JASER05025

Int. Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering Research, Vol. 5, Issue 3, 2016 www.ijaser.com
© 2015 by the authors – Licensee IJASER- Under Creative Commons License 3.0 editorial@ijaser.com
Research article ISSN 2277 – 9442
—————————————
*Corresponding author (e-mail: r.ranjon.roy92@gmail.com) 245
Received on January, 2016; Published on June, 2016
A Review on applicability and design of sequencing batch
Reactor
Reyad Ranjon Roy1
, Arpita Aditya2
1-Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
2- Research Scholar, Department of Microbiology, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
DOI: 10. 6080.ipajaser. 05025
Abstract: Day by day production of wastewater is increasing with the advent of scientific age. The direct
disposal of such liquid waste in the environment ultimately upset the aquatic reservoir and human
community as well. So, those wastewaters are needed to be treated before releasing in the environment.
But the nature of wastewater varies significantly due to their origin. It may contain different types of
organic matters, nutrients, chemicals, and heavy metals. As a result, all liquid wastewater can’t be treated
by following one typical treatment process. Comparing to other existing techniques SBR is a promising
method to treat a wide variety of wastewater with several critical modifications. This review paper aims to
find out recent works on SBR, how it has been modified to treat different types of wastewater, the
efficiency of each modification in removing pollutants and other nutrients etc. This might also help others
who wish to conduct research to improve the existing SBR design efficiency and discover new
modifications for treating wastewater.
Key words: Sequencing batch reactor (SBR), performance, design
1. Introduction
In accordance with the increase of global population the amount of liquid wastes are also increasing due to
human activities. Our sewer system is designed in such a way that all types of wastewaters ultimately find
their way in natural reservoir of surface water. As a result, our water bodies are becoming severely polluted
day by day. Even it is being apprehended that war may occur in the demand of fresh water in near future.
To shore up this unexpected incident scientist have invented the method of re-using wastewater by various
treatment processes.
Water quality is actually a broad concept, which encompasses a lot of things such as; natural water should
not contain excess organic or inorganic nutrients, toxic, noxious or unacceptable substances. The pollutants
are removed inherently by the natural water reservoir to some extent. The microbes and other lower green
plants (e.g. algae) play the prominent role in the natural purification process. However, the ever-increasing
heavy load of population, urban life practices, excessive agricultural and industrial practices perturb the
natural removal of pollutants (Atlas and Bertha., 2000). An example can be mentioned in this respect, in
the major cities of India about 38554-million-liter sewage per day (MLD) is generated. Only 11786 MLD
sewage is treated while the rest is discharged in the environment without any treatment (Kaur et al., 2011).
These raw wastes are hampering the water quality severely. Therefore, we have to try our best to maintain
the quality of these water bodies. As it has been mentioned earlier, wastewater can be converted into
useable form through a proper treatment procedure. Besides the treated sewage discharge can save the
water bodies from further deterioration. Sewage treatment is a multistep process through which the amount

