Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Fig 23.2. View of UASB reactor equipped with internal packing above sludge blanket
The key feature of the UASB process that allows the use of high volumetric COD
loadings compared to other anaerobic processes is the development of a dense granulated
sludge. Because of the granulated sludge floc formation, the solids concentration can range
from 50 to 100 g/L at the bottom of the reactor and 5 to 40 g/L in a more diffuse zone at the
top of the UASB sludge blanket. The granulated sludge particles have a size rang of 1.0 to 3.0
mm and result in excellent sludge-thickening properties with SVI values less than 20mL/g.
several months may be required to develop the granulated sludge, and seed is often supplied
from other facilities to accelerate the system startup. Variation sin morphology were observed
for anaerobic granulated sludge developed at 30 and 20°C, but exhibited similar floc size and
settling properties (Soto et al; 1997).
The development of granulated sludge solids is affected by the wastewater
characteristics. Granulation is very successful with high carbohydrate or sugar wastewaters,
but less so with wastewaters high in protein, resulting in a more fluffy floc instead (Thaveesri
et al; 1994). Other factors affecting the development of granulated solids are pH. Upflow
velocity, and nutrient addition (Annachhatre, 1996). The pH should be maintained near 7.0,
and a recommended COD:N:P ratio during startup is 300:5:1, while a lower ratio can be used
during steady-state operation at 600:5:1. Control of the upflow velocity is recommended
during startup by having it high enough to wash out non-flocculent sludge.
The presence of other suspended solids in the sludge blanket can also inhibit the
density and formation of granulated sludge (Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol, a991). An explanation
of the fundamental metabolic conditions associated with granular sludge formation is
provided by Speece (1996) based on work by Palns et al. (1987,1990). The explanation is as
follows. The formation of dense granulated sludge floc particles is favored under conditions
of near neutral pH ,a plug-flow hydraulic regime, a zone of high hydrogen partial pressure, a
nonlimiting supply of NH4-N, and a limited amount of the amino acid cysteine. With a high
hydrogen concentration and sufficient NH4-N, the bacteria responsible fror granulation may
produce other amino acids, but their synthesis is limited by the cysteine supply. Some of the
excess amino acids that are produced are thought to be secreted to form extracellular
polypeptides which, in turn, will bind organisms together to form the dense pellets or floc
granules.
Lecture No: 24
24.1. Anaerobic Sludge Blanket Processes
24.1.1.Up flow Sludge Blanket Reactor Process
Design Consideration for UASB Process
A comprehensive review of design consideration for UASB reactors has been
provided by Lettinga and Hulshoff Pol (1991). Important design considerations are (1) waste-
water characteristics in terms of composition and solids content, (2) volumetric organic load,
(3) upflow velocity, (4) reactor volume, (5) physical features including the influent
distribution system, and (6) gas collection system.
24.1.1.a. Wastewater Characteristics.
Wastewaters that contain substances that can adversely affect the sludge granulation,
cause foaming, or cause scum formation are of concern. Wastewaters with higher
concentrations of proteins and /or fats tend to create more of the above problems. The
fraction of particulate versus soluble COD is important in determining the design loadings for
UASB reactors as well as determining the applicability of the process. As the fraction of
solids in the wastewater increases, the ability to form a dense granulated sludge decreases. At
a certain solids concentration (greater than 6 g TSS/L) anaerobic digestion and anaerobic
contact processes may be more appropriate.
24.1.1.b. Volumetric Organic Loadings.
Typical COD loadings as function of the wastewater strength, fraction of particulate
COD in the wastewater, and TSS concentrations in the effluent are summarized in Table
24.1.
Removal efficiencies of 90 to 95 percent for COD have been achieved at COD
loadings ranging from 12 to 20 kg COD/m3.d on a variety of wastes at 30 to 35°C with UASB
reactors. Values for Tfor high-strength wastewater have been as low as 4 to 8 h at these
loadings. Where less than 90 percent COD removal and higher-effluent TSS concentrations
are acceptable, higher upflow velocities can be used, which will develop a more dense
granulated sludge by flushing out other solids. Thus, the higher volumetric COD loadings are
shown for this condition.
