anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in fixed bed reactors

ORIGINAL PAPER

Anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in fixed bed reactors

Rangaraj Ganesh • Rajagopal Rajinikanth •

Joseph V. Thanikal • Ramamoorty Alwar Ramanujam •

Michel Torrijos

Received: 28 May 2009 / Accepted: 8 October 2009 / Published online: 30 October 2009

� Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract The treatment of winery wastewater in three

upflow anaerobic fixed-bed reactors (S9, S30 and S40)

with low density floating supports of varying size and

specific surface area was investigated. A maximum OLR

of 42 g/l day with 80 ± 0.5% removal efficiency was

attained in S9, which had supports with the highest specific

surface area. It was found that the efficiency of the reactors

increased with decrease in size and increase in specific

surface area of the support media. Total biomass accu-

mulation in the reactors was also found to vary as a

function of specific surface area and size of the support

medium. The Stover–Kincannon kinetic model predicted

satisfactorily the performance of the reactors. The maxi-

mum removal rate constant (Umax) was 161.3, 99.0 and

77.5 g/l day and the saturation value constant (KB) was

162.0, 99.5 and 78.0 g/l day for S9, S30 and S40,

respectively. Due to their higher biomass retention poten-

tial, the supports used in this study offer great promise as

media in anaerobic fixed bed reactors. Anaerobic fixed-bed

reactors with these supports can be applied as high-rate

systems for the treatment of large volumes of wastewaters

typically containing readily biodegradable organics, such

as the winery wastewater.

Keywords Anaerobic fixed bed reactor � Floatingsupports � Specific surface area � Winery wastewater �

Biomass attachment � Kinetic model

Introduction

Anaerobic treatment of industrial wastewater has become a

viable technique thanks to the development of a range of

high-rate reactors based on such technology as anaerobic

filters, UASB, fluidized or expanded beds [1]. High-rate

anaerobic reactors offer the advantage of high-load systems

requiring much less volume and space. Such advantages

are of interest to those industries which produce large

amounts of highly concentrated wastewater, notably the

food, paper, and pulp industries [2]. High-performance

anaerobic treatment in fixed-bed reactors has been applied

very successfully to wastewater from agribusiness indus-

tries that use agricultural products containing typically high

concentrations of organic substrates that are readily

degraded by anaerobic bacteria [3, 4].

Winery wastewater is a classic example of such agri-

based waste. Wine production is one of the foremost agri-

industries in Mediterranean countries, and it has also

acquired importance in a large number of countries in other

parts of the world (e.g. Australia, Chile, United States,

R. Ganesh � R. Rajinikanth � M. Torrijos (&)

Laboratoire de Biotechnologie de l’Environnement, INRA,

UR50, Avenue des Etangs, 11100 Narbonne, France

e-mail: [email protected]

R. Ganesh


R. Ganesh � R. A. Ramanujam

Department of Environmental Technology, Central Leather

Research Institute (CLRI), Chennai 600020, India

R. A. Ramanujam


R. Rajinikanth

Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttaranchal, India


J. V. Thanikal

Department of Civil Engineering,

Kumaraguru College of Technology, Coimbatore 641006, India


123

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628

DOI 10.1007/s00449-009-0387-9

South Africa and China), with increasing impact on the

economy of these countries. The high amount of effluent

produced, along with the seasonal nature of wine produc-

tion, raises specific problems for the treatment process.

These relate to the volume and composition of the waste-

water produced and consequently treatment plants must be

versatile in relation to the loading regime and at the same

time be able to cope with a succession of start-ups and

closedowns, including periods of inactivity [5, 6]. Thus, in

winery wastewater treatment, involving effluent with high

COD but low nitrogen and phosphorus content, anaerobic

digestion offers advantages over aerobic treatment. Win-

eries have seasonal activity producing wastewater mainly

during harvesting and at the time of winemaking. The

wastewater can be treated as it is produced or can be stored

for treatment over several months. Anaerobic digesters

have the advantage of re-starting rapidly after a shutdown

[7].

Several treatment alternatives for winery wastewater

have been proposed by many authors based on both aerobic

and anaerobic processes. Based on aerobic systems are

conventional activated sludge systems [8, 9], SBR systems

[10, 11], jet-loop reactors [6, 12], aerobic biofilm systems

such as RBC [13] and more recently advanced treatment

systems such as moving bed biofilm reactors [14], fixed

bed biofilm reactors (FBBR) [15] and membrane bioreactor

(MBR) systems [16]. Based on anaerobic systems are

anaerobic filters [17], UASB [18, 19], hybrid reactors [20]

and anaerobic SBR [21].