A Review on applicability and design of sequencing batch reactor
Reyad Ranjon et al.,
Int. Journal of Applied Sciences and Engineering Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2016
246
of undesired substances is minimized. The whole procedure can be discussed under 3 main section. In
primary (physical) treatment the sewage is passed through screens, traps and skimming devises so that the
suspended solids are removed. In secondary treatment, only a fraction of the dissolved organic matter is
mineralized and the larger part is converted to removable solids from dissolved state. A combination of
primary and secondary treatment reduces the original BOD of the sewage by 80-90%. The secondary
treatment depends on microbial activity.
It can be aerobic and anaerobic and may be carried out in a variety of devices (Atlas and Bertha., 2000).
Among them Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) is the most popular and potential option. SBR is the
modified version of activated sludge process. Here, the aeration, sedimentation and clarification are
performed in the same vessel which was performed in different vessels in conventional activated sludge
process (USEPA.,1986). Furthermore, conventional process has shown less efficiency in removing
nitrogen and sludge production is not uniform as well. It is also a time consuming process and takes more
space. On the other hand, in SBR wastewater is treated in a single tank time saving manner (Irvine et al.,
1979). Besides, filamentous bacterial growth and settling are easily controlled. So, biomass is not washed
out from SBR tank (Mace and Mata-Alvarez., 2002). SBR was first introduced by Arden and Lockett in
1914 (Arden and Lockett, 1914). The research on SBR was begun drastically after 1970 when the
discontinuous process was developed (Goronszy et al., 1978).
SBR is better known as fill and draw system in aerobic and anaerobic suspended growth wastewater
treatment process. Here, wastewater is first added in a single basin, then the undesirable contaminants are
treated and finally treated water is discarded for reuse. No extra basin is used for aeration, sedimentation
and decantation steps (Vigneswaran et al., 2007). SBR can be optimized to treat different kinds of
wastewater such as municipal, domestic, tannery, hyper saline, brewery, landfill leachates dairy
wastewaters etc. under different conditions.
2 Physical description of Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR)
The SBR can be consisted of one or multiple basin, but for better removal efficiency and flow control it
should be of at least two basins. Every operating cycle (Figure 1) includes five consecutive steps i.e. filling,
reaction, settling, decantation and idle. These steps can be altered for operational applications (Mahvi et al.,
2008). The steps are discussed below:
Filling: During the filling phase, raw wastewater is added to the basin which act as the substrate for
microbial growth. It can be further typed based on aeration and mixing conditions.
Static fill: It is the initial start-up of the basin. Raw wastewaters are added to the basin where no aeration or
mixing is provided.
Mixed fill: In this filling phase, only mixing is active which promote anoxic conditions. Anoxic conditions
stimulate the de-nitrification. In addition to this anaerobic condition can be achieved where phosphorous will
release in the basin.
Aerated fill: Both aeration and mechanical mixing are activated in this step. So, the anoxic or anaerobic
zones are converted to aerobic zones and promote nitrification in this phase. (Poltak et al., 2005)
Reaction: This phase is better known as polishing step because the maximum carbonaceous BOD is reduced
in this step. No additional influent wastewater is added and both aeration and mixing units are on here.
Nitrification is also resumed in this step.

247
Settling: Aeration is stopped in this phase to maintaina static condition. Biological flocs settle in the bottom
of the basin. If flocs do not settle rapidly, then some wasted activated sludge can be discarded in idle phase.
Decantation: After settling, decantation will start where treated supernatant is discarded from the SBR
basin. The time dedicated to draw supernatant ranges from 5->30 % of the total cycle time.
Idle: Waste activated sludge can be extracted in order to attain rapid settling (if required).
Figure 1: Typical cycles of SBR (Source USEPA, 1999)
3. Performance of SBR
SBR can be used for treating a wide range of wastewater (Table 1) from chemical, dairy, industrial estate
wastewater, landfill leachate, paper and pulp, petrochemical, pharmaceutical, piggery, sewage, swine,
synthetic wastewater; tannery, textile industries by using lab scale, pilot scale and industrial scale models
(Patil et al., 2013).
3.1 Municipal wastewater
A lab-scale study was performed to evaluate performance of SBR based STP at Kalyani, West Bengal,
India. This STP was designed to treat municipal wastewater and the plant capacity was 25 MLD. Here,
aeration time, settling time and decantation time were 3 hr, 1 hr and 1 hr respectively. The STP had 3 SBR
basins to treat wastewater and 8 cycles performed every day. The result showed that the overall BOD
removal efficiency is 96%, total suspended solid removal is 92.74% where 18.67% were removed during
primary treatment, nitrogen, and phosphorous removal rates are 75.67% and 71.79% respectively (Sayyad
and Wakode., 2014).
Another lab-scale study was carried out to evaluate SBR performance in the treatment of municipal
wastewater from Bennekom Municipal Treatment Plant, Netherlands. Here, two reactors with different
volume were used, one is 1.3 and another is 0.35 . Here, acetic acid was used as external carbon
source for better removal efficiency. After addition of acetic acid initial influent contained 443 mg/l COD,
71 mg/l TKN and 7 mg/l P-P. The final effluent was almost free from nutrients where phosphorus
concentration was <1mg of P/l and nitrogen concentrations was <12 mg of N/l. So it can be said that
external carbon source is effective for lab scale treatment of municipal wastewater (Bernardes and

