Improved Computational Model (AQUIFAS)

for Activated Sludge, Integrated Fixed-Film

Activated Sludge, and Moving-Bed Biolm
Reactor Systems, Part I: Semi-Empirical
Model Development
Dipankar Sen1*, Clifford W. Randall2

ABSTRACT: Research was undertaken to develop a model for activated

sludge, integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS), and moving-bed
biofilm reactor (MBBR) systems. The model can operate with up to 12 cells
(reactors) in series, with biofilm media incorporated to one or more cells,
except the anaerobic cells. The process configuration can be any combination
of anaerobic, anoxic, aerobic, post-anoxic with or without supplemental
carbon, and reaeration; it can also include any combination of step feed and
recycles, including recycles for mixed liquor, return activated sludge, nitrates,
and membrane bioreactors.
This paper presents the structure of the model. The model embeds a biofilm
model into a multicell activated sludge model. The biofilm flux rates for
organics, nutrients, and biomass can be computed by two methodsa semiempirical model of the biofilm that is relatively simpler, or a diffusional model
that is computationally intensive. The values of the kinetic parameters for
the model were measured using pilot-scale activated sludge, IFAS, and MBBR
systems. For the semiempirical version, a series of Monod equations were
developed for chemical oxygen demand, ammonium-nitrogen, and oxidizednitrogen fluxes to the biofilm. Within the equations, a second Monod expression is used to simulate the effect of changes in biofilm thickness and
fraction nitrifiers in the biofilm. The biofilm flux model is then linked to the
activated sludge model. The diffusional model and the verification of the
models are presented in subsequent papers (Sen and Randall, 2008a, 2008b).
The model can be used to quantify the amount of media and surface area
required to achieve nitrification, identify the best locations for the media, and
optimize the dissolved oxygen levels and nitrate recycle rates. Some of the
advanced features include the ability to apply different media types and fill
fractions in cells; quantify nitrification, denitrification, and biomass production in the biofilm and mixed liquor suspended solids; and perform dynamic
simulations. Water Environ. Res., 80, 439 (2008).
KEYWORDS: modeling, biofilm, integrated fixed-film activated sludge,
and moving-bed biofilm reactor, activated sludge, AQUIFAS, dynamic
simulation, model development.
doi:10.2175/106143008X268452

Introduction
In the past 20 years, there has been considerable interest in
finding alternatives to increase nitrification and denitrification in
activated sludge tanks that were originally designed for biochemical
1

Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, California.

Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.

* 1290 Bryant Avenue, Mountain View, CA 94040; dsen@valleywater.org.

May 2008

oxygen demand (BOD) removal. Further, with the increase in the

value of land and the need to increase plant capacity to meet
population growth, there is a need to reduce the footprint of plants
per unit of flow treated. More recently, following the implementation of stringent total nitrogen permits and total-maximum-dailyload-based strategies that require reduction to 3 mg/L total nitrogen,
there has been an interest in increasing nitrification and denitrification rates in aerobic zones and in the pre- and post-anoxic
zones of nitrogen removal systems that were being operated to
satisfy an 8-mg/L total nitrogen level.
One of the alternatives being considered is the addition of biofilm
carrier particles (media) in existing or new activated sludge tanks.
If the plant continues to operate with return sludge (RAS) following
the addition of media to the activated sludge system, it gets converted from an activated sludge to an integrated fixed-film activated
sludge (IFAS) system. Figure 1 shows how this can be done with
fixed-bed media or moving-bed media to increase the rates of chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal and nitrification. In some instances, a plant may be designed without RAS (Figure 1d). In this
case, the configuration is called a moving-bed bioreactor (MBBR)
system. A retrofit can also be made, with media addition, to separate stage nitrification systems, to increase nitrification; or to the
anoxic zones of single-stage or separate-stage systems, to increase
denitrification.
One of the hurdles in existing models is the lack of full- or pilotscale verification against operating systems, principally because of
the scarcity of IFAS systems with continuous-flow data. Another
hurdle is the lack of good data on biofilm surface areas that can be
achieved with various types of media and the variation in surface area
based on aeration patterns and the location of media along an
activated sludge tank. This paper presents the process kinetics and
methodology for model design. The model can be operated for
steady-state and dynamic simulations. The dynamic simulation
provides information on the variation in effluent quality, based on
hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly changes in the influent loadings and
recycle rates, including changes in loadings from solids dewatering.
Literature Review
The modeling of biofilm reactors is more complex than activated
sludge modeling. This is principally because of the introduction of
diffusion. Further, the modeling of IFAS is more complex than
439

Sen and Randall

pure biofilm systems, such as MBBRs, where it can be assumed

that, for low-strength wastewaters, the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS) concentration is so low that there is very
little removal of COD, nitrification, and denitrification by the suspended solids (Figure 1). Within the realm of biofilm modeling,
there are different levels of complexity. The simpler models use a
set of equations that can be solved analytically (Wanner et al.,
2006). The analytical approach simplifies the set of differential
equations, but requires more assumptions, such as knowledge of the
rate-limiting substrate in each cell within a reactor. Also, it assumes
knowledge of the limiting substrate in the layers within the biofilm (Harremoes, 1978; Rittmann and McCarty, 1981). Bae and
Rittmann (1996) presented examples where this could be extended
to multiple limiting substrates. The numerical 1-dimensional model
relaxes these assumptions further (Reichart, 1998a, 1998b; Wanner
and Reichart, 1996 [AQUASIM 2.0]). The 1-dimensional model
can be extended to multiple dimensions. Some researchers treat the
length of a reactor or a multicell reactor as the second dimension
(also referred to as a pseudo 2 d). Others treat the spatial diversity
within the biofilm as a second dimension, wherein the biofilm is
allowed to grow and cover more of the media surface (Picioreanu,
1999). There is recognition that incorporation of the concepts of
2-dimensional modeling is important in IFAS and MBBR media
systems, where the thickness of the biofilm can lead to loss in
specific surface area on the inside surface of plastic cylinders, but
may be partially compensated for by the increase in the biofilm that
develops on the outer surface (Sen, Randall, Copithorn, Huhtamaki,
Farren, and Flournoy, 2007).
Several pilot studies of activated sludge, IFAS, and MBBR
systems were undertaken between 1992 and 1995 (Mitta, 1994; Sen,
1995). The purposes were to understand the conditions under which
COD removal, nitrification, denitrification, and biological excess
phosphorus removal were affected by the introduction of biofilm
support media in activated sludge systems and by the reduction in
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) mean cell residence time
(MCRT) and to develop a simple version of the IFAS model.
Several process kinetic parameters were identified, and their values
were measured. Some of the parameters for the biofilm were subsequently published as flux rates of COD removal and nitrification
(Sen and Randall, 1996, 2005; Sen et al., 2000).
Earlier versions of the IFAS model were published by Sen and
Randall (1996, 2005) and by Sriwiriyarat et al. (2005). Several fullscale IFAS and MBBR facilities were evaluated using the model,
and the results were published in 2006 (Sen et al., 2006). The facilities included Broomfield, Colorado (Rutt et al., 2006); Annapolis,
Maryland (Copithorn et al., 2006); Geisselbullach, Germany
(Lessel, 1994); Mamaroneck, New York (Psaltakis et al., 2003);
and Providence, Rhode Island (Masterson et al., 2004). The IFAS
model was able to predict the improvement in nitrification at all nine
of the nine full-scale IFAS and MBBR facilities for which data was
available. What is more important is that it was able to accurately
simulate the loss of nitrification/limited nitrification in winter at two
of the facilities.
Model Development
The biofilm can be modeled using a semiempirical methodology
and a mechanistic method. The semiempirical method is based on
modeling the biofilm flux rates based on a set of equations for
biofilm flux. These equations were developed from measurements
of biofilm flux in pilot studies (Sen, 1995). They include a second
Monod expression to simulate the effect of changes in biofilm
440

Figure 1Plant congurations.

thickness and fraction nitrifiers in the biofilm, with changes in the

external substrate concentrations. In the mechanistic model (Sen and
Randall, 2008a), the biofilm is modeled as 12 layers and a stagnant
liquid layer (biofilm 1-and 2-dimensional diffusional model).
The basic premise of the model is to add equations for uptake,
oxidation, and reduction of COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and oxidized
nitrogen, and for sludge production in biofilms, in a format that is
compatible with the International Association on Water Quality
(London, United Kingdom) (IAWQ) activated sludge model. The
IAWQ model is available in several user-friendly forms, the most
common of which is the Biowin (Envirosim Associates Ltd., 2006).
In developing the model described herein, the equations for the
biofilm were structured in a manner that is compatible with the
activated sludge model. The COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and
oxidized nitrogen uptake and removals are computed as the sum
total of removals by the MLSS and the biofilm. The percentage of
removal in the biofilm increases as the amount of biofilm surface
area is increased and the MLSS MCRT (and MLVSS) is decreased.
The equations to compute the COD removal, ammonium-nitrogen
removal (biomass uptake for synthesis and nitrification), and denitrification were developed based on Monod process kinetics. The
removals in suspended solids are computed as per the IAWQ/International Water Association activated sludge model and are dependent
on the concentrations of suspended solids, biodegradable soluble
COD, ammonium-nitrogen, and dissolved oxygen. Additional
removal resulting from the biofilm in IFAS and MBBR configurations
is computed based on removal rates per unit of surface area of biofilm,
multiplied by the surface area of biofilm in each reactor (cell).
The model is set up to operate with up to 12 cells (reactors) in
series. Influent and recycles can be fed to and removed from any cell.
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

