EPA-R2-73199
JUNE 1973
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Application of
Plastic Media Trickling Filters
for Biological Nitrification Systems
Office of Research and Monitoring
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Monitoring, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
APPLICATION OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS
FOR BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION SYSTEMS
by
Glenn A. Buddies
Stevens E. Richardson
Contract No. 14-12-900
Project No. 17010 FSJ
Program Element 1B2043
Project Officer
E. F. Earth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For salo by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 20402
Price $1.25 domestic postpaid or $1 OPO Bookstore
-------
ABSTRACT
APPLICATION OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS
FOR BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION SYSTEMS
A detailed research program (EPA Contract No. 14-12-900),
undertaken by Dow Chemical U.S.A. (Midland, Michigan) has
demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing plastic media
trickling filters in a stage treatment system to achieve
biological nitrification. The study has defined the
controlling parameters, operational characteristics, and
basic design guidelines and economics of the process.
Unchlorinated clarified secondary effluent from the Midland,
Michigan, Waste Treatment Plant was fed at controlled rates
to a pilot plant trickling filter. This is a low BOD^ stream
(15-30 mg/1) with an ammonia nitrogen concentration in the
range of 10-20 mg/1 NH3~N.
The system consistently maintained 80-90 percent oxidation
of ammonia nitrogen. This was achieved at flow application
rates up to 1.5 gpm/sq ft, with variable recycle ratios,
and at wastewater temperatures from 40-70°F. There appears
to be a practical limit of ammonia nitrogen in the effluent
in the range of 1-1.5 mg/1. The system has shown consistent
and stable performance throughout both summer and winter
operation. Recovery to physically induced upset was rapid.
The visible slime growth was thin, tough, and resistant
to drying. Net solids production by the nitrification tower
was low. The tower effluent can be passed directly to a
mixed media filter without intermediate clarification. The
effectiveness of final chlorination appeared to be improved
by the nitrification process. The influent BOD^ and sus-
pended solids to the nitrification tower were not significantly
altered by the process. Subsequent anaerobic denitrification
was achieved by controlled addition of methanol directly to
a mixed media filter; significant changes were observed in
its operation. Ninety-five percent denitrification (and 85
percent total nitrogen removal overall) was maintained
simultaneously with effective suspended solids removal.
11
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Introduction 3
III Project Objectives 5
IV Materials and Methods 7
Study Location and Facilities 7
Analytical Program 10
V Results and Discussions 13
Pilot Plant Operation 13
Startup 14
Representative Performance 17
Nitrification Efficiency 19
Hydraulic Application Rate 22
Tower Depth 24
Recycle 26
Temperature (.Seasonal) 29
Suspended Solids Relationship 34
Solids Recycle 37
Mixed Media Filtration 38
Denitrification Studies 40
Carbonaceous Loading 48
Chloxination of Nitrified Sewage 50
Operating Stability 56
Design Guidelines 57
Economics 59
iii
-------
Section Page
VI Acknowledgments °5
VII References 67
VIII Publication and Patent Disclosure 69
IX Appendix - Period Analyses 71
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Paqe
1. Midland, Michigan, Wastewater Treatment g
Effluent Characteristics
2. Plastic Media Characteristics 8
3. Operations Summary 15
4. Representative Data - Period VIII 18
5. Ammonia Nitrogen Effluent Limitation 22
6. Summary of Periods II, IV, VI, & XV 25
7. Summary of Recirculation Effects 28
8. Effect of Temperature on Performance 33
9. Suspended Solids Relationships 36
10. Mixed Media Filter Operating 40
Characteristics
11. Effects of Denitrification on Mixed ^,
Media Filter Operating Characteristics
12. Mixed Media Filter Gas Samples 47
13. Suspended Solids Characteristics During
Simultaneous Carbonaceous and Nitrogenous 49
Oxidation
14. Effect of Chlorine Residuals on Fathead ^o
Minnow Survivals
15. Effect of Chlorine Concentrations and. .
Residuals on Total Bacteria
16. Effect of Chlorine Concentrations and __
Residuals on Total Bacteria
17. Design Guidelines 60
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Paqe
1. Pilot Scale Trickling Filter 9
Cross Section
2. Pilot Plant Schematic H
3. Fate of Organic Nitrogen in a 20
Nitrifying Trickling Filter
4. Influent NH.J-N Concentration 21
5. Cumulative Percent of Occurrence 23
of NH3-N: Period VIII
6. Influent Hydraulic Application Rate 2g
vs Nitrification Performance
7. Nitrifying Tower Nitrogen Species 27
Profile (June 1972)
8. Nitrifying Tower Nitrogen Species 27
Profile (August 1972)
9. Effect of Recycle on Nitrification ,0
Performance
10. Loading-Temperature-Performance
Relationship of a Nitrifying Trickling 31
Filter
11. Mixed Media Filter Solids Removal .,
Performance
12. NO..-N Concentration Probability - ..
Period XVII
13. Total Organic Carbon Occurrence 49
14. Nitrification Stability at 76%
Conversion (Mean)
15. Trickling Filter Design Guidelines 61
16. Approximate Unit Costs of Plastic
Biological Oxidation Media (Installed) 2
17. Construction Cost vs Media Volume for
21.5 Ft Depth bj
vi
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. Plastic media trickling filters are capable of achieving
consistent, high level nitrification (>90 percent con-
version) when operating on a low BOD- waste stream
(15-30 mg/1) containing ammonia nitrogen concentrations
in the range of 10-20 mg/1.
2. The system has shown consistent and stable performance
throughout both summer and winter operation. High
level nitrification can be achieved in summer at influent
application rates in the range of 1.0-1.5 gpm/sq ft, and
winter application rates in the range of 0.5 gpm/sq ft
plus recycle.
3. Increased recycle provided improved flow stabilization
but showed minimal effects on the overall degree of
nitrification achieved.
4. There appears to be a final effluent limitation for
ammonia nitrogen in the range of 1-2 mg/1.
5. The visible slime growth on the plastic media was thin,
tough, and resistant to drying. Net solids production
by the nitrification tower was low. Suspended solids
and BOD levels in the tower effluent (prior to clari-
fication) were not significantly different from those
of the tower influent. The tower effluent may pass
directly to a mixed media filter without intermediate
clarification.
-------
6. Subsequent denitrification may be achieved by controlled
addition of methanol directly to the mixed media filter.
Ninety-five percent denitrification (and 85 percent
total nitrogen removal overall) was maintained simul-
taneously with effective suspended solids removal.
Significant changes were observed in the operation
of the mixed media filter.
7. The nitrification system can effect reductions in ultimate
fish toxicity, improve bacteriological disinfection
efficiency, and result in realistic breakpoint chlorin-
ation economics.
-------
II
INTRODUCTION
\_
Nitrogenous oxygen demand recently has been receiving
increased attention in evaluating the overall effects of
treated sewage effluent on a receiving body of water. Major
emphasis has been placed on removal of biological oxygen
demand (BOD) and suspended solids from wastewater before
discharge, with no distinction being made between the
carbonaceous and nitrogenous forms of oxygen demand.
In general, most efficiently operated conventional biological
treatment facilities are capable of high removals of carbon-
aceous material (>90 percent). These same facilities,
however, have been shown to oxidize only 10 to 60 percent
of the influent nitrogen (1,2). This wide range of
efficiencies is indicative of the relative unpredictability
of nitrification as experienced in most current treatment
systems. The resultant nitrogen-laden effluents have been
shown to play a significant role in the oxygen balance
of receiving waters.
Work done by the Michigan Water Resources Commission indicated
that the most important source of oxygen demand in the Grand
River below Lansing, Michigan, was nitrogenous in origin (3).
It accounted for as much as 75 percent of the total oxygen
depletion within a 10 mile stretch below that City. Similarly,
Wezernak and Gannon (4) concluded from studies on the Clinton
River below Pontiac, Michigan, that the major deoxygenation
components were in the form of nitrogenous compounds. These
instances, among others (5,6), indicate the increased need
and the likelihood for more stringent requirements on total
-------
oxygen demand (TOD). This will ultimately necessitate
the development of effective nitrification incorporated
into overall wastewater treatment at many locations.
The studies by Earth et_ al. (7) and Johnson and Schroepfer (2)
indicate the effectiveness of the "stage" approach in obtaining
predictable nitrification in laboratory units. This is
generally agreed to be related to the relative difference
in the rapid growth rate of the heterotrophic bacterial
populations active in carbonaceous removal and the slower
development of the autotrophic nitrifying bacteria.
This project was initiated to investigate the feasibility
of utilizing a plastic media oxidation tower for a stage
nitrification system. It was felt that a fixed film reactor
with high surface area would develop the aged biological
growth necessary for good nitrification and produce an
effluent with a high degree of settleability- Plastic
media oxidation towers having minimal and highly flexible
space requirments can be readily adapted to most existing
treatment plants, realizing savings in capital expenditure
costs as shown by Germain (8).
-------
Ill
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
i.
The need for controllable and economical processes to
achieve biological nitrification arises from the increased
possibility of more stringent effluent standards on ammonia
nitrogen (NH-.-N) in large volumes of municipal wastes. In
the near future, many existing waste treatment facilities
will have to be upgraded and a large number of new plants
will have to be designed for NH -N control.
The main objective of this contract was to establish the
feasibility of utilizing plastic media trickling filters
for biological nitrification in a stage approach. The
controlling parameters were to be identified and the
necessary process design guidelines developed for field
application of the nitrification process.
Major emphasis was placed on development of design consider-
ations which could be utilized in practical and economical
application of the results of the contract. Miminal effort
was devoted to theoretical research considerations of the
complex biological processes involved.
-------
IV
MATERIALS AND METHODS
STUDY LOCATION AND FACILITIES
The location of this research was the Midland, Michigan,
Wastewater Treatment Plant. This is a well-operated
secondary wastewater treatment plant treating predominantly
domestic sewage. It incorporates primary sedimentation
followed by two-stage rock media trickling filters with
intermediate and final clarification. The organic and
hydraulic loadings on these trickling filters are great
enough that nitrification does not occur. The sludges are
dewatered chemically and/or thermally without digestion
and ultimately transported to a sanitary landfill. Typical
performance data and effluent characteristics from the
Midland location during the course of this contract are
shown in Table 1.
The pilot plant nitrification work was conducted using
unchlorinated final effluent from the Midland plant as
a waste stream source. This influent feed was applied
to a standard pilot plant oxidation tower located near the
headworks of the Midland facility. This unit consisted of
a 3-foot diameter column packed to a depth of 21.5 feet
with SURFPAC® (registered trademark of The Dow Chemical
Company) biological oxidation media. Plastic oxidation
media is designed to promote film flow across a large uniform
surface per unit volume, and to provide a high void ratio for
adequate oxygen transfer and alleviation of plugging problems.
The physical characteristics of the artificial media used in
this contract are shown in Table 2 and a cross-sectional
diagram of the pilot oxidation unit in Figure 1.
-------
The clarified but unchlorinated final effluent from the
Midland plant was directed to the oxidation tower throughout
the study as needed. Provision was made to recycle the
tower effluent, if desired, prior to suspended solids removal
by pilot scale clarification and/or mixed media pressure
filtration.
TABLE 1
MIDLAND, MICHIGAN, WASTEWATER TREATMENT
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Avg. Secondary Effluent
(mg/1)
BOD5 15 - 20
Suspended Solids 15 - 20
pH 7-8
NH3-N 8-18
N03-N 0.3 - 0.5
Organic-N 1.5 - 4.0
Temperature: Winter 44°F (7°C)
Summer 68°F (20°C)
TABLE 2
PLASTIC MEDIA CHARACTERISTICS
Available Surface Area 27 sq ft/cu ft
Void Space 94%
Sheet Thickness 30 mil
Weight 2.6 Ib/cu ft
Material Polyvinyl Chloride
-------
Raw And Recycle
Orifice Boxes
Motor
Recycle Overflow
Motorized Distributor
Shell
36" Sch. 40
Steel Pipe
Support Grating
Air Ports
6 Layers
Of Packing
10.8'
6 Layers
Of Packing
10.8'
.
1
1
i
iff
J?
a
0
>
P
QC
> i
It ^
Raw Overflow
Treated Waste
Raw Waste
PILOT SCALE TRICKLING FILTER CROSS SECTION
FIGURE 1
-------
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
A flow schematic of the pilot plant installation is shown
in Figure 2, along with designation of the five major
sampling locations. Additional sampling was done at inter-
mediate tower depths periodically during the study. Samples
from four sampling points (Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4) were
taken with automatic compositing devices and refrigerated
during collection. The operation of the oxidation tower was
continuous. Sufficient time for acclimitization was allowed
between the different periods of study.
Since daily changes in the controlling parameters were not
expected to be great, the sampling schedule was limited to
four 24-hour composite periods during each week of operation.
The auto-samplers were started on Monday mornings and
composited samples collected at 24-hour intervals on Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday morning. Except for special
studies, the samplers were shut down after the Friday morning
sample. Where appropriate the analyses were performed the
same day the sample was collected.
Specific analyses for nitrite (N02~N) and nitrate (NO--N)
nitrogen were accomplished using an automatic colorimetric
analyzer (Technicon AutoAnalyzer) which was provided for
this contract by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Carbonaceous analyses were done on a combustion analyzer
(Beckman). The following procedures specified in "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," 13th
Edition, were used; suspended solids, Part 224C; Kjeldahl
nitrogen, Part 216; biochemical oxygen demand, Part 219;
ammonia nitrogen, Part 2.12 (distillation; pHr Part 221;
and temperature, Part 162, From time to time throughout the
study, there was additional sampling and analytical work
specific to supplementary investigations.
10
-------
Midland
Final Effluent
, _. •
Recycle
Tower
Influent
(Tl) Backwash
*'
I2
fr-Oxids
Towe
Tower Effluent (7
4
tion
r
Clarifier
(CE)
3 *
Mixed
NV / Media
— 1 — K Filter
* ,.' T4
Sludge Recycle Filter Effluent
(FE)
PILOT PLANT SCHEMATIC
.FIGURE 2
11
-------
V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
PILOT PLANT OPERATION
The first six months of the contract period were spent
primarily in conceptual planning, engineering, site modi-
fication, construction, equipment procurement and installation,
and establishing the analytical program. All materials and
equipment were obtained and installed by late January 1971.
The initial startup of the pilot facility took place in early
February 1971.
As seen in Figure 1, the influent flow to the pilot oxidation
tower is controlled by means of a fixed orifice operating from
a constant hydraulic head box. The excess influent waste is
returned to the sewer and the measured flow through the
orifice directed into a mixing funnel and subsequent rotary
distribution system. During periods of recycle, tower
effluent is taken from the sump at the bottom of the tower
and controlled flows are directed to the media in a similar
manner. On the recirculation system, the overflow maintaining
a constant head is directed back into the tower sump so that
no treated waste is lost from the system.
No provisions were made during this study for variable
pilot plant feed to correspond to normal diurnal fluctuations
experienced in the waste volume of the full-scale treatment
plant. All work was done at constant hydraulic application
rates. These rates were measured as application rates to the
oxidation tower in gpm/sq ft cross-section surface area.
This measure is often used as a standard guideline for
operation of trickling filters. When reference is made
to the incoming waste application rate, it is as influent
13
-------
feed in gpm/sq ft; recirculation is referred to as recycle
in gpm/sq ft; and, the combination of influent feed and
recycle is referred to as the total hydraulic application
rate in gpm/sq ft. The operating levels of the hydraulic
application rate distinguish the different operating periods
of the contract.
An operational summary of the pilot plant throughout the
entire 18 months of experimental work is shown in Table 3.
The controlling parameters for the periods indicated are
subdivided into the individual operating sections regulated
to study their relationship to nitrification. Further
assembly of the experimental results and operational periods
into distinct groups is done throughout the remainder of
this report to support specific areas of discussion. Daily
data summaries for each study period are included in the
Appendix. Data summaries and analyses for each study period
and groups of periods have been filed with the Official
Project File at EPA Headquarters, Washington, D. C., and with
the Project Officer at NERC, Cincinnati, Ohio.
STARTUP
It was evident from the initial operation of the pilot unit
that little, if any, nitrification was occurring in the
oxidation tower. This situation continued throughout the
first four to six weeks of operation.
Attempts to accelerate the establishment of a nitrifying
population included seeding the pilot plant with 15 gallons
of activated sludge material from a known nitrifying source.
This return sludge was obtained from the Pontiac, Michigan,
sewage treatment plant and was added to the pilot facility
on March 12, 1971. The seeding procedure was an effort
to expose the pilot tower to bacterial solids of a nitri-
fying nature and to accelerate the development of a
nitrifying growth on the plastic media.
14
-------
•TI • Towor Influent CE • Clarlflcr Effluent
TE • Totxr Kffluunt FE - filter Effluent
riow (w
y«riod Influent
1 0.3
2 O.S
1 1.0
4 2.0
S 1.0
« 1.3
7 1.0
0 0.3
9* 1.0
l> 0.5
10 0.3
11 0.5
12 1.0
13 1.0
14 0.71
13 0.71
16 0.71
17 0.71
19 0.71
19 0.71
l/wi ft) S.inplc
Recycle Location* Oat«
0.0 TI
TE
CE
1.0 TI
TB
d
0.0 TI
n
CI
0.0 TI
TE
rE
0.0 TI
TI
n
0.57 TI
TI
rE
0.37 TI
TI
CI
n
1.0 TI
TE
rx
0.0 TI
TE
rE
1.0 TI
TE
TE
1.0 TI
TE
rs
i.o n
TI
rs
0.0 TI
TE
ri
0.9 TI
TE
rs
0.9 TZ
TE
rE
0.0 TI
TI
rs
0.0 TI
TB
rE
0.0 TI
TE
rE
0.0 TI
TE
ri
0.3 TI
TE
CK
PS
4/13
»/«
/!«
«/«
7/13
OAO
1/18
9/10
HA
- 4/30/71
- SA4/71
- 8/11/71
- 4/JO/71
- t/8/71
- 1/17/71
- 1/27/71
- 10/0/71
- 11/12/71
HAS - 11/30/71
12A
- 12/30/71
1/1 - 1/31/72
2/8 - 2/10/72
2/31
2/29
3/20
- 3/23/72
- J/17/72
- 4/28/73
3A - 3/26/72
3/J1
6/23
7/21
- 6/22/72
- 7/19/72
- 9/1/72
TABU? 1
OTEJWTSOCm SUMUVRY
SB
ssA.
16
11
9
12
t
»
12
13
S
22
17
4
10
11
2
31
84
10
34
29
13
4
30
19
3
20
11
9
IS
35
2
13
12
3
13
10
3
18
9
5
20
9
3
It
13
7.
7
7
6
11
13
4
20
30
10
11
36
1
21
31
17
3
Tottp. Inoirg C TOC
CF) mq/1 «a/l
II
46
34
31
37
34
62
<0
67
61
68
62
68
M
68
63
60
58
37
SO
33
46
49
42
41
44
48
44
48
43
41
43
49
33
49
39
se
81
42
58
«4
63
62
32
38
40
33
34
35
30
20
30
48
39
38
39
32
22
41
23
25
42
22
313
44
19
19
47
28
29
43
20
18
47
31
31
21!
23
It
41
30
31
23
16
19
39
27
24
20
20
20
27
20
20
22
18
la
16
19
14
12
21
ia
IS
21
IS
13
22
17
IS
22
16
13
30
16
13
20
15
13
19
13
13
16
13
13
19
14
16
29
11
20
22
19
11
«3
34
30
27
M^'«
10.0
1.9
l.S
11.3
1.3
1.2
12.0
1.7
1.8
4.9
4.7
2.3
2.8
3.4
3.4
13.8
3.4
3.1
3.8
16. a
1.4
1.4
17. S
3.9
4.4
16.7
U7
1.4
12.3
3.0
2.3
13.2
1.9
8.1
3.7
(.1
2.C
2.1
7.3
1.2
0.7
8.1
1.1
0.7
11.0
l.S
1.0
13.4
2.0
1.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
OI9 N
2.1
1.6
1.3
l.S
1.4
1.4
l.S
1.1
1.0
2.0
1.3
2.7
2.4
2.0
l.S
3.S
3.1
3.3
1.4
4.3
3.8
2.0
2.3
2.7
2.9
4.3
1.9
1.3
3.6
1.3
1.6
.3
.3
U4
2.4
2.0
1.9
l.S
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
O.I
0.9
0.9
O.t
3.0
3.1
3.1
1.6-
NO.-M
O.t
1.5
l.t
0.7
10.7
10.7
o.g
10.3
10.1
e.s
t.6
10.7
8.4
10.9
10.3
0.3
10.1
10.2
10.1
0.4
14.9
14.4
0.4
9.7
9.3
0.3
16.2
19.9
0.7
9.4
10. «
0.9
10. S
a.s
9.8
S.9
11. »
11.1
1.1
7.3
4.2
0.3
a!s
0.3
0.3
(.7
0.2
0.4
».S
1.1
0.6
1.4
8.4
7.4
NO,-
J°SL
O.I
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
O.I
0.4
O.I
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.3
0.3
1.1
1.6
0.9
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
1.4
O.tl
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.9
O.I
0.1
O.S
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
13.7
15.'4
IS.3
17.0
14.4
17.7
17-3
16.9
20.2
18.7
18.3
16.2
21.2
19.5
19.2
29.7
19.8
17.S
21.7
17.8
13.3
14.9
17.4
14.4
13.8
20.4
17.3
16.0
21.1
17.7
16.8
11.3
1
-------
Shortly after the seeding procedure, there was evidence
of a biological growth occurring on the surfaces within
the pilot clarifier, the center column, side walls, and in
the overflow weir box from the clarifier. This periphyton-
like growth was also very evident in the open drain channel
in the floor of the pilot facility. It was characterized
by a very light fluffiness and settled poorly- Further,
it did not adhere very tightly to surfaces and readily
broke loose and washed out of the system with minimal
disturbance. Based on these observations, the initial
recycle over the oxidation tower was terminated to minimize
the hydraulic shear on the oxidation media in an effort to
establish this growth on the tower. A flow of 0.5 gallons
per minute was then pumped from the bottom of the clarifier
to the tower influent to return any settled solids.
