from set-
tling tanks;
• Lack of carbon source in influent and the competition for carbon
source between denitrification and EBPR organisms.
To address these issues, research has focused in the last decade on
the treatment processes in the mainstream line, sludge treatment train,
and sidestreams (reject liquids generated in sludge treatment proc-
esses, e.g., anaerobic digestion, dewatering). This section briefly
summarizes the progress of the treatment processes in BNR plants.
Mainstream Processes for BNR
Conventional BNRAS
Conventional BNRAS systems, such as the Johannesburgh process,
the University of Cape Town (UCT) process, and the Virginia Ini-
tiative Plant process, have been implemented with considerable
success throughout the world as an effective means to remove,
down to low levels, both nitrogen and phosphorus without, in many
cases, the need for chemical dosing (ferric, alum, methanol, etc.).
These technologies are operated with an anaerobic selector up-
stream in the process in which influent rbCOD can ferment and
fermentation products can be sequestered by polyphosphate-
accumulating organisms (PAOs). The anaerobic selector in these
processes typically represents 10% of overall tankage volume or
less, and additional anoxic zones may be included based on the
requirements to remove nitrogen. One important limitation of these
processes is that, because the retention time of anaerobic selector is
relatively small, slowly biodegradable COD from the influent is not
considered to be available for PAOs. As such, biological phospho-
rus removal in conventional BNRAS is considered to be dependent
on the availability of influent rbCOD.
Another important disadvantage of conventional BNRAS proc-
esses is that, overall, conventional BNRAS processes require
greater tank volumes with associated capital costs, particularly
in cold climates where reliability of nitrification is a concern. This
is explained in terms of the growth rate of obligate aerobic nitrifiers,
which is low compared with that of both ordinary heterotrophic
organisms (OHOs) and PAOs. Thus, the requirement to nitrify
governs selection of the two linked design parameters: (1) system
Fig. 1. Integration of trickling filters with biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems (the ENBNRAS system)
308 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
sludge age and (2) aerated mass fraction. The aerobic mass fraction
is limited by the need of the unaerated mass fraction (anaerobic for
P removal and anoxic for N removal), which usually must be high
(> 40%), causing the aerated mass fraction to be reduced (< 60%).
Therefore, to ensure complete nitrification throughout the year and
particularly during winter, long sludge ages need to be selected.
Long sludge ages result in large biological reactors per volume
of wastewater treated (Hu et al. 2003).
External Nitrification BNRAS Process
The long sludge age issue has been addressed by uncoupling it
from the nitrification requirement through external nitrification and
internal nitrification BNR systems. In both systems, the BNRAS
system can be intensified by separating nitrification from the main
BNRAS system. In the former, nitrification takes place in the fixed
media (e.g., trickling filter, Hu et al. 2000), external to the
suspended activated sludge. In the latter, nitrification takes place
in the fixed media that are placed in the aerobic reactor (see
“Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process”).
The external nitrification (EN) BNRAS system (ENBNRAS)
is similar to that of the biological anoxic phosphorus removal
(DEPHANOX) system (Wanner et al. 1988; Bortone et al. 1996;
Sorm et al. 1996), except for inclusion of the small preanoxic re-
actor in the underflow recycle to the anaerobic reactor to remove
nitrate and the process flow scheme is shown in Fig. 1. However, the
DEPHANOX system was developed with the specific objective of
stimulating anoxic P uptake and denitrification by PAOs to use the
influent rbCOD for both N and P removal. In the ENBNRAS system
(Fig. 1), all wastewater flow is discharged to the anaerobic zone. The
mixed liquor from the end of the anaerobic zone passes to an internal
settling tank to separate the organic (COD)-rich activated sludge
(AS) solids from the ammonia-rich liquid. In the anaerobic reactor,
influent rbCOD is fermented by OHOs to short-chain fatty acids
(SCFAs), which are then taken up by the PAOs and stored internally
as polyhydroxyalkanoates. Also, in the anaerobic reactor, the influ-
ent slowly biodegradable (sb)COD and unbiodegradable particulate
COD are enmeshed by the activated sludge mixed liquor. Thus, in
the internal settling tanks, all influent COD, except for the unbiode-
gradable soluble COD, is removed from the liquid phase. The under-
flow sludge from the internal settling tank bypasses the EN system
and is discharged to the beginning of the anoxic zone, and the over-
flow supernatant from the internal settling tank is passed on to the
EN systems for nitrification. The nitrified EN effluent is then dis-
charged to the anoxic zone for denitrification. From the anoxic re-
actor, the mixed liquor passes to the last reactor, which is aerobic for
stripping nitrogen gas, oxidizing the residual COD and completing
the P uptake process.
 On the basis of extensive experimental investigations at lab scale
(Moodley et al. 1999; Hu et al. 2000, 2003; Sotemann et al. 2003)
and full-scale Muller et al. 2004, 2006), the following conclusions
can be made:
1. Sludge age can be significantly reduced through uncoupling
the sludge age from nitrification, resulting in the reduction
of the bioreactor volumes or increasing the treatment capacity
of existing treatment plants.
2. Aeration requirements can be reduced significantly as (a) me-
chanical aeration for nitrification in the aerobic reactor is not
required and (b) all nitrate/nitrite generated in the EN systems
can be discharged into the anoxic reactor for denitrification,
reducing equivalent oxygen requirement.
3. A small aerobic mass fraction (as low as 20% of the liquid train
mass, Hu et al. 2000) is possible because it is no longer governed
by nitrification, but by COD and/or P removal, implying a much
smaller liquid train volume compared with a standard BNRAS
design. Also, the large unaerated mass fraction (up to 80%) im-
plies (a) improved EBPR (Wentzel et al. 1990); (b) improved
denitrification to the point where complete denitrification may
be possible at high influent total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN)/
COD ratios (≈0:14 mg N=mg COD or COD=TKN ¼ 7:14).
4. The system configuration allows all nitrate generated in the EN
system to be denitrified without a high recycle from aerobic to
anoxic zone as in conventional BNR systems.
5. A good settling sludge can be expected, with a diluted sludge
volume index of approximately 100 mL=g total suspended so-
lids (TSS).
Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge Process
A widely used approach for upgrading existing activated sludge
plants for nitrification, or simply increasing treatment capacity, has
been to convert conventional activated sludge tanks to integrated
fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) tanks. The growth of biomass on
media within the existing bioreactor volume is an effective way to
increase biomass concentrations, and thus treatment capacity, with-
out increasing loading rates on secondary clarifiers. IFAS processes
have seen widespread use in North America particularly as an up-
grade/expansion alternative. In this process, to reduce sludge age
and hence the biological reactor volume required, internal fixed
media such as Ringlace and free floating media have in the past
been placed in the aerobic reactor (Sen et al. 1994, 1995; Randall
and Sen 1996). The nitrifiers grow on the fixed media establishing a
population permanently resident in the aerobic reactor and are not
subject to either the aerobic sludge mass fraction or the suspended
mixed liquor sludge age, with the result that both can be reduced.
Such a reduction in system sludge age is particularly beneficial for
low temperature wastewaters (10 to 15°C).
The IFAS process is well suited for the upgrade of existing
wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) where space or financing
Fig. 2. A2 O type of IFAS system
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 309
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
is not available to build additional tanks to meet nitrification re-
quirements. In addition, IFAS tanks can be integrated into conven-
tional BNR designs as shown in Fig. 2. The primary disadvantage
for this process, however, is that nitrification takes place within a
biofilm, which must have a sufficient degree of oxygen penetration
to be reliable. Because of biofilm thickness and the existence of a
boundary layer, there can be significant resistance to dissolved
oxygen penetration into biofilms and, as a result, IFAS processes
typically require dissolved oxygen (DO) setpoints in the bulk liquid
on the order of 4 to 6 mg O2 =L as opposed to the 2 mg O2 =L for
conventional, suspended growth processes. The additional aeration
energy required to meet the higher DO setpoints in IFAS processes
is significant and will typically lead to higher energy costs and car-
bon footprint for IFAS processes over conventional activated
sludge (Steichen et al. 2010).
Membrane Bioreactor BNR Processes
The reliance on secondary clarifiers in conventional BNR proc-
esses restricts the selection of the operating mixed liquor concen-
tration in bioreactor design because of the need to (1) produce a
flocculating sludge and (2) limit solids loading rates on the clari-
fier below their design capacity. Moreover, because they rely on
settling tanks for solid-liquid separation, BNRAS systems always
allow some solids to pass into the effluent, and this amount will
vary depending on the settleability of the mixed liquor and the
settling tank performance. This may introduce difficulties for
meeting more stringent nutrient effluent limits (e.g., in North
America, limit of technology effluent total phosphorus (TP) limits
of 0:03–0:10 mg P=L are increasingly being required; Phagoo
et al. 2005). Achieving these limits demands very low soluble
P and essentially a solids-free effluent. In a conventional BNRAS
system with settling tanks, if the effluent TSS is 10 mg =L, the P
content of the solids will contribute approximately 0:3 mg P=L to
the effluent (Dold et al. 2009). For this reason, nutrient removal
activated sludge systems incorporating membrane bioreactors
(MBRs) that are able to produce solids-free effluent are becoming
an attractive technology. Ramphao et al. (2005) summarized many
other advantages that can be offered by the BNR in MBR systems.
MBR technologies can be implemented in various configurations
of conventional BNRAS systems as shown in Fig. 3, which gives
an example of a modified conventional UCT process configura-
tion (Liu et al. 2009).
Biological nutrient removal processes in MBRs (MBR BNR)
have been operated at both lab scale and full scale, and the design
procedure and considerations for these systems have been proposed
and used in practice (e.g., Adam et al. 2002; Daigger and Crawford
2005; Lesjean et al. 2003; Phagoo et al. 2005; Ramphao et al. 2005;
Monti et al. 2007; Dold et al. 2009). Similar to IFAS systems, an
important benefit of MBR BNR processes is reduced footprint and
the ability to upgrade existing systems without building additional
 Fig. 3. A modified UCT type of MBR systems
tank volume. Also similar to IFAS systems, an important disadvant-
age of MBR BNR systems is the increased energy requirements
required for aeration. The key reason for this is not related to main-
taining a higher DO setpoint in the aeration tanks, as with IFAS, but
with the increased resistance to oxygen transfer that occurs when
MBR tanks are operated at very high mixed liquor concentrations,
typically accounted for in the alpha factor used in mass transfer
equations.
Another important benefit of MBR BNR processes is the poten-
tial to meet very stringent nutrient limits in the secondary effluent
attributable to complete solids removal. However, achieving this
still depends on having favorable influent wastewater characteris-
tics and may not be feasible in all cases. In such cases, biological P
removal can be supplemented with limited addition of chemicals
for precipitation of P, i.e., to utilize a biological N and P removal
configuration to achieve the maximum possible amount of biologi-
cal P removal and add a limited amount of chemicals (ferric or
alum, typically) to the process to touch up and meet the very
low TP limit (e.g., at the Cauley Creek plant, which consistently
achieves an effluent TP of less than 0:1 mg P=L, ammonia less than
0:2 mg N=L, and total nitrogen (TN) of 4–5 mg N=L, Phagoo
et al. 2005).
Sludge Fermentation for Carbon Supplement
Insufficient rbCOD in influent wastewater has been one of the ma-
jor challenges to the implementation of full-scale conventional
BNR plants, particularly to meet more stringent effluent TP and TN
standards. To supplement additional carbon, there are two methods
used in practice, one is to buy and use commercial chemicals
(e.g., methanol) or suitable waste byproducts from industries, the
other is to generate VFAs/RBCOD internally through sludge fer-
mentation. The first one implies an increase in operating cost and
carbon footprint, particularly if carbon sources are nonbiogenic.
This has stimulated extensive research and investigation on sludge
fermentation to produce VFAs/RBCOD. Potential sludge sources
of fermentable solids include (1) primary sludge (PS) and (2) mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) from an anaerobic/anoxic zone or
return activated sludge (RAS).
Production of VFAs or rbCOD from primary sludge fermenta-
tion to improve biological nutrient removal is now an established
practice (e.g., in North America, South Africa) (Latimer et al. 2007;
Rossle and Pretorius 2001). There are various primary sludge fer-
mentation process configurations, e.g., activated primary clarifiers
(APCs), elutriation sludge thickeners, continuous flow sludge
fermentation, batch sludge fermentation, and sludge fermentation
with recuperation thickening. Construction of primary sludge
310 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
fermenters can be costly but performance is considered reliable.
Fig. 4 gives an example of an A2 O process with upstream primary
sludge fermentation.
The maximum amount of fermentation product that has
been reported in primary sludge fermenters is approximately
0:15 g VFA=g VSS representing in the range of 10 to 30% of the
wastewater influent COD (Banister and Pretrorius 1998; Moser-
Engler et al. 1998).
Tremblay et al. (2005) reported that VFA production from the
fermentation of mixed liquor in an offline reactor within a UCT
process ranged between 0.05 and 0:14 g VFA=g VSS and was a
function of solids retention times (SRTs), with optimal production
obtained at 2.5 days of SRT. Houweling et al. (2010) reported a
full-scale fermentation of anaerobic MLSS in an unmixed inline
fermenter (UMIF) within a BNRAS system (see Fig. 5). The
use of a UMIF zone effectively allows anaerobic mass fraction
to be strongly decoupled from the anaerobic volume fraction, as
shown in Fig. 6.
Fermentation of return or wasted activated sludge to produce
carbon to enhance biological nutrient removal has attracted in-
creased attention recently and there are experiments in producing
rbCOD from return or waste activated sludge by fermentation
(e.g., Yuan et al. 2006; Tong et al. 2007; Narayanan et al. 2002).
A review indicates that VFAs obtained by fermentation are a more
sustainable carbon source than external sources in terms of the cost
comparison (Kang et al. 2009). Fermentation of return or wasted
sludge is in some ways more complex than primary sludge fermen-
tation because it involves the decay processes of biomass within the
mixed liquor, with associated release of phosphorus and nitrogen.
One important concern, particularly in colder climates, is the effect
of maintaining a higher anaerobic mass fraction on nitrification.
Considerations for Sustainability
All BNR technologies provide the benefit of removing nutrients
with little or no reliance on chemical dosing. In addition, BNR
technologies can lead to generation of sidestream loads with very
high nutrient concentrations that are suitable for nutrient recovery
as fertilizer. However, in light of emerging issues of sustainability,
which include environmental, social, and economic costs as factors
determining process selection, it is useful to understand the relevant
factors that differentiate the various technologies. Table 1 presents
three key factors that influence (1) the ability of process to meet
effluent requirements without use of chemical dosing (efficiency
of use of influent COD) (2) the operational costs and energy re-
quirements (aeration requirements), and (3) the capital costs and
associated carbon footprint (tank volume requirement).
 Fig. 4. A2 O process with primary sludge fermentation process configuration

Fig. 5. A BNR system in Henderson, NE, with option to switch off mixing in reactor AN2 for fermentation

Fig. 6. Volume (a) and mass (b) fractions in anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic bioreactors of the 4-stage, nitrification-denitrification plant in Henderson,
NE, showing relatively high mass fractions induced by switching off mixing in AN2

Depending on the basis of evaluating, the relative benefits
of IFAS and MBR processes (lower footprint and tank volume
requirements) versus their disadvantages (higher aeration require-
ments) may or may not weigh in their favor. Although carbon foot-
printing is a relatively new basis for comparing design alternatives
and has by no means been broadly accepted, it is interesting to note
that CO2 emissions associated with construction have very little
influence on overall carbon footprint (less than 5% of total emis-
sions) when compared with the CO2 emissions associated with
plant operation over a 20-year period (Steichen et al. 2010).

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 311

Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Table 1. Comparison of Relevant Factors that Differentiate the New Technologies from Conventional BNRAS
BNR technology Efficiency of use of influent COD
External nitrification Likely to be similar to
conventional processes
IFAS Likely to be similar to
conventional processes
MBR Likely to be similar to
conventional processes
Sludge fermentation Much better use of influent
COD for nutrient removal
than conventional processes
Sludge Treatment Processes in BNR Plants
Treatment and disposal of sludge generated from primary settling
tanks and wasted from secondary treatment processes is an important
challenge in many wastewater treatment facilities. The cost of sludge
treatment and disposal can amount to 50% of the total current oper-
ating costs of a WWTP (Appels et al. 2008), and this sludge gen-
erally needs to be stabilized before final disposal (e.g., landfill
application or incineration). New technologies that provide the ben-
efit of reducing the amount of sludge that requires treatment and dis-
posal result in high loads being recycled to the activated sludge
process. This presents new challenges for BNR technologies.
Anaerobic digestion is commonly employed as a sludge stabi-
lization method that provides the environmental benefits of reduc-
ing sludge to be disposed of and generating biogas, a usable source
of renewable energy. For this reason, anaerobic sludge digestion is
considered an important part of a modern WWTP. Only a portion of
sludge is digestable, however, and the rate of digestion is limited by
the kinetics of biomass decay and hydrolysis processes. Typically, a
well operated anaerobic digester destroys volatile solids in the
range of 35 to 40% with the remaining biosolids requiring disposal.
To enhance the efficiency of anaerobic digestion for more bio-
gas production, various sludge pretreatment processes (solids con-
ditioning) have been advanced in recent years to improve these
rate-limiting processes, including, e.g., mechanical means, thermal
hydrolysis, alkaline hydrolysis, and ultrasonic treatment. To reduce
operating costs while increasing the quality of the stabilized sludge,
process modeling of anaerobic digestion has become an important
tool. This is further discussed in subsequently in this article. For
more information on anaerobic digestion of sludge, the reader is
referred to the review by Appels et al. (2008).
Side stream Treatment Processes in BNR plants
Sidestreams are the liquid streams (also called reject water) gener-
ated in the sludge treatment train of BNR plants. Usually the di-
gested sludge is dewatered before disposal, and the liquid stream
from the dewatering step is returned to the activated sludge process.
Anaerobic digestion of waste activated sludge results in the release
of nitrogen as ammonia and phosphorus as orthophosphate. This
additional recycled nutrient load from sidestreams can be signifi-
cant and increase the influent nitrogen load by 10–30% (Henze et al.
2008). Treatment of the additional load increases the cost and com-
plexity of meeting stringent effluent requirements for TN and also
may be limited by factors, e.g., influent alkalinity, insufficient aer-
ation capacity, and insufficient sludge age (Dold et al. 2007).
A number of side stream treatment processes have been devel-
oped for treating the ammonia component in the sidestreams
before returning them to the liquid train. These processes have
been implemented in a number of reactor configurations, for
312 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Aeration requirements Tank volume requirement
Potentially much lower because oxygen demand Case dependent
attributable to nitrification does not contribute
to aeration requirements in main process.
Higher attributable to need to maintain higher Much less than in
DO setpoint in bulk liquid of IFAS tanks conventional treatment
Higher attributable to greater resistance to Much less than in
oxygen transfer (lower alpha) conventional treatment
Potentially the same or lower than conventional Likely to be similar to
attributable to increased anaerobic stabilization of COD conventional processes
example, inexpensive nitrification (InNitri), bio-augmentation batch-
enhanced process (BABE), single reactor system for high activity
ammonium removal over nitrite process (SHARON), ANAMMOX,
completely autotrophic nitrogen-removal over nitrite process
(CANON), and deammoniafication process (DEMON). An InNitri
process configuration is shown in Fig. 7.
The objectives of side stream treatment are to use biological
processes for removing ammonia from recycle reject water to re-
duce the nitrogen load that must be handled in the activated sludge
process. A range of benefits have been identified for the different
side stream treatment systems, for example:
• Seeding the activated sludge train with ammonia oxidizing bac-
teria (AOBs) and nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOBs) grown in the
side-stream stage, allowing shorter SRTs (bioaugmentation).
• Less carbon substrate is required to denitrify nitrite rather than
nitrate compared with denitrification of a fully nitrified stream.
• Less aeration and alkalinity are required to convert ammonia to
nitrite rather than nitrate.
• The significant benefit of the ANAMMOX process over con-
ventional denitrification systems is that no organic carbon is
added for denitrification, and so there is no increased biosolids
production or emission of CO2 .
The operating conditions of side stream biological processes are
considerably different from those in the main stream process. This
leads to a number of unique considerations for operation and con-
trol (Dold et al. 2007):
• Stopping nitrification at the nitrite stage and preventing nitrate
formation relies on the difference in growth rates between AOBs
and NOBs and the different temperature dependencies of these
growth rates.
• High concentrations of substrate and product species such as
ammonia and free nitrous acid can lead to inhibitory conditions.
In some cases, successful performance depends on inhibition of
certain reaction steps.
Fig. 7. Inexpensive nitrification(InNitri)
• Careful pH control often is required for successful operation.
• ANAMMOX organisms have very low growth rates necessitat-
ing long SRTs and long process start-up times.
BNR Process Modeling
Significant development and practical implementation of BNR
technology, have been facilitated with development of the process
modeling technology, which is now widely and successfully used
by researchers to improve understanding of the BNR processes and
the practitioner to optimize design and operation of the BNR proc-
esses in the wastewater treatment industry.
This section will present a brief description of the concepts and
methods of wastewater process modeling technology, including
well-established unit models and whole plant process models, and
modeling aspects for further development of these models in terms
of meeting more stringent effluent TP and TN requirements and
estimating/evaluating GHG emission.
Activated Sludge Models
The complexity of extending the activated sludge process to re-
move N and P makes the design and operation of activated sludge
plants more complicated and difficult. To assist in design, opera-
tion, and research into AS processes, a variety of mathematical
models have been developed. The state of the art mathematic mod-
els for BNRAS systems include (1) University of Cape Town model
for both N and P (UCTPHO) (Wentzel et al. 1992; Hu et al. 2007);
(2) International Association of Water Quality (IAWQ) [now
International Water Association (IWA)] ASM2d model (Henze et al.
1999); (3) the Barker and Dold model (Barker and Dold 1997), and
(4) the Delft-based group of models (De Kreuk et al. 2007). The
activated sludge models have been used widely as a useful tool for
both researchers and practitioner to improve understanding and to
design and operate BNRAS systems.
Whole Plant Process Modeling Approaches
On the basis of the successful application of activated sludge mod-
els and more stringent effluent requirements, the biological process
modeling for BNR plants has been extended to include the
Fig. 8. Requirements to set up a WWTP process model
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 313
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
processes in the sludge treatment line, such as anaerobic digestion,
side stream processes, and sludge fermentation (also including
chemical precipitation, pH, and gas phase models) to make a whole
plant process model. Whole plant process modeling makes it pos-
sible to completely analyze WWTPs for optimal design and oper-
ation purposes.
To apply process modeling in practice, a computer program (so-
called simulator) is required to implement all unit process models
and link them (including main stream wastewater, solids treatment
trains, and reject water generated in the sludge treatment processes,
termed side stream) to set up a specific wastewater treatment plant
model with the particular flow scheme, influent characteristics, and
operation conditions. The model, after being set up in the simulator,
then needs to be calibrated and validated before it can be used for
different purposes.
The requirements for setting up a typical BNRAS plant model
are highlighted in Fig. 8 (Wilson and Dold 1998). Mathematical
models for the whole plant treatment processes are complex
but, with the availability of easy use and user friendly simulators,
can prove to be very useful tools for optimizing design and
operation.
There are two approaches to implementing the various process
models required to model biochemical activity, including interac-
tions, across the wastewater treatment plant: an interfacing trans-
former approach and a single matrix approach (Dold et al. 2007).
Interfacing Transformer Approach: In this approach, different
available models are used to simulate different processes, e.g., the
AS train, anaerobic digestion (AD), and the side stream (SS) proc-
esses. In this approach, different models are not based on the same
set of state variables, and the issue of passing streams between AS,
AD, and SS must be addressed. For example, for the oxidized N
components, activated sludge models typically only consider ni-
trate (e.g., ASM1, ASM2/2d); anaerobic digestion models (e.g.,
ADM1) do not consider either nitrite or nitrate; side stream mod-
eling (SSM) requires consideration of both nitrite and nitrate and
the relevant reactions. This interfacing transformer approach re-
quires constructing complex model mapping interfaces (transform-
ers) (e.g., Dold et al. 2007; Vannorolleghem et al. 2005; Volcke
et al. 2006).
 Single Matrix Approach: This approach is to apply a single, in-
tegrated (AS þ AD þ SS) model (considering all components and
relevant reactions) to the whole plant processes in a single matrix
(i.e., without the need for interfacing). This approach is more
widely applicable in a process sense than the transformer approach.
The single matrix approach tracks the fate of components
(e.g., active biomass) in the different processes (e.g., activated
sludge, anaerobic digestion) in a whole plant and thus can provide
an estimation of active biomass transfer between the different proc-
esses, whereas the transformer approach requires detailed elemen-
tal composition of each component that is not readily available and
also relies on the fixed component composition (Jones et al. 2004,
2007). In practice, this is not readily applicable when elemental
compositions change.
In general, the types of processes that need to be included in a
model that account for interaction between the BNR process,
anaerobic digestion, and side stream treatment processes include:
• Aerobic heterotrophic growth using complex substrate, acetate,
propionate, and methanol;
• Anoxic heterotrophic growth on nitrate and nitrite using com-
plex substrate and VFAs;
• Anaerobic fermentation of complex substrate, propionate, and
methanol;
• Growth of bio-P microorganisms and storage of polyphosphate;
• Various hydrolysis, ammonification, and colloid flocculation re-
actions;
• Assimilative nitrate and nitrite reduction;
• Anoxic growth of methylotrophs on nitrate and nitrite;
• Growth of ammonia and nitrite oxidizer biomasses;
• Growth of ANAMMOX microorganisms;
• Growth of autotrophic and heterotrophic methanogens;
• Decay of all organism groups in anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic
environments;
• pH estimation based on the phosphate, carbonate, ammonia,
acetate, and propionate systems, including strong acids and
bases, plus other relevant reactions;
• Precipitation of various calcium, magnesium, aluminum, and
iron complexes (struvite, HDP, HAP, etc.);
• Gas transfer of O2 , CO2 , N2 , NH3 , H2 , and CH4 gases;
• Inorganic suspended solids fixation during polyphosphate sto-
rage and heterotrophic growth.
An example of the whole plant model implemented in a com-
mercial simulator package is shown in Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. A whole plant model implemented in simulation software with activated sludge, anaerobic digestion, and side stream treatment processes
314 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Modeling Aspects for Further Development
The introduction of more stringent effluent nutrient requirements
and the growing interest in estimating GHG gas emissions is high-
lighting the need for refinements to existing activated sludge mod-
els. In particular, issues of interest include how to deal with
refractory dissolved organic nitrogen and phosphorus fractions that
are not removable by conventional BNR processes (Makinia et al.
2009) and accounting for intermediates of nitrification and denitri-
fication (Latimer et al. 2008; Hiatt and Grady 2008). Such inter-
mediates may include nitrite, which is both inhibitory and toxic
in its unionized free nitrous acid form, and nitrous oxide (N2 O),
which is accounted to have a GHG impact factor 300 times greater
than that of carbon dioxide. Accounting for these issues requires
defining new processes to represent the biological transformations
of organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen and phosphorus. In ad-
dition, the state variables needed to represent these forms of nitro-
gen and phosphorus must be defined. The introduction of these
state variables can represent a significant undertaking because of
the way in which they affect the underlying model structure. To
illustrate some of the issues that are being faced, the following sec-
tion will focus on modeling of nitrite, which has been shown to
have a key role in influencing the biological transformations of
both nitrogen and phosphorus.
Nitrite as an Intermediate of Nitrification and Denitrification
Traditionally, nitrite has not been included as a state variable in
activated sludge models because it was considered to be a transient
state of nitrogen that was not subject to accumulation. Indeed, tradi-
tional designs of biological nutrient removal processes consider
only complete nitrification of ammonia to nitrate and followed
by complete denitrification of nitrate to nitrogen gas. In this design
approach, the oxidation state of nitrogen is increased from
3, for
ammonia nitrogen, to þ5 for nitrate and then is reduced to 0 for the
gaseous, elemental form (N2 ). As is suggested by the increasing
and decreasing oxidation states (
3 to þ5 to 0) this process re-
quires significant inputs of both oxidant (dissolved oxygen) and
reductant (organic substrate) to achieve nitrogen removal, and sup-
plying these inputs contributes significantly to the cost of BNR.
Shorter pathways as presented in Figure 10 do exist, nevertheless
nitrogen removal through complete oxidation to nitrate and then
reduction to nitrogen gas is the most common approach because
(1) it is thermodynamically favorable and (2) it can be relatively

Fig. 10. Biological mechanisms for conversion of ammonia to nitrogen
gas over nitrite and nitrate nitrogen
easily controlled in the activated sludge process through the use of
alternating aerated and un aerated zones and/or cycles.
Models that only account for the end products of nitrification
and denitrification, respectively, nitrate and nitrogen gas, are
known as single-step. These have more recently given way to
two-step nitrification and denitrification models that account for
the role of nitrite as an intermediate in both processes, and this
is quickly becoming the standard for both researchers and industry
practitioners. One main reason for the adoption of two-step models
is the growing use of sidestream technologies mentioned previously
that do nitrogen removal over nitrite (InNitri, SHARON, ANAM-
MOX, CANON, etc.), thereby reducing the oxygen and organic
substrate requirements. The growing use of anaerobic digestion
in solids processing and as a pre-treatment step is making these
processes increasingly attractive because these wastewaters have
lower ratios of COD: N than required for conventional BNR.
An important challenge to modeling nitrogen removal over nitrite,
however, is accurately accounting for the factors and conditions in
which nitrite accumulation can take place. This is also reflective of
the operation of these processes, which must be carefully controlled
to avoid complete nitrification to nitrate.
A second, but no less important, reason that modeling nitrite is
important is that it is becoming evident that there are conditions
under which nitrite can accumulate to significant levels even in
processes that are considered to be fully nitrifying. This accumu-
lation can have serious impacts on not only effluent quality, be-
cause of its toxicity, but can also interfere with other biological
processes such as biological phosphorus removal and nitrification.
It has been shown that the presence of nitrite can inhibit aerobic
phosphorus uptake by PAOs (Sin et al. 2008). Also, N2 O emissions
have been shown to be positively correlated to the presence of ni-
trite (Foley et al. 2010; WERF 2010). This can be demonstrated by
spiking a nitrifying reactor with nitrite and observing the resulting
sharp increase in N2 O emissions (Shiskowski and Mavinic 2006).
A key to optimizing biological phosphorus removal and minimiz-
ing N2 O emissions may thus be to limit the accumulation of nitrite
in the activated sludge process.
Given its importance as the end-product of partial nitrification in
sidestream processes and its role in influencing biological phosphorus
uptake and N2 O emissions in activated sludge, it is critical to identify
the conditions under which nitrite will accumulate at a plant-wide
level. Modeling can be a very useful tool in determining what con-
ditions will most likely lead to this accumulation and also for the
interpretation of data from full-scale and pilot-scale studies. For
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 315
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
example, experience has shown that nitrite accumulation, and thus
N2 O emissions, can be associated with the operation of plug-flow
aeration tanks, step-feed, nitrification at low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, low temperatures, and high peak loading factors
(Houweling et al. 2011). This has implications for both the design
and optimization of BNR processes in which strict effluent standards
are being balanced with the need to reduce GHG emissions.
In the context of growing concern over sustainability, it is an-
ticipated that in the future, BNR processes will be designed and
operated to limit aeration requirements and maximize the recovery
of energy and nutrients. Such design concerns may conflict with
requirements to meet stringent effluent nutrient requirements and
limit the emissions of N2 O, a powerful greenhouse gas. Process
modeling will be the tool of choice for engineers who must balance
these competing demands, and rigorous modeling of the role of
nitrite is a key feature for which useful models must account.
Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
Biological nutrient removal is an established technology and has
been widely and successfully used in practice. However, the imple-
mentation and operation of BNR technology is a challenge in
WWTPs because of its complexity and potentially high cost. An-
other issue is the requirement for properly trained design engineers
and operators. This is a particular problem in China where there is a
pressing need to mitigate the effects of eutrophication; new munici-
pal WWTPs are being built at the rate of 50 per quarter but there is
fairly limited experience with the operation of BNR.
To facilitate application of the BNR technology and optimize
the costs of both capital and operation, further understanding of
the BNR processes, development of more efficient and reliable
BNR processes, and refined and extended process models are re-
quired. Process modeling has proved to be a very useful tool for
optimal design and operation of WWTPs, particularly for WWTPs
to meet more stringent effluent standard and cost conservation re-
quirements. Process modeling is also a very helpful tool for training
design engineers and operators to meet the challenge of lack of
properly trained wastewater treatment professionals.
References
Adam, C., Gnirss, R., Lesjean, B., Buisson, H., and Kraume, M. (2002).
“Enhanced biological phosphorus removal in membrane bioreactors.”
Water Sci. Technol., 46(4–5), 281–286.
Appels, L., Baeyens, J., Degrève, J., and Dewil, R. (2008). “Principles and
potential of the anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge.” Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci., 34(6), 755–781.
Banister, S S, and Pretorius, W A (1998). “Optimisation of primary sludge
acidogenic fermentation for biological nutrient removal.” Water SA,
24(1), 35–41.
Barker, P. S., and Dold, P. L. (1997). “General model for biological nutrient
removal activated sludge systems: Model presentation.” Water Environ.
Res., 69(5), 969–984.
Bortone, G., Saltarelli, R., Alonso, V., Sorm, R., Wanner, and Tilche, A.
(1996). “Biological anoxic phosphorus removal—The DEPHANOX
process.” Water Sci. Technol., 34(1/2), 119–128.
Daigger, G. T., and Crawford, G. V. (2005). “Incorporation of biological
nutrient removal (BNR) into membrane bioreactors.” Proc., IWA Nu-
trient Management in Wastewater Treatment Processes and Recycle
Streams, IWA, London.
De Kreuk, M. K., Picioreanu, C., Hosseini, M., Xavier, J. B., and Van Loos-
drecht, M. C. M. (2007). “Kinetic model of a granular sludge SBR—
Influences on nutrient removal.” Biotechnol. Bioeng. 97(4), 801–815.
Dold, P. L., Fairlamb, P. M., Jones, R., Takács, I., and Murthy, S. (2007).
“Sidestream modelling incorporated into whole plant simulation.”
 CLONIC (Closing the nitrogen cycle from urban landfill leachate by
biological nutrient removal over nitrate and thermal treatment) final
seminar, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
Dold, P. L., Hu, Z., and Gan, Y. (2009). “Nutrient removal MBR systems:
Factors in design and operation.” Proc., 5th IWA Specialized Membrane
Conference and Exhibition, IWA, London.
Ekama, G. A., and Wentzel, M. C. (1999). “Difficulties and development in
biological nutrient removal technology and modeling.” Water Sci.
Technol., 39(6), 1–11.
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Yuan, Z., and Lant, P. (2010). “Nitrous oxide gen-
eration in full-scale biological nutrient removal wastewater treatment
plants.” Water Res., 44(3), 831–844.
Henze, M, et al. (1999). “Activated sludge model no. 2d.” Water Sci. Tech-
nol., 39(1), 165–182.
Henze, M., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Ekama, G. A., and Brdjanovic, D
(2008). Biological wastewater treatment: Principles, design and mod-
elling, IWA, London.
Hiatt, W. C., and Grady, C. P. L., Jr. (2008). “An updated process model for
carbon oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification.” Water Environ.
Res., 80(11), 2145–2156.
Hu, Z., Sötemann, S. W., Moodley, R., Wentzel, M. C., and Ekama, G. A.
(2003). “Experimental investigation on the external nitrification bio-
logical nutrient removal activated sludge system-the ENBNRAS sys-
tem.” Biotechnol. Bioeng., 83(3), 260–273.
Hu, Z., Wentzel, M. C., and Ekama, G. A. (2000). “External nitrification in
biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems.” Water SA, 26(2),
225–238.
Hu, Z., Wentzel, M. C., and Ekama, G. A. (2007). “A general model for
biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems: Model develop-
ment.” Biotechnol. Bioeng., 98(6), 1242–1258.
Houweling, D., Dold, P. L., and Barnard, J. (2010). “Theoretic limits to
biological removal-rethinking the influent COD:N:P ratio.” Proc.,
83rd Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition
and Conf., Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Houweling, D, Dold, P, Wunderlin, P, Joss, A., and Siegrist, H. (2011).
“N2 O Emissions: Impact of process configuration and diurnal loading
patterns.” Proc., WEF/IWA Nutrient Recovery and Management 2011,
Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Jones, R. M. et al. (2007). “Simulation for operation and control of reject
water treatment processes.” Proc., 80th Annual WEFTEC, Water Envi-
ronment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Jones, R. M., and Takacs, I. (2004). “Modeling the impact of anaerobic
digestion on the overall performance of biological nutrient removal
wastewater treatment plants.” Proc., 77th Annual WEFTEC, Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Kang, S. J. Kevin, P. Olmstead, Krista, M. Takacs, and James, Collins
(2009). “Energy sustainability and nutrient removal from municipal
wastewater.” Proc., 82nd Annual WEFTEC, Water Environment Feder-
ation, Alexandria, VA.
Latimer, R., Pitt, P. A., and van Niekerk, A. (2007). “Review of primary
sludge fermentation performance in both and USA.” Proc., 80th Annual
WEFTEC, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Latimer, R. J., Pitt, P., Dold, P., Takács, I., and Lynch, T. J. (2008). “Kinetic
parameters for modeling two-step nitrification and denitrification—
Case study.” Proc., 1st IWA/WEF Wastewater Treatment Modelling
Seminar, IWA, London.
Lesjean, B., Gnirss, R., Adam, C., Kraume, M., and Luck, F. (2003). “En-
hanced biological phosphorus removal process implemented in mem-
brane bioreactors to improve phosphorous recovery and recycling.”
Water Sci. Technol., 48(1), 87–94.
Liu, W., Hu, Z., Walker, R. L., and Dold, P. L. (2009). “Enhanced nutrient
removal MBR system with chemical addition for low effluent TP.” Proc.,
5th IWA Specialised Membrane Conf. and Exhibition, IWA, London.
Mąkinia, J., Stensel, H. D., Czerwionka, K., Drewnowski, J., and Zapero, D.
(2009). “Nitrogen transformations and mass balances in anaerobic/anoxic/
aerobic batch experiments with full-scale biomasses from BNR activated
sludge systems.” Proc., IWA Nutrient Removal Conf., IWA, London.
Monti, A., Hall, E. R., and van Loosdrecht, M. C. (2007). “Kinetics of
phosphorus release and uptake in a membrane-assisted biological phos-
phorus removal process.” J. Environ. Eng., 133(9), 899–908.
316 / JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012
Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Moodley, R, Wentzel, M. C., and Ekama, G. A. (1999). “External nitrifi-
cation in biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems.”
Research Report W100, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Cape Town,
Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa.
Moser-Engler, R., Udert, D., Wild, D., and Siegrist, H. (1998). “Products
from primary sludge fermentation and their suitability for nutrient
removal.” Water Sci. Technol, 38(1), 265–273.
Muller, A., et al. (2004). “Full-scale implementation of external nitrifcation
biological nutrient removal at the Daspoort Water Care Works, Tshwane
Municipality.” Water SA, 30(5), 585–591.
Muller, A., et al. (2006). “Two-years operating experience of full-scale
external nitrification BNR activated sludge.” Proc., 9th Bienn. WISA
Conf. and Exhibition, 21–25 May, Durban, South Africa.
Narayanan, B. et al. (2002). “Fermentation of return activated sludge to
enhance biological P removal.” Proc., 72nd Annual WEFTEC, Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Phagoo, D., Fry, D., Machisko, J., and Penny, J. (2005). “Enhanced BNR
with MBR—a unique combination.” Proc., 78th Annual WEFTEC,
Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Ramphao, M., Wentzel, M. C., Merritt, R., Ekama, G. A., Young, T., and
Buckley, C. A. (2005). “Impact of membrane solid-liquid separation on
design of biological nutrient removal activated sludge systems.”
Biotechnol. Bioeng., 89(6), 630–646.
Randall, C. W., and Sen, D. (1996). “Full-scale evaluation of an integrated
fixed film activated sludge (IFAS) process for enhanced nitrogen
removal.” Water Sci. Technol., 33(12), 155–162.
Rossle, W. H., and Pretorius, W. A. (2001). “A review of characterization
requirements for in-line prefermenters, Paper 2: Process characteriza-
tion.” Water SA 27(3), 413–422.
Sen, D., Mitta, P., and Randall, C. W. (1994). “Performance of fixed film
media integrated in activated sludge reactors to enhanced nitrogen
removal.” Wat. Sci. Technol., 30(11), 13–24.
Sen, D., Randall, C. W., and Liu, H. (1995). “Effect of suspended solids
MCRT on COD and nitrogen removal kinetics of biofilm support media
integrated in activated sludge systems.” Proc., 68th annual WEFTEC,
Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Shiskowski, D. M., and Mavinic, D. S. (2006). “The influence of nitrite and
pH (nitrous acid) on aerobic-phase, autotrophic N2 O generation in a
wastewater treatment bioreactor.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 5, 273–283.
Sin, G., et al. (2008). “Nitrite effect on the phosphorus uptake activity of
phosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs) in pilot-scale SBR and
MBR reactors.” Water SA, 34(2), 249–260.
Sorm, R., Bortone, G., Saltarelli, R., Jenicek, P., Wanner, J., and Tilche, A.
(1996). “Phosphate uptake under anoxic conditions and fixed film ni-
trification in nutrient removal activated sludge system.” Water Res.,
30(7), 1573–1584.
Sötemann, S., Vermande, S. M., Wentzel, M. C., and Ekama, G. A. (2003).
“Comparison of the performance of an external nitrification biological
nutrient removal activated sludge system with a UCT biological nutrient
removal activated sludge system.” Water SA Special Ed.: WISA Proc.
2002, 105–113.
Steichen, M., Kadava, A., Shaw, A., Scanlan, P., Martin, M., and Kazemi,
S. (2010). “A new paradigm: Carbon footprint and sustainability assess-
ment for process selection.” Proc., 83rd Annual WEFTEC, Water Envi-
ronment Federation, Alexandria, VA.
Tong, J., and Chen, Y. (2007). “Enhanced biological phosphorus removal
driven by short-chain fatty acids produced from waste activated
sludge alkaline fermentation.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 41(20),
7126–7130.
Tremblay, S., Hilger, H., Barnard, J., deBarbadillo, C., and Goins, P.
(2005). “Phosphorus accumulating organisms utilization of volatile
fatty acids produced by fermentation of anaerobic mixed liquor.” Proc.,
78th Annual WEFTEC, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria,
VA.
Vanrolleghem, P. A. et al. (2005). “Continuity-based interfacing of models
for waste-water systems described by Petersen matrices.” Water Sci.
Technol., 52(1–2), 493–500.
Volcke, E. I. P., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., and Vanrolleghem, P. A. (2006).
“Continuity-based interfacing for plant-wide simulation: A general
approach.” Water Res., 40(15), 2817–2828.
Wanner, J., Kucman, K., and Graup, P. (1988). “Activated sludge process
with biofilm cultivation.” Water Res., 22(2), 207–215.
Wentzel, M. C., Dold, P. L., Ekama, G. A., and Marais, G.V.R. (1990).
“Biological excess phosphorus removal-Steady state process design.”
Water SA, 16(1), 29–48.
Wentzel, M. C., Ekama, G. A., and Marais, G. V. R. (1992). “Process and
modelling of nitrification denitrification biological excess phosphorus
removal systems-a review.” Water Sci. Technol., 25(6), 59–82.
WERF. (2010). “Greenhouse nitrogen emission from wastewater treatment
operations.” Report U4R07a, Water Environment Research Foundation,
Alexandria, VA.
Wilson, A. W., and Dold, P. L. (1998). “Using a process simulator
for design, analysis, de-bottlenecking and operation of wastewater
treatment plants.” Presented at the 50th Annual Conf. of the
Western Canada Water and Wastewater Assoc., Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Yuan, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, H., Jiang, S., Zhou, Q., and Gu, G. (2006).
“Improved bioproduction of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) from ex-
cess sludge under alkaline conditions.” Environ. Sci. Technol., 40(6),
2025–2029.

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH 2012 / 317

View publication stats Downloaded 09 Apr 2012 to 129.72.181.123. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org