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

net/publication/283820187

Review on sequencing batch reactors

Article  in  Pakistan Journal of Nutrition · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
54 5,266

3 authors, including:

Wisam S. Al-Rekabi
University of Basrah
37 PUBLICATIONS   468 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

RG Achievement View project

optimization on the design of water and wastewater treatment and the effect on the pollution of the rivers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wisam S. Al-Rekabi on 30 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 6 (1): 11-19, 2007
ISSN 1680-5194
© Asian Network for Scientific Information, 2007

Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Wisaam S. Al-Rekabi1, 2, He Qiang1 and Wei Wu Qiang1

1
Kay Laboratory of the Three Gorges Reservoir Regions Eco-Environment,
Ministry of Education, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, P.R. China
2
Faculty of Engineering, Basrah University, Basrah, Iraq

Abstract: This review paper intends to provide an overall vision of SBR technology as an alternative method
for treating wastewater. This technology has been gaining popularity through the years, mainly because of
its single-tank design and ease of automation. The bibliographic review carried out here shows the efficiency
and flexibility of this technology, as it is able to treat different kinds of effluents such as municipal, domestic,
hyper saline, tannery, brewery, and dairy wastewater; landfill leachates; etc.; under different conditions. The
review includes relevant experiments carried out at the laboratory, pilot-plant, and industrial scales.

Key words: Sequencing batch reactor, nutrient removal, laboratory SBR scale, pilot-scale SBR

Introduction Older wastewater treatment facilities can be retrofitted to

SBRs are used all over the world and have been around an SBR because the basins are already present.
since the 1920s. With their growing popularity in Europe Wastewater discharge permits are becoming more
and China as well as the United States, they are being stringent and SBRs offer a cost-effective way to achieve
used successfully to treat both municipal and industrial lower effluent limits. Note that discharge limits that
wastewater, particularly in areas characterized by low or require a greater degree of treatment may necessitate
varying flow patterns. Municipalities, resorts, casinos, the addition of a tertiary filtration unit following the SBR
and a number of industries, including dairy, pulp and treatment phase. This consideration should be an
paper, tanneries and textiles, are using SBRs as important part of the design process.
practical wastewater treatment alternatives. The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) has received
Improvements in equipment and technology, especially considerable attention since Irvine and Davis (1971)
in aeration devices and computer control systems, have described its operation. The SBR system is a modem
made SBRs a viable choice over the conventional version of the fill and draw system, consisting of one or
activated-sludge system. These plants are very practical more tanks, each capable of waste stabilization and
for a number of reasons: solids separation. The number of tanks may be varied,
In areas where there is a limited amount of space, depending on the sophistication of the control system.
treatment takes place in a single basin instead of Studies of SBR process were originally conducted at the
multiple basins, allowing for a smaller footprint. Low University of Notre Dame, Indiana (Irvine and Busch,
total-suspended-solid values of less than 10 milligrams 1979). In biological wastewater treatment, each tank has
per liter (mg/l) can be achieved consistently through the several basic operational modes or periods. The
use of effective decanters that eliminate the need for a periods are fill, react, settle, draw, and idle, in a time
separate clarifier. sequence. These operational modes can be modified,
The treatment cycle can be adjusted to undergo aerobic, depending on the operational strategies desired.
anaerobic, and anoxic conditions in order to achieve
biological nutrient removal, including nitrification, Common SBR Characteristics
denitrification, and some phosphorus removal. General: SBRs are a variation of the activated-sludge
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels of less than process. They differ from activated-sludge plants
5 mg/L can be achieved consistently. Total nitrogen because they combine all of the treatment steps and
limits of less than 5 mg/L can also be achieved by processes into a single basin, or tank, whereas
aerobic conversion of ammonia to nitrates (nitrification) conventional facilities rely on multiple basins. According
and anoxic conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas to a 1999 U.S. EPA report (Wastewater Technology Fact
(denitrification) within the same tank. Low phosphorus Sheet, 1999), an SBR is no more than an activated-
limits of less than 2 mg/L can be attained by using a sludge plant that operates in time rather than space.
combination of biological treatment (anaerobic
phosphorus absorbing organisms) and chemical Basic treatment process: In its most basic form, the
agents (aluminum or iron salts) within the vessel and SBR system is a set of tanks that operate on a fill-and-
treatment cycle. draw basis. Each tank in the SBR system is filled during

