Next Article in Journal
Disability Data Collection in a Complex Humanitarian Organisation: Lessons from a Realist Evaluation
Next Article in Special Issue
Research on the Spatio-Temporal Impacts of Environmental Factors on the Fresh Agricultural Product Supply Chain and the Spatial Differentiation Issue—An Empirical Research on 31 Chinese Provinces
Previous Article in Journal
Socioeconomic Inequalities in Metabolic Syndrome by Age and Gender in a Spanish Working Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dust Emission Monitoring in Cement Plant Mills: A Case Study in Romania
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Applications of Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) and Characteristics of Its Microbial Community: A Review of Bibliometric Trend and Recent Findings

1
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
2
Interdepartmental Centre for Water Research, University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 3, 27100 Pavia, Italy
3
Department of Civil, Environmental, Architectural Engineering and Mathematics, University of Brescia, Via Branze 43, 25123 Brescia, Italy
4
Department of Theoretical and Applied Sciences, Insubria University of Varese, Via G.B. Vico 46, 21100 Varese, Italy
5
Laboratory of Chemical and Environmental Technology, Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(19), 10326; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910326
Submission received: 8 September 2021 / Revised: 27 September 2021 / Accepted: 28 September 2021 / Published: 30 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Future and Feature Paper in Environment and Applied Ecology)

Abstract

:
The interest in research on up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors is growing. The meta-analysis of bibliometric data highlighted the growing interest in four diverse topics: (i) energy recovery production; (ii) combination with other treatments; (iii) the study of processes for the removal of specific pollutants and, (iv) characterization of microbial community and granular sludge composition. In particular, the papers published in the first 6 months of 2021 on this process were selected and critically reviewed to highlight and discuss the results, the gaps in the literature and possible ideas for future research. Although the state of research on UASB is to be considered advanced, there are still several points that will be developed in future research such as the consolidation of the results obtained on a semi-industrial or real scale, the use of real matrices instead of synthetic ones and a more in-depth study of the effect of substances such as antibiotics on the microbiota and microbiome of UASB granular biomass. To date, few and conflicting data about the environmental footprint of UASB are available and therefore other studies on this topic are strongly suggested.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) systems were first proposed in the 1970s and, recently, the interest in using this technology has grown [1]. In the UASB process, the biomass is not of the flock type but of granular consistency due to a phenomenon in which microorganisms formed granular groups with a more compact structure, a higher dimension, higher density and higher settling capacity than in the conventional active sludge (CAS) [2]. The process is activated using selective environmental conditions that generate a spontaneous involvement of microorganisms commonly present in CAS [3,4]. One of the most significant disadvantages is represented by the low rate of formation and growth of granular biomass that make necessary long start-up periods [5]. However, the inoculation of biomass already granulated proved to be an effective method to reduce the start-up phase [6]. Other drawbacks of this technology include the difficulty associated with the operation of the three-phases separation, the possible sludge washout and foam formation [7,8,9,10].
UASB can be operated in psychrophilic, mesophilic, or thermophilic conditions depending on the type of matrices fed. Generally, higher temperatures allowed researchers to also degrade recalcitrant chemical oxygen demand (COD), particularly in the case of industrial wastewaters (WWs) [1]. The high concentration of biomass (60–100 kgVSS m−3) [11] and the high microbial diversity present in the granules allow for the rapid degradation of the organic substance. In compact reactors, the UASB process can also be applied to waste with high organic concentration [12].
One of the main advantages of UASB system is represented by the production of methane and therefore the feasibility of energy recovery. This aspect contributes to the significant widespread of these reactors in low–middle-income countries [13,14]. This is a crucial aspect since water sanitation and energy production are inserted in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations (SDG 6 and SDG 7, respectively) [15]. The other main advantage of this system is represented by the low sludge production with respect to other types of biological treatments [5]. Additionally, this point is a very current aspect since on the one hand legislation about sludge reuse is becoming stricter [16,17] and on the other hand waste (and also sludge) prevention and minimization is strongly stimulated by regulatory bodies (e.g., [18]).
Despite the high organic substances removal efficiencies, the final effluent of a UASB process generally requires subsequent treatments to remove the residual pollutants, particularly nutrients and pathogens [5]. Many studies evaluated the efficiency of diverse post-treatment in order to increase the effluent quality. For instance, de Oliveira and Daniel [19] found 28–33 oocysts L−1 of Cryptosporidium spp. and 3177–4267 cysts L−1 of Giardia spp. in UASB effluent and obtained good removal rates (2-log) treating it with dissolved air flotation. In another case, dos Santos and van Haandel [20] used waste stabilization ponds to treat UASB effluent pointed out an acceleration of the decay of pathogens and the removal of nutrients.
This paper aims to review the existing literature on UASB for two different purposes: (i) to analyse bibliometric trends from 1990 to date with a particular focus on those of 2021, and (ii) to present and critically review the results of the first semester of 2021 focusing on the applications of this technology (conventional and combined), on the recent findings concerning the microbiota and the microbiome of the UASB granular biomass and on the environmental footprint of the process. The goal is on the one hand to highlight the hottest issues of UASB on which research is most focused and on the other hand to highlight the gaps in research that still persist. This work therefore aims to be a useful tool for the researcher, suggesting future research ideas based on the results obtained so far, and for UASB plants operators, presenting the most recent results on this topic.

2. Methodology

2.1. Criteria of Identification, Screening, and Inclusion

In order to develop the following review, scientific peer-reviewed literature was searched and selected according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [21].
To consider only peer-reviewed documents, the Scopus® database was used to search relevant literature on this topic. The analysis has been conducted on 5 July 2021, searching the keyword “UASB” on fields “Article title, Abstract, Keywords” using the following query: (TITLE-ABS-KEY (UASB)).
Two diverse screenings were made to obtained diverse groups (G) of data. Criteria of selection were English language, publications on journals, as books or as scientific proceedings for both screenings. Moreover, in screening 1 only literature published from 1990 to 2021 was assessed of eligibility. In the case of screening 2, the period of selection was 1 January 2021 to 5 July 2021.
In the case of screening 1, all records assessed for eligibility were included in G1. Considering that the aim of this review is to analyse very recent applications of UASB and findings on its microbial community, the 109 remaining documents of screening 2 were verified individually to exclude papers that do not treat specifically subject in the scope of the present work (e.g., studies specifically focused on the treatment of UASB effluents) or that do not present new original results (e.g., other review papers). Only remaining works were included in G2.

2.2. Analysis of Data

This analysis aims to investigate two different aspects: (i) evaluate the literature trend about UASB technology and applications (based on data selected in G1 and G2), and (ii) present and critically discussed the recent results of literature about the application of UASB, the structure of its microbial community and environmental footprint of the process (based on data selected in G2).
Selected records of both groups were subjected to meta-analyses using VOSviewer software [22,23]. In the case of G1, co-occurrences by author keywords were analysed setting “full counting” mode and limiting visualization only to the set of connected items. Considering that the term UASB may have also been used as an abbreviation in records that deal with issues other than those that are the subject of this review, to avoid this interference, the minimum number of occurrences of each keyword was set to 20.
In the case of G2, the same analysis was developed considering a minimum number of occurrences of each keyword equals 2. Selected records in G2 were also qualitatively and critically analysed to present recent results but also to discuss the current main gaps of literature and possible tips for future research.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Trend

The literature trend on UASB was analyzed selecting two groups of records. 3608 and 86 works were included in G1 and G2, respectively, according to Figure 1.
Data in G1 were analysed to evaluate the trend of literature in the last 30 years, finding a very heterogeneous situation. 89 keywords responding to the criteria of the analysis were grouped in six diverse clusters (Figure 2). Excluding the term “UASB”, which was selected as keywords for records identification in Scopus®, the terms “anaerobic digestion”, “anaerobic”, “anaerobic treatment”, “biogas”, and “wastewater treatment” were among the most used.
In cluster 1, mainly studies about the optimization of existent reactors (“olr”, “hrt”) to produce methane and biohydrogen are enclosed. These records are strictly interconnected with cluster 2 in which one of the main topics is represented by “food waste”. Considering the age of literature, cluster 1 and cluster 2 include more recent studies especially about energy recovery, specifically biohydrogen and methane production (Figure 3). Cluster 3 and 4 are strictly interconnected and included mainly studies about UASB functioning and granulation activity as the most used keywords are “anaerobic granular sludge”, “egsb”, “methanogenic activity” (cluster 3) and “methanogenesis”, “biodegradation”, “wastewater”, “anaerobic”, “granulation” and “thermophilic” (cluster 4). Based on the present analysis, these keywords are not very current (Figure 3). On the contrary, cluster 5 presents very hot topics keywords such as “anammox” and “microbial community” highlighting a growing interest in processes for nitrogen removal and on studies about microbiota and microbiome of granular sludge. In cluster 6 “anaerobic treatment”, “municipal wastewater”, and “domestic sewage” are among the most used keywords pointing that this cluster mainly includes works on the application of UASB on urban wastewater. In this case, a high number of studies are published between 2000 and 2010. Despite UASB were first proposed about fifty years ago [1], considering all the clusters together (Figure 3), it can be said that before the 2000s the publications on UASB were still limited.
Data in G2 were analysed to evaluate trend of literature in the last six months. 31 keywords responding to the criteria of the analysis were grouped in eight diverse clusters (Figure 4). Excluding the term “UASB”, the keywords “anaerobic digestion”, “microbial community”, “biogas”, and “anammox” were the most used confirming results of data analysis of G1. To date, the research is focused on four diverse hot topics: (i) methane and biohydrogen production and subsequent energy recovery (C1, and C2); (ii) combination with other treatments (e.g., GAC (C3) or CAS (C6)); (iii) the study of processes for the removal of specific pollutants (e.g., nitrogen removal (C7)); and (iv) characteristics of the microbial community (C4, and C5) and granular sludge composition (C8).

3.2. Organic Substance Removal and Biogas Production

To degrade organic substances and produce methane, the UASB process was tested on synthetic matrices [24,25,26,27,28,29] and real feed, mainly toilet wastewater [30,31], urban wastewater [32], distillery wastewater [33], mining wastewater [34,35], leachate [35,36], brewery wastewater [37], food waste [38], soybean molasses [39], pharmaceutical wastewater [40], and pulp mill wastewater [41].
The results of the literature analysis highlighted that UASB used in the research were mainly at lab-scale with few studies conducted at semi-industrial or full-scale reactors (Table 1). The few studies at full-scale concerned the optimization and/or the monitoring of the existing plant. For instance, Omine et al. [33] evaluated the minimum alkalinity supplementation to optimize COD removal from a distillery wastewater. They monitored a real UASB operating in thermophilic conditions (55 °C) for more than one year and they found that 0.045 mgCaCO3 mgCOD−1 is required to obtain 87% of the COD removal rate. Monitoring two real full-scale UASB reactors, de Freitas Melo et al. [42] studied the seasonality of biogas production finding a negative correlation with the rainfall events.
Lab-scale reactors have been mainly used to investigate the effect of diverse types of matrices on UASB performance but also to simulate critical conditions. For instance, Cervantes-Avilés et al. [43] tested the effect of chronic exposure to titanium dioxide nanoparticles and their accumulation in the granular sludge demonstrating that this aspect did not affect badly the removal of organic substances (92–98%). In their study, an increase in biogas production by 8.8% was evaluated but no significant changes in terms of methane content (78–90%) were detected. Other results of UASB applications in lab-semi-industrial or full-scale reactors are reported in Table 1.
In some cases, UASB technology was also tested to produce volatile fatty acids (VFAs). For instance, Eregowda et al. [44] fed the foul condensate collected by a Kraft paper mill to a UASB reactor operating with HRT equal to 75 h and diverse temperature conditions (22 °C, 37 °C and 55 °C). Their results showed that 52–70% of the organic carbon used (42–46%) was converted into VFAs. Moreover, after more than 5 months of operational activity, Eregowda et al. [44] also found that the biomass of the UASB reactor at 55 °C exhibited the highest activity.
Table 1. Several applications of UASB technology for organic substance removal and biogas production. S: Synthetic substrate; R: real matrix. n.a.: not available. a: referred only to soluble COD. b: value deduced by figure analysis. c: tests were performed in batch with granular sludge extracted from a UASB. d: expressed as BOD. e: two reactors in series. ⌀: diameter.
Table 1. Several applications of UASB technology for organic substance removal and biogas production. S: Synthetic substrate; R: real matrix. n.a.: not available. a: referred only to soluble COD. b: value deduced by figure analysis. c: tests were performed in batch with granular sludge extracted from a UASB. d: expressed as BOD. e: two reactors in series. ⌀: diameter.
SubstrateVolume of the Reactor (L) [Scale]Influent COD
(mg L−1)
Operational ParametersCOD Removal
(%)
Biogas and/or Methane ProductionOther ResultsReferences
S/RType of Real Substrate
RToilet wastewater2
[Lab]
18,800–33,500OLR: 0.9–12.4 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 52 °C;
HRT: 2.5–20 d
77.5–83.6methane yield: 55.9–60.8%High phosphorus precipitation[31]
RMining wastewater1.9
[Lab]
116.9T: 28.1 °C;
HRT: 12.6 d;
pH: 6.1
88n.a.High heavy metals precipitation[34]
RLeachate and carob powder200
[Sem-ind]
26,100OLR: 26.1 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 35.2 °C;
HRT: 1 d;
pH: 6.9–7.2;
carob powder (⌀: 0.250 mm)
97Biogas: 2.06 L/Lleachate [36]
RToilet wastewater1
[Lab]
2000–7000OLR: 16 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 35 °C;
HRT: 0.25 d
75.6methane production potential: 61.9%The methanogenic activity and the hydrolysis of particulate COD were promoted by the formation of calcium phosphate granular sludge[30]
S 6
[Lab]
n.a.OLR: 4.9–7.8 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 19.7–25.6 °C;
HRT: 30 h;
SRT: 82–92.3 d;
pH: 6.5;
intermittent conditions with 0.5 d (feed period per cycle) and 3 d (feedless period per cycle)
26.8–78.5methanization of COD: 2.5–37.8%Contemporary removal of estrogens by biological degradation and adsorption[24]
REthanol wastewater4 + 24 e
[Lab]
65,800OLR: 20–32 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 37 °C;
pH: 5.5
47–56Biogas production: up to 67 L d−1 (first reactor);
up to 300 L d−1 (second reactor) c
[45]
S Lab9500–16,700pH: 7–7.963.7–82.2methane production: 0.4–0.6 dm3 gCOD reduced−1The core microbiome was composed of Methanothrix soehngenii, Methanoculleus sp., unknown Bacteroidales and Spirochaetaceae[25]
RBrewery wastewater592,000
[Full]
1057–2866T: 30.6–35.8 °C;
HRT: 11 h;
pH: 6.3–9.07
71.8–85.5methane production: 1170.1 Nm3 d−1 [37]
RUrban wastewater2500
[Sem-ind]
95–256T: 20–25 °C;
HRT: 3–5 h;
pH: 6.9–7.3
38–85biogas production: 61–75 L m−3 d−1 [32]
S 1
[Lab]
10,000T: 35 °C;
OLR: 2.5–10 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
HRT: 1–4 d;
High salinity conditions (10 gNa+ L−1);
pH: 6.9–7.5
40–80 bmethane production: 0.4–1.73 L L−1 d−1Biochar/Fe addition improved the biofilm formation under high salinity conditions allowing the effective treatment of high saline wastewater[26]
RSoybean molasses12
[Lab]
500–4000HRT: 12–48 h;
OLR: 0.25–7 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 23–25 °C;
pH: 7.6–7.9
70–83methane production: 23.3–376.2 mL gCOD−1;
methane content in biogas: 75.5–82.1%
[39]
RFood waste6.15
[Lab]
30,000HRT: 10 d;
OLR: 21.9 kgVS m−3 d−1;
T: 36.5–37 °C;
pH: 6.8–7.2
88.8biogas production: 640 L kg food waste−1;
methane content in biogas: 62.2%
[38]
S 4
[Lab]
3000–6000HRT: 12 h;OLR: 6–12 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 37 °C;
pH: 7–8 b
80
42.6 (in shocking load phase)
n.a.Variation in microbial community after the restoration from shock loading.[27]
S 3.5
[Lab]
4000Wastewater with allicin: 12.47 mg L−1;
T: 30 °C;
HRT: 6–24 h;
Up-flow velocity: 0.04–0.64;
OLR: 4–16 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
pH: 7.5–8
74.3–93.3n.a. [28]
RBarley crop residues0.3 c
[Lab]
168.8T: 37 °C;
pH: 6.85–6.97
n.a.methane production: 18.02 N mL gVS−1 [46]
RUrban and food wastewater2.2
[Lab]
26,500MgSO4: 150 mg L−1
T: 35 °C;
intermittent feeding
83.1methane production: 0.36 L gCODrem−1;
methane content in biogas: 61.4%
The addition of Mg2+ also stimulated the ammonia-nitrogen removal, reducing the inhibitory effect of ammonia on the performance of the process[47]
RPulp mill wastewater3
[Lab]
2616 aHRT: 18 h;
Flowrate: 4.08 L d−1;
pH: 7.5–8.5;
T: 22 °C
78 an.a. [41]
RFish cannery wastewatern.a.5992 dHRT: 33 h90 dn.a. [48]
RPharmaceutical wastewater5.2
[Lab]
1976OLR: 0.5–2 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
HRT: 18 h
49n.a. [40]
S 7.8
[Lab]
4300–8300+chitosan;
OLR: 2.1–13 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
Up-flow velocity: 0.05–0.15;
T: 23.3 °C;
pH: 7–7.5
≥700.19 Nm3CH4 kgCOD−1 (intermittent feeding);
0.31 Nm3CH4 kgCOD−1 (continuous feeding)
[29]
RLeachate and mining wastewater7
[Lab]
2000–2500 bHRT: 8–30 h;
pH: 7.5;
T: 35 °C
67–83methane production: 1600–1800 mL d−1 b [35]
Recently, UASB reactors have also been tested coupled with other technologies such as polishing ponds [49], sponge filters [49,50,51,52], granular activated carbon [53], aerobic treatments [54,55]. Additionally, in this case, diverse matrices were evaluated as possible feed to UASB but very few experiments have been conducted on a larger scale while the majority have been studied in laboratories (Table 2).
The aim of coupling technologies was the improvement of organic substance removal efficiency and methane yields production. For instance, Rahman et al. [56] evaluated the performance of UASB reactor, coagulation–flocculation, and aeration to remove organic substances from wastewater of rubber latex production. They found that this combined system proved to be effective by reducing total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) by 68–87%, and BOD and COD by more than 80% [56].
In another study, Zhang [57] treated oilfield wastewater with a multi-system in which UASB is combined with dissolved air flotation, yeast bioreactor, and biological aerated filter, highlighting organic substance removal equals 96%.
Mazhar et al. [49] compared the performances produced by two combined systems on urban wastewater: (i) UASB + polishing with ponds and (ii) UASB + downflow hanging sponge (DHS) system. The results of their monitoring pointed out the higher removal yields on COD, BOD and TSS feasible with UASB + DHS system (92%, 82%, and 91%, respectively) compared to UASB + polishing ponds (82%, 74%, and 84%, respectively) and predicted the lower operational costs of UASB + DHS with respect to the other combination [49]. Additionally, Asano et al. [51] evaluated the coupling of UASB and DHS, in this case, to treat food wastewater. Further, in this case, their system allowed to obtained high performance in term organic substance conversion into methane: 58% of total COD was removed and 63–87% of soluble COD was converted into methane.
The coupling of UASB reactors with other treatments was also evaluated by Dohdoh et al. [55]. Based on their results, they suggested the combination of hybrid UASB and integrated fixed-film activated sludge (IFAS) as an alternative to conventional UASB + conventional activated sludge (CAS) in treating urban wastewater obtaining about 95% of COD removal after 6 h of HRT [55]. El-Khateeb et al. [58] tested the coupling of UASB reactor with a downflow reactor in which a hanging non-woven fabric made by polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is located. They demonstrated the ability of this system in removing up to 88% and 90% of COD and BOD, respectively. Moreover, their results suggested that coupling these two technologies allowed to reach high removal rates of bacteria (i.e., faecal coliforms and E.coli) [58].
Petropoulos et al. [59] compared the performances of two UASB reactors operating in an extreme condition of low temperature (4 °C), with and without an ultrafiltration membrane. They pointed out two interesting aspects: (i) organic substance conversion into methane occurred also in this condition with an HRT equals to 3 days, and (ii) both systems produced comparable results proving that degradation efficiency was not affected by the coupling with an ultrafiltration membrane [59].
The research has also been focused on evaluating solutions for reducing the impact of load shock. In fact, Soh et al. [60] proved that organic load shock can also stimulate the production of soluble microbial products (SMPs) and identified cyclooctasulfur as a potential indicator of reactor performance. Wang et al. [61] tested the effectiveness of biochar against high organic loading shock in up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. They found that the addition of biochar stimulated the development of an enriched microbiota which helped the system to restore quickly maintaining high performances in terms of organic substances removal and methane production in contrast to irreversible acidification which conventional UASB reactors met [61].
Other results of UASB applications in combination with diverse treatments are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Several applications of UASB coupled with other treatment phases for organic substance removal and biogas production. S: Synthetic substrate; R: real matrix. n.a.: not available; TF: Trickling filters; ST: Sedimentation tank; preAC: Pre acidification in continuous-flow stirred reactor; HCPB: hollow centred packed bed; SBTF: Sponge-bed trickling filters; PMR: Photocatalytic membrane reactor; JN: Jet-nozzle; AR: Aerobic reactor; ABF: anaerobic biofilter; BE-UASB: bioelectrochemical UASB; AnMBR: anaerobic membrane bioreactor; GAC: Granular activated carbon; LBR: Leaching bed reactor; DHS: Downflow hanging sponge. a: referred only to soluble COD; b: value deduced by figure analysis; c: value deduced by the comparison of influent and effluent data; d: value reported following equivalence of units of measure; e: in the same reactor; f: five in series; g: for each UASB; h: system composed of a mixed reactor (hydrolysis and acidogenesis) and a UASB reactor (methanogenesis).
Table 2. Several applications of UASB coupled with other treatment phases for organic substance removal and biogas production. S: Synthetic substrate; R: real matrix. n.a.: not available; TF: Trickling filters; ST: Sedimentation tank; preAC: Pre acidification in continuous-flow stirred reactor; HCPB: hollow centred packed bed; SBTF: Sponge-bed trickling filters; PMR: Photocatalytic membrane reactor; JN: Jet-nozzle; AR: Aerobic reactor; ABF: anaerobic biofilter; BE-UASB: bioelectrochemical UASB; AnMBR: anaerobic membrane bioreactor; GAC: Granular activated carbon; LBR: Leaching bed reactor; DHS: Downflow hanging sponge. a: referred only to soluble COD; b: value deduced by figure analysis; c: value deduced by the comparison of influent and effluent data; d: value reported following equivalence of units of measure; e: in the same reactor; f: five in series; g: for each UASB; h: system composed of a mixed reactor (hydrolysis and acidogenesis) and a UASB reactor (methanogenesis).
TechnologiesSubstrateVolume of the UASB Reactor (L)
[Scale]
Influent COD
(mg L−1)
Operational ParametersCOD Removal
(%)
Biogas and/or Methane ProductionOther ResultsReferences
S/RType
of Real
Substrate
UASB + TF + STRUrban wastewatern.a.
[Full]
252HRTUASB: 7.7 h;
SRTUASB: 40 d;
Percolating timeTF: 20–25 min;
HRTUASB: 6.1 h
82.9 cn.a.High removal of micropollutants[62]
preAC + UASBS 6
[Lab]
814–917OLR: 0.5–8 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 35 °C;
HRTUASB: 1.5–24 h;
HRTTOTAL: 3–48 h;
pH: 5.5 (using HCl)
86.6–95 amethane production: 0.2–0.3 L gCOD removed−1 bWith pre-acidification phase, the granules performed more superior stability in the microbial community structure[63]
UASB-HCPB eRPalm oil mill wastewater5
[Lab]
23,100–30,200T: 55 °C;
pH: 6.8–7.2;
HRT: 2 d;
OLR: 11.55–16.05 kgCOD m−3 d−1
97.5methane production: 0.26–0.414 L gCODremoved−1 d;
methane content in biogas: 77.8%
[64]
UASB + SBTFRUrban wastewater14,100
[Full]
514HRT: 8.5 h;
pH: 7.1–7.4;
T: 25.4–25.5
89n.a. [50]
UASB-PMR eS 3
[Lab]
1054HRT: 8 h;
T: 37 °C;
Pore size of membrane: 0.1 µm;
Membrane resistance: 6.38 × 1011 m−1;
UV flux: 8 mW cm−2
85 (overall)
91 (after acclimatization)
99 (with PMR at 6.4 h HRT)
methane production: 0.30 L gCODremoval−1Photocatalytic and photolytic quorum quenching can operate as antifouling also improving the performance of the system.[65]
JN-UASB eS 4[Lab]n.a.jet nozzle for hydrogen injection;
T: 35 °C;
Up-flow velocity: 3.18;
OLR: 3.8 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
pH: 7.5
89.7methane production: 0.63 L d−1 (theoretical production: 0.7 L d−1)The analysis of archaeal community confirmed that the dominant of hydrogenotrophic methanogen increased up to 75.8% in JN-UASB[66]
UASB f + ARRHydrothermal liquefaction wastewater0.4 g
[Lab]
189,000T: 65 °C (in the first UASB reactor);
T: 40 °C (in the other UASB reactors);
HRTUASB: 20 d;
HRTAR: 10 d;
OLR: 0.5 kgCOD m−3 d−1
97Biogas production: 10–80% yields (gCOD gCODIN−1) depending on the monitored period [54]
UASB+ABFS 50
[Lab]
1262HRTUASB: 1–10 d;
HRTABF: 0.25–5 d;
OLRABF: 0.03–0.6 kgCOD m−3 d−1
pHUASB: 7;
Packed media porosity: 57–86%;
ABF media: Polyethylene terephthalate;
Surface area per unit volume of packed media: 1425–1903 m2 m−3
80–90 (UASB)
70–94 (ABF)
methane production: 0.15–0.35 L gCODremoved−1 (in UASB) b d;
methane content in biogas: 60–80 % b
[67]
BE-UASB eRTequila vinasses4.25
[Lab]
105,000HRT: 1–7 d;
Voltage: 0.1–1 V;
T: 35 °C;
pH: 7
24–45methane production: 0.274–0.327 NL gCODremoved−1 dIn BE-UASB, high CO2 and H2 production were observed[68]
UASB-GAC eRUrban wastewater4.7
[Lab]
96–260GAC: (25 g L−1);
HRT: 8–12 h;
T: 19 °C
69–70methane production: 45–70 mg gVSS−1 d−1 bGAC showed a protective effect on methanogenic biomass[53]
mixed reactor+UASB hRBaker’s yeast wastewater0.84
[Lab]
1550–4100OLRmixed reactor: 2.2–13.7 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
OLRUASB: 2.2–6.58 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
pHmixed reactor: 4.4–7;
pHUASB: 5.5–7.9;
T: 35 °C
11.7–36methane production: 0–1.2 L gCODremoved−1 [69]
LBR+UASBREnsiled corn stover2
[Lab]
1000–10,000HRT: 1 d;
pH: 8;
T: 38 °C;
OLR: 1–10 kgCOD m−3
41.1–100methane production: 0.114–0.329 L gCODinfluent−1 d;
methane production: 0.066–0.548 L gVS−1 d
Methanosaeta and Methanobacterium played synergistic roles with acetogens to effectively convert volatile fatty acids.[70]
UASB-DHS eS 10
[Lab]
1000–6000T: 35 °C;
HRTUASB: 17–34 h;
HRTDHS: 10.9–21.8 h;
OLRUASB: 0.8–8.48 kgCOD m−3
85.7–87.3methane production: 0.29 L gCODremoved−1 [52]

3.3. Target Pollutants Removal

Recently, UASB reactors have been studied not only for organic substances degradation and methane production but also for emerging contaminants removal. These contaminants (such as androgens, progestogens, glucocorticoids and steroids) can affect badly human and wildlife health if present in water and wastewater [71].
The occurrence and removal of these pollutants in two swine farms by the UASB system have been widely investigated by Zhang et al. [72]. They pointed out that among diverse treatment processes (e.g., lagoon and sedimentation tank), UASB and conventional anaerobic digester exhibited the higher removal of steroids.
However, the effectiveness of UASB depends mainly on the type of emerging contaminants. In another study, Deng et al. [73] used UASB coupled with Fe-modified GAC, microbubble ozonation and conventional activated sludge (CAS) or membrane biological reactor (MBR) to remove phenolic compounds from a petrochemical industrial wastewater. They proved that bet performance was obtained with Fe-modified GAC + MBR while UASB was not able to remove effectively phenolic compounds [73].
Additionally, nitrogen could represent a problem in UASB effluents. Thanks to the lower sludge production and the not required additional carbon source, the anammox process represents a valid alternative to conventional aerobic treatment for nitrification/denitrification [74]. For this reason, studies concerning the optimization of nitrogen removal by anammox bacteria in anaerobic conditions were developed. For instance, Wang et al. [75] coupled UASB with gel beads in which anammox bacteria were immobilized aiming to optimize the ratio of polyvinyl alcohol and sodium alginate (PVA/SA) gel in beads. They found that highest performance in term of specific anammox activity (0.365 gN gVSS−1 d−1) were achieved with PVA/SA (12%/2%) gel beads [75].
Karasuta et al. [74] evaluated the influence of HRT and pH in anammox reactors and interestingly, they concluded that the varying pH in the effluent not necessarily means a lower nitrogen removal rate while anammox performance is strictly negatively correlated with the HRT of the system.
Considering that anammox bacteria growth is generally slow [76], researchers try to speed up the process of adding carriers. For instance, Lu et al. [77] evaluated the effects on anammox bacteria growth of the addition of GAC and Fe-modified GAC in UASB reactor finding that carriers addition can increase the aggregation of anammox microorganism and strongly reduce the start-up period of the system from 108 d to 94 d (in case of GAC) and to 83 d (in case of Fe-modified GAC).
The necessity of post-treatment UASB effluents has been pointed out by several authors [19,78]. One of the main reasons is the residual presence of microorganisms and chemical pollutants that could be a potential threat to human and wildlife health. Espinosa et al. [79] evaluated the performance of a combined system UASB-high-rate algal ponds (HRAP) to treat urban wastewater demonstrating that UASB exhibited a lower log-removal against E.coli and Somatic coliphages (1.09 and 0.4) with respect to HRAP (4.06 and 1.15), respectively. Their study also highlighted a different behaviour of E.coli and virus in the UASB: 90% of E.coli coming out of the UASB can be found in the sludge while only 10% in the liquid effluent while for viral indicators, the percentages are exactly reversed [79].
However, the effect of the UASB process on microbiological parameters depends mainly on the type of microorganism. Kumar et al. [80] studied the effect of the UASB reactor on SARS-CoV-2 during the recent COVID-19 obtaining the first values concerning the detection and the removal of this virus in UASB reactors and demonstrating that the UASB process was able to reduce SARS-CoV-2 presence up to 1.3 log.
Other cases of UASB investigations on specific pollutants removal are reported in Table 3.

3.4. Microbiota and Microbiome in UASB Reactors

To date, research on the UASB system is focusing also on the characterization of the microbial community in granular sludge and its response to diverse substances. Authors agree that microbiota in UASB reactors depends on operational conditions (e.g., temperature) but also on substrate fed. Kuramae et al. [94] focused on the microbial community in UASB reactor fed with blackwater finding a high correlation between the toilet paper and the methanogenic process. They highlighted that the partial degradation of cellulose by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes present in fed blackwater activated the methanogenesis process allowing the conversion of the cellulose in methane, thanks also to Chloroflexi and Synergistetes presence in the granular sludge [94].
Yangin-Gomec and Engiz [95] evaluated the effect on the microbial community of propylene glycol in urban wastewater. They proved that a high concentration of this substance can inhibit the biomass and change the microbiota. Specifically, increasing initial glycol concentration, Firmicutes replaced Proteobacteria and Methanoculleus replaced Methanocarcina [95].
The biomass adaptation mechanism in the UASB reactor according to the feed was also highlighted by Gao et al. [96]. In their tests, co-digesting black water and food waste, rather than just blackwater, determined a change in the dominant groups: from the genus Bacteroides to T78, from the genus Methanogenium to Methanoculleus and Methanospirillum [96]. Li et al. [97] studied the effect of dodecylbenzene sulfonate- and sulphate-containing wastewater highlighting that a low concentration of this surfactant can accelerate the production of methane and, with low COD (SO42−)−1 ratio, Desulfomicrobium can be identified as the dominant sulphate-reducing bacteria.
Syutsubo et al. [98] studied the case of a psychrophilic UASB reactor fed with wastewater from the electronics industry containing also tetramethylammonium-hydroxide, monoethanolamine, and isopropyl-alcohol. In the acclimatized sludge, they found a higher number of Methanomethylovorans-like cells and Methanosaeta-like cells at the surface and in the core of the granular sludge. Until the concentration of pollutants remains tolerable, this adaptation allowed UASB sludge to achieve high performance on organic substances [98].
The adaptation of microbiota to the feed was also confirmed by Callejas et al. [99] which evaluated the temporal evolution of the microbial community in a full-scale UASB reactor treating sugarcane vinasse. They noted the progressive reduction in the microbial diversity since the inoculum and the spontaneous selection of a less diverse microbiota to treat organic substances producing methane. In the treatment of vinasse, they also suggested that Firmicutes played a key role due to their abundance [99].
The importance of this phylum was also pointed out for the degradation of citrus peel waste by Camargo et al. [100]. In this case, Clostridium (Ph. Firmicutes) and Escherichia (Ph. Proteobacteria) were identified as the main microorganism involved in H2 and volatile fatty acids production in the UASB reactor [100]. Fang et al. [101] observed that 6 months of continuous feeding with synthetic sewage, and increasing nitrogen concentration, changed the most abundant phyla from Proteobacteria (69.5%), Bacteroidetes (12.1%), and Firmicutes (11.8%) to Proteobacteria (71.7%) and Actinobacteria (16.7%).
In recent years, the combination of the UASB reactor with other processes is gaining attention. Very recently, the impact on the microbial community has also been studied. For instance, Yu et al. [102] studied the effect of the addition of self-fluidized GAC into the UASB reactor. In the GAC-amended reactors, they found that the better performance in terms of methane production with respect to UASB alone can be explained by the enrichment of interspecies electron transfer participants (for instance, Geobacter and Methanosarcina).
Additionally, the location of GAC can influence microbiota and reactor performances. Yu et al. [103] compared microbial communities of settled and floated GAC finding strong differences. For instance, floated GAG biofilm was primarily constituted by Methanosarcina while settled GAC by Methanobacterium. These differences in microbiota are reflected in the performance of the system. In fact, their study showed that floated GAC allowed to obtained higher methane production and effluent quality with respect to settled GAC [103].
Xue et al. [104] treated coal gasification wastewater by microelectrolysis-assisted UASB. In this process, a Fe(II)/Fe(III) cycle was triggered by mycroelectolysis with the aim of organic substance and nitrogen removal. In this system, they found that the more efficient removal of pollutants could be related to the spontaneous contemporary presence of iron-oxidant denitrifying microorganisms (Thiobacillus spp. and Acidovorax spp.) and iron-reducing bacteria (Geothrix spp. and Ignavibacterium spp.) [104].
Denitrification in UASB sludge and the influence of microbial community were also studied by Carboni et al. [105]. Adding electron donors (such as sulfur, pyrite, thiosulfate, and sulfide), the microbial community diversity significantly reduced and only several genera of autotrophic denitrifiers (such as Thiobacillus, Thioprofundum, and Ignavibacterium) were selected and therefore becoming dominant as reported by [105]. Zhang et al. [106] found that mixotrophic conditions can inhibit the denitrification in the anammox system but at the same time can enhance the ability of Candidatus Kuenenia to use diverse types of carbon sources.
Microbial blend to enhance COD removal and methane production performances in bioelectrochemical systems was exploited by Gunaseelan et al. [107]. Mixing anoxygenic photosynthetic bacteria-rich effective microbes with UASB sludge, they obtained higher performances thanks to the synergetic effects of a very heterogeneous microbiota with 28.4% of anoxic photosynthetic bacteria (specifically, R. palustris and R. sphaeroides) and other microorganisms (71.6%). According to their results, this strengthens the secretion of metabolic intermediates, which stimulate the electron transfer mechanism in the bioelectrochemical system enhancing the performance of the process [107].
Zhang et al. [90] focused their research on the effects of antibiotics and antibiotics resistance genes (ARGs) in swine manure on the microbial diversity of the reactor. They highlighted that biomass was able to effectively remove 82.6% and 71% of 16 diverse antibiotics and ARGs, respectively. However, they found an accumulation of pathogens in the UASB reactor with enrichment of metal resistance genes. Zhang et al. [90] also identify Proteobacteria as the dominant multi-drug resistant microorganism and found Bacteroides and Mycolicibacter carrying ARGs in untreated swine manure.
He et al. [108] focused their studies on performance recovery by a UASB reactor which was strongly inhibited by oxytetracycline. They highlighted that the organic substance removal and nitrification capacity of the UASB reactor can be easily recovered thanks to the quick rebound of the functional bacteria (e.g., Mesotoga, Longilinea) once the antibiotic concentration was removed. The researchers also highlighted that the ARG abundance in sludge sampled in the UASB system was lower than in aerobic sludge probably due to the lower horizontal ARGs frequency caused by the lower metabolic activity of anaerobic bacteria [108].

3.5. Environmental Footprint of UASB Technology

Several authors tried to assess the environmental impact related to the use of UASB reactors for the treatment of wastewater and sewage sludge. Amaral et al. [109] used the life cycle assessment (LCA) on a sludge treatment plant consisting of a UASB reactor followed by trickling filters, identifying that the biogas produced and subsequently burned was the weak link of the whole system being the main responsible for the emissions of greenhouse gases. Amaral et al. [109] also assessed the impact of the different uses/disposal of the sludge generated in the process by comparing two diverse solutions: (i) reuse in agriculture and (ii) landfill disposal. Their results highlighted that agricultural reuse of sludge achieved a greater environmental impact on the categories of (i) ozone formation, (ii) terrestrial ecotoxicity, (iii) freshwater ecotoxicity, (iv) human toxicity, and (v) terrestrial acidification mainly due to longer transport phase, more sludge treatments, and high heavy metal concentration [109].
However, research has shown conflicting results on this aspect. For instance, Cañote et al. [110] compared three diverse scenarios for the reuse/disposal of biological sludge produced by a UASB reactor: (i) landfill, (ii) further energy recovery, and (iii) reuse in agriculture. Their LCA analysis considered 11 different categories and showed that the recovery option in agriculture is the one that allows for the lowest environmental impact, ensuring the best results in over 70% of the categories studied [110].
The LCA tool was also used by Foglia et al. [111] to determine which plant solution can increase the quality of the effluents for the purpose of irrigation reuse guaranteeing a lower environmental impact at the same time. They evaluated three diverse scenarios, two of which involved the insertion of a polishing treatment with chemical or physical disinfectants to remove the microbial load still present while a third scenario considered the replacement of the CAS with UASB technology followed by an anaerobic membrane reactor. Their results showed that for all categories studied (7 out 8, with the exception of freshwater eutrophication), coupling UASB and anaerobic membrane reactors can guarantee the greatest benefits [111].

4. Discussion about Literature Results, Gaps, and Tips for Future Research

The bibliometric review shows that interest in UASB reactors has grown significantly, especially after the 2000s, but has also changed. While in the past, the research topics were mainly based on understanding how the process works, more recently, research has been mainly based on: (i) energy recovery production; (ii) combination of UASB reactors with other treatments; (iii) the study of processes for the removal of specific pollutants (e.g., nitrogen removal); and (iv) characteristics of microbial community and granular sludge composition.

4.1. Performances on Organic Substance and Specific Pollutants

Focusing on the literature published in the first semester of 2021, tests on UASB reactors (both single and coupled with other treatments in more complex treatment lines) have alternately focused on two aspects: (i) optimizing the conversion of organic matter into methane for energy production, and (ii) evaluating the removal of specific pollutants such as emerging contaminants and nutrients. The results show that the UASB process can anaerobically treat a wide selection of different types of matrices with different HRTs depending on the type of matrices and the reactor operating temperature. Generally, industrial matrices required a higher HRT (and lower OLR) than urban wastewater due to the greater recalcitrance of the organic substance [32,39,41]. Furthermore, thermophilic reactors have generally allowed researchers to operate in lower HRT conditions thanks to the faster reaction kinetics that permit to fed higher OLR, as has already been confirmed by the previous literature [112]. The methane production was variable and mainly influenced by the process conditions and the matrix used. For instance, Estrada-Arriaga et al. [68] obtained 0.274–0.327 NLCH4 gCODremoved−1 from tequila vinasses using UASB coupled with bioelectrochemical system. Urban and food wastewater has been treated in a mesophilic UASB obtaining 0.36 LCH4 gCODremoved−1 [47].
The application of the UASB process in more complex treatment lines has highlighted the good complementarity with aerobic biological systems and with finishing treatments such as ponds and constructed wetlands. In some cases, the coupling with other technologies had the purpose of obtaining a “hybrid” UASB reactor that could better meet the needs of the case in question. To give some examples, the coupling with media such as GAC for instance to overcome organic overloads [53,61], the upgrading of UASB reactors in bioelectrochemical systems or photocatalytic systems [65,68], the inclusion of sponge bed trickling filters [49,51,52] has all proved to be very promising solutions.
Although the results are to be considered important and can serve as a starting point for future lines of research, some aspects should be highlighted. To date, many of the tests have been conducted on synthetic matrices recreated in the laboratory to simulate water of industrial origin or urban waste. However, this can lead to testing matrices which, although similar, are not comparable in complexity to those of a real nature with results that could be difficult to repeat on real case studies. In future research, therefore, the confirmation of the results using real matrices is to be considered necessary, before a possible large-scale use of plant solutions such as, for example, the coupling of UASB reactors with GAC, the upgrade to bioelectrochemical or photocatalytic systems. It should also be noted that currently most of the research has been conducted on a laboratory scale with reactors of a few L, while the cases of studies on semi-industrial scale plants or full-scale plant monitoring are very limited. On the other hand, the number of research that also takes into consideration the co-digestion of two or more matrices inside UASB reactors is extremely limited. This is an aspect that will certainly have to be further investigated especially in view of a future large-scale application to treat livestock and industrial waste in a more realistic situation. It should be noted that current low-scale tests concern not only the studies on the development of new combined technologies, in this case essentially due to the low maturity of the processes, but also cases of tests with conventional UASBs. Operational and investment costs of these technologies to determine the feasibility of large-scale application of UASB coupled with other technologies represents another aspect in which literature information is almost absent and that should be further investigated.
Given the growing interest in the removal of emerging contaminants, UASB reactors have been tested for the removal of pollutants such as antibiotics, estrogen, pesticides but also nutrients and heavy metals [24,34,72,82,89,92]. The results showed that the process generally guarantees a good coverage of the removal of these pollutants even if there are still some criticalities on the microbial load and on the overall toxicity of the effluent that requires a subsequent finishing treatment [86], as already highlighted previously in the literature [5,112].