The month of March was characterized by a very cool spring-
time condition; the average influent temperature to the
pilot plant was 47°F. In previous work (9), there have
been indications that the development of a nitrifying pop-
ulation is somewhat dependent upon temperature and this
could be a possible source for the problems experienced
at this point in the study. There was an additional average
drop in waste temperature across the pilot unit of approximately
4°F due to cooling effected by the packed tower.
There did not appear to be any other limiting characteristic
of the waste which might have caused difficulties in estab-
lishment of a nitrifying population. The carbon concentration,
nutrient levels, pH, and buffering capacity of the influent
waste were typical of a normal secondary sewage effluent with
nothing specifically limiting to nitrification.
16
-------
Near the end of March 1971, the analytical monitoring
indicated that there was a decrease in ammonia nitrogen
occurring across the pilot plant unit. This corresponded
with the appearance of a visible slime growth on the plastic
media. The system was definitely achieving high level
nitrification by the second week in April 1971. This per-
formance was maintained throughout the subsequent 18 months
of pilot operation and no further difficulties were
encountered in establishing or maintaining an actively
nitrifying system.
The establishment of a viable nitrifying population was
probably enhanced by seeding the system with a known source
of nitrifiers. It is difficult to conclude, however, that
nitrification would not have developed without such a
seeding procedure. Other work has indicated that there
were similar time lags in developing a viable nitrification
system (10).
It was unfortunate that the pilot plant startup took place
when extreme winter temperatures were prevalent since this
could have significantly retarded the establishment of a
biological growth.
REPRESENTATIVE PERFORMANCE
The performance of each operating period is summarized in
Table 3, showing mean values for key indicators. Detailed
results from study Period VIII (9/10-10/29/71) are provided
in Table 4. This six-week period during the fall of 1971
is representative of the general pilot plant performance
throughout the entire study program.
17
-------
TABLE 4
REPRESENTATIVE DATA - PERIOD VIII
Conditions: 9/10 to 10/29, 1971
Feed: 0.5 gpm/sq ft
Recycle: 1.0 gpm/sq ft
NH3-N
N03-N
N02-N
Organic-N
Total Nitrogen
TOC
Inorganic Carbon
Suspended Solids
Temperature
Concentration, mg/1
Tower
Influent
16.8
0.4
0.2
4.3
21.7
18.8
44.2
19.6
Tower
Effluent
1.4
14.9
0.5
2.7
19.5
14.0
18.6
18.0
Filter
Effluent
1.4
14.4
0.3
2.0^
18.1
12.4
19.0
3.3
65°F
61°F
The system was in a state of active nitrification with
greater than 90 percent conversion of influent ammonia
nitrogen throughout this period. There was a corresponding
increase in nitrate concentration across the oxidation
tower with minimal levels of nitrite nitrogen throughout
the system. There is very little nitrogen removal - rather
a conversion of ammonia to nitrate; the total nitrogen
concentration remains relatively constant across the tower.
Some organic nitrogen disappears - probably hydrolyzed
to NH3~N prior to nitrification. Throughout the entire
study there appears to be a residual concentration of
organic nitrogen of approximately 1-2 mg/1. The change
18
-------
in organic nitrogen across the tower corresponding to the
influent organic nitrogen concentration is shown in
Figure 3. Data represent mean values from Periods I-XVIII.
Additional work to achieve biological denitrification in
the mixed media filter will be discussed in a later section.
The oxidation tower functioned strictly as a nitrifying
system with little carbonaceous removal taking place. The
carbonaceous load to the tower was generally in the range
of 5-10 Ibs BOD5/1000 cu ft media/day. Throughout the
entire study, there was little decrease across the tower
in total organic carbon (TOC) or BOD,., the latter being
monitored only periodically. Coincident with this lack
of carbonaceous activity was a very low solids yield from
the nitrifying system. Throughout the entire program there
was very little generation of suspended solids from the
oxidation of ammonia nitrogen. The changes in inorganic
carbon indicated in Table 4 are probably directly related
to changes in the alkalinity and the buffering capacity
of the waste due to nitrification.
NITRIFICATION EFFICIENCY
Throughout the study periods there were some variations
in the influent concentration of ammonia nitrogen. Based
on mean values, this ranged from 7.0 mg/1 up to 18.5 mg/1.
The variations of the influent NH--N concentration over
the entire study period is shown in Figure 4. These variations
were directly related to groundwater infiltration into the
sewer system. The lower concentrations occurred during late
winter and springtime and the higher values during the dry
weather conditions of late summer and early fall.
19
-------
Organic Nitrogen Change 1
(DORG - mg/l) I
-4.0
100% Conversion Line
-3.0
2.0
1.0
Actual
Conversion
+ 1.0
0
1
1
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Organic Nitrogen Influent Concentration (mg/l)
FATE OF ORGANIC NITROGEN
IN A NITRIFYING TRICKLING FILTER
FIGURE 3
5.0
20
-------
NH3-N (mg/lT
40
30
20
10
3-14-71 7-18-71 11-21-71 3-26-72 7-30-72
Date
INFLUENT NH3-N CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 4
Irrespective of the influent ammonia nitrogen level or the
mode of tower operation, the lower limit of the ammonia
nitrogen concentration in the effluent of the oxidation
tower appears to be 1-2 mg/1. The data shown in Table 5
represent five different operating periods throughout a
one year period. The mean values of the final effluent
ammonia nitrogen concentration fall within the 1-2 mg/1
range. There were numerous days/ as shown in Figure 5,
for which the effluent concentration was <1 mg/1 of ammonia
nitrogen; however, as in most biological processes, there
were an equal number of days of values >1 mg/1. During
operation at optimum hydraulic conditions, the average
effluent values seemed to consistently fall between 1-2 mg/1
ammonia nitrogen.
Substrate limitation seemed to be the limiting factor rather
than a physical parameter such as nitrogenous loading, as
can be seen when comparing results from similar periods.
Despite considerable variation in influent ammonia nitrogen
21
-------
concentration for Periods II, VIII, and XV (11.3, 16.8, and
7.5 mg/1, respectively), the corresponding effluents con-
tained 1.3, 1.4, and 1.2 rag/1 NH«-N. This information leads
to the conclusion that at the hydraulic and nitrogen loadings
encountered, the optimum average final effluent concentration
will fall within the 1-2 mg/1 range.
TABLE 5
AMMONIA NITROGEN EFFLUENT LIMITATION
Operating
Period
2
3
8
11
15
Flow (gpm/sq ft)
Season
May
June
Oct.
Jan.
April
Feed
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.71
Recycle
1.0
0
1.0
1.0
0
NH0-N
Tower
Influent
11.3
12.0
16.8
13.2
7.5
(mg/1)
Tower
Effluent
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.2
HYDRAULIC APPLICATION RATE
Two widely used design parameters for trickling filters
are substrate loading (lbs/1000 cu ft media/day) and influent
hydraulic application rate (gpm/sq ft surface application
area). The pilot unit used in this study was constructed
in such a manner that the hydraulic rate could be changed
quickly and precisely whenever desired. Since chemical
additions were not considered, the influent ammonia nitrogen
concentration was limited to the limited range occurring
in the treated domestic sewage. Therefore, the only method
of significantly increasing the ammonia loading to the
trickling filter was to increase the influent feed rate.
Due to these limitations, the nitrification tower perform-
ance will be discussed in terms of hydraulic loadings with
passing reference to substrate loadings.
22
-------
15
NH3-N (mg/l)
12
0
A A/
A Tower Influent
• Tower Effluent
• Filter Effluent
Mean
11.8
1.5
1.0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cumulative Percent Of Occurrence
90 95
CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF OCCURRENCE OF NH3-N:
PERIOD VIII
FIGURE 5
23
-------
According to the data in Table 6, there is a definite
relationship between hydraulic loading and nitrification
performance. Figure 6 illustrates that effective (>80
percent) nitrification is not feasible at influent feed
rates much greater than 1.0 gpm/sq ft. Performance drops
off rapidly as the influent feed approaches 2.0 gpm/sq ft.
At the ammonia nitrogen concentrations encountered, 80
to 90 percent nitrification is achievable at influent feed
rates under 1.0 gpm/sq ft. The inverse proportion relation-
ship (increasing performance with decreasing influent feed
rate) is characteristic of previous experience with carbon-
aceous oxidation in trickling filters. The effects of
higher ammonia nitrogen influent concentration are not
yet clearly defined, A critical consideration that was
extensively evaluated is temperature. The effect of temper-
ature on the hydraulic loading-nitrification performance
is discussed in a later section.
TOWER DEPTH
In an effort to locate the most active areas of the nitri-
fying tower, several profiles of nitrogen species were
developed by collecting samples at intermediate tower depths.
The ammonia nitrogen profile, when plotted from two different
operating conditions as shown in Figures 7 and 8, indicates
that the total media depth (21.5 feet) would be required to
achieve an effluent ammonia nitrogen concentration of 1-2
mg/1.
The curves suggest that at these conditions, additional
media depth would have little effect on the ammonia nitrogen
concentration in the final effluent. Even fairly low influent
24
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OP PERIODS II, IV, VI, AND XV
Period
II
XVIII
V
VI
IV
Date
5/4 - 5/14/71
6/23 - 7/19/72
7/15 - 8/6/71
8/10 - 8/17/71
6/15 - 6/30/71
Flow
Inf.
0.5
0.71
1.0
1.5
2.0
(gpm/sq ft)
Recycle
1.0
0
0
0.5
0
Sample
Location
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
NH3-N
11.3
1.3
13.4
2.0
13.3
2.5
14.6
3.4
13.1
4.9
NH,-N Loading %
Lb/M cu ft/Day Efficiency
3.1 89
5.2 85
7.3 82
12.1 77
14.5 63
-------
-N Conversion
Depth = 21.5 Feet
90
80
70
60
50
0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.0
Raw Feed Application Rate (GPM/Sq Ft)
INFLUENT HYDRAULIC APPL8CATION RATE
vs NITRIFICATION PERFORMANCE
FIGURE 6
concentrations (which provide low nitrogenous loadings)
did not enable the trickling filter to consistently achieve
<1.0 mg/1 ammonia nitrogen in the effluent.
Some thought was given to operating a second pilot tower
in series with the existing installation, but this was
not done because of limitations of time and funds.
RECYCLE
In an effort to achieve the maximum performance from the
nitrification tower, considerable work was done on the
effects of recirculation of the tower effluent. The results
of several periods utilizing recycle (summarized in Table 7)
26
-------
Influent = 0.71 gpm/sq ft
Recycle = 0.0
mg/l
ln Tower Deptn = 2\ .5 Ft. Qut
June 1972
12
10
8
6
4
Influent = 0.71 gpm/sq ft
Recycle = 0.0
N03-N
In Tower Depth = 21.5 Ft.
August 1972
Out
NITRIFYING TOWER NITROGEN SPECIES PROFILE
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 8
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF RECIRCULATION EFFECTS
M
00
Period Date
I April 71
II May 71
XI Jan. 72
XIV March 72
XVIII July 72
Flow (gpm/sq ft) Sample
Influent Recycle Location
0.5 0 Influent
Effluent
0.5 1.0 Influent
Effluent
0.5 1.0 Influent
Effluent
0.71 0.5 Influent
Effluent
0.71 0 Influent
Effluent
NH^-N Conversion
10.0 81
1.9
11.3 89
1.3
13'2 86
1.9
15.0 83
2.6
13'4 86
2.0,
-------
were rather inconclusive. In general, recycling the tower
effluent did not significantly improve the overall nitrifi-
cation performance of the system. Although several periods
with recycle do exhibit slightly improved efficiency (see
Figure 9), other periods of comparable operation show the
effect of recycle to be negligible.
Considering all of the variables which influence the
efficiency of nitrification, such as temperature, influent
applications, etc., it is reasonably evident that adjust-
ment of tower recycle is not alone sufficient to consistently
provide low concentrations of ammonia nitrogen in the final
effluent. The increased pumping costs associated with
high recycle systems would probably negate any benefits of
improved efficiency. However, since most waste treatment
facilities have diurnal variations in flow volume, it is
a general practice to design trickling filters with recycle
capacity to maintain adequate and stabilized flow applications
during low flow periods. The benefits of recycle are more
a means of achieving consistent stabilized operation rather
than high level performance.
TEMPERATURE (SEASONAL)
The pilot plant was operated continuously over an 18 month
period to evaluate all seasonal conditions. It had been
previously seen that nitrifying bacterial populations are
extremely sensitive to low temperatures. It was imperative,
therefore, to evaluate the nitrification performance during
both summer and winter conditions.
Cumulative performance over a wide range of operating
conditions from two distinct temperature conditions is
shown in Figure 10. Clearly illustrated is the three-way
29
-------
j NH3-N (mg/l) I
1 M— I, ii "
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
j" ] Influent
V////k Effluent (No Recycle)
| Effluent (With 1.0 GPM/
Sq Ft Recycle)
Infl. • 1.0 GPM/Sq Ft
A
Infl. " 0.5 GPM/Sq Ft
B
EFFECT OF RECYCLE ON NITRIFICATION PERFORMANCE
FIGURE 9
30
-------
Conversion
90
80
70
60
Summer
Waste Temperature
(« 65°F)
Winter \
Waste Temperature
(* 44°F)
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
0.5 1.0
Raw Influent Hydraulic Application Rate, (GPM/Sq Ft)
LOADING-TEMPERATURE-PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIP
OF A NITRIFYING TRICKLING FILTER
FIGURE 10
-------
relationship between temperature, hydraulic loading, and
percent nitrification. The effect of cold weather on
nitrification performance, very evident at moderately high
flow rates, is significantly reduced at lower hydraulic
application rates.
One of the major reasons for the need for efficient nitri-
fication is related to the total oxygen demand (TOD) contained
within a municipal sewage effluent. Since ammonia nitrogen
has a high oxygen demand, it is necessary to convert the
ammonia to the most completely oxidized nitrate form prior
to discharge to alleviate upset of the oxygen balance within
the receiving body of water. A comparison of the performances
during Periods III and XII (differing significantly only
with respect to operating temperature) is summarized in
Table 8. The performance was significantly reduced at
the lower temperature.
It is important to note that high level nitrification efficiency
was attained during the coldest winter months operating at
influent waste temperatures as low as 37°F. This was accom-
plished by operating the system at a moderately low influent
hydraulic application rate. Since the overall volume of
media required to achieve a given effluent quality is directly
related to the influent waste application rate, the effect of
temperature could have a significant bearing on the total
capital economics of a given installation. If a system was
to be designed for high level performance throughout the
year, i.e. producing an effluent of 1.5 mg/1 of ammonia
nitrogen at a treatment facility located in a northern
climate, the system design would have to be based on a
relatively low influent feed rate. Conversely, if winter
32
-------
TABLE 8
EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE ON PERFORMANCE
Period Date
III June 71
XII Feb. 72
Flow (gpm/sq ft) Sample
Influent
1.0
1.0
Recycle Location
0 Influent
Effluent
0 Influent
Effluent
NH,-N
,3 ~
12.0
1.7
15.5
6.1
Temperature
(°F)
57 ,
54
48
44
-------
conditions were not going to be experienced, the same effluent
requirements could be achieved at a greater application
rate, reducing the required trickling filter volume and
corresponding costs.
The biological nitrification tower exhibits good design
flexibility. The system can be designed for seasonal
variations in effluent quality. A system designed for
economical operation to provide high level treatment for
summer conditions would continue to provide nitrification
at a lower conversion level during the winter months. Even
if high level nitrification is required on a year-round
basis, a properly designed biological oxidation tower is
capable of providing nitrification in the range of 90 percent
conversion with a final effluent concentration of 1-2 mg/1.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS RELATIONSHIP
Biological nitrification systems are known to be dependent
upon the development of late-stage biological nitrifying
populations. For this reason, the pilot plant was initially
established with a clarifier to accept all of the discharge
from the oxidation tower. It was felt that it would be
necessary to recirculate the biological solids collected
in this clarifier back to the oxidation tower to provide
the aged growths necessary for active nitrification. Addi-
tional solids capture was provided by the final mixed media
filter. The initial high solids backwash from the mixed
media filter could be returned to the oxidation tower to
assure the maintenance of late-stage nitrifying populations.
The pilot scale clarifier was used during the initial periods
of operation. It soon became evident that very few, if
any, suspended solids were sloughing from the nitrification
34
-------
tower and subsequently little sludge was accumulating in
the clarifier return. The minimal net solids production
of the nitrifying tower is illustrated by the information,
from six different operating periods, included in Table 9.
These data represent a variety of operating conditions
in virtually all seasons of the year.
Previous work has shown that the nitrifying oxidation reac-
tion is a relatively low solids yield process (11) - the low
net solids production across the nitrifying tower would sub-
stantiate this. It is known that during the oxidation of
carbonaceous material there is a definite increase in bio-
logical matter which ultimately purges itself from the bio-
logical reactor. In the case of nitrification, with very
little solids generated and virtually no carbonaceous activity,
the suspended solids quality of the tower effluent (prior to
settling) was generally no worse than that of the system influ-
ent. It is important to note that the pilot trickling filter
was operated at a constant hydraulic flow rate during each
period. Whenever the system was changed to evaluate new hy-
draulic flow rates, significant solids sloughing was observed
for 2-3 days while the biomass adjusted to the new hydraulic
shear conditions.
The visible growth on the plastic media during the nitrifi-
cation study was described as a tough, thin, grayish-brown
slime which did not apparently follow the characteristic
buildup and subsequent sloughing evident in filters operating
in carbonaceous oxidation. It is evident that this nitrifying
slime was essentially retained on the surfaces of the plastic
media tower. After the first three periods of operation
the effluent from the oxidation tower was pumped directly
to the mixed media filter without intermediate clarification.
35
-------
TABLE 9
SUSPENDED SOLIDS RELATIONSHIPS
Flow (gpm/sq ft)
Period
I
III
IV
VII
VIII
X
Date
April 71
May 71
June 71
Aug. 71
Sept. 71
Dec. 71
Feed
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
Recycle
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
Tower Inf .
21
13
22
24
20
15
Tower Eff. Clarifier Eff.
18 12
13 9
17
28
18
12
Filter Eff.
-
-
7
4
3
3
-------
The oxidation tower can achieve efficient nitrification
without a net change in the suspended solids concentration
of the waste. In cases where the existing suspended solids
quality is acceptable, a strict nitrifying tower effluent
may be discharged or sent to tertiary solids polishing
facilities without conventional clarification. This is in
contrast to suspended growth (activated sludge) biological
nitrifying systems where due to the suspended nature of the
bacterial population, a clarifier is required for efficient
manipulation of the mixed liquor suspended solids and food-
to-microorganism ratios. It has been shown that in sus-
ended growth stage nitrification, the net solids produced
across the nitrifying stage is also negligible but the
clarifier is still needed for operation of the system (11).
SOLIDS RECYCLE
During Periods VI and VII, an attempt was made to recycle
solids from the clarifier to the oxidation tower to maintain
a high solids contact system. The original thinking was
that this would be necessary for achieving the late-stage
biological growth necessary for nitrification. Since it
was found active nitrification was occurring without solids
recycle, the major emphasis was then to recycle solids
in an effort to achieve a higher level of performance.
Few solids were generated in the system so it was not possible
to maintain a consistently high solids recycle. A gradual
buildup of solids in the clarifier provided opportunity to
recycle solids for one week in Period VI. During this
time the suspended solids concentration in the tower effluent
was maintained at roughly 85 mg/1. This was a four-fold
increase over the influent suspended solids concentration.
37
-------
Nitrification was relatively poor during this period, with
an effluent concentration of 3.4 mg/1 ammonia nitrogen.
The subsequent Period VII during which the solids concen-
tration was maintained at a level of approximately 30 mg/1
showed an effluent concentration in the range of 4.5 mg/1
ammonia nitrogen.
On the basis of this limited examination of solids recycle
and the fact that the system was actively nitrifying without
solids recycle, it was concluded that solids recycle was
not needed to achieve nitrification and did not provide
any improvement in overall performance. Recycling organic
solids over the oxidation tower could actually prove
detrimental. It is possible that solubilization of organic
material could occur in the oxidation process and produce
additional ammonia nitrogen and organic oxygen demand with
detrimental effects on the final effluent quality. No
further work was done with recirculation of settled solids
during the current research program.
MIXED MEDIA FILTRATION
Many locations which will require nitrogen control might
also be required to meet very low final effluent suspended
solids standards. Therefore, the pilot plant system included
a mixed media filter to study liquid-solids separation of
the tower effluent. This would also assure complete solids
capture from the pilot plant system should it be necessary
to recirculate the suspended material to establish the
late-stage growths needed for efficient nitrification.
The mixed media filter was installed to accept flows either
directly from the oxidation tower or from the clarifier.