The use of conventional activated sludge systems is

sometimes problematic due to bad settling properties of the

sludge caused by the development of filamentous bacteria

or the formation of dispersed flocs, resulting in an effluent

with a high solids concentration and turbidity [16]. Aerobic

biofilm systems such as FBBR are an alternative to the

conventional activated sludge plants as these systems offer

advantages such as low reactor volume requirements;

reduction of bulking problems; the absence of return flow

and backwashing due to the high void ratio of the filling

media and an easier management with respect to the con-

ventional activated sludge plants [15].

Compared to aerobic processes, anaerobic process do

not require oxygen and therefore are less energy intensive

and sludge production is much less making the process

simpler and cheaper [16, 22].

Anaerobic upflow reactor is a packed-bed reactor where

biomass can be retained or attached to packings. Because

of the retained biomass associated with the packings the

process is stable with respect to high organic loadings,

shock loadings or changes in pH and temperature [23]. The

different types of support material studied in fixed-bed

reactors include Raschig rings, pall rings, string-shaped

plastic media saddles, plastic cylinders, clay blocks [17,

23–26]. The characteristics of the support material used

determine biomass retention and, hence, the efficiency of

the treatment system [25]. The major factors influencing

bacterial attachment include roughness, porosity, surface

area, surface charge, hydrophily, surface energy and

chemical composition. Along with these, many other fea-

tures also influence biomass retention capability: micro-

crystals, macro- and micro-pores, fibers, ridges and degree

of smoothness of the support material [27–30].

The aim of the work presented here was to study the

treatment of winery wastewater using anaerobic fixed-bed

reactors with small floating supports. The influence of the

size and specific surface area of the supports on biomass

retention and reactor performance was investigated.

Kinetic model application was carried out for the predic-

tion of the performance of the reactors.

Materials and methods

Reactor details

Three upflow anaerobic fixed-bed reactors of similar

dimensions (1,000 mm height 9 125 mm diameter) were

used for the study. The reactors were made of Plexiglas

with an effective volume of 10 l. The reactors were

equipped with hot water jackets to maintain a mesophilic

temperature of 35 �C. The feed wastewater was pumped

into the bottom of the reactor by means of a peristaltic

pump. A perforated plate was placed at the bottom to

obtain uniform flow of feed across the reactor. The reactor

liquid was recirculated from the top to the bottom by means

of a recirculation pump at a rate of 10 l/h, with a liquid

upflow velocity between 0.8 and 0.9 m/h throughout the

experiment. Provision was made in the reactor, at the top

and above the support medium level, for collection of

effluent, which passed through a U-tube for separation of

gas. Temperature and pH were measured online with the

help of probes inserted through the top of the reactor. Each

reactor was filled with randomly distributed supports to

80% of reactor volume. The schematic diagram of the

reactor is shown in Fig. 1.

Characteristics of support media

Three small polyethylene floating carriers (S9, S30 and

S40) were used as media for biomass immobilization and

retention. The main characteristics of the supports are

shown in Table 1. The supports were cylindrical in shape

and baffled with compartments. These supports are suitable

thermoplastic materials as biological carriers and are

inexpensive, nontoxic and non-reactive in most biological

applications.

620 Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628

123

Feed characteristics and reactor inoculum

To simulate winery wastewater, diluted wine with a COD

concentration of around 20 g/l was used as feed for the

experiments. The feed was made alkaline with the addition

of NaOH (0.5–1.0 ml 10 N NaOH/l feed), and was sup-

plemented with nutrients corresponding to a COD/N/P ratio

of 400/7/1 [9]. Due to the low nutrient content present in

winery wastewater, the addition of nitrogen and phosphate

sources is recommended for cellular growth in the

biological treatment process [14, 16, 31] to maintain a

minimum COD:Tot N:P ratio of 400:7:1. The main

characteristics of the feed are given in Table 2.

Sludge from a large-scale anaerobic reactor treating

distillery vinasse was used as inoculum for the reactors.

One liter of concentrated sludge with a volatile solids (VS)

content of 40 g/l was used to inoculate each reactor, thus

providing an initial VSS concentration of 4 g/l in the

reactors.

Analytical methods

Effluent samples were analyzed for alkalinity, TSS and

VSS according to the procedures given in Standard

Methods [32]. Total and Soluble COD was measured by

colorimetric method using Hach 0–1,500 mg/l vials.

Volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration was measured

using a gas chromatograph (GC-8000, Fisons instruments)

equipped with a flame ionization detector and an auto-

matic sampler (AS 800, Fisons instruments). The column

used was a semi-capillar Econocap FFAP (Alltech) col-

umn with 15 m length, 0.53 cm diameter and Phase ECTM

1000 film 1.2 lm. The temperature of the spitless injector

was 250 �C, the temperature of the detector was 275 �C.

