13
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings,
Construction and Environmental Engineering
(BCEE2-2015)
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
SUPREME COMMITTEE 1. Prof. Amin D. Thamir, UOT, Iraq/ Chair
2. Prof. Ryiad H. Hadi, UOT, Iraq
3. Prof. Makram Suidan, AUB, Lebanon
4. Prof. Mohamed Harajli, AUB, Lebanon
5. Eng. Estabraq I. El-Showq, MOCH, Iraq
6. Eng. Ibrahem Mustafa, Mayoralty of Baghdad, Iraq
7. Eng. Raad A. Abdulamir, MOWR, Iraq
8. Eng. Fouad A. Hamid, NIC, Iraq
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. Prof. Riadh S. Al-Mahaidi, Swinburne University, Australia/Chair
2. Prof. Muthana H. Al-Dahan, University of Missouri, USA
3. Prof. Husham Al-Mansour, National Research Council, Canada
4. Prof. Tom Schanz, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
5. Prof. Siamak Yazdani, North Dakota State University, USA
6. Prof. Andrzej M. Brandt, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
7. Prof. Caijun Shi, Hunan University, China
8. Prof. Namir K. Al-Saoudi, Australia
9. Prof. Hanaa A. Yousif, University of Akron, USA
10. Prof. Mohamed N. Hadi, University of Wollongong, Australia
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE 1. Prof. Ryiad H. Hadi, UOT, Iraq / Chair
2. Assoc. Prof. Ghassan Chehab, AUB, Lebanon/Co-Chair
3. Prof. Tareq S. Hadi, UOT, Iraq/ Co-Chair
4. Assist. Prof. Issam Srour, AUB, Lebanon
5. Assist. Prof. George Saad, AUB, Lebanon
6. Assist. Prof. Faris H. Mohammed, UOT, Iraq
7. Assist. Prof. Hasan H. Joni, UOT, Iraq
8. Assist. Prof. Mohammed A. Mahmoud, UOT, Iraq
9. Ms. Zakeya Deeb, AUB, Lebanon/ Exec Admin Assist
10.Mr. Helmi EL Khatib, AUB, Lebanon
i
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
LOCAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE
1. Prof. Shakir A. Salih, UOT, Iraq / Chair
2. Prof. Emu. Kaiss F. Sarsam, UOT, Iraq
3. Prof. Hussain H. Karim, UOT, Iraq
4. Prof. Aqeel Al-Adili, UOT, Iraq
5. Prof. Abdulrazzaq T. Ziboon, UOT, Iraq
6. Prof. Mohammed Y. Fattah, UOT, Iraq
7. Prof. Nabeel A. Jadoo’a, UOT, Iraq
8. Prof. Hisham K. Ahmed, UOT, Iraq
9. Prof. Abdulhameed M. Jawad, UOT, Iraq
10. Assoc. Prof. Shadi Najjar, AUB, Lebanon
11. Assist. Prof. Abbas K. Zidan, UOT, Iraq
12. Assist. Prof. Waleed A. Abbas, UOT, Iraq
13. Assist. Prof. Hasan A. Omran, UOT, Iraq
14. Assist. Prof. Falah H. Rahil, UOT, Iraq
15. Assist. Prof. Mahmoud S. Mahdi, UOT, Iraq
16. Assist. Prof. Maan S. Hassan, UOT, Iraq
17. Dr. Hussain L. Zamil, MOWR, Iraq
18. Dr. Suhair K. Al-Habbobi, MOCH, Iraq
19. Eng. Ammar M. Abdulrassol, NIC, Iraq
20. Assist. Prof. Nisreen S. Mohammed, UOT, Iraq / Rapporteur and Secretary
21. Dr. Wael Shawky Abdulsahib, UOT, Iraq / Rapporteur and Secretary
ii
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
SPONSORS OF THE CONFERENCE
Our thanks and appreciation to the supporting points of the Conference
