UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effect of excess carbon in the anoxic basin of a biological pre-denitrification system for the treatment.. 1988

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1988_A7 C37.pdf [ 12.45MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0062820.json
JSON-LD: 1.0062820+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0062820.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0062820+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0062820+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0062820+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0062820.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECT OF EXCESS CARBON IN THE ANOXIC BASIN OF A BIOLOGICAL PRE-DENITRIFICATION SYSTEM FOR THE TREATMENT OF LANDFILL LEACHATE by BRIAN NEAL CARLEY B.A.Sc. C C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g ) , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1988 © B r i a n Neal Car ley, 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date Oct /V , ABSTRACT This study investigated the e f f e c t of excess carbon loading i n the anoxic reactor on the nitrogen removal capacity of a b i o l o g i c a l p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system for the treatment of a high ammonia leachate. The inf l u e n t leachate was low i n degradable organic carbon, thus an external carbon source was needed for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n requirements. Four d i f f e r e n t carbon sources were studied: methanol, glucose, acetate, and a waste brewer's yeast. The carbon loading was increased over the duration of the experimental period. The COD:NOx added to the anoxic reactor reached more than three times the carbon loading required to just achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . A l l f o u r c a r b o n s o u r c e s were found t o s u p p o r t d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , but the glucose system showed e r r a t i c behaviour and ultimately f a i l e d a f t e r reaching a CODrNOx loading of about 23:1. The system using acetate appeared to require the lea s t amount of COD:NOx (5.9:1) for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , followed c l o s e l y by methanol (6.2:1), then the yeast waste (8.5:1), and f i n a l l y by glucose (9:1). Carbon breakthrough, the bleeding of carbon from the anoxic reactor into the aerobic reactor, was observed to occur j u s t a f t e r complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was reached. The excess carbon did not appear to have any e f f e c t on d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , except i n the case of the glucose system. The uni t n i t r i f i c a t i o n was found to decrease as the CODrNOx was increased, even though the ammonia removal remained at 100%. The decrease i n n i t r i f i c a t i o n , with respect to the COD:NOx, was most pronounced i n the system that used methanol, and about equal i n the other three systems. The cause of the decrease i n n i t r i f i c a t i o n i s suspected to be due to increased ammonia assimilation by the heterotrophs rather than an i n h i b i t i o n of the n i t r i f i e r s . N i t r i f i c a t i o n ceased i n the glucose system, but was restored within 12 days a f t e r the glucose addition was halted. The cause of the f a i l u r e of the nitrogen removal process i n the glucose system was not determined. N i t r i t e accumulation was observed i n a l l the systems except the methanol system. The yeast waste system had n i t r i t e accumulation i n the aerobic reactor at C0D:N0x loadings over 25:1. Free ammonia i n h i b i t i o n of Nitrobacter i s suspected to be the cause of aerobic n i t r i t e buildup. The glucose and acetate systems had n i t r i t e buildup i n the anoxic reactor u n t i l complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved. Facultative anaerobic bacteria are suspected of causing t h i s n i t r i t e accumulation. This theory was supported by observations i n the glucose system, such as low anoxic pH; t h i s may have been due to v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids produced from fermentation. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i i i LIST OF FIGURES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i i 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATURE SEARCH 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION 7 2.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT 10 2.2.1 Physical-Chemical 10 2.2.2 Recirculation.. 11 2.2.3 B i o l o g i c a l Assimilation 12 2.3 NITRIFICATION 13 2.3.1 N i t r i f i c a t i o n I n h i b i t i o n 14 2.3.2 N i t r i f i c a t i o n of Leachate 16 2.4 DENITRIFICATION 17 2.4.1 Carbon Sources 18 2.4.2 Carbon Breakthrough 21 3 . EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND OPERATION 24 3.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM 24 3.1.1 Leachate Feed 24 3.1.2 Anoxic Reactor 28 3.1.2.1 Carbon Solutions 29 3.1.3 Aerobic Reactor 32 3.1.4 C l a r i f i e r 32 iv 3.2 OPERATION 3 3 3.2.1 Methanol and Glucose 33 3.2.2 Acetate and Yeast Waste.. 35 4 . ANALYTICAL METHODS 40 4.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN 40 4.2 pH 40 4.3 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL 40 4 . 4 TEMPERATURE 41 4.5 SOLIDS. 41 4.6 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 41 4.7 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 42 4.8 METAL CONCENTRATION 42 4 . 9 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 43 4.10 NITRITE. 44 4.11 NITRITE + NITRATE 44 4.12 AMMONIA 44 4.12.1 Colorimetry 45 4.12.2 D i s t i l l a t i o n 45 4.13 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 45 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48 5.1 pH 48 5.1.1 Methanol 48 5.1.2 Glucose 49 5.1.3 Acetate 52 5.1.4 Yeast Waste 52 5.2 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL 52 5.2.1 Methanol and Acetate 55 v 5.2.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste 55 5.3 METALS 58 5.4 SOLIDS 58 5.4.1 Methanol and Acetate 59 5.4.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste 62 5.5 COLOUR 64 5 . 6 CARBON REMOVAL. . .'. 66 5.6.1 COD Removal 66 5.6.1.1 Total COD Removal ... 67 5.6.1.2 Anoxic COD Removal 67 5.6.1.3 Aerobic COD Removal 72 5.6.2 BOD5 Removal 72 5.7 NITROGEN REMOVAL 73 5.7.1 Ammonia Removal 82 5.7.2 N i t r i f i c a t i o n 87 5.7.3 D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n 93 5.8 UNIT REMOVAL RATES 102 5.8.1 COD & BOD Removal..... 103 5.8.2 Ammonia Removal 103 5.8.3 N i t r i f i c a t i o n 117 5.8.4 D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n 117 5.9 NITRITE BUILDUP 122 5.9.1 Methanol 123 5.9.2 Glucose 123 5.9.3 Acetate 126 5.9.4 Yeast Waste 127 5.10 GLUCOSE SYSTEM FAILURE 130 v i 5.11 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 131 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 135 6.1 CONCLUSIONS 135 6 . 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 14 0 REFERENCES 142 APPENDICES (DATA FOR FIGURES) 149 v i i LIST OF TABLES 1. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BURNS BOG LEACHATE 27 2. BREWER'S YEAST WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 31 3 . BASIC OPERATING CONDITIONS 34 4 . INFLUENT AMMONIA, TKN, AND FILTERED TKN 47 5. PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 133 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES 1. NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESS SCHEMATIC 5 2. EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 25 3. BURNS BOG LANDFILL SITE 26 4. COD:NOx FOR METHANOL AND GLUCOSEOSE 3 6 5. CODtNOx FOR ACETATE AND YEAST WASTE 48 6. METHANOL: COD:NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH 50 7. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH 51 8. ACETATE: COD:NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH 53 9. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH 54 10. METHANOL & ACETATE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC ORP 56 11. GLUCOSE & YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC ORP.. 57 12a. METHANOL: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC VSS 60 12b. ACETATE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC VSS 60 13. METHANOL & ACETATE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC VSS/TSS 61 14a. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC VSS 63 14b. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC VSS 63 15. GLUCOSE & YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx V S ANOXIC VSS/TSS 65 16. METHANOL: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 68 17. GLUCOSE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 79 18. ACETATE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 70 19. YEAST WASTE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 71 20. METHANOL: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 74 21. GLUCOSE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 75 22. ACETATE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 76 ix 23. YEAST WASTE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 77 24. METHANOL: 5-DAY BOD 78 25. GLUCOSE: 5-DAY BOD 79 26. ACETATE: 5-DAY BOD 80 27. YEAST WASTE: 5-DAY BOD 81 28. METHANOL: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 83 29. GLUCOSE: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 84 30. ACETATE: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 85 31. YEAST WASTE: PERCENT FILTERED TKN REMOVAL 86 32. METHANOL: COD:NOx vs PERCENT NITRIFICATION 89 33. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx vs PERCENT NITRIFICATION 90 34. ACETATE: COD:NOx vs PERCENT NITRIFICATION 91 35. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx vs PERCENT NITRIFICATION 92 36. METHANOL: COD:NOx vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 94 37. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 95 38. ACETATE: COD:NOx VS PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 96 39. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx VS PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 97 40. METHANOL: COD:NOx<6:l vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 98 41. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx<10:l vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 99 42. ACETATE: COD:NOx<6:l V S PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 100 43. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx<9:l vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION.. 101 44. METHANOL: UNIT COD REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 104 45. METHANOL: UNIT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL RATES 105 46. GLUCOSE: UNIT COD REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 106 47. GLUCOSE: UNIT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL RATES 107 48. ACETATE: UNIT COD REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 108 49. ACETATE: UNIT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL RATES 109 x 50. YEAST WASTE: UNIT COD REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 110 51. YEAST WASTE: UNIT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL RATES I l l 52. METHANOL: UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 113 53. GLUCOSE: UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 114 54. ACETATE: UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) 115 55. YEAST WASTE: UNIT FILTERED TKN REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS).. 116 56. METHANOL: UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION RATES. 118 57. GLUCOSE: UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION RATES.. 129 58. ACETATE: UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION RATES.. 120 59. YEAST WASTE: UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION RATES ... 121 60. METHANOL: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 121 61. GLUCOSE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 125 62. ACETATE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 128 63. YEAST WASTE: COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 129 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to thank Dr. D.S. Mavinic for h i s guidance and counselling throughout the course of t h i s study. Dr. Mavinic provided much needed support and advice for a l l aspects of t h i s research. I would also l i k e to thank Susan Liptak, Paula Parkinson, and Romy So, of the U.B.C. Environmental Engineering Laboratory, for the invaluable help and assistance that they provided. Without t h e i r help, t h i s study would not have been possible. I would l i k e to acknowledge the cooperation of the Carling O'Keefe Brewing Company for providing the waste brewer's yeast used i n t h i s study. Special thanks to Mr. Tom Saunders of Carling O'Keefe for his help i n se l e c t i n g the proper waste stream from the brewing process. Lastly, I thank Murray Sexton for c o l l e c t i n g the Burn's Bog L a n d f i l l leachate every friday, and David H i l t s f or the use of h i s computer. x i i 1. INTRODUCTION Thi s i n t r o d u c t i o n w i l l b r i e f l y outline the b i o l o g i c a l processes of n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and the concept of carbon breakthrough on which t h i s study i s based. N i t r i f i c a t i o n i s an aerobic b i o l o g i c a l process conducted by autotrophic bacteria. These bacteria are predominantly of the genera Nitrosomonas and N i t r o b a c t e r , and, u n l i k e heterotrophic bacteria which derive energy through the oxidation of organic carbon compounds, these autotrophs derive energy from the oxidation of inorganic nitrogen compounds, such as ammonia and n i t r i t e . Nitrosomonas can only oxidize ammonia to n i t r i t e , and Nitrobacter can only oxidize n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e . Both these autotrophs u t i l i z e inorganic carbon compounds, such as carbon dioxide and carbonate, for c e l l synthesis. N i t r i f i c a t i o n reduces the a l k a l i n i t y , and, i f synthesis i s neglected, a l k a l i n i t y i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y reduced by 7.14 mg as CaC0 3 for every mg ammonia nitrogen oxidized. The equations for synthesis-oxidation for n i t r i f i c a t i o n are l i s t e d . These equations assume that a b a c t e r i a l c e l l i s C 5H 7N0 2 (U.S. EPA 1975). For Nitrosomonas: 55NH£ + V60 2 + 109HCO3" > C 5H 7N0 2 + 54N02"+ 57H20 + 104H2CO3 1 (1) For Nitrobacter: 400NO2"+ NH£ + 4H 2C0 3 + HC03'+ 1950 2 > C 5H 7N0 2 + 3H20 + 400NO3" (2) The growth r a t e f o r Nitrosomonas i s reported to be considerably less than the rate for Nitrobacter (U.S. EPA 1975). This means that aerobic n i t r i t e accumulation should not occur unless the Nitrobacter experience some form of i n h i b i t i o n . N i t r i f i c a t i o n i s also very s e n s i t i v e to pH outside the optimum range of pH 7-9 (U.S. EPA 1975) . I f the pH drops below 7, n i t r i f i c a t i o n may be greatly reduced. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i s the b i o l o g i c a l process that ultimately converts n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e to gaseous nitrogen, generally n i t r o g e n gas. Many b a c t e r i a , such as Pseudomonas, Archromobacter, Micrococcus, and B a c i l l u s , are known to have the c a p a b i l i t y f o r d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n (U.S. EPA 1975). Facultative anaerobic bacteria have been shown to reduce n i t r a t e to n i t r i t e only, using glucose as an electron donor, and are not considered true d e n i t r i f i e r s (Wilderer et a l . 1987). D e n i t r i f i e r s are heterotrophic bacteria that oxidize organic, carbon compounds for energy. The true d e n i t r i f i e r s can use either oxygen or n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e as the terminal 2 electron acceptor for the same metabolic pathways, but oxygen i s preferred i f i t i s available. Oxygen represses the enzymes required for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n (Simpkin and Boyle 1985). An anoxic condition i s when oxygen i s absent and compounds that can donate oxygen, such as n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e , are present. Anaerobic conditions occur when there i s an absence of oxygen, n i t r a t e , and n i t r i t e . D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n releases a l k a l i n i t y at a t h e o r e t i c a l rate of 3.57 mg a l k a l i n i t y as CaC0 3 per mg of n i t r a t e nitrogen reduced to nitrogen gas. The following equations i l l u s t r a t e d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n using methanol for n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e reduction, and d e n i t r i f i e r c e l l synthesis (from U.S. EPA 1975). A c e l l i s assumed to be C5H7NO2• Nit r a t e Reduction to N i t r i t e : N03"+ 0.33CH3OH > N02"+ 0.33H2O + 0.33H2CO3 (3) N i t r i t e Reduction to Nitrogen Gas: N02"+ 0.5CH3OH + 0.5H2CO3 > 0.5N2 + HC03~+ H 20 (4) D e n i t r i f i e r Synthesis: 3 3N03~+ 14CH3OH + 4H 2C0 3 (5) > 3C 5H 7N0 2 + 20H2O + 3HC03" The reactions for the other carbon sources w i l l be s i m i l a r and w i l l not be presented. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n becomes se n s i t i v e to pH at values under pH 7 and over pH 8 (U.S. EPA 1975). The nitrogen removal system used i n t h i s study was a single sludge p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n completely mixed activated sludge system. P r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n indicates that the anoxic reactor was placed before the aerobic reactor. The i n f l u e n t ammonia entered the anoxic reactor, where about 10% was removed by as s i m i l a t i o n . The ammonia then entered the aerobic reactor where n i t r i f i c a t i o n converted i t to n i t r a t e . Some ammonia may have been l o s t to assimilation and a i r s t r i p p i n g , but these losses were assumed to be n e g l i g i b l e . The n i t r i f i e d mixed l i q u o r from the aerobic reactor then passed into the c l a r i f i e r to separate the s o l i d s from the supernatant. The n i t r i f i e d return sludge was recycled back to the front of the system into the anoxic reactor. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n the anoxic reactor ultimately converted the n i t r a t e to nitrogen gas by using external carbon. This process t r a i n i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1. I f the aerobic reactor was placed before the anoxic reactor, then d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n may carry over into the c l a r i f i e r and produce nitrogen gas that could r e s u l t i n a r i s i n g sludge and poor s e t t l i n g . Carbon oxidation i d e a l l y occurs only by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n the anoxic reactor. 4 INFLUENT AMMONIA N 2 G A S AMMONIA FOR ANOXIC ASSIM. NO" + 0.33CH OH * 3 3 NO" + 0.33H 0 + 0.33H CO 2 2 2 3 NO"+ 0.5CH OH + 0.5H CO 2 3 2 3 -* 0.5N + HCO + H 0 2 2 3N0 + 14CH OH + 4H CO * 3 3 2 3 3C H NO + 20H 0 + 3HC0" 5 7 2 3 ANOXIC REACTOR NOx 55NH++ 760"+109HC0; • 4 2 3 C H NO + 54N0 + 57H 0 + 104H CO" 5 7 2 3 2 2 3 400NO" + NH++ 4H CO" + HCO + 1950 2 4 2 3 3 2 > C H NO + 3H 0 + 400N0" 57 2 2 3 iii NOx AEROBIC REACTOR EFFLUENT CLARIFIER Ideally, only n i t r i f i c a t i o n occurs i n the aerobic reactor. I f carbon i s added to the anoxic reactor i n excess of the minimum required to sustain complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , then carbon can bleed into the aerobic reactor. This i s c a l l e d "carbon breakthrough". The aerobic reactor may have both n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , as well as heterotrophic carbon oxidation, occurring at the same time. Excess carbon i n the anoxic basin may promote anaerobic conditions when the n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e has been used up. Fermentation under anaerobic conditions may lower the pH due to the production of v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids; these i n turn may disrupt e i t h e r the d e n i t r i f i e r s or n i t r i f i e r s . The e f f e c t of excess carbon added to the anoxic reactor was the purpose of t h i s study. The waste being treated was a high-ammonia municipal l a n d f i l l leachate. 6 2. LITERATURE SEARCH This b r i e f l i t e r a t u r e review examines nitrogen removal, p a r t i c u l a r l y n i t r o g e n removal by n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . This review examines only those references which are considered to be germane to t h i s study. There are four sections i n t h i s review. The introduction gives some reasons on the need for leachate treatment by examining the formation of l a n d f i l l leachate, leachate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and health aspects of nitrogen compounds. The next section i s a b r i e f discussion on leachate treatment for nitrogen removal other than by n i t r i f i c a t i o n or d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . N i t r i f i c a t i o n i s then discussed i n some d e t a i l , e s p e c i a l l y i n h i b i t i o n of n i t r i f i e r s as n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n h i b i t i o n was observed i n the re s u l t s of t h i s study. The l a s t section i s on d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n and deals mainly with various carbon sources as an alt e r n a t i v e to methanol for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes. The e f f e c t of carbon breakthrough i n p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n systems i s also examined because the purpose of t h i s study was to induce carbon breakthrough, the bleeding of the anoxic carbon source into the aerobic reactor, and observe the ef f e c t s on b i o l o g i c a l nitrogen removal. 2.1 INTRODUCTION The primary concern connected with the disposal of refuse into l a n d f i l l s i s the generation of leachate. Leachate i s 7 produced when water, from p r e c i p i t a t i o n , surface runoff, groundwater intrusion, or from within the refuse, percolates through the refuse. As the water seeps through the l a n d f i l l , contaminants are leached out of the refuse and incorporated into the water, thus producing leachate. The contaminants are from the refuse d i r e c t l y or from products of b a c t e r i a l degradation. The composition of leachate can vary widely between l a n d f i l l s and even between d i f f e r e n t c e l l s within the same l a n d f i l l . The leachate composition can vary with the age of the refuse, the amount of water entering the l a n d f i l l , and with the amount and type of i n d u s t r i a l wastes incorporated into the waste stream ( F u l l e r , et a l . 1979) . Jasper, et a l . (1985, 1986) hypothesized that the organic constituents of leachate varied with water flow and retention time within the l a n d f i l l . Some t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l a n d f i l l leachate are low BOD, high refractory COD, high ammonia, low phosphorus, and the presence of a wide range of metals and t o x i c o r g a n i c contaminants (Henry 1985). The common inorganic constituents of leachate are chlorides, sulphates, bicarbonates, ammonia, iron (II), manganese (II), sodium, potassium, calcium, chromium, copper, n i c k e l , lead, and zinc (Jasper, et a l . 1986). Chian, et a l . (1985) stated that l a n d f i l l s have 5 basic stages of b i o l o g i c a l degradation. The f i r s t i s a r e l a t i v e l y short aerobic decomposition phase, which can l a s t from one to si x months, depending on the amount of a i r space within the 8 refuse. The second stage i s a t r a n s i t i o n from an aerobic to an anoxic/anaerobic microbial population. Nitrates, n i t r i t e s , and sulphates are used when the oxygen has been depleted. The t h i r d , or a c i d formation, stage involves f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobic bacteria, which degrade organic material into v o l a t i l e f a t t y a c i d s . The fourth stage involves the establishment of methanogenic bacteria which u t i l i z e the fa t t y acids to form methane and carbon dioxide. During these l a s t two stages, a byproduct i s ammonia, converted from organic nitrogen. This i s the reason that "older" l a n d f i l l s have high ammonia leachate (Henry 1985). The f i f t h and f i n a l stage i s f i n a l maturation, c h a r a c t e r i z e d by l i t t l e b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y as the r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e organic material and nutrients have been v i r t u a l l y exhausted. The constituent of concern i n t h i s study i s ammonia. Ammonia le v e l s i n l a n d f i l l leachates have been reported at 70-150 mg/L ( F u l l e r , et a l . 1979), 76-790 mg/L (Robinson 1985), and 200-600 mg/L (Knox 1985) . Ammonia concentrations i n the Vancouver area are up to 372 mg/L for the Port Mann l a n d f i l l leachate (Jasper, et a l . 1986) and about 200-250 mg/L for the Burns Bog l a n d f i l l leachate used i n t h i s study. Ammonia has been shown to be to x i c to f i s h , and can also a f f e c t receiving waters through eutrophication, nitrogenous oxygen depletion, and n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e contamination (Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed. 1983) . There are health hazards 9 a s s o c i a t e d with n i t r a t e s and n i t r i t e s such as infant methemoglobinemia, and the suspected formation of potent c a r c i n o g e n i c compounds c a l l e d nitrosamines (Shuval and Gruener 1975). Mirvish (1975) reported that n i t r a t e s may increase the r i s k of g a s t r i c cancer, and that N-Nitroso (NNO-) compounds, r e a d i l y formed by n i t r i t e and eit h e r amines or amides, may also be human carcinogens. 2.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT High ammonia leachate can be treated by several d i f f e r e n t methods other than by b i o l o g i c a l n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Physical-chemical methods, r e c i r c u l a t i o n , and b i o l o g i c a l removal by a s s i m i l a t i o n are v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The choice for each method, or combination thereof, w i l l depend on the leachate c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the amount and form of nitrogen to be removed, and the economics involved. 2.2.1 Physical-Chemical Physical-chemical treatment can include a i r s t r i p p i n g , ion- exchange, and breakpoint ch l o r i n a t i o n . The Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed. (1983) and the U.S. EPA (1975) have produced manuals for the design and theory of nitrogen removal, and include these physical-chemical removal techniques. Atkins and S h c e r g e r (1975) summarized the advantages and disadvantages of nitrogen removal by physical-chemical methods. The advantages of most physical-chemical methods are 10 a u n i f o r m i t y of removal, i n s e n s i t i v i t y to toxins and temperature, and minimal sludge production i n most cases. The disadvantages are the high cost of chemicals and power. The physical-chemical methods so far described cannot remove organic nitrogen, thus chemical coagulation, f i l t r a t i o n , and possibly activated carbon adsorption may be necessary. Keenan, et a l . (1984) used a i r s t r i p p i n g to remove ammonia from l a n d f i l l leachate. Chemical p r e c i p i t a t i o n was used to remove metals and increase the pH for the a i r s t r i p p i n g process. Aerobic b i o l o g i c a l treatment was necessary to remove BOD, organic nitrogen, and residual ammonia from the a i r s t r i p p i n g process. 2.2.2 Rec i r c u l a t i o n Re c i r c u l a t i o n of the leachate back into the l a n d f i l l i s not an ultimate nitrogen removal technique but rather a possible means for a s l i g h t nitrogen reduction. R e c i r c u l a t i o n i s generally accomplished by spray i r r i g a t i o n onto the l a n d f i l l surface. Robinson and Maris (1985) did a 3 year f i e l d study and concluded that r e c i r c u l a t i o n promoted more rapid s t a b i l i z a t i o n of BOD, decreased leachate volume through evaporation, and possibly produced a stronger but more consistent leachate. Ammonia may have been removed by a i r st r i p p i n g and by aerobic bacteria. A i r s t r i p p i n g by spray i r r i g a t i o n was probably f a i r l y low due to a leachate pH of 7, whereas optimal pH for a i r s t r i p p i n g i s above 10 (Water 11 p o l l u t i o n Control Fed. 1983; U.S. EPA 1975). Maris, et a l . (1985) , commenting on the same 3 year study, stated that r e c i r c u l a t i o n i s only an intermediate step and not an end solution. Stegmann and Spendlin (1985) studied spray r e c i r c u l a t i o n and determined that spray i r r i g a t i o n should be practiced to promote leachate volume reduction and for greater b i o l o g i c a l treatment within the l a n d f i l l , before being sent to a treatment plant. 2.2.3 B i o l o g i c a l Assimilation B i o l o g i c a l nitrogen assimilation i s the removal of nitrogen as a nutrient for c e l l synthesis. This method requires a high BOD loading to stimulate b i o l o g i c a l growth. Robinson and Maris (1985) conducted a laboratory study to tr e a t r e l a t i v e l y low ammonia l a n d f i l l leachate. An aerobic, completely-mixed f i l l and draw system was used. Influent ammonia concentration was 76 mg/L and effl u e n t l e v e l s were below 1 mg/L. The study concluded that since the BOD:N was 100:5, the nitrogen was used f o r m e t a b o l i c purposes r a t h e r than used f o r n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Robinson (1988) treated a high ammonia leachate i n an aerated lagoon. The leachate had a low BOD: N (as low as 1:1), so an i n d u s t r i a l jam waste was incorporated into the leachate stream to bring the BOD:N up to 100:9, which was lower than the optimum 100:5. At 100:9, 15% of the ammonia 12 was removed by assimilation, while 25% was observed to be n i t r i f i e d . The remaining 60% was unaccounted for, but thought to be due a i r s t r i p p i n g and n i t r i f i c a t i o n with d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Boyle and Ham (1974) studied the e f f e c t of leachate addition to sewage i n the amounts of between 0 and 20%, using a lab- scale completely mixed aerobic f i l l and draw system. The leachate had a high COD (10,000 mg/L) . They concluded that leachate could be added at a rate as high as 5%, without a serious increase i n oxygen uptake rate or s u b s t a n t i a l l y increased s o l i d s production. They i n f e r that the nitrogen was removed by b i o l o g i c a l assimilation. K e l l y (1987) also studied leachate addition to sewage before treatment i n a sewage treatment plant. Leachate was added at 2%, 4%, and 16% by volume to sewage into a p i l o t - s c a l e aerobic activated sludge plant. The leachate COD was over 1100 mg/L and the ammonia was about 70 mg/L. Ammonia removals of up to 80% were observed for the 4% addition. Ammonia removal data was not available for the 16% leachate addition. 