4.2. Microbiota and Microbiome of Granular Sludge

The study of the microbiota and microbiome of the granular biomass of UASB reactors has been the subject of intense research. Studies have confirmed that the microbiota is able to change its structure to better adapt to external stimuli such as conditions of temperature, feed, and pollutants (e.g., [95,96,97,98,99]). These works could be the starting point for future studies aimed at better exploiting this biomass “adaptation” capacity by optimizing the operation of UASB reactors and increasing their performance. The research interest focused mainly on the possibility of removing nitrogen in anaerobic conditions using anammox processes is attracting increasing interest and for this reason, studies are underway not only to optimize the process within the UASB reactors and but also to better understand the responsible microbiological dynamics.
Studies were also conducted on the effects of antibiotics, which may be present within the treated matrices, on granular biomass and on the responsiveness of UASB systems. UASB systems have not only proved effective in removing antibiotics but also ARGs present in the treated matrix [90,92,108]. This is a very topical issue considering that the resistance of pathogens to antibiotics is now a full-blown problem. The promising results of UASB systems also against these pollutants and ARGs push the need for further studies about the presence, the implications, and the fate of antibiotics in zootechnical slurry but also urban wastewater where the amount of data is very limited.

4.3. Environmental Footprint

Some recent studies applied LCA analysis to UASB technology considering the system as a whole or focusing on possible forms of reuse/disposal of the biological granular sludge produced. It should be noted that the results on this issue are still few and sometimes conflicting. Although the results of LCA analysis depend very much on the context in which the technology is inserted, in a case-by-case perspective, it is nevertheless possible to state that the main critical issues highlighted mainly concern (i) the significant emission of greenhouse gases and (ii) the eco-toxicity of the effluent. The first of the two aspects mainly due to the combustion of biogas had already been highlighted in other previous studies [1,113]. The second aspect, on the other hand, is linked to the need for post-treatments, an aspect already highlighted by numerous previous studies [5,112].
Regarding the impact of the reuse of sludge produced by UASB processes in agriculture, the recent LCAs have provided conflicting results [109,110] even if it should be remembered that this result may depend on numerous factors such as, for example, the hypotheses assumed in the realization of the LCA, the typology of matrix treated by the UASB, the operating conditions. Instead, LCAs that compare the solution of the recovery of granular sludge in agriculture with incineration are completely absent but, in the opinion of authors, are strongly suggested.
In fact, it should be noted that the data on this issue are very scarce considering that just three LCA studies concerning UASB implants were published in the first six months of 2021. This aspect is certainly an important gap that should be filled. The authors also suggest evaluating the effect of different post-treatments downstream of the UASB on the results of the LCA, implementing comparative LCAs to identify those processes that best guarantee a reduced impact in environmental terms.

5. Conclusions

The meta-analysis of bibliometric data highlighted the change in main aspects of research and the current hot topics: (i) energy production; (ii) combination with other treatments; (iii) the study of processes for the removal of specific pollutants and, (iv) characterization of microbial community and granular sludge composition. UASB proved to effectively remove organic substances with variable yields in terms of methane production. Several applications of UASB in more complex treatment lines are reported in the literature. However, gaps of literature still persist since: (i) many tests have been conducted on synthetic matrices which, although similar, are not comparable in complexity to those of a real nature; (ii) most of the research has been conducted on a laboratory scale reactors while the studies on semi-industrial scale plants or full-scale plant monitoring are very limited; (iii) the research about co-digestion of two or more fed in UASB reactors is extremely limited; (iv) information on operational and investment costs are almost absent. Moreover, studies of the microbiota of the granular biomass confirmed the ability to change its structure to better adapt to external stimuli being the starting point for future studies to optimize the operation of UASB reactors and increasing their performance. Research on the effects of antibiotics proved also that UASB reactors can effectively remove antibiotics and ARGs pushing the need for further studies about the presence, the implications, and the fate of antibiotics in zootechnical slurry but also urban wastewater due to the limited amount of data. Research on UASB environmental footprint gave contrasting results especially concerning the reuse/disposal of excess granular sludge. However, low amounts of data are available so far and other studies on this topic are strongly suggested.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C.C., A.A., E.C.R., V.T., I.A.K. and M.C.M.; methodology, M.C.C. and M.C.M.; validation, M.C.C. and A.A.; data curation, F.M.C., S.C. and M.C.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.M.C., S.C. and M.C.M.; writing—review and editing, M.C.C., A.A., E.C.R., V.T. and I.A.K.; visualization, F.M.C. and S.C.; supervision, M.C.C., A.A. and M.C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data available has been presented in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mainardis, M.; Buttazzoni, M.; Goi, D. Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) technology for energy recovery: A review on state-of-the-art and recent technological advances. Bioengineering 2020, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chen, L.; Ji, Y.; Yu, Z.; Wang, C.; Alvarez, P.J.J.; Xu, X.; Zhu, L. Uncover the secret of granule calcification and deactivation in up-flow anaerobic sludge bed (UASB) reactor with long-term exposure to high calcium. Water Res. 2021, 189, 116586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schmidt, J.E.; Ahring, B.K. Granular sludge formation in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2000, 49, 229–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Show, K.-Y.; Yan, Y.; Yao, H.; Guo, H.; Li, T.; Show, D.-Y.; Chang, J.-S.; Lee, D.-J. Anaerobic granulation: A review of granulation hypotheses, bioreactor designs and emerging green applications. Bioresour. Technol. 2020, 300, 122751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rajagopal, R.; Choudhury, M.; Anwar, N.; Goyette, B.; Rahaman, M. Influence of pre-hydrolysis on sewage treatment in an up-flow anaerobic sludge BLANKET (UASB) reactor: A review. Water 2019, 11, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Santiago-Díaz, A.L.; Salazar-Peláez, M.L. Start-up phase of a UASB-septic tank used for high strength municipal wastewater treatment in Mexico. Water Pract. Technol. 2017, 12, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Musa, M.A.; Idrus, S. Physical and biological treatment technologies of slaughterhouse wastewater: A review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Caixeta, C.E.T.; Cammarota, M.C.; Xavier, A.M.F. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: Evaluation of a new three-phase separation system in a UASB reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 81, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lin, K.; Yang, Z. Technical review on the UASB process. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 1991, 39, 203–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chong, S.; Sen, T.K.; Kayaalp, A.; Ang, H.M. The performance enhancements of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors for domestic sludge treatment—A State-of-the-art review. Water Res. 2012, 46, 3434–3470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yetilmezsoy, K.; Sapci-Zengin, Z. Stochastic modeling applications for the prediction of COD removal efficiency of UASB reactors treating diluted real cotton textile wastewater. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2009, 23, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ferreira, S.F.; Buller, L.S.; Berni, M.D.; Bajay, S.V.; Forster-Carneiro, T. An integrated approach to explore UASB reactors for energy recycling in pulp and paper industry: A case study in Brazil. Biofuel Res. J. 2019, 6, 1039–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Huete, A.; de los Cobos-Vasconcelos, D.; Gómez-Borraz, T.; Morgan-Sagastume, J.M.; Noyola, A. Control of dissolved CH4 in a municipal UASB reactor effluent by means of a desorption—Biofiltration arrangement. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 216, 383–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Passos, F.; Bressani-Ribeiro, T.; Rezende, S.; Chernicharo, C.A.L. Potential applications of biogas produced in small-scale UASB-based sewage treatment plants in Brazil. Energies 2020, 13, 3356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. UN. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 15 July 2021).
  16. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abba, A.; Padovani, S.; Frascarolo, M.; Sciunnach, D.; Turconi, M.; Orlando, M. Recovery of sewage sludge on agricultural land in Lombardy: Current issues and regulatory scenarios. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2015, 14, 1477–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Frattarola, A.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Padovani, S.; Katsoyiannis, J.; Torretta, V. Legislation for the reuse of biosolids on agricultural land in Europe: Overview. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. European Commission EUR-Lex Directive EU/2018/851 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L150, 109–140.
  19. de Oliveira, G.L.; Daniel, L.A. Removal of Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporididum spp. oocysts from anaerobic effluent by dissolved air flotation. Environ. Technol. Off. J. Eur. Union 2021, 42, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. dos Santos, S.L.; van Haandel, A. Transformation of waste stabilization ponds: Reengineering of an obsolete sewage treatment system. Water 2021, 13, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com (accessed on 6 July 2021).
  23. Perianes-Rodriguez, A.; Waltman, L.; van Eck, N.J. Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting. J. Informetr. 2016, 10, 1178–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Louros, V.L.; Lima, D.L.D.; Leitão, J.H.; Esteves, V.I.; Nadais, H.G.A. Impact of UASB reactors operation mode on the removal of estrone and 17α-ethinylestradiol from wastewaters. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 764, 144291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Detman, A.; Bucha, M.; Treu, L.; Chojnacka, A.; Pleśniak, Ł.; Salamon, A.; Łupikasza, E.; Gromadka, R.; Gawor, J.; Gromadka, A.; et al. Evaluation of acidogenesis products’ effect on biogas production performed with metagenomics and isotopic approaches. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2021, 14, 125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hu, Y.; Shi, C.; Ma, H.; Wu, J.; Kobayashi, T.; Xu, K.-Q. Biofilm formation enhancement in anaerobic treatment of high salinity wastewater: Effect of biochar/Fe addition. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, J.; Yan, H.; Chen, Q.; Meng, J.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Jha, A.K. Performance of anaerobic sludge and the microbial social behaviors induced by quorum sensing in a UASB after a shock loading. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 330, 124972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Peng, H.; Guo, J.; Li, H.; Song, Y.; Lu, C.; Han, Y.; Hou, Y. Granulation and response of anaerobic granular sludge to allicin stress while treating allicin-containing wastewater. Biochem. Eng. J. 2021, 169, 107971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Torres, K.; Álvarez-Hornos, F.J.; Gabaldón, C.; Marzal, P. Start-up of chitosan-assisted anaerobic sludge bed reactors treating light oxygenated solvents under intermittent operation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, L.; Mou, A.; Sun, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Y. Calcium phosphate granules formation: Key to high rate of mesophilic UASB treatment of toilet wastewater. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 773, 144972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zhang, L.; Mou, A.; Guo, B.; Sun, H.; Anwar, M.N.; Liu, Y. Simultaneous phosphorus recovery in energy generation reactor (SPRING): High rate thermophilic blackwater treatment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Owusu-Agyeman, I.; Plaza, E.; Cetecioglu, Z. A pilot-scale study of granule-based anaerobic reactors for biogas recovery from municipal wastewater under sub-mesophilic conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 337, 125431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Omine, T.; Kuroda, K.; Hatamoto, M.; Yamaguchi, T.; Yamauchi, M.; Yamada, M. Reduction of alkalinity supplementation for acid-based wastewater treatment using a thermophilic multi-feed upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Environ. Technol. 2021, 42, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Leal-Gutiérrez, M.J.; Cuéllar-Briseño, R.; Castillo-Garduño, A.M.; Bernal-González, M.; Chávez-Castellanos, Á.E.; Solís-Fuentes, J.A.; Durán-Domínguez-de-Bazúa, M.-C.; Bazúa-Rueda, E.R. Precipitation of heavy metal ions (Cu, Fe, Zn, and Pb) from mining flotation effluents using a laboratory-scale upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhou, S.; Wang, J.; Peng, S.; Chen, T.; Yue, Z. Anaerobic co-digestion of landfill leachate and acid mine drainage using up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 8498–8506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Baâti, S.; Benyoucef, F.; Makan, A.; El Bouadili, A.; El Ghmari, A. A Cost-effective strategy for leachate treatment optimization: Biostimulation using carob powder as co-substrate. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2021, 15, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alayu, E.; Leta, S. Post treatment of anaerobically treated brewery effluent using pilot scale horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetland system. Bioresour. Bioprocess. 2021, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tufaner, F. Environmental assessment of refectory waste based on approaches zero-waste project in Turkey: The production of biogas from the refectory waste. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodrigues, B.C.G.; de Mello, B.S.; da Costa, G.A.M.L.; da Silva, R.G.H.; Sarti, A. Soybean molasses as feedstock for sustainable generation of biomethane using high-rate anaerobic reactor. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vistanty, H.; Crisnaningtyas, F. Integration of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket and constructed wetlands for pharmaceutical wastewater treatment. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 623, 012082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Caldeira, D.C.D.; Silva, C.M.; Colodette, J.L.; Rodrigues, F.D.; Da Mata, R.A.; Menezes, K.D.S.; Vieira, J.C.; Zanuncio, A.J.V. A case study on the treatment and recycling of the effluent generated from a thermo-mechanical pulp mill in Brazil after the installation of a new bleaching process. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 763, 142996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Melo, D.D.F.; Neves, P.N.; Bressani-Ribeiro, T.; Chernicharo, C.A.D.L.; Passos, F. The effect of seasonality in biogas production in full-scale UASB reactors treating sewage in long-term assessment. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2021, 40, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cervantes-Avilés, P.; Vargas, J.B.D.; Akizuki, S.; Kodera, T.; Ida, J.; Cuevas-Rodríguez, G. Cumulative effects of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in UASB process during wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 277, 111428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Eregowda, T.; Kokko, M.E.; Rene, E.R.; Rintala, J.; Lens, P.N.L. Volatile fatty acid production from Kraft mill foul condensate in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactors. Environ. Technol. 2021, 42, 2447–2460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jiraprasertwong, A.; Karnchanapaisal, P.; Seneesrisakul, K.; Rangsunvigit, P.; Chavadej, S. High process activity of a two-phase UASB (upflow anaerobic sludge blanket) receiving ethanol wastewater: Operational conditions in relation to granulation development. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 148, 106012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Morales-Polo, C.; del Cledera-Castro, M.; Revuelta-Aramburu, M.; Hueso-Kortekaas, K. Bioconversion process of barley crop residues into biogas—Energetic-environmental potential in Spain. Agronomy 2021, 11, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Koirala, N.; Odey, E.A.; Lu, Q.; Iu, H.I.; Lok, K.S.; Shim, H. Stimulatory effect of magnesium supplement on anaerobic co-digestion of food waste and domestic wastewater. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prihandrijanti, M.; Marcos, K.J.; Salim, C. Integrated anaerobic-aerobic and wetland system for wastewater treatment and recycling in fish canning industry. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 83, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mazhar, M.A.; Khan, N.A.; Khan, A.H.; Ahmed, S.; Siddiqui, A.A.; Husain, A.; Rahisuddin; Tirth, V.; Islam, S.; Shukla, N.K.; et al. Upgrading combined anaerobic-aerobic UASB-FPU to UASB-DHS system: Cost comparison and performance perspective for developing countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 124723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bressani-Ribeiro, T.; Almeida, P.G.S.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Volcke, E.I.P. Inorganic carbon limitation during nitrogen conversions in sponge-bed trickling filters for mainstream treatment of anaerobic effluent. Water Res. 2021, 201, 117337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Asano, K.; Watari, T.; Hatamoto, M.; Yamaguchi, T. Development of UASB–DHS system for anaerobically-treated tofu processing wastewater treatment under ambient temperature. Environ. Technol. 2021, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Watari, T.; Wakisaka, O.; Sakai, Y.; Hirakata, Y.; Tanikawa, D.; Hatamoto, M.; Yoneyama, F.; Yamaguchi, T. Anaerobic biological treatment of EG/PG water-soluble copolymer coupled with down-flow hanging sponge reactor. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 21, 101325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Y.; Guo, B.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y. Microbial community dynamics in granular activated carbon enhanced up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) treating municipal sewage under sulfate reducing and psychrophilic conditions. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 405, 126957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Torri, C.; Kiwan, A.; Cavallo, M.; Pascalicchio, P.; Fabbri, D.; Vassura, I.; Rombolà, A.G.; Chiaberge, S.; Carbone, R.; Paglino, R.; et al. Biological treatment of hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) wastewater: Analytical evaluation of continuous process streams. J. Water Process Eng. 2021, 40, 101798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dohdoh, A.M.; Hendy, I.; Zelenakova, M.; Abdo, A. Domestic wastewater treatment: A comparison between an integrated hybrid UASB-IFAS system and a conventional UASB-AS system. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rahman, A.; Habib, S.; Rahman, M.; Sajib, M.S.J.; Yousuf, A. A novel multi-phase treatment scheme for odorous rubber effluent. Environ. Technol. 2021, 42, 1366–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhang, L. Advanced treatment of oilfield wastewater by a combination of DAF, yeast bioreactor, UASB, and BAF processes. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. El-Khateeb, M.A.; Kenawy, S.H.; Khalil, A.M.; Samhan, F.A. Polishing of secondary treated wastewater using nano-ceramic hybrid PET waste plastic sheets. Desalin. Water Treat. 2021, 217, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Petropoulos, E.; Shamurad, B.; Tabraiz, S.; Yu, Y.; Davenport, R.; Curtis, T.P.; Dolfing, J. Sewage treatment at 4 °C in anaerobic upflow reactors with and without a membrane-performance, function and microbial diversity. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 2021, 7, 156–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Soh, Y.N.A.; Kunacheva, C.; Menon, S.; Webster, R.D.; Stuckey, D.C. Comparison of soluble microbial product (SMP) production in full-scale anaerobic/aerobic industrial wastewater treatment and a laboratory based synthetic feed anaerobic membrane system. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Wang, C.; Liu, Y.; Wang, C.; Xing, B.; Zhu, S.; Huang, J.; Xu, X.; Zhu, L. Biochar facilitates rapid restoration of methanogenesis by enhancing direct interspecies electron transfer after high organic loading shock. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Komolafe, O.; Mrozik, W.; Dolfing, J.; Acharya, K.; Vassalle, L.; Mota, C.R.; Davenport, R. Occurrence and removal of micropollutants in full-scale aerobic, anaerobic and facultative wastewater treatment plants in Brazil. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 287, 112286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wu, J.; Jiang, B.; Kong, Z.; Yang, C.; Li, L.; Feng, B.; Luo, Z.; Xu, K.-Q.; Kobayashi, T.; Li, Y.-Y. Improved stability of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor treating starch wastewater by pre-acidification: Impact on microbial community and metabolic dynamics. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 326, 124781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Khadaroo, S.N.B.A.; Grassia, P.; Gouwanda, D.; He, J.; Poh, P.E. Enhancing the biogas production and the treated effluent quality via an alternative palm oil mill effluent (POME) treatment process: Integration of thermal pretreatment and dewatering. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 151, 106167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mehmood, C.T.; Waheed, H.; Tan, W.; Xiao, Y. Photocatalytic quorum quenching: A new antifouling and in-situ membrane cleaning strategy for an external membrane bioreactor coupled to UASB. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Park, J.-G.; Kwon, H.-J.; Cheon, A.-I.; Jun, H.-B. Jet-nozzle based improvement of dissolved H2 concentration for efficient in-situ biogas upgrading in an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor. Renew. Energy 2021, 168, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Dorji, U.; Tenzin, U.; Dorji, P.; Pathak, N.; Johir, M.A.H.; Volpin, F.; Dorji, C.; Chernicharo, C.A.L.; Tijing, L.; Shon, H.; et al. Exploring shredded waste PET bottles as a biofilter media for improved on-site sanitation. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2021, 148, 370–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Estrada-Arriaga, E.B.; Reynoso-Deloya, M.G.; Guillén-Garcés, R.A.; Falcón-Rojas, A.; García-Sánchez, L. Enhanced methane production and organic matter removal from tequila vinasses by anaerobic digestion assisted via bioelectrochemical power-to-gas. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kamyab, B.; Zilouei, H. Investigating the efficiency of biogas production using modelling anaerobic digestion of baker’s yeast wastewater on two-stage mixed-UASB reactor. Fuel 2021, 285, 119198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Li, Y.; Xu, H.; Yi, X.; Zhao, Y.; Jin, F.; Chen, L.; Hua, D. Study of two-phase anaerobic digestion of corn stover: Focusing on the conversion of volatile fatty acids and microbial characteristics in UASB reactor. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2021, 160, 113097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Damkjaer, K.; Weisser, J.J.; Msigala, S.C.; Mdegela, R.; Styrishave, B. Occurrence, removal and risk assessment of steroid hormones in two wastewater stabilization pond systems in Morogoro, Tanzania. Chemosphere 2018, 212, 1142–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zhang, J.-N.; Chen, J.; Yang, L.; Zhang, M.; Yao, L.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zhao, J.-L.; Zhang, B.; Ying, G.-G. Occurrence and fate of androgens, progestogens and glucocorticoids in two swine farms with integrated wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 2021, 192, 116836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Deng, S.; Jothinathan, L.; Cai, Q.; Li, R.; Wu, M.; Ong, S.L.; Hu, J. FeOx@GAC catalyzed microbubble ozonation coupled with biological process for industrial phenolic wastewater treatment: Catalytic performance, biological process screening and microbial characteristics. Water Res. 2021, 190, 116687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Karasuta, C.; Wang, X.; Zheng, X.; Chen, Y.; Chen, Z. Effect of hydraulic retention time on effluent pH in anammox bioreactors: Characteristics of effluent pH and pH as an indicator of reactor performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 280, 111716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, J.; Fan, Y.; Chen, Y. Nitrogen removal performance and characteristics of gel beads immobilized anammox bacteria under different PVA:SA ratios. Water Environ. Res. 2021, 93, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ma, B.; Wang, S.; Cao, S.; Miao, Y.; Jia, F.; Du, R.; Peng, Y. Biological nitrogen removal from sewage via anammox: Recent advances. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 981–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lu, G.; Ma, Y.; Zang, L.; Sun, Y.; Yu, F.; Xue, R. Effects of granular activated carbon and Fe-modified granular activated carbon on anammox process start-up. RSC Adv. 2021, 11, 10625–10634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ribeiro, R.P.; Ferreira, H.B.P.; Uberti, A.E.; Valério, R.R.; Rietow, J.C.; Amaral, K.G.C.; Aisse, M.M. Evaluation of the spatial and temporal variability of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions at two different full-scale aerobic treatment systems used in the post-treatment of UASB effluents in Brazil. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 104676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Espinosa, M.F.; Verbyla, M.E.; Vassalle, L.; Rosa-Machado, A.T.; Zhao, F.; Gaunin, A.; Mota, C.R. Reduction and partitioning of viral and bacterial indicators in a UASB reactor followed by high rate algal ponds treating domestic sewage. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 760, 144309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kumar, M.; Kuroda, K.; Patel, A.K.; Patel, N.; Bhattacharya, P.; Joshi, M.; Joshi, C.G. Decay of SARS-CoV-2 RNA along the wastewater treatment outfitted with upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) system evaluated through two sample concentration techniques. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 754, 142329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Hu, M.; Jiang, Z. Acclimation of the trichloroethylene-degrading anaerobic granular sludge and the degradation characteristics in an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 69, 120–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Deng, Y.-F.; Wu, D.; Huang, H.; Cui, Y.-X.; van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Chen, G.-H. Exploration and verification of the feasibility of sulfide-driven partial denitrification coupled with anammox for wastewater treatment. Water Res. 2021, 193, 116905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Chimhundi, J.; Hörstmann, C.; Chirwa, E.M.N.; Brink, H.G. Microbial Removal of Pb(II) Using an Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactor. Catalysts 2021, 11, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Moya-Llamas, M.J.; Trapote, A.; Prats, D. Carbamazepine removal from low-strength municipal wastewater using a combined UASB-MBR treatment system. Water Sci. Technol. 2021, 83, 1920–1931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Ding, L.; Lin, H.; Zamalloa, C.; Hu, B. Simultaneous phosphorus recovery, sulfide removal, and biogas production improvement in electrochemically assisted anaerobic digestion of dairy manure. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 777, 146226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. da Silva, P.R.; Mounteer, A.H.; dos Anjos Benjamin, L.; de Almeida, E.R.; Vitorino, F.B.; Arcanjo, G.S.; Rodrigues dos Santos Petersen, V. Evaluation of toxicity and estrogenicity in UASB—Treated municipal sewage. Chemosphere 2021, 268, 128778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Pittura, L.; Foglia, A.; Akyol, Ç.; Cipolletta, G.; Benedetti, M.; Regoli, F.; Eusebi, A.L.; Sabbatini, S.; Tseng, L.Y.; Katsou, E.; et al. Microplastics in real wastewater treatment schemes: Comparative assessment and relevant inhibition effects on anaerobic processes. Chemosphere 2021, 262, 128415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Han, Y.; Qian, J.; Guo, J.; Song, Y.; Lu, C.; Li, H.; Hou, Y.; Chen, Z. Feasibility of partial denitrification and anammox for removing nitrate and ammonia simultaneously in situ through synergetic interactions. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 320, 124390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Meng, Q.; Li, P.; Qu, J.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z.; Zhang, Y. Study on the community structure and function of anaerobic granular sludge under trichloroethylene stress. Ecotoxicology 2021, 30, 1408–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zhang, M.; Liu, Y.-S.; Zhao, J.-L.; Liu, W.-R.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Q.-Q.; He, L.-Y.; Ying, G.-G. Variations of antibiotic resistome in swine wastewater during full-scale anaerobic digestion treatment. Environ. Int. 2021, 155, 106694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Duarte, N.C.; Barbosa, A.C.; Magalhães, T.M.; Montagner, C.C.; de Oliveira Cruz, L.M.; Tonetti, A.L. Conventional Anaerobic Reactors Applied to Denitrification: A Comparison Between Packed Bed and UASB Reactors Under Low COD Conditions. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2021, 232, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. da Nascimento, J.G.S.; de Araújo, M.H.P.; dos Santos, A.B.; da Silva, M.E.R.; Firmino, P.I.M. Redox mediator, microaeration, and nitrate addition as engineering approaches to enhance the biotransformation of antibiotics in anaerobic reactors. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zulkarnaini, Z.; Komala, P.S.; Arief, A. Anammox biofilm process using sugarcane bagasse as an organic carrier. Indones. J. Biotechnol. 2021, 26, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kuramae, E.E.; Dimitrov, M.R.; da Silva, G.H.R.; Lucheta, A.R.; Mendes, L.W.; Luz, R.L.; Vet, L.E.M.; Fernandes, T.V. On-site blackwater treatment fosters microbial groups and functions to efficiently and robustly recover carbon and nutrients. Microorganisms 2020, 9, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Yangin-Gomec, C.; Engiz, G. Anaerobic treatment of propylene glycol-contaminated domestic wastewater and microbial community profile at threshold ratio. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Gao, M.; Guo, B.; Li, L.; Liu, Y. Role of syntrophic acetate oxidation and hydrogenotrophic methanogenesis in co-digestion of blackwater with food waste. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 283, 125393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Li, R.; Zhou, M.; He, S.; Pan, T.; Liu, J.; Zhu, J. Deciphering the effect of sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate on up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket treatment of synthetic sulfate-containing wastewater. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng. 2021, 15, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Syutsubo, K.; Danshita, T.; Sumino, H.; Iguchi, A.; Takemura, Y. Microbial properties of the granular sludge in a psychrophilic UASB reactor fed with electronics industry wastewater containing organic chemicals. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part A 2021, 56, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Callejas, C.; López, I.; Bovio-Winkler, P.; Etchebehere, C.; Borzacconi, L. Temporal analysis of the microbiota involved in the anaerobic degradation of sugarcane vinasse in a full-scale methanogenic UASB reactor. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2021, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Camargo, F.P.; Sakamoto, I.K.; Duarte, I.C.S.; Silva, E.L.; Varesche, M.B.A. Metataxonomic characterization of bacterial and archaeal community involved in hydrogen and methane production from citrus peel waste (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck) in batch reactors. Biomass Bioenergy 2021, 149, 106091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Fang, A.; Feng, K.; Mei, X.; Liu, B.; Xie, G.; Ren, N.; Xing, D. The simultaneous recruitment of anammox granules and biofilm by a sequential immobilization and granulation approach. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 417, 128041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Yu, N.; Guo, B.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Y.; Liu, Y. Self-fluidized GAC-amended UASB reactor for enhanced methane production. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 420, 127652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yu, N.; Guo, B.; Liu, Y. Shaping biofilm microbiomes by changing GAC location during wastewater anaerobic digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 780, 146488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Xue, X.; Wang, D.; Yi, X.; Li, Y.; Han, H. Simultaneously autotrophic denitrification and organics degradation in low-strength coal gasification wastewater (LSCGW) treatment via microelectrolysis-triggered Fe(II)/Fe(III) cycle. Chemosphere 2021, 278, 130460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Carboni, M.F.; Florentino, A.P.; Costa, R.B.; Zhan, X.; Lens, P.N.L. Enrichment of autotrophic denitrifiers from anaerobic sludge using sulfurous electron donors. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 678323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhang, T.; Yin, Q.; Shi, Y.; Wu, G. Microbial physiology and interactions in anammox systems with the intermittent addition of organic carbons. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 319, 124226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Gunaseelan, K.; Jadhav, D.A.; Gajalakshmi, S.; Pant, D. Blending of microbial inocula: An effective strategy for performance enhancement of clayware Biophotovoltaics microbial fuel cells. Bioresour. Technol. 2021, 323, 124564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. He, Y.; Tian, Z.; Luan, X.; Han, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, M. Recovery of biological wastewater treatment system inhibited by oxytetracycline: Rebound of functional bacterial population and the impact of adsorbed oxytetracycline on antibiotic resistance. Chem. Eng. J. 2021, 418, 129364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. do Amaral, K.G.C.; Rietow, J.C.; Aisse, M.M. Evaluation of the environmental life cycle of an STP that employs a low-rate trickling filter as post-treatment of a UASB reactor and different sludge-management alternatives. Ambient. Agua—Interdiscip. J. Appl. Sci. 2021, 16, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Cañote, S.J.B.; Barros, R.M.; Lora, E.E.S.; dos Santos, I.F.S.; Silva, A.P.M.; Piñas, J.A.V.; Cañote, A.L.B.; Silva, H.L.D.C.E. Life cycle assessment of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket sludge management and activated sludge systems aiming energy use in the municipality of Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2021, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Foglia, A.; Andreola, C.; Cipolletta, G.; Radini, S.; Akyol, Ç.; Eusebi, A.L.; Stanchev, P.; Katsou, E.; Fatone, F. Comparative life cycle environmental and economic assessment of anaerobic membrane bioreactor and disinfection for reclaimed water reuse in agricultural irrigation: A case study in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 126201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Daud, M.K.; Rizvi, H.; Akram, M.F.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Nafees, M.; Jin, Z.S. Review of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor technology: Effect of different parameters and developments for domestic wastewater treatment. J. Chem. 2018, 2018, 1596319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Lopes, T.A.S.; Queiroz, L.M.; Torres, E.A.; Kiperstok, A. Low complexity wastewater treatment process in developing countries: A LCA approach to evaluate environmental gains. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 137593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Results of the literature search and studies included in G1 and G2 of the analysis. n: number of records. G: group.
Figure 1. Results of the literature search and studies included in G1 and G2 of the analysis. n: number of records. G: group.
Ijerph 18 10326 g001
Figure 2. Network visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G1. Diverse colours represent diverse clusters. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Figure 2. Network visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G1. Diverse colours represent diverse clusters. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Ijerph 18 10326 g002
Figure 3. Overlay visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G1. Diverse colours represent diverse years of publication. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Figure 3. Overlay visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G1. Diverse colours represent diverse years of publication. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Ijerph 18 10326 g003
Figure 4. Network visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G2. A diverse colour represents a diverse cluster. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Figure 4. Network visualization of co-occurrences by author keywords of records in G2. A diverse colour represents a diverse cluster. Cluster analysis and graphic representation were made using VOSviewer software. C: cluster.
Ijerph 18 10326 g004
Table 3. PCPs: Pharmaceutical and care products; TCE: trichloroethylene; TP: total phosphorus; TF: Trickling filters; Sedimentation tank; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDE: polybrominated diphenyl ether; ECA-UASB: Electrochemical assisted UASB. AnMBR: anaerobic membrane bioreactor. MPs: microplastics. a: both in aqueous and particulate form. b: removed partially (12.8%) by sulfide-driven partial denitrification and the remaining (87.2%) by anammox. c: value deduced by figure analysis. d: in case of adding anthraquinone-2,6-disulfonate (0–100 μM) and microaeration (0.1 mL min−1). e: in case of adding NO3 (in a COD (NO3)−1 ratio of 2.5–10). f: in the same reactor. g: info reported in [81]. h: as sum of oxytetracycline, doxycycline, enrofloxacin, chlorotetracycline, lincomycin, sulfamonomethoxine, ofloxacin, norfloxacin, sulfadiazine, bacitracin, tetracycline, erythromycin-H2O, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, sulfachlorpyridazine, leucomycin.
Table 3. PCPs: Pharmaceutical and care products; TCE: trichloroethylene; TP: total phosphorus; TF: Trickling filters; Sedimentation tank; PAH: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDE: polybrominated diphenyl ether; ECA-UASB: Electrochemical assisted UASB. AnMBR: anaerobic membrane bioreactor. MPs: microplastics. a: both in aqueous and particulate form. b: removed partially (12.8%) by sulfide-driven partial denitrification and the remaining (87.2%) by anammox. c: value deduced by figure analysis. d: in case of adding anthraquinone-2,6-disulfonate (0–100 μM) and microaeration (0.1 mL min−1). e: in case of adding NO3 (in a COD (NO3)−1 ratio of 2.5–10). f: in the same reactor. g: info reported in [81]. h: as sum of oxytetracycline, doxycycline, enrofloxacin, chlorotetracycline, lincomycin, sulfamonomethoxine, ofloxacin, norfloxacin, sulfadiazine, bacitracin, tetracycline, erythromycin-H2O, ciprofloxacin, trimethoprim, sulfachlorpyridazine, leucomycin.
Target PollutantTechnologiesSubstrateVolume of the UASB Reactor (L)
[Scale]
Characteristics of the InfluentOperational ParametersTarget Pollutants Removal
(%)
References
S/RType of Real Substrate
Heavy metalsUASBRMining wastewater1.9
[Lab]
Cu2+: 0.18 mg L−1
Pb2+: 1.72 mg L−1
Zn2+: 3.07 mg L−1
Fe2+: 1.76 mg L−1
T: 28.1 °C;
HRT: 12.6 d;
pH: 6.1
Cu2+: 70
Pb2+: 39
Zn2+: 79
Fe2+: 65
[34]
MicropollutantsUASB + TF + STRUrban wastewatern.a.
[Full]
triclosan: 67.05 µg L−1 a
PAH: 20.19 µg L−1 a
estrogen E1: 106.5 ng L−1
estrogen E3: 1547.9 ng L−1
PBDE: 222.4 ng L−1 a
HRTUASB: 7.7 h;
SRTUASB: 40 d;
Percolating timeTF: 20–25 min;
HRTUASB: 6.1 h
triclosan: 95 a
PAH: 92.2 a
estrogen E1: 88.9
estrogen E3: 99.2
PBDE: 85.6 a
[62]
Nitrate and ammoniumUASBS 2.0
[Lab]
nitrate: 100 mgN L−1
ammonium: 80 mgN L−1
sulfide: 20–80 mgN L−1
T: 30 °C;
HRT: 12 h;
pH: 7.8–8.2
total nitrogen: 80 b
sulfide: 100
[82]
MicropollutantsUASBS 6
[Lab]
estrone: 7000 μg L−1;
17α-ethinylestradiol: 3500 μg L−1
OLR: 4.9–7.8 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
T: 19.7–25.6 °C;
HRT: 30 h;
SRT: 82–92.3 d;
pH: 6.5;intermittent conditions with 0.5 d (feed period per cycle) and 3 d (feedless period per cycle)
estrone: >90
17α-ethinylestradiol: >90
[24]
Heavy metalsUASBS 1
[Lab]
Pb2+: 80–2000 ppmT: 30–35 °C;
HRT: 1 d;
pH: 4–7.5 c;
Pb2+: 90–100[83]
PCPsUASB+MBRS 20
[Lab]
carbamazepine: 10 μg L−1OLR: 0.1–0.7 kgCOD m−3 d−1;
TUASB: 29–31 °C;
HRTUASB: 37 h;
SRTUASB: >90 d;
pHUASB: 7–8;
TMBR: 26–29 °C;
HRTMBR: 30 h;
SRTMBR: 90 d;
pHMBR: 6.8–8.1
carbamazepine: 38.2–48.9 (UASB alone);
carbamazepine: 49.8–70 (UASB + MBR)
[84]
PhosphorusECA-UASB fRDairy manure1.2
[Lab]
TP: 264 mg L−1T: 37 °C;
Voltages: 0.5–1 V;
HRT: 1–12 d c;
pH: 7.25–7.75 c
TP: 61.8–65.1[85]
Toxicity on D. rerio and D. dubiaUASBRUrban wastewater3
[Lab]
LC50 D. rerio: 0–30% c
LC50 D. dubia: 0–10% c
T: 34 °C;
HRT: 9 h;
OLR: 1.7 kg DQO m−3 d−1
LC50 D. rerio: 0–30% c
LC50 D. dubia: 10–25% c
[86]
MicroplasticsUASB+AnMBRRUrban wastewater16
[Lab]
MPs: 3.64 MPs L−1Pore size: 0.03 μm;
T: 30 °C;
HRT: 6 h
94[87]
Nitrate and ammoniumUASBS 4.5
[Lab]
nitrate: 50–200 mgN L−1;
ammonium: 0–140 mgN L−1
T: 25 °C;
HRT: 3.8–4.5 h;
pH: 7.9–8.7
total nitrogen: >85[88]
Emerging contaminantsUASBS 8 g
[Lab]
TCE: 1.46–73 mg L−1T: 35 °C;
HRT: 15 h;
pH: 7.9–8.7
TCE: >85[89]
AntibioticsUASBRSwine wastewater500,000
[Full]
30,000 ng L−1 hHRT: 2.7 d82.6 h[90]
Heavy metals and sulphateUASBRLeachate and mining wastewater7
[Lab]
Mn: 26.80 mg L−1
Zn: 0.47 mg L−1
Ca: 410.57 mg L−1
Mg: 139.85 mg L−1
Fe: 1.25 mg L−1
Sulphate: 700–900 mg L−1 c
HRT: 8–30 h;
pH: 7.5;
T: 35 °C
Mn: 93.3
Zn: 99.3
Ca: 54.5
Mg: 41.9
Fe: 95.1
Sulphate: 66–78
[35]
NitratesUASBS 1.4
[Lab]
Nitrates: 50 mgN L−1T: 26–33 °C;
HRT: 12 h;
COD (N-NO3)−1 ratio: 2–8
Nitrates: 30–100 c[91]
AntibioticsUASBS 3.5
[Lab]
Sulfamethoxazole: 194–219 μg L−1; d
Trimethoprim: 198–216 μg L−1; d
Sulfamethoxazole: 194–213 μg L−1; e
Trimethoprim: 202–215 μg L−1; e
HRT: 7.4 h;
T: 28 °C;
pH: 7
Sulfamethoxazole: 6.2–77.1; d
Trimethoprim: 6.2–91.1; d
Sulfamethoxazole: 11.8–85.8; e
Trimethoprim: 13–86.2; e
[92]
Nitrite and ammoniumUASBS 0.3
[Lab]
nitrite: 70–150 mgN L−1;
ammonium: 70–150 mgN L−1
HRT: 12–24 h;
T: 23–28 °C
Total nitrogen: 55–85[93]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Collivignarelli, M.C.; Abbà, A.; Caccamo, F.M.; Calatroni, S.; Torretta, V.; Katsoyiannis, I.A.; Carnevale Miino, M.; Rada, E.C. Applications of Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) and Characteristics of Its Microbial Community: A Review of Bibliometric Trend and Recent Findings. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910326

AMA Style

Collivignarelli MC, Abbà A, Caccamo FM, Calatroni S, Torretta V, Katsoyiannis IA, Carnevale Miino M, Rada EC. Applications of Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) and Characteristics of Its Microbial Community: A Review of Bibliometric Trend and Recent Findings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(19):10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910326

Chicago/Turabian Style

Collivignarelli, Maria Cristina, Alessandro Abbà, Francesca Maria Caccamo, Silvia Calatroni, Vincenzo Torretta, Ioannis A. Katsoyiannis, Marco Carnevale Miino, and Elena Cristina Rada. 2021. "Applications of Up-Flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) and Characteristics of Its Microbial Community: A Review of Bibliometric Trend and Recent Findings" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 19: 10326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph181910326

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop