-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement
#CR811022 to Lehigh University. It has been subjected to the Agency's p«er
and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and industrial
products and practices frequently carry with them the increased generation of
materials that, if improperly dealt with, can threaten both public health and
the environment. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress
with protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate
of national environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the ability
of natural systems to support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to
perform research to define our environmental problems, measure the impacts, and
search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for planning,
implementing, and managing of research, development, and demonstration programs
to provide an authoritative, defensible engineering basis in support of the
policies, programs, and regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous wastes, and
Superfund-related activities. This publication is one of the products of that
research and provides a vital communication link between the researcher and the
user community.
One of the major procedures for stabilization of municipal wastewater
sludge is anaerobic digestion. In this report a comparison is provided between
operation of the process at mesophilic vs. thermophilic conditions.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Acting Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
lii
-------
CONTENTS
Disclaimer ii
Foreword iii
Abstract .' iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 2
3. Recommendations 4
4. Experimental Plan 5
5. Experimental Procedures 6
Apparatus 6
Operation 6
Analysis of Sludge and Gas 10
Preliminary Studies 12
Long Range Operation and Results 13
6. Discussion of Results 28
References 30
Appendix-A 31
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Operational diagram of anaerobic digestion unit 7
2 Details of construction of anaerobic digestion unit ... 8
3 Volatile acids concentration in mesophilic and
thermophilic digesters vs. date 14
4 Total solids vs. date for raw, thermophilic and
mesophilic sludges 18
5 Volatile solids fraction for raw, mesophilic and
thermophilic sludge vs. date 19
6 Total and soluble chemical oxygen demand (COD) in
raw and digested sludges 20
7 Ammonia concentration of raw, mesophilic, and
thermophilic sludges vs. date 22
8 Organic nitrogen concentration of raw, mesophilic,
and thermophilic sludges vs. date 23
9 Oil and grease concentrations in raw, mesophilic,
and thermophilic sludges vs. date 24
10 Total carbohydrate concentration in raw, mesophilic,
and thermophilic sludges vs. date 25
11 Mean capillary suction time for mesophilic and
thermophilic sludges vs. date 27
vi
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Summary of Performance of Mesophilic and Thermo-
philic Digesters 28
A-1 Raw Sludge Data 31
A-2 Full Strength Raw Sludge 32
A-3 Diluted Raw Sludge Feed 33
A-4 pH-Alkalinity - Volatile Acids 34
A-5 Speciated Acid 37
A- 6 Gas Production 40
A-7 Digested Sludge Solids - Percent 47
A-8 Digested Sludge - COD 49
A-9 Digested Sludge - Nitrogen 50
A-10 Digested Sludge - Oil and Grease 51
A-ll Digested Sludge - Carbohydrate 52
A-12 Digested Sludge - Mean Capillary Suction Time 53
A-13 Capillary Suction Time Tests with Conditioners Added .. 55
vii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study was to conduct a comparative evaluation of
the performance of anaerobic digestion systems under different temperature
regimes. The temperature regimes chosen were those most commonly used in
field installations (i.e., mesophilic 35°C and thermophilic 50-55°C).
Evaluation of performance is in terms of a number of parameters including:
stability of operation, degree of waste stabilization, dewaterability of
digested sludge and odor.
The work has been divided into two phases. The first phase was
reported on separately and dealt with operation of anaerobic digestion
systems under temperature transitions. The second phase which is reported
on here, deals with long term steady-state performance under mesophilic and
thermophilic conditions. The basic question to be answered by Phase II is
whether or not thermophilic anaerobic digestion is superior to mesophilic
anaerobic digestion.
The evaluation of system performance under the two temperature
conditions was conducted in large laboratory scale reactors (50 liter liquid
capacity) using municipal primary sludge from the Allentown, PA Waste Water
Treatment Plant. The systems were monitored for the following parameters:
total gas and methane production, pH, alkalinity, total volatile acids,
speciated volatile acids, total and soluble COD, ammonia-nitrogen, organic
nitrogen, carbohydrate, oil and grease, total and volatile solids, and
sludge dewaterability. Data were collected at 25-day HRT and 15-day HRT.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
1) Steady state operation above 50°C was characterized by poor
performance. Volatile acids, especially propionic acid, were above
1,000 mg/1. Breakdown of various sludge components was less than under
mesophilic conditions.
2) Consequently, long-term steady state data collection was obtained at
49.5°C in the thermophilic region.
3) In terms of pH, alkalinity, volatile acids, and methane production the
long-term steady state performance at A9.5°C and 35°C was satisfactory
at 25-day and 15-day HRT.
4) Under all conditions the performance of the mesophilic system was
slightly superior to the thermophilic system.
5) At both detention times significantly higher breakdown of carbohydrate
and oil and grease were achieved in the mesophilic unit.
6) At both detention times significantly higher breakdown of organic
nitrogen occurred under thermophilic conditions.
7) At both detention times slightly higher destruction of total and
volatile solids and COD occurred under mesophilic conditions.
8) The soluble COD of the thermophilic sludge was always at least 1,000
mg/1 higher than for the mesophilic sludge.
9) At both detention times sludge dewaterability was significantly better,
as measured by the CST test, under mesophilic conditions.
10) Sludge dewaterability for both temperature systems could be
significantly improved by conditioning with ferric chloride. Higher
doses were required for the thermophilic sludge.
11) Lime, both alone and with ferric chloride, had little effect on sludge
dewaterability.
12) Performance of both systems was better, in terms of breakdown of raw
sludge components, at 25-day detention time.
-------
13) Detention Time had little effect on sludge dewaterability.
14) Thermophilic sludge odor was more disagreeable than that from
mesophilic sludge even when volatile acids were low.
15) These data indicate that operation of anaerobic digestion at
thermophilic conditions has no advantage over operation at mesophilic
conditions.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
L) The observation reported on here of high propionic acid at temperatures
above 50°C should be investigated. Pasteurization can be achieved by
operation of anaerobic systems at temperatures above 50°C. This will
not be possible unless the systems can operate without high propionic
acid levels. The reason for the high propionic acid levels should be
ascertained so that a remedy can be applied.
2) These studies should be repeated with a sludge feed which is a mixture
of primary and secondary sludge.
3) These studies should be repeated at lower detention times.
4) Studies of the operation of anaerobic digestion over the whole
temperature range from 35°C to 55°C should be conducted to determine
the true optimum temperature for operation of this process.
-------
SECTION 4
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
The basic purpose of this phase of the study was to compare the
performance of anaerobic digestion processes at thermophilic and mesophilic
conditions. Comparison was based on parallel steady-state operation over
periods of several months using a feed of raw primary sludge from a
municipal treatment plant. Evaluation of performance was based on
measurement of total gas production, methane production, COD destruction,
grease destruction, carbohydrate destruction, organic nitrogen destruction,
total and volatile solids destruction and sludge dewaterability. Two
periods of steady-state operation were intensively monitored. One period
lasted almost six months during which the hydraulic detention time was
maintained at 25 days. After a short transition period of two weeks at a
20-day detention time, a second period of steady-state operation at a 15-day
hydraulic detention was carried out for a two and one-half month period.
-------
SECTION 5
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
APPARATUS
The anaerobic reactors used In this study are illustrated in Figures 1
and 2. These were constructed of lucite and were rectangular in cross
section. Interior bottom panels sloped from the vertical sides to the split
pipe outlet which in turn was centered in the base of the unit. This
insured that there were no dead spaces near the bottom of the unit. Total
volume of each reactor was approximately 75 liters, with 50 liters of liquid
maintained in the unit at a detention time of 25 days and 45 liters of
liquid maintained during the period when the detention time was 15 days.
Each unit was mixed by gas recirculation using a diaphram type gas pump
rated at 9.5 liters per minute with a maximum pressure of 18 psi. The
operation of the mixing pumps was not continuous but rather was controlled
by a timer set to turn the pumps on 6 minutes each one-half hour.
An alternate mixing technique which could be used was a hand operated
diaphram pump which could circulate the liquid sludge from the bottom of the
unit to the top through an external pipe. Each stroke of this hand pump
could displace approximately 300 ml of liquid sludge.
The inlet and outlet lines for the feed and digested sludge were 1"
schedule 80 PVC pipe. Full flow ball values of the same material and size
were used to control flow in and out of the unit.
Gas measurement was made with a Wet Tip Gas Meter (Wet Tip Meter Co.,
Wayne, PA.) which functions on the liquid displacement tipping bucket
principle. These meters were calibrated against a Wet Test Meter at the gas
flow rate anticipated in the anaerobic reactors (1-5 liters per hour). The
wet tip type meter provides a water seal on the gas outlet line with a back
pressure equal to the water depth in the meter (5 1/2 inches).
OPERATION
Raw primary sludge was periodically collected from the Allentown, PA.
Sewage Treatment Plant. This is a typical municipal treatment plant serving
a large metropolitan area. It has a reasonable mix of domestic and
industrial wastes (plating, brewery, meat packing, food processing, truck
assembly). The sludges at this plant -are separated so that the primary
sludge contains little or no secondary sludge. Sludge is digested at this
-------
Figure 1. Operational diagram of anaerobic digestion unit,
gas pathway
sludge path-
way
electrical gas
recirculating
pump
r
water trap
1" ID rubber tubing .
sludge feeding
funnel
\
to
atmospheric
vent
J" PVC ball valves
sludge return tube
3/4" ID
wet tip gas meter
gas sampling port
plug
1" PVC ball valves
manual
sludge
recirculation
Xj pump
1" PVC ball valve
PVC pipe
sludge drain and
alternate
sampling
port
sludge collector tube
gas trap
-------
Figure 2. Details of. construction of anaerobic digestion unit.
1 1/4 X 3/16"/T) I
machine screws///
& flat washers ////
ill
36 1/2"
1" ID PVC sludge feeding
tube projecting through
unit top
_1" ID PVC gas redrculating
tubes projecting through
unit top
unit top of 9/16" thick
plexiglas
7/8" wide square rubber
gasket, 1/8" thick
upper frame members of
3/4 X 3/4" plexiglas
1" ID PVC sludge return tube
projecting through unit sides
i" ID PVC gas return tube pro-
jecting through unit top
corner frame posts of
X 1/2" plexiglas
unit sides of 7/16" plexiglas
''vee" bottom of 7/16" plexi-
glas
Unsealed airspace beneath vee
1" ID sludge collection tube
i. projecting through unit
2 1/2" sides
r
-------
plant in a mesophilic digester which usually operates at a 20-day detention
time. In order to control odors, raw primary sludge is rapidly pumped from
the primary clarifiers, thus thickening does not usually occur in the
primaries. Sludge was collected as it was being pumped from the primary to
the sludge handling area.
The sludge collected was transported to Lehigh University Environmental
Studies Center and kept under refrigeration at 4°C until used. Sludge was
usually collected once per week. Upon being brought to the laboratory the
sludge was sampled for total and volatile solids analysis. These data were
used to determine if the sludge had to be diluted prior to use. Dilution
was with Bethlehem, PA tap water. It was decided early in the study to
maintain a constant total solids concentration in the feed. The original
target was 4%, but after one month of sludge feed to the units this value
was changed to 3.5%. The latter was chosen when experience indicated that
sludge obtained from this plant often was in the range 3.5% to 4.0% solids.
The sludge was relatively weak because as indicated above thickening was not
conducted in the primary clarifier. Each sludge batch was kept in a 10-
gallon plastic container under refrigeration.
Two anaerobic reactors described previously were used in this study.
Each was kept in a walk-in temperature-controlled room. The gas meters were
also housed in the respective rooms. Temperature control was achieved with
the use of a thermostat and an electric space heater. A large air
circulation fan was run continuously in each incubator to maintain uniform
temperature distribution. Each thermostat could keep the air temperature at
+1°C from the set point. The temperature in each unit, however, was + 0.1°C
from the set point because the large mass of water in each reactor evened
out the air temperature swings.
Each reactor received identical treatment except for the temperature.
Feed of raw sludge and withdrawal of digested sludge was conducted once per
day. The procedure was:
1) Several hours prior to the feeding time the proper quantity of sludge
was taken from the 10-gallon reservoir in the refrigerator and placed
in the incubation room to warm it prior to feeding: Dilution if
necessary took place at this time using Bethlehem tapwater maintained
in the incubator room.
2) At the appointed time the gas meter reading was recorded.
