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.. Carley, Brian Neal 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
Original Record: 1.0062820 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0062820.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. CCivil Engineering), University of British 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 Civil Engineering We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1988 © Brian 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 effect of excess carbon loading in the anoxic reactor on the nitrogen removal capacity of a biological pre-denitrification system for the treatment of a high ammonia leachate. The influent leachate was low in degradable organic carbon, thus an external carbon source was needed for denitrification requirements. Four different 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 denitrification. All four carbon sources were found to support denitrification, but the glucose system showed erratic behaviour and ultimately failed after reaching a CODrNOx loading of about 23:1. The system using acetate appeared to require the least amount of COD:NOx (5.9:1) for complete denitrification, followed closely by methanol (6.2:1), then the yeast waste (8.5:1), and finally by glucose (9:1). Carbon breakthrough, the bleeding of carbon from the anoxic reactor into the aerobic reactor, was observed to occur just after complete denitrification was reached. The excess carbon did not appear to have any effect on denitrification, except in the case of the glucose system. The unit nitrification was found to decrease as the CODrNOx was increased, even though the ammonia removal remained at 100%. The decrease in nitrification, with respect to the COD:NOx, was most pronounced in the system that used methanol, and about equal in the other three systems. The cause of the decrease in nitrification is suspected to be due to increased ammonia assimilation by the heterotrophs rather than an inhibition of the nitrifiers. Nitrification ceased in the glucose system, but was restored within 12 days after the glucose addition was halted. The cause of the failure of the nitrogen removal process in the glucose system was not determined. Nitrite accumulation was observed in all the systems except the methanol system. The yeast waste system had nitrite accumulation in the aerobic reactor at C0D:N0x loadings over 25:1. Free ammonia inhibition of Nitrobacter is suspected to be the cause of aerobic nitrite buildup. The glucose and acetate systems had nitrite buildup in the anoxic reactor until complete denitrification was achieved. Facultative anaerobic bacteria are suspected of causing this nitrite accumulation. This theory was supported by observations in the glucose system, such as low anoxic pH; this may have been due to volatile fatty acids produced from fermentation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES viiLIST OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATURE SEARCH 7 2.1 INTRODUCTION2.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT 10 2.2.1 Physical-Chemical 12.2.2 Recirculation.. 1 2.2.3 Biological Assimilation 12 2.3 NITRIFICATION 13 2.3.1 Nitrification Inhibition 14 2.3.2 Nitrification of Leachate 6 2.4 DENITRIFICATION 17 2.4.1 Carbon Sources 8 2.4.2 Carbon Breakthrough 21 3. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND OPERATION 4 3.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM 23.1.1 Leachate Feed 4 3.1.2 Anoxic Reactor 28 3.1.2.1 Carbon Solutions 29 3.1.3 Aerobic Reactor 32 3.1.4 Clarifieriv 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 OXYGEN4.2 pH 44.3 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL 40 4 . 4 TEMPERATURE 41 4.5 SOLIDS.4.6 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 41 4.7 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND 2 4.8 METAL CONCENTRATION 44 . 9 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 3 4.10 NITRITE. 44 4.11 NITRITE + NITRATE 44.12 AMMONIA4.12.1 Colorimetry 45 4.12.2 Distillation4.13 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN 45 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 8 5.1 pH 45.1.1 Methanol 48 5.1.2 Glucose 9 5.1.3 Acetate 52 5.1.4 Yeast Waste5.2 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL 52 5.2.1 Methanol and Acetate 5 v 5.2.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste 55 5.3 METALS 58 5.4 SOLIDS5.4.1 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 Removal5.6.1.1 Total COD Removal ... 67 5.6.1.2 Anoxic COD Removal 65.6.1.3 Aerobic COD Removal 72 5.6.2 BOD5 Removal 75.7 NITROGEN REMOVAL 3 5.7.1 Ammonia Removal 82 5.7.2 Nitrification 7 5.7.3 Denitrification 93 5.8 UNIT REMOVAL RATES 102 5.8.1 COD & BOD Removal..... 103 5.8.2 Ammonia Removal 105.8.3 Nitrification 117 5.8.4 Denitrif ication5.9 NITRITE BUILDUP 122 5.9.1 Methanol 3 5.9.2 Glucose 125.9.3 Acetate 6 5.9.4 Yeast Waste 127 5.10 GLUCOSE SYSTEM FAILURE 130 vi 5.11 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY 131 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 135 6.1 CONCLUSIONS 136 . 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 14 0 REFERENCES 142 APPENDICES (DATA FOR FIGURES) 149 vii 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 viii 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 VS ANOXIC VSS/TSS 65 16. METHANOL: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 68 17. GLUCOSE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 79 18. ACETATE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 0 19. YEAST WASTE: PERCENT COD REMOVAL 71 20. METHANOL: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 4 21. GLUCOSE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 75 22. ACETATE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 6 ix 23. YEAST WASTE: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 77 24. METHANOL: 5-DAY BOD 78 25. GLUCOSE: 5-DAY BOD 9 26. ACETATE: 5-DAY BOD 80 27. YEAST WASTE: 5-DAY BOD 1 28. METHANOL: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 83 29. GLUCOSE: PERCENT AMMONIA REMOVAL 4 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 VS 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 Ill 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 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to thank Dr. D.S. Mavinic for his guidance and counselling throughout the course of this study. Dr. Mavinic provided much needed support and advice for all aspects of this research. I would also like 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 their help, this study would not have been possible. I would like to acknowledge the cooperation of the Carling O'Keefe Brewing Company for providing the waste brewer's yeast used in this study. Special thanks to Mr. Tom Saunders of Carling O'Keefe for his help in selecting the proper waste stream from the brewing process. Lastly, I thank Murray Sexton for collecting the Burn's Bog Landfill leachate every friday, and David Hilts for the use of his computer. xii 1. INTRODUCTION This introduction will briefly outline the biological processes of nitrification, denitrification, and the concept of carbon breakthrough on which this study is based. Nitrification is an aerobic biological process conducted by autotrophic bacteria. These bacteria are predominantly of the genera Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter, and, unlike 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 nitrite. Nitrosomonas can only oxidize ammonia to nitrite, and Nitrobacter can only oxidize nitrite to nitrate. Both these autotrophs utilize inorganic carbon compounds, such as carbon dioxide and carbonate, for cell synthesis. Nitrification reduces the alkalinity, and, if synthesis is neglected, alkalinity is theoretically reduced by 7.14 mg as CaC03 for every mg ammonia nitrogen oxidized. The equations for synthesis-oxidation for nitrification are listed. These equations assume that a bacterial cell is C5H7N02 (U.S. EPA 1975). For Nitrosomonas: 55NH£ + V602 + 109HCO3" > C5H7N02 + 54N02"+ 57H20 + 104H2CO3 1 (1) For Nitrobacter: 400NO2"+ NH£ + 4H2C03 + HC03'+ 19502 > C5H7N02 + 3H20 + 400NO3" (2) The growth rate for Nitrosomonas is reported to be considerably less than the rate for Nitrobacter (U.S. EPA 1975). This means that aerobic nitrite accumulation should not occur unless the Nitrobacter experience some form of inhibition. Nitrification is also very sensitive to pH outside the optimum range of pH 7-9 (U.S. EPA 1975) . If the pH drops below 7, nitrification may be greatly reduced. Denitrification is the biological process that ultimately converts nitrate and nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, generally nitrogen gas. Many bacteria, such as Pseudomonas, Archromobacter, Micrococcus, and Bacillus, are known to have the capability for denitrification (U.S. EPA 1975). Facultative anaerobic bacteria have been shown to reduce nitrate to nitrite only, using glucose as an electron donor, and are not considered true denitrifiers (Wilderer et al. 1987). Denitrifiers are heterotrophic bacteria that oxidize organic, carbon compounds for energy. The true denitrifiers can use either oxygen or nitrate and nitrite as the terminal 2 electron acceptor for the same metabolic pathways, but oxygen is preferred if it is available. Oxygen represses the enzymes required for denitrification (Simpkin and Boyle 1985). An anoxic condition is when oxygen is absent and compounds that can donate oxygen, such as nitrate and nitrite, are present. Anaerobic conditions occur when there is an absence of oxygen, nitrate, and nitrite. Denitrification releases alkalinity at a theoretical rate of 3.57 mg alkalinity as CaC03 per mg of nitrate nitrogen reduced to nitrogen gas. The following equations illustrate denitrification using methanol for nitrate and nitrite reduction, and denitrifier cell synthesis (from U.S. EPA 1975). A cell is assumed to be C5H7NO2• Nitrate Reduction to Nitrite: N03"+ 0.33CH3OH > N02"+ 0.33H2O + 0.33H2CO3 (3) Nitrite Reduction to Nitrogen Gas: N02"+ 0.5CH3OH + 0.5H2CO3 > 0.5N2 + HC03~+ H20 (4) Denitrifier Synthesis: 3 3N03~+ 14CH3OH + 4H2C03 (5) > 3C5H7N02 + 20H2O + 3HC03" The reactions for the other carbon sources will be similar and will not be presented. Denitrification becomes sensitive to pH at values under pH 7 and over pH 8 (U.S. EPA 1975). The nitrogen removal system used in this study was a single sludge pre-denitrification completely mixed activated sludge system. Pre-denitrification indicates that the anoxic reactor was placed before the aerobic reactor. The influent ammonia entered the anoxic reactor, where about 10% was removed by assimilation. The ammonia then entered the aerobic reactor where nitrification converted it to nitrate. Some ammonia may have been lost to assimilation and air stripping, but these losses were assumed to be negligible. The nitrified mixed liquor from the aerobic reactor then passed into the clarifier to separate the solids from the supernatant. The nitrified return sludge was recycled back to the front of the system into the anoxic reactor. Denitrification in the anoxic reactor ultimately converted the nitrate to nitrogen gas by using external carbon. This process train is illustrated in Figure 1. If the aerobic reactor was placed before the anoxic reactor, then denitrification may carry over into the clarifier and produce nitrogen gas that could result in a rising sludge and poor settling. Carbon oxidation ideally occurs only by denitrification in the anoxic reactor. 4 INFLUENT AMMONIA N2GAS 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" 57 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 nitrification occurs in the aerobic reactor. If carbon is added to the anoxic reactor in excess of the minimum required to sustain complete denitrification, then carbon can bleed into the aerobic reactor. This is called "carbon breakthrough". The aerobic reactor may have both nitrification and denitrification, as well as heterotrophic carbon oxidation, occurring at the same time. Excess carbon in the anoxic basin may promote anaerobic conditions when the nitrate and nitrite has been used up. Fermentation under anaerobic conditions may lower the pH due to the production of volatile fatty acids; these in turn may disrupt either the denitrifiers or nitrifiers. The effect of excess carbon added to the anoxic reactor was the purpose of this study. The waste being treated was a high-ammonia municipal landfill leachate. 6 2. LITERATURE SEARCH This brief literature review examines nitrogen removal, particularly nitrogen removal by nitrification and denitrification. This review examines only those references which are considered to be germane to this study. There are four sections in this review. The introduction gives some reasons on the need for leachate treatment by examining the formation of landfill leachate, leachate characteristics, and health aspects of nitrogen compounds. The next section is a brief discussion on leachate treatment for nitrogen removal other than by nitrification or denitrification. Nitrification is then discussed in some detail, especially inhibition of nitrifiers as nitrification inhibition was observed in the results of this study. The last section is on denitrification and deals mainly with various carbon sources as an alternative to methanol for denitrification purposes. The effect of carbon breakthrough in pre-denitrification systems is also examined because the purpose of this study was to induce carbon breakthrough, the bleeding of the anoxic carbon source into the aerobic reactor, and observe the effects on biological nitrogen removal. 2.1 INTRODUCTION The primary concern connected with the disposal of refuse into landfills is the generation of leachate. Leachate is 7 produced when water, from precipitation, surface runoff, groundwater intrusion, or from within the refuse, percolates through the refuse. As the water seeps through the landfill, contaminants are leached out of the refuse and incorporated into the water, thus producing leachate. The contaminants are from the refuse directly or from products of bacterial degradation. The composition of leachate can vary widely between landfills and even between different cells within the same landfill. The leachate composition can vary with the age of the refuse, the amount of water entering the landfill, and with the amount and type of industrial wastes incorporated into the waste stream (Fuller, et al. 1979) . Jasper, et al. (1985, 1986) hypothesized that the organic constituents of leachate varied with water flow and retention time within the landfill. Some typical characteristics of landfill leachate are low BOD, high refractory COD, high ammonia, low phosphorus, and the presence of a wide range of metals and toxic organic contaminants (Henry 1985). The common inorganic constituents of leachate are chlorides, sulphates, bicarbonates, ammonia, iron (II), manganese (II), sodium, potassium, calcium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, and zinc (Jasper, et al. 1986). Chian, et al. (1985) stated that landfills have 5 basic stages of biological degradation. The first is a relatively short aerobic decomposition phase, which can last from one to six months, depending on the amount of air space within the 8 refuse. The second stage is a transition from an aerobic to an anoxic/anaerobic microbial population. Nitrates, nitrites, and sulphates are used when the oxygen has been depleted. The third, or acid formation, stage involves facultative anaerobic bacteria, which degrade organic material into volatile fatty acids. The fourth stage involves the establishment of methanogenic bacteria which utilize the fatty acids to form methane and carbon dioxide. During these last two stages, a byproduct is ammonia, converted from organic nitrogen. This is the reason that "older" landfills have high ammonia leachate (Henry 1985). The fifth and final stage is final maturation, characterized by little biological activity as the readily available organic material and nutrients have been virtually exhausted. The constituent of concern in this study is ammonia. Ammonia levels in landfill leachates have been reported at 70-150 mg/L (Fuller, et al. 1979), 76-790 mg/L (Robinson 1985), and 200-600 mg/L (Knox 1985) . Ammonia concentrations in the Vancouver area are up to 372 mg/L for the Port Mann landfill leachate (Jasper, et al. 1986) and about 200-250 mg/L for the Burns Bog landfill leachate used in this study. Ammonia has been shown to be toxic to fish, and can also affect receiving waters through eutrophication, nitrogenous oxygen depletion, and nitrate and nitrite contamination (Water Pollution Control Fed. 1983) . There are health hazards 9 associated with nitrates and nitrites such as infant methemoglobinemia, and the suspected formation of potent carcinogenic compounds called nitrosamines (Shuval and Gruener 1975). Mirvish (1975) reported that nitrates may increase the risk of gastric cancer, and that N-Nitroso (NNO-) compounds, readily formed by nitrite and either amines or amides, may also be human carcinogens. 2.2 LEACHATE TREATMENT High ammonia leachate can be treated by several different methods other than by biological nitrification and denitrification. Physical-chemical methods, recirculation, and biological removal by assimilation are viable alternatives. The choice for each method, or combination thereof, will depend on the leachate characteristics, the amount and form of nitrogen to be removed, and the economics involved. 2.2.1 Physical-Chemical Physical-chemical treatment can include air stripping, ion-exchange, and breakpoint chlorination. The Water Pollution 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 Shcerger (1975) summarized the advantages and disadvantages of nitrogen removal by physical-chemical methods. The advantages of most physical-chemical methods are 10 a uniformity of removal, insensitivity to toxins and temperature, and minimal sludge production in 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, filtration, and possibly activated carbon adsorption may be necessary. Keenan, et al. (1984) used air stripping to remove ammonia from landfill leachate. Chemical precipitation was used to remove metals and increase the pH for the air stripping process. Aerobic biological treatment was necessary to remove BOD, organic nitrogen, and residual ammonia from the air stripping process. 2.2.2 Recirculation Recirculation of the leachate back into the landfill is not an ultimate nitrogen removal technique but rather a possible means for a slight nitrogen reduction. Recirculation is generally accomplished by spray irrigation onto the landfill surface. Robinson and Maris (1985) did a 3 year field study and concluded that recirculation promoted more rapid stabilization of BOD, decreased leachate volume through evaporation, and possibly produced a stronger but more consistent leachate. Ammonia may have been removed by air stripping and by aerobic bacteria. Air stripping by spray irrigation was probably fairly low due to a leachate pH of 7, whereas optimal pH for air stripping is above 10 (Water 11 pollution Control Fed. 1983; U.S. EPA 1975). Maris, et al. (1985) , commenting on the same 3 year study, stated that recirculation is only an intermediate step and not an end solution. Stegmann and Spendlin (1985) studied spray recirculation and determined that spray irrigation should be practiced to promote leachate volume reduction and for greater biological treatment within the landfill, before being sent to a treatment plant. 2.2.3 Biological Assimilation Biological nitrogen assimilation is the removal of nitrogen as a nutrient for cell synthesis. This method requires a high BOD loading to stimulate biological growth. Robinson and Maris (1985) conducted a laboratory study to treat relatively low ammonia landfill leachate. An aerobic, completely-mixed fill and draw system was used. Influent ammonia concentration was 76 mg/L and effluent levels were below 1 mg/L. The study concluded that since the BOD:N was 100:5, the nitrogen was used for metabolic purposes rather than used for nitrification. Robinson (1988) treated a high ammonia leachate in an aerated lagoon. The leachate had a low BOD: N (as low as 1:1), so an industrial 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 nitrified. The remaining 60% was unaccounted for, but thought to be due air stripping and nitrification with denitrification. Boyle and Ham (1974) studied the effect of leachate addition to sewage in the amounts of between 0 and 20%, using a lab-scale completely mixed aerobic fill 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 in oxygen uptake rate or substantially increased solids production. They infer that the nitrogen was removed by biological assimilation. Kelly (1987) also studied leachate addition to sewage before treatment in a sewage treatment plant. Leachate was added at 2%, 4%, and 16% by volume to sewage into a pilot-scale 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 Nitrification is a biological process through which ammonia becomes oxidized to nitrite and then further oxidized to nitrate. As described in the Chapter 1, the autotrophic 13 bacteria Nitrosomonas first converts the ammonia to nitrite, and then Nitrobacter converts nitrite to nitrate. Detailed reference to this process is widely documented (U.S. EPA 1975; Benefield and Randall 1980; Water Pollution Control Fed. 1983; Barnes and Bliss 1983; Water Research Commission, S.A. 1984). Nitrification can be inhibited by many substances, many of which are found in landfill leachate. 2.3.1 Nitrification Inhibition Nitrification has been reported to be affected by a wide range of inhibitors, such as metals, pH, extreme temperatures, and even free ammonia and nitrous acid. Metals are important as many different metals can be present in leachate. Beg and Hassan (1987) studied the inhibitory effects of hexavalent chromium, trivalent arsenic, and fluoride on nitrification in a packed-bed biological flow reactor, and found that all three induced inhibitory effects. Dedhar (1985), Dedhar and Mavinic (1985) reported that elevated manganese concentrations did not inhibit nitrification of high ammonia leachate, but that zinc in concentrations of 17.6 mg/L did cause substantial inhibition. Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) studied the toxicity effects of zinc, chromium, and nickel on a biological pre-denitrif ication leachate treatment system. Preliminary analysis indicates that nitrification was inhibited by all three metals. They also observed the combined effect of zinc and cold temperature has also shown serious inhibitory 14 effects on nitrification. The effect of ammonia and nitrous acid, the acid form of nitrite, are of interest because these compounds are the substrates for the nitrifiers. Anthonsen, et al. (1976) conducted a study on the inhibitory effects of un-ionized ammonia and un-ionized nitrous acid on nitrification. They concluded that both caused some inhibition, and that un ionized ammonia significantly affected the conversion of nitrite to nitrate by Nitrobacter. Suthersan and Ganczarczyk (1986) studied the inhibitory effects on Nitrobacter by un-ionized ammonia. They found that pH played an important role in the inhibition by the ammonia. Higher pH (pH 8.0-8.8) caused greater inhibition. 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 nitrite only due to the presence of un-ionized ammonia, and then denitrification of the nitrite to nitrogen gas. This system was able to operate until Nitrobacter apparently was able to acclimatize to the high levels of free ammonia. Keenan, et al. (1979) reported that ammonia levels over 300 mg/L inhibited both the oxidation of ammonia and organic material. They also suspected that nitrification was 15 inhibited by relatively high BOD and COD concentrations of 9000 mg/L and 16,000 mg/L respectively. Mueller, et al. (1985) reported that shock loading of ammonia in a refinery waste caused temporary inhibition of the nitrification process. This may have been caused by free ammonia inhibition or by a lag time by the microbial organisms to respond to the shock load. Hooper and Terry (1973) studied inhibitors of Nitrosomonas and concluded that short-chain alcohols such as methanol, ethanol, propanol, and butanol were significant inhibitors of ammonia oxidation. 2.3.2 Nitrification of Leachate Nitrification of landfill leachate has been used successfully to remove ammonia. Dedhar (1985) and Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) used pre-denitrif ication biological systems to remove ammonia. Cook and Foree (1974) used a lab-scale fill and draw aerobic reactor to remove organic material from leachate. At the same time, they noted nitrate increase with an ammonia decrease, which was attributed to nitrification. Knox (1985) operated an outdoor aerobic activated sludge pilot plant and a trickling filter pilot plant over a two year period. The influent leachate had ammonia 16 concentrations in the range of 150-500 mg/L. Complete nitrification was established in both plants. 2.4 DENITRIFICATION Denitrification is the biological reduction of nitrate to nitrite, and then a further reduction of nitrite to nitrogen gas. The bacteria, capable of nitrate and nitrite respiration, are heterotrophic bacteria which, unlike the autotrophic nitrifiers, require organic carbon as an electron donor. The denitrifiers produce an enzyme which enables them to use nitrate or nitrite. This enzyme is repressed in the presence of oxygen (Simpkin and Boyle 1985). Many bacterial species are capable of denitrification (U.S. EPA 1975; Water Pollution Control Fed. 1983). Denitrification requires the absence of oxygen, the presence of nitrate or nitrite, and a readily degradable organic carbon source. The absence of oxygen can be easily managed and nitrate and nitrite can be supplied via nitrification. The organic carbon must either be present in the influent or added to the anoxic reactor from an external source. In the case of "older" leachate, which is characteristically low in easily degradable organic carbon, an external carbon source is necessary. The external source has traditionally been methanol, but the price of methanol has risen dramatically so alternative carbon sources have been evaluated. 