248
Klapwijk., 1996). Phosphorous is mainly responsible for eutrophication and algal bloom so wastewater
should be made free from it before discharging to environment (Seviour et al., 2003). A lab scale SBR
study was designed to see SBR performance in COD and phosphorous removal while treating a mixture of
municipal and synthetic wastewater. Here, a modified anaerobic-aerobic/anoxic SBR reactor where 4
different operating phases were adopted (duration of time was 3-8 hours). The input COD and phosphate
concentration were varied, where COD concentration was between 250-1500 mg/l and phosphate
concentration was 4-60 mg/l. The result showed that 3 and 4 operating strategies were best suitable for
removal of COD (91.9% , 92.7%) and TP (84.4%, 86.9%). Intermittent aeration time was applied for both
3 (total aeration time was 180 min) and 4 strategy (total aeration time was 225 min) (Azhdarpoor et al.,
2014).
3.2 Industrial wastewater
A laboratory scale SBR was designed for treating industrial wastewater where wastewater came from a
milk factory. Here, three phases operating strategy were used which includes different aeration time,
organic loading and cycle periods. The result was quite satisfactory for COD removal around above 90 %
where initial COD concentration was 400 to 2500 mg/l. The reactor was maintained with dissolve oxygen
rate 2-3 mg/l, MLVSS was 3000 mg/l and optimum aeration time was 6 hr. This result proved that SBR can
be a good option for different concentration of dairy wastewater treatment (Bandpi and Bazari., 2004).
(Dohare et al., 2014) investigated a lab scale SBR where wastewater fed from water treatment plant at
Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India. The size of the STP was 30 MLD. To evaluate the SBR
performance a lab scale SBR had set up where 20 litters were the maximum reactor volume. The authors
had carried out different aeration time and air flow to see the SBR performance. To bring down the
parameters in the permissible limit, the optimum aeration time was 180 min and air rate supply was 10
L/min. The results showed BOD, COD, TKN, Ammonia and phosphate removal efficiency was 92.1%,
91.27%, 82.6%, 68 %, 86.31 % respectively.
3.3 Synthetic wastewater
Benzoic acid (BA) is one of the major cause in high oxygen demand and low biodegradability; so the
wastewater should be free from BA when it is released to the surroundings (Chern and chain.,2003).A
laboratory scale SBR study was carried out to treat synthetic wastewater where their main focus was to see
the BA removal efficiency. The result showed that if MLSS concentration increases, simultaneously the BA
concentration would decrease. Furthermore, 95% of BA removal can be achieved where optimum MLSS
concentration was 5000 mg/l, cycle time 8h and organic loading rate was 200 mg/l in the reactor
(Subbaramaiah and Mall., 2012).
In 2010, Hu et al., investigated on three-bench scale SBR with synthetic wastewater. Their main objective
of the project was to find out how aeration rate affect emission from the SBR tank. The size of the
reactor was 24 liters operated at 23±20ºC temperature and MLSS maintained as 3000 mg/l. The SBR was
operated (anoxic/aerobic) mode, where initially 2 hours were provided for anoxic phase, next 4 hours were
for aeration and 40 minutes for settling. The results showed that mild aeration promotes higher nitrification

