Accepted Manuscript

Applications of fluidized bed reactor in wastewater treatment – A review of the major

design and operational parameters

Mustapha Mohammed Bello, Abdul Aziz Abdul Raman, Monash Purushothaman

PII: S0959-6526(16)31490-1
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.148
Reference: JCLP 8108

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 8 May 2016

Revised Date: 11 August 2016
Accepted Date: 18 September 2016

Please cite this article as: Bello MM, Abdul Raman AA, Purushothaman M, Applications of fluidized bed
reactor in wastewater treatment – A review of the major design and operational parameters, Journal of
Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.148.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

CHARACTERISTICS OF REACTOR GEOMETRY

SUPPORT MATERIAL

Effluent
Particles Loading ▪
Particles Density ▪

PT
Particles Size ▪
▪ Reactor Shape
▪ Reactor Internals
▪ Aspect Ratio
REACTOR'S INTERNAL PROPERTIES

RI
Recycle
Fluidized media

SC
▪ Hyrdraulic
Retention Distributor
Time (HRT)
▪ Catalyst
Concentration
Influent

U
▪ Temperature
▪ pH
SUPERFICIAL FLUID VELOCITY

AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Word Count: 21,020

1
2 Abbreviations

3 Applications of Fluidized Bed Reactor in Wastewater Treatment – A Review of the Major Design
4 and Operational Parameters

PT
5 Mustapha Mohammed Bello a, Abdul Aziz Abdul Raman a, *, Monash Purushothaman b

a
6 Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,

RI
7 50603, Malaysia
b
8 Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Civil and Chemical Engineering (SCALE), VIT

SC
9 University, Vellore – 632014, Tamilnadu, India
10 *Corresponding author: Email: aziz@um.edu.my (A. A. Abdul Raman),

U
11 mmbello.cda@buk.edu.ng (M. M. Bello)
12 monash.purushothaman@vit.ac.in (M. Purushothaman)
AN
13 Tel: +60 3 79675300; fax: +60 3 79675319.

14 Abstract
M

15 One of the current challenges of wastewater treatment is the presence of recalcitrant pollutants which are
D

16 difficult to remove using conventional treatment technologies. This poses a threat to environmental

17 sustainability and hinders the efforts of many industries to adopt cleaner production through zero-
TE

18 discharge and subsequent wastewater reuse. Effective wastewater treatment technologies are therefore

19 needed to address this challenge. Accordingly, the last few years have seen intensified effort to develop
EP

20 more effective wastewater treatment technologies. The use of fluidized bed reactor in wastewater

21 treatment, particularly Advanced Oxidation Processes and biological treatment, represents a unique
C

22 opportunity for cost-effective treatment of wastewater containing recalcitrant pollutants. Although the
AC

Abbreviations: AOPs: Advanced oxidation processes; BPA: Bisphenol A; COD: Chemical oxygen demand;
DMSO: Dimethyl sulfoxide; DTFBR: Draft tube fluidized bed reactor; FBR: Fluidized bed reactor; FBBR:
Fluidized-bed bioreactor; HLR: Hydraulic retention time; IFBBR: Inverse fluidized bed bioreactor; IFBR: Inverse
fluidized bed reactor; IFAFB: Integrated flocculation-adsorption fluidized bed; LDPE: Low density polyethylene;
MO: Methyl orange; OH.: Hydroxyl radicals; OLR: Organic loading rate; OM: Organic matter; PC: Phthalocyanine;
PP: Polypropylene; PZC: Point of zero charge; RB: Rhodamine B; RB13: Reactive blue 13; TOC: Total organic
carbon; UV: Ultraviolet; VSS: Volatile suspended solids

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 application of fluidized bed reactor in biological wastewater treatment is well established with many

2 large-scale plants in existence, its application in advanced oxidation processes is mostly at laboratory-

3 scale. For proper design, upscaling and process improvement, information on the major parameters

4 affecting the processes is important. This paper offers an overview on the applications of fluidized bed

PT
5 reactor in wastewater treatment, with emphasis on the important design and operational parameters

6 affecting its performance. The discussion covers liquid-solid and gas-liquid-solid fluidized bed reactors

RI
7 and their applications in advanced oxidation processes, biological as well as adsorption processes which

SC
8 are effective wastewater treatment technologies. Fluidized bed reactors are excellent contacting devices

9 and have the potential to enhance the effectiveness and energy efficiency of these treatment processes if

U
10 properly design and utilized. An energy efficient and cost-effective wastewater treatment technology is

11 crucial to industries adopting cleaner production. Important parameters such as reactor geometry, aspect
AN
12 ratio, support materials, reactor internal, superficial fluid velocity and other operational parameters are

13 reviewed. The review concluded with perspective on future research interests.

M

14 Keywords:
D

15 Fluidized bed reactor; Fluidized bed Fenton; Fluidized bed bioreactor; Wastewater treatment; Advanced
TE

16 oxidation processes; Parameters

EP

17 1.0. Introduction

18 There is consensus that more effective wastewater treatment technologies are needed for the removal
C

19 of recalcitrant pollutants that are increasingly encountered in both domestic and industrial effluents. This
AC

20 is largely due to the need for environmental protection on one hand, and the need to have cost-effective

21 wastewater treatment technologies on the other. Driven by these reasons, industries have intensified

22 efforts to adopt cleaner production using strategies such as zero-discharge (Tabassum et al., 2015),

23 process modifications (Zhang and Wang, 2015) and other appropriate methods. Adopting zero-discharge

24 through wastewater reuse is attractive (Othaman et al., 2014) as it can lower production cost and ensure

25 environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, conventional wastewater treatment technologies are not

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 effective in degrading recalcitrant pollutants which are hydrophobic and generally of high molecular

2 weight (Pouran et al., 2014). Thus, the last few years have seen increased research towards developing

3 treatment technologies that can degrade recalcitrant pollutants while meeting the cost-effectiveness

4 needed by industries.

PT
5 Among the possible technologies for treating recalcitrant wastewater, Advanced oxidation processes

6 (AOPs) have received wide attention.. These technologies are based on the generation of powerful

RI
7 oxidants through various processes as put forward by Glaze and coworkers (Glaze et al., 1987). The most

common oxidant is the hydroxyl radical (OH.), a powerful and non-selective oxidant with a redox

SC
8

9 potential of 2.8 eV that can effectively degrade organic pollutants. Another attractive technology is

U
10 biological treatment which is widely used to treat both domestic and industrial wastewaters. While

11 interest on AOPs is due to their effectiveness in degrading recalcitrant pollutants, biological processes are
AN
12 considered inexpensive and eco-friendly. In either case, an effective contacting device is essential for

13 proper application of the technology.

M

14 Fluidized bed reactor (FBR) has proven to be an effective reactor in the applications of both AOPs
D

15 (Tisa et al., 2014) and biological processes (Zou et al., 2016). Some of the excellent features of FBR
TE

16 include low operating cost (Ahmadi et al., 2015), high resistance to system upsets (Brackin et al., 1996),

17 high mass transfer rates and uniform mixing (Andalib et al., 2014). Many researchers have investigated
EP

18 the applications of FBR in wastewater treatment, particularly AOPs and biological processes. Although

19 the application of FBR in AOPs is relatively new, FBR has been extensively used in biological
C

20 wastewater treatment, with many large-scale fluidized bed bioreactors (FBBRs) in existence.
AC

21 To derive apposite support for the review, some relevant studies are highlighted here. It is pertinent to

22 note that most of the studies on FBR have been on its applications in areas such as combustion,

23 gasification, catalytic processes and other more established processes. For example Corella et al., (2007)

24 reviewed the application of FBR in biomass gasification, the so called “dual” fluidized bed biomass

25 gasifier. Abdelmotalib et al., (2015) reviewed heat transfer in gas-solid fluidized bed combustors,

26 discussing the effect of operating parameters on the heat transfer. Similarly, Singh and Kumar, (2016)

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 reviewed the current status of oxygen-fired fluidized bed combustion. Such literature emphasized gas-

2 solid FBR, which is not applicable to wastewater treatment. The earlier studies of FBR applications in

3 wastewater treatment were mainly on aerobic oxidation and denitrification. With increased interest in

4 anaerobic process, studies on the use of FBR in anaerobic wastewater treatment with concomitant

PT
5 methane generation were reported in the early 80s. Heijnen et al., (1989) presented a state of the art

6 review on the application of anaerobic FBBRs in wastewater treatment. The review discussed the basic

RI
7 concept of anaerobic FBBR, process development and the challenges facing the technology. Studies

SC
8 reported around that time were mainly on process performance. Converti et al., (1990) studied the

9 performance of FBBR in anaerobic treatment of wine wastewater containing high COD and proposed a

U
10 kinetic model for the process. Similarly, Borja et al., (1995) evaluated the kinetic reaction of an FBBR

11 treating slaughterhouse waste with concomitant methane generation. Haribabu and Sivasubramanian,
AN
12 (2016) studied the biodegradation of organic pollutant from domestic wastewater using FBBR and

13 achieved a COD removal of 96. 7 % under optimum condition. Wang et al., (2016) conducted anaerobic
M

14 digestion of primary sludge (PS) and thickened waste activated (TWAS) using FBBR and reported that
D

15 the system performed better than conventional anaerobic processes. A high-rate autotrophic
TE

16 denitrification using FBBR was reported where complete nitrate removal was achieved at a hydraulic

17 retention time (HRT) of 10 min (Zou et al., 2016). However, the earlier studies on the application of FBR
EP

18 in AOPs were reported in the late 90s (Chou and Huang, 1999).

19 Currently, there is growing interest in the applications of FBR in wastewater treatment, particularly in
C

20 AOPs where it has shown potential in addressing some of the drawbacks of Fenton oxidation (Chen et
AC

21 al., 2016) and improving the performance of photocatalysis (Shet and Vidya, 2016). Anand et al., (2015)

22 investigated the performance of fluidized bed solar photo Fenton oxidation for the treatment of hospital

23 wastewater and achieved 98 % COD removal at HRT of 90 min. The process achieved 92 % COD

24 removal at 60 min HRT compared with 67 % obtained using conventional solar photo Fenton oxidation.

25 Chen et al., (2015) evaluated the effect of different carriers and operating parameters on the degradation

26 of flax wastewater by fluidized bed Fenton process. SiO2 was reported to be the most appropriate carrier

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 while Fe2+, H2O2 and bed expansion are significant operating parameters. Matira et al., (2015) studied the

2 degradation of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) using a fluidized bed Fenton process and achieved 95 %

3 DMSO degradation and 34 % TOC removal after 2 h. The process also showed better performance than

4 conventional Fenton process. Dong et al., (2014) conducted visible-light photocatalytic degradation of

PT
5 methyl orange over spherical activated carbon-supported and Er3+:YAlO3-doped TiO2 in a fluidized bed

6 reactor. The process achieved an optimum color removal of 65 % after 8 h, with a reaction rate constant

RI
7 of 22.17mgL-1 h-1. Mailler et al., (2016) studied the removal of emerging pollutants from wastewater

SC
8 treatment plant discharges by micro-grain activated carbon in fluidized bed as tertiary treatment at large

9 pilot scale. The obvious advantage of the process was the continuous injection of fresh dose of adsorbent

U
10 and non-requirement of additional separation steps.

11 Recent studies have also been directed towards process intensification and energy efficiency through
AN
12 process integration. For example, Apollo and Aoyi, (2016) investigated the combined anaerobic digestion

13 and photocatalytic treatment of distillery effluent using FBR. Besides the improved performance of the
M

14 combined process, the methane generation could provide the necessary power to drive the ultraviolet
D

15 (UV) lamp. Studies have also been reported on the application of an integrated anaerobic fluidized bed
TE

16 membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment (Kim et al., 2016). The integrated process results in low

17 energy consumption and reduces membrane fouling. Li et al., (2014) utilized a fluidized bed membrane
EP

18 bioelectrochemical reactor as an energy-efficient wastewater treatment process. Besides achieving more

19 than 90 % COD and 80 % suspended solids removals, the overall energy balance of the process was
C

20 theoretically neutral.
AC

21 Some reviews have also been presented on FBR applications in wastewater treatment. Burghate and

22 Ingole, (2013) presented an overview on FBBR, discussing the basic concepts, advantages and

23 applications in both aerobic and anaerobic treatments. Although the review had highlighted the need for

24 standardizing the design procedure of FBBR, the discussion on the design parameters was limited. In their

25 review for anaerobic biofilm reactors for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater, Karadag et al.,

26 (2015) discussed the application of FBBR and highlighted its advantages. Tisa et al., (2014) attempted to

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 capture the recent applications of FBR in AOPs. However, the review mainly discussed the basic concept

2 of FBR-AOPs and their specific applications to different wastewater streams. Thus, a review with focus

3 on the major influential parameters of FBR is yet to be presented.

4 Despite the wide applications of FBR in wastewater treatment, its designing and operation still pose

PT
5 significant challenges. The lack of proper understanding of the influential parameters can lead to

6 improper design and poor reactor performance. Therefore, a prerequisite knowledge for FBR design and

RI
7 operational parameters is necessary for successful application of the technology. This paper reviews, for

SC
8 the first time, the major parameters affecting the performance of FBR in wastewater treatment. The goal

9 is to offer an overview of the recent applications of FBR in wastewater treatment and provide insights on

U
10 the major design and operational parameters which are prerequisites for successful design and application

11 of the technology.
AN
12 Since fluidization technology has wide applications, large volume of literature on various aspects of the

13 technology exists. Thus, to keep the review within reasonable proportions, the discussion covers only
M

14 liquid-solid and gas-liquid-solid FBRs and their applications in wastewater treatment. Thus, throughout
D

15 the paper, FBR refers to either liquid-solid or gas-liquid-solid system used for wastewater treatment. The
TE

16 review is presented as follows:

17 1. The basic concepts of FBR and its applications in wastewater treatment are first discussed
EP

18 2. Important parameters related to reactor design and process hydrodynamics are then reviewed
19 3. The operational parameters are discussed with emphasis on FBR-Fenton, FBR-Photocatalysis and
20 FBBR
C

21 4. Lastly, the review offered a perspective on future research interest

AC

22 1.1. Fluidized Bed and Fluidized Bed Reactor (FBR)

23 The basic concept of a fluidized bed involves passing a fluid through a static bed of solid particles with a

24 superficial velocity enough to suspend the particles and cause them to behave as though they were fluid.

25 When the fluid is introduced into the static bed at a low velocity, it simply passes through the voids of the

26 solid particles and the bed remains fixed. As the velocity increases, the bed expands until the particles

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 become suspended when the buoyancy force balances the drag and gravitational forces. At a particular

2 velocity, the minimum fluidization velocity (Umf), the pressure drop across the bed equals the weight of

3 the particles and the bed becomes completely suspended (Khan et al., 2014). Fluidization impacts

4 excellent features onto the system such as excellent particle mixing, uniform temperature distribution and

PT
5 high mass transfer rate (Tisa et al., 2014). Depending on the fluidization velocity, various flow regimes

6 such as particulate/smooth fluidization, bubbling fluidization, slugging fluidization, turbulent fluidization,

RI
7 and pneumatic conveying regimes can be obtained (Yang, 2003). The principle of fluidization has been

SC
8 extensively utilized, particularly in chemical processes where efficient mixing and mass/heat transfer are

9 essential.

U
10 FBR is a contacting device that uses the principle of fluidized bed system in its operation. It is similar

11 to the commonly used packed bed reactors in many aspects, except that the packing material is expanded
AN
12 by the upward or downward movement of the fluid (Burghate and Ingole, 2013). The degree of the bed

13 expansion depends on the particle size and density, the up-flow velocity of the fluid and its viscosity.
M

14 FBR involves multiphase flow system (solid-gas, solid-liquid, or solid-liquid-gas) which may include
D

15 momentum exchange, heat exchange and mass transfer. Because of its excellent features , FBR is one of
TE

16 the most of important reactor systems use in chemical and biotechnology applications (Si et al., 2011).

17 Initially, applications of FBR had been limited to catalytic cracking, combustion, coating, granulation,
EP

18 drying and other chemical applications. However, FBR was later deployed for wastewater treatments.

19 Fig. 1 shows the basic concept of FBR in wastewater treatment. The wastewater is introduced into the
C

20 bed of the reactor at a particular superficial velocity enough to suspend the support media. The purpose of
AC

21 the distributor (spager, if air) is to uniformly distribute the effluent across the reactor bed. Depending on

22 the system design, recycling of the effluent is usually employed. The fluidized media can be an

23 immobilized catalyst in AOPs or microorganisms in biological treatment.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
1
M

2 Fig 1. Basic concept of FBR in wastewater treatment application

D

3 1.2. Classifications of FBR for wastewater treatment

TE

4 In chemical industries , various types of FBRs such as bubbling fluidized bed, circulating fluidized

5 bed, turbulent fluidized bed, floating fluidized bed, twin fluidized bed and many other classifications
EP

6 based on flow regime and reactor design are used (Jordening and Buchholz, 1999). However, most of

7 these have been developed for specific chemical applications, often involving very high superficial fluid
C

8 velocities typically not needed in wastewater treatment. Thus, this review departs from these
AC

9 conventional classifications and discusses FBR in a way that is more applicable to wastewater treatment

10 (Fig. 2).

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Classification of
FBR for
wastewater
treatment

Based on
Based on reactant
direction of

PT
phase
fluidization

RI
Upflow
Downflow
2-Phase FBR 3-Phase FBR (conventional)
(inverse) FBR
FBR
1

SC
2 Fig. 2 Classification of FBR applicable to wastewater treatment

U
3 1.2.1. Two-phase versus three-phase FBR
AN
4 Two-phase FBR involves a liquid-solid or gas-solid process where fluidization is brought about by the

5 liquid or gas. In wastewater treatment, however, only liquid-solid system is applicable. The solid phase
M

6 could be a variety of support materials or catalysts while the liquid phase is always the wastewater. The

7 three-phase system involves gas-liquid-solid process where aeration or oxygenation is added to a typical
D

8 liquid-solid FBR. In a two-phase FBR, fluidization is provided by the flow of wastewater through the
TE

9 catalyst or biomass bed. In a three-phase system, fluidization is provided by the concurrent or

10 countercurrent flow of the liquid and gas through the solid bed. The three-phase system was developed to
EP

11 improve, inter alia, the oxygen limitation encountered in two-phase FBRs (Choi et al., 2000). However,

12 the three-phase system has some challenges such as particle elutriation with high gas flow rate and
C

13 increased agitation which may cause reactor failure. Although two phase systems are simpler in design
AC

14 and easier to control, the three-phase systems have seen wider applications (Han et al., 2003).

15 1.2.2. Upward-fluidization versus downward/inverse-fluidization in FBR

16 FBR can also be classified based on the direction of the fluid flow. Conventional FBR uses solid

17 particles that are denser than the fluid phase and fluidization is achieved by the upward fluid flow from

18 the bottom of the reactor. However, inverse fluidized bed reactor (IFBR) was later introduced to

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 overcome some challenges intrinsic to the conventional FBR, such as un-controlled growth of biomass

2 which can affect the bioparticles hydrodynamics (Lakshmi et al., 2000). In IFBR, the density of the solid

3 particles is lower than the fluid phase and fluidization is achieved by the downward fluid flow opposite to

4 the net buoyancy of the particles (Nikolov et al., 2000). The IFBR is argued to possess superior

PT
5 hydrodynamic characteristics than conventional FBR. However, the downside of IFBR is that it usually

6 requires higher superficial fluid velocity (Buffiere et al., 1998).