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Researches, Iraq
Hanwha Engineering and Construction Bismayah Project, Iraq
Veolia For Water Technology CO. France
Fugro - Maps, Lebanon
Al-Tariq Engineering Bureau for Pile Testing Iraq
iii
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
PREPARATION COMMITTEE OF THIS BOOK
1. Prof. Aqeel Al-Adili
2. Dr. Wael Shawky Abdulsahib
3. Dr. Bassman R. Muhammad
4. Eng. Luay Yaly
REVIEWERS OF THIS TOPIC 1. Prof. Dr. Riyad Hassan Al-Anbari 2. Prof. Dr. Aqeel Al-Adili 3. Ass. Prof. Haider Alwash 4. Dr. Mahmoud Saleh Mahdi 5. Dr. Adawiya J. Haider 6. Dr. Adel M. Rabee 7. Dr. Ahmed A. H. Al-Amiery 8. Dr. Ali Sadiq Abas 9. Dr. Amer Al-Hadad 10. Dr. Ayad Sleeby 11. Dr. Azhar A. Al-Saboonchi 12. Dr. Faiza E. Gharib 13. Dr. Faris Al Ani 14. Dr. Ghassan Adham 15. Dr. Hassan Ali Omran 16. Dr. Hussain Musa Hussain 17. Dr. Jaafar S. Maatooq 18. Dr. Khalid A. Rasheed 19. Dr. Khalid Ajmee Sukkar 20. Dr. Maan S. Hassan 21. Dr. Maitham Al-Maliky 22. Dr. Moutaz A. Aldabbas 23. Dr. Sadiq Eliwy 24. Dr. Saleh Eysa Khassaf 25. Dr. Sedik A. K. Alhiyaly 26. Dr. Thair Shareef 27. Dr. Faris J. M. Alomarah 28. Dr. Saadi M. D. Nazal
iv
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
Table of Contents
No. Title Page 1. Development of New Formula for Computing Total Sediment Loads at
Upstream of Al- Shamia Barrage Saleh I. Khassaf, Safaa K.Hashim, and Nasseem M. Sharba
1
2. Reduction of Scour by using Tapered Pier. Jaafar S. Maatooq
9
3. Fabrication of Nanocomposite Membrane Containing MWCNTs in Support Layer and MCM-41 in Polyamide Thin Layer for Water Purification Abdulkhalik K. Mahmooda, Riyad Hassan Alanbarib , and Fadhil Abd Rasinc
13
4. Properties Study of a Polysulfone Support Layer Membrane Containing Multiwall Carbon Nanotube for Water Purification Abdulkhalik K.Mahmooda , Fadhil Abd Rasinb, and Riyad Hassan Alanbaric
21
5. Disposal of Sludge from Water Treatment Plants in the Manufacturing of Building Blocks (Bricks). Ghaydaa Y. rasheed, Shaimaa T. Kadhum
31
6. Noise Acoustic Pollution In Tikrit University Buildings Abbas Hadi Abbas and Riyadh M. Mahmood
39
7. Modeling Water Harvesting System Using Soil Water Assessment Tool SWAT (Case Study in Iraq). Imzahim Abdulkareem Alwan , Ibtisam R.Kareem , and Mahmood J. Mohamed
51
8. Preparation and Characterization PVC/PS/PVA Hollow Fiber Nano-filtration Composite Membranes. Rana J. Kadhim, Talib Albyati, Zainab Shneen, Qusay F. Alsalhy, 3S. Simone, Alberto Figoli, and Enrico Drioli
57
9. Groundwater and Seawater Intrusion Simulation at Basrah Coastal Aquifer (Aug. 2015). Ammar Ashour Akesh Al-Suraifi
63
.10 Comparing between Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor and Conventional Activated Sludge System in Al-Rustamiyah WWTP (May 2015). Walaa S. Mizeel, Mudhaffar S. Al-Zuhairy, and Zainab Bahaa
