EFFECTIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT AT LOW CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS

W. K. (Tim) Journey, Senior Associate, EarthCAD, Inc. Most municipal governments aspire to high sanitary service levels, but the high cost of building and operating conventional mechanical wastewater treatment plants is frequently cited as a reason for not treating wastewater before its disposal. This discussion describes wastewater treatment technologies whose capital and operating costs are lower by an order of magnitude than those of conventional mechanical treatment. I. High rate, high power consumption process: mechanical aerobic wastewater treatment Mechanical treatment plants are high rate biological reactors capable of achieving a secondary quality final effluent by using various types of mechanical equipment to mix the substrate with the bulk liquid as the means to supply oxygen to the aerobic bacteria that biodegrade organic wastes. Aerobic treatment may also be designed to support the biological processes of nitrification and denitrification that remove nitrogen and phosphorus. Mechanical aeration distributes oxygen more efficiently than naturally aerated systems, such as lagoon systems. Efficient aeration reduces the volume of the treatment plant, and the final effluent is low in BOD5 (<10 mg/l). For over 60 years, mechanical aerobic treatment technologies have been used to treat municipal effluents and dilute industrial wastewaters. One of the most popular aerobic processes is the activated sludge process and its recent variants, including sequencing batch reactors, extended aeration and the oxidation ditch. In many developing countries, mechanical treatment technologies have important disadvantages besides high investment cost: high power consumption, vulnerability to power outages, high maintenance requirements and the need for close supervision by skilled operators to avoid process upsets. II. High rate, low power consumption wastewater treatment process: the UASB anaerobic reactor The upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor is also a high rate wastewater treatment process that relies on bacteria that break down organic material in the absence of oxygen. The UASB reactor was pioneered in India and Colombia in the 1980s and is now popular in regions with warm climates. A normally functioning UASB reactor removes an average of 65 percent of chemical oxygen demand (COD), 80 percent of biological oxygen demand (BOD5) and 75 percent of total suspended solids (TSS) from a typical raw municipal wastewater. The resulting effluent quality will be intermediate between primary and secondary (30-70 mg/l for BOD5 and 40-50 mg/l for suspended solids) and generally needs further treatment (polishing) before final disposal. Initial anaerobic treatment of wastewater in a UASB reactor has important advantages over mechanical aerobic processes:1 o Low investment cost (from 1/5 to 1/10 of the cost of mechanical aerobic treatment); o o o o o o o o o o Efficient treatment of high-strength waste streams without externally supplied power; Construction primarily from materials used to build housing, such as concrete and masonry; Modular design, infinite scalability and linear cost increases as the size of the plant increases; Few moving parts, minimal equipment; Plant operators do not need high-level academic qualifications; Surges in organic loading (shock loads) handled better than aerobic systems; Large flow variations and prolonged shutdown do not cause process upsets; Organic nutrients are converted into mineralized forms ideal for plant uptake; Low amount of residual sludge byproduct that has good settling properties, is easily dewatered and needs no additional treatment; Biogas generated by fermentation may be an economical fuel in large scale treatment plants;

Page 1

o o

Refractory organic compounds are attenuated or degraded and heavy metals are removed; Organic material in wastewater is completely degraded to humus, CO2 and methane.

Page 2

The polishing process for an anaerobic effluent should be designed to improve the effluent quality in the following parameters: pathogen contamination, residual organic material (COD/BOD 5), oxygen demand from the reduced forms of N and S, residual suspended solids and the inorganic nutrients (N and P). Ideally, the polishing process for an anaerobically treated effluent should be aerobic because oxidative processes complement the reductive anaerobic processes. Linking the two types of processes in that order in a treatment train is the most efficient way to achieve complete biodegradation of organic material. The means of aeration may be either mechanical, as in the activated sludge, oxidation ditch or sequencing batch reactors processes, or passive, as in constructed wetlands or a series of facultative and maturation lagoons. III. High rate, moderate power consumption treatment train: anaerobic initial treatment in series with mechanical aeration for final effluent polishing Where skilled manpower and a reliable electric power supply are available, but not enough affordable land for waste stabilization ponds, there is an alternative that consumes less power than a stand-alone mechanical aerobic treatment plant. A UASB anaerobic reactor is used for initial treatment and mechanical aeration is used to polish the anaerobic effluent to an advanced secondary quality final effluent. Figure 2 compares the characteristics of the two options.