RI
7 2.0. Applications of FBR in Wastewater Treatment

SC
8 Initially developed for gas generation by Winkler F. in 1920s, FBR has found various applications in

9 chemical and biochemical industries such coal gasification, metal refining, catalytic cracking, powder

U
10 technology, food processing and other numerous applications (Tavoulareas, 1991). However, it was only
AN
11 in the early 70s that FBR was investigated as a possible reactor for biological wastewater treatment.

12 Subsequent years saw a lot of progress, and by 1984, full-scale FBBRs were developed and installed
M

13 (Heijnen et al., 1989). The application of FBR in AOPs is relatively new, with the earliest literature

14 appearing in the late 90s. The works of Diz and Novak, (1998) and Chou and Huang, (1999) may have
D

15 been the earliest reported studies on the application of FBR in AOPs.

TE

16 FBRs have attracted interest as it has shown more effectiveness in wastewater treatment compared to

17 other contacting devices such as fixed-bed column and activated sludge (Burghate and Ingole, 2013).
EP

18 Excellent mixing, high mass transfer rates, and low sludge production are some of the features that make

19 FBR an attractive technology (Andalib et al., 2014). Since the solid particles are vigorously agitated by
C

20 the fluid passing through the bed, an excellent mixing and little or no temperature gradient is obtained
AC

21 (Dora et al., 2013). FBR is commonly used in AOPs, biological treatment and adsorption. Therefore, its

22 applications are discussed under these three areas (Fig. 3).

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Application of FBR in
Wastewater Treatment

PT
Advanced
Biological Adsorption
Oxidation
Processes
Processes

RI
FBR- FBR-
FBR-Fenton FBBR
Photocatlysis Adsorption

SC
1

2 Fig. 3. Applications of FBR in wastewater treatment.

U
3
AN
4 2.1. FBR-AOPs

5 The concept of AOPs was put forward by Glaze and coworkers as processes of generating reactive OH.
M

6 radicals with a redox potential of 2.8 eV that are capable of degrading organic pollutants(Glaze et al.,

7 1987). The OH. radicals are generated in situ through either one or a combination of chemical oxidations
D

8 by using H2O2 , ozone, and radiation assisted sources such as ultraviolet (Soon and Hameed, 2011).
TE

9 Typical AOPs include Fenton and Fenton-like processes, photocatalysis, electrochemical oxidation,

10 Ozonation, and ultrasound cavitation. AOPs are very effective in degrading recalcitrant pollutants and
EP

11 have many advantages over conventional wastewater treatment methods. Unlike conventional treatments

12 which either separate the pollutants from the wastewater stream or convert them to some intermediate
C

13 compounds, AOPs are capable of mineralizing organic pollutants to H2O and CO2 (Ahmadi et al., 2015).
AC

14 This made AOPs very attractive, especially in the treatment of recalcitrant and persistent organic

15 pollutants that have defied the conventional treatment technologies.

16 Since a number of chemical reactions are necessary for the generation of OH. , then the choice of a

17 reactor is very important. Because of the excellent features of FBR, many researchers have investigated

18 its potential application in AOPs. Combining FBR technology with AOPs can reduce sludge production

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 (Briones et al., 2012), increase catalyst reusability (Tisa et al., 2014)and improve process performance.

2 The most commonly investigated FBR-AOPs are FBR-Fenton and FBR-Photocatalysis.

3 2.1.1. FBR-Fenton

4 Fenton oxidation is considered one of the most effective AOPs because of its rapid formation of OH. in

PT
5 acidic medium (Asghar et al., 2015). The process consists of a homogeneous catalytic reaction between

6 ferrous iron (Fe2+) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) to produce OH. that can oxidized organic pollutants as

RI
7 shown in Equations 1 – 3 (Alalm et al., 2015). The decomposition of the pollutants using Fenton process

SC
8 occurs in two stages (Lu et al., 1999). The first stage is the rapid reaction of Fe2+ and H2O2 which

9 produces large amount of OH. that can rapidly oxide the pollutants. The second stage involves a reaction

U
10 between Fe3+ and H2O2 which produces less OH. and decomposes the pollutant rather less rapidly. This
AN
11 stage produces hydroperoxyl radicals, which have lower oxidative power.

12 H2O2 + Fe2+ → Fe3+ + OH. + OH- (1)

OH. + Organic →Products

M

13 (2)

14 OH. + Fe2+ →Fe3+ + OH- (3)

D

15 When Fe2+ and/or Fe3+ are used as the active sites, the process is referred to as homogenous Fenton and
TE

16 depends on the chemical interactions between the catalysts. Although the homogeneous Fenton process is

17 widely employed because of its effectiveness and ease of operation (Bellotindos et al., 2014), it has
EP

18 inherent disadvantages of excessive sludge production (Anotai et al., 2012a) and limited range of

19 operational pH (Rodríguez et al., 2016). Thus, heterogeneous Fenton oxidation was developed to
C

20 overcome some of these limitations (Buthiyappan et al., 2016). In heterogeneous Fenton oxidation, the
AC

21 reaction occurs between H2O2 and iron ions existing in multiple forms such as [Fe(OH)2]+ [Fe(H2O)]2+,

22 Fe2O3, α-FeOOH (Soon and Hameed, 2011) or other transition metal-substituted oxides (Pouran et al.,

23 2014). In addition to the chemical changes, physical adsorption occurs at the surface of the solid catalyst

24 which reduces sludge generation. However, the heterogeneous process is reportedly less effective than

25 homogeneous Fenton oxidation due to mass-transfer limitation.

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 To overcome some of the limitations of Fenton oxidation, researchers have recently explored the

2 advantages of FBR as a possible solution. FBR can combine the effectiveness of homogeneous Fenton

3 and the sludge reduction of heterogeneous Fenton. The solid materials in the reactor provide surfaces for

4 iron crystallization which reduces the sludge generated and increases catalyst reusability (Anotai et al.,

PT
5 2009). A possible reaction mechanism that is thought to occur in FBR-Fenton has been proposed by Chou

6 and Huang, (1999). Furthermore, because of the excellent features of FBR, the performance of FBR-

RI
7 Fenton has been shown to be superior to that of conventional Fenton process (Liu et al., 2014) . Lu and

SC
8 coworkers have conducted several works on the application of FBR-Fenton in degrading various

9 recalcitrant pollutants such as textile wastewater (Su et al., 2011), dimethyl sulfoxide (Bellotindos et al.,

U
10 2014), acetaminophen (Luna et al., 2013), monoethanolamine (Su et al., 2013)and phenol (Muangthai et

11 al., 2010).
AN
12 Table 1 summarizes experimental conditions and results from previous studies on FBR-Fenton. The

13 reported studies have largely considered synthetic wastewaters under laboratory-scale investigations. The
M

14 FBRs usually consist of a cylindrical glass column with working volumes ranging between 1 to 2 L. The
D

15 support materials commonly used include SiO2, Al2O3, and waste Iron oxide (BT4). Anand et al., (2015)
TE

16 studied the performance of a fluidized bed solar Fenton reactor in the removal of COD from hospital

17 wastewater. The reactor was a cylindrical vessel of 1.5 L with silica granules as carriers. Maximum COD
EP

18 removal of 98 % was obtained at 90 min HRT. The fluidized bed solar Fenton oxidation performed better

19 than conventional solar Fenton oxidation.

C

20 Li et al., (2015) studied the oxidation of bisphenol A by Photo-Fenton-like process by a waste iron
AC

21 oxide in a three-phase FBR. The system consists of a Pyrex tube with an integrated 15 W UV lamp

22 which removed 90 % TOC after 180 min.. The use of waste iron oxide, a by-product of tannery

23 wastewater treatment, is attractive as it could increase the cost-effectiveness of the process. The study of

24 Bellotindos et al., (2014) considered the degradation of a synthetic pollutant, Dimethyl Sulfoxide

25 (DMSO), using FBR-Fenton process with silica as carriers., Up to 98 % DMSO degradation was

26 achieved under optimum conditions, with the FBR-Fenton process showing superior performance than

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 conventional Fenton process. Similarly, Cheng et al., (2014) studied the degradation of Phthalocyanine

2 (PC) dyes by photo-assisted Fenton process in an up-flow FBR . The system consists of a 1.45 L fiber

3 glass plastic surrounded by 6 UV germicidal lamp and achieved 95 % PC degradation.

4 However, Liu et al., (2014) investigated the treatment of real wastewater using FBR-Fenton.

PT
5 Recalcitrant silicone wastewater was treated using a 3.92 L reactor with different carrier materials. The

6 process achieved 95 % COD and 85 % TOC removals at HRT of 60 min. Compared to the traditional

RI
7 Fenton process, the COD and TOC removal rates were found to increase by 20% and 15% respectively.

SC
8 Other reported studies are quite similar to the discussed literature. Although most of the studies have been

9 on lab-scale, it can be seen that combining FBR with Fenton process enhances process performance, with

U
10 the potential to overcome some of the drawbacks of conventional Fenton oxidation.

11 Table 1
AN
12 Applications of FBR-Fenton in wastewater treatment
Target pollutants Reactor and Support Operational Performance Reference
Material Properties Conditions
M

DMSO H: 140 cm pH: 3 DMSO: 95.22 % (Chen et al.,

D: 5.2 cm Fe2+: 5 mM COD: 34.38 % 2016)
Solid: silica H2O2: 32.5 mM
Dp: 0.42-0.5 mm HRT: 240 min
D

PL: 68.97 g/L

Hospital wastewater: V: 1.5 L pH: 3 COD: 98 % (Anand et
TE

COD D: 0.053 mm Fe2+: 5 mM al., 2015)

H: 1330 mm H2O2: 50 mM
Solid: Silica HRT: 90 min
Dp: 0.42-0.59 mm Q: :12 L/min
PL: 40g/L
EP

Orange G Coaxial cylinder pH: 3 TOC: 78.9 % (Wang et

V: 1.5 L T: 25 o C Color: 92 % al., 2015)
D: 35 mm, H2O2: 25 mg/L
H: 300 mm UV: 15 W, 365 nm
C

Solid: iron oxide (BT4)

Dp: 0.42-0.59 mm
AC

PL: 6 g/L
BPA Cylindrical pH: 3 TOC: 90 % (Li et al.,
V: 1.5 L H2O2: 0.7 mmol/L 2015)
Solid: Iron oxide (BT4) HRT: 180 min
UV: 15 W, 365 nm
DMSO Cylindrical glass pH: 3 DMSO: 98 % (Bellotindo
V: 1.3 L Fe2+: 5 mM s et al.,
D: 5.23 cm, H2O2: 60 mM 2014)
H: 133 cm, HRT: 2 h
Solid: SiO2

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Phthalocyanine (PC) Cylindrical Fiber glass pH: 2 – 4 PC: 95 % (Cheng et

H: 400 mm UV light: 254 nm al., 2014)
D: 25 mm
Solid: Fe (II)/γ-Al2O2,
PL: 60 g/L
Organic silicone Cylindrical Plexiglass pH: 3.5 COD: 95 % (Liu et al.,
wastewater V: 3.92 L HRT: 60 min TOC: 85 % 2014)
D: 8 cm H2O2/ Fe2+ 13.6:1

PT
H: 78 cm Q: 3 mL/h
Solid: quartz /
brick/GAC
Dp: 0.5 – 0.8 mm

RI
Carrier filling rate: 35 %
Acetaminophen Cylindrical glass reactor pH: 3 ACT: 99.6 % (Luna et al.,
(ACT) V: 1.45 L Fe2+: 0.05 – 0.1 mM 2013)
Solid: SiO2 & glass H2O2: 5 – 25 mM

SC
beads
Dp: 0.5 mm, 2 & 4 mm
2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1- Cylindrical glass H2O2: 10 mM TFP: 99.65 % (Shih et al.,
propanol (TFP) V: 1.5 L UV: 254 nm lamp Fluoride: 99 % 2013)

U
D: 7.5 cm
H: 50 cm
Solid: BT5 iron oxide
AN
DP: 0.25 – 0.5 mm
MEA and phosphate Cylindrical vessel pH: 3 MEA: 76 % (Su et al.,
V: 1.45 L H2O2: 50 mM Phosphate: 45 % 2013)
Solid: SiO2 MEA/Fe2+: 3 mM
M

Dp: 0.24 – 0.5 mm

PL: 100 g/L
50 % bed expansion
TFT-LCD Cylindrical glass pH: 3 MEA 98.9 % (Anotai et
D

wastewater: MEA V: 1.45 L Fe2+: 3 mM COD: 64.7 % al., 2012a)

Solid: SiO2 H2O2: 50 mM Iron: 67.4 %
TE

DP: 0.42 – 0.5 mm

PL:: 100 g
O-toluidine Cylindrical glass pH: 2 – 4 O-toluidine: 64.2 % (Anotai et
V: 1.35 L Fe2+: 0.1 – 1.0 mM COD: 36.7 % al., 2012b)
D:5.23 cm H2O2: 1 – 17 mM Iron: 100 %
EP

H:133 cm
Solid: SiO2 carriers
DP: 0.42 – 0.59 mm
PL: 50 – 300 g
C

Pharmaceutical Cylindrical glass pH: 3.22 ACT 97.8 % (Briones et

wastewater: V: 1.45 L Fe2+: 1 – 5 mM al., 2012)
AC

acetaminophen (ACT) Solid: SiO2 carriers H2O2: 100 mM

Dp: 0.5 mm
PL: 100 g/L
Dyes: RB5, RO16, Cylindrical glass pH: 3.22 RB 5 and RO16: 99 (Su et al.,
RB2 V: 1.35 L Fe2+: 0.06 mM % 2011)
D: 5.23 cm H2O2: 19.87 mM RB2: 96 %
H: 133 cm COD: 34 – 49 %
Solid: SiO2 and Al2O3
PL: 74.07 g/L
50 % bed expansion
Textile wastewater Cylindrical glass pH: 2 – 5 COD: 86.7 % (Su et al.,
V: 1.35 L [COD]: [Fe2]: Color: 97.9 % 2011)

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

D: 5.23 cm [H2O2] =1:0.95:7.94

H: 133 cm
Solid: SiO2
PL: 74.07 g/L
50 % bed expansion
Aniline Cylindrical glass pH: 3 Aniline: 96 % (Anotai et
V: 1.35 L Fe2+: 0.00107 mM al., 2010)
D: 5.2 cm H2O2: 58 mM

PT
H: 133 cm HRT: 60 min
Solid: SiO2 carriers
DP: 0.42 – 0.84 mm
Solids: glass beads 2 & 4

RI
mm
2, 6, Dimethylaniline Cylindrical glass pH: 3 Complete (Ratanatam
V: 1.35L H2O2: 2.5 mM degradation after 10 skul et al.,
Solid: Al2O3 carriers Fe2+:10 mM min 2010)

SC
DP: 2.5 mm
2,4-dichlorophenol Cylindrical glass pH: 3 2,4-DCP: 99 % (Muangthai
V: 1.35 L H2O2: 10 mM COD: 55 % et al., 2010)
Solid: silica carriers Fe2+:0.25 mM Iron: 14 %

U
DP: 0.84-2.00 mm
PL: 100 g/L
Nitrobenzene and Iron Cylindrical glass pH: 2.8±0.2 Nitrobenzene: 90 % (Anotai et
AN
removal V: 1.35 L H2O2: 50 mM Iron: 30 – 65 % al., 2009)
Solid: Al2O3 carriers Fe2+: 5 mM
DP: 0.8 -2.0 mm
Phenol Cylindrical Pyrex tube pH: 2.8±0.2 TOC: 98 % (Huang and
M

V: 150 m L H2O2: 500 mg/L Huang,

D: 2.0 cm T: 30 o C 2009)
Solid: SiO2-immobilized Q: 1.5 L/min
iron oxide
D

DP: 0.89 mm
Benzoic Acid (BA) D: 2 cm pH: 2.85 – 3.74 BA: 95 % (Chou and
TE

H: 100 cm Ul: 0.011 m/s Iron: 90 % Huang,

Solid: γ-FeOOH carriers TOC: 59 % 1999)
DP: 0.564 mm
Density: 1.11 g/cm3
PL: 80 g
EP

50 % bed expansion
1 V: Reactor volume; D: reactor diameter; H: reactor height; DP: diameter of support media: BH: Initial static bed
2 height; Q: liquid flow rate; Qa: air flow rate: HRT: Hydraulic Retention Time; T: Temperature; Umf: Minimum
3 superficial velocity; UL: superficial Liquid velocity; Ug: superficial gas velocity; PL: Solid particle loading; BPA:
C

4 Bisphenol A; DMSO: Dimethyl Sulfoxide; TFT-LCD: Thin film transistor liquid crystal display; MEA:
5 Monoethanolamine
AC

6
7
8 2.1.2. FBR-Photocatalysis

9 Photocatalytic oxidation is another AOPs where the application of FBR has attracted recent interests.

10 In Photocatalysis, a semiconductor metal oxide is used as a photocatalyst to oxide organic pollutants to

11 carbon dioxide and water (Rosa et al., 2015). The process involves illuminating metal oxide in aqueous

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 suspension with irradiation having a photon energy (hv) equal to or greater than the band gap energy of

2 the metal. This generates valence band holes and conduction band electrons which can react with water

3 and the hydroxyl ion to generate OH. (Pelaez et al., 2010). Two broad light spectrum, UV (200 – 400 nm)

4 and visible light (400 – 700 nm), are commonly used to generate the light photon (Cheng et al., 2016).

PT
5 Although metal oxides such ZnO, NiO, ZnS, Fe2O3 can be used, TiO2 is the most widely used

6 photocatalyst due to its strong photoctivity, high stability, non-toxicity and commercial availability

RI
7 (Ananpattarachai and Kajitvichyanukul, 2015). Once the surface of the TiO2 is photo-activated, OH. will

SC
8 be generated and subsequently oxidized organic pollutants (Chong et al., 2015). Details of the

9 fundamentals of photocatalysis have been well documented (Meng et al., 2010).

U
10 Although powder photocatalyst has large specific surface area which enhances mass transfer during

11 wastewater treatment, it is necessary to have a downstream separation stage which increases the cost of
AN
12 treatment (Pozzo et al., 2000). To overcome this, the powder is usually impregnated onto the surface of

13 other compounds such as Al2O3, SiO2 or perlite which have larger surface areas. This solves some of the
M

14 challenges of using powder catalyst, including the need for downstream separation and possible particles
D

15 elutriation. Because of the excellent features of FBR, researchers have investigated its application in
TE

16 photocatalytic oxidation. It is believed that besides its excellent mixing and high mass transfer, FBR can

17 also enhance light penetration and exposure of the interior of the reaction matrix (Nam et al., 2002).
EP

18 Table 2 gives a summary of reported studies on FBR-Photocatalysis which have largely been on

19 laboratory-scale using synthetic wastewaters. The FBRs used are mostly three-phase systems where air is
C

20 supplied to increase the rate of the photocatalytic degradation. Most of the studies have reported an
AC

21 improvement in process performance with the application of FBR. This is largely due to the improved

22 light penetration and possible adsorption of pollutants onto the support materials.

