Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Abstract
Wastewater oxidation ponds are one of the oldest forms of treatment. As we enter the 21st
century, they are still prevalent as treatment devices for many industries. But we now expect
them to meet more stringent criteria such as 95% BOD removal, nutrient control, algae control
measurement and control of air emissions. Many new and innovative techniques are available for
engineers and operators to use in upgrading an old concept.
There are several areas of investigation where we can look to upgrade ponds. The first area is
assessment, where we can measure residence time, sludge depth, and air emissions with simple
and inexpensive technology. Assessment is important because we can define how to measure
success of improvements. We must do more than look at effluent DO and pH. The next area of
improvement is aeration. Energy costs impact ponds as well. We have new and innovative ways
to oxygenate and mix wastewater. We can use computer technology to measure their
effectiveness and even control aeration and mixing. The next area we use to improve
performance is sludge control. We can measure sludge buildup with sonar, remove it with
dredging and use new enzyme and polymer technology to dewater it. Modeling is now possible
with user-friendly pond simulation programs such as BIOWIN. We take all the wastewater BOD,
COD and chemical data and load it into models. Then we can simulate various improvements and
see the performance change and operating cost. Finally, we can improve biochemical
performance with bioaugmentation, real time nutrient measurement, and kinetic simulations. We
can promote bacteria growth and check them with DNA techniques. We can also encourage or
discourage algae. This paper provides examples of the technology available in each category
starting with assessment and providing descriptions sources, benefits and disadvantages of each
option. We also present two short case studies where pond BOD improved, emissions decreased
and operating costs were controlled.
Introduction
Sewage lagoons are one of the oldest forms of wastewater treatment. The term lagoon grew
when man made innovations were used to upgrade natural ponds. Even in the 21st century, we
depend on lagoons More than 8000 of the 20000+ municipal NPDES systems in the USA use
some form of lagoon as part of treatment. When PL 92-500 (The first Clean Water Act) was
passed in 1972, the majority of US systems were lagoons that removed 70-80% BOD. Now we
ask them to remove 90-95% of BOD and reduce air emissions of toxic and odorous chemicals.
Achieving improved effluent quality from lagoons
Facultative sewage oxidation ponds were the earliest form of wastewater lagoon. The first
upgrade was the addition of aeration in some form to create the aerated lagoon. After the
standardization of aeration to drive BOD removal, relatively slow change occurred in lagoon
design theory. However, with the introduction of modern computer modeling there are now many
options open to the designer and operation of an aerated lagoon. Lagoons obey laws of physics
like all systems. If we understand them, we can use new technology to tweak their performance.
If we upgrade our monitoring methods, we can also have more control than we do when we use
lagoon effluent as the point of control. The Critical to Effluent Quality (CTEQ) control points for a
lagoon system are:
Basin Configuration
Hydraulic Retention Time and Mean Cell Residence Time
be applied and what calculations can be made. From the shape of the tracer curve, we can
determine the reactor configuration. The HRT is the centroid of the x-axis, as shown in Figure 2.
Once we determine the HRT we can see if it can be improved. The choices are limited to:
Sludge removal
Use of diversion curtains or other baffles to channel the flow.
Positioning of directional mixers to improve circulation in a cell and limit short-circuiting.
The application of these improvement options is site specific. Local factors will determine which is
any of these solutions can be adopted. This HRT measurement can be combined with a side
scan sonar survey to identify where the sludge has accumulated.
Case Study 1: An aerated lagoon in a meat packing plant in the Texas Panhandle had a 1.8 mgd
flow, which was processed in an aerated lagoon with a square configuration. The aerated lagoon
achieved 80% BOD removal at 25 deg. C operating temperature. The lagoon had been designed
for an 8 day HRT, but sludge accumulation had reduced HRT. A tracer study showed a 4.5-day
HRT. A new permit required an upgrade to the lagoon. The lagoon was divided into a series of
complete mix reactors separated by floating diversion curtains. The existing aeration was
relocated to fit the new configuration but the actual numbers of aerators did not change. A second
tracer showed HRT to now equal almost 8 days. The effluent was reduced from an average of 47
mg/L BOD before the upgrade to 28 mg/L average in the six months after the upgrade. This was
a 40% BOD improvement. This shows the effect of increasing HRT on aerated lagoon
performance.
Increasing MCRT-Mean Cell Residence Time is the inventory of biomass solids divided by solids
lost to wasting (settling for a lagoon) and effluent. In most cases for a lagoon, HRT=MCRT.
However, we know K=KX specific rate * X, biomass conc. If we could increase X or biomass
concentration we could increase kinetic activity. One mechanical way to due this is an in situ
hydraulic baffle or hydraulic clarifier. This is a floating device, which serves as the effluent conduit
for a lagoon cell. The biomass must flow upward to exit. As the particles flows up gravity drags it
back into the aerated lagoon, raising the biomass concentration. Thus X increases and lagoon
MCRT is no longer limited by HRT. As MCRT increases so does BOD and NH3 removal. These
in situ hydraulic clarifiers are most beneficial in locations where colder temperatures limit BOD
and NH3 removal. They are usually limited to smaller flow rates of less than 200,000 gpd. One
version is shown in Figure 3.
