Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Low temperature biological treatment of a high ammonia municipal landfill leachate Guo, Jian 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_guo_jian.pdf [ 9.48MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0050518.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0050518-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0050518-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0050518-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0050518-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0050518-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0050518-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0050518-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0050518.ris

Full Text

LOW TEMPERATURE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF A HIGHAMMONIA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL LEACHATEByJian GuoB. Eng.(Environmental Engineering) Tongji University, Shanghai, PRC, 1984A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERINGWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch, 1992© Jian Guo, 1988In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of  CIVIL Elv6-1A/ g.EK / iV CT-The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate^Ma- 13, 1992DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThe single-sludge, biological pre-denitrification (i.e., denitrification being carried out be-fore nitrification), completely-mixed activated sludge system, with hydraulic sludge recy-cle, known as the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) system, has proved to be an efficientmethod for ammonia nitrogen removal. However, because of the sensitivity of microbialgrowth to temperature changes, this process may be seriously affected at low tempera-tures. The objective of this project was to study the effects of low operating temperatureson the biotreatment of a high ammonia-N leachate and to optimize the control for thetreatment at temperatures from 20°C to 4°C.Two identical bench-scale, single-sludge, pre-denitrification, activated sludge systems,with sludge recycle, were employed during this study. Each system consisted of a 5-literanoxic reactor for denitrification, a 10-liter aerobic reactor for nitrification, and, a 4-literclarifier for sludge settling. An air diffuser system was installed in the aerobic reactor toensure that enough dissolved oxygen(more than 1.8 mg/1) was supplied to the nitrifyingbacteria. The leachate feed was controlled at 10 liters per day. The settled sludge in theclarifier was returned to the anoxic reactor at a recycle ratio of 6:1 (60 1/d). Methanolwas used as an external carbon source for denitrification. Additional phosphorus wasadded for bacterial growth. Temperatures of 20°C, 12°C and 4°C were studied. Theoret-ical aerobic SRTs of 20 days and 60 days were operated in system I; theoretical aerobicSRTs of 20 days, 30 days and 40 days were studied in system II. The leachate used inthis project was collected from the City of Vancouver Burns Bog landfill in Delta, B.C.,Canada. The leachate is characterized by high ammonia-N (average 210 mg/1), low CODii(average 400 mg/I) and low BOD 5 (average 35 mg/1).This study found that ammonia-N removal of more than 90 %, with effluent ammonia-N of lower than 0.5 mg/1, was achieved at an ambient temperature as low as 12°C, whenthe theoretical aerobic SRT was set at a minimum of 20 days. Also, an average effluentammonia-N below 1.9 mg/1 was obtained at an ambient temperature of 4°C, when thetheoretical aerobic SRT was set at 60 days. However, at a temperature of 4°C, with atheoretical aerobic SRT of only 20 days, the level of ammonia-N removal was observedto be variable and erratic, with average effluent values of 9.2 mg/l.Methanol, as an external carbon source, was found to have a significant effect on thetreatment process. When the temperature was suddenly reduced, it was necessary toincrease the aerobic SRT and decrease the methanol addition, to protect the nitrifyingbacteria against possible competition from heterotrophic bacteria, utilizing the excesscarbon in the aerobic basin. After the nitrifying bacteria had been acclimated, methanoladdition was increased to support the denitrifying bacterial population in the anoxicchamber. Despite successful denitrification in the anoxic basin, final effluent NO; -Nvalues, at steady state, could still be relatively high, ranging from 20 mgN/1 to 50 mgN/l,at various operating temperatures. Optimization of system hydraulic recycle would benecessary to reduce these values even further.iiiTable of ContentsABSTRACTList of Tables^ viiiList of Figures ixAcknowledgment^ xii1 INTRODUCTION2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES162.1 Leachate ^ 62.1.1 Leachate Generation ^ 62.1.2 Characteristics of Leachate 72.1.3 High Ammonia Problem ^ 82.2 Methods of Leachate Treatment 82.2.1 Physical-Chemical Treatment ^ 82.2.2 Recirculation ^ 92.2.3 Irrigation 92.2.4 Bacterial Assimilation ^ 92.3 Biological Nitrification and Denitrification ^ 102.3.1 Nitrifying and Denitrifying Bacteria 102.3.2 Previous Studies ^ 11iv3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 133.1 Leachate  ^133.2 Chemical Addition  ^173.3 Anoxic Reactor  ^173.4 Aerobic Reactor  ^173.5 Clarifier  ^203.6 Basic Operation  ^204 ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 234.1 Introduction  ^234.2 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)  ^244.3 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) ^  244.4 pH ^  244.5 Conductivity  ^254.6 Temperature ^  254.7 Solids  ^254.7.1 Total Suspended Solids(TSS)  ^254.7.2 Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)  ^254.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) ^  254.9 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 )  264.10 Ammonia-N ^  264.11 Nitrate and Nitrite (NO;)  ^264.12 Nitrite (NOn ^  274.13 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)  ^274.14 Ortho-phosphate  ^274.15 Total Phosphorus (TP)  ^284.16 Metals  ^284.17 Alkalinity  ^285 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 295.1 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) ^  295.2 pH ^  325.3 SRTs  355.4 Solids  ^375.4.1 Effect of Temperature on the VSS ^  395.4.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on the TSS and VSS ^ 395.5 Carbon Loading ^  445.5.1 COD  445.5.2 BOD5 ^  525.6 Phosphorus  525.7 Ammonia-N Removal ^  585.7.1 Anoxic Ammonia-N Removal ^  585.7.2 Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal  605.7.3 Total Ammonia Removal ^  675.7.4 Effect of Ortho-P on Ammonia Removal ^  675.8 Nitrification  ^695.8.1 Effect of Temperature on Nitrification  ^695.8.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on Nitrification  ^735.8.3 Effect of SRTs on Nitrification  ^755.8.4 Effect of Ortho-P on Nitrification  ^775.8.5 Optimum pH Value for Nitrification  ^775.9 Denitrification  ^805.9.1 Effect of Temperature on Denitrification  ^815.9.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on Denitrification  ^845.9.3 Effect of SRT on Denitrification  ^875.9.4 Effect of Ortho-P on Denitrification  ^875.9.5 Optimum pH Value for Denitrification ^  875.10 Nitrate and Nitrite  ^875.10.1 Nitrate+Nitrite (NO:-N)  ^875.10.2 Nitrite (NO -2--N)  ^895.11 Summary of Nitrogen Removal^  926 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 956.1 Conclusions  ^956.2 Recommendations ^  97Bibliography^ 99A LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS^ 103B DEFINITIONS^ 106C LOG OF OPERATION^ 110D RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 115E RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 128viiList of Tables3.1 Basic Characteristic of Burns Bog Leachate ^ 163.2 Basic Operating Conditions ^ 215.1 Comparison of ASRT with SSRT 375.2 Mean Data for Nitrogen Removal ^ 93viiiList of Figures1.1 Nitrogen Removal Process Schematic  ^33.1 Laboratory Biological Leachate Treatment Schematic ^ 143.2 Burns Bog Landfill Site (ref: Atwater, 1980)  ^153.3 Methanol Addition vs. Time  ^183.4 Ortho-phosphorus Addition vs. Time  ^195.1 ORP Value and Methanol Addition vs. Time ^  315.2 ORP Value vs. The Ratio of Methanol Addition to NO; -N Entering theAnoxic Reactor ^  335.3 ApH (Anoxic pH - Aerobic pH) vs. Nitrification ^  345.4 ApH (Anoxic pH - Leachate pH) vs. Denitrification  345.5 Effect of Temperature on pH Value ^  365.6 Comparison of ASRT with SSRT  385.7 Volatile Suspended Solids vs. Time  ^405.8 Effect of Methanol Addition on the Anoxic TSS and VSS (A) ^ 415.9 Effect of Methanol Addition on the Anoxic TSS and VSS (B) ^ 425.10 Effect of Methanol Addition on the Aerobic TSS and VSS (A) ^ 455.11 Effect of Methanol Addition on the Aerobic TSS and VSS (B) ^ 465.12 Influent and Effluent COD vs. Time ^  485.13 Total COD Removal vs. Time  495.14 Anoxic and Aerobic COD Removal vs. Time ^  505.15 Clarifier COD Removal vs. Time ^  53ix5.16 Total and Clarifier BOD E Removal vs. Time ^  545.17 Anoxic and Aerobic BOD E Removal vs. Time  555.18 Influent Ortho-P vs. Time  ^565.19 Anoxic and Aerobic Ortho-P vs. Time ^  575.20 Anoxic, Aerobic and Total Ammonia-N Removal vs. Time ^ 595.21 Unit Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO;-NEntering the Anoxic Reactor  ^635.22 Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Temperature and SRTs ^ 655.23 Unit Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Temperature and SRTs ^ 665.24 Influent and Effluent Ammonia-N vs. Time ^  685.25 % Nitrification vs. Time  ^705.26 Unit Nitrification vs. Time  ^715.27 Nitrification vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO:-N Entering the Anoxic Re-actor  ^765.28 Nitrification vs. Temperature and SRTs  ^785.29 Unit Nitrification vs. Temperature and SRTs  ^795.30 Nitrification vs. Aerobic Ortho-P  ^805.31 Nitrification vs. Aerobic pH  ^815.32 % Denitrification vs. Time  ^825.33 Unit Denitrification vs. Time  ^835.34 Denitrification vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO;-N Entering the AnoxicReactor  ^865.35 Unit Denitrification vs. Anoxic Ortho-P  ^885.36 Unit Denitrification vs. Anoxic pH  ^885.37 Influent and Effluent NO; -N ^905.38 Influent and Effluent NO 2-  ^915.39 Mean Unit Nitrogen Values vs. Time ^  94xiAcknowledgmentThe author would like to thank her research supervisor, Professor D. S. Mavinic, forhis helpful guidance and suggestion throughout her study. Constructive criticism fromProfessor J. W. Atwater is also gratefully acknowledged.She is extremely grateful to Susan Liptak and Paula Parkinson, of the U.B.C. Envi-ronmental Engineering Laboratory, for the invaluable help and assistance. Without theirhelp this study would not have been completed. Many thanks to Paula Parkinson andJufang Zhou for having provided valuable time in the chemical analysis associated withthe Lachat QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer.Lastly, she also wishes to thank Mr. Guy Kirsh for his help in the experimentalequipment setting up and repair.xiiChapter 1INTRODUCTIONLandfilling is the most common method of solid waste disposal. Leachate is generatedwhen liquid percolates through solid wastes, that are undergoing decomposition, andextracts both biological materials and chemical compounds. Landfill leachate can be asignificant source of pollution to the receiving water.The concentration range of the various compounds in the leachate depends on the ageand geological base of the landfill. Leachates from newer landfills are characterized by lowpH, high COD and high BOD 5 , high BOD 5 /COD ratio, low ammonia-N concentrationand high metal concentration (Chian, et al., 1985). In older landfills, such as Burns Bogin Vancouver (operation was initiated in 1966), the leachate is characterized by a nearneutral pH, low COD and BOD 5 , low BOD 5 /COD ratio, high ammonia-N concentrationand low metal concentration.High concentration of ammonia-N and its oxidized forms, nitrate and nitrite, havebeen recognized as being potentially detrimental to receiving water systems. High levelsof ammonia-N can cause adverse effects on public health, and can contribute to aquatictoxicity, dissolved oxygen depletion, nitrate and nitrite contamination, and eutrophica-tion. N-Nitroso- (NNO-) compounds, readily formed from nitrite, amines or amides, arefound to be strong carcinogens (Mirvish, 1977). Nitrates in water supplies in concentra-tions over 45 mg/1 (as NO 3- ) have led to numerous cases of infant methomoglobinemia(Shuval and Cruener, 1977).Nitrogen removal from landfill leachate before discharging into the receiving watersChapter 1. INTRODUCTION^ 2has been recognized as essential for minimizing the negative impacts on the aquaticenvironment. The single-sludge, biological pre-denitrification (i.e. denitrification beingcarried out before nitrification) completely-mixed, activated sludge system (known asthe Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) system), has proved to be an efficient method fornitrogen removal. In this process, ammonia-N is oxidized to nitrite and further to nitrateby nitrifying bacteria. The sludge, which contains high nitrate, is recycled back to theanoxic reactor where it is reduced to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria. Nitrogengas is considered to be harmless to the environment. Figure 1.1 presents the biologicalreaction sequence involved in the MLE process which used in this project.Nitrifying bacteria, primarily Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are autotrophic bacteria.They utilize inorganic compounds such as ammonia and nitrite as their source of energyand carbon dioxide as their principal source of carbon. Oxygen serves as the final electronacceptor. Nitrosomonas can only oxidize ammonia to nitrite and Nitrobacter can onlyoxidize nitrite to nitrate.During the process of nitrification, alkalinity is consumed. When synthesis is omit-ted, for every mg of ammonia nitrogen being oxidized, 7.16 mg alkalinity is destroyed(U.S.E.P.A., 1975). Because of the reduction of alkalinity, the pH value is correspond-ingly reduced.By assuming that the empirical formulation of bacterial cell is C 5 H 7NO 2 , the synthesis-oxidation for Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter can be expressed by the following equations(U.S.EPA, 1975):Nitrosomonas Synthesis:+ 760 2 + 109HCO3^C5H7NO2 + 54N0;- + 57H 20 + 104H 2 CO 3 (1.1)INFLUENTAMMONIA N2GAS EFFLUENTAMMONIA FORAEROBIC ASSIM.55NH: +7602 +109HC0;Cy H7 NO2 +54NCS +57H 2 0+104112 CO3400NCS +NH: +4112 CO3 +HCO; +19502G H7 NO2 +3H2 0+400N110AMMONIA FORANOXIC ASSIM.NO3 +0.33CH3 OHNO14-0.33H2 0 4. 0.33H2 CO3CLARIFIERANOXIC REACTOR AEROBIC REACTOR"""rr -" , """"""1"'"'"*" - "^ "-74,1r••17.P1Figure 1.1: Nitrogen Removal Process SchematicChapter 1. INTRODUCTION^ 4Nitrobacter Synthesis:400N0 NH,4- 4H2CO3 HCO3+ 1950 2^C5H7NO2 + 3H20 400NO3 (1.2)Yields for Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are 0.11 mg cells/mg N114-N and 0.02 mgcells/mg NO-N, respectively (which are low relative to heterotrophic growth).The denitrifying bacteria, including Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Archromobacter bacil-lus and Thiobacillus, are facultative heterotrophic bacteria. They utilize organic carbonas their carbon source, and nitrate, nitrite or oxygen as their final electron acceptor.Since the denitrifying bacteria will utilize oxygen before nitrate and nitrite, the denitri-fication process must take place in an anoxic environment, to ensure that nitrate andnitrite are utilized.In contrast to nitrification, denitrification produces alkalinity. As noted by in U.S.EPA(1975), 3.0 mg alkalinity as CaCO 3 is produced per mg nitrogen reduced. Therefore, thereis a tendency for pH to increase during denitrification.When methanol is utilized as the electron donor, the biological pathway involved inthe denitrification process can be expressed by the following equations (U.S.EPA, 1975):Reduction of Nitrate to Nitrite:+ + 0.33H2 CO 3 + 0.33112 0 (1.3)NO3-^0.33CH3 OHReduction of Nitrite to Nitrogen Gas:NO^+ 0.5CH3 OH + 0.51126'0 3 (1.4)0.5N2^HCO3 7-112 0Denitrifiers Synthesis:+^ ----> + 3HCO3^20H2 O (1.5)3NO3^14CH3 OH^4H2 CO 3^3C5 H7NO 2Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION^ 5Numerous studies on biological leachate treatment have been carried out so far, mostlyat room temperature (approximately 20°C). However, the temperature of the leachategenerated in North America during winter is often much lower. Temperature has asignificant effect on the growth of microorganisms, including nitrifying bacteria and den-itrifying bacteria. Therefore, the objective of this investigation was to study the effectof temperature on nitrification and denitrification of a high ammonia municipal landfillleachate in an MLE process, and to optimize the control for the treatment by adjustingmethanol addition and utilizing different aerobic SRTs. Burns Bog landfill leachate (alandfill near Vancouver, B.C.) was used as the waste for this project. The lab scaleexperiment lasted 319 days. Temperatures investigated were 20°C, 12°C and 4°C, insuccession, under various experimental conditions.Chapter 2BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIESThis chapter provides an introduction to landfill leachates and a brief literature reviewon the methods of leachate treatment, particularly those studies involving biological ni-trogen removal at low temperatures. The information collected is summarized below.2.1 LeachateSanitary landfilling has become a principal means of municipal solid wastes disposal. Itis an economical method of solid waste disposal when compared with other methods. Inaddition, submarginal land may be reclaimed for use as parking lots, playgrounds, golfcourses, airports, etc. However, one of the major problems is caused by the leaching ofthe fill materials.2.1.1 Leachate GenerationRefuse landfills receive a full spectrum of solid waste residues produced by highly de-veloped and industrialized metropolitan areas(Atwater, 1980). This multiplicity of solidwastes can undergo a complex mix of biological, physical and chemical decompositionprocesses and interactions. With rainfall infiltration, ground water intrusion or othermeans of liquid application, leachate is generated. It has been estimated that, for eachtonne of solid wastes landfilled, five to ten kilograms of solids will be leached out(Atwater,1980).6Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 72.1.2 Characteristics of LeachateThe composition of landfill leachates depends on the characteristics of the solid wastes,the site temperature, pH, moisture content, age and geometry of the fill, the characteris-tics of water intruding the fill, and the type of soil adjoining the fill(Chian and Dewalle,1977; Atwater and Mavinic, 1986). Common inorganic constituents of leachate includeammonia nitrogen, phosphorus, bicarbonates, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium,chloride, sulfate, iron, copper, nickel, chromium, zinc, etc( Tchobanoglous et al, 1977;Atwater and Mavinic, 1986).Chian et al(1985) classified five stages of biological degradation of the wastes in alandfill. The first stage is a short aerobic decomposition phase, which may last from oneto six months, depending on the amount of air trapped within the refuse. The secondstage, when oxygen is depleted, involves a transition from an aerobic to anoxic/aerobicmicrobial population. During this process, nitrates or sulfates are utilized instead ofoxygen. The third or acid formation stage includes the degradation of organic materialinto volatile fatty acids by facultative anaerobes. The leachate produced during this stageis therefore characterized by low pH, high BOD 5 and COD, high BOD 5 /COD ratio, highammonia-N and high metal concentrations; thus, is classified as the leachate from a newerlandfill. During the fourth stage, methanogenic bacteria utilize the volatile fatty acids toform methane and carbon dioxide. During the period of anaerobic activity, ammonia-Nis released as a byproduct (converted from organic nitrogen). This is one reason that"older" landfill leachate contains high ammonia-N concentration(Henry, 1985). The finalstage involves very little biological activity as the biodegradable material and nutrientshave been exhausted.The major concern for an old landfill leachate is ammonia-N. Ammonia-N concentra-tions of landfill leachate have been reported at 200-600 mg/I by Knox (1985), 350-390Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 8mg/1 by Maris, et al (1985), 790 mg/1 by Robinson and Maris (1985) and 120 mg/1 byLiu, et al, (1991). Ammonia-N concentrations in the Vancouver area leachate are about26-244 mg/1 for the Port Mann landfill leachate(Atwater and Mavinic, 1986) and 85-320mg/1 for Burns Bog landfill leachate employed in this project.2.1.3 High Ammonia ProblemAmmonia can be toxic to fish and aquatic life. U.S. EPA (1976) has set the un-ionizedammonia criteria of 0.02 mg/1 as a safe water system for aquatic life. High concentrationof ammonia-N can cause the dissolved oxygen depletion and eutrophication in natu-ral water systems. The oxidized forms of ammonia-N, nitrite and nitrate, are reportedto be related to the causation of infant methomoglobinemia(Shuva/ and Gruener, 1977),formation of carcinogenic compounds and increased risk of gastric cancer(Mirvish, 1977).2.2 Methods of Leachate TreatmentMany studies on leachate nitrogen removal have been undertaken. The methods beingused include physical-chemical process, recirculation, irrigation, bacterial assimilationand biological nitrification and denitrification. The last method is most widely used andwill be discussed in a separate section (see section 2.3)2.2.1 Physical-Chemical TreatmentPhysical-chemical treatment of leachate includes chemical precipitation and coagulation,chemical oxidation, activated carbon adsorption, air stripping, pH adjustment, ion ex-change, and, membrane separation. The advantages of this method are short time forstart-up, relative insensitivity to temperature(except air stripping) and the potential forChapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 9automation(Forgie, 1988). However, there are problems such as high cost, inconsistentperformance etc.. These problems have limited the wide use of physical-chemical pro-cesses (Metcalf & Eddy, 1991). Ehrig (1985), after investigating several different physical-chemical methods treating leachates, concluded that it is not possible to substitute thephysical-chemical treatment for the biological process.2.2.2 RecirculationLeachate recirculation is performed by spraying onto the exposed surface of the landfill orby distribution through perforated pipes beneath the surface of the landfill. This methodcan offer benefits in reducing the volume (through evaporation) and strength of leachate.However, it cannot be considered to be a complete answer to surface leachate discharges.The most effective option, perhaps, is to combine recirculation together with furtheraerobic biological treatment(Robinson and Maris, 1985). Lee et al (1986) suggested thatrecirculation could reduce contaminants to some extent and provide the same functionas a separate biological treatment step.2.2.3 IrrigationIrrigation of plants using leachate has not been widely used as a means of treatmentor disposal. Menser 0981), after studying irrigation of landfill leachate, suggested thatsome type of pre-treatment may be needed for successful irrigation with leachate.2.2.4 Bacterial AssimilationThis process involves the nitrogen being removed as a nutrient source for bacterial syn-thesis. However, this method requires a high supply of biodegradable organic carbon tobe provided for the growth of bacteria; thus, is not suitable for treating an older typeChapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 10of landfill leachate, in which a large portion of organic material consists of relativelyrefractory compounds(Robinson and Maris, 1985). If this method is used, an externalsupply of carbon must be supplied (with a ratio of BOD 5 :N > 20:1) to implement effec-tive nitrogen removal via assimilation.2.3 Biological Nitrification and DenitrificationDuring the nitrification process ammonia nitrogen is converted to nitrite and hence tonitrate by nitrifying bacteria. During the denitrifying process nitrite and nitrate areconverted to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria.2.3.1 Nitrifying and Denitrifying BacteriaNitrifiers grow over a wide temperature range, 4°C to 45°C, with optima at about 35°Cfor Nitrosomonas (Buswell et al., 1954) and 35°C to 42°C for Nitrobacter (Nelson, 1931).The pH range of the growth of these bacteria are pH 6 - 10, with best growth between pH7 - 8 (Painter, 1977). The maximum possible growth rate, An , for nitrifiers was reportedto be 0.465 day" at a temperature of 20°C, whereas, at a temperature of 10°C, it wasonly 0.175 day' (U.S. EPA, 1975). Dissolved oxygen concentrations of above 2 mg/1are essential for nitrification to occur (Metcalf 6' Eddy Inc., 1991).The growth of Thiobacillus Denitrificans was found to have an optimum temperatureof 28°C to 32°C and an optimum pH value of 6.8 to 7.4 (Staley et al, 1989). As reportedby Delwiche (1956,) at 5°C, Pseudomonas Denitrzficans reduced nitrate at about onetenth of the rate as at 27°C. Denitrification rates can be up to 0.36 lb NO3-N rem./lbMLVSS/day at a temperature of 20°C, whereas at a temperature of 10°C, it might beonly 0.10 lb NO3-N rem./lb MLVSS/day (U.S. EPA, 1975).Chapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 112.3.2 Previous StudiesOleszkiewicz and Berquist (1988), while studying low temperature biological nitrogenremoval from a composition of sewage and pharmaceutical wastes using sequencing batchreactors, reported that nitrification was feasible at temperature of as low as 2°C.Antoniou et al (1990), while studying nitrification in wastewater treatment process,observed that the optimum pH for nitrification was approximately pH 7.8. The maximumspecific growth rate was found to be a monotonically increasing function of temperaturein the range of 15°C to 25°C.Keenan et al 0984) studied a full scale leachate treatment plant and observed thatthe cold winter temperatures inhibited the biochemical oxidation of ammonia-N, resultingin severe operating problems.Dedhar (1985) studied ammonia-N removal from a landfill leachate by using a continuous-feed, single sludge pre-denitrification system at room temperature (glucose was added tothe anoxic reactor as the carbon source for the denitrifiers). One hundred percent ofammonia-N removal was achieved. The percentage denitrification was observed to varywith the variant carbon loading in the anoxic reactor.Carley (1988), investigated the effects of excess carbon in the anoxic reactor using asingle-sludge pre-denitrification system (at room temperature) with recycle for nitrogenremoval from a landfill leachate. Different carbon sources: acetate, methanol, yeast wasteand glucose were applied for comparison. He concluded that methanol and acetate werethe most efficient and trouble-free carbon sources for denitrification. Methanol addition,as a ratio of COD to NO produced, was found to be 6.2:1, when complete denitrificationwas achieved.Robinson and Maris (1985) studied aerobic biological leachate treatment and foundthat the treatment was retarded by the low phosphorus concentration in leachate. TheyChapter 2. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS STUDIES^ 12stated that addition of phosphorus nutrient was necessary. They also reported thatsuccessful nitrification of ammonia-N in leachate at full-scale would clearly require a highdegree of control, particularly at low temperatures of 10°C and below. It was concludedthat, at 10°C, with addition of phosphorus, aerobic SRT values of greater than 10 dayswere required.Elefsiniotis et al (1989), while studying the effects of sludge recycle ratio on ni-trification and denitrification in treatment of a high ammonia-N (200-600 mg/1), lowbiodegradable carbon landfill leachate (using a single-sludge pre-denitrification process),observed that a recycle ratio of 6:1 was optimum for the process. A higher recycle ratioresulted in very unstable performances of nitrification and denitrification.Atwater and Mavinic (1986), while studying influent constraints on the treatment ofleachate, using the same single-sludge pre-denitrification process, stated that an aero-bic SRT of less than 20 days produced inadequate (effluent ammonia-N was beyond 10mgN/1) treatment at room temperature.The above selected literatures reviews represent a brief overview of high ammonia-Nleachate treatment, and the problems caused by temperature, carbon, phosphorus, SRTetc. This information served as incentive to further investigate high ammonia-N leachatetreatment by using the biological pre-denitrification process at low temperatures.Chapter 3EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATIONTwo identical, bench-scale, single sludge, biological pre-denitrification systems, withsludge recycle, were used during this study. The treatment schematic is presented inFigure 3.1. One system operated at the aerobic sludge ages of 20 days and 60 days andone system operated at 20 days, 30 days and 40 days.3.1 LeachateThe leachate sample used in this project was taken from the City of Vancouver's BurnsBog Landfill in Delta, British Columbia. Initially started in 1966, this leachate canbe classified as an older leachate. The leachate was taken, once a month, from a well(adjacent to a drainage ditch, surrounding the landfill), which is located in the south-west corner of the fill (see Figure 3.2) and stored in a refrigerate chamber at 4°C untilrequired. The average ammonia-N concentration of the leachate was around 210 mg/l,with the highest value of 320 mg/1 happening in Autumn 1990 and the lowest value of 85mg/1 happening during early Spring 1991, when more precipitation occurred. The BOD 5level in the leachate was quite low (averaged 35 mg/1). The basic characteristics of theleachate are presented in Table 3.1.The leachate was continuously added to the anoxic reactors at a rate of about 10liters per day from a continuously-stirred, plastic container. To prevent changing in thecharacteristics of the leachate by excess aeration, the container was covered with a lid.An aliquot of feed, was taken every other day from the 4°C refrigerated chamber to the131 rpm SCRAPERMIXERSAMPLINGANOXICREACTOR(5 L)METHANOLMIXERPHOSPHORUSMIXERAIR AUPPLYDAILY WASTING(PROPORTIONAL TO ASFIT)OR SAMPLINGLEACHATEFEED(10 L/day)AEROBICREACTOR(10 L) EFFLUENTCLARIFIER(4 L)•DO METER^I TiORP METERFigure 3.1: Laboratory Biological Leachate Treatment Schematic•wow■ glom..! I^Wet WellI /and PumpI^I—=0Surface Water InterceptionDitch to be converted toLeachate Collector asFill advanced13- -- - ^JLEGEND:...ma .11■01. ,11■111. ••■•■ Surface Drainage DitchesLeachate DitchesFigure 3.2: Burns Bog Landfill Site (ref: Atwater, 1980)Chapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 16Table 3.1: Basic Characteristic of Burns Bog LeachateItem ConcentrationRange(mg/l)MeanCOD 260-565 400BOD 5 15-55 35Ammonia-N 85-320 210Nitrate+Nitrite (NO;-N) 0-1.9 0.61Nitrite (NO;- -N) 0-0.33 0.18Ortho-P 0.05-1.6 0.40TKN 1 97-350 196TP 0-2.5 0.17TSS 18-185 73VSS 13-115 39Zn 0-0.11 0.04Cu 0-0.71 0.13Alkalinity, as CaCO 3 2 1240-1920 1560Conductivity (ILS/cm) 2779-6158 4626pH 7.02-7.65 7.40Because of instrument problems, the TKN value was generally lower than ammonia-N (thusbeing used as a reference only).2 Mavinic and Randall, 1989.Chapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 17container, allowing the leachate feed to acclimate to the lab temperature before additionto the systems.3.2 Chemical AdditionMethanol (CH3 OH) and tribasic sodium phosphate(Na 3 PO412H 2 O) were applied as thenutrients. They were added to the anoxic reactors of both systems. The concentrationof the methanol solution prepared was 50 mg/1, whereas that of phosphate was adjustedaccording to the flow rates. The chemical addition was checked and adjusted every day.However, since the pumps were not stable, the flow rates were not able to be controlledat a same rate every day. Figure 3.3 and 3.4 illustrate the addition of methanol andortho-P as a function of time.3.3 Anoxic ReactorThe primary purpose of the anoxic reactor was to denitrify the highly nitrified returnsludge from the clarifier. The reactor, a plastic cylindrical tank, had a liquid volume of 5liters. It was fed continuously with leachate feed, return sludge, methanol, and ortho-Psolution. A stir was installed for complete mixing in the reactor. The mixing speedwas controlled between 30 and 50 rpm, in order to avoid excess oxygen intruding intothe reactor. An ORP probe was submersed in the reactor for the observation of redoxpotential in the anoxic reactor.3.4 Aerobic ReactorThe primary purpose of the aerobic reactor (10 liter size) was to nitrify the high ammonia-N content of the leachate. The mixed liquor from the anoxic reactor hydraulically enteredthe completely mixed aerobic reactor by gravity. In an attempt to provide sufficient1620 40 60-----SRT=INFINITE0 ^fluicd 3E1^I 'do'0(SYSTEM II)181612 oC00X12zC 1000< 8O62 4SRT=20 d80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP18Chapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION(SYSTEM I)188O62 4SRT = INFINITE0 ^thdtai^I 'citY0^20 40 6012 oCSRT = 00 dII^ t^t II 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP4 oCFigure 3.3: Methanol Addition vs. Time20= 400180160O• 120< 100ccO 80coO 600. 1120 oCSRT = INFINITE^I^SRT = 20 d12 oC12 oC4 oCSRT = 60 d200180• 160o• 140Di 120co• 1000• 80cnOI 60a.• 400204 oC12 oC12 oC20 oC 12 oCChapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 19(SYSTEM I)0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)thclaidid'd I .du 0 20 40 60 80SRT=20 d ^ SRT=40 d^ SRT=30 d F– SRT=20d —100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPSRT=INFINITEFigure 3.4: Ortho-phosphorus Addition vs. TimeChapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 20oxygen for the nitrifying bacteria, the reactor was aerated by means of compressed air,which was passed through a perforated tubing diffuser fitted to the bottom of the tank. Astir was installed for completely mixing. A DO probe was submersed in the mixed liquorconstantly. The air supply flow was adjusted in order to maintain the dissolved oxygenconcentration in the reactor at levels above 2 mg/1 to avoid depressing effects of low DOon the rate of nitrification. To achieve the selected sludge age or Solids Retention Time(SRT) of the systems, wasting was performed daily directly from the aerobic reactor.3.5 ClarifierThe mixed liquor from the aerobic reactor flowed by gravity into a 4-liter conical plexiglassclarifier, where the solids were settled by gravity; the supernatant flowed to the drainagesystem. The settled and thickened solids at the bottom were recycled to the anoxicreactor. The ratio of returned sludge flow to the leachate feed flow was 6:1. To clear therecycle line from blockage as well as provide proper volumetric throughput, the recyclepumps were operated on a cycle of two minutes off and two minutes on. A 1 rpm scrapermechanism was installed to prevent the settling sludge from adhering to the side walls ofthe clarifier.3.6 Basic OperationThe basic operating conditions for two systems are presented in Table 3.2. The operationcommenced on July 20, 1990 and lasted for 319 days. Each reactor was filled with sewagesludge seed taken from the University of British Colombia mobile sewage treatment pilotplant. Both systems were operated at an infinite theoretical aerobic Solids RetentionTime (SRT) until day 82, when complete nitrification of the leachate was established.Daily wasting of 500 ml mixed liquor was started on that day, in order to reach an ASRTChapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 21Table 3.2: Basic Operating ConditionsDay Started Temperature°CSRTsASRT 1System IDaysMean SSRT 2SRTsASRTSystem IIDaysMean SSRT0 20 infinite 37 infinite 6282 20 20 17 20 13104 12 20 17 20 22162 12 20 17 40 17213 12 60 12 40 17235 12 60 12 30 13270 12 60 12 20 18298 4 60 29 20 18ASRT = Theoretical Aerobic Solids Retention TimeMass volatile susp.solids in the aerobic reactorMass volatile susp. solids wasted daily from the reactor2 SSRT = System Solids Retention TimeTotal mass volatile susp. solids in the systemTotal mass volatile susp. solids wasted from the systemof 20 days.As shown in Table 3.2, the successive temperatures studied were 20°C, 12°C and 4°C.At a temperature of 20°C, a ASRT of 20 days was studied; at 12°C, ASRTs of 60, 40,30, and 20 days were studied; and, at 4°C, ASRTs of 60 and 20 days were studied. Insystem I, the ASRT of 60 days started on day 213, and continued until the end of theproject. In system II, the ASRT of 40 days started on day 162, the ASRT of 30 daysstarted on day 235 and the ASRT of 20 days started on day 270.Since the volume of the whole system was about 19.5 L, almost twice as much asthe aerobic reactor, ideally, the system solids retention time (SSRT) should be almosttwice as much as ASRT. However, because of a significant amount of solids loss fromChapter 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP AND OPERATION^ 22the clarifier effluent, the SSRT was not proportional to ASRT. It varied with the solidsloss from both aerobic waste line and the effluent. As shown on Table 3.2, SSRT wasclose to ASRT when aerobic SRT was set at 20 days. At higher ASRT, SSRT was moredependent on the effluent VSS, which will be discussed later.The effect of methanol and ortho-P addition on the treatment systems was also stud-ied. In order to encourage the nitrifying bacteria to acclimate to the 12°C temperature,on day 199, methanol addition was reduced from 14 gCOD/d to 4 gCOD/d. On day253, in an attempt to see how the methanol addition affected the system, both systemsoperated without methanol feed for 7 days. Ortho-P dosage remained at around 1 mgP/duntil day 116, when it was increased to 3.3 mgP/d and then gradually further increasedto 167 mgP/d by day 200.On day 294, after first sampling at 4°C, the laboratory power supply system failed.The ambient temperature rose to 23°C. One day later, a temporary power supply wasconnected to support the system operation. However, the cooling system still did notwork. On day 297, the breakdown was fixed and the temperature was adjusted at 12°C.On day 298, after sampling, the ambient temperature was reduced back to 4°C.Chapter 4ANALYTICAL METHODS4.1 IntroductionThis chapter describes the parameters used for data analysis and the methods of theirphysical or chemical determination.Samples were taken once for every four or five days. Seven samples were taken at oncefrom one influent line (leachate feed), each of the two anoxic reactors, aerobic reactorsand clarifier effluents. Anoxic and aerobic samples were taken from the waste lines. Asmall volume of sludge, which was sitting at the valve, was flushed back to the reactorbefore taking the sample.The concentrations of NH 3 , NO;, NO2, P0 34- , TKN and TP were measured bycolorimetric methods. Two instruments were used for the analysis of NH 3 , NO; andNO 2- in two different stages of the research: before day 124, Technicon AutoanalyzerII and after day 124, QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer. Since both are based oncolorimetric principles, these two instruments made no difference in the analysis of thesame sample, except that the new one had a higher accuracy. TKN and TP were analyzedby the Technicon Autoanalyzer II throughout the entire project.The concentrations of NH 3 , NO;, NO2, and TKN used in this research were allexpressed as mg/1 of nitrogen. The concentrations of PO 43- and TP used in this researchwere all expressed as mg/1 of phosphorus.23Chapter 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 244.2 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)ORP was measured using a Cole-Parmer Chemicadet pH meter connected to a BroadlleyJames Corporation ORP Electrode. It is a combination electrode with a Ag-AgC1 typeprobe, which utilized a 3.8 M KC1 electrolyte salt bridge and platinum (Pt) band electrodebuilt into one electrode body. The pH meter was set to the millivolt scale. An ORP probewas submersed in each anoxic reactor of the two systems. The ORP value was recordeddaily in order to observe changes in the redox potential and denitrification conditions.4.3 Dissolved Oxygen (DO)The DO value was determined by a Yellow Spring Instrument Co. Model 54A DissolvedOxygen meter with a Yellow Spring Instrument 5739 submersible DO probe. The mem-brane of the probe was changed biweekly and calibrated using the air calibration method(Instruction Manual YSI Models 54 ARC and 54 ABP Dissolved Oxygen Meter). TheDO probe was submersed in the aerobic reactor. A DO reading was taken daily, in or-der to ensure that sufficient DO (more than 2 mg/1) was for nitrification and carbonoxidation.4.4 pHThe pH value was measured using a Beckman pH meter connected with a Fisher com-bination electrode, using an Ag-AgC1 reference element. The probe was calibrated withstandard buffer each time before using. The pH value was recorded twice a week.Chapter 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 254.5 ConductivityA conductivity meter type CDM3 was used to measure the conductivity of the landfillleachate sample. Readings were as µS/cm.4.6 TemperatureThe whole research system was maintained in a controlled temperature room in order tomaintain a given constant ambient temperature.4.7 Solids4.7.1 Total Suspended Solids(TSS)The TSS analysis consisted of vacuum filtration of a certain volume of sample througha preweighed filter paper and oven drying both paper and sample overnight at 104°C;cooling and weighing were performed in accordance with Standard Methods (A.P.H.A.et al, 1989). The filter paper was prewashed and prefired at 550°C before using.4.7.2 Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)The VSS were measured by heating the solids obtained in the previous section at 550°Cfor 90 minutes, and then operating in a similar way according to Standard Methods(A.P.H.A. et al, 1989).4.8 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)The unfiltered COD was measured. The sample was preserved with concentrated sul-phuric acid (pH < 2.0) and stored in a refrigerated chamber at 4°C. COD samples wereChapter 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 26taken once every four to five days and analyzed using the Closed Reflux TitrimetricMethod, following the instruction outlined in Standard Methods (A.P.H.A. et al., 1980).4.9 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 )Unfiltered BOD 5 samples were taken once every four to five days commencing on day 207.They were analyzed in accordance with Standard Methods (A.P.H.A. et al., 1989). Theinitial and final dissolved oxygen reading were obtained using a Yellow Springs InstrumentCo. Dissolved Oxygen meter, Model 54, with a self-mixing membrane covered probe.The meter was calibrated using the azide modification titration method as described inStandard Methods (A.P.H.A. et al., 1989).4.10 Ammonia-NTwo instruments were involved in the analysis of ammonia-N.Before day 124, a Technicon Autoanalyzer II, Colorimeter was used in accordancewith the directions outlined in the accompanying manual (U.S. EPA, 1979). The sampleswere filtered with Whatman #4 filter paper and preserved with one drop of concentratedsulphuric acid and stored at 4°C.Starting on day 124, a Lachat Quikchem Automated Ion Analyzer was used in accor-dance with the Methods Manual for the QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer (1987). Thesamples were membrane filtered and preserved with one drop of concentrated sulphuricacid.4.11 Nitrate and Nitrite (NO;)Before day 124, NO; was measured on a Technicon Autoanalyzer II, following the in-struction of the Technicon Industrial Methods No. 100-70W (1973). In the process,Chapter 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 27nitrate is reduced to nitrite by a copper-cadmium reduction method. The sample wasmembrane filtered, preserved with one drop of mercuric acid and stored at 4°C.Starting on day 124, a Lachat QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer was used. Thesample was membrane filtered and preserved with one drop of concentrated sulphuricacid.4.12 Nitrite (NO)The analytical method and the chemical used were identical to those utilized in measuringNO;, except that the copper-cadmium reductor column was not used. The analysis wasalso performed using a Technicon Autoanalyzer II during first half period of this projectand a Lachat QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer after day 124.4.13 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)The sample was first digested in a Technicon Block Digester BD40. The digestionwas done following the instructions of the Technicon Block Industrial Method No. 376-75W(1975). The digested sample was analyzed in accordance with the Technicon Method-ology No. 329-7.4 117 (1975). Because of questionable accuracy of the instrumental analysis(unfiltered TKN concentration was frequently lower than filtered ammonia-N concentra-tion, which was unreasonable), the TKN data were not used for discussion.4.14 Ortho-phosphateBefore day 124, a Technicon Autoanalyzer II was used . The analytical procedure wasconducted following the instructions in Technicon Industrial Method No. 94-70W (1973).The sample was membrane filtered and preserved with one drop of phenyl mercuricacetate.Chapter 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS^ 28Starting on day 124, a Lachat QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer was used. Theanalytical procedure was performed according to the Operating Manual for the QuikChemAutomated Ion Analyzer (1990). The sample was membrane filtered, preserved with onedrop of concentrated sulphuric acid and stored at 4°C.4.15 Total Phosphorus (TP)The sample was digested in a Technicon Block Digester BD40 following the instructionsin Technicon Block Industrial Method No. 376-75W (1975). The digested sample wasanalyzed using the Technicon Autoanalyzer II, in accordance with Technicon IndustrialMethod No. 327-74117 (1974). The principle behind this measurement is similar to thatof ortho-phosphate measurement.4.16 MetalsSince metal effects were not a main objective to be studied in this research (in addition,the metal concentration was very low to begin with), only the dissolved zinc and copper ofthe leachate were monitored. The sample was filtered with Whatman #541 filter paper,which was prewashed with 0.1 N nitric acid, and digested using nitric acid in accordancewith Standard Methods (1989). Zinc and copper concentrations were determined byFlame Atomic Absorption Spectro(photo)metry, using a Thermo Jarrell Ash Video 22instrument following the instructions provided in Atomic Absorption Methods Manual.4.17 AlkalinityAccording to the results measured by previous researchers (Mavinic and Randall, 1989),alkalinity in Burns Bog's landfill leachate was enough (average 1560 mg/l) for nitrifica-tion; thus it was not monitored regularly in this research.Chapter 5RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThis chapter deals with the results obtained from the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger process.Two sets of continuous, single-sludge, pre-denitrification systems were operated with asludge recycle ratio of 6:1. In system I, ASRTs of 20 and 60 days were applied. In systemII, ASRTs of 20, 30 and 40 days were applied. Both systems were operated at ambienttemperature of 20°C, 12°C, and 4°C. The effects of different dosages of methanol andortho-P were investigated. The raw data and basic results are illustrated in Appendix Dand E.Data were analyzed on an IBM personal computer using Lotus 123 Release 3 software.The graphs were drawn using a Freelance program.5.1 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP)The value of ORP depends on the type of probe and the method of calibration. Inthis project, two Ag-AgC1 type electrodes were utilized as ORP probes. The probeswere submersed in the respective anoxic reactors of the two systems throughout theexperiment. These two probes were similarly calibrated in an attempt to synchronizethe readings. Unfortunately, since these two ORP probes reacted differently, the ORPvalues recorded could only be used as a reference for the operation of each system, ratherthan being used for lateral comparison or as absolute values (Due to short of supply, theprobes were not able to be replaced immediately).Figure 5.1 presents the changes in ORP value and methanol addition with time.29Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 30Methanol addition started on day 66 (at 20°C). The reduction of ORP value startedimmediately after that date. On day 82, both systems started operating with an ASRTof 20 days (Mean SSRT was 17 days in system I and 13 days in system II). The anoxicORP of both system I and system II continued to drop (from 100 mV to -100 mV) as themethanol addition increased (from zero to 11 gCOD/d). On day 104, the lab ambienttemperature was reduced from 20°C to 12°C. The ORP value in the two systems continuedto drop, and finally levelled off at around -450 mV in system I and -650 mV in systemII, when the methanol addition of both systems was approximately 13 gCOD/d to 14gCOD/d and ASRT was set at 20 days (Mean SSRT, then, was 17 days in system I and22 days in system II). The different ORP value between the two systems might havebeen caused by the different solids contents between the two systems and the differentreactivity of the two ORP probes.On day 253, the two systems started operating without methanol feed for seven days.Within one day, the ORP of system I (ASRT = 60 days, SSRT = 12 days) jumped fromaround -350 mV to -10 mV, and the ORP of system II (ASRT = 30 days, SSRT = 13 days)jumped from -650 mV to -200 mV. As the methanol addition resumed, the ORP of bothsystems dropped again. This pattern indicated that the ORP value changed in proportionto the methanol addition. Since the denitrifying bacteria are heterotrophic organisms,they utilize the organic carbon as their energy source. Therefore, methanol here servedas a reductant. When a higher amount of methanol was added, the concentration ofreductant increased, which in turn, resulted in the dropping of the ORP value.The reduction of temperature from 20 ° C to 12°C might have contributed somewhatto the reduction in ORP value starting on day 104. However, ORP values did not showa significant change in either system I (ASRT = 60 days, SSRT = 29 days) or systemII (ASRT = 20 days, SSRT = 18 days) after the reduction in temperature from 12°C to4°C (methanol addition was reduced). The change in the concentration of the methanol(SYSTEM I)200 1820 oC 12 oC20ORPMETHANOL.  ADDITIONA— 1610014 8O8-J064 2-100-2000-300-400-500^ ASRT= INFINITE-600 6.66,0.6-1^AA A0^50ASRT=20 d^100^150^200NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPASRT=60 d^^I 66,^, 2 30018200(SYSTEM II)100 — 16ORPMETHANOI.  