You are on page 1of 9

ARTICLE IN PRESS

WAT E R R E S E A R C H 41 (2007) 2697 – 2705

Available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Performance comparison of a pilot-scale UASB and DHS


system and activated sludge process for the treatment of
municipal wastewater

Madan Tandukara,, A. Ohashib, H. Haradaa


a
Department of Civil Engineering, Environmental Protection Engineering Laboratory, Tohoku University, Aoba 06,
Aramaki, Aoba ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8579, Japan
b
Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, 1603-1 Kamitomiokamachi,
Nagaoka 940-2188, Niigata, Japan

art i cle info ab st rac t

Article history: This study compares the performance of a pilot-scale combination of UASB and DHS
Received 14 November 2006 system to that of activated sludge process (ASP) for the treatment of municipal sewage.
Received in revised form Both systems were operated in parallel with the same sewage as influent. The study was
16 February 2007 conducted for more than 300 days, which revealed that organic removal efficiency of
Accepted 20 February 2007 UASB þ DHS system was comparable to that of ASP. Unfiltered BOD removal by both
Available online 5 April 2007 systems was more than 90%. However, UASB þ DHS system outperformed ASP for
Keywords: pathogen removal. In addition, volume of excess sludge production from UASB þ DHS
Municipal sewage was 15 times smaller than that from ASP. Moreover, unlike ASP, there is no requirement of
UASB aeration for the operation of UASB þ DHS system, which makes it an economical treatment
DHS system. Considering the above observations, it was concluded that UASB þ DHS system can
Activated sludge process be a cost-effective and viable option for the treatment of municipal sewage over ASP,
Low cost especially for low-income countries.
& 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and background transportation, food availability, education, health care, etc.,
are more pressing (Ujang and Buckley, 2002). For example,
Selection of sewage treatment system for any country is benefits of constructing road are more apparent than
largely driven by its economy apart from the level of social constructing a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Interest-
and educational conditions. The name ‘activated sludge ingly, construction of a kilometer of sewers or a million liter
process (ASP)’ has long been a domain in the world of per day (MLD) of ASP costs almost the same as the
wastewater treatment especially in industrialized or devel- construction of a kilometer of highway in developing
oped countries though it is complex and expensive. But for countries (FEC Consultants Ltd., 1997). Operation and main-
developing countries, economical aspect is paramount for the tenance costs of the WWTP exceed that of the road. Again
establishment of a sewage treatment system and adopting it statistics say that a significant proportion of population in
as a national standard. In developing countries, sewage or developing countries has incomes that are so low that they
wastewater treatment, like other environmental problems, is can afford only a small portion of their income (US$ 0.01–0.05
of low preference as the benefits are not directly perceivable a day) on water and sanitation (UN-HABITAT, 2003). On this
and it does not have immediate economical significance. background, incorporation of high-tech and costly waste-
Moreover, other developmental issues, such as road and water treatment systems in developing countries sounds

Corresponding author. Tel.: +81 22 795 7466; fax: +81 22 795 7465.
E-mail address: madan@epl1.civil.tohoku.ac.jp (M. Tandukar).
0043-1354/$ - see front matter & 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2007.02.027
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2698 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 41 (2007) 2697– 2705

preposterous as they do not match the economic reality and UASB eff.
UASB pre-treatment
technical availability of the country. Hence, there is a need to Vol. : 1,148 L
5
develop and devise an ‘appropriate sewage treatment system’ 2 4
HRT: 6h

