In the backdrop of lack of success achieved by the past workers in using upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor for treating low-strength wastewaters, the paper highlights the importance of R&D in this area. The two main
reasons behind the importance of using UASB are: (1) generation of large volumes of low-strength wastewaters, which are
often disposed untreated due to high costs, and (2) the potential of stabilizing the organic wastes by producing valuable
energy as byproduct. Results are presented on the successful operation of UASB in treating low-strength dairy industry wash
waters [Chemical oxygen demand (COD 1200-2000 mg/L]. The reactors achieved treatment efficiency of the order of 75-
85% and were able to withstand shock-loads without adversely affecting the treatment efficiency. One of the reactors which
was accidentally contaminated with acid, recovered quickly.
Keywords: UASB, low strength, dairy wastewater, biogas, methane, organic loading rate
IPC Code: Int. Cl.8 C08K5/18
Table 1—Summary of reports on low strength (COD < 2000 mg/ L) industrial wastewater treatment by UASB reactors, 1999-2004
Sl. Reactor Industrial wastewater Feed strength OLR HRT COD Reference
No. volume (COD g/L) (kg COD m−3 d-1) (h) removal %
(L)
1 0.92 Methanol 1.8 6 7 - 17
2 0.4 Ethanol & lindane 0.67 6.3 10 41 18
3 10.5 Black liquor 1.4 0.85 40 75 8
4 8.3 Brewery 1.3 28 1 - 19
5 4500 Food processing 1 4 6 80 20
6 2400000 Malting 1.7 2.69 15 77 20
7 8840 Cheese manufacturing 1.8 0.94 48 75 20
8 4.3 Meat processing wastewater 1.5 - - 56 21
236 INDIAN J BIOTECHNOL, APRIL 2007
reactor A along with the feed till the pH of the adversely affect the COD removal rate at all and it
effluent reached 6.9. To compensate the sludge lost remained within the same range as it was before the
from the reactor, equivalent quantity of fresh sludge shock loads of COD. The quantity of biogas generated
from another UASB was added. These steps restored daily per unit of reactor volume increased with an
the treatment efficiency of the reactor by the 120th d increase in the OLR and was close to 1 m3 (1000 L)
(Table 3). per m3 of reactor volume at the OLR of 8.64 kg COD
The reactors were subjected to sudden increases in m-3 d-1 (Table 4).
OLR, taking it from 4.80 to 9.60 kg COD m-3 d-1 in The study reveals that ~ 75-85% of COD was
four steps within 10 d (Table 4). This did not removed from dairy wash waters coming into the
Table 2—Performance of the UASB reactors during OLR between 0.80 and 4.8 Kg COD m-3 d-1
Period HRT Influent Organic COD removal % Effluent pH Biogas yield (L m-3 d-1)
(d) (h) COD loading rate UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B
(mg/L) (kg COD
m-3 d-1)
Table 3—Long-term performance of the UASB reactors at an OLR of 4.8 Kg COD m-3 d-1
Period HRT Influent Organic loading COD removal % Effluent pH Biogas yield (L m-3 d-1)
(d) (h) COD rate UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B
(mg/L) (kg COD m-3 d-1)
Period HRT Influent Organic loading COD removal % Effluent pH Biogas yield (L m-3 d-1)
(d) (h) COD rate UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B UASB-A UASB-B
(mg/L) (kg COD m-3 d-1)
UASBs at COD concentrations of 1200-2000 mg/L at upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor, Adv
6 h HRT. This means that the wash water exiting from Environ Res, 7 (2003) 453-462.
10 Chang F Y & Lin C Y, Biohydrogen production using an
the UASBs have COD in the range 180-500 mg/L. upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, Int J Hydrogen
Such dilute effluents can be easily and quickly Energy, 29 (2004) 33-39.
polished by short duration (1-2 h) aeration23. 11 Pfeiffer W, Temper U, Steiner A, Carozzi A & von Mucke J,
Anaerobic wastewater treatment–Results of a literature
Conclusion review, in Proc Water Treatment Conf on Anaerobic
This study establishes the suitability of UASB Treatment: A Grown-up Technology (AQUATECH’86,
reactors in treating low-strength (< 2000 mg/L COD) Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 1986, 219-232.
industrial wastewaters in general and dairy industry 12 Lettinga G & Pol H L, Economy of anaerobic wastewater
treatment; in Anaerobic reactor technology (Wageningen
wash water in particular. The consistency of reactor Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands)
performance even when COD loading is changed 1992, 56-63.
