Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jece

A systematic review of moving bed biofilm reactor, membrane bioreactor,

and moving bed membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment:
Comparison of research trends, removal mechanisms, and performance
Duduku Saidulu a, Abhradeep Majumder b, Ashok Kumar Gupta a, *
a
Environmental Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India
b
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Editor: Dr. GL Dotto The various detrimental effects of wastewater generated from different anthropogenic activities are among the
biggest challenges to sustainable development. Among various technologies developed to tackle wastewater,
Keywords: biological treatment methods, such as moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR),
Bibliometric mapping have been extensively used in the past few decades due to their cost-effectiveness, wide applications, technical
Biological treatment
feasibility, etc. However, certain limitations of MBR and MBBR have led to the hybridization of these two
Life cycle assessment
technologies. In this context, a thorough bibliometric assay of MBBR, MBR, and hybrid moving bed membrane
Membrane fouling
Network visualization bioreactor (MBMBR) has been performed to analyze the current trends in publication, contributing authors and
Treatment mechanism countries, major research hotspots, etc. It was observed that for both MBBR and MBR, China had the maximum
contribution, i.e., 30.4% and 30.5%, respectively, in terms of the number of publications. The future trend of the
selected treatment methods was assessed with the help of S-curve simulation. In both cases, greater than 70% of
research articles were published in the last decade, which may be due to the increasingly stringent regulations on
effluent quality. Subsequently, this study investigated the performance and responsible mechanisms for these
systems. MBMBR was found to be more effective than MBR in terms of pollutant removal, followed by MBBR. The
nutrient removal efficiency of MBMBR systems was significantly higher (73.5%) as compared to MBBR (50%)
and MBR (62.5%). Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been discussed for the selected treatment methods to evaluate
sustainability aspects.

1. Introduction Therefore, to tackle such wastewater, different physical, chemical, and

biological treatment techniques and their combinations have been
The shortage of water supply and wastewater management are developed in the past few decades [3,5,8,14].
among the most significant challenges to sustainable development in the The advent of moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) and membrane
21st century [1–7]. Global water usage increased by a factor of six over bioreactor (MBR) in the latter part of the 20th century has revolution­
the past century, and the global water demand is expected to increase ized research in the field of wastewater treatment [5,15–19]. Research
from 4600 km3/y to around 6000 km3/y by 2050 [8]. Consequently, a on MBR and MBBR has attained significant momentum in the last
large quantum of wastewater is also generated. Moreover, various decade, which has led to various up-gradation of these systems from
anthropogenic activities are responsible for producing wastewater their initial prototypes. MBBR processes have shown a significant
having high concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), promise in the circular economy due to their high nutrient removal and
chemical oxygen demand (COD), total phosphorous (TP), total nitrogen recovery potential [5]. Moreover, several researchers have applied the
(TN), total suspended solids (TSS), etc. [1,8–10]. Recently, along with MBBR system to treat emerging contaminants [20]. However, in various
the constituents mentioned above, significant attention has been given instances involving the treatment of high-strength wastewater, MBBR
to removing various toxic contaminants, such as pharmaceuticals, dis­ alone may not be able to meet the stringent discharge standards
infectants, dyes, chemical reagents, etc., from wastewater [11–13]. [21–23]. On the other hand, the MBR is known for its low footprint and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A.K. Gupta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106112
Received 11 June 2021; Received in revised form 21 July 2021; Accepted 22 July 2021
Available online 24 July 2021
2213-3437/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

high removal efficiencies of organic matter, suspended solids, etc. hybrid of MBBR and MBR process or MBMBR process were retrieved by
However, membrane fouling is still an issue of concern during the using the terms “MBMBR” OR “MBBMR” OR “moving bed membrane
treatment of high-strength wastewater [24,25]. bioreactor” OR “moving bed biofilm membrane bioreactor” OR “hybrid
In this context, researchers have tried combining MBR and MBBR MBR and MBBR” AND “wastewater treatment”. The full-scale studies
with other treatment technologies, such as microbial fuel cell, packed were identified by incorporating the terms “full-scale” along with the
bed biofilm reactor, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket, powdered acti­ already mentioned keywords. Similarly, other relevant data on waste­
vated carbon, advanced oxidation processes, etc., to enhance their per­ water treatment using other treatment methods were attained by
formance and to overcome the drawbacks of individuals [25–30]. For searching the “name of the treatment method” AND “wastewater
instance, Khan et al. [31] have investigated a lab-scale MBBR integrated treatment” simultaneously in the Scopus database. The resultant orig­
with ozonation to treat pharmaceutical compounds, such as ibuprofen inal data were restricted to research articles and patents only. After that,
and ofloxacin from hospital wastewater. The authors have observed manual screening of documents has been performed to filter out the
satisfactory removals, i.e., greater than 90% for the targeted compounds documents, which do not match the criteria of our study. Finally, the
[31]. However, the application of advanced oxidation processes on a search results, including citation information, bibliographic informa­
large scale is still a major challenge. In recent times, researchers have tion, abstract, keywords, etc., were exported in CSV format for biblio­
used a hybrid system combining MBBR with MBR, also known as moving metric analysis. The identification and selection process of the research
bed membrane bioreactor (MBMBR), to treat wastewater [32–34]. Lee framework has been depicted in Fig. 1.
et al. [33] investigated the membrane fouling and permeability char­
acteristics at various operating conditions using a combined MBMBR
system. After that, several researchers have carried out research 2.2. Data analysis
involving nutrient removal [35], kinetic studies [36], micropollutants
removal and fouling reduction [37], effects of fine and coarse bubble The statistical analysis of the data, such as the number of publica­
aeration [38], etc. In most instances, the MBMBR system has shown tions per year, the journals having the highest number of publications,
promising performance. Also, membrane fouling, an inherent drawback their average citations, and the number of publications from various
of MBR, was substantially reduced in the MBMBR [5,39]. Hence, recent countries/regions, was carried out through the Microsoft Excel 2019
years have been marked by a rapid increase in research involving software. S-curve has been used in several studies to simulate techno­
MBMBR systems. logical development and find the technological maturity of a particular
To date, different researchers have published review papers on field [42,43]. In the present study, the S-curve simulation method has
summarizing the performance, research gaps, and the latest progress on been employed to analyze the trends in the application of MBBR and
MBBR and MBR [5,6,40,41]. Some of the recent review articles pub­ MBR to treat wastewater. While for MBMBR, no S-curve simulation has
lished in the field of MBBR and MBR, have been reported in Table 1. been applied due to a lack of sufficient data. For predicting the future of
These review articles were selected based on the number of citations and the selected technologies, the following Eq. (1) was used to plot the
relevance to the present study. However, the overall research trends by S-curve [43,44].
bibliometric analysis have not been reported. At present, it is essential to Ps
know the research trends, the contribution of research experts, journal Yt = (1)
1 + e− j(t− k)

publication scenarios, and the possible future directions in a particular

field. For example, in the case of selected treatment processes, it is where Yt (dependent variable) represents the cumulative publications
imperative to know the advantages and drawbacks of the treatment annually, j and k represent the model parameters, t denotes the time,
processes, the reason behind the modification of existing treatment and Ps is the “publication saturation value” in this study.
systems, the requirement of system hybridization, major research hot­ The Scopus database was exported to the VOSviewer software
spots, whether the selected research topic saturated or not, etc. There­ (version 1.6.16, Leiden University, Netherlands) to perform the biblio­
fore, the present study performed the bibliometric analysis of MBBR, metric analysis. Eck and Waltman developed this software for the bib­
MBR, and MBMBR for wastewater treatment based on the published liometric analysis of published scientific papers [45,46]. Circles
literature. Based on the data collected from the Scopus platform, the connected by network links usually represent the visualization. The size
global trend of these treatment methods has also been predicted using and spacing between these circles represent the importance as well as
the Logistic model (S-curve analysis). This review provides a fresh the dependency of terms. Based on these network diagrams or visuali­
perspective on the research trend in this field. The research direction has zation maps, it is easy to identify the emerging topics and the research
been addressed by analyzing the keywords. The key themes of research trends. The index keywords and author keywords were extracted from
using MBR, MBBR, and MBMBR have been addressed, and the correla­ the database. During the co-occurrence analysis of keywords, “index
tion between major keywords and their practical significance has been keywords” and “author keywords”, both were chosen as the unit of
established. Moreover, the life cycle assessment (LCA) of the selected analysis. This was followed by a manual screening of the keywords,
treatment methods has been studied to evaluate the sustainability of the where irrelevant and repeated terms were excluded. Furthermore, the
systems. keywords, such as “moving bed biofilm reactor”, “membrane biore­
actor”, “bioreactor”, “wastewater treatment”, “wastewater”, “MBR”,
2. Methodology “MBBR”, etc., were also ruled out to eliminate interference.

2.1. Data collection and preparation 3. Moving bed biofilm reactor

Data were retrieved from the online databases of Scopus on 22nd The commercialization of MBBR techniques was carried out in the
February 2021. Firstly, the articles related to wastewater treatment late 1980s and the early 1990s (Based on Scopus data). After that,
using MBBR were searched using the terms: “moving bed biofilm several modifications have been carried out for enhancing the removal
reactor” OR “MBBR” AND “wastewater treatment”. Articles that come of targeted contaminants [15,47–50]. MBBR process involves both sus­
under the title or keywords or abstract containing the earlier mentioned pended and attached growth processes. Biofilms are grown on small
terms were considered for the study. Similarly, in the second step, the plastic or sponge-based carriers with a density slightly lesser than water
terms “membrane bioreactor” OR “MBR” AND “wastewater treatment” [47,51]. These carriers keep moving in the reactor through aeration in
were used to retrieve papers on wastewater treatment using MBR. aerobic reactors or by mechanical stirring.
Finally, papers associated with the treatment of wastewater using a Fig. 2 depicts the S-curve obtained from the database regarding the

2
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Table 1
Some of the recent review articles published in the field of MBBR and MBR.
Title Journal name Citations Key objective(s) of the study Major findings Ref.

Performance of secondary wastewater Science of The Total 182 • This study investigated the • There are around 20–50 wastewater treatment Krzeminski
treatment methods for the removal of Environment performance of different plants working on the principle of MBBR in et al. [6]
contaminants of emerging concern biological treatment methods, North Europe, China, and USA.
implicated in crop uptake and including MBBR and MBR, for
antibiotic resistance spread: A review secondary treatment. • Higher SRT in MBR enhanced the removal of
recalcitrant pollutants.
Current state and challenges of full-scale Bioresource 126 • This study summarized the pros, • Since the 2000s, the tremendous growth of MBR Xiao et al.
membrane bioreactor applications: A Technology cons, and progress in full-scale applications towards wastewater treatment has [136]
critical review MBR applications. been observed.

• Optimization of the configurations and

operating modes are required for MBR-based
processes to enhance nutrient removal further.
A review on the applications of ultrasonic Ultrasonics 98 • This study provided insights into • Ultrasonic irradiation was able to clean the Arefi-Oskoui
technology in membrane bioreactors Sonochemistry different MBR cleaning fouled membrane by creating important et al. [150]
techniques available for physical phenomena, including micro stream,
mitigating membrane fouling. shock wave, and microjet.

• The high energy cost associated with ultrasonic

irradiation limits the application in full-scale
MBR systems.
Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for Bioresource 85 • This study covered the • Antifouling membranes, cell entrapment, Maaz et al.
wastewater treatment: Novel Technology fundamental aspects of novel optimized operational conditions and biomass [151]
configurations, fouling control and configurations, fouling control, characteristics, fluidized media, and electrically
energy considerations and energy demands associated based strategies were found to be promising
with AnMBR. solutions to reduce membrane fouling and
enhance energy sustainability.
• The opportunities and challenges
associated with AnMBR aspects
have been covered.
A critical review on saline wastewater Chemosphere 62 • This study reviewed the different • Conventional MBR proved to be an efficient Tan et al.
treatment by membrane bioreactor MBR-based techniques for the technology when the influent salinity was less [152]
(MBR) from a microbial perspective treatment of saline wastewater. than 10 g/L NaCl.

• To treat hypersaline wastewater (salinity up to

100 g/L NaCl), MBR inoculated with halophilic
bacteria may be applied.
Moving bed biofilm reactor technology in Journal of 54 • The recent advancements in the • The properties, such as the shape and size of the di Biase et al.
municipal wastewater treatment: A Environmental field of MBBR have been biocarriers, played a crucial role in the [41]
review Management discussed. performance of the MBBR.

• The authors had provided insights • In the future anaerobic MBBR with partial
into different biocarriers used and nitrification anammox may become an energy-
their modifications. efficient and low sludge producing process.
A review of anaerobic membrane Journal of Cleaner 44 • This review provided insights into • Pre-acclimatized inoculum biomass Abuabdou
bioreactors (AnMBR) for the treatment Production the treatment of refractory significantly reduced the start-up period of the et al. [153]
of highly contaminated landfill wastewater, i.e., landfill leachate treatment system.
leachate and biogas production: using AnMBR.
Effectiveness, limitations and future
perspectives
Moving bed biofilm reactor as an Bioresource 25 • The authors had discussed the role • The combined MBBR-MBR system produced Leyva-Díaz
alternative wastewater treatment Technology of MBBR in the circular economy. high-quality reclaimed water. et al. [5]
process for nutrient removal and
recovery in the circular economy model • The performance assessment of • The operational control of aerobic and
different MBBR configurations anaerobic conditions played a crucial role in
was done towards nutrient nitrification and denitrification.
removal and recovery.
• Hydrothermal carbonization was found to be a
promising alternative solution for sludge
treatment.
A brief review of anaerobic membrane Journal of 16 • This review summarized the • In terms of nutrient recovery, post-treatment Kashif et al.
bioreactors emphasizing recent Environmental recent developments related to systems, such as microalgae cultivation, micro­ [92]
advancements, fouling issues and Management AnMBR. bial fuel cells, and advanced reverse osmosis
future perspectives membranes were better options.
• Major restrictions in the practical
applications of AnMBR have been
addressed.
Biofilm reactors for value-added products Biocatalysis and 7 • This study summarized the • The structure of biofilm and its composition Germec et al.
production: An in-depth review Agricultural different biofilm reactor types, played a critical role in the immobilization of [154]
Biotechnology biofilm supporting materials, and cells.
various value-added products.
• In MBBR, different value-added products, such
as polyhydroxyalkanoate, butyric acid, etc.,
were generated.

