Bioengineering 11 00189

bioengineering
Review
Dynamic Modelling, Process Control, and Monitoring of
Selected Biological and Advanced Oxidation Processes for
Wastewater Treatment: A Review of Recent Developments
Zahra Parsa, Ramdhane Dhib and Mehrab Mehrvar *
Department of Chemical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, 350 Victoria Street,

Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada; zahra.parsa@torontomu.ca (Z.P.); rdhib@torontomu.ca (R.D.)
* Correspondence: mmehrvar@torontomu.ca; Tel.: +1-(416)-979-5000 (ext. 556555); Fax: +1-(416)-979-5083
Abstract: This review emphasizes the significance of formulating control strategies for biological and
advanced oxidation process (AOP)-based wastewater treatment systems. The aim is to guarantee
that the effluent quality continuously aligns with environmental regulations while operating costs
are minimized. It highlights the significance of understanding the dynamic behaviour of the process
in developing effective control schemes. The most common process control strategies in wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) are explained and listed. It is emphasized that the proper control scheme
should be selected based on the process dynamic behaviour and control goal. This study further
discusses the challenges associated with the control of wastewater treatment processes, including
inadequacies in developed models, the limitations of most control strategies to the simulation stage,
the imperative requirement for real-time data, and the financial and technical intricacies associated
with implementing advanced controller hardware. It is discussed that the necessity of the availability
of real-time data to achieve reliable control can be achieved by implementing proper, accurate
hardware sensors in suitable locations of the process or by developing and implementing soft sensors.
This study recommends further investigation on available actuators and the criteria for choosing the
most appropriate one to achieve robust and reliable control in WWTPs, especially for biological and
Citation: Parsa, Z.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar,
AOP-based treatment approaches.
M. Dynamic Modelling, Process
Control, and Monitoring of Selected
Biological and Advanced Oxidation
Keywords: process control; dynamic modelling; online monitoring; real-time monitoring; wastewater
Processes for Wastewater Treatment: treatment; biological wastewater treatment; ASPs; SBRs; AOPs
A Review of Recent Developments.
Bioengineering 2024, 11, 189.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
bioengineering11020189 1. Introduction
Academic Editors: Venkatesh Balan Despite the finite water resources on Earth, the demand for water is continuously
and Kun-Lin Yang increasing. Therefore, wastewater treatment is necessary to clean and recycle used water
for consumption. Indeed, the objective of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is not to
Received: 15 January 2024 produce a profit-making product but to protect water as an asset. Additionally, releasing
Revised: 2 February 2024
untreated or inadequately treated wastewater into the environment poses risks such as
Accepted: 9 February 2024
eutrophication, the release of toxic substances, heavy metals, and other harmful materials,
Published: 16 February 2024
endangering the ecosystem. As a result, there has been a notable trend towards establishing
closed-loop wastewater treatment systems in recent years. These systems aim to reintegrate
treated water into the consumption cycle while maximizing the recycling and recovery of
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
nutrients, metals, and energy [1–6].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The primary objective of municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTPs) is to
This article is an open access article degrade organics and nutrients. On the contrary, treating industrial wastewater is more
distributed under the terms and challenging due to its varying characteristics depending on the industry type. In MWWTPs,
conditions of the Creative Commons the predominant organic degradation occurs in the biological treatment stage. Figure 1
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// illustrates the categorization of major biological treatment methods into aerobic and anaer-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ obic processes [7–9]. Each of these processes is further classified as suspended-growth,
4.0/). attached-growth, or hybrid-growth, depending on the dominant mechanism whereby
Bioengineering 2024, 11, 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11020189 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/bioengineering

Bioengineering 2024, 11, 189 2 of 44
microorganisms are incorporated into the treatment process. Aerobic biological treatment
processes generally dominate wastewater treatment in both MWWTPs and industrial
wastewater treatment plants (IWWTPs). However, aerobic methods may prove less effec-
tive in cases of exceptionally high organic content, prompting consideration of anaerobic
processes as the preferred biological treatment approach [10]. Commonly adopted bio-
logical processes in WWTPs are suspended-growth, among which the most frequently
observed aerobic suspended-growth biological processes, especially in MWWTPs, are the
activated sludge process (ASP) and the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) [11–13]. While
biological wastewater treatment is favoured for its economic advantages and generally
effective performance, its efficacy diminishes when addressing nonbiodegradable, recal-
citrant, and high molecular weight compounds. In recent decades, the concentrations of
these compounds have increased in urban and industrial wastewater, due to their high
usage in manufacturing and presence in final products [14].
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) have demonstrated notable performance in
degrading various organics, including refractory ones. These processes primarily rely
on the non-selective reaction of in situ-produced hydroxyl radicals (HO• ) and other re-
active oxygen species (ROS) with organic contaminants. The reaction rates are typically
significant, ranging between 108 and 1011 M−1 s−1 [15,16]. As a result, these mechanisms
have the potential to oxidize various contaminants including low-concentration, toxic, or
nonbiodegradable organics [17,18]. Some of the common AOPs with involved ROS are
shown in Figure 2. It is important to note that when compounds are degraded in certain
AOPs, complex by-products may be generated. Due to the strong atomic bonds in their
molecules, such by-products may resist further degradation, subsequently hindering min-
eralization [19,20]. This challenge is also encountered in some real WWTPs [21]. However,
some studies affirm the effectiveness of AOPs in diminishing chronic daily intake (CDI) and
hazard quotient (HQ) linked to specific recalcitrant pollutants [22,23]. Additionally, numer-
ous studies have proven that AOPs enhance the biodegradability of low-biodegradability
wastewater [14,22–25] and produce low-toxicity, biodegradable by-products compared to
the original pollutants. In some cases, even the complete mineralization of contaminants
has been reported [25]. Therefore, contemplating the utilization of AOPs as a viable strat-
egy for addressing recalcitrant pollutants merits consideration if the preliminary lab-scale
experimental assessment has been performed.
AOPs can be classified into homogeneous and heterogeneous reactions based on the
number of phases in the oxidation reaction [26]. As depicted in Figure 3, each of these
classes is divided into chemical and photochemical processes based on whether light is
involved in the process or not. Additionally, beyond the conventional AOPs outlined in
Figure 3, high-energy AOPs such as electron beam (EB) and non-thermal plasma (NTP)
have shown significant efficiency in removing specific pollutants. Their application is
particularly notable when conventional AOPs cannot achieve optimal mineralization [27].
Despite the efficiency of AOPs in removing refractory pollutants, their implementation
in full-scale applications is challenging due to the high operating costs and the need for
continuous monitoring to ensure the quality of the effluent. Optimizing AOP processes
and implementing adequate controls for them can result in maintaining treated effluent
quality within acceptable regulatory ranges while reducing operating costs.
Bioengineering
Bioengineering 2024,
2024, 11, 18911, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of3 44
of 49
Figure
Figure 1. Classification
1. Classification of major
of major biological
biological wastewater
wastewater treatment
treatment processes
processes (adapted
(adapted from
from [7–9]).
[7–9]).
Bioengineering 2024, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4
Bioengineering 2024, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 49
Figure 2. Different AOPs involving ROS (adapted from [15]).

Figure 2. Different AOPs involving ROS (adapted from [15]).
Figure 2. Different AOPs involving ROS (adapted from [15]).
Figure
Figure 3. 3. Classification
Classification of different
of different AOPs (adapted
AOPs (adapted from [26]).
from [26]).
Despite the efficiency of AOPs in removing refractory pollutants, their

implementation in full-scale applications is challenging due to the high operating costs
Figure 3. Classification of different AOPs (adapted from [26]).

Over the past few decades, numerous studies have aimed to enhance the efficacy
of water and wastewater treatment technologies. These efforts involve implementing
novel treatment methods and conducting optimization studies on both traditional and
innovative approaches. Although these studies have improved the efficiency of treatment
processes, a significant number of them are limited to study processes at their steady-
state conditions. Nevertheless, most real processes do not keep operating at steady-state
conditions. In other words, operational conditions change over time due to unexpected
disturbances and uncertainties. These uncertainties encompass various factors. One factor
involves disturbances in the ambient conditions. Another factor is the fluctuation in
process inputs, such as variations in influent flow rates resulting from seasonal weather
changes [28]. Additionally, there might be abrupt variations in influent characteristics
due to the introduction of unexpected chemicals into wastewater, often discharged by
industrial sectors into the sewer [29]. Furthermore, the complex nonlinear behaviour of
processes, exemplified by the ASP under different operating conditions, adds to the array of
uncertainties. Sometimes, the uncertainty is due to the high difference between the actual
process variables and their predicted values by the developed steady-state model [30].
The dynamic behaviour of the process can be modelled and understood by studying the
changes in process output(s) over time resulting from applying known changes to the
process input variable(s).
Knowing the process dynamic behaviour, as the first crucial step in designing an
efficient control, helps to anticipate the system output changes due to disturbances or
changes in process inputs. This knowledge can be used in a feedforward (FF) or model
predictive control (MPC) to prevent undesired violations in output or a feedback (FB)
control to regulate the process by manipulating the manipulated variable (MV), after
indicating offsets. Consequently, such control systems aid WWTPs in regulating the process
and maintaining the effluent quality at desired discharge values to meet environmental
discharge regulations or potable water standards [31,32]. Minimizing costs and maintaining
process safety are other common, desirable process control goals.
The challenges in controlling biological wastewater processes stem from their inherent
complexity. This complexity is evident in the intricate dynamic responses of microor-
ganisms to elevated concentrations of unconventional pollutants. Additionally, variable
process time constants and fluctuations in influent characteristics and flow rates contribute
to these challenges. In WWTPs, the setpoints of controlled variables (CVs) are not constant
over time due to the changes in regulations, weather, and influent conditions. In these
scenarios, sophisticated control techniques can effectively regulate the process by adapting
to the new setpoint [33,34].
In a control scheme, regulating the process to reject disturbance or track the reference
trajectory can be carried out manually (open-loop system) or automatically (closed-loop
system). Automation reduces the need for human intervention and results in decreasing
operational costs. Also, a reliable and precise automatic system can maintain desired
effluent quality and process safety by fast and immediate responses to process deviation
from the desired target. Therefore, considering strict environmental discharge standards
and the importance of providing healthy drinking water for consumers, automation in
water treatment plants and WWTPs is highly beneficial and advantageous when properly
implemented. The real-time monitoring is critical to provide fast and reliable control for
WWTPs, avoiding releasing insufficiently treated water into the environment [35].
Therefore, this study aims to provide readers with a summary of dynamic modelling,
process control, and monitoring of selected biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment
processes. Considering the prevalence of the ASP and the SBR as the predominant aerobic
biological processes in WWTPs, these two processes were selected to outline their modelling,
process control, and monitoring.
treatment processes. Considering the prevalence of the ASP and the SBR as the
predominant aerobic biological processes in WWTPs, these two processes were selected
to outline their modelling, process control, and monitoring.

2. System Identification/Modelling
Depending on process complexity, a dynamic model is developed using either
mechanistic models, which rely on kinetics, chemical, and physical information, or
2. System Identification/Modelling
through system identification using experimental data. Subsequently, black-box system
Depending on process complexity, a dynamic model is developed using either mech-
identification, as illustrated in Figure 4, or data-driven models (DDM) are exclusively
anistic models, which rely on kinetics, chemical, and physical information, or through
derived from input–output experimental data.
system identification using experimental data. Subsequently, black-box system identifica-
tion, as illustrated in Figure 4, or data-driven models (DDM) are exclusively derived from
input–output experimental data.
Figure
Figure 4. Black-box
4. Black-box system
system identification
identification diagram
diagram for capturing
for capturing the dynamic
the dynamic behaviour
behaviour of a of a system.
system.
The known input, u(t), can be sinusoidal, pulse, step, or pseudo-random binary
The known input, u(t), can be sinusoidal, pulse, step, or pseudo-random binary sequence (PRBS), sequence (PRBS),
resulting
resulting in process
in process output
output y(t)y(t) as frequency
as frequency response,
response, pulse
pulse response,
response, or process
or process reaction
reaction curve.
curve.
Figure
Figure 5 shows
5 shows different
different model
model structures
structures of system
of system identification,
identification, employed
employed to map
to map
dynamic processes. Dynamic models are classified as linear, nonlinear,
dynamic processes. Dynamic models are classified as linear, nonlinear, and artificialand artificial
intelligence (AI)-based models constructed from an optimization scheme. In fact, to estimate
intelligence (AI)-based models constructed from an optimization scheme. In fact, to
model parameters, the weighted quadratic norm of the prediction error, VN (θ, N), must be
estimate model parameters, the weighted quadratic norm of the prediction error, V θ, N ,
minimized. The expression for VN (θ, N) is given by the following equation:
must be minimized. The expression for V θ, N is given by the following equation:
1 N
VN (θ, N) =1 ∑ ε2 (k, θ) (1)
V θ, N N ε k, θ (1)
N k=1
where
where ε(k,ε(k, θ) represents
θ) represents thethe difference
difference between
between thethe actual
actual process
process output
output (y (ykm)(kand
)) and
the the
predicted process output (y(k, θ)), with N being the number of samples in the training
predicted process output (y k, θ ), with N being the number of samples in the training
data set.
data set.
ε(k, θ) = ym (k) − y(k, θ) (2)
ε k, θ y k y k, θ (2)
As the complexity of a system increases, mapping its dynamic behaviour using linear
structures is less accurate.
As the complexity Hence,
of a system implementing
increases, mappingnonlinear
its dynamicstructures, including
behaviour AI-based
using linear
structures,
structures results
is less in a dynamic
accurate. model with anonlinear
Hence, implementing better fit. structures,
The parameters of each
including dynamic
AI-based
structure, illustrated in Figure 5, are estimated based on the basic mathematical
structures, results in a dynamic model with a better fit. The parameters of each dynamic equation
structure, illustrated in Figure 5, are estimated based on the basic mathematical equationand
presented earlier. Describing each modelling structure is out of the scope of this study
has been discussed in our previous study [36,37]. Figure 6 illustrates the necessary steps
presented earlier. Describing each modelling structure is out of the scope of this study and
prior to, during, and after the system identification.
has been discussed in our previous study [36,37]. Figure 6 illustrates the necessary steps
System identification is acknowledged as a valuable tool to elucidate the dynamic
prior to, during, and after the system identification.
behaviour of complex and nonlinear water/wastewater treatment processes, especially
biological and chemical ones such as ASPs, SBRs, and AOPs.
Bioengineering
Bioengineering 2024,
Bioengineering 11, 11,
2024,
2024, 11, 189
x FOR PEER
x FOR REVIEW
PEER REVIEW 7 of749
of 44
49
Figure 5. Different
Figure model
5. Different modelstructures of system
structures identification:
of system
system a autoregressive
identification: with eXogenous
aa autoregressive input
Figure 5. Different model structures of identification: autoregressive with
with eXogenous input
eXogenous input
model; b
model; Hammerstein–Wiener
bb Hammerstein–Wiener model; c
model; non-linear
c
c AutoRegressive
non-linear AutoRegressive with eXogenous
with eXogenousinput model
input model
model; Hammerstein–Wiener model; non-linear AutoRegressive with eXogenous input model
(adapted from
(adapted [37,38]).
from [37,38]).
(adapted from [37,38]).
Figure 6. General
Figure flowchart
6. General of system
flowchart identification
of system technique.
identification technique.
2.1. Modelling Biological Treatment Processes—ASPs

The widespread implementation of biological treatment processes in WWTPs moti-
vates researchers to delve deeper for enhanced process understanding [39]. Further, the
knowledge gained of the degradation is used to optimize the wastewater treatment process
by increasing the degradation efficiency and decreasing costs. In addition, a control system
must be applied to keep the process operating at its optimal conditions by designing a
suitable control strategy. Also, it must be considered that the ASP is a nonlinear and
complex process [39]. The dynamic complexity of ASPs arises primarily from the dynamic
variations in microorganisms’ behaviour when exposed to disturbances. This complexity is
further compounded by the fact that the ASP integrates various biological and physical
processes [40]. Biological processes exhibit slower kinetics with a relatively larger average
hydraulic retention time (HRT) than chemical processes. The large HRT contributes to a sig-
nificant time delay, representing the lag between process input changes and corresponding
output responses in the control system.
Due to the significance of the ASP in wastewater treatment, many studies have been
conducted on developing activated sludge models (ASMs). As a result, standard mathemat-
ical models, including ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d, ASM3, ASM4, and ASM7, shown in Table 1,
have been developed by the International Water Association (IWA) to describe and predict
the biological behaviour of ASPs [12,41]. These models provide valuable information
for the design, operation, and control of WWTPs, helping to optimize their performance
and ensuring effective operations. Each model has a specific application and provides a
different level of detail for the treatment process.
Table 1. The main ASMs in wastewater treatment developed by the IWA.
Model Description Application

Biological conversion of organic matter into biomass Most widely used model to design/simulate
ASM1
and carbon dioxide in ASPs conventional ASPs
Extension of ASM1, includes the conversion of nitrogen
ASM2 Predicting behaviour of nitrogen removal processes
and phosphorus compounds
Extension of ASM2, includes additional details and
Predicting process performance and behaviour of
ASM2d factors affecting the performance of the
nitrogen removal
treatment process
Extension of ASM2, includes phosphorus removal Predicting behaviour of nitrogen and phosphorus
ASM3
through biological processes removal processes
Extension of ASM2, includes phosphorus removal Predicting behaviour of nitrogen and phosphorus
ASM4
through chemical precipitation removal processes
Comprehensive model, combination of ASM1, Predicting behaviour of nitrogen and phosphorus
ASM7
ASM2, ASM4 removal processes
In conclusion, selecting the proper model to use depends on specific requirements in a

particular WWTP. Implementing these general models into a WWTP requires calibration,
which entails adjusting the model coefficients based on plant-specific data. Sometimes,
designing and implementing an effective process control system based on these models is
impractical due to their complex structure. Consequently, some studies have employed
reduced, modified, altered, or simplified ASMs for process control [41]. For example, Smida
et al. [41] developed a cascade high gain observer (HGO) to approximate the unknown
input values (UI) and unknown input state variables (UIS) of a reduced ASM for an ASP
by measuring only two state variables. The two state variables were dissolved oxygen
(DO) and NO3− concentrations. In their study, UIs were inlet ammonia and inlet substrate
concentrations, whereas the UISs were the concentration of biodegradable substrate and
the concentration of ammonia.
In addition to standard ASMs, two benchmark simulation models (BSMs), including