38
-------
The filter selected for this study was a tri-media pilot
scale downflow pressure filter. It contained filter material
of anthracite coal, silica sand, and garnet sand ranging
from 1.2 nun down to 0.2 mm and specific gravities from 1.5 to
4.5. The filter is graded such that large particles of low
density are at the top and small particles of high density
are at the bottom. The general volumetric proportions
of media were approximately 10 percent high density sand,
30 percent silica sand, and 60 percent anthracite coal.
The 20-inch diameter, 5-foot side-shell-length filter was
equipped with fixed distribution surface wash and a lateral
pipe underdrain system. The average design flow rate was
approximately 5 gpm/sq ft cross-section area.
At the time of sizing the pilot plant equipment, nominal
operating conditions were estimated to be in the range
of 10-15 gpm. As the study progressed, it was obvious
that the operating range for the oxidation tower was something
less than 10 gpm. As a result, the mixed media filter
was operated at flows consistently below its full design
rate. Virtually all of the performance data for the mixed
media filter was obtained at flow rates of 3.0 gpm/sq ft
or less. (For example, when the pilot oxidation tower is
operated at 0.5 gpm/sq ft, the maximum flow to the mixed
media filter would be only 1.6 gpm/sq ft.)
In view of these limited operating conditions, it is under-
standable that, as shown in Table 10, the mixed media filter
achieved very efficient removal of suspended solids. The
efficiency of the mixed media filter for solids removal,
under a variety of conditions, is shown in Figure 11.
39
-------
TABLE 10
MIXED MEDIA FILTER OPERATING
CHARACTERISTICS
Characteristic Approximate Value
Pressure: Post-Backwash 1.0 psi
Pressure: Pre-Backwash 6.0 psi
Backwash Frequency Every 48 hours
Backwash Volume 375 gal. in 10 rain
(2.5% of flow volume)
Backwash Procedure 1. 2 rain surface wash
2. 8 min surface and backwash
The pressure filter was operated on a run cycle based on
a 10-foot head loss. At the application rates used in
this study of 3.0 gpm/sq ft or less, filter runs in
excess of 48 hours were common, even when accepting flow
directly from the nitrification tower.
Due to the physical limitations of the pilot plant equipment,
the most significant finding of the mixed media filtration
work was the fact that it was possible to accept unclarified
oxidation tower effluent without detrimental effects on
unit operation. This was largely due to the low net solids
production of the nitrifying tower.
DENITRIFICATION STUDIES
Total nitrogen removal or combined nitrification and denitri-
fication will be required in some locations. The trickling
filter nitrification system alters the nitrogen species
balance (converting NH3-N to NO--N) but does not remove
nitrogen from the waste stream. Several processes are
available to remove the nitrate ion; these denitrification
processes include biological denitrification reactions
or various chemical-physical systems.
40
-------
Suspended Solids, (mg/l)
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
VI
A
\ Mean Filter Effluent
V
_L
_L
J L
J L
_L
_L
J L
J
VII VIII IXA IXB
XI XII
Period
XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX
MIXED MEDIA FILTER SOLIDS REMOVAL PERFORMANCE
FIGURE 11
41
-------
The mixed media filter used for solids separation provided
a. chamber essentially devoid of atmospheric oxygen. A
study was incorporated into the existing research program
to evaluate biological denitrification. Objectives of
this study were evaluation of any deleterious effects on
filter performance due to the establishment of a biological
denitrifying growth in the filter chamber; determining
if there was adequate residence time within the mixed media
filter* and observing if filter backwashing would interfere
with continuous denitrification. This work spanned a 3.5
month period during the summer of 1972, and was limited
in scope. It did not investigate the effect of temperature
on the denitrification process nor evaluate dissolved oxygen
levels of the final denitrified effluent.
Previous work has established that methanol is a feasible
carbon source to sustain a biological denitrification
process (12). In this process the nitrate ion becomes a
chemical oxygen supply for the anoxic oxidation of the
carbonaceous material by facultative denitrifying bacteria.
The resultant nitrogen gas discharges to the atmosphere.
Based on work by McCarty (12), it was decided to supply
3.5 mg methanol/mg nitrate nitrogen for the reaction. The
sophisticated equipment necessary to maintain this precise
ratio was not immediately available. An average nitrate
nitrogen concentration was assumed (15 mg/1) and a constant
feed rate of 52.5 mg/1 methanol was used. Since the actual
nitrate nitrogen concentration into the mixed media filter
averaged approximately 9 mg/1 during this study period,
the process was operating at 65-90 percent excess theoretical
carbon.
42
-------
The methanol addition to the mixed media filter was con-
trolled incrementally to allow the system to acclimitize.
Over a period of 3 days, the methanol feed to the mixed
media filter was gradually increased from 0 to 52.5 mg/1.
After an acclimitization period of 4 weeks, a high level
of denitrification was being achieved in the mixed media
filter and continued until termination of the methanol
feed.
During May, June, and most of July 1972, the denitrification
process averaged >95 percent nitrate nitrogen removal; the
overall system operated at >85 percent total nitrogen
removal. The final effluent contained an average 1-3 mg/1
of total nitrogen. This was comprised primarily of residual
ammonia and organic nitrogen fractions which were unaffected
by the denitrification process.
The denitrification process, as illustrated by the nitrate
nitrogen probability plot in Figure 12, was very stable.
No biochemical xipsets were observed. The process did react
adversely to a brief shutdown of the methanol feed, as
is apparent in the data from Period XVIII. Recovery to
the former high level of performance, however, was rapid.
The final effluent suspended solids levels during the denitri-
fying periods were indicative of the capacity of the filter to
simultaneously denitrify and remove suspended solids from
the waste stream. The operating characteristics of the mixed
media filter, however, were significantly altered with the
establishment of denitrification. Major changes occurred
in the filter run time, backwash volume, and operating
head loss, but continuous and effective operation was
maintained throughout the study.
43
-------
12.0
A Tower Influent
• Tower Effluent
• Filter Effluent
Mean
0.3
9.0
0.2
Deviation
0.4
1.1
0.2
N03-N (mg/l)
9.0
6.0
3.0
A I A A
0.01
0.1
2 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cumulative Percent Of Occurrence
90 95
NO3-N CONCENTRATION PROBABILITY - PERIOD XVII
FIGURE 12
-------
Several pertinent facts about the mixed media filter operation
preceding and following the establishment of denitrification
are provided in Table 11. The frequency of backwashing
changed from 2-3 days prior to Period XV to only 24 hours.
Then it became imperative (due to high head loss) that the
filter be backwashed. Additionally, the backwash volume to
"clear" the filter was doubled. The previous procedure of a
two minute surface wash and eight minute surface wash-backwash
cycle had to be performed twice in sequence for each backwash
during denitrification. These conditions changed the backwash
volume from the previous 2 percent of total flow to 10 percent
of total flow.
The nature of the backwash changed also. In previous oper-
ations an initial short run produced very dark backwash,
followed by increasing clarity until a rather clear backwash
stream was obtained. During denitrification, no initial
"slug" was noticed. Rather, there was a brown stream (with
what appeared to be fine particles) that cleared very slowly,
even after 20 minutes of backwash.
During a period of high level denitrification, an experiment
was conducted to determine the nature of the atmosphere
within the mixed media filter chamber. Just prior to back-
washing the sewage flow was stopped. The filter was tapped
and connected to a gas sample bomb; the pressure in the
filter was sufficient to flush out the flask and collect
a one liter gas sample. The analytical results from mass
spectroscopy are presented in Table 12, and compared to
a similar analysis conducted five weeks after termination
of the denitrification process. The 6 mole percent oxygen
45
-------
TABLE 11
EFFECTS OP DENITRIF1CATION ON MIXED
MEDIA FILTER OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Appr OK iiua t e Va 1 ue
Post-Backwash Operating Pressure
Pre-Backwash Operating Pressure
Filter Run Time
Backwash Volume
Backwash Procedure
3,
4,
Prior to
p^nitrificatiori
1 psi
5-6 psi
48-72 hours
375 gal./10 min
(2,5% of flow
volume)
2 min surface wash
8 min surface
backwa.sh
During
Denitr_ificatron
3 - 5 psi
12 - 15 psi
24 hours
750 gal./20 min
(10% of flow
volume)
2 min surface wash
8 min surface
backwash
2 min surface wash
8 min surface
backwash
-------
could partially be the result of air contamination. The
15 percent methane fraction strongly suggests the presence
of a methanogenic bacteria. It has been observed that
the denitrifying bacteria apparently adhere to the media
and are not flushed out during backwashing. Such may well
be the case for the methanogenic bacteria, providing the
extended residence time necessary for such organisms to
function effectively.
TABLE 12
MIXED MEDIA FILTER GAS SAMPLES
Concentration, Mole Percent
During After
Denitrification Denitrification
7/7/72 8/28/72
Carbon Monoxide - 0.36
Carbon Dioxide 0.40 1.10
Methane 15.50 0.27
Nitrogen 77.61 97.15
Oxygen 5.71 0.21
Argon 0.77 0.91
The denitrification process was terminated by eliminating
the carbon source (the methanol feed was shut off). The
operating characteristics of the mixed media filter,
however, were sluggish in their return to former values.
A residual of the biomass created by the methanol addition
probably still remained in the filter chamber. This would
contribute to the slow improvement in head loss and backwash
characteristics noted. After several weeks, the filter
returned to levels typical of its operation prior to denitri
fication.
47
-------
In view of the physical limitations of the mixed media
unit, it was not possible to make realistic quantitative
evaluations of the operating characteristics of the combined
mixed media/denitrification process. The main contribution
of the denitrification study was the clearly evident result
that biological denitrification can occur without interruption
in a mixed media filter undergoing intermittent backwash.
Backwashing does not wash out the denitrifying populations
and efficient denitrification continues in a stable fashion.
The two processes (trickling filter nitrification and mixed
media filter denitrification) were shown to be compatible
and produced the consistent, high quality effluent desired.
CARBONACEOUS LOADING
As previously indicated, the pilot plant nitrification
tower was operated as a strict nitrifying stage subsequent
to efficient carbonaceous BOD^ removal in conventional
secondary treatment. The influent feed during the contract
period was consistently below 25 mg/1 BOD5 and total organic
carbon .values were below 25 mg/1. The total organic carbon
concentration of the pilot plant influent throughout the
study periods is shown in Figure 13.
It is evident that this system was operated at a very low
carbonaceous loading. Even at maximum hydraulic application
rates attained during the contract period, the carbonaceous
BOD5 loading was less than 15 lbs/1000 cu ft media/day-
From the data in Figure 13, it can be seen that very little
carbonaceous oxidation was occurring through the pilot
plant system and that the unit was operating as a strict
nitrifying stage. This was further confirmed by the
minimal suspended solids generation discussed earlier.
48
-------
TOC (mg/l)
100
Influent
Effluent
50
3-14-71 7-18-71 11-21-71 3-26-72 7-30-72
Date
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON OCCURRENCE
FIGURE 13
Prior to termination of the pilot plant operation, some
work was done with the carbonaceous loading to the oxidation
tower. The loading was doubled by taking feed from an
intermediate point in the municipal facility which contained
BOD5 concentrations in the range of 40-60 mg/l. During this
operation, the pilot scale clarifier was reinserted into
the system following the trickling filter to accept the
expected increases in suspended solids from the tower.
During limited evaluations at these conditions, the high
level of nitrification (approximately 90 percent) did not
deteriorate. An increase in suspended solids coming from
the oxidation tower was evident as shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13
SUSPENDED SOLIDS CHARACTERISTICS DURING
SIMULTANEOUS CARBONACEOUS AND NITROGENOUS OXIDATION
Sample Location Suspended Solids, mg/l
Tower Influent 28
Tower Effluent 58
Clarifier Effluent 19
Mixed Media Filter Effluent 4
49
-------
The suspended solids concentration in the unsettled tower
effluent during this period was significantly greater than
that generally noted throughout the rest of the contract. The
fact that suspended solids generation was higher (along
with limited results showing increased carbonaceous BOD
removals across the oxidation tower) suggests that simul-
taneous carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxidation was occurring.
This brief evaluation indicates that simultaneous carbona-
ceous and nitrogenous oxidation is compatible in the pilot
scale trickling filter. It is likely that at some point,
the degree of carbonaceous oxidation (due to increased
BODj. loading) would be such that the related suspended
solids generation and subsequent tower sloughing could
create a washout of nitrifying bacteria and decreased nitri-
fication effectiveness. Even under these conditions, the
nitrification could possibly be maintained with adequate
solids clarification and recirculation. These aspects were
not clearly defined due to the limited scope of this study.
CHLORINATION OF NITRIFIED SEWAGE
During the course of the contract, there was considerable
speculation on possible relationships between ammonia
nitrogen concentration and the final chlorination process
used by many wastewater treatment facilities. The efficiency
of disinfection by chlorination is greatly diminished by
the formation of chloramines; the biocidal activity of mono-
chloramine may be 1/25 to 1/50 the activity of free chlorine
(in the form of HOC1). Monochloramine is the major product
formed in the reaction between chlorine and the ammonia
present in most conventional sewage treatment plant effluents.
50
-------
A study was designed to determine the stability, biocidal
activity, and residual fish toxicity of chlorinated nitri-
fied domestic sewage. This study included comparative
chlorination of both nitrified and non-nitrified discharges
(pilot plant influent vs. pilot plant effluent). Static
96-hour bioassays were conducted under typical sewage plant
disinfection conditions. Chlorine residuals and bacteria
counts were determined at appropriate intervals throughout
the disinfection period.
Tests were conducted by adding varying amounts of chlorine
to one liter aliquots of sewage (tower influent or effluent).
After 15 minute contact time, the chlorine residuals were
measured. Bioassays were then conducted in 1:10 dilutions
of the waste with fresh Lake Huron water. The test organism
was the common fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas).
Fish survivals were determined over a 96-hour period. Total
bacteria and/or total coliforms were plated at 5 minute
intervals over the initial 15 minute contact. Chlorine
residuals were measured at identical times, and additionally
after 24 hours.
Total available chlorine was determined by colorimetric
and ampereometric methods. Excess sodium iodide (0.2 g/25
ml) was added in both methods to determine total available
chlorine as liberated iodine. The ampereometric method
used was described in Standard Methods. The colorimetric
method is based on measurement of the tri-iodide species
at a wavelength of 352 millimicrons using a Beckman Model
DBG Spetrophotometer. The results from the two methods
correlated closely. (No iodate interference could be
observed below pH 10 using this large excess of iodide.)
51
-------
Total bacteria counts were determined by dilution in sterile
solutions of sodium hyposulfite, followed by direct plating
on nutrient agar as described in Standard Methods. Similarly,
total coliforms were determined using endo agar.
Lower fish toxicities and improved bacteriological disinfec-
tion were obtained for nitrified samples as opposed to
non-nitrified samples as shown in Tables 14, 15, and 16.
At the higher chlorine concentrations there was evidence
of breakpoint chlorination, or nearly complete oxidation
of ammonia, in the nitrified sample. Chlorine residuals
and chlorine demands were affected markedly by the concen-
tration of stable monochloramine. These results are likely
the result of the nitrified tower effluent containing lower
concentrations of ammonia nitrogen, producing a mixture of
chloramine (NH2C1) and free chlorine (in the form of HOC1) ,
whereas the tower influent had sufficient ammonia nitrogen
to form predominantly chloramine.
The effects of chlorine residuals on fathead minnow survival
are shown in Table 14. At chlorine concentrations above
5 mg/1, partial or complete fish kill was observed for
tower influent samples. Tower effluent samples showed partial
or total fish kill at 8 mg/1 chlorine and above. In each
case there was a direct correlation between 24-hour chlorine
residual and percent fish kill. At 25 mg/1 chlorine concen-
tration (slightly beyond the breakpoint for this sample),
no fish kill was observed with the nitrified effluent. The
free chlorine residual (which is known to be highly toxic
to fish) was apparently too short-lived to produce fish
kills in these 48-hour static tests.
52
-------
TABLE 14
EFFECT OF CHLORINE RESIDUALS ON FATHEAD MINNOW SURVIVALS
Tower Influent (mg/1)
Tower Effluent (mg/1)
UJ
Chlorine
Concentration
(mg/1)
4
5
6
8
10
15
Initial
Residual
0.28
0.33
0.40
0.74
0.72
1.1
24 Hour
Residual
0.02
0
0.04
0.13
0.18
0.31
% Fish
Survival
(48 Hour)
70
100
60
10
0
0
Initial
Residual
0.2
0.1
-
0.47
0.38
1.0
24 Hour
Residual
0.03
0
-
0.10
0
0.23
% Fish
Survival
(48 Hour)
100
100
-
70
50
0
25
0.46
(Breakpoint)
0.08
100
-------
TABLE 15
EFFECT OF CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS AND RESIDUALS ON TOTAL BACTERIA
Tower Influent
Tower Effluent
Ui
Chlorine
Concentration
(mg/1)
0
4
6
8
15
25
Chlorine
Residual
15 Min
(mg/1)
2.4
3.6
5.4
-
-
Percent Kill
5
Mins
7.5 x
98.0
98.0
98.0
-
-
10
Mins
15
Mins
Residual
15 Min
(mg/1)
10 Bacteria/ml
, 99.3
>99.9
>99.9
-
-
99.7
>99.9
>99.9
-
-
2.0
-
4.4
10.0
4.6
Percent Kill
5
Mins
1.0 x
>99.9
-
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
10
Mins
15
Mins
10 Bacteria/ml
>99.9
-
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
-
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
-------
TABLE 16
EFFECT OF CHLORINE CONCENTRATIONS AND RESIDUALS ON TOTAL BACTERIA
Tower Influent
Tower Effluent.
ui
Chlorine
Chlorine Residual
Concentration 15 Min
(mcf/1) (mq/1)
0
5 3.3
10 7.2
15 10.8
25
Percent Kill
5 10 15
Mins Mins Mins
4.5 x 106 Bacteria/ml
99.0 99.5 >99.9
>99.9 >99.9 >99.9
>99.9 >99.9 >99.9
Residual
15 Min
(mg/1)
1.4
3.8
1.8
11.3
Percent Kill
5
Mins
7.5 x
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
10
Mins
15
Mins
A
10 Bacteria/ml
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
-------
The initial results of disinfecting non-nitrified tower
influent and nitrified tower effluent are summarized in
Tables 15 and 16, respectively. Prior to disinfection,
nitrified tower effluent showed both lower total bacteria
and lower total coliform counts than tower influent by
nearly an order of magnitude. As shown in Table 16, 4 mg/1
chlorine was more effective in reducing total bacteria
counts in nitrified tower effluent than in tower influent.
At 5 mg/1 chlorine, total coliform counts were also more
efficiently reduced in nitrified tower effluent, as shown
in Table 16.
The data presented here are rather limited in scope; no
attempt was made to draw further quantitative predictions
from this work.
OPERATING STABILITY
Biological nitrification in suspended growth (activated
sludge) systems has been characterized by highly unstable
performance. Considerable work has been done in evaluating
the numerous interferences which have a dramatic effect on
nitrifying systems (13). Virtually all dynamic conditions
which influence operation of conventional carbonaceous
oxidation systems have even more pronounced effects on
nitrifying systems. This is one of the reasons why efficiently
operated conventional plants still do not achieve any stable
degree of nitrification.
Throughout the 18 months of pilot plant operation, the
trickling filter nitrification tower proved to be a highly
stable process. There were no noticeable biochemical upsets
encountered in the study. All of the variations in nitri-
fying efficiency were related to ohysically induced operational
56
-------
modifications and efficiency variations due to temperature
changes. On at least two occasions during the contract
period, there were flow interruptions to the oxidation
tower which caused additional physical upsets to the
nitrifying system. One of these disruptions in early July
1971 lasted three days. The oxidation media was without
hydraulic application and consequently experienced severe
drying conditions. Contrary to the initial startup problems,
the pilot plant system returned to efficient nitrification
levels within a matter of days subsequent to the resumption
of flow. Another feed malfunction in early January 1972
necessitated the operation of the tower on complete recycle
for several days. One week after resumption of the influent
feed the tower was again achieving 90 percent nitrification.
The data show that the overall performance of the oxidation
tower nitrifying system is extremely stable when operating
at optimum conditions. Even when the pilot tower is being
operated at conditions other than optimum (see Figure 14),
the system continued to nitrify in a stable manner albeit
at a lower level. This is in contrast to other conventional
biological nitrification systems (activated sludge) where
a minor disruption in operation can create a dramatic loss
of nitrifying capability until the correct controlling
parameters are adjusted.
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Based on 18 months of continuous pilot plant operation under
a wide variety of operating conditions, it is possible
to establish nitrification design guidelines for plastic
media trickling filters. The key design consideration
which provides a practical basis for sizing full-scale
57
-------
20.0
A Tower Influent
• Tower Effluent
• Filter Effluent
Mean Deviation
12.3 4.3
3.0 1.3
2.3 1.2
NH3-N (mg/l) )
16.0
10.0
6.0
0.01 0.1 12 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Cumulatlva Percent Of Occurrence
90 95
NITRIFICATION STABILITY AT 76% CONVERSION
(MEAN)
FIGURE 14
58
-------
installations is the influent waste hydraulic application
rate. Once the influent application rate has been estab-
lished, a total media volume can be determined directly
from the volume of flow to be treated for nitrification,
assuming a set of conditions for other controlling factors
such as waste temperature, tower depth, degree of treatment
required, degree of prior carbonaceous removal, and absence
of inhibiting toxic components. A summary of design consider-
ations is shown in Table 17 for a combination of the actual
operating conditions experienced in this research program.