quickly over a wide range of values indicates the 13 Ghangrekar M M, Kahalekar U J & Takalkar S V, Design of
robustness of the system. The reactors appear capable upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor for treatment of
of treating the wash waters with a high degree of organic wastewaters, Indian J Environ Health, 45, (2003)
121-132.
consistency even when the influent strength may vary
14 Amritkar S R, Introduction of anaerobic pretreatment in
due to across-the-week flow variations, shock loads, treating dairy effluents–A positive step towards conservation
etc. and co-generation of energy, Proc 3rd Intl Cong on
appropriate waste management technologies for developing
Acknowledgement countries (National Environmental Engineering Research
SAA thanks the Department of Biotechnology, Institute, Nagpur, India) 1995, 127-132.
Government of India, for Project BT/PR 15 Vidal G, Carvalko A, Mendez R & Lema J M, Influence of
4741/AGR/21/182/2004. PSG and SG thank the the content in fats and proteins on the anaerobic
biodegradability of dairy wastewaters, Bioresour Technol, 74
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New (2000) 231-239.
Delhi, for financial assistance in the form of SRF and 16 Abbasi S A & Ramasamy E V, Biotechnological methods of
RA, respectively. pollution control (Orient Longman, Universities Press of
India Ltd, New Delhi) 1999.
References 17 Paulo P L, Villa G, Lier J B V & Lettinga G, The anaerobic
1 Lettinga G, van Velsen A F M, Hobma S W, de Zeeuw W J conversion of methanol under thermophilic conditions: pH
& Klapwijk A, Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB) and bicarbonate dependence, J Biosci Bioeng, 96 (2003) 213-
reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment 218.
especially for anaerobic treatment, Biotechnol Bioeng, 22 18 Erguder T H, Guvan E & Demirer G N, The inhibitory
(1980) 699-734. effects of lindane in batch and upflow anaerobic sludge
2 Lettinga G & Pol H L, UASB-process design for various blanket reactors, Chemosphere, 50 (2003) 165-169.
types of wastewaters, Water Sci Technol, 24 (1991) 87-107. 19 Ahn Y H, Min K S & Speece R E, Pre-acidification in
3 Kida K, Tanemura K & Sonoda Y, Evaluation of the anaerobic sludge bed process treating brewery wastewater,
anaerobic treatment of sewage below 20°C by novel Water Res, 35 (2001) 4267-4276.
processes, J Ferment Bioeng, 76 (1993) 510-514.
20 Monroy O, Fama G, Meraz M, Monotoya L & Macarie H,
4 Frigon J C & Guiot S R, Impact of liquid-to-gas hydrogen
Anaerobic digestion for wastewater treatment in Mexico:
mass transfer on substrate conversion efficiency of an upflow
State of the technology, Water Res, 34 (2000) 1803-1816.
anaerobic sludge bed and filter reactor, Enzyme Microb
21 Wahab R A & Awady M H E, Anaerobic/aerobic treatment
Technol, 17 (1995) 1080-1086.
of meat processing wastewater, Environmentalist, 19 (1999)
5 Sipma J, Lens P, Viera A, Miron Y, Van Lier J B et al,
62-65.
Thermophilic sulphate reduction in upflow anaerobic sludge
bed reactors under acidifying conditions, Process Biochem, 22 Sankar Ganesh P, Application of anaerobic fermentation
35 (1999) 509-522. technology for the treatment of liquid and solid biowastes.
6 Manjunath N T, Mehrotra I & Mathur R P, Treatment of M Phil Thesis, Pondicherry University, India, 1999.
wastewater from slaughterhouse by DAF-UASB system, 23 Standard methods for the examination of water and
Water Res, 34 (2000), 1930-1936. wastewaters, 20th edn, edited by M C Rand, A R Greenberg
7 Yu H Q, Fang H H P & Tay J H, Enhanced sludge granulation & M J Taras (American Public Health Association,
in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors by Washington DC) 1998.
aluminium chloride, Chemosphere, 44 (2001) 31-36. 24 Dialallo R & Alberston O E, Estimation of volatile fatty
8 Buzzini A P & Pires E C, Cellulose pulp mill effluent acids by direct titration, J Water Pollut Control Fedrat, 33
treatment in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, (1961) 556.
Process Biochem, 38 (2002) 707-713. 25 Zehnder A J B & Wuhrmann K, Physiology of a
9 Sponza D T, Enhancement of granule formation and sludge Methanobacterium strain AZ, Arch Microbiol, 3 (1977) 199-
retainment for tetrachloroethylene (TCE) removal in an 205.