2.3 NITRIFICATION N i t r i f i c a t i o n i s a b i o l o g i c a l process through which ammonia becomes oxidized to n i t r i t e and then further oxidized to n i t r a t e . As described i n the Chapter 1, the autotrophic 13 bacteria Nitrosomonas f i r s t converts the ammonia to n i t r i t e , and then Nitrobacter converts n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e . Detailed reference to t h i s process i s widely documented (U.S. EPA 1975; Benefield and Randall 1980; Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed. 1983; Barnes and B l i s s 1983; Water Research Commission, S.A. 1984). N i t r i f i c a t i o n can be i n h i b i t e d by many substances, many of which are found i n l a n d f i l l leachate. 2.3.1 N i t r i f i c a t i o n I n h i b i t i o n N i t r i f i c a t i o n has been reported to be affected by a wide range of i n h i b i t o r s , such as metals, pH, extreme temperatures, and even free ammonia and nitrous acid. Metals are important as many d i f f e r e n t metals can be present i n leachate. Beg and Hassan (1987) studied the i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s of hexavalent chromium, t r i v a l e n t arsenic, and f l u o r i d e on n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n a packed-bed b i o l o g i c a l flow reactor, and found that a l l three induced i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s . Dedhar (1985), Dedhar and Mavinic (1985) reported that e l e v a t e d manganese c o n c e n t r a t i o n s d i d not i n h i b i t n i t r i f i c a t i o n of high ammonia leachate, but that zinc i n concentrations of 17.6 mg/L did cause substantial i n h i b i t i o n . Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) studied the t o x i c i t y e f f e c t s of zinc, chromium, and n i c k e l on a b i o l o g i c a l pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n leachate treatment system. Preliminary analysis indicates that n i t r i f i c a t i o n was i n h i b i t e d by a l l three metals. They also observed the combined e f f e c t of zinc and cold temperature has also shown serious i n h i b i t o r y 14 e f f e c t s on n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The e f f e c t of ammonia and nitrous acid, the acid form of n i t r i t e , are of intere s t because these compounds are the substrates for the n i t r i f i e r s . Anthonsen, et a l . (1976) conducted a study on the i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s of un-ionized ammonia and un-ionized nitrous acid on n i t r i f i c a t i o n . They concluded that both caused some i n h i b i t i o n , and that un- ionized ammonia s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected the conversion of n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e by Nitrobacter. Suthersan and Ganczarczyk (1986) studied the i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t s on Nitrobacter by un-ionized ammonia. They found that pH played an important role i n the i n h i b i t i o n by the ammonia. Higher pH (pH 8.0-8.8) caused greater i n h i b i t i o n . Turk (1986), Turk and Mavinic (1986) attempted to use unionized ammonia for a shortened pathway for complete nitrogen removal. The process involved oxidation of ammonia to n i t r i t e only due to the presence of un-ionized ammonia, and then d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of the n i t r i t e to nitrogen gas. This system was able to operate u n t i l Nitrobacter apparently was able to acclimatize to the high l e v e l s of free ammonia. Keenan, et a l . (1979) reported that ammonia l e v e l s over 300 mg/L i n h i b i t e d both the oxidation of ammonia and organic m a t e r i a l . They a l s o suspected that n i t r i f i c a t i o n was 15 i n h i b i t e d by r e l a t i v e l y high BOD and COD concentrations of 9000 mg/L and 16,000 mg/L respectively. Mueller, et a l . (1985) reported that shock loading of ammonia i n a r e f i n e r y waste caused temporary i n h i b i t i o n of the n i t r i f i c a t i o n process. This may have been caused by free ammonia i n h i b i t i o n or by a lag time by the microbial organisms to respond to the shock load. Hooper and Terry (1973) studied i n h i b i t o r s of Nitrosomonas and concluded that short-chain alcohols such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol were s i g n i f i c a n t i n h i b i t o r s of ammonia oxidation. 2.3.2 N i t r i f i c a t i o n of Leachate N i t r i f i c a t i o n of l a n d f i l l l e a c h a t e has been used successfully to remove ammonia. Dedhar (1985) and Mavinic and R a n d a l l ( u n p u b l i s h e d ) used p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n b i o l o g i c a l systems to remove ammonia. Cook and Foree (1974) used a lab-scale f i l l and draw aerobic reactor to remove organic material from leachate. At the same time, they noted n i t r a t e increase with an ammonia decrease, which was at t r i b u t e d to n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Knox (1985) operated an outdoor aerobic activated sludge p i l o t plant and a t r i c k l i n g f i l t e r p i l o t plant over a two y e a r p e r i o d . The i n f l u e n t l e a c h a t e had ammonia 16 concentrations i n the range of 150-500 mg/L. Complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established i n both plants. 2.4 DENITRIFICATION D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i s the b i o l o g i c a l reduction of n i t r a t e to n i t r i t e , and then a further reduction of n i t r i t e to nitrogen gas. The b a c t e r i a , capable of n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e r e s p i r a t i o n , are heterotrophic bacteria which, unlike the a u t o t r o p h i c n i t r i f i e r s , require organic carbon as an electron donor. The d e n i t r i f i e r s produce an enzyme which enables them to use n i t r a t e or n i t r i t e . This enzyme i s repressed i n the presence of oxygen (Simpkin and Boyle 1985). Many b a c t e r i a l species are capable of d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n (U.S. EPA 1975; Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed. 1983). D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n requires the absence of oxygen, the presence of n i t r a t e or n i t r i t e , and a r e a d i l y degradable organic carbon source. The absence of oxygen can be e a s i l y managed and n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e can be supplied v i a n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The organic carbon must either be present i n the i n f l u e n t or added to the anoxic reactor from an external source. In the case of "older" leachate, which i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y low i n e a s i l y degradable organic carbon, an external carbon source i s necessary. The external source has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been methanol, but the price of methanol has r i s e n dramatically so a l t e r n a t i v e carbon sources have been evaluated. 17 2.4.1 Carbon Sources The most famous paper on carbon sources for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i s by McCarty, et a l . (1969) . They tested a c e t i c acid, acetone, ethanol, sugar, and methanol. Their data shows that a c e t i c acid and ethanol were equally e f f e c t i v e , i f not more so, for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes as methanol. Methanol was chosen to be the preferred carbon source on the basis of economics, as methanol was the less expensive than acetic acid and ethanol at the time. The U.S. EPA Process Design Manual f o r Nitrogen Control (1975) suggests the use of methanol based p a r t i a l l y on the McCarty paper. The manual even has an ent i r e section devoted to the handling, storage, feed control, and removal of methanol. Barnes and B l i s s (1983) mention a l t e r n a t i v e carbon sources such as a c e t i c acid, acetone, raw waste water, methane, and endogenous r e s p i r a t i o n products, but a l l the d e t a i l s for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n calculations are based on methanol as the electron donor. Methanol has been used successfully for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n many d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n studies (Smith 1971 Vol.l&2; Climenhage 1972; Sutton, et a l . 1975; Lewandoswki 1982; Kaplan, et a l . 1984; Melcer, et a l . 1984; Manoharan, et a l . 1988; Mavinic and Randall (unpublished)). The price of methanol has r i s e n 18 with the p r i c e of petroleum and i s now an expensive carbon source for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n (Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed. 1983). A l t e r n a t i v e l y , less expensive carbon sources have become desirable and have been studied. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n has been achieved using ni t r o - c e l l u o s e (Mudrack 1961), f i s h meal and g e l a t i n (Ludzack and Ettinger 1962), la c t a t e (du T o i t and Davies 1973), peptone (Paskins, et a l . 1978), and acetone (Lewandoswki 1982). Glucose (Schroeder and Busch 1967; Paskins, et a l . 1978; Dedhar 1985) and a glucose and sodium acetate mixture (Argaman and Brenner 1986) have also been found to be s a t i s f a c t o r y for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Lewandowski (1982) found acetic acid more e f f e c t i v e than methanol for increasing the d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate, and Narkis, et a l . (1979) found sodium acetate to be j u s t as e f f e c t i v e as methanol. Wilderer, et a l . (1987) used lab-scale sequencing batch reactors to d e n i t r i f y n i t r a t e . Two SBR systems were studied, one with glucose as the carbon source, and the other with acetate. While the acetate system performed p e r f e c t l y , the glucose system started to accumulate n i t r i t e . The authors concluded that glucose promoted fermentative conditions under which f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes predominated. F a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes are thought to be capable of n i t r a t e to n i t r i t e conversion, hence the n i t r i t e buildup. These findings are i n accordance with a study by Blaszczyk (1983) i n which d i f f e r e n t carbon sources, ethanol, methanol, glucose, and 19 acetate were each found to produce a d i f f e r e n t dominating species of d e n i t r i f i e r s under d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n conditions. Only glucose showed problems by accumulating n i t r i t e , and lowered pH due possibly to f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes under fermentative conditions. Manoharan, et a l . (1988), and Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) used a p i l o t - s c a l e s i n g l e sludge pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system to treat high ammonia leachate. Glucose and methanol were compared as carbon sources. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n with methanol proved to be consistent and r e l i a b l e . In c o n t r a s t , glucose provided u n r e l i a b l e d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , which fluctuated from 0-100%. Both the pH and ORP i n the anoxic basin dropped, which i n d i c a t i n g the presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. N i t r i t e buildup also occurred at t h i s time. Wastes that are high i n degradable carbon are also being investigated for s u i t a b i l i t y i n the d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n process. Primary sludge (Abufayed and Schroeder 1986) and raw sewage (Nicholls 1975; Tholander 1975) are reported to work very r e l i a b l y . Beer and Wang (1978) used endogenous r e s p i r a t i o n to provide carbon for n i t r a t e r e s p i r a t i o n . I n d u s t r i a l wastes such as brewery waste (Wilson and Newton 1973) , i n d u s t r i a l organic wastes (H a l t r i c h 1967), and phenolic waste with methanol addition (Nutt and Marvan 1984) 20 have been investigated with favorable r e s u l t s . Monteith, et a l . (1979, 1980) reviewed 30 wastes and compared the d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates with that of methanol. Twenty-seven of the wastes exhibited d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates greater than or equal to that of methanol. The majority of these wastes were from the food and beverage industry, e s p e c i a l l y the brewery and d i s t i l l e r y industries. Skrinde and Bhagat (1982) compared yeast, corn s i l a g e , whey, and spent s u l p h i t e l i q u o r wastes with methanol for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes. The d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s of a l l the wastes were found to be comparable to those observed with methanol. Kaplan, et a l . (1984) considered 11 i n d u s t r i a l waste carbon s o u r c e s f o r d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of n i t r a t e - c o n t a m i n a t e d munitions process wastewater. Methanol was tested and found to be more e f f i c i e n t than the tested wastes, which included sweet and acid whey, corn steep li q u o r , soluble potato s o l i d s , brewery spent grain, sugar beet molasses, and raw sewage sludge. Ninety-five percent d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was recorded for a l l the wastes except the sewage sludge. 2.4.2 Carbon Breakthrough Carbon breakthrough i n a n i t r i f i c a t i o n - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system occurs when excess degradable carbon from the anoxic 21 reactor bleeds into the aerobic reactor. The e f f e c t of carbon breakthrough on a b i o l o g i c a l nitrogen removal system has not been well studied. Although there are very few references on t h i s subject, there are studies i n which t h i s may have occurred. B r i d l e , et a l . (1979) studied a f u l l - s c a l e activated single sludge p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n plant that was used to t r e a t nylon wastes. These wastes contained high concentrations of ammonia, organic nitrogen, n i t r i c and nitrous acids, and organic carbon i n the form of one to f i v e chain mono-basic acids. The organic removal i n the anoxic basin was recorded as 20-30%, which implies that carbon breakthrough was occurring. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s of greater than 98% were constant but consistent n i t r i f i c a t i o n was a problem. The authors blamed temperature variat i o n s and high organic nitrogen l e v e l s for t h i s inconsistency, but the another contributing factor may have been carbon breakthrough. Narkis, et a l . (1979) used a bench-scale two sludge pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system for nitrogen removal for sewage. Lime treated sewage was the carbon source for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The study mentions that the n i t r i f i c a t i o n reactor was very s e n s i t i v e to organic loading, but no data was given to indicate how s e n s i t i v e the reactor was. This i l l u s t r a t e s that carbon breakthrough may be a problem. 22 Melcer, et a l . (1984) used a bench-scale single sludge pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system to tre a t coke plant and bl a s t furnace blowdown water. The carbon sources for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n were p h e n o l i c compounds with methanol added. The system experienced carbon breakthrough, and the excess carbon, mainly i n the form of methanol, resulted i n a reduction i n the s p e c i f i c n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate. This reduction was surmised to be due to heterotrophic growth i n the aerobic basin. The study states, "Comparison of t o t a l system operation with and without methanol addition demonstrated that the n i t r i f i c a t i o n process was unstable when methanol was added unnecessarily to the system". Carbon breakthrough was noted i n the paper by Manoharan, et a l . (1988). Carbon breakthrough by both glucose and by methanol was observed. N i t r i f i c a t i o n was not apparently affected by methanol, but glucose caused an inconsistent performance i n n i t r i f i c a t i o n , which was thought to be due to heterotrophic competition. This l i t e r a t u r e review i s by no means exhaustive for these selected topics. The topics and references were chosen to provide a foundation for t h i s study to b u i l d upon. The l i t e r a t u r e selected i s representative of the current state of knowledge and understanding of leachate treatment, i n h i b i t i o n of n i t r i f i c a t i o n , c a r b on s o u r c e s f o r d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and carbon breakthrough. 23 3. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND OPERATION Two i d e n t i c a l bench-scale b i o l o g i c a l single-sludge pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n systems, with recycle, were used i n t h i s study. The basic configuration of each system was an anoxic reactor, then an aerobic reactor, and a f i n a l c l a r i f i e r with a recycle l i n e back to the anoxic reactor. The system i s shown schematically i n Figure 2. Two experimental runs were conducted, each with two d i f f e r e n t carbon sources for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n requirements. The f i r s t run used glucose i n one system and methanol i n the other. The second run used acetate i n one and waste brewer's yeast, from a Carling O'Keefe Brewery, i n the other. The four systems studied were fed a municipal l a n d f i l l leachate. 3.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM 3.1.1 Leachate Feed The leachate feed was an "older" leachate, c o l l e c t e d from the City of Vancouver's Burns Bog L a n d f i l l i n Delta, B r i t i s h Columbia. The leachate was c o l l e c t e d from the southwest corner of the l a n d f i l l as shown i n Figure 3. The leachate had a consistently high ammonia concentration of about 2 00 mg/L and a very low soluble BOD5 of about 20 mg/L. The basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the leachate have been compiled i n Table 1. The leachate was co l l e c t e d once a week and stored at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius u n t i l required. The leachate 24 CARBON AND PHOSPHORUS SOLUTION MIXER TO ORP MONITOR —• — 4 - «S2tL 1 LITRES STYROFOAM COVER ORP PROBE WASTING VALVE X X T ANOXIC REACTOR MIXER 2 LITRES AEROBIC REACTOR SLUDGE RECYCLE ("4:1) LEACHATE FEED (3 L/DAY) PRESSURE REGULATOR AIR SUPPLY CLARIFIER SCAPER ARM EFFLUENT SCRAPER ARM Figure 2. EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC to .Surface Water Interception Ditch to be converted to Leachate Collector as Fill advanced Discharge Inl tlal ly to adjacent ditch during Trial Period to determine Flow Volumes- Flow wi l l be connected to Annacls Isldnd interceptor when complete (1979 - 1980) 4 L E 0 E N D Surface Drainogo D i t c h o e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Leachate D i t c h e s Figure 3. Burns Bog Landfill Site ref: Atwater, 1980 TABLE 1. BASIC C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF BURNS BOG L E A C H A T E CONCENTRATION ( m g / L ) P A R A M E T E R MEAN RANGE COD 3 2 5 1 7 5 - 4 2 5 BOD 25 1 0 - 6 0 AMMONIA 200 1 7 0 - 2 4 0 NOx 8 0 - 2 5 NITRITE 3 0 - 1 0 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 0.2 0 .1 -0 .6 T K N 230 1 8 0 - 3 0 0 SOLIDS V S S 4 4 2 0 - 1 0 0 T S S 90 2 0 - 3 0 0 IRON TOTAL 15 8 - 3 0 DISS. 5 1-7 MANGANESE TOTAL 1.5 0 .7 -2 .0 DISS. 1.0 0 .2 -1 .3 ZINC TOTAL 0.3 0 .1 -0 .5 DISS. 0.15 0 .1 -0 .5 PH 7.6 7 .3 -8 .0 27 was fed continuously into the anoxic reactors at an approximate rate of 3 l i t r e s per day for each system. The leachate supply was contained i n a covered p l a s t i c bucket at room temperature, between 17 and 2 2 degrees Celsius, and was mixed continuously by a mechanical mixer. The stored leachate was added every three or four days as necessary. The leachate exhibited a small ammonia loss i n the supply bucket. Nitrate and n i t r i t e also appeared as ammonia disappeared, i n d i c a t i n g that a small amount of b i o l o g i c a l n i t r i f i c a t i o n was occurring i n the supply bucket. 3.1.2 Anoxic Reactor The anoxic reactor was a c y l i n d r i c a l p l e x i g l a s s container. The l i q u i d volume of the reactor was 1 l i t r e and was completely mixed by a mechanical mixer. A f l o a t i n g styrofoam cover prevented aeration by reducing contact between the a i r and the l i q u i d . An Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) probe continuously monitored the ORP i n the reactor. The reactor received three incoming l i q u i d streams: in f l u e n t leachate, n i t r i f i e d return sludge, and a carbon/phosporus solution for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n requirements. The leachate was pumped at approximately 3 l i t r e s per day and entered the reactor v i a a glass pipe positioned just below the l i q u i d surface,thus preventing unnecessary surface turbulence. The n i t r i f i e d r e t u r n sludge from the c l a r i f i e r was also discharged from a glass tube just below the surface at a 28 continuous rate of about 12 l i t r e s per day. In the case of methanol,, glucose, and acetate the carbon solu t i o n was administered continuously at a rate between 80 and 150 m i l l i l i t e r s per day. The brewer's yeast waste was added at about 1 l i t r e per day to prevent clogging of the l i n e s by yeast s o l i d s . T r i - b a s i c sodium phosphate was added to the methanol, glucose, and acetate carbon solutions to ensure that phosphorus was not a l i m i t i n g nutrient. The yeast waste contained a high concentration of phosphate, so further addition was not necessary. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n occurred i n t h i s reactor, u t i l i z i n g the carbon solution as a source of electron donors for n i t r a t e and n i t r i t e r e s p i r a t i o n . The f i l t e r e d BOD5 of the i n f l u e n t leachate and of the return sludge was low enough to be considered n e g l i g i b l e . 3.1.2.1 Carbon Solutions The carbon solutions of methanol, glucose, and acetate were prepared once a week and stored at four degrees Celsius u n t i l required. The appropriate carbon solution was pumped into the anoxic reactor from a glass 500mL graduated cylinder. No b i o l o g i c a l growth was observed i n any of the cylinders over the course of the study. These three carbon solutions were prepared by adding the calculated mass of carbon chemical, l i q u i d methanol, D-glucose, or sodium acetate, to one l i t r e of d i s t i l l e d water. T r i - b a s i c sodium phosphate was added at 29 approximately 3g/L. The solutions were mixed thoroughly u n t i l the carbon and phosphate had completely dissolved. No p r e c i p i t a t e of any kind was observed i n any of the solutions. The yeast waste solution was prepared by d i l u t i n g a calculated volume of brewer's yeast waste, a s l u r r y of yeast s o l i d s , with d i s t i l l e d water. The yeast waste had been washed with phosphoric acid at the brewery to deactivate the yeast, thus phosphate addition was not necessary. The a c i d i c nature of the waste necessitated that the yeast waste solution be buffered by sodium carbonate to bring the pH above 7. The yeast waste solution was prepared every second day and was kept at room temperature i n a glass f l a s k . The soluti o n was pumped continuously from a glass f l a s k that was kept completely mixed by means of a magnetic s t i r bar and a s t i r p late. The mixing was necessary i n order to keep the yeast s o l i d s i n suspension. The brewer's yeast waste was co l l e c t e d from the Carling O'Keefe Brewery i n Vancouver once every 5 weeks. Two l i t r e s of waste yeast were co l l e c t e d each time and stored i n an a i r t i g h t container at four degrees Celsius and at a pH<2 (due to the acid wash). The yeast waste was characterized by high COD and BOD5, high phosphate and TKN, and moderately high FTKN and ammonia concentrations. Table 2 summarizes the yeast waste c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 30 TABLE 2. BREWER'S YEAST WASTE CHARACTERISTICS CONCENTRATION (mg /L ) P A R A M E T E R MEAN RANGE T K N 13 ,000 1 1 , 8 0 0 - 1 3 , 5 0 0 FTKN 7 , 5 0 0 5 , 5 0 0 - 9 , 2 0 0 AMMONIA 2 , 5 0 0 1 , 8 5 0 - 3 , 8 0 0 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 2 , 5 0 0 1 , 8 0 0 - 3 , 5 0 0 COD UNFILTERED FILTERED 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 1 15 ,000 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 - 3 5 0 , 0 0 0 1 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 BOD UNFILTERED FILTERED 150 ,000 7 3 , 0 0 0 1 4 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 7 0 , 0 0 0 7 1 , 0 0 0 - 7 6 , 0 0 0 PH < 2.0 31 3.1.3 Aerobic Reactor The aerobic reactor was a c y l i n d r i c a l p l e x i g l a s s container connected to the anoxic reactor by a 8mm f l e x i b l e tube, which had a three-way valve to permit wasting of mixed l i q u o r from either the aerobic reactor or the anoxic reactor. The l i q u i d volume of each aerobic reactor was 2 l i t r e s and was aerated by a porous stone a i r d i f f u s e r located i n the bottom of the container. The reactor was kept completely mixed by a mechanical mixer. The dissolved oxygen concentration was monitored at least once a day, using a Dissolved Oxygen (DO) probe. The residual DO was maintained between 1 and 6 mg/L, to ensure s u f f i c i e n t DO for n i t r i f i c a t i o n and carbon oxidation. N i t r i f i c a t i o n occurred i n t h i s reactor, with ammonia oxidized f i r s t to n i t r i t e and then to n i t r a t e . Carbon oxid i z a t i o n occurred when excess carbon from the anoxic reactor bled into the aerobic reactor. 3.1.4 C l a r i f i e r The c l a r i f i e r was a 0.8L c y l i n d r i c a l p l e x i g l a s s container with a conical bottom. The c l a r i f i e r was connected to the aerobic reactor by 8mm f l e x i b l e tubing. The c l a r i f i e r had an open-ended inner c y l i n d r i c a l compartment into which the mixed l i q u o r from the aerobic reactor flowed. The s o l i d s s e t t l e d down the inner compartment and then into the conical bottom where a mechanical scraper arm guided the s o l i d s into the recycle l i n e . The recycle was operated for a recycle to in f l u e n t r a t i o of .4:1, to produce a c l a r i f i e r retention time of about 1.3 hours. The supernatant flowed around the bottom of the inner cylinder and up the sides of the c l a r i f i e r to the outlet weir. The e f f l u e n t was c o l l e c t e d i n large f l a s k s . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , no b i o l o g i c a l a c t i v i t y was supposed to occur i n the c l a r i f i e r , but, r e a l i s t i c a l l y , there most l i k e l y was a small amount of n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Also, when carbon bled through both the anoxic and aerobic reactors into the c l a r i f i e r , carbon oxidation could continue to use up the r e s i d u a l oxygen and, i f no oxygen remained, then d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n could occur. 3.2 OPERATION The basic operating conditions for a l l four systems are shown i n Table 3. 3.2.1 Methanol and Glucose The methanol and glucose systems were started on October 17, 1987. The reactors were f i l l e d with waste sludge from the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's mobile sewage treatment p i l o t plant, and with waste from a s i m i l a r b i o l o g i c a l leachate treatment system under the supervision of Dr. D.S. 33 TABLE 5 . BASIC OPERATING CONDITIONS METHANOL, GLUCOSE YEAST W A S T E and A C E T A T E SYSTEMS SYSTEM VOLUME (LITRES) 1 ANOXIC 1.0 1.0 AEROBIC 2.0 2.0 CLARIFIER 0.8 0.8 SYSTEM 3.8 3.8 SRT (DAYS) 2 AEROBIC 10 10 SYSTEM 19 19 HRT (NOMINAL) 3 8 8 16 6.4 30 .4 ANOXIC (HOURS) A E R 0 B I C CLARIFIER SYSTEM 16 6.4 30 .4 HRT (ACTUAL) 3 1.6 3.2 1.3 6.0 ANOXIC (HOURS) AEROBIC (HOURS) C L A R | F | E R SYSTEM 1.6 3.2 1.3 6.0 CARBON SOLUTION 100 1200 FLOW (mL /day ) RECYCLE RATIO (RECYCLE: INFLUENT) - 4 : 1 - 3 .7 :1 INFLUENT FLOW 3.0 L / D A Y 3.0 L /DAY 1 . VOLUMES DO NOT INCLUDE THE VOLUMES DUE TO PUMP HEADS OR RECYCLE LINES. 2 S R T = MASS SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN REACTOR MASS SUSPENDED SOLIDS WASTED PER DAY FROM THE REACTOR 3 HRT= V 0 L U M E NOMINAL HRT IS BASED ON INFLUENT FLOV RATE FLOW RATE ACTUAL HRT IS BASED ON INFLUENT PLUS RECYCLE FLOW RATE PLUS CARBON SOLUTION FLOW 34 Mavinic. A small amount of sludge from a bench-scale b i o l o g i c a l phosphorus removal system run by Nelson Lee was also added. Both systems were run at an i n f i n i t e Solids Retention Time (SRT) u n t i l complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n of the leachate was established; at t h i s point, a wasting rate of 200mL per day was started. This wasting rate resulted i n a 10 day aerobic SRT. The designated carbon solution addition to the anoxic reactors was started on Oct. 24, 1987 at an approximate COD:NOx of 0.83:1 for methanol and 1.22:1 for glucose. This carbon loading was held around t h i s l e v e l for 1 week and increased s l i g h t l y each week a f t e r that, as shown i n Figure 4 . The glucose system f a i l e d around Feb. 24, 1988 af t e r reaching a C0D:N0x of about 23:1. F a i l u r e was a loss of n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The glucose addition was halted at t h i s point and complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n was restored by Mar. 4, 1988. Both systems were shut down on March 7, 1988 a f t e r 143 days of operation. The methanol system had reached a C0D:N0x of 56.5:1, without any operational problems. 3 . 2 . 