249
rate and higher aeration rate decrease emission. As emission indicates higher removal of
nitrogen, the SBR should operate on mild aeration to promote the higher nitrification.
The energy consumption and COD demand for nitrogen and phosphorus removal is depended on two
major constraints, one is simultaneous nitrification and de-nitrification (SND) and another is anaerobic
enhanced biological phosphorous removal (EBPR). A lab scale SBR was designed to find the solution of
those constraints. Here, an anaerobic-aerobic SBR with working volume 4 L was used with synthetic
wastewater. The operation cycle of SBR was consisted of 1 hr. anaerobic, 3 hr. aerobic and 43 min settling
time. SNDPR system easily removed considerable amount of N and P. The results showed that was the
end product of de-nitrification not the . Apart from that, N removal pathway was found via nitrite not
the nitrate where ammonia is oxidized and finally it is denitrified (Zeng et al., 2003).
Proper anoxic phase is an important aspect in SBR, because the de-nitrification rate depends upon anoxic
step. Keeping this in view a lab scale SBR was performed where a long 18 hr. anoxic phase was provided
per cycle followed by 5 hr. aerobic and 1 hr. settle/decant/refill. The SBR systems were operated for 180
days, where 20 days SRT, 24hr HRT and influent COD and Nitrate was 4000 mg/l and 1000 mg/l. The
influent wastewater prepared synthetically. The removal efficiency of COD, nitrate and phosphate was
72%, 98% and 86 % respectively attained in anoxic phase. The rest of 26 % COD removed in aerobic
phase (Jena et al, 2016).
3.4 Piggery wastewater
A digested piggery wastewater was used to see the feasibility of internal carbon source (non-digested pig
manure) in lab-scale SBR. In general, the SBR performance for removal of nitrogen and phosphorous was
the main concern in this research work. The results concluded that internal carbon source can have a
similar effect as external acetate. Here, initial ammonia and phosphate concentration was 900 mg/l and 90
mg/l respectively. The removal efficiency found to be 99.8% for nitrogen and 97.8% for phosphate. So,
internal carbon source can be sufficient for removal of low concentration nutrients without the addition of
external carbon source in piggery wastewater (Mata-Alvarez et al., 2005).
Two-laboratory scale SBR reactor (anaerobic + aerobic) was combined and used to treat piggery
wastewater. The anaerobic reactor had a maximum volume of 1.5L. It was filled up to 0.75L by anaerobic
sludge to see the change in efficiency. Another two aerobic reactors were attached with the anaerobic
reactor, which had an active volume of 1.5L and was used after 0.11 day. The overall removal performance
was 81-90% for TOC and 85-90 % for TKN. Here, recycling ratio was between 1-3 and concluded that
higher recycle ratio will promote lower concentrations of nitrogen oxides in the effluent (Bernet et al.,
2000).
More recently, a moving bed sequencing batch reactor (MBSBR) was tested to treat piggery wastewater.
The result showed that MBSBR is more effective to treat piggery wastewater than conventional SBR. COD,
BOD and TKN removal efficiency were 80%, 90%and 86-90% were achieved where organic loads were

250
1.18-2.36 kg COD/ d. However, suspended solids varied between 4700–5900 mg/L, 1500–2300 mg/L,
and 4000–8000 mg/L (Sombatsompo et al., 2011).
3.5 Slaughterhouse wastewater
This type of wastewater contains considerable amount of diluted blood, fat, protein and suspended solids
which make the wastewater rich in organic materials. Because of high organic material concentration,
slaughterhouse wastewater has very high impact on riverbeds and other water bodies (Masse and
Masse.,2000). To treat slaughterhouse wastewater a laboratory scale aerobic-anoxic SBR was designed.
The main objective of the project was to see simultaneous removal of organic matter and nitrogen and also
determine the bio-kinetic coefficients based on SBR performance. Here, three types of aerobic-anoxic
operating strategy were adopted, namely (4+4), (5+3) and (3+5). Through this study it was found that,
COD can be removed 86-96% after 8 hr. of total reaction period. Furthermore, (4+4) aerobic-anoxic
operating strategy was found to be best for the removal of NH4-N (74.75%) where initial ammonium was
(176.85 mg/l). For future full-scale operation, bio-kinetics coefficients (𝑘, 𝐾𝑠, 𝑌, 𝑑) were also determined
(Mukherjee et al., 2014).
3.6 Tannery Wastewater
Tannery wastewater contains different types of chemicals which seriously upset the aquatic environment.
To treat it a lab scale study was performed with (Membrane + SBR) reactor. The maximum reactor volume
was 3.5L and cycling time was 8 hr. The 8 hr. cycle time was maintained where aeration phase (4.45 hr.),
anoxic phase (1.15 hr.), re-aeration (0.5 hr.) and permeation (1.10 hr.). The reactor provided low F/M ratio
to achieve the low biomass yield. Final removal efficiency was found 100% in ammonium, 60-90% for TN
and 90% for COD (Ganesh et al., 2006).
Recently another study was done with MSBR to treat tannery wastewater. The removal efficiency was
achieved 100%, 90% and 60-90% in ammonium, COD and total nitrogen respectively. Where initial COD
and ammonium concentration were 500 mg/l and 90 mg/l respectively. It was also found out that
nitrification and di-nitrification rates were the same for higher concentration of chromium. Another point
was that MSBR can produce more resistant biomass than conventional SBR (Durai and Rajasimman.,
2011).
3.7 Landfill leachate wastewater
It is mixture of concentrated organic and inorganic matters that includes mainly ammonium , humic acids,
organic and ammonium nitrogen, heavy metals, xenobiotic and inorganic salts (Wisznioski et al., 2006). So,
we should reduce the leachate toxicity and undesirable contents before release it to the environment. A
bench scale study was performed on SBR and MBR with Finnish Municipal landfill leachate. The influent
wastewater initially passed through a SBR and later went to a MBR. The SBR operated 24 hr. cycle per
day where 21.5 hr. for aeration, 2hr for settling and 30 min for decantation. The raw wastewater contains
1240 mg/l BOD, 475 mg/l suspended solids, 10 mg/l phosphorous and 210 mg/l ammonium nitrogen. The
SRT was varied for both SBR and MBR, in SBR SRT was used 10-40 days and in MBR Sludge Retention

