History of and Current Trends in Wastewater Treatment With input by Lee Walker

1. History of Wastewater Treatment History of and Current Trends in Wastewater Treatment With input by Lee Walker

2. History of Wastewater Treatment • Before 10,000 BC • nomadic tribes allowed the soil to treat it • After establishing townships • approach continued • throw wastes into the streets • street levels rose • raise the doors to their houses • Egypt 2100 BC • only for elite: waste was removed and dumped into rivers

3. History of Wastewater Treatment • 1500 BC: Isle of Crete • advanced plumbing and drainage systems • open sewers built of stone • royal household had flushing toilet • last group to use flushing toilets until 1596

4. History of Wastewater Treatment

5. History of Wastewater Treatment • 300 BC • Greece: most developed waste management of any civilization prior to the nineteenth century. • Banning the dumping of waste into the streets. • For 800 y Greek government removed waste at the expense of landowners. • Greeks and Romans discovered the link water quality  public health. • Underground sewer network in Rome  Tiber river

6. History of Wastewater Treatment • Dark Middle Ages: • Fall of the Roman Empire  knowledge lost for 1000 y. • Old practice of simply throwing their waste into the streets.  • No separation drinking water and human wastes. • Wastes transferred from waste pits into drinking wells • Epidemics raged in the cities • dysentery, typhus (which comes from bad sanitation) • typhoid fever (from human feces and urine)” • major plagues of the 12th century waste management became a priority

7. History of Wastewater Treatment • 16th Century • No change in the understanding and disposal of human wastes. • Some idea of the capacity of polluted rivers to clean themselves (microbes were not understood yet) • Successful for smaller communities. • London collected sewage but dumped into Thames • Cheap method dead river. • With population increases water bodies could no longer treat the high wastewater flows. • What was limiting ? Oxygen  Anaerobic rivers • Alternative treatment became necessary.

8. History of Wastewater Treatment • 1860 Septic tank • Perceived link between solids and health • Treat sewage from an entire community • Remove solids, untreated liquid discharged to river • 1868 Sand bed filter • to filter septic tank effluent before discharge to river • (No oxygen supply) • 1893 Rock Trickling filters • to treat septic tank effluent • (Better oxygen supply, little bacterial biomass present) • Lagoons

9. Effects of Waste Water Disposal • Pathogens Epidemics • Solid Organics Building up in environment  Long term pollution (river sediments)Oxygen depletion in rivers  Death of higher life • Dissolved organics  Oxygen depletion  Death of higher life • Nutrients (N and P)  Algal blooms  Buildup of solid organics  Decay  Oxygen depletion  Death of higher life • Odor, colour,…

10. Waste Water Analysis • Pathogens Bioessays • Solid Organics Filter or centrifuge sample. Dry residue  Total suspended solids TSS. Ash the TTS Loss is solid organics = volatile suspended solids = VSS • Dissolved organics • COD : Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/L of O2) = The amount of oxygen required to oxidize soluble organics by an acidic dichromate solution. • BOD : (Biological Oxygen Demand) (mg/L of O2) = The amount of oxygen required for microbial removal of soluble organics over a 5 day period. • Nutrients (N and P) : Present as ammonia and phosphate  algae blooms  algae decay  sec. pollut.

11. Example WW composition Wastewater Required composition Levels BOD (mg/L) 200 45 TSS (mg/L) 200 45 NH3 Nitrogen (mg/L) 30 1 Phosphorus (mg/L) 10 No Limit Fecal Coliforms (/100 mL) 107 < 14 (CFUs)

12. Why not Lagoon Treatment Large shallow ponds, 1.2 to 2.4 meters in depth. Not mixed or aerated  Mostly anaerobic. Long treatment times, odor emission. Algae growth  Secondary pollution Can work as “Integrated System” for agricultural areas Nutrients  Algae  Zooplankton  Fish  Not suitable for highly populated areas Average treatment time = Hydraulic Retention time = HRT = 20 to 200 days  Huge reactor volume (for Perth about 500 to 1000 Subiaco Stadiums).

13. Why not Lagoon Treatment • Why long treatment times? • Lagoon = chemostat with low productivity. Why? • Efficiency limited by biomass levels and by oxygen. • (Efficiency ~ Productivity (R) of chemostat is proportional to the amount of biomass (X) present) Design a waste water treatment plant with high X. Purpose of plant: • Remove organics (COD, BOD) • Remove nutrients (N and P) • Allow re-use of water in the future. • Biomass must be retained longer than the water

14. Theoretical Effect of biomass feedback • Dotted line no feedback: • Washout occuring early • 4-fold Feedback approximately: • 4*X 4*R  1/4* S • allows 1/4 reactor size to do same work • Feedback essential for pollutant removal. Can be used 100-fold  100-fold smaller treatment plant • Note: same assumed feed concentration (SR) SR X Steady State Concentration R S D Dcrit Biomass Retention in WWTP

15. Biomass Retention in WWTP • How to Retain Biomass ? • Filters don’t work. • Gravity separation needed. • Settling velocity of small particles is proportional to their size (Stokes law). • Floc formation is essential to allow gravity separation (Settling velocity must be > 1m/h) • Settling can’t happen during aeration and mixing • Use external settlers = Clarifiers • Intermittent stopping of aeration and mixing = Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) Biomass Retention in WWTP

16. Problems with floc formation • Pros and Cons of Floc formation for bacteria? • + Shelter from predators (Protozoa) • - Diffusion problems of BOD and O2 • Continuous presence of low levels of BOD (feed) destroy flocs, why? • It favours suspended or filamentous bacteria growth (higher surface area) • Higher surface area  more effective uptake of low substrate concentrations (lower apparent kS value for substrate) • Running treatment plant simply like a chemostat • would result in continuous substrate (BOD) limitation • no flocs  no settling  low biomass  breakdown • In addition to batch, fed-batch, chemostat a different process is used” • Plugflow reactor with biomass feedback o • Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Biomass Retention in WWTP

17. Growth of filamentous bacteria favoured by low substrate (BOD) concentrations; detrimental to gavity settling floc Biomass Retention in WWTP

18. Principle of Biomass Retention via external biomass feedback Inflow • Centrifuging of recycle liquid • Membrane filtration of recycle liquid • Flocculation • Gravity settling of flocculated biomass Outflow Clarifier Recycle (Feedback) Biomass Retention in WWTP

19. Plug Flow Systems to avoid Feed Limitation • To encourage floc formation: need to expose biomass to high feed levels (BOD) by: • Plug flow system and clarifyer • SBR • Using of a bioselector (not examinable) • Plug Flow system : • The feed and biomass is mixed at entry and moves through the process as plug • Intermixing with the previous and following plug is minimised Biomass Retention in WWTP

20. Plug flow waste water treatment allowing high BOD levels at the beginning Clarifier Influent BOD Gradient Effluent Waste Sludge Return Activated Sludge Air Line A fraction of the sludge is wasted and provides a Solids Retention Time (SRT). SRT is the average length of time the sludge is in the system before being removed. The liquid retention time (hydraulic retention time = HRT) is a few hours while the SRT is about 15 -40 days Biomass Retention in WWTP

21. Activated sludge reactors Thickener Biomass Sedimentation Elledge WWTP

22. Fill Decant Aeration Cycle Settle Use of Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) for a) Biomass Retention via internal biomass feedbackb) floc formation by oxposing biomass to a sudden high inflow of biomass Influent Effluent Waste Sludge Biomass Retention in WWTP

23. Use of Bioselector to allow contact with bacteria and high BOD(not examinable) Hybrid between plug flow reactor and SBR Incoming wastewater is mixed with return activated sludge in an SBR. System used at Woodman Point Treatment plant Biomass Retention in WWTP

24. SBR treatment plant in Western Australia

25. Comparison between Plug flow and SBR • Traditional plug flow wastewater treatment • liquid pumped from one compartment to another • phases were separated in time and space • Sequencing batch reactor • all phases occur in the one reactor • phases separated only by time • no need for additional clarifyer • Phases of operation • fill, aerate, settle and decant • Not a continuous process – batch • In both cases, bacteria undergo changes of feed saturation and feed limitation Biomass Retention in WWTP