A simple and efficient feedback control
strategy for wastewater denitrification
Cédric Join ∗,†,‡ Jean Bernier ∗∗ Stéphane Mottelet ∗∗∗
Michel Fliess ∗∗∗∗,† Sabrina Rechdaoui-Guérin ∗∗ Sam Azimi ∗∗
Vincent Rocher ∗∗

arXiv:1703.05278v1 [cs.SY] 15 Mar 2017

∗

CRAN (CNRS, UMR 7039), Université de Lorraine, BP 239,
54506 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France (e-mail:
cedric.join@univ-lorraine.fr)
∗∗
SIAAP (Syndicat Interdépartemental pour l’Assainissement de
l’Agglomération Parisienne), Direction Développement Prospective,
82 avenue Kléber, 92700 Colombes, France
(e-mail: {jean.bernier, sabrina.guerin, sam.azimi,
vincent.rocher}@siaap.fr)
∗∗∗
TIMR (EA 4297), Sorbonne Universités & Université de
Technologie de Compiègne, rue du docteur Schweitzer,
60203 Compiègne, France (e-mail: stephane.mottelet@utc.fr)
∗∗∗∗
LIX (CNRS, UMR 7161), École polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau,
France (e-mail: Michel.Fliess@polytechnique.edu)
†
AL.I.E.N. (ALgèbre pour Identification & Estimation Numériques),
24-30 rue Lionnois, BP 60120, 54003 Nancy, France
(e-mail: {cedric.join, michel.fliess}@alien-sas.com)
‡
Projet Non-A, INRIA Lille – Nord-Europe, France
Abstract: Due to severe mathematical modeling and calibration difficulties open-loop feedforward control is mainly employed today for wastewater denitrification, which is a key ecological
issue. In order to improve the resulting poor performances a new model-free control setting and
its corresponding “intelligent” controller are introduced. The pitfall of regulating two output
variables via a single input variable is overcome by introducing also an open-loop knowledgebased control deduced from the plant behavior. Several convincing computer simulations are
presented and discussed.
Keywords: Wastewater, biofiltration, denitrification, feedback control design, knowledge-based
control, artificial intelligence, model-free control, intelligent P controllers, algebraic estimation
techniques, robust performance.
1. INTRODUCTION
Maintaining low nitrite concentrations in the effluent
is a major ecological issue for wastewater treatment
plants (WWTP) due to nitrite’s high toxicity (see, e.g.,
Capodaglio et al. (2016); Fux et al. (2015); Grady Jr. et al.
(2011); Henze et al. (2008); Raimonet et al. (2015); Water
Environment Federation (2013)). To this end, the aim of a
wastewater post-denitrifying biofilter is to convert nitrate
and nitrite (NOx , x = 2, 3) of the effluent into nitrogen gas
(N2 ). The process uses a submerged packed bed biofilm reactor hosting a class of bacteria under anoxic (low/no oxygen) conditions which use the NOx as a source of oxygen
when they are fed with a carbon source such as methanol
(Samie et al. (2011); Bernier et al. (2014)). On the one
hand, underfeed of methanol will limit the reduction of
NOx in the process, and as the denitrification is a two step
reaction NO3 → NO2 → N2 , this can leave some nitrite
in the effluent even if this compound was absent in the
influent (Rocher et al. (2015)). On the other hand, overfeed of methanol results in elevated effluent biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD) and useless operating expenses. In
most WWTP using post-denitrifying biofilters, the actual
control strategy is mainly of feedforward open-loop type: 1
on-line measurements of incoming NOx are combined with
wastewater flow to compute an ideal methanol feed rate.
But because of process complexity and many types of disturbances, e.g., periodical backwash of biofilters, this is not
sufficient to accurately control the nitrite concentration in
the effluent. Model-based approaches seem nevertheless to
be hard to apply in this context (see, e.g., Grady Jr. et al.
(2011); Water Environment Federation (2013)). In fact the
dynamics of a denitrifying biofilter has to be described by
partial differential equations taking into account concentration gradients, nonlinearities of the biological processes,
biofilm clogging and so on (see, e.g., the excellent report
by Dochain et al. (2001), and the references therein). Such
an exhaustive model needing the identification of numer1

See, e.g., Bastin et al. (1990); Bourrel et al. (2000); Cristea et al.
(2008); Marsili-Libelli et al. (2002); Olsson et al. (1999); Torres
Zúñiga et al. (2012); Wahaba et al. (2009) for most interesting
exceptions, i.e., for the use of feedback loops