77
11. The Efficiency of Electrocoagulation in the Treatment of Turbid Water. Riyad H. Al-Anbari ,and Jabbar H. Al Baidhani
83
12. Deterioration of Water Quantity and Quality in Iraq Due to Storage. Ala Hassan Nama.
91
13. Improving the Water Use Efficiency of AL- Hussainiyah Irrigation Project. Mahmoud S. Mahdi, Haider. H. Alwash, and Layth S. Al-Khafaji
99
14. The Treatment of Grey water Discharged from AL-Sadeer Hotel in Baghdad. Rana Jawad Kadhim and Faaeza Ahmed Abd Ulkareeam
107
15. Upgrading of an Existing Iraqi Sewage Treatment Plant to Achieve Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal. Aumar N. Al-Nakeeb, Walaa K. Al-Janabi and Moaid M. Ismaeel
115
16. Determination of Discharge Coefficient of Rectangular Broad-Crested Weir by CFD. Shaymaa Al-Hashimi,. Sadeq A. Sulaiman, and Huda M. Madhloom
123
17. Reuse of Treated Wastewater for Irrigation (March 2015). Ibtisam R. Karim, Karim K. EL- Jumaily, and Mohammed Jallel Al- Janabi
129
v
The 2nd
International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
vi
18. Variation Effect of Discharge on Total Dissolved Solid in Shatt Al-Arab
River. Ahmed Naseh Ahmed Hamdan
135
19. Evaluation of the Radiological Contaminated Area in Al Tuwaitha Nuclear
Site, Iraq. Hisham M. Al Sharaa, AbdolRazak T. Zaboon., and AbdulHameed M. Jawad Al
Obaidy
143
20. The fate of Some Emerging Contaminants in conventional Wastewater
treatment plants. Hussein Janna and Mark D. Scrimshaw
147
21. Advective Transport of Trace Elements Pollution in the Shallow
Groundwater of Baghdad Area. Sawsan M. Ali and Qusay Al-Suhail
151
22. Environmental Change Detection of the Main Drain Area, Iraq Qusay Al-Suhail, Inass Al-Mallah, Adel Albadran
159
23. Effect of Particle Floc Size on Water Treatment by Coagulation–
Flocculation Process. Thamer J.Mohammed, and Mohanad I.Farhan
165
24. Analysis and Design of Infiltration Basins in Agriculture Area of Bahr Al-
Najaf Namir K. S. Al-Saoudi, Mohammed Shaker Mahmood, Mustafa M. Abdal Husain
171
25. Factors affecting aerobic granulation process of activated sludge Ghufran F.J, Talib R.A, and Mohammed A.I.A.H
177
.26 Ground Water Assessment and Management at Khaniqeen area, Diyala
Governorate, Iraq. M. Al-Dabbas, Q. Al-Kubaisi, T. Hussein and A. Al-Kafaji
183
.27 The Impact of using BIM-based building performance analysis for housing
projects in Iraq.
Hussaen A. Kahachi
189
.28 GIS Model for Producing HSG Classification Digital Map of Baghdad City. Ahmed A.M. Ali, Mahmoud S. Mahdi and Nuha Jamal Abdullah
195
.29 Evaluation Of Gases Emissions From Automobiles Exhaust In Baghdad
City. Ammar A. F. Al-Sultan
203
30. Effect of Wastewater on Concrete Tanks in Wastewater Plants Dr. Mohammed Ali I. Al-Hashimi, Sameh Badry Tobeia, Ayat Hussein Mahdi,and
Hadel A. Ibrahim
211
31. Pollution Status Analysis of Diyala River, Baghdad, Iraq
A. Abbas Al-Samawi and S. Nasser Hassan Al-Hussaini
217
32. Wetland System for Water Quality Improvement in Rural Areas
Prof. Dr. Alaa H. Wadie Al-Fatlawi
223
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
77
Abstract—In this research, presents the comparing between the
Conventional Activated Sludge systems (CAS) and Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR). An experimental campaign has been carried out at Al-Rustamiyah WWTP in Baghdad (Iraq); on a pilot plant consist of five reactors in series with Anoxic MBBR-1, Aerobic MBBR-2, Aerobic MBBR-3, Outlet chamber and the Flocculation part with dosing unit, that were operated continuously at different organic loading rates. The MBBR tank was filled with suspended carriers (AnoxKaldnes K5), with a 50% filling ratio. The obtained results showed a good treatment ability of the MBBR system, referring to the organic matter removal, the average BOD5 removal efficiencies for CAS and MBBR were 91% and 88% respectively. On the contrary the COD removal efficiency resulted alike (89% for both systems). The results demonstrate the higher treatment capacity of the MBBR addressing such system as an effective technology for the upgrading of overloaded wastewater treatment plants.
Index Terms— Moving bed biofilm reactor, Al-Rustamiyah wastewater treatment plant WWTP, Efficiency
I. INTRODUCTION oday because of increased flow and organic loading many wastewater treatment plants are being expanded to provide
addition capacity. The secondary treatment of the WWTP is usually accomplished by biological processes that can be classified as being either suspended or attached growth process. The conventional and mostly used suspended growth system is represented by the classical and well known
Walaa S. Mizeel
M.SC. in Environmental Engineering/ Department of Building and Construction Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
[email protected] Prof. Dr. Mudhaffar S. Al-Zuhairy President of Southern Technical University – Iraq [email protected] Dr. Zainab Bahaa
Department of Building and Construction Engineering, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq
activated sludge process (AS). Indeed, this process can present some shortcomings when exposed to increased hydraulic and organic loads. To increase the performances of an existing CAS system it would be necessary to increase the amount of biomass inside the aerobic reactor [1]. In the last years, the idea to combine the two different processes (attached and suspended biomass) by adding biofilm carriers, usually plastic carriers, into the aeration tank for biofilm attachment and growth has been proposed. A Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) is a compilation of these two technologies [2].