Table 24.1. Recommended volumetric COD loading for UASB reactors at 30°C to
achieve 85 to 95 percent COD removal a
a
Adapted from Lettinga and Hulshoff Pal (1991)
Note:kg/m3.d x 62.4280 = lb/103 ft3.d
Recommended loadings as a function of temperature for wastewaters with mainly
soluble COD are presented in Table 24.2. These loadings apply to the sludge blanket volume,
and a reactor effectiveness factor of 0.8 to 0.9 as discussed below is used to determine the
reactor liquid below the gas collector. The higher loading recommendation for the wastewater
containing mainly volatile fatty acids (VFA) is based on the potential of obtaining a more
dense granulated sludge. Design T values are also given for treatment of domestic wastewater
in Table 24.3 based on pilot-plant experience the T value needed is longer than that used in
aerobic processes for secondary treatment for BOD removal. In addition, an aerobic polishing
step would likely be needed. The economic benefits of energy savings and lower sludge
production would have to be sufficient to justify the higher capital costs for liquid treatment
with a UASB process.
Table 24.2. Recommended volumetric organic loadings as a function of temperature for
soluble COD substrates for 85 to 95 percent COD removal. Average sludge
concentration is 25 g/La
a
Adapted from Lettinga and Hulshoff Pal (1991)
Note:kg/m3.d x 62.4280 = lb/103 ft3.d
Table 24.3. Applicable hydraulic retention times T for treatment or raw domestic
wastewater in a 4-m-high UASB reactora
Temperature. °C Average τ, h Maximum τ, for 4-
to 6-h peak, h
16-19 10-14 7-9
22-26 7-9 5-7
>26 6-8 4-5
a
Adapted from Lettinga and Hulshoff Pal (1991)
24.1.1.c. Upflow Velocity. The upflow velocity, based on the flowrate and reactor area, is a
critical design parameter. Recommended design velocities are shown in Table 24.4.
temporary peak superficial velocities of 6 m/h can be allowed for soluble and partially
soluble wastewaters, respectively. For weaker wastewaters the allowable velocity and reactor
height will determine the UASB reactor volume, and for stronger wastewaters it will be
determined by the volumetric COD loading. The upflow velocity is equal to the feed rate
divided by the reactor cross-section area:
Q
V= ----- (24.1)
A
Where v = design upflow superficial velocity, m/h
A = reactor cross-section area, m2
Q = influent flowrate, m3/h
Table 24.4. Upflow velocities and reactor heights recommended for UASB reactors a
Wastewater type Upflow velocity, m/h Reactor height,m
Range Typical Range Typical
COD nearly 100% soluble 10 –3.0 1.5 6-10 8
COD partially soluble 1.0-1.25 1.0 3-7 6
Domestic waste water 0.8-1.0 0.7 3-5 5
a
Adapted from Lettinga and Hulshoff Pal (1991)
Note: m x 3.2808 =ft
m/h x 3.2808 = ft/h
24.1.1.d. Reactor Volume and Dimensions.
To determine the required reactor volume and dimensions, the organic loading,
superficial velocity, and effective treatment volume must be considered. The effective
treatment volume is that volume occupied to sludge blanket and active biomass. An
additional volume exists between the effective volume and the gas collection unit where some
additional solids separations occur and the biomass is dilute. The nominal liquid volume of
the reactor based on using a acceptable organic loading is given by.
QS 0
Vn = ----- (24.2)
L org
Where V n = nominal (effective) liquid volume of reactor, m3
Q = influent flowrate, m3/h
So = influent COD, kg COD/m3
L org = organic loading rate, kg COD/m3.d
To determine the total liquid volume below the gas collectors, an effectiveness factor
is used, which is the fraction occupied by the sludge blanket. Taking into account the
effectiveness factor, which may vary from 0.8 to 0.9, the required total liquid volume of the
reactor exclusive of the gas storage area is given by
VN
V L= ----- (24.3)
E
Where V L = total liquid volume of reactor, m 3
V n = nominal liquid volume of reactor, m 3
E = effectiveness factor, unitless
Rearranging Eq. (10-13), the area of the reactor is
Q
A= ----- (24.4)
U
The liquid height of the reactor is determined using the following relationship:
VL
HL= ----- (24.5)
A
Where H L = reactor height based on liquid volume, m
V L = total liquid reactor volume, m3
A = cross-sectional area, m2
The gas collection volume is in addition to the reactor volume and adds an additional height
of 2.5 to 3 m. Thus, the total height of the reactor is
H T = H L + HG ----- (24.6)
Where H T = total reactor height, m
H L = reactor height based on liquid volume, m
H G = reactor height to accommodate gas collection and storage, m
24.1.1.e. Physical Features.
