Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01662-y

REVIEW ARTICLE

Advancement in biological wastewater treatment using hybrid

moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR): a review
Sangeeta Madan1 · Richa Madan1 · Athar Hussain2

Received: 19 July 2021 / Accepted: 25 March 2022 / Published online: 22 April 2022
© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Last two decades have brought commendable respect for biofilm processes in wastewater treatment. Preeminent components
from both the biofilter processes and activated sludge are utilized in evolving the moving bed process which eliminates
major pollutants, organic matter and nutrients from municipal as well as industrial wastewater. The present review work is
an endeavor to focus on the moving bed biofilm process for wastewater treatment applied in different aspects. An overview of
MBBR development along with the factors affecting the operational performance of the system is discussed. It also analyses
and investigates the state of the art of MBBR process for organic matter and nutrient removal. The review further assesses
the MBBR technology as a hybrid system with current findings. Furthermore, the scope for future research prospects and
challenges of the moving bed process has been discussed.

Keywords Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) · Wastewater treatment · Biofilm · Biocarrier

Need for a hybrid system ones were realized. Hence, low-cost innovative technologies
such as the addition of freely floating plastic media in the
The conventional systems for wastewater treatment prior to activated sludge for higher biomass concentration appeared.
the development of moving bed biofilm reactors were trick- The main drivers behind the development of a system with
ling filters, rotating biological reactors, fixed-film reactors, free moving biofilm carriers were upgradation of existing
aerated submerged reactors, and membrane bioreactors wastewater treatment facilities and an increase in volume
(Rittmann 1982). These systems portray several demerits treatment capacity. Hence, an alternative of free-moving bio-
like large area requirement, mechanical failure and mainte- carriers was proposed to overcome the problems of other
nance in case of rotating biological reactor; high capital and biofilm systems. The hybrid systems such as the LINPOR
operational cost and malodor problem in trickling filters. process and the moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) were
Submerged reactors often face the issue of hydraulic insta- developed in the late 80 s and early 90 s (Morper 1994;
bility and fixed film faces the problem of uneven distribution Gilligan and Morper 1999; Odegaard et al. 1994; Odegaard
of biofilm and clogging of the biofilm growth media (Ode- et al. 1999; Bassin and Dezotti 2018). The objective of con-
gaard 2006). Biofilm treatment systems already in opera- tinuously operating system without clogged media, a high
tion faced some operational difficulties such as improper specific biofilm area, and a low head loss led to the develop-
development of biofilm and reduced transfer of mass lead- ment of MBBR system (Odegaard et al. 1994).
ing to system inefficiency. Also, due to stringent discharge
standards and pressure on the existing wastewater treatment
plants, new technologies and modifications to the existing Overview of MBBR process

* Richa Madan In the late 80 s, a Norwegian corporation AnoxKaldnes col-

[email protected] laborated with NTNU–Norwegian University of Science
and Technology, a Water Treatment Research Group and
1
Department of Environmental Science, Gurukula Kangri invented the MBBR process. This new technology got pat-
(Deemed to Be University), Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India
ented and came to be known as Kaldnes Moving Bed™ Bio-
2
Civil Engineering Department, Netaji Subhas University film process (U.S. Patent No. 5,458,779; European Patent
of Technology, West Campus, Jaffarpur, Delhi, India

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
141 Page 2 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

No. 0575314; Odegaard 1999; Rodgers and Zhan 2003). In hassle of removal of excess biomass. Another major benefit
1990 in Lardnal, Norway the first MBBR facility became of using a moving bed biofilm reactor reveals that the vol-
operational (Weiss et al. 2005). The Norwegian Dairies ume of the biofilm media carrier to be used can be assessed
Association carried out some pilot-scale studies and sug- as per the requirement and quantum of treatment. Thus, the
gested this new moving bed biofilm reactor is appropriate- specific biofilm area can be altered accordingly. However,
ness to treat dairy effluents (Rusten et al. 1992). The techno- the criteria for the volume of carriers to be used are recom-
logical advancements and economical design made moving mended to be 67% of the total reactor volume and in any
bed biofilm reactors more attractive and popular. In 2006, case, should not be more than 70%. For instance, the 70%
around 400 real-scale wastewater treatment plants in 22 dif- filling criteria is applied with potential growth area of the
ferent countries using MBBR technology were in operation film of 5­ 00m2/m3 and the specific surface for the biofilm
(Rusten et al. 2006; Kermani et al. 2008; Zafarzadeh et al. growth will be around 3­ 50m2/m3 as biofilm development
2010; Koupaie et al. 2011). In 2007, Veolia acquired the is inside the carrier (Odegaard 2006). The concentration
AnoxKaldnes and continued with the original names for the of biomass in MBBR approximately lies within a range of
developed biocarriers. In 2014, the number of functional 3–4 kg SS/m3 which is analogous to that of activated sludge,
MBBR plants increased to 1200 in around 50 countries (Bis- while the fixed biomass can go up to 10,000–12,000 mg/L.
was et al. 2014). Due to such a high biomass concentration, the volumetric
Moving bed biofilm process happens to be a modified removal rate in a moving bed process is high well enough
version of the combination of a biofilter and the activated as compared to other such systems and therefore considered
sludge process by utilizing the best from both without inte- as a much more feasible process (Odegaard 1999). Figure 1
grating the worst. The biomass is developed on freely mov- shows the working principle of moving bed biofilm reactor
ing carriers called biocarriers placed within the reactor using in aerobic and anoxic processes.
a suitable sieve system at the reactor outlet. The biocarriers The past two decades led to the establishment of MBBR
come in different configurations, the most common being technology which gained recognition due to its simplicity,
small plastic hollow cylinders. The biofilm in the reactor robustness, flexibility, and compactness for the treatment of
develops on these small polyethylene biocarriers having a wastewater (Weiss et al. 2005; Jenkins and Sanders 2012).
high density of 0.95–0.98 g/cm3. In aerobic processes, the The system proves to be a step ahead of the surface aera-
agitation caused during aeration process helps in the move- tion system revealing an enormous potential in reducing the
ment of biofilm carrier while in anoxic and anaerobic pro- contamination and pollution load (Das and Naga 2011). The
cesses the movement of biofilm carrier is carried out by MBBRs establish to be one of the best alternatives and are an
the agitator mechanically as shown in Fig. 1. The MBBR astonishing alternative involved in the treatment of numerous
technology offers some advantages such as; increased volu- types of wastewaters due to the consistency of the system and
metric treatment capacity, less clogging of carrier media ease of operation. Also, advancements in the design and opera-
and a low head loss. The reactor of the moving bed biofilm tion result in decreased footprints, considerably lowering the
system encompasses the full working tank volume, like acti- suspended solids generation, generation of better quality, and
vated sludge, for the development of biomass. In contrast reusable water that ultimately minimizes the disposal of efflu-
to the activated sludge and other biofilm reactors, there is ents. Investigation by various researchers revealed the fact that
no requirement for sludge recycling which saves from the MBBR technology has proved to be successful in treatment