Influent + methanol

the addition of two-step denitrification to simulate the
production and consumption of nitrite during the process.
The first two denitrification reactions of ASMN (Hiatt
et al. (2008)) were used to this end, and can be summarized
as

effluent

z=H
packed bed
z=0

Fig. 1. Packed bed denitrifying biofilter
ous parameters is necessary to assess a particular control
strategy, like in Section 4. However it cannot reasonably
be used for realtime feedback control.
A new model-free control setting (Fliess et al. (2013)) is
therefore used. 2 The corresponding intelligent P feedback
controller is moreover quite easy to implement both from
software (Fliess et al. (2013)) and hardware (Join et al.
(2013)) standpoints. Many concrete applications have already been developed all over the world. Some have been
patented. Lack of space permits here to quote only three
recent works that are related to biotechnology: Bara et al.
(2016); Lafont et al. (2015); Tebbani et al. (2016). From
a purely control-theoretic viewpoint, a major difficulty is
encountered: a single input variable must regulate two output variables (see, e.g., Fliess (1989) for an explanation via
input-output nonlinear system inversion). A satisfactory
practical solution is nevertheless proposed. It is based on
an appropriate mixing of a knowledge-based behavior of
the plant with a suitable feedback law.
Our paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is sketching
wastewater treatment and its corresponding rough description via differential equations. Model-free control and the
associated real-time estimation techniques are summarized
in Section 3. After presenting our control law, Section
4 displays convincing computer experiments, which are
based in this preliminary work on the modeling in Section
2. Some concluding remarks may be found in Section 5.
2. PROBLEM AND MODEL
2.1 Dynamic model of the biofilter
The actual denitrifying process is composed of several
biofilters operating in parallel with the same influent. A
typical unit is displayed in Figure 1. The water is fed from
the base of the filter bed, which is composed of beads of
expanded clay. A biofilm, where all biological reactions
occur, is considered to grow on the media. The biological
reactions inside the biofilm are modeled using a modified
version of ASM1 (Henze et al. (1987)). This model is
widely used to simulate the growth of bacteria and the
resulting consumption of carbon and nitrogen pollution
occurring in biological wastewater treatment processes.
The main modification in this specific case consists in
2 See, e.g., Join et al. (2010) for the analysis of model-free control
in a somehow analogous situation with respect to partial differential
equations.

methanol + nitrates → biomass + nitrites,
methanol + nitrites → biomass + nitrogen.
The whole dynamics of the biofilter results from the mass
balance of the different reacting species, nitrate S1 , nitrite
S2 , carbon SC and biomass X. The limited axial dispersion
allows to consider that all concentrations are constant in a
vertical cross section. The following model with distributed
parameters, i.e., a system of partial differential equations,
model with a single space dimension, may be written
ε∂t S1
ε∂t S2
ε∂t Sc
∂t X

= −v∂z S1 − k1 µ1 (S1 , Sc )X
= −v∂z S2 + k1 µ1 (S1 , Sc )X − k2 µ2 (S2 , Sc )X
= −v∂z Sc − k3 µ1 (S1 , Sc )X − k4 µ2 (S2 , Sc )X
= (µ1 (S1 , Sc ) + µ2 (S2 , Sc ))(1 − X/Xmax )X