The temperature increased from 80 to 120 �C in 3 min.

The carrier gas was nitrogen (25 kPa). The volume of

sample injected was 1 ll. The calibration was made from

a mixture of 6 acids (standard solution): acetic (C2),

propionic (C3), butyric (C4), isobutyric (iC4), valeric (C5)

and iso-valeric (iC5) acids at 1 g/l each. The calibration

range was 0.25–1 g/l by dilution of the standard solution.

The internal standard method (1 g of ethyl-2-butyric acid

in 1 l of water acidified with 50 ml of H3PO4) was used to

measure total VFA concentration by mixing 1/1 volume of

the internal standard solution and the sample or the stan-

dard solution. The margin for error of this measurement

was between 2 and 5% with a quantification threshold of

0.1 g/l.

Quantification of attached/entrapped solids

At the end of the experiment, the reactors were emptied to

quantify the amount of volatile solids inside the reactors.

Supports were removed by batches of 1 L (645, 23 and 11

numbers, respectively, for S9, S30 and S40) starting from

the top (near the outlet) to the bottom (above the sludge

bed). To estimate total solids, the supports were placed in

aluminum foil and oven dried for 24 h. To estimate the

volatile solid content, oven-dried solid samples were

scrapped from the supports and ignited at 550 �C for 2 h.

Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the anaerobic fixed bed reactor

Table 1 Characteristics of supports

Media Dimension

(D) 9 H (mm)

Surface

area (m2/m3)

Density

(kg/m3)

S9 9 9 7 800 0.92

S30 30/35 9 29 320 0.94

S40 40/45 9 35 305 0.95

Table 2 Characteristics of feed winery wastewater

Parameter Value

pH 8–11

Total suspended solids (mg/l) 150–200

Volatile suspended solids (mg/l) 100–130

Total COD (mg/l) 18,000–21,000

Soluble COD (mg/l) 17,200–20,000

TOC (mg/l) 4,400–5,140

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng (2010) 33:619–628 621

123

Experimental design

The experimental protocol was designed to examine the

effect of increasing organic loading rates (OLR) on COD

removal efficiency in the three upflow anaerobic fixed-bed

reactors filled with the different polyethylene floating car-

riers, the aim was to attain the maximum loading rate while

maintaining 80% removal efficiency. The influent COD was

maintained constant and OLR was gradually increased over

time by decreasing the hydraulic retention time (HRT).

Results and discussion

Operation of the reactors

The same operational strategy was employed for all the

three reactors and Fig. 2 shows the example of the reactor

filled with S9.

Initially, the reactor with S9 was operated at a low OLR

of around 0.4 g/l day. During the first 2 weeks of operation

at this loading rate, the effluent COD remained quite high,

then decreased gradually from 2.7 to 0.3–0.4 g/l, corre-

sponding to a removal efficiency of 98%. This period of

2 weeks, considered as the acclimation phase, was,

however, quite rapid given the type of wastewater employed

(ethanol, which is readily biodegradable, is the primary

constituent of winery wastewater). The OLR was gradually

increased by 10–20% once a week, provided that COD

removal efficiency remained above 80%. An 80% removal

efficiency was considered as the threshold level, both for

safe operation and from an economical point of view. In

cases where the COD remained high after an OLR increase,

the OLR was temporarily decreased by 10–20% to ensure

lower COD at outlet with corresponding removal efficiency

higher than 80%. The main results for the three reactors with

the different supports are summarized in Table 3.

Biodegradability of winery effluent

Figures 2 and 3 show, respectively, the variations with

OLR for non VFA-COD and VFA-COD in the effluent at

the reactor outlet. At low OLR (below 6 g/l day), the non

VFA-COD at outlet (Fig. 3), which was at fairly constant

and very low values, can be considered as the non-biode-

gradable COD fraction of winery wastewater. The average

non-biodegradable COD in the treated effluent was

320 mg/L. The soluble COD removal rate of 98.4% shows

that winery wastewater is highly biodegradable, with

refractory soluble COD representing less than 1.6% of

Fig. 2 Typical operating

strategy of the reactors, example

of reactor with S9

Table 3 Comparison of reactor performance with the different supports used

Parameters S9 S30 S40

Maximum OLR attained, g COD/l day (for 80% COD removal efficiency) 42 27 22

Total reactor volatile solids, g 354 291 225

Attached/entrapped volatile solids, g 302 225 162

Suspended volatile solids, g 52 66 63

Specific biomass activity, g COD/g VSS day 1.19 0.93 0.98

Biomass yield, g VSS/g CODdes 0.056 0.053 0.060

Maximum removal rate constant (Umax), g COD/l day 161.3 99.0 77.5

Saturation value constant (KB), g COD/l day 162.0 99.5 78.0


123

initial soluble COD. The residual COD concentrations

measured were close to those reported earlier [10, 21, 33].

