Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Bioresource Technology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biortech

Community onsite treatment of cold strong sewage in a UASB-septic tank

Wafa Al-Jamal, Nidal Mahmoud *
Institute of Environmental and Water Studies (IEWS), Birzeit University, P.O. Box 14, Birzeit, The West Bank, Palestine

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Two community onsite UASB-septic tanks namely R1 and R2 were operated under two different HRT (2
Received 13 May 2008 days for R1 and 4 days for R2) in parallel over a year and monitored over the cold half of the year. During
Received in revised form 27 July 2008 the monitoring period, the sewage was characterised by a high CODtot of 905 mg/l with a high fraction of
Accepted 28 July 2008
CODss, viz. about 43.7%, and rather low temperature of 17.3 °C. The achieved removal efficiencies in R1
Available online 7 September 2008
and R2 for CODtot, CODsus, CODcol, CODdis, BOD5 and TSS were ‘‘51%, 83%, 20%, 24%, 45% and 74%” and
‘‘54%, 87%, 10%, 28%, 49% and 78%”, respectively. The difference in the removal efficiencies of those
Keywords:
parameters in R1 and R2 is marginal and was only significant (p < 0.05) for CODsus. The sludge filling per-
Anaerobic wastewater treatment
Onsite
iod of the reactors is expected to be 4–7 years. In view of that, the UASB-septic tank system is a robust
Domestic sewage and compact system as it can be adequately designed in Palestine at 2 days HRT.
UASB-septic tank Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Decentralised wastewater management is inevitable for com-
prehensive sustainable wastewater treatment and environmental
protection world wide. For instance, in Palestine only 6% of the to-
tal West Bank population is served with functioning treatment
facilities consisting of a one centralised extended aeration waste-
water treatment plant. The Palestinian experience with construct-
ing that plant is not too promising due to the technical
requirements and the fractional recovery of the operational and
capital costs. The inadequacy of the centralised main stream tech-
nologies is also evident in Europe and the United States. The chal-
lenge there is to provide wastewater management services for
remote houses and settlements (Scandura and Sobsey, 1997;
Luostarinen and Rintala, 2005).
Several treatment systems, such as trickling filter, activated
sludge, septic tank, membrane bioreactor (MBR), constructed wet-
land (CW) and ponds have been applied for onsite wastewater
treatment (Lens et al., 2001; Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 2003; Abegglen
et al., 2008; Carty et al., 2008). Anaerobic technologies are the core
of the sustainable decentralised wastewater treatment systems
(Lettinga, 1996; Hammes et al., 2000; Mahmoud et al., 2004;
Luostarinen et al., 2007). The interest in the anaerobic systems,
as had been traditionally perceived, is due to process simplicity,
low operational costs and the independency on electricity. The
need for energy efficiency and CO2 emission reduction potentials
are prime driving forces for applying anaerobic technologies in re-
cent environmental engineering trends (van Lier, 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +970 2 2982120.
E-mail address: nmahmoud@birzeit.edu (N. Mahmoud).
For more than 150 years, the septic tank had been widely ap-
plied for onsite anaerobic pre-treatment of sewage. A significant
improvement of the septic tank was achieved last two decades
by applying upward flow and gas/solids/liquid separation device
at the top, which resulted in the so called UASB-septic tank system
(Lettinga et al., 1991; Bogte et al., 1993; Zeeman et al., 2000). The
reactor is operated in an upflow mode as a UASB reactor resulting
in both improved physical removal of solids and improved biolog-
ical conversion of dissolved components, and sludge gradually
accumulates and stabilises in the reactor, as in a septic tank
(Zeeman et al., 2000).
The UASB-septic tank was firstly investigated for the onsite
sewage treatment at Dutch and Indonesian ambient conditions
by Lettinga and his co-workers (Lettinga et al., 1991, 1993; Bogte
et al., 1993). Recently, Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008) reported
results about the system performance during start up period in Pal-
estine. In Palestine sewage is characterised with high COD concen-
trations exceeding sometimes 1500 mg/l with high fraction of
CODss (up to 70–80%) and sewage temperature goes below 15 °C
during winter time (Mahmoud et al., 2003; Halalsheh et al.,
2005). They operated two UASB-septic tanks for a 6 months period
during the hot half of the year, but the system performance during
the subsequent cold half of the year was not investigated. Previous
research has demonstrated that the performance of single stage
UASB systems at low temperatures (5–20 °C) is severely limited
by the slow hydrolysis of entrapped solids that accumulate in the
sludge bed (Zeeman and Lettinga, 1999). This phenomenon is of
particular concern when the reactor is fed with highly concen-
trated raw sewage at low temperature as the case in Palestine
and some other Middle Eastern countries with Mediterranean cli-
mate like Jordan during the cold half of the year. Leitão et al.

0960-8524/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.07.050
1062 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068

Nomenclature

CODtot amount of total COD in the tested sample (mg COD/l) CODCH4 amount of produced CH4(liquid form + gas form) (mg CH4 as
CODtot, infand CODtot, eff amount of total COD in influent and COD/l); CH4(liquid form) was calculated according to
effluent (mg COD/l) Henry’s law assuming 70% of the biogas is CH4
CODdis, inf and CODdis, eff amount of dissolved COD in influent and CODaccumulated amount of accumulated COD in the reactor (mg/l)
effluent (mg COD/l)
CODVFA, inf and CODVFA, eff amount of VFA in influent and effluent
(mg VFA as COD/l)

(2006) reported that the use of the UASB system for the treatment mand (COD), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total PO4–P, dis-
of sewage with relatively high COD concentration is still undergo- solved PO34 -P, and SO4
2
were measured according to standard
ing trials and argued that such knowledge is important to improve methods (APHA, 1995). Raw samples were used for measuring to-
the reliability of anaerobic processes. tal COD (CODtot), 4.4 lm folded paper-filtered (Schleicher and
The main objectives of this research were to asses the process Schuell 5951/2, Germany) samples for paper-filtered COD (CODp)
performance of the community onsite UASB-septic tank for the and 0.45 lm membrane-filtered (Schleicher and Schuell ME 25,
treatment of concentrated sewage under rather low temperature Germany) samples for dissolved COD (CODdis). The suspended
conditions and to increase the knowledge on the system design. COD (CODss) and colloidal COD (CODcol) were calculated as the dif-
To achieve those objectives, two UASB-septic tank reactors were ference between CODtot and CODp and the difference between
operated in Palestine under ambient conditions at HRTs of 2 and 4 CODp and CODdis, respectively. The volatile fatty acids (VFA) anal-
days for a whole year. The results of the reactors performance dur- ysis was carried out as described by Buchauer (1998). pH was mea-
ing the start up period of 6 months coinciding the hot half of the year sured using EC pH meter (HACH). All samples were analysed in
were previously presented by Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008). In duplicate except VFA and SVI in single.
this research, the results of the reactors performance over the last Biodegradability of the effluent COD and sludge stability of both
6 months which are the cold period of the year are presented. reactors were measured twice in duplicate. These parameters were
assessed using batch reactors of 500 ml working volume incubated
2. Methods at 30 °C for a period of 120 days as described by Mahmoud et al.
(2003).
Experimental set-up: Two UASB-septic tank reactors, namely R1
and R2, were installed in parallel at the centralised sewage treat- 2.2. Calculations
ment plant of Al-Bireh City/Palestine. The reactors were made of
galvanized steel with working volumes of 0.8 m3 (height 2.50 m 2.2.1. Biodegradability and stability
and diameter 0.638 m). Nine sampling ports were installed along
Biodegradability=stabilityð%Þ ¼ 100ðCODCH4 =CODtot; t¼0 days Þ ð1Þ
the reactor height at 0.25 m for sludge sampling, with the first port
at 0.15 m from the bottom of the reactors. The influent was distrib-
uted in the reactor through polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube with four 2.2.2. Hydrolysis, acidification and methanogenesis
outlets located 5 cm from the bottom. Biogas was passed through a Percentage of hydrolysis (H), acidification (A) and methanogen-
16% NaOH solution for CO2 scrubbing, and then methane quantity esis (M) were calculated according to Eqs. (2)–(4), respectively.
was continuously measured by wet gas meters.  
CODCH4 þ CODdis; eff  CODdis; inf
Pilot plants start-up, operation and monitoring: The UASB-septic H ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð2Þ
CODtot; inf  CODdis; inf
tank reactors were previously started up and operated at ambient  
environmental conditions for a 6 months period (April 2004– CODCH4 þ CODVFA; eff  CODVFA; inf
A ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð3Þ
October 2004) covering the hot half of the year by Al-Shayah and CODtot; inf  CODVFA; inf
 
Mahmoud (2008). Right after that, within the here presented re- CODCH4
M ð%Þ ¼ 100 ð4Þ
search, the reactors were further operated and monitored for the CODtot; inf
subsequent cold 6 months of the year (October 2004 till March
2005). The reactors were fed with domestic sewage pre-treated
with screens and grit removal chamber. The sewage was pumped 2.2.3. COD – mass balance
continuously to a holding tank (200 l plastic container), with a res- CODtot; inf ¼ CODaccumulated þ CODCH4 þ CODtot; eff ð5Þ
ident time of about 5 minutes, where the reactors were fed and the
influent was sampled. Grab samples of raw sewage and reactors
effluents were collected and analysed 2–3 times a week. Samples 2.3. Statistical data analysis
were stored at 4 °C till being analysed. Daily monitoring included
wastewater and ambient air temperature and biogas production Statistical comparisons of means was followed by ‘‘Paired sam-
measurements. The atmospheric pressure was measured in situ. ples t-test” for the measured parameters of the two reactors using
At the end of the research period, viz. 1 year of operation, the the SPSS program for windows – Release 11.0.0, SPSSÒ Inc. (2001),
whole sludge was emptied from the both reactors and the sludge with p-value < 0.05 considered significantly different.
volume and TSS and VSS were measured.
3. Results and discussion
2.1. Analytical methods
3.1. Influent specifications
Total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended solids (VSS),
total solids (TS), volatile solids (VS), sludge volume index (SVI), The results presented in Table 1 reveal that the sewage used in
ammonium (NHþ 4 ), Kjeldahl-nitrogen (Kj-N), chemical oxygen de-
this research is rather concentrated. However, the CODtot is less
 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068 1063

Table 1
Influent and effluent characteristics and removal efficiency (%) in the two UASB-septic tanks operated at 2 and 4 days HRT during the cold half of the year in Palestine under the
imposed operational conditions

Parameter Sample Influent UASB-septic tank (R1) (HRT = 2 days) UASB-septic tank (R2) (HRT = 4 days)
number concentration
Effluent concentration Removal efficiency (%) Effluent concentration Removal efficiency (%)
Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average
CODtot 41 905 (254) 213–611 433 (109) 32–69 51 (9) 115–680 408 (109) 29–77 54 (11)
CODss 41 396 (164) 5–142 62 (34) 58–99 83 (10) 8–151 45 (30) 66–97 87 (8)
CODcol 41 135 (43) 9–215 104 (46) (38)–96 20 (32) 9–183 112 (41) (36)–92 10 (37)
CODdis 41 350 (124) 62–504 265 (96) (6)–56 24 (15) 66–481 248 (94) (34)–58 28 (18)
VFA as COD 41 99 (56) 10–178 80 (37) (135)–76 1 (52) 4–186 69 (38) (238)–89 2 (82)
BOD5 13 502 (133) 410–132 283 (81) 25–60 43 (12) 133–331 246 (64) 15–65 49 (16)
NKj as N 14 70 (10.31) 45–77 58 (7.5) 5.2–29 17 (7.2) 45–74 59 (8.4) 4.6–33 15 (8.3)
NHþ
4 as N 19 39.2 (18) 7.2–75.5 35.6 (20.2)–60.7 11.5 (20.7) 3.7–72 36 (21.2) (14.2)–59.4 13.1 (22.6)
(20.7)
Total PO4 as P 11 10.1 (3.5) 4.2–13.4 9.8 (3) (45.2)–24.3 0.43 (16.6) 4.7–14 10.25 (3.1) (42.7)–24 4.34
(16.4)
PO3
4 as P 11 8.4 (4.1) 3.6–16.7 10.7 (4.5) (194.5)– 37.8 4.4–18.3 11.9 (4.5) (193.1)– 57.3 (59)
(2.6) (53.5) (7.8)
SO2
4 15 94.7 (24) 20.9– 38.4 (8.2) 44.7–76.3 57.65 (8.5) 18.5–55 36.47 51.84–74.73 61.45 (6.2)
49.4 (10.7)
TSS 13 371 (141) 50–130 89 (29) 50–87 74 (10) 20–119 73 (32) 52–95 78 (11)
VSS 13 313 (128) 40–109 75 (26) 49–89 74 (10) 16–102 59 (27) 48–95 78 (12)
(VSS/TSS) 13 83 (4) 73–97 84 (6) – – 72–86 81 (4) – –
pH 39 7.6 (0.3) 7.14– 7.44 (0.1) – – 7.1–7.8 7.47 (0.16) – –
7.68
Biodegradability* 2 – 37.3– 47.64 – – 34.4– 41.7 (7.5) – –
59.4 (9.6) 51.9

All parameters are in mg/l except: pH no units; VSS/TSS (%); biodegradability (%).
Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
*
Biodegradability was examined twice at day 204 and day 250 from the start up of the reactors.

than that reported during the hot half of the year of 1267 mg/l by
Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008) most probably due to dilution
with rain water. The CODss represented the highest fraction of
CODtot of 43.7%, followed by CODdis, then CODcol of, respectively,
38.6% and 14.9%. The sewage temperature was rather low fluctuat-
ing in the range 12–25 °C with an average value of 17.34 °C. The
imposed organic loading rates (OLR) to R1 and R2 were, respec-
tively, 0.45(0.12) and 0.23(0.06) kg COD/m3 d.
3.2. Performance of the two UASB-septic tanks
The influent and effluent CODtot concentration and the achieved
removal efficiencies of the two reactors are presented in Table 1
and Fig. 1. The results indicate that R2 (4 days HRT) was apparently
more efficient than R1 (2 days HRT) in removing all COD fractions
except the colloidal part. However, the difference in the removal
efficiencies was marginal and it was only significant for CODsus
(q < 0.05).
The effluent CODsus, as well as TSS and VSS, in both reactors was
quite stable and the removal efficiencies were high, despite the low
operational temperature. The low temperature was expected to
negatively affect the CODss removal (Mahmoud et al., 2003). The
removal of CODsus was even the highest as compared with other
COD fractions (Fig. 1). Similarly, Luostarinen et al. (2007) showed
that the low temperature did not affect the CODss removal in
UASB-septic tank treating black water. The settleability of the
effluent solids was very poor as the SVI was nil, which is in agree-
ment with the results previously reported by Al-Shayah and Mah-
moud (2008).
The achieved CODcol removal efficiencies were rather low in the
both reactors. Even negative CODcol removal efficiencies were ob-
served occasionally (Table 1). Elmitwalli (2000) attributed the neg-
ative CODcol removal to CODcol increase generated from CODsus that
had been digested.
The CODdis removal efficiencies were relatively low in the both
reactors (Table 1 and Fig. 2). The CODdis in the effluent of R1 and R2
represented the highest fraction of CODtot of, respectively, 75.7%
and 70.8%. Similarly, Halalsheh (2002) and Seghezzo (2004) re-
ported during anaerobic sewage treatment about 50% of the efflu-
ent CODtot to be in the dissolved form. The VFA removal efficiencies
were negligible and frequently negative in both reactors. However,
most of the effluent CODdis was in a non-acidified form since the
VFA represented only 30% and 27.8% from the effluent CODdis of
R1 and R2, respectively. Likewise, van der last and Lettinga
(1992) and Wang (1994) reported in anaerobically treated sewage
around 50% non-acidified CODdis out of the effluent CODtot. Appar-
ently, the dissolved fraction of the effluent COD consisted (partly)
of soluble microbial products (SMP), which are resistant to micro-
bial degradation (Aquino and Stuckey, 2001). The VFA concentra-
tion in the effluent was affected by temperature and the
methanogenic conditions. The production of the VFA decreased
during the here investigated cold half of the year as compared to
the results of the first hot half (Al-Shayah and Mahmoud, 2008).
The negative and low removal efficiencies of CODdis accompanied
with increase in the effluent VFA concentration in comparison with
the influent reflects poor methanogenisation process in the two
reactors.
3.3. Hydrolysis, acidification and methanogenesis
The percentages and course of COD hydrolysis, acidification and
methanogenesis in R1 and R2 over the whole 6 cold months of
operation are depicted in Table 2 and Fig. 3. Methanogenesis was
apparently the rate limiting step for the overall conversion of or-
ganic matter to methane in both reactors as the effluent soluble
and VFA COD remained relatively high (Table 1). The very low or
even removal efficiencies of the VFA is due to the predominant
acidification processes in the two reactors (Table 1) which had re-
sulted in increasing the VFA concentration. This is also clear from
the rather decrease in the pH values of the both reactors effluents.
Unexpectedly the conversion processes (hydrolysis, acidogenesis
and methanogenesis) were significantly (p < 0.05) higher in R1
than in R2 with longer HRT (Fig. 3; Table 2). This is probably due
to extra biogas production in R1 as a result of conversion of the
1064 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Influent effluent Removal (%) Influent Effluent Removal (%)
1800 100 1800 100
1600 1600
1400 80 1400 80

Removal (%)
Removal (%)

CODtot (mg/l)
CODtot (mg/l)

1200 1200
60 60
1000 1000
800 800
40 40
600 600
400 20 400 20
200 200
0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (days) Time (days)

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Influent Effluent Removal (%) Influent Effluent Removal (%)

1000 100 1000 100

800 80 800 80

CODsus (mg/l)
CODsus (mg/l)

Removal (%)
Removal (%)
600 60 600 60

400 40 400 40

200 20 200 20

0 0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 1. CODtot and CODsus concentrations and removal efficiencies in R1 (left) and R2 (right). Zero day stands for the day 180 of starting the reactors.

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Daily gas production Removal (%) Daily gas production Removal (%)
60 100 30 100
Gas production (L/d)
Gas production (L/d)

50 80 25 80

Removal (%)
Removal (%)

60
40 60 20
40
30 40 15
20
20 20 10
0
10 0 5 -20
0 -20 0 -40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 2. CODdis removal efficiencies with relation to daily CH4 gas production for R1 (left) and R2 (right).

Table 2 sludge in R1, and probably the methanogenic capacity, was larger
Characteristics of the retained sludge in the two UASB-septic tank reactors collected than in R2 (Table 2). The difference in gas production between
from the first port (0.15 m from reactors bottom) and the percentage hydrolysis (H), R1 and R2 was particularly clear over the first 2 months of opera-
acidification (A) and methanogenesis (M) in both reactors over the whole operation tion, viz. beginning of the cold period (Figs. 2 and 4).
period (6 months)

Parameter Reactor 1 (R1) Reactor 2 (R2) 3.4. Sludge bed development and sludge characteristics
TS 66.7 (9.5) 52.9 (5.72)
VS 45 (5.5) 35.35 (3.1) The sludge characteristics in the both UASB-septic tanks are
VS/TS 67.9 (2.6) 67 (3.5) presented in Table 2 and Fig. 4. The sludge hold-up and accumula-
Stability at daya = 204b 68.4 65.68
tion was clearly observed in both reactors as sludge TS concentra-
H (%) 26 (15) 22 (11)
A (%) 27 (9) 23 (6) tion increased from 46.8 g/l and 48.6 g/l during the first 6 months
M (%) 26 (7) 23 (6) of start up period to around 67 g/l and 53 g/l for R1 and R2, respec-
tively. This is also clear from the results of the monthly COD mass
Standard deviations are in parenthesis.
All parameters are in g/l except: stability (%) (g CH4-COD g COD); VS/TS ratio. balance (Fig. 5). The stability of sludge in both reactors was almost
a
Stability test lasted for 120 days of batch incubation. equally good with insignificant difference (Table 2). The declining
b
The 204 and 250 days are the days after the start of operating the UASB-septic trends of the VS/TS ratios reveal enhanced sludge stabilization with
tank reactors. time which was also confirmed by the results of the sludge stabil-
ity tests (Fig. 4). The enhanced sludge stabilization with time is
previously accumulated biodegradable solids in this reactor during also evident when compared with the start up period, viz. VS/TS ra-
the start up first half year of operation (Fig. 3). The amount of tios were 73% and 71% in R1 and R2, respectively, although the
 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068 1065

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
Hydrolysis Acidogenesis Methanogenesis Temp Hydrolysis Acidogenesis Methanogenesis temp
40 30 40 30
25 25

Temperature (°C)
Temperature (°C)
30 30
20 20

Ambient

Ambient
(%)
(%)

20 15 20 15

10 10
10 10
5 5

0 0 0 0
October November December January February March
October November December January February March
2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005
Months
Months

Fig. 3. Percentages of hydrolysis, acidification and methanogenesis of domestic sewage in R1 (left) and R2 (right) and ambient air temperature.

Reactor 1 Reactor 2
TS VS VS/TS (%) TS VS VS/TS (%)
90 80 90 80
80 80
75 75
Solids conc. (g/L)

70

Solids conc. (g/L)

70
VS/TS (%) 60 70

VS/TS (%)
60 70
50 50
65 65
40 40
30 60 30 60
20 20
55 55
10 10
0 50 0 50
25 56 70 104 117 139 167 181 188 25 56 70 104 117 139 167 181 188
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 4. Course of sludge bed development concentration in R1 (left) and R2 (right) as VS and TS, and VS/TS ratio at 0.15 m height from the bottom of the reactors.

reactors were started up during the hot half of the year (Al-Shayah tially removed due to particulate N removal (Table 1) with no sig-
and Mahmoud, 2008). The sludge VS/TS ratios are comparable with nificant difference between both reactors (q > 0.05). The phosphate
those reported by Halalsheh et al. (2005) of 0.66 for a UASB reactor was apparently not removed in both reactors; however, the efflu-
treating strong sewage in Jordan during summer time. This ent ortho-phosphate (PO3 4 ) concentration was always higher than
strongly indicates the proportional relation between the quality the influent in both reactors due to mineralisation of organically
of the inoculum sludge and the reactor performance. bound P. This observation was also reported by van Haandel and
The sludge production was rather low as the sludge retained in Lettinga (1994). Similarly, Luostarinen and Rintala (2005) reported
the both reactors reached 0.40 m, viz. the second port from the that little or no nutrient removal may be expected in UASB-septic
bottom of the reactors, after 340 and 355 days of starting R1 and tanks treating black water, as also reported by Bogte et al. (1993)
R2, respectively. The TS concentration at the second ports of R1 who achieved slight removal of nitrogen (6%) and of total phos-
and R2, were, respectively, 21 and 14 g/l. This shows that sludge phate (20%) from black water. The reason of the low nutrient re-
in R1 was higher than R2. The sludge height after the whole one moval is that they existence in soluble form in both domestic
year of operation was 50 cm and 40 cm in R1 and R2, respectively. wastewater (Mahmoud et al., 2004) and black water (Kujawa-
Accordingly the reactors desludging would be deemed necessary Roeleveld et al., 2004). The very low nutrient removal in UASB-sep-
only after several years of operation (Table 3). Similarly, Luostari- tic tanks treating strong sewage in Palestine was also reported by
nen and Rintala (2005) reported that sludge volume had increased, Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008).
in a UASB-septic tank treating black water, from 20% of the reactor Sulphate (SO24 ) was partially removed with no significant dif-
volume to 65% after around 400 days of operation. ference between both reactors (q > 0.05). The effluent sulphate
The monthly COD mass balance indicate that the sludge accu- concentration of R1 and R2 were stable throughout the operational
mulation was decreased during the period October 2004–Decem- period and were not affected by the fluctuation in influent concen-
ber 2004, apparently accompanied with increase of the effluent tration. Similar effluent SO24 concentrations were achieved during
COD. This period is the direct subsequent of the hot half of the year. the star up dry hot half of the year, though the removal efficiencies
The sludge accumulation was increased during January, viz. month were rather high of around 70% in both reactors since the influent
number 10 from starting up the reactors. However, the sludge SO2
4 concentration was rather higher Al-Shayah and Mahmoud
accumulation was again noticed to decrease over the period Janu- (2008).
ary 2005–March 2005 which was the coldest period of the year.
The overall increase of sludge quantity in the reactors during this 3.6. General discussion
period as clearly shown in Fig. 4 justifies the rather increase in
CH4 production (Fig. 5). The results of this research reveal that the UASB-septic tank is a
robust technology for the onsite sewage treatment. This is evident
3.5. Nutrients and sulphate removal from the stable performance over the cold winter period in Pales-
tine, with hardly any operational problems. The system coupled
The difference in NHþ4 –N concentration between the influent both wastewater treatment and sludge accumulation and stabilisa-
and effluent of both reactors was negligible. The NKj-N was par- tion. Thus the operational results of the reactors not only proved
1066 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068

Reactor 2
Reactor 1
COD accumulated COD effl. COD as CH4 COD accumulated COD effl. COD as CH4
100 100
90 90

Percentage of COD infl.

Percentage of CODinfl.

80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12
Months Months

Fig. 5. Monthly COD mass balance of R1 (left) and R2 (right) as a percentage of average influent CODtot and divided over COD accumulated, COD effluent and CH4 as COD.
Month number 7 stands for the seventh month of starting up the reactors coinciding October (see Fig. 3).

Table 3 and effluent characteristics. The results are even comparable with
Specific sludge production and sludge filling period of two UASB-septic tanks treated the results reported for well functioning UASB reactors treating
concentrated sewage in Palestine raw domestic sewage in sub-tropical regions. Halalsheh (2002) re-
Parameters R1 R2 ported CODtot removal efficiency of 51% for a 60 m3 UASB reactor
Average CODtot loading rate (LRCOD) during 1 year* 418 g/d 209 g/d treating domestic sewage in Jordan at ambient air temperature of
Equivalent capita** 2.34 c 1.17 c 18 °C and organic loading rate of around 1.5 kg COD/m3 d.
Total sludge volume in a year 0.16 m3/yr 0.128 m3/yr The anaerobic biodegradability of the R1 and R2 effluent CODtot
Available sludge in reactors*** 7.01 kg TSS/ 4.23 kg TSS/ of, respectively, 47.64% and 41.7% resembling around 200
yr yr
mg COD l and 170 mg COD l indicate that the reactor can poten-
Accumulated sludge during 1 year**** 4.94 kg TSS/ 3.23 kg TSS/
yr yr tially achieve further removal and conversion. Similar observations
Annual specific sludge produces per person 2.1 kg TSS/ 2.7 kg TSS/ had been reported by Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008) during the
c yr c yr start up period of the reactors. Mahmoud (2008) reported 72%
Sludge concentrationa 43.81 kg TSS/ 33 kg TSS/
CODtot removal efficiency during anaerobic sewage treatment in
m3 m3
Specific sludge volume productionb 47 l/c yr 77 l/c yr a UASB-digester system operated at Al-Bireh wastewater treat-
Filling period assuming 50% of the reactor is full 3.63 (yr) 4.43 (yr) ment plant where this research was conducted. This is another evi-
with sludgec dence that the UASB-septic tank is potentially possible to achieve
Filling period assuming 75% of the reactor is full 5.5 (yr) 6.7 (yr) better results than those found in this research as also clear from
with sludgec
the comparative data presented in Table 4. The process perfor-
*
LRCOD = flow rate (L/d) * average CODtot over the year (g/l). mance of the UASB-septic tank would probably be enhanced after
**
Equivalent population for the UASB-septic tanks (capita) = LRCOD (g/d)/specific longer period of reactors operation to allow for better sludge devel-
COD production (g/c d)); the specific production of CODtot (g/c d) was considered
opment, and/or by technical modification of the reactor. Bogte
179 g/c d as reported by Mahmoud et al. (2003).
***
Total mass of sludge at the reactor kg TSS/year = the average sludge TSS of in the et al. (1993) reported complete conversion of VFA to CH4 during
reactor (g m3)  volume of sludge at the reactor (m3). 3–4 months of the second year of UASB-septic tank operation. Sim-
****
Accumulated mass of sludge in the reactor (kg TSS/year) = total mass of sludge ilarly, Luostarinen et al. (2007) found while treating black water at
in the reactor (kg TSS) – mass of sludge added at start up (kg TSS), where at start up low temperature in UASB-septic tanks improvement in CODdis re-
the amount of sludge added to the reactor are 160 l in R1 and 80 l in R2, with
TSS = 13.78 (g/l). So mass of the start up sludge added to R1 = 160 l  13.78 (g/
moval as the sludge was adapted to low temperature. They re-
l) = 2.2 kg TSS and 80 l  13.78 (g/l) = 1.1 kg TSS for R2 (Al-Shayah and Mahmoud, ported improved CODcol + dis removal from 6% (Bogte et al., 1993)
2008). to 44% in a pilot UASB-septic tank treating real black water at
a
Sludge concentration = available sludge in reactors (kg TSS/yr)/(total sludge 10–18 °C for some 10 years. However, the attained results are com-
volume in a year (m3/yr).
b parable to those expected from UASB-septic tanks treating real
Specific sludge volume production = accumulated sludge during a year (kg TSS/
yr)  1000 (l/m3)/[sludge concentration (kg TSS/m3)  equivalent capita (c)]. black water at 5–20 °C (52–54% CODtot removal and 71–86% CODss
c
Filling period = reactor volume (800 l)  percentage of full (50% or 75%)/[spe- removal; Zeeman and Lettinga, 1999). But no adequate results
cific sludge volume production (l c yr)  equivalent capita (c)]. were previously available about the UASB-septic tank treating real
domestic sewage at low temperature (Table 4).
Unlike the conventional UASB reactors, the imposed upflow
the reliability of the system for the treatment of high sewage velocities in the UASB-septic tanks are very low; viz. 0.05 and
strength as was questioned by Leitão et al. (2006), but even at 0.02 m/h in R1 and R2, respectively. Mahmoud et al. (2003) reported
rather low temperature. During the coldest period of the year, that upflow velocity should be high enough to provide good contact
the reactors acted as enhanced settlers. between substrate and biomass, and to impede channel formation.
The removal efficiencies attained in R1 and R2 for CODtot were Some researchers like Zaiat et al. (1996) reported that the external
in the range of results attained during the first start up hot half mass transfer resistance of substrate through a biofilm can be de-
of the year by Al-Shayah and Mahmoud (2008) (Table 4). Although creased by increasing the flow velocity. Lettinga et al. (1993) argued
the removal efficiencies are apparently higher during the start up that all UASB systems provide sufficiently good contact between the
period, the effluent CODtot during this research period were lower sludge and the wastewater, unless they are not equipped with a
than during the start up period as the effluent CODtot of R1 and R2 proper feed inlet distribution system and the applied organic load-
were, respectively, 555 and 530 mg COD l. Mahmoud et al. (2003) ing rate is below 1–2 kg COD/m3 d. In contrast to UASB reactors,
argued that the reactors performance could be clearer if described the UASB-septic tank can be equipped with a central ‘stirrer’ for
not only in terms of removal efficiency but also in terms of influent periodic and very gentle movements of the sludge bed.
 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068 1067

Table 4
Comparison between present and earlier studies with UASB-septic tanks or anaerobic hybrid (AH)-septic tanks

Reactor Wastewater Temperature HRT (d) OLR (kg COD/ Removal Reference
(°C) m3 d)
CODtot CODss CODcol CODdis
UASB-septic tank Domestic 17.34 2 0.45 (0.12) 51 83 20 24 This study
wastewater
UASB-septic tank Domestic 17.34 4 0.23 (0.06) 54 87 10 28 This study
wastewater
UASB-septic tank Black water >20 15 0.37 90–93 ND ND ND Lettinga et al. (1993)
UASB-septic tank Domestic >20 1.4 0.96 67–77 ND ND ND Lettinga et al. (1993)
wastewater
UASB-septic tank Black water 11.7 (4.0) 4.3 0.40 60 77 ND 6b Bogte et al. (1993)
UASB-septic tank Grey water 13.8 (3.7) 1.8 0.53 31 9 ND 47b Bogte et al. (1993)
UASB-septic tank Grey water 12.9 (4.9) 2.4 0.34 4 6 ND 1b Bogte et al. (1993)
AH-septic tank Concentrated 13 2.5 1.44 94 98 74 78 Elmitwalli et al. (2003)
sewage (1.7) (2.3) (10.3) (1.7)
UASB-septic Synthetic black 10 4.4 (4.2) + 1.4 0.301 (0.155) 94 98 50 (32) 71 (19) Luostarinen and Rintala (2005)
tanka water (0.36) (3.3) (2.6)
b
UASB-septic tank Black water 14–18 7.2 0.741–0.968 71 75 ND 44 Luostarinen et al. (2007)
UASB-septic tank Domestic 24 2 0.63 56 87 31 20 Al-Shayah and Mahmoud
wastewater (2008)
UASB-septic tank Domestic 24 4 0.32 58 90 34 22 Al-Shayah and Mahmoud
wastewater (2008)

Standard deviation in parenthesis where available.

ND, not detected.
a
Two-phased.
b
CODcol + dis.

The sludge hold-up time of the system was so long and with-
draw of sludge could be done once every 4 years or even more.
The obtained sludge production results are just indicative, because
during the second year of operation further stabilization of accu-
mulated solids is expected during the subsequent hot half of the
year. This interesting observation is consistent with that reported
in literature about the UASB-septic tank reactor, that the sludge
hold-up time of the system is so long and the withdrawal of the
sludge could be done once every 1–4 years (Zeeman et al., 2000).
This implies that the costs for sludge handling associated with
sewage treatment, would be reduced dramatically by using
UASB-septic tank reactors. Moreover, the operational requirements
of the system are quite minimal which makes the system very
attractive for decentralised sanitation.
Nutrients, as expected, were not removed in both reactors and
only a change in the chemical forms of nitrogen and phosphorus
took place as reported by Bogte et al. (1993). Therefore, a nutrient
and faecal coliform removal can only be achieved, if deemed nec-
essary, in a separate post-treatment step after the UASB-septic
tank (van Haandel and Lettinga, 1994). According to the recent Pal-
estinian standards for treated wastewater (PS 742, 2003), the at-
tained effluent quality here is insufficient for crop irrigation and
as such post treatment with other processes is required. Nonethe-
less, the very high CODsus removal in the UASB-septic tank would
probably be advantageous for the post treatment units, in terms
of process stability, particularly the attached processes like the
trickling filter. Luostarinen et al. (2007) reported that as most of
the organic material in the wastewater is already removed in the
UASB-septic tank, possible post removal (nutrient and/or pathogen
removal) becomes simpler and the operating life of the post-treat-
ment may be prolonged.
4. Conclusions
The here presented UASB-septic tank system represents an effi-
cient technology for anaerobic sewage (pre) treatment at sewage
temperature conditions of Palestine during the cold period of the
year, i.e. it provides average removal efficiencies for CODtot, CODsus,
CODcol, CODdis, BOD5 and TSS of 51%, 83%, 20%, 24%, 45% and 74%,
respectively, at 2 days HRT, and likewise, 54%, 87%, 10%, 28%, 49%
and 78% at 4 days HRT.
The sludge production is very low, i.e. the filling period of the
reactor is 4–7 years.
The design of the UASB-septic tank at the longer research HRT
of 4 days seems to have negligible contribution to better reactor
performance as compared to the reactor operated at 2 days HRT.
This suggests that the design of the UASB-septic tank at HRT of 2
days is adequate and more economical.
References
Abegglen, C., Ospelt, M., Siegrist, H., 2008. Biological nutrient removal in a small-
scale MBR treating household wastewater. Water Res. 42, 338–346.
Al-Shayah, M., Mahmoud, N., 2008. Start-up of an UASB-septic tank for community
on-site treatment of strong domestic sewage. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 7758–
7766.
APHA, 1995. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18th
ed. New York.
Aquino, S.F., Stuckey, D.C., 2001. Characterization of soluble microbial products
(SMP) in effluents from anaerobic reactors. In: Proceedings of the 9th
International Symposium on Anaerobic Digestion. Antwerpen, Belgium, pp.
109–116.
Bogte, J.J., Breurem, A.M., van Andelm, J.G., Lettinga, G., 1993. Anaerobic treatment
of domestic wastewater in small scale UASB reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (9),
75–82.
Buchauer, K., 1998. A comparison of two simple titration procedures to determine
volatile fatty acids in influents to wastewater and sludge treatment processes.
Water SA 24 (1), 49–56.
Carty, A., Scholz, M., Heal, K., Gouriveau, F., Mustafa, A., 2008. The universal design,
operation and maintenance guideline for farm constructed wetlands (FCW) in
temperate climates. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6780–6792.
Elmitwalli, T., 2000. Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Sewage at Low Temperature,
Ph.D. Thesis. Department of Environmental Technology, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Elmitwalli, T.A., Sayed, S., Groendijk, L., van Lier, J., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 2003.
Decentralised treatment of concentrated sewage at low temperature in a two-
step anaerobic system: two upflow-hybrid septic tanks. Water Sci. Technol. 48
(6), 219–226.
Halalsheh, M.M., 2002. Anaerobic Pre-treatment of Strong Sewage: A Proper
Solution for Jordan, Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The
Netherlands.
Halalsheh, M., Sawajneh, Z., Zu’bi, M., Zeeman, G., Lier, J., Fayyad, M., Lettinga, G.,
2005. Treatment of strong domestic sewage in a 96 m3 UASB reactor operated at
ambient temperatures: two-stage versus single-stage reactor. Bioresour.
Technol. 96, 577–585.
1068 W. Al-Jamal, N. Mahmoud / Bioresource Technology 100 (2009) 1061–1068
Hammes, F., Kalogo, Y., Verstraete, W., 2000. Anaerobic digestion technologies for
closing the domestic water, carbon and nutrient cycles. Water Sci. Technol. 41
(3), 203–211.
Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Fernandes, T., Wiryawan, Y., Tawfik, A., Visser, M., Zeeman, G.,
2004. Performance and perspectives of UASB septic tank for treatment of
concentrated black water within DESAR concept. In: Proceedings of the 10th
World Congress on Anaerobic Digestion, vol. I. Montreal, Canada, pp. 218–224.
Leitão, R.C., van Haandel, A.C., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 2006. The effects of
operational and environmental variations on anaerobic wastewater treatment
systems: a review. Bioresour. Technol. 97, 1105–1118.
Lens, P., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 2001. Decentralized Sanitation and Reuse –
Concepts, Systems and Implementation. IWA Publishing, UK.
Lettinga, G., 1996. Sustainable integrated biological wastewater treatment. Water
Sci. Technol. 33 (3), 85–98.
Lettinga, G., de Man, A.W.A., van der Last, A.R.M., Wiegant, W., Knippenberg, K.,
Frijns, J., van Buuren, J.C.L., 1993. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage and
wastewater. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (9), 67–73.
Lettinga, G., van Knippenberg, K., Veenstra, S., Wiegant, W., 1991. Final Report
‘‘Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) Low-cost Sanitation Project in
Bandung, Indonesia. IHE, Delft, Agricultural University, Wageningen, St.
Borromeus Hospital, Bandung, Indonesia.
Luostarinen, S.A., Rintala, J.A., 2005. Anaerobic on-site treatment of black water and
dairy parlour wastewater in UASB-septic tanks at low temperatures. Water Res.
39 (2–3), 436–448.
Luostarinen, S., Sanders, W., Kujawa-Roeleveld, K., Zeeman, G., 2007. Effect of
temperature on anaerobic treatment of black water in UASB-septic tank
systems. Bioresour. Technol. 98 (5), 980–986.
Mahmoud, N., 2008. High strength sewage treatment in a UASB reactor and an
integrated UASB-digester system. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 7531–7538.
Mahmoud, N., Amarneh, M.N., AI-Sa’ed, R., Zeeman, G., Gijzen, H., Lettinga, G., 2003.
Sewage characteristics as a tool for the application of anaerobic treatment in
Palestine. Environment. Pollut. 126, 115–122.
Mahmoud, N., Zeeman, G., Gijzen, H., Lettinga, G., 2004. Anaerobic sewage
treatment in a one-stage UASB reactor and a combined UASB-digester system.
Water Res. 38 (9), 2348–2358.
Metcalf and Eddy Inc., 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.
McGraw Hill, New York.
Scandura, J.E., Sobsey, M.D., 1997. Viral and bacterial contamination of groundwater
from on-site sewage treatment systems. Water Sci. Technol. 35 (11/12), 141–
146.
Seghezzo, L., 2004. Anaerobic Treatment of Domestic Wastewater in Subtropical
Regions, Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Van der Last, A.R.M., Lettinga, G., 1992. Anaerobic treatment of domestic sewage
under moderate climatic (Dutch) conditions using upflow reactors at increased
superficial velocities. Water Sci. Technol. 25, 167–178.
Van Haandel, A.C., Lettinga, G., 1994. Anaerobic Sewage Treatment. A Practical
Guide for Regions with a Hot Climate. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Van Lier, J.B., 2008. Current and future trends in anaerobic digestion: diversifying
from waste (water) treatment to resource oriented conversion techniques.
Water Sci. Technol., 57.
Wang, K., 1994. Integrated Anaerobic and Aerobic Treatment of Sewage, Ph.D.
Thesis. Department of Environmental Technology, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Zaiat, M., Cabral, A.K.A., Foresti, E., 1996. Cell wash-out and external mass transfer
resistance in horizontal-flow anaerobic immobilized sludge reactor. Water Res.
30 (10), 2435–2439.
Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G., 1999. The role of anaerobic digestion in closing the water
and nutrient cycle at community level. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (5), 187–194.
Zeeman, G., van Lier, J.B., Lettinga, G., 2000. The role of anaerobic treatment at
community and house on-site treatment of domestic waste (water). Effect of
collection and transport systems. In: Proceedings of the Technical Expert
Consultation on Appropriate and Innovative Wastewater Management for Small
Communities in EMR Countries. WHO/CEHA, Amman, Jordan, November 6–9,
2000.