2 Acetate and Yeast Waste The acetate and yeast waste systems were started on Mar. 21, 1988. As i n the f i r s t run with methanol and glucose, the reactors were ' f i l l e d with waste sludge from the mobile 35 Figure 4, COD:NOx FOR METHANOL AND GLUCOSE 60 - i 0 17 24 33 3B 47 54 62 68 75 B2 B9 96 103 1 10 1 17 124 131 138 NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • G L U C O S E + METHANOL sewage treatment plant, the laboratory leachate treatment, and from the bench-scale b i o l o g i c a l phosphorus removal system. Both systems were run at i n f i n i t e SRT u n t i l complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved. Wasting of 200mL per day to maintain a 10 day aerobic SRT was started on Apr. 4, 1988. Carbon addition commenced on Apr. 12,1988 at a COD:NOx 3.9:1 for acetate and 3.5:1 for the yeast waste. Pump problems caused the addition to r i s e up to 7.4:1 for acetate and 8.7:1 for the yeast waste system. This carbon loading was more than the system could handle, without acclimatization of the d e n i t r i f i e r s . The anoxic ORP, based on Ag-AgCl 2 ORP probes, dropped from above 0 mV to -4 2 8 mV for the acetate, and from +106 mV to -343 mV for the yeast waste. These ORP decreases occurred over the six days following the s t a r t of the carbon addition. Judging from the f i r s t run, the anoxic ORP should have been about -lOOmV for t h i s COD:NOx. The C0D:N0x was reduced back to 3.1:1 for the acetate, and 2.8:1 for the yeast waste. The C0D:N0x was then increased weekly, as shown i n Figure 5. Both systems were terminated on June 20,1988, a f t e r 92 days of operation. The acetate system had reached a COD:NOx of 16.7:1, with 2 extreme values of 61.7:1 and 13 6.3:1. The yeast waste system had reached a C0D:N0x of 41.9:1, with 3 extreme values of 82.2:1, 193.8:1, and 196.8:1. Neither n i t r i f i c a t i o n or d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n appeared t o be 37 F igure 5. COD:NOx FOR ACETATE & YEAST WASTE s i g n i f i c a n t l y hindered at these CODrNOx l e v e l s , but severe r i s i n g sludge i n the c l a r i f i e r s caused blockage of the outlet weirs. 39 4. ANALYTICAL METHODS The following tests and analyses were performed on each of the four systems, with the exception of the f i l t e r e d TKN analysis which was done only for the yeast waste system samples. 4.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) Dissolved oxygen measurements were taken d a i l y i n the aerobic reactors using a Yellow Springs Instruments Co. Model 54 ARC Dissolved Oxygen meter with a submersible dissolved oxygen probe. The probe membrane was changed and c a l i b r a t e d every two weeks. The DO of the aerobic reactors was maintained between 1 and 6 mg/L by the use of flow regulators on the laboratory a i r supply. 4.2 pH Aerobic and anoxic pH measurements were recorded d a i l y using a Fisher Accumet Mode 320 Expanded Scale Research pH meter with an Orion Combination pH probe. The pH of the i n f l u e n t leachate was also recorded on a d a i l y basis. The pH probe was c a l i b r a t e d once a week with a pH 7 standard buffer. 4.3 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL (ORP) ORP measurements, i n mV, of the anoxic reactors were recorded d a i l y using an Ag-AgCl 2 Broadle/James Corp. ORP electrode. 40 The probes were submersed i n the anoxic mixed l i q u o r throughout both runs and were cleaned once a week with d i s t i l l e d water. There was no attempt to c a l i b r a t e the probes, thus absolute values are not exact, and cannot be used with any degree of accuracy. 4 . 4 TEMPERATURE The aerobic reactor l i q u i d temperatures were recorded d a i l y with a standard mercury thermometer. The methanol and glucose systems had a temperature range between 17 and 22 degrees Celsius and an average temperature of 19 degrees Celsius. The acetate and yeast waste systems recorded a high and low temperature of 17.5 and 23 degrees Celsius, with an average of 20 degrees Celsius. 4.5 SOLIDS Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and V o l a t i l e Suspended Solids (VSS) were analyzed three times a week on samples from the inf l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed li q u o r s , and the eff l u e n t s . The so l i d s t e s t i n g was conducted i n accordance with Standard Methods (1985). 4 . 6 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) Samples of the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liq u o r s , and effluents were f i l t e r e d through Whatman #4 f i l t e r paper and then tested for 5 day BOD. The t e s t was performed twice a week and the procedure was i n accordance 41 with Standard Methods (1985). The d i l u t i o n water used i n the test was seeded with 0.5 mL of each of the aerobic mixed liquor s tested. A Yellow Springs Instrument Co. Ltd. Model 54 Dissolved Oxygen meter with self-mixing DO probe was used to measure the i n i t i a l and f i n a l DO concentrations. The probe was c a l i b r a t e d each day by the azide modified Winkler t i t r a t i o n as described by Standard Methods (1985). 4.7 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) Weekly COD tests were performed as described i n Standard Methods (1985) on f i l t e r e d (Whatman #4) samples of the inf l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed li q u o r s , and the eff l u e n t s . The samples were preserved with concentrated s u l f u r i c acid and stored i n p l a s t i c bottles at 4 degrees Celsius. The leachate had a high chloride concentration which could have interfered with the COD t e s t , so mercuric sulphate was added to each sample before t e s t i n g to suppress the chloride interference. COD analysis was also conducted on the u n f i l t e r e d yeast waste solution to determine the actual COD. This t e s t i n g was performed three times a week. 4.8 METAL CONCENTRATION Total and dissolved zinc, iron, and manganese concentrations were determined weekly for the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and the eff l u e n t s . Dissolved metal 42 samples were f i r s t f i l t e r e d through Whatman #4 f i l t e r paper, a c i d i f i e d with concentrated n i t r i c acid, boiled down to less than h a l f the o r i g i n a l volume, r e f i l t e r e d through Whatman #54 f i l t e r paper, and f i n a l l y made up to half the o r i g i n a l volume with d i s t i l l e d water. The t o t a l metal (unfiltered) samples were dried at 103 degrees Celsius, f i r e d at 550 degrees Celsius to remove the organic content, a c i d i f i e d with n i t r i c acid and boiled to redissolve the metals, f i l t e r e d (Whatman #54), and f i n a l l y made up to the o r i g i n a l volume with d i s t i l l e d water. The samples were stored i n p l a s t i c bottles at room temperature u n t i l analyzed. The metal analyses were performed on a J a r r e l Ash Video 22L Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer using a lean acetylene/air flame. The metal analysis was undertaken to observe metal concentrations and ensure that any f a i l u r e of a system was not due to a sudden i n f l u x or buildup of metals. 4.9 ORTHOPHOSPHATE Orthophosphate samples were co l l e c t e d three times a week on f i l t e r e d (Whatman #4) samples of the in f l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and ef f l u e n t s . The samples were preserved with mercuric acetate and re f r i g e r a t e d i n p l a s t i c bottles at 4 degrees Celsius. The analysis was run once a week on a Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter i n accordance with the methods described i n Technicon In d u s t r i a l Method No. 94-70W. 43 4.10 NITRITE Samples for n i t r i t e were co l l e c t e d three times a week on the i n f l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed li q u o r s , and e f f l u e n t s . The samples were f i l t e r e d (Whatman #4), preserved with mercuric acetate, and stored at 4 degrees Celsius i n p l a s t i c bottles u n t i l analyzed. The analysis was performed weekly on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter i n accordance with the a n a l y t i c a l guidelines of Technicon In d u s t r i a l Method No. 100-70W. 4.11 NITRITE + NITRATE (NOx) F i l t e r e d (Whatman #4) NOx samples were taken three times a week for the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liq u o r s , and effluents. The samples were preserved with mercuric acetate and stored i n p l a s t i c b o t t l e s at 4 degrees Celsius u n t i l analyzed. The analysis was performed once a week on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter as described i n Technicon Industrial Method No. 100-70W. The Auto Analyzer was f i t t e d with a cadmium-silver a l l o y reducing column to reduce n i t r a t e to n i t r i t e for detection by the colorimeter. 4.12 AMMONIA Ammonia was analyzed by two d i f f e r e n t methods, by colorimetry and by d i s t i l l a t i o n . 44 4.12.1 Colorimetry This analysis used the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter as outlined i n Technicon In d u s t r i a l Method No. 98-70W. F i l t e r e d (Whatman #4) samples of the in f l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and efflue n t s were co l l e c t e d three times a week and preserved with concentrated s u l f u r i c acid and refrige r a t e d i n p l a s t i c b o t t l e s at 4 degrees Celsius u n t i l analyzed. The ammonia analysis was done once a week. The res u l t s of t h i s analysis were used for data analysis. 4.12.2 D i s t i l l a t i o n This ammonia analysis was performed d a i l y on the inf l u e n t leachate and effluents, which were f i l t e r e d through Whatman #4 f i l t e r paper. The analysis was conducted i n accordance with Standard Methods (1980) and involved d i l u t i n g the sample with d i s t i l l e d water, r a i s i n g the sample pH above 10, adding a borate buffer, and d i s t i l l a t i o n into a boric acid indicator. The ammonia concentration was determined by t i t r a t i o n with an N/50 s u l f u r i c acid. This t e s t i n g was used as an operational parameter, to monitor d a i l y i n f l u e n t and eff l u e n t ammonia concentrations. A r i s e i n e f f l u e n t ammonia concentration would indicate a problem with n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n the aerobic reactor. 4.13 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) TKN was analyzed weekly on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II 45 Colorimeter i n accordance with the methods given i n Technicon I n d u s t r i a l Method No. 14 6/71A. Un f i l t e r e d samples of i n f l u e n t leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents were preserved with concentrated s u l f u r i c acid and stored i n p l a s t i c bottles at 4 degrees Celsius u n t i l needed for digestion. The samples were digested i n accordance with the Technicon I n d u s t r i a l Method No. 146/71A before analysis. The greatest concern was that the in f l u e n t TKN was comprised of ammonia. This was v e r i f i e d when compared to the influent ammonia r e s u l t s . This can be seen i n Table 4. F i l t e r e d (Whatman #4) samples of the i n f l u e n t leachate, and mixed liquors, effluent, and yeast waste solution from the yeast waste system were preserved, stored, digested, and analyzed i n the same manner as the u n f i l t e r e d samples. The f i l t e r e d TKN was analyzed because the yeast waste solution ammonia was only part of the f i l t e r e d TKN value. The organic nitrogen portion of the TKN of the yeast waste solution could be hydrolysed to ammonia, which then could be n i t r i f i e d . 46 TABLE 4 INFLUENT AMMONIA, TKN, AND FILTERED TKN CONCENTRATION (mg/L) DATE AMMONIA COLORIMETRIC METHOD AMMONIA DISTILLATION METHOD TKN FTKN NOV 21 182 175 3 4 6 N / A NOV 28 192 181 198 N / A DEC 5 187 179 185 N / A DEC 12 2 1 2 189 181 N / A DEC 19 2 1 6 193 201 N / A DEC 26 2 0 6 188 2 2 3 N / A J A N 2 198 178 2 0 4 N / A J A N 9 2 2 7 21 1 2 9 7 N / A J A N 16 2 2 4 2 0 7 2 1 0 N / A J A N 2 3 148 140 140 N / A J A N 3 0 2 1 5 2 0 2 185 N / A FEB 6 2 2 8 2 1 6 2 0 8 N / A FEB 13 179 189 186 N / A FEB 20 178 195 2 0 3 N / A FEB 27 2 0 9 2 1 4 2 4 9 N / A MAR 5 21 1 2 1 4 2 4 6 N / A APR 9 194 189 2 2 9 N / A APR 16 193 177 191 N / A APR 23 180 181 175 190 APR 30 228 2 3 4 2 6 0 2 5 2 MAY 7 2 1 5 221 21 1 2 4 4 MAY 14 2 2 3 2 3 7 2 5 4 2 4 9 MAY 21 210 2 0 6 199 2 1 4 MAY 28 190 189 2 2 3 2 1 2 JNE 4 2 6 4 2 4 3 2 6 6 2 7 2 JNE 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 6 2 3 6 2 4 4 JNE 20 188 185 21 1 21 1 47 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In t h i s section, the resu l t s of a l l four b i o l o g i c a l nitrogen removal systems w i l l be discussed. Where applicable, the res u l t s have been correlated with the COD:NOx. For the acetate and yeast waste systems, extreme COD:NOx data points have been discarded i f the COD: NOx was more than twice nearest COD:NOx. Two points were discarded for the acetate system, 61.7:1 and 136.3:1, and three points were discarded for the yeast waste system, 82.2:1, 193.8:1, and 196.8:1. Only the glucose system f a i l e d with respect to nitrogen removal. Data analysis was done on an IBM PC-XT personal computer using Lotus 123 software. Best f i t s t r a i g h t l i n e s , where applicable, were generated by the l i n e a r regression function of the Lotus 123 software package. 5.1 pH The behaviour of the aerobic and anoxic pH values d i f f e r e d for each of the four systems. The pH of the leachate was f a i r l y consistent i n the range of 7.4 to 7.6. The pH of the leachate did not appear to greatly influence the anoxic or aerobic pH of any of the systems. 5.1.1 Methanol The pH of both the aerobic and anoxic reactors increased 48 i n i t i a l l y u n t i l complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved. The pH then held steady at pH 7.5 for the aerobic reactor and pH 7.7 for the anoxic reactor. The pH of both reactors appeared to decrease somewhat at a COD:NOx of over 25:1, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 6. At a l l times, the anoxic pH remained higher than the aerobic pH; t h i s was expected as d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n produces a l k a l i n i t y while n i t r i f i c a t i o n consumes a l k a l i n i t y . 5.1.2 Glucose The pH of the glucose system was very e r r a t i c when compared to the other three systems. The anoxic pH was consistently lower than the aerobic system, u n t i l f a i l u r e of the nitrogen removal mechanism. This indicates that the anoxic reactor was more a c i d i c than the aerobic reactor. This may be attributed to the production of v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids by f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes which could ferment the glucose. Best f i t straight l i n e s were applied to the anoxic and aerobic pH i n Figure 7; the aerobic pH appeared to increase with increasing COD:NOx, while the anoxic pH appeared to decrease. The increase of the aerobic pH and the decrease of the anoxic pH are just marginal trends. At f a i l u r e , the pH of both reactors plummeted from about 7.2 to 6.6, but recovered with several days a f t e r the glucose addition was halted. A f t e r f a i l u r e and without glucose, the anoxic pH was consistently higher than the aerobic pH. 49 F igure 6, COD:NOX vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH ui o a. 7 . 9 H - H - - H - + + + 7 . B - | - H - -H-+H- + + + + ++ 7 . 7 H+ +++ + + - H - 7 . 6 H + B • • f D • 7 . 5 - - C D n t m n n n n n - E ii II 11 • 7 . 4 - p a • • -3 • + + + + + + + ++ + + LTD • • • • • • • • • 7 . 3 7 . 2 - 7.1 - ° a + + • • + 2 0 i 40 6 0 • METHANOL SYSTEM COD:NOx AEROBIC + ANOXIC X a. B 7.9 7.B 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.4- 7.3 7.2 7.1 7 6.9 6.B 6.7 6.6 6.5 Figure 7. CODiNOx vs ANOXIC AND AEROBIC pH • + ++ 4 B 12 16 20 24 GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD:NOx AEROBIC + ANOXIC 5.1.3 Acetate I n i t i a l l y , the pH of both reactors increased, then l e v e l l e d off when complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was reached. The anoxic pH reached 8.2 and held steady, while the aerobic pH continued to increase s l i g h t l y from 7.8 to 8.2, with the increase i n COD:NOx. As expected, the anoxic pH was consistently higher than the aerobic pH (Figure 8). 5.1.4 Yeast Waste As with the methanol and acetate systems, the pH of both reactors increased with the increase i n the percentage of d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and l e v e l l e d o f f when complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved. The aerobic pH held steady a f t e r reaching pH 7.4, while the anoxic pH decreased with the increase i n CODrNOx (as seen i n Figure 9). The anoxic pH was higher than the aerobic pH for most of the study, but became lower at higher CODrNOx values. The decrease i n anoxic pH may have been due to fermentative conditions i n the anoxic reactor, due to excess carbon. The aerobic pH remained around 7.4 for COD:NOx above 10:1. 5.2 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL (ORP) The behaviour of the anoxic ORP followed two d i s t i n c t patterns; the f i r s t exhibited by the methanol and acetate systems, and the second by the glucose and yeast waste systems. The ORP probes were not calib r a t e d , thus the pat t e r n s and r e l a t i v e changes of the anoxic ORP are 52 Figure 8 , COD:NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH B.4 - 3,3 H * + + + + + + B.2 H + ffl B.I - + + ffl B A + • • • • • • 7.9 H ++ • • + + • • • .B - + + 7.7 -] • • • 7.6 H O O O O O O O O O 7.5 H> • • O O O O 7.+ -f • O O • • < > O O • 7.3 H • O 7.2 - • 7.1 - 1 [] 7 - 6.9 - 6.B - 6.7 6.6 - 6.5 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 2 4 6 B 10 12 14 16 • AEROBIC ACETATE SYSTEM COD:NOx + ANOXIC O INFLUENT Figure 9 , COD: NOx vs AEROBIC AND ANOXIC pH YEAST WASTE SYSTEM COD:NOx • AEROBIC + ANOXIC q u a l i t a t i v e , rather than the absolute values. 5.2.1 Methanol and Acetate The anoxic ORP for both of these systems showed an immediate drop, as soon as the carbon addition was started. The ORP then continued to drop as the COD: NOx increased and then leveled o f f (Figure 10). The methanol anoxic ORP leveled o f f at a COD:NOx of 20:1, while the acetate system anoxic ORP leveled o f f around 6:1. Both systems leveled o f f at around- 300 to -350 mV. 5.2.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste The anoxic ORP pattern for these systems was characterized by r e l a t i v e l y high ORP values for COD:NOx of up to and even exceeding 5:1 (Figure 11). There was not the i n i t i a l decrease in ORP when the carbon addition was started, as observed i n the methanol and acetate systems. This apparent lag i n ORP response may be due to microbial acclimatization to these carbon sources, since the i n i t i a l b a c t e r i a l seed came from systems which either used methanol (the b i o l o g i c a l leachate system) or acetate (the phosphorus removal system). The glucose and yeast waste carbons were also more complex than the other two carbons and thus r e q u i r e d a longer acclimatization period. The anoxic ORP then dropped and leveled o f f . The glucose system dropped to -200 mV for a COD:NOx of over 8:1, and the yeast waste system dropped to about -400 mv for over 15:1 values. 55 95 ANOXIC ORP (mV) 5.3 METALS The metals that were analyzed for, zinc, iron, and manganese were found to be at low l e v e l s . The metal concentrations were found to be f a i r l y constant i n the in f l u e n t leachate throughout the study. The metals were of such low concentrations that there would not to have any s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the operation of the b i o l o g i c a l nitrogen removal system. 5.4 SOLIDS As with anoxic ORP, two d i s t i n c t i v e patterns emerged with regard to v o l a t i l e suspended s o l i d s i n the mixed l i q u o r . Once again, the methanol and acetate systems showed s i m i l a r behaviour, while the glucose and yeast waste systems behaved i n a l i k e fashion. The anoxic and aerobic VSS values were very close, within each system, due to the completely mixed nature of the reactors. A l l four systems exhibited r i s i n g sludge i n the c l a r i f i e r , but the second run, using acetate and yeast waste, exhibited very high VSS, between 100 mg/L and 2 000 mg/L, i n the effluen t s near the end of the study. Rising sludge occurred i n the c l a r i f i e r s as a r e s u l t of d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The r i s i n g sludge occurred when carbon bled through both the anoxic and aerobic reactors into the c l a r i f i e r . The oxygen was removed through carbon oxidation and resulted i n anoxic conditions, 57 under which d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n could become established. The d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n produced minute nitrogen gas bubbles, causing the sludge to f l o a t rather than s e t t l e . Rising sludge was also observed i n the f i r s t run, using methanol and glucose, r e s u l t i n g i n eff l u e n t VSS concentrations between 40 and 80 mg/L. The ef f l u e n t VSS of a l l four systems, before r i s i n g sludge occurred, ranged between 5 and 30 mg/L. 5.4.1 Methanol and Acetate The pattern exhibited by the mixed l i q u o r VSS i n r e l a t i o n to the COD:NOx i s almost a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . The anoxic and aerobic VSS of both systems rose consistently as the COD:NOx was increased. The VSS values of both systems were s i m i l a r up to a COD:NOx of 16:1, a f t e r which the acetate study was terminated. See (Figures 12a and 12b) . The rate of VSS increase was reduced a f t e r a COD:NOx of about 25:1. Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s pattern was the behaviour of the r a t i o of v o l a t i l e suspended s o l i d s to t o t a l suspended s o l i d s (VSS:TSS) i n the mixed li q u o r . The VSS:TSS r a t i o increased throughout the study and leveled o f f around 0.87, as shown i n Figure 13, for the anoxic reactors. The increase in the VSS:TSS r a t i o may be due to increases i n biomass while the non-volatile s o l i d s , mainly from the leachate, did not increase. 58 Figure 12a. CODiNOx v» ANOXIC ii AEROBIC VSS +• •+ a a • 6 5 + + IS di a • Si n n ft °3 * o ZO -40 CO METHANOL SYSTEM CODiNOx • ANOXIC + AEROBIC 39 l.Z Figure 12b, CODiNOx v» ANOXIC 4t AEROBIC VSS & * & A t A < > * * < > i i •" i — i — T 1 1 1 1 r—T 1 1 1— —1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 12 1 •+ 1 C 1 O ZO ACETATE SYSTEM CODiNOx ANOXC 4 AEROBIC 59 O.BB 0.B7 0.86 0.B5 0.B4 0.B3 0.B2 0.B1 O.B 0.79 0.7B 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.7 Figure 1 3 , COD:NOx vs ANOXIC VSS/TSS B + • -tt- • CD •+ + +f • • • • + + + -on +f • 4CDD + • • • • • • •+ • • • LTJ DEDf- ••m --•an — BID - X I II • i • • • • I 20 • METHANOL COD:NOx i — 40 + ACETATE 60 5.4.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s pattern, i n r e l a t i o n to COD:NOx, was that both systems showed an i n i t i a l rapid increase i n VSS, followed by a much slower VSS increase as COD:NOx increased (Figures 14a and 14b). The rapid increase slowed at COD:NOx of 4:1 and 10:1 for the glucose and yeast waste systems respectively. The VSS at t h i s carbon loading was about 4000 mg/L for glucose, and 6000 mg/L for the yeast waste system. The r a p i d i n i t i a l increase appears to contradict the e a r l i e r theory that the microbial population needed time to acclimatize to these carbon solutions. A possible explanation for t h i s contradiction may be that the methanol and acetate are such simple organic compounds that they could be more e a s i l y used or stored as energy. The glucose and yeast waste are more complex i n terms of t h e i r organic structure and were used more for c e l l u l a r growth rather than for energy production or storage. The bacteria i n the glucose and yeast waste systems may have used the glucose, or saccharides i n the yeast waste, to produce an e x t r a c e l l u l a r polymeric substance (EPS). The EPS could be i n the form of a capsule for protection, and may possibly be triggered by metals i n the leachate. This would account for a r i s e i n the VSS, without an increase i n the b a c t e r i a l population. An EPS i s commonly comprised of saccharides, such as glucose, and cannot be produced d i r e c t l y from simple organic compounds, such as methanol or acetate (Boyd 1984). Figure 14a. CCD;NOx V» ANOXIC <5i AEROBIC VSS O * O 1Z 16 20 GUUCOSE SYSTEM CODsNdX • ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 14b. CODiNOx VO ANOXIC A AEROBIC VSS t o YEAST WASTE SYSTEM COD;NOx O ANOXC A AEROBIC 62 For the glucose system, the measured VSS was assumed to be mostly biomass, due to the soluble nature of the glucose. The yeast waste system had a higher measured VSS than the glucose system, possibly due to yeast s o l i d s . The VSS analysis does not d i s t i n g u i s h between vi a b l e biomass and suspended organics that may be used as substrate. The VSS:TSS was much more e r r a t i c than that of the methanol and acetate systems, fl u c t u a t i n g between 0.75:1 and 0.85:1 for the glucose system, and 0.65:1 and 0.90:1 for the yeast waste system. The glucose showed a very rapid increase before reaching steady state. Figure 15 shows t h i s trend for the anoxic basin. 5.5 COLOUR The colour of the mixed liq u o r i n each system changed over the course of the study. The o r i g i n a l colour was a l i g h t reddish brown. Unlike the trends i n pH and ORP, the methanol did not behave the same as acetate, and glucose did not behave the same as the yeast waste. The methanol and yeast waste systems became a dark brown, and the acetate and glucose systems took on a l i g h t grey-brown colour. At higher COD:NOx, near the end of the respective experimental runs, the methanol and yeast waste systems changed to a dark grey- brown. A f t e r the f a i l u r e of the glucose system and the glucose addition halted, the mixed l i q u o r changed to dark brown. 63 0.9 O.BB 0.B6 0.B4- 0.B2 O.B 0.7B 0.76 0.74 0.72 0.7 0.6B 0.66 0.64 Figure 15. COD:NOx vs ANOXIC VSS/TSS [ ] [] + L T J • • + am- • r m • a una • • • LTD • + -fn • • • • • a + i 10 GLUCOSE 20 30 CODiNOx + YEAST WASTE i 40 An i n t e r e s t i n g anomaly occurred between day 3 6 and day 82 of the methanol study. Small white floes appeared i n the mixed l i q u o r and on the sides of the anoxic reactor. The floes were analyzed and determined to be microbial i n nature. This did not occur i n the glucose system which received leachate from the same bucket as the methanol system. The mysterious white floes became very numerous before disappearing. The white floes did not appear to a f f e c t the performance of the methanol system i n any way. A possible explanation i s that the methanol was contaminated with something that either produced or encouraged the growth of the white f l o e s . The white floes also appeared at the same time i n the study by Mavinic and Randall (unpublished), which used the same leachate and methanol. 5.6 CARBON REMOVAL A l l systems exhibited s i m i l a r trends for carbon removal, and thus, for discussion purposes, they w i l l be discussed together. Carbon was measured by COD and BOD5. The leachate BOD5 and COD were f a i r l y consistent at 25 mg/L and 325 mg/L respectively. The BODsiCOD r a t i o remained around 1:13. 5.6.1 COD Removal The percent COD removal was calculated for the t o t a l system, and over the anoxic and aerobic reactors. For the anoxic and aerobic reactors, the percent removal was calculated for 65 removal over the reactor rather than as a percentage of the t o t a l system removal i n order to better understand the removals i n each reactor. Figures 16 to 19 show the percent COD removal for the four systems. 5.6.1.1 TOTAL COD REMOVAL The t o t a l system COD removal held f a i r l y steady at between 70% and 90% af t e r the carbon additions were started. The inf l u e n t leachate had a high refractory COD, as evidenced by the high e f f l u e n t COD and by the low in f l u e n t BOD5, thus 100% COD removal was unl i k e l y . A l l four systems exhibited an increase, i n t o t a l COD removal as each run progressed, probably due to acclimatization of the b a c t e r i a l populations to the respective carbon sources. When the glucose addition was halted a f t e r f a i l u r e , the t o t a l COD removal dropped to about 10%, which was about the percentage of the BOD5 to COD i n the leachate. 5.6.1.2 ANOXIC COD REMOVAL The percent COD removal across the anoxic reactors was r e l a t i v e l y steady i n the range of 3 0-60%, u n t i l carbon breakthrough occurred and a decrease i n anoxic removal a f t e r t h i s . Carbon breakthrough occurred when the amount of carbon entering the anoxic reactor exceeded the carbon removal capacity of the reactor, r e s u l t i n g i n carbon bleeding into the aerobic reactor. This i s characterized by a decrease i n 66 Figure 16 , METHANOL: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 100 - i 0 17 26 33 43 47 54 59 63 B2 B9 96 103 1 10 1 17 124 131 138 143 • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC 89 PERCENT COD REMOVAL • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC PERCENT COD REMOVAL (,%) the anoxic removal percentage and an increase i n the aerobic percentage removal; a rough estimate can be made, using the COD data, to determine when carbon breakthrough started. Figures 16 to 19, show that carbon breakthrough started around day 89 for methanol, day 110 for glucose, and day 59 for both the acetate and yeast waste systems. These dates are useful as a comparison with those determined using BOD5 data. 5.6.1.3 AEROBIC COD REMOVAL The percent COD removal across the aerobic reactors remained r e l a t i v e l y low, below 20%, u n t i l carbon breakthrough started. Before carbon breakthrough, the aerobic reactors received mainly refractory COD, accounting for the low removal percentage. The negative anoxic and a e r o b i c removal percentages encountered a f t e r the f a i l u r e of the glucose system indicate that carbon was being li b e r a t e d from within the reactors (see Figure 17). This int e r n a l carbon generation coincides with a sharp decline i n the VSS, leading to the conclusion that endogenous r e s p i r a t i o n and c e l l l y s i s were occurring. 5.6.2 BOD5 Removal The BOD5 re s u l t s were very s i m i l a r to the COD removal re s u l t s for the t o t a l , anoxic, and aerobic removals. The B0D5 percentage removals were decidedly higher than those for COD removal. This higher removal percentage i s due to the B0D5 71 t e s t measuring only the biodegradable carbon and not the refractory carbon. The same trends that were observed for COD removal were observed for BOD5 removal and w i l l not be discussed i n d e t a i l . Figures 20 to 23 show the percent B0D5 removal for the four systems. The BOD5 re s u l t s are more accurate for determining the date of carbon breakthrough since BOD5 was tested twice a week, rather than j u s t once a week; also the increase i n the actual anoxic BOD5 i s so much more pronounced than that of the anoxic COD, due to the refractory carbon content measured by the COD t e s t . Carbon breakthrough can be determined by observing the dramatic increase i n anoxic B0D5 (Figures 24 to 27) , the decreased anoxic BOD5 removal percentage, and the increased aerobic removal percentage. Carbon breakthrough was observed to s t a r t on day 91 for methanol, day 119 for glucose, day 54 for acetate, and day 62 for the yeast waste system. These r e s u l t s are si m i l a r , but probably more accurate than those determined from the COD r e s u l t s . 