These considerations are also provided in Figure 15.
It has been established that scale-up to full-scale facilities
is realistic and valid (14). This is based on considerable
prior experience involving the utilization of this plastic
media in similar pilot plant installations operated for
carbonaceous BOD removal. Full-scale installations generally
will perform as well as or better than controlled pilot plant
investigations.
ECONOMICS
The cost of a full-scale plastic media oxidation tower is
directly related to the volume (in cubic feet) of plastic
media. Installations are generally based on an installed
price per unit volume of fabricated media. Although the
unit price for plastic media varies, a reasonable estimation
on the order of $2.00/cu ft delivered and installed. Repre-
sentative costs for plastic media at various media volumes
are shown in Figure 16.
In 1967, a study was made of the construction cost for
towers utilizing SURFPAC® biological oxidation media. This
was accomplished by taking various sized units from 6000
to 700,000 cu ft of media and selecting typical supporting
59
-------
TABLE 17
DESIGN GUIDELINES
Basis:
A. Waste stream contains no significant nitrification
inhibitors.
B. Influent NH^-N concentration <25 rag/1.
C. Carbonaceous loading <15 Ibs BOD5/1000 cu ft media/day
D. Media depth =21.5 feet
E. Relatively constant total hydraulic flow.
F. Influent Feed Rate
(gpm/sq ft)
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.5
Nitrification Performance
90
85
80
75
G. These values are valid for wastewater temperatures
>60°F. Figure 15 illustrates the effect of wastewater
temperature on these guidelines.
H. Media:
27 sq ft/cu ft
94% void volume
60
-------
% Nitrification ]
100 r—
90
80
70
60
Waste Temperature
(65°F)
\
\
\
.t
I
I
\ Waste Temperature
\ (44° F)
I
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Influent Hydraulic Flow (GPM/Sq Ft)
TRICKLING FILTER DESIGN GUIDELINES
FIGURE 15
and containing structures that would be required. Estimates
were made of the quantities of construction materials,
mechanical equipment, excavation, etc. Construction costs
were applied to derive total costs for the structures.
Major equipment costs were obtained from manufacturers.
The cost curve shown in Figure 17 was prepared from this
information for a tower with a media depth of 21.5 feet.
It is indicative of the estimated costs for structural and
mechanical equipment required for variable volumes of media
exclusive of the media cost itself.
61
-------
1000.—
Media Volume (1000 CuJjjJ
100
10
I
I
I
1.70 1.80 1.90 2.00 2.10 2.20
Installed Media Cost ($/Cu Ft)
2.30
2.40
APPROXIMATE UNIT COSTS OF PLASTIC BIOLOGICAL
OXIDATION MEDIA (INSTALLED)
FIGURE 16
62
-------
1000,—
600
400
Media Volume (1000 Cu Ft) j
200 {-
100
60
40
20
10
Structure And Mechanical
Equipment Only
I
Construction Costs - March 1968
Kansas City Base
i i i i I i i_
10 20 40 60 100 200 4006001000 2000 4000
Cost ($1000)
CONSTRUCTION COST vs MEDIA VOLUME FOR 21.5 FT DEPTH
FIGURE 17
63
-------
This general graph for structural and mechanical equipment
was assumed to be in earth, and no allowance was included
for rock excavation. No allowance was made for unusually
wet excavation conditions where dewatering would be required.
If piling must be used or special foundation conditions
exist, the additional cost must be added to the figure
obtained from the cost curve.
The wall structure utilized for these estimates was based
on a fiberglass corrugated panel and steel framework. The
media support system was based on aluminum grating. The
cost of the center column and appropriate rotary distributor
is included but no allowance was made for a pumping station.
The estimate includes contractors overhead and profit but
does not include any engineering and legal fees.
A cost estimate obtained from this curve must be updated
using one of the generally accepted cost indices. These
costs were based on construction costs in the Kansas City,
Missouri, area in March 1968. Experience has shown that
updating of these costs can be accomplished by utilizing
the Engineering News Record construction cost index published
weekly and at mid-month by Engineering News Record. The ENR
index for March 1968, at Kansas City, Missouri, was 1064.
64
-------
VI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This contract was performed by personnel of Dow Chemical
U.S.A., Midland, Michigan, 48640. The support of other
persons in related areas within The Dow Chemical Company
contributing to this contract include those of the Midland
Division Analytical Laboratories, Environmental Control
Systems Technical Service & Development, Government Affairs
Contract R&D, and Engineering and Construction Services.
Specific individual acknowledgments are made to Earl E. Noyes,
Project Technician; and Dr. Stacy L. Daniels, Data Analysis.
The support of the City of Midland, Michigan, for their
willingness to supply test facilities and specific contri-
butions by wastewater treatment plant superintendent
Arthur Maas and assistant superintendent Larry Dull.
Mr. Edwin F. Earth served as Project Officer for the Office
of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency.
65
-------
VII
REFERENCES
1. Earth, E. F., Mulbarger, M., Salotto, B. U., and
Ettinger, M. B. , Removal of Nitrogen by Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants, J. Water Pollution Control
Federation 38, 1208-19 (1966).
2. Johnson, W. K., and Schroepfer, G. L., Nitrogen Removal
by Nitrification and Denitrification, J. Water Pollution
Control Federation 36, 1015-1036 (1964).
3. Courchaine, R. J., Significance of Nitrification in
Stream Analysis - Effects on the Oxygen Balance,
J. Water Pollution Control Federation 40, 835-47 (1968).
4. Wezernak, C. T., and Gannon, J. J., Evaluation of
Nitrification in Streams, J. of Sanitary Engineering
Division, ASCE, 94 (SA5) 883-895 (1968).
5. O'Connel, R. L., and Thomas, N. A., Effect of Benthic
Algae on Stream Dissolved Oxygen, J. of Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE, 91^ (SA3) 1-16 (1965) .
6. Gameson, A.L.H., Some aspects of the Carbon, Nitrogen,
and Sulphur Cycles in the Thames Estuary. II. Influences
on the Oxygen Balance, Symposia of the Institute of
Biology, No. 8, The Effect of Pollution on Living
Material, Institute of Biol., London, England, p 51ff
(1959).
7. Earth, E. F., Brenner, R. C., and Lewis, R. F.,
Chemical-Biological Control of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
in Wastewater Effluent, J. Water Pollution Control
Federation 40^, 2040-54 (1968).
8. Germain, J. E., Economic Treatment of Domestic Waste by
Plastic-Medium Trickling Filter, J. Water Pollution
Control Federation 38, 192-203 (1966).
9. Jenkins, S. H., Nitrification, Water Pollution Control 6_,
610-618 (1969).
10. Mechalas, B. J., Allen, III, P. M., and Matyskiela, W. W.,
A Study of Nitrification and Denitrification, Federal
Water Quality Administration, Water Pollution Control
Research Series, No. 17010DR07/70, July 1970, p 9.
67
-------
11. Miilbarger, M. C. , Nitrification and Denitrification
in Activated Sludge Systems, J. Water Pollution
Control Federation 43, 2059-70 (1971).
12. McCarty, P. L. , Beck, L., and St. Amant, P-, Biological
Denitrification of Wastewaters by Addition of Organic
Materials, Proc. 24th Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ.,
Eng. Ext. Series 135, 1271-85 (1969) .
13. Wild, Jr., H. E., Sawyer, C. N., and McMahon, T. C.,
Factors Affecting Nitrification Kinetics, J. Water
Pollution Control Federation 43, 1845-54 (1971).
14. Gerlich, J. W. , Better Than the Pilot Model, The American
City, Buttenheim Publishing Corp., New York, New York
(October 1967).
15. American Public Health Association, Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water, Sewage and Industrial
Wastes. 12th Edition, New York, 1965.
68
-------
VIII
PUBLICATION AND PATENT DISCLOSURE
Submitted to the Journal Water Pollution Control Federation
for publication: "Application of Plastic Media Trickling
Filters for Biological Nitrification," Duddles, G. A.,
Richardson, S. E., and Earth, E. F.
Invention disclosure filed: Communication by Sidney J.
Walker, The Dow Chemical Company, to Benjamin H. Bochenek,
Environmental Protection Agency, on October 4, 1972, titled
"Synthetic Media Trickling Filter Biological Nitrification
Process," Duddles, G. A., and Richardson, S. E., Dow Inven-
tion Disclosure D-24250.
69
-------
IX
APPENDIX - PERIOD ANALYSES
71
-------
Group 1 - Period I - Days 4/13/71 - 4/30/71
to
TOWER FLOH » 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE • O.CO GAL/HIN/FT2
PATIO * 0.00
FILTER FLOW - 3.50 GAL/MIN
OTHER ANALYSES
DAY
103
104
105
106
110
111
112
113
117
118
119
120
• * •
< SS, MG/L H TOC, MG/L
TI
25.
17.
9.
17.
**•*
30.
24.
22.
16.
9.
8.
****
16.
SS
TOC
SOC
TE^P
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE
CE
7. 8. **** 35. 28. ****
14. 11. **** 24. 17.
6. 4. »*»* 23. 17.
11. 12. **** 22. 22.
**** »**« **** 37. 24.
29. 15. **** 27. 22.
»«** ***« **** 25. 18.
6. 5. ***** 33. ****
12= 9. ****• 27. 20.
B. 7. **** 25. 21.
9. 6. *«*« 27. 24.
10. 9. **** **** 30.
11. 9. **** 28. 23.
= SUSPENDED SOLIDS
* TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
=» SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
» TEMPERATURE
* TOWER INFLUENT
» TCwER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
* FILTER INFLUENT
« FILTER EFFLUENT
» MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN
DETERMINED FROM PR08ABIL
18.
16.
13.
22.
19.
17.
16.
20.
20.
24.
24.
19.
H
FE
****
****
****
****
****
*<<**
****
»* + *
****
****
****
****
****
ANALYSES
ITY
PLOTS
SOC, MG/L
TI
****
<•***
****
****
«***
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
***«
AND
TE
***«(,
****
****
****
****
*$**
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
OTHER
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*** +
+ ***
****
****
H
FE
****
****
****
****
*«**
****
****
* + **
****
****
****
****
****
TEMP, F }
TI
49.
50.
51.
51.
52.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
TE
46.
46.
49.
48.
50.
47.
47.
46.
48.
49.
46.
49.
48.
FI
****
****
****
****
****
<•***
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
»*»
DAY
HEAN ANALYSES.
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR
=• CALENCAR DAY (JANUARY I,
UNRELIABLE
DATA
CALCULATED FROM
1971 - DAY 1)
-------
Group 1 - Period I - Days 4/13/71 - 4/30/71
TCWER FLOW *
RECYCLE »
RATIO *
FILTER FLCW -
NITROGEN ANALYSES
0.50 CAL/MIN/FT2
0.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
0.00
3.50 GAL/MIN
DAY
103
104
105
106
110
111
112
113
117
1 18
119
120
e • •
( NH3-N, MG/L M ORG-N,
TI
9.7
8.0
9.1
9.0
10.2
10. 1
9.3
10.1
9.5
9. 7
12.8
13.5
1 0.0
NH3-N
ORG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
ce
Fl
FE
TE CE FE TI
1.& 1.8 **** 2.6
1.7 1.8 *»** 0.6
1.9 1.6 **** 1.9
1.7 1.5 **** 1.2
2.1 2.2 **** 4.4
1.8 2.4 **** 1.1
1.8 2.0 *•** 3.5
1.6 2.0 ***» 2.2
1.7 1.6 **** 4.4.
1.7 1.8 **** 1.2
2.5 2.6 **** 0.7
2.7 1.5 **** 2.1
1.9 1.9 «*«* 2.1
* AMMONIA NITROGEN
* ORGANIC NITROGEN
» NITRATE NITROGEN
« NITRITE NITROGEN
= TOTAL NITROGEN
= TOWER INFLUENT
* TCHER EFFLUENT
" CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
* FILTER INFLUENT
" FILTER EFFLUENT
TE
1.1
0.5
0.5
2.1
2.4
1.3
2.2
2.2
3.1
1.4
1.0
2.0
1.6
MG/L
CE
1.2
0.7
1.6
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.7
***«
1.7
1.1
2.1
1.5
1( N03-N,
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
* + **
****
****
****
TI
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
TE
7.7
7.5*
6.9
8.2
8.4
8.5
8.5
9.7
9.7
8.8
9.3
9.5
8.5
MG/L
CE
8.3
6.0
6.9
8.1
9.6
8.4
8.5
9.5
9.7
9.3
8.2
9.3
8.4
»( N02-N,
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
»***
****
****
* + **
****
****
:•> + **
TI
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
TE
0.3
0.3
0.3
O.I
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
MG/L
CE
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
)l
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
1 TOT-N,
TI
13.3
9.6
12.0
10.9
15.6
11.8
13.5
13.3
15.1
11.5
14.0
16.0
13.0
TE
10.7
10.0
9.6
12.1
1^.3
11.9
12.8
13.8
14.8
12.3
13.2
14.7
12.4
MG/L
CE
11.7
8.8
10.4
12.0
13.8
12.9
13.0
13.7
14.9
13.2
14.4
13.2
12.4
J
FE
****
****
+ ***
****
****
****
****
****
****
«***
****
****
**+*
***
DAY
MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
PEAN ANALYSES.
MISSING, UNDEFINEDt AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 » DAY I)
-------
Group 2 - Period II - Days 5/4/71 - 5/14/71
TOWER FLOW = 0.50 GAL/M IN/FT2
RECYCLE - 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO » 2.00
FILTER FLCW « 3.50 GAL/M IN
OTHER ANALYSES
DAY
12*
125
126
127
131
132
133
13*
...
(
TI
18.
19.
4.
15.
11.
7.
5.
21.
12.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEHP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
SS, MG/L M TOC,
TE CE FE TI TE
5. 8. **** 31. 24.
9. 6. **** 35. 23.
5. 5. **** 46. 37.
5. 3. **** 29. 25.
1. 4. **** **** ****
7. 6. **** 51. 33.
4. 2. **** 4*. 38.
14. 30. *»** 48. 28.
6. 8. **** 41. '30.
" SUSPENDED SOLIDS
» TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
* SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
« TEMPERATURE
* TOWER INFLUENT
« TOWER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
" FILTER INFLUENT
- FILTER EFFLUENT
MG/L
CE
28.
26.
31.
24.
****
37.
39.
32.
31.
)« SOC, MG/L )(
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
* MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY
**»
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND
MEAN ANALYSES.
PLOTS
TI
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
AND
TE
****
+***
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
CE
**«*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
FE
****
***«
****
****
*<•**
****
* + **
****
****
I TEMP, F J
TI
53.
53.
54.
54.
56.
55.
54.
55.
54.
TE
49.
50.
51.
52.
54.
53.
49.
51.
51.
FI
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
OTHER ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR
" CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
UNRELIABLE
DATA
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROM
1, 1971 » DAY 11
-------
Group 2 - Period II - Days 5/4/71 - 5/14/71
Ln
TCWER FLOH - 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - 1.00 CAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO - 2.00
FILTER FLCW » 3.50 GAL/M IN
IITRCGEN ANALYSES
IAY ( NH3-N, MG/L M ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-N, MG/L
TI
2* 13.6
25 11.1
.26 10.6
.27 5.8
.31 11.1
.32 12.2
.33 13.8
.34 12.6
11.3
NH3-N
ORG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
Tl
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
1.4 1.2 **•* 1.6 2.4 1.2 **** 1.6 10.7 10.7
1.2 1.2 ***» 0.5 1.9 1.9 **** 0.3 10.8 10.7
1.9 1.6 •*** 1.1 0.6 1.8 **** 0.2 10.7 10.7
0.4 0.3 **** 4.5 1.6 1.0 **** 1.9 11.7 11.7
0.3 0.2 **** 1.3 1.5 1.4 **** 0.5 11.6 11.6
0.4 0.2 ***• 0.6 0.9 l.l **** 0.3 10.9 10.9
4.9 4.8 *+** 1.4 1.1 1.0 **** 0-4 9.0 8.7
0.6 0.6 **** 1.4 1.9 1.9 **** 0.6 10.8 10.7
1.3 1.2 »*** 1.5 1.4 1.4 **** 0.7 10.7 10.7
« AMMONIA NITROGEN
* ORGANIC NITROGEN
* NITRATE NITROGEN
= NITRITE NITROGEN
= TOTAL NITROGEN
= TOMER INFLUENT
- TCWER EFFLUENT
= CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
« FILTER INFLUENT
" FILTER EFFLUENT
)( N02-N, MG/L M TOT-Nt
FE
****
****
***+
****
****
**+*
****
** + *
****
TI
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
TE
.3
.2
.1
.1
.2
0.1
0
0
0
.1
.2
.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CE FE
.3 ****
.3 ****
.1 ****
.1 ****
.2 ****
.1 ****
.1 ****
.3 ****
.1 ****
TI
16.9
12.0
12.0
12.5
13.0
13.2
15.7
14.3
13.7
TE
14.8
14.1
13.3
13.8
13.6
12.3
15.1
13.5
13.8
MG/L
CE
13.4
14.1
14.2
13.1
13.4
12.3
14.6
13.5
13.5
1
FE
****
****
****
****
+***
****
****
****
****
» HEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FPOM PROBABILITY PLOTS. HEAN VALUES
FCR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
**•
DAY •
MEAN ANALYSES.
» HISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
- CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 * DAY 1!
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 5 - Period III - Days 5/18/71 - 6/11/71
01
TOWER FLOW » 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE » 0.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO * 0.00
FtLTES FLOW » 5.00 GAL/MIN
OTHER ANALYSES
DAY
138
139
140
141
145
146
147
153
154
155
159
160
161
162
...
( SS, MG/L )( TOC, MG/L
TI
30.
20.
10.
15.
8.
11.
7.
12.
10.
7.
35.
3.
4.
3.
12.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE
8. 2. **** 32. ****
40. 15. **** 16. 9.
t. 18. **«* 14. 13.
20. 14. **** 19. 16.
5. 5. **»* 19. 20.
6. 6. **** 23. 17.
7. 11. **** **** 18.
9. 10. *»** 21. 18.
7. 8. **«* 33. 14.
24. 1C. **** 18. 15.
38. 16. **+* 13. 5.
I. «*** *»** 32. 12.
2. 1. **** 29. 24.
2. 3. **** 33. 27.
13. 9. *»** 23. 16.
- SUSPENDED SOLIDS
- TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
- SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
" TEMPERATURE
* TOWER INFLUENT
» TOWER EFFLUENT
- CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
» FILTER INFLUE'JT
* FILTER EFFLUENT
CE
34.
13.
13.
17.
16.
17.
16.
16.
14.
17.
18.
20.
23.
29.
19.
H SOC, MG/L )l
FE
****
****
*->**
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**«*
****
****
****
TI
****
***<=
****
****
«***
****
****
****
****
*****
****
****
****
***+
****
TE
*$**
**«*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
+ ***
****
****
****
****
****
CE
***$
****
*<>**
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
* + *»
****
FE
****
****
*«**
****
****
****
****
*«**
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
1 TEHP, F )
TI
58.
59.
57.
55.
55.
54.
54.
****
56.
57.
58.
59.
58.
58.
59.
TE
55.
57.
54.
52.
53.
51.
51.
» + **
54.
55.
56.
57.
55.
55.
57.
FI
****
****
«***
•****
****
****
****
****
****
****
***«
****
****
** + *
**»*
DAY
MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
MISSINGt UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY {JANUARY 1, 1971 - DAY 1)
-------
Group 5 - Period III - Days 5/18/71 - 6/11/71
TCWER FLO* * 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - 0.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO - 0.00
FILTER FLOW « 5.00 GAL/MIN
NITROGEN ANALYSES
DAY
133
139
140
HI
145
146
147
153
154
155
159
160
161
162
9 e »
( NH3-N, HG/L M ORG-N, MG/L H N03-N» MG/L
TI
10.9
8.5
11.6
13.2
8.3
13.0
12.1
13.8
13.0
12.0
13.1
13.2
13.5
13.1
11. I
NH3-N
ORG-M
NQ3-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
« . A
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
1.2 1.9 **** 2.9 1.1 0.4 **** 0.2 9.3 9.0
1.3 1.8 »*** 3.1 0.7 0.5 **** O.I 9.4 9.3
1.3 1.2 **** 0.7 1.2 1.0 **** 0.2 9.3 9.3
0.8 1.2 »*** 2.0 1.0 1.3 **** 0.2 9.2 10. 0
2.0 1.1 »*** 1.0 1.0 1.2 **** 0.6 9.6 9.3
1.9 2.0 «»»* 1.5 1.1 1.3 *»** 0.6 9.6 9.3
2.0 2.3 **** 1.9 1.3 0.5 **** 0.3 9.4 9.4
2.0 1.9 **»* 2.4 1.1 1.4 **** 0.6 10.8 10.3
1.8 1.8 *»** 1.6- 1.2 0.5 **** 2.0 11.5 11.5
0.9 1.2 *»»* 0.7 1.3 0.8 **** l.l 12.9 13.2
1.2 1.2 **** 0.1 1.0 1.4 **** 1.2 13.4 12.8
2.0 2.0 **** 1.2 1.3 1.4 **** 0.9 10.3 8.7
2.0 1.9 *»** 1.6 1.6 l.l **** 0.4 9.8 9.4
3.1 3.2 **** O.I 1.4 l.l **** 0.9 10.5 9.8
2.3 2.3 **** 1.0 1.2 1.4 **** 1.9 10.2 10.3
» APMONIA NITROGEN
= ORGANIC NITROGEN
» NITRATE NITROGEN
= NITRITE NITROGEN
* TCTAL NITROGEN
» TCWER INFLUENT
» TOWER EFFLUENT
=• CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
» FILTER INFLUFNT
« FILTER EFFLUENT
H
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*<•**
****
***«!
****
****
I N02-N, MG/L
TI
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
TE
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
CE
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.4
1.0
1.2
M TOT-N,
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**#*
****
*«**
**.**
****
*»**
TI
14.1
11.8
12.6
15.5
10.0
15.2
14.4
16.9
16.7
14.0
14.6
15.4
15.6
14.1
13.1
TE
12.1
12.0
12.5
11.8
13.2
13.2
13.3
14.6
15.0
15.4
16.0
14.2
14.1
15.5
14.3
MG/L
CE
12.3
12.4
12.2
13.5
12.4
13.3
12.8
14.3
14.3
15.8
15.8
13.8
13.8
15.1
15.2
I
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
****
****
* MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES
FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
***
DAY
WEftN ANALYSES.
