WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
12060 EAE 09/71
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
OF
FRUIT PROCESSING WASTE WATERS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollution
in our Nation's waters. They provide a central source of
information on the research, development and demonstration
activities in the Environmental Protection Agency, through
inhouse research and grants and contracts with Federal, State,
and local agencies, research institutions, and industrial
organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Chief, Publications Branch
(Water), Research Information Division, R&M, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20^60.
-------
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT OF
FRUIT PROCESSING WASTE WATERS
by
National Canners Association
Research Foundation
1950 Sixth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
for the
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Project Number 12060 EAE
September, 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 60 cents
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency 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 recom-
mendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Two high rate trickling filters were evaluated for treating fruit
canning liquid wastes; one was 7. 5 feet deep and had provision for
heating the treated waste and for forced aeration; the other was 21.5
feet deep and was operated at ambient temperatures and with natural
aeration; both were packed with a high void ratio plastic medium.
Nitrogen added to the cannery waste improved the removal of BOD
and COD. In the absence of added nitrogen a thick fungal slime
developed with odors characteristic of anaerobic microbial action.
The need for adding phosphorous was not demonstrated.
More often than not, percent removals declined with increasing
organic loadings; the pounds of BOD or of COD removed per unit
volume increased with higher loadings.
Elevated temperatures were not consistently shown to improve the
performance of the experimental filter.
Forced aeration was not proven to be beneficial in the filter treat-
ment, but increased aeration maintained higher levels of dissolved
oxygen in the effluent.
The top third of the 21.5 foot trickling filter accomplished 80% of
the filter's total BOD removal under a light hydraulic loading. The
top third removed a much higher percentage of reducing sugars than
of total BOD, 67% compared to 32%.
The natural aeration filter maintained a slightly higher dissolved
oxygen concentration in the effluent at all three tested depths than
did the experimental filter with 300 cubic feet per minute of forced
aeration.
Under the conditions of this study, increasing the depth of the filter
medium beyond 14 feet added very little to the filter's performance.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of Project 12060 EAE under
the partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
ill
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Recommendations 1
II Introduction 3
Purpose and Scope of the Project 3
Background 3
Procedures 5
Equipment 5
Sampling and determinations 11
Operations 14
III Discussion 17
Nutrients 18
Loading 19
Temperature 19
Aeration 20
Effect on pH 20
Filter Depth 20
IV Acknowledgements 23
V References 25
VI Glossary 27
VII Appendices 29
A. Laboratory Methods 29
B. Detailed Data 29
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Single bundle of plastic packing medium 6
2 Schematic drawing of forced aeration, con- 7
trolled temperature trickling filter, first
series
3 Schematic drawing of forced aeration, con- 8
trolled temperature trickling filter, second
series
4 Front view pilot trickling filter 9
5 Side view - pilot trickling filter 10
6 Schematic diagram of high rate trickling 12
filter treatment system
7 Overall view of the trickling filter system 13
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1 Operating variables and BOD removals 16
2 COD and recalculated BOD removals 17
3 Trickling filter performance at three 21
depths
4 Natural aeration trickling filter, first 30
series
5 Forced aeration trickling filter, first 31
series
6 Natural aeration trickling filter, second 32
series
7 Natural aeration trickling filter, second 34
series, depth comparisons
8 Forced aeration trickling filter, second 36
series
vn
-------
SECTION I
RECOMMENDATIONS
Additional performance data are needed on the operation of trickling
filters for canning waste treatment (1) at elevated temperatures with
carefully controlled heating and adequate nutrient addition; and (2)
with forced aeration including rates above 3. 6 cubic feet of air per
cubic foot of filter medium per minute.
More operational and maintenance data are needed to relate costs to
BOD removals under varying conditions of aeration and temperatures.
Additional information on the performance of trickling filters at dif-
ferent depths of the plastic medium should be collected, using a
range of hydraulic and organic loadings.
The micro-flora on the packing medium should be studied with rela-
tion to (1) BOD removal efficiencies at different temperatures, filter
depths, and other operating conditions, and (2) nutrient requirements
for optimum performance.
- 1 -
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project was to evaluate and compare the perfor-
mance of two high rate trickling filter systems in reducing the pol-
lutional capacity of liquid wastes from fruit canning operations.
The scope of the project included locating the units at a cannery and
modifying them for operation on fruit processing waste water. Modi-
fications included the updating of schematic drawings, installation of
insulation material, procurement of a heating system, procurement
of a nutrient feed system, and replacement of the packing medium in
one of the filters.
BACKGROUND
No actual filtering of particles from the waste stream is performed
by trickling filters. The waste water, introduced at the top of the
filter, percolates down through the packing medium. During the con-
tact time between the film of water and the slime growth on the filter
medium, organic compounds are subjected to enzymatic breakdown
and utilization. The slime microfloras use the organic compounds
as energy sources in maintaining cell growth. When the filter is
operated as a roughing filter, providing only partial treatment to the
waste water, the effluent will have a reduced potential capacity for
causing water pollution if discharged to a stream or will require less
treatment if discharged to a municipal treatment facility.
The treatment of combined domestic and industrial wastes by trickling
filters is now and has been a standard practice for many years. When
the design loads of a conventional rock filled trickling filter system
are not appreciably exceeded, the results are usually satisfactory (2).
Generally, the success of trickling filters depends on good operational
control in feeding a balanced waste that is uniform in volume and com-
position.
The treatment of food canning wastes by the trickling filter method
has had a long and varied history. Under certain optimum conditions,
- 3 -
-------
the system has been successful (1, 9). Many investigators have
experienced little success with conventional rock filled filters (1, 2).
Several reasons have been advanced for the failure of the rock filter
in providing adequate treatment to food wastes.
Canning operations may necessitate a sudden change in the volume
discharged or produce a sudden change in the character of the waste.
The most frequent change in the nature of the effluent is a sudden
increase in alkalinity or acidity. Related to these changes is the
possible stop and go nature of plant operations caused by fluctuating
arrival of the raw product. Preseason attempts to build up the neces
sary microbial growth are rarely successful as there is a need for a
continuous application of waste over the filter medium. The need to
maintain optimum slime growth throughout the season cannot usually
be fulfilled by normal cannery operations.
Another undesirable characteristic of fruit canning wastes is the
deficiency of the waste in certain microbial nutrients such as nitro-
gen and possibly phosphorous. In addition to the waste being defi-
cient in certain nutrients, fruit waste contains a high concentration
of sugars and acids. These simple compounds are readily degraded
by the micro-organisms and as such exert a high immediate oxygen
demand. Conventional rock filters are not able to satisfy this imme-
diate oxygen demand, especially under heavy organic loadings.
In recent years significant changes have been made in the basic prin-
ciples of trickling filter treatment of wastes. One of the most impor-
tant has been the development of plastic media as a substitute for
rock. Many investigators (6, 7, 10) have experienced great success
with plastic filled trickling filters. Much of the early work done in
England is described in detail by Chipperfield (8). Germain (4) and
Stack (3) outlined work done in this country, tracing the development
of synthetic media for use in trickling filters. The National Canners
Association has evaluated the application of plastic filled trickling
filters in treating food canning wastes. The results of these studies,
using a small pilot scale trickling filter system, have been reported
(5).
The urgency for the development of information regarding the treat-
ment of industrial wastes is repeatedly emphasized by demands for
improvements in the quality of our environment. The demand for
pollution abatement means less discharge of pollutants into natural
- 4 -
-------
water courses and improvements in the efficiency of municipal treat-
ment systems. To enable canners to meet these demands, compre-
hensive information must be developed for the various treatment
methods applicable to food processing wastes. It appears that plas-
tic filled trickling filters have a greater potential in satisfying the
immediate oxygen demand of food waste than have rock filled trickling
filters.
This report discusses results obtained from a two year study of a
trickling filter using forced .aeration and controlled temperature and
a trickling filter using natural aeration.
PROCEDURES
Equipment
A pilot scale forced aeration-controlled temperature trickling filter
system used in the study was developed by the Aerojet-General
Corporation to treat up to 10,000 gallons of raw sewage per day. It
consisted of a treatment column 14 feet deep and a reservoir tank
6 feet deep, both cylindrical and 3. 75 feet in diameter, with meters,
heaters, pumps, and piping.
The treatment column was packed with a honeycombed polyvinyl
chloride medium, Surfpac, registered by Dow Chemical Company;
see Figure 1. The medium is welded into, modules about 19x21x39
inches in dimensions, some of them cut to fit the cylindrical shape
of the column, has 27 square feet of surface per cubic foot, and has
a volumetric void ratio of 0. 94. The column packing was 7. 5 feet
deep, with a cross sectional area of 11. 1 square feet, giving 83
cubic feet of treatment volume.