5.7 NITROGEN REMOVAL The primary objective of t h i s study was to observe the e f f e c t of COD:NOx on the a b i l i t y of a b i o l o g i c a l p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system to remove nitrogen from a l a n d f i l l leachate. The three topics of int e r e s t i n t h i s section are the removal of ammonia, n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . 72 Figure 20, METHANOL: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 0 21 2B 35 42 49 56 63 70 7B B4 91 98 1 0 5 1 1 2 1 1 9 1 2 6 1 3 3 1 4 0 • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC o AEROBIC • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC Figure 22. ACETATE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 0 30 44 54 72 B2 92 • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC Figure 2 3 , YEAST WASTE: PERCENT 5—DAY BOD REMOVAL 0 -4 • 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1 • • 1 • • r 0 30 44 54- 72 B2 92 • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC Figure 24, METHANOL: 5-DAY BOD (mg/L ) 4-00 - i • INFLUENT NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC • INFLUENT NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC 5 - D A Y BOD ( m g / L ) • INFLUENT NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC The ammonia i n the yeast waste was only a f r a c t i o n of the f i l t e r e d TKN (FTKN) due to the b i o l o g i c a l nature of the yeast waste. FTKN was reported i n place of ammonia for the yeast waste system. The yeast waste had a f a i r l y high FTKN (40-300 mg/L), r e s u l t i n g i n a greater demand on the n i t r i f i c a t i o n system. 5.7.1 Ammonia Removal Ammonia may be removed either by a s s i m i l a t i o n into the biomass, or by n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n the aerobic reactor. Ammonia loss by a i r s t r i p p i n g was assumed to be n e g l i g i b l e , since the aerobic pH values were kept below pH 8. At 2 0 degrees c e l c i u s , the percentage of un-ionized ammonia i s about zero percent at pH 7, 5% at pH 8, 50% at pH 10, and 100% at pH 12 (U.S.EPA,1975). A l l four systems were e f f i c i e n t at removing ammonia with t o t a l ammonia removals consistently above 99% once complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established. Ammonia removals for methanol, glucose, and acetate are shown i n Figures 28 to 30, and FTKN removal for the yeast waste system i s shown i n Figure 31. The removals were calculated for the removal percentage of the ammonia that entered each reactor. Only the glucose system exhibited f a i l u r e of the ammonia removal system near the end of the study, with complete recovery being achieved within 13 days a f t e r h a l t i n g the glucose addition (see Figure 29). 81 Figure 2 8 , METHANOL: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 5 17 25 38 4-7 5+ 62 68 75 82 89 96 103 1 10 1 17 124- 131 139 • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC  • TOTAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC o AEROBIC F igure 31 • YEAST WASTE: PERCENT FTKN REMOVAL 0 43 50 59 69 76 S3 92 NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • TOTAL + ANOXIC o AEROBIC The ammonia removals over the aerobic reactors were also consistently high, with the yeast waste aerobic FTKN removal over 80% and the other three systems with over 99% aerobic ammonia removal. The ammonia nitrogen concentration entering the aerobic basin was consistently i n the 3 0-4 0 mg/L range for the methanol, glucose, and acetate systems. The aerobic reactor of the yeast waste system received FTKN i n the range of 40-80 mg/L, r e f l e c t i n g the FTKN added by the yeast waste. The ammonia removal over the anoxic reactors was assumed to be e n t i r e l y due to assimilation. The average percentage removal across the anoxic reactor was 6-8%. Methanol was the lowest at 6%, glucose and acetate averaged 7%, and The yeast waste system was the highest with 8% removal. These removals are s l i g h t l y lower than the approximate 10% anoxic ammonia removal found i n the control side of a s i m i l a r b i o l o g i c a l leachate treatment system using the same leachate (Mavinic and Randall, unpublished). 5.7.2 N i t r i f i c a t i o n The percent n i t r i f i c a t i o n across the aerobic reactor was calculated by di v i d i n g the net NOx nitrogen produced i n the aerobic reactor by the ammonia nitrogen entering the aerobic reactor. Ammonia removal by a i r s t r i p p i n g and aerobic a s s i m i l a t i o n was neglected, as was ammonia leaving the ae r o b i c r e a c t o r , so t h a t the values c a l c u l a t e d for n i t r i f i c a t i o n would be on the c o n s e r v a t i v e s i d e . 86 N i t r i f i c a t i o n percentages of over 100% were s t i l l observed, probably due to s l i g h t errors i n the ammonia and NOx analyses. N i t r i f i c a t i o n was somewhat e r r a t i c , but generally stayed above 80%. The important observation was that n i t r i f i c a t i o n appeared to decrease as the CODiNOx increased. This e f f e c t was most prominent i n the methanol system and about equal i n the other three systems. Figures 32 to 35 have a best f i t st r a i g h t l i n e f i t t e d to the data points and the percent n i t r i f i c a t i o n can be seen to decrease with an increase i n C0D:NOx. The approximate rate of n i t r i f i c a t i o n loss i s 1.5 percent per unit increase i n COD:NOx for methanol, 0.7 5 percent per unit COD:NOx increase for glucose, and less than 0.3 percent per unit COD:NOx increase for the acetate and yeast waste systems. These loss rates are for comparative purposes only, i n order to highlight the magnitude of loss for each system. The decrease i n n i t r i f i c a t i o n may be the r e s u l t of greater ammonia assim i l a t i o n by the increase i n heterotrophs, rather than actual i n h i b i t i o n of the n i t r i f i e r s . The n i t r i f i c a t i o n c a l c u l a t i o n was based on the amount of NOx produced from the amount of ammonia entering the aerobic reactor. I f the heterotrophs were removing greater amounts of ammonia by assimilation, then less ammonia would be available for NOx p r o d u c t i o n , r e s u l t i n g i n an apparent decrease i n 87 METHANOL SYSTEM COD:NOx GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD: NOx ACETATE SYSTEM COD:NOx YEAST WASTE STY5TEM COD:NOx n i t r i f i c a t i o n . This hypothesis i s supported by the fact that ammonia did not increase i n the aerobic reactor, as would be expected i f n i t r i f i c a t i o n was i n h i b i t e d . The VSS, a good indicator of biomass growth, increased with the COD:NOx. The increased biomass and increased available carbon support the hypothesis of increased heterotrophic growth. 5.7.3 D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was calculated by d i v i d i n g the net NOx removed over the anoxic reactor by the amount of NOx entering the reactor. NOx removal was assumed to be by d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n only. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n showed a two part r e l a t i o n s h i p with CODiNOx, with an i n i t i a l l i n e a r section up to complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , a f t e r which the CODiNOx had no further e f f e c t . F i g u r e s 36 to 39 i l l u s t r a t e t h i s two part r e l a t i o n s h i p . The i n i t i a l increase i n d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n exhibited a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p with the increase i n CODiNOx. By f i t t i n g a best f i t s t r a i g h t l i n e to data points of less than 100% d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , the minimum CODiNOx required for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n could be extrapolated. This i s shown i n Figures 40 to 43. The minimum CODiNOx required for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was around 6.2 i l for methanol, 9 i l for glucose, 5 . 9 i l for acetate, and about 8 . 5 i l for the yeast waste. These r a t i o s are approximate. Over t h i s value of CODiNOx, d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n remained at 100%, and was no longer METHANOL SYSTEM COD:NOx GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD:NOx Figure 3 8 . CODiNOx VS PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 11 0 - i 0 2 4 6 B 10 12 14- 16 ACETATE SYSTEM CODiNOx YEAST WASTE SYSTEM COD:NOx F igure 4 0 . COD:NOX<6:1 vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 0 2 4 - 6 CODiNOx (into ANOXIC REACTOR)  Figure 4 2 . C0D:N0x<6:1 vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 0 2 4 6 ACETATE SYSTEM CODiNOx Figure 4 3 , C0D:N0x<9:1 vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 0 2 4 6 B YEAST WASTE SYSTEM CODiNOx affected by increasing COD:NOx. Complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n occurred on day 89 for methanol, day 110 for glucose, day 57 for both the acetate and yeast waste systems. These dates are very close to the dates observed for the s t a r t of carbon breakthrough; t h i s was to be expected, since no additional carbon was required i n the anoxic reactors. At f a i l u r e , the glucose system l o s t the a b i l i t y to d e n i t r i f y . The d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n and n i t r i f i c a t i o n processes f a i l e d i n a period of under twelve hours. This occurred a f t e r an approximate COD:NOx loading of 24:1 had been applied, but ,at the beginning of f a i l u r e , a loading of about 12:1 was recorded. Exact C0D:N0x was d i f f i c u l t to maintain, due to fluctuations i n pump speeds, changes i n in f l u e n t NOx and ammonia, and lag time for b a c t e r i a l response to increased COD: NOx. The 23:1 loading i s assumed to have been more responsible for f a i l u r e than the 12:1 loading. A f t e r f a i l u r e , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n continued at about 10%, even though no carbon was added; t h i s indicates that endogenous r e s p i r a t i o n was providing enough carbon to sustain d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n at t h i s rate. 5.8 UNIT REMOVAL RATES Unit removal rates, calculated as mg/hr/gVSS, were analyzed for COD and BOD5 removal, ammonia removal, n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The unit removal rates were primarily 101 dependent on VSS, which was constantly increasing; thus no attempt was made to re l a t e unit rates to COD:NOx. 5.8.1 COD & BOD Removal The aerobic COD and BOD5 unit removal rates of a l l four systems behaved i n the same manner. The aerobic rate remained low u n t i l carbon breakthrough started, then rapi d l y increased as greater amounts of degradable carbon entered the reactor. The BOD5 rates show t h i s better than the COD rates, due to the refractory carbon of the leachate. Carbon breakthrough can be c l e a r l y seen as a dramatic increase i n the aerobic BOD5 unit removal rates. Figures 44 to 51 show the COD and BOD5 unit removal rates for the four systems. The anoxic COD and BOD5 unit removal rates were f a i r l y constant and close i n value for a l l systems, averaging between 3 0 and 40 mg/hr/gVSS for the entire study. The glucose anoxic unit removal rates were very e r r a t i c at the time of f a i l u r e , and, a f t e r f a i l u r e , the negative rates indicate carbon release by l y s i n g c e l l s (see Figures 46 and 47) . 5.8.2 Ammonia Removal The aerobic unit ammonia removal rates a l l showed a decline over each run, except that of the yeast waste system. The decline was due to the increase i n VSS, which i n turn was probably due to heterotrophic growth rather than n i t r i f y i n g 102 EOT UNIT COD REMOVAL ( m g / h r / g V S S ) NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC SOT UNIT COD REMOVAL RATE ( m g / h r / g V S S ) • NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 4 8 . ACETATE: UNIT COD REMOVAL 450 -I 0 H i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 0 17 24 31 45 50 59 64 71 BO B7 92 NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC  OIT UNrT 5—DAY BOD REMOVAL ( m g / h r / g V S S ) (Thousands) o o o o o o o o o r* "-' — o ho u - ^ u m > J D ] i D - - t o u f u i m N i a i i D t o autotrophic growth. The yeast waste system exhibited a f a i r l y constant aerobic unit FTKN removal rate, with a s l i g h t increase before decreasing at the end of the run. The range of decrease for the aerobic unit ammonia removal rates were 7 to 3 mg/hr/gVSS for methanol, 4 to 2 mg/hr/gVSS for glucose, 8 to 4 mg/hr/gVSS for acetate, and 7 to 2 mg/hr/gVSS for the yeast waste system. The anoxic unit ammonia removal rates were low and r e l a t i v e l y consistent over the duration of each run. The anoxic rates averaged about 0.1 mg/hr/gVSS, 0.5 mg/hr/gVSS, 0.8 mg/hr/gVSS, and 0.7 mg/hr/gVSS for methanol, glucose, acetate, and the yeast waste system respectively. The unit ammonia removal rates can be seen i n Figures 52 to 55. These anoxic unit removal rates are below the values of 1.6 mg/hr/gVSS, for a zinc stressed leachate treatment system, using glucose, reported by Dedhar (1985), and are also lower than the values of 1.0 mg/hr/gVSS, while using methanol, 1.0- 1.5 mg/hr/gVSS, with glucose, for the control side of the b i o l o g i c a l treatment system of Mavinic and Randall (unpublished). The experimental side of the Mavinic and Randall treatment system, that received zinc, had an anoxic removal rate of 1.0-1.5 mg/hr/gVSS, while using methanol, and 2.0-2.5 mg/hr/gVSS with glucose. The lower uni t ammonia removal rates may be due to the high measured VSS, caused by the excess carbon. I l l Figure 5 2 , METHANOL UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 5 4 , ACETATE: UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL 12 - | 11 - 10 - -1 H — 2 H • ' 1 • ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 > ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 ' ' 1 r 0 22 29 +1 4S 57 64- 73 BO B7 NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC F igure 5 5 , YEAST WASTE: UNIT FTKN REMOVALS NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC 5.8.3 N i t r i f i c a t i o n The unit n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates, mg NOx produced/hr/gVSS, a l l decreased over each run (see Figures 56 to 59). The decrease can be attributed to the increase i n VSS and to the increase of ammonia removal through assimilation. Although a b a c t e r i a l assay was not conducted, the increase i n VSS (Figures 12, 14a, 14b) was assumed to be due to heterotrophic growth, caused by the increasing amount of carbon ava i l a b l e i n the aerobic reactor. The increase i n heterotrophs and a stable population of n i t r i f y i n g autotrophs could cause an o v e r a l l decrease i n the percentage of n i t r i f i e r s i n the biomass, and r e s u l t i n lower unit n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates. Since the e f f e c t of the COD:NOx on n i t r i f i c a t i o n was s l i g h t , the general increase i n VSS due to excess carbon probably played a more important r o l e i n causing the decrease i n unit n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate. The decrease was 14 to 2 mg/hr/gVSS for methanol, 9 to 1.5 mg/hr/gVSS for glucose, 9 to 4 mg/hr/gVSS for acetate, and 7 to 2 mg/hr/gVSS for the yeast waste system. Figures 56 to 59 show both the unit n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate and the unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate for the methanol, glucose, acetate, and yeast waste systems respectively. 5.8.4 D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n The unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates, mg NOx reduced/hr/gVSS, eithe r stayed constant or showed a decline over the course or each run. The methanol system had a f a i r l y steady decline i n 116 Figure 5 6 , UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION —2 | • • i • > i • • i • < i • • i • • i • • i • • i • • i • • i < • i • • i • • i • • i • • | • • | • • | • • i • 0 17 24- 33 38 4-7 54 62 6B 75 B2 B9 96 103 1 10 1 17 124 131 139 METHANOL SYSTEM # OF DAYS SINCE START • NITRIFICATION + DENITRIFICATION GLUCOSE SYSTEM # OF DAYS SINCE START • NITRIFICATION + DENITRIFICATION ACETATE SYSTEM # OF DAYS SINCE START • NITRIFICATION + DENITRIFICATION Figure 5 9 . UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION 11 - , 10 H 9 H the unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate, from 10 to 3 mg/hr/gVSS. The other three systems exhibited constant unit rates, with a s l i g h t decrease, a f t e r complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was reached. The uni t d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates averaged around 1 mg/hr/gVSS for glucose, 0.7 mg/hr/gVSS for acetate, and 1 mg/hr/gVSS for the yeast waste system. The unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates for the l a t t e r three systems were well below the average unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate of about 10 mg/hr gVSS observed by Dedhar (1985). The methanol system before carbon breakthrough was around the same value, about 10 mg/hr/gVSS, as the rate repo r t e d by Dedhar. Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) observed average unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates, for the control side, of 6.5 mg/hr/gVSS, when methanol was used, and 4.0 mg/hr/gVSS, for glucose. The experimental side of the system, which received zinc, had d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates of 3.5 mg/hr/gVSS for methanol, and 4.0 mg/hr/gVSS for glucose. The unit d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates may be lower than those observed i n the other systems due to higher VSS values. 5.9 NITRITE BUILDUP N i t r i t e i s an intermediate byproduct of both n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . A buildup of n i t r i t e can indicate some type of i n h i b i t i o n or problem with one of these processes. I f n i t r i t e i s observed i n the aerobic reactor, then there i s some problem with the conversion of n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e . I f there i s a n i t r i t e buildup i n the anoxic reactor, then d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i s being hindered with the conversion of 121 n i t r i t e to nitrogen gas. A r b i t r a r i l y , n i t r i t e nitrogen concentrations over 10% of the t o t a l NOx nitrogen were considered a buildup. The 10% n i t r i t e l i m i t was chosen to exclude natural fluctuations of n i t r i t e accumulation. Since aerobic concentrations of NOx nitrogen were about 3 0 mg/L, n i t r i t e nitrogen of over 3 mg/L was considered s i g n i f i c a n t . A l l four systems were observed to behave d i f f e r e n t l y i n r e l a t i o n to n i t r i t e buildup. 5.9.1 Methanol The methanol system did not display any n i t r i t e buildup i n eit h e r reactor (Figure 60). 5.9.2 Glucose The glucose system showed consistently high n i t r i t e l e v e l s i n the anoxic reactor, u n t i l complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved. The relat i o n s h i p between COD:NOx and n i t r i t e i s shown i n Figure 61. For COD:NOx under 8:1, the anoxic n i t r i t e nitrogen concentrations were up as high as 22 mg/L. For COD:NOx over 8:1, complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established and n i t r i t e d id not b u i l d up. After f a i l u r e , the anoxic and aerobic n i t r i t e nitrogen l e v e l s increased dramatically, up to 85 mg/L. The anoxic n i t r i t e buildup, before complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was reached, i s an ind i c a t i o n of the presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobic bacteria, which can only convert n i t r a t e to 122 Figure 6 0 , CODiNOX vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE METHANOL SYSTEM CODiNOx ANOXIC + AEROBIC 9 0 BO Figure 6 1 , COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 7 0 H • H to 4̂ £ o z o o § o [] 6 0 Hi 5 0 - [ ] 4 0 H b [] 3 0 - 2 0 H 1 n • + + +4 - 1 = 1 + B —̂ jftj ijpft- 1 2 2 0 •A- 2 4 GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD: NOx • ANOXIC + AEROBIC n i t r i t e . These f a c u l t a t i v e bacteria may have been encouraged by the glucose, while the other d e n i t r i f y i n g bacteria, e s p e c i a l l y those which convert n i t r i t e to nitrogen gas, grew more slowly. The slower growth may have been due to acclimatization to glucose, with a s l i g h t i n h i b i t i o n by the lower pH due to fermentation by the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. As the carbon loading increased, the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes used up a l l the n i t r a t e and then switched to fermentation. Since fermentation processes are r e l a t i v e l y slow, there was carbon avail a b l e for nitrogen gas production by other d e n i t r i f y i n g bacteria. 5.9.3 Acetate The acetate system had an anoxic n i t r i t e buildup over the period of day 38 to day 54. Day 54 was j u s t before the s t a r t of complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . This indicates that n i t r i t e conversion to nitrogen gas was being i n h i b i t e d . The anoxic ORP was about -100 mV and the anoxic pH about 8 during t h i s period, and were not i n d i c a t i v e of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. There i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes were responsible for the n i t r i t e buildup. Acetate i s a two carbon compound, which the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes may have been able to ferment. A possible reason for the absence of lowered pH could be that the r e s u l t i n g v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids produced by fermentation were single carbon compounds, and thus e a s i l y further u t i l i z e d . The rapid removal of the acids may have prevented a drop i n pH. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the 125 l i t e r a t u r e of n i t r i t e accumulation associated with acetate. The leachate, combined with the acetate, may have had some type of i n h i b i t o r y e f f e c t on the true d e n i t r i f i e r s , or somehow encouraged the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. Figure 62 shows the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the n i t r i t e buildup with COD:NOx. 5.9.4 Yeast Waste The yeast waste system only exhibited n i t r i t e buildup i n the aer o b i c reactor, and only at COD:NOx above 25:1, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 63. These high loadings may have caused changes i n the b a c t e r i a l population that could hinder the n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e process. The probable cause of the n i t r i t e buildup was i n h i b i t i o n of Nitrobacter by free (un-ionized) ammonia (Anthonisen, et a l . 1976; Turk 1986). The higher concentration of ammonia could be caused by higher FTKN entering the anoxic reactor as the yeast waste solution strength was increased to raise the COD:NOx. The increase i n ammonia concentration could lead to an increase i n free ammonia, as a ce r t a i n percentage of the ammonia must be free ammonia to s a t i s f y the equilibrium constants. This increase i n free ammonia could occur at the r e l a t i v e l y low pH of about 7.4 as observed i n the anoxic reactor. The d i s s o c i a t i o n constant for the ammonium ion into a proton plus free ammonia i s 5.6764 x 10~ 1 0 (Bates and Pinching, 1950). At a pH of 7.4, and a measured t o t a l ammonia nitrogen entering the aerobic reactor of 60 mg/L, the free ammonia nitrogen concentration should be about 0.84 mg/L entering the aerobic reactor. 126 4-0 Figure 62. COD: NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE • • * * 7 + 0 -$ 1———i ^ f i — ± i 1 [O | f e d p • [ -i P ° i a 2 4- 6 B 10 12 14- 16 ACETATE SYSTEM COD:NOx 0 ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 63. CODiNOx VS ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 24- - i +• 22 - 20 H + 1 B H 1+H + 1 2 H i o n 6 H 4-H o PMJ'IIIH, —£—1 1 1 r S — T — i — i — i — T — I — i — | — I — I — r ^ M 0 20 40 60 BO 100 120 14-0 160 1B0 200 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM CODiNOx • ANOXIC + AEROBIC Anthonisen et a l . (1976) reported i n h i b i t i o n to Nitrobacter at free ammonia concentrations of between 0.1 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L. This presents a good in d i c a t i o n that free ammonia was responsible for the n i t r i t e accumulation. The complex nature of the yeast waste was expected to promote fermentative conditions by f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes, and an anoxic n i t r i t e accumulation. The yeast waste i s a complicated combination of many carbon compounds, which may have provided s u f f i c i e n t simple organics for true d e n i t r i f i e r s to thrive, (along with the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes), so that no anoxic n i t r i t e buildup occurred. The pH of the anoxic reactor started to decrease a f t e r COD:NOx of 10:1; t h i s may indicate the increasing presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes a f t e r the NOx was used up. 5.10 GLUCOSE SYSTEM FAILURE The nitrogen removal processes of the glucose system f a i l e d a f t e r an approximate 23:1 COD:NOx loading. The n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n processes were l o s t during f a i l u r e , but there was no ind i c a t i o n which process f a i l e d f i r s t or why f a i l u r e occurred. The pH, immediately a f t e r f a i l u r e , dropped from about 7.2 to 6.55 i n both reactors, and the anoxic ORP remained low enough, approximately -23 0 mV, to indicate anaerobic conditions. The f i r s t p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the n i t r i f i c a t i o n encountered problems, thus reducing NOx production; therefore less NOx entered the anoxic reactor and 129 l e f t enough carbon to fuel anaerobic fermentation. The fermentation may have produced v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids to lower the pH, and the lowered pH could cause further i n h i b i t i o n of the n i t r i f i c a t i o n process. The second p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the COD:NOx loading was high enough for enough fermentation to take place; thus, the acid production lowered the pH to i n h i b i t either n i t r i f i c a t i o n and then d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n as p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , or d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n and then n i t r i f i c a t i o n . In the l a t t e r case, the d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n could decrease, which i n turn, would decrease a l k a l i n i t y production and further lower the pH. Ultimately, the n i t r i f i c a t i o n process would be affected. Glucose would appear to be a poor choice as an external carbon source for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes on the basis of the suspected growth of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. The low pH, speculated to be the r e s u l t of fermentation by the fa c u l t a t i v e anaerobes, i s suspected of causing the f a i l u r e of the nitrogen removal system. 