» MISSING, UNDEFINEOt AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
» CALENCAR OAY {JANUARY 1, 1971 * DAY IS
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 8 - Period IV - Days 6/15/71 - 6/30/71
CO
TCWE?. FLOW » 2.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE = O.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC * 0.00
FILTER FLCW » 5.00 GAL/HIN
OTHER ANALYSES
DAY
166
167
168
169
173
174
175
176
180
181
...
( ss, MG/L M TOC,
TI
11.
11.
8.
«»»*
7.
*«*«
«****
15.
11.
2.
22.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
...
TE CE FE TI
2. **** 1. 39.
9. «*«* 3. «***
9. ***» 4. 27.
41. **»* #*** 29.
34. **** 3. 45o
««*« *««* **** 28.
*«** »*** **** 52.
17. **** 7. 36.
21. *»** 8. 51.
3. **** 1. 43.
17. **** 4. 39.
* SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TE
31.
17.
18.
23,
35.
20.
34.
27.
•30.
38.
27.
MG/L
CE
«««*
«***
****
****
****
****
$***
****
****
****
****
) ( SOC ,
FE TI
26. ****
17. ****
19. ****
19, ****
36. ****
21. ****
31. ****
24. ****
31. ****
11. ****
24. ****
TE
**$*
**«*
****
****
**«*
«***
«i***
****
****
****
****
MG/L
CE
***«
****
****
****
****
****
***#
****
****
*** +
****
H
FE
$***
***»
****
«$*«!
****
**+*
****
****
****
****
+ ***
1 TEMP, F S
TI
60.
61.
«***
61.
61,
62.
62.
62.
65.
64.
62.
TE
58.
58.
****
59.
59.
59.
60.
60.
63.
62.
60.
FI
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
= TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
« SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
» TEMPERATURE
= TCWER INFLUENT
= TCWER EFFLUENT
= CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
* FILTER INFLUENT
" FILTER EFFLUENT
= MEAN VALUES FOR NI
TROGEN ANALYSES AND
OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES
***
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
« MISSING, UNDEFINED
AND
SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
, AND/OR UNRELIABLE
* CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
It 1971
- DAY 11
DATA
1
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROH
-------
Group 8 - Period IV - Days 6/15/71 - 6/30/71
TOWER FLOW « 2.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - 0.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO * O.CO
FILTER FLOW - 5.00 GAL/M IN
NITROGEN ANALYSES
CAY
166
167
168
169
173
174
175
176
180
181
• • *
< NH3-N, PG/L ){ ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-N, MG/L )(
TI
12.8
13.4
13.9
13.2
14.5
13.1
13.4
13.4
10.7
12.7
13.1
NH3-N
ORG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
...
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
6.1 **** 6.0 2.4 1.3 **** 1.2 0.2 7.1 **** 6.2
5.1 »*** 4.6 0.2 1.3 **** 1.2 0.3 7.3 **** 7.0
6.7 +*»* 6.1 1.6 0.4 **** 0.1 0.2 7.4 **** 7.6
5.5 **** 5.3 0.8 1.1 **** 0.1 O.I 8.4 **** 7.8
5.2 **** 5.3 0.9 3.7 **** 1.3 1.5 9.8 **** 9.4
3.5 **** 4.1 1.6 3.9 **** 1.6 1.7 10.3 **** 10.1
4.9 »*** 4.4 1.5 2.5 **** 1.5 1.6 9.4 **** 10.3
4.2 **** 4.5 1.2 2.C **** 0.9 1.6 10.4 **** 10.2
5.5 **** 4.7 1.6" 2.4 **** 1.5 1.5 8.8 **** 8.9
3.0 **** 2.7 1.5 1.7 **** 1.9 3.1 10.3 **** 9.1
4.9 *»*+ 4.7 1.3 2.0 **** 1.3 1.1 8.9 **** 8.6
- AMMONIA NITROGEN
* ORGANIC NITROGEN
* NITRATE NITROGEN
» NITRITE NITROGEN
* TCTAL NITROGEN
~ TCWER INFLUENT
= TOWER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
» FILTER INFLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUENT
» HEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
! N02-N,
TI
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.2
TE
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.7
0.6
HG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
){
FE
.9
.1
.0
.0
.6
.9
.7
.8
.6
.1
.8
I TOT-N, MG/L )
TI
15.6
14.1
15.9
14.3
17.2
16.7
16.7
16.4
14.4
17.6
15.7
15
14
15
15
19
18
17
17
17
15
16
TE CE
.1 ****
.4 ****
.2 ****
.6 ****
.4 ****
.4 ****
.4 ****
.2 ****
.9 +***
.7 ****
.5 *+**
FE
14.3
13.9
14.7
14.1
16.6
16.7
16.9
16.4
15.7
14.8
15.4
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
»**
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
=« MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
• CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 « DAY 1)
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 5 - Period V - Days 7/15/71 - 8/6/71
1.00 CAL/MIN/FT2
RECY1L
? 4 T I P
.00
.00
'•.4L/MIN/FT2
b.OG GAL/1 IN
CTHE">
CD
O
CAY
196
197
202
2C3
20-8
209
210
211
21*
216
217
218
• • *
(
TI
7.
1C.
1.
1.
6.
7.
2.
A.
22.
<>.
22.
13.
10.
SS, '
r?
41.
28.
I.
}.
It. .
S.
S.
?f.
24.
Ife .
34.
2?.
U.
"C/L
CE
**»»
»*»»
**»4
»***
«***
**4 *
****
****
«»**
**4*
4*4*
**44
4*44
)(
FE
A.
3.
?.
I.
44*4
44**
4444
4***
*4t4
«***
***4
4*44
2.
TPC, KG/L
TI
30,
30.
23.
22.
31.
13.
11.
8.
If..'
17.
17.
20.
20.
TE
20.
2A.
IP.
20.
11 .
7.
11.
10.
It.
4444
2C.
23.
20.
CE
****
****
44**
****
****
****
****
****
****
***«
****
****
****
)l
FE
20.
20.
21.
20.
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
20.
1 SOCi HG/L M
TI
****
****
***«
****
****
****
****
****.
****
****
****
**+*
****
TE
****
****
****
**»*
****
4***
444*
****
*«**
****
4*4*
4*4*
*4*4
CE
****
***4
444*
4*44
****
4**-4
444*
44*4
444*
4*4*
44*4
4444
4*4*
FE
****
444*
444*
**4*
****
****
4*4*
4***
4444
444*
*4«*
4*4*
****
TEKPt F »
TI
68.
67.
66.
67.
68.
66.
65.
66.
67.
66.
67.
67.
68.
TE
60.
60.
62.
62.
62.
61.
61.
60.
61.
60.
61.
62.
63.
FI
****
444*
4444
444*
****
4***
****
****
4*4*
444*
4444
444*
4***
SS
TOC
TtVf
TI
Tc
Cr
FI
FE
50LIUS
= T 0"P?R£TUur
CARF'ON
EFFL1)C'II
CL'illFICK FFrLUENT .
FILTER MFLUVIT
ULTER EFFI Ui 4T
M^AN V«Li.'£S FOK NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
peTt^INrn FK.H PROBAOILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
CU\LITY !?.[-K.UORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
***
CAY
".I3SINC, l%!t,dFIMzO, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
r,AY (JANUARY 1, 1071 » DAY 1)
-------
CO
3 .', T I "
F I L T £ "
MTariTN /'.
CAY
196
107
202
203
208
20")
210
211
215
216
217
218
• • e
( '-I
Tl
13.6
I ? .<•
12.2
13.1
13.3
13.-.
13.4
12.0
12.i
14. T
1 3.C-
1 3.7
15. C
M'3-'.
C^ ~>-'l
N3^-'i
N02-'i
TOT-':
TI
TI
Cc
FI
FF
Group 5 - Period V - Days 7/15/71 - 8/6/71
FLf.s. = 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
- - 0.19 GAL/MIN/FT2
r: . 0 0
FLr* = S.CO GAL/VIM
*L v S ^ 3
'3-i. VG/l ) (
T ^ c E r t
1.1 •**» 0.9
2. ? **** 2.7
3.4 4«»* 2.9
4.? »t#* 4.4
7 . H **»* 7.4
3.0 «»** *«•<•*
2 .*> **** »» **
1.9 *«*« ***A
l.c, «»** **»*
»*i-t »»<.* **4*
3.p «»*» **<•*
|.7 » »* « ***»
2.5 ***» ****
= 'i"MC*. 1 A Ml *P
= •" RGAMC f:I T^J
= 1 ITSATE Ml TPI
= \IT«ITE MITPl)
= rcT AL N i ri'^r, c
= Tl Jr. R If, FLMr'j
= If1'. E^ EFFLDF1.
= L L A R 1 F I E K C F F
= t- ILTP 3 I'. FLU:
= KILTER ETFLUr.
')R(
Tl
1.2
2.3
2.1
1.2
0 .9
2.0
0 .4
1.1
1.9-
1 .4 '
1 .3
I .2
0.7
[-,£•,)
G f. N
GEN
GfN
>i
r
T
LUENT
JT
•JT
... = ye AN VALI|L: s H:R vj I
«* »
D&Y
I.?T E°.P INM: f-
'.'i • AL n Y i fii. ic
K = A N A i\ A I Y r, f: S
« f iss INC, U.M.I
* CALENDAR DAY
i-N, MG/L )( N03-N,
TE CE FE
4.3 **** 5.4
5.5 **** 3.0
1.6 **** 1.6
I. 3 **** C.6
2. t **** 1.7
1.0 «r*** ****
2.2 **** ****
2.q **** ****
1.7 * 18.9
**** 16.8
**** 17.0
**+.* 17.0
TE
17.6
17.7
14.4
15.1
14.9
16.6
18.8
18.3
16.8
****
18.2
17.3
19.2
MG/t )
ce FE
**** 17.7
**** 12.3
**** 13.8
*+** 14.5
**** 14.1
**£* «4*t
***» ****
***«, ****
<.*** **»*
*»#* ****
*4>** ****
*44* ****
**** +***
TROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
i.M PRPRABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
iTDRS ANC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
.
r I'j-n
, ANCVOR tfJREL
(JANUARY 1, 1971 *
IARLH DATA
DAY 1)
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROM
-------
Group 7 - Period VI - Days 8/10/71 - 8/17/71
l.SC
CTH£
DAY
222
2?3
224
2?5
2?9
R T C Y C. L £ = U . b 7
" A T [ " = 0.17
MLT'-3 FLTw = 5.00
=» 4 \' A !. Y S t j
(
T[
<-t.
1 1.
1?.
15.
• »« *
21.
SS
T^C
sec
TEVP
SS, vr/L )(
re CE ft
152. 13. * « » *
ll/. !<.. *»»*
^>3. 2. ****
J->. 8. ****
«*e» »»* « «***
«".. 10. **»»
= SUSPENCEU SOL
= 1 ri AL r RI;/.":'IC
= S TLU^LE fRCA'--
= ;F^PEPATO.^b
r,AL/M
r,AL/W
IN/FT2
IN
TOC, MG/L
TI
?5.
20.
35.
24.
30.
27.
IDS
Ci^O
1C CA
I
TE
22.
14.
20.
2C.
22.
20.
U'l
RBur;
CE
2?.
10.
29.
19.
22.
20.
>( SOC, MG/L M
FE TI
***« ****
««
-------
Group 7 - Period VI - Days 8/10/71 - 8/17/71
? a T
M Tarr.r\
1.SO GM./VIN/FT?
r.*>7 GAL/WIN/FT2
'J . 1 7
s.oc GAL/MIN
rc,cs
00
OJ
CAY
222
223
224
2?5
229
...
( '.H
TI
15.P
13. C
14. P
14.2
IS.?
14.6
r"f.-v
NC1^-1:
\T2-'I
TOT- 1
TI
TE
ce
Ft
qc
<- ••, "G/L )( 1RG-N,
TE CE Fe TI TE
3.R 3.6 »*** 0.2 1.7
2.6 2.9 **»* 0.1 l.C
3.4 3.6 **** O.I l.t
2.'i 3.4 ***» 3.2 2.4
4.3 3.7 **** 3.3 2.7
3.4 3.4 **»* 2.4 2.C
= ORGANIC MTPl-GEN
= :.IT«AT£ MTi>riGEN
= •: I TRITE 'JlTRfiGcM
= TOTAL MTTG^N
= TCWER IWFLl'E'iT
= If-JE-t EFFL^F'-tT
= CLA'UFISf' EFFLUENT
= FILTt? I'iHLDi \T
= FILTER EFFLUL-^T
KG/L
CE
1.5
1.8
1.3
2.4
2.2
1.8
)(
FE
****
****
****
+ ***
****
t*«*
... = vfa\ V>LUtS FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES
«**
DAY
r.ETfc^M'jf I; F-T5K "ROOAP
(.'J^LITY IM ICATO«
-------
Group 6 - Period VII - Days 8/18/71 - 9/3/71
00
CTHE
CAY
230
231
232
236
237
?38
239
243
244
245
246
...
TOWE3 FLOW - 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
=>ECYCLE • 0.57 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO a 0.57
FILTER FLCW « 5.00 GAL/MIN
R ANALYSES
( SS, HG/L )( TOC, MG/L
TI
23.
23.
40.
32.
4.
** **
17.
11.
23.
11.
25.
24.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE
31. 17. 10. 25. 24.
31. 17. 10. 28. 18-
10. 9. 1. 26. 19.
19. 17. 2. 23. 21.
16. 6. 2. 17. 16.
***« 15. 8. 18. 15.
46. 24. 1. 18. 16.
13. **** 2. 19. 15.
U. ***» 1. 22. 17.
8. **** 2. 23. 18.
I. **** 1. 24. 16.
28. 13. 4. 22. 18.
* SUSPENCEO SOLIDS
« TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
» SCLURLE ORGANIC CARBON
- TEMPERATURE
» TCWER INFLUENT
•* TCWER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
- FILTER INFLUENT
' FILTER EFFLUENT
CE
20.
21.
21.
19.
15.
13.
18.
****
****
****
****
18.
H
FE
24.
18.
21.
16.
15.
12.
14.
14.
16.
17.
14.
16.
... « MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS
** *
CAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND
MEAN ANALYSES.
SYSTEM
SOC, MG/L
71
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
***#
AND
TE
****
* + **
****
****
****
****
****
**.?*
****
***«•
****
****
OTHER
CE
****
****
**<•*
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
H
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
+ ***
****
****
****
**« *
****
TEMP, F !
TI
69.
69.
69.
68.
69.
68.
68.
67.
67.
67.
68.
68.
TE
64.
66.
64.
64.
64.
64.
63.
64.
64.
65.
66.
64.
FI
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
FOR EFFLUENT
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE
» CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
1, 1971
DATA
CALCULATED FROM
= DAY 1>
-------
Group 6 - Period VII - Days 8/18/71 - 9/3/71
00
Ul
TOWEP FLOW = 1.00 GA1/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE « 0.57 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATJC - 0.57
FILTER FLCW > 5. CO GAL/MIN
NITRCGEN ANALYSES
DAY
230
232
236
237
238
239
243
244
245
246
• . .
—
t NH3-N, MG/L )( ORG-N, MG/L M N03-N, MG/L H
TI
I4.a
1 i Q
1 ^ . T
13.2
16.4
15.2
16.1
17.7
16.3
17.0
16.7
16.1
15.8
NH3-N
CRG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
. • .
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
3.1 3.2 3.0 1.* 2.7 2.7 2.2 0.6 9.7 8.5 9.2
3.1 2.5 3.2 5.1 4.2 3.0 1.7 0.9 10.5 10.3 9.2
**** 4.2 4.1 **** 1.1 5.9 2.1 0.9 10.9 10.6 10. 0
3.9 A.I 3.9 2.2 5. A 5.3 1.1 0.6 10. A 10.0 10. 0
2.2 2. A 2.8 4.0 3.1 2.9 1.5 0.3 10.5 10.5 10.0
3.2 2-5 2. A 1.4 3.9 3.2 1.5 0.4 12. A 12.4 12.6
4.6 ***+ 5.0 5.8 3.4 **** 1.2 0.6 13.0 **** 13.0
5.2 **** 6. A 5.6 1.6 **** 0.5 1.0 13.0 **** 9.6
3. A **** 4.3 3.2 2.6 **** 1.5 0.9 12.7 **** 9.9
3.0 **** A.I 1.9 A. A **** 0.6 O.I 8.5 **** 10. 0
3. A 3.1 3.8 3.5 3.1 3.5 1.4 0.5 10.1 10.2 10.1
AMMCNIA NITROGEN
ORGANIC NITROGEN
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
TCTAL NITRCGEN
TOWER INFLUENT
TOWER EFFLUENT
CLAR1FIER EFFLUENT
FILTER INFLUENT
FILTER EFFLUENT
- MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
N02-N*
TI
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
O.I
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
TE
1.3
1.8
0.3
1.6
1.5
1.6
****
0.1
0.3
****
1.1
MG/L
CE
1.5
1 7
1 . i
1.8
1.4
2.0
1.5
1.6
****
+ ***
****
****
1.6
)
FE
0.8
1 h
L » O
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.9
a. 7
****
O.A
1.2
1.1
0.9
1
17
?f>
f. \j
19
30
18
20
19
23
23
21
16
20
TOT-N,
TI
.1
•j
. c.
.9
.2
.4
.7
.8
.0
.8
.0
.2
.2
TE
16.8
1 A ?
1 O . t
19.6
18.0
21.3
17.3
21.1
21.0
19.9
19.0
15.9
18.7
MG/L
CE
15.9
154
i -> . ^
17.6
22.1
21.4
17.3
19.7
****
****
****
****
18.5
1
FE
15.2
1 U 7
£"t . £
15.4
17.2
16.0
15.2
17.2
19.2
16.9
16.9
15.8
16.2
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
• *•
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
ME4N ANALYSES.
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
- CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 » DAY I)
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 2 - Period VIII - Days 9/10/71 - 10/15/71
00
CTl
TOWE
-------
Group 2 - Period VIII - Days 9/10/71 - 10/15/71
CO
TOWER FLOW « 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE * l.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC " 2. CO
FILTER FLCW = 3.50 GAL/MIN
NITRCGEN ANALYSES
DAY
253
257
258
259
260
265
266
267
271
272
273
274
278
279
280
a « «
< NH3-N, PG/L H ORG-N, MG/L H N03-N, MG/L H
Ti
19.6
19.6
18.5
18.5
18. B
17.2
18.0
18.4
14.5
13.1
14.2
15.2
16.5
16.6
I/, .3
16.8
NH3-N
CRG-N
NC3-N
NC2-N
TOT-N
TI
T£
CE
Fl
FE
• • a
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
2.0 »*** 1.8 3.3 3.? **** 2.6 0.3 14.5 **** 13.6
2.0 **** 1.8 3.3 3.7 **** 2.6 0.3 14.5 **** 13.6
1.6 ***« 1.3 4.3 4.C **** 1.7 0.4 15.0 **** 14.3
1,1 »*** 1.0 7.9 2.7 **** 3.1 0.4 15.8 **** 14.8
1.1 »»** 1.1 4.5 2.3 **** 2.2 0.5 17.5 **** 17.1
1.1 **** 1.4 7.4 2.6 **** 1.5 1.0 16.0 **** 15.3
1.0 **** 1.3 3.3 3.4 **** 1.9 0.5 16.2 **** 15.8
2.1 +*** 1.6 2.7 1.6 *<•** 1.7 0.5 17.0 **** 16.0
1.6 •**» 1.4 3.6 2.6 **** 1.8 0.3 16.4 **** 16.2
1.3 »*«* 1.0 4.5 1.5 **** 1.8 0.5 12.0 **** 11.3
1.0 **** 1.2 5.7 2.C **** 2.5 0.7 14.8 **+* 14.0
1.2 **** 1.7 8.0 3.8 **** 1.7 0.4 15.2 **** 14.5
1.6 ***» 1.6 2.9 3.3 **** 2.5 0.5 13.4 **** 13.9
1.6 *'** 1.7 2,4 2.6 **** 1.6 0.5 13.0 **** 13.4
i.l *».» 1.4 1.7 1.7 *•*** 1.9 0.6 12.7 **** 13.1
1.4 *»** 1.4 4.3 2.8 **** 2.0 0.4 14.9 **** 14.4
« AKHCNIA NITROGEN
^ ORGANIC NITRCGEN
=• NITRATE NITROGEN
* NITRITE NITROGEN
» TOTAL NITRCGtN
=« TTWER INFLUENT
» TCWER EFFLUENT
* CL«RIFIER EFFLUEMT
= FILTER INFLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUENT
« I-EAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
[ N02-N,
TI
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TE
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.5
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
* + **
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
****
****
****
II
FE
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.3
i
23
23
23
17
24
25
22
21
18
18
20
23
20
19
16
21
TOT-Nt
TI
.4
.4
.4
.0
.0
.9
.0
.8
.5
.3
.9
.8
.1
.7
.8
.2
TE
20.7
20.7
20.9
20.0
21.4
20.1
21.2
20.5
21.3
15.1
18.0
20.6
18.9
18.2
16.3
19.5
HG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
**<•*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
#***
****
****
** + *
)
FE
18.5
18.5
17,4
19.3
20.6
18.4
19.3
19.7
19.7
14.2
17.8
18,0
18.1
17.3
16.8
18.2
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
»»*
CAY
CUALITY INCICATORS ANC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
* CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 » DAY 1)
CALCULATED
FROH
-------
Group 5 - Period IXA - Days 11/1/71 - 11/12/71
00
CO
CTH5
CAY
306
307
308
3C9
313
314
315
316
...
TC.ES FLOW =
- A T I ' ' =
FILT-R FLCW =
a AV4LYSES
,
TI
9.
4C.
7.
23.
24.
31.
2.
26.
20.
ss
TCT.
sec
SS, '
T?
S.
32.
•"» •
14.
3i. .
12.
lo.
2>'.
Id .
= S ' t ^
*G/L
Cfc
*«*»
*»**
» «* «
**»»
toe*
» *»*
»***
»*» »
*«.**
; p E N r E
l.OC
(•.CO
c.co
5.CC
)(
FF
3.
19.
1 .
H.
1 .
4.
3.
!•>.
o.
rr sci
= ICTAL CRCtML
= SOLUBLE
OftTA'-:
GAL/"-1.
G4L/K
GAL/M
INI/FT2
I.N/FT2
IN
TOC, MG/L
TI
19.
13.
22.
16.
25.
24.
?4.
21.
21.
I US
TE
18.
17.
19.
12.
19.
20.
19.
17.
1C.
CE
****
****
**«*
*A*«
****
»**»
****
****
****
)l
FE
15.
14.
18.
11.
18.
15.
15.
16.
15.
! SOC, MG/L 1 (
TI
****
****
****
**<•*
****
94**
****
****
*4**
TE CE FE
**** **»* ****
**** **«
-------
Group 5 - Period IXA - Days - 11/1/71 - 11/12/71
PUT"'. FL<~W =
N I T R C •" F \ .'- S A L Y r, ~ S
I.00 G1L/MIN/FT2
O.CO G4L/MIN/FT2
O.CO
5.CO GAL/MIN
CAY
30o
307
3C3
309
CO 31i
S 314
315
316
...
,
17
18
17
17
IP
16
17
IB
17
*,' VJ
T!
.6
. '->
.3
.2
. ?
. ''
.7
r*
.6
3--,.
T r
6.1
h. I
6. °
4 .S
*i.9
5.3
6.7
5.9
5. •»
"G/L
CS
»»»»
*»»»
*** +
***»
*»» »
** * »
»»**
****
*«» »
)( TRG-U,
FE
6.8
6.6
7.0
5.9
t .4
S.3
t.7
6.9
6.4
TI
1.0
1.6
2.5
3.6
2.7
2.2
2.7
3.7
2.5
TF.
2.0
2.6
2.1
3. •;
2.4
2.9
1.8
3.9
2.7
MG/L
CE
****
*«•**
**»*
****
****
****
****
****
+ ***
)( N03-N,
FE
1.4
0.9
C.7
1.5
1.5
C.9
C.I
C.9
2.9
TI
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
1.1
C.2
0.4
0.4
TE
9.0
8.8
9.6
12.4
11.2
12.4
7.0
7.6
9.7
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
} ( N02-N,
FE
9.9
8.2
10.0
10.2
11.8
10.8
5.8
7.4
9.2
TI
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
TE
1.6
2.2
1.8
0.4
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
MG/L
CE
+ ***
****
****
****
**4*
****
**«*
<•*«*
****
II
FE
0.7
1.2
0.6
1.4
0.2
1.2
1.0
0.4
0.8
[ TOT-N,
TI
19.3
20.1
20.5
21.5
21.4
20.4
20.8
22.2
20.7
TE
18.7
19.7
20.3
21.2
21.1
22.0
16.9
18.8
19.8
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
* + **
****
****
****
,
FE
18.8
16.9
18.3
19.0
19.9
18.2
13.6
15.6
17.5
t MTRfGEN
CRC-\ = f:9G«MC NITROGEN
T C T
TI
T£
Cr
Fl
= TCTAL M I R T C r \
= TC.-JfS I \ F L 1 1 1 1 T
= rrwER F.FFLUCJT
= CLARIFIE" EFFLUENT
= FILTER I"FLUf:.v,T
= FILTER EFFLUQ.'U
= MFA\ VALU£S FO^ NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
Cerfcrt«I.\.'.(. FROM PRCGAniLITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
OUf.LITY l\tMCAT03S AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
«f.V\ ANALYSES.
= MSSI'.C, l'\Tf:KINETi AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
- cALcNC.'p. I:AY (JANUARY i, 1971 = DAY i)
-------
TCWER FLCW
RECYCLE
RATIO
FILTER FLOW
CTHER ANALYSES
Group 2 - Period IXB - Days 11/15/71 - 11/30/71
0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
l.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
2.00
3.50 GAL/HIN
VD
O
DAY
321
322
323
327
328
334
SS, MG/L
TI TE CE
36.
2.
1.
»»»*
17.
17.
15.
SS
TOC
soc
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
)(
FE
50. **«»
47. »»»»
43. »**»
12. »**•
12. »***
48. ****
35. *»**
TOC, MG/L
TI
27.
15.
21.
»**
24.
19.
21.
TE
18.
11.
14.
16.
15.
15.
15.
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
H SOC, MG/L M
FE TI TE CE FE
TEMP, f
TI TE
I
FI
16. **** ****
11. **** ****
11. **** ****
14. **** ****
15. **** ****
13. **** ****
13. **** ****
**** »***
*A** «***
**** ****
**** ****
*«*« ****
**** ****
**** ****
60.
60.
56.
58.
55.
55.
57.
56. ****
55. **»*
47. ****
50. ****
48. ****
46. ****
50. ****
»*«
DAY
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TCTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SCLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
TEMPERATURE
TCWER INFLUENT
TCWER EFFLUENT
CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
FILTER INFLUFNT
FILTER EFFLUENT
MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
HISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY i, 1971 * DAY 11
-------
Group 2 - Period IXB - Days 11/15/71 - 11/30/71
TOWER FLOW - 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC « 2.00
FILTER FLOW * 3.50 GAL/MIN
MTRCGEM ANALYSES
DAY
321
322
323
327
328
334
o s. «
< NH3-N, HG/L )( ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-N, MG/L )l
TI
18.2
15.8
16.5
****
19.1
14.0
16.7
MH3-K'
CRG-N
N03-N
KC2-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
* * «
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
1.5 »*** 1.8 5.3 4.4 **** 1.7 0.3 18.2 **** 17.8
0.3 **** 0.3 3.0 1.4 **** 1.7 0.1 16.2 **** ****
0.7 «*»» 0.3 2.6 1.1 **** 1.6 0.8 17.8 **** 16.3
3.2 *»** 2.5 **** 1.7 **** 0.8 **** 15.8 **** 15.9
2.5 ***» 2.0 3.5 1.2 **** 0.8 0.8 15.0 **** 14.8
2.1 «*** 1.5 7.2 1.7 **** 1.6 0.7 14.4 **** 14.6
1.7 »*** 1.4 4.3 1.9 **** 1.3 0.5 16.2 **** 15.8
» AMMCNIA NITROGEN
= ORGANIC NITROGEN
- NITRATE NITROGEN
« NITRITE NITROGEN
= TOTAL NITROGEN
= TCWER INFLUENT
» TCWER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
=» FILTER INFLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUENT
« MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
I N02-N, MG/L X TOT-N, MG/L I
TI TE CE FE TI
0.2 0.2 **** 0.2 24.0
0.3 0.2 **** **** 19.2
0.2 0.2 **** 0.2 20.1
**** 0.6 **** O.I ****
0.1 0.2 **** 0.4 23.5
0.1 0.4 **** 0.2 22.0
0.1 0.3 **** 0.2 21.7
TE CE FE
2A.3 **** 21.5
18.1 **** ****
19.8 **** 18.4
21.3 **** 19.3
13.9 «"»** 18.0
18.6 **** 17.9
20.1 **** 19.0
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
»**
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
» CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 = DAY 1J
CALCULATED PROM
-------
Group 2 - Period X - Days 12/1/71 - 12/30/71
TCXER FLOW «
RECYCLE
Rat ic »
FILTER FLCW -
CTHER ANALYSES
0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
2.00
3.50 GAL/MIN
CAY
335
336
340
349
350
351
356
357
362
363
364
...
,
TI
20.
3.
17.
17.
8.
1.
10.
12.
27.
22.
10.
15.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEHP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
SS, MG/L )( TOC,
TE CE FE TI TE
29. **»* 1. 21. 18.
10. *•** 1. 21. 14.
10. »*** 3. 30. 21.
11. **** 1. 23. 18.
9. **** 1. 15. 13.
3. »*** 1. 23. 18.
6. *«** 4. 22. 18.
1. **** I. 18. 14.
22. **«» 5. 22. 15.
17. **** 6. 24. 17.
3. **** 1. 23. 17.
12. »»** 3. 22. 17.
« SUSPENDED SOLIDS
- TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
- SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
* TEMPERATURE
* TOWER INFLUENT
» TCHER EFFLUENT
a CL4RIFIER EFFLUENT
' FILTER INFLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUENT
MG/L
CE
****
****
*»**
****
****
****
****
****
*+**
****
** + *
****
)(
FE
15.
12.
18.
16.
11.
17.
13.
10.
16.
16.
16.
15.
» MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES
***
DAY
DETERMINED FROM PROBAB
QUALITY INDICATORS AND
MEAN ANALYSES.
ILITY
PLOTS
TI
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
+ ***
»***
****
****
****
AND
SOC,
TE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
+ ***
****
****
****
*+**
MG/L
CE
****
*A* +
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
*** +
****
****
)(
FE
****
****
****
****
****
*** +
** + +
****
****
****
****
****
TEMP, F
TI
55.
55.
54.
51.
53.
****
52.
****
50.
52.
** + *
53.
TE
46.
47.
47.
45.
46.
****
47.
****
42.
46.
****
46.
»
FI
****
»***
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
+ ** +
+ ***
** + *
****
OTHER ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
» MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR
» CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
UNRELIABLE
It 1971 » DAY 1
DATA
)
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROM
-------
Group 2 - Period X - Days 12/1/71 - 12/30/71
OJ
TCWE9 FLOW - 0.50 CAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE * i.oo GAL/MIN/FTZ
RATIC - 2. CO
FILTER FLOW - 3.50 GAL/MIN
NITROGEN ANALYSES
DAY
335
336
348
349
350
351
356
357
362
363
364
» • «
< NH3-N, PG/l )( ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-Nt MG/L M
TI
18.0
19.3
10.4
12.6
6.4
8.3
12-1
10.8
13.1
10.9
13.9
12.3
NH3-N
CRG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TCT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
• . .
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
1.8 **** 1.9 1.8 1.2 **** 0.5 0.6 16.2 **** 16.8
2.6 **** 2.2 4.4 1.6 **** 0.5 0.9 17.8 **** 19.0
1.6 **** 0.7 5.4 0.8 **** 1.8 0.8 10.6 **** 11.0
4.0 •*** 3.3 2.7 1.9 **** .2.2 0.7 9.8 **** 10.2
1.5 **** 1.1 2.4 l.C 0.0 C.5 1.5 6.4 **** 7.4
2.7 **** 1.4 2.0 0.3 **** 0.7 1.2 7.4 **** 7.8
5.1 **** 4.1 4.1 2.4 **** 2.3 0.8 7.0 **** 8.0
4.1 **** 3.1 4.8 2.2 **** 2.0 0.1 8.2 **** 8.2
4.0 **** 3.1 3.5 1.5 **** 2.C 0.5 6.8 **** 9.6
3.0 **** 2.1 5.6 1.6 **** 2.7 0.4 6.4 **** 9.0
3.6 **** 2.8 2.6 2.3 **** 2.0 0.4 6.6 **** 10.0
3.0 **** 2.3 3.6 1.5 **** 1.6 0.7 9.4 **** 10.6
- A^PCNIA NITROGEN
=• ORGANIC NITROGEN
- NITRATE NITROGEN
» NITRITE NITROGEN
=« TCTAL MTRCGFN
=« TCWER INFLUENT
« TCHER EFFLUENT
=• CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
=• FILTER INFLUENT
* FILTER EFFLUENT
» HEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
! N02-N»
TI
0.1
0.1
• 0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
TE
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
0.6
****
****
0.2
1.0
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
+ ***
****
****
<•***
****
****
)( TOT-N,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
FE
.2
.2
.1
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.6
.8
.6
.4
TI
20.5
24.7
16.9
16.3
10.8
12.0
17.2
15.8
17.3
17.1
17.1
17.8
TE
20.0
22.6
13.4
16.3
9.7
11.0
15.7
15.1
15.7
13.8
15.7
15.3
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
)
FE
19.4
21.9
13.6
15.9
9.2
10.1
14.6
13.5
15.3
14.6
16.4
14.9
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
»**
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
- fISSlNCt UNCEFINEOt AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
- CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 " DAY 1)
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 2 - Period XI - Days 1/1/72 - 1/31/72
TCWE? FLCW » 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE « l.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC « 2.00
FILTER FLCW * 3.50 GAL/MIN
CTHER ANALYSES
CAY
369
370
371
372
378
379
383
384
385
386
389
391
392
393
« « a,
« SS, KG/L H TOC, MG/L
T!
5.
10.
6.
15.
43,
12.
17.
16.
8.
3.
22.
3.
3.
16.
13.
SS
TCC
SOC
TEMP
TI
TE
ce
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE
3. »*** I. 30. 23.
5. *»** 3. 18. 11.
13. ***» 1. 18. 12.
53. »*** 3. 19. 13.
24. »**» 1. 20. 14.
10. **** 1. 16. 14.
2. **** 1. 23. 15.
6. **»* 1. 23. 15.
I. **»» 1. 19. 13.
1. *»** 1. 38. 19.
5. **** 7. 17. 13.
3. **»* 1. 20. 14.
1. **** 1. 21. 31.
7. **»* 1. 30. 22.
10, **** 3. 22. 16.
« SUSPENDED SOLIDS
» TCTAL ORGANIC CARBON
- SOLUBLE ORGANIC CAR80N
* TEMPERATURE
,» TCWE3 INFLUENT
= TCWER EFFLUENT
= CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
» ULTER INFLUENT
= FILTER EFFLUENT
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
***«
****
****
* * * *
+ *«*
****
****
****
****
Si
FE
19.
10.
8.
12.
13.
9.
13.
23.
10 =
17e
13.
11.
15,
13.
13.
I SOC, MG/L H
TI
*«**
$**«
«***
****
****
**4<*
***«
****
***6
***»
**+*
**«*
****
***«>
****
TE
****
****
****
***»
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
CE
****
*#**
****
***«
****
****
****
****
* + **
****
****
****
****
****
****
FE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*$**
****
TEMP, f J
TI
51.
50.
48.
50.
51.
50.
50.
50.
50.
50.
48,
46.
48.
49.
49.
•TE
46.
43.
37.
43.
44.
43.
42.
44.
44.
45.
40.
36.
40.
42.
42.
FI
****
**«*
«">**
****
****
****
****
***$
****
«**«
* + **
****
****
****•
**«*
DAV
MFAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS* MEAN VALUES FCR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS ANC SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
MiSSINC. UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 « DAY U
-------
Group 2 - Period XI - Days 1/1/72 - 1/31/72
en
TQWEO. FLOW » 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - l.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC » 2.00
FILTER FLCW - 3.50 GAL/MIN
MTRCGEN ANALYSES
DAY
369
370
371
372
378
379
383
3fl4
385
386
389
391
392
393
...
( NH3-N, MG/L )( ORG-Nf
TI
14.0
«*» +
14.0
15.1
13.7
17.5
13.3
12.2
11.2
13.4
12.6
11.5
11.2
12.9
13.2
NH3-N
CRG-N
NC3-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI
2.6 **** 1.8 4.0
TE
4.1
»**» **** 2.3 **** ****
4.3 **** 3.9 5.3
6.0 **** 5.2 2.4
2.2 **** 1.7 3.8
l.l **** 0.5 0.9
1.5 **** 1.2 4.3
1.1 **** 0.6 4.0
1.3 **** 0.9 2.7
1.4 **** 0.9 3.1
1.2 **** 1.0 4.9
0.8 »*** 0.6 3.9
0.7 ***« 0.4 2.7
0.9 ***» 0.9 3.6
1.9 **** 1.5 3.5
* AffCNIA NITROGEN
» ORGANIC NITROGEN
» NITRATE NITROGEN
= NITRITE NITROGEN
* TCTAL NITRCGfcN
» TCWER INFLUENT
* TCWER EFFLUEMT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
« FILTER INFLUENT
= FILTER EFFLUENT
4.1
4.0
3.6
0.7
1.4
0.6
0.7
l.l
1.2
1.1
1.2
2.1
1.9
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
***+
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
)( N03-N,
FE
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.4
2.4
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.6
1.2
1.3
0.8
1.5
TI
0.4
*+**
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
TE
9.4
****
6.6
8.4
13.2
12.2
11.2
9.2
9.4
9.0
10.2
8.6
11.7
10.7
9.9
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
*«**
****
****
****
****
n
FE
11.4
10.4
7.8
8.4
13.4
12.8
12.0
8.8
9.8
10.2
10.0
9.8
12.0
10.9
10.5
1 N02-N,
TI
0.2
****
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
O.I
O.I
0.2
O.I
0.1
TE
1.6
****
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**#*
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
II
FE
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
"0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.2
1 TOT-N,
TI
18.6
****
19.5
17.9
18.5
19.5
18.3
16.8
14.6
17.2
18.2
16.1
14.8
17.1
17.4
TE
17.7
****
15.4
19.2
19.8
14.. 6
14.5
11.3
11.6
11.7
12.8
10.7
13.9
14.0
14.4
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
,
FE
16.1
15.7
15.1
16.6
17.7
14.7
14.2
10.3
11.6
12.2
11.8
11.8
13.7
12.7
13.8
DAY
VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY I, 1971 * DAY I)
-------
Group 5 - Period XII - Days 2/8/72 - 2/18/72
CTH
DAY
4C4
405
40t>
407
411
412
413
4U
• • *
T " w ' » *•
P ? C YC L E
SATIf
PILTrfc
E R i •: £ L Y S
LOW = 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
C.CO GAL/MIN/FT2
O.CC
FLCW = O.CC GAL/MIN
5S
« SS, fC/l )( TOC, *G/L )( SOCt MG/L )!
TI
23.
13.
17.
14.
***«
?3.
12.
1?.
16.
SS
TCC
SQC
TI
T5
CF.
FI
F; =
T? CE FF TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
9. **** l. 16. 21. **** 14. 16. 10. ****
7. **** 4. 34. 18. **** 16. 2S. 15. ****
9. **** 7. 15. It. **** 12. 13. 16. ****
1. »*** 1. 15. 15. **** 14. 12. 14. ****
lt>. *»** 11. **** 19. **** 18. **** 17. **«*
13. **** H. 23. 18. **** 18. 16. 15. ****
11. ***» .1. 17. 1C. **** 12. 19. 13. ****
6. *»»* ?. IP. 15. **** 15. 19. 17. ****
9. **«* 5. 20. 16. **** 15. 18. 15. ****
S'lSPCNCEO SOL IOS
TfTAL PRCAMC CARBON
STUJPLE ORGANIC CARBON
TCW£H INFLl.l'-Mr
TCVES FFFLUE^T
CL fti» IF I E^ FFT-LUE^T
FILTER IMFLU-'NT
FILTER FFFLUe^T
FE
14.
16.
15.
13.
16.
18.
12.
17.
15.
1 TEMP; F
TI TE
48. 43.
48. 44.
49. 45.
49. 44.
**** ****
**«* ****
48. 45.
48. 45.
48. 44.
FI
* + **
****
****
****
****
**«*
** + *
*** +
* + **
= fE^N VALUES FO* UITRUGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
TFTERflNTf FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES
FOR EFFLUENT
CUALITY INTICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
*»* 3
CAY
p=AN ANALYSES.
MISSING. ij\cEFi'jEn, AMP/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENCAP fAY (JA-1U4RY I, 1971 = DAY 1)
CALCULATED FROM
-------
Group 5 - Period XII - Days 2/8/72 - 2/18/72
VD
TOwE°
5£CYCt.E =
PiTIC
FILT1R FLfW =
l.CO CAL/MIN/FT2
O.CO CAL/MIN/FT2
0.00
o.co CAL/HIN
DAY
404
4^5
4C6
4P7
411
412
413
414
• • •
( M
TI
17.3
16.1
15.7
14.6
** *«
14.3
1S.O
16.?
1S.:>
\H3-N
C°G-'.'
NC3-S
to?-\
TUT-M
TI
TF.
CE
FI
FE
• • »
<5-M, fG/L )( 01G-N, MG/L )( N03-Nt MG/L )!
TE CE Fc TI TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
7.3 **** 7.4 1.7 0.5 **** C.I 0.7 8.5 **** 8.7
7,-j «*** 6.7 3.2 1.2 **** i.C 0.6 8.0 **** 7.7
7.0 **»* 6.5 3.5 1.4 **** C.6 0.7 9.0 **** 8.3
6.0 *«** 5.9 5.4 2.5 *+** 2.3 0.9 10.2 **** 9.8
b.l **»* s.o **** 1.8 **** 1.6 **** 8.6 **** 9.0
5.0 ***» A. 3 7.5 2.C **** 1.9 0.5 9.1 **** 8.6
5.5 »*** 5.1 5.6 2.J **** 1.5 0.1 7.5 **** 9.3
5.7 **** 4.8 ?.5 1.7 **** 1.2 0.4 9.5 **** 9.7
6.1 ***» >>.7 4.? 1.6 **** 1.4 0.5 8.8 **** 8.8
= AV«CMA MTRHGEN
= ORGANIC MTRr.GCN
= 'JlTRiTE NITKHOtN
= NITRITE fMTRfiGEN
= TCTtL NITPpce'l
= [TWER INFLUtM
= TCWER FFFLl;rV-r
= CLiRlFIEf* tFf-LUEMT
= FILTER INFLUL JT
= f ILTFR F.HTLUt.'lT
= vfisj VALUES KJR -JITROGEM ANALYSES ANO OTHER ANALYSES
I N02-N, MG/L )( TOT-N,
TI
O.I
0.1
O.I
O.I
****
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
TE CE FE TI TE
0.* **** 0.2 19.8 16.7
0.4 **** 0.2 19.9 17.1
0.4 **** 0.3 20.0 17.8
0.4 **** 0.1 21.^ 19.1
0.4 *+** 0.2 **** 15.9
1.1 **** 0.2 22.4 17.2
2.3 **** 0.2 20.8 17.6
0.2 **** 0.2 19.2 17.1
0.7 **** 0.2 20.4 17.3
MG/L )
CE FE
**** 16.3
**** 15.6
**** 15.7
**** 18.1
**** 15.8
**** 15.0
**** 16.1
**** 15.9
**** 16.0
OfTERMU^n FRO* PROBABILITY PLOTS. KEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
** *
PAY
(JUALITY I'JUICATORS Af;r SYSTEV PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
y[;A\ AN^LY^CS.
= "ISSINC, UN'Of-FlN'Ot ANO/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
= CAL6NCAR LAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 = DAY 1)
CALCULATED FROM
-------
Group 6 - Period XIII - Days 2/21/72 - 2/25/72
CO
TCWE2 FLOW =1 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE » 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO - 0.50
FILTER FLOW » 5.00 GAL/MIN
OTHER ANALYSES
CAY
418
419
420
421
...
! SS, MG/L )( TOC. MG/L
TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
25. 17. »*»» 4. 17. 14. ****
19. I. ***» 3. 17. 14. ****
30. 9. *»** 1. 27. 16. ****
8. 10. **** 1. 19. 15. ****
20. 9. **** 2. 20. 15. ****
SS SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TOC
soc
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
TEMPERATURE
TCWER INFLUENT
TCWER EFFLUENT
CLARIFIES EFFLUENT
FILTER INFLUENT
FILTER EFFLUENT
)( SOC, MG/U )( TEMP, F >
FE TI
14. 13.
13. 17.
14. 23.
12. 15.
13. 17.
TE CE FE TI TE FI
12. **** 13. 46. 44. ****
13. **** 11. 46. 43. ****
15. **** 14. 47. 44. ****
15. **** 15. 47. 44. ****
14. **** 13. 46. 44. ****
• **
DAY
MEAN VALUES FOR. NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
MISSINGf UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR CAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 * DAY 1)
-------
Group 6 - Period XIII - Days 2/21/72 - 2/25/72
TOWER FLCW » 1.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE * 0.50 GAL/MIN7FT2
RATIC » 0.50
FILTER FLCW - 5. CO GAL/M IN
NITRCGEN ANALYSES
CAY
418
419
420
421
...
( NH3-N, MG/L )( ORG-N,
TI
13.4
15.9
16.1
16.0
15.4
NH3-N
ORG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI
4.8 *«** 3.8 ****
6.4 **** 5.6 4.7
6.6 **** 5.9 3.5
6.5 »*** 5.7 3.2
6.1 **** 5.2 3.8
» AfMCNIA NITROGEN
* ORGANIC NITROGEN
= NITRATE NITROGEN
* NITRITE NITROGEN
= TCTAL NITRCGEN
- TOWER INFLUENT
= TOWER EFFLUENT
• CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
- FILTER INFLUENT
- FILTER EFFLUENT
3
2
3
0
2
TE
.8
.1
.2
.6
.4
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
***«
H N03-N,
FE
****
1.6
1.7
0.9
1.4
... » MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PR08AB
#**
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
=• MISSING, UNDEFINED
AND
9
ILITY
PLOTS
0
0
0
0
0
TI
.6
.5
.4
.5
.5
AND
TE
8.0
9.1
9.1
9.5
8.9
MG/L »( N02-N, MG/L )( TOT-N, MG/L 1
CE FE TI TE CE FE TI
**** 8.4 0.1 0.3 **** 0.1 23. A
**** 8.8 0.1 0.3 **** 0.2 21.2
**** 9.0 0.1 0.3 **** 0.2 20.1
**** 9.2 O.I 0.3 **** 0.2 19^8
**** 8.9 0.1 0.3 **** 0.2 21.1
TE CE FE
16.9 **** 17.4
17.9 **** 16.2
19.2 **** 17.8
16.9 **** 16.0
17.7 **** 16.8
OTHER ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE,
AND/OR
- CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
UNRELIABLE
li 1971 * DAY
1
DATA
INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
-------
Group 4 - Period XIV - Days 2/29/72 - 3/17/72
o
o
TOWER FLOW - 0.71 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE » 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIC • 0.70
FILTER FLOW =« 5.co GAL/M.IN
CTHER ANALYSES
DAY
425
426
427
428
432
433
434
435
439
440
44t««
****
****
****
OTHER ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
PERFORMANCE
- MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE
- CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY
It 1971
DATA
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROM
- DAY I)
-------
Group 4 - Period XIV - Days 2/29/72 - 3/17/72
TCWER FLCH « 0.71 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE - 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO » 0.70
FILTER FLOW * 5.00 GAL/MIN
NITRCGEN ANALYSES
CAY
425
426
427
428
432
433
434
435
439
440
441
442
• * •
{ NH3-N, MG/L M ORG-Nt
TI
16.7
15.4
16.4
17. A
14.8
14.5
15.5
17.8
13.0
14.5
13.0
11.3
15.0
NH3-N'
CRG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CF
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI
3.2 **** 2.1 1.7
1.8 *»** 1.3 2.2
2.1 *•** 2.0 3.0
2.9 **** 2.4 0.1
2.1 «*** 2.9 4.4
2.5 **** 1.8 3.5
3.3 **** 2.5 1.7
3.4 **** 2.7 O.I
2.2 »*** 1.6 4.4
3.1 »*** 2.5 3.9
2.0 **** 1.9 2.3
3.4 **»* l.B 5.1
2.6 **+* 2.1 2.9
AHMONIA NITROGEN
ORGANIC NITROGEN
NITRATE NITROGEN
NITRITE NITROGEN
TOTAL NITROGEN
TCWER INFLUENT
TCWER EFFLUENT
CLAR1FIER EFFLUENT
FILTER INFLUENT
FILTER EFFLUENT
TE
1.3
2.0
1.6
1.5
2.5
2.1
1.4
0.1
3.0
1.9
2.8
2.5
2.C
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
M
FE
2.1
2.2
1.4
1.6
3.0
1.3
1.5
2.1
3.5
1.6
0.7
1.8
1.9
N03-N,
TI
0.6
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.3
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
TE
12.3
12.3
13.5
14.2
15.3
12.3
10.4
12.3
1Q-.0
10.4
9.7
9.2
11.8
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
* + **
****
+ ***
)C N02-Nt
FE
12.8
12.9
12.2
14.8
10.4
12.9
10.8
10.6
10.3
10.1
9.5
8.8
11.3
TI
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
TE
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
MG/L
CE
*»**
****
****
****
*** +
****
* + **
****
****
****
****
****
* + **
> ( TOT-Nt
FE
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
•o.i
TI
19.1
18.3
19.8
18.2
19.6
19.5
17.9
18.4
18.1
19.0
15.9
16.8
18.3
TE
17.3
16.5
17.5
18.7
20.2
17.0
15.2
16.2
15.4
15.7
14.7
15.3
16.6
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
*»**
****
****
** + *
****
****
****
****
****
****
j
FE
17.1
16.5
15.8
18.9
16.4
16.1
14.9
15.6
15.5
14.4
12.2
12.5
15.4
»*•
DAY
MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN ANALYSES.
MISSING, UNDEFINEOf ANO/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR DAY {JANUARY It 1971 * DAY 1)
-------
Group 3 - Period XV - Days 3/20/72 - 4/28/72
Pf C
3At
M Tarr,t K
LAY
L. L A
«» ** O
448
461
462
463
4t7
4CR
461
470
474
475
476
477
4R1
4P2
4*3
4d4
i
8
7
1]
1
h
o
7
7
6
4
<>
6
7
fl
A
H
7
\m
f:02
fl
I"
Ft';* * P. 71 C41/HIN/FT2
tf > O.CO Gil/?* IN/FT2
* O.CO
•>)-i, VO/L M HRG-N, MG/L II N03-N, MG/L M
T[
.1
.2
il'
•7
. I
.4
• »
.(>
.4
.1
.n
.n
.'•
,~i
.1
_'x
-i"
THT-S
TI
TF
CS
Fl
FE
...
IE CE FE ri TE CE FE TI TE CE FE
1.* **** 1.3 «).9 2.<» **** 2.9 0.9 6.4 **** 6.8
1.4 **•* l.l 3.1 3.1 **** 2.5 1.5 7.0 **** 6*9
1.4 «•»• o.9 0.2 C.2 **** C.2 1.6 7.2 **** 7.1
1.2 «««» 1.1 0.3 0.4 »*** C.2 2.C 7.9 **»» 5.2
1.9 •••• 1.1 0.1 O.i **«« C.5 1.0 8.4 *•** 6.2
1.4 •»»• 0.7 1.1 O.t **«« C.9 0.8 8.0 **** 6.2
1.7 ••»• 0.9 0.9 0.4 *•** C.8 C.? 7.5 »»** J.9
1.7 •»•» 0.3 l.l 0.4 **** C.3 0.7 7.2 **** 5.8
0.1 ••»» 0.1 O.fl O.t ***« C.5 l.l 7.1 **»* 2.7
1.1 «•«* l.l 2.3 .1 »**» 1.1 2.2 6.9 ****• 2.0
0.4 •••• 0.3 0.7 .3 **** 1.2 1.1 7.9 **** 2.4
0 . 6 • * * * 0.3 0.1 0.3**** C.2 0.3 8.3**** 2.1
0.4 »•«* C.I 0.4 .6 **»« 1.5 0.5 8.4 **** 0.8
0.5 «•»» 0.3 O.I .1 »«** 1.1 0.6 8.1 **** 0.1
0.7 »••• 0.6 0.6 .1 **** C.5 O.S 8.0 **** 0.2
• AK«CM A til Tf-liGEN
! ',|Vimt MMiXtN
1 'M T"> I T £ *> 1 T"«('r,£:<
» TCT4L MTRCOvN
» f C •< E 3 I 'J F L 1 1 ": .' .' T
» rrw£a FFruicr'T
« CLA'JIFItil fFKLUENT
» FILTrR I-'J^IU: NT
« ULTCB CFTLUKNT
* ^^A\ v/>lUtS FOK NlTROCfN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
N02-N,
TI
0.
• I
0.1
0.1
01
. 1
0.2
0.2
0]
. 1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
01
. t
TE
0-5
• Z
0.2
0.2
0^
. c.
0.1
0.1
0*
. 1
O.I
O.I
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
01
. i
HG/L
CE
****
)( TOT-N,
FE
0^
• Z
0.2
**** O.I
»*** 0.1
**»*
* + **
*»**
*»**
****
****
****
***»
»*4*
*•**
****
****
0.1
O*
. i
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.3
07
. f
0.7
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
Oy
• £
TI
» • c
16.5
15.0
12.7
8.4
8.7
1 t\ fl
1 \J . O
10.2
9. A
9.0
8.5
6.5
9J
. C
10.9
8.8
8.3
9.6
9.3
9.5
I A 9
IW . c
TE
UQ
. 8
11.1
11.7
UA
. 4
8.9
9.6
10.7
10.1
9.6
9.0
8.1
8t
. O
9.3
9.7
9.3
10.6
9.9
10.0
in A
A v » U
MG/L
CE
• »**
****
****
*•»*
»« + *
***»
• »**
• »•*
**»»
• ***
****
»*«*
»*•*
**»*
****
J
FE
. ^ »
& Z. 5
11.2
10.6
8.3
6.6
6JL
* O
8.0
7.9
7.7
6.5
4.6
4.7
4.6
2.8
2.8
1.6
6y
• £
i:FTe:»i»i.\cr f*cn PROPA
-------
Group 3 - Period XV - Days 3/20/72 - 4/28/72
o
OJ
CTHJ
CAY
446
447
4<.a
449
461
462
463
467
468
4c,9
470
4 74
475
476
4/7
4*1
432
4H3
4P4
...
TC'^?'
""C^CL
OST I"
riLTf=>
o S'.HY
1
u
i.
32.
4.
7.
4.
2.
12.
8.
8.
6.
4.
7.
9.
4.
3.
1.
2.
! 4.
«•.
7.
SS
TCC
sec
f c w p
TI
Tf
CE
F J
re
...
FLJW * 0. M GAL/*I.• cK\ AK «L Y<; fS .
- MISSINCf USOEFINEOt AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
* CALE'lCAR HAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 * DAY 1)
-------
Group 3 - Period XVI - Days 5/1/72 - 5/26/72
TCWER FLOW » 0.71 GAL/M
RECYCLE = 0.00 GAL/M
RATIO » O.CO
FILTER FLCV) = 5.00 GAL/M
OTHER ANALYSES
DAY
488
489
490
491
495
496
497
498
502
503
504
505
509
510
512
• « a
IN/FT2
IN/FT2
IN
( SS, MG/L )( TOC»
TI
28.
31.
13.
9.
10.
11.
9.
27.
*»*$
3.
3.
I.
5.
4.
3,
11.
SS
TOC
SOC
TEMP
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
* • *
TE CE FE TI
13. *»** 9. 14.
11. «*«* 5. 12.
13. ***» 6. 14.
10. ***» 5. 16.
7. **** 4. 23.
5 = **** 5. 23.
6. **** 2. 24.
11. **«* 5. 29.
26, **** 1. s***
3. »**» 2. 10.
3. »**» I. 12.
7. **** I. 12.
42. **** 4. 14,
12. »**» 1. 14.
26. **** 3. 12.
13. **** 4. 16.
- SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Tg
11.
10.
19.
13.
18.
19.
21.
22.
13.
12.
12.
11.
15.
11.
12,
14.
MG/L
CE
*$**
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
5.- ***
****
****
H soc, MG/L
FE TI
13, 14.
12. 15.
18. 13.
13. 14.
20. 24.
20. 26.
27. 24,
31. 29.
12. ****
10. 1C.
12. 12.
12. 11.
15. 13.
12. 12.
12. 12.
16. 16.
TE
10.
11.
11.
9.
21.
20.
19.
21.
10.
10.
10.
10.
13.
11.
11.
13.
CE
****
****
****
**«*
***«
****
***#
* + **
****
****
****
****
«***
M
FE
11.
13.
19.
11.
23.
24.
26.
28.
12.
10.
11.
11.
13.
****• 12.
****
****
12.
16.
TEMP, F
TI
52.
50.
49.
51.
51.
51.
53.
53.
53.
53.
*««*
54.
56.
56.
57.
53.
TE
49.
46.
45.
46.
45.
46.
47.
48.
50.
50o
4>*«*
52.
52.
52.
53.
49.
1
FI
56.
57.
53.
56.
52.
57.
54.
56.
57.
56 =
58.
57.
57.
59.
60.
57.
* TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
* SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
• TEMPERATURE
=» TCWER INFLUENT
- TCWER EFFLUENT
= CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
» FILTER INFLUENT
* FILTER EFFLUENT
- MEAN VALUES FOR NI
TROGEN ANALYSES AND
OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES
**»
DAY
QUALITY INDICATORS
MEAN ANALYSES.
" MISSING, UNDEFINED
AND
SYSTEM
PERFORMANCE
, AND/OR UNRELIABLE
» CALENDAR DAY {JANUARY
If 1971
* DAY 1!
DATA
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
o
Ul
Group 3 - Period XVI - Days 5/1/72
TOWER FLOW » 0.71 GAL/MIN/FT2
RECYCLE » 0.00 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO " 0.00
FILTER FLOW =• 5.00 GAL/M IN
NITROGEN ANALYSES
DAY
488
489
490
491
495
496
497
498
502
503
504
505
509
510
512
a * «
( NH3-N, MG/L )( ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-N, MG/L
TI
5.8
7.2
7.8
7.3
6.3
9.3
8.9
9.8
8.7
7.5
6.5
9.2
9.6
10.9
6.8
8.1
NH3-N
ORG-N
N03-N
N02-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
...
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
0.4 **** 0.3 0.8 0.7 **** 0.6 0.8 9.8 ****
0.3 **** 0.3 0.4 0.5 **** 0.5 0.6 8.5 ****
0.7 **** 0.5 0.3 0.3 **** 0.3 0.6 8.4 ****
0.4 **** 0.1 1.0 0.3 **** 0.5 0.5 7.7 ****
0.7 **** 0.3 0.1 0.9 **** 0.1 0.5 8.8 ****
1.5 **** 0.9 1.6 0.1 +*** 0.3 0.4 9.9 ****
1.4 **** 0.8 1.6 0.4 **** O.I 0.4 6.5 ****
0.8 ***« 0.2 0.1 1.5 **** 0.8 0.3 6.4 ****
1.0 **** 1.1 0.5 0.9 ***«• 1.3 1.0 7.9 ****
1.4 **** 1.3 1.0 0.3 **** 0.1 0.5 8.5 ****
2.5 »*** 1.2 2.2 0.1 **** 1.1 0.7 8.2 ****
1.7 **** 1.3 0.4 0.2 **** 0.1 0.4 7.9 ****
0.3 **** 0.3 0.2 2.7 **** 0.6 0.9 10.0 ****
1.7 *«** 1.7 0.1 0.1 **** 0.1 0.4 9.8 **+*
2.5 **** 1.0 3.3 0.1 **** 0.3 0.2 9.8 ****
1.1 ***+ 0.7 0.9 0.6 **** 0.5 0.5 8.5 ****
= AMMCNIA NITROGEN
= ORGANIC NITROGEN
= NITRATE NITROGEN
« NITRITE NITROGEN
* TOTAL NITROGEN
» TCWER INFLUENT
- TOWER EFFLUENT
* CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
= FILTER INFLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUhNT
) 1
FE
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
1.3
0.1
O.I
O.I
2.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
O.I
0.3
_ c;
1 N02-N,
TI
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
O.I
O.I
O.L
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
TE
0.2
O.I
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
/26/72
MG/L
CE
****
****
*#**
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
**** •
****
****
*»»*
H TOT-N,
FE
0.1
0.1
0.2
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
****
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.2
0. 1
O.I
0.1
TI
7.5
8.3
8.8
8.9
7.0
9.8
11. 0
10.4
10.4
9.1
9.5
11.1
10.8
11.4
10.4
9.6
TE
11. 1
9.4
9.6
8.6
10.6
11.7
8.6
9.1
9.9
10.4
11.0
10.0
13.2
11.7
12.8
10.5
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*<•**
****
****
****
****
**»<>
J
FE
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.8
1.4
0.9
1.0
****
1.6
2.3
1.8
1.4
1.7
1.3
1.3
« HEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. MEAN VALUES
FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INDICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
*»*
DAY
MEAN ANALYSES.
= PISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
* CALENDAR DAY (JANUARY 1, 1971 = DAY 1)
CALCULATED
FROM
-------
Group 3 - Period XVII - Days 5/31/72 - 6/22/72
PEC^ric
OAT ic
PUT-- FLCW =
0.71 GAL/W IN'/FT?
0.00 Gil/* IN/FT2
C T H E ' fi', i'_ '
!-•
O
fT\
\J i
DAY
517
518
519
523
524
525
526
5»0
531
532
533
537
5 '.a
539
• • *
T I
21 .
11.
5.
l e.
13.
2 1 .
L, .
4C.
8.
7.
15.
3C/.
26.
47.
20.
SS, '
r c
* * * *
4f>.
1 7 .
41.
«*»*
2?.
lv.
3/.
?.
1 3.
2e .
4(. .
52.
44 .
30.
"G/L
CC
** **
«*»*
» *» *
««• *
««*«
» + * *
» » * +
» * * *
» * * *
» 1 1 *
* *» *
*« « *
»»* *
»* * *
* * « *
) i
/. .
2.
IP..
14 .
3.
3.
5.
2 .
10.
t.
17.
??..
3 1 .
K.
( TOG, KG/L
TI TE CE
18. 14 . ****
17.
14.
18.
46.
36.
34.
49.
• 19.
13.
14.
39.
21.
****
26.
15.
12.
15.
24.
24.
25.
34.
13.
9.
14.
22.
If-.
»***
18.
***#
****
*•>**
***».
**«*
****
****
****
* <•**
****
*«**
****
****
**«*
FE
13.
16.
13.
la.
25.
21.
28.
38.
18.
12.
12.
34.
19.
****
20.
1 SOC, MG/L
T! TE CE
14. 12. ****
14.
12.
15.
3<3.
18.
25.
35.
17.
9.
18.
31.
24.
****
21.
13.
11.
14.
21.
15.
19.
25.
13.
9.
14.
21.
18.
****
16.
****
****
****
****
**»»
t* <• +
****
*»**
****
****
****
****
*»»*
****
FE
11.
15.
12.
15.
16.
16.
20.
28.
16.
10.
12.
33.
20.
****
17.
TEMP, F )
Tt TE FI
55. 50. 57.
55.
57.
58.
59.
59.
60.
58.
60.
62.
60.
61.
60.
59.
59.
50.
54.
55.
55.
56.
58.
55.
58.
60.
57.
59.
57.
54.
56.
56.
59.
61.
61.
62.
63.
60.
62.
****
63.
64.
65.-
61.
61.
ss
sec
TI
Tr
ce
PI
FE
HAY
= Sl'SDCNCFI> SOL IDS
= TCT AL fCC/1'- 1C CA'
-------
Group 3 - Period XVII - Days 5/31/72 - 6/22/72
FLCw =
C.71 CAL/.«IN/FT2
C.CC C/\L/MIN/FT2
0.00
^.CO GAL/MIN
CAY
517
51P
519
573
524
525
5?6
530
531
532
533
537
538
53'>
, , .
(
T
«.
q.
10.
10.
1 ?.
1? .
14.
14.
14.
11 .
•>.
14.
1 1.
12.
11.
\H3- J,
I
7
7
0
3
n
o
t
i.
7
<)
J
•)
7
6
.q
Tf
2.r
'J.R
l.l
3.?
0.1
1.3
O.S
1.7
1.1
1.9
I. 1
2.3
2.3
2.1
1 .'i
KG/L
CE
4 + **
****
****
4***
****
»•*»
****
44**
**«*
4*4*
*»**
«4»*
****
*»»4
*««*
)(
FE
1.1
0.7
1.1
1.3
C.3
1.1
C.8
0.7
• 1.0
0.9
C.7
?.C
I .0
2.6
1.0
ORG-N,
TI
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
»*»*
2.5
3.1
0.8
1.0
1.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
TE
1.3
O.P
0.4
0.1
C.7
0.7
1.9
l.C
1.5
O.S
C.r>
1.4
1. 1
1.1
C.S
KG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*** +
#***
*»**
****
)( N03-N,
FE
C.7
C.4
C.7
0.1
0.1
C.7
2.6
1.2
2.0
C.6
C.4
1.4
C.7
C.4
0.8
TI
****
C.2
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.7
0.1
O.I
0.1
C.I
0.1
O.I
0.3
TE
8.9
9.1
9.5
9.2
8.9
9.4
9.4
9.5
9.5
9.4
****
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.7
KG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*<=**
****
****
*** +
****
****
)( N02-N,
FE
0.4
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
****
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.2
TI
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
TE
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.8
0.5
MG/L
CE
*»**
****
****
****
**+*"
****
****
**«*
****
****
****
* + + *
***«.
****
****
) ( TOT-N,
FE
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
TI
11.0
10. I
11.6
10.8
12.2
12.4
11.4
17.3
18.0
12.2
9.2
14.2
U.9
12.8
12.5
TE
12.8
11.3
11.6
12.9
10.2
12.0
12.4
12.2
12.6
11.9
****
11.3
11. 0
12.0
11.3
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
*+**
****
****
1
FE
2.3
1.3
2.0
1.6
0.6
1.9
3.8
4.0
3.2
1.2
0.9
2.3
1.2
1.6
1.9
\H3—
T3T-
TI
TE
OF
FI
FE
CPOAMC MTkCGEM
•ilT'-urE t;lTm;.-,EM
ffTCL MT-
-------
Group 3 - Period XVIII - Days 6/23/72 - 7/19/72
O
OO
TCW£0 FLO
0 5 C Y C L F. =
= AT Ir
CILT:? FLCW =
C.71 GAL/V IN/FT2
O.CC GAL/K IN/FT2
l'. CO
5.CO 04L/MIN
CAY
540
544
545
546
547
552
553
554
558
559
560
561
5fc5
566
...
( SS, ".G/L )( TOC,
T [
47.
»«»*
P..
1.
21.
14.
10.
14.
3.
4.
15.
29.
6.
9.
11.
SS
TOC
sec
TI
CE
Ft
FE
...
TE CE FE TI
52. **** 3. 24.
HI. »««» 1. 16.
5<> . »«** 1 . 14.
55. **** 1. 22.
71. **** 3. 17.
25. »»»» 2. 31.
n. *»** 2. 23.
21. **** 3. 24.
1H . *«»* I . 22.
31 . +*** 1 . 24.
15. »*+* 1. 32.
36. **** 2. 33.
11.***+ 3. 11.
!•> . ***» 3. 17.
30. +»<•* 2. 22.
= SHSP=NCrD SOLIDS
TE
17.
12.
13.
13.
13.
20.
19.
16.
23.
29.
26.
29.
13.
24.
19.
MG/L )(
CE FE
**** 17.
**** 13.
**** 12.
**** 14.
**** 16.
**** 20.
**** 20.
**** 19.
««** 19.
**** 24.
**** 29.
**** 20.
***+ 9.
***+ 17.
**** 18.
SOC, MG/L )(
TI
30.
13.
9.
13.
19.
24.
2C.
16.
21.
26.
27.
26.
13.
18.
2C.
TE
21.
1C-
14.
12.
13.
17.
15.
13.
16.
29.
29.
19.
13.
17.
17.
CE
** + *
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
FE
19.
10.
9.
17.
12.
19.
21.
16.
22.
23.
23.
19.
9.
17.
17.
TEMP,. F )
TI
59.
61.
62.
62.
****
60.
61.
62.
62.
63.
63.
63.
63.
63.
62.
TE
53.
57.
59.
59.
****
55.
56.
57.
60.
62.
61.
60.
61.
61.
58.
FI
****
61.
6*.
65.
64.
61.
61.
62.
66.
67,
67.
* + **
67.
67.
64.
= TCTAL CRGAMC CARBON
= SCLUI3LF. URCA\IC CARBON'
= TTWEP I'\FLnfc\T
= CLARIF1EK EFFLUS'JT
= FILTER I .'1 FLU1- NT
= FILTER EFFLUrNT
= f'EA\ VALUFS FOH 'J I
TRO.CFN ANALYSES
riFTEKKINEn FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS
*«*
DAY
OL'ALITY I,\r ICATDRS
v c ^ \ i \ A L Y S E i. .
= ^'ISSI^C, UNTf-FIMin
AND
AND
OTHER ANALYSES
. MEAN VALUES
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
, AMH/03 UNRELIABLE
= CALfNCAR DAY (JANUARY
DATA
FOR EFFLUENT
INDICATORS
CALCULATED FROM
1, 1971 = DAY 1)
-------
Group 3 - Period XVIII - Days 6/23/72 - 7/19/72
M T3
T - •„ c 3
0 r <". ^ C I
R A : : •
F ! L T?3
CGCV .".N
'-L^V, = 0.71 GU/"! IN/FT2
: = r. .00 GAL/M IN/FT2
= 0 . C 0
FLCw = S.GO GAL/MIN
.ALYSES
C«Y ( -.H3--.I, «G/L )( ORG-N, MG/L )( N03-N, VG/L
540
544
545
546
5'. 7
552
553
554
5->S
550
560
561
565
566
9 C •
TI
12.''
12.6
* * » t
12.5
11, ->
14.4
14.0
14.1
13.5
14 .<.
13.';
13.2
6.7
"..2
13.4
\H3-'.
CR r,-:.
N03-"
MH2-'.
TOT-\
T!
TF.
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI TE CE FE TI TE CE
!.q **** 2.2 0.9 1.2 **** C.8 0.1 7.5 ****
2.1 »«** 1.4 0.7 1.2 **** C.2 1.1 10.5 ****
»**« «*»» »•»»* **** **** **** **** o.l 9.5 ****
2.5 «*** 1.9 1.3 0.6 **** C.6 0.1 10. 1 ****
1.9 »«** 1.4 0.8 O.H **** C.8 0.1 10.6 ****
4.4 ««** 3.2 1.2 0.7 ***<• l.l C.6 9.4 ****
3.6 »«** 3.3 0.3 0.2 **** C.5 C.I 8.5 ****
2.H «*«* 2.2 l.l 0.6 **** 1.0 0.4 9.6 ****
O.R **»* -0.0 0.9 1.3 **** 1.1 0.7 10.8 ****
2.6 »*** 2.3 0.6 0.6 **** C.6 0.2 9.1 ****
2.5 **** ?03 0.6 C.9 **** C.6 0.1 9.7 ****
1.3 **»* 1.2 1.0 1.5 **** 1.5 0.6 9.7 ****
O.B **»* C.5 2.2 l.C **** C.8 1.3 8.9 ****
0.1 *»*» P.I 2.9 2.5 **** 2.2 C.7 9.4 ****
2.0 **** 1.7 O.H 0.6 **** 0.8 0.4 9,5 ****
= \f»C",l A MTRCGEM
= f.^OAMC MT^dCcN
= NITRATE i-ITSUGSN
= \ I TRITE MTRIIGEN
= TCTAL MTTCtN
= TCWER INFLl;EM
= TCWE0 EFFLD'NT
= CLAHIFICP. l-Ff-LUENT
= FILTfcR I .\FLUt-. NT
= f- ILTcP f?FFL'H \T
){
FE
6.1
10.5
2.3
10.4
1,0
0.9
0.1
O.I
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.9
1.1
l.l
! N02-N,
TI
0.1
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
0.1
O.I
O.I
0.2
0.1
0.1
TE
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
MG/L
CE
*>***
****
*** +
****
**** '
****
****
****
****
** + *
****
* <•**
****.
****
****
H TOT-N,
FE
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
TI
14.0
14.5
** + *
14^0
12.9
16.3
15.1
15.7
15.2
15.3
14.7
14.9
10.4
12.9
14.3
TE
11. 0
14.3
****
13.7
13.6
15.1
12.9
13.7
13.9
13.7
13.9
13.3
11.2
12.6
13.3
MG/L
CE
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
****
I
FE
9.2
12.6
****
13.1
3.4
5.9
4.0
3. A
2.6
3.6
3.2
3.7
2.5
3.7
3.6
... = f-t"\ VALUES FOR NITRCCFN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
CFTERMVer FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. fEAN VALUES
FCR EFFLUENT
UiiLlTY P.PK.ATORS AN'C SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
*« $
CAY
f'Cft^ ANALYSES.
= ^isspir. u-.'oeFiNFo, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
- CALE*";At< PAY (JAMUARY U 1971 = P,AY 1)
CALCULATED
FROU
-------
Group 9 - Period XIX - Days 7/21/72 - 9/1/72
o
TCiES FLOW • 0.71 GAI/HIN/FT2
'ECYCLE • 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
PiT 1C
F ! '_ " H
0.70
R FLCW » 5.00 GAL/MIN
CTHER i'.ilYSES
DAY
568
572
574
575
579
"580
581
532
5S6
587
568
589
594
5^5
596
600
6C1
603
607
608
609
610
• a •
,
TI
« * •«
27.
26.
35.
14.
13.
6.
20.
4,
11.
26.
28.
31.
5.
32.
^ 0 «
26.
40.
17.
14.
3.
21.
SS
TOC
soc
TEPP
TI
TE
CE
Fj
FE
...
«9«
DAY
SS, HG/L )! TOC, MG/L SI SOC • MG/L l( TEMP. F S
TE CE FE TI Tg C€ FE TI TE CE FE TI TE FI
33. 18. 3. 29. 19. 18. 15. 3*. 18. 19. 15. *«*« *«** **«•
36. 17. 10. 18. 15. 15. 13. 17. !5. 15. 12, 65. 63. ****
35. 10. 9. 15. 17. 15. 11. 15. 1*. 15. 11. 62. 58. ****
48. 15. 7. 15. 17. 16. 14. 15. 18. 18. 14. 63. 58. ****
64. 20. I. 50. 41. 36. 25. 30. 22. 27. 18. 64. 62. »***'
29. 32. 1. 43. 29. 30. 25. 24. 22. 18. 21. 65. 64. ««**
67. 7. 1. 47. 40. 31. 25. '22, 23. 24. 18. 64. 62. ****
22. 20. ?. 36. 40. 34. 35. 23. 28. 26. 21, 64. 60. *»**
34. 8. 9. 40. 46. 40. 50. 23. 32. 28. 31. 63. 59. *»**
82. 20. 1. 59, 41. 40. 32. 32. 29, 29. 29. 6-3. 59. «*»*
10. 19. 1. 57. 40. 40. 29. 34. 27. 32. 25. 63. 59. ***»
23. 25. I. 60. 39. 38. 32. 43. 28. 27. 23. 64. 59. ****
50. 33. 1. 31. 33. 29. 16. 18. 28. 26. 15. *»** **»* *«**.
17. 2. 1. 21. 16. 16. 16. 16. 12. 15. 11. 64. 61. *+**
89. 30. I. 51. 38. 24. 17. 37. 21. 23, 17. **** **** *«»*
44. 15. »»«• 76. 32. 27. 30. 41. 24. 25. 25. 67. 66, »***
85, 33. 5. 73. *»** 60. 60. 25. **** 22. 23. 66. 64. *«**
99. 11. 2. 63. 56. 40. 42. 43. 35. 34. 37. 66. 64. *»**
65. 10. 1. 49. 42. 35. 42. 43. 35. 28. 37. 66. 63. ****
87. 5. 1. 53. 43. 37. 28. 42, 27. 30. 27. 66. 64. ****
64. 10. 3. 25. 41. 20. 13. 16. 14. 13. 12. 66. 64. *»*»
58. 17. 3. 43. 34. 30. 27. 28, 24. 24. 21. 65. 62. ****
• SUSPENDED SOLIDS
• TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
• SOLUBLE ORGANIC CARBON
' TEMPERATURE
» TOWER INFLUENT
» KHER EFFLUENT
* CLAR1FIER. EFFLUENT
- FILTER INFLUENT
• FILTER EFFLUENT
« PEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERMINED FRQH PROBABILITY PLOTS. PEAW VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
CU&LITY INDICATORS .AND SYSTEM PERFORHANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED F-IOM
HFAN ANALYSES.
- HiSSINC, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
« CALENDAR DAV (JANUARY 1, 1971 a DAY I)
-------
Gropu 9 - Period XIX - Days 7/21/72 - 9/1/72
TOWER FLOV • 0.71 GAL/M IN/FT2
RECYCLE " 0.50 GAL/MIN/FT2
RATIO • 0.70
FILTER FLCW » 5. CO GAL/MIN
MTRCCEN ANALYSES
DAY
568
572
574
575
579
580
531
e o 7
J a t
586
587
538
589
514
595
596
600
601
603
607
608
609
610
...
( NH3-S, PG/L )( ORG-N, MG/L
TI
10.9
9.2
9.9
8.9
11.4
6.5
4.0
4.4
4.8
8.3
10.4
11.2
10.4
9.0
10.3
7 .3
8. 1
6.5
3.4
7.3
6.7
8.0
NH3-N
CRG-N
N03-N
KC2-N
TOT-N
TI
TE
CE
FI
FE
TE CE FE TI
0.1 1.0 1.2 5.3
I.I 1.3 1.5 2.2
1.6 1.8 1.5 3.6
0.1 1.0 0.8 2.6
l.l 1.2 1.3 5.1
1.4 0.7 1.2 4.3
0.6 0.5 0.2 4.1
0.9 0.8 0.2 2.1
0.4 0.2 0.2 3.0
0.7 0.2 0.3 3.1
1.0 1.6 2.1 4.8
1.8 0.8 0.8 4.4
0.5 0.4 0.5 4.0
0.8 0.6 0.3 3.9
1.3 l.l 0.5 3.7
1.4 0.7 0.5 4.9
0.9 0.9 0.6 3.0
2.6 2.2 1.4 7.0
1.1 0.8 0.5 6.8
0.8 1.6 0.2 3.1
0.7 0.3 O.I 0.9
0.9 0.9 0.7 3.8
» AMMONIA NITROGEN
• ORGANIC NITROGEN
« NITRATE NITROGEN
« NITRITE NITROGEN
• TOTAL NITROGEN
- TCWER INFLUENT
" TCWER EFFLUENT
TE
3.8
• ***
3.0
3.4
6.9
0.7
«••*
3.7
3.2
4.0
5.0
1.6
5.5
7.8
*» * *
5.7
6.2
7.1
8.9
6.5
3.5
5.3
CE
3.3
1.8
0.5
3.8
3.2
0.7
0.6
1.1
2.1
1.9
2. I
5.0
2.9
3.3
3.4
3.0
6.0
2.2
3.0
1.4
4.1
2.8
)( N03-N,
FE
2.1
2.6
*•»«
****
1.3
1.2
0.7
2.9
1.1
2.7
2.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.3
1.6
1.7
0.8
1.8
TI
0.1
2.2
0.1
*»**
0.4
0.2
0.1
2.5
0.3
0.1
0.1
O.I
0.1
0.1
3.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.1
1.2
0.6
TE
7.7
7.8
8.7
8.7
8.2
6.6
7.0
7.0
7.6
9.0
9.4
10.0
9.9
10.4
10.7
8.5
8.4
6.7
7.5
8.7
9.1
8.4
MG/L
CE
7.8
7.5
8.8
8.7
8.4
6.9
6.7
6.4
7.5
8.7
9.8
11.8
9.8
10.3
10.3
8.3
9.0
6.3
8. 1
8.7
9.1
8.4
)( N02-N,
FE
5.5
8.2
9.6
9.5
8.1
6.4
6.4
7Q
. 8
6.8
6.0
8.1
10.0
9.7
8.8
8.0
8.0
3.8
5.7
6.3
6.5
5.9
7.9
7.4
TI
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
re
0.7
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.5
O.I
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
MC/L
CE
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.3
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2-
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
II TOT-N,
FE
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.1
0^
. 2
0.2
0.1
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
TI
16.4
13.7
13.7
****
17.1
11.2
8.3
U^
. '
9.2
8.2
12.0
15.5
16.5
15.1
13.5
18.1
12.8
11.9
13.8
11.6
10.7
9.0
12.8
TE
12.3
* + *•
14.6
13.5
18.0
9.7
7.9
15*8
12.0
11.7
14.2
16.0
14.4
16.5
19.6
26.1
16.1
16.0
16.5
17.9
16.3
13.6
15.1
MG/L
ce
13.0
11.5
12.3
14.8
14.4
9.6
8.4
• e L
1 :> .0
0.7
10.3
11.1
13.7
17.8
13.3
14.4
15.0
12.2
16.3
10.8
12.2
11.9
13.8
12.7
,
FE
9.0
12.4
»***
• **»
11.4
9.2
7.4
10.1
7.3
12.0
15.0
12.8
11.6
10.6
10.4
6.0
8.6
9.1
6.7
7.9
8.9
9.9
- CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
« FILTER If.FLUENT
» FILTER EFFLUENT
DAY
MEAN VALUES FOR NITROGEN ANALYSES AND OTHER ANALYSES
DETERHINEO FROM PROBABILITY PLOTS. HEAN VALUES FOR EFFLUENT
QUALITY INCICATORS AND SYSTEM PERFORMANCE INDICATORS CALCULATED FROM
MEAN A\ALYSES.
MISSING, UNDEFINED, AND/OR UNRELIABLE DATA
CALENDAR PAY IJANUARY 1, 1971 « DAY I)
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
W
APPLICATION OF PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTERS FOR
BIOLOGICAL NITRIFICATION SYSTEMS
Puddles. G. A., and Richardson. S, E.
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Michigan 48640
17010 FSJ
on rac
c^iiiuzati^:, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Monitoring June 1970 - Feb. 1973
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-R2-73-199, June 1973.
This study demonstrated the feasibility of using plastic media in a stage system
to achieve biological nitrification of municipal effluents. The secondary
effluent from the Midland, Michigan, wastewater treatment plant was dosed to
a pilot scale trickling filter containing plastic media with a specific surface
area of 27 ft2/ft3. This effluent contained 15-30 mg/1 of BOD5 and 10-20 mg/1
of ammonia nitrogen. When dosed to the filter at application rates of 0.5 gpm/ft2
consistent nitrification was obtained under both summer and winter conditions.
Net cell growth was minimal, and the filter effluent could be directly filtered
by tri-media filtration. The tri-media filter also served as a denitrification
system when methanol was added to the nitrified effluent ahead of filtration.
Significant changes were noted in the operational characteristics of the tri-
media filter.
^Biological treatment, ^Nitrification, ^Denitrification, ^Trickling filters,
Municipal wastewater, Filtration
#Temperature effects, ^Ammonia nitrogen, *Nitrate nitrogen, ^Process efficiency,
Frequency distribution
05D
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Edwin F. Barth
------- |