for developing countries, which is techno-economically 3 DHS-Post-treatment


affordable. Vol. : 479 L
HRT: 2.5h
Definition of appropriate technology for developing coun-
tries is so unclear that it may sometimes lead to the adoption
of wrong technology if not rightly perceived. Petr Grau (1996)
cited failure of a low-cost technology in a developing country
as an evidence of lack of proper selection techniques for an 1 6
appropriate technology. The case study raises a serious
concern over the selection of the appropriateness. Further-
more, role of ‘affordability’ is also important, which margin-
alizes the types of treatment systems appropriate for a
particular community. Under these circumstances, a combi-
nation of up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor and 47.5 cm
down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) reactor ðUASB þ DHSÞ was Unit module of DHS
Single Curtain
(85cm x49.5cmx49.5cm)
proposed as an appropriate sewage treatment technology for Sewage
developing countries (Machdar et al., 2000; Tandukar et al., Final Effluent
ANAEROBIC AEROBIC
2005, 2006a, b). This kind of anaerobic–aerobic biocoenoses is PRE-TREATMENT POST-TREATMENT
not only cost effective but was also found to acclimatize in a
1. UASB 4. UASB effluent
wide range of operational variations achieving high removal 2. GSS 5. Wastewater distributor
efficiencies with relatively lower levels of residual pollutants 3. Gas meter 6. DHS
(Mergaert et al., 1992). In addition, several researchers like
Fig. 1 – Experimental setup (Pilot-scale UASB and DHS
Alaerts et al. (1993), Jordao and Volschan (2004) have clarified
system).
the preference of an aerobic post-treatment unit for UASB
rather than an anaerobic one. Present study compares the
proposed treatment system ðUASB þ DHSÞ with standard ASP
in terms of efficiency, sludge production, energy requirement,
cost and their relevance for application in developing of a hanger assembly. This whole construction was consid-
countries. ered as a single module. The sponge occupancy in the module
was 55–57% by volume. Four such modules were put one
above the other with a certain gap in between for the
2. Materials and methods construction of the whole reactor, giving a height of 4 m. A
rotary type wastewater distributor was set up at the top of
Pilot-scale combination of UASB and DHS system was set up DHS reactor. The wastewater flowed down through the
in a municipal sewage treatment center of Nagaoka City, sponge material with almost uniform distribution. A small
Japan. The city was treating its sewage by an ASP. Influent clarifier was also set at the bottom of the DHS to trap and
sewage used for the pilot-scale system was the same as that analyze the excess sludge from DHS, if any.
being treated by the ASP. Both processes were operated in The system was operated by feeding gritted raw sewage.
parallel at an ambient temperature which varied from 9  C, A peristaltic master-flex pump was used to feed sewage to the
during winter, to 32  C during summer. UASB reactor. Effluent from UASB reactor was then directly
fed to DHS reactor, without any pre-treatment, which flowed
2.1. Reactor description and operational conditions down under gravity. The UASB reactor was operated at an
HRT of 6 h which corresponded to the HRT of 2.5 h for
2.1.1. Pilot-scale UASB and DHS DHS. Hydraulic retention time of the clarifier at the bottom
A cylindrical UASB with a height of 4 m and volume of 1148 L of DHS was negligible (7 min) compared to that of the whole
(including GSS) was used for the study. Likewise, the volume system. The system was continuously operated and evalu-
of DHS reactor was 480 L, based on the sponge volume. ated for more than 300 days. Experimental setup is illustrated
Polyurethane sponge with pore size of 0.63 mm was used for in Fig. 1.
the construction of DHS. Void ratio of sponge was more than
90%, measured with the help of a picnometer. Unit of DHS 2.1.2. Activated sludge process
reactor was sponge curtain constructed by adhering sponge The sewage treatment center of Nagaoka City had a conven-
with undulating surface on both sides of a thin plastic sheet tional type of ASP (Fig. 2). Three main compartments of the
(Fig. 1) with a final dimension of 81:0 cm  47:5 cm. The process were primary settler, aeration tank and final settler.
configuration of the sponge curtain was more like that of The designed treatment capacity was 96; 800 m3 =d, corre-
second generation DHS as described by Machdar et al. (2000). sponding to the population equivalent (PE) of 150,960.
Twelve sheets of such curtains were placed side by side inside Designed total HRT was 12 h; 2.3 h in primary settler, 6.45 h
a rectangular frame with a gap of 4 cm between consecutive in aeration tank and 3.35 h in the final settler. But the actual
sheets. The sheets were fixed inside the frame with the help HRT fluctuated diurnally, attaining maximum during the peak
ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 1 (200 7) 269 7 – 270 5 2699

Blower
Primary Final Disinfection
sedimentation tank sedimentation tank tank

Raw
sewage
Final

recycling
effluent
Grit Chamber AERATION TANK
+
Pump station

Sludge Digester

Fig. 2 – Activated sludge process (ASP) being operated at Nagaoka City, Japan.

Table 1 – Summary of the process performances

Sewage UASB eff. DHS eff. Sewage ASP eff. % Removal

HRT 6h 2.5 h 12 h by UASB þ DHS by ASP

T-BOD (mg/L) 290.8 (334) 136.0 (25) 16.5 (13) 281.6 (128) 6.1 (3) 94.3 97.8
T-COD (mg/L) 599.6 (709) 226.8 (54) 62.0 (30) 576.5 (9) 22.4 (13) 89.7 96.1
T-Kjel (mg-N/L) 40.6 (27) 28.8 (3) 11.3 (8) 41.7 (6) 8.7 (6) 72.3 79.1
NH4 (mg-N/L) 22.0 (7) 22.8 (3) 8.8 (6) 21.5 (7) 7.1 (6) 59.9 66.9
NO3 (mg-N/L) 0.0 0.0 6.6 (7) 0.0 2.6 (4)
T-N (mg-N/L) 40.6 (27) 28.8 (3) 17.9 (6) 41.7 (6) 11.4 (4) 55.9 72.6
SS (mg/L) 333.0 (597) 40.9 (15) 17.5 (14) 314.7 (123) 4.6 (3) 94.8 98.5
F. coli (MPN/100 mL) 3:9  108 5:3  107 3:8  104 9:0  108 1:1  105 4.0 log 3.9 log
DO (mg/L) 0 0 5.4 (1) 0 2.8 (1)

Figures in parentheses are standard deviations.


