UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A bench scale experimental study of the treatment of milking centre effluent using a sequencing batch.. Tam, James Ping-Cheong 1985-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A7 T35.pdf [ 5.36MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0058897.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0058897-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0058897-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0058897-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0058897-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0058897-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0058897-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0058897-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0058897.ris

Full Text

A  BENCH S C A L E CENTRE  EXPERIMENTAL  EFFLUENT  STUDY  USING A  OF THE T R E A T M E N T OF MILKING  SEQUENCING  B A T C H REACTOR  by JAMES B.A.Sc., University A  PING-CHEONG  of Windsor, Windsor, Ont., 1978  THESIS SUBMITTED THE  IN PARTIAL  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  TAM  FULFILMENT  FOR THE DEGREE  OF APPLIED  OF  SCIENCE  in FACULTY  OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES  Department of Bio-Resource Engineering  We  accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNJVVERSITY OF BRITISH  COLUMBIA  A p r i l , 1985 ®  James Ping-Cheong Tarn, 1985  OF  In  presenting  advanced that  scholarly  this  degree  the Library  further  his  this  agree  thesis at  purposes  make  for  it  permission  freely for  may be granted  or her representatives. thesis  fulfilment  the THE UNIVERSITY  shall  that  in partial  financial  It gain  extensive  of Bio-Resource  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date: April. 1985  copying  by the Head  not  Engineering COLUMBIA  be  requirements COLUMBIA,  for reference  is understood that shall  the  BRITISH  available  permission.  Department  OF  of  of  of  allowed  I  agree  and study.  this  thesis  my Department  copying  for an  I  for  or by  or publication of  without  my  written  ABSTRACT Until received  recently, very  operations  the  little  attention.  comprises  environmental  threats  management  mainly to  The  milk  nearby  of  milking  parlour  wastewater  solids  water  and  bodies  if  effluent  produced  manure not  by  milking  can  impose  treated  before  and  properly  has  disposal. In were  this  used  to  experiment reactors cycles  study, three treat  was  bench-scale  the  UBC  designed  under  different  dairy  to  studied  barn  investigate  operating  employed per unit daily  Parameters  Sequencing  included  milking the  (for  BOD ,  centre  and  Total  Reactors  wastewater. efficiency  different  the same hydraulic  COD,  5  Biological  treatment  temperatures  flow  Batch  of  the  numbers  retention  Suspended  The  Solids,  of  time). NH -N, 3  N0 -NOj-N and dissolved oxygen uptake. 2  It can  was  be  milking  achieved centre  temperature and  concluded that using  wastes.  and  10.5°C,  pollutional  by  a  Over  30°C  over  very  parameters  90% BOD  5  Even  in  removal  studied  experiment employed treatment  was (4 per  also to unit  efficiency  concluded 8  cycles  daily  flow  of the  low  within  day), not  reactors.  ii  was  changing have  Removal  any  treat  in the  room  of  excellent.  range the  to  temperatures  in all three the  efficiency  Reactor  observed  operating  attained.  degrees  treatment  Biological  similarly  that  did  Batch  was  was  per  consistent  removal  5  denitrification also occured to various It  and  Sequencing  reactors.  70% B O D  high  of  the  3.7  other  Uncontrolled  reactors. studied  number  significant  of  effect  in  this cycles  on  the  Table of Contents ABSTRACT  ii  LIST OF T A B L E S  v  LIST OF FIGURES  vi  NOMENCLATURE  x  AND ABBREVIATIONS  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  .  xi  1.  INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES  1  2.  LITERATURE  5  2.1  REVIEW  MANAGEMENT WASTES  AND  CHARACTERISTICS  2.2 T R E A T M E N T OF DAIRY  WASTES  BY  OF  MILKING-CENTRE  B A T C H AERATION  6  2.3 SEQUENCING B A T C H REACTORS 3.  MATERIALS 3.1  3.3 PARAMETRIC  .'. SET-UP  SAMPLING  AND OPERATION  14 19  METHOD  19  ANALYSIS  3.3.3 DISSOLVED RESULTS  13  ANALYSIS  3.3.2 S A M P L E  4.  13  INTRODUCTION  3.3.1  7  AND METHODS  3.2 EXPERIMENTAL  21  O X Y G E N UPTAKE RATE  21  AND DISCUSSION  24  4.1 BOD AND COD A N A L Y S E S 4.1.1  5  24  BOD R E M O V A L  24  4.1.2 COD R E M O V A L  30  4.1.3 R E A C T PHASE AND COD  TRACK A N A L Y S I S  OF S U P E R N A T A N T BOD  34  4.1.3.1  REACTION KINETICS  44  4.1.3.2  O X Y G E N UPTAKE RATE  .47  4.1.4 THE UNSEEDED BOD VS. COD A N A L Y S I S FROM DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES iii  FOR  SAMPLES  .48  4.2 S U P E R N A T A N T A M M O N I A NITROGEN A N A L Y S I S  AND  COMBINED  NITRITE-NITRATE  56  4.2.1 A M M O N I A R E M O V A L  56  4.2.2 NITRIFICATION  61  4.2.3 TRACK A N A L Y S I S  63  4.2.4 DEN ITR IF I C A T I ON EXPERIMENTS 4.2.4.1 DEN ITRIFI CATION  EXPT.#1  70 (7/6/84, OPER.  PERIOD  IV) 4.2.4.2  71  DENITRIFI CATION  EXPT.#2  (8/6/84, OPER.  IV)  PERIOD 72  4.3 SETTLING VELOCITY  75  4.3.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION  75  4.3.2 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS  88  4.4 SUSPENDED SOLIDS  ANALYSIS  90  4.4.0.1  MIXED-LIQUOR  4.4.0.2  INFLUENT-EFFLUENT T S S  4.5 SLUDGE VOLUME  SUSPENDED SOLIDS ANALYSIS  INDEX  „  90 94 99  4.6 OTHER A N A L Y S E S  102  4.6.1 DISSOLVED O X Y G E N LEVEL  102  4.6.2 pH  102  4.6.3 20-DAY  BOD  104  4.6.4 FILTRATE BOD AND COD 4.7 OPERATION P A R A M E T E R S  IN SBR  104 SYSTEMS  105  5.  S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS  109  6.  RECOMMENDATIONS  111  BIBLIOGRAPHY  113  iv  LIST  OF  TABLES  TABLE •4.01  PAGE  : SUMMARY  OF EXPERIMENTAL  OPERATION........  25  4.02 : SCHEDULE OF R E A C T - P H A S E T R A C K A N A L Y S E S  26  4.03 - S C H E D U L E OF SETTLING  26  4.04  DATA  :  VELOCITY TESTS  OF BOD(5-DAYS) R E M O V A L ANALYSIS  4.05 : M E A N , S T A N D A R D DEVIATION 4.06 4.07  DATA  :  4.08 : KINETIC  COEFFICIENTS  LINEAR : DATA  4.10 ; D A T A 4.11  & RANGE OF BOD D A T A  OF COD R E M O V A L A N A L Y S I S  : M E A N , S T A N D A R D DEVIATION  4.09  27  REGRESSION  28 32  & RANGE OF COD D A T A  33  OF BOD REMOVAL COMPUTED FROM OF In(BOD) VS. AERATION TIME  46  OF A M M O N I A NITROGEN A N A L Y S I S  57  OF NITRIFICATION  58  ANALYSIS  : M E A N , S T A N D A R D DEVIATION  4.12 : M E A N , S T A N D A R D DEVIATION  & RANGE OF NH -N D A T A 3  & RANGE OF NITRIFICATION  59 DATA....60  4.13 : INITIAL A M M O N I A R E M O V A L R A T E DURING REACT PHASE  60  4.14  73  :  RESULTS  4.15 : RESULTS 4.16 : D A T A 4.17  :  OF DENITRIFICATION OF SETTLING  OF T O T A L  S U M M A R Y OF T S S  EXPT.#1.  VELOCITY T E S T S  SUSPENDED  SOLIDS  REMOVAL D A T A  v  (TSS)  87 ANALYSIS  98 98  LIST  OF  FIGURES  FIGURE  PAGE  3.01  : SCHEMATIC  3.02  : CYCLE  4.01  : PLOT  MODES OF  TRACK 4.02  : PLOT  : PLOT  4.04  : PLOT  4.05  THE  #2  SUPERNATANT ANALYSIS  #2  SUPERNATANT ANALYSIS  OF  TRACK  OF  ANALYSIS  OF  TRACK  EXPERIMENTAL  SUPERNATANT  OF  TRACK 4.03  OF  #3  SUPERNATANT  SET-UP  EXPERIMENT BOD  COD  VS. AERATION  BOD  VS. AERATION  COD  ANALYSIS  4h C Y C , 4.07  : RESULTS  VS. AERATION  #5  : PLOT  OF  ANALYSIS  #6  ANALYSIS 4.09  ; PLOT  OF  : PLOT  OF  TRACK 4.11  : PLOT  OF  TRACK 4.12  : PLOT  OF  #8  TIME  37  IN  BOD  38  (OP.PER.III, 39  (OP.PER.III,  #7  40  (OP.PER.III,  "C" ONLY)  VS. AERATION  41 TIME  IN  TRACK  (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  SUPERNATANT  ANALYSIS 4.10  #8  IN  "A" ONLY)  ANALYSIS  SUPERNATANT  TIME  36  "B" ONLY)  4h C Y C . , 1.0 l/CYC., R E A C T O R 4.08  IN  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . )  1.0 l/CYC., R E A C T O R OF T R A C K  TIME  35  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . )  OF T R A C K  OF T R A C K  IN  (OP.PER.II. 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . )  #3  : RESULTS  TIME  (OP.PER..II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . )  4h C Y C . , 1.0 l/CYC., R E A C T O R 4.06  17  VS. AERATION  ANALYSIS  : RESULTS  15  COD  VS. AERATION  TIME  42 IN  TRACK  (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  G R O S S D.O. U P T A K E ANALYSIS SPECIFIC ANALYSIS  #9  RATE  TIME  IN  (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  D.O. U P T A K E #9  VS. AERATION  43  RATE  VS. AERATION  49  TIME  IN  (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  G R O S S D.O. U P T A K E  RATE  vi  VS. AERATION  TIME  50 IN  TRACK 4.13  : PLOT  OF  TRACK 4.14  :  : PLOT  OF  # 1 0 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  S P E C I F I C D.O. U P T A K E ANALYSIS  PROPOSED MODEL UNDER  4.15  ANALYSIS  RATE  VS. AERATION  TIME  # 1 0 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . ) FOR  DIFFERENT  UNSEEDED BOD, & COD  AND  VS. AERATION TIME  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K  ANALYSIS  : PLOT  OF  AMMONIA  AND  VS. AERATION TIME  NITROGEN #2 64  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K  ANALYSIS  NITROGEN #3  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . ) 4.17  : PLOT  OF  AMMONIA  AND  V S . AERATION TIME  65  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K A N A L Y S I S  NITROGEN #5  (OP.PER.III, 4h C Y C . , 1.0 l / C Y C . ) 4.18  : PLOT  OF  AMMONIA  AND  VS. AERATION TIME  66  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K  ANALYSIS  NITROGEN #6  (OP.PER.III, 4h C Y C . , 1.0 l/CYC.)..... 4.19  : PLOT  OF  AMMONIA  AND  VS. AERATION TIME  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K  ANALYSIS  67 NITROGEN #7  (OP.PER.III, 4h C Y C . , 1.0 l / C Y C . ) 4.20  : PLOT  OF  AMMONIA  AND  V S . AERATION TIME  68  NITRITE-NITRATE  IN T R A C K  ANALYSIS  NITROGEN #8  (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C . , 0.75 l / C Y C . )  69  4.21  : R E S U L T S OF D E N I T R I F I C A T I O N E X P E R I M E N T  #2  4.22  : PLOT  #1  OF  SLUDGE INTERFACE  (OP.PER.II, M C R T 4.23  : PLOT  OF  -  IN S.V. T E S T  20 d a y s )  SLUDGE INTERFACE  52  55  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . ) 4.16  IN  ANALYSIS  OPERATING TEMPERATURES  AMMONIA  51  (8/6/84)  74  76 IN S.V. T E S T  vii  #2  (OP.PER.II, M C R T 4.24  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  -  INTERFACE  (OP.PER.II, M C R T 4.25  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  -  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  -  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  INTERFACE -  4.29  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  -  : PLOT  OF  -  (OP.PER.V, M C R T 4.31  ; PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  (OP.PER.V, M C R T 4.32  : PLOT  OF  SLUDGE  CARRIED  OUT  -  #5 80  IN S.V. T E S T  #6 81  IN S.V. T E S T  #7 82  IN S.V. T E S T  #8 ,  IN S.V. T E S T  83 #9  16.7 d a y s )  INTERFACE -  IN S.V. T E S T  16.7 d a y s )  INTERFACE -  79  16.7 d a y s )  INTERFACE  SLUDGE  #4  16.7 d a y s )  INTERFACE  (OP.PER.IV, M C R T 4.30  IN S.V. T E S T  8.3 d a y s )  INTERFACE  (OP.PER.IV, M C R T  78  8.3 d a y s )  (OP.PER.III, M C R T 4.28  #3  5.3 d a y s )  (OP.PER.III, M C R T 4.27  77 IN S.V. T E S T  INTERFACE  (OP.PER.II, M C R T 4.26  20 d a y s )  84  IN S.V. T E S T  #10  16.7 d a y s )  INTERFACE  INSITU THE  85  (S.V. T E S T  #11  -  TEST  R E A C T O R S , OP.PER.VI)  86  4.33  : TSS  RECORD  FOR  THE  FULL  PERIOD  OF  THE  EXPT. STUDY  91  4.34  : V S S RECORD  FOR  THE  FULL  PERIOD  OF  THE  EXPT. STUDY  92  4.35  : COMBINED OF  4.36  : PLOT  THE OF  TRACK 4.37  : PLOT  OF  TRACK  TSS  AND  V S S RECORD  FOR  THE  FULL  PERIOD  EXPT. STUDY TSS  AND  ANALYSIS TSS  AND  ANALYSIS  93  VSS VS. AERATION #1  IN  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5 l / C Y C . )  VSS VS. AERATION #3  TIME  TIME  (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C . , 1.5  viii  95  IN l/CYC.)  96  4.38 : PLOT OF T S S  AND VSS  TRACK ANALYSIS  #8  VS. AERATION TIME  IN  (OP.PER.IV, 3h CYC., 0.75 l/CYC.)  97  4.39 : SLUDGE  VOLUME INDEX RECORD OF ALL EXPT. PERIODS  100  4.40  : SLUDGE  VOLUME REDUCTION  101  4.41  : PLOT OF MIXED-LIQUOR TRACK  ANALYSIS  #4  RECORD OF ALL EXPT. PERIODS  D.O. LEVEL  VS. AERATION  TIME  (OP.PER.II. 6h CYC.. 1.5 l/CYC.)  ix  IN 103  NOMENCLATURE BOD  or  BODj  AND  : 5-day Biochemical  COD  : Chemical  COEFF.  : Coefficient  CYC.  : Cycle  D.O.  : Dissolved  EXPT.  : Experiment  EFF.  :  FILT.  : Filtrate  INF.  : Influent  ML  : Mixed Liquor of  MCRT  : Mean  NHj-N  : Ammonia  Oxygen Demand  Oxygen Demand  Oxygen  Effluent  Activated Sludge  Cell Residence  : Combined Nitrite  OP.PER.  : Operating  SVI  : Sludge  S.V.  : Settling  STD .DEV.  : Statistical  Standard  SS  : Suspended  Solids  TSS  : Total  TEMP.  : Temperature  VSS  : Volatile  3  Time  Nitrogen  N0 -N0 -N 2  ABBREVIATIONS  Nitrate Nitrogen  &  Period  Volume  Index  Velocity  Suspended  Deviation  Solids  Suspended  Solids  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to dedicate this thesis to Maria. Although names are too many to mention, my sincerest appreciation must go to the technicians, secretaries  and graduate  students  at the  department of Bio-Resource Engineering for providing the most pleasant and stimulating working  environment  in the past  18 months, and for their  valuable assistance on numerous occasions. I also wish to thank my committee members Dr. Victor Lo, Dr. Ross Bulley and Dr. Richard Branion for their support and advice throughout. Funding provided by B.C.A.S.C.C. is also gratefully acknowledged.  xi  1. INTRODUCTION AND There waste  are  materials  concentration from  problems with the  produced by  and  increased  modern  dairy  proximity  to  milking parlours comprise  flushed the  increasing  from  size  the  of  fluctuations  the  wastewater  However,  (if  the  any)  and  methods  waste  milking  the  of  of  can  combined with  various  land  is to be handled in its  should  be  Wastes  plus  is  debris  related  operators.  handled  the  livestock  in milking centre is  of  centres.  used  individual  farm  be  of  and manure  cleaning water  dairy  (usually  a result urban  residue  are normal  a  as  expanding  habit  parlour  disposal  if the manure  treatment  and  handling and disposal  farms  milk of  and concentration  manure  from  mainly volume  operation  in flow  When  treatment  parlour. The  the  OBJECTIVES  to  Great  wastes.  as  slurry,  the  the  slurry  for  application  methods).  semi-solid state,  alternative  resorted  to  for  the  and  biochemical  management  of  the  milking parlour wastewater. The parlour have been  high  oxygen  wastewater  been  suggest  investigated  found  more  for  batch  systems  its  with  requirement the  as  a  of  availability  application of result  SBR of  purpose. In than  the  reactor  which  1979). The concept was to  this  treatment.  availability  Many  milking  biological  general, aerobic  anaerobic  of  systems  for  systems  processes this  have  particular  1979).  sequencing  f ill-and-draw  the  biological  satisfactory  application (Lindley, The  demand  originated  not viable  modern  operations works  of  as  is  a  early  modern as  in the wastewater  a high degree of  (SBR)  of  manual  electronic  to wastewater Irvine  and  1979).  1  1914  treatment Goronzy  a/.,  industry  due  However,  interest  in  have revived,  (Irvine  the  et  attention.  devices,  of  (Irvine  treatment  operator  control  version  1979a,  the  mainly  Goronzy  2  .With can  the  become  systems  operational an  attractive  and  flexible  in  a batch operated reactor SBR  of  continuous  terms  of  treatment  phases  :  FILL  SETTLE  (quiescent  sedimentation  treated  effluent)  and  to  the  as nitrification  operation  IDLE.  "active"  unit  small  of  (inflow of  The  phases  studies  However, the  have  1.  applicability  this  Wastewater  are  are  an ideal plug-flow  of  periodically  wastewater),  periods)  a  REACT  (aeration),  to  phase  the  can  be  cycle. Other  used  treatment  provide  steps  the  the  design is yet  to  such  SBR  is  a  to be developed, a  successful  et a/.,1979a,1983; Ketchum  semi-batch process to  system  et  specific  a/.,  in  1979).  agricultural  treatment  of  milking-centre  effluent  milking and  centres  extremely  has  small  intermittent base  flows.  by  using  system operate  than  a  peak-flows This  kind  under  steady-state  forcing function can be better is kinetically .similar  the wastewater can be better  continuous  to  one. A s  batch  the  :  strength of  designed  of  been examined.  fluctuating  a batch  of  typical  IDLE  studied in light of the following reasons from  in  The highly  SBR  more  reactor.  synchronized with a semi-batch operation.  A  more  kinetically  pattern can be easily  by  3.  systems  flow  (outflow  that  (Irvine  of  project, the  system was  flushing  2.  continuous  can also be incorporated.  shown  applications  operations has not yet  SBR  systems  biomass and solids), DRAW  of  and denitrification  municipal  In  and  operates  Although a unified approach to SBR number  conventional  systems, SBR  resembles that of  biological  five  flexibility  to  batch  (Irvine et a/., 1978,1979a, 1980; Goronszy, 1979). The kinetics  advantageous  A  removed, sequencing  alternative  (CFS). Compared with  dynamic  cycle  difficulties  systems  conditions, fluctuations  (during of  flow  handled are  not  in  the  accomodated. an ideal plug flow  reactor  and  requires  3  only  a fraction  flow  reactor  (Ketchum, a  CFS.  of  the  volume  with similar  substrate  1 9 7 9 ) has also A  SBR  be required by  removal  capacity. First  shown that a SBR  system  attractive treatment  that would  is  therefore  option for small  cost  is economically  an  dairy  a continuous  economically farms  analysis  superior  and  to  spatially  located close to  urban  centres. 4.  Semi-batch  operations  Chemical  Engineering  removed,  it  treatment  field. It  the  will  agricultural  have  processes. With  very is  likely  receive  which  operations.  