Between 6 and 15 g/l day, non-VFA-COD increased

very little (Fig. 3) and any increase in COD at outlet was

mainly linked to VFA accumulation (Fig. 4). For OLR

above 15 g/l day, VFA was always in the range of 2–3 g

COD/l and increase in COD at outlet were mainly linked to

a gradual increase in the non VFA-COD, indicating the

presence of other anaerobic intermediates or of non-acidi-

fied organic matter. This shows that above 15 g/l day, the

acidification of the organic matter started to deteriorate and

this phenomenon was more pronounced when the size of

the support was bigger.

Acetic acid was the major VFA component in all the

reactors but there was a slight build-up in propionic,

butyric and valeric acid concentrations as the OLR

increased. The acetic acid concentration in S9, S30 and

S40, corresponding to the maximum OLR of 42, 27 and

22 g/l day, were 1.67, 1.42 and 1.04 g/l, respectively.

Propionic, butyric and valeric acid concentrations remained

less than 0.5 g/l at these OLRs.

Reactor performance

Figure 5, which presents the changes in COD removal

efficiency related to the OLR, gives an overview of the

behavior of the three reactors.

The maximum OLRs attained while maintaining above

80% removal efficiency were 42, 27 and 22 g/l day for S9,

S30 and S40, respectively.

Furthermore, Fig. 5 indicates that, for a given loading

rate, removal efficiency was always higher and, thus, sol-

uble COD at outlet always lower for reactor S9 compared

to S30 and, similarly, for reactors S9 and S30 compared to

S40. These results show that quite a high OLR could be

applied to the reactors filled with the floating supports and

that the reactor with S9 performed better than that with S30

which was, in turn, better than the reactor with S40. This

Fig. 3 Variation of Non VFA-

COD at outlet with OLR

Fig. 4 Variation of VFA-COD

at outlet with OLR


123

indicates that the performance of reactor was enhanced by

a decrease in size and an increase in the specific surface

area of the supports used.

Table 4 shows a general comparison of the perfor-

mances of the anaerobic fixed-bed reactors used in this

study with various other reactor configurations used for the

treatment of winery wastewater. These configurations

studied were anaerobic filters [17], UASB [18, 19], a

hybrid system consisting of a UASB and an anaerobic filter

[20] and an anaerobic SBR [21]. It can be seen that

anaerobic fixed-bed reactors offer enhanced performance

in the treatment of winery wastewater in terms of high

OLR and COD removal efficiency. String-shaped plastic

media were used by Yu et al. [17] for biomass immobili-

zation in an anaerobic filter reactor and the results reported

were similar to those in the present study, with a maximum

loading rate of 37.7 kg/m3 day with 82% COD removal

efficiency. The performances of the other reactor configu-

rations were much lower. Andreottola et al. [20] used a

PVC-type filling material (Flocor R) with a specific surface

area of 230 m2/m3 in the hybrid system (a single reactor

with a combination of UASB and anaerobic filter). The

average COD loading rate attained was 10 kg/m3 day, with

93% COD removal. The comparison of the results of this

study with the data from the literature clearly shows that

the supports have high capability of biomass retention

which facilitated the operation of the reactors at high

OLRs. Higher OLR implies that for a constant volume of

effluent to be treated, the reactor volume required is sig-

nificantly reduced thus contributing to substantial savings

in land area and economics.

Comparison with aerobic treatment systems

A general comparison of the performance of different aer-

obic systems for the treatment of winery wastewater is

shown in Table 5. For the conventional activated sludge

systems [8, 9] and SBR systems [10] operated with an OLR

less than 1 kg COD/m3 day, COD removal efficiency of

above 90% was achieved. Recently several advanced aer-

obic treatment systems were developed such as jet-loop

reactors [12], moving bed biofilm reactors [14], FBBR [15]