3) The valve from the reactor to the gas meter was closed.
4) The hand pump was used for a minute to circulate sludge.
Simultaneously the gas recirculation pump was activated.
5) Sludge was withdrawn through the bottom outlet line into a bucket, and
then was put back into the unit through the feed reservoir in the top.
6) This procedure in (5) was repeated several times until the layer of
solids and foam at the top of the reactor was completely broken up.
9
-------
The hand pumping and gas reclrculation was not able to break up this
Layer even though the main body of sludge was, by visual observation,
well mixed. Only the cascade of sludge from the inlet line was able to
disperse, temporarily, this layer. The level of liquid in the reactor
was checked against a calibrated scale on the reactor side. If the
level was low (due to evaporation) make up Bethlehem tap water was
added.
7) After the layer at the top of the liquid was dispersed and the water
level adjusted, the daily sample was withdrawn.
8) The feed was then placed in the feed funnel at the top of the reactor,
and entered the unit when the 1" feed valve was opened. In step 3 it
had been indicated that the gas outlet valve was closed. This valve
was kept closed throughout the procedure in steps 3 through 8. Thus
when the daily withdrawal was made in step 7 the system was placed
under a vacuum. This procedure facilitated the feeding of the raw
sludge slurry in step 8, as the vacuum helped pull the sludge into the
reactor.
9) After feeding, the valve in the gas outlet line was opened to restore
gas flow to the gas meter.
ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE AND GAS
Periodically the raw sludge, digested sludge and gas produced were
analysed for a variety of parameters. The procedures used are presented
below:
Gas Measurement and Analysis
Gas volume production was measured with a "Wet Tip Gas Meter". In this
type of meter the gas enters a submerged housing and displaces water. When
sufficient water is displaced a counterweight causes the housing to tip and
this event is recorded on an electronic counter. The housing is double
sided and piped so that after tipping, gas is directed to the now submerged
side and the process is repeated. Each count represents a standard volume
which is a function of the adjustable counter weight position. The
manufacturer claims accuracy at 97% to 99% up to 500 ml/minute. In this
study the meters were calibrated periodically against a Wet Test Meter. A
problem encountered was that the counterweight gradually changed due to
accumulation of sediment in the water. This was generated by reaction
between the digester gas and the water in the meter. Another was the need
to periodically add make up water to the meter to counteract evaporation.
Except for several periods when problems such as counterfailure and leakage
in the inlet line were encountered the gas volume measurement was
satisfactory.
Analysis of the gas for methane and carbon dioxide was conducted using
a Fisher Gas Partitioner (1) which operates on the thermal conductivity
principle. Gas samples were taken from the head space of the reactor
10
-------
through a gas sampling port using 100 ml capacity glass bulbs connected to a
reservoir bottle filled with acid-salt solution. The partitioner was
calibrated before each use with 100% methane, 100% carbon dioxide and 100%
nitrogen. These produced peak heights on the apparatus recorder as a
function of signal attenuation setting. The samples were run at the same
attenuation setting as were used for the calibration. Volumetric percentage
of each gas in the sample was determined by ratio of peak height of each
component to that produced by the 100% standard. This procedure is
considered accurate to about 1%.
EH
pH was determined using an electronic pH meter, Fisher Model 830
Acumet. Temperature compensation was used with a glass electrode. The
procedures in "Standard Methods" (2) were followed.
Alkalinity
Alkalinity was determined by the titrametric procedure in "Standard
Methods" (2). One hundred milliliter samples of sludge were titrated with
IN sulfuric_acid to pH 4.2.
Volatile Acids
Total volatile acids were determined by the direct distillation method
presented in "Standard Methods" (2). Volatile acids were speciated on a
Dionex Ion Chromatograph using specific conductance as the detection
technique. Separation of formic, acetic, propionic, butyric and lactic
acids (non-volatile) was accomplished on a Dionex ASI anion column preceded
by an anion guard column. A Model 14 Ion Chromatograph was modified to
allow high pressure operation necessary to speciate volatile acids.
Calibration was by standards of the pure acids at 10, 100 and 1000 mg/1.
Sample analysis was by the peak height ratio method. Prior to injection in
the Ion Chromatograph, the sludge sample was filtered through a 0.45 u
membrane filter and the pH was adjusted to pH 4.3 with nitric acid.
Total and Volatile Solids
The procedures used were in accordance with "Standard Methods"(2). Raw
sludge analyses were performed in triplicate; for digested sludge duplicates
we're used". Results were almost always +2% ~of~l:he average. The sludge "was
ground in a Waring blender prior to analysis.
Ammonia Nitrogen and TKN
Analysis was in accordance with the Kjeldahl (Macro) procedures in
"Standard Methods"(2). Distillate was collected in boric acid and titrated
with N/50 sulfuric acid. Duplicates were run on all samples and reported as
the average. All sludge was ground in a Waring blender prior to analysis.
11
-------
Grease and Oil
Determination was by the Soxhlet Extraction method given in "Standard
Methods"(2). Only single samples were run.
Chemical Oxygen Demand
COD was determined by the Open Reflux Method given in "Standard
Methods" (2). Soluble COD was run on sludge filtered through 0.45 u
membrane filters. The sludge was ground in a Waring blender prior to
analysis.
Carbohydrate
Total and soluble carbohydrate was determined by the method of Dubois
et al. (3), as modified by Herbert et al.(4) and Kampmeier et al. (5). It
is a colorimetric procedure in which phenol and hot sulfuric acid react with
sugars to form an orange chromophore. The color is read in the range 480-
450 run. Standards are prepared using glucose. All sludges were ground
prior to use in a Waring blender and soluble carbohydrate was determined on
the filtrate from a 0.45 u membrane filter.
Capillary Suction Time (GST)
Sludge dewaterability was determined by the CST test using the
apparatus produced by Triton Electronics LTD. of England. Unconditioned
sludge was measured using the 3/4" diameter cup. Conditioned sludge was
measured using the 3/8" diameter cup. The results reported are average of
triplicates.
PRELIMINARY STUDIES
During the summer of 1986 the two reactor systems were constructed,
leaks corrected, and seeded with digested sludge from the Allentown
mesophilic digester. In addition, several gallons of the thermophilic
-sludge saved from Phase I (under refrigeration) was added to the
thermophilic digester. Initially the digesters were fed the artificial
substrate used in Phase I. The mesophilic unit was set at 35°C, the
thermophilic unit in the range of 53 to 55°C. For several weeks biological
action was satisfactory in both units but then gas production started
dropping in the thermophilic unit and volatile acids increased. Addition of
more sludge from the store saved from Phase I temporarily alleviated the
problem, but as the seed was washed out by successive feedings poor
performance returned. In September thermophilic digested sludge was
obtained from the Rockaway Plant in New York City and added to the
thermophilic unit. The feed was changed to a mixture of glucose and whole
milk as it became difficult to obtain the original version of Carnation
Instant Breakfast. The temperature was reduced to the range 50°C to 52°C as
the New York City sludge digester was being operated at approximately 50°C.
Again after several weeks poor performance set in. Near the end of October
a dose of 25 mg/1 of yeast extract was added to the thermophilic digester.
12
-------
In less than two days gas production markedly increased and volatile acids
returned to normal. It should be noted here that the high levels of
volatile acids during this phase were almost completely propionic acid.
Direct additions of acetic and butyric acid to the reactor resulted in rapid
reduction of these acids in one day. Propionic acid on the other had never
declined until yeast extract was added.
During this period of several months the mesophilic unit always
exhibited good performance even without the addition of yeast extract.
Eventually yeast extract was added to both units in order to keep their
operation, except for temperature, identical. For a period of one month
successful operation was achieved in both reactors using a feed of glucose
and whole milk. Measurement of the methane production indicated that
virtually all of the organics being fed were converted to methane.
Consequently, at the end of November the feed was changed to raw primary
sludge and the operation at a 25-day detention time begun. As indicated
above, 25 mg/1 of yeast extract (Difco) was added to the feed each day.
LONG RANGE OPERATION AND RESULTS
For a six-month period the reactors were operated at a 25-day detention
time. No change in the operation of the mesophilic digester was necessary
during that period. However, a significant change in the operation of the
thermophilic digester was made after 3 1/2 months of operation. At that
time the temperature was reduced from slightly above 50°C to slightly below
50°C. This was done in order to improve the operation of the thermophilic
system. Figure 3 illustrates the volatile acids levels in both digesters
starting in the beginning of December, 1986. It can be seen that the
volatile acid level in the mesophilic digester was consistently low.
However, the level in the thermophilic system gradually increased and
reached a level of 1500 mg/1 by the middle of February, 1987. Reference to
Table A-5 which gives information on the volatile acid speciation indicates
that approximately 90% of the volatile acids present in the thermophilic
unit was propionic acid. Gas production and COD data were in accordance
with the high levels of volatile acids in the thermophilic unit; that is gas
production was lower and COD was higher in the thermophilic vs. the
mesophilic unit (See Tables 6 and 8).
During the last week in February, the heater in the thermophilic room
failed. Over night the temperature dropped to approximately 40°C. The
heater was repaired and by the next day the temperature had returned to its
usual value of 51°C. Surprisingly, during the day when the temperature was
low, a much larger quantity of gas was evolved from the thermophilic unit
than usual and volatile acids showed a significant drop. By the end of
February, the volatile acids in the thermophilic unit were almost as low as
those in the mesophilic unit. In addition, it was noted that the propionic
acid comprised only 20% of the volatile acids in the thermophilic unit. The
data for March indicates that a slow rise in volatile acids at about the
same rate as had occurred in December and January. The propionic acid
fraction of the total volatile acids rose to 70%. At this point the
temperature set point of the thermophilic room was reduced to keep the
13
-------
16
Figure 3. Volatile acids concentration in mesophilic and thermophilic digesters versus date.
Mesophilic digester temperature was 35°C, thermophilic temperature exceeded 50°C
except as noted. Hydraulic detention tim? in both cases was 25 days.
3
-C
14
12
10
2 8
-------
temperature in the unit between 49°C and 50°C. Volatile acids, especially
the propionic acid, rapidly fell to levels which approximated those in the
mesophilic unit. Based on this evidence, the temperature in the
thermophilic unit was maintained at 49.5°C for the remainder of this study.
The operation at 25-day detention time was maintained through April and
May. At the end of May the detention time was reduced to 20 days.
Maintenance of operation at this detention time was intended for several
more months. However, after two weeks thn detention time was converted to
15 days which was maintained for the next 2 1/2 months. This latter change
was made because it was felt that a 15-day detention time was more
representative of field conditions.
Once the temperature in the thermophilic unit was reduced to 49.5°C
essentially trouble free operation was maintained in both units. The data
which are presented here are basically broken into 4 periods of operation:
Time Period
December 1986 - March 1987
April May 1987
First-half June 1987
Last-half June August 1987
Raw Sludge Characteristics
Detention Time
Temperature
Thermophilic Mesophilic
25 days
25 days
20 days
15 day
50.5
49.5
49.5
49.5
35.0
35.0
35.0
35.0
The characteristics of the raw sludge fed to the digesters during this
study are presented in Tables A-l, A-2, and A-3. Table A-l presents the
data on raw sludge solids (total and volatile). Also presented are the
dates when the sludge was procured from the Allentown, PA. STP and the dates
it was fed to the anaerobic reactors. Table A-2 presents the analyses of
the full strength sludge for various parameters and Table A-3 gives the
values of these parameters after dilution of the raw sludge. As indicated
previously dilution was used to reduce the total solids in the actual feed
to 3.5%. All analyses were conducted on the full strength feed rather than
the diluted material. It was thought that more accurate results would be
obtained using this technique, as the inaccuracy in making dilutions and
sampling small volumes would be avoided. All samples of raw sludge used for
analysis were ground in a Waring blender prior to the start of the analyses.
It should be noted that batches of raw sludge obtained on a specific date
were fed to the systems during different consecutive periods and that the
sludge characteristics changed significantly from one period to another.