23 Dong et al., (2014) studied the visible-light photocatalytic degradation of Methyl Orange (MO) over

24 AC-supported and Er3+:YAlO3-doped TiO2 using FBR. Maximum decolorisation of 65.3 % was achieved

25 after 8 h . The performance of the system was found to be higher under the UV irradiation. Similarly, Shet

26 and Shetty, (2016) compared the performance of a photocatalytic fluidized bed degradation of phenol

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 using Ag@TiO2 under UV and solar irradiations. Around 76 % degradation was achieved using UV while

2 only 40 % was achieved under solar irradiation. The high band of TiO2 is known to prevent it from

3 utilizing visible irradiation and hence its lower performance compared to UV irradiation.

4 Mungmart et al., (2011) investigated the degradation of phenol in a three-phase FBR using different

PT
5 metal oxides. The performances of reactors utilizing O3, TiO2 deposited on silica beads, metal catalyst (Ni

6 or Co) impregnated on mesoporous carbon beads, or O3 in combination with each catalyst were

RI
7 compared. It was found that the reactor with Co impregnated on mesoporous carbon beads gave the

SC
8 highest phenol removal while the reactor with only Ozone gave the lowest phenol removal. The carbon

9 beads provided adsorption sites for the phenol, thereby increasing the removal rate. Kanki et al., (2005)

U
10 studied the degradation of phenol and bisphenol A in a fluidized bed photocatalytic reactor using TiO2-

11 coated ceramic particles. Two FBRs, one with an internal UV lamp (254 nm, 9 W) and the other with an
AN
12 outside black lamp (365 nm, 15 W) were compared. The reactor with the internal UV lamp degraded the

13 pollutant 4 times faster than the other reactor. Clearly, the intensity and location of the lamp have an
M

14 effect on the reactor performance.

D

15
TE

16

17
EP

18

19 Table 2
20 Applications of FBR-Photocatalysis in wastewater treatment
C

Target pollutant Rector and support material Operational Performance Reference

AC

properties Conditions
Phenol Cylindrical column pH: 3 Phenol: 84 % (Shet and
H: 52 cm HRT 420 min Vidya, 2016)
D: 1.6 cm Q: 140 mL/min
Catalyst: Ag/TiO2 Qa: 1.5 L/min
Loading: 0.25 – 0.75 g UV lamps:18 W
Solid: Glass beads
MO Annulus reactor LED: 36 W, 455 – 533 MO: 65.3% (Dong et al.,
D: 60 mm nm 2014)
H: 1 mm T: 20 o C
Support: Glass beads
BH: 33 mm

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Phenol Cylindrical quartz tube Qa: 1 L/min Phenol: 100 %

V: 235 ml HRT: 10 min (Mungmart et
D:31.6 mm UV: 15-W, 254 nm al., 2011)
H: 300 mm

PT
Catalyst: TiO2/Co/Ni
Loading: 2.5 – 20 g
Phenol Quartz glass column pH: 7 Phenol: 99 % (Zulfakar et al.,
H: 600 mm T: 30 o C 2011)

RI
D: 60 mm loading: 0.33 g/L
Catalyst: TiO2 UV: 20 W, 254 nm
Support: quartz sand

SC
Sodium lauryl Stainless steel reactor with draft Qa: 0.2 cm/s SLS: 100 % (Nam et al.,
sulfate(SLS) tube 30 W UV-A (365 nm) 2009)
V: 7 L Black Light Blue
D: 0.1 m Lamp
H: 1.0 m 65 W UV-C (254 nm)

U
Catalyst: immobilized TiO2 Germicidal Lamp
Particle size: 130 µm
AN
loading: 2.448 g/L
Support: SiO2
Congo Red (CR) Stainless steel column with pH: 7 COD: 80 % (Chong et al.,
conical bottom Qa: 0.5 dm3/min Decolorisation: 95.5 % 2009)
M

catalyst: Titania/Kaolinite 11 W UV light (256

loading: 6 g/dm3 nm)
Acid dye Acrylic cylindrical column Q: 3 L/min Acid dye: 60 % (Wang et al.,
H: 210 mm HRT: 4 h 2009)
D

D: 90 mm visible light lamp (150

Catalyst: ZnFe2/TiO2-GAC W)
TE

Loading: 20 – 40 g
Phenol and Rectangular column Air-flow rate: 0.5 dm3 Phenol/BPA: 100 % (Kanki et al.,
Bisphenol A V: 4 dm3 HRT: 200 min 2005)
H: 20 cm
UV lamps (9 W, 254 nm)
EP

Catalyst: Immobilized TiO2

Dp: 0.7 mm
Rhodamine B Rectangular acrylic vessel Qa: 7.0 L/min RB: 100 % (Na et al., 2005)
V: 2.8 8-W Germicidal lamps
C

H: 250 mm
Catalyst: TiO2
AC

Loading: 33.8 g/
Microcystin-LR Cylindrical column Q: 150 – 200 cm3/s MLR: 95 % (Lee et al.,
(MLR) D: 68 cm UV: 4 W, 370 nm 2004)
H: 65 cm T: 20 o C
Solid carrier: TiO2-coated GAC
BH: 2.5 cm
Rhodamine B V: 24 L Qa: 1 L/min 87 % degradation (Na et al., 2004)
Solid carrier: TiO2-coated UV: 20 W
ceramic HRT: 180 min
DP: 1.5 mm
Loading: 25 g/L

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Dyes: Crystal Cylindrical glass vessel Qa: 2 L/min Decolorisation: 77-100 % (Couto et al.,
violet & Azure B D: 45 mm UV: 125 W, 650 nm TOC: 52-90 % 2002)
H: 250 mm T: 25 o C
Solid carrier: ZnO immobilized
in alginate gel beads
DP: 2.5 – 3.0 mm
Loading: 20 g
TCE Annular quartz glass tube reactor HRT: 10 min TCE: 80 % (Lim and Kim,

PT
D: 55 mm Ug: 5.1 cm/s 2002)
H: 600 mm 6 white lamps (8 W,
Catalyst: immobilized TiO2 365 nm)
Support: Silica gel 6 Germicidal lamps (8

RI
DP: 220-417 µm W 254 nm)
MO Acrylic pipe with draft tube pH: 3 MO: 100 % (Nam et al.,
V: 2.5 L 15 W UV-lamp 2002)
D: 10 cm Qa: 1.5 L/min

SC
H: 45 cm
Catalyst: Degussa P-25
Particle size: 21 nm
Loading: 0.2 g/L

U
1 V: Reactor volume; D: reactor diameter; H: reactor height; DP: diameter of support media: BH: Initial static bed
2 height; Q: liquid flow rate; Qa: air flow rate: HRT: Hydraulic Retention Time; T: Temperature; Umf: Minimum
3
AN
superficial velocity; UL: Liquid superficial velocity; Ug: Gas superficial velocity; MO: Methyl Orange; TCE:
4 Trichloroethylene;

5 2.2. Fluidized Bed Bioreactor (FBBR)

M

6 FBBR has been widely used for aerobic and anaerobic wastewater treatments. The system consists of
D

7 microorganisms-coated particles in wastewater which is sufficiently fluidized to keep the phases

8 thoroughly mixed (Vinod and Reddy, 2005). The support materials of FBBR normally have extremely
TE

9 large specific surfaces and achieve treatment levels in shorter time than conventional biological treatment

10 processes (Alfredo et al., 2013). This is because the fluidization maximizes surface contact between
EP

11 microorganisms and the pollutants. It has been argued that FBBR offers the stability and ease of operation

12 of a trickling filter and the high efficiency of activated sludge process (Burghate and Ingole, 2013). For
C

13 example, it was reported that FBBR operated at lower HRT and gave better performance than a stirred
AC

14 tank reactor in the degradation of phenol (Gonzalez et al., 2001). Fluidization provides a favorable gas-

15 liquid mass transfer, which promotes good pollutant-biomass contact and suitable oxygen transfer rate

16 (Pen and Jose, 2008). Obviously fluidization will do away with preferential flow paths, bed clogging and

17 other problems encountered in fixed-bed reactors (Jaafari et al., 2014).

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Although FBBR is a well-established technology with full-scale plants in existence, lab-scale studies

2 are still being conducted towards process improvement, application of new materials and integration with

3 other technologies. For example, Logan and coworkers have recently combined FBBR with membrane

4 bioreactor as a possible solution to membrane fouling (Kim et al., 2011, 2016). Improved treatment

PT
5 efficiency, stable mixed liquor suspended solid and reduced transmembrane pressure are obtained when

6 FBBR is combined with membrane bioreactor (Shin et al., 2014).

RI
7 Table 3 gives a summary of some reported studies on wastewater treatment using FBBR. Both two

SC
8 phase and three-phase processes have been used, with some researchers exploring the advantages of an

9 inverse fluidized bed bioreactor (IFBBR). Haribabu and Sivasubramanian, (2016) studied the

U
10 biodegradation of organic matter in domestic wastewater using IFBBR and achieved a maximum COD

11 removal of 96.7 %. A three-phase FBR with a working volume of 0.0125 m3 and employing low density
AN
12 biocarries was used. The low density media had a positive effect on the minimum fluidization velocity

13 and increased the efficiency of the process.

M

14 Lin et al., (2010) investigated the biodegradation of RB13 in a two-stage anaerobic/aerobic FBBR and
D

15 achieved color and COD removal efficiencies of 86.9% and 90.4% respectively. Rajasimman and
TE

16 Karthikeyan, (2007) investigated the effect of HRT on the aerobic digestion of starch wastewater using

17 FBBR with low density biomass support. The COD removal increased with increase in HRT for all initial
EP

18 substrate concentration, with maximum removal (95.6 %)at 40 h HRT.

19 Cuenca et al., (2006) studied the anaerobic biodegradation of diesel fuel-contaminated wastewater
C

20 using FBBR and reported that both diesel and COD removal efficiencies increased with increased in HRT
AC

21 for all the conditions investigated. Mustafa et al., (2014) studied the treatment of municipal wastewater

22 sludge using anaerobic FBBR and reported that the treatment performance decreased with increased in

23 organic loading rate (OLR). A volatile suspended solids (VSS) removal efficiencies of 88 %, 79 % and 70

24 % were achieved at OLRs of 4.2, 9.5 and 19 kg COD/m3-d respectively. A COD removal efficiency of 68

25 % was obtained at OLR of 19 kg COD/m3-d. Borja et al., (2004) carried out mesophilic anaerobic

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 digestion of wastewater from the production of protein isolates from chickpea flour using FBBR and

2 reported that the percentage COD removal decreased with increase in OLR.

3 Table 3
4 Applications of FBBR in wastewater treatment

PT
Target pollutant Reactor and support Operational Conditions Removal Reference
material properties
PS/ TWAS Plexiglass rectangular T: 37 o C (Wang et al.,
column HRT: 2.2 – 4 d 2016)
OLR: 12 -18kg COD/m3 d

RI
V: 16 L
H: 3.6 m
Support: HDPE
DP: 600–850 µm

SC
Density: 1554 kg/m3
Domestic V: 0.0125 m3 HRT: 6.25 – 24 h COD: 96.7 % (Haribabu
wastewater D: 0.1 m Q: 10 – 80 mL/min and
H: 1.8 m Ug:0.0016 - 0.00318 m/s Sivasubraman

U
Support: LDPE ian, 2016)
Density: 870 kg/m3
BH: 0.6 – 1.0 m
AN
Autotrophic Glass column pH: 5.8 N: 100 % (Zou et al.,
denitrification V: 580 ml T: 20 – 30 o C 2016)
Support media: GAC Q: 800 mL/min,
DP: 0.5 -1 mm HRT: 10 min
M

OLR: 500 mg/L h

Bed expansion: 25 %
Aquaculture V: 2.85 L Phase I: HRT: 3.2-3.3 min, N: 49 % (Christianson
Effluent: Nitrate D: 0.31 m Flowrate: 63-65 L/min et al., 2015)
D

removal H: 3.9 m Phase II: HRT: 3.2-4.8 min

BH: 0.9 m Flowrate: 67-43 L/min
TE

Support: Sulfur 13 – 42% bed expansion

biofilters,
DP: 0.3 mm
Aquaculture V: 285 L HLR: 188 L/min m2 N: 26.9 % (Tsukuda et
effluent: D: 0.31 m HRT: 15 min al., 2015)
EP

denitrification H: 3.9 m Q: 13.7 L/min

Support: sand 50 % bed expansion
biofilters
DP: 0.11 mm
C

BH: 0.9 m

T: 7 – 22 o C
AC

Denitrification of V: 1 L Denitrification: 100 (Zou et al.,

mining water Support: GAC HRT: 12 h % 2015)
Dp: 0.5 – 1 mm Q: 800 mL/min
25 % bed expansion
Cu, Ni & Zn V: 2.5 L HRT: 24 h Cu: 97.5 % (Janyasuthiw
removal D: 0.08 m pH: 7 & 5 Ni: 65.9 % ong et al.,
H: 1.0 m OLR: 1 g COD/L. d Zn: 97.0 % 2015)
30 % bed expansion COD: 61.9 %

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Synthetic Plexiglass column T: 20 ± 3 o C N2O: 0.53 % (Eldyasti et

municipal V: 608 ml HRT: 0.6 h al., 2014)
wastewater: D: 2.54 cm OLR: 5.9 – 7 kg COD/m3 d
denitrification H: 100 cm Q: 20 ± 2 L/day
Support: zeolite
DP: 600 – 850 µm
Currant Plexiglass column T: 35 ± 2 o C COD: 96. 9 % (Jaafari et al.,
wastewater: COD V: 3.95 L OLR: 9.4 to 24.2 kg COD/m3 2014)

PT
D: 60 mm Umf: 0.75 m/min
H: 140 cm 30 % bed expansion
BH: 0.6 m
Support: PVC

RI
DP: 2 mm
Domestic Plexiglass plate T: 15 - 35 o C COD: 74.0 ± 3.7% (Gao et al.,
wastewater V:7.6 L, HRT: 6 h 2014)
Support : GAC

SC
Loading: 200 – 300 g

Formaldehyde Pillar glass reactor HRT: 24 h Degradation: 98. 37 (Qiu et al.,

V: 486 mL T: 30 & 37 o C % at 30 o C 2014)

U
D: 3.6 cm Degradation: 96.83 %
H: 46 cm at 37 o C
Support: Gel beads
AN
Metal precipitation PVC pipe with conical T: 25 o C Removal: 99 %
(Cu, Pb, Cd, Zn) bottom HRT: 24 h (Villa-Gomez
V:2.5 L 30 % bed expansion et al., 2014)
M

D: 0.05 m
H: 1.0 m
Support: LDPE beads
DP: 3 mm
D

PS & TWAS V: 16 L OLR: 8 – 19 kg/m3-d COD: 68 % for PS (Mustafa et

TE

H: 3.6 m Q: 3.4 L/d COD: 55 % for al., 2014)

Support media: zeolite TWAS
carries
DP: 425 – 610 µm
Petrochemical Glass column with T: 20 – 25 o C COD: 87 % (Qin et al.,
EP

wastewater: COD draft tube HRT: 6 h TPH: 95 % 2014)

and TPH V: 4.36 L Qa: 2-5 L/h,
OLR:1.61-2.56 kg COD/m3.d
C

Thin stillage H: 3.6 m T: 37 o C, COD: 88 % (Andalib et

Support: Zeolite UL: 1.4 cm/s TSS: 78 % al., 2012)
AC

DP: 425 – 610 µm OLR: 29 ±1.2 kg COD/m3d

Dyeing Effluent: V: 0.02 m2 Qa: 0.025 m/s COD: 83.3 % (Balaji and
color and COD D: 0.15 m HRT: 26 h Color: 89.5 % Poongothai,
H: 1.17 m 50 % bed expansion 2012)
BH: 0.25 m
Support media: PVC
Sulfide oxidation Glass column T: 30 ± 2 o C Degradation: 92 % (Midha et al.,
V: 0.6 L HRT: 25 – 70 min 2012)
D: 0.045 m Uup: 14 – 20 m/h
H: 0.38 m
Support: nylon
DP: 2-3 mm

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Density: 1140 kg/m3

BH: 16 cm
Real acid drainage V: 300 mL T: 35 o C Sulfate: 90 % (Sahinkaya et
mine water Support media: AC HRT: 12 – 24 h COD: 80 % al., 2011)
DP: 0.5 – 1 mm pH: 2.7 – 7 Metal: 99.9 %
15 – 20 % bed expansion
1 V: Reactor volume; D: reactor diameter; H: reactor height; DP: diameter of support media: BH: Initial static bed
2 height; Q: liquid flow rate; Qa: air flow rate: HRT: Hydraulic Retention Time; T: Temperature; Umf: Minimum

PT
3 superficial velocity; UL: Liquid superficial velocity; Ug: Gas superficial velocity; OLR: Organic Loading Rate;
4 IFBBR: Inverse Fluidized Bed Bioreactor; IAFMBR: Inverse Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Bioreactor; GAC: Granular
5 Activated Carbon; HDPE: High Density Polypropylene; LDPE: Low Density Polypropylene; TPH: Total Petroleum
6 Hydrocarbon; PS: Primary Sludge: TWAS: Thickened Waste Activated Sludge

RI
7
8 2.3. FBR-Adsorption

SC
9 Adsorption is an effective and economical method for the removal of recalcitrant pollutants from

10 wastewater, especially when low-cost adsorbent such as grape bagasse (Demiral and Güngör, 2016) and

U
11 cow bone (Cechinel et al., 2014) are utilized. Although treatability studies on adsorption are usually
AN
12 conducted in batch (Abidi et al., 2015) or fixed-bed column rectors (Bello et al., 2013), studies have also

13 been reported on the use of FBR for adsorption process. When FBR is used in adsorption, operational
M

14 problems encountered in fixed-bed column adsorption such as clogging, temperature gradient, channeling

15 and dead zones are eliminated. Table 4 shows reported studies on adsorption using FBR.
D

16 Dora et al., (2013) investigated the adsorption of Arsenic (III) using cashew nut shell in a three-phase
TE

17 FBR and reported a removal efficiency of 92.55 % under optimum condition. The adsorption was found

18 to be affected by the gas and liquid velocities, particle size and initial static bed height. Kulkarni et al.,
EP

19 (2013) studied the adsorption of phenol from wastewater in an FBR using coconut shell activated carbon.

20 The adsorption was found to depend on the initial phenol concentration, flowrate and bed particle size.
C

21 Jovanovic et al., (2014) studied the hydrodynamics and sorption studies for the removal of Cu (II) from
AC

22 aqueous solution using FBR packed with Zeolite A beads. The process was optimized, with a maximum

23 sorption capacity of 23.3 mg/g.