Biofilm support media can be installed in one or more cells. Each cell
can be operated with or without aeration, as part of an anaerobic, preor post-anoxic, aerobic, or reaeration zone. For the unaerated cells,
the model computes the dissolved oxygen and oxidized nitrogen
(NOxN). This is compared with user-specified thresholds for aerobic,
anoxic, and anaerobic conditions, to determine whether aerobic,
anoxic, or anaerobic decay rates should be used for each cell.
The removals in the biofilm can be computed by two different
methods. The semiempirical version of the biofilm model incorporates Monodlike equations for the biofilm for substrate uptake and
removal under aerobic and anoxic conditions. These equations are
based on experimental measurements of biofilm flux rates observed
in pilot studies. The maximum nitrification rate per unit surface area
of biofilm (qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf) and the maximum COD utilization
rate per unit surface area of biofilm under aerobic and anoxic conditions (qmH,COD,bf,aer and qmH,COD,bf,anx) were quantified. The halfsaturation constants for substrate and dissolved oxygen for the
biofilm (KN,bf and KDO,bf) were determined through a separate model
calibration and from the literature. The methodology for quantifying
rates was published in Sen (1995) and is summarized below.
The modeling of the aeration system for IFAS and MBBR
systems are based on the equations for aeration modeling in the
Aeration Manual of Practice FD-13 (WPCF, 1988). Research is
being undertaken by various manufacturers on the aeration and
oxygen transfer efficiencies in IFAS tanks. This supplements the
work done with diffusers in activated sludge systems, in which the
oxygen transfer efficiency was measured for various roll configurations and diffuser placements types on the floor of the activated
sludge tank (Rooney and Huibregtse, 1980; Schmit et al., 1978).
This paper presents the structure of the semiempirical version. The
semiempirical model requires a shorter run time compared with the
biofilm 1-dimensional model presented in Sen and Randall (2008a).
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate. Equations 1 to 17 show
how ammonium-nitrogen is incorporated to the semiempirical
version of the IFAS and MBBR models. The default values of the
various kinetics parameters mentioned in the discussion below are
based on literature values for activated sludge systems and observations from biofilms.
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate by Nitrifiers in Biofilm. Equation 1 shows the ammonium-nitrogen uptake rate in the biofilm
(kilograms per day). The ammonium-nitrogen (NH4N) uptake rate
is the sum total of the ammonium-nitrogen uptake by nitrifiers for
synthesis and nitrification. For cell n, the NH4N uptake by the
nitrifiers (NH4Nu,bf,n 5 BN,,n) is computed as follows:
NH4 Nu;bf;n BN;n qm;NH4 NNitr;bf
SO2n
SNn
3
Vn Mn 1
KDO;nitr;bf SO2n KN;nitr;bf SNn
Where
qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf 5 flux rate for ammonium-nitrogen uptake by the
nitrifiers (expressed as kg/1000 m2 of biofilm
surface/d or mg/cm2/d).
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf for the biofilm is adjusted for mixed
liquor temperature. This is done using the Arrhenius equation, with
a temperature adjustment coefficient, h, as follows:
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf;T qm;NH4 NNitr;bf;25 hT25

The literature on nitrification in activated sludge systems shows

a range of values of the coefficient to adjust nitrification rates for
temperature. These vary from 1.03 to greater than 1.07 (Marais and
May 2008

Ekama, 1976; Randall et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991). Research

conducted by Weiss et al. (2005) using an MBBR showed a
temperature coefficient of 1.047. A value of 1.05 1/2 0.02 is
recommended for the model.
For eq 1,
SN

5 ammonium-nitrogen and dissolved oxygen

concentrations (mg/L), respectively, measured
in the liquid outside the biofilm in cell n (i.e.,
as measured in activated sludge systems);
Vn 5 volume of cell n (m3);
Mn 5 m2 of biofilm surface area per m3 of cell
volume in cell n; and
KN,nitr,bf 5 half-saturation constants for NH4N for nitrifier
growth in the biofilm (mg/L).

and SO2

The default value of KN,nitr,bf 5 2 mg/L; this is based on data

presented by Hem et al. (1994) and Odegaard et al. (1994), which
show that nitrification rates in biofilms at 11 to 158C, when measured at high dissolved oxygen and low soluble COD levels, vary
almost linearly, from 0 to 4 mg/L NH4N (the relationship is firstorder over this range) and are fairly constant (zero-order) above
that. This relationship can also be represented using a Monod
expression with a half-saturation constant for NH4N of 2 mg/L.
For eq 1,
KDO,nitr,bf 5 half-saturation constant for dissolved oxygen for
nitrifier growth in the biofilm (mg/L).
The default value of KDO,nitr,bf 5 4 mg/L. Within the model, the
user may also select a first-order kinetics equation to simulate the
variation in nitrification rates with dissolved oxygen, as follows:
NH4 Nu;bf;n BN;n qm;NH4 NNitr;bf
SO2n
SNn
3
V n Mn
KDO1;nitr;bf KN;nitr;bf SNn

Where
KDO1,nitr,bf 5 4.5 mg/L.
Both forms of the equation (eqs 1 and 3) replicate the variation in
nitrification rates with dissolved oxygen and are consistent with the
data presented by Huhtamaki and Sen (2007), Odegaard (2005b),
and Weiss et al. (2005). In the data presented by Odegaard (2005b),
the maximum nitrification rate in biofilms, measured at 11 to 158C
and operating at NH4N levels above 3 mg/L and low soluble COD
levels, varies linearly with dissolved oxygen from 3 to 6 mg/L.
The rates increased from 0.75 kg/d/1000 m2 at 3 mg/L to 1.5 kg/d/
1000 m2 at 6 mg/L dissolved oxygen, which shows a first-order
relationship. The rate began to deviate gradually from first-order to
half-order at dissolved oxygen levels above 6 mg/L. At a dissolved
oxygen concentration of 9 mg/L, the rate was 2 kg/d/1000 m2. In the
equation presented by Weiss et al. (2005), the nitrification rate in
an MBBR varied linearly with dissolved oxygen over a range of 1 to
7 mg/L when the NH4N levels were above 3 mg/L, as follows:
qm;NH4 Nnit;bf 0:214SO2  1:151:047T20
Biofilm Nitrification Rates from Pilot Studies. Bench-scale pilot
systems were operated to determine rate coefficients. The activated
441

Sen and Randall

Figure 2Nitrication rates for biolm in IFAS and MBBR systems (DO 5 dissolved oxygen).

sludge, IFAS, and MBBR systems were operated under identical

wastewater loads, tank sizes and configurations, and nitrate recycle
configurations, except for the biofilm support media in the aerobic
zones of the IFAS and MBBR systems. The flowrate was 208 L/d,
and the nominal hydraulic retention time (HRT) was 12 hours. Of
this, 17% of the volume was anaerobic, 17% was anoxic, and
the remaining 66% was aerobic (aerobic HRT of 8 hours). The
operating temperature of 128C was low enough to stress the
nitrifiers in the MLSS as the mixed liquor MCRT was lowered.
The maximum ammonium-nitrogen uptake rates by nitrifiers in
the biofilm (qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf) were measured for biofilm removed
from the pilot systems. To measure the maximum rates of
ammonium uptake, 2 L of the biofilm carrier particles and mixed
liquor were removed from each of three aerobic cells of the IFAS
and MBBR continuous-flow system. These were placed in flasks
and spiked with ammonium chloride and bicarbonate, and aerated.
The ammonium-nitrogen uptake rate was measured over time. The
tests were conducted at ammonium-nitrogen concentrations of 10 to
50 mg/L. The rates were determined for the mixed liquor alone and
for the mixed liquor with biofilm carrier particles. The tests were
442

conducted when the systems were operated at 3.1-, 2.4-, 1.7-, 1.0-,
and 0.3-day MLSS MCRTs. The combination of 5 MLSS MCRTs
and three aerobic cells allowed one to measure rates for uptake of
ammonium-nitrogen by biofilm that developed under various
soluble biodegradable COD and ammonium-nitrogen conditions.
The method has been described by Sen (1995). The batch tests for
ammonium-nitrogen uptake were operated at very low soluble
biodegradable COD concentrations. This limited the ammoniumnitrogen uptake by the heterotrophs in the biofilm. The systems
were operated for a minimum of 3 MLSS MCRTs or 8 weeks,
whichever was longer, and monitored to ensure that steady-state
was achieved following each change in MLSS MCRT. This was to
ensure that the biofilm reached a reasonable degree of equilibrium
with the new soluble biodegradable COD profile.
The qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf data for the biofilm were graphed against
biodegradable soluble COD levels (SCODbio) for those conditions
where the soluble biodegradable COD in the aerobic reactor was
above 10 mg/L (Figure 2a). Note that the concentration referenced
is the concentration measured in the continuous-flow reactor understeady state operation at the various MLSS MCRTs. Above 10 mg/L,
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

the studies showed that the nitrifiers in the biofilm were inhibited by
the concentration of soluble biodegradable COD and not influenced
by the concentration of NH4N in the reactor. An empirical relationship (equation for the line) was developed from the data (points on
the graph) using SYSTAT (a statistical software package by Systat
Software Inc., San Jose, California) to relate qm,NH4N2Nitr,,bf to
soluble biodegradable COD (Figure 2a), as follows:

The NH4N uptake by nitrifiers in cell n, AN,n, is computed as

follows:
AN;n qm;NH4 NNitr;SS

SO2n
SNn
KDO;nitr;SS SO2n KN;nitr;SS SNn

3 Vn 1  BVFn fNitr Xn

Where
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf

AN KS;bfg;Nitr

KS;bfg;Nitr SCODbio  10

Where
AN 5 1.8 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d;
KS,bfg,Nitr 5 half-saturation constant for nitrifier growth in biofilm
(5 9.4 mg/L SCODbio); and
SCODbio 5 biodegradable soluble COD in the mixed liquor.
For SCODbio,10 mg/L, it was determined that the COD concentration did not inhibit the development of nitrifiers in the biofilm. The
qm,NH4N2Nitr,,bf that could be sustained by the biofilm increased
linearly with NH4N in the continuous-flow reactors (Figure 2b), as
follows:
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf DSN

Where
D 5 0.47 kg-L/mg/m2 of biofilm surface/d, and
SN 5 ammonium-nitrogen concentration in the mixed liquor
(mg/L).
An alternate form of eq 5 was used to simulate the conditions
observed at SCODbio,10 mg/L, as follows:
qm;NH4 NNitr;bf

AN SN
KN;bfgNitr SN

Where
KN,bfg,Nitr 5 half-saturation constant term in the equation to derive
qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf (maximum flux rate for ammoniumnitrogen uptake by the nitrifiers) from AN.
The value of KN,bfg,Nitr 5 2.1 mg/L NH4N. Note that this is not the
same as KN,bf in eq 1.
The value of AN over the range observed is in general agreement
with the value of 2 to 2.5 kg/1000 m2/d observed by Odegaard
(2005) and Odegaard et al. (1994) for Kaldnes Miljteknologi
(KMT) carriers at 10 to 158C, low soluble BOD concentrations, and
without oxygen limitation. The default value recommended for
modeling 5 2 kg/1000 m2/d.
Ammonium-Nitrogen Uptake Rate by Nitrifiers in Mixed Liquor
Volatile Suspended Solids. Equation 7 represents the ammoniumnitrogen uptake by nitrifiers in the suspended solids (SS) in
cell n. The units for MLVSS are kilograms per cubic meter. The
BVFn is the fraction of liquid volume in cell n that is displaced by
biofilm and its support media. It is characteristic of the type of
media and media fill volume fraction (mf) in the cell. The mf is
the fraction of empty tank volume that is filled with bare media.
For example, if 50% of the empty tank volume is filled with bare
media (media without biofilm on its surface), the mf 5 0.5. The fnitr
is the fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS.
May 2008

qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS 5 maximum ammonium-nitrogen uptake rate for nitrifiers in the MLVSS

at temperature T (mg NH4N/mg
nitrifier VSS/d);
KDO,nitr,SS and KN,nitr,SS 5 half-saturation constants for nitrifiers
in the MLVSS at temperature T;
fNitr 5 fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS; and
Xn 5 MLVSS concentration in cell n (kg
VSS/m3).
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS measured by calibration of the
model to the performance of the activated sludge system in the pilot
studies was 8.51 mg NH4N uptake by nitrifiers/mg nitrifier VSS  d
at 128C (Table 1). This is in agreement with the value for
qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS of 12.5 mg NH4N at 258C uptake/mg nitrifier
VSS  d and a temperature adjustment coefficient of 1.03 (Randall
et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991).
The default value of KDO,nitr,SS 5 1 mg/L dissolved oxygen at
258C. Its temperature adjustment coefficient, h 5 1.00. The default
value of KN,nitr,SS 5 1 mg/L of NH4N at 258C. Its temperature adjustment coefficient, h 5 1.06. This results in a value of 0.46 mg/L
at 128C. These values of the coefficients are based on the work
on nitrification and denitrification in activated sludge systems by
Marais and Ekama (1976) and Wentzel et al. (1991).
For the purposes of design, the model allows the user to inhibit
the value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS (8.51 day21) by a certain percentage,
to account for nitrifier inhibition experienced at a full-scale facility.
A typical percentage for the inhibition recommended for design is
25%. The inhibition is because of the presence of certain chemicals
in the wastewater, such as in a system that receives a combination of
wastewater and septage. Certain facilities have significantly higher
inhibition, such as inhibition by cyanide recirculated from multiple
hearth incinerators burning sludge. This has been observed at the
Western Branch Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland, and the Virginia Initiative
Plant, Hampton Roads Sanitation District (Norfolk, Virginia) plants
when operated with recycle flow from multiple hearth furnace
exhaust gas scrubbers. The inhibition was as high as 50% (Solley,
2000). At other facilities, such as in Broomfield, Colorado (Sen,
Phillips, Murthy, Pattarkine, Copithorn, Randall, Schwinn, and
Banerjee, 2007), continuous simulation against extended periods of
plant data showed no significant inhibition.
Mass Balance for Ammonium-Nitrogen in Each Reactor. The
ammonium-nitrogen concentration (mg/L) in cell n is calculated
using a mass balance approach, as follows:
IN;n Ndecay;n NorgN;hydr;n
AN;n BN;n CN;n DN;n EN;n

Where
IN,n 5 quantity of unassimilated ammonium-nitrogen
entering aerobic cell n (kg/d);
443

Sen and Randall

Table 1Values of coefcients measured in pilot studies and default values for the semiempirical model.a Refer to notes
b and c at the bottom of the table for sources of the values.
T

Value
measured

12
12
12
12
12
12

3.57
8.72
0.41
0.042
48

Default

Units/formula

Reference

Heterotrophs in MLVSS
Aerobic
um,H,aer,SS
qm,H,aer,SS
YH,aer
kd,H,aer
KH,S,,aerSS
KH,DO,SS
qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS

Max growth rate

Max substrate util rate
Yield
Decay rate
Half sat constant
Half sat constant
Max hydrolysis rate

3.57
8.72
0.41
0.042
48
1
(0.1)
(qm,H,aer,SS)

qm,hydr,aer,PorgN,SS Max conversion rate

(particulate orgN to sol orgN)
qm,hydr,aer,PP,SS
Max conversion rate
(particulate orgP to sol P, not OP)

Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note

b
b
b
b
b
c
d

(qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS)
(influent COD/TKN)
(qm,hydr,aer,COD,SS)
(influent COD/total
phosphorus)
(0.8) (qm,hydr,aer,PorgN,SS)

qm,hydr,aer,SorgN,SS Max ammonification rate

(sol orgN to NH4N)
qm,hydr,aer,SP,SS
Max ammonification rate
(sol P to OP)
Anoxic
um,H,anx,SS
qm,H,anx,SS
YH,anx
kd,H,anx
KH,S,anx,SS
KH,DO,I,SS
KH,NO3N,SS
Hydrolysis rate

mg VSS (mg COD d)21

mg COD (mg VSS d)21
mg VSS (mg COD)21
day21
mg/L SCOD
mg/L dissolved oxygen
mg COD (mg VSS d)21

(0.8) (qm,hydr,aer,PP,SS)

Max growth rate

Max substrate util rate
Yield
Decay rate
Half sat constant
Half inhibition constant
Half sat constant

12
12
12
12
12
12
12

1.77
5.71
0.31
0.022
56

1.77
5.71
0.31
0.022
48
0.25
1.0

mg VSS (mg COD d)21

mg COD (mg VSS d)21
mg VSS (mg COD)21
day21
mg/L SCODbio
mg/L dissolved oxygen
mg/L NO3N
(Aerobic rate)
(qm,H,anx,SS/qm,H,aer,SS)

For pre-anx
For pre-anx
Note b
Note b
Note b
Note c
Note c
Note d

Decay rate

12

0.005

0.005

day21
(0.5)(anoxic rate)(0.5)

Note b
Note d

Anaerobic
kd,Hana
Hydrolysis rate
Autotrophs in MLVSS
Nitrosomonas or ammonia-oxidizing bacteria
um,NH4N-Nitr,SS
qm,NH4N-Nitr,SS
YN1
kd,N1
KDO,nitr,SS
KN,nitr,SS

Max growth rate

Max NH4N util rate
Yield
Aerobic decay rate
Half sat constant for nitrifiers
Half sat constant for nitrifiers

Biofilm in semiempirical model

KS,H,aer,bf
KS,H,anx,bf
KDO,H,aer,bf
KDO,H,i,bf
ASaer
ASanx
BSaer
BSanx
KDO,nitr,bf
KN,nitr,bf
AN
KS,bfg,nitr
KN,bfg,nitr

444

Half sat, aerobic, heterotrophs

Half sat, anoxic, heterotrophs
Half sat, aerobic, heterotrophs
Half inhibition constant, anoxic
Max aer COD uptake rate, biofilm
Max anx COD uptake rate, biofilm
Half sat, for AS
Half sat, for AS
Half sat, aerobic, nitrifiers
Half sat, aerobic, nitrifiers
Max NH4N uptake rate (nitr rate)
Half inhibition, AN for nitrif
Half sat, AN for nitrif

Values from literature calibrated to pilot studies

12
12
12
12
12
12

0.43
8.51
0.05
0.023

0.43
8.51
0.05
0.023
1
1

mg VSSNitr1 (mg NH4N d)21

mg NH4N (mg VSSNitr1 d)21
mg VSSNitr1 (mg NH4N)
day21
mg/L dissolved oxygen
mg/L NH4N

Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note

e
b
c
c
c
c

Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note
Note

b
b
f
b
b
g
b
b
f
f
b
b
b

These are concentrations in the bulk liquid, not inside biofilm

12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12

48
56

21
14
19.3
19.3

1.8
9.4
2.1

48
48
4.0
2.0
21
14
19.3
19.3
4.0
2.0
1.8
9.4
2.1

mg/L SCODbio
mg/L SCODbio
mg/L dissolved oxygen
mg/L dissolved oxygen
kg COD/1000 m2/d
kg COD/1000 m2/d
mg/L SCODbio
mg/L SCODbio
mg/L dissolved oxygen
mg/L NH4N
kg/1000 m2/d
mg/L SCODbio
mg/L NH4N

Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

Table 1(Continued)
T
Aerobic COD hydrolysis rates by biofilm
fN
fCOD

Value measured
20% of qmaer,COD,bf

Nitrogen in biomass
COD in biomass

0.12
1.42

Default

Units/formula

Reference

kg COD/1000 m /d

Note h

mg-N/mg VSS
mg COD/mg VSS

Note b
Note b

Model is structured such that the modeler can use observed values instead of the default values for kinetic coefficients and  when
observed values are available.
b
Unless mentioned, these values were determined from continuous-flow bench-scale pilot studies operated in activated sludge, IFAS, and
MBBR modes (Sen, 1995).
c
Literature referenced: Barker and Dold (1997); Marais and Ekama (1976); Randall et al. (1992); Wentzel et al. (1991).
d
Maximum hydrolysis rate should be refined by calibrating model results to operating data.
e
The value of 0.43 day21 was determined by calibrating the model to the performance of the bench-scale activated sludge system operated
at different MLSS MCRTs.
f
Hem et al. (1994); Huhtamaki and Sen (2007); Odegaard (2005b); Weiss et al. (2005).
g
Based on ratio of maximum substrate utilization rates under preanoxic and aerobic conditions. The value must be corrected for post-anoxic
cells.
h
For aerobic hydrolysis by biofilm, substitute qmaer,COD,bf for qm,H,aer,SS in the equation for MLVSS; all other hydrolysis equations for the biofilm
are related to this equation based on a form similar to the equations for hydrolysis with MLVSS.

EN,n 5 quantity of unassimilated ammonium-nitrogen

exiting cell n (kg/d);
AN,n and BN,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen uptake by nitrifiers in
suspended solids and biofilm, computed by
eqs 7 and 1, respectively (kg/d);
CN,n and DN,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen use in cell n resulting from
heterotrophic biomass production by MLVSS
and biofilm, respectively (kg/d);
Ndecay,n 5 ammonium-nitrogen released through decay of
VSS in cell n (kg/d); and
Norg-N,hydr,n 5 hydrolysis of organic nitrogen (kg/d).
The variable CN,n 5 NH4N uptake by biomass in the MLSS using
dissolved oxygen and NOxN in cell n, as follows:
CN;n kg=d fCODu;aer;SS;n YAH;aer;SS 
CODu;anx;SS;n YAH;anxSS g fN

Where
fN 5 fraction of nitrogen in the
biomass (MLVSS) synthesized (default value of 0.12);
CODu,aer,SS,n and CODu,anx,SS,n 5 COD used by MLVSS under
aerobic and anoxic conditions,
respectively, in cell n (kg/d);
and
YAH,aerSS and YAH,anxSS 5 actual biomass yields for aerobic and anoxic uptake of
COD by the suspended solids
(mg VSS/mg COD).
The variable YAH,BF (eq 10) 5 actual biomass yield for heterotrophs
in the biofilm (mg VSS/mg COD). Heterotrophic biomass production is discussed in the section titled Biomass Production.
The variable DN,n (kg/d) 5 NH4N uptake by heterotrophic yield
of the biofilm in cell n, as follows:
DN;n CODu;bf;n YAH;BF g fN
May 2008

10

Unlike NH4N uptake rates by MLVSS, A,n,N and D,n.N, are the
measured net decay of autotrophic and heterotrophic biomass in the
biofilms, respectively. The Ndecay,n is the nitrogen released from
biomass in MLVSS (kg/m3) as a result of decay in cell n. When the
dissolved oxygen concentration is above the threshold that represents aerobic conditions, the form of the equation is as follows:
Ndecay; n kg=d fN kdH;aerT MLVSS Vn 1  BVFn

11

If the dissolved oxygen concentration is below the threshold for

aerobic conditions, but above the NOxN threshold for anoxic
conditions, the decay rate is reduced from the aerobic decay rate of
kdH,aerT to the anoxic decay rate of kdH,anxT (Table 1). If it is below
the NOxN threshold, the decay rate is reduced to the anaerobic
decay rate of kdH,anaT.
The Ndecay,n is not included when the value of the ammoniumnitrogen utilization rate term for sludge production (CN,n) by the
MLVSS is the measured net of biomass decay. The corresponding
decay term for biofilm is not included, because the ammoniumnitrogen uptake rate in eq 1 is the measured net of biofilm decay.
The Norg-N,hydr,n is the unassimilated organic nitrogen that is
hydrolyzed in cell n. It is computed as follows (in kg/d):
NorgN;hydr;n IPorgN ISorgN  EPorgN  ESorgN n

12

In this model, the rate of hydrolysis is computed based on a series

of Monod equations. For the MLVSS, the maximum hydrolysis rate
for unassimilated particulate organic nitrogen (qm,hydr,EA,PorgN,SS) is
expressed in units of kg particulate organic nitrogen hydrolyzed/kg
MLVSS  d; the half-saturation constant (Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS) is expressed in mg/L particulate organic nitrogen. The subscript EA
represents aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic conditions for the electron
acceptor (EA), based on the thresholds of dissolved oxygen and
NOxN, which represent aerobic and anoxic conditions, respectively.
For the biofilm, the maximum hydrolysis rate for particulate organic
nitrogen (qm,hydr,EA,PorgN,bf) is expressed in units of kilograms of
particulate organic nitrogen hydrolyzed per day per 1000 m2 of
biofilm surface. The half-saturation constant (Khydr,EA,PorgN,bf) is
expressed in milligrams per liter of particulate organic nitrogen. The
445

Sen and Randall

Table 2Matrix showing equations for heterotrophs and the interrelationship of kinetic coefcients for the mixed liquor
in each cell of reactor (X 5 MLVSS).
SO2
XN
SS
SN
XH
(dissolved
(X [12fnitr]) (X fnitr) (SCODbio) (NH4N) oxygen)
Heterotrophs
using
dissolved
oxygen
Heterotrophs
using NO3N
AOB (N1) using
dissolved
oxygen
NOB (N2) using
dissolved
oxygen
AOB 1 NOB
(if YN1 5 YN2
and eff
NO2N 5 0)

21
YHaer

2fN

21
YHanx

2fN

SNO3N
(NO3N)

212fCOD YHaer
YHaer

YHaer[qm,H,aer,SS

212fCOD YHanx
2:86 YHanx

21
YN1

23:4312fN YN1
YN1

2fN

21:14
YN2

21
YN1

N YN1
2 fN 24:5712f
YN1

IPorgN;n EPorgN;n Porg Nhydr;SS;n Porg Nhydr;bf;n

EPorgN ECPorgN Qeff;n =1000

21
YN1

13

14

15

16

Where
ECPorgN 5 concentration of particulate organic nitrogen in the
effluent from cell n (mg/L), and
Qeff,n 5 effluent flow from cell n (m3/d).
The particulate organic nitrogen gets hydrolyzed to soluble organic
nitrogen. The soluble organic nitrogen is then converted (deamminated) to ammonium-nitrogen. The effluent soluble organic nitrogen
(ESorgN) is computed as follows:
ISorgN Porg Nhydr;SS;n Porg Nhydr;bf;n
ESorgN Sorg Nhydr;SS;n Sorg Nhydr;bf;n

17

The equations to determine soluble organic nitrogen hydrolyzed

by the biofilm and suspended solids (Sorg Nhydr,SS,n 1 Sorg
Nhydr,bf,n) are structured in a format similar to eqs 13 to 16. The
subscript SorgN is substituted for PorgN. The values of maximum
hydrolysis rate for soluble organic nitrogen for MLVSS and biofilm
(qm,hydr,SorgN,SS and qm,hydr,SorgN,bf) and the corresponding half446

Vn(12BVFn) (12fNitr) Xn]

SNOxNn
KH;DO;i;SS
SCODbio;n
KH;NOxN;SS 1SNOxNn KH;S;anx;SS 1SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS 1SO2n

Vn(12BVFn) (12fNitr)Xn]

Vn(12BVFn) fNitrXn]

21
YN2

Porg Nhydr;SS;n qm;hydr;EA;PorgN;SS

ECPorgN;n
3
Khydr;EA;PorgN;SS ECPorgN;n

Porg Nhydr;bf;n qm;hydr;EA;PorgN;bf

ECPorgN;n
3
V n Mn
Khydr;EA;PorgN;bf ECPorgN;n

YHanx[qm,H,anx,SS

SO2n
SCODbio;n
KH;DO;SS 1SO2n KH;S;aer;SS 1SCODbio;n

SO2n
SNn
YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS KDO;nitr;SS
1SO2n KN;nitr;SS 1SNn

effluent particulate organic nitrogen (EPorgN) is computed from the

influent particulate organic nitrogen (IPorgN) and the hydrolysis of
particulate organic nitrogen by the MLVSS and biofilm. This is
simulated using eqs 13 to 16, as follows:

3 Vn 1  BVFn MLVSSn

Kinetic expression for cell n (n 5 cell number in multicell reactor)

2 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,SS

SO2n
SNn
KDO;nitr;SS 1SO2n KN;nitr;SS 1SNn

Vn(12BVFn) fNitrXn]

saturation constants for soluble organic nitrogen are used in eqs 14

and 15.
A set of values of coefficients have been developed for use in the
model (Table 1). These values are derived by calibrating the model
to the data from the continuous-flow pilot studies (Sriwiryarat et al.,
2005) and calibration of the model to several full-scale MBBRs and
IFAS plants (Sen et al., 2006). In eqs 14 and 15, the half-saturation
constants Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS and Khydr,EA,PorgN,SS are 1 mg/L for all
electron acceptor (EA) conditions.
It should be noted that the value of the hydrolysis rate selected
has a greater affect in winter compared with summer and in an
MBBR compared with an IFAS. This is because of a slower
hydrolysis rate in winter and the relatively low MLVSS in the
MBBR, which requires most of the hydrolysis to be in the biofilm.
The values computed from the pilot studies were revised based on
comparison with MBBRs running in winter. Particular care should
be taken in running models for MBBRs at low temperatures (2 to
128C). The results should be checked against actual plants and the
values of the coefficients adjusted if necessary.
The equations for nitrification, denitrification, and COD removal
are summarized in a matrix format for substrate uptake in the
MLVSS (Table 2) and by the biofilm (Table 3) in each cell of a
multicell reactor.
Chemical Oxygen Demand Removal. The COD removal
rates are computed by a set of equations similar to those for
nitrification.
The COD can be removed aerobically and anoxically by the
biofilm and the MLVSS in each cell. Equation 18 shows the aerobic
COD uptake (CODu,aer,bf 5 Bn,1,S) by the biofilm, as follows:
SO2n
KDO;H;aer;bf SO2n
SCODbio;n
3
Vn Mn
KS;H;aer;bf SCODbio;n

CODuaer;bf B1;S;n qm;aer;COD;bf

18

Maximum COD removal rates (qm,COD,bf) also increased with

the soluble biodegradable COD concentration (SCODbio). Based
on batch tests to measure rates by biofilm removed from the
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

Table 3Matrix showing equations for heterotrophs and biolm ux associated with the biolm in each cell in the
semiempirical biolm model.*
XH
(X [12fnitr])
Heterotrophs using
dissolved oxygen
Heterotrophs
using NO3N
AOB (N1) using
dissolved oxygen
NOB (N2) using
dissolved oxygen
AOB 1 NOB (if
YN1 5 YN2 and
eff NO2N 5 0)

XN
(X fnitr)

SS
(SCODbio)

21
YHaer

21
YHanx

SN
(NH4N)
2fN

SO2
(dissolved
oxygen)
212fCOD YHaer
YHaer

YHaer[qm,aer,COD,bf
212fCOD YHanx
2:86 YHanx

2fN

SO2n
SCODbio;n
KDO;H;aer;bf 1SO2n KS;H;aer;bf 1SCODbio;n
K

H;DO;i;bf
YHanx[qm,anx,COD,bf KH;DO;i;bf
1SO2

23:4312fN YN1
YN1

2fN

21:14
YN2

21
YN2

21
YN1

24:5712fN YN1
YN1

21
YN1

2 YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf

Vn Mn]

SNOxNn
SCODbio;n
KS;H;anx;bf 1SCODbio;n KNOxN;bf 1SNOxNn

SO2n
SNn
YN1[qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf KDO;nitr;bf
1SO2n KN;nitr;bf 1SNn

21
YN1

2 fN

Kinetic expression for cell n

(n 5 cell number in multicell reactor)

SNO3N
(NO3N)

Vn Mn]

Vn Mn]

SO2n
SNn
KDO;nitr;bf 1SO2n KN;nitr;bf 1SNn

Vn Mn]

* The value of qm,aer,COD,bf and qm,anx,COD,bf are computed using eqs 19 and 21, respectively.
The value of qm,NH4N2Nitr,bf is computed using eq 4 or 6.
Equations 4, 6, 19, and 21 are similar to Monod equations. The Monod expression takes into account the change in biofilm flux for SCODbio and
NH4N as a result of external substrate concentrations and the associated changes in the biofilm thickness and fraction of nitrifiers.

continuous-flow reactor cells, an empirical relationship was developed to relate qm,COD,bf to SCODbio (Figure 3), as follows:
qm;aer;COD;bf

AS;aer SCODbio
BS;aer SCODbio

19

Where
AS,aer 5 21 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d, and
BS,aer 5 19.3 mg/L SCODbio.
Equation 18 shows that the rate changes with biodegradable
soluble COD (SCODbio,n) and dissolved oxygen (SO2,n) in cell n. The
default value of the half-saturation constant for COD, KS,H,aer,bf 5 48
mg/L COD at 128C; this is equal to the value of KSHaer,SS measured
for biomass in MLSS in the pilot studies (Table 1).
The default value of the half-saturation constant for dissolved
oxygen, KDO,H,aer,bf, at 258C 5 4 mg/L dissolved oxygen. It is set at
the same level as used for nitrification in the biofilm.

Equation 20 shows the anoxic COD uptake (CODu,anx,bf 5 B2,S,n)

by the biofilm, as follows:
KH;DO;i;bf
KH;DO;i;bf SO2n
SCODbio;n
SNOxNn
3
Vn Mn
KS;H;anx;bf SCODbio;n KNOxN;bf SNOxNn

CODu;anx;bf B2;S;n qm;anx;COD;bf

qm;anx;COD;bf

AS;anx SCODbio
BS;anx SCODbio

20

21

Where the default values of A and B are as follows:

AS,anx 5 13.8 kg/1000 m2 of biofilm surface/d, if the media is in
the preanoxic zone; and
BS,anx 5 19.3 mg/L SCODbio.
Equation 20 can be split into two separate equations, based on
COD uptake with NO2N and NO3N as the two separate forms of

Figure 3COD uptake rates for biolm in IFAS and MBBR systems (DO 5 dissolved oxygen).
May 2008

447

Sen and Randall

NOxN. The current version treats all of the NOxN as NO3N and
nitrification kinetics as the kinetics of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria.
The code is structured to allow for future separation of the two forms.
The value for AS,anx is based on the ratio of maximum substrate
utilization rates for heterotrophs in the MLVSS under preanoxic and
aerobic conditions (qmHanx SS/qmHaer SS). The default value recommended for the half-saturation constant for dissolved oxygen inhibition, KH,DO,i,bf, at 128C 5 2 mg/L dissolved oxygen (Table 1).
The default value of COD, KS,H,bf,anx, at 128C 5 48 mg/L COD,
which is the same recommended for aerobic conditions. Measurements in the pilot units indicated that the actual value may be
slightly higher (Table 1, 56 mg/L). The default value half-saturation
constant of NOxN, KNOxN,bf, at 258C 5 1 mg/L NOxN.
As with the biofilm, the COD can be taken up anoxically and
aerobically by the suspended solids. The model allows for simultaneous aerobic and anoxic uptake of COD in a reactor. The user
has the option to modify the code and switch one form of uptake off
in each reactor.
Equations 22 and 23 calculate the aerobic (A1,S,n) and anoxic
(A2,S,n) uptake of COD by the suspended solids in reactor n, as
follows:
CODu;aer;ss A1;S;n qm;H;aer;SS
3

SO2n
KH;DO;SS SO2n

CODuanx;ss A2;S;n qm;H;anx;SS

3

In;S Sdecay;n Shydr;n

A1;S;n A2;S;n B1;S;n B2;S;n En;S

SCODbio;n
KH;S;aer;SS SCODbio;n

3 Vn 1  BVFn 1  fNitr Xn

24

Where
22

SNOxNn
KH;NOxN;SS SNOxNn

SCODbio;n
KH;DO;i;SS
KH;S;anx;SS SCODbio;n KH;DO;i;SS SO2n

3 Vn 1  BVFn 1  fNitr Xn

The value of KH,S,aer,SS measured in pilot studies was 48 mg/L

(Table 1). This agrees with the KH,S,aer,SS value of 70 mg/L COD at
258C observed by McClintock et al. (1988) and a temperature
adjustment coefficient of 1.03. The default value of KH,DO,SS 5 1
mg/L dissolved oxygen at 258C.
The value for qm,H,anx,SS measured at 128C was 5.71 mg COD
taken up per milligram heterotrophic VSS (Table 1). This is for
biomass that grows using a primary effluent with 25 to 33% of the
COD available as soluble biodegradable COD. A separate value of
qm,H,anx,SS should be determined for post-anoxic cells with supplemental carbon. This value may be lower when using methanol as a
substrate (Dold et al., 2007).
The value of KH,S,anx,SS measured under anoxic conditions at
128C was 56 mg/L (Table 1). This is slightly higher than the value
of 48 mg/L under aerobic conditions. As a default, one may use the
same value for modeling anoxic and aerobic zones.
The default values of KH,NO3N,SS and KH,DO,i,SS are from the
literature (Table 1). The value of KH,NO3N,SS 5 1 mg/L NO3N, and
the value of KH,DO,i,SS 5 0.25 mg/L dissolved oxygen.
The soluble biodegradable COD (SCODbio) concentration (mg/L)
in each aerobic cell n is calculated using a mass balance approach
similar to eq 8. The units of the terms in eq 24 are in kg/d.

23

In,S and En,s 5 influent and effluent kg/d of SCODbio for cell n,
and
Sdecay,n 5 COD released through the decay of MLVSS (kg/d).
A corresponding term for COD release through decay of the biofilm
was not included, because the COD flux in eqs 19 and 21 are net of
decay. The COD flux in the biofilm diffusional model (Sen and
Randall, 2008a) is also net of decay.
Sdecay;n kg=d fCOD kdH;aerT MLVSS Vn 1  BVFn 25

Where
qm,H,aer,SS and qm,H,anx,SS 5 maximum COD uptake rates for
heterotrophs in the MLVSS at temperature T (mg COD/mg VSS/d);
KH,DO,SS and KH,S,aer,SS 5 half-saturation constants for dissolved oxygen and COD for the
heterotrophs in the MLVSS during
aerobic uptake of COD at temperature T;
KH,NOxN,SS and KH,S,anx,SS 5 half-saturation constants for NOxN
and COD for the heterotrophs in
the MLVSS during anoxic uptake
of COD at temperature T; and
KH,DO,i,SS 5 half-inhibition constant for denitrification, expressed as mg/L dissolved oxygen.
The value for qm,H,aer,SS measured at 128C was 8.72 mg COD taken
up per milligram heterotrophic VSS per day (Table 1). This is in
agreement with the value 12.8 per day at 258C and a temperature
adjustment coefficient of 1.03 (Barker and Dold, 1997; Randall
et al., 1992; Wentzel et al., 1991). The values of h for heterotrophs
in the literature vary from less than 1.03 to 1.07 (Marais and Ekama,
1976; Wentzel et al., 1991).
448

Where
fCOD 5 COD content of biomass (with a default value of 1.42 mg
COD/mg VSS), and
Shydr,n 5 amount of unassimilated particulate COD converted to
SCODbio in cell n (kg/d).
The structure of the equations for hydrolysis is similar to eqs 13
to 16.
The half-saturation constant (KS,EA,hydr,SS and KS,EA,hydr,SS) is
10 mg/L of particulate COD for EA 5 aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic
conditions.
The values of maximum hydrolysis rates for particulate COD by
biomass in MLVSS and biofilm are presented in Table 1. As in the
case of nitrogen, these were derived by analyzing the substrate
profiles in the pilot-scale units and refined based on the predictions
in full-scale MBBRs operated at low temperatures (less than 108C).
Biomass Production. The amount of heterotrophs and nitrifiers generated as a result of COD removal and nitrification is
computed for the MLSS and biofilm. This computation is performed
for each cell n. The sum total for all n cells is the total biomass
production.
The user has to specify an MLSS MCRT for the computation. The
model uses information on the plant configuration, such as anaerobic,
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

Table 4Reference table of suggested yields, YH,bf and YN1,bf (generated by running the biolm diffusional model or
from pilot studies).
Based on runs
of the biolm 1D
model or from
experiments
SCODbio

NH4N range

Biolm yield based on mode of uptake

Substrate conc. range

Anaerobic

Aerobic

Lower mg/L

Upper mg/L

mg VSS hetertroph/mg COD uptake

mg VSS autotroph/NH4N uptake

20
5
1
0.1
5
1
0.1

200
19
4.9
0.99
20
4.9
0.9

0.25
0.2
0.18
0.16

0.35
0.25
0.22
0.2
0.05
0.045
0.04

anoxic, aerobic, and post-anoxic volume fractions, and step-feed,

Modified Ludzack Ettinger (MLE), University of Capetown (UCT),
or anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (A2O) configuration. Each configuration
results in different amounts of MLSS in each cell or different
fractions of MLSS MCRT under aerobic, anoxic, and anaerobic
conditions. Additionally, the user specifies the biomass yield for
heterotrophs and nitrifiers in the biofilm or an equivalent biofilm
MCRT. This was discussed in the Model Development section.
Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids. The biomass yield for
heterotrophs (kg/d) in the MLVSS is computed in four steps, as
follows:
(1) The first step computes the yield in cell n, as follows:
Heterotrophic biomass yield by MLVSS in cell n is computed
in eq 26.
AXHy;n CODu;aer;SS;n YHaer CODu;anx;SS;n YHanx

26

The CODu,aer,SS,n and CODu,anx,SS,n are computed in eqs 22

and 23.
(2) The second step computes the decay of MLVSS biomass in
reactor cell n in kilograms per day. As discussed earlier for eq
11, the decay rate, kdH,EA,n, in cell n, is a function of dissolved
oxygen and NOxN in the cell.
Biomass decay for heterotrophs in cell n, is as follows:
An;XHd kdH;EA;n MLVSS1  fnitr Vn 1  BVF

27

The overall heterotrophic biomass production in reactor cell n is

the sum of biomass yield and decay, as computed in eqs 26 and
27. The value of fnitr is computed iteratively by running through
the entire set of equations (1 to 47). The model runs a maximum
of 100 iterations (which can be changed by the user) or until the
values converge to within 1%.
(3) The nitrifier yield is computed in the third step using an equation
that is similar to eq 26 for heterotrophs, as follows:
Nitrifier biomass yield by MLVSS in cell n;
An;XNy NH4 Nu;SS;n YN1 NO2 Nu;SS;n YN2 28
The first term on the right side is for Nitrosomonas biomass
yield 5 (NH4Nu,SS,n) (YN1). The second term on the right side is
for Nitrobacter biomass yield 5 (NO2Nu,SS,n)(YN2).
(4) The nitrifier decay is computed in the fourth step by eqs 29,
May 2008

Anoxic

30, and 31. Equations 29 and 30 are similar to eq 27 for

heterotrophs.
Biomass decay for Nitrosomonas N1 in cell n;
An;XN1d kdN1;EA;n fnitr1 MLVSS
3Vn 1  BVF

29

Biomass decay for Nitrobacter N2 in cell n;

An;XN2d kdN1;EA;n fnitr2 MLVSS
3Vn 1  BVF

30

An;XNd An;XN1d An;XN1d

31

Biofilm. The structure of the equation for the biofilm is similar

to that for MLVSS. The heterotrophic biomass generated by biofilm
in cell n, BXH,n is computed by eq 32, as follows:
Heterotrophic biomass generated by biofilm in cell n;
BXH;n CODu;bf;n YH;bf;n 

32

This biomass is the quantity sloughed off the biofilm and released
into the MLVSS. The COD used by the biofilm in reactor cell n is
computed by eqs 18 (CODu,bf,aer) and 20 (CODu,bf,anx). For the
semiempirical model, the biofilm yield in cell n, YH,bf,n (flux of
heterotroph out of the biofilm for each unit flux of COD into the
biofilm per day) must be specified as an external input. Its value
can be determined by running the biofilm diffusional model in
conjunction with the semiempirical model. Alternatively, it may be
based on measurements made during pilot studies, from a data table
included as part of the semiempirical model or on data from the
manufacturer. The data table is a table of yields observed at different
SCODbio and NH4N concentrations. It is based on the results of
several runs made with the biofilm diffusional model (Table 4).
For nitrifiers, the computations are similar to heterotrophs.
Equation 32 is modified for nitrifiers, as follows:
Nitrifier biomass generated by biofilm in cell n;
BXN;n NH4 Nu;bf;n YN1;bf;n  NO2 Nu;bf;n YN2;bf;n 

33

Where
BXN,n 5 amount of nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm and
released into the mixed liquor (kg/d);
NH4Nu,bf,n 5 computed by eq 1;
449

Sen and Randall

YN1,bf,n 5 Nitrosomonas flux (as VSS out of biofilm) per

unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per day; and
YN1,bf,n 5 Nitrosomonas flux (as VSS out of biofilm) per
unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per day.
In the current release of AQUIFAS, the nitrifier biomass generated
is based on a lumped yield of all nitrifying (ammonia-oxidizing and
nitrite-oxidizing) bacteria (AOB and NOB, respectively) (Tables 2
and 3), as follows:
Nitrifier biomass generated by biofilm in reactor cell n;
BXN;n NH4 Nu;bf;n YNtotal;bf;n 

YNtotal,bf,n 5 ammonia-oxidizing bacteria flux (as VSS out of

biofilm) per unit flux of NH4N into the biofilm per
day. The YNtotal,bf,n is twice the value of YN1,bf,n in
Table 4.
Unlike heterotrophs, the effect of the nitrifier decay rate within the
biofilm is incorporated to the biofilm yields (i.e., the biofilm yields
are the net of decay).
Fraction of Nitrifiers. The fraction of nitrifiers in the MLVSS
is computed in the following three steps:
(1) The model computes the quantity of nitrifiers generated in the
MLVSS and the quantity of nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm in
each cell.
(2) It determines the sum total of nitrifiers and heterotrophs
generated and lost through decay across n cells in the system.
This is the biomass production per day.
(3) It computes the fraction of nitrifiers based on eq 35.