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

for z ∈]0, H]. All species concentrations are given in g/m3 .
The yield coefficients (ki )i=1,...,4 are given in g/g, the
superficial velocity v in m/h (flow rate in m3 /h divided by
the cross-section area) and ε is the porosity. The specific
growth rates µ1 and µ2 are given by a double Monod-type
model (Bastin et al. (1990))
Si Sc
µi (Si , Sc ) = µi,max
i = 1, 2
(Ki + Si )(Kc + Sc )
where µi,max is the maximum specific growth rate for
species Si and Ki , Kc the affinity constants. The boundary
conditions are given by
S1 (0, t) = S1,in (t), S2 (0, t) = S2,in (t), Sc (0, t) = Sc,in (t)
where Sc,in (t) is the methanol concentration at the inlet
of the reactor, i.e. the control variable.
Equations (1)-(4) were initially proposed for a drinkable
water denitrifying biofilter (see (Bourrel et al. (2000))
and were easily adapted to our specific configuration as
only hydraulic parameters and maximum biomass concentration Xmax had to be changed. They have been used
during the early stage of our project in order to validate
our interest for model-free control, but the simulations of
Section 4 have been made with the SimBio software. This
more realistic setting is built in Matlab with the Simulink
toolbox, using submodels already available in the literature. The biofilter hydraulics is approximated with a series
of several continuously stirred tank reactors (CSTRs) of
equal volume to obtain reactor hydraulics close to the
plug-flow model of equations (1)-(3) while maintaining
simulation times in a reasonable range. As concentration
gradients are observed in thick biofilms, their distributed
nature is taken into account in SimBio by dividing the
biofilm into several CSTRs through which soluble substrates are able to diffuse (Spengel et al. (1992)). Soluble
substrates are brought to and into the biofilm through
diffusion, whereas particular components are transferred
to the biofilm surface through filtration (Horner et al.
(1986); Ives (1970)). Backwash efficiency is modelled as a
removal of a fixed proportion of biofilm thickness in each
reactor using different removal efficiencies for biomass and
for other non-biomass particles. A certain fraction of media
mixing across the reactors also occurs during backwash.

This version of SimBio was calibrated on hourly nitrate
and nitrite measurements made on the post-denitrification
step of the Seine-Centre plant (Bernier et al. (2014)).
2.2 Actual control strategy on the real plant
The control variable value Sc,in (t) is tuned according to a
desired removal of incoming nitrogen, which comes under
the form of nitrates (the incoming concentration of nitrite
is negligible), i.e., for a target concentration of S1,target at
the outlet of the reactor, the control law is of the form
Sc,in (t) = β(S1,in (t) − S1,target )
(5)
where β is an operating coefficient based on pure stoichiometric and yield considerations (Rocher et al. (2015)).
This strategy does not take into account the intermediate
species (nitrite) and leads to an unstable behavior of its
concentration in the effluent. In fact the ratio between
the methanol and the total nitrogen (nitrate and nitrite)
concentrations in the biofilter plays a major role in the
appearance of residual nitrites, but it cannot be controlled
with a simple control law as in Equation (5). However, as
the nitrite concentration can be measured at the outlet of
the biofilter, it can be used as a natural controlled variable
in a feedback control strategy.
3. MODEL-FREE CONTROL
3.1 The ultra-local model
Replace the unknown global system description by the
ultra-local model : 3
ẏ = F + αu
(6)
where
• the control and output variables are u and y,
• the derivation order of y is 1 like in most concrete
situations,
• α ∈ R is chosen by the practitioner such that αu and
ẏ are of the same magnitude.
The following explanations on F might be useful:
• F is estimated via the measures of u and y,
• F subsumes not only the unknown system structure
but also any perturbation.
Remark 3.1. In Equation (6) ẏ is seldom replaced by ÿ
(see, e.g., Fliess et al. (2013), and the references therein).
Higher order derivatives were never utilized until today.

Combining Equations (6) and (7) yields:
ė + KP e = 0
where F does not appear anymore. The tuning of KP ,
in order to insure local stability, becomes therefore quite
straightforward. This is a major benefit when compared to
the tuning of “classic” PIDs (see, e.g., Åström et al. (2006,
2008), and the references therein), which
• necessitate a “fine” tuning in order to deal with the
poorly known parts of the plant,
• exhibit a poor robustness with respect to “strong”
perturbations and/or system alterations.
3.3 Estimation of F
The calculations below stem from algebraic estimation
techniques that are borrowed from Fliess et al. (2003,
2008), and Sira-Ramı́rez et al. (2014).
First approach The term F in Equation (6) may be assumed to be “well” approximated by a piecewise constant
function Fest (see, e.g., Godement (1998)). Rewrite then
Equation (6) in the operational domain (see, e.g., Erdélyi
(1962)):
Φ
sY = + αU + y(0)
s
where Φ is a constant. We get rid of the initial condition
d
y(0) by multiplying both sides on the left by ds
:
Φ
dY
dU
=− 2 +α
Y +s
ds
s
ds
Noise attenuation is achieved by multiplying both sides on
the left by s−2 . It yields in the time domain the realtime
d
estimate, thanks to the equivalence between ds
and the
multiplication by −t,
Z t
6
Fest (t) = − 3
[(τ − 2σ)y(σ) + ασ(τ − σ)u(σ)] dσ
τ t−τ
(8)
Second approach