251
Time (SRT) was used 35-60 days. The overall results showed that the reduction efficiency of suspended
solids, BOD, ammonia nitrogen and phosphorus were 99%, 97%, 97% and 88% respectively (Laitinen et
al., 2006).
Later on, a pilot study on Landfill leachate was done with only SBR. The aim of this study was to find
credibility of SBR for biological nitrogen removal. The total volume of the pilot plant was 1000L and
could be used to treat 220-300L landfill leachate daily. The SBR operating strategy was anoxic/aerobic
where three experimental methods were used. Initial period was adapting phase, then nitrification and
de-nitrification process and final one was stabilizing the nitrogen efficiency. The nitrogen removal
efficiency was 80% for this experiment. The results revealed that step anoxic/aerobic are suitable for
nitrogen removal and methanol can be useful as external carbon source while adapting the process
(Monclus et al., 2008).
3.8 Laboratory wastewater
The laboratory wastewaters contain different types of chemicals, organic matters, and heavy metals making
it difficult to treat. If laboratory wastewaters get mixed with domestic sewage then it may harm the
conventional sewage treatment process (Alappat and Shrrelakshmi., 2013). A lab scale SBR was used to
treat the academic wastewater from the Control and Environmental Prevention Laboratory, Universidade
Estadual de Maringá– Brazil. The each SBR cycle time was 24 hr. where fill/react, settle and draw periods
in the ratio of 20:3.5:0.5. In the beginning, wastewater contained 2L seed and 1.3L lab wastewater, which
was collected in 8 months’ time span. The initial COD concentration was 900 mg/l and pH 7.8. The final
results showed that the COD reduction is only 11%. So, some physicochemical/chemical treatment must be
done before biological treatment of laboratory wastewater, otherwise the treatment process would severely
hamper (Benatti et al., 2003).
Table 1: Treatment of different type of wastewater by using SBR.
SI
Type of
Wastewater
Technology
adopted
Removal of
Removal
efficiency (%)
References
1
Municipal
wastewater
Lab Scale
SBR
BOD
Total
suspended
solids nitrogen
phosphorous
96%
92.74 %
75.67 %
71.79 %
Sayyad and
Wakode., 2014
2
Industrial
wastewater
Lab Scale
SBR
BOD
COD
TKN
Ammonia
phosphate
92.1 %
91.27 %
82.6%
68 %
86.31 %
Dohareet al.,
2014
3
Synthetic
wastewater
Lab Scale
SBR
COD
Nitrate
phosphate
72%
98%
86 %
Jena et al., 2016