11
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

a discrete period of time and then operated as a batch tank, which may have a volume more than ten times that
reactor. After desired treatment, the mixed liquor is of the secondary clarifier used for conventional
allowed to settle and the clarified supernatant is then continuous-flow activated sludge plant. This major
drawn from the tank. advantage in the clarification process results from the
The cycle for each tank in a typical SBR is divided into fact that the entire aeration tank serves as the clarifier
five discrete time periods: Fill, React, Settle, Draw and during the period when no flow enters the tank. Because
Idle as shown in Fig.1. There are several types of Fill all of the biomass remains in the tank until some
and React periods, which vary according to aeration and fraction must be wasted, there is no need for underflow
mixing procedures. Sludge wasting may take place near hardware normally found in conventional clarifiers. By
the end of React, or during Settle, Draw, or Idle. Central way of contrast, mixed liquor is continuously removed
to SBR design is the use of a single tank for multiple from a continuous-flow activated-sludge aeration tank
aspects of wastewater treatment. A detailed discussion and passed through the clarifiers only to have a major
of each period of the SBR is provided in the following portion of the sludge returned to the aeration tank.
subsections, along with a description of typical process
equipment and hardware associated with each (Irvine Draw (Decant): The withdrawal mechanism may take
and Ketchum, 2004). one of several forms, including a pipe fixed at some
predetermined level with the flow regulated by an
Fill: The influent to the tank may be either raw automatic valve or a pump, or an adjustable or floating
wastewater (screened and degritted) or primary effluent. weir at or just beneath the liquid surface. In any case, the
It may be either pumped in or allowed to flow in by withdrawal mechanism should be designed and
gravity. The feed volume is determined based on a operated in a manner that prevents floating matter from
number of factors including desired loading and being discharged.
detention time and expected settling characteristics of The time dedicated to Draw can range from 5 to more
the organisms. The time of Fill depends upon the
than 30% of the total cycle time. The time in Draw,
volume of each tank, the number of parallel tanks in
however, should not be overly extended because of
operation, and the extent of diurnal variations in the
possible problems with rising sludge.
wastewater flow rate.
Virtually any aeration system (e.g., diffused, floating
mechanical, or jet) can be used. The ideal aeration Idle: The period between Draw and Fill is termed Idle.
system, however, must be able to provide both a range Despite its name, this “idle” time can be used effectively
of mixing intensities, from zero to complete agitation, to waste settled sludge. While sludge wasting can be as
and the flexibility of mixing without aeration. Level infrequent as once every 2 to 3 months, more frequent
sensing devices, or timers, or in-tank probes (e.g., for sludge wasting programs are recommended to
the measurement of either dissolved oxygen or maintain process efficiency and sludge settling.
ammonia nitrogen) can be used to switch the aerators
and/or mixers on and off as desired. Continuous-flow system: SBR facilities commonly
consist of two or more basins that operate in parallel but
React: Biological reactions, which were initiated during single basin configurations under continuous-flow
Fill, are completed during React. As in Fill, alternating conditions. In this modified version of the SBR, flow
conditions of low dissolved oxygen concentrations (e.g., enters each basin on a continuous basis. The influent
Mixed React) and high dissolved oxygen concentrations flows into the influent chamber, which has inlets to the
(e.g. Aerated React) may be required. While Fig. 1 react basin at the bottom of the tank to control the
suggests that the liquid level remains at the maximum entrance speed so as not to agitate the settled solids.
throughout react, sludge wasting can take place during Continuous-flow systems are not true batch reactions
this period as a simple means for controlling the sludge because influent is constantly entering the basin. The
age. By wasting during React, sludge is removed from
design configurations of SBR and continuous-flow
the reactor as a means of maintaining or decreasing the
systems are otherwise very similar. Plants operating
volume of sludge in the reactor and decreases the
under continuous flow should operate this way as a
solids volume. Time dedicated to react can be as high
standard mode of operation. Ideally, a true batch-
as 50% or more of total cycle time.
The end of React may be dictated by a time specification reaction SBR should operate under continuous flow only
(e.g. the time in React shall always be 1.5 h) or a level under emergency situations.
controller in an adjacent tank. Plants that have been designed as continuous-inflow
systems have been shown to have poor operational
Settle: In the SBR, solids separation takes place under conditions during peak flows. Some of the major
quiescent conditions (i.e., without inflow or outflow) in a problems of continuous-inflow systems have been

12
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Table 1: Operating conditions of the bench scale reactors SBRs produce sludges with good settling properties
(Keller et al., 1997) providing the influent wastewater is admitted into the
Reactor Q Reactor N aeration in a controlled manner. Controls range from a
Pond 1 : Pond 2 feed mixture 1:1 3:1 simplified float and timer based system with a PLC to a
HRT ( hours) 18 24
PC based SCADA system with color graphics using
SRT (days) 20 20
Reactor Sequence (hours)
either flow proportional aeration or dissolved oxygen
Non-aerated, non-mixed Fill 2.5 2.5 controlled aeration to reduce aeration to reduce energy
Aerated, mixed React 1 1.0 1.0 consumption and enhance the selective pressures for
Non-aerated, non-mixed React 0.5 0.5 BOD, nutrient removal, and control of filaments
Aerated, mixed React 2 1.5 1.5 (Norcross, 1992). An appropriately designed SBR
Settle 0.33 0.33 process is a unique combination of equipment and
Decant 0.17 0.17
software. Working with automated control reduces the
number of operator skill and attention requirement.
In this investigation we will overview recent experiments
carried out by the laboratory SBR and pilot – scale plant
SBR to treatment various wastewater.