Close the loop with the iP (7):
Z t

1
?
Fest (t) =
(ẏ − αu − KP e) dσ
τ t−τ
Remark 3.2. Note the following facts:

(9)

• integrals (8) and (9) are low pass filters,
• τ > 0 might be quite small,
• the integrals may of course be replaced in practice by
classic digital filters.
4. NUMERICAL EXPERIMENTS

3.2 Intelligent controllers
4.1 Control law description
The loop is closed by an intelligent proportional controller,
or iP,
F − ẏ ∗ + KP e
u=−
(7)
α
where
• y ? is a reference trajectory,
• e = y − y ? is the tracking error,
• KP is the usual tuning gain.

Our control law is displayed by Figure 2:
• Equation (5) defines the single control variable in
open loop,
• the loop is closed via the iP (7).
The aim of methanol injection Sc,in , i.e., our single input
variable, 4 is to regulate the total nitrogen concentration,
4

3

For more details, see Fliess et al. (2013).

See Section 2.1 for precise definitions of the quantities associated
to the letter S.

S1,in

S1,target

Open loop
control

S1,in
S2,in
Sc,in

+

S1

Bioﬁlter

S2

+
Model-free
control

S2,target

Fig. 2. Control scheme
i.e., two quantities S1 and S2 , namely the nitrate and
nitrite wastewater concentrations. The fact, depicted in
Figure 3, that S1 is much larger than S2 , is taken into
account by regulating S1 via an open-loop knowledgebased control. For S2 model-free control is utilized. For
Equations (6)-(7), α = 1 and Kp = 100 were selected. In
order to avoid debating the regulation of S1 the resulting
value of the iP should be non-negative. If not, the water
concentration of nitrate would increase. This is not acceptable.
4.2 Simulations
The mathematical modeling discussed in Section 2.1 is
used for the computer simulations. The sampling time
period is 0.001 day.
Quite good results corresponding to several targets are
displayed in Figures 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Important daily perturbations, corresponding to biofilter backwash, have been
introduced in order to show more realistic performances.
According to the Figures, a small injection of methanol is
reducing notably the nitrites and nitrates concentrations
in the water which is rejected. Notice however a worsening
of the performances if S2,target ≥ 1.2. Let us emphasize
that
• it is not due to a weakness of our control strategy,
• the very nature of the wastewater denitrification,
which is detailed at the end of Section 4.1, explains
it.
5. CONCLUSION
This new setting for wastewater denitrification, which
seems to be rather promising (see Rocher et al. (2017)
for further details), will soon be tested in Paris. Although
it has been shown in other applications that modelfree control behaves quite well with respect to noise
corruptions, it will provide us with more realistic data on
noisy measurements, and other perturbations, for water
treatment. The results will be reported elsewhere.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the research program MOCOPÉE 5 for its technical and financial support.
5

MOCOPÉE is an acronym of the French words ‘MOdélisation
Contrôle et Optimisation des Procédés d’Épuration des Eaux.”

REFERENCES
Åström K.J., Hägglund T. (2006). Advanced PID Control.
Instrument Soc. Amer.
Åström K.J., Murray R.M. (2008). Feedback Systems: An
Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Princeton
University Press.
Bara O., Fliess M., Join C., Day J., Djouadi S.M.
(2016). Model-free immune therapy: A control approach
to acute inflammation. Europ. Contr. Conf., Aalborg.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01341060/en/