influent 150 l/capita

activated sludge reactor 43 l/capita

settler 19 l/capita secondary quality effluent biogas

biogas

generator

electric power

return sludge sludge thickener 8.6 l/capita

UASB reactor 25 l/capita influent 150 l/capita

activated sludge reactor 14.5 l/capita

settler 19 l/capita advanced secondary quality effluent

sludge digester 32 l/capita

stabilized sludge 1.1 l/capita

return sludge excess sludge

stabilized sludge 0.25 l/capita Anaerobic/aerobic treatment plant

Stand-alone aerobic treatment plant

Figure 1. Comparison of volume per person served of wastewater treatment plant options: stand-alone aerobic versus anaerobic/aerobic

Research by Dr. Adrianus van Haandel in Brazil confirms that placing an anaerobic reactor upstream of a mechanically aerated treatment process has several important advantages over stand-alone aerobic treatment:2 o o The volume of the anaerobic/aerobic treatment train will be about half that of a conventional activated sludge plant, reducing the capital cost of the treatment plant correspondingly. The demand for electric power for mechanical aeration to polish the effluent is reduced by more than half, reducing operating costs correspondingly and reducing by half the cost of mechanical and electrical components that would be required for a stand-alone mechanical treatment plant of the same capacity; The UASB reactor substitutes for primary treatment, a standard initial treatment process used in a mechanical treatment plant, eliminating that process and associated infrastructure from the treatment train of the hybrid plant; Sludge handling accounts for half to one third of the operating costs of an activated sludge treatment plant. The hybrid plant reduces sludge handling costs to insignificance by sending excess aerobic sludge from the polishing unit to the UASB reactor, where it is stabilized and densified. The cost of expanding the capacity of an overloaded mechanical treatment plant can be lowered significantly and the final effluent quality improved by installing UASB reactors upstream of the existing treatment plant instead of adding to the aerobic mechanical treatment capacity.

Page 3

Figure 2 compares the fate of organic matter in a wastewater effluent treated in a stand-alone aerobic treatment process, or a treatment train in which the anaerobic process is in the first position. Note that the stand-alone aerobic treatment plant stabilizes half the organic matter by oxidation, while the anaerobic/aerobic treatment train oxidizes less than one fourth. In contrast, initial anaerobic treatment passively transforms half the organic matter into methane, reducing the amount of unstabilized organic matter that the aerobic process is called upon subsequently to oxidize. Also, the residual organic material in the effluent from the anaerobic/aerobic treatment train is half that of the stand-alone aerobic option, and a superior effluent quality is achieved at less than half the energy cost. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment uses both energy and investment capital more efficiently than a mechanical treatment plant in isolation.
Stand-alone aerobic treatment Anaerobic/aerobic treatment

oxidized 50% in effluent 5%

methane gas 50%

in effluent 10% Methane gas 20%

sludge 20%

sludge 23%

oxidized 22%

Figure 2. Comparison of the fate of organic matter in a stand-alone aerobic versus anaerobic/aerobic wastewater treatment