3
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 1. Identification and selection process of the research framework.

cumulative number of research articles published in the field of MBBR. Laureni et al. [54]. The study aims to assess the long-term stability of
The logarithmic scale has been used in the vertical axis for better partial nitrification/anammox processes operating at low temperatures
interpretation of data. In the inset of Fig. 2, the S-curve with a normal [54]. Research on full-scale applications of MBBR for treating different
scale has been provided. The calculated R2 value for the S-curve was types of wastewater has gained significant attention in recent years [48,
0.999, which indicated a good fit. Out of the 547 research articles 49,55,56]. There are more than 140 patents on MBBR for treating
published by 2020 on wastewater treatment using MBBR, a major chunk different wastewater, out of which around 100 patents belong from the
of research has been published in the last decade (around 87%). From United States Patent and Trademark Office. Around 12 patents on MBBR
Fig. 2, it was observed that the growth phase of research on MBBR is belonged to the European Patent office. Furthermore, it was found that
expected to end at the beginning of the 2040s, followed by the matu­ almost 75% of the research articles on full-scale applications of MBBR
ration phase. The expected Ps by 2050 is around 3978. After that, S- were reported in the last decade.
curve became almost parallel to X-axis. This signifies that MBBR has a The trend in the publication of research papers by the top 10 coun­
promising future in wastewater treatment (inset of Fig. 2). tries (based on a number of publications) on the MBBR to treat waste­
water has been provided in Fig. 3c. It was observed that China had the
3.1. Trends in the publication of journals, authors, and countries maximum contribution, i.e., 30.4% of the research articles published in
this field, followed by Sweden, Spain, and Denmark published 9.16%,
Fig. 3a and b depict the number of publications on MBBR by the top 7.51%, and 5.86%, respectively. In the last five years, a steep rise in the
10 contributing journals (in terms of a total number of publications) publication was observed for countries like China and Sweden, whereas,
along with the average citation for publications in the respective jour­ USA, Norway, Denmark, etc., did not follow any general trend of
nal. “Water Science Technology”, “Bioresource Technology”, “Water increasing. Although China had maximum contribution in terms of the
Research”, “Desalination and Water Treatment”, “Science of the Total number of publications compared to Sweden, Spain, Denmark, Canada,
Environment”, etc., were found to be the foremost journals publishing Germany, USA, and Norway, it had a low average citation value per
research articles in this field. On the other hand, “Journal of Hazardous article (around 13) (Fig. 4). Among the top 10 countries, Sweden,
Materials” and “Water Research” had the maximum average citations Denmark, Germany, and Norway have an average citation value per
per article (Fig. 3b). In “Water Science Technology”, the most cited article greater than 25, and this implies that research on MBBR carried
research article is “Innovations in wastewater treatment: The moving out by these countries is gained significant attention from the research
bed biofilm process” by Ødegaard [52], and had a total citation of 231. community. China, Sweden, and Canada have published more than 10%
The study demonstrated the MBBR with a hydraulic retention time of research articles in “Bioresource Technology”. Conversely, Norway
(HRT) of 3–5 h to treat municipal wastewater [52]. While “Importance published 44% of research articles in “Water Science and Technology”.
of the operating pH in maintaining the stability of anoxic ammonium The countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Germany, published the
oxidation (anammox) activity in moving bed biofilm reactors” was the highest number of research articles in high impact factor journals (>
most cited article published by Jaroszynski et al. [53] in “Bioresource 7.5), such as “Water Research” and “Bioresource Technology”. There­
Technology”. The article assessed the importance of pH-associated fore, indicating that highly impactful research was conducted by these
anammox activity during the long-term treatment of anaerobically countries (Fig. 4). This type of analysis could help for a better under­
digested sludge [53]. The article with the most citations (234) in “Water standing of the research conducted by a particular country irrespective
Research” was titled “Mainstream partial nitritation and anammox: of the number of publications. Fig. S1 represents the research work
Long-term process stability and effluent quality at low temperatures” by carried out by researchers from different countries in collaboration

4
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 2. Cumulative number of publications on wastewater treatment using MBBR and the simulated S-curve (inset).

along with their average citation. From Fig. S1, it was observed that keywords into three clusters. The red cluster is mainly comprised of
strong collaboration among the European countries, such as Germany, keywords related to nitrogen removal and anaerobic treatment of the
Sweden, Denmark, Spain, etc. At the same time, China had carried out wastewater, such as nitrogen removal, nitrite, nitrate, ammonia,
strong collaborative research with Canada, USA, India, and Iran. ammonium compounds, deammonification, anoxic conditions, anam­
The tracking of articles by leading authors and/or groups along with mox bacterium, aeration, anaerobic digestion, etc. (Figs. S2 and 5b) [15,
their countries is an important way to quickly understand the pioneers in 16,49,57]. The green cluster mainly consisted of the keywords associ­
this field. The research group led by Zhang Xinbo (Tianjin Chengjian ated with the type of pollutants/parameters of wastewater that can be
University, China), Wang Jianlong (Tsinghua University, Beijing, removed using the MBBR, such as organic compounds, industrial waste,
China), Wang Haiyan (Chinese Research Academy of Environmental phosphorous, COD, BOD, etc., and the different components/operating
Sciences, Beijing, China), etc., was responsible for most of the papers parameters of MBBR, such as biofilms, HRT, dissolved oxygen (DO), etc.
published on MBBR from China (Fig. 3d). The research group is based in (Figs. S2 and 5b) [1,15,57,58]. The keywords, such as metabolism,
Denmark and Sweden, comprising of Bester Kai (Aarhus University, bacteria, bioremediation, biodegradation, microorganisms, isolation,
Denmark), Magnus Christensson (AnoxKaldnes AB, Lund, Sweden), and purification, etc., related to the mechanism and the responsible factors
Andersen Henrik Rasmus (Technical University of Denmark, Denmark), of the wastewater treatment, are clustered under the blue section
have contributed heavily to wastewater treatment using MBBR. Yves (Figs. S2 and 5b) [16,59]. Fig. 5a presents the density visualization of
Comeau (Polytechnique Montréal, Canada) and André Labelle Marc the keywords related to MBBR. A rainbow color pattern has been chosen,
(Polytechnique Montréal, Canada) published significant research from where low density is denoted by blue, while high density is denoted by
Canada. Bjorn Rusten (COWI Norway), Ødegaard Hallvard (Norwegian red. Biofilms and nitrogen removal form the two major hotspots, as
University of Science and Technology, Norway), Joss Adriano (Swiss indicated by the red color. The yellow color of the neighboring points
Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Dubendorf, indicates a high correlation with the hotspots [60]. In Fig. 5a, it can be
Switzerland), etc., had a high average citation of around 40 (Fig. 3d). seen that nitrate, nitrite, ammonium compounds, etc., are closely related
Poyatos Jose Manuel from the University of Granada, Spain, was found to nitrogen removal, while biodegradation, biological water treatment,
to be the leading contributor in the field of wastewater treatment using HRT are closely related to biofilms. It is a well-known fact that nitrogen
MBBR with almost 25 research articles to his name. Bester Kai and removal in wastewater occurs by converting ammonia to nitrates or
Andersen Henrik Rasmus from Denmark, along with Magnus Chris­ nitrites by nitrification, in the presence of oxygen, which is followed by
tensson from Sweden and Leyva-Díaz Juan Carlos (Universidad de conversion of nitrate and nitrite to nitrogen denitrification, in the
Oviedo, Spain) from Spain, boasts around 15 research articles on absence of oxygen [1,3,22,61–63]. Hence these terms were found to be
wastewater treatment using MBBR to their name. closely knit. On the other hand, biofilms and HRT play a major role in
the biodegradation of organic compounds. Hence keywords related to
biodegradation and microorganisms occurred in close vicinity (Fig. 5a).
3.2. Keyword analysis
It is evident from Fig. 5b that biofilms form the backbone of the MBBR
network, as they are connected to a wide range of keywords and play a
The network visualization map and the density visualization map of
vital role in the removal of BOD, COD, TN, TP, etc. [1,20,62,64–66].
keywords on MBBR have been shown in Figs. S2 and 5a, respectively.
The keyword “biofilms” was highlighted since it was the most occurred
keyword and had the highest number of connected items (Fig. 5b).
During the bibliometric mapping, VOSviewer divided and classified the

5
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 3. a) Year-wise publications of articles on MBBR in different journals and b) box plot of citations of different articles in their respective journals, c) year-wise
publications of research articles on MBBR from different countries, d) co-authorship overlap visualization map of studies related to wastewater treatment using MBBR
as obtained from VOSviewer.

3.3. Applications of MBBR for wastewater treatment AOB and releases N2. The nitrification and denitrification processes are
highly influenced by DO content and bioaugmentation [69]. A strong
The removal of organic matter and nutrients in MBBR is influenced correlation between the keywords, such as nitrogen removal, nitrate,
by several parameters, such as HRT, filling ratio of carriers, biofilm nitrite, deammonification, aeration, and DO, was observed (Fig. S3a and
thickness, DO, pH, temperature, reactor configuration, microorganism b). It further substantiates the role of aeration and DO in removing TN
type, etc. [67,68]. Association of similar keywords with biofilms was via various nitrification and denitrification processes. Casas et al. [20]
observed in the network diagram of MBBR (Figs. 5b and S3). There are developed a pilot-scale MBBR to treat hospital effluent and used an
mainly two factors, such as liquid flow diffusion and nutrient penetra­ aeration rate of 0.5 L/h, which led to 99% removal for ammonium ni­
tion through the biofilm, which influence the performance of MBBR [47, trogen, while negative removal for nitrate was exhibited [20]. This
69]. The different mechanisms involved in the removal of contaminants emphasizes the fact that aeration favors nitrification but is detrimental
using MBBR have been depicted in Fig. 6. The formation of biofilm oc­ to the denitrification process, thereby affecting the TN removal [1,3,71].
curs when the surface of the carrier adsorbs macromolecules and nu­ Anaerobic MBBR, anoxic MBBR, anammox MBBR,
trients, followed by initial cell transport [69]. Thereafter, biofilm anaerobic-anoxic-oxic MBBR, etc., have been implemented for proper
development and its maturation occurring through the production of removal of TN [15,16,22,49,57]. In the case of TP removal, MBBR has
extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) and microcolonies [69]. The shown an average removal, i.e., around 50% (Table 2). For example,
cellulose matrix developed by EPS provides shelter to the microorgan­ Nhut et al. [50] investigated the performance of sponge-based MBBR
isms, thereby creating a protective environment against dehydration towards the removal of nutrients and organic micropollutants from
and protozoans attack [69]. The EPS adsorb and store the different domestic wastewater. The authors observed around 40.5% removal of
constituents, such as organic matter, nutrients, and oxygen required to TP [50]. Similarly, Wang et al. [21] used MBBR to remove TP from
microorganisms for their metabolic activities. The ammonia-oxidizing municipal wastewater and obtained a removal efficiency of 9–15% [21].
bacteria (AOB) and anammox bacteria are located in the aerobic and It should be noted that in MBBR, the removal of TP is difficult to achieve
anoxic zones of the attached biofilm on the suspended carriers [70]. The due to longer sludge retention time (SRT) and lack of control in the
network diagram of MBBR revealed a correlation between biofilm and biomass discharge. Long SRT in the MBBR system leads to the accu­
AOB, anammox bacteria, nitrification, denitrification, etc. (Fig. 5b). The mulation of phosphate accumulating organisms (PAOs), thereby occa­
co-metabolic activity of AOB converts the NH+ 4 to NO2 in the aerobic
−
sionally causing high effluent concentrations of TP [22]. The minimum
zone of the biofilm, whereas anammox consumes the NO−2 produced by DO concentration required for the operation of an aerobic suspended

6
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 4. Different countries contributions in terms of the percentage of research articles published on MBBR in the top journals and the average citation value
per article.

Fig. 5. Bibliometric assessment of studies related to wastewater treatment using MBBR: a) density visualization of keyword occurrences, and b) highlight of the most
occurred and connected keyword “membrane” as obtained from VOSviewer. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

biomass reactor is around 2 mg/L [41]. Furthermore, the choice of contact opportunities to react with the pollutants. A major portion of the
coarse or fine bubble diffusers for proper aeration also depends on the BOD and COD is removed during the initial phases comprising of the
biofilms, bio-carriers, and filling fraction. These further amplify the attachment and formation phases (Fig. 6) [70]. However, nitrogen and
significance of aeration and DO in the performance of MBBR. The recalcitrant organic pollutants get degraded or removed during the
occurrence of keywords, such as DO and biofilms in close vicinity, maturation phase, i.e., relatively at high HRT (Fig. 6) [70]. The corre­
substantiates their role (Fig. 5a). lation of the keyword “HRT” with a large number of keywords sub­
In Fig. S3c, the keyword HRT was found to be linked with various stantiates the importance of HRT in the optimum functioning of an
other keywords, such as COD, BOD, nitrogen removal, biofilms, etc. MBBR (Fig. S3c). It was observed from Fig. S3d that pH had a strong
Better removal efficiency is attained at higher HRTs, and typically an correlation with bacteria, microorganisms, nitrification, nitrogen
HRT of 6–12 h was considered to be an adequate range of MBBR to treat removal, BOD, COD, etc. The microorganisms, which are the backbone
wastewater [26,68]. It is mainly because the microorganisms get more of the degradation or removal processes in the MBBR are often sensitive

7
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 6. Mechanism and principles of operation of MBBR.

to the variation of pH [72,73]. Several researchers have reported that 4.1. Trends in publication of journals, authors, and countries
alkalinity in feed wastewater plays an important role in achieving the
good nitrification performance of MBBR. Alkalinity in the wastewater The top 10 contributing journals and their average citations have
act as a growth substrate for heterotrophic nitrifying bacteria [74]. been depicted in Fig. 8a and b. In this case, “Bioresource Technology”,
Hence, it is important to maintain the alkalinity in the system by adding “Water Science Technology”, and “Water Research” were the top 3
alkaline chemicals (e.g., lime, sodium bicarbonate, sodium hydroxide) contributing journals, having 309, 287, and 275 published research
to the feedwater [74,75]. Hou et al. [74] investigated the effect of articles, respectively. On the other hand, “Water Research” and “Journal
alkalinity on the nitrification performance of MBBR by using sodium of Membrane Science” had the maximum average citations per article. In
bicarbonate as an alkalinity supplement. The authors observed that the “Bioresource Technology”, the most cited research article was “Contri­
enhanced removal of NH+ 4 -N, i.e., from 23% to 88% when sufficient bution of various constituents of activated sludge to membrane biore­
alkalinity was maintained in the system [74]. Similarly, Matheus et al. actor fouling” by Defrance et al. [78] had a total citation count of 260.
[76] observed complete nitrification in the MBBR, with the addition of The study investigated the effects of various constituents present in the
sodium bicarbonate at a dosage of 7.14 g of CaCO3/g of total NH+ 4 -N wastewater on membrane fouling [78]. Lesjean et al. [79] published an
removal [76]. Hence, pH plays a vital part in the growth of microor­ article named “Correlation between membrane fouling and solu­
ganisms and their functioning, thereby affecting the performance of the ble/colloidal organic substances in membrane bioreactors for municipal
system. Researchers found a pH between 7 and 8 suitable for the wastewater treatment” in “Water Science Technology”, had a total
breakdown of various persistent organic pollutants (POPs) [72,73]. citation of 112. The study derived a relationship between the fouling
rate of the membrane and the concentration of polysaccharides (soluble
4. Membrane bioreactor organic substances) present in municipal wastewater [79]. “Fate and
distribution of pharmaceuticals in wastewater and sewage sludge of the
In recent years MBR has received extensive academic attention as conventional activated sludge (CAS) and advanced membrane biore­
well as practical attention due to its several advantages, such as high actor (MBR) treatment” by Radjenović et al. [80] was the highest cited
effluent quality, less footprint, high biomass concentration, less rector article on MBR had 741 total citations. This article was published in
volume, less sludge production, etc. [1,77]. Fig. 7 depicts the S-curve “Water Research”. The study investigated the MBR to treat the most
obtained from the database regarding the cumulative number of ubiquitous pharmaceutically active compounds having various physi­
research articles published in the field of MBR. The calculated R2 value cochemical properties [80]. Wu et al. [81] published a research article
for MBR was 0.9966, which signifies that the S-curve fitted well with the titled, “Membrane fouling caused by biological foams in a submerged
actual data. It was observed that the total number of research articles membrane bioreactor: Mechanism insights” in “Water Research”, and it
published till 2020 on wastewater treatment using MBR was around has the most number of citations since 2020 in the field of MBR. The
3611. The number of publications in the field of MBR in the year 2005 study investigated the underlying mechanisms of fouling caused by
was more than double the total publications in 2004. Another huge leap foaming in MBR, and the authors have found that foaming foulants have
in the number of publications was observed between 2015 and 2020 a strong adhesion ability and extremely high specific filtration resistance
(Fig. 7). From Fig. 7, it was observed that the birth phase of MBR to treat [81]. Another study, titled “A unified thermodynamic mechanism un­
wastewater lay between the 1980s and 1990s. After 1995, the growth derlying fouling behaviors of soluble microbial products (SMPs) in a
phase has begun, and it is expected to continue till the early 2030s. The membrane bioreactor” by Teng et al. [82], got published in “Water
expected Ps by 2050 is found to be around 4867. Research” in 2019, and it has a good number of citations. The study
gives insights into the fouling behavior of SMPs during the initial
operation period of MBR [82]. Hence, it can be observed that membrane
fouling and removal of organic micropollutants using MBR are the most