are  been  familiar  the  operational  more  good timing now  industries  problems with their  always  attention  to examine facing  to  difficulties  in its  designers  the  now  wastewater  potential  increasing  of  role  in  environmental  4 OBJECTIVES  The temperature Biological British  on reactor  objective  the  number  of  wastewater  of  overall  receiving  Columbia Dairy The  SBR.  primary  flow  study  treatment  is  to  efficiency  milking-centre  investigate of  effluent  a  from  the  effect  Sequencing the  of  Batch  University  of  is to  investigate whether  the  treat  the  Barn.  secondary objective treatment  this  cycles  of  this  project  employed  has any significant effect  to  same  on the treatment  amount  of  efficiency of a  2. LITERATURE REVIEW  2.1 MANAGEMENT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF MILKING-CENTRE WASTES The handling  liquid milking-centre  system  management treated  a  land  of  have (Loehr  ditches  method if of  area  incorporated  treated  oxidation  if  the  ponds,  less  legitamite bodies  septic  tanks  to  rapid  been  also  and  is  used of  of  and  to  and other  handle  the  discharge  practiced  subsurface  plugging  handled  direct  widely  manure  combined  irrigation  method  is  The  manure  spray  traditionally  water  into the  separately.  have  due  application  area  or  be  disposal  soil  in a fields  leaching  beds  1979).  sufficient  acceptable  with  successful  land  .grassed  The  and natural  1977; Lindley  farm  can  recommendable  methods  Experience  been  Direct  only  wastewaters.  places. not  dairy  Otherwise,  application  nearby  lot  is  slurry.  milking-centre into  the  system  as  direct  of  wastes  land is  for  is  of  dairy  wastes  economically  recommended a 60-head  is  acceptable  and  available. Approximately  et  (Muchmore  dairy  an  operation  al.  except  1976) under  simple  2.1  to  acres be  heavy  an  rainfall  conditions. The in  both  characteristics  of  concentration  and  such as  the  or  scraping  is  existence carried  sanitizing equipment Thirty-nine estimated average 2400  out  mg/l  and  quantity. absence  They  of  before  discharges are  grates  washing,  can vary  affected  in the and  various  factors  parlour, whether  manure  the  by  significantly  type  of  cleaning  and  used.  farmers  an average total  milking-centre  solids  in Connecticut  water and  1024 mg/l  usage of BOD  5  surveyed  by  9.7 l/day/cow  estimated  respectively.  5  (Lindley  1979)  in milking parlours. The  from  Lindley's  Lindley  own  this  flow-rate  measurement  were from  a  6 dairy  farm  milking  1050  mg/l  in  BOD  concentration. range of  140  His  cows  concentration  5  summary  average  averaged  of  15.5  and  other  l/day/cow  3875  mg/l  researchers'  in  in Total  reports  water usage from 6.8 l/day/cow to  water  usage,  Solids  showed  (TS)  a  wide  189 l/day/cow.  2.2 TREATMENT OF DAIRY WASTES BY BATCH AERATION Hoover pattern  and  of  his  dairy  co-workers  wastes  process with centrifugal (Hoover  1951),  a  simulated  dairy  waste %  BODj  of  50-60  COD  and  BOD  A  complete  was  and  solids  per  day,  30  75  %  assimilation. The  rate of  the  was  milk  mass  solids  and  remaining assimilation to  solids  be  ten  were  50  %  oxidized to  times  aerated  total  the  in  the  92  litres  of  COD  and  respectively.'  the  milk  energy  the  milk  rate of  study  corresponding %  gain  1954) of  aeration  9.6  in  of  flow  In their  treat  89 and  about  (Hoover  rapid  observed. The  were  50 %  to  reduction  was  that  intermittent  alternative.  used A  supernatant  confirmed  reported  sludge  °C.  the  f ill-and-draw  was  respectively  in the  balance  at  a  a treatment  tank  assimilated, with the  sludge  as  12-litre  removal  5  observed  proposed  separation  al.  et  and  (1951)  solids  for  this  solids  into  oxidation  proportion  of  when  one  to  one. Large  quantities  glycogen-like subsequently respiration. 4  gallons  cell  1 % per of  the  through  Porges  material  used  dairy was  rate.  can  (Porges the one  waste  completed  hour from  initial  COD  substances go  of  of  be  1955).  process gallon  (1000  These  of of  ppm  in 6 hours  stored  in stored  assimilation  500  ppm  the  sludge  products and  sludge  to  act  and  found  that  and  the  sludge  reduction  demand decreased  can  endogenous  milk)  then on, with oxygen  as  upon  conversion  to  rate  about  to was  10 %  7 A  comparison  aeration and  sludge  Koers  efficient  of  continuous-flow,  digesters  (1977).  at  They  than the  low  found  daily  temperatures  that  continuous-flow  the  f ill-and-draw  was  carried  fill-and-draw  digester, in terms  and  out  by  operation  of  VSS  batch Mavinic  was  more  reduction, at 5  °C.  2.3 SEQUENCING BATCH Sequencing  REACTORS  Batch  Reactors  (SBR) 1915  f ill-and-draw  system  in  1914  discussed  the  concept  of  activated-sludge  operation  was  operational  soon  attention  Hoover  and  interest  in  using  1950's.  However,  present-day Irvine  emphasizes overcome  replaced  Porges  (Hoover  semi-batch this in  resurgence SBR  by  comprises  five  typical  DRAW  (outflow  used to  handle  intermittent  control turbidity  of  continuous  devices meters  such can  of  the  Lockett  first  semi-batch  which  minimized  as also  level be  the  for  Notre  al.  of  semi-batch  The by  system  devices  Biological  raw  one-tank tank  to  Reactors  more  1978)  waste),  REACT,  system  can  system  1979a).  dissolved a  the  Dame  1979a, 1979b; Ketchum  IDLE. A  et  during  sustained.  control  Batch  (receiving  sensors,  employed  of  revived  attention.  and a multiple  (Ketchum  not  available  (Irvine  and  wastes  was  Sequencing  FILL  dairy  of  1979b).  1955, 1960)  University  operational  effluent)  flows  the  readily  of  :  flows  treat  interest  at  associates  periods  SETTLE,  handle  systems  modern version  concept  Irvine and his  to  of  started  employment  contemporary  developed  and  as  1979). The  1951, 1953; Porges  operations  co-workers. Their  the  Arden  (Goronszy  continuous  SBR's intrinsic demand of  The  to  by  when  appeared  and diffuser clogging problems (Irvine et al.  interest  and his  and  originally  More oxygen  flexible  can  be  be  used  sophisticated probes and  and  dynamic  8 operation. Numerous the  operational  effects  of  adjusting  those  of  continuous  from  parameter  in  strategies the  continuous  can  operational  systems.  flow  actual  performance  sludge ages between Food in  to  continuous  very  crude  of  1-7  manner  variables  systems,  age,  does  for  can an  not  reactors  a SBR;  be  however,  quite  important  play  (Irvine et al.  f ill-and-draw  the  different  operational  same  role  in  1979) have shown that remained  the  same  for  days.  microorganism ratio systems,  adopted  Sludge  semi-batch operations. Kunz and Landis the  be  can  only  because  of  (F/M), another reflect  the  the  major  loading  changing  MLSS  operational  rate  of  a  variable  SBR  concentration  in  a  and  the  that  can  anoxic conditions during FILL. The  filling  the  overall  affect long  and  rate  a  SBR  performance  aerated  continuous flow  of  fill  period  operation  of  the  a process  reactor.  et  (Irvine  system with variable  is  al.  The  kinetics  1979)  volume. A  of  a  approximate  SBR  FILL phase resembles, kinetically, the steady-state  variable  relatively that  of  with a relatively  conditions of  a  short  a plug-flow  reactor. High substrate tension has been shown (Chudoba et al. an  effective  substrate during  control  tension  on the  can  easily  FILL  to  promote  (Ketchum  et  al.  1978,  mass.  should, however,  It  development be  created  formation  1979a) be  and noted  of to  Irvine et al. followed  by  in  a  improve these  SBR  by  organisms. A eliminating  products settleability  storage  high  aeration  in  the  sludge  of  the  sludge  products  should  be  operation.  (1980) utilized a cycle  3h anoxic stir  filamentous  storage  that  utilized during REACT for proper system  of  1973a,b) to be  with  2h anoxic  FILL, 3h  and found that soluble organic carbon  aeration, (measured  9 as  Total  carbon this  Organic  within  stored  period  the  that  both  if  beginning of  aeration  consumption between °C, rate  al.  5 and 50  at  higher  the  as  higher at  energy  if  studied  batch  operation  efficient below  use  of  oxygen  energy  The  application  Cell  Resident  Time  was  achieved  but  MCRT, the MCRT both  carbon  Trypticase  10  and  days,  react  cycle.  influent  waste  strength  by  study  showed  slurry  to  reach  to  peak  result be  on  at  A  between  5 and 40 respiration  treatment  in less  met. They  Broth  days, over  of  were washed  a factor  negligible  of  time  a  load  two  was  during  aeration  efficient  use of  noted of  that  more  15 ° C  and  specialized wastes  has  found  for  that  9 0 % organic given  from  2-hour  at  that  a  Mean  removal at  short  system. With  98 + %  oxidation  anoxic  analysis  (by  three  cycles)  in carbon  industrial  carbon  was  the  maintained  with  change  and  reason  reactor  oxygen  time.  treatment  transient  the  temperatures  microbial  shorter  treatment  species  also  production at  temperature  temperatures  nil. The  their  nitrogen  aerobic  same  was  nitrifiers  4-hour  the  four  stir  utilized. They  at  Soy  that  anoxic  (1979) used a simulated high-strength  nitrification  to  of  piggery  and would  in the  (MCRT) of  slow-growing  increased the  of  the  in oxygen demand with time  SBRs  organic  supposed  during  were  in  ammonia utilization.  Consequently,  longer total  of  consisted  of  rise  be accomplished at temperatures  been studied. Alleman et al. wastewater  donor  effect  demand was  can  at the expense of  the  required  temperatures.  a  anoxic, ammonia  found that  period was  peak  kept  by  glycogen. They  electron  (1982)  higher temperatures  the  of  oxidized nitrogen  period was  required. However, the variation was  accompanied  form  the  and  ° C . They  time  was  can exceed the rate of  during  a shorter  acted  FILL  et  in  glycogen  the  Hissett  removal  organism  glycogen  when  noted  Carbon)  removal  FILL  and  increasing conducted efficiency  the of a the in but  10 nitrification A was a  could not go to completion.  maximum specific  obtained  6-litre  during  (Alleman  reactor.  the  majority  and  Irvine  Significant  denitrif ication  of  denitrification rate of  carbon  1978) by  endogenous  period.  uptake  using Trypticase  substrate  Alleman  occured  0.17 mg N/day/mg  and  within  Soy  utilization  Irvine  the  also  first  Broth and  was  observed  noted  20-30  MLVSS  that  the  minutes  of  6 hours  of  aeration. Silverstein unaerated  and  stir  and  denitrif ication. 0.014  g  rate  of  the  and  endogenous  As  appeared  first  order  substrate  appear to be glycogen as Besides SBRs  have  Reactors  the  for  phosphorous  Liao  1979b)  indicated  costs  and tighter  applications,  eliminate  algae  growth  A converted  results  by  an  be  zero  sludge  to  laboratory by  possibility  a  because  have shown  rate  of  could  be  process  respect  to  evident  — the  substrate  concentration.  was  other  specific  study  using  chemical  of  but  Storage did  not  applications  Sequencing  treatment  significant  Batch  (Ketchum  savings  in  of  and  chemical  quality.  sequencing of  achieve  (1980) suggested.  process,  effluent  with  solids  mass  to  compounds  adsorption  order  respect  to  its  batch  high  that average  operated  mixed  liquor  BOD , SS 5  and  lagoon  can  solids  content.  NH -N  removal  3  90 % (Irvine 1979b).  two-tank from  FILL  the  control over  rural  were all above  anoxic  reduction  In  Experimental  organic  to  4  denitrif ication  of  A  the  with  substrate  maximum  Irvine et al.  studied.  SBR  75%  activated-sludge  been  a  as  with  in  used  endogenous  a  much  stir-only  process  concentration of  obtained  MLSS.d.  during the  (1983)  accumulated  Thay  N/g  removed  Schroeder  SBR the  municipal existing  treatment  continuous  plant flow  (Irvine activated  et  al.  sludge  1983) plant  was in  11 Culver, Indiana SBR  plant  average  maintained  evaluation  period  Operation  the  and  also  design flow  secondary  was  experience  simultaneously was  (daily  Culver  with nitrification  deemed  necessary  initial  cost  analysis  investment  conventional attractive  costs  option.  reproduced below  ALTERNATIVE  cost  flow their  TREATMENT  of  Culver.  denitrif ication  to  occured  skimming  avoid  long  freezing  device of  the  compare  the  reactors. 1979a) carried  et al.  that  a  summary  PLANT Initial  batch SBR  out to  operations  system  calculated  is  by  COST SUMMARY  Investment Cost  and  an  other  economically  Ketchum  et  is  al.  Batch  Sludge  Lagoon  Lagoon  Plant  was  232,000 1,391,000  focused  size,  Barn  efficiency  on  1,065,000 a  small  town (design  they  are  153,000  rural  flow  more  415,000 community  (design  0.04 cu.m/s). Because  likely  to  venture  into  of new  facilities.  SBR  treatment  (USS) Packaged  small  Dairy  1979a)  et al.  Aerated  comparison  200-litre  (Ketchum  Nonaerated  1,054,000  total  town  and REACT. A  101,000  Columbia  %  the  18-month  Activated  concepts of treatment  61.8  that  sequencing  0.004 cu.m/s) and a small  A  by  an  Sequencing  Town  relatively  for  converted  :  Rural Community  The  of the  of  Estimated  Small  adopted  during FILL  revealed  The  quality  showed  (Ketchum  alternatives  1400 cu.m/d). The  during cold weathers  scum build-up on the surface First  effluent  permanently  at  was  system to  of  nitrogen  treat 86.5  was the  installed milking  %  BOD  removal  was  5  at  centre  removal, achieved  the  University  wastewater. 90.8  %  during  SS a  of An  British average  removal 8-month  and trial  12 operation period (Lo et al. This  literature  to-date  on  concept  is  conventional  review  Sequencing a  1985).  viable  continuous  has  Batch and  full-scale  are  flow  still  operation experience  overcome. The  dynamic  and  that  operations economically  almost have  all  the  researches  indicated  attractive  activated-sludge  nitrogen removal, and chemical Although there  shown  that  the  SBR  to  the  SS  and  alternative  process  in  done  BOD , 5  precipitation of phosphorus. uncertainties is still  flexible  room for expansion and operational  in the  basis  insufficient, these nature  of  adjustments  SBR  of  SBR  design  deficiencies  systems  at minimal  allows  costs.  can  and be  ample  3. MATERIALS AND METHODS  3.1 INTRODUCTION The Sequencing industry  major  obstacles  Batch  Reactors  were  therefore  imperative  designing specific  difficulties  bench-scale cycle  The  specific  One  to  guaranteed  concentration  material  or  is  volume  that  this  use  British  days.  wastewater  screen  (0.295  mm  four days The  per tank  milking  of  UBC  storage was dairy  cycle  flushwater  barn  and  and  the  such factors  is  when  studied in this  investigation.  here  the  as  total  number  in  laboratory  bench-scale  is  the  of  use nature  in  in real-life  The  of  cycles  to  etc.)  before  synthetic  feed  or  biological  treatment  vary  was  the  storage  wastes where  as the  feeding  effluent  U.S.  was  from every  Series  coarser in 4  both  It  collected a  is  greatly.  wastewater  through  remove  of  situations  can  barn  passed  studies  synthetic  milking-centre  dairy  was  of  treating  wastewater  (UBC)  four No.50  solids °C. A  the  (mainly  maximum  allowed.  milking  the  planning. It  strategy  the  openings)  to  treatment  purposes. The  dynamic  study.  collected  strategy  given  "natural" milking-centre  Columbia  wastewater  as  investigative  performance  undigested hay, bedding materials of  and  for  successfully  experimental  of  The  and  composition of  decided to in  systems  a comparable  and  control  such  of wastewater per 24-hour period.  practice  operates  operations  dominating the  SBRs  defined  sensitive  University  TYLER  pilot-scale  cycle  the  semi-batch  due considerations are  questioned  system  therefore  from  in operational  waste-treatment  substrate. Due units, a  (SBR)  the same  often  biological  prevented  is one such operational  employed to treat  not  that  that  room  wastewater  clean-in-place  13  it  handles  an  produces (CIP)  rinse  average  of  includes  the  water,  which  45  cows  bulk  milk  includes  14 detergent. along  These  with  collection (at  them  some  tanks  were  waters  cow built  the main waste-trench)  was  are  discharged  excrement, spilled at  the  to  outfall  intercept  then transferred, periodically, by  pump  to  two  transferred It  cleaning  is  246  I  this  discharge  bench-scale reactors  on  review  of  parameters  the  produces  an  supernatant  the  effluent  than  the  it  A  of  a system of  the  latter  former  study are supernatant  Engineering  bench-scale  centrifugal  a  was  lot  drain waste  submersible  pump  in  turn  project.  collected  of  the  for  the  much  cause  use  5 0 % of more  the  parametric  unit  BOD  if  suspended  values  stated  into  the that  environmental  soluble  organic  for  supernatant  that goes  more  done  bases  activated-sludge  might  only  research the  to  supernatant  example, an BOD  as  realistic  unless specifically  reported  the  solids in  this  otherwise.  OPERATION  reactors  waste-treatment  floor  373 W  parameters  more  reason, all  3.2 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND Three  For  contains  values  room  246 I  built for a seperate  that  is the  removes  this  SBR  filtrate  soluble  which  one. For  showed  indices. It  zero  W  wastewater  deemed  filtrate.  carrying  feed. Two  milking  controlled  187  the  used  is  as the treatment body, not  damage  systems  drain,  study.  literature  However,  receiving  than  used in this  activated-sludge  observations.  that  floor  milk, and  the  a timer  tanks.  point  a  this wastewater. The collected  the wastewater to a pilot-scale  at  A  storage  of  to  were  laboratory  set-up  in  the  of  UBC. A  schematic  A,  B  C, were  Bio-Resource of  the  system  can be found in fig. 3.01. The plexi-glass temperature  three tubes  reactors, 460  reactor  denoted  mm  "A"  in  was  as  height seated  and in  and 138  a  190  mm mm  in  frabricated  diameter. diameter  The  from low  plexi-glass  FIG. 3.01 : SCHEMATIC OF EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP  Air N  l  Pump P o w e r  rpm M o t o r  Supply  Power  Supply  Influent Pump -Feed  Line  Magnetic Stirrer  16 "jacket"  which  refrigeration  contained  unit.  