Aeration Types and Performance-There are many aeration types available to a lagoon designer
or operator. They type must be selected based on oxygen transfer and mixing but are also
subjected to local concerns such as aeration air emissions, odor emissions, lagoon depth,
primary solids, and foaming. The discussion of aeration types can fill several papers. We have
limited our discussion to the most common types of aeration and their general benefits and
drawbacks, which we show in Table 1 below. We have also included several figures, which
illustrate the types of devices available to designers and operators.
Operators should have measurable DO in every aerated lagoon cell. If DO is only measured at
the effluent there is no guarantee there is aerobic BOD and COD removal upstream. When DO is
deficient the bacteria in the biomass may use sulfate (SO4) as an alternate electron acceptor and
produce odorous and dangerous Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) as a by-product. A good designer takes
advantage of the right equipment or equipment combination for the situation. Here are some
guidelines for designers and operators:
Lagoons, which are greater than 10 deep, are candidates for diffused aeration systems.
These are high efficiency and have lower air emissions and foaming than surface
aeration. But they can be more expensive than mechanical aeration
The most efficient diffusers, or fine bubble membrane units may clog or fail due to
industrial solvents or just from poor maintenance. Test the diffusers you wish to use in
the candidate wastewater for material compatibility.
The dominant form of aeration for lagoons is a high-speed mechanical unit. These
surface aerators have a low capital cost, but may cause foam or affect air emissions. In
the petrochemical industry, designers choose the wand type aerator.
Mechanical performance and reliability become long-term concerns, which may be as
great as oxygen transfer.
Control requires regular analyses using the DO measurement and the DOUR test to
understand aeration use rates
Systems, which are controlled automatically from a probe in the system, must have
multiple probes or manual backups in case of equipment performance issues.
AERATION
TYPES
Slow speed
mechanical
aerators
(See Figure 4)
High Speed
Surface Aerators
(Figure 5)
Coarse and Fine
Bubble Diffusers
(Figure 6)
Wand Type
Aerators
(Figure 7)
Pure Oxygen
Supplement
Systems
Durable machines,
generally less cost
that slow speed units
Very effective on
deeper basins (>10),
with high OTE using
fine bubble units.
Aeration with
improved foam
Excellent mixers
which aerated below
the surface reducing
emission potential
Excellent on
demand systems,
may be economical
on a location by
location basis
Case Study 2: A paper mill in the SE US had a stream, which included methanol, a compound of
air emission concern. The paper mill had a large wastewater system but the stream had to be
separated an introduced in a subsurface diffuser. The mill had to measure the amount of
methanol that was biodegraded versus than which was air stripped to comply with the USEPA
Cluster rule.
The mill reconfigured an aerated lagoon system to receive the wastewater. The lagoon was
divided into a series of 4 complete-mix and 1 settling reactors using floating diversion baffles. The
existing high-speed surface aeration units were modified to have large fiberglass covers (see
Figure 5) which limited the direct contact of air with the sprayed water surface. Studies showed
this technique would reduce emissions 50% but decrease oxygen transfer only 10%. The mill also
added effluent recirculation, a 400 long subsurface diffuser, and established mixing and biomass
control. Nutrients and commercial bacteria supplements were added when any decay in
performance began. During the three year, biological methanol removal increased from 90% to
97%, as shown in Figure 8.
References
1. A Review of Procedures for Conducting Conservative Tracer Studies in the Hydraulic
Characterization of Effluent Treatment Basins, NCASI Technical Bulletin 408, 1983.
2. The Efficacy of Employing Bacillus globigii as a Particulate Tracer in Aquatic Systems,
C. Lange et al, Proceedings of WEFTEC 2000, Anaheim, Ca.
3. V. L Snoeyink, D. Jenkins, Water Chemistry, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 1980
4. C.P.L. Grady, Jr, et al., Biological Wastewater Treatment, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, Inc.,
New York, N.Y., 1999.
5. G. Tchobanoglous, et al., Metcalf Eddy, Wastewater Engineering; Treatment, Disposal,
and Reuse, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y., 1991.
Influent
Influent
Complete
Mix Reactor
A Series
of Complete
Mix Reactors
simulates
Plug Flow
Effluent
X
Influent
Tapered
Aeration
is used.
4X
Effluent
Plug
Flow
Reactor
Effluent
400
350
cfu/mL
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
Time (hr)
Average
Courtesy EDI
April 2006
onward
Figure 10-Example of a
WebitatTM media installed in an aeration tank which can be adapted to a lagoon
Figure 11-A PAD reactor used in Bioaugmentation at a mill lagoon- Courtesy Novozymes
Small (<150 m) dispersed floc Medium (150-500 m) size floc Medium to large sized (>500
(pin floc). Weak and open floc. that is mostly dense and
m) floc that is dense, round,
compact.
and compact