See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328007464

Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment

Chapter · October 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_137-1

CITATIONS READS

38 1,566

4 authors:

Meryem Asri Soumya EL ABED

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
18 PUBLICATIONS 342 CITATIONS 162 PUBLICATIONS 1,827 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ibnsouda Koraichi Saad Naima el ghachtouli

Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University
327 PUBLICATIONS 8,910 CITATIONS 108 PUBLICATIONS 2,730 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Meryem Asri on 26 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial
Wastewater Treatment

Meryem Asri, Soumya Elabed, Saad Ibnsouda Koraichi, and

Naïma El Ghachtouli

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Wastewater Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Biofilm Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Potentiality of Biofilm in Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Biofilm Application in Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Supports in Biofilm-Based Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bioreactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Abstract
Over the last few decades, the worldwide growth in industrial activity has resulted
in the discharge of significant pollutant quantities in the aquatic environment.
These contaminants are generally characterized by their toxicity for living organ-
isms and the environment. In response to these dangers, environmental regula-
tions are imposing limitations on a wide variety of pollutants within industrial
wastewaters. The great diversity of raw materials and production operations
employed by industries poses a matter of concern for scientific community
attempting to define proficient control technologies. Biological treatment

M. Asri · S. Elabed · N. El Ghachtouli (*)

Laboratoire de Biotechnologie Microbienne, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université Sidi
Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fes, Morocco
e-mail: naima.elghachtouli@usmba.ac.ma
S. Ibnsouda Koraichi
Laboratoire de Biotechnologie Microbienne, Faculté des Sciences et Techniques, Université Sidi
Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fes, Morocco
Centre Universitaire Régional d’Interface, Université Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah, Fes, Morocco

# Springer International Publishing AG 2018 1

C. M. Hussain (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Materials Management,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58538-3_137-1
2 M. Asri et al.

technologies were viewed as attractive alternatives to conventional methods.

Indeed, biofilm-mediated processes for industrial wastewater treatment are
among the most proficient technologies due to their distinct advantages over
conventional methods. Biofilm mode proved its capacity to enhance the overall
pollutant degradation efficiency. Expanding the knowledge regarding biofilm
wastewater treatment would contribute to its full-scale use. This chapter presents
an overview of the beneficial use of biofilm mode in depollution technologies and
a critical discussion of a relevant number of recent investigations that have dealt
with biofilm-based processes. It also provides a review of the various types of
bioreactors and biofilm supports currently used.

Keywords
Industrial effluents · Wastewater treatment · Biofilm · Supports · Bioreactors

Introduction

The rescue of industrial wastewaters has become a significant problem throughout

the world (Segura et al. 2015). These wastewaters generally contain high quantities
of hazardous pollutants such as persistent organic pollutants, heavy metals, phenols,
dyes, pesticides, humic substances, and detergents (Ferronato et al. 2016). These
contaminants are mostly characterized by their toxicity for living organisms, their
persistence against chemical or biological decomposition, their high environmental
mobility, and their extreme bioaccumulation tendency in the food chain (Bahafid
et al. 2013; Liu et al. 2013b).
In response to these dangers, environmental regulations are imposing limitations
in a wide variety of pollutants within industrial wastewaters (Day 1993). In order to
remove or transform undesirable elements from industrial effluents, various physi-
cochemical treatment processes such as electrochemical, coagulation–flocculation,
adsorption, and membrane treatment are currently employed depending on the
wastewater characteristics (Shammas 2005; Leyva-Ramos et al. 2008).
Biological treatment technologies were viewed as an appealing approach com-
pared to these conventional methods. Among these, biosorption defined as the
capacity of biological materials to accumulate and/or transform pollutants from
contaminated sites had gained especial attention (Fomina and Gadd 2014). This
technology can use different materials such as plant biomass or animal polymers.
Nevertheless, biodepollution plants mainly employ microorganisms.
Microorganisms can be employed in different forms within wastewater treatment
systems, as living or dead (Bahafid et al. 2013), suspended or biofilm-immobilized
biomass (Pan et al. 2014), etc. Biofilm is a growth mode distinct from planktonic
form of microorganisms. It can be defined as a complex structure of cells and
extracellular products that can be formed spontaneously as dense granules (Lettinga
et al. 1980). It can also be fixed on a solid surface or suspended carrier supported on
particles (Davey and O’toole 2000). This microbial mode of development is of great
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 3

interest in biotechnology applications. Bioreactors based on fixed microorganisms in

biofilm growth mode are increasingly employed for bioremediation applications
(Lewandowski and Boltz 2011). They represent a recent proficient alternative for
assessing environmental effects. This is by means of their significant capacity to
resist to stressful conditions and their various catabolic pathways allowing the
degradation of various hazardous contaminants. The extracellular products of
biofilms are of great importance. They form a barrier for microorganisms against
the toxicity of wastewaters and thus enhance the pollutant immobilization (Quintelas
et al. 2011).
This review summarizes existing knowledge on various aspects of the implication
of biofilm in wastewater treatment. It (i) provides essential insight into the benefits of
biofilms in wastewater treatment technologies, (ii) presents an overview on the
supports currently used in these biofilm-based technologies, and (iii) gives a run-
down of the commonly employed biofilm-mediated processes. This chapter provides
a source of useful information for future areas of research and efforts, aiming to fully
implement these methods for wastewater treatment.

Wastewater Characteristics

Wastewater treatment process should be decided based on a balance between

technical and economical aspects and customized according to the wastewater
characteristics.
Industrial wastewaters are commonly characterized by the basic parameters
which are represented by chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended solids (SS), ammonium nitrogen, heavy metal concen-
tration, pH, turbidity, color, and biological parameters. These characteristics vary in
a wide range depending on the industrial activity. Industrial processes constituting
the major sources of polluted effluents include petroleum, textile, tannery, food
processing, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries. Typical characteristics
of industrial wastewaters are summarized in many previous reviews (Lin et al. 2012).
It offers a useful guideline for the decision of the treatment process despite the
variation of wastewater characteristics.
The wastewater from industries varies so greatly in both flow and pollution
strength. Thus, it is impossible to give fixed values to their composition. Conven-
tionally, industrial wastewaters may contain suspended, colloidal, and dissolved
(mineral and organic) solids. In addition, it may contain colored matter at varied
concentrations. It may also contain inert, organic, or toxic materials and possibly
pathogenic microorganisms. Compared with municipal wastewaters, industrial efflu-
ents generally present a higher organic strength (>1000 mg COD/L) and an extreme
physicochemical nature with extreme acid or alkaline pH values, high salinity (e.g.,
from petroleum refining, textile processing, leather processing), and a variable
temperature. It may also contain high concentrations of toxic substances (natural
or synthetic) which may present an obstacle to biological treatment plants of the
effluents (Lin et al. 2012). The pH variation and salinity were always the serious
4 M. Asri et al.

challenges of biological treatment. These conditions lead to the inhibition of both

microbial cell activity and the flocculation of sludge flocs (Lefebvre and Moletta
2006). In the case of industrial wastewater with high concentration of toxic com-
pounds (heavy metals, phenols, surfactants, pesticides, etc.) mainly characterized by
marked persistence against chemical or biological degradation, a pre- or post-
treatment should be carried using performing microorganisms able to remove the
pollutant of concern or in some cases the biological treatment should be combined to
other physic-chemical treatment strategy for an optimal treatment efficiency (Lin
et al. 2012).
With an appropriate analysis and control of the effluent, generally wastewaters
with a BOD/COD ration of 0.5 or greater may be treated with a biological treatment
system (Metcalf and Eddy 2003). Compared to other wastewater treatment strate-
gies, biological treatment strategies present the advantages of being eco-friendly and
economic. It can be assessed by either aerobic or anaerobic processes. Aerobic
processes refer to the use of dissolved oxygen by microbial cells in the conversion
of the organic matter to biomass and CO2, while anaerobic process involves the
degradation of organic wastes into methane, CO2, and H2O in the absence of oxygen.
Each of the treatments presents various merits. In fact, both systems are able to
remove effectively organic pollution. However, generally, aerobic systems are
preferably dedicated to the treatment of wastewaters containing biodegradable
COD concentrations less than 1000 mg/L. A crossover point ranging from 300 to
700 mg/L influent wastewater ultimate BOD (BODu) was determined by Cakir and
Stenstrom (2005) as a crucial interval for an effective treatment of wastewaters using
aerobic systems, while anaerobic systems become favorable for the treatment of
higher strength wastewater (COD concentration over 4000 mg/L) (Chan et al. 2009).

Biofilm Fundamentals

Since the first paper, where the term “biofilm” was coined and described by
Costerton et al. (1978), great efforts have been made to deeply and properly
understand this complex structure. Thus, many definitions were attributed to the
term biofilm in the literature. It is commonly defined as being a complex coherent
structure of cells (aggregates) and cellular products (Nicolella 2000). Most defini-
tions include the attachment of microorganisms to a solid surface or carriers
(Quintelas et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2015); though few definitions do not consider
the surface as an essential element in the biofilm mode, it can be formed spontane-
ously as granules (Lettinga et al. 1980). Biofilms are heterogeneous and enormously
complex communities of microbial cells suspended in a matrix of extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS) (Quintelas et al. 2011). They are highly affected by
the surrounding environmental and mechanical conditions. According to these latter,
the biofilm may use its ability to regulate many activities such as attachment,
mobility, and detachment through the cell-to-cell molecular signaling, called “quo-
rum sensing” (Singh et al. 2006).
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 5

Biofilm is a predominant microbial growth mode in the environment distinct from

planktonic growth mechanism. It is commonly found in soil and aquatic systems. It
has been proved to be an advantageous form offering protection against different
dangers including predation, and chemical and biological toxicants. It also offers
resistance to stressing conditions such as dehydration and lack of nutrients (Singh
et al. 2006). It is hence increasingly employed in wastewater treatment systems
(Butler and Boltz 2014). Nevertheless, these microbial aggregates are with relevance
to serious problems in diverse fields, essentially in terms of material corrosion and
degradation (Hamadi et al. 2005).

Potentiality of Biofilm in Wastewater Treatment

The use of biofilm-based technology in wastewater treatment dates from 1893 with
the first utilization of trickling filters in England (Lohmeyer 1957). Although
microbial biofilms cause detrimental effects in various environments, they are still
considered as useful in biodegradation of complex pollutants. Biofilm-mediated
depollution presents an efficient and cost-effective option rather than the use of
planktonic microbial cells. This is due to the better survival and adaptation ability to
stressing conditions. Indeed, biofilm-forming microorganisms are good competitors
with nutrients and oxygen. They are also known to survive and manage the most
stressful conditions and harsh hydrodynamics forces. It makes them excellent
candidates for bioremediation applications. In fact, depending on the environmental
conditions, the biofilm via the EPS matrix can develop different structures to
overcome environmental challenges (Kreft and Wimpenny 2001; Miqueleto et al.
2010; Jung et al. 2013). Thus, it forms mushroomlike shapes in the case of static
water and appears in filamentous structure in fast-moving water flux (Edwards et al.
2000; Reysenbach and Cady 2001).
In fact, in recent years, biofilm-based processes are being increasingly employed
as an appealing strategy representing an environment-friendly and cost-effective
option for pollutant removal (Das et al. 2012). The degradation of xenobiotics is
more effective within biofilm systems, owing to the close, mutually beneficial
physical and physiological interactions among biofilm-forming cells. The use of
the biofilm-mediated bioremediation plants became hence common for the removal
of pollutants (Das et al. 2012). The beneficial use of biofilm processes for the
adsorption, immobilization, and degradation of various pollutants was pointed out
(Quintelas et al. 2010). In fact, these technologies have been widely used for the
removal of both organic and inorganic compounds from aqueous media (Chen et al.
2008; Quintelas et al. 2013; Hai et al. 2015). Many contaminants including heavy
metals, petroleum, dyes, and pesticides have been successfully remediated using
microbial biofilms (Mitra and Mukhopadhyay 2016).
In order to resist predatory protozoa, in biofilm mode, microbial cells are
immobilized in a self-synthesized matrix which offers protection from stress, con-
taminants, and predatory protozoa (Quintelas et al. 2011). They also tend to form
6 M. Asri et al.

large inedible microcolonies that offers a better resistance to protozoa under harsh
environment (Matz and Kjelleberg 2005; Mitra and Mukhopadhyay 2016).
Furthermore, the gene expression within biofilm mode is distinct from planktonic
form of microbial cells. The heterogeneous assemblage of microorganisms in the
biofilm in terms of microbial species offers a diversity of metabolic pathways. It
enables the biofilm to degrade several types of pollutants either individually or
correctively (Gieg et al. 2013; Horemans et al. 2013).
Various microbial species were successfully employed as biofilm form for the
wastewater treatment, including bacteria (Abzazou et al. 2016), yeast (Cong et al.
2014), fungi (Badia-Fabregat et al. 2017), and algae (Hoh et al. 2016). The intro-
duction of algae into the biofilm reactors is considered by some researchers as a
nuisance due to the clogging issues, while it is viewed by others as a source of great
amounts of oxygen beneficial to the growth of the other species constituting the
biofilm (Kesaano and Sims 2014). Biofilm processes favor selective development of
slow-growing microorganisms such as autotrophs (i.e., nitrogen-oxidizing bacteria)
and phosphorus-accumulating microorganisms by the maintenance of high biomass
age, which reduces their washout from the system (Lee et al. 2006).
Since the researchers became aware of the importance of biofilm in treatment
systems, the growth conditions were thoroughly studied for their great influence on
the system efficiency. This included temperature, nutrients, substrata, extracellular
polymeric substances (EPS), species interactions, and light for algal based systems
(Kesaano and Sims 2014). These studies are of extreme importance for the design
and scale-up of effective treatment systems.
To successfully achieve the treatment of wastewater using biofilm-based systems,
optimal conditions must be provided to the microbial consortia presenting the ability
to remove or transform the pollutant of concern.

Biofilm Application in Wastewater Treatment

Supports in Biofilm-Based Processes

In biofilm reactors, microorganisms may be supported on various materials. The

depollution efficiency is strongly related to the properties and the nature of these
supports and the ability of the biofilm to be attached to the chosen support (Asri et al.
2017). Indeed, the commonly used supports are of various natures including
ceramic, clays including zeolithes, seashell and charcoal, plastic materials, sintered
glass, fire bricks, sand, natural stones like limestone and gravel, pumice, and rocky
aggregates (Silva et al. 2008; Tarjányi-Szikora et al. 2013). These supports were
used directly without any modification or after treatment to modify certain properties
(porosity, surface charges, etc.) in order to enhance their effectiveness, while others
can be commercially synthesized. For microbial fuel cells (MFCs), the used material
should present not only an adhesive property but also an electrical conductivity and a
chemical stability. The commonly used supports in this technology are carbon-based
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 7

materials such as carbon cloth, carbon paper, or carbon felt (Liu et al. 2013a; Zhang
et al. 2013; Alatraktchi et al. 2014).
The effective depollution of the biofilm systems was related to support properties
mainly the surface area, surface morphology, and capacity of microbial adhesion.
Numerous works mainly focused on microbial adhesion studies aiming the determi-
nation of the influence of surface characteristics on biofilm formation. Indeed, this
step is viewed as a key element promoting the cell attachment and the long-term
stability of the biofilm (Zainul Akmar et al. 2007). Many surface properties were
proved to influence microbial initial attachment to various substrata. For instance,
roughness is among the most reported parameters (El Abed et al. 2012). In fact,
rough or porous surfaces were more favorable for cell adhesion than regular sur-
faces, which was ascribed to the increased surface area and the protection against
hydraulic shear forces (Hoh et al. 2016).
Surface energy components were also showed to strongly influence microbial
initial attachment and treatment performance of the biofilm-based system (Asri et al.
2017). Among these components, hydrophobicity character was reported to be of
extreme importance in wastewater applications. Indeed, a greater adhesion of dif-
ferent microbial species to hydrophobic surfaces such as titanium, Perspex, and
stainless steel was showed (Kesaano and Sims 2014). Conversely, Irving and Allen
(2011) showed no correlation between surface hydrophobicity of the substratum and
cell adhesion of microbial biofilms grown in wastewater. On this basis, there is no
recommended standard material as support for biofilm formation in wastewater
treatment scale-up operation. However, in order to select adequate materials for
biofilm development for successful application of this technology, the support must
be ideally chosen. Thus, many factors should be taken into consideration such as its
availability, cost, durability, and compatibility to the selected microorganisms from a
thermodynamical point of view (Asri et al. 2017).
In the majority of the wastewater treatment plants using microbial biofilm,
granular activated carbon (GAC) was used as a support material (Quintelas et al.
2010; Muhamad et al. 2013). However, its high cost and the challenges associated to
its regeneration have strongly limited its utilization. At present, the works are mostly
oriented toward the utilization of cheap alternatives. Hence, works in this regard
have been significantly increased. This recent approach for the choice of supports is
attempting to use natural wastes as supports; this adsorbent-support category is
called low-cost adsorbents especially lignocellulosic wastes and by-products as an
economical and eco-friendly alternative to conventional supports (Abdolali et al.
2014). This class includes a large variety of adsorbents such as fruit peel (Babel and
Kurniawan 2004; Memon et al. 2009) and wood husk (Zainul Akmar et al. 2007;
Asri et al. 2017).
Various used support materials within different biofilm-based wastewater treat-
ment systems are illustrated in Table 1.
8 M. Asri et al.

Table 1 Bioremediation of different pollutants using biofilms in bioreactors

Type of Material Treatment
Microorganism or culture Pollutant reactor support efficiency Reference
Bacillus coagulans Cr (VI) Column lab Granular 5.34 mg.g 1 Quintelas
scale activated biosorbent for et al.
carbon (GAC) initial (2008)
concentrations
of 100 mg.L 1
Pseudomonas sp., Chlorophenol Laboratory Silica-based 99.9% Puhakka
Rhodococcus sp. and pilot spherical et al.
scale Celite R-633 (1995)
(FBR) (Celite Co.)
microcarriers
Sphingomonas xenophaga Bromoamine Laboratory 90% (color) – Qu et al.
QYY acid scale 50% (COD) (2009)
(MBR)
Arthrobacter viscosus Cr (III) and Suspended NaY zeolite 14 mg/gZeolite Silva et al.
Cr(VI) biofilm (Cr III) – 3 mg/ (2008)
gzeolite for Cr
(VI)
Proteobacteria COD Natural Sponge 37.33% Zhang
Bacteroidetes, Nitro- ventilation Zeolite 53.83% et al.
spirae, Cyanobacteria trickling Ceramsite 47.87% (2016)
Actinobacteria Ammonia filters Sponge 84.90%
(NVTFs) Zeolite 65.28%
Ceramsite 63.77%
Geobacter COD MFC Graphite 80% Liu et al.
metallireducens + bacteria (2004)
present in the wastewater
Desulfovibrio Sulfate MFC Activated 99% Zhao et al.
desulfuricans carbon cloth (2008)
Secondary sludge from Toluene Membrane Hollow-fiber 84%; Parvatiyar
wastewater treatment plant biofilter membrane et al.
reactor (1996)
Mixed culture of herbicide- MCPP; 2,4-D Biofilm GAC 100% (2,4-D); Oh and
degrading bacteria (herbicides) column partially Tuovinen
reactor (MCPP) (1994)

Bioreactors

Aerobic/Anaerobic Treatment
In order to achieve a high degree of treatment efficiency, organic wastewaters are
preferably treated in aerobic biological processes. These processes allow the
achievement of a higher removal of soluble biodegradable organic material com-
pared to the anaerobic treatment. Furthermore, the produced biomass is easily
separated from the aqueous media presenting a better flocculation property which
provides an effluent of lower suspended solid concentration and thus higher quality.
However, anaerobic treatments overcome the aerobic approach when treating influ-
ents with higher COD concentration. Anaerobic treatment is more suitable for the
treatment of highly contaminated industrial effluents because of the high COD
concentration. It also requires less energy and nutrient recovery with a low sludge
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 9

production. Whereas anaerobic treatment is a promising approach from the resource

recovery and utilization point of view, more efforts are still required for a better
pollution control (Seghezzo et al. 1998; Chan et al. 2009). Indeed, this treatment
suffers from a low growth rate of microbial cells, a and low quality of effluent due to
the low flocculation ability and settling rate of produced biomass. In practical
applications, anaerobic treatment suffers also from the difficulty of complete stabi-
lization of organic matter because of the high COD level which provides a final
effluent containing solubilized organic matter.
To overcome the disadvantages of both aerobic and anaerobic biofilm-based
reactors, the use of anaerobic-aerobic systems presents several benefits and has
been remarkably employed in industrial and municipal wastewater treatment in
order to meet the effluent discharge standard (Frostell 1983; Cervantes et al. 2006).
The biofilm-based approaches of wastewater treatment are generally character-
ized by the ease and the safety of handling. In this section of the chapter, the most
commonly used biofilm-based bioreactors are presented highlighting the advantages
and disadvantages of each treatment system.

Types of Biofilm-Based Bioreactors

Biofilm-based wastewater treatment technology has been heralded as a promising
cost-effective clean-up technology. Biofilm bioreactors are playing an extremely
important role in environmental biotechnology. Despite the fact that many aspects of
their design and technical operations remain poorly understood, a variety of these
latter are installed worldwide while the researchers are still conducting intensive
investigations for a better control of these promising depollution strategies.
Biofilm reactors are essentially composed of five compartments, while some
additional components may be typical of a type of reactor: (1) influent, referring to
the wastewater containing a given concentration of the pollutant of concern; (2) con-
tainment structure; (3) biofilm carrier or substratum referring to the used material for
the growth and attachment of microbial cells; (4) effluent water collection system;
and (5) an aeration or a mixing system for agitation and carrier distribution.
In this section, some of the commercially available biofilm-based processes are
discussed. This includes membrane biofilm reactors (MBR), moving-bed biofilm
reactors (MBBR), fluidized-bed reactors (FBR), trickling filter (TF), and microbial
fuel cells (MFCs).

Membrane Biofilm Reactors

Membrane biofilm reactors (MBR) have been claimed for a long time as a promising
biotechnology for pollutant removal and/or recovery from aqueous solutions. It
refers essentially to a combination of a biological degradation of waste compounds
using a biofilm-based system and physical separation realized by a membrane unit
replacing the secondary settler. Presenting distinct advantages compared to other
treatment technologies, it serves for the treatment of various industrial and urban
wastewaters, proving an effective removal capability of both organic and inorganic
matter (Di Fabio et al. 2013). Indeed, it provides an excellent quality of the effluent,
reduced sludge production. It also provides a great flexibility toward influent
10 M. Asri et al.

variability, high volumetric loading, and good disinfection efficiency. It can be

implemented within two different configurations (Lin et al. 2012). The first config-
uration is called submerged or immersed configuration and the second is the external
or sidestream configuration. The submerged configuration came for the first time in
1989 with the idea of Yamamoto et al. (1989) that consists of the direct immersion of
the membrane module inside the reactor. The driving force in this configuration is
created by a negative pressure on the permeate side or pressurizing the bioreactor.
This configuration showed distinct advantages such as the lower energy consump-
tion and thus the lower operating cost and less cleaning procedures. These advan-
tages have encouraged the development of this system. Regarding the external
configuration, the membrane is placed outside the bioreactor allowing the
recirculation of the mixed liquor. This configuration allows an easy control and
membrane replacement. The driving force in this configuration is related to the high
cross-flow velocity (CFV) through the bioreactor (Le-Clech et al. 2006; Liao et al.
2006). To date, both MBR configurations have been successfully utilized for various
industrial effluents for their several distinct advantages, mainly for the lower energy
consumption. Recently, an innovative configuration has appeared consisting of the
development of air-lift sidestream MBRs (Lin et al. 2012). The main idea in this
configuration is to exploit all advantages of MBRs above mentioned, with the
application of the sidestream airlift principle (Chen and Liu 2006; Shariati et al.
2010). This concept showed its great efficiency in the treatment of industrial and
municipal wastewater (Futselaar et al. 2007) and many efforts are still made for its
development for a better application.
Biofilm processes in MBR could be done by the addition of media in moving- or
fixed-bed configurations, or aerated membranes in the bioreactor as a support for
biofilm growth. Numerous materials may be employed for biofilm support. To date,
cord media, RBC media, sponge, plastic media, and GAC are commercially applied
in full-scale systems (Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012). This technology has showed its
efficiency in the treatment of various pollutants. For instance, it allowed an overall
efficiency of degradation over 90% (Chang et al. 2003, 2004). It also showed an
excellent removal of both COD and inorganic nitrogen in a further work (Semmens
et al. 2003).
The membrane biofilm bioreactors have become an option of choice and efficient
alternative for the treatment of domestic and industrial effluents. However, its
widespread application suffers from major limitation due to the membrane fouling
and clogging layers and their consequences in terms of plant maintenance and
operating costs (Le-Clech et al. 2006). Its wider application is also limited by the
high energy demand related to the air scouring demand and the high price of
membranes.
Membrane fouling is a common phenomenon in membrane applications, includ-
ing MBR systems (Ngo et al. 2006). However, the fraction mostly contributing to
this problem remains unclear; it may be caused by colloidal and soluble organic
content such as biopolymers or EPS, suspended solids, and physical properties
(Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012).
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 11

Many works have dealt with these disadvantages by the control membrane
fouling mechanisms and finding cheaper membrane materials. It also aimed the
optimization of energy consumption and hence made this system more realistic and a
reliable alternative to activated sludge processes and other conventional technologies
(Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012).

Moving-Bed Biofilm Reactors

The moving-bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) is a wastewater biofilm-based technology
presently implemented in more than 50 countries. It was developed in Norway in the
late 1980s and early 1990s (Ødegaard et al. 1994).The MBBR plants were success-
fully used for municipal and various types of industrial wastewater treatment (Bassin
and Dezotti 2018).
The principle behind this process is the combination of the best features of
activated sludge process and those of biofilter. This type of reactor may be used
for aerobic, anoxic, or anaerobic processes. The carriers that serve as housing for
biofilm growth in this system move freely in the tank volume. In aerobic case, their
movement is caused by the agitation set up by the air, while in anoxic and anaerobic
processes the carriers are kept in movement by a mechanical mixing (Ødegaard
2006).
MBBRs are continuous-flow reactor units in which the most commonly used
biofilm carrier is named K1. They present a cylindrical form constituted of high-
density polyethylene (density 0.95 g/cm3) with a cross on the inside of the cylinder
and “fins” on the outside. There is no filling fraction of the bioreactor with these
carriers; it can vary from 25 to 70% of the total tank volume. However, it is
recommended to be below 70% (corresponding to 350 m2.m 3 effective specific
area in the case of K1) (Ødegaard 2006). Biofilms primarily grow in the inside of the
plastic carriers, protected from external abrasion.
The implementation of moving beds rather than fixed ones presents the advantage
of minimizing the clogging limitation and the ability to utilize the whole volume of
the bioreactor.
As for other biofilm-based processes, the transport of substrates is of extreme
importance. In this process, the turbulence in the reactor due to the shearing forces
assures not only the appropriate diffusion of compounds with the biofilm, but also
the low thickness of the formed biofilm.
Additionally, the use of this process minimizes or eliminates the need for biomass
recirculation, which is a major problem of fixed-bed biofilm process and activated
sludge systems. Only the excessive biomass has to be separated from the solution
(Ivanovic and Leiknes 2012).
In comparison with fixed- or fluidized-bed biofilm reactors, moving-bed biofilm
reactor provides a higher available surface for microbial growth and attachment due
to the carrier materials. Moreover, it allows an efficient mixing condition inside the
reactor, favoring hence the liberation of the biogas and the dispersing of volatile
acids throughout the aqueous solution (Karadag et al. 2015). As for other treatment
12 M. Asri et al.

processes, the combination of moving-bed biofilm bioreactors to other treatment

techniques was previously proposed. Indeed, the combination of this technology
with coagulation and flotation process for high-rate secondary treatment was previ-
ously reported (Ødegaard 2006).
The MBBR has been demonstrated as a well-proven, compact, and robust reactor
for wastewater treatment that served for carbon oxidation as well as for nitrification
and denitrification goals as single stage or in combined systems (Gilbert et al. 2014;
Malovanyy et al. 2015) and operational results were satisfying in both lab scale and
larger scales. A noted disadvantage of these systems is that the carrier must be
removed in order to benefit the reactor components (Butler and Boltz 2014).

Fluidized-Bed Biofilm Reactors

Fluidized-bed biofilm reactors (FBBR) are based on the use of small carriers,
forming a bed inside a column kept in fluidized movement due to the flowing
wastewaters and the bed hence expands. Within this system, a recycle line is used
in order to maintain a fixed, vertical hydraulic flow of introduced wastewater.
The aeration is typically realized during recycle, where the influent wastewater
mixes with the effluent recycled from the top of the bed. The air addition to the
recycle stream is possible; however, it was found to cause a turbulence inside the
reactor which may cleave the attached biofilm from the carriers.
Generally, media particles are distributed in FBBR within an increasing gradient
of size from the top to the bottom of the bioreactor. Depending on the degree of
particle expansion, the bed is classified as deemed expanded or fluidized. Many
biofilm support materials have been typically used within this system, such as silica-
based materials (Puhakka et al. 1995) zeolite, and GAC (Kida et al. 1990). However,
in order to provide greater specific surface area, which is a key point of this
technology, small materials (below 1 mm) have been used at pilot-scale experiments.
Once the driving force of this flowing inside the bioreactor exceeds the gravity
(i.e., 30–50 m.h 1), the small particles become suspended and separated
(Lewandowski and Boltz 2011).
Fluidized-bed biofilm reactor (FBBR) is widely recognized to present better mass
transfer characteristics in comparison with fixed biofilm reactors. It showed its
efficiency for tertiary denitrification in the case of the municipal wastewater treat-
ment. For wastewater treatment, FBBR are used for the removal of oxidized
contaminants (McCarty et al. 2005).
The fluidization of the media particles presents the advantage of maximizing the
contact surface between microbial cells and effluents. It increases also the mass
transfer and consequently the treatment efficiency. However, a low degree of bed
expansion is recommended, as it decreases the flow velocity, consumes less energy,
and increases the concentration of effective biomass.
The amount of attached microbial cells in FBBR is very important, exhibiting a
high microbial diversity. This parameter permits a rapid recovery of the system after
the variation of instability conditions (Malaspina et al. 1996; Borja et al. 2004).
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 13

Nevertheless, it increased volumetric oxygen biomass because of the important

biomass concentration.
Many successful applications of this system have been reported. For instance,
Puhakka et al. (1995) used Pseudomonas sp. and Rhodococcus sp. in a laboratory-
scale fluidized-bed biofilm reactor for the remediation of chlorophenol-contaminated
groundwater. The treatment allowed an appreciable mineralization of chlorophenol
efficiency (over 99.9% of 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, and pen-
tachlorophenol removal efficiency) at chlorophenol loading rates of 1000 mg.L 1.
d 1 and hydraulic retention times of less than 1 h.

Trickling Filter
The trickling filter (TF) has been in use for more than 50 years. It is a three-phase
biofilm reactor, including an influent recirculation pump station, the TF, and a
clarification unit. It is generally composed of (1) an influent water distribution
system, through which wastewaters are introduced into the reactor. The distribution
may occur either by fixed-nozzle or rotary distributors; (2) a containment structure;
(3) a support media; (4) an underdrain system; and (5) a ventilation system. Waste-
water treatment using TFs requires a further liquid-solid separation for the elimina-
tion of suspended solids as the TF treatment results in the total suspended solid
production. This step is typically carried out using circular or rectangular secondary
clarifiers.
The rotatory distributor is advantageous for the influent distribution; it allows an
intermittent wastewater application and an effective substratum wetting. These
parameters avoid the odor emission and dry pockets and permit the biofilm to
have resting periods serving primarily as a process aeration mechanism
(Lewandowski and Boltz 2011).
The gradient of temperature between ambient air and air inside the trickling filter
may provide a natural ventilation. When there is a difference between both temper-
atures, the provided dose of the oxygen is not suitable. In this case, the air supply
may be achieved by the underdrain system that provides a space below the trickling
filter for the collection of treated influent (Grady et al. 2011).
TFs have been proved for their capacity of meeting treatment objectives in terms
of carbon oxidation and nitrification. The supported biofilm on the filter media uses
oxygen in the form of air for the carbon oxidation. TFs are suitable for carbon
oxidation and combined carbon oxidation and nitrification when a solid separation is
included in the treatment train. Good results of nitrification have been observed with
a combined oxidation and nitrification, where the concentration of ammonia was
below 3 mg NH4+ N.L 1 and the reached BOD concentration is below 10 mg.L 1.
The ammonia concentration is even lower when the nitrification is the main treat-
ment goal (Metcalf and Eddy 2003).
A key element that should be taken into consideration in the design of TFs is the
selection of filter media. The most commonly used material in this system was for a
long time stones and gravel. However, these materials were restricting the air
circulation in the filter and consequently the available oxygen quantity for the
growth of microbial biofilm. This problem has limited the quantity of the treated
14 M. Asri et al.

wastewater and also reduced the specific surface area for microbial attachment that
can accommodate the BOD loading for the reactor. Furthermore, stone bed trickling
filters were limited by the clogging of the void spaces when treating high organic
loads because of the excessive microbial cell growth. However, rock-media TFs
were able to provide great treatment performance under low organic loading (i.e.,
<1 kg BOD5 d 1.m 3) (Grady et al. 2011).
Thus, other materials have been used to overcome these limitations including
plastic rings, zeolite, ceramsite, sponge, etc. (Zhang et al. 2016). Compared to rock
media, the use of these small particles enhanced oxygen transfer and biofilm
thickness control. TFs using plastic modules with a specific surface area ranging
from 89 to 102 m 2.m 3 are suitable for carbon oxidation and combined carbon
oxidation and nitrification (Lewandowski and Boltz 2011). However, a noted disad-
vantage of this technology is that the trickling filter is not a volume-effective system.

Microbial Fuel Cells

The microbial fuel cell (MFC) is a recently developed biofilm-based system. This
technology allows to overcome simultaneously two actual worldwide challenges,
which are the depollution of wastewaters and the green energy production, by the
conversion of the chemical energy stored in organic matter into electricity.
MFCs involve a specific type of microbial species exhibiting an ability to
contribute to the generation of a current, by exchanging an electron network with
an electrode. These microbial cells form a biofilm on the surface of the electrodes
called electroactive biofilms “EAB.” Many papers have reported the successful use
of MFCs with pure culture of various bacterial species. However, the performance of
MFCs using mixed cultures has overcome the use of pure cultures, achieving
substantially greater power densities (Ringeisen et al. 2007). Community analysis
has revealed a wide diversity of microorganisms that could exist in MFCs; however
bacteria and algae species are the most commonly used (Saba et al. 2017).
MFCs can be provided in different configurations. A typical MFC is basically
constituted of two chambers linked by a conductive material containing a resistor, or
operated under a load: anodic and cathodic. In these chambers separate biochemical
and electrochemical reactions occur. In the anodic chamber (negative terminal), the
organic matter is oxidated by the action of the microbial cells within the biofilm,
resulting in the generation of electrons and protons. The electrons are then trans-
ferred to the anode and flow to the other part of the MFC containing the cathode
(positive terminal), through an external circuit. Electrons can be transferred to the
anode by electron mediators or shuttles, by direct membrane-associated electron
transfer, or by so-called nanowires produced by the bacteria (Logan et al. 2006). In
the cathodic chamber, oxygen plays the role of electron acceptor. These electrons, in
combination with protons, diffuse from the anode through a separator and the
oxygen provided from aerobic conditions results in the production of water mole-
cules (Min and Logan 2004).
MFCs are currently used to produce electricity and treat organic and inorganic
wastes. In fact, a great deal of attention is presently paid to optimize the key
influencing factors such as design, materials of construction, and voltage generation
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 15

mechanisms (Li and Sheng 2010; Huang et al. 2011; Ghasemi et al. 2012). Signif-
icant advancements have been carried out on the generated power density by MFC
devices (Santoro et al. 2017). It has markedly increased after many research inves-
tigations, from a very low value of less than 0.1 mW.m 2 (Kim et al. 1999) to nearly
7 W.m 2 (Fan et al. 2008).
MFC technology has proved its performance in the treatment of many pollutants.
Indeed, many industrial wastewaters have been used as inoculums in anode chamber
such as food-processing effluents (Blanchet et al. 2015) and refinery wastewater (Zhang
et al. 2014). Indeed, wastewaters rich in heavy metals (with high reduction potential)
can be potentially used as an alternative electron acceptor. Hence, the contained
inorganic matters are reduced into non- or less toxic forms. It also showed its great
ability of denitrification without the need for exogenous electron donor, as the electrons
generated from organic matter oxidation are released to external circuit and transferred
to cathodic chamber facilitating hence nitrate reduction (Clauwaert et al. 2007).
Additionally, the anaerobic conditions in the anode chamber make the MFC technology
suitable for the treatment of high-strength wastewaters (COD over 8000 mg.L 1).
MFCs have been claimed as a promising biotechnology for pollutant removal and
electricity generation, mainly because they are energy efficient, producing lower
biomass, and the COD removal is achieved without additional oxygenation. How-
ever, significant challenges are still facing its practical application. Aiming the
improvement of MFC performance, the increase in reactor volume was proposed;
however, unsatisfactory results were obtained with larger MFCs.
These limitations are essentially observed with the expansion of laboratory-scale
experiments to pilot scale. In fact, the generated power density is difficult to be
maintained within larger systems. The volumetric power density showed generally a
tendency to decrease with the increase in MFC size, while a minimum threshold
volumetric power density of 1 kW.m 3 should be maintained (Zhang et al. 2013).
This may be ascribed to the ohmic losses and the low conductivity of wastewaters
(Butler and Boltz 2014). However, some exceptional results were obtained. Indeed,
the work of Fan et al. (2012) reported that the increased reactor size provided a
doubled volumetric power density due to the important cathode specific area (Fan
et al. 2012). These results showed the possible maintenance of power density in
MFC scale-up with a good optimization of the key factors influencing the system
performance. Indeed, the increase of cathode specific area by the use of electrodes
with three-dimensional structure showed its capability of enhancing MFC perfor-
mance and the ability to overcome this limitation. This strategy suggests the enlarge-
ment of available surface area for microbial attachment without increasing the MFC
volume (Aelterman et al. 2008).
For scale-up in MFCs, the parallel connection of MFCs in series is generally used.
This traditional way proved its disadvantages such as the voltage reversal and
operation unstability (Shin et al. 2006; Oh and Logan 2007).
Moreover, the voltage loss due to the substrate cross-conduction effect may be
seriously limiting the full-scale use. In fact this phenomenon was found when two
individual stacks were serially connected with both electrical and hydraulic connec-
tions (Zhuang and Zhou 2009).
16 M. Asri et al.

Conclusion

Biofilm-based systems for wastewater treatment is a rapidly expanding research area

that was intensively discussed in the literature. Their implementation is claimed
beneficial thanks to the ease and simplicity of the operation compared to activated
sludge processes. It has also showed high resistance to toxic substances and shock
loads. However, the applications of this technology at industrial scale are limited due
to the gap of techno-economic information on system performance, sustainability,
reliability, and life cycle between laboratory- and/or pilot-scale to field-scale oper-
ations. This requires further works in large-scale wastewater operations.
Furthermore, biofilm-based systems involve living biomass that are influenced by
the effect of surrounding conditions resulting from pH changes, metabolic activities,
etc. Consequently, they are complicated to describe and to eventually model for
practical use. Continued efforts are still needed to address biofilm control that can
hinder these technologies such as membrane fouling.

Cross-References

▶ Bacterial Cell-Mineral interface, its Impacts on Biofilm Formation and

Bioremediation
▶ Micro-remediation of Metals: A New Frontier in Bioremediation
▶ Wastewater Management to Environmental Materials Management

References
Abdolali A, Guo W, Ngo H et al (2014) Typical lignocellulosic wastes and by-products for
biosorption process in water and wastewater treatment: a critical review. Bioresour Technol
160:57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.037
Abzazou T, Araujo RM, Auset M et al (2016) Tracking and quantification of nitrifying bacteria in
biofilm and mixed liquor of a partial nitrification MBBR pilot plant using fluorescence in situ
hybridization. Sci Total Environ 541:1115–1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2015.10.007
Aelterman P, Versichele M, Marzorati M et al (2008) Loading rate and external resistance control
the electricity generation of microbial fuel cells with different three-dimensional anodes.
Bioresour Technol 99:8895–8902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2008.04.061
Alatraktchi FA, Zhang Y, Angelidaki I (2014) Nanomodification of the electrodes in microbial fuel
cell: impact of nanoparticle density on electricity production and microbial community. Appl
Energy 116:216–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.11.058
Asri M, Elabed A, El Ghachtouli N et al (2017) Theoretical and experimental adhesion of yeast
strains with high chromium removal potential. Environ Eng Sci. https://doi.org/10.1089/
ees.2016.0515
Babel S, Kurniawan TA (2004) Cr(VI) removal from synthetic wastewater using coconut shell
charcoal and commercial activated carbon modified with oxidizing agents and/or chitosan.
Chemosphere 54:951–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2003.10.001
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 17

Badia-Fabregat M, Lucas D, Tuomivirta T et al (2017) Study of the effect of the bacterial and fungal
communities present in real wastewater effluents on the performance of fungal treatments. Sci
Total Environ 579:366–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.088
Bahafid W, Joutey NT, Sayel H et al (2013) Chromium adsorption by three yeast strains isolated
from sediments in Morocco. Geomicrobiol J 30:422–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01490451.2012.705228
Bassin JP, Dezotti M (2018, forthcoming) Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR). In: Advanced
biological processes for wastewater treatment, pp 37–74
Blanchet E, Desmond E, Erable B et al (2015) Comparison of synthetic medium and wastewater
used as dilution medium to design scalable microbial anodes: application to food waste
treatment. Bioresour Technol 185:106–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.097
Borja R, Rincón B, Raposo F et al (2004) Mesophilic anaerobic digestion in a fluidised-bed reactor
of wastewater from the production of protein isolates from chickpea flour. Process Biochem
39:1913–1921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2003.09.022
Butler CS, Boltz JP (2014) Biofilm processes and control in water and wastewater treatment. Compr
Water Qual Purif 3:90–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382182-9.00083-9
Cakir FY, Stenstrom MK (2005) Greenhouse gas production: a comparison between aerobic and
anaerobic wastewater treatment technology. Water Res 39:4197–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2005.07.042
Cervantes F, Pavlostathis S, Van Haandel AC (2006) Advanced biological treatment processes for
industrial wastewaters: principles and applications. IWA Publishing, London
Chan YJ, Chong MF, Law CL et al (2009) A review on anaerobic–aerobic treatment of industrial
and municipal wastewater. Chem Eng J 155:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2009.06.041
Chang CC, Tseng SK, Chang CC et al (2003) Reductive dechlorination of 2-chlorophenol in a
hydrogenotrophic, gas-permeable, silicone membrane bioreactor. Bioresour Technol
90:323–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(03)00149-4
Chang CC, Tseng SK, Chang CC et al (2004) Degradation of 2-chlorophenol via a
hydrogenotrophic biofilm under different reductive conditions. Chemosphere 56:989–997.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.04.051
Chen S, Liu J (2006) Landfill leachate treatment by MBR: performance and molecular weight
distribution of organic contaminant. Chin Sci Bull 51:2831–2838. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11434-006-2177-y
Chen S, Sun D, Chung J-S (2008) Simultaneous removal of COD and ammonium from landfill
leachate using an anaerobic-aerobic moving-bed biofilm reactor system. Waste Manag
28:339–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.01.004
Clauwaert P, Rabaey K, Aelterman P et al (2007) Biological denitrification in microbial fuel cells.
Environ Sci Technol 41:3354–3360. https://doi.org/10.1021/es062580r
Cong LTN, Mai CTN, Thanh VT et al (2014) Application of a biofilm formed by a mixture of yeasts
isolated in Vietnam to degrade aromatic hydrocarbon polluted wastewater collected from
petroleum storage. Water Sci Technol 70:329–336. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.233
Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng KJ (1978) How bacteria stick. Sci Am 238:86–95. https://doi.
org/10.1038/scientificamerican0178-86
Das N, Basak LVG, Salam JA et al (2012) Application of biofilms on remediation of pollutants – an
overview. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res 2:783–790
Davey ME, O’toole GA (2000) Microbial biofilms: from ecology to molecular genetics. Microbiol
Mol Biol Rev 64:847–867. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.64.4.847-867.2000
Day SM (1993) US environmental regulations and policies – their impact on the commercial
development of bioremediation. Trends Biotechnol 11:324–328
Di Fabio S, Lampis S, Zanetti L et al (2013) Role and characteristics of problematic biofilms within
the removal and mobility of trace metals in a pilot-scale membrane bioreactor. Process Biochem
48:1757–1766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2013.08.005
Edwards KJ, Bond PL, Gihring TM et al (2000) An archaeal iron-oxidizing extreme acidophile
important in acid mine drainage. Science 287:10–13
18 M. Asri et al.

El Abed S, Ibnsouda KS, Latrache H et al (2012) Theoretical effect of cedar wood surface
roughness on the adhesion of conidia from Penicillium expansum. Ann Microbiol
62:1361–1366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-011-0384-5
Fan Y, Sharbrough E, Liu H (2008) Quantification of the internal resistance distribution of microbial
fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 42:8101–8107. https://doi.org/10.1021/es801229j
Fan Y, Han S-K, Liu H (2012) Improved performance of CEA microbial fuel cells with increased
reactor size. Energy Environ Sci 5:8273. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee21964f
Ferronato C, Silva B, Costa F et al (2016) Vermiculite bio-barriers for Cu and Zn remediation: an
eco-friendly approach for freshwater and sediments protection. Int J Environ Sci Technol
13:1219–1228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-016-0957-8
Fomina M, Gadd GM (2014) Biosorption: current perspectives on concept, definition and applica-
tion. Bioresour Technol 160:3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.12.102
Frostell B (1983) Anaerobic-aerobic biological treatment of starch industry waste waters. Starch
-Stärke 35:185–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/star.19830350602
Futselaar H, Schonewille H, De Vente D et al (2007) NORIT AirLift MBR: side-stream system for
municipal waste water treatment. Desalination 204:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2006.02.027
Ghasemi M, Shahgaldi S, Ismail M et al (2012) New generation of carbon nanocomposite proton
exchange membranes in microbial fuel cell systems. Chem Eng J 184:82–89. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cej.2012.01.001
Gieg LM, Fowler SJ, Berdugo-Clavijo C (2013) Syntrophic biodegradation of hydrocarbon con-
taminants. Curr Opin Biotechnol 27:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2013.09.002
Gilbert EM, Agrawal S, Karst SM et al (2014) Low temperature partial nitritation/anammox in a
moving bed biofilm reactor treating low strength wastewater. Environ Sci Technol
48:8784–8792. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501649m
Grady L, Daigger G, Lim H (2011) Biological wastewater treatment. CRC Press, Boca Raton
Hai R, He Y, Wang X et al (2015) Simultaneous removal of nitrogen and phosphorus from swine
wastewater in a sequencing batch biofilm reactor. Chin J Chem Eng 23:303–308. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cjche.2014.09.036
Hamadi F, Latrache H, Mabrrouki M et al (2005) Effect of pH on distribution and adhesion of
Staphylococcus aureus to glass. J Adhes Sci Technol 19:73–85. https://doi.org/10.1163/
1568561053066891
Hoh D, Watson S, Kan E (2016) Algal biofilm reactors for integrated wastewater treatment and
biofuel production: a review. Chem Eng J 287:466–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2015.11.062
Horemans B, Breugelmans P, Hofkens J et al (2013) Environmental dissolved organic matter
governs biofilm formation and subsequent linuron degradation activity of a linuron-degrading
bacterial consortium. Appl Environ Microbiol 79:4534–4542. https://doi.org/10.1128/
AEM.03730-12
Huang L, Chai X, Cheng S et al (2011) Evaluation of carbon-based materials in tubular biocathode
microbial fuel cells in terms of hexavalent chromium reduction and electricity generation. Chem
Eng J 166:652–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2010.11.042
Irving TE, Allen DG (2011) Species and material considerations in the formation and development
of microalgal biofilms. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 92:283–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00253-011-3341-0
Ivanovic I, Leiknes TO (2012) The biofilm membrane bioreactor (BF-MBR) – a review. Desalin
Water Treat 37:288–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.661283
Jung J, Choi N, Lee S (2013) Biofilm formation and exopolysaccharide (EPS) production by
Cronobacter sakazakii depending on environmental conditions. Food Microbiol 34:70–80.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2012.11.008
Karadag D, Koroglu OE, Ozkaya B et al (2015) Anaerobic granular reactors for the treatment of
dairy wastewater: a review. Int J Dairy Technol 68:459–470. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-
0307.12252
Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 19

Kesaano M, Sims RC (2014) Algal biofilm based technology for wastewater treatment. Algal Res
5:231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.algal.2014.02.003
Kida K, Morimura S, Sonoda Y et al (1990) Support media for microbial adhesion in an anaerobic
fluidized-bed reactor. J Ferment Bioeng 69:354–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0922-338X(90)
90243-P
Kim BH et al (1999) Mediator-less biofuel cell. US Patent 5,976,719
Kreft JU, Wimpenny JW (2001) Effect of EPS on biofilm structure and function as revealed by an
individual-based model of biofilm growth. Water Sci Technol 43:135–141
Le-Clech P, Chen V, Fane TAG (2006) Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater
treatment. J Membr Sci 284:17–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.019
Lee WN, Kang IJ, Lee CH (2006) Factors affecting filtration characteristics in membrane-coupled
moving bed biofilm reactor. Water Res 40:1827–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watres.2006.03.007
Lefebvre O, Moletta R (2006) Treatment of organic pollution in industrial saline wastewater: a
literature review. Water Res 40:3671–3682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2006.08.027
Lettinga G, Van Velsen AFM, Hobma SW et al (1980) Use of the upflow sludge blanket (USB)
reactor concept for biological wastewater treatment, especially for anaerobic treatment.
Biotechnol Bioeng 22:699–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/bit.260220402
Lewandowski Z, Boltz J (2011) Biofilms in water and wastewater treatment. In: Treatise on water
science. Academic, Oxford, pp 529–570
Leyva-Ramos R, Jacobo-Azuara A, Diaz-Flores PE et al (2008) Adsorption of chromium(VI) from
an aqueous solution on a surfactant-modified zeolite. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp
330:35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfa.2008.07.025
Li W-W, Sheng G-P (2010) Microbial fuel cell in power generation and extended applications. Adv
Biochem Eng Biotechnol 123:127–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/10_2011_125
Liao B-Q, Kraemer JT, Bagley DM (2006) Anaerobic membrane bioreactors: applications and
research directions. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380600678146
Lin H, Gao W, Meng F et al (2012) Membrane bioreactors for industrial wastewater treatment: a
critical review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 42:677–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10643389.2010.526494
Liu H, Ramnarayanan R, Logan BE (2004) Production of electricity during wastewater treatment
using a single chamber microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 38:2281–2285
Liu C, Li J, Zhu X et al (2013a) Effects of brush lengths and fiber loadings on the performance of
microbial fuel cells using graphite fiber brush anodes. Int J Hydrog Energy 38:15646–15652.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.03.144
Liu T, Yang X, Wang ZL et al (2013b) Enhanced chitosan beads-supported Fe0-nanoparticles for
removal of heavy metals from electroplating wastewater in permeable reactive barriers. Water
Res 47:6691–6700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2013.09.006
Logan BE, Hamelers B, Rozendal R et al (2006) Microbial fuel cells: methodology and technology.
Environ Sci Technol 40:5181–5192. https://doi.org/10.1021/es0605016
Lohmeyer GT (1957) Trickling filters and operation tips. Sewage Ind Waste 29:89–98
Malaspina F, Cellamare CM, Stante L et al (1996) Anaerobic treatment of cheese whey with a
downflow-upflow hybrid reactor. Bioresour Technol 55:131–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-
8524(95)00187-5
Malovanyy A, Yang J, Trela J et al (2015) Combination of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
reactor and partial nitritation/anammox moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for municipal
wastewater treatment. Bioresour Technol 180:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biortech.2014.12.101
Matz C, Kjelleberg S (2005) Off the hook – how bacteria survive protozoan grazing. Trends
Microbiol 13:302–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2005.05.009
McCarty PL, Meyer TE, Maccarty PL (2005) Numerical model for biological fluidized-bed reactor
treatment of groundwater. Environ Sci Technol 39:850–858
20 M. Asri et al.

Memon JR, Memon SQ, Bhanger MI et al (2009) Banana peel: a green and economical sorbent for
the selective removal of Cr(VI) from industrial wastewater. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces
70:232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.12.032
Metcalf W, Eddy C (2003) Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse. McGraw Hill, New York,
p 384
Min B, Logan BE (2004) Continuous electricity generation from domestic wastewater and organic
substrates in a flat plate microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 38:5809–5814. https://doi.org/
10.1021/es0491026
Miqueleto AP, Dolosic CC, Pozzi E et al (2010) Bioresource technology influence of carbon sources
and C/N ratio on EPS production in anaerobic sequencing batch biofilm reactors for wastewater
treatment. Bioresour Technol 101:1324–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.09.026
Mitra A, Mukhopadhyay S (2016) Biofilm mediated decontamination of pollutants from the
environment. AIMS Bioeng 3:44–59. https://doi.org/10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.44
Muhamad MH, Sheikh Abdullah SR, Mohamad AB et al (2013) Application of response surface
methodology (RSM) for optimisation of COD, NH3-N and 2,4-DCP removal from recycled
paper wastewater in a pilot-scale granular activated carbon sequencing batch biofilm reactor
(GAC-SBBR). J Environ Manag 121:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.016
Ngo HH, Nguyen MC, Sangvikar NG et al (2006) Simple approaches towards the design of an
attached-growth sponge bioreactor (AGSB) for wastewater treatment and reuse. Water Sci
Technol 54:191–197. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.727
Nicolella C (2000) Wastewater treatment with particulate biofilm reactors. J Biotechnol 80:1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1656(00)00229-7
Ødegaard H (2006) Innovations in wastewater treatment: the moving bed biofilm process. Water Sci
Technol 53:17–33. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2006.284
Ødegaard H, Rusten B, Westrum T (1994) A new moving bed biofilm reactor – applications and
results. Water Sci Technol 29:157–165
Oh SE, Logan BE (2007) Voltage reversal during microbial fuel cell stack operation. J Power
Sources 167:11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.02.016
Oh KH, Tuovinen OH (1994) Biodegradation of the phenoxy herbicides MCPP and 2, 4-D in fixed-
film column reactors. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad 33:93–99
Pan X, Liu Z, Chen Z et al (2014) Investigation of Cr(VI) reduction and Cr(III) immobilization
mechanism by planktonic cells and biofilms of Bacillus subtilis ATCC-6633. Water Res
55:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.066
Parvatiyar MG, Govind R, Bishop DF (1996) Biodegradation of toluene in a membrane biofilter. J
Membr Sci 119:17–24
Puhakka JA, Melin ES, Järvinen KT et al (1995) Fluidized-bed biofilms for chlorophenol miner-
alization. Water Sci Technol 31:227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1223(95)00170-R
Qu YY, Zhou JT, Wang J et al (2009) Population dynamics in bioaugmented membrane bioreactor
for treatment of bromoamine acid wastewater. Bioresour Technol 100:244–248
Quintelas C, Fernandes B, Castro J et al (2008) Biosorption of Cr(VI) by a Bacillus coagulans
biofilm supported on granular activated carbon (GAC). Chem Eng J 136:195–203. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2007.03.082
Quintelas C, Silva B, Figueiredo H et al (2010) Removal of organic compounds by a biofilm
supported on GAC: modelling of batch and column data. Biodegradation 21:379–392. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10532-009-9308-5
Quintelas C, da Silva VB, Silva B et al (2011) Optimization of production of extracellular polymeric
substances by Arthrobacter viscosus and their interaction with a 13X zeolite for the biosorption
of Cr(VI). Environ Technol 32:1541–1549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2010.543930
Quintelas C, Pereira R, Kaplan E et al (2013) Removal of Ni(II) from aqueous solutions by an
Arthrobacter viscosus biofilm supported on zeolite: from laboratory to pilot scale. Bioresour
Technol 142:368–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.059
Reysenbach A, Cady SL (2001) Microbiology of ancient and modern hydrothermal systems. Trends
Microbiol 9:79–86
 Biofilm-Based Systems for Industrial Wastewater Treatment 21

Ringeisen BR, Ray R, Little B (2007) A miniature microbial fuel cell operating with an aerobic
anode chamber. J Power Sources 165:591–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.10.026
Saba B, Christy AD, Yu Z et al (2017) Bioelectrochemistry characterization and performance of
anodic mixed culture bio films in submersed microbial fuel cells. Bioelectrochemistry
113:79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2016.10.003
Santoro C, Arbizzani C, Erable B et al (2017) Microbial fuel cells: from fundamentals to applica-
tions. A review. J Power Sources 356:225–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.03.109
Seghezzo L, Zeeman G, Van Lier JB et al (1998) A review: the anaerobic treatment of sewage in
UASB and EGSB reactors. Bioresour Technol 65:175–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-
8524(98)00046-7
Segura Y, Martínez F, Melero JA et al (2015) Zero valent iron (ZVI) mediated Fenton degradation
of industrial wastewater: treatment performance and characterization of final composites. Chem
Eng J 269:298–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.01.102
Semmens MJ, Dahm K, Shanahan J et al (2003) COD and nitrogen removal by biofilms growing on
gas permeable membranes. Water Res 37:4343–4350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(03)
00416-0
Shammas NK (2005) Coagulation and flocculation. In: Wang LK, Hung Y-T, Shammas NK (eds)
Physicochemical treatment processes. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 103–139
Shariati FP, Mehrnia MR, Salmasi BM et al (2010) Membrane bioreactor for treatment of pharma-
ceutical wastewater containing acetaminophen. Desalination 250:798–800. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.044
Shin S, Choi Y, Na S et al (2006) Development of bipolar plate stack type microbial fuel cells. Bull
Kor Chem Soc 27:281–285. https://doi.org/10.5012/bkcs.2006.27.2.281
Silva B, Figueiredo H, Quintelas C et al (2008) Zeolites as supports for the biorecovery of
hexavalent and trivalent chromium. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 116:555–560. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2008.05.015
Singh R, Paul D, Jain RK (2006) Biofilms: implications in bioremediation. Trends Microbiol
14:389–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2006.07.001
Tarjányi-Szikora S, Oláh J, Makó M et al (2013) Comparison of different granular solids as biofilm
carriers. Microchem J 107:101–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2012.05.027
Yamamoto K, Hiasa M, Mahmood T et al (1989) Direct solid-liquid separation using hollow fiber
membrane in an activated sludge aeration tank. Water Sci Technol 21:43–54. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-1-4832-8439-2.50009-2
Yang X-L, Jiang Q, Song H-L et al (2015) Selection and application of agricultural wastes as solid
carbon sources and biofilm carriers in MBR. J Hazard Mater 283:186–192. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.09.036
Zainul Akmar Z, Zainoha Z, Salmijah S et al (2007) Biological detoxification of Cr(VI) using
wood-husk immobilized Acinetobacter haemolyticus. J Hazard Mater 148:164–171. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.02.029
Zhang L, Li J, Zhu X et al (2013) Anodic current distribution in a liter-scale microbial fuel cell with
electrode arrays. Chem Eng J 223:623–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.03.035
Zhang F, Ahn Y, Logan BE (2014) Treating refinery wastewaters in microbial fuel cells using
separator electrode assembly or spaced electrode configurations. Bioresour Technol 152:46–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.10.103
Zhang X, Li J, Yu Y et al (2016) Biofilm characteristics in natural ventilation trickling filters
(NVTFs) for municipal wastewater treatment: comparison of three kinds of biofilm carriers.
Biochem Eng J 106:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bej.2015.11.009
Zhao F, Rahunen N, Varcoe JR et al (2008) Activated carbon cloth as anode for sulfate removal in a
microbial fuel cell. Environ Sci Technol 42:4971–4976
Zhuang L, Zhou S (2009) Substrate cross-conduction effect on the performance of serially
connected microbial fuel cell stack. Electrochem Commun 11:937–940. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.elecom.2009.02.027

View publication stats