Sampling numbers ¼ 108 times.

hours. Actual HRT was always longer than the designed HRT For the analysis of retained biomass in the sponge, a
which ranged from 12 to 26 h within a day. Excess sludge known size of sponge was cut out from DHS curtain,
produced from the ASP was digested anaerobically before which was squeezed and washed with water until the
dumping into landfill. sponge was clean. The eluted biomass was collected in a
beaker. Concentration of SS and VSS of the squeezed
2.1.3. Sampling and analysis sludge was analyzed, which corresponds to the size
Performance of the system was monitored by analyzing grab of the sponge taken out. From these values, biomass
samples. For UASB þ DHS system, samples of raw sewage, content per liter of sponge volume was calculated.
UASB effluent and final effluent were collected. For ASP, raw Three pieces of sponge were sampled for each height of the
sewage before the primary sedimentation tank and the final reactor and the average was taken to quantify the amount of
effluent before chlorination were taken as samples. Though retained biomass. Sponge material was replaced after the
both systems were operated with the same sewage, the sampling.
samples for both were taken separately. Dissolved oxygen
(DO), pH, ORP and temperature were measured regularly on-
site. Performance of the systems were individually evaluated,
by analyzing filtered and unfiltered biochemical oxygen 3. Results and discussions
demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended
solids (SS), volatile suspended solids (VSS), filtered and Treatment efficiency of UASB þ DHS system was compared
unfiltered Kjeldahl nitrogen, ammonium nitrogen, nitrate with that of the ASP over a period of more than 300 days.
and nitrite three times a week. Fecal and total coliforms were These two treatment processes were compared for different
analyzed as indicator organisms. All analytical procedures aspects, including treatment efficiency, sludge production,
were carried out according to APHA (1998). Production of energy requirement and cost. The data and information on
excess sludge for both systems were also analyzed by energy requirement and costs of ASP were obtained from the
collecting the sludge produced. For height profiles of concerned authority responsible for plant operation and
DHS, grab samples were taken at every 0.5 m intervals along maintenance. A summary of comparison is presented in
its height. Table 1.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2700 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 41 (2007) 2697– 2705

3.1. Treatment efficiency and 12 mg/L ð4 mg=LÞ of SS, after 95% removal, left in the
final effluent. This might suggest that the system could be
3.1.1. Organic carbon and nitrogen removal more viable option for regions with tropical or sub-tropical
Organic carbon removal efficiencies were measured in terms climates and with stringent discharge standards. Time course
of unfiltered and filtered BOD, COD, SS and VSS. Raw sewage, of BOD and SS concentrations in influents and effluents of
that had been fed to UASB þ DHS system, had unfiltered UASB þ DHS system and ASP are shown in Fig. 3.
and filtered BOD concentrations of 291 mg=L ð130 mg=LÞ Organic carbon removal efficiency of UASB þ DHS system
and 103 mg=L ð47 mg=LÞ, respectively, which were the was comparable to that of the ASP. Influent sewage for ASP
averages of the total period. Similarly, average unfiltered had unfiltered BOD concentration of 282 mg=L ð187 mg=LÞ.
and filtered COD concentrations were 600 mg=L ð209 mg=LÞ Likewise unfiltered and filtered COD concentrations were
and 150 mg=L ð57 mg=LÞ, respectively. Raw sewage had a 577 mg=L ð290 mg=LÞ and 154 mg=L ð160 mg=LÞ, respec-
larger portion of SS, the concentration of which fluctuated tively, while SS concentration was 315 mg=L ð123 mg=LÞ.
over time. The concentration of SS in sewage was Particulate matters were largely settled in the primary settler
333 mg=L ð197 mg=LÞ, 89% of which was VSS. Fraction of with the retention time of 2.3 h. Almost 57% of SS or 31% of
particulate COD to total COD in sewage was 0.75. unfiltered BOD were removed before the sewage was sent to
The raw sewage was fed to UASB reactor without any the aeration tank. It can be said that the role of primary
pretreatment. At an HRT of 6 h, average organic loading on settler in ASP system is the same as that of UASB in the pilot
UASB was 2:4 kgCOD=m3 d over the whole experimental system. After 6.45 h of aeration and 3.5 h of final settling, the
period. It was observed that major fraction of particulate final effluent had only negligible amount of organic matter
organics or SS were removed in UASB. However, the removal left. Unfiltered and filtered BOD left in the final effluent were
of SS as well as the removal of organic matters oscillated with only 6 mg=L ð3 mg=LÞ and 3 mg=L ð2 mg=LÞ, respectively.
the ambient temperature. In winter the temperature was as Removal efficiencies were 98% and 97%, respectively. Like-
low as 9  C in contrast to the perspiring summer with 32  C. wise, unfiltered and filtered COD removals were 96% and 88%,
However, the effect of temperature on the overall performance respectively, with only 22 mg=L ð13 mg=LÞ and 17 mg=L
of UASB was minute. In average, for the total period, removal ð12 mg=LÞ eluted in the final effluent. It has already been
efficiencies of unfiltered and filtered BOD by UASB were 53% mentioned that the actual HRT was longer than the designed
and 22%, respectively. Even during the winter ðo20  CÞ, the HRT. Longer HRTs in the ASP is one of the favorable factors
removal efficiencies remained above 50%. Similarly, 62% of enhancing the treatment efficiency.
unfiltered COD and 88% of SS were removed by UASB reactor. Regarding nitrogen removal, it was observed that the mode
The efficiencies were lower than those reported by various of nitrogen removal is nitrification followed by denitrification.
authors (Behling et al., 1997; Coelho et al., 2003). Difference in In UASB þ DHS system, nitrification and denitrification takes
the characteristics of sewage used in the studies might be one place in the aerobic DHS post-treatment system (Tandukar
of the factors. However, it was observed that a substantial et al., 2005). Nitrifiers residing in the retained sludge of DHS
amount of particulate matter was removed by UASB. Particu- first convert ammonia to nitrite and nitrate which are then
late COD removal by UASB was 72%, though the removal of converted to gaseous nitrogen by denitrification in anoxic
filtered COD was only 33% (in relation to that of raw sewage). core of sponge material (Araki et al., 1999). Nitrification and
Removal of filtered COD was lesser during winter probably denitrification in DHS remained excellent with 72% removal
because the methanogenesis was hindered by the low of total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) and 60% removal of ammo-
temperature. It was observed that the methane recovery rate nium nitrogen ðNH4 NÞ over the total operational period with
dropped to 30% in winter from 60% in summer. Nevertheless, the highest of 90% during the warmer season. In average, TKN
there was no significant drop in the overall performance of and ammonium nitrogen in the final effluent were 11 and
UASB, which might be because of more frequent sludge 9 mg N=L, respectively. From the profile analysis of waste-
withdrawal during winter and other microbial activities, such water along the height of DHS reactor, it was revealed that the
as sulfur reduction (data not shown). lower part of DHS was mainly responsible for nitrification and
More promising results were obtained after the wastewater denitrification. Several researchers also reported similar
was further treated by DHS post-treatment system. Removals observations with DHS (Machdar et al., 2000; Araki et al.,
of unfiltered and filtered BOD by the whole system after the 1999; Tandukar et al., 2005). This typical phenomenon in DHS
treatment by DHS were 94% and 92%, respectively, taken as an reactor was due to the fact that in the upper portion, organic
average of the total period. Similarly, removal efficiencies loading or the food to microorganism ratio (F/M) ratio was
were 94% for unfiltered COD, 83% for filtered COD and 96% for higher favoring the heterotrophic biomass, while nitrifying
SS. The efficiencies dropped slightly during the winter; biomass was severely suppressed in growth and activity. This
however, the averages were always above 90% for unfiltered was further verified by profile (Fig. 5). In terms of NO3 N
COD or BOD and SS. In winter ðo20  CÞ, average concentra- production per unit biomass per time, it was observed that
tions of unfiltered BOD, COD and SS in the final effluent the activity is several times higher at the lower portion of the
were 20 mg=L ð13 mg=LÞ, 69 mg=L ð30 mg=LÞ and 19 mg=L reactor compared to that of the upper portion (Fig. 5). In the
ð14 mg=LÞ, respectively, after the removal efficiencies of 92%, upper portion, the activity was 0:3820:67 g NO3 N=kg VSS d,
90% and 93%, respectively. At warmer temperature ð420  CÞ, whereas it was as high as 4:72 g NO3 N=kg VSS d in the lower
performance of the system was more impressive with only portion. In the upper portion, majority of organic matters
7 mg=L ð3 mg=LÞ of unfiltered BOD, after 98% removal, were removed, which resulted in decreased organic loading or
37 mg=L ð29 mg=LÞ of unfiltered COD, after 94% removal F/M ratio in the lower portion of DHS. Subsequently,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 1 (200 7) 269 7 – 270 5 2701

Sewage UASB eff. DHS eff. % rem.


400 100

unfiltered- BOD (mg/l)


80
300

% removal (BOD)
60
200
40
100
20

0 0
Sewage ASP eff. % rem.
400 100
unfiltered- BOD (mg/l)

% removal (BOD)
80
300
60
200
40
100
20
0 0
Sewage UASB eff. DHS eff. % rem.
300
100

% removal (SS)
80
mg/l (SS)

200 60

40
100
20

0 0
Sewage ASP eff. % rem.
100
300

% removal (SS)
mg/l (SS)

80

200 60

40
100
20
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
time (d)

summer winter summer

Fig. 3 – Time course of concentrations of influents and effluents and removal efficiencies of UASB þ DHS system and activated
sludge process (ASP): (a) unfiltered BOD ðUASB þ DHSÞ; (b) unfiltered BOD (ASP); (c) SS ðUASB þ DHSÞ and (d) SS (ASP).

nitrification is enhanced in this region. Total nitrogen removal the aeration tank (Siegrist et al., 1995; Schulthess et al., 1995).
by the whole system was 56%. However, it was estimated that Removal of nitrogen in ASP is particularly important as the
nitrogen removal by denitrification in DHS was approximately treated wastewater is further subjected to chlorination for
33%, calculated from the total ammonium nitrogen input in disinfection.
DHS and the concentration of ammonium nitrogen and Organic and nitrogen removal efficiencies of UASB þ DHS
nitrate in the final effluent. As DHS attained near steady system were analogous to that of ASP. Efficiencies of both
state in terms of sludge development, soon after the start up, systems were above 90% with excellent quality of the effluent
it was considered that nitrogen uptake for biomass growth (Fig. 4). However, performance of ASP was more consistent
was negligible (see also Figs. 4 and 5). than that of UASB þ DHS system. There was very less effect of
On the other hand, TKN and NH4 -N removal by ASP was temperature drop on the performance of ASP for the removal
79% and 67%, respectively. Total nitrogen removal was 72% of organics and nitrogen.
after 55% removal by biomass growth or by denitrification. Indeed, ASP is a well established municipal wastewater
Many researchers have suggested that denitrification in ASP treatment system, which has been marginally optimized by
takes place in the secondary clarifier or some anoxic zone of numerous research works (Gujer et al., 1995; Henze et al.,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2702 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 41 (2007) 2697– 2705

800
by (UASB+DHS) or ASP

y = 0.96 x
y = 0.98 x
R2 = 0.99
600 R2 = 1
removal in mg/L

y = 0.98 x
R2 = 0.99
400 y = 0.94 x
y = 0.95 x
R2 = 0.99 y = 0.90 x R2 = 0.99
R2 = 0.99
200
UASB+DHS UASB+DHS UASB+DHS
ASP ASP ASP
0
0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800 0 200 400 600 800
unfiltered-BOD in Sewage (mg/L) unfiltered-COD in Sewage (mg/L) SS in Sewage (mg/L)

Fig. 4 – Comparison of the process performance of UASB þ DHS system and ASP in terms of: (a) unfiltered BOD; (b) unfiltered
COD and (c) SS.

DO (mg/L) kg NO3-N/kg VSS.d


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
inlet

3
Reactor ht (m)

outlet
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5 15 25 35
BOD or SS (mg/L) mg-N/L
BOD SS DO NO2 NO3 NH4
TKN NO3-N produced/VSS.d

Fig. 5 – Profile of wastewater along the height of DHS: (a) DO and organic matters and (b) nitrogen species.

1995; Barker and Dold, 1995; Gall et al., 1995). Nevertheless, However, they were removed by 3–4 orders after the
process performance of anaerobic/aerobic biocenosis of UASB treatment by DHS. Total and fecal coliform removals were 4
and DHS was very much comparable to that of ASP. and 3.7 log units, respectively, by the whole system. Final
coliform counts in DHS effluent were 5:1  104 MPN=100 mL
3.2. Pathogen removal for total coliform and 3:8  104 MPN=100 mL for fecal coliform.
But a slight drop in the coliform removal was observed during
Evaluation of pathogen removal by any treatment system and the winter season ðo20  CÞ. Nevertheless, it was observed that
final pathogen content in the effluent are of paramount UASB þ DHS system outperformed ASP in pathogen removal
importance in assessing the health risks of treated sewage. as coliform count in the final ASP effluent was higher. Total
Many countries have stringent standards regarding patho- and fecal coliforms in the final ASP effluent were 2:3  105 and
gens in discharge wastewater as they directly affect the 1:1  105 MPN=100 mL, respectively. The removal efficiencies
health and sanitation conditions of the population (Karn and were 3.9 and 3.4 log units. Fig. 6 shows the time course of fecal
Harada, 2002). For the present comparative study, total and coliform counts in influents and effluents of UASB þ DHS
fecal coliforms were chosen as indicator organisms for system and ASP.
pathogens and were analyzed with multiple tube fermenta- One likely reason of higher performance of UASB þ DHS
tion technique. Raw sewage for both systems had coliforms in system could be the higher amount of retained sludge and
the order of 107 2108 MPN=100 mL. It is well understood that longer SRT in DHS system compared to that of ASP. It is well
anaerobic UASB reactor does not significantly contribute to understood that major fraction of coliforms in treated
the removal of coliforms (Alaerts et al., 1993). In this study, effluent is constituted by particle associated coliforms (PAC)
there was only single order removal of coliforms in UASB. (Emerick et al., 1999). Frank et al. (2002) pointed out that PAC
ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 1 (200 7) 269 7 – 270 5 2703

1010
F. coli (MPN/100ml)

108

106

104

102
Sewage UASB eff. DHS eff. Sewage ASP eff.
100
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
time (d) time (d)

summer winter summer summer winter summer

Fig. 6 – Time course of F. coliform counts in influents and effluents of (a) UASB þ DHS system and (b) ASP.

50 VSS SS COD
on the amount of retained sludge and the sludge eluted in the
40 effluent and the excess sludge, SRT for DHS was calculated to
g/L of sponge

be in the range of 90–125 d. Computation of SRT was done


30 according to Tandukar et al. (2006b). If compared to ASP, the
concentration of retained sludge in DHS was 17–19 times
20 higher and SRT 20–30 times longer. Concentration of retained
120th day
sludge in the aeration tank of ASP was 1.4 g/L with the SRT of
10
3–5 d. High amount of active biomass retained in the sponge
of DHS and corresponding longer SRT ensures a high degree
0
0 100 200 300 of treatment at minimum operational control. These proper-
time (d) ties are important to hedge against any hydraulic or organic
overload to the system during the real operation as well as to
Fig. 7 – Sludge development in DHS reactor over time. reduce sludge production (Tandukar et al., 2005).
Excess sludge production in biological treatment process is
inevitable and any suggestion that a biological process can
take place without producing excess sludge appears to violate
in the final effluent is directly proportional to the mean cell basic principles and would be considered heresy in the
residence time or sludge retention time (SRT) of the treatment Engineering world (Jewell, 1987). However, the amount and
system. He observed that the PAC in ASP declines exponen- quality of sludge production can be varied with the selection
tially with increasing SRT. In the present study, SRT of DHS of treatment system and operating conditions. Excess sludge
was several folds longer than that of ASP under investigation. production from DHS reactor was compared with that of ASP.
Longer SRT in DHS might be one of the factors for better Any sludge accumulated in the clarifier of DHS reactor was
removal of coliforms compared to ASP. However, the reason considered as excess sludge, which was collected and
behind it is not clearly understood. Modes of coliform analyzed. The observation suggested that the excess sludge
removal in DHS are suggested as adsorption and then production from DHS system was only 0.02 kg SS/kg COD
predation, toxicity due to oxygen, natural die-off and removed. In other words, it was only 2.5% of the total COD
competition with heterotrophs (Tandukar et al., 2005). Among removed or 7% of the total SS load. Excess sludge was also
them, the effect of predation by protozoa is presumably high. wasted from UASB particularly during winter when the
Higher amount of sludge in DHS signifies larger adsorption methanogenic activity dropped drastically. Sludge from UASB
sites and greater number of predators. Likewise in ASP, the was withdrawn five times in total which accounted for total of
dominant mode of coliform removal is suggested as predation 23 kg SS or 0.04 kg SS/kg COD removed. Typical production of
by protozoa (Curds and Fey, 1969; Drift et al., 1977). excess sludge from UASB treating domestic sewage varies
from 0.03 to 0.2 kg SS/kg COD removed (Cavalcanti et al., 1999;
3.3. Sludge retention and excess sludge production Lettinga et al., 1983). The gross excess sludge production from
UASB þ DHS system was 0.06 kg SS/kg COD removed. On the
Retained sludge is the functional unit of any biological other hand, calculated on the basis of wasted sludge, excess
treatment system and the efficiency largely depends upon sludge production from ASP was 0.88 kg SS/kg COD removed,
the quality and the quantity of the very sludge. DHS was which was 15 times higher than that from UASB þ DHS
started up by directly feeding UASB effluent to virgin sponge system. Lower biomass production in DHS is due to a higher
material. Sludge inside DHS sponge developed rapidly attain- degree of the mineralization of the sludge by which organic
ing its saturation concentration of 26 g VSS/L of sponge carbon is converted to CO2 (Hawkes, 1963), which is further
volume, within four months after the startup (Fig. 7). Based enhanced by longer SRT. Regarding the quality of the sludge,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2704 WAT E R R E S E A R C H 41 (2007) 2697– 2705

excess sludge from DHS was found to have better settling substandard effluents even from high-tech treatment sys-
property than the ASP sludge. Sludge volume index (SVI) for tems. A system that is resilient to such interruptions and
excess sludge from ASP was 140 mL/g SS, whereas the value capable of quickly regaining operational effectiveness can be
was as low as 25 mL/g SS for excess sludge from DHS. Better of great value. UASB þ DHS system could be a better option as
settlability assures shorter settling time and needlessness of it has very less mechanical and electrical appurtenances and
any mechanical settling devices. Wanner and Gujer (1984) thus less threatened by power outages. Moreover, since it is a
also suggested that the sludge from suspended growth low-tech system, it does not demand highly skilled personnel
system, i.e. ASP, is usually sparse with high volume per unit for its operation and maintenance, which is one of the
biomass and filamentous microorganisms as dominating constrains in developing countries.
species, which may cause bulking and foaming in WWTP. Compared to ASP, the only additional cost associated with
On the other hand, the nature of sludge produced by attached UASB and DHS is the cost of sponge material. Since, at
growth system, i.e. DHS, consists of sloughed particles, which present, full-scale DHS reactor does not exist anywhere, a
is usually denser and in many cases reduces settling comprehensive evaluation of the cost of sponge is not
problems and precludes bulking and foaming problems possible at this stage. However, sponge is easily available in
(Droste, 1997). However, it is appreciable that there are several market and the preparation of sponge modules for DHS does
researches going on with efforts to reduce the sludge not need high technology and can be prepared locally. It can
production from ASP. Some researchers suggested lower thus be assumed that sponge modules for DHS can be
observed sludge production of 0.4 kg SS/kg COD removed in prepared at a relatively lower cost.
ASP (Rensink and Rulkens, 1997) by extending SRT and using
specific protozoa. Typical yield of excess sludge from conven-
tional ASP ranges from 0.4 to 1.7 kg SS/kg COD removed
4. Conclusion
(Metcalf and Eddy, 2003).
In most of the developed nations basic sewage problems are
3.4. Energy requirement and cost already well addressed and technologies and legislations are
being fine-tuned for the control and removal of micro-
Requirement of aeration and production of huge amount of pollutants and various pathogens and in scrutinizing the
excess sludge are two main drawbacks of ASP in spite of its impacts of pollutants in sensitive areas. On the other hand,
superior performance. Young and Koopman (1991) reported developing nations are still strangled in interminable pro-
that aeration is the single greatest energy consumer for ASP, blems regarding sewage treatment, inadequate sanitary
accounting for 54–97% of total energy requirement depending infrastructure and dilemma over selection of appropriate
upon the type. The study revealed that the unit energy treatment system due to the lack of proper technology and
consumption ranges from 3.77 kW h/kg BOD removed for step
poor economy. Incorporation of high-tech sewage treatment
aeration ASP to 6.35 kW h/kg BOD removed for extended
systems seems irrelevant as it is techno-economically
aeration type ASP. It also indicated that pumping of returned
infeasible. The UASB þ DHS system could be one of the
activated sludge (RAS) consumes at least 9% of the total
potential solutions to the problem as it is simple and offers
energy requirement of the WWTP. Present investigation on reasonable performance at presumably low cost of operation
ASP suggested that unit energy consumption was 2–3 kW h/kg and maintenance. It has been demonstrated that process
BOD removed. Compared to this figure, energy consumption performance of UASB þ DHS system is quite comparable to
for aeration in UASB þ DHS system is an absolute zero. that of ASP. The effluent quality can sufficiently meet the
Likewise, cost for sludge handling in ASP constitutes up to discharge standards of most of the developing countries.
25% of the total annual budget, according to the information Moreover, it does not require any external aeration and thus
gathered from the WWTP, Nagaoka, Japan. Sludge from ASP the cost associated with energy and devices required for
should be further digested for stabilization either aerobically aeration and their maintenance are cut to zero. Additionally,
or anaerobically. Whereas, sludge eluted from UASB or DHS is
excess sludge production from the system is negligible
negligible in amount and is amply stabilized. Thus, cost
compared to that of ASP, again significantly reducing the cost
associated with sludge handling for UASB þ DHS system is
for sludge handling as treatment and disposal of sewage
considerably reduced. sludge is technically cumbersome and economically a heavy
Regarding operation and maintenance of the reactors, ASP burden. All these virtues make UASB þ DHS system a feasible
is labor-intensive and demands regular and skilled operation technology for sewage treatment though being technologi-
and maintenance to ensure proper functioning of moderately cally and economically undemanding. The system can be a
complex equipment. Major operational problems associated viable alternative for solving the sewage and sanitation
with ASP include blower or mechanical aerator failure, pump problems of developing countries.
and pipe clogging, corrosion and/or failure of controls, and
electrical malfunctions. Thus, it requires higher degree of R E F E R E N C E S
maintenance, repairing and replacement of the equipments.
If the system is applied to developing countries, problems will
further be augmented by short-term power outages, which
Alaerts, G.J., Veenstra, S., Bentvelsen, M., van Duijl, L.A., 1993.
would interrupt aeration and pumping of sludge as interrup- Feasibility of anaerobic sewage treatment in sanitation
tions in electrical supply are commonplace occurrences in strategies in developing countries. Water Sci. Technol. 27 (1),
those regions. Such troubles may lead to the production of 179–186.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
WAT E R R E S E A R C H 4 1 (200 7) 269 7 – 270 5 2705