252
4
Piggery
wastewater
Lab Scale
(SBR+MBR)
COD
BOD
TKN
80 %
90%
(86-90%)
Sombatsompo
et al., 2011
5
Slaughterhouse
wastewater
Lab Scale
SBR
COD
Nitrate
Ammonia
86-90 %
74.75 %
96.58 %
Mukherjee et
al., 2014
6
Tannery
Wastewater
Lab Scale
(SBR+MBR)
COD
Nitrate
Ammonia
90%
100%
60-90%
Duraiand
Rajasimman.,
2011
7
Landfill
Leachate
Lab Scale
(SBR+MBR)
BOD
Suspended
solids
Ammonia
Phosphorus
97%
99 %
97 %
88%
Laitinen et al.,
2006
8
Lab
wastewater
Lab Scale
SBR
COD 11 %
Benatti et al.,
2003
4. Design of sequencing batch reactor
According to EPA (1999), the first step of designing SBR is to determine the influent wastewater
characteristics, design flow and effluent requirements for the proposed system. The characteristics of
influent wastewater are pH, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), ammonia-nitrogen, BOD, COD, TSS,
alkalinity, temperature, and total phosphorus. Other more specific parameters may be required for
treatment of industrial and domestic wastewater. After getting the influent and effluent characteristics of
the system, the key SBR design parameters are found out. The key design parameter includes Food to Mass
ratio (F/M), treatment operation cycle duration, Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS), Hydraulic
Retention Time (HRT) and Sludge Retention Time (SRT). Lastly, the number of cycles per day, decant
volume, reactor size, number of basins and detention time are determined. In addition to this, aeration
equipment and size, decanter and site elevation above mean sea level data also required to design SBR.
There are two major design concepts of SBR, one is what percent of the tank content will be removed
during decantation step and another one is the duration of time for settling, decantation and aeration steps.
Two SBR tank should be provided for a continuous flow system, where one tank will receive raw
wastewater and another tank will treat the wastewater simultaneously. However, sludge wasting is
important in SBR, generally sludge wasting take place during the reaction steps to promote the uniform
solids that settle in the settling steps (Metcalf and eddy, 2003). A guideline known as SBR manual where
the SBR design considerations are clearly described. According to the manual, the preliminary treatment
includes screening, grit removal, and flow monitoring. Primary treatment includes sedimentation and
floatation in a single tank. A flow equalization basin can be provided to control the flow and organic mass
loading. As alkalinity is an important aspect in SBR, it has been suggested to keep it between 40-70 mg/l in
decantation step, furthermore to control pH additional Sodium Bicarbonate, Sodium Carbonate or Calcium
Oxide may be added in SBR basin. Minimum two SBR basins should be provided in primary treatment
units that will fortify redundancy, maintenance problems, high flows control, and seasonal variations

253
control. If microbes are depleted in one basin, the biomass from other basin may be transferred to continue
the process. Apart from that, smaller blower should be introduced in SBR basin to enhance operational
efficiency instead of one large blower (Poltak et al.,2005).
The fundamental biological kinetics of continuous flow can be applied in SBR design. SBR system can
vary with filling strategy, reactor shape, reactor configuration, aeration method and decanting mechanism.
Different SBR design consideration was reckoned to find operation time, biological capacity, reactor
volume, hydraulic capacity and settlement capacity. Those generic parameters are used in initial SBR
design, which are generated by trial and error methods. Furthermore, the reactor depth is divided by three
zones, which are decant zone, buffer zone and settled sludge zone (C.X Huo., 2004).
Table 2: Typical process parameters for SBR configurations. (Source: CPHEEO manual., 2012)
4.1 Advantage and disadvantage of SBR
Some advantage and disadvantage of SBR is given below (EPA., 1999 and Aziz et al., 2011).
Advantages: 1) SBR can be easily constructed, operated, and controlled. 2) Plant shape can be adopted
according to requirement.3) Lesser number of pipe networks and channels required as compared to other
techniques. 4) Equalization, primary clarification, biological treatment and secondary clarification can be
done in a single basin. 5) Cost effective than other available options. 6) It can be adopted with continuous
variation of polluted wastewater. 7) Removal efficiency is comparatively higher than conventional
activated sludge process.
Disadvantages: 1) As SBR functions, a higher level of sophistication is required for time and control units.
2) Extra configuration is required for decantation of the treated effluent. 3) Batch feeding from storage or
bio-selectors is required to control bulking. 4) Maintenance of SBR is tough compared to conventional
systems because it needs more sophisticated controls, automated switches and automated valves. 5)
Potential plugging of aeration devices are problematic in SBR. 6) Depending on the downstream process,
an equalization basin may require.
SI Parameters Units
Continuous Flow &
Intermittent Decant
Intermittent Flow &
Intermittent Decant
1 F/M 0.05-0.08 0.05-0.3
2 Sludge age d 15-20 4-20
3 Sludge yield
Kg dry solids/kg
BOD
0.75-0.85 0.75-1
4 MLSS mg/l 3000-4000 3500-5000
5 Cycle Time hr. 4-8 2.5-6
6 Settling Time hr. >0.5 >0.5
7 Decant Depth m 1.5 2.5
8
Fill volume
Base
Peak flow Peak flow
9
Process
oxygen BOD
TKN
Kg O2/kg BOD
Kg O2/kg TN
1.1
4.6
1.1
4.6