The MBBR was developed in Norway at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in co-operation with a Norwegian company Kaldnes Miljǿteknologi (now Anox Kaldnes AS). The first MBBR was installed in 1989. Currently, there are more than 500 large scale wastewater treatment plants based on MBBR process in operation in 50 different countries all over the world.
The Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) is a highly effective biological treatment process that was developed on the basis of conventional activated sludge process and biofilm process. It is a completely mixed and continuously operated Biofilm reactor, where the biomass is grown on small carrier elements that have a little lighter density than water and are kept in movement along with a water stream inside the reactor. The movement inside a reactor can be caused by aeration in an aerobic reactor and by a mechanical stirrer in an anaerobic or anoxic reactor [3]. Types of moving bed technology
1- Pure MBBR process: the biomass is growing chiefly on carriers that move freely in the reactor.
2- Hybas (Hybrid Biofilm Activated Sludge) processes: The biomass is growing on carriers that move freely in the reactor and act as suspended activated sludge [3].
II. CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS Clark and Gage developed the activated sludge process at
the Lawrence experiment station in Massachusetts [4] but the
Comparing between Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor and Conventional Activated Sludge
System in Al-Rustamiyah WWTP (May 2015)
Walaa S. Mizeel, Prof. Dr. Mudhaffar S. Al-Zuhairy, and Dr. Zainab Bahaa
T
Comparing between Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor and Conventional Activated Sludge System in Al-Rustamiyah WWTP (May 2015)
78
conception of activated sludge process was discovered by Ardern and Lockett (1914). In this type of wastewater treatment, the microorganisms responsible for treatment are maintained in liquid suspension by appropriate mixing methods. The activated sludge process was so named because it involved the production of an activated mass of microorganisms capable of stabilizing a waste under aerobic condition [5]. The object of this experimental study was to Evaluate and compare the performance of a pilot plant moving bed biofilm reactor and conventional activated sludge (CAS).
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
IV. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
The experiments of comparing were conducted between conventional activated sludge the technology that using in South Al-Rustamiyah WWTP and Moving bed biofilm reactor the pilot plant was built at South Al-Rustamiyah WWTP located on the banks of Diyala River south of Baghdad city. It is one of the oldest sewage treatment plant projects in the Iraq. The total capacity of the project (175,000 m3/day) and distracts sewage into the Diyala River after treatment.
Components of South Al-Rustamiyah WWTP: Screen Main lift Grit chamber Pre-Aeration tanks Primary clarifier tank Aeration tanks Secondary clarifier tanks Chlorine Contact Tanks
V. THE PILOT PLANT (MBBR) The pilot plant (MBBR) consists of, the type of pilot plant is Hybas.
Screen (coarse & fine) the bar spacing in the coarsescreen 10 mm, the perforation for fine screen ∅ 3mm.
Tank divided to five parts in series, the first part MBBR-1(Anoxic) with anoxic mixer, the second MBBR-2 (Aerobic), the third part MBBR-3 (Aerobic), the fourth part Outlet chamber and the Flocculation part with dosing unit and flocculation mixer.
Final clarifier with dia. 1.5m, high 2m, water volume3.53m3 with sludge recycle.
Drum filter which polyester filter cloth 10µm opening,the separated solids are collected in a separate channel inside the drum and taken out.
Reactors in series can provide greater treatment capacity. The process consists of an anoxic tank followed by the aeration tank where nitrification occurs. Nitrate produced in the aeration tank is recycled back to the anoxic tank. Because the organic substrate in the influent wastewater provides the electron donor for oxidation reduction reactions using nitrate, the process is termed substrate denitrification. The inlet arrangement for influent raw wastewater will be given at the top of tank. To control discharge in and out pilot plant and dissolved oxygen there is a flowmeter for inflow, outflow and a device for dissolved oxygen control. A sketch of moving bed biofilm reactor is shown in Figure 1 and some key parameters are listed in Table II. Characteristics of the AnoxKaldnes K5 plastic media are presented in Table III.