For example, the sludge obtained on 4/27/87 was used for three consecutive
periods 4/28-5/4, 5/5-5/11, and 5/12-5/18. These three periods represent
separate fillings of the 10-gallon storage reservoir from individual 5-
gallon buckets used to transport sludge from the treatment plant. It was
found the the sludge although collected at the same time was occasionally
significantly different in each of the 5-gal. buckets. Thus the differences
between consecutive 10-gal. units of sludge were not mainly due to
deterioration of the sludge in storage. The results given in Table A-l, A-
15
-------
2, and A-3 indicate little difference in this sludge from that considered
typical raw sludge. The major differences were a consistently high volatile
fraction of solids (generally >80%), and high grease and oil content. The
latter is probably responsible for the high volatile solids content.
pH. Alkalinity and Volatile Acids - Digested Sludge
Table A-4 presents pH, alkalinity, and total volatile acids data for
the effluent from the two systems throughout the study. Except for the
period of high volatile acids discussed previously volatile acids were
usually quite low approximately 100-250 mg/1. For a few days after the
change from a 20-day detention time to a 15-day detention time, the volatile
acids in the thermophilic unit increased slightly, but soon they fell to the
usual levels. With respect to volatile acid speciation as shown in Table A-
5, there was no specific trend except for that discussed earlier when thp
temperature was above 50°C. Once the temperature was reduced to below 50°C
the predominant volatile acid in the thermophilic unit was acetic acid. In
the mesophilic unit sometimes acetic was dominant, sometimes propionic was
dominant and at other times both were approximately equal.
The pH and alkalinity data indicate that both were consistently higher
in the thermophilic unit, although the magnitude of the differences were
small. These data reflect the higher breakdown of organic nitrogen observed
in the thermophilic unit. Breakdown of organic nitrogen leads to the
formation of ammonium bicarbonate which titrates as alkalinity. This
compound serves as the main buffer in anaerobic treatment systems. Table A-
9 which presents data on the ammonia-N concentration in these units and
Table A-4 illustrate the correlation between these two parameters. The pH
and alkalinity were both in the normal range of these parameters for
anaerobic digestion systems,
Gas Production
Gas production data are presented in Table A-6. The methane fraction
was similar in both units. It ranged from 57.5% to 64.5% with a mean close
to 60%. Daily gas production was relatively constant; changing only in
response to changes in strength of the feed. These data have been converted
to volumes of gas at 0°C and 1 atmosphere pressure but have not been
converted to a dry gas basis. Assuming the gas was saturated with water
vapor at the temperature of the reactor and that the mixture of methane,
carbon dioxide and water vapor acts as an ideal gas, the correction factor
to be applied to the data in A-6 to convert to dry gas basis is 0.8813 at
49.5°C and 0.9445 at 35°C.
Total and Volatile Solids - Digested Sludge
Data on total and volatile solids are given in Table A-7 and are
plotted along with the raw sludge data on solids in Figures 4 and 5. It can
be seen that total and volatile solids were almost always higher in the
thermophilic unit than the mesophilic unit. The differences were most
pronounced during the period when the thermophilic unit was at a temperature
above 50°C. But, during the latter part of May and August (the end of
16
-------
each steady-state period), solids levels in both units were almost the same.
In July total solids levels in both units suddenly peaked at 2.2% to 2.35%
and then dropped back to the usual levels near 2.0%. this coincided with
increases in raw and digested sludge organic nitrogen, and oil and grease.
Overall volatile solids destruction was higher in the mesophilic unit than
the thermophilic unit.
COD
Chemical oxygen demand, total and soluble, in each reactor is presented
in Table A-8. These data along with the raw sludge COD are presented in
Figure 6. Prior to lowering the thermophilic temperature below 50°C the COD
of the thermophilic unit was consistently higher than that of the mesophilic
unit. During the April-May period (25-day detention time after thermophilic
temperature was lowered) the COD of both units was similar. After reduction
of the detention time the COD of the thermophilic sludge was initially
higher than that of the mesophilic sludge. Much of this difference was
eliminated by the end of the 15-day detention time operation.
The soluble COD data indicate that the thermophilic unit had a soluble
COD about 1400 to 1700 mg/1 higher than in the mesophilic unit. The
difference was greater in the period when the thermophilic unit was operated
at temperatures above 50°C. Indeed, the first period of lower temperature
operation when the space heater failed can be seen on the soluble COD plot;
as a significant drop in soluble COD in the latter part of February.
However, even under the best of thermophilic operation a definite difference
in soluble COD was observed.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen analyses of the reactor contents as well as the raw sludge
feed are presented in Table A-9 and Figures 7 and 8. It can be seen that
the ammonia-N was always higher and the organic nitrogen was always lower in
the thermophilic unit. Since the TKN of both units was the same these data
indicate superior organic nitrogen conversion to ammonia-N in the
thermophilic unit. The difference was higher at 25-day detention time than
at 15-day detention time. The quantitative differences will be discussed
later in this report. As indicated previously because of the higher degree
of conversion of organic nitrogen to ammonia-N the pH and alkalinity were
always higher in the thermophilic than in the mesophilic unit.
Oil and Grease
Table A-10 and Figure 9 presents the oil and grease data collected
during this study. It can be seen that the reduction of oil and grease was
higher in the mesophilic unit than in the thermophilic unit. This
difference was especially pronounced when the thermophilic unit was operated
above 50°C because volatile acids are measured as grease and oil in this
particular analytical test. There seems to be little change in the
difference between the units which could be ascribed to the reduction of the
detention time to 15 days. These data will be reviewed later in this
report.
17
-------
cc
Figure 4. Total solids versus date for raw, thermophi 1 ic, and mesoph.ilic sludges.
4.2
4.0
OJ
3
-N.
M
§,3.4
OJ
3
% T 7
rt3 J . c
C
O
« 3.0
0)
o
S 2.3
2.1
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.3
Dec
«raw sludqe
mesophilic sludge
thermophilic sludge
/
/ «.
Jan
Feb
Mar Apr
Date
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
-------
Figure 5. Volatile solids fraction for raw, mesophilic and thermophi1ic sludges versus date.
86
84
^ 82
o
o
1/1 80
OJ
o.
10 74
- 72
o
to
-------
Fiqure 6. Total and soluble chemical oxyaen demand (COD) in raw and digested sludges.
NJ
o '
28
24
2-0
o
o
LJ
16
f.
t\
Raw sludae: Total COD
,60
150 g
o
30
Digested sludge: Total COD
A.
A
' N
.. \ ;,
' .--. \ if
V \if
V
mesophll1c sludge
-thermophillc sludge
Digested sludge: Soluble COD
\
\ ,' \
\ I \
\ I
V
mesophlUc sludge
- 'thermophlHc sludge
o
o
o
/ V
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Date
-------
Sludge carbohydrate measurements were only conducted during the 15-day
detention time operation because the method of analysis utilized was not
found until late in the Spring, 1987. These data are presented in Table A-
11 and Figure 10. Total carbohydrate reduction was higher in the mesophilic
unit than in the thermophilic unit. The difference ranged from 500 mg/1 to
1200 mg/1. Soluble COD was also lower in the mesophilic averaging about 50
mg/1 less than in the thermophilic unit.
Sludge Dewaterability
Throughout most of the study measurements were made on the
dewaterability of the effluent from each unit. Preliminary tests were
performed using three methods of dewatering. One technique was the
Capillary Suction Time Test (CST). another was the Buchner Funnel Filtration
Test, the third was a batch centrifugation test developed by Vesiland (6).
It was found that the latter two tests were very difficult to run unless the
sludge was conditioned with a coagulant. The CST test, however, gave
reasonable measurements with and without the addition of coagulants. Thus,
the CST test was used to characterize the difference between both types of
sludge. Table A-12 and Figure 11 present data on the CST measurement for
the sludges throughout the steady-state portion of this test. The
measurements in March were made at room temperature but the temperature was
not recorded. Starting in the beginning of May, temperature was recorded
and eventually the temperature at which the test was conducted was
standardized at 25°C. The results substantially indicate that the
thermophilic sludge was more difficult to dewater in an unconditioned state
than the mesophilic sludge. Visual observation of the sludge clearly
indicated better separation under gravity conditions for the mesophilic
sludge. In addition, the sludge supernatant was visibly dirtier for the
thermophilic sludge. This indicates that the size of digested sludge
particles in the thermophilic sludge was smaller than in the mesophilic
sludge. When the sludge was subjected to centrifugation without
conditioners present, the thermophilic centrate was much dirtier than that
from the mesophilic sludge, although the depth of the solids pool was almost
the same for both sludges.
On July 5 CST measurements were made at 25°C, A9.5°C am' 35°C. This
was achieved by bringing the CST apparatus into the incubation rooms. As
would be expected, the CST was lower at the higher temperatures. The ratio
of CST at the higher temperature to the reference temperature (25°C) was
300/377 for the mesophilic and 415/534 for the thermophilic. The ratio for
the mesophilic sludge is that expected based on the viscosity of water at
35°C and 25°C. However, the ratio for the thermophilic sludge is not in
accordance with the viscosity ratio of water at 49°C vs. 25°C.
In addition to the unconditioned tests some tests were conducted in
which sludge was conditioned with ferric chloride and/or lime. These data
are presented in Table A-13. It can be seen that ferric chloride
conditioning had a significant affect on the CST values of both sludges.
21
-------
Figure 7. Ammonia concentration of raw, mesophilic, and thertnophi 1 ic sludges versus date.
ro
t-o
200
150'
100
50
0
1000
c
OJ
§ 900
<_>
-------
Figure 8. Organic nitrogen concentration of raw, mesophilic, and thermophilic sludges versus date.
N>
U>
2000
1600
=r 1200
c
o
800
1200
1000
800
£00
400
200
- \
\/
V
raw sludge
tinesophil ic sludge
thermophil ic sludge
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
_l_
Aor
Date
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
-------
Figure 9. Oil and grease concentrations in raw, mesophilic, and thermophilic
sludges versus date.
N) .
-C-
7.6
"^6.8
c
o
Se.o
C
OJ
o
§4.4
Ol
t/1
ra
QJ
O>3.6
TD
c
fO
52.8
2.0
1.2
/ \ / \
v
'raw sludge
-mesophilic sludge
thermophilic sludge
X-'i
rv
: \ I \
*
_L
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Date
-------
Figure 10. Total carbohydrate concentration 1n raw,
mesophilic, and thermophillc sludges versus
date.
11 i-
10
c
0)
c
o
01 4
J 1 ~
o
JD
i.
-raw sludge
mesophilic sludge
'thermophilic sludge
Jun
Jul
Date
Aug
25
-------
The addition of lime to a sludge already conditioned with ferric chloride
had little effect above that achieved with the ferric chloride alone. The
use of lime alone had little or no effect on the sludge. The dose of ferric
chloride required to achieve very low GST values was generally between 4 and
5 g/1, for the mesophilic sludge. A dose of >5 g/1 ferric chloride was
required to achieve good results with the thermophilic sludge. Although
higher doses of ferric chloride, with produced better dewatering, also
effected the greatest pH reduction, equivalent results between mesophilic
and thermophilic conditioned sludge were not obtained until the pH was
reduced to 4.3. The ferric chloride dose required to properly condition
mesophilic sludge was always less than that required to condition
thermophilic sludge.
26
-------
Figure 11. Mean capillary suction time for mesophilic and thermophilic sludges
versus date.
850
800
750
700
I 650
600
550
>>
S 500
5 45°
400
350
300
mesophilic sludge
* thermophil ic sludge
*.
M
' '
i i
; i
; i
/ I'AI
'
* ii
ii I*
n i]
u ii
<; !'
!'/
T .
n
M
''
if
A
/!
I t
'»
i\ | I
' " '/ V i' ^\
I » / ' v
r ' «
Apr
May
Jun
Date
Jul
Aug
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
In this study two large anaerobic reactors were operated In parallel
for several months at each detention time. The only difference between the
two reactors was that one was maintained at 35°C while the other was
maintained at temperatures both above and below 50°C. It was found that
high volatile acids (primarily propionic acid) were present when the
temperature was above 50°C. When the temperature was reduced to 49.5°C the
propionic acid fell to low levels and the overall performance of the
thermophilic system approximated that of the mesophilic system. Recent
studies (7) (8) have indicated high volatile acids, especially propionic
acid, under thermophilic anaerobic conditions. Thus the finding here
concerning propionic acid is verified by others. However, no reference to
this very sharp change at 50°C has been found in the literature. This
phenomenon should be investigated because it may be a limiting step in the
application of thermophilic digestion.
A comparison of the performance of both systems under steady state
conditions is given below.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE OF MESOPHILIC AND THERMOPHILIC DIGESTERS
Detention
Time
25
25
15
15
Unit
T
M
T
M
Volatile
Solids
51.7
57.2
44.7
47.0
COD
D.M.