17 2.4.1 Carbon Sources The most famous paper on carbon sources for denitrification is by McCarty, et al. (1969) . They tested acetic acid, acetone, ethanol, sugar, and methanol. Their data shows that acetic acid and ethanol were equally effective, if not more so, for denitrification 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 for Nitrogen Control (1975) suggests the use of methanol based partially on the McCarty paper. The manual even has an entire section devoted to the handling, storage, feed control, and removal of methanol. Barnes and Bliss (1983) mention alternative carbon sources such as acetic acid, acetone, raw waste water, methane, and endogenous respiration products, but all the details for denitrification calculations are based on methanol as the electron donor. Methanol has been used successfully for denitrification in many denitrification studies (Smith 1971 Vol.l&2; Climenhage 1972; Sutton, et al. 1975; Lewandoswki 1982; Kaplan, et al. 1984; Melcer, et al. 1984; Manoharan, et al. 1988; Mavinic and Randall (unpublished)). The price of methanol has risen 18 with the price of petroleum and is now an expensive carbon source for denitrification (Water Pollution Control Fed. 1983). Alternatively, less expensive carbon sources have become desirable and have been studied. Denitrification has been achieved using nitro-celluose (Mudrack 1961), fish meal and gelatin (Ludzack and Ettinger 1962), lactate (du Toit and Davies 1973), peptone (Paskins, et al. 1978), and acetone (Lewandoswki 1982). Glucose (Schroeder and Busch 1967; Paskins, et al. 1978; Dedhar 1985) and a glucose and sodium acetate mixture (Argaman and Brenner 1986) have also been found to be satisfactory for denitrification. Lewandowski (1982) found acetic acid more effective than methanol for increasing the denitrification rate, and Narkis, et al. (1979) found sodium acetate to be just as effective as methanol. Wilderer, et al. (1987) used lab-scale sequencing batch reactors to denitrify nitrate. Two SBR systems were studied, one with glucose as the carbon source, and the other with acetate. While the acetate system performed perfectly, the glucose system started to accumulate nitrite. The authors concluded that glucose promoted fermentative conditions under which facultative anaerobes predominated. Facultative anaerobes are thought to be capable of nitrate to nitrite conversion, hence the nitrite buildup. These findings are in accordance with a study by Blaszczyk (1983) in which different carbon sources, ethanol, methanol, glucose, and 19 acetate were each found to produce a different dominating species of denitrifiers under denitrification conditions. Only glucose showed problems by accumulating nitrite, and lowered pH due possibly to facultative anaerobes under fermentative conditions. Manoharan, et al. (1988), and Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) used a pilot-scale single sludge pre-denitrif ication system to treat high ammonia leachate. Glucose and methanol were compared as carbon sources. Denitrification with methanol proved to be consistent and reliable. In contrast, glucose provided unreliable denitrification, which fluctuated from 0-100%. Both the pH and ORP in the anoxic basin dropped, which indicating the presence of facultative anaerobes. Nitrite buildup also occurred at this time. Wastes that are high in degradable carbon are also being investigated for suitability in the denitrification process. Primary sludge (Abufayed and Schroeder 1986) and raw sewage (Nicholls 1975; Tholander 1975) are reported to work very reliably. Beer and Wang (1978) used endogenous respiration to provide carbon for nitrate respiration. Industrial wastes such as brewery waste (Wilson and Newton 1973) , industrial organic wastes (Haltrich 1967), and phenolic waste with methanol addition (Nutt and Marvan 1984) 20 have been investigated with favorable results. Monteith, et al. (1979, 1980) reviewed 30 wastes and compared the denitrification rates with that of methanol. Twenty-seven of the wastes exhibited denitrification rates greater than or equal to that of methanol. The majority of these wastes were from the food and beverage industry, especially the brewery and distillery industries. Skrinde and Bhagat (1982) compared yeast, corn silage, whey, and spent sulphite liquor wastes with methanol for denitrification purposes. The denitrification efficiencies of all the wastes were found to be comparable to those observed with methanol. Kaplan, et al. (1984) considered 11 industrial waste carbon sources for denitrification of nitrate-contaminated munitions process wastewater. Methanol was tested and found to be more efficient than the tested wastes, which included sweet and acid whey, corn steep liquor, soluble potato solids, brewery spent grain, sugar beet molasses, and raw sewage sludge. Ninety-five percent denitrification was recorded for all the wastes except the sewage sludge. 2.4.2 Carbon Breakthrough Carbon breakthrough in a nitrif ication-denitrif ication system occurs when excess degradable carbon from the anoxic 21 reactor bleeds into the aerobic reactor. The effect of carbon breakthrough on a biological nitrogen removal system has not been well studied. Although there are very few references on this subject, there are studies in which this may have occurred. Bridle, et al. (1979) studied a full-scale activated single sludge pre-denitrification plant that was used to treat nylon wastes. These wastes contained high concentrations of ammonia, organic nitrogen, nitric and nitrous acids, and organic carbon in the form of one to five chain mono-basic acids. The organic removal in the anoxic basin was recorded as 20-30%, which implies that carbon breakthrough was occurring. Denitrification efficiencies of greater than 98% were constant but consistent nitrification was a problem. The authors blamed temperature variations and high organic nitrogen levels for this inconsistency, but the another contributing factor may have been carbon breakthrough. Narkis, et al. (1979) used a bench-scale two sludge pre-denitrif ication system for nitrogen removal for sewage. Lime treated sewage was the carbon source for denitrification. The study mentions that the nitrification reactor was very sensitive to organic loading, but no data was given to indicate how sensitive the reactor was. This illustrates that carbon breakthrough may be a problem. 22 Melcer, et al. (1984) used a bench-scale single sludge pre-denitrification system to treat coke plant and blast furnace blowdown water. The carbon sources for denitrification were phenolic compounds with methanol added. The system experienced carbon breakthrough, and the excess carbon, mainly in the form of methanol, resulted in a reduction in the specific nitrification rate. This reduction was surmised to be due to heterotrophic growth in the aerobic basin. The study states, "Comparison of total system operation with and without methanol addition demonstrated that the nitrification process was unstable when methanol was added unnecessarily to the system". Carbon breakthrough was noted in the paper by Manoharan, et al. (1988). Carbon breakthrough by both glucose and by methanol was observed. Nitrification was not apparently affected by methanol, but glucose caused an inconsistent performance in nitrification, which was thought to be due to heterotrophic competition. This literature review is by no means exhaustive for these selected topics. The topics and references were chosen to provide a foundation for this study to build upon. The literature selected is representative of the current state of knowledge and understanding of leachate treatment, inhibition of nitrification, carbon sources for denitrification, and carbon breakthrough. 23 3. EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP AND OPERATION Two identical bench-scale biological single-sludge pre-denitrif ication systems, with recycle, were used in this study. The basic configuration of each system was an anoxic reactor, then an aerobic reactor, and a final clarifier with a recycle line back to the anoxic reactor. The system is shown schematically in Figure 2. Two experimental runs were conducted, each with two different carbon sources for denitrification requirements. The first run used glucose in one system and methanol in the other. The second run used acetate in one and waste brewer's yeast, from a Carling O'Keefe Brewery, in the other. The four systems studied were fed a municipal landfill leachate. 3.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM 3.1.1 Leachate Feed The leachate feed was an "older" leachate, collected from the City of Vancouver's Burns Bog Landfill in Delta, British Columbia. The leachate was collected from the southwest corner of the landfill as shown in 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 characteristics of the leachate have been compiled in Table 1. The leachate was collected once a week and stored at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius until required. The leachate 24 CARBON AND PHOSPHORUS SOLUTION MIXER TO ORP MONITOR —• —4-«S2tL 1 LITRES STYROFOAM COVER ORP PROBE WASTING VALVE XX 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 will be connected to Annacls Isldnd interceptor when complete (1979 - 1980) 4 L E 0 E N D Surface Drainogo Ditchoe _______ Leachate Ditches Figure 3. Burns Bog Landfill Site ref: Atwater, 1980 TABLE 1. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BURNS BOG LEACHATE CONCENTRATION (mg/L) PARAMETER MEAN RANGE COD 325 175-425 BOD 25 10-60 AMMONIA 200 170-240 NOx 8 0-25 NITRITE 3 0-10 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 0.2 0.1-0.6 TKN 230 180-300 SOLIDS VSS 44 20-100 TSS 90 20-300 IRON TOTAL 15 8-30 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 litres per day for each system. The leachate supply was contained in a covered plastic 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 in the supply bucket. Nitrate and nitrite also appeared as ammonia disappeared, indicating that a small amount of biological nitrification was occurring in the supply bucket. 3.1.2 Anoxic Reactor The anoxic reactor was a cylindrical plexiglass container. The liquid volume of the reactor was 1 litre and was completely mixed by a mechanical mixer. A floating styrofoam cover prevented aeration by reducing contact between the air and the liquid. An Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) probe continuously monitored the ORP in the reactor. The reactor received three incoming liquid streams: influent leachate, nitrified return sludge, and a carbon/phosporus solution for denitrification requirements. The leachate was pumped at approximately 3 litres per day and entered the reactor via a glass pipe positioned just below the liquid surface,thus preventing unnecessary surface turbulence. The nitrified return sludge from the clarifier was also discharged from a glass tube just below the surface at a 28 continuous rate of about 12 litres per day. In the case of methanol,, glucose, and acetate the carbon solution was administered continuously at a rate between 80 and 150 milliliters per day. The brewer's yeast waste was added at about 1 litre per day to prevent clogging of the lines by yeast solids. Tri-basic sodium phosphate was added to the methanol, glucose, and acetate carbon solutions to ensure that phosphorus was not a limiting nutrient. The yeast waste contained a high concentration of phosphate, so further addition was not necessary. Denitrification occurred in this reactor, utilizing the carbon solution as a source of electron donors for nitrate and nitrite respiration. The filtered BOD5 of the influent leachate and of the return sludge was low enough to be considered negligible. 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 until required. The appropriate carbon solution was pumped into the anoxic reactor from a glass 500mL graduated cylinder. No biological growth was observed in any of the cylinders over the course of the study. These three carbon solutions were prepared by adding the calculated mass of carbon chemical, liquid methanol, D-glucose, or sodium acetate, to one litre of distilled water. Tri-basic sodium phosphate was added at 29 approximately 3g/L. The solutions were mixed thoroughly until the carbon and phosphate had completely dissolved. No precipitate of any kind was observed in any of the solutions. The yeast waste solution was prepared by diluting a calculated volume of brewer's yeast waste, a slurry of yeast solids, with distilled water. The yeast waste had been washed with phosphoric acid at the brewery to deactivate the yeast, thus phosphate addition was not necessary. The acidic 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 in a glass flask. The solution was pumped continuously from a glass flask that was kept completely mixed by means of a magnetic stir bar and a stir plate. The mixing was necessary in order to keep the yeast solids in suspension. The brewer's yeast waste was collected from the Carling O'Keefe Brewery in Vancouver once every 5 weeks. Two litres of waste yeast were collected each time and stored in an airtight 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 characteristics. 30 TABLE 2. BREWER'S YEAST WASTE CHARACTERISTICS CONCENTRATION (mg/L) PARAMETER MEAN RANGE TKN 13,000 1 1,800-13,500 FTKN 7,500 5,500-9,200 AMMONIA 2,500 1,850-3,800 ORTHOPHOSPHATE 2,500 1,800-3,500 COD UNFILTERED FILTERED 300,000 1 15,000 250,000-350,000 1 10,000-150,000 BOD UNFILTERED FILTERED 150,000 73,000 140,000-170,000 71,000-76,000 PH < 2.0 31 3.1.3 Aerobic Reactor The aerobic reactor was a cylindrical plexiglass container connected to the anoxic reactor by a 8mm flexible tube, which had a three-way valve to permit wasting of mixed liquor from either the aerobic reactor or the anoxic reactor. The liquid volume of each aerobic reactor was 2 litres and was aerated by a porous stone air diffuser located in 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 sufficient DO for nitrification and carbon oxidation. Nitrification occurred in this reactor, with ammonia oxidized first to nitrite and then to nitrate. Carbon oxidization occurred when excess carbon from the anoxic reactor bled into the aerobic reactor. 