Hydrodynamic performance of a hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor (HABR): effects of number of chambers, hydraulic retention time, and influent temperature

Abstract

Hydrodynamic performance of a biological reactor is an important design concern since it directly affects the treatment efficiency. In this research, a hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor (HABR) was proposed with improved design concepts and principles. The HABR consisted of a front sedimentation chamber, four regular baffled chambers followed by two floated filter media chambers. The effects of operating variables 5–20 hr hydraulic retention time (HRT) and 10–40 °C of influent temperature, as well as their interactive effects, on the hydrodynamic behaviour were investigated by residence time distributions study and response surface methodology. The study suggests that the hydrodynamic performance is greatly influenced by the number of chambers in the reactor rather than HRT and influent temperature. The influence of HRT and feed temperature were mainly observed on the front chambers (1–4) rather than rear chambers (5–7). The optimum reactor performance – low dead space (<10%), excellent hydraulic efficiency (>0.75), and intermediate mixing pattern (Peclet number > 10) – were achieved using the proposed HABR with more than five chambers.

A simplistic approach of algal biofuels production from wastewater using a Hybrid Anaerobic Baffled Reactor and Photobioreactor (HABR-PBR) System

“…The average VSS/TSS ratio of influent wastewater was 0.55 for HABR (U), and 0.59 for HABR (I) suggested high VSS/TSS ratio for successfully anaerobic digestion [44]. A minor increase (e.g., 4–5%) of TSS or VSS removal was observed in HABR (I) because of insulation, which was perhaps due to ideal intermediate dispersion (e.g., weaker) existed in HABR (I) as suggested from a hydrodynamic study of the HABR [17].…”

“…In this research, a hybrid anaerobic baffled reactor (HABR) has been proposed with improved design concepts and principles, which consisted of a front sedimentation chamber, four regular baffled chambers followed by two floated filter media chambers in order to overcome the above-mentioned drawbacks. The recently conducted hydrodynamic study of the proposed HABR configuration has shown that the optimum reactor performance- low dead space (< 10%), excellent hydraulic efficiency (λ > 0.75), and intermediate mixing pattern (Pe > 10)- were achieved using the proposed HABR with more than five chambers [17].…”

Hybrid Anaerobic Baffled Reactor for Removal of Bod and Phosphate Concentration in Domestic Wastewater

“…Figure 1 Differences in HABR and ABR reactor unit designs (Aqaneghad et al, 2017) HABR technology also uses a reactor that has several separators, but the reactor used in this technology is a combination of a suspended reactor and an attached reactor (Aqaneghad et al Aqaneghad et al, (2017), Khalekuzzaman et al, (2018) and Khalekuzzaman et al, (2019). Research conducted by Aqaneghad et al, (2017) concluded that the way HABR works is the same as ABR.…”

“…Aqaneghad et al, (2017) drained wastewater into a reactor unit with 5 compartments, which were divided into a suspended reactor in the initial compartment and 4 attached reactor compartments filled with media and succeeded in reducing the pollutant load of total BOD and phosphate levels by 94.5% and 30.2%. Khalekuzzaman et al, (2018) stated that the more the number of compartments, the higher the efficiency of HABR performance. Research conducted by Khalekuzzaman et al, (2018) with the HABR design consisting of 7 compartments resulted in a more optimum reactor performance compared to 5 compartments.…”

“…Khalekuzzaman et al, (2018) stated that the more the number of compartments, the higher the efficiency of HABR performance. Research conducted by Khalekuzzaman et al, (2018) with the HABR design consisting of 7 compartments resulted in a more optimum reactor performance compared to 5 compartments. The types of media used in the attached reactor are quite diverse, including activated charcoal (Mifbakhuddin, 2010) and zeolite (Ronald, 2008).…”