Comparison of immobilized methods for anammox bacteria retentiona.
| Start-up (day) | Dominant genera | Biomass (gVSS L−1) | NRRs (kg N m−3 d−1) | Reactor type | Temp (°C) | Biomass retention | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | Ca. J. caeni | 3.80 | 8.20 | CSTR | 33 | Immobilize gel | 45 |
| 100 | Not reported | 0.10 | 4.40 | CSTR | 30 | Immobilize gel | 46 |
| 67 | Ca. J. caeni | 0.55 | 3.70 | CSTR | 36 | Immobilize gel | 47 |
| 180 | Mixed sludge | 0.32 | 1.69 | CSTR | 34 | Immobilize gel | 48 |
| 65 | Ca. J. caeni | 1.34 | 3.80 | CSTR | 30 | Immobilize gel | 49 |
| 85 | NR | 11.33 | NR | UASB | 30 | Bamboo char | 50 |
| 75 | Ca. Brocadia | 4.90 | NR | CAMBR | 13 | Hollow fiber | 51 |
| 90 | Ca. Jettenia | 4.90 | NR | CAMBR | 13 | Hollow fiber | 51 |
| 63 | Ca. Kuenenia | 3.52 | 0.92 | UPPAR | 35 | Porous plate | This study |
CSTR, continuous stirred tank reactor; UASB, upflow anaerobic sludge blanket; CAMBR, combined ABR and MBR; NR, not reported.