24 Zhou et al., (2015) developed an integrated flocculation-adsorption fluidized bed (IFAFB) system for

25 the removal of Kaolin clay and phenol from synthetic wastewater. The adsorption capacities of the

26 fluidized regime were found to be 8.77 and 24.70 mg/g greater than those of the fixed bed regime. At

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 shorter HRT (below 50 min), however, the adsorption was higher in the fixed bed regime. At longer times

2 and higher superficial velocities, the adsorption performance of the FBR was superior. Under fluidization,

3 the solution forms micro-vortices and create a uniform condition around the adsorbent, resulting in

4 effective utilization of the adsorbent. Under fixed bed mode, however, there are discrepancies between

PT
5 the two sides of the particle. In a similar study, Wang et al., (2011) reported that the adsorption capacity

6 of fixed bed was higher than that of an inverse fluidized bed in their study for aqueous phase adsorption

RI
7 of toluene using hydrophobic aerogels. The breakthrough time was found to be shorter in the inverse FBR

SC
8 than packed bed. This is perhaps because of the short HRT (50 min) where the packed bed normally

9 exhibits a better performance. The use of the inverse FBR might have equally contributed to the lower

U
10 performance of the process.

11 Table 4
AN
12 Applications of FBR-Adsorption in wastewater treatment

Target Reactor and support Operational Performance Referenc

M

pollutant material properties conditions e

Emerging V: 20 m3 HRT: 10 – 20 min PPHs: 80 % (Mailler
micro- H: 5 m Q: 1400 m3/d COD: 40 – 45 % et al.,
pollutants Adsorbent: GAC OM: 30 – 35 % 2016)
D

DP: 100 – 800 µm

BH: 1.5 – 2.5 m
Kaolin Cylindrical Plexiglas Ul: 4 – 8 mm/s Kaolin: 95 % (Zhou et
TE

clay and D: 30 mm HRT: 7 s Phenol: 80 % al., 2015)

Phenol H: 570 mm
Adsorbent: SiO2/CAC
DP: 0.6 – 1.5 mm
EP

BH: 35 mm
Cu Polycarbonate column HRT: 1.4 - 4.0 s adsorptive capacity 23.3 (Jovanov
D: 2.4 cm Q: 11.6 - 13.5 cm3/s mg/g ic et al.,
H:16.7 cm Ul: 2.6 - 3.0 cm/s 2014)
C

Adsorbent: Zeolite A
DP: 0.71 – 2.2 mm
Loading: 10.5 - 12.5 g
AC

BH: 4.3 - 10.2 cm

Arsenic Perplex column Ug: 5 – 20 m/s Arsenic: 93 % (Dora et
D: 5 cm UL: 0.01 – 0.07 m/s al., 2013)
H: 150 cm
Adsorbent: Cashew nut shell
DP: 1.1005 – 1.5405 mm
BH: 0.06 – 0.14 m

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Toluene PVC column HRT: 6.25 – 24 h 4 % of the adsorbent (Wang et

D: 0.076 m Ug: 0.0016 - 0.00318 weight al., 2011)
H: 1.47 m m/s
Adsorbent: SiO2 Q: 0.86 – 5.99 L/min
DP: 0.7 – 1.2 mm
Loading: 50 – 200 g
Congo red Conical bottom polyplastic Qa: 1 L/min Congo red: 99 % (Vimons
phosphate Adsorbent: formulated clay- Phosphate: 99 % es et al.,

PT
and nitrate lime Nitrate: 45 % 2010)
Loading: 0.4 – 1.0 g/L
Phenol Cylindrical perplex column pH: 3.5 Phenol 95 % (Mohant
V: 70 L Ug: 0.0219 m/s y et al.,

RI
D: 0.2199 m 2008)
H: 1.82 m
Adsorbent: PAC
Loading: 2 g/L

SC
Copper D: 3 cm pH: 4 Copper: 90 % (Lee et
H: 120 cm HRT: 60 min al., 2006)
Adsorbent: clarifier sludge T: 25 o C
DP: 0.5 mm UL: 0.0028 m/s

U
Copper D: 3 cm pH: 2 – 8 Copper: 99 % (Lee et
H: 120 cm HRT: 60 min al., 2004)
Adsorbent: Manganese- T: 25 o C
AN
coated sand UL: 0.0028 m/s
DP: 1.0 ± 0.1 mm
Phenol Jacket glass column T: 21 – 24 o C Phenol: 62 % (Wang
D: 20 mm Q: 0.15–0.35 dm3/min and
M

Adsorbent: GAC Umf: 0.0085 m/s Chang,

DP: 0.937, 1.524 mm 1999)
Density: 2100 kg/m3
Loading: 12-24 g
D

1 V: Reactor volume; D: reactor diameter; H: reactor height; DP: diameter of support media: BH: Initial static bed
2 height; Q: liquid flow rate; Qa: air flow rate; HRT: Hydraulic Retention Time; T: Temperature; Umf: Minimum
TE

3 fluidization velocity; UL: Liquid superficial velocity; Ug: Gas superficial velocity; CAC: Coconut activated carbon;
4 IFAFBR: Integrated Flocculation-Adsorption Fluidized Bed Reactor; IFBR: Inverse Fluidized Bed Reactor; GAC:
5 Granular Activated Carbon; OM: Organic matter: PAC: Powder Activated Carbon

6
EP

3.0. Effect of Design parameters

7 Successful application of FBR requires knowledge of the important design parameters. However,
C

8 despite the extensive applications of FBR, fluidization is still an empirical science (Yang, 2003) and a
AC

9 single systematic design approach is yet to emerge. Instead, the design is largely application-specific and

10 relies on empirical correlations (Onysko et al., 2002) and experience of the designer (Zhang et al., 2012).

11 For example, recently, Deng et al., (2016) developed an integrated methodology for designing FBBR for

12 the treatment of dyeing effluents. The method was based on theories, experiments and knowledge base.

13 The absence of a robust methodology and the reliance on heuristic may lead to various problems such as

14 insufficient or over-fluidization, poor treatment performance and reactor failure. Although attempts have

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 been made to understand the design parameters, large-scale applications of FBR still pose significant

2 challenge (Reinhold et al., 1996).

3 Despite the wide applications of FBR in wastewater treatment, the effect of design parameters is not

4 fully established. Also information on the effects of reactor configuration on the mass transfer and the

PT
5 reactor performance are somewhat sparse. Some of the design parameters that may affect the performance

6 of FBR include reactor geometry, aspect ratio, reactor internals, particle size and density, particle loading

RI
7 and fluid superficial velocity.

SC
8 3.1. Reactor Geometry

9 3.1.1. Shape and cross-sectional area of the reactor

U
10 Reactor configuration is an important parameter that affects mixing and particle distribution in FBR
AN
11 (Choi and Shin, 1999). Particle mixing plays an important role in the performance of FBR since it affects

12 both heat and mass transfer (Yan et al., 2009). For wastewater treatment, it is necessary to obtain high
M

13 mass transfer rate and uniform temperature in the reactor through fluid-particle interactions.
D

14 Although FBRs are conventionally cylindrical, other shapes such as square columns have been used.

15 Dead-zones are encountered more frequently in square columns where the sharp corners of the reactor
TE

16 promote their occurrences. The presence of dead-zones inhibits proper particle mixing in the reactor. In

17 their comparative study on the effect of bed geometry on mixing rate, Gorji-kandi et al. (2015) concluded
EP

18 that mixing rate is greater in a cylindrical bed than a square bed FBR. This was attributed to the presence

19 of dead-zones at the corners of the square reactor which caused slow motion of particles. The presence of
C

20 slow fluidization on the wall of the reactor had been confirmed earlier (Efstathios and Michaelides, 2013).
AC

21 Therefore, it is necessary to choose appropriate shape of the reactor for effective wastewater treatment.

22 The cross-sectional area of the reactor is another parameter that can affect the hydrodynamics and

23 treatment performance of FBR. Generally, FBR can be divided into a flatbed or a tapered-bed FBR (Fig.

24 4). Conventional FBRs are flatbed reactors with uniform cross-sectional areas. However, wash-out of

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 particles occurs sometimes due to high superficial velocity. To overcome this challenge, Scott C. D and

2 Hancher C. W. introduced the concept of tapered-bed FBR in 1976 (Parthiban et al., 2007). In Tapered

3 FBR, the cross-sectional area of the reactor is made narrower at the bottom (tapered-in) or both bottom

4 and top (tapered-in tapered-out) (Askaripour and Dehkordi, 2015). This results in a stable feed

PT
5 introduction as well as minimizes eddies and back mixing that could arise in flatbed FBR. However, it is

6 necessary to ensure appropriate taper angle so that turbulent flow due to sudden expansion can be

RI
7 avoided.

SC
8

U
AN
M
D

9
TE

10
11 Fig. 4 Flatbed versus tapered-in FBR (Adapted from: Heat and Mass Transfer in Particulate Suspensions
12 In: Springer Briefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, Efstathios and Michaelides, 2013, pp 89 – 199,
13 with permission from Springer)
EP

14
15 A comparative study on the performance of a flatbed FBR and a tapered FBR showed that the latter

16 has superior treatment performance and better hydrodynamic characteristics (Huang et al., 2000). Three
C

17 FBRs having 0 o, 2.5 o and 5 o taper angles were compared in the study. The hydrodynamics characteristics
AC

18 and performance of the three FBRs were in the following increasing order 5o → 2.5 o → 0 o. A previous

19 study by Wu and Huang, (1996) reported that COD removal efficiency of a tapered FBR was higher than

20 a flatbed FBR when the taper angle does not exceed 5o . Above 5 o taper angle, the performance of the

21 flatbed FBR was either higher or lower than the tapered FBR.

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 3.1.2. Aspect Ratio

2 Aspect ratio, defined as the ratio of the static bed height to the reactor diameter,
3 is an important design parameter of FBR. The aspect ratio has an influence on
4 fluid circulation velocity and consequently on the phase mixing in the reactor
5 (Weipeng et al., 2014). Large aspect ratio promotes bubble coalescence and
6 higher solid holdup. This reduces both gas /liquid holdup and the interphase

PT
7 mixing. Conversely, a low aspect ratio promotes higher liquid/gas holdup and
8 encourages interphase mixing. Therefore, low aspect ratio can reduce the fluid
9 flow rate requirement and hence lower the process cost (Ochieng et al., 2003). It
10 is therefore necessary to select the appropriate aspect ratio for proper design and

RI
11 successful application. Typical ranges of aspect ratio for both laboratory/pilot
12 FBRs and technical plants are shown in Table 5 (Jordening and Buchholz,
13 1999). Laboratory scale FBRs usually have small diameters in relation to the

SC
14 reactor column height and the corresponding static bed height. Since the reactor
15 volume is small, a small diameter and a relatively high static bed height can give
16 the necessary solid loading. In the case of full scale FBR, a long and narrow
17 column may result in slugging effect (Kunii and Levenspiel, 1991) and hence the

U
18 diameter is usually made relatively bigger to achieve the necessary degree of
19 fluidization. However, a very large diameter may pose challenges to uniform
AN
20 fluidization. Therefore, a compromise is usually necessary (Jordening and
21 Buchholz, 1999). For example, Ochieng et al.,(2002) found an aspect ratio of 10
22 to be the optimum in their treatment of brewery wastewater using laboratory-
23 scale FBBRTable 5
M

24 Typical range of aspect ratio for FBR

25
FBR Type Aspect Ratio
D

Laboratory scale 5 – 25
TE

Technical plant 2–5

26
EP

27 In FBBR, large aspect ratio results in more surfaces for biomass growth. However, higher aspect ratio

28 above the optimum value will increase solid holdup and thereby inhibit proper mixing of the bioparticles
C

29 and wastewater. The increased amount of solid particles due to the high aspect ratio will equally increase
AC

30 the fluid pumping requirement of the system (Sabarunisha and Radha, 2014).

31 3.1.3. Reactor internals

32 Another parameter that affects FBR performance is the presence of an internal structure in the reactor.

33 Internals, such as tubes and baffles, are sometimes introduced into the reactor to modify the flow

34 structures and improve particles fluidization. Reactor internals promotes uniform mixing which result in

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 effective fluidization (Qin et al., 2014). Although the main purpose of internals is to ensure uniform

2 fluidization, additional benefits such as enhanced phase contact, controlled solid holdup and improved

3 radial mixing are obtained (Jin et al., 2003). The downside of the internals is that they can increase the

4 complexity of system design and operation (Dutta and Suciu, 1992).

PT
5 Internals can be broadly classified into baffles, tubes, packings, inserted bodies, and other

6 configurations developed for various specific applications. Baffles and tubes are the most commonly used

RI
7 internals, in wastewater treatments. Examples of baffles include wire mesh, ring, perforated plate etc.

SC
8 while tubes can be draft tubes, horizontal and vertical banks. Many studies have been reported on reactor

9 internals such as vertical internals (Ramamoorthy and Subramanian, 1981), horizontal tubes (Olowson,

U
10 1994), perforated baffles (Zhao et al., 1992), ring-type internals (Zhu et al., 1997) and other variations. In

11 general, internals have effects on the bubble behavior, flow distribution and phase mixing.
AN
12 Studies have shown that introducing a draft tube into FBR can enhance the process performance.

13 Wang et al., (2015) reported that a FBR with internal draft tube gave a higher decolorisation and TOC
M

14 removal compared with conventional FBR in their study for orange G degradation. Similarly, Nam et al.,
D

15 (2009) reported similar findings when they compared the performance of conventional FBR and FBR
TE

16 with an internal draft tube (DTFBR). The DTFBR showed superior performance under all the conditions

17 investigated which was attributed to the more uniform distribution of the catalyst.
EP

18 In another study, Vinod & Reddy, (2005) used a draft tube FBBR for the treatment of phenolic

19 wastewater, achieving up to 96 % removal efficiency. Interestingly, Wei et al., (2000) compared the
C

20 hydrodynamics of FBRs with conventional internal draft tube and with convergence-divergence draft
AC

21 tube. Results showed that gas holdup is higher in the FBR with convergence-divergence draft tube than

22 the conventional draft tube FBR. Conversely, liquid circulation velocity was found to be lower in the

23 convergence-divergence draft tube reactor, perhaps due to the decrease in the velocity caused by the

24 divergence/convergence tube.

25 However, Nam et al., (2002) reported that internal draft tube has a negligible effect on the performance

26 of FBR in the photocatalytic oxidation of methyl orange. The photocatalytic degradation was found to

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 depend largely on the amount of catalyst and lamp power rather than the reactor internals. However, the

2 range of gas flow rates tested in the study may have been too low to make a significant difference in the

3 hydrodynamics of the two different reactors. To buttress that, the authors reported the superiority of the

4 DTFBR over the conventional FBR in another study (Nam et al., 2009). Thus, it is obvious that internals

PT
5 can affect the reactor hydrodynamics and therefore influences the treatment performance of the FBR.

RI
6 3.2. Support Material

7 The properties of support materials such as particle size, density and surface characteristics can affect

SC
8 the process performance of FBR (Wirsum et al., 2001). The choice of support material would therefore

9 determine, to a great extent, the process engineering (Jordening and Buchholz, 1999). The effects of

10

U
particle loading, density, size and surface properties on the reactor performance are discussed in this
AN
11 section.

12 3.2.1. Particle size and surface property

M

13 Particle size is an important parameter that affects fluidization as well as heat and mass transfer in the
D

14 reactor. In fact, it has been argued that particle size could be the most important factor that govern mass
TE

15 transfer in a three-phase FBR (Kim and Kang, 1997). Although developed for gas-solid fluidization,

16 Geldart classification of particles can be useful in classifying solids for wastewater applications. Geldart,
EP

17 (1973) classified solid particles into four groups (A, B, C and D) based on their mean size and density

18 difference between the particles and the fluidizing medium. Group A are particles with small mean size
C

19 between 30 to 100 µm, group B ranges between 100 to 800 µm, group C has mean size less than 20 µm
AC

20 while group D has a mean size above 1 mm. For each classification, different flow regimes and bed

21 behavior are observed. Although all these types of solids are used in traditional fluidization applications,

22 only Geldart B and D particles are applicable to wastewater treatment.

23 Both heat and mass transfer in FBR increase with increase in particle size. This is because large particles

24 have the capability to break up and disintegrate large bubbles (Nguyen-tien et al., 1984). For a given

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 liquid velocity, larger particles would result in a better mass transfer and subsequent reactor performance

2 than smaller ones (Begum and Radha, 2015). In a study to investigate the effect of zeolite diameter used

3 as a support material in FBBR, it was reported that larger diameter (0.5 – 0.8 mm) gave slightly higher

4 COD removal than smaller ones (0.2 – 0.5 mm) (Fernández et al., 2008). Therefore, it is generally

PT
5 believed that mass transfer coefficient in FBR increases with increase in bed particle diameter.

6 However, large particles can increase bed pressure drop (Dora et al., 2012) which will consequently

RI
7 increase the fluidization requirement (Midha et al., 2012). Lakshmi et al., (2000) investigated the effect of

SC
8 particle diameter on the minimum fluidization velocity in a two-phase IFBR using LDPE and propylene

9 particles. They reported that the minimum fluidization velocity increased with increase in particle

U
10 diameter for the two types of particles investigated. This was attributed to the increase in the Archimedes

11 number which increases with increase in particle diameter.

AN
12 Surface characteristic of the solid particle is another important parameter that can affect the

13 performance of FBR. Solid particles can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic. Unlike hydrophobic particles,
M

14 hydrophilic particles mix excellently with water. This improves the mass transfer coefficient for up-flow
D

15 fluidization (Kim and Kang, 1997). However, for inverse fluidization, the reverse is the case. Han et al.,
TE

16 (2003) compared hydrophobic and hydrophilic particles having the same density and concluded that

17 hydrophobic are better than hydrophilic particles for inverse fluidization. This was attributed to the
EP

18 retardation of rising bubbles near the hydrophobic particles which subsequently increased the gas holdup.

19 A similar concept of hydrophobic/hydrophilic was discussed by Choi & Shin, (1999) and observed by
C

20 Buffiere et al., (1998) during their study of an IFBBR. Kim & Kangt, (1997) had equally discussed this in
AC

21 terms of the wettability of the particles. This shows the importance of surface properties of FBR support

22 materials in wastewater treatment.

23 Particles with high specific surface areas, good physicochemical and fluidodynamic properties should

24 therefore be used as support materials (Pen and Jose, 2008). Particles with irregular surfaces, sharp angles

25 and crevices are suitable for biomass attachment and development which are important in FBBR (Buffiere

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 et al., 1998). Silica, quartz sand, granular activated carbon, vitreous coke, glass beads, PVC, are some of

2 the common support materials used in FBR (Alfredo et al., 2013). The particle diameter of the support

3 materials is usually less than 1 mm, though larger particles have also been used (Vinod and Reddy, 2005).

