Biofilm models are valuable tools for the design and evaluation of biofilm-based processes despite several uncertainties including the dynamics and rate of biofilm detachment, concentration gradients external to the biofilm surface, and undefined biofilm reactor model calibration protocol. The present investigation serves to (1) systematically evaluate critical biofilm model assumptions and components and (2) conduct a sensitivity analysis with the aim of identifying parameter subsets for biofilm reactor model calibration. AQUASIM was used to describe submerged-completely mixed combined carbon oxidation and nitrification IFAS and MBBR systems, and tertiary nitrification and denitrification MBBRs. The influence of uncertainties in model parameters on relevant model outputs was determined for simulated scenarios by means of a local sensitivity analysis. To obtain reasonable simulation results for partially penetrated biofilms that accumulated a substantial thickness in the modelled biofilm reactor (e.g. 1,000 μm), an appropriate biofilm discretization was applied to properly model soluble substrate concentration gradients and, consistent with the assumed mechanism for describing biofilm biomass distribution, biofilm biomass spatial variability. The MTBL thickness had a significant impact on model results for each of the modelled reactor configurations. Further research is needed to develop a mathematical description (empirical or otherwise) of the MTBL thickness that is relevant to modern biofilm reactors. No simple recommendations for a generally applicable calibration protocol are provided, but sensitivity analysis has been proven to be a powerful tool for the identification of highly sensitive parameter subsets for biofilm (reactor) model calibration.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
Research Article|
August 01 2011
Systematic evaluation of biofilm models for engineering practice: components and critical assumptions
J. P. Boltz;
1CH2M HILL, Inc., 4350 W. Cypress Street, Suite 600, Tampa, FL 33607, USA
E-mail: jboltz@ch2m.com
Search for other works by this author on:
E. Morgenroth;
E. Morgenroth
2ETH Zürich, Institute of Environmental Engineering, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland and Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
Search for other works by this author on:
D. Brockmann;
D. Brockmann
3INRA, UR0050, Laboratoire de Biotechnologie de l'Environnement, Avenue des Etangs, Narbonne, F-11100, France
Search for other works by this author on:
C. Bott;
C. Bott
4Hampton Roads Sanitation District, 1440 Air Rail, Ave., Virginia Beach, VA 23455, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
W. J. Gellner;
W. J. Gellner
5Hazen and Sawyer, 11311 Cornell Park Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45242, USA
Search for other works by this author on:
P. A. Vanrolleghem
P. A. Vanrolleghem
6Canada Research Chair in Water Quality Modelling, modelEAU, Université Laval, Pavillon Pouliot, Québec (QC), Canada G1K 7P4
Search for other works by this author on:
Water Sci Technol (2011) 64 (4): 930–944.
Article history
Received:
November 09 2010
Accepted:
May 25 2011
Citation
J. P. Boltz, E. Morgenroth, D. Brockmann, C. Bott, W. J. Gellner, P. A. Vanrolleghem; Systematic evaluation of biofilm models for engineering practice: components and critical assumptions. Water Sci Technol 1 August 2011; 64 (4): 930–944. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.709
Download citation file:
Sign in
Don't already have an account? Register
Client Account
You could not be signed in. Please check your email address / username and password and try again.
Could not validate captcha. Please try again.
eBook
Pay-Per-View Access
$38.00