and MBR systems [16]. These systems are also capable of

achieving COD removal efficiency above 90%, but at

Fig. 5 Soluble COD removal

efficiency with respect to OLR

Table 4 Different anaerobic reactor configurations studied for winery wastewater

References Reactor type Media OLR (kg/m3 day) % COD removal

This study Anaerobic fixed bed S9 42 80 ± 0.5



Yu et al. [17] Anaerobic filter String shaped plastic media 37.7 82

Muller [18] UASB Activated microbial pellets 10 84.4

Keyser et al. [19] UASB Granular sludge 5.1 86

Granular sludge ? Enterobacter 6.3 90

Andreottola et al. [20] Anaerobic hybrid (UASB ? filter) Flocor R 10 93

Ruiz et al. [21] Anaerobic SBR Anaerobic sludge 8.6 98


123

relatively higher loading rates. Anaerobic fixed bed reactor

with the floating supports used in the present study allows

operation at high OLRs (22–42 kg COD/m3 day) with a

removal efficiency of 80%, thus contributing to lower

reactor volume and land area requirements. Anaerobic fixed

bed reactors are advantageous than conventional aerobic

systems as they are less energy intensive and produces less

excess sludge. However, an aerobic post-treatment is

required to make the effluent fit for final disposal.

Suspended solids at outlet

Effluent total suspended solids (TSS) fluctuated with

changes in the OLR and ranged between 600 and

1,700 mg/l, though no significant difference between the

reactors was recorded. The average effluent TSS for the

entire study period was 839 ± 425 mg/l for S9, 859 ± 337

for S30 and 958 ± 438 for S40, respectively.

Quantification of suspended and attached/entrapped

solids

At the end of the experiment, the supports were removed

from the reactors in batches of 1 L and the volatile solid

concentration was measured in the sludge bed and in each

of the 1 L support fraction.

The supports used were able to retain a considerable

quantity of solids. The average attached/entrapped volatile

solids per support were 0.052 ± 0.024, 1.09 ± 0.28 and

1.65 ± 0.33 g VS/support for S9, S30 and S40,

respectively. Table 3 shows that the total quantity of

attached/entrapped solids in the reactors was, in decreasing

order, S9[S30[ S40 (301, 225 and 162 g, respectively)

which indicates that biomass attachment increased with a

decrease in the size of the supports coupled with an increase

in the specific surface area. The quantity of volatile solids in

suspension in the liquid phase (Table 3) was fairly similar

in the three reactors (52–66 g of VS) and represented,

respectively, for S9, S30 and S40, 15, 23 and 28% of total

VS in the reactors. Finally, thanks to the supports, the total

quantity of volatile solids retained in each reactor increased

significantly in comparison to conventional CSTRs: values

for the 10 l reactors S9, S30 and S40 were, respectively,

355, 290 and 225 g of volatile solids.

The specific mass loading rates or specific biomass

activity, that is to say the organic load in terms of g COD/day

divided by the quantity of volatile solids in the reactor, were,

for S9, S30 and S40, respectively, 1.19, 0.93 and 0.98 g

COD/g VSS day. This specific activity is close to 0.90 g

COD/g VSS day reported byMosquera-Corral et al. [34] for

the anaerobic flocculent sludge used in their study. These

values are quite high as a specific load between 1 and 1.5 g

COD/g VSS day is generally considered to be the upper

limit for the stable operation of an anaerobic reactor [2].

The VS yields for the three reactors were quite close

with 0.056, 0.053 and 0.060 g VS/g COD destroyed, for

S9, S30 and S40, respectively. The VS yield value obtained

is in good agreement with those of Borja et al. [35] and

Tatara et al. [36] where values reported by the authors were

0.06 and 0.0585 g VS/g COD removed, respectively.

Table 5 Comparison with aerobic reactor configurations studied for the treatment of winery wastewater

References Reactor type OLR,

kg COD/m3 day

% COD

removal

Salient features

Fumi et al. [8] Long term-activated

sludge

0.14–0.4

kg BOD/m3 day

98 Efficient than conventional activated sludge process

Very high retention time required

Brucculeri et al. [9] Activated sludge 0.8 90 High solids retention time (48 days) resulted

in low excess sludge production

Torrijos and Moletta. [10] Aerobic SBR 0.7 93 Highly flexible to seasonal loads

Suitable for small wineries

Petruccioli et al. [12] Jet-loop activated sludge 5.9 90 Sludge settling problems

Petruccioli et al. [12] High rate aerobic 8.8 92.2 Reduction in reactor space requirement

Andreottola et al. [14] Aerobic sequencing

batch biofilm

8.8 86–99 High organic load removal

Online control of biodegradation process possible

No sludge recycle required

Andreottola et al. [15] Aerobic fixed bed biofilm

(two-stage)

1.57 91 Simple management, good settling sludge without

bulking problems, no backwashing required.

Rapid start-up of reactor requires previously

colonized filling media.