BSM1 and BSM2, have been developed to evaluate the design and control strategies
for ASPs [34,42]. In fact, BSMs serve as benchmark models to compare and assess the
performance of different treatment system designs and proposed controls, while ASMs
provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of the biological and chemical
processes in WWTPs. Moreover, specialized software applications, such as SIMBA, GPS-X,
BioWin, and WEST, incorporating dynamic models for ASPs, provide valuable assistance
in analyzing and simulating wastewater treatment systems [43].
Although ASMs have shown good performance, they contain too many differential
equations requiring specific data to be calibrated. As a result, some studies have been
investigated employing other modelling methods to predict some parameters based on
monitoring alternative process parameters. For instance, to find the dynamic relationship
of the suspended solids (SS) content in the effluent of a WWTP with its influent characteris-
tics, a fuzzy partial least square-based–dynamic Bayesian network (FPLS-DBN) has been
employed [44]. This model is a combination of the Bayesian network (BN) with the fuzzy
partial least squares (FPLS) methods. It has been observed that the developed approach can
capture the nonlinearity and complexity of the process and predict the process output better
than other conventional modelling methods and better than the BN or the FPLS alone [44].
Also, in another study, monitored data from the ASP in a WWTP were used to estimate
the parameters of the state-space model representing the ASP [45]. Sadeghassadi et al. [46]
used the autoregressive with exogenous input model (ARX) structure to model the ASP,
and the results demonstrated a notable alignment between the actual and predicted data
using the developed model. Novotny et al. [47] formulated a transfer function (TF) utilizing
an autoregressive moving average stochastic model (ARMA). The TF aimed to describe the
dynamic linear interdependency of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) within the ASP
and other pertinent process parameters. The data used for this formulation were collected
from the Green Bay WWTP, Wisconsin. A noteworthy aspect of this derived model lies in
its conformity with the mass balance model of the process. This alignment rendered the
developed model mechanistic in nature rather than a black-box identification. Furthermore,
in the same study, an artificial neural network (ANN) was utilized as a black-box model to
predict the nonlinear correlation between the number of filamentous microorganisms in the
ASP of the Jones Island WWTP, Milwaukee, WI, and various process parameters over time.
2.2. Modelling Biological Treatment Processes—SBR

The SBR process in a WWTP operates in a cyclic manner to treat continuously incom-
ing wastewater. The choice between the ASP (also known as conventional activated sludge
(CAS)) or SBR for an MWWTP or an IWWTP hinges upon various parameters. These
parameters include space limitations, desired effluent quality, frequency of fluctuations
in influent flow rate and characteristics [31], and cost considerations. Generally, com-
pared to CAS, the SBR necessitates a smaller footprint and demonstrates greater flexibility
in adapting to diverse operating conditions. However, its control can pose challenges
compared to CAS, given additional parameters to control, such as the number of cycles
within a specified time duration and the optimal duration of each phase. Furthermore,
experimental investigations indicated that in treating municipal wastewater, SBRs can
exhibit superior 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5 ) removal compared to CAS [48].
However, both CAS and SBRs demonstrated the same performance in COD removal [49].
On the other hand, for industrial wastewater, SBRs can result in a higher BOD5 and COD
removal in comparison to CAS [50]. In a theoretical assessment, SBRs demonstrated a
near-complete BOD5 removal for slowly biodegradable wastewater. In contrast, residual
BOD5 content was observed in the CAS effluent. Also, comparable oxygen consumption
and sludge generation were observed in both methods. Notably, higher nitrogen removal
was ascertained for CAS unless the HRT and the number of cycles per day for SBRs were in-
creased [51]. In terms of cost estimation, a simulation study comparing the implementation
of two CAS units in parallel against one CAS unit and one SBR in parallel for a petroleum
refinery wastewater treatment plant (PRWWTP) revealed lower expenditures in project

construction, operation, energy, and amortization costs for the former scenario [52]. The
anticipated costs for materials, chemicals, and maintenance remained consistent between
the two configurations. Similarly, in a separate simulation study evaluating the deployment
of CAS and SBRs for a WWTP in Tehran, only chemical costs were equivalent for both
processes. All other associated costs for SBRs exceeded those for CAS [53]. ASMs and
BSMs are applicable to describe the dynamic behaviour of SBRs. Conclusively, the main
challenges ahead of dynamic modelling of biological treatment processes, including ASPs
and SBRs, are tabulated in Table 2.
Table 2. Challenges ahead of dynamic modelling of biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment
processes.
Wastewater
Treatment Process Challenges Ahead of Dynamic Modelling Actions Taken
• Complex and interactive combination of

biodegradation and physical processes;
• Complex behaviour of microorganisms in presence
of process disturbances;
• Non-linearity of the process;
• Large time delay;
• Calibration requirement of ASMs and ADMs for
each specific treatment unit;
• Need for tailored calibration methods with specific
data sets for each type of ASMs and ADMs;
• Lack of data for some process model parameters; • Developed standard mechanistic models by
IWA, including ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d,
• Complexity of ASMs and ADMs, limiting their
ASM3, ASM4, ASM7, and ADM1,
application for integration into control schemes; • Developed reduced, modified, altered, or
• Difficulty in incorporating unmeasurable process simplified ASMs and ADMs,
Biological disturbances into the process model; • Combined ASMs and ADMs with
• Limitation in ADMs in representing some
membrane resistance model for MBR
processes involved in AD; and AnMBR,
• Model validation challenges due to substantial • Employed black-box or AI-based
data requirements; approaches to model the process based on
• Limitation to validate some developed models by available data.
experimental data;
• Influence of bioreactor design parameters on the
biological reaction;
• Necessity of studying dynamic hydraulic
behaviour alongside mass balances for
certain bioreactors;
• Complexity of fully understanding fouling
dynamic in biological membranes and filters;
• Necessity of investigating SMP and EPS dynamics
for MBRs and AnMBRs, in details.
• Non-linearity of the process;
• Complexity of the process mechanism;
• Incomplete data due to ROSs instability;
• Difficulty in sensitivity analysis due to process
complexity and lack of data; • Employed black-box or AI-based
• Limitation of some developed models to steady approaches to model processes based on
AOP-based state operation; experimental data,
• Model validation challenges due to substantial • Modelled processes using the gray-box
data requirements; approach.
• Influence of reactor design parameters on
chemical reactions;
• Necessity of studying dynamic hydraulic
behaviour alongside mass balances for
certain reactors.
2.3. Modelling other Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes

While this study primarily concentrates on studying ASPs and SBRs as selected bio-
logical wastewater treatment methods, it is important to briefly discuss the modelling of
some other biological approaches, previously shown in Figure 1. Among other methodolo-
gies, it can be asserted that anaerobic digestion (AD) has achieved a more comprehensive
understanding, as evidenced by the development of the standard anaerobic digestion
model no. 1 (ADM1) by the IWA [54]. While certain researchers have identified limita-
tions in ADM1 for capturing specific aspects of the AD [55], it remains a valuable tool
for effectively describing certain anaerobic processes, such as an anaerobic contact reactor
(ACR). Furthermore, some studies have modified the parameters of ADM1 to enhance its
applicability to their specific investigated system [56]. Some other studies have employed
AI-based methods for modelling AD [57]. Modelling becomes increasingly challenging
when addressing processes that encompass both biodegradation and separation processes.
Most of the processes listed in Figure 1 involve a synergistic combination of biological and
physical processes. For instance, in the case of an aerobic membrane bioreactor (MBR) and
an anaerobic membrane bioreactor (AnMBR), the modelling of the process necessitates the
comprehensive consideration of various factors and processes occurring simultaneously.
This includes consideration of biological metabolism, substance biodegradation, membrane
separation mechanisms, the hydrodynamic behaviour of substances, particularly soluble
microbial products (SMPs) and extracellular polymeric substances (EPSs) leading to mem-
brane fouling, the specific reactor configuration, operation, and ambient conditions [58,59].
Additionally, it is imperative to consider that these processes interact with each other. For
instance, the presence of a membrane influences biomass population and diversity, and
membrane fouling can result in short circuits that impact overall membrane performance.
Modelling AnMBRs becomes significantly more complex when gas/biogas sparging is
introduced as a means of fouling control [59]. In addition, despite numerous efforts to
comprehend the behaviour and kinetics of SMPs, certain aspects remain inadequately
addressed. On the other hand, the dynamics of EPSs are understudied. It is noteworthy to
consider that most studies investigating the behaviour of either SMPs or EPSs rely only
on experimental data, which, while valuable, are less effective than examining the actual
data [58]. Same as other processes, addressing the difficulties of developing a mechanistic
model for MBRs and AnMBRs involves the application of black-box modelling. For exam-
ple, Li et al. [60] employed three deep learning (DL) methods to forecast the performance
of two AnMBR systems in a Japanese WWTP. All DL methods, including machine learning
fully connected network (MLFCN), convolutional neural network (CNN), and densely con-
nected convolutional network (DenseNet), demonstrated strong predictive capabilities for
AnMBR performance. Notably, DenseNet exhibited the best overall performance. Also, for
the modelling of MBRs, ML- and AI-based approaches have been used successfully [61,62].
In another study, Gopi Kiran et al. [63] developed an ANN-based model to predict COD
and heavy metal removal in a rotating biological contactor (RBC). It is important to note
that the IWA standard models developed for ASMs and ADMs can be incorporated into
the mechanistic modelling of processes outlined in Figure 1. For example, a modified
ASM1 model was effectively used for the dynamic simulation of a pilot-scale trickling filter
bioreactor implemented at the Phu Loc WWTP, Da Nang, Vietnam [64].
2.4. Modelling AOP-Based Treatment Processes

AOPs exhibit a complex and nonlinear dynamic for several reasons. The main rea-
son for intricate reaction mechanisms and degradation paths for AOPs is the nonselec-
tive reactions of generated ROS with various species extending beyond the target com-
pound. This also involves the nonselective reaction of a ROS with other ROS or even
itself, known as the scavenging effect, especially at higher oxidant concentrations than
the optimal amount [65,66]. Additionally, the degradation in photo-involved AOPs may
occur through both direct and indirect photolysis, adding further complexity to the pro-
cess dynamic [67–71]. Given the complexity and nonlinearity of AOPs, in studying their
dynamics, the tendency is towards utilizing system identification. For instance, Shahwan
et al. [72] studied the transient behaviour of the ultraviolet (UV)/H2 O2 process by mod-
elling the degradation of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) in a photoreactor. This modelling was
conducted by estimating the first-order plus time delay (FOPTD) and the second-order plus
time delay (SOPTD) TFs. Both the graphical method and MATLAB system identification
toolbox were employed to estimate TFs. In their study, the process response to each step
change in the [H2 O2 ]in /[PVA]in mass ratio, was measured by measuring time-varying pH
in the effluent. Subsequently, for each experiment, a separate TF was identified. In most
experiments, the FOPTD-TF demonstrated more accuracy than the SOPTD-TF in describing
the process dynamic.
Hamad et al. [73] studied the UV/H2 O2 process for PVA degradation as a multi-input
multi-output (MIMO) system. In their study, process inputs were inlet feed flow rate
(mL/min) and inlet H2 O2 concentration (mg/L), process outputs were residual H2 O2
(mg/L) and effluent total organic carbon (TOC) (mg/L), and disturbance was PVA concen-
tration in the feed (mg/L). Experimental data from step change experiments were fitted to
a fourth-order state-space model to describe the dynamic behaviour of the process success-
fully. Recently, Lin et al. [74] used ARX, a nonlinear autoregressive with exogenous input
model (NARX) (along with different activation functions), and Hammerstein–Wiener (HW)
structures to describe the same system as a single-input single-output (SISO). In their study,
the process input was inlet H2 O2 concentration, and the process output was the effluent pH.
Their investigation involved the study of the dynamic system in two scenarios. The first
scenario was operating a single photoreactor and the second scenario was the operation of
two photoreactors in series. Due to the high nonlinearity of the process, the ARX model
showed poor fitness in both studied scenarios (almost 65% fitness). In investigating the
single-photoreactor, fitting the experimental data to the HW structure resulted in 68.78%
and 69.49% fitness of the training data and validation data, respectively, to the developed
model. However, the open-loop stability test and whiteness test failed. In the second sce-
nario [75], fitting the experimental data to the HW structure led to a relatively low fitness
level for the training and validation data, with values of 50.6% and 24.76%, respectively.
Also, modelling the process using NARX, along with the tree partition function, resulted in
the best fit in the single-photoreactor scenario. In that case, the highest fitness of 91.59%,
lowest final prediction error (FPE), and lowest mean squared error (MSE) were obtained.
However, the best model to describe the process when two identical photoreactors were
operating in series was achieved by NARX accompanied by the sigmoid activation function.
The COD removal and colour removal of synthetic textile wastewater in a Fenton
process was modelled using the backpropagation function artificial neural network (BP-
FANN) approach. These models considered the inlet Fe2+ flow rate, inlet H2 O2 flow rate,
measured pH, and measured oxidation–reduction potential (ORP) in the oxidation reactor
as influential factors. Then, to obtain the desired COD/colour removal, Fe2+ and H2 O2
dosages were adjusted manually by constantly comparing the predicted process response
with the desired one. In fact, the process response was predicted using an ANN model
alongside information on monitored pH and ORP of the system and initial dosages of
Fe2+ and H2 O2 [76]. While that study claimed to address online monitoring and control
of the process, it is important to note that the monitoring and computation time intervals
were relatively large, allowing the system to reach a steady state. Thus, further research is
required to explore the dynamic behaviour of the system during transient states.
Foschi et al. [77] implemented different linear regression approaches, ANN, and
two-part ANN (TPANN), to model the UV disinfection process using data from the S.
Rocco WWTP, Milan, Italy. The process variables were the concentration of E. coli in
the influent, the number of operating UV lamps (as a representative of UV intensity),
turbidity, and temperature. The process response was the concentration of E. coli in the
effluent. Djeddou and Loukam [78] modified the performance of the radial basis function
neural network (RBFNN) model to predict ozonation disinfection by combining it with
the wavelet transformation function. Predicted values for ozone dosing (mg/L) using a
hybrid wavelet radial basis function-based neural network (WRBFNN) model showed a
good agreement with the actual data. The actual data were obtained from the Oued Al-
Athmania drinking water treatment plant. Wang et al. [79] employed the RBFNN to model
the nonlinear dynamic behaviour of the primary ozonation step of the water disinfection
process in the Xiangcheng drinking water treatment plant (XWTP), Suzhou, China. The
RBFNN model was trained using different algorithms, including gradient descent (GD),
genetic algorithm (GA), and particle swarm optimization (PSO). Among them all, RBFNN-
PSO showed the best convergence and the lowest prediction error. Dongsheng et al. [80]
developed the ozonation disinfection model using RBFNN to map the complexity and
nonlinearity of the process. Abouzlam et al. [81,82] studied the catalytic ozonation as a
single-input multi-output (SIMO) system. In their study, CVs were the concentration of
ozone gas in process effluent and the absorbance of UV340 at effluent as an indicator of
pollutant concentration. The MV was the ozonator inlet power. The nonlinear Wiener
model and FOPTD-TF were developed successfully to identify the process. Although
employing system identification helped to describe the dynamic behaviour of catalytic
ozonation mathematically, the developed model was entirely statistical. Hence, in a later
study, Abouzlam et al. [83] investigated the dynamic behaviour of the process using
the gray-box approach. In that study, physically meaningful differential equations were
developed by applying mass balance equations over the ozonation reactor. Given the
existing knowledge of certain time-varying physical parameters derived from experimental
data, the Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) algorithm was employed to estimate parameters for
the dynamic model. The outcomes of their study demonstrated a good convergence of the
LM algorithm. Consequently, a nonlinear mechanistic dynamic model was developed to
describe the catalytic ozonation of the synthetic wastewater. In developing mechanistic
models for AOPs, a comprehensive understanding of the process is imperative to propose
optimal process mechanisms. Also, the identification of the critical reactions responsible
for pollutant degradation is essential. This identification often involves estimating reaction
rate constants or conducting specific experimental studies. For instance, in AOPs, the
implementation of trapping tests is beneficial. In trapping tests, a particular reagent is
introduced to the reaction to react with a specific ROS selectively. This helps identify the
main ROS responsible for pollutant degradation [20,23,25,84–86]. If the contributions of
other ROS to the pollutant degradation are negligible, omitting related reactions from
the mechanistic model enhances computational efficiency while maintaining accuracy
in representing essential reactions. Table 2 outlines the main difficulties in the dynamic
modelling of AOP-based wastewater treatment processes and the actions that have been
taken to resolve them.
Later, the developed dynamic models for the processes will be utilized in designing
appropriate controllers.
3. Controlling Treatment Processes

After developing an appropriate dynamic model for the treatment process, the model
can be implemented in a process control scheme to regulate the process to reject distur-
bances or track the trajectory reference. This approach is called process model-based control
(PMBC). Table 3 shows the different types of studied and proposed control methods in
biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment processes. Table 4 provides details of
recent studies on controlling biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment processes.
Table 3. The studied and proposed control methods in biological and AOP-based wastewater
treatment processes.
Type of Control
Control Strategy Note
Method
Proportional control (P):
• The simplest control strategy;
• Control action proportional to the error signal;
• Applicable in on/off and continuous control;
• Providing stable control within a small-time delay;
• Oscillatory response with overshoot for large disturbances.
Proportional-Integral control (PI):
• Control action based on both current error and cumulative sum of past
errors;
• Integrating integral control for steady-state error elimination;
• Providing stable control within a moderate time delay;
P/PI/PID • Oscillatory response for high values of integral gain;
[40,75,87–94] • Slower response than P control.
Proportional-Integral-Derivative Control (PID):
• The most implemented control in WWTPs;
• Control action based on current error, cumulative sum of past errors, and
the rate of change in error over time;
• Integrating derivative control for overshoot elimination;
• Improved response time;
• Providing stable control within a larger time delay;
• Ability to reject more significant disturbances;
• Complex tuning in some cases;
Linear control • Precise if tuned based on an accurate process model;
• Low performance for highly nonlinear processes.
• Internal model control;

• A model-based control;
• Simple design and implementation if process model is achievable;
IMC
• Applicable for a wide range of systems;
[88,95,96]
• Control action based on model-based estimation;
• Beneficial for the processes with a long-time delay;
• Improper for nonlinear or time-varying systems.
• A model-based control;
• Involving pole replacement to achieve a desired performance;
Pole replacement • Beneficial for unstable, poorly damped, high order, or large-delayed
[97–99] systems;
• Improved response by reducing overshoot, settling, and rise time;
• Complex and knowledge-demanding control method.
• A multi-loop control strategy;

• Adjusting subsequent controller setpoint based on primary controller
output;
Cascade
• Improved control performance through problem decomposition;
[12,87,88,100–106]
• Fast and accurate process control performance;
• Requiring careful consideration of system dynamics;
• Requiring proper controllers’ tuning.
Table 3. Cont.
Type of Control
Control Strategy Note
Method
• Early disturbance indication and corrective action generation;
FF • Suitable for processes with prolonged delays and frequent disturbances;
[107,108] • Applicable when the disturbance is measurable;
• Enhancing control performance through FB control integration.
Adaptive • Self-tuning capability by changing process behaviour;

[39,79,91,92,99,109] • Beneficial for systems with variable dynamics.
• A model-based control approach;

• An optimization-based control strategy;
Optimal • Optimized control output;
Linear control
[81,82] • Better performance than conventional controls;
• Requiring excessive computations;
• Inefficient for real-time control of overly complex systems.
• A model-based control approach;

• Optimization of control actions for short time intervals using process
response prediction;
MPC • Applicable for MIMO systems;
[73,79,80,99] • Suitable for complex and interdependent processes;
• Robust control by constraining process variables;
• Using invariant sets to capture nonlinear dynamics;

Geometric nonlinear
[110,111]
Nonlinear • Control of diverse operating regimes by adaptable control gains;

Gain scheduling
control • Gain scheduling based on process models;
[99,110]
• Dynamic control by switching between sets of control gains.
NMPC [12,112] • MPC control for a nonlinear process.
NMC [113–115] • IMC control for a nonlinear process.