5.11 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Of the four carbon sources studied, only glucose was found to be u n s a t i s f a c t o r y as an external carbon addition for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes. The problems associated with glucose were lowered pH and anoxic n i t r i t e accumulation; t h i s i s suspected to be the re s u l t of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes 130 t h r i v i n g on the glucose. Glucose also required the highest minimum COD:NOx, at 9:1, to j u s t achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Acetate and methanol were found to be the most e f f i c i e n t carbon sources, with minimum COD:NOx values to jus t achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of 5.9:1 and 6.2:1 respectively. The brewer's yeast waste was less e f f i c i e n t than methanol and acetate for the minimum amount of carbon to promote complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , at 8.5:1. The yeast waste also has a very high organic nitrogen content that may be b i o l o g i c a l l y converted to ammonia; t h i s w i l l r e s u l t i n increases i n the oxygen demand and reactor sizes for the nitrogen removal process. However, the increasing cost of chemicals, such as methanol and acetate, could make waste carbon sources, such as brewer's yeast waste, more a t t r a c t i v e for such a process operation. Table 5 summarizes the approximate performance of each carbon s o u r c e f o r t o t a l ammonia removal, n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , t o t a l BOD5 removal, average mixed liqu o r VSS, e f f l u e n t VSS, anoxic and aerobic pH, and ef f l u e n t NOx concentration. The performance of each system i s estimated for COD: NOx values of one half the minimum required for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , the minimum required, and three times the minimum required. The glucose system f a i l e d below a COD:NOx of three times the minimum, so the maximum COD:NOx value, 23:1, i s used. The values of greatest inter e s t , with respect to COD:NOx, are n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and 131 t h r i v i n g on the glucose. Glucose also required the highest minimum COD:NOx, at 9:1, to j u s t achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . Acetate and methanol were found to be the most e f f i c i e n t carbon sources, with minimum COD:NOx values to just achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of 5.9:1 and 6.2:1 respectively. The brewer's yeast waste was less e f f i c i e n t than methanol and acetate for the minimum amount of carbon to promote complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , at 8.5:1. The yeast waste also has a very high organic nitrogen content that may be b i o l o g i c a l l y converted to ammonia; thi s w i l l result in increases in the oxygen demand and reactor sizes for the nitrogen removal process. However, the increasing cost of chemicals, such as methanol and acetate, could make waste carbon sources, such as brewer's yeast waste, more attractive for such a process operation. Table 5 summarizes the approximate performance of each carbon source f o r t o t a l ammonia removal, n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , t o t a l BOD5 removal, average mixed liquor VSS, effluent VSS, anoxic and aerobic pH, and effluent NOx concentration. The performance of each system i s estimated for COD: NOx values of one half the minimum required for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , the minimum required, and three times the minimum required. The glucose system f a i l e d below a COD:NOx of three times the minimum, so the maximum COD:NOx value, 23:1, i s used. The values of greatest interest, with respect to COD:NOx, are n i t r i f i c a t i o n , d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n , and 132 TJ m 73 -n O > > z CD r> r-m m CO in c > -< PARAMETER CARBON SO URCE METHANOL GLUCOSE ACETATE YEAST WASTE COD.NOx 1 3.1 :1 2 6.2:1 3 18.6:1 1 4.5:1 2 9.0:1 4 23:1 1 3.0:1 2 5.9:1 3 17.7:1 i 4.3:1 2 8.5:1 3 25.5:1 TOTAL AMMONIA REMOVAL 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 too (95) NITRIFICATION (%) 100 98 80 92 90 88 96 95 93 96 90 80 DENITRIFICATION (%) 54 100 100 48 100 100 45 100 100 54 100 100 TOTAL BOD REMOVAL (%) 98 99 99 98 99 99 96 98 99 98 98 98 AVERAGE MIXED LIQUOR VSS 1500 2000 4000 4000 5000 5500 1500 2000 4000 3000 5000 6500 (mg/L) EFFLUENT VSS (mg/L) 10 10 60 10 10 60 15 15 300 15 15 300 ANOXIC pH 7.75 7.80 7.75 7.15 7.10 7.00 7.80 8.00 8.20 7.40 7.70 7.55 AEROBIC pH 7.45 7.50 7.55 7.25 7.30 7.40 7.50 7.60 8.20 7.00 7.40 7.40 EFFLUENT NOx (mg/L) 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 50 50 50 ANOXIC NITRITE (mg/L) 0.5 0.3 0 18 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 AEROBIC NITRITE (mg/L) 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 15 ANOXIC ORP (mV) -80 -120 -250 + 10 -150 -250 -80 -120 -300 -20 -200 -400 1. ONE HALF THE MINIMUM COD:NOx REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE DENITRIFICATION 2. MINIMUM COD:NOx REOUIRED FOR COMPLETE DENITRIFICATION 3. THREE TIMES THE MINIMUM COD :NOx REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE DENITRIFICATION 4. MAXIMUM COD :NOx ACHIEVED BY THE GLUCOSE SYSTEM 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 CONCLUSIONS The purpose of t h i s study was to observe the e f f e c t s of carbon addition i n excess of the minimum amount necessary to jus t achieve complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The nitrogen removal process was a b i o l o g i c a l single sludge p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system with recycle. The influent was a high ammonia l a n d f i l l leachate with low BOD5; thus an external carbon source was necessary for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n requirements. Four carbon sources, methanol, glucose, acetate, and a brewer's yeast waste, were studied. The COD:NOx was increased gradually u n t i l the carbon loading was over three times the minimum re q u i r e d f o r complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . The following conclusions can be made from the res u l t s of t h i s study: 1. The minimum COD:NOx required for complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was approximately 5.9:1 for acetate, 6.2:1 for methanol, 8.5:1 for the yeast waste, and 9.0:1 for glucose. One explanation for the difference between the methanol and acetate values and the glucose and yeast waste values i s that the former are very simple organic compounds, while the l a t t e r are more complex and may be more d i f f i c u l t to u t i l i z e completely. COD:NOx reached as high as 56:1 for methanol and 23:1 for glucose. The acetate and yeast waste systems had several extreme data points which were discarded i n the 134 analysis. The acetate system reached 16:1 with two extreme values of 62:1 and 136:1. The yeast waste system reached a COD:NOx of 42:1 with three extreme values of 82:1, 194:1, and 197:1. 2. Carbon breakthrough, the bleeding of the carbon from the anoxic reactor into the aerobic reactor, occurred very close to the time that complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established. This was expected, since no extra carbon was required for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n and the extra carbon was free to enter the aerobic basin. Some of the extra carbon would have been used to e s t a b l i s h anaerobic growth i n the anoxic basin; but, since anaerobic processes are r e l a t i v e l y slow, most of the extra carbon would pass into the aerobic reactor. The increasing COD:NOx did not appear to a f f e c t the d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n a b i l i t y of any of the systems. 3. The percent n i t r i f i c a t i o n of a l l four systems was reduced as the COD:NOx increased, even though the ammonia removal remained at 100%. Ammonia assimilation i s believed to have increased with the increase i n biomass. Percent n i t r i f i c a t i o n was based on the NOx production i n comparison with the ammonia entering the aerobic reactor. Methanol was the most affected, followed by glucose, acetate, and the yeast waste. The reduction of the n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate per unit increase i n COD:NOx by the methanol system was double that of the glucose system, and over f i v e times that of the acetate and yeast 135 waste systems. 4 . The glucose system f a i l e d completely a f t e r reaching a COD:NOx of about 23:1. The actual f a i l u r e began at about 12:1. The f a i l u r e was characterized by a loss of both n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n . There was no in d i c a t i o n as to which process f a i l e d f i r s t , but the loss of n i t r i f i c a t i o n was most l i k e l y due to a low pH (pH<6.9) . This low pH was probably caused by fa c u l t a t i v e anaerobes under fermentative conditions i n the anoxic reactor. 5. There was evidence that f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes were t h r i v i n g i n the anoxic reactor of the glucose system. Facultative anaerobes can only reduce n i t r a t e to n i t r i t e (Blaszczyk 1983; Wilderer, et a l . 1987). Glucose exhibited n i t r i t e accumulation i n the anoxic reactor, i n d i c a t i n g the presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes. The anoxic pH (pH 7.1) was lower than the aerobic pH, unlike the other three systems, and was attributed to the production of v o l a t i l e f a t t y acids by the f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes under fermentative conditions. The anoxic pH continued to decrease as the COD:NOx increased, in d i c a t i n g the presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes throughout the study. The anoxic n i t r i t e buildup disappeared at COD:NOx values above 8:1. 6. N i t r i t e buildup was noted i n the anoxic reactor of the acetate system for COD:NOx values under 6:1, i n other words, 136 before complete d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established. The anoxic pH was consistently higher (pH 8) than the aerobic pH, but, given that acetate i s only a two carbon compound, the fa c u l t a t i v e anaerobes may have been able to ferment the acetate and then subsequently use the single carbon f a t t y acids produced. The removal of the f a t t y acids would prevent a drop i n pH. 7. N i t r i t e buildup was noted i n the aerobic reactor of the yeast waste system at over 25:1 COD: NOx. N i t r i t e i n the aerobic reactor indicates i n h i b i t i o n of the conversion of n i t r i t e to n i t r a t e by Nitrobacter. The ammonia loading was higher than the other systems because of organic nitrogen i n the yeast waste; t h i s increased as the strength of the yeast waste solution was increased to rais e the COD:NOx. The higher ammonia loading may suggest i n h i b i t i o n of Nitrobacter by free, or un-ionized, ammonia (Anthonisen, et a l . 1976; Suthersan and Ganczarczyk 1986; Turk 1986) 8. The brewer's yeast waste was noted to be s a t i s f a c t o r y as a carbon source for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes. D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was achieved with no problems. The basic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the undiluted yeast waste were about 3 00,000 mg/L of u n f i l t e r e d COD, 115,000 mg/L of f i l t e r e d COD, 150,000 mg/L of u n f i l t e r e d B0D5, 2500 mg/1 of orthophosphate phosphorus, 2500 mg/L of ammonia nitrogen, 13,000 mg/L of TKN, and 7500 mg/L of FTKN. The only concern about using the yeast waste i s that the b i o l o g i c a l nature of the waste leads to a high TKN content which, when degraded, may lead to higher than expected ammonia loading. This can lead to higher NOx concentrations i n the effluent. F i l t e r e d TKN was used i n place of ammonia for analysis of data for the yeast waste system. 9. A l l four systems, but espe c i a l l y the acetate and yeast waste systems, exhibited r i s i n g sludge at the higher COD:NOx loadings. This led to higher s o l i d s i n the c l a r i f i e r e f f luents, and clogging of the eff l u e n t weirs. 10. The anoxic COD and B0D5 unit removal rates held constant i n the range of 3 0-4 0 mg/hr/gVSS. The aerobic unit removal rates increased a f t e r carbon breakthrough was established and greater amounts of carbon entered the aerobic reactor. 11. The aerobic unit ammonia removal rates decreased as the study progressed. This was due to an i n c r e a s e i n heterotrophs, with the increase of available carbon i n the aerobic reactor. The anoxic unit ammonia removal rate remained constant and very low since ammonia was removed only by assimilation. The ov e r a l l ammonia removal for a l l four systems was c o n s i s t e n t l y over 90% a f t e r complete n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established. 12. The unit n i t r i f i c a t i o n rates decreased i n response to the 138 increase i n heterotrophs and to the decrease i n n i t r i f i c a t i o n with the increase i n the COD:NOx. The d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n rate remained constant a f t e r d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n was established, except for the methanol system, which exhibited a decrease over the entire study. 13. Methanol and acetate were found to be the most e f f i c i e n t and trouble-free carbon sources for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes. The brewer's yeast waste performed i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, and i s an a t t r a c t i v e alternative to the high priced carbon sources, such as methanol and acetate. Glucose i s not recommended for d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n purposes due to the suspected encouragement of fa c u l t a t i v e anaerobes, leading to lowered pH and anoxic n i t r i t e accumulation. 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS From the resu l t s of t h i s study, the following recommendations have been made: 1. A study to observe the effects of shock loading d i f f e r e n t carbon sources on the n i t r i f i c a t i o n and d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system, such as the one used i n t h i s study. An investigation of t h i s nature would examine the e f f e c t of dramatically increased carbon loading on a system that was operating at the most e f f i c i e n t COD:NOx. A shock load of carbon i s l i k e l y to occur i n an operating plant. The carbon sources of inte r e s t should be those expected to be used as external 139 carbon additions, as well as carbon expected to be present i n the infl u e n t . 2. A study to examine the anoxic n i t r i t e accumulation i n a b i o l o g i c a l p r e - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n leachate treatment system, when acetate i s used as the external carbon source. This i n v e s t i g a t i o n may confirm the presence of f a c u l t a t i v e anaerobes, and explain why t h i s has not been observed i n previous l i t e r a t u r e . 3 . A study to determine the h y d r a u l i c a l l y optimal recycle r a t i o to maximize the performance of a b i o l o g i c a l pre- d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n system. This investigation i s necessary to produce the most e f f i c i e n t nitrogen removal system. 140 REFERENCES Atwater,J.W.,"Fraser River Estuary Study, Water Quality- Impact of L a n d f i l l s " , Environment Protection Service, Environment Canada, Vancouver, 198 0 Abufayed,A.A., and Schroeder,E.D.,"Performance of SBR/denitrification with a primary sludge carbon source", J. Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed.,58,5,1986,pp.387-397 Anth o n i s e n , A . C . , Lohehr,R.C., Prakasam,T.B.S., and Srinath,E.G.,"Inhibition of n i t r i f i c a t i o n by ammonia and n i t r o u s a c i d " , J . W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l Fed.,48,5,1976,pp.8 3 5-8 50 Argaman,Y. and Brenner,A.,"Single-sludge nitrogen removal: modelling and experimental r e s u l t s " , J. Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed.,58,8,1986,pp.853-860 Atkins,P.F. and Scherger,D.A.,"A Review of Physical-Chemical Methods f o r Nitrogen Removal From Wastewaters", i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18-20, 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.713-719 Barnes,D. and B l i s s , P . J . , " B i o l o g i c a l Control of Nitrogen i n Wastewater Treatment", E. & F.N. Spon, 1983 Bates,R.G. and Pinching, G. D. , "Dissociation constant of aqueous ammonia at 0 degrees c e l c i u s to 50 degrees c e l c i u s from E.m.f. studies of the ammonium s a l t of a weak acid." J.Am. Chem. Soc., 72, 1950, pp.1393-1396 Beer,C. and Wang,L.K.,"Activated sludge systems using n i t r a t e r e s p i r a t i o n - design considerations", .Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed., Sept.,1978,pp.2120-2131 Beg, S.A., and Hassan,M.M. , "Effects of Inhibitors on N i t r i f i c a t i o n i n a Packed-Bed B i o l o g i c a l Flow Reactor", Water Res., Vol. 21, No. 2, 1987, pp.191-198 Benefield,L.D., and Randall,C.W.,"Biological Process Design for Wastewater Treatment", Prentice H a l l , 1980 Blaszczyk,M.,"Effect of Various Sources of Organic Carbon and High N i t r i t e and Nitrate Concentrations on the Selection of D e n i t r i f y i n g Bacteria. I I . Continuous Cultures i n Packed Bed Reactors", Acta. Microbiol. Pol., Vol.32, pp.65, 1983, also Chem. Abstr., Vol. 99, pp.l45521z, 1983 Boyd,R.F.,"General Microbiology", Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing, 1984, pp.164-165 141 Boyle,W.C. and Ham,R.K.,"Biological t r e a t a b i l i t y of l a n d f i l l leachate", J . Water Pollution Control Fed., 46,5,1974, pp.860-872 Bridle,T.R., Climenhage,D.C. , and Stelzig,A.,"Operation of a f u l l - s c a l e n i t r i f i c a t i o n - d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n d u s t r i a l waste treatment plant", J. Water Pol l u t i o n Control Fed., 51,1,1979, pp.127-139 C h i a n , E . S . K . , P o h 1 a n d , F . G . , C h a n g , K . C . , and Harper,S.R.,"Leachate Generation and Control at L a n d f i l l Disposal Sites", i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.14-30 C h r i s t e n s e n , M . H . , and H a r r e m o e s , P . / ' B i o l o g i c a l D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of sewage: A Literature Review", In "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18-20,1975, Prog. wat. Tech., Vol. 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.467-481 Climenhage,D.C.,"Nitrogen Removal from Municipal Wastewater", Research Report No. 17, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal P o l l u t i o n under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 72-5-15 Cook,E.N. and Foree,E. G. , 1 1 Aerobic b i o s t a b i l i z a t i o n of sanitary l a n d f i l l leachate", J. Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 46,2,1974, pp.380-392 Dedhar,S.,"Ammonia Removal from a L a n d f i l l Leachate by B i o l o g i c a l N i t r i f i c a t i o n and D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , Master of Applied Science Thesis, Department of C i v i l Engineering, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Oct., 1985 Dedhar,S. and Mavinic,D.S.,"Ammonia Removal from a L a n d f i l l Leachate by B i o l o g i c a l N i t r i f i c a t i o n and D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment And Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.502-516 du Toit,P.J. and Davies,T.R.,"Denitrification. Studies with Laboratory-scale Continuous-flow Units", Water Research, Vol. 7., 1973, pp.489-500 E h r i g , H . J . , " B i o l o g i c a l Treatment of S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l Leachate with S p e c i a l Aspects on the High Ammonia Concentration", i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.232-248 Ehrig,H.J.,"Laboratory and F u l l - s c a l e Experiments on Physical-Chemical Treatment of Sanitary L a n d f i l l Leachate", i n "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residual Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, 142 pp.200-214 Ekama,G.A., van Haandel,A., and Marais,G.R.,"The present status of research on nitrogen removal: A Model for the Modified Activated Sludge Process", i n "Nutrient Removal from Municipal Effluents", Pretoria, S.A., May 17, 1979 Fuller,W.H., A l e s i i , B . A . , and Carter,G.E. , "Behaviour of Municipal S o l i d Waste Leachate. I. Composition Variations", J . Environ. S c i . Health, A14(6), pp.461-485, 1979 Haltrich,W. , "Elimination of Nitrate from an Ind u s t r i a l Waste", Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, May 2-4, 1967, Purdue University, pp.203-210 Henry,G.J.,"New Developments i n L a n d f i l l Leachate Treatment", i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.139-149, also i n Water Pol l u t i o n Research Journal of Canada, Vol.20, No. 3, 1985, pp.1-9 Hooper,A.B., and Terry,K.R.,"Specific Inhibitors of Ammonia Oxidation i n Nitrosomonas", J. of Bacteriology, Vol.115, 1973, pp.480-485 Jasper,S.E., Atwater,J.W., and Mavinic,D.S.,"Characterization and Treatment of Leachate from a West Coast L a n d f i l l " , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of C i v i l Engineering, prepared for Environment Canada, E.P.S., 1986 Jasper,S.E., Atwater,J.W., and Mavinic,D.S.,"Influent Constraints on Treatment and B i o l o g i c a l N i t r i f i c a t i o n of M u n i c i p a l L a n d f i l l Leachate", Water P o l l u t i o n Research Journal of Canada, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1985, pp.43-56 Jasper,S.E., Atwater,J.W., and Mavinic,D.S.,"Leachate Production and Characteristics as a Function of Water Input and L a n d f i l l Configuration", in "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June23-28, 1985, pp.64-83 K a p l a n , D . L . , R i l e y , P.A., P i e r c e , J . , a n d Kaplan,A.M. , " D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n - E f f i c i e n c i e s of Alternate Carbon Sources", U.S. Army Natick R&D Center, 1984, Report No. Natick/TR-85/003, Govt. Accession No. A148029 Keenan,J.D. , S t e i n e r ,R. L. , and Fungaroli, A.A., " L a n d f i l l Leachate Treatment", J. Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 56,1,1984, pp.27-34 Keenan, J.D. , Steiner,R.L. , and Fungaroli,A.A., "Substrate I n h i b i t i o n of N i t r i f i c a t i o n " , J. Environ. S c i . Health, A14(5), pp.377-397, 1979 143 K e l l y , . G . , " P i l o t t e s t i n g for combined treatment of leachate from a domestic waste l a n d f i l l s i t e " , J. Water P o l l u t i o n Control Fed., 59,5,1987, pp.254-261 Knox,K.,"Leachate Treatment with N i t r i f i c a t i o n of Ammonia", Water Res., Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.895-904, 1985 Lewandowswki,Z.,"Temperature Dependency of B i o l o g i c a l D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n with Organic Materials Addition", Water Res., Vol 16, pp.19-22, 1982 Ludzack,F.J., and Ettinger,M.B.,"Controlling Operation to Minimize Activated Sludge Ef f l u e n t Nitrogen", J . Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 34,9,1962, pp.920-931 McCarty, P. L. , Beck,L., and S t . Amant,P. , " B i o l o g i c a l D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of Wastewaters by Addition of Organic M a t e r i a l s " , 24th I n d u s t r i a l Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1969, pp.1271-1285 Manoharan,R., Liptak,S., Parkinson,P., Mavinic,D.S., and Randall,C.W.,"A Comparison of Glucose and Methanol as Carbon Sources for D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n B i o l o g i c a l Treatment of Leachate", presented at the 43rd Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1988 Maris,P.J., Harrington,D.W., and Mosey,F.E.,"Treatment of L a n d f i l l Leachate; Management Options" i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.280-296 Mavinic,D.S. and Randall,C.W., Personal communication on b i o l o g i c a l leachate treatment currently underway at the Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of C i v i l Engineering, University of B r i t i s h Columbia Melcer,H., Nutt,S., Marvan,I., and Sutton,P.,"Combined treatment of coke plant wastewater and bl a s t furnace blowdown water i n a coupled b i o l o g i c a l f l u i d i z e d bed system", J . Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 56,2,1984, pp.192-198 M i r v i s h , S . S, "N-Nitroso Compounds, N i t r i t e , and Nitrate: Possible Implications for the Causation of Human Cancer", i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18-20, 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.195-204 Monteith,H.D., Bridle,T.R., and Sutton,P.M.,"Evaluation of I n d u s t r i a l Waste C a r b o n Sources f o r B i o l o g i c a l D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , Wastewater Technology Centre, E.P.S., Environment Canada, Report No. EPS 4-WP-79-9, 1979 Monteith,H.D., Bridle,T.R., and Sutton,P.M.,"Industrial Waste 144 Carbon Sources For B i o l o g i c a l D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 12, 1980, pp.127-141 Mudrack,K.,"Nitro-Celluose Industrial Waste", Proceedings of the 21st Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1961, pp.656-664 Mueller,J.A., Wu,K.B., and K a c z m a r e k , S " N i t r i f i c a t i o n i n Refinery Wastewater Treatment", Proceedings of the 40th I n d u s t r i a l Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1985, pp.507- 522 Narkis,N., Rebhun,M., and Sheindorf,Ch.,"Denitrification at Various Carbon to Nitrogen Ratios", Water Res., Vol 13, pp.93-98, 1979 Nicholls,H.A.,"Modification of Extended Aeration Plants i n Johannesburg, South A f r i c a , to Achieve D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18-20, 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.639-652 Nutt,S.G., and M a r v a n , I . J . , " B i o l o g i c a l F l u i d i z e d Bed Treatment of Coke Plant Wastewater and Blast Furnace Scrubber Blowdown", E.P.S., Environment Canada, Report No. EPS 3/MM/l, Dec. 1984 Paskins,A.R., Jones,G.L., and Wheatland,A.B.,"Kinetics of D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n the Activated Sludge Process", Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2, 1978, pp.255-260 Robinson,H.D.,"Full Scale Treatment of High Ammonia L a n d f i l l Leachate", 1988 Joint CSCE-ASCE National Conference on Environmental Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., July 13-15, 1988, pp.883-890 Robinson,H.D.,"Treatment of Domestic Waste Leachate i n a F u l l - s c a l e Automated Plant", i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.166-184 Robinson,H.D., and Maris,P.J.,"The treatment of leachates from domestic waste i n l a n d f i l l s i t e s " , J . Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 57,1,1985, pp.30-38 Schroeder,E.D., and Busch,A.W.,"The Role of Nitrate Nitrogen i n Bio-Oxidation", Proceedings of the 22nd Ind u s t r i a l Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1967, pp.263-277 Shuval,H.I., and Gruener,N.,"Infant Methemoglobinemia and Other Health Ef f e c t s of Nitrates i n Drinking Water", i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18 -20 , 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.183-193 145 Simpkin,T.J., and Boyle,W.C.,"The Regulation of the Synthesis of the D e n i t r i f y i n g Enzymes i n Activated Sludge", Proceedings of the 4 0th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1985, pp.825-835 Skrinde,J.R., and Bhagat,S.K.,"Industrial wastes as carbon sources i n b i o l o g i c a l d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , J . Water Po l l u t i o n Control Fed., 54,4,1982, pp.370-377 Smit h , A . G . , " N i t r i f i c a t i o n - D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of Wastewater Using a Single-Sludge System. Volume I", Research Report No. 86, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal P o l l u t i o n under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 71-1-20 Smit h , A . G . , " N i t r i f i c a t i o n - D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n of Wastewater Using a Single-Sludge System. Volume I I " , Research Report No. 96, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal P o l l u t i o n under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 71-1-2 0 Standard Methods f o r the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition, American Public Health Assoc., 1985 Stegmann,R. and Spendlin,H. , "Research A c t i v i t i e s on Enhancement of Biochemical Processes i n Sanitary L a n d f i l l s " , i n "New Directions and Research i n Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.84-107 Suthersan,S., and Ganczarczyk,J.J.,"Inhibition of N i t r i t e Oxidation During N i t r i f i c a t i o n , Some Observations", Water P o l l . Res. J . Canada, Vol 21, No. 2, 1986, pp.257-266 Sutton,P.M., Jank,B.E., and Monaghan,B.A.,"Single Sludge Nitrogen Removal Systems", Research Report No. 88, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal P o l l u t i o n under Provision of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 7 5-3-21 Sutton,P.M., Murphy,K.L., and Jank,B.E.,"Nitrogen control: A Basis f o r Design with Activated Sludge Systems", i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a Water Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug. 18-20, 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.467-481 Tholander,B."An Example of Design of Activated Sludge Plants with D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n " , i n "Proceedings of the Conference on Nitrogen as a WAter Pollutant", Copenhagen, Aug 18-20, 1975, Prog. Wat. Tech., Vol. 8, Nos. 4/5, pp.713-719 Turk,0. ,"The F e a s i b i l i t y of a Shortened Pathway for Nitrogen Removal from Highly Nitrogenous Wastes", Ph.D. Thesis, 146 Department of C i v i l Engineering, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, June 1986 Turk,0. , and Mavinic,D.S.,"Preliminary assessment of a shortcut i n nitrogen removal from wastewater", Canadian Journal of C i v i l Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 6, 1986, pp.600- 605 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,"Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control", U.S. E.P.A., Oct. 1975 Water P o l l u t i o n Control Federation,"Nutrient Control. Manual of Practice FD-7 F a c i l i t i e s Design", 1983 Water Research Commission,"Theory, design and operation of nutrient removal activated sludge processes", Water Research Commission, Pretoria, S.A., 1984 Wilderer,P.A., Jones,W.L., and Dau,U.,"Competition i n D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n Systems A f f e c t i n g Reduction Rate And Accumulation of N i t r i t e " , Water Res., Vol. 21, No. 2, 1987, pp.239-245 Wilson.T.E., and Newton,D.,"Brewery Wastes as a Carbon Source for D e n i t r i f i c a t i o n at Tampa, F l o r i d a " , Proceedings of the 28th I n d u s t r i a l Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1973, pp.138-14 147 APPENDIX A CALCULATION DEFINITION COD REMOVAL % TOTAL REMOVAL= ((INF COD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN COD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)-(EFF COD*RECYC FLOW))*100/((INF COD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN COD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)) ANOX COD REMOVAL= (INF COD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN COD*CARBON (mg/d) SOLN FLOW) + (EFF COD*RECYC FLOW)-(ANOX COD*(INF FLOW+RECYC FLOW) % ANOX REMOVAL= ANOX COD REM (mg/d)*100/((INF COD*INF FLOW) +(CARBON SOLN COD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)+(EFF COD *RECYC FLOW)) = % Carbon removed over the anoxic reactor % AER REMOVAL = (ANOX COD-AER COD)*100/ANOX COD = % Carbon removed over the aerobic reactor UNIT COD REMOVAL UNIT COD UNIT REM= ANOX COD REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/ANOX (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/l(L) UNIT AER COD REM= AER COD REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/AER ,(mg/hr/gVSS) VSS (mg/L)/24 (hr/d)/2 (L) BOD REMOVAL % TOTAL REMOVAL= ((INF BOD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN BOD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)-(EFF BOD*RECYC FLOW))*100/((INF BOD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN BOD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)) ANOX BOD REMOVAL= (INF BOD*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN BOD*CARBON (mg/d) SOLN FLOW)+(EFF BOD*RECYC FLOW)-(ANOX BOD*(INF FLOW+RECYC FLOW) % ANOX REMOVAL= ANOX BOD REM (mg/d)*100/((INF BOD*INF FLOW) +(CARBON SOLN BOD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)+(EFF BOD *RECYC FLOW)) = % Carbon removed over the anoxic reactor % AER REMOVAL= (ANOX BOD-AER BOD)*100/ANOX BOD = % Carbon removed over the aerobic reactor UNIT BOD REMOVAL UNIT BOD UNIT REM= ANOX BOD REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/ANOX (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/l(L) UNIT AER BOD REM= AER BOD REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/AER (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/2(L) 148 AMMONIA REMOVAL % TOTAL REMOVAL= ((INF AMM*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN AMM*CARBON SOLN FLOW)-(EFF AMM*RECYC FLOW))*100/((INF AMM*INF FLOW) + (CARBON SOLN AMM*CARBON SOLN FLOW)) ANOX AMM REMOVAL= (INF AMM*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN AMM*CARBON (mg/d) SOLN FLOW)+(EFF AMM*RECYC FLOW)-(ANOX AMM*(INF FLOW+RECYC FLOW) % ANOX REMOVAL= ANOX AMM REM (mg/d)*100/((INF AMM*INF FLOW) +(CARBON SOLN AMM*CARBON SOLN FLOW)+(EFF AMM *RECYC FLOW)) = % Ammonia removed over the anoxic reactor % AER REMOVAL= (ANOX AMM-AER AMM)*100/ANOX AMM = % Ammonia removed over the aerobic reactor FTKN Removals for the Yeast Waste System were calculated by substituting FTKN for the AMM values. UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL UNIT ANOX AMM REM= ANOX AMM REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/ANOX (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/l(L) UNIT AER AMM REM= AER AMM REM (mg/d) *1000 (mg/g)/AER (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/2(L) U n i t FTKN Removals f o r the Yeast Waste System were calculated by substituting FTKN for the AMM values. NITRIFICATION RATES NITRIF (mg/d)= (AER NOx-ANOX NOx)*(INF FLOW+CARBON SOLN FLOW+ RECYC FLOW) % NITRIF= NITRIF (mg/d)*100/(ANOX AMM*(INF FLOW+CARBON SOLN FLOW+RECYC FLOW)) UNIT NITRIF RATE= NITRIF (mg/d)*1000(mg/g)/AER (mg/hr/gVSS) VSS(mg/L)/24(hr/d)/2(L) N i t r i f i c a t i o n r a t e s f o r the Yeast Waste System were calculated by substituting FTKN for the AMM values. DENITRIFICATION RATES DENITRIF (mg/L)= (INF NOx*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN NOx*CARBON SOLN FLOW)+(EFF NOx*RECYC FLOW)-(ANOX NOx*(INF FLOW+CARBON SOLN FLOW+RECYC FLOW)) % DENITRIF= DENITRIF (mg/L)*100/((INF NOx*INF FLOW)+(CARBON SOLN NOx*CARBON SOLN FLOW)+(EFF NOx*RECYC FLOW)) 149 UNIT DENITRIFICATION RATE= DENITRIF(mg/d)*1000(mg/g)/ANOX VSS (mg/L)/24((hr/d)/lL COD:NOx COD:NOx= (CARBON SOLN COD*CARBON SOLN FLOW)/((INF NOx*INF FLOW)+(EFF NOx*RECYC FLOW)) 150 The raw data for thi s study APPENDIX B RAW DATA i s contained i n t h i s appendix. 