Fig. 1  Working principle of

moving bed biofilm reactor in
aerobic and anoxic process

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141 Page 3 of 13 141

of municipal and industrial wastewater such as pharmaceuti- polysaccharides, nucleic acids, proteins, lipids and some
cal wastewater, pulp and paper, laundry, and dairy wastewa- other biopolymers and humic substances. The formation of
ter (Brinkley et al. 2007; Vaidhegi 2013; Biswas et al. 2014; biofilm on the surface of biocarriers takes place through the
Bering et al. 2018; Singh et al. 2018; Santos et al. 2020). The process of cell attachment and growth leading to a mature
system is also advantageous in aquaculture, denitrification of biofilm (Flemming et al. 2016). The physicochemical char-
drinking water and other surface water operations (Kermani acteristics of the biofilm which incorporate configuration,
et al. 2008; McQuarrie and Boltz 2011). Several investiga- surface charge, settling and dewatering properties, floc-
tions revealed that MBBR proves to be an improved treatment culation, and adsorption ability are profoundly affected by
technology for industrial and municipal wastewater. The the EPS (Flemming and Wingender 2010). The factors that
MBBR system has a removal efficiency of 90% for COD when proselytize the process of formation of biofilm are nutrients,
compared to an activated sludge process for tannery effluent pH, temperature, surface topography, velocity, turbulence,
(Goswami and Mazumdar 2016). When it comes to textile and hydrodynamics.
wastewater, efficiency as high as 98.5% was achieved (Erkan
et al. 2020). Effect of pH, nutrients and temperature
The MBBR has many variants established in different parts
of the world as a result of diverse carriers used for biofilm Biofilm development is at the control of the availability of
development with the same underlying principle. Some of the nutrients and hence it flourishes when nutrient availability
prominent are LINPOR, Captor, PEGASUS, and others. The is high. The bacteria derive nutrients by purging traces of
LINPOR process (Morper 1994; Gilligan and Morper 1999) organic compounds in the form of extracellular polymers
developed in Germany makes use of highly porous plastic and by accumulating biochemical resources through differ-
foam cubes that act as biofilm carriers and occupy 10–30% of ent enzymes for breaking down food. pH fluctuations vastly
the liquid volume. This suspended porous media along with affect the growth of biofilm as it overpowers several mecha-
the freely suspended biomass gives a much higher total bio- nisms and casts detrimental effects on microorganisms (Ells
mass concentration allowing the system to operate at higher and Hansen 2006). During major pH fluctuations, bacteria
loading rates. The LINPOR process can be configured accord- modify protein activity and synthesis related to various cel-
ing to the objective of carbon-ammonia reduction (LINPOR- lular processes. The ideal pH of polysaccharide production
CN) and total nitrogen (LINPOR-N) removal. The suspended differs among a variety of species, but for most bacteria, it
biomass varies from 4000 to 6000 mg/L whereas the fixed is neutral at around 7 (Oliveira et al. 1994). Activities of
biomass can be as high as 12,000–16,000 mg/L. PEGASUS, microbes are extremely receptive to temperature changes.
a Japan registered trademark of Hitachi is an advanced tech- Optimum temperature leads to abundant healthy bacterial
nique favouring nitrification which involves immobilization of population growth whereas a small change could scale back
microorganisms on nitrifying pellets known as Bio-N-cubes the efficiency of bacterial growth (Ells and Hansen 2006).
made of polyethylene glycol. It has a low residence time
of 6–8 h and can be easily applied to the existing tank size Hydrodynamics, turbulence and velocity
(Pegasus, Japan; Benakova et al. 2018).
Regardless of the huge number of MBBR plants world- This parameter governs the bacterial potential to bind to
wide, the literature owing to MBBR, especially on organic a surface. During the colonization process, the surfaces
matter, nutrients removal and MBBR as hybrid systems is ruggedness increases the bacteria's adhesion to substrates,
limited in comparison to other traditional systems (Dezotti with increased surface area for cell immobilization. Addi-
et al. 2018). In times like today, it is the need of the hour to tional factors like hydrophobicity, charge and elasticity also
upgrade the existing treatment plants with stumpy additional impact microbial attachment (Prakash et al. 2003). A bound-
costs to escalate the volumetric treatment capacity burdened ary layer is a film where turbulent flow is not experienced.
due to increasing population. Furthermore, it is crucial to The region outside of this layer has elevated turbulent flow
look for treatments that lessen the burden on the environ- and influences cell attachment to the surface. When exposed
mental resources owing to easy installation and function by to a high turbulence boundary layer reduces in size. The
occupying limited space. structure, formation, EPS production, biofilm’s metabolic
activities, and thickness are greatly influenced by hydrody-
namic conditions (Simoes et al. 2007). In MBBR, the role
Factors affecting formation of biofilm of biofilm is of utmost significance as without a functional
biofilm the system would fail. It has been shown that an
Biofilms are complex heterogeneous microbial aggre- effective thickness of less than 100 µm facilitates substrate
gates interacting in a self-produced system of extracellular diffusion (Dezotti et al. 2011). Moreover, for maximum sub-
polymeric systems. The extracellular framework contains strate diffusion, even thin biofilms are preferred which can

13
141 Page 4 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

be achieved through sufficient turbulence by homogeneous hence K3 media performed the best among the three. Com-
mixing. parison between sponge biocarriers and K5 plastic carrier
at HRT of 6 h revealed that 86.67% and 91.65% ammonia
removal was achieved from aquaculture wastewater (Shitu
Factors affecting MBBR operational et al. 2020). Mazioti et al. 2021 used AnoxKaldnes K3 and
performance Mutag BioChip media in lab-scale aerobic MBBR for saline
bilge water treatment at 40% fill. Here also, K3 media per-
Biofilm carriers formed better with 86% COD removal as compared to Mutag
BioChip with 76% COD removal. Hence it is of utmost
The biofilm carriers act as the soul of the system and the importance to choose a biofilm carrier as it greatly impacts
efficiency of the MBBR systems is primarily dependent on the system’s cost-effectiveness, development of biofilm and
them apart from other parameters. Effective or specific sur- treatment efficiency. It is essential to maintain the requisite
face area is the portion of the biomedia which is inside the biofilm thickness for pollutant removal (Luo 2001; Zhao
biocarrier on which the biofilm grows and directly affects 2019a, b). A superior biocarrier should possess the follow-
the efficiency of the process. The biocarriers to be used can ing qualities; non-biodegradability, insolubility, low density,
be modified according to the process be it aerobic or anoxic/ high mechanical resistance, high effective specific surface
anaerobic which also is a huge and prime advantage of the area with an inert, and non-toxic environment for microbial
MBBR technology. Such as, for rapid growing heterotrophic growth (Chaudhary 2003; Dias et al. 2018).
biofilm in aerobic systems a suitable biocarrier would con- Different types of biocarriers including high-density poly-
tain wider openings to minimize specific surface area loss. ethylene (HDPE), polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE)
Whereas, media with small openings and large effective are available in various shapes and sizes having a density
surface area benefit the slow-growing autotrophic micro- less than water. Of the various brands of media available, the
bial biofilm (nitrification and annamox processes). Odegaard original AnoxKaldnes K1 media is the most dominating for
et al. (2000) in an investigation suggested that the configura- the treatment of various categories of wastewater, while the
tion of the biomedia carrier must also rely on OLR in terms K3 and K5 carriers are more suitable and often preferred for
of g COD/m2.d for organic matter removal. The hydrolysis new systems. However, for slow-growing microorganisms
of particulate and slowly biodegradable organic matter can including nitrifiers and Annamox the patent name biofilm
be affected by long residence time (> 2–3 h) in a bioreactor. Chip M is explicitly considered due to its enormously high-
Also, the settleability of the biomass leaving the bioreactor specific area (Haandel et al. 2012). The plastic carriers used
diminishes with rising organic loading rate. Therefore, the has a long-life span of 10–30 years, while in operation as
high-rate systems should be equipped with enhanced set- the media do not disintegrate and degrade easily and also
tling systems such as coagulation or other separation tech- do not require frequent replacement or replenishment. The
niques to minimize clogging of biomedia (Odegaard 2000; physical properties of numerous biofilm carriers available in
Al-Amshawee and Yunus 2021). Chu and Wang (2011) con- the market and in use have been composed and summarized
ducted an investigation and compared two different biofilm in Table 1.
carriers, polymer polycaprolactone (PCL) and inert polyure-
thane foam (PUF) for organic matter and nitrogen exclusion Filling fraction
from wastewater with low C/N ratio. The outcomes indicated
that TOC and ammonium removal efficiency was 90% and The quantity of biofilm media carriers added to the reac-
65% and observed to be higher in case of using PUF as car- tor is referred to as the filling fraction. One of the main
riers. By using PCL carriers, removal efficiency of TOC and advantages that the MBBR system offers is that the filling
ammonium was 72% and 56% with 14 h HRT. The study fraction can be altered according to the requirements. The
inferred that with biodegradable PCL carriers MBBR was efficacy of MBBR generally relies on the volume percent-
capable of proficiently treating the wastewater with low C/N age filling of the biocarrier which is around 60 to 70% of the
ratio in terms of TN removal. Ashkanani et al. (2019) inves- empty volume of the reactor (Odegaard 1999; Leiknes and
tigated the effect of biocarrier shape and surface area on Ødegaard 2001). However, this high percentage of carrier
ammonia removal from secondary wastewater using MBBR filling is reported to decrease the mixing efficiency in the
with three AnoxKaldnes media (K3 (500 m ­ 2/m3), K5 (800 reactor which might happen due to the constant collision of
­m2/m3) and M (1200 m ­ 2/m3) with 30% media filling capac- carriers. This shearing action prevents significant biofilm
ity. The ammonia removal percentage found at 20 °C was development on the exterior surface of biofilm carriers lead-
87.3%, 71.8% and 47.2% for the biocarrier K3, K5 and M, ing to the importance of the inner specific surface area to
respectively. They concluded that biocarriers with higher be a vital design component (Weiss et al. 2005). However,
specific areas have a higher tendency to become clogged and the biomass growth can be affected by the shape and size