Laboratory SBR scale: In recent times, the use of

sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) in the biological
treatment of wastewater has been widely extended from
lab-scale studies to real WWTPs (wastewater treatment
plants) (Mace and Mata-Alvarez, 2002; Steinmetz et al.,
2002). While lab-scale SBRs have been used for
research on carbon and nutrient removal and the
development of urban/industrial wastewater
biodegradability assays, real plant applications are still
mainly focused on carbon removal. Nevertheless, when
operating real plant SBRs the efficiency of nitrogen
removal sometimes turns out to be better than the
legally required effluent standards (Teichgraber et al.,
2001).
Fig. 1: SBR operation for each tank for one cycle for Two bench scale SBR’s were used by Keller et al.
the five discrete time periods of Fill, React, (1997) to investigate the effect of pretreatment abattoirs
Settle, Draw, and Idle (Irvine and Ketchum, and process variations on the BNR (Biological Nutrient
2004). Removal) capacity. The operating conditions are shown
in Table 1 the reactors were operated at room
overflows, washouts, poor effluent, and permit violations temperature (20±2oC) the maximum operating volume of
(New England Interstate Water Pollution Control the reactors was approximately 5 liters.
Commission, 2005). The summary of the effluent quality achieved in the two
reactors is shown in Table 2. The overall removal
Application SBR to treatment various wastewater efficiency of the incoming carbon was very good,
(New SBR Technology): The Sequencing Batch Reactor particularly in terms of the effluent BOD which reached
(SBR) is an activated sludge process designed to very low values during the whole reactor operation. The
operate under non-steady state conditions. An SBR remaining COD has to be regard as nonbiodegradable.
operates in a true batch mode with aeration and sludge This fraction in fact quite small, representing around 2%
settlement both occurring in the same tank. The major of the COD initially present in the wastewater.
differences between SBR and conventional continuous- Ros and Vrtovsek (2004) also found that the removal of
flow, activated sludge system is that the SBR tank N was not dependent on initial P concentration, but P
carries out the functions of equalization aeration and removal was related to P concentration in the original
sedimentation in a time sequence rather than in the wastewater by using SBR laboratory pilot plant used in
conventional space sequence of continuous-flow the study consisted of a 70 L rectangular reactor and
systems. In addition, the SBR system can be designed operation of the pilot plant is monitored by five on-line
with the ability to treat a wide range of influent volumes measurements, i.e. pH, Redox potential (ORP),
whereas the continuous system is based upon a fixed dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration, temperature (T)
influent flow rate. Thus, there is a degree of flexibility and water level. All experiments were carried out with
associated with working in a time rather than in a space synthetic wastewater to which different amounts of P
sequence (Norcross, 1992). were added. The optimal COD: N: P ratio was 100:11:2