151 AMMONIA BY THE DISTILLATION METHOD " YEAST YEAST ACETATE yASTE ACETATE HASTE DAY INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT DAY INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA (ag/L) (sg/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 0 1 MAR21 253.1 15.4 15.1 47 MAY 6 225.1 0.0 0.0 2 MAR22 252.0 45.7 58.2 43 MAY 7 220.6 0.0 0.0 3 MAR23 248.6 56.0 70.0 49 MAY 8 213.5 0.0 ' 0.0 4 MAR24 244.2 45.6 69.7 50 MAY 9 218.4 0.0 0.0 5 MAR25 237.4 35.3 63.0 51 MAY 10 228.5 0.0 0.0 6 MAR26 225.1 34.4 52.1 52 MAY 11 222.9 0.0 0.0 7 MAR27 189.3 20.7 39.2 53 MAY 12 201.6 0.0 0.0 8 MAR28 187.0 0.6 16.0 54 MAY 13 165.8 0.0 0.0 9 HAR29 187.0 0.0 4.8 55 MAY 14 237.4 0.0 0.0 10 MAR30 172.5 50.1 77.8 56 MAY 15 228.5 0.0 0.0 11 MAR31 177.0 5.0 3.6 57 MAY 16 215.0 0.0 0.0 12 APR 1 173.6 0.0 0.0 58 HAY 17 212.8 0.0 3.9 13 APR 2 171.0 0.0 0.0 59 MAY 18 211.7 0.0 0.0 14 APR 3 169.1 0.0 0.0 60 MAY 19 210.6 0.0 0.0 15 APR 4 151.2 0.0 0.0 61 MAY 20 210.6 0.0 0.0 16 APR 5 196.0 0.0 0.0 62 MAY 21 " 2 0 6 . 1 0.0 1.2 17 APR 6 192.6 0.0 1.1 63 MAY 22 201.6 0.0 0.0 18 APR 7 190.4 0.0 9.7 64 HAY 23 196.0 0.0 0.0 19 APR 8 192.6 0.0 0.0 65 MAY 24 202.7 9.1 0.0 20 APR 9 189.3 0.0 0.0 66 HAY 25 200.0 0.0 0.0 21 APR10 180.3 0.0 0.0 67 MAY 26 197.0 0.0 0.0 22 APR11 165.8 0.0 0.0 68 MAY 27 193.0 0.0 1.8 23 APR12 142.2 0.0 2.2 69 MAY 28 189.3 0.0 0.8 24 APR 13 137.8 0.0 19.0 70 HAY 29 198.2 0.0 0.0 25 APR14 184.8 0.0 2.3 71 MAY 30 199.4 0.0 0.0 26 APR15 182.6 0.0 5.3 72 MAY 31 196.0 0.0 0.0 27 APR16 177.0 0.0 14.4 73 JNE 1 266.6 0.0 0.0 28 APR17 166.9 0.0 29.7 74 JNE 2 266.6 0.0 1.1 29 APR18 151.2 0.0 32.2 75 JNE 3 243.0 5.6 14.3 30 APR19 296.8 10.6 53.8 76 JNE 4 243.0 0.0 10.0 31 APR20 187.0 6.3 13.5 77 JNE 5 218.3 0.0 1.3 32 APR21 187.0 0.0 0.0 78 JNE 6 212.8 0.0 3.8 22 APR22 187.0 0.0 0.0 79 JNE 7 212.8 0.0 69.8 34 APR23 181.4 0.0 0.0 80 JNE 8 227.4 0.0 24.5 35 APR24 252.0 0.0 0.0 81 JNE 9 219.5 6.7 45.6 36 APR25 249.0 0.0 0.0 82 JNE 10 215.0 0.0 7.6 37 APR26 244.0 0.0 0.0 83 JNE 11 206.1 0.0 0.8 38 APR27 239.0 0.0 0.0 84 JNE 12 205.0 0.0 0.0 39 APR2S 235.2 0.0 0.0 85 JNE 13 199.4 0.0 2.8 40 APR29 231.8 0.0 0.0 86 JNE 14 196.0 0.0 2.9 41 APR30 234.1 0.0 0.0 87 JNE 15 188.2 0.0 4.9 42 MAY 1 226.4 0.0 0.0 88 JNE 16 192.6 0.0 5.0 43 HAY 2 229.6 0.0 0.0 89 JNE 17 188.2 0.0 3.6 44 MAY 3 222.9 0.0 0.0 90 JNE 18 137.0 0.0 3.4 45 MAY 4 238.6 0.0 0.0 91 JNE 19 185.9 6.7 . 3.1 46 MAY 5 234.1 0.0 0.0 92 JNE 20 184.8 0.0 0.0 152 AMMONIA BY THE DISTILLATION METHOD GLUCOSE METHANOL GLUCOSE METHANOL SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM SYSTEM DAY INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA (ug/L) (ug/L) (mg/L) ( i g / L ) (ing/D (»g/L) 62 DEC17 185.9 0.8 32.5 124 FEB 17 193.4 0.0 0.0 63 DEC18 196.0 0.8 4.7 125 FEB 18 199.4 0.0 1.9 64 DEC19 192.6 0.6 0.0 126 FEB 19 196.0 0.0 0.0 65 DEC20 193.8 1.5 0.0 127 FEB 20 194.9 0.0 0.0 66 DEC21 192.6 0.6 8.5 128 FEB 21 188.2 0.0 0.0 67 DEC22 175.8 0.5 0.3 129 FEB 22 181.4 0.7 0.0 69 DEC24 199.4 0.0 0.0 130 FEB 23 206.1 9.5 0.0 70 DEC25 185.9 0.0 0.0 131 FEB 24 206.1 15.1 0.0 71 DEC26 188.2 0.0 0.0 132 FEB 25 200.5 43.3 0.0 72 DEC27 188.2 0.0 0.0 133 FEB 26 217.3 76.2 0.0 73 DEC28 188.2 0.0 0.0 134 FEB 27 213.9 56.9 0.0 74 DEC29 180.3 0.0 0.0 135 FEB 28 213.9 42.6 0.0 75 DEC30 177.0 0.0 0.0 136 FEB 29 211.7 36.1 0.0 76 DEC31 178.1 0.0 0.0 137 MAR 1 189.3 30.8 2.6 77 JAN 1 172.5 0.0 0.0 138 MAR 2 211.7 25.8 0.0 78 JAN 2 178.1 0.0 0.0 139 MAR 3 209.4 21.8 0.0 79 JAN 3 178.1 0.0 0.0 140 MAR 4 218.4 0.8 0.0 80 JAN 4 178.1 0.0 0.0 141 MAR 5 213.9 0.0 0.0 81 JAN 5 169.1 3.9 0.0 142 MAR 6 212.8 0.2 0.0 82 JAN 6 202.7 0.0 0.0 143 MAR 7 211.7 0.0 0.0 83 JAN 7 207.2 0.0 0.0 153 AMMONIA BY THE DISTILLATION METHOD SLUCOSE METHANOL SYSTEM SYSTEM DAY INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ( i g / L ) ( i g / L ) (ag/L) 8 QCT24 215.0 0.0 13.7 10 0CT26 202.0 24.1 19.3 16 NOV 1 219.6 31.6 0.3 17 NOV 2 217.3 8.4 0.0 18 NOV 3 218.4 0.0 0.0 20 NOV 5 212.8 0.0 0.0 21 NOV 6 203.8 0.0 0.0 22 NOV 7 187.1 0.0 0.0 23 NOV 8 233.9 8.7 0.0 24 NOV 9 227.3 7.5 0.0 25 N0V10 224.0 0.0 13.4 26 N0V11 224.0 0.0 3.9 27 N0V12 225.0 0.0 0.0 28 N0V13 223.0 0.0 24.0 29 N0V14 216.1 0.0 2.9 30 N0V15 180.3 0.0 0.0 31 N0V15 179.2 0.0 0.0 32 N0V17 174.7 0.0 0.0 34 N0V19 181.4 0.0 0.0 35 N0V20 179.2 0.0 2.0 36 N0V21 174.7 0.0 0.0 37 N0V22 172.5 0.0 0.0 38 N0V23 187.0 0.0 0.0 41 N0V26 179.2 0.0 0.0 42 N0V27 180.3 21.1 38.8 43 N0V28 181.4 7.7 57.8 44 N0V29 168.0 0.0 2.1 45 N0V30 170.0 0.0 0.0 46 DEC 1 178.1 0.0 0.0 48 DEC 3 159.0 0.0 0.0 49 DEC 4 179.2 0.0 0.0 50 DEC 5 179.2 0.0 0.0 51 DEC 6 173.6 0.0 0.0 172.5 0.0 0.0 53 DEC 8 187.0 0.0 0.0 55 DEC10 185.9 0.0 0.0 56 DEC11 192.6 0.0 0.0 57 DEC12 189.3 0.0 0.0 58 DEC13 188.2 0.0 0.0 59 DEC14 180.3 0.0 0.0 GLUCOSE METHANOL SYSTEM SYSTEM INFLUENT EFFLUENT EFFLUENT No. DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA (ug/L) ( i g / L ) (ag/L) 84 JAN 8 202.7 0.0 0.0 85 JAN 9 210.6 0.0 0.0 86 JAN 10 207.2 0.0 0.0 87 JAN 11 206.1, 0.0 0.0 88 JAN 12 210.6 0.0 0.0 89 JAN 13 202.7 0.0 0.0 90 JAN 14 210.6 0.0 0.0 91 JAN 15 208.3 0.0 0.0 92 JAN 16 207.2 0.0 0.0 93 JAN 17 164.2 0.0 0.0 94 JAN 18 164.2 0.0 0.0 95 JAN 19 162.4 0.0 0.0 96 JAN 20 160.2 0.0 0.0 97 JAN 21 144.5 0.0 0.0 98 JAN 22 144.5 0.0 0.0 99 JAN 23 140.0 0.0 0.0 100 JAN 24 150.1 0.0 0.0 101 JAN 25 152.3 0.0 0.0 102 JAN 26 162.4 0.0 0.0 103 JAN 27 197.1 0.0 0.0 104 JAN 28 209.4 0.0 0.0 105 JAN 29 205.0 0.0 0.0 106 JAN 30 201.6 0.0 0.0 107 JAN 31 193.8 0.0 0.0 108 FEB 1 202.7 0.0 0.0 109 FEB 2 207.2 0.0 0.0 110 FEB 3 205.0 0.0 0.0 111 FEB 4 221.8 0.0 2.0 112 FEB 5 221.8 0.0 0.0 113 FEB 6 216.2 0.0 0.0 114 FEB 7 213.9 0.0 0.0 115 FEB 8 185.9 0.0 0.0 116 FEB 9 187.0 0.0 0.0 117 FEB 10 183.7 0.0 0.0 118 FEB 11 178.1 0.0 0.0 119 FEB 12 190.4 0.0 0.0 120 FEB 13 189.3 0.0 0.0 121 FEB 14 184.8 0.0 0.0 122 FEB 15 180.3 0.0 0.0 123 FEB 16 154.6 0.0 0.0 154 METHANOL SYSTEM METHANOL AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE No. DATE PH PH ORP D.O. TEMP FLOU FLOW FLOU A (aV) ( a g / L ) (CELCIUS) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) U 1 0CT17 7.65 7.70 N/A 1.8 20.5 N/A 2.90 10.40 2 0CT18 7.50 7.70 N/A 1.8 19.5 N/A 2.70 11.00 3 0CT19 7.60 7.75 N/A 1.5 20.0 N/A 1.40 11.80 4 0CT20 7.25 7.40 N/A 1.8 20.5 N/A 3.70 12.30 5 0CT21 7.10 7.55 N/A 2.5 20.5 N/A 3.46 11.90 6 QCT22 7.10 7.50 N/A 6.0 20.5 N/A 2.64 10.60 7 0CT23 7.00 7.05 23 5.5 20.0 N/A 0.88 11.04 8 0CT24 7.20 7.35 -38 1.4 19.5 51 2.66 11.52 9 0CT25 7.40 7.50 -57 1.0 20.0 56 3.02 11.52 10 0CT26 7.50 7.70 -51 1.3 19.5 113 2.94 12.00 11 QCT27 7.50 7.60 -45 1.4 19.5 44 3.34 12.48 12 0CT28 7.40 7.55 -63 0.5 20.0 45 3.08 12.48 13 0CT29 7.35 7.50 -24 3.8 20.5 44 3.05 12.48 14 QCT30 7.30 7.70 -34 3.8 22.0 47 3.40 12.96 15 0CT31 7.50 7.70 -58 6.4 22.0 46 3.40 12.48 16 NOV 1 7.15 7.35 -11 3.8 20.5 34 2.49 11.52 17 NOV 2 7.00 7.50 -13 3.2 20.0 42 3.23 11.52 18 NOV 3 7.00 7.551 -16 3.5 19.5 40 3.29 12.00 19 NOV 4 V 6.90 7.30 -8. 3.4 20.5 40. 3.54 12.00 20 NOV 5 7.00 7.50 -31 2.8 19.5 53 3.42 12.00 21 NOV 6 7.10 7.60 -43 3.4 19.0 49 3.23 11.52 22 NOV 7 7.20 7.80 -52 2.4 21.0 48 3.04 12.00 23 NOV 8 7.20 7.45 -44 2.8 21.0 40 2.80 12.00 24 NOV 9 7.20 7.45 -18 3.1 20.5 46 2.90 12.00 25 N0V10 7.35 7.60 -22 1.6 22.0 26 3.05 12.00 26 N0V11 7.30 7.55 -28 3.4 22.0 30 3.09 12.00 27 N0V12 7.45 7.65 -33 3.1 20.0 79 3.08 11.04 28 N0V13 7.55 7.65 -68 0.6 20.5 85 3.05 11.04 29 N0V14 7.40 7.70 -38 3.8 19.0 41 3.03 11.04 30 N0V15 8.10 7.90 -40 2.8 19.0 48 3.04 11.04 31 N0V16 7.45 7.65 -22 4.3 18.5 56 2.31 11.76 32 N0V17 7.60 7.90 -36 4.2 19.0 61 2.93 12.00 33 N0V18 7.60 7.90 -54 3.6 19.0 58 2.92. 12.00 34 N0V19 7.55 7.90 -67 3.6 19.0 64 3.23 12.00 35 N0V20 7.45 7.85 -98 2.5 20.0 67 3.16 12.00 36 N0V21 7.60 7.90 -123 3.2 19.5 69 2.71 12.00 37 N0V22 7.60 8.00 -129 4.6 19.0 54 2.58 12.75 38 N0V23 7.50 7.65 -80 4.1 18.0 60 2.69 12.00 39 N0V24 7.65 7.85 -91 6.2 19.0 57 2.71 12.48 40 N0V25 7.60 7.70 -149 4.8 19.0 0 0.00 12.00 41 N0V26 7.50 7.60 -BO 3.5 18.0 15 2.73 14.40 42 N0V27 7.55 7.60 -101 3.1 19.0 38 3.48 12.00 155 METHANOL CONTINUED AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOKIC DAY No. DATE pH PH ORP (aV) 43 N0V28 7.50 7.80 -136 44 N0V29 7.40 7.80 -120 45 N0V30 7.45 7.65 -103 46 DEC 1 7.35 7.60 -99 47 DEC 2 7.40 7.80 -94 48 DEC 3 7.40 7.80 -82 49 DEC 4 7.40 7.75 -79 50 DEC 5 7.50 7.75 -87 51 DEC 6 7.55 7.85 -91 52 DEC 7 7.55 7.90 -78 53 DEC 8 7.60 7.75 -71 54 DEC 9 7.45 7.70 -81 55 DEC10 7.50 7.80 -93 56 DEC11 7.50 7.70 -100 57 DEC12 7.45 7.70 -119 58 DEC13 7.45 7.75 -94 59 DEC14 7.45 7.90 -73 60 DEC15 7.45 7.80 -70 61 DEC16 7.40 7.75 -68 62 DEC17 7.40 7.70 -191 , 63 DEC18 7.20 7.60 -63 64 DEC19 ..: 7 . i o 7.60 -66 65 DEC20 •'. 7.20 7.70 -78 66 DEC21 7.10 7.70 -71 67 DEC22 7.00 7.80 -58 68 DEC23 7.30 7.60 -60 69 DEC24 7.30 • 7.70 -71 70 DEC25 7.50 7.75 -74 71 DEC26 7.50 7.80 -87 72 DEC27 7.50 7.85 -91 73 DEC28 7.50 7.80 -64 74 DEC29 7.45 7.70 -60 75 DEC30 7.45 7.70 -63 76 DEC31 7.45 7.70 -57 77 JAN 1 7.50 . 7.90 -97 78 JAN 2 7.50 7.70 -94 79 JAN 3 7.55 7.80 -89 80 JAN 4 7.45 7.80 -36 81 JAN 5 7.55 7.95 -30 82 JAN 6 7.40 7.65 -36 83 JAN 7 7.50 7.75 -73 84 JAN 8 7.50 7.80 -101 85 JAN 9 7.60 7.80 -113 86 JAN10 7.60 7.85 -122 87 JAN11 7.50 7.80 -84 88 JAN12 7.50 7.80 -150 89 JAN13 7.50 7.85 -115 90 JAN14 7.50 7.75 -176 METHANOL AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE D.O. TEMP FLOW FLOW FLOW (ag/L) (CELCIUS) ( s L / d ) (L/d) (L/d) 0.8 19.0 140 2.94 12.00 4.6 19.0 117 2.71 11.52 4.0 19.0 130 2.79 12.00 3.5 19.0 143 3.19 12.00 3.4 19.0 141 2.85 12.00 3.2 18.5 132 2.78 11.52 0.7 18.5 135 2.79 11.76 3.6 18.5 132 2.98 11.04 4.2 19.0 132 2.96 11.76 4.1 19.0 118 2.95 11.76 4.5 19.0 130 2.89 11.52 2.3 18.5 127 3.02 11.52 3.0 19.0 136 3.04 11.52 2.1 18.5 139 3.01 11.76 2.0 18.0 128 3.03 11.76 1.9 18.0 130 2.98 11.76 2.6 17.5 124 2.93 12.00 1.6 17.5 137 2.95 12.00 1.2 . 18.0 137 2.99 11.76 0.9 18.0 128 3.07 11.76 3.6 18.0 137 3.17 12.00 3.0 17.5 134 2.79 12.00 1.5 17.5 129 3.18 12.00 0.5 18.0 128 3.15 12.00 3.5 18.0 142 3.29 12.48 3.7 18.0 138 2.86 12.00 3.2 17.5 132 3.21 12.00 4.4 18.0 132 2.75 12.00 3.7 18.0 123 2.80 12.00 3.2 18.5 128 2.89 12.00 3.4 18.0 123 2.92 12.00 4.6 18.0 133 3.06 12.00 3.8 18.0 134 3.00 11.76 4.4 17.5 136 2.96 12.00 4.2 18.0 140 2.94 12.00 4.5 17.0 130 2.90 12.00 4.5 17.5 132 3.05 12.00 4.4 18.0 131 3.01 12.48 5.2 18.0 137 2.97 12.00 3.4 18.5 144 3.05 12.00 4.1 19.0 145 3.04 12.00 4.4 18.0 140 3.03 12.00 4.2 18.0 135 3.03 12.00 3.8 18.0 133 3.04 12.00 4.2 18.0 135 3.01 12.00 1.1 18.0 136 2.94 12.00 1.8 18.0 140 3.10 12.00 2.8 18.5 141 3.11 12.00 METHANOL CONTINUED AEROBIC ANQKIC ANOXIC DAY No. DATE pH pH ORP (BV) 95 JAN19 7.60 7.80 -180 96 JAN20 7.50 7.80 -168 97 JAN21 7.55 7.70 -186 98 JAN22 7.55 7.80 -190 99 JAN23 7.50 7.75 -186 100 JAN24 7.50 7.65 -141 101 JAN25 7.50 7.75 -181 102 JAN26 7.50 7.75 -189 103 JAN27 7.45 7.80 -182 104 JAN28 7.50 7.70 -188 105 JAN29 7.45 7.75 -211 106 JAN30 7.40 7,75 -214 107 JAN31 7.35 7.80 -186 108 FEB 1 7.50 7.70 -188 109 FEB 2 7.50 7.70 -214 110 FEB 3 7.55 7.80 -204 111 FEB 4 7.45 7.65 -172 112 FEB 5 7.50 7.70 -206 113 FEB 6 7.50 7.70 -206 114 FEB 7 7.45 7.80 -194 115 FEB 8 7.50 7.60 . -207 116 FEB 9 7.60 7.75 -238 117 FEB10 7.65 7.75 -260 118 FEB11 7 . 5 5 / 7.80 -268 119 FEB12 7.50 7.70 -257 120 FEB13 7.60 7.80 -260 121 FEB14 7.55 7.80 -247 122 FEB15 7.55 7.85 -247 123 FEB16 7.60 7.70 -264 124 FEB17 7.55 7.70 -277 125 FEB18 7.50 7.70 -281 126 FEB19 7.55 7.70 -292 127 FEB20 7.60 7.70 -341 128 FEB21 7.55 7.70 -276 129 FEB22 7.50 7.70 -270 130 FEB23 7.50 7.65 -274 131 FEB24 7.45 7.60 -350 132 FEB25 7.50 7.70 -283 133 FEB26 7.45 7.60 -270 134 FEB27 7.45 7.65 -269 135 FEB28 7.50 7.70 -282 136 FEB29 7.45 7.70 -279 137 MAR 1 7.40 7.65 -310 138 MAR 2 7.50 7.65 -285 139 MAR 3 7.65 7.75 -301 140 MAR 4 7.70 7.75 -282 141. MAR 5 7.70 7.80 -287 142 MAR 6 7.70 7.85 -296 143 MAR 7 7.70 7.80 -296 METHANOL AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE D.O. TEMP FLOW FLOU FLOU. (ag/L) (CELCIUS) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) 3.1 18.0 149 2.76 12.00 2.0 19.0 145 3.66 12.00 2.9 18.5 151 3.17 12.00 3.5 19.0 97 2.89 12.00 2.6 19.0 137 3.25 12.00 3.4 18.0 132 3.10 12.00 2.8 18.0 134 3.15 12.00 1.6 18.5 135 3.15 12.00 1.9 18.5 142 3.18 12.00 1.3 19.0 141 2.84 12.00 2.0 19.5 137 2.80 12.00 2.7 19.0 134 2.73 12.00 3.6 18.0 123 3.18 12.00 3.8 17.0 129 2.82 12.00 3.1 17.5 138 2.82 12.00 2.9 18.0 139 2.86 12.00 1.8 17.5 137 3.32 12.00 1.6 18.0 141 3.09 12.00 2.5 19.0 133 2.95 12.00 2.9 18.0 125 3.18 12.00 2.9 18.5 135 3.20 12.00 0.5 18.5 137 3.04 12.00 4.5 19.0 141 3.06 12.00 2.4 19.0 144 2.94 12.00 2.9 19.0 139 3.02 12.00 3.8 19.0 133 2.93 12.00 2.0 18.5 130 2.98 12.00 2.3 18.5 127 2.93 12.00 1.7 19.0 133 3.16 12.00 0.5 19.0 141 3.07 12.00 1.2 19.0 135 2.94 12.00 3.9 19.0 137 3.02 12.00 2.4 19.5 131 2.89 12.00 3.9 19.0 133 2.88 12.48 3.6 18.5 133 2.92 12.48 2.0 19.0 141 3.09 12.96 1.8 19.0 140 1.16 12.00 2.3 19.0 143 2.84 12.00 2.2 19.0 141 3.06 12.00 2.4 18.5 137 3.10 11.52 2.3 19.0 140 2.93 11,52 2.7 19.0 133 2.93 11.52 0.5 19.0 147 3.18 11.52 3.2 18.5 .145 3.21 12.00 4.4 18.5 144 2.58 12.00 4.3 18.5 140 2.74 12.48 4.4 18.0 137 3.05 12.00 3.4 18.5 124 2.94 12.00 4.3 18.0 134 2.98 11.76 157 GLUCOSE SYSTEM CAY No. DATE 0 1 OCT 17 2 OCT 18 3 OCT 19 4 OCT 20 5 OCT 21 6 OCT 22 i i OCT 23 8 OCT 24 9 OCT 25 10 OCT 26 11 OCT 27 12 OCT 28 13 OCT 29 14 OCT 30 15 OCT 31 16 NOV 1 17 NOV 2 18 NOV 3 19 NOV 4 20 NOV 5 21 NOV 6 22 NOV 7 23 NOV 8 24 NOV 9 25 NOV 10 26 NOV 11 27 NOV 12 28 NOV 13 29 NOV 14 30 NOV 15 31 NOV 16 32 NOV 17 33 NOV 18 34 NOV 19 35 NOV 20 36 NOV 21 37 NOV 22 38 NOV 23 39 NOV 24 40 NOV 25 41 NOV 26 42 NOV 27 AEROBIC ANOXIC pri pH 7.75 7.75 7.60 7.70 7.30 7.65 7.10 7.35 7.10 7.40 7.20 7.50 6.80 7.40 7.00 7.10 7.20 7.10 7.50 7.30 7.60 7.50 7.50 7.30 7.40 7.25 7.30 7.30 7.95 7.40 7.40 7.30 7.20 7.20 7.15 7.15 7.10 7.05 7.15 7.00 7.10 7.00 7.05 7.05 7.30 7.10 7.20 7.05 7.10 7.20 7.20 7.15 7.30 7.00 7.20 7.00 7.20 7.20 7.65 7.00 7.20 7.05 7.30 7.00 7.30 7.10 7.30 7.00 7.30 7.05 7.50 7.15 7.50 7.20 7.40 7.10 7.40 7.25 7.40 7.25 7.40 7.30 7.40 7.20 ANOXIC AEROBIC ORP D.O. ( i V ) (mg/L) 0 1.5 0 1.0 -22 2.3 -8 2.3 0 1.2 1 1.6 13 3.2 10 1.4 -51 1.2 -69 1.9 -42 1.8 -54 0.5 -21 4.5 -72 0.9 -52 8.0 -74 1.5 -32 2.7 -38: 2.8. -34 2.8 -35 2.1 -35 .3.5 -30 3.3 -28 0.8 -28 1.0 -8 2.0 8 2.4 21 1.0 22 0.8 16 2.1 28 2.3 33 2.6 11 2.4 22 1.9 27 0.9 21 0.7 9 3.0 -8 4.2 36 3.9 22 1.2 14 4.0 14 3.6 4 3.0 GLUCOSE AEROBIC SOLUTION TEMP FLOW (CELCIUS) (uL/d) 20.5 0 19.5 0 20.0 0 20.5 0 20.5 0 20.5 0 20.0 0 19.5 51 20.0 72 19.5 140 19.5 51 20.0 53 20.5 57 22.0 60 22.0 57 20.5 44 20.0 49 19.5 47 20.5 51 19.5 59 19.0 59 21.0 58 21.0 46 20.5 49 22.0 40 22.0 38 20.0 113 20.5 116 19.0 57 19.0 68 18.5 72 19.0 83 19.0 81 19.0 88 20.0 92 19.5 95 19.0 74 18.0 76 19.0 84 19.0 0 18.0 55 19.0 97 INFLUENT RECYCLE FLOW FLOW (L/d) (L/d) 2.60 9.20 2.80 10.80 1.80 12.10 3.80 12.70 3.66 12.90 4.11 13.00 2.97 10.32 2.49 12.24 2.62 13.20 2.74 13.20 3.04 12.48 3.34 12.48 3.32 12.96 2.95 12.96 0.50 12.48 2.39 12.48 2.87 12.00 2.75 12.00 2.88 12.00 2.97 12.00 2.90 11.52 2.83 12.00 2.79 12.00 2.75 12.00 2.91 12.00 2.98 11.76 2.91 11.52 2.91 12.00 2.81 12.00 2.60 11.04 2.72 11.76 2.85 12.00 2.83 12.00 2.90 12.00 2.89 12.00 2.75 12.00 2.63 11.52 2.74 12.00 2.85 - 12.00 0.00 12.00 2.24 14.40 3.18 12.24 158 GLUCOSE SYSTEM CONTINUED AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC No. DATE PH pH ORP («V) 43 NOV 28 7.40 - 7.10 i i 44 NOV 23 7.20 7.15 it) 45 NOV 30 7.30 7.20 •44 46 DEC 1 7.25 7.20 67 47 DEC 2 7.25 7.15 80 48 DEC 3 7.20 7.15 32 49 DEC 4 7.30 7.15 105 50 DEC 5 7.30 7.20 110 51 DEC 5 7.40 7.20 117 52 DEC 7 7.35 7.25 68 53 DEC 8 7.40 7.20 63 54 DEC 3 7.40 7.20 44 55 DEC 10 7.40 7.25 37 56 DEC 11 7.35 7.20 43 57 DEC 12 7.30 7.20 61 58 DEC 13 7.30 7.15 80 59 DEC 14 7.30 7.10 72 60 DEC 15 7.20 7.00 65 61 DEC 16 7.10 6.30 60 62 DEC 17 7.00 6.80 56 63 DEC 18 7.00 6.85 55 64 DEC 13 7.30 6.30 5 65 DEC 20 7.00 6.95 51 66 DEC 21 6.30 6.85 100 67 DEC 22 7.00 6.50 103 68 DEC 23 7.05 6.95 102 63 DEC 24 7.15 7.00 82 70 DEC 25 7.40 7.05 65 71 DEC 26 7.20 7.10 43 72 DEC 27 7.10 7.00 37 73 DEC 28 7.00 6.90 S2 74 DEC 23 7.10 6.35 74 75 DEC 30 7.10 6.95 54 76 DEC 31 7.20 6.35 54 77 JAN 1 7.20 6.35 38 78 JAN 2 7.20 6.35 45 73 JAN 3 7.20 7.00 32 30 JAN 4 7.25 7.05 52 81 JAN C J 7.35 7.25 -38 82 JAN 6 7.30 7.10 -71 83 JAN 7 7.35 7.15 -81 34 JAN 8 7.40 7.15 -58 85 JAN 3 7.30 7.15 15 86 JAN 10 7.40 7.20 14 87 JAN 11 7.45 7.15 42 83 JAN 12 7.40 7.10 30 39 JAN 13 7.30 7.10 23 GLUCOSE AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE D.O. TEMP FLOW FLOW FLOW (ag/L) (CELCIUS) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) 5.2 13.0 133 2.94 i 1 i i i Ui. 2 £, 13.0 112 2.71 11.52 2.3 13.0 122 2.30 11.52 2.1 13.0 134 3.20 11.52 1.6 13.0 136 2.34 12.00 2.2 18.5 125 2.80 11.76 1.7 18.5 126 2.80 11.76 2.1 18.5 123 2.33 12.00 2.2 13.0 124 2.97 11.52 2.6 13.0 109 2.36 11.52 1.1 13.0 124 2.83 11.52 1.3 18.5 124 2.38 11.52 1.6 13.0 128 2.30 12.24 1.4 13.5 129 2.83 12.24 1.3 18.0 122 2.86 11.76 2.5 13.0 121 2.86 12.00 1.3 17.5 114 2.34 12.00 v 1.3 17.5 123 2.93 12.00 1.2 18.0 129 2.32 12.00 1.1 18.0 123 2.91 11.76 1.1 18.0 130 2.34 11.52 3.6 17.5 127 2.32 12.00 3.8 17.5 120 2.74 12.00 4.3 18.0 118 2.87 12.00 5.0 18.0 132 2.65 12.48 2.4 18.0 126 3.21 12.00 2.4 17.5 124 3.07 11.76 2.4 18.0 123 2.60 12.00 1.1 18.0 122 I. OJ 12.24 1.4 18.5 120 3.13 12.00 1.1 18.0 115 ' 3.13 12.00 2.1 18.0 126 2.86 12.00 1.6 18.0 127 2.85 12.00 2.8 17.5 123 2.85 12.00 2.0 18.0 127 2.86 12.00 2.4 17.0 120 2.87 12.00 2.6 17.5 120 2.82 12.00 2.6 18.0 124 2.30 11.04 1.5 18.0 127 3.05 12.00 1.5 18.5 131 2.33 11.52 1.0 13.0 135 2.35 11.52 3.4 18.0 123 2.32 12.48 3.1 18.0 125 2.34 11.76 2.4 18.0 122 2.33 12.00 3.1 13.0 126 2.32 11.75 2.8 13.0 124 . 2.36 11.52 2.3 18.0 131 3.07 12.00 .159 GLUCOSE SYSTEM CONTINUED AEROBIC ANOKIC ANOXIC ' No. DATE pH PH ORP (»V) 94 JAN 18 7.50 7.35 1 95 JAN 19 7.45 7.30 -98 96 JAN 20 7.40 7.30 -130 97 JAN 21 7.45 7.30 -152 98 JAN •in LL 7.40 7.30 -13 99 JAN 23 7.40 7.30 -170 100 JAN 24 7.40 7.20 -5 101 JAN 25 7.40 7.30 -26 102 JAN 26 7.40 7.20 30 103 JAN 27 7.25 7.15 32 104 JAN 28 7.20 7.05 37 105 JAN 23 7.15 7.05 58 106 JAN 30 7.15 7.10 77 107 JAN 31 7.00 6.95 89 10B FEB 1 7.20 7.10 88 109 FEB 2 7.30 6.90 -133 110 FEB 3 7.35 7.10 -138 111 FEB 4 7.30 7.10 -130 112 FEB 5 7.40 7.15 -133 113 FEB 6 7.30 7.10 -146 114 FEB 7 7.30 7.15 -137 115 FEB 8 7.30 7.10 -133 116 FEB 3 7.40 7.05 -141 117 FEB 10 7.25 6.95 -151 118 FEB 11 7.40 7.00 -156 119 FEB 12 7.30 7.00 -170 120 FEB 13 7.40 7.10 -181 121 FEB 14 7.40 7.15 -153 122 FEB 15 7.40 7.10 -169 123 FEB 16 7.30 6.95 -184 124 FEB 17 7.40 7.00 -213 125 FEB 18 7.35 7.00 -234 126 FEB 13 7.30 5.95 -330 127 FEB 20 7.35 7.00 -366 128 FEB 21 7.25 6.95 -243 129 FEB 22 7.20 7.40 -230 130 FEB 23 7.05 7.25 -220 131 FEB 24 6.85 6.60 -240 132 FEB 25 6.60 6.55 -245 133 FEB 26 7.40 7.25 -243 134 FEB 27 7.50 7.50 -17 135 FEB 28 7.15 7.40 -51 136 FEB 23 7.10 7.35 -73 137 MAR 1 6.30 7.30 -43 138 MAR i. 6.90 7.20 -41 139 MAR 3 7.10 7.30 -45 140 MAR 4 7.20 7.40 -23 141 MAR c J 7.20 7.40 142 MAR 6 7.10 7.45 -24 143 MAR 7 7.00 7.35 -13 GLUCOSE AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE D.Q. TErIP FLOW FLO« FLOW (mg/L) (CELCIUS) CaL/d) (L/d) (L/d) 1.8 18.0 129 2.82 12.48 1.5 13.0 136 3.34 12.00 2.2 13.0 133 2.93 12.00 2.4 13.5 138 3.04 12.00 3.6 13.0 83 2.36 11.76 2.7 13.0 127 2.39 11.52 2.8 18.0 122 2.37 12.96 3.3 18.0 123 3.03 11.76 3.8 18.5 126 3.14 11.76 3.2 13.5 131 3.05 11.76 3.2 13.0 130 3.15 11.76 3.1 13.5 126 3.05 12.00 2.0 13.0 122 3.02 12.72 2.7 18.0 114 2.39 12.72 1.7 17.0 121 3.10 12.00 1.9 17.5 123 3.13 12.00 1.1 18.0 127 3.17 12.00 3.1 17.5 123 2.62 12.00 1.7 18.0 130 2.37 12.00 1.5 19.0 121 2.30 12.00 1.9 18.0 117 2.87 12.00 1.8 18.5 124 2.82 12.00 2.6 18.5 126 2.44 12.00 0.5 13.0 128 2.67 12.48 2.9 19.0 132 2.68 11.52 2.7 13.0 127 2.87 12.00 1.8 19.0 120 2.33 12.00 3.2 18.5 117 0 \ 0 12.00 2.4 18.5 115 n 7c L. J J 12.00 2.7 13.0 121 3.45 12.00 2.1 13.0 123 2.37 12.00 2.1 13.0 122 3.10' 12.00 1.7 13.0 124 3.02 12.00 1.6 13.5 120 2.85 12.00 2.7 13.0 121 2.33 12.00 2.6 18.5 120 2.78 12.00 2.5 13.0 128 2.37 12.00 3.2 13.0 126 3.05 12.00 5.4 13.0 128 3.05 12.00 0.6 13.0 123 3.00 12.48 5.2 18.5 129 2.83 12.00 2.3 13.0 127 2.36 12.00 1.8 13.0 121 2.37 12.00 1.4 13.0 133 3.20 12.00 2.1 18.5 130 3.16 12.00 0.8 18.5 131 3.09 12.00 4.2 18.5 128 2.71 12.00 4.3 18.0 125 2.33 12.00 5.1 18.5 111 2.39 12.00 4.4 18.0 • 122 2.34 12.00 160 ACETATE SYSTEM ACETATE AEROBIC A N U X I C ANOXIC AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE No. DATE pH pH ORP TEHP FLQW FLOW FLOW (aV) (ag/L) (CELCIUS) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) V 1 MAR 21 7.50 7.60 70 5.30 13.0 0 2.95 12.00 2 MAR 22 7.40 7.45 63 6.40 13.5 0 3.00 12.00 3 MAR 23 7.40 7.55 68 6.20 18.0 0 2.35 12.00 4 MAR 24 7.15 7.60 65 5.50 13.0 0 2.95 12.00 5 MAR 25 7.20 7 55 4.30 18.0 0 2.34 12.00 5 MAR 26 7.15 7.55 52 4.20 13.5 0 2.33 12.00 7 MAR 27 7.00 7.45 48 2.90 18.0 0 2.33 12.00 8 MAR 28 6.90 7.40 43 3.30 18.0 0 2.33 12.00 9 MAR 29 7.20 7.40 54 5,70 18.5 0 2.32 12.00 10 MAR 30 7.50 7.55 15 3.50 18.0 0 2.96 12.00 11 MAR 31 6.90 7.25 29 2.30 18.0 0 2.33 11.76 12 APR 1 6.90 ' 7.25 37 2.90 18.0 0 2.38 11.76 13 APR 2 7.00 7.30 35 3.80 18.0 0 2.35 11.52 14 APR 3 7.05 7.40 34 4.10 18.0 0 2.32 11.52 15 APR 4 6.90 7.30 35 5.40 17.5 0 2.78 11.76 16 APR 5 6.90 7.20 35 2.80 17.5 0 2.37 12.48 17 APR 6 7.05 7.40 23 3.20 17.5 0 3.31 12.84 18 APR 7 6.85 • 7.25 25 2.60 18.0 0 3.01 12.48 19 APR 8 6.65 7.15 24 3.40 18.0 0 2.37 12.00 20 APR 9 6.45 7.15 23 2.60 18.5 0 2.38 12.00 21 APR 10 6.50 7.15 28 3.10 13.0 0 2.38 12.00 22 APR 11 6.30 7.10 33 2.50 18.0 0 2.36 12.00 23 APR 12 6.85 7.40 3 2.80 13.5 133 3.15 12.00 24 APR 13 7.65 8.15 -69 3.10 . 21.0 145 3.27 12.00 25 APR 14 7.50 8.15 -144 3.40 20.5 31 2.38 12.00 26 APR 15 7.45 8.15 -133 2.10 20.5 104 2.37 12.00 27 APR 16 7.40 3.10 -223 1.90 21.0 106 3.02 12.00 28 APR 17 7.30 8.10 -288 2.20 13.0 101 2.92 12.00 29 APR 18 7.40 8.15 -343 3.20 18.5 34 2.80 11.76 30 APR 19 7.50 3.10 -428 1.60 13.0 100 2.30 12.00 31 APR 20 7.35 7.90 -171 2.50 • 20.0 111 3.02 12.00 32 APR 21 7.30 7.35 -110 1.70 20.5 119 3.04 12.00 33 APR 22 7.35 8.00 -68 2.00 20.0 120 2.38 11.52 34 APR 10 La 7.20 7.30 -46 2.30 13.0 108 2.31 11.52 35 APR 24 7.30 7.30 -34 0.90 13.5 106 2.30 11.28 36 APR 25 7.30 7.35 -31 2.80 20.0 110 2.35 11.28 37 APR 26 7.35 7.30 -37 2.80 20.0 116 2.97 11.28 38 APR 27 7.40 8.00 -43 2.70 20.0 116 3.02 11.23 39 APR 28 7.60 3.10 -61 2.80 21.0 117 3.04 11.28 40 APS 29 7.45 3.00 -44 3.20 13.0 117 3.06 11.28 41 APR 30 7.50 7.80 -33 3.30 18.0 107 2.95 9.50 42 MAY 1 7.40 7.75 -34 3.90 18.5 98 2.95 15.36 43 MAY 2 7.40 7.85 -42 4.00 18.0 104 2.99 12.00 161 ACETATE SYSTEH CONTINUED ACETATE AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC AEROB'IC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE No. DATE pH PH ORP D.O. TEMP FLOW FLOW FLOW (aV) (ag/L) (CELCIUS) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) 44 MAY 7.45 7.90 -49 3.30 18.0 109 2.35 12.00 45 MAY 4 7.50 7.85 -56 3.10 18.5 109 2.39 12.72 46 HAY 5 7.60 7.90 -55 3.50 19.0 104 2.38 12.72 47 MAY 6 7.60 7.80 -76 1.40 20.0 113 2.33 12.00 48 MAY 7 7.75 8.00 -88 3.20 21.0 114 2.33 12.00 49 HAY 8 7.60 7.90 -89 2.20 20.5 116 2.35 12.00 50 MAY 3 7.65 8.00 -99 2.80 21.0 120 2.93 12.00 51 MAY 10 7.75 8.00 -35 1.80 22.0 123 3.12 12.24 52 MAY 11 7.80 8.20 -251 2.20 22.0 126 3.07 12.24 53 HAY 12 7.80 8.20 -263 2.20 22.0 127 3.06 12.24 54 HAY 13 7.90 8.30 -286 2.00 22.5 138 3.05 12.00 55 HAY 14 7.70 7.80 -99 0.30 21.0 40 2.33 12.00 56 MAY 15 7.60 7.75 -88 2.40 21.0 56 2.37 12,00 57 HAY 16 7.85 8.10 -253 0.60 21.0 219 2.83 12.00 58 HAY 17 8.00 8.25 -241 4.20 20.0 114 2.85 12.00 59 MAY 18 3.00 8.30 -233 5.40 19.0 102 2.83 12.24 60 MAY 19 8.00 8.25 -254 2.00 19.0 102 1.36 12.24 61 HAY 20 8.00 8.20 -284 1.80 21.0 107 2.07 12.24 62 HAY 21 8.00 8.25 -308 1.00 22.0 104 2.64 11.52 63 MAY 22 7.95 8.25 -374 2.00 20.5 115 2.87 13.20 64 HAY 23 7.85 8.25 -430 0.70 19.5 36 3.09 12.00 65 HAY 24 7.80 8.00 -263 0.50 19.5 105 3.30 12.00 66 MAY 25 7.80 8.00 -262 1.50 20.0 108 3.30 12.00 67 MAY 26 7.85 8.10 -274 1.30 20.0 110 3.30 12.00 68 MAY 27 7.90 8.20 -281 1.10 20.0 112 3.29 12.00 69 MAY 28 7.95 8.30 -290 0.90 21.5 116 3.28 12.00 70 MAY 29 7.85 8.10 -267 2.40 19.5 103 3.21 12.00 71 HAY 30 7.90 8.20 -359 0.60 21.0 100 3.29 12.00 72 MAY 31 7.90 8.20 -286 3.20 21.0 111 3.37 12.00 73 JNE 1 7.95 8.25 -283 1.70 20.5 112 3.06 12.00. 74 JNE 2 7.90 8.25 -279 2.70 19.0 39 2.98 12.00 75 JNE 3 7.90 8.25 -287 0.60 20.0 102 3.70 12.00 76 JNE 4 7.90 8.30 -293 4.10 21.0 105 3.24 12.00 77 JNE 5 8.00 8.30 -283 3.90 20.0 103 3.19 12.00 78 JNE 6 8.00 8.30 -292 1.00 20.0 129 3.38 12.00 79 JNE 7 8.05 8.30 -307 4.10 21.0 134 3.28 12.00 80 JNE 3 8.00 8.30 -306 2.30 20.5 136 2.37 12.00 81 JNE 9 8.00 8.20 -308 0.50 21.0 139 3.36 12.00 82 JNE 10 8.20 8.35 -312 4.40 21.5 132 2.32 12.00 83 JNE 11 8.20 8.20 -312 4.30 22.0 121 2.88 12.00 84 JNE 12 8.25 8.25 -316 3.30 22.0 121 2.73 12.00 35 JNE 13 3.10 8.10 -322 2.10 22.0 131 3.33 12.00 86 JNE 14 8.10 8.30 -432 3.10 23.0 138 3.24 12.00 87 JNE 15 8.10 8.20 -509 0.70 23.0 144 3.40 12.00 88 JNE 16 8.20 8.25 -524 0.70 23.0 138 3.31 12.00 39 JNE 17 8.20 8.40 -313 0.50 23.0 77 3.38 12.00 90 JNE 18 8.30 3.30 -330 2.10 22.0 120 3.03 12.00 91 JNE 19 8.40 8.30 -348 0.00 22.0 125 3.07 12.00 92 JNE 20 8.50 8.45 -387 5.00 22.0 127 2.34 12.00 162 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM YEAST WASTE AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC AEROBIC AEROBIC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE No. DATE pH ?H ORP TEMP D.O. FLOW FLOW FLOW CBV) (CELCIUS) (ag/L) (fflL/d) (L/d) (L/d) u 1 MAR 21 7.55 7.60 38 13.0 6.10 0 3.35 11.52 2 MAR 22 t c r / . J J T CC *' i J J 41 18.5 6.50 0 3.30 11.52 3 MAR 23 7.60 7.65 40 18.0 6.50 0 3.18 12.00 4 MAR 24 7.30 7.65 37 18.0 3.00 0 2.33 11.76 5 MAR 25 7.30 7.60 29 18.0 2.70 0 2.33 11.76 6 MAR 26 7.25 7.50 25 18.5 3.40 0 2.33 11.76 7 MAR 27 7.15 7.45 23 18.0 2.00 0 2.33 11.76 8 MAR 28 7.00 7.25 15 18.0 2.20 0 2.32 12.43 9 MAR 29 6.85 7.30 -4 18.5 2.00 0 2.92 11.76 10 MAR 30 6.40 7.10 42 18.0 2.10 0 2.34 12.00 11 MAR 31 6.95 7.30 3 18.0 2.30 0 2.34 11.76 12 APR 1 6.95 7.25 10 18.0 2.30 0 2.37 11.52 13 APR 2 7.00 7.30 15 18.0 3.70 0 2.93 14 APR 3 7.05 7.40 20 18.0 3.30 0 2.88 11.52 15 APR 4 7.10 7.30 22 17.5 4.60 0 2.78 11.52 16 APR 5 7.00 7.30 5 17.5 5.40 0 2.83 11.52 17 APR 5 7.00 7.40 -5 17.5 5.30 0 3.31 12.00 18 APR 7 7.05 7.35 18 18.0 0.60 0 2.34 11.76 19 APR 8 6.70 7.15 21 18.0 5.40 0 2.83 11.76 20 APR 9 6.55 7.10 42 18.5 6.30 0 2.30 12.00 21 APR 10 6.45 7.10 63 13.0 5.80 0 2.30 12.00 22 APR 11 6.30 7.05 83 18.0 6.40 0 2.83 12.00 23 APR 12 5.95 5.60 106 13.5 3.60 0 3.46 12.00 24 APR 13 6.30 7.40 -164 21.0 0.40 1033 3.40 12.00 25 APR 14 5.70 6.70 -86 20.5 5.40 701 3.33 12.00 26 APR 15 5.10 6.35 -30 20.5 5.60 343 2.36 12.00 27 APR 16 5.10 6.75 -133 21.0 5.50 1115 2.85 12.00 28 APR 17 4.35 6.40 -32 13.0 6.00 1010 2.75 12.00 29 APR 18 5.10 6.60 49 18.5 3.80 353 2.68 11.76 30 APR 19 7.50 3.20 -343 19.0 0.90 1054 2.74 11.76 31 APR 20 7.20 7.60 -26 20.0 5.50 1017 2.82 11.76 32 APR 21 6.85 7.35 32 20.5 5.30 333 2.36 11.76 33 APR 22 6.05 6.90 73 20.0 5.80 814 2.76 11.76 34 APR 23 7.00 7.85 28 13.0 5.70 337 2.65 11.76 35 APR 24 7.05 7.40 58 13.5 4.70 343 2.82 11.76 36 APR 25 6.95 7.35 50 20.0 4.10 874 2.95 11.76 37 APR 26 6.80 7.30 55 20.0 3.50 874 3.01 11.76 38 APR 27 6.60 7.20 63 20.0 3.10 874 3.02 11.76 39 APR 28 6.40 7.15 30 21.0 2.50 874 3.04 11.76 40 APR 29 6.20 7.30 74 13.0 4.10 333 3.01 11.76 41 APR 30 6.50 7.05 35 18.0 4.10 371 2.68 11.76 42 MAY 1 6.70 7.30 75 18.5 4.10 883 2.72 10.56 43 MAY t 6.55 - 7.30 -54 13.0 3.40 872 2.39 11.00 163 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM CONTINUED YEAST WASTE AEROBIC ANOXIC ANOXIC AEROBIC AER08IC SOLUTION INFLUENT RECYCLE DAY No. DATE pH pH ORP TEMP D.O. FLOW FLOW FLOW (aV) (CELCIUS) (ag/L) (aL/d) (L/d) (L/d) 44 MAY n £.30 7.25 -39 18 . 0 3.20 396 3.03 11 . 0 0 45 MAY 4 6.30 7.45 -30 13 . 5 3.10 657 3.08 11.00 46 MAY 5 7.00 7.50 -53 13.0 4.50 713 J. 1J 10.66 47 MAY 6 6.35 7.30 -106 20 . 0 2.50 1433 3.13 10.66 48 MAY 7 i 6.55 7.40 -25 21.0 2.20 0 2.70 10.66 43 MAY 9 6.60 7.35 -133 20.5 2.30 662 2.85 10.32 50 MAY 3 6.50 7.15 -82 21.0 1.40 1031 3.12 10.56 51 MAY 10 7.00 7.30 -107 22.0 4.30 1167 3.03 10.56 52 HAY 11 7.20 7.40 -58 22.0 4.30 604 3.13 10.56 53 MAY 12 7.00 7.40 20 22.0 5.20 330 3.10 11.00. 54 MAY 13 6.30 7.30 53 22.5 4.30 655 3,38 10.56 55 MAY 14 7.00 7.35 27 21.0 2.30 700 2.83 10.32 55 MAY 15 6.85 7.30 75 21.0 3.80 0 2.37 10.32 57 MAY 16 7.10 7.45 -227 21.0 1.30 1308 2.33 11.00 58 MAY 17 7.00 7.45 -258 20.0 0.80 1246 2.33 10.56 53 MAY 13 7.25 7.65 -233 13.0 4.70 1454 2.55 10.56 60 MAY 13 7.35 7.60 -231 19.0 5.60 1235 2.03 10.56 61 MAY 20 7.30 7.40 -132 21.0 6.40 0 2.66 10.32 62 MAY 21 7.40 7.70 -327 22.0 4.30 1023 2.35 10.80 63 MAY 22 7.40 7.75 -313 20.5 5.40 761 3.03 11.00 64 MAY 23 7.40 7.70 -267 19.5 4.50 372 2.76 11.00 . 65 MAY 24 7.40 7.50 -238 19.5 3.30 634 3.03 11.00 66 MAY 25 7.40 7.70 -317 20.0 3.20 1200 3.08 11.00 67 HAY 26 7.45 7.75 -336 20.0 3.30 1400 3.06 11.00 68 HAY 27 7.40 7.70 -268 20.0 3.30 300 3.05 11.00 63 MAY 28 7.50 7.35 -343 21.5 4.00 1600 3.04 10.80 70 MAY 23 7.50 7.70 -353 19.5 5.30 361 2.78 . 