4 The specific area of bed materials after fluidization can be calculated using the following formula:

PT


5
 = (4)
 

RI
6 Where
7 as = specific surface area (m-1)

SC
8 ε = expanded bed porosity (dimensionless)

9 d = support particle diameter (mm)

U
10 ψ = form factor (dimensionless, equals 1 if considered a pseudo-spherical particle)
AN
11 3.2.2. Particle loading

12 For successful application, it is necessary to understand the effect of particle loading/initial bed height
M

13 on the hydrodynamics of FBR (Delebarre et al., 2004). The initial static bed height is the height of the
D

14 solid particles in the reactor prior to fluidization. Theoretically, the initial static bed height does not affect

the minimum fluidization velocity U ) in a conventional FBR (Jena et al., 2009). This is because
TE

15

16 fluidization is achieved when the upward inertial and drag forces exerted on the particles equal the
EP

17 buoyant weight of the bed. Lakshmi et al., (2000) studied the effect of bed height on U in a two-phase

18 FBR and reported that constant velocity is obtained for all bed heights investigated.
C

19 However, Delebarre et al., (2004) studied the influence of bed inventory on fluidization characteristics
AC

20 of FBR and concluded that the initial static bed height has effect on U . An increase in bed inventory

21 led to increase in U . However, there were some inaccuracies in the bed height measurements which

22 might have affected the authors’ conclusion. Previous study by Garcia et al., (1999) had reported a small

23 influence of particle loading on the liquid velocity of the system. In the case of IFBR, however, the

24 fluidization velocity decreases with increase in particle loading (Han et al., 2003).

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 For a given reactor diameter, particle loading can affect the oxygen mass transfer rate in a three-phase

2 FBR. However, the influence of particle loading on oxygen transfer rate is rather complex. High particle

3 loading promotes bubble coalescence, which in turns reduces the interfacial area of gas-liquid and hence

4 the oxygen mass transfer (Abdel-aziz et al., 2016). Large bubbles will move faster, resulting in shorter

PT
5 residence time and consequent low gas hold up. It was reported that an increased particle loading of 15 %

6 caused a 30 % drop in oxygen mass transfer in a three-phase FBR for aerobic wastewater treatment (Yu et

RI
7 al., 1999).

The initial static bed also affects the pressure drop across the reactor bed. At U , the pressure drop

SC
8

9 is equal to the weight of the particles divided by the cross-sectional area of the bed. The pressure drop in

U
10 FBR is the sum of the frictional pressure drop and the static pressure drop. However, the static pressure
AN
11 drop is usually negligible and the total pressure drop is then due to the frictional pressure drop only

12 (Askaripour and Dehkordi, 2016). Therefore, the frictional pressure drop required to counterbalance the
M

13 weight of the bed increases with increase in initial static bed height (Dora et al., 2012). Thus, it is

14 necessary to use appropriate aspect ratio to ensure optimum performance of the system.
D

15 3.2.3. Particle density

TE

16 For a given bed height, the density and the surface property of the particles would determine the

17 required superficial fluid velocity (Han et al., 2003). Dense particles would require high up-flow velocity
EP

18 to achieve fluidization (Escudero, 2010). Also porous materials result in lower superficial velocity

19 requirement than non-porous materials (Jordening and Buchholz, 1999). Where FBBR is used, polymeric
C

20 support particles could be the materials of choice because they offer large surface areas for microbial
AC

21 growth (Midha et al., 2012). The use of light particles will result in low fluid pumping requirement and

22 thereby low operational cost. In such case, however, the aspect ratio should be as low as possible in order

23 to achieve bed homogeneity at the low gas/liquid flow rates (Ochieng et al., 2002).

24 Conversely, minimum fluidization velocity decreases with increase in particle density in the case of an

25 IFBR. A study on the minimum fluidization velocity requirement between a low density polyethylene

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 (LDPE) (940 kg/m3) and polypropylene (PP) (840 kg/m3) revealed that the LDPE particles required lesser

2 velocity to fluidized than the PP particles (Lakshmi et al., 2000). This is because the upward buoyance

3 force increases as the particle density decreases and thus higher liquid velocity is required to achieve

4 fluidization.

PT
5 For a given initial static bed height, particle density affects bed pressure drop. Dense particles increase

6 the weight of the initial static bed height and this increases the pressure drop necessary to counterbalance

RI
7 the weight (Dora et al., 2012). A correlation of gas velocity, phase holdups and pressure drop can give

SC
8 further insights on the influence of the hydrodynamic characteristics on the process performance

9 (Equation 5).

U
d
10 − = s s + L L + g g g (5)
d
11
AN
12 s + L + g = 1 (6)

13 Where d is the pressure drop, d% is the bed height; s , L and g are the solid, liquid and gas phase
M

14 holdups respectively; s , L and g are similarly the densities; g is the acceleration due to gravity.

15 Clearly from Equation 5, the use of dense particles could lead to an increase in pressure drop, which
D

16 consequently increases power consumption. On the other hand, very low densities could lead to particle
TE

17 wash-out. However, a careful design and reactor internal can minimize this problem (Ochieng et al.,

18 2002).
EP

19 3.3. Superficial fluid velocity

C

20 Superficial fluid velocity U

refers to the volumetric flow rate of the fluid divided by the cross-
AC

21 sectional area of the reactor. U is responsible for the particles fluidization and therefore influences the

22 particles mixing, heat and mass transfer rate in the reactor (Mostoufi and Chaouki, 2001). Therefore, it is

23 necessary to understand how U affect FBR performance. U is required to be within two extremes, the

24 minimum fluidization velocity (U ) and the terminal fluidization velocity (U)
. U is the lowest fluid

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 velocity necessary to initiate particles fluidization while U) is the fluid velocity at which particles are

2 carried out with the fluid flow (Jovanovic et al., 2014).

3 U is an important parameter which is closely related to the power requirement of the system

4 (Ochieng et al., 2003). A high U will result in a high fluidization power requirement. Therefore, it is

PT
5 necessary to control U slightly above U with as much accuracy and precision as possible (Delebarre et

6 al., 2004). U can be calculated using Equation 7 (Alfredo et al., 2013).

RI
/ 01 0
2
7 + = 16.50 (7)
3

SC
8 Where
9 + = minimum fluidization velocity (m/h)

U
10 d = solid particle diameter (mm)
AN
11  ,  = specific weight of the solid and the water, respectively (g/m3)

12 µ = dynamic viscosity of water (g/m/h)

M

13 g = acceleration of gravity (m/h2)

14
D

15 Increasing U leads to increase in liquid circulation and mixing rate, thus a shorter reaction time.
TE

16 However, this is only true up to the optimum U . On the other hand, very high U is associated with

17 particle wash-out from the reactor, especially where FBBRs are employed (Jaafari et al., 2014).
EP

18 Therefore, selection of optimum U is necessary to ensure successful operation of FBR.

C

19 Although liquid velocity dominates in a three-phase FBR, the flow regime depends on the ratio of the
AC

20 superficial liquid velocity to the superficial gas velocity. Both velocities have to be properly designed and

21 controlled. It is necessary to have a small liquid velocity to gas velocity ratio in order to have high mass

22 transfer coefficients for counter-current flow FBR (Forster, 1980). However, for a concurrent flow

23 process, a high ratio will give a well dispersed bubbles and hence high oxygen transfer rate whereas a

24 low ratio would result in bubble coalescence and low oxygen transfer rate (Yu et al., 1999). Both

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 superficial liquid and gas velocities will affect solid and liquid holdups. Increasing superficial liquid

2 velocity will cause solid particles to expand faster and hence reduces the solid holdup (Akilamudhan et

3 al., 2014). This will in turn increase the liquid holdup. On the other hand, gas holdup increases with

4 increase in superficial gas velocity (Wei et al., 2000).

PT
5 Nikolov et al., (2000) reported that liquid velocity has a weak effect on the oxygen transfer and gas

6 velocity has a strong effect in a three phase IFBR. In general, the smaller the amount of air supplied, the

RI
7 more economical the process would be which is desirous for industrial applications (Vimonses et al.,

SC
8 2010). However, the capacity of FBBR in aerobic wastewater treatment depends on the oxygen transfer

9 rate of the aeration system (Forster, 1980).

U
10 Sabarunisha & Radha, (2014) studied the hydrodynamic behavior of an inverse FBBR for phenol

11 biodegradation and reported that COD removal increased with an increase in the superficial gas velocity.
AN
12 This was attributed to the higher gas holdup, volumetric mass transfer coefficient and oxygen transfer rate

13 due to the increased gas velocity. The highest COD and phenol degradation rates were obtained at a gas
M

14 velocity of 0.220 m/s. Above this optimum value, however, the degradation efficiencies became lower. At
D

15 gas velocities above the optimum value, larger bubbles are formed which dominate over the interfacial
TE

16 area, resulting in lower mass transfer. U is affected by the properties of bed materials as well as the

17 aspect ratio of the reactor (Zhong et al., 2008).

EP

18 4.0. Effect of Operational Parameters

19 Since FBR is most commonly used in Fenton oxidation, photocatalytic oxidation and aerobic/anaerobic
C

20 treatments, the discussion on the operational parameters has given emphasis to them. Some of the
AC

21 operational parameters that affect FBR performance include pH, catalyst concentration, amount of H2O2,

22 temperature, UV intensity, HRT, OLR, and amount of carrier materials.

23 4.1. pH

24 pH has a remarkable effect on FBR-Fenton as efficient degradation of pollutants is attributed to acidic

25 pH (Li et al., 2015). This is because the production of OH. is enhanced at lower pH, usually in the range

37
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 of 2.5 to 4.5 (Malik and Saha, 2003). Higher pH favors the formation of ferric and ferric hydroxide

2 complexes which have much lower catalytic capability than ferrous ions. On the other hand, very low pH

3 promotes hydrogen formation which may reduce the number of active sites for generating ferrous ions

4 (Ratanatamskul et al., 2010). A low pH will lead to the formation of Fe2+:H2O2 complex, which react

PT
5 more slowly with H2O2 and thereby produces OH. at slower rate. High pH leads to the formation of

6 Fe2+:OH- complexes which reduces the amount of Fe2+ that are responsible for the decomposition of

RI
7 H2O2.

SC
8 Chia-Chi et al., (2011) investigated the effect of operational parameters on the decolorisation of textile

9 wastewater by FBR-Fenton and reported that the process performance increased as the pH was increased

U
10 from 2 to 3. However, increasing the pH above 3 led to a decrease in the removal efficiency. The

11 degradation was highest at pH 3. Low pH was associated with production of FeOOH2+ which compete
AN
12 with Fe2+ in reacting with H2O2. At pH above 4, Fe2+ is unstable and easily forms Fe3+. However, in their

13 investigation of parameters affecting FBR-Fenton process for the treatment of recalcitrant organic silicon
M

14 wastewater, Liu et al., (2014) reported that the pH has an insignificant effect on the COD and TOC
D

15 removal. Other parameters such H2O2/Fe2+ and particle loading were found to have more impact on the
TE

16 process. Therefore, the effect pH may also depend upon other process parameters such as Fe2+/H2O2

17 concentration. From the reviewed literature, the optimum pH in FBR-Fenton process ranges between 2 to
EP

18 4 which is quite similar to the range use in conventional Fenton oxidation (Table 1).

19 In FBR-Photocatalysis, pH affects the charge on the catalyst particles, size of catalyst aggregates and
C

20 the positions of conductance and valence bands (Meng et al., 2010). At low pH, the environment around
AC

21 the photocatalyst would become positively charged and negatively charged at high pH. In order to fully

22 study the impact of pH on photocatalytic oxidation, the concept of point of zero charge (PZC) of TiO2 is

23 used. The PZC is a condition where the surface charge of TiO2 is zero or neutral and lies in the pH range

24 of 4.5 - 7.0. The implication is that the interaction between the photocatalyst and the contaminants is

25 minimal. Details on the PCZ have been explained elsewhere (Meng et al., 2010). Under acidic conditions,

38
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 the surface of is TiO2 protonated and deprotonated under alkaline condition (Gaya and Halim, 2008).

2 Thus, TiO2 has higher oxidizing power at low pH.

3 Nam et al., (2002) investigated the effect of pH on the photocatalytic degradation of methyl orange in a

4 three-phase FBR and obtained higher performance at lower pH values. At lower pH, reduction by

PT
5 electrons in the conduction band plays an important role in the degradation while at neutral or high pH

6 levels, hydroxyl radicals may be the predominant oxidation species. However, very low pH may result in

RI
7 excess H+ which can lower the reaction rate.

SC
8 In FBBR, pH is an important parameter that affects process performance because of its effect on

9 microorganisms. Very high or low pH can affect FBBR performance due to the inhibitory effect of

U
10 superacidity and superalkalinity on the activity of the intracellular enzyme of bacteria (Jianping et al.,

11 2003). Lin et al., (2010) studied the biodegradation of Reactive blue 13 in a two-stage anaerobic/aerobic
AN
12 FBBR with a Pseudomonas sp. At pH between 5 and 9, the color removal efficiency fluctuated between

13 75.6 % to 86.9 %, while the total COD removal efficiency varied between 67.7 % and 90.4 %. The
M

14 optimum pH for the degradation was between 6 and 7.

D

15 Zeroual et al., (2007) investigated the effect of pH (3 to 9) on the decolorisation of different dyes by
TE

16 calcium alginate-immobilized Geotrichum sp. in FBBR. Maximum decolorisation was achieved at pH 5.

17 Above pH 5, the decolorisation rate decreased significantly. Jianping et al., (2003) studied the effect of
EP

18 pH on the denitrification treatment of low C/N ratio nitrate-nitrogen wastewater in a three-phase FBR.

19 The optimum pH was found to be between 6.5 to 7.5. Similarly, District et al., (1996) reported an
C

20 improvement in FBBR performance when pH was increased from 7 to 7.5.

AC

21 4.2. Temperature

22 . Temperature is an important operational parameter, especially in FBBR. Unlike other technologies

23 such as a fixed-bed reactor, temperature fluctuation is uncommon in FBBR because of the excellent phase

24 mixing. Therefore, t fluidization will improve the process performance in terms of temperature

25 uniformity. Nevertheless, it is necessary to establish the optimum temperature for a given process. High

39
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 temperature may cause protein denaturation while low temperature may inhibit the activity of intracellular

2 enzymes and result in low metabolism (Jianping et al., 2003).

o
3 For example, an efficient denitrification was achieved at an optimum temperature of 30 C during

4 autotrophic denitrification using FBBR (Zou et al., 2016) while Jianping et al., (2003) reported an

PT
5 optimum temperature between 20 to 35 o C for the removal of nitrate-nitrogen from wastewater using a

6 three-phase FBBR. On the other hand, Zeroual et al., (2007) reported that the decolorisation rate of four

RI
7 different dyes using calcium alginate-immobilized Geotrichum sp. increased when the temperature was

increased from 25 to 35 o C. However, when the temperature was increased to 45 o C the decolorisation

SC
8

9 rate decreased drastically. The reduction of decolorisation activity at 45 °C was attributed to the

U
10 denaturation of the enzymes involved in the degradation of the azo dyes and the loss of fungal cell

11 viability at high temperature.

AN
12 4.3. H2O2 Concentration
M

13 In FBR-Fenton, the concentration of H2O2 determines the potential OH. that can be generated in the

14 reaction. Thus, pollutant degradation increases with increase in H2O2 concentration, until the optimum
D

15 concentration is reached. Beyond the optimum concentration, process performance usually decreases due
TE

16 to scavenging effect of the OH. (Ahmadi et al., 2015). Scavenging effect occurs when the excessive H2O2

17 acts as radical scavenger and change the more reactive OH. to a less reactive hydroperoxyl radicals as
EP

18 shown in Equations 8 and 9 (Li et al., 2015).

19
C

20 H2O2 + OH. → HO2• + H2O (8)

AC

21 HO2• + OH. → H2O + O2 (9)

22 However, the effect of H2O2 on the process is closely linked to the amount of Fe2+. Therefore, the ratio

23 of H2O2 to Fe2+ is equally important. Indeed, some researchers have reported the effect of H2O2 vis-à-vis

24 the concentration of Fe2+ (Su et al., 2011). In a study to establish the optimum condition for degrading

25 2,4-Dichlorophenol using FBR-Fenton process, H2O2 was found to be the major parameter affecting the

40
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 process (Muangthai et al., 2010). Increasing H2O2 from 1 to 10 mM led to an increased degradation from

2 70 % to 98 % at a constant Fe2+ concentration (0.1 mM). Wang et al., (2015) investigated the

3 degradation of Orange G in FBR-Fenton and reported that the decolorisation of the dye increases with

4 increase in H2O2 up to 25 mg/L.

PT
5 There is variation in the optimum amount of H2O2 in the FBR-Fenton process reported in the literature

6 (Table 1). Though most of the studies have reported between 50 to 60 mM, others have used

RI
7 concentrations outside this range. Since there are differences in the reported studies either from the

SC
8 pollutant being degraded or other process parameters, these variations were to be expected. However, all

9 the studies have shown that the reaction rate increases with an increase in H2O2 concentration until the

U
10 optimum amount is reached. High concentration may inhibit the degradation due to the scavenging effect

11 of the H2O2. Also the ratio of H2O2 to Fe2+ was shown to be significant when discussing the effect of
AN
12 H2O2 on the process. Therefore, the optimum dosage of H2O2 is application-specific and depends on other

13 parameters such as the Fe2+ concentration.

M

14 4.4. Fe2+ concentration

D
TE

15 Fe2+ acts as a catalyst in decomposing H2O2 to produce OH. in FBR-Fenton. Therefore, increasing its

16 concentration leads to an increase in the production of OH.. However, increasing the concentration above
EP

17 the optimum amount can inhibit the process (Muangthai et al., 2010). This is because excess Fe2+ acts as a

18 scavenger, reacting with OH. and decreasing their availability to oxidize the pollutant. Excess Fe2+ may
C

19 also cause turbidity in the reactor, decreasing light penetration when UV is used (Wang et al., 2015). This
AC

20 underscores the importance of establishing the optimum dosage of Fe2+ vis-à-vis the amount of H2O2.

21 Previous studies have shown that the concentration of Fe2+ has a positive effect on pollutant

22 degradation in FBR-Fenton, with the optimum dosage around 5 mM in most of the reported literature

23 (Table 1). Ratanatamskul & Narkwittaya, (2010) found that the degradation of 2,6-dimethylaniline by

24 FBR-Fenton process increased from 83 to 100 % when Fe2+ was increased from 1 to 5 mM. The

25 optimum concentration was found to be 2.5 mM. In another study, Briones et al., (2012) studied the

41
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 degradation of acetaminophen using FBR-Fenton process and found that increasing the iron concentration

2 from 0.01 to 0.1 mmol-1 led to increase in ACT degradation. However, the increase was more evident at

3 acidic pH.

4 4.5. Photocatalyst Concentration

PT
5 FBR-Photocatalysis uses metal oxide, usually TiO2, as the photocatalyst. The concentration of TiO2 has

6 a strong effect on the rate of photocatalytic process and hence, the performance of the reactor. When the

RI
7 amount of TiO2 is increased, the photocatalytic activity increases and therefore higher degradation rate is

SC
8 obtained. This is because the surface area available for photocatalytic reaction increases with an increased

9 in the catalyst concentration. However, increasing the concentration above the saturation level may lead

U
10 to turbidity (Meng et al., 2010) which reduces light penetration into the reaction matrix and hinders the
AN
11 photocatalytic performance of the reactor (Zulfakar et al., 2011). Also from an economic viewpoint,

12 excess catalysts should be avoided so as to keep the operating cost as low as possible. Therefore, it is
M

13 imperative to establish the optimum dosage of the TiO2. Where immobilized TiO2 is used, additional

14 removal is obtained via adsorption of pollutants on the surface of the solid.