APHA, 1998. Standard Methods for The Examination of Water and Jordao, E.P., Volschan, I., 2004. Cost-effective solutions for sewage
Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, treatment in developing countries—the case of Brazil. Water
Washington, DC. Sci. Technol. 50 (7), 237–242.
Araki, N., Ohashi, A., Machdar, I., Harada, H., 1999. Behaviors Karn, S.K., Harada, H., 2002. Field survey on water supply,
of nitrifiers in a novel biofilm reactor employing hanging sanitation and associated health impacts in urban poor
sponge-cubes as attachment site. Water Sci. Technol. 39 (7), communities—a case from Mumbai City, India. Water Sci.
23–31. Technol. 46 (11–12), 269–275.
Barker, P.S., Dold, P.L., 1995. COD and nitrogen mass balances in Lettinga, G., Roersma, R., Grin, P., 1983. Anaerobic treatment of
activated sludge systems. Water Res. 29 (2), 633–643. raw domestic sewage at ambient temperatures using a
Behling, E., Diaz, A., Colina, G., Herrera, M., Gutierrez, E., Chacin, granular bed UASB reactor. Biotechnology and Bioengineering
E., Fernandez, N., Forster, C.F., 1997. Domestic wastewater 25, 1701–1723.
treatment using a UASB reactor. Bioresource Technol. 61, Machdar, I., Sekiguchi, Y., Sumino, H., Ohashi, A., Harada, H.,
239–245. 2000. Combination of a UASB reactor and a curtain type DHS
Cavalcanti, P.F.F., Medeiros, E.J.S., Silva, J.K.M., van Haandel, A., (downflow hanging sponge) reactor as a cost-effective sewage
1999. Excess sludge discharge frequency for UASB reactors. treatment system for developing countries. Water Sci. Tech-
Water Sci. Technol. 40 (8), 211–220. nol. 42 (3–4), 83–88.
Coelho, S., do Nascimento, M.B.H., Cavalcanti, P.F.F., van Haandel, Mergaert, K., Vanderhaegen, B., Verstrate, W., 1992. Applicability
A.C., 2003. The UASB reactor as an alternative for the septic and trends of anaerobic per-treatment of municipal waste-
tank for on-site sewage treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 48 water. Water Res. 26 (8), 1025–1033.
(11–12), 221–226. Metcalf, Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Curds, C.R., Fey, G.J., 1969. The effect of ciliated protozoa on the Reuse, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill, US.
fate of Escherichia coli in the activated sludge process. Water Petr, Grau, 1996. Low cost wastewater treatment. Water Sci.
Res. 3, 853. Technol. 33 (8), 39–46.
Drift, C., Seggelen, E., Stumm, C., Hol, W., Tuinte, J., 1977. Removal Rensink, J.H., Rulkens, W.H., 1997. Using metazoan to reduce
of Escherichia coli in wastewater by activated sludge. Appl. sludge production. Water Sci. Technol. 36 (11), 171–179.
Environ. Microbiol. 34, 315–319. Schulthess, R.V., Kuhni, M., Gujer, W., 1995. Release of nitric and
Droste, R.L., 1997. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater nitrous oxides from denitrifying activated sludge. Water Sci.
Treatment. Wiley, New York. Technol. 29 (1), 215–226.
Emerick, R.W., Loge, F.J., Thompson, D.E., Darby, J.L., 1999. Factors Siegrist, H., Krebs, P., Buhler, R., Purtschert, I., Rock, C., Rufer, R.,
influencing UV disinfection performance—Part II: association 1995. Denitrification in secondary clarifiers. Water Sci. Tech-
of coliform bacteria with wastewater particles. Water Environ. nol. 31 (2), 205–214.
Res. 71, 1178. Tandukar, M., Uemura, S., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2005. A low-cost
FEC Consultants Ltd., 1997. ETSU report: Evaluation of energy municipal sewage treatment system with a combination of
from waste investment opportunities in India, pp. 34–35. UASB and the ‘‘Fourth Generation’’ Downflow Hanging Sponge
Frank, J.L., Emerick, R.W., Ginn, T.R., Darby, J.L., 2002. Association (DHS) reactors. Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1–2), 323–329.
of coliform bacteria with wastewater particles: impact of Tandukar, M., Machdar, I., Uemura, S., Ohashi, A., Harada, H.,
operational parameters of the activated sludge process. Water 2006a. Potential of a combination of UASB and DHS reactor as
Res. 36, 41–48. a novel sewage treatment system for developing countries: a
Gall, B., Takacs, I., Patry, G., 1995. The effect of organic reactions in long-term evaluation. J. Environ. Eng. (ASCE) 132 (2), 166–172.
a collection system on wastewater treatment plant perfor- Tandukar, M., Uemura, S., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2006b. Combin-
mance. Water Sci. Technol. 31 (7), 25–31. ing UASB and the ‘Frouth Generation’ Down-flow Hanging
Gujer, W., Henze, M., Mino, T., Matsuo, T., Wentzel, M.C., Marais, Sponge reactor for municipal wastewater treatment. Water
G., 1995. The activated sludge model no. 2: biological Sci. Technol. 53 (3), 209–218.
phosphorus removal. Water Sci. Technol. 31 (2), 1–11. Ujang, Z., Buckley, C., 2002. Water and wastewater in developing
Hawkes, H.A., 1963. The Ecology of Wastewater Treatment. countries: present reality and strategy for the future. Water
Pergamon Press, London. Sci. Technol. 46 (9), 1–9.
Henze, M., Gujer, W., Mino, T., Matsuo, T., Wentzel, M.C., Marais, UN-HABITAT, 2003. Water and Sanitation in the World’s Cities (Local
G., 1995. Wastewater and biomass characterization for the actions for global goals). Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.
activated sludge model no. 2: biological phosphorus removal. Wanner, O., Gujer, W., 1984. Competition in biofilms. Water Sci.
Water Sci. Technol. 31 (2), 13–23. Technol. 17 (2–3), 27–44.
Jewell, W.J., 1987. Anaerobic sewage treatment. Environ. Sci. Young, D.F., Koopman, B., 1991. Electricity use in small waste-
Technol. 21 (1), 14–21. water treatment plants. J. Environ. Eng. (ASCE) 117 (3), 300–307.

You might also like