52.6
52.9
44.2
49.9
COD
Gas
53.2
63.1
53.3
56.8
Organic
Nitrogen
59.4
50.2
44.9
27.2
Grease
& Oil
65.0
71.2
59.3
67.4
Carbohydrate
-
56.2
68.8
The thermophilic system data are for the period when the temperature
was 49.5°C. This Table 1 reviews the percent removal of volatile solids,
COD, organic nitrogen, grease and oil, and carbohydrate. The COD removal
was calculated on two bases; direct measurement of COD in the effluent and
calculation of the COD equivalent of the methane gas produced during reactor
operation. Carbohydrate data were only available at a 15-day detention time
while the other data cover both 25-day detention time and 15-day detention
time. It must be emphasized that by all normal parameters the operation of
each reactor system was satisfactory. Alkalinity, pH, volatile acids,
fraction of methane in the gas were all in the normal range. However, as
28
-------
indicated below the mesophilic unit consistently out performed the
thermophilic unit except for organic nitrogen breakdown. In general the
deg::ee of advantage which the mesophilic unit had over the thermophilic unit
was small, but quantifiable. As would be anticipated, the performance of
either system was better at the 25-day detention time than the 15-day
detention time. Several field-scale studies of thermophilic vs. mesophilic
anaerobic digestion have been conducted in the U.S. (9) (10) (11). All of
these have indicated essentially identical performance for both systems.
The data obtained in this study could be interpreted to support the
conclusions of these studies or to refute it; as the difference in
performance between the two systems was modest.
Another factor which was investigated in this study was the
dewaterability characteristics of the sludge produced under mesophilic and
thermophilic conditions. This has been a point of controversy because the
results have been conflicting. Some studies indicate superior
dewaterability (10) for thermophilic sludge, others indicate the reverse
situation (9). The studies here clearly demonstrate that mesophilic sludge
is easier to dewater than thermophilic sludge irrespective of conditioning.
The CST of mesophilic sludge was 2/3 to 1/2 that of thermophilic sludge and
the dose of ferric chloride required to achieve equivalent CST was always
higher for the thermophilic sludge.
Previous reports on the characteristics of thermophilic sludge have
indicated that the supernatant was poor compared to mesophilic sludge. This
finding was confirmed in this study. Not only was the thermophilic
supernatant much higher in suspended solids but the soluble COD was always
1,000+ mg/1 higher than the mesophilic supernatant. Measurements of soluble
carbohydrate, grease and oil and organic nitrogen were run to determine the
source of this extra COD. It was found that the COD of soluble organic
fractions could not account for all of the extra soluble COD in the
thermophilic sludge supernatant. For example, the difference between the
soluble organic nitrogen in the two systems was only 2 mg/1; the difference
in soluble oil and grease was only 150 mg/1 and the difference in soluble
carbohydrate was only at most 75 mg/1. Measurement of soluble sulfide in
the units gave values in the range of 4-8 mg/1 which again could not account
for the COD difference. Another topic for future research is the nature of
this extra soluble COD.
Finally, the question of odor must be addressed. It has been reported
that thermophilic sludge is odorous compared to mesophilic sludge. This
phenomenon was confirmed in this study; although quantitative odor
measurements were not made. An odor panel made of the personnel in the
Environmental Studies Center voted unanimously that thermophilic sludge had
a more disagreeable odor than mesophilic sludge. Two votes were taken, once
when the volatile acids were high and again when they were low. In both
situations the thermophilic sludge was rated most disagreeable, although it
was less so under low volatile acid conditions.
The bulk of the data generated in this study indicates that anaerobic
digestion of municipal sewage sludge should be performed under mesophilic
conditions rather than thermophilic conditions.
29
-------
REFERENCES
1. Fisher Scientific Catalogue - 1986, p. 250.
2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater APHA,
AWWA, WPCF, 15th Ed. (1985).
3. Dubois, M., et al, "Colorimetric Method for Determination of Sugars and
Related Substances", Analytical Chemistry 28. 350 (1956).
4. Herbert, D., et al., "Determination of Total Carbohydrate". In Methods
in Microbiology 5B. Ed. Norris J. R. and, Robbins D. W. , 265 Academic
Press, New York.
5. Kampmeier, D. T., et al, "Carbohydrate as a Measure of Biomass in
Expanded Bed Anaerobic Filters", Dept. of Civil Engineering, University
of Illinois 208 N. Romine Urbana, IL, 61801.
6. Vesilind, P. A., Zhang, G., "Technique for Estimating Sludge
Compactibility in Centrifugal Dewatering". Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. 56. 1231 (1984).
7. Lin, C. Y., "Temperature Characteristics of the Methanogenesis Process
in Anaerobic Digestion", Water Science and Technology. 19. 299 (1987).
8. Gosh, S., "Improved Gasification by Two-Phase Anaerobic Digestion".
Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division. ASCE. 113 1265
(1987).
9. Buhr, H. and Andrews, J. "Review Paper, The Thermophilic Anaerobic
Digestion Process". Water Research. 11, 129 (1976).
10. Garber, W. F., "Operating Experience with Thermophilic Anaerobic
Digestion". Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 54. 1170
(1982).
11. Rimkus, R. R. , et. al. , "Full Scale Thermophilic Digestion at the
West-Southwest Sewage Treatment Works, Chicago, Illinois". Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation. 54, 1447 (1982).
30
-------
Table A-l. RAW SLUDGE DATA SHEET ( ) - Indicates Dilution Correction Factor
Date
Obtained
12/1/86
12/8/86
12/15/86
12/22/86
12/29/86
1/5/87
1/12/87
1/19/87
1/19/87
1/19/87
2/9/87
2/16/87
2/23/87
3/2/87
3/9/87
3/16/87
3/23/87
3/23/87
3/23/87
4/13/87
A/13/87
4/27/87
4/27/87
4/27/87
5/18/87
5/18/87
6/1/87
6/1/87
6/15/87
6/15/87
6/29/87
7/2/87
7/6/87
7/9/87
7/13/87
7/16/87
7/17/87
7/17/87
7/27/87
7/27/87
8/3/87
8/3/87
8/10/87
8/10/87
8/10/87
Date
1st Feed
12/2/86
12/9/86
12/16/86
12/23/86
12/30/86
1/6/87
1/13/87
1/20/87
1/27/87
2/3/87
2/10/87
2/17/87
2/24/87
3/3/87
3/10/87
3/17/87
3/25/87
3/31/87
4/7/87
4/14/87
4/21/87
4/28/87
5/5/87
5/12/87
5/19/87
5/26/87
6/2/87
6/9/87
6/16/87
6/23/87
6/30/87
7/3/87
7/7/87
7/10/87
7/14/87
7/17/87
7/20/87
7/24/87
7/28/87
7/31/87
8/4/87
8/7/87
8/11/87
8/14/87
8/17/87
Date
End Feed
12/8786"
12/15/86
12/22/86
12/29/86
1/5/87
1/12/87
1/19/87
1/26/87
2/2/87
2/9/87
2/16/87
2/23/87
3/2/87
3/9/87
3/16/87
3/24/87
3/30/87
4/6/87
4/13/87
4/20/87
4/27/87
5/4/87
5/11/87
5/18/87
5/25/87
6/1/87
6/8/87
6/22/87
6/29/87
7/2/87
7/6/87
7/9/87
7/13/87
7/16/87
7/19/87
7/23/87
7/27/87
7/30/87
8/3/87
8/6/87
8/10/87
8/13/87
8/16/87
8/22/87
% Volatile Solids
5.
5.
(.55)=
,96(.6)
.9(.65)
4.5(.8)
4.4(.8)
5.13(.7)
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.5
5.27(.66)= 3.5
4.35(.8) =
4(.65)
5(.64)
3.85(.9) =
s!85(.9) =
.1(.68)
0(.76)
4(.64)
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.45
5.24(.67)= 3.5
5.42(.65)= 3.5
5.61(.63)= 3.5
3.79(.93)= 3.5
3.52(1.0)= 3.5
3.F2(1.0)= 3.4
3.71(.93)= 3.45
3.81(.92)= 3.5
3.53(1.0)= 3.53
3.86(.92)= 3.55
4.01(.87)= 3.5
3.57(1.0)= 3.57
3.84(.92)= 3.5
4.21(.83)= 3.
,76)= 3.
,60(,
,14(.68)=
,00(.7)
.5
.5
3.5
3.5
.7
.1
4.66(.75)= 3.5
81.
85.
86.0
84.6
85.A
85.4
82.0
80.0
80.0
81.0
84.2
81.6
79.1
76.4
75.5
81.6
81.8
82.21
82.22
81.87
81.97
82.87
82.59
80.91
79.9
80.60
79.57
79.06
78.93
79.76
80.36
80.10
80.4
79.4
78.7
78.48
78.52
78.78
76.88
79.73
81.07
81.29
80.2
31
-------
Table A-2.
FULL STRENGTH RAW SLUDGE - (All Units mg/1 Except pH)
Date
Obtained
12/1/86
12/8/86
12/15/86
12/22/86
12/29/86
1/5/87
1/12/87
1/19/87
1/19/87
1/19/87
2/9/87
2/16/87
2/23/87
3/2/87
3/9/87
3/16/87
3/23/87
3/23/87
3/23/87
4/13/87
4/13/87
4/27/87
4/27/87
4/27/87
5/18/87
5/18/87
6/1/87
6/1/87
6/15/87
6/15/87
6/29/87
7/6/87
7/9/87
7/13/87
7/16/87
7/17/87
7/17/87
7/27/87
7/27/87
8/3/87
8/3/87
8/10/87
8/10/87
8/10/87
pH
5.6
5.6
5.6
5.2
5.5
6.0
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.3
5.5
5.6
5.8
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.4
5.8
5.6
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.5
5.5
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.5
5.65
5.5
5.4
5.4
5.54
Vol.
Acids
2732
1297
1675
1669
941
1234
1457
2297
3036
3081
2005
26^5
3400
3081
1858
1978
1700
2950
2651
2024
2904
2196
2965
2267
2509
2904
2419
3223
2955
2884
1751
1812
1600
1943
-
1680
1484
1720
1609
2135
2934
2368
2368
NM
Alk.
1900
2150
1700
1250
900
1300
1500
1350
1600
1550
1150
1300
1650
1550
1100
1250
900
1350
1450
1525
1100
900
1250
1125
1200
1150
950
1550
1300
1350
1500
1150
950
950
-
950
1075
1050
1000
1500
1300
1250
1250
1750
Total
COD
69,555
56,832
43,593
47,923
37,407
33,703
45,550
87,339
85,064
71,420
62,680
104,976
89,472
72,990
55,594
53,681
55,264
56,345
65,078
76,800
75,072
80,998
64,232
53,136
67,200
69,312
71,064
65,739
58,784
70,168
49,138
49,046
52,192
53,360
50,986
54,880
55,987
49,935
57,882
54,802
61,797
69,696
69,215
74,131
NH3
183
63
45
128
52
67
83
117
224
259
178
301
273
160
151
14
150
196
119
208
164
196
199
121
229
131
211
224
150
132
200
132
173
191
187
177
141
171
191
183
166
-
215
TKN
1624
1232
1176
1120
728
784
1484
1960
1964
1925
1750
2128
1920
1456
1389
1946
2134
1788
2467
2251
2066
1557
2198
2310
2436
2257
2285
2285
1840
1904
1946
2022
1932
1991
2041
1778
1915
1789
1988
2240
-
2217
Org.
Nit.