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of MBBR system
TABLE I COMPARING BETWEEN ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROCESS AND MOVING BED
BIOFILM REACTOR no. Conventional
Activated sludge (CAS)
Moving bed biofim reactor (MBBR)
1 Area required is more.
Less Area Required Compared to any other Process.
2 Final result dependent on the
biomass separation. MLSS to be maintained.
Final result less dependent on the biomass separation. No MLSS to be maintained (Self Controlling Biomass)
3 Very sensitive to shock loads and varying loads.
Process gets easily disturbed and takes several days to re-
stabilize.
Very high resilience to shock loads and varying loads. In the unlikely event of destabilization, the plant returns to normal in a matter of few hours
4 Activated Sludge Process capital cost
is low
MBBR cost is low
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
79
VI. Sampling and analysis Samples were collected from influent and effluent for the both system and analysed at the same time during April 2014 to July 2014. Temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were measured in each reactor. Procedures followed for analysis have been in accordance with the Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater [6].
VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
VIII. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD5) In Figure 2 the effluent concentrations of the BOD5 for
CAS and MBBR were in the ranges 7-34 mg/L, 5-64 mg/L
respectively. Some values exceeded the standards when compared with the Iraqi National Standards set by the Regulation 3 at 2012. Due to the microorganisms growth on the carriers are still not achieved because the microorganisms need some days to grow and acclimate as shown in previous studies [7]. Aeration plays a vital role on the microbial growth and development, as well as its stability on the carriers and its movement throughout the reactor. Aeration supplies the microbial oxidation with oxygen and also enhances the turbulent intensity of fluid, which are important for the efficiency of wastewater treatment [8]. Therefore, it is important to provide suitable aeration rate for the stable operation of MBBR. At the period from 13th to 28th of May the pilot plant faced problem, high concentration level of oxygen because malfunction of automatic control that providing oxygen not work, which led to the buoyancy of the bacteria on the surface of the clarifier tank and that in turn effect on the removal efficiency and this was agreed with other previous studies Shrestha, (2013) [9].
In Figure, 3 it can be observed that the removal efficiency
rate of BOD5 in MBBR system was higher than that of CAS in 2nd phase due to the optimum operation and the enhancement in performance with time. This explains the microorganisms growth and multiply in the MBBR system. The average removal efficiency was 91% to MBBR and 86% for CAS. Similar results were obtained by [7] who pointed out in his study that at BOD5 load of about 150-200 mg/L, filling ratio of plastic elements in MBBR reactor was 40%. The BOD5 removal efficiencies were 78% and 90% for AS and MBBR respectively.
TABLE II TECHNICAL DATA FOR THE MOVING BED BIOFILM REACTOR
Parameter Anoxic
reactor
Aerobic
reactor
Aerobic
reactor
Outlet
chamb
er
Floccul
ation
Volume m3
Water volume m3
Media volume m3
Filling ratio with
carriers%
Flow rate m3/hr
Flow direction
HRT hr
4.5
4
2
50
1.5
Up-flow
3
2.25
2
1
50
1.5
Up-flow
1.5
3
2.5
1.5
50
1.5
Up-flow
2
1.5
1
-
-
1.5 Up-flow
1
0.18
0.1
-
-
1.5 Up-flow
0.12
TABLE III CHARACTERISTICS OF ANOXKALDNES K5 THE USED CARRIER
Type AnoxKaldnes K5
Material Polyethylene
Shape Chips
Density 0.95 g cm-3
Diameter 25 mm
Thickness 4 mm
Specific biofilm
surface area m2/m3
800
Fig.2 Effluent BOD5 concentrations for both systems
Comparing between Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor and Conventional Activated Sludge System in Al-Rustamiyah WWTP (May 2015)
80
IX. CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) Figure 4 present the variation with time of influent and effluent COD for CAS and MBBR process, respectively. The influent concentrations of COD were highly fluctuated and ranged between 357 to703 mg/L for CAS and 331 to 839 mg/L for MBBR. In spite of the high range of the inlet COD, characterized by a maximum concentration of 839 mg/L, the effluent COD concentrations were almost constant with an average value of approximately 47 mg/L for both systems as shown in Figure 4. It is important to highlight that the COD concentrations at the outlet are always under the Iraqi standard limit equal to 100 mg /L.
The behavior of both systems is also shown in terms of
removal efficiency (Figure 5). In particular, both systems showed good removal efficiencies in each experimental phase. These results are committing with Di Trapani et al. (2010) [10], and Shrestha, (2013) [9] who reported that COD removal was not significantly affected by the different operating
conditions. Except in the period ranging from the 17th - 21th of April, probably related to a sharp increase in the inlet COD concentration for MBBR because of the grit chamber was out of service at that time and the period 22th June to 9th July due to breakdown diver. The breakdown was affected on the growth of biomass on the carrier.
The average COD removal efficiencies for the CAS and the MBBR were very similar with average values 90.3% and 88.5% respectively in the overall experimental period. This result agrees with the findings of other work (Andreottola et al., 2000) [11] who reported that the average efficiencies for tot COD removal were 76 % for MBBR and 84 % for AS and the limited performance of the MBBR was not the specific biomass activity but the biomass concentration.
X. CONCLUSION
• In terms of BOD5, particularly in the first and latter phases, the performances of the two systems were almost comparable, suggesting that the attached biomass in MBBR did not give an extra contribution to the removal process due to operation problem. On the other hand, in the second phase, the MBBR showed a better performance respect to the CAS reached to 95% and 88% to CAS removal efficiency.
• The performance of CAS and MBBR systems shows good removal of pollutants from wastewater according to measured parameters (COD) with average removal efficiency reached to 90.3% , 88.5% to CAS and MBBR systems, respectively.
• The different aeration rates influenced the biomass development on the carriers, its stability on the carriers and movement of the carriers throughout the reactor.
• At higher aeration rate the biomass on the carriers was easily washed off due to the stronger turbulence.
• It was concluded that (MBBR) can be an excellent alternative for upgrading and optimizing existing municipal wastewater treatment plants.
Fig. 3 BOD5 removal efficiency % for both systems
Fig. 4 Effluent COD concentrations for two systems
Fig.5 COD Removal Efficiency % for CAS and MBBR
The 2nd International Conference of Buildings, Construction and Environmental Engineering (BCEE2-2015)
81
ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my deep gratitude to my supervisors Prof.
Dr. Mudhaffar S. Al-Zuhairy and Dr. Zainab Bahaa Mohammed for their valuable time, guidance and encouragement invaluable remarks and fruitful discussion throughout the preparation of my thesis.
REFERENCES 1- Qiqi, Y., Qiang, H. and Ibrahim, H.T.: Review on Moving Bed
Biofilm Process. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition vol.11 (9), pp. 804-811. 2012.
2- Randall, C. W. and Sen, D.: Full-Scale Evaluation of an Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge (IFAS) Process for Enhanced Nitrogen Removal. Water Science and Technology Journal, vol. 33 (12), pp. 155–162, 1996.
3- Borkar, R.P, Gulhane, M.L. and Kotangale, A.J.: Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor – A New Perspective in Wastewater Treatment. Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology vol. 6 (6), pp. 15 – 21, 2013.
4- Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H.P.: Sewerage and Sewage Disposal. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York and London 1930.
5- Metcalf, L. and Eddy, H.P.: Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th Edition McGrawHill 2004.
6- APHA, WWA & WEF,: Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 21st Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 2005.
7- Abdul-Majeed, A.M., Alwan, H.H., Baki, M.I., Abtan, F.R. and Sultan, H.I.: Wastewater Treatment in Baghdad City Using Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) Technology. Engineering and Technology Journal, vol.30 (9), pp.1550 – 1561, 2012.
8- Li, S.R., Cheng, W., Wang, M. and Chen, C.: The flow patterns of bubble plume in an MBBR. Journal of Hydrodynamics, Ser. B, vol. 23 (4), pp. 510-515, 2011.
9- Shrestha, A.: Specific Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor in Nutrient Removal from Municipal Wastewater. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Technology, Sydney, 2013.
10- Di Trapani, D., Mannina, G., Torregrossa, M. and Viviani, G.: Comparison between Hybrid Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor and Activated Sludge System: A Pilot Plant Experiment. Water Science and Technology, vol. 61(4), pp. 891 – 902, 2010.
11- Andreottola, G., Foladori, R., Ragazzi, M. and Tatàno, F.: Experimental Comparison between MBBR and Activated Sludge System for the Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. Water Science and Technology, vol. 41(4-5), pp. 375 – 382, 2000.