Bastin G., Dochain D. (1990). On-Line Estimation and
Adaptive Control of Bioreactors. Elsevier.
Bernier J., Rocher V., Lessard P. (2014). Modelling headloss and two-step denitrification in a full-scale wastewater post-denitrifying biofiltration plant. J. Environ.
Engin. Sci., 9, 171–180.
Bourrel S., Dochain D., Babary J., Queinnec I. (2000).
Modelling, identification and control of a denitrifying
biofilter. J. Process Contr., 10, 73–91.
Capodaglio A.G., Hlavı́nek P., Raboni M. (2016). Advances in wastewater nitrogen removal by biological
processes: state of the art review. Ambiente & Água,
11, 250–267.
Cristea V.-M., Pop C., Agachi P.S. (2008). Model Predictive Control of the Waste Water Treatment Plant
Based on the Benchmark Simulation Model No.1-BSM1.
B. Braunschweig & X. Joulia (Eds): 18th Europ. Symp.
Comput. Aided Process Engin. - ESCAPE 18, Elsevier.
Dochain D., Vanrolleghem P.A. (2001). Dynamic Modelling and Estimation in Wastewater Treatment Processes. IWA Publishing.
Erdélyi A. (1962). Operational Calculus and Generalized
Functions. Holt Rinehart Winston.
Fliess M. (1989). Automatique et corps différentiels. Forum Math., 1, 227–238.
Fliess M., Join C. (2013). Model-free control. Int. J.
Contr., 86, 2228–2252.
Fliess M., Sira-Ramı́rez H. (2003). An algebraic framework
for linear identification. ESAIM Contr. Optimiz. Calc.
Variat., 9, 151–168.
Fliess M., Sira-Ramı́rez H. (2008). Closed-loop parametric
identification for continuous-time linear systems via new
algebraic techniques. H. Garnier & L. Wang (Eds):
Identification of Continuous-time Models from Sampled
Data, Springer, pp. 362–391.
Fux C., Kienle C., Joss A., Wittmer A., Frei R.
(2015). Ausbau der ARA Basel mit 4. Reinigungsstufe. Pilotstudie: Elimination Mikroverunreinigungen und ökotoxikologische Wirkungen. Aqua & Gas:
Fachzeitschrift Gas Wasser Abwasser, 97, 10–17.
Godement R. (1998). Analyse mathématique II, Springer
(English translation (2005): Analysis II. Springer).
Grady Jr. C.P.L., Daigger G.T., Love N.G., Filipe C.D.M.
(2011). Biological Wastewater Treatment (3rd ed.).
CRC Press.
Henze M., Grady Jr. C.P.L., Gujer W., Marais G.V.R.,
Matsuo T. (1987). A general-model for single-sludge
waste-water treatment systems. Water Research, 21,
505–515.
Henze M., van Loosdrecht M.C.M., G. A. Ekama G.A.,
Brdjanovic D. (Eds) (2008). Biological Wastewater
Treatment: Principles, Modeling, and Design. IWA Publishing.

34

0.2

32

0.19
0.18

30

0.17

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

28

26

24

0.16
0.15
0.14

22
0.13
20

0.12

18

0.11

16

0.1
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

Days

6

7

8

9

10

Days

(a) Nitrate S1,in

(b) Nitrite S2,in

Fig. 3. Influent
2.5

2.2

1700
Open loop control
With MFC
Setpoints

Open loop control
With MFC

2

1.8

Open loop control
With MFC

1600

2

1500
1400

1.4

1.2

1.5

Methanol (kg/d)

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

1.6

1

1300
1200
1100

1
1000
0.8

0.5

900

0.6

0.4

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

5

6

7

8

9

700

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

(a) Nitrate S1

5

6

7

8

9

10

9

10

9

10

Days

(b) Nitrite S2

(c) Methanol Sc,in

Fig. 4. Setpoint : S2,target = 0.4
2.5

2.2

1700
Open loop control
With MFC
Setpoints

Open loop control
With MFC

2
2

1.8

Open loop control
With MFC

1600
1500
1400

1.4

1.2

1.5

Methanol (kg/d)

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

1.6

1

1300
1200
1100

1
1000
0.8

0.5

900

0.6

0.4

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

5

6

7

8

9

700

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

(a) Nitrate S1

5

6

7

8

Days

(b) Nitrite S2

(c) Methanol Sc,in

Fig. 5. Setpoint : S2,target = 0.8
2.5

2.2

1700

Open loop control
With MFC

Open loop control
With MFC
Setpoints

2
2

1.8

Open loop control
With MFC

1600
1500
1400

1.4

1.2

1.5

Methanol (kg/d)

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

1.6

1

1300
1200
1100

1
1000
0.8

0.5

900

0.6

0.4

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Days

(a) Nitrate S1

Fig. 6. Setpoint : S2,target = 1.2

8

9

10

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Days

(b) Nitrite S2

7

8

9

10

700

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Days

(c) Methanol Sc,in

8

2.5

2.2

1600
Open loop control
With MFC
Setpoints

Open loop control
With MFC

2

Open loop control
With MFC

1500

2

1.8

1400

1300

1.4

1.2

1.5

Methanol (kg/d)