Waste to be treated was collected in one section of a wet well sump,
and was pumped from the sump to a reservoir in the first series of
tests. In.the second series, two 55-gallon drums preceded the sump,
and the reservoir received its flow from the second drum. The pri-
mary waste flow was pumped from the reservoir to the top of the
column. The recycle flow was collected at the bottom of the column
and pumped to the top. The primary and recycle flows were distri-
buted over the surface of the medium by separate fixed nozzles.
Nutrient could be added to the recycle flow.
- 5 -
-------
Fig. 1 Single Bundle of Plastic Packing Medium
In the elevated temperature runs, the waste was heated in the reser-
voir tank by a steam plate coil in the first series of experimental
runs and by direct steam injection in the second. In the second
series the injected air was also heated. The treatment column and
the reservoir were insulated to reduce heat loss with black, 1/4 inch,
closed cell neoprene; the pipes were insulated with fiber glass
wrappings. Thermometers were placed in the column and in the re-
servoir.
A blower forced air into the bottom of the column. Air flow was
measured at an orifice plate in a vent pipe at the top of the column
in the first series and after the blower in the second.
Schematic drawings of the system as modified for the two series of
tests are in Figures 2 and 3, and photographs of the unit in Figures
4 and 5.
- 6
-------
Orifice
Plate
Air Out
Spray Nozzles
Packing Medium
Treatment Column
Blower
Raw Waste from
Wet Well
Recycle Reservoir
Heated
Influent
Vari-speed
Pump
Overflow
Steam
»•
Condensate
Effluent
Immersion Heater
\ Support Grating
Figure 2 Schematic Drawing of Forced Aeration, Controlled Temperature Trickling Filter,
First Series
-------
00
Air Out ^
Spray Nozzles
Packing Medium.
Treatment Column
t
Pump
.Recycle
Reservoir
Raw Waste From Two
55 Gal. Drums
Heated
Influent
Overflow
Steam
Ejector
Vari-speed
Pump
Effluent
\
\
Immersion Heater
Support Grating
Figure 3 Schematic Drawing of Forced Aeration, Controlled Temperature Trickling Filter,
Second Series
-------
Figure 4 Front View - Pilot Trickling Filter
-9-
-------
Figure 5 Side View - Pilot Trickling Filter
- 10 -
-------
The natural aeration trickling filter was a larger unit designed and
built with the help of the Engineering Section of the Del Monte Corpor-
ation. The treatment column was 29 feet deep and 12 feet in diameter;
it was packed 21.5 feet deep with the same plastic medium as was
used in the forced aeration filter, giving 113 square feet of surface
and 2410 cubic feet of treatment volume. The medium is self-supporting
to a depth of 21. 5 feet and therefore no intermediate support was
needed. Eighteen 4-inch ports allowed air to enter the bottom of the
column.
The waste flow from the cannery entered one' side of a wet well sump
5. 7 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep. The sump was divided equally
in two by a baffle that extended to 6 inches from the bottom. Waste
from the inlet side was pumped to the top of the column and treated
waste was returned to the other side of the sump, from which waste
was carried away by overflow. A larger flow was pumped to the fil-
ter than entered the system from the cannery; the excess constituted
the recycle volume. (For example, if 100 gpm of fresh waste entered
the sump and 200 gpm was pumped to the filter, the ratio of fresh to
recycled flow was 1:1.) The waste was evenly distributed at the top
of the filter from four, notched, V-shaped troughs rotating at 2 RPM.
A schematic drawing and a photograph of this unit are in Figures 6
and 7, and additional details are in reference 11.
Sampling and Determinations
Grab samples of the influent and effluent flows were secured every
two hours from the forced aeration filter and every four hours from
the natural aeration filter. The samples were refrigerated and those
from each day's run (of 16 or fewer hours) were composited. Except
for the first series of runs from the forced aeration unit, half of each
composite was filtered through cotton or glass wool. The composites
were then held frozen until they were tested in the laboratory. The
filtered samples were used for BOD and COD determinations; the
unfiltered samples, for suspended solids. The filtering was to eli-
minate possible effects-on BOD or COD of cells ruptured by freezing.
For the second series of runs sampling points at the 7. 2 and 14. 4
foot depths of the plastic medium in the natural aeration unit were
added; the 7. 2 foot depth sample was for direct comparison to the
effluent from the total depth of the forced aeration filter.
- 11 -
-------
ROTARY
DISTRIBUTOR!
FRESH WASTE-
RECYCLED WASTE
»~t~l METER
6" VARIABLE SPEED
PUMP
METER
AIR
PORT
TREATED
WASTE
TREATMENT COLUMN
FRESH-SCREEN ED
WASTE
METER
TREATED WASTE
OVERFLOW
BAFFLE — •
1
1
*~
"
ANHYDROUS
AMMONIA
(NO SCALE)
WET WELL SUMP
Figure 6 Schematic Diagram of High Rate Trickling Filter Treat-
ment System
-12-
-------
Figure 7 Overall View of the Trickling Filter System
- 13 -
-------
Each sample was analyzed for BOD, COD, suspended solids, and pH.
Influent and effluent dissolved oxygen were measured in the morning
and in the afternoon starting part way through the second series of
runs. The laboratory methods are referenced in the Appendix.
Temperatures and air pressures for the forced aeration system were
recorded every two hours; flow rates for the natural aeration unit
were adjusted daily.
Operations
A portion of the liquid waste flow 'from canning cling peaches and
fruit cocktail was used in the experiments after it had passed through
a 20-mesh rectangular screen.
Operating variables are summarized in Table 1, which also lists
influent characteristics and BOD removals. The nominal hydraulic
loading rates of fresh and of recycled waste are given in gallons per
minute per square foot of filter cross section. Forced air, where
used, is in standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM). The natural
aeration filter was operated at ambient temperatures, presumably
at about the level of the forced aeration filter when the latter was not
heated. Temperatures (of the influent to the column) above 100
degrees came from heating. The pH and the suspended solids (in
ppm) of the fresh waste and of the effluent from the filters are listed.
The organic load of the fresh waste is given as pounds of BOD per
1000 cubic feet per day; and the removal is summarized in the same
units and as a percentage of the fresh load. Nitrogen as anhydrous
ammonia was added to the natural aeration filter; nitrogen and phos-
phorous as di-ammonium phosphate were used in the forced aeration
filter, as noted in the table.
The values in Table 1 are the averages of the several days' runs
under each of the listed sets of conditions. Averaged daily obser-
vations are in Appendix B; also tabulated there are data on the con-
centrations of BOD and COD, pounds and percent removal of COD,
influent and effluent dissolved oxygen, and the temperature of the
effluent from the forced aeration filter.
At start-up the forced aeration filter was fed 0. 45 and 0. 75 gallons
per minute per square foot of fresh and of recycled waste, respec-
tively; and the natural aeration filter, 0. 35 and 0. 88 gpm/sq ft.
Sufficient microbial slime developed in four or five days to consider
the units operational.
- 14 -
-------
Hydraulic loadings of the fresh and recycle streams were nominally
as listed in the tables. Intermittant blocked flows and breakdowns
caused some fluctuations. Nitrogen, when used, was added at a
ratio calculated to approximate one part of nitrogen to 20 parts of
BOD removed; phosphorous, in the forced aeration filter only, at
one part of phosphorous to 100 parts of BOD removed. Mechanical
difficulties caused variations in the quantities of nutrients added. In
particular, nutrient addition to the natural aeration filter fell off at
the end of the first series of runs, and to the forced aeration filter
at the end of the second series.
Problems in maintaining elevated temperatures are described in the
discussion of temperature on page 19. The products being canned and
the strength of the plant waste stream varied from day to day. The
floras in the filter slimes were not studied systematically so that
generally their composition could not be related to removal efficien-
cies and its change over time is not known.
- 15 -
-------
Table 1. Operating Variables and BOD Removals
gpm/sq
fresh
Natural
0. 66
. 88
. 88
1.55
Forced
0. 42
.81
. 41
.73
.98
1.20
Natural
0. 44
.44
.44
. 44
.44
. 44
Forced
0.55
. 44
.40
.50
.52
.49
ft
SCFM
recyc. air
temp.
aeration filter, first
0.66
. 88
. 88
. 88
-
-
-
-
amb.
ir
ff
it
aeration filter, first
0. 72
. 86
1.34
.99
1. 16
.97
300
300
300
300
300
300
aeration,
0. 44
.44
.44
. 44
. 44
.44
_
-
-
-
-
-
83
83
110
111
110
112
pH
fresh
series
6.0
7. 1
6.9
6.3
series
6.7
6.2
5.8
6.6
6.9
7.8
second series, 7.
amb
rt
M
ii
(i
rr
8.4
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.2
7.8
effl.
, 21.
6.€
5.3
6.6
5.5
5. 5
5.3
5.0
5.2
5. 7
6.6
2 ft.
8.2
7.8
7.7
7.7
6.3
6.3
ppm SS
fresh
effl.