8
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Table 2
Operating conditions and performance of MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR.
Type of Operational conditions Removal efficiency Ref.
wastewater

Carrier type Filling ratio (%) HRT (h) Flow rate BOD (%) COD (%) TN (%) TP (%) TSS (%)
(m3/d)

Type of treatment: MBBR

Municipal Polyethylene 50 6 – 64.5–79.1 57.6–77.1 42.6–89.9 9.3–13.7 – [21]
wastewater
Laundry K5 – 4–24 0.6–1 95–98 89–94 – 80–95.4 – [47]
wastewater
Domestic Polyurethane 20 3.6–9 0.07–0.18 – 72.1–97.9 67.2–70.6 40.3 80.4–91 [50]
wastewater sponge
Dairy K1 20 and 40 4–8 – – 95 – – – [155]
wastewater
Greywater Biomedia PZE 14 4 0.302 59 70 – 12 87.07 [156]
Poultry Polyethylene – 9 95.49 94.1 50.8 33.7 94.9 [63]
wastewater granular
particles
Municipal modified 25 – – – 80–86 25–48 – – [157]
wastewater polyurethane
foam
Municipal K3 50 4–12 – – 49.3–86.3 28.6–52.3 38.7 55–89 [22]
wastewater
Kraft mill polyethylene 45 4.8–48 – 82.06–95.24 41.5–60.1 – – – [23]
wastewater
Municipal FLOCOR- 50–70 20 0.02 – 96.9 84.6 95.8 – [133]
wastewater RMP®
Municipal K1 60 3–5 – 93.1–99.7 78–98.4 – 78–99.5 – [52]
wastewater
Municipal K3 33 13 – – 84–96 – 96–99 – [158]
wastewater
Hospital K1 30 24 0.86–0.25 97.8 95.6 – – – [159]
wastewater

Type of treatment: MBR

Membrane Transmembrane HRT (h) SRT (d) BOD (%) COD (%) TN (%) TP (%) TSS (%)
pore size (µm) pressure (kPa)
a
Municipal 0.04 – 10.3 15 – 83–97 40.9–66.6 – 100 [86]
wastewater
Textile 0.04 14–56 14 25 96.7 97.3 78.6 58.7 99.5 [104]
wastewater
Piggery 0.02 ~ 40 30–75 – – 41.6–68.3 31.9–67.7 – – [117]
wastewater
Textile 0.04 62 31.2 – – 91 90 90 99.4 [106]
wastewater
Industrial 0.22 – 72 30 – 62.2 86.9–90.2 – – [160]
wastewater
Synthetic 0.4 30 168 – 94 97.4 68.4 37.5 97.8 [122]
wastewater
Synthetic 0.1 3.31–11.9 24 180 – – – 52–83 – [121]
wastewater
Municipal 0.1 50 6 – – 86.61–89.34 – – – [107]
wastewater
Textile 0.025 50–100 48 5–30 97 70a – [161]
wastewater
Tannery and 0.04 < 50 48 – – 86 (for – – – [162]
winery tannery) and
wastewater 97 (for
winery)
Greywater 0.04 – – – – 87 40 69 92 [134]
Refinery 0.15 10–35 10 – – 15–79 – – – [163]
wastewater
Textile 0.02 30–50 6–8 – 73.3 67.3 27.9 42.8 88.9 [164]
wastewater
Municipal – 355 3 60–100 – 87 – – 100 [165]
wastewater

Type of treatment: MBMBR

Carrier type Filling ratio (%) Membrane HRT (h) BOD (%) COD (%) TN (%) TP (%) TSS (%)
pore size
(µm)
Salinity- K1 35 0.04 6, 9.5, and 85–100 95–100 30–50 – 97 [39]
amended 12
urban
wastewater
Urban K1 35 and 50 – 10–24 92.3 97.2 70 and 95a – – [166]
wastewater
(continued on next page)

9
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Table 2 (continued )
Type of Operational conditions Removal efficiency Ref.
wastewater

Carrier type Filling ratio (%) HRT (h) Flow rate BOD (%) COD (%) TN (%) TP (%) TSS (%)
(m3/d)

Municipal K1 35 0.4 26.47 ~ 99 87.05–94.93 57.76–78.56 37.54–61.78 > 95 [125]

wastewater
Urban K1 35 0.04 9.5 97.5–98.9 88.6–93.4 ~ 80 57.8–62.8 ~ 99 [19]
wastewater
Laundry Picobells – – – 92 95 16 29 – [167]
wastewater
Municipal Biomaster BCN 30 0.04 – – – 49.8a 76.7 – [168]
wastewater Amitec
b
Greywater HDPE – 0.2 24 95 64 79 91 98 [142]
Municipal – 30 0.1 15.3–26 – 93.5 82.6 84.1 – [131]
wastewater
Municipal – 30 0.1 12 – 95.6 70 – – [35]
wastewater
Municipal K1 50 0.04 14.2–17 – 95 99.65 – – [169]
wastewater
b
Domestic Sponge cubes 20 0.1 6 and 12 – ~ 99 87.6 85.4 – [170]
wastewater
Municipal K1 35 0.04 18 – 87.9 72 85.2 ~ 98 [126]
wastewater
Municipal Sponge cubes 20 0.2 6–24 – 95–98.1 46.8–68.7 32.5–51.7b – [59]
wastewater
Urban – 20 – 10–24 > 95 ~ 95 75–100 – – [127]
wastewater
Real – – 0.003 20 – 98 53–69 67–87 – [171]
wastewater
+ Synthetic
wastewater
Textile – 35 0.02 5 and 11 – 85 – – 94 [172]
wastewater
a
Saline – – 0.03 – 93 82 – – [18]
wastewater
Synthetic K1 40 0.2 6 – 97 93 – – [130]
wastewater
a
NH4-N removal.
b
PO4– P removal.

Fig. 7. Cumulative number of publications on wastewater treatment using MBR and the simulated S-curve (inset).

10
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 8. a) Year-wise publications of research articles on MBR in different journals and b) box plot of citations of different articles in their respective journals, c) year-
wise publications of research articles on MBR from different countries, d) co-authorship overlap visualization map of studies related to wastewater treatment using
MBR as obtained from VOSviewer.

interesting topics that gained significant attention from readers. than 13.04% of research articles in “Water Research”. On the other
Research on full-scale applications of MBR for treating various types of hand, around 9.8% of research articles from France were published in
wastewater has also gained popularity in recent years [77,83–85]. There the “Journal of Membrane Science” (Fig. 9). It can also be observed that
are around 1500 patents on MBR for treating different wastewater. out a lot of collaborative work was carried out between European countries,
of which around 1350 patents belong from the United States Patent and the United States, China, etc. (Fig. S4).
Trademark Office. Around 130 patents on MBR belonged to the Japan Poyatos Jose Manuel along with González-López Jesus (University of
Patent office. Similar trends to that of full-scale MBBR were observed in Granada, Spain) and Leyva-Díaz Juan Carlos did significant work on
the field of full-scale MBR as well with around 71% of the research ar­ wastewater treatment using MBR from Spain and also collaborated with
ticles published in the last decade. Belgium and Finland. Wang Zhiwei (Tongji University, Shanghai,
The number of publications on wastewater treatment using MBR by China), Lin Hongjun (Zhejiang Normal University, China), Huang Xia
the top 10 contributing countries has been depicted in Fig. 8c. The (Tsinghua University, Beijing, China), etc., were leading researchers on
leading contributor of publications on MBR was observed to be China MBR from China (Fig. 8d). Ngo Huu Hao from the University of Tech­
(30.5%) followed by the USA (9.28%), Spain (8.34%), South Korea nology, Sydney, Australia, published 48 articles on this topic with an
(6.15%), Japan (5.65%), etc. On the contrary, countries like Australia, average citation value of 40 (Fig. 8d).
France, and Singapore have published relatively a smaller number of
articles but had high average citation per article values of 30.64, 43.92,
and 40.16, respectively, compared to China (22.35), Japan (26.72), and 4.2. Keyword analysis
Italy (24.64) (Fig. 9). From Fig. 9, it was found that greater than 50% of
research articles from countries like Japan, Italy, Australia, France, and The network visualization map and the density visualization map of
Singapore were published in high impact factor journals, like “Bio­ keywords pertaining to MBR have been shown in Figs. S5 and 10a,
resource Technology”, “Journal of Membrane Science”, “Water respectively. The keyword “membrane” was highlighted since it was the
Research”, and “Desalination”, hence implying the highly impactful most occurred keyword and had the highest number of connected items
research carried out by these countries. The USA had published greater (Fig. 10b). In Fig. 10b, the keywords in the red cluster, such as mem­
brane fouling, SMPs, EPS, filtration, microfiltration (MF), fouling

11
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 9. Different countries contributions in terms of the percentage of research articles published on MBR in the top journals and the average citation value
per article.

control, biofouling, membrane permeability, transmembrane pressure etc., associated with the nutrients removal from wastewater. While the
(TMP), flow rate, etc., are associated with membrane and the func­ blue cluster deals with the degradation mechanism and biological
tioning of membranes (Figs. S5 and 10b) [83,85,86]. Hence, the red component of the MBR, such as biodegradation, microbial community,
cluster is mainly about the studies of properties of the membranes and anoxic conditions, biomass, biofilm, etc. (Figs. S5 and 10b) [1,87–91].
factors affecting the membrane fouling. It can be observed that “mem­ The yellow cluster deals with removing conventional pollutants, such as
brane fouling” is the central term in the red cluster, and it is closely BOD, COD, suspended particulate matter, etc. These clusters represent
related to membrane permeability, TMP, and membrane filter. This in­ the ongoing research aspects in the field of MBR at the global commu­
dicates that the membrane fouling is largely dependent on the physi­ nity level.
cochemical properties of the membrane. The green cluster is constituted The density visualization of the keywords related to MBR revealed 4
to the removal of nutrients which is an important application of MBR. major hotspots (Fig. 10a). The keywords: biomass, biofilm, pollutant
This cluster comprises keywords, such as nitrification, denitrification, removal, and biodegradation were found close to the membrane, and the
nitrogen removal, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, phosphorous, phosphate, yellow color indicated a strong correlation of neighboring items. The

Fig. 10. Bibliometric assessment of studies related to wastewater treatment using MBR: a) density visualization of keyword occurrences, and b) highlight of the most
occurred and connected keyword “membrane” as obtained from VOSviewer. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the
web version of this article.)

12
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

close relationship may be because of the formation of biomass or bio­ 105]. The biological process by activated sludge converts the waste
films on the membrane surface, thereby removing the targeted pollut­ matter into flocs; subsequently, the flocs will be separated by mem­
ants [17,33,83]. Keywords, such as membrane fouling, membrane branes [86,106]. Several studies have reported that MBR gives high
permeability, adsorption, EPS, SMPs, etc., were found to be close vi­ effluent qualities compared to other biological systems due to a high
cinity in Fig. 10a. It is well-known that the formation of organic me­ microbial population in the vicinity of the membrane surface [106].
tabolites, such as EPS and SMPs, significantly influence membrane Additionally, the sieving effect of the membrane contributes to a high
fouling. It affects the operational conditions and hydraulics of the MBR, degree of removal of pollutants. In some cases, anaerobic MBR (AnMBR)
thereby reducing the efficiency of the system [92]. Also, membrane can be applied to treat high-strength industrial wastewater under low
fouling depends on the physicochemical properties of the membrane. temperatures, which is suitable for microbial growth [107,108]. How­
The hydrophobic membranes tend to foul easily. Hence, polymeric ever, the practical application of AnMBR can face several operational
membranes are more subjected to biofouling as compared to ceramic challenges related to pH, temperature, biofouling, HRT, TMP, mass
membranes. However, the high cost associated with ceramic membranes transfer issues, etc. [92]. Moreover, some studies have reported that
significantly limits its use in the field of wastewater abatement [141]. changes in salinity had little or no impact on the performance of MBR
Apart from the affinity towards water, membrane surface roughness also towards the removal of trace organic contaminants [109].
play a role in membrane fouling. Membranes with smooth surfaces In MBR, different mechanisms, such as biodegradation, physical
usually do not provide active sites for fouling. Inorganic fouling may retention by the membrane, sorption, and air stripping, are responsible
also happen due to the presence of cationic charges on the surface of the for removing the contaminants from the wastewater [105]. Biodegra­
membrane [93–95]. Another important aspect of the MBR process is dation is a major pathway for removing hydrophilic compounds,
membrane permeability. Membrane permeability was found to be in whereas biosorption onto activated sludge is responsible for hydro­
close vicinity to membrane fouling, TMP, filtration, membrane resis­ phobic compounds. Fig. 11 represents the removal of different con­
tance, etc. (Fig. S6d). High membrane permeability significantly de­ taminants along with responsible mechanisms. From Fig. 11, it can be
creases the membrane fouling and, in turn, exhibits better pollutant observed that MF fails to retain the viruses and salts, whereas UF could
removal [96]. Reducing biofouling by varying operational conditions retain viruses and other pathogens as well [86,110]. Retention by
and other modifications, such as coupling aerobic granulation, backwashed membrane accounted for effective removal of viruses
providing quorum quenching media, air scouring, etc., have got signif­ compared to cake layer retention and inactivation [111]. In the case of
icant attention lately (Fig. 10a) [96]. removal of nutrients, the anaerobic or pre-anoxic degradation plays the
The other two hotspots have keywords in close vicinity to ‘nitrogen predominant role before the membrane reactor [105]. Hence, it is
removal’, such as nitrification, denitrification, ammonia, etc., and ‘mi­ evident that microorganisms play a significant role in the treatment of
crobial community’, such as bacteria, metabolism, biotransformation, MBR. The treatment is also largely dependent on the biofilms and DO in
etc. [83,85,89,97]. As discussed earlier, nitrogen removal is a process the wastewater. The correlation between “biofilms” and “dissolved ox­
that primarily involves nitrification and denitrification. The presence of ygen” with other keywords, such as biodegradation, nitrification, deni­
aerobic and anaerobic conditions in the MBR can facilitate the growth of trification, bioconversion, etc., as observed in Fig. S6a and c, further
nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria. Such conditions may lead to effi­ substantiate the importance of these parameters. In addition, membrane
cient conversion of ammonia to nitrate or nitrite and then finally to retention leads to increased biomass concentration, thus improving the
atmospheric nitrogen. However, mostly MBRs are either aerobic or nutrients removal via nitrification and denitrification [112]. Low alka­
anaerobic systems. Hence nitrogen removal is not very high, as observed linity is also a problem in MBR since it leads to deteriorating the nitri­
in Table 2. Similarly, since degradation occurs due to the microorgan­ fication performance of MBR and affects the adherence tendency of EPS
ism’s metabolic activities, keywords, such as bacteria, biotransforma­ and sludge suspension properties, as in the case of MBBR [113,114]. Hu
tion, and metabolism, are usually closely knit in research papers. It is et al. [114] added sodium bicarbonate to maintain the alkalinity in the
evident from Fig. 10b that membranes are connected to a wide range of MBR system. The addition of extra alkalinity showed the enhanced
keywords. Membranes along with biomass play an integral part in the removal of NH+ 4 -N and COD by 38.3% and 14.6%, respectively. More­
removal of BOD, COD, TN, TP, TSS, etc. [98,99]. over, it also increased microbial abundance and enriched nitrified bac­
teria [114]. In another study, Ding et al. [115] investigated a novel
4.3. Applications of MBR for wastewater treatment integrated vertical MBR towards the removal of nitrogen from domestic
wastewater. The authors have observed that alkalinity and external
In MBR, the removal of contaminants takes place by suspended carbon sources have a great impact on the performance of the MBR
growth biological degradation i.e. activated sludge process followed by [115].
low-pressure membrane filtration i.e. microfiltration (MF: 0.1–1 µm) or The formation of EPS and bacteria on the membrane surface and the
ultrafiltration (UF: 0.01–0.1 µm) [95,97,100]. The membrane consists of adsorption of bacterial by-products and SMPs lead to fouling, and it is
a thin surface layer of polymeric substances having high surface most prominent in the external membrane module compared to the
porosity. Polymeric membranes are a core part of many of these systems, submerged membrane module [96]. The close vicinity of the keywords,
and they play a key role in producing a potable water quality from such as biofilms, biofouling, and fouling, indicates that they are closely
wastewater. Generally, polymeric membranes are made up of different connected and are hot research topics (Fig. S6c). Therefore, mitigation
materials, such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, of membrane fouling is an important aspect of research on MBR. In
polyacrylonitrile, etc. [101]. The effectiveness of the membrane mate­ Fig. S6b, it was observed that “flow rate” was closely related to fouling
rial can be estimated by using different properties, such as chemical and filtration. In this context, the flow rate may refer to the flow rate of
resistance, good flexibility, controllable pore size, etc. Moreover, the the influent or the flow rate of air. Low influent flow rate is associated
material should offer resistance against membrane fouling. It was with high HRT, thereby providing more time for the microorganisms to
observed that among the different polymeric membranes mentioned degrade or remove the pollutants [116]. Often, low HRT leads to an
above, polyacrylonitrile membrane has relatively more fouling resis­ increase in protein and polysaccharides concentrations in loosely bound
tance due to its lower affinity to EPS [102,103]. The configuration of EPS, thereby aggravating the membrane fouling [117]. Hence, a low
MBR can be either a submerged membrane module or an external flow rate should be beneficial for the performance of the MBR. On the
membrane module. However, in most cases, submerged MBR is other hand, a high airflow rate was found to reduce biofouling [96]. As
preferred due to its high permeability and lower fouling. Moreover, the discussed earlier, high membrane permeability can also reduce
energy expenditure is significantly less than that of the external mem­ biofouling. Implementing modifications, such as coupling aerobic
brane module due to no requirement of a recirculation loop [97,104, granulation, providing quorum quenching media, air scouring, etc., also