35

Where
n 5 number of reactor cells in operation.
The biomass yield and decay are computed as shown in eqs 26 to 34.
As mentioned earlier, the value of fnitr calculated during each
iteration is fed back into the next model run.
It is important to understand that, unlike activated sludge systems
operating below the threshold (washout) MLSS MCRT, where the
fnitr can be close to zero because of washout of nitrifiers, the IFAS
(and MBBR) system can have a significant fnitr, even when the
MLSS MCRTs are below the washout MCRT of single-cell activated sludge systems. This is because of biofilm nitrification and
nitrifiers sloughed off the biofilm. These nitrifiers become part of
the MLVSS, until it is wasted from the system or released in the
effluent.
Second, it is important to appreciate how the fnitr plays slightly
different roles in IFAS and MBBR systems. In IFAS, the nitrifier
population in the MLVSS can make a significant contribution to the
overall nitrification, even when operated well below the washout
MLSS MCRT. However, in the MBBR, which has a very low
MLVSS and the MLSS MCRT 5 nominal HRT of the liquid,
the MLVSS does not maintain a significant population of nitrifiers.
450

NOxNu;anx;bf;n ; BNOxN;u;n

CODu;anx;bf;n
DN COD Factor

36

NOxNu;anx;bf;n ; ANOxN;u;n

CODu;anx;SS;n
DN COD Factor

37

34

Where

The fnitr (fraction of nitrifiers) can be computed as follows:

X

n Nitrifier Biomass Yield and Decay for
f nitr
1
MLVSS and Biofilm
!
n
X
Heterotroph and Nitrifier Biomass Yields
4
and Decay for MLVSS and Biofilm
1

It is for this reason that IFAS systems show a lower activated sludge
tank volume requirement compared with MBBRs when designed
with the same biofilm surface area. However, IFAS systems need
sludge volume index control and, possibly, higher clarifier surface
areas.
Denitrification. The NOxN denitrified by the biofilm (NOxNu,anx,bf,n 5 BNOxN,u,n) and the MLVSS (NOxNu,anx,SS,n 5
ANOxN,u,n) are computed as follows:

The CODu,anx,bf,n (B2,S,n) and CODu,anx,SS,n (A2,S,n) are computed

as per eqs 20 and 23, respectively. As mentioned earlier,
CODu,anx,bf,n and CODu,anx,SS,n can each be split into two terms
to separately compute COD used for denitrification of NO2N and
NO3N. The denitrification COD factor (DN COD factor) is used to
determine the oxidized nitrogen uptake based on the anoxic COD
uptake. The DN COD factor is computed from the stoichiometry
of denitrification, yield, and COD content of biomass (fCOD), as
follows:
DN COD factor

NO3N

2:86=1  Yh;anx 3 fCOD

38

DN COD factor

NO2N

1:71=1  Yh;anx 3 fCOD

39

As mentioned earlier, the default value of fCOD 5 1.42 mg COD/mg

VSS.
In the current version of the model, it is assumed that all of the
NO2N is oxidized to NO3N. The denitrification that takes place is
denitrification of NO3N.
The NOxN generated by the nitrifiers in the biofilm and MLVSS
are computed as follows:
NOx N generated; BNOxNNitr;n BN;n  fN BXN;n

40

NOx N generated; ANOxNNitr;n AN;n  fN AXN;n

41

The variables BN,n and AN,n are the NH4N uptake rates in the biofilm
and MLVSS and are computed by eqs 1 and 7, respectively. The
nitrifier biomass yield for the biofilm (BXN,n) is computed by eq 34.
The interrelationship of the kinetic expressions for NOxN are
represented in a matrix format in Tables 2 and 3.
The effluent NOxN (ENOxN,n) load from reactor n (kg/d) is
determined based on the influent NOxN load (INOxN,n), nitrification,
and denitrification in the MLVSS and biofilm, as follows:
INOxN;n BNOxNNitr;n ANOxNNitr;n
ANOxN;u;n BNOxN;u;n ENOxN;n

42

Oxygen. The equations for oxygen requirement for the biofilm

(BDO,n) and the MLVSS (ADO,n) are computed as follows:
BDO;n B1;S;n B2;S;n  fCOD BXH;n
4:57 BNOxNNitr;n  2:86 BNOxN;u;n
ADO;n A1;S;n A1;S;n  fCOD AXH;n
4:57ANOxNNitr;n  2:86 ANOxN;u;n

43

44

Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

A mass balance is conducted to determine the oxygen required (kg/

d) in cell n, as follows:
IDO;n DDO;n TDO;n ADO;n BDO;n EDO;n

45

Where, for cell n,

IDO,n

DDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen diffusing in from the

atmosphere that is not associated with an
aeration device (kg/d);
TDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen supplied (transferred) by
the aeration device, if present (kg/d); and
and EDO,n 5 dissolved oxygen loadings in the influent and
effluent (kg/d).

The values of DDO,n are input by the user. One way to determine
DDO,n is to run the model and determine the value that results in
a computed dissolved oxygen in the unaerated cell that is equal to
the measured dissolved oxygen level.
For each unaerated cell, the model checks the mass balance in eq
45, based on an initial estimate of dissolved oxygen that is specified
by the user. If the oxygen supplied is not within a certain percentage
of the uptake (default 5 20%), the model guides the user to change
the estimated dissolved oxygen level until the supply and uptake are
within 20%. For example, if the oxygen supplied is more than 20%
higher than the uptake, the user is asked to raise the estimate of
dissolved oxygen. The model is rerun for the new estimate.
For the aerated cells, the model computes the amount of dissolved oxygen that needs to be transferred, Tn,DO, to achieve the
dissolved oxygen set point. The model checks the value of Tn,DO
against the capacity of the aeration system in cell n. If the value is
exceeded, the model guides the user to lower the setpoint or raise
the capacity.
Storage in Reactor Cell in Dynamic Simulation Mode. For
dynamic simulation, an additional term for storage between the
current time step t and time step t21 needs to be incorporated to the
mass-balance equations. Storage is important if the duration of
the time step of dynamic simulation is less than the actual HRT of
the cell. Therefore, storage can have a significant effect in long HRT
systems, such as oxidation ditches and lagoons. On the other hand,
when the time step is greater than 3 times the actual HRT of the cell,
the time step is too long for the effect of storage to linger on. The
effluent would have reached an equilibrium with the new flow and
load well before the time step ends. The model uses an algorithm to
account for the relationship between actual HRT and duration of the
time step.
When the duration of the time step is less than one-half the actual
HRT of cell n, the effect of storage modifies the NH4N computation
in eq 8, as follows:
In Ndecay;n NorgN;hydr;n An Bn Cn En Sn;t

46

The units of the eq 46 are kg/time step. For example, if the time step
is 1 hour, the units are kg/h. As the time step increases above the
actual HRT of cell n, the effect of storage drops gradually, to 0.
The variable Sn,t is the storage of ammonium-nitrogen that takes
place in cell n because of the change in effluent ammonium
concentration at the current time step t (En,t ) and the previous time
step t21 (En,t21). Its value, in kilograms, is calculated as follows:
Sn;t En;t  En;t1 Vn 1  BVF
3

The units for concentration, En,t in eq 47 are kg/m .

May 2008

47

Model Analysis and Verication

Sen and Randall (2008b) discuss the results from steady-state and
dynamic simulation with the model. The model was verified in
steady-state against the results observed from the pilot studies. The
model was also evaluated in a full-scale application, by running it
with several 31-day periods of daily data from the IFAS plant in
Broomfield, Colorado (Sen, Phillips, Murthy, Pattarkine, Copithorn,
Randall, Schwinn, and Banerjee, 2007). The models predictions of
MLVSS and MLSS in the reactor; effluent quality (SCOD, nitrogen
forms, and phosphorus); day-to-day variation in nitrogen forms;
biofilm thickness; and amount of growth on the media in the two
IFAS cells in series were similar to those observed at the plant.
Summary
(1) A computational model has been developed for IFAS and
MBBR systems. The model is structured to operate with up to
12 reactors (cells) in series. Each cell can be configured to
operate anaerobically, anoxically, aerobically, or post-anoxically
with its own amount of biofilm support media. In the absence
of media, the model operates as an activated sludge system.
(2) In the semiempirical model, the biofilm fluxes are computed by
a semiempirical method that uses equations that are based on
the performance of media, as measured in pilot studies.
(3) The structure of the semiempirical equations for the biofilm
incorporates an additional Monod expression beyond what is
used in activated sludge models. This expression simulates the
changes in biofilm flux rates, as a result of changes in the COD
and ammonium-nitrogen concentrations in the bulk liquid, and
the associated changes in biofilm thickness and fraction of
nitrifiers in the biofilm that develops along the length of
a multicell reactor.
Credits
The authors acknowledge the contributions of the staff and
faculty of the Environmental Engineering Program of Virginia Tech
located at both Blacksburg and Northern Virginia, specifically that
of Thomas J. Grizzard; support from Greg Farren, Jim Welch, and
Mike Bonk of the Anne Arundel County, Maryland, Department of
Public Works operations staff; and assistance from Rip Copithorn of
Stearns & Wheler, LLC (Bowie, Maryland). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program (Annapolis,
Maryland), Maryland Department of the Environment, and Anne
Arundel County (Maryland) funded the pilot studies, which initiated
the model development. The Water Environment Research
Foundation (Alexandria, Virginia) funded some of the collaboration
with full-scale facilities.
Submitted for publication February 6, 2007; revised manuscript
submitted December 18, 2007; accepted for publication January 8,
2008.
The deadline to submit Discussions of this paper is August 15,
2008.
References
Bae, W.; Rittmann, B. E. (1996) A Structured Model of Dual-Limitation
Kinetics. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 49, 683689.
Barker, P. S.; Dold, P. L. (1997) General Model for Biological Nutrient
Removal Activated Sludge Systems: Model Presentation. Water
Environ. Res., 69, 969984.
Copithorn, R. R.; Sturdevant, J.; Farren, G.; Sen, D. (2006) Case Study of an
IFAS System. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment
451

Sen and Randall

Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 2125; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria,
Virginia, 43094324.
Dold, P.; Takacs, I.; Mokhayeri, Y.; Nichols, A.; Hinojosa, J.; Riffat, R.;
Bailey, W.; Murthy, S. (2007) Denitrification with Carbon Addition
Kinetic Considerations. Nutrient 2007, Baltimore, Maryland, March
47; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 218238.
Envirosim Associates Ltd. (2006) BioWinTM User Manual; Envirosim
Associates Ltd.: Flamborough, Ontario, Canada.
Harremoes, P. (1978) Biofilm Kinetics. In Water Pollution Microbiology,
Vol. 2, Michell, R. (Ed.); Wiley and Sons: New York.
Hem, L. J.; Rusten, B.; Odegaard, H. (1994) Nitrification in Moving Bed
Biofilm Reactor. Water Res., 28, 14251433.
Huhtamaki, M.; Sen, D. (2007) IFAS Process for Nutrient Removal.
Practical Experiences and Guidelines for Design, Modeling and
Operation. Ripesca-projecti LIFE03 ENV/FIN000237; Raisio, Finland.
Lessel, T. H. (1994) Upgrading and Nitrification by Submerged Bio-Film
ReactorsExperiences from a Large-Scale Plant. Water Sci. Technol.,
29 (1011), 167174.
Marais, G. v. R.; Ekama, G. A. (1976) The Activated Sludge Process: Part
ISteady State Behaviour. Water SA, 2, 164200.
Masterson, T.; Federico, J.; Hedman, G.; Duerr, S. (2004) Upgrading for Total
Nitrogen Removal with a Porous Media IFAS System. Proceedings of
the 77th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference [CD-ROM], New Orleans, Louisiana, Oct. 2125;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
McClintock, S. A.; Sherrard, J. H; Novak, J. T.; Randall, C. W. (1988)
Nitrate Versus Oxygen Respiration in the Activated Sludge Process.
J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 60 (3), 342350.
Mitta, P. R. (1994) Utilization of Fixed Film Media in Activated Sludge
Systems. M.S. Thesis, Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Odegaard, H. (2005a) Combining CEPT and Biofilm Systems. IWA
Specialized Conference on Nutrient Management in Wastewater
Treatment Processes and Recycle Streams, Krakow, Poland, Sept.
1921; International Water Association: London, United Kingdom.
Odegaard, H. (2005b) Innovations in Wastewater Treatmentthe Moving
Bed Biofilm Process. Keynote Presentation, Future of Urban
Wastewater SystemsDecentralization and Reuse, IWA International
Conference, Xian, China, May 1820; International Water Association: London, United Kingdom.
Odegaard, H.; Rusten, B.; Westrum, T. (1994) A New Moving Bed Biofilm
ReactorApplications and Results. Water Sci. Technol., 29, 157165.
Picioreanu, C. (1999) Multidimensional Modeling of Biofilm Structure.
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Biotechnology, Delft Univeristy of
Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
Psaltakis, E. P.; Liubicich, J.; Pitt, P.; Antonio, P.; Posada, S.; Zabinski, A. J.;
Lauro, T. J. (2003) Demonstration of Integrated Fixed Film Activated
Sludge Process for BNR at the Mamaroneck WWTP. Proceedings
of the 76th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference [CD-ROM], Los Angeles, California, Oct. 1115;
Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Randall, C. W.; Barnard, J. L; Stensel, D. H. (1992) Design and Retrofit of
Wastewater Treatment Plants for Biological Nutrient Removal.
Technomic Publishing Co. Inc.: Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Reichart, P. (1998a) AQUASIM 2.0Tutorial. Swiss Federal Institute for
Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG): Dubendorf,
Switzerland.
Reichert, P. (1998b) AQUASIM 2.0. User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute
for Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG): Dubendorf,
Switzerland.
Rittmann, B. E.; McCarty, P. L. (1981) Substrate Flux Into Biofilms of Any
Thickness. J. Environ. Eng., 108, 831849.
452

Rooney, T. C.; Huibregtse, G. L. (1980) Increased Oxygen Transfer

Efficiency with Coarse Bubble Diffusers. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.,
52 (9), 23152326.
Rutt, K.; Seda, J.; Johnson, C. H. (2006) Two Year Case Study of Integrated
Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) at Broomfield, CO, WWTP.
Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment Federation
Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas, Texas, Oct.
2125; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 225239.
Schmit, F. L.; Wren, J. D.; Redmon, D. T. (1978) The Effect of Tank
Dimensions and Diffuser Placement on Oxygen Transfer. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed., 50, 17501767.
Sen, D. (1995) COD Removal, Nitrification and Denitrification Kinetics and
Mathematical Modeling of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
Systems. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Copithorn, R. R.; Randall, C. W. (2006) Successful Evaluation of
Ten IFAS and MBBR Facilities by Applying the Unified Model to
Quantify Biofilm Surface Area Requirements for Nitrification, Determine its Accuracy in Predicting Effluent Characteristics, and
Understand the Contribution of Media towards Organics Removal
and Nitrification. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Water Environment
Federation Technical Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Dallas,
Texas, Oct. 2125; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria,
Virginia, 185199.
Sen, D.; Copithorn, R.; Randall, C. W.; Jones, R.; Phago, D.; Rusten, B.
(2000) Investigation of Hybrid Systems for Enhanced Nutrient Control,
WERF Final Report, Project 96-CTS-4; Water Environment Research
Foundation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Phillips, H.; Murthy, S.; Pattarkine, V.; Copithorn, R. R.; Randall,
C. W.; Schwinn, D. E.; Banerjee, S. (2007) Minimizing Aerobic and
Post-Anoxic Volume Requirements in Tertiary Integrated Fixed Film
Activated Sludge (IFAS) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR)
Systems Using the Aquifas Model. Proceedings of the 80th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference
[CD-ROM], San Diego, California, Oct. 1217; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 185199.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008a) Improved Computational Model
(AQUIFAS) for Activated Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems, Part
II: Biofilm Diffusional Model. Water Environ. Res. (accepted for
publication).
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2008b) Improved Computational Model
(AQUIFAS) for Activated Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems, Part
III: Analysis and Verification. Water Environ. Res. (accepted for
publication).
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (1996) Mathematical Model for a Multi-CSTR
Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) System. Proceedings of
the 69th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition
and Conference, Dallas, Texas, Oct. 69; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W. (2005) Unified Computational Model for Activated
Sludge, IFAS and MBBR Systems. Proceedings of the 78th Annual
Water Environment Federation Technical Exposition and Conference
[CD-ROM], Washington D.C., Oct. 29Nov. 2; Water Environment
Federation: Alexandria, Virginia, 38893904.
Sen, D.; Randall, C. W.; Copithorn, R. R.; Huhtamaki, M.; Farren, G.; Flournoy,
W. (2007) Understanding the Importance of Aerobic Mixing, Biofilm
Thickness Control and Modeling on the Success or Failure of IFAS
Systems for Biological Nutrient Removal. Water Practice, 1 (5), 118.
Solley, D. (2000) Upgrading of Large Wastewater Treatment Plants for
Nutrient Removal. The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust of Australia:
Canberra, Australia.
Sriwiriyarat, T.; Randall, C. W.; Sen, D. (2005) Computer Program
Development for the Design of Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
Processes. J. Environ. Eng., 131 (11), 15401549.
Wanner, O.; Eberl, H.; Morgenroth, E.; Noguera, D.; Picioreanu, C.;
Rittman, B.; Loosdrecht, M. V. (2006) Mathematical Modeling of
Water Environment Research, Volume 80, Number 5

Sen and Randall

Biofilms, IWA Task Group on Biofilm Modeling. Scientific and
Technical Report 18; IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.
Wanner, O.; Reichert, P. (1996) Mathematical Modeling of Mixed-Culture
Biofilms. Biotechnol. Bioeng., 49, 172184.
Water Pollution Control Federation (1988) Aeration, Manual of Practice
FD-13; Water Pollution Control Federation: Alexandria, Virginia.
Weiss, J. S.; Alvarez, M.; Tang, C.; Horvath, R. W.; Stahl, J. F. (2005)
Evaluation of Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Technology for Enhancing

May 2008

Nitrogen Removal in a Stabilization Pond Treatment Plant. Proceedings of the 78th Annual Water Environment Federation Technical
Exposition and Conference [CD-ROM], Washington D.C., Oct. 29
Nov. 2; Water Environment Federation: Alexandria, Virginia,
38893904.
Wentzel, M. C., Ekama, G. A.; Marais, G. v. R. (1991) Kinetics of
Nitrification Denitrification Biological Excess Phosphorus Removal
SystemsA Review. Water Sci. Technol., 23, 555565.

453