BOD Ibs *
fresh
remov.
BOD%
remov. Notes
5 ft. depth
480
670
710
680
650
-
710
620
720
870
depth
450
550
720
810
770
670
540
940
1030
600
850
-
1140
1000
1390
910
420
730
1240
1450
2020
1540
640
940
1100
1720
1240
2200
1340
2120
3170
3510
1550
1730
1860
1830
1860
1810
300
160
360
270
270
500
330
100
770
1140
580
660
710
620
500
510
47
17
31
19
20
20
25
5
25
32
42
38
38
33
27
31
fungus, odor
NH added
NH^ deficient
N and P added
do.
do.
do.
NH added
do.
do.
do.
do.
do.
aeration filter, second series
1.06
1.08
1.03
.92
.90
.90
100
200
300
100
200
300
81
80
80
117
117
106
8. 4
7.6
7.8
7.7
7.2
7.8
8. 1
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.1
6.0
450
550
720
810
770
670
530
880
870
2070
790
570
1860
1660
1570
2010
2110
1920
240
240
330
350
310
240
13
15
21
18
15
13
N and P added
do.
do.
do.
nutrient deficient
do.
Pounds/1000 cubic feet/day
-------
SECTION III
DISCUSSION
The observations resulting from the study are summarized in Table 1
and detailed in Appendix B.
On many days in the first series of runs unexpected organic concen-
trations were observed in the effluent from the filters: (1) BOD was
close to or higher than COD instead of much lower, as expected and
as observed in the fresh waste and in the effluent samples of the
second series; and (2) effluent BOD exceeded the fresh waste BOD in
some runs. In two instances it appears that the influent BOD deter-
mination was incorrectly low (770 and 800 ppm when the COD was
2980 and 2900, respectively); these data have been omitted from fur-
ther calculations. On the other days, the discrepant results seem
to be excessively high BOD concentrations in the effluent, since the
fresh waste BOD's were compatible both with the concurrent COD' s
and with the BOD's observed on other days. BOD loadings and re-
movals in the forced aeration filter, recalculated by omitting the
discrepant observations, are in Table 2; COD figures are listed for
comparison.
Table 2. COD and Recalculated BOD Removals
BOD Ibs
BOD% COD Ibs.* COD%
fresh
1170
2160
1160
2170
2880
3510
remov.
200
310
270
500
660
1140
remov. fresh
17
15
23
23
23
32
1820
3860
1880
3290
4870
5720
remov.
710
1520
920
1670
1890
2280
remov. Notes
38
40
50
52
39
39
no nutrient, amb.
M
N & P
it n
n M
n n
it it
temp.
n
added, elev. temp.
rr n
rr it
It M
it
ii
n
* Pounds/1000 cubic feet/day
Another possible explanation for the discrepant results is that the
character of the filter effluents was different from that ordinarily
found. Most of the discrepant runs were during the periods of
increasing filter loadings without added nutrients and the periods
- 17 -
-------
immediately following these when nutrients were added. The type
of slime in at least the natural aeration filter changed twice at about
these times, but the microflora was not studied in much detail. The
ratio of COD to BOD can be changed in the observed direction by par-
tial treatment of food processing wastes. The COD method used
during the first series of runs is especially subject to false low
readings of partially oxidized wastes; the lower temperature at which
the test is run does not result in complete oxidation of complex orga-
nic molecules. For the second series an improved COD method was
used. This tends to explain the fact that COD removals were higher
than BOD removals in the first but not in the second series. However,
it does not explain the runs when the effluent BOD's exceeded the
fresh waste BOD's. Since some removal of BOD was expected even
during inefficient operation, the explanation via inaccurate effluent
COD determinations is considered unlikely.
NUTRIENTS
The necessity, of adding nutrients, at least nitrogen, to fruit wastes
for efficient pollution removals was well demonstrated. In the first
series, the natural aeration filter was run for three weeks without
added nutrients. At first the performance of the filter was good, but
with time a heavy fungal growth was established on the packing medium
and objectionable odors developed; the performance of the filter de-
creased noticeably. The thick growth probably produced anaerobic
conditions which caused the odor. Anhydrous ammonia was then fed
into the filter at about one pound of nitrogen per 20 pounds of BOD
removed. Within three or four days the heavy fungal slime was
replaced by a thin, translucent film of motile bacteria. The effluent
changed in appearance to that of an activated sludge effluent, and its
floe particles settled readily. BOD removal increased from 17%
before to 31% after the addition of nitrogen. During the last runs of
the first series the supply of ammonia was decreased and then shut
off, and BOD removals fell to 19%. Higher hydraulic and organic
loadings were probably partly responsible, but fungi partly replaced
bacteria in the slime during this period.
The forced aeration filter observations also showed the advantage of
added nutrients. The first four sets of runs in the first series form
two pairs with comparable organic loadings but with and without added
nutrients. Both the COD data and, after dropping the suspect obser-
vations (Table 2), the BOD data showed increased removals when
- 18 -
-------
nutrients were added. The deficiency in nutrients could also have
explained the popr performance of this filter in the elevated tempera-
ture runs of the second series.
The need for adding phosphorous to fruit canning wastes for efficient
treatment was not shown by the experiments.
LOADING
The fresh waste strength as measured by the concentration of BOD,
COD, or SS varied from day to day. Even so, hydraulic and organic
loadings were highly correlated and their effects on removals are not
completely separable. Percent removals generally declined with
increasing organic load.
The pounds of BOD and of COD removed increased considerably with
higher loadings. For loadings and removals both expressed as
pounds/1000 cubic feet/day, BOD removal exceeded 1100 Ibs at a
loading of about 3500; and COD removal was almost 2300 Ibs at a
loading of about 5700 in the forced aeration filter. The maximum
removal in the natural aeration filter was about 700 Ibs of BOD, at
the maximum loading of 1860 Ibs.
TEMPERATURE
Elevated temperatures were not shown to improve the performance of
the forced aeration filter under the conditions of these experiments.
Heating system malfunctions prevented the maintenance of a constant
elevated temperature, especially in the first series of runs. In
addition, the temperature of the system dropped each weekend (gener-
ally for one day) when the cannery was not operating, no fresh waste
was available, and the unit had to be switched to recycling only. Feed
pump malfunctions cut off the added nutrients part way through the
elevated temperature runs in the second series, and differences in
hydraulic and organic loadings could account for some of the differ-
ences in nemoval efficiency in the temperature experiments. When
nutrients were deficient, percent removals at ambient temperature
(in the first series of runs) were better than those at elevated temper-
ature (in the second series), considerably as measured by COD and
slightly as measured by BOD. With added nutrients, the elevated
temperature runs were superior to those at ambient temperature in
the percentage removal of both BOD and COD, even though the highest
- 19 -
-------
loadings were in the elevated temperature runs. The population
density of thermophilic bacteria in the filter may never have reached
a high enough concentration to provide the expected higher removal
rates. Possibly these bacteria require trace elements (such as
boron) that may have been lacking. Since the bios was not studied,
the responsible factors are not known.
AERATION
The experiments did not show directly that forced aeration improved
filter performance. The operational difficulties mentioned under
temperature, above, may have obscured the beneficial effects of
aeration. BOD removals increased with increased aeration at ambient
temperatures, but a decreasing organic load in the same comparison
may have been responsible. At elevated temperatures BOD removals
decreased with increased aeration but nutrient deficiency was an
interference. The dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the filter
effluent was measured during the elevated temperature runs, and
went up with increased aeration (dissolved oxygen data are in Appen-
dix B). The DO was mostly zero and averaged 0. 23 ppm with 100
standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) aeration; it averaged 0. 83 at
200 SCFM and 1. 10 at 300 SCFM.
EFFECT ON pH
The highest percentage removals of BOD were accompanied by the
least reductions in pH through the natural aeration filter. Compari-
sons when other important conditions were approximately constant
were few for the forced aeration filter, but overall the same effect
seemed to be indicated. The pH of both the fresh waste and the filter
effluents was generally lower in the first than in the second series of
runs; see Table 1 and Appendix B.
FILTER DEPTH
The second series of runs with the natural aeration filter provided
information on removals and other waste characteristics at different
filter depths. Data are in Table 3 and in the Appendix. The averages
from the 14. 4 foot depth in most of Table 3 are of fewer runs than
the averages of the other two depths; but the overall averages in the
bottom line of the table cover the same runs for all three depths.
- 20 -
-------
Table 3. Trickling Filter Performance at Three Depths
SS ppm
BOD lbs/1000 cu. ft. /day
gpm/sq. ft.
fresh
0. 44
.44
. 44
.44
.44
.44
0.44
recyc.