The  continuously  high-temperature  heating  pad connected to  dipped  into reactor  come  on  and  temperature  off  of  temperature  period had its  own  amount  of I  to  (3.8  and  these were Four  the  test  per  in  operation  order  4.01  the  cycles  were  for  comprised and in  the all  IDLE. A figure  controlled  of  2  h  the  3.02.  the  automatically  that included four  of  in  five  wasting, a  an  all  independent A C  the  ambient  III  and  IV  each  all were treating the same  daily  the and  reactor  most  feed  II,  effect VI at  of  specific  were  =  3.6  the  the  the  table-top  receptacles.  of  reactor  of  the  phase  the  mode.  periods  cycle was  5  "ChronTrol"  can  :  modes deleted)  SETTLE,  modes  of  reactors  cycle  experimental  IDLE  cycle  three  same  : FEED, R E A C T ,  these  the  characteristics  periods, the and  periods  low • temperature times  the  cycle.  special  very  of  executions  4-channel  The  other than  average  to  This  which  of  it  months.  V  phases  a  thermometer  respectively.  means  and a 2 h cycle. Each  mode  by  6  flow-rate  of  F40  period.  experimental  representation  by  the  amount  following  Except  any  employed throughout  cycle  schematic  Periods  summarizes  same  °C  approximately  study  (influent  6 h cycle, 4 h cycle, 3 h cycle (except  to  period.  all  30.1  maintained  length, yet  performance  Table  to  and  lasted  wrapped  and triggered  6 sub-periods; periods  cycle  sub-periods. During subjected  period  loading rate  day).  °C  which  was  a Julabo  controller. A  not controlled by  into  start-up  high  29.9  laboratory  divided  the  "C"  from  controller  during the experimental  wastewater  included  volume  the  was  characteristic  was  °C)  "B"  experimental  further  reactor  connected to the  approximately  21.8 ° C  entire  was  Period  of  of  The  at  coolant  a temperature-feed-back  " C " was  reactor  air-conditioning  circulated  DRAW  be  found  phases  were  digital  timer  I F|-  REACT : 3 h  30 min  LEI  REACT : 2 h  20 min  REACT : 1 h  IF I REACT 45  45 min  mini  SETTLE  I SETTLE 1 h  I SETTLE : 1 h| D  SETTLE  30 min  |  D  |  6 h CYCLE MODE OP.PER. II & V  4 h CYCLE MODE OP.PER. I l l  |I|  3 h CYCLE MODE OP.PER. IV  I Di I  Pi  2 h CYCLE MODE OP.PER. VI  F : Non-aerated FILL p e r i o d ( 1 . 5 , 1 . 0 , 0.75 & 1.5 l i t r e s / c y c l e respectively) D : DRAW phase; volume wlthdrawl per c y c l e same as F I L L . I : IDLE phase; n o n - a e r a t e d .  FIG.  | I  3.02  : CYCLE MODES OF THE  EXPERIMENT  f o r 6, 4 ,  3 & 2 h modes  18 The operational details FEED  :  The  timer  pump  activated  to  cycle)  deliver  of  content  in  among  the  The  received  period  feed  :  jhe  was  to  to  ensure  the  pump  the  the  the  rotated that  feed  the  over  heads  other  A  mix  were  of  than  on  reactors.  amount of  less  the  off  by  aquarium  mixed condition was pattern  during setting-up  of  dissolved-oxygen  probe  The  two  a  was heads  the  pumps  timer  in  which  approximately  of the  of  the  confirmed by  2x2x5  mm  plastic  apparatus, and by to  ensure  visual chips  inspection and  water  using a submersible  uniform  readings  throughout  during the experimental periods.  1-rpm  motors  steel the  flocculation  A  one  3 %  the  inlets  basis  switched  activated  mixing  scraped  :  feed  average  peristaltic  minute.  Stainless  DRAW  about  to  simultaneously  daily  since  Parmer" (depending  reservoir  The  :  adjustments.  pump  the reactors SETTLE  a  same  time,  delivering  Completely of  on  "Cole  amount  activated  the  of  the  reservoir.  reactors  subsequently one  from  feed  despite repeated :  appropriate  was  the  constantly  REACT  triple-headed  the  stirrer  reactors  a  wastewater  magnetic  long  of the five phases were as follows  wires  inner  were  activated  connected  to  circumference  and reduce  during  the  of  arching effects  sedimentation.  motors  the  reactors  due the  continuously to  assist  the  slenderness  the  final  supernatant  stainless  steel  reactors.  triple-headed  effluents  from  paristaltic the  at an appropriate  reactors  level  pump through  drew  in the reactors. A  few  tubes  fixed  minutes of extra  19 draw  time  level  as  before final  was  allowed  controlled  the  effluent  effluents  disposal  by  ensure  the  pump  were  except  to  level was  of  the  the  turned  ordinarily  when  that  sample  tubes  off  directed  final  by  to  was  the  a  collection  draw-down reached  timer.  The  waste-tank  for  required  for  was  analysis. IDLE  :  The  reactors  simply  off, awaiting Filling operation carried  the  periods  out  manually  of  by  I  manually  IDLE  after  the  the beginning of the next  reservoir to  sat  V) on  discharging  and a  the  (which  contained  emptying  daily  of  basis.  appropriate  the  to the operation sludge-age) on a regular  pump was  turned  cycle. one  day's  effluent  Wasting  amount  draw  waste-tank  was  of  supply  also  for were  carried  mixed-liquor  out  (according  basis.  3.3 PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS  3.3.1 SAMPLING METHOD Two  sampling  parameters  approaches  : the influent-effluent  Influent-effluent reservoir reactors from  the  were  at at  the time  analysis  time of  reservoir  FILL  bucket, at  tubing, in  siphoned  a  clean  preservation, or analysed  the beaker  analysis  involved  DRAW. The  influent-pump into  of  adopted  and  first,  immediately.  analysis' of  and the track  the  point  middle  the  sampling of  influent  a  for  samples were right  of then  next  FILL.  to  Enough  mixed  analysis.  the  effluents  and  the  feed from  produced usually the  inlets  by  the the  collected of  the  wastewater  was  redistributed  for  20  The tubes The  effluent  of  the  reactors  batches  collected  samples  of  into  were  followed  track  analysis  placing  I  the  stirred  the  discharge  beakers  before  DRAW.  reactors  were  usually  in the  beakers,  thoroughly  away. samples,  the  following  procedure  was  :  Effluents  from the previous  The influent Aeration  feed was  of  the  120 ml of three  the  first  120  ml  aeration  be  at  by  one  minute,  first  reactor  various  of  given  samples  aeration  were siphoned into  time  to  were  but  allow  by  manually.  intervals.  Shorter  were used in the beginning than at the  minutes  would  off-set  from each  beakers  phase. The  two  were  of the aquarium pumps  sampling time-intervals react  were collected.  reactors  mixed-liquor (ML)  seperate  the  cycle  collected during FILL as previously described.  three  delaying activation  of  2  by  then  right  by  seperate  produced  then preserved or analysed the  collected  three  effluent  in entirity. They  For  were  generally  at  for  least  taken  one  sufficient  within  minute  mixing  end  of  before  sampling. Except were  for  ML  allowed  to  settle  of  the  time. Samples for preservation All  BOD  immediately. carried to  the  out  If on  suspended-solids  COD, the  procedures  the  beaker  supernatant  or immediate  and  5  in  analyses,  same  3  the  then  samples  collected  designated  pipetted  out  SETTLE carefully  analysis.  and  analyses  N0 -N0 -N 2  day, they  recommended  for  were  suspended-solids NH -N  the  3  would in  Examination of Water and Wastewater  the  be  analyses preserved  Standard  (1975).  were  carried could in  Methods  not  out be  accordance For  The  21 3.3.2 SAMPLE All Demand (VSS)  ANALYSIS  5-day  Biochemical  (COD), Total  and  settling  Oxygen  Suspended-Solids  velocity  analyses  the  procedures recommended in the  the  following modifications  1.  TSS  and  regularly  VSS  :  (usually  track  for  velocity  diameter)  was  because  of  deemed  not  for  period  the  test  other  and  Standard  Suspended-Solids  out  in accordance  Methods  (1975) except  to for  day).  at  Due  to  were  carried  out  high  frequency  of  this  in duplicate. During the T S S  specific  least  analyses  dissolved-oxygen  two  duplicate, tests  ml  plexi-glass  uptake  were carried  and rate out  A  used  385 instead  limited  desirable of  over  size  to  of  the the  remove  time one  of  too  required  hour  to  cylinder  recommended bench-scale much  ML  conduct  during REACT  for  mm  1-litre  size  reactors. from  the  (44.3  It  the  settling  a duplicated  was  reactor velocity settling  test).  Ammonia (N0 -N0 -N) 3  Analyzer  :  the  (usually  velocity  2  carried  Oxygen  each sample collected.  Settling  2.  were  were not done  experiments, however,  Chemical  5  (TSS), Volatile  Suspended-solids  analyses  (BOD ),  :  every  sampling, the tests VSS  Demand  II  of in  nitrogen all  (NH -N) 3  samples  accordance  and  were  with  combined  analysed  the  nitrite-nitrate  with  procedures  a  nitrogen  Technicon  recommended  by  Auto the  manufacturer.  3.3.3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN UPTAKE The of  dissolved  the reactors was  oxygen  RATE  (D.O.) uptake  rate  of  the  activated-sludge  measured by using a submersible D.O. probe and a  22 YSI  model  54  speed was  set to  The reactor was  on  a  manually  uptake When  the  the  reactor  for  by  the  then be  drop  The  least  chart  from  point.  A  C O D , could  the  be  (which  a  of  out  pump  suitable  procedure  carried  D.O.  chart.  air  analysis  in  oxygen  mg/l  reached  above  The  recording  conditions),  track  used  the  2.0  off  magnetic  be  and  the  concentration  a  jacket).  linearly)  reactor  switched  not  cooling  the  recorder  the  with  could  mg/l, and the  and  was or  of  chart of  approximately  aerobic  D.O.  data  experiment. It  activated-sludge  for  3.0  5  the  graphically  the  another  air-pump  quite  dropped to  above  BOD  of  mid-depth  D.O. level  stirrer  (usually  limit  to  manually  magnetic  presence  until  particularly  D.O. uptake  recorder.  began, the  the  the  agitated  measured  again  be  parameters,  (a  accepted  at  repeated  chart  aeration  mg/l,  D.O. level  generally  test, the  of  could  on  a  lowered  time. When  3.0  possible  would  turned  same  mixed-liquor  because  rate  to  carefully  phase. Once  above  level, usually  the  the  the  concentration  was  at  whenever A  connected  was  IDLE  point  and  reactor  is  probe  during the  reached  meter  1.0 cm/min.  D.O.  turned  stirrer  D.O.  would other  alongside  should be emphasized that throughout  was  kept  in suspension either  by  the  aeration  or  agitation or stirring. The  maximum  and  was  thus  the  following  very  initial  D.O. uptake  difficult  procedure  was  to  rate was  measure  therefore  ml  of  mixed-liquor  was  accurately  adopted to  point on the D.O. uptake rate experiment 500  in general insitu obtain  very  the  rapid  reactors;  the  first  data  of  the  react  :  collected  at  the  end  phase. The  content  was  allowed  to  sit  in  the  beaker  for  the  designated  23  SETTLE A  time.  proportionate  of  supernatant  was  then  example, (1.5/5.0)x500  ml removed for a 6 h cycle.  With the  D.O. probe  same The  submersible  amount of content  in  magnetic  stirrer  on  chart  the  subsequently TSS of  amount  aeration  D.O. uptake  rate  per min per g  beaker  and  the  was  then  mixed-liquor The  taken of  VSS.  the  and  mixed D.O.  maximum  measured graphically levels of  properly  in the  for  beaker, the  added.  the  recorder.  and V S S were  feed was  seated  removed,  concentration D.O.  uptake  with  a  recorded rate  was  from the recording chart.  the reactor averaged  immediately  for  activated-sludge  at the beginning and the the  computation  in terms  of  mg/l  of  end  specific  D.O. uptake  4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The experimental results this  section. A  and their  major  be  to  made  chapter.  The  velocity  tests  summary features  these  of this study  of  the  are presented and discussed in  sub-divisions  of  can be found in table  "sub-periods" during  schedules  of  the  the  react-phase  the  experimental  4.01. Frequent remaining  track  reference  discussions  analyses  are presented in tables 4.02 and 4.03  period  and  will  in  the  this  settling  respectively.  4.1 BOD AND COD ANALYSES  4.1.1 BOD REMOVAL Data removal  obtained  analysis  from  and statistical  in tables 4.04 and 4.05 The  mean  5-day  BOD  removal  5  efficiency  from  to  treatment/2 It when the a  1.5  was  I  interesting  h cycle, no  observed. Only  its B O D  5  to  treatment  Reactor temperature  B  note  and  filled  experimental  the results  low  in period VI  be  of  reactor  V, with mean  (BOD ) 5  can be found  5  removal even  reactor  was  dropped to  did reactor  were this  24  It  was  A  BOD  coupled  show  1.5  I  to 78%.  period  V,  3.7°C  in  5  removal with  an  a diminution in  13%. control  both  its  constant  throughout  the  consistently  showed  maintained study.  mean  very  ranging  (3.7°C,  operating  in the  the  VI  dropped sharply  temperature  as  remained  during A  change  A  % removal  period  approximately  regarded  volume  period  of  of  operating  that of  this  efficiency can  to  BOD  appreciable  when  loading rate  II  during  operating temperature /6  increased  entire  However,  h cycle), the average  is  Demand  respectively.  from operating period 92%.  Oxygen  distribution of  consistent 90  Biochemical  unit  as  very  TABLE 4.01 DATE PERIOD (M.d) 1.10 TO 1.30 TO 4.28  4.29 TO 5.29  I  II  : SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL OPERATION REMARKS  START-UP : ALL THREE REACTORS OPERATED UNDER IDENTICAL CONDITIONS AT 21.8 C 6h CYCLE. AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AS FOLLOWS : A=10.5 C B=21.8 C AND REACTOR C=29.8 C. SETTLING PROBLEM DUE TO FEED SOURCE OCCURED FROM 3.06 TO 3.13. MEAN CELL RESIDENT TIME (MCRT) VARIED AS FOLLOWS : 20 d f r o m 2.09 t o 3.06 5.3 d from 3.06 t o 3.21 8.3 d f r o m 3.21 t o 4.28 F I L L E D REACTOR VOLUME = 5.0 1 EACH. TREATMENT VOLUME/CYCLE = 1 . 5 1 PER REACTOR.  4h CYCLE. AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AS IN ( I I ) . I I I MCRT = 8.3 d f r o m 4.29 t o 5.02 = 16.7d f r o m 5.02 t o 5.29 F I L L E D REACTOR VOLUME = 5 . 0 1 EACH. TREATMENT VOLUME/CYCLE = 1.0 1 PER REACTOR.  5.30 TO 6.24  IV  6.25 TO 7.03  V  7.04 TO 7.05  VI  3h CYCLE; TEMPERATURES AS IN ( I I ) & ( i l l ) . MCRT = 16.7 d . DENITRIFICATION EXPERIMENTS WERE CARRIED OUT DURING THIS PERIOD. F I L L E D REACTOR VOLUME = 5.0 1 EACH. TREATMENT VOLUME/CYCLE = 0.75 1 PER REACTOR. 6h CYCLE. AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AS FOLLOWS : A=3.7 C B=21.6 C & C=30.0 C. MCRT = 16.7 d F I L L E D REACTOR VOLUME = 5.0 1 FOR A & B = 4 . 5 1 FOR C. TREATMENT VOLUME/CYCLE = 1 . 5 1 PER REACTOR. 2h CYCLE. AVERAGE TEMPERATURES AS IN ( V ) . F I L L E D REACTOR VOLUME AND TREATMENT VOLUME AS IN (V) . A TOTAL OF 16 CYCLES OPERATED AND STUDIED.  TABLE  TEST  4.02  DATE (M.d)  : SCHEDULE OF REACT-PHASE TRACK  PERIOD  1 2  2. 14 2. 28  II II  3  4. 10  II  4  4. 24  II ,  5  5. 19  III  PARAMETERS  ANALYSES  MONITORED  TSS, VSS pH OF MIXED LIQUOR, SUPERNATANT COD,BOD, NH -N, N 0 - N 0 - N . TSS, VSS, SUPERNATANT BOD,COD, NH -N, N O 2 - N O 3 - N & TKN DO CONCENTRATION N H 3 - N , N0 -N0 -N. REACTOR B : BOD,COD,NH3-N, N 0 - N 0 - N AND N H 3 - N , N 0 - N 0 - N & TKN THE CORRESPONDING OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES REACTOR A : BOD,COD,NH -N, N 0 - N 0 - N AND THE CORRESPONDING OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES THE CORRESPONDING OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES REACTOR C : BOD,COD,NH -N,N0 -N03-N, AND THE CORRESPONDING OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES THE CORRESPONDING OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES COD,BOD,NH3,NO3,TSS,VSS OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES FOR ALL THREE REACTORS OXYGEN UPTAKE RATES FOR ALL THREE REACTORS 3  2  3  2  3  2  3  3  6  5. 22  III  7  5. 29  III  8 9 10  6. 14 6. 21 6. 28  IV IV V  TABLE 4.03 TEST #  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1  **  DATE (M.d) 2.09 2.13 3.18 3.25 5.01 5.13 6.03 6.12 6.26 7.03 7.05  3  3  2  3  2  3  2  : SCHEDULE OF S E T T L I N G VELOCITY TESTS PERIOD  II II II II III III IV IV V V VI  MCRT  TSS(A) (mg/l)  TSS(B) (mg/l)  TSS(C) (mg/l)  20 20 5.3 8.3 8.3 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7  4716 4516 3144 3416 3115 4022 4826 4798 5266 5324 4784  4588 5204 3668 4348 2648 2776 4490 5022 5220 3682 4760  3872 4440 3372 4532 2745 3150 5964 5156 5612 4074 3942  •..(d)  **  WASTE 300 ml MIXED LIQUOR PER FOUR CYCLES.  TABLE 4.04 : DATA DATE (M.d)  PERIOD  OF BOD  INFLUENT  BOD  (mg/l)  (5-DAYS) REMOVAL ANALYSIS  EFFLUENT  BOD  BOD REMOVAL  (mg/l) A  B  C  A  (%  B  C  1 .20  I  197  34  36  43  83  82  78  2.14 2.28 4.03  II II  1 40 324 375 276 238  14 26 23 25 !5.  12 1 1 6 18 7  13 13 29 19 8  90 92 94 91 94  91  97 98 93 97  91 96 92 93 97  11  4.10  II  4.25  1 1  5.08 5.13 5.19 5.22 5.28 5.29  III III III III III  250 325 260 212 223 246  28 12 12 16 30 31  15 6 8 3 22 18  1 1 5 5 4 14 19  89 96 95 92 87 87  94 98 97 99 90 93  96 98 98 98 94 92  6.07 6.09 6. 14 6.21 6.25  IV IV IV IV IV  222 309 206 308 173  9 27 31 21 10  1 1 1 9 13 7  4 6 14 12 7  96  100 96 96 96 96  98 98 93 96 96  6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 7.03  V V V V v  173 398 275 216 289  19 55 25 16 30  1 1 29 1 1 8 7  21 38 13 10 9  89 86 93 90  94 93 96 96 98  88 90 95 95 97  CYC# 1 CYC# 2 CYC# 3 CYC#14 CYC#16  VI VI VI VI VI  173 173 173 255 255  37 29 54 46 63  27  20 16 27 28 26  79 83 69 82 75  84 89 86 93 89  88 91 84 89 90  19  24 19 27  91  85 93 94  91  TABLE 4.05 : MEAN, STANDARD DEV. & RANGE OF BOD DATA PERIOD INFLUENT EFFLUENT BOD (mg/l) BOD(mg/l) A B C  MEAN  STD. DEV.  BOD REMOVAL A B  (%) C  II I'll IV V vi  271 253 244 270 205  21 22 20 29 46  1 1 12 8 13 23  16 10 9 18 23  92 91 92 90 78  95 95 97 95 88  94 96 96 93 88  II III IV V VI  89 40 62 85 45  6 9 10 16 13  5 8 5 9 4  8 6 4 12 5  2 4 4 3 6  3 3 2 2 3  3 3 2 4 3  235 113 136 225 82  12 19 22 39 34  12 19 12 22 8  21 15 10 29 12  4 9 1 1 7 14  7 9 4 5 9  6 6 5 9 7  II III RANGE IV V VI  29 high  BOD  when  removal  5  the  capacity  loading  during period VI,  rate its  from  for  BOD  period  reactor  B  treatment  5  II  to  was  V  (95-97%).  increased  efficiency  by  However,  three  times  dropped considerably  to  88%. Except periods mean  II  for  and  V  that  performance different  treatment  the  level  of  operation  C, the  was  imposed in  high  the  to  300%, the  V.  on  C  alone  BOD  5  A  was  removal  II  The  to  5  when  in  BOD  the  further  efficiency  of  C was  results  its  original  months  in  three  performance  in  demonstrated removal  5  the  total  changed  reactor's  increased  of  and V.  operation  in  operation  in terms  length.  for  also  10% decrease  reduction  rate  B  return  unit,  capability  to  loading  reactor  cycle  continuously  temperature  and  2.4%  (MCRT),  it should be noted that the high  II  only  time  for  and  able  operating  consistency periods  resulted  operations  volume  reactor  after  residence  maintained throughout operations  Reactor  volume  cell  identical  modes. However,  level was  degree  mean  were  temperature,  indicated  When  the  in  filled  reactor-  IV  treatment  to  V  efficiency.  VI  reduced by  high  throughout  from  period  a  by  another  approximately  7%. To  summarize,  based on the B O D 1.  During  5  the  following  removal  operating  data  periods  characteristics),  30°C  (C)  overall  unit  means  operating of  the  exhibited (  %BOD  periods were means  showed  5  the  to  IV  room  similar removal  95.7% and that  observations  were  made  :  II  operational  general  this  (  to  temperature  BOD )  refer  5  for  table unit  treatment B  and  difference  (B)  C  during A is  for  and  capacities.  95.4% respectively. 0.3%  4.01  the The  these  comparison statistically  30 insignificant. Reactor  A  this  other  It  mean  value  A  was  overall  periods  with that  that  can therefore  reactor  hand, the  experimental  a 0.01% chance  error. that  the  during  Comparing only  On  this  II  to  BOD  IV  removal  5  was  only  of B showed that  difference  was  be concluded with  consistently  %  less  a  efficient  91.6%.  there was  result  99.99%  of  chance  confidence  than  in  B  level  and C  in  BODj removal during operating periods II to IV. 2.  The  Standard  small  for  all  consistent  Deviation the  three  (S.D.)  and range  reators  and reliable treatment  (table  of  the  4.05),  data  were  very  that  very  indicating  performance can be expected from  these Sequencing Batch Reactors. 3.  The  BOD  3  operating overall  removal period  average  V of  efficiencies were  of  reactors  respectively  periods  89.4  % respectively  was  maintained during this  II  to  ). The B O D  5  IV  A  and  1.8 and 2.4 % (  confidence  treatment  of  the causes  than the  89.8 and reactor  B  operating temperature  in A and the 10 % reduction of hydraulic retention time evidently  during  lower  level  efficiency  period. The lower  C  for the reduced treatment  in C were  efficiency  of  these  reactors. 4.  The  "Specific  experiment treatment  Cycle"  did  not  of  the  seem  treatment  to  their  studied  effect  on  in  the  of specific  this BOD  5  cycle  in section 4.7.  REMOVAL  The data obtained from COD analysis and  any  efficiencies of the reactors. The effect  will be discussed in more details  4.1.2 COD  have  operation  statistical  analysis  is  are presented in table 4.06  summarized in table  4.07. The results  31 displayed a trend  very  following deviations 1.  The  COD  were  treatment  be  due  substances present 2.  The  efficiencies  lower  to  than  the  which  were  overall  which  higher  and  s  to  of  BOD  some  data except  for  percentage  removal  for  5  all  the  the  BOD  test  5  were  contributed positively  that  of of  units. This  non-biodegradable  the  range  than  terms  of  that  neutral  deviation  slightly  in  that  fact  in the effluents  standard  the BOD  :  consistently  could  similar to that of  the the  COD BOD  inevitably  in a COD test.  removal  data  data. The  5  organic  were  COD  data  were more dispersed. 3.  The  COD  removal  operation average no  period  reduced  this  removal  5  temperature  decline  in  of  was  case  ( see  is  reactor  from  IV  dropped  can more  A  to  observed  in period VI. This  removal BOD  changed  operation  further  efficiency  V  dropped  5%  and  corresponding  from  when  be taken  the  10.5°C the  as  sensitive  to  to  cycle  an  when  the  3.7°C;  but.  length  was-  indication that COD  low  discussion on unseeded B O D  temperature 5  test  than  at  different  influent  strength  temperatures, section 4.14 ) 4.  In  terms  was  of  much  greater  fluctuation  experienced. This fluctuation was  COD.  A  three  reactors  was higher initial  COD, a  slightly  higher percentage  utilization substrate  higher of  the  than REACT  concentration.  reflected  removal  during experimental  substantially  also  period  the  rest.  phase  in  was II  in the  also apparent  when the  This  effluent  is  potential  influent  probably because  of  in all COD  due  to  higher  TABLE 4.06 : DATA OF COD REMOVAL ANALYSIS DATE PERIOD INF.COD (M.d) (mg/l)  EFFLUENT COD A B  (mg/l) C  COD REMOVAL( %) B A C  1 .20  I  711  178  185  195  75  74  73  2. 14 2.28 3.15 4.03 4.10 4.25  II 11 11 11 II II  720 1760 2108 1940 577 872  194 363 416 360 123 153  121 244 297 252 54 74 .  106 277 301 284 55 92  73 79 80 81 79 83  83 86 86 87 91 92  85 84 86 87 91 89  5.08 5.13 5.19 5.22 5.28 5.29  III III III III III III  679 606 971 708 836 854  1 97 107 113 214 213 208  156 1 13 99 94 129 11 1  113 115 73 96 102 108  71 82 88 70 75 76  77 81 90 87 85 87  83 81 93 86 88 87  6.07 6.09 6.14 6.21 6.25  IV IV IV IV IV  777 809 849 965 969  217 234 155 215 224  130 1 49 11 1 154 108  147 144 115 142 158  72 71 82 78 77  83 82 87 84 89  81 82 86 85 84  6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 7.03  V V V V v  969 1114 939 830 743  291 382 267 224 208  133 189 173 149 129  263 101 178 158 132  70 66 72 73 72  86 83 82 82 83  73 91 81 81 82  CYC#1 CYC#2 CYC#3 CYC#14 CYC#16  VI VI VI VI VI  688 688 688 722 722  165 175 236 225 236  131 131 182 166 171  143 153 189 173 187  76 75 66 69 67  81 81 74 77 76  79 78 73 76 74  33  TABLE 4.07  : MEAN, STD. DEV.  PERIOD INFLUENT EFFLUENT COD(mg/l) A  MEAN  STD. DEV.  & RANGE OF COD DATA  COD (mg/l) B C  COD REMOVAL A B  (%) C  II III IV V VI  1330 776 874 919 702  268 175 209 274 207  174 1 17 130 155 156  186 101 141 166 169  79 77 76 71 71  88 85 85 83 78  87 86 84 82 76  II III IV V VI  680 135 89 141 19  126 51 31 69 35  103 23 21 26 24  113 16 16 61 20  3 7 5 3 5  3 5 3 2 3  3 4 2 6 3  1531 365 192 371 34  293 107 79 174 71  243 62 46 60 51  246 .42 43 162 46  10 13 1 1 7 10  9 9 7 4 7  7 12 5 18 6  II III RANGE IV V VI  34  4.1.3 REACT PHASE TRACK As  Sequencing  "steady-state" picture "track  of  analysis"  The the  phase of  goes  valuable  not  the cycle  is  the  SUPERNATANT BOD (SBR)  important the  do  to  not  have  operation  parametric  insights  a clear  as  COD  operate  phases  changes  AND  under  conceptual  of  a  SBR.  a function of  A  time  into a semi-batch process.  in this  because  OF  Reactors  during  analyses  phase  was  on  monitors  track  REACT  Batch  assumptions, it  what  and provides  ANALYSIS  of  its  "instantaneous"  experiment relatively  but  were  carried  dynamic  extended  (Irvine et al., 1979,1979a), the  over  track  out  nature.  a  If  for  only  the  FILL  significant  investigation  portion  should be  extended accordingly. As  with  supernatant is  of  quality  that  operation.  of  the  samples  effluent  of  unit;  instance, would  recieving  water  even  might be the  same.  A during  total  of  six  experimental  is  the  neglects  the  COD  &  BOD  periods  II  to  the  three  during trend  reactors  these in  4.01  both  to  analyses. 5  and  COD  All  track  IV;  final  removal  analyses.  The  of  reflection the  effects  oxygen of  as  suspended  demands their  were  these  entire  such  different  analyses of  only  realistic  demands  three  study,  product  of  on  filtrates  carried  analyses  out also  rate.  supernatant  the  this  more  different  track  5  the  the a  oxygen  from the beginning to  track BOD  4.09 show  in  effluents  exert  though the  out  potential  included the corresponding oxygen uptake Figures  in  provide  which  sampling  efficiency  carried  monitored  , for  the  levels  analyses  were  supernatant  Filtrate  sedimentation solids  all  parameters  reason the  almost  BOD  the end of  three  reactors  — despite  the  5  and  COD of  the aeration showed big  a  all  phase similar  difference  in  FIG. 4.01 : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT BOD VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #2 (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C , 1.51/CYC.) — i  <s +•  1  1  I  1  io REACTOR fl REACTOR B « REACTOR C  1  1—J  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  '  '  '  '  '  '  i  i  FIG. 4.02 I  I  I  I  : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT COD VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #2 (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C , l.'51/CYC.) I  I  O  o REACTOR A  +— «  -» REACTOR B o REACTOR C  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  _L  I  J  I  I  L  37  FIG. 4.03 : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT BOD VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #3 (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C , 1.51/CYC.) i  t  i  l  I  t  I  I  I  i  i  i  i  I  I  I  |  |  L  J  I  I  L  -o REACTOR fl + REACTOR B REACTOR C  33-|—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r (U)  13  0J3  09  U  1  5  1  8  2  .  1  2A  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  2.7  3J)  3JB  38  FIG. 4.04 : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT COD VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #3 (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C , 1.51/CYC.) J  I  I  i  i  i  I  I  I  I  t  I  I  J  I  I  I  !  I  J  I  i.  •o REACTOR A + REACTOR B -• REACTOR C  N  2 OJ  i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r~ (L3  0J3  U  12  15  18  2.1  2.4  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  2.7  34)  33  3J3  39  FIG. 4.05 : RESULTS OF TRACK ANALYSIS #5 ( O P . P E R . I l l , 4h C Y C , 1.01/CYC, REACTOR "B" ONLY) l  l  o  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I  o SUPERNATANT BOD in + SUPERNflTflNT  CM.  • — •  l m  g  I  I  I  l  l  L  J  I  I  I  L  / l  COD in mg/l (  x  10)  D.O. UPTAKE RATE in mg/l o f o / g vss/h 2  00  1—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r~~\—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r~ 0.0  0.2  0.4  0.6  0.8  1.0  U  1.4  1.6  TIME INTO REACT PHASE  1.8  (h)  2.0  2.2  2.4  40  FIG.  J  I  4.06  : RESULTS OF TRACK ANALYSIS #6 ( O P . P E R . I l l , 4h 1.0 1/CYC , REACTOR "A" ONLY)  L__l  I  J  I  I  J  I  I  I  o  o SUPERNflTflNT BOD In mg/l  •«-  -» SUPERNflTflNT COD in mg/l (x 10)  >  I  I  I  L  i  i  CYC, I  I  L  • D.O. UPTAKE RATE in mg/l of 0 / g v s s / h 2  •<»  to  to  1— o 1—1 (D 2 in  <  ZD  CC <=>. O 00 U. "  -  a  z °. LU 5 — o LU - J o  oS r—  —  CC <=, LU V Ll_ CM •U • i L  CC -  -  C=3  -+ -o  -+-©-  1—I—I—I—I—T~ 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6  — i — i — i — \ — i — T i — i — i — i — 1 — I — I — I — I — I — r ~ 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 -  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  FIG. A.07 : RESULTS OF TRACK ANALYSIS #7 (OP.PER.III, 4h C Y C , 1.0 l/CYC., REACTOR "C" ONLY) I  I  i  l  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  L  ©SUPERNATANT BOD in mg/l -* SUPERNATANT COD in mg/l (x 10) * — • D.O. UPTAKE RATE in / i of o / g v s s / h  o  m  0.0  g  2  1 — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r 0.2  0.4  0.6  0.8  1.0  1.2  1.4  1.6  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  1.8  2.0  2.2  -  2.4  FIG. 4.08 : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT BOD VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS //8 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C , 0.75 l/CYC.) _l  I  I  J  I  I  I  I  I  I  l  l  I  I  l  l  l  i 1.2  i  I  l  I  I  l  I  l  o e REACTOR A +REACTOR B • — • REACTOR C  QJO  T  i i 0.15  i 0.3  i  i i r 0.45 0.6  i  i r r~n i i 0.75 0.9 1.05  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  i i 1.35  i 1.5  r  1.65  1.8  43  FIG.  4.09 : PLOT OF SUPERNATANT  COD VS. AERATION TIME IN  TRACK ANALYSIS #8 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C , 0.75 1  —L—I co o  „„ 0.0  1 1 J  l 'I  *  o REACTOR  A  ••—  •+ R E A C T O R  B  ••—•'REACTOR  C  1  0.15  1  1  0.3  '  1  1  0.45  ~i  ' 0.6  i  i  i  | | J  I  L  J  1  1  I  1/CYC) I  I  l  i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r—i—i—T—r— 0.75 0.9 1.05 1J2 1.35 1.5 1.65 18  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  44 the  initial  removal  substrate  was  aeration.  largely  This  researchers  concentration completed  observation  (Alleman  is  within  the  1978,1979;  et al.,  practically  analyses  consistent  and Schroeder,1979). After this supernatant  for  and  #2  first  30  to  #3, 40  minutes  with  those  reported  Dennis  and  Irvine,1979;  initial period, substrate removal  ceased. The  residue  COD  that  substrate  by  of  other  Hoepker from the  remained  can  be  taken as the non-biodegradable portion of the wastewater.  4.1.3.1 REACTION KINETICS The  initial  substrate  removal  rate  through results obtained from the track The  initial  reaction  essentially  completed)  reaction  first  order  -  with  respect  =  be  to  (before  assumed  biomass  to  can  be  estimated  studies.  kinetics  order with respect  equation can therefore  dC/dt  can  constants  to  substrate  be  an  substrate  concentration  be written as follows  k.C.m  overall  removal second  concentration  (Dennis  order  and  1979). The  is  first  kinetic  :  <4.1 >  Where dC/dt  =  rate of  k  =  kinetic rate constant  C  =  substrate cone.  m  =  biomas cone.  t  =  time  However, compared  with  the  change  the  initial  in m  change of  biomass and  can  substrate cone.  concentration be  reasonably  is  negligible  assumed  as  constant  45 (Dennis  and  lrvine 1979;  Irvine  s  and  Richter,1976).  kinetics with respect to C can therefore dC/dt After  = k'.C  rearrangement In C -In  Therefore verify  the  constant (k')  C  REACT  k'.t  linear  be  the  the  obtained  within  this  by  kinetics  linear  30 min  time  frame  regression  coefficients slope  of  for the  of  = initial  In  C  dividing  the  substrate  and  time  is  only  ). The was  slope  of  logarithm  correlated, by  kinetic  regression  during  with  constants  line  of  k  of  using  a  vs.  The  stage  taking place BOD  line  with  The  computed The  of  the  (generally  data  s  calculator  temperature.  to  kinetic  regression  initial  time.  then  serve  cycle.  the  aeration were  would  the  the  consumption was  natural  programme,  the  valid  cone.  assumption.  biomass concentration during the test  assumed  first  <4.2>  psuedo-f irst-order  phase when active substrate  within  = k.m  where C„  correlation  of  by the average This  first-order  be adopted :  where k'  =  0  a  can  pseudo  and integration,  validity  (k)  A  obtained built-in  temperature  by  finding  results  of  the this  computation are summarized in table 4.08. The  high  correlation  coefficients  indicate  temperature  dependent.  seem  to  affect  both units  A  highest  III.  in  operation can  be  the  the  The  and B, k was For  unit  about  the  5  effect  the  computed  constants  cycle",  on  the  manner. It  II of  to to  be  on  period  "specific  an IV.  cycle"  may  be  II,  significantly  hand,  However,  did  noted that  higher  ascending  on  temperature  were  other  in operation period  seemed  period  for  kinetic  in a linear lowest  C, k  from  BOD  "specific  k values  proceeded  drawn  that  coefficients  in IV,  trend no  k with  as  not for and the  conclusion the  limited  46  TABLE 4.08  : KINETIC COEFFICIENTS OF BOD REMOVAL COMPUTED FROM LINEAR REGRESSION OF In(BOD) v s REACTION TIME  TRACK PERIOD KINETIC C O E F F I C I E N T ^ (1/mg.d) TEMPERATURE RUN (WITH CORRELATION COEFF. IN BRACKETS) COEFF. OF k # A (10.5 C) B (2.1.8 C) C (29.8 C) (1/mg.d.C) 2 3 5 6 7 8  I I •••().009(.9?) • II 0.014(1.0) III I I I 0.042 (.91 ) III IV 0.023C.95)'  0.010(.95) 0.017(.98) 0.055(.96)  5.75x1 <f*( . 92) 3.56x10 (.98) -| ._. — \ 8.50x10 (.97) 0.058( 1 .0) J 0.090(1.0) 3.45x10 (.94)  0.010(.92) 0.02l(.97)  3  0.041(1.0)  47 amount of  data  The  temperature  relationship theoretical be  partly  effect  IV II  the  "specific  reason  for  this  were  as  temperatures  were  This  dilution effect  and  IV. It  shorter  usually was  is therefore cycles  during  were  of  the  after  reflected  by  positive  no  obvious  relationship  temperature influent  react  phase  reactors A of  the  may  dilution  fed II,  operation  to  the  III  and  period  and C could change by  REACT.  approximately smaller  of  The  30  equilibrium  min  of  aeration.  during operation periods  expected that the smaller temperature partly  are  a  for operation periods  beginning  proportionately  (i.e. stronger temperature to  during the  attained  have  suspected that this  I per cycle  the  to  There  room-temperature  initial temperature  3°C  4.08).  introduced by  of  taken  appeared  (table  is  errors  1.5, 1.0 and 0.75  showed that the much  cycle"  amount  Readings  however,  trend. It  experimental  feeding. The  respectively.  as  coefficients,  with  due to  of  reactors  available.  larger  III  errors during the  temperature  coefficients  dependency) as operation proceeded from period  II  IV. 4.1.3.2 O X Y G E N The  UPTAKE  dissolved  RATE  oxygen  (D.O.)  uptake  rate  per  gram  of  volatile  suspended solids measured during track  runs 5, 6 and 7 (fig. 4.05, 4.06,  4.07)  assumed the  of  COD  curves. A s  these  three  maximum  per  D.O.  maximum  g  the  general  initial  separate  possible. The D.O.  same  runs  uptake  per  D.O. uptake  h  5  with  coefficient per  rate  °C vs.  the  corresponding B O D  concentrations were  (approximately  rate  temperature  VSS  BOD  shape  60  mg/l),  operation thus  (slope  temperature).  close during  correlation  temperature  calculated  of  quite  the The  was  and  5  of  was 1.91  regression correlation  line  the made  mg/l  of  of  the  coefficient  48  was  0.98. The  was  utilized to carry Similar  built-in  function  of  a  Hewlett-Packard  hp11c  out the regression and correlation.  correlations  for  analyses  and  10  (fig.  of  1.564  and  4.13)  1.393  mg/l.g.h.°C  respectively. The corresponding correlation  were  0.68  and  0.99. The  temperature  9  4.11, 4.12,  #9  yielded  track  4.10,  and  calculator  initial  BOD  coefficients  concentrations  5  during  10 were approximately 94 mg/l and 75 mg/l  4.1.4 THE UNSEEDED BOD  VS. COD  coefficients track  tests  respectively.  ANALYSIS FOR SAMPLES FROM  DIFFERENT TEMPERATURES By removal 1.  comparing the  BOD  removal  5  data  (table  From  period  reactors  of  II  to  the  A,  The  B  overall  COD  and 5  C  the %  and  hand, the  overall  removal  were  COD  removal  values  from  period  were  between  only  mean  75.8, 85.3  removal  difference  removal  other  V,  mean  corresponding B O D  4.2%  the  COD  difference  The mean % B O D  and  terms  between  and  V  were  temperature was  a  6h  92%  and  difference cycle  efficiency was was  removal  5  at  only  7 9 % and  of  90% (II  3.7°C),  B  reactor  was  of  BOD  and 5  A  a 6h cycle the  C  9.5%  to  operation  showing a much bigger difference of  treatment  V)  for The  terms  much  On  despite at  periods  the  efficiency.  the  10.5°C  II  of  smaller,  during operating period  difference  8%.  in  removal.  5  were  in  2%. The corresponding mean  7 1 % for  II  overall  84.8% respectively.  B  respectively;  was  (the  91.3, 95.5 and 94.8% respectively. A  in  and  being 0.5 % for COD and 0.7 % for B O D  A  and  summary (table 4.07), the following observations were made :  average  2.  4.06)  considerable and  BOD  5  period V treatment  %COD removal and  V  II  of  respectively,  49  FIG.  4.10  : PLOT OF GROSS D.O. UPTAKE RATE VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #9 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C , 0.75 l/CYC.)  CD  in.  in  CM .  Csl  <N  —J  1  1  1  I  I  o  o REACTOR A  —  -+ REACTOR B  «  • REACTOR C  1  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  I  I  i  I  I  I  i  I  I  \  in r~ -  0.0  ~T~1—I—I—I—I—I—I—T—I—I—I—I—I—I—r—r—I—I—I—I—I—I—I— 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 TIME INTO REACT PHASE (min)  80.0  88.0 96.0  FIG.  4.11 : PLOT OF SPECIFIC D.O. UPTAKE RATE VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #9 (OP.PER.IV, 3h CYC., 0.75 1/CYC.)  1  1  1  1  1  1  -  •>—<=> R E A C T O R  A  -  + REACTOR  B  • REACTOR  C  CM.  -  «  1  1  1  1  1  I  1  1  •  1  I  1  I  I1  1  1  1  -  "* • CO *° —  t o  -I  I'D-  -  -A EE <D.-  -  \  "  -  \  -  d PS-  n;  V  u_ I—I  (_)  ,  -  LU' CL 52" CO  \  -  "  .  " ° — :  :  :  •  '  = * 1  0.0  1  8.0  1  1 16.0  1  1 24.0  1  1 32.0  TIME  1  1 40.0  INTO  1  1  1  48.0  REACT  1  56.0  1  1  64.0  PHASE  1  1  72.0  (rain)  1  1 80.0  1  1  88.0  1  96.0  51  FIG. 4.12 : PLOT OF GROSS D.O. UPTAKE RATE VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #10 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C , 0.75 l/CYC.) —1  o in  1  1  I  1  1  1  l—J  I  J  J_J  1  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  L_  o REACTOR A •* REACTOR B  CM. CN  • REACTOR C  'A  0.0  "TT—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r—i—i—i—|—|—i 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0  180.0  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (min)  I I — i — i — i — r 200.0 220.0 240.0  52  FIG. I  e *  4.13 : PLOT OF SPECIFIC D.O. UPTAKE RATE VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #10 (OP.PER.IV, 3h C Y C , 0.75 l/CYC.) I I  I—I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  J  I  l  l  l  l  l  o REACTOR fl + REACTOR B •REACTOR C  -« ~i 0.0  i 20.0  i  i 40.0  i  i 60.0  i  i  80.0 TIME  i — i — r — i — I I I — T T — i — i — i — i — i — i — r  100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 I N T O R E A C T P H A S E (min)  200.0  220.0  240.0  53 3.  From (  (1)  and  10.5°C  SBR  and  as  of  of  the  all,  the  organic  the  COD  exercise  to  that  carbon  test  consistency  an  ecosystem  reasonable  to  at  low  removal  displayed  temperatures capacity  more  of  a  temperature  test.  s  of  this  develop  for  activated-sludge The display  observed  a  model  trend,  or  it  was  explanation  that  the  the  that  lower  Different  rate  pictured  as  a  It  is  microorganisms.  section  of  "treatment"  this  population  achieved  by  the  units  general  of  the  under  reasons  in  different  operating  :  microorganisms  consumption rate  of  is  the  temperature  microorganisms  is  temperatures.  types  of  microorganisms  population under different of  be  activated-sludge  because of the following  at  of  can of  cross  efficiencies  dependent; the substrate  groups  myriad  degree  is  treatment  metabolic  lower  a  entire  overall  assumption  different  The  that  of  unit  unit.  next  temperatures  activated-sludge  consisting  assume  responsible  2.  appears  be consistent with the observed phenomena.  complex  1.  )  by  a worthwhile  First  is  3.7°C  it  than the unseeded B O D  Because  would  above,  indicated  sensitivity  deemed  (2)  microbes  ambient  consume  dominate  the  microbial  temperatures; and these  different  kinds  of  substrate  different materials  preferentially. Reason on the  (1) above  treatment  continuous-flow that  given  is a popular view on the effect  performance systems.  enough  of  activated-sludge  However,  reaction  time,  reason the  (1)  final  of  temperature  units, particularly  standing BOD  5  alone  removal  for  implies of  an  54 activated-sludge  unit  would  temperature,  the  metabolic  substrates  as are  temperature  removed,  effect  data. However, show B  should  suffered  a  removal lower  when  removal  dramatic  ultimate  larger  removal  to  from  %BOD  indicates  in  that  IV  unseeded BOD  bottle  more  not  present  unseeded escaped  in  the  reactor  bottle.  BOD  microbial that  consume  operating  temperatures)  not  test. However, the presence  detected  by  a  COD  test.  A  in table 4.07  reactor  than V  in  A  BOD  5  (3.7°C). The  during  matters  the  low  had escaped  index suggested.  5  is proposed as follows of microbial  not  words,  due  kind  will  this  and COD  5  Furthermore,  ratio  therefore  another  this  which  :  population, a  reactor. A n y kind of microorganisms  will  consumption  microbes  BOD  In  tabulated  organic  is, in terms  microcosm of the activated-sludge  at  Futhermore,  (10.5°C) to  possible reason for this discrepancy  The  rate  removal  COD  biomass consumption than the unseeded B O D A  the  operation  of A lagged behind those of  removal  5  the  by the B O D  percentage.  set-back  of  amount.  reflected  capacity  changed  operations  affects  previously, results  operation  %COD  temperature  the  a considerably  more  regardless  only  be equally  as mentioned  by  rate  not  that the final COD  and C  be the same  of be  to  any  the  further  schematic  absence  organic this  in  matters  in  matter  of  (because  oxidized  of  available  organic  substrate  of these  be  an that  the  major  of  the low  an  unseeded  will  proposed  still be  model  is  presented in figure 4.14.  tests  Further  experimental  work  would  be  to  However, unseeded  required  with  both  support  the  based on the development BODj  test  is  seeded  and unseeded  hypothesis  of  this  of the model, the adequacy  questioned.  Sewage  effluents  are  BOD  model. of an usually  GROUPS OP MICROORGANISMS  GROUPS OF ORGANIC MATTERS  AFTER EXCESSIVE REACTION TIMS  ACTIVATED SLUDGE REACTOR AT TEMPERATURE T1  EFFLUENT  COD = X+d  AFTER EXCESSIVE INFLUENT COD = X+a+b+c-td BOD = a+b+c+d (X comprise nonbiodegradable organic matters)  FIG.  REACTION TIME  REACTOR AT TEMPERATURE T2 (GROUP • D ' ORGANISMS NOT VIABLE AT T2)  EFFLUENT  4 . 1 4 : PROPOSED MODEL OF UNSEEDED BOD ANALYSIS V S . COD A N A L Y S I S UNDER DIFFERENT OPERATION TEMPERATURES  UNSEEDED BOD = 0 because o r g a n i s m 'D' w h i c h consumes  'd' are.not available i n the BOD b o t t l e  56 assumed they  to  contain  are often  from  the  sufficient  used as  experience  the  of  exercised  when  using  indicator;  particularly  microorganisms  "seed" for  for  samples  this study, it appears the  BOD  when  index  5  a BOD  from  other  that great  alone  cross-temperature  as data  test.  5  In  fact,  sources. But  care  should be  an  oxygen  are  being  demand examined  for design or comparison purposes.  SUPERNATANT  AMMONIA  AND  COMBINED  NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN  ANALYSIS  4.2.1 AMMONIA REMOVAL Data tabulated of  the  in  II,  lowest  to  three  is  expected  from 4.09  be  and  IV,  removal  different to  be  NH -N 3  and  found  2  respectively.  tables  ammonia  C showed  4.11  negligible  in  biomass  and  most  to  assimilation;  4.12.  of  nitrite  is  systems)  and  operation  A  remained  efficiency.  largely  (which  attributed  concentration  and nitrate  stripping  are  summary  During  the highest  system  aerobic  analyses  statistical  capacity  consistently  : oxidation  3  The  removal  in an activated-sludge  processes  process);  and combined N 0 - N 0 - N  4.10 in  the  while reactor  nitrification  or  (the  desorption  aeration. All  various  the  above  concluded that  3 0 ° C , although the  range.  three  degrees. Numerous  1970) have at  can III  NHj-N  by  tables  data  periods the  obtained  processes researches the  reported  are done  optimum  temperature with  growth  growth-rate  pure rate  constant  of  dependent  cultures  (Painter,  nitrosomonas  varies  over  to  is  a wide  TABLE 4.09 : DATA OF AMMONIA NITROGEN ANALYSIS  DATE PERIOD (M.d) 2.14 2.28 3.14 4.10  II 11 11  5.08 5. 13 5.19 5.22 5.28 5.29  INF.NH3 E F F . (mg/l) A 13.7 52.0 70.5 11.8  12.5 31 .0 27.4 1 .5  III III III III III III  19.0 10.7 14.9 13.6 13.5 16.7  6.07 6.09 6.14 6.21 6.25  IV IV IV IV IV  6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 7.03 CYC #1 CYC #2 CYC #4 CYC#14 CYC#16  NH3-N  B  (mg/l) C  NH3-N  A  REMOVAL B  (%) C  1 .3 2.2 2.5 1 .4  1.0 2.2 2.2 0.9  8.8 40.4 61.1 87.3  90.5 95.8 96.5 88. 1  92.7 95.8 96.9 92.4  3.0 1.8 7.8 5.8 2.3 1 .6  0.0 0.7 3.4 0.4 0.8 0.4  0.0 0.7 1 .5 0.0 0.7 0.4  84.2 83.2 47.7 57.4 83.0 90.4  100.0 93.5 77.2 97.1 94. 1 97.6  100.0 93.5 89.9 100.0 94.8 97.6  10.8 20.0 17.6 15.9 13.5  1 .6 4.3 2.5 1 .3 1 .9  0.8 1 .0 0.5 0.9 1 .4  0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 1 .4  85.2 78.5 85.8 91.8 85.9  92.6 80.0 97.2 94.3 89.6  94.4 90.0 97.7 95.6 89.6  V V V V V  13.5 14. 1 15.4 14.2 17.7  1 .3 2.3 2.9 1 .6 6.4  0.3 1.5 0.7 1.1 1 .4  0.6 1.5 1 .2 1 .4 1 .4  90.4 83.7 81 .2 88.7 63.8  97.8 89.4 95.5 92.3 92. 1  95.6 89.4 92.2 90. 1 92. 1  VI VI VI VI VI  19.1 19. 1 19.1 18.2 18.2  1.3 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.8  4.1 3.9 1.9 1.5 0.7  64.4 53.4 45.5 40.7 40.7  93.2 91.1 92. 1 91 .8 90. 1  78.5 79.6 90. 1 91 .8 96.2  1  1  6.8 8.9 10.4 10.8 10.8  58  TABLE DATE  PERIOD  (M.d) 2.14 2.28 3 . 14 4.10  II II II  5.08 5 . 13 5.22 5.28 5.29  4 . 1 0 : DATA OF NITRIFICATION  INF. NOx-N (mg/l)  EFFLUENT NO -N (mg/l) A B C x  ANALYSIS  NITRIFICATION * N H REMOVAL A B C 3  0.2 0.4 1.0 0.0  0.9 4.3 5.5 0.2  7.3 15.0 19.0 0.7  7.0 13.0 14.0 1.5  0.57 0.19 0.10 0.02  0.58 0.29 0.26 0.07  0.54 0.25 0.19 0.14  III III III III III  0.0 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0  5.2 4.3 2.1 3.9 2.5  7.8 6.9 2.3 3.3 2.3  6.9 6.9 1.6 2.9 2.4  0.33 0.43 0.23 0.34 0.17  0.41 0.64 0.15 0.25 0.14  0.36 0.64 0.10 0.22 0.15  6.09 6.14 6.21 6.25  iv  IV IV IV  0.8 1 .3 0.0 0.5  8.8 4.3 1 .4 5.2  8.6 6.9 1 .4 6.0  4.5 6.6 1.7 5.3  0.51 0.20 0.10 0.41  0.41 0.33 0.09 0.45  0.19 0.31 0.11 0.40  6.25 6.26 6.27 6.28 7.03  V V V V V  0.5 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3  5.3 4.4 4.1 0.7 3.4  6.0 5.2 5.2 3.1 8.0  5.6 5.0 4.9 1 .8 5.4  0.39 0.36 0.29 0.02 0.28  0.42 0.40 0.32 0.21 0.48  0.40 0.39 0.31 0.11 0.32  CYC #1 CYC #2 CYC #4 CYC#14 CYC#16  VI VI VI VI VI  0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4  2.8 1.0 • 1.0 0.5 0.7  8.2 5.3 5. 1 2.7 2.5  4.2 3.6 3.7 2.1 2.4  0.20 0.06 0.07 0.02 0.05  0.44 0.28 0.27 0.14 0.13  0.26 0.21 0.19 0.10 0.12  1  1  c  COMPUTED AS (EFF.NO ~N - INF.NO -N)/(INF.NH -N - EFF.NH3-N) NO -N IS THE COMBINED NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN x  x  x  3  TABLE 4.11: MEAN, STD. DEV. & RANGE OF PERIOD INF.NH  MEAN  STD. DEV.  RANGE  NH3-N  DATA  EFF.  NH3-N  (mg/l)  (mg/l)  A  B  C  A  REMOVAL B  II III IV V VI  37.0 14.7 15.6 15.0 18.7  18.1 3.7 2.3 2.9 9.5  1.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1 .6  1.6 0.6 0.7 2.4 2.4  49.4 74.3 85.4 81.6 48.9  92.7 93.3 90.7 93.4 91 .7  II III IV V VI  29.0 2.9 3.6 1.7 1.7  13.7 2.5 1 .2 2.1 1.7  •0.6 1 .2 0.3 0.5 1 .2  0.7 0.6 0.4 1.5 1 .5  33.2 17.4 4.7 10.6 10.1  II III IV V VI  58.7 8.3 6.5 4.2 0.9  29.5 6.2 1.2 5. 1 4.0  1.2 3.4 0.9 1.2 0.5  1.3 1.5 1.0 3.4 0.9  78.5 42.7 13.3 26.6 23.7  NH3-N  4.1 8.2 6.6 3.3 1 .2 8.4 22.8 17.2 8.4 3.1  (%) C 94.5 96.0 93.5 91 .9 87.2 2.2 4.0 3.5 2.4 7.8 4.5 10.1 8.1 2.7 17.7  TABLE 4.12 : MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION & RANGE OF N I T R I F I C A T I O N DATA PERIOD  INF. NO -N (mg/l)  E F F . NOx-N ( m g / l )  x  MEAN  STD. DEV.  RANGE  A  NITRIFICATION t * NH REMOVAL A B C 3  B  C  II III IV V VI  0.4 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4  2.7 3.6 4.9 3.6 1 .2  10.5 4.5 5.7 5.5 5.0  8.9 4.1 4.5 4.5 3.2  0.22 0.30 0.31 0.27 0.08  0.30 0.32 0.32 0.37 0.25  0.28 0.29 0.25 0.31 0.18  II III IV V VI  0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.0  2.6 1 .3 3.1 1 .7 0.9  8.1 2.6 3.1 1.8 2.3  5.8 2.6 2.1 1.6 0.9  0.24 0.10 0.19 0.15 0.07  0.21 0 i 21 0.16 0.10 0.13  0.18 0.22 0. 1 3 0.12 0.07  II III IV V VI  1.0 0.5 1 .3 0.4 0.0  5.3 3.1 7.4 4.6 2.3  18.3 5.5 7.2 4.9 5.7  12.5 5.3 4.9 3.8 2.1  0.55 0.26 0.41 0.37 0.18  0.51 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.31  0.40 0.54 0.29 0.29 0.16  * COMPUTED AS ( E F F . NO - I N F . N O ) / ( l N F . NH - E F F . NH ) ** NO -N I S THE COMBINED N I T R I T E - N I T R A T E NITROGEN x  x  3  3  x  TABLE  4.13  TRACK PERIOD TEST# 2 3 5 6 7 8  II II III III III IV  I N I T I A L AMMONIUM REMOVAL RATE DURING REACT PHASE I N I T I A L AMMONIA REMOVAL RATE ( m g / l . g VSS.h) (WITH CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS I N BRACKETS) B C A 0.55(0.95) 0.59(0.98) 0.14(0.92) 0.24(1.00)  1 .61(0.96) 1 .28(0.99) 1 .50(0.91)  1 .83(0.95) 1 .88(0.99)  ----  1 .07(1.00) 1 .46(1.00)  •  •  1 .51(0.99)  61 The elevated cause is  a  accelerated  temperatures  higher mass  NH -N  desorption  are  transfer and as  rate  well  process  pH.  In  which  light  of  is  ammonia  the  of  reactor  time  C fell  of  unit  surprisingly the  short C  was  operation  temperature  operating  period VI  4.2.2  of  reactor  A  reaction  is  and  are  expected  to  ammonia by  process  by  aeration  the  ambient  limitations  is  its  of  inability  temperature  and IV  to  power  the  NH -N 3  1.5  removal  °C.  with  efficiency  of the reduced Reactor  A  during operation  3.7  dependency  is deemed logical.  operations.  coupled  cycle,  at  practical  the  and VI,  to  However,  decreased  I treated/cycle),  retention  showed  period V when  the  when  this  retention  a  low  time  in  NH -N  treatment  pollutant  removal  3  dropped sharply to 48.9 %.  — ammonia  mainly  extend NH -N 3  removed biomass  of  from  to the  nitrification  removed the  the  oxidation.  nitrification with respect  of  III  these  was  biomass  NITRIFICATION Nitrification  the  V  lowered  (2h  the  factors,  removal  3  the  affected  B, possibly because  during  high NH -N  temperature  efficiency  of  of  of  near freezing.  above  periods  of  highly  removal  exhibited by the data in periods II, During operation  phenomena  one  at ambient temperatures  In  metabolism  rate. Stripping  fact  a potential  and  known  assimilation  3  temperature  operate  growth  (tables  was  lost  volatilized through aeration.  is  initial  of  therefore influent  expressed as  4.10, 4.12). The  wastewater  assimulation,  It  result  is  meaningless N0 -N0 -N 2  3  a fraction  remaining  assumed to  through  a  be  express  level.  Instead,  of  the  fraction  largely  denitrif ication  to  (see  amount  of  NH -N 3  consumed for 4.2.4)  and,  62 From B  the  data  experienced  removed the  (from  operation  data  the  cannot  summary highest  now  on  periods. be  simultaneously.  effluent  NH -N  B  level  3  during  operation  removed  or  degree  denoted  of  periods  converted  "nitrification  II  the  in  of  IV,  reactor  C  table  of  in  of  NH -N  the  4.11  consistently  than  reactor  unit  removal  indicating  that  3  ratio") throughout  ammonia  C was to  per  interpretation  examination  reactor  is apparant  nitrification  this  unless  An  4.12, it  of as  However,  conclusive  studied  in table  all  nitrification data  shows  lower  is that  than  that  more  reactor  B  also the  that  NH -N  was  3  during  of  these  periods. The fact in C may 1.  that the  mean nitrification  be due to the following  Higher  assimilation  in  C  ratio  in B  is higher than that  reasons:  because  of  a  metabolically  more  active  biomass. 2.  C had higher denitrif ication power. This assumption was some of the track  3.  More  desorption  analyses of  verified  by  (fig. 4.16, 4.20).  ammonia  in  reactor  C  due  to  its  higher  temperature. During operation periods V and VI, the exceeded  that  effluent  2  maintained the effluent  general  B  N0 -N0 -N  nitrification  other  of  two  a  high  NH -N  level  reactors  and  lower,  discussed  below  fairly 3  the  lower  level  3  ratio  (i.e.  high  nitrogen  NH -N C  that  of  was B.  nitrification of the  A  was  nitrification  Reactor  A,  from  consistently N0 -N0 -N 2  ratio  3  level  3  C);  to  the  period  in C  however,  low on  II  the  keep  other to  V.  its hand,  Since  higher than that of concentration  suggests  processes,  NH -N  in  sufficiently  ratio  effluent  removal  removal  3  of  effluent  that  namely  the  was  the in  previously nitrification,  63  denitrification, assimilation in r e a c t o r  retention  the  time  dropped  sharply  indicating  very  during  trend  temperature  operation to  0.08.  during  this  low  NH -N  from  and  VI,  The  to  of  bench  scale  to  time  results The  experimental 1.  The  slowly  ratio  VI  in  ratio  NH -N 1.2  removal. data  not  It  A  restrictions  short  reactor 2  3  respectively, be  4.09  &  4.10)  showed  a  for  operated and  A  N0 -N0 -N  should  applied be  of  mg/l  (tables  reactor  with  and  3  and  same  could  operational  coupled  noted for  declining  reactor  B  over  longer  a  limitations  and  in  this  function  of  ANALYSIS  Concentrations  The  relatively  study.  TRACK  aeration  9.5  c y c l e # 1 6 . The  period  due  were  raw  nitrification  was  effluent  V I , the  C. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , p e r i o d time  mean  and  reactor  4.2.3  occuring  nitrification  oxidation  period  cycle#1  (3.7°C)  the  period  3  operation  removal  3  low in  concentrations  NH -N  stripping, were  A.  When  that  and  were  NH -N  N0 -N0 -N 2  during  are p l o t t e d  in f i g u r e s  following  general  operation  4.15 t o  as  3  a  periods  II,  III  and  IV.  4.20.  observations  were  made  from  the  were  very  the  tests  :  ammonium while  and  3  measured  results  similar  of  oxidation  that  of  A  capacities was  of  units  consistently  B  and  lower  in  C all  conducted. 2.  For  all  the  three  activated-sludge supernatant mg/l.  An  approximated  NH -N 3  reactors, a  concentrations  inflection  occurs  ammonium linear  function  greater at  consumption  this  than  of  by  aeration  approximately  concentration  the  time  at  1 to  level  2  and  FIG. 4.15 : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #2 (OP.PER.II, 6h CYC., 1.51/CYC.) 1 1 — 1 — 1 I I I I L L_J I L I I l I l I I I I  J  _ o-  -o N H  3  OF REACTOR fl  +-  -+ N H  3  OF REACTOR B  *  • NH  3  OF REACTOR C  in  3  OF REACTOR A  B--0NO2-NO3  OF REACTOR B  * - * N0 -N0  OF REACTOR C  N0 -N0 2  2  3  \ 1  a  — rr-S---  - -x  .--- ~  X ,  *  r" r F r — 1 — 1 — 1 — r — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — r 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 u 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2 . 7 r  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  1 3.0  1 1 1 1 3.3 3.6  I  65  FIG. 4.16  : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #3 (OP.PER.II, 6h CYC., 1.5 l/CYC.)  " 1 — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — I I I — i — i — T ~ T — i — i — i — i — T — i — i — i — i — r 0.0  0.3  0.6  0.9  U  TIME  1.5  1.8  INTO  RERCT  2.1  2.4  P H A S E (h)  2.7  3.0  3.3  3.6  FIG. A.17 : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS 7/5 (OP.PER.III, Ah CYC., 1.0 l/CYC.)  !• { I ' _ }-\  o .+—  ' ' '  1  1  1  ' ' ' '  e N H 3 OF REACTOR B •+NO2"NO3 OF REACTOR B  1  ' ' IIII  |  L  67  FIG. 4.18 : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #6 ( O P . P E R . I l l , 4h C Y C , 1.0 1/CYC.) J  I  I I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I I I  I  L  -o NH 3 OF REACTOR fl + NO2-NO3 OF REACTOR A CM r-"  <o  d in CC  •z. <">  o , <_) -  , y  __________________________  >-r~i—1—1—1—111—1—\—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  2.0  2.2  2.4  FIG. 4.19 : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #7 (OP.PER.III 4h CYC., 1.0 l/CYC.)  I  J—I  _j o +-  0.0  0  -I 1—1—1 I I  | op REflCTOR C NLVN0 OF REACTOR C  N h  11 0.2  i  IIII  J  1  1  I  I I I'  3  3  1—1—1—1—1—r 0.4 0.6 0.8  »•  1  '  1  '  1  —r—1—1—1—1—1—1—1—r-  '•0 L 2 1.4 1.6 .1.8 TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  2.0 2.2 2 4  69  FIG.  J  I  4.20  I  I  : PLOT OF AMMONIA AND NITRITE-NITRATE NITROGEN VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #8 (OP.PER.IV, 3h CYC., 0.75 1/CYC.) I  I  e o N H OF +- -+ N H OF * • N H OF *--xN0 -N0 <*--a N0 "N0 * - * N0 -N0 3  3  3  2  3  2  3  2  —• r •—I  3  I  I  I  I  I  REACTOR A REACTOR B REACTOR C OF REACTOR A OF REACTOR B OF REACTOR C  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  L  e. »  <£>"  0.0  n — i — i — i — i — i — i — P 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6  i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—r~ 0.75 0.9 1.05 U 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  70 ammonium  oxidation  proceeded  at a slower  rate  for the rest of  the aeration phase. 3.  Instantaneous react  phase  denitrif ication — when  occured  feed  during  was added  the beginning  and mixing  of the  befell  through  aeration. 4.  Except the  for the initial  shape  denitrif ication  of the nitrification  'dent' on the N 0 - N 0 - N 2  curve  in general  curve,  3  changed in response  to that of ammonium oxidation.  The mg/l  specific removed  NH -N 3  were  computed  average  rates  and summarized  removal  by  linear  off  of the NHj-N  rate  curve  erratic  efficient, periods;  in  removal  table  between  4.12). This  regression of the data  more  operation  varied  (see table  From the results were  ammonia  (reported  per g V S S per h) during the track  nitrification  ammonium  of  points  8  to  oxidation obtained  of table 4.13, it is quite of NH -N 3  but the difference  experiments  4.13. The corresponding  : only the initial removal  in terms  as  that  of  rate was computed  prior  to the levelling  rate was computed. obvious that B and  removal,  between  3 7 % of  B  than  C  A  in all the  and C  was more  and unpredictable.  4.2.4 DENITRIFICATION EXPERIMENTS Results indicated during  from  the  the occurance  the  independent  beginning  track  analyses  of uncontrolled of  investigations  the aeration were carried  of  NH -N 3  denitrif ication phase.  2  s  in the reactors  Consequently,  out to further  and extend of this denitrif ication process.  and N0 -NO -N  reveal  a few  the nature  71 Due deemed  to  the  more  independent  suitable  results together  to  nature  present  of  the  these  experiments,  experimental  it  is  procedures  and  in this section.  4.2.4.1 DENITRIFICATION EXPT.#1 (7/6/84, OPER. PERIOD IV) OBJECTIVE  : To  deterimine  whether  feeding  was  necessary  for  denitrif ication to occur. PROCEDURE  : (Same for all three  Removed end of Let  600 ml  of  reactors)  mixed-liquor (ML)  approximately  2 min  before  aeration.  the  ML  settle  in  a  beaker  for  phase  length for operating period  Drew  10  ml  of  sedimentation  supernatant  period.  45  min  (the  assigned  SETTLE  IV).  from  Preserved  the  beaker  after  with  HgCI  for  2  the  assigned  analysis  by  autoanalyser. Mixed the remaining ML with magnetic Drew  20  preserve  ml  of  for  ML,  filtered  into  stirrer  test  for three  tubes  containing  ML while mixing with magnetic Collected 20 ml of into test  Preserved for B O D RESULTS  5  place  the  when  ML  after  to  1 and 3 minutes of  of  the  NH -N and N 0 - N 0 - N 3  2  in table  : The results settled  ML  was  remaining  stirrer continued.  tubes with HgCI  remaining  : tabulated  CONCLUSIONS  2  reservoir.  100 ml of the feed into the beaker containing the  filtered  HgCI  analysis.  Collected approximately 200 ml of feed from the Added  minutes.  3  2  to preserve feed  mixing with feed,  for  collected  analysis.  from  the  reservoir  analyses.  4.14 showed stirred  that very without  little the  denitrif ication  introduction  of  took new  72 feed. This small amount of substrate and the  denitrif ication may  utilization. When  a  proportionate  mixture stirred, further  be the result  amount  of  of  feed  denitrif ication occured to  residual  was  added  a much higher  degree.  4.2.4.2 DENITRIFICATION EXPT.#2 (8/6/84, OPER. PERIOD IV) OBJECTIVE  : To  determine  influent with artificially PROCEDURE  : (only reactor  Sampled cycle  added  100.0  reactor  at the end of  RESULTS  ml  of  result  occured  to  limited  only of  concentration  dropped at  the  a  took there  of  accompanied  was  the  effects during result  case  the  high on  the  feed  and final  the  nitrate  effluent  solution  during the first  of  experiment  an  this  extend  initial  until from  by  the 4.15  in all initial  a  dive,  end  the  of  mg/l  other  of  previous  (845  ppm)  30 min for  3  of the other previously  it  shows  to  the  analysis.  cycle. The  the  this  period was  in It  might  to  3  16.9  mg/l  concentration  aeration  to  1.00  concentration  was  N0 -N0 -N 2  3  is therefore have  therefore  the  2  3  ammonium  discussed processes  during  N0 -N0 -N  NH -N  3  analyses.  the  again  in NH -N  increase  level  the  beginning of  drop  denitrif ication  occured  that  the  at  that  only  increased  (Loehr,1977);  aeration  shows  then  track  N0 -N0 -N 2  that  4.21  corresponding  nitrifiers  remaining  and  Figure  SETTLE. However,  not  that  influent  intervals  aeration.  steadily end  using  fig. 4.21  : The  stayed  by  FILL.  DISCUSSION  and  denitrif ication  studied)  standard  ML at close  : See  beginning  of  analysis.  Added  Sampled  extent  nitrate.  B was  and preserved  for  the  as  suspected  some  inhibitory  removal  observed  suspected (see  level  4.2.1).  to  be  a  TABLE 4.14 SAMPLE  : RESULTS OF DENITRIFICATION EXPT.  NH -N 3  FEED  (mg/l)  N O 2 - N O 3 - N  1 1.50  0.70  (mg/l)  #1  D.O.(mg/l)  SUPERNATANT AFTER 45 min SETTLE  A B C  1 .60 0 .80 0 .60  0.72 1 .20 1.05  NO FEED, MIXED 3 min AFTER SETTLE  A B C  1 .90 0 .70 1 .40  0.40 1.08 0.98  THEORETICAL VALUE AFTER FEED  A B C  3 .08 2 .40 2 .23  0.72 1.13 1.00  MIX 1 min AFTER FEED  A B C  3 .30 2 .50 2 .40  0.25 0.55 0.55  0.40 0.30 0.30  MIX 3 min AFTER FEED  A B C  2 .80 1 .90 1 .70  0.00 0.30 0.40  0. 10 0.05 0.05  2.80 3.20 3.00  74  FIG. tn  <N_| CM  4.21 : RESULTS OF DENITRIFICATION EXPERIMENT #2 (8/6/84)  L_J  I  l_J  1  o  o NH  +-  •+ N 0 - N 0  1—1—|—|—|  |  |  |  I  i  i  i  i  t  i  i  i  LEVEL  3  2  LEVEL  3  in r-*  cn  O CC LU o ' H O ~ 2 . O O in  „„ 0.0  1  1  10.0  1  1  f  20.0  I  1 30.0  I  I  40J3  1 1 50J)  1 1 60.0  1 1 70.0  1—1 80.0  \ 1 90.0  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (min)  1 1—I 1 100.0 110.0  ~l 120.0  75 Only amount  reactor  of  B  artificial  was  used  nitrate  maintain their comparable  in this  was  also  experiment; however,  added  to  "life-histories" with  B.  reactors  the  A  same  and  C  to  SETTLING VELOCITY  4.3.1 GENERAL DISCUSSION A  total  operation  of  11 settling  periods  II  to  can be found in table figures was  4.22  to  VI.  Table  reactors.  The  4.32. The  mixed-liquor  4.15 lag  to  A  of  expected  suspended  settling  (type  is  the  settling  in  observed these  almost  in reactor  operations,  observed  in  periods took sharp  all  and  a  A.  longer  distinct  time  are  of  t|  "  tests  little The time  in  that  almost  in  interface  FIG.4.22 for  for  the  lapse  required  interface  and  contain  settling  (type  addition  to  carried  high  three  by to  the begin  3)  discrete  and  to  flocculate  would  form  supernatant no  visible  of  and  only  A  and the  were  ( 3 . 7 ° C ) . During settling  were  during  these  they  sludge  floes  flocculant  exceptions  sampled  formed  discrete  compression  and  flocculant  , and when  that  concentration  discrete  out. The  mixed-liquors  cylinder. The  tests  plotted  the  4.15 (see  time,  settling  systems  hindered  interface  contained  tests  velocity  covering  velocity  during operation periods V and VI  very  reactor  through the test proceeded  A  initial  out,  rate.  observed the  the  distinct  typical  were  settling  the  "lag  solids, both 4)  of  carried settling  includes  a  of  the  in table  sedimentation at the flocculant As  of  and tabulated  also  form  were  results  flocculant  time  tests  schedule  4.03 and the  determined graphically  example).  velocity  did, a  settled  as  very  slowly  sedimentation  but  was  much  FIG.  4.22 : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V.TEST//1 (OP.PER.II, MCRT - 20 days)  SJ—J—L_J—i—i—i—i—i_j -  o — o REACTOR A  <3_  +- + REACTOR B  -  «  j  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  I I I I I I I  • REACTOR C  in  CN  "1 0.0  I  I I r — I — I — 1 — I I I — I — I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r — 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 2 2 . 5 25.0 2 7 . 5 30.0 T I M E (min)  FIG. 4.23 : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #2 (OP.PER.II, MCRT - 20 days) J—I—I—I—1—1—I  <s •  t—I  I  I  l__l  I  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  o REACTOR A -+ REACTOR B  r-.  o  I  • REACTOR C  •  ex H CD OinCX " U.  \  or  111 a  I— ts-\ Ul  =  O oi' Q ZD _J  CO «=>.  T. 0.0  I I I I l l I r — i 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — | — i — 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 T I M E (min)  FIG. 4.24 I I  I  ©-—o r-. CM  l  I  : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #3 (OP.PER.II, MCRT - 5.3 days) I  I  I  I  i  i  l  I  i  i  l  I  l  l  l  I  I  I  I  I  J  I  L  REACTOR A  +-  -* REACTOR B  «  •REACTOR C  \ X  CM-  M LU-  cc M  CD  <_> trier I I I  I—  o  V  CM'-  LU — CD oi" Q  i  0.0  i  3.0  i  i  n  6.0  i  i  3.0  i  12.0  15.0  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r — i — i — i —  18.0  21.0  TIME (min)  24.0  27J)  30.0  33.0  36.0  FIG. 4.25  : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #4 (OP.PER.II, MCRT - 8.3 days)  FIG. 4.26 —I  r~-.  <N  0.0  J  L_J  : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #5 (OP.PER.III, MCRT - 8.3 days) l__l  ]  o  o REACTOR  A  «-  -+ R E A C T O R  B  «  • REACTOR  C  '  i  2.5  i  i  5.0  I  I  I  I  1  I  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — 7.5  10.0  12.5  15.0  TT~r  .  , 7  I  TIME (min)  I  i  r  ;  I  5  i X  -  d  I  I  I  I  I  L  r ~ T — i — i — i — I I I — ^  2 5  -°  27.5  30.0  81  FIG. 4.27 : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #6 (OP.PER. I l l , MCRT - 16.7 days) J  I  I  '  '  '  '  '  '  »  '  '  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  )  e REACTOR A  o  + REACTOR B  CM  •  • REACTOR C  o  CM  o LU ,  CC -\ M o C J i/vCC ~ LiCC " LU a  CD Q  cT  CO «=._ CD  i  i  i  i — i — i — I I I — i — i — i i  i—i—i—r—i—i—i—r  J  I  L  FIG. 4.28  fa J  O  '  '  1  1  : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V (OP.PER.IV, MCRT - 16.7 days) '  I  I  I  I  I  •  •  •  -o REACTOR A  CD  !  ,  ,  ,  TEST #7  J—J  i ii  -+ REACTOR B  r»'_  -• REACTOR C  CO « = »  I  CO  0.0  1  i •u •a  ••• i, '  i  5  • *;  A , ' i,' i,.' i , i  TIME (min)  J ^ I  3  .  (  FIG. -I *  I  4.29 : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE. IN S.V. TEST #8 (OP.PER.IV, MCRT - 16.7 days) I—I  I  J  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  i  i  I  i  i  i  i  i  J  L  o REACTOR A REACTOR B  «  0.0  ~l  • REACTOR C  1 1—I—T—I—\—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—r—T—|  4.0  8.0  12JD  16.0  20.0  24.0  28.0  TIME (min)  32.0  36.0  1—|—|—I 1 —  40.0  44.0  48.0  84  FIG. 4.30 : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #9 (OP.PER.V, MCRT - 16.7 days) %  I  -  i  o  I  i  I  i  i  i  i  i  i  I  i  i  i  e REACTOR A  £j- +~ •+ REACTOR B -1 « • REACTOR C  12.5  15.0  17.!  T I M E (min)  i  i  |  |  |  I  J  J  I—L  85  FIG. 4.31 tq —J  _ g-  1  o  1  1  1  1  : PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE IN S.V. TEST #10 (OP.PER.V, MCRT - 16.7 days) 1  1  1  I  L  I  1  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  o REACTOR A  + - -+ REACTOR B  -  *  1  i  • REACTOR C  CM  0.0  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — r — i — i — i — r 4.8  9.6  14.4  19.2  24.0 28.8 33.6 T I M E (min)  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — 38.4  43.2  48.0  52.8  57.6  86  FIG.4.32  I I  J o—o co"  +-  PLOT OF SLUDGE INTERFACE (S.V. TEST//11 - TEST CARRIED OUT INSITU THE REACTORS,OP.PER.VI ) I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  .  I  •  1*  .  •  •  •  i  I  I  I  i i i T i i r I r i r 22.4 25.6 28.8 32.0 35.2 38.4  REACTOR A  -+ REACTOR B  •»—REACTOR C  W E CC •• CD I— CJ CC m Lu CC m  LU  O >  ~  LUJQ  _  *  in  0.0  3.2  6.4  S.6  12.8  16.0  19.2  T I M E (min)  TABLE  4.15  TESTf  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  LAG  : RESULTS  TIME  OF S E T T L I N G V E L O C I T Y  (min)  FLOCCULANT S E T T L I N G VELOCITY (cm/min) A B C  A  B  C  2.0 3.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 8.0  2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0 0.5 0.0  1.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0  0.8 1 .1 3.5 2.8 3.3 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.4  1 .1 0.7 3.5 2.1 3.8 4.0 1 .7 0.5 0.7 2.6 2.6  1 .1 1 .5 4.0  1.0 1.6 4 .0  1.6 1 .2 3.4  2.1 1.3 3.5  MEAN 2.7 S T D . D E V . 2.3 RANGE 8.0  TESTS  9.1 4.8 0.7 0.1 4.0 4.3 1 .9 2.8 0.6 6.1 3.5  •  3.5 2.7 9.0  88  darker  in colour than those of The sharp temperature  B and C.  difference  between  the tested  periods V and VI, and the ambient  room temperature  were  have  carried  results.  out  Initial  differed  by  assumption revealed  eratic  in  expected to  and  final  temperature  more  than  4°C  was  similar  The  was  verified settling  computed both  settling  magnitude  sludge  observations  of  the  sedimentation conventional  could  systems  fact  nature.  of  not  of  all  the  However,  the  reactors  settle  past  design  of  fixed  level.  the  not  the  failure  time.  This which  not  the  reactors  once  outlet  the  entire  operational  failure  level  high Sludge (see  in  seem  at  time  Volume  of  Indices  fig.4.40, 4.41).  in  rarely  discussed with  systems the  sedimentation  treatment are  not  wastewater  units,  a unified  texts. This yet  approach  is  due  considered  treatment  batch  industry,  to and  in  partly be  a  maybe  its simple nature.  However, does  test rarely  reactors,  three  suffered  continuous-flow  wastewater  batch  process  to  of  are  and  that  conventional  mean  design  water  system  in  tests  the  were  test  the  the  on  ML  A  CONSIDERATIONS  Unlike  due partly  effects  min  were experienced by some of the reactors  the  in which  tested  30  during periods when extremely  4.3.2 DESIGN  to  the  the  velocities  and  because  (SVI)  mild  of  characteristics.  period did any  D R A W ; even  of  during  by  experimental the  only  ML  simplicity  render  it  less  sedimentation of  the  In which  entire case  of  the  design  of  a  important. On the  process system  insufficient  of if  a  the  batch  contrary,  semi-batch effluent  settling  sedimentation  would  is  inadequate  operation drawn  result  can  from  a  in pumping  89 out part  of  the concentrated sludge.  Some  foundamental  settling unit conceptual reactor 1.  and a SBR.  It  differences  exist  is therefore  in  mind  between  important  when  a  to  designing  continuous-flow  bear the  a  following  sequencing  batch  :  Continuous-flow from  the  aeration to  differences  sedimentation  aeration  basin. In  chamber  and the  accommodate  chamber ratio  (which  for  (which  the  effective  usually  favours  the  tank.  conflicting relatively  transfer)  out  in  reactor  sedimentation  a  mass  carried  a SBR,  often  favours  is  a  unit  serves  A  SBR  height  and that of  maximization  of  both as  the  therefore  requirements  high  seperate  of  to  an  has  aeration  horizontal  area  a sedimentation  tank  horizontal  cross-section  area). 2.  There  is no inflow  3.  Outflow  of  overflow;  supernatant  the  critical  final  except  withdrawal reactor;  the  into a SBR  level for  in a SBR final  during sedimentation.  in  a  continuous  of  the  sludge maybe  level  of  sludge  Underflow  sludge  conventional  carried the  the  sedimentation  logically affect 5.  For  out  sludge  carried  out  sludge  process. at  the  usually  is therefore  not  purposes.  from  a  blanket  fixed is  by as  Effluent  level  in  therefore  the  more  operation.  is  a  systems Sludge end  is  of  continuous  and  has  definite  withdrawal SETTLE  process  and  effects  from  a  does  not  SBR  in on is  directly  the sedimentation process.  the  and/or  withdrawal  activated  blanket  concentration  crucial to the success of the entire 4.  system  above sludge  reasons,  standard  concentration  units  design such  procedures as  those  for  clarifiers  described  in  90 Metcalf  and  Eddy  applied directly Before Reactors  is  experience a  SBR  in  a  unified  fully and  approach  information  or  Keinath  design without  developed, it  climates  potentials,  Ed.,1979)  to a SBR  design. Other  cold  (2nd  to  the  design  pilot  should  a  long  always  settle  be  to  as  into  additional  finalizing  with  possibly  Batch  operation  before  account  be  modifications.  problem  and  cannot  Sequencing  studies  the  phase  taken  of  gain  scale  considerations, such  for  appropriate  is advisable  through  et al., 1976  freezing  denitrification  when  designing  sequencing batch reactors. '  4.4 SUSPENDED SOLIDS ANALYSIS 4.4.0.1 MIXED-LIQUOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS The was  Mixed-Liquor  monitored  results are  are  the  plotted  and  respectively. the  The  operation  operation  of  the  the react  MLSS  is  a  Cell  are of  Resident  also  this  shown  Volatile  at  period  of  4.33  the  Solids  and  in total  (MCRT)  and  the  and  4.34  Solids  (MLVSS)  4.34  to  show  suspended solids.  and  bottom  4.33  reactors  Suspended  Suspended  fluctuation Time  Total  the  the  of  corresponding  fig.4.35.  carried  out  Sampling  near  the  end  phase.  levels  of the reactors  by  Mixed-Liquor  record were generally  figure  be  the  of  4.35. Figures  superimposition  From  therefore degree  Mixed-Liquor  level  experimental  the  of  responded to  periods  the  records  Mean  purpose  throughout  (MLSS)  4.33, 4.34,and  the  MLVSS  Solids  in figures  Fig.4.35  how  for  regularly  continuous  (MLTSS)  Suspended  4.35,  possible  adjusting  to  the  it  can  be  seen  that  responded gradually  control  the  solid  MCRT. However,  it  the  quasi-steady  to the  MCRT. It  level  of  a  SBR  should  be  noted  state would  to  some  that  while  FIG. - — — 1  1  o  1  1  I' 'I  4.33 : TSS RECORD FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF THE EXPT. STUDY ' I  I—I I I I' I  I I I  I  I i i. - i '  i  i ' I i i • i i i I i  o RERCTOR H +  '•  RERCTOR  B  * RERCTOR C  + +  o+ CP +  o  *  +  ++  + +  3  T  I  I  IJ»  m  *  *  I  I  I  r—l  * + O t  0  m  cf8  '• «  r—I—l—rn—i—|—i—r—|—i—i—|—|—|—i—|—,—r—\—  r  FIG. 4.34 I  I  I  I  0  0  REACTOR fl  +  +  REACTOR B  *  VSS RECORD FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF THE EXPT. STUDY 1  '  1  ' • ' I I I I- I  I  1  • • • ! I  1  • -, , I I  •REACTOR C  CD  CD f-  —< co \  CJio E • — • CO  to  0=1  a  cx 2  §  LU  o +  o  o o  +  +++ o  CO ^. >  I N -  00  o  «  1  o  00^  0.0 .... 2W „ •  eb' A.' ».oS»V ^'J,. ,W „ |T  1  1 1 1 it tLHHbEu SINCE BEGINNING OF EXPERIMENT (d)  £_ „  ,W ,k.  FIG.  J  CD O  C O _ CT)  o  CD O  +  —  00 _ 00  •—CD • ea X o o — — ' ' 00  D  CD CD  —  X  co  —  ~  —( \  X  4.35 : COMBINED TSS AND VSS RECORD FOR THE FULL PERIOD OF THE EXPERIMENTAL STUDY  I I I I I I I I  •o TSS * TSS .•TSS * VSS ° VSS *VSS  OF OF OF OF OF OF  I  I  I  I I  J  I  L  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  REACTOR A REACTOR B . REACTOR C . REACTOR A REACTOR B REACTOR C  CE o CC co. r- LO CP <_J  +  00_  +  + X X  _: •* o <->_  o  X  *  o 7=i  O n CO  8  •  _  <M-J  3  x  qBscP  X  o mo  °x**  o + + x  a*8  • x»  s"  x  o  t  %  •  x  355X •  •  o  o  m  o x  CD  o  ••"•On x  oo  w «+  o  +  x „ •  u-lrv  0  8  3* * D  •  UJ _ Q_ co -  co ZD CO  =  MCRT(d)  20  1.3  5.3 II  OP.PER.  16.7 III  IV  V  "i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—I—i—i—i—i—i—I—i—i—i—r 0.0  10.0  20.0  30.0  40.0  50.0  60.0  70.0  80.0  90.0  100.0 110.0 120.0 130.0 140.0 150.0 160.0 170.0  TIME ELAPSED SINCE BEGINNING OF EXPERIMENT  (d)  180.0  94 MCRT  (which  wastage  is  simply  the  reactor  filled  volume  solid  SS  is  level  level  in turn  reactor.  The  factors  as  Should  conflicting  puts  an  dictated  minimum  upper by  the  MCRT, on  settleabi I ity  and  limit  on  Three periods  II  Figure  4.36  Results  track  shows  the  other  occur,  analyses  that  the  hand, is  time  the  were  ML  reactor  maximum  level  dictated  (Loehr,1977;  of  the  by  such  Painter,1970).  would  have  to  be  level.  carried  MLTSS  during aeration. This  researchers  (Dennis  is  and  and  out  during experimental  beginning of  due to  MLVSS  not  vary  observations  made  1979; Irvine and Richter  1976).  consistent  Irvine  from figures 4.37 and 4.38 show  during the be  the  and IV. The results are plotted in figures 4.36, 4.37 and 4.38.  significantly other  MLSS  MCRT; the  designed draw-down  generation  requirements  the  sized-up to decrease the maximum draw-down  to  by  rate) controls the solid level to a certain extend, the maximum  allowable  by  divided  with  greater  did  fluctuation, particularly  aeration. This fluctuation, however, is suspected  sampling errors  resulting from  incomplete  mixing of  the  chunkier sludge mass during the beginning of aeration.  INFLUENT-EFFLUENT TSS ANALYSIS  4.4.0.2  Results table  of  the  influent-effluent  4.16. The statistical  summary  of  TSS the  analysis data  can  can be  be  found  found in  in  table  4.17. From  table  4.17,  it  sedimentation time, the ability to  that  velocity  of  B  and  C.  is  quite  clear  of reactor A  From  observations  that  given  to remove SS made  during  the  same  was  inferior  the  settling  tests, good settling characteristics were in general noted in all  the reactors. The higher effluent  SS  in reactor  A  is therefore  assumed  to be due to fine suspensions that were too light to settle through the  FIG.  A.36  : PLOT OF TSS AND VSS VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #1 1.5  1  _ " _  1  1—:—I  I  1  I  (OP.PER.II, 6h  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  o o TSS OF RERCTOR fi +— -+ TSS OF REACTOR B « • TSS OF REACTOR C X - - - X VSS OF REACTOR A E D VSS OF REACTOR B * - * VSS OF REACTOR C  - -B-  D X- -  CYC,  l/CYC.) '  I  '  l  i  l  l  l  . -••  -X-  • -K-  -«> •  .9!  (Ul  I  I  32J)  48J  i — n — i — i — i — ~ i — i — i — i — r  64X  80J1  38.0  1t2JI  C8J)  TIME INTO REACT PHASE fain)  r M4X  mo  I7&0  1S3JI  96  FIG. 4.37 : PLOT OF TSS AND VSS VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #3 (OP.PER.II, 6h C Y C , 1.5 l/CYC.) I  CD <£>_  l  I  L  o— —o TSS OF +- -4- TSS OF « — — • TSS OF x- - -X VSS OF ts— - D VSS OF X - •X VSS OF  i  l  l  REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR  l  l  l  1  l  |  |  I  I  I  I  I  1  I  L  A B C A B C  f — CM.  CE  r-  COS ZD CO  0.0  n — i — r — I I I — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i 0.32  0.64  0.96  1.28  1.6  1.92  2.24  2.56  i i T i i i i r~  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  2.88  3.2  3.52  3.84  97  FIG. 4.38 : PLOT OF TSS AND VSS VS. AERATION TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS #8 (OP.PER.IV, 3h CYC., 0.75 l/CYC.) \r>.  o  —O  I  I  ••—  CD  4  >< °." „  I  TSS TSS —• TSS X- - - X VSS B— - a VSS M - •K I VSS  — r» >—  _!  CD  ro.  3 <=  I  OF OF OF OF OF OF  I  i  l  REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR REACTOR  l  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Ii  L_ J  L  A B C A B C  r-.  o  -  o5-  CO Q '  ^  >^  UlpT O oi Z u  '  -.  . . . -•K  *  UJ O- °. cos. ZD CO 0 0  if).  ~1—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—1—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I— 0  0.16  0.32 0.48 0.64 0.8  0.96 1.12  1.28  TIME INTO REACT PHASE (h)  1.44  145  1.76 1.92  TABLE 4.16  : DATA OF TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS (TSS) ANALYSIS  DATE (M.d)  PERIOE•  INF.TSS (mg/l)  2.14 2.28 4.03  II II II  236  5.08 5.13 5.28  E F F • TSS A B  (mg/l) C  TSS REMOVAL A B  (%) C  1596  39 60 244  6 38 1 1 2  6 50 240  83 — 85  97 — 93  97 — 85  III III III  173 193 271  52 26 19  36 8 4  21 14 4  70 87 93  79 96 99  88 93 99  6.09 6.21  IV IV  68 303  1 1 67  2 17  1 89  84 78  97 '94  99 71  6.27 7.03  V V  207 173  32 24  17 9  21 9  85 86  92 95  90 95  VI VI  173 180  33 36  26 12  19 17  81 80  85 93  89 91  CYC# 4 CYC#14  TABLE 4 .17 : SUMMARY OF TSS REMOVAL DATA PERIOD AVERAGE INFLUENT TSS(mg/l) II III IV V VI  916 212 186 190 177  AVERAGE EFF . TSS (mg/l) A B C  AVERAGE TSS REMOVAL (%)' A B C  1 14 32 39 28 35  84 83 81 86 81  52 16 10 13 19  99 13 45 15 18  95 91 96 94 89  91 93 85 93 90  99 more  viscous  and  dense  fluid  of  the  low  temperature  supernatant  within the given sedimentation time. No between  notable reactors  dry  weight,  Metcalf  Volume  occupied after  taken  to  divided  be  by  The SVI  here SVI  TSS  are  the sludge after  2  SVI  4.39. The  the  The  to  by  the  the  ml/g  200  was  noted  as  "the  volume  in  mixed-liquor  1000-ml graduated  solids,  cylinder"  in  of  the of  is  commonly  sludge  the  after  volume  done 30  mixed-liquor  in practice, is  min  of  expressed  settling, in  g/ml.  :  ml)  of  the  mixed-liquor and the  final  volume  %  were  reduction  monitored  in  sludge  frequently  volume  at  and the  recorded end  in  of  the  designs  to  also recorded in fig. 4.40. is  sludge  solids and  in a  determined as follows  frequently recycling  maximum  is 2000 mg/l and the  the  defined  activated-sludge  study, as  ratio  reactors  actual  the  capacity  30 min of settling, respectively.  of  SVI  estimate  level  min  concentration  initial  30-min tests was  determine  30  is  of  = (V,/V,)/(TSS in g per  of  fig.  (SVI)  gram  in this  is therefore  and V  The  for  volume  V,  removal  (1979).  reported  the  one  settling  the  Index  by  & Eddy's text  The SVI  TSS  INDEX  Sludge  mi 11 i I itres  in  B and C.  4.5 SLUDGE V O L U M E The  difference  (total m  3  maximum draw-down  used rate.  In  draw-down reactor  the  level  design  continuous-system  semi-batch  designs, it  level.  example,  volume  1000 kg) would if  in  be SVI  is  For  500 m , the 3  100  m  is  200  3  if  the  ml/g.  can be  if  the  used  MLTSS  volume occupied  design The  can be calculated with knowledge  SVI  is  100  corresponding of the  reactor  100  FIG. J  1  4.39 : SLUDGE VOLUME INDEX RECORD OF ALL EXPT. PERIODS 1—1  1  1  1  I  I  I  I  I  I  1  |  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  »—-° REACTOR A +-  •* REACTOR B  •  • REACTOR C  X CS; L U ° . Q -  no «=>. -r  co  UJ CD _ CD ° . - 3 <_»  c^  -H  0.0  ~i  i  15.0  i  i  30.0  i  i  45.0  i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i — i —  60.0  75.0  90.0  105.0  120.0  135.0  150.0  TIME ELAPSED SINCE BEGINNING OF EXPT. (d)  165.0 180.0  101  102  geometry. However, the  SETTLE  the  30  in order  phase  min  to  use the  SVI  should be used as  standard  time.  for  the  Moreover,  design purposes, the  time-span  of  the  results  from  oxygen  (D.O.)  level  The  results  test  settling  length of instead  velocity  of  tests  should also be consulted.  4.6 OTHER ANALYSES  4.6.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVEL The was  monitored  fig.4.41.  seen  of  that to  above  this  the  track  before  D.O. level  mixing  with  3 mg/l. The  analysis  experiment,  reactor  The  dissolved  during  During  bottom  due  mixed-liquor  ML  the  D.O.  aeration  increased  the  #4.  which  D.O.  decreased  10 min when substrate  consumption was  most  the  increase  for  D.O.  level  would  until the saturation The  level  D.O. profile  was of  monitored. In general, the above  steadily  as  the  are  was  began. From  immediately  supernatant, D.O. then  probe  of  reactors  plotted  placed  fig. 4.41, it aeration  level  steadily  the  can  be  commenced  was for  at  in  in  general  approximately  active. After  this  approximately  30  period, minutes  reached.  the  reactor  supernatant  at  the  end  of  SETTLE  D.O. concentration  3 mg/l and the sludge D.O. was  always below  was  was  also  maintained  1 mg/l.  4.6.2 PH The and  its  analysis  influent course  #2.  No  and  of  mixed-liquor  change  significant  during  pH  were  aeration  difference  in  pH  monitored  was was  traced noted  occasionally during between  track the  103  FIG.  4.41  : PLOT OF MIXED-LIQUOR  D.O. LEVEL VS. AERATION  TIME IN TRACK ANALYSIS U 1.5 l/CYC.) -I o  0.0  "I  1—I—1—1  L__lI  o REACTOR  A (11 C )  •* R E A C T O R  B (22 C )  I  I  I  I  I  I  (OP.PER.II, 6 h C Y C , I  I  i  l  I  I  I  I  I I I I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — I — i — i — 8.0 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 88.0 96.0 T I M E I N T O R E A C T P H A S E (min)  104 three reactors — the pH of the reactors  stayed between 7.3 and 7.8  throughout all the experimental periods. The influent milking-waste pH, on the other hand, fluctuated between 7.3 and 8.2.  4.6.3  20-DAY  Eight  BOD  BOD  20  tests  were  carried  out during  the experimental  periods — two for the screened milking-centre wastewater and two for each of the SBR effluents. The mean BOD /BOD 5  J0  ratio were as follows  : Influent = 0.81, reactor A effluent = 0.67, reactor B effluent = 0.63, reactor C effluent - 0.79.  4.6.4 FILTRATE BOD  AND  COD  Two filtrate BOD  5  and COD analyses were carried out. One on  April 03 and one on May 28. The results are as follows :  TEST  INF.  FILT. INF.  4.03 5.28  223  1 49  TEST  INF.  FILT. INF.  4.03 5.28 5.28  836 836  643 643  '  EFF. A 23 29  BOD  EFF. A 360 213 213  COD  B 6 22  (mg/l) C 29 14  (mg/l) B C 252 284 1 29 1 02 1 29 102  FILT. A 4 13  BOD B 4 10  (mg/l) C 0 1 4  F I L T . COD (mg/l) A B C 254 198 1 68 167 1 16 68 167 1 16 68  The April 03 effluent TSS concentrations were 244, 112 and 240 mg/l for reactors A, B and C respectively; and the May 28 effluent TSS concentration were 19, 4 and 4 mg/l for reactors  A, B and C  respectively. While the effluent TSS level was expected to play a definite role in the parametric differentiation of "raw" and filtered  105  effluents, of  a  filtrate  data  periods of was  correlation  collected  this  deemed  not in  project, the  more  treatment  overall  was  made  this  because  study.  focus was  realistic  then  efficiency  of  the  Throughout  in  under  amount  experimental  parameters  parameters  reactors  limited the  on supernatant  filtrate the  of  which  comparing  different  the  operation  conditions.  4.7 OPERATION PARAMETERS IN SBR SYSTEMS The foundamental sequencing  batch  assumption  and  parameters  difference  operation the  latter  also  batch  that  does  the  not.  have  to  be  operation. The  a continuous-flow system  former  operates  Consequently, a  and terminologies familiar  be applied indiscriminately will  is  between  under  lot  of  term  in  order  "specific  steady the  to  cycle"  clearly  used  describe  in this  state  operation  to continuous-system designers  to a sequencing batch system. New  invented  and a  cannot  terminologies a  study  sequencing is  one  such  parameter. Other time)  and  familiar food  researchers; both  to  substrate in  therefore  also  minimum)  a  such  as  microorganism  however,  variables  or  terms  the  subtle  microorganism  SBR,  all  values  are  of  ratio  parameters  (or  should be  dependent  provide  the  on  initial  some  mean  been  concentrations  time. Usually,  used to  age have  difference  and  functions  sludge  cell  adopted clearly  are  or  some Since  dependent  variables  extreme  indication  by  noted.  time  these  residence  of  the  are  (maximum parameter  interested. Specific employed  to  Cycle treat  is defined in this study the  same  words, it is the number of  amount  cycles  of  as the total  wastewater  number of  per  employed per unit flow  day. :  In  cycles another  106 Specific  By VI  was  Cycle  this  hydraulic  IV.  operating  B  due  to  VI,  the  A  and  specific  the  of  time,  per  during average  of  the  C.  ratio  of  decreased  volume.  were  decreased be  the  reactor  In  II  to  time  for  A  same  to  0.750  operating  to  noted  volume  periods  retention  reactor  were  the  retention  more  of  cycles  0.278  that  would  semi-batch  resemble  although  the  II  and  with  specific fully  is  in  finite cycle  realize  VI,  three.  the  value  unit flow  ), the  per  that  period for  larger  per  volume  operation  process  ) in order to  time, the  days  days  in periods  employed  treatment/total  system  continuous  flow  C was  and  1.33 d/l. The  operating  hydraulic  should  hydraulic  minimize the value of unit  It  and B  is, the  because a  time  filled  V  cycle, of  a  effect,  periods.  and  continuous  over  It  the  is  a  long  therefore  ( minimize the number the  kinetic  advantage  of  of a  reactor. In  was  is  filled  average  kinetics  This  the  A  of  was  II,  retention times were differed by a factor of  ( that  be  that  for  periods  IV  the  0.833 days  while  for  operating  as  average  treated/day  rate  and period  calculated  retention  days  of  1.0 d/l  V, the  of  reactors  same  cycle  the  cycles  days  hydraulic  desirable to  batch  for  was  of wastewater  flow  cycle  rate, was  periods  0.250  and  specific  time,  flow  B  would  period  c y c l e s / daily  hydraulic  specific  system.  of  average  For  closer  #  reduction  cycles  smaller  =  0.833  10 %  their average  of  daily  remained a  c y c l e s / volume  retention  the  and  of  period III  divided by During  #  definition, the  0.67 d/l, of  average  =  this  study, the  operating hydraulic  effect  periods retention  II  to  time 1.33  of  changing the IV.  was  varied  from  0.76 to  specific  cycle  is that in practical  During kept  d/l. The  specific  these  constant  purpose  of  cycle  operating while the  was  periods, specific  investigating  application of SBR  studied  the  systems to  the cycle  effect treating  107 periodic  flows,  accomodating flow  remains  can  The  NHj-N  variation  the  average  any  was  is  of the  not  large  treatment  for  this  reactors  cannot  be  totally  based  on  other  efficiency time  day  ) was  cycles kept  of to  enough  almost  six hours six  understanding  operational a  daily  SBR,  and  daily  SBR  flow  operation  cycles  of  was  to  lack  or  of  were  without  The  lower  the  effect  of  under  specific  cycle  from 0.67  on  BOD ,  C O D , and  the  by  that  response  as  reduced  }  was  the  to be the  large  SBR  for practical  researches longest  limit  of  specific  cycle cycle  cycles  done  (see  sized  the  2.4  of  fact  %  when  section  4.1.1)  case.  4  cycles  in to  the 8  studied reactor's  cycles  per  systems. to-date  chosen for length was  by  specific  (  were  However,  difference  studied  cycle  possibility  reactors  10 %  of  specific  The  decreased  only  range  range  to  experience.  unlikely the  the  noticeable  the  more, the  hours.  that  overdesigned.  C  induce  the  of  reactor  However,  all  indicated  effect  rejected  considered sufficiently  Since  an  (the  3  in  total  the  to  is  the  by  3  whether  cycles  researchers'  suspected  efficiencies.  to  SBR  reactors.  the  therefore  is  treated  2  study  significant  suggests that gross overdesigning was It  2  experimental  reason  retention  from know  from  that  treatment  to  is  the  (while  there  effluent  increased useful  if  this project, changing the  efficiency  maybe  semi-arbitrarily the  this  have  possible  overdesigning  that  not  flow-pattern  which  is  flexible  efficiency.  of  did  One  centre  be  how  example,  proportionately  treatment  removal  know  For  cycle  conditions of  d/l  to  incoming  it would  results  operational 1.33  milking  milking  adjusted  the  same).  same),  sacrificing any  to  a  of  the  be  useful in  the in  number  remains  is  changes  re-scheduling the  it  for three  utilized this the  longer  study purpose  hours.  In  was of real  108 systems,  a  large  number  problems  such  wear-out  and energy  Furthermore,  as  as  of  short-length  inadequate  the  wastage number  of  is  system  or a continuous system To  varying  sedimentation due to  pattern  the  specific  cycle  the  reactors. This  allows  of  the Sequencing  Batch  more  flow.  would  time  and  switching  present quicker of  equipment  ON/OFF  needed  increases, the  In  case, either  this  operational  modes.  influent  a multiple  flow tank  should be considered.  the has  frequent  cycles  approaching continuous  summarize, within  cycles  range no  of  effect  flexibility  System.  this on  study the  in the  ( 4 to 8 cycles/day  treatment  efficiencies  operation strategy  ), of  planning  5 . SUMMARY AND Based study,  the  on  the  major  literature  1.  milking  80%  COD  Reactor. At and  bench-scale reactors 2.  There SBR  was  no  temperature 71 to  reactor 5  removal at these of  conclusions  can  be  achieved  by  NH -N  removal  3  used in this  3  of  this  from  them,  difference  in the  (10.5 and 3 . 7 ° C ) was and  COD removal  by  the  removal  using  low  a  Sequencing  9 0 % BOD  was  removal,  5  attained  by  the  study. treatment  efficiency  efficiency  of  of  the  the  low  lower; however, an average  could still  low temperatures was  NH -N  work  drawn  21.8 and 29.8 ° C , over  21.8 and 2 9 . 8 ° C . The treatment  92 •% B O D  removal  experimental  3  90%  noticeable  operating at  the  5  effluent  removal  with  the  BOD , C O D , NH -N and Suspended Solids  parlour  Batch Biological  and  :  Very high and reliable from  review  results, together  are summarized as follows  CONCLUSIONS  be  achieved. A m m o n i a  more fluctuating; the  temperature  of  reactors  percentage  ranged from 49 to  85%. 3.  The experimental results the  range  effect 4.  0.67 to  1.33  d/l  on the treatment  Compare  to  the  BOD  Instantaneous of  and  (4  data,  5  8 cycles  per  the  COD of  data  The experimental processes were  had no  within  noticeable  treatment  efficiency  low operating temperatures.  denitrif ication  introduction was  results  day)  on  occured  required  process; but the extent of denitrif ication was 6.  specific cycle  of the Sequencing Batch Reactors.  to the effect  uncontrolled  aeration. Substrate  to  efficiency  showed more sensitivity 5.  showed that changing the  for  at this  the  beginning  denitrif ication  limited.  showed that the nitrification and denitrif ication  most efficient  in the low temperature reactor  in the 29.8°C  reactor  (10.5 and 3.7°C  109  and least  operations).  efficient  110 7.  The  treatment  affected  by  efficiency the  characteristics satisfactory 8.  BOD  and  5  in the  COD  to  the  any  mg/l  developed  sedimentation have  3.0  adverse  at  however,  effect  directly  population. Both  settling  the  seem  to  activated  20 to  sludge  30 minutes first-order  The  reaction  initial  period.  in the  the  end  the  bottom  the  of  were  settling  faction  sludge  anaerobic  characteristics  at  a  the  D.O.  was  Anaerobic mass  stage of  with  assumed  supernatant  the  aeration  reaction  sedimentation. of  transient  of  kinetics  supernatant  study,  this  on the  be  a pseudo  this  at  quickly  begins;  this  In  of  first  prevailed  phase.  not  studied (5.3 to 20 days).  during the  generally  did  biomass  concentration.  SETTLE  above  the  power  rate constant after  end  conditions  of  approximated as  substrate  conditions  generally  age  reactors  the sludge age  be  Aerobic of  the  nitrification  removal  can  much lower 9.  and  within  SBR  respect  sludge  of  after  did  the  not  biomass  population. 10. The  11.  BOD  5  to  BOD  20  ratio  was  found to  centr effluent  and 0.63 to 0.79 for the  The  of  strength  BODj, C O D , NHj-N efficiency  the  UBC  milking  and T S S .  of the reactors  be SBR  centre  However,  0.81  the  for the  treated varied  milking  effluents. greatly  percentage  remained relatively  seived  constant.  in  removal  terms  of  treatment  6. RECOMMENDATIONS Based  on  recommendations  the  made as follows  1.  The  hydraulic  efficiency  systems.  II  study  can  upset  sized  to  this  experience  that  a sudden  mass. Presumably,  of the quick retention  take  reactor  this  change  time. A factor  Reactors volumes  gained  3.  The  discrepancy  change  the  this  effect  pre-reactor  with seeded B O D  more of  on  treatment  of the literature  rate  and  characteristics  in both quantity  information  suspected  to be a  accumulated research  that  in  area  works,  experiments, will  takes  result  the  of  sludge  probably be needed  beginning of an aerobic  test  of  BOD  permit  shorter  is  more  environment  effluents  appears  the  before  during  this  data  on the  show  great  in the milking-centres.  of  of  aeration  denitrifying  SETTLE.  some  However,  extensive  denitrif ication  phase can be better  111  further  to be a need for  beginning  the consumption  involving  in  the design and management  handling facilities  mass  strongly  indicator.  milking-centre  at  properly  suggests  available  place  tank  as a  and COD data  presently  to facilitate  prominant  Systems.  data  5  period  characteristics  therefore  as an additional that  operating  is  efficiency  and quality. There  in this  denitrif ication  5  showed  both water and wastewater  The  Reactors  equalization  account  unseeded  investigations  variation  4.  between  effect  flow  Batch  in waste  of the reactor  into  temperature  A survey  some  as compared with  from  recommended for the Sequencing Batch Biological 2.  study,  on Sequencing  Batch  and smaller  However,  the sludge  of short  Sequencing  showed  in SBRs because result  of  retention times  this  from  :  continuous of  gained  for the design and research  are  high  experience  is  enzymes further  biochemical  process  at the  understood and utilized.  112  5.  The  using  successful problem treating  of  of in  SBR  to  treat  bench-scale  diffuser  other types  and  milking-centre pilot-scale  clogging did not  wastewater operations.  has  Even  occur. The applicability  of wastes should now  be examined.  been the of  very  worried SBR  to  BIBLIOGRAPHY Adamse A.D.,"Some characteristics of arthrobacters from activated sludge", Wat.Res. vol. 4, 797-803 (1970).  a  >  A i b a , Humphrey and Press, lnc.,1973.  Mills,  "Biochemical  Engineering"  2nd  dairy Ed.,  waste  Academic  Alleman, J.E., R.L. Irvine, "Nitrogen removal from wastewater using Sequencing Batch Reactors design", A l C h E Symposium series, 181-185, Water-1978. Alleman,J.E.,R.L. Irvine and R.W. Dennis, "Sequencing application to industrial waste treatment", Proc. 11th Waste Conf., Pensylvania,179-182 (July 1979). Bailey, J.E. and Hill, 1977. Bathija, P.R.,  "Jet  Ollis, D.F.  "Biochemical  Engineering  Batch Reactors Mid-Atlantic Ind.  Foundamentals",  Mcgraw  mixing design and applications", Chem.Eng., 89-94 (1982).  Bridle, T.R., D.C. Climenhage and A . Stelzig, "Start-up of nitrif ication-denitrif ication treatment plant for industrial 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 807-815 (1976). Busch, A.W., "Aerobic Biological Treatment practice" Oligodynamic press (1971).  of  Waste Waters  a full waste",  scale Proc.  : principles and  Busch, A.W. and Irvine, R.L., "Solids seperation in activated design and operation", J.WPCF, Vol.52, NO.4, 804 (1980). Chase, L.M., "A dynamic kinetic model of the activated Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 43-53 (1976).  sludge sludge  system  process",  Chen, C.Y., "Denitrif ication kinetics in a complete-mix suspended growth s y s t e m " , Proc. natl. sci. counc. ROC(A), Vol.7, No.2, 108-115 (1983). Chudoba, J., P. Grau and V. Ottova, "Control of activated sludge filimentous bulking - II. Selection of microorganisms by means of a selector", Water Res., Vol.7, 1389-1406 (1973). Chudoba, J., V. Ottova and V. Madera, "Control of activated sludge filamentous bulking - I. Effect of the hydraulic regime of degree of mixing in an aeration tank", Water Res.,Vol.7, 1163-1182 (1973). Clark, Viessman and Hammer, "Water Harper & Row, Publishers (1971).  Supply  Delwiche, C.C., "Denitrification, nitrification, John Wiley & sons (1981).  and Pollution and  Control", 3rd ED.,  atmospheric  nitrous  Dennis, W.W. and R.L. Irvine, "Effect of fill-.react ratio on sequencing biological reactors", J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 255-263 (1979). 113  oxide",  batch  114 Eckenfelder (1970)  and  Ford,  "Water  Pollution  Control", Jenkins  Book  Publishing  Goronszy, M . C , "Intermittent operation of the extended aeration process for small s y s t e m s " , J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 274-287 (1979). Guo,  P.H.M., P.J.A. Fowlie, V.W. Cairns and B.E. Jank, "Upgrading and evaluation of an oxidation ditch treating dairy wastewater", Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, Report No. EPS 4-WP-80-3 (1980).  Harwood,J.E. and D.J. Huyser, "Automated Wat.Res. v o l . 4, 695-704, (1970).  analysis  of  ammonia  in  water",  Hissett, R., E.A. Deans and M.R. Evans, "Oxygen consumption during batch aeration of piggery slurry at temperatures between 5 and 50 C " , Agr. Wastes, Vol.4, 477-478 (1982). Hoepker, E.C. and E.D. Schroeder, "The batch-activated sludge effluent quality", (1979)  effect of loading rate on J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 264-273  Hoover, S.R., J.B. Pepinsky, L. Jasewicz and N. Porges, "Aeration as a partial treatment for dairy wastes", Proc. 6th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 313-319 (1951). Hoover, S.R. "Biochemical oxidation of Vol.24, 201-206 (1953).  dairy wastes", Sewage  & Ind.  Wastes,  Irvine, R.L. and R.O. Richter, "Computer simulation and design of Sequencing Batch Biological Reactors", Proc.31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 182-192 (1976). ' Irvine, R.L. and R.O. Richter, "Comparative evaluation of Sequencing Reactors", J . of Env.Eng., A S C E , EE3, 503-514 (June 1978).  Batch  Irvine, R.L., T.P. Fox and R.O. Richter, "Investigation of fill and batch periods of Sequencing Batch Biological Reactors", Water. Res. vol.11, 713-717, Pergamon Press 1979. Irvine, R.L. and A.W. Busch, "Sequencing Batch Biological overview", J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 235-243 (1979a).  -  an  Irvine, R.L., G. Miller and A.S. Bhamrah, "Sequencing batch treatment wastewaters in rural areas", J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 244-254 (1979b).  of  Irvine, R.L., kinetics (1980).  Reactors  J.E. Alleman, G. Miller and R.W. Dennis, "Stoichiometry and of biological waste treatment", J.WPCF, Vol.52, No.7, 1997-2006  Irvine, R.L., L.H. Ketchum, R. Breyfogle of Sequencing Batch treatment", 1983)  and E.F. Barth, "Municipal application J.WPCF, Vol.55, No.5, 484-488 (May  115 Jones, G.L., "Bacterial growth and kinetics : measurement and significance the activated sludge process, Vol.7, 1475-1492 (1973).  in  Keinath, T.M., M.D. Ryckman, C.H. Dana and D.A. Hofer, "A unified approach to the design and operation of the activated sludge s y s t e m s " , Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 914-939 (1976). Ketchum, L.H., R.L. Irvine and R.W. Dennis, "Sequencing Batch Reactors to meet compliance", A l C h E S y m . Series : No.190, V o l . 75, 186-191 (water 1978). Ketchum, L.H., R.L. Irvine and P.C. Liao, "First cost analysis of Sequencing Batch Biological Reactors", J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 288-297 (1979a). Ketchum, L.H. and P.C. Liao, "Tertiary chemical treatment for Phosphorus reduction using Sequencing Batch Reactors", J.WPCF, Vol.51, No.2, 298-304 (1979b)). Kossen, N.W.F., "Mathematical modelling of fermentation and limitations", 29th S y m p . Society of General Cambridge, 327-357, Cambridge Univ. press 1979. Lindley, J.A., "Anaerobic-aerobic A S A E , 404-408 (1979).  treatment  Lipson, C. and N.J. Sheth,"Statistical Experiments", McGraw Hill, 1973.  of  Design  processes : scope Microbioi., U. of  milking centre &  Analysis  wastes", of  Engineering  Lo, K.V., R.N.Bulley, E.Kwong, "Sequencing Batch Reactor Treatment Centre Wastewater", Agricultural Wastes, (in press 1985). Loehr, R.C., "Pollution Control for Agriculture", Academic  Press  Trans.  of  Milking  1977.  Mavinic, D.S. and D.A. Koers, "Aerobic sludge digestion at cold temperatures", Canadian J . of Civil Eng., vol.4, no.4, 445-454 (1977). Metcalf and Eddy INC., "Wastewater Reuse", McGraw-Hill (1979).  Engineering  :  Treatment,  Disposal,  Moore,S.F. and E.D. Schroeder, "An investigation of the effect of residence time on aerobic bacterial denitrification", Wat.Res. vol.4, 685-694, (1970). Muchmore, C.B., E.E. Cook and M.J. Battaglia, agricultural wastewater" Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. (1976)  "Land Waste  Painter, H.A., "A review of literature on inorganic nitrogen microorganisms", Wat.Res. vol.4, 393-450, (1970). Porges, N., "Waste treatment by dairy waste d i s p o s a l " , J.Milk  application of Conf., 676-683 metabolism  in  optimal aeration - theory and practice & Food Tech. vol.18, 34-38 (1955).  in  Porges, N., "Newer aspects of waste Microbiol., Vol.2, No.1, 1-30 (1960).  treatment",  Advances  in  Applied  116 Prakasam, T.B.S. and R.C. Loehr, "Microbial denitrif ication of a wastewater containing high cone, of oxidized nitrogen", Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 1-16 (1976) Rich, L.G., "Designing aerated 67-70 (May 1983).  lagoons  to  improve  effluent  quality",  ChJEng.,  Riemer, R.E., E.E. Horsley and R.F. Wukasch, "Pilot plant studies and process selection for nitrification, city of Indianapolis, Indiana", Proc. 31st Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., 280-290 (1976). Ross, S.A., P.H.M. Guo and B.E. Jank, "Design and Selection of small wastewater treatment systems", Environmental Protection Service, Environment Canada, Report No. EPS3-WP-80-3 (1980). Silverstein, J . and Schroeder, E.D., "Performance of Sequencing Batch Reactor activated sludge process with nitrification/denitrification", J.WPCF, Vol.55, No.4, 377-384 (1983). Sobotka, M., J.Votruba and A . Prokop, "A two phase of aerobic fermentations", Biotech. & Bioeng., (1981). "Standard methods for the examination APHA-AWWA-WPCF (1975). Steel, R.G.D. and J.H. Torrie,"Principles Hill (1960). du  of &  water  oxygen uptake model vol.XXIII, 1193-1201  and wastewater",  Procedures  of  14th Ed.,  Statistics",  Toit, P.J., D.F. Toerien and T.R. Davies, "Enzymatic patterns denitrifing microbial populations", Wat.Res. vol.4,149-155, (1970).  McGraw in  two  Turk.,0., "Nitrogen removal in wastewater by nitrite production and reduction", unpublished proposal for a doctoral dissertation, UBC (1984). Vavilin, V.A., "The theory and design of aerobic Bioeng., vol. XXIV, 1721-1747 (1982).  biol. treatment",  Wang, L.K., C.P.C. Poon and M.H. Wang, "Control activated sludge process", Proc.31st Purdue Ind. (1976) Williams, F.M., "A 190-207 (1967). Zall,  model  of  cell  growth  tests Waste  dynamics",  Biotech.  &  & kinetics of Conf., 501-524  J.Theo.Biol.  R.R.,"Characteristics of milking centre waste effluent from State dairy farms", J.Milk Food Tech. Voi.35, 53-55 (1972)  New  Vol.15, York  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0058897/manifest

Comment

Related Items