254
5. Conclusions
Wastewaters of our daily domestic and professional activities are posing a potential threat to the
environment. A wide variety of known and unknown characters of raw wastewater are rendering the
treatment process progressively challenging. To cope with the nascent problems more modifications of the
existing methods have been introduced to enhance the treatment efficiency. More research should be done
to optimize SBR process for various types of wastewater. This review paper might help them who want to
work with SBR in near future with both lab scale and in-situ SBR.
6. References
1. A Mohseni-Bandpi1, H Bazari. 2004. Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastewater by
Sequencing Batch Reactor, Iranian J Env Health SciEng, 1(2), 65-69.
2. Azhdarpoor, A., Mohammadi, P., and Dehghani, M. 2014. Removal of phosphate from
municipal wastewater using anaerobic/aerobic modified SBR reactor. International Journal of
Environmental Science and Toxicology Research, 2(8), 152–159.
3. Aziz SQ, Aziz HA, Yusoff MS. 2011. Powdered activated carbon augmented double
react-settle sequencing batch reactor process for treatment of landfill leachate Desalination, in
press.
4. Bernet N, N. Delgenes, J.C.Akunna, J.P. Delgenes and R. Molett., 2000. combined anaerobic
+aerobic sbr for the treatment of piggery wastewater, Water Research, 34(2), 611±619,
2000.
5. Bernardes, R. S., Klapwijk, 1996. A Biological nutrient removal in a sequencing batch reactor
treating domestic wastewater. Water Science Technology, 33(3), 29.
6. Bungay, S., Humphries, M., and Stephenson, T. 2007. Operating Strategies for Variable Flow
Sequencing Batch Reactors, 21(1), 1–8.
7. Cláudia Telles Benatti1, Célia Regina Granhen Tavares1, Benedito Prado Dias Filho, Mateus
Pinatto Gaspar, 2003. Sequencing batch reactor for treatment of chemical laboratory
wastewater, Maringá, 25(2), 141-145.
8. Chern M, Y. W. Chien., 2003. Competitive adsorption of benzoic acid and p-nitro phenol onto
activated carbon: isotherm and break through curves, Water Research,37, 2347–2356.
9. CPHEEO, 2012. Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment. Second Edition, The Central
Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organization Ministry of Urban Development,
New Delhi., May 2012.
10. Obaja D, S. Mace., J. Mata-Alvarez, 2003. Biological nutrient removal by a sequencing batch
reactor (SBR) using an internal organic carbon source in digested piggery wastewater, Bio
resource Technology 96, 7–14.
11. Durai, G. and Rajasimman, M. 2011. Biological treatment of tannery wastewater – a
reviewJournal of Environmental Science and Technology, 4(1), 1-17.
12. Epa. 1999. EPA,1999. Update of Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia.
Environmental Protection, 147.
13. Devendra Dohare, Shri Vishnu K. Pathak and Nupur Kesharwani, 2014. Biological process
modification using SBR in the sewage treatment plant of Bhilai steel, IJETED, 5(4).