0. 44
.44
.44
.44
.44
.44
0.44
fresh
450
550
720
810
770
670
710
depth, feet
7.2
420
730
1240
1450
2020
1540
1410
14,4* 21.5
240
-
1430
1280
1310
1380
1300
360
820
1130
1620
1350
1460
1290
7. 2 ft. depth
load r
1550
1730
1860
1830
1860
1810
1800
14.
cmovv %r em. load
580
660
710
620
500
510
530
42
38
38
33
27
31
32
920
-
890
900
950
890
900
4 ft. depth
remov
550
-
330
360
290
270
320
21.
. %r.em. load
60
-
37
41
31
30
35
520
580
620
610
620
610
600
5 ft. depth
remov
240
270
270
250
200
220
230
. %rem
'45
45
43
40
32
35
37
* 14. 4 ft. data are based on fewer samplings than the others; the overall averages in the bottom line
are directly comparable.
-------
The top third of the column removed 32% of the BOD; the top two-
thirds, 35%; and the whole filter, 37%. Of the BOD removed, about
80% was taken out by the top section, 15% by the middle section, aid
5% by the bottom section. COD removals were similar. The top
third of the filter removed 67% of the reducing sugars, more than
twice as high a percentage removal as that of the total BOD. (Eighty -
four percent of the BOD in the fresh waste was composed of reducing
sugars.)
The DO concentration was maintained in the natural aeration filter at
almost the same level by all three filter depths, slightly higher than
the concentration in the effluent from the smaller filter with 300 SCFM
of forced aeration. At comparable depths the natural aeration filter
performed much better than the forced aeration filter. The fresh
waste to both filters was identical, but the former generally operated
at lower organic and hydraulic loadings than the latter.
It is concluded that, under the condition of this study, increasing the
depth of the filter medium beyond 14 feet is not advantageous.
- 22 -
-------
SECTION IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The National Canners Association Western Research Laboratory
wishes to express its appreciation to the Environmental Protection
Agency and to the Canners League of California for financial support
given to the research described in this report. Without this support
the research would not have been possible. The project team is
indebted to the Water and Waste Problems Committee of the Canners
League of California for valuable assistance and guidance to the
research program.
Appreciation is expressed to many persons associated with Plant
No. 3, Del Monte Corporation, where the two trickling filter systems
were located. Without their cooperation during the installation and
operation of the filters, the results reported herein could not have
been obtained.
The Aerojet-General Corporation supplied the pilot forced aeration-
controlled temperature trickling filter unit. Personnel of the company
were instrumental in providing assistance in installation and operation
of the unit:
Frank D. Ducey G.E. Rose K.E. Price
The Dow Chemical Company, through its western representative,
George W. Quiter III, provided technical assistance in the operation
and evaluation of the natural aeration trickling filter.
Much of the credit for the success of this project must go to the team
that carried out the tasks of operating the units, collecting the data
and samples, and performing the analyses required to obtain the
results. The project team included the following:
Carol Barnes Brenda O'Flaherty
David Diosi Bob Watkins
Larry Johnson Tom Murphy
Charles Small
- 23 -
-------
In addition to the project team, valuable contributions were made to
the research effort by the following staff personnel of the National
Canners Association.
Allen Katsuyama Jack Rails
Ron Tsugita Stuart Judd
Norman Olson Nabil Yacoub
Other contributions were made by many individuals concerned with
the implementation of the project. We acknowledge the assistance
given by these unnamed individuals and look forward to future cooper'
ation in research projects which seek to find answers and solutions
to halt the pollution of everyone's environment.
Walter A. Mercer
Project Coordinator
Walter W. Rose
Project Leader
- 24 -
-------
SECTION V
REFERENCES
1. Hallenburgh, J.K. Trickling Filter Performance* Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 313 p. 1319, (1958).
2. Velz, C. J. A Basic Law for the Performance of Biological Filters,
Sewage Works Journal 20_ p. 607, (1948).
3. Stack, V. T. Jr. Theoretical Performance of the Trickling Filter
Process, Sewage and Industrial Wastes 2^ p. 987, (1957).
4. Germain, J.E. Economical Treatment of Domestic Wastes Using
Plastic Media Trickling Filters, J. Water Pollution Control
Federation 38_ 192 (1966).
5. National Canners Association, Berkeley, Calif. Trickling Filter
Treatment of Liquid Fruit Canning Waste,
Part 1 D1344 (Feb. 1964)
Part 2 D1979 (March 1967)
Part3 D3011 (Feb. 1968)
6. Minch, V.A., Egan, John T. , and Sandlin, McDewain. Design
and Operation of Plastic Filter Media, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation 3_4 p. 459, 469,(1962).
7. Sorrels, J.H. , and Zeller, P.J.A. Supernatant on Trickling
Filters, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 35
p. 1419 - 1430, (1963).
8. Chipperfield, P.N. J. Performance of Plastic Filter Media in
Industrial and Domestic Waste Treatment, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation 39^ p. 1860 - 1874, (1967).
9. Schulze, K. L. Elements of Trickling Filter Theory, Advances
in Biological Waste Treatment J.0^ p. 249, (1963).
10. Pearson, C.R. Plastic Packing in the Biochemical Treatment
of Liquid Effluents, Chem. & Ind. (Brit. ) 36, 1505, (1967).
- 25 -
-------
11. National Canners Association. Waste Reduction in Food Canning
Operations, grant #WPRD 151-01-68, for The Federal Water
Quality Administration (1970).
- 26 -
-------
SECTION VI
GLOSSARY
BOD
COD
DO
hydraulic
loading
Biochemical oxygen demand; usually BOD,-, meaning
the demand measured in a five-day test; a common
measure of pollutional strength.
Chemical oxygen demand; a measure of pollutional
strength determined more rapidly than BOD and
usually roughly 50% greater than BOD.
Dissolved oxygen
The quantity of liquid applied to a treatment sys-
tem, usually measured in gallons per minute per
unit of area.
organic
loading
ppm
SCFM
The quantity of BOD, COD, or other pollutional
material applied to a treatment system; usually
measured in pounds per unit of volume per day.
The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concen-
tration; a measure of the functional acidity or
alkalinity of a liquid.
Parts per million
Standard cubit feet per minute; a standardized
measure of air flow.
SS
Suspended solids; insoluble material measured by
filtering.
- 27 -
-------
SECTION VII
APPENDICES
A. LABORATORY METHODS
Except as noted, laboratory determinations were carried out by the
procedures described in:
American Public Health Association, American Waterworks
Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste -
water, 12th Edition, American Public Health Association (1965).
The methods used were:
BOD as a five-day biochemical oxygen demand;
COD, chemical oxygen demand, in the first series by the pro-
cedure in National Canners Association. Laboratory Manual
for Food Canners and Processors, vol. 2, p. 352, Avi
Publishing Company (1968); in the second series by the
Jeris modification (Jeris, J.S. A Rapid COD Test, Water
and Wastes Engineering 4_ (5), 89-91 (1967);
SS, suspended solids, by glass fiber filtration;
pH by glass electrode; and
DO, dissolved oxygen, by the sodium azide-Winkler method.
B. DETAILED DATA
Data on each of the daily composites for both filters and both series
of studies are in the following tables. Table 7 repeats data from
those runs listed in Table 6 when samples were drawn from all three
depths of the natural aeration filter.
- 29 -
-------
Table 4. Natural Aeration Trickling Filter, First Series
00
O
Hydr. * Influent
Raw Rec. COD
ppm
0.66 0.66 2130
2930
" 2500
" 2810
" " 2350
1780
2900
2530
Ave.0.66 0.66 2480
0.88 0.88 3600
2500
2840
" 3400
3180
3260
2480
2900
Ave.0.88 0.88 3070
0.88 0.88 2380
" ' 3200
2870
» 3080
3010
3420
3260
" 3390
" 3630
Ave.0.88 0.88 3240
1.54 1.54 3020
» » 3310
» 2980
3250
2640
4980
•• 2290
" 2040
2680
2040
1.54 1.54 2920
BOD
ppm
1700
2370
1890
2240
1860
1100
800
1240
1640
1790
2060
1600
1860
2150
2000
1800
1940
1900
2250
2330
2010
1840
1940
2520
2490
-
2410
2220
2180
2310
800
2020
1710
1450
1580
1450
1260
1620
1640
SS
ppm
-
_
-
670
280
490
-
480
_
_
60
810
1030
450
620
670
670
670
550
620
710
600
870
590
830
950
710
600
800
-
1040
1190
560
440
400
560
530
680
DOf ppm
pH AM PM
5.3
-
6.3
6.2
6. 1
7.9
6.4
-
6.0
7.5
5.0
6.2
'7.9
6.4
6.7
8. 1
8.8
7. 1
7.5
8.6
8.5
8.3
6.0
5.2
5.5
6.2
6.1
6.9
6.8
6.6
-
4.8
6.6
7.8
5.2
4.9
8.4
5.5
6.3 .