The main physical features requiring careful consideration are the feed inlet, gas
separation, gas collection, and effluent withdrawal. The inlet and gas separation design are
unique to the UASB reactor. The feed in let must be designed to provide uniform distribution
and to avoid channeling or the formation of dead zones. The avoidance of channeling is more
critical for weaker wastewaters, as there would be less gas production to help mix the sludge
blanket. A number of inlet feed pipes are used to direct flow to different areas of the bottom
of the UASB reactor from a common feed source. Access must be provided to clean the pipes
in the event of clogging Guidelines for determining the area served by the individual inlet
feed pipes as a function of the sludge characteristics and organic loading are provided in
Table 24.5.
24.1.1.f. Gas Collection and Solid Separation.
The gas solids separator (GSS) is designed to collect the biogas, prevent washout of
solids, encourage separation of gas and solid particles, allow for solids to slide back into the
sludge blanket zone, and help improve effluent solids removal. A series of upside-down V-
shaped baffles is used next to effluent weirs to accomplish the above objectives. Guidelines
for the GSS design are summarized in Table 24.6.
Table 24.5. Guidelines for sizing the area served by the inlet feed pipes for UASB
reactora
• The slope of the settler bottom, i.e, the inclined wall of the gas collector, should be
between 45 and 60°
• The surface area of the apertures between the gas collectors should not be smaller than 15
to 20 percent of the total reactor surface area.
• The height of the gas collector should be between 1.5 and 2 m at reactor heights of 5-7 m.
• A liquid-gas interface should be maintained in the gas collector to facilitate the release
and collection of gas bubbles and to control scum layer formation
• The overlap of the baffles installed beneath the apertures should be 100 to 200 mm to
avoid upward-flowing gas bubbles entering the settler compartment.
• Generally scum layer baffles should be installed in front of the effluent weirs.
• The diameter of the gas exhaust pipes should be sufficient to guarantee the easy removal
of the biogas from the gas collection cap, particularly in the case where foaming occurs.
• In the upper part of the gas cap, antifoam spray nozzles should be installed in the case
where the treatment of the wastewater is accompanied by heavy foaming.
Advantages for the UASB process are the high loadings and relatively low detention times
possible for anaerobic treatment and the elimination of the cost of packing material. Another
major advantage is that the UASB process is, as noted previously, a process are related to
those wastewaters that are high in solids content or where their nature prevents the
development of the dense granulated sludge. The process design for the UASB process is
illustrated in Example 24.1.
Example 24.1
UASB Treatment Design. For a UASB treatment process treating an industrial wastewater,
determine the (1) size and dimension of the reactor, (2) detention time, (3) reactor SRT; (4)
average VSS concentration in biomass zone of the reactor, (5) methane gas production, (6)
energy available from methane production, and (7) alkalinity requirements for a wastewater
with the characteristics given below to achieve greater than 90 percent soluble COD removal.
The wastewater is mainly soluble, containing carbohydrate compounds, and a granular sludge
is expected. Assume 50 percent of the influent pCOD and VSS is degraded, 90 percent of the
influent sulfate is reduced biologically, and the effluent VSS concentration is 150 g/m3.
Assume the design parameters given below and the typical values given in Tables 10-10 and
10-12 are applicable.
Wastewater characteristics
---------------------------------------------------------
Item Unit Value
---------------------------------------------------------
Flowrate m3/d 1000
COD g/m3 2300
sCOD g/m3 2000
TSS g/m3 200
VSS g/m3 150
Alkalinity g/m3 as CaCO3 500
SO4 g/m3 200
Temperature °C 30
------------------------------------------------------
Design parameters and assumptions:
1. From Table 10-10,
Y = 0.08 g VSS/g COD
Kd = 0.03 g VSS/g VSS.d
µm = 0.25 g VSS/g VSS.d
2. fd = o.15 g VSS cell debris/g VSS biomass decay
3. Methane production at 35°C = 0.40 L CH4/g COD
4. Reactor volume effectiveness factor = 85 percent
5. Height for gas collection = 2.5 m
Solution
1. Determine the reactor volume based on the design organic loading and use of Eq.(10-
14).
a. From Table 24.2 select the average organic loading of 10 k Scod/m3.d
Vn = QSo = (1000 m3/d) (2 kg sCOD/m3)
Lorg (10 kg Scod/m3.d)
Vn = 200 m3
b. Determine the total reactor liquid volume using Eq.(24.3)
VL = Vn = 200m3 = 235m3
E 0.85
2. Determine the reactor dimensions.
a. First determine the reactor cross- sectional area using Eq.(24.4) based on
The design superficial velocity. Use the upflow velocity data given in Table
24.4 because the waster is highly soluble, select a velocity of 1.5 m/h.