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141 Page 5 of 13 141

Table 1  Physical properties of different biofilm carrier elements

Model Company Material Length (mm) Diameter (mm) Specific References
surface ­(m2
­m−3)

K1 AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 7 9 500 Das and Naga (2011), Aygun et al.
(2008)
K2 AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 15 15 350 Das and Naga (2011)
K3 AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 12 25 500 Das and Naga (2011)
C2 AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 30 36 220 Das and Naga (2011)
M2 AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 50 64 200 Das and Naga (2011)
Biofilm-Chip M AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 22 48 1200 Das and Naga (2011)
Biofilm-Chip P AnoxKaldnes™ (Sweden) HDPE 3.0 45 900 Das and Naga (2011)
FLOCOR-RMP FLOCOR-Henderson PP 10 15 260 Kermani et al. (2008), Das and Naga
Plastics Ltd. (UK) (2011)
FLOCOR RS FLOCOR-Henderson PP 35 ± 3 35 ± 2 ≥ 230 FLOCOR
Plastics Ltd. (UK)
FLOCOR RM FLOCOR-Henderson PP 25 ± 3 20 ± 1 ≥ 400 FLOCOR
Plastics Ltd. (UK)
BioSphere Seimens (USA) PE 5–9 13 800 BioSphere™
BioSphere N Seimens (USA) PE 9 13 800 BioSphere™
Spira 12 Seimens (USA) PE 12 12 650 BioSphere™
Spira 14 Seimens (USA) PE 14 14 600 BioSphere™
Active Cell 450 Hydroxyl systems inc. (USA) HDPE - 22 402 Aqua point
FXP-25/10 Fxsino (China) PE 10 25 600 Fxsino-MBBR carrier
Bio-media Fxsino (China) PE 9 16 > 50 Fxsino-MBBR carrier
BioMini Pack Fxsino (China) PE 10 10 500 Fxsino-MBBR carrier

HDPE, High density polyethylene; PP, polypropylene; PE polyethylene

availability of various types of carrier media that depend on removed at filling ratio of 35%. Zhao et al. 2019a, b stud-
the effective specific surface area per unit reactor volume. ied organic matter and nitrate from municipal wastewater in
Di Trapani et al. (2008) carried out various studies related China at filling ratios of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%. Maxi-
to diverse fill-fractions used for MBBR and depicted that mum COD removal of 55% was achieved at filling ratio of
the COD and TSS removal efficiency of a reactor decreases 50% while nitrate removal of 94% was achieved at both 20%
with respect to adequate fill-fraction. This ultimately results and 50%. Bakar et al. (2020) studied the performance of lab-
in competitiveness between the biomass suspended and scale MBBR for palm oil effluent treatment and used two
attached to the media carrier in the reactor. It was evaluated media, namely black plastic filter and hexafilter with 25%,
that the COD removal efficiency at a fill fraction of 35% 50% and 70% filling fractions. They concluded that both
was higher as compared to 66% of fill-fraction. On the other the media showed 59.4% COD and 94.4% ­NH3-N removal
hand, with a 66% fill fraction, the nitrification efficiency at 50% filling fraction. Hence, it is evitable to determine the
was observed to be higher due to the high amount of slowly objective of MBBR and accordingly adjust the filling ratio
growing nitrifiers preserved in the tank. Gu et al. (2014) as organic matter is removed at a higher filling fraction of
studied the consequences of media filling ratio on MBBR’s 50% and 60% while nutrient removal is more effective at
efficacy in terms of thiocyanate, COD, phenol, and ammonia 30% and 40%.
removal at 20 h HRT from coking wastewater. The experi-
mental investigations were carried out under diverse media Dissolved oxygen
filling ratios variation from 20 to 60%. The highest COD,
phenol and thiocyanate removal efficiency of 89%, 99% and In an examination by Wang et al. (2006) to facilitate viable
99% were obtained at carrier filling ratio of 50%. Pascual COD removal it was recommended that dissolved oxygen
et al. (2016) carried out a pilot-scale study with MBBR- concentration be kept to more than 2 mg/L. It was also
MBR system in Spain to treat urban wastewater. They used reported that as the concentration of DO decreased from 2
K1 AnoxKaldnes media at 20%, 35% and 50% fill with 24 h to 1 mg/L COD removal efficiency in a reactor decreased by
HRT. They reported that 86% COD and 91% ­BOD5 were 13% thus indicating DO to be a limiting factor. Erstwhile,