Artiga et al. [16] Membrane bioreactor

(MBR)

2.2 97 Flexible and stable to high seasonal loads

Problems with membrane modules lifetime

and maintenance


123

The higher OLR of 42 g/l day attained in S9 can thus be

attributed to the greater volatile solids present in the reactor

as well as to its higher biomass activity. In all three reactors,

attached volatile solids were distributed almost identically

throughout the reactor height. Indeed, the average volatile

solids were 43.2 ± 2.3, 26.4 ± 4.9, and 21.8 ± 1.2 g VS/l,

indicating that there was no solids gradient.

Photographs of the biocovered supports at the end of the

experiments are shown in Fig. 6. Two to three biocovered

supports were subjected to a normal tap water pressure jet

to evaluate the level of fixation of solids on the supports. It

was found that most of the solids were easily removed and

very little remained attached to the surface of the supports.

Thus, it was found that solids retention in all the three types

of support was based on entrapment rather than on actual

biofilm formation. Similar observations were made by

Henze and Harremoes [24], Weiland [3] and Alkalay et al.

[29] using other supports. They concluded that biofilm

thickness is of limited significance in fixed-bed reactors

since it makes up only a small part of the total percentage

of biomass whereas the biomass suspended/entrapped in

the gaps is of major importance: biomass builds up as

particles suspended in the spaces, forming the largest part

and thus contributing considerably to overall activity.

Kinetic model application

The most widely-used kinetic models for anaerobic filters

include the Monod model [37] and the Stover–Kincannon

model [38]. The major difference between these two

models is the use of the total loading rate concept in the

Stover–Kincannon model [39]. In the present study, the

Stover–Kincannon model was applied to the reactors for

the evaluation of kinetic constants and for predicting the

performance of the reactors.

In the modified Stover–Kincannon model, the substrate

utilization rate is expressed as a function of the OLR by

monomolecular kinetics, as follows:

dS=dtð Þ�1¼ V=Q Si � Seð Þ ¼ KBV=UmaxQ Sið Þ þ 1=Umaxð Þ

ð1Þ

where dS/dt, substrate removal rate (g/l day); Umax, maxi-

mum utilization rate constant (g/l day); KB, saturation

value constant (g/l day); V, volume of the reactor; Q, flow

rate (l/d); Si, influent substrate concentration (g/l); and Se,

effluent substrate concentration(g/l).

The plot between the inverse of the OLR V/(Q Si) and

the inverse of the organic removal rate V/[Q(Si - Se)]

yields a straight line, with 1/Umax as the intercept and

Fig. 6 Photographs of the biocovered supports (S9, S30, S40)

Fig. 7 Stover–Kincannon

model application to the

reactors


123

KB/Umax as the slope (Fig. 7). For S9, S30 and S40,

respectively, the maximum removal rate constant (Umax)

was 161.3, 99.0 and 77.5 g/l day and the saturation value

constant (KB) 162.0, 99.5 and 78.0 g/l day (Table 3).

The modified Stover–Kincannon model was applied to

fixed-bed reactors treating different substrates. For exam-

ple, the values of Umax and KB, respectively, were: for

soybean wastewater, 83.3 and 85.5 g/l day [39]; for syn-

thetic wastewater, 83.3 and 186.23 g/l day [40]; and for

textile wastewater 31.69 and 45.37 g/l day [41].

The Eq. 2 shown below, which is the reorganized form

of Eq. 1 together with the values of Umax and KB obtained

from Fig. 7, is used to predict the effluent substrate

concentration.

Se ¼ Si � UmaxSi½ = KB þ Q Si=Vð Þð � ð2Þ

Fig. 8 shows the experimental Se values and the predicted

values using Eq. 2 for the three reactors. The high corre-

lation coefficient of 0.99 obtained indicates that the mod-

ified Stover–Kincannon model can be satisfactorily used

for the design of anaerobic fixed-reactors treating winery

wastewaters.

Conclusion

In this study, the potential for the use of upflow anaerobic

fixed-bed reactors with low-density floating carriers as

media for the treatment of winery wastewater was inves-

tigated and the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Anaerobic fixed-bed reactors with small floating

supports offer great promise as high-rate systems for

the treatment of high COD wastewater which typically

contains readily biodegradable organics, such as

winery wastewater. A maximum OLR of 42 g/l day

at 80% removal efficiency was attained in the reactor

with the supports of smallest size and highest specific

surface area.

2. Volatile solid retention, specific biomass activity and

the maximum OLR were found to increase as support

size decreased and its specific surface area increased.

3. The supports favored solids entrapment with very little

or no biofilm formation.

4. Kinetic models were applied to the reactors to evaluate

removal rate constants. The modified Stover–Kincan-

non model gave accurate predictions about reactor

performance and thus should be of effective use when

applied to the design of anaerobic fixed-bed reactors

treating winery wastewater.