ADDITION0-100-200E 10 0a.s' -300 08 <-J064-500-60012 oC20 oC2ASRT=40 dASRT=20 d0100^150^200NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPcc0-400-700 --- ASRT=INFINITE^-8000^504 L., —12 oC 4 oC ---ASRT=30 ASRT=20 d -, 250^300Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 31Figure 5.1: ORP Value and Methanol Addition vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 32affected the ORP value much more significantly than it would have affected the change inthe temperature. Ortho-P addition was not observed to have an obvious effect on ORPvalues.Figure 5.2 presents the relationship between ORP and the ratio of methanol additionto NO; -N entering the anoxic reactor. The more COD (of methanol) added, the lowerthe ORP value reached. In the anoxic reactor, when less NO; -N entered it, the growth inthe denitrifying population could be limited, therefore, excess COD could also be utilizedby facultative anaerobic bacteria( Wilderer et al, 1987 and Alavinic and Randall, 1989),thus, dropping the ORP value. As also shown in this Figure, at a same ratio of methanoladded to NO; -N entering the anoxic reactor, up to this ratio of 6:1, the ORP value at20°C was mostly higher than that at 12°C and 4°C, indicating that temperature appearedto have a slight affect on the ORP value.5.2 pHThe pH value of the leachate was fairly constant, ranging from 7.0 to 8.0, and did notappear to affect the treatment systems used When higher levels of nitrification occurredthe pH value measured in the anoxic reactor was usually higher than that observed inthe aerobic reactor. The larger this difference, the higher the level of nitrification andsubsequent denitrification achieved (Figure 5.3)(Note: the data on this figure is collectedfrom system I and II). This confirmed that nitrifying bacteria utilize alkalinity duringtheir synthesis and denitrification releases alkalinity back to the system.The pH value in the anoxic reactor was always higher than that of the original leachatesample when denitrification occurred. Figure 5.4 (Note: the data on this figure is collectedfrom system I and II) shows that the higher the denitrifi cation level, the larger thedifference was in the pH value between the anoxic mixed liquor and the leachate sample.Chapter 5. RESULTS A..,D DISCUSSION(SYSTEM I)10033^ ^02000C 12,9C 4 0oCA0-100 000 BOUNDARYE a_ -200cc0-300A-400BOUNDARY A^ A-5000^2^4^6^8^10^12^14RATIO OF METHANOL ADD:NOx ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)(SYSTEM II)1000-100 —A^-200 —^AA,5'^AE OA^-300 —^0Q.^ 0 0^0CC0-400 —-500 —ABOUNDARY-600 —A^A^G n- CAL-700^I^!^ I^1 1 0 2 4 6^8 10^12^14RATIO OF METHANOL ADD:NOx ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)Figure 5.2: ORP Value vs. The Ratio of Methanol Addition to NO -N Entering theAnoxic ReactorI^I I^■^I BOUNDARY000A0 0^0 00^ 0A0^ ^^ 00^ 0000 0I^IChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION0.534000^ 00^ 00 00BOUNDARY020^40^60^80^100^120^140^160% NITRIFICATIONFigure 5.3: ApH (Anoxic pH - Aerobic pH) vs. Nitrification180 200000 00.4 —0-0.202000C1200C1.801.6ta 0.8Z 0.60. 0.40.20^10^20^30^40^50^60^70^80^90^100% DENITRIFICATIONFigure 5.4: ApH (Anoxic pH - Leachate pH) vs. DenitrificationChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 35This again can be attributed to the presence of the denitrifying bacteria and the releaseof alkalinity during their metabolism.Figure 5.5 presents the changes in pH value when the ambient temperature was sud-denly reduced from 20°C to 12°C, commencing on day 104. Within 11 days from thereduction of temperature, the anoxic pH value increased from 8.14 to 8.35 in system I andfrom 8.10 to 8.36 in system II. The aerobic pH value increased from 7.97 to 8.39 in systemI and from 8.01 to 8.40 in system II. These changes could be related to the inhibitionof the growth of nitrifying bacteria, which consume alkalinity during their metabolism.Less ammonia-N evaporation at low temperature might be an additional reason for theincrease in pH value. There was no such temperature effect on the pH value when theambient temperature was reduced from 12°C to 4°C.Methanol addition and different SRTs were not observed to significantly affect thepH value in this study.5.3 SRTsThe theoretical Aerobic Solids Retention Time (ASRT) was controlled through a propor-tional amount of solids wasting from the aerobic reactor. System Solids Retention Time(SSRT) was calculated through the total solids leaving the system, including aerobicsolids wasting and clarifier effluent solids lost. The following equations were used for thecalculation:ASRT = Theoretical Aerobic Solids Retention TimeMass volatile susp.solids in the aerobic reactorMass volatile susp. solids wasted daily from the reactorAerobic VSS x Aerobic Vol.Aerobic VSS x Daily Vol.of aerobic solids wastedAerobic Vol.Daily Vol. aerobic solids wastedLEACHATEANOXICAEROBIC------------------- -A-20 oC^..0.• ----------------^-- - 0^,.••• •_1, --------- -^- - - - - - -^---------------12 oCASRT = 20 d98.6 -8.4 -8.88.2 -87.8 -7.4 -7.6 -ASRT = 20 d020 oC 12 oCLEACHATEANOXICAEROBIC---------- -------Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 36(SYSTEM I)7.2 I^I^1^i 80^90 100 110 120^130NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)7.2^ i^i^I^1 80 90 100 110 120^130NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.5: Effect of Temperature on pH Value8.88.68.48.2o.7.87.67.4Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 37SSRT 1 = System Solids Retention TimeTotal mass volatile susp. solids in the systemTotal mass volatile susp. solids wasted from the systemAnox VSS x Anox Vol.+ Aer VSS x (Aer + Clar + Red) Vol.Aer VSS x Daily Vol.of aer solids wasted +^VSS x Infl flow1 AssiIrne VSS in the clarifier (4L) and recycle tubing (0.5L) was identical to aerobic VSS ifstirred. Accuracy for this calculation is ±10%.In this research, change of SSRT was not correlated with the change of ASRT (Fig-ure 5.6), because a large portion of solids was lost from the system through the clarifiereffluent.As shown in Table 5.1, at a certain temperature, sludge settleability dropped withthe increase in ASRT, i.e., higher ASRT partly contributed higher Volatile SuspendedSolids (VSS) loss from the clarifier effluent, thus leading to a lower SSRT.Table 5.1: Comparison of ASRT with SSRTTemperature Mean ASRT Mean Effluent VSS Mean SSRT12°C 20 124 1830 202 1340 220 1760 303 124°C 20 152 1860 160 29Note: The data in this table is collected from both systems I and II5.4 SolidsBecause of the interconnected nature of the reactors, the VSS value in the anoxic reactorwas expected to be close to that in the aerobic reactor. However, during this research,550450VSS ASRT SSERT5007060 17")co5040 CI)30201080 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPI-10090805505004504000)E 350cn 300250CL..j 200u..15010020 oC 12 oC20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP0 ^0650 — 1 06VSS ASRT SSRT10090807060co50cc40 co3020Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 38(SYSTEM I)(SYSTEM II)Figure 5.6: Comparison of ASRT with SSRTChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 39the VSS value detected in the aerobic reactor was frequently higher than that in theanoxic reactor (see Figure 5.7), which was possibly caused by the high effluent VSS lossleading to less solids being recycled to the anoxic basin. Incontinuous sludge pumpingflow (2 min on and 2 min off) might have affected the sampling accuracy and contributedto this VSS difference. This is also reflected in the fact that the values of the parametersmeasured without filtering, such as COD, BOD 5 , TKN and TP (see discussion elsewhere)were generally higher in the aerobic reactor than in the anoxic reactor.Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) were seriouslyaffected by methanol addition (increased and decreased in response to the increase anddecrease of methanol addition), but less affected by temperature and SRTs. The ratio ofVSS to TSS was variable, ranging from 0.4 to 0.8.5.4.1 Effect of Temperature on the VSSVSS levels decreased by just under 20% with the reduction in temperature, confirmingthat bacterial growth was inhibited by the low temperature. The TSS value variedaccording to changes in the VSS value.5.4.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on the TSS and VSSAnoxic TSS and VSSFigures 5.8 and 5.9 present the anoxic TSS and VSS values as affected by the addition ofmethanol. It can be observed that the anoxic TSS and VSS values changed in a patterncorresponding to the rate of methanol addition. This can be attributed to the excessCOD being added to the anoxic basin (in excess of denitrification requirements for thelimited NO;-N).Commencing on day 66, methanol was added to both system I and system II. System2504,0003,5003,0002,500 —zei2,000cn1,500 —ANOXICAEROBICASeRTSSRT— —K— -200100 CO12 oC 4 oC/^A• ....;eop••• •^ 0 \ • o 0/\0-0-•COO C>C00 co•o. oo • -000 o.o*-t,^I^I^1^I^l^I^I^1^J^I^I ,K40 ^,5000 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 40(SYSTEM I)(SYSTEM II)11^.111111,111[1ft!^11^117^1 *-1250ANOXICAEROBICASRTSSRT3,5003,0002,500— 200;•;1^ A 9'; ,g.1  ;1 ^. 1^I 1 20 0C 12 oC:^1 /I^i'I I ;I^It ^1 i 11^ I II^i ^IIV i ;:^i),\ 0..c>•-o•olc>lo o-,o• c> o-o,,,,, ^i 6o occaoco/ • ,Ie^\ -4I ^I I 11 I i^1 0 ''''^-.."‘ /I^ NI^I 1•,0,,*'s Mt4^/**Z\C4MT,;--76 .E,I Cji; ,Do. , (II- 1!-/5 — — Al• • ozi^NA,,^1,^1^,^,^,,^I^,^r^,^I^,^,,I,,,,41,,,I,,,I,,,11,,I,,,^1,^,,^I^,^,^II:711,^,^■1,I '^'^'^'^'20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP2 , 000E>C/3 1,5001,000500— 50Figure 5.7: Volatile Suspended Solids vs. TimeTSSpVSSMETHANOL- 12fl7- 10 0CD- 8 000- 60- 42TEMPERATURE = 20 oCA142ASRT = INFINITE1 70^80NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPASRT = 20 d9050 60010061 3,5003,000cr)cn 2,5000z 2,0001,5004,0004,500- 12- 10 0rnz- 8 0i=00- 6Oz- 42- 21,000^I 050 60ASRT = 20 d070^80^90^100NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPASRT = INFINITEFigure 5.8: Effect of Methanol Addition on the Anoxic TSS and VSS (A)14TSS VSSMETHANOLTEMPERATURE = 20 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 41(SYSTEM I)5,5005,000sa 4,500co4,000zd(/) 3,500)740z 3,0002,5002,000(SYSTEM II)1614TSSVSSMETHANOLTEMPERATURE = 12 oC0ASRT = 20 dI^I^i^i^i 195^200^205^210^215NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP0- 4ASRT =130 d^1,0001902220^225(SYSTEM II)5,000• 4,000EU)coa• 3,000cn0< 2,00012 0TSSYP.METH,ANOL16TEMPERATURE = 12 oC1410 0a806 Eo .ASRT = 40 -----402Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 42(SYSTEM I)6,0005,000C)Eco>C1) 4,000zco• 3,00002,0001,000190^195^200^205^210^215^220^225NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.9: Effect of Methanol Addition on the Anoxic TSS and VSS (B)Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 43I had an initial addition rate of 6.9 gCOD/d, which was gradually increased to 12.2gCOD/d by day 84. System II had an initial addition rate of 8.5 gCOD/d, which wasgradually increased to 12.8 gCOD/d by day 84. During these 18 days, anoxic TSS andVSS values increased markedly, regardless of the daily wasting (which was started onday 82 in both systems) to reach an ASRT of 20 days. In system I, anoxic TSS and VSSvalues increased by approximately 1,600 mg/1 (33%) and 1,500 mg/1 (38%), respectively.In system II, anoxic TSS and VSS values increased by approximately 2,000 mg/1 (43%)and 1,500 mg/1 (54%), respectively. During the time period, there was no increased VSSloss from the effluent.Because of the drop in temperature at day 104, nitrification failure was observed.In an attempt to determine if reducing the methanol addition would help reintroducenitrification at the low temperature, on day 199, methanol addition was suddenly reducedfrom 14 gCOD/d to 4 gCOD/d in both system I (ASRT = 60 days) and System II (ASRT= 40 days), and then kept at this dosage for two weeks. Within these two weeks, theanoxic TSS value in system I had dropped from 4780 mg/1 to 2830 mg/1 (by 40 %),and the VSS value had dropped from 2,660 mg/1 to 1230 mg/1 (by 53%) (effluent VSSalso dropped). In system II, the anoxic TSS value had dropped from 5,080 mg/1 to2,910 mg/1 (by 43%), and the VSS value had dropped from 2,640 mg/1 to 1,220 mg/1(by 54%) (effluent VSS also dropped). Despite the solids dropping, three weeks afterthe reduction in methanol addition (commencing on day 199), the nitrification levelrecovered from zero to 92% in system I, and from zero to 118% (see discussion later fornitrification performance) in system II. This pattern indicated that excess carbon wasprobably utilized by facultative anaerobic bacteria in the anoxic reactor (Wilder et al,1987 and Mavinic and Randall, 1989) and heterotrophic bacteria in the aerobic reactor.Their growth was limited by the reduction in methanol addition, thus, resulting in theearlier solids drop.Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 44Aerobic TSS and VSSThe aerobic TSS and VSS values were also observed to correspond to the changes inmethanol dosage (Figure 5.10 and 5.11), because of excess COD added to the system.However, aerobic ammonia-N removal and nitrification levels were observed to change ina contrary way with the changes in methanol dosage. It was possible that heterotrophicgrowth was "encouraged" in the aerobic basin due to the excess carbon contributionflowing from the anoxic basin.5.5 Carbon LoadingThe COD level of the leachate was relatively low, averaging 400 mg/I. The BOD 5 levelof the leachate was measured and averaged about 35 mg/l. The average BOD 5 to CODratio was 1:11, which indicated that the organic materials remaining in the leachate weremostly non-biodegradable. In order to achieve denitrification, methanol was used as anexternal source of carbon (Carley, 1988).The COD and BOD 5 values were obtained using unfiltered samples. This causedsome difficulty in explaining the results because of the complexities of the MLE system.Both COD and BOD 5 removal rates were therefore lower than those of filtered sampleanalyses obtained by previous researchers.5.5.1 CODThe effluent COD came from two sources. A portion of effluent COD was derived fromthe original leachate (the refractory COD), and the remaining portion came from theunutilized excess methanol travelling through the system.Commencing on day 66, equal dosages of methanol were added to the anoxic reactorsof both system I and II. After day 66, effluent COD levels ranged from 300 mg/I to 800(SYSTEM I)50^60^70^80^90NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)TSSVSSMETHANOL— TEMPERATURE = 20 oC.a•14— 2ASRT = INFINITE50^60^70^80NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPASRT = 20 d90^ 0100▪ 12— 10 0vsz— 8 0OO— 4— 6Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 45co5,0004,5004,000co3,5003,00002,5002,0001,5004,0003,500Eci) 3,000t--2,500Ea0ccw2,0001,5001,000Figure 5.10: Effect of Methanol Addition on the Aerobic TSS and VSS (A)(SYSTEM I)16TSSVSSMETHANOLTEMPERATURE = 12 oC12 61-80,10 0aa8 <062- 14... ... •••o•^, ........0 ••••^.......^......... oASRT = 20 d ........... ASRT =10 d4216TSS_ VSSMETHANOL- 140- 120z_- 10 0TEMPERATURE = 12 oC_ cD86,0005,000E4,000a< 3,000U)055 2,000 -s1,000 H-0-^z- 6- - ......0 - 4_(SYSTEM II)ASRT = 40 d1^I^■^I^I^1 195^200^205^210 215NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP01902220^225Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 466,0005,000E> 4,000aco3,000Ed0ccL.02,0001,000190^195^200^205^210^215^220^225NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.11: Effect of Methanol Addition on the Aerobic TSS and VSS (B)Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 47mg/1 in both systems; these were slightly higher than influent COD levels. However,measurements of effluent COD levels taken on day 200 showed that a sharp increase hadoccurred to 5064 mg/1 in system I (ASRT = 20 days) and 3325 mg/1 in system II (ASRT= 40 days) (see Figure 5.12). At the same time, effluent VSS showed a sharp increase andthen decrease (from 150 mg/1 to 850 mg/1 in system I and from 360 mg/1 to 590 mg/1 insystem II). This occurred because excess carbon passed through the system unutilized.Cell lysis and poor solids settleability at low temperature might be the additional reasonsfor this high effluent COD.Total COD RemovalThe total level of COD removal ranged generally from 40% to 80%. It was directlyaffected by the methanol dosage (Appendix B). As presented in Figure 5.13, total CODremoval increased with the addition of methanol starting on day 66. This rate of removaldropped to lower than 20% in both system I and system II, just after methanol dosage wasreduced sharply on day 199. COD removal dropped again when the addition of methanolwas discontinued altogether after day 250. Direct carbon addition was the main reasonfor these changes. Temperature and SRTs did not appear to have a significant effect onthe total level of COD removal.Anoxic COD RemovalAnoxic COD removal was generally less than 20%; occasionally, a negative value wasobserved. This was probably due to the excess carbon addition, the inaccuracy of chem-ical measurement, the build-up of solids in the anoxic reactor and the method of dataanalysis (Figure 5.14).The anoxic COD removal was calculated by determining the difference between thetotal COD entering the anoxic reactor and the total COD leaving the anoxic reactor(see18INFLUENTEFFLUENTMETHANOL0– 1600 .610 05806000 02INFLUENTEFFLUENTMETHANOL01816Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 48(SYSTEM I)2,0001,8001,6001,4001,200a1,00008006004002002,0001,8001,6001,4001,200 1,000O800600400200– 2— ASRT= INFINITE^ ASRT=20 d^ ASRT=60 d0^odoi&J■01■0,■■■1,■,1,^,1,■■1■■,1,■■1■■■1,,,I,■,1■■ •,j,■■1,,,1„■ ^00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)Oo0o 20 oC 12 oC12 oC 4 oC-ASRT=20 d ASRT=40 d --ASRT=30 ASRT=20 d -ASRT= INFINITE^0 o 01 (!) ,c)'d 'od 6 ,^H0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.12: Influent and Effluent COD vs. Time100^120ASRT=INFINITE-40 / ^,^I^,60^80ASRT=20 d11111111111r^III I(SYSTEM I)10080-i-e 60<>O 402LIJCCo 20001-0I---20ASRT=60 d,I,^111,1140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP12 oC 4 oC12 oC20 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 49(SYSTEM II)10080-ai 60_1>O 402LLJCCO 200020 oC 12 oC-20ASRT= INFINITE^ ASRT=30 d-40^/ ^ ASRT=20 d^ ASRT=40 d^ ‘\,^I f,,^1^,^1^J^I^, 60^80^100^120^140^160^180 200 220 240NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.13: Total COD Removal vs. Time260 280 300 320ASRT=60 dASRT=20 d ^ANOXIC AEROBIC4^A^a\ , og^i,4. DIA^s40009.40<z -400>70Z -60 ASRT=INFINITE.^12 oCIII^I1 11 ■1111-80...4 oC-,.^i 20 oC 12 oCASRT=INFINITE(SYSTEM II)60ii"40>02IT 200000En0ccQ -200Z0< -40R.0z< -6012 oC 4 0CASRT=20 d^11 ASRT=40 d^ ASRT=30 d — ASRT=20100^120^140^160^180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP-8060r^i,804 -a-Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^50(SYSTEM I)60^80^100^120^140^160^180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.14: Anoxic and Aerobic COD Removal vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 51Appendix B). The total COD entering the anoxic reactor was the sum of methanoladded, influent COD and COD recycled. COD recycled was indirectly calculated throughdetermining the net mass balance in the clarifier, i.e., COD recycled = COD enteringthe clarifier - COD leaving the clarifier. Because the solid content was not uniformthroughout the entire depth of the clarifier, the actual COD level at the bottom (whichwas utilized for recycling) would have been higher than that calculated through massbalance. If a sample from the bottom of the clarifier had been taken, the actual totalCOD entering the anoxic reactor would have been higher than that calculated throughmass balance. In other words, the actual anoxic COD removal level would have beenhigher than that obtained through calculation. Suffice it to say that excess carbon, lowtemperatures, plus the problems in data analysis resulted in lower-than-expected CODremovals across the anoxic basin.Aerobic COD RemovalDuring this research, negative aerobic COD removal values were often observed (Fig-ure 5.14), regardless of changes in temperature and SRTs . Coincidentally, in these samesamples, the aerobic VSS happened to be higher than anoxic VSS(see Figure 5.7). Thispattern indicated that the VSS build up in the aerobic reactor and the VSS loss fromthe effluent (which caused less VSS returning to the anoxic reactor), could have resultedin the COD level in the aerobic reactor being higher than in the anoxic reactor, thus,a negative removal value. Filtered COD samples were not run; if they had, perhaps aclearer picture would have been obtained.Clarifier COD RemovalClarifier COD removal measurements generally exceeded 90 percent (see Figure 5.15).This indicated that a high particulate COD was associated with the MLVSS, which wasChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^52then settled out.5.5.2 BOD 5The measuring of BOD 5 , from unfiltered samples, was started on day 207. The effluentBOD 5 values generally ranged from 100 mg/1 to 400 mg/1; these values were considerably •higher than the leachate influent BOD 5 values, due to excess methanol addition (andtemperature effects). Variations in BOD 5 removal change can be related directly tothose of COD removal (Figure 5.16 and 5.17).5.6 PhosphorusMembrane-filtered ortho-P sample analysis was performed. The leachate had a very lowortho-P content, averaging only 0.4 mgP/1(see Figure 5.18). Commencing on day 94 (at20°C and ASRT of 20 days in both systems), 1.7 mgP/d of ortho-P was added to bothsystems (Chapter 3). On day 104, when complete nitrification and denitrification wereachieved, the ambient temperature was reduced to 12°C; the ortho-P dosage remained ataround 1 mgP/d. The ortho-P value in the anoxic and aerobic reactors of both systemsremained at around 0.5 mgP/1, which was the same as the ortho-P values before thetemperature was reduced.The effect of the low temperature on the bio-systems was so significant that the totalammonia removal efficiency dropped from 98% to 28% in system I and from 84% to 28%in system II. In an attempt to determine if there was a phosphorus deficiency problemand to see if excess phosphate could stimulate the return of healthy nitrification at lowertemperatures, commencing on day 116, the phosphate addition was increased to 3.3mgP/d in both systems and then further increased gradually to an average high of 167mgP/d, by day 200. During this time period, the anoxic ortho-P values of both systemsASRT=20 d ASRT=60 dAS T=INFINITE/I100F 98_1a0mwccc:i 968ccwi 7:05 94i^I^I^I^1,^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^I^1,^I^I^1^I^1^I^I^I^I^I^I,^I^I^1^I^I^I^I^I^I^I120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP92 1^,^160^80^100^...12 oC 4 oC12 oCASRT=INFINITEASRT=20 d^  ASRT=40 d^ ASRT=30 d — ASRT=20 d-Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 53(SYSTEM I)(SYSTEM II)100F 9802wcco 9600c cwT.E0 949260^80^100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.15: Clarifier COD Removal vs. Time12 oC 4 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION(SYSTEM I)5410090—1 8002 70cc0 60coccLu 50LT_5 40z 3°200TOTALCLARIFIER_ --------^- -- - 4 A .10 —_ASRT=200^,^I200^210^ ASRT=60 d^I^,^I I220^230^240^250^260^270^280^290^300^310^320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)100908002 70cc0cl 60uj 50Ec"5 402 30200I- 10120• 4 oCTOTALCLARIFIERASRT-20 d ^ASRT=30ASRT=40 d^0200^210^220^230I^I^I^I^I240^250^260^270^280NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPI^■^I ,290^300^310^320I^1^IFigure 5.16: Total and Clarifier BOD 5 Removal vs. Time60- 50O 40w.2tx• 300co 200O• 10^0-100>7O -20zdANOXICAEROBIC4.-. •^120• 4 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION(SYSTEM I)7055ANOXICAEROBIC12 oC 4 oC-30 —_ ASRT=20-40200^210ASRT=60 d^I^ II^ I^I I^I 220^230^240^250^260^270^280^290^300^310NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP320(SYSTEM II)706050 —O 40 —wcc 30 —OU 20O 10 —ccLu0 ^O -10 —U0 -20 —Z-30 —^ASRT=40 d^ ASRT=30 d-40^,^1^,^,^i^(^i^,^I^,^i200^210^220^230^240^250^260^270^280^290^300^310NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.17: Anoxic and Aerobic BOD 5 Removal vs. TimeASRT=20 d ^320Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION256..,..... 1.5L—C)Efar0I1—^1cc01—2w-JU-20.580^100^120^140^160^180^200 220 240NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.18: Influent Ortho-P vs. TimeI and II remained at less than 0.7 mgP/1 until day 193, when the values jumped to 4.1mg13 /1 in system I (ortho-P addition was around 153 mgP/d) and 3.9 mgP/1 in system II(ortho-P addition was around 157 mgP/d) (Figure 5.19). The aerobic ortho-P values ofthese two systems were similar to those observed in the anoxic reactors. The results alsoindicated that there was some phosphorus depletion occurring in the anoxic reactor, dueto nutrient demands by the denitrifying population (Ortho-P concentration of 0.8 mgP/1might be needed in both anoxic and aerobic reactors at 12°C to support the denitrificationand nitrification process). Over the temperature ranges studied, phosphorus removal wasusually around 70%.060 260 280 300 320^ 180- 160— 140_120z— 100 00-- 80ar= 60ccO— 4020ANOXICAEROBICORTHO-P,ADDITION- TEMPERATURE = 20 oC-ASRT = 20 DAYSChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 5787EL-E 6O5cc00Ea 4Oc320• 1(SYSTEM I)150^155^160^165^170^175^180^185^190^195^200NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)12 200• 10Ear0• 8065• 60cc▪ 40Z 2ANOXIC0- AEROBICORTHO-P.ADDITION_TEMPERATURE = 20 oC ASRT=20d ASRT=40d180140 EljrnE120 z100 0160OO190 195020020406080 01-OccO0150^155^160^165^170^175^180^185NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.19: Anoxic and Aerobic Ortho-P vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 585.7 Ammonia-N RemovalAmmonia-N may be removed by biomass assimilation, air stripping, or by nitrificationin the aerobic reactor. At 20°C, the percentage of unionized ammonia is about zero atpH of 7.0, 5% at pH of 8.0, 50% at pH of 9.4 and 100% at pH of 11.5. At 10°C, thepercentage of unionized ammonia is about zero at pH of 7.7, 3% at pH of 8.0, 10% at pHof 8.7 and 100% at pH of 11.8 (U.S. EPA, 1975). Since the pH readings obtained in allsamples were mostly below 8.0 when ambient temperature was 20°C and below 8.7 whenambient temperature was 12°C or 4°C, the amount of ammonia removed by air strippingcan be assumed to be about 6% to 10%. Therefore, most of ammonia-N would have beenremoved by nitrification and bacterial assimilation.5.7.1 Anoxic Ammonia-N RemovalAnoxic ammonia-N removal appeared to be affected by changes in temperature. Ata temperature of 20°C, when bacterial acclimation was achieved, the level of anoxicammonia-N removal was generally below 5%, with mean unit removal of less than 0.5mg/h/gVSS. Whereas, at temperatures of 12°C and 4°C, the level of anoxic ammonia-Nremoval reached more than 15%, with mean unit removal of over 2 mg/h/gVSS, in bothsystem I and system II at all ASRT ranges studied (Figure 5.20). A possible reasonfor this pattern might be that the denitrifying bacteria responded to the stress of lowtemperature, thus requiring higher ammonia-N for assimilation. The negative value ofanoxic ammonia-N removal could reflect the results of cell lysis. Methanol addition andSRTs did not appear to have a significant effect on anoxic ammonia-N removal.200TOTALANOXICAEROBIC0SSRT1500Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION(SYSTEM I)591008050400 202cc5 00g _20- 00A^o.