A = Q = ( 1000 m3/d) = 27.8 m2
v (1.5 m/h) (24 h/d)
A = π D2 = 27.8m2 D = 6m
4
b. Determine the reactor liquid height using Eq. (24.5)
HL =VL = 235m3 =8.4m
A 27.8m2
c. Determine the total height of the reactor using Eq. (24.6).
HT =HL + HG = 8.4m + 2.5m = 10.9m
d. Reactor dimensions.
Diameter = 6m
Height = 10.9m
3. Determine the reactor hydraulic detention time T
T= VL = (235m3) (24 h/d) = 5.64 h
Q (1000 m3/d)
4. Determine the reactor SRT
a. The value of the SRT can be estimated by assuming that all the wasted biological
solids are in the effluent flow. A conservative consists of biomass. Thus the
following relationship applies.
QXe = PX,VSS = solids wasted per day
Both Q and X, are known. The value of PX,VSS is given by :
PX,VSS = Q (Y) (SO –S) + fd(kd) Q(Y) (SO –S) SRT + Q(nbVSS) - QXe
1 + (kd) SRT 1 + (kd) SRT
b. Develop the data needed to solve the above equation.
i The effluent soluble COD concentration at 90% COD removal is
S = (1.0 – 0.9) (2000 g/m3 ) = 200 g/m3
ii The effluent nb VSS concentration given that 50 percent of the influent VSS is
degraded is:
nbVSS = 0.50(150g/m3) = 75 g/m3
iii The pCOD degraded is
pCOD degraded = 0.50(2300 – 2000) g/m3= 150g/m3
iv. Total degradable influent COD, So
So = (2000 + 150) g/m3 = 2150 g/m3
Substitute the given parameter values and solve the expression given above for
SRT.
QXe = (1000m3/d) (150 g/m3).
= (1000m3/d) (0.08 g VSS/g COD) [(2150 – 200) g/m3]
[ 1 + (0.03 g VSS/g VSS.d) SRT]
+ (0.15g VSS/g VSS) (0.03g VSS/g VSS.d) (1000m3/d) (0.08 g VSS/g COD) [(2150 – 200 )g/m3]SRT
SRT = 52d
5. Estimate the effluent soluble COD at an SRT of 52d at 30° using Eq. (7-40) and the
given coefficients.
S = KS {1 + (kd) SRT]
SRT (Yk – kd) -1
S = 88.3 mg/L
6. Determine if the computed SRT value is adequate.
Because 4.4 percent is less than 10 percent (specified in problem statement), the
process SRT is adequate.
SRT = ____V(XTSS)___________________
( Q – Qw) Xe + QwXR
Because it was assumed that all the wasted solids are in the effluent flow, the
Term Qw = 0 and the value of XTSS can be estimated as follows:
b. Solve for the value of XTSS, with the volume Vequal to the effective,
Volume ,Vn
b. Determine the COD removes with sulfate as the electron acceptor. From
Sec, 10-3, 0.67 g COD removed/g SO4 reduced
Total gas volume produced (use 65% methane per Table 10-10)
= (719.9m3/d)/(0.65) = 1107.5 m3/d
• Adsorption properties help prevent toxic and inhibitory substances from decreasing
biological treatment performance.
Concentration of degradable substrate can be reduced to below toxic levels
Other toxic substances can be removed to protect bacteria
• Adsorption properties may help acclimate and enhance biomass degradation of toxic
compounds by providing more time of exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solids capture is minimal in the anaerobic FBR due to the high turbulence and thin
biofilms developed. With little solids capture, the process is better suited for wastewaters
with mainly soluble COD. Solids discharged in the effluent from sloughed biofilm are
minimized by controlling the biofilm inventory in the reactor. As biomass accumulates on the
FBR packing, the net particle density decreases and the particle migrates to the top of the
reactor. Periodic removal of these solids can control biofilm sloughing and minimize effluent
TSS concentrations. The removed particles are mechanically processed to separate biomass
from the sand, which is returned to the FBR.
Startup of anaerobic FBR S must be done with more care than the other types of high-
rate anaerobic reactors. A higher hydraulic application rate is recommended at first to select
for bacteria that more readily attach to the reactor packing under the highly turbulent
conditions (Sutton and Huss, 1984; Denac and Dunn, 1998). The startup time can take 3 to 6
months. In a laboratory study by Tay and Zhang (2000) the startup and performance of an
aerobic FBR was compared to that for an anaerobic UASB reactor and upflow packed-bed
reactor. All three could achieve COD loading of 10 kg COD/m3.d at 35° C in 3 months with
an influent COD concentration of 5000 mg/L (primarily glucose) and a T of 12 h. The COD
removal efficiency was best for the FBR and UASB reactors, about 96 percent compared to
90 percent for the upflow packed bed reactor.