Expert system
• Intelligent-based control systems;
(Knowledge-based)
• Emulating human expert thinking for generating control action.
[102,106]
Fuzzy logic-based • Implementing FLC or fuzzy-based process models in the structure of
[40,91,106,116] other control methods such as MPC or IMC.
• Efficient in capturing the nonlinearity of the system;

• Used with model-based control approaches;
ANN-based
• The most common ANNs in wastewater treatment applications:
[75,76,79,95,96,112,117–120]
AI-based control feedforward neural networks (FFNN), RBFNN, and recurrent neural
networks (RNN).
• Efficient in capturing the nonlinearity of the system;

• Problem-solving algorithms derived from natural processes such as
Nature-inspired
ANN, GA, PSO, and ant colony optimization (ACO);
algorithm-based [121]
• Integration into control schemes for process modelling or control action
optimization.
Hybrid AI-based • Integration of diverse AI-based methods for enhanced benefits and
[93,122–125] mitigation of individual limitations.
Table 4. Recent studies on controlling biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment processes.
Wastewater Influent Wastewater Dynamic Process Study Focus and Other

Reactor Size Control Strategy Control Parameters Reference
Treatment Process Data Origin Model Information
h i
Full scale: two anoxic PI, − Simulation; controller tuning
CVs: DOr , NO3, ;
r
Visakhapatnam tanks, 663 m3 each, FPI, MVs: aeration rate, methods:
ASP ASM1 in BSM1 [40]
MWWTP, India three aerobic tanks, MPC, internal recycling flow iSIMC for PI, a proposed
883 m3 each FLC rate method for FPI
h i
−
CVs: DO, NO3, ;
Default data for Full scale: two anoxic Data-driven iterative r
MVs: oxygen transfer Simulation; outperformance
ASP typical MWW data tanks, three aerobic BSM1 adaptive critic (IAC) [109]
coefficient, internal of IAC over PID
embedded in BSM1 tanks control
recycling flow rate
System identification: −
CVs: DO, NO2,r ;
Default data for
adaptive fuzzy Data-driven MOPC MVs: oxygen transfer
ASP typical MWW data Full scale Simulation [126]
neural network alongside TMOOA coefficient, internal
embedded in BSM2
(AFNN) in BSM2 recycle flow rate
CVs: DO, inlet
Full scale: anoxic tank,
Făcăi WWTP, A modified ASM by Adaptive wastewater
ASP 3375 m3 and aerobic Simulation [39]
Craiova, Romania Nejjari et al. [127] multivariable control concentration; MVs:
tank, 15,000 m3
aeration rate, RAS rate
Toulouse City sewer Pilot scale: Simulation; sampling time:
ASP ASM1 - - [41]
system, France a bioreactor, 0.03 m3 20 min
Simulation and
System identification:
IWW, unknown food Pilot scale: a bioreactor, Adaptive Gain CV: DO; MV: aeration implementation; controller
ASP FOPTD-TF by [99]
industry 0.1 m3 scheduling rate tuning method: pole-zero
graphical method
allocation
Full scale: one anoxic h
−
i
ASM1 in SIMBA CVs: DO, NO3, ;
ASP Unknown WWTP tank and two aerobic Dual QFT loop eff Simulation [128]
toolbox, MATLAB MV: aeration rate
tanks
Table 4. Cont.

Simulation and
Kartuzy WWTP, Full scale: four aerobic ASM2 in SIMBA Hierarchical CV: DO; MV: aeration
ASP implementation; sampling [101]
Northern Poland tanks toolbox, MATLAB two-level NMPC rate
time: 5 min
Simulation and
LNMIIT WWTP, Pilot scale: Capacity of PID implemented in CV: DO; MV: aeration implementation; aeration
ASP - [129]
Jaipur, India 125 KLD a PLC controller rate rate regulation by installing
VFD
Pilot scale: five anoxic
CV: NH4+ eff ;

Nine Springs WWTP, Cascade of PI-P Simulation and
ABAC and aerobic tanks, ASM1 in BSM1 [87]
Madison, WI, USA controllers MV: aeration rate implementation
2180 L total volume
Simulation; controller tuning
Default data for
Cascade of FLC-PI CV: DO; MV: aeration method:
ABAC typical MWW data ASM1 in BSM1 [88]
controllers rate IMC-based for PI,
embedded in BSM1
sampling time: 15 min
Full scale: three anoxic Cascade supervisory
Swarzewo WWTP, ASM2 in SIMBA CV: DO; MV: aeration Simulation; sampling time:
SBR tanks, 5000 m3 , three sequential controller [12]
Poland toolbox, MATLAB rate 2 min
aerobic tanks, 6500 m3 (SSC)-NMPC
Unknown (data is
CV: DO; MV: oxygen
SBR available in the Full scale ASM2d in MATLAB Fuzzy control Simulation [130]
transfer coefficient
study)
Simulation and
On/off, PID, fuzzy
CV: DO; MV: aeration implementation;
SBR Cerlà WWTP, Spain Pilot scale - control implemented [131]
rate outperformance of fuzzy
in Labwindows®
control
Table 4. Cont.

Yumoto WWTP, ASM3 and ASM2d Combination of FB CV: OR; Simulation and
Oxidation ditch Full scale [108]
Japan in WEST and FF MV: aeration rate implementation
CVs: flux, TMP;
FFNN, RBFNN,
MBR Unknown WW Pilot scale IMC MV: permeate pump Simulation [62]
NARXNN
voltage
Pilot scale: anaerobic CVs: DO, NH4+ eff ,

Mixture of WW from Integration of
tank, 62 L, anoxic tank, Cascade of PI h
−
i [103,132]
Series of AD+MBR Palermo WWTP, Italy, modified ASM2d and NO2, ; MV: Simulation
102 L, aerobic tank, controllers eff
and synthetic WW physical sub-model aeration flow rate
211 L, MBR tank, 36 L
Simulation and
CVs: pH, gas flow rate,
Up-flow anaerobic Synthetic WW, COD Lab scale: cylindrical Rule-based implementation; sampling
- methane content; MV: [102]
fixed bed reactor = 8300 mg/L reactor, 1.8 L supervisory control time: 2.5 min for pH, 30 min
influent flow rate
for gas flow rate
Synthetic
CVs: [VFAs]eff ,
Up-flow sludge bed ethanol-contained Cascade of PID Simulation; controller tuning
Pilot scale: 1150 L Modified ADM1 Qmethane, eff ; MV: [104]
filter WW representing controllers method: ISE
influent flow rate
winery WW
CVs: fouling rate, TMP,
Hierarchical control,
Full scale: anaerobic membrane
lower layer: PID and Simulation; controller
Carraixet WWTP, tank, 1300 L, Resistance-in-series permeability, SRF;
AnMBR on/off, upper layer: tuning: trial and error for [106]
Valencia, Spain two membrane tanks, filtration MVs: influent flow rate,
fuzzy and rule-based PID, IAE for fuzzy
800 L each back-flushing initiation
controllers
and duration, etc.
Lab scale:
Simulation; controller tuning
Synthetic series of two System identification: CV: effluent pH; MV:
UV/H2 O2 FB-PID method: IAE, [74]
PVA-contained WW photoreactors, 0.92 L ARX, NARX, HW [H2 O2 ]in
sampling time: 8 min
total volume
Table 4. Cont.

CVs: [TOC]eff ,
System identification:
Lab scale: series of two [H2 O2 ]residual ; MVs:
Synthetic ARX, ARMAX, Simulation; sampling time:
UV/H2 O2 photoreactors 0.92 L MPC [H2 O2 ]in , feed flow [73]
PVA-contained WW standard TF, 30 s
total volume rate; Disturbance:
state-space
[PVA]feed
Grey-box
Synthetic WW:
identification: CVs: O3,gas outlet ,
paranitrophenol Simulation; sampling time:
Catalytic ozonation Lab scale: reactor, 19 L combining - UVA340,eff ; MV: [83]
solution, 8s
experimental data ozonator power
COD = 500 mg/L
with mass balance
Xiangcheng WWTP System identification: CVs: ozone exposure,
Ozonation Simulation and
(XWTP), Suzhou, Full scale RBFNN trained by Adaptive MPC O3,gas residual ; MVs: [79]
disinfection implementation
China PSO QO3 ,inlet , O3,gas inlet
Synthetic WW: System identification
Optimal linear CVs: O3,gas outlet ;
paranitrophenol Pilot scale: Reactor, TF method,
Catalytic ozonation quadratic (LQ) UVA340,outlet ; MV: Simulation [81,82]
solution, 19 L parameter estimation
control ozonator power
COD = 500 mg/L by LM algorithm
CV: Total coliform
UV and UV/TiO2 Miao-Li City sewer System identification: Simulation and
Lab scale Manual control counts in the effluent, [133]
disinfection system, Taiwan BPFNN implementation
MV: QWW,in
Lab scale: initial pH
Synthetic textile WW
adjusting tank, 0.9 L, CVs: ORPoxidationtank ,
(PVA+ Reactive Blue Simulation and
main oxidation tank, System identification: pHoxidationtank ; MVs:
Fenton 49 (RB49) and ANN-based control implementation; sampling [76]
1.2 L, second pH BPFNN F2+ dosage, H2 O2
Reactive Black B time: 30 min
adjusting tank, 1.2 L, dosage
(RBB) dyes)
settling tank, 0.9 L
Notes: MWW: municipal wastewater; IWW: industrial wastewater; MOPC: multi-objective predictive control; TMOOA: transfer multi-objective optimization algorithm; QFT: quantitative
feedback theory; LNMIIT: LNM institute of information technology; KLD: kilo liter per day; VFD: variable frequency drive; OR: oxygen requirement; NARXNN: nonlinear autoregressive
exogenous neural network; TMP: transmembrane pressure; VFA: volatile fatty acid; SRF: sludge recirculation flow; IAE: integral of absolute error; ARMAX: autoregressive moving
average with exogenous input; UVA: UV absorbance; WW: wastewater.
3.1. Controlling Biological Treatment Processes—ASP

With respect to the control of ASP, numerous studies have focused on regulating
aeration to control DO, a key factor for maintaining high effluent quality while minimizing
energy consumption, which are two main concerns of ASPs. Aeration adjustment is per-
formed manually or automatically using on/off or deviation valves. These valves receive
their signals from the controller to minimize the DO deviation from its setpoint [130]. To
regulate DO and nitrate concentration in specific points of a biological WWTP, Tejaswini
et al. [40] designed and studied the performance of four different types of control ap-
proaches, including proportional–integral (PI), fractional order proportional–integral (FPI),
MPC, and fuzzy logic control (FLC). In their study, return activated sludge (RAS) and
aeration flow rates were manipulated to regulate the process. The performance of designed
controllers was evaluated using the BSM1 scheme. Simulation results showed the accept-
able performance of the PI controller. However, in the case of FPI, a reduced integral square
error (ISE) index, a statistical metric for assessing controller performance, was achieved.
Additionally, it was observed that the FLC can significantly decrease ammonia concentra-
tion compared to other control methods. The slightest fluctuations in total nitrogen (TN)
and ammonia in effluent were also observed for FLC and MPC. The best setpoint tracking
was observed for MPC. In fact, MPC can be concluded to be the best control approach
in their study because despite the significant influence of FLC on process performance,
implementing it can significantly increase the power cost of aeration. In addition, generally,
when advanced controllers were introduced, the effluent quality index (EQI) and opera-
tional cost index (OCI) decreased significantly by 19.89% and 5.24% for MPC and by 20.9%
and 4.63% for the FLC, respectively. Ammonia-based aeration control (ABAC) is a control
method in biological treatment. It controls DO in the aeration tank based on measured
ammonia in its effluent rather than keeping DO at a constant setpoint [117]. ABAC studies
are mainly performed using the BSM1 benchmark and have resulted in decreasing oxygen
consumption as well as increasing ammonia removal efficiency [83]. Husin et al. [117]
studied and developed an ANN-based ABAC. The BSM1 simulation results demonstrated
that, compared to PI-ABAC, ANN-ABAC led to the reduction in the aeration energy cost
index (AECI) by up to 23.86%. Additionally, it resulted in an enhancement of the EQI by
1.94% and the reduction in the OCI by 4.61%. Also, satisfactory results were observed in
decreasing the number of TN violations in effluent by 28.567% for dry and stormy weather
and 40% for rainy weather. Wang et al. [109] developed a control scheme for an MWWTP to
maintain the DO and nitrate concentration at their desired setpoints. The iterative adaptive
critic (IAC) method was applied in their study to cope with the process complexity. The
outcomes revealed a notably superior performance of the developed data-driven IAC
control compared to the conventional PID control.
An effective control strategy for simultaneously determining an appropriate setpoint
and tracking it is the two-layered hierarchical control (cascade) strategy. First, the developed
algorithm in the upper layer determines the lower layer setpoint, and subsequently, the
lower layer tracks the setpoint. It has been observed that a multi-loop control strategy
significantly increases the performance of WWTP processes [100]. In another study reported
by Petre et al. [39], ORP in each of the anoxic and aerobic tanks of the ASP was monitored as
a representative indicator of carbonaceous substance content. Their study aimed to achieve
a setpoint of 1.5 mg/L for DO in the aerobic basin by adjusting inlet wastewater and air
flow rates. Therefore, they designed and simulated an adaptive control to monitor DO and
concentration of wastewater in the aeration tank of a multivariable ASP in a real WWTP.
Petre et al. [39,87] compared the performance of continuous ABAC with intermittent
ABAC for a pilot-scale ASP. In intermittent mode, the setpoint for NH4+ concentration
was defined in the range of 2–5 mg N/L. If the NH4+ concentration was less than 2 mg
N/L, the aeration was turned off through a cascade-PI control loop. Alternatively, if the
measured concentration of ammonia was 5 mgN/L or higher, the aeration was kept on.
In addition, having a nitrite concentration of zero or less than 3.5 mgN/L was enough to
keep the process in air-on mode. During the aeration-on mode, DO was kept at 0.7 mg/L,
which is a low-DO setpoint. The aim was to adjust microorganisms to operate in low-DO
conditions to save energy. The lower proportional controller adjusted the current DO
with a low-DO setpoint by manipulating the flow rate of inlet air. On the other hand, in
continuous mode, there was a solo setpoint of 5 mgN/L for ammonium concentration.
Also, DO in the inner loop was continuously adjusted between 0.1 and 0.6 mg/L to
achieve the ammonium setpoint. Both operational modes exhibited excellent efficiency
in ammonia degradation, TN removal, and total phosphorous (TP) removal, surpassing
90%, 60%, and 90%, respectively. However, the intermittent operating ABAC showed better
performance in nitrification–denitrification. Another study explored the implementation of
hierarchical FLC-PI control by employing BSM1. In that arrangement, the FLC supervised
the PI controller. The outcome showed a notable enhancement in DO setpoint tracking.
The proposed control improved the quality of ASP effluent by up to 20.3%. In addition,
effluent TN and ammonia concentration variations decreased considerably due to the DO
setpoint improvement. However, the proposed control scheme showed a minor increase
in aeration energy (AE) consumption [88]. A nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC)
was formulated in a separate study for DO regulation. This approach involved employing
a self-organizing fuzzy neural network (SOFNN) to model the dynamics of the ASP and
implementing an adaptive second-order LM algorithm for control of the process. The
effectiveness of the proposed control was validated for both varying and fixed set-point
scenarios using BSM1 and experimental data [112]. Further, Sadeghassadi et al. [33]
proved that employing ANN or fuzzy models as nonlinear predictive models in the MPC
structure enhances control performance. In another study, Smida et al. [134] exploited a
reduced ASM in the structure of an output feedback predictive control (OFPC) to control
nitrogen concentration in the effluent of the ASP. The simulation results demonstrated
a good estimation performance. Finally, according to Gu et al. [135], advanced control
methodologies, including ANN and fuzzy logic, as well as hybrid approaches such as
self-adaptive fuzzy PID control, demonstrated enhanced efficiency in aeration control.
3.2. Controlling Biological Treatment Processes—SBR

In SBRs, an optimal control system determines and adjusts the duration of the entire
treatment process, the duration of each cycle, and other operating conditions, including DO,
based on online measurements of relevant indicators [136]. In the following, a summary of
some recent studies on the control of the SBR is presented.
Piotrowski et al. [12] designed a two-layered hierarchical control scheme for an SBR
process. A supervisory sequential controller (SSC) controlled the required number and
duration of oxidation cycles in the SBR according to a dominant algorithm. In addition, the
second algorithm in the SSC, which was an NMPC, controlled the DO level in the SBR tank.
The DO level was controlled such that it coped with the fluctuations in the influent flow
rate, without altering the effluent quality. In their study, sequential quadratic programming
(SQP) was implemented to solve the NMPC optimization problem. Their study was an
attempt to improve the performance of the current SBR control system in a WWTP in
Poland. The results of their study showed that the performance of the proposed control
system was promising. In another study by Dries [31], aeration in an SBR was controlled
through an on/off method by monitoring DO in the system over time and maintaining it
at 2–3 mg/L. Also, the oxygen uptake rate (OUR) was determined online by calculating
the slope of the DO curve. After a minimum of 30 minutes of aeration, the duration of
the aerobic stage was determined based on the difference between the current OUR value
and its value at the past sampling time. Achieving OUR of 15 mg/L.h and a maximum
OUR difference of 1 mg/L.h between two sequential sampling times were determined
as the aeration ending point indicator. Monitoring ORP during the anoxic filling of an
SBR revealed crucial information. The point at which the slope of the ORP curve versus
time changed by −50% signified the termination of the anoxic denitrification stage. This
transition indicated the starting time for the aeration, which was the subsequent phase. It
should be considered that at the initial point of the anoxic filling phase, DO was less than
0.5 mg O2 /L, and controlling the SBR through monitoring the reduction in the ORP slope
started right after filling the tank with a minimum amount of wastewater and continued to
the ending point of the anoxic phase. In addition to the ORP reduction trend, reaching the
maximum capacity of the SBR tank was another indicator for terminating the anoxic filling
stage [31]. In a study by Dries [31], the Nessler, cadmium reduction, and gravimetrically
methods were used to measure ammonium, nitrate, and MLSS, respectively. The results of
their study demonstrated that implementing the proposed SBR control system increased the
efficiency of the process and saved time and energy. The process was modified by adjusting
operation conditions, including the ratio of the fed wastewater to microorganisms, duration
of SBR phases, and rate of exchanging the volume. The adjustment was performed based
on the characteristics of activated sludge (AS). The results of that study have encouraged
industries to implement SBRs for treating high-ammonia wastewater. Furthermore, in
controlling the nitrification process in a lab-scale bioreactor, van Rooyen et al. [137] kept
the biological reaction rate at its maximum amount by monitoring and controlling the pH
of the process. The pH-based control system was used because of the importance of pH
in nitrification. Indeed, on converting each mole of ammonia to nitrate, one mole of H+
was produced. Consequently, it was concluded that pH is a reasonable indicator of process
activity. To control the pH in the system such that the process operated at its highest yield,
whenever a pH change was observed, hydroxide (through dosing potassium hydroxide
(KOH)) was added to the system to compensate for the pH drop. After a while, observing
a constant pH indicated ammonia extinction in the bioreactor and marked the proper time
to empty the tank and refill it with a new substrate. Hydroxide dosing in their study was
controlled by an FB-PI-control scheme after each pH reading at 30-min intervals.
3.3. Controlling other Biological Treatment Processes