•0 oII60II&.60 I^,^ a--A-;4^I )^4,20 oC 12 oC-40 — ASRT=INFINITE .„^ASRT=20 d ^I-60 —^A\^*1^' , • *"*/^-*-4! ,^14(\^/*tok-4 4.1\ / '**4e-80 1 11^ , ^00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)100 c^8060TOTALANOXICAEROBICSSRT250200150 7co100 U)022cc02- 1 ',0 , ^110^'1^re III^11 1^:1 I . ,1^I I^I:^-0 —^t^ii 11 1^.^4,11'o ...-i )1I^: 10 20 o 12 oC^ 12 oCi 4 oC^-40 —^I^i^., / ;ill_---^ 1AiRT=INFINIT  / *1 ASRT=20 d , \^ ASRT=40 d --ip,SRT=304: ASRT=20i 50t , '^--,^t-60ti^11/r ..*^,».,,._. .,,, . -_ .....,,^N,^ A I• ,,,^/''s* 1^, ,,\ / `,t^1 ,4., **- **- ---4,-*^*^*- 4-Ai ,K-80^'^: 11:11: '1I:.:^1:1,*1,^111111111111111111-1l11111I■1111^1111111 ^00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.20: Anoxic, Aerobic and Total Ammonia-N Removal vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 605.7.2 Aerobic Ammonia-N RemovalAerobic ammonia-N removal appeared to be affected by changes in ambient temperatureand methanol addition, and less affected by SRTs (Figure 5.20). In addition, aerobicammonia-N removal followed the pattern of nitrification performance, thus indicatingthat most ammonia-N was removed through nitrification.Effect of Temperature on Aerobic Ammonia-N RemovalThe effects of a reduction in temperature were greater on aerobic ammonia-N removalthan on anoxic ammonia-N removal, especially, when the temperature dropped from 20°Cto 12°C. When bacterial acclimation was reached at a temperature of 20°C, an ASRTof 20 days (mean SSRT of 17 days in system I and 13 days in system II) and methanoladdition of 12 gCOD/d in both systems, more than 80% of aerobic ammonia-N removal(mean unit removal of over 4.5 mg/h/gVSS) was achieved in both system I and systemII. On day 104, with other variables remaining unchanged, the ambient temperaturewas suddenly reduced from 20°C to 12°C. Within one week from this date, the aerobicammonia-N removal dropped to 2% (mean unit removal dropped to 0.7 mg/h/gVSS,mean SSRT increased to 24 days) in system I and 4% (mean unit removal dropped to1.2 mg/h/gVSS, mean SSRT increased to 22 days) in system II. In an attempt to assistnitrifying bacterial acclimation and reduce the possibility of heterotrophic competition,methanol addition was reduced to around 10 gCOD/d for about 40 days in both systems.However, recovery was not observed. Not being aware of what had happened in the bio-system at such a low temperature, methanol addition was attempted at original dosagesbefore the temperature was dropped. However due to feeding problems and experimentaltechnique, the dosage ended up being 14 gCOD/d. Not surprisingly, system recoverystill did not commence. The bacterial acclimation was not achieved until the methanolChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 61addition was reduced from 14 gCOD/d to around 4 gCOD/d in both systems (in thetime period, phosphate addition was adjusted to around 60 mgP/d in both systems, and,the ASRT of system I was increased to 60 days and the ASRT of system II was increasedto 40 days). On day 291, when the ASRT of system I was 60 days and ASRT of systemII was 20 days, the ambient temperature was further reduced from 12°C to 4°C, whilemethanol addition was reduced from 8 to 7.4 gCOD/d in system I and from 10.1 to7.9 gCOD/d in system II. Within 3 days of this date, the aerobic ammonia-N removaldropped from 99% to 70% in system I and from 83% to 44% in system II. The unit ratesdid not drop in either two systems, indicating that at lower temperatures, the drop oftemperature did not affect the unit aerobic ammonia removal as much as it did at highertemperatures. The reduction of methanol dosage might have assisted in the nitrifyingbacterial acclimation.Effect of Methanol Addition on Aerobic Ammonia-N RemovalAt 20°C, after bacterial acclimation was properly established, the aerobic ammonia-Nremoval reached over 90% and its average unit removal reached over 5 mg/h/gVSS,with an aerobic NO; -N concentration of over 100 mgN/1 in both systems. After thetemperature was reduced to 12°C on day 104, aerobic ammonia-N removal droppedto lower than 10%, its unit removal dropped to 0.5 mg/h/gVSS, and, aerobic NO T -Nconcentration remained under 1 mg/1 in both systems. This indicated that there waslittle or no nitrification occurring. Ortho-phosphorus concentration then was below 0.5mg/1 in both systems. In an attempt to determine if increase phosphorus addition couldstimulate the return of healthy nitrification at lower temperatures, commencing on day161, the ortho-P addition was increased from 1.4 mgP/d to 4.2 mgP/d and furtherincreased to a point where 155 mgP/d was being added. The ASRT of system I wasincreased from 20 days to 60 days on day 213, and the ASRT of system II was increasedChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 62from 20 days to 40 days on day 162. Ammonia-N removal and nitrification in the twosystems did not re-establish themselves to healthy levels until day 199, when finally themethanol addition was reduced from 14 gCOD/d to 4 gCOD/d. Within three weeks,system I reached an aerobic ammonia-N removal of 81% and its average unit removalreached 2.8 mg/h/gVSS. System II reached an aerobic ammonia-N removal of 88% andits average unit removal reached around 3 mg/h/gVSS. At the same time, aerobic NO;-N reached 10 mgN/1 in system I and 24 mgN/1 in system II (which were lower than at20°C due to coincidental lower influent ammonia-N concentration in the time period).This recovery pattern, due to the lower methanol concentration, could involve an increasein the growth rate of nitrifying bacteria (which produced more NO;-N), and possiblyreduced the growth of heterotrophic bacteria in the aerobic reactors.Commencing on day 252, methanol addition was stopped completely for one week.Within three days, mean unit aerobic ammonia-N removal increased from 2.8 to 2.9mg/h/gVSS in system I (ASRT remained at 60 days, whereas, SSRT dropped from 15days to 7 days) and from 1.7 to 3.1 mg/h/gVSS in system II (ASRT remained at 30 days,whereas, SSRT dropped from 14 days to 9 days). However, at the same time, percentageaerobic ammonia-N removal dropped from 92% to 27% in system I and from 90% to 68%in system II. During this time period, NO; -N production increased from 20 mg/i to 94mg/1 in system I and from 25 mg/1 to 112 mg/1 in system II (This was partly due to anew leachate sample, which contained higher ammonia-N).The unit aerobic ammonia-N removal versus the ratio of methanol addition to theNO; -N nitrogen entering the anoxic reactor is represented in Figure 5.21 (Note: Thedata in this figure is collected from both systems). Aerobic ammonia removal droppedwith the increase in this ratio. At a temperature of 20°C, unit ammonia-N removal ofover 7 mg/h/gVSS was achieved when the ratio of methanol addition to NO; -N enteringthe anoxic reactor ranged from zero to 5:1. At a temperature of 12°C, unit ammonia-NAA^ ^A\oA,n w maw • • m, • • • •■•■ • • • M.Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 631020 oC 12 oC 4 oC— 0a^A 0 \0 (E^A\ujcc 2^o^A N. A,® 0,I^1^I^I^1^I 0^10 20 30 40 50 60^70RATIO OF METHANOL ADDITION:NOx ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)Figure 5.21: Unit Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO;-NEntering the Anoxic Reactorremoval of over 4 mg/h/gVSS was achieved when this ratio ranged between zero and5:1. It was noticed that when this ratio was higher than 30:1, a unit aerobic ammonia-N removal of higher than 1 mg/h/gVSS was difficult to be achieve. Because of timeconstraints for this project, not enough data was collected to show the optimum ratiorange needed to achieve higher levels of aerobic ammonia-N removal at a temperature of4°C.Effect of SRT on Aerobic Ammonia-N RemovalAs shown in Figure 5.20, at 12°C, there was no significant difference in terms of aerobicammonia-N removal between ASRTs of 60 days, 40 days and 30 days. However, an ASRTof 20 days exhibited a lower level of ammonia-N removal (average of less than 80%) atthe end of a 20 day cycle (mean SSRT was 18 days). At 4°C, during an ASRT of 60 days0Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 64(mean SSRT was 29 days), the aerobic ammonia-N removal rate was still as high as 99%to 100%, with effluent ammonia-N concentration averaging 1.9 mg/1 (average methanoladdition was 7 gCOD/d). Whereas, during an ASRT of 20 days (mean SSRT was 18days), the aerobic ammonia-N removal rate was unstable, fluctuating between 40% and83%, with effluent ammonia-N concentration averaging 9.2 mgN/1 (average methanoladdition was 7.6 gCOD/1). However, during this time period, the system with an ASRTof 20 days had an average unit aerobic ammonia-N removal of 2.3 mg/h/gVSS, higherthan the system with an ASRT of 60 days (average 1.9 mg/h/gVSS).A possible combined effect of temperature and SRTs on aerobic ammonia-N removal ispresented in Figure 5.22 and Figure 5.23 (Note: The data in these figures is collected fromboth systems). The curve were drawn through a logarithm regression (by using Freelancesoftware). The level of ammonia-N removal appeared to increase with the degree-days,as shown in these figures. At 20°C, with an ASRT of 20 days, the degree-days was 20 x20 = 400. At 12°C, with ASRTs of 20, 30, 40, and 60 days, the degree-days were 240,360, 480 and 720, respectively. At 4°C, with ASRTs of 20 and 60 days, the degree-dayswere 80 and 240, respectively. Under a careful methanol addition and operation, it waspossible to obtain ammonia-N removal of over 75% at a degree-ASRTdays product of 100or degree-SSRTdays product of 50. In order to obtain a unit aerobic ammonia-N removalof over 2 mg/h/gVSS, degree-ASRTdays of over 100 was needed, whereas, degree-SSRTdays of only 50 was needed for the same amount of aerobic ammonia-N removal (becausea large portion of VSS was lost from the clarifier effluent, which had caused the SSRTto be much lower than the ASRT). More studies would be needed, however, to confirmthis system response and to expand on the performance when the degree-ASRTdaysproduct drops below 100. The graphic scenario shown in Figure 5.22 and Figure 5.23are interesting ones and could be very useful in application to full-scale design of suchan ammonia-N treatment system.0o000oo^ ^ c p ^ ^ ^ ^0 ^0 ^^ ^ ^^ooo0 ^ R3oo0ooo0oI^ 1^■^I^ I50 100 150 200TEMPERATURE * SSRT (oC-Days)i250^300oChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^65120100ii.'—J<0> 802wcc<0z 6022<0m 400ccw<20A ooa oo0oo ^0oi -^ ^0 oo^ o^ooo^ ^00 ^0 100^200^300^400^500TEMPERATURE * ASRT (oC-Days)600 700 8001201007-J> 8002wcc1 60022<0 40co0ccw<20Figure 5.22: Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Temperature and SRTs10coC).c'a 8E0• 6cc02UcT30ccI-U• 210cnrn8EO 6CC02 42C.)FE10CC2a^^8100^200^300^400^500TEMPERATURE * ASRT (oC-Days)600 700 800Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 6650^100^150^200^250^300TEMPERATURE * SSRT (oC -Days)Figure 5.23: Unit Aerobic Ammonia-N Removal vs. Temperature and SRTsChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 675.7.3 Total Ammonia RemovalTotal ammonia-N removal is also shown in Figure 5.20. Increases and decreases in to-tal ammonia-N removal occurred simultaneously with changes in aerobic ammonia-Nremoval, with most of the ammonia-N removed by nitrifying bacteria in the aerobic re-actor. The ammonia-N concentration in the raw leachate ranged from 85 mgN/1 to 320mgN/l. When bacterial acclimation was achieved at any of the three temperatures stud-ied, and different SRTs, the effluent ammonia-N concentration was reduced to less than 1mgN/1 (Figure 5.24). This pattern indicated that it was possible to achieve a satisfactorylevel of ammonia-N removal at low operating temperatures, through proper acclimationand careful system control.5.7.4 Effect of Ortho-P on Ammonia RemovalAt an ambient temperature of 20°C, total ammonia-N removal of more than 80% andaerobic ammonia removal of over 60% were reached when ortho-P concentrations in theaerobic reactor of the two systems measured only 0.1 to 0.5 mgP/1. However, at anambient temperature of 12°C, this ortho-P content might be insufficient to support thishigh level of ammonia-N removal through nitrification. Greater than 0.8 mgP/l of ortho-P appeared to be needed in the aerobic reactor to maintain good nitrification at this lowtemperature. However, an increase in ASRT from 20 days to 60 days in system I andfrom 20 days to 40 days in system II, during the low temperature acclimation period,might also have attributed to the recovery of nitrifying bacteria. Additional work on theexact relationship between phosphate requirements, SRTs and nitrification performanceat low liquid temperatures is required to clarify- specific bacterial responses to excessphosphate stimulation.INFLUENTEFFLUENT12 oCASRT=20 d12 oC^4 oCASRT=40 d.^ASRT=30 d— ASRT=20 d—20 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION(SYSTEM I)68350300C)EZ 250OI-200u.10 1500 1002504^ ASRT=INFINITE^ ASRT=20 d^! Ai Apj A t-A4^ 't20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPAgfiT=60 d-A+. I 11, 240 260 280 300 320(SYSTEM II)350300E^-250200zw^-C.)150-0100 -250  -- 0AINFLUENTEFFLUENT^ASRT=INFITE^- 10 ^, I0 20 40 60 80I^I^I^,100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.24: Influent and Effluent Ammonia-N vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 695.8 NitrificationThe percent nitrification was calculated by dividing the net NO;"-N produced in theaerobic reactor by the amount of ammonia-N entering the aerobic reactor. Ammonia-Nremoved by air stripping and aerobic assimilation was disregarded in this calculation(assumed to be potentially up to 15%), so that a conservative estimate of nitrificationpercent was obtained. Potentially, however, a larger amount of ammonia-N would beremoved by air stripping in the aerobic reactor than in the anoxic reactor. Also, someammonia-N existing in either reactor would be of microbial origin, due to cell lysis;this portion of ammonia-N would also be oxidized to NO;-N, but it was not taken intoaccount in this calculation (filtered TKNs were not regularly monitored in this study).This additional ammonia-N resulted in frequent readings of over 100% nitrification, asillustrated in Figure 5.25. The alkalinity in Burns Bog leachate, being over seven timesas ammonia-N, was assumed to be sufficient for the nitrification in this study.Ammonia-N undergoing nitrification was significantly affected by changes in ambienttemperature and the dosage of methanol. SRTs manipulation had a somewhat lessereffect on nitrification at 12°C.5.8.1 Effect of Temperature on NitrificationAs shown in Figure 5.25 and Figure 5.26, on about day 82, when complete nitrifica-tion appeared to be established in both systems, daily wasting from the aerobic reactorstarted to reach an ASRT of 20 days. Methanol and phosphorus dosages were controlledat identical rates between the two systems. Within 20 days (one ASRT cycle), sys-tem I maintained a nitrification value of about 97% with mean unit nitrification of 5.7mg/h/gVSS. System II maintained a nitrification value of about 56% with mean unitnitrification of 5.9 mg/h/gVSS. On day 104, the ambient temperature was reduced fromANITRIFICAQMETHANOL(SYSTEM I)18— 14084 22020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP160 —140 —1618— 16— 14 .0z- 10 1-=8064 2oC 4 oC _160 —_140 —120 -z loo -o -I=(..) 80-EE2- 60 —40 —NITRIFICATION METHANOL4A• •A-20 oC^12 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 70(SYSTEM II)20 —^ 2^ASRT=I. f■IfTC^  ASRT=20^ASRT=4 d^SRT301—ASRT=20 41—0 On ,olor ^00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.25: % Nitrification vs. Time4035EY-3'ci) 30E 250i= 2000:EE 151018— 16PpASRT=6b d^48bj64 22m. 4:10 012 oC 4 oCUNIT NITRIFICATIONMETHANOLRT=INFINITEPd20 oC 12 oC020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP4 22z1086'6O012 Cal)1816UNIT NITRIFICATIONMETHANOLeASRT=30d--;:ASRT=20 d-=ASRT=INFINITE^ ASRT=20 d ASRT=40 dChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 71(SYSTEM I)0 ^!, t,d 1b, d 6,0^  00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)Figure 5.26: Unit Nitrification vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 7220°C to 12°C, with ASRT remaining unchanged and methanol addition slightly reduced.Within four days of this date, the nitrification level dropped to less than 1% with meanunit nitrification of less than 0.2 mg/h/gVSS in both systems. After the adjustment(ie, decrease and increase, respectively) of methanol and phosphate addition, as wellas increasing the ASRT to 60 days (at 'day 212) in system I and 40 days in system II(at day 160), the level of nitrification finally increased to around 100%, with mean unitnitrification of around 2 mg/h/gVSS in both system I and II.System I kept operating under an ASRT of 60 days till the end of this study, whilethe ASRT in system II was reduced to 30 days and finally reduced to 20 days. Neithersystem experienced major operational problems. On day 291, the ambient temperaturewas reduced from 12°C to 4°C, with methanol addition being reduced from 8 gCOD/d to7.4 gCOD/d in system I and 10.1 to 7.9 in system II. Within three days, the nitrificationlevel dropped from 150% to 95% and mean unit nitrification remained at 2.2 mg/h/gVSSin system I (ASRT = 60 days, SSRT increased from 11.1 days to 12.7 days) and from159% to 60% and mean unit nitrification dropped from 3.2 to 2.3 mg/h/gVSS in systemII (ASRT 20 days, SSRT reduced from 16.2 days to 8.9 days). This indicated that thenitrifying bacteria were significantly inhibited by the sharply reduced temperature from20°C to 12°C, but not as much from 12°C to 4°C. The reduction of methanol dosagemight have helped the nitrifying bacteria better acclimate when the temperature wasdropped.On day 294, after sampling, a laboratory power breakdown caused both systems I andII to stop operating for one day, until a temporary power system was connected. However,the temperature rose to 23°C and lasted for three days until day 297. The temperaturewas re-adjusted at 12°C for one day. On day 298, after sampling, the temperaturewas reduced back to 4°C. Within three weeks, the nitrification level returned to over100% in system I (ASRT = 60 days) and fluctuated between 40% and 110% in system IIChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 73(ASRT = 20 days). This pattern indicated that, at low temperature conditions, a suddenincrease and decrease in temperature over a short time period did not adversely affectthe nitrification process in treatment of this leachate.5.8.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on NitrificationOn day 66, when the nitrification level reached 80% in system I and 120% in systemII, methanol addition was started, with the exact same dosage between the two systems(started at about 7 gCOD/d and increased to around 12 gCOD/d on day 77, and thenkept constant). On day 82, both systems started operating with an ASRT of 20 days. Onday 85, phosphate addition was started in both systems at 1.7 mgP/d. Within these 20days (one SRT cycle), the average nitrification level reached 97% in system I and 56% insystem II. On day 104, the ambient temperature was reduced from 20°C to 12°C. Withinfour days, the nitrification levels dropped to less than 1% and unit levels dropped to lessthan 0.2 mg/h/gVSS in both systems, as noted in section 5.8.1.In an attempt to aid bacterial acclimation, on day 108, methanol addition was ad-justed downward to around 10 gCOD/d in both systems. For about one month, thenitrification level still remained less than 5%, or 0.2 mg/h/gVSS. During this time pe-riod, percent denitrification was above 80%; however, unit denitrification level was below1 mg/h/gVSS in both systems. As it was not clear what had happened in the bio-systemat the low temperature, on day 152, methanol addition was attempted to increase thedosage back to the level prior to the temperature drop. However, because of poor con-trol in the pumping equipment, the dosage ended up around 14 gCOD/d. At the sametime, phosphate addition was increased from around 1 mgP/d to 3.3 mgP/d, and thengradually increased to 150 mgP/d (by day 193). On day 162, the ASRT of system IIwas increased from 20 days to 40 days and on day 213, the ASRT of system I was in-creased from 20 days to 60 days. On day 199, the methanol addition was reduced from 14Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 74gCOD/d to 4 gCOD/d in both systems. Within three weeks after this final reduction, thenitrification value recovered from zero to 92%, with its mean unit level 2.3 mg/h/gVSSin system I, and from zero to 118%, with its mean unit level 1.7 mg/h/gVSS in systemII.On day 291, while the ASRT of system I was 60 days and the ASRT of system II was20 days, the ambient temperature was further reduced from 12°C to 4°C. Meanwhile,methanol addition was reduced from 8 gCOD/d to 7.4 gCOD/d in system I and from10.1 gCOD/d to 7.9 gCOD/d in system II (phosphorus addition remained around 95mgP/d in system I and around 140 mgP/d in system II). As noted previously, withinthree days, nitrification level dropped from 150% to 95% in system I and from 159% to60% in system II. However, unit nitrification level remained at 2.2 mg/h/gVSS in systemI but dropped from 3.2 mg/h/gVSS to 2.3 mg/h/gVSS in system II.During this entire operating period, it became clear that methanol addition must becarefully monitored and adjusted accordingly, in response to changes in system perfor-mance stemming from temperature reductions. Nitrification performance was shown tobe closely tied to both variables, and less effected by changes in SRTs.Commencing on day 252, the methanol addition was stopped completely (for oneweek). Within 6 days, the mean unit nitrification rates had increased from 2.3 to 3.7mg/h/gVSS in system I and from 2.5 to 3.7 in system II, confirming the presence ofautotrophic nitrifying bacteria. However, during this time period, the nitrification valuedropped from 60% to 45% in system I and from 148% to 67% in system II; effluentNO; -N level increased from average 20 mg/1 to 94 mg/1 in system I and from 25 mg/1 to112 mg/1 in system II. A new leachate feed (started before day 252), containing higherammonia-N, was responsible for this result.The relationship between the nitrification level and the ratio of COD addition to NON entering the anoxic reactor is illustrated in Figure 5.27 (Note: The data in this figureChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 75is collected from both systems). Higher levels of nitrification did not appear to requirehigher ratios of COD:NO;-N (beyond about 15:1). Furthermore, if this ratio was higherthan 30:1, the level of nitrification was inhibited at both 20°C and 12°C (Carley, 1988,when doing a very similar leachate biotreatment study at room temperature, observedthat, for methanol as a carbon source, nitrification decreased to between 60% to 70% asthe COD-to-NO;-N ratio increased beyond approximately 20:1). Overall, the change inmethanol addition was observed to have a greater effect on system performance than thedrop in temperature from 20°C to 12°C.5.8.3 Effect of SRTs on NitrificationASRTs of 20, 30, 40 and 60 days did not cause much of a change in the level of nitri-fication at the temperature of 12°C (as also presented in Figure 5.25). However, whenthe temperature was reduced from 12°C to 4°C, the nitrification level at an ASRT of 20days exhibited a sharper decrease (from 159% to 60%, mean unit level decreased from3.2 mg/h/gVSS to 2.3 mg/h/gVSS) than that at a 60-day ASRT (from 150% to 95%,mean unit level remained 2.2 mg/h/gVSS unchanged). At 4°C, the effluent ammonialevel was higher at a 20-day ASRT (average 9.2 mgN/1, with average methanol additionof 7.6 gCOD/d) than at a 60-day ASRT (average 1.9 mgN/1, with average methanoladdition of 7 gCOD/d). However, 9.2 mgN/1 of effluent ammonia-N was still relativelylow, compared with the influent ammonia-N level (around 300 mg/1 during that timeperiod). Figure 5.28 and Figure 5.29 present the relationship (similar to Figure 5.22and Figure 5.23) between nitrification and temperature x SRTs (degree-days). The levelof nitrification appeared to increase with the increase in degree-days. The curves weredrawn through logarithm regression (by using Freelance software). As shown in Fig-ure 5.28 (Note: The data in this figure is collected from both systems), in order to obtaina percent nitrification of over 80%, 100 degree-ASRTdays or 50 degree-SSRTdays was20 oC12 oC4 oC01081- 3Z^-(9/1^A• 2 _0 0^A St, 0 Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 762001901801701601501407 130Z 120O 11010090Ee- 80Z 7050403020100 ^0 10^20^30^40^50^60^70RATIO OF METHANOL ADDITION:NOx-N ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)— ...._^-..... ..._^-0^1^...._ p____0 10 201^°,^I^■ A^1^''''''' 71-- - }a" -•-- .r..