WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES • 12130 DUJ 09/71
Whey Effluent Packed Tower
Trickling Filtration
-------
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. 2C460.
-------
WHEY EFFLUENT
PACKED TOWER TRICKLING FILTRATION
by
Quirk, Lawler & Matusky Engineers
415 Route 303
Tappan, New York 10983
for
Village of Walton
Walton, New York
for the
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Project # 12130 DUJ
Formerly # 11060 DUJ
September 1971
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.50
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and approved for publication. Approval does not
signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
An analysis of BOD removal during flow over an inclined
plane and through full-scale trickling filter media is
developed and verified.
A defined scale-up procedure is used to calculate the
full-scale reaction rate from the laboratory rate. The
former varies with the packing used, the latter is con-
stant .
The treatability of whey effluents is demonstrated by
comparison with other industrial effluents, using a Surf-
pac -like medium in packed towers. A computer program is
described, handling series or parallel filtration using
one to three stages.
Ranges of operating parameters tested were: BOD 200 to
600 ppm; pH 4.5 to 9.8; temperature 15 to 30°C. Filter
performance responded primarily to flow changes. Second-
ary sludge can be thickened by gravity compaction, and
dewatered by vacuum filtration. Centrifugation is not
effective.
In comparison, the activated sludge process requires an
organic loading less than 0.1 Ib. BOD/lb. sludge/day to
maintain an SVI under 200, operation is sensitive to all
parameters, and neither vacuum filtration nor centrifuga-
tion is effective for sludge dewatering.
Process designs and cost analyses are developed for a
combination of whey and domestic sewage as follows: flow-
1.1? mgd$ BOD - 6,900 Ibs/day; suspended solids - 1,600
Ibs/day. (Quirk-Quirk, Lawler & Matusky Engineers)
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project
Number 11060 DUJ, Contract WPC-NY-640, under the partial
sponsorship of the Office of Research & Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Section
I Conclusions
II Recommendations
III Introduction
IV Construction and Process Design
V Construction
VI Experimental
VII Discussion
VIII Acknowledgments
IX References
X Glossary
XI Appendices
Page
1
11
13
31
73
75
137
143
145
149
155
v
-------
FIGURES
No.
1 Schematic Representation
BOD Removal over Slimed Surface 18
2 Graphical Solution of Slimed Plane
BOD Removal Performance Equation 23
3 Trickling Filtration Performance
Full Scale Towers 26
4 Retardant Model Correlations 29
5 Zero Order Model Correlations 30
6 Flow Diagram of Proposed Wastewater Treatment
Facilities
Packed Tower Filter 41
7 Typical Laboratory Simulated Trickling Filter
Plane 77
8 Filter Plane Test Stand Units 78
9 Trickling Filter Plane @ 45°
Response Time Study
Whey and Sewage 81
10 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage
Dissolved BOD Removal
Effect of Ferrous Iron Addition 82
11 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage
Dissolved BOD Removal
Effect of Nutrients and Nitrogen Alone 83
12 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage - Dissolved BOD Removal
Effect of BOD Concentration 84
VI
-------
FIGURES
(continued)
No. Page
13 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage, Dissolved BOD
Effect of Recycle 86
14 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage
Dissolved BOD
Effect of Variable pH 87
15 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and FWPCA Sewage, Dissolved BOD
Breakstone - Walton
Effect of Temperature 89
16 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and FWPCA Sewage, Dissolved BOD
Breakstone - Walton
Effect of Temperature 90
17 Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage, Dissolved BOD Removal
Effect of Plane Length with Nutrients - pH 7.0
Series 6 91
18 Vertical Screen Filter Performance
Whey and Sewage
Data from Schultze 92
19 Trickling Filter Plane Effluent
Neutralization 97
20 Whey and Sewage
BOD Equivalency for Suspended Solids 99
21 Whey and Sewage
Volatile Suspended Solids Content 100
22 Trickling Filter Plane Effluent
Final Sedimentation Tests 101
23 Whey and Sewage
BOD - COD Relationship 104
vn
-------
FIGURES
(continued)
No
24 Trickling Filter Pilot Plant
Walton, New York 107
25 Koch Flexiring
Pilot Plant 108
26 Trickling Filter Koch Pilot Plant
Whey Effluent
BOD Removal Performance 114
27 Trickling Filter Koch Pilot Plant
Whey Effluent
Detention Time vs . Hydraulic Loading 115
28 Trickling Filter Treatment
Whey Effluent
Effect of Solids Loading on Sludge Compaction 119
29 Trickling Filter Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Effect of Solids Loading on Sludge Compaction 120
30 Super-D-Canter 124
31 Trickling Filter Treatment
Whey Effluent
Specific Resistance vs. Filtration Pressure
(No Conditioning) 130
32 Trickling Filter Treatment
Whey Effluent
Sludge Filtration Characteristics
Comparison of FeCl3 and Polymer Conditioning
Agents 131
33 Trickling Filter Treatment
Whey Effluent
Sludge Filtration Characteristics 132
Vlll
-------
TABLES
No. Paqe
1 Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Combined Loadings 32
2 Treatment of Whey and Sewage
BOD Removal Required 33
3 Trickling Filtration of Whey and Sewage
Comparison of BOD Removal Rate Constants 35
4 Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Material Balance for Sludge Disposal 39
5 Summary of Alternative Capital Cost Estimates
for Complete Wastewater Facility Including
Engineering and Contingencies 45
6 Estimated Cost of Treatment and Transmission
Facilities
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste 46
7 Allocation of Capital Cost of Treatment Plant
to Waste Loading Parameters
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste 47
8 Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Allocation of Sludge Disposal Facilities'
Capital Cost to BOD and Suspended Solids
Loadings for 1990 Conditions 50
9 Distribution of Capital Cost for Waste
Treatment
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste 52
10 Estimated Capital Cost of Treatment and
Transmission Facility
Alternative No. 2 Without Breakstone Waste 55
11 Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Estimated Treatment Plant Operating Costs
Alternative No. 1 Initial Condition 56
IX
-------
TABLES
(continued)
NO.
12 Annual Contributions of Loadings
Initial Conditions - Alternative No . 1 57
13 Allocation of Operating Cost of Treatment
Plant to Waste Loading Parameters
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste 58
14 Distribution of Operation and Maintenance Costs
for Waste Treatment
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste 59
15 Total Annual Cost Comparison
Treatment and Transmission Facilities
Walton Sewage 61
16 Estimated Cost of Initial Phase of Walton
Sewerage System 63
17 Estimated Cost of Final Phase of Walton
Sewerage System 63
18 Capital Cost to Walton for Complete System
Alternative No. 1 64
19 Estimate of Operating Cost of Walton Sewerage
System 65
20 Total Annual Cost to Walton for Complete
System
Alternative No. 1 66
21 Laboratory Trickling Filter