11.00 71 HAY 30 7.45 7.70 -367 21.0 3.30 1000 3.06 11.00 72 MAY 31 7.40 7.75 -343 21.0 3.20 313 3.17 11 . 0 0 73 JNE i 7.40 7.70 -353 20.5 1.20 337 2.73 10.80 74 JNE 2 7.45 7.75 -357 13.0 3.30 720 2.50 10.80 75 JNE 3 7.50 7.20 -337 20.0 1.00 1635 2.90 10.30 76 JNE 4 7.30 7.30 -363 21.0 2.30 1250 2.70 10.80 77 JNE 5 7.30 7.40 -334 20.0 2.70 1003 2.69 10.30 78 JNE 6 7.35 7.30 -415 20.0 1.00 1066 3.21 10.32 73 JNE 7 7.85 7.00 -435 21.0 0.00 318 3.33 10.30 30 JNE 3 7.40 7.60 -410 20.5 7.10 1103 2.26 10.30 31 JNE 3 7.50 6.30 -398 21.0 0.60 1275 2.73 12.72 32 JNE 10 7.35 7.15 -331 21.5 4.00 1101 3.22 10.56 83 JNE 11 7.30 7.30 -434 22.0 4.30 1345 L 63 11.00 34 JNE 12 7.35 7.20 -448 22.0 5.80 2033 1.35 11.00 35 JNE 13 7.25 6.30 -444 22.0 4.20 1257 3.54 11.00 36 JNE 14 7.25 7.10 -447 23.0 5.30 1230 3.16 11.00 87 JNE 15 7.20 6.90 -458 23.0 3.90 1237 3.05 11.00 83 JNE 16 7.40 7 . 0 0 -473 23.0 4.70 1212 2.33 11.00 39 JNE 17 7.45 7.00 -340 23.0 5.30 1054 3.40 11.00 30 JNE 18 7.40 5 . 3D -360 22.0 4.80 1143 2.31 1 * rtj-i 31 JNE 13 7.40 £.30 -333 22 . 0 4.50 904 2.39 11.00 32 JNE 20 7.30 6.70 -331 22.0 1.40 1133 2.77 l l . 0 0 164 GLUCOSE AND METHANOL SYSTEMS GLUC. GLUC. GLUC. MeOH MeOH MeOH DAY DATE INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. TSS . TSS TSS TSS TSS TSS TSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (mg/L) • OCT 3 132 1580 1600 148 1625 1685 30 1 OCT 17 55 1910 1970 52 2200 2410 28 3 OCT 19 98 1940 1950 47 2390 2530 95 5 OCT 21 92 1850 1900 53 2150 2430 66 7 OCT 23 316 1620 1580 34 1850 2230 38 9 OCT 25 75 1640 1570 30 1970 2180 39 12 OCT 28 110 1880 1710 15 1800 1830 36 18 NOV 1 59 1640 1540 11 1600 1650 13 18 NOV 3 100 1890 1630 26 1760 1620 12 22 NOV 7 68 1811 1708 17 1470 1480 15 25 NOV 10 147 2400 2220 16 1440 1630 15 27 NOV 12 94 2520 2460 15 1640 1710 15 32 NOV 17 73 2990 2960 12 1770 1910 21 34 NOV 19 45 3620 3190 7 1750 2080 15 36 NOV 21 41 3710 3270 7 1800 1840 12 39 NOV 24 43 3460 3270 7 2190 2150 12 41 NOV 26 34 3650 3550 18 2030 2340 10 43 NOV 28 58 3820 3580 31 2330 2540 22 46 DEC 1 53 3830 3490 12 1990 2200 11 48 DEC 3 212 3930 3630 16 2020 2220 18 50 DEC 5 142 3550 3360 11 1660 1740 12 53 DEC 8 47 3720 3480 7 2910 2300 9 55 DEC 10 153 3700 3470 8 1980 2190 14 57 DEC 12 67 3530 3290 8 2120 2100 13 64 DEC 19 141 9400 1510 6 2220 2480 11 67 DEC 22 244 4420 4200 10 2510 2550 17 69 DEC 24 59 4200 3890 6 2510 2760 16 71 DEC 26 47 3960 3620 6 2060 2350 17 75 DEC 30 78 4200 3060 4 2140 2240 11 78 JAN 2 105 4350 4080 5 2200 2390 13 81 JAN 5 245 4090 43B0 6 2090 2380 18 83 JAN 7 . 53 4670 4290 6 2130 2520 11 85 JAN 9 59 4400 4040 6 1940 2150 5 88 JAN 12 58 4840 4550 6 2150 2570 6 90 JAN 14 43 4820 4540 6 2510 2930 6 92 JAN 16 68 4430 4310 9 2170 2860 6 95 JAN 19 SB 4390 4360 7 2580 3250 5 97 JAN 21 59 4150 4300 6 2830 3100 8 99 JAN 23 84 4430 4110 8 2890 3190 8 102 JAN 26 104 4550 4110 6 3220 3170 5 104 JAN 28 71 4390 4130 8 3420 3480 7 106 JAN 30 79 4700 4530 7 3510 3500 5 109 FEB 2 41 5000 4290 7 3420 3600 18 111 FEB 4 38 5330 4970 12 3910 4060 8 113 FEB 6 58 5460 5410 23 4010 4330 8 116 FEB 9 135 5170 5170 22 4140 4450 10 118 FEB 11 269 5530 5530 33 4800 4900 27 165 GLUCOSE AND METHANOL SYSTEMS 8LUC. DAY DATE INFLUENT ANOKIC No. TSS TSS (ag/L) (ag/L) 120 FEB 13 194 5600 123 FEB 16 252 5890 125 FEB 18 521 8170 127 FEB 20 203 6270 130 FEB 23 184 5770 132 FEB 25 295 7030 134 FEB 27 137 4870 137 MAR 1 504 4430 139 MAR 3 51 3750 141 MAR 5 43 2490 143 MAR 7 95 2230 6LUC. GLUC. MeOH MeOH MeOH AEROBIC EFFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT TSS TSS TSS TSS TSS (ag/D- (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 5590 21 4790 4820 38 5360 15 4750 4740 14 6210 i c 4970 5040 19 6460 16 4970 5300 16 5500 16 5470 5350 17 6880 75 5530 5560 14 4300 68 5290 5420 15 4330 49 5800 5970 30 3670 32 6170 . 7060 27 2470 72 6830 6610 32 1940 37 6310 6300 13 166 GLUCOSE AND METHANOL SYSTEMS GLUC. GLUC. GLUC. MeOH MeOH MeOH DAY DATE INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. VSS VSS VSS VSS VSS VSS VSS (ag/L) ( s g / L ) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) OCT 3 42 1110 1060 76 1150 1185 22 1 OCT 17 29 1200 1230 31 1470 1630 16 3 OCT 19 35 1260 1260 25 1590 1670 32 5 OCT 21 37 1160 1230 27 1430 1590 31 7 OCT 23 74 1070 1080 22 1260 1500 17 9 OCT 25 33 1180 1160 21 1380 1520 21 12 OCT 28 32 1400 1270 11 1300 1330 19 16 NOV 1 28 1270 1240 9 1220 1240 10 18 NOV 3 16 1410 1270 8 1240 1200 9 22 NOV 7 29 1489 1427 14 1150 1170 11 25 NOV 10 46 1860 1760 11 1050 1220 10 27 NOV 12 27 2010 1970 12 1190 1320 10 32 NOV 17 27 1500 2440 10 1300 1410 13 34 NOV 19 12 3030 2690 6 1320 1540 11 36 NOV 21 17 3130 2740 6 1350 1390 9 39 NOV 24 31 2910 2750 6 1640 1590 9 41 NOV 26 20 3030 2940 14 1740 1670 7 43 NOV 28 28 3160 2950 16 1680 1810 16 46 DEC 1 26 3160 2880 10 1430 1610 8 48 DEC 3 83 3230 3000 13 1520 1650 10 50 DEC 5 52 2840 2690 8 1170 1240 6 53 DEC 8 22 2990 2760 5 2040 1630 6 55 DEC 10 51 3050 2B40 7 1500 1620 10 57 DEC 12 31 2870 2690 7 1560 1540 9 64 DEC 19 56 7810 1320 6 1680 1890 9 67 DEC 22 75 3660 3440 8 1910 1930 12 69 DEC 24 30 3530 3290 5 1980 2130 12 71 DEC 26 21 3260 2990 5 1520 1790 12 75 DEC 30 36 3510 3320 4 1670 1730 9 78 JAN 2' 42 3640 3390 3 1710 1850 10 81 JAN 5 79 3510 3720 5 2050 1860 14 83 JAN 7 29 4030 3680 5 1690 1990 10 85 JAN 9 35 3825 3530 5 1590 1770 5 88 JAN 12 32 4160 3930 5 1750 2090 5 90 JAN 14 20 4090 3880 5 2070 2420 5 92 JAN 16 34 3810 3780 7 1810 2350 4 95 JAN 19 49 3550 3610 4 2080 2680 3 97 JAN 21 35 3500 3590 6 2310 2550 7 99 JAN 23 48 3640 3370 6 2350 2590 7 102 JAN 26 46 3630 3310 5 2450 2540 4 104 JAN 28 32 3600 3360 6 2780 2810 6 106 JAN 30 37 3780 3610 6 2840 2840 4 109 FEB 2 19 4140 3510 5 2810 2950 16 111 FEB 4 23 4420 4110 9 3280 3380 7 113 FEB 6 34 4650 4540 12 3410 3650 7 116 FEB 9 44 4330 4300 8 3530 3790 7 118 FEB 11 59 4730 4620 8 4120 4230 14 167 GLUCOSE AND METHANOL SYSTEMS GLUC. GLUC. DAY DATE INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC No. VSS VSS VSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 120 FEB 13 57 4780 4730 123 FEB 16 73 5050 4540 125 FEB 18 134 6950 5220 127 FEB 20 65 5360 5460 130 FEB 23 63 4800 4600 132 FEB 25 97 6140 6010 134 FEB 27 52 4080 3560 137 HAR 1 139 3580 3500 139 MAR 3 30 2980 2900 141 HAR 5 26 1930 1890 143 HAR 7 37 1650 1530 GLUC. MeOH HeOH MeOH EFFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT VSS VSS VSS VSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 4 4120 4190 17 9 4090 4150 13 7 4300 4360 14 7 4340 4600 14 13 4720 4630 15 63 4740 4810 12 50 4600 4710 14 39 5060 5210 27 23 5390 6170 24 48 5890 5780 27 25 5540 5580 10 168 ACETATE SYSTEM DAY DATE INFLUENT No. TSS (ag/L) 0 2 HAR 22 20 4 MAR 24 38 11 HAR 31 45 17 APR 6 134 20 APR 9 145 22 APR 11 222 24 APR 13 156 27 APR 16 32 29 APR 18 171 31 APR 20 51 34 APR 23 104 41 APR 30 179 43 HAY 2 229 45 HAY 4 158 48 MAY 7 202 50 HAY 9 295 55 HAY 14 47 57 MAY 16 60 59 HAY 18 56 62 MAY 21 90 64 HAY 23 121 69 HAY 28 70 71 MAY 30 98 73 JNE 1 101 76 JNE 4 160 78 JNE 6 92 80 JNE 8 53 83 JNE 11 127 85 JNE 13 100 87 JNE 15 87 92 JNE 20 41 ACETATE ACETATE ACETATE ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT TSS TSS TSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 790 790 26 730 680 27 3140 3130 51 2500 2610 56 1630 1760 23 1710 1330 31 1940 1360 52 2660 2630 6 2880 2740 4 3040 2390 5 2740 2710 6 2090 2040 11 2380 2300 16 2340 2320 11 2380 2390 29 2100 2070 24 3190 3130 34 3380 3300 39 3070 3260 30 3350 3280 22 3580 3490 19 3710 3620 19 3640 3710 24 3870 3660 32 4060 3930 19 4090 3960 18 4150 4190 16 4260 4270 23 4070 4070 17 3680 4050 30 1710 2420 860 YEAST YEAST YEAST HASTE HASTE WASTE ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT TSS TSS TSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 860 950 34 850 910 48 3000 3150 72 2710 2750 57 1930 2160 66 2030 2160 67 2120 2140 69 2640 2590 40 2760 2640 67 2430 2550 47 2100 2150 37 2160 2120 38 2660 2670 21 3460 3060 15 6660 5820 15 4610 4610 24 5620 5910 25 7740 7180 35 6940 7380 29 7570 7700 89 6650 6600 27 8370 8060 20 8030 8190 24 7630 7540 522 7930 7650 280 7750 7770 656 5830 6230 1848 6380 6230 184 5980 5950 640 6130 6100 2290 7030 7340 1090 ACETATE SYSTEM ACETATE ACETATE DAY DATE INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC No. VSS VSS VSS (1 (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) V 2 MAR 22 6 580 590 4 MAR 24 16 600 560 11 MAR 31 20 2440 2430 17 APR 6 43 1850 1980 20 APR 9 57 1250 1330 22 APR 11 87 1250 1480 24 APR 13 60 1480 1530 27 APR 16 43 2110 2080 29 APR 18 70 2290 2190 31 APR 20 31 2430 2360 34 APR 23 32 2200 2170 41 APR 30 43 1700 1700 43 MAY 2 48 1920 1800 45 MAY 4 34 1900 1880 48 MAY 7 49 1850 1870 50 MAY 9 72 1660 1640 55 MAY 14 26 2510 2420 57 MAY 16 31 2650 2540 59 MAY 18 31 2420 2520 62 MAY 21 42 2680 2600 64 MAY 23 54 2840 2800 69 MAY 28 39 3050 3000 71 MAY 30 43 3040 3030 73 JNE 1 69 3230 3020 76 JNE 4 87 3370 3250 78 JNE 6 51 3360 3280 80 JNE 8 30 3430 3460 83 JNE 11 52 3550 3490 85 JNE 13 40 3470 3610 87 JNE 15 34 3100 3350 92 JNE 20 22 1440 2020 YEAST YEAST YEAST ACETATE WASTE WASTE WASTE EFFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT VSS VSS VSS VSS (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 15 630 710 20 19 700 740 34 40 2350 2440 53 18 2020 2050 30 15 1490 1640 42 17 1440 1600 43 38 1680 1710 55 5 2130 2160 . 34 3 2350 2250 80 5 2090 2150 41 5 1800 1810 35 10 1820 1780 28 11 2040 2060 17 8 2470 2200 12 20 4360 3910 11 15 3210 3220 18 22 3700 3860 20 24 5100 4690 27 19 5130 5340 22 13 5560 5690 67 13 4930 4920 22 15 6640 6430 18 16 6460 6570 16 23 6230 6160 426 16 6800 6590 242 14 6740 6770 548 11 5060 5340 1556 15 5690 5550 140 12 5420 5320 568 23 5600 5520 2070 720 6510 6800 1020 170 METHANOL SYSTEM METHANOL SYSTEM INFLUENT DAY No. DATE AMMONIA (ag/L) 5 OCT 21 156 7 OCT 23 203 12 OCT 28 213 17 NOV 2 219 13 NOV 4 217 22 NOV 7 137 25 NOV 10 223 33 NOV 13 178 36 NOV 21 182 38 NOV •in 134 43 NOV 23 132 45 NOV 30 133 47 DEC 2 181 50 DEC 5 187 52 DEC 7 181 54 DEC 3 135 57 DEC 12 212 53 DEC 14 204 62 DEC 17 204 64 DEC 13 216 56 DEC 21 203 68 DEC 23 220 71 DEC 26 206 73 DEC 28 205 75 DEC 30 201 78 JAN 2 138 80 JAN 4 134 32 JAN 6 238 85 JAN 3 227 87 JAN 11 226 83 JAN 13 221 32 JAN 16 224 34 JAN IS 171 36 JAN 20 172 33 JAN 23 148 101 JAN 25 163 103 JAN 27 217 105 JAN 30 215 108 FEB 1 207 ISO FEB 3 215 113 FEB 6 228 115 FEB 3 131 117 FEB 10 186 120 FEB 13 173 122 FEB 15 163 124 FEB 17 191 ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ( i g / L ) (ag/L) (ag/L) 66.3 1.60 0.20 16.5 0.40 7.10 54.3 22.20 26.30 47.5 0.50 0.10 10.4 3.10 0.01 33.5 0.01 0.01 69.0 27.10 14.80 35.5 0.05 0.01 31.0 0.08 0.07 33.5 0.27 0.05 71.0 33.50 53.00 33.5 0.13 0.08 33.5 0.06 0.04 37.5 0.03 0.07 35.5 0.03 0.07 39.0 -0.05 0.10 33.5 0.12 0.15 39.5 0.17 0.05 63.5 39.80 34.30 38.5 0.07 0.07 47.0 2.95 9.40 42.5 0.05 0.03 40.3 0.07 0.06 39.8 0.06 0.02 38.8 0.12 0.01 35.8 0.04 0.04 37.0 0.09 0.06 44.5 0.02 0.02 42.8 0.02 0.01 43.5 0.04 0.04 45.8 0.03 0.92 43.3 0.02 0.02 31.0 0.01 0.01 39.3 0.24 0.04 31.0 0.04 0.01 31.5 0.01 0.00 43.5 0.00 0.00 39.0 0.02 0.02 40.3 0.00 0.00 42.3 0.00 0.00 43.3 0.05 0.07 36.5 0.06 0.02 35.3 0.02 0.02 32.5 0.04 0.04 30.3 0.15 0.10 36.5 0.91 2.67 INFLUENT DAY No. DATE AMMONIA (ag/L) 127 FEB 20 178 129 FEB 22 175 131 FEB 24 199 134 FEB 27 209 136 FEB 29 136 139 MAR 2 203 141 MAR 5 • . 211 143 MAR 7 198 ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ig/L) (ug/L) (ag/L) 31.3 0.07 0.10 29.5 0.12 0.15 37.0 0.30 0.20 33.0 0.14 0.15 33.8 0.07 0.22 33.3 0.31 0.23 36.8 0.18 0.07 37.3 0.17 ' 0.29 171 GLUCOSE SYSTEM INFLUENT ANOXIC ' No,  DATE AMMONIA AMMONIA 0 (ag/L) (ag/L) V 5 OCT 21 166 67.2 7 OCT 23 209 45.3 12 OCT 28 218 87.0 17 NOV 2 219 41.5 19 NOV 4 217 42.5 22 NOV 7 187 36.0 25 NOV 10 223 47.0 33 NOV 18 178 31.5 38 NOV 21 182 31.0 38 NOV 23 194 34.0 43 NOV 28 192 36.5 45 NOV 30 193 39.5 47 DEC 2 181 36.0 50 DEC 5 187 37.0 52 DEC 7 181 36.0 54 DEC 9 195 36.5 57 DEC 12 212 39.0 59 DEC 14 204 36.5 62 DEC 17 204 37.5 G4 DEC 19 216 50.5 66 DEC 21 209 38.5 88 DEC 23 220 45.5 71 DEC 26 206 42.0 73 DEC 28 206 41.0 75 DEC 30 201 35.5 78 JAN 2 198 34.0 80 JAN 4 194 37.3 82 JAN 6 238 46.0 85 JAN 9 227 41.0 87 JAN 11 226 41.0 89 JAN 13 221 37.3 92 JAN 16 224 40.3 94 JAN 18 171 28.3 96 JAN 20 172 31.0 99 JAN 23 148 28.5 101 JAN 25 163 29.0 103 JAN 27 217 42.5 108 JAN 30 215 40.0 108 FEB 1 207 39.0 110 FEB 3 215 40.3 113 FEB 6 228 37.3 115 FEB 8 191 31.5 117 FEB 10 186 27.5 120 FEB 13 179 28.3 122 FEB 15 169 24.8 124 FEB 17 191 28.0 AEROBIC EFFLUENT AMMONIA AMMONIA DAY No. DATE (ag/L) (ag/L) 9.80 2.80 127 FEB 20 2.10 6.60 129 FEB 22 59.50 57.50 131 FEB 24 0.75 8.75 134 FEB 27 0.50 0.01 136 FEB 29 0.12 0.01 138 MAR 2 1.10 0.12 141 MAR 5 0.14 0.04 143 MAR 7 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.05 0.20 9.00 0.26 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.18 0.09 0.14 0.11 0.24 0.20 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.31 0.18 12.00 0.39 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.17 2.29 0.20 0.38 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.70 0.10 0.17 0.17 0.15 0.09 0.27 0.17 0.38 0.02 0.16 0.02 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.20 NFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 178 25.5 0.11 0.23 175 37.0 3.01 0.99 199 55.5 23.40 17.40 209 72.5 42.30 54.30 186 65.5 32.00 33.00 203 61.0 25.00 24.30 211 40.3 0.47 0.36 198 40.0 0.47 0.31 172 ACETATE SYSTEM DAY No. DATE 17 APR 6 20 APR 9 22 APR 11 24 APR 13 27 APR 16 29 APR 18 31 APR 20 34 APR 23 41 APR 30 43 MAY 2 45 MAY 4 48 HAY 7 50 MAY 9 55 MAY 14 57 MAY 16 59 MAY 18 62 HAY 21 64 MAY 23 69 MAY 28 71 MAY 30 73 JNE 1 76 JNE 4 78 JNE 6 80 JNE 8 83 JNE 11 85 JNE 13 87 JNE 15 92 JNE 20 INFLUENT ANOXIC AMMONIA AMMONIA (ag/L) (ag/L) 194 39.5 194 39.8 182 35.5 142 23.8 193 34.8 164 29.5 188 36.5 ISO 34.5 228 53.5 222 42.5 241 42.8 215 35.8 191 34.5 223 43.0 204 39.3 202 37.3 210 37.5 199 38.3 190 35.8 194 38.8 265 52.3 264 51.8 228 46.3 240 45.3 223 38.3 209 41.5 209 43.3 188 35.8 AEROBIC EFFLUENT AMMONIA AMMONIA (ag/L) (ag/L) 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.00 0.18 0.04 0.13 0.14 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.18 15.60 0.03 0.11 0.73 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.16 0.18 2.44 0.18 0.34 0.15 0.41 0.31 1.37 0.25 0.49 0.25 0.30 0.14 0.62 0.12 0.33 0.11 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.11 0.34 0.31 0.39 0.20 0.58 0.00 0.26 0. 10 0.34 0.36 0.86 0.86 1.63 1.50 173 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM .YEAST WASTE SOLUTION DAY No. DATE FTKN (ag/L) 0 34 APR 31.6 4! APR 30 60.0 43 MAY 2 77.2 45 MAY 4 36.6 48 MAY 7 30.0 50 MAY 3 33.8 55 MAY 14 34.5 57 MAY 16 105.0 53 MAY IB 114.0 62 MAY 21 154.0 54 MAY 23 272.0 63 MAY 28 210.0 71 MAY 30 213.0 73 JNE 1 256.0 76 JNE 4 232.0 78 JNE 6 262.0 30 JNE 8 146.0 83 JNE 11 274.0 85 JNE 13 482.0 87 JNE 15 36.3 32 JNE 20 78.5 INFLUENT . ANOXIC FTKN FTKN (ag/L) (ag/L) 130 40.2 252 56.3 241 56.4 253 62.2 244 44.6 137 54.3 243 55.3 223 £1.6 224 53.7 214 58.2 211 52.7 212 56.7 201 58.3 280 72.4 272 75.3 254 78.2 266 73.1 244 83.8 226 105.0 223 63.3 211 57.0 AEROBIC EFFLUENT FTKN FTKN (ag/L) (ag/L) 5.00 4.30 3.30 7.00 8.10 7.10 10.20 7.30 8.60 42.00 9.30 3.20 3.30 8.60 3.60 3.60 7.70 7.20 3.40 10.00 3.30 8.30 10.20 11.30 8.00 8.30 3.30 3.40 10.40 21.00 10.30 14.60 13.80 13.20 12.40 10.80 16.10 12.60 10.00 15.50 10.60 13.00 174 METHANOL SYSTEM TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ANOXIC AMMONIA AMMONIA AEROBIC r No, . DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL Z ( i g / d ) X (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 5 OCT 21 99.88 -441.63 -76.57 -2.23 393.79 97.59 13.02 7 OCT 23 96.60 65.62 25.02 0.83 191.91 97.58 2.67 12 OCT 28 87.94 -0.84 -0.08 0.00 555.08 65.47 10.26 17 NOV 2 99.95 7.90 1.11 0.04 693.25 98.95 12.04 19 NOV 4 100.00 605.68 78.96 2.65 113.44 70.19 1.97 22 NOV 7 99.99 -25.48 -4.48 -0.16 593.93 99.97 10.58 25 NOV 10 93.36 -180.70 -21.07 -0.84 630.60 60.72 10.77 33 NOV 18 99.99 -9.78 -1.88 -0.06 528.91 99.86 7.16 36 NOV 21 99.96 38.05 7.70 0.24 454.83 99.74 6.82 38 NOV 23 99.97 30.34 5.81 0.15 488.15 99.19 6.40 43 NOV 28 69.27 211.74 16.64 0.41 470.61 44.37 5.42 45 NOV 30 99.96 -29.99 -5.56 -0.16 567.49 99.66 7.34 47 DEC 2 99.98 18.86 3.65 0.10 496.58 99.82 6.27 50 DEC 5 99.96 32.28 5.79 0.21 524.49 99.76 8.81 52 DEC 7 99.96 12.57 2.35 0.05 520.88 99.75 6.66 54 DEC 9 99.95 22.99 3.90 0.11 566.33 99.87 7.28 57 DEC 12 99.93 59.92 9.30 0.25 582.43 99.70 7.88 59 DEC 14 99.98 8.59 1.43 0.04 587.20 99.57 7.94 62 DEC 17 82.94 4.84 0.47 0.01 440.45 42.73 5.96 64 DEC 19 99.97 34.07 5.64 0.14 568.38 99.82 6.27 66 DEC 21 95.50 59.10 7.66 0.17 667.36 93.72 13.50 68 DEC 23 99.99 -1.99 -0.32 -0.01 630.81 99.88 6.17 71 DEC 26 99.97 -18.92 -3.28 -0.09 595.40 99.83 6.93 73 DEC 28 99.99 7.94 1.32 0.04 592.92 99.85 6.90 75 DEC 30 100.00 30.43 5.05 0.13 570.92 99.69 6.88 78 JAN 2 99.98 26.36 4.59 0.11 547.72 99.89 6.17 80 JAN 4 99.97 11.56 1.98 0.04 571.74 99.76 6.40 82 JAN 6 99.99 56.41 7.77 0.19 669.42 99.96 7.01 85 JAN 9 100.00 44.65 6.49 0.17 642.98 99.95 7.57 87 JAN 11 99.98 27.80 4.08 0.10 652.33 99.91 6.50 89 JAN 13 99.5B 4.56 0.66 0.01 691.13 99.93 5.95 92 JAN 16 99.99 48.04 6.83 0.16 655.26 99.95 5.81 94 JAN 18 99.99 -2.28 -0.50 -0.01 453.69 99.97 3.53 96 JAN 20 99.98 14.56 2.31 0.04 611.68 99.39 5.00 99 JAN 23 99.99 8.37 1.74 0.03 472.14 99.87 3.80 101 JAN 25 100.00 36.22 7.06 0.12 477.07 99.97 3.91 103 JAN 27 100.00 29.73 4.31 0.06 660.33 100.00 4.90 106 JAN 30 99.99 12.72 2.17 0.03 574.18 99.95 4.21 108 FEB 1 100.00 -13.51 -2.31 -0.03 597.25 100.00 4.22 110 FEB 3 100.00 -13.68 -2.22 -0.03 628.58 100.00 3.87 113 FEB 6 99.97 26.11 3.88 0.05 646.59 99.88 3.69 115 FEB a 99.99 56.64 9.26 0.11 553.89 99.84 3.04 117 FEB 10 99.99 37.78 6.64 0.07 531.32 99.94 2.62 120 FE8 13 99.98 39.73 7.57 o.ou 484.63 99.88 2.41 122 FEB 15 99.94 43.99 8.86 0.09 450.14 99.50 2.26 124 FEB 17 98.60 68.35 11.05 0.11 536.34 97.51 2.56 175 METHANOL SYSTEM TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ANOXIC AMMONIA AMMONIA AEROBIC r No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL I ( i g / d ) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 127 FEB 20 99.94 42.12 8.17 0.08 472.46 99.78 2.14 129 FEB 22 99.91 58.57 11.42 0.10 452.45 99.59 2.04 131 FEB 24 99.90 24.96 4.34 0.04 537.17 97.57 2.33 134 FEB 27 99.92 79.56 12.25 0.11 568.13 99.64 2.51 136 FEB 29 99.88 -27.60 -5.04 -0.04 574.10 99.82 2.30 139 HAR 2 99.89 64.24 9.82 0.08 585.43 99.20 1.98 141 HAR 5 99.97 90.55 14.05 0.10 551.13 99.51 1.99 143 HAR 7 99.85 43.65 7.36 0.06 547.30 99.54 2.04 176 GLUCOSE SYSTEM AMMONIA DAY No. DATE REMOVAL I 0 5 OCT 21 98.31 7 OCT 23 96.84 12 OCT 28 73.62 17 NOV 2 96.00 19 NOV 4 100.00 22 NOV 7 99.99 25 NOV 10 99.95 33 NOV 18 99.98 36 NOV 21 99.94 38 NOV 23 39.97 43 NOV 28 95.31 45 NOV 30 99.93 47 DEC 2 99.97 50 DEC 5 99.95 52 DEC 7 99.94 54 DEC 9 99.90 57 DEC 12 99.91 59 SEC 14 99.93 62 DEC 17 99.91 64 DEC 19 99.82 66 DEC 21 99.95 68 DEC 23 99.92 71 DEC 26 99.90 73 DEC 28 99.94 75 DEC 30 99.94 78 JAN 2 99.95 80 JAN 4 99.94 82 JAN 6 99.71 85 JAN 9 99.93 87 JAN 11 99.93 89 JAN 13 99.88 92 JAN 16 99.83 94 JAN IB 99.91 96 JAN 20 99.94 99 JAN 23 99.98 101 JAN 25 99.99 103 JAN 27 99.99 106 JAN 30 99.93 108 FEB 1 99.92 110 FEB 3 99.97 113 FEB 6 99.96 115 FEB 8 99.92 117 FEB 10 100.00 120 FEB 13 99.94 122 FEB 15 99.88 124 FEB 17 99.90 127 FEB 20 99.87 AMMONIA AMMONIA ANOXIC REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL (sg/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) 469.15 0.00 -16.85 . 86.81 12.60 3.38 69.38 4.80 2.06 116.43 15.87 3.44 -7.32 -1.17 -0.20 -4.55 -0.86 -0.13 -50.40 -7.75 -1.13 37.08 7.35 0.51 44.57 8.88 0.59 31.00 5.83 0.44 140.37 21.01 1.85 -23.74 -4.38 -0.31 -4.98 -0.93 -0.06 5.58 1.00 0.08 15.75 2.93 0.22 38.30 6.79 0.52 38.37 6.31 0.56 56.25 9.35 0.82 45.63 7.66 0.66 118.06 -18.58 -0.63 28.66 4.77 0.33 16.18 2.29 0.19 -44.23 -7.50 -0.57 35.79 5.43 0.42 47.12 8.20 0.56 63.76 11.20 0.73 43.85 7.78 0.52 52.22 7.26 0.54 66.68 9.96 0.72 59.80 9.04 0.60 119.60 17.54 1.22 62.88 9.45 0.69 51.23 10.58 0.58 42.33 8.38 0.50 29.33 6.62 0.34 65.10 13.18 0.75 32.66 4.93 0.3B 21.74 3.34 0.24 54.72 8.50 0.55 71.04 10.41 0.67 106.63 16.10 0.96 73.59 13.62 0.71 79.99 16.11 0.70 103.27 19.64 0.90 101.35 21.70 0.84 150.51 26.42 0.90 131.39 25.76 1.02 AMMONIA AMMONIA AEROBIC REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL (ag/d) X (ag/hr/gVSS) 950.54 85.42 16.10 574.13 95.36 11.08 435.05 31.61 7.14 605.95 98.19 9.94 624.96 98.82 9.12 532.10 99.67 7.77 684.37 97.66 8.10 465.07 99.56 3.60 455.63 99.65 3.46 500.13 99.79 3.79 524.90 99.45 3.71 561.92 99.34 4.06 535.75 99.61 3.72 551.93 99.51 4.27 519.25 99.61 3.92 522.14 99.34 3.83 567.99 99.62 4.40 542.17 99.42 4.20 545.58 99.17 4.23 574.42 76.24 9.07 571.16 99.77 3.46 689.32 99.60 4.36 599.22 94.55 4.20 617.02 99.07 3.87 524.21 99.44 3.29 505.13 99.91 3.10 517.73 99.57 2.90 665.72 99.74 3.77 601.23 99.76 3.55 599.38 99.59 3.18 560.75 99.76 3.01 599.94 99.58 3.40 432.68 99.93 2.50 462.53 99.94 2.68 412.95 99.86 2.55 428.61 99.93 2.70 629.28 99.98 3.90 628.03 99.75 3.62 586.79 99.64 3.48 610.29 99.83 3.09 553.98 99.68 2.54 465.50 99.71 2.26 416.63 100.00 1.88 420.88 99.61 1.85 363.74 99.44 1.67 415.42 99.11 1.66 377.04 99.57 1.44 177 GLUCOSE SYSTEM AMMONIA AMMONIA AMMONIA ANOXIC AMMONIA AMMONIA AEROBIC DAY No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL I (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) X (ag/hr/gVSS) 129 FEB 22 99.43 -48.48 -9.73 -0.42 502.37 91.36 2.28 131 FEB 24 91.26 -19.53 -2.39 -0.13 483.11 57.84 1.67 134 FEB 27 74.02 176.09 14.02 1.80 449.68 41.66 2.63 136 FEB 29 82.26 -32.11 -3.39 -0.37 501.50 51.15 2.99 138 MAR 2 83.03 8.32 0.89 0.12 530.60 57.38 3.31 141 MAR 5 99.83 20.87 3.35 0.45 594.66 98.83 6.55 143 HAR 7 99.84 -11.76 -2.01 -0.30 590.58 98.83 8.04 178 ACETATE SYSTEH TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT AHHONIA AHHONIA AHHONIA ANOXIC AMMONIA AMMONIA AEROBIC No. DATE REHOVAL REHOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REHOVAL I ( i g / d ) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 17 APR 6 99.95 5.50 0.85 0.12 635.83 99.67 6.69 20 APR 9 100.00 -18.08 -3.13 -0.60 594.26 99.67 9.31 22 APR 11 99.98 8.12 1.51 0.27 528.39 99.49 7.44 24 APR 13 99.90 102.59 22.01 2.89 361.44 99.45 4.92 27 APR 16 99.97 60.88 10.43 1.20 521.79 99.83 5.23 29 APR 18 99.94 30.86 6.70 0.56 428.06 99.66 4.07 31 APR 20 91.70 206.73 27.38 3.54 545.53 99.51 4.82 34 APR 23 99.94 27.23 5.19 0.52 497.40 99.91 4.78 41 APR 30 99.96 2.04 0.30 0.05 662.26 98.64 8.12 43 HAY 2 99.99 27.07 4.08 0.59 636.03 99.34 7.36 45 HAY 4 99.93 50.49 6.98 1.11 669.87 99.63 7.42 48 HAY 7 99.92 108.37 16.80 2.44 500.07 93.18 5.57 50 HAY 9 99.92 55.74 9.73 1.40 512.06 99.01 6.50 55 HAY 14 99.86 15.12 2.30 0.25 635.87 99.05 5.47 57 HAY 16 99.88 -2.50 -0.43 -0.04 562.50 96.51 4.61 59 HAY 18 99.88 22.49 3.83 0.39 556.94 98.69 4.60 62 HAY 21 99.93 25.01 4.50 0.39 526.75 99.20 4.22 64 HAY 23 99.94 38.40 6.23 0.56 568.59 98.38 4.23 69 HAY 28 99.94 77.50 12.41 1.06 541.98 99.08 3.76 71 HAY 30 100.00 45.01 7.05 0.62 587.14 98.97 4.04 73 JNE 1 99.96 24.58 3.03 0.32 781.61 99.24 5.39 76 JNE 4 99.88 69.65 8.11 0.87 784.25 99.34 5.03 78 JNE 6 99.91 60.95 7.88 0.76 706.10 99.16 4.48 80 JNE 8 100.00 34.66 4.86 0.42 669.46 98.72 4.03 83 JNE 11 99.96 73.54 11.43 0.86 566.04 99.32 3.38 85 JNE 13 99.83 74.15 10.40 0.89 633.45 99.18 3.66 87 JNE 15 99.59 54.10 7.50 0.73 653.58 98.01 4.06 92 JNE 20 99.20 35.87 6.28 1.04 510.50 95.45 5.27 179 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT FILT.TKN F I L L TKN FILT.TKN ANOXIC FILT.TKN FILT.TKN AEROBIC No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL A 7. (sg/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (fag/d) /. (ag/hr/gVSS) V 34 APR • " i i 99.98 100.87 15.96 L» j j 464.99 37.56 5.35 41 APR 30 99.97 33.60 4.14 0.77 643.80 83.63 7.61 43 MAY 99.97 76.97 8.33 1.57 675.72 85.64 6.83 45 MAY 4 39.91 7.81 0.88 0.13 732.16 83.60 6.33 48 MAY 7 82.79 510.66 46.15 4.88 480.36 80.72 2.56- 50 MAY 9 99.94 2.89 0.33 0.04 615.60 82.87 3.33 55 MAY 4 i I f 93.36 118.80 13.33 1.34 603.58 82.26 3.26 57 MAY 16 99.99 109.31 11.26 0.83 726.96 34.42 n i n J. La 59 MAY 18 33.33 30.32 3.73 0.25 681.72 87.10 2.66 62 MAY 21 99.98 97.52 10.36 0.73 684.75 35.57 2.51 64 MAY 39.33 185.69 20.33 1.57 602.69 83.11 2.55 69 MAY 28 33.33 317.79 28.82 1.33 643.56 32.01 2.03 71 MAY 30 33.99 91.23 3.32 0.59 715.55 36.42 2.27 73 JNE 1 33.33 100.62 3.32 0.67 353.74 87.15 2.89 76 JNE 4 99.98 301.55 22.74 1.85 884.25 86.30 2.80 78 JNE 6 33.98 187.26 15.04 1.16 311.92 36.13 2.81 80 JNE 3 99.98 -49.93 -5.52 -0.41 774.46 81.12 3.02 83 JNE 11 33.39 -3.53 -0.31 -0.03 377.47 85.20 3.67 85 JNE 13 99.99 17.81 1.15 0.14 1232.61 84.67 5.06 87 JNE 15 99.96 -6.54 -0.67 -0.05 841.50 85.63 .3.18 92 JNE 20 99.96 31.52 3.86 0.20 638.33 81.40 1.36 180 METHANOL SYSTEM COD INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT DAY No. , DATE CONC. NOx NOx NOx NOx NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE (g/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 10 OCT 26 12.77 3.97 69.60 111.0 144.0 12 OCT 28 12.77 1.51 69.10 108.5 111.0 0.68 3.00 11.60 12.50 17 NOV 2 28.02 4.80 112.00 166.0 157.0 2.02 0.21 2.18 0.26 19 NOV 4 28.02 4.80 130.00 182.0 181.0 22 NOV 7 28.02 28.90 92.00 139.0 141.0 24 NOV 9 28.02 6.10 108.00 164.0 161.0 28 NOV 11 28.02 7.60 113.00 166.0 156.0 3.48 0.36 0.60 2.40 29 NOV 14 25.64 12.60 85.50 127.0 102.0 6.25 0.78 0.32 1.40 33 NOV 18 40.60 6.50 23.50 61.0 62.0 0.90 2.00 0.08 0.00 34 NOV 19 37.51 7.00 8.50 50.0 53.0 1.32 0.06 0.02 36 NOV 21 37.51 10.80 2.00 23.0 23.0 1.16 0.36 0.02 0.00 38 NOV 23 35.38 10.90 27.50 59.0 47.0 0.56 0.30 0.38 0.00 43 NOV 28 25.64 13.60 0.00 18.0 20.0 2.28 0.06 0.04 0.30 45 NOV 30 9.26 15.10 63.00 100.0 94.0 2.60 0.01 0.08 0.01 47 DEC 2 9.26 24.10 59.50 93.0 100.0 8.35 0.12 0.06 0.02 50 DEC 5 9.26 18.60 64.50 102.0 95.0 3.75 0.14 0.12 0.03 52 DEC 7 14.48 22.20 45.00 82.0 85.0 4.85 0.21 0.07 0.02 54 DEC 9 14.48 6.20 26.50 63.0 63.0 8.05 0.04 0.11 0.00 57 DEC 12 14.48 6.30 36.50 73.0 69.0 0.45 0.11 0.04 0.09 59 DEC 14 7.36 10.20 28.50 65.0 68.0 1.55 0.42 0.11 0.04 62 DEC 17 7.36 6.70 1.00 17.0 1.5 2.40 0.01 0.07 0.20 64 DEC 19 7.36 4.20 22.00 57.0 59.0 3.65 0.06 0.03 0.01 66 DEC 21 14.96 5.10 11.50 53.0 48.0 2.40 0.11 0.71 0.26 68 DEC 23 14.96 0.90 12.00 52.0 55.0 1.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 71 DEC 26 14.96 1.40 25.50 63.0 60.0 0.85 0.09 0.00 0.00 73 DEC 28 15.55 1.90 17.00 55.0 55.0 0.75 0.17 0.00 0.00 75 DEC 30 15.55 4.00 27.00 59.0 53.0 0.45 0.07 0.03 0.00 78 JAN 2 15.55 4.30 12.00 41.0 38.0 0.70 0.05 0.00 0.00 80 JAN 4 15.55 7.00 7.00 41.0 41.0 2.20 0.18 0.04 0.00 82 JAN 6 19.71 4.80 15.50 57.5 55.5 0.30 0.26 0.04 0.01 85 JAN 9 19.71 4.50 5.60 47.0 47.0 0.45 0.31 0.05 0.01 87 JAN 11 19.71 5.80 13.00 55.5 50.0 1.35 0.26 0.07 0.01 89 JAN 13 30.27 10.60 0.10 36.0 35.0 5.20 0.11 0.01 0.19 92 JAN 16 30.27 9.90 0.10 44.0 41.0 4.80 0.07 0.01 0.05 94 JAN 18 30.27 0.10 0.10 22.5 22.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96 JAN 20 20.42 0.00 0.03 33.5 32.0 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.08 99 JAN 23 20.42 0.00 0.01 28.0 28.0 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 101 JAN 25 20.42 2.70 0.01 31.5 32.0 0.34 0.02 0.02 0.02 103 JAN 27 30.63 4.28 0.00 37.8 34.5 1.54 0.04 0.04 0.05 106 JAN 30 30.63 5.66 0.00 36.5 35.5 2.32 0.02 0.03 0.03 108 FEB 1 30.63 3.70 0.05 40.3 40.8 1.60 0.02 0.02 0.02 110 FEB 3 39.29 4.98 0.06 20.3 20.3 1.97 0.01 0.01 0.00 113 FEB 6 39.29 1.42 0.00 25.0 25.5 0.75 0.00 0.01 0.03 115 FEB 8 39.29 0.88 0.00 27.5 31.0 0.43 0.00 0.01 0.01 117 FE8 10 44.40 1.92 0.00 26.3 19.5 1.51 0.00 0.01 0.06 120 FEB 13 44.40 2.50 0.00 31.0 30.0 1.90 0.00 0.02 0.02 122 FEB 15 44.40 9.60 0.00 31.0 30.0 6.