IV. Completely passive wastewater treatment train: UASB initial treatment and final effluent polishing in a constructed wetland Where land is available at an affordable price and/or an advanced quality (tertiary) final effluent is desired because of the sensitivity of the receiving waters, anaerobic initial treatment may be sequenced with a constructed wetland to polish the effluent. A constructed wetland mimics a natural marsh, which is characterized by grasses, other emergent macrophytes and/or floating aquatic plants that together function as a biological filter. Quiescent hydraulic conditions foster sedimentation of residual suspended solids, bacterial action degrades oxygen consuming substances, while plant growth assimilates the mineralized nutrients ammonium (NH42+) and orthophosphate (PO54-) that are of concern in wastewater treatment. Polishing of anaerobic effluents in wetlands takes advantage of treatment processes that are entirely passive, and only simple farm implements are needed to harvest the plant biomass that constitutes the sink. Constructed wetlands are simple to build, and may be operated by personnel with farming skills. 1 Like anaerobic reactors, the budget for operating constructed wetlands is consists primarily of labor costs. Vetiver grass (Vetiveria zizaniodes) is a fast-growing, natural hydrophyte that is at home in a marsh environment. Vetiver grass was taken from its home in India to many tropical countries by colonial agriculturalists and immigrants and is today a pan-tropical plant. However, it does not produce viable seed, is not invasive and is incapable of becoming a weed. Vetiver grass grows rapidly in constructed wetlands and is an effective biological filter to polish pre-treated municipal wastewater effluents. The resulting high quality final effluent may be reused when less than potable quality water is acceptable, for example, for many industrial applications, flushing of toilets and horticulture irrigation. Reuse of treated effluent effectively prevents residual pollutants from reaching receiving water bodies, while conserving a significant fraction of the primary water resource for higher value uses. Figure 3 illustrates the inputoutput relationships of a constructed wetland based on vetiver production. For purposes of illustration the example assumes initial concentrations of N and P in the effluent are 45 and 4 mg/l respectively.

Page 4

electric power UASB reactor 25 l/capita influent 150 l/capita

generator biogas

Constructed wetland for final effluent polishing (nutrient removal) Volume 2 m3 per capita Surface area 2 m2 per capita

26 kg (dry weight) of vetiver grass per capita per year

enhanced primary effluent

13 days hydraulic retention time complete removal of N & P removal of pathogens tertiary quality treated effluent:

stabilized sludge 0.25 l/capita

Figure 3. Anaerobic/aerobic treatment plant and final effluent polishing in a constructed wetland

Figure 4 shows vetiver grass that was grown hydroponically on a wastewater effluent in tropical Australia in an experiment to assess nutrient removal ability. The most common method of treating industrial wastewater in Queensland is by land irrigation of tropical and subtropical pasture plants. A series of research projects conducted at a gelatin factory and at an abattoir determined that vetiver grass was superior to pasture grasses used for wastewater disposal.3 Vetiver grass has the potential to produce up to 132 tonnes per hectare per year (t/ha/year) of dry matter compared to 23 and 20 t/ha/year for Kikuyu and Rhodes grass respectively. This production level of vetiver can export up to 1,920 kg/ha/year of N (nitrogen) and 198 kg/ha/year of P (phosphorus), compared to 687 of N and 77 kg/ha/year of P for Kikuyu and 399 of N and 26 of P for Rhodes grass respectively. Vetiver growth can respond positively to a supply of N up to 6,000 kg/ha/year, and, to ensure this extraordinary growth and uptake of N, the P supply level should be at 250 kg/ha/year.3

Figure 4. Root length of 780 mm after three months growth on effluent. (Dr. Paul Truong)

Vetiver grass grown on wastewater effluent is a soft and palatable forage for animals with high nutritional value. Such fodder has up to two percent N, which is equivalent to 12.5 percent crude protein, more than some tropical legumes.4 Endnotes
1

Journey, W. K. and S. McNiven. 1996. Anaerobic Enhanced Primary Treatment of Wastewater and Options for Post-Treatment. USAID Global Environment Bureau. Washington, DC. 2 Van Haandel, A. and G. Lettinga. 1995. Anaerobic Sewage Treatment: A Practical Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 3 Truong, P., and R. Ash. (in draft). The Use of Vetiver Grass Wetland for Sewerage Treatment in Australia. To be presented in Oct. 2003 at the Third International Conference on Vetiver in China.
4

Dr. Paul Truong. 2002. Personal communication.