5. Due to their higher biomass retention potential, the

supports used in this study offer great promise as

media in anaerobic fixed bed reactors. Anaerobic

fixed-bed reactors with these supports can be applied

as high-rate systems for the treatment of large volumes

of wastewaters typically containing readily biodegrad-

able organics, such as the winery wastewater.

6. Anaerobic fixed bed reactor with the floating supports

used in the present study allows operation at high OLRs

(22–42 kg COD/m3 day) with a removal efficiency of

80%, thus contributing to lower reactor volume and

land area requirements. Anaerobic fixed bed reactors

are advantageous than conventional aerobic systems as

they are less energy intensive and produces less excess

sludge. However, an aerobic post-treatment is required

to make the effluent fit for final disposal.

Acknowledgments The authors wish to express their gratitude to

the French Embassy in India for funding and supporting the program.

Fig. 8 Experimental and

predicted effluent COD for the

reactors


123

References

1. Perez M, Romero LI, Sales D (1999) Anaerobic thermophilic

fluidized bed treatment of industrial wastewater: effect of F:M

relationship. Chemosphere 38:3443–3461

2. Jordening HJ, Buchholz K (2005) High-rate anaerobic waste

water treatment. In: Jordening HJ, Winter J (eds) Environmental

Biotechnology: concepts and applications. Wiley-VCH Verlag

GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

3. Weiland P, Wulfert K (1986) Anaerobic treatment of stillage

using different pilot scale fixed bed reactors. Biotechnol Bioeng

27:800–809

4. Di Berardino S, Bersi R, Converti A, Rovatti M (1997) Starting-

up an anaerobic hybrid filter for the fermentation of wastewater

from food industry. Bioprocess Eng 16:65–70

5. Sales D, Valcarcel MJ, Perez L, Martinez de la Ossa E (1987)

Activated sludge treatment of wine-distillery wastewaters.

J Chem Tech Biotechnol 40:85–99

6. Eusebio A, Petruccioli M, Lageiro M, Federici F, Cardoso Duarte

JC (2004) Microbial characterization of activated sludge in

jet-loop bioreactors treating winery wastewaters. J Ind Microbiol

Biotechnol 31:29–34

7. Moletta R (2005) Winery and distillery wastewater treatment by

anaerobic digestion. Wat Sci Technol 51:137–144

8. Fumi MD, Parodi G, Parodi E, Silva A, Marchetti R (1995)

Optimization of long-term activated sludge treatment of winery

wastewater. Bioresour Technol 52:45–51

9. Brucculeri M, Bolzonella D, Battistoni P, Cecchi F (2005)

Treatment of mixed municipal and winery wastewaters in a

conventional activated sludge process: a case study. Wat Sci

Technol 51:89–98

10. Torrijos M, Moletta R (1997) Winery wastewater depollution by

sequencing batch reactor. Wat Sci Technol 35:249–257

11. Houbron E, Torrijos M, Moletta R (1998) Application du procede

SBR aux effluentes viticoles: resultats de trois anne‘e de suivi. In:

Proceedings 2nd congress international sur le traitment des

effluents vinicoles, Bordeaux, 5–7 May

12. Petruccioli M, Cardoso J, Eusebio A, Federici F (2002) Aerobic

treatment of winery wastewater using a jet-loop activated sludge

reactor. Process Biochem 37:821–829

13. Malandra L, Wolfaardt G, Zietsman A, Viljoen-Bloom M (2003)

Microbiology of a biological contactor for winery wastewater

treatment. Wat Res 37:4125–4134

14. Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M, Villa R (2002) Treatment

of winery wastewater in a sequencing batch biofilm reactor. Wat

Sci Technol 45:347–354

15. Andreottola G, Foladori P, Nardelli P, Denicolo A (2005)

Treatment of winery wastewater in a full scale fixed bed biofilm

reactor. Wat Sci Technol 51:71–79

16. Artiga P, Carballa M, Garrido JM, Mendez R (2007) Treatment

of winery wastewaters in a membrane submerged bioreactor. Wat

Sci Technol 56:63–69

17. Yu HQ, Zhao QB, Tang Y (2006) Anaerobic treatment of winery

wastewater using laboratory-scale multi- and single-fed filters at

ambient temperatures. Process Biochem 41:2477–2481

18. Muller D (1998) Treatment of winery wastewater using UASB

approaches: capability and efficiency. In: Proceedings of the

second international conference on wineries wastewater treat-

ment, Bordeaux France

19. Keyser M, Witthuhn RC, Ronquest LC, Britz TJ (2003) Treat-

ment of winery effluent with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket

(UASB)–granular sludges enriched with Enterobacter sakazakii.

Biotechnol Lett 25:1893–1898

20. Andreottola G, Nardelli P, Nardin F (1998) Demonstration plant

experience of winery anaerobic treatment in a hybrid reactor. In:

Proceedings of the Second International conference on wineries

wastewater treatment, Bordeaux, France

21. Ruiz C, Torrijos M, Sousbie P, Lebrato-Martinez J, Moletta R,

Delgenes JP (2002) Treatment of winery wastewater by anaerobic

sequencing batch reactor. Wat Sci Technol 45:219–224

22. Rajeshwari KV, BalakrishnanM,Kansal A, Lata K, Kishores VVN

(2000) State of the art of anaerobic digestion technology for

industrial wastewater treatment. Renew Sust Energ Rev 4:135–156

23. Choi YS, Shin EB, Chang HN, Chung HK (1989) Start-up and

operation of anaerobic biofilters with packing alternatives. Bio-

process Eng 4:275–281

24. Henze M, Harremoes P (1983) Anaerobic treatment of waste-

water in fixed film reactors: a literature review. Wat Sci Technol

15:1–101

25. Young JC, Dahab MF (1983) Effect of media design n the per-

formance of fixed-bed reactors. Wat Sci Technol 15:369–383

26. Farhadian M, Borghei M, Umrania VU (2007) Treatment of beet

sugar wastewater by UAFB bioprocess. Biores Technol 98:3080–

3083

27. Harendranath CS, Anuja K, Singh A, Gunaseelan A, Satish K,

Lala K (1996) Immobilization in fixed film reactors: an ultra-

structural approach. Wat Sci Technol 33:7–15

28. Bouallagui H, Touhami Y, Ben Cheikh R, Hamdi M (2005)

Bioreactor performance in anaerobic digestion of fruit and veg-

etable wastes. Process Biochem 40:989–995

29. Alkalay D, Guerrero L, Chamy R, Schiappacasse M (1997)

Microbial adherence studies for anaerobic filters. Bioprocess Eng

16:311–314

30. Agamuthu P (1999) Specific biogas production and role of

packing medium in the treatment of rubber thread manufacturing

industry wastewater. Bioprocess Eng 21:151–155

31. Kalyuzhnyi S, Gladchenko M, Sklyar V, Kizimenko Y,

Shcherbakov S (2001) One and two stage upflow anaerobic

sludge bed reactor pre-treatment of winery wastewater. Appl

Biochem Biotechnol 90:107–123

32. APHA, AWWA, WEF (1995) Standard methods for the exami-

nation of water and wastewater, 19th edn. American Public

Health Association, Washington, DC

33. Canler JP, Alary G, Perret JM, Racault Y (1998) Aerobic biological

treatment ofwinery effluentusing tanks in series. In: 2nd international

specialized conference on winery wastewater. Bordeaux, France

34. Mosquera-Corral A, Belmar A, Decap J, Sossa K, Urrutia H,

Vidal G (2008) Anaerobic treatment of low-strength synthetic

TCF effluents and biomass adhesion in fixed-bed systems. Bio-

process Biosyst Eng 31:535–540

35. Borja R, Sanchez E, Martin A, Jimenez AM (1996) Kinetic

behaviour of waste tyre rubber as microorganism support in an

anaerobic digester treating cane molasses distillery slops. Bio-

process Eng 16:17–23

36. Tatara M, Yamazawa A, Ueno Y, Fukui H, Goto M, Sode K

(2005) High-rate thermophilic methane fermentation on short-

chain fatty acids in a down-flow anaerobic packed-bed reactor.

Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 27:105–113

37. Williamson K, McCarty PL (1976) A model of substrate utili-

zation by bacterial films. J Wat Poll Cont Fed 48:9–16

38. Stover EL, Kincannon DF (1982) Rotating biological contactor

scale-up and design. In: Proceedings of the first conference on

fixed-film biological processes. Kings Island, OH

39. Yu HQ, Wilson F, Tay JH (1998) Kinetic analysis of anaerobic

filter treating soybean waste. Wat Res 32:3341–3352

40. Buyukkamaci N, Filibeli A (2002) Determination of kinetic con-

stants of an anaerobic hybrid reactor. Process Biochem 38:73–79

41. Sandhya S, Swaminathan K (2006) Kinetic analysis of treatment

of textile wastewater in hybrid column upflow anaerobic fixed

bed reactor. Chem Eng J 122:87–92


123

anaerobic treatment of winery wastewater in fixed bed reactors

Documents