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 124 FEB 17 51.88 0.50 0.00 19.5 15.5 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.11 181 METHANOL SYSTEM COD INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC No. DATE CONC. NOx NOx NOx (g/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 127 FEB 20 51.88 0.20 0.00 27.8 129 FEB 22 51.88 8.55 0.00 27.3 131 FEB 24 57.69 3.75 0.00 11.0 134 FEB 27 57.69 1.10 0.00 38.5 136 FEB 29 57.69 6.10 0.00 39.8 139 MAR 2 80.61 2.95 0.00 25.5 141 MAR 5 30.61 4.80 0.00 27.5 143 MAR 7 80.61 12.40 0.00 30.3 EFFLUENT INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT NOx NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 27.3 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.0 6.15 0.00 0.00 0.01 11.0 2.08 0.00 0.40 0.06 34.8 0.47 0.00 0.04 0.07 35.0 3.54 0.00 0.06 0.12 17.8 1.26 0.00 0.11 0.11 25.3 2.31 0.00 0.14 0.02 25.3 7.05 0.00 0.14 0.09 182 GLUCOSE SYSTEM INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC Y No. DATE NOx NOx NOx (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 10 OCT 26 3.97 71.90 104.0 12 OCT 28 1.51 54.30 81.5 17 NOV 2 4.80 88.50 127.0 19 NOV 4 4.80 114.00 159.0 22 NOV 7 28.90 120.00 157.0 24 NOV 9 6.10 107.00 150.0 26 NOV 11 7.60 127.00 173.0 29 NOV 14 12.60 108.00 149.0 33 NOV 18 6.50 64.50 100.0 34 NOV 19 7.00 50.00 84.0 36 NOV 21 10.80 24.00 48.0 38 NOV 23 10.90 62.00 112.0 43 NOV 28 13.60 36.00 64.0 45 NOV 30 15.10 76.00 123.0 47 DEC 2 24.10 95.00 128.0 50 DEC 5 18.60 96.50 129.0 52 DEC 7 22.20 92.00 125.0 54 DEC 9 6.20 72.50 99.0 57 DEC 12 6.30 77.00 110.0 59 DEC 14 10.20 72.00 109.0 62 DEC 17 6.70 37.00 72.0 64 DEC 19 4.20 37.00 74.0 66 DEC 21 5.10 66.00 102.0 68 DEC 23 0.90 65.00 111.0 71 DEC 26 1.40 69.50 104.0 73 DEC 28 1.90 70.50 108.0 75 DEC 30 4.00 60.50 94.0 78 JAN 2 4.30 57.00 89.0 80 JAN 4 7.00 49.00 82.0 82 JAN 6 4.80 0.09 37.0 85 JAN 9 4.50 11.80 46.5 87 JAN 11 5.80 20.30 59.5 89 JAN 13 10.60 40.30 76.5 92 JAN 16 9.90 61.50 102.0 94 JAN 18 0.10 4.00 40.0 96 JAN 20 0.00 0.05 28.0 99 JAN 23 o i o o 0.01 26.0 101 JAN 25 2.70 0.17 31.0 103 JAN 27 4.28 33.50 73.8 106 JAN 30 5.66 47.50 91.0 108 FEB 1 3.70 57.00 103.0 110 FEB 3 4.98 0.06 24.5 113 FEB 6 1.42 0.00 21.8 115 FEB 8 0.88 0.00 23.5 117 FEB 10 1.92 0.00 18.3 120 FEB 13 2.50 0.00 31.0 122 FEB 15 9.60 0.00 28.3 124 FEB 17 0.50 0.00 24.3 EFFLUENT INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT NOx NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 104.0 — — — — 88.9 0.68 5.85 3.10 3.24 106.0 2.02 7.35 2.88 6.35 153.0 — — — — 157.0 — — — — 150.0 — — . — — 164.0 3.48 9.90 0.85 1.05 135.0 6.25 9.55 0.80 0.80 101.0 0.90 19.00 0.50 0.15 90.0 • — 20.80 0.75 0.10 45.0 1.16 14.30 0.05 0.05 86.0 0.56 14.30 0.15 0.05 48.0 2.38 20.80 0.80 1.48 111.0 2.60 11.00 0.86 0.20 124.0 8.35 15.20 0.71 0.18 132.0 3.75 12.40 0.34 0.26 125.0 4.35 13.70 0.33 0.26 99.0 8.05 10.50 1.36 0.18 109.0 0.45 12.00 0.26 0.63 114.0 1.55 22.40 0.89 0.63 70.0 2.40 18.50 0.94 0.46 71.0 3.65 20.60 4.49 1.81 100.0 2.40 14.30 0.23 0.23 103.0 1.05 21.30 9.45 4.70 104.0 0.85 18.90 3.30 0.93 108.0 0.75 21.30 3.10 0.62 96.0 0.45 21.20 1.11 0.45 87.0 0.70 18.50 0.04 0.33 81.0 2.20 19.80 1.25 0.35 37.0 0.30 0.06 0.32 0.71 37.5 0.45 10.30 0.63 0.13 58.5 1.35 16.60 1.53 0.83 66.5 5.20 17.80 4.56 2.61 85.5 4.80 10.70 2.32 4.36 54.5 0.00 4.20 0.11 0.38 26.5 0.11 0.02 0.14 0.18 26.0 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.10 28.5 0.34 0.16 0.05 0.11 60.8 1.54 11.30 0.60 0.72 83.0 2.32 6.20 0.40 0.50 97.0 1.60 6.50 0.85 1.00 18.8 1.97 0.02 0.28 0.23 23.0 0.75 0.00 0.21 0.11 23.5 0.43 0.00 0.15 0.11 25.3 1.51 0.00 0.11 0.02 30.3 1.90 0.00 0.26 0.18 26.8 6.05 0.00 0.16 0.20 20.3 0.64 0.00 0.86 0.42 183 GLUCOSE SYSTEM INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC DAY No. DATE NOx NOx NOx (ug/L) ( s g / L ) (ag/L) 127 FEB 20 0.20 0.00 25.5 129 FEB 22 8.55 61.50 96.5 131 FEB 24 3.75 78.30 101.5 134 FEB 27 1.10 56.80 88.5 136 FEB 29 6.10 109.80 157.5 13B MAR 2 2.95 134.00 171.0 141 MAR 5 4.80 172.00 210.0 143 MAR 7 12.40 173.00 219.0 EFFLUENT INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT ' NOx NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE ( s g / L ) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 22.8 0.35 0.00 0.60 0.75 51.5 6.15 10.10 15.80 7.15 106.0 2.08 71.30 86.80 89.50 37.5 0.47 33.50 45.00 19.30 143.5 3.64 60.00 74.80 71.80 172.0 1.26 62.50 80.50 79.00 207.0 2.31 47.50 57.50 66.50 220.0 7.05 25.50 32.00 27.50 184 ACETATE SYSTEM INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC No, , DATE NOx NOx NOx o (•g/L) (•g/L) (ag/L) V 17 APR 6 2.80 115.00 139.0 20 APR 9 5.75 142.00 182.0 22 APR 11 17.10 152.00 184.0 24 APR 13 11.70 16.00 51.0 27 APR 16 16.10 0.02 32.5 29 APR 18 37.60 0.03 30.5 31 APR 20 7.80 18.60 50.5 34 APR 23 11.80 11.00 52.5 41 APR 30 7.00 64.00 107.0 43 NAY 2 11.40 76.00 116.0 45 HAY 4 4.70 65.80 99.8 48 HAY 7 3.40 49.80 81.3 50 HAY 9 19.70 41.30 79.0 55 HAY 14 5.60 85.80 130.0 57 NAY 16 4.00 0.00 35.0 59 HAY 18 4.50 0.02 37.8 62 HAY 21 5.60 0.02 37.7 64 HAY 23 14.80 0.02 37.2 69 HAY 28 15.80 0.04 33.3 71 HAY 30 8.30 0.05 35.8 73 JNE 1 0.80 0.03 45.5 76 JNE 4 6.00 0.05 52.8 78 JNE 6 3.00 0.03 43.5 80 JNE 8 3.00 0.01 35.5 83 JNE 11 5.10 0.01 31.8 85 JNE 13 11.20 0.05 38.3 87 JNE 15 6.80 0.03 34.0 92 JNE 20 13.10 0.07 18.3 EFFLUENT INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT NOx NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE NITRITE (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 147.0 1.07 0.09 0.44 0.03 186.0 3.60 0.16 0.11 0.01 187.0 11.35 1.07 0.11 0.03 91.5 6.30 8.80 0.40 2.68 32.5 10.50 0.04 0.25 0.04 30.5 25.80 0.06 0.08 0.02 45.0 2.50 0.03 0.08 0.61 48.0 4.60 0.51 0.13 0.00 109.0 2.00 25.00 2.15 0.04 115.0 2.60 24.40 0.93 0.04 101.0 1.31 30.70 1.86 0.06 85.8 1.06 30.30 2.59 0.05 85.0 7.40 35.80 3.18 0.09 72.0 0.80 24.70 5.70 0.42 73.5 2.03 0.03 1.11 0.42 38.5 2.87 0.00 0.21 0.00 31.6 3.08 0.00 0.43 0.01 37.2 7.38 0.00 0.92 0.00 34.0 1.79 0.00 0.85 0.00 37.8 0.27 0.00 1.15 0.00 47.8 0.30 0.03 3.31 0.37 54.8 2.10 0.05 3.40 2.31 45.3 1.20 0.03 2.69 0.11 36.0 1.70 0.00 2.18 0.06 34.8 2.66 0.00 0.88 0.04 39.8 5.40 0.04 2.88 1.12 13.0 2.30 0.05 1.69 1.05 2.8 6.20 0.12 2.26 0.82 185 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM DAY No. DATE 0 34 APR 23 41 APR 30 43 MAY 2 45 MAY 4 48 MAY 7 50 MAY 3 55 MAY 14 57 MAY 16 53 MAY 18 £2 MAY 21 64 MAY 23 69 MAY 28 71 MAY 30 73 JNE 1 76 JNE 4 78 JNE 6 80 JNE 8 83 JNE 11 85 JNE 13 87 JNE 15 32 JNE 20 INFLUENT ANOXIC NOx NOx (ag/L) (ag/L) 11.80 62.30 7.00 98.80 11.40 101.00 4.70 83.30 3.40 74.80 19.70 71.30 5.60 36.30 4.00 0.03 4.50 0.05 5.60 0.47 14.80 0.17 15.30 0.00 3.30 0.05 0.30 0.05 6.00 0.08 3.00 0.05 3.00 0.03 5.10 0.02 11.20 0.04 6.80 0.08 13.10 0.06 ER081C EFFLUENT NOx NOx (ag/L) (ag/L) 106.0 103.0 146.0 142.0 150.0 140.0 134.0 133.0 134.0 131.0 114.0 117.0 164.0 158.0 63.8 120.0 47.8 51.8 52.8 55.3 43.6 51.8 53.3 105.0 47.8 46.5 54.3 54.3 50.0 31.8 46.0 30.8 46.5 30.5 47.0 31.5 33.5 183.0 38.3 7.3 21.0 6.3 INFLUENT ANOXIC NITRITE NITRITE (ag/L) ( a n / i j 4.£0 0.43 2.00 0.04 2.60 0.04 1.31 0.13 1.06 2.33 7.40 0.07 0.80 0.30 2.03 0.07 2.87 0.00 3.08 0.03 7.38 0.01 1.73 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.30 0.03 2.10 0.04 1.20 0.03 1.70 0.02 2.66 0.01 5.40 0.04 3.25 0.05 7.85 0.25 :ROBIC EFFLUENT IITRITE NITRITE (ag/L) (ag/L) 0.06 0.04 0.14 0.01 0.22 0.01 0.31 0.04 0.2: 0.07 0.11 0.07 0.30 0.10 0.13 0.30 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.86 0.36 0.30 0.28 2.27 0.38 13.80 16.00 20.00 12.30 22.30 10.60 16.10 5.20 7.80 4.30 186 METHANOL SYSTEM UNIT No. DATE NITIF. NITRIF. NITRIF (ag/d) X (ag/hr/gVSS) 10 OCT 26 618.52 82.80 8.48 12 OCT 28 613.06 61.28 9.60 17 NOV 2 796.50 113.68 13.83 19 NOV 4 808.08 500.00 14.03 22 NOV 7 706.88 118.99 12.59 24 NOV 9 834.40 81.16 14.25 26 NOV 11 724.32 96.00 11.43 29 NOV 14 583.91 92.22 9.22 33 NOV 18 559.50 105.63 8.27 34 NOV 19 632.05 133.87 8.55 36 NOV 21 308.91 67.74 4.63 38 NOV 23 462.74 94.03 6.06 43 NOV 28 268.92 25.35 3.10 45 NOV 30 547.23 96.10 7.08 47 DEC 2 497.48 100.00 6.28 50 DEC 5 525.75 100.00 8.83 52 DEC 7 544.27 104.23 6.96 54 DEC 9 530.71 93.59 6.82 57 DEC 12 539.84 92.41 7.30 59 DEC 14 544.95 92.41 7.37 62 DEC 17 237.28 23.02 3.21 64 DEC 19 517.65 90.91 5.71 66 DEC 21 628.73 88.30 6.79 68 DEC 23 594.40 94.12 5.81 71 DEC 26 555.00 93.05 6.46 73 DEC 28. 566.36 95.48 6.60 75 DEC 30 472.32 82.47 5.69 78 JAN 2 432.10 78.80 4.87 30 JAN 4 526.66 91.89 5.90 82 JAN 6 632.10 94.38 6.62 85 JAN 9 622.24 96.73 7.32 87 JAN 11 637.93 97.70 6.36 89 JAN 13 542.09 78.38 4.67 92 JAN 16 664.65 101.39 5.89 94 JAN 18 327.94 72.26 2.55 96 JAN 20 524.14 85.17 4.28 99 JAN 23 426.85 90.29 3.43 101 JAN 25 477.07 99.97 3.91 103 JAN 27 573.80 86.90 4.25 106 JAN 30 537.65 93.59 3.94 108 FEB 1 596.51 99.88 4.21 110 FEB 3 300.77 47.85 1.85 113 FEB 6 373.75 57.74 2.13 115 FEB 8 418.00 75.34 2.30 117 FEB 10 396.08 74.50 1.95 120 FEB 13 462.83 95.38 2.30 122 FEB 15 462.83 102.31 2.32 124 FEB 17 293.87 53.42 1.40 UNIT O I T R F . DENITRF. DENITRIF. CODiNOx (ag/d) 1 (ag/hr/gVSS) 699.85 40.23 21.13 0.83 314.73 22.64 10.09 0.41 172.14 9.44 5.78 0.65 16B.79 7.71 5.67 0.51 396.18 22.26 14.35 0.76 340.49 17.46 13.51 0.66 114.86 6.06 4.02 0.44 -38.73 -3.33 -1.36 0.90 412.36 54.05 13.22 3.09 529.16 80.34 16.70 3.65 275.85 90.36 8.51 8.48 189.35 31.91 4.81 3.58 279.98 100.00 6.94 12.82 238.36 20.37 6.95 1.03 385.11 30.36 10.56 1.03 199.94 18.11 7.12 1.11 403.14 37.85 8.23 1.60 359.17 48.24 9.98 2.47 290.69 35.00 7.76 2.23 420.38 49.70 11.23 1.08 23.38 61.19 0.62 24.66 394.34 54.79 9.78 1.37 417.84 70.57 9.12 3.23 484.25 73.09 10.19 3.12 346.52 47.87 9.50 2.54 411.91 61.89 11.29 2.87 236.76 37.27 5.91 3.28 289.67 61.83 7.06 4.32 424.32 79.65 8.62 3.82 447.37 65.73 11.03 4.17 493.47 85.43 12.93 4.61 422.33 68.40 10.06 4.31 451.35 99.67 9.09 9.36 521.57 99.71 12.01 5.84 268.80 99.46 5.38 15.68 383.53 99.88 6.92 7.71 335.85 99.95 5.95 8.33 392.35 99.96 6.67 6.97 427.61 100.00 6.41 10.17 441.45 100.00 6.48 9.30 499.29 99.85 7.40 7.90 256.95 99.65 3.26 ' 21.18 310.19 100.00 3.79 16.85 374.82 100.00 4.42 14.15 239.88 100.00 2.43 26.10 367.33 100.00 3.71 16.08 388.13 100.00 3.95 14.53 187.54 100.00 1.82 39.01 187 METHANOL SYSTEM DAY No. DATE NITIF. (ag/d) 127 FEB 20 413.94 129 FEB 22 420.42 131 FEB 24 163.68 134 FEB 27 562.87 136 FEB 29 575.11 139 HAR 2 387.86 141 HAR 5 413.88 143 HAR 7 446.62 UNIT NITRIF. NITRIF DENITRF. I (ag/hr/aVSS) (ag/d) 87.42 1.87 328.18 92.54 . 1.89 349.45 29.73 0.71 142.80 98.72 2.49 404.31 100.00 2.30 421.07 65.72 1.31 223.07 74.73 1.49 318.24 81.23 1.67 334.48 UNIT DENITRF. DENITRIF. COD:NOx 1 (ag/hr/gVSS) 100.00 3.15 20.71 100.00 3.08 19.75 100.00 1.26 56.56 100.00 3.66 19.55 100.00 3.47 18.22 100.00 1.72 52.40 100.00 2.25 34.70 100.00 2.52 32.29 188 GLUCOSE SYSTEM UNIT UNIT DAY No. DATE NITRIF. NITRIF. NITRIF. DENITR. DENITR. DENITR. COD:NOx (ag/d) 1 ( i g / h r / g V S S ) (ag/d) 1 (ag/hr/gVSS) 10 OCT 26 511.7 70.86 9.19 237.59 17.17 0.62 1.22 12 OCT 28 430.3 31.26 7.06 255.49 22.92 0.75 0.57 17 NOV 2 572.5 92.77 9.39 -30.22 -2.35 -0.08 0.98 13 NOV 4 669.6 105.88 10.98 153.50 8.30 0.27 0.71 22 NOV 7 548.7 102.78 8.01 186.19 9.47 0.28 0.76 24 NOV 9 634.3 31.49 7.51 238.53 13.13 0.31 0.70 26 NOV 11 678.0 97.87 7.17 79.31 4.06 0.09 0.50 29 NOV 14 507.2 117.14 6.42 55.93 3.38 0.07 0.77 33 NOV 18 526.5 112.70 4.08 273.86 22.26 0.34 1.90 34 NOV 19 506.6 109.68 3.92 355.30 32.29 0.50 2.25 36 NOV 21 354.0 77.42 2.69 215.70 37.86 0.58 4.69 38 NOV 23 737.0 147.06 5.58 147.99 13.94 0.21 1.98 43 NOV 28 404.9 76.71 2.36 72.38 12.21 0.17 4.49 45 NOV 30 673.0 118.99 4.87 232.68 17.61 0.25 1.07 47 DEC 2 493.0 91.67 3.42 139.55 8.95 0.12 1.01 50 DEC 5 487.2 87.84 3.77 193.08 11.78 0.18 0.87 52 DEC 7 477.8 91.67 3.61 173.55 11.53 0.17 1.13 54 DEC 9 381.6 72.60 2.80 114.34 9.87 0.14 1.67 57 DEC 12 482.5 84.62 3.74 174.12 13.40 0.21 1.47 59 DEC 14 552.8 101.37 4.28 322.31 23.06 0.36 1.71 62. DEC 17 513.5 93.33 3.98 299.91 35.59 0.55 3.06 64 DEC 19 552.0 73.27 8.71 312.22 36.13 1.14 3.08 66 DEC 21 535.3 93.51 3.24 233.22 19.20 0.23 1.68 68 DEC 23 699.7 101.10 4.43 250.24 20.20 0.26 1.76 71 DEC 26 520.6 82.14 3.65 228.20 17.87 0.25 1.66 73 DEC 28 569.6 91.46 4.00 231.17 17.75 0.25 1.69 75 DEC 30 497.5 94.37 3.12 264.98 22.78 0.29 2.09 78 JAN 2 475.8 94.12 2.92 208.75 19.76 0.24 2.18 80 JAN 4 460.0 88.47 2.58 231.48 25.31 0.28 2.60 82 JAN 6 535.6 80.24 3.03 439.29 99.70 1.13 8.27 85 JAN 9 510.1 84.63 3.01 280.77 61.81 0.73 7.66 87 JAN 11 575.5 95.61 3.05 406.89 57.72 0.61 4.97 89 JAN 13 545.5 97.05 2.93 223.22 26.88 0.29 3.75 92 JAN 16 605.5 100.50 3.43 135.78 12.87 0.15 2.12 94 JAN 18 550.8 127.21 3.18 619.24 91.01 1.05 4.50 96 JAN 20 417.3 90.16 2.42 317.25 99.77 1.16 9.00 99 JAN 23 377.1 91.19 2.33 299.37 99.95 1.24 9.12 101 JAN 25 456.0 106.31 2.87 340.83 99.27 1.25 7.71 103 JAN 27 596.8 94.82 3.70 231.93 31.86 0.40 3.76 106 JAN 30 684.7 108.75 3.95 325.20 30.31 0.35 2.37 108 FEB 1 694.6 117.95 4.12 314.77 26.78 0.32 2.15 110 FEB 3 370.8 60.65 1.88 240.48 99.62 1.01 17.11 113 FEB 6 324.8 58.45 1.49 280.12 100.00 0.92 14.05 115 FEB 3 - 348.3 74.60 1.69 284.48 100.00 0.97 14.18 117 FEB 10 268.5 66.55 1.21 308.73 100.00 0.90 15.53 120 FEB 13 462.8 109.54 2.04 370.93 100.00 0.88 12.12 122 FEB 15 417.4 114.11 1.92 348.00 100.00 0.32 12.48 124 FEB 17 363.8 86.79 1.45 245.09 100.00 0.80 23.03 189 6LUC0SE SYSTEM UNIT UNIT DAY No. DATE NITRIF. NITRIF. NITRIF. DENITR. DENITR. DENITR. CODiNOx (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 127 FEB 20 378.7 100.00 1.44 274.17 100.00 0.76 13.15 129 FEB 22 517.3 94.59 2.34 -267.20 -41.64 -0.38 8.18 131 FEB 24 349.2 41.80 1.21 105.02 8.18 0.06 10.50 134 FEB 27 472.0 43.72 2.76 -392.57 -86.63 -1.01 0.00 136 FEB 29 714.1 72.82 4.25 96.41 5.54 0.07 0.00 138 MAR 2 560.9 60.66 4.03 41.88 2.02 0.03 0.00 141 MAR 5 567.3 94.29 6.25 -69.90 -2.80 -0.06 0.00 143 MAR 7 687.2 115.00 9.36 91.84 3.43 0.09 0 . 0 0 190 ACETATE SYSTEH UNIT UNIT No. , DATE NITRIF. NITRIF. NITRIF. DENITR. DENITR. DENITR. C0D:NQx A (ag/d) 1 (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) 1 (ag/hr/gVSS) V 17 APR 6 387.6 50.76 4.08 39.50 2.08 0.04 0.00 20 APR 9 593.2 100.50 3.39 121.98 5.42 0.17 0.00 22 APR 11 478.7 90.14 6.74 20.70 0.90 0.03 0.00 24 APR 13 534.5 147.06 7.28 891.94 78.50 2.14 3.88 27 APR 16 487.8 93.33 4.83 438.32 99.93 2.00 7.35 29 APR 18 443.6 103.29 4.22 463.52 99.91 1.90 6.16 31 APR 20 479.1 87.40 4.23 284.18 50.43 0.89 3.08 34 APR 23 598.8 120.29 5.75 428.57 72.97 1.40 2.87 41 APR 30 539.7 80.37 5.61 263.85 24.73 0.61 1.96 43 NAY 2 599.6 94.12 6.94 274.85 19.44 0.45 1.44 45 MAY 4 534.1 79.44 5.92 265.06 20.41 0.45 1.97 48 MAY 7 472.2 87.99 5.26 293.26 28.20 0.63 2.58 50 HAY 9 565.1 109.28 7.18 459.82 42.62 1.08 2.61 55 MAY 14 659.9 102.79 5.68 295.41 18.74 0.32 3.33 57 HAY 16 519.1 89.06 4.26 893.32 100.00 1.64 7.98 59 MAY 18 571.6 101.29 4.73 483.94 99.94 1.65 7.83 62 MAY 21 533.5 100.48 4.28 378.53 99.93 1.60 10.21 64 HAY 23 561.0 97.08 4.17 491.83 99.94 1.49 7.25 69 MAY 28 508.2 92.91 3.53 459.21 99.87 1.39 10.57 71 HAY 30 546.6 92.14 3.76 480.14 99.84 1.37 8.71 73 JNE 1 684.8 86.94 4.72 575.60 99.92 1.38 8.14 76 JNE 4 803.9 101.83 5.15 676.28 99.89 1.28 7.93 78 JNE 6 668.6 93.89 4.25 553.28 99.92 1.27 11.91 80 JNE 8 531.3 78.34 3.20 440.76 99.97 1.20 15.77 83 JNE 11 473.0 83.00 2.82 432.14 99.97 1.19 16.70 85 JNE 13 583.7 92.17 3.40 514.80 99.85 1.15 15.16 87 JNE 15 523.1 78.27 3.25 178.66 99.74 1.24 61.72 92 JNE 20 272.4 50.92 2.81 70.47 98.54 2.03 136.33 191 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM UNIT UNIT No. DATE NITRIF. NITRIF. NITRIF. DENITR. DENITR. DENITR. ( :0D:N0x (ag/d) V / U \ ag/'nr/gVSS) (ag/d) 1 (sg/hr/gVSS) 34 APR 23 577.3 108.71 5.64 30.33 0.70 1.12 41 APR 30 645.7 33.10 7.56 229.18 14.50 0.34 0.35 43 MAY 2 685.5 35.38 6.93 161.10 10.23 0.21 - 1.04 45 MAY 4 713.9 81.51 6.75 370.51 24.01 . 0.45 4.20 48 MAY 7 . 790.9 132.74 4.21 406.31 23.31 0.31 0.00 50 MAY 3 577.3 77.72 3.74 314.76 24.27 0.31 3.41 55 MAY 14 890.3 121.33 4.80 330.06 23.08 0.25 2.56 57 MAY IS 374.5 113.17 4.33 1330.66 33.91 .0.89 7.13 59 MAY 13 626.0 79.98 2.44 557.83- 93.88 0.78 . 17.77 62 MAY 21 719.5 39.31 2.63 613.78 98.36 0.72 3.13 £4 MAY 23 680.2 93.80 2.38 608.31 39.62 0.84 8.08 69 MAY 28 827.6 105.47 2.68 1182.03 100.00 0.65 11.41 71 MAY 30 671.4 81.07 2.13 536.20 33.87 0.53 15.31 73 JNE 1 734.0 74.93 2.43 587.35 33.83 0.68 14.48 76 JNE 4 673.9 65.77 2.13 358.56 33.70 0.63 41.71 78 JNE 6 621.7 58.76 1.91 326.81 33.73 0.61 32.04 SO JNE 8 606.9 63.57 2.37 335.73 39.88 0.78 24.05 83 JNE 11 643.2 56.06 2.41 353.35 33.32 0.75 41.33 85 JNE 13 485.5 31.87 1.91 2052.07 99.97 0.78 3.65 87 JNE 15 537.0 54.68 2.03 104.87 38.34 0.75 133.83 92 JNE 20 288.3 36.74 0.88 104.21 99.21 0.61 136.75 192 METHANOL SYSTEM INFLUENT DAY No. DATE B0D5 (•g/L) 0 13 OCT 29 25 21 NOV 6 31 24 NOV 9 26 28 NOV 13 21 31 NOV 16 19 35 NOV 20 17 38 NOV 23 15 42 NOV 27 13 45 NOV 30 20 49 DEC 4 27 52 DEC 7 21 56 DEC 11 15 59 DEC 14 13 63 DEC 18 27 66 DEC 21 23 70 DEC 25 20 73 DEC 28 12 78 JAN 2 11 80 JAN 4 17 84 JAN 8 22 87 JAN 11 23 91 JAN 15 25 94 JAN 18 50 98 JAN 22 58 101 JAN 25 19 105 JAN 29 13 108 FEB 1 33 112 FEB 5 23 115 FEB 8 28 119 FEB 12 31 122 FEB 15 18 126 FEB 19 21 129 FEB 22 18 133 FEB 26 22 136 FEB 29 26 140 HAR 4 25 143 MAR 7 22 ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT B0D5 80D5 BOOS (•g/L) (ag/L) (•g/L) 24 12 10 28 17 8 24 14 8 32 15 8 19 10 6 28 14 4 13 9 4 10 10 3 12 10 4 12 12 4 15. 10 . 4 12 7 3 10 8 2 13 9 3 11 9 3 9 7 2 12 9 3 11 6 2 12 8 3 45 9 4 12 9 4 90 7 4 60 8 3 59 7 4 44 8 4 110 7 4 57 7 6 100 62 5 92 7 5 176 10 3 135 8 6 216 12 3 156 8 4 237 98 6 216 8 3 379 13 5 310 9 6 193 METHANOL SYSTEM TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT BOD BOD BOD ANOXIC BOD BOD AEROBIC ' No, DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL 0 I (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) V 13 OCT 29 95.22 390.21 58.36 12.51 339.60 50.00 5.32 21 NOV 6 98.25 1152.27 76.87 41.75 470.47 39.29 8.38 24 NOV 9 98.30 1102.72 79.47 38.61 429.20 41.67 6.77 28 NOV 13 99.00 2083.19 84.33 72.94 715.87 53.13 11.30 31 NOV 16 98.87 1282.96 85.18 41.12 361.89 47.37 5.35 35 NOV 20 99.51 2190.41 84.92 67.61 737.38 50.00 11.05 38 NOV 23 99.50 2020.18 92.93 51.33 200.28 30.77 2.62 42 NOV 27 99.25 1270.88 90.77 31.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 45 NOV 30 99.11 1130.12 88.93 32.93 48.10 16.57 0.62 49 DEC 4 99.16 1197.87 89.62 42.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 52 DEC 7 99.33 1596.98 89.60 32.62 145.95 33.33 1.87 56 DEC 11 99.56 1915.91 92.69 51.17 146.25 41.67 1.98 59 DEC 14 99.38 825.43 86.29 22.05 44.58 20.00 0.60 63 DEC 18 99.13 932.70 84.53 23.13 90.12 30.77 0.99 66 DEC 21 99.52 1856.68 92.98 40.50 60.22 18.18 0.65 70 DEC 25 99.73 1920.97 94.39 52.66 59.42 22.22 0.69 73 DEC 28 99.55 1804.65 92.24 45.03 91.41 25.00 1.10 78 JAN 2. 99.72 1913.50 92.92 46.63 152.25 45.45 1.71 80 JAN 4 99.57 1939.78 92.49 39.43 124.16 33.33 1.39 34 JAN 8 99.57 2197.71 77.43 57.59 1250.64 80.00 14.72 87 JAN 11 99.56 2597.96 94.74 61.86 104.16 25.00 1.04 91 JAN 15 99.73 3247.76 71.08 74.76 3764.05 92.22 33.37 94 JAN 18 99.82 3527.40 80.58 70.66 2335.32 86.67 18.15 98 JAN 22 99.46 1317.85 61.01 23.37 1836.12 88.14 14.77 101 JAN 25 99.55. 2177.53 77.53 37.03 1280.52 81.82 10.50 105 JAN 29 99.74 2652.71 62.51 38.92 4679.29 93.64 34.33 108 FEB 1 99.58 3271.59 80.56 48.51 2272.50 87.72 16.05 112 FEB 5 99.72 4161.96 73.97 50.85 2066.44 38.00 11.79 115 FEB 8 99.70 4055.35 74.96 47.87 4631.65 92.39 25.46 119 FEB 12 99.86 3657.70 58.30 36.99 9863.72 94.32 49.04 122 FEB 15 99.69 3747.99 65.65 38.18 7534.91 94.07 37.83 126 FEB 19 99.87 3962.66 55.19 38.04 13647.60 94.44 61.81 129 FEB 22 99.83 4600.12 66.05 35.04 9957.44 94.87 38.78 133 FEB 26 99.78 4704.39 57.23 42.61 10112.25 58.65 44.73 136 FEB 29 99.89 4662.31 60.10 38.39 15005.12 96.30 60.00 140 MAR 4 99.88 5647.92 49.68 39.95 35073.78 96.57 126.42 143 MAR 7 99.84 6368.46 58.51 47.90 28700.35 97.10 107.15 194 GLUCOSE SYSTEM INFLUENT DAY No. DATE BODS (ag/L) 0 13 OCT 29 25 21 NOV 6 31 24 NOV 9 36 28 NOV 13 21 31 NOV 16 19 35 NOV 20 17 38 NOV 23 15 42 NOV 27 13 45 NOV 30 20 49 DEC 4 27 52 DEC 7 21 56 DEC 11 15 59 DEC 14 13 63 DEC 18 27 66 DEC 21 24 70 DEC 25 20 73 DEC 28 12 78 JAN 2 11 80 JAN 4 16 84 JAN 8 22 87 JAN 11 23 91 JAN 15 25 94 JAN 18 50 98 JAN 22 58 101 JAN 25 19 105 JAN 29 13 108 FEB 1 33 112 FEB 5 23 115 FEB 8 28 119 FEB 12 31 122 FEB 15 18 126 FEB 19 21 129 FEB 22 18 133 FEB 26 22 136 FEB 29 26 140 HAR 4 25 143 HAR 7 22 ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT B0D5 BODS BGD5 (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 20 12 9 29 16 6 38 23 9 33 17 11 25 11 7 26 13 4 14 11 4 15 10 14 , 9 4 16 11 4 24 9 4 14 6 3 15 7 3 16 11 3 14 8 3 13 8 2 12 8 3 13 5 2 21 7 3 17 9 3 20 8 4 25 9 4 24 9 4 18 8 3 14 8 3 12 6 4 14 7 7 18 10 4 13 9 6 54 9 4 23 12 6 73 12 5 22 11 5 252 12 125 36 16 8 70 83 65 33 41 31 195 GLUCOSE SYSTEM TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT BOD BOD BOD ANOXIC BOD BOD AEROBIC f No. DATE REHOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REHOVAL REMOVAL REHOVAL A •z (ag/d) X (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) V 13 OCT 29 95.11 558.61 63.18 16.53 586.24 40.00 9.62 21 NOV 6 98.92 1262.45 75.12 35.33 954.46 44.83 13.93 24 NOV 9 98.18 910.21 61.89 20.39 956.25 39.47 11.32 28 NOV 13 98.95 2692.72 84.55 55.82 2094.56 48.48 22.15 31 NOV 16 98.86 1389.84 79.34 23.16 1210.72 56.00 10.34 35 NOV 20 99.56 2298.87 85.59 30.60 1389.57 50.00 10.57 38 NOV 23 99.49 1981.1 90.57 28.37 272.22 21.43 2.06 42 NOV 27 99.65 2524.93 91.61 33.29 562.10 33.33 3.97 45 NOV 30 99.24 1311.92 86.74 17.30 681.60 35.71 4.93 49 DEC 4 99.27 1346.24 85.25 19.75 702.80 31.25 5.44 52 DEC 7 99.33 1463.3 80.81 20.39 1852.20 62.50 13.98 56 DEC 11 99.58 1883.23 89.89 27.34 1153.04 57.14 8.93 59 DEC 14 99.64 2240.7 90.91 32.53 1031.52 53.33 7.99 63 DEC 18 99.69 2608.68 91.85 37.87 722.30 31.25 5.59 66 DEC 21 99.59 1941.64 90.32 22.10 797.22 42.86 4.83 70 DEC 25 99.76 2017.79 91.40 25.79 688.00 38.46 4.83 73 DEC 28 99.57 2094.25 91.99 24.86 520.76 33.33 3.27 78 JAN 2 99.75 2160.26 91.79 24.73 1078.96 61.54 6.63 80 JAN 4 99.64 2161.38 88.07 25.66 1931.16 66.67 10.82 84 JAN 8 99.76 3428.66 92.91 37.35 1155.20 47.06 6.82 87 JAN 11 99.67 3325.92 91.89 33.31 1688.16 60.00 8.95 91 JAN 15 99.63 3001.75 88.84 32.83 2433.28 64.00 13.78 94 JAN 18 99.65 2887.47 88.72 32.96 2164.50 62.50 12.49 98 JAN 22 99.57 1856.39 87.51 21.25 1037.20 55.56 6.41 101 JAN 25 99.66 2531.52 92.44 29.06 826.74 42.36 5.20 105 JAN 29 99.54 2536.67 93.35 27.96 846.30 50.00 4.88 108 FEB 1 99.17 2500.17 92.20 25.16 952.70 50.00 5.65 112 FEB 5 99.72 4075.75 93.80 36.52 1159.76 44.44 5.32 115 FEB 8 99.59 3992.02 95.40 38.41 555.28 30.77 2.69 119 FEB 12 99.76 4090.14 83.59 35.65 6384.15 83.33 28.12 122 FEB 15 99.62 4126.45 92.40 34.05 1438.25 47.83 6.60 126 FEB 19 99.72 4453.2 80.24 34.62 8480.22 83.56 32.36 129 FEB 22 99.74 5036.08 93.93 43.72 1482.58 50.00 6.71 133 FEB 26 97.30 11528.04 74.72 117.73 34675.20 95.24 202.92 136 FEB 29 69.23 -365.7 -211.12 -4.26 2719.40 55.56 16.19 140 MAR 4 -160.00 -181.95 -21.46 -3.93 • -1855.23 -18.57 -20.45 143 MAR 7 -40.91 -56.34 -12.90 -1.42 • -1095.52 -24.24 -14.92 196 ACETATE SYSTEM INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. DATE B0D5 B0D5 B0D5 BODS d (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 19 APR 8 34 15 12 7 26 APR 15 25 55 9 3 30 APR 19 18 25 9 3 33 APR 22 18 10 5 5 40 APR 29 14 35 4 2 44 MAY 3 12 34 5 3 47 MAY 6 25 45 9 4 51 MAY 10 36 37 13 6 54 MAY 13 60 72 14 6 58 MAY 17 19 60 7 5 65 MAY 24 39 143 18 10 72 MAY 31 18 86 8 7 75 JNE 3 20 156 23 14 79 JNE 7 21 213 18 a 82 JNE 10 23 315 28 10 86 JNE 14 30 330 34 10 89 JNE 17 27 414 55 18 92 JNE 20 32 465 151 42 DAY TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT BOD BOD BOD ANOXIC BOD BOD AEROBIC No. , DATE REHOVAL REHOVAL REHOVAL REHOVA REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL Z (ag/d) Z <ag/hr/gV (ag/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) V 19 APR 8 79.41 20.43 8.34 0.68 413.91 20.00 6.48 26 APR 15 99.72 2522.58 75.39 49.81 5472.62 83.64 54.81 30 APR 19 99.72 2829.7 88.37 48.52 1838.40 64.00 16.23 33 APR 22 99.23 1853.36 92.74 35.10 538.00 40.00 5.17 40 APR 29 99.74 1874.58 78.88 45.95 4071.54 88.57 49.90 44 HAY 3 99.59 1718.92 77.17 37.70 3594.84 85.29 39.84 47 MAY 6 99.56 2162.57 76.22 48.71 4607.64 80.00 51.33 51 MAY 10 99.38 2592.39 82.02 65.07 3320.64 64.86 42.18 54 MAY 13 99.61 3762.06 77.64 62.45 8876.90 80.56 76.42 58 HAY 17 99.62 2960.13 76.86 50.97 6829.05 88.33 56.46 65 MAY 24 99.18 2061.75 48.52 30.25 15037.50 87.41 111.89 72 HAY 31 99.50 3484.63 72.50 44.95 9856.86 90.70 68.00 75 JNE 3 99.02 3116.06 55.99 39.11 15654.10 85.26 100.35 79 JNE 7 99.62 3881.66 54.39 47.15 29109.60 91.55 175.27 82 JNE 10 99.63 3581.12 43.25 42.03 42166.04 91.11 251.71 86 JNE 14 99.61 3711.84 42.46 49.89 45359.04 89.70 282.08 89 JNE 17 99.40 4364.04 40.67 58.66 52191.42 86.71 324.57 92 JNE 20 98.75 4708.77 40.40 136.25 44569.16 67.53 459.67 197 YEAST HASTE SYSTEM YEAST WASTE SOLUTION INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. DATE 80D 8GD5 BODS BODS BODS (g/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) 13 APR 8 0.000 34 16 12 7 26 APR 15 1.815 25 17 15 c J 30 APR 19 1.035 18 34 16 14 33 APR 22 1.560 18 21 11 4 40 APR 23 1.173 14 11 4 44 HAY 3 3.000 12 21 13 4 47 HAY 6 1.440 25 10 4 51 HAY 10 1. i i J 36 32 16 7 54 MAY 13 1.355 60 46 14 8 58 MAY 17 1.365 19 51 11 5 65 MAY 24 1.735 33 43 11 12 72 MAY 31 3.480 18 64 10 5 75 JNE 3 5.500 20 65 35 73 JNE .7 7.125 21 385 35 30 82 JNE 10 7.800 23 458 29 23 86 JNE 14 7.200 30 335 26 13 83 JNE 17 7.400 27 336 27 3 32 JNE 20 10.000 32 560 20 55 TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT BQD BOD BOD ANOXIC BOD BOD AEROBIC No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL 0 I (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 13 APR 8 73.41 4.38 2.08 0.14 530.60 25.00 7.50 26 APR 15 33.18 1722.115 87.13 33.63 1327.32 11.76 18.53 30 APR 13 36.64 843.05 64.51 16.33 13213.32 52.34 186.23 33 APR 22 33.16 1151.56 73.34 26.66 3277.60 47.62 35.23 40 APR 23 33.45 373.233 36.37 22.42 6343.35 63.64 74.31 44 MAY 3 33.60 2872.73 30.70 48.46 8080.24 38.10 76.52 47 MAY 6 39.42 2017.17 36.88 13.28 17362.20 54.55 35.71 51 MAY 10 38.53 1270.641 74.42 16.43 18830.40 50.00 122.22 54 HAY 13 37.52 536.325 48.21 6.72 21406.08 63.57 115.53 58 MAY 17 33.40 1330.31 73.64 15.68 50382.00 78.43 136.55 65 MAY 24 37.23 736.33 53.58 6.73 26307.42 77.55 113.34 72 MAY 31 93.51 2458.3 73.05 16.44 50331.18 84.38 170.42 75 JNE J 38.32 5473.3 54.34 33.57 463057.70 80.65 1463.83 73 JNE 7 38.46 1526.73 21.84 12.57 326266.50 30.91 1272.83 82 JNE 10 39.14 2656.86 23.63 13.46 478240.62 • 33.67 1735.20 86 JNE 14 33.54 3643.6 39.45 27.11 459035.04 33.42 1732.70 83 JNE 17 99.61 2486 30.36 18.50 394239.60 33.18 1437.32 32 JNE 20 38.67 2550.44 21.31 16.32 733932.30 95.97 2248.57 198 METHANOL SYSTEM METHANOL SOLUTION INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT DAY No. , DATE COD COD COD COD COD (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) V 17 NOV 2 12.77 355 291 289 285 26 NOV 11 28.02 374 325 321 309 33 NOV 18 25.64 324 278 269 257 43 NOV 28 9.26 324 372 250 301 47 DEC 2 9.26 340 271 271 250 54 DEC 9 14.48 365 313 290 281 59 DEC 14 7.36 359 294 286 273 68 DEC 23 14.96 428 307 286 271 82 JAN 6 19.71 366 294 256 267 89 JAN 13 30.27 303 376 257 249 96 JAN 20 20.42 361 331 253 239 103 JAN 27 30.63 298 358 251 225 110 FEB 3 39.29 253 482 284 288 117 FEB 10 44.40 350 542 297 273 124 FEB 17 51.88 318 621 272 266 131 FEB 24 57.69 327 705 263 263 138 HAR 2 80.61 387 864 281 220 143 HAR 7 80.61 363 742 295 274 TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT COD COD COD ANOXIC COD COD AEROBIC DAY No. , DATE REMOVAL REHOVAL REHOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REHOVAL REMOVAL (X I (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) v 17 NOV 2 45.30 673.94 25.89 22.65 55.04 0.69 0.96 26 NOV 11 52.17 800.01 27.11 28.01 172.44 1.23 2.72 33 NOV 18 69.16 1369.44 43.01 43.23 365.04 3.24 4.94 43 NOV 28 60.65 303.28 9.68 7.52 2952.40 32.80 33.98 47 DEC 2 68.68 1250.31 41.86 34.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 54 DEC 9 71.15 1627.36 42.94 45.20 667.46 7.35 8.58 59 DEC 14 59.28 851.09 30.79 22.16 178.32 2.72 2.19 68 DEC 23 76.43 1978.54 48.69 41.64 626.22 6.84 6.13 82 JAN 6 79.41 2733.84 57.33 67.40 1320.88 12.93 13.83 89 JAN 13 85.09 2487.50 41.81 50.07 5399.03 31.65 46.48 96 JAN 20 79.57 1966.70 38.14 35.47 2814.24 23.56 22.99 103 JAN 27 86.49 2562.66 42.62 38.41 4901.67 29.89 36.34 110 FEB 3 86.68 2478.37 35.36 31.48 10721.70 41.08 66.09 117 FEB 10 88.61 2444.88 29.94 24.73 14567.70 45.20 71.75 124 FEB 17 90.15 2124.87 23.33 20.59 23365.55 56.20 111.65 131 FEB 24 91.60 1683.96 17.23 14.80 32075.94 62.70 138.93 138 MAR 2 94.54 2429.28 17.81 18.78 55863.06 67.48 188.62 143 HAR 7 93.13 4168.64 32.82 31.35 42621.45 60.24 159.13 199 GLUCOSE SYSTEM SLUCOSE SOLUTION INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. DATE COD COD COD COD COD o (g/L) (ug/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) V 17 NOV 2 25.79 355 306 304 304 26 NOV 11 25.79 374 333 331 317 33 NOV 18 25.79 324 274 270 261 43 NOV 28 11.56 324 271 262 267 47 DEC 2 11.56 340 273 263 245 54 DEC 9 15.62 365 310 274 276 59 DEC 14 20.97 359 294 288 264 68 DEC 23 17.33 428 305 262 251 82 JAN 6 27.82 366 271 262 256 89 JAN 13 23.75 303 257 245 229 96 JAN 20 21.51 361 287 265 233 103 JAN 27 20.87 298 272 227 221 110 FEB 3 32.53 253 373 312 284 117 FEB 10 37.45 350 392 284 278 124 FEB 17 43.76 318 465 276 258 131 FEB 24 107 327 1005 997 834 138 MAR 2 0 387 336 371 342 143 MAR 7 0 363 344 328 332 GLUCOSE SYSTEM TOTAL COD DAY No. DATE REMOVAL Z 0 17 NOV 2 61.78 26 NOV 11 54.90 33 NOV 18 75.43 43 NOV 28 68.48 47 DEC 2 71.99 54 DEC 9 73.40 59 DEC 14 77.48 68 DEC 23 77.35 82 JAN 6 83.85 89 JAN 13 82.60 96 JAN 20 82.58 103 JAN 27 81.50 110 FEB 3 81.75 117 FEB 10 87.04 124 FEB 17 88.37 131 FEB 24 82.43 138 MAR 2 11.63 143 MAR 7 8.54 ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT COD COD ANOXIC REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL (ag/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) 1380.34 23.28 40.79 914.04 15.70 18.95 2074.49 33.80 28.53 1647.22 29.59 21.72 1433.14 26.00 1B.49 1703.6 27.62 23.27 2221.68 33.59 32.25 1930.41 29.38 22.79 3755.67 48.85 38.83 2916.47 42.96 29.71 2429.65 36.18 28.92 2213.51 35.46 25.62 2682.91 32.16 25.29 3258.74 35.43 28.71 2724.45 28.13 16.33 9280.02 37.29 62.98 233.16 4.38 3.26 -88.14 -1.74 -2.23 AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT COD COD AEROBIC REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) 127.74 0.65 2.10 105.48 0.60 1.12 383.32 1.46 2.97 1327.14 3.32 9.37 1509.40 3.66 10.48 4982.40 11.61 36.55 773.64 2.04 5.99 6072.03 14.10 38.45 1309.59 3.32 7.41 1752.34 4.67 9.41 3254.46 7.67 18.89 6561.45 16.54 40.68 8672.37 16.35 43.96 15460.20 27.55 69.72 27210.33 40.65 108.50 1132.24 0.80 3.92 -5080.60 -10.42 -36.50 2191.04 4.65 29.83 200 ACETATE SYSTEM ACETATE SOLUTION INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLUENT No. DATE COD COD COD COD COD o (g/L) (•g/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) V 17 APR 6 0 366 276 264 287 24 APR 13 30.42 173 280 206 231 31 APR 20 15.63 206 181 169 185 45 MAY 4 23.49 337 276 160 240 50 MAY 9 23.49 342 268 256 256 59 MAY 18 37.19 329 410 297 321 64 MAY 23 37.19 323 379 287 271 71 JNE 1 41.89 312 552 328 320 80 JNE 8 51.13 337 583 321 302 87 JNE 15 59.68 312 760 320 280 92 JNE 20 76.77 356 876 328 372 TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT COD COD COD ANOXIC COD COD AEROBIC No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL 0 Z (ag/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) Z (ag/hr/gVSS) V 17 APR 6 21.58 439.14 8.97 9.89 1633.80 4.35 17.19 24 APR 13 84.82 3473.01 44.82 97.78 11859.98 26.43 161.49 31 APR 20 76.30 1858.43 40.60 31.87 1512.24 6.63 13.35 45 MAY 4 79.89 2284.88 34.51 50.11 14466.36 42.03 160.31 50 HAY 9 80.07 2896.06 41.89 72.69 1619.88 4.48 20.5B 59 HAY 18 80.45 2469.93 28.48 42.53 13235.69 27.56 109.42 64 MAY 23 81.67 2101.2 26.87 ' 30.83 10220.28 24.27 76.04 71 JNE 1 82.66 1173.28 12.37 15.14 28461.44 40.58 196.34 80 JNE 8 8B.72 2851.06 24.62 34.63 39554.14 44.94 238.16 87 JNE 15 90.14 1310.72 10.07 17.62 70136.00 57.89 436.17 92 JNE 20 89.87 2172.99 14.24 . 62.88 6813.12 5.48 70.27 201 YEAST WASTE SYSTEM WASTE SOLUTION INFLUENT ANOXIC AEROBIC EFFLLiEN No. DATE COD COD COD COD COD A (g/L) (ag/L) (ag/L) ( i g / L 5 (sg/L) 17 APR 5 0.000 3£6 237 264 273 24 APR * n 10 0.000 256 193 139 133 31 APR 20 2.305 206 169 165 133 45 MAY 3.373 337 244 220 131 50 MAY 3 4.380 342 285 215 215 59 MAY 13 £.327 323 374 217 £4 MAY 23 5.£57 OiO 237 233 157 71 JNE 10.130 i i n O i i 476 260 nnn 80 JNE 3 7.329 n n i 00/ 468 230 31u 37 JNE i =: u 15.340 312 792 •in a 264 32 JNE 20 13.240 n c r OJD 1115 256 316 TOTAL ANOXIC ANOXIC UNIT AEROBIC AEROBIC UNIT COD COD COD ANOXIC COD COD AEROBIC No. DATE REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL REMOVAL o 7. (ag/d) I (ag/hr/gVSS) (ag/d) V (ag/hr/gVSS V 17 APR 6 24.04 157.31 3.58 3.26 3354 8.01 34.03 24 APR 13 24.61 214.2 6.72 5.31 4214 L. y/ 51.34 31 APR 20 81.33 2724.045 52.39 54.31 4125 2.37 33.37 45 MAY 4 92.13 6133.236 64.32 104.48 15106 3.34 152.52 50 MAY 3 33.68 4871.82 55.55 53.24 77328 24.56 500.31 53 MAY 13 34.23 3407.223 63.16 58.23 41.93 833.63 64 MAY - i n 32.03 3712.254 48.45 31.37 42516 16.72 130.03 71 JNE 1 93.24 5437.74 45.73 36.37 133714 45.33 r •-• t i n O i l . 0 0 80 JNE n • 32.08 6081.427 49.87 50.08 138659 38.03 775.04 87 JNE 15 35.25 13272.43 54.40 38.75 S71258 64.65 2533.43 32 JNE 20 35.36 3774.49 38.30 52.56 983075 77.04 3018.00 202

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 195 16
France 11 0
Germany 6 15
India 4 0
Canada 4 0
Japan 3 0
Netherlands 2 2
Republic of Korea 2 0
Taiwan 2 0
Vietnam 2 0
United States 2 2
Brazil 1 0
Hong Kong 1 0
City Views Downloads
Hangzhou 134 0
Unknown 24 15
Beijing 9 0
Hefei 8 0
Dongguan 6 0
Ürümqi 6 0
Zhengzhou 4 0
Hyderabad 4 0
Nanchang 4 0
Ottawa 4 0
Xi'an 3 0
Tokyo 3 0
Shanghai 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items