Page 5

Annex 1: Abstracts of Selected Vetiver Research Papers The Use of Vetiver Grass Wetland for Sewerage Treatment in Australia
Ralph Ash* and Paul Truong** * Utilities Engineer, Esk Shire Council, Esk, Queensland, Australia ** Veticon Consulting, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Abstract: The Esk Shire Council has recently installed a Vetiver Grass System wetland to treat sewerage effluent at Toogoolawah in South East Queensland. The sewerage treatment plant is situated on a 22-hectare site on the northern edge of town. The aim of this scheme was to improve water quality before the effluent discharges to the natural wetlands. The biggest problem with the quality of the effluent is its high nutrient loading. With the recent changes to license conditions imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the existing treatment plant no longer complies with the license and an upgrade of the plant was required. Instead of the above set up, a new and innovative phyto-remedial technology recently developed in Queensland by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, is being implemented at Toogoolawah. Under the Vetiver Wetland System, the effluent is being treated in two stages: Preliminary treatment of the pond effluent in situ by floating pontoons placed in the ponds, and by vetiver planting around the edges of the three sewerage ponds. Main treatment by vetiver wetland, once the effluent exits the sewerage ponds it passes through a Vetiver Grass contoured wetlands constructed over 3 hectares of the land. The Vetiver Grass wetlands have been constructed in rows following the contours to allow good contact between the grass and the effluent. The Vetiver Grass takes up the water and in particular, the grass will remove the nutrients from the water that passes through it. As Vetiver Grass system is very effective in removing nutrient loads, it is expected that once the wetland is properly established there should be no release of sewerage effluent from the treatment plant except in times of heavy rainfall. This scheme will provide a large-scale prototype of possible sewerage treatment schemes that can be used throughout western Queensland and other locations where there is plenty of land and where the local government doesnt want to pay for installing and operating high cost solutions.

Response of Vetiver Grass to Extreme Nitrogen and Phosphorus Supply

Stefanie Wagner1, Paul Truong2, Alison Vieritz3 and Cameron Smeal4 Faculty for Geosciences University of Hamburg, Germany 2 Veticon Consulting, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 3 Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland, Australia 4 Davis Gelatine, Beaudesert, Queensland, Australia Abstract: Due to its unique morphological and physiological characteristics, vetiver grass has a very high level of tolerance to both adverse climatic and edaphic conditions, and recently it has been found to have a very fast and high capacity for N and P uptake in wastewater and polluted water. As a part of a project conducted to calibrate vetiver for use in a computer model - MEDLI (Model for Effluent Disposal Using Land Irrigation), a pot experiment was carried out to determine vetiver maximum capacity for N and P up take in soil with very high levels of these two elements, N supply up to 10 000 kg/ha/year and P at 1 000 kg/ha/year were used. Results show that vetiver grass has a very high capacity of absorbing N at elevated levels of N supply. Vetiver growth will respond positively to N supply up to 6 000 kg/ha/year and supply as high as 10 000kg/ha of N did not adversely affect vetiver growth. These features make vetiver highly suitable for treating wastewater and other waste materials high in N. Vetiver requirement for P was not as high as for N, and no growth response occurred at level higher than 250 kg/ha/year, but its growth was not adversely affected at the P application level as high as 1 000 kg/ha/year. However because of its very fast growth and high yield, the total amount of P uptake by vetiver still far exceeds those of other tropical and subtropical grasses. Page 6
1