1441
1169
1130
991
695
716 '
1400
1842
1540
1666
1571
1302
1855
1760
1304
_
1931
1983
1985
2348
2087
1848
1357
2076
2080
2305
2046
2061
2135
1707
1704
1814
1848
1741
1804
1864
1637
1744
1598
1804
2073
-
2003
Oil &
Grease
_
5850
__
7315
5545
7525
13030
12242
11026
7308
12251
10945
11026
9143
7548
11216
10416
9279
9709
6977
9651
7446
10413
10528
10772
10319
11007
10938
9216
7253
8086
8549
7857
8221
8257
7901
8231
7876
-
11103
-
10320
Total
CH20
8,500
8,500
11,460
5,510
5,920
5,220
6,450
5,720
7,550
4,760
6,790
12,500
11,400
-
-
-
32
-------
Table A-3. DILUTED RAW SLUDGE FEED (All Units mg/1 Except for pH)
Vol. Total
Period Fed Acids Alk. COD NH3 TKN
Org. Oil & COD/ Total
Nit. Grease V.S. CH20
12/2/86
12/9/86
12/16/86
12/23/86
12/30/86
1/6/87
1/13/87
1/20/87
1/27/87
2/3/87
2/10/87
2/17/87
2/24/87
3/3/87
3/10/87
3/17/87
3/25/87
3/31/87
A/7/87
4/14/87
4/21/87
4/28/87
5/5/87
5/12/87
5/19/87
5/26/87
6/2/87
6/9/87
6/16/87
6/23/87
6/30/87
7/7/87
7/10/87
7/14/87
7/17/87
7/20/87
7/24/87
7/28/87
7/31/87
8/4/87
8/7/87
8/11/87
8/14/87
8/17/87
12/8/86
12/15/86
12/22/86
12/29/86
1/5/87
1/12/87
1/19/87
1/26/87
2/2/87
2/9/87
2/16/87
2/23/87
3/2/87
3/9/87
3/16/87
3/24/87
3/30/87
4/6/87
4/13/87
4/20/87
4/27/87
5/4/87
5/11/87
5/18/87
5/25/87
6/1/87
6/8/87
6/15/87
6/22/87
6/29/87
7/2/87
7/9/87
7/13/87
7/16/87
7/19/87
7/23/87
7/27/87
7/30/87
8/3/87
8/6/87
8/10/87
8/13/87
8/16/87
8/22/87
2049
1297
1675
1669
941
1234
1457
1378
1821
2157
1604
1482
2040
2003
1486
1582
1190
1953
2121
1316
1858
1976
2076
2040
1706
2207
1572
3126
1921
1817
1628
1812
1488
178R
1546
1726
1720
1480
1772
2229
1610
1657
NM
1425
2150
1700
1250
900
1300
1500
750
960
1085
920
715
990
1007
880
1000
630
891
1160
991
704
810
875
1013
816
874
618
1039
845
851
1395
1150
884
874
-
874
935
1050
920
1245
988
850
875
1312
52,
56,
43,
47,
37,
33,
A5',
52,
51,
49,
50,
57,
53,
47,
44,
42,
38,
37,
52,
49,
48,
72,
44,
47,
45,
52,
46,
44,
38,
44,
45,
49,
48,
49,
50,
50,
48,
49,
53,
45,
47,
47,
48,
55,
166
832
593
923
407
703
550
403
038
994
144
736
683
443
475
945
685
188
061
920
046
898
962
822
696
677
192
045
210
205
698
046
539
091
986
490
709
935
251
485
121
393
450
598
137
63
45
128
52
67
83
70
134
181
142
165
163
104
120
10
99
157
77
133
147
137
179
82
174
85
141
146
94
123
200
122
159
191
172
154
141
157
159
139
113
-
161
1218
1232
1176
1120
728
784
1484
1.176
1178
1347
1400
1276
1248
1164
1111
1362
1309
1430
1603
1484
2025
1431
1601
1495
1756
1583
1512
1485"
1440
1711
1904
1809
1859
1932
1831
1775
1778
1761
1484
1510
1523
-
1662
1081
1169
1130
991
695
716
1400
1105
924
1166
1257
716
1113
1144
1043
1352
1309
1588
1526
1350
1878
1294
1221
1412
1581
1498
1371
1340
1345
1588
1704
1687
1700
1741
1659
1621
1640
1604
1326
1371
1409
-
1501
»
_
5850
7315
5545
7525
7818
7345
7718
5846
6738
6567
7166
7314
6038
7851
6875
7423
6311
6998
6279
6756
6701
7081
8001
7002
6914
7155
6891
8571
7253
7521
7866
7857
7564
7184
7902
7571
6537
-
7550
-
7740
1.637
1.629
1.300
1.452
1.413
1.315
1.746
1.772
1.689
1.720
1.905
1.827
1.578
1.617
1.625
1.355
1.299
1.809
1.735
1.677
2.541
1.550
1.654
1.614
1.735
1.633
1.577
1.372
1.585
1.626
1.790
1.750
1.764
-
1.807
1.779
1.781
1.913
1.689
1.689
1.679
1.696
-
5525
5355
10657
5510
5505
4802
6450
5262
6568
4760
6246
10375
8664
-
-
-
33
-------
Table A-4. pH-ALKALINITY -VOLATILE ACIDS (All Units mg/1 Except pH)
Date
12/3/86
12/5
12/8
12/10
12/12
12/15
12/17
12/19
12/22
12/24
12/26
12/27
12/29
12/31
1/2/87
1/3
1/4
1/5
1/7
1/9
1/10
1/12
1/14
1/16
1/17
1/18
1/19
1/21
1/23
1/25
1/26
1/28
1/30
2/1
2/4
2/6
2/8
2/9
2/11
2/13
2/16
2/18
Thermo
philic
7.3
_
7.3
_
_
7.3
-
_
7.35
-
7.35
-
_
_
7.3
_
_
7.2
-
7.2
-
7.3
7.3
-
7.3
7.3
-
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.3
Meso-
philic
7.1
7.1
7.06
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
Alkalinity
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
3850
3550
4100 3900
4000 3900
4050 3900
4250
4200
4450
4150
3860
3650
4250
4150
4250
4500
4500
3950
3750
4000
4250
4150
Volatile Acids
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
340.
340.
395.6
404.8
496.8
552.
163.2
182.2
333.9
384.6
506.
506.
657.8
748.9
799.5
840.
880.
951.3
_
1001.9
961.
961.
1001.9
1032.2
941.
961.
1012.
1062.6
1163.8
1113.
1133.4
1163.8
1335.8
1315.
1415.
1400.
1425.
1386
1425.6
1534.5
1465.2
1346.4
220.8
220.8
404.8
395.6
487.6
414.
130.5
151.8
161.9
151.8
111.
132.
151.8
192.3
111.3
101.
101.
192.3
232.
212.5
101.
91.
151.8
121.4
101.
101.
101.
111.3
111.3
81.
91.1
111.3
121.4
101.
151.
101.
101.
101.
111.1
131.3
111.1
111.1
34
-------
Table A-4.
pH-ALKALINITY -VOLATILE ACIDS (Continued)
pH Alkalinity Volatile Acids
Date
2/20
2/21
2/22
2/23
2/25
2/27
3/1
3/2
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/9
3/11
3/13
3/15
3/16
3/18
3/20
3/23
3/25
3/27
3/30
4/1
4/3
4/6
4/8
4/10
4/13
4/1.5
4/17
4/20
4/22
4/24
4/27
4/29
5/1
5/4
5/6
5/8
5/11
5/13
5/15
Thermo
philic
7.3
7.3
7.35
7.35
7.4
7.4
7.35
7.3
7.25
7.35
7.35
7.35
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.35
7.35
7.4
7.45
7.35
7.3
7.3
7.25
7.65
7.45
7.45
7,
7.
7.
7.
.35
,35
,35
,55
7.4
7.5
7.45
7.5
7.55
Meso-
philic
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.15
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.15
7.15
7.25
7.25
7.15
7.15
7.15
7.1
7.1
7.05
7.2
7.05
7.2
7.05
7.15
7.1
7.05
7.05
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.25
7.2
7.1
7.3
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
4850
5100
4750
4725
4350
4450
450
4375
4320
4350
4275
4150
4350
4400
4150
3850
4400
4100
4250
4000
4100
4125
4225
Thermo-
philic
1197.9
1009.8
762.3
337.6
188.1
212.
227.7
445.
426.
475.
564.3
633.6
800.
796.9
739.2
841.5
811.8
673.2
405.9
138.6
101.2
158.4
158.4
207.9
222.8
282.0
396.0
243.0
124.0
134.0
153.5
109.0
351.5
158.4
148.5
252.5
-
273.6
207.9
158.4
Meso-
philic
91.08
101.
91.08
91.08
119.6
112.
111.3
101.2
111.3
111.
105.8
101.2
130.
87.4
73.6
73.6
50.6
60.7
90.08
91.08
60.72
80.96
86.0
86.02
73.6
81.0
132.0
81.0
86.0
81.0
116.4
73.6
131.56
80.96
111.32
111.32
101.2
96.14
86.02
96.14
35
-------
Table A-4.
pH-ALKALINITY -VOLATILE ACIDS (Continued)
PH
Date
5/18
5/20
5/22
5/24
5/27
5/28
6/1
6/3
6/4
6/5
6/8
6/10
6/11
6/12
6/15
6/17
6/19
6/22
6/24
6/26
6/27
6/29
7/1
7/3
7/6
7/9
7/11
7/13
7/16
7/18
7/20
7/23
7/25
7/27
7/30
8/3
8/6
8/8
8/10
8/13
8/15
8/17
8/23
Thermo
philic
7.35
7.45
7.45
_
7.5
_
7.4
7.45
-
7.45
7.35
7.35
-
7.2
7.50
7.45
7.25
7.30
7.35
7.35
7.35
_
7.4
7.4
-
7.4
7.25
-
7.45
7.4
-
7.4
7.35
7.3
7.3
7.25
7.25
-
7.34
Meso-
philic
7.2
7.25
7.3
_
7.25
_
7.15
7.3
-
7.3
7.15
7.2
-
_
7.10
7.50
7.35
7.30
7.10
7.10
-
7.05
7.05
-
7.1
7.1
-
7.15
7.05
-
7.10
7.20
-
7.05
7.05
7.05
7.0
-
7.0
6.95
-
7.10
Alkalinity
Thermo-
philic
_
4425
_
«.
4350
_
4525
-
-
4800
-
-
-
5200
-
-
5050
-
-
-
4750
-
4800
5000
-
5375
5500
-
5000
4900
-
5050
5100
4950
4925
-
4775
4700
-
End 15 Day D
Meso-
philic
4275
_
^
4275
_
4350
-
4600
-
-
-
4550
-
4450
-
-
-
4300
4150
4550
-
4300
4450
-
4250
4400
-
4500
4350
4300
4350
4250
4200
.T.
Volatile
Thermo-
philic
138.6
133.65
128.7
138.6
183.2
188.1
143.6
232.65
168.3
148.5
178.?
346.5
386.1
455.4
574.0
524.7
267.3
227.7
376.2
287.1
260.0
143.6
178.2
200.0
217.0
158.0
200.0
178.0
217.8
250.0
168.3
198.0
160.0
183.2
237.6
267.0
416.0
270.0
178.0
148.0
200.0
356.0
Acids
Meso-
philic
60.72
86.02
91.08
91.08
101.2
91.08
91.08
212.5
117.4
101.2
131.56
101.2
136.62
111.3
131.0
141.7
141.7
121.4
172.0
172.0
-
121.4
141.7
130.0
136.0
121.0
150.0
121.0
141.7
120.0
121.4
141.7
160.0
131.6
121.4
131.0
162.0
130.0
192.0
126.0
150.0
208.0
-------
Table A-5.
Date
SPECIATED ACID
(Expressed as % Volatile Acid)
Thermophilic
LAP
12/5/86
12/8/86
12/10/86
12/12/86
12/15/86
12/17/86
12/19/86
12/22/86
12/24/86
12/26/86
12/29/86
12/31/86
1/2/87
1/5/87
1/7/87
1/9/87
1/12/87
1/14/87
1/16/87
1/21/87
1/23/87
1/28/87
2/2/87
2/6/87
2/9/87
2/11/87
2/13/87
2/16/87
2/18/87
2/20/87
2/23/87
2/25/87
2/27/87
3/2/87
3/5/87
3/11/87
3/13/87
3/16/87
3/18/87
3/20/87
3/25/87
3/27/87
6,
7,
9
6
3
.3
.2
.2
.7
.6
-
17.
40.
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
1.
2.
0.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
9.
.7
.7
.8
.3
.7
.6
.6
.4
.1
.8
.6
.7
.2
.0
.2
.5
.0
.1
.7
9
0
9
8
3
3
3
7
3
3
9
4
4
0
4
4
6
19,
25
25
22
15
_
8
12
8
9
4
7
5
7
4
7
4
4
6
0
2
5
6
9
4
3
2
4
7
2
14
14
44
19
16
8
8
7
7
8
0
3
.1
.3
.0
.8
.8
.2
.5
.3
.4
.6
.7
.4
.1
.9
.7
.1
.9
.2
.0
.6
.6
.4
.5
.7
.8
.0
.6
.6
.9
.2
.1
.4
.5
.9
.8
.9
.1
.4
.3
.4
.5
35,
39
37
35
29
7
35
22
15
12
13
9
6
7
7
6
4
10
6
8
7
7
5
5
7
0
4
4
8
8
19
37
29
35
40
12
12
10
13
10
19
23
.0
.9
.1
.6
.1
.8
.8
.2
.3
.2
.0
.4
.5
.2
.7
.1
.5
.3
.1
.9
.8
.2
.3
.2
.4
.7
.8
.3
.5
.4
.9
.1
.6
.1
.0
.1
.5
.3
.9
.1
.0
.6
39.
27.
28.
34.
51.
92.
38.
61.
74.
72.
82.
80.
86.
84.
79.
84.
90.
83.
86.
91.
89.
86.
87.
89.
87.
90.
92.
90.
82.
88.
69.
45.
20.
40.
39.
76.
76.
81.
77.
79.
77.
72.
6
6
7
9
5
2
2
4
5
0
1
4
6
0
8
9
5
4
2
1
2
0
3
7
2
6
9
4
4
1
6
7
2
9
4
9
6
4
3
7
3
2
B
Mesophilic
F
5.2
-
15.5
9.4
7.1
_
2.7
7.8
12.4
10.8
_
12.1
5.7
5.4
9.1
9.1
11.2
10.5
0.0
9.1
10.2
11.6
5.5
6.8
5.4
6.4
6.7
11.7
10.3
0
2.5
14.2
11.4
7.8
5.8
8.8
0
8.7
11.1
6.6
4.7
L
17.8
29.8
46.6
26.8
_
7.4
21.2
35.1
36.7
30.7
49.7
_
22.4
28.2
36.5
40.1
38.8
42.3
46.8
43.6
40.0
34.1
35.4
50.4
37.7
36.7
33.7
58.3
41.2
53.5
32.5
66.3
57.1
75.4
32.0
46.8
77.9
46.5
47.4
20.8
11.2
A
11.7
8.4
20.2
14.6
13.5
25.8
14.9
13.1
17.4
15.4
19.0
16.1
21.6
9.9
17.5
17.2
19.8
19.5
18.8
15.4
22.7
22.3
17.1
9.8
11.6
19.7
10.2
9.2
11.7
26.8
23.1
24.9
19.1
13.7
16.8
18.5
19.4
13.0
20.4
19.2
24.3
12.2
P
65.2
61.8
17.7
49.2
79.4
74.2
68.9
57.9
35.1
37.1
50.3
22.1
78.4
62.0
48.8
37.2
31.0
30.5
28.5
37.8
24.6
27.6
37.2
49.3
31.1
37.2
46.7
50.3
18.3
21.6
23.4
40.0
29.4
74.8
0
43.7
26.9
9.1
24.4
22.4
48.3
71.9
B
37
-------
Table A-5.
Date
SPECIATED ACID (Continued)
(Expressed as % Volatile Acid)
Thermophilic
LAP
3/30/87
A/1/87
4/3/87
4/6/87
4/8/87
4/10/87
4/13/87
4/15/87
4/17/87
4/20/87
4/22/87
4/24/87
4/29/87
5/1/87
5/4/87
5/6/87
5/8/87
5/11/87
5/13/87
5/15/87
5/18/87
5/20/87
5/22/87
5/27/87
5/29/87
6/1/87
6/5/87
6/8/87
6/10/87
6/12/87
6/15/87
6/17/87
6/19/87
6/22/87
6/25/87
6/26/87
6/29/87
7/1/87
7/6/87
7/9/87
7/13/87
7/16/87
7/20/87
1.1
2.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.6
1.2
1.5
0.0
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.7
0.5
0.9
2.4
_
1.2
1.4
4.5
4.9
3.3
2.4
-
2.7
2.2
1.0
0.3
1.0
2.2
0.4
0.3
1.0
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.9
2.0
7.0
14.0
5.5
8.7
4.0
4.9
3.7
2.7
4.3
6.0
7.2
3.7
0
4.6
0.9
_
1.7
2.8
5.7
3.4
1.3
5.9
5.9
4.8
6.9
5.5
-
-
-
2.9
1.3
1.0
3.5
7.8
1.7
3.1
12.2
7.1
8.7
8.8
8.0
7.2
6.3
46.8
56.2
47.4
49.8
28.7
30.9
18.4
41.1
44.1
36.1
54.6
49.1
58.5
70.59
40.2
41.4
29.1
58.0
72.4
52.4
36.6
62.41
67.0
75.2
54.4
49.4
69.9
32.4
42.6
29.7
16.0
18.5
38.7
45.1
23.7
30.4
76.1
76.6
83.7
84.6
87.0
78.7
83.5
45.1
27.0
46.2
40.5
66.4
63.4
77.4
55.3
49.9
56.7
36.8
47.2
40.3
23.5
56.9
56.9
68.7
38.4
19.5
44.1
62.1
30.4
25.7
15.5
33.8
41.8
27.4
67.5
54.7
65.2
82.0
80.2
56.8
45.0
74.2
66.2
10.7
14.0
6.4
5.5
3.9
12.2
8.3
B
Mesophilic
LAP
1.5
2.2
1.4
2.2
1.1
1.7
0.0
3.8
0
0
0
2.5
11.7
12.8
6.9
2.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.0
1.7
_
2.1
3.1
7.6
9.7
5.8
5.7
9.5
8.9
6.7
1.5
2.0
0.8
0.6
_
0.5
3.9
9.9
0.9
2.1
1.0
12.5
7.3
6.7
14.1
7.4
11.1
17.0
12.3
17.0
11.6
9.7
5.3
9.2
4.0
2.1
9.1
5.9
6.4
6.2
5.3
6.9
5.9
4.3
3.8
4.5
-
-
18.7
9.6
17.3
16.6
7.7
11.1
10.6
9.9
8.5
9.1
11.6
19.9
9.7
13.0
5.7
43.7
11.1
11.6
6.1
9.1
26.7
20.3
24.7
8.5
15.8
10.2
7.6
17.4
11.3
25.3
10.1
16.1
42.0
13.5
17.5
22.5
14.8
11.1
13.4
27.0
35.7
20.0
49.6
49.4
39.7
56.3
45.0
28.6
45.7
39.0
36.5
50.0
39.8
40.5
44.1
42.9
32.7
80.3
46.8
80.8
72.2
85.4
78.1
58.2
63.6
58.2
79.9
74.5
82.0
71.4
65.7
79.6
71.7
78.8
76.1
49.5
79.3
75.5
70.6
77.2
77.5
75.2
58.8
58.5
74.2
40.9
22.9
44.1
24.8
36.2
62.9
42.6
50.5
53.0
27.5
41.2
46.9
33.7
47.4
53.2
B
38
-------
Table A-5.
Date
SPECIATED ACID (Continued)
(Expressed as % Volatile Acid)
Thermophilic
LAP
7/24/87
7/27/87
7/30/87
8/3/87
8/6/87
8/10/87
8/13/87
2.3
0.9
1.0
2.5
1.3
6.0
6.0
6.3
4.8
3.4
0.3
0.7
0.3
1.0
77.4
79.1
78.5
41.0
26.7
85.7
86.9
4.0
15.1
17.1
56.2
71.3
8.0
6.0
B
Mesophilic
A P
3.0
3.8
7.2
10.2
3.3
3.9
f_l
8.1
80.7
36.7
66.7
26.4
33.3
30.4
15.5
12.1
53.1
30.0
69.7
66.6
66.6
B
F=Formic Acid
L=Lactic Acid
A=Acetic Acid
P=Propionic Acid
B=Butyric Acid
39
-------
Table A-6.
GAS PRODUCTION
Gas
Date
11/28/86
11/29
11/30
12/1
12/2
12/3
12/4
12/5
12/6
12/7
12/8
12/9
12/10
12/11
12/12
12/13
12/14
12/15
12/16
12/17
12/18
12/19
12/20
12/21
12/22
12/23
12/24
12/25
12/26 ,
12/27
12/28
12/29
12/30
12/31
1/1/87
1/2
1/3
1/4
1/5
1/6
1/7
1/8
1/9
Production
Thermo-
philic
41.6
41.2
46.8
48.26
34.8
35.9
46.1
38.6
35.2
44.1
44.8
40.9
48.4
49.5
50.3
51.9
44.7
46.2
43.8
39.5
42.9
52.2
49.5
54.6
50.1
50.4
44.1
43.2
45.5
42.8
*
*
47.1
41.5
42.7
44.6
40.7
41.1
36.96
36.7
37.5
35.8
34.8
- Liters
Meso-
philic
37.2
42.8
44.9
39.5
49.3
49.8
44.8
43.2
38.4
43.5
40.8
44.5
51,1
47.1
50.6
58.4
45.7
57.5
41.9
45.4
46.9
46.9
56.2
_#
54.3
50.4
44.6
51.8
53.8
52.1
K-
*
37.96
38.4
38.7
38.6
41.8
42.6
39.02
36.9
38.1
38.0
41.1
% of
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
Amount of City - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
59.6
62.3
577?
60.1
60.3
61.2
61.1
61.8
58.5
59.2
58.5
57.5
58.6
59.2
61.6
61.6
59.6
57.1
61.3
60.3
60.A
63.2
63.2
60.9
60.0
61.3
61.0
60.1
59.8
55.1
60.9
60.2
59.7
58.9
60.1
59.4
28.8
22.4
22.3
26.9
29.2
30.8
30.6
27.3
26.6
27.9
24.3
25.6
21.7
22.2
21.4
24.3
29.7
24.7
25.0
30.8
30.6
29 .-2
24.9
31.8
37.9
27.8
34.7
32.6
26.3
29.6
23.1
23.1
23.0
23.0
22.9
24.4
40
-------
Table A-6.
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
Gas Production - Liters
Date Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
1/10
1/11
1/12
1/13
1/14
1/15
1/16
1/17
1/18
1/19
1/20
1/21
1/22
1/23
1/2A
1/25
1/26
1/27
1/28
1/29
1/30
1/31
2/1
2/2
2/3
2/4
2/5
2/6
2/7
2/8
2/9
2/10
2/11
2/12
2/13
2/14
2/15
2/16
2/17
2/18
2/19
2/20
2/21
33.7
38.5
36.7
31.7
38.2
A9.7
A6.5
36. A
36.5
39.5
A1.7
3A.3
A2.3
A7.8
A2.9
A2.1
A1.5
37. A
38.0
39.1
39.2
39.9
37.5
39.6
37.0
35.7
3A.O
36.5
36.9
39.6
38.5
36.8
37.8
38.9
A0.6
A0.86
A2.1
39.3
37.5
37.1
3A.3
A0.7
*
38.8
A0.3
A0.6
36.98
38.2
38.6
38.9
38.7
39.0
38. A
A5.A
32.8
A1.7
A6.A
A9.1
37.9
A0.6
38.8
39.6
38.8
A1.9
A3.1
A0.5
AA.5
A2.9
A3. A
A2.0
A3.1
A2.9
A3. 7
A0.7
38.2
37.6
A0.3
A1.9
39.8
A3. 9
39.9
37.8
37.6
37.7
37.8
39.5
% of CH4
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
60.7
59.7
59.2
60.1
59.0
58.7
57.7
59.3
57.0
58.5
60.0
60.1
60.0
59.7
58.8
60.2
60.A
61.9
59.3
59.8
61.1
60.5
58.3
58.8
58.A
60.A
57.0
57.7
60.1
60.0
61.1
60.6
60.0
57.3
62.8
60.3
Amount of Oty - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
22.3
22.8
27.5
23.7
20.2
28.1
23.2
21.A
21.9
23.1
22.6
23.9
23.7
22.A
25.2
2A.O
22.8
23.8
23.2
19.1
26.6
23.9
22.5
22.3
23.7
23.9
23.9
25.7
26.1
25.9
2A.9
22.8
25.1
22.9
23.6
22.8
Al
-------
Table A-6.
Date
2/22
2/23
2/24
2/25
2/26
2/27
2/28
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
3/7
3/8
3/9
3/10
3/11
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16
3/17
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/21
3/22
3/23
3/24
3/25
3/26
3/27
3/28
3/29
3/30
3/31
4/1
4/2
4/3
4/4
4/5
Gas Production
Thermo-
philic
#
52.5
43.5
48.4
46.3
38.9
37.5
41.4
42.8
38.0
*
_
30.7
33.9
35.6
36.3
35.9
33.7
34.5
35.5
34.7
35.1
31.6
33.1
31.9
35.1
34.8
37.1
36.9
36.3
39.8
38.7
40.9
47.1
47.9
40.7
44.6
44.3
39.4
43.6
43.4
47.4
40.7
- Liters
Meso-
philic
44.2
41.5
38.0
44.0
44.5
43.0
43.5
47.3
45.7
42.8
#
_
40.4
39.3
41.2
42.9
39.6
37.1
31.8
32.8
32.6
32.5
35.4
33.7
33.5
39.7
39.6
39.5
38.3
36.9
38.3
22.1(*)
37.6
39.1
41.8
40.8
40.7
41.4
40.5
41.3
41.7
44.0
40.7
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
% of CH4
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
64.5
63.2
62.6
61.7
63.4
62.0
61.0
60.8
60.8
60.8
61.3
62.2
63.7
63.2
61.8
62.5
62.8
59.6
61.6
60.5
59.8
59.6
60.0
60.0
59.8
59.5
59.3
59.5
60.4
60.1
58.9
62.4
60.5
Amount of Ofy - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
33.9
30.1
24.4
19.5
22.5
20.6
21.6
19.2
21.3
21.3
22.6
24.6
27.6
24.6
27.2
26.8
27.1
26.0
24.1
25.7
22.3
19.6
21.1
23.5
23.6
22.3
24.0
25.3
25.2
4"2
-------
Table A-6.
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
Gas Production - Liters
Date Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
% of CH4
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
Amount of CJfy - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
4/6
4/7
4/8
4/9
4/10
4/11
4/12
4/13
4/14
4/15
4/16
4/17
4/18
4/19
4/20
4/21
4/22
4/23
4/24
4/25
4/26
4/27
4/28
4/29
4/30
5/1
5/2
5/3
5/4
5/5
5/6
5/7
5/8
5/9
5/10
5/11
5/12
5/13
5/14
5/15
5/16
5/17
5/18
41.1
43.2
39.6
41.2
40.7
38.9
38.7
40.1
*
#
36.4
#
#
36.0
35.0
34.8
34.2
*
34.1
*
36.7
35.8
*
31.2
34.9
33.5
34.2
33.5
8-
*
31.2
33.6
33.7
28.9
38.9
39.7
45.6
37.6
40.1
39.0
35.3
37.1
36.0
42.2
41.9
38.9
39.9
40.5
37.1
41.7
39.9
39.9
35.2
33.6
35.1
35.5
34.8
34.6
33.4
34.0
34.4
34.5
35.7
35.2
34.7
32.6
35.3
34.9
29.2
34.6
35.3
30.7
34.8
31.9
34.8
34.8
36.4
34.3
34.4
40.2
32.5
35.6
35.1
33.4
35.3
37.8
62.5
60.4
62.1
62.0
61.0
mfm
62.1
__
^
65.2
_
64.3
_
62.6
_
_
62.7
_
62.8
_
62.9
_
*
_
60.5
_
62.1
_
63.2
_
63.0
_
62.2
-
-
62.3
59.9
63.0
60.8
60.6
60.7
59.8
_
62.5
62.2
_
60.5
_
_
60.4
«
60.3
_
61.8
_
_
60.5
_
60.7
_
60.4
_
_
61.1
_
60.7
_
60.8
-
61.3
25.7
23.9
25.3
24.9
w
mm
_
_
22.8
22.0
_
21.3
_
_
22.4
19.6
_
21.1
«
_
_
__
18.9
_
20.9
_
_
25.1
_
23.7
_
24.2
-
-
22.4
25.3
24.5
24.6
_
24.2
21.4
_
21.0
_
[
21.6
_
21.1
_
20.9
_
_
21.0
i_
21.3
w
18.0
_
_
18.6
_
19.4
21.0
_
_
21.0
_
19.7
_
21.3
_
_
23.2
43
-------
Table A-6.
Gas
Date
5/19
5/20
5/21
5/22
5/23
5/24
5/25
5/26
5/27
5/28
5/29
5/30
5/31
6/1
6/2
6/3
6/4
6/5
6/6
6/7
6/8
6/9
6/10
6/11
6/12/87
6/13
6/14
6/15
6/16
6/17
6/18
6/19
6/20
6/21
6/22
6/23
6/24
6/25
6/26
6/27
6/28
6/29
6/30
Production
GAS
- Liters
Thermo- Meso-
philic
34.3
31.9
31.9
32.9
32.4
34.8
33.1
33.5
39.4
43.5
44.2
47.3
43.4
44.4
42.5
40.4
38.9
40.4
39.2
36.8
37.1
35.0
35.8
39.1
39.1
44.7
46.1
44.2
45.6
44.4
45.3
48.4
48.3
45.4
40.6
*
#
#
*
#
H-
#
39.8
philic
37 3
«J / ~J
35.2
34.9
36.8
34.9
34.6
33.6
33.5
39.1
36.6
46.8
47.4
43.7
42.6
42.5
38.4
35.4
37.6
38.0
39.8
39.3
36.9
39.1
42.4
42.4
44.0
50.6
45.5
48.7
43.4
41.6
42.5
44.9
44.0
43.1
42.4
41.6
40.0
40.5
40.8
42.2
39.8
39.8
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
% of CH4 Amount of City - Liters
Thermo- Meso- Thermo Meso-
philic philic philic philic
62.8
62.5
62.2
61.2
62.6
62.5
63.7
64.0
63.7
63.9
63.6
64.4
63.6
62.1
61.6
62.1
62.5
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.3
60.8
61.7
63.1
63.2
62.7
63.4
63.6
63.5
61.9
62.2
61.8
62.1
62.6
20.0
20.6
21.6
24.1
27.7
27.7
25.7
25.8
23.6
22.9
28.1
28.6
30.8
25.2
17.1
17.3
21.5
22.5
21.1
23.9
28.5
26.3
24.2
23.8
24.6
24.8
28.9
27.6
26.3
26.8
25.7
25.2
20.5
24.9
-------
Table A-6.
Gas
Date
7/1
Hi
7/3
7/4
7/5
7/6
111
7/8
7/9
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/15
7/16
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
7/29
7/30
8/1/87
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
8/6
8/7
8/8
8/9
8/10
8/11
8/12
8/13
»
Production
Thermo-
philic
45.1
44.5
46.0
49.8
48.9
49.6
48.6
47.2
46.2
45.6
49.0
49.9
48.6
47.7
44.8
46.6
47.0
49.3
49.5
49.1
50.5
49.5
51.7
51.3
47.7
52.5
51.2
47.9
49.2
50.4
51.3
53.1
48.9
48.1
48.3
49.9
50.8
53.4
58.1
54.4
52.1
53.1
54.4
GA:
- Liters
Meso-
philic
42.1
42.8
44.7
47.4
43.8
45.7
45.0
45.2
46.2
45.3
48.0
48.8
48.9
48.8
48.3
47.4
47.6
48.3
53.4
51.7
50.8
50.0
50.2
51.0
51.2
53.6
46.8
49.5
48.9
49.4
51.7
52.7
50.8
50.2
49.5
58.7
54.7
51.1
54.0
56.7
53.1
56.3
54.4
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
% of CH4
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
63.3
64.7
65.2
65.2
64.9
64.8
65.5
65.5
65.2
63.9
64.7
64.8
63.9
64.5
63.0
63.9
65.1
64.8
64.8
64.9
65.0
65.0
64.5
62.7
64.9
64.0
62.6
64.2
Amount of City - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
28.5
29.8
32.3
30.1
31.5
30.2
32.3
32.2
33.7
30.5
33.1
32.7
36.1
31.5
26.5
28.6
29.8
29.9
31.7
30.8
31.4
33.6
32.4
32.1
30.4
31.6
37.4
32.6
62.6
63.6
63.0
61.08
62.6
61.7
31.2
33.9
34.3
35.8
32.0
35.0
62.75
61.1
34.1
33.2
45
-------
Table A-6.
GAS PRODUCTION (Continued)
Gas Production - Liters
Date Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
% of
Thermo- Meso-
philic philic
Amount of City - Liters
Thermo Meso-
philic philic
8/14
8/15
8/16
8/17
8/18
8/19
8/20
8/21
8/22
8/23
55.3
57.8
56.1
56.4
49.9
61.5
60.9
59.25
62.75
63.95
53.4
54.9
58.1
60.75
54.9
60.9
64.5
62.75
62.5
61.45
63.0
62.2
_
64.3
_
61.4
-
63.0
61.8
60.5
62.1
_
60.2
-
61.6
^
36.4
_
35.1
_
39.5
_
36.4
-
40.3
_
33.9
-
36.6
-
37.8
-
37.8
-
37.85
*Gas Meter Malfunction
46
-------
Table A-7.
DIGESTED SLUDGE SOLIDS - PERCENT
Date
Total
Thermophilic Mesophilic
1.4
1.4
Volatile
Thermophilic Mesophilic
12/9/86
12/16
12/23
12/29
1/5/87
1/12
1/19
1/26
2/2
2/9
2/16
2/23
3/2
3/9
3/16
3/22
3/29
4/3
4/11
4/19
4/25
4/27
5/3
5/4
5/12
5/17
5/25
5/31
6/7
6/14
6/21
6/27
7/5
7/9
7/12
7/16
7/19
7/23
7/26
7/30
8/2
8/6
8/9
8/13
1.39
1.5
1.5
1.69
1.56
1.5
1.65
1.63
1.73
1.8
1.8
1.88
1.89
1.91
1.98
1.92
1.79
1.91
1.96
1.84
1.91
1.92
1.89
1.91
1.85
1.99
1.86
2.01
2.05
2.23
2.29
2.35
2.5
2.47
2.42
2.39
2.35
2.38
2.39
2.25
2.24
2.L5
2.05
2.01
1.35
1.45
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.5
58
60
65
65
71
65
76
69
67
68
78
78
84
82
82
89
82
89
84
02
02
05
08
26
26
17
21
32
29
2.14
2.21
2.11
2.19
2.15
2.05
1.92
67.2
70.0
69.8
72.4
72.5
72.6
72.6
72.6
72.5
73.7
70.7
71.53
72.5
72.6
71.12
73.3
73.2
71.78
71.27
72.45
72.45
72.8
71.95
71.13
72.04
71.16
70.85
69.71
68.65
67.47
67.96
67.85
67.43
66.59
67.10
67.05
67.18
66.59
66.60
66.20
66.52
66.07
66.75
67.02
68
68.5
68.
69.
69.4
68.8
68.2
69.0
6y.9
63.0
66.7
68.0
66.6
68.3
67.4
67.6
67.3
66.36
65.35
67.49
66.45
67.3
65.47
66.03
68.12
67.50
65.80
65.54
66.84
66.41
66.05
67.87
67.82
67.77
68.98
64.55
67.66
67.38
67.68
67.07
68.31
65.80
66.33
65.92
47
-------
Table A-7. DIGESTED SLUDGE SOLIDS - PERCENT (Continued)
Total Volatile
Date Thermophilic MesophilJc Thermophilic Mesophilic
8/,15 2.03 1.95 66.54 66.96
8/19 2.03 1.99 67.76 66.24
8/23 1.96 1.96 69.56 69.13
48
-------
Table A-8.
DIGESTED SLUDGE COD - mg/1
Date
Total
Therraophilic Mesophilic
Soluble
Therraophilic Mesophilic
12/9/86
12/15
12/22
12/30
1/6/87
1/13
1/19
1/26
2/2
2/9
2/16
2/24
3/3
3/12
3/17
3/26
3/31
4/7
4/14
4/21
4/28
5/5
5/12
5/19
5/26
6/2
6/9
6/16
6/23
6/30
111
7/9
7/14
7/16
7/21
7/23
7/30
8/4
8/7
8/11
8/13
8/23
14,652.8
19,311.2
20,498.4
18,931.2
19,584.4
17,766.7
22,131.2
19,698.
22,367.5
22,750.
23,522.4
24,384.