- -••• ,1*- ^•••r;^.30 40 50^60^70ARTIO OF METHANOL ADDITION:NOx-N ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)Figure 5.27: Nitrification vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO;-N Entering the Anoxic Reac-torChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 77sufficient. As shown in Figure 5.29 (Note: The data in this figure is collected from bothsystems), in order to obtain a unit nitrification of over 2 mg/h/gVSS, degree-ASRTdaysof 100 was needed, whereas, degree-SSRTdays of only 50 was needed to obtain the sameunit nitrification (because a large portion of VSS was lost to the effluent, which caused theSSRT to be lower than the ASRT). However, a careful operational control and methanoldosage control is also important, and cannot be ignored for this type of treatment con-figuration. More studies are needed to confirm system response for a degree-ASRTdaysproduct less than 100.5.8.4 Effect of Ortho-P on NitrificationAt a temperature of 20°C, low aerobic ortho-P concentration did not affect the nitrifica-tion process, as presented in Figure 5.30 (Note: The data in this figure is collected fromboth systems). When the aerobic ortho-P concentration was less than 0.5 mgP/1, the levelof nitrification still ranged from 60% to 160%; the unit level of nitrification reached over4 mgN/h/gVSS. However, at temperature of 12°C, with an identical amount of aerobicortho-P, the nitrification level was basically zero. Extra carbon in form of methanol wasthe main reason for this zero level. However, lack of phosphorus might be an additionalreason affecting the nitrifying process. In order to reach higher levels of nitrification, anaerobic ortho-P of 0.8 mg/1 appeared to be needed at a temperature of 12°C, regardlessof the SRTs and methanol addition. However, the results are not conclusive with thelimited data base available in this study.5.8.5 Optimum pH Value for NitrificationAs illustrated in Figure 5.31 (Note: The data in this figure is collected from both systems),at a temperature of 20°C, higher levels of nitrification were reached when the pH value inthe aerobic reactor varied between 7.5 and 8.1. At temperature of 12°C, this range was0o o o0^ 0o0o00o8^ ^0^Eioo0oo0^ 0I I^1^M^I^1^1^I^!^1^I^I^1oiChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 78^200 ^180 –160 –140 -icz— 12001-=< 100C.)LIIx 80 –I--z^-60 –40 –20 –^0 ^0200180160140il 120z0<I= 100ULIEE 80I—z604020100^200^300^400^500^600^700^800TEMPERATURE * ASRT (oC-Days)50^100^150^200^250^300TEMPERATURE * SSRT (oC-Days)Figure 5.28: Nitrification vs. Temperature and SRTso o0001008 oo00^ ^^ ^ S ^^ ^ ^-^ & ^0 ^o0o^ ^ ^^00^ ^ooChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 79108caa>c"''-a)E 6z00LI- 4cc1—z1—zm 200^200^ 400^600^800TEMPERATURE * ASRT (oC-Days)0^50^100^150^200^250^300TEMPERATURE * SSRT (oC-Days)Figure 5.29: Unit Nitrification vs. Temperature and SRTs9_ 8C/)cn>co 7E 6Z0P 5<ULL 4cc1.—z1-- 3zD2Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION102000C 12,oC 4 oC800_ ^2o_ o—cP0AA—^ A^ AAC' ^AA^A A A^ A 0— A^ 0AAAAA^AA A008^0^A 0^001AA , 6 1 I^i^i^i^I^1^I^I^11^2^3^4^5^6^7 8 9 10^11AEROBIC ORTHO-P (mgP/I)Figure 5.30: Nitrification vs. Aerobic Ortho-P7.6 to 8.3. Over the range of the temperatures studied, the highest level of nitrificationwas achieved when the aerobic pH value was around 7.8. This is identical to the resultsobtained by Antoniou et al, (1990). pH values higher than 8.3 were found to be toxic tothe process of nitrification.5.9 DenitrificationThe level of denitrification was calculated by dividing the net NO; -N removed from theanoxic reactor by the amount of total NO2 -N entering the anoxic reactor. The level ofdenitrification was significantly affected by changes in the ambient temperature and theamount of methanol added, and lesser affected by SRTs (Figure 5.32 and Figure 5.33).00Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 8110864207 4^7.6^7.8^8^8.2^8.4^8.6^88AEROBIC pHFigure 5.31: Nitrification vs. Aerobic pH5.9.1 Effect of Temperature on DenitrificationAt 20 °C, when bacterial acclimation was established, the percent denitrification levelreached 100% and unit denitrification level reached average 10 mg/h/gVSS in both sys-tems (ASRT = 20 days, methanol addition = 12 gCOD/d). On day 104, the ambienttemperature was reduced from 20°C to 12°C and methanol addition was reduced toaround 10 gCOD/d in both systems The percentage denitrification level did not dropin either system I or system II (ASRT = 20 days in both systems), as illustrated inFigure 5.32. However, within four days, the unit denitrification level dropped from 8.32mgN/h/gVSS to 0.75 mgN/h/gVSS in system I and from 1.82 mgN/h/gVSS to 0.63mgN/h/gVSS in system II (Figure 5.33).On day 291, the ambient temperature was again reduced, from 12°C to 4°C, methanoladdition was reduced from 8 to 7.4 gCOD/g in system I and from 10.1 gCOD/d to 7.9100 1880700 60507.itI— 40z• 3012 oC— 14 O012 (5))z— 10 12-^0080— 64 oC▪ —▪ 4 220— 210ASRTA6' 6^'6620 40 60SRT=60 d^0280 300 320ASRT=20 d^0 ^0 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260DENITRIFICATIONM ETHA L90 — 1610181614 1-1Z1..O012 (8,4 21009080700 60501— 40z• 3020Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 82(SYSTEM I)NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)0^ 00 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.32: % Denitrification vs. TimeU)07 15E0100"▪ :ccO1– 520020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPz10 g8064 2181614O012 (-3,METHANOLUNIT DENITRIFICATION— ASRT=INFINITE20 oC 12 oCChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 83(SYSTEM I)(SYSTEM II)20 ^  18UNIT DENITRIFICATION12 oC 4 oC _020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP– 16ASRT=INFINITE^METHANOLASRT=20 d^ASAT=40 d– 6– 4;i''^– 14 et:7g: '' -8-1 i –A S R T = 3 0 ASRT=20 di12 c§,1oiz,^10 R.0o8 <dz12Figure 5.33: Unit Denitrification vs. TimeChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 84gCOD/d in system II. Within three days, the percentage denitrification level droppedfrom 35% to 20% in system I (ASRT =- 60 days, average methanol addition = 7 gCOD/d)and from 44% to 33% in system II (ASRT = 20 days, average methanol addition =7.6 gCOD/d). The unit denitrification level dropped from 4.02 mgN/h/gVSS to 3.19mgN/h/gVSS in system I but increased marginally from 3.66 mgN/h/gVSS to 3.90mgN/h/gVSS in system II, before decreasing again. Insufficient methanol addition, atthis time in the experimental program, is believed to be at least partially responsiblefor this decrease. An anoxic VSS dropping from 2000 mg/I to 1760 mg/I might havecontributed to the increase in the unit denitrification level in system II.This irregular pattern indicated that the heterotrophic denitrifying bacteria were lessaffected by a sudden drop in temperature from 12°C to 4°C than from 20°C to 12°C, aslong as sufficient organic carbon was available in the anoxic basin. However, because ofthe coincident temperature inhibition of nitrifying bacteria, less NO;-N was producedin the aerobic reactor and thus, less NO; -N was available to the biomass in the anoxicbasin for further denitrification. This would cause the percent denitrification to remainrelatively high but reduce the unit denitrification, accordingly.5.9.2 Effect of Methanol Addition on DenitrificationCommencing on day 66, methanol was added to the anoxic reactor of the two systems.Within one month, the level of denitrification increased from zero to 100% in both systemI and II (unit denitrification level increased to around 10 mg/h/gVSS). At the same time,an increase in VSS was observed. Thus, it was immediately confirmed that the denitrify-ing bacteria were very much dependent on the methanol addition, due to biodegradablecarbon shortage in the leachate itself.In an attempt to observe how a drastic change in methanol addition would affect thesystems, commencing on day 252, the methanol addition was completely stopped. WithinChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 856 days, the level of denitrification dropped from 95% to -6% in system I (Mean unit den-itrification dropped from 4.8 mg/h/gVSS to 1 mg/h/gVSS, ASRT = 60 days) and from90% to 1% in system II (Mean unit denitrification dropped from 4.6 mg/h/gVSS to 1mg/h/gVSS, ASRT = 30 days). Accordingly, the VSS in the anoxic reactors were alsoreduced, reflecting the lack of biodegradable carbon in the systems. The level of denitri-fication rose again only after the methanol supply was resumed on day 259; likewise, theanoxic VSS also increased.The level of denitrification was very much dependent on the methanol addition. Asshown in Figure 5.32, for the same temperature, the percent denitrification level increasedand decreased, corresponding to the increase and decrease in methanol addition. Sufficeit to say that, at 4°C, if a higher dosage of methanol were added, a higher level ofdenitrification might have been achieved.The relationship between denitrification and the ratio of methanol COD additionto NO; -N entering the anoxic reactor is illustrated in Figure 5.34 (Note: The data inthis figure is collected from both systems). It is clear that in order to reach more than80% denitrification, the ratio of methanol COD addition to NO; -N entering the anoxicreactor had to be at least 2:1 at temperature of 20°C, 6:1 at 12°C and possibly evenhigher at 4°C (As observed by Carley, 1988, at room temperature, for methanol as thecarbon source, the minimum COD-NO;-N ratio of approximately 6.2:1 was required forcomplete denitrification). The unit denitrification level decreased with the increase inCOD-NO;-N ratio, because the VSS in the anoxic basin increased when a higher dosageof carbon was added to support the nitrifying bacteria.In summary, to achieve high levels of denitrification at lower temperatures, it appearsthat higher ratios of methanol addition to NO;-N entering the anoxic basin was required,regardless of SRTs.A AA aA4^- o0-AAANA-2  °4, A0 0 0AAAA AA20CoC12 oCA4 oC0Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 86100A0.090AA80700z 60ci 50LL1— 40O 3020A/A^/^A/A o 0o/ 0 0A 00AA A20 oC 12 oC 4 oCL3 ^ A0^1^1^i^1^t^i^I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14RATIO OF METHANOL ADDITION:NOx-N ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)1816v>1E-"a 12E0 10C.)7.  8I-z 64200^10^20^30^40^50^60^70RATIO OF METHANOL ADDITION:NOx ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (mgCOD/d:mgN/d)1 0 —Figure 5.34: Denitrification vs. Ratio of COD Addition:NO;-N Entering the AnoxicReactorChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 875.9.3 Effect of SRT on DenitrificationSRTs were not observed to have a large effect on the level of denitrification, at leastwithin the ranges studied herein. Results of a 20-day ASRT did not differ greatly fromthose of a 60-day ASRT, at the respective temperatures of 12°C and 4°C.5.9.4 Effect of Ortho-P on DenitrificationThe phosphate level did not greatly affect the level of denitrification at a temperature of20°C. When the anoxic ortho-P concentration was as low as 0.1 mgP/l, the unit level ofdenitrification still reached more than 8 mg/h/gVSS (Figure 5.35) (Note: The data inthis figure is collected from both systems). However, at a temperature of 12°C, ortho-Pconcentrations of higher than 0.8 mgP/1 appeared necessary in order to achieve higherlevels of denitrification, regardless of the SRT. Additional research is needed to furtherexpand on this interrelationship.5.9.5 Optimum pH Value for DenitrificationOptimum pH values for denitrifying bacteria ranged from 7.7 to 8.3 at 20°C, and fluctu-ated between 7.9 and 8.3 at 12°C(Figure 5.36) (Note: The data in this figure is collectedfrom both systems). The highest levels of denitrification were reached when the pH valuewas around 8.1. In this study, denitrifying bacteria appeared to be especially sensitiveto pH values of higher than 8.3. However, more research is needed to confirm it.5.10 Nitrate and Nitrite5.10.1 Nitrate+Nitrite (NO;-N)Raw leachate NO; -N content was very low (average 0.61 mgN/1). It was stored at 4°Cin a refrigerated chamber before use. Every other day an aliquot leachate feed wasChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 88186(,) 14.cX 12Ezo 10I=<Li 8EI-Luz 6oI-z 4n16A_ ^ Aoo00oooAAAAAAA AA^ A0AA20 oC012 oCA4 oC0AA200A^A, & g:^E , 6 ■^I2ANOXIC ORTHO-P (mgP/I)Figure 5.35: Unit Denitrification vs. Anoxic Ortho-P1131iiico 14a-...,c-a 12Ez0 101=<0il 8E1--z 6wcn1.-z 4D7.8^8^8.2^8.4^8.6^88ANOXIC pHFigure 5.36: Unit Denitrification vs. Anoxic pHChapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 89taken out to the lab allowing it to acclimate to the lab temperature before addition tothe system. The actual influent was found to contain an average NO; -N of 15 mgN/1at 20°C, 3 mgN/L at 12°C and 1 mgN/1 at 4°C (Figure 5.37), indicating that influentnitrification had already started before the additions were made to the system. Whenhigh levels of nitrification and denitrification occurred, the effluent NO; -N concentrationwas approximately 50 mgN/1 in system I and 70 mgN/1 in system II at 20°C (whenmethanol addition and ASRT were controlled at the same level in the two systems), and40 mgN/1 at 12°C (partly due to lower influent ammonia-N during that time period),regardless of SRTs. A lower level of denitrification (average 17% in system I with 60-dayASRT, and 26% in system II with 20-day ASRT) was obtained in this project at 4°C;this would lead to higher NO; -N levels in the effluent (average 80 mgN/1 in system I and50 mgN/1 in system II). The sludge recycle ratio was controlled at 6 to 1 in this study.An optimum sludge recycle ratio study is needed in order to obtain the lowest possibleeffluent NO; -N concentration at different temperatures.5.10.2 Nitrite (NO ; -N)For the same reason noted in Section 5.9.1, influent average NO 2- -N level was 0.4 mgN/1,which was higher than the raw leachate NO 2- -N level (average 0.18 mgN/1). EffluentNO 2- -N levels generally measured were less than 2 mgN/1 (Figure 5.38). No significantnitrite build-up was observed in the leachate effluent; however, it was not known whetherhigh nitrite levels were built-up between day 151 and day 250, when nitrite was notmeasured. However, effluent NO2-N concentration could not exceed 0.6 mgN/1 betweenday 151 and day 191, because the effluent nitrate+nitrite (NO;-N) concentration wasbelow 0.6 mgN/1 in both systems.^P.-12 oC20 oC,k4, 0 ^oC ,^ :4 oC\ : 1^41I ‘..1,,i^Z,260 280 300Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^90(SYSTEM I)280 ^_260^,4-.=, 2402a 220Ex 2000Z 1801-zw 160...1LL 140u.0Li., 120 -zd 100 -1-z 80 -Lu--1 60 -z40 -20060 80^100^120^140^160^180 200 220 240NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPASRT=INFINITEASRT=20 d ^ ASRT=60 d^INFLUENTEFFLUENT320(SYSTEM II)240220_2 200C) 180z 160li 140LuLL 120U-u.ip 100z<I_ 80zD 60—IU.Z 4020060 80^100^120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.37: Influent and Effluent NO; -NINFLUENT EFFLUENT ASRT=20 d ^ ASRT=40 ASRT=3012 oC 4 oCaa6^6...6Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 91(SYSTEM I)2.42.221.81.6g 1.41.2Oz0.8 —0.60.4 —0.2 —ASRT=20 dINFLUENT EFFLUENTASRT=6012 oC 4 oC^go-01001^I^E^1^1^I^! ALV A M A m of 6 ^q120^140^160^180^200^220^240^260^280^300^320NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)ASRT=20 d-0.8 —0.6 —0.4 —0.2 —01001^I^La^I^■^1^I^I^ I^AA- -L^A120^140^160^180^200^220^240^260^280NO. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP2.42.221.81.61.41.2L1.10Z 1A,( 300^320Figure 5.38: Influent and Effluent NO2Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 925.11 Summary of Nitrogen RemovalThe mean temperature, ASRT, SSRT, methanol addition, aerobic ammonia-N removal,nitrification and denitrification levels are summarized in Table 5.2. Figure 5.39 was drawnaccording to these mean data.It can be observed that the mean aerobic ammonia removal followed the pattern of ni-trification performance, indicating that most leachate ammonia-N was removed throughnitrification. The aerobic ammonia-N removal and nitrification level varied in a contraryway with the methanol dosage, confirming that extra carbon could inhibit the growthof nitrifying bacteria. The mean unit denitrification level was affected by at least threefactors: methanol addition, the amount of NO,N entering the anoxic reactor and thechanges in anoxic VSS. Therefore, the unit denitrification level did not always change inthe same way as did the methanol addition, despite the fact that the percent denitrifi-cation level did. The level of nitrification and denitrification, especially the latter, wereless affected by the reduction in temperature from 12°C to 4°C than from 20°C to 12°C,indicating that nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria could grow well at low temperatures,under careful operation and proper methanol addition.Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONTable 5.2: Mean Data for Nitrogen RemovalSYSTEM I^DAY TEMP ASRT SSRT MEANCOD MEAN AER AMM REM^MEAN NITR^MEAN DENITRADDoC DAYS DAYS gCOD/d^X^UNIT^%^UNIT^%^UNITmg/h/gVSS^mg/h/gVSS^mg/h/gVSS68-77 20 INFI 103 8.1 98 5.2 108 5 31 6.184-98 20 20 17 12.6 89 4.5 114 5.7 63 10109-151 12 20 24 10.1 2.4 0.74 0.2 0.1 90 0.6154-193 12 20 17.5 14.7 2.8 0.3 0 0.01 75 0.16200-213 12 20 6.2 3.8 5.7 0.1 10.7 0.9 87 2.6221-250 12 60 11.2 7 88.5 2.8 78.7 2.3 90 4.8255-258 12 60 7 0 43 2.9 55.5 3.7 2.5 0.95262-274 12 60 15.6 8.7 98.5 2.4 102 2.5 52.8 5.3279-290 12 60 10.5 11.8 94 1.5 139 2.2 72 4.5294-319 4 60 32.5 7 92.2 1.86 108.5 2.2 17.3 3.3SYSTEM IIDAY TEMP ASRT SSRT MEANCOD MEAN AER AMM REM^MEAN NITR^MEAN DENITRADDoC DAYS DAYS gCOD/d^UNIT^%^UNIT^%^UNITmg/h/gVSS^mg/h/gVSS^mg/h/gVSS68-77 20 INFI 103 9.4 81 6.7 89 6.5 60.7 7.384-98 20 20 13 13 54 5.6 56 5.9 90 9109-154 12 20 22.3 10.3 3 1.2 0 0.06 86 0.42166-193 12 40 23.4 14.3 1.8 0.3 0 0 47 0.06200-207 12 40 10.4 3.8 1 0.2 1 0.2 89.5 0.3213-234 12 40 13.5 5.3 78.8 3.04 73.5 1.7 75 3.4237-250 12 30 11.8 8.1 92.3 1.74 128 2.5 96 4.6255-258 12 30 9.1 0 66.5 3.1 79 3.7 3 1.05262-269 12 30 16.3 4.3 84 3.2 129 4.5 16 4.3274-290 12 20 18.4 11.7 93 2.2 144 3.2 53.8 5294-319 4 20 18 7.7 58.5 2.3 63.3 2.3 25.8 2.9931614en 12• 1co81—Z 66 4220 o0 12 oC11• /^111',I^1I^-1a ^I •120oC 4 oC4 Ci)z03 o02 ZO0\‘^tIASRT=20; d-' -^\'d ASRT=60 d\11AEROBIC AMMONIA-N REMOVALNITRIFICATIONDENITRIFICATIONMETHANOLASRT=INFINITAEROBIC AMMONIA-N REMOVAL-B--NITRIFICATIONDENITRIFICATION0METHANOL 1\111^ I .1 141 / /111^r.1^/^\ •^1 12  b C\ / 4 I" I^4 0 C\^/^i I^/ ,1^i^•^I I, •1^// I^/ ..1 , ^I^o■1020 cid 12 oC1=20 d^AS =40 d AS 30_ - ASRT=20 dASRT=INFINITE^64 0I=O3 <J0z22Chapter 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION^ 94(SYSTEM I)50^100^150^200^250^300No. OF DAYS SINCE START-UP(SYSTEM II)50^100^150^200^250^300No. OF DAYS SINCE START-UPFigure 5.39: Mean Unit Nitrogen Values vs. Time1614(i)• 120).cE• 1C/)1.1182--6n 42Chapter 6CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS6.1 ConclusionsResearch on low temperature, high ammonia-N (average 210 mgN/1) removal from mu-nicipal landfill leachate, using a single-sludge predenitrification system, produced thefollowing conclusions:1. It was possible to remove more than 90 percent of the ammonia-N from the landfillleachate (influent ammonia-N) at operating temperatures of 20°C, 12°C and 4°C, a sludgerecycle ratio of 6:1, and operating theoretical Aerobic Solids Retention Times (ASRTs)of 20 to 60 days.2. An ASRT of 20 days was long enough for the adequate growth of both nitrifier anddenitrifier at temperature of 20°C and 12°C. At a temperature of 4°C, these organismsexhibited a lower adaptability at an ASRT of 20 days than at 60 days, resulting in lowerquality effluent in the treatment system, however, the effluent ammonia-N level stillremained below 14 mgN/1 (average 9.2 mgN/1), which was much lower than the influentammonia-N level.3. Methanol addition, as an external carbon source for denitrification purposes inthe anoxic basin, had a greater effect on the treatment system than did SRTs at lowertemperatures. In order to reach a denitrification level of more than 80%, a ratio ofmethanol addition (as COD) to NO: -N entering the anoxic reactor had to be at least 2:1at 20°C, about 6:1 at 12°C and possibly even higher at 4°C. However, this ratio of over95Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 9630:1 appeared to hinder the aerobic nitrifiers, when operating temperatures dropped to12°C or lower.4. In addition to temperature and carbon addition, the unit level of denitrificationwas affected by at least two other factors: NO; -N entering the anoxic reactor and theanoxic VSS level. Sufficient carbon encourages the growth of denitrifiers; however, sinceit can inhibit nitrifier growth, less NO; -N would be produced and returned to the anoxicreactor. In addition, excess carbon encourages aerobic heterotrophic bacterial growth andincreases the VSS value in the system. Therefore, the unit denitrification level would notalways be proportional to the carbon addition at certain temperatures, despite the factthat percent denitrification would be.5. Low operating temperatures effected both the nitrifiers and denitrifiers, especiallythe former. When the temperature was suddenly reduced, a system recovery from tem-perature inhibition required a lengthy acclimatization by the nitrifying bacteria; thiscame about through a combination of increased ASRT and reduction in the methanoladdition (to protect the nitrifiers against possible heterotrophic competition). Whena high level of nitrification was restored, increased methanol addition was possible, tosupport the subsequent increase in denitrifying bacterial growth.6. In this research, SRTs x Temperature value of about 100 degree-ASRTdays or50 degree-SSRTdays was sufficient for reaching an ammonia removal of over 75% or 2mg/h/gVSS and nitrification level of over 80% or 2 mg/h/gVSS, under proper operatingand methanol addition control. SSRT was not correlated to ASRT, because a largeportion of VSS was lost to the effluent.7. A membrane-filtered ortho-phosphate concentration of 0.5 mgP/1 was found ade-quate for the operation of the treatment systems at 20°C; however, a higher level of 0.8mgP/1 appeared to be needed in both the anoxic and aerobic reactors at a temperatureof 12°C or low er, to support satisfactory nitrifier and denitrifier growth.Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 978. At any temperature, a pH of around 7.8 was observed to be optimal for thenitrifying bacteria. A pH of around 8.1 was believed to be optimum for the denitrifyingbacteria.9. The anoxic ORP value dropped with an increase in the level of methanol addition;the effect of methanol was more pronounced on ORP readings than was the effect of areduction in temperature.10. The percentage of COD and BOD 5 removal was very much dependant on theamount of methanol added. Over-dose of methanol caused excess carbon to pass throughthe system unutilized, and therefore reduced the percentage of COD and BOD 5 removal.6.2 Recommendations1. A sudden drop in temperature significantly affected this biological treatment system.However, in a full-scale situation, the temperature drop would usually be more gradual,with the arrival of winter operating conditions. It is not known if a gradual decrease inoperating temperatures would affect the biotreatment system as much as a sudden dropin temperature, therefore, a follow-up study on this aspect is recommended, wherebyincremental temperature drops of 2 to 3 °C would be imposed on the pre-denitrificationsystem.2. More studies are needed to obtain an information on the level of nitrificationaffected by the operation condition of lower than 100 degree-ASRTdays or 50 degree-SSRTdays (SRT x temperature).3. Elefsiniotis et al, (1989) noted that the best sludge recycle ratio on nitrification-denitrification performance in biological treatment of leachate was 6 to 1 at room tem-perature. However, it is not known if this "optimum" ratio would change with loweroperating temperatures. There is a need to further study this relationship.Chapter 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 984. Although the average ammonia-N concentration in the studied leachate was 210mgN/1, the ammonia-N level of leachate, in general, varies with different landfills. Higherstrength ammonia levels (say>600 mg/1) may require different operating conditions, andthis aspect also requires further investigation.Bibliography[1] Antoniou, P. et al, "Effect of Temperature and pH on the Effective MaximumSpecific Growth Rate of Nitrifying Bacteria" Wat. Res. Vol.24, No.1, pp.97-101,1990.[2] A.P.H.A., "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",15th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.,1980.[3] A.P.H.A., "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater",17th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.,1989.[4] Atwater, J. W., "Fraser River Estuary Study, Water Quality Impact of Landfills".Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, Vancouver,B.C., 1980.[5] Atwater, J. W. and D. S. Mavinic, "Characterization and Treatment ofLeachate from a West Coast Landfill", Dept. of Civil Engineering, U.B.C.. Finalreport prepared from Environment Canada and Wastewater Technology Center,Burlington, Ontario, Canada, 1986.[6] Buswell, A. M., T. Shiota, N. Lawrence and I. V. Meter, "Laboratory Stud-ies in the Kinetics of the Growth of Nitrosomonas with relation to the nitrificationphase of the BOD Test". Appl. Microbiol.Vol.2, pp.21-25, 1954.[71 Carley, N. B., "The Effect of Excess Carbon in the Anoxic Basin of a BiologicalPre-denitrification System for the Treatment of Landfill Leachate", M.A.Sc. Thesis,Dept. of Civil Eng., U of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1988.[8] Chian, E. S. K. and F. B. DeWalle, "Evaluation of Leachate Treatment", Vol.II, Biological and Physical-Chemical Processes", U.S.EPA, Municipal EnvironmentResearch Laboratory, EPA-600/a-77-1866, pp.245, 1977.[9] Chian, E. S. K., F. G. Pohland, K. C. Chang and S. R. Harper, "LeachateGeneration and Control at Landfill Disposal Sites", New Directions and Researchin Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28.pp.14-30, 1985.99Bibliography^ 100[10] Dedhar, S., "Ammonia Removal From a Landfill Leachate By Biological Nitrifi-cation and Denitrification", M.A.Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 1985.[11] Delwiche, C. C., "Denitrification", In Symposium on Inorganic NitrogenMetabolism, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, pp.233-256, 1956.[12] Ehrig, H. J., "Laboratory and Full-scale Experiments on Physical-ChemicalTreatment of Sanitary Landfill Leachate", in "International Conference: New Di-rections and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Proceed-ings Vol.1, University of BritishColumbia, pp.200-214, 1985.[13] Elefsiniotis, P., R. Manoharan, and D. S. Mavinic, "The Effects of SludgeRecycle Ratio on Nitrification-Denitrification Performance in Biological Treatmentof Leachate", Environmental Technol Letters, Vol.10, No.12, pp.1041-1050, 1989.[14] Forgie, D. J. L., "Selection of the Most Appropriate Leachate Treatment MethodsPart 2: A Review of Recirculation, irrigation and Potential Physical-ChemicalTreatment Methods", Water Poll. Res. J. Canada, Vol.23, No.2, pp.329-340, 1988.[15] Henry, G. J., "New Developments in Landfill Leachate Treatment", New Direc-tions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management, Vancouver,B.C., June 23-28, pp.139-149, 1985.[16] Keenan, J. D., R. L. Steiner and A. A. Fungaroli, "Landfill Leachate Treat-ment", J. WPCF, Vol.56, No.1, pp.27-34, 1984.[17]Knox, K., "Leachate Treatment with Nitrification of Ammonia". Water Res.Vol.19, No.7, pp.895-904, 1985.[18] Scientific Division Yellow Springs Instrument Co., Inc," Instruction Manual YSIModel S54 ARC and 54 ABP Dissolved Oxygen Meters", U.S.A[19] Lee, G. F., R. A. Jones and C. Ray, "Sanitary Landfill Leachate Recycle".Bio Cycle, January, pp.36-38, 1986.[20] Liu, B. Y. M., D. I. Alanli and D. O'Leary, "Optimization Study of a LeachateTreatment System", Rpt in Environmental Engineering: Proceedings of the 1991Specialty Conference. Edited by Peter A. Drendel, Published by the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers, New York, U.S.A., 1991.[21] Ludzack, F. J. and M. B. Ettinger, "Controlling Operation to Minimize Acti-vated Sludge Effluent Nitrogen". J.WPCF Vol.34, pp.920-31, 1962.Bibliography^ 101[22] Maris, P. J., D. W. Harrington and F. E. Mosey, "Treatment of LandfillLeachate; Management Options", Water Poll. Res. J. Canada Vol.20, No.3, pp.25-42, 1985.[23] Mavinic, D. S. and C. W. Randall, "Inhibition of Nitrification and Denitrifi-cation in Biotreatment of a High Ammonia, Municipal Leachate", EnvironmentalEngineering Group, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Final Report to Supply and Services, Canada Wastewa-ter Technology Centre, Environment Canada, Virginia Environmental EndowmentFund, 1989.[24] Metacalf and Eddy Inc., "Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal andReuse", Third Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, 1991.[25] Methods Manual for the Quikchem Automated Ion Analyzer, "Quikchem MethodNo. 10-107-06-06-1-F" For Ammonia (Phenolate), Lachat Instruments, Milwaukee,WI, U.S.A., 1987.[26] Mirvish, S. S., "N-Nitroso- Compounds, Nitrite, and Nitrate Possible Impli-cations for the Causation of Human Cancer" Prog. Wat. Tech. Vol.8, Nos 4/5,pp.195-207, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1977.[27] Nelson, D. H., "Isolation and Characterization of Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter".Zenbl. Bakt. Parasitkde, Abt. II, 83, 280-311, 1931.[28] Oleszkiewicz, J. A. and S. A. Berquist, "low Temperature Nitrogen Removalin Sequencing Batch Reactors", Wat. Res. Vol.22, No.9, pp.1163-1171, 1988.[29] Operating' Manual for the QuikChem Automated Ion Analyzer. Lachat Instru-ments, Milwaukee, U.S.A., 1990.[30] Painter, H. A., "Microbial Transformations of Inorganic Nitrogen". Prog. Wat.Tech. Vol. 8, Nos.4/5, pp.3-29, Pergamon Press, 1977.[31] Robinson, H. D. and P. J. Maris, "The Treatment of Leachates from DomesticWaste in Landfill Sites", J. of Wat. Poll. Cont. Fed., Vol.57, No.1, pp.30-38, 1985.[32] Shuval, H. I. and N. Gruener, "Infant Methemoglobinemia and Other HealthEffects on Nitrates in Drinking Water", Prog. Wat. Tech. Vol.8, Nos 4/5, pp.183-193, Pergamon Press, Great Britain, 1977.[33] Staley, J. T., et al, "Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology". Vol.3, 1984.Williams and Milkinds, Baltimore, U.S.A., 1989.Bibliography^ 102[34] Tchobanglous, G., H. Theisen and R. Eliassen, "Solid Wastes: EngineeringPrinciples and Management Issues", McGraw-Hill, New York, U.S.A., 1977.[35] Technicon Block Digester Manual, "Operation Manual for the Technicon BlockDigester Models BD-20 and BD-40", Technical Pub. No. TA4-0323-00, TechniconCorporation, Tarrytown, NY, 1974.[36] Technicon Block Industrial Method No. 376-75W, "Digestion and Sample Prepara-tion for the Analysis of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and/or Total Phosphorus in WaterSamples Using the Technicon BD-40 Block Digester", Technicon Ind. Systems, Tar-rytown, NY, 1975.[37] Technicon Industrial Method No. 94-70W, "Ortho-Phosphate in Water andWastewater (Range: 0-10 mg/1)", Technicon Ind. Systems, Tarrytown, NY, 1973.[38] Technicon Industrial Method No. 100-70W, "Nitrate and Nitrite in Water andWastewater (Range: 0-2.0 mg/1)", Technicon Ind. Systems, Tarrytown, NY, 1973.[39] Technicon industrial Method No. 327-74W, "Phosphorus/BD Acid Digests (Range:from 0-0.4 mg/1 to 0-25 mg/1)", Technicon Ind. Systems, Tarrytown, NY, 1974.[40] Technicon Industrial Method No. 329-74W, "Individual or Simultaneous Deter-mination of Nitrogen and/or Phosphorus in BD Acid Digests", Technicon Ind.Systems, Tarrytown, NY, 1975.[41] U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Wa-ter and Wastes", Method 350.1 (for Nitrogen and Ammonia), EPA-100/4-79-020,1979.[42] U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, "Process Design Manual for NitrogenControl", U.S. EPA, October, 1975.[43] U.S. Environmental Protect Agency, "Quality Criteria for Water", U.S. EPA,July 1976.[44] Wilderer, P. A., W. L. Jones and U. Dau, "Competition in Denitrifica-tion Systems Affecting Reduction Rate and Accumulation of Nitrite", Water Res.Vol.21, No.2, pp.239-245, 1987.Appendix ALIST OF ABBREVIATIONS103Appendix A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS^ 104ADDN^AdditionAER AerobicAMM^AmmoniaANOX AnoxicASRT^Theoretical aerobic solids retention timeBOD 5^ Five day biochemical oxygen demandC Carbon as Filtered CODCLAR^ClarifierCOD Chemical oxygen demandCu 2 +^ Copperd DayDENIT^DenitrificationEFFL Effluentg^ Gramh HourHRT^ Hydraulic retention timeINFL Influentkg^ Kilogram1 LiterMF^ Membrane-filteredmg MilligramMLSS^Mixed liquor suspended solidsMLVSS Mixed liquor volatile suspended solidsmV^ MillivoltN NitrogenAppendix A. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS^ 105NH4- -N^Ammonia expressed as nitrogenNITR NitrificationN^ All forms of nitrogen are expressed as N in this research(even if not written)NO; -N^Nitrate and nitrite expressed as nitrogenORP Oxidation-reduction potentialP^ Phosphorus, All forms of nitrogen are expressed as P in thisresearch (even if not written)RECL^RecycleREM RemovalSOLN^SolutionSRT Solids retention time (aerobic)SSRT^ System solids retention timeTEMP TemperatureTKN^ Total Kjeldahl nitrogenTSS Total suspended solidsVOL^ VolumeVSS Volatile suspended solidsWF^ Whatman-filteredZn2 + ZincAppendix BDEFINITIONS106Appendix B. DEFINITIONS^ 107CARBON ADDITION As g COD/d = Concentration of Carbon solution (mis CH3OH /1) x 0.7915 (g/m1) x Carbonflow (1/d) x 1.5 (C:COD)TOT COD IN (mg/d) = INFL COD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d) + COD ADDN (gCOD/d) x 1000 (mg/g) + (INFLFLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x AER COD(mg/1) - INFL FLOW (Vd) x EFFL COD (mg/1)ANOXIC COD REMOVAL (mg/d) = TOT COD IN - ANOX COD x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d)ANOXIC COD REMOVAL (%) = ANOX COD REM (mg/d) x 100 ÷ TOT COD IN (mg/d). % of carbon enteringanoxic basin that is removed thereAEROBIC COD REMOVAL (%) = (ANOX COD - AER COD) (mg/I) x 100 ÷ ANOX COD (mg/1) = % of carbonentering aerobic basin that is removed thereTOT COD REMOVAL (%) = [INFL COD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d) + COD ADDN (gCOD/d) x 1000 (mg/g) -EFFL COD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d)] x 100 + [INFL COD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (lid) + COD ADDN (gCOD/d)x 1000 (mg/g)]CLARIFIER COD REMOVAL (%) = [AER COD (mg/1) x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) - EFFL COD (mg/1)x INFL FLOW (Vd)] x 100 + [AER COD (mg/1) x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d)]AEROBIC UNIT COD REMOVAL (%) = (UNIT ANOX COD - UNIT AERB COD) x 100 ÷ UNIT ANOX CODANOXIC AMM REMOVAL (mg/d) = INFL AMM (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d) + EFFL AMM (mg/1) x RECYCLEFLOW (1/d) - (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x ANOX AMM (mg/1)ANOXIC AMM REMOVAL (%) = ANOX AMM REM (mg/d) x 100 ÷ (INFL FLOW (lid) x INFL AMM (mg/I)+ RECL FLOW (1/d) x EFFL AMM(mg/1))AEROBIC AMM REMOVAL (mg/d) = (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x ANOX AMM (mg/1) - (INFL +RECL FLOW) (Vd) x AER AMM (mg/1)AEROBIC AMM REMOVAL (%) = AER AMM REM (mg/d) x 100 + (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) xANOX AMM (mg/1)ANOXIC UNIT SPECIFIC AMM REMOVAL (mg/h/g VSS) = ANOX AMM REM (mg/d) ANOX VSS ÷ 0.12= (mg/d/SYSTEM) x (1/24 d/h) x (1/5 SYST/1) x (1000 (mg/g) ANOX VSS (mg/1))AEROBIC UNIT AMM REMOVAL (mg/h/g VSS) = AEROBIC AMM REM (mg/d) AER VSS / 0.24 =(mg/d/SYSTEM) x (1/24 d/h) x (1/10 SYST/1) x (1000 mg/g) AER VSS (mg/1))NITRIFICATION (mg/d) = (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x (AER NOx - ANOX NOx) (mg/1) = TOTALFLOW x (NOx OUT - NOx IN)NITRIFICATION (%) = NITR (mg/d) x 100 ÷ [(INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW (Vd) x ANOX AMM (mg/I)]Appendix B. DEFINITIONS^108UNIT NITRIFICATION RATE (mg/h/g VSS) = NITR (mg/d) ÷ AER VSS (mg/L) + 0.24DENITRIFICATION (mg/d) = [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL NOx (mg/1) + RECL FLOW (1/d) x EFFL NOx (mg/1)]- (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x ANOX NOx(mg/1)DENITRIFICATION (%) = DENIT (mg/d) x 100 ÷ [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL NOx (mg/1) + RECL FLOW (Vd)x EFFL NOx (ng/1)]UNIT DENITRIFICATION RATE (mg/h/g VSS) = DENIT (mg/d) ÷ ANOX VSS ÷ 0.12CARBON ADDN PER NOx ENTERING THE ANOXIC REACTOR (gCOD/d/syst per gN/d/syst) = COD ADDN(gCOD/d) x 1000 (mg/g) ÷ [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL NOx (mg/1) + RECL FLOW (1/d) x EFFL NOx (mg/1)]TOT BOD IN (mg/d) = INFL BOD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d) + BOD ADDN (gBOD/d) x 1000 (mg/g) + (INFLFLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x AER BOD (mg/1) - INFL FLOW (Vd) x EFFL BOD (mg/1)TOT BOD REMOVAL (%) = [INFL BOD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (lid) + BOD ADD (g/d) x 1000 (mg/g) - EFFLBOD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d)] x 100 ÷ [INFL BOD (mg/1) x INFL FLOW (1/d) + BOD ADD (g/d) x 1000(mg/g)]ANOXIC BOD REMOVAL (mg/d) = TOT BOD IN (mg/d) - ANOX BOD (mg/1) x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW)(I/d)ANOXIC BOD REMOVAL (%) = ANOX BOD REMOVAL (mg/d) x 100 ÷ TOT BOD IN (mg/d)AEROBIC BOD REMOVAL (%) = [ANOX BOD (mg/1) - AER BOD (mg/1)] x 100 ÷ ANOX BOD (mg/1)CLARIFIER BOD REMOVAL (%) = [AER BOD (mg/D x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) - EFFL BOD (mg/1)x INFL FLOW (I/d)] x 100 ÷ [AER BOD (mg/1) x (INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d)]UNIT AEROBIC BOD REMOVAL (%) = (UNIT ANOX BOD - UNIT AER BOD) x 100 4- UNIT ANOX BODPO43- ADDN (mgP/d) = PO43- ADDN (IP/d) x PO43- SOLN (gP/1) x 1000 (mg/g)TOT PO43- REMOVAL (%) = [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL PO43-(mgP/1) + PO43- ADDN (mgP/d) - INFL FLOW(1/d) x EFFL PO43- (mgP/I)] x 100 ÷ [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL PO43- (mgP/1) + PO43- ADDN (mgP/d)]ANOXIC PO43- REMOVAL (mgP/d) = [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL PO43- (mgP/1) + PO43-ADDN (mgP/d) + RECLFLOW (1/d) x EFFL PO43- (mgP/1)] - [(INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x ANOX PO43- (mgP/1)]ANOXIC PO43- REMOVAL (%) = ANOX PO43- REM (mgP/d) x 100 + [INFL FLOW (1/d) x INFL PO43- (mgP/I)+ PO43- ADDN (mgP/d) + RECL FLOW (1/d) x EFFL PO43- (mgP/1)]AEROBIC PO43- REMOVAL (%) = [ANOX PO43- (mgP/1) - AER PO43- (mgP/1)] x 100 ÷ ANOX PO43- (mgP/1)Appendix B. DEFINITIONS^ 109CLARIFIER PO43- REMOVAL (%) = [(INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (I/d) x AER PO43- (mgP/I) - INFL FLOW(I/d) x EFFL PO43- (mgP/1)] x 100 + [(INFL FLOW + RECL FLOW) (1/d) x AER PO43- (mgP/1)]VOLUME WASTED (L/d) = VOL OF AEROBIC REACTOR (10 L) ASRT (d))ASRT (days) = THEORETICAL AEROBIC SOLIDS RETENTION TIME = MASS SUSP SOLIDS IN THEAEROBIC REACTOR ÷ MASS SUSP SOLIDS WASTED DAILY FROM THE REACTOR = AER VOL + DAILYAER SOLIDS WASTEDSSRT (days) = SYSTEM SOLIDS RETENTION TIME = MASS SUSP SOLIDS IN THE SYST ÷ TOT MASSSUSP SOLIDS WASTED FROM THE SYSTEM = [ANOX VSS x ANOX VOL + AER VSS x (AER + CLAR +RECL)VOL] (AER VSS x DAILY AER VSS WASTED + EFFL VSS x INFL FLOW)SLUDGE RECYCLE RATIO = SLUDGE RECL FLOW + LEACHATE INFL FLOWAppendix CLOG OF OPERATION110Appendix C. LOG OF OPERATION^ 11107/06/90^First leachate sample was taken1 07/20/90 Systems operation started21 08/09/90 Second leachate sample was taken23 08/11/90 Started feeding with second leachate sample42 08/29/90 third leachate sample was taken47 09/04/90 Started feeding with third leachate sample55 09/12/90 Poor settlability had caused the sludge loss. Filled half ofevery reactor with sewage sludge seed, which was taken fromthe pilot plant.66 09/23/90 Started adding methanol into the two systems^6.3 gCOD/d).69 09/26/90 System II clarifier's sludge return tubing was plugged whichcaused the anoxic reactor of system II appeared less denser.Filled the anoxic reactor of system II with 200 ml sludge takenfrom the anoxic reactor of system I after fixing the tubing.75 10/02/90 Forth leachate sample was taken.77 10/04/90 Started feeding with forth leachate sample.82 10/09/90 Started wasting from the aerobic reactors of the two systemswith SRT of 20 days.85 10/12/90 Started 13 (4- addition (— 1.7mgP/d).104 10/31/90 educed ambient temperature from original 20°C to 12°C.108 11/04/90 Fifth leachate sample was taken.108 11/05/90 educed methanol addition from around 11 gCOD/d to around 9 gCOD/d.110 11/07/90 Started feeding with fifth leachate sample.114 11/10/90 The mix stir in the aerobic reactor of system I stopped forseveral hours which caused the increase of ORP value.Appendix C. LOG OF OPERATION^ 112119 11/15/90 Influent tubings were changed.125 11/21/90 Power supply failed for about half an hour before the reading wastaken.130 11/26/90 Turned the chemical flow a little bit down; power supplyfailed for an hour.137 12/03/90 Tubings for chemical pump were changed.150 12/16/90 ORP switch of system II might be touched by somebody which causedthe anoxic ORP value of system II being lower.152 12/19/90 Increased the COD addition to 13 gCOD/d and phosphate additionto 4 mgP/d.161 12/27/90 Increased phosphate addition to 13 mgP/d; sixth leachate samplewas taken.162 12/28/90 Started operating system II with SRT of 40 days; All pumps'tubings were changed.164 12/30/90 Stated feeding with sixth leachate sample.168 01/03/91 Started addition methanol and phosphate with separate pumps.169 01/04/91 Effluent tubing of anoxic reactor in system II was plugged.173 01/08/91 Increased phosphate addition to 30 mgP/d and started to furtherincrease gradually.175 01/10/91 The phosphate chemical pump was not stable, changed to a newer one.178 01/13/91 System II influent tubing was plugged for hole day.181 01/16/91 Increased phosphate addition to 50 mgP/d.182 01/17/91 The tubing of methanol pump was changed.184 01/19/91 Increased phosphate addition to 80 mgP/d.190 01/25/91 Increased phosphate addition to 150 mgP/d.Appendix C. LOG OF OPERATION^ 113199 02/03/91 Reduced methanol addition from 14 gCOD/d to 4 gCOD/d.200 02/05/91 Seventh leachate sample was taken.205 02/10/91 Started feeding with seventh leachate sample.208 02/13/91 Phosphate tubings were changed.210 02/15/91 Phosphate addition was reduced tp 60 mgP/d.212 02/17/91 Effluent tubing of Anoxic reactor of system II was overspilledafter sampling. Refilled some of the spill back with a mob.213 02/18/91 Started operating system I with SRT of 60 days.214 02/19/91 Power supply failed for about 20 hours.219 02/23/91 Increased phosphate addition to around 80 mgP/d.224 02/28/91 COD addition was increased from 4 g/d to 6 g/d.233 03/09/91 Phosphate addition was reduced to around 40 gP/d.235 03/11/91 Started operating system II with SRT of 30 days (from previous40 days).239 03/15/91 ORP value of System I rose by about 100 mV. Increasedphosphate addition to 70 mgP/d.240 03/16/91 Eighth leachate sample was taken.242 03/18/91 Methanol addition was increased from 6.8 g/d to 10 g/d (withinone day, ORP value of system I dropped from -172 to -406).248 03/24/91 Leachate supply of system I stopped with caused the rise ofORP value in the anoxic reactor in that system (-105 mV).249 03/25/91 Mix stir in system I stopped which caused the aerobic reactorlooked less denser.252 03/28/91 Stopped the methanol addition.259 04/04/91 Resumed the methanol addition with different dosage betweenAppendix C. LOG OF OPERATION^ 114266 04/11/91268 04/13/91270 04/15/91276 04/21/91277 04/22/91278 04/23/91283 04/28/91285 04/30/91291 05/06/91294 05/09/91297 05/12/91298 05/13/91319 06/03/91system I and II. Started using two separate pumps for methanoland two separate pumps for phosphate addition.Influent flow of system II stopped before sampling.Increased methanol addition of system II from 3 g/d to 7.9 g/d.Started operating system II with SRT of 20 days (from previous30 days).All pumps' speed became higher which might be caused by theunstable power supply. Influent tubing of system I was pluggedfor one day.Ninth leachate sample was taken.Air supplying tubing was cleaned. Turned the air flow higher.Started feeding the systems with Ninth leachate sample.Methanol addition of both system I and II was reduced fromaround 12 g/d to around 7.5 g/d.Dropped the ambient temperature from 12°C to 4°Cafter reading.Power supply failed after sampling until day 297 when thebreakdown was fixed. During these days, the ambient temperaturerose to 23°C.Power breakdown was fixed. The ambient temperature was adjustedat 12°C.Dropped the ambient temperature back to 4°C after sampling.Stopped the lab operation after sampling.Appendix DRAW DATA, SYSTEM I115Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^116SYSTEM IDATE^INFLUENT    (memb.) ^NH4^NOx^NO2^TKN^TP^TSS^VSS^PO4^BOD^COD^NH4/^pHmg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L^mg/L^mg/L^mg/L^mg/L mg/L mg/L TKN90-07-2490-07-2825325338 44944990-07-31 253 0.2 242 0.1 190 10 0.7 328 1.0590-08-02 216 11.4 167 0.0 310 250 0.2 401 1.2990-08-08 214 11.2 12.90 96 1.4 258 75 0.0 395 2.2390-08-12 210 42.7 34.60 175 0.1 60 32 19.1 477 1.2090-08-22 216 32.1 238 0.1 60 14 1.1 596 0.91 8.1090-09-06 260 21.0 264 10.9 106 98 0.7 636 0.98 7.8990-09-10 250 14.4 265 0.7 195 130 2.0 504 0.94 7.9390-09-18 265 12.3 121 0.7 684 38 1.1 520 2.19 7.7790-09-25 247 35.7 243 4.3 585 300 1.9 668 1.02 8.1090-10-01 176 3.1 174 0.0 116 66 0.2 591 1.01 7.9390-10-04 324 4.5 315 0.0 240 110 0.5 591 1.03 7.6090-10-11 306 6.2 320 0.0 183 93 0.3 575 0.96 7.9790-10-21 294 19.8 303 0.0 46 20 0.2 511 0.97 7.9390-10-25 316 12.1 280 0.0 64 32 0.2 622 1.13 7.8890-11-05 329 22.4 0.60 300 0.0 40 30 0.3 563 1.10 8.2790-11-14 247 11.3 0.30 191 0.0 56 32 0.2 515 1.29 8.1590-11-20 254 8.2 0.40 259 0.0 58 30 0.1 496 0.98 7.9390-12-10 252 32.2 0.90 216 0.0 357 150 0.1 572 1.17 8.3990-12-17 279 10.1 0.30 239 0.0 70 38 0.1 489 1.17 8.0490-12-20 199 10.4 0.40 263 0.0 0.0 463 0.7691-01-01 226 3.2 239 0.0 60 30 0.0 489 0.95 8.1291-01-08 256 3.3 195 0.0 60 32 0.2 429 1.31 7.9191-01-16 201 1.4 198 1.0 80 37 0.0 503 1.02 8.0091-01-22 173 1.2 195 0.0 97 53 0.1 392 0.89 7.9891-01-28 172 2.1 188 0.0 0.1 392 0.91 8.2691-02-04 206 0.7 202 0.0 75 33 0.1 381 1.02 8.0591-02-11 120 0.6 114 0.0 98 42 0.2 43 284 1.05 7.9391-02-17 97 4.3 100 0.0 5 3 0.2 19 303 0.97 7.2791-02-25 88 2.9 100 0.0 34 22 0.2 261 0.88 8.1891-03-03 86 1.0 100 0.0 387 180 0.1 78 337 0.86 7.3491-03-10 86 1.5 97 0.0 63 38 0.3 17 255 0.89 8.2191-03-13 86 1.2 53 7 0.1 8.0791-03-16 85 0.3 100 0.0 83 47 0.1 18 290 0.85 7.5491-03-26 193 1.8 131 0.0 60 2 0.1 8 329 1.47 8.6591-03-31 200 1.5 0.47 136 0.0 78 10 0.2 15 329 1.47 8.5791-04-03 185 1.1 0.28 127 0.0 54 32 0.1 20 329 1.45 8.1291-04-07 191 0.8 0.42 124 0.0 86 46 0.1 12 352 1.54 8.5791-04-11 177 2.0 0.77 132 0.0 154 64 0.2 65 354 1.34 8.4891-04-14 177 1.0 0.23 123 0.0 154 64 0.1 42 320 1.4491-04-19 174 1.3 0.35 124 0.0 272 108 0.1 38 372 1.40 8.6591-04-24 171 0.2 0.01 125 0.0 102 50 0.1 23 327 1.37 8.2791-04-28 161 0.6 0.25 130 0.0 94 54 0.1 23 368 1.24 8.0591-05-05 160 0.5 0.11 192 0.0 174 74 0.2 39 340 0.83 8.7491-05-09 167 0.7 0.19 192 0.0 58 30 0.1 47 348 0.87 8.1691-05-13 167 1.2 1.00 192 0.0 74 36 0.1 347 0.87 8.3191-05-21 186 1.2 0.77 190 0.0 190 92 0.2 88 349 0.98 8.4191-05-27 182 1.5 0.88 192 0.0 124 66 0.1 41 341 0.95 8.7691-06-03 189 1.3 0.72 180 0.0 160 70 0.1 42 349 1.05 8.46Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 117SYSTEM IDAY ANOXIC.NH4mg/LNOxmg/LNO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LMLSSmg/LMLVSSmg/L^ (memb.)PO4mg/LBODmg/LCODmg/LVSS/TSS ORP+pH5 109 72.7 324 93 2595 2295 10.2 3433 0.88 109 8.159 103 112.5 241 79 1650 1630 4.7 2947 0.99 126 7.8212 95 118.2 191 24.7 1550 1180 4.6 1806 0.76 121 7.6514 58 195.5 132 18.7 1420 1060 0.9 1681 0.75 120 7.5020 40 175.5 84.5 96 5.7 1045 715 0.2 947 0.68 96 7.6924 81 128.3 42.3 119 6.6 920 570 0.3 1093 0.62 90 7.7034 29 217.5 67 2.3 70 0.3 756 0.00 98 7.6049 193 21.0 192 8.3 960 570 0.7 1233 0.59 64 8.1153 151 1.0 214 4.3 1170 710 1.9 1023 0.61 -14 8.1861 43 228.0 172 57.7 3370 2240 2.6 3510 0.66 83 7.4368 31 216.1 239 47.7 3410 2560 2.8 3223 0.75 63 7.7774 34 27.5 225 40.5 3700 2560 0.3 0.69 21 8.1177 84 69.3 282 45.9 4310 3000 0.4 3817 0.70 30 7.6884 56 76.3 349 42.3 5010 3650 0.4 5094 0.73 -49 8.0594 53 69.9 277 32.1 4220 2870 0.8 4055 0.68 -63 8.0998 48 0.0 6.5 3820 2770 0.2 3943 0.73 -105 8.14109 248 0.1 0.00 206 3.5 2780 2540 0.6 3899 0.91 -264 8.35118 203 0.1 0.00 164 3.5 4020 2340 0.3 2948 0.58 -342 8.35124 209 0.1 0.00 4170 2460 0.3 0.59 -428 8.28144 234 1.4 0.50 213 2 2630 1570 0.4 3131 0.60 -453 8.56151 256 0.1 0.10 214 2 4000 2250 0.7 2952 0.56 -425 8.37154 167 0.1 0.10 326 7.9 4380 2070 0.5 3365 0.47 -415 8.47166 228 0.1 351 8.8 4360 2040 0.5 3778 0.47 -427 8.42173 231 0.2 313 15.2 3460 1970 0.5 3746 0.57 -436 8.37181 156 0.1 305 18.1 4610 2150 0.2 3082 0.47 -465 8.19187 129 0.3 356 33.8 4480 2280 0.2 3516 0.51 -469 8.10193 195 0.1 392 51.5 4780 2660 4.1 3854 0.56 -460 8.28200 165 0.1 400 57.6 4460 2450 1.9 3606 0.55 -482 8.53207 127 0.8 265 49.0 3380 1540 5.0 467 2263 0.46 -465 8.53213 31 0.0 147 34.3 2830 1230 2.0 424 1786 0.43 -412 8.26221 14 2.5 119 42.9 2810 1220 4.1 1765 0.43 -420 8.22227 13 0.9 97 31.9 2130 1200 4.1 547 1365 0.56 -440 8.07234 10 0.1 130 38.0 2390 1300 1.9 451 1846 0.54 -449 8.13237 15 0.2 2280 1290 1.1 0.57 -444 7.92240 11 0.4 133 31.9 2140 1220 2.2 541 1909 0.57 -350 7.97250 35 1.1 149 38.3 2570 1610 1.7 605 2631 0.63 -390 8.25255 38 77.1 0.73 142 37.2 2280 1400 4.4 597 0.61 -15 7.97258 33 78.5 1.96 109 30.0 2030 1230 2.2 655 1881 0.61 -5 7.91262 42 24.0 0.05 123 30.0 2270 1590 1.0 760 2218 0.70 10 8.16266 6 0.6 0.00 113 35.2 2540 1810 3.0 695 2515 0.71 -40 8.30269 13 37.1 0.26 132 34.1 2490 1760 0.7 599 2444 0.71 -25 8.24274 21 23.3 0.49 138 34.1 2460 1790 0.8 810 2556 0.73 -65 8.16279 18 4.3 0.53 146 39.3 2790 2080 4.3 910 2857 0.75 -157 8.19283 9 0.3 0.01 168 55.8 2900 2290 4.7 955 6903 0.79 -230 8.13290 13 26.0 1.75 235 52.2 3590 1980 4.7 615 2874 0.55 -136 8.17294 18 41.1 4.64 190 43.6 2380 1790 7.3 710 2672 0.75 -95 8.01298 16 50.4 0.29 218 51.2 2550 1940 5.2 2591 0.76 -42 8.04306 21 76.7 0.39 235 51.2 2780 2200 2.9 756 3021 0.79 -102 8.04312 18 61.7 0.49 259 56.9 2950 2340 3.6 683 3333 0.79 -117 8.10319 17 62.4 0.62 259 65.4 3110 2420 5.8 826 3704 0.78 -136 8.03Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^118SYSTEM IDAY AEROBICNH4mg/LNOx^NO2mg/L^mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LMLSSmg/LMLVSSmg/L^ (memb.)PO4mg/LBODmg/LCODmg/LVSS/TSS DO pH5 101.1 93.2 286 83.0 2370 2030 13.0 3148 0.86 1.9 8.129 88.3 133.0 245 76.0 1440 1290 4.3 2534 0.90 6.6 7.8512 77.6 147.7 160 24.7 1550 1080 1.6 1661 0.70 1.9 7.5814 29.1 225.0 109 18.7 1310 990 1387 0.76 5.1 7.4320 11.2 198.0 67 5.7 1370 790 0.2 937 0.58 2.7 7.4024 60.1 157.5 48.40 84 3.1 505 295 0.2 696 0.58 4.6 7.6234 6.5 238.3 41 3.1 80 0.3 815 3.2 7.4949 175.6 26.3 191 6.6 825 535 0.6 1233 0.65 3.2 8.1453 133.4 6.0 191 4.3 1100 690 0.8 997 0.63 1.4 8.2061 0.0 262.1 127 54.1 3460 2110 4.7 3190 0.61 2.2 7.1268 0.0 251.6 151 44.1 3140 2250 1.7 2634 0.72 2.7 7.3774 0.0 81.3 206 34.2 3600 2550 0.2 3897 0.71 4.0 7.8277 5.3 113.2 218 42.3 4470 3000 0.5 4017 0.67 1.9 7.5384 3.0 159.3 275 42.3 4800 3470 0.3 5174 0.72 3.3 7.8194 3.0 120.9 254 32.9 4330 2950 0.3 4181 0.68 3.2 7.7498 10.0 46.5 8.0 3870 2740 0.2 3943 0.71 3.6 7.97109 243.0 1.4^0.30 211 4.3 3660 2470 0.4 3805 0.67 4.2 8.39118 198.0 0.6^0.30 167 4.3 4110 2270 2.1 4466 0.55 2.9 8.36124 200.0 1.5^0.50 331 12.0 4020 2410 0.3 3208 0.60 5.2 8.40144 228.6 1.7^0.50 204 2.0 3660 1540 0.4 3000 0.42 6.5 8.64151 252.0 0.1^0.00 221 2.0 3810 2170 0.7 2857 0.57 5.3 8.47154 166.9 0.3^0.20 334 7.0 3700 1790 0.4 3079 0.48 5.4 8.57166 239.7 0.2 341 7.9 4460 1910 0.4 3619 0.43 4.8 8.56173 228.3 0.2 284 11.6 4090 1800 0.3 2794 0.44 4.5 8.42181 157.5 0.3 157 19.0 4530 2140 0.2 2861 0.47 5.9 8.32187 122.5 0.3 395 39.1 5400 2640 0.2 3884 0.49 3.3 8.19193 166.8 0.5 422 57.6 5700 3010 3.5 4069 0.53 5.2 8.34200 167.3 1.8 419 64.9 4550 2440 5.1 3606 0.54 7.5 8.63207 133.7 2.3 293 60.0 4560 1810 4.0 527 2512 0.40 6.4 8.61213 23.7 9.4 133 39.2 3240 1230 2.0 390 1703 0.38 5.8 8.29221 2.6 15.5 117 46.6 3980 1340 3.1 1828 0.34 3.6 8.19227 0.9 4.4 108 38.0 3020 1440 3.4 510 1647 0.48 4.7 8.17234 0.7 10.9 139 45.3 3530 1520 1.6 431 2116 0.43 8.5 8.14237 2.8 13.2 3210 1540 1.0 0.48 8.7 7.95240 1.2 11.8 139 39.2 2510 1260 1.5 217 2054 0.50 8.2 8.04250 2.6 21.8 144 41.4 2930 1730 0.8 815 2711 0.59 6.4 8.07255 27.6 102.1 122 44.5 3120 1630 2.5 617 2570 0.52 8.5 7.90258 13.6 93.4^2.21 109 37.2 2860 1450 2.1 650 2198 0.51 9.0 8.00262 0.9 62.7^2.18 110 39.3 2940 2850 0.4 421 2475 0.97 7.4 7.85266 0.1 4.8^0.01 121 42.4 3810 2150 1.5 493 2871 0.56 9.5 8.39269 0.1 55.7^0.03 137 42.4 3840 2100 0.5 624 2782 0.55 7.87274 0.3 44.1^0.08 141 37.2 3050 2100 0.5 653 2688 0.69 4.7 7.91279 2.2 23.9^0.64 157 56.8 3330 2390 4.2 905 3308 0.72 1.0 7.92283 0.5 15.3^0.01 183 67.2 2670 2710 3.9 870 3684 1.01 4.9 7.97290 0.1 45.4^0.35 330 79.7 3120 2270 6.0 815 3320 0.73 5.8 7.95294 5.5 58.4^2.26 220 59.7 2990 2260 7.4 691 3219 0.76 9.5 7.98298 0.3 68.6^0.19 247 70.2 3380 2540 4.0 3178 0.75 7.0 7.86306 0.0 99.0^0.02 286 73.0 3560 2760 3.1 793 4113 0.78 7.9 7.81312 0.1 80.7^0.02 275 68.3 3440 2690 3.8 763 3899 0.78 8.0 7.95319 0.1 83.4^0.02 284 81.5 3610 2790 5.7 883 4094 0.77 6.2 7.87Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^119SYSTEM IDAY EFFLUENT----  ^(memb)^ +NH4mg/LNOxmg/LNO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LSSmg/LVSSmg/LPO4mg/LBODmg/LCODmg/LPH5 97.6 97.7 144 33.0 12.8 8379 86.0 134.1 220 65.0 4.7 116712 81.3 152.3 111 10.9 540 460 1.4 87214 30.3 73 8.3 640 470 81920 9.8 191.3 87.40 37 3.1 425 195 0.2 57224 56.0 67 0.1 170 30 51734 239.3 35 0.0 38 16 0.7 199 7.5049 182.3 27.4 160 2.3 94 72 1.3 835 8.1553 133.4 6.4 186 1.6 180 123 0.8 512 8.2061 0.0 251.3 24 6.1 230 160 2.1 613 7.1168 0.0 267.3 15 6.1 187 133 1.5 614 7.3474 0.0 83.1 7 0.7 72 64 0.1 307 7.8077 0.7 107.8 7 1.1 49 31 0.2 307 7.6184 0.0 166.3 22 3.4 287 193 0.2 399 7.8394 3.0 141.4 21 1.5 222 148 0.1 798 7.7898 7.8 44.0 3 0.0 326 242 0.1 696 8.02109 235.8 1.5 0.20 204 0.0 175 120 0.3 786 8.42118 196.2 1.2 0.30 172 0.0 110 76 0.3 1115 8.40124 208.8 1.7 0.30 205 0.0 140 88 0.3 996 8.43144 225.0 1.2 0.30 203 0.0 227 147 0.3 1246 8.65151 253.8 0.4 214 0.0 193 103 0.5 921 8.48154 169.1 0.3 246 0.7 0.3 1429 8.57166 226.0 0.3 237 1.6 310 177 0.4 1460 8.56173 248.8 0.2 172 0.0 170 110 0.3 1302 8.47181 151.6 0.6 300 0.6 183 130 0.1 535 8.32187 126.6 0.3 157 2.4 190 150 0.1 565 8.21193 158.1 0.6 158 9.8 3.0 750 8.34200 161.5 1.8 229 23.3 1220 820 4.6 5064 8.63207 139.6 2.7 172 19.6 665 445 4.5 282 789 8.61213 25.2 16.4 67 12.3 480 330 2.2 105 540 8.23221 1.5 16.4 26 11.0 325 190 4.4 441 8.08227 1.8 3.2 26 9.8 290 190 3.4 210 502 8.37234 0.9 11.1 20 9.8 440 330 1.8 143 602 8.12237 0.2 14.7 343 247 1.1 8.03240 0.2 12.5 31 7.4 445 310 1.8 210 602 8.04250 2.2 26.6 18 3.2 260 200 1.3 160 562 7.82255 23.3 101.7 1.03 43 9.4 510 375 2.5 398 803 7.80258 13.1 87.4 1.68 46 10.4 510 360 2.2 480 745 7.82262 1.3 56.5 1.75 17 3.2 230 180 0.7 86 467 7.91266 0.0 12.6 0.01 11 1.1 225 170 1.2 47 374 8.14269 0.0 58.7 0.01 26 6.3 535 400 0.4 284 695 7.91274 0.4 43.9 0.01 30 6.3 475 360 0.5 273 671 7.97279 2.0 28.8 0.69 31 11.4 465 360 4.6 288 652 7.92283 0.0 16.2 0.01 41 16.6 645 515 4.6 311 911 8.04290 0.0 46.2 0.01 41 13.3 460 365 5.8 156 810 7.97294 5.0 59.2 2.24 37 14.2 400 305 7.4 513 688 7.94298 0.0 70.9 0.03 14 8.6 310 250 5.2 497 7.96306 0.1 109.2 0.03 7 5.7 260 190 3.1 325 526 7.85312 2.3 83.8 0.04 4 4.8 112 82 3.4 166 370 7.98319 0.2 83.7 0.03 4 6.7 106 62 5.8 121 409 7.93Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 120SYSTEM IDAY PUMP FLOWS--^INFL^RECLL/d^L/dCarbonL/d[Carbon]^C ADDN Othor-P ADDPOL/d^ml/L^gCOD/d gP/1^mgP/dCODADD: TOT COD TOTCODP ADD^IN,mg/d IN mg/1^U COD^U CODANOX^AERmg/gVSS mg/gVSS5 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 217860 3090 1.50 15519 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 171108 2427 1.81 196412 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 111389 1580 1.53 153814 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 93395 1325 1.59 140120 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 64200 911 1.32 118624 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 48648 690 1.92 235934 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 61626 87449 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 84837 1203 2.16 230553 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 70205 996 1.44 144561 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 223919 3176 1.57 151268 10.5 60.0 0.117 0.000 50 6.945 0.000 0.0 193209 2741 1.26 117174 10.5 60.0 0.117 0.000 50 6.945 0.000 0.0 284665 4038 152877 10.5 60.0 0.177 0.000 50 10.506 0.000 0.0 296686 4208 1.27 133984 10.5 60.0 0.205 0.000 50 12.168 0.000 0.0 378783 5373 1.40 149194 10.5 60.0 0.176 0.176 50 10.446 0.010 1.7 6.06 302193 4286 1.41 141798 10.5 60.0 0.255 0.255 50 15.136 0.006 1.6 9.57 292340 4147 1.42 1439109 6.5 60.0 0.200 0.200 50 11.871 0.006 1.2 9.57 263454 3962 1.54 1540118 6.5 60.0 0.147 0.147 50 8.725 0.006 0.9 9.57 301814 4539 1.26 1967124 6.5 60.0 0.165 0.165 50 9.794 0.006 1.0 9.57 219876 3306 1331144 6.5 60.0 0.169 0.169 50 10.031 0.006 1.0 9.57 205150 3085 1.99 1948151 6.5 60.0 0.173 0.173 50 10.268 0.006 1.1 9.57 197451 2969 1.31 1317154 6.5 60.0 0.213 0.213 50 12.643 0.006 1.3 9.57 211117 3175 1.63 1720166 9.2 51.8 0.268 0.268 50 15.907 0.012 3.3 4.79 227733 3733 1.85 1895173 8.9 51.8 0.235 0.306 50 13.948 0.098 30.0 0.47 175832 2895 1.90 1552181 9.4 59.8 0.234 0.254 50 13.889 0.196 49.7 0.28 211456 3057 1.43 1337187 9.6 59.0 0.278 0.225 50 16.501 0.392 88.1 0.19 281282 4100 1.54 1471193 9.5 58.0 0.256 0.195 50 15.195 0.783 152.7 0.10 286451 4244 1.45 1352200 9.0 58.0 0.061 0.214 50 3.621 0.783 167.6 0.02 203076 3031 1.47 1478207 9.4 58.0 0.067 0.167 50 3.977 0.783 130.8 0.03 168458 2501 1.47 1388213 9.4 59.0 0.063 0.080 50 3.739 0.783 62.7 0.06 118006 1725 1.45 1385221 10.1 59.0 0.077 0.062 50 4.570 0.783 48.6 0.09 129107 1868 1.45 1364227 10.1 61.9 0.106 0.119 50 6.292 0.783 93.2 0.07 123212 1711 1.14 1144234 9.4 59.0 0.110 0.103 50 6.529 0.783 80.7 0.08 148086 2164 1.42 1392237 9.3 59.0 0.098 0.03 50 5.817 0.783 23.5 0.25 5817240 9.1 58.0 0.127 0.052 50 7.538 0.783 40.7 0.19 142522 2124 1.56 1630250 9.7 59.0 0.187 0.091 50 11.099 0.783 71.3 0.16 195193 2840 1.63 1567255 10.6 59.0 0 0.06 50 0.000 0.783 47.0 0.00 173950 2498 0.00 1577258 10.6 59.0 0 0.059 50 0.000 0.783 46.2 0.00 148659 2135 1.53 1516262 10.6 59.0 0.176 0.031 50 10.446 0.783 24.3 0.43 181586 2608 1.39 868266 9.0 58.3 0.143 0.042 50 8.488 0.783 32.9 0.26 201583 2994 1.39 1335269 9.1 58.3 0.116 0.04 50 6.885 0.783 31.3 0.22 190963 2834 1.39 1325274 9.4 60.0 0.153 0.054 50 9.081 0.783 42.3 0.21 192818 2778 1.43 1280279 11.8 62.6 0.231 0.155 50 13.711 0.783 121.4 0.11 256124 3441 1.37 1384283 8.4 60.5 0.229 0.159 50 13.592 0.783 124.5 0.11 262628 3816 3.01 1359290 9.5 59.0 0.136 0.122 50 8.072 0.783 95.5 0.08 231160 3373 1.45 1463294 9.5 59.0 0.125 0.116 50 7.419 0.783 90.8 0.08 224820 3280 1.49 1424298 10.5 64.8 0.159 0.199 50 9.437 0.783 155.8 0.06 247196 3282 1.34 1251306 10.5 64.8 0.115 0.114 50 6.826 0.783 89.3 0.08 314716 4179 1.37 1490312 7.9 55.4 0.116 0.107 50 6.885 0.783 83.8 0.08 253696 4004 1.42 1449319 9.4 59.0 0.113 0.094 50 6.707 0.783 73.6 0.09 286175 4184 1.53 1467Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 121^SYSTEM I^ SYSTEM I^DAY +- ^COD REM^ UNITAER TOTPO4 +---- , PO4 REMOVAL AS P---+TOT^ANOX^ANOX AER CLAR COD REM INmgP/1 TOT ANOX ANOX AER^CLARmg/d (%)^% mgP/d %5 -86 -24167 -11 8 96 -3.67 10.9 -27 859 -160 -36656 -21 14 93 -8.65 4.0 9 8412 -166 -15935 -14 8 92 -0.49 1.3 -100 -233 -255 65 8714 -104 -25116 -27 17 91 11.66 0.020 -45 -2564 -4 1 91 10.45 0.1 15 8724 -8 -28409 -58 36 89 -23.04 2.8 4734 67 8328 14 -8 96 0.8 36 32 61 0 6549 -31 -2090 -2 0 90 -6.54 1.2 -86 36 42 14 6853 -2 -1917 -3 3 92 -0.28 1.0 60 -65 -94 58 8561 -18 -23537 -11 9 97 3.52 2.0 -91 -46 -33 -81 9368 54 -34013 -18 18 97 7.01 1.6 21 -87 -80 39 8774 75 99 0.1 58 -10 -115 23 9377 81 27588 9 -5 99 -5.24 0.2 56 -11 -69 -25 9484 77 19656 5 -2 99 -6.84 0.2 41 -13 -81 25 9094 47 16316 5 -3 97 -0.31 0.2 64 -44 -350 63 9398 66 14359 5 0 97 -1.09 0.2 58 -3 -27 -15 92109 67 4171 2 2 98 -0.35 0.3 32 -19 -91 33 93118 40 105772 35 -51 98 -56.16 0.3 3 0 0 -600 99124 50 97 0.3 -12 0 -1 0 90144 41 -3062 -1 4 96 2.32 0.3 -3 -7 -34 0 93151 55 1143 1 3 97 -0.35 0.5 -82 -15 -46 0 93154 41 -12655 -6 8 95 -5.81 0.3 -23 -14 -70 20 93166 34 -2725 -1 4 94 -2.31 0.4 0 -6 -25 20 85173 35 -51662 -29 25 93 18.37 0.8 91 16 35 40 85181 73 -1695 -1 7 97 6.74 0.8 0 93187 73 40085 14 -10 98 4.60 1.4 99 81 85 0 93193 62 26306 9 -6 97 6.70 4.9 81 51 15 15 88200 -546 -38526 -19 0 81 -0.41 6.5 75 308 71 -168 88207 -11 16023 10 -11 96 5.56 5.8 68 56 14 20 84213 23 -4156 -4 5 96 4.65 2.8 68 57 29 0 85221 38 7110 6 -4 96 5.71 4.5 12 27 9 24 79227 48 24932 20 -21 96 -0.55 4.2 64 13 4 16 86234 37 21746 15 -15 96 1.96 2.8 79 63 33 17 84237 1.3 58 15 17 7 85240 46 14428 10 -8 96 -4.18 2.2 60 2 1 32 83250 62 14338 7 , -3 97 4.11 2.1 83 29 20 52 78255 -144 95 2.8 47 -113 -58 44 85258 -126 17666 12 -17 95 0.88 2.5 51 22 13 6 84262 65 27125 15 -12 97 37.75 0.9 73 -9 -14 62 75266 71 32274 16 -14 98 3.90 1.6 69 -98 -92 51 89269 36 26262 14 -14 97 4.60 0.8 89 10 17 28 89274 50 15432 8 -5 97 10.36 1.1 89 19 26 41 85279 56 43448 17 -16 97 -0.77 5.5 56 86 21 2 83283 54 -212506 -81 47 97 54.90 5.9 69 84 21 17 86290 32 34176 15 -16 97 -0.76 6.4 43 117 26 -26 86294 39 41681 19 -20 97 4.58 7.7 23 28 5 -2 86298 60 52068 21 -23 98 6.32 6.6 65 103 21 23 82306 47 87204 28 -36 98 -8.52 3.9 64 74 25 -7 86312 69 42517 17 -17 99 -1.76 4.3 68 45 17 -5 89319 62 32822 11 -11 99 4.13 6.1 27 21 5 1 86Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 122SYSTEM IDAY^TOT BOD U ANOX U AER TOT^U ANOX ANOX AER BOD CLAR BOO +--- BOD:COD ---+IN (mg/d) BOD^BOO BOD REIBOD REM BOD REM REMOVAL REMOVAL INFL ANOX AERB EFFL(mg/1:^(mg/1:^(%)^(mg/d)^(%)^(%)^(%)mg/1VSS mg/1VSS)5 39991214202434495361687477849498109118124144151154166173181187193200207 37238 0.30 0.29 40 5781 16 -13 93 0.15 0.21 0.21 0.36213 29610 0.34 0.32 75 609 2 8 96 0.06 0.24 0.23 0.19221227 41681 0.46 0.35 70 2297 6 7 94 0.23 0.40 0.31 0.42234 34842 0.35 0.28 80 3976 11 4 95 0.07 0.24 0.20 0.24237 5817240 20352 0.44 0.17 75 -15950 -78 60 87 0.06 0.28 0.11 0.35250 65648 0.38 0.47 86 24060 37 -35 97 0.02 0.23 0.30 0.28255 38908 0.43 0.38 -2553 -2667 -7 -3 90 0.05 0.24 0.50258 40390 0.53 0.45 -2300 -5224 -13 1 89 0.06 0.35 0.30 0.64262 38981 0.48 0.15 91 -13946 -83 45 97 0.03 0.34 0.17 0.18266 41839 0.38 0.23 95 -4949 -13 29 99 0.18 0.28 0.17 0.13269 46742 0.34 0.30 65 6375 17 -4 94 0.13 0.25 0.22 0.41274 52191 0.45 0.31 73 -4023 -8 19 94 0.10 0.32 0.24 0.41279 77952 0.44 0.38 76 10212 13 1 95 0.07 0.32 0.27 0.44283 71070 0.42 0.32 81 5159 7 9 96 0.06 0.14 0.24 0.34290 62821 0.31 0.36 82 20669 33 -33 97 0.11 0.21 0.25 0.19294 50354 0.40 0.31 38 1690 3 3 90 0.14 0.27 0.21 0.75298 9437306 64056 0.34 0.29 56 7121 11 -5 94 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.62312 54239 0.29 0.28 82 10964 20 -12 97 0.12 0.20 0.20 0.45319 66365 0.34 0.32 84 10341 15 -7 98 0.12 0.22 0.22 0.30Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 123SYSTEM IDAY^+ •AMMONIA REMOVAL.^TOT^ANOX^ANOX%^mg/d^%AERmg/dAER%+^ UNIT AMM^REMOVALANOX^ANOX^AERIg/h/gVS,^g/m3/d1g/h/gVS.+AERg/m3/d5 61 828 10 557 7 3.01 166 1.14 569 66 555 7 1036 14 2.84 111 3.35 10412 68 837 11 1227 18 5.91 167 4.73 12314 86 -3 0 2037 50 -0.02 -1 8.58 20420 95 15 1 2030 72 0.17 3 10.71 20324 73 -146 -3 1473 26 -2.13 -29 20.81 14734 1586 78 15949 30 62 0 1227 9 0.90 12 9.55 12353 47 -17 0 1241 12 -0.19 -3 7.49 12461 100 -249 -9 3032 100 -0.93 -50 5.99 30368 100 408 16 2186 100 1.33 82 4.05 21974 100 -549 -30 2397 100 -1.79 -110 3.92 24077 100 -2478 -72 5548 94 -6.88 -496 7.71 55584 100 -735 -23 3737 95 -1.68 -147 4.49 37494 99 -470 -14 3525 94 -1.36 -94 4.98 35398 98 402 11 2679 79 1.21 80 4.07 268109 28 -206 -1 333 2 -0.67 -41 0.56 33118 21 -122 -1 333 2 -0.43 -24 0.61 33124 18 281 2 599 4 0.95 56 1.03 60144 11 -423 -3 359 2 -2.25 -85 0.97 36151 9 18 0 266 2 0.06 4 0.51 27154 15 334 3 7 0 1.34 67 0.02 1166 0 -122 -1 -714 -5 -0.50 -24 -1.56 -71173 3 1145 8 164 1 4.84 229 0.38 16181 25 158 1 -104 -1 0.61 32 -0.20 -10187 27 281 3 446 5 1.03 56 0.70 45193 8 -2359 -22 1904 14 -7.39 -472 2.63 190200 22 166 1 -154 -1 0.56 33 -0.26 -15207 -16 665 7 -451 -5 3.60 133 -1.04 -45213 74 280 12 492 23 1.89 56 1.67 49221 98 -3 0 798 81 -0.02 -1 2.48 80227 98 55 6 860 93 0.38 11 2.49 86234 99 171 20 647 93 1.09 34 1.77 65237 100 -220 -27 850 82 -1.42 -44 2.30 85240 100 25 3 683 90 0.17 5 2.26 68250 99 -368 -18 2193 92 -1.91 -74 5.28 219255 88 868 25 707 27 5.17 174 1.81 71258 93 425 16 1363 59 2.88 85 3.92 136262 99 -824 -39 2864 98 -4.32 -165 4.19 286266 100 1163 73 427 99 5.36 233 0.83 43269 100 761 47 838 99 3.60 152 1.66 84274 100 222 13 1412 98 1.04 44 2.80 141279 99 814 38 1164 88 3.26 163 2.03 116283 100 693 52 616 95 2.52 139 0.95 62290 100 637 42 883 99 2.68 127 1.62 88294 97 621 33 883 70 2.89 124 1.63 88298 100 572 33 1159 98 2.46 114 1.90 116306 100 413 21 1540 100 1.56 83 2.33 154312 99 433 28 1132 100 1.54 87 1.75 113319 100 616 35 1159 99 2.12 123 1.73 116Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 124SYSTEM I^ SYSTEM IDAY + NI TRIFICAT1ON^ +UNITmg/d^%^mg/h/gVSSDENI TRIFICATION^ iUNITmg/d^%^mg/h/gVSS5 1445 19 2.979 1445 20 4.6712 2080 31 8.02 807 9 5.7014 2080 51 8.7520 1586 56 8.37 -777 -7 -9.0624 2059 36 29.0834 1466 72 -639 -449 374 3 2.91 384 21 5.6153 353 3 2.13 465 87 5.4561 2404 79 4.75 -867 -6 -3.2268 2503 115 4.63 1178 7 3.8374 3793 158 6.20 3080 61 10.0377 3095 52 4.30 1630 25 4.5384 5852 148 7.03 4664 46 10.6594 3596 96 5.08 3764 43 10.9398 3278 97 4.99 2767 100 8.32109 87 1 0.15 229 97 0.75118 33 0 0.06 139 95 0.49124 93 1 0.16 149 96 0.50144 20 0 0.05 188 67 1.00151 0 0 0.00 83 93 0.31154 13 0 0.03 79 92 0.32166 6 0 0.01 39 86 0.16173 0 0 0.00 28 70 0.12181 14 0 0.03 42 86 0.16187 0 0 0.00 9 30 0.03193 27 0 0.04 48 88 0.15200 114 1 0.19 104 94 0.35207 104 1 0.24 111 68 0.60213 643 30 2.18 1009 100 6.83221 899 92 2.79 825 83 5.63227 249 27 0.72 141 67 0.98234 741 107 2.03 665 99 4.26237 887 85 2.40 865 98 5.58240 768 101 2.54 699 96 4.77250 1425 60 3.43 1512 95 7.82255 1739 66 4.45 652 11 3.88258 1039 45 2.99 -293 -6 -1.99262 2696 92 3.94 1674 50 8.77266 288 67 0.56 712 95 3.28269 1257 149 2.49 933 27 4.42274 1445 101 2.87 1029 39 4.79279 1461 110 2.55 1487 82 5.96283 1031 158 1.59 963 98 3.50290 1331 150 2.44 955 35 4.02294 1190 95 2.19 685 20 3.19298 1366 115 2.24 812 18 3.49306 1676 109 2.53 1313 19 4.98312 1202 106 1.86 746 16 2.66319 1442 124 2.15 689 14 2.37Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 125SYSTEM I^DAY Temp AerSolids ASRT Temp*^SSRT Temp* ANOX COD COD ADD: C ADDN: AnoxpH- AnoxpH-Wasting^ASRT SSRT 1EM:DENIT NOxENTD NOxPROD Lea'tpH AerbpHoC^ml/d^day oC*day (day) oC-daysng/d:mg/d mgCOD/d: G/d/syst:mgN/d G/d/syst5 20 0 500 10000 0 0 0.00 0.61 0.039 20 0 500 10000 0 0 0.00 -0.0312 20 0 500 10000 4.5 89.3 -19.75 0 0.00 -0.30 0.0714 20 0 500 10000 4.0 79.7 0 0.00 0.0720 20 0 500 10000 7.3 146.8 3.30 0 0.00 0.2924 20 0 500 10000 22.6 452.5 0 0.00 0.0834 20 0 500 10000 0.0 -13.04 0 0.00 0.1149 20 0 500 10000 14.0 280.6 -5.44 0 0.00 0.55 -0.0353 20 0 500 10000 10.5 209.9 -4.13 0 0.00 0.63 -0.0261 20 0 500 10000 24.9 497.6 27.15 0 0.00 -0.13 0.3168 20 0 500 10000 32.5 650.6 -28.88 0 2.77 0.19 0.4074 20 0 500 10000 74.1 1481.4 0.00 1 1.83 0.46 0.2977 20 0 500 10000 179.7 3594.5 16.93 2 3.39 0.25 0.1584 20 500 20 400 18.2 364.6 4.21 1 2.08 0.63 0.2494 20 500 20 400 18.9 377.2 4.33 1 2.91 0.65 0.3598 20 500 20 400 13.7 274.0 5.19 5 4.62 0.68 0.17109 12 500 20 240 24.1 288.9 18.22 50 136.27 0.92 -0.04118 12 500 20 240 27.4 328.7 762.05 60 262.41 0.92 -0.01124 12 500 20 240 26.6 319.0 0.00 63 105.19 0.86 -0.12144 12 500 20 240 17.5 209.9 -16.27 36 502.81 1.11 -0.08151 12 500 20 240 24.3 292.2 13.77 115 0.85 -0.10154 12 500 20 240 40.6 486.8 -160.30 148 950.57 0.93 -0.10166 12 500 20 240 14.7 176.0 -70.09 354 2607.73 1.15 -0.14173 12 500 20 240 19.1 229.2 -1866.21 350 1.11 -0.05181 12 500 20 240 18.3 219.2 -40.29 284 1004.13 0.83 -0.13187 12 500 20 240 18.0 216.0 4639.43 565 0.77 -0.09193 12 500 20 240 37.8 454.0 548.05 278 562.77 0.94 -0.06200 12 500 20 240 5.5 66.5 -370.45 33 31.79 1.14 -0.10207 12 500 20 240 6.7 80.3 144.32 25 38.34 1.51 -0.08213 12 500 20 240 6.5 77.7 -4.12 4 5.82 1.24 -0.03221 12 167 60 720 11.9 143.2 8.62 5 5.09 1.13 0.03227 12 167 60 720 12.5 149.6 177.40 30 25.26 0.91 -0.10234 12 167 60 720 8.5 102.1 32.71 10 8.82 0.93 -0.01237 12 167 60 720 11.3 135.2 0.00 7 6.56 -0.03240 12 167 60 720 8.0 96.5 20.65 10 9.81 0.74 -0.07250 12 167 60 720 14.9 178.4 9.49 7 7.79 1.00 0.18255 12 167 60 720 7.2 86.6 0.00 0 0.00 0.63 0.07258 12 167 60 720 6.7 80.4 -60.27 0 0.00 0.57 -0.09262 12 167 60 720 20.7 248.0 16.20 3 3.88 0.84 0.31266 12 167 60 720 21.3 255.5 45.30 11 29.42 0.94 -0.09269 12 167 60 720 9.9 118.4 28.16 2 5.48 0.84 0.37274 12 167 60 720 10.5 126.6 15.00 3 6.29 0.25279 12 167 60 720 9.7 116.3 29.21 8 9.39 0.27283 12 167 60 720 10.7 128.1 -220.77 14 13.18 0.73 0.16290 12 167 60 720 11.1 133.6 35.78 3 6.06 0.22294 4 167 60 240 12.7 51.0 60.84 2 6.24 0.03298 20 167 60 1200 15.2 304.9 64.13 2 6.91 0.18306 4 167 60 240 20.8 83.0 66.39 1 4.07 0.23312 4 167 60 240 46.2 184.6 56.99 1 5.73 0.15319 4 167 60 240 50.2 200.9 47.66 1 4.65 0.16Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 126SYSTEM I SYSTEM IDATE^DAY^UNITANOX UNITAERB UNITANOX UNITAERB TKN/TSS TKN/TSS NitrogenTKN^TKN^TP^TP^ANOXIC AEROBIC Wasted(mg/1:^(mg/1:^(mg/1:^(mg/1:^ratio^ratio^mg/dmg/1VSS) mg/1VSS) mg/lVSS) mg/1VSS)90-07-24 5 0.14 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.125 0.12 253890-07-28 9 0.15 0.19 0.05 0.06 0.146 0.17 371890-07-31 12 0.16 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.123 0.10 276490-08-02 14 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.093 0.08 76890-08-08 20 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.092 0.05 239890-08-12 24 0.21 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.129 0.17 70890-08-22 34 0.957 0.51 288290-09-06 49 0.34 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.200 0.23 197090-09-10 53 0.30 0.28 0.01 0.01 0.183 0.17 201590-09-18 61 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.051 0.04 289490-09-25 68 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.070 0.05 296290-10-01 74 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.061 0.06 94890-10-04 77 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.065 0.05 120890-10-11 84 0.10 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.070 0.06 219990-10-21 94 0.10 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.066 0.06 189090-10-25 98 0.00 0.0090-11-05 109 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.074 0.06 144390-11-14 118 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.041 0.04 121290-11-20 124 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.08 151190-12-10 144 0.14 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.081 0.06 142790-12-17 151 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.054 0.06 150590-12-20 154 0.16 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.074 0.09 176991-01-01 166 0.17 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.080 0.08 235291-01-08 173 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.090 0.07 168391-01-16 181 0.14 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.066 0.03 289291-01-22 187 0.16 0.15 0.01 0.01 0.080 0.07 170491-01-28 193 0.15 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.082 0.07 171791-02-04 200 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.090 0.09 229191-02-11 207 0.17 0.16 0.03 0.03 0.078 0.06 177991-02-17 213 0.12 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.052 0.04 85291-02-25 221 0.10 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.042 0.03 44691-03-03 227 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.046 0.04 31091-03-10 234 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.055 0.04 31991-03-13 237 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13991-03-16 240 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.062 0.06 42291-03-26 250 0.09 0.08 0.02 0.02 0.058 0.05 45691-03-31 255 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.062 0.04 157691-04-03 258 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.053 0.04 144291-04-07 262 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.054 0.04 80391-04-11 266 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.044 0.03 23791-04-14 269 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.053 0.04 79991-04-19 274 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.056 0.05 72591-04-24 279 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.052 0.05 73691-04-28 283 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.058 0.07 51491-05-05 290 0.12 0.15 0.03 0.04 0.066 0.11 89191-05-09 294 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.080 0.07 96191-05-13 298 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.085 0.07 94191-05-21 306 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.085 0.08 128591-05-27 312 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.088 0.08 75291-06-03 319 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.083 0.08 880Appendix D. RAW DATA, SYSTEM I^ 127DATE07/06/90DAY LEACHATE-NH4^NOx^NO2^TKN^TP^TSS^VSSmg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L (memb.).PO4mg/LBOD^CODmg/L mg/LpH ConductivityuS/cm^Znmg/L7.63^4923Cumg/L90-07-24 5 38 449 7.54 0.01 090-07-28 9 0.06 0.7190-07-31 12 253 0.2 0.7 7.95 0.02 0.0790-08-02 14 216 0.2 0 090-08-08 20 260 0 0 0.11 0.11 090-08-12 24 261 0.1 477 4984 0.06 090-08-22 34 242 0.8 0.9 51790-09-06 49 238 0 116 62 0.4. 507 7.56 5366 @.04 @.1390-09-10 53 309 227 0.7 185 115 1.6 110 7.5590-09-18 61 242 3 235 0.7 1.5 482 7.5690-09-25 68 247 0.5 246 2.5 140 97 1.5 442 7.5890-10-01 74 302 0.4 233 0 128 56 0.2 7.6590-10-04 77 304 1.9 305 0 88 40 0.2 567 7.43 615890-10-11 84 299 1.6 349 0 92 60 0.3 559 7.4290-10-21 94 313 1.8 303 0 66 30 0.2 508 7.4490-10-25 98 307 1.6 286 0 64 38 0.1 544 7.4690-11-05 109 270 1.5 0.2 216 0 46 24 0.1 456 7.43 534790-11-14 118 270 1.5 0.3 216 0 56 32 0.1 499 7.4390-11-20 124 274 1.2 0.2 259 0 54 28 0.1 471 7.4290-12-10 144 281 1.4 234 0 100 57 0.05 392 7.4590-12-17 151 275 1.7 234 0 80 50 0.06 486 7.5290-12-20 154 199 1.9 259 0 0.1 486 7.5491-01-01 166 176 0.1 201 0 70 34 0.1 368 7.27 429991-01-08 173 256 0.1 197 0 52 20 0.1 378 7.2691-01-16 181 197 0.2 195 0.16 97 50 0.3 406 7.3691-01-22 187 176 0.1 187 0 77 40 0.4 416 7.3391-01-28 193 167 0.2 183 0 0.2 410 7.3491-02-04 200 202 0 196 0 23 13 0.3 399 7.3991-02-11 207 110 1.2 100 0 54 28 0.1 58 267 7.02 277991-02-17 213 92 0 100 0 60 30 0.1 23 307 7.0291-02-25 221 95 0.1 106 0 38 22 0.4 305 7.0991-03-03 227 85 0.06 97 0 18 13 0.4 39 261 7.1691-03-10 234 87 0.17 97 38 27 0.27 21 288 7.291-03-13 237 86 0.05 1.191-03-16 240 84 0.09 125 1.3 90 33 0.38 17 278 7.23 378891-03-26 250 184 0.16 209 0.2 56 18 0.38 26 327 7.2591-03-31 255 208 0.35 0.12 123 0 75.5 40.7 0.096 27 295 7.3491-04-03 258 205 0.35 0.21 126 0.1 54 26 2.04 56 288 7.3491-04-07 262 207 0 0.33 120 0 52 32 0.04 41 354 7.3291-04-11 266 180 0.5 0.2 13.5 8.3 74 36 0.123 28 323 7.3691-04-14 269 203 1.04 0.23 123 0 68 32 0.082 42 320 7.491-04-19 27491-04-24 279 399391-04-28 283 161 0.17 0.06 125 0 38 26 0.317 32 362 7.491-05-05 29091-05-09 29491-05-13 29891-05-21 30691-05-27 31291-06-03 319Appendix ERAW DATA, SYSTEM II128Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 129SYSTEM IIDATE^INFLUENT^NH4^NOxmg/L^mg/L90-07-24^25390-07-28^253NO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LTSSmg/LVSSmg/L(memb.)-PO4mg/LBODmg/L38CODmg/L449449NH4/TKN+pH90-07-31 253 0.2 242 0.1 190 10 0.7 328 1.0590-08-02 216 11.4 167 0.0 310 250 0.2 401 1.2990-08-08 214 11.2 12.90 96 1.4 258 75 0.0 395 2.2390-08-12 210 42.7 34.60 175 0.1 60 32 477 1.2090-08-22 216 32.1 238 0.1 60 14 1.1 596 0.91 8.1090-09-06 260 21.0 264 10.9 106 98 0.7 636 0.98 7.8990-09-10 250 14.4 265 0.7 195 130 2.0 504 0.94 7.9390-09-18 265 12.3 121 0.7 664 38 1.1 520 2.19 7.7790-09-25 247 35.7 243 4.3 585 300 1.9 668 1.02 8.1090-10-01 176 3.1 174 0.0 116 66 0.2 591 1.01 7.9390-10-04 324 4.5 315 0.0 240 110 0.5 591 1.03 7.6090-10-11 306 6.2 320 0.0 183 93 0.3 575 0.96 7.9790-10-21 294 19.8 303 0.0 46 20 0.2 511 0.97 7.9390-10-25 316 12.1 280 0.0 64 32 0.2 622 1.13 7.8890-11-05 329 22.4 0.60 300 0.0 40 30 0.3 563 1.10 8.2790-11-14 247 11.3 0.30 191 0.0 56 32 0.2 515 1.29 8.1590-11-20 254 8.2 0.40 259 0.0 58 30 0.1 496 0.98 7.9390-12-10 252 32.2 0.90 216 0.0 357 150 0.1 572 1.17 8.3990-12-17 279 10.1 0.30 239 0.0 70 38 0.1 489 1.17 8.0490-12-20 199 10.4 0.40 263 0.0 0.0 463 0.7691-01-01 226 3.2 239 0.0 60 30 0.0 489 0.95 8.1291-01-08 256 3.3 195 0.0 60 32 0.2 429 1.31 7.9191-01-16 201 1.4 198 1.0 80 37 0.0 503 1.02 8.0091-01-22 173 1.2 195 0.0 97 53 0.1 392 0.89 7.9891-01-28 172 2.1 188 0.0 0.1 392 0.91 8.2691-02-04 206 0.7 202 0.0 75 33 0.1 381 1.02 8.0591-02-11 120 0.6 114 0.0 98 42 0.2 43 284 1.05 7.9391-02-17 97 4.3 100 0.0 5 3 0.2 19 303 0.97 7.2791-02-25 88 2.9 100 0.0 34 22 0.2 261 0.88 8.1891-03-03 86 1.0 100 0.0 387 180 0.1 78 337 0.86 7.3491-03-10 86 1.5 97 0.0 63 38 0.3 17 255 0.89 8.2191-03-13 86 1.2 53 7 0.1 8.0791-03-16 85 0.3 100 0.0 83 47 0.1 18 290 0.85 7.5491-03-26 193 1.8 131 0.0 60 2 0.1 8 329 1.47 8.6591-03-31 200 1.5 0.47 136 0.0 78 10 0.2 15 329 1.47 8.5791-04-03 185 1.1 0.28 127 0.0 54 32 0.1 20 329 1.45 8.1291-04-07 191 0.8 0.42 124 0.0 86 46 0.1 12 352 1.54 8.5791-04-11 177 2.0 0.77 132 0.0 154 64 0.2 65 354 1.34 8.4891-04-14 177 1.0 0.23 123 0.0 154 64 0.1 42 320 1.4491-04-19 174 1.3 0.35 124 0.0 272 108 0.1 38 372 1.40 8.6591-04-24 171 0.2 0.01 125 0.0 102 50 0.1 23 327 1.37 8.2791-04-28 161 0.6 0.25 130 0.0 94 54 0.1 23 368 1.24 8.0591-05-05 160 0.5 0.11 192 0.0 174 74 0.2 39 340 0.83 8.7491-05-09 167 0.7 0.19 192 0.0 58 30 0.1 47 348 0.87 8.1691-05-13 167 1.2 1.00 192 0.0 74 36 0.1 347 0.87 8.3191-05-21 186 1.2 0.77 190 0.0 190 92 0.2 88 349 0.98 8.4191-05-27 182 1.5 0.88 192 0.0 124 66 0.1 41 341 0.95 8.7691-06-03 189 1.3 0.72 180 0.0 160 70 0.1 42 349 1.05 8.46Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^130SYSTEM II^DAY ANOXIC ^NH4^NOxmg/L^mg/LNO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LMLSSmg/LMLVSSmg/L^ (memb.)PO4mg/LBODmg/LCODmg/LVSS/TSS ORP pH5 31 140.9 255 85.0 2310 2140 16.9 3507 0.93 63 7.939 50 164.8 151 44.0 1480 1310 5.1 2452 0.89 91 7.7112 43 163.6 143 27.3 1510 1280 1.5 1890 0.85 99 7.2214 38 195.5 145 26.4 1840 1430 1.3 2059 0.78 7.5320 14 164.3 1.30 297 58.3 2130 1460 0.2 0.69 68 7.5924 24 175.5 1.40 113 19.5 1920 910 0.2 1869 0.47 95 7.4434 20 229.5 130 20.4 1670 1090 0.8 2107 0.65 108 7.5349 205 32.1 215 7.5 820 535 1.2 1193 0.65 73 8.1653 156 0.1 233 4.3 1100 740 2.0 921 0.67 -9 8.2161 43 221.1 102 32.4 2150 1340 2.3 2169 0.62 97 7.4968 235 17.1 243 4.3 950* 550* 1.8 67 8.0974 34 15.0 218 30.6 3430 2440 0.4 826 0.71 -27 8.1577 66 58.6 241 35.1 3840 2770 0.5 3897 0.72 2 7.7684 84 6.6 299 28.7 4320 3150 0.2 4755 0.73 -64 8.0994 60 16.6 278 25.1 3930 2780 0.2 4286 0.71 -58 8.1298 86 0.0 101 6.5 3440 2500 0.2 3786 0.73 -206 8.10109 247 0.1 0.00 228 2.7 3180 2000 0.3 3082 0.63 -320 8.36118 232 0.1 0.00 228 2.0 3400 2200 0.3 3210 0.65 -404 8.32124 234 0.2 0.00 341 8.5 3530 1890 0.4 3085 0.54 -414 8.26144 235 0.6 0.20 209 1.6 3830 1860 0.3 3183 0.49 -442 8.61151 257 0.2 0.00 209 1.2 4040 1950 0.7 3111 0.48 -558 8.37154 162 0.2 0.00 324 6.6 4210 1950 0.3 3460 0.46 -649 8.45166 233 0.1 341 7.5 4180 1670 0.4 3587 0.40 -665 8.39173 226 0.0 290 12.5 4760 2190 0.3 3460 0.46 -660 8.32181 144 0.1 339 24.2 5310 2400 0.1 3270 0.45 -660 8.14187 137 0.3 362 35.6 4640 2370 0.3 3577 0.51 -657 8.10193 167 0.1 389 55.1 5080 2640 3.9 3854 0.52 -665 8.22200 166 0.0 386 51.5 4220 2170 5.0 1355 0.51 -677 8.47207 136 0.3 271 50.2 5080 1930 5.4 388 2076 0.38 -690 8.60213 51 4.2 141 31.9 2910 1220 1.6 297 1661 0.42 -670 8.30221 13 8.8 122 36.8 3300 1380 3.8 1765 0.42 -460 8.12227 11 0.2 111 31.9 2930 1320 3.8 583 1627 0.45 -648 8.00234 12 0.0 108 29.4 2480 1320 1.9 461 1846 0.53 -659 8.09237 10 0.1 2620 1370 1.3 0.52 -654 7.95240 8 0.0 150 36.8 2550 1310 2.0 617 1888 0.51 -655 7.96250 16 1.8 128 39.3 2570 1610 2.1 735 2771 0.63 -672 8.22255 23 86.6 0.78 124 36.2 2640 1550 1.9 638 2369 0.59 -239 7.87258 26 99.8 1.38 98 31.0 2180 1300 1.8 643 2099 0.60 -220 7.74262 39 37.8 0.09 122 37.2 2070 1410 3.4 675 1980 0.68 -207 8.17266 5 85.6 0.97 81 37.2 2120 1400 5.9 456 1941 0.66 -236 8.21269 13 65.7 0.13 92 31.0 2010 1280 2.8 750 1974 0.64 -224 8.22274 16 26.5 0.22 102 32.1 1940 1400 2.2 835 2030 0.72 -280 8.23279 18 16.0 0.61 119 46.5 2160 1640 5.5 905 2801 0.76 -364 8.11283 10 2.6 0.70 144 61.0 2750 2100 6.1 1045 2935 0.76 -473 8.15290 11 16.0 1.96 235 62.6 2690 2000 6.2 785 2955 0.74 -397 8.23294 26 24.2 0.71 208 56.0 2330 1760 8.5 735 2632 0.76 -318 8.10298 16 37.0 0.33 202 60.7 2810 2060 5.4 2552 0.73 -268 8.11306 32 28.3 0.20 182 57.8 2380 1780 9.9 883 2456 0.75 -322 8.15312 17 36.6 0.51 235 74.9 2460 1880 8.3 903 3216 0.76 -303 8.14319 29 18.9 0.04 408 131.8 2660 2030 8.3 943 3021 0.76 -318 8.16Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^131SYSTEMDAY AEROBICNH4mg/LIINOxmg/LNO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LMLSSmg/LMLVSSmg/L^ (memb.)PO4mg/LBODmg/LCODmg/LVSS/TSS DO pH5 59.3 168.2 198 91.0 2345 1905 18.9 2919 0.81 7.5 7.809 34.9 183.0 128 34.2 1320 1320 5.6 2452 1.00 3.2 7.6112 15.2 160.2 126 29.0 1800 1350 1.4 1744 0.75 1.8 7.4914 9.4 225.0 109 23.8 1900 1460 1.0 2185 0.77 2.3 7.2120 0.3 195.8 0.30 92 17.8 2020 1530 0.1 2082 0.76 2.2 7.2024 24.1 200.3 0.20 71 16.1 1800 1010 0.1 2028 0.56 3.2 7.1034 0.0 263.4 92 24.7 2210 1460 0.6 2306 0.66 0.5 7.1749 189.0 40.2 204 4.0 820 630 1.6 915 0.77 6.2 8.2153 148.9 1.1 225 5.2 1110 690 1.2 972 0.62 3.6 5.2461 10.7 273.8 93 37.8 2620 1530 2.1 2255 0.58 3.2 7.2768 123.0 155.2 123 3.4 480* 290* 1.2 928 5.7 8.1574 0.0 63.4 165 29.6 2770 1920 0.1 3000 0.69 4.6 7.8477 3.0 100.7 191 31.5 3130 2230 0.2 3259 0.71 3.5 7.5984 35.4 58.6 250 28.7 3660 2640 0.2 3897 0.72 1.2 7.8794 19.2 62.8 241 26.8 2660 1550 0.4 3782 0.58 1.9 7.8298 54.7 25.2 47 5.8 3450 2470 0.2 3492 0.72 3.2 8.01109 235.8 0.7 0.20 218 3.5 2950 1950 0.6 2956 0.66 5.2 8.40118 232.2 0.4 0.20 199 2.0 3220 1680 0.3 3079 0.52 5.2 8.39124 221.4 0.9 0.30 328 7.6 3390 1780 0.3 2737 0.53 5.4 8.38144 219.6 1.1 0.30 203 1.6 3430 1600 0.3 2922 0.47 4.0 8.68151 250.2 0.1 0.00 221 1.2 3590 1570 0.3 2667 0.44 6.2 8.46154 164.6 0.3 0.20 332 6.6 3820 1720 0.4 3302 0.45 6.3 8.56166 235.1 0.1 330 7.9 4420 1720 0.3 3587 0.39 4.4 8.48173 221.5 0.1 299 12.5 4800 2170 0.3 3905 0.45 2.7 8.33181 150.6 0.1 341 25.1 5650 2510 0.1 3333 0.44 3.7 8.22187 127.6 0.1 377 35.6 4410 2680 0.1 3639 0.61 1.7 8.20193 156.3 0.0 403 53.9 5300 2690 3.1 3884 0.51 0.5 8.25200 161.8 1.2 397 58.8 4620 2300 4.6 3146 0.50 7.5 8.57207 136.4 2.2 389 55.1 4100 1680 4.2 290 2284 0.41 8.2 8.66213 27.1 3.9 141 39.2 3040 1170 1.8 347 1682 0.38 8.3 8.24221 1.6 24.1 125 42.9 4050 1460 3.6 2101 0.36 7.2 8.00227 0.4 12.0 100 34.3 3480 1580 3.5 557 2149 0.45 4.3 8.02234 2.0 9.0 130 40.4 3090 1480 1.6 321 2033 0.48 8.2 8.09237 1.0 11.0 3440 1630 1.0 0.47 8.6 7.93240 0.2 10.3 136 35.5 2690 1340 1.2 657 2095 0.50 8.8 8.00250 1.6 25.4 131 44.5 3450 2020 1.3 708 2932 0.59 5.2 7.81255 7.5 107.7 1.15 109 36.2 2720 1600 1.4 640 2550 0.59 7.6 7.63258 9.2 117.2 1.48 95 36.2 2510 1440 2.1 577 2158 0.57 7.2 7.62262 3.3 80.6 1.82 79 40.3 2460 1570 4.4 484 2139 0.64 7.81266 1.9 90.1 0.00 92 44.5 2580 1580 4.9 449 2020 0.61 8.36269 0.0 89.0 0.01 81 34.1 2250 1380 2.7 543 1992 0.61 6.7 7.76274 0.1 48.0 0.02 102 35.2 2170 1430 1.9 621 2068 0.66 3.4 7.84279 0.4 36.5 0.26 119 49.6 2390 1800 5.8 716 2575 0.75 2.7 7.86283 0.8 19.7 0.00 132 58.9 2890 2140 5.7 836 2854 0.74 4.7 7.92290 1.9 33.7 0.00 212 63.5 2790 2060 8.0 816 2955 0.74 4.6 7.86294 14.4 39.7 0.71 196 56.0 2520 1880 8.5 696 2814 0.75 7.5 8.05298 3.0 55.2 0.16 188 60.7 2910 2120 5.1 2532 0.73 5.9 7.81306 17.8 40.4 0.18 175 61.6 2450 1840 10.3 846 2456 0.75 7.7 8.00312 2.4 56.2 0.41 161 56.0 2110 1690 8.7 930 2437 0.80 7.91319 11.5 30.5 0.18 192 64.5 1480 1820 8.4 843 2632 1.23 5.0 8.05Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^132DAYSYSTEM IIEFFLUENT----NH4^NOxmg/L^mg/LNO2mg/LTKNmg/LTPmg/LSSmg/LVSSmg/L(memb)-PO4mg/LBODmg/L+CODmg/LpH5 37.2 163.6 144 24.0 12.8 4709 34.9 181.8 60 8.3 5.6 47912 19.8 190.9 30 3.1 120 120 1.6 41514 11.7 30 2.3 340 260 60920 0.4 191.3 0.50 18 0.1 92 60 0.1 39924 0.2 22 4.0 90 22 35834 0.0 261.5 22 0.6 38 12 0.2 517 7.2149 195.7 37.4 173 2.3 213 163 1.3 569 8.2253 147.0 1.9 191 0.7 110 97 0.8 563 8.2461 6.1 223.5 26 6.1 230 147 1.9 622 7.2368 104.6 147.2 104 2.5 127 100 1.4 771 8.1374 0.0 74.1 13 0.7 72 50 0.1 327 7.8377 0.0 84.5 7 1.1 82 34 0.1 367 7.6484 44.6 56.9 41 3.4 227 150 0.2 786 7.9294 19.2 111.0 210 150 0.1 378 7.8798 50.2 7.0 39 2.0 1515 1120 0.1 8.02109 235.8 0.2 0.10 218 0.0 168 118 0.3 786 8.42118 228.6 0.2 0.10 196 0.0 206 132 0.4 1089 8.38124 230.4 0.5 0.10 167 0.0 162 102 0.2 716 8.38144 226.8 0.3 0.10 203 0.0 190 127 0.2 1168 8.67151 235.8 0.0 0.00 216 0.0 183 73 0.2 1175 8.47154 153.2 0.1 0.00 237 0.7 0.3 1460 8.55166 239.7 0.0 225 1.6 145 88 0.2 1524 8.50173 223.8 0.0 169 0.0 102 80 0.2 1175 8.39181 145.2 0.2 162 2.4 240 187 0.1 628 8.22187 130.9 0.0 183 4.9 457 357 0.1 719 8.16193 205.5 0.0 166 9.8 3.1 750 8.25200 163.7 1.1 221 18.4 800 590 0.9 3325 8.56207 156.1 1.6 174 12.3 325 225 3.9 148 581 8.61213 36.7 7.9 59 7.4 243 167 5.6 15 353 8.23221 0.5 25.7 20 7.4 250 165 4.0 420 7.92227 1.3 7.7 20 7.4 217 157 3.7 163 382 8.05234 0.3 9.3 17 6.1 225 185 1.9 111 456 8.03237 0.0 10.9 260 190 1.0 7.99240 1.4 10.6 17 3.7 227 157 1.6 247 456 7.95250 2.6 21.3 65 6.3 465 355 0.7 415 803 8.11255 5.9 106.9 1.21 25 5.2 360 260 1.8 242 562 7.63258 4.8 118.6 1.71 22 6.3 340 255 2.1 305 588 7.54262 0.3 73.2 1.11 14 8.3 170 135 5.2 124 400 7.87266 2.1 93.7 0.01 14 6.3 170 120 4.8 42 279 8.03269 0.8 88.1 0.02 9 4.2 230 145 2.6 194 397274 1.2 46.6 0.02 11 3.2 78 56 1.8 133 395 7.91279 0.2 38.8 0.32 14 11.4 220 165 6.4 206 432 7.97283 0.1 19.8 0.01 13 8.3 122 90 6.4 92 364 7.97290 0.4 33.4 0.01 17 10.5 217 150 7.0 186 486 7.90294 13.8 41.9 0.55 49 15.2 415 330 9.4 276 668 8.02298 0.0 55.8 0.03 17 11.4 295 210 5.7 477 7.90306 11.9 40.1 0.12 25 15.2 255 185 11.2 265 507 7.96312 2.8 54.2 0.29 10 10.5 72 56 8.3 101 370 7.88319 8.2 30.6 0.12 8 8.6 50 36 8.5 108 468 8.01Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 133DAYSYSTEM IIPUMP FLOWS--^INFL^RECLL/d^L/dCarbonL/d[Carbon]^C ADDN Othor-P ADDPOL/d^ml/L^gCOD/d gP/1^mgP/dCODADD: TOT COD TOTCODP ADD^IN,mg/d IN mg/1^U COD^U CODANOX^AERmg/gVSS mg/gVSS5 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 205569 2916 1.64 15329 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 172551 2448 1.87 185812 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 122039 1731 1.48 129214 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 151859 2154 1.44 149720 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 146739 2081 0.00 136124 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 144224 2046 2.05 200834 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 163403 2318 1.93 157949 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 65211 925 2.23 145253 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 67907 963 1.24 140961 10.5 60.0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000 0.000 0.0 157907 2240 1.62 147468 10.5 60.0 0.144 0.000 50 8.547 0.000 0.0 72890 103474 10.5 60.0 0.144 0.000 50 8.547 0.000 0.0 222819 3161 0.34 156377 10.5 60.0 0.188 0.000 50 11.159 0.000 0.0 243270 3451 1.41 146184 10.5 60.0 0.215 0.000 50 12.761 0.000 0.0 285284 4047 1.51 147694 10.5 60.0 0.180 0.180 50 10.684 0.010 1.8 6.06 278711 3953 1.54 244098 10.5 60.0 0.261 0.261 50 15.492 0.006 1.6 9.57 1.51 1414109 6.5 60.0 0.176 0.176 50 10.446 0.006 1.1 9.57 205571 3091 1.54 1516118 6.5 60.0 0.143 0.143 50 8.488 0.006 0.9 9.57 209510 3151 1.46 1833124 6.5 60.0 0.162 0.162 50 9.616 0.006 1.0 9.57 190196 2860 1.63 1538144 6.5 60.0 0.173 0.173 50 10.268 0.006 1.1 9.57 200707 3018 1.71 1826151 6.5 60.0 0.170 0.170 50 10.090 0.006 1.1 9.57 182987 2752 1.60 1699154 6.5 60.0 0.219 0.219 50 12.999 0.006 1.4 9.57 226101 3400 1.77 1920166 9.2 51.8 0.228 0.228 50 13.533 0.012 2.8 4.79 222818 3653 2.15 2085173 8.9 51.8 0.243 0.307 50 14.423 0.098 30.1 0.48 244912 4033 1.58 1800181 9.4 59.8 0.224 0.274 50 13.296 0.196 53.6 0.25 242636 3508 1.36 1328187 9.5 59.8 0.257 0.228 50 15.254 0.392 89.3 0.17 264330 3814 1.51 1358193 9.5 58.0 0.256 0.200 50 15.195 0.783 156.6 0.10 273964 4059 1.46 1444200 9.1 58.0 0.061 0.212 50 3.621 0.783 166.0 0.02 187935 2799 0.62 1368207 9.4 58.0 0.066 0.147 50 3.917 0.783 115.1 0.03 154988 2301 1.08 1360213 9.4 59.0 0.069 0.063 50 4.095 0.783 49.3 0.08 118676 1735 1.36 1438221 10.1 59.0 0.074 0.058 50 4.392 0.783 45.4 0.10 148011 2141 1.28 1439227 10.1 59.0 0.097 0.115 50 5.757 0.783 90.1 0.06 153843 2226 1.23 1360234 9.8 59.0 0.119 0.095 50 7.063 0.783 74.4 0.09 145045 2107 1.40 1374237 9.6 59.0 0.114 0.029 50 6.766 0.783 22.7 0.30240 9.4 58.0 0.12 0.049 50 7.123 0.783 38.4 0.19 146765 2178 1.44 1563250 9.8 59.0 0.175 0.076 50 10.387 0.783 59.5 0.17 207581 3015 1.72 1451255 10.5 59.0 0 0.055 50 0.000 0.783 43.1 0.00 174881 2515 1.53 1594258 10.5 59.0 0 0.067 50 0.000 0.783 52.5 0.00 147348 2119 1.61 1499262 10.5 59.0 0.067 0.099 50 3.977 0.783 77.5 0.05 152219 2189 1.40 1362266 9.0 58.3 0.058 0.091 50 3.443 0.783 71.3 0.05 140104 2081 1.39 1278269 9.1 58.3 0.09 0.085 50 5.342 0.783 66.6 0.08 138884 2061 1.54 1443274 9.4 60.0 0.153 0.087 50 9.081 0.783 68.1 0.13 152384 2196 1.45 1446279 11.7 62.6 0.224 0.184 50 13.296 0.783 144.1 0.09 203394 2737 1.71 1431283 8.4 60.5 0.239 0.186 50 14.186 0.783 145.7 0.10 210660 3061 1.40 1334290 9.5 59.0 0.171 0.184 50 10.150 0.783 144.1 0.07 211298 3083 1.48 1434294 9.5 59.0 0.133 0.173 50 7.894 0.783 135.5 0.06 197726 2885 1.50 1497298 10.5 64.8 0.192 0.239 50 11.396 0.783 187.2 0.06 200715 2665 1.24 1194306 10.5 64.8 0.128 0.151 50 7.597 0.783 118.3 0.06 190898 2535 1.38 1335312 7.6 55.4 0.128 0.158 50 7.597 0.783 123.7 0.06 161078 2554 1.71 1442319 9.1 59.0 0.127 0.166 50 7.538 0.783 130.0 0.06 185724 2727 1.49 1446Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 134SYSTEM IIDAY^+----TOT%CODANOXmg/dANOX%REM-- ^AER%CLAR%UNITAERCOD REM(%)SYSTEM IITOTPO4 +---- PO4^REMOVAL AS P---+INmgP/1 TOT^ANOX^ANOX^AER^CLAR%^mgP/d^%^% %5 -5 -41675 -20 17 98 6.50 10.9 -12 909 -7 -315 0 0 97 0.76 4.8 -10 8512 -27 -11207 -9 8 96 12.51 1.5 -129 -2 -2 7 8314 -52 6699 4 -6 96 -3.94 0.0 2320 0.1 5024 25 12459 9 -9 97 2.24 0.0 5034 13 14859 9 -9 97 18.29 0.3 82 -33 -139 25 9549 11 -18896 -29 23 91 34.87 1.2 -86 1 1 -33 8853 -12 2976 4 -6 91 -13.19 1.0 60 -72 -104 40 9061 -20 4992 3 -4 96 8.95 1.8 -73 -37 -29 9 8768 1.5 26 -23 -22 33 8374 77 164586 74 -263 98 -361.56 0.1 58 -20 -231 75 8577 78 -31468 -13 16 98 -3.88 0.2 78 -25 -229 60 9384 56 -49943 -18 18 97 2.21 0.2 41 1 9 0 8594 75 -23452 -8 12 99 -58.26 0.2 65 -2 -12 -100 9598 6.65 0.1 68 -5 -52 0 93109 64 618 0 4 97 1.63 0.3 28 1 4 -100 95118 40 -3955 -2 4 97 -25.61 0.4 -31 6 23 0 87124 64 -14956 -8 11 97 5.80 0.2 24 -13 -94 25 93144 46 -10962 -5 8 96 -6.72 0.2 32 -6 -43 0 93151 42 -23895 -13 14 96 -6.48 0.2 27 -33 -238 57 93154 41 -3989 -2 5 96 -8.19 0.3 -21 0 -2 -33 93166 22 4011 2 0 94 2.91 0.2 42 -11 -80 25 90173 43 34786 14 -13 96 -13.90 0.7 94 24 56 0 90181 67 16483 7 -2 97 2.54 0.9 0 86187 64 16444 6 -2 97 10.03 1.3 99 72 78 67 93193 62 13819 5 -1 97 1.09 5.0 81 74 22 21 86200 -328 96960 52 -132 86 -119.05 3.3 95 -117 -53 8 97207 17 15148 10 -10 96 -26.39 5.1 69 -21 -6 22 87213 52 5064 4 -1 97 -5.59 5.6 -3 272 71 -13 57221 40 26014 18 -19 97 -12.51 4.1 14 21 7 5 84227 58 41384 27 -32 97 -10.35 4.5 59 47 15 8 85234 53 17967 12 -10 97 1.78 2.7 76 57 30 18 83237 * 1.2 60 -7 -8 18 87240 56 19514 13 -11 97 -8.48 2.0 62 -4 -3 42 81250 42 16825 8 -6 96 15.67 1.4 89 -44 -45 38 93255 -71 10140 6 -8 97 -4.28 2.2 58 23 15 24 81258 -79 1383 1 -3 96 7.18 2.6 58 52 29 -14 85262 45 14530 10 -8 97 2.98 5.6 30 150 39 -30 82266 62 9436 7 -4 98 7.79 5.3 41 -44 -12 17 87269 56 5857 4 -1 97 6.40 3.2 65 29 13 3 87274 70 11502 8 -2 97 0.27 2.5 76 22 13 16 87279 71 -4721 -2 8 97 16.24 7.4 48 137 25 -5 83283 82 8644 4 3 98 4.58 7.7 64 111 21 6 87290 65 8763 4 0 98 2.91 8.2 54 136 24 -29 88294 43 17328 9 -7 97 -0.09 10.1 35 106 15 0 85298 67 8524 4 1 97 3.59 7.4 68 146 26 6 85306 53 5937 3 0 97 3.26 11.3 1 106 12 -4 85312 72 -41755 -26 24 98 15.70 9.3 49 61 10 -4 88319 60 -20036 -11 13 98 2.82 9.3 41 66 10 -1 87Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 135SYSTEM IIDAY^TOT BODIN^(mg/d)U ANOX^U AER^TOT^U ANOX^ANOX^AER BOD CLAR BODBOD^BOD^BOD REIBOD REM BOD REM REMOVAL REMOVAL(mg/1:^(mg/1:^(%)^(mg/d)^(%)^(%)^(%)mg/lVSS mg/1VSS)+--- BOD:COD ---+INFL ANOX^AERB^EFFL5 39991214202434495361687477849498109118124144151154166173181187193200207 22528 0.20 0.17 68 -3607 -16 25 93 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.25213 27452 0.24 0.30 97 7137 26 -17 99 0.06 0.18 0.21 0.04221 4630227 43935 0.44 0.35 75 3638 8 4 96 0.23 0.36 0.26 0.43234 27705 0.35 0.22 85 -4030 -15 30 95 0.07 0.25 0.16 0.24237 6054240 49667 0.47 0.49 68 8081 16 -6 95 0.06 0.33 0.31 0.54250 56146 0.46 0.35 61 5549 10 4 92 0.02 0.27 0.24 0.52255 42122 0.41 0.40 -1513 -2244 -5 0 94 0.05 0.27 0.25 0.43258 37132 0.49 0.40 -1425 -7582 -20 10 92 0.06 0.31 0.27 0.52262 32719 0.48 0.31 68 -14221 -43 28 96 0.03 0.34 0.23 0.31266 33758 0.33 0.28 91 3060 9 2 99 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.15269 43939 0.59 0.39 69 -6603 -15 28 95 0.13 0.38 0.27 0.49274 50989 0.60 0.43 87 -6960 -14 26 97 0.10 0.41 0.30 0.34279 64301 0.55 0.40 82 -2940 -5 21 95 0.07 0.32 0.28 0.48283 70202 0.50 0.39 95 -1725 -2 20 99 0.06 0.36 0.29 0.25290 63198 0.39 0.40 83 9394 15 -4 97 0.11 0.27 0.28 0.38294 53423 0.42 0.37 69 3046 6 5 95 0.14 0.28 0.25 0.41298 11396306 69449 0.50 0.46 67 2951 4 4 96 0.25 0.36 0.34 0.52312 65913 0.48 0.55 90 8961 14 -3 99 0.12 0.28 0.38 0.27319 65068 0.46 0.46 88 841 1 11 98 0.12 0.31 0.32 0.23Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 136SYSTEM IIDAY^+^-AMMONIA REMOVALTOT^ANOX^ANOX%^mg/d^%AERmg/dAER%+^ UNIT AMM^REMOVALANOX^ANOX^AER1g/h/gVS.^g/m3/d1g/h/gVS.+AERg/m3/d5 85 2717 56 -2009 -93 10.58 543 -4.39 -2019 86 1226 26 1065 30 7.80 245 3.36 10612 92 813 21 1960 65 5.29 163 6.05 19614 95 263 9 2045 76 1.53 53 5.83 20420 100 1277 56 973 98 7.29 255 2.65 9724 100 518 23 0 0 4.74 104 0.00 034 100 865 38 1403 100 6.61 173 4.00 14049 25 48 0 1100 8 0.74 10 7.27 11053 41 475 4 472 4 5.35 95 2.85 4761 98 131 4 2263 75 0.82 26 22668 58 -7719 -87 7917 48 -1544 79274 100 -521 -28 2369 100 -1.78 -104 5.14 23777 100 -1216 -36 4406 95 -3.66 -243 8.23 44184 85 -26 0 3419 58 -0.07 -5 5.40 34294 93 -12 0 2898 68 -0.04 -2 7.79 29098 84 267 4 2207 36 0.89 53 3.72 221109 28 -112 -1 718 4 -0.47 -22 1.53 72118 7 -120 -1 0 0 -0.45 -24 0.00 0124 9 -86 -1 838 5 -0.38 -17 1.96 84144 10 -375 -2 1017 7 -1.68 -75 2.65 102151 15 -1156 -7 479 3 -4.94 -231 1.27 48154 23 -307 -3 -153 -1 -1.31 -61 -0.37 -15166 -6 289 2 -134 -1 1.44 58 -0.33 -13173 13 154 1 273 2 0.59 31 0.52 27181 28 605 6 -456 -5 2.10 121 -0.76 -46187 24 -16 0 644 7 -0.06 -3 1.00 64193 -19 2301 17 702 6 7.26 460 1.09 70200 21 239 2 275 2 0.92 48 0.50 28207 -30 1030 10 -40 0 4.45 206 -0.10 -4213 62 -444 -14 1662 47 -3.03 -89 5.92 166221 99 21 2 788 88 0.13 4 2.25 79227 98 159 17 755 96 1.00 32 1.99 75234 100 15 2 709 84 0.10 3 2.00 71237 100 145 17 615 90 0.88 29 1.57 61240 98 348 39 518 97 2.21 70 1.61 52250 99 953 47 983 90 4.93 191 2.03 98255 97 849 35 1082 68 4.57 170 2.82 108258 97 420 19 1166 65 2.69 84 3.37 117262 100 -699 -35 2498 92 -4.13 -140 6.63 250266 99 1401 81 191 60 8.34 280 0.50 19269 100 802 48 851 100 5.22 160 2.57 85274 99 593 35 1103 99 3.53 119 3.21 110279 100 652 33 1317 98 3.31 130 3.05 132283 100 654 48 640 92 2.60 131 1.25 64290 100 785 51 630 83 3.27 157 1.28 63294 92 628 26 778 44 2.97 126 1.72 78298 100 553 31 976 81 2.24 111 1.92 98306 94 334 12 1042 44 1.56 67 2.36 104312 98 470 30 929 86 2.08 94 2.29 93319 96 240 11 1175 60 0.99 48 2.69 117Appendix E RAW DATA, SYSTEM IISYST1SYSTEM IIDAY +^NI TRIFICAT]ON^UNITmg/d^%^mg/h/gVSSSYSTEM IIDENI TRIFICAT]ON^ 4^DAY^TempUNITmg/d^mg/h/gVSS^oC5 1925 89 4.21 5 209 1283 36 4.05 9 2012 -240 -8 -0.74 -78 -1 -0.51 12 2014 2080 77 5.94 14 2020 2221 223 6.05 12 0 0.07 20 2024 1748 103 7.21 24 2034 2390 170 6.82 -153 -1 -1.17 34 2049 571 4 3.78 201 8 3.14 49 2053 71 1 0.43 258 97 2.91 53 2061 3715 123 10.12 -2048 -15 -12.74 61 2068 9736 59 8001 87 68 2074 3412 144 7.40 3421 76 11.68 74 2077 2968 64 5.55 986 19 2.97 77 2084 3666 62 5.79 3014 87 7.97 84 2094 3257 77 8.76 5698 83 17.08 94 2098 1777 29 3.00 547 100 1.82 98 20109 40 0 0.09 151 96 0.63 109 12118 20 0 0.05 79 92 0.30 118 12124 47 0 0.11 70 84 0.31 124 12144 33 0 0.09 187 82 0.84 144 12151 -7 0 -0.02 52 80 0.22 151 12154 7 0 0.02 60 82 0.26 154 12166 0 0 0.00 23 79 0.12 166 12173 6 0 0.01 29 100 0.11 173 12181 0 0 0.00 18 72 0.06 181 12187 -14 0 -0.02 -9 -82 -0.03 187 12193 -7 0 -0.01 13 66 0.04 193 12200 81 1 0.15 70 100 0.27 200 12207 128 1 0.32 78 79 0.34 207 12213 -21 -1 -0.07 219 43 1.50 213 12221 1058 118 3.02 938 61 5.67 221 12227 816 104 2.15 451 97 2.85 227 12234 617 73 1.74 561 100 3.54 234 12237 742 108 1.90 646 99 3.93 237 12240 691 129 2.15 617 100 3.93 240 12250 1621 148 3.34 1147 90 5.94 250 12255 1463 91 3.81 300 5 1.61 255 12258 1216 67 3.52 76 1 0.48 258 12262 2971 109 7.89 1697 39 10.03 262 12266 300 94 0.79 -280 -5 -1.67 266 12269 1570 184 4.74 716 14 4.66 269 12274 1489 134 4.34 969 35 5.77 274 12279 1519 113 3.52 1240 51 6.30 279 12283 1173 169 2.28 1020 85 4.05 283 12290 1212 159 2.45 879 44 3.66 290 12294 1063 60 2.36 823 33 3.90 294 12298 1373 114 2.70 841 23 3.40 298 20306 914 38 2.07 481 18 2.25 306 4312 1234 114 3.04 708 23 3.14 312 4319 794 41 1.82 533 29 2.19 319 4137Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 138SYSTEM IIDAY^TempoCAerSolidsWastingml/dASRTdayTemp*ASRToC*daySSRT(day)SYSTEM IITemp*^ANOX COD^COD ADD:SSRT tEM:DENIT^NOxENTDoC-daysng/d:mg/dmgCOD/d:mgN/dC ADDN:NOxPRODG/d/syst:O/d/systAnoxpH-Lea'tpHAnoxpH-AerbpH5 20 0 500 10000 0 0.00 0.39 0.139 20 0 500 10000 0 0.00 0.1012 20 0 500 10000 20.6 412.3 144.23 0 0.00 -0.73 -0.2714 20 0 500 10000 10.4 207.5 0 0.00 0.3220 20 0 500 10000 46.8 936.0 0 0.00 0.3924 20 0 500 10000 83.1 1661.9 0 0.00 0.3434 20 0 500 10000 211.3 4225.4 -97.31 0 0.00 0.3649 20 0 500 10000 6.9 138.0 -93.80 0 0.00 0.60 -0.0553 20 0 500 10000 13.5 269.1 11.53 0 0.00 0.66 2.9761 20 0 500 10000 18.7 374.3 -2.44 0 0.00 -0.07 0.2268 20 0 500 10000 1 0.88 0.51 -0.0674 20 0 500 10000 76.3 1525.3 48.11 2 2.50 0.50 0.3177 20 0 500 10000 129.4 2587.4 -31.92 2 3.76 0.33 0.1784 20 500 20 400 18.7 373.3 -16.57 4 3.48 0.67 0.2294 20 500 20 400 15.5 309.6 -4.12 2 3.28 0.68 0.3098 20 500 20 400 3.7 74.4 0.00 28 8.72 0.64 0.09109 12 500 20 240 22.0 263.7 4.09 66 261.82 0.93 -0.04118 12 500 20 240 20.8 249.9 -50.19 99 425.45 0.89 -0.07124 12 500 20 240 22.7 272.5 -213.66 115 206.56 0.84 -0.12144 12 500 20 240 20.0 239.9 -58.50 45 308.82 1.16 -0.07151 12 500 20 240 25.8 309.8 -456.44 154 -1517.35 0.85 -0.09154 12 500 20 240 40.3 484.0 -66.15 177 1954.70 0.91 -0.11166 12 250 40 480 26.9 322.3 171.85 460 1.12 -0.09173 12 250 40 480 33.7 404.9 1180.44 489 2374.98 1.06 -0.01181 12 250 40 480 20.4 244.2 908.23 530 0.78 -0.08187 12 250 40 480 12.5 149.8 -1751.26 1338 -1100.59 0.77 -0.10193 12 250 40 480 77.6 931.5 1046.88 762 -2251.09 0.88 -0.03200 12 250 40 480 7.4 88.9 1381.24 52 44.94 1.08 -0.10207 12 250 40 480 13.5 161.6 193.69 40 30.61 1.58 -0.06213 12 250 40 480 12.4 149.2 23.08 8 -199.59 1.28 0.06221 12 250 40 480 13.8 166.1 27.72 3 4.15 1.03 0.12227 12 250 40 480 14.9 179.1 91.79 12 7.06 0.84 -0.02234 12 250 40 480 12.9 154.2 32.04 13 11.45 0.89 0.00237 12 333 30 360 12.9 154.6 0.00 10 9.12 0.02240 12 333 30 360 13.5 162.2 31.62 12 10.31 0.73 -0.04250 12 333 30 360 9.0 107.9 14.66 8 6.41 0.97 0.41255 12 333 30 360 9.5 113.8 33.80 0 0.00 0.53 0.24258 12 333 30 360 8.7 104.1 18.30 0 0.00 0.40 0.12262 12 333 30 360 15.4 184.4 8.56 1 1.34 0.85 0.36266 12 333 30 360 18.6 223.5 -33.72 1 11.48 0.85 -0.15269 12 333 30 360 14.9 178.6 8.18 1 3.40 0.82 0.46274 12 500 20 240 22.3 268.1 11.87 3 6.10 0.39279 12 500 20 240 12.1 145.8 -3.81 5 8.75 0.25283 12 500 20 240 22.8 273.6 8.47 12 12.10 0.75 0.23290 12 500 20 240 16.2 194.9 9.97 5 8.38 0.37294 12 500 20 240 8.8 106.2 21.04 3 7.43 0.05298 20 500 20 400 12.6 251.2 10.14 3 8.30 0.30306 4 500 20 80 12.4 49.7 12.34 3 8.31 0.15312 4 500 20 80 26.6 106.6 -59.00 3 6.16 0.23319 4 500 20 80 29.6 118.2 -37.58 4 9.49 0.11Appendix E. RAW DATA, SYSTEM II^ 139SYSTEM IIDAY UNITANOX UNITAERBTKN^TKN^(mg/1:^(mg/1:mg/lVSS)^mg/lVSS)UNITANOX UNITAERBTP^TP(mg/1:^(mg/1:mg/1VSS)^mg/lVSS)TKN/TSSANOXICratioTKN/TSSAEROBICratioNitrogenWastedmg/d5 0.12 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.110 0.08 32309 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.102 0.10 253712 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.02 0.095 0.07 231414 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.079 0.06 31020 0.20 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.139 0.05 219924 0.12 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.059 0.04 23034 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.078 0.04 297649 0.40 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.262 0.25 221353 0.31 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.212 0.20 202861 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.047 0.04 262268 263774 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.064 0.06 91477 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.063 0.06 96384 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.069 0.07 118594 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.071 0.09 131798 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.029 0.01 518109 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.072 0.07 1525118 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.067 0.06 1374124 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.097 0.10 1252144 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.055 0.06 1420151 0.11 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.052 0.06 1514154 0.17 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.077 0.09 1706166 0.20 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.082 0.07 2239173 0.13 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.061 0.06 1654181 0.14 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.064 0.06 1686187 0.15 0.14 0.02 0.01 0.078 0.09 1923193 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.077 0.08 1779200 0.18 0.17 0.02 0.03 0.092 0.09 2131207 0.14 0.23 0.03 0.03 0.053 0.09 1745213 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.03 0.049 0.05 660221 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.037 0.03 500227 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.038 0.03 309234 0.08 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.044 0.04 296237 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 108240 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.059 0.05 312250 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.050 0.04 898255 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.047 0.04 1455258 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.045 0.04 1544262 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.059 0.03 963266 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.038 0.04 1025269 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.046 0.04 941274 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.053 0.05 620279 0.07 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.055 0.05 687283 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.052 0.05 346290 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.087 0.08 606294 0.12 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.089 0.08 980298 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.072 0.06 891306 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.077 0.07 795312 0.13 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.096 0.08 595319 0.20 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.153 0.13 458

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0050518/manifest

Comment

Related Items