13
141 Page 6 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

COD removal efficiency increases by 5.8% as DO level in role in developing the biofilm on the solid surface (Donlan
the tank increases from 2 to 6 mg/L. Also, DO diffusion 2002). During the startup of the reactor, the formation of
through the biofilm is presumed to be a rate-determining biofilm is slow, especially with high turbulence which pre-
step for the media during nitrification. It is pertinent to men- vents the biofilm to develop on the media. Hence, inocula-
tion that nitrification is a DO-dependent process. It was put tion of mixed culture of microorganisms from an activated
down that a maximum N-removal efficiency of 89.1% was sludge system is a necessary and crucial step to ensure the
obtained at a DO concentration of 2 mg/L. However, at DO stable performance of the reactor. After some time the bio-
concentrations of ˂1 mg/L, the anoxic conditions in the sys- mass adapts to the conditions of the reactor and the nature
tem ultimately result in the enrichment of ammonia in the of wastewater leading to a uniform growth of biofilm on the
effluent. The oxygen supply is responsible for providing air media (Morgan-Sagastume 2018).
as well as sustaining the carriers in suspension. Hence, the
reactor should be designed in ways that ensure a uniform air
supply that keeps the carriers moving and does not shear off State of the art
the prime biofilm from the media (Bassin and Dezotti 2018).
Organic matter removal
Hydrodynamics and biofilm development
The MBBR technology is excessively used for COD and
The mass transfer of compounds in and out of the biofilm BOD removal with the design of the system depending on
is a rapid process and determines the transfer of solutes the characteristics of wastewater, biodegradability of efflu-
from liquid to the biofilm. In a thick biofilm, the diffusion ent, available surface area for biofilm growth, and prescribed
of compounds from the liquid to the microbial cells is slow effluent discharge standards. Table 2 shows the application
to the interior of the biofilm on the media. Hence, thin of MBBR for different categories of wastewater. Odegaard
and uniformly distributed smooth biofilm is required to be (2006) reported that the total organic loading should not
developed on the carrier media for smooth functioning of surpass 65–85 g ­CODtotal/m2/d or 15–20 g ­BOD5/m2/d for
the system which should be around 100 µm for penetration wastewater comprising of high rate systems.
of substrate to the interior of the biofilm. For such a biofilm, The premier investigations incorporating pilot MBBR
the nature of the carrier media and sufficient turbulence is plants were conducted for dairy wastewater (Rusten et al.
necessary for the maintenance of a thin biofilm and efficient 1992), municipal wastewater (Odegaard et al. 1994), and
performance of the reactor. The turbulence shears off the mill effluent (Broch-Due et al. 1994). Aygun et al. (2008)
excessive biomass from the carrier retaining the adequate in lab-scale study examined the consequences of high OLR
thickness of the biofilm creating space for the growth of new on removal efficiency of COD using MBBR with Kaldnes
cells. Hence, maintaining an appropriate level of turbulence biomedia K1 at filling percentage of 50%. The system was
additionally sustains flow velocity which makes the reac- operated under different OLRs of 6, 12, 24, 48, and 96 g
tor efficient in terms of performance and stability. However, COD/m2d. With increase in OLR from 6 to 96 g COD/m2.d,
too high turbulence causes collision and abrasion of media COD removal efficiency diminished from 95.1 to 45.2%.
and is prohibited as it tends to detach the biomass from the The average biofilm concentration of 3.28 kg TSS/m3 was
carrier media decreasing the system’s performance. So, the observed in the reactor with the highest OLR. However, at
carrier media is supplied with external fins to protect the an influent C­ ODtotal concentration of 500 mg/L, the TSS
established biofilm and to encourage the development of production and total COD removal ratio was found to be
biofilms in the reactor (Leiknes and Odegaard 2001; Bassin 0.12 kg TSS/kg ­CODtotal. Chen et al. (2008) conducted a
and Dezotti 2018). leachate treatment examination using MBBR with sequenc-
Biofilm development may be defined as the difference ing anaerobic–aerobic configuration and investigated the
between attachment and detachment of the total biofilm reactor’s performance for concurrent COD and ammonia
growth in the system. This process of biofilm development removal. The COD removal efficiency of 91% at an OLR
is based on a phenomenon that depends on microorganisms’ of 4.08 kg COD was observed in the anaerobic MBBR.
ability of adsorption and desorption on the solid surface However, with an increase in OLR to 15.70 kg COD/m3d
along with biofilm thickness, attachment and detachment of total COD removal of 86% was reported. The total COD
the biofilm from the biofilm carrier (Characklis 1990). One removal efficiency of the system diminished slightly to 92%
of the most favorable environments for microorganisms to from 94% as OLR was amplified from 4.08 to 15.70 kg
adhere and develop on the carrier media is the solid–liquid COD/m3d concluding that removal efficiency can margin-
interface in between the biofilm and medium. The physico- ally decline with increase in OLR. So, it can be confirmed
chemical characteristics of the water such as temperature, that due to high biomass accumulation in a biofilm process
nutrient concentration, pH, and ions carry out a significant MBBR reactor can be operated under high OLR conditions

13
 Table 2  Application of moving bed biofilm process for different types of wastewaters
S. No Operation type Wastewater type Specific surface area ­(m2/m3) Filling ratio (%) HRT (hours) Organic Performance (% removal) References
load
(kg COD or BOD COD N P
BOD/m3/h)
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

1 Pilot Municipal 160 70 3.3–7.0 76 92 Andreottola et al. (2000)

2 Pilot and full Industrial and municipal 150, 250 30, 50 Variable 62–78 Johnson et al. (2000)
3 Pilot Dairy 160 60 24 5 80 Andreottola et al. (2002)
4 Lab Synthetic phenol 350 70 8–24 90 Borghei and Hosseini (2004)
5 Lab Sewage 320 50 6 Variable 89 91 Wang et al. (2006)
6 Pilot Textile dyeing 20 44 85 Shin et al. (2006)
7 Pilot Primary effluent 15 2.5–4.0 97 90 Rouse et al. (2007)
8 Hybrid Pesticide 20–50 0.125 85 Chen et al. (2007)
9 Lab Landfill leachate 40*, 60** 96 0.17–0.65 92* Chen et al. (2008)
80**
10 Pilot Municipal 190, 330 35, 66 0.05 99 99 Di Trapani et al. (2008)
11 Lab Synthetic 130*, 182**, 136^ 50*, 70**, 50^ 8–48 81 95.8 Kermani et al. (2009)
12 Lab Dairy 530 65 672 0.08–0.80 86 Wang et al. (2009)
13 Pilot Municipal and industrial 190* 35*-330 0.05 85–91 Di Trapani et al. (2010)
14 Lab Domestic 363 70 5–13.3 0.74 92 Tawfik et al. (2010)
15 Pilot Textile dyeing 20 44 86 Park et al. (2010)
16 Bench High temperature industrial 580 50 3.3 95 Shore et al. (2012)
17 Lab and Pilot Municipal 300 60 1–4 0.03–0.145 85 Javid et al. (2013)
18 Lab Coking 20–60 20 89 Gu et al. (2014)
19 Lab Pre-treated textile 40–80 3.0 Variable 81.5 86 Francis and Sosamony (2016)
20 Lab Synthetic 500 20 24 89 Pratiwi et al. (2018)
21 Lab Dairy 30–50 12 89 94 Pal Shailesh et al. (2016)
22 Lab Textile dyeing 590 30 24 1000 82 90 90 Yang et al. (2020)
23 Lab Dairy 93 99 49 Zkeri et al. (2021)

*Anaerobic; **Aerobic; ^Anoxic

13
Page 7 of 13 141
141 Page 8 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

along with ensuring elevated treatment capacity and opera-

tional constancy making MBBR a prospective option for
treatment of high strength wastewater. Javid et al. (2013)
conducted a study by upgrading aerobic pilot-scale MBBR
process with 60% of media filling for municipal wastewa-
ter treatment with a specific biofilm surface area of ­500m2/
m3. Removal efficiency of ­BOD5 and COD was assessed at
different HRT of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, and 4 h. It was reported
that at low HRT values the system produced better qual-
ity effluents with average ­BOD5 removal efficiency of 88%.
Gulhane and Ingale (2016) in a lab scale study used three
different MBBRs with an amalgamation of attached and
attached-suspended growth processes. The maximum BOD,
COD and TS removal efficiency of 86%, 84%, and 83%
were reported at 10 rpm rotational speed while the mini-
mum removal efficiency of COD, BOD, TS was 72%, 75%,
64% at rotational speed of 20 rpm. Pal Shailesh et al. (2016)
conducted a study using MBBR and assessed the BOD and
COD removal from dairy wastewater. The reactor was quite
successful in the removal of 85% of BOD and 55% of COD
with 12 h HRT. The filling ratios for the MBBR tanks in
between 30 to 50% indicated that MBBR with polypropylene
media as biofilm carrier proves as a very successful method
for organic matter removal from dairy wastewater. Pratiwi
et al. (2018) investigated the elimination of COD and azo
dye (Remazol Black 5/RB 5) by MBBR along with ozona-
tion as a pre-treatment process. In MBBR with 1 h detention
time, the efficiency of color removal was 86.74% along with
pre-treatment using ozonation. The color removal efficiency
of 68.6% was achieved without ozone pre-treatment. It was
observed that a higher detention time led to a higher removal
efficiency of COD and color. The optimum COD and color
removal efficiency of 96.9% and 89.13% was achieved in
24-h detention time respectively. Patel et al. (2018) and
di Biase et al. (2019) have given extensive reviews about
the applicability of MBBR for removal of a wide variety
of pollutants from municipal and industrial effluents. Zkeri
et al. (2021) studied methanogenic MBBR combined with
aerobic MBBR for dairy wastewater treatment. The COD
removal efficiency was 93% and TKN removal was 99%.
Thus, the MBBR can be configured as per requirement keep-
ing in view the purpose of wastewater treatment as shown in
Fig. 2. Step 1 can be configured when phosphorus removal is
required with chemical coagulation and flocculation as post
treatment. Whereas Step 2 is for high rate MBBRs. Step 3
is for upgrading the activated sludge plants with MBBR as
pretreatment.

Nutrient removal

Nitrogen can be exceedingly eliminated by nitrification and

denitrification. Denitrification is an anoxic process in which
denitrifying microbes consume biodegradable carbon and Fig. 2  Configurations of Moving Bed Biofilm Process for different applications

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141 Page 9 of 13 141

solubilize nitrates and nitrites to nitrogen gas. Aerobic auto- However, phosphate, ammonical nitrogen and nitrate
trophic bacteria, mainly Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are removal of 75.52%, 97.32% and 97.18% were reported with
responsible for nitrification. Nitrosomonas oxidizes ammo- PUF of 20% volume, respectively. The MBBR with PUF of
nia to nitrite whereas Nitrobacter oxidizes nitrite to nitrate. 30% volume efficiently removed 98.2%, 87.02%, 87.02%, of
Phosphorus and nitrogen both can be readily removed using ammonia nitrogen, nitrate and phosphate, respectively. Rudi
different MBBR configurations as shown in Fig. 2. Removal et al. (2019) studied the microbial process in the biofilm of
of nitrogen can be achieved by different combinations where moving bed reactor for removal of biological phosphorus for
nitrification process can be configured depending on the a year. The average removal efficiency of phosphorus was
pre-treatment used and water characteristics (Step 4). For 94 ± 0.5% and ­CODsoluble was 66 ± 0.07%. It was reported
improved nitrification, MBBR can be placed after a conven- that temperature was the main element affecting the micro-
tional activated sludge (Step 5). This enhances the perfor- bial processes and phosphorus removal. Thus, MBBR con-
mance of the reactor and enables it to meet stricter ammonia figurations are capable of treating industrial and municipal
standards. Activated sludge and MBBR can also be com- wastewater, denitrification for potable water, and can be effi-
bined as shown in Step 6 for decreased retention time. Step ciently applied at secondary or tertiary stages (McQuarrie
5 and 6 both are efficient in the removal of ammonia as well. and Boltz 2011; Dash and Mallikarjuna 2022).
For removal of phosphorus, pre-denitrification is configured
where coagulants are added in the last stage (Step 7). In MBBR as hybrid systems
the post-denitrification process, carbon can be added after
which chemicals are added for phosphorus removal (Step MBBRs not only work exceptionally well as a single unit
8). Another feasible option is pre and post denitrification with pre-treatment but also portray escalating efficiency
which significantly lowers the reactor volume and carbon when combined with other treatment systems. Rusten et al.
requirements (Step 9) (Odegaard 2006). (1997) compared operating conditions of three converted
Zafarzadeh et al. (2010) came out with a study using and two new MBBR plants with chemical precipitation using
MBBR based on anoxic and aerobic reactors for the treat- ­Al3+ as coagulant. For the three converted plants, removal
ment of synthetic wastewater containing glucose and ammo- efficiency of phosphorus was more than 90% and that of
nium filled with 40 and 50% (v/v) with K1 biofilm carri- BOD was 94%. Whereas for the new plants, COD removal
ers, respectively. The aerobic reactor was shown to have a efficiency was 94%, 96% for BOD and 97% for phospho-
high and average typical nitrification rate of 49.4 and 16.6 g rus. They also included the conversion costs to MBBR plant
NOx-N/kg VSS per day. The anoxic reactor has however which was US$ 7,000. This included aeration system, bio-
reported high and average specific denitrification rates of film carriers, sieves etc. However, if the original RBC had
156.8 and 40.1 g NOx-N/kg VSS/day. The findings demon- to be replaced, it would have cost US$ 16,700 proving that
strated that in the aerobic reactor a steady partial nitrifica- MBBR significantly reduces capital and operational costs.
tion with high ratio of 80% to 85% of N ­ O2-N/NOx-N can be Wang et al. (2006) used chemical precipitation and MBBR
achieved during high ammonium concentration and DO con- as a combined system for sewage treatment. The MBBR sys-
centration less than 1.5 mg/L. The average removal efficien- tem was employed for removal of nitrogen with simultane-
cies of ammonia, total nitrogen, and ­CODsoluble were 99.75%, ous nitrification and denitrification (SND). The Iron(II) sul-
98.23%, and 99.4% under optimum conditions respectively. phate heptahydrate solution was added to MBBR at different
Shore et al. (2012) conducted a lab scale study using MBBR ratios of total phosphorus to iron(II). The SND successfully
as a tertiary treatment stage for removal of ammonia in efflu- removed around 89.9% of total nitrogen when DO concen-
ents with 35–45 °C temperature. At these temperature con- tration was 2 mg/L. The TP and TN removal efficiency of
ditions, the reactors effectively removed more than 90% of 90.6% and 89.1% respectively was found thus indicating that
influent ammonia at concentration of 19 mg/L ­NH3–N in a combination of chemical precipitation and MBBR proves
both industrial and synthetic wastewater. However, biodeg- to be a very successful route for comprehensive removal
radation was not observed at 45 °C, even though nitrification of nutrients from wastewater. Shin et al. (2006) carried out
was found to be improved rapidly at 30 °C. Hence, the tem- investigations using MBBR and chemical coagulation as a
perature is a crucial parameter that affects biofilm formation combined process for textile wastewater treatment. The pilot
as microorganisms carry out metabolic activities within a plant system comprising of 3MBBRs including anaerobic,
specific temperature range. Poojashri et al. (2016) in a study aerobic and aerobic connected in sequence and packed with
examined the nutrient removal using polyurethane foam in 20% (v/v) of polyurethane-activated carbon (PU-AC) as a
MBBR from synthetic wastewater. The COD, phosphate, biofilm carrier were used for treatment. The effluent from
ammonia nitrogen, and nitrate removal efficiency of 97.74%, these reactors was treated by using chemical coagulation
94.16%, 95.48%, and 95.23% were observed in MBBR with process with ­FeCl2 as coagulant. MBBR had HRT of 44 h
10% polyurethane foam (PUF) by volume respectively. and 70% of color with 85% of COD removal was observed

13
141 Page 10 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

along with relatively low MLSS concentration. The outlet can be achieved both for municipal and industrial wastewa-
from MBBR was fed to chemical coagulation process with ter at HRT of 2–6 h. The biomass concentration as high as
­FeCl2 as coagulant which eradicated 97% of color with 95% 6900–7200 mg/L adhered on surface of bio-carriers with
of COD. Therefore, MBBR and chemical coagulation as a elevated biofilm activeness insures a higher COD reduction.
combined system also is highly efficient in treating the dye- This steady operation thus conforms the use of MBBR to
ing wastewater. admirable advantages including flexibility, ease in operation,
Tawfik et al. (2010) examined the effectiveness of a lab- smaller carbon footprint and strong resistance against load-
based sewage treatment plant constituting of UASB fol- ing impact. The MBBR technology offers unrivalled effi-
lowed by MBBR at a temperature range of 22–35 °C under ciency in municipal and industrial wastewater treatment with
different HRT conditions of 13.3, 10 and 5.0 h. At 5–10 h smaller carbon footprint. It also proves to be very cost effec-
HRT condition the COD reduction of 80–86% along with tive cutting down capital and operational expenditures while
­CODcolloidal removal of 51–73% and C ­ ODsoluble removal of maintaining superior efficiency. This system can be easily
20–55% was recorded. When HRT was increased from 10 blended with other technologies such as activated sludge,
to 13.3 h, C
­ ODtot, ­CODcolloidal and C
­ ODsoluble removal effi- oxidation ponds and even microbial fuel cells to increase
ciency was found to be 92%, 89% and 80%, respectively. the overall efficiency. MBBR lays down various process
The UASB-MBBR combined system achieved 92% and configurations and options for organic matter and nutrient
99% removal of ­CODtotal and ­BOD7. Goncalves et al. (2019) removal. A further step in taking this technology forward
conducted a study on biodiesel industry effluent treatment would be additional nitrifying, denitrifying and annamox
using MBBR as first stage and advanced oxidation process variations for proficient removal of nitrogen and biological
as the second stage. It was found that MBBR was able to phosphorus. High rate MBBRs with more SRT and low HRT
reduce 69% COD and 68% TOC with enhanced biomass can integrate with IFAS for future applications. More focus
growth conditions. The advanced oxidation process chosen on the research in overcoming the challenges of each can
was Fenton oxidation which was able to further decrease surely make ways for their increased practical application
the impurities. Hybrid MBBR and Fenton oxidation both at pilot scales.
reduced the COD content by 95% removing the toxicity from
the effluent. Wan et al. (2019) conducted a study by integrat-
ing MBBR-MFC technologies for treatment of pulp-paper Author contributions All the authors have contributed equally to the
completion of the manuscript.
effluent and generation of bioelectricity. At a HRT of 72 h,
the maximum power density was 94.5 mW/m2 and COD Funding The author received no specific funding for this work.
removal was 65.6%. Thus, by integrating other technologies
as pre or post treatment, MBBR has shown excellent results Declarations
and can prove itself as a sustainable wastewater treatment
technology. However, this is just the beginning and there Conflicts of interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts
always remains room for more. of interest.

Consent for publication The corresponding author gives consent for

publication.
Conclusion
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
The moving bed biofilm process is robust, compact and bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
self-driven established technology in the area of advanced tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
wastewater treatment. There is successful implementation as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
of MBBRs in treatment of sewage as well as the waste- provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
water emanating from pulp and paper industries, slaugh- included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
ter houses, poultry processing, phenol industries, dairies, otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
pharmaceuticals, refineries and as well as aquaculture the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
and for potable water. The MBBRs can efficiently be used permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
under high volumetric loading conditions ranging from 25 copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
to 30 kg COD/m3d. The advantages of MBBR over other
biofilm systems include its flexibility with respect to reac-
tor shape and choice of carrier filling with minimum spe-
cific surface area of 200–250m2/m3and at carrier filling of
30–70%. The maximum BOD, COD, total phosphorus and
total nitrogen removal efficiency of 97%, 96%, 99% and 99%

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141 Page 11 of 13 141

References Das A, Naga RN (2011) Activated sludge process with MBBR tech-
nology at ETP. Ippta J 23(2):135–137
Dash RR, Mallikarjuna C (2022) Removal of nitrogen and phos-
Al-Amshawee S, Yunus MYBM (2021) Geometry of biofilm carriers: a
phorus from wastewater through the moving bed biofilm reac-
systematic review deciding the best shape and pore size. Groundw
tor. Clean energy and resource recovery. Elsevier, pp 285–300.
Sustain Dev 12:100520
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​B978-0-​323-​90178-9.​00022-6
Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M, Tatàno F (2000) Experimen-
Dezotti M, Lippel G, Bassin JP (2018) Advanced Biological Pro-
tal comparison between MBBR and activated sludge system
cesses for Wastewater Treatment. Springer
for the treatment of municipal wastewater. Water Sci Technol
Dezotti, M, Geraldo L, Bassin, JP (2011) Advanced Biological Pro-
41(4–5):375–382
cesses for Wastewater Treatment
Andreottola G, Foladori P, Ragazzi M, Villa R (2002) Dairy wastewa-
Di Biase A, Kowalski MS, Devlin TR, Oleszkiewicz JA (2019) Moving
ter treatment in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Sci Technol
bed biofilm reactor technology in municipal wastewater treatment:
45(12):321–328
a review. J Environ Manage 247:849–866
Ashkanani A, Almomani F, Khraisheh M, Bhosale R, Tawalbeh M,
Di Trapani D, Mannina G, Torregrossa M, Viviani G (2008) Hybrid
AlJaml K (2019) Bio-carrier and operating temperature effect
moving bed biofilm reactors: a pilot plant experiment. Water Sci
on ammonia removal from secondary wastewater effluents
Technol 57(10):1539–1545
using moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR). Sci Total Environ
Di Trapani D, Mannina G, Torregrossa M, Viviani G (2010) Com-
693:133425
parison between hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor and acti-
Aygun A, Nas B, Berktay A (2008) Influence of high organic loading
vated sludge system: a pilot plant experiment. Water Sci Technol
rates on COD removal and sludge production in moving bed
61(4):891–902
biofilm reactor. Environ Eng Sci 25(9):1311–1316
Dias J, Bellingham M, Hassan J, Barrett M, Stephenson T, Soares A
Bakar SNHA, Hasan HA, Mohammad AW, Abdullah SRS, Ngteni
(2018) Impact of carrier media on oxygen transfer and wastewater
R, Yusof KMM (2020) Performance of a laboratory-scale mov-
hydrodynamics on a moving attached growth system. Chem Eng
ing bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) and its microbial diversity in
J 351:399–408
palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment. Process Saf Environ
Donlan RM (2002) Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect
Prot 142:325–335
Dis 8(9):881
Bassin JP, Dezotti M (2018) Moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR).
Ells TC, Hansen LT (2006) Strain and growth temperature influence
In Advanced biological processes for wastewater treatment,
Listeria spp. attachment to intact and cut cabbage. Int J Food
Springer, Cham pp. 37–74.
Microbiol 111(1):34–42
Benakova A, Johanidesova I, Kelbich P, Pospisil V, Wanner J (2018)
Erkan HS, Çağlak A, Soysaloglu A, Takatas B, Engin GO (2020) Per-
The increase of process stability in removing ammonia nitrogen
formance evaluation of conventional membrane bioreactor and
from wastewater. Water Sci Technol 77(9):2213–2219
moving bed membrane bioreactor for synthetic textile wastewater
Bering S, Mazur J, Tarnowski K, Janus M, Mozia S, Morawski AW
treatment. J Water Process Eng 38:101631
(2018) The application of moving bed bio-reactor (MBBR) in
Flemming HC, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev
commercial laundry wastewater treatment. Sci Total Environ
Microbiol 8(9):623–633
627:1638–1643
Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, Steinberg P, Rice SA, Kjelle-
Biswas K, Taylor MW, Turner SJ (2014) Successional development
berg S (2016) Biofilms: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat
of biofilms in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) systems
Rev Microbiol 14(9):563–575
treating municipal wastewater. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
Francis A, Sosamony KJ (2016) Treatment of pre-treated textile
98(3):1429–1440
wastewater using moving bed bio-film reactor. Procedia Technol
Borghei SM, Hosseini SH (2004) The treatment of phenolic waste-
24:248–255
water using a moving bed biofilm reactor. Process Biochem
Gilligan TP and Morper M (1999) A unique process for upgrading
39(10):1177–1181
conventional activated sludge systems for nitrogen removal. In:
Brinkley J, Johnson CH, Souza R (2007) Moving bed biofilm reac-
Paper presented at NE WEA
tor technology—a full scale installation for treatment of phar-
Goswami S, Mazumder D (2016) Comparative study between activated
maceutical wastewater, North Carolina American water works
sludge process (ASP) and moving bed bioreactor (MBBR) for
association-water environment federation (NC AWWA-WEA).
treating composite chrome tannery wastewater. Mater Today Proc
In: Annual Conference Technical Program
3(10):3337–3342
Broch-Due A, Andersen R, Kristoffersen O (1994) Pilot plant experi-
Gu Q, Sun T, Wu G, Li M, Qiu W (2014) Influence of carrier filling
ence with an aerobic moving bed biofilm reactor for treatment of
ratio on the performance of moving bed biofilm reactor in treating
NSSC wastewater. Water Sci Technol 29(5–6):283–294
coking wastewater. Biores Technol 166:72–78
Characklis WG (1990). Biofilm processes. Biofilms. 195–231
Gulhane M, Ingale A (2016) Moving bed biofilm reactor: a best option
Chaudhary DS, Vigneswaran S, Ngo HH, Shim WG, Moon H (2003)
for wastewater treatment. Int J Sci Res 3(1):1094–1096
Biofilter in water and wastewater treatment. Korean J Chem Eng
Javid AH, Hassani AH, Ghanbari B, Yaghmaeian K (2013) Feasibil-
20(6):1054–1065
ity of utilizing moving bed biofilm reactor to upgrade and ret-
Chen S, Sun D, Chung JS (2007) Treatment of pesticide wastewater
rofit municipal wastewater treatment plants. Int J Environ Res
by moving-bed biofilm reactor combined with Fenton-coagula-
7(4):963–972
tion pretreatment. J Hazard Mater 144(1–2):577–584
Jenkins AM, Sanders D (2012) Introduction to fixed-film bio-reactors
Chen S, Sun D, Chung JS (2008) Simultaneous removal of COD
for decentralized wastewater treatment. Contech, Engineered
and ammonium from landfill leachate using an anaerobic–
Solutions
aerobic moving-bed biofilm reactor system. Waste Manage
Johnson CH, Page MW, Blaha L (2000) Full scale moving bed biofilm
28(2):339–346
reactor results from refinery and slaughter house treatment facili-
Chu L, Wang J (2011) Comparison of polyurethane foam and bio-
ties. Water Sci Technol 41(4–5):401–407
degradable polymer as carriers in moving bed biofilm reactor
Kermani M, Bina B, Movahedian H, Amin MM, Nikaein M (2008)
for treating wastewater with a low C/N ratio. Chemosphere
Application of moving bed biofilm process for biological organics
83(1):63–68

13
141 Page 12 of 13 Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141

and nutrients removal from municipal wastewater. Am J Environ Prakash B, Veeregowda BM, Krishnappa G (2003) Biofilms: a survival
Sci 4(6):675 strategy of bacteria. Curr Sci 10:1299–307
Kermani M, Bina B, Movahedian H, Amin MM, Nikaeen M (2009) Pratiwi R, Notodarmojo S, Helmy Q (2018) Decolourization of rema-
Biological phosphorus and nitrogen removal from wastewater zol black-5 textile dyes using moving bed bio-film reactor. IOP
using moving bed biofilm process. Iran J Biotechnol 7(1):19–27 Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 106:012089. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​
Koupaie E, Alavimoghadam M (2011) Comparison of overall perfor- 1755-​1315/​106/1/​012089
mance between “Moving-bed” and “Conventional” sequencing Rittmann BE (1982) Comparative performance of biofilm reactor types.
batch reactor. J Environ Health Sci Eng 8(3):235–244 Biotechnol Bioeng 24(6):1341–1370
Leiknes T, Degaard H (2001) Moving bed biofilm membrane reac- Rodgers M, Zhan XM (2003) Moving-medium biofilm reactors. Rev
tor (MBB-MR): characteristics and potentials of a hybrid process Environ Sci Biotechnol 2(2):213–224
design for compact wastewater treatment plants. In: Proceedings Rouse JD, Burica O, Stražar M, Levstek M (2007) A pilot-plant study
of engineering with membranes pp. 52–57 of a moving-bed biofilm reactor system using PVA gel as a bio-
Luo J (2001) A pilot-scale study on biofilters for controlling animal carrier for removals of organic carbon and nitrogen. Water Sci
rendering process odours. Water Sci Technol 44(9):277–285 Technol 55(8–9):135–141
Martín-Pascual J, Leyva-Díaz JC, Poyatos JM (2016) Treatment of Rudi K, Goa IA, Saltnes T, Sørensen G, Angell IL, Eikås S (2019)
urban wastewater with pure moving bed membrane bioreactor Microbial ecological processes in MBBR biofilms for biologi-
technology at different filling ratios, hydraulic retention times and cal phosphorus removal from wastewater. Water Sci Technol
temperatures. Ann Microbiol 66(2):607–613 79(8):1467–1473
Mazioti AA, Koutsokeras LE, Constantinides G, Vyrides I (2021) Rusten B, Ødegaard H, Lundar A (1992) Treatment of dairy waste-
Untapped potential of moving bed biofilm reactors with different water in a novel moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Sci Technol
biocarrier types for bilge water treatment: a laboratory-scale study. 26(3–4):703–711
Water 13(13):1810. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​w1313​1810 Rusten B, Kolkinn O, Odegaard H (1997) Moving bed biofilm reactors
McQuarrie JP, Boltz JP (2011) Moving bed biofilm reactor technology: and chemical precipitation for high efficiency treatment of waste-
process applications, design, and performance. Water Environ Res water from small communities. Water Sci Technol 35(6):71–79
83(6):560–575 Rusten B, Eikebrokk B, Ulgenes Y, Lygren E (2006) Design and opera-
Morgan-Sagastume F (2018) Biofilm development, activity and the tions of the Kaldnes moving bed biofilm reactors. Aquacult Eng
modification of carrier material surface properties in moving-bed 34(3):322–331
biofilm reactors (MBBRs) for wastewater treatment. Crit Rev Santos AD, Martins RC, Quinta-Ferreira RM, Castro LM (2020) Mov-
Environ Sci Technol 48(5):439–470 ing bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for dairy wastewater treatment.
Morper MR (1994) Upgrading of activated sludge systems for nitro- Energy Rep 6:340–344
gen removal by application of the Linpor–CN process. Water Sci Shin DH, Shin WS, Kim YH, Ho Han M, Choi SJ (2006) Application
Techno 29:167–176 of a combined process of moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR)
Ødegaard H (2006) Innovations in wastewater treatment:–the moving and chemical coagulation for dyeing wastewater treatment. Water
bed biofilm process. Water Sci Technol 53(9):17–33 Sci Technol 54(9):181–189
Ødegaard H, Rusten B, Westrum T (1994) A new moving bed biofilm Shitu A, Zhu S, Qi W, Tadda MA, Liu D, Ye Z (2020) Performance of
reactor-applications and results. Water Sci Technol 29(10–11):157 novel sponge biocarrier in MBBR treating recirculating aquacul-
Ødegaard H, Gisvold B, Strickland J (2000) The influence of carrier ture systems wastewater: microbial community and kinetic study.
size and shape in the moving bed biofilm process. Water Sci Tech- J Environ Manag 275:111264
nol 41(4–5):383–391 Shore JL, M’Coy WS, Gunsch CK, Deshusses MA (2012) Application
Odegaard H (1999) The moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Environ of a moving bed biofilm reactor for tertiary ammonia treatment in
Eng Reuse Water 575314:205–305 high temperature industrial wastewater. Biores Technol 112:51–60
Odegaard H, Rusten B, Siljudalen J (1999) The development of the Simoes M, Pereira MO, Sillankorva S, Azeredo J, Vieira MJ (2007)
moving bed biofilm process: from idea to commercial product. The effect of hydrodynamic conditions on the phenotype of Pseu-
Eur Water Manag 2(3):36–43 domonas fluorescens biofilms. Biofouling 23(4):249–258
Oliveira R, Melo L, Oliveira A, Salgueiro R (1994) Polysaccharide Singh A, Kamble SJ, Sawant M, Chakravarthy Y, Kazmi A, Aymerich
production and biofilm formation by pseudomonas fluoresces: E, Starkl M, Ghangrekar M, Philip L (2018) Technical, hygiene,
effects of pH and surface material. Colloids Surf B 2(1):41–46 economic, and life cycle assessment of full-scale moving bed bio-
Pal SR, Vyas DS, Arti NP (2016) Study the efficiency of moving bed film reactors for wastewater treatment in India. Environ Sci Pollut
biofilm process for dairy wastewater treatment. Int J Adv Res Res 25(3):2552–2569
Innov Ideas Educ 2(3):899–905 Tawfik A, El-Gohary F, Temmink H (2010) Treatment of domestic
Park HO, Oh S, Bade R, Shin WS (2010) Application of A2O mov- wastewater in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor fol-
ing-bed biofilm reactors for textile dyeing wastewater treatment. lowed by moving bed biofilm reactor. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng
Korean J Chem Eng 27(3):893–899 33(2):267–276
Patel Vaibhavi G, Rajput Raju P, Kher Saalvee H, Prajapati MR, Nair Vaidhegi K (2013) Treatment of bagasse based pulp and paper industry
AS (2018) Removal of COD from industrial effluent by MBBR: effluent using moving bed biofilm reactor. Int J ChemTech Res
a review. Int J Sci Res Dev 5(11):636–638 5(3):1313–1319
European Patent No. 0575314. Munich, Germany, European Patent van Haandel AC (2012) Handbook of biological wastewater treatment:
Office design and optimisation of activated sludge systems. Water Intell
U.S. Patent No. 5,458,779. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and trade- Online. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​97817​80400​808
mark office Wan D, Li Q, Chen J, Niu Z, Liu Y, Li H, Xiao S (2019) Simulta-
Pegasus–Advanced nitrogen treatment microbial immobilization tech- neous bio-electrochemical reduction of perchlorate and electro-
nology. Available from: http:// www.​hitac​hi.​com/​busin​esses/​infra​ disinfection in a novel moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) based
struc​ture/​produ​ct_​site/ water_environment/pegasus/index.html on proton-exchange membrane electrolysis. Sci Total Environ
Poojashri RN, Thanushree M, Manojkumar B (2016) Studies on nutri- 679:288–297
ent removal using polyurethane foam (PUF) in moving bed bio Wang XJ, Xia SQ, Chen L, Zhao JF, Renault NJ, Chovelon JM (2006)
reactor (MBBR). Int Res J Eng Technol 3(8):1854–1872 Nutrients removal from municipal wastewater by chemical

13
Applied Water Science (2022) 12:141 Page 13 of 13 141

precipitation in a moving bed biofilm reactor. Process Biochem treatment processes: Current state-of-the-art, challenges, and
41(4):824–828 opportunities. Biores Technol 288:121619
Wang S, Rao NC, Qiu R, Moletta R (2009) Performance and Zhao Y, Yuan Q, He Z, Wang H, Yan G, Chang Y, Wang H (2019b)
kinetic evaluation of anaerobic moving bed biofilm reactor for Influence of carrier filling ratio on the advanced nitrogen removal
treating milk permeate from dairy industry. Biores Technol from wastewater treatment plant effluent by denitrifying MBBR.
100(23):5641–5647 Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(18):3244
Weiss JS, Alvarez M, Tang CC, Horvath RW (2005) Evaluation of Zkeri E, Iliopoulou A, Katsara A, Korda A, Aloupi M, Gatidou G,
moving bed biofilm reactor technology for enhancing nitrogen Fountoulakis MS, Stasinakis AS (2021) Comparing the use of a
removal in a stabilization pond treatment plant. Proc Water Envi- two-stage MBBR system with a methanogenic MBBR coupled
ron Fed 14:2085–2102 with a microalgae reactor for medium-strength dairy wastewater
Yang X, López-Grimau V, Vilaseca M, Crespi M (2020) Treatment treatment. Biores Technol 323:124629
of textile wastewater by CAS, MBR, and MBBR: a comparative
study from technical, economic, and environmental perspectives. Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
Water 12(5):1306 jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Zafarzadeh A, Bina B, Nikaeen M, Attar HM, Nejad MH (2010) Per-
formance of moving bed biofilm reactors for biological nitrogen
compounds removal from wastewater by partial nitrification-
denitrification process. Iran J Environ Health Sci Eng 7(4):353
Zhao Y, Liu D, Huang W, Yang Y, Ji M, Nghiem LD, Trinh QT, Tran
NH (2019) Insights into biofilm carriers for biological wastewater

13