3.1.4 Clarifier The clarifier was a 0.8L cylindrical plexiglass container with a conical bottom. The clarifier was connected to the aerobic reactor by 8mm flexible tubing. The clarifier had an open-ended inner cylindrical compartment into which the mixed liquor from the aerobic reactor flowed. The solids settled down the inner compartment and then into the conical bottom where a mechanical scraper arm guided the solids into the recycle line. The recycle was operated for a recycle to influent ratio of .4:1, to produce a clarifier retention time of about 1.3 hours. The supernatant flowed around the bottom of the inner cylinder and up the sides of the clarifier to the outlet weir. The effluent was collected in large flasks. Theoretically, no biological activity was supposed to occur in the clarifier, but, realistically, there most likely was a small amount of nitrification. Also, when carbon bled through both the anoxic and aerobic reactors into the clarifier, carbon oxidation could continue to use up the residual oxygen and, if no oxygen remained, then denitrification could occur. 3.2 OPERATION The basic operating conditions for all four systems are shown in Table 3. 3.2.1 Methanol and Glucose The methanol and glucose systems were started on October 17, 1987. The reactors were filled with waste sludge from the University of British Columbia's mobile sewage treatment pilot plant, and with waste from a similar biological leachate treatment system under the supervision of Dr. D.S. 33 TABLE 5. BASIC OPERATING CONDITIONS METHANOL, GLUCOSE YEAST WASTE and ACETATE 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) AER0BIC CLARIFIER SYSTEM 16 6.4 30.4 HRT (ACTUAL) 3 1.6 3.2 1.3 6.0 ANOXIC (HOURS) AEROBIC (HOURS) CLAR|F|ER 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/DAY 3.0 L/DAY 1 . VOLUMES DO NOT INCLUDE THE VOLUMES DUE TO PUMP HEADS OR RECYCLE LINES. 2 SRT= MASS SUSPENDED SOLIDS IN REACTOR  MASS SUSPENDED SOLIDS WASTED PER DAY FROM THE REACTOR 3 HRT= V0LUME 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 biological phosphorus removal system run by Nelson Lee was also added. Both systems were run at an infinite Solids Retention Time (SRT) until complete nitrification of the leachate was established; at this point, a wasting rate of 200mL per day was started. This wasting rate resulted in 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 this level for 1 week and increased slightly each week after that, as shown in Figure 4. The glucose system failed around Feb. 24, 1988 after reaching a C0D:N0x of about 23:1. Failure was a loss of nitrification and denitrification. The glucose addition was halted at this point and complete nitrification was restored by Mar. 4, 1988. Both systems were shut down on March 7, 1988 after 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 in the first run with methanol and glucose, the reactors were ' filled 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 •GLUCOSE + METHANOL sewage treatment plant, the laboratory leachate treatment, and from the bench-scale biological phosphorus removal system. Both systems were run at infinite SRT until complete nitrification 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 rise 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 denitrifiers. The anoxic ORP, based on Ag-AgCl2 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 start of the carbon addition. Judging from the first run, the anoxic ORP should have been about -lOOmV for this 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 in Figure 5. Both systems were terminated on June 20,1988, after 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 nitrification or denitrification appeared to be 37 Figure 5. COD:NOx FOR ACETATE & YEAST WASTE significantly hindered at these CODrNOx levels, but severe rising sludge in the clarifiers 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 filtered TKN analysis which was done only for the yeast waste system samples. 4.1 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (DO) Dissolved oxygen measurements were taken daily in 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 calibrated 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 air supply. 4.2 pH Aerobic and anoxic pH measurements were recorded daily using a Fisher Accumet Mode 320 Expanded Scale Research pH meter with an Orion Combination pH probe. The pH of the influent leachate was also recorded on a daily basis. The pH probe was calibrated once a week with a pH 7 standard buffer. 4.3 OXIDATION-REDUCTION POTENTIAL (ORP) ORP measurements, in mV, of the anoxic reactors were recorded daily using an Ag-AgCl2 Broadle/James Corp. ORP electrode. 40 The probes were submersed in the anoxic mixed liquor throughout both runs and were cleaned once a week with distilled water. There was no attempt to calibrate the probes, thus absolute values are not exact, and cannot be used with any degree of accuracy. 4.4 TEMPERATURE The aerobic reactor liquid temperatures were recorded daily 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 Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) were analyzed three times a week on samples from the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and the effluents. The solids testing was conducted in accordance with Standard Methods (1985). 4.6 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) Samples of the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents were filtered through Whatman #4 filter paper and then tested for 5 day BOD. The test was performed twice a week and the procedure was in accordance 41 with Standard Methods (1985). The dilution water used in the test was seeded with 0.5 mL of each of the aerobic mixed liquors tested. A Yellow Springs Instrument Co. Ltd. Model 54 Dissolved Oxygen meter with self-mixing DO probe was used to measure the initial and final DO concentrations. The probe was calibrated each day by the azide modified Winkler titration as described by Standard Methods (1985). 4.7 CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (COD) Weekly COD tests were performed as described in Standard Methods (1985) on filtered (Whatman #4) samples of the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and the effluents. The samples were preserved with concentrated sulfuric acid and stored in plastic bottles at 4 degrees Celsius. The leachate had a high chloride concentration which could have interfered with the COD test, so mercuric sulphate was added to each sample before testing to suppress the chloride interference. COD analysis was also conducted on the unfiltered yeast waste solution to determine the actual COD. This testing 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 effluents. Dissolved metal 42 samples were first filtered through Whatman #4 filter paper, acidified with concentrated nitric acid, boiled down to less than half the original volume, refiltered through Whatman #54 filter paper, and finally made up to half the original volume with distilled water. The total metal (unfiltered) samples were dried at 103 degrees Celsius, fired at 550 degrees Celsius to remove the organic content, acidified with nitric acid and boiled to redissolve the metals, filtered (Whatman #54), and finally made up to the original volume with distilled water. The samples were stored in plastic bottles at room temperature until analyzed. The metal analyses were performed on a Jarrel 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 failure of a system was not due to a sudden influx or buildup of metals. 4.9 ORTHOPHOSPHATE Orthophosphate samples were collected three times a week on filtered (Whatman #4) samples of the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents. The samples were preserved with mercuric acetate and refrigerated in plastic bottles at 4 degrees Celsius. The analysis was run once a week on a Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter in accordance with the methods described in Technicon Industrial Method No. 94-70W. 43 4.10 NITRITE Samples for nitrite were collected three times a week on the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents. The samples were filtered (Whatman #4), preserved with mercuric acetate, and stored at 4 degrees Celsius in plastic bottles until analyzed. The analysis was performed weekly on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter in accordance with the analytical guidelines of Technicon Industrial Method No. 100-70W. 4.11 NITRITE + NITRATE (NOx) Filtered (Whatman #4) NOx samples were taken three times a week for the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents. The samples were preserved with mercuric acetate and stored in plastic bottles at 4 degrees Celsius until analyzed. The analysis was performed once a week on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter as described in Technicon Industrial Method No. 100-70W. The Auto Analyzer was fitted with a cadmium-silver alloy reducing column to reduce nitrate to nitrite for detection by the colorimeter. 4.12 AMMONIA Ammonia was analyzed by two different methods, by colorimetry and by distillation. 44 4.12.1 Colorimetry This analysis used the Technicon Auto Analyzer II Colorimeter as outlined in Technicon Industrial Method No. 98-70W. Filtered (Whatman #4) samples of the influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents were collected three times a week and preserved with concentrated sulfuric acid and refrigerated in plastic bottles at 4 degrees Celsius until analyzed. The ammonia analysis was done once a week. The results of this analysis were used for data analysis. 4.12.2 Distillation This ammonia analysis was performed daily on the influent leachate and effluents, which were filtered through Whatman #4 filter paper. The analysis was conducted in accordance with Standard Methods (1980) and involved diluting the sample with distilled water, raising the sample pH above 10, adding a borate buffer, and distillation into a boric acid indicator. The ammonia concentration was determined by titration with an N/50 sulfuric acid. This testing was used as an operational parameter, to monitor daily influent and effluent ammonia concentrations. A rise in effluent ammonia concentration would indicate a problem with nitrification in the aerobic reactor. 4.13 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN (TKN) TKN was analyzed weekly on the Technicon Auto Analyzer II 45 Colorimeter in accordance with the methods given in Technicon Industrial Method No. 14 6/71A. Unfiltered samples of influent leachate, anoxic and aerobic mixed liquors, and effluents were preserved with concentrated sulfuric acid and stored in plastic bottles at 4 degrees Celsius until needed for digestion. The samples were digested in accordance with the Technicon Industrial Method No. 146/71A before analysis. The greatest concern was that the influent TKN was comprised of ammonia. This was verified when compared to the influent ammonia results. This can be seen in Table 4. Filtered (Whatman #4) samples of the influent leachate, and mixed liquors, effluent, and yeast waste solution from the yeast waste system were preserved, stored, digested, and analyzed in the same manner as the unfiltered samples. The filtered TKN was analyzed because the yeast waste solution ammonia was only part of the filtered TKN value. The organic nitrogen portion of the TKN of the yeast waste solution could be hydrolysed to ammonia, which then could be nitrified. 46 TABLE 4 INFLUENT AMMONIA, TKN, AND FILTERED TKN CONCENTRATION (mg/L) DATE AMMONIA COLORIMETRIC METHOD AMMONIA DISTILLATION METHOD TKN FTKN NOV 21 182 175 346 N/A NOV 28 192 181 198 N/A DEC 5 187 179 185 N/A DEC 12 212 189 181 N/A DEC 19 216 193 201 N/A DEC 26 206 188 223 N/A JAN 2 198 178 204 N/A JAN 9 227 21 1 297 N/A JAN 16 224 207 210 N/A JAN 23 148 140 140 N/A JAN 30 215 202 185 N/A FEB 6 228 216 208 N/A FEB 13 179 189 186 N/A FEB 20 178 195 203 N/A FEB 27 209 214 249 N/A MAR 5 21 1 214 246 N/A APR 9 194 189 229 N/A APR 16 193 177 191 N/A APR 23 180 181 175 190 APR 30 228 234 260 252 MAY 7 215 221 21 1 244 MAY 14 223 237 254 249 MAY 21 210 206 199 214 MAY 28 190 189 223 212 JNE 4 264 243 266 272 JNE 1 1 223 206 236 244 JNE 20 188 185 21 1 21 1 47 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this section, the results of all four biological nitrogen removal systems will be discussed. Where applicable, the results have been correlated with the COD:NOx. For the acetate and yeast waste systems, extreme COD:NOx data points have been discarded if 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 failed with respect to nitrogen removal. Data analysis was done on an IBM PC-XT personal computer using Lotus 123 software. Best fit straight lines, where applicable, were generated by the linear regression function of the Lotus 123 software package. 5.1 pH The behaviour of the aerobic and anoxic pH values differed for each of the four systems. The pH of the leachate was fairly consistent in 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 initially until complete denitrification 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 illustrated in Figure 6. At all times, the anoxic pH remained higher than the aerobic pH; this was expected as denitrification produces alkalinity while nitrification consumes alkalinity. 