Process COD loading values of 10 to 20 kg COD/m3.d are feasible for anaerobic
FBRS with greater than 90 percent COD removal, depending on the type of wastewater.
Treatment performance is higher for FBRS than upflow packed-bed reactors at higher
loadings due to a greater mass transfer rate due to the turbulent mixing. Reactor biomass
concentrations of 15 to 20 g/L can be established in anaerobic FBRS (Malina and Pohland,
1992). Anaerobic FBR loadings and performance data are presented in Table 24.11. Bench-
scale or pilot-plant studies are normally done before establishing full-scale design loadings.
Table 24.11. Examples of process operating conditions and performance for anaerobic
FBRSa
Wastewater Temperature, COD loading τ, d COD
°C kg/m3.d removed, %
Citric acid 35 42 24 70
Starch, whey 35 8.2 105 99
Milk 37 3-5 18-12 71-85
Molasses 36 12-30 3-8 50-95
Glucose 35 10 12 95
Sulfite, pulp 35 3-18 3-62 60-80
a
Adapted from Denac and Dunn (1998).
Note:kg/m3.d x 62.4280 = lb/103 ft3.d
The advantages for the anaerobic FBR process include the ability to provide high
biomass concentrations and relatively high organic loadings, high mass transfer
characteristics, the ability to handle shock loads due to its mixing and dilution with recycle,
and minimal space requirements. The process is best suited for soluble wastewaters due to its
inability to capture solids. Care must also be taken in the inlet and outlet designs to assure
good flow distribution. Other disadvantages include the pumping power required to operate
the fluidized bed, the cost of reactor packing, the need to control the packing level and
wasting biogrowth, and the length of startup time.
24.2.4. Downflow Attached Growth Processes
Downflow attached growth anaerobic processes, as illustrated on Fig. 24.3, have been
applied for treatment of high-strength wastewaters using a variety of packing materials
including cinder block, random plastic, and tubular plastic. Packing heights are in the range
of 2 to 4 m, and systems are designed to allow recirculation of the reactor effluent.
Fig 24.3. Downflow attached growth anaerobic treatment reactor with plastic packing
°Adapted in part from Speece (1996); Lomas et al.(1999); Fredericks et al., (1994); and
Jhung and Choi (1995).
Note:kg/m3.d x 62.4280 = lb/103 ft3.d
The major advantages for the downflow attached growth process, where a higher void
space packing material is used, are a simpler inlet flow distribution design, no plugging
problems, and a simple operation. For systems with aerobic treatment following anaerobic
treatment, the solids are captured in the aerobic process and thus do no accumulate in the
attached growth process. Similar to the other anaerobic processes used for high-strength
industrial wastewater treatment, benefits include the ability to treat high COD loadings with
relatively small reactor volume sizes. Disadvantages include the cost of the packing material,
and the somewhat lower organic loading rates to achieve the same treatment efficiency as the
UASB and FBR processes.
Lecture No: 25
Fig 25.1. Definition sketch for the conduct of health effects risk assessment
Dose-Response Assessment. The fundamental goal of a dose-response assessment is to
define a relationship (typically mathematical) between he amount of a toxic constituent to
which a human is exposed and the risk that there will be an unhealthy response to that dose in
humans. The relative sensitivity of epidemiological studies in defining excess risk is
illustrated on Fig. 25.2.a. Typical does-response relationships for carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic constituent are illustrated on Fig. 25.2.b. It should be noted that it is
assumed that there is no threshold for potentially carcinogenic constituents. Although the
does-response curve for a carcinogenic constituent is shown passing through the origin, data
are not available at extremely low doses (see Fig. 25.3.a). Therefore, mathematical models
have been developed to define the dose response at low concentrations. Typical dose-
response models that have been proposed and used for human exposure include (1) the
single-hit model, (2) the multistage model, (3) the linear multistage model, (4) the multihit
model, and (5) the probit model. The characteristics of these models are summarized in Table
25.1.
Model b Description
One-hit A single exposure can lead to the development of a tumor
Multistage The formation of a tumor is the result of a sequence of biological
events
Linear multistage Modification of the multistage model. The model is linear at low
doses with a constant of proportionality that statistically will
produce less than 5 percent chance of underestimating risk
Multihit Several interactions are required before cell becomes transformed
Probit Tolerance of exposed population is assumed to follow a long-
normal (probit)distribution
a
Adapted from Cockerham and Shane (1994), Pepper et al. (1996).
b
In all of the models cited above, it is assumed that exposure to the toxic constituent will
always produce an effect regardless of the dose.