255
14. Ganesh, R., Balaji, G. and Ramanujam, R.A., 2006. Biodegradation of tannery wastewater
using sequencing batch reactor – Respirometric assessment, Bio-resource Technology, 97,
1815-1821.
15. Hèctor Monclús, Sebastià Puig, Marta Coma, Agustí Bosch, M. Dolors Balaguer and Jesús
Colprim, 2008. Nitrogen removal from landfill leachate using the SBR technology,
Environmental Technology, 30(3), 283–290.
16. Hu, Z., Zhang, J., Li, S., Xie, H., Wang, J., Zhang, T., Li, Y. and Zhang, T., 2010. Effect of
aeration rate on emission of N2O in aerobic-anoxic sequencing batch reactor, Journal of
Bioscience and Bioengineering, 109(5), 487-491
17. Huo C.X. 2004. SBR Performance with an Excessive Long Sludge age, Environmental
Technology, 26, 199-209.
18. Irvine R.L., G. Miller and A.S. Bhamrah., 1979. Sequencing batch treatment of wastewaters in
rural areas. JWPCF 51, 244-254.
19. Jyotsnarani Jena, Ravindra Kumar b, Md Saifuddina, Anshuman Dixitb, Trupti Das, 2016.
Anoxic–aerobic SBR system for nitrate, phosphate and COD removal from high-strength
wastewater and diversity study of microbial communities, Biochemical Engineering
Journal,105, 80–89.
20. Sombatsompop K, A. Songpim, S. Reabroi, and P. Inkongngam,2011. A comparative study of
sequencing batch reactor and moving bed sequencing batch reactor for piggery wastewater
treatment, Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology,5(2), 191–203.
21. Sreelakshmi B, and B. J. Alappat. 2013, Management of Institutional Hazardous Waste, JNU
5th
environmental conference paper.
22. Kaur R, SP Wani, AK Singh and K Lal. 2012. Wastewater production, treatment and use in
India.,2nd regional workshop on Safe Use of Wastewater in Agriculture, May 16-18, New
Delhi, India.
23. Kaur, R., Wani, S. P., Singh, A. K., and Lal, K., 2011. Wastewater production , treatment and
use in India, 1–13.
24. Mace, S and J. Mata-Alvarez., 2002. Utilization of SBR Technology for Wastewater
Treatment : An Overview, 5539–5553.
25. Mahvi A. H.,2008. Sequencing Batch Reactor: A Promising Technology in Wastewater
Treatments. Iranian Journal Environmental Health Science Engineering, 5(2), pp 79-90.
26. Masse´ DI, Masse L., 2000. Characterization of wastewater from hog slaughterhouses in
eastern Canada and evaluation of their in-plant wastewater treatment systems. Can
Agricultural Engineering, 42,139–146
27. Mohseni-Bandpi A, Bazari H., 2004, Biological Treatment of Dairy Wastewater by
Sequencing Batch Reactor, Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 1,
2, 65-69.
28. NiinaLaitinen , Antero Luonsi, Jari Vilen, 2006. Landfill leachate treatment with sequencing
batch reactor and membrane bio react or, Desalination 191, 86–91.
29. Patil P. G, G. S. Kulkarni ., Smt. S. V.Kore , V. S.Kore . 2013. Aerobic Sequencing Batch
Reactor for wastewater treatment, International Journal of Engineering Research
&Technology,2(10), 534-550.
30. Prachi N. Wakode, Sameer U. Sayyad. 2014. Performance Evaluation of 25MLD Sewage
Treatment Plant (STP) at Kalyan, American Journal of Engineering Research, 3(3),310-316.

256
31. Pradyut Kundu, Anupam Debsarkar, and Somnath Mukherjee, 2014, Treatment of Slaughter
House Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Reactor: Performance Evaluation and
Biodegradation Kinetics, Hindawi Publishing Corporation Bio Med Research International
Volume 2013, Article ID 134872, 11 pages.
32. Raymond J. Zeng, Romain Lemaire, Zhiguo Yuan, Jurg Keller. 2003. Simultaneous
Nitrification, Denitrification, and Phosphorus Removal in a Lab-Scale Sequencing Batch
Reactor, Wiley Inter Science (www.interscience.wiley.com).
33. Ronald F. Poltak. 2005.Sequencing Batch Reactor Design and Operational Considerations,
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.
34. Ronald M. Atlas and Richard Bartha, 2000. Ecological Aspects of bio deterioration control
and soil, waste and water management, 4th
edn, pp 477. Benjamin/Cummings Science
Publishing, California.
35. S.Vigneswaran.,M. Sundaravadivel and Chaudhary, D. S. 2007. Sequencing Batch Reactor:
Principles, Design/Operation and Case Study., Water and Wastewater technology, Eolss.
36. Seviour RJ, Mino T, Onuki M. 2003. The microbiology of biological phosphorus removal in
activated sludge systems. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 27(1), 99-127.
37. Subbaramaiah V, Indra Deo. Mall. 2012. Studies on Laboratory Scale Sequential Batch
Reactor for Treatment of Synthetic Petrochemical Wastewater, International Conference on
Chemical, Civil and Environment engineering (ICCEE'2012) March 24-25, 2012 Dubai.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – (USEPA). 1986. Summary Report, Sequencing Batch
Reactors. EPA -625/8-86-011. Washington D.C.
39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)., 1999. Wastewater Technology Fact
Sheet: Sequencing Batch Reactors, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C., EPA 932-F-99-073.
40. Wisznioski J, D. Robert, J. Surmacz-Gorska, K. Milksch,and J.V. Weber, 2006. Landfill
leachate treatment methods: Are view, Environ. Chem. Lett. 4, 51–61.

JASER05025

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a JASER05025

Similar a JASER05025 (20)

JASER05025