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

1.6

1

1

1100

1000

0.8

900

0.5

0.6

0.4

1200

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

5

6

7

8

9

700

10

0

1

2

3

4

Days

(a) Nitrate S1

5

6

7

8

9

10

9

10

Days

(b) Nitrite S2

(c) Methanol Sc,in

Fig. 7. Setpoint : S2,target = 2.0
3

2.2

1600

Open loop control
With MFC

Open loop control
With MFC

Open loop control
With MFC
Setpoints

2

1500

2.5
1.8

1400

2

1.4

1.2

1300

Methanol (kg/d)

Nitrite (mgN/L)

Nitrate (mgN/L)

1.6

1.5

1

1

1200

1100

1000

0.8

900
0.5

0.6

0.4

800

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

0

1

2

3

4

Days

(a) Nitrate S1

5

6

7

Days

8

9

10

700

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Days

(b) Nitrite S2

(c) Methanol Sc,in

Fig. 8. Setpoint : S2,target = 3.0
Hiatt W.C., Grady C.P.L. (2008). An updated process
model for carbon oxidation, nitrification, and denitrification. Water Environment Research, 80, 2145–2156.
Horner R.M.W, Jarvis R.J., Mackie R.I. (1986). Deep bed
filtration - a new look at the basic equations. Water
Research 20, 215–220.
Ives K.J. (1970). Rapid filtration. Water Research 4, 201–
223.
Join C., Chaxel F., Fliess M. (2013). “Intelligent” controllers on cheap and small programmable devices. 2nd
Int. Conf. Contr. Fault-Tolerant Syst. (SysTol’13), Nice.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00845795/en/

Join C., Robert G., Fliess M. (2010). Vers une commande
sans modèle pour aménagements hydroélectriques en
cascade, 6e Conf. Internat. Francoph. Automat., Nancy.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/inria-00460912/en/

Lafont F., Balmat J.-F., Pessel N., Fliess M. (2015). A
model-free control strategy for an experimental greenhouse with an application to fault accommodation.
Comput. Electron. Agricult., 110, 139–149.
Marsili-Libelli S., Giunti L. (2002). Fuzzy predictive control for nitrogen removal in biological wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Techno., 45, 37–44.
Olsson G., Newell B. (1999). Wastewater treatment systems: modelling, diagnosis and control. IWA Publishing.
Raimonet M., Vilmin L., Flipo N., Rocher V., Laverman
A.M. (2015). Modelling the fate of nitrite in an urbanized river using experimentally obtained nitrifier growth
parameters. Water Res., 73, 373 – 387.
Rocher V., Join C., Mottelet S., Bernier J., Guérin S.,
Azimi S., Lessard P., Pauss A., Fliess M. (2017). La
production de nitrites lors de la dénitrification des eaux
usées par biofiltration - Stratégie de contrôle et de

réduction des concentrations résiduelles. Rev. Sci. Eau,
submitted.
Rocher V., Laverman A.M., Gasperi J., Azimi S., Guérin
S., Mottelet S., Villières T., Pauss A. (2015). Nitrite
accumulation during denitrification depends on the carbon quality and quantity in wastewater treatment with
biofilters. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res., 22, 10179–10188.
Samie G., Bernier J., Rocher V., Lessard P. (2011). Modeling nitrogen removal for a denitrification biofilter. Biopro. Biosyst. Engin., 34, 747–755.
Sira-Ramı́rez H., Garcı́a-Rodrı́guez C., Cortès-Romero J.,
Luviano-Juárez A. (2013). Algebraic Identification and
Estimation Methods in Feedback Control Systems. Wiley.
Spengel D., Dzombak D. (1992). Biokinetic modeling and
scale-up considerations for rotating biological contactors. Water Environ. Res. 64, 223-235.
Tebbani S., Titica M., Join C., Fliess M., Dumur D.
(2016). Model-based versus model-free control designs
for improving microalgae growth in a closed photobioreactor: Some preliminary comparisons. 24th Medit. Conf.
Contr. Automat., Athens.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01312251/en/

Torres Zúñiga I., Queinnec I., Vande Wouwer A.
(2012). Observer-based output feedback linearizing control strategy for a nitrification-denitrification biofilter.
Chem. Engin. J., 191, 243-255.
Wahaba N.A., Katebia R., Balderud J. (2009). Multivariable PID control design for activated sludge process with
nitrification and denitrification. Biochem. Engin. J., 45,
239–248.
Water Environment Federation (2013). Wastewater Treatment Process Modeling. McGraw-Hill.

