REVIEW ARTICLES

Aerobic granular sludge: the future of

wastewater treatment
Y. V. Nancharaiah1,2,*, M. Sarvajith1,2 and T. V. Krishna Mohan1
1
Water and Steam Chemistry Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam 603 102, India
2
Homi Bhabha National Institute, BARC Training School Complex, Anushakti Nagar, Trombay, Mumbai 400 094, India

maintained in the form of flocculent activated sludge for

Water, food and energy security are interlinked and
central to sustainable development. Wastewater is a wastewater treatment. AS is a mixed microbial communi-
key element in the water–food–energy nexus, and ty feeding on the biodegradable substrates present in the
recovery of resources can link water, nutrient and wastewater. Due to loose microbial structure and poor
energy cycles. Effective treatment of wastewater is settling properties of AS, secondary clarifiers are essen-
essential for public health and sanitation, water tial for separating the sludge and treated wastewater.
reclamation, preventing environmental pollution and Moreover, partition in the aeration tank or introduction of
protecting water resources. Furthermore, the treated additional tanks is required for maintaining anaerobic,
wastewater is a potential resource and its reuse will anoxic and aerobic conditions if biological nutrient
partially offset supply and demand in water-stressed removal is envisaged2. Thus, major drawbacks of conven-
areas. A century-old activated sludge (AS) process is tional AS technology are requirement of large land foot-
still widely employed, though not sustainable in terms
print, associated capital costs, complex process design
of large land footprint, higher costs and complex
designs for achieving biological nutrient removal. The and energy for recirculation of biomass and wastewater3.
recently developed aerobic granular sludge (GS) Requirement of large land footprint is mainly due to the
process is a better replacement for AS and promises use of flat bioreactors for treatment and large secondary
sustainable wastewater treatment for at least the next clarifiers for gravity-based separation of flocculent AS
century. The GS process uses familiar sequencing and treated wastewater4. To overcome the sludge separa-
batch reactor technology for simultaneous removal of tion issue, membrane-based technologies (i.e. membrane
organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other pollu- bioreactors) have been successfully developed but not yet
tants from wastewater. Among the available biological widely implemented because of (i) high capital costs, (ii)
treatment options, GS process is the most preferred high energy costs and (iii) membrane fouling problems5.
choice because of smaller land footprint, lower costs In recent years, it became possible to address the sludge
and effective wastewater treatment. Accumulating
separation issue by engineering the microbial community
research shows that the GS technology has gained
enormous popularity; it is increasingly considered for in the form of a compact and dense aerobic granular
capacity extension as well as new wastewater treat- sludge (GS), which is becoming a standard for the future
ment plants in domestic and industrial sectors. of aerobic wastewater treatment.
Since its first observation in sequencing batch reac-
tors6, GS has attracted enormous interest because of its
Keywords: Activated sludge, aerobic granulation, se-
potential to transform the future of aerobic WWTPs. GS
quencing batch reactor, wastewater treatment.
is distinct from AS in terms of compactness, particle size,
settling velocities, extracellular polymeric substances
BIOLOGICAL treatment is an integral part of wastewater
(EPS) matrix and microbial community structure7–9. This
treatment plants (WWTPs) used for purifying sewage and
form of sludge allows gravity-based separation of bio-
industrial wastewater. By convention, biological treat-
mass and treated wastewater in the bioreactor itself,
ment of wastewater is achieved using activated sludge
contributing to significant reduction in land footprint and
(AS) process which requires large land footprint for bio-
costs. During the last two decades, the GS technology has
reactors (aeration tanks) and secondary clarifiers (settling
been evaluated in laboratory- and pilot-scale studies10–12.
tanks). AS plants become much more complex by way of
Few GS systems are already available at full scale for
multiple process units and necessitate recirculation flows
treating sewage combined with industrial wastewater13–15.
when modified for achieving biological nutrient (nitrogen
GS technology is now seen as the most advanced and
and phosphorus) removal. The AS technology is a century-
promising biological method for aerobic WWTPs.
old biological process which is widely used in WWTPs
The aim of this study was to present sewage treatment
across the world1. In this process, microbial growth is
status in India, to provide an overview of different
biological treatment systems and GS technology for
*For correspondence. (e-mail: [email protected]) advanced wastewater treatment. The GS technology was

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019 395

REVIEW ARTICLES
compared with the widely applied AS process and other in India 2018’). This indicates that about 71.2% (about
compact biological methods, i.e. moving bed bioreactors 53,385 MLD) of sewage generated in the urban cities of
(MBBRs) and membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Biological India does not receive any kind of treatment (Figure 2).
treatment methods have been described and compared in This large gap between sewage generation and treatment
terms of treatment efficiency, land footprint and costs for capacity is the main reason for pollution of water bodies.
facilitating the users and policy makers to exercise suita- In fact, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) has
ble option while planning WWTPs. urged for increasing sewage treatment capacity to
improve the water quality of rivers and lakes. Recent
governmental programmes, like Swachh Bharat Abhiyan,
Sewage treatment status in India
Namami Gange, etc. have made significant headway to
augment sewage networks and treatment capacity in
About 70–80% of water supplied for domestic use
urban areas for improving the health of water resources.
enters the sewers after use as sewage. While turning the
The current sewage treatment scenario in India offers
water into sewage, a multitude of organic and inorganic
enormous scope for business opportunities. There is a
pollutants in both particulate and soluble form are intro-
need for developing compact, effective and affordable
duced. Table 1 provides an overview of pollutants present
technologies for increasing the treatment capacity closer
in the sewage. It is evident that the pollutants are lower
to the sewage production levels.
than 2% (%w/w) and the rest is water in the sewage.
Existing STPs are equipped with different biological
However, suitable treatment of sewage is necessary to
treatment technologies such as oxidation ponds, AS
remove pollutants, avoid pollution of natural water,
process, sequencing batch reactors, biofilm reactors or
provide sanitation, recover water and nutrients. Accord-
membrane bioreactors. By and large, the conventional AS
ing to the Constitution of India, the subject of sewage
process is the most widely applied treatment system in
treatment falls under the purview of the State List as part
India covering up to more than 50% of the total installed
of public health and sanitation16. It is widely acknowledged
capacity. However, the current state of knowledge shows
that the discharge of untreated or improperly treated
that the AS process is no longer considered sustainable,
wastewater (i.e. sewage, industrial effluents) is the major
from an economic and environmental perspective. Due to
cause for pollution of surface and ground water re-
lower land footprint and costs, sequencing batch reactor
sources16.
technology is increasingly considered for newer plants,
Figure 1 shows sewage generation and treatment
especially in urban India.
capacities of different states in India17. According to the
Census of India, 2011, about 377,105,760 people live in
urban areas (class I and class II cities), accounting for Microbial communities: bioflocs, biofilms and
31.16% of the total population of the country. Total granules
sewage generation in class I and class II cities was esti-
mated to be 75,020 million litres per day (MLD) in 2017. Environmental engineers and scientists have recently cel-
However, the available sewage treatment plants (STPs) ebrated the centenary year (2014) of AS. In 1914, Ardern
can process only 26,066.31 MLD as of July 2018. About and Lockett described AS which was later adopted
83% of the existing plants are only operational for treat- worldwide for aerobic wastewater treatment. Suspended
ing sewage (source: report on ‘Sewage treatment market biomass generated during the aeration phase was sepa-
rated out from the treated wastewater and recycled for
treating another batch of wastewater. The sludge that was
Table 1. Overview of pollutants present in sewage collected from
sewage treatment plant, Kalpakkam
generated and settled out at the end of the aeration phase
was termed ‘activated’. It is essentially a microbial com-
Parameter Value* munity which separates out from treated wastewater by
COD (mg/l) 112–425 flocculation under quiescent conditions. AS flocs are
BOD (mg/l) 90–226 irregularly shaped and not more than 100 μm in size.
Ammonia-N (mg/l) 9.0–24 They are characterized by loose microbial structure and
Nitrate-N (mg/l) 0.3–0.8 often dominated by filamentous microbes18. In addition to
Nitrite-N (mg/l) 0.3–1.0
functional capabilities (contaminant removal), settling
Phosphorus-P (mg/l) 1.6–6.5
Total suspended solids (mg/l) 520–1100 properties of biomass is a key parameter in biological
Total CFUs (per 100 ml) 3.4–4.0 × 109 wastewater treatment. The settling properties are quanti-
Total coliforms (CFUs /100 ml) 3.1–3.6 × 108 fied in terms of sludge volume index (SVI), which is de-
Faecal coliforms (CFUs/100 ml) 1.6 × 106–2.4 × 107 fined as the volume (ml) occupied by 1 g of sludge after
*Data represent measurements made during 2015–2018. COD, Chemi- 30 min settling period. The SVI30 of AS is usually higher
cal oxygen demand; BOD, biochemical oxygen demand; CFU, colony at 100 ml/g. It is not feasible to maintain high biomass
forming units. concentrations (>4 g/l) in conventional AS plants while

396 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019

 REVIEW ARTICLES

Figure 1. State-wise distribution of sewage generation and treatment capacity in India (data sourced
from ref. 17).

high biomass concentration and treating diluted waste

streams such as sewage and some industrial effluent22.
Trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, biological
aerated filters and constructed wetlands are some of the
conventional biofilm processes for wastewater treatment.
MBBRs and membrane aerated biofilm reactors are new
biofilm technologies for wastewater treatment23. Though
biofilms simplify separation of biomass from the treated
wastewater, removal of detached biomass is required for
minimizing suspended solids in the treated wastewater
prior to discharge.
Granules are physically distinct, macroscale biomass
Figure 2. Sewage generation and treatment capacity in class I and particles with definite shape and separate out from the
class II cities.
water column by sedimentation under quiescent condi-
tions (Figure 3). Granules are characterized by enhanced
treating low-strength wastewater like sewage. This is due
settling properties with lower SVI values (often below
to loose microbial structure and lower settling velocities
50 ml/g) and higher settling velocities. As the granules
of AS. Unlike conventional AS plants, membrane bio-
quickly sink in the water column, SVI30 has been revised
reactors and sequencing batch reactors allow increasing
to SVI5 (SVI after 5 min settling) for GS systems. The
the concentration of AS in the bioreactor tanks.
SVI5 of granules is almost similar to SVI30, while SVI5 is
Biofilms are microbial communities enmeshed in a
much larger than SVI30 for bioflocs. Figure 4 shows a
self-produced extracellular biomolecular matrix compris-
comparison of AS and GS. Superior settling velocities
ing carbohydrates, proteins and extracellular DNA19. Bio-
and compact microbial structure of granules make it poss-
film growth is a natural living style for numerous
ible to integrate separation of biomass and treated waste-
microorganisms in diverse environments. Microorgan-
water in the treatment tank itself. Due to lower SVI
isms in biofilm growth mode are useful for biodegrada-
values and effective biomass retention, it is possible to
tion of diverse pollutants and bioremediation20. These
achieve two to four-fold higher biomass concentration in
beneficial biofilms can be developed either on a solid
GS process compared to AS process.
static surface or on suspended carriers for wastewater
treatment. Biofilm growth is an effective means for bio-
mass retention and for increasing volumetric conversion Biological treatment options
capacities while treating diluted waste streams21. There-
fore, biofilm reactors are suitable for retaining slow- The components of WWTPs can be grouped under primary,
growing microorganisms (e.g. nitrifiers), maintaining secondary and tertiary treatment systems. Physical and
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019 397
REVIEW ARTICLES

Figure 3. Morphology of (a) activated sludge and (b) aerobic granlar sludge. Scale bar: 1 mm.

dox microenvironments in AS under aerated condition.

Therefore, different redox conditions are maintained
through multiple process units. After biological treat-
ment, AS is separated from the treated wastewater by
means of flocculation, which requires a dedicated clarifi-
er tank. Thus, AS plants require large land footprint and
associated capital costs for wastewater treatment. Aera-
tion and recirculation of biomass and water between bio-
reactor tanks consume considerable amount of energy26.
Therefore, reliance on AS-based WWTPs is considered
economically and environmentally unsustainable27.
Other popular technologies such as MBBRs, MBRs
and sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) have been deve-
loped for designing compact WWTPs28. In the case of
Figure 4. Comparison of volume occupied by equal amounts of (a)
granular sludge and (b) activated sludge after settling. MBBR, microbial growth is mainly in the form of bio-
films on moving carriers. Due to continuous treatment
process, secondary clarifier is used for separating coexist-
chemical methods are used in the primary and tertiary ing AS and detached biofilm–biomass from the treated
treatment systems24,25. Whereas biological processes are sewage respectively, in AS and MBBR-based WWTPs. In
used in the secondary treatment, which plays a key role in MBR, membrane is used for separating AS and treated
removing most of the pollutants, such as organic carbon, wastewater. Therefore, secondary clarifier is not needed
reactive nitrogen (ammonium, nitrate and nitrite), phos- for MBR-based WWTPs28. Unlike other technologies, SBR
phorus and other pollutants from wastewater8,25. Several is a batch process but continuity in treatment is achieved
factors such as land footprint, cost, treatment efficacy, by employing parallel tanks. In SBR, both treatment of
knowhow availability and process reliability are consi- wastewater and separation of AS from the treated waste-
dered while selecting the appropriate treatment technology water (by flocculation) are achieved in the single tank.
(Table 2). Thus, both MBR and SBR-based WWTPs require lower
Biological treatment of wastewater involves two land footprint and are promising for use in cities.
important tasks: (i) removal of contaminants from waste-
water, and (ii) separation of microbial biomass and
treated wastewater. Originally, the AS process was GS technology for aerobic wastewater treatment
designed only for lowering organic matter (biochemical
oxygen demand) by heterotrophic microorganisms. Later, GS is a distinct form of microbial biomass and is charac-
it was modified for removing nitrogen (N) and phospho- terized by compact microstructure and lower SVI val-
rus (P) from the wastewater. Integration of biological N ues8,9,29,30. It mainly comprises of compact macroscale
and P removal necessitates introduction of multiple biomass particles which can quickly sink from the
process units and recirculation flows (Figure 5). This is wastewater to the bottom of the tank by sedimentation
because biological removal of N and P requires different under quiescent conditions31,32. Operation of bioreactor in
redox conditions such as aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic SBR mode is most suited for GS formation and its stability.
conditions25. Due to smaller size and loose microbial Formation of GS in aerobic SBR was first reported in
structure, it may not be possible to maintain different re- 1997 from The Netherlands6. Since then, GS has

398 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019

 REVIEW ARTICLES
Table 2. Important factors for the selection of treatment technologies

Parameter Goal

Land footprint Minimum land requirement

Capital costs Minimum and optimum utilization
Operating costs Lower energy requirement
Operation and maintenance Simple, flexible, minimal complexity and lower expenditure
Quality of treated sewage Treated wastewater should conform to discharge limits
Reliability Long-term stability and sustainable treatment
Fluctuating loads in sewage Process should withstand fluctuations in organic and hydraulic loading rates
Toxic chemicals/metals Process should tolerate toxic pollutants

Figure 5. Comparison of different biological treatment processes.

attracted research attention (Figure 6) for its promising treating mixed wastewater with 30% sewage and 70%
technological applications in domestic and industrial industrial wastewater from printing and dyeing, chemical,
wastewater treatment9. textile and beverage industries14. Studies on full-scale GS
Research has shown that GS performs better than AS plants reported long start-up periods of up to 10 months
(Table 3) in removing contaminants from the waste- for achieving reasonable granulation (80% of biomass in
water33. GS has been demonstrated to degrade a variety the form of granules). It is to be noted that these full-
of toxic and recalcitrant organic compounds such as azo scale plants were used for treating wastewater consisting
dyes, phenols, metal chelating agents, organophosphorus of significant proportion (30–70%) of industrial effluents.
compounds, nitroaromatic compounds, anilines and It appears that long start-up periods are required for GS
pharmaceuticals in laboratory-scale bioreactors34–38. formation, and for establishing nitrogen and phosphorus
Formation of GS and wastewater treatment were also removal when this technology is considered for sewage
demonstrated in aerobic pilot-scale bioreactors39–41. A treatment.
full-scale GS plant has been set-up in The Netherlands Several strategies have been proposed for the devel-
for treating mixed wastewater comprising 65% sewage opment of GS as well as to minimize start-up period
and 35% industrial (slaughter house) wastewater13. under real sewage conditions. Mixing of industrial
Another full-scale plant has been set-up in China for wastewater with sewage40,42, or addition of acetate to

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019 399

REVIEW ARTICLES
Table 3. Comparison of characteristics between activated sludge and granular sludge

Characteristics Activated sludge Granular sludge

Particle size (mm) <0.1 >0.1

Microstructure Loose and flocculent Dense and compact
Settling velocities (m h–1) ~10 ~90
SVI (ml/g) Above 100 Often below 50
SVI Very different at 5 and 30 min Similar at 5 and 30 min
Microenvironments Not possible to have distinct Aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic regions within
redox conditions within a floc a single granule is possible

SVI, Sludge volume index.

Figure 6. Year-wise distribution of publications on aerobic granular sludge for wastewater treatment
(Scopus-indexed publications with keywords ‘aerobic granules’, ‘aerobic granular sludge’, ‘aerobic gra-
nular biomass’, ‘aerobic granular microbes’, or ‘aerobic microbial granules’ as on March 2019 are in-
cluded).

sewage43,44 was reported. Addition of particles of granu- imposed for forming GS from bioflocs8,32,50. These
lar activated carbon has been reported for the rapid operating conditions allow selection of slow-growing
development of GS45–47. Addition of zeolite and magne- microbes such as nitrifiers, polyphosphate accumulating-
tite (Fe3O4) powder was shown to promote granule organisms and glycogen-accumulating organisms in the
formation from AS48,49. However, all these studies have form of compact and dense granules32,47. Settling veloci-
been carried out using synthetic effluent with either glu- ties of granules are much higher than that of bioflocs, and
cose or acetate as the carbon source. Therefore, neither are responsible for enhanced biomass retention in the bio-
these substrates nor their concentrations are representa- reactor. Both granular structure and increased biomass
tive of real sewage. Though these studies are useful for levels are responsible for achieving higher biological
getting an insight into the granulation process, the results nutrient (N and P) removals in GS plants. Due to large
cannot be directly extrapolated to granulation under particle size (about 0.2 mm and higher) and compact
treatment of real sewage. Thus, it is desirable to develop microstructure, it is possible to maintain aerobic, anoxic
newer strategies for cultivating functional GS under real and anaerobic microenvironments within an individual
sewage conditions. granule even during aeration phase51,52. Maintenance of
different redox conditions in granules facilitates occur-
rence of oxidation and reduction reactions simultaneously
Comparison of treatment efficiency, land and contributes to simultaneous C, N, and P removal
footprint and costs from wastewater26–43. Biomass concentration of 10 g/l
and higher is feasible in GS plants due to effective bio-
Bioreactor operating condition, such as anaerobic feeding mass retention13,30,42,43. Therefore, biomass concentrations
coupled to short settling period prior to decanting are are much higher in GS plants compared to conventional
400 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019
 REVIEW ARTICLES
AS plants. Higher biomass concentrations can achieve appears to be different. Pronk et al.13 reported a lower
effective and rapid removal of contaminants and improve energy consumption of up to 48% in full-scale GS
volumetric conversion capacities. process than AS process. Energy savings were partly due
GS is capable of performing all biological reactions for to lower electricity demand for aeration because of
effective removal of organic carbon, nitrogen and phos- deeper water treatment tanks in the GS process leading to
phorus from wastewater in a single bioreactor tank. In more efficient oxygen transfer. But, the energy for aera-
