Optimization and Comparative Performance Evaluation of Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Configurations for Municipal Wastewater

References

[1] Ahmed, T., Rahman, M., & Islam, S. (2021). Performance evaluation of moving bed biofilm reactor for industrial wastewater treatment. Journal of Water Process Engineering, 42, 102168.

[2] Brown, D., & Thomas, P. (2018). Energy optimization strategies in aerated moving bed biofilm reactor systems. Water Environment Research, 90(7), 620–628.

[3] Hassan, M., & Kim, J. (2016). Biofilm growth kinetics and substrate removal in moving bed biofilm reactors. Bioresource Technology, 212, 196–203.

[4] Kumar, R., & Lee, C. (2024). Comparative assessment of single and multi-stage moving bed biofilm reactor systems under varying organic loading rates. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 33, 103245.

[5] Li, Y., & Chen, G. (2020). Kinetic modeling of nitrogen removal in multi-stage moving bed biofilm reactors. Chemical Engineering Journal, 389, 124443.

[6] Patel, S., & Singh, A. (2022). Optimization of hydraulic retention time in moving bed biofilm reactor for municipal wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, 10(3), 107458.

[7] Rao, P., Mehta, R., & Shah, K. (2019). Integration of MBBR with membrane filtration for enhanced wastewater treatment performance. Desalination and Water Treatment, 164, 245–253.

[8] Sharma, V., Gupta, N., & Wang, L. (2025). AI-based predictive optimization of multi-stage moving bed biofilm reactor systems. Water Research, 235, 119876.

[9] Verma, S., Yadav, R., & Singh, D. (2017). Decentralized wastewater treatment using compact moving bed biofilm reactor systems. Sustainable Environment Research, 27(5), 240–248.

[10] Wang, H., Liu, X., & Zhao, Q. (2015). Comparative evaluation of activated sludge and moving bed biofilm reactor systems for municipal wastewater treatment. Ecological Engineering, 85, 137–145.

[11] Zhang, L., Chen, X., & Huang, Y. (2023). Performance enhancement of hybrid IFAS-MBBR systems for nutrient removal. Journal of Environmental Management, 332, 117299.

[12] Verma, S., Yadav, R., & Singh, D. (2017). Decentralized wastewater treatment using compact moving bed biofilm reactor systems. Sustainable Environment Research, 27(5), 240–248.

[13] Barwal A, Chaudhary R. To study the performance of biocarriers in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology and kinetics of biofilm for retrofitting the existing aerobic treatment systems: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2014; 13(3):285-99.

[14] Show, S., Chakraborty, P., Karmakar, B. & Halder, G. Sorptive and microbial riddance of micro-pollutant ibuprofen from contaminated water: A state of the art review. Sci. Total Environ. 786, 147327 (2021).

[15] Almomani, F.A., Delatolla, R. and Örmeci, B. 2014. Field study of moving bed biofilm reactor technology for tertiary-treatment of wastewater lagoon effluent at 1°C. Environ. Technol., 35: 1596 1604.

@article{1717955,
      author = {Manisha R. Walde, Dr. G. S. Zamre, Prof. A. P. Gawande},
      title = {Optimization and Comparative Performance Evaluation of Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Configurations for Municipal Wastewater},
      journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
      year = {2026},
      volume = {9},
      number = {11},
      pages = {3151-3156},
      issn = {2456-8880},
      url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1717955.pdf},
      abstract = {The increasing generation of wastewater due to urbanization and industrialization has created a strong demand for efficient and sustainable treatment technologies. The Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) system has emerged as an advanced biological treatment method that combines the benefits of suspended and attached growth processes. This study focuses on the optimization and comparative assessment of wastewater treatment performance across different MBBR configurations, including single-stage, multi-stage, and hybrid systems. Operational parameters such as Hydraulic Retention Time, Organic Loading Rate, Dissolved Oxygen, and carrier filling ratio were analyzed to determine optimal operating conditions. Performance indicators including Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, and ammonia removal efficiency were evaluated. The results indicate that single-stage systems provide moderate treatment efficiency, while multi-stage systems significantly improve nitrification and overall pollutant removal. Hybrid MBBR systems achieved the highest treatment efficiency but required higher energy input. Optimization analysis revealed that maintaining an HRT of 6–8 hours, a carrier filling ratio of around 50%, and DO levels between 2–4 mg/L resulted in enhanced performance. Among the configurations studied, the multi-stage MBBR system offered the best balance between efficiency, operational stability, and costeffectiveness. The findings confirm that optimized MBBR systems provide a reliable and scalable solution for modern wastewater treatment applications.},
      keywords = {Municipal Wastewater, MBBR, Optimization, BOD, COD.},
      month = {May},
      doi = {https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV9I11-1717955}
  }