13
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 11. Mechanism and principles of operation of MBR.

reduce biofouling. Moreover, several researchers have applied Granada, Spain), Rodriguez-Sanchez Alejandro (University of Granada,
nitrifying-enriched activated sludge (NAS) to mitigate the membrane Spain), and Reboleiro-Rivas Patricia (University of Granada, Spain)
fouling and enhance the nitrification activity. NAS can be obtained by were among a few of the leading authors contributing heavily in the field
feeding particular ammonium to the conventional activated sludge of wastewater treatment using hybrid MBBR-MBR systems (Fig. 12a).
(CAS) [118,119]. Moreover, the successful NAS enrichment is highly More than 92% of the work on the combination of these two systems has
influenced by the effectiveness of bioaugmentation [119]. For instance, been performed in the last decade. Table 3 presents the number of
Sepehri and Sarrafzadeh [118] investigated the effect of NAS on mem­ research articles published by the foremost contributing journals in this
brane fouling. The authors had observed a significant reduction in the field and also their average citations. The number of research articles on
membrane fouling and enhanced nitrification efficiency when MBR was MBMBR or hybrid MBBR-MBR published by those journals in different
operated with NAS rather than CAS. The reason has been accounted for time spans has also been provided in Table 3. The top-cited research
NAS produce significantly less amount of organic metabolites, such as papers in this field have also been mentioned in Table 3. It is evident
SMPs and EPS [118,120]. from Table 3 that research involving hybrid MBBR-MBR systems is still
The different operational conditions and performance of MBR to in its early stages and is showing considerable promise in the field of
treat different types of wastewater have been provided in Table 2. Yigit wastewater treatment. “Bioresource Technology” and “Water Science
et al. [104] used a pilot-scale MBR to treat wastewater generated from and Technology” have published more papers on this field and are
the textile industry and obtained greater than 95% removal for BOD, continuing to publish in recent times as well. High average citations
COD, and TSS. While, only 58.7% and 79% of removal were observed for were observed for journals, such as “Bioresource Technology”, “Water
TP and TN, respectively [104]. Xu et al. [121] investigated an Research”, “Journal of Hazardous materials”, “Chemical Engineering
algae-based MBR for TP removal and observed an average removal of Journal”, etc. However, prominent journals, such as “Water Research”,
66% [121]. Similarly, Ashadullah et al. [122] studied the effect of “Ecological Engineering”, “Journal of Hazardous materials”, and
organic loading rate (OLR) and HRT on the performance of “Biochemical Engineering Journal” are yet to contribute to this field in
microalgal-based MBR towards the removal of TN and TP. The authors recent times.
have observed a significant reduction in the removal of TN and TP with
an increase in OLR. However, the effect of HRT was found to be insig­
5.1. Keyword analysis
nificant at higher HRT [122]. In another study, Iorhemen et al. [123]
studied the capability of aerobic granular sludge MBR towards the
The network visualization map of keywords on MBMBR has been
removal of nutrients and observed removal of 50% and 35% for TN and
depicted in Fig. 12b. The keywords: membrane and biofilm were high­
PO4-P, respectively. The poor removal of PO4-P may be attributed to the
lighted since they were found to be the most occurred keywords and had
negligible PAOs in the system [123].
the highest number of connected items (Fig. 12c and d). The red cluster
comprises keywords related to membranes and the operation of mem­
5. Moving bed membrane bioreactor
branes, such as fouling, biofouling, EPS, membrane fouling, biofilms,
etc. [83,85]. The blue cluster comprised of keywords dealing with the
The hybridization of MBR and MMBR systems has been employed to
mechanism and factors affecting the treatment in MBMBR, such as MF,
overcome the drawbacks of single systems. One such hybridization
nitrification, denitrification, membrane permeability, etc., while the
technique is the coupling of an MBBR with an MBR, which is often called
green cluster comprised of keywords involving microorganisms and
the MBMBR or hybrid MBBR-MBR. The MBMBR has been preferred over
biodegradation, such as bacteria, metabolism, COD, HRT, etc. [19,
single MBR and MBBR systems primarily because MBMBR exhibited
125–127]. It is evident from Fig. 12c and d that membranes and biofilm
enhanced pollutant removal capacity and significantly prevented the
actively take part in the MBMBR systems, and they are responsible for
pollution of the membrane, thereby preventing fouling to a considerable
the removal of BOD, COD, TN, TP, TSS, etc. [19,39,125–128].
degree [18,124]. The initial research involving the combination of MBR
and MBBR available in the Scopus database was observed in 2006
[32–34]. Canziani et al. [32] targeted nitrogen removal from leachate by 5.2. Application of MBMBR for wastewater treatment
partial nitrification in a pure-oxygen MBR followed by denitrification
using an anaerobic MBBR [32]. Ahl et al. [34] studied the effects of The increase in stringent regulations on effluent discharges con­
loading rate on membrane fouling in an MBMBR, while Lee et al. [33] cerning environmental protection led to the development of different
investigated the factors affecting the filtration characteristics of a hybrid technologies [1,3]. Fig. 13a depicts the average removal effi­
membrane-coupled MBBR [33,34]. In the last decade, Leyva-Díaz Juan ciencies of MBBR and MBR in terms of removal of BOD, COD, TP, TN,
Carlos, Poyatos Jose Manuel, Jaime Martin Pascual (University of and TSS. A schematic representation of the different types of pollutants
that can be removed via MBR and MBBR and the effluent quality has

14
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Fig. 12. Bibliometric assessment of studies related to wastewater treatment using MBMBR: a) the map of co-authorship overlap visualization, b) keywords oc­
currences network visualization map, c), and d) highlight of the most occurred and connected keywords “membrane” and “biofilm”, respectively, as obtained from
VOSviewer. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

been depicted in Fig. 13b. It is evident that alone MBR and MBBR are The performance of various MBMBR in terms of removal of BOD,
often insufficient to bring down the water quality parameters below the COD, TN, TP, and TSS have been provided in Table 2. Yang et al. [131]
permissible limit. Hence, in recent times, MBBR and MBR treatment investigated the performance of MBMBR towards the removal of COD,
techniques have been employed together, thereby enhancing pollutants TN, and TP and obtained removal efficiencies of 93.5%, 82.6%, and
removal [59,129,130]. The MBMBR uses the advantages of both MBR 84.1%, respectively. The authors have reported that the removal of TP
and MBBR and produces effluent of much better quality, and has the was correlated with the length of the aerobic phase and anaerobic phase
potential to treat a wide range of contaminants [18,59]. The role of both [131]. In another study, Leyva-Diaz et al. [126] used hybrid MBMBR to
membrane and biofilm in the performance of MBMBR can be understood remove nutrients from municipal wastewater. They have achieved the
by the high usage of the two keywords in the MBMBR network (Fig. 12c removal of 85.8% and 97.7% for COD and BOD, respectively. Moreover,
and d). The correlation of the keywords, such as membrane and biofilms, a higher concentration of denitrifying bacteria in the MBMBR reactor
with all the major aspects of wastewater treatment, such as nitrification, was attributed to higher removal, i.e., 72% of TN, whereas slightly
denitrification, COD, fouling, etc., indicate that these two key compo­ higher removal, i.e., 85.2%, was observed for TP. The competition be­
nents have almost equal weightage in wastewater treatment. This inte­ tween PAOs and nitrifying bacteria for oxygen is attributed to problems
grated system reduces the effect of suspended solids on membrane concerning nitrifying activity [126].
fouling. The MBMBR has several advantages, such as operating with
higher fluxes, having better removal efficiencies, minimizing the 6. Comparative assessment of performance, energy
membrane fouling, and being even more compact [33]. The high requirement, and operational expenditure
weightage of keywords, such as membrane fouling, fouling, biofouling,
etc., indicates that one of the reasons for incorporating these two sys­ The operational parameters and performance of various studies on
tems is to reduce the fouling of membranes, which was a significant MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR in terms of removal of BOD, COD, TN, TP, and
drawback in the MBR (Fig. 12c and d). “Nitrogen removal” also received TSS have been listed in Table 2. The average removal efficiency of BOD
significant weightage, probably indicating simultaneous nitrification and COD using MBBR was found to be around 80%, while that of TN and
and denitrification (SND) is another emerging aspect of research in TP was around 50% (Fig. 13a). Moreover, several researchers have
MBMBR (Fig. 12c and d). The arrangements comprising of an anoxic studied the energy requirement and operational expenditures associated
MBBR and oxic MBR, or oxic MBBR and anoxic MBR solve the problem with the MBBR. For instance, Yang et al. [106] compared the economic
of SND in the same system, thereby providing better TN removal [5,32, perspectives of MBBR and MBR systems towards textile wastewater
131]. treatment. The authors had observed an energy demand of 0.48 kW/m3

15
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

Table 3
Top 10 contributing journals along with the number of articles published on MBMBR and the top 10 cited research articles on MBMBR.
Journal name Number of articles Percentage of total number of articles Average citations Number of publications in the time-span

2006–2009 2010–2013 2014–2017 2018–2020

Bioresource Technology 9 14.28 53.33 1 1 5 2

Water Science and Technology 7 11.11 17.51 1 0 5 1
Chemical Engineering Journal 4 6.35 43.75 0 0 3 1
Water Research 4 6.35 50 1 0 3 0
Ecological Engineering 3 4.76 36.66 0 1 2 0
Desalination and Water Treatment 3 4.76 3.33 0 0 2 1
Chemosphere 3 4.76 2 0 0 0 3
Journal of Hazardous Materials 2 3.17 94 0 2 0 0
Journal of Cleaner Production 2 3.17 18.5 0 0 0 2
Biochemical Engineering Journal 2 3.17 56 0 1 1 0
Title of top research articles Journal name Citations References
Simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus removal by a novel sequencing batch moving bed membrane bioreactor for Journal of Hazardous 136 Yang et al. [131]
wastewater treatment Materials
Comparison between a moving bed membrane bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor on organic Bioresource Technology 126 Yang et al. [35]
carbon and nitrogen removal
Factors affecting filtration characteristics in membrane-coupled moving bed biofilm reactor Water Research 93 Lee et al. [33]
Comparative kinetic study between moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor and membrane bioreactor Biochemical Engineering 88 Leyva-Díaz et al. [125]
systems and their influence on organic matter and nutrients removal Journal
Kinetic modeling and microbiological study of two-step nitrification in a membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving Chemical Engineering 87 Leyva-Díaz et al. [36]
bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment Journal
Comparison between moving bed-membrane bioreactor (MB-MBR) and membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems: Bioresource Technology 81 Trapani et al. [169]
Influence of wastewater salinity variation
Evaluation of micropollutant removal and fouling reduction in a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane Bioresource Technology 56 Luo et al. [37]
bioreactor system
The characteristics of extracellular polymeric substances and soluble microbial products in moving bed biofilm Bioresource Technology 55 Duan et al. [173]
reactor-membrane bioreactor
New functional biocarriers for enhancing the performance of a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane Bioresource Technology 54 Deng et al. [170]
bioreactor system
Innovative sponge-based moving bed-osmotic membrane bioreactor hybrid system using a new class of draw solution Water Research 53 Nguyen et al. [174]
for municipal wastewater treatment

Fig. 13. a) Comparison of the performance of MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR in terms of removal of BOD, COD, TN, TP, and TSS, b) schematic representation showing the
different pollutants that get removed using MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR, and the quality of the effluent generated.

for MBBR, and the cost associated with this was estimated to be around [48]. Kowalski et al. [132] used sodium hydroxide to increase the pH of
US$ 0.11 per m3 of wastewater treatment. While, MBR has shown wastewater, which can be considered as an additional operational cost
relatively high energy demand, i.e., 2.72 kW/m3, with an estimated cost associated with MBBR. Around 0.2 kg of sodium hydroxide was added to
of US$ 0.6/m3. Moreover, the study has shown that MBBR could be a treat one cubic meter of wastewater, and the cost was estimated to be
more economically attractive option concerning capital and operational approximately US$ 0.04/m3 [132]. It can be observed that MBBR has
expenses for the textile industries [106]. Singh et al. [48] evaluated the proved to be an effective and valuable biofilm reactor due to its inherent
operational cost and energy expenditure of MBBR plants installed at benefits, such as low volume requirements, uniform distribution of
different locations in India. The authors have estimated the approximate biomass, the capability to handle high OLRs at lower HRTs, biofilm is
cost of the treatment and energy consumption as US$ 0.17 and 0.6 kW h more resistant to influent shock loads, less sludge production, no strict
per cubic meter wastewater treatment, respectively. The estimated requirement of recirculation, etc. [15,48,133]. However, MBBR has
values were depended on electricity cost, terrain, area classification, etc. certain flaws, such as washout of carriers, inefficient mixing that may