5.1.2 Glucose The pH of the glucose system was very erratic when compared to the other three systems. The anoxic pH was consistently lower than the aerobic system, until failure of the nitrogen removal mechanism. This indicates that the anoxic reactor was more acidic than the aerobic reactor. This may be attributed to the production of volatile fatty acids by facultative anaerobes which could ferment the glucose. Best fit straight lines were applied to the anoxic and aerobic pH in 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 failure, the pH of both reactors plummeted from about 7.2 to 6.6, but recovered with several days after the glucose addition was halted. After failure and without glucose, the anoxic pH was consistently higher than the aerobic pH. 49 Figure 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 • • fD • 7.5 --CD ntm nnnnn -E ii II 11 • 7.4 -pa • • -3 • + + + + + + + ++ + + LTD • • • • • • • • • 7.3 7.2 -7.1 - ° a + + • • + 20 i 40 60 • 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 Initially, the pH of both reactors increased, then levelled off when complete denitrification was reached. The anoxic pH reached 8.2 and held steady, while the aerobic pH continued to increase slightly from 7.8 to 8.2, with the increase in 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 in the percentage of denitrification, and levelled off when complete denitrification was achieved. The aerobic pH held steady after reaching pH 7.4, while the anoxic pH decreased with the increase in CODrNOx (as seen in 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 in anoxic pH may have been due to fermentative conditions in 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 distinct patterns; the first exhibited by the methanol and acetate systems, and the second by the glucose and yeast waste systems. The ORP probes were not calibrated, thus the patterns and relative 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 -  +B A + • • • • • • 7.9 H ++  • + + • • • 7.B -  + 7.7 -] • • • 7.6 H 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 qualitative, 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 off (Figure 10). The methanol anoxic ORP leveled off at a COD:NOx of 20:1, while the acetate system anoxic ORP leveled off around 6:1. Both systems leveled off at around-300 to -350 mV. 5.2.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste The anoxic ORP pattern for these systems was characterized by relatively high ORP values for COD:NOx of up to and even exceeding 5:1 (Figure 11). There was not the initial decrease in ORP when the carbon addition was started, as observed in the methanol and acetate systems. This apparent lag in ORP response may be due to microbial acclimatization to these carbon sources, since the initial bacterial seed came from systems which either used methanol (the biological 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 required a longer acclimatization period. The anoxic ORP then dropped and leveled off. 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 levels. The metal concentrations were found to be fairly constant in the influent leachate throughout the study. The metals were of such low concentrations that there would not to have any significant impact on the operation of the biological nitrogen removal system. 5.4 SOLIDS As with anoxic ORP, two distinctive patterns emerged with regard to volatile suspended solids in the mixed liquor. Once again, the methanol and acetate systems showed similar behaviour, while the glucose and yeast waste systems behaved in a like fashion. The anoxic and aerobic VSS values were very close, within each system, due to the completely mixed nature of the reactors. All four systems exhibited rising sludge in the clarifier, but the second run, using acetate and yeast waste, exhibited very high VSS, between 100 mg/L and 2 000 mg/L, in the effluents near the end of the study. Rising sludge occurred in the clarifiers as a result of denitrification. The rising sludge occurred when carbon bled through both the anoxic and aerobic reactors into the clarifier. The oxygen was removed through carbon oxidation and resulted in anoxic conditions, 57 under which denitrification could become established. The denitrification produced minute nitrogen gas bubbles, causing the sludge to float rather than settle. Rising sludge was also observed in the first run, using methanol and glucose, resulting in effluent VSS concentrations between 40 and 80 mg/L. The effluent VSS of all four systems, before rising sludge occurred, ranged between 5 and 30 mg/L. 5.4.1 Methanol and Acetate The pattern exhibited by the mixed liquor VSS in relation to the COD:NOx is almost a linear relationship. The anoxic and aerobic VSS of both systems rose consistently as the COD:NOx was increased. The VSS values of both systems were similar up to a COD:NOx of 16:1, after which the acetate study was terminated. See (Figures 12a and 12b) . The rate of VSS increase was reduced after a COD:NOx of about 25:1. Another characteristic of this pattern was the behaviour of the ratio of volatile suspended solids to total suspended solids (VSS:TSS) in the mixed liquor. The VSS:TSS ratio increased throughout the study and leveled off around 0.87, as shown in Figure 13, for the anoxic reactors. The increase in the VSS:TSS ratio may be due to increases in biomass while the non-volatile solids, 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 C  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 13, COD:NOx vs ANOXIC VSS/TSS B + • -tt-• CD •+ + +f • ••• + + + -on +f • 4CDD + • •• • • • •+ • • • LTJ DEDf-••m --•an — BID -XI II • i  • • • • I 20 • METHANOL COD:NOx i— 40 + ACETATE 60 5.4.2 Glucose and Yeast Waste The main characteristic of this pattern, in relation to COD:NOx, was that both systems showed an initial rapid increase in 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 this carbon loading was about 4000 mg/L for glucose, and 6000 mg/L for the yeast waste system. The rapid initial increase appears to contradict the earlier theory that the microbial population needed time to acclimatize to these carbon solutions. A possible explanation for this contradiction may be that the methanol and acetate are such simple organic compounds that they could be more easily used or stored as energy. The glucose and yeast waste are more complex in terms of their organic structure and were used more for cellular growth rather than for energy production or storage. The bacteria in the glucose and yeast waste systems may have used the glucose, or saccharides in the yeast waste, to produce an extracellular polymeric substance (EPS). The EPS could be in the form of a capsule for protection, and may possibly be triggered by metals in the leachate. This would account for a rise in the VSS, without an increase in the bacterial population. An EPS is commonly comprised of saccharides, such as glucose, and cannot be produced directly 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 to 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 solids. The VSS analysis does not distinguish between viable biomass and suspended organics that may be used as substrate. The VSS:TSS was much more erratic than that of the methanol and acetate systems, fluctuating 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 this trend for the anoxic basin. 5.5 COLOUR The colour of the mixed liquor in each system changed over the course of the study. The original colour was a light reddish brown. Unlike the trends in 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 light 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. After the failure of the glucose system and the glucose addition halted, the mixed liquor 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 [] [] + LTJ • • + am- • rm • a una •• • LTD • + -fn • • • • • a + i 10 GLUCOSE 20 30 CODiNOx + YEAST WASTE i 40 An interesting anomaly occurred between day 3 6 and day 82 of the methanol study. Small white floes appeared in the mixed liquor and on the sides of the anoxic reactor. The floes were analyzed and determined to be microbial in nature. This did not occur in 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 affect the performance of the methanol system in any way. A possible explanation is that the methanol was contaminated with something that either produced or encouraged the growth of the white floes. The white floes also appeared at the same time in the study by Mavinic and Randall (unpublished), which used the same leachate and methanol. 5.6 CARBON REMOVAL All systems exhibited similar trends for carbon removal, and thus, for discussion purposes, they will be discussed together. Carbon was measured by COD and BOD5. The leachate BOD5 and COD were fairly consistent at 25 mg/L and 325 mg/L respectively. The BODsiCOD ratio remained around 1:13. 5.6.1 COD Removal The percent COD removal was calculated for the total 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 total system removal in order to better understand the removals in each reactor. Figures 16 to 19 show the percent COD removal for the four systems. 5.6.1.1 TOTAL COD REMOVAL The total system COD removal held fairly steady at between 70% and 90% after the carbon additions were started. The influent leachate had a high refractory COD, as evidenced by the high effluent COD and by the low influent BOD5, thus 100% COD removal was unlikely. All four systems exhibited an increase, in total COD removal as each run progressed, probably due to acclimatization of the bacterial populations to the respective carbon sources. When the glucose addition was halted after failure, the total COD removal dropped to about 10%, which was about the percentage of the BOD5 to COD in the leachate. 5.6.1.2 ANOXIC COD REMOVAL The percent COD removal across the anoxic reactors was relatively steady in the range of 3 0-60%, until carbon breakthrough occurred and a decrease in anoxic removal after this. Carbon breakthrough occurred when the amount of carbon entering the anoxic reactor exceeded the carbon removal capacity of the reactor, resulting in carbon bleeding into the aerobic reactor. This is characterized by a decrease in 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 in 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 relatively low, below 20%, until carbon breakthrough started. Before carbon breakthrough, the aerobic reactors received mainly refractory COD, accounting for the low removal percentage. The negative anoxic and aerobic removal percentages encountered after the failure of the glucose system indicate that carbon was being liberated from within the reactors (see Figure 17). This internal carbon generation coincides with a sharp decline in the VSS, leading to the conclusion that endogenous respiration and cell lysis were occurring. 5.6.2 BOD5 Removal The BOD5 results were very similar to the COD removal results for the total, anoxic, and aerobic removals. The B0D5 percentage removals were decidedly higher than those for COD removal. This higher removal percentage is due to the B0D5 71 test 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 will not be discussed in detail. Figures 20 to 23 show the percent B0D5 removal for the four systems. The BOD5 results are more accurate for determining the date of carbon breakthrough since BOD5 was tested twice a week, rather than just once a week; also the increase in the actual anoxic BOD5 is so much more pronounced than that of the anoxic COD, due to the refractory carbon content measured by the COD test. Carbon breakthrough can be determined by observing the dramatic increase in anoxic B0D5 (Figures 24 to 27) , the decreased anoxic BOD5 removal percentage, and the increased aerobic removal percentage. Carbon breakthrough was observed to start on day 91 for methanol, day 119 for glucose, day 54 for acetate, and day 62 for the yeast waste system. These results are similar, but probably more accurate than those determined from the COD results. 5.7 NITROGEN REMOVAL The primary objective of this study was to observe the effect of COD:NOx on the ability of a biological pre-denitrification system to remove nitrogen from a landfill leachate. The three topics of interest in this section are the removal of ammonia, nitrification, and denitrification. 72 Figure 20, METHANOL: PERCENT 5-DAY BOD REMOVAL 0 21 2B 35 42 49 56 63 70 7B B4 91 98 105112119126133140 • 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 23, 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-DAY BOD (mg/L) • INFLUENT NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START + ANOXIC O AEROBIC The ammonia in the yeast waste was only a fraction of the filtered TKN (FTKN) due to the biological nature of the yeast waste. FTKN was reported in place of ammonia for the yeast waste system. The yeast waste had a fairly high FTKN (40-300 mg/L), resulting in a greater demand on the nitrification system. 5.7.1 Ammonia Removal Ammonia may be removed either by assimilation into the biomass, or by nitrification in the aerobic reactor. Ammonia loss by air stripping was assumed to be negligible, since the aerobic pH values were kept below pH 8. At 2 0 degrees celcius, the percentage of un-ionized ammonia is about zero percent at pH 7, 5% at pH 8, 50% at pH 10, and 100% at pH 12 (U.S.EPA,1975). All four systems were efficient at removing ammonia with total ammonia removals consistently above 99% once complete nitrification was established. Ammonia removals for methanol, glucose, and acetate are shown in Figures 28 to 30, and FTKN removal for the yeast waste system is shown in Figure 31. The removals were calculated for the removal percentage of the ammonia that entered each reactor. Only the glucose system exhibited failure of the ammonia removal system near the end of the study, with complete recovery being achieved within 13 days after halting the glucose addition (see Figure 29). 81 Figure 28, 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 Figure 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 in 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 in the range of 40-80 mg/L, reflecting the FTKN added by the yeast waste. The ammonia removal over the anoxic reactors was assumed to be entirely 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 slightly lower than the approximate 10% anoxic ammonia removal found in the control side of a similar biological leachate treatment system using the same leachate (Mavinic and Randall, unpublished). 5.7.2 Nitrification The percent nitrification across the aerobic reactor was calculated by dividing the net NOx nitrogen produced in the aerobic reactor by the ammonia nitrogen entering the aerobic reactor. Ammonia removal by air stripping and aerobic assimilation was neglected, as was ammonia leaving the aerobic reactor, so that the values calculated for nitrification would be on the conservative side. 86 Nitrification percentages of over 100% were still observed, probably due to slight errors in the ammonia and NOx analyses. Nitrification was somewhat erratic, but generally stayed above 80%. The important observation was that nitrification appeared to decrease as the CODiNOx increased. This effect was most prominent in the methanol system and about equal in the other three systems. Figures 32 to 35 have a best fit straight line fitted to the data points and the percent nitrification can be seen to decrease with an increase in C0D:NOx. The approximate rate of nitrification loss is 1.5 percent per unit increase in 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, in order to highlight the magnitude of loss for each system. The decrease in nitrification may be the result of greater ammonia assimilation by the increase in heterotrophs, rather than actual inhibition of the nitrifiers. The nitrification calculation was based on the amount of NOx produced from the amount of ammonia entering the aerobic reactor. If the heterotrophs were removing greater amounts of ammonia by assimilation, then less ammonia would be available for NOx production, resulting in an apparent decrease in 87 METHANOL SYSTEM COD:NOx GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD: NOx ACETATE SYSTEM COD:NOx YEAST WASTE STY5TEM COD:NOx nitrification. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that ammonia did not increase in the aerobic reactor, as would be expected if nitrification was inhibited. 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 Denitrification Denitrification was calculated by dividing the net NOx removed over the anoxic reactor by the amount of NOx entering the reactor. NOx removal was assumed to be by denitrification only. Denitrification showed a two part relationship with CODiNOx, with an initial linear section up to complete denitrification, after which the CODiNOx had no further effect. Figures 36 to 39 illustrate this two part relationship. The initial increase in denitrification exhibited a linear relationship with the increase in CODiNOx. By fitting a best fit straight line to data points of less than 100% denitrification, the minimum CODiNOx required for complete denitrification could be extrapolated. This is shown in Figures 40 to 43. The minimum CODiNOx required for complete denitrification was around 6.2il for methanol, 9il for glucose, 5.9il for acetate, and about 8.5il for the yeast waste. These ratios are approximate. Over this value of CODiNOx, denitrification remained at 100%, and was no longer METHANOL SYSTEM COD:NOx GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD:NOx Figure 38. CODiNOx VS PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 11 0 -i 0 2 4 6 B 10 12 14- 16 ACETATE SYSTEM CODiNOx YEAST WASTE SYSTEM COD:NOx Figure 40. COD:NOX<6:1 vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 0 2 4-6 CODiNOx (into ANOXIC REACTOR) Figure 42. C0D:N0x<6:1 vs PERCENT DENITRIFICATION 0 2 4 6 ACETATE SYSTEM CODiNOx Figure 43, 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 denitrification 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 start of carbon breakthrough; this was to be expected, since no additional carbon was required in the anoxic reactors. At failure, the glucose system lost the ability to denitrify. The denitrification and nitrification processes failed in a period of under twelve hours. This occurred after an approximate COD:NOx loading of 24:1 had been applied, but ,at the beginning of failure, a loading of about 12:1 was recorded. Exact C0D:N0x was difficult to maintain, due to fluctuations in pump speeds, changes in influent NOx and ammonia, and lag time for bacterial response to increased COD: NOx. The 23:1 loading is assumed to have been more responsible for failure than the 12:1 loading. After failure, denitrification continued at about 10%, even though no carbon was added; this indicates that endogenous respiration was providing enough carbon to sustain denitrification at this rate. 5.8 UNIT REMOVAL RATES Unit removal rates, calculated as mg/hr/gVSS, were analyzed for COD and BOD5 removal, ammonia removal, nitrification, and denitrification. The unit removal rates were primarily 101 dependent on VSS, which was constantly increasing; thus no attempt was made to relate unit rates to COD:NOx. 5.8.1 COD & BOD Removal The aerobic COD and BOD5 unit removal rates of all four systems behaved in the same manner. The aerobic rate remained low until carbon breakthrough started, then rapidly increased as greater amounts of degradable carbon entered the reactor. The BOD5 rates show this better than the COD rates, due to the refractory carbon of the leachate. Carbon breakthrough can be clearly seen as a dramatic increase in 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 fairly constant and close in value for all systems, averaging between 3 0 and 40 mg/hr/gVSS for the entire study. The glucose anoxic unit removal rates were very erratic at the time of failure, and, after failure, the negative rates indicate carbon release by lysing cells (see Figures 46 and 47) . 5.8.2 Ammonia Removal The aerobic unit ammonia removal rates all showed a decline over each run, except that of the yeast waste system. The decline was due to the increase in VSS, which in turn was probably due to heterotrophic growth rather than nitrifying 102 EOT UNIT COD REMOVAL (mg/hr/gVSS) NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC SOT UNIT COD REMOVAL RATE (mg/hr/gVSS) • NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 48. 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 (mg/hr/gVSS) (Thousands) ooooooooo r* "-' — o ho u-^um>JD]iD--toufuimNiaiiDto autotrophic growth. The yeast waste system exhibited a fairly constant aerobic unit FTKN removal rate, with a slight 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 relatively 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 in 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 biological 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 unit ammonia removal rates may be due to the high measured VSS, caused by the excess carbon. Ill Figure 52, METHANOL UNIT AMMONIA REMOVAL NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC Figure 54, 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 Figure 55, YEAST WASTE: UNIT FTKN REMOVALS NUMBER OF DAYS SINCE START • ANOXIC + AEROBIC 5.8.3 Nitrification The unit nitrification rates, mg NOx produced/hr/gVSS, all decreased over each run (see Figures 56 to 59). The decrease can be attributed to the increase in VSS and to the increase of ammonia removal through assimilation. Although a bacterial assay was not conducted, the increase in VSS (Figures 12, 14a, 14b) was assumed to be due to heterotrophic growth, caused by the increasing amount of carbon available in the aerobic reactor. The increase in heterotrophs and a stable population of nitrifying autotrophs could cause an overall decrease in the percentage of nitrifiers in the biomass, and result in lower unit nitrification rates. Since the effect of the COD:NOx on nitrification was slight, the general increase in VSS due to excess carbon probably played a more important role in causing the decrease in unit nitrification 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 nitrification rate and the unit denitrification rate for the methanol, glucose, acetate, and yeast waste systems respectively. 5.8.4 Denitrification The unit denitrification rates, mg NOx reduced/hr/gVSS, either stayed constant or showed a decline over the course or each run. The methanol system had a fairly steady decline in 116 Figure 56, 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 59. UNIT NITRIFICATION & DENITRIFICATION 11 -, 10 H 9 H the unit denitrif ication rate, from 10 to 3 mg/hr/gVSS. The other three systems exhibited constant unit rates, with a slight decrease, after complete denitrification was reached. The unit denitrification 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 denitrification rates for the latter three systems were well below the average unit denitrification 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 reported by Dedhar. Mavinic and Randall (unpublished) observed average unit denitrification 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 denitrification rates of 3.5 mg/hr/gVSS for methanol, and 4.0 mg/hr/gVSS for glucose. The unit denitrification rates may be lower than those observed in the other systems due to higher VSS values. 5.9 NITRITE BUILDUP Nitrite is an intermediate byproduct of both nitrification and denitrification. A buildup of nitrite can indicate some type of inhibition or problem with one of these processes. If nitrite is observed in the aerobic reactor, then there is some problem with the conversion of nitrite to nitrate. If there is a nitrite buildup in the anoxic reactor, then denitrification is being hindered with the conversion of 121 nitrite to nitrogen gas. Arbitrarily, nitrite nitrogen concentrations over 10% of the total NOx nitrogen were considered a buildup. The 10% nitrite limit was chosen to exclude natural fluctuations of nitrite accumulation. Since aerobic concentrations of NOx nitrogen were about 3 0 mg/L, nitrite nitrogen of over 3 mg/L was considered significant. All four systems were observed to behave differently in relation to nitrite buildup. 5.9.1 Methanol The methanol system did not display any nitrite buildup in either reactor (Figure 60). 5.9.2 Glucose The glucose system showed consistently high nitrite levels in the anoxic reactor, until complete denitrification was achieved. The relationship between COD:NOx and nitrite is shown in Figure 61. For COD:NOx under 8:1, the anoxic nitrite nitrogen concentrations were up as high as 22 mg/L. For COD:NOx over 8:1, complete denitrification was established and nitrite did not build up. After failure, the anoxic and aerobic nitrite nitrogen levels increased dramatically, up to 85 mg/L. The anoxic nitrite buildup, before complete denitrification was reached, is an indication of the presence of facultative anaerobic bacteria, which can only convert nitrate to 122 Figure 60, CODiNOX vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE METHANOL SYSTEM CODiNOx ANOXIC + AEROBIC 90 BO Figure 61, COD:NOx vs ANOXIC & AEROBIC NITRITE 70 H • H to 4^ £ o z o o § o [] 60 Hi 50 -[] 40 H b [] 30 -20 H 1 n • + + +4- 1=1 + B —^jftj ijpft-12 20 •A-24 GLUCOSE SYSTEM COD: NOx • ANOXIC + AEROBIC nitrite. These facultative bacteria may have been encouraged by the glucose, while the other denitrifying bacteria, especially those which convert nitrite to nitrogen gas, grew more slowly. The slower growth may have been due to acclimatization to glucose, with a slight inhibition by the lower pH due to fermentation by the facultative anaerobes. As the carbon loading increased, the facultative anaerobes used up all the nitrate and then switched to fermentation. Since fermentation processes are relatively slow, there was carbon available for nitrogen gas production by other denitrifying bacteria. 5.9.3 Acetate The acetate system had an anoxic nitrite buildup over the period of day 38 to day 54. Day 54 was just before the start of complete denitrification. This indicates that nitrite conversion to nitrogen gas was being inhibited. The anoxic ORP was about -100 mV and the anoxic pH about 8 during this period, and were not indicative of facultative anaerobes. There is the possibility that facultative anaerobes were responsible for the nitrite buildup. Acetate is a two carbon compound, which the facultative anaerobes may have been able to ferment. A possible reason for the absence of lowered pH could be that the resulting volatile fatty acids produced by fermentation were single carbon compounds, and thus easily further utilized. The rapid removal of the acids may have prevented a drop in pH. There is no indication in the 125 literature of nitrite accumulation associated with acetate. The leachate, combined with the acetate, may have had some type of inhibitory effect on the true denitrif iers, or somehow encouraged the facultative anaerobes. Figure 62 shows the relationship of the nitrite buildup with COD:NOx. 5.9.4 Yeast Waste The yeast waste system only exhibited nitrite buildup in the aerobic reactor, and only at COD:NOx above 25:1, as illustrated in Figure 63. These high loadings may have caused changes in the bacterial population that could hinder the nitrite to nitrate process. The probable cause of the nitrite buildup was inhibition of Nitrobacter by free (un-ionized) ammonia (Anthonisen, et al. 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 in ammonia concentration could lead to an increase in free ammonia, as a certain percentage of the ammonia must be free ammonia to satisfy the equilibrium constants. This increase in free ammonia could occur at the relatively low pH of about 7.4 as observed in the anoxic reactor. The dissociation constant for the ammonium ion into a proton plus free ammonia is 5.6764 x 10~10 (Bates and Pinching, 1950). At a pH of 7.4, and a measured total 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 ^fi—±i 1 [O |fe dp •[ -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 + 1BH 1+H + 12H ion 6H 4-H o PMJ'IIIH, —£—1 1 1 rS—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 al. (1976) reported inhibition to Nitrobacter at free ammonia concentrations of between 0.1 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L. This presents a good indication that free ammonia was responsible for the nitrite accumulation. The complex nature of the yeast waste was expected to promote fermentative conditions by facultative anaerobes, and an anoxic nitrite accumulation. The yeast waste is a complicated combination of many carbon compounds, which may have provided sufficient simple organics for true denitrifiers to thrive, (along with the facultative anaerobes), so that no anoxic nitrite buildup occurred. The pH of the anoxic reactor started to decrease after COD:NOx of 10:1; this may indicate the increasing presence of facultative anaerobes after the NOx was used up. 5.10 GLUCOSE SYSTEM FAILURE The nitrogen removal processes of the glucose system failed after an approximate 23:1 COD:NOx loading. The nitrification and denitrification processes were lost during failure, but there was no indication which process failed first or why failure occurred. The pH, immediately after failure, dropped from about 7.2 to 6.55 in both reactors, and the anoxic ORP remained low enough, approximately -23 0 mV, to indicate anaerobic conditions. The first possibility is that the nitrification encountered problems, thus reducing NOx production; therefore less NOx entered the anoxic reactor and 129 left enough carbon to fuel anaerobic fermentation. The fermentation may have produced volatile fatty acids to lower the pH, and the lowered pH could cause further inhibition of the nitrification process. The second possibility is that the COD:NOx loading was high enough for enough fermentation to take place; thus, the acid production lowered the pH to inhibit either nitrification and then denitrification as previously described, or denitrification and then nitrification. In the latter case, the denitrification could decrease, which in turn, would decrease alkalinity production and further lower the pH. Ultimately, the nitrification process would be affected. Glucose would appear to be a poor choice as an external carbon source for denitrification purposes on the basis of the suspected growth of facultative anaerobes. The low pH, speculated to be the result of fermentation by the facultative anaerobes, is suspected of causing the failure of the nitrogen removal system. 5.11 PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Of the four carbon sources studied, only glucose was found to be unsatisfactory as an external carbon addition for denitrif ication purposes. The problems associated with glucose were lowered pH and anoxic nitrite accumulation; this is suspected to be the result of facultative anaerobes 130 thriving on the glucose. Glucose also required the highest minimum COD:NOx, at 9:1, to just achieve complete denitrification. Acetate and methanol were found to be the most efficient carbon sources, with minimum COD:NOx values to just achieve complete denitrification of 5.9:1 and 6.2:1 respectively. The brewer's yeast waste was less efficient than methanol and acetate for the minimum amount of carbon to promote complete denitrification, at 8.5:1. The yeast waste also has a very high organic nitrogen content that may be biologically converted to ammonia; this will 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 for total ammonia removal, nitrification, denitrification, total BOD5 removal, average mixed liquor VSS, effluent VSS, anoxic and aerobic pH, and effluent NOx concentration. The performance of each system is estimated for COD: NOx values of one half the minimum required for complete denitrification, the minimum required, and three times the minimum required. The glucose system failed below a COD:NOx of three times the minimum, so the maximum COD:NOx value, 23:1, is used. The values of greatest interest, with respect to COD:NOx, are nitrification, denitrification, and 131 thriving on the glucose. Glucose also required the highest minimum COD:NOx, at 9:1, to just achieve complete denitrification. Acetate and methanol were found to be the most efficient carbon sources, with minimum COD:NOx values to just achieve complete denitrification of 5.9:1 and 6.2:1 respectively. The brewer's yeast waste was less efficient than methanol and acetate for the minimum amount of carbon to promote complete denitrification, at 8.5:1. The yeast waste also has a very high organic nitrogen content that may be biologically converted to ammonia; this will 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 for total ammonia removal, nitrification, denitrification, total BOD5 removal, average mixed liquor VSS, effluent VSS, anoxic and aerobic pH, and effluent NOx concentration. The performance of each system is estimated for COD: NOx values of one half the minimum required for complete denitrification, the minimum required, and three times the minimum required. The glucose system failed below a COD:NOx of three times the minimum, so the maximum COD:NOx value, 23:1, is used. The values of greatest interest, with respect to COD:NOx, are nitrification, denitrification, 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 this study was to observe the effects of carbon addition in excess of the minimum amount necessary to just achieve complete denitrification. The nitrogen removal process was a biological single sludge pre-denitrification system with recycle. The influent was a high ammonia landfill leachate with low BOD5; thus an external carbon source was necessary for denitrification requirements. Four carbon sources, methanol, glucose, acetate, and a brewer's yeast waste, were studied. The COD:NOx was increased gradually until the carbon loading was over three times the minimum required for complete denitrification. The following conclusions can be made from the results of this study: 1. The minimum COD:NOx required for complete denitrification 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 is that the former are very simple organic compounds, while the latter are more complex and may be more difficult to utilize 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 in 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 denitrification was established. This was expected, since no extra carbon was required for denitrification and the extra carbon was free to enter the aerobic basin. Some of the extra carbon would have been used to establish anaerobic growth in the anoxic basin; but, since anaerobic processes are relatively slow, most of the extra carbon would pass into the aerobic reactor. The increasing COD:NOx did not appear to affect the denitrification ability of any of the systems. 3. The percent nitrification of all four systems was reduced as the COD:NOx increased, even though the ammonia removal remained at 100%. Ammonia assimilation is believed to have increased with the increase in biomass. Percent nitrification was based on the NOx production in 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 nitrification rate per unit increase in COD:NOx by the methanol system was double that of the glucose system, and over five times that of the acetate and yeast 135 waste systems. 4. The glucose system failed completely after reaching a COD:NOx of about 23:1. The actual failure began at about 12:1. The failure was characterized by a loss of both nitrification and denitrification. There was no indication as to which process failed first, but the loss of nitrification was most likely due to a low pH (pH<6.9) . This low pH was probably caused by facultative anaerobes under fermentative conditions in the anoxic reactor. 5. There was evidence that facultative anaerobes were thriving in the anoxic reactor of the glucose system. Facultative anaerobes can only reduce nitrate to nitrite (Blaszczyk 1983; Wilderer, et al. 1987). Glucose exhibited nitrite accumulation in the anoxic reactor, indicating the presence of facultative 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 volatile fatty acids by the facultative anaerobes under fermentative conditions. The anoxic pH continued to decrease as the COD:NOx increased, indicating the presence of facultative anaerobes throughout the study. The anoxic nitrite buildup disappeared at COD:NOx values above 8:1. 6. Nitrite buildup was noted in the anoxic reactor of the acetate system for COD:NOx values under 6:1, in other words, 136 before complete denitrification was established. The anoxic pH was consistently higher (pH 8) than the aerobic pH, but, given that acetate is only a two carbon compound, the facultative anaerobes may have been able to ferment the acetate and then subsequently use the single carbon fatty acids produced. The removal of the fatty acids would prevent a drop in pH. 7. Nitrite buildup was noted in the aerobic reactor of the yeast waste system at over 25:1 COD: NOx. Nitrite in the aerobic reactor indicates inhibition of the conversion of nitrite to nitrate by Nitrobacter. The ammonia loading was higher than the other systems because of organic nitrogen in the yeast waste; this increased as the strength of the yeast waste solution was increased to raise the COD:NOx. The higher ammonia loading may suggest inhibition of Nitrobacter by free, or un-ionized, ammonia (Anthonisen, et al. 1976; Suthersan and Ganczarczyk 1986; Turk 1986) 8. The brewer's yeast waste was noted to be satisfactory as a carbon source for denitrification purposes. Denitrification was achieved with no problems. The basic characteristics of the undiluted yeast waste were about 3 00,000 mg/L of unfiltered COD, 115,000 mg/L of filtered COD, 150,000 mg/L of unfiltered 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 is that the biological 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 in the effluent. Filtered TKN was used in place of ammonia for analysis of data for the yeast waste system. 9. All four systems, but especially the acetate and yeast waste systems, exhibited rising sludge at the higher COD:NOx loadings. This led to higher solids in the clarifier effluents, and clogging of the effluent weirs. 10. The anoxic COD and B0D5 unit removal rates held constant in the range of 3 0-4 0 mg/hr/gVSS. The aerobic unit removal rates increased after 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 increase in heterotrophs, with the increase of available carbon in the aerobic reactor. The anoxic unit ammonia removal rate remained constant and very low since ammonia was removed only by assimilation. The overall ammonia removal for all four systems was consistently over 90% after complete nitrification was established. 12. The unit nitrification rates decreased in response to the 138 increase in heterotrophs and to the decrease in nitrification with the increase in the COD:NOx. The denitrification rate remained constant after denitrification 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 efficient and trouble-free carbon sources for denitrification purposes. The brewer's yeast waste performed in a satisfactory manner, and is an attractive alternative to the high priced carbon sources, such as methanol and acetate. Glucose is not recommended for denitrification purposes due to the suspected encouragement of facultative anaerobes, leading to lowered pH and anoxic nitrite accumulation. 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS From the results of this study, the following recommendations have been made: 1. A study to observe the effects of shock loading different carbon sources on the nitrification and denitrification system, such as the one used in this study. An investigation of this nature would examine the effect of dramatically increased carbon loading on a system that was operating at the most efficient COD:NOx. A shock load of carbon is likely to occur in an operating plant. The carbon sources of interest should be those expected to be used as external 139 carbon additions, as well as carbon expected to be present in the influent. 2. A study to examine the anoxic nitrite accumulation in a biological pre-denitrification leachate treatment system, when acetate is used as the external carbon source. This investigation may confirm the presence of facultative anaerobes, and explain why this has not been observed in previous literature. 3. A study to determine the hydraulically optimal recycle ratio to maximize the performance of a biological pre-denitrif ication system. This investigation is necessary to produce the most efficient nitrogen removal system. 140 REFERENCES Atwater,J.W.,"Fraser River Estuary Study, Water Quality-Impact of Landfills", 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 Pollution Control Fed.,58,5,1986,pp.387-397 Anthonisen,A.C., Lohehr,R.C., Prakasam,T.B.S., and Srinath,E.G.,"Inhibition of nitrification by ammonia and nitrous acid", J. Water Pollution Control Fed.,48,5,1976,pp.8 3 5-8 50 Argaman,Y. and Brenner,A.,"Single-sludge nitrogen removal: modelling and experimental results", J. Water Pollution Control Fed.,58,8,1986,pp.853-860 Atkins,P.F. and Scherger,D.A.,"A Review of Physical-Chemical Methods for Nitrogen Removal From Wastewaters", 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.713-719 Barnes,D. and Bliss,P.J.,"Biological Control of Nitrogen in Wastewater Treatment", E. & F.N. Spon, 1983 Bates,R.G. and Pinching, G. D. , "Dissociation constant of aqueous ammonia at 0 degrees celcius to 50 degrees celcius from E.m.f. studies of the ammonium salt of a weak acid." J.Am. Chem. Soc., 72, 1950, pp.1393-1396 Beer,C. and Wang,L.K.,"Activated sludge systems using nitrate respiration- design considerations", .Water Pollution Control Fed., Sept.,1978,pp.2120-2131 Beg, S.A., and Hassan,M.M. , "Effects of Inhibitors on Nitrification in a Packed-Bed Biological 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 Hall, 1980 Blaszczyk,M.,"Effect of Various Sources of Organic Carbon and High Nitrite and Nitrate Concentrations on the Selection of Denitrifying Bacteria. II. Continuous Cultures in 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 treatability of landfill leachate", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 46,5,1974, pp.860-872 Bridle,T.R., Climenhage,D.C. , and Stelzig,A.,"Operation of a full-scale nitrification-denitrification industrial waste treatment plant", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 51,1,1979, pp.127-139 Chian,E.S.K., Poh1and,F.G., Chang,K.C., and Harper,S.R.,"Leachate Generation and Control at Landfill Disposal Sites", in "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.14-30 Chr istensen , M . H . , and Harremoes,P. /'Biological Denitrif ication 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 Pollution under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 72-5-15 Cook,E.N. and Foree,E. G. ,11 Aerobic biostabilization of sanitary landfill leachate", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 46,2,1974, pp.380-392 Dedhar,S.,"Ammonia Removal from a Landfill Leachate by Biological Nitrification and Denitrification", Master of Applied Science Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Oct., 1985 Dedhar,S. and Mavinic,D.S.,"Ammonia Removal from a Landfill Leachate by Biological Nitrification and Denitrification", in "New Directions and Research in 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 Ehrig,H.J.,"Biological Treatment of Sanitary Landfill Leachate with Special Aspects on the High Ammonia Concentration", in "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.232-248 Ehrig,H.J.,"Laboratory and Full-scale Experiments on Physical-Chemical Treatment of Sanitary Landfill Leachate", in "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", in "Nutrient Removal from Municipal Effluents", Pretoria, S.A., May 17, 1979 Fuller,W.H., Alesii,B.A., and Carter,G.E. , "Behaviour of Municipal Solid Waste Leachate. I. Composition Variations", J. Environ. Sci. Health, A14(6), pp.461-485, 1979 Haltrich,W. , "Elimination of Nitrate from an Industrial Waste", Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, May 2-4, 1967, Purdue University, pp.203-210 Henry,G.J.,"New Developments in Landfill Leachate Treatment", in "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.139-149, also in Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada, Vol.20, No. 3, 1985, pp.1-9 Hooper,A.B., and Terry,K.R.,"Specific Inhibitors of Ammonia Oxidation in 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 Landfill", University of British Columbia, Department of Civil Engineering, prepared for Environment Canada, E.P.S., 1986 Jasper,S.E., Atwater,J.W., and Mavinic,D.S.,"Influent Constraints on Treatment and Biological Nitrification of Municipal Landfill Leachate", Water Pollution 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 Landfill Configuration", in "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June23-28, 1985, pp.64-83 Kaplan, D.L., Riley, P.A., Pierce,J., and Kaplan,A.M. , "Denitrif ication- Efficiencies 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. , Steiner ,R. L. , and Fungaroli, A.A., "Landfill Leachate Treatment", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 56,1,1984, pp.27-34 Keenan, J.D. , Steiner,R.L. , and Fungaroli,A.A., "Substrate Inhibition of Nitrification", J. Environ. Sci. Health, A14(5), pp.377-397, 1979 143 Kelly,.G.,"Pilot testing for combined treatment of leachate from a domestic waste landfill site", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 59,5,1987, pp.254-261 Knox,K.,"Leachate Treatment with Nitrification of Ammonia", Water Res., Vol. 19, No. 7, pp.895-904, 1985 Lewandowswki,Z.,"Temperature Dependency of Biological Denitrification 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 Effluent Nitrogen", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 34,9,1962, pp.920-931 McCarty, P. L. , Beck,L., and St. Amant,P. , "Biological Denitrif ication of Wastewaters by Addition of Organic Materials", 24th Industrial 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 Denitrification in Biological 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 Landfill Leachate; Management Options" in "New Directions and Research in 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 biological leachate treatment currently underway at the Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia Melcer,H., Nutt,S., Marvan,I., and Sutton,P.,"Combined treatment of coke plant wastewater and blast furnace blowdown water in a coupled biological fluidized bed system", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 56,2,1984, pp.192-198 Mirvish, S . S, "N-Nitroso Compounds, Nitrite, and Nitrate: Possible Implications for the Causation of Human Cancer", 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.195-204 Monteith,H.D., Bridle,T.R., and Sutton,P.M.,"Evaluation of Industrial Waste Carbon Sources for Biological Denitrification", 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 Biological Denitrification", 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 Kaczmarek,S"Nitrification in Refinery Wastewater Treatment", Proceedings of the 40th Industrial 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 in Johannesburg, South Africa, to Achieve Denitrification", 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.639-652 Nutt,S.G., and Marvan,I.J.,"Biological Fluidized 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 Denitrification in 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 Landfill 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 in a Full-scale Automated Plant", in "New Directions and Research in 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 in landfill sites", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 57,1,1985, pp.30-38 Schroeder,E.D., and Busch,A.W.,"The Role of Nitrate Nitrogen in Bio-Oxidation", Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, 1967, pp.263-277 Shuval,H.I., and Gruener,N.,"Infant Methemoglobinemia and Other Health Effects of Nitrates in Drinking Water", 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.183-193 145 Simpkin,T.J., and Boyle,W.C.,"The Regulation of the Synthesis of the Denitrifying Enzymes in 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 in biological denitrification", J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 54,4,1982, pp.370-377 Smith,A.G.,"Nitrification-Denitrification of Wastewater Using a Single-Sludge System. Volume I", Research Report No. 86, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal Pollution under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 71-1-20 Smith,A.G.,"Nitrification-Denitrification of Wastewater Using a Single-Sludge System. Volume II", Research Report No. 96, Research Program for the Abatement of Municipal Pollution under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Project No. 71-1-2 0 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th Edition, American Public Health Assoc., 1985 Stegmann,R. and Spendlin,H. , "Research Activities on Enhancement of Biochemical Processes in Sanitary Landfills", in "New Directions and Research in Waste Treatment and Residuals Management", Vancouver, B.C., June 23-28, 1985, pp.84-107 Suthersan,S., and Ganczarczyk,J.J.,"Inhibition of Nitrite Oxidation During Nitrification, Some Observations", Water Poll. 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 Pollution 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 for Design with Activated Sludge Systems", 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 Tholander,B."An Example of Design of Activated Sludge Plants with Denitrification", 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.713-719 Turk,0.,"The Feasibility of a Shortened Pathway for Nitrogen Removal from Highly Nitrogenous Wastes", Ph.D. Thesis, 146 Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, June 1986 Turk,0. , and Mavinic,D.S.,"Preliminary assessment of a shortcut in nitrogen removal from wastewater", Canadian Journal of Civil 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 Pollution Control Federation,"Nutrient Control. Manual of Practice FD-7 Facilities 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 in Denitrification Systems Affecting Reduction Rate And Accumulation of Nitrite", Water Res., Vol. 21, No. 2, 1987, pp.239-245 Wilson.T.E., and Newton,D.,"Brewery Wastes as a Carbon Source for Denitrification at Tampa, Florida", Proceedings of the 28th Industrial 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) Unit FTKN Removals for 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) Nitrification rates for 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 this study APPENDIX B  RAW DATA is contained in this 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 "206.1 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) (ig/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 (ig/L) (ig/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) (ig/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) (ag/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.io 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) (sL/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 7.55/ 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. (iV) (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 ii 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 ANUXIC 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 cr / . 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 11.00 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 11.00 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 7.00 -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 ll.00 164 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 ic 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) (sg/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 (ig/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 (ig/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 (ig/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 (ig/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 FILL 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 •"ii 99.98 100.87 15.96 L» jj 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 If 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 in 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 oioo 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) (sg/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 (sg/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) (an/ij 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 OITRF. 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 (ig/hr/gVSS) (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 0.00 190 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. iiJ 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) (ig/L5 (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 Oii 476 260 nnn 80 JNE 3 7.329 nni 00/ 468 230 31u 37 JNE i =: u 15.340 312 792 •in a 264 32 JNE 20 13.240 ncr 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 -in 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 in Oil.00 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 1298 16
United States 20 2
India 13 0
France 11 0
Germany 9 22
Republic of Korea 4 0
Canada 4 0
Indonesia 3 0
Japan 3 0
Mexico 3 0
Taiwan 2 0
Netherlands 2 2
Vietnam 2 0
City Views Downloads
Hangzhou 664 0
Unknown 87 22
Beijing 81 0
Shanghai 64 0
Ürümqi 51 0
Guangzhou 48 0
Changsha 37 0
Jinan 35 0
Kunming 29 0
Nanchang 29 0
Tianjin 24 0
Hefei 22 0
Nanjing 20 0

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

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0062820/manifest

Comment

Related Items