Although exploring control of other biological treatment processes than ASPs and
SBRs is not the focus of this study, a brief mention of such processes is included in this
section and Table 4. The primary control objectives for most of the biological wastewater
treatment processes outlined in Figure 1 are to maintain the effluent quality and/or mini-
mize costs, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Effluent quality
control in biological filter or membrane-based processes, such as trickling filters, RBC,
MBRs, or AnMBRs, is more challenging compared to processes that only involve biological
treatment. The optimal control of these processes requires controlling both the filtration
and biological processes. Adjusting process parameters such as HRT, sludge retention time
(SRT), carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, alkalinity, pH, or temperature can regulate the biological
process [138,139]. On the other hand, fouling control can be achieved in an open-loop
or closed-loop manner by manipulating flux, initial time and duration of backwashing,
relaxation, and permeation stages or scouring gas/biogas purging [59,138,139]. Mahmod
et al. [62] explored several ANN-based structures to identify the most effective one in
capturing the dynamic behaviour of a pilot-scale MBR system. The results of their inves-
tigation revealed that RBFNN exhibited remarkable accuracy in predicting the process
output. Subsequently, the developed RBFNN model was integrated into an internal model
control (IMC) structure to regulate flux and transmembrane pressure (TMP) by adjusting
the voltage of the permeate pump. The implemented RBFNN-IMC system demonstrated ef-
ficient disturbance rejection and precise tracking of the setpoint trajectory. In another study,
Robles et al. [105] designed a multi-loop control system for an AnMBR by incorporating
both on/off and PID controllers. Throughout their investigation, each process parameter
was controlled by manipulating an appropriate input parameter in an FB-SISO loop. This
led to the formation of a closed multi-loop system capable of effectively regulating the
process. The performance of a laboratory-scale up-flow anaerobic fixed bed reactor was
controlled through a cascade of P controllers supervised by a rule-based controller. The pH,
gas flow rate, and methane content in the effluent were the CVs, while the MV was the inlet
wastewater flow rate [102]. Mannina et al. [103,132] designed a cascade of PI controllers to
regulate ammonia and nitrite concentration by manipulating aeration in a series of AD and
MBR bioreactors. In another study, García-Diéguez et al. [104] designed a cascade of PID
controllers to control volatile fatty acid (VFA) concentration and methane flow rate at the
outlet of a pilot-scale up-flow sludge bed filter by manipulating the inlet feed flow rate. The
simulation results demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed control, showcasing its
capability to successfully reject even severe disturbances. In conclusion, beyond addressing
effluent quality, the efficiency of biogas generation, and the control of fouling are essen-
tial considerations in the control of AD-based and filtration-based biological treatment
methods, respectively. Also, Klaus et al. [123] implemented a pH-based control for the
aeration of a deammonification moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) to enhance the process
performance. Indeed, by monitoring effluent NH4+ concentration, conductivity, and pH,
it was observed that the pH is the best representative of the residual alkalinity, indicating
the activity of nitrifier bacteria. Conclusively, implementing pH-based aeration control
for deammonification MBBR prevented over-aeration and under-aeration. This improved
ammonia removal by up to 90%. Also, alkalinity depletion was effectively prevented.
3.4. Controlling AOP-Based Treatment Processes

The main challenges associated with implementing AOP-based processes in full-scale
include their high operating costs and the risk of effluent quality violation in the presence
of disturbances, which is attributable to their short time delay. As a result, reliable control
systems must be designed and implemented for these processes to maintain effluent quality
and reduce operating costs. Some studies regarding this matter are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
Hamad et al. [73] designed an MPC scheme to regulate the PVA degradation process in
two UV/H2 O2 photoreactors in series, by integrating the state-space model of the process.
The results of their study demonstrated the effective performance of the proposed control
in achieving setpoint tracking for effluent TOC and residual H2 O2 . This was accomplished
through the regulation of inlet wastewater flow rate and inlet H2 O2 concentration. Lin
et al. [75] developed dynamic models using system identification techniques to map the
nonlinearity of the UV/H2 O2 process. Later, they employed the best-developed models
in designing controllers. Different controllers (P, PI, and PID) were tuned based on devel-
oped ARX and NARX-sigmoid models for two photoreactors in series. It was observed
that ARX-PID and ARX-sigmoid-PID have the best performance of all. However, the
response of the NARX-sigmoid-PID was sluggish, and the ARX-PID had a considerable
overshoot [36,37,75].
One crucial matter in water disinfection using ozonation is adjusting ozone dosing.
As a result of optimal ozone dosing, the disinfection performance is maintained at a
high level, and the probability of producing bromate by-products at high residual ozone
concentrations stays low. Additionally, this adjustment is cost-effective as it prevents
ozone wastage and conserves both oxygen and electricity. Wang et al. [79] designed an
adaptive NMPC control for the main ozonation step of the water disinfection process in
an XWTP, Suzhou, China. They utilized a developed RBFNN model in the structure of
NMPC. The control goal in their study was to maintain the residual ozone in the effluent
(mg/L) and ozone exposure (mg/L min) at their desired values by adjusting the inlet
ozone gas flow rate (L/min) and the concentration of ozone in the inlet gas (mg/L). In
the designed adaptive control, whenever the root mean square error (RMSE) was greater
than 0.2, weights of the RBFNN model were updated using the recursive least square
(RLS) algorithm. The performance of the adaptive RBFNN-MPC was compared with the
performance of a PI control scheme. Based on the MATLAB simulation results, the MPC
controller exhibited a smaller overshoot, shorter settling time, and reduced integral of
absolute error (IAE) compared to the PI controller. Also, they observed when the adaptive
RBFNN model was embedded in MPC control, closed-loop performance was much better
than embedding the fixed RBFNN in the MPC structure. Experimental data obtained
after the implementation of the proposed control strategy in XWTP verified the excellent
performance of adaptive RBFNN-MPC. In another study, Dongsheng et al. [96] deployed
the same developed RBFNN model, describing the ozonation disinfection, in an IMC
scheme to control the constant contact time of ozone with the water by adjusting the ozone
dosage. Based on their study, determining a constant setpoint for ozone exposure is a
more efficient control strategy than defining a constant setpoint for ozone dosing or for
the concentration of residual ozone in the effluent. In another study, Dongsheng et al. [80]
implemented an MPC control based on a process model developed using the support vector
machine (SVM) method to describe the same ozonation disinfection process. In their study,
the ozone dosage was manipulated to maintain the contact time constant, in the presence
of fluctuations in influent water characteristics. Both IMC and MPC control outperformed
PI control in managing the ozonation disinfection process. The addition of a catalyst
to the ozonation process enhances its performance by increasing the efficiency of both
direct (reaction of organics with ozone) and indirect (reaction of organics with generated
ROS) ozonation reactions. Abouzlam et al. [81,82] implemented catalytic ozonation to
remove paranitrophenol from synthetic wastewater. The main problem in advance of
using catalytic ozonation for wastewater treatment is its high operating cost due to the
substantial electrical and oxygen consumption in the ozonator. To minimize the operating
cost and maximize the removal efficiency, the amount of generated ozone can be optimized
by manipulating the ozonator inlet power. Thus, Abouzlam et al. [81,82] proposed an FB
control scheme. The optimal gain values of controllers were calculated using the developed
TFs along with the linear quadratic (LQ) algorithm. The proposed optimal control showed
a good performance in regulating the process when positive or negative step changes were
applied to the inlet pollutant concentration.
Lin et al. [133] proposed a manual control scheme to monitor and control either UV
or UV/TiO2 processes in a lab-scale photoreactor to disinfect actual wastewater samples
obtained from the Miao-Li City sewer system in Taiwan. The MV and CV were the
inlet wastewater flow rate (ml/min) and the total coliform counts (CFU/100 ml) in the
effluent, respectively. The initial wastewater flow rate was estimated using the developed
relationship between UV dose (µW/cm2 ) and the desired decrease in total coliform count
(CFU/100 ml). By knowing the total coliform counts in influent (CFU/100 ml), contact time
(s), and by online monitoring of pH, ORP (mV), turbidity (NTU), temperature (°C), UV
intensity (W/m2 ), and colour (ADMI) in the photoreactor, coliform counts in the effluent
(CFU/100 ml) were predicted. The prediction model was developed using the BPFANN
method. The error was generated by comparing values of predicted coliform counts in
the effluent and its setpoint. If the error was negligible, the process was kept operating at
the current inlet flow rate. If the error was considerable, the inlet flow rate was adjusted
manually to push the CV toward its setpoint. By developing and utilizing the BPFANN
model in the control scheme, the energy demand decreased by 13.2–15.7 percent.
Despite the acknowledged advantages of all studies in the control domain, it is notewor-
thy that a substantial portion of them, except some [79,87,99,101,102,107,108,129,131,133],
are confined to simulation stages, lacking real-case implementation and verification. Conse-
quently, prevalent, applied control strategies in WWTPs primarily involve PID and MPC, with
the occasional integration of fuzzy logic, ANN, and adaptive control in specific instances.
Table 5 summarizes the motivations and limitations of developing process control
for biological and AOP-based treatment methods. It must be considered that achieving
reliable control requires accessing real-time process data. This matter is discussed in the
next section.
Table 5. Motivations and limitations of process control implementation for biological and AOP-based
wastewater treatment processes.
Wastewater
Motivations for Implementing Process Control Limitations
Treatment Process
• Insufficiently developed process models;
• Superior effluent quality but limited
cost-effectiveness with high aeration in aerobic
• Essential effluent quality regulations;
processes;
• Necessity of optimizing the removal
• Limited adjustability range for speed of air
performance;
compressor or mechanical aerator speed;
• Necessity of optimizing biogas generation in
• Restricted aeration adjustment for turbulent
AD-based processes;
maintenance;
• Necessity of reducing operating costs;
• Limited control in the case of sole focus on DO in
Biological • Necessity of decreasing GHGs emission;
aerobic processes;
• Variability in influent characteristics/load;
• Necessity of controlling multiple parameters to
• Possible changes in environmental
optimize the process;
regulations;
• Need for diverse indicators to ascertain optimal
• Possibility of emerging new pollutants;
SBR phase durations;
• Necessity of fouling control in
• Interaction of biological and filtration
filtration-based processes.
mechanisms in combined processes;
• Need for real-time data, especially for CVs;
• Optimal sensor placement.
• Insufficiently developed process models;

• Limited adjustability range for implemented
control valves, pumps, and motors;
• Limited adjustability range for UV dosage in the
case of UV-involved processes;
• Need for real-time data, especially for CVs;
• Essential effluent quality regulations; • The necessity of implementing sensors with short
• Necessity of reducing operating costs; response time due to the short time delay of
• Variability in influent characteristics and load; processes;
AOP-based • Possible changes in environmental • Toxic effect of some excess materials in the
regulations; effluent, such as H2 O2 ;
• High possibility of effluent quality alteration • Possibility of formation of complex by-products
by disturbances due to the short time delay. because of presence of excess reactants in the
effluent;
• Possibility of sluggish response or observing
overshoot after implementing controller;
• High possibility of human error in manual-based
control;
• Optimal sensor placement.
4. Monitoring Treatment Processes

Investigating the online measurability of process variables is crucial when designing a
reliable control system for a biological or AOP-based wastewater treatment unit. Real-time
data are essential for understanding the process status and enabling the control system to
promptly regulate processes as needed. When process variables are not measurable online,
surrogate variables or other correlated online measurable parameters could be utilized for
parameter estimation. Accordingly, measuring and monitoring process parameters can
be performed using hardware or software sensors. Apart from its role in process control,
data acquired from hardware or soft sensors are essential for calibrating and validating
ASMs and ADMs tailored to each specific application. In the following, hardware and soft
sensors will be discussed in detail.
4.1. Hardware Sensors

Hardware sensors are devices that indicate a characteristic of a medium and report
it instantly via an understandable analog or digital output. Based on their operation,
generally, three classes of sensors are commonly used in WWTPs, including optical sensors,
biosensors, and ion-selective electrodes (ISEs) [13]. Employed sensors in the control system
should be highly reliable with the slightest noise, deviation, and drift [40]. The simplest
and most highly implemented hardware sensors in MWWTPs are thermometers, pressure
gauges, liquid level sensors, flowmeters, pH meters, electrical conductivity meters (EC),
ORP meters, and total suspended solids (TSS) probes to monitor the general properties of
the fluid and settleometers to monitor the settling properties of the sludge [13,140]. TSS
sensors are mostly used as an alternative method for measuring MLSS, replacing lengthy
laboratory analysis [13]. Additionally, the most common sensors/analyzers to monitor
the biological treatment processes are DO meters, UV spectrophotometers, fluorescence,
online COD meters, TOC analyzers, TN analyzers, and ISE sensors for measuring NH4+ ,
NO3− , and NO2− concentrations [13,140]. Also, short-term biochemical oxygen demand
(BODst ) can be measured by implementing biosensors or online respirometers, such as
RODTOX [140].
The innovative sensor-driven control strategies have improved nutrient removal in
WWTPs by 10% and resulted in energy savings [13]. A survey of 90 small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) operating their own WWTPs in Flanders, Belgium, showed that the
most employed sensors in IWWTPs were the DO meter and the pH meter, available in
96% and 69% of locations, respectively. Other sensors were rarely observed in surveyed
IWWTPs [141].
Depending on the location of the sensors, real-time data monitoring provides valuable
information about the influent characteristics, operating conditions in the reactor, or effluent
characteristics. This information can be interpreted and used in FF or FB control schemes
to control the wastewater treatment process. As a result, the effluent quality limits are
met, and the material, time, and energy consumption are decreased effectively. Also,
online monitoring offers a notable reduction in labour costs by obviating the necessity for
collecting and processing samples and associated manual work inherent in offline analyzer
tests. Additionally, it eliminates the need for dedicated offline analytical laboratories [142].
In aerobic biological treatment processes, the stage of biological reactions can be
determined by monitoring the concentration of nitrate, nitrite, or ammonium, using sensors.
The termination of the denitrification stage can be determined by finding the ‘nitrate knee’
through online monitoring of ORP or indicating the ‘ammonia valley’ by online monitoring
of pH. The ammonia valley is observed when the pH slope changes. Then, this obtained
information, along with DO monitoring, can be used in an FB control loop to regulate
the aeration rate [37]. The NH4+ sensor has been especially used in ABAC to adjust the
aeration of ASP through monitoring and controlling the NH4+ concentration [87]. Inventing
and implementing the nitrate, nitrite, and ammonium sensors in the biological treatment
stage to regulate aeration is considered the most remarkable achievement in recent years
regarding improving the quality and consistency of ASP effluent [13].
Also, the online respirometry data can be implemented for the purpose of aeration or
RAS rate regulation in the biological treatment process [12,143]. Respirometry rate repre-
sents the digesting bacteria OUR due to their metabolic processes. OUR can be monitored
using online respirometer probes [143]. However, to have a more effective control, knowing
the MLSS value of the AS and employing it to determine the specific oxygen uptake rate
(SOUR) is required. Also, by utilizing the data obtained from inline respirometry, various
parameters can be assessed based on the specific WWTP. These parameters include the
permissible maximum and minimum DO levels within the aeration tank. Moreover, the op-
timal utilization of tanks can be ascertained using the same data set. The other information
from respirometry is understanding the required time to reach the endogenous respiration
stage. Then, this information is used as an index to determine and control the required
HRT in the aeration tank [143]. One advantage of measuring respirometry in the ASP is its
shorter analyzing time, which makes it more reliable compared to COD and BOD5 tests.
Also, respirometry represents the process much better by providing information on both
nutrient removal and microorganism growth [144]. Respirometry tests can be performed
in a batch system or a continuous liquid flow. In online respirometry, AS is sampled at
1.5–3 h intervals.
Due to the presence of a variety of compounds in wastewater, surrogate parameters
are usually measured to represent the strength of influent wastewater or the quality of the
effluent. These parameters include ultraviolet–visible (UV-VIS) spectroscopy, fluorescence
spectroscopy, TOC, COD, BOD5 , TN, and TP. However, measuring the parameters through
conventional sensors/analyzing methods is both time and chemical demanding. Thus,
online TOC, COD, BOD5 , and TP sensors have been developed, and efforts are being
directed toward their refinement to enhance their accuracy and cost-effectiveness [13].
Some challenges lie ahead for commonly used sensors in WWTPs include the limited
measuring range, restricted lifetime, the need for regular recalibration, and the possible
interference of other parameters with the measured value. Addressing these issues is
crucial for the effective functioning of wastewater treatment processes [145]. Consequently,
many continuing studies aim to address the problems regarding hardware sensors.
For instance, Duan et al. [146] have developed a thin-film electrochemical sensor by
incorporating a copper nanoparticle (Cu-NP)-modified carbon-silica (C/SiO2 ) for online
COD measurement of the MWWTPs influent. The acceptable performance of the proposed
electrochemical sensor was approved by comparing measured values using the sensor with
COD readings from the dichromate standard method. They claimed the proposed COD
sensor works accurately with low maintenance.
Despite the dramatic evolution of hardware sensors in terms of precision and en-
durance, the response time of some of them must be reduced to make them suitable for
real-time monitoring and control [145]. The short response time for a sensor is crucial,
particularly when monitoring and controlling AOP-based treatment processes. This is
because the inherent time delay of these processes is relatively short. For good reasons,
highly reliable, expensive sensors demanding high maintenance costs might be used in
a WWTP for calibration, optimization, or periodic audits. However, as a cost-effective
approach, real-time monitoring of the WWTPs process parameters for control purposes
is performed by implementing other inexpensive, simple, and reliable sensors [140]. For
instance, the high cost of available online UV-based nitrate and online ammonium sensors
justifies the ongoing use of affordable sensors such as pH, DO, and ORP for controlling
biological treatment units [31].
Some parameters discussed for the monitoring of aerobic processes, such as pH and
ammonia concentration, are also applicable for AD-based processes. However, monitor-
ing and controlling other parameters such as the quantity and composition of generated
biogas, and the concentration of specific products, such as VFAs, are crucial too. Thus, vari-
ous sensors, biosensors, and analyzers based on titration, chromatography, spectroscopy,
and electrochemistry methods have been proposed in various studies to address these
monitoring requirements [147]. Moreover, for fouling control in membrane-based bio-
logical processes, monitoring TMP through pressure gauges and pressure transducers
is advantageous.
Another recent development in real-time monitoring pertains to transmitting mea-
sured data through wireless sensor networks (WSNs) facilitated by the Internet of Things
(IoT). This technological innovation provides operators at diverse remote stations with
data that closely approximate real-time information [148]. This technology has undergone
examination in a developmental phase nearing market readiness. Upon its introduction to
the market, it is poised to augment the accessibility and convenience of real-time data.
In large WWTPs with large bioreactors and AOP reactors, another parameter that
influences the control system performance is the location of sensors. Sensors should be
located at suitable points so that the measuring is sufficient to represent the target parameter.
For instance, placing the respirometer at the inlet of the aeration tank represents the strength
of the inlet wastewater. However, placing it at the inlet of RAS represents the viability of the
returned sludge to the tank [143]. In addition, fouling-sensitive sensors, such as DO meters,
should be installed in locations with the lowest fouling risk [140]. In addition, sensor
redundancy, wherever it is possible, can decrease the risk of mismeasurement resulting
from the malfunction or failure of inexpensive sensors such as pH meters [140]. Lastly,
regular maintenance and cleaning of sensors are required to obtain reliable data.
4.2. Soft Sensors

Sometimes, the rapid measurement of some process variables is limited to the lack
of online hardware sensors, the long measuring response time, noisy measurement, high
maintenance demand, or the high purchasing price of available hardware sensors [41]. Soft
sensors are implemented to overcome these limitations by indicating process variable value
through measuring state variable(s) using the cost-effective sensor(s). Essentially, the value
of a process property that cannot be directly measured is inferred by substituting the output
of one or several sensors into a mathematical estimation expression. This expression is
derived from various modelling approaches, including mechanistic, system identification,
or various AI-based DDM methods, describing the correlation of the desired variable with
other measurable parameters [13,145,149].
In the field of wastewater treatment, measuring the concentrations of pollutants to
evaluate the rate of abatement or to predict the required operating conditions to achieve
the desired removal is crucial. However, measuring the concentrations of most compounds
is carried out only offline. In such cases, the indirect estimation of organic concentrations
through the online measurable surrogate parameters is beneficial and necessary. The
main surrogate parameters are UV-VIS spectroscopy, fluorescence spectroscopy, and other
surrogates such as TOC, COD, and nitrate formation [150]. The last three are not online
measurable, or if so, their operating range is limited while their cost and maintenance are
significant. Thus, a good solution is to estimate the value of the parameters by using a
well-developed mathematical model describing their relationship with those correlated
parameters that are online measurable with cheap sensors such as pH, DO, and ORP [136].
Estimating certain parameters through validated models could also decrease the capi-
tal and maintenance costs of a WWTP by minimizing the number of implemented hardware
sensors. Even the relationship between surrogate parameter values at the process inlet
and their corresponding values at the outlet could be described by developing appropriate
mathematical expressions. In such circumstances, the process of measuring surrogate
parameters at specific points can be avoided to reduce expenses and minimize labour. For
instance, predictive models for effluent COD, BOD5 , and TSS of the biological treatment of
the Doha West WWTP were developed using the ANN approach and based on measured
surrogate parameters in the plant influent [151]. Based on calculated MSE and R2 values for
each developed model, the best estimation for TSSeff , BOD5,eff , and CODeff were achieved
when they were modelled solely as dependents on CODin . Estimating CODeff as a function
of TSSin , BOD5,in , and CODin parameters also resulted in a high R2 and low MSE. Never-
theless, the prediction performance of the model did not significantly surpass the model
that correlated CODeff solely with CODin . Conclusively, TSSeff , BOD5,eff , and CODeff can
be accurately estimated only by monitoring CODin [151]. Some studies developed models
to estimate some process parameters in WWTPs based on other measured parameters data
are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Recent studies for estimation of some process parameters at WWTPs using data of other measured parameters.
Estimated Parameter Indicators Source of Dataset Modelling Method Highlights Reference

Combination of influent
Good model fitness for all parameters:
parameters (Qin ),
Biological treatment unit, TSSeff : R2 = 0.9;
TSSeff CODeff TNeff bioreactor
parameters (DOr , ANN [152]
unknown WWTP CODeff : R2 = 0.88;
NH4+ r , NO3− r , ALKr ), effluent

TNeff : R2 = 0.91
parameters ( NH4+ eff , ALKeff )

Outperformance of GBR in predicting

Ada Boost Regression (ABR),
Biological treatment unit, target parameters:
TDSin , TSSin , BOD5,in , CODin , Gradient Boost Regression (GBR),
TDSeff BOD5,eff CODeff Shokouhieh WWTP, Qom, TDSeff : CC = 0.962, RMSE = 30.3 mg/L; [153]
pHin , TPin and TNin and Random Forest Regression
Iran BOD5,eff : CC = 0.9, RMSE = 4.6 mg/L;
(RFR)
CODeff : CC = 0.75, RMSE = 9.6 mg/L
Multivariate Linear Regression
parameters (Vin , CODin , TSSin , (MLR), Multivariate Relevant
pHin , Cl− in ), bioreactor

BOD5,eff CODeff TNeff Biological treatment unit, Multi-output soft sensor with good
Vector Machine (MRVM) and [154]
parameters (T, SRT, NH4+ r ),

Sludge Volume Index (SVI) Beijing WWTP, China performance
Multivariate Gaussian Processes
effluent
parameters (TSS
eff , Regression (MGPR) models
NH4+ eff , pHeff , Cl− eff )

Adaptive estimation:
Combination of Hammerstein
parameters (Q in , COD
in , BOD5,in , Biological treatment unit, with wavelet neural networks, Outperformance of adaptive model
CODeff TSSin , pHin , NH4+ in ), bioreactor [155]
unknown WWTP adaptive weighted fusion, and (error% = 6.41)
parameters (DOr , ORPr , RAS flow
approximate linear dependence
rate, recycling mixture flow rate)
(ALD) analysis
Combination of CODin , TPin , Good performance of both models;
NH4+ in , reaction time, aeration

RBFNN and multi-layer Superior accuracy of MLPANN for all
+ SBR, Ekbatan WWTP,
CODeff TPeff NH4 eff
rate, SRT, MLVSS, filling time, perceptron artificial neural target parameters; [156]
Tehran, Iran
bioreactor
parameters (T, SRT, networks (MLPANN) Higher R2 and lower RMSE in MLPANN
NH4+ r )

for both training and test data
Four different combinations: The best performed input-output
-Only TSSin , models:
Biological treatment unit; [151]
TSSeff BOD5,eff CODeff -Only BOD5,in , ANN CODin -CODeff : R = 0.923, MSE = 0.014;
Doha West WWTP
-Only CODin , CODin -BOD5,eff : R = 0.951, MSE = 0.061;
-All TSSin , BOD5,in , and CODin . CODin -TSSeff : R = 0.987, MSE = 0.021
Note: ALK: alkalinity; TDS: total dissolved solids; CC: correlation coefficient; MLVSS: mixed liquor volatile suspended solids; T: Temperature.
Fluorescence and UV-VIS spectroscopy have been used in AOPs, particularly the
ozonation reaction, as real-time surrogate parameters to indicate the removal rate of trace
organic contaminants (TrOCs) from wastewater [150,157]. In wastewater, most dissolved
organic matters (DOMs) having multiple conjugated double bonds, particularly hydropho-
bic and aromatic matters having a C=C and a C=O bond, absorb UV light well at the
wavelength of 254 nm. The UV absorbance ratio for these compounds is proportional to the
concentration of organic compounds present in the medium. Therefore, the percentage of
organic removal in some AOP-based treatment reactions can be determined by comparing
the UV254 absorbance at reactor effluent with its amount at reactor influent. Depending
on the organic compounds, process, and operating conditions, ∆UVA254 correlates to
the amount of organic removal through a linear [158–167], S-shaped [168–171], logarith-
mic [172], exponential [172], linear biphasic [159,161,173], or other mathematic relation that
need to be developed experimentally. In addition, the optimal UV absorbance for some
organic compounds occurs at wavelengths other than 254 nm. This optimal wavelength can
be determined by referring to the open literature or by conducting preliminary experiments
to measure UV absorbance by the target component at different wavelengths to find the
wavelength at which the highest absorbance happens. For instance, Wert et al. [165] and
Miklos et al. [174] quantified the colour in their samples by measuring UV absorbance
at 455 nm and 436 nm, respectively. The treatment process in the conducted study by
Wert et al. [165] was ozonation, and in the conducted study by Miklos et al. [174], were
UV/H2 O2 , UV/PDS (peroxydisulfate), and UV/chlorine.
Si et al. [158] measured the UV absorbance of samples obtained from the effluent
of combined ozonation and ultrafiltration treatment reactors. These measurements were
conducted at various wavelengths, including 254, 258, 260, and 280 nm. The purpose
was to estimate the concentrations of substances with conjugated double bonds, aromatic
unsaturated organics, nucleic acids, and aromatics, respectively. Li et al. [169,175] measured
the UV absorbance of their samples at 280 nm and 366 nm to estimate the concentrations
of organics.
Furthermore, some researchers believe UV spectroscopy at a fixed light wavelength
does not give sufficient information about the reaction and converted chemicals compared
to UV spectroscopy at an interval of light wavelengths. To this end, differential absorbance
spectra (DAS) and absorbance slope index (ASI) were introduced [168,176]. These two
concepts are beneficial for estimating compound concentrations. Estimating compound
concentrations is achievable by substituting values of measured UV absorbance at different
wavelengths in verified empirical equations. Audenaert et al. [177] implemented the ASI
approach to estimate the molecular weight of natural organic matter (NOM) in the effluent
of ozonation and UV/H2 O2 processes. UV-VIS spectroscopy was also implemented in a
study by Qin et al. [178]. They developed a relationship between each COD, TSS, and oil
and grease (O&G) concentration with UV-VIS absorbance and turbidity of the inlet and
outlet of an electrocoagulation–electroflotation unit. The method used in modelling was
boosting-iterative predictor weighting-partial least squares (Boosting-IPW-PLS). Their re-
sults demonstrated that the developed models are reliable. Consequently, they highlighted
the potential of using inline UV-VIS spectrophotometers and turbidity sensors alongside
the verified empirical estimation models to accurately estimate concentrations of COD, TSS,
and O&G in real time.
In addition to UV-VIS spectroscopy, to analyze a sample with low concentrations of
organic compounds, especially organic dyes and compounds containing aromatic groups,
fluorescence spectroscopy is applicable. The fluorescence even provides more accurate
information than UV-VIS spectroscopy in the case of substance identification. Estimating
the organic removal in some cases is achievable by evaluating the changes in integrated
volume under the excitation–emission matrix (EEM) through comparing the fluorescence
spectroscopy results of wastewater influent with the results of effluent [150]. This value is
called the difference of total fluorescence ( ∆TF). Studies on the TrOC removal by ozonation
show a linear [160,162], a linear biphasic [173], a logarithmic [172], and an exponential [172]
correlation of ∆TF with the concentration of TrOC in the effluent. In addition to ∆TF,
other fluorescence spectroscopy-based methods, including fluorescence index (FI), peak
A, peak B, peak C, peak T, and parallel factor analysis (PARAFAC), are used to estimate
the fluorescent compound concentration in a matrix. These later methods have been used
in some ozonation [170,175,179] and UV/H2 O2 [180] studies to measure the concentration
of specific organics in the reactor influent and effluent. Considering the main substances
that are removed in each step of a WWTP, during biological treatment and tertiary treat-
ment, the peak T and peak C fluorescence, respectively, decreased [181]. It has even been
observed that by knowing the information on the peak T fluorescence of the municipal
wastewater sample through developing proper statistical equations, BOD5 content can be
estimated [181].
Some studies have used a combination of UV-VIS and fluorescence spectroscopy to
determine the target parameter. For instance, Gerrity et al. [163] developed a correlation
between UV254 /fluorescence absorbance and the pathogen concentration in the effluent of
an ozone disinfection unit. As a result, monitoring the efficiency of the process and quality
of the effluent was possible through the online measurement of UV254 /fluorescence ab-
sorbance as representers of pollutant and pathogen concentrations. Depending on the target
pollutant, the same approach can be developed and calibrated to monitor the effluent qual-
ity of other AOP-based treatment processes. Also, for fouling control in membrane-based
biological treatment methods, considering that the primary cause of fouling is the accumu-
lation of SMPs and EPSs, it is beneficial to monitor and control their concentration using
established offline methods or through UV/fluorescence spectroscopy techniques [182].
The developed soft sensors can subsequently be deployed in the supervisory control and
data acquisition system (SCADA) of the WWTPs [149].
Finally, the response time of a soft sensor is a summation of the hardware sensor
response time and the model computation time. Hence, having a fast response time for a
hardware sensor becomes even more crucial when hardware sensors provide data for a
soft sensor model [145].
5. Conclusions
This review highlights the importance of designing control strategies for wastewater
treatment systems, focusing on selected biological and AOP-based methods, to improve
their operations. The aim is to continuously maintain desired effluent quality to meet
environmental regulations and minimize operating costs. In the second part, this study
emphasized the understanding of the dynamic behaviour of the processes, the first and
crucial step in designing and developing an effective control scheme. Challenges ahead
of dynamic modelling of biological and AOP-based wastewater treatment processes were
discussed. It was shown that dynamic models can be developed based on the mechanistic
aspects and the physicochemical knowledge of the process, known as mechanistic models,
or completely based on experimental data through system identification. It was discussed
that due to the longstanding and well-established nature of biological treatment methods,
IWA has developed standard models, including ASM1, ASM2, ASM2d, ASM3, ASM4,
ASM7, and ADM1, to describe the dynamical behaviour of aerobic and anaerobic biological
processes. Some processes, such as ASPs and SBRs, can be fully described based on these
standard models. However, to describe filtration-based biological processes, including
AnMBRs and MBRs, a more comprehensive model is required to cover both the biological
and physical aspects of the process. In addition, it was highlighted that standard models
must be calibrated for each WWTP using real data obtained from that specific WWTP.
Furthermore, it was outlined that for both biological and AOP-based treatment methods,
DDMs based on black-box system identification or AI-based models can result in precise
predictive models, particularly in instances where process dynamics exhibit significant
nonlinearity. Even though the black-box models may not describe the process mechanistic
behaviour in detail, they can accurately anticipate the response of a system to unexpected
disturbances. Finally, selecting calibrated mechanistic models or DDMs must be conducted
according to the system complexity and control goal. It involves a trade-off between having
a comprehensive process description, which requires extensive knowledge, calibration, and
verification, or using DDMs that rely on substantial data but may lack specific meaning
as they are primarily mathematical representations of the process. Also, it must be con-
sidered that either mechanistic models or DDMs are valid for a limited operating range,
corresponding to the defined constraints during the model development phase.
Part three reviewed the most common process control strategies in WWTPs. Also, the
most recent studies and their findings on controlling biological, and AOP-based wastewater
treatment processes through different control strategies were discussed in detail. It was de-
bated that while numerous studies have demonstrated promising outcomes in controlling
treatment processes, their applicability remains primarily confined to the simulation stage.
This fact poses challenges in translating these achievements to full-scale implementation. A
notable impediment arises in the necessity to validate the performance of proposed control
strategies through the practical deployment of hardware controllers. Additionally, their
inherent complexity and associated cost hinder the widespread adoption of advanced con-
trol strategies, prompting many WWTPs to adhere to conventional PID controllers. Aside
from financial constraints, the proper selection of a control scheme for the validation and
implementation in a wastewater treatment process necessitates a deliberate consideration
of the desired control objectives. Contingent upon the specific control goals, the optimal
control strategy may diverge, ranging from linear conventional controllers to intricate
advanced, AI-based, hybrid, or hierarchical configurations. For instance, to have a control
scheme with high performance to ensure the least deviation in effluent quality for ASPs,
SBRs, MBRs, AnMBRs, or AD, a hierarchical (cascade) control scheme is recommended.
This approach entails monitoring and controlling additional parameters, such as ammonia
concentration, in conjunction with traditional DO. It utilizes advanced control methods as
supervisory controllers such as FLC, MPC, NMPC, rule-based or ANN to determine the
setpoint of the lower control loops. The lower controllers typically are simpler ones such as
on/off, P, PI or PID. Also, implementing an adaptive model with varying parameters in
the structure of the controller will yield better control performance while the dynamic of
the process is varying. Similarly, the choice of the control scheme for AOP-based treatment
processes is upon the control goal, ranging from linear approximations such as ARX-PID
to more sophisticated methods such as NMPC. Also, considering the short time delay of
AOP-based treatment processes and process uncertainties, a cascade of FF and FB controls
was discussed as a sufficient control strategy. Generally, by analyzing the results of other
studies, it was concluded that multi-loop hierarchical (cascade) control is the optimum
control design for most wastewater treatment processes and enhances their performance.
In addition, the limitations of controlling treatment processes, including insufficiently de-
veloped models, the presence of interactive processes, limitations in control final elements,
and limitations in the availability of real-time data and sensors, were discussed.
The necessity of the availability of real-time data to achieve reliable control was
discussed in part four. It was observed that this can be reached by either implementing
proper and accurate hardware sensors in suitable locations of the process or developing
and implementing soft sensors. Also, surrogate parameters such as TOC, COD, BOD5 , TN,
TP, UV-VIS absorbance, and fluorescence absorbance can be considered as representatives
of substances concentration. Depending on the process and the characteristics of the
target wastewater to be treated, selecting the monitoring parameters must be performed
wisely. For instance, although photo spectroscopy provides real-time data, if the medium is
highly concentrated with variant temperature, the measured data might be subjected to a
considerable error, and sensor fouling will be a further problem. Addressing this issue is
possible by redirecting a small part of the effluent to a separate pipeline and mixing it with
clean water using an appropriate dilution factor before conducting spectroscopy. Also, the
mismeasurements caused by temperature violations can be resolved. This involves placing
thermometers at appropriate locations and adjusting the measurements to account for the
impact of the real-time temperature. Also, in the case of UV-spectroscopy, finding the
best wavelength, especially when wastewater contains different pollutants, is a challenge.

The limited operating range or long response time of some new sensors are also some
challenges ahead of hardware sensor implementation in the process control system. On
the other hand, although soft sensors provide users with well-established mathematical
models, estimating the desired parameter, it must be considered that the response time of
a soft sensor is the summation of hardware sensor response time and computation time.
As a result, these two response times must be minimized. Another significant finding
underscores that despite the recent advancements in hardware sensor technology, further
endeavours are required to enhance their cost-effectiveness. This improvement is pivotal
for facilitating the widespread transition of WWTPs from conventional sensors to these
state-of-the-art alternatives. The last noteworthy discovery in real-time monitoring pertains
to the prospective integration of WSN and IoT as a future mechanism for transmitting and
controlling measured data through sensors.
To achieve a robust and reliable control in WWTPs, especially regarding biological
and AOP-based treatment approaches, it is recommended that another study be conducted
on available actuators, final elements, and the criteria for choosing the most appropriate
one. Also, planning proper maintenance and cleaning schedules for hardware sensors
should be considered. In the fourth section of this study, the potential surrogate parameters
for process monitoring in WWTPs were discussed. However, it is crucial to acquire a
thorough understanding of the latest technological advancements associated with analytical
techniques and devices for measuring each surrogate parameter. Such information is
beneficial in empowering decision-makers to select technologies that precisely align with
their needs. Consequently, conducting a comprehensive and up-to-date exploration of
the state of the art of surrogate parameter technologies is recommended. In addition,
further research is recommended to delve into the potential unique challenges associated
with the real-time monitoring of diverse organic and inorganic pollutants. Exploring the
classification and specific characteristics of each pollutant class and type can be beneficial
for addressing the distinct challenges posed in dynamic modelling, monitoring, and control
processes. Finally, although this manuscript, in addition to focusing on ASPs and SBRs
as selected biological wastewater treatment for this study, attempted to briefly discuss
some other biological methods, it is essential to acknowledge the wide range of biological
methods. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct a focused review on modelling, control,
and monitoring each of these processes in MWWTPs and IWWTPs.
Author Contributions: This review article was a collaborative effort. The conceptualization was led
by research supervisors, M.M. and R.D.; the extensive review, analysis, summarization, and literature
comparison were carried out by Z.P., guided by both supervisors; Z.P. took the lead in drafting the
manuscript, with contributions and feedback from all authors during critical revisions. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada (NSERC), Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS), Toronto Metropolitan University Graduate
Scholarship (TMUGS), and Toronto Metropolitan University Faculty of Engineering and Architectural
Science. The authors would like to thank them all for their financial support.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design,
execution, interpretation or writing of the study.
Acronyms
ABAC Ammonia-Based Aeration Control
ABR Ada Boost Regression
ACO Ant Colony Optimization
ACR Anaerobic Contact Reactor
AD Anaerobic Digestion
ADM Anaerobic Digestion Model
AE Aeration Energy
AECI Aeration Energy Cost Index
AFBR Anaerobic Fluidized-Bed Reactor
AFNN Adaptive Fuzzy Neural Network
AFR Anaerobic Filter Reactor
AI Artificial Intelligence
ALD Approximate Linear Dependence
ALK Alkalinity
AnMBR Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor
ANN Artificial Neural Network
AOP Advanced Oxidation Process
ARMA Autoregressive Moving Average Stochastic Model
ARMAX AutoRegressive Moving Average with eXogenous input
ARX AutoRegressive with eXogenous input model
AS Activated Sludge
ASI Absorbance Slope Index
ASM Activated Sludge Model
ASP Activated Sludge Process
BAF Biological Aerated Filter
BN Bayesian Network
BOD5 5-Days Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BODst Short-Term Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Boosting-IPW-PLS Boosting–iterative predictor weighting–partial least square
BPFANN Backpropagation Function Artificial Neural Network
BSM Benchmark Simulation Model
CAS Conventional Activated Sludge
CC Correlation Coefficient
CDI Chronic Daily Intake
CNN Convolutional Neural Network
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
Cu-NP Copper Nanoparticle
CV Controlled Variable
DAS Differential Absorbance Spectra
DDM Data-Driven Model
DenseNet Densely Connected Convolutional Network
DL Deep Learning
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOM Dissolved Organic Matter
EB Electron Beam
EC Electrical Conductivity
EEM Excitation–Emission Matrix
EGSB Expanded Granular Sludge Bed
EPS Extracellular Polymeric Substance
EQI Effluent Quality Index
FB Feedback
FF Feedforward
FFNN Feedforward Neural Network
FI Fluorescence Index
FLC Fuzzy Logic Control
FOPTD First-Order Plus Time Delay
FPE Final Prediction Error
FPI Fractional order Proportional Integral

FPLS Fuzzy Partial Least Square
FPLS-DBN Fuzzy Partial Least Square-Based Dynamic Bayesian Network
GA Genetic Algorithm
GBR Gradient Boost Regression
GD Gradient Descent
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HGO High Gain Observer
HQ Hazard Quotient
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
HW Hammerstein–Wiener Model
IAC Iterative Adaptive Critic
IAE Integral of Absolute Error
IFAS Integrated Fixed Film Activated Sludge
IMC Internal Model Control
ISE Integral Square Error
ISE Ion-Selective Electrode
IWA International Water Association
IWW Industrial Wastewater
IWWTP Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant
KLD Kilo Liter per Day
LM Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm
LNMIIT LNM Institute of Information Technology
LQ Linear Quadratic
MATLAB Matrix Laboratory
MBBR Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
MGPR Multivariate Gaussian Processes Regression
MIMO Multi-Input Multi-Output
MLFCN Machine Learning Fully Connected Network
MLPANN Multi-Layer Perceptron Artificial Neural Network
MLR Multivariate Linear Regression
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MLVSS Mixed Liquor Volatile Suspended Solids
MOPC Multi-Objective Predictive Control
MPC Model Predictive Control
MRVM Multivariate Relevant Vector Machine
MSE Mean Squared Error
MV Manipulated Variable
MWW Municipal Wastewater
MWWTP Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant
NARX Nonlinear AutoRegressive with eXogenous input model
NARXNN Nonlinear AutoRegressive eXogenous Neural Network
NMC Nonlinear Internal Model Control
NMPC Nonlinear Model Predictive Control
NP Nanoparticle
NTP Non-Thermal Plasma
NOM Natural Organic Matter
O&G Oil and Grease
OCI Operational Cost Index
OFPC Output Feedback Predictive Control
OR Oxygen Requirement
ORP Oxidation-Reduction Potential
OUR Oxygen Uptake Rate
PARAFAC Parallel Factor Analysis
PDS Peroxydisulfate
PI Proportional Integral
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
PMBC Process Model-Based Control

PRBS Pseudo-Random Binary Sequence
PRWWTP Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Plant
PSO Particle Swarm Optimization
PVA Polyvinyl Alcohol
RAS Return Activated Sludge
RB49 Reactive Blue 49
RBB Reactive Black B
RBC Rotating Biological Contactor
QFT Quantitative Feedback Theory
RBFNN Radial Basis Function Neural Network
RFR Random Forest Regression
RLS Recursive Least Square
RMSE Root Mean Square Error
RNN Recurrent Neural Network
ROS Reactive Oxygen Species
SAFF Submerged Aerobic Fixed Film
SBR Sequencing Batch Reactor
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SIMO Single-Input Multi-Output
SISO Single-Input Single-Output
SME Small And Medium Enterprise
SMP Soluble Microbial Product
SOFNN Self-Organizing Fuzzy Neural Network
SOPTD Second-Order Plus Time Delay
SOUR Specific Oxygen Uptake Rate
SQP Sequential Quadratic Programming
SRF Sludge Recirculating Flow
SRT Sludge Retention Time
SS Suspended Solids
SSC Supervisory Sequential Controller
SVI Sludge Volume Index
SVM Support Vector Machine
T Temperature
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TF Transfer Function
TMOOA Transfer Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm
TMP Transmembrane Pressure
TN Total Nitrogen
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TP Total Phosphorous
TPANN Two-Part ANN
TrOC Trace Organic Contaminant
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UASB Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
UI Unknown Input
UIS Unknown Input State
UV Ultraviolet
UVA Ultraviolet Absorbance
UV-VIS Ultraviolet–Visible
VFA Volatile Fatty Acid
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
WRBFNN Wavelet Radial Basis Function-Based Neural Network
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
XWTP Xiangcheng Drinking Water Treatment Plant
References
1. Capodaglio, A.G. Biorefinery of Sewage Sludge: Overview of Possible Value-Added Products and Applicable Process Technologies.
Water 2023, 15, 1195. [CrossRef]
2. Angelakis, A.N.; Tzanakakis, V.A.; Capodaglio, A.G.; Dercas, N. A Critical Review of Water Reuse: Lessons from Prehistoric
Greece for Present and Future Challenges. Water 2023, 15, 2385. [CrossRef]
3. Tzanakakis, V.A.; Capodaglio, A.G.; Angelakis, A.N. Insights into Global Water Reuse Opportunities. Sustainability 2023, 15,
13007. [CrossRef]
4. Capodaglio, A.G.; Callegari, A. Energy and Resources Recovery from Excess Sewage Sludge: A Holistic Analysis of Opportunities
and Strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2023, 19, 200184. [CrossRef]
5. Tinivella, R.; Bargiggia, R.; Zanoni, G.; Callegari, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. High-Strength, Chemical Industry Wastewater Treatment
Feasibility Study for Energy Recovery. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16285. [CrossRef]
6. Capodaglio, A.G. Urban Wastewater Mining for Circular Resource Recovery: Approaches and Technology Analysis. Water 2023,
15, 3967. [CrossRef]
7. Eckenfelder, W.W.; Ford, D.L.; Englande, A.J. Industrial Water Quality, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2009;
ISBN 9780071548663.
8. Ahammad, S.Z.; Graham, D.W.; Dolfing, J. Wastewater Treatment: Biological. In Environmental Management Handbook; Fath, B.D.,
Jorgensen, S.E., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; Volume 4, pp. 561–577.
9. Tchobanoglous, G.; Stensel, H.D.; Tsuchihashi, R.; Burton, F.; Abu-Orf, M.; Bowden, G.; Pfrang, W. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Wastewater
Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
10. Bustillo-Lecompte, C.F.; Mehrvar, M. Slaughterhouse Wastewater Characteristics, Treatment, and Management in the Meat
Processing Industry: A Review on Trends and Advances. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 161, 287–302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Falås, P.; Longrée, P.; La Cour Jansen, J.; Siegrist, H.; Hollender, J.; Joss, A. Micropollutant Removal by Attached and Suspended
Growth in a Hybrid Biofilm-Activated Sludge Process. Water Res. 2013, 47, 4498–4506. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Piotrowski, R.; Sawicki, H.; Żuk, K. Novel Hierarchical Nonlinear Control Algorithm to Improve Dissolved Oxygen Control in
Biological WWTP. J. Process Control 2021, 105, 78–87. [CrossRef]
13. Zhang, W.; Tooker, N.B.; Mueller, A.V. Enabling Wastewater Treatment Process Automation: Leveraging Innovations in Real-Time
Sensing, Data Analysis, and Online Controls. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2020, 6, 2973–2992. [CrossRef]
14. Fabbri, D.; Bianco Prevot, A. Analytical Control in Advanced Oxidation Processes: Surrogate Models and Indicators vs Traditional
Methods. Microchem. J. 2021, 171, 106799. [CrossRef]
15. Rayaroth, M.P.; Aravindakumar, C.T.; Shah, N.S.; Boczkaj, G. Advanced Oxidation Processes (AOPs) Based Wastewater
Treatment—Unexpected Nitration Side Reactions—A Serious Environmental Issue: A Review. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 430, 133002.
[CrossRef]
16. Brillas, E. A Critical Review on Ibuprofen Removal from Synthetic Waters, Natural Waters, and Real Wastewaters by Advanced
Oxidation Processes. Chemosphere 2022, 286, 131849. [CrossRef]
17. Ganiyu, S.O.; Sable, S.; Gamal El-Din, M. Advanced Oxidation Processes for the Degradation of Dissolved Organics in Produced
Water: A Review of Process Performance, Degradation Kinetics and Pathway. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 429, 132492. [CrossRef]
18. Ghafoori, S.; Mehrvar, M.; Chan, P.K. Photoassisted Fenton-like Degradation of Aqueous Poly(Acrylic Acid): From Mechanistic
Kinetic Model to CFD Modeling. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2013, 91, 2617–2629. [CrossRef]
19. Al-Musawi, T.J.; Mazari Moghaddam, N.S.; Rahimi, S.M.; Hajjizadeh, M.; Nasseh, N. Hexadecyltrimethylammonium-Activated
and Zinc Oxide-Coated Nano-Bentonite: A Promising Photocatalyst for Tetracycline Degradation. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.
2022, 53, 102451. [CrossRef]
20. Golrizkhatami, F.; Taghavi, L.; Nasseh, N.; Panahi, H.A. Synthesis of Novel MnFe2 O4 /BiOI Green Nanocomposite and Its
Application to Photocatalytic Degradation of Tetracycline Hydrochloride: (LC-MS Analyses, Mechanism, Reusability, Kinetic,
Radical Agents, Mineralization, Process Capability, and Purification of Actual Pharmaceutical Wastewater). J. Photochem. Photobiol.
A 2023, 444, 114989. [CrossRef]
21. Huerta-Fontela, M.; Galceran, M.T.; Ventura, F. Fast Liquid Chromatography-Quadrupole-Linear Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry for
the Analysis of Pharmaceuticals and Hormones in Water Resources. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 4212–4222. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Hossein Panahi, A.; Al-Musawi, T.J.; Masihpour, M.; Fard, S.F.T.; Nasseh, N. Photocatalytic Degradation of Humic Acid Using
Bentonite@Fe3 O4 @ZnO Magnetic Nanocomposite: An Investigation of the Characterization of the Photocatalyst, Degradation
Pathway, and Modeling by Solver Plugin. Water 2023, 15, 2931. [CrossRef]
23. Nasab, E.A.; Nasseh, N.; Damavandi, S.; Amarzadeh, M.; Ghahrchi, M.; Hoseinkhani, A.; Alver, A.; Khan, N.A.; Farhadi, A.;
Danaee, I. Efficient Purification of Aqueous Solutions Contaminated with Sulfadiazine by Coupling Electro-Fenton/Ultrasound
Process: Optimization, DFT Calculation, and Innovative Study of Human Health Risk Assessment. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023,
30, 84200–84218. [CrossRef]
24. Parsa, Z.; Motevassel, M.; Khosravi-Nikou, M.R.; Jorfi, S.; Ghasemi, B. Biodegradability Enhancement of Azo Dye Direct Orange-
26 Using UV/Fenton-like Process: Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology. Desalination Water Treat. 2017, 81, 233–241.
[CrossRef]
25. Hayati, F.; Khodabakhshi, M.R.; Isari, A.A.; Moradi, S.; Kakavandi, B. LED-Assisted Sonocatalysis of Sulfathiazole and Pharma-
ceutical Wastewater Using N,Fe Co-Doped TiO2 @SWCNT: Optimization, Performance and Reaction Mechanism Studies. J. Water
Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101693. [CrossRef]
26. Amor, C.; Marchão, L.; Lucas, M.S.; Peres, J.A. Application of Advanced Oxidation Processes for the Treatment of Recalcitrant
Agro-Industrial Wastewater: A Review. Water 2019, 11, 205. [CrossRef]
27. Capodaglio, A.G. Contaminants of Emerging Concern Removal by High-Energy Oxidation-Reduction Processes: State of the Art.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4562. [CrossRef]
28. Harremoes, P.; Capodaglio, A.G.; Hellstrom, B.G.; Henze, M.; Jensen, K.N.; Lynggaard-Jensen, A.; Otterpohl, R.; Soeberg, H.
Wastewater Treatment Plants Under Transient Loading -Performance, Modelling and Control. Water Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 71–115.
[CrossRef]
29. Callegari, A.; Capodaglio, A.G. Effects of Selected Industrial Pollutants on Urban WWTPs Activated Sludge Population, and
Possible Mitigation Strategies. Water Pract. Technol. 2017, 12, 619–637. [CrossRef]
30. Hug, T.; Maurer, M. Stochastic Modeling to Identify Requirements for Centralized Monitoring of Distributed Wastewater
Treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 2012, 65, 1067–1075. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Dries, J. Dynamic Control of Nutrient-Removal from Industrial Wastewater in a Sequencing Batch Reactor, Using Common and
Low-Cost Online Sensors. Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 73, 740–745. [CrossRef]
32. Iratni, A.; Chang, N. Bin Advances in Control Technologies for Wastewater Treatment Processes: Status, Challenges, and
Perspectives. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. 2019, 6, 337–363. [CrossRef]
33. Sadeghassadi, M.; Macnab, C.J.B.; Gopaluni, B.; Westwick, D. Application of Neural Networks for Optimal-Setpoint Design and
MPC Control in Biological Wastewater Treatment. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2018, 115, 150–160. [CrossRef]
34. Alex, J.; Benedetti, L.; Copp, J.; Gernaey, K.V.; Jeppsson, U.; Nopens, I.; Pons, M.N.; Steyer, J.P.; Vanrolleghem, P. Benchmark
Simulation Model No. 1 (BSM1). In Technical Report 3, IWA Task Group on Benchmarking of Control Strategies for WWTPs; International
Water Association: London, UK, 2018.
35. Mesquita, D.P.; Quintelas, C.; Amaral, A.L.; Ferreira, E.C. Monitoring Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes: Recent
Advances in Spectroscopy Applications. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 16, 395–424. [CrossRef]
36. Lin, Y.P.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Nonlinear System Identification for Aqueous PVA Degradation in a Continuous UV/H2 O2
Tubular Photoreactor. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2021, 60, 1302–1315. [CrossRef]
37. Lin, Y.P.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Recent Advances in Dynamic Modeling and Process Control of PVA Degradation by Biological
and Advanced Oxidation Processes: A Review on Trends and Advances. Environments 2021, 8, 116. [CrossRef]
38. Ljung, L. System Identification ToolboxTM User’s Guide; The MathWorks: Natick, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–237.
39. Petre, E.; Selisteanu, D.; Sulea-Iorgulescu, C.; Mehedinteanu, S. Mathematical Modelling and Control for an Activated Sludge
Process in a Wastewater Treatment Plant. In Proceedings of the 20th International Carpathian Control Conference (ICCC),
Krakow-Wieliczka, Poland, 26–29 May 2019; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–6.
40. Tejaswini, E.S.S.; Uday Bhaskar Babu, G.; Seshagiri Rao, A. Design and Evaluation of Advanced Automatic Control Strategies in a
Total Nitrogen Removal Activated Sludge Plant. Water Environ. J. 2021, 35, 791–806. [CrossRef]
41. Smida, F.; Ladhari, T.; Hadj Saïd, S.; M’Sahli, F. Unknown Inputs Nonlinear Observer for an Activated Sludge Process. Math.
Probl. Eng. 2018, 2018, 1382914. [CrossRef]
42. Alex, J.; Benedetti, L.; Copp, J.; Gernaey, K.V.; Jeppsson, U.; Nopens, I.; Pons, M.N.; Rosen, C.; Steyer, J.P.; Vanrolleghem, P.
Benchmark Simulation Model No. 2 (BSM2). In Technical Report 3, IWA Task Group on Benchmarking of Control Strategies for WWTPs;
International Water Association: London, UK, 2018.
43. Abbasi, N.; Ahmadi, M.; Naseri, M. Quality and Cost Analysis of a Wastewater Treatment Plant Using GPS-X and CapdetWorks
Simulation Programs. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 111993. [CrossRef]
44. Liu, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, F.; Huang, M. Modeling of Wastewater Treatment Processes Using Dynamic Bayesian
Networks Based on Fuzzy PLS. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 92129–92140. [CrossRef]
45. Harja, G.; Vlad, G.; Nascu, I. MPC Advanced Control of Dissolved Oxygen in an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Plant. In
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics (AQTR), Cluj-Napoca, Romania,
19–21 May 2016; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 1–6.
46. Sadeghassadi, M.; Macnab, C.J.B.; Westwick, D. Dissolved Oxygen Control of BSM1 Benchmark Using Generalized Predictive
Control. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Process and Control (ICSPC 2015), Bandar Sunway, Malaysia, 18–20
December 2015; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 1–6.
47. Novotny, V.; Jones, H.; Feng, X.; Capodaglio, A. Time Series Analysis Models of Activated Sludge Plants. Water Sci. Technol. 1991,
23, 1107–1116. [CrossRef]
48. Mirbagheri, S.A.; Saberi Yahyaei, S.M.; Rafeidehkordi, N.; Vakilian, R. Comparison of CAS, MBR, SBR, and Biolak Treatment
Systems in Removal of BOD and COD from Municipal Wastewater-Case Study: Ekbatan Wastewater Treatment Plant. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology (CEST), Rhodes, Greece, 31 August–2
September 2017; pp. 1–5.
49. Wanner, J. Comparison of Biocenoses from Continuous and Sequencing Batch Reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 1992, 25, 239–249.
[CrossRef]
50. Papadimitriou, C.A.; Samaras, P.; Sakellaropoulos, G.P. Comparative Study of Phenol and Cyanide Containing Wastewater in
CSTR and SBR Activated Sludge Reactors. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 31–37. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Sánchez, J.B.; Vuono, M.; Dionisi, D. Model-Based Comparison of Sequencing Batch Reactors and Continuous-Flow Activated
Sludge Processes for Biological Wastewater Treatment. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 144, 107127. [CrossRef]
52. Jafarinejad, S. Simulation for the Performance and Economic Evaluation of Conventional Activated Sludge Process Replacing by
Sequencing Batch Reactor Technology in a Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Treatment Plant. Chem. Eng. 2019, 3, 45. [CrossRef]
53. Jafarinejad, S. Cost Estimation and Economical Evaluation of Three Configurations of Activated Sludge Process for a Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) Using Simulation. Appl. Water Sci. 2017, 7, 2513–2521. [CrossRef]
54. Batstone, D.J.; Keller, J.; Angelidaki, I.; Kalyuzhnyi, S.V.; Pavlostathis, S.G.; Rozzi, A.; Sanders, W.T.M.; Siegrist, H.; Vavilin, V.A.
The IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 45, 65–73. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Manchala, K.R.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Z.W. Chapter Two-Anaerobic Digestion Modelling. In Advances in Bioenergy; Li, Y., Ge,
X., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 2, pp. 69–141.
56. Abbassi-Guendouz, A.; Brockmann, D.; Trably, E.; Dumas, C.; Delgenès, J.-P.; Steyer, J.-P.; Escudié, R. Total Solids Content Drives
High Solid Anaerobic Digestion via Mass Transfer Limitation. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 111, 55–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Ramachandran, A.; Rustum, R.; Adeloye, A.J. Review of Anaerobic Digestion Modeling and Optimization Using Nature-Inspired
Techniques. Processes 2019, 7, 953. [CrossRef]
58. Mannina, G.; Ni, B.-J.; Makinia, J.; Harmand, J.; Alliet, M.; Brepols, C.; Ruano, M.V.; Robles, A.; Heran, M.; Gulhan, H.; et al.
Biological Processes Modelling for MBR Systems: A Review of the State-of-the-Art Focusing on SMP and EPS. Water Res. 2023,
242, 120275. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Robles, Á.; Ruano, M.V.; Charfi, A.; Lesage, G.; Heran, M.; Harmand, J.; Seco, A.; Steyer, J.P.; Batstone, D.J.; Kim, J.; et al. A Review
on Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (AnMBRs) Focused on Modelling and Control Aspects. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 270, 612–626.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Li, G.; Ji, J.; Ni, J.; Wang, S.; Guo, Y.; Hu, Y.; Liu, S.; Huang, S.-F.; Li, Y.-Y. Application of Deep Learning for Predicting the
Treatment Performance of Real Municipal Wastewater Based on One-Year Operation of Two Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors.
Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 813, 151920. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Yaqub, M.; Lee, W. Modeling Nutrient Removal by Membrane Bioreactor at a Sewage Treatment Plant Using Machine Learning
Models. J. Water Process Eng. 2022, 46, 102521. [CrossRef]
62. Mahmod, N.; Wahab, N.A.; Gaya, M.S. Modelling and Control of Fouling in Submerged Membrane Bioreactor Using Neural
Network Internal Model Control. IAES Int. J. Artif. Intell. 2020, 9, 100–108. [CrossRef]
63. Gopi Kiran, M.; Das, R.; Behera, S.K.; Pakshirajan, K.; Das, G. Modelling a Rotating Biological Contactor Treating Heavy Metal
Contaminated Wastewater Using Artificial Neural Network. Water Supply 2021, 21, 1895–1912. [CrossRef]
64. Chanh, N.D.Q.; Bing, L.; Van Quang, T.; Terashima, M.; Goel, R.; Yasui, H. Dynamic Simulation of Trickling Filter Process with
Hydraulic Stress Tests. J. Water Environ. Technol. 2016, 14, 398–410. [CrossRef]
65. Sultan, T.; Cho, J. Optimization of a UV/H2 O2 AOP System Using Scavenger Radicals and Response Surface Methodology. Chem.
Eng. Commun. 2016, 203, 1093–1104. [CrossRef]
66. Johnson, M.B.; Mehrvar, M. Aqueous Metronidazole Degradation by UV/H2 O2 Process in Single- and Multi-Lamp Tubular
Photoreactors: Kinetics and Reactor Design. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2008, 47, 6525–6537. [CrossRef]
67. Hamad, D. Experimental Investigation of Polyvinyl Alcohol Degradation in UV/H2 O2 Photochemical Reactors Using Different
Hydrogen Peroxide Feeding Strategies. Ph.D. Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada, 2015.
68. Hamad, D.; Mehrvar, M.; Dhib, R. Photochemical Kinetic Modeling of Degradation of Aqueous Polyvinyl Alcohol in a UV/H2 O2
Photoreactor. J. Polym. Environ. 2018, 26, 3283–3293. [CrossRef]
69. Hamad, D.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide Feeding Strategies on the Photochemical Degradation of
Polyvinyl Alcohol. Environ. Technol. 2016, 37, 2731–2742. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
70. Hamad, D.; Mehrvar, M.; Dhib, R. Experimental Study of Polyvinyl Alcohol Degradation in Aqueous Solution by UV/H2 O2
Process. Polym. Degrad. Stab. 2014, 103, 75–82. [CrossRef]
71. Hamad, D.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Photochemical Degradation of Aqueous Polyvinyl Alcohol in a Continuous UV/H2 O2 Process:
Experimental and Statistical Analysis. J. Polym. Environ. 2016, 24, 72–83. [CrossRef]
72. Shahwan, M.M.; Ghafoori, S.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Modeling PVA Degradation in a Continuous Photochemical Reactor Using
Experimental Step Testing and Process Identification. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104983. [CrossRef]
73. Hamad, D.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. Identification and Model Predictive Control (MPC) of Aqueous Polyvinyl Alcohol Degradation
in UV/H2 O2 Photochemical Reactors. J. Polym. Environ. 2021, 29, 2572–2584. [CrossRef]
74. Lin, Y.P. ARX and NARX Modeling and Control of a Continuous UV/H2 O2 Photoreactor for the Aqueous PVA Degradation.
Master’s Thesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada, 2021.
75. Lin, Y.P.; Dhib, R.; Mehrvar, M. ARX/NARX Modeling and PID Controller in a UV/H2 O2 Tubular Photoreactor for Aqueous PVA
Degradation. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2023, 195, 286–302. [CrossRef]
76. Yu, R.F.; Chen, H.W.; Liu, K.Y.; Cheng, W.P.; Hsieh, P.H. Control of the Fenton Process for Textile Wastewater Treatment Using
Artificial Neural Networks. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 267–278. [CrossRef]
77. Foschi, J.; Turolla, A.; Antonelli, M. Artificial Neural Network Modeling of Full-Scale UV Disinfection for Process Control Aimed
at Wastewater Reuse. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 300, 113790. [CrossRef]
78. Djeddou, M.; Loukam, I. Predictive Modeling of Ozone Dosing in Full-Scale Drinking Water Treatment Plant Using Improved
Hybrid Model Based on Discrete Wavelet Decomposition and Radial Basis Function Neural Network (WRBFNN). In Proceedings
of the 3rd International Conference on Disinfection and DBPs, Milan, Italy, 27 June–1 July 2022.
79. Wang, D.; Li, S.; Yang, J.; You, Z.; Zhou, X. Adaptive MPC for Ozone Dosing Process of Drinking Water Treatment Based on RBF
Modeling. Trans. Inst. Meas. Control 2014, 36, 58–67. [CrossRef]
80. Dongsheng, W.; Yongjie, L.; Zhang, L. A Case Study on the MPC for Ozone Dosing Process Based on SVM. In Proceedings of the
29th Chinese Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Chongqing, China, 28–30 May 2017; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA,
2017; pp. 1772–1776.
81. Abouzlam, M.; Ouvrard, R.; Mehdi, D.; Pontlevoy, F.; Gombert, B.; Karpel, N.; Leitner, V.; Boukari, S. An Optimal Control of a
Wastewater Treatment Reactor by Catalytic Ozonation. Control Eng. Pract. 2013, 21, 105–112. [CrossRef]
82. Abouzlam, M.; Ouvrard, R.; Mehdi, D.; Pontlevoy, F.; Gombert, B.; Vel Leitner, N.K.; Boukari, S.O.B. Identification of a Wastewater
Treatment Reactor by Catalytic Ozonation. IFAC-PapersOnline 2012, 45, 1448–1453. [CrossRef]
83. Abouzlam, M.; Ouvrard, R.; Poinot, T.; Mehdi, D.; Pontlevoy, F.; Gombert, B.; Leitner, N.K.V. A Grey-Box Model Identification of
an Advanced Oxidation Process for Wastewater Treatment. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2015, 48, 556–561. [CrossRef]
84. Kermani, M.; Mehralipour, J.; Kakavandi, B. Photo-Assisted Electroperoxone of 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy Acetic Acid Herbicide:
Kinetic, Synergistic and Optimization by Response Surface Methodology. J. Water Process Eng. 2019, 32, 100971. [CrossRef]
85. Bashiri, F.; Khezri, S.M.; Kalantary, R.R.; Kakavandi, B. Enhanced Photocatalytic Degradation of Metronidazole by TiO2 Decorated
on Magnetic Reduced Graphene Oxide: Characterization, Optimization and Reaction Mechanism Studies. J. Mol. Liq. 2020, 314,
113608. [CrossRef]
86. Amarzadeh, M.; Azqandi, M.; Nateq, K.; Ramavandi, B.; Khan, N.A.; Nasseh, N. Heterogeneous Fenton-like Photocatalytic
Process towards the Eradication of Tetracycline under UV Irradiation: Mechanism Elucidation and Environmental Risk Analysis.
Water 2023, 15, 2336. [CrossRef]
87. Stewart, R.D.; Bashar, R.; Amstadt, C.; Uribe-Santos, G.A.; McMahon, K.D.; Seib, M.; Noguera, D.R. Pilot-Scale Comparison
of Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Using Intermittent and Continuous Ammonia-Based Low Dissolved Oxygen Aeration
Control Systems. Water Sci. Technol. 2022, 85, 579–590. [CrossRef]
88. Kumar, S.S.; Latha, K. A Supervisory Fuzzy Logic Control Scheme to Improve Effluent Quality of a Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Water Sci. Technol. 2021, 84, 3415–3424. [CrossRef]
89. Du, S.; Yan, Q.; Qiao, J. Event-Triggered PID Control for Wastewater Treatment Plants. J. Water Process Eng. 2020, 38, 101659.
[CrossRef]
90. El-Zemity, A.S.; Gaafar, A.A.; Ahmed, A.K.; Abdelwahab, A.S.; Saad, H.M.; Elboushi, M.K.; Ibraheem, A.M. Wastewater Treatment
Model with Smart Irrigation Utilizing PID Control. In Proceedings of the 2nd Novel Intelligent and Leading Emerging Sciences
Conference (NILES), Giza, Egypt, 24–26 October 2020; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 374–379.
91. Zhang, D.; Chu, J.; He, Y.; Jin, H.; Han, W. Study and Application of Self-Adaptive Fuzzy PID Control in Dissolved Oxygen
Control of Wastewater Treatment. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 562, 012147. [CrossRef]
92. Revollar, S.; Vilanova, R.; Francisco, M.; Vega, P. PI Dissolved Oxygen Control in Wastewater Treatment Plants for Plantwide
Nitrogen Removal Efficiency. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2018, 51, 450–455. [CrossRef]
93. Shen, W.; Tao, E.; Chen, X.; Liu, D.; Liu, H. Nitrate Control Strategies in an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Process.
Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2014, 31, 386–392. [CrossRef]
94. Vlad, C.; Sbarciog, M.; Barbu, M.; Caraman, S.; Wouwer, A.V. Indirect Control of Substrate Concentration for a Wastewater
Treatment Process by Dissolved Oxygen Tracking. Control Eng. Appl. Inform. 2012, 14, 37–47.
95. Pisa, I.; Morell, A.; Vilanova, R.; Vicario, J.L. Noisy Signals in Wastewater Treatment Plants Data-Driven Control: Spectral Analysis
Approach for the Design of ANN-IMC Controllers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Industrial Cyberphysical Systems
(ICPS), Tampere, Finland, 10–12 June 2020; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 320–325.
96. Dongsheng, W.; Yongjie, L.; Lei, Z.; Songhao, Z.; Zhu, S. A Case Study on the IMC for Ozone Dosing Process of Drinking Water
Treatment. In Proceedings of the 36th Chinese Control Conference (CCC), Dalian, China, 26–28 July 2017; pp. 4430–4434.
97. Lindberg, C.F.; Carlsson, B. Nonlinear and Set-Point Control of the Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in an Activated Sludge
Process. Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 34, 135–142. [CrossRef]
98. Barros, P.R.; Carlsson, B. Iterative Design of a Nitrate Controller Using an External Carbon Source in an Activated Sludge Process.
Water Sci. Technol. 1998, 37, 95–102. [CrossRef]
99. Vlad, C.; Caraman, S.; Carp, D.; Minzu, V.; Barbu, M. Gain Scheduling Control of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration in a Wastewater
Treatment Process. In Proceedings of the 20th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Barcelona, Spain, 3–6 July
2012; pp. 860–865.
100. Sheik, A.G.; Seepana, M.M.; Ambati, S.R. Supervisory Control Configurations Design for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal in
Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water Environ. Res. 2021, 93, 1289–1302. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Duzinkiewicz, K.; Brdys, M.A.; Kurek, W.; Piotrowski, R. Genetic Hybrid Predictive Controller for Optimized Dissolved-Oxygen
Tracking at Lower Control Level. IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 2009, 17, 1183–1192. [CrossRef]
102. Liu, J.; Olsson, G.; Mattiasson, B. Monitoring and Control of an Anaerobic Upflow Fixed-Bed Reactor for High-Loading-Rate
Operation and Rejection of Disturbances. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2004, 87, 43–53. [CrossRef]
103. Mannina, G.; Cosenza, A.; Rebouças, T.F. Aeration Control in Membrane Bioreactor for Sustainable Environmental Footprint.
Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 301, 122734. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. García-Diéguez, C.; Molina, F.; Roca, E. Multi-Objective Cascade Controller for an Anaerobic Digester. Process Biochem. 2011, 46,
900–909. [CrossRef]
105. Robles, Á.; Durán, F.; Ruano, M.V.; Ribes, J.; Rosado, A.; Seco, A.; Ferrer, J. Instrumentation, Control, and Automation for
Submerged Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors. Environ. Technol. 2015, 36, 1795–1806. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Robles, A.; Ruano, M.V.; Ribes, J.; Seco, A.; Ferrer, J. Model-Based Automatic Tuning of a Filtration Control System for Submerged
Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactors (AnMBR). J. Membr. Sci. 2014, 465, 14–26. [CrossRef]
107. Yu, R.F. Feed-Forward Dose Control of Wastewater Chlorination Using On-Line pH and ORP Titration. Chemosphere 2004, 56,
108. Zhan, J.X.; Ikehata, M.; Mayuzumi, M.; Koizumi, E.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Hashimoto, T. An Aeration Control Strategy for Oxidation
Ditch Processes Based on Online Oxygen Requirement Estimation. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68, 76–82. [CrossRef]
109. Wang, D.; Ha, M.; Qiao, J. Data-Driven Iterative Adaptive Critic Control toward an Urban Wastewater Treatment Plant. IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron. 2021, 68, 7362–7369. [CrossRef]
110. Méndez-Acosta, H.O.; Campos-Delgado, D.U.; Femat, R. Intelligent Control of an Anaerobic Digester: Fuzzy-Based Gain
Scheduling for a Geometrical Approach. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Symposium on Intelligent Control,
Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 October 2003; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 298–303.
111. Abdellatif, N.; Bouhafs, W.; Harmand, J.; Jean, F. A Geometrical Approach for the Optimal Control of Sequencing Batch
Bio-Reactors. Stat. Optim. Inf. Comput. 2021, 9, 368–382. [CrossRef]
112. Han, H.G.; Zhang, L.; Qiao, J.F. Data-Based Predictive Control for Wastewater Treatment Process. IEEE Access 2017, 6, 1498–1512.
[CrossRef]
113. Ozgur, N.H.; Stenstrom, M.K. KBES for Process Control of Nitrification in Activated Sludge Process. J. Environ. Eng. 1994, 120,
114. Serra, P.; Lafuente, J.; Moreno, R.; Prada, C.; Poch, M. Development of a Real-Time Expert System for Wastewater Treatment
Plants Control. Control Eng. Pract. 1993, 1, 329–335. [CrossRef]
115. Laukkanen, R.; Pursiainen, J. Rule-Based Expert Systems in the Control of Wastewater Treatment Systems. Water Sci. Technol.
1991, 24, 299–306. [CrossRef]
116. Galluzzo, M.; Cosenza, B. Control of the Biodegradation of Mixed Wastes in a Continuous Bioreactor by a Type-2 Fuzzy Logic
Controller. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2009, 33, 1475–1483. [CrossRef]
117. Husin, M.H.; Rahmat, M.F.; Wahab, N.A.; Sabri, M.F.M. Improving Total Nitrogen Removal Using a Neural Network Ammonia-
Based Aeration Control in Activated Sludge Process. Int. J. Smart Sens. Intell. Syst. 2021, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]
118. Du, X.; Wang, J.; Jegatheesan, V.; Shi, G. Dissolved Oxygen Control in Activated Sludge Process Using a Neural Network-Based
Adaptive PID Algorithm. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 261. [CrossRef]
119. Han, H.; Qiao, J.; Chen, Q. Model Predictive Control of Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Based on a Self-Organizing RBF Neural
Network. Control Eng. Pract. 2012, 20, 465–476. [CrossRef]
120. Carrasco, R.; Sanchez, E.N.; Cadet, C. Hybrid Intelligent Control for a Wastewater Treatment Prototype. In Proceedings of the
17th Mediterranean Conference on Control and Automation, Thessaloniki, Greece, 24–26 June 2009; IEEE: New York City, NY,
USA, 2019; pp. 1221–1226.
121. Vega, P.; Lamanna, R.; Revollar, S.; Francisco, M. Integrated Design and Control of Chemical Processes—Part II: An Illustrative
Example. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2014, 71, 618–635. [CrossRef]
122. Alberto, C.; Rui, C.B.; Arau, A.M.; Alexandre, F.; Jorge, A.S.; Landeck, A.C. Sensor-Fault Tolerance in a Wastewater Treatment
Plant by Means of ANFIS-Based Soft Sensor and Control Reconfiguration. Neural Comput. Appl. 2018, 30, 3265–3276. [CrossRef]
123. Klaus, S.; Baumler, R.; Rutherford, B.; Thesing, G.; Zhao, H.; Charles, B. Startup of a Partial Nitritation-Anammox MBBR and the
Implementation of pH-Based Aeration Control. Water Environ. Res. 2017, 89, 500–508. [CrossRef]
124. Jamaludin, I.W.; Wahab, N.A.; Khalid, N.S.; Sahlan, S.; Ibrahim, Z.; Rahmat, M.F. N4SID and MOESP Subspace Identification
Methods. In Proceedings of the 9th International Colloquium on Signal Processing and Its Applications, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
8–10 March 2013; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 140–145.
125. Pisa, I.; Morell, A.; Vicario, J.L.; Vilanova, R. ANN-Based Internal Model Control Strategy Applied in the WWTP Industry. In
Proceedings of the 24th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Zaragoza,
Spain, 10–13 September; IEEE: New York City, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1477–1480.
126. Han, H.; Liu, Z.; Hou, Y.; Qiao, J. Data-Driven Multiobjective Predictive Control for Wastewater Treatment Process. IEEE Trans.
Ind. Inform. 2020, 16, 2767–2775. [CrossRef]
127. Nejjari, F.; Dahhou, B.; Benhammou, A.; Roux, G. Non-Linear Multivariable Adaptive Control of an Activated Sludge Wastewater
Treatment Process. Int. J. Adapt. Control Signal Process 1999, 13, 347–365. [CrossRef]
128. Carp, D.; Barbu, M.; Minzu, V. Robust Control of an Activated Sludge Wastewater Treatment Process. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on System Theory, Control and Computing (ICSTCC), Sinaia, Romania, 11–13 October 2013; pp. 97–102.
129. Khatri, N.; Khatri, K.K.; Sharma, A. Enhanced Energy Saving in Wastewater Treatment Plant Using Dissolved Oxygen Control
and Hydrocyclone. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 18, 100678. [CrossRef]
130. Fan, L.; Boshnakov, K. Fuzzy Logic Based Dissolved Oxygen Control for SBR Wastewater Treatment Process. In Proceedings of
the 8th World Congress on Intelligent Control and Automation (WCICA), Jinan, China, 7–9 July 2010; pp. 4142–4146.
131. Traoré, A.; Grieu, S.; Puig, S.; Corominas, L.; Thiery, F.; Polit, M.; Colprim, J. Fuzzy Control of Dissolved Oxygen in a Sequencing
Batch Reactor Pilot Plant. Chem. Eng. J. 2005, 111, 13–19. [CrossRef]
132. Mannina, G.; Capodici, M.; Cosenza, A.; Di Trapani, D. Carbon and Nutrient Biological Removal in a University of Cape Town
Membrane Bioreactor: Analysis of a Pilot Plant Operated under Two Different C/N Ratios. Chem. Eng. J. 2016, 296, 289–299.
[CrossRef]
133. Lin, C.; Yu, R.; Cheng, W.; Liu, C. Monitoring and Control of UV and UV-TiO2 Disinfections for Municipal Wastewater Reclamation
Using Artificial Neural Networks. J. Hazard. Mater. 2012, 209–210, 348–354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
134. Smida, F.; Ladhari, T.; Saïd, S.H.; M’sahli, F. Unknown Inputs Observer-Based Output Feedback Predictive Controller for an
Activated Sludge Process. IETE J. Res. 2020, 66, 556–568. [CrossRef]
135. Gu, Y.; Li, Y.; Yuan, F.; Yang, Q. Optimization and Control Strategies of Aeration in WWTPs: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 418,
138008. [CrossRef]
136. Alattabi, A.W.; Harris, C.; Alkhaddar, R.; Alzeyadi, A.; Abdulredha, M. Online Monitoring of a Sequencing Batch Reactor Treating
Domestic Wastewater. Procedia Eng. 2017, 196, 800–807. [CrossRef]
137. van Rooyen, I.L.; Brink, H.G.; Nicol, W. pH-Based Control Strategies for the Nitrification of High-Ammonium Wastewaters.
Fermentation 2021, 7, 319. [CrossRef]
138. Jain, M. Anaerobic Membrane Bioreactor as Highly Efficient and Reliable Technology for Wastewater Treatment—A Review. Adv.
Chem. Eng. Sci. 2018, 08, 82–100. [CrossRef]
139. Ferrero, G.; Rodríguez-Roda, I.; Comas, J. Automatic Control Systems for Submerged Membrane Bioreactors: A State-of-the-Art
Review. Water Res. 2012, 46, 3421–3433. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
140. Vanrolleghem, P.A.; Lee, D.S. On-Line Monitoring Equipment for Wastewater Treatment Processes: State of the Art. Water Sci.
Technol. 2003, 4, 1–34. [CrossRef]
141. Cornelissen, R.; Van Dyck, T.; Dries, J.; Ockier, P.; Smets, I.; Van Den Broeck, R.; Van Hulle, S.; Feyaerts, M. Application of Online
Instrumentation in Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plants—A Survey in Flanders, Belgium. Water Sci. Technol. 2018, 78, 957–967.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
142. Capodaglio, A.G.; Callegari, A.; Molognoni, D. Online Monitoring of Priority and Dangerous Pollutants in Natural and Urban
Waters: A State-of-the-Art Review. Manag. Environ. Qual. 2016, 27, 507–536. [CrossRef]
143. Watts, J.B.; Garber, W.F. On Line Respirometry: A Powerful Tool for Activated Sludge Plant Operation and Design. Water Sci.
Technol. 1993, 28, 389–399. [CrossRef]
144. Spanjers, H.; Patry, G.G.; Keesman, K.J. Respirometry-Based On-Line Model Parameter Estimation at a Full-Scale WWTP. Water
Sci. Technol. 2002, 45, 335–343. [CrossRef]
145. Ching, P.M.L.; So, R.H.Y.; Morck, T. Advances in Soft Sensors for Wastewater Treatment Plants: A Systematic Review. J. Water
Process Eng. 2021, 44, 102367. [CrossRef]
146. Duan, W.; Gunes, M.; Baldi, A.; Gich, M.; Fernández-Sánchez, C. Compact Fluidic Electrochemical Sensor Platform for On-Line
Monitoring of Chemical Oxygen Demand in Urban Wastewater. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 449, 137837. [CrossRef]
147. Cruz, I.A.; Andrade, L.R.S.; Bharagava, R.N.; Nadda, A.K.; Bilal, M.; Figueiredo, R.T.; Ferreira, L.F.R. An Overview of Process
Monitoring for Anaerobic Digestion. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 207, 106–119. [CrossRef]
148. Martínez, R.; Vela, N.; el Aatik, A.; Murray, E.; Roche, P.; Navarro, J.M. On the Use of an IoT Integrated System for Water Quality
Monitoring and Management in Wastewater Treatment Plants. Water 2020, 12, 1096. [CrossRef]
149. Dürrenmatt, D.J.Ô.; Gujer, W. Data-Driven Modeling Approaches to Support Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation. Environ.
Model. Softw. 2012, 30, 47–56. [CrossRef]
150. Song, Z.M.; Xu, Y.L.; Liang, J.K.; Peng, L.; Zhang, X.Y.; Du, Y.; Lu, Y.; Li, X.Z.; Wu, Q.Y.; Guan, Y.T. Surrogates for On-Line
Monitoring of the Attenuation of Trace Organic Contaminants during Advanced Oxidation Processes for Water Reuse. Water Res.
2021, 190, 116733. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
151. Mjalli, F.S.; Al-Asheh, S.; Alfadala, H.E. Use of Artificial Neural Network Black-Box Modeling for the Prediction of Wastewater
Treatment Plants Performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 83, 329–338. [CrossRef]
152. Fernandez de Canete, J.; del Saz-orozco, P.; Gómez-de-gabriel, J.; Baratti, R.; Ruano, A.; Rivas-blanco, I. Control and Soft Sensing
Strategies for a Wastewater Treatment Plant Using a Neuro-Genetic Approach. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2021, 144, 107146. [CrossRef]
153. Sharafati, A.; Haji Seyed Asadollah, S.B.; Hosseinzadeh, M. The Potential of New Ensemble Machine Learning Models for Effluent
Quality Parameters Prediction and Related Uncertainty. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2020, 140, 68–78. [CrossRef]
154. Xiao, H.; Bai, B.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Huang, D. Interval Multiple-Output Soft Sensors Development with Capacity Control for
Wastewater Treatment Applications: A Comparative Study. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2019, 184, 82–93. [CrossRef]
155. Cong, Q.; Yu, W. Integrated Soft Sensor with Wavelet Neural Network and Adaptive Weighted Fusion for Water Quality
Estimation in Wastewater Treatment Process. Measurement 2018, 124, 436–446. [CrossRef]
156. Bagheri, M.; Mirbagheri, S.A.; Ehteshami, M.; Bagheri, Z. Modeling of a Sequencing Batch Reactor Treating Municipal Wastewater
Using Multi-Layer Perceptron and Radial Basis Function Artificial Neural Networks. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2014, 93, 111–123.
[CrossRef]
157. Deniere, E.; Chys, M.; Audenaert, W.; Nopens, I.; Van Langenhove, H.; Van Hulle, S.; Demeestere, K. Status and Needs for
Online Control of Tertiary Ozone-Based Water Treatment: Use of Surrogate Correlation Models for Removal of Trace Organic
Contaminants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2021, 20, 297–331. [CrossRef]
158. Si, X.; Hu, Z.; Huang, S. Combined Process of Ozone Oxidation and Ultrafiltration as an Effective Treatment Technology for the
Removal of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1240. [CrossRef]
159. Song, Y.; Breider, F.; Ma, J.; von Gunten, U. Nitrate Formation during Ozonation as a Surrogate Parameter for Abatement of
Micropollutants and the N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Formation Potential. Water Res. 2017, 122, 246–257. [CrossRef]
160. Chen, Z.; Li, M.; Wen, Q. Comprehensive Evaluation of Three Sets of Advanced Wastewater Treatment Trains for Treating
Secondary Effluent: Organic Micro-Pollutants and Bio-Toxicity. Chemosphere 2017, 189, 426–434. [CrossRef]
161. Chon, K.; Salhi, E.; von Gunten, U. Combination of UV Absorbance and Electron Donating Capacity to Assess Degradation of
Micropollutants and Formation of Bromate during Ozonation of Wastewater Effluents. Water Res. 2015, 81, 388–397. [CrossRef]
162. Pisarenko, A.N.; Stanford, B.D.; Yan, D.; Gerrity, D.; Snyder, S.A. Effects of Ozone and Ozone/Peroxide on Trace Organic
Contaminants and NDMA in Drinking Water and Water Reuse Applications. Water Res. 2012, 46, 316–326. [CrossRef]
163. Gerrity, D.; Gamage, S.; Jones, D.; Korshin, G.V.; Lee, Y.; Pisarenko, A.; Trenholm, R.A.; von Gunten, U.; Wert, E.C.; Snyder,
S.A. Development of Surrogate Correlation Models to Predict Trace Organic Contaminant Oxidation and Microbial Inactivation
during Ozonation. Water Res. 2012, 46, 6257–6272. [CrossRef]
164. Dickenson, E.R.V.; Drewes, J.E.; Sedlak, D.L.; Wert, E.C.; Snyder, S.A. Applying Surrogates and Indicators to Assess Removal
Efficiency of Trace Organic Chemicals during Chemical Oxidation of Wastewaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 6242–6247.
[CrossRef]
165. Wert, E.C.; Rosario-Ortiz, F.L.; Snyder, S.A. Using Ultraviolet Absorbance and Color to Assess Pharmaceutical Oxidation during
Ozonation of Wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4858–4863. [CrossRef]
166. Bahr, C.; Schumacher, J.; Ernst, M.; Luck, F.; Heinzmann, B.; Jekel, M. SUVA as Control Parameter for the Effective Ozonation of
Organic Pollutants in Secondary Effluent. Water Sci. Technol. 2007, 55, 267–274. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
167. Sgroi, M.; Anumol, T.; Vagliasindi, F.G.A.; Snyder, S.A.; Roccaro, P. Comparison of the New Cl2 /O3 /UV Process with Different
Ozone- and UV-Based AOPs for Wastewater Treatment at Pilot Scale: Removal of Pharmaceuticals and Changes in Fluorescing
Organic Matter. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 765, 142720. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
168. Nanaboina, V.; Korshin, G.V. Evolution of Absorbance Spectra of Ozonated Wastewater and Its Relationship with the Degradation
of Trace-Level Organic Species. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 6130–6137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
169. Wittmer, A.; Heisele, A.; McArdell, C.S.; Böhler, M.; Longree, P.; Siegrist, H. Decreased UV Absorbance as an Indicator of
Micropollutant Removal Efficiency in Wastewater Treated with Ozone. Water Sci. Technol. 2015, 71, 980–985. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
170. Li, W.T.; Jin, J.; Li, Q.; Wu, C.F.; Lu, H.; Zhou, Q.; Li, A.M. Developing LED UV Fluorescence Sensors for Online Monitoring DOM
and Predicting DBPs Formation Potential during Water Treatment. Water Res. 2016, 93, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
171. Cruz-Alcalde, A.; Esplugas, S.; Sans, C. Abatement of Ozone-Recalcitrant Micropollutants during Municipal Wastewater
Ozonation: Kinetic Modelling and Surrogate-Based Control Strategies. Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 360, 1092–1100. [CrossRef]
172. Park, M.; Anumol, T.; Daniels, K.D.; Wu, S.; Ziska, A.D.; Snyder, S.A. Predicting Trace Organic Compound Attenuation by Ozone
Oxidation: Development of Indicator and Surrogate Models. Water Res. 2017, 119, 21–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
173. Chys, M.; Audenaert, W.T.M.; Deniere, E.; Mortier, S.T.F.C.; Langenhove, H.; Nopens, I.; Demeestere, K.; Hulle, S.W.H.V. Surrogate-
Based Correlation Models in View of Real-Time Control of Ozonation of Secondary Treated Municipal Wastewater—Model
Development and Dynamic Validation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 14233–14243. [CrossRef]
174. Miklos, D.B.; Wang, W.L.; Linden, K.G.; Drewes, J.E.; Hübner, U. Comparison of UV-AOPs (UV/H2 O2 , UV/PDS and
UV/Chlorine) for TOrC Removal from Municipal Wastewater Effluent and Optical Surrogate Model Evaluation. Chem. Eng. J.
2019, 362, 537–547. [CrossRef]
175. Li, W.; Nanaboina, V.; Chen, F.; Korshin, G.V. Removal of Polycyclic Synthetic Musks and Antineoplastic Drugs in Ozonated
Wastewater: Quantitation Based on the Data of Differential Spectroscopy. J. Hazard. Mater. 2016, 304, 242–250. [CrossRef]
176. Korshin, G.; Chow, C.W.K.; Fabris, R.; Drikas, M. Absorbance Spectroscopy-Based Examination of Effects of Coagulation on the
Reactivity of Fractions of Natural Organic Matter with Varying Apparent Molecular Weights. Water Res. 2009, 43, 1541–1548.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
177. Audenaert, W.T.M.; Vandierendonck, D.; Hulle, S.W.H.V.; Nopens, I. Comparison of Ozone and HO• Induced Conversion of
Effluent Organic Matter (EfOM) Using Ozonation and UV/H2 O2 Treatment. Water Res. 2013, 47, 2387–2398. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
178. Qin, X.; Gao, F.; Chen, G. Wastewater Quality Monitoring System Using Sensor Fusion and Machine Learning Techniques. Water
Res. 2012, 46, 1133–1144. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
179. Lee, Y.; Kovalova, L.; McArdell, C.S.; von Gunten, U. Prediction of Micropollutant Elimination during Ozonation of a Hospital
Wastewater Effluent. Water Res. 2014, 64, 134–148. [CrossRef]
180. Tu, X.; Meng, X.; Pan, Y.; Crittenden, J.C.; Wang, Y. Degradation Kinetics of Target Compounds and Correlations with Spectral
Indices during UV/H2 O2 Post-Treatment of Biologically Treated Acrylonitrile Wastewater. Chemosphere 2020, 243, 125384.
[CrossRef]
181. Carstea, E.M.; Bridgeman, J.; Baker, A.; Reynolds, D.M. Fluorescence Spectroscopy for Wastewater Monitoring: A Review. Water
Res. 2016, 95, 205–219. [CrossRef]
182. Yu, Z.; Li, W.; Tan, S. Real-Time Monitoring of the Membrane Biofouling Based on Spectroscopic Analysis in a Marine MBBR-
MBR (Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor-Membrane Bioreactor) for Saline Wastewater Treatment. Chemosphere 2019, 235, 1154–1161.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Bioengineering 11 00189

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bioengineering 11 00189

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bioengineering 11 00189

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bioengineering

Department of Chemical Engineering, Toronto Metropolitan University, 350 Victoria Street,

Bioengineering 2024, 11, 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering11020189 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/bioengineering

Bioengineering 2024, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 49

Figure 2. Diﬀerent AOPs involving ROS (adapted from [15]).

Despite the eﬃciency of AOPs in removing refractory pollutants, their

Figure 3. Classification of diﬀerent AOPs (adapted from [26]).

Bioengineering 2024, 11, 189 6 of 44

2.1. Modelling Biological Treatment Processes—ASPs

Table 1. The main ASMs in wastewater treatment developed by the IWA.

Model Description Application

In conclusion, selecting the proper model to use depends on specific requirements in a

In addition to standard ASMs, two benchmark simulation models (BSMs), including

2.2. Modelling Biological Treatment Processes—SBR

refinery wastewater treatment plant (PRWWTP) revealed lower expenditures in project

• Complex and interactive combination of

2.3. Modelling other Biological Wastewater Treatment Processes

2.4. Modelling AOP-Based Treatment Processes

3. Controlling Treatment Processes

• Internal model control;

• A multi-loop control strategy;

Adaptive • Self-tuning capability by changing process behaviour;

• A model-based control approach;

• A model-based control approach;

• Using invariant sets to capture nonlinear dynamics;

Nonlinear • Control of diverse operating regimes by adaptable control gains;

NMPC [12,112] • MPC control for a nonlinear process.

NMC [113–115] • IMC control for a nonlinear process.

• Efficient in capturing the nonlinearity of the system;

• Efficient in capturing the nonlinearity of the system;

Wastewater Influent Wastewater Dynamic Process Study Focus and Other

Wastewater Influent Wastewater Dynamic Process Study Focus and Other

Wastewater Influent Wastewater Dynamic Process Study Focus and Other

Wastewater Influent Wastewater Dynamic Process Study Focus and Other

3.1. Controlling Biological Treatment Processes—ASP

3.2. Controlling Biological Treatment Processes—SBR

3.3. Controlling other Biological Treatment Processes

3.4. Controlling AOP-Based Treatment Processes

• Insufficiently developed process models;

4. Monitoring Treatment Processes

4.1. Hardware Sensors

4.2. Soft Sensors

Estimated Parameter Indicators Source of Dataset Modelling Method Highlights Reference

Outperformance of GBR in predicting

best wavelength, especially when wastewater contains different pollutants, is a challenge.

FPI Fractional order Proportional Integral

PMBC Process Model-Based Control

You might also like