16
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

lead to the formation of stagnant zones, manual monitoring, etc. [5]. around 1.39 kW h/m3 of energy was utilized only for aeration of the
Furthermore, the matured biofilm can be detached from the biofilm bioreactor. While 2.57 kW h/m3 of energy demand was observed for
surface through the turbulence and shear force caused by aeration in the severely fouled membranes. The increase in demand is attributed to
aerobic system or by mechanical mixing in an anoxic or anaerobic sys­ back flushing and permeate pumping [142]. However, more research is
tem, thereby releasing some degradation byproducts along with the needed to overcome various uncertainties, such as economic viability,
densified biofilm into the liquid phase from the dense phase [69]. up-scaling options, etc.
The average removal efficiency of BOD and COD using MBR was
found to be around 88% and 84%, respectively, while that of TN and TP 7. Sustainability assessment of MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR
was around 65% and 60%, respectively (Fig. 13a). High removal (>
95%) of TSS was observed for MBR processes, which could be achieved LCA can be used as an effective decision-making tool to evaluate the
by employing size exclusion and physical retention by the membrane environmental impacts associated with the different treatment tech­
[86,106,134]. In recent times, industrial applications and commercial­ niques [11,143]. LCA considers technical, environmental, social, and
ization of large-scale MBR have continued to increase all over the world, economic aspects, thereby evaluating treatment systems’ sustainability.
especially in China, Europe, and the USA. At the industrial level, MBR For example, Jabri et al. [144] used the LCA tool to assess and quantify
has been applied widely to treat wastewater generated from different the environmental impacts associated with the MBBR system for the
industries, such as food processing, pulp and paper, winery, pharma­ greywater treatment by considering different impact categories. The
ceutical, electroplating, etc [135,136]. In order to assess the perfor­ authors have reported that recycling of the treated greywater has
mance of MBR, Valderrama et al. [137] applied submerged MBR for reduced ozone layer depletion, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, and eutro­
treating winery wastewater. The authors have observed greater than phication by 3.9%, 16.2%, and 17%, respectively, compared to no
95% removals towards COD. Moreover, the authors have performed the recycling scenario. Moreover, renewable energy sources were recom­
cost analysis by considering energy and chemical consumptions and mended to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the energy
observed a total operational cost of around US$ 0.47 per m3 of waste­ requirement for MBBR, which affects acidification and global warming
water treatment. However, the authors have not considered the cost potential [144]. In another study, Starkl et al. [145] compared the
included in other operational inputs, such as membrane replacement, different treatment technologies used for municipal wastewater treat­
labor cost, etc. [137]. In another study, Iglesias et al. [138] assessed the ment based on pollutant removal, affordability, and social acceptability.
operational expenses associated with full-scale MBR and observed It was observed that MBBR qualified as the best available technique for
greater than 50% of total energy demand is mainly related to aeration. low-cost technology. Moreover, the reuse of treated effluents for
The authors have estimated around US$ 0.071 per kW h of energy non-potable purposes can be accepted, thereby causing a positive impact
supply, while membrane cleaning accounted for 3% of the total opera­ due to water saving. However, there remain considerable health risks
tional expenses, i.e., US$ 0.014 per m3 of permeated [138]. Some re­ associated with reuse applications for domestic purposes in the long run
searchers have reported that the energy consumption values which [145].
include aeration, sludge mixing, and liquid pumping are in the range of In the case of MBR, several researchers have reported that MBR can
0.5–0.8 kW h/m3 when MBR was operated at optimal conditions [139, provide high effluent qualities, hence reducing impacts in terms of
140]. According to Xiao et al. [136], the average energy consumption of marine and freshwater eutrophication. However, MBRs can induce more
MBR (with a treatment capacity ranging between 10,000 and 50, environmental impacts than they prevent due to the high cost of mem­
000 m3/d) for the treatment of industrial wastewater in China is around branes and high energy consumption for aeration and membrane
0.4–0.6 kW h/m3. However, for the system capacity of ≥ 50,000 m3/d, cleaning [92]. For instance, Høibye et al. [146] used LCA to evaluate the
the energy demand was observed in the range of 0.4–0.6 kW h/m3. The impacts associated with the three treatment methods, such as MBR,
reduction in energy demand may be due to improved design and oper­ ozonation, and sand filtration. Although MBR has shown better re­
ations, particularly for the aeration system [136]. The aeration demand movals, it is linked with higher energy consumption than ozonation and
can be reduced via revaluation of oxygen mass transfer parameters in sand filtration [146]. Similarly, Ortiz et al. [147] compared submerged
MBR and refined design of aeration modes and the automatic control and external MBRs and observed higher impact loads associated with the
system [136,141]. external membrane module due to its higher energy demand [147].
Studies on the use of MBMBR in wastewater treatment is limited Stanchev et al. [148] observed higher environmental benefits, such as
since it is a relatively new technology, but it was evident from the reduction in fossil fuel depletion and climate change, when AnMBR was
reviewed studies (Table 2) that the system has the potential to remove integrated with an upflow-anaerobic sludge blanket system. However,
the organic matter, nutrients, and POPs with much greater efficiency nutrient-rich effluents from the system led to a larger impact on fresh­
(Fig. 13a) [5,39]. The average removal efficiency of BOD and COD using water eutrophication [148]. Several authors have suggested that
MBMBR was found to be around 94% and 92%, respectively, while that energy-efficient operation of MBR can be gained through operation at
of TN and TP was around 74% and 73%, respectively (Fig. 13a). These optimal flow conditions, i.e., the hydraulic load should be equal to the
values were significantly higher than that of single MBBR or MBR sys­ design flow rate and hydraulic capacity utilization of the membranes
tems. Furthermore, the schematic representation of the comparison of [140,143]. Moreover, energy can be saved by operating the MBR for a
the performance of MBR, MBBR, and MBMBR (Fig. 13b) shows that longer period during good activated sludge filterability of a membrane
MBMBR can treat a wide range of pollutants with much higher effi­ rather than giving importance for relaxation or backwashing [143].
ciency. Although MBMBR has shown good removal efficiencies, it de­ Integration of MBBR with MBR has shown several advantages, as
mands relatively high energy compared to MBBR and MBR systems. To mentioned before. This hybrid system has significantly reduced the
date, very few studies have assessed the energy expenditure and oper­ membrane fouling, thereby energy or cost spent on mitigating the
ational costs associated with the MBMBR hybrid system. Recently, Sun membrane fouling or replacing the membrane can be significantly
et al. [130] investigated the ceramic MBMBR for wastewater treatment reduced. Moreover, the high effluent qualities from MBMBR could
and observed removal of 97% and 92% for COD and TN, respectively. It reduce the impacts on eutrophication, climate change, acidification, etc.
was estimated that the energy consumption in the MBMBR was around [149]. According to Sakcharoen et al. [149], the reuse of treated efflu­
0.207 kW h/m3, which includes both pumping and aeration energy ents from the MBMBR system saves about US$ 1440 per year on water
[130]. Recently, Jabornig and Favero [142] applied MBMBR with a costs. Moreover, nutrient-rich waste sludge from this system was used as
capacity of 350 L for treating wastewater generated from a household a substrate for an anaerobic digester, hence recovered biogas can be
contains four persons. The energy demand in the reactor was influenced used as a substitution for liquefied petroleum gas [149]. However, as
by the status of the membrane. In the case of new or cleaned membranes, mentioned before, MBMBR is a relatively new technique, hence further

17
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

detailed investigation is needed to evaluate the sustainability aspects. 9. Conclusions

8. Summary of findings and future recommendations In the present study, the quantitative assessment of technological
development of the selected treatment methods has been performed
Publication of research articles and patents related to the treatment through bibliometric analysis. This type of analysis could help in un­
of wastewater using MBBR and MBR has been observed since the late derstanding the multidimensional aspects of a particular research topic.
1980s. Their ability to remove organic matter and nutrients from It was observed that the average removal of BOD, COD, TN, and TP,
wastewater makes them a promising technology in this field. The basic using MBBR was 87%, 80.1%, 56%, and 53.8%, respectively, and using
designs of these systems used in the early days of their inception have MBR was 88%, 84%, 65%, and 60%, respectively. However, the
undergone numerous modifications to cater to the modern discharge competition from other microbial parameters, the presence of other co-
standards, economic viability, fast and easy operation, etc. Around 3400 contaminants in wastewater, and membrane fouling are posing a sig­
research articles and 1500 patents have been published on wastewater nificant challenge for successful biodegradation. Hence, in recent years,
treatment using MBR, close to 550 research articles and around 140 much research has been aimed to remove organic micropollutants,
patents have been published on wastewater treatment using MBBR. mitigate membrane fouling, and assess other operational problems
However, only a small fraction of these works are related to full-scale associated with these biological treatment units. On the other hand,
applications, and the majority of the work has been carried out in the MBMBR could, to some extent, mitigate the issues pertaining to mem­
last decade. It implies that wastewater treatment using these technolo­ brane fouling and providing a high-quality effluent (removal efficiency
gies holds considerable promise for up-scaling applications. Research on of BOD, COD, TN, TP are 94%, 92%, 74%, and 73%, respectively).
these technologies has been carried out around the globe. However, However, only a limited number of studies have been carried out using
China, USA, Australia, Spain, Germany, etc., have contributed heavily MBMBR, and their feasibility in full-scale applications is yet to be tested.
towards this field. USA, Japan, and few European countries were found LCA analysis revealed that MBBR could be considered as the best
to have published the maximum number of patents. In the case of available technique for low-cost technology, while high energy con­
MBMBR, the prototype was developed in 2006, thereafter several sumption in MBR leads to more environmental impacts.
modifications have been carried out to enhance the removal efficiencies
towards various types of constituents present in wastewater. The trend
in publications involving wastewater treatment using MBMBR is on the Declaration of Competing Interest
rise, and there are highly reputed journals publishing such work.
However, the present study does not cover the industrial aspects of The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
MBMBR due to the lack of data. Upon availability of sufficient data, in- interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
depth analysis of the role of different operational parameters and in­ the work reported in this paper.
fluence of wastewater matrix on the performance of these systems can be
addressed. The bibliometric analysis of wastewater treatment using Acknowledgment
MBBR, MBR, and MBMBR can help in understanding the current state of
work involving the techniques by identifying active researchers working This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
in this field, journals prioritizing works related to this field, the research agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
gaps, and also understanding the underlying mechanism and role of
operating parameters and other influencing factors. Appendix A. Supplementary material
In the case of MBBR, the development of novel biocarriers or mod­
ifications to the existing biocarriers is required to enhance the bio­ Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
activities. For instance, the application of plastic waste materials as online version at doi:10.1016/j.jece.2021.106112.
biocarriers or doping fibers on existing carriers could be an effective
option. Additionally, the 3D printing technique can be used to optimize References
the properties of biocarrier, such as specific surface area, density, size,
shape, etc., in less time and at minimal cost by employing sophisticated [1] A. Majumder, A.K. Gupta, P.S. Ghosal, M. Varma, A review on hospital
machines. The optimization of nutrient removal and recovery capability wastewater treatment: a special emphasis on occurrence and removal of
pharmaceutically active compounds, resistant microorganisms, and SARS-CoV-2,
of MBBR needs further investigation. To facilitate the marketing of MBR J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021), 104812, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technology, the cost of the membrane, the energy requirements, and the jece.2020.104812.
membrane fouling aspects are the key challenges. Hence, the develop­ [2] A. Majumder, B. Gupta, A.K. Gupta, Pharmaceutically active compounds in
aqueous environment: a status, toxicity and insights of remediation, Environ. Res.
ment of antifouling membranes, procedure for low-energy membrane 176 (2019), 108542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108542.
cleaning techniques, development of cost-effective membrane materials, [3] M. Jain, A. Majumder, P.S. Ghosal, A.K. Gupta, A review on treatment of
and identification of tailored pre-treatment protocols to increase the petroleum refinery and petrochemical plant wastewater: a special emphasis on
constructed wetlands, J. Environ. Manag. 272 (2020), 111057, https://doi.org/
energy efficiency and life expectancy of the MBR still needs to be 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111057.
addressed. Moreover, there might be a huge scope in the research based [4] M.K. Perera, J.D. Englehardt, A.C. Dvorak, Technologies for recovering nutrients
on optimizing membrane modules and developing dynamic response from wastewater: a critical review, Environ. Eng. Sci. 36 (2019) 511–529,
https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2018.0436.
models for predicting membrane fouling. Although MBMBR has shown
[5] J.C. Leyva-Díaz, A. Monteoliva-García, J. Martín-Pascual, M.M. Munio, J.
good removals, further research is required to completely understand J. García-Mesa, J.M. Poyatos, Moving bed biofilm reactor as an alternative
the role of the different components in the system and identify the major wastewater treatment process for nutrient removal and recovery in the circular
economy model, Bioresour. Technol. 299 (2020), 122631, https://doi.org/
driving forces in this complex reactor before it can be considered as a
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122631.
potential alternative to other biological treatment systems. The exten­ [6] P. Krzeminski, M.C. Tomei, P. Karaolia, A. Langenhoff, C.M.R. Almeida, E. Felis,
sive applications of selected treatment methods on a pilot-scale basis are F. Gritten, H.R. Andersen, T. Fernandes, C.M. Manaia, L. Rizzo, D. Fatta-Kassinos,
required for the assessment of sustainability aspects (e.g., technical, Performance of secondary wastewater treatment methods for the removal of
contaminants of emerging concern implicated in crop uptake and antibiotic
environmental, social, and economical) during construction and oper­ resistance spread: a review, Sci. Total Environ. 648 (2019) 1052–1081, https://
ation phases. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.130.
[7] L. Ramrakhiani, A. Halder, A. Majumder, A.K. Mandal, S. Majumdar, S. Ghosh,
Industrial waste derived biosorbent for toxic metal remediation: mechanism
studies and spent biosorbent management, Chem. Eng. J. 308 (2017) 1048–1064,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CEJ.2016.09.145.

18
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

[8] M. Qi, Y. Yang, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, M. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Lu, Y. Tong, Pollution [29] L. Qin, Y. Zhang, Z. Xu, G. Zhang, Advanced membrane bioreactors systems: new
reduction and operating cost analysis of municipal wastewater treatment in materials and hybrid process design, Bioresour. Technol. 269 (2018) 476–488,
China and implication for future wastewater management, J. Clean. Prod. 253 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.08.062.
(2020), 120003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120003. [30] Y. Zhang, J. Zhou, J. Zhang, S. Yuan, An innovative membrane bioreactor and
[9] S.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, G. Singh, Biodegradation of distillery spent wash in packed-bed biofilm reactor combined system for shortcut nitrification-
anaerobic hybrid reactor, Water Res. 41 (2007) 721–730, https://doi.org/ denitrification, J. Environ. Sci. 21 (2009) 568–574, https://doi.org/10.1016/
10.1016/j.watres.2006.11.039. S1001-0742(08)62309-8.
[10] S.K. Behera, H.W. Kim, J.E. Oh, H.S. Park, Occurrence and removal of antibiotics, [31] A.H. Khan, H. Abdul Aziz, N.A. Khan, S. Ahmed, M.S. Mehtab, S. Vambol,
hormones and several other pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment plants of V. Vambol, F. Changani, S. Islam, Pharmaceuticals of emerging concern in
the largest industrial city of Korea, Sci. Total Environ. 409 (2011) 4351–4360, hospital wastewater: removal of ibuprofen and ofloxacin drugs using MBBR
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.015. method, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem. 185533 (2020) 1–15, https://doi.org/
[11] V.K. Parida, D. Saidulu, A. Majumder, A. Srivastava, B. Gupta, A.K. Gupta, 10.1080/03067319.2020.1855333.
Emerging contaminants in wastewater: a critical review on occurrence, existing [32] R. Canziani, V. Emondi, M. Garavaglia, F. Malpei, E. Pasinetti, G. Buttiglieri,
legislations, risk assessment, and sustainable treatment alternatives, J. Environ. Effect of oxygen concentration on biological nitrification and microbial kinetics in
Chem. Eng. 9 (2021), 105966, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105966. a cross-flow membrane bioreactor (MBR) and moving-bed biofilm reactor
[12] A.H. Khan, H.A. Aziz, N.A. Khan, M.A. Hasan, S. Ahmed, I.H. Farooqi, A. Dhingra, (MBBR) treating old landfill leachate, J. Membr. Sci. 286 (2006) 202–212,
V. Vambol, F. Changani, M. Yousefi, S. Islam, N. Mozaffari, M.S. Mahtab, Impact, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.09.044.
disease outbreak and the eco-hazards associated with pharmaceutical residues: a [33] W.N. Lee, I.J. Kang, C.H. Lee, Factors affecting filtration characteristics in
critical review, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/ membrane-coupled moving bed biofilm reactor, Water Res. 40 (2006)
s13762-021-03158-9. 1827–1835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.03.007.
[13] A. Majumder, A.K. Gupta, Enhanced photocatalytic degradation of 17β-estradiol [34] R.M. Ahl, T. Leiknes, H. Ødegaard, Tracking particle size distributions in a
by polythiophene modified Al-doped ZnO: optimization of synthesis parameters moving bed biofilm membrane reactor for treatment of municipal wastewater,
using multivariate optimization techniques, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8 (2020), Water Sci. Technol. 53 (2006) 33–42, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.205.
104463, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104463. [35] S. Yang, F. Yang, Z. Fu, R. Lei, Comparison between a moving bed membrane
[14] A. Joss, S. Zabczynski, A. Göbel, B. Hoffmann, D. Löffler, C.S. McArdell, T. bioreactor and a conventional membrane bioreactor on organic carbon and
A. Ternes, A. Thomsen, H. Siegrist, Biological degradation of pharmaceuticals in nitrogen removal, Bioresour. Technol. 100 (2009) 2369–2374, https://doi.org/
municipal wastewater treatment: proposing a classification scheme, Water Res. 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.11.022.
40 (2006) 1686–1696, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.02.014. [36] J.C. Leyva-díaz, A. González-martínez, J. González-lópez, M.M. Muñío, J.
[15] M. Zhang, C. Zhu, T. Pan, Y. Fan, Y. Liu, C. He, X. Gu, J. Wu, Elucidating sludge M. Poyatos, Kinetic modeling and microbiological study of two-step nitrification
characteristic, substrate transformation and microbial evolution in a two-sludge in a membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor – membrane
denitrifying phosphorus removal system under the impact of HRT, J. Environ. bioreactor for wastewater treatment, Chem. Eng. J. 259 (2015) 692–702, https://
Manag. 262 (2020), 110391, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110391. doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.07.136.
[16] Z. Wang, X.-L. Liu, C.-N. Bu, S.-Q. Ni, S. Sung, Microbial diversity reveals the [37] Y. Luo, Q. Jiang, H.H. Ngo, L.D. Nghiem, F.I. Hai, W.E. Price, J. Wang, W. Guo,
partial denitrification-anammox process serves as a new pathway in the first Evaluation of micropollutant removal and fouling reduction in a hybrid moving
mainstream anammox plant, Sci. Total Environ. 764 (2021), 142917, https://doi. bed biofilm reactor – membrane bioreactor system, Bioresour. Technol. 191
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142917. (2015) 355–359, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.05.073.
[17] J. Liu, F. Sun, P. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Integrated powdered activated carbon and [38] D. Zhao, C. Fu, X. Bi, H. Yong, X. Shi, Effects of coarse and fine bubble aeration on
quorum quenching strategy for biofouling control in industrial wastewater performances of membrane filtration and denitrification in moving bed
membrane bioreactor, J. Clean. Prod. 279 (2021), 123551, https://doi.org/ membrane bioreactors, Sci. Total Environ. 772 (2021), 145513, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123551. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145513.
[18] Z. Yu, W. Li, S. Tan, Real-time monitoring of the membrane biofouling based on [39] A. Rodriguez-Sanchez, J.C. Leyva-Diaz, J. Gonzalez-Lopez, J.M. Poyatos,
spectroscopic analysis in a marine MBBR-MBR (moving bed biofilm reactor- Membrane bioreactor and hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane
membrane bioreactor) for saline wastewater treatment, Chemosphere 235 (2019) bioreactor for the treatment of variable salinity wastewater: influence of biomass
1154–1161, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.07.005. concentration and hydraulic retention time, Chem. Eng. J. 336 (2018) 102–111,
[19] J.C. Leyva-Díaz, J. Martín-Pascual, M.M. Muñío, J. González-López, E. Hontoria, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.10.118.
J.M. Poyatos, Comparative kinetics of hybrid and pure moving bed reactor- [40] S.J. Judd, The status of industrial and municipal effluent treatment with
membrane bioreactors, Ecol. Eng. 70 (2014) 227–234, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. membrane bioreactor technology, Chem. Eng. J. 305 (2016) 37–45, https://doi.
ecoleng.2014.05.017. org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.141.
[20] M.E. Casas, R.K. Chhetri, G. Ooi, K.M.S. Hansen, K. Litty, M. Christensson, [41] A. di Biase, M.S. Kowalski, T.R. Devlin, J.A. Oleszkiewicz, Moving bed biofilm
C. Kragelund, H.R. Andersen, K. Bester, Biodegradation of pharmaceuticals in reactor technology in municipal wastewater treatment: a review, J. Environ.
hospital wastewater by staged moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR), Water Res. Manag. 247 (2019) 849–866, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.053.
83 (2015) 293–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.042. [42] G. Mao, H. Hu, X. Liu, J. Crittenden, N. Huang, A bibliometric analysis of
[21] X.J. Wang, S.Q. Xia, L. Chen, J.F. Zhao, N.J. Renault, J.M. Chovelon, Nutrients industrial wastewater treatments from 1998 to 2019, Environ. Pollut. 275 (2021),
removal from municipal wastewater by chemical precipitation in a moving bed 115785, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115785.
biofilm reactor, Process Biochem. 41 (2006) 824–828, https://doi.org/10.1016/ [43] A. Majumder, D. Saidulu, A.K. Gupta, P.S. Ghosal, Predicting the trend and utility
J.PROCBIO.2005.10.015. of different photocatalysts for degradation of pharmaceutically active
[22] A.A.L. Zinatizadeh, E. Ghaytooli, Simultaneous nitrogen and carbon removal compounds: a special emphasis on photocatalytic materials, modifications, and
from wastewater at different operating conditions in a moving bed biofilm reactor performance comparison, J. Environ. Manag. 293 (2021), 112858, https://doi.
(MBBR): process modeling and optimization, J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 53 org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112858.
(2015) 98–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2015.02.034. [44] H. Du, D. Liu, Z. Lu, J. Crittenden, G. Mao, S. Wang, H. Zou, Research
[23] G. Pozo, C.A. Villamar, M. Martínez, G. Vidal, Effect of organic load and nutrient development on sustainable urban infrastructure from 1991 to 2017: a
ratio on the operation stability of the moving bed bioreactor for kraft mill bibliometric analysis to inform future innovations, Earth’s Future 7 (2019)
wastewater treatment and the incidence of polyhydroxyalkanoate biosynthesis, 718–733, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001117.
Water Sci. Technol. 66 (2012) 370–376, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2012.204. [45] N.J. van Eck, L. Waltman, Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
[24] F. Perreault, H. Jaramillo, M. Xie, M. Ude, L.D. Nghiem, M. Elimelech, Biofouling bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84 (2010) 523–538, https://doi.org/
mitigation in forward osmosis using graphene oxide functionalized thin-film 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
composite membranes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 5840–5848, https://doi. [46] Z. Li, M. Hu, H. Song, D. Lin, Y. Wang, Toxic effects of nano-TiO2 in bivalves — a
org/10.1021/acs.est.5b06364. synthesis of meta-analysis and bibliometric analysis, J. Environ. Sci. 104 (2021)
[25] P.B. Moser, B.C. Ricci, B.G. Reis, L.S.F. Neta, A.C. Cerqueira, M.C.S. Amaral, 188–203, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2020.11.013.
Effect of MBR-H2O2/UV Hybrid pre-treatment on nanofiltration performance for [47] S. Bering, J. Mazur, K. Tarnowski, M. Janus, S. Mozia, A.W. Morawski, The
the treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater, Sep. Purif. Technol. 192 (2018) application of moving bed bio-reactor (MBBR) in commercial laundry wastewater
176–184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2017.09.070. treatment, Sci. Total Environ. 627 (2018) 1638–1643, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[26] M.A. Mazhar, N.A. Khan, A.H. Khan, S. Ahmed, A.A. Siddiqui, A. Husain, scitotenv.2018.02.029.
Rahisuddin, V. Tirth, S. Islam, N.K. Shukla, F. Changani, M. Yousefi, A. [48] A. Singh, S.J. Kamble, M. Sawant, Y. Chakravarthy, A. Kazmi, E. Aymerich,
E. Hassaballa, N. Radwan, Upgrading combined anaerobic-aerobic UASB-FPU to M. Starkl, M. Ghangrekar, L. Philip, Technical, hygiene, economic, and life cycle
UASB-DHS system: cost comparison and performance perspective for developing assessment of full-scale moving bed biofilm reactors for wastewater treatment in
countries, J. Clean. Prod. 284 (2021), 124723, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. India, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (2018) 2552–2569, https://doi.org/10.1007/
jclepro.2020.124723. s11356-017-0605-y.
[27] S. Jia, H. Han, B. Hou, H. Zhuang, F. Fang, Q. Zhao, Treatment of coal gasification [49] I. Dimitrova, A. Dabrowska, S. Ekström, Start-up of a full-scale partial nitritation-
wastewater by membrane bioreactor hybrid powdered activated carbon (MBR- anammox MBBR without inoculum at Klagshamn WWTP, Water Sci. Technol. 81
PAC) system, Chemosphere 117 (2014) 753–759, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. (2020) 2033–2042, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.271.
chemosphere.2014.09.085. [50] H.T. Nhut, N.T.Q. Hung, T.C. Sac, N.H.K. Bang, T.Q. Tri, N.T. Hiep, N.M. Ky,
[28] J. Wang, F. Bi, H.H. Ngo, W. Guo, H. Jia, H. Zhang, X. Zhang, Evaluation of Removal of nutrients and organic pollutants from domestic wastewater treatment
energy-distribution of a hybrid microbial fuel cell-membrane bioreactor (MFC- by sponge-based moving bed biofilm reactor, Environ. Eng. Res. 25 (2020)
MBR) for cost-effective wastewater treatment, Bioresour. Technol. 200 (2016) 652–658, https://doi.org/10.4491/eer.2019.285.
420–425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.10.042.