D

15 Youngsoo Na et al., (2005) studied the photocatalytic decolorisation of rhodamine B by immobilized

TE

16 TiO2 /UV in an FBR and reported that the decolorisation rate increased with increase in TiO2 dosage. The

17 immobilized TiO2 was responsible for both degradation and adsorption of the dye. However, since UV
EP

18 light was used, excessive amount of the catalyst could hinder light penetration. A dosage of 33.8 g/L was

19 found to be the optimum concentration. Details of typical photocatalyst concentrations reported in the
C

20 literature can be found in Table 2.

AC

21 4.6. UV Intensity

22 A source of photons, mostly UV lamp, is usually introduced into FBR-photocatalysis and FBR-Photo-

23 Fenton processes. The rate of photon increases as the number and intensity of UV lamps increase. The

24 degradation efficiency of FBR-photocatalysis increases with UV light intensity, and shorter wavelength

25 gives higher degradation (Lim and Kim, 2002). Shorter wavelength light is adsorbed more strongly by

42
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 TiO2 particles than longer one. Therefore, the penetration distance of photons into TiO2 particles is shorter

2 and electrons and holes are formed closer to the surface of the particles.

3 In their study for the Photooxidation of sodium lauryl sulfate in a three-phase FBR using TiO2/SiO2 ,

4 Nam et al., (2009) found that the degradation rate increased with an increase in the UV light intensity.

PT
5 The intensity of light determines the potential number of photons that can be generated and hence the

6 number of photons that may eventually reach the catalyst surface. Thus a 65 W lamp gave a better

RI
7 performance than a 30 W lamp.

SC
8 Also the position of the UV lamp in relation to the reaction matrix is also important. The closer the lamp

9 is to the reaction matrix the higher the amount of photons reaching the reactants. Kanki et al., (2005)

U
10 investigated the influence of UV irradiation on FBR-photocatalytic process using TiO2-coated ceramic

11 particles. Two FBRs, one with an internal UV lamp (254 nm, 9 W) and the other with an outside black
AN
12 lamp (365 nm, 15 W) were used. The reactor with the internal UV lamp degraded the pollutant 4 times

13 faster than the other reactor. This signifies the importance of the proximity of the light source to the
M

14 reaction matrix.
D

15 4.7. Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT)

TE

16 HRT is the average length of time the wastewater stays in the reactor. Generally, long HRT leads to a

17 better performance of FBR-AOPs, until the optimum time is reached. Above the optimum HRT, there is
EP

18 usually little or no further degradation of the pollutant. During a treatment of recalcitrant organic silicone

19 wastewater using FBR-Fenton, Liu et al., (2014) found out that the degradation of COD and TOC
C

20 increased as the HRT was increased from 15 – 60 min, with no further degradation thereafter. Thus, the
AC

21 optimum HRT was 60 min corresponding to COD and TOC removal efficiency of 90 % and 78 %

22 respectively. In another study for COD removal from hospital wastewater, 98 % removal efficiency was

23 achieved at an HRT of 90 minutes (Anand et al., 2015).

24 In FBBR, any change in HRT is likely to affect the OLR and hence the performance of the reactor

25 (Haroun and Idris, 2009). The efficiency of pollutant removal in FBBR is a function of the HRT which is

43
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 concomitant with OLR (Perez et al., 2007). Increasing the HRT leads to a decrease in OLR, other

2 conditions being equal. For a constant OLR, increase in HRT will lead to higher performance of the

3 process as microorganisms will have more time to degrade the pollutant. However, above the optimum

4 HRT, the process becomes independent of the HRT (Borja et al., 2001). Although HRT can be controlled

PT
5 through flow rate manipulation, it may pose fluidization challenges for the bioparticles (Christianson et

6 al., 2015). Thus, there is a need for a trade-off between the HRT and flow rates to obtain the optimum

RI
7 condition for each process.

SC
8 For aerobic FBBR, the optimum degradation is usually achieved within a short HRT, depending on the

9 microorganisms, pollutants and other operational parameters (Table 3). Rajasimman & Karthikeyan,

U
10 (2007) investigated the effect of HRT on the treatment of starch wastewater in an aerobic FBBR and

11 reported that the COD reduction increased with increased in HRT for all initial substrate concentrations.
AN
12 The optimum removal efficiency of 93.8 5% was achieved after 24 h.

13 The effect of HRT on anaerobic FBBR follows the same trend as that of aerobic FBBR. Cuenca et al.,
M

14 (2006) investigated the anaerobic biodegradation of diesel fuel-contaminated wastewater in an FBBR and
D

15 reported that both the diesel and COD removal efficiencies increased with increased in HRT for all the
TE

16 conditions investigated. Lin et al., (2010) studied the effect of HRT on dye degradation using a two-stage

17 anaerobic/aerobic FBR and reported that the overall degradation was enhanced when HRT was increased
EP

18 from 20 h to 70 h.

19 4.8. Organic Loading Rate (OLR)

C
AC

20 OLR is the measure of organic pollutants which is expressed as kilogram (kg) of COD per cubic-meter

21 (m3) per day (d). In FBBR, OLR is normally manipulated through variation of flowrate. When OLR is

22 increased, the performance of the system reduces due to shock and disturbance on the biomass. However,

23 the microorganisms adjust to the new OLR and the process performance usually resumes. Good FBBR

24 performance is usually associated with low OLR (Balaji and Poongothai, 2012). On the other hand, when

25 the substrate is limiting in the process, increasing OLR can improve the process performance (Fernández

44
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 et al., 2008). In that case, increasing OLR provides more food to microorganisms and hence more

2 biomass production.

3 Carbajo et al., (2010) reported a slight decreased in phenol and TOC degradation as the OLR was

4 increased in their treatment of phenol in an anaerobic FBBR. However, the degradation efficiency

PT
5 resumed once the microorganisms acclimatized to the new OLR. Mustafa et al., (2014) studied anaerobic

6 digestion of municipal wastewater sludge using FBBR and reported that the treatment performance

RI
7 decreased with increased in OLR. A volatile suspended solids (VSS) removal efficiency of 88 %, 79 %

and 70 % were achieved at OLRs of 4.2, 9.5 and 19 kg COD/m3-d respectively. A COD removal

SC
8

9 efficiency of 68 % was equally obtained at OLR of 19 kg COD/m3-d. Borja et al., (2004) carried out

U
10 mesophilic anaerobic digestion of wastewater from the production of protein isolates from chickpea flour

11 in an FBBR and reported that the percentage COD removal decreased with increase in OLR.
AN
12 5.0. Conclusions and Future Perspectives
M

13 FBR has been widely used in wastewater treatment, particularly biological processes and AOPs, due to

14 its excellent features such as high mass transfer rate, excellent mixing and low sludge generation. Few
D

15 studies have also appeared on the use of FBR for adsorptive removal of recalcitrant pollutants. Since the
TE

16 design and operation of FBR depends largely on experience and empirical approach, an understanding of

17 the important design and operational parameters is necessary for successful application of the technology.
EP

18 This review discusses the applications of FBR in wastewater treatment, with emphasis on design and

19 operational parameters affecting process performances. Although the review is non-exhaustive, especially
C

20 with the technology still unfolding, major parameters affecting the process such as reactor geometry,
AC

21 particle size, particle density and loading, superficial fluid velocity, catalyst concentration, pH, HRT, and

22 OLR have been discussed.

23 Reviewed literature shows that using FBR in wastewater treatment increases process performance and

24 could help in addressing some of the drawbacks of the conventional technologies. In the last two years,

25 more than 80 % of the reported studies on FBR applications in wastewater treatment have been on FBR-

45
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Fenton and FBBR. Therefore, these two represent the most important applications of FBR in wastewater

2 treatment. In particular, FBR has shown potential to overcome the problem of excessive sludge generation

3 in conventional Fenton oxidation. Reported studies show that the support materials in FBR-Fenton can

4 crystallize about 30 – 65 % iron from the solution and can achieve 15 – 20 % better performance than

PT
5 conventional Fenton oxidation. This indicates that FBR can increase the cost-effectiveness of Fenton

6 oxidation. In biological wastewater treatment, most of the recent studies have been on improving process

RI
7 performance, energy efficiency and fouling prevention in membrane bioreactor. Fluidized bed membrane

SC
8 bioreactor using GAC as support material reduces membrane fouling and consequently lowers energy

9 requirements of the process. In some studies, anaerobic FBBR has been integrated with AOPs such as

U
10 photocatalysis, where energy generated from methane can provide the power required by the UV.

11 Although previous studies have shown encouraging results on the application of FBR in wastewater,
AN
12 more studies will be needed to address some of the existing gaps in the literature. One of the major

13 challenges is that fluidization is still an empirical science, relying largely on empirical correlations and
M

14 heuristic approach. As FBR operation is known to be inherently complex, modeling and optimization of
D

15 wastewater treatment using FBR are challenging due to the additional parameters involved. Fortunately,
TE

16 many models have been put forward for the gas-solid FBR, which can be modified to suit the liquid-solid

17 FBR. Studies on the influence of the major parameters on treatment performance of FBR are somewhat
EP

18 limited. The existing studies have largely reported on the treatment performance and the effect of some

19 operational parameters. Future studies are therefore needed on process optimization and modelling of
C

20 FBR in wastewater treatment, taking the process hydrodynamics into consideration.

AC

21 Application of FBR-Fenton has shown potential under laboratory-scale investigations. However, more

22 studies are needed towards process improvement and possible large-scale applications. In this context,

23 optimization of solid carriers used in FBR-Fenton is particularly imperative since iron crystallization and

24 removal depend on the type of carriers, particle size and loading. This is yet to be put forward. It is not

25 clear yet, from the literature, how the superficial velocity affects the treatment performance of FBR-

26 Fenton. Since the effect of process parameters depends on the pollutant being degraded, future studies

46
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 should investigate the efficacy of FBR-Fenton in treating a wide range of recalcitrant pollutants. It is also

2 important to consider the effectiveness of FBR-Fenton in treating real wastewater as only about 15 % of

3 the reported studies have been on real wastewaters. Despite the reported excellent performance of FBR-

4 Fenton under treatability studies, large-scale applications will depend largely on their cost-effectiveness.

PT
5 Although combining FBR with Fenton can increase the cost-effectiveness due to the low sludge

6 production and improved process performance, the cost of the combined technology still needs to be

RI
7 evaluated.

SC
8 Combining FBBR with other wastewater treatment technologies such as membrane bioreactor is an

9 attractive research area. Some recent studies have shown that combining FBR with membrane bioreactor

U
10 can improve process performance (Gao et al., 2014) and alleviate membrane fouling (Kim et al., 2016).
AN
11 This has the potential to reduce energy consumption and increase cost-effectiveness of the process.

12 Another approach that is considered attractive is the integration of biological processes and AOPs using
M

13 FBR. Since AOPs are more cost-effective when applied as tertiary treatment technologies, FBBR can be

14 used as initial treatment to reduce the organic loading, followed by FBR-AOPs to mineralize the
D

15 recalcitrant pollutants. For example, integrating anaerobic digestion and photocatalytic oxidation using
TE

16 FBR can improve cost-effectiveness as the methane generated from the anaerobic digestion could provide

17 the necessary energy for driving AOPs.

EP

18 It is obvious that the excellent features of FBR can be exploited in wastewater treatment as indicated

19 by the recent growing interest in the topic. Overall, FBR has the potential to improve process performance
C

20 and increase the cost-effectiveness of various wastewater treatments, particularly AOPs and biological
AC

21 processes. A cost-effective wastewater treatment technology is particularly important to industries as they

22 strive to adopt zero-discharge as a means of cost reduction and environmental sustainability. The

23 outcomes of this study provide a prerequisite knowledge for understanding the important parameters

24 affecting the performance of FBR in wastewater treatment while at the same time highlighting some

25 existing gaps for future studies.

47
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Acknowledgment

2 This work was financially supported by the University of Malaya High Impact Research Grant

3 (UM.C/HIR/MOHE/ENG/37) from the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia and University of Malaya,

4 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

PT
5 References

RI
6 Abdel-aziz, M.H., El-abd, M.Z., Bassyouni, M., 2016. Heat and mass transfer in three phase fluidized bed
7 containing high density particles at high gas velocities. Int. J. Therm. Sci. 102, 145–153.
8 doi:10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2015.11.020

SC
9 Abdelmotalib, H.M., Youssef, M.A.M., Hassan, A.A., Youn, S.B., Im, I.T., 2015. Heat transfer process in
10 gas-solid fluidized bed combustors: A review. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 89, 567–575.
11 doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2015.05.085

U
12 Abidi, N., Errais, E., Duplay, J., Berez, A., Jrad, A., Schafer, G., Ghazi, M., Semhi, K., Trabelsi-Ayadi,
13 M., 2015. Treatment of dye-containing effluent by natural clay. J. Clean. Prod. 86, 432–440.
14 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.043
AN
15 Ahmadi, M., Ramavandi, B., Sahebi, S., 2015. Efficient Degradation of a Biorecalcitrant Pollutant from
16 Wastewater Using a Fluidized Catalyst-Bed Reactor. Chem. Eng. Commun. 202, 1118–1129.
17 doi:10.1080/00986445.2014.907567
M

18 Akilamudhan, P., Sivakumar, P., Mohanraj, R., Senthilkumar, K., 2014. Prediction of Solid holdup in an
19 Internal Loop Airlift Fluidized Bed Reactor. Interntional J. ChemTech Res. 6, 4460–4467.
20 Alalm, M.G., Tawfik, A., Ookawara, S., 2015. Comparison of solar TiO2 photocatalysis and solar photo-
D

21 Fenton for treatment of pesticides industry wastewater: Operational conditions, kinetics, and costs.
22 J. Water Process Eng. 8, 55–63. doi:10.1016/j.jwpe.2015.09.007
TE

23 Alfredo, J.B., López, J.S., Rodríguez, P.U., 2013. Fluidized bed Series: Secondary Treatments [WWW
24 Document]. Technol. Fact Sheets Effl. Treat. Plants Text. Ind. URL
25 http://www.thermopedia.com/content/46/?tid=104&sn=1297
EP

26 Anand, A.A.., Adish Kumar, S., Rajesh Banu, J., Ginni, G., 2015. The performance of fluidized bed solar
27 photo Fenton oxidation in the removal of COD from hospital wastewaters. Desalin. Water Treat.
28 3994, 1–7. doi:10.1080/19443994.2015.1021843
29 Ananpattarachai, J., Kajitvichyanukul, P., 2015. Enhancement of chromium removal efficiency on
C

30 adsorption and photocatalytic reduction using a bio-catalyst, titania-impregnated chitosan/xylan

31 hybrid film. J. Clean. Prod. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.098
AC

32 Andalib, M., Elbeshbishy, E., Mustafa, N., Hafez, H., Nakhla, G., Zhu, J., 2014. Performance of an
33 anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor (AnFBR) for digestion of primary municipal wastewater
34 treatment biosolids and bioethanol thin stillage. Renew. Energy 71, 276–285.
35 doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.05.039
36 Andalib, M., Hafez, H., Elbeshbishy, E., Nakhla, G., Zhu, J., 2012. Treatment of thin stillage in a high-
37 rate anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor (AFBR). Bioresour. Technol. 121, 411–418.
38 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.008
39 Anotai, J., Chen, C., Bellotindos, L.M., Lu, M., 2012a. Treatment of TFT-LCD wastewater containing
40 ethanolamine by fluidized-bed Fenton technology. Bioresour. Technol. 113, 272–275.

48
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.100
2 Anotai, J., Sakulkittimasak, P., Boonrattanakij, N., Lu, M., 2009. Kinetics of nitrobenzene oxidation and
3 iron crystallization in fluidized-bed Fenton process. J. Hazard. Mater. 165, 874–880.
4 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.10.062
5 Anotai, J., Su, C., Tsai, Y., Lu, M., 2010. Effect of hydrogen peroxide on aniline oxidation by electro-
6 Fenton and fluidized-bed Fenton processes. J. Hazard. Mater. 183, 888–893.
7 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.07.112

PT
8 Anotai, J., Thuptimdang, P., Su, C., Lu, M., 2012b. Degradation of o -toluidine by fluidized-bed Fenton
9 process : statistical and kinetic study. Env. Sci Pollut Res 19, 169–176. doi:10.1007/s11356-011-
10 0553-x

RI
11 Apollo, S., Aoyi, O., 2016. Combined anaerobic digestion and photocatalytic treatment of distillery
12 effluent in fluidized bed reactors focusing on energy conservation. Environ. Technol. In press.
13 doi:10.1080/09593330.2016.1146342

SC
14 Asghar, A., Raman, A.A.A., Daud, W.M.A.W., 2015. Advanced oxidation processes for in-situ
15 production of hydrogen peroxide/hydroxyl radical for textile wastewater treatment: A review. J.
16 Clean. Prod. 87, 826–838. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.010

U
17 Askaripour, H., Dehkordi, A.M., 2016. Effects of initial static bed height on fractional conversion and bed
18 pressure drop in tapered-in and tapered-out fluidized bed reactors. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 79, 50–61.
AN
19 doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2015.08.006
20 Askaripour, H., Dehkordi, A.M., 2015. Effects of Initial Static Bed Height on Fractional Conversion and
21 Bed Pressure Drop in Tapered-in and Tapered-out Fluidized Bed Reactors. Int. J. Multiph. Flow 08.
22 doi:10.1016/j.ijmultiphaseflow.2015.08.006
M

23 Ausavasukhi, A., Kampoosaen, C., Kengnok, O., 2015. Adsorption characteristics of Congo red on
24 carbonized leonardite. J. Clean. Prod. 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.034
D

25 Balaji, K., Poongothai, S., 2012. Evaluation of Fluidized Bed Reactor in treating Dyeing effluent. Int. J.
26 Eng. Sci. Technol. 4, 3134–3139.
TE

27 Begum, S.S., Radha, K. V, 2015. Gas – Liquid Mass Transfer Studies in Inverse Fluidized Bed Biofilm
28 Reactor for the Biodegradation of Industrial Effluent Rich in Phenolic Compounds. Environ. Prog.
29 Sustain. Energy 00, 1–6. doi:10.1002/ep
30 Bello, M.M., Nourouzi, M.M., Abdullah, L.C., Choong, T.S.Y., Koay, Y.S., Keshani, S., 2013. POME is
EP

31 treated for removal of color from biologically treated POME in fixed bed column : Applying
32 wavelet neural network ( WNN ). J. Hazard. Mater. 262, 106–113.
33 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.06.053
C

34 Bellotindos, L.M., Lu, M., Methatham, T., Lu, M., 2014. Factors affecting degradation of dimethyl
35 sulfoxide (DMSO) by fluidized-bed Fenton process. Env. Sci Pollut Res 21, 14158–14165.
36 doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3320-y
AC

37 Borja, R., Banks, C.J., Wang, Z., 1995. Kinetic Evaluation of an Anaerobic Fluidized-Bed Reaction
38 Treating Slaughterhouse Wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 52, 163–167.
39 Borja, R., Gonz, E., Raposo, F., Mill, F., Mart, A., 2001. Performance evaluation of a mesophilic
40 anaerobic fluidized-bed reactor treating wastewater derived from the production of proteins from
41 extracted sunflower four. Bioresour. Technol. 76, 45–52.
42 Borja, R., Rincón, B., Raposo, F., Dom, J.R., Millán, F., Mart, A., 2004. Mesophilic anaerobic digestion
43 in a fluidised-bed reactor of wastewater from the production of protein isolates from chickpea flour.
44 Process Biochem. 39, 1913–1921. doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2003.09.022

49
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Brackin, M.J., Mckenzie, D.E., Hughes, B.M., Heitkamp, M.A., 1996. Laboratory-scale evaluation of
2 fluidized bed reactor technology for biotreatment of maleic anhydride process wastewater. J. Ind.
3 Microbiol. 216–223.
4 Briones, R.M., de Luna, M.D.G., Lu, M.-C., 2012. Optimization of acetaminophen degradation by
5 fluidized-bed Fenton process. Desalin. Water Treat. 45, 100–111.
6 doi:10.1080/19443994.2012.692015
7 Buffiere, P., Moletta, R., Elmaleh, S., 1998. Anaerobic digestion of wine distillery wastewater in down-

PT
8 flow fluidized bed. Water Res. 32, 3593–3600.
9 Burghate, S.P., Ingole, N.W., 2013. Fluidized Bed Biofilm Reactor – A Novel Wastewater Treatment
10 Reactor. Int. J. Res. Environ. Sci. Technol. 3, 145–155.

