Research Journal of Chemical and Environmental Sciences

RJCES
Res J. Chem. Environ. Sci. Vol 7 [2] April 2019: 01-07
Online ISSN 2321-1040
CODEN: RJCEA2 [USA]
©Academy for Environment and Life Sciences, INDIA
Website: www.aelsindia.com/rjces.htm

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Start-up regime in an Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor for
treating an Institutional Wastewater
Aruna.C1, Sivaraman.N2 and Asha.B3
1,2,3Department
of Civil Engineering, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar.
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] ; [email protected]

ABSTRACT
A laboratory scale Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor was designed and fabricated for the treatment of Institutional
wastewater. The Anaerobic migrating blanket reactor was accomplished with both suspended as well as an attached
growth process. The reactor has been continuously operated at mesophilic range with an organic loading rate of 0.123
kg COD/m3.day. The result showed that the AMBR attained a steady state from 18th to 21st day. During the start-up
period, the pH plays an important role in the decomposition of organic substances. The COD reduction was attained at
12% in the initial stage and was incremental up to 12th day and decline from 12th to 15th day and then attains a steady
state from 18th to 21st day. The maximum COD removal efficiency was achieved at 92.25% with an OLR of 0.123 kg
COD/m3.day at an HRT of 24 hours.
Keywords: Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor; Chemical Oxygen Demand; Institutional wastewater; Organic Loading
Rate; pH.

Received 10.03.2019 Accepted 11.04.2019 © 2019 AELS, INDIA

INTRODUCTION
Advantages of anaerobic pretreatment over aerobic treatment for low-strength wastewater include less
sludge production and low energy requirements, which result in less operating costs [18]. Pretreatment
of low-strength wastewater is more attractive under low-temperature conditions. Recently, several
laboratory and pilot-scale studies revealed promising results for high-rate anaerobic treatment of low-
strength wastewater at temperatures as low as 3 to 5°C [10, 16, 17, 20]. Most often an aerobic polishing
(posttreatment) step is needed after the anaerobic system (pretreatment) to meet effluent quality
standards, such as for effluent Nitrogen and Phosphorus levels [21]. For full-scale treatment of low-
strength wastewater, the upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor was mostly used [11, 17]. The
UASB reactor consists of a single vessel with a hydraulic upflow pattern, and hence a gas–solids separator
system and a feed-distribution system are required to retain biomass and to distribute influent evenly,
respectively. Kato [13] showed in laboratory-scale studies that the expanded granular sludge bed (EGSB)
reactor, which resembles a UASB reactor with a higher upflow velocity, was more efficient compared with
the UASB reactor for this type of wastewater. Evidently, a higher mixing intensity in EGSB reactors
because of a higher upflow velocity decreased transport diffusion limitations of substrate into the
granules. Feasibility of this technology was confirmed with pilot-scale studies treating low strength
malting wastewater at 13°C and 20°C [20]. Mechanically mixed, anaerobic sequencing batch reactors
(ASBRs) were also thought to be an attractive option for the treatment of low-strength, low-temperature
wastewater, because higher mixing conditions are combined with ideal conditions for biomass settling
and retention in the reactor. In addition, because of the absence of a hydraulic upflow pattern, gas–solids
separator and feed-distribution systems are superfluous, which simplified the reactor configuration
compared with UASB and EGSB systems. Despite eliminating a hydraulic upflow pattern, the ASBR was
able to develop and grow granular biomass [1-4, 23], which protects the strict anaerobes from oxygen
toxicity in low-strength, low-temperature wastewater treatment [13]. An advantage of the ASBR
technology was the alternating higher and lower substrate levels (feast and famine conditions) during the
operating cycle, which resulted in increased biomass settling and retention before effluent decanting and
increased substrate utilization rates just after feeding (Dague et al., 1998). Increased substrate utilization
is preferred, as for lowstrength wastewater substrate utilization rates are generally low, dictated by
Monod kinetics [19]. The kinetic advantage of relatively high substrate levels can also be obtained with a

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 1|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

continuously fed staged reactor configuration, Lettinga et al. [16]. These researchers also found that
staging was beneficial for the following reasons: (1) more favorable conditions for propionic acid
degradation in the staged-reactor configuration because of low acetic acid and hydrogen levels in the
second stage; and (2) relative high levels of bacteria in the first stage of the system (while methanogens
were still present) and relative high levels of methanogens in the second stage (biomass staging), which
improved biodegradation kinetics due to each major group of microorganisms existing in an optimal
environment [15-17]. Another continuously fed staged reactor, the anaerobic migrating blanket reactor
(AMBR) was developed, because there is still a need for simple and cost-effective high-rate anaerobic
treatment systems for small and medium sized communities and industries, especially for treating low-
strength wastewater [11]. The AMBR utilizes the advantages of the ASBR, such as mechanical mixing,
biomass retention, a simple design (no gas–solids separation and feed-distribution systems required
because of the absence of a hydraulic upflow pattern), and granulation [3]. In addition, the HRT in a
continuously fed AMBR can be shortened (and thus the reactor volume can be decreased) compared with
the batch-fed ASBR. Relatively long HRTs due to physical limitations of the system (a combination of a
batch-fed operation and a relatively tall granular blanket) are required for the ASBR, because a reduction
of the 6-hour HRT for ASBRs treating low-strength wastewater was not anticipated [10]. Because of the
staged and continuously fed configuration of the AMBR (and thus a potential for short HRTs) in
combination with a simple design, the feasibility of the AMBR system for the treatment of highly soluble,
low-strength wastewater was studied. The AMBR treatment was evaluated under temperature conditions
(30-35 °C) by monitoring reactor performance over a period of 6 months, during which the HRT was
reduced from 144 hours to 24 hours in a stepwise manner. Biomass retention, granular size, and
methanogenic activity of granules were also monitored during this period. In addition, a sudden drop of
HRT from 24 hours to 1 hour was introduced to study the behavior of the AMBR under hydraulic- stress
conditions, which are common for low-strength wastewater. The role of the anaerobic process has
changed dramatically in wastewater treatment since the mid- 1980s. Its application for industrial
wastewater treatment was classically preferred because of its low operating and maintenance costs. Yet,
some major advantages could highlight its applicability. These are excess sludge reduction, energy
recovery via biogas production, low requirements with respect to nutrients, high organic loading rates
(OLR), and the possibility of toxic component biodegradation. The anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) is
known as high rate system and was initially developed in 1985. It was immediately attractive to
researchers and operators, and introduced as a promising approach for municipal and industrial
wastewater treatment [5]. The configuration of ABR is similar to a series of upflow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactors. However, it does not rely on granulated sludge forming, although granulation
can occur over time [4]. Primarily, ABR has a variety of advantages in its configuration and maintenance,
including its simplicity of design and mechanical equipment, relatively low hydraulic retention time
(HRT) requirements, and high stability with respect to hydraulic, toxic and organic shock loads.
Furthermore, the unique configuration of ABR may provide partial separation of acidogenic and
methanogenic bacteria [6]. Recently, ABR has been successfully used for treatment of various
wastewaters. These have come from a variety of sources, including domestic [14], distillery [1], soy bean
protein processing, swine wastes [7], textile dyes, and heavy oil production [12]. It has also been studied
as a pretreatment for different biological units like waste stabilization, and duckweed ponds. In addition
its configuration has been upgraded by electrolytic enhancement methods, and by bamboo carriers, or
modified for low strength municipal [9] and industrial wastewater similar to those from pulp and paper
making. The Start-up performance of ABR treating textile wastewater at a continuous phase was attained
a steady state from 75 to 78 days with an OLR of 0.252 kg COD/m3.day [7, 8]. The anaerobic migrating
blanket process is the most successful new anaerobic reactor design for various industrial and municipal
wastewater (McCarty, 2001). It has become the most popular and widely used high-rate anaerobic
wastewater treatment system worldwide [11, 13, 16], it was one of the anaerobic treatment systems that
answered the urgent need for alternative treatment systems in view of increased environmental concerns
amidst the energy crisis in the 1970s. Compared to other anaerobic treatment systems, it offers high
chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiency at shorter retention times, small land area
requirement, low construction cost, simple operation and minimal pumping requirement [22]. Its ability
to retain high biomass concentrations in the reactor is its key advantage. This research article envisaged
the start-up regime of an AMBR for treating institutional wastewater.

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 2|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Experimental setup
The present research work is to be carried out to evaluate the performance of anaerobic migrating
blanket reactor for the removal of Institutional wastewater. The experimental model was fabricated by
Plexiglass with a working volume of 68.25 litres. A proper
proper construction of the baffles allowed wastewater
to flow through the sludge bed from bottom up. The model has five compartments and the distance of the
upper edge of baffles between the ascending and descending compartments from the water level was
about 3cm. Three compartments are accomplished with suspended growth process and rest of the two
are with the attached growth process. The Bio carriers (figure 2) were filled randomly in the fourth and
fifth compartment. The product details of the bio carriers were
were given in the Table 1. The schematic of the
experimental setup is shown in Figure 1.

Units: All dimensions are in cm.

Figure 1. The schematic diagram of an Experimental setup

Figure.2. The Photographic view of bio carriers

Table.1. Product details of Bio-carriers

Colour Black
Model/Type PP22
Size 15 x 22
Specific gravity 0.90 - 95 gms/sqcm
Density 0.93
Media fill Range 25 – 55
Structure Cylindrical with external Fins
Surface area 400 sqm/cum
Diameter 22 mm
Height 15 mm
PSA/TSA ratio 75
Temperature 800C

Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor. The AMBR, with a working volume of 72.25 L was divided into
five compartments (Figure 1). The physical features of the reactor is given in the Table 2. Baffles between

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 3|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

the compartments were used to reduce short-circuiting of substrate and shock load. The space between a
baffle and the inside wall was 14 cm to prevent clogging by large granules. The experiment was
undertaken in mesophilic range. Sufficient contact between substrate and biomass was maintained using
intermittent, gentle mixing. Characteristic of a high rate system, the AMBR system hinges on a sludge
retention mechanism in order to maintain contact between the wastewater and a high concentration of
active bacterial mass. The AMBR reactor operates on the principles of an effective separation of the
biogas, the liquid and sludge, formation of an easily settle able anaerobic sludge, and even distribution of
raw waste over the bottom of the reactor. Influent wastewater is introduced from the top of the reactor,
through evenly distributed nozzles. The sludge bed at the bottom of the reactor is the active bacterial
mass that digests the organic pollutants in the wastewater. Production of biogas that resulted from the
anaerobic digestion process induces mixing in the sludge blanket. Dispersed sludge particles are
separated from the liquid, while the liquid leaves the reactor via the effluent line and the gas through the
top of the reactor. In practice, start-up procedures vary in terms of loading applied. While it has been
proven that seed sludge is not required for the start-up of an AMBR reactor treating sewage, its
application will shorten the start-up time, which can take three to four months [22]. This paper reports
the approach taken in starting up an AMBR reactor to be developed to treat institutional wastewater. Its
performance during the initial stage of start-up will be presented and relevant observations highlighted.

Table. 2. Physical features and process parameters of experimental model

REACTOR DIMENSIONS
Length of the reactor 70cm
Depth of the reactor 45cm
Width of the reactor 25cm
Compartment free board 6cm top
Total volume of the reactor 78.75 litres
Working Volume 68.25 litres
Number of compartment 5
Each compartment length 14cm
Peristaltic pump PP-30

Start-up Procedure
In this research, a more flexible approach was adopted. The start-up strategy employed was to fill up
about 100% of the reactor working volume. Institutional wastewater of approximately 0.123 kg
COD/m3/day was fed into the reactor by batch every three days. This was to avoid wastage of chemicals
while the biomass acclimatise itself to the waste and multiply. The waste consisted mainly of acetic acid,
propionic acid, n-butyric acid and glucose, supplemented with nutrients and trace metals. Stock solution
with concentration of 220g COD/l was prepared. Dilutions to 0.123 kg COD/m3/day were made using tap
water before the institutional wastewater was fed into the reactor. The first batches of institutional
wastewater fed immediately subsequent volumes fed ranged from approximately 0.5 – 1.0 kg
COD/m3/day per batch. The feeding of institutional wastewater would be switched to continuous mode
once the biomass is acclimatised and growing well, characterised by stable biogas production. Initially,
continuous pumping of feed would be at the lowest flow rate. Once COD removal reaches 90% or more,
the flow rate would be increased stepwise by 10% or 5 rpm, whichever the higher. The reactor start-up
initiation was accomplished over a period of 6 days. After about 4 months, no obvious biogas production
was observed, other than some frothing on the top water level of the wastewater body. The influent and
effluent pH, temperature and COD were determined periodically, and biogas production was monitored.
The pumping rate of waste was increased when COD removal increased. The frequency of analysis was
increased when gas produced was quantifiable. It should be noted that throughout the duration of the
experiment during the continuous feed mode, frequent feed interruptions occurred due to various
reasons such as power failures, maintenance works on the reactor e.g. unclogging of tubing,
troubleshooting and modifications of the experimental setup to improve data collection, and other
unavoidable circumstances in the laboratory. The duration of interruptions varied from a few minutes to
about 50 hours.
Analytical Methods
The institutional wastewater was collected from the Annamalai University wastewater pumping station.
The samples were characterized according to the protocol of Standard Methods [2]. Biogas was collected
by gas flow meter. Gas volume readings were recorded not less than four hours after the start of
collection.

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 4|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The influent and effluent samples from the reactor were collected once in three days and were analyzed
immediately. Initially, the influent was collected from the treatment facility at Annamalai University and
feed to the reactor with a COD of 780 mg/l with an OLR of 0.123 Kg COD/m3.d. The low initial loading rate
was recommended for the successful start-up of AMBR. A low initial organic loading rate was beneficial
for the growth of anaerobic active sludge and the low COD organic loading resulted in low production of
gas rate and low wastewater up-flow velocity. Prompt start-up is essential for the highly efficient
operation of AMBR, due to slow growth rates of anaerobic microorganisms, especially Methane producing
bacteria.
During the first five days of the reactor startup (with domestic sludge), only frothing was observed on the
surface of the wastewater body. This may indicate some respiratory activity within the reactor, but it did
not result in noticeable biogas production. Minimal movements of sludge in the reactor could only be
perceived over a considerably long period, e.g. a day. These were deduced from shifts in positions of
coloured ‘particles’ suspended in the wastewater body. On the 8th day, a layer of sludge was observed on
the top water level of the wastewater below the bubbles. These are presumed to be inactive biomass,
which floated to the top. Over time, this sludge layer accumulated. Overall, the start-up process was either
exceedingly slow, or not progressing well. Upto 12th day, the performance with respect to COD removal
efficiency was incremental and from 12th to 15th day, the removal efficiency was in the decremented range
which may be due to the accumulation of VFA production in the reactor. From 15th day onwards the
removal efficiency was increased and become steady state from 18th to 21st day. Figure 3 shows the
Influent COD and Effluent COD and the figure 4 shows the COD removal efficiency.

1000
900
800
700
600
COD, mg/l

500 Influent COD

400 Effluent COD
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
HRT, days
Figure. 3. HRT, days Vs Influent COD and Effluent COD during start up process
100
90
% COD removal efficiency

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
HRT, days
Figure. 4. HRT, days Vs % COD removal efficiency during start up process

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 5|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

pH
Figure 5 shows the pH in each compartments of the reactor. The effluent pH, which reflects the pH in the
reactor, lies between 7.97 and 8.12. The maximum pH recorded is higher than the optimum pH for
anaerobic digestion cited in most references, i.e. 6.5 – 7.5. However, from Figure 4, this did not affect the
COD removal efficiency, which remained high at above 90%. Influent pH ranged from 6.2 to 6.8, although
the pH prior to feeding to the influent tank was near to 7.0. The pH in the compartment 1,2,3,4 and 5 were
observed as 6.21, 5.93, 6.50, 7.80 and 8.12 respectively during the start-up process. Both influent and
effluent temperatures were well within the mesophilic temperature range of 20 – 40oC.

9
8
7
6 compartment 1
5 compartment 2
4 compartment 3
3 compartment 4
pH

2 compartment 5
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
HRT, days
Figure. 5. HRT, days Vs pH during start up process

Biogas production
Despite the consistent bubbling observed in the wastewater body and phase separator during the period
described earlier, no readings were registered in the gas flow meter. From Figure 5, biogas production
was not constant and stable, despite the constant and high COD removal. This may be due to loss of gas
through dissolution in the effluent and desorption of methane at the water surface. Losses between 20
and 50 per cent of the produced biogas are common [22]. This could also be an indication that part of the
substrate digested was still used to synthesise new cells, as the reactor is still considered to be in its start-
up stage. The biogas produced in the reactor was very minimum which may be due to the low strength of
the wastewater is 0.001 to 0.0014 m3 of biogas per kg COD removed was observed in this study (Figure
6).
Biogas m3/kg COD removed

0.0016
0.0014
0.0012
0.001
0.0008
0.0006
0.0004
0.0002
0
0 5
HRT, days 10 15 20 25

Figure. 6. HRT, days Vs Biogas

CONCLUSIONS
A laboratory-scale AMBR was fed with an institutional wastewater at an average COD concentration of
780 mg/l in a mesophilic range of temperature. Start-up is often considered to be the most unstable and

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 6|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA

 Aruna et al

difficult phase in anaerobic digestion. The result showed that the AMBR attained at a steady state from
18th to 21st day. During the start up period the pH plays an important role. The COD reduction was
attained 12% in the initial stage and it was incremental up to12th day and decline from 12th to 15th day
and then attain a steady state from 18th day to 21st day. The maximum COD removal efficiency was
achieved at 92.25% with an OLR of 0.123 kg COD removed. The maximum biogas production was
achieved at 0.0016 m3 gas/ kg COD removed.

REFERENCES
1. Akunna JC, Clark M (2000). Performance of a granular-bed anaerobic baffled reactor (GRABBR) treating whisky
distillery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 74: 257-261.
2. American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association; and Water Environment Federation
(1995) Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 19th Ed., Washington, D.C.
3. Angenent, L.T., and Sung, S. (2001) Development of Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor (AMBR), a Novel
Anaerobic Treatment System. Water Res. (G.B.) 35, 1739.
4. Baloch MI, Akunna JC, Collier PJ (2007). The performance of a phase separated granular bed bioreactor treating
brewery wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 98: 1849-1855.
5. Barber WP, Stuckey DC (1999). The use of the anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for wastewater treatment: a
review. Water Res. 33: 1559-1578.
6. Barber WP, Stuckey DC (2000). Nitrogen removal in a modified anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR): 2, nitrification.
Water Res. 34: 2423- 2432.
7. Bhuvaneswari A. Asha. B and Saranya. T. (2015) Start-up and enhancement in an Anaerobic Baffled Reactor for
the treatment of textile wastewater. International journal of Civil Engineering Vol 4 (5), 11-16.
8. Bodik I, Kratochvil K, Gaspirkova E, Hutnan M (2003). Nitrogen removal in an anaerobic baffled filter reactor
with aerobic post-treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 86: 79-82.
9. Bodkhe SY (2009). A modified anaerobic baffled reactor for municipal wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Manage.
90: 2488-2493.
10. Dague, R.R.; Banik, G.C.; and Ellis, G.E. (1998) Anaerobic Sequencing Batch Reactor Treatment of Dilute
Wastewater at Psychrophilic Temperatures. Water Environ. Res., 70, 155.
11. Hulshoff Pol, L.; Euler, H.; Eitner, A.; and Grohganz, D. (1997) GTZ Sectorial Project: Promotion of Anaerobic
Technology for the Treatment of Municipal and Industrial Sewage and Wastes. Proc. 8th Int.Conf. Anaerobic
Digestion, Sendai, Jpn; Int. Assoc. Water Qual., London.
12. Ji GD, Sun TH, Ni JR, Tong JJ (2009). Anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) for treating heavy oil produced water with
high concentrations of salt and poor nutrient. Bioresour. Technol. 100: 1108-1114.
13. Kato, M.T. (1994) The Anaerobic Treatment of Low Strength Soluble Wastewaters. Ph. D. thesis, Dep. Environ.
Technol., Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.
14. Krishna GVT, Kumar P, Kumar P (2008). Treatment of low strength complex wastewater using an anaerobic
baffled reactor (ABR). Bioresour. Technol. 99: 8193-8200.
15. Langenhoff, A.A.M., and Stuckey, D.C. (2000) Treatment of Dilute Wastewater Using an Anerobic Baffled Reactor:
Effect of Low Temperature. Water Res.(G.B.), 34, 3867.
16. Lettinga, G.; de Man, A.; van der Last, A.R.M.; Wiegant, W.; van Knippenberg, K.; Frijns, J.; and van Buuren, J.C.L.
(1993) Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Sewage and Wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. (G.B.), 27, 967.
17. Lettinga, G.; Rebac, S.; Parshina, S.; Nozhevnikova, A.; van Lier, J.B.; and Stams, A.J.M. (1999) High-Rate Anaerobic
Treatment of Wastewater at Low Temperatures. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 65, 1696.
18. Mergaert, K.; Vanderhaegen, B.; and Verstraete, W. (1992) Applicability and Trends of Anaerobic Pre-Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater. Water Res. (G.B.), 26, 1025.
19. Monod, J. (1949) The Growth of Bacterial Cultures: a Review. Microbiol., 3, 371. Nachaiyasit, S., and Stuckey, D.C.
(1997) The Effect of Shock Loads on the Performance of an Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR). 2. Step and
Transient Hydraulic Shocks at Constant Feed Strength. Water Res. (G.B.), 31, 2747.
20. Rebac, S.; van Lier, J.B.; Janssen, M.G.J., Dekkers, F.; Swinkels, K.T.M.; and Lettinga, G. (1997) High-Rate Anaerobic
Treatment of Malting Waste Water in a Pilot-Scale EGSB System Under Psychrophilic Conditions. J. Chem.
Technol. Biotechnol., 68, 135.
21. Rodrigues, A.C.; Brito, A.G.; and Melo, L.F. (2001) Post treatment of a Brewery Wastewater Using a Sequencing
Batch Reactor. Water Environ. Res., 73, 45.
22. van Lier, J.B.; Rebac, S.; Lens, P.; van Bijnen, F.; Oude Elferink, S.J.W.H.; Stams, A.J.M.; and Lettinga, G. (1997)
Anaerobic Treatment of Partly Acidified Wastewater in a Two-Stage Expanded Granular Sludge Bed (EGSB)
System at 8 °C. Water Sci. Technol. (G.B), 36, 6/7, 317.
23. Wirtz, R.A., and Dague, R.R. (1996) Enhancement of Granulation and Start-Up in the Anaerobic Sequencing Batch
Reactor. Water Environ. Res., 68, 883.

CITE THIS ARTICLE

Aruna.C, Sivaraman.N and Asha.B. Start-up regime in an Anaerobic Migrating Blanket Reactor for treating an
Institutional Wastewater . Res. J. Chem. Env. Sci. Vol 7 [2] April 2019. 01-07

RJCES Vol 7 [2] April 2019 7|P a g e © 2019 AELS, INDIA