Effluent
COD
Temp, ppm
1250
1670
1410
1350
920
1630
1250
1130-
1320
2120
2050
1420
1500
1500
1430
1400
1530
1660
1300
1140
930
1540
1700
1740
1260
1140
1100
1320
1820
2000
1600
1910
1730
1690
1300
1100
1160
930
1520
BOD
ppmt
900
1540
980
980
820
1080
160
850
920
1540
1920
1440
1530
1650
1610
1400
1500
1580
1430
1040
1270
1700
1820
1840
1750
-
1190
1510
1650
1720
980
1560
1250
960
1520
1270
880
1300
1310
SS
ppm
-
-
1100
900
120
60
-
540
_
672
-
600
680
1060
720
1880
940
910
330
740
1590
910
510
400
2530
1330
1030
380
840
580
820
930
540
400
470
390
600
600
Org. *
DO, ppm COD
pH AM
5.2
-
6.4
6.8
5.7
5.6
6.2
•-
6.0
5. 1
4.9
5.3
5.5
5.2
5.5
5.5
5. 4
5..3
6.8
6.7
6.6
9.3
6.1
5.9
5.8
6.5
5.8
6.6
6.5
6.4
6.5
4.6
5.0
5.6
4.7
4.7
5.6
4.9
5.5
PM Temp. Ibs
790
1080
920
1040
870
660
1080
940
920
1780
1240
1400
1680
1580
1620
1220
1440
1510
1620
1580
1420
1520
1490
1690
1600
1680
1800
1600
2620
2870
2580
2820
2280
4310
1990
1760
2330
1780
2530
BOD
Ibs
630
880
700
830
690
410
300
460
640
890
1020
800
920
1060
990
890
960
940
1120
1150
1000
910
980
1260
1230
-
1190
1100
1880
2000
690
1740
1480
1250
1370
1260
1090
1400
1420
Removal *
COD COD BOD
Ibs
320
470
400
540
530
60
610
520
430
880
220
700
940
830
910
530
680
710
980
1020
960
760
650
840
980
1120
1290
960
1040
1140
1200
1170
790
2850
850
810
1320
960
1210
% Ibs
41- 300
43 310
44 380
52 650
61 390
9 10
57 240
56 150
47 300
41 120
18 70
50 80
56 160
53 250
56 200
44 200
48 220
47 160
60 400
64 640
68 360
50 70
44 70
49 340
61 370
66
72 600
60 360
40 460
40 510
46 (-170)
42 390
35 400
66 430
43 (-50)
46 160
57 330
54 270
47 270
BOD Air
% SCFM Nutr.
47
35
48
79
56
2
80
32
47
14
7
10
17
24
19
22
22
17
36 N
56
36 "
8
7 »
27
30
-
50 »
31 N
24 N**
26
„
22 "
27
34 "
•
13
30 "
20
19 N**
* Hydraulic load (raw and recycle) in gal. /min/sq ft; organic load and pounds removal in Ibs/1000 cu ft/day.
*# Decreasing nutrient addition.
-------
Tables. Forced Aeration Trickling Filter, First Series
Hydr. *
Raw Rec.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
0.39
"
.42
.45
.47
0.42
0.72
.74
.84
.85
.92
0.81
0.27
.36
.45
.57
0.41
0.65
.68
.69
••
.84
.38
0.73
0.90
.92
.94
.95
1.01
..
.99
1.04
1.06
0.98
1.13
1. 17
1.29
1.20
0.64
1.26
"
.76
.36
.35
.38
0.72
1.24
.27
.68
.97
1.08
0.86
1.18
1.70
1.50
.97
1.34
1.04
•|
1.27
1.01
. 54
1.05
0.99
1. 18
.95
1.20
1.01
..
1.20
1.54
1.20
1. 16
0.85
1.50
.57
0.97
Influent
COD BOD
ppm ppm
2500
3400
3180
2810
2900
1780
2350
2700
2840
2530
3210
2500
3600
2940
3260
3250
3280
2040
2960
3420
2980
2900
2680
3010
2040
2840
3080
3880
2290
3630
3020
3310
3390
2870
2480
3110
3200
2640
2920
1890
1860
2150
2240
800
1100
1860
1700
1600
1240
2010
2060
1790
1740
2490
2020
2250
1620
2100
2520
770
1940
1260
1940
1450
2230
1840
2310
1580
2410
2180
2310
2010
1800
2060
1450
2330
1710
1830
SS
ppm
810
1030
490
280
670
650
-
590
1040
670
530
710
870
-
670
560
600
400
620
710
900
440
950
600
800
830
620
620
720
550
1190
870
Effluent
DO, ppm COD BOD
pH AM PM Temp, ppm ppm
6.3
7.9
6.4
6.2
6.4
7.9
6. 1
6.7
6.2
5.0
7.5
6.2
5.5
4.8
7.5
5.5
5.8
5.2
6.5
8.8
8.4
6.0
4.9
6.6
8.3
6.7
5.2
6.1
6.8
6.6
6.2
8.4
8. 1
6.9
8.6
7.1
7.8
83
85
85
78
83
85
81
83
83
82
86
83
82
83
108
104
120
107
110
109
103
120
117
97
117
111
100
122
117
105
99
110
118
100
116
110
108
111
116
112
1750
2170
1810
1840
1590
1590
990
1680
1730
1690
1540
1240
2690
1780
1318
1990
1860
870
1510
1780
1080
1810
540
2200
850
1380
1260
2930
1710
2250
2040
2170
1723
810
2200
1900
1550
1930
1740
1540
1770
2010
1510
1100
1080
830
1410
1540
1140
1420
1310
1620
1410
1740
1550
1840
1170
1575
2170
860
1500
1360
2000
1570
1830
980
2130
1220
2080
1900
2000
1820
720
1470
1590
1070
1670
990
1240
SS
ppm
1180
1490
200
520
840
850
-
560
1990
1080
910
1140
820
1550
830
440
1340
1000
680
1210
1530
980
1270
1930
1470
2500
930
1390
-
960
860
910
Org. *
DO, ppm COD BOD
pH AM PM Temp. IbB IbB
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
s
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
5.
4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
6.
5.
6.
6.
6.
2
5
5
5
9
3
7
5
t
2
6
3
2
5
5
8
0
1
9
5
0
2
8
2
0
2
0
3
5
6
4
9
3
7
5
6
6
76 1510
74
79
76
75
80
80
77
80
78
78
79
77
79
80
94
101
107
96
95
92
105
102
94
lf)3
99
93
115
103
99
95
101
110
95
104
102
104
93
110
106
2110
1980
1900
2100
1340
1770
1820
3280
3000
4320
3380
5310
3860
1410
1880
2370
I860
1880
3560
3220
3230
2990
4040
2700 .
3290
4450
5720
3440
5510
4890
5360
5410
4770
4240
4870
6000
5450
5720
1160
1150
1330
1520
850
1400
1240
1850
1460
2700
2800
2640
2200
1080
1160
1630
1470
1340
2520
2170
1400
2600
1920
2120
2660
3400
2380
3660
3530
5330
-
3320
3060
3170
2620
4390
3530
3510
COD
450
880
860
660
940
150
1020
710
1280
1000
2250
1700
1350
1520
840
730
1050
1060
920
1700
2060
1220
2390
1090
1580
1670
2640
1410
870
2100
1580
1850
2660
3470
470
1890
3090
1460
2280
Removal *
COD BOD BOD Air
% IbB % SCFM
30
42
43
35
45
11
SB
18
39
33
52
50
25
40
60
39
44
57
50
48
64
38
80
27
58
52
59
25
25
38
32
34
49
73
11
39
52
27
39
210
50
90
500
20
780
270
80
120
790
1020
270
500
330
270
300
410
330
350
500
(-100)
(-100)
(-140)
100
1250
270
550
500
450
450
-
2120
560
770
690
1250
1480
1140
18 300
5
7 "
33
„
2
56
20 300
4 300
8
29
36
10
20 300
30 300
23
18 "
28
25 300
14 300
"
23 "
i.
"
5 300
47 300
8
23
14 i,
13
13
.
64
18 "
25 300
26 300
28
42
32 300
Nutr.
N,P
"
ii
N, P
N, P
"
ii
••
N.P
N,r
••
'•
"
ii
"
11
N,P
N,P
"
"
N,P
* Hydraulic load (raw and recycle) in gal. /min/sq ft; organic load and pounds removal in Ibs/1000 cu ft/day.
- 31 -
-------
Table 6. Natural Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series *
I
OJ
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
Run
1/3 Filter depth
3/3 Filter depth
Loading**
1/3 Filter depth
3/3 Filter depth
Removal**
Loading'*
Removal**
DO ppm COD BOD COD COD BOD BOD COD BOD COD COD BOD BOD
AM PM Ibs Ibs Iba % Ibs % Iba Ibs Ibe % Ibs % .
a
h
c
d
e
f
4800 2500
2700 1800
3100 2100
3700 2000
3600 1900
3500 2300
420 7.8
150 8.6
250 8. 4
600 8. 5
700 8.7
550 8.5
3600 1500
1600 1000
2100 1500
2200 1500
1800 1000
2100 1400
300 8. 1
190 8.4
200 7.8
600 7.6
700 8.9
550 8.6
3100 1200
1500 900
1900 1300
2000 1300
1900 900
1900 1300
220 8.0
160 8.2
200 8. 0
500 7.6
700 8.8
400 8. 4
3540 1840 880 25
1990 1330 810 41
2290 1550 740 32
2730 1480 1110 41
2660 1400 1330 50
2580 1700 1030 40
730 40 1190
590 44 670
440 28 770
370 25 910
660 47 890
670 39 860
620
440
520
490
470
570
420 35
300 45
300 39
420 46
420 47
390 45
320 52
220 50
200 38
170 35
250 53
250 44
AVE 3570 2100 450 8. 4
2230 1320 420 8.2
2050 1130 360 8.2
2630 1550 980 38 580 42 880 520 380 43 240 45
.8
h
i
j
k
AVE
1
m
n
0
F
q
3100
4000
3400
3000
3500
3400
4000
4100
4600
4000
4900
3500
2200
2800
2200
2000
2500
2340
2700
2700
2800
2300
2400
2200
370
600
550
550
700
550
800
690
840
750
700
550
7.9
8. 1
7.8
7. 4
7.2
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.8
7.8 4. 4
7.9 3.1
8.0 3.7
2100
2300
2000
2000
2000
2080
2300
2900
2300
2. 9 2400
3.9 2500
2900
1500
1700
1300
1300
1400
1440
1400
1900
1200
1400
1600
1800
510
410
700
650
1400
730
1000
1400
1900
980
1200
980
7.7
7.8
8. 1
7.7
7.5
7.8
8.0
7.5
7.3
7.8 2.2
7.9 2.2
7.9 1.5
1900
2100
1800
2000
1900
1940
2100
2300
2200
1.9 2100
2. 4 2300
2300
1300
1500
1100
1300
1200
1270
1300
1600
1300
1400
1400
1500
550
360
500
600
2100
820
800
1000
2300
850
950
850
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
2
5
7
6
2
4
0
4
1
7 2.0
8 1.9
6 1.3
2290
2950
2510
2210
2580
2510
2950
3020
3390
L.Z 2950
2.4 3610
- 2580
1620
2070
1620
1480
1840
1730
1990
1990
2070
1700
1770
1620
740
1250
1030
730
1100
970
1250
880
1690
1180
1770
440
32
42
41
33
43
38
42
29
50
40
49
17
510
820
660
520
810
660
960
490
1180
670
590
290
32
40
41
35
44
38
48
30
57
39
33
18
770
990
840
740
860
840
990
1010
1140
990
1210
860
540
690
540
490
620
580
670
670
690
570
590
540
300
470
400
250
390
360
470
440
600
470
640
290
39
48
48
34
45
43
48
44
53
48
53
34
220
320
270
170
320
270
350
270
370
220
240
170
41
46
50
35
52
45
52
40
54
39
41
32
AVE 4180 25ZO 720 7.8 3.7 3.4 2550 1550 1240 7.7 1.9 2.2 2220 1420 1130 7.6 1.7 1.8 3080 1860 1200 38 710 38 1030
620
480 46 270 43
-------
Table 6. Natural Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series, continued*
I
(JO
00
J
INFLUENT
r
B
t
u
V
w
X
y
z
AVE
aa
bb
cc
dd
ee
AVE
££
gg
hh
ii
j.i
kk
11
mm
nn
oo
EFFLUENT
1/3 Filter depth
COD
ppm
4400
.4300
4000
4200
3600
4400
4300
4300
3900
4160
3900
4300
4100
4300
4500
4220
4200
3900
4400
4200
3400
3600
3100
3700
3800
BOD
ppm
2500
2600
2600
--
1900
2200
2800
2600
2600
2480
2500
2400
2700
2500
2500
2520
2800
3000
2700
2500
2100
2100
2100
2400
2400
SS
ppm
560
980
600
750
570
730
760
790
1400
810
760
660
950
560
900
770
790
800
830
650
650
570
570
590
600
PH
7.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
7.
7.
7.
8.
7.
7.
7
7
0
4
6
5
6
7
7
7
3
3
4
3
9
2
5
8
1
8
6
1
5
5
6
DO
AM
_
2.0
2.3
1.9
3.1
-
-
3.4
2.7
2.5
_
2.1
-
2.5
1.8
2.1
.
-
-
3 5
1.6
2. 1
.
2. 1
-
-
ppm
PM
3.3
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.4
3.2
2.6
3. 1
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.6
2.4
2. 1
1.8
2.3
2.9
-
2.4
2 9
1.5
-
3.9
-
1.9
2.3
COD
ppm
3200
3000
2600
2500
2100
2500
3400
2600
2400
2700
2700
3000
3000
3000
3400
3020
2600
2600
2500
2300
3000
2900
2600
2700
2800
2900
BOD
ppm
2000
1800
1600
--
1200
1400
2000
1700
1400
1640
1700
1800
1800
1900
2000
1840
1800
1700
1500
1400
1800
2000
1800
1600
1800
1900
SS
ppm
1800
2000
1600
1600
1000
1500
880
1300
1400
1450
1600
2200
820
1900
3600
2020
2200
1400
400
870
1100
1600
2100
2400
1800
pH
7.8
7.2
7.6
7.9
8.2
8.0
8.2
7.8
6.6
7.7
6.7
6.5
7. 1
5.9
5.5
6.3
6.0
6.1
7.8
7 2
6.3
5.7
5.5
6.1
5.9
6.3
DO
AM
_
0.5
1. 1
1.8
2.0
-
-
2.4
2.1
1.7
1.5
-
1.3
0.5
1.1
_
-
-
2 4
1.2
1.0
-
0. 1
-
-
ppm
PM
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
-
-
1
0.
-
0.
-
0.
0.
8
7
0
0
6
6
5
1
4
6
0
2
6
6
6
8
0
ft
7
0
0
1
COD
ppm
2800
2800
2600
2300
1900
2400
3000
2300
2200
2480
2500
2700
2700
2900
3500
2860
2100
2000
2100
2200
2300
2700
2600
2300
2600
2500
3/3 Filter depth
BOD
ppm
1800
1800
1600
--
1000
1400
1600
1600
1200
1490
1500
1800
1600
1800
1900
1720
1400
1400
1300
1600
1700
1800
1600
1500
1700
1600
SS
ppm
1200
2500
2800
2700
1300
1200
500
1000
1400
1620
2100
1900
370
1200
1200
1350
1000
830
230
1100
1400
1400
3000
2800
1400
pH
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.3
8.2
7.8
7.7
7.5
6.6
7.5
6.3
6.4
6.9
5.7
5.6
6.2
5. 8
6.5
7.6
7 0
5.9
5.6
5.4
5.5
5.9
6.0
DO
AM
_
0.3
0.5
0.7
2.6
-
-
3.4
1.5
1.2
0.6
-
1.9
1.2
1.2
.
-
3 2
2.0
1.0
-
0.0
-
-
ppm
PM
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
2. 4
2.5
1.9
2.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
0.2
2.2
1. 1
0.9
1.2
0.9
-
3.0
2 8
1.1
.
0.2
-
0.0
0.9
1/3 Filter depth
Loading3-"'1
COD
Ibs
3250
3170
2950
3100
2660
3250
3170
3170
2880
3070
2880
3170
3020
3170
3320
3110
3100
2880
3250
3100
2510
2660
2290
2730
2800
BOD
Iba
1840
1920
1920
__
1400
1620
2070
1920
1920
1830
1840
1770
1990
1840
1840
1860
2070
2210
1990
1840
1550
1550
1550
1770
1770
COD
Ibs
890
950
1030
1260
1110
1410
660
1250
1110
1070
890
950
800
950
810
880
1180
960
14(0
880
370
740
300
660
660
Removal**
COD
%
27
30
35
41
42
43
21
39
38
35
31
30
26
30
24
28
38
33
43
28
15
28
13
24
24
BOD
IbB
360
590
740
--
510
590
490
670
890
620
590
440
550
440
360
500
740
960
880
510
70
220
370
440
370
3/3
Filter
Loading**
BOD COD
% Ibs
20
31
38
-
36
36
28
35
46
33
32
25
33
24
20
27
36
43
44
28
45
14
24
25
21
1090
1060
910
1040
890
1090
1060
1060
960
1020
960
1060
1010
1060
1110
1040
1040
960
1090
1040
840
890
770
910
940
BOD
Ibs
620
640
640
--
470
540
690
640
640
610
620
590
670
620
620
620
690
740
670
620
520
520
520
590
590
COD
Ibs
400
370
270
470
420
500
320
490
420
410
340
390
340
340
250
330
420
470
570
470
170
250
200
270
320
depth
Removal**
COD
%
37
35
30
45
47
46
30
46
44
40
35
37
34
32
22
32
50
49
52
45
20
28
26
30
34
BOD
IbB
180
'270
240
--
220
190
290
240
340
250
250
150
270
180
150
200
340
390
350
200
80
120
150
170
190
BOD
%
29
42
38
-
47
35
42
38
53
40
40
25
40
29
24
32
49
53
52
32
15
23
29
29
32
AVE 3810 2460 670 7.8 2. 3 2.5 2690 1730 1540 6.3 1. Q 0. 8 2340 1560 1460 6. 1 1.6 1.3 2810 1810 800 27 510 31 940 610 360 37 220 35
* Fresh and recycle hydraulic loads both 0. 44 gallons per minute per square foot; nitrogen added.
*# Organic load and pounds removal in lbs/1000 cu ft/day.
-------
Table 7. Natural Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series, Depth Comparisons *
COD, ppm
Run
Filter depth
Influent
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
1
m
n
0
P
q
r
s
t
u
AVE
4800
4100
4000
3500
4400
4000
3600
4400
4300
3900
3900
4100
4500
3900
4400
4200
3400
3600
3100
3700
3800
3980
% Removal
1/3
3600
2900
2400
2900
3200
2600
2100
2500
3400
2400
2700
3000
3400
2600
2500
3000
2900
2600
2700
2800
2900
2810
29
2/3
2700
2800
2200
2500
3000
2700
2000
2500
3000
2300
2600
2800
3200
2100
2300
2400
2800
2400
2700
3000
2900
2610
34
BOD, ppm
Suspended Solids
Filter depth
3/3 Influent 1/3
3100
2300
2100
2300
2800
2600
1900
2400
3000
2200
2500
2700
3500
2000
2100
2300
2700
2600
2300
2600
2500
2500
37
2500
2700
2300
2200
2500
2600
1900
2200
2800
2600
2500
2700
2500
3000
2700
2500
2100
2100
2100
2400
2400
2440
1500
1900
1400
1800
2000
1600
1200
1400
2000
1400
1700
1800
2000
1700
1500
1800
2000
1800
1600
1800
1900
1700
30
2/3
1000
1600
1300
1600
1800
1600
1100
1500
1500
1200
1600
1800
1900
1600
1600
1600
1900
1500
1700
1900
1700
1570
36
3/3
1200
1600
1400
1500
1800
1600
1000
1400
1600
1200
1500
1600
1900
1400
1300
1700
1800
1600
1500
1700
1600
1520
38
Filter depth
Influent 1/3
420
690
750
550
560
600
570
730
760
1400
760
950
900
800
830
650
650
570
570
590
600
710
% Increase
300
1400
980
980
1800
1600
1000
1500
880
1400
1600
820
3600
1400
400
870
1100
1600
2100
2400
1800
1410
99
2/3
244
1100
2200
1000
1200
1600
1100
1800
570
1400
1600
720
1600
1400
325
560
1200
1800
2000
2100
1700
1300
83
pH
Filter depth
3/3 Influent 1/3
244
1000
850
850
1200
2800
1300
1200
500
1400
2100
370
1200
830
230
1100
1400
1400
3000
2800
1400
1290
82
7.8
7.5
7.8
8.0
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.3
7.4
6.9
8.8
8. 1
7.8
7.6
7. 1
8.5
7.5
7.6
7.7
8. 1
7.5
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.6
8.2
8.0
8.2
6.6
6.7
7. 1
5.5
6. 1
7.8
6.3
5.7
5.5
6.1
5.9
6.3
7.0
2./3
8.2
7. 4
7.5
7. 4
7. 4
7.3
8. 1
7.9
7.9
6.6
6.6
6.9
5.7
6. 1
7.6
6.0
5.7
6.0
5.8
6.0
5.9
6.9
3/3
8.0
7.3
7.7
7.6
7.3
7. 2
8.2
7. 8
7.7
6.6
6.3
6.9
5.6
6.5
7.6
5.9
5.6
5. 4
5.5
5.9
6.0
6.8
Influent
AM
4.4
3.7
2.3
3. 1
2.7
1.8
1.6
2. 1
2. 1
2.6
PM
2,. 9
3.3
2.2
2. 4
3.2
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.4
1.8
2. 4
1.5
2.2
1.9
2.3
2.4
DO,
, ppm
Filter depth
1/3
AM
2.
1.
1.
2.
2.
0.
1.
1.
0.
1.
2
5
1
0
1
5
2
0
1
3
PM
1.9
1.8
1.0
1.6
2.6
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.6
0.6
2.0
0. 7
0.8
0
0. 1
1.2
2/3
AM
2.
1.
1.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
2
5
4
2
4
2
0
1
1
3
PM
1. 4
1.7
0.9
2.3
2.6
1. 4
0.6
1.3
1.8
1. 1
2.3
0.6
0.5
0
0. 4
1.3
3/3
AM
2.0
1.3
0.5
2.6
1.5
1.2
2.0
1.0
0
1.3
PM
1.2
1.5
0.3
2. 4
2.5
1.9
1.4
1.5
2. 2
0.9
3.0
1. 1
0.8
"
0
0.9
1.4
-------
Table 7. Natural Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series, Depth Comparisons, continued*
I
OO
Ul
1/3 Filter Depth
Loading **
Run
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
1
m
n
o
P
q
r
s
t
u
AVE
COD
Ibs
3540
3020
Z950
2580
3250
2950
2660
3250
3170
2880
2880
3020
3320
2880
3250
3100
2510
2660
2290
2730
2800
2940
BOD
Ibs
1840
1990
1700
1620
1840
1920
1400
1620
2070
1920
1840
1990
1840
2210
1990
1840
1550
1550
1550
1770
1770
1800
COD
Ibs
880
880
1180
440
890
1030
1110
1410
660
1110
890
800
810
960
1410
880
370
740
300
660
660
860
Removal **
COD
%
25
29
40
17
27
35
42
43
21
38
31
26
24
33
43
28
15
28
13
24
24
29
BOD
Ibs
730
490
670
290
360
740
510
590
590
890
590
660
360
960
880
510
70
220
370
440
370
530
BOD
%
40
30
39
18
20
38
36
36
28
46
32
33
20
43
44
28
45
14
24
25
21
32
2/3 Filter Depth
Loading**
COD
Ibs
1770
1510
1480
1290
1620
1480
1330
1620
1590
1440
1440
1510
1660
1440
1620
1550
1250
1330
1140
13-60
1400
1470
BOD
Ibs
920
1000
850
810
920
960
700
810
1030
960
920
1000
920
1110
1000
920
770
770
770
890
890
900
COD
Ibs
770
480
660
370
520
480
590
700
480
590
480
480
480
660
770
660
220
440
150
260
330
500
Removal**
COD
%
44
32
45
29
32
32
44
43
30
41
33
32
29
46
48
43
18
33
13
19
24
34
BOD
Ibs
550
410
370
220
260
370
300
260
480
520
330
330
220
520
410
330
70
220
150
180
260
320
BOD
%
60
41
44
27
28
38
43
32
47
54
36
33
24
47
41
36
9
29
20
20
29
35
3/3 Filter Depth
Loading**
COD
Ibs
1190
1010
990
860
1090
910
890
1090
1060
960
960
1010
1110
960
1090
1040
840
890
770
910
940
980
BOD
Ibs
620
670
570
540
620
640
470
540
690
640
620
670
620
740
670
620
520
520
520
5^0
590
600
COD
Ibs
420
440
470
290
400
270
420
500
320
420
340
340
250
470
570
470
170
250
200
270
320
360
Removal**
COD
%
44
44
48
34
37
30
47
46
30
44
35
34
22
49
52
45
20
28
26
30
.34
37
BOD
Ibs
320
270
220
170
180
240
220
190
290
.340
250
270
150
390
350
200
80
120
150
170
190
230
BOD
%
52
40
39
32
29
38
47
35
42
53
40
40
25
53
52
32
15
23
29
29
32
37
* Fresh and recycle hydraulic loads-both 0. 44 gallons per minute per square foot; nitrogen added.
** Organic load and pounds removal in Ibs/1000 cu ft/day.
-------
Table 8. Forced Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series
I
OJ
Hydr.
load
Raw Recyc.
gpm/ft gpm/ft2
Ave.
Ave.
•Ave.
0. 54
0.57
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.59
0.55
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.36
0.23
0.44
0.23
--
0. 45
0. 45
--
0.45
0.40
0. 90
1. 13
1.08
1. 08
1.08
1.08
1.06
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
1.08
--
1.08
1.08
--
0. 90
1.03
Influent
COD
ppm
4800
2700
3100
3700
3600
3500
3570
3100
4000
3400
3000
3500
3400
4000
4100
4600
4000
4900
3500
4180
BOD
ppm
2500
1800
2100
2000
1900
2300
2100
2200
2800
2200
2000
2500
2340
2700
2700
2800
2300
2400
2200
2520
SS
ppm
420
150
250
600
700
550
450
370
600
550
550
700
550
800
690
840
750
700
550
720
DO
pH AM
7. 8
8.6
8. 4
8. 5
8.7
8.5
8. 4
7.9
8. 1
7.8
7. 4
7.2
7.6
7. 7
7.5
7.8
7.8 4.4
7.9 3.1
8.0 3.7
7.8 3.7
Effluent
ppm Temp COD
PM °F
81
84
80
81
81
81
81
80
80
81
80
81
80
76
-
81
2.9 83
3.9 -
-
3. 4 80
ppm
4100
2400
2600
2800
3400
2700
3000
2700
3000
2500
2400
2500
2620
2400
--
4100
2900
2900
2600
2980
BOD
ppm
1900
1600
1800
1800
1900
1900
1820
2100
2300
1800
1900
1800
1980
1600
--
2700
1900
2000
1700
1980
SS
ppm
240
140
150
650
1100
900
530
700
800
600
700
1600
880
1100
--
720
900
860
780
870
DO ppm Temp.
pH AM PM
7.6
7.0
7. 4
6.8
10. 5
9.2
8. 1
6. 1
6.3
6.2
5.5
5.2
5.8
6.4
-
6.6
5.9 2.2 2.5
5.6 2.2 2.6
5.1 0.9
5.9 1.8 2.6
°F
80
84
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
81
80
81
80
75
-
80
83
-
-
79
Load *
COD
#S
4170
2460
2690
3210
3130
3290
3160
2690
3470
2950
1740
1270
2420
1450
--
3330
2890
--
2530
2550
BOD
#8
2170
1640
1820
1740
1650
2160
1860
1910
2430
1910
1160
900
1660
980
--
2030
1660
--
1590
1570
Removal *
COD
#8
610
270
430
780
180
750
500
350
870
780
350
370
540
580
--
360
790
--
650
660
%
15
11
16
24
6
23
16
13
25
26
20
29
23
40
-
11
27
-
26
26
BOD
#8
520
180
260
180
0
370
238
90
430
350
60
250
244
400
--
80
290
--
360
333
%
Air
SCFM Nutr.
24
11
14
10
0
17
13
5
18
18
5
28
15
41
-
4
18
-
23
21
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
N,F
"
ii
•
"
N,P
N,P
M
-
•
"
N,P
N,P
11
••
"
N,P
-------
Table 8. Forced Aeration Trickling Filter, Second Series, continued
00
I
Hydr.
load
Raw Recyc.
gpm/ft gpm/ft
0 45
0.50
0.54
0.45
0.54
0.54
0.50
0.50
0.50
Ave. 0.50
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.50
0.50
Ave. 0.52
0.45
0.45
0.45
0. 45
0.50
0.45
0.54
0.54
0.50
0.54
Ave. 0. 49
1 08
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.92
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Influent
COD
ppm
4400
4300
4000
4200
.3600
4400
4300
4300
3900
4160
3900
4300
4100
4100
4500
4220
4200
3900
4400
--
4200
3400
3600
3100
3700
3800
3810
BOD
ppm
2500
2600
2600
--
1900
2200
2800
2600
2600
2480
2500
2400
2700
2500
2500
2520
2800
3000
2700
--
2500
2100
2100
2100
2400
2400
2460
SS
ppm
560
980
600
750
570
730
760
790
1400
810
760
660
950
560
900
770
790
800
830
--
650
650
570
570
590
600
670
PH
7 7
7.7
8.0
7. 4
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
6.9
7.2
7.5
8.8
8.1
-
7.8
7.6
7. 1
8.5
7.5
7.6
7.8
DO
AM
2.0
2.3
1.9
3. 1
-
-
3.4
2.7
2.5
-
2. 1
-
2.5
1.8
2. 1
_
-
-
3.5
1.6
2. 1
-
2. 1
-
-
2.3
ppm Temp
PM °F
3 3
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2. 4
3.2
2.6
3. 1
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.6
2.4
2. 1
1.8
2.3
2.9
-
2. 4
2.9
1. 5
-
3.9
-
1.9
2.3
2.5
122
118
112
117
122
121
114
118
112
117
116
115
117
120
120
117
110
85
105
104
105
109
108
110
114
106
106
Effluent
COD
ppm
4200
3300
3500
3300
3200
3900
3500
3400
3550
3600
3700
4000
3200
4100
3720
3600
--
3700
--
35.00
3100
3600
2900
3200
3400
3380
BOD
ppm
2200
2000
--
1800
1800
2200
2300
1900
2020
1900
2200
2300
2100
2200
2140
2300
--
2300
--
2200
2000
2200
1900
2000
2100
2130
SS
ppm
1000
6500
3100
2200
625
1900
750
500
2070
750
670
700
810
1000
790
650
--
480
--
630
600
510
580
540
530
570
PH
6.0
5.6
5. 1
6.0
5.4
6.9
6.7
6. 4
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.8
5.7
5.7
6. 1
5.8
-
7. 1
-
5. 8
6.1
5.8
5. 8
5.6
5.7
6.0
DO
AM
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
-
-
0.7
0.5
0.2
-
0.2
-
0.2
1.0
0. 4
_
-
-
1.5
0.5
1.0
-
1.0
-
-
1.0
ppm
PM
0 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.9
1. 2
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.6
-
1. 1
1. 1
0.8
-
1.8
-
1.2
1. 4
1.3
Temp
°F
121
114
112
115
122
120
112
119
111
116
114
115
117
121
118
117
106
83
108
112
109
109
110
108
108
104
106
Load*
COD
#8
3180
3420
3470
3040
3130
3820
3420
3420
3100
3330
3390
3730
3560
3420
3580
3540
3040
2820
3180
--
3340
2460
3130
2690
2940
3300
2990
BOD
#8
1810
2070
2260
--
1650
1910
2230
2070
2070
2010
2170
2080
2340
1990
1990
2110
2030
2170
1950
--
1990
1520
1820
1820
1910
2080
1920
Removal *
COD
#s
80
600
510
260
1040
320
550
390
465
260
520
90
870
320
420
440
--
500
--
550
220
--
170
160
350
331
% BOD
#8
2
17
17
8
27
9
16
13
14
8
14
2
25
9
12
14
-
16
-
16
9
-
6
5
11
11
320
520
--
90
350
480
240
560
352
520
170
340
320
240
310
370
--
290
--
240
70
--
170
320
260
242
% Air
SCFM Nutr.
16
23
-
6
18
22
12
27
18
24
8
14
16
12
15
18
-
15
-
12
5
-
9
17
12
13
i nn
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
200
200
200
200
200
200
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
ff
If
fl
'
t
II
If
N.P
*
N.P*
n
ft
"
"
*
N.P*
N.P*
•i
it
it
ft
•
it
••
••
$
N,P*
* Organic load and pounds removal in lbs/1000 cu ft/day.
** Decreasing nutrient addition.
-------
1
Accession Number
5
1
Subject Field & Group
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
National Canners Association, Berkeley, California
Title
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT OF FRUIT PROCESSING WASTE WATERS
10
Authors)
Mercer, Walter A.
Rose, Walter W.
16
21
Project Designation
12060 EAE
Note
22
Citation
Berkeley, California, National Canners Association, 1970,
37 pages, 7 figures, 8 tables, and 11 references.
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
*Canneries, Industrial wastes, *Biological treatment, Aerobic treatment,
Organic wastes, Waste treatment
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Forced aeration - controlled temperature trickling filter
97 Abstract
I Two high rate trickling filters were evaluated for treating fruit canning liquid
wastes; one was 7. 5 feet deep and had provision for heating the treated waste and for
forced aeration; the other was 21. 5 feet deep and was operated at ambient temperatures
and with natural aeration; both were packed with a high void ratio plastic medium.
Nitrogen added to the cannery waste improved the removal of BOD and COD. In the
absence of added nitrogen a thick fungal slime developed with odors characteristic of
anaerobic microbial action. More often than not, percent removals declined with increas-
ing organic loadings; the pounds of BOD removed per unit volume increased with high
loadings. Elevated temperatures were not consistently shown to improve the performance
of the experimental filter. Forced aeration was not proven beneficial but maintained
higher levels of dissolved oxygen.
The top third of the 21. 5 foot trickling filter accomplished 80% of the filter's total BOD
removal under a light hydraulic loading. The natural aeration filter maintained a
slightly higher dissolved oxygen concentration in the effluent than did the experimental
filter with forced aeration.
Abstract 01
'Walter W. Rose
Institution
National Canners Association. Berkeley. California
WR:102 (REV. JULY 1969)
WRSIC
SEND TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
* OPO: 1969-359-339
------- |