Recommended standard values for daily intake calculations have also been developed
by EPA. The average body weights used for an adult and child are 70 and 10 kg, respectively,
and the corresponding rates of water ingestion are 2 and 1 liter(s) per day (U.S. EPA, 1986b).
The potency factor PF, often identified as the slope factor, is the slope of the
doseresponse curve, at very low doses (see Fig. 25.2.b). The U.S. EOA has selected the linear
multistage model as the basis for assessing risk. In effect, the PF corresponds to the risk
resulting from a lifetime average dose of 1.0 mg/kg.d. The U.S. EPA maintains a database on
toxic substances known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA, 1996).
Typical toxicity data for several chemical constituents are reported in Table 25.2.
Table: 25.2 Toxicity data for selected potential carcinogenic chemical constituents a, b
Potency factor, PF
Chemical constituent CASRN c Oral route, Inhalation route,
(mg/kg.d)-1 (µg/kg.d)-1
Arsenic, inorganic 7440-38-2 1.5 E+0 3.0 E-2
Benzene 71-43-2 1.5 to 5.5 E-2 1.54 to 5.45 E-5
Bromate 15541-45-4 7 E-1 Na
Chloroform 67-66-3 6.1 E-3 1.6 E-4
Dieldrin 60-57-1 1.6 E+1 3.2 E-2
Heptachlo 76-44-8 4.5 E+0 9.1 E-3
N- 55-18-5 1.2 E+2 3.0 E-1
Nitrosodienthylamin
N- 62-75-9 5.1 E+1 9.8 E-2
Nitrosodimethlamine
Vinyl chlorided 75-01-4 7.2 E-1 3.1 to 6.2 E-5
a
U.S. EPA IRIS database (2996) (http://www.epa.gov/iris).
b
Because the data in the IRIS database is being revised continuously, it is
important to check the database for the most current values.
c
Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number.
d
Continuous lifetime exposure during adulthood.
Comparing the magnitude of the given values listed in Table 25.2, the relative potency
of the chemical constituents can be assessed (e.g., for the oral route, the potency of arsenic is
about 245 times that of chloroform). Because of the numerous uncertainties involved in the
development of the database, it is important to remember that the values given in the IRIS
database cannot be used to predict the incidence of human disease or the type of effects a
given chemical constituent will have on an individual The data included extrapolations of
animal data to humans and from high experimental dosages to the low environmental dosages
encountered in real life. Use of the data given in Table 25.2 is illustrated in Example 25.1.
Example 25.1
Risk Assessment for Drinking Groundwater Containing Trace Amounts of N-
Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), Estimate the incremental cancer risk for an adult associated
with drinking 2 L per day of groundwater containing 2.0 µg/L of N-Nitrosodimethlyamine
(NDMA) using data from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S.EPA, 1996).
To limit NDMA exposure to acceptable cancer risk of 1 in 1,00,000 determine the
concentration of NDMA that can be allowed in extracted groundwater.
Solution
1. Compute the CDI using Eq. 25.4.
Average daily dose, mg/d
CDI = -------------------------------
Body weight, kg
2. Compute the lifetime risk using Eq. 13-3 and date form Table 25.2.
Incremental lifetime risk = CDI x PF
The potency factor from Table 25.2 for the oral route for NDMA is 5.1 x 10
(mg/kg.d)-1 Thus,
Incremental lifetime risk = (0.57 x 10 –4 mg/kg.d) [5.1 x 10 (mg/kg.d)-1]
= 2.9 x 10-3
From the results of this analysis, the estimated probability of developing elevated cancer
risks as a result of drinking the groundwater containing 2.0 µg/L of NDMA is 2.9 per 1000
persons.
3. Determine the concentration of NDMA to limit the acceptable cancer risk to 1
in 1,00,000
a. Estimate the CDI
10-5 = (CDI) [5.1 x 10 (mg/kg.d)-1]
CDI = 1.96 x 10-7 mg/kg.d
b. Estimate the concentration of NDMA
Comment: The U.S. EPA-proposed drinking water standard for NDMA is 2.0 ng/L. Because
of concern over the carcinogenocity of NDMA, the Ontario, Canada, Drinking Water
Objective has been set at 9 ng/L, based on a cancer risk to 1 in 1,00,000 estimated by the
U.S.EPA (Andrews and Taguchi, 2001).
In addition to the carcinogenic dose-response information, the U.S. EPA has
developed reference doses (RfD) for a number of constituents based on the assumption that
thresholds exist for certain toxic effects (see Fig. 25.2), such as cellular necrosis (localized
death of living tissue), but may not exist for other toxic effects, such as carcinogenicity. IN
general, RfDs are established based on reported results from human epidemiological data,
long-term animal studies, and other available toxicological information. The RfD values
represent an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily
exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime (U.S. EPA, 1989a). RfD values are
available in the IRIS database (U.S. EPA, 1996) and in the Health Effects Assessment
Summary Tables (U.S. EPA, 1991).
The RfD is used a sa reference point for assessing the potential effects of other doses.
Usually, doses that are less than the RfD are not likely to be associated with health risks. As
the frequency of exposure exceeds the RfD and the size of excess increases, the probability
increases that adverse health effects may be observed in a human population. The RfD is
derived using the following formula:
NOAEL or LOAEL
RfD = ---------------------------
(UF1x UF2…) x MF
Risk Characterization
The final step in risk assessment is risk characterization, in which the question of
who is affected and what are the likely effects are defined to the extent they are known.
assessments to arrive at the quantitative probabilities that effects will occur in humans
from consuming highly treated reclaimed water and health and environmental effects
environmental risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 1986a). Risks of less than 1 in 10,000 are
considered minimal.
Risk Management
management strategies for specific constituents including both toxic constituents and
present at higher than the maximum allowable concentration based on the risk
Ecological risk assessment is similar to risk assessment for humans in that the
ecological effects of exposure to one or more stressors are assessed. A stressor is defined
biological system. It should be noted that ecological risk assessments are undertaken for
a variety of reasons such as to assess the potential impacts of the discharge of treated
ecological risk assessment is illustrated on Fig. 25.4 involving (1) problem formulation,
in which the characteristics of the stressor are identified, (2) identification and
characterization of the ecosystem at risk and the exposure modes, (3) identification of
likely ecological risks, and (4) risk characterization, in which all of the information and
data are integrated along with input from the risk manager (U.S.EPA, 1992b). Because
the field of ecological risk assessment is continually undergoing change, the latest
not possible or are economically out of reach, a number of investigators have sought to
assess the risk of using reclaimed water of varying quality different reuse applications
Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture (1989) is
In the United States, the constituents in reclaimed water that have received the most attention
are enteric viruses because of their low-dose infectivity, long-term survival in the
environment, difficulties in monitoring them, and their low removal and inactivation efficacy
in conventional wastewater treatment. However, more recently, other inorganic and organic
constituents that may be present in treated wastewater such as arsenic and NDMA have
received considerable attention because of their significant potency factors (see Table 25.2).
Health risks associated with enteric viruses in reclaimed water that are typically
encountered in the California water reuse conditions were analyzed by a quantitative
microbial risk assessment approach (Tanaka et al., 1998). Past monitoring data from four
wastewater treatment facilities in California on enteric virus concentrations in unchlorinated
secondary effluents were used. To assess potential health risks associated with the use of
reclaimed water in various reuse applications, four exposure scenarios were tested: (1) golf
course irrigation, (2) food crop irrigation, (3) recreational impoundments, and (4)
groundwater recharge. Because enteric virus concentrations in unchlorinated secondary
effluents were found to vary over a wide range, characterizing their variability was found to
be extremely important in this study.
Two concepts related to safety of water reuse were used: (1) the reliability, defined as
the probability that the risk of infection does not exceed an acceptable risk, and (2) the
expectation, defined by acceptable annual risk in which exposure to the enteric viruses may
be estimated stochastically by numerical simulation such as the Monte Carlo methods. In the
U.S. EPA Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) (U.S. EPA, 1989b), it is assumed that one
infection per 10,000 population per year due to pathogens is acceptable in the public water
supply. Therefore, if 10 – 4 annual risk of infection (less than or equal to 1 infection per 10,000
population per year) is set as an acceptable risk for water reclamation and reuse, the
reliability (percent of time that infection risk due to exposure to enteric viruses in reclaimed
water is less than the acceptable risk) is presented in Table 25.3
From the results of the analysis presented in Table 25.3, the reliability or relative
safety of water reuse can be assessed in comparison to the domestic water supply meeting the
SWTR. When the effluent from the full treatment with high chlorine does of about 10 mg/L is
used, there is virtually no difference in terms of a probability of enteric virus infection
whether reclaimed water or domestic water is used for golf course irrigation, crop irrigation,
and groundwater recharge. However, depending on the water quality of the secondary
effluent, there is a considerable difference in water reuse for recreational impoundment where
body contact sports and swimming may take plant. Similar observations can be made for the
use of chlorinated secondary effluent and the reclaimed water from contact filtration with low
chlorine does of less than 5 mg/L.
The utility of the study conducted by Tanaka et al. (1998), as described above, was
that their findings were able to provide a basis for conservative assessment of microbiological
requirements promulgated in the California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria (State of CA,
1978) for variety of water reuse applications. Based on the professional judgment and the
research findings, California Department of Health Services was able to ensure safe and
reliable water reuse practices.
Lecture No: 26
26.1.Aerobic composting
Composting is a biological process based on aerobic transformation of biodegradable
wastes. The result of composting is a dark, humus like material that has fertilizing and soil
texture improving properties. Composting can be used on almost all types of biodegradable
wastes such as food residues, yard waste, and sewage sludge. During the composting process
oxygen is consumed, CO2, H2O and energy (heat) is produced. The overall reaction occurring
during composting can in a simple manner be formulated as
Heat production causes the temperature in the composting material to rise and
increases the biological degradation rate in the early stages of the composting process. Later
when the easily degradable organic material has been degraded the rate of transformation and
temperature gradually decreases to ambient levels.
26.2. Composting biology
Most of the organisms responsible for the transformation of the organic material are
microbes. Some important groups of microorganisms are bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungi.
The bacteria are responsible for the turnover of approximately 80-90% of the organic matter
transformed. Bacteria grow faster and are better adapted to the low oxygen concentrations
and high temperatures often found in the early stages of the composting process.
Actinomycetes are a group of filamentous organisms that are often found in blue-grey
powder-like colonies. Both actinomycetes and fungi are relatively slow growing organisms
that are less tolerant of low oxygen concentrations and high temperatures compared to the
bacteria. The microbial populations and the temperature in the compost often follow a
specific pattern dictated by the degradation of compounds in the organic matter. The
composting process can be divided into four phases.
The initial phase is the first period after initiation of the compost process where the
temperature rises to about 50oC over a period of a few days (Fig. 26.1). During this phase the
population of especially bacteria increases rapidly and compounds that are easily degradable,
such as sugars, starch, proteins and fats are degraded. Due to the rapid rate of degradation and
oxygen consumption it is often difficult to provide enough oxygen for the biological
processes and the compost will have a tendency to develop anaerobic pockets. Modest
decreases in pH may be observed due to the production of organic acids by anaerobic
organisms. The organisms active during the initial phase are mesophilic (optimal temperature
35-45 oC) and thermophilic (optimal temperature (55 – 60 oC) bacteria.
Fig 26.1. Top: Microbial succession during the composting process
Bottom: Idealized temperature variation in the compost during the course of the
composting process
If the conditions in the composting material are well maintained the composting
material are well maintained the composting process will normally enter the thermophilic
phase next. This phase involves especially thermophilic bacteria and also certain
thermophilic actinomycetes and fungi. During this phase the temperature can exceed 70oC
and temperatures as high as 80-85 oC have been observed during composting o sewage
sludge. The pH usually increases to about 7.5 due to the destruction of the organic acids. Near
the end of the thermophilic phase when the readily degradable organic material has been
removed by the microorganisms only organic materials such as hemicellulose, lignin, chitin,
and similar compounds that are more difficult to degrade remain. The microbial activity
especially concerning the bacteria begins to decrease and the temperature in the compost
begins to fall. At this point the composting process is not yet finished and the compost is
sometimes called raw compost.
Upon completion of the thermophilic phase the temperature decreases to levels where
the mesophilic organisms have their optimum and the composting process enters the
mesophilic phase. During this phase where the temperature ranges between 35 and 45 oC the
more difficult to-degrade components such as cellulose and lignin are decomposed. During
the mesophilic phase several types of bacteria are still very active but it is especially the
actinomycetes and fungi that are important during this phase. Actinomycetes and fungi are
better adapted to utilize the more difficult degradable compounds compared to most of the
bacteria. Some fungi can even produce penicillin that will kill some of the bacteria. The
mesophilic phase can take up to several weeks to complete. At the end of the mesophilic
phase the compost is often called finished compost.
The final phase of the composting process is termed the cooling phase, during this
phase the temperature slowly decreases to near ambient levels during a time span of several
weeks, the microbial degradation of the organic material will be almost completed when
entering the cooling phase and the rate of degradation will approach that of a natural soil. The
organic matter remaining consists of very complex compounds with humus like structures
that are difficult to degrade. The pH during this phase will normally stay relatively constant at
about 8. Towards the end of the cooling phase higher organisms such as worms and insects
will often colonize the compost. The compost is now termed mature compost and the
structure of the organic matter in the compost will closely resemble that of humus.