24,140.2
26,118.4
24,083.0
24,288.0
22,816.0
23,359.0
17,856.0
22,080.0
23,865.6
22,221.0
22,041.6
22,848.0
21,888.0
23,312.0
22,337.0
23,584.0
27,244.0
26,864.0
25,834.0
27,980.0
27,784.0
28,205.0
28,518.0
26,827.0
26,085.0
25,723.0
25,280.0
23,813.0
22,943.0
24,898.0
15,520.4
19,215.6
15,912.
16,518.4
16,292.2
14,318.4
17,196.2
16,954.
18,432.5
20,202.5
22,161.6
22,848.
20,338.6
21,827.5
21,693.0
19,184.0
20,435.2
19,890.0
18,240.0
20,609.0
21,515.2
21,700.0
22,435.2
21,504.0
22,656.0
'2,748.0
23,973.6
21.824.0
22,148.0
25,716.0
24,710.0
24,605.0
24,012.0
24,860.0
27,440.0
23,620.0
23,990.0
25,723.0
24,531.0
23,038.0
21,979.0
25,085.0
.4
.2
1311.
1269.6
1445.2
2500.
2962.9
2954.9
3359.2
3488.8
3878.0
4267.0
3810.2
2841.6
1938.8
2873.0
3014.9
3238.
2698.
2386.8
1881.6
2024.0
2097.3
1946.3
2,597.8
2,265.6
2,112.0
2,068.0
2,106.6
2,604.8
2,195.2
1,816.4
2,003.0
2,087.7
2,079.2
2,097.3
2,195.2
2,138.4
2,284.8
2,199.0
2,172.0
2,090.0
2,005.0
2,621.0
401.
351.8
351.9
356.4
422.2
350.2
814.1
399.8
368.6
377.6
396.6
376.32
380.2
402.9
419.2
563,
726.
469,
522,
699.
716.0
624.96
755.71
568.32
837.12
624.16
709.61
823.68
595.8
608.0
599.0
589.0
596.2
578.6
.2
.1
.2
.2
.2
678.2
544.3
624.5
768.0
734.0
658.0
559.0
607.0
49
-------
Table A-9.
DIGESTED SLUDGE NITROGEN - rag/1
Date
Ammonia
Thermophilic
Mesophilic
Organic
Therraophilic Mesophilic
12/A/86
12/9
12/15
12/22
12/26
12/30
1/6/87
1/13
1/19
1/29
2/2
2/9
2/16
2/24
3/2
3/9
3/17
3/24
3/31
4/7
4/14
4/21
4/28
5/5
5/12
5/19
5/26
6/2
6/9
6/18
6/23
6/30
7/7
7/9
7/14
7/17
7/21
7/24
7/31
728
672
644
840
756
728
812
742
700
644
798
826
812
733.6
764.4
865.2
851.2
849.8
851.2
849.8
843.0
840.0
834.4
812.0
831.0
834.4
824.6
884.8
854.0
861.0
851.2
777.0
844.2
882.0
935.2
931.0
945.0
929.6
911.4
700
770
* I \J
616
784
700
672
700
602
615
532
644
686
714
680.4
702.8
697.2
668.0
728.0
728.0
725.2
734
758.8
736.4
739.2
737.8
756.0
763.0
795.2
772.8
737.8
716.8
658.0
690.2
728.0
728.0
741.8
754.6
735.0
753.2
672
560
588
308
672
588
538
644
700
658
518
568.4
697.2
658.
511
591
572.6
558.6
595
554
582.4
652.4
621.6
610.8
760.2
760.2
690.2
719.6
778.7
796.6
833.0
929.6
938.0
886.2
933.8
939.4
904.4
580
406
616
476
728
588
630
617 .
840
756
602
758
798.
873.
716.8
757.4
758.8
754.6
736.4
741.0
753.2
779.8
828.8
817.6
764.4
756.0
851.2
868.1
887.6
870.8
928.2
978.6
971.6
966.0
1037.4
1085.0
1006.6
897.4
988.4
-------
Table A-10. DIGESTED SLUDGE OIL & GREASE (mg/1)
Date Thermophilic Mesophilic
2255 1935
iM/fl7 220° 1625
I/6/87 6035 2290
1//13 1726 1333
1/J9 2955 2200
1/26 4505 3035
2/2 _ 29U
2/9 - 1225
2/16 3259 2356
2/25 4311.5 2479
3/3 3368 2735
3/11 2434 1864.5
3/17 2403 1925.5
3/24 2483.5 1770.0
3/31 1770.3 1782.5
4/7 2359.5 1769.0
4/14 2290.7 2041.0
4/21 2712.2 2196.7
4/28 2518.3 2109.4
5/5 2525.9 2070.4
5/12 2059.4 1585.8
5/19 2627.3 2051.6
5/26 2531.7 2161.1
6/2 2430.5 2191.2
6/9 2383.9 2191.7
6/10 2683.0 2066.0
6/23 3002.9 2274.0
7/2 3283.0 2762.6
7/7 3396.0 2767.1
7/9 3333.3 2702.3
7/14 3537.7 2403.2
7/16 3385.1 2655.0
7/21 3589.0 3041.3
7/23 3093.0 2338.3
7/28 2918.6 2273.5
7/30 2761.8 2188.8
8/4 3125.1 2484.2
8/6 (Soluble) 178 38
8/11 2853.0 2482.0
8/13 2453.0 2095.0
8/23 2535.0 2130.0
51
-------
Table A-ll.
DIGESTED SLUDGE CARBOHYDRATE
mg/1
Total
Date
6/17/87
6/23/87
6/29/87
7/6/87
7/9/87
7/14/87
7/17/87
7/21/87
7/24/87
7/28/87
7/31/87
8/4/87
8/7/87
T
3150
3068
2650
3240
3360
2770
2950
2300
2710
2950
3140
2520
2360
M
2182
1870
2060
2230
2160
1890
2200
1890
2200
2080
1950
2020
1710
OWJ.U 1
T
143
95
113
127
69
168
68
88
133
106
90
57
101
L/-LW
M
124
49
69
68
34
78
51
27
57
56
60
30
53
52
-------
Table A-12. MEAN CAPILLARY SUCTION TIME (SEC)
(Unconditioned Sample)
Date Temp. (°C) Thermophilic Mesophillic
3/14/87 - 611.8* 524.2*
3/15 - 466.3* A75.5*
3/21 - 417.3* A57.6*
3/22 - 463.2* 398.5*
3/29 - 423.2* 389.0*
4/5 - 405.5* 491.4*
4/19 - 463.2 402.7
4/23 21 512.1 425.0
4/30 - 496.7 416.9
5/3 25 464.7 351.8
5/5 23.5 480.7 372.9
5/6 23.5 490.6 387.9
5/7 25 432.8 405.5
5/8 21.5 482.2 411.6
5/11 24.5 467.3 426.7
5/12 25 495.37 409.4
5/13 23.5 465.7 469.2
5/20 25 638.7 493.0
5/21 24.5 632.5 593.2
5/22 24.5 589.9 494.6
5/23 24.5 485.0 405.5
5/24 24.5 534.9 417.8
5/25 24.0 496.8 414.2
5/26 24.0 533.2 402.8
5/27 24.5 516.3 405.1
5/28 24.5 527.1 377.1
5/29 25 504.9 399.9
5/3i 26 506.6 411.4
6/1 26 506.3 376.9
6/2 25 533.6 419.1
6/3 24 596.8 414.9
6/4 23.5 557.5 434.5
6/5 23.5 587.2 439.8
6/8 25 574.4 464.1
6/9 26 535.0 403.3
6/10 24 722.6 472.2
6/11 26 561.9 403.3
6/12 24 597.0 423.9
6/15 25 5 618-° 421'2
24.5 781.5 5223
6/17 23'5 Sfi'fi 38*4
A/IR 9S 566.6 jyo.H
Inc. 25 5 533.8 386.0
6/22 26 510.4 384.!
53
-------
Table A-12. MEAN CAPILLARY SUCTION TIME (SEC) (continued)
(Unconditioned Sample)
Date Temn fOp\ m
P> < L) Thermophilic Mesophillic
6/23 27
6/24 26 5 501'5 381'5
6/25 9A 549'5 410.0
6/26 25 5 606'6 42°'3
6/29/87 26 \'l 443i
6/30 ?ft «; 453<4 344'8
7/1 £1 444'4 318'1
7/2 ?A't 454'4 327'4
26-5 A58.4 316.3
, 25 527.6 333.5
7/5 49 415.2
7/5 35 _ 300.8
7/5 25 533.9 377.9
7/6 25 571.2 407.3
7/9 22 562.4 379.1
7/11 25 548.0 387.0
7/13 22 548.2 339.4
7/15 25 535.2 395.7
7/16 25 653.7 404.7
7/18 684.0 417.0
7/20 25 623.5 362.6
7/22 25 642.2 338.4
7/23 25 742.7 405.1
7/25 25 771.0 448.0
7/27 25 814.7 485.0
7/29 25 782.0 397.2
7/30 25 694.2 383.2
8/1 25 732.0 451.0
8/3 25 672.3 369.3
8/5 25 600.6 321.4
8/6 25 647.0 385.4
8/8 25 655.0 388.0
8/10 25 595.3 358.0
8/12 25 644.7 366.4
8/13 25 600.2 444.6
8/15 25 648.0 385.0
8/21 25 627.0 362.0
8/23 25 595.0 387.0
* Temperature not measured
-------
Table A-13. CAPILLARY SUCTION TIME TESTS WITH CONDITIONERS ADDED
I
Date
3/15/87
3/21/87
3/29/87
4/5/87
"eCl36H20
Added
( g/D
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
4
5
6
7
0
4
-4
4
4
4
4
Ca(OH)2
Added
( 8/D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
2.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
Mesophillic
Cup Size
(cm)
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
'1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
pH
7.15
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.1
7.35
6.95
7.45
7.90
8.50
8.65
8.15
8.9
7.4
6.4
6.0
5.65
5.35
5.30
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.4
7.55
7.75
8.5
CST
(sec)
475.5
288.8
74.4
22.5
15.7
398.5
142.7
, 155.4
230.0
166.4
237.6
429.6
407.3
389.0
90.1
44.9
30.8
25.5
22.6
491.4
40.8
42.2
30.8
33.8
30.0
78.7
Thermophilic
PH
7.4
6.9
6.5
6.3
6.1
7.6
7.1
7.45
8.05
8.40
8.60
8.40
8.90
7.75
6.3
6.25
5.9
5.8
5.3
8.0
6.65
7.1
7.25
7.40
7.65
8.3
CST
(sec)
466.3
392.8
135.9
57.6
16.2
463.2
271.3
223.2
348.6
317.4
261.8
431.1
378.4
423.2
342.3
62.6
30.3
23.4
19.3
405.5
78.3
91.9
69.0
85.2
141.5
203.2
7/8/87
7/15/87
3
4
5
4
5
6
4
10.4
8.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
6.6
6.75
6.75
6.7
6.4
6.15
6.7
4.3
335.9
110.3
61.7
19.4
32.0
19.4
10.8
-
18.0
6.9
7.05
6.6
6.55
6.4
6.15
6.55
4.3
-
1291.2
685.4
362.6
1020.4
493.8
79.6
149.2
17.5
-
55
-------
Table A-13. CAPILLARY SUCTION TIME TESTS WITH CONDITIONERS ADDED
(Continued)
Date
7/22/87
7/29/87
8/5/87
Ca(OH.)2
Added Added Cup Size
( 8/D ( 8/1) (cm)
Mesophillic
CST
pH (sec)
Thermophilic
CST
pH (sec)
4
4
5
6
9.05
10.4
6
5
4
4
9.0
10.8
4
4
5
6
7
8.95
10.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
ti.o
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.3
6.3
6.1
5.9
4.3
-
6.0
6.15
6.4
6.4
4.3
-
6.35
6.35
6.2
6.0
5.8
4.3
-
99.3
31.1
34.7
24.1
18.8
-
25.9
40.2
76.0
16.1
17.5
-
53.7
11.1
25.2
18.0
16.1
16.6
-
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.15
4.3
6.2
6.35
6.5
6.5
_
4.3
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.2
6.0
-
4.3
933.5
140.2
594.3
169.2
16.7
186.7
663.3
1039.8
161.6
18.3
908.0
154.0
193.0
49.6
25.3
-
17.8
8/12/87
4
5
6
7
9.2
10.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
4.3
40.0
21.0
20.8
16.3
15.9
6.5
6.3
6.1
5.9
-
4.3
49.5
119.5
34.3
15.8
16.4
56
------- |