RI
11 Buthiyappan, A., Abdul Aziz, A.R., Wan Daud, W.M.A., 2016. Recent advances and prospects of
12 catalytic advanced oxidation process in treating textile effluents. Rev. Chem. Eng. 32, 1–47.
13 doi:10.1515/revce-2015-0034

SC
14 Carbajo, J.B., Boltes, K., Leton, P., 2010. Treatment of phenol in an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor
15 (AFBR): continuous and batch regime. Biodegradation 21, 603–613. doi:10.1007/s10532-010-9328-
16 1

U
17 Cechinel, M.A.P., Ulson De Souza, S.M.A.G., Ulson De Souza, A.A., 2014. Study of lead (II) adsorption
18 onto activated carbon originating from cow bone. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 342–349.
AN
19 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.020
20 Chen, M., Ren, H., Ding, L., Gao, B., 2015. Effect of different carriers and operating parameters on
21 degradation of flax wastewater by fluidized-bed Fenton process. Water Sci. Technol. 71, 1760–
22 1767. doi:10.2166/wst.2015.147
M

23 Chen, T.-C., Matira, E.M., Lu, M.-C., Dalida, M.L.P., 2016. Degradation of dimethyl sulfoxide through
24 fluidized-bed Fenton process. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 300, 1–12.
25 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.06.069
D

26 Cheng, C.K., Deraman, M.R., Ng, K.H., Khan, M.R., 2016. Preparation of titania doped argentum
27 photocatalyst and its photoactivity towards palm oil mill effluent degradation. J. Clean. Prod. 112,
TE

28 1128–1135. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.104
29 Cheng, H., Chou, S., Chen, S., Yu, C., 2014. Photoassisted Fenton degradation of phthalocyanine dyes
30 from wastewater of printing industry using Fe (II)/γ-Al2O3 catalyst in up-flow fluidized-bed. J.
EP

31 Environ. Sci. 26, 1307–1312. doi:10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60604-X

32 Choi, H.S., Shin, M., 1999. Hydrodynamics Study of Two Different Inverse Fluidized Reactors for the
33 Application of Wastewater Treatment. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 16, 670–676.
C

34 Choi, J., Min, J., Lee, W., Lee, S.B., 2000. Approximated Solution of Model for Three-Phase Fluidized
35 Bed Bio- film Reactor in Wastewater Treatment. Biotechnol. Bioprocess 5, 65–70.
AC

36 Chong, M.N., Cho, Y.J., Poh, P.E., Jin, B., 2015. Evaluation of Titanium dioxide photocatalytic
37 technology for the treatment of reactive Black 5 dye in synthetic and real greywater effluents. J.
38 Clean. Prod. 89, 196–202. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.014
39 Chong, M.N., Lei, S., Jin, B., Saint, C., Chow, C.W.K., 2009. Optimisation of an annular photoreactor
40 process for degradation of Congo Red using a newly synthesized titania impregnated kaolinite nano-
41 photocatalyst. Sep. Purif. Technol. 67, 355–363. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2009.04.001
42 Chou, S., Huang, C., 1999. Effect of Fe (II) on catalytic oxidation in a fluidized bed reactor.
43 Chemosphere 39, 1997–2006.
44 Christianson, L., Lepine, C., Tsukuda, S., Saito, K., Summerfelt, S., 2015. Nitrate removal effectiveness

50
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 of fluidized sulfur-based autotrophic denitrification biofilters for recirculating aquaculture systems.

2 Aquac. Eng. 68, 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2015.07.002
3 Converti, A., Borghi, M. Del, Ferraiolo, G., 1990. The fluidized bed reactor in the anaerobic treatment of
4 wine wastewater. Bioprocess Eng. 5.
5 Corella, J., Toledo, J.M., Molina, G., 2007. A review on dual fluidized-bed biomass gasifiers. Ind. Eng.
6 Chem. Res. 46, 6831–6839. doi:10.1021/ie0705507

PT
7 Couto, S.R., Dominguez, A., Sanrom, A., 2002. Photocatalytic degradation of dyes in aqueous solution
8 operating in a fluidised bed reactor. Chemosphere 46, 83–86.
9 Cuenca, M.A., Veluzi, J., Lohi, A., Upreti, S.R., 2006. Anaerobic biodegradation of diesel fuel-
10

RI
contaminated wastewater in a fluidized bed reactor. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 29–37.
11 doi:10.1007/s00449-006-0053-4
12 Delebarre, A., Morales, J., Ramos, L., 2004. Influence of the bed mass on its fluidization characteristics.

SC
13 Chem. Eng. J. 98, 81–88. doi:10.1016/S1385-8947(03)00206-7
14 Demiral, H., Güngör, C., 2016. Adsorption of copper(II) from aqueous solutions on activated carbon
15 prepared from grape bagasse. J. Clean. Prod. 124. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.084
16 Deng, Z., Fung, K.Y., Ng, K.M., Wei, C., 2016. Design of anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor – Dyeing

U
17 effluents. Chem. Eng. Sci. 139, 273–284. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2015.09.029
AN
18 District, S., Angeles, L., Creek, W., 1996. Anaerobic dechlorination using a fluidized-bed GAC reactor.
19 Water Res. 30, 160–170.
20 Diz, H., Novak, J., 1998. Fluidized Bed for Removing Iron and Acidity from Acid Mine Drainage. J.
21 Environ. Eng. 124, 701.
M

22 Dong, S., Zhang, X., He, F., Dong, S., Wang, B., 2014. Visible-light photocatalytic degradation of methyl
23 orange over spherical activated carbon-supported and Er 3 + : YAlO3-doped TiO2 in a fluidized
24 bed. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 90, 880–887. doi:10.1002/jctb.4391
D

25 Dora, D.T.K., Mohanty, Y.K., Roy, G.K., 2012. Hydrodynamics of three-phase fluidization of a
26 homogeneous ternary mixture of irregular particles. Chem. Eng. Sci. 79, 210–218.
TE

27 doi:10.1016/j.ces.2012.04.035
28 Dora, T.K., Mohanty, Y.K., Roy, G.K., Sarangi, B., 2013. Adsorption studies of As ( III ) from
29 wastewater with a novel adsorbent in a three-phase fluidized bed by using response surface method.
30 J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 1, 150–158. doi:10.1016/j.jece.2013.04.011
EP

31 Dutta, S., Suciu, G.D., 1992. An Experimental Study of the Effectiveness of Baffles and Internals in
32 Breaking Bubbles in Fluid Beds. J. Chem. Eng. Japan 25, 345 – 348.
33 Efstathios, E., Michaelides, S., 2013. Fluidized Bed Reactors, in: Heat and Mass Transfer in Particulate
C

34 Suspensions. Springer, Newyork, pp. 89–119. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5854-8

AC

35 Eldyasti, A., Nakhla, G., Zhu, J., 2014. Influence of biofilm thickness on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions
36 from denitrifying fluidized bed bioreactors (DFBBRs). J. Biotechnol. 192, 281–290.
37 doi:10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.10.008
38 Escudero, D.R., 2010. Bed height and material density effects on fluidized bed hydrodynamics. Iowa
39 State University.
40 Fernández, N., Montalvo, S., Borja, R., Guerrero, L., Sánchez, E., Cortés, I., Colmenarejo, M.F.,
41 Travieso, L., Raposo, F., 2008. Performance evaluation of an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor with
42 natural zeolite as support material when treating high-strength distillery wastewater. Renew. Energy
43 33, 2458–2466. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2008.02.002
44 Forster, C.F., 1980. Aeration of fluidised bed reactors. Environ. Technol. Lett. 1, 253–258.

51
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 doi:10.1080/09593338009383974
2 Gao, D., Hu, Q., Yao, C., Ren, N., 2014. Treatment of domestic wastewater by an integrated anaerobic
3 fluidized-bed membrane bioreactor under moderate to low temperature conditions. Bioresour.
4 Technol. 159, 193–198. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.086
5 Garcia, E.H., Rodriguez, A., Prados, A., Klein, J., 1999. A fluid dynamic model for three-phase airlift
6 reactors. Chem. Eng. Sci. 54, 2359–2370.

PT
7 Gaya, I.U., Halim, A., 2008. Heterogeneous photocatalytic degradation of organic contaminants over
8 titanium dioxide : A review of fundamentals , progress and problems. J. Photochem. Photobiol. C
9 Photochem. Rev. 9, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.jphotochemrev.2007.12.003
10

RI
Geldart, D., 1973. Types of Fluidization. Powder Technol. 7, 285–292.
11 Glaze, W.H., Kang, J.-W., Chapin, D.H., 1987. The chemistry of water treatment processes involving
12 ozone, hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet radiation. Ozone Sci. Eng. 9, 335–352.

SC
13 Gonzalez, G., Herrera, M.G., Garcia, M.T., Pena, M.M., 2001. Biodegradation of phenol in a continuous
14 process : comparative study of stirred tank and fluidized-bed bioreactors. Bioresour. Technol. 76,
15 245–251.
16 Gorji-kandi, S., Alavi-amleshi, S.M., Mostoufi, N., 2015. Experimental investigating the effect of bed

U
17 geometry on solids mixing in fluidized beds. Part. Sci. Technol. 6351, 1–7.
18 doi:10.1080/02726351.2015.1054532
AN
19 Han, H., Lee, W., Kim, Y., Kwon, J., Choi, H., Kang, Y., Kim, S., 2003. Phase Hold-up and Critical
20 Fluidization Velocity in a Three-Phase Inverse Fluidized Bed. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 20, 163–168.
21 Haribabu, K., Sivasubramanian, V., 2016. Biodegradation of organic content in wastewater in fluidized
M

22 bed bioreactor using low-density biosupport. Desalin. Water Treat. 3994.

23 doi:10.1080/19443994.2014.992978
24 Haroun, M., Idris, A., 2009. Treatment of textile wastewater with an anaerobic fluidized bed reactor.
D

25 Desalination 237, 357–366. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.01.027

26 Heijnen, J.J., Mulder, A., Enger, W., Hoeks, F., 1989. Review on the application of anaerobic fluidized
TE

27 bed reactors in waste-water treatment. Chem. Eng. J. 41. doi:10.1016/0300-9467(89)80029-2

28 Huang, C.P., Huang, Y.H., 2009. Application of an active immobilized iron oxide with catalytic H2O2
29 for the mineralization of phenol in a batch photo-fluidized bed reactor. Appl. Catal. A Gen. 357,
30 135–141. doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2008.12.043
EP

31 Huang, J., Yan, J., Wu, C., 2000. Comparative bioparticle and hydrodynamic characteristics of
32 conventional and tapered anaerobic fluidized-bed bioreactors. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 75,
33 269–278.
C

34 Jaafari, J., Mesdaghinia, A., Nabizadeh, R., Hoseini, M., 2014. Influence of upflow velocity on
35 performance and biofilm characteristics of Anaerobic Fluidized Bed Reactor ( AFBR ) in treating
AC

36 high-strength wastewater. J. Environ. Heal. Sci. Eng. 12, 1–10. doi:10.1186/s40201-014-0139-x

37 Janyasuthiwong, S., Rene, E.R., Esposito, G., Lens, P.N.L., 2015. Effect of pH on Cu , Ni and Zn
38 removal by biogenic sulfide precipitation in an inversed fluidized bed bioreactor. Hydrometallurgy
39 158, 94–100. doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2015.10.009
40 Jena, H.M., Roy, G.K., Meikap, B.C., 2009. Hydrodynamics of a gas – liquid – solid fluidized bed with
41 hollow cylindrical particles. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 48, 279–287.
42 doi:10.1016/j.cep.2008.04.003
43 Jianping, W., Lei, P., Liping, D., Guozhu, M., 2003. The denitrification treatment of low C/N ratio
44 nitrate-nitrogen wastewater in a gas – liquid – solid fluidized bed bioreactor. Chem. Eng. J. 94, 155–

52
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 159. doi:10.1016/S1385-8947(03)00049-4
2 Jin, Y., Wei, F., Wang, Y., 2003. Effect of Internal Tubes and Baffles, in: Yang, W.-C. (Ed.), Handbook
3 of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle Systems. Marcel Dekker, Inc, New York, pp. 171–200.
4 Jordening, H.-J., Buchholz, K., 1999. Fixed Film Stationary Bed and Fluidized Bed Reactors, in: Rehm,
5 H.-J., Reed, G. (Eds.), Biotechnology: Environmental Processes I. Wiley-VCH Verlag, GmBH,
6 Weinheim, Germany, pp. 493–512. doi:10.1002/9783527620999.ch24l

PT
7 Jovanovic, M., Grbavcic, Z., Rajic, N., Obradovic, B., 2014. Removal of Cu (II) from aqueous solutions
8 by using fluidized zeolite A beads : Hydrodynamic and sorption studies. Chem. Eng. Sci. 117, 85–
9 92. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2014.06.017
10

RI
Kanki, T., Hamasaki, S., Sano, N., Toyoda, A., 2005. Water purification in a fluidized bed photocatalytic
11 reactor using TiO2 -coated ceramic particles. Chem. Eng. J. 108, 155–160.
12 doi:10.1016/j.cej.2005.01.014

SC
13 Karadag, D., Koroglu, O.E., Ozkaya, B., Cakmakci, M., 2015. A review on anaerobic biofilm reactors for
14 the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochem. 50, 262–271.
15 doi:10.1016/j.procbio.2014.11.005
16 Khan, M.J.H., Hussain, M.A., Mansourpour, Z., Mostoufi, N., Ghasem, N.M., Abdullah, E.C., 2014. CFD

U
17 simulation of fluidized bed reactors for polyolefin production – A review. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 20,
18 3919–3946. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2014.01.044
AN
19 Kim, J., Kim, K., Ye, H., Lee, E., Shin, C., McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., 2011. Anaerobic fluidized bed
20 membrane bioreactor for wastewater treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 576–81.
21 doi:10.1021/es1027103
M

22 Kim, K., Yang, W., Ye, Y., Labarge, N., Logan, B.E., 2016. Performance of anaerobic fluidized
23 membrane bioreactors using effluents of microbial fuel cells treating domestic wastewater.
24 Bioresour. Technol. 208, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2016.02.067
D

25 Kim, S.D., Kang, Y., 1997. Heat and mass transfer in three-phase fluidized-bed reactors--an overview.
26 Chem. Eng. Sci. 52, 3639–3660.
TE

27 Kulkarni, S.J., Tapre, R.W., Patil, S. V., Sawarkar, M.B., 2013. Adsorption of Phenol from Wastewater in
28 Fluidized Bed Using Coconut Shell Activated Carbon. Procedia Eng. 51, 300–307.
29 doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.040
30 Kunii, D., Levenspiel, O., 1991. Fluidization Engineering, Second edi. ed. Butterworth-Heinemann,
EP

31 Boston.
32 Lakshmi, A.C.V., Balamurugan, M., Sivakumar, M., Samuel, T.N., Velan, M., 2000. Minimum
33 fluidization velocity and friction factor in a liquid-solid inverse fluidized bed reactor. Bioprocess
C

34 Eng. 22, 461–466.

35 Lee, C., Yang, W., Chiou, C., 2006. Utilization of water clarifier sludge for copper removal in a liquid
AC

36 fluidized-bed reactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 129, 58–63. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.06.045

37 Lee, D.K., Kim, S.C., Cho, I.C., Kim, S.J., Kim, S.W., 2004. Photocatalytic oxidation of microcystin-LR
38 in a fluidized bed reactor having TiO2-coated activated carbon. Sep. Purif. Technol. 34, 59–66.
39 doi:10.1016/S1383-5866(03)00175-8
40 Li, H., Priambodo, R., Wang, Y., Zhang, H., Huang, Y., 2015. Mineralization of bisphenol A by photo-
41 Fenton-like process using a waste iron oxide catalyst in a three-phase fluidized bed reactor. J.
42 Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 53, 68–73. doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2015.02.024
43 Li, J., Ge, Z., He, Z., 2014. A fluidized bed membrane bioelectrochemical reactor for energy-efficient
44 wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol. 167, 310–5. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.06.034

53
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Lim, T., Kim, S., 2002. Photocatalytic Degradation of Trichloroethylene over TiO2/SiO2 in an Annulus
2 Fluidized Bed Reactor. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 19, 1072–1077.
3 Lin, J., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Lei, L., 2010. Biodegradation of Reactive blue 13 in a two-stage anaerobic /
4 aerobic fluidized beds system with a Pseudomonas sp . isolate. Bioresour. Technol. 101, 34–40.
5 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.07.037
6 Liu, J., Li, J., Mei, R., Wang, F., Sellamuthu, B., 2014. Treatment of recalcitrant organic silicone
7 wastewater by fluidized-bed Fenton process. Sep. Purif. Technol. 132, 16–22.

PT
8 doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2014.04.050
9 Lu, M., Chen, J., Chang, C., 1999. Oxidation of dichlorvos with hydrogen peroxide using ferrous ion as
10 catalyst.

RI
11 Luna, M.D.G. de, Briones, R.M., Su, C., Lu, M., 2013. Kinetics of acetaminophen degradation by Fenton
12 oxidation in a fluidized-bed reactor. Chemosphere 90, 1444–1448.
13 doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.003

SC
14 Mailler, R., Gasperi, J., Coquet, Y., Bulet??, A., Vulliet, E., Deshayes, S., Zedek, S., Mirande-Bret, C.,
15 Eudes, V., Bressy, A., Caupos, E., Moilleron, R., Chebbo, G., Rocher, V., 2016. Removal of a wide
16 range of emerging pollutants from wastewater treatment plant discharges by micro-grain activated

U
17 carbon in fluidized bed as tertiary treatment at large pilot scale. Sci. Total Environ. 542, 983–996.
18 doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.153
AN
19 Malik, P.K., Saha, S.K., 2003. Oxidation of direct dyes with hydrogen peroxide using ferrous ion as
20 catalyst. Sep. Purif. Technol. 31, 241–250. doi:10.1016/S1383-5866(02)00200-9
21 Matira, E.M., Chen, T.-C., Lu, M.-C., Dalida, M.L.P., 2015. Degradation of dimethyl sulfoxide through
22 fluidized-bed Fenton process. J. Hazard. Mater. 300, 218–226. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.06.069
M

23 Meng, C.N., Jin, B., Chow, C.W.K., Saint, C., 2010. Recent developments in photocatalytic water
24 treatment technology : A review. Water Res. 44, 2997–3027. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2010.02.039
D

25 Midha, V., Jha, M.K., Dey, A., 2012. Sulfide oxidation in fluidized bed bioreactor using nylon support
26 material. J. Environ. Sci. 24, 512–519. doi:10.1016/S1001-0742(11)60799-7
TE

27 Mohanty, K., Das, D., Biswas, M.N., 2008. Treatment of phenolic wastewater in a novel multi-stage
28 external loop airlift reactor using activated carbon. Sep. Purif. Technol. 58, 311–319.
29 doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2007.05.005
30 Mostoufi, N., Chaouki, J., 2001. Local solid mixing in gas–solid fluidized beds. Powder Technol. 114,
EP

31 23–31. doi:10.1016/S0032-5910(00)00258-8
32 Muangthai, I., Ratanatamsakul, C., Lu, M., 2010. Removal of 2, 4-Dichlorophenol By Fluidized-Bed
33 Fenton Process. Sustain. Environ. Res. 20, 325–331.
C

34 Mungmart, M., Kijsirichareonchai, U., Tonanon, N., Prechanont, S., Panpranot, J., Yamamoto, T., 2011.
35 Metal catalysts impregnated on porous media for aqueous phenol decomposition within three-phase
AC

36 fluidized-bed reactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 185, 606–612. doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.09.061

37 Mustafa, N., Elbeshbishy, E., Nakhla, G., Zhu, J., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of municipal wastewater
38 sludges using anaerobic fluidized bed bioreactor. Bioresour. Technol. 172, 461–466.
39 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.09.081
40 Na, Y., Kim, D., Lee, C., Lee, S., Park, Y., Oh, Y., Park, S., Song, S., 2004. Photocatalytic Decolorization
41 of Rhodamine B by Fluidized Bed Reactor with Hollow Ceramic Ball Photocatalyst. Korean J.
42 Chem. Eng. 21, 430–435.
43 Na, Y., Song, S., Park, Y., 2005. Photocatalytic Decolorization of Rhodamine B by Immobilized
44 TiO2/UV in a Fluidized-bed Reactor. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 22, 196–200. doi:10.1007/BF02701484

54
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Nam, W., Kim, J., Han, G., 2002. Photocatalytic oxidation of methyl orange in a three-phase fluidized
2 bed reactor. Chemosphere 47, 1019–1024.
3 Nam, W., Woo, K., Han, G., 2009. Photooxidation of anionic surfactant (sodium lauryl sulfate) in a three-
4 phase fluidized bed reactor using TiO2/SiO2 photocatalyst. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 15, 348–353.
5 doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2008.11.006
6 Nguyen-tien, K., Patwari, A.N., Schume, A., Deckwer, W.-D., 1984. Liquid Dispersion in Three-phase
7 Fluidized Beds. J. Chem. Eng. Japan 1249, 3–4.

PT
8 Nikolov, V., Farag, I., Nikov, I., 2000. Gas-liquid mass transfer in bioreactor with three-phase inverse
9 fluidized bed. Bioprocess Eng. 23, 427–429.
10

RI
Ochieng, A., Odiyo, J.O., Mutsago, M., 2003. Biological treatment of mixed industrial wastewaters in a
11 fluidised bed reactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 96, 79–90.
12 Ochieng, A., Ogada, T., Sisenda, W., Wambua, P., 2002. Brewery wastewater treatment in a fluidised bed

SC
13 bioreactor. J. Hazard. Mater. 90, 311–321.
14 Olowson, P.A., 1994. Influence of pressure and fluidization velocity on the hydrodynamics of a fluidized
15 bed containing horizontal tubes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 49, 2437–2446.
16 Onysko, K.A., Robinson, C.W., Budman, H.M., 2002. Improved Modelling of the Unsteady-State

U
17 Behaviour of an Immobilized-Cell, Fluidized-Bed Bioreactor for Phenol Degradation. Can. J. Chem.
18 Eng. 80, 239–252.
AN
19 Othaman, R.M., Hassan, A.M., Shirai, Y., Baharuddin, S.A., Ali, M.A.A., Idris, J., 2014. Treatment of
20 effluents from palm oil mill process to achieve river water quality for reuse as recycled water in a
21 zero emission system. J. Clean. Prod. 67, 58–61. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.12.004
M

22 Parthiban, R., Iyer, P.V.R., Sekaran, G., 2007. Anaerobic tapered fluidized bed reactor for starch
23 wastewater treatment and modeling using multilayer perceptron neural network. J. Environ. Sci. 19,
24 1416–1423.
D

25 Pelaez, M., Antoniou, M.G., He, X., Dionysiou, D.D., Cruz, A. a De, Tsimeli, K., Triantis, T., Kaloudis,
26 T., Williams, C., Aubel, M., Foss, A., Khan, U., Shea, K.E.O., Westrick, J., 2010. Xenobiotics in the
TE

27 Urban Water Cycle. Environ. Pollut. 16, 101 – 127. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3509-7

28 Pen, R.I.Æ.F.J., Jose, X.S.Æ., 2008. Feasibility study of degradation of phenol in a fluidized bed
29 bioreactor with a cyclodextrin polymer as biofilm carrier. Biodegradation 19, 589–597.
30 doi:10.1007/s10532-007-9164-0
EP

31 Perez, M., Rodriguez-Cano, R., Romero, L.I., Sales, D., 2007. Performance of anaerobic thermophilic
32 fluidized bed in the treatment of cutting-oil wastewater. Bioresour. Technol. 98, 3456–3463.
33 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.005
C

34 Pouran, S.R., Abdul Raman, A.A., Wan Daud, W.M.A., 2014. Review on the application of modified iron
35 oxides as heterogeneous catalysts in Fenton reactions. J. Clean. Prod. 64, 24–35.
AC

36 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.013
37 Pozzo, R.L., Giombi, J.L., Baltanás, M. a, Cassano, A.E., 2000. The performance in a fluidized bed
38 reactor of photocatalysts immobilized onto inert supports. Catal. Today 62, 175–187.
39 doi:10.1016/S0920-5861(00)00419-3
40 Qin, T.F., Shen, B.X., Zhou, Q.X., Liu, J.C., 2014. Biodegradation Performance of an Inner-Loop Three-
41 Phase Fluidized-Bed Bioreactor to Treat Petrochemical Wastewater. Pet. Sci. Technol. 32, 848–855.
42 doi:10.1080/10916460903514931
43 Qiu, L., Chen, W., Zhong, L., Wu, W., Wu, S., Chen, J., Zhang, F., Zhong, W., 2014. Formaldehyde
44 biodegradation by immobilized Methylobacterium sp . XJLW cells in a three-phase fluidized bed

55
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 reactor. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng 37, 1377–1384. doi:10.1007/s00449-013-1110-4

2 Rajasimman, M., Karthikeyan, C., 2007. Aerobic digestion of starch wastewater in a fluidized bed
3 bioreactor with low density biomass support. J. Hazard. Mater. 143, 82–6.
4 doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.08.071
5 Ramamoorthy, S., Subramanian, N., 1981. Axial solid mixing and bubble characteristics in gas-fluidized
6 beds with vertical internals. Chem. Eng. J. 22, 237–242.

PT
7 Ratanatamskul, C., Narkwittaya, S., Masomboon, N., Lu, M.-C., 2010. Oxidation of 2,6-dimethylaniline
8 by the fluidized-bed Fenton Process. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 101, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11144-010-
9 0236-5
10

RI
Reinhold, G., Merrath, S., Lennemann, F., Markl, H., 1996. Modelling the Hydrodynamics and the
11 Liquid-Mixing Behaviour of a Biogass Tower Reactor. Chem. Eng. Sci. 51, 4065–4073.
12 Rodríguez, R., Espada, J.J., Pariente, M.I., Melero, J.A., Martínez, F., Molina, R., 2016. Comparative

SC
13 LCA study of heterogeneous and homogenous Fenton processes for the treatment of pharmaceutical
14 wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 124, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.064
15 Rosa, J.M., Fileti, A.M.F., Tambourgi, E.B., Santana, J.C.C., 2015. Dyeing of cotton with reactive
16 dyestuffs: The continuous reuse of textile wastewater effluent treated by Ultraviolet / Hydrogen

U
17 peroxide homogeneous photocatalysis. J. Clean. Prod. 90, 60–65. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.043
18 Sabarunisha, S.B., Radha, K. V, 2014. Hydrodynamic behavior of inverse fluidized bed biofilm reactor
AN
19 for phenol biodegradation using Pseudomonas fluorescens. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 31, 436–445.
20 doi:10.1007/s11814-013-0260-z
21 Sahinkaya, E., Gunes, F.M., Ucar, D., Kaksonen, A.H., 2011. Sulfidogenic fluidized bed treatment of real
M

22 acid mine drainage water. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 683–689. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.08.042

23 Shet, A., Vidya, S.K., 2016. Solar light mediated photocatalytic degradation of phenol using Ag core -
24 TiO2 shell (Ag@TiO2) nanoparticles in batch and fluidized bed reactor. Sol. Energy 127, 67–78.
D

25 doi:10.1016/j.solener.2015.12.049
26 Shih, Y., Tsai, M., Huang, Y., 2013. Mineralization and defluoridation of 2,2,3,3-tetrafluoro-1-propanol
TE

27 (TFP) by UV oxidation in a novel three-phase fluidized bed reactor (3P-FBR). Water Res. 47, 2325–
28 2330. doi:10.1016/j.watres.2013.02.007
29 Shin, C., Mccarty, P.L., Kim, J., Bae, J., 2014. Pilot-scale temperate-climate treatment of domestic
30 wastewater with a staged anaerobic fluidized membrane bioreactor ( SAF-MBR ). Bioresour.
EP

31 Technol. 159, 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.060

32 Si, C., Zhou, J., Guo, Q., 2011. Characterization of pressure fluctuation signals in an acoustic bubbling
33 fluidized bed. J. Taiwan Inst. Chem. Eng. 42, 929–936. doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2011.05.001
C

34 Singh, R.I., Kumar, R., 2016. Current status and experimental investigation of oxy-fired fluidized bed.
35 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 398–420. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.021
AC

36 Soon, A.N., Hameed, B.H., 2011. Heterogeneous catalytic treatment of synthetic dyes in aqueous media
37 using Fenton and photo-assisted Fenton process. Desalination 269, 1–16.
38 doi:10.1016/j.desal.2010.11.002
39 Su, C., Chen, C., Anotai, J., Lu, M., 2013. Removal of monoethanolamine and phosphate from thin-film
40 transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) wastewater by the fluidized-bed Fenton process. Chem.
41 Eng. J. 222, 128–135. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2012.08.063
42 Su, C., Pukdee-asa, M., Ratanatamskul, C., Lu, M., 2011. Effect of operating parameters on
43 decolorization and COD removal of three reactive dyes by Fenton ’ s reagent using fl uidized-bed
44 reactor. Desalination 278, 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.05.022

56
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Su, C., Pukdee-Asa, M., Ratanatamskul, C., Lu, M.-C., 2011. Effect of operating parameters on the
2 decolorization and oxidation of textile wastewater by the fluidized-bed Fenton process. Sep. Purif.
3 Technol. 83, 100–105. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2011.09.021
4 Tabassum, S., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., 2015. An integrated method for palm oil mill effluent (POME)
5 treatment for achieving zero liquid discharge - A pilot study. J. Clean. Prod. 95, 148–155.
6 doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.056
7 Tavoulareas, E.S., 1991. Fluidized-Bed Combustion. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 16, 25–57.

PT
8 Tisa, F., Aziz, A.R.A., Mohd, W.W.A., 2014. Applicability of fluidized bed reactor in recalcitrant
9 compound degradation through advanced oxidation processes : A review. J. Environ. Manage. 146,
10 260–275. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.032

RI
11 Tsukuda, S., Christianson, L., Kolb, A., Saito, K., Summerfelt, S., 2015. Heterotrophic denitrification of
12 aquaculture effluent using fluidized sand biofilters. Aquac. Eng. 64, 49–59.
13 doi:10.1016/j.aquaeng.2014.10.010

SC
14 Villa-Gomez, K.D., Enright, M.A., Rini, L.E., Buttice, A., Kramer, H., Lens, P., 2014. Effect of hydraulic
15 retention time on metal precipitation in sulfate reducing inverse fluidized bed reactors. J Chem
16 Technol Biotechnol 90, 120–129. doi:10.1002/jctb.4296

U
17 Vimonses, V., Jin, B., Chow, C.W.K., Saint, C., 2010. Development of a pilot fluidised bed reactor
18 system with a formulated clay – lime mixture for continuous removal of chemical pollutants from
AN
19 wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 158, 535–541. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2010.01.044
20 Vinod, A.V., Reddy, G.V., 2005. Simulation of biodegradation process of phenolic wastewater at higher
21 concentrations in a fluidized-bed bioreactor. Biochem. Eng. J. 24, 1–10.
22 doi:10.1016/j.bej.2005.01.005
M

23 Wang, D., Mclaughlin, E., Pfeffer, R., Lin, Y.S., 2011. Aqueous phase adsorption of toluene in a packed
24 and fluidized bed of hydrophobic aerogels. Chem. Eng. J. 168, 1201–1208.
25 doi:10.1016/j.cej.2011.02.014
D

26 Wang, R., Chang, S., 1999. Adsorption/desorption of phenols onto granular activated carbon in a liquid –
27 solid fluidized bed. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 654, 647–654.
TE

28 Wang, R.C., Fan, K.S., Chang, J.S., 2009. Removal of acid dye by ZnFe2O4/TiO2-immobilized granular
29 activated carbon under visible light irradiation in a recycle liquid-solid fluidized bed. J. Taiwan Inst.
30 Chem. Eng. 40, 533–540. doi:10.1016/j.jtice.2009.02.001
EP

31 Wang, Y., Priambodo, R., Zhang, H., Huang, Y., 2015. Degradation of the azo dye Orange G in a
32 fluidized bed reactor using iron oxide as a heterogenous photo-Fenton catalyst. RSC Adv. 5, 45276–
33 45283. doi:10.1039/C5RA04238K
C

34 Wang, Z., Kim, M., Nakhla, G., Zhu, J., 2016. Anaerobic fluidized bed digestion of primary and
35 thickened waste activated sludges. Chem. Eng. J. 284, 620–629. doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.155
AC

36 Wei, B.C., Xie, B., Xiao, H., 2000. Hydrodynamics in an Internal Loop Airlift Reactor with a
37 Convergence-Divergence Draft Tube. Chem. Eng. Technol. 23, 38–45.
38 Weipeng, Z., Yumei, Y., Guangji, Z., Chao, Y., 2014. Mixing Characteristics and Bubble Behavior in an
39 Airlift Internal Loop Reactor with Low Aspect Ratio *. Chinese J. Chem. Eng. 22, 611–621.
40 doi:10.1016/S1004-9541(14)60089-6
41 Wirsum, M., Fett, F., Iwanowa, N., Lukjanow, G., 2001. Particle mixing in bubbling fluidized beds of
42 binary particle systems. Powder Technol. 120, 63–69. doi:10.1016/S0032-5910(01)00348-5
43 Wu, C., Huang, J., 1996. Bioparticle characteristics of tapered anaerobic fluidized-bed bioreactors. Water
44 Int. 30, 233–241.

57
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 Yan, C., Fan, Y., Lu, C., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Cao, R., Gao, J., Xu, C., 2009. Solids mixing in a fluidized
2 bed riser. Powder Technol. 193, 110–119. doi:10.1016/j.powtec.2009.02.015
3 Yang, W.-C., 2003. Handbook of Fluidization and Fluid-Particle System, Chemical Engineering. Marcel
4 Dekker, Inc, New York.
5 Yu, J., Ji, M., Yue, P.L., 1999. A three-phase fluidized bed reactor in the combined anaerobic / aerobic
6 treatment of wastewater. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 626, 619–626.

PT
7 Zeroual, Y., Kim, B.S., Yang, M.W., Blaghen, M., Lee, K.M., 2007. Decolorization of Some Azo Dyes
8 by Immobilized Geotrichum sp . Biomass in Fluidized Bed Bioreactor. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol.
9 142, 307–316. doi:10.1007/s12010-007-0037-0
10

RI
Zhang, R., Wang, A., 2015. Modification of wool by air plasma and enzymes as a cleaner and
11 environmentally friendly process. J. Clean. Prod. 87, 961–965. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.004
12 Zhang, T., Wei, C., Feng, C., Zhu, J., 2012. A novel airlift reactor enhanced by funnel internals and

SC
13 hydrodynamics prediction by the CFD method. Bioresour. Technol. 104, 600–607.
14 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.008
15 Zhao, J., Zhong, X., Xu, H., 1992. A model of solid backmixing between stages in a gas-fluidized bed
16 with perforated baffles. Powder Technol. 73, 37–41.

U
17 Zhong, W., Jin, B., Zhang, Y., Wang, X., Xiao, R., 2008. Fluidization of Biomass Particles in a Gas -
18 Solid Fluidized Bed. Energy and Fuels 22, 4170–4176.
AN
19 Zhou, D., Xu, Z., Wang, Y., Wang, J., 2015. Simultaneous removal of multi-pollutants in an intimate
20 integrated flocculation-adsorption fluidized bed. Env. Sci Pollut Res 22, 3794–3802.
21 doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3643-8
M

22 Zhu, J., Salah, M., Zhou, Y., 1997. Radial and axial voidage distribution in circulating fluidized bed with
23 ring-type internals. J. Chem. Eng. Japan 30, 928–937.
24 Zou, G., Papirio, S., Hullebusch, E.D. Van, Puhakka, J.A., 2015. Fluidized-bed denitrification of mining
D

25 water tolerates high nickel concentrations. Bioresour. Technol. 179, 284–290.

26 doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2014.12.044
TE

27 Zou, G., Papirio, S., Lakaniemi, A., Ahoranta, S.H., Puhakka, J.A., 2016. High rate autotrophic
28 denitrification in fluidized-bed biofilm reactors. Chem. Eng. J. 284, 1287–1294.
29 doi:10.1016/j.cej.2015.09.074
30 Zulfakar, M., Hairul, N.A.H., Akmal, H.M.R., Abdul Rahman, M., 2011. Photocatalytic Degradation of
EP

31 Phenol in a Fluidized Bed Reactor Utilizing Immobilized TiO2 Photocatalyst: Characterization and
32 Process Studies. J. Appl. Sci. 11, 2320–2326.
33
C
AC

58
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights
• An overview of FBR applications in wastewater treatment is offered
• Common applications in AOPs, Biological and Adsorption processes
• Major design parameters of FBR in wastewater applications are reviewed
• Operational parameters affecting specific applications of FBR are discussed
• Perspectives on future research interest of FBR in wastewater treatment are offered

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC