{"Affiliation":[{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Applied Science, Faculty of","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."},{"label":"Affiliation","value":"Civil Engineering, Department of","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","classmap":"vivo:EducationalProcess","property":"vivo:departmentOrSchool"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The department or school name within institution; Not intended to be an institution name."}],"AggregatedSourceRepository":[{"label":"Aggregated Source Repository","value":"DSpace","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:dataProvider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who contributes data indirectly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Campus":[{"label":"Campus","value":"UBCV","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeCampus"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeCampus","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the name of the campus from which the graduate completed their degree."}],"Creator":[{"label":"Creator","value":"Charlette, Gerard Ian Juan","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:creator"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity primarily responsible for making the resource.; Examples of a Contributor include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"DateAvailable":[{"label":"Date Available","value":"2009-12-11T18:15:03Z","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"DateIssued":[{"label":"Date Issued","value":"2005","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","classmap":"oc:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:issued"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Date of formal issuance (e.g., publication) of the resource."}],"Degree":[{"label":"Degree (Theses)","value":"Master of Applied Science - MASc","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","classmap":"vivo:ThesisDegree","property":"vivo:relatedDegree"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#relatedDegree","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; The thesis degree; Extended Property specified by UBC, as per https:\/\/wiki.duraspace.org\/display\/VIVO\/Ontology+Editor%27s+Guide"}],"DegreeGrantor":[{"label":"Degree Grantor","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeGrantor"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeGrantor","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the institution where thesis was granted."}],"Description":[{"label":"Description","value":"The Environmental Engineering group in the Civil Engineering Department has, for the past\r\ntwo decades, been studying high ammonia leachate that is usually produced during both the\r\nearly and late stages of sanitary landfills. This research makes use of these past achievements\r\nto study the effects of pH on the nitrification process in the aerobic tank at 20\u00b0C. The main\r\nobjective was to understand how nitrification reacted to two series of pH changes, each\r\ninvolving a step up from 7.5 to 8.0, and back to 7.5 and then finally to 7.0. Each of the steps\r\nlasted around 10 to 15 days. The aerobic production of nitrous oxide (N\u2082O) was also\r\nmonitored. N\u2082O is a greenhouse gas and is more potent and persistent than carbon dioxide.\r\nThe pre-anoxic set-up (Modified Ludzack Ettinger process), that was used was made up of a\r\n5L anoxic tank, 10L aerobic and a 4L clarifier. The hydraulic retention time in the anoxic,\r\naerobic and clarifier was 1.9 hours, 3.7 hours and 1.5 hours, respectively. Leachate from the\r\nBurns Bog Landfill in the Delta Municipality was fed at 9L\/day and supplemented by\r\nammonium chloride to reach a target of 1,200 mg N\/L or a load of 10kg N\/day. The clarifier\r\nrecycle ratio was adjusted to 6:1. The aerobic pH was maintained at 7.5 during the\r\nacclimatization period by the addition of 80g\/L sodium bicarbonate. Upon reaching steady\r\nstate, the system had an MLSS of around 6,000mg\/L, a VSS of 5,500mg\/L, and an airflow of\r\n2L\/min. The COD loading of 40 to 44g COD\/day into the anoxic tank reduced the anoxic NOx\r\nto less than 5mg N\/L. The ratio of nitrite to nitrates in the aerobic tank was less than 1.\r\nAs the pH was lowered, it consistently led to lower nitrate concentration in the effluent, but a\r\nslightly higher nitrite concentration after 10 days. The nitrite accumulation is consistent with\r\nthe suggestion that nitrite is taken to the cellular exterior, after it is formed from the oxidation\r\nof hydroxylamine. The decrease in nitrate concentration is believed to be due to the lower\r\namount of nitrite being oxidized and a loss of nitrogen in gaseous forms, and not necessarily a\r\ndecrease in nitrate production.\r\nAt the three different pH values, there was no significant change in the levels of nitrous oxide\r\nthat was produced after 10 days, after the pH change was made. When the pH was raised (from 7.5 to 8.0), the nitrous oxide decreased for the first two to three days and when the pH was\r\ndecreased, the emission of the gas was increased. After steady state had been reached at the\r\nthree different pH values, the amount of nitrogen entering the system that is converted to\r\nnitrous oxide was estimated to be around 20%; this is considerable when compared to reported\r\nvalues of less than 1% during municipal wastewater treatment. Under non-steady state, as\r\nwould be the case in a full-scale system, gas production reached 40%. Other observations made\r\nwere an increase in bicarbonate consumption, but a decrease in specific anoxic denitrification\r\nrate and nitrification rates.\r\nThe results indicate that, for a continuous flow treatment process, pH most probably exerts its\r\ninfluence on the dissociation of free nitrous acid (FNA) that can compete with nitrite for the\r\nenzyme binding sites. However, during this project, the calculated concentration of FNA, as\r\nwell as free ammonia, was lower than values at which these two inhibitors have been reported\r\nto affect nitrification. It was evident that the system used in this project can withstand pH\r\nchanges while maintaining almost 100% nitrification and almost 100% anoxic denitrification.\r\nHowever, the influence that the pH change has on nitrite and nitrous oxide release in the\r\nenvironment was not fully addressed in this undertaking and requires further study.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:description"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/description","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An account of the resource.; Description may include but is not limited to: an abstract, a table of contents, a graphical representation, or a free-text account of the resource."}],"DigitalResourceOriginalRecord":[{"label":"Digital Resource Original Record","value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/16489?expand=metadata","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:aggregatedCHO"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The identifier of the source object, e.g. the Mona Lisa itself. This could be a full linked open date URI or an internal identifier"}],"FullText":[{"label":"Full Text","value":"THE EFFECTS OF AEROBIC pH ON NITRIFICATION IN A SINGLE-SLUDGE PRE-ANOXIC SYSTEM TREATING HIGH AMMONIA LEACHATE by GERARD IAN JUAN C H A R L E T T E B.Sc, University of Boston, USA and The Free Flemish University of Brussels, Belgium 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in T H E F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES CIVIL ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 2005 \u00a9 Gerard Ian Juan Charlette, 2005 ABSTRACT The Environmental Engineering group in the Civil Engineering Department has, for the past two decades, been studying high ammonia leachate that is usually produced during both the early and late stages of sanitary landfills. This research makes use of these past achievements to study the effects of pH on the nitrification process in the aerobic tank at 20\u00b0C. The main objective was to understand how nitrification reacted to two series of pH changes, each involving a step up from 7.5 to 8.0, and back to 7.5 and then finally to 7.0. Each of the steps lasted around 10 to 15 days. The aerobic production of nitrous oxide (N 20) was also monitored. N 2 O is a greenhouse gas and is more potent and persistent than carbon dioxide. The pre-anoxic set-up (Modified Ludzack Ettinger process), that was used was made up of a 5L anoxic tank, 10L aerobic and a 4L clarifier. The hydraulic retention time in the anoxic, aerobic and clarifier was 1.9 hours, 3.7 hours and 1.5 hours, respectively. Leachate from the Burns Bog Landfill in the Delta Municipality was fed at 9L\/day and supplemented by ammonium chloride to reach a target of 1,200 mg N\/L or a load of 10kg N\/day. The clarifier recycle ratio was adjusted to 6:1. The aerobic pH was maintained at 7.5 during the acclimatization period by the addition of 80g\/L sodium bicarbonate. Upon reaching steady state, the system had an MLSS of around 6,000mg\/L, a VSS of 5,500mg\/L, and an airflow of 2L\/min. The COD loading of 40 to 44g COD\/day into the anoxic tank reduced the anoxic NOx to less than 5mg N\/L. The ratio of nitrite to nitrates in the aerobic tank was less than 1. As the pH was lowered, it consistently led to lower nitrate concentration in the effluent, but a slightly higher nitrite concentration after 10 days. The nitrite accumulation is consistent with the suggestion that nitrite is taken to the cellular exterior, after it is formed from the oxidation of hydroxylamine. The decrease in nitrate concentration is believed to be due to the lower amount of nitrite being oxidized and a loss of nitrogen in gaseous forms, and not necessarily a decrease in nitrate production. At the three different pH values, there was no significant change in the levels of nitrous oxide that was produced after 10 days, after the pH change was made. When the pH was raised (from ii 7.5 to 8.0), the nitrous oxide decreased for the first two to three days and when the pH was decreased, the emission of the gas was increased. After steady state had been reached at the three different pH values, the amount of nitrogen entering the system that is converted to nitrous oxide was estimated to be around 20%; this is considerable when compared to reported values of less than 1% during municipal wastewater treatment. Under non-steady state, as would be the case in a full-scale system, gas production reached 40%. Other observations made were an increase in bicarbonate consumption, but a decrease in specific anoxic denitrification rate and nitrification rates. The results indicate that, for a continuous flow treatment process, pH most probably exerts its influence on the dissociation of free nitrous acid (FNA) that can compete with nitrite for the enzyme binding sites. However, during this project, the calculated concentration of FNA, as well as free ammonia, was lower than values at which these two inhibitors have been reported to affect nitrification. It was evident that the system used in this project can withstand pH changes while maintaining almost 100% nitrification and almost 100% anoxic denitrification. However, the influence that the pH change has on nitrite and nitrous oxide release in the environment was not fully addressed in this undertaking and requires further study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii T A B L E OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S . x INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Leachate as a Pollutant 1 1.2 The Burns Bog Landfill 1 1.3 Aerobic Treatment of Leachate 2 1.4 Process Configuration 3 LITERATURE REVIEW 5 2.1 Nitrogen as a Pollutant 5 2.2 Nitrification 6 2.2.1 Parameters Affecting Nitrification 8 2.2.2 Influence of pH on Nitrification 9 2.2.2.1 Inhibition by Free Ammonia 9 2.2.2.2 Inhibition by Free Nitrous Acid 10 2.3 Denitrification \u2022 11 2.3.1 Factors Influencing Denitrification 13 2.4 Nitrous Oxide 15 2.5 Previous UBC Projects on High Ammonia Leachate 17 2.6 Objectives of this Present Research \u2022 19 A N A L Y T I C A L METHODS AND OPERATING PROCEDURE 20 3.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5) 20 3.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 20 3.3 Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) and Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) 21 3.4 Ammonia-Nitrogen 21 3.5 Nitrate and Nitrites (NOx) 21 3.6 Ortho-phosphorus \u2022 22 3.7 Nitrous Oxide 22 3.8 Alkalinity 22 3.9 Temperature 23 3.10 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 23 3.11 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) 23 3.12 pH 23 3.13 Chemicals used During Treatment 24 3.14 System Details and Basic Operation 24 3.15 Process Start up 25 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 27 4.1 System Failures During Start-up 27 4.2 pH Measurements 27 4.3 Aerobic pH Change 30 4.4 Performance Results 33 4.4.1 Simulated Ammonia Concentration and Ammonia Loading 34 4.4.2 Suspended Solids Levels 36 4.4.3 Methanol Loading and Anoxic NOx Concentrations 39 4.4.4 Anoxic Ammonia and Free Ammonia 42 4.4.5 Aerobic Ammonia and Free Ammonia 42 4.4.6 Bicarbonate Loading and Nitrification 46 4.4.7 Aerobic pH Control and Alkalinity Loading ....48 4.4.8 Nitrification 48 4.4.9 Unit Removal Rates 48 4.4.10 Effect of pH Changes on Free Ammonia 52 4.4.11 Effect of pH Changes on Free Nitrous Acid 53 4.4.12 Effect of pH Changes on Nitrate and Nitrite 55 4.4.13 Effect of pH Changes on Nitrous Oxide 61 4.4.13.1 Response of Nitrous Oxide Production to Minute Changes in pH 66 4.5 Summary of the Effects of pH Changes on Nitrates, Nitrites and Nitrous Oxide 70 S U M M A R Y AND CONCLUSIONS 73 5.1 General Comments 73 5.2 Conclusions 76 RECOMMENDATIONS 77 6.1 Recommendations for Future Laboratory-Scale Experiments 77 6.2 Recommendations for Full-Scale Design 78 REFERENCES 80 APPENDIX A: F O R M U L A E AND CALCULATION DEFINITIONS 85 APPENDIX B: RAW AND C A L C U L A T E D D A T A FOR L E A C H A T E 90 APPENDIX C: RAW AND C A L C U L A T E D D A T A FOR SYSTEM 98 APPENDIX D: D A T A FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 1st pH SERIES 146 APPENDIX E: D A T A FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 2 n d pH SERIES 147 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Summary of Leachate Quality 2 Table 3.1: Chemicals used During the Treatment Process 24 Table 3.2: Summary of Steady State 26 Table 4.2: Main Events 32 Table 4.3: Major Parameters at Steady States and Other Major Events 47 Table 4.4: Ratio of Nitrites to Nitrates in the Aerobic Tank 55 Table 4.5: Summary for First Series of pH Changes 70 Table 4.6: Summary for Second Series of pH Changes 71 vm LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Process Diagram 4 Figure 4.1: pH Measurements 29 Figure 4.2: Simulated Ammonia Concentration and Ammonia Loading 35 Figure 4.3: Anoxic Solids Concentration 37 Figure 4.4: Aerobic Solids Concentration 37 Figure 4.4: Aerobic Solids Concentration 38 Figure 4.5: Methanol Loading and NOx Concentrations 41 Figure 4.6: Anoxic Ammonia and Free Ammonia 44 Figure 4.7: Ammonia and Free Ammonia in Aerobic Zone 44 Figure 4.7: Ammonia and Free Ammonia in Aerobic Zone 45 Figure 4.8: Effect of Aerobic pH on Anoxic Nitrite and Anoxic Denitrification Rate in Anoxic Tank 51 Figure 4.9: Free Nitrous Acid 54 Figure 4.10: Anoxic Nitrite and Nitrate 56 Figure 4.11: Anoxic Nitrites 57 Figure 4.12: Aerobic Nitrites and Nitrates During the 1st pH Series 58 Figure 4.13: Aerobic Nitrites and Nitrates During the 2nd pH Series 58 Figure 4.13: Aerobic Nitrites and Nitrates During the 2nd pH Series 59 Figure 4.14: Variation in Nitrous Oxide Production During the 1st pH Series 62 Figure 4.15: Variation in Nitrous Oxide Production During the 2 n d pH Series 63 Figure 4.16: Effects of Increasing and Decreasing pH on N 2 0 Production at Steady State of pH8.0 67 Figure 4.17: Effects of Decreasing and Increasing pH on N 2 0 Production at Steady State of pH8.0 68 ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to my wife, Pamela for her love and understanding and also to the rest of my \"scattered family\" for all their support during these past three years. It has indeed been a great honor to fulfill my ambitions in a reputed academic facility. My thanks to the team that has helped develop and spread the word on BNR technology. I have been very fortunate to work with them and extract all the necessary skills and expertise that they have gathered during the past two to three decades. My thanks to: Susan Harper and Paula Parkinson in the Environmental Laboratory who have helped me refine my skills in laboratory technology. Fred Koch, Manager of the UBC Pilot Plant whose advice on what to look out for before I started the project helped build up my confidence. I was also very fortunate to have Messrs. Dean Shiskowski and Rob Simms, who were undertaking their PhD, and who helped me define my objectives and activities. They have been the source of inspiration and the day-to-day advisors for this project. Their comments and interpretation of what I was observing from my system have been stated in my report. I am grateful to my Academic Supervisor, Prof. Don Mavinic, who gave me the chance to work on this project that has undoubtedly complemented and extended my understanding on nitrification, which to my opinion, is a process that is taken too much for granted. I also would like to thank Mr. George Twarog and Miss Amy Fournier at the Burns Bog Landfill who assisted me during leachate sampling. My studies would not have been made possible without the Canadian Commonwealth Scholarship that is funded by the Government of Canada. The award was made through the Ministry of Education, Government of Seychelles and administrated by the International Council of Canadian Studies (ICCS) in Ottawa, Ontario. x Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Leachate as a Pollutant Leachate is formed when the retention capacity of garbage within a landfill is overcome by the pull of gravity as the waste becomes increasingly saturated with moisture or percolate. Due to its toxicity, leachate movement into the subsurface soil and groundwater is an important issue. This movement can either be slowed by well-constructed clay layers, so as to reduce the hydraulic conductivity to below 10\"7cm7s, or stopped by the use of geosynthetics. The life cycle of a landfill consists mainly of an initial aerobic phase, followed by a prolonged anaerobic degradation phase, as oxygen trapped within the landfill is consumed (Christensen et al., 1992). B O D 5 values of above 10,000mg\/L, ammonia concentrations of between 500 mg\/L and l,500mg\/L are usually present within initial stages of leachate formation. However as anaerobiosis persists, methanogenic bacteria overcomes inhibition from the initial low pH that existed in the landfill. This increased activity causes methane and carbon dioxide production to increase, hence leading to a gradual decrease in the volatile carbon content of the refuse and leaving the more refractory organic compounds. Thus, it is typical for leachate from old landfills to have a low BOD:COD ratio. Ammonia concentration, however, remains a more important parameter since its concentration decreases more slowly than the other soluble contaminants. 1.2 The Burns Bog Landf i l l The current project was undertaken with leachate from the 635 hectare landfill in the Delta municipality. The landfill was opened in 1966 and is managed by the City of Vancouver. It serves around 1 million inhabitants. In 2001, the site was accommodating about 400,000 tonnes of refuse, 340,000 tonnes of cover soil, 70,000 of demolition material and around 90,000 tonnes of road materials. Annual leachate production stood at about 1.6 million cubic meters and the leachate flow to precipitation ratio for the year stood at about 0.6 (Vancouver Landfill Annual Report, 2001). 1 The most important parameters that define the quality of the settled leachate that was collected during this project are given below in Table 1.1. Table 1.1: Summary of Leachate Quality Parameter Summer 2003 Winter 2003-2004 BOD 5 (mg\/L) 40 < 10 COD (mg\/L) 400 - 600 200 - 400 Suspended Solids (mg\/L) 100-130 20-40 Volatile Suspended Solids (mg\/L) 50-70 10-40 Alkalinity (mg CaC0 3 \/L) 1,800-3,200 1,000 - 1,600 Ammonia (mg NH4-N\/L) 350-400 100-150 1.3 Aerobic Treatment of Leachate This form of treatment has proved to be effective in the removal of 95% of COD in high strength leachate (Cook and Foree, 1974; Uloth and Mavinic, 1977; Zapf-Gilfe and Mavinic, 1981) for retention times of at least 10 days. The former authors found that at detention times of less than 5 days, the system fails due to the washout of the slow-growing nitrifiers. Phosphorus is one of the major nutrients required for during aerobic treatment. Usually the recommended ratio for BOD: N: P is 100:5:1. A ratio of 100: 3.2: 1.1 was found to be sufficient to treat leachate from municipal landfills (Temoin, 1980; Wong and Mavinic, 1982). In older landfills, it is probably easier to remove the refractory COD by chemical and physical means. However, since the ammonia concentrations may still be elevated, nitrification and denitrification may be required to effectively remove the nitrogen species. 2 1.4 Process Configuration To remain consistent with previous studies undertaken at the UBC, the Modified Ludzak-Ettinger process was adopted (see Figure 1.1). System details and basic operation are described in Section 3.14. The volume of the anoxic tank, aerobic tank, and the clarifier were 5L, 10L, and 4L respectively. By maintaining a leachate flow of 9L\/day and a 6:1 recycle flow from the clarifier to the anoxic tank, the hydraulic retention times (HRT) were 1.9 hours, 3.7 hours, and 1.5 hours in the anoxic tank, aerobic tank, and the clarifier, respectively. The setup and operation of the system was almost identical to that used by Shiskowski (1995) and this allowed comparisons to be made with previous research at UBC before the system was subjected to the aerobic pH changes. 3 Figure 1.1: Process Diagram Methanol Orthophosphate Ammmonium Chloride Leachate Feed (9L\/d) ORP Meter [S Anoxic Reactor (5L) Sodium Bicarbonate : \u2014^9 Aerobic Reactor (10L) Solids Recycle (54L\/d), 6: 1 DO Meter H23 pH Controller = \u00a9 = \u00ab \u2014 Air Supply 1 rpm Scraper Effluent Clarifier (4L) 4 Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Nitrogen as a Pollutant The issue of nitrogen control in wastewaters has gained considerable importance over the past decades, due to the impact that nitrogen compounds have on public and environmental health. Nitrogen exists in organic forms and inorganic forms such as ammonia, nitrate and nitrite in sewage. The main forms of nitrogen in sewage are ammonia and ammonium ions, both of which are end products of the breakdown of animal proteins or organic nitrogen (Barnes & Bliss, 1983). Domestic sewage usually contains around 60% of its nitrogen in the form of ammonium ions, about 40% as organic nitrogen and less than 1% as nitrates and nitrites. NF^\/NliV can be produced either directly by the process of ammonification when the proteins and organic nitrogen compounds decompose or by biological decomposition of fecal matter and hydrolysis of urea and uric acid. As in domestic sewage, the ammonia and organic nitrogen in leachate is more abundant that nitrate and nitrite. Ammonia (NH4-N) is toxic to most organisms, hence the reason why its discharge into the environment is regulated. However, upon aerobic treatment of sewage to remove biodegradable organic carbon, ammonia is also converted to nitrate, which can also be a health hazard. Ingesting water with high concentrations of nitrate is primarily responsible for methemoglobinemia, a condition that usually affects infants less than three months old. The ferrous ion (Fe2 +) in hemoglobin is oxidized by nitrate to ferric ions (Fe3 +) (Halling-Sorensen and Jergensen, 1993) hence interfering with oxygen transport. Nitrate is also regarded as a nutrient and causes algal blooming and subsequent oxygen depletion in water bodies. The United States has a maximum recommended level of lOmg\/L N0 3\"-N in drinking water supplies, whereas in Europe, the level is 12mg\/L. The US EPA (1973) sets a maximum of lmg\/L of nitrite-nitrogen in drinking water. The concentration of nitrates in effluents can be decreased by denitrification, which involves a reduction process whereby the nitrate is converted to nitrogen gas. However, the by-products of 5 nitrification and denitrification lead to the formation of nitric and nitrous oxides. Nitrous oxide (N2O) has been linked to global warming. 2.2 Nitrification Nitrification is inevitable in aerobic systems (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993) when carbonaceous removal is allowed to occur at a high percentage or when the BOD\/NH4 ratio is low. As the amount of carbon becomes limiting, nitrifiers come into action by oxidizing ammonia into nitrite and then to nitrate. Nitrification is generally regarded as a process that involves the conversion of ammonia into nitrite and ultimately into nitrogen. It occurs readily in suspended and attached-growth sewage treatment processes, as shown in equations 1 to 3. 55NH 4 + +76C-2 +109HCO3\" -> C 5 H 7 N 0 2 + N0 2\" + 57H 20 + 104H 2CO 3 (1) (Nitrosomonas) 400NO2\" + N H 4 + + 4 H 2 C 0 3 -> C 5 H 7 N 0 2 + 3H 2 0 + 4 O O N O 3 \" (2) + HCO3\" + 19502 (Nitrobacter) N H 4 + + 1.8302+ 1.98HC03'-> 0.021 C 5 H 7 N O 2 + 1.041 H 2 0 - \u2014 (3) +'0.98NO3\" + I.88H2CO3 The first reaction (as shown by equation 1) is undertaken by a group of obligate autotrophs, such as Nitrosomonas, Nitrospira, Nitrosolobulus and Nitrosovibrio, while the second (equation 2) is undertaken by Nitrobacter, which is a group of facultative autotrophic bacteria. Both groups of bacteria are strict aerobes, with saturation constants of about lmg O2\/L and lmg N\/L. Nitrosomonas tends to have a shorter generation time (8-36 hours) compared to Nitrobacter (12-59 hours). The conversion of ammonia to nitrite yields about three times more energy per mole of nitrogen and three times the yield of nitrobacter during the conversion of nitrites to nitrates. However, at 20\u00b0C, the maximum growth rate of Nitrosomonas is about half that of Nitrobacter. Due to that and in the absence of inhibitors, nitrite rarely accumulates during nitrification. Hence, the oxidation of ammonia to nitrite, termed nitrozation, is generally regarded as being the rate-limiting step in nitrification (Eckenfelder, 2000; Wett & Rauch, 2002). However, this basic 6 observation is not always observed in systems nitrifying high ammonia wastes such as piggery wastes and leachate, since the nitrite concentration is very apparent. From Equations 1 to 3, it can be calculated that the yield of total nitrifying biomass is 0.17g cells produced\/g ammonia-N oxidized. It is noteworthy to mention that Equation 1 is given by assuming a cell yield of 0.15 mg VSS\/mg N H \/ - N for Nitrosomonas and that Equation 2 is based on a Nitrobacter cell yield of 0.02mg VSS\/mg NCV -N. The oxygen consumption is also assumed to be 3.22mg (Vmg N H 4 + - N for Nitrosomonas and 1.1 lmg CVmg NO2\" -N for Nitrobacter. Equation 3, therefore, indicates that nitrification has a low cell yield, that significant oxygen is required and that the addition of alkalinity may be required to buffer the system in the event that the pH drops during nitrification. About 7g of alkalinity is required for each gram of ammonia-N that is oxidized. These observations are usually taken into consideration during the design of sewage treatment systems. 7 2.2.1 Parameters Affecting Nitrification The removal of ammonia is a zero-order reaction hence is independent of the ammonia concentration but it is dependent on the concentration of nitrifiers (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). The rate-limiting step is thought to be the conversion of ammonia to nitrite. The growth rate of nitrifiers is affected by the concentration of ammonia, dissolved oxygen and pH as shown in Equation 4: 1 = IM m a x * (NH 4 +-N) * (DO)* [1 - 0.83.(7.2 - pH)] (4) ~0~ K N + N H 4 + - N K D 0 + DO Where: 0 = sludge age, days UN, max = Maximum specific growth rate of nitrifiers, d\"1 K N and K D O = half saturation constants at 15\u00b0C, mg\/L Nitrification proceeds at a dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of 0.5mg\/L and reaches a maximum at a DO concentration of 3.0mg\/L (Gerardi, 2002). Low DO may necessitate higher recycle flows so that a higher percentage of ammonia may be oxidized. A prolonged absence of oxygen above four hours can adversely affect the activity of nitrifiers. As the Michaelis constant for Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are 0.5 and l.Omg\/L, respectively, we can assume that the oxygen supply to the system used in this project (DO = 2.0mg\/L) was sufficient to satisfy the oxygen requirements of these nitrifiers. The optimum temperature for nitrifiers lies between 25 and 35\u00b0C (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). The maximum growth rate is at 30\u00b0C. At 12\u00b0C, nitrification rate can be decreased by as much as 50%. It is possible that low temperatures affect Nitrobacter more than Nitrosomonas due to the observed buildup of nitrite. At 20\u00b0C, the maximum growth rate (fim a x) and saturation constants of nitrifiers are 0.77d\" and 0.73g N\/m , respectively. 8 The influence of solids retention time (SRT) also has an effect of ammonia removal from wastewaters (Horan, 1990). At 30\u00b0C, an SRT of about 2 days may be sufficient to achieve a residual of lmg NH4 +-N\/L in the effluent of a nitrifying activated sludge system. However, at 10\u00b0C, the SRT has to be increased to 6 days to achieve the same concentration. In the study of five different single sludge process configurations at the pilot scale level, the aerobic SRT was found to be the critical factor affecting nitrification (Sutton et al., 1979). At pH values between 8 and 9, the nitrification rate tends to be at its highest. It has been suggested that the agents responsible for the decreased rate outside this pH range are free ammonia at high pH and free nitrous acid at low pH. Both of these free molecular forms can act as inhibitors, when they diffuse into the cell of the nitrifiers. 2.2.2 Influence of pH on Nitrification The influence of pH on nitrification is thought to be caused by the effect that pH has on the dissociation of ammonia and nitrous acid (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). More information is given in the following sections. 2.2.2.1 Inhibition by Free Ammonia At equilibrium, ammonia and the ammonium ion exists in equilibrium as shown by Equation 5: N H \/ < > N H 3 + H + (5) In terms of the ionization constant, K a , the percentage of N H 4 + can be found by Equation 6: % N H 4 + = 100 (6) (1+Ka\/[H+]) At 20\u00b0C, K a is equal to 3.98xl0\"10, hence at pH 7, 7.5, and 8, the percentage of free ammonia at this temperature is 0.4, 1.2, and 3.8, respectively (Benefield et al., 1982). 9 Free ammonia can inhibit Nitrosomonas at concentrations between 10 and 150 mg\/L (Anthonisen et al., 1976) and Nitrobacter at concentrations of 0.1 to lOmg\/L (Anthonisen et al., 1976) and less than 0.1 mg\/L (Gerardi, 2002). It has been hypothesized that, at high pH, free ammonia accumulates and enters cells, causing disruption in nitrification (Turk and Mavinic, 1989). These researchers found that free ammonia, at concentrations of 5 to 10 mg\/L, could be a differential inhibitor of unacclimatized nitrifiers. Keenan et al. (1979) did not observe any adverse effect of free ammonia during the nitrification of leachate from a landfill. 2.2.2.2 Inhibition by Free Nitrous Acid The dissociation of nitrous acid occurs as follows: N0 2\" + H + < > H N 0 2 (7) The concentration of nitrous acid is derived by the mathematical relationship that takes into account the nitrite ion concentration, the dissociation constant, and pH (Anthonisen et al., 1976). FNA = (46)* [N0 2-N] (8) (14)* K a * 1 0 p H Where K a = e [ 2 3 0 0 1 ( 2 7 3 + \u00b0 C ) ] ; is the ionization constant for the dissociation of nitrous acid at equilibrium. At low pH, the extent of the dissociation is decreased, hence causing nitrous acid to increase in concentration. As the free nitrous acid increases in the extracellular environment they ultimately inhibit nitrification when they enter the cells of the nitrifiers. Both Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter can be inhibited at nitrous acid concentrations below lmg\/L (Gerardi, 2002). Anthonisen et al. (1976) proposed values of between 0.22 and 2.8mg\/L as inhibitory to nitrifiers. Abeling and Seyfried (1992) proposed a free nitrous acid concentration of 0.13mg\/L as the toxicity threshold for nitrite to denitrifying bacteria and suggested that the acid might have been an influencing factor in their batch experiments. 10 Nitrite toxicity has been linked to the inhibition of growth and the generation of energy for a variety of physiological types of bacteria. When nitrous acid is transported across the cell membrane, this affects the amount of energy generated by the cell. The transport of free nitrous acid (FNA) has a negative effect on ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) synthesis, since the pH gradient and the proton motive force are both reduced. Research on the uptake of phosphorus by Acinetobacier under aerobic conditions at 30\u00b0C and a pH range of 7.2 to 7.6, showed that the IC50 was O.lmg\/L FNA and 261mg\/L N 0 2 - N and the IC10 was 0.055mg\/L of FNA and 151mg\/L of NO2-N (Weon et al., 2002). High levels of nitrite are also believed to be responsible for disruption of denitrification (Beccari et al., 1983). 2.3 Denitrification The reduction of nitrate to nitrogen is important since it completes the global nitrogen cycle. In biological sewage systems, the process can be undertaken by a wide range of bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Micrococcus, Archromobacter, Thiobacillus and Bacillus. Most of them are heterotrophs and contains the reductase enzyme that is used in the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen. Some are nitrite dependent, since they do not contain the reductase enzyme. Those that do not contain the N 2 0 reductase produce N 2 0 as the end product. In general, the group of denitrifiers is usually termed facultative heterotrophs, since they can use either nitrate or oxygen to oxidize organic matter. During denitrification, the reduction of nitrate occurs at half the rate of that of nitrite. Hence, it is for this reason why nitrite rarely accumulates during treatment of domestic sewage. However, in high ammonia wastewaters, such as leachate, the situation is slightly more complex and nitrite accumulation occurs more readily, possibly due to the higher concentration of free ammonia (Wett & Rauch, 2002). In the presence of methanol as an electron donor, the process can be simplified in two steps (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). NO3-+ l\/3CH 3OH.-> N0 2\" + 1\/3H20 + 1\/3H 2C0 3 (9) 11 N0 2\" + 0.5CH 3OH + 0.5H 2CO 3 ^ 0.5N2 + HC0 3~+ H 2 0 (10) Overall, the stoichiometric nitrate reduction reaction with methanol can be written as: N03\"+ 5\/6CH 3OH + 1\/6H 2C0 3 0.5N2 + HC0 3 \" +4\/3H 20 (11) Apart from nitrate dissimilation, some methanol is used for bacterial growth and hence the overall mass balance is written as: C H 3 O H + 0.92NO3\"+0.92H+ -> 0.06C 5H 7NO 2 + 0.43N2 -- (12) + 0.7CO2 + 2.25H20 The requirement of methanol for nitrite and nitrate reduction can be calculated from the formula (McCarty et al., 1969): C m = 2.47*N03\"-N + I.53.NO2VN + 0.87.DO - (13) Where N0 3\"-N, N0 2\"-N, and DO are the initial concentrations of nitrate, nitrite, and dissolved oxygen in mg\/L. However, the observed requirement can vary considerably from the predicted values (Smith, 1978). The ratio of methanol required is usually in the range 1.5 to 5g of methanol\/g N0 3\"-N. The biomass production can be calculated by using Equation 14: X D = 0.53.NO3\"-N + 0.32*NO2\"-N + 0.19*DO (14) Other types of organics, such as ethanol, formaldehyde, acetic acid and glycol have also been used to attain denitrification. Other sources of reducing agents are gases such as methane and carbon monoxide. Denitrification can also be achieved by autotrophic bacteria that can use hydrogen, thiosulphate or sulphides as energy sources. 12 2.3.1 Factors Influencing Denitrification In suspended biomass, a concentration less than 0.5mg\/L of oxygen is usually thought to have negligible effect on denitrification. It has been observed that oxygen usually affects dissimilatory nitrate reduction but not assimilatory nitrate reduction (Halling-Sorensen and J0rgensen, 1993). Due to inaccuracies of DO measurement at low concentrations, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) measurements are used to ensure that anoxic conditions have been attained. An ORP between -50 and +50mV is generally accepted as being conducive to anoxic conditions, hence allowing cBOD removal to occur and nitrite and\/or nitrate to become the electron acceptors during denitrification. Denitrification by microorganisms has been mainly observed within the 5 to 35\u00b0C range. Both the growth rate of denitrifying species and the nitrate removal are affected by changes in temperature. The reaction rate increases by a factor of between 1.5 and 2 per 10\u00b0C increase between 5 and 15\u00b0C (Barnes and Bliss, 1983). Above 20\u00b0C, denitrification rates are constant (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). The optimum pH for denitrification is generally assumed to be between 7 and 7.5 (Barnes and Bliss, 1983) and sometimes up to pH 9 (Henze et al., 2002). At pH 6 and 8, the efficiency decreases to about 70% of that measured at the optimum pH range. One of the formulae used to describe the temperature dependency is; M-max, DT = M-max, D20 * , (15) where Y is the temperature coefficient and is around 1.12 for suspended separate cultures where methanol is the carbon source (Halling-S0rensen and J0rgensen, 1993). Denitrification may be affected by high concentrations of nitrite ions. There has been reports that nitrite accumulates during the process. While some researchers argue that the accumulation could be because of the observed higher yield of Nitrosomonas, nitrate reductase might have a competitive advantage for electrons over nitrite reductase in nitrobacter (Turk and Mavinic, 1987); others argue that the accumulation is due to intracellular competition of different 13 denitrifying enzymes (Wilderer et al., 1987). It has been hypothesized that the nitrite end product of nitrate reductase is transported to the extracellular environment of the Nitrosomonas cells and later taken in by Nitrobacter, when conditions are more favorable for the nitrite reductase. However, the possibility of the unionized nitrous acid being responsible for the inhibition is also being argued as being mainly responsible for the inhibition during the accumulation of nitrite. As the pH decreases, more of the acid can be formed when nitrite associate with protons. Since increasing pH from 7.5 to 8.5 and above leads to a reduction in inhibition of denitrification, it has been suggested that, instead of nitrite, nitrous acid could be responsible for the inhibition (Glass & Silverstein, 1998). 14 2.4 Nitrous Oxide Di-nitrogen (N2), nitric oxide (NO) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the main three gases that are important in nitrification and denitrification. Molecular nitrogen is the end product of denitrification. Nitric oxide can be further oxidized in the atmosphere into nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Both nitric oxide and di-nitrogen are usually formed under anoxic conditions. Nitrous oxide (N 20), also commonly known as laughing gas, has anesthetic properties and is gaining more popularity because of its ability to interfere with the stratospheric ozone layer. It has a 120 year lifetime and a radiative force 310 greater than carbon dioxide; hence, it is also a contributor to the greenhouse effect and to global warming. The contribution of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere by sewage treatment is estimated to be 22x109 kg N\/year (Matsuo et al., 2001) and a conversion of 1% of the influent nitrogen has been assumed (IPCC, 1996, Revised). In 1994, the atmospheric concentration was 312ppb and its rate of production is increasing at a bit less than 1% each year (IPCC, 1996). However, at least 65% of the atmospheric nitrous oxide originates from the soil (Azam et al., 2002). Based on thermodynamic data, hydroxylamine is a likely precursor of nitrous oxide during nitrification and nitric oxide is the likely precursor during denitrification (Trogler, 1999). The formation of the three gases during nitrification is summarized below (Barton & Atwater, 2002) . NO A N 2 0 NO A N H 4 + \u2014 > NH2OH \u2014 > [HNO] P7 N0 2\" > N 0 3 \" Hydroxy-lamine NO2NHOH Nitrohydroxy-lamine 15 In general, the denitrification pathway proceeds as follows (Barton & Atwater, 2002): NO T N \u00b0 3 \" > N0 2 - \u00bb [X] \u00bb N 2 0 \u00bb N 2 Nitrification of high ammonia wastes implicates high conversion into nitrous oxide. During the treatment of a simulated night soil containing 2,500 mg N\/L, Okayasu et al. (1997) found that at DO levels of 0.5 to 3.0 mg\/L the emission of nitrous oxide reached up to 40% of the incoming nitrogen. Air was supplied between 0.05 to 0.2L\/min into a 3L tank containing 25g\/L of solids and that was maintained at 33\u00b0C. DO above 1 mg\/L was found to reduce the emission to less than 5% and even down to 1%. It is possible that a high concentration of mixed liquor solids is related to low nitrous oxide emission. Zheng et al. (1994) found that, by using a substrate containing 400mg NH4 -N\/L, and an SRT of 10 days the nitrous oxide conversion was 7% and 5.4% and the nitrite concentration was 84 and 42 mg N\/L at DO levels of 0.1 and 0.5 mg\/L, respectively. Gas conversion remained at 2% at DO levels above 1.7 mg\/L and complete oxidation of ammonia to nitrates occurred. It was therefore proposed that low DO led to lower nitrite oxidation. To measure the effects of SRT, the DO was set at 5.7 mg\/L (7.3 mg\/L at an SRT of 20 days) and they found that the nitrous oxide conversion increased from 2.6 to 7.5 and finally to 16% at SRT of 20, 5, and 3 days, respectively. Nitrite was produced only at the lowermost SRT. 16 2.5 Previous UBC Projects on High Ammonia Leachate The following paragraphs summarize the most relevant parts of previous UBC research that have been conducted on high ammonia leachate. Carley (1988) found that only methanol, out of four carbon sources which included glucose, acetate and yeast waste, led to negligible nitrite buildup in the anoxic and aerobic reactors of a single sludge system treating leachate during start-up. A minimum COD: NOx ratio of 6.2:1 was required to achieve complete denitrification. Some carbon sources can encourage the growth of facultative anaerobes, hence allowing fermentation to occur. Such anaerobes can only reduce nitrate to nitrite. Fermentation can however be detected by ORP values below -lOOmV and typically as low as -200mV. Fermentation can also be detected by a decrease in pH, indicating the conversion of the carbon source into volatile fatty acids. Azevedo (1993) made comparisons of two M L E systems, (one operated at 10 day SRT and another at 20 day SRT), which were subjected to simulated ammonia concentrations of up to 2,200 mg NH4 \/L. At an influent concentration of around 1,500 mg NH4 -N, both systems had over 90% nitrification and denitrification. The anoxic reactor had less than 1 mg NO x -N\/L and less than 5 mg N H 4 - N were measured in the aerobic and effluent. The methanol :N ratios were 4mg COD\/mg N and 4.5 mg COD\/mg N in the 10 day SRT system and the 20 day SRT system, respectively. However, upon an attempt to treat 2,200 mg NH4 \/L , the systems experienced a decrease to around 20% in nitrification. This could have been due to the increase in anoxic pH and accumulation of free ammonia. The two systems were then fed with 1,500 mg NH4 \/L and the operating temperatures were gradually decreased from 20\u00b0C to 10\u00b0C. The systems continued to maintain a high percentage of nitrification and denitrification at 12\u00b0C. However, at 10\u00b0C both systems experienced only around 20% in nitrification. Denitrification in the 10 day SRT system was only 30% whilst in the other system a value of 80%) was observed. Again the possibility of ammonia oxidizers being inhibited by free ammonia was speculated, along with breakthrough of carbon into the aerobic reactor that would have decreased nitrification. 17 Shiskowski (1995) showed that two pre-anoxic M L E systems, one with clarifier-anoxic recycle ratio of 7:1 and another with a ratio of 8:1, could effectively remove ammonia down to less than a 100 mg N\/L from the simulated level of l,2.00mg N\/L. Upon increasing the SRT from 10 to 20, days the effluent ammonia decreased to below 50 mg N\/L. In a period of 40 days, the higher SRT caused the VSS to steadily increase from around 6,200mg\/L to 7,500 mg\/L in the anoxic tank of both systems. The increase in SRT caused a VSS increase from 4,900 mg\/L to 6,000 mg\/L in the aerobic tank of the 7:1 system and 6,800 mg\/L in the 8:1 system. The methanol loading of about 35 g COD\/day and 2.8 mg COD\/mg NOx-N led to almost 100% removal of anoxic NOx for both systems. Hies (1999) used a 4-stage Bardenpho system, in an attempt to improve denitrification of leachate . that had a simulated ammonia concentration of 2,200 mg NH4 -N. She reduced the pH of the first aerobic tank of the Bardenpho system from 7.6 to 7.3 and as a consequence the anoxic pH of the two anoxic reactors also decreased and an increase in denitrification rate was initially observed. Effluent N O x concentrations even reached half of that before the pH change. Anoxic N O x also showed a considerable decrease shortly after the pH change in the aerobic reactor. However, it was also observed that there was a simultaneous decrease in the anoxic denitrification rates and the aerobic nitrification rates, hence concluding that the pH change or deterioration in the leachate quality caused inhibition throughout the system at the same time. 18 2.6 Objectives of this Present Research This present research is a follow-up to these past above-mentioned projects and makes use of some of the findings and recommendations made by these researchers. In summary, the project studied the effects of changing the aerobic pH from its set-point of 7.5 during the acclimatization stage when treating l,200mg NH4 -N\/L. The anoxic pH would be controlled with sodium bicarbonate or sulphuric acid if it deviated from its level during the acclimatization stage, which was expected to be around 8.2 to 8.3. After the system has stabilized at pH 8.0, the system was re-acclimatized at an aerobic pH of 7.5 for at least 10 days until conditions were stable. Then, the pH was decreased to 7.0. Based on the above-mentioned activities, the main objective of this project was to study the effects of varying the aerobic pH from its set point on the nitrification and denitrification process of an M L E system. Particular attention was made for the effects that the pH change had on nitrite, nitrate and nitrous oxide production in the short term (1 to 3 days) and medium term (10 to 15 days). It has been reported by Anthonisen et al. (1975) that, at alkaline pH, both ammonia and nitrite oxidizing bacteria are affected by the increase of free ammonia and that, at acidic pH only nitrite oxidizing bacteria are affected by free nitrous acid (FNA). Ruiz et al. (2002) speculated upon the possibility of FNA inhibiting ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. The results of the project will hopefully shed light on the stability of the process during changes in aerobic pH and monitor any effects of toxicity by free ammonia, nitrite or nitrous acid. As biological nutrient removal (BNR) technology has been gaining more popularity, it is important that we do not only focus on the soluble or solid end or by-products, but also on the gaseous emissions. Failure to do so will lead to designs that contribute to an increase in the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N 20) production; the subsequent rise in sea water levels due to global warming could lead to the detriment of the small islands states, such as the Caribbean Islands, the Polynesian Archipelago, and my country, the Seychelles. 19 Chapter 3 ANALYTICAL METHODS AND OPERATING PROCEDURE Except for the measurement of dissolved oxygen, ORP, anoxic and aerobic pH, the other analyses were done by taking grab samples from the system. Samples were taken in the order of aerobic tank, clarifier, leachate tank, and the anoxic tank for analyses that required samples from these four sampling points. Samples that were subjected to the analysis of COD, nitrites, NOx, phosphorus, and B O D 5 were filtered through 0.45um microfibre filters, prior to being added to their reagents (COD) or preservative. 3.1 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5 ) The filtered samples were seeded with sewage from the aerobic tank of the system. The seed was aerated for one hour and allowed to settle. One mL of the supernatant was added to each of the BOD bottles. Nitrification inhibitor (Hach Company formula 2533) was also added due to the presence of ammonia and nitrite in the samples. The filtered samples were added to BOD bottles which were then carefully filled up with aerated dilution water. Incubation was undertaken for 5 days at 20\u00b0C. Dissolved oxygen was measured before and after incubation by a self-mixing DO probe (Hach) and a DO meter (Yellow Springs Instrument Co. Ltd., Model 54). 3.2 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) The closed reflux colorimetric method was used as outlined in Standards Method 5220D (APHA, 1992). Mercuric sulphate present inside the vials suppresses the negative effects of chloride. Potassium phthalate stock solution was used to make up the calibration standards. The samples, blanks, and calibration standards were then digested at around 150\u00b0C for about two hours on a H A C H block digester. After cooling, a calibration curve was determined on a Hach DR2000 spectrophotometer by measuring the absorbance of the blanks and standards at 600nm. Then the absorbance of the samples were measured and compared to the regression equation for the calibration curve. Corrections were not made to account for oxygen demand of nitrite. 20 3.3 Mixed Li q u o r Suspended Solids (MLSS) and Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS) The samples were filtered through pre-dried Whatman 934-AH 1.5um glass microfibre filters by using a stainless steel filtration apparatus and a vacuum pump. The filter papers were then dried at 103 to 105\u00b0C overnight and then allowed to cool inside a desiccator. The weight of the filter was determined. The TSS concentration was calculated by evaluating the weight contribution by the residue and by taking into account the volume used during filtration, as explained by method number 2540D (APHA, 1992). Volatile suspended solids were calculated after leaving the filter papers in a 550\u00b0C furnace for one to two hours. 3.4 Ammonia-Nitrogen Filtered samples were stored at around pH 2 with 5% sulphuric acid and at 4\u00b0C until required. The Lachat Automated Ion Analyzer was used for the analysis of this nutrient by the Phenolate Quikchem method number 10-107-06-1-Z or method number 4500-NH3-P-H (APHA, 1998). Total ammonia, free ammonia and ammonium ion (NH 4 +), is more precisely what is measured. Ammonium chloride solutions, at concentrations of 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 50 mg\/L, were made up for the calibration. The samples were heated with salicylate and hypochlorite in an alkaline phosphate buffer. Calcium and potassium are not precipitated due to the presence of tartrate in the. buffer. An emerald green color, the intensity of which is proportional to the ammonia concentration, was intensified by adding sodium nitroprusside. The tests were run according to the procedure that is outlined in the 1987 Methods Manual for the equipment. 3.5 Nitrate and Nitrites (NOx) Filtered samples for nitrites and nitrates were stored at 4\u00b0C in the same tubes containing one drop of phenyl mercuric acetate (lg in 20ml acetone and 80ml distilled water). The analysis was undertaken by a Lachat Quickchem Automated Analyzer in accordance with the Methods Manual for the Quickchem Automated Ion Analyzer (1987). 21 3.6 Ortho-phosphorus Filtered samples were stored at around pH 2 with 5% sulphuric acid and at 4\u00b0C until required. The Lachat Automated Ion Analyzer was used for the analysis of ortho-phosphorus by method number 10-115-01-1-Z from the manual or method number 4500-P-H (APHA, 1998). Potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH 2 P0 4 ) was used to make up the standards at concentrations of 1, 2.5, 5, 10 and 50 mg P\/L. The ortho-phosphate ion reacts with the ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate under acidic conditions, to form a complex that is reduced to another blue complex by ascorbic acid. The absorbance of this blue complex measured at 880nm is proportional to the ortho-phosphorus concentration. 3.7 Nitrous Oxide Nitrous oxide was measured using a gas chromatograph. Ultra pure nitrogen gas was used as the carrier. The oven temperature was set at 40\u00b0C and the injector temperature at 60\u00b0C. Calibration was done daily with 2,000ppm of nitrous oxide gas. Volumes of 20, 40, 60, 80 ul were used as equivalents of 400, 800, 1,200, l,600ppm of nitrous oxide. The areas obtained under each of these four volumes were plotted against their respective concentrations in the calibration curve. lOOul of off-gas from the aerobic tank was sampled and injected in the GC. The emission curves included a main peak at 0.22 minutes, which represented air, and a second at 1.22 minutes, which represented the nitrous oxide being emitted from the aerobic tank. 3.8 Alkalinity Leachate alkalinity was measured to assess the alkalinity requirements during nitrification. Leachate samples were filtered by Whatman # 4 filter papers and titrated against 0.22N sulphuric acid until pH 4.3. Standardization was undertaken twice with sodium carbonate (NaaCOs). The volume of acid used was multiplied by 50,000 and the normality of the acid and divided by the volume of leachate used to determine the alkalinity (mg CaCCVL). To minimize dilution effects, the volume of leachate was kept between 50 and lOOmL, so that the volume of acid used could be kept below lOmL. 22 3.9 Temperature The temperature controlled room had a built in temperature controller. Verification of the room temperature was done with an alcohol thermometer, to ensure that the system is run at 20\u00b0C. 3.10 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Dissolved oxygen was measured by immersing a Yellow Springs Instrument Model 5739 submersible probe upside down in the aerobic tank. The probe was connected to a Yellow Springs Instrument Company Model 54 DO meter. Before removing the cover cap, the instrument was allowed to warm up for 15 minutes and air calibrated as outlined in the Instruction Manual for YSI Models 54 A R C and 54 ABP DO meters. After being immersed for at least 10 minutes, the DO reading was taken. The probe was rinsed with distilled water after use. 3.11 Oxidation-Reduction Potential (ORP) To measure whether anoxic or anaerobic conditions had been reached in the anoxic tanks, ORP measurements were done in-situ at all times during the project. The probe used was a Ag-AgCl Broadley\/James Corp. ORP electrode that was connected to a Cole Parmer Chemicadet Series 5984 pH\/mV meter. Calibration was undertaken in fresh buffer solutions (pH 4 and 7) containing quinhydrone. Whilst the electrode was in buffer 7, the meter was adjusted to 86 mV and when it was in the pH 4 buffer, the meter was verified whether it was reading close to 263 mV. The probes were cleaned with warm soapy water and 0.1N hydrochloric acid almost every week and washed with distilled water almost every other day. 3.12 p H pH in the anoxic and aerobic tanks were done in-situ. Each of the two tanks had a submerged Ag\/AgCl combination pH electrode attached to a Cole Parmer Model 7142 pH\/pump controller. Calibration was done every 2 to 3 days in buffer 7 and 10. The pH measurements were compared with a bench top pH meter using a similar probe. The bench pH meter was used to measure the pH of leachate and effluent samples. The probes were left immersed for between 3 to 5 minutes before any measurements were taken, so as to be more comparable with the pH measurements in 23 the aerobic and anoxic tanks. The controllers and bench meter were always within 0.1 pH units of each other. The probes were cleaned with warm soapy water and 0.1N hydrochloric acid every week. 3.13 Chemicals used Dur ing Treatment Table 3.1 below provides some information on the chemicals that were added to the system. Table 3.1: Chemicals used During the Treatment Process Name of chemical Manufacturer Ammonium chloride, NH 4C1, technical grade, treated The Dallas Group of America Inc. Dibasic, anhydrous dipotassium hydrogen phosphate, K2PO4 Fisher Scientific, CAS # 7758-11-4 Methanol, C H 3 O H Fisher Brand, CAS # 67-56-1 Sodium bicarbonate, NaHC03 Church & Dwight Co. Inc., CAS # 144-55-8, BP-072-W 3.14 System Details and Basic Operation The sizes of the reactors were 5L, 10L and 4L for the anoxic tank, aerobic tank, and clarifier, respectively. This single-sludge configuration had a solids recycle ratio of 6: 1 from the clarifier to the pre-anoxic tank. Phosphorus and methanol were added by the same pump (see Figure 1.1). A clarifier recycle ratio of 6:1 was used. Elefsiniotis et al. (1989) concluded that, beyond that ratio, nitrification and denitrification in their M L E system became unstable and this was thought to be due to the fact that the HRT was too low. However, Robinson (1992) later found that recycle ratios greater than 10:1 could be used to operate M L E systems. The recycle line helps return NOx to the anoxic tank for denitrification and also helps dilute the incoming ammonia levels so that denitrification is less affected by free ammonia. 24 3.15 Process Start up The system was put into operation in May 21s t 2003, which was designated day 1; Bio-P sludge from the UBC Pilot plant was placed in the aerobic tank into which leachate from Burns Bog Landfill was being added at a rate of 9L\/day. Leachate was siphoned from the containers in which they were stored into another container. This method of transfer minimized agitation and prevented the entrainment of air so that the ammonia content would remain as constant as possible for each batch of samples that was collected. The leachate was not stirred as it was being pumped into the system. Upon start-up, the clarifier recycle was returned directly to the aerobic tank until results indicated that the system was nitrifying properly and the effluent ammonia level was well below 5mgN\/L. At this point, the recycle line was placed into the anoxic tank to which 5L of Bio-P sludge had been added. On day 16, analytical results showed that nitrification was not being affected, hence diluted methanol was added to the anoxic tank. The level of ammonia was subsequently increased by 300 to 400 mg N\/L, sequentially, until the simulated target of l,200mg N\/L was reached on day 97. Then, methanol loading was increased up to day 210, when almost complete denitrification was achieved. In between day 97 and day 210, the two system failures that occurred led to the decision that methanol loading would be increased at a lower rate, since it was speculated that methanol carry over to the aerobic reactor could be responsible for the failures. Even if the original target was 35g COD\/day, the eventual loading was between 40 and 44g COD\/day. The steady state of the system was defined by the criteria shown in Table 3.2. Following the first system failure that occurred on day 139, the first steady state was judged to have been reached on day 211 when the first series of pH changes were made. The second series of pH changes were carried on day 266 once steady state was observed based on the target parameters given in Table 3.2. The first series of pH changes ended on day 253 when the aerobic pH was increased from 7.0 to 7.5. Hence, during the first series of pH changes, it was demonstrated that steady state can be achieved within two weeks if pH changes had not resulted in any major disturbances in the nitrification-denitrification processes. It also took less than two weeks to re-establish steady-state conditions during the second series of pH changes despite the system failure that had occurred on day 300. Steady state was re-established on day 310. 25 Table 3.2: Summary of Steady State Parameter Value Simulated ammonia 1,200 mgN\/L Aerobic SRT 10 days Aerobic ammonia removal > 99% Effluent ammonia < 2 mg N\/L Methanol loading 40 to 44 g COD\/d Ratio of methanol to NOx entering anoxic tank 5 to 12 mg COD\/mg N Anoxic nitrate < 5 mg N\/L Anoxic MLSS 5,100 to 6,100 mg\/L Aerobic MLSS 5,200 to 6,400 mg\/L Anoxic VSS 4,500 to 5,300 mg\/L Aerobic VSS 4,500 to 5,800 mg\/L Airflow 2L\/min The airflow was set at lL\/min from the beginning of the start-up until on day 204 (December 10 2003), when it was found that the DO had dropped to below lmg\/L. After verification with two other DO meters, the airflow was gradually increased to 2L\/min over a period of about four hours; as a consequence, the DO was maintained around 2 mg\/L for the rest of the project. There was concern that this high airflow would cause carbon dioxide and ammonia stripping from the system. The former is deemed negligible due to the high levels of bicarbonate being consumed and causing a more significant increase in pH than the loss of CO2 would. Ammonia stripping was investigated during the steady state of pH 8.0, during the second series of pH changes. 26 Chapter 4 R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N S 4.1 System Failures Dur ing Start-up There were two incidences that resulted in a drop in nitrification during the initial start-up. These occurred on day 97 and day 139, when it was also observed that there was a decrease in bicarbonate consumption and an increase in the DO level. After the ammonia concentrations had been determined, it was shown that the aerobic process had been disturbed. It was speculated that there could have been at least 3 factors that were responsible: \u2022 a drop in air pressure and a drastic decrease in DO \u2022 power failure, and \u2022 A defective pH probe in the aerobic tank. The latter was suspected since, before the failures were detected, it was noticed that bicarbonate consumption had almost doubled, hence causing a shift to alkaline pH due to the slow response of the pH probe. Thereafter, from October 30th 2003 (day 163) it was decided that only new probes would be used. The guideline mentioned in Section 4.2 was used to assess the reliability of the probe and ensure that they were responding fast enough to minimize pH fluctuations and bicarbonate consumption. The system was resuscitated by cutting back on the methanol loading and increasing the airflow overnight. Re-seeding with wasted biomass, which had been stored at 4\u00b0C, was not performed since the system was revived after 24 hours. 4.2 p H Measurements Since pH was the main variable that was being manipulated for this project, care was taken to understand how the pH probes and controller performed, given the fact that leachate contains numerous impurities that can clog the membrane and junction of the probe. The probes were 27 checked for bacterial growth, and cleaned almost daily with warm, soapy water. The anoxic probe was also frequently washed in 0.1N HC1. Calibration in buffers 7 and 10 was performed daily. The probes' readings were monitored while in the buffer solutions. If they did not read within 0.1 units of the target buffer pH (7.02 and 10.06) in about a minute and did not remain stable when in the buffer, they were replaced. This allowed the bicarbonate consumption to remain more constant in the latter stages of the project, since the probes were more sensitive to pH changes. Probes in the aerobic tank were replaced every 4 to 5 weeks whereas those in the anoxic tank were cleaned overnight and used again (since their response to pH changes was not important). The results in Figure 4.1 show the effects of maintaining the probe condition. The arrows denote the dates when the aerobic probes were replaced. It was observed that the pH varied to within 0.1 units from their target pH (i.e. 7.0, 7.5, and 8.0), due to the addition of the 80g\/L sodium bicarbonate. By using an error of 0.1 units, we can assume that the pH in the aerobic zone was about 0.1 below the target pH and 0.2 units above the target pH. For example, when the aerobic pH was set at 7.5, the pH varied between 7.4, because of nitrification, and 7.7, due to addition of bicarbonate. The pH in the anoxic tank was affected by the bicarbonate content of the leachate, the recycle from the clarifier, (which tended to have a higher pH than the aerobic tank), and by denitrification when alkalinity is produced. A pH above 7.9 in the anoxic tank was indicative that anoxic conditions had been established. Once steady state was achieved, the anoxic pH varied between 8.1 and 8.4. A slight drop to around 7.8 and an ORP of less than -250mV indicated that there was an excess of methanol and\/or biomass in the system, leading to anaerobic conditions and the production of volatile fatty acids. A pH of around 8.6 and an ORP of around -150mV was observed when the aerobic wasting was not performed during the system failures; it, therefore, indicated that there was an increase in anoxic biomass and\/or a decrease in nitrification. Once the methanol loading was decreased to around 10 g COD\/day, the anoxic pH read between 7.5 and 7.8. 28 F i g u r e 4.1: pH M e a s u r e m e n t s The anoxic pH was affected most likely by the result of the change in bicarbonate being pumped into the aerobic tank. Therefore, after the aerobic pH was increased the anoxic pH increased slightly by around 0.2 units, but then decreased. The opposite was observed when the aerobic pH was decreased but the anoxic pH stayed above 8.0, which signified that denitrification was still occurring. In general, the anoxic pH varied between 8.2 and 8.5. It was decided that the anoxic pH would not be controlled with chemicals as originally planned, due to: \u2022 A probable change in hydraulic retention times when the acid or base would be added to the anoxic tank \u2022 A possible adverse effect on denitrification \u2022 A cycle whereby a change in anoxic pH would cause the aerobic pH to change drastically and cause the pH of the recycle flow to be different than before the aerobic pH was changed. In other words, a stable pH in the system was very important, considering the size of the system. The change in aerobic pH was ruled out as being the factor that led to a decrease in ammonia oxidation during the second series of pH changes. It is worth noting that Hies (19.99) found that anoxic pH was affected considerably when the aerobic pH was varied, thus leading to destabilization in the Bardenpho system. 4.3 Aerobic pH Change The aerobic pH change was made twice, in two separate series, each consisting of the following sequence: pH 7.5 -\u00bb pH 8.0 -> pH 7.5 pH 7.0 30 The first series of pH changes occurred on day 211 (December 17th 2003), whereas the second series of pH changes was made on day 266 (February 10th 2004). The second series was undertaken in order to collect more data on nitrous oxide since, during the first series, data was collected only when the pH was decreased from 7.5 to 7.0. This author also wanted to confirm the changes in nitrite and nitrates that had been observed during the first series. A slight disturbance at the end of the first series of changes prevented a complete monitoring of the effects, as the pH was increased from pH 7.0 to 7.5. A second disturbance occurred during the second pH series that affected the results for steady state at pH 7. The system was revived by reducing the methanol loading to 20g COD\/d, reseeding and by not wasting for two days. Due to this disturbance, the results that were considered for nitrates and nitrites were those obtained a few days before steady state was properly established at pH 7 (day 298). The steady-state nitrous oxide values for pH 7 were obtained on days 310 and 311, after the main operating parameters (methanol load, SRT, MLSS) were re-established after the disturbance. The system was shut down on day 312 (March 27th, 2004) because of a scheduled power outage. Table 4.2 summarizes the main events that took place during the operation of the system. It may be referred to when visualizing Figures 4.2 to 4.13. One is urged to be careful in reading these figures. They may be a bit misleading since pH changes were sometimes made on the same day after the last sample was taken at the previous pH set point. Also, samples were not necessarily collected on the day that the pH changes were made and so they do not appear on the figures. Usually, samples were collected a day or two after the pH change was made, since it was expected that the pH change would cause disturbances in the system. Since it was not the aim of this project to measure the intensity of these disturbances, samples were not necessarily taken on the same day or the following day that the pH changes were made. 31 Table 4.2: Main Events Day Date Event 1 May 21st, 2003 System start-up with leachate. Clarifier recycling to aerobic tank. 15 . June 4th, 2003 Recycling to anoxic tank. Methanol addition (2.4 g COD\/d). 97 August 25th, 2003 First system failure* 139 October 6th, 2003 Second system failure* 211 December 17th, 2003 First series of pH changes, pH 7.5 to 8.0 226 January 1st, 2004 Decrease from pH 8.0 to pH 7.5 243 January 20th, 2004 Decrease from pH 7.5 to pH 7 253 January 28th, 2003 End of first series of pH changes, pH 7.0 to 7.5 266 February 10th, 2004 Second series of pH changes, pH 7.5 to 8.0 276 February 20th, 2004 Decrease from pH 8.0 to pH 7.5 292 March 7th, 2004 Decrease from pH 7.5 to pH 7.0 300 March 15th, 2004 System failure due to decreased ammonia loading 301 March 16th, 2004 Re-establishment of nitrification 310 March 25th, 2004 Re-establishment of steady state conditions as per table 4.1 312 March 27th, 2004 Steady state for pH 7, End of system operation * : System failure was manifested by a decrease in nitrification, which could only be reversed by decreasing the methanol loading, increasing air flow, re-positioning the clarifier recycle to the aerobic tank for 6 hours. Methanol addition was resumed once ammonia concentration in the aerobic tank was less than 5 mg\/L. Based on the results of Shiskowski (1995), it was evident that the cyclic pattern at steady state could change dramatically after 10 days, either due to differences in sampling techniques, or by changes in the composition of the leachate or by changes in loadings. Hence, it was decided not to wait for more than 15 days after steady state was achieved; otherwise, it would be difficult to determine whether the change in performance was due to the pH changes or simply due to the cyclic patterns. There was also the possibility of malfunctioning of the instruments and, 32 therefore, it was thought to be risky to wait for more than 15 days after steady state was judged to have been reached. Both series of pH changes were carried out when it was judged that the system was stable at pH 7.5; this was usually manifested by a steady cyclic variation in the main parameters. At times, pH changes were also made when there was a hint that the system had been disturbed. Disturbances were usually noticed by a sudden change of about 0.5mg\/L in DO measurements or it was judged to have occurred when the ammonium chloride flow had changed by 20mL\/day from previous daily flows. A 5% change in ammonia loading was estimated to be sufficient to change the cyclic pattern of aerobic nitrite and nitrate. Analytical results for ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate received a few days later confirmed these observations. During the second series of pH changes, experience showed that nitrous oxide was indicative of the level of nitrification. During steady state, a decrease in nitrous oxide indicated either of the following: \u2022 A decrease in nitrification, \u2022 An increase in biomass, or \u2022 the aerobic pH had increased. On the other hand, an increase in nitrous oxide pointed to the possibility of either an increase in ammonia loading or a decrease in aerobic pH. It was evident that it would be impossible for the main three parameters (i.e. nitrates, nitrites, and nitrous oxide) to behave in the same way and stabilize together. Experience showed that even minor disruptions required at least 2 to 5 days for these main parameters to stabilize and display a steady cyclic variation. 4.4 Performance Results Since some parameters, such as ammonia and methanol loading were not manipulated any further during steady state, their results are being presented in one figure for the entire duration of the 33 project. These parameters either did not vary significantly when the pH was changed or were considered less important during the interpretation of the pH changes. The summary in Table 4.1 can be referred to for the value of these parameters during the pH changes. Hence, only the data for aerobic nitrates, nitrite and nitrous oxide have two separate figures, one for each of the two series of pH changes. 4.4.1 Simulated Ammonia Concentration and Ammonia Loading The main target for this project was to maintain the flow of, and treat leachate, with a concentration of around l,200mg N\/L (see Figure 4.2). This necessitated the adjustment of the ammonium chloride concentration, depending on the raw leachate ammonia concentration. During the steady state period, which is basically the 10 to 15 day period before the pH was changed from 7.5 to 8.0, the leachate concentration was between 100 and 150mg N\/L. Since the saturation concentration of ammonium chloride is 287.6 g\/L at 20\u00b0C, it was decided to increase the flow of this chemical and decrease its concentration, to prevent any precipitate from clogging the tubes. The concentration of ammonium chloride was decreased from 215 mg\/L and, after the flow had been increased, it varied between 138 and 162 mg\/L when the pH changes were being made. For most of the steady state period and when the pH changes were made, the high ammonia concentration was within 50mg N\/L of the target. This variation was considered negligible in the anoxic tank, due to the 7:1 dilution effect from the recycle flow. The ammonia loading was around lOg N\/day during steady state. It is likely that the variation in ammonia loading was the main contributor to variation in the performance of the system during steady-state, thus making it difficult to judge and comment on the medium term effects of the pH changes. A drop in ammonia loading was the main cause of slight disturbance in the system at pH 7, during the second series of pH changes. 34 Simulated Leachate Ammonia (mg\/L) 4.4.2 Suspended Solids Levels The database for the entire study is plotted in Figures 4.3 and 4.4. When the process was started the mixed liquor suspended solids were around 2,000mg\/L in both reactors. Even though the target ammonia had been reached, it was only when the methanol loading reached its maximum amount did the volatile suspended solids reached a value of around 5,000mg\/L; this made the system more comparable with that of Shiskowski (1995). Since the VSS was still increasing on day 211 when the first pH change was made, the short-term effects of the pH change from pH 7.5 to 8.0 were ignored. However, the steady state data and observations at pH 8.0 (days 216 to 220) were considered to be valid. During start-up and throughout the first series of the pH changes, white precipitate was formed in the anoxic tank, but was removed by filtering the biomass with cheese cloth every week. However, the frequency of filtering was reduced during the second series of pH changes; the anoxic NOx was less than lmg N\/L and there was also concern about disturbing the system and causing excess methanol to carry over into the aerobic tank. During the second series of pH changes, fine particles of black precipitate of sulphides was noticed in the leachate tank, possibly contributing to varying levels mixed liquor suspended solids. This type of precipitate was not easily removed by the cheese cloth. However, after a slight system failure, which was manifested by a drop in the nitrification rate, the precipitate was almost non-existent. The 30-minute jar test was, in general, a good indicator of the health of the biomass. From start-up and throughout the first series of pH changes, the jar test reading was around 400 to 450mL\/L. During the pH changes of 7.5 to 8.0 and to 7.5 in the second series, the leachate was contaminated with black precipitate and the settling of the sludge was around 750 to 950mL\/L. After the disturbance, the system was re-seeded and a new batch of leachate that was not contaminated with sulphides was secured; it was later observed that the settling had improved to its previous level. Leaving the measuring cylinder undisturbed for up to 24 hours did not result in sludge rising to the surface, thus signifying that anoxic denitrification and production of nitrogen was insignificant in the clarifier. 36 Concentration (mg\/L) era s \u2022 B \u00a9 \u00a9_ a O o B B <\u2022*\u2022 \u00bbi 65 o B Aerobic pH Concentration (mg\/L) 3 TO' c rt \u00ab o C\/5 o o 9 rt rt B ta 5\" B OO Aerobic pH 4.4.3 Methanol Loading and Anoxic N O x Concentrations Based on past UBC research, an attempt was made to reach similar loadings of methanol; hence a value of 35gCOD\/day was targeted. However, due to an increase in the flow of methanol, the loading eventually varied between 40 and 44g COD\/day (see Figure 4.5). At this loading, the anoxic nitrite was almost completely removed and the anoxic NOx values were around 5mg N\/L at steady state, when the first series of pH changes was undertaken. During the second series of pH changes, the nitrite and NOx was below lmg N\/L at steady states. This indicated that the system was able to sustain almost 100% denitrification, despite the change in aerobic pH and a slight change in anoxic pH. 100% denitrification does not correspond to 100% of the NOx that is formed in the aerobic zone, since some leaves the system in the effluent. To achieve a higher level of NOx removal, a second stage denitrification tank would be required, as performed by Shiskowski (1995) in previous studies using the Bardenpho set-up. Loadings above 45g\/day might cause methanol carry over into the aerobic tank and upset nitrification or might cause anaerobic conditions in the anoxic zone. Indication of the latter was noticed during days 254 to 255 (but samples were not collected) when the methanol loading accidentally reached 47 g\/day; this caused the ORP to reach values of about -300mV, instead of around -200mV that was normally observed, and pH of 7.9 in the anoxic tank. It is unlikely that methanol was the direct and only cause of the disturbance of the system during the second series of pH changes, which progressively led to an increase in ammonia in the effluent and subsequent failure within 24 hours. However, full nitrification was regained two days after the system was reseeded. Wasting was also discontinued during the two days and the methanol was decreased to 20g COD\/day. Such a good and immediate response shows that, on a large scale, should an SRT of between 20 to 30 days be adopted, the biomass be maintained in excess of 6,000mg\/L and the target anoxic denitrification is 80%, system failure would easily be dealt with, especially if the system consisted of an equalization basin for the incoming leachate. 39 During the first series of pH changes, the phosphorus concentration in the anoxic tank was twice that in the aerobic tank, which was an expected result. During the second pH series, this observation was reversed, probably because the anoxic methanol loading was much higher during the second pH series. This observation is also being made in methanol-induced denitrification of domestic wastewaters at the UBC pilot plant, and is contrary to what is observed during denitrification by domestic wastewater without an external carbon source. At this time, there is no explanation offered for these results. 40 Figure 4.5: Methanol Loading and N O x Concentrations es O o u \u00a9 Q O U 100 o o s 183 188 192 199 203 208 212 216 220 226 230 235 237 241 245 249 253 263 267 272 276 281 285 289 294 298 302 307 D a y 41 4.4.4 Anoxic Ammonia and Free Ammonia In the anoxic tank, the ammonia concentrations were basically seven to eight times less than the feed ammonia concentration (see Figure 4.6). This is due to the dilution effects of recycle flow, which contained basically no dissolved ammonia (<2 mg N\/L). The free ammonia was between 8 and 25 mg\/L but, despite being at such a high level, it did not appear to interfere with denitrification. Between 2 to 10% of the incoming ammonia is removed in the anoxic tank, either for assimilation for growth or by anaerobic oxidation (Schmidt et al., 2001). These percentages were confirmed in this study. 4.4.5 Aerobic Ammonia and Free Ammonia The basic data is shown in Figure 4.7. It was evident that, upon reaching a high concentration of suspended solids and under continuous aeration, the system was able to bring the ammonia concentration in the aerobic tank to below lmg\/L and the free ammonia to less than 0.01, during the series of pH changes. This allowed free ammonia to be below concentrations at which it normally affects nitrification, which is 0.1 mg\/L (Anthonisen et al., 1976). When the aerobic pH was changed, the ammonia concentrations were always below 5mg\/L and mostly less than 2 mg\/L; hence, it prevented free ammonia from reaching a concentration at which it might cause adverse effects. It is possible that, due to the amount of air being supplied, any increase in free ammonia would quickly be vented from the system before it affected nitrification. Since free ammonia is regarded as being the main substrate for ammonia oxidizers (Grady et al., 1998), the increase in free ammonia during the pH changes is readily taken up by the cells. During the second pH change when the system was at pH 8, the off gas from the aerobic tank was pumped through a 5% sulphuric acid solution for over 24 hours, on two occasions. The solutions were then analyzed for dissolved ammonia. It was estimated that the amount of ammonia being stripped from the aerobic zone was less than 0.1% of the 10.2kg ammonia-N entering the system each day. Hence, it can be proposed that the nitrification process is responsible for most of the removal of ammonia\/ammonium in the aerobic tank. This was confirmed by considering a mass balance; this involved the ammonia concentration in the 42 influent (or more precisely in the anoxic tank because of the dilution effect of the recycle), the oxidized nitrogen species NOx in the effluent and the nitrous oxide in the off-gas. Since the effluent solids concentration was over a lOOmg\/L, the T K N was measured on two occasions during steady-states and by calculating the mass balance, it was determined that ammonia removal is mostly by biological nitrification, and not by ammonia stripping. This means that the ammonia entering the anoxic tank was mainly being oxidized to nitrites, nitrates, etc and almost none was lost as ammonia gas into the atmosphere. 43 Figure 4.6: Anoxic Ammonia and Free Ammonia Day 44 Figure 4.7: Ammonia and Free Ammonia in Aerobic Zone 45 4.4.6 Bicarbonate Loading and Nitrification Bicarbonate addition in the aerobic tank was indicative of the level of nitrification and a drop in consumption was noticed when nitrification failures occurred (Table 4.3). The theoretical alkalinity destruction should be 7.1g CaC0 3 \/g N - N H 4 + (Halling-Serensen and Jorgensen, 1993). In the first pH series, the values obtained were 6.13g CaC0 3 \/g N - N H 4 + at pH 8.0 and 7.48g CaC0 3\/g N - N H 4 at pH 7.0. During the second series, the values were 8.5g CaC0 3 \/g N - N H 4 + and 11.3g CaC0 3 \/g N - N H 4 + at pH 8 and 7, respectively. The observed increase as the pH dropped could have been linked to an increase in nitrification, which is sometimes observed when the pH is decreased (Gapes et al., 2003). The high alkalinity: N H 4 + ratio during the start of the second pH series could be linked to the presence of sulphides in the leachate. Sulphide is slightly acidic and so are its products which are formed during oxidation, namely sulfurous (H2SO3) and sulfuric acid (H2S0 4). The new batch of leachate that was used, after the aerobic pH had been reduced to 7, was not contaminated with sulphide precipitate; however, it could not be confirmed whether the absence of the sulphide precipitate reduced the alkalinity consumption because re-seeding was performed, the SRT was a bit higher, and wasting was not performed for two days. 46 Table 4.3: Major Parameters at Steady States and Other Major Events Day Phase Event\/Steady state N H 4 load NaHC0 3 load Alk:NH 4 + DO C H 3 O H load SNR SDR 97 Start-up First system failure 8,716 24.4 5.5 20.9 139 Start-up Second system failure 7,265 56.9 3.4 26.1 210 1st series pH 7.5 10,128 51.0 6.3 2.4 40.6 0.23 0.38 222 1st series pH8.0 10,128 73.3 6.2 2.9 42.9 0.26 0.46 243 1st series pH 7.5 9,731 53.6 6.1 1.8 42.8 0.18 0.30 253 1st series pH7.0 9,611 46.9 7.5 2.1 43.9 0.14 0.22 265 2 n d series pH 7.5 10,050 50.3 9.1 2.1 39.9 0.12 0.20 276 2 n d series pH8.0 10,175 59.7 8.5 2.3 44.4 0.13 0.23 292 2 n d series pH 7.5 10,458 35.6 10.2 2.0 39.9 0.08 0.15 300 2 n d series System disturbance due to decreased ammonia loading 8,521 38.5 2.6 34 .2 W 301 2 n d series Re-establishment of nitrification 310 2 n d series Steady state conditions as per table 4.1 except for N0 2\" and N03\", pH 7.0 10,071(2) 35.6W 11.3(2) 2.0 ( 2 ) 35.6 ( 1 X 2 ) 0.07(2} 0.12W (1): Decreased the day before because of suspected disturbance in the system; (2): Data obtained on day 298 before the disturbance on day 300 instead of day 310. Key: SNR = specific nitrification rate; SDR = specific denitrification rate. Units: Ammonia load = g N\/d; NaHC0 3 load = g CaC03\/d; Alk:NH4+ ratio = g CaC03\/g N; DO = mg\/1; Methanol load = g COD\/d; SNR, SDR = mg N\/mg VSS\/d. 47 4.4.7 Aerobic p H Control and Alkalinity Loading Increasing the aerobic pH was undertaken with the same bicarbonate solution, rather than with a stronger alkali such as NaOH; hence, during the first 48 hours, the bicarbonate addition was considerably higher than other periods. Similarly, when the aerobic pH was decreased, it was done so by changing the setting on the pH controller. This prevented the addition of bicarbonate until the lower pH setting was reached. Therefore, during the first 48 hours after the pH was allowed to decrease, bicarbonate was at its minimal during this research project. 4.4.8 Nitrification Two main assumptions were made during the calculation of coefficients related to nitrification. The first assumption is that in the anoxic zone, ammonia removal occurs only by assimilation, despite the fact that some oxidation could be involved. In the aerobic reactor, it was assumed that the removal of ammonia by air stripping, assimilation and that leaving the reactor were negligible (<10%), so as to make the calculated values related to nitrification remain on the conservative side. It can be estimated that, at the pH for which the system was operated, the percentage of free ammonia was less than 5% of the total ammonia-N that was present in the reactors. It is possible that a decrease in nitrification with time could also be due to an increase in heterotrophs and a subsequent increase in assimilation, rather than an inhibition of nitrifiers. 4.4.9 Unit Removal Rates It was noticeable throughout the experiment that the system was capable of maintaining high levels of ammonia removal of over 99%, even when the aerobic pH was changed (refer to appendix C under column \"% N H 4 Removal\"). This demonstrates that the condition under which the system was operated is promising for full-scale treatment. It is possible that the added bicarbonate provided sufficient alkalinity and provided enough buffering capacity so that the system remained stable during the consumption of alkalinity and production of protons during nitrification. 48 Several other researches have found complete nitrification of high ammonia wastewaters over a wide range of pH. Ruiz et al. (2002) had an influent concentration of 610 mg N - N H 4 + \/ L and a nitrogen loading rate of 3.3 kg N-NH 4 + \/m 3 .d and managed to have 98% conversion of ammonia. Nitrite conversion was 65% of the incoming ammonia-nitrogen. There was no influence on nitrification between pH 7.85 and 8.95. Nitrification was inhibited above pH 9.05 and below pH 6.35. In this current project, both the specific denitrification rates (SDR) and the specific nitrification rates (SNR) were found to decrease during the first pH series as the pH decreased (Table 4.3). The SDR decreased from about 0.46 mg N\/mg VSS\/d at an aerobic pH 8.0 to 0.22 mg N\/mg VSS\/d at a pH 7.0; whereas the SNR decreased from 0.26 to 0.14 mg N\/mg VSS\/d. During the second series, the SNR decreased from 0.13 to 0.07mg N\/mg VSS\/d and the SDR decreased from 0.23 to 0.12mg N\/mg VSS\/d. The decrease in SDR and SNR is the consequence of the decrease in aerobic NOx, since the decrease in nitrates was higher than the increase in nitrites. These decreases are mainly due to the decrease in aerobic NOx (nitrites + nitrates), thus also pointing to the possibility that nitrogen was being lost from the system in a gaseous form, such as N 2 0 , as the pH was lowered. By using a post-anoxic system, Carrera et al. (2003) found that using 60% methanol in a mixed carbon source, with a wastewater containing 5,000mg N H 4 + - N \/ L , the average nitrification rate was about 0.2lg N-NH 4 + \/g VSS\/d and the ammonium removal percentage was 90 to 100%. The average and maximum denitrification rates were 0.17\u00b10.06 g NOx-N\/g VSS\/d and 0.11 g NOx-N\/g VSS\/d, respectively. The COD\/N ratio was 3.9\u00b10.5g COD\/g N, whereas the VSS was around 4,000 to 6,000mg\/L and the VSS\/TSS ratio was 0.4. However, these authors had to use a long HRT of 1.3 days, compared to an aerobic HRT of only 3.9 hours (0.15 days) in this project. Their two-sludge system was of the sequence aerobic-clarifier-anoxic-clarifier. The high nitrogen wastewater was added to the aerobic tank for nitrification. A COD waste containing ethanol (1,300 to l,500mg\/L COD) and other external carbon sources (methanol or ethanol) were added to the anoxic tank. The presence of ethanol in the COD waste could explain why they found that the MDR with ethanol (0.64g NOx-N\/g VSS\/d) was six times higher than that with methanol 49 (0.1 lg NOx-N\/g VSS\/d). However, their research basically showed that high ammonia wastewater can be treated by providing the correct conditions and substrates. In this current research, the system was also able to maintain a high level of anoxic denitrification when the aerobic pH was altered (Figure 4.8). The anoxic denitrification (DN) rate was at least 95% during steady state. An anoxic denitrification rate of 69% was recorded on day 228 after the aerobic pH had been decreased from 8 to 7.5. This could be due to an increase in anoxic nitrite concentrations rather than just a change in anoxic pH (Figure 4.8). The slight change in anoxic pH did not cause any substantial perturbation and the system was able to maintain its original denitrification rates after 2 to 5 days. Decreasing the methanol loading before changing the aerobic pH was not undertaken, so that the full effects of the pH changes could be properly observed. It would be expected that, in a full-scale treatment, methanol loading would be lower than in this laboratory project and the effluent NOx would be further denitrified by a second stage denitrification process, involving either methanol and\/or some other carbon source. 50 Figure 4.8: Effect of Aerobic p H on Anoxic Nitrite and Anoxic Denitrification Rate in Anoxic Tank Day Key: DN=Denitrification 4.4.10 Effect of pH Changes on Free Ammonia The initial concern during the process start-up was whether or not the system would be able to bring the aerobic ammonia concentration to a level such that the free ammonia would not be an issue, with regards to its possible inhibitory effects on nitrification. In this case, the aerobic and effluent ammonia concentrations were kept below lmg\/L, compared to more than 50mg\/L in the two systems that Shiskowski (1995) operated. It is possible that additional aeration or DO measurement could have been a major factor for the differences in effluent ammonia concentration for these two studies. It was noticed that, when the inverted DO probe was kept near the surface, the DO measurement was two to three times higher than when it was at least 2cm below the surface. This might have led Shiskowski (1995) to assume that there was enough air being supplied to the aerobic reactor, hence keeping him from further increasing the air supply. As such, the nitrification may have been reduced when the methanol loading was increased. In this project, after the second system failure, the rate of methanol loading was less than 5g COD\/day every 10 days. Unfortunately, the major disadvantage of the increase in air supply was the shearing effect on the floes, thus causing poor settling in the clarifier and the subsequent elevated levels of solids in the effluent. In this project, it was found that the free ammonia concentration in the aerobic basin remained below 0.04mg\/L (see Figure 4.7) during the series of pH changes, except when the system failed during the second pH series, where a value of 0.34 mg\/L was recorded. This concentration is well below the lOmg\/L proposed for Nitrosomonas (Anthonisen et al., 1976) but not the 0.1 mg\/L for Nitrobacter (Gerardi, 2002). It is, therefore, possible to suggest that free ammonia was not an issue in the aerobic tank when the aerobic pH was varied, except possibly when the disturbance occurred during the second series of pH changes; however, the main cause, then, was a drop in ammonia loading, leading to a decrease in anoxic NOx and a subsequent carry over of methanol into the aerobic tank. 52 4.4.11 Effect of pH Changes on Free Nitrous Acid At steady state, the ratio of nitrite to NOx in the aerobic tank was less than 1. Nitrite concentrations varied between 20 and 70 mg\/L. Free nitrous acid was below 0.02 mg\/L (see Figure 4.9), except for days 245 to 253 when the pH was decreased to 7.0 and concentrations of up to 0.05 mg\/L were measured. During the second series, the highest values recorded were 0.04mg\/L on days 294 to 298. It can be argued that these concentrations are well below the proposed values of 1 mg\/L (Gerardi, 2002), 0.22 mg\/L by Anthonisen et al. (1976) and 0.13 mg\/L by Abeling and Seyfried (1992) at which inhibition of nitrification is observed. However, the concentrations are more than doubled each time the pH is decreased and this may be significant enough to cause an adverse effect of free nitrous acid on nitrification. An increase in free nitrous acid concentrations was found to: \u2022 Increase significantly the amount of nitrite, and that of nitrates, to a lesser extent, during the initial few days after the pH change is made \u2022 Increase the concentrations of nitrite in the medium term \u2022 Decrease the amount of nitrates in the medium term An increase in free nitrous acid also increased the amount of nitrous oxide during the first few days after the pH change was made, but then the gas production resumed to almost the same level of production, regardless of the pH. As the organisms try to overcome inhibition when the pH is decreased, nitrite oxidizers may be using nitrous acid for the production of nitrates, but at a lower rate than when nitrite was being used. The increase in nitrite supports the fact that nitrite is not being taken up as fast as it was when the aerobic pH was higher. The implication of an increase in free nitrous acid on the accumulation of nitrite in the extracellular environment, when pH is lowered, is well documented in the literature. However, the effect that the acid has on nitrous oxide formation is less well understood. More information on the effects of the acid on the production of nitrous oxide is given in Section 4.4.13. 53 Figure 4.9: Free Nitrous Acid 54 4.4.12 Effect of pH Changes on Nitrate and Nitrite During steady state, the levels of anoxic NOx were less than 5mg\/L (Figure 4.10) and that for nitrite was less than 1 mg\/L (Figure 4.11). During the pH changes, the anoxic NOx was increased to concentrations above 30 and 63mg\/L (see Figure 4.10). Since the aerobic NOx (Figure 4.12) also increased immediately after the aerobic pH was changed, there were concerns that this increase was due to NOx carry over from the anoxic to the aerobic tank. There was also concern about anoxic nitrite carry over from the anoxic tank to the aerobic tank and causing the free nitrous acid to increase in the aerobic tank, thus also interfering with nitrification. Therefore, it was decided that during the second series of pH changes, the anoxic NOx and nitrite would be kept as close to lmg\/L and 0.5mg\/L (Figure 4.13), respectively, even if this would increase the risk of methanol carry over into the aerobic tank. Table 4.4 summarizes the changes in aerobic nitrite concentrations with respect to nitrate concentrations in the aerobic tank, when the pH changes were made. During the first series, the ratio of nitrite to nitrates in the aerobic tank was around 0.16 to 0.6 at pH 8 and 7, respectively; in other words, the nitrite concentrations were between 6 to 2 times less than nitrates. During the second pH series, the ratio increased from 0.26 to 9.09 as the pH decreased, meaning that the nitrite was 4 times less and ten times more abundant than nitrates at pH 8 and 7, respectively. The high ratio for pH 7 during the second series is shown, even though it does not represent the steady state at that pH. Despite the difference in production rates of nitrites and nitrates, there could be a lag time between the production of nitrite and that of nitrate; therefore, care should be taken when interpreting such values. Table 4.4: Ratio of Nitrites to Nitrates in the Aerobic Tank Steady State pH 8.0 7.5 7.0 First Series of Aerobic pH changes 0.16 0.26 0.60 Second Series of Aerobic pH changes 0.26 1.57 9.09U) (1): Value before disturbance on day 300 55 Concentration (mg\/L) o o o o o o o o o o o c * i o o o u ) c ^ c \u00bb o L j L \/ i b o o ON Figure 4.11: Anoxic Nitrite Figure 4.12: Aerobic Nitrite and Nitrate During the 1st pH Series 58 Figure 4.13: Aerobic Nitrite and Nitrate During the 2nd p H Series 59 The observation for the nitrate and nitrite concentration in the aerobic tank, as the pH was changed, was one of the main activities for this project. Based on the first series of pH changes it was possible that conditions would not be similar between the acclimatization pH of 7.5 and when the pH was reduced from 8.0 to 7.5. It may be more appropriate that a comparison should be made within the following sequence: pH8.0 > pH7.5 > pH7.0 In other words data (e.g. loading, removal rates) for the first pH 7.5 in the entire sequence: pH7.5 > pH8.0 > pH7.5 > pH 7.0 should only be referenced to ensure that nitrification and denitrification are still proceeding at their maximum levels observed when the system was being acclimated. 60 4.4.13 Effect of pH Changes on Nitrous Oxide The data for both pH changes is shown in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. For pH values above 6, Thorn and Sorensen (1996) found that nitrous oxide in their anoxic tank was almost undetectable, as their system maintained a denitrification rate of around 0.6 to lmg N\/g VSS\/hr. Hence, it is likely that in this system, most of the nitrous oxide would emanate from the aerobic zone and there should be little concern for the dissolved gas entering the aerobic zone in the anoxic overflow. The measurement of nitrous oxide was done by using a lOOul syringe. The results collected each day were then averaged and used to calculate the amount emitted each day to produce the profile as shown in Figures 4.14 and 4.15. Error bars of 0.35kg N20-N\/day are shown and they correspond roughly to the standard deviation during steady state. It is possible that the deviation could be due to either the sampling technique or the fact that the system was unstable, with respect to the production of nitrous oxide. During the first series samples were taken only when the pH was reduced from 7.5 to 8.0. On the fourth day of these measurements, the column of the gas chromatograph was replaced by a shorter one, since the original one was producing erratic spectrums. Fewer samples were taken each day during the first series of pH changes, than during the second series. For the second series of pH changes, at least 10 samples were taken throughout a 6 to 8 hour period during the day. Since the GC had other users, calibration curves were done daily to ensure accuracy. Samples were not collected after the daily aerobic wasting, since this led to around 0.2 to 0.4 units of increase from the set point pH. 61 Figure 4.14: Variation in Nitrous Oxide Production During the 1 s t p H Series -\u2022\u2014 Daily Production - * - p H .8 Note: Error bars of 0.35kg N20-N\/day are shown and they correspond roughly to the standard deviation during steady state. Figure 4.15: Variation in Nitrous Oxide Production During the 2\" p H Series \"E 4.5 <\u2014*\u2014 \u2022 \u00bb \u2022 \u00bb \u2022 ^ \u00bb \u00bb \u00bb \u00bb \u00bb Dairy Production (kg N20 -N) pH 8.0 Q % fik <Q % \\<d ^ \\N \\6 \\% rfi r$ rfr rfc nfi o \u00a3 ^ T,fo >$i & & & 6,6 fc% Day Note: Error bars of 0.35kg N20-N\/day are shown and they correspond roughly to the standard deviation during steady state. 63 The results indicate that, when the pH was increased from 7.5 to 8.0, there was a decrease in nitrous oxide production during the first three to four days after the change was made. However, after five to six days, the production was similar to pH 7.5. When the pH was reduced from 8.0 to 7.5 and down to 7.0, the production increased during the first few days, but then returned to about the same level as pH 7.5. The steady state for nitrous oxide production at pH 7, during the second series, was considered on day 312, even though it was evident that the aerobic nitrites and nitrates were considerably different from the values obtained before the disturbance. Interestingly, the nitrite concentration was 25 times lower on day 312 (2mg\/L) than on day 298 (50mg\/L), when the system was about to stabilize and yet the nitrous oxide production on both days are quite similar. This might indicate that, in high ammonia wastes, high nitrous oxide production is more related to another parameter, apart from nitrite accumulation or free nitrous acid. It is important to note that, at steady state, the amount of the gas being evolved was sensitive to slight pH changes. This observation was made whenever bicarbonate was pumped into the system as the pH reached the set point (7.0, 7.5, and 8.0). This caused the pH to increase by 0.02 to 0.05 units, since the bicarbonate was at almost saturated concentrations (80g\/L). Whenever bicarbonate was pumped into the aerobic tank, the nitrous oxide decreased to around 30 to 50% of its original amount. This may explain why, during the first series of pH changes, there was a decrease in gas production on day 5 (Figure 4.14) since samples were taken shortly after bicarbonate had been pumped into the system. Therefore, based on this observation, after the fifth day during the pH of 7.5 to 8.0 of the second series of pH changes, it was decided that samples would be taken 4 to 5 minutes after bicarbonate had been pumped into the aerobic tank and after the pH had decreased and almost reached its set point. The pH controller was also affected by static, whenever an individual entered the temperature controlled room; thus, there was speculation on the possibility, that during the day, the behavior of the pH controller would be different than when the laboratory was not being used at night. To address this concern and to have more confidence in the data, measurements made during the day 64 were compared to the first few samples collected between 8 and 10 a.m., when there was less human activity in the laboratory. Samples taken earlier, from the first to the fourth day, seemed to have not been affected by bicarbonate addition, probably because no samples were taken immediately after the pH controller was adjusting the pH to its set point. At that time, it was generally accepted that, to remain consistent throughout the experiment, gas samples were to be taken only when the pH was near the set point (even if it was not yet known at that time that nitrous oxide production is sensitive to the addition of bicarbonate addition or to a drop in pH in as little as 0.05 units). The short-term and medium term observations made in this project may indicate that: \u2022 In the short term, an increase in free nitrous acid interferes with nitrous oxide production, but a decrease in the acid enhances the production of the gas. This may suggest that nitrous oxide is produced by organisms using either nitrite or free nitrous acid as their substrate. When the pH is decreased, and as a consequence the free nitrous acid is increased, the subsequent increase in nitrous oxide may be due to the fact that the uptake of free nitrous acid and its conversion to nitrous oxide is faster than that of nitrite. Conversely, when the pH is increased, a decrease in free nitrous acid means that organisms using the acid are affected and their contribution to gas production are affected. After a few days, these organisms overcome the inhibition by the acid and start reusing nitrite instead of the acid and that helps return the nitrous oxide to its normal steady state value. \u2022 Free nitrous acid should not be considered as an inhibitor to the production of nitrous oxide since, in the short term, its increase leads to an increase in gas production and vice versa. Also, in the medium term, the effects are not apparent, since gas production regains normal values for the three different pH compared to nitrite and nitrate production. 65 In this project the concentration of free nitrous acid (FNA) was well below values that have been thought to be inhibitory. Regardless, it may be possible that even the doubling of FNA (say from 0.01 to 0.02mg\/L) may be sufficient to have an effect on nitrite accumulation and nitrous oxide production. 4.4.13.1 Response of Nitrous Oxide Production to Minute Changes in p H The aim of allowing minute changes in aerobic pH was to investigate whether it was possible to immediately reverse nitrous oxide production. Figures 4.16 shows the effect of first allowing an increase in pH and then trying to decrease it and observing the effect that this has on nitrous oxide production. This was done by changing the set point pH on the controller. The concentration measured before this investigation was 530 mg\/L. The results show that there was some difficulty in decreasing the pH on the first part of the figure as the system starts to decrease from 8.04 to 8.01; however, it is clear that a decrease in pH led to an increase in nitrous oxide production. Upon the addition of about 200ml of bicarbonate and allowing the pH to reach 8.17, the concentration of nitrous oxide did not decrease immediately, most likely because the system had already been affected by the increase of 8.05 made earlier or because of the alkaline anoxic overflow. It is clear that the system did try to increase its nitrous oxide production, possibly due to the local effects that nitrification has on bicarbonate consumption. 66 Figure 4.16: Effects of Increasing and Decreasing p H on N 2 0 Production at Steady State of p H 8.0 Figure 4.17: Effects of Decreasing and Increasing p H on N 2 0 Production at Steady State of p H 8.0 Figure 4.17 shows the effect of allowing the aerobic pH to slowly decrease to 7.9, and then allowing it to increase, by re-setting the controller to 8.0. As the pH decreases, the nitrous oxide increases and as the pH is increased, the concentration of nitrous oxide is decreased. This confirmed the ease of increasing the aerobic pH after decreasing it, compared to increasing and attempting to decrease it. The concentration of nitrous oxide production before this investigation was carried out was found to be around 550 mg\/L. The remarks that can be made after undertaking these investigations can be summarized as follows: \u2022 Small deviations in set point pH have an immediate impact on nitrous oxide concentration and can cause a difference of at least 100 mg\/L compared to the average concentration at the set point pH. \u2022 The effect of a minor change in pH is reversible and immediate, hence implying that the inhibition or enhancement in nitrous oxide production also occurs immediately. This might suggest that the complex that is formed during the inhibition or enhancement, (if such a complex exists), is easily formed or dissociated. It can also be suggested that the transport mechanism(s) involved in nitrous oxide production is also easily reversed or interrupted. The main concern is whether the measurement of nitrous oxide could be useful for monitoring disruptions in nitrification in a continuous flow system, since maintaining steady state is more difficult. Also, based on the experience gathered during this project, one would have to use robust pH probes and ensure that they are responsive to slight deviations in pH. However, it can be suggested that it may be useful to find out whether this sensitivity to pH change exists after long-term adaptations to a particular pH or to a higher SRT. These investigations were subsequently repeated at the pH set point of 7.0 but basically, the same observations were made. The database was not presented, due to the limited number of samples collected. 69 4.5 Summary of the Effects of p H Changes on Nitrates, Nitrites and Nitrous Oxide Tables 4.5 and 4.6 summarize the concentration of the three main parameters that were most important in this project, namely: nitrates, nitrites and nitrous oxide in the aerobic tank during the first and second series of pH changes, respectively. The values represent only one data set, when the system was judged to be at steady state. It was decided not to wait for more than 15 days because of the effects that changes in one variable (e.g. loading) may have on the three parameters. Table 4.5: Summary for First Series of pH Changes Day Steady state N0 2\" (mg N\/L) N0 3\" (mg N\/L) N 2 0 (kgN\/d) 210 pH 7.5 57.5 74 NP 222 pH8.0 25.6 156 NP 243 pH7.5 29.3 111 2.0 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 253 pH 7.0 38 63 2.1 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 Key: NP=Not performed Note: Error of \u00b10.35 N 2 0 (kg N\/d) is an approximation and is based on the standard deviation that was calculated during steady state. 70 Table 4.6: Summary for Second Series of pH Changes Day Steady state\/Event NCV (mg N\/L) N0 3\" (mg N\/L) N 2 0 (kg N\/d) 265 pH 7.5 31.9 54 2.5 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 276 pH8.0 22.8 87 1.8 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 292 pH 7.5 41.1 26 2.3 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 300 System disturbance due to decreased ammonia loading 301 Re-establishment of nitrification 310 Re-establishment of steady state conditions as per table 4.1 except for NCV and NO3\" 311 pH7.0 50 ( 1 ) 6 ( 1 ) 2.9 \u00b1 0 . 3 5 (1): Measured on day 298 before disturbance Note: Error of \u00b10.35 N 2 0 (kg N\/d) is an approximation and is based on the standard deviation that was calculated during steady state. The nitrite and nitrate concentrations may have been different for the two series of pH changes due to a difference in ammonia loading, rather than an increase in methanol loading or an increase in solids concentrations. It might also be speculated that the first series of pH changes had caused the biomass to be more efficient in the removal of nitrate and nitrite. Since the MLSS concentration was stable from day 222 onwards, we can assume that the difference is not linked to an increase in biomass. The most important comment to make about the pH changes is that as the pH decreases, nitrite concentration increases and nitrate decreases. One of the possible explanations to describe the nitrite accumulation is provided in Grady and Lim (1980), where it is graphically depicted that Nitrosomonas maintains a steady optimal nitrification rate of 0.58 mg N oxidized\/mg TKN\/hr at pH values of 7 to 8, whereas the rate for Nitrobacter decreases from 1.7 to lmg N oxidized\/mg 71 and the lower production of nitrates in this project are possibly linked to the inhibition of Nitrobacter. The exact cause of the accumulation could be related to inhibitory effects of FNA and possibly other agents, such as nitrous oxide gas itself, since the substrates or end-products of one enzyme is sometimes an inhibitor to another enzyme or even the enzyme itself. The change in nitrous oxide production is not significant at different pH values. At steady state, the percentage of the incoming ammonia that is converted to nitrous oxide was calculated to be 20%. Pahl et al. (1993) also found that by using labeled nitrogen isotope 1 5 N , 20% of the incoming ammonia in pig slurry was released as nitrous oxide. It is possible that the production of nitrous oxide is produced as an intermediate during the oxidation of nitrite to nitrate. This claim can be made based on observations from another research with labeled nitrate (NOV 1 5 N), by Beline et al. (2001). During that study, it was found that, when nitrate production was prevented by controlled aeration in a simultaneous nitrification-denitrification system, the major source of nitrous oxide was denitrification. However, when high levels of aeration (DO=3.8mg\/L) were applied, nitrous oxide production was high; thus it was proposed that, during nitrification, nitrous oxide is linked to nitrate production, rather than with nitrite production. The authors suggested that the control of aeration may be the key parameter in controlling nitrous oxide emission in high ammonia wastewaters. However, this is contradictory to what Okayasu et al. (1997) suggested, when they found that low DO produces higher levels of nitrous oxide. It is also interesting that the NOx (nitrites + nitrates) concentration at pH 8.0 was much greater than at 7.0. This suggests that the system is losing nitrogen as the pH decreases. It may be suggested that nitrogen is being lost in an oxidized gaseous form, possibly as nitrous oxide or nitric oxide (NO), or even nitrogen dioxide (NO2). However, in this project, the calculation of such a precise amount of the extra oxidized gases was not possible, due to the wide variations in nitrous oxide. 72 Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 5.1 General Comments It is difficult to assign a period during which a biological system can be said to be at steady state. This is made even more difficult when the loadings vary, as was the case for ammonia loading in this study. The major concern in this work is that denitrification was not maintained long enough before the pH changes were made. However, this issue was downplayed, since the effects of pH on the first series were considered after pH 8 (day 222) was reached, (when the biomass concentration was stable) and not pH 7 (day 210), (when it was observed that the biomass was still increasing). Thus, the biomass had been subjected to the maximum methanol dosage for almost 20 days (2 SRTs). It was also observed that a distinct change occurred in the important parameters, namely nitrite, nitrate, and nitrous oxide, each time the pH change was manipulated. A second major concern relates to the length of the steady state period. In the first pH series, only the NOx data were referred to as well as the bicarbonate consumption, to define the steady state period. In the second series, the nitrous oxide was also taken into account, and upon noticing that the gas was stabilizing, the pH was changed. The main reason for not waiting more than 5 days was due to the high sensitivity of the system to parameters such as ammonia loading. It has been reported that nitrite accumulation is reversible, as the system adapts to inhibition by free ammonia or free nitrous acid on the nitrification process (Yang et al., 2003). However, recovery is longer as the inhibitor concentration increases. The objective of this research did not include studying the long term effects of pH on the three main parameters. By considering the numerous possible biochemical conversions in a complex system (such as a bioreactor in which the organisms compete for the same substrate and where the organisms' sensitivity is such that even the substrates and products of their enzymes can inhibit the enzymes themselves or another enzyme), then it is reasonable to expect cyclic patterns as the enzymes are 73 activated and de-activated. It is also important to note that one particular organism may have more than one type of enzyme and that they metabolize differently under different conditions. The previous UBC research may have not been greatly affected by variations in mixed liquor solids and loadings; furthermore, the accuracy in pH measurements may have not been an issue in these experiments. It may be that changes in SRT, recycle ratios and temperature have large \"buffer areas\" compared to pH. In other words a slight change in pH can have more consequences compared to a unit change in SRT, temperature and recycle ratios. In this project, the main intention was to try to monitor the changes in the main three nitrogen compounds, rather than observe whether the system can simply sustain itself when the pH was altered; hence, the reason why the system was maintained at almost 100% anoxic denitrification and aerobic nitrification, despite the risk of disturbance. The sensitivity of the system to pH was apparent, even when the pH had only changed by 0.1 units from the previous set point to the other. For example, when the pH was allowed to drop from 7.5 to 7.0, the nitrous oxide had already increased by 50% when pH 7.4 was reached (after about one hour). It was also observed that the system was disturbed when wasting was done, since this involved reducing the volume in the aerobic tank. This led to an increase in pH, mostly due to the overflow from the anoxic tank rather than air stripping of carbon dioxide. During such periods, (which lasted about 3 to 5 hours each day), the levels of nitrous oxides were found to be around 50% less than before the wasting was done. This shows that any continuous deviation from the set point of aerobic pH is sufficient to disturb the system and make subtle changes in one parameter (e.g. nitrites); unnoticeable or more pronounced changes (e.g. nitrates) become more exaggerated. There was no particular order in the way that aerobic nitrites and nitrates changed, i.e. one did not necessarily precede the other. This could be due to the fact that the samples were not being taken at regular intervals, such as on an hourly basis or measured on line. If such monitoring procedures had been undertaken, it might have been possible to observe which of the two species are affected first, when the aerobic pH is changed. 74 Although nitrification inhibition was not manifested as a net reduction in rates, it could have been affected by a delay in the process, when the pH changes were made. However, since only grab samples were collected, it was not possible to determine the exact pattern of this delay. Gapes et al. (2003) reported that, when the pH decreased, the rate of ammonia oxidation decreased, but the rate of nitrate production increased significantly. This led to an improvement in nitrification as the pH decreased. They also found nitrite accumulation decreased with increasing pH. They based their observations made on laboratory-scale biofilm reactors that were operated from pH 8 to 7.2 and with a loading of 0.2 to lg NH3-N\/L\/d. In this project, it is unlikely that the same conclusions can be made, with respect to nitrate production. Despite the high loss of nitrous oxide from the system, the rate of nitrification was calculated as being close to 100%. It might be useful to properly identify the exact point at which nitrous oxide is lost during nitrification. This will show which of the two main processes of nitrification, namely nitritation and nitration, is contributing to gas production. Since nitrous oxide production is considerable, the definition of aerobic nitrification rate can be misleading, since it takes into account only the NOx concentrations in the anoxic and aerobic tanks. 75 5.2 Conclusions In general, it can be said that, after allowing stabilization to occur at high ammonia loading, a change of 0.5 units in aerobic pH of a continuous flow system treating a high ammonia leachate has noticeable effects on nitrification, causing the system to lose nitrogen in a gaseous form. This was speculated to be nitrous oxide or some other oxidized nitrogenous gas rather than ammonia. The effects of the lowering of pH are manifested by nitrite accumulation after around 10 days and a drop in nitrates as the pH decreases, but the effect is less significant for nitrous oxide due to its large fluctuation. These effects may have been caused by free nitrous acid, even though its concentration was below values that have been previously reported to cause disruptions in nitrification (Anthonisen et al., 1976). The increase in nitrous acid, when the pH is changed, may influence the enzyme mechanisms or the transport mechanism for nitrogenous species. Opportunistic organisms or enzymes may be responsible for ensuring that the system does not destabilize when pH changes are made. These organisms or enzymes may have different mechanisms to those involved during steady states. They may be responsible for ensuring that the accumulated nitrite or nitrous oxide do not reach toxic levels and lead to a breakdown in the process. This might signify that, for high ammonia wastewater treatment, such as leachate, the dynamics involved in inhibition of nitrification or nitrite accumulation may be different than with normal wastewater and that the Monod equations may not be applicable for such systems. An observed increase in free nitrous acid and the simultaneous increase in nitrite and nitrous oxide, in the short-term, might signify that nitrite oxidizers are responsible for the production of the gas that is normally produced as a byproduct of nitritation. A significant increase in nitrous oxide production in the medium term, after the pH is decreased, would have confirmed this possibility. This is consistent with other research where the prevention of nitrite oxidation led to a drop in nitrous oxide production (Zheng et al., 1994). 76 Chapter 6 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Recommendations for Future Laboratory-Scale Experiments 1. Due to the slight increase in nitrite concentrations when the pH changes were made, it may be worthwhile to attempt using either a higher loading of ammonia or a smaller recycle ratio or any other method that would increase the concentrations of nitrite in the aerobic tank. This would allow the free nitrous acid to be higher during steady state and possibly cause nitrous oxide production to be higher. 2. It may be worthwhile investigating the other species of gases (nitric oxide, NO) and other nitrogen species in both the anoxic and aerobic tanks, so as to obtain a clearer picture of the overall nitrogen removal process. 3. Despite two decades of high ammonia leachate experiments, there is still no clue as to which species of nitrifiers are involved. It was speculated in this report that there might be organisms that preferably use nitrous acid and can compete with the nitrite oxidizers, whenever the concentration of free nitrous acid is changed. These opportunistic organisms might be better adapted to free nitrous acid or they may have binding sites for the acid that help promote or maintain the nitrification process, whenever the nitrite oxidizers are affected. The fact that pH has different effects on nitrite, nitrate and nitrous oxide production may show that the enzyme mechanism may be different for each type of organisms and some may not be affected by free nitrous acid. The shift in microbial populations or the investigation of the possible differences in enzyme mechanisms during pH changes should be undertaken as a further study. 4. It may be worth investigating changing the pH, by either adding concentrated sodium hydroxide (NaOH) or concentrated acid and maintaining a fixed volume of sodium bicarbonate (measured at steady state of pH 7.5). This would minimize the changes in 77 hydraulic retention time, since it was evident that, upon changing aerobic pH, the volume of bicarbonate was changed significantly. 5. Constructing a system, that would allow flushing of precipitates and easier cleaning of the tanks, may help to provide more consistent data on suspended solids. Also, well-covered tanks and an online gas chromatograph would allow better gas collection. The temperature-controlled room should be free of electronic interference, since it had profound effects on the pH controller. 6. The decrease in aerobic nitrite, after re-seeding during the second series, and the fact that it had almost no impact on the nitrous oxide production, was an interesting observation. Should the start-up of the system been done differently with smaller increments of ammonia loading, the nitrite concentrations might have been lower; however the nitrous oxide would have been similar to what was observed in this project. This would have led to much lower free nitrous acid concentration and, as such, it would have been possible to show that the nitrous oxide production is much more sensitive to the acid when the pH is changed. 6.2 Recommendations for Full-Scale Design 1. For a full-scale treatment of high ammonia leachate, it would be advisable to install an equalization tank prior to the anoxic tank and daily monitoring of the ammonia in the incoming leachate. Since the system nitrifies quite well with an MLSS of around 6,000mg\/L, a single aeration tank could be used for nitrification and the first stage anoxic denitrification should be around 80%, given the possibility of a substantial drop in ammonia loading. A second stage treatment would most likely require only a denitrification stage, which would remove the residual NOx and nitrite in the first stage effluent. A small aeration tank in the second stage would only require minimal power, to oxidize the residual methanol that would contribute to biodegradable COD in the effluent. 78 2. To counter drops in nitrification, which is obviously the key process for nitrogen removal, one could monitor the emission of N2O. If the emission remains at low levels of production for a few hours and does not regain its cyclic pattern, this might signify a decrease in nitrification as it was observed in this project. At this stage, it would be advisable to decrease the methanol loading and discontinue aerobic wasting for one or two days, until the N 2 0 production regains its cyclic pattern. 3. The main challenge for a full-scale design, for an environmental engineer, should revolve around the reduction in the level of the incoming ammonia-N being converted into nitrous oxide. During the second pH series, after the system failed at pH 7.0, it was found after re-seeding that at an MLSS of around 8,000mg\/L and an SRT of around 25 days, the nitrous oxide production was less than 5% of the incoming ammonia; this compared to 20% at an SRT of 10 days and an MLSS of 6,000mg\/L. This shows that the gas can be minimized by controlling the SRT and the biomass concentration. Other issues that should be studied are the use of better aeration techniques, higher oxygen transfer efficiencies, and treatment of the emitted gas. Beline et al. (1999) achieved the conversion of the gas to di-nitrogen in a separate treatment system that had an SRT of 60 days. As such, this approach might be considered for full-scale design. 79 R E F E R E N C E S Abeling U, Seyfried C. (1992). Anaerobic-aerobic Treatment of High-Strength Ammonium Wastewater-Nitrogen Removal via Nitrite, Water and Science Technology, 26(5-6), Pages 1007-1015. Matsuo, Tonomori, Hanaki, K., Takizawa, S., Satoh, H. (eds) (2001). Advances in Water and Wastewater Treatment Technology: Molecular Technology, Nutrient Removal, Sludge Recycle and Environmental Health, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Almeida JS, Reis M A M , Carrondo MJT (1995). Competition between Nitrate and Nitrite Reduction in Denitrification by Pseudomonas Fluorescens, Biotechnol. Bioeng, 46(5), Pages 476-484. Anthonisen A.C, Loehr, R.C, Prakasam, T.B.S, and Srinath, E.G. (1975). Inhibition of Nitrification by Ammonia and Nitrous Acid, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 48(5), Pages 835-852. APHA (1993). Standards Method for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 18th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C. Azam F., Miiller, C , Weiske, A., Benckiser, G., and Ottow, J. C. G. (2002). Nitrification and Denitrification as Sources of Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide - Role of Oxidizable Carbon and Applied Nitrogen, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 35, Pages 54-61. Azevedo, B.D. (1993). The Effect of Ammonia Loading, Solids Retention Time and Operating Temperature on the Biological Nitrification and Denitrification of High Ammonia Landfill Leachate. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Azevedo, B.D., Mavinic, D.S., and Robinson, H.D. (1995). The Effect of Ammonia Loading and Operating Temperature on Nitrification and Denitrification of High Ammonia Landfill Leachate, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(3), Pages 524-534. Bagchi, Amalendu (1994). Design, Construction, and Monitoring of Landfill, 2 n d Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA. Barnes, D. & Bliss, P. J. (1983) Biological Control of Nitrogen in Wastewater Treatment, \u00a9 D. Barnes and P.J. Bliss, University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain. Beccari, M. , Passion, R., Ramadori, R., and Tandoi, V. (1983) Kinetics of Dissimilatory Nitrate and Nitrite Reduction in Suspended Growth Culture, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 55, Pages 58-64. 80 Benefield, ML, Passino, R., Ramadori, R., and Tandoi, V. (1982). Process Chemistry for Water and Wastewater Treatment, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Braida, Washington and Ong, Say Kee (2000). Decomposition of Nitrite under Various pH and Aeration Conditions, Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 118, Pages 13-26. Beline, F., Martinez, J., Chadwick, D., Guiziou, F., and Coste, C. -M. (1999). Factors Affecting Nitrogen Transformations and Related Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Aerobically Treated Piggery Slurry, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 73, Pages 235-243. Beline, F., Martinez, J., Marol, C , and Guiraud, G. (2001). Application of the l 5 N Technique to Determine the Contributions of Nitrification and Denitrification to the Flux of Nitrous Oxide from Aerated Pig Slurry, Water Research, 35(11), Pages 2774-2778. Carley, B.N. (1988). The Effect of Excess Carbon in the Anoxic Basin of a Biological Pre-denitrification System for the Treatment of Landfill Leachate. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Carrera, J., Baeza, J.A., Vincent, T., and Lafuente, J. (2003). Biological Nitrogen Removal of High-Ammonium Industrial Wastewater With Two Sludge System, Water Research, 37, Pages 4211-4221. Elefsiniotis, P., Manoharan, R., and Mavinic, D. S. (1989). The Effects of Sludge Recycle Ratio on Nitrification-Denitrification of Performance in Biological Treatment of Leachate. Environmental Technology Letters, 10, Pages 1041-1050. Gapes, Daniel, Pratt, S., Yuan, Z., and Keller, J. (2003). Online Titrimetric and Off-gas Analysis for Examining Nitrification Processes in Wastewater Treatment, Water Research, 37, Pages 2678-2690. Gerardi, Michael, H. (2002). Nitrification and Denitrification in the Activated Sludge Process, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, USA. Halling-Serensen, B. and J0rgensen, S.E. (1993). The Removal of Nitrogen Compounds from Wastewater, Elsevier, Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. Grady, C.P.L, Jr., and Lim, H.C. (1980). Biological Wastewater Treatment, Marcel Dekker, N.Y. Grady, C.P.L, Jr., Daigger, G.T., and Lim, H.C. (1999). Biological Wastewater Treatment, 2 n d Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc. N.Y 81 Hies, Poesis. (1999). Biological Nitrification and Denitrification of High Ammonia Landfill Leachate using Pre- and Post-denitrification Systems and Methanol as Supplementary Source of Organic Carbon. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. IPCC (1990). Climate Change. The IPCC Scientific Assessment. Houghton, J.T., Jenkins, G.J. and Ephraums, J.J. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC (1992). Climate Change. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Houghton, J. T., Callender, B. A., and Varney, S. K. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. IPCC (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment, Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories-Reference Manual, Section 4.5.4. Keenan, J. D., Steiner, R. L. and Fungarroli, A. A. (1979). Substrate Inhibition of Nitrification, Journal of Environmental Science and Health, A14, Pages 377-397. Landfilling of Waste: Leachate (1992). Christensen, T. H., Cossu, R., and Stegmann, R., (eds), Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd., Essex, England. McCarty, P.L., L. Beck, and P.J. St. Amant (1969). Biological Denitrification of Wastewater by the Addition of Organic Materials, Proceedings of 24th University of Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Pages 1271-1285 Okayasu, Y., Abe, Isaya, and Matsuo, Y. (1997). Emission of Nitrous Oxide from High-Rate Nitrification and Denitrification by Mixed Liquor Circulating Process and Sequencing Batch Reactor Process, Water and Science Technology, 36(12), Pages 39-45. Pahl, O, Burton, C H , Dunn, W. Biddlestone, A.J. (1993). The Source and Abatement of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Produced from the Aerobic Treatment of Pig Slurry to Remove Surplus Nitrogen, Environmental Technology, 22(8), Pages 941-950. Parsonage D., Greenfield A. J., Ferguson S. J. (1985). The High Affinity of Paracoccus Denitrificans Cells for Nitrate as an Electron Acceptor Analysis of Possible Mechanisms of Nitrate and Nitrite Movement Across the Plasma Membrane and the Basis for Inhibition by Added Nitrite of Oxidase, Biochim Biophys Acta, 807, Pages 81-95. 82 Robinson H. D. (1992). Leachate Treatment and Denitrification Trials, Privatization of SENT Landfill, Hong Kong Government, Environmental Protection Department. Ruiz, G., Jeison, D., and Chamy, R. (2002). Nitrification with High Nitrite Accumulation for the Treatment of Wastewater with High Ammonia Concentration, Water Research, 37, Pages 1371-1377. Shiskowski, D.M. (1995). Biological Nitrification and Denitrification of High Ammonia Landfill Leachate Using Pre-denitrification and Pre\/post-denitrification Processes. M.A.Sc. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. Shiskowski, D.M., and Mavinic, D.S. (1998). Biological Treatment of a High Ammonia Leachate: Influence of External Carbon During Initial Startup. Water Research, 32(8), Pages 2533-2541. Thorn, Marina and Sorensen, Fred (1994). Variation of Nitrous Oxide Formation in the Denitrification Basin of a Wastewater Treatment Plant with Nitrogen Removal, Water Research, 30(6), Pages 1543-1547. Trogler, Wilfiam, C. (1999). Physical Properties and Mechanisms of Formation of Nitrous Oxide, Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 187, Pages 303-327. Turk, O. and Mavinic, S. (1987). Benefits of Using Selective Inhibition to Remove Nitrogen from Highly Nitrogenous Wastes, Environ. Tech. Lett., 8, Pages 419-426. Turk, O. and Mavinic, D.S. (1989). Maintaining Nitrite Build-up in a System Acclimatized to Free Ammonia, Water Research, 23(11), Pages 1383-1388. U.S. EPA (1973), Nitrogen Compounds in the Environment, U.S. EPA, SAB-73-001, Washington, D.C. Vancouver Landfill 2001 Annual Report (2002). Transfer & Landfill Operations Branch. City of Vancouver, Engineering Services. Weon, S-Y, Lee, C-W, Lee, S-I, and Koopman, B. (2002). Nitrite Inhibition of Aerobic Growth of Acinetobacter sp., Water Research, 36, Pages 4471-4476. Wilderer, P., Jones, W., Dau, U. (1987). Competition in Denitrification Systems Affecting Reduction Rate and Accumulation, Water Research, 21, Pages 239-245. Zheng, H., Hanaki, K., and Matsuo, T. (1994). Production of Nitrous Oxide Gas During Nitrification of Wastewater, Water and Science Technology, 30(6), Pages 133-141. 83 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: F O R M U L A E AND CALCULATION DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B: RAW A N D C A L C U L A T E D D A T A FOR L E A C H A T E APPENDIX C: RAW A N D C A L C U L A T E D D A T A FOR SYSTEM APPENDIX D: D A T A FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 1st pH SERIES APPENDIX E: D A T A FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 2nd pH SERIES APPENDIX A: FORMULAE AND CALCULATION DEFINITIONS Anoxic Overflow (L\/d) = [(leachate flow, L\/d) + (clarifier recycle flow, L\/d)] + [[(NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr) + (methanol feed flow, ml\/hr) + (P0 4 feed flow, ml\/lir)]*(24hr\/d*(lL\/1000mi)] Aerobic overflow (L\/d) = (Anoxic overflow, L\/d) + [(NaHC0 3 flow, ml\/hr*(24hr\/d)*(l L \/ l 000ml)] Anoxic AHRT (hr) = [(5L) \/ (Anoxic overflow, L\/d)]*(24hr\/d) Aerobic AHRT (hr) = [(10L) \/ (Aerobic overflow, L\/d)]*(24hr\/d) Clarifier AHRT (hr) = [(4L) \/ (Aerobic overflow, L\/d)]*(24hr\/d) 0-P04 Loading (g P\/d) = [(P04 feed cone, g P\/L)*(P04 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d*(lL\/l000ml)] + [(Leachate P04 con, mg P\/L)*(leachate flow, L\/d)*(lg\/1000mg)] Anoxic Methanol Loading (g COD\/d) = (methanol feed cone, ml\/L)* (methanol feed flow, ml\/hr)*(791.5 mg CH 3 OH\/ml CH3OH)*(1.5 mg COD\/mg CH3OH)*(24 hr\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(lg\/1000mg) Simulated Leachate Ammonia Concentration (mg N\/L) = [[(NH4C1 feed cone, g NH4C1\/L)*(NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(14g N\/53.5 g NH4Cl)*(1000mg\/g)] + [(leachate N H 4 cone, mg N\/L*(leachate flow, L\/d)]] \/ [[NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24 hr\/d*(lL\/1000ml)] + [(leachate flow, L\/d)] 85 Ammonia Load (g N\/d) = [[(NH4CI feed cone, g NH4C1\/L)*(NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24rir\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(14g N\/53.5 g NH4Cl)*(1000mg\/g)] + [(leachate N H 4 cone, mg N\/L*(leachate flow, L\/d)]]*(l g\/lOOOmg) Anoxic N H 4 Removal Rate (mg N\/d) = [(NH4CI feed cone, g NH4C1\/L)*(NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(14g N\/53.5 g NH4Cl)*(1000mg\/g)] + [(leachate N H 4 cone, mg N\/L*(leachate flow, L\/d)] + [(Aerobic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Clarifier Recycle Flow, L\/d)] -[(Anoxic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Anoxic Overflow, L\/d)] Aerobic N H 4 Removal Rate (mg N\/d) = [(Anoxic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Anoxic Overflow, L\/d)] -[(Aerobic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Aerobic Overflow, L\/d)] % Anoxic N H 4 Removal = [Anoxic N H 4 Removal Rate, mg N\/d] \/ [(NH4C1 feed cone, g NH4C1\/L)*(NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(14g N\/53.5 g NH4Cl)*(1000mg\/g)] + [(leachate N H 4 cone, mg N\/L*(leachate flow, L\/d)] + [(Aerobic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Clarifier Recycle Flow, L\/d)]* 100% % Aerobic N H 4 Removal = [[[(Anoxic NH 4conc, mg N\/L)*(Anoxic Overflow, L\/d)] - [(Aerobic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Aerobic Overflow, L\/d)]] \/ [(Anoxic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Anoxic Overflow, L\/d)]]* 100% % System N H 4 Removal = [[(Simulated Leachate Ammonia Concentration, mg N\/L) -(Effluent N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)] \/ [Simulated Leachate Ammonia Concentration (mg N\/L)]]* 100% Anoxic NOx Load (mg N\/d) = [(Leachate flow, L\/d)*(Leachate NOx cone, mg N\/L)] + [(Clarifier recycle flow, L\/d)*(Aerobic NOx cone, mg N\/L)] Anoxic Denitrification Rate (mg N\/d) = [(Anoxic NOx Load, mg N\/d)] - [(Anoxic overflow, L\/d)*(Anoxic NOx cone, mg N\/L)] 86 Anoxic Specific Denitrification Rate (mg N\/d\/mg VSS) = [(Anoxic Denitrification Rate, mg N\/d)] \/ [Anoxic VSS cone, mg\/L)*(5L)] Anoxic % Denitrification = [(Anoxic Denitrification Rate, mg N\/d)] \/ [(Anoxic NOx Load, mg N\/d)]* 100% Aerobic Nitrification Rate (mg N\/d) = [(Aerobic Overflow)*(Aerobic NOx Load, mg N\/d)] -[(Anoxic overflow, L\/d)* (Anoxic NOx cone, mg N\/L)] Aerobic Specific Denitrification Rate (mg N\/d\/mg VSS) = [(Aerobic Nitrification Rate, mg N\/d)] \/ [Aerobic VSS cone, mg\/L)*(10L)] Aerobic % Nitrification = [[(Aerobic Nitrification Rate, mg N\/d)]\/[(Anoxic Overflow, L\/d)*(Anoxic N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)]]* 100% Anoxic COD:NOx Entering (mg COD\/mg NOx-N) = [(Anoxic Methanol Load, g COD\/d)*(1000mg\/g)] \/ [(Anoxic NOx Load, mg N\/d)] Anoxic CODrNOx Removed (mg COD\/mg NOx-N) = [(Anoxic Methanol Load, g COD\/d)*(1000mg\/g)]\/[(Anoxic NOx Load, mg N\/d) - [(Anoxic overflow, L\/d)*(Anoxic NOx cone, mg N\/L)]] Aerobic SRT (d) = [10L] \/ [(Aerobic Wasting, L\/d)] System SRT (d) = [(Anoxic VSS cone, mg\/L)*(5L) + (Aerobic VSS cone, mg\/L)*(10L)] \/ [(Aerobic VSS cone, mg\/L)*(Aerobic Wasting, L\/d) + (Effluent VSS cone, mg\/L)*([(Aerobic Overflow, L\/d) - (Clarifier recycle flow, L\/d)]] 87 NaHCC-3 Load (g CaC0 3\/d) = [(NaHC0 3 feed cone, g NaHC0 3 \/L)*(NaHC0 3 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d)*(lL\/1000ml)*(50 g CaC0 3\/84 g NaHC0 3)] + [(leachate cone, mg CaC03\/L)*(leachate flow, L\/d)*(lg\/1000mg)] Alkalinity\/ N H 4 Added (g CaC0 3 \/g N) = [(NaHC0 3 load, g CaC03\/d)] \/ [(Ammonia load, g N\/d)] Alkalinity\/NFL; Nitrified (g CaC0 3 \/g N) = [(NaHC0 3 load, g CaC0 3\/d)] \/ [(Nitrification Rate, mgN\/d)*(lg\/1000mg) Simulated Leachate Flow (L\/d) = [(Leachate flow, L\/d)] + [NH4C1 feed flow, ml\/hr)*(24hr\/d)*(l L \/ l 000ml) Chemical Flow (L\/d) = [(methanol feed flow, ml\/hr) + (P0 4 feed flow, ml\/hr) + (NaHC03 feed flow, ml\/hr)]*(24hr\/d*(lL\/1000ml) Total Flow (L\/d) = (Simulated Leachate Flow, L\/d) + (Chemical Flow, L\/d) Clarifier Recycle Ratio = [(Clarifier recycle flow, L\/d)] \/ [(Simulated Leachate Flow, L\/d) Corrected Effluent NOx Concentration (mg N\/L) = [(Effluent NOx cone, mg N\/L)*(Total Flow, L\/d)] \/ [(Simulated Leachate Flow, L\/d)] Corrected Effluent N H 4 Concentration (mg N\/L) = [(Effluent N H 4 cone, mg N\/L)*(Total Flow, L\/d)] \/ [(Simulated Leachate Flow, L\/d)] Total Effluent Inorganic Nitrogen (mg N\/L) = [(Corrected Effluent NOx Concentration, mg N\/L) + (Corrected Effluent N H 4 Concentration, mg N\/L)] 88 Total Inorganic Nitrogen Removal (%) = [(Ammonia Load, g N\/d)] - [[Effluent NOx cone, mg N\/L) + (Effluent N H 4 cone, mg\/L)]*(Total Flow, L\/d)*(lg\/1000mg)] Nitrous Oxide Concentration, ug\/m3 = (Concentration, ppmv)*(Molecular Weight, g\/mole of N20)*(28g N\/44 g of N2O)*(106p.g\/g)*(l atmosphere, atm) \/ [(lmole)*(0.082057atm.L\/mole.K)*[(273.15+20)Kelvin]] Nitrous Oxide Production, kg N 2 0-N\/d = (Nitrous Oxide Concentration, ag\/m3)* (Volume of air supplied to Reactor, L\/min)*(1440min\/d)*(lkg\/109 ug)*0.001 m 3 \/L 89 APPENDIX B: RAW AND CALCULATED DATA FOR LEACHATE Date Day Alkalinity pH TSS VSS B O D 5 COD (mg\/L as CaC0 3 ) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L 05\/26\/03 6 05\/28\/03 8 05\/30\/03 10 06\/02\/03 13 06\/05\/03 16 7.3 210 80 370 06\/06\/03 17 7.5 80 50 545 06\/07\/03 18 7.2 348 06\/08\/03 19 368 06\/09\/03 20 7.1 393 06\/10\/03 21 06\/11\/03 22 7.3 80 50 365 06\/12\/03 23 7.4 373 06\/13\/03 24 7.4 60 40 365 06\/14\/03 25 7.5 368 06\/16\/03 27 7.6 360 06\/17\/03 28 7.5 80 50 360 06\/18\/03 29 7.7 370 06\/19\/03 30 7.5 50 30 388 06\/23\/03 34 7.6 378 06\/25\/03 36 7.6 80 415 06\/26\/03 37 7.7 423 06\/27\/03 38 2,140 7.5 383 06\/30\/03 41 2,120 7.5 70 50 378 07\/02\/03 43 2,075 7.6 435 07\/04\/03 45 7.7 90 60 385 07\/06\/03 47 2,450 7.6 385 07\/07\/03 48 7.7 273 07\/08\/03 49 2,500 7.7 418 07\/09\/03 50 7.7 430 07\/10\/03 51 2,300 7.5 70 40 548 07\/11\/03 52 433 07\/12\/03 53 420 07\/14\/03 55 2,300 7.6 90 50 400 90 Date Day Alkalinity (mg\/L as CaC0 3 ) 07\/16\/03 57 2,300 07\/18\/03 59 07\/25\/03 66 07\/30\/03 71 08\/01\/03 73 08\/05\/03 77 08\/08\/03 80 2,100 08\/11\/03 83 2,100 08\/14\/03 86 2,400 08\/17\/03 89 2,400 08\/19\/03 91 2,500 08\/25\/03 97 2,500 08\/29\/03 101 2,500 09\/01\/03 104 2,500 09\/03\/03 106 2,300 09\/05\/03 108 2,300 09\/08\/03 111 2,500 09\/10\/03 113 2,300 09\/12\/03 115 2,500 09\/17\/03 120 2,400 09\/19\/03 122 2,900 09\/22\/03 125 2,900 09\/24\/03 127 3,100 09\/26\/03 129 3,100 09\/29\/03 132 3,200 10\/01\/03 134 3,200 10\/03\/03 136 3,200 10\/06\/03 139 3,100 10\/15\/03 148 3,100 10\/17\/03 150 3,000 10\/20\/03 153 2,900 10\/22\/03 155 2,750 10\/24\/03 157 2,940 10\/27\/03 160 2,900 10\/29\/03 162 2,700 10\/31\/03 164 2,750 11\/03\/03 167 2,940 pH TSS VSS B O D 5 COD (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L 7.5 395 410 7.4 110 50 398 7.7 120 50 405 7.6 413 7.5 100 50 348 7.5 80 50 348 7.7 110 40 363 7.4 70 50 388 7.8 70 40 390 7.4 100 60 385 7.6 70 50 415 7.7 140 80 393 7.7 130 60 420 7.8 140 50 425 7.8 130 60 430 7.6 120 50 515 7.7 100 60 425 7.8 120 60 550 7.6 100 50 440 7.7 90 60 508 7.7 100 60 538 7.6 80 70 523 7.8 100 60 575 7.7 110 60 565 7.7 70 50 575 7.8 110 70 575 7.8 70 50 573 7.7 90 60 563 7.9 60 50 565 7.9 90 60 545 7.9 60 50 535 7.9 70 50 490 7.9 100 60 520 7.6 50 40 523 7.6 90 40 533 7.7 140 50 510 Date Day Alkalinity pH TSS VSS B O D 5 COD (mg\/L as CaC0 3 ) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) 11\/07\/03 171 2,940 7.8 100 50 40 495 11\/10\/03 174 2,890 7.8 80 50 510 11\/12\/03 176 2,940 7.7 80 50 523 11\/17\/03 181 2,860 7.6 70 40 530 11\/19\/03 183 2,890 7.7 80 50 535 11\/21\/03 185 2,920 7.5 60 40 550 11\/24\/03 188 2,800 7.7 60 40 365 11\/26\/03 190 1,840 7.6 40 35 373 11\/28\/03 192 1,790 7.8 40 40 248 12\/03\/03 197 1,080 7.8 30 30 225 12\/05\/03 199 970 7.6 30 30 248 12\/07\/03 201 920 7.3 30 25 210 12\/09\/03 203 900 7.4 15 10 213 12\/11\/03 205 860 7.4 15 15 233 12\/14\/03 208 920 7.3 20 16 243 12\/16\/03 210 900 7.4 17 14 250 12\/17\/03 211 230 12\/18\/03 212 935 7.2 16 15 215 12\/20\/03 214 935 8.0 18 17 238 12\/22\/03 216 950 7.4 14 12 230 12\/24\/03 218 920 7.4 17 12 225 12\/26\/03 220 950 7.3 27 19 233 12\/28\/03 222 910 7.1 24 17 215 01\/01\/04 226 920 7.8 40 34 248 01\/03\/04 228 1,200 7.6 60 30 253 01\/05\/04 230 1,375 7.4 45 26 01\/07\/04 232 1,420 7.5 41 26 01\/10\/04 235 1,500 7.5 61 27 01\/11\/04 236 1,850 7.2 45 29 01\/12\/04 237 1,540 7.2 43 25 01\/14\/04 239 1,560 7.2 35 23 275 01\/16\/04 241 1,580 7.3 44 25 01\/18\/04 243 1,540 7.2 46 26 295 01\/20\/04 245 1,520 7.4 42 23 280 01\/21\/04 246 1,560 7.1 61 35 283 01\/24\/04 249 1,580 7.4 60 35 303 01\/26\/04 251 1,500 7.5 60 32 258 Date Day Alkalinity pH TSS VSS B O D 5 COD (mg\/L as CaC0 3 ) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) 01\/28\/04 253 1,540 7.0 50 23 253 02\/04\/04 260 1,310 7.5 45 31 02\/07\/04 263 1,230 7.5 40 28 273 02\/09\/04 265 1,180 7.2 39 20 320 02\/11\/04 267 1,170 7.5 67 36 320 02\/14\/04 270 1,170 7.5 40 26 268 02\/16\/04 272 1,170 7.4 32 22 02\/18\/04 274 1,110 7.2 31 29 02\/20\/04 276 1,120 7.5 61 30 02\/22\/04 278 1,090 7.2 45 19 02\/25\/04 281 1,100 7.1 36 21 02\/27\/04 283 1,090 7.0 32 20 02\/29\/04 285 1,070 7.1 44 27 03\/02\/04 287 1,130 7.0 35 20 03\/04\/04 289 1,100 7.1 32 19 03\/07\/04 292 1,090 7.2 31 29 03\/09\/04 294 1,070 7.0 35 16 03\/11\/04 296 1,140 7.2 55 30 03\/13\/04 298 1,110 7.1 48 28 03\/15\/04 300 1,090 7.4 57 36 03\/17\/04 302 1,170 7.3 34 22 03\/19\/04 304 1,200 7.1 38 03\/22\/04 307 1,200 7.6 62 Date Day N H 4 Column N O x Corrected N 0 2 0-P04 (mgN\/L) Efficiency (mgN\/L) N O x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mg P\/I 05\/26\/03 6 193 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.01 05\/28\/03 8 184 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.00 05\/30\/03 10 194 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 06\/02\/03 13 249 1.0 5.4 - 5.4 0.0 0.05 06\/05\/03 16 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 06\/06\/03 17 0.8 0.3 0.4 06\/07\/03 18 0.8 0.3 0.3 06\/08\/03 19 0.8 0.0 0.0 06\/09\/03 20 06\/10\/03 21 0.8 0.2 0.3 06\/11\/03 22 0.8 0.0 0.0 06\/12\/03 23 246 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.99 06\/13\/03 24 255 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.89 06\/14\/03 25 259 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.89 06\/16\/03 27 247 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.89 06\/17\/03 28 263 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.89 06\/18\/03 29 256 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 06\/19\/03 30 271 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.05 06\/23\/03 34 252 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.05 06\/25\/03 36 271 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.05 06\/26\/03 37 260 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 06\/27\/03 38 268 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 06\/30\/03 41 286 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 07\/02\/03 43 273 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.05 07\/04\/03 45 291 0.0 0.0 0.05 07\/06\/03 47 301 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 07\/07\/03 48 294 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.05 07\/08\/03 49 306 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 07\/09\/03 50 293 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.05 07\/10\/03 51 285 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 07\/11\/03 52 276 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.05 07\/12\/03 53 287 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 07\/14\/03 55 270 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 07\/16\/03 57 282 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 07\/18\/03 59 291 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 07\/25\/03 66 268 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 94 Date Day N H 4 Column > (mg N\/L) Efficiency (i 07\/30\/03 71 248 1.0 08\/01\/03 73 259 1.0 08\/05\/03 77 262 1.0 08\/08\/03 80 268 1.0 08\/11\/03 83 232 1.0 08\/14\/03 86 295 1.0 08\/17\/03 89 273 1.0 08\/19\/03 91 271 1.0 08\/25\/03 97 269 0.9 08\/29\/03 101 273 0.9 09\/01\/03 104 267 0.8 09\/03\/03 106 247 0.8 09\/05\/03 108 249 0.8 09\/08\/03 111 284 0.8 09\/10\/03 113 260 0.8 09\/12\/03 115 270 0.8 09\/17\/03 120 263 0.6 09\/19\/03 122 378 0.6 09\/22\/03 125 385 0.6 09\/24\/03 127 399 0.6 09\/26\/03 129 402 0.6 09\/29\/03 132 405 1.0 10\/01\/03 134 388 1.0 10\/03\/03 136 394 1.0 10\/06\/03 139 405 1.0 10\/15\/03 148 438 0.8 10\/17\/03 150 407 0.8 10\/20\/03 153 392 0.8 10\/22\/03 155 368 0.8 10\/24\/03 157 369 0.8 10\/27\/03 160 358 0.8 10\/29\/03 162 339 0.8 10\/31\/03 164 349 0.8 11\/03\/03 167 355 0.8 11\/07\/03 171 345 0.8 11\/10\/03 174 359 0.8 11\/12\/03 176 358 0.8 X Corrected N 0 2 0-P0 4 gN\/L) N O x (mg N\/L) (mgN\/L) (mg P\/L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.05 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.05 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.05 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.05 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 95 Date Day N H 4 Column N O x Corrected N 0 2 0-P0 4 (mgN\/L) Efficiency (mgN\/L) NOx (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mg P\/I 11\/17\/03 181 347 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.05 11\/19\/03 183 349 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 11\/21\/03 185 361 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 11\/24\/03 188 344 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 11\/26\/03 190 217 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.05 11\/28\/03 192 223 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.05 12\/03\/03 197 100 0.8 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.05 12\/05\/03 199 100 1.0 2.4 2.4 0.3 0.05 12\/07\/03 201 98 1.0 2.4 2.4 0.2 0.05 12\/09\/03 203 95 1.0 3.8 3.8 0.4 0.05 12\/11\/03 205 95 1.0 3.7 3.7 0.6 12\/14\/03 208 102 1.0 2.9 2.9 0.5 12\/16\/03 210 106 1.0 2.4 2.3 0.5 12\/17\/03 211 103 1.0 1.7 1.7 0.4 12\/18\/03 212 109 1.0 2.0 1.9 0.4 12\/20\/03 214 104 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.3 12\/22\/03 216 104 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.3 12\/24\/03 218 99 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.2 12\/26\/03 220 104 1.0 1.4 1.3 0.2 12\/28\/03 222 102 01\/01\/04 226 107 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 01\/03\/04 228 142 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.3 01\/05\/04 230 166 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 01\/07\/04 232 162 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 01\/10\/04 235 159 1.0 0.3 0.3 . 0.1 01\/11\/04 236 174 1.0 1.8 1.7 0.2 01\/12\/04 237 170 1.0 1.7 1.7 0.2 01\/14\/04 239 164 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 01\/16\/04 241 168 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.1 01\/18\/04 243 165 0.9 1.2 1.3 0.2 01\/20\/04 245 159 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.2 01\/21\/04 246 157 0.9 1.4 1.5 0.2 01\/24\/04 249 226 0.9 1.8 2.0 0.3 01\/26\/04 251 207 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 01\/28\/04 253 210 0.6 1.0 1.5 0.3 02\/04\/04 260 135 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 02\/07\/04 263 131 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 96 Date Day N H 4 Column N O x Corrected N 0 2 (mgN\/L) Efficiency (mgN\/L) N O x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 02\/09\/04 265 119 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 02\/11\/04 267 124 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 02\/14\/04 270 111 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 02\/16\/04 272 110 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 02\/18\/04 274 115 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 02\/20\/04 276 113 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 02\/22\/04 278 112 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 02\/25\/04 281 110 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 02\/27\/04 283 110 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 02\/29\/04 285 108 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 03\/02\/04 287 113 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 03\/04\/04 289 95 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 03\/07\/04 292 103 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 03\/09\/04 294 107 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 03\/11\/04 296 118 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 03\/13\/04 298 121 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 03\/15\/04 300 123 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 03\/17\/04 302 123 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 03\/19\/04 304 132 1.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 03\/22\/04 307 128 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 03\/25\/04 310 127 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0-P04 (mgP\/L) 97 A P P E N D I X C: R A W A N D C A L C U L A T E D D A T A F O R S Y S T E M C H 3 O H P0 4Feed NH4C1 NaHC0 3 Leachate Clarifier Simulated Clarifier Feed Flow Flow Feed Flow Feed Flow Flow Recycle Leachate Recycle Date Day (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Ratio 5\/21\/03 1 110 9.0 57 9.0 6.3 5\/23\/03 3 110 9.0 57 9.0 6.3 5\/24\/03 4 110 9.0 57 9.0 6.3 5\/25\/03 5 110 9.0 57 9.0 6.3 5\/26\/03 6 110 9.0 57 9.0 6.3 5\/27\/03 7 110 7.9 57 7.9 7.2 5\/28\/03 8 110 7.9 57 7.9 7.2 5\/29\/03 9 110 7.7 57 7.7 7.4 5\/30\/03 10 110 9.1 58 9.1 6.3 5\/31\/03 11 110 9.1 58 9.1 6.3 6\/01\/03 12 110 9.1 58 9.1 6.3 6\/02\/03 13 110 9.1 58 9.1 6.3 6\/03\/03 14 110 9.2 55 9.2 6.0 6\/04\/03 15 110 8.6 55 8.6 6.4 6\/05\/03 16 100 110 9.0 58 9.0 6.5 6\/06\/03 17 100 110 9.0 55 9.0 6.2 6\/07\/03 18 100 110 9.0 55 9.0 6.1 6\/08\/03 19 100 110 9.0 56 9.0 6.2 6\/10\/03 21 100 110 9.2 55 9.2 5.9 6\/11\/03 22 100 110 9.2 55 9.2 5.9 6\/12\/03 23 100 110 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/13\/03 24 100 110 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/14\/03 25 100 110 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/16\/03 27 100 110 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/17\/03 28 100 110 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/18\/03 29 130 110 9.2 55 9.2 5.9 6\/19\/03 30 100 110 9.2 55 9.2 5.9 6\/23\/03 34 100 100 9.2 55 9.2 6.0 6\/25\/03 36 120 110 9.2 55 9.2 5.9 6\/26\/03 37 120 120 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/27\/03 38 130 120 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 6\/30\/03 41 130 120 9.1 55 9.1 6.0 7\/02\/03 43 120 120 9.0 55 9.0 6.1 7\/04\/03 45 110 110 9.0 54 9.0 6.0 98 CH 3OH P04Feed NH4CI NaHC0 3 Leachate Clarifier Simulated Clarifie Feed Flow Flow Feed Flow Feed Flow Flow Recycle Leachate Recycl Date Day (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Ratio 7\/06\/03 47 120 110 120 9.8 55 10.0 5.6 7\/07\/03 48 130 120 120 9.7 55 9.8 5.6 7\/08\/03 49 130 130 120 9.6 55 9.7 5.6 7\/09\/03 50 130 110 120 9.6 55 9.7 5.6 7\/10\/03 51 120 120 110 9.6 55 9.7 5.7 7\/11\/03 52 130 120 120 9.5 53 9.6 5.6 7\/12\/03 53 130 120 100 9.5 55 9.6 5.8 7\/14\/03 55 130 120 160 410 9.5 55 9.6 5.8 7\/16\/03 57 130 120 120 510 9.5 57 9.6 5.9 7\/18\/03 59 140 130 130 600 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 7\/21\/03 62 140 130 120 550 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 7\/25\/03 66 190 190 170 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 7\/30\/03 71 160 160 130 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 8\/01\/03 73 240 240 200 9.4 55 9.6 5.7 8\/05\/03 77 200 180 170 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 8\/08\/03 80 210 180 170 500 9.4 55 9.5 5.8 8\/11\/03 83 210 200 180 920 9.2 55 9.4 5.9 8\/14\/03 86 180 180 180 350 9.2 58 9.4 6.1 8\/17\/03 89 190 190 170 1,320 9.2 55 9.4 5.9 8\/19\/03 91 210 190 160 1,000 9.1 55 9.3 5.9 8\/25\/03 97 220 200 180 40 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 8\/29\/03 101 200 190 160 790 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 9\/01\/03 104 180 170 160 1,010 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 9\/03\/03 106 190 180 190 810 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 9\/05\/03 108 200 180 160 1,000 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 9\/08\/03 111 190 180 160 940 8.9 55 9.0 6.1 9\/10\/03 113 190 180 160 1,060 8.9 55 9.0 6.1 9\/12\/03 115 190 180 160 1,040 8.3 55 8.4 6.6 9\/17\/03 120 190 180 160 980 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 9\/19\/03 122 190 180 160 920 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 9\/22\/03 125 180 180 160 1,060 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 9\/24\/03 127 200 190 160 970 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 9\/26\/03 129 190 180 160 1,010 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 9\/29\/03 132 190 170 150 750 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 10\/01\/03 134 190 180 160 720 9.1 55 9.3 6.0 10\/03\/03 136 190 180 160 650 9.0 55 9.2 6.1 10\/06\/03 139 200 180 150 610 9.0 55 9.2 6.1 10\/15\/03 148 170 170 140 880 9.0 55 9.1 6.0 99 C H 3 O H P04Feed NH4CI NaHCOs Leachate Clarifier Simulated Clarifie Feed Flow Flow Feed Flow Feed Flow Flow Recycle Leachate Recycl Date Day (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Ratio 10\/17\/03 150 170 160 150 810 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 10\/20\/03 153 180 170 160 950 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 10\/22\/03 155 180 170 160 870 9.0 55 9.2 6.1 10\/24\/03 157 190 170 160 900 9.0 55 9.2 6.1 10\/27\/03 160 180 170 150 630 8.9 55 9.0 6.1 10\/29\/03 162 180 170 150 740 9.0 55 9.2 6.0 10\/31\/03 164 160 160 140 700 8.9 54 9.0 6.0 11\/03\/03 167 170 160 170 900 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 11\/07\/03 171 170 170 180 950 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 11\/10\/03 174 160 160 170 860 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/12\/03 176 180 170 180 850 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 11\/14\/03 178 170 170 180 790 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/17\/03 181 170 160 170 760 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/19\/03 183 180 170 180 690 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/21\/03 185 170 160 170 680 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/24\/03 188 180 170 180 620 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/26\/03 190 160 150 170 730 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 11\/28\/03 192 170 170 180 810 8.5 54 8.7 6.2 12\/03\/03 197 180 160 180 920 8.8 54 8.9 6.0 12\/05\/03 199 180 160 170 860 8.6 55 8.8 6.2 12\/07\/03 201 170 160 170 830 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 12\/09\/03 203 170 170 180 750 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 12\/11\/03 205 170 170 180 870 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 12\/14\/03 208 170 150 180 640 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 12\/16\/03 210 180 170 180 900 9.0 54 9.2 5.9 12\/18\/03 212 170 160 180 1,790 9.0 54 9.2 5.9 12\/20\/03 214 180 170 180 1,270 8.9 55 9.1 6.0 12\/22\/03 216 180 160 180 1,610 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 12\/24\/03 218 180 160 180 1,290 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 12\/26\/03 220 180 160 180 1,360 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 12\/28\/03 222 190 170 180 1,370 8.9 54 9.1 6.0 1\/01\/04 226 170 160 260 2,000 8.8 54 9.0 6.0 1\/03\/04 228 180 160 270 760 9.4 54 9.6 5.6 1\/05\/04 230 180 170 260 910 9.2 54 9.5 5.7 1\/07\/04 232 190 170 270 860 9.2 54 9.5 5.7 1\/10\/04 235 180 170 260 780 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 1\/11\/04 236 190 170 260 760 9.2 54 9.5 5.7 1\/12\/04 237 170 160 260 790 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 100 C H 3 O H P0 4 Feed NH 4 C1 Feed Flow Flow Feed Flow Date Day (mL\/d) (mL\/d) (mL\/d) 1\/14\/04 239 190 175 260 1\/16\/04 241 190 170 270 1\/18\/04 243 195 170 260 1\/20\/04 245 200 180 260 1\/21\/04 246 195 170 280 1\/24\/04 249 190 170 240 1\/26\/04 251 190 170 240 1\/28\/04 253 200 170 240 2\/04\/04 260 170 150 250 2\/07\/04 263 170 140 250 2\/09\/04 265 160 150 240 2\/11\/04 267 170 150 240 2\/14\/04 270 170 150 240 2\/16\/04 272 160 140 240 2\/18\/04 274 160 140 240 2\/20\/04 276 170 140 240 2\/22\/04 278 170 150 240 2\/25\/04 281 160 150 270 2\/27\/04 283 170 150 280 2\/29\/04 285 160 140 280 3\/02\/04 287 170 150 280 3\/04\/04 289 170 150 270 3\/07\/04 292 160 150 270 3\/09\/04 294 160 140 260 3\/11\/04 296 160 150 260 3\/13\/04 298 150 140 260 3\/15\/04 300 160 150 220 3\/17\/04 302 160 170 260 3\/19\/04 304 160 150 260 3\/22\/04 307 160 150 260 3\/25\/04 310 160 160 250 N a H C 0 3 Leachate Clarifier Simulated Clarifier sed Flow Flow Recycle Leachate Recycl (mL\/d) (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Flow (L\/d) Ratio 800 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 820 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 830 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 770 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 890 9.1 54 . 9.4 5.7 710 9.0 54 9.2 5.8 800 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 690 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 810 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 830 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 830 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 1,660 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 1,250 9.2 54 9.5 5.7 1,220 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 1,140 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 1,040 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 610 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 880 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 880 9.1 54 9.4 5.7 840 9.1 54 9.4 5.7 790 9.1 54 9.4 5.7 700 9.0 54 9.3 5.8 720 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 640 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 680 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 630 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 600 9.1 54 9.3 5.8 1,080 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 780 9.1 54 9.4 5.8 820 9.0 54 9.3 5.8 680 9.0 54 9.3 5.8 101 P 0 4 C H 3 O H Chemical Total Feed N H 4 C l Feed N a H C 0 3 Aerobic Aerobic System Flow Flow Cone Feed Cone Cone Feed Wasting SRT SRT Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (gP\/L) (gNH 4 Cl \/L) (mL\/L) Cone (g\/L) (L\/d) (days) (days) 5\/21\/03 1 0.1 9.1 0.88 5\/23\/03 3 0.1 9.1 0.88 5\/24\/03 4 0.1 9.1 0.88 5\/25\/03 5 0.1 9.1 0.88 5\/26\/03 6 0.1 9.1 0.88 5\/27\/03 7 0.1 8.0 0.88 5\/28\/03 8 0.1 8.0 0.88 5\/29\/03 9 0.1 7.8 0.88 5\/30\/03 10 0.1 9.2 0.88 5\/31\/03 11 0.1 9.2 0.88 6\/01\/03 12 0.1 9.2 0.88 6\/02\/03 13 0.1 9.2 0.88 6\/03\/03 14 0.1 9.4 0.88 6\/04\/03 15 0.1 8.7 0.88 6\/05\/03 16 0.2 9.2 0.88 20 6\/06\/03 17 0.2 9.2 0.88 20 6\/07\/03 18 0.2 9.2 0.88 20 6\/08\/03 19 0.2 9.2 0.88 30 6\/10\/03 21 0.2 9.5 0.88 30 1 10 15.0 6\/11\/03 22 0.2 9.5 0.88 65 1 10 15.3 6\/12\/03 23 0.2 9.3 0.88 65 1 10 19.5 6\/13\/03 24 0.2 9.3 0.88 65 1 10 16.2 6\/14\/03 25 0.2 9.3 0.88 65 1 10 19.3 6\/16\/03 27 0.2 9.3 0.88 65 1 10 20.0 6\/17\/03 28 0.2 9.3 0.88 65 1 10 16.6 6\/18\/03 29 0.2 9.5 0.88 65 1 10 19.7 6\/19\/03 30 0.2 9.5 0.88 65 1 10 16.4 6\/23\/03 34 0.2 9.4 0.88 65 1 10 20.0 6\/25\/03 36 0.2 9.5 0.88 120 1 10 16.0 6\/26\/03 37 0.2 9.4 0.88 120 1 10 20.3 6\/27\/03 38 0.3 9.4 0.88 120 1 10 20.0 6\/30\/03 41 0.3 9.4 0.88 110 1 10 17.8 7\/02\/03 43 0.2 9.2 0.88 110 80 1 10 21.4 7\/04\/03 45 0.2 9.2 0.88 110 80 1 10 17.5 7\/06\/03 47 0.2 10.2 0.88 50 110 1 10 21.1 7\/07\/03 48 0.3 10.1 0.88 50 110 1 10 16.4 102 PO4 CH 3OH Chemical Total Feed NH4C1 Feed NaHCOj Aerobic Aerobic System Flow Flow Cone Feed Cone Cone Feed Wasting SRT SRT Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (gP\/L) (gNH4Cl\/L) (mL\/L) Cone (g\/L) (L\/d) (days) (days) 7\/08\/03 49 0.3 10.0 0.88 50 110 1 10 20.3 7\/09\/03 50 0.2 10.0 0.88 50 110 1 10 20.0 7\/10\/03 51 0.2 10.0 0.88 50 110 1 10 17.3 7\/11\/03 52 0.3 9.9 0.88 50 110 1 10 7\/12\/03 53 0.3 9.8 0.88 75 110 1 10 20.8 7\/14\/03 55 0.7 10.3 0.88 100 110 1 10 17.3 7\/16\/03 57 0.8 10.4 0.88 100 110 80 1 10 21.1 7\/18\/03 59 0.9 10.4 0.88 100 110 80 1 10 16.9 7\/21\/03 62 0.8 10.3 0.88 100 110 80 1 10 17.2 7\/25\/03 66 0.4 9.9 0.88 140 110 80 1 10 15.5 7\/30\/03 71 0.3 9.8 0.88 35 23 80 1 10 14.7 8\/01\/03 73 0.5 10.0 0.88 70 23 80 1 10 20.2 8\/05\/03 77 0.4 9.9 0.88 70 10 80 1 10 13.5 8\/08\/03 80 0.9 10.4 0.88 80 40 80 1 10 15.8 8\/11\/03 83 1.3 10.8 0.88 100 40 80 1 10 14.7 8\/14\/03 86 0.7 10.1 0.88 150 60 80 1 10 13.9 8\/17\/03 89 1.7 11.1 0.88 150 70 80 1 10 14.4 8\/19\/03 91 1.4 10.7 0.88 150 70 80 1 10 13.1 8\/25\/03 97 0.5 9.6 0.88 185 80 80 1 10 15.5 8\/29\/03 101 1.2 10.3 0.88 100 20 80 1 10 14.6 9\/01\/03 104 1.4 10.5 0.88 150 20 80 1 10 14.8 9\/03\/03 106 1.2 10.4 0.78 150 30 80 1 10 13.8 9\/05\/03 108 1.4 10.5 0.78 185 30 80 1 10 12.1 9\/08\/03 111 1.3 10.4 0.78 185 50 80 1 10 14.2 9\/10\/03 113 1.4 10.5 0.78 190 50 80 1 10 15.0 9\/12\/03 115 1.4 9.9 0.78 190 60 80 1 10 13.7 9\/17\/03 120 1.4 10.6 0.78 200 70 80 1 10 14.1 9\/19\/03 122 1.3 10.6 0.78 200 80 80 1 10 14.3 9\/22\/03 125 1.4 10.7 0.78 200 90 80 1 10 13.8 9\/24\/03 127 1.4 10.6 0.78 200 90 80 1 10 15.1 9\/26\/03 129 1.4 10.7 0.78 200 90 80 1 10 14.6 9\/29\/03 132 1.1 10.3 0.78 185 100 80 1 10 14.9 10\/01\/03 134 1.1 10.4 0.78 185 100 80 1 10 16.5 10\/03\/03 136 1.0 10.2 0.78 185 110 80 1 10 16.5 10\/06\/03 139 1.0 10.1 0.78 185 110 80 1 10 16.8 10\/15\/03 148 1.2 10.4 0.78 185 60 80 1 10 14.9 10\/17\/03 150 1.1 10.3 0.78 190 70 80 1 10 16.5 103 PO4 C H 3 O H Chemical Total Feed NH4C1 Feed NaHC0 3 Aerobic Aerobic System Flow Flow Cone Feed Cone Cone Feed Wasting SRT SRT Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (gP\/L) (gNH 4 Cl \/L) (mL\/L) Cone (g\/L) (L\/d) (days) (days) 10\/20\/03 153 1.3 10.5 0.78 190 70 80 1 10 15.4 10\/22\/03 155 1.2 10.4 0.78 190 80 80 1 10 15.5 10\/24\/03 157 1.3 10.4 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 15.5 10\/27\/03 160 1.0 10.0 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 14.6 10\/29\/03 162 1.1 10.2 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 15.7 10\/31\/03 164 1.0 10.0 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 15.6 11\/03\/03 167 1.2 10.3 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 14.7 11\/07\/03 171 1.3 10.4 0.78 185 80 80 1 10 16.2 11\/10\/03 174 1.2 10.2 0.78 180 90 80 1 10 16.3 11\/12\/03 176 1.2 10.3 0.78 180 90 80 1 10 14.2 11\/14\/03 178 1.1 10.2 0.78 180 100 80 1 10 15.4 11\/17\/03 181 1.1 10.1 0.78 170 100 80 1 10 14.8 11\/19\/03 183 1.0 10.1 0.78 170 100 80 1 10 15.4 11\/21\/03 185 1.0 10.1 0.78 170 100 80 1 10 15.7 11\/24\/03 188 1.0 10.0 0.78 170 115 80 1 10 15.8 11\/26\/03 190 1.0 10.1 0.78 175 115 80 1 10 15.8 11\/28\/03 192 1.2 9.9 0.78 195 115 80 1 10 16.3 12\/03\/03 197 1.3 10.2 0.78 215 145 80 1 10 16.3 12\/05\/03 199 1.2 10.0 0.78 215 160 80 1 10 14.9 12\/07\/03 201 1.2 10.2 0.78 215 175 80 1 10 14.5 12\/09\/03 203 1.1 10.2 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 14.2 12\/11\/03 205 1.2 10.3 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 14.9 12\/14\/03 208 1.0 10.0 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 16.3 12\/16\/03 210 1.3 10.4 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 15.9 12\/18\/03 212 2.1 11.3 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 14.3 12\/20\/03 214 1.6 10.7 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 16.5 12\/22\/03 216 2.0 11.0 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 15.8 12\/24\/03 218 1.6 10.7 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 15.1 12\/26\/03 220 1.7 10.8 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 12.2 12\/28\/03 222 1.7 10.8 0.78 215 190 80 1 10 13.6 1\/01\/04 226 2.3 11.4 0.78 158 175 80 1 10 15.2 1\/03\/04 228 1.1 10.7 0.78 150 175 80 1 10 13.9 1\/05\/04 230 1.3 10.8 0.78 150 190 80 1 10 14.0 1\/07\/04 232 1.2 10.7 0.78 145 190 80 1 10 14.9 1\/10\/04 235 1.1 10.5 0.78 140 190 80 1 10 16.0 1\/11\/04 236 1.1 10.6 0.78 140 190 80 1 10 15.5 1\/12\/04 237 1.1 10.5 0.78 140 190 80 1 10 14.8 104 P0 4 C H 3 O H Chemical Total Feed NH4C1 Feed NaHCOj Aerobic Aerobic System Flow Flow Cone Feed Cone Cone Feed Wasting SRT SRT Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (gP\/L) (gNH 4 Cl\/L) (mL\/L) Cone (g\/L) (L\/d) (days) (days) 1\/14\/04 239 1.2 10.5 0.78 143 185 80 1 10 15.6 1\/16\/04 241 1.2 10.6 0.78 143 185 80 1 10 14.7 1\/18\/04 243 1.2 10.6 0.78 143 185 80 1 10 15.0 1\/20\/04 245 1.2 10.5 0.78 143 185 80 1 10 16.0 1\/21\/04 246 1.3 10.7 0.78 143 185 80 1 10 15.0 1\/24\/04 249 1.1 10.3 0.78 153 185 80 1 10 16.1 1\/26\/04 251 1.2 10.5 0.78 153 185 80 1 10 15.2 1\/28\/04 253 1.1 10.4 0.78 153 185 80 1 10 16.6 2\/04\/04 260 1.1 10.5 0.78 153 210 80 1 10 16.8 2\/07\/04 263 1.1 10.5 0.78 153 210 80 1 10 16.5 2\/09\/04 265 1.1 10.5 0.78 160 210 80 1 10 16.5 2\/11\/04 267 2.0 11.3 0.78 160 210 80 1 10 14.2 2\/14\/04 270 1.6 11.1 0.78 160 210 80 1 10 17.5 2\/16\/04 272 1.5 10.9 0.78 162 210 80 1 10 16.1 2\/18\/04 274 1.4 10.8 0.78 162 210 80 1 10 16.7 2\/20\/04 276 1.4 10.7 0.78 162 220 80 1 10 15.7 2\/22\/04 278 0.9 10.3 0.78 162 220 80 1 10 16.0 2\/25\/04 281 1.2 10.6 0.78 138 220 80 1 10 17.2 2\/27\/04 283 1.2 10.6 0.78 138 220 80 1 10 16.6 2\/29\/04 285 1.1 10.5 0.78 138 210 80 1 10 16.0 3\/02\/04 287 1.1 10.5 0.78 138 210 80 1 10 17.4 3\/04\/04 289 1.0 10.3 0.78 143 210 80 1 10 16.4 3\/07\/04 292 1.0 10.4 0.78 148 210 80 1 10 16.5 3\/09\/04 294 0.9 10.3 0.78 148 210 80 1 10 15.6 3\/11\/04 296 1.0 10.4 0.78 148 210 80 1 10 16.2 3\/13\/04 298 0.9 10.3 0.78 148 200 80 1 10 16.8 3\/15\/04 300 0.9 10.2 1.11 148 200 80 0 3\/17\/04 302 1.4 10.8 1.11 150 100 80 0 3\/19\/04 304 1.1 10.5 1.11 148 200 80 ' 0.5 20 27.5 3\/22\/04 307 1.1 10.4 0.78 148 200 80 1 10 17.6 3\/25\/04 310 1.0 10.3 0.78 148 220 80 1 10 17.9 105 A n o x i c A e r o b i c A n o x i c O v e r f l o w O v e r f l o w A H R T Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (hr) 5\/21\/03 1 66.0 66.0 1.8 5\/23\/03 3 66.0 66.0 1.8 5\/24\/03 4 66.0 66.0 1.8 5\/25\/03 5 66.0 66.0 1.8 5\/26\/03 6 66.0 66.0 1.8 5\/27\/03 7 64.9 64.9 1.8 5\/28\/03 8 64.9 64.9 1.8 5\/29\/03 9 64.7 64.7 1.9 5\/30\/03 10 66.8 66.8 1.8 5\/31\/03 11 66.8 66.8 1.8 6\/01\/03 12 66.8 66.8 1.8 6\/02\/03 13 66.8 66.8 1.8 6\/03\/03 14 64.8 64.8 1.9 6\/04\/03 15 64.2 64.2 1.9 6\/05\/03 16 67.5 67.5 1.8 6\/06\/03 17 64.7 64.7 1.9 6\/07\/03 18 63.9 63.9 1.9 6\/08\/03 19 65.4 65.4 1.8 6\/10\/03 21 64.2 64.2 6\/11\/03 22 64.2 64.2 1.9 6\/12\/03 23 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/13\/03 24 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/14\/03 25 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/16\/03 27 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/17\/03 28 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/18\/03 29 64.2 64.2 1.9 6\/19\/03 30 64.2 64.2 1.9 6\/23\/03 34 64.9 64.9 1.8 6\/25\/03 36 64.2 64.2 1.9 6\/26\/03 37 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/27\/03 38 64.1 64.1 1.9 6\/30\/03 41 64.1 64.1 1.9 7\/02\/03 43 64.0 64.0 1.9 7\/04\/03 45 63.2 63.2 1.9 7\/06\/03 47 65.6 65.6 1.8 7\/07\/03 48 64.8 64.8 1.9 A e r o b i c C l a r i f i e r A n o x i c A e r o b i c E f f l u e n t A H R T A H R T T S S T S S T S S (hr) (hr) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L 3.6 1.5 3.6 1.5 1,400 3.6 1.5 3.6 1.5 1,600 3.6 1.5 3.7 1.5 3.7 1.5 3.7 1.5 1,500 3.6 1.4 3.6 1.4 3.6 1.4 3.6 1.4 1,600 3.7 1.5 3.7 1.5 3.6 1.4 1,600 80 3.7 1.5 4,700 2,400 60 3.8 1.5 3,000 2,800 3.7 1.5 2,800 2,900 3,200 3.7 1.5 2,600 3,000 70 3.7 1.5 2,500 2,800 3.7 1.5 2,300 2,800 50 3.7 1.5 2,200 2,600 3.7 1.5 2,600 2,600 3.7 1.5 2,400 2,600 50 3.7 1.5 2,300 2,400 3.7 1.5 2,200 2,200 40 3.7 1.5 1,800 1,800 3.7 1.5 2,000 1,900 50 3.7 1.5 2,400 2,100 3.7 1.5 2,100 2,100 3.7 1.5 2,400 2,100 40 3.8 1.5 2,700 2,200 3.8 1.5 2,700 2,500 40 3.7 1.5 2,000 1,700 3.7 1.5 2,000 1,700 40 106 Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Overflow Overflow A H R T Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (hr) 7\/08\/03 49 64.7 64.7 1.9 7\/09\/03 50 64.7 64.7 1.9 7\/10\/03 51 65.4 65.4 1.8 7\/11\/03 52 63.1 63.1 1.9 7\/12\/03 53 65.3 65.3 1.8 7\/14\/03 55 65.3 65.7 1.8 7\/16\/03 57 66.7 67.2 1.8 7\/18\/03 59 65.2 65.8 1.8 7\/21\/03 62 65.2 65.7 1.8 7\/25\/03 66 65.4 65.4 1.8 7\/30\/03 71 65.3 65.3 1.8 8\/01\/03 73 64.8 64.8 1.9 8\/05\/03 77 65.4 65.4 1.8 8\/08\/03 80 65.4 65.9 1.8 8\/11\/03 83 65.3 66.2 1.8 8\/14\/03 86 67.5 67.9 1.8 8\/17\/03 89 65.2 66.6 1.8 8\/19\/03 91 64.4 65.4 1.9 8\/25\/03 97 65.0 65.1 1.8 8\/29\/03 101 64.3 65.1 1.9 9\/01\/03 104 64.2 65.2 1.9 9\/03\/03 106 64.3 65.1 1.9 9\/05\/03 108 64.3 65.3 1.9 9\/08\/03 111 64.1 65.1 1.9 9\/10\/03 113 64.1 65.2 1.9 9\/12\/03 115 64.3 65.3 1.9 9\/17\/03 120 65.1 66.1 1.8 9\/19\/03 122 65.1 66.0 1.8 9\/22\/03 125 65.1 66.1 1.8 9\/24\/03 127 65.1 66.1 1.8 9\/26\/03 129 65.1 66.1 1.8 9\/29\/03 132 64.2 65.0 1.9 10\/01\/03 134 65.1 65.8 1.8 10\/03\/03 136 65.0 65.6 1.8 10\/06\/03 139 65.0 65.6 1.8 10\/15\/03 148 64.2 65.1 1.9 10\/17\/03 150 64.2 65.0 1.9 Aerobic Clarifier Anoxic Aerobic Effluent \\.HRT A H R T TSS TSS TSS (hr) (hr) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) 3.7 1.5 1,800 1,800 3.7 1.5 1,900 1,900 3.7 1.5 2,100 1,900 30 3.8 1.5 3.7 1.5 2,500 2,100 3.7 1.5 2,400 2,200 60 3.6 1.4 3,000 2,500 3.6 1.5 2,900 2,900 50 3.7 1.5 2,900 2,800 50 3.7 1.5 3,600 3,500 120 3.7 1.5 3,500 3,400 110 3.7 1.5 3,200 3,000 3.7 1.5 2,900 2,600 140 3.6 1.5 2,400 2,200 70 3.6 1.5 2,300 2,400 100 3.5 1.4 2,600 2,300 110 3.6 1.4 3,100 3,300 130 3.7 1.5 3,800 3,200 180 3.7 1.5 3,100 2,700 80 3.7 1.5 2,700 2,500 90 3.7 1.5 3,200 2,700 120 3.7 1.5 2,800 2,400 120 3.7 1.5 2,400 2,300 170 3.7 1.5 2,500 2,200 110 3.7 1.5 2,900 2,400 100 3.7 1.5 2,800 2,500 160 3.6 1.5 3,000 2,700 140 3.6 1.5 3,200 2,900 130 3.6 1.5 3,300 2,800 150 3.6 1.5 3,000 2,700 90 3.6 1.5 3,400 3,300 130 3.7 1.5 3,700 3,100 100 3.6 1.5 3,800 3,300 90 3.7 1.5 3,700 3,100 80 3.7 1.5 3,400 3,300 70 3.7 1.5 4,000 3,500 130 3.7 1.5 4,200 3,700 90 107 Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Clarifier Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Overflow Overflow A H R T A H R T A H R T TSS TSS TSS Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (hr) (hr) (hr) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) 10\/20\/03 153 64.2 65.2 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,500 3,400 110 10\/22\/03 155 65.0 65.8 1.8 3.6 1.5 3,200 2,800 110 10\/24\/03 157 65.0 65.9 1.8 3.6 1.5 3,200 3,100 100 10\/27\/03 160 64.1 64.7 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,400 2,500 120 10\/29\/03 162 64.2 65.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,500 2,400 100 10\/31\/03 164 63.3 64.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 2,900 2,300 90 11\/03\/03 167 64.1 65.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,100 2,500 120 11\/07\/03 171 64.1 65.1 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,500 3,300 110 11\/10\/03 174 63.4 64.2 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,300 3,100 100 11\/12\/03 176 64.1 65.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,100 3,100 140 11\/14\/03 178 63.4 64.2 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,000 3,300 110 11\/17\/03 181 63.4 64.1 1.9 3.7 1.5 2,900 3,100 90 11\/19\/03 183 63.4 64.1 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,300 3,200 110 11\/21\/03 185 63.4 64.1 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,600 3,200 100 11\/24\/03 188 63.4 64.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,600 3,300 120 11\/26\/03 190 63.4 64.1 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,500 3,600 110 11\/28\/03 192 63.0 63.9 1.9 3.8 1.5 3,500 3,600 100 12\/03\/03 197 63.3 64.2 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,300 3,800 90 12\/05\/03 199 63.9 64.7 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,000 4,200 140 12\/07\/03 201 64.1 64.9 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,400 4,300 140 12\/09\/03 203 64.1 64.9 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,000 4,000 150 12\/11\/03 205 63.4 64.3 1.9 3.7 1.5 3,900 4,100 150 12\/14\/03 208 63.4 64.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,500 4,000 140 12\/16\/03 210 63.5 64.4 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,200 3,900 130 12\/18\/03 212 63.5 65.3 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,700 4,400 210 12\/20\/03 214 64.1 65.4 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,000 4,600 120 12\/22\/03 216 63.4 65.0 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,900 4,900 150 12\/24\/03 218 63.4 64.7 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,900 4,700 180 12\/26\/03 220 63.4 64.8 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,330 5,300 360 12\/28\/03 222 63.4 64.8 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,100 5,400 250 1\/01\/04 226 63.4 65.4 1.9 3.7 1.5 4,300 4,600 160 1\/03\/04 228 64.0 64.7 1.9 3.7 1.5 6,100 5,300 260 1\/05\/04 230 63.9 64.8 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,500 5,400 230 1\/07\/04 232 63.9 64.7 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,500 200 1\/10\/04 235 63.7 64.5 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,700 140 1\/11\/04 236 63.9 64.6 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,500 5,400 160 1\/12\/04 237 63.7 64.5 1.9 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,700 190 108 Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Overflow Overflow A H R T Date Day (L\/d) (L\/d) (hr) 1\/14\/04 239 63.7 64.5 1.9 1\/16\/04 241 63.8 64.6 1.9 1\/18\/04 243 63.7 64.6 1.9 1\/20\/04 245 63.8 64.5 1.9 1\/21\/04 246 63.8 64.7 1.9 1\/24\/04 249 63.6 64.3 1.9 1\/26\/04 251 63.7 64.5 1.9 1\/28\/04 253 63.7 64.4 1.9 2\/04\/04 260 63.7 64.5 1.9 2\/07\/04 263 63.7 64.5 1.9 2\/09\/04 265 63.7 64.5 1.9 2\/11\/04 267 63.7 65.3 1.9 2\/14\/04 270 63.8 65.1 1.9 2\/16\/04 272 63.7 64.9 1.9 2\/18\/04 274 63.7 64.8 1.9 2\/20\/04 276 63.7 64.7 1.9 2\/22\/04 278 63.7 64.3 1.9 2\/25\/04 281 63.7 64.6 1.9 2\/27\/04 283 63.7 64.6 1.9 2\/29\/04 285 63.7 64.5 1.9 3\/02\/04 287 63.7 64.5 1.9 3\/04\/04 289 63.6 64.3 1.9 3\/07\/04 292 63.7 64.4 1.9 3\/09\/04 294 63.7 64.3 1.9 3\/11\/04 296 63.7 64.4 1.9 3\/13\/04 298 63.7 64.3 1.9 3\/15\/04 300 63.6 64.2 1.9 3\/17\/04 302 63.7 64.8 1.9 3\/19\/04 304 63.7 64.5 1.9 3\/22\/04 307 63.6 64.4 1.9 3\/25\/04 310 63.6 64.3 1.9 Aerobic Clarifier Anoxic Aerobic Effluent ^HRT A H R T TSS TSS TSS (hr) (hr) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,300 160 3.7 1.5 5,500 5,500 210 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,500 170 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,600 150 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,400 200 3.7 1.5 5,200 5,200 160 3.7 1.5 5,400 5,400 170 3.7 1.5 5,600 5,300 150 3.7 1.5 5,200 5,500 120 3.7 1.5 5,100 5,400 130 3.7 1.5 5,300 5,300 150 3.7 1.5 5,600 5,900 220 3.7 1.5 5,900 5,600 110 3.7 1.5 6,000 5,800 170 3.7 1.5 5,300 5,900 110 3.7 1.5 5,800 6,000 180 3.7 1.5 5,400 6,200 130 3.7 1.5 5,900 6,100 110 3.7 1.5 6,000 6,500 140 3.7 1.5 5,700 5,500 140 3.7 1.5 5,500 5,800 80 3.7 1.5 5,800 6,200 150 3.7 1.5 5,200 6,000 100 3.7 1.5 5,100 6,400 150 3.7 1.5 5,300 5,800 120 3.7 1.5 5,600 6,200 110 3.7 1.5 5,700 6,100 100 3.7 1.5 8,300 9,600 90 3.7 1.5 6,800 6,100 160 3.7 1.5 6,000 7,500 60 3.7 1.5 6,800 6,900 90 109 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic VSS VSS VSS Anoxic Aerobic Effluent ORF DO Date Day (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS (mV) (mg\/L) 5\/21\/03 1 4.5 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 5\/27\/03 7 3.7 5\/28\/03 8 5\/29\/03 9 2.8 5\/30\/03 10 2.9 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 2.9 6\/03\/03 14 2.8 6\/04\/03 15 3.1 6\/05\/03 16 1,300 70 0.81 0.88 2.8 6\/06\/03 17 3,600 1,900 50 0.77 0.79 0.83 3.5 6\/07\/03 18 2,300 2,200 0.77 0.79 4 6\/08\/03 19 2,200 2,200 0.79 0.76 3.8 6\/10\/03 21 2,400 0.75 3.2 6\/11\/03 22 1,900 2,300 60 0.73 0.77 0.86 3.4 6\/12\/03 23 1,900 2,100 0.76 0.75 2.7 6\/13\/03 24 1,700 2,100 40 0.74 0.75 0.80 2.9 6\/14\/03 25 1,700 2,000 0.77 0.77 3.1 6\/16\/03 27 2,000 2,000 0.77 0.77 4.4 6\/17\/03 28 1,900 2,000 40 0.79 0.77 0.80 3.6 6\/18\/03 29 1,800 1,900 0.78 0.79 3.2 6\/19\/03 30 1,700 1,700 40 0.77 0.77 1.00 4.1 6\/23\/03 34 1,400 1,400 0.78 0.78 4.3 6\/25\/03 36 1,600 1,900 40 0.80 1.00 0.80 -105 4.2 6\/26\/03 37 1,900 1,800 0.79 0.86 -109 3.2 6\/27\/03 38 1,700 1,700 0.81 0.81 -141 3 6\/30\/03 41 2,000 1,800 30 0.83 0.86 0.75 -106 4 7\/02\/03 43 2,300 1,800 0.85 0.82 -123 4.5 7\/04\/03 45 2,200 2,500 30 0.81 1.00 0.75 -195 4.8 7\/06\/03 47 1,700 1,400 0.85 0.82 -236 4.7 7\/07\/03 48 1,700 1,400 40 0.85 0.82 1.00 -246 4.5 110 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic VSS VSS VSS Anoxic Aerobic Effluent ORP DO Date Day (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS (mV) (mg\/L) 7\/08\/03 49 1,600 1,500 0.89 0.83 -83 4 7\/09\/03 50 1,700 1,700 0.89 0.89 -83 4.2 7\/10\/03 51 1,800 1,700 30 0.86 0.89 1.00 -77 3.8 7\/11\/03 52 -88 3.7 7\/12\/03 53 2,200 1,900 0.88 0.90 -83 3.7 7\/14\/03 55 1,900 1,800 30 0.79 0.82 0.50 -86 3.3 7\/16\/03 57 2,300 1,900 0.77 0.76 -103 3.2 7\/18\/03 59 2,300 2,300 40 0.79 0.79 0.80 -89 2.3 7\/21\/03 62 2,400 2,200 40 0.83 0.79 0.80 -91 2.5 7\/25\/03 66 3,100 3,000 90 0.86 0.86 0.75 -71 5.1 7\/30\/03 71 2,700 2,700 100 0.77 0.79 0.91 -14 7.5 8\/01\/03 73 2,500 2,400 0.78 0.80 12 6.9 8\/05\/03 77 2,300 2,100 110 0.79 0.81 0.79 80 3.7 8\/08\/03 80 1,900 1,700 50 0.79 0.77 0.71 61 2.4 8\/11\/03 83 1,800 1,800 60 0.78 0.75 0.60 6 2.1 8\/14\/03 86 2,100 1,900 90 0.81 0.83 0.82 26 2.3 8\/17\/03 89 2,300 2,400 80 0.74 0.73 0.62 2 3 8\/19\/03 91 2,500 2,300 120 0.66 0.72 0.67 5 3.4 8\/25\/03 97 2,300 2,000 70 0.74 0.74 0.88 112 5.5 8\/29\/03 101 2,000 1,700 70 0.74 0.68 0.78 102 2.7 9\/01\/03 104 2,100 1,700 70 0.66 0.63 0.58 83 4.4 9\/03\/03 106 1,900 1,600 80 0.68 0.67 0.67 73 3.2 9\/05\/03 108 1,600 1,600 100 0.67 0.70 0.59 87 4.7 9\/08\/03 111 1,800 1,500 70 0.72 0.68 0.64 38 3.3 9\/10\/03 113 2,200 1,800 70 0.76 0.75 0.70 40 3.3 9\/12\/03 115 2,200 1,900 100 0.79 0.76 0.63 45 3.2 9\/17\/03 120 2,300 2,100 90 0.77 0.78 0.64 39 2.8 9\/19\/03 122 2,400 2,200 90 0.75 0.76 0.69 29 1.8 9\/22\/03 125 2,500 2,000 100 0.76 0.71 0.67 -18 2.8 9\/24\/03 127 2,300 2,000 70 0.77 0.74 0.78 -17 3.2 9\/26\/03 129 2,600 2,400 90 0.76 0.73 0.69 -15 1.8 9\/29\/03 132 2,700 2,200 90 0.73 0.71 0.90 -16 2.4 10\/01\/03 134 2,800 2,400 60 0.74 0.73 0.67 -30 2.2 10\/03\/03 136 2,700 2,200 60 0.73 0.71 0.75 -40 2.4 10\/06\/03 139 2,600 2,500 50 0.76 0.76 0.71 -88 3.4 10\/15\/03 148 3,000 2,700 100 0.75 0.77 0.77 25 4.0 10\/17\/03 150 3,200 2,800 70 0.76 0.76 0.78 23 4.1 111 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic VSS VSS VSS Anoxic Aerobic Effluent ORE DO Date Day (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS (mV) (mg\/L) 10\/20\/03 153 2,800 2,600 80 0.80 0.76 0.73 15 3.2 10\/22\/03 155 2,500 2,200 70 0.78 0.79 0.64 -44 2.7 10\/24\/03 157 2,500 2,200 70 0.78 0.71 0.70 16 2.2 10\/27\/03 160 2,500 1,900 90 0.74 0.76 0.75 -5 2.0 10\/29\/03 162 2,500 1,800 70 0.71 0.75 0.70 -35 1.8 10\/31\/03 164 2,100 1,700 60 0.72 0.74 0.67 -40 2.5 11\/03\/03 167 2,300 1,800 80 0.74 0.72 0.67 31 1.9 11\/07\/03 171 2,600 2,500 60 0.74 0.76 0.55 73 2.3 11\/10\/03 174 2,600 2,400 60 0.79 0.77 0.60 46 2.5 11\/12\/03 176 2,500 2,400 100 0.81 0.77 0.71 19 2.2 11\/14\/03 178 2,400 2,500 70 0.80 0.76 0.64 . 26 2.1 11\/17\/03 181 2,300 2,500 80 0.79 0.81 0.89 -10 2.1 11\/19\/03 183 2,700 2,600 80 0.82 0.81 0.73 -1 2.0 11\/21\/03 185 2,900 2,600 80 0.81 0.81 0.80 11 2.0 11\/24\/03 188 3,000 2,700 80 0.83 0.82 0.67 -17 1.5 11\/26\/03 190 3,000 3,000 80 0.86 0.83 0.73 -12 1.7 11\/28\/03 192 3,000 3,000 70 0.86 0.83 0.70 -32 1.2 12\/03\/03 197 2,800 3,200 60 0.85 0.84 0.67 -48 1.4 12\/05\/03 199 2,600 3,400 90 0.87 0.81 0.64 -70 1.2 12\/07\/03 201 2,900 3,700 110 0.85 0.86 0.79 -120 1.0 12\/09\/03 203 2,600 3,500 110 0.87 0.88 0.73 -230 0.9 12\/11\/03 205 3,300 3,500 110 0.85 0.85 0.73 -125 2.9 12\/14\/03 208 3,800 3,300 90 0.84 0.83 0.64 -185 2.9 12\/16\/03 210 3,600 3,500 90 0.86 0.90 0.69 -135 2.4 12\/18\/03 212 4,000 3,700 140 0.85 0.84 0.67 -141 3.4 12\/20\/03 214 4,300 3,900 90 0.86 0.85 0.75 -168 3.2 12\/22\/03 216 4,100 4,000 100 0.84 0.82 0.67 -170 3.2 12\/24\/03 218 4,300 4,000 130 0.88 0.85 0.72 -177 3.8 12\/26\/03 220 4,400 4,400 260 0.83 0.83 0.72 -198 2.4 12\/28\/03 222 4,300 4,500 190 0.84 0.83 0.76 -170 2.9 1\/01\/04 226 3,600 3,700 100 0.84 0.80 0.63 -160 1.8 1\/03\/04 228 5,200 4,600 210 0.85 0.87 0.81 -131 1.6 1\/05\/04 230 4,800 4,700 190 0.87 0.87 0.83 -136 1.4 1\/07\/04 232 4,700 4,800 150 0.87 0.87 0.75 -136 1.2 1\/10\/04 235 4,700 5,000 110 0.87 0.88 0.79 -136 1.8 1\/11\/04 236 4,900 4,800 135 0.89 0.89 0.84 -134 1.8 1\/12\/04 237 4,800 5,000 160 0.89 0.88 0.84 -141 1.9 112 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic VSS VSS VSS Anoxic Aerobic Effluent ORE DO Date Day (mg\/L) (mg\/L) (mg\/L) VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS VSS\/TSS (mV) (mg\/L) 1\/14\/04 239 4,800 4,700 130 0.89 0.89 0.81 -151 1.9 1\/16\/04 241 4,700 4,800 160 0.85 0.87 0.76 -186 1.8 1\/18\/04 243 4,800 4,900 150 0.89 0.89 0.88 -185 1.8 1\/20\/04 245 4,700 4,800 110 0.87 0.86 0.73 -183 1.6 1\/21\/04 246 4,800 4,700 150 0.89 0.87 0.75 -173 1.4 1\/24\/04 249 4,600 4,500 110 0.88 0.87 0.69 -165 1.7 1\/26\/04 251 4,700 4,800 140 0.87 0.89 0.82 -149 1.6 1\/28\/04 253 4,900 4,600 100 0.88 0.87 0.67 -163 2.1 2\/04\/04 260 4,600 4,800 80 0.88 0.87 0.67 -165 1.5 2\/07\/04 263 4,500 4,700 90 0.88 0.87 0.69 -173 1.4 2\/09\/04 265 4,700 4,500 98 0.89 0.85 0.65 -177 2.1 2\/11\/04 267 4,900 5,100 177 0.88 0.86 0.80 -194 2.5 2\/14\/04 270 5,100 4,800 70 0.86 0.86 0.64 -208 2.8 2\/16\/04 272 5,300 5,000 120 0.88 0.86 0.71 -212 2.7 2\/18\/04 274 4,600 5,100 80 0.87 0.86 0.73 -226 2.5 2\/20\/04 276 5,100 5,300 130 0.88 0.88 0.72 -209 2.3 2\/22\/04 278 4,800 5,600 110 0.89 0.90 0.85 -204 1.4 2\/25\/04 281 5,300 5,400 80 0.90 0.89 0.73 -215 1.5 2\/27\/04 283 5,300 5,700 100 0.88 0.88 0.71 -225 1.6 2\/29\/04 285 5,000 4,900 120 0.88 0.89 0.86 -252 2.0 3\/02\/04 287 5,000 5,100 70 0.91 0.88 0.88 -237 2.1 3\/04\/04 289 5,200 5,500 110 0.90 0.89 0.73 -249 1.9 3\/07\/04 292 4,700 5,400 90 0.90 0.90 0.90 -213 2.0 3\/09\/04 294 4,600 5,800 120 0.90 0.91 0.80 -205 2.1 3\/11\/04 296 4,600 5,100 100 0.87 0.88 0.83 -183 1.9 3\/13\/04 298 5,000 5,400 90 0.89 0.87 0.82 -180 2.0 3\/15\/04 300 5,000 5,300 80 0.88 0.87 0.80 -176 2.6 3\/17\/04 302 7,300 8,300 70 0.88 0.86 0.78 -132 1.2 3\/19\/04 304 6,000 6,100 130 0.88 1.00 0.81 -171 1.6 3\/22\/04 307 5,300 6,700 50 0.88 0.89 0.83 -183 1.8 3\/25\/04 310 6,000 6,000 70 0.88 0.87 0.78 -197 2.2 113 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent pH pH pH Date Day 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 7.44 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 6\/03\/03 14 6.93 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 6.84 6\/06\/03 17 7.22 7.04 7.08 6\/07\/03 18 7.08 6.97 7.02 6\/08\/03 19 7.20 7.04 7.24 6\/10\/03 21 7.23 6\/11\/03 22 7.32 7.20 7.32 6\/12\/03 23 7.36 7.20 7.35 6\/13\/03 24 7.51 7.27 7.39 6\/14\/03 25 7.53 7.33 7.41 6\/16\/03 27 7.57 7.44 7.57 6\/17\/03 28 7.59 7.40 7.60 6\/18\/03 29 7.61 7.48 7.54 6\/19\/03 30 7.64 7.49 7.68 6\/23\/03 34 7.71 7.67 7.79 6\/25\/03 36 7.86 7.78 7.83 6\/26\/03 37 7.84 7.73 7.87 6\/27\/03 38 7.79 7.67 7.76 6\/30\/03 41 7.87 7.69 7.81 7\/02\/03 43 7.91 7.77 7.8 7\/04\/03 45 7.98 7.85 7.87 7\/06\/03 47 7.91 7.8 7.85 7\/07\/03 48 8.01 7.91 7.94 Anoxic Aerobic 0 - P 0 4 Anoxic Methanol Fu Fu Load COD Load (g P\/d) (g COD\/d) 0.011 0.10 0.000 0.000 0.10 0.000 0.000 0.10 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.10 0.003 0.10 0.000 0.10 0.003 0.10 2.4 0.006 0.004 0.10 2.4 0.005 0.004 0.10 2.4 0.006 0.004 0.10 3.6 0.10 3.6 0.008 0.006 0.10 7.7 0.009 0.006 0.11 7.7 0.013 0.007 0.11 7.7 0.013 0.008 0.11 7.7 0.014 0.011 0.11 7.7 0.015 0.010 0.11 7.7 0.016 0.012 0.10 10.0 0.017 0.012 0.10 7.7 0.020 0.018 0.09 7.7 0.028 0.023 0.10 17.1 0.026 0.021 0.11 17.1 0.024 0.018 0.11 18.5 0.028 0.019 0.11 17.0 0.031 0.023 0.11 15.7 0.036 0.027 0.10 14.4 0.031 0.024 0.10 15.7 0.039 0.031 0.11 17.0 114 Date Day Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic O-PO4 pH pH pH Fu Fu Load (g P\/d) 7\/08\/03 49 7\/09\/03 50 7\/10\/03 51 7\/11\/03 52 7\/12\/03 53 7\/14\/03 55 7\/16\/03 57 7\/18\/03 59 7\/21\/03 7\/25\/03 7\/30\/03 8\/01\/03 8\/05\/03 8\/08\/03 8\/11\/03 8\/14\/03 8\/17\/03 8\/19\/03 8\/25\/03 8\/29\/03 101 9\/01\/03 104 9\/03\/03 106 9\/05\/03 9\/08\/03 9\/10\/03 9\/12\/03 115 9\/17\/03 120 9\/19\/03 122 9\/22\/03 125 9\/24\/03 127 9\/26\/03 129 9\/29\/03 132 10\/01\/03 134 10\/03\/03 136 10\/06\/03 139 10\/15\/03 148 10\/17\/03 150 62 66 71 73 77 80 83 86 89 91 97 108 111 113 7.98 8 7.95 7.99 8.03 8.02 8.13 8.04 8.06 7.87 8.12 8.06 7.7 7.98 8.12 8.04 8.16 8.23 7.98 7.92 7.93 7.97 7.96 8.06 8.2 8.23 8.28 8.27 8.26 8.26 8.41 8.49 8.50 8.57 8.37 8.23 8.37 7.82 7.71 7.53 7.37 7.35 7.4 7.4 7.37 7.38 7.95 8.22 8.16 7.36 7.47 7.83 7.2 7.71 7.99 7.37 7.63 7.68 7.42 7.46 7.36 7.51 7.4 7.46 7.58 7.46 7.42 7.57 7.53 7.59 7.54 7.55 7.49 7.53 7.89 7.81 7.61 7.46 7.39 7.53 7.53 7.36 7.4 7.96 8.22 8.14 7.43 7.54 7.89 7.19 7.83 8.07 7.5 7.78 7.81 7.66 7.49 7.52 7.62 7.62 7.61 7.69 7.61 7.59 7.71 7.65 7.68 7.63 7.62 7.68 7.68 0.036 0.038 0.034 0.037 0.040 0.039 0.050 0.041 0.043 0.028 0.049 0.043 0.019 0.036 0.049 0.041 0.054 0.062 0.036 0.032 0.032 0.035 0.034 0.043 0.058 0.062 0.069 0.068 0.066 0.066 0.091. 0.108 0.110 0.127 0.084 0.062 0.084 0.025 0.020 0.013 0.009 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.009 0.009 0.034 0.061 0.054 0.009 0.011 0.026 0.006 0.020 0.037 0.009 0.016 0.018 0.010 0.011 0.009 0.013 0.010 0.011 0.015 0.011 0.010 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.013 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.14 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.12 Anoxic Methanol COD Load (gCOD\/d) 17.0 17.0 15.7 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 18.3 18.3 24.8 4.3 6.4 2.4 10.0 10.0 12.8 15.8 17.5 20.9 4.7 4.3 6.8 7.1 11.3 11.3 13.5 15.8 18.0 19.2 21.4 20.3 22.6 22.6 24.8 26.1 12.1 14.1 115 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent pH pH pH Date Day 10\/20\/03 153 8.41 7.51 7.68 10\/22\/03 155 8.47 7.48 7.67 10\/24\/03 157 8.52 7.56 7.79 10\/27\/03 160 8.53 7.50 7.65 10\/29\/03 162 8.31 7.39 7.38 10\/31\/03 164 8.35 7.39 7.54 11\/03\/03 167 8.32 7.50 7.58 11\/07\/03 171 8.46 7.51 7.77 11\/10\/03 174 8.50 7.52 7.71 11\/12\/03 176 8.43 7.51 7.69 11\/14\/03 178 8.54 7.53 7.58 11\/17\/03 181 8.40 7.52 7.58 11\/19\/03 183 8.43 7.52 7.50 11\/21\/03 185 8.40 7.51 7.48 11\/24\/03 188 8.40 7.51 7.63 11\/26\/03 190 8.55 7.51 7.59 11\/28\/03 192 8.56 7.51 7.52 12\/03\/03 197 8.61 7.51 7.65 12\/05\/03 199 8.57 7.52 7.65 12\/07\/03 201 8.49 7.51 7.42 12\/09\/03 203 8.12 7.52 7.50 12\/11\/03 205 8.54 7.51 7.57 12\/14\/03 208 8.25 7.51 7.63 12\/16\/03 210 8.13 7.50 7.55 12\/18\/03 212 8.24 8.02 8.03 12\/20\/03 214 8.29 8.01 8.00 12\/22\/03 216 8.22 8.01 8.02 12\/24\/03 218 8.29 8.01 8.09 12\/26\/03 220 8.22 8.01 8.06 12\/28\/03 222 8.24 8.01 7.98 1\/01\/04 226 8.46 7.88 7.63 1\/03\/04 228 8.23 7.50 7.44 1\/05\/04 230 8.26 7.52 7.55 1\/07\/04 232 8.30 7.51 7.55 1\/10\/04 235 8.29 7.50 7.47 1\/11\/04 236 8.33 7.51 7.44 1\/12\/04 237 8.30 7.51 7.49 Anoxic Aerobic 0 - P 0 4 Anoxic Methanol Fu Fu Load COD Load (g P\/d) (g COD\/d) 0.091 0.013 0.13 15.0 0.104 0.012 0.13 17.1 0.115 \u2022 0.014 0.13 18.0 0.117 0.012 0.13 17.1 0.074 0.010 0.13 17.1 0.081 0.010 0.12 15.2 0.076 0.012 0.12 16.1 0.101 0.013 0.13 16.1 0.110 0.013 0.12 17.1 0.095 0.013 0.13 19.2 0.120 0.013 20.2 0.090 0.013 0.12 20.2 0.095 0.013 0.13 21.4 0.090 0.013 0.12 20.2 0.090 0.013 0.13 24.6 0.122 0.013 0.12 21.8 0.124 0.013 0.13 23.2 0.138 0.013 0.12 31.0 0.127 0.013 0.12 34.2 0.108 0.013 0.12 35.3 0.049 0.013 0.13 38.3 0.120 0.013 0.13 38.3 0.065 0.013 0.12 38.3 0.050 0.012 0.13 40.6 0.064 0.039 0.12 38.3 0.071 0.039 0.13 40.6 0.061 0.039 0.12 40.6 0.071 0.039 0.12 40.6 0.061 0.039 0.12 40.6 0.064 0.039 0.13 42.9 0.101 0.029 0.12 35.3 0.062 0.012 0.12 37.4 0.066 0.013 0.13 40.6 0.072 0.013 0.13 42.9 0.071 0.012 0.13 40.6 0.077 0.013 0.13 42.9 0.072 0.013 0.12 38.3 116 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent pH pH pH Date Day 1\/14\/04 239 8.41 7.51 7.56 1\/16\/04 241 8.37 7.49 7.47 1\/18\/04 243 8.33 7.52 7.48 1\/20\/04 245 8.45 7.01 7.06 1\/21\/04 246 8.51 7.00 6.91 1\/24\/04 249 8.36 7.00 7.30 1\/26\/04 251 8.21 7.00 7.03 1\/28\/04 253 8.24 7.00 7.15 2\/04\/04 260 8.22 7.51 7.55 2\/07\/04 263 8.19 7.50 7.58 2\/09\/04 265 8.23 7.51 7.57 2\/11\/04 267 8.38 8.00 8.11 2\/14\/04 270 8.39 8.00 8.17 2\/16\/04 272 8.35 8.00 8.15 2\/18\/04 274 8.38 8.00 8.01 2\/20\/04 276 8.36 8.01 8.10 2\/22\/04 278 8.01 7.51 7.53 2\/25\/04 281 8.25 7.50 7.54 2\/27\/04 283 8.19 7.50 7.47 2\/29\/04 285 8.26 7.50 7.49 3\/02\/04 287 8.18 7.51 7.53 3\/04\/04 289 8.15 7.51 7.43 3\/07\/04 292 8.22 7.50 7.41 3\/09\/04 294 8.27 7.00 6.94 3\/11\/04 296 8.29 7.00 6.94 3\/13\/04 298 8.25 7.00 7.11 3\/15\/04 300 8.12 7.00 7.05 3\/17\/04 302 7.84 7.00 6.99 3\/19\/04 304 8.32 7.00 7.08 3\/22\/04 307 8.30 7.00 7.19 3\/25\/04 310 8.36 7.00 7.23 Anoxic Aerobic 0-P0 4 Anoxic Methanol Fu Fu Load COD Load (g P\/d) (g COD\/d) 0.091 0.013 0.14 41.7 0.084 0.012 0.13 41.7 0.077 0.013 0.13 42.8 0.099 0.004 0.14 43.9 0.112 0.004 0.13 42.8 0.082 0.004 0.13 41.7 0.060 0.004 0.13 41.7 0.064 0.004 0.13 43.9 0.061 0.013 0.12 42.4 0.057 0.012 0.11 42.4 0.062 0.013 0.12 39.9 0.086 0.038 0.12 42.4 0.088 0.038 0.12 42.4 0.081 0.038 0.11 39.9 0.086 0.038 0.11 39.9 0.082 0.039 0.11 44.4 0.039 0.013 0.12 44.4 0.065 0.012 0.12 41.8 0.057 0.012 0.12 44.4 0.066 0.012 0.11 39.9 0.056 0.013 0.12 42.4 0.052 0.013 0.12 42.4 0.061 0.012 0.12 39.9 0.068 0.004 0.11 39.9 0.071 0.004 0.12 39.9 0.065 0.004 0.11 35.6 0.049 0.004 0.17 38.0 0.026 0.004 0.19 19.0 0.076 0.004 0.17 38.0 0.072 0.004 0.12 38.0 0.082 0.004 0.12 41.8 117 Simulated NaHC03 NH 4 Leachate Load Load NH 4 cone Date Day (gCaC03\/d) (gN\/d) (mgN\/L) 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 2 193 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 1 184 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 2 194 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 2 249 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 6\/06\/03 17 6\/07\/03 18 6\/08\/03 19 6\/10\/03 21 6\/11\/03 22 6\/12\/03 23 2 246 6\/13\/03 24 2 255 6\/14\/03 25 2 259 6\/16\/03 27 2 247 6\/17\/03 28 2 263 6\/18\/03 29 2 256 6\/19\/03 30 3 271 6\/23\/03 34 2 252 6\/25\/03 36 3 271 6\/26\/03 37 2 260 6\/27\/03 38 19.5 2 268 6\/30\/03 41 19.3 3 286 7\/02\/03 43 18.7 2 273 7\/04\/03 45 3 291 7\/06\/03 47 24.1 1,573 455 7\/07\/03 48 1,573 450 Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Anoxic NH 4 NH 4 NH 4 NH 4 FreeNR, (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 4.2 1.5 1.5 2.9 1.6 1.6 3.1 1.3 1.4 3.7 1.6 1.6 37 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 35 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 34 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 33 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.5 35 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 35 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 35 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.7 49 17.8 16.6 17.0 1.3 46 13.6 13.7 14.0 1.2 40 7.4 7.4 7.6 0.9 38 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.1 36 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.1 38 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.4 95 44.3 36.9 37.8 2.9 135 87.3 84.3 86.4 5.2 118 Simulated NaHCOa NH 4 Leachate Load Load NH 4 cone Date Day (g CaC0 3 \/d ) (gN\/d) (mgN\/L) 7\/08\/03 49 24.0 1,573 464 7\/09\/03 50 1,573 451 7\/10\/03 51 22.1 1,442 430 7\/11\/03 52 1,573 436 7\/12\/03 53 1,965 489 7\/14\/03 55 21.8 4,189 700 7\/16\/03 57 46.1 606 7\/18\/03 59 28.6 3,405 646 7\/21\/03 62 7\/25\/03 66 6,231 917 7\/30\/03 71 1,193 370 8\/01\/03 73 3,666 637 8\/05\/03 77 3,116 584 8\/08\/03 80 43.5 3,561 637 8\/11\/03 83 63.2 4,712 728 8\/14\/03 86 38.8 7,068 1,039 8\/17\/03 89 85.0 6,675 978 8\/19\/03 91 70.4 6,283 943 8\/25\/03 97 24.4 8,716 1,213 8\/29\/03 101 60.1 4,189 725 9\/01\/03 104 70.6 6,283 948 9\/03\/03 106 59.3 7,460 1,053 9\/05\/03 108 68.3 7,748 1,091 9\/08\/03 111 67.0 7,748 1,136 9\/10\/03 113 70.9 7,957 1,135 9\/12\/03 115 70.2 7,957 1,207 9\/17\/03 120 68.6 8,376 1,161 9\/19\/03 122 70.3 8,377 1,274 9\/22\/03 125 76.9 8,377 1,281 9\/24\/03 127 74.5 8,377 1,294 9\/26\/03 129 76.4 8,377 1,297 9\/29\/03 132 64.5 7,265 1,192 10\/01\/03 134 63.5 7,749 1,216 10\/03\/03 136 59.8 7,749 1,232 10\/06\/03 139 56.9 7,265 1,192 10\/15\/03 148 69.8 6,782 1,173 10\/17\/03 150 65.6 7,462 1,215 Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Anoxic NH 4 NH 4 NH 4 NR, FreeNH4 (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 149 100.8 98.0 100.6 5.4 146 95.7 94.9 97.2 5.5 123 73.1 74.1 75.9 4.1 98 36.6 37.9 38.9 3.6 90 31.0 31.8 32.6 3.6 129 68.0 72.8 77.8 5.1 157 103.0 101.2 109.2 7.9 113 43.4 45.6 49.7 4.7 75 4.0 3.1 3.4 3.2 827 812.0 764.0 794.5 23.3 332 314.0 312.0 322.5 16.3 451 420.0 394.0 413.8 19.4 329 302.0 305.0 317.2 6.3 135 48.8 53.4 58.4 4.9 101 5.4 4.5 5.2 4.9 149 16.8 12.5 13.5 6.1 139 7.5 5.0 5.9 7.5 174 26.9 23.6 27.2 10.8 427 321.0 348.0 365.4 15.4 116 13.2 15.8 17.8 3.7 128 6.3 2.5 2.9 4.1 132 8.5 6.7 7.6 4.6 163 7.7 6.7 7.7 5.6 146 6.9 5.3 6.1 6.3 152 6.8 5.3 6.2 8.9 161 5.8 4.1 4.8 10.0 155 5.7 4.8 5.5 10.8 187 17.6 14.7 16.7 12.7 182 9.5 8.3 9.6 12.1 178 8.5 5.7 6.6 11.8 182 8.8 6.8 7.8 16.6 165 9.9 7.5 8.4 17.8 177 15.8 13.5 15.1 19.5 193 31.0 28.9 32.1 24.5 238 70.9 62.5 69.3 20.0 177 8.7 7.9 9.0 11.0 165 5.5 4.8 5.4 13.9 119 Simulated N a H C 0 3 N H 4 Leachate Load Load N H 4 cone Date Day (g CaC0 3 \/d) (gN\/d) (mgN\/L) 10\/20\/03 153 71.3 7,959 1,254 10\/22\/03 155 66.2 7,958 1,230 10\/24\/03 157 69.3 7,749 1,208 10\/27\/03 160 55.8 7,265 1,157 10\/29\/03 162 59.5 7,265 1,127 10\/31\/03 164 57.8 6,781 1,095 11\/03\/03 167 69.0 8,233 1,258 11\/07\/03 171 71.3 8,717 1,300 11\/10\/03 174 66.6 8,011 1,237 11\/12\/03 176 66.6 8,482 1,287 11\/14\/03 178 11\/17\/03 181 61.6 7,566 1,176 11\/19\/03 183 58.5 8,011 1,226 11\/21\/03 185 58.3 7,566 1,190 11\/24\/03 188 54.4 8,011 1,221 11\/26\/03 190 51.1 7,787 1,074 11\/28\/03 192 53.8 9,187 1,275 12\/03\/03 197 53.3 10,128 1,230 12\/05\/03 199 49.3 9,565 1,184 12\/07\/03 201 47.7 9,565 1,153 12\/09\/03 203 43.7 10,128 1,211 12\/11\/03 205 49.1 10,128 1,218 12\/14\/03 208 38.6 10,128 1,221 12\/16\/03 210 51.0 10,128 1,204 12\/18\/03 212 93.7 10,128 1,210 12\/20\/03 214 68.8 10,128 1,220 12\/22\/03 216 85.1 10,128 1,220 12\/24\/03 218 69.6 10,128 1,214 12\/26\/03 220 73.2 10,128 1,220 12\/28\/03 222 73.3 10,128 1,218 1\/01\/04 226 103.3 10,751 1,296 1\/03\/04 228 47.4 10,599 1,239 1\/05\/04 230 56.0 10,207 1,236 1\/07\/04 232 54.1 10,246 1,235 1\/10\/04 235 50.8 9,527 1,170 1\/11\/04 236 53.3 9,527 1,172 1\/12\/04 237 51.7 9,527 1,181 Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Anoxic N H 4 N H 4 N H 4 N H 4 F reeNH 4 (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 171 4.3 4.0 4.5 15.6 165 4.8 3.7 4.2 17.1 166 6.2 5.4 6.1 19.1 155 12.7 12.6 14.0 .18.2 169 29.2 27.1 30.4 12.5 156 14.2 13.4 14.9 12.6 220 60.9 56.2 63.9 16.6 178 \u2022 14.5 15.0 17.2 18.1 180 13.6 11.6 13.1 19.8 181 26.5 24.1 27.2 17.2 210 46.4 43.7 49.2 25.1 191 43.9 44.0 49.3 17.1 219 58.4 56.0 62.4 20.9 194 73.8 70.8 78.8 17.4 190 75.4 72.1 79.8 17.0 150 23.6 24.6 27.4 18.3 159 9.7 8.0 9.1 19.8 158 4.7 3.5 4.0 21.7 156 4.9 3.1 3.5 19.8 178 18.8 15.5 17.5 19.2 152 1.945 1,155 1.3 7.4 150 1.929 1.463 1.7 17.9 149 1.4 0.8 0.9 9.7 169 1.1 0.8 0.9 8.5 171 1.0 0.8 0.9 10.9 165 1.1 0.6 0.8 11.7 160 0.9 0.6 0.7 9.7 144 0.7 0.5 0.5 10.2 172 0.7 0.3 0.4 10.5 161 0.8 0.3 0.3 10.2 167 5.2 2.9 3.6 17.0 165 0.7 0.3 0.3 10.3 176 0.8 0.4 0.4 11.7 181 1.2 0.7 0.8 13.1 164 0.8 0.5 0.6 11.7 160 0.8 0.5 0.5 12.4 156 0.7 0.4 0.4 11.3 120 Simulated Corrected N a H C 0 3 N H 4 Leachate Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Anoxic Load Load N H 4 cone N H 4 N H 4 N H 4 N H 4 Free N H 4 Date Day (g CaC0 3 \/d) (gN\/d) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 1\/14\/04 239 52.3 9,731 1,197 158 0.6 0.3 0.4 14.4 1\/16\/04 241 53.5 10,105 1,239 159 0.9 0.4 0.5 13.4 1\/18\/04 243 53.6- 9,731 1,198 157 0.6 0.3 0.4 12.1 1\/20\/04 245 50.5 9,731 1,192 160 1.9 0.7 0.8 15.9 1\/21\/04 246 56.6 10,479 1,267 182 1.6 0.7 0.8 20.5 1\/24\/04 249 48.0 9,611 1,260 196 1.0 0.5 0.6 1.6.1 1\/26\/04 251 51.8 9,611 1,228 215 0.9 0.3 0.3 12.8 1\/28\/04 253 46.9 9,611 1,231 194 0.7 0.3 0.3 12.4 2\/04\/04 260 50.5 10,011 1,200 163 0.5 0.1 0.1 9.9 2\/07\/04 263 50.7 10,011 1,196 158 0.3 0.2 0.2 9.0 2\/09\/04 265 50.3 10,050 1,189 160 0.4 0.2 0.3 9.9 2\/11\/04 267 89.7 10,050 1,195 146 0.6 0.3 0.4 12.5 2\/14\/04 270 70.3 10,050 1,168 151 0.3 0.2 0.3 13.2 2\/16\/04 272 68.8 10,175 1,194 141 0.2 0.1 0.1 11.4 2\/18\/04 274 64.4 10,175 1,199 157 0.6 0.4 0.4 13.5 2\/20\/04 276 59.7 10,175 1,197 137 0.5 0.2 0.3 11.2 2\/22\/04 278 39.0 10,175 1,196 163 0.8 0.8 0.8 6.3 2\/25\/04 281 51.9 9,751 1,145 162 0.7 0.7 0.8 10.5 2\/27\/04 283 51.8 10,112 1,182 160 0.9 0.6 0.7 9.2 2\/29\/04 285 49.8 10,112 1,180 154 0.6 0.8 0.9 10.2 3\/02\/04 287 47.9 10,112 1,185 151 0.4 0.5 0.6 8.4 3\/04\/04 289 43.2 10,104 1,182 153 0.5 0.8 0.9 8.0 3\/07\/04 292 44.2 10,458 1,213 158 0.6 0.5 0.6 9.7 3\/09\/04 294 40.2 10,071 1,177 152 0.4 0.9 1.0 10.3 3\/11\/04 296 42.8 10,071 1,188 156 0.9 0.2 0.2 11.1 3\/13\/04 298 40.1 10,071 1,193 159 0.8 0.3 0.3 10.3 3\/15\/04 300 38.5 8,521 1,034 229 87.5 88.2 96.8 11.2 3\/17\/04 302 62.1 10,207 1,208 161 1.3 . 0.6 0.7 4.2 3\/19\/04 304 48.1 10,071 1,201 161 1.9 1.2 1.3 12.1 3\/22\/04 307 49.8 10,071 1,212 158 0.6 0.1 0.1 11.5 3\/25\/04 310 32.4 9,683 1,170 148 0.4 0.1 0.1 12.2 121 Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Free N H 4 N O x N O x Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 0.05 198.1 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 0.00 203.1 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 0.00 212.6 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 0.00 261.4 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 214.9 6\/06\/03 17 90 142.4 6\/07\/03 18 105 157.7 6\/08\/03 19 110 165.0 6\/10\/03 21 118 173.4 6\/11\/03 22 129 182.4 6\/12\/03 23 0.00 186 215.3 6\/13\/03 24 0.00 171 206.3 6\/14\/03 25 0.00 162 200.5 6\/16\/03 27 0.00 147 182.9 6\/17\/03 28 0.00 136 174.0 6\/18\/03 29 0.01 124 162.0 6\/19\/03 30 0.00 115 147.0 6\/23\/03 34 0.02 88 122.8 6\/25\/03 36 0.41 37 71.9 6\/26\/03 37 0.28 27 57.7 6\/27\/03 38 0.13 14 48.9 6\/30\/03 41 0.02 3 40.1 7\/02\/03 43 0.02 2 38.3 7\/04\/03 45 0.02 2 39.4 7\/06\/03 47 1.07 4 47.7 7\/07\/03 48 2.69 3 41.9 Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Effluent N O x N0 2\" N0 2\" N02~ (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 200.1 0.0 205.9 0.0 212.7 0.0 160.6 0.0 212.1 0.7 137.2 150.6 0.3 165.0 1.0 169.4 1.5 182.5 0.9 214.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 206.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 220.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 181.8 5.3 0.0 0.0 172.9 6.5 0.2 0.0 165.8 7.3 0.8 0.0 150.2 6.9 0.6 0.0 121.1 31.1 25.9 22.6 75.8 22.5 22.0 24.1 58.8 15.5 8.2 8.7 50.7 6.7 2.2 1.7 40.7 1.7 1.0 0.5 38.6 1.2 0.9 0.6 41.4 1.2 1.1 0.7 47.0 2.1 6.1 5.3 42.3 2.1 7.2 6.9 122 Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Free N H 4 N O x N O x N O x N02\" N02\" N02\" Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 7\/08\/03 49 2.54 3 42.3 43.1 2.3 12.6 12.3 7\/09\/03 50 1.88 4 48.4 47.9 3.4 22.3 21.4 7\/10\/03 51 0.96 5 58.5 52.3 4.7 32.4 32.1 7\/11\/03 52 0.33 7 59.4 60.5 6.2 39.5 39.4 7\/12\/03 53 0.27 6 65.8 64.0 6.0 41.9 40.5 7\/14\/03 55 0.66 6 67.0 66.7 6.0 45.4 43.9 7\/16\/03 57 1.00 1 45.9 44.8 1.1 36.3 35.6 7\/18\/03 59 0.39 1 56.7 59.7 1.4 40.7 41.6 7\/21\/03 62 0.04 1 63.5 63.6 0.9 36.0 35.5 7\/25\/03 66 27.37 0 6.7 6.6 0.2 3.3 3.2 7\/30\/03 71 19.15 0 7.5 8.1 0.2 8.1 8.8 8\/01\/03 73 22.49 0 8.6 10.2 0.1 7.5 8.7 8\/05\/03 77 2.68 73 93.9 90.3 69.0 88.4 84.5 8\/08\/03 80 0.56 214 304.8 307.3 214.9 299.5 302.0 8\/11\/03 83 0.14 221 303.7 302.2 220.7 291.0 291.9 8\/14\/03 86 0.10 123 242.2 244.8 108.4 220.8 221.2 8\/17\/03 89 0.15 104 231.1 230.4 98.3 219.7 217.8 8\/19\/03 91 0.99 86 228.9 231.1 82.0 226.6 229.4 8\/25\/03 97 2.92 0 48.0 74.7 0.4 48.6 76.0 8\/29\/03 101 0.22 427 517.5 490.0 434.6 523.9 496.2 9\/01\/03 104 0.12 498 569.1 572.1 497.9 559.8 565.7 9\/03\/03 106 0.09 443 563.2 551.9 450.3 559.5 550.1 9\/05\/03 108 0.09 503 613.5 625.7 501.2 602.2 612.5 9\/08\/03 111 0.06 376 497.7 508.8 381.4 495.7 506.0 9\/10\/03 113 0.08 386 507.7 513.4 395.0 504.3 508.2 9\/12\/03 115 0.06 353 473.5 483.1 361.7 472.7 481.7 9\/17\/03 120 0.06 283 429.8 424.9 274.1 424.5 419.6 9\/19\/03 122 0.26 216 365.3 373.2 212.0 355.0 368.1 9\/22\/03 125 0.11 256 411.2 423.0 246.2 403.7 419.3 9\/24\/03 127 0.09 207 361.0 349.1 204.5 352.5 340.9 9\/26\/03 129 0.13 218 372.9 372.3 213.6 362.7 364.5 9\/29\/03 132 0.13 109 261.8 268.7 105.1 263.2 270.9 10\/01\/03 134 0.24 74 232.3 227.0 74.2 230.3 223.9 10\/03\/03 136 0.42 4 149.8 157.7 4.5 141.9 149.7 10\/06\/03 139 0.97 2 112.8 113.1 2.0 106.6 106.7 10\/15\/03 148 0.10 423 546.1 545.1 434.7 570.8 580.8 10\/17\/03 150 0.07 344 492.9 497.7 330.2 499.3 508.2 123 Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Free NH 4 NO x NO x NO x N02\" N02\" N02\" Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 10\/20\/03 153 0.05 294 460.4 466.0 238.7 417.2 426.6 10\/22\/03 155 0.06 235 384.6 390.6 151.9 295.3 302.9 10\/24\/03 157 0.09 212 362.8 367.1 127.9 265.2 269.8 10\/27\/03 160 0.16 163 311.5 313.1 68.8 185.8 186.4 10\/29\/03 162 0.28 145 287.9 293.2 68.9 185.3 188.1 10\/31\/03 164 0.14 141 290.8 294.0 71.5 192.0 195.5 11\/03\/03 167 0.75 233 383.4 394.9 ' 160.6 305.0 315.8 11\/07\/03 171 0.18 273 433.6 422.7 187.9 345.2 337.1 11\/10\/03 174 0.17 241 394.6 401.5 126.0 264.6 271.9 11\/12\/03 176 0.33 234 387.6 389.4 121.8 255.6 259.1 11\/14\/03 178 0.61 173 347.6 339.9 66.2 206.4 204.3 11\/17\/03 181 0.56 130 284.2 285.8 38.6 157.6 16.2 11\/19\/03 183 0.75 90 243.6 230.5 6.3 129.7 124.6 11\/21\/03 185 0.92 88 238.4 254.5 11.5 136.1 145.6 11\/24\/03 188 0.94 37 159.0 160.1 0.9 97.3 102.8 11\/26\/03 190 0.30 22 141.2 142.9 1.4 105.1 107.8 11\/28\/03 192 0.12 12 141.9 144.8 4.6 111.7 112.9 12\/03\/03 197 0.06 22 144.0 141.0 0.6 82.8 82.0 12\/05\/03 199 0.06 32 179.3 183.8 0.9 110.7 115.7 12\/07\/03 201 0.24 22 141.4 145.3 1.5 93.7 94.9 12\/09\/03 203 0.02 1 108.9 111.2 0.3 38.4 39.1 12\/11\/03 205 0.02 6 138.9 133.1 0.2 70.1 68.3 12\/14\/03 208 0.02 2 112.9 114.3 0.2 63.4 62.2 12\/16\/03 210 0.01 5 131.8 128.3 0.1 57.5 56.5 12\/18\/03 212 0.04 15 161.0 142.7 0.3 62.6 46.5 12\/20\/03 214 0.04 32 187.6 182.4 0.3 48.9 46.7 12\/22\/03 216 0.04 26 174.1 175.4 0.3 34.4 30.6 12\/24\/03 218 0.03 15 156.2 164.5 0.3 26.2 26.8 12\/26\/03 220 0.03 9 166.9 163.1 0.2 31.9 26.9 12\/28\/03 222 0.03 177.7 168.1 25.6 23.7 1\/01\/04 226 0.15 61 246.1 250.2 2.7 125.9 137.4 1\/03\/04 228 0.01 52 194.1 196.4 0.2 24.7 22.7 1\/05\/04 230 0.01 41 182.6 183.3 0.2 38.0 38.1 1\/07\/04 232 0.01 25 179.3 179.8 0.2 39.0 38.2 1\/10\/04 235 0.01 10 175.3 171.1 0.3 26.1 22.9 1\/11\/04 236 0.01 8 165.5 163.0 0.2 27.5 25.0 1\/12\/04 237 0.01 8 161.0 159.6 0.2 22.3 20.9 124 Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Free N H 4 N O x N O x N O x N 0 2 - N 0 2 \" N 0 2 \" Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 1\/14\/04 239 0.01 5 137.6 123.8 0.2 32.5 28.7 1\/16\/04 241 0.01 3 137.6 135.9 0.2 32.5 30.7 1\/18\/04 243 0.01 5 144.0 143.4 0.3 29.3 27.8 1\/20\/04 245 0.01 16 163.7 170.6 0.4 60.1 61.8 1\/21\/04 246 0.01 18 171.7 169.8 0.4 61.8 60.2 1\/24\/04 249 0.00 10 144.9 149.7 0.3 40.6 41.9 1\/26\/04 251 0.00 4 130.1 129.6 0.3 36.8 34.3 1\/28\/04 253 0.00 3 103.4 110.7 0.3 38.0 39.4 2\/04\/04 260 0.01 0.28 81.2 82.4 0.1 8.1 6.5 2\/07\/04 263 0.00 0.07 76.5 75.5 0.0 8.5 6.0 2\/09\/04 265 0.01 0.34 88.2 83.7 0.1 31.9 29.6 2\/11\/04 267 0.02 3.14 109.4 110.9 0.3 34.1 34.6 2\/14\/04 270 0.01 0.55 148.7 143.9 0.2 37.9 34.1 2\/16\/04 272 0.01 0.46 122.1 123.7 0.2 41.3 42.2 2\/18\/04 274 0.02 0.33 121.8 121.6 0.1 34.4 34.3 2\/20\/04 276 0.02 0.24 112.6 109.9 0.1 22.8 21.7 2\/22\/04 278 0.01 0.08 51.1 48.0 0.0 8.1 6.8 2\/25\/04 281 0.01 0.12 80.9 82.7 0.1 28.5 30.7 2\/27\/04 283 0.01 0.12 80.1 84.8 0.1 32.8 36.0 2\/29\/04 285 0.01 0.09 112.6 110.7 0.1 62.8 61.4 3\/02\/04 287 0.01 0.1 83.9 82.5 0.1 44.8 43.8 3\/04\/04 289 0.01 0.12 75.6 82.8 0.1 42.9 46.3 3\/07\/04 292 0.01 0.15 68.2 66.9 0.1 41.1 45.1 3\/09\/04 294 0.00 0.19 71.6 72.8 0.2 46.2 42.1 3\/11\/04 296 0.00 0.14 60.2 61.3 0.2 44.3 44.2 3\/13\/04 298 0.00 0.13 55.7 55.9 0.2 50.0 49.5 3\/15\/04 300 0.34 0.1 28.2 29.7 0.0 19.2 17.3 3\/17\/04 302 0.00 368 580.0 565.0 0.3 8.8 3.5 3\/19\/04 304 0.01 154 102.7 328.0 0.3 23.4 27.5 3\/22\/04 307 0.00 81.6 268.5 260.5 0.3 4.0 0.4 3\/25\/04 310 0.00 2.62 179.5 182.7 0.3 2.8 0.8 Adjusted Adjusted \" Adjusted Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Column N O x N O x N 0 3 \" N 0 3 \" N O x N O x Date Day Efficiency (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 1.0 0 201 204 206 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 1.0 0 207 209 212 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 1.0 0 216 216 219 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 1.0 0 266 163 165 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 0.8 0 265 262 268 6\/06\/03 17 0.8 111 176 169 173 6\/07\/03 18 0.8 129 195 186 190 6\/08\/03 19 0.8 136 204 204 208 6\/10\/03 21 0.8 146 214 209 214 6\/11\/03 22 0.8 160 225 225 230 6\/12\/03 23 1.0 196 227 226 231 6\/13\/03 24 1.0 180 217 217 222 6\/14\/03 25 1.0 170 211 233 238 6\/16\/03 27 1.0 155 192 191 196 6\/17\/03 28 1.0 143 183 182 186 6\/18\/03 29 1.0 130 170 175 179 6\/19\/03 30 1.0 121 155 158 162 6\/23\/03 34 1.0 92 128 126 129 6\/25\/03 36 1.0 38 73 77 79 6\/26\/03 37 1.0 27 59 60 61 6\/27\/03 38 1.0 15 50 52 53 6\/30\/03 41 1.0 3 41 42 43 7\/02\/03 43 1.0 2 39 39 41 7\/04\/03 45 1.0 2 40 42 43 7\/06\/03 47 1.0 4 49 48 49 7\/07\/03 48 1.0 3 43 43 44 126 Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent Column N O x N O x N 0 3 \" N 0 3 \" N O x N O x Date Day Efficiency (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 7\/08\/03 49 1.0 3 43 44 45 7\/09\/03 50 1.0 4 49 49 50 7\/10\/03 51 1.0 5 59 53 54 7\/11\/03 52 1.0 7 60 61 63 7\/12\/03 53 1.0 6 66 24 64 66 7\/14\/03 55 1.0 6 67 22 67 72 7\/16\/03 57 1.0 1 46 10 45 48 7\/18\/03 59 1.0 1 57 16 60 65 7\/21\/03 62 1.0 1 64 28 64 70 7\/25\/03 66 1.0 0 7 3 7 7 7\/30\/03 71 1.0 0 7 8 8 8\/01\/03 73 1.0 0 9 1 10 11 8\/05\/03 77 1.0 73 94 6 90 94 8\/08\/03 80 1.0 214 305 5 307 336 8\/11\/03 83 1.0 220 304 13 302 345 8\/14\/03 86 1.0 123 243 22 246 264 8\/17\/03 89 1.0 104 232 12 231 273 8\/19\/03 91 1.0 86 229 2 231 266 8\/25\/03 97 0.9 0 48 75 78 8\/29\/03 101 0.9 426 517 490 553 9\/01\/03 104 0.8 497 571 12 574 659 9\/03\/03 106 0.8 441 564 5 552 623 9\/05\/03 108 0.8 503 616 14 629 724 9\/08\/03 111 0.8 374 498 2 509 583 9\/10\/03 113 0.8 384 508 4 515 596 9\/12\/03 115 0.8 351 474 1 483 564 9\/17\/03 120 0.6 289 434 9 429 491 9\/19\/03 122 0.6 220 373 18 377 429 9\/22\/03 125 0.6 263 417 13 426 491 9\/24\/03 127 0.6 209 367 15 355 407 9\/26\/03 129 0.6 221 380 18 378 434 9\/29\/03 132 1.0 109 262 269 301 10\/01\/03 134 1.0 74 232 2 227 254 10\/03\/03 136 1.0 4 150 8 158 176 10\/06\/03 139 1.0 2 113 6 113 126 10\/15\/03 148 0.8 419 538 534 605 127 Adjusted Adjusted Column Anoxic Aerobic Efficiency N O x N O x Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L] 10\/17\/03 150 0.8 349 491 10\/20\/03 153 0.8 312 474 10\/22\/03 155 0.8 261 413 10\/24\/03 157 0.8 238 394 10\/27\/03 160 0.8 181 335 10\/29\/03 162 0.8 159 307 10\/31\/03 164 0.8 154 309 11\/03\/03 167 0.8 246 398 11\/07\/03 171 0.8 288 450 11\/10\/03 174 0.8 262 418 11\/12\/03 176 0.8 255 412 11\/14\/03 178 0.8 194 375 11\/17\/03 181 0.8 147 308 11\/19\/03 183 0.8 106 265 11\/21\/03 185 0.8 102 258 11\/24\/03 188 0.8 45 173 11\/26\/03 190 0.8 27 149 11\/28\/03 192 0.8 14 149 12\/03\/03 197 0.8 28 160 12\/05\/03 199 1.0 32 179 12\/07\/03 201 1.0 21 141 12\/09\/03 203 1.0 1 108 12\/11\/03 205 1.0 6 138 12\/14\/03 208 1.0 2 112 12\/16\/03 210 1.0 5 131 12\/18\/03 212 1-P 15 160 12\/20\/03 214 1.0 31 186 12\/22\/03 216 1.0 25 173 12\/24\/03 218 1.0 15 155 12\/26\/03 220 1.0 9 166 12\/28\/03 222 1.0 181 1\/01\/04 226 1.0 63 249 1\/03\/04 228 1.0 53 198 1\/05\/04 230 1.0 42 186 1\/07\/04 232 1.0 24 174 1\/10\/04 235 1.0 10 170 Adjusted Corrected Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent N 0 3 \" N 0 3 \" N O x N O x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 494 556 73 57 478 546 109 118 418 474 110 129 398 453 112 149 336 373 90 121 312 350 82 117 312 347 86 93 409 465 101 105 438 501 136 154 425 481 133 156 413 468 128 168 366 411 109 151 337 378 100 136 251 279 91 122 275 306 44 75 173 191 25 44 151 168 9 37 152 172 27 77 156 179 31 68 202 229 20 47 158 179 0 70 130 146 6 68 150 170 2 49 128 142 5 74 147 167 15 98 168 207 31 138 218 257 25 139 213 259 14 129 201 237 9 134 199 236 156 206 245 60 123 280 352 53 174 242 270 42 148 221 251 24 135 217 245 10 144 210 235 128 Adjusted Adjusted Adjusted Correcte Column Anoxic Aerobic Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluen Efficiency N O x N O x N 0 3 \" N 0 3 \" N O x N O x Date Day (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mg N\/L 1\/11\/04 236 1.0 8 161 8 133 199 223 1\/12\/04 237 1.0 8 156 8 134 196 219 1\/14\/04 239 0.9 5 134 4 101 149 167 1\/16\/04 241 0.9 3 134 3 101 163 184 1\/18\/04 243 0.9 5 140 4 111 174 196 1\/20\/04 245 0.9 15 160 15 100 199 224 1\/21\/04 246 0.9 17 168 17 106 199 225 1\/24\/04 249 0.9 10 141 10 101 178 199 1\/26\/04 251 0.9 3.9 127 3.7 90 155 174 1\/28\/04 253 0.6 3.8 101 3.6 63 129 144 2\/04\/04 260 0.6 0.4 79 0.3 71 102 115 2\/07\/04 263 0.6 0.1 74 0.0 66 94 105 2\/09\/04 265 0.6 0.5 86 0.3 54 98 110 2\/11\/04 267 0.6 4.7 107 4.4 73 131 159 2\/14\/04 270 0.9 0.6 145 0.4 107 173 201 2\/16\/04 272 0.9 0.5 119 0.3 78 145 169 2\/18\/04 274 0.9 0.3 119 0.2 84 145 167 2\/20\/04 276 0.9 0.3 109 0.1 87 133 152 2\/22\/04 278 0.7 0.1 50 0.0 42 59 65 2\/25\/04 281 0.7 0.1 79 0.1 51 96 109 2\/27\/04 283 0.7 0.1 78 0.0 46 98 110 2\/29\/04 285 0.7 0.1 111 0.0 48 124 139 3\/02\/04 287 0.7 0.1 83 0.0 38 93 104 3\/04\/04 289 0.7 0.1 74 0.0 32 92 102 3\/07\/04 292 1.0 0.2 67 0.1 26 73 81 3\/09\/04 294 1.0 0.2 71 0.0 25 81 89 3\/11\/04 296 1.0 0.1 60 0.0 15 66 73 3\/13\/04 298 1.0 0.1 56 0.0 6 58 63 3\/15\/04 300 1.0 0.1 28 0.1 9 33 36 3\/17\/04 302 1.0 406.2 560 405.9 551 712 820 3\/19\/04 304 1.0 169.9 100 169.6 77 407 454 3\/22\/04 307 1.0 90.0 259 89.7 255 329 369 3\/25\/04 310 1.0 2.9 173 2.6 171 230 255 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Effluent F N A F N A F N A Date Day N 0 2 \/ N O x N 0 2 \/ N O x N 0 2 \/ N 0 3 N 0 2 \/ N O x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mg N\/L 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/06\/03 17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/07\/03 18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/08\/03 19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/10\/03 21 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/11\/03 22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/12\/03 23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/13\/03 24 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/14\/03 25 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/16\/03 27 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/17\/03 28 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/18\/03 29 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/19\/03 30 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/23\/03 34 0.34 0.20 0.18 0.01 0.00 0.00 6\/25\/03 36 0.60 0.30 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/26\/03 37 0.58 0.14 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/27\/03 38 0.46 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 6\/30\/03 41 0.54 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 7\/02\/03 43 0.52 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 7\/04\/03 45 0.51 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 7\/06\/03 47 0.50 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 7\/07\/03 48 0.60 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 130 Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Date Day N0 2 \/NO x N0 2\/NO 7\/08\/03 49 0.88 0.29 7\/09\/03 50 0.95 0.46 7\/10\/03 51 0.98 0.55 7\/11\/03 52 0.94 0.66 7\/12\/03 53 0.99 0.63 7\/14\/03 55 1.00 0.68 7\/16\/03 57 1.29 0.79 7\/18\/03 59 1.28 0.72 7\/21\/03 62 1.16 0.56 7\/25\/03 66 0.77 0.48 7\/30\/03 71 1.16 1.08 8\/01\/03 73 0.90 0.87 8\/05\/03 77 0.94 0.94 8\/08\/03 80 1.00 0.98 8\/11\/03 83 1.00 0.96 8\/14\/03 86 0.88 0.91 8\/17\/03 89 0.94 0.95 8\/19\/03 91 0.95 0.99 8\/25\/03 97 0.86 1.01 8\/29\/03 101 1.02 1.01 9\/01\/03 104 1.00 0.98 9\/03\/03 106 1.02 0.99 9\/05\/03 108 1.00 0.98 9\/08\/03 111 1.02 1.00 9\/10\/03 113 1.03 0.99 9\/12\/03 115 1.03 1.00 9\/17\/03 120 0.95 0.98 9\/19\/03 122 0.96 0.95 9\/22\/03 125 0.94 0.97 9\/24\/03 127 0.98 0.96 9\/26\/03 129 0.97 0.95 9\/29\/03 132 0.96 1.01 10\/01\/03 134 1.01 0.99 10\/03\/03 136 1.18 0.95 10\/06\/03 139 1.11 0.94 10\/15\/03 148 1.04 1.06 10\/17\/03 150 0.95 1.02 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Effluent F N A F N A FNA N0 2\/NO x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.65 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.63 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.65 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.79 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.69 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.98 0.02 0.09 0.07 0.97 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.90 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.94 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.99 0.00 0.02 0.02 1.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 1.01 0.04 0.10 0.07 0.99 0.05 0.10 0.07 1.00 0.04 0.18 0.10 0.97 0.05 0.18 0.17 0.99 0.03 0.18 0.13 0.99 0.02 0.13 0.10 1.00 0.02 0.16 0.10 0.98 0.01 0.12 0.09 0.98 0.01 0.08 0.06 0.99 0.01 0.12 0.09 0.96 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.96 0.01 0.08 0.06 1.01 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.99 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.95 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.94 0.00 0.03 0.02 1.09 0.02 0.16 0.10 1.03 0.01 0.12 0.09 131 Anoxic Date Day N 0 2 \/ N O : 10\/20\/03 153 0.76 10\/22\/03 1 5 5 0.58 10\/24\/03 157 0.54 10\/27\/03 160 0.38 10\/29\/03 162 0.43 10\/31\/03 164 0.47 11\/03\/03 167 0.65 11\/07\/03 171 0.65 11\/10\/03 1 74 0.48 11\/12\/03 1 76 0.48 11\/14\/03 178 0.34 11\/17\/03 181 0.26 11\/19\/03 183 0.06 11\/21\/03 185 0.11 11\/24\/03 188 0.02 11\/26\/03 190 0.05 11\/28\/03 192 0.33 12\/03\/03 197 0.02 12\/05\/03 199 0.03 12\/07\/03 201 0.07 12\/09\/03 203 0.57 12\/11\/03 205 0.03 12\/14\/03 208 0.09 12\/16\/03 210 0.03 12\/18\/03 212 0.02 12\/20\/03 214 0.01 12\/22\/03 216 0.01 12\/24\/03 218 0.02 12\/26\/03 220 0.03 12\/28\/03 222 1\/01\/04 226 0.04 1\/03\/04 228 0.00 1\/05\/04 230 0.01 1\/07\/04 232 0.01 1\/10\/04 235 0.03 1\/11\/04 236 0.02 1\/12\/04 237 0.03 Aerobic Aerobic N 0 2 \/ N O x N 0 2 \/ N 0 3 0.88 0.72 0.67 0.56 0.60 0.62 0.77 0.77 0.63 0.62 0.55 0.51 0.49 0.53 0.56 0.70 0.75 0.52 0.62 0.66 0.35 0.51 0.56 0.44 0.39 0.26 0.20 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.24 0.14 0.16 0.51 1.02 0.12 0.14 0.20 0.26 0.22 0.29 0.15 0.18 0.17 0.21 0.14 0.17 Anoxic Effluent F N A N 0 2 \/ N O x (mg N\/L) 0.89 0.01 0.72 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.77 0.01 0.77 0.01 0.64 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 Aerobic Effluent F N A F N A (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 132 Anoxic Aerobic Effluent Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Effluent F N A F N A F N A Date Day N 0 2 \/ N O x N 0 2 \/ N O x N 0 2 \/ N 0 3 N 0 2 \/ N O x (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) (mgN\/L) 1\/14\/04 239 0.05 0.24 0.32 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 1\/16\/04 241 0.08 0.24 0.32 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 1\/18\/04 243 0.05 0.21 0.26 0.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 1\/20\/04 245 0.02 0.38 0.60 0.31 0.00 0.05 0.05 1\/21\/04 246 0.02 0.37 0.58 0.30 0.00 0.05 0.06 1\/24\/04 249 0.03 0.29 0.40 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.02 1\/26\/04 251 0.07 0.29 0.41 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.03 1\/28\/04 253 0.07 0.38 0.60 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.02 2\/04\/04 260 0.20 0.10 0.11 0.06 0.000 0.002 0.002 2\/07\/04 263 0.46 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.000 0.002 0.001 2\/09\/04 265 0.31 0.37 0.59 0.30 0.000 0.008 0.007 2\/11\/04 267 0.07 0.32 0.47 0.26 0.000 0.003 0.002 2\/14\/04 270 0.27 0.26 0.35 0.20 0.000 0.003 0.002 2\/16\/04 272 0.33 0.35 0.53 0.29 0.000 0.003 0.003 2\/18\/04 274 0.40 0.29 0.41 0.24 0.000 0.003 0.003 2\/20\/04 276 0.43 0.21 0.26 0.16 0.000 0.002 0.001 2\/22\/04 278 0.48 0.16 0.20 0.12 0.000 0.002 0.002 2\/25\/04 281 0.48 0.36 0.56 0.32 0.000 0.008 0.007 2\/27\/04 283 0.73 0.42 0.72 0.37 0.000 0.009 0.010 2\/29\/04 285 0.76 0.57 1.31 0.50 0.000 0.017 0.017 3\/02\/04 287 0.68 0.54 1.19 0.47 0.000 0.012 0.011 3\/04\/04 289 0.64 0.58 1.36 0.50 0.000 0.011 0.014 3\/07\/04 292 0.44 0.61 1.57 0.62 0.000 0.011 0.015 3\/09\/04 294 1.18 0.65 1.88 0.52 0.000 0.039 0.041 3\/11\/04 296 1.32 0.74 2.89 0.67 0.000 0.037 0.043 3\/13\/04 298 1.17 0.90 9.09 0.86 0.000 0.042 0.032 3\/15\/04 300 0.09 0.69 2.21 0.52 0.000 0.016 0.013 3\/17\/04 302 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.000 0.007 0.003 3\/19\/04 304 0.00 0.23 0.31 0.07 0.000 0.020 0.019 3\/22\/04 307 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.000 0.003 0.000 3\/25\/04 310 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.000 0.002 0.000 133 Total Total Effluent Inorganic % % Effluent Inorganic Nitrogen Anoxic NH 4 Aerobic NH 4 Anoxic Aerob Dilution Nitrogen Removed Removal Removal NH 4 NH 4 Date Day Ratio (mgN\/L) (gN\/d) Rate (mg N\/L) Rate (mg N\/L) Removal Remov 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 207.5 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 213.9 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 220.3 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 167.0 0.8 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 268.0 6\/06\/03 17 173.3 6\/07\/03 18 190.2 6\/08\/03 19 208.4 6\/10\/03 21 213.9 6\/11\/03 22 230.4 6\/12\/03 23 231.0 0.2 2,331 99 6\/13\/03 24 222.2 0.4 74 2,250 3 99 6\/14\/03 25 238.2 0.3 144 2,216 6 99 6\/16\/03 27 196.1 0.6 120 2,126 5 99 6\/17\/03 28 186.5 0.8 315 2,078 13 99 6\/18\/03 29 179.3 0.8 128 2,234 5 99 6\/19\/03 30 161.9 1.1 282 2,218 11 99 6\/23\/03 34 129.8 1.2 99 2,221 4 97 6\/25\/03 36 95.8 1.6 355 1,979 10 63 6\/26\/03 37 75.4 1.7 168 2,074 5 70 6\/27\/03 38 60.7 1.9 290 2,084 10 82 6\/30\/03 41 43.3 2.2 194 2,406 7 98 7\/02\/03 43 41.1 2.1 212 2,238 8 98 7\/04\/03 45 43.8 2.2 288 2,323 11 98 7\/06\/03 47 86.8 1,572.2 762 3,318 11 53 134 Effluent Inorganic Effluent Inorganic Nitrogen Dilution Nitrogen Removed Date Day Ratio (mgN\/L) (gN\/d) 7\/07\/03 48 130.6 1,571.7 7\/08\/03 49 145.6 1,571.6 7\/09\/03 50 146.9 1,571.5 7\/10\/03 51 130.0 1,440.7 7\/11\/03 52 101.4 1,571.7 7\/12\/03 53 98.6 1,964.4 7\/14\/03 55 149.5 4,188.0 7\/16\/03 57 157.7 7\/18\/03 59 115.2 3,403.5 7\/21\/03 62 72.9 7\/25\/03 66 801.4 6,222.9 7\/30\/03 71 330.9 1,189.8 8\/01\/03 73 424.5 3,661.9 8\/05\/03 77 411.2 3,112.6 8\/08\/03 80 394.5 3,557.6 8\/11\/03 83 350.3 4,709.1 8\/14\/03 86 277.8 7,065.5 8\/17\/03 89 278.6 6,672.8 8\/19\/03 91 293.3 6,280.1 8\/25\/03 97 443.8 8,712.4 8\/29\/03 101 570.4 4,184.1 9\/01\/03 104 661.6 6,276.7 9\/03\/03 106 630.8 7,454.4 9\/05\/03 108 731.2 7,741.4 9\/08\/03 111 589.4 7,743.0 9\/10\/03 113 602.2 7,952.0 9\/12\/03 115 569.0 7,952.6 9\/17\/03 120 496.7 8,371.7 9\/19\/03 122 446.1 8,373.2 9\/22\/03 125 500.4 8,372.7 9\/24\/03 127 413.5 8,373.7 9\/26\/03 129 441.9 8,373.5 9\/29\/03 132 309.6 . 7,262.5 10\/01\/03 134 268.9 7,746.8 10\/03\/03 136 207.6 7,747.4 10\/06\/03 139 194.9 7,263.5 % % Anoxic N H 4 Aerobic N H 4 Anoxic Aerobic Removal Removal N H 4 N H 4 Rate (mg N\/L) Rate (mg N\/L) Removal Removal 456 3,091 5 35 384 3,117 4 32 177 3,252 2 34 186 3,262 2 41 3,869 63 524 3,858 8 66 2,074 3,975 20 47 1,199 3,548 10 34 1,160 4,520 14 61 4,608 980 2 1,175 5 2,008 0 7 809 1,764 4 8 5,621 64 591 6,205 8 95 693 8,924 6 89 534 8,581 6 94 9,432 84 1,156 6,888 4 25 6,609 89 805 7,813 9 95 1,689 7,902 17 93 9,942 0 95 1,286 8,911 12 95 883 9,311 8 95 195 9,938 2 96 993 9,722 9 96 624 11,011 5 90 568 11,215 5 95 893 11,029 7 95 682 11,264 5 95 825 9,980 7 94 608 10,510 5 91 479 10,494 4 84 10,808 70 135 Effluent Inorganic Effluent Inorganic Nitrogen Dilution Nitrogen Removed Date Day Ratio (mgN\/L) (gN\/d) 10\/15\/03 148 1.1 614.1 6,775.8 10\/17\/03 150 1.1 561.3 7,456.4 10\/20\/03 153 1.1 550.9 7,953.8 10\/22\/03 155 1.1 478.4 7,954.4 10\/24\/03 157 1.1 458.8 7,745.2 10\/27\/03 160 1.1 386.8 7,261.6 10\/29\/03 162 1.1 380.1 7,261.5 10\/31\/03 164 1.1 362.3 6,777.6 11\/03\/03 167 1.1 529.0 8,228.4 11\/07\/03 171 1.1 518.0 8,712.5 11\/10\/03 174 1.1 493.9 8,006.4 11\/12\/03 176 1.1 495.3 8,477.4 11\/14\/03 178 1.1 460.5 11\/17\/03 181 1.1 427.0 7,562.4 11\/19\/03 183 1.1 341.9 8,007.7 11\/21\/03 185 1.1 384.7 7,562.6 11\/24\/03 188 1.1 271.1 8,008.2 11\/26\/03 190 1.1 195.4 7,785.3 11\/28\/03 192 1.1 181.0 9,185.4 12\/03\/03 197 1.1 182.5 10,126.5 12\/05\/03 199 1.1 232.7 9,563.5 12\/07\/03 201 1.1 196.3 9,563.7 12\/09\/03 203 1.1 147.1 10,126.8 12\/11\/03 205 1.1 171.8 10,126.6 12\/14\/03 208 1.1 142.5 10,126.9 12\/16\/03 210 1.1 168.1 10,126.7 12\/18\/03 212 1.2 207.7 10,126.5 12\/20\/03 214 1.2 257.7 10,126.1 12\/22\/03 216 1.2 260.0 10,126.1 12\/24\/03 218 1.2 . 237.2 10,126.2 12\/26\/03 220 1.2 236.6 10,126.3 12\/28\/03 222 1.2 245.7 10,126.2 1\/01\/04 226 1.3 355.7 10,748.0 1\/03\/04 228 1.1 269.9 10,597.4 1\/05\/04 230 1.1 251.2 10,205.2 1\/07\/04 232 1.1 245.6 10,244.4 % % Anoxic N H 4 Aerobic N H 4 Anoxic Aerobic Removal Removal N H 4 N H 4 Rate (mg N\/L) Rate (mg N\/L) Removal Removal 10,801 95 831 10,233 7 97 760 10,677 6 97 840 10,378 7 97 607 10,398 5 96 1,194 9,123 11 92 1,047 8,969 9 83 767 8,966 7 91 606 10,149 4 72 1,156 10,468 9 92 513 10,542 4 92 1,510 9,876 12 85 10,331 78 881 9,317 7 77 354 10,168 2 73 2,456 7,570 17 62 3,073 7,230 20 60 1,465 8,012 13 84 1,586 9,407 14 94 1,287 9,665 11 97 747 9,631 7 97 35 10,208 0 89 1,366 9,588 12 99 1,584 9,367 14 99 1,690 9,331 15 99 389 10,676 3 99 282 10,811 3 99 501 10,537 5 99 974 10,070 9 99 1,935 9,061 18 100 217 10,826 2 100 888 10,137 8 100 1,381 10,248 12 97 1,382 10,538 12 100 537 11,194 5 100 260 11,470 2 99 136 Effluent Inorganic % % Effluent Inorganic Nitrogen Anoxic N H 4 Aerobic N H 4 Anoxic Aerobic Dilution Nitrogen Removed Removal Removal N H 4 N H 4 Date Day Ratio (mgN\/L) (gN\/d) Rate (mg N\/L) Rate (mg N\/L) Removal Removal 1\/10\/04 235 1.1 235.9 9,524.9 536 10,428 5 100 1\/11\/04 236 1.1 223.2 9,525.1 965 10,160 9 99 1\/12\/04 237 1.1 219.8 9,525.1 1,205 9,867 11 100 1\/14\/04 239 1.1 167.6 9,729.5 1,198 10,024 11 100 1\/16\/04 241 1.1 184.5 10,103.6 1,532 10,095 13 99 1\/18\/04 243 1.1 196.2 9,729.3 1,254 9,975 11 100 1\/20\/04 245 1.1 224.4 9,729.0 1,108 10,052 10 99 1\/21\/04 246 1.1 225.9 10,477.4 401 11,495 3 99 1\/24\/04 249 1.1 199.1 9,609.5 12,412 99 1\/26\/04 251 1.1 174.2 9,609.5 13,658 100 1\/28\/04 253 1.1 144.4 9,609.7 12,314 100 2\/04\/04 260 1.1 114.7 10,009.7 880 10,356 8 100 2\/07\/04 263 1.1 105.3 10,009.7 1,165 10,036 10 100 2\/09\/04 265 1.1 110.0 10,048.8 1,001 10,127 9 100 2\/11\/04 267 1.2 159.0 10,048.5 1,925 9,251 17 100 2\/14\/04 270 1.2 201.6 10,048.0 1,459 9,610 13 100 2\/16\/04 272 1.2 168.7 10,173.9 2,203 8,970 20 100 2\/18\/04 274 1.2 167.2 10,173.9 1,271 9,942 11 100 2\/20\/04 276 1.1 152.5 10,174.1 2,531 8,664 23 100 2\/22\/04 278 1.1 65.5 10,174.7 833 10,351 7 100 2\/25\/04 281 1.1 109.3 9,750.4 477 10,271 4 100 2\/27\/04 283 1.1 110.8 10,111.5 939 10,163 8 99 2\/29\/04 285 1.1 139.6 10,111.2 1,348 9,739 12 100 3\/02\/04 287 1.1 104.1 10,111.6 1,541 9,596 14 100 3\/04\/04 289 1.1 103.4 10,103.5 1,254 9,697 11 100 3\/07\/04 292 1.1 81.1 10,457.1 1,342 10,044 12 100 3\/09\/04 294 1.1 90.0 10,069.7 1,383 9,654 13 100 3\/11\/04 296 1.1 73.0 10,070.0 1,260 9,878 11 99 3\/13\/04 298 1.1 63.6 10,070.1 1,093 10,069 10 99 3\/15\/04 300 1.1 133.0 8,520.3 8,951 61 3\/17\/04 302 1.2 820.3 10,200.6 1,159 10,157 10 99 3\/19\/04 304 1.1 455.5 10,067.3 1,147 10,102 10 99 3\/22\/04 307 1.1 369.1 10,068.0 1,186 10,028 11 100 3\/25\/04 310 1.1 255.4 9,681.5 1,442 9,378 13 100 137 Aerobic Anoxic Specific Specific % System Aerobic Nitr Rate Anoxic Denitr Rate N H 4 Aerobic Nitr Rate (mgN\/d\/ Denitr Rate (mgN\/cV Anoxic Date Day Removal Nitr (%) (mg N\/d) mg VSS) (mg N\/d) mg VSS) Denitr 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 99 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 99 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 99 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 99 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 6\/06\/03 17 4,176 0.22 3,926 0.22 40 6\/07\/03 18 4,190 0.19 3,965 0.34 37 6\/08\/03 19 4,433 0.20 4,233 0.38 37 6\/10\/03 21 4,385 0.18 4,124 35 6\/11\/03 22 4,210 0.18 4,017 0.42 33 6\/12\/03 23 100 83 1,960 0.09 470 0.05 4 6\/13\/03 24 100 104 2,356 0.11 906 0.11 8 6\/14\/03 25 100 118 2,630 0.13 1,202 0.14 10 6\/16\/03 27 100 112 2,413 0.12 1,096 0.11 10 6\/17\/03 28 100 123 2,586 0.13 1,314 0.14 13 6\/18\/03 29 100 114 2,586 0.14 1,365 0.15 15 6\/19\/03 30 100 97 2,160 0.13 1,066 0.13 13 6\/23\/03 34 100 103 2,361 0.17 1,351 0.19 19 6\/25\/03 36 94 73 2,266 0.12 1,599 0.20 40 6\/26\/03 37 95 69 2,042 0.11 1,509 0.16 47 6\/27\/03 38 97 88 2,261 0.13 1,806 0.21 66 6\/30\/03 41 100 98 2,419 0.13 2,038 0.20 91 7\/02\/03 43 100 103 2,350 0.13 1,991 0.17 93 7\/04\/03 45 100 101 2,393 0.10 2,023 0.18 93 7\/06\/03 47 92 47 2,908 0.21 2,418 0.28 90 7\/07\/03 48 81 29 2,540 0.18 2,112 0.25 90 Specific Specific % System Aerobic Nitr Rate Anoxic Denitr Rate Anoxic NH 4 Aerobic Nitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Denitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Denitr Date Day Removal Nitr (%) (mgN\/d) mg VSS) (mg N\/d) mg VSS) (%) 7\/08\/03 49 79 27 2,604 0.17 2,177 0.27 93 7\/09\/03 50 79 31 2,930 0.17 2,444 0.29 91 7\/10\/03 51 83 44 3,550 0.21 2,963 0.33 90 7\/11\/03 52 91 54 3,359 2,771 87 7\/12\/03 53 93 67 3,925 0.21 3,275 0.30 89 7\/14\/03 55 90 48 4,027 0.22 3,335 0.35 89 7\/16\/03 57 83 29 3,039 0.16 2,564 0.22 98 7\/18\/03 59 93 50 3,673 0.16 3,084 0.27 98 7\/21\/03 62 85 4,145 0.19 7\/25\/03 66 17 1 425 0.01 360 0.02 96 7\/30\/03 71 16 2 479 0.02 406 0.03 98 8\/01\/03 73 38 2 552 0.02 466 0.04 99 8\/05\/03 77 48 6 1,367 0.07 443 0.04 8 8\/08\/03 80 92 69 6,075 0.36 2,898 0.31 17 8\/11\/03 83 99 87 5,729 0.32 2,462 0.27 15 8\/14\/03 86 99 81 8,178 0.43 5,762 0.55 41 8\/17\/03 89 99 95 8,620 0.36 6,064 0.53 47 8\/19\/03 91 97 84 9,413 0.41 6,981 0.56 56 8\/25\/03 97 71 11 3,087 0.15 2,626 0.23 99 8\/29\/03 101 98 84 6,235 0.37 856 0.09 3 9\/01\/03 104 100 65 5,322 0.31 -691 -0.07 -2 9\/03\/03 106 99 99 8,364 0.52 2,403 0.25 8 9\/05\/03 108 99 75 7,885 0.49 1,417 0.18 4 9\/08\/03 111 100 90 8,406 0.56 3,165 0.35 12 9\/10\/03 113 100 87 8,496 0.47 3,043 0.28 11 9\/12\/03 115 100 81 8,366 0.44 3,570 0.32 14 9\/17\/03 120 100 98 9,864 0.47 5,665 0.49 24 9\/19\/03 122 99 85 10,300 0.47 6,576 0.55 32 9\/22\/03 125 99 88 10,442 0.52 6,442 0.52 28 9\/24\/03 127 100 92 10,647 0.53 6,867 0.60 34 9\/26\/03 129 99 91 10,759 0.45 6,903 0.53 33 9\/29\/03 132 99 94 10,001 0.45 7,326 0.54 51 10\/01\/03 134 99 91 10,505 0.44 8,095 0.58 63 10\/03\/03 136 98 77 9,600 0.44 8,071 0.60 97 10\/06\/03 139 95 47 7,293 0.29 6,147 0.47 98 10\/15\/03 148 99 71 8,118 0.30 2,312 0.15 8 10\/17\/03 150 100 90 9,510 0.34 4,752 0.30 18 Specific Specific % System Aerobic Nitr Rate Anoxic Denitr Rate N H 4 Aerobic Nitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Denitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Anoxic Date Day Removal Nitr (%) (mgN\/d) mg VSS) (mgN\/d) mg VSS) Denitr (\u00b0\/ 10\/20\/03 153 100 99 10,864 0.42 7,042 0.50 27 10\/22\/03 155 100 96 10,242 0.47 7,660 0.61 33 10\/24\/03 157 100 97 10,472 0^ 48 8,096 0.65 37 10\/27\/03 160 99 101 10,080 0.53 7,844 0.63 43 10\/29\/03 162 98 89 9,712 0.54 7,470 0.60 45 10\/31\/03 164 99 102 10,061 0.59 7,765 0.74 47 11\/03\/03 167 96 71 10,063 0.56 6,828 0.59 31 11\/07\/03 171 99 94 10,775 0.43 7,121 0.55 29 11\/10\/03 174 99 90 10,298 0.43 7,351 0.57 33 11\/12\/03 176 98 90 10,436 0.43 7,532 0.60 33 11\/14\/03 178 88 11,749 0.47 11\/17\/03 181 96 86 10,447 0.42 8,424 0.73 51 11\/19\/03 183 95 74 10,251 0.39 8,589 0.64 60 11\/21\/03 185 94 82 10,049 0.39 8,375 0.58 60 11\/24\/03 188 94 68 8,191 0.30 6,968 0.46 75 11\/26\/03 190 98 83 7,859 0.26 6,654 0.44 83 11\/28\/03 192 99 86 8,604 0.29 7,251 0.48 90 12\/03\/03 197 100 85 8,504 0.27 7,250 0.52 84 12\/05\/03 199 100 96 9,515 0.28 7,730 0.59 79 12\/07\/03 201 99 68 7,786 0.21 6,357 0.44 82 12\/09\/03 203 100 72 6,990 0.20 5,924 0.46 99 12\/11\/03 205 100 89 8,490 0.24 7,099 0.43 95 12\/14\/03 208 100 75 7,078 0.21 5,976 0.31 98 12\/16\/03 210 100 76 8,122 0.23 6,773 0.38 95 12\/18\/03 212 100 87 9,515 0.26 7,715 0.39 89 12\/20\/03 214 100 96 10,175 0.26 8,174 0.38 80 12\/22\/03 216 100 95 9,630 0.24 7,720 0.38 83 12\/24\/03 218 100 100 9,104 0.23 7,444 0.35 89 12\/26\/03 220 100 94 10,169 0.23 8,392 0.38 94 12\/28\/03 222 100 115 11,751 0.26 9,794 0.46 100 1\/01\/04 226 100 116 12,289 0.33* 9,556 0.53 71 1\/03\/04 228 100 89 9,442 0.21 7,401 0.28 69 1\/05\/04 230 100 83 9,339 0.20 7,404 0.31 74 1\/07\/04 232 100 85 9,770 0.20 7,845 0.33 83 1\/10\/04 235 100 99 10,342 0.21 8,535 0.36 93 1\/11\/04 236 100 97 9,868 0.21 8,159 0.33 94 1\/12\/04 237 100 97 9,568 0.19 7,927 0.33 94 Specific Specific % System Aerobic Nitr Rate Anoxic Denitr Rate N H 4 Aerobic Nitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Denitr Rate (mg N\/d\/ Anoxic Date Day Removal Nitr (%) (mg N\/d) mg VSS) (mg N\/d) mg VSS) Denitr (\u00b0\/ 1\/14\/04 239 100 83 8,358 0.18 6,936 0.29 96 1\/16\/04 241 100 83 8,448 0.18 7,030 0.30 97 1\/18\/04 243 100 87 8,738 0.18 7,259 0.30 96 1\/20\/04 245 100 92 9,340 0.19 7,626 0.32 88 1\/21\/04 246 100 84 9,739 0.21 7,925 0.33 87 1\/24\/04 249 100 68 8,458 0.19 6,999 0.30 92 1\/26\/04 251 100 58 7,931 0.17 6,591 0.28 96 1\/28\/04 253 100 51 6,271 0.14 5,312 0.22 97 2\/04\/04 260 100 49 5,045 0.11 4,228 \u2022 0.18 100 2\/07\/04 263 100 48 4,777 0.10 3,999 0.18 100 2\/09\/04 265 100 54 5,534 0.12 4,636 0.20 100 2\/11\/04 267 100 72 6,676 0.13 5,567 0.23 97 2\/14\/04 270 100 97 9,382 0.20 7,786 0.31 100 2\/16\/04 272 100 86 7,708 0.15 6,413 0.24 100 2\/18\/04 274 100 77 7,673 0.15 6,393 0.28 100 2\/20\/04 276 100 81 7,065 0.13 5,895 0.23 100 2\/22\/04 278 100 31 3,184 0.06 2,674 0.11 100 2\/25\/04 281 100 49 5,099 0.09 4,263 0.16 100 2\/27\/04 283 100 49 5,057 0.09 4,227 0.16 100 2\/29\/04 285 100 73 7,147 0.15 5,979 0.24 100 3\/02\/04 287 100 55 5,318 0.10 4,451 0.18 100 3\/04\/04 289 100 49 4,779 0.09 4,014 0.15 100 3\/07\/04 292 100 43 4,323 0.08 3,623 0.15 100 3\/09\/04 294 100 47 4,537 0.08 3,807 0.17 100 3\/11\/04 296 100 39 3,831 0.08 3,214 0.14 100 3\/13\/04 298 100 35 3,560 0.07 2,989 0.12 100 3\/15\/04 300 91 12 1,784 0.03 1,500 0.06 100 3\/17\/04 302 100 102 10,416 0.13 6,804 0.19 22 3\/19\/04 304 100 3\/22\/04 307 100 109 10,970 0.16 8,815 0.33 63 3\/25\/04 310 100 116 10,956 0.18 9,197 0.31 98 141 Anoxic Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Anoxic COD:NOx COD:NOx Alk:NH4 Alk:NH4 NO x Load Entering Removed Added Nitrified Date Day (mg N\/d) (mg COD\/mg N) (mg COD\/mg N) (g CaC03\/g N) (g CaC03\/g 5\/21\/03 1 5\/23\/03 3 5\/24\/03 4 5\/25\/03 5 5\/26\/03 6 0.00 5\/27\/03 7 5\/28\/03 8 0.00 5\/29\/03 9 5\/30\/03 10 0.00 5\/31\/03 11 6\/01\/03 12 6\/02\/03 13 0.00 6\/03\/03 14 6\/04\/03 15 6\/05\/03 16 15,462 0.2 6\/06\/03 17 9,750 0.2 0.9 0.0 6\/07\/03 18 10,655 0.2 1.0 0.0 6\/08\/03 19 11,440 0.3 1.4 0.0 6\/10\/03 21 11,716 0.3 1.5 0.0 6\/11\/03 22 12,323 0.6 3.7 0.0 6\/12\/03 23 12,404 0.6 0.00 0.0 6\/13\/03 24 11,882 0.6 23.3 0.00 0.0 6\/14\/03 25 11,553 0.7 11.6 0.00 0.0 6\/16\/03 27 10,533 0.7 12.5 0.00 0.0 6\/17\/03 28 10,021 0.8 8.8 0.00 0.0 6\/18\/03 29 9,327 1.1 10.3 0.00 0.0 6\/19\/03 30 8,466 0.9 11.0 0.00 0.0 6\/23\/03 34 7,092 1.1 6.7 0.00 0.0 6\/25\/03 36 3,993 4.3 10.8 0.00 0.0 6\/26\/03 37 3,213 5.3 11.4 0.00 0.0 6\/27\/03 38 2,729 6.8 10.3 7.99 8.6 6\/30\/03 41 2,240 7.6 8.3 7.41 8.0 7\/02\/03 43 2,141 7.3 7.9 7.60 7.9 7\/04\/03 45 2,172 6.6 7.1 0.00 0.0 7\/06\/03 47 2,696 5.8 6.5 0.02 8.3 7\/07\/03 48 2,336 7.3 8.0 0.00 0.0 7\/08\/03 49 2,349 7.2 7.8 0.02 9.2 Anoxic Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Anoxic COD:NO x COD:NO x A l k : N H 4 A l k : N H 4 N O x Load Entering Removed Added Nitrified Date Day (mgN\/d) (mgCOD\/mgN) (mgCOD\/mgN) (gCaCQ 3 \/gN) ( g C a C 0 3 \/ g N ) 7\/09\/03 50 2,677 6.3 6.9 0.00 0.0 7\/10\/03 51 3,275 4.8 5.3 0.02 6.2 7\/11\/03 52 3,188 5.3 6.1 0.00 0.0 7\/12\/03 53 3,668 4.6 5.2 0.00 0.0 7\/14\/03 55 3,731 4.6 5.1 0.01 5.4 7\/16\/03 57 2,618 6.5 6.6 15.2 7\/18\/03 59 3,156 5.8 5.9 0.01 7.8 7\/21\/03 62 7\/25\/03 66 375 66.3 68.9 0.00 0.0 7\/30\/03 71 414 10.3 10.5 0.00 0.0 8\/01\/03 73 473 13.6 13.8 0.00 0.0 8\/05\/03 77 5,215 0.5 5.4 0.00 0.0 8\/08\/03 80 16,904 0.6 3.4 0.01 7.2 8\/11\/03 83 16,854 0.6 4.0 0.01 11.0 8\/14\/03 86 14,043 0.9 2.2 0.01 4.7 8\/17\/03 89 12,840 1.2 2.6 0.01 9.9 8\/19\/03 91 12,533 1.4 2.5 0.01 7.5 8\/25\/03 97 2,656 7.9 8.0 0.00 7.9 8\/29\/03 101 28,295 0.2 5.3 0.01 9.6 9\/01\/03 104 31,266 0.1 -6.2 0.01 13.3 9\/03\/03 106 30,870 0.2 2.7 0.01 7.1 9\/05\/03 108 33,724 0.2 5.1 0.01 8.7 9\/08\/03 111 27,260 0.4 3.5 0.01 8.0 9\/10\/03 113 27,826 0.4 3.6 0.01 8.3 9\/12\/03 115 26,260 0.5 3.7 0.01 8.4 9\/17\/03 120 24,057 0.7 3.0 0.01 6.9 9\/19\/03 122 20,666 0.9 2.8 0.01 6.8 9\/22\/03 125 23,095 0.8 3.2 0.01 7.4 9\/24\/03 127 20,350 1.1 3.2 0.01 7.0 9\/26\/03 129 21,081 1.0 3.0 0.01 7.1 9\/29\/03 132 14,325 1.6 3.1 0.01 6.5 10\/01\/03 134 12,883 1.8 2.8 0.01 6.0 10\/03\/03 136 8,323 3.0 3.1 0.01 6.2 10\/06\/03 139 6,267 4.2 4.2 0.01 7.8 10\/15\/03 148 29,462 0.4 4.7 0.01 8.6 10\/17\/03 150 26,865 0.5 3.2 0.01 6.9 10\/20\/03 153 25,946 0.6 2.5 0.01 6.6 143 Anoxic Anoxic Aerobic Aerobic Anoxic COD:NO x COD:NO x A l k : N H 4 A l k : N H 4 N O x Load Entering Removed Added Nitrified Date Day (mgN\/d) (mgCOD\/mgN) (mgCOD\/mgN) (gCaC03\/gN) (gCaC03\/gN) 10\/22\/03 155 22,892 0.7 2.9 0.01 6.5 10\/24\/03 157 21,835 0.8 2.8 0.01 6.6 10\/27\/03 160 18,309 0.9 2.5 0.01 5.5 10\/29\/03 162 16,784 1.0 2.6 0.01 6.1 10\/31\/03 164 16,686 0.9 2.2 0.01 5.7 11\/03\/03 167 21,771 0.7 2.7 0.01 6.9 11\/07\/03 171 24,616 0.7 2.6 0.01 6.6 11\/10\/03 174 22,600 0.8 2.8 0.01 6.5 11\/12\/03 176 22,536 0.9 3.1 0.01 6.4 11\/14\/03 178 11\/17\/03 181 16,653 1.2 2.8 0.01 5.9 11\/19\/03 183 14,324 1.5 2.8 0.01 5.7 11\/21\/03 185 13,925 1.4 2.7 0.01 5.8 11\/24\/03 188 9,324 2.6 3.8 0.01 6.6 11\/26\/03 190 8,063 2.7 3.4 0.01 6.5 11\/28\/03 192 8,028 2.9 3.2 0.01 6.3 12\/03\/03 197 8,661 3.6 4.5 0.01 6.3 12\/05\/03 199 9,799 3.5 4.4 0.01 5.2 12\/07\/03 201 7,738 4.6 5.5 0.00 6.1 12\/09\/03 203 5,962 6.4 6.5 0.00 6.3 12\/11\/03 205 7,501 5.1 5.4 0.00 5.8 12\/14\/03 208 6,098 6.3 6.4 0.00 5.5 12\/16\/03 210 7,104 5.7 6.0 0.01 6.3 12\/18\/03 212 8,669 4.4 5.0 0.01 9.8 12\/20\/03 214 10,209 4.0 5.0 0.01 6.8 12\/22\/03 216 9,350 4.3 5.3 0.01 8.8 12\/24\/03 218 8,382 4.8 5.4 0.01 7.6 12\/26\/03 220 8,967 4.5 4.8 0.01 7.2 12\/28\/03 222 9,794 4.4 4.4 0.01 6.2 1\/01\/04 226 13,447 2.6 3.7 0.01 8.4 1\/03\/04 228 10,708 3.5 5.1 0.00 5.0 1\/05\/04 230 10,053 4.0 5.5 0.01 6.0 1\/07\/04 232 9,417 4.6 ,5.4 0.01 5.5 1\/10\/04 235 9,189 4.4 4.7 0.01 4.9 1\/11\/04 236 8,694 4.9 5.2 0.01 5.4 1\/12\/04 237 8,447 4.5 4.8 0.01 5.4 1\/14\/04 239 7,234 5.8 6.0 0.01 6.3 144 Anoxic NO x Load Date Day (mg N\/d) 1\/16\/04 241 7,238 1\/18\/04 243 7,572 1\/20\/04 245 8,649 1\/21\/04 246 9,076 1\/24\/04 249 7,644 1\/26\/04 251 6,850 1\/28\/04 253 5,474 2\/04\/04 260 4,246 2\/07\/04 263 4,003 2\/09\/04 265 4,658 2\/11\/04 267 5,767 2\/14\/04 270 7,821 2\/16\/04 272 6,443 2\/18\/04 274 6,414 2\/20\/04 276 5,910 2\/22\/04 278 2,679 2\/25\/04 281 4,271 2\/27\/04 283 4,234 2\/29\/04 285 5,985 3\/02\/04 287 4,457 3\/04\/04 289 4,021 3\/07\/04 292 3,632 3\/09\/04 294 3,820 3\/11\/04 296 3,223 3\/13\/04 298 2,998 3\/15\/04 300 1,506 3\/17\/04 302 30,249 3\/19\/04 304 5,399 3\/22\/04 307 14,002 3\/25\/04 310 9,363 Anoxic Anoxic COD:NOx COD:NOx Entering Removed igCOD\/mgN) (mgCOD\/mgN) 5.8 5.9 5.7 5.9 5.1 5.7 4.7 5.4 5.5 5.9 6.1 6.3 8.0 8.4 10.0 10.0 10.6 10.6 8.6 8.6 7.3 7.8 5.4 5.4 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 7.5 7.5 16.6 16.6 9.8 9.8 10.5 10.5 6.7 6.7 9.5 9.5 10.5 10.6 11.0 11.0 10.4 10.5 12.4 12.4 11.9 11.9 25.2 25.3 0.6 4.3 7.0 2.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 Aerobic Aerobic Alk:NH 4 Alk:NH4 Added Nitrified ( g CaC0 3 \/gN) ( gCaC0 3 \/gN) 0.01 6.3 0.01 6.1 0.01 5.4 0.01 5.8 0.00 5.7 0.01 6.5 0.00 7.5 0.01 10.0 0.01 10.6 0.01 9.1 0.01 13.4 0.01 7.5 0.01 8.9 0.01 8.4 0.01 8.5 0.00 12.2 0.01 10.2 0.01 10.3 0.00 7.0 0.00 9.0 0.00 9.0 0.00 10.2 0.00 8.9 0.00 11.2 0.00 11.3 0.00 21.6 0.01 6.0 0.00 0.00 4.5 0.00 3.0 145 APPENDIX D: DATA FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 1st pH SERIES Date Day Average Concentration (mgN 20\/L) Average Concentration (mg N 2 0-N\/L) Daily Production (kg N 20-N\/d) Comments 7.5 01\/18\/04 0 610 0.71 2.0 Steady State at pH 7.5 7.5 01\/19\/04 1 697 0.81 2.3 \u2022 7.0 01\/20\/04 2 930 1.08 3.1 7.0 01\/23\/04 5 416 0.48 1.4 7.0 01\/24\/04 6 543 0.63 1.8 7.0 01\/25\/04 7 641 0.75 2.2 7.0 01\/26\/04 8 630 0.73 2.1 Steady State at pH 7.0 146 APPENDIX E: DATA FOR NITROUS OXIDE DURING THE 2 n g pH SERIES pH Date Day Average Concentration (mg N 2 0\/L) SD (mgN 20\/L) Average Concentration (mg N 2 0-N\/L) Daily Production (kgN 20-N) Comments 7.5 02\/09\/04 0 751 141 0.88 2.5 7.5 02\/10\/04 1 784 159 0.91 2.6 8.0 02\/11\/04 2 313 92 0.37 1.1 8.0 02\/12\/04 3 347 57 0.40 1.2 8.0 02\/14\/04 5 167 9 0.19 0.6 8.0 02\/16\/04 7 727 107 0.85 2.4 8.0 02\/17\/04 8 577 80 0.67 1.9 Steady State at pH = 8.0 8.0 02\/18\/04 9 613 107 0.71 2.1 8.0 02\/20\/04 11 547 86 0.64 1.8 7.5 02\/21\/04 12 1,055 239 1.23 3.5 7.5 02\/22\/04 13 1,164 171 1.36 3.9 7.5 02\/24\/04 15 1,236 335 1.44 4.1 7.5 02\/25\/04 16 1,209 322 1.41 4.1 7.5 02\/26\/04 17 975 132 1.14 3.3 7.5 02\/27\/04 18 881 90 1.03 3.0 7.5 02\/28\/04 19 805 219 0.94 2.7 7.5 02\/29\/04 20 622 79 0.72 2.1 7.5 03\/03\/04 23 954 180 1.11 3.2 7.5 03\/04\/04 24 728 183 0.85 2.4 7.5 03\/05\/04 25 706 200 0.82 2.4 Steady State at pH = 7.5 147 pH Date Day Average (mgN 20\/L) SD (mg N 2 0\/L) Average Concentration (mg N 2 0-N\/L) Daily Production (kgN 20-N) Comments 7.5 03\/06\/04 26 736 95 0.86 2.5 Steady State at pH = 7.5 7.5 03\/07\/04 27 694 261 0.81 2.3 7.0 03\/09\/04 29 1,125 295 1.31 3.8 7.0 03\/10\/04 30 1,185 228 1.38 4.0 7.0 03\/11\/04 31 1,037 198 1.21 3.5 7.0 03\/12\/04 32 807 154 0.94 2.7 7.0 03\/13\/04 33 789 0.92 2.6 7.0 03\/14\/04 34 755 0.88 2.5 7.0 03\/15\/04 35 Failure. No samples collected. Re-seeding 7.0 03\/16\/04 36 1,258 384 1.47 4.2 7.0 03\/17\/04 37 985 1.15 3.3 7.0 03\/18\/04 38 228 0.27 0.8 Wasting resumed 7.0 03\/19\/04 39 125 0.15 0.4 7.0 03\/20\/04 40 259 0.30 0.9 7.0 03\/21\/04 41 197 0.23 0.7 7.0 03\/25\/04 45 801 226 0.93 2.7 MLSS stable. SRT = 10 days 7.0 03\/26\/04 46 866 116 1.01 2.9 Steady state at pH = 7.0 148 ","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","classmap":"oc:AnnotationContainer"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note","explain":"Simple Knowledge Organisation System; Notes are used to provide information relating to SKOS concepts. There is no restriction on the nature of this information, e.g., it could be plain text, hypertext, or an image; it could be a definition, information about the scope of a concept, editorial information, or any other type of information."}],"Genre":[{"label":"Genre","value":"Thesis\/Dissertation","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"edm:hasType"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; This property relates a resource with the concepts it belongs to in a suitable type system such as MIME or any thesaurus that captures categories of objects in a given field. It does NOT capture aboutness"}],"GraduationDate":[{"label":"Graduation Date","value":"2005-11","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","classmap":"vivo:DateTimeValue","property":"vivo:dateIssued"},"iri":"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#dateIssued","explain":"VIVO-ISF Ontology V1.6 Property; Date Optional Time Value, DateTime+Timezone Preferred "}],"IsShownAt":[{"label":"DOI","value":"10.14288\/1.0063302","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"edm:isShownAt"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; An unambiguous URL reference to the digital object on the provider\u2019s website in its full information context."}],"Language":[{"label":"Language","value":"eng","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:language"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; A language of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as RFC 4646 [RFC4646]."}],"Program":[{"label":"Program (Theses)","value":"Civil Engineering","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","classmap":"oc:ThesisDescription","property":"oc:degreeDiscipline"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#degreeDiscipline","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the program for which the degree was granted."}],"Provider":[{"label":"Provider","value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","classmap":"ore:Aggregation","property":"edm:provider"},"iri":"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider","explain":"A Europeana Data Model Property; The name or identifier of the organization who delivers data directly to an aggregation service (e.g. Europeana)"}],"Publisher":[{"label":"Publisher","value":"University of British Columbia","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:publisher"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/publisher","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; An entity responsible for making the resource available.; Examples of a Publisher include a person, an organization, or a service."}],"Rights":[{"label":"Rights","value":"For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms_of_use.","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","classmap":"edm:WebResource","property":"dcterms:rights"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; Information about rights held in and over the resource.; Typically, rights information includes a statement about various property rights associated with the resource, including intellectual property rights."}],"ScholarlyLevel":[{"label":"Scholarly Level","value":"Graduate","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:scholarLevel"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Identifies the scholarly level of the author(s)\/creator(s)."}],"Title":[{"label":"Title ","value":"The effects of aerobic pH on nitrification in a single-sludge pre-anoxic system treating high ammonia leachate","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:title"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The name given to the resource."}],"Type":[{"label":"Type","value":"Text","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","classmap":"dpla:SourceResource","property":"dcterms:type"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type","explain":"A Dublin Core Terms Property; The nature or genre of the resource.; Recommended best practice is to use a controlled vocabulary such as the DCMI Type Vocabulary [DCMITYPE]. To describe the file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource, use the Format element."}],"URI":[{"label":"URI","value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/16489","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","classmap":"oc:PublicationDescription","property":"oc:identifierURI"},"iri":"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI","explain":"UBC Open Collections Metadata Components; Local Field; Indicates the handle for item record."}],"SortDate":[{"label":"Sort Date","value":"2005-12-31 AD","attrs":{"lang":"en","ns":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","classmap":"oc:InternalResource","property":"dcterms:date"},"iri":"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/date","explain":"A Dublin Core Elements Property; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF].; A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource.; Date may be used to express temporal information at any level of granularity. Recommended best practice is to use an encoding scheme, such as the W3CDTF profile of ISO 8601 [W3CDTF]."}]}