13
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Table 2: Effluent quality of the reactors (Keller et al., 1997) studied under four different air fluxes. Special attention
Parameters Reactor Q Reactor N was paid to the operating characteristics of SBR under
TCOD (mg/L) 92-118 80-105
limited aeration or low dissolved oxygen (DO)
SCOD (mg/L) 80-104 70-92
BOD5 (mg/L) 5-10 5-10
conditions. At the air flux of 40 l/h, COD and NH4-N had
SS (mg/L) 13-35 17-39 been removed just before the cycle was over, and during
NH4-N (mg/L) 1-5 0.2-3.0 the cycle DO was about 0.5 mg/l most of the time Fig. 2,
NOX-N (mg/L) 4-12 2-7 3 and 4. Operational parameters, such as DO, ORP and
TN (mg/L) 14-22 11-19
pH, were monitored during the whole cycle. The effect of
PO4-P (mg/L) 3-10 0.5-5
TP (mg/L) 5-14 2-7 these parameters on the removal efficiency of COD and
pH 7.0-7.5 6.8-7.6 NH4-N was discussed (Hu et al., 2004).
In a laboratory scale sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
granules were cultured under aerobic conditions Fig. 5.
To enhance the growth of granular the SBR was
operated with very short sedimentation and draw
phases resulting in the washout of slow biomass. Fast
settling granules were retained in the reactor and thus
had an advantage over flocs with a slower settling
velocity. After 40 days of operation granules were the
dominant from of microbial aggregates in the reactor,
even though some pin- point flocs remained in the
system. Granules taken from the reactor were stored for
weeks without disintegrating. After about 130 days of
operation the granule quality and COD- removal
worsened. The reasons for that are yet to be investigated
(Morgenroth et al., 1997).
Fig. 2: Variation of COD with time under different air
Kargi and Uyur (Kargi and Uygur, 2003) operated
flux (Hu et al., 2004).
laboratory SBR to Nutrient removal from synthetic
Table 3: Ratios of COD: N: P and BOD5: N: P for different series
wastewater by sequencing batch operation was studied
of experiments (Ros and Vrtovsek, 2004). at different specific nutrient loading rates (SNLR).
Parameter Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 4 Nutrient removal in a sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
COD 100 100 100 100 was a five-step process consisting of anaerobic (An),
N 10.1 10.3 10.5 11.1 anoxic (Ax), oxic (Ox), anoxic (An) and oxic (Ox) phases
P 1.0 1.9 2.0 2.2 with hydraulic residence times (HRT) of 2/1/4.5/1.5/1.5 h,
BOD5 100 100 100 100 respectively. The settling step used at the end of the
N 15.2 15.9 14.7 15.4 operation was 45 min for all experiments. The initial
P 1.5 3.0 2.8 3.0
COD concentration was varied between 600 and 4800
mg/l at eight different levels with constant COD/N/P ratio
of 100/3.33/0.7. Effects of SNLRs on COD, NH4-N and
PO4-P removal were investigated. Percent nutrient
removals decreased and effluent nutrient levels
increased with increasing nutrient loading rates. The
highest COD (99%), NH4-N (99%) and PO4-P (97%)
removal efficiencies were obtained with the initial COD
concentration of 600 mg/l at COD loading rate of nearly
40 mg COD /(g biomass)/ h. However, the sludge
volume index (SVI) decreased with increasing COD
loading rate resulting minimum SVI of 46 mg/l at COD
loading rate of nearly 86 mg COD /(g biomass)/ h.
Biomass concentration increased with increasing SNLR
resulting in biomass concentration of 3.84 mg/l at COD
Fig. 3: Variation of NH4+-N with operation time under loading rate of 86 mg COD /(g biomass) /h.
different air flux (Hu et al., 2004). Sarioglu (Sarioglu, 2005) investigates the effect of pure
cultures on the enhancement of biological phosphorus
and the BOD5: N: P ratio was 100:15:2.6 as shown in removal capability of a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
Table 3. inoculated initially with a mixed culture. For this purpose,
The performance of sequence batch reactor (SBR) was three anaerobic/aerobic SBRs with mixed cultures were

14
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Table 4: Chemical and biochemical properties of the influent same time, sodium acetate is used as the external
and effluent (Zhu et al., 2004). carbon source to promote denitrification in the latter part
Parameters Influent Effluent Reduction (%) of each cycle. Other than nitrogen and phosphorus
TS (%) 1.053 0.237 77.5 removal, discussions are also presented on changes
TVS (%) 0.540 0.016 97.0
resulted from the treatment in total solids (TS), total
TSS (%) 0.766 0.001 99.9
TVSS (%) 0.442 0.004 99.1 volatile solids (TVS), total suspended solids (TSS), total
COD (%) 8800 226 97.4 volatile suspended solids (TVSS), chemical oxygen
BOD (%) 3660 0 100 demand (COD), and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Turbidity (FTU) 2175 120 94.5 as shown in Table 4.
An SBR operated with anaerobic and aerobic cycle
stages could be considered a suitable technology for
organic load removal from wool dyeing effluents. Soluble
COD and BOD5 degradation efficiencies of 85 ± 6% and
95 ± 4%, respectively, were achieved. The residual
suspended solids levels were in general acceptable
(lower than 100 mg/l), and could be attributed to the
operation with no biomass wastage, which led to high
MLVSS concentrations (Goncalves et al., 2005).
De Sousa and Foresti (De Sousa and Foresti, 1996)
investigated treating domestic sewage in tropical
regions by using a combined anaerobic-aerobic system
composed of an USAB reactor followed by two
sequencing batch reactors (SBR). In such a system, the
USAB reactor removes considerable fraction of the
Fig. 4: Variation of DO with operation time under
influent organic matter, while the SBRs oxidize part of the
different air flux (Hu et al., 2004).
remaining organic matter and ammonium nitrogen. A
proper system operation would also permit the removal
started in parallel and operated for a while. At the end of
of nutrients (N and P). This system was efficient in
this period, pure cultures of Acinetobacter lwoffii, A.
removing COD (95%), TSS (96%) and TKN (85%). In
lwoffii-Pseudomonas aeruginosa mixture and P.
order to investigate on the performance of this system
aeruginosa were added into the first, second and third
for sewage treatment, a bench scale installation fed with
reactors, respectively. All reactors were operated at a
synthetic substrate simulating domestic swage was
constant solid retention time (SRT) of 10 days and the
operated continuously during 38 weeks. The results
food/microorganism (F/M) ratio was changed between
permit to confirm the hypothesis proposed, since the
0.43-0.50 mg COD /mg VSS /day. The total cycle time
system has consistently produced high quality effluents
was 14 h throughout the experimental study. The
addition of A. lwoffii to the mixed culture in the first (BOD5 and VSS lower than 10 mg/l). The result also
reactor significantly enhanced the biological phosphorus indicates that such combined anaerobic-aerobic system
removal (EBPR) rate. Complete removal (E = 100%) of compete favorably with conventional aerobic systems in
20 mg /l PO4-P was achieved within 35 days of three essential cost features: energy consumption,
operation. Corresponding removal efficiencies obtained excess sludge production and nutrient removal.
using A. lwoffii-P. aeruginosa mixture (second reactor) A study was undertaken to examine the feasibility of
and P. aeruginosa alone (third reactor) were 25% and biologically treating a combined waste stream of landfill
20%, respectively. The COD removal efficiency was 90% leachate and municipal sewage. The ratio of sewage to
in all reactors. Fig. 6 shows change of daily phosphate leachate was 9 to 1 by volume. The combined waste had
profile with the development of phosphorus removal an average BOD5 430 mg/l, COD 1090 mg/l, and TKN
during full cycle by using A. lwoffii culture and 133 mg/l (80% of which was in the form of ammonia). A
wastewater. laboratory-scale sequencing batch activated sludge
Zhu et al. (2004) developed and evaluated a lab-scale, reactor was used to carry comparative performance
(AO)2 SBR for treating swine wastewater aiming at evaluations of biological treatment, including nitrification
removing nutrients and organic materials. The SBR was and dentrification. The SBR reactor was operating in
operated on 3 cycles per day with 8 hours per cycle at daily time cycles employing the following sequential
constant 20oC. Unlike previous research, this SBR operation phases: filling phase, anoxic phase, aeration
employs two alternating anaerobic/oxic phases to reaction phase, settling phase, and drain phase. In
enhance nitrification and phosphorus removal. At the particular, the anoxic and aeration periods were tailored

15
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Table 5: Adjustment of phases duration according to the organic load in the activated sludge SBR (Rodrigues et al., 1998)
Organic Load Influent Fill Anaerobic- Aerobic Settling Draw
(kgCODt/kgTSS.d) Per cycle (min) Anoxic phase Phase (min) (min)
(l) (min) (min)
0.13 212 7 218 218 30 7
0.25 421 15 210 210 30 15
0.35 602 25 200 200 30 25

conditions have shown a very high degree of biological

nutrient removal (both N and P) even on very unfavorable
domestic wastewater that was low in biodegradable
COD (Ho et al., 1993). Similarly, under conditions with
extremely high nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations,
such as in wastewater from abattoirs, very good
preliminary results have been achieved (Subramaniam
et al., 1994).
Lin and Cheng (2001) investigated treatment of
municipal sewage wastewater for possible agricultural
reuse. The treatment method consisted of chemical
coagulation and sequencing batch reactor (SBR)
system. A new SBR reactor was designed based on this
concept for treatment of municipal sewage wastewater,
and experimental tests were performed to evaluate the
performances of the modified SBR reactor for
comparison with the traditional one Fig. 7. In addition,
the final level of purification obtained with both chemical
coagulation and SBR was evaluated in light of possible
Fig. 5: Laboratory scale SBR (Morgenroth et al., 1997). agricultural reuse.
To determine whether continuous flow SBR could
in order to develop conditions conductive to desired provide efficient pollutant removal in synthetic
nitrification and dentrification. During the reaction period, wastewater. The experiment was carried out using pilot
the process was operated under an extended aeration scale at Tehran University of Medical Sciences the
mode with the MLSS concentration being around 3500 reactor was separated into two zones (pre-react and
mg/l the results indicated that successful biotreatment main react) by a baffle wall Fig. 8. The pre-react zone
of combined leachate and sewage was possible, with acts as a biological selector enhancing the proliferation
the treated effluent being low in BOD5 and COD. The of the most desirable organisms while limiting the
system was capable of BOD5 removal efficiencies growth of filamentous bacteria, as an equalization tank
exceeding 95%. Furthermore, nitrate removal during the and as a grease trap. In conventional SBRs there are
anoxic phase was approximately 99% due to five phases: fill, react, settle, draw and idle; but in this
dentrification. However, the overall nitrogen removal system there is only three phases: react, settle and
during a full cycle was about 50%. The inclusion of an draw. It must be noted again that influent never disrupts
anoxic period right after the aeration phase enhanced in any phase. The purpose of this research was to
the nitrogen removal efficiency, yet this phase required determine the best cycle capable to remove BOD, COD,
the addition of an external carbon source to the reactor N, P and TSS from synthetic wastewater. The results
due the low concentration of biodegradable carbon, and showed that the removal efficiency that has been
at the same time the process became less efficient in achieved by the system were 97.7, 94.9, 85.4, 71.4 and
BOD removal (Diamadopoulos et al., 1997). 55.9% for BOD, COD, TKN, Total N and Total P,
respectively could be achieved by the system. Maximum
Pilot-Scale SBR: Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) TSS concentration in final effluent was 6.3 mg /l (Mahvi
activated sludge processes are known to have several et al., 2005).
advantages over conventional continuous flow systems. Mahvi et al. (2004) using the same pilot scale as
Biological nitrogen and phosphorus removal is possible mentioned before to determine whether continuous flow
in a single tank SBR if operating conditions are selected SBR could provide efficient nitrogen removal in synthetic
to introduce anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic reactions and domestic wastewater. The experiment was carried
during a cycle without any addition of separate reactors, out using pilot scale at Tehran University of Medical
recycling lines or clarifiers. Sciences; into first stage at laboratory with synthetic
Previously, the laboratory scale SBRs and process wastewater and second stage in treatment plant with

16
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

nitrogen concentration lower than 12 mg N/l.

Rodrigues et al. (1998) project was conducted to analyze
the performance of a SBR reactor when being fed with
an aerobically fermented wastewater. Important was to
determine the capacity of the system to remove nitrogen
and phosphorus. Two SBR reactors, each one with a
volume of 980 liters, were used: one used as fermented
and the other as activated sludge SBR. Using 8-hour
Fig. 6: Change of daily phosphate profile with the cycles, the reactors were operated and studied during
development of phosphorus removal (Sarioglu, 269 days. The fermented produced an effluent with an
2005). average value of 223±24 mg/l of volatile fatty acids. The
activated sludge SBR was tested under 3 organic
loading rates of 0.13, 0.25, and 0.35 kg COD total/kg
TSS.d. Table 5. For three tested organic loading rates,
PO4-P concentration under 1.1 mg/l and COD between
37 and 38 mg/l were consistently achieved. Exceptionally
high NH4-N influent values not reaching in this case full
nitrification. Dentrification was observed during the fill
phase in every cycle. SVI values between 40 and 70
were determined during the experimental runs.
Wastewater originating from road and rail car cleaning
installations is known to be potentially toxic/inhibitory. As
a first step in the design procedure a pilot test was run
for a period of 8 months. This pilot showed the SBR to
be an appropriate technology for the treatment of the
Fig. 7: Design of modified sequencing batch reactor wastewater, with an option for powdered activated
(Lin and Cheng, 2001). carbon (PAC) dosing, was selected The PAC option was
not feasible. Based on the pilot results a full scale
domestic wastewater. The results showed that in installation, comparing a batch reactor with a diameter
laboratory and treatment plant 80 and 70% of total of 10.4 m and a maximum water depth of 17.3 m, was
nitrogen removal, respectively and 95 and 85% of total designed and successfully started up. This paper
kjeldahl nitrogen removal, respectively could be presents the highlights of the total project (Zilverentant,
achieved by the system. 1997).
Another pilot plant SBR investigated by Bernardes and A pilot plant of SBR (Sequencing Batch Reactor) and MF
Klapwijk (1996) aims to monitor a strategy for biological (microfiltration) process was operated in order to treat
nutrient removal (nitrogen and phosphorus) in a and reuse the greywater produced from an office
Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) treating domestic building. The performance of SBR for greywater was
wastewater. For this, the performance of an SBR with satisfactory as the effluent had 20 mg/l, 5 mg/l, and 0.5
nitrification, dentrification, carbon oxidation and mg/l of SCOD, BOD, and ammonia, respectively. The
phosphorus removal is evaluated. During this study the cyclic operation of SBR used in this study proved more
influent used was pre-settled domestic wastewater from effective in nitrification and dentrification than the
Bennekom Municipal Treatment Plant (The conventional SBR operation. However, the most effective
Netherlands). The average influent COD, TKN and mode was step-feed SBR for dentrification. The
phosphate were 443 mg COD/l, 71 mg N/l and 7 mg P/l, decanting system of this SBR discharged the effluent
respectively. Acetic acid was added to this influent from fairly well without sludge washout. However, it was
a feed solution, to increase the COD by an extra 100 mg difficult to maintain constant concentration of suspended
COD/l. in this study, a pilot plant SBR was operated solid from the SBR process. Thus, additional filtration
during 5 months in order to have: i) a mixed culture able was needed to get adequate water quality for water
to perform carbon oxidation, nitrification, dentrification reuse. MF could remove residual suspended solids and
and biological phosphorus removal and ii) long term pathogens as well from the SBR effluent. The
assessment of the biological nitrogen and phosphorus suspended solids of final effluent were around 1 mg/l
removal processes. Pilot plant SBR consists of two and allowed using the treated water for some purpose
cylindrical polystyrene vessels, the first with total volume (Shin et al., 1998).
of 0.35 m³ (reactor 1) and the second with total volume The design and operation of wastewater treatment
of 1.3 m³ (reactor 2). The effluent had, in average, systems for single houses, farms, hotels, leisure
phosphate concentration lower than 1 mg P/l and centers, small communities and small businesses are

17
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Sequencing batch reactors operate by a cycle of periods

consisting of fill, react, settle, decant, and idle. The
duration, oxygen concentration, and mixing in these
periods could be altered according to the needs of the
particular treatment plant. Appropriate aeration and
decanting is essential for the correct operations of these
plants. The aerator should make the oxygen readily
available to the microorganisms. The decanter should
avoid the intake of floating matter from the tank. The
many advantages offered by the SBR process justifies
the recent increase in the implementation of this
Fig. 8: Schematic of designed pilot (Mahvi et al., 2005). process in industrial and municipal wastewater
treatment.
a challenge to wastewater engineers. A pilot-scale
system comprising a vertically moving biofilm reactor References
(VMBR) followed by a stratified sand filter was Bernardes, R.S. and A. Klapwijk, 1996 .Biological
constructed and its performance was evaluated. The nutrient removal in a Sequencing Batch Reactor
vertically moving biofilm reactor was operated as a treating domestic wastewater. Wat. Sci. Tec., 33: 29-
sequencing batch biofilm reactor (VMSBBR). The results 38.
show that the VMSBBR unit efficiently removed 94.8% of De Sousa, J.T. and E. Foresti, 1996. Domestic sewage
the filtered chemical oxygen demand (CODf) from a treatment in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket-
synthetic wastewater with the influent CODf of 1096 ± Sequencing Batch Reactor system. Wat. Sci. Tec.,
425 mg/l, leaving 45 ± 16 mg/l CODf in the effluent, at an 33: 73-84.
organic loading rate of 0.9 kg COD/m3 day. After the Diamadopoulos, E., P. Samaras, X. Dabou and G.
system had been operated for 133 days, the removal Sakellaropulos, 1997. Combined treatment of
efficiency of orthophosphate (PO4-P) reached 90%. A landfill leachate and domestic sewage in a
sand filter polished the effluent from the VMSBBR unit Sequencing Batch Reactor. Wat. Sci. Tec., 36: 61-
and reduced suspended solids (SS) to 4.4 mg/l and total
68.
bacterial by 3 log 10 units. The advantages of the
Goncalves, I., S. Penha, M. Matos, A. Satos, F. Franco,
treatment system studied for small wastewater flows
and H. Pinheiro, 2005. Evaluation of an integrated
include: (1) simple operation and maintenance-sludge
anaerobic/aerobic SBR system for the treatment of
was only disposed of once on Day 206 during the 7.5-
wool dyeing effluents. Biodegradation, 16: 81-89.
month study period; clogging, which often happens in
Ho, K.M., P.F. Greenfield, L.L. Blackall, P.R.F. Bell and
other attached-growth biofilm systems, did not take
A.A. Krol, 1993. Small-scale Intermittent Cyclic
place; (2) efficient removal of COD and phosphorus; and
Biological Nutrient Removal (ICBNR) Activated
(3) low-energy consumption-the electricity consumption
Sludge Processes Incorporating Non-mixing
was 4.6 kWh/population equivalent (p.e.) year, or 0.6
Sequences.2nd International Conference on Design
kWh/m³ wastewater treated or 0.6 kWh/kg COD removed
and Operation of Small Wastewater Treatment
(Rodgers et al., 2005).
Plants, Trondheim , Norway ,28-30, June.
Conclusion: Wastewater treatment has been a Hu, L., J. Wang, X. Wen and Y. Qian, 2004.Study on
challenge throughout the years due to varying influent performance characteristics of SBR under limited
chemical and physical characteristics and stringent dissolved oxygen. Process Biochem., 40: 293-296.
effluent regulations. Treatment systems using activated Irvine, R.L. and A.W. Busch, 1979. Sequencing Batch
sludge have been able to handle many of these Biological Reactor-an overview. Journal Water
difficulties. Given the lack of on-line computer controls, Pollution Control Federation, 51: 235.
continuous flow systems have been mostly used for Irvine, R.L. and L.H. Ketchum, 2004. The sequencing
these purposes versus sequencing batch processes. batch reactor and batch operation for the optimal
The availability of artificial intelligence has now made the treatment of wastewater. SBR Technology Inc.
option of a SBR process more attractive thus providing Irvine, R.L. and W.B. Davis, 1971. Use of Sequencing
better controls and results in wastewater treatment. This Batch Reactor for Wastewater Treatment-CPC
is coupled by the flexibility of a SBR in the treatment of International, Corpus Christi, TX. Presented at the
variable flows, minimum operator interaction required, 26th Annual Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue,
option for anoxic or anaerobic conditions in the same University, West Lafayette, IN.
tank, good oxygen contact with microorganisms and Kargi, F. and A. Uygur, 2003. Nutrient loading rate effects
substrate, small floor space, and good removal on nutrient removal in a five-step Sequencing Batch
efficiency. Reactor. Process Biochem., 39: 507-512.

18
 Al-Rekabi et al.: Review on Sequencing Batch Reactors

Keller, J., K. Subramaniam, J. Gosswein and P.F. Ros, M. and J. Vrtovsek, 2004. The study of nutrient
Greenfield, 1997. Nutrient removal from industrial balance in Sequencing Batch Reactor wastewater
wastewater using single tank Sequencing Batch treatment. Acta Chim. Slov., 51: 779-785.
Reactor. Wat. Sci. Tec., 35: 137-144. Sarioglu, M., 2005. Biological phosphorus removal in a
Lin, S.H. and K.W. Cheng, 2001. A new Sequencing Batch Reactor by using pure cultures.
Sequencing Batch Reactor for treatment of Process Biochem., 40: 1599-1603.
municipal sewage wastewater for agricultural Shin, S.S., S.M. Lee, I.S. Seo, G. Oung, K.H. Kim, Lim,
reuse. Desalination, 133: 41-51. and J.S. Song, 1998 .Pilot-scale SBR and MF
Mace, S. and J.R. Mata-Alvarez, 2002 .Utilization of SBR operation for the removal of organic and nitrogen
technology for wastewater treatment: an overview. compounds from greywater. Wat. Sci. Tec., 38: 79-
Ind. Eng. Chem. Rem. Res., 41: 5539-5553. 88.
Mahvi, A.H., A.R. Mesdaghinia and F. Karakani, 2004. Steinmetz, H., J. Wiese and T.G. Schmitt, 2002.
Nitrogen Removal from Wastewater in a Efficiency of SBR technology in municipal
Continuous Flow Sequencing Batch Reactor. Pak. wastewater treatment plants. Wat. Sci. Tec., 46:
J. Biol. Sci., 24. 293-299.
Mahvi, A.H., P. Brown, F. Vaezi and F. Karakani, 2005. Subramaniam, K., J. Keller, K.M. Ho, M.R. Johns and
Feasibility of Continuous Flow Sequencing Batch P.F. Greenfield, 1994. Effect of Pretreatment on the
Reactor in Synthetic Wastewater Treatment. J. Appl. Nutrient Removal Efficiency in High Strength
Sci., 5: 172-176. Wastewater using SBR Technology. Second
Morgenroth, E., T. Sherden, M. Van Loosdreht and J.J. Australian Conference on Biological Nutrient
Wilderer, 1997. Aerobic granular sludge in a Removal from Wastewater, Albury, NSW, Australia.
Sequencing Batch Reactor. Wat. Sci. Tec., 31: 3191- Teichgraber, B., D. Schreff, C. Ekkerlein and P.A.
3194. Wildere, 2001. SBR technology in Germany - an
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control overview. Wat. Sci. Tec., 43: 323-330.
Commission, 2005. Sequencing Batch Reactor Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet, 1999. Sequencing
Design and Operational Considerations. Batch Reactors. U.S. Environmental Protection
Norcross, K.L., 1992. Sequencing Batch Reactors-An Agency. Washington, D. C., EPA 832-F-99-073.
Overview. Water Science and Technology, vol. 26:9- Zhu, J., Z. Zhang and C. Miller, 2004. Simultaneous
11. Removal of Nutrient and Organic Matter in Liquid
Rodgers, M., X.M. Zhan and J. Prendergast, 2005. Swine Manure Using a Lab-Scale Sequencing
Wastewater treatment using a vertically moving Batch Reactor.
biofilm system followed by a sand filter. Process Zilverentant, A.G., 1997.Pilot-testing, design and full-
Biochem., 40: 3132-3136. scale experience of a Sequencing Batch Reactor
Rodrigues, G.C., O.G. Barcelo and S.G. Martines, 1998. system for the treatment of the potentially toxic
Wastewater fermentation and nutrient removal in wastewater from a road and rail car cleaning site.
Sequencing Batch Reactors. Wat. Sci. Tec., 38:255- Wat. Sci. Tec., 35: 259-267.
264.

19

View publication stats