addition, separation of GS and treated wastewater is car- tion becomes comparable between the GS and AS
ried out in the same bioreactor tank. The characteristics processes if treatment tanks of similar depth are used3.
of GS make sure that no secondary clarifiers, and sepa- MBR-based WWTPs are proven to be energy intensive
rate anoxic and aerobic compartments are required. Thus, mainly because of two reasons: (i) they require high rate
land footprint of the GS process is significantly reduced of sludge return pumping, and (ii) high aeration rate at
compared to the conventional AS process. A reduction of the membranes to minimizing fouling. The energy
up to 75% in the land footprint has been estimated13,53. demand for an MBR is roughly 50–70% higher than that
Recently, Bengtsson et al.3 also reported that the GS of the GS process3.
process requires 40% to 50% smaller footprint compared
to the conventional AS process. Due to enhanced settling
properties of GS, bioreactors can be operated at 10 g/l GS technology in India
and higher biomass concentration. This can significantly
increase the treatment capacity of the plant. Therefore, The GS technology is being successfully implemented at
the GS process requires smaller footprint (20–30%) as full scale and currently promoted as Nereda®53 wastewater
against conventional SBR based on AS. The footprint of treatment technology. A full-scale GS plant has been set-
the GS system is comparable to that of MBR, the other up in The Netherlands for treating mixed sewage stream
compact treatment option. Due to effective retention, containing significant fraction (35%) of slaughter-house
MBRs can also achieve high biomass concentration and wastewater13. Though it is increasingly considered for
offer efficient treatment. Though MBRs are compact and treating sewage, the full-scale GS systems have been
give better effluent quality, they require costly membrane mainly applied for treating mixed sewage. Even while
and face membrane-fouling problems54. treating sewage mixed with significant proportion of
Due to single reactor tank design, the number of tanks industrial wastewater, long-term operation of plants has
and mechanical equipment required for the GS process is been reported for achieving granulation and establishing
much less compared to the AS process. Secondary clarifier nutrient (N and P) removal. In spite of issues with respect
tanks, biomass and effluent recirculation systems of the to granulation and stability, the GS process is a promising
AS process are not required for the GS process. Moving method due to advantages like lower land footprint, lower
decanters normally used for withdrawing the treated costs, effective nutrient removal and lower sludge pro-
wastewater in conventional SBRs are not essential for duction compared to AS-based systems (Table 4). As of
the GS systems. Nereda®53 uses simultaneous filling– now, there are no full-scale GS plants treating either
drawing for decanting the treated wastewater from full- sewage or industrial wastewater in India.
scale GS bioreactors13. Due to plug-flow pattern, decanting GS research has gained popularity among the scientific
of treated wastewater with minimum suspended solids community across the world (Figure 6) for developing
has been reported. High biomass concentration of the GS sustainable technologies for aerobic treatment of industrial
system may contribute to substantial reduction in bio- and domestic wastewater9. Formation of GS was studied
reactor volume. All these aspects are directly factored in in laboratory-scale bioreactors for biological removal of
lowering the capital expenditure (CapEx) of the GS various organic and inorganic pollutants of interest to
process-based WWTPs. Operation and maintenance nuclear fuel cycle operations18,35,36. Research showed that
expenditure (OpEx) of these WWTPs are expected to be stable GS can be developed for biological removal of
lower due to (i) reduction in equipment, (ii) lower energy various organic (i.e. tributyl phosphate, n-butanol, dibutyl
for aeration, and (iii) no movement of biomass and efflu- hydrogen phosphate, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, nitrilotriacetic
ent between the treatment tanks. Lower sludge production acid, p-nitrophenol, textile dye and acetonitrile) and inor-
and sludge management practices are the additional ganic (i.e. ammonia, nitrate and phosphorus) contami-
aspects contributing to lower energy requirement of the nants18,34–36,55,56. Research shows that GS is a better
GS plants. Recent estimates suggest up to 30% lower choice for removing recalcitrant or toxic pollutants from
energy consumption for the GS process compared to wastewater arising from industrial processes, including
other AS technologies, when similar depth tanks are used nuclear fuel cycle operations. GS is becoming a future
for the bioreactors3. Lower energy costs of the GS standard for developing effective bioremediation and
process are because of no return sludge pumping and wastewater treatment solutions.
recirculation of wastewater for nitrogen removal. The Various types of industrial wastewater (i.e. textile,
energy demand for aeration in the GS and AS systems dairy, pharmaceutical, hospital and effluents of nuclear
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019 401
REVIEW ARTICLES
Table 4. Capabilities and advantages of granular sludge technology

Functional capabilities
Simultaneous COD, N and P removal from wastewater
Simple operational strategy for N and P removal
Pollutant removal via both biological oxidation and reduction reactions
Phosphorus removal via enhanced biological phosphorus removal
High biomass retention for faster treatment
Tolerant to toxic contaminants, shock loadings and environmental perturbations
No sludge bulking issues

Advantages
Compact and fast-settling biomass allowing smaller bioreactor volume
No secondary clarifiers
Smaller land footprint for the plant and savings on capital costs
Lower sludge production and easy sludge dewatering
Lower energy costs due to minimal recirculation flows

fuel fabrication) were treated using GS in laboratory- this necessitates development of newer strategies for
scale bioreactors to demonstrate the utility of the tech- improving granulation under sewage conditions. Further
nology28,32,50. To demonstrate its utility in sewage treat- research is necessary for understanding granulation
ment, pilot-scale plants have been set-up for treating real mechanisms, developing GS cultivation strategies, and
sewage under tropical climate conditions (https://www. sustainable excess sludge management practices for fully
ndtv.com/india-news/nuclear-engineers-fighting-water-pollu- exploiting granular sludge technology.
tion-with-sewage-treatment-plant-1768223). Pilot-scale stu- Currently, SBR technology is considered for STPs in
dies demonstrated that the GS technology is suitable for urban India. However, these plants still rely on AS
aerobic biological treatment of sewage under tropical for wastewater treatment. With certain modifications in
climate conditions. Alternative new strategies are being layout and operation, these AS SBRs can be converted to
developed to reduce the start-up period for granulation GS systems. Since GS is superior to AS in removing con-
and establishing nutrient (N and P) removal while treat- taminants and tolerating fluctuations in influent and envi-
ing sewage and saline wastewater. The mechanisms by ronmental conditions, it is promising for both capacity
which microbes form aggregates and granules in water extensions and new STPs.
are not yet understood. It is our endeavour to underpin
the mechanisms behind granulation and to develop inno-
Conclusion
vative biotechnological processes for sustainable waste-
water treatment.
The conventional AS process is no more considered sus-
tainable for wastewater treatment due to large land foot-
Future directions print, higher costs and complex process designs for
achieving nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorous) removal
The GS technology has proven to be a suitable option for biologically. GS is emerging as a new standard for sus-
aerobic biological treatment of sewage and a variety of tainable biological wastewater treatment and for meeting
industrial effluents. Nevertheless, most of the GS research stringent effluent discharge limits. GS is distinct from
has been carried out in laboratory-scale sequencing batch that of AS in terms of large particle size, compact micro-
reactors using synthetic wastewater with defined sub- structure, retaining slow-growing functional microbes,
strates and well-controlled operating conditions, which biopolymer composition, high settling velocities and lower
are not true representatives of real sewage and prevailing sludge volume index values. The GS process is advanta-
environmental conditions. Accumulated evidence indi- geous over the AS process in effective removal of conta-
cates that the formation of GS is feasible in moderate to minants, tolerability to changes in influent/environmental
high-strength industrial wastewater. Challenges exist in perturbations and lower sludge production. Accumulating
cultivating GS from activated sludge, especially while evidence indicates that the GS process is suitable for
treating real sewage which is low strength in terms of treating sewage and several industrial effluent. Currently,
biodegradable organic carbon. Previous studies in pilot- the GS process is the most favourable biological treat-
and full-scale systems reported several issues while treat- ment option considering advanced wastewater treatment
ing real sewage: (i) very long start-up periods of 10 and coupled with lower land footprint and costs. The GS
13 months for achieving ≥85% granulation10,14, and (ii) technology could be the better choice for both new treat-
smaller sized granules (0.2–1.3 mm) which may limit ment plants and capacity extension of existing wastewater
simultaneous nitrification and denitrification. Therefore, treatment plants in the coming years, to decrease the gap
402 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019
 REVIEW ARTICLES
between sewage generation and treatment capacity in 18. Nancharaiah, Y. V., Schwarzenbeck, N., Mohan, T. V., Narasim-
India. han, S. V., Wilderer, P. A. and Venugopalan, V. P., Biodegrada-
tion of nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA) and ferric-NTA complex by
aerobic microbial granules. Water Res., 2006, 40, 1539–1546.
19. Flemming, H. C. and Wingender, J., The biofilm matrix. Nature
1. Martins, A. M., Pagilla, M. K., Heijnen, J. J. and van Loosdrecht, Rev. Microbiol., 2010, 8(9), 623.
M. C. M., Filamentous bulking sludge – a critical review. Water 20. Mitra, A. and Mukhopadhyay, S., Biofilm mediated decontamina-
Res., 2004, 38(4), 793–817. tion of pollutants from the environment. AIMS Bioeng., 2016,
2. Hu, M., Wang, X., Wen, X. and Xia, Y., Microbial community 3(1), 44–59; doi:10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.44.
structures in different wastewater treatment plants as revealed 21. Nicolella, C., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. and Heijnen, J. J.,
by 454-pyrosequencing analysis. Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 117, Wastewater treatment with particulate biofilm reactors. J. Bio-
72–79. technol., 2000, 80, 1–33.
3. Bengtsson, S., de Blois, M., Wilén, B. M. and Gustavsson, D., A 22. Chaali, M., Naghdi, M., Brar, S. K. and Avalos‐Ramirez, A., A
comparison of aerobic granular sludge with conventional and review on the advances in nitrifying biofilm reactors and their re-
compact biological treatment technologies. Environ. Technol., moval rates in wastewater treatment. J. Chem. Technol. Biotech-
2018, 13, 1479–1487; doi:10.1080/09593330.2018.1452985. nol., 2018, 93(11), 3113–3124.
4. van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. and Brdjanovic, D., Anticipating the 23. Syron, E. and Casey, E., Membrane-aerated biofilms for high rate
next century of wastewater treatment. Science, 2014, 344(6191), biotreatment: performance appraisal, engineering principles, scale-
1452–1453. up, and development requirements. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008,
5. Fenu, A., Guglielmi, G., Jimenez, J., Spèrandio, M., Saroj, D., 42(6), 1833–1844.
Lesjean, B. and Nopens, I., Activated sludge model (ASM) based 24. Gao, P., Xu, W., Sontag, P., Li, X., Xue, G., Liu, T. and Sun, W.,
modelling of membrane bioreactor (MBR) processes: a critical Correlating microbial community compositions with environmen-
review with special regard to MBR specificities. Water Res., 2010, tal factors in activated sludge from four full-scale municipal
44(15), 4272–4294. wastewater treatment plants in Shanghai, China. Appl. Microbiol.
6. Morgenroth, E., Sherden, T., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Heijnen, Biotechnol., 2016, 100, 4663–4673.
J. J. and Wilderer, P. A., Aerobic granular sludge in a sequencing 25. Xia, Y., Wen, X., Zhang, B. and Yang, Y., Diversity and assembly
batch reactor. Water Res., 1997, 31, 3191–3194. patterns of activated sludge microbial communities: a review.
7. de Bruin, L. M. M., de Kreuk, M. K., van der Roest, H. F. R., Uij- Biotechnol. Adv., 2018, 36(4), 1038–1047.
terlinde, C. and van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Aerobic granular 26. Lotito, A. M., De Sanctis, M., Di Iaconi, C. and Bergna, G., Tex-
sludge technology: an alternative to activated sludge? Water Sci. tile wastewater treatment: aerobic granular sludge versus activated
Technol., 2004, 49, 1–7. sludge systems. Water Res., 2014, 54, 337–346.
8. Sarma, S. J., Tay, J. H. and Chu, A., Finding knowledge gaps in 27. Sheik, A. R., Muller, E. E. and Wilmes, P., A hundred years of
aerobic granulation technology. Trends Biotechnol., 2016, 35(1), activated sludge: time for a rethink. Front. Microbiol., 2014, 5,
66–78. 47.
9. Nancharaiah, Y. V. and Kiran Kumar Reddy, G., Aerobic granular 28. Iorhemen, O. T., Hamza, R. A. and Tay, J. H., Membrane bioreac-
sludge technology: mechanisms of granulation and biotechnologi- tor (MBR) technology for wastewater treatment and reclamation:
cal applications. Bioresour. Technol., 2018, 247, 1128–1143. membrane fouling. Membranes (Basel), 2016, 6(2), 33.
10. Ni, B. J., Xie, W. M., Liu, S. G., Yu, H. Q., Wang, Y. Z., Wang, 29. Tay, J. H., Liu, Q. S. and Liu, Y., The effects of shear force on the
G. and Dai, X. L., Granulation of activated sludge in a pilot-scale formation, structure and metabolism of aerobic granules. Appl.
sequencing batch reactor for the treatment of low-strength munici- Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2001, 57, 227–233.
pal wastewater. Water Res., 2009, 43(3), 751–761. 30. Adav, S. S., Lee, D. J. and Lai, J. Y., Biological nitrification deni-
11. Derlon, N., Wagner, J., da Costa, R. H. R. and Morgenroth, E., trification with alternating oxic and anoxic operations using aero-
Formation of aerobic granules for the treatment of real and low- bic granules. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2009, 84(6), 1181–
strength municipal wastewater using a sequencing batch reactor 1189.
operated at constant volume. Water Res., 2016, 105, 341–350. 31. de Kreuk, M. K. and van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Formation of
12. Long, B., Xuan, X., Yang, C., Zhang, L., Cheng, Y. and Wang, J., aerobic granules with domestic sewage. J. Environ. Eng., 2006,
Stability of aerobic granular sludge in a pilot scale sequencing 132, 694–697.
batch reactor enhanced by granular particle size control. Chemos- 32. Barr, J. J., Cook, A. E. and Bond, P. L., Granule formation
phere, 2019, 225, 460–469. mechanisms within an aerobic wastewater system for phosphorus
13. Pronk, M., de Kreuk, M. K., de Bruin, B., Kamminga, P., Kleere- removal. Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 2010, 76, 7588–7597.
bezem, R. and van Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Full scale performance 33. Thwaites, B. J., Short, M. D., Stuetz, R. M., Reeve, P. J., Gaitan,
of the aerobic granular sludge process for sewage treatment. Water J. P. A., Dinesh, N. and van den Akker, B., Comparing the per-
Res., 2015, 84, 207–217. formance of aerobic granular sludge versus conventional activated
14. Li, J., Ding, L. B., Cai, A., Huang, G. X. and Horn, H., Aerobic sludge for microbial log removal and effluent quality: implications
sludge granulation in a full-scale sequencing batch reactor. Bio- for water reuse. Water Res., 2018, 145, 442–452.
med Res. Int., 2014, 12; article ID 268789; http://dx.doi.org/ 34. Sarvajith, M., Kiran Kumar Reddy, G. and Nancharaiah, Y. V.,
10.1155/2014/268789. Textile dye biodecolourization and ammonium removal over
15. Świątczak, P. and Cydzik-Kwiatkowska, A., Performance and nitrite in aerobic granular sludge sequencing batch reactors. J.
microbial characteristics of biomass in a full-scale aerobic granu- Hazard. Mater., 2017, 342, 536–543.
lar sludge wastewater treatment plant. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 35. Nancharaiah, Y. V., Joshi, H. M., Mohan, T. V. K., Venugopalan,
2018, 25(2), 1655–1669. V. P. and Narasimhan, S. V., Aerobic granular biomass: a novel
16. CPCB, Annual Report 2015–16, Central Pollution Control Board, biomaterial for efficient uranium removal. Curr. Sci., 2006, 91(4),
New Delhi, 2018; https://cpcb.nic.in/annual-report.php 503–509.
17. Vasanthi, M., Capacity of sewage treatment plants. Lok Sabha 36. Nancharaiah, Y. V., Kiran Kumar Reddy, G., Krishna Mohan, T.
unstarred question no. 1852, New Delhi, 2017; http://www.india. V. and Venugopalan, V. P., Biodegradation of tributyl phosphate,
environmentportal.org.in/files/file/capcity%20of%20Sweage%20- an organophosphate triester, by aerobic granular biofilms.
Treatment%20plants_0.pdf J. Hazard. Mater., 2015, 283, 705–711.

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019 403

REVIEW ARTICLES
37. Zhao, X., Chen, Z., Wang, X., Li, J., Shen, J. and Xu, H., Remedi- granulation of sludge and its mechanism. Bioresour. Technol.,
ation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products using an 2017, 236, 60–67.
aerobic granular sludge sequencing bioreactor and microbial 48. Wei, Y., Ji, M., Li, R. and Qin, F., Organic and nitrogen removal
community profiling using Solexa sequencing technology analy- from landfill leachate in aerobic granular sludge sequencing batch
sis. Bioresour. Technol., 2015, 179, 104–112. reactors. Waste Manage., 2012, 32, 448–455.
38. Ramos, C., Suárez-Ojeda, M. E. and Carrera, J., Long-term impact 49. Ren, X., Guo, L., Chen, Y., She, Z., Gao, M., Zhao, Y. and Shao,
of salinity on the performance and microbial population of an M., Effect of magnet powder (Fe3O4) on aerobic granular sludge
aerobic granular reactor treating a high-strength aromatic waste- (AGS) formation and microbial community structure characteris-
water. Bioresour. Technol., 2015, 198, 844–851. tics. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng., 2018, 6(8), 9707–9715.
39. Morales, N., Figueroa, M., Fra-Váquez, A., Val del Rio, A., Cam- 50. de Kreuk, M. K., Heijnen, J. J. and van Loosdrecht, M. C., Simul-
pos, J. L., Mosquera-Corral, A. and Méndez, R., Operation of an taneous COD, nitrogen, and phosphate removal by aerobic granu-
aerobic granular pilot scale SBR plant to treat swine slurry. lar sludge. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 2006, 90, 761–769.
Process Biochem., 2013, 48(8), 1216–1221. 51. Winkler M.-K.H., Kleerebezem, R., Verhijen, P. and van Loos-
40. Liu, Y. Q., Moy, B., Kong, Y. H. and Tay, J. H., Formation, phys- drecht, M. C. M., Microbial diversity differences within aerobic
ical characteristics and microbial community structure of aerobic granular sludge and activated sludge flocs. Appl. Microbiol. Bio-
granules in a pilot-scale sequencing batch reactor for real waste- technol., 2012, 16, 7447–7458.
water treatment. Enzyme Microb. Technol., 2010, 46(6), 520–525. 52. Winkler M. -K. H., Le, Q. H. and Volcke, E. P. I., Influence of
41. Isanta, E., Suárez-Ojeda, M. E., Val del Rio, A., Morales, N., partial denitrification and mixotrophic growth of NOB on micro-
Pérez, J. and Carrera, J., Long term operation of a granular bial distribution in aerobic granular sludge reactor. Environ. Sci.
sequencing batch reactor at pilot scale treating a low-strength Technol., 2015, 49, 11003–11010.
wastewater. Chem. Eng. J., 2012, 198–199, 163–170. 53. Pronk, M., Giesen, A., Thompson, A., Robertson, S. and van
42. Giesen, A., de Bruin, L. M. M., Niermans, R. P. and van der Loosdrecht, M. C. M., Aerobic granular biomass technology:
Roest, H. F., Advancements in the application of aerobic granular advancements in design, applications and further developments.
biomass technology for sustainable treatment of wastewater. Water Pract. Technol., 2017, 12(4), 987–996.
Water Pract. Technol., 2013, 8(1), 320–327. 54. Luo, W., Hai, F. I., Price, W. E., Guo, W., Ngo, H. H., Yamamoto,
43. Coma, M., Verawaty, M., Pijuan, M., Yuan, Z. and Bond, P. L., K. and Nghiem, L. D., High retention membrane bioreactors: chal-
Enhancing aerobic granulation for biological nutrient removal lenges and opportunities. Bioresour. Technol., 2014, 167, 539–
from domestic wastewater. Bioresour. Technol., 2012, 103(1), 546.
101–108. 55. Reddy, G. K. K., Sarvajith, M., Nancharaiah, Y. V. and Venugo-
44. Rocktäschel, T., Klarmann, C., Ochoa, J., Boisson, P., Sørensen, palan, V. P., 2,4-Dinitrotoluene removal in aerobic granular bio-
K. and Horn, H., Influence of the granulation grade on the concen- mass sequencing batch reactors. Int. Biodeter. Biodegr., 2017,
tration of suspended solids in the effluent of a pilot scale sequenc- 119, 56–65.
ing batch reactor operated with aerobic granular sludge. Sep. 56. Nancharaiah, Y. V., Sarvajith, M. and Lens, P. N. L., Selenite
Purif. Technol., 2015, 142, 234–241. reduction and ammoniacal nitrogen removal in an aerobic granular
45. Li, A., Li, X. and Yu, H., Granular activated carbon for aerobic sludge sequencing batch reactor. Water Res., 2018, 131, 131–
sludge granulation in a bioreactor with a low-strength wastewater 141.
influent. Sep. Purif. Technol., 2011, 80, 276–283.
46. Zhou, J.-H. et al., Granular activated carbon as nucleating agent
for aerobic sludge granulation: effect of GAC size on velocity Received 8 April 2019; revised accepted 17 May 2019
field differences (GAC versus flocs) and aggregation behaviour.
Bioresour. Technol., 2015, 198, 358–363.
47. Tao, J., Qin, L., Liu, X., Li, B., Chen, J., You, J., Shen, Y. and
Chen, X., Effect of granular activated carbon on the aerobic doi: 10.18520/cs/v117/i3/395-404

404 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 117, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2019