Annex 2: Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Reactors

Table A: Anaerobic Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Designed and Built by EarthCAD/IRAMconsult
Capacity (MLD) 200 152 111 60 60 50 45 40 36 36 35 30 30 30 25 22 20 14 10 10 8 5 Totals 999 4,965,000 Design Population 1,000,000 760,000 555,000 300,000 300,000 250,000 225,000 200,000 180,000 (mixed municipal & tannery wastewater) 175,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 125,000 110,000 100,000 70,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 25,000 Location Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Ludhiana, Punjab Ludhiana, Punjab Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh Ras al Khaimah, UAE Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad, Haryana Karnal, Haryana Ludhiana, Punjab Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh Panip, Haryana Gurgaon, Haryana Sonip, Haryana Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh Yamunanagar, Haryana Nashik, Maharashtra Faridabad, Haryana Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh Panip, Haryana Yamunanagar, Haryana Chapra, Bihar Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh

Page 7

Technical Description and Design Parameters of UASB Reactors

Figure A is a schematic diagram illustrating the main elements of an upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor: the influent distribution system, the sludge blanket, the gas dome and the effluent collection gutters.1
biogas

effluent settling zone

deflector sludge blanket excess sludge biogas bubble fine sludge heavy sludge

pre-treated wastewater

Figure A. Schematic Diagram of a UASB Reactor

Performance: Removal efficiencies depend on water temperature, hydraulic loading, reactor design, the quality of the works and the maintenance status of the reactor. Depending on the composition of the wastewater, the removal efficiency of the UASB process may vary between 60-70 percent for COD and 75-85 percent for BOD5 at influent temperatures between 20-35o. At 24o C a properly designed and built reactor treating a typical municipal wastewater, when operated within design parameters, may be expected to average removal efficiencies of 75 percent of BOD, 70 percent of COD and 80 percent of TSS. Only negligible amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus are removed; 75-90 percent of N will be converted to ammonium ion (NH4+). Sulfur compounds are almost completely converted to hydrogen sulfide (H 2S). Removal of low concentrations of helminth ova is almost complete, but in endemic regions with high concentrations, 80-90 percent removal may be expected. Removal of pathogenic bacteria and viruses is about 50 percent. The composition of biogas generated in the reactor depends on the characteristics of the wastewater and on the loadings applied. Gas production is typically 220-250 l/kg of influent COD, excluding gas dissolved in the effluent. For an influent COD concentration of 300 mg/l, gas production will be about 60-75 l/m 3 of treated wastewater. The measured gas production is the primary control parameter of the reactor, e.g., the parameter that indicates whether the reactor is functioning properly. Lower production indicates inhibition of the biological process, sludge loss or some other problem. Sludge production depends mainly on the concentration and organic content of suspended solids in the wastewater and the SRT and is adversely affected by sludge washout.

Source: Haskoning Consulting Engineers and Architects; excerpted from their design manual for UASB reactors.

Page 8

Annex 3: Constructed Wetlands Using Vetiver Grass as a Biological Filter

Diagram of a constructed wetland using vetiver grass to polish anaerobically pretreated wastewater effluents
Floats support a hedge of vetiver grass above an effluent stream, and the roots hang free in the water column Mature hedge Regeneration of vetiver biomass maintains a dynamic sink for minerals and carbon Roots are harvested to maintain sufficient hydraulic flow area, but less often than roots (1-2 years), and vetiver hedges are reestablished by dividing the root crown into slips that are replanted
grade level water level

On a 2-3 month cycle the leaves of mature hedges are harvested, leaving the roots intact

Effluent from initial treatment in a UASB anaerobic reactor

Root crown

baffle

1.0 m

The large surface area of the vetiver root mass hosts films of heterotrophic bacteria that decompose residual COD and attenuate refractory organics

The fine, extensive vetiver root system absorbs mineralized nutrients and salts from the effluent

Vetiver roots actively oxygenate the water column by means of its aerenchyma tissue, a charcteristic of aquatic plants

The vetiver biofilter may be sized to achieve the desired effluent quality up to tertiary

The final effluent from a vetiver wetland will contain no algae, unlike waste stabilization pond effluent

Source: EarthCAD, Inc.