19
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

[51] L. Li, G. Yan, H. Wang, Z. Chu, Z. Li, Y. Ling, T. Wu, Denitrification and microbial [73] S. Shao, Y. Hu, J. Cheng, Y. Chen, Action of oxytetracycline (OTC) degrading
community in MBBR using A. donax as carbon source and biofilm carriers for bacterium and its application in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for
reverse osmosis concentrate treatment, J. Environ. Sci. 84 (2019) 133–143, aquaculture wastewater pre-treatment, Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 171 (2019)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2019.04.030 (China). 833–842, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.01.040.
[52] H. Ødegaard, Innovations in wastewater treatment: the moving bed biofilm [74] B. Hou, H. Han, S. Jia, H. Zhuang, Q. Zhao, P. Xu, Effect of alkalinity on nitrite
process, Water Sci. Technol. 53 (2006) 17–33, https://doi.org/10.2166/ accumulation in treatment of coal chemical industry wastewater using moving
wst.2006.284. bed biofilm reactor, J. Environ. Sci. 26 (2014) 1014–1022, https://doi.org/
[53] L.W. Jaroszynski, N. Cicek, R. Sparling, J.A. Oleszkiewicz, Importance of the 10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60517-3.
operating pH in maintaining the stability of anoxic ammonium oxidation [75] B. Rusten, B. Eikebrokk, Y. Ulgenes, E. Lygren, Design and operations of the
(anammox) activity in moving bed biofilm reactors, Bioresour. Technol. 102 Kaldnes moving bed biofilm reactors, Aquac. Eng. 34 (2006) 322–331, https://
(2011) 7051–7056, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.04.069. doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaeng.2005.04.002.
[54] M. Laureni, P. Falås, O. Robin, A. Wick, D.G. Weissbrodt, J. Lund, T.A. Ternes, [76] M.C. Matheus, G.R. Lourenço, B.A. Solano, M.W.C. Dezotti, J.P. Bassin, Assessing
E. Morgenroth, A. Joss, Mainstream partial nitritation and anammox: long-term the impact of hydraulic conditions and absence of pretreatment on the treatability
process stability and effluent quality at low temperatures, Water Res. 101 (2016) of pesticide formulation plant wastewater in a moving bed biofilm reactor,
628–639, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.05.005. J. Water Process Eng. 36 (2020), 101243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[55] X. Xu, G. Wang, L. Zhou, H. Yu, F. Yang, Start-up of a full-scale SNAD-MBBR jwpe.2020.101243.
process for treating sludge digester liquor, Chem. Eng. J. 343 (2018) 477–483, [77] S. Wang, X. Ma, Y. Liu, X. Yi, G. Du, J. Li, Fate of antibiotics, antibiotic-resistant
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2018.03.032. bacteria, and cell-free antibiotic-resistant genes in full-scale membrane bioreactor
[56] S. Phanwilai, N. Kangwannarakul, P. (Lek) Noophan, T. Kasahara, A. Terada, wastewater treatment plants, Bioresour. Technol. 302 (2020), 122825, https://
J. Munakata-Marr, L.A. Figueroa, Nitrogen removal efficiencies and microbial doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2020.122825.
communities in full-scale IFAS and MBBR municipal wastewater treatment plants [78] L. Defrance, M.Y. Jaffrin, B. Gupta, P. Paullier, V. Geaugey, Contribution of
at high COD:N ratio, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 14 (2020) 115, https://doi.org/ various constituents of activated sludge to membrane bioreactor fouling,
10.1007/s11783-020-1374-2. Bioresour. Technol. 73 (2000) 4–11, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
[57] F. Morgan-Sagastume, S. Jacobsson, L.E. Olsson, M. Carlsson, M. Gyllenhammar, 8524(99)00163-7.
I. Sárvári Horváth, Anaerobic treatment of oil-contaminated wastewater with [79] B. Lesjean, S. Rosenberger, C. Laabs, M. Jekel, R. Gnirss, G. Amy, Correlation
methane production using anaerobic moving bed biofilm reactors, Water Res. 163 between membrane fouling and soluble/colloidal organic substances in
(2019), 114851, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.07.018. membrane bioreactors for municipal wastewater treatment, Water Sci. Technol.
[58] G.T.H. Ooi, K. Tang, R.K. Chhetri, K.M.S. Kaarsholm, K. Sundmark, C. Kragelund, 51 (2018) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0615.
K. Litty, A. Christensen, S. Lindholst, C. Sund, M. Christensson, K. Bester, H. [80] J. Radjenović, M. Petrović, D. Barceló, Fate and distribution of pharmaceuticals in
R. Andersen, Biological removal of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater in a wastewater and sewage sludge of the conventional activated sludge (CAS) and
pilot-scale staged moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) utilising nitrifying and advanced membrane bioreactor (MBR) treatment, Water Res. 43 (2009) 831–841,
denitrifying processes, Bioresour. Technol. 267 (2018) 677–687, https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.11.043.
10.1016/j.biortech.2018.07.077. [81] M. Wu, Y. Chen, H. Lin, L. Zhao, L. Shen, R. Li, Y. Xu, H. Hong, Y. He, Membrane
[59] Q. Jiang, H.H. Ngo, L.D. Nghiem, F.I. Hai, W.E. Price, J. Zhang, S. Liang, L. Deng, fouling caused by biological foams in a submerged membrane bioreactor:
W. Guo, Effect of hydraulic retention time on the performance of a hybrid moving mechanism insights, Water Res. 181 (2020), 115932, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor system for micropollutants removal watres.2020.115932.
from municipal wastewater, Bioresour. Technol. 247 (2018) 1228–1232, https:// [82] J. Teng, M. Zhang, K. Leung, J. Chen, H. Hong, H. Lin, B. Liao, A unified
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.09.114. thermodynamic mechanism underlying fouling behaviors of soluble microbial
[60] G.S. Colares, N. Dell’Osbel, P.G. Wiesel, G.A. Oliveira, P.H.Z. Lemos, F.P. da Silva, products (SMPs) in a membrane bioreactor, Water Res. 149 (2019) 477–487,
C.A. Lutterbeck, L.T. Kist, Ê.L. Machado, Floating treatment wetlands: a review https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.11.043.
and bibliometric analysis, Sci. Total Environ. 714 (2020), 136776, https://doi. [83] H. Wang, Z. Liu, S. Luo, R. Khan, P. Dai, P. Liang, X. Zhang, K. Xiao, X. Huang,
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136776. Membrane autopsy deciphering keystone microorganisms stubborn against online
[61] Y.X. Cui, D. Wu, H.R. Mackey, H.K. Chui, G.H. Chen, Application of a moving-bed NaOCl cleaning in a full-scale MBR, Water Res. 171 (2020), 115390, https://doi.
biofilm reactor for sulfur-oxidizing autotrophic denitrification, Water Sci. org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115390.
Technol. 77 (2018) 1027–1034, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.617. [84] S. Wang, L. Zou, H. Li, K. Zheng, Y. Wang, G. Zheng, J. Li, Full-scale membrane
[62] V. Hoang, R. Delatolla, T. Abujamel, W. Mottawea, A. Gadbois, E. Laflamme, bioreactor process WWTPs in East Taihu basin: wastewater characteristics, energy
A. Stintzi, Nitrifying moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) biofilm and biomass consumption and sustainability, Sci. Total Environ. 723 (2020), 137983, https://
response to long term exposure to 1◦ C, Water Res. 49 (2014) 215–224, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137983.
doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.11.018. [85] A.L. Carlson, G.T. Daigger, N.G. Love, E. Hart, Multi-year diagnosis of
[63] E. Baddour, N. Farhoud, M. Sharholy, I. Mohammed, A. Magid, Biological unpredictable fouling occurrences in a full-scale membrane bioreactor, Water Sci.
treatment of poultry slaughterhouses wastewater by using aerobic moving bed Technol. 82 (2020) 524–536, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.354.
biofilm reactor, Int. Res. J. Public Environ. Health 3 (2016) 96–106. [86] E. Katsou, S. Malamis, M. Loizidou, Performance of a membrane bioreactor used
[64] K. Tang, G.T.H. Ooi, K. Litty, K. Sundmark, K.M.S. Kaarsholm, C. Sund, for the treatment of wastewater contaminated with heavy metals, Bioresour.
C. Kragelund, M. Christensson, K. Bester, H.R. Andersen, Removal of Technol. 102 (2011) 4325–4332, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pharmaceuticals in conventionally treated wastewater by a polishing moving bed biortech.2010.10.118.
biofilm reactor (MBBR) with intermittent feeding, Bioresour. Technol. 236 (2017) [87] L. Jin, S.L. Ong, H.Y. Ng, Comparison of fouling characteristics in different pore-
77–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.159. sized submerged ceramic membrane bioreactors, Water Res. 44 (2010)
[65] A. Barwal, R. Chaudhary, To study the performance of biocarriers in moving bed 5907–5918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.014.
biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology and kinetics of biofilm for retrofitting the [88] P.M. Sutton, Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment:
existing aerobic treatment systems: a review, Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 13 applicability and selection of optimal system configuration, Proc. Water Environ.
(2014) 285–299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-9333-7. Fed. 2006 (2006) 3233–3248, https://doi.org/10.2175/193864706783751636.
[66] Q. Liu, J. Wang, R. He, H. Hu, B. Wu, H. Ren, Bacterial assembly during the initial [89] S. Prasertkulsak, C. Chiemchaisri, W. Chiemchaisri, T. Itonaga, K. Yamamoto,
adhesion phase in wastewater treatment biofilms, Water Res. 184 (2020), Removals of pharmaceutical compounds from hospital wastewater in membrane
116147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116147. bioreactor operated under short hydraulic retention time, Chemosphere 150
[67] A. Abdelfattah, I. Hossain, L. Cheng, High-strength wastewater treatment using (2016) 624–631, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.031.
microbial biofilm reactor: a critical review, World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36 [90] K. Lenz, S.N. Mahnik, N. Weissenbacher, R.M. Mader, P. Krenn, S. Hann,
(2020) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-020-02853-y. G. Koellensperger, M. Uhl, S. Knasmüller, F. Ferk, W. Bursch, M. Fuerhacker,
[68] D. Saidulu, B. Gupta, A.K. Gupta, P.S. Ghosal, A review on occurrences, eco-toxic Monitoring, removal and risk assessment of cytostatic drugs in hospital
effects, and remediation of emerging contaminants from wastewater: special wastewater, Water Sci. Technol. 56 (2007) 141–149, https://doi.org/10.2166/
emphasis on biological treatment based hybrid systems, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 wst.2007.828.
(2021), 105282, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105282. [91] N.-qi Ren, X.-feng Yan, Z.-bo Chen, D.-xue Hu, M.-li Gong, W.-qian Guo,
[69] J.P. Bassin, M. Dezotti, Moving bed biofilm reactor. Advanced Biological Feasibility and simulation model of a pilot scale membrane bioreactor for
Processes for Wastewater Treatment, Springer, Cham, 2018, pp. 37–74, https:// wastewater treatment and reuse from Chinese traditional medicine, J. Environ.
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58835-3. Sci. 19 (2007) 129–134, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60021-7.
[70] H. Ødegaard, A road-map for energy-neutral wastewater treatment plants of the [92] M. Kashif, A. Kashif, P. Ranjan, M. Aslam, A. Fuwad, Y. Choi, Rajesh Banu J,
future based on compact technologies (including MBBR), Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. J. Hoon, G. Kumar, A brief review of anaerobic membrane bioreactors
10 (2016) 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-016-0835-0. emphasizing recent advancements, fouling issues and future perspectives,
[71] M. Varma, A.K. Gupta, P.S. Ghosal, A. Majumder, A review on performance of J. Environ. Manag. 270 (2020), 110909, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
constructed wetlands in tropical and cold climate: insights of mechanism, role of jenvman.2020.110909.
influencing factors, and system modification in low temperature, Sci. Total [93] T. Zsirai, P. Buzatu, P. Aerts, S. Judd, Efficacy of relaxation, backflushing,
Environ. 755 (2021), 142540, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142540. chemical cleaning and clogging removal for an immersed hollow fibre membrane
[72] S. Shao, Y. Hu, C. Cheng, J. Cheng, Y. Chen, Simultaneous degradation of bioreactor, Water Res. 46 (2012) 4499–4507, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tetracycline and denitrification by a novel bacterium, Klebsiella sp. SQY5, watres.2012.05.004.
Chemosphere 209 (2018) 35–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [94] W. Yang, N. Cicek, J. Ilg, State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors: worldwide
chemosphere.2018.06.093. research and commercial applications in North America, J. Membr. Sci. 270
(2006) 201–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.07.010.

20
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

[95] S.H. Hansen, M. Nierychlo, M.L. Christensen, P.H. Nielsen, M.K. Jørgensen, [117] Z. Niu, H. Guo, Y. Zhou, S. Xia, Unraveling membrane fouling in anoxic/oxic
Fouling of membranes in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: membrane bioreactors treating anaerobically digested piggery wastewater,
planktonic bacteria can have a significant contribution, Water Environ. Res. 93 J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021), 104985, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2020) 207–216, https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1392. jece.2020.104985.
[96] O.T. Iorhemen, R.A. Hamza, J.H. Tay, Membrane fouling control in membrane [118] A. Sepehri, M. Sarrafzadeh, Effect of nitrifiers community on fouling mitigation
bioreactors (MBRs) using granular materials, Bioresour. Technol. 240 (2017) and nitrification efficiency in a membrane bioreactor, Chem. Eng. Process.
9–24, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.03.005. Process Intensif. 128 (2018) 10–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2018.04.006.
[97] A. Rodríguez-Calvo, J. Gonzalez-Lopez, L.M. Ruiz, M.Á. Gómez-Nieto, B. Muñoz- [119] X. Sheng, R. Liu, L. Chen, J. Zhu, Z. Yin, Enrichment and application of nitrifying
Palazon, Effect of ultrasonic frequency on the bacterial community structure activated sludge in membrane bioreactors, Water Sci. Technol. 76 (2017)
during biofouling formation in microfiltration membrane bioreactors for 2888–2894, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.421.
wastewater treatment, Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 155 (2020), 105102, https:// [120] A. Sepehri, M. Sarrafzadeh, M. Avateffazeli, Interaction between Chlorella
doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2020.105102. vulgaris and nitrifying-enriched activated sludge in the treatment of wastewater
[98] L. Zhang, H. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Peng, Compositional characteristics of dissolved with low C/N ratio, J. Clean. Prod. 247 (2020), 119164, https://doi.org/
organic matter during coal liquefaction wastewater treatment and its 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119164.
environmental implications, Sci. Total Environ. 704 (2020), 135409, https://doi. [121] M. Xu, M. Bernards, Z. Hu, Algae-facilitated chemical phosphorus removal during
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135409. high-density Chlorella emersonii cultivation in a membrane bioreactor, Bioresour.
[99] P. Cartagena, M. El Kaddouri, V. Cases, A. Trapote, D. Prats, Reduction of Technol. 153 (2014) 383–387, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.026.
emerging micropollutants, organic matter, nutrients and salinity from real [122] A.K.M. Ashadullah, M. Shafiquzzaman, H. Haider, M. Alresheedi, M.S. Azam, A.
wastewater by combined MBR-NF/RO treatment, Sep. Purif. Technol. 110 (2013) R. Ghumman, Wastewater treatment by microalgal membrane bioreactor:
132–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2013.03.024. evaluating the effect of organic loading rate and hydraulic residence time,
[100] J. Cornejo, D.M. González-Pérez, J.I. Pérez, M.A. Gómez, Ibuprofen removal by a J. Environ. Manag. 278 (2021), 111548, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
microfiltration membrane bioreactor during the startup phase, J. Environ. Sci. jenvman.2020.111548.
Health Part A Toxic/Hazard. Subst. Environ. Eng. 55 (2020) 374–384, https:// [123] O.T. Iorhemen, R.A. Hamza, Z. Sheng, J.H. Tay, Submerged aerobic granular
doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2019.1697587. sludge membrane bioreactor (AGMBR): organics and nutrients (nitrogen and
[101] D.M. Warsinger, S. Chakraborty, E.W. Tow, M.H. Plumlee, C. Bellona, phosphorus) removal, Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 6 (2019) 260–267, https://doi.
S. Loutatidou, L. Karimi, A.M. Mikelonis, A. Achilli, A. Ghassemi, L.P. Padhye, S. org/10.1016/j.biteb.2019.03.015.
A. Snyder, S. Curcio, C.D. Vecitis, H.A. Arafat, J.H. Lienhard, A review of [124] X. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Y. Liu, H. Hao Ngo, W. Guo, H. Wang, Y. Zhang, D. Zhang,
polymeric membranes and processes for potable water reuse, Prog. Polym. Sci. 81 Impacts of sulfadiazine on the performance and membrane fouling of a hybrid
(2018) 209–237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2018.01.004. moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor system at different C/N ratios,
[102] S. Al-Asheh, M. Bagheri, A. Aidan, Membrane bioreactor for wastewater Bioresour. Technol. 318 (2020), 124180, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
treatment: a review, Case Stud. Chem. Environ. Eng. 4 (2021), 100109, https:// biortech.2020.124180.
doi.org/10.1016/j.cscee.2021.100109. [125] J.C. Leyva-Díaz, K. Calderón, F.A. Rodríguez, J. González-López, E. Hontoria, J.
[103] F. Meng, S.R. Chae, A. Drews, M. Kraume, H.S. Shin, F. Yang, Recent advances in M. Poyatos, Comparative kinetic study between moving bed biofilm reactor-
membrane bioreactors (MBRs): membrane fouling and membrane material, Water membrane bioreactor and membrane bioreactor systems and their influence on
Res. 43 (2009) 1489–1512, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.12.044. organic matter and nutrients removal, Biochem. Eng. J. 77 (2013) 28–40, https://
[104] N.O. Yigit, N. Uzal, H. Koseoglu, I. Harman, H. Yukseler, U. Yetis, G. Civelekoglu, doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2013.04.023.
M. Kitis, Treatment of a denim producing textile industry wastewater using pilot- [126] J.C. Leyva-Diaz, M. Munio, J. González-lópez, J.M. Poyatos, Anaerobic/anoxic/
scale membrane bioreactor, Desalination 240 (2009) 143–150, https://doi.org/ oxic configuration in hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor for
10.1016/j.desal.2007.11.071. nutrient removal from municipal wastewater, Ecol. Eng. 91 (2016) 449–458,
[105] N.S.A. Mutamim, Z.Z. Noor, M.A.A. Hassan, G. Olsson, Application of membrane https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.03.006.
bioreactor technology in treating high strength industrial wastewater: a [127] P. Reboleiro-rivas, J. Martín-pascual, B. Juárez-jiménez, J.M. Poyatos, R. Vílchez-
performance review, Desalination 305 (2012) 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vargas, Nitrogen removal in a moving bed membrane bioreactor for municipal
desal.2012.07.033. sewage treatment: community differentiation in attached biofilm and suspended
[106] X. Yang, V. Lopez-Grimau, M. Vilaseca, M. Crespi, Treatment of textile biomass, Chem. Eng. J. 277 (2015) 209–218, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wastewater by CAS, MBR, and MBBR: a comparative study from technical, cej.2015.04.141.
economic, and environmental perspectives, Water 12 (2020) 1–17, https://doi. [128] A. Rodriguez-Sanchez, B. Muñoz-Palazon, M. Hurtado-Martinez, A. Mikola,
org/10.3390/w12051306. J. Gonzalez-Lopez, R. Vahala, A. Gonzalez-Martinez, Analysis of microbial
[107] C. Chen, M. Sun, Z. Liu, J. Zhang, K. Xiao, X. Zhang, G. Song, J. Chang, G. Liu, communities involved in organic matter and nitrogen removal in a full-scale
H. Wang, X. Huang, Robustness of granular activated carbon-synergized moving bed biofilm reactor located near the Polar Arctic Circle, Int. Biodeterior.
anaerobic membrane bioreactor for pilot-scale application over a wide seasonal Biodegrad. 146 (2020), 104830, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2019.104830.
temperature change, Water Res. 189 (2021), 116552, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [129] T.O. Leiknes, H. Ødegaard, The development of a biofilm membrane bioreactor,
watres.2020.116552. Desalination 202 (2007) 135–143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.12.049.
[108] J. Ni, J. Ji, Y.-Y. Li, K. Kubota, Microbial characteristics in anaerobic membrane [130] H. Sun, H. Liu, M. Zhang, Y. Liu, A novel single-stage ceramic membrane moving
bioreactor treating domestic sewage: effects of HRT and process performance, bed biofilm reactor coupled with reverse osmosis for reclamation of municipal
J. Environ. Sci. 111 (2022) 392–399, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2021.04.022. wastewater to NEWater-like product water, Chemosphere 268 (2021), 128836,
[109] A. Srivastava, V.K. Parida, A. Majumder, B. Gupta, A.K. Gupta, Treatment of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128836.
saline wastewater using physicochemical, biological, and hybrid processes: [131] S. Yang, F. Yang, Z. Fu, T. Wang, R. Lei, Simultaneous nitrogen and phosphorus
Insights into inhibition mechanisms, treatment efficiencies and performance removal by a novel sequencing batch moving bed membrane bioreactor for
enhancement, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9 (2021), 105775, https://doi.org/ wastewater treatment, J. Hazard. Mater. 175 (2010) 551–557, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jece.2021.105775. 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.040.
[110] S.M.R. Razavi, T. Miri, A real petroleum refinery wastewater treatment using [132] M.S. Kowalski, T.R. Devlin, A. di Biase, J.A. Oleszkiewicz, Controlling cold
hollow fiber membrane bioreactor (HF-MBR), J. Water Process Eng. 8 (2015) temperature partial nitritation in moving bed biofilm reactor, Chemosphere 227
136–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.09.011. (2019) 216–224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.025.
[111] R.M. Chaudhry, K.L. Nelson, J.E. Drewes, Mechanisms of pathogenic virus [133] M. Kermani, B. Bina, H. Movahedian, M.M. Amin, M. Nikaein, Application of
removal in a full-scale membrane bioreactor, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) moving bed biofilm process for biological organics and nutrients removal from
2815–2822, https://doi.org/10.1021/es505332n. municipal wastewater, Am. J. Environ. Sci. 4 (2008) 675–682.
[112] A.B. Rostam, M. Taghizadeh, Advanced oxidation processes integrated by [134] M.S. Fountoulakis, N. Markakis, I. Petousi, T. Manios, Single house on-site
membrane reactors and bioreactors for various wastewater treatments: a critical greywater treatment using a submerged membrane bioreactor for toilet flushing,
review, J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8 (2020), 104566, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Sci. Total Environ. 551–552 (2016) 706–711, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jece.2020.104566. scitotenv.2016.02.057.
[113] O.T. Iorhemen, R.A. Hamza, J.H. Tay, Membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology [135] K. Xiao, Y. Xu, S. Liang, T. Lei, J. Sun, X. Wen, H. Zhang, C. Chen, X. Huang,
for wastewater treatment and reclamation: membrane fouling, Membranes 33 Engineering application of membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment in
(2016) 13–16, https://doi.org/10.3390/membranes6020033 (Basel). China: current state and future prospect, Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 8 (2014)
[114] D. Hu, Z. Zhou, X. Shen, H. Wei, L. Jiang, Y. Lv, Effects of alkalinity on membrane 805–819, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0756-8.
bioreactors for reject water treatment: performance improvement, fouling [136] K. Xiao, S. Liang, X. Wang, C. Chen, X. Huang, Current state and challenges of full-
mitigation and microbial structures, Bioresour. Technol. 197 (2015) 217–226, scale membrane bioreactor applications: a critical review, Bioresour. Technol.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.08.082. 271 (2019) 473–481, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.061.
[115] A. Ding, F. Qu, H. Liang, J. Ma, Z. Han, H. Yu, S. Guo, G. Li, A novel integrated [137] C. Valderrama, G. Ribera, N. Bahí, M. Rovira, T. Giménez, R. Nomen, S. Lluch,
vertical membrane bioreactor (IVMBR) for removal of nitrogen from synthetic M. Yuste, X. Martinex-Lado, Winery wastewater treatment for water reuse
wastewater/domestic sewage, Chem. Eng. J. 223 (2013) 908–914, https://doi. purpose: conventional activated sludge versus membrane bioreactor (MBR) a
org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.01.096. comparative case study, Desalination 306 (2012) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[116] M. Xu, P. Li, T. Tang, Z. Hu, Roles of SRT and HRT of an algal membrane desal.2012.08.016.
bioreactor system with a tanks-in-series configuration for secondary wastewater [138] R. Iglesias, P. Simón, L. Moragas, U. Arce, I. Rodriguez-Roda, Cost comparison of
effluent polishing, Ecol. Eng. 85 (2015) 257–264, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. full-scale water reclamation technologies with an emphasis on membrane
ecoleng.2015.09.064. bioreactors, Water Sci. Technol. 75 (2017) 2562–2570, https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2017.132.

21
D. Saidulu et al. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 9 (2021) 106112

[139] P. Krzeminski, J.H.J.M. van der Graaf, J.B. van Lier, Specific energy consumption [158] E. Kora, D. Theodorelou, G. Gatidou, M.S. Fountoulakis, Removal of polar
of membrane bioreactor (MBR) for sewage treatment, Water Sci. Technol. 65 micropollutants from domestic wastewater using a methanogenic – aerobic
(2012) 380–392. moving bed biofilm reactor system, Chem. Eng. J. 382 (2020), 122983, https://
[140] S. Gabarrón, G. Ferrero, M. Dalmau, J. Comas, I. Rodriguez-roda, Assessment of doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2019.122983.
energy-saving strategies and operational costs in full-scale membrane bioreactors, [159] R. Shokoohi, G. Asgari, M. Leili, M. Khiadani, M. Foroughi, M. Sedighi Hemmat,
J. Environ. Manag. 134 (2014) 8–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Modelling of moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) efficiency on hospital
jenvman.2013.12.023. wastewater (HW) treatment: a comprehensive analysis on BOD and COD removal,
[141] Y. Xu, N. Zhu, J. Sun, P. Liang, K. Xiao, X. Huang, Evaluating oxygen mass Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 14 (2017) 841–852, https://doi.org/10.1007/
transfer parameters for large-scale engineering application of membrane s13762-017-1255-9.
bioreactors, Process Biochem. 60 (2017) 13–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [160] L. Qin, M. Gao, M. Zhang, L. Feng, Q. Liu, G. Zhang, Application of encapsulated
procbio.2017.05.020. algae into MBR for high-ammonia nitrogen wastewater treatment and biofouling
[142] S. Jabornig, E. Favero, Single household greywater treatment with a moving bed control, Water Res. 187 (2020), 116430, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biofilm membrane reactor (MBBMR), J. Membr. Sci. 446 (2013) 277–285, watres.2020.116430.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2013.06.049. [161] Z. Badani, H. Ait-Amar, A. Si-Salah, M. Brik, W. Fuchs, Treatment of textile waste
[143] P. Krzeminski, L. Leverette, S. Malamis, E. Katsou, Membrane bioreactors – a water by membrane bioreactor and reuse, Desalination 185 (2005) 411–417,
review on recent developments in energy reduction, fouling control, novel https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.03.088.
configurations, LCA and market prospects, J. Membr. Sci. 527 (2017) 207–227, [162] P. Artiga, E. Ficara, F. Malpei, J.M. Garrido, R. Méndez, Treatment of two
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2016.12.010. industrial wastewaters in a submerged membrane bioreactor, Desalination 179
[144] K.M. Jabri, E. Nolde, A. Ciroth, L. Bousselmi, Life cycle assessment of a (2005) 161–169, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.064.
decentralized greywater treatment alternative for non‑potable reuse application, [163] A.F. Viero, T.M. de Melo, A.P.R. Torres, N.R. Ferreira, G.L. Sant’Anna, C.
Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 17 (2020) 433–444, https://doi.org/10.1007/ P. Borges, V.M.J. Santiago, The effects of long-term feeding of high organic
s13762-019-02511-3. loading in a submerged membrane bioreactor treating oil refinery wastewater,
[145] M. Starkl, J. Anthony, E. Aymerich, N. Brunner, C. Chubilleau, S. Das, M. J. Membr. Sci. 319 (2008) 223–230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
M. Ghangrekar, A. Ahmad, L. Philip, A. Singh, Interpreting best available memsci.2008.03.038.
technologies more flexibly: a policy perspective for municipal wastewater [164] N.C. Cinperi, E. Ozturk, N.O. Yigit, M. Kitis, Treatment of woolen textile
management in India and other developing countries, Environ. Impact Assess. wastewater using membrane bioreactor, nanofiltration and reverse osmosis for
Rev. 71 (2018) 132–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.03.002. reuse in production processes, J. Clean. Prod. 223 (2019) 837–848, https://doi.
[146] L. Høibye, H. Wenzel, H.F. Larsen, B.N. Jacobsen, O. Dalgaard, Sustainability org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.166.
assessment of advanced wastewater treatment technologies, Water Sci. Technol. [165] M. Herrera-Robledo, J.M. Morgan-Sagastume, A. Noyola, Biofouling and
58 (2008) 963–968, https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2008.450. pollutant removal during long-term operation of an anaerobic membrane
[147] M. Ortiz, R.G. Raluy, L. Serra, J. Uche, Life cycle assessment of water treatment bioreactor treating municipal wastewater, Biofouling 26 (2010) 23–30, https://
technologies: wastewater and water-reuse in a small town, Desalination 204 doi.org/10.1080/08927010903243923.
(2007) 121–131, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.04.026. [166] J. Martín-Pascual, P. Reboleiro-Rivas, C. López-López, J.C. Leyva-Díaz, M. Jover,
[148] P. Stanchev, E. Katsou, F. Fatone, A.L. Eusebi, Comparative life cycle M.M. Muñio, J. González-López, J.M. Poyatos, Effect of the filling ratio, MLSS,
environmental and economic assessment of anaerobic membrane bioreactor and hydraulic retention time, and temperature on the behavior of the hybrid biomass
disinfection for reclaimed water reuse in agricultural irrigation: a case study in in a hybrid moving bed membrane bioreactor plant to treat urban wastewater,
Italy, J. Clean. Prod. 293 (2021), 126201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. J. Environ. Eng. 141 (2015), 04015007, https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ee.1943-
jclepro.2021.126201. 7870.0000939.
[149] T. Sakcharoen, C. Ratanatamskul, A. Chandrachai, Factors affecting technology [167] S. Mozia, M. Janus, P. Brożek, S. Bering, K. Tarnowski, J. Mazur, A.W. Morawski,
selection, techno-economic and environmental sustainability assessment of a A system coupling hybrid biological method with UV/O3 oxidation and
novel zero-waste system for food waste and wastewater management, J. Clean. membrane separation for treatment and reuse of industrial laundry wastewater,
Prod. 314 (2021), 128103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128103. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 23 (2016) 19145–19155, https://doi.org/10.1007/
[150] S. Arefi-Oskoui, A. Khataee, M. Safarpour, Y. Orooji, V. Vatanpour, A review on s11356-016-7111-5.
the applications of ultrasonic technology in membrane bioreactors, Ultrason. [168] L. Borea, V. Naddeo, V. Belgiorno, An electro moving bed membrane bioreactor
Sonochem. 58 (2019), 104633, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2019.104633. (eMB-MBR) as a novel technology for wastewater treatment and reuse, in:
[151] M. Maaz, M. Yasin, M. Aslam, G. Kumar, A.E. Atabani, M. Idrees, F. Anjum, G. Mannina (Ed.), Frontiers in Wastewater Treatment and Modelling, Springer
F. Jamil, R. Ahmad, A. Laeeq, G. Lesage, M. Heran, J. Kim, Anaerobic membrane International Publishing, Cham, 2017, pp. 159–164, https://doi.org/10.1007/
bioreactors for wastewater treatment: novel configurations, fouling control and 978-3-319-58421-8_24.
energy considerations, Bioresour. Technol. 283 (2019) 358–372, https://doi.org/ [169] D. Di Trapani, G. Di Bella, G. Mannina, M. Torregrossa, G. Viviani, Comparison
10.1016/j.biortech.2019.03.061. between moving bed-membrane bioreactor (MB-MBR) and membrane bioreactor
[152] X. Tan, I. Acquah, H. Liu, W. Li, S. Tan, A critical review on saline wastewater (MBR) systems: influence of wastewater salinity variation, Bioresour. Technol.
treatment by membrane bioreactor (MBR) from a microbial perspective, 162 (2014) 60–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.03.126.
Chemosphere 220 (2019) 1150–1162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [170] L. Deng, W. Guo, H. Hao, X. Zhang, X.C. Wang, Q. Zhang, R. Chen, New functional
chemosphere.2019.01.027. biocarriers for enhancing the performance of a hybrid moving bed biofilm reactor
[153] S.M.A. Abuabdou, W. Ahmad, N.C. Aun, M.J.K. Bashir, A review of anaerobic – membrane bioreactor system, Bioresour. Technol. 208 (2016) 87–93, https://
membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) for the treatment of highly contaminated landfill doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.057.
leachate and biogas production: effectiveness, limitations and future perspectives, [171] G. Mannina, G.A. Ekama, M. Capodici, A. Cosenza, D. Di, H. Ødegaard, Moving
J. Clean. Prod. 255 (2020), 120215, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. bed membrane bioreactors for carbon and nutrient removal: the effect of C/N
jclepro.2020.120215. variation, Biochem. Eng. J. 125 (2017) 31–40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[154] M. Germec, A. Demirci, I. Turhan, Biofilm reactors for value-added products bej.2017.05.005.
production: an in-depth review, Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 27 (2020), 101662, [172] B. Dong, H. Chen, Y. Yang, Q. He, X. Dai, Treatment of printing and dyeing
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2020.101662. wastewater using MBBR followed by membrane separation process, Desalin.
[155] A.D. Santos, R.C. Martins, R.M. Quinta-ferreira, L.M. Castro, Moving bed biofilm Water Treat. 52 (2014) 4562–4567, https://doi.org/10.1080/
reactor (MBBR) for dairy wastewater treatment, Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 340–344, 19443994.2013.803780.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.11.158. [173] L. Duan, W. Jiang, Y. Song, S. Xia, S.W. Hermanowicz, The characteristics of
[156] M.C. Chrispim, M.A. Nolasco, Greywater treatment using a moving bed biofilm extracellular polymeric substances and soluble microbial products in moving bed
reactor at a university campus in Brazil, J. Clean. Prod. 142 (2017) 290–296, biofilm reactor-membrane bioreactor, Bioresour. Technol. 148 (2013) 436–442,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.147.
[157] L. Chu, J. Wang, F. Quan, X.H. Xing, L. Tang, C. Zhang, Modification of [174] N.C. Nguyen, S.S. Chen, H.T. Nguyen, S.S. Ray, H.H. Ngo, W. Guo, P.H. Lin,
polyurethane foam carriers and application in a moving bed biofilm reactor, Innovative sponge-based moving bed-osmotic membrane bioreactor hybrid
Process Biochem. 49 (2014) 1979–1982, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. system using a new class of draw solution for municipal wastewater treatment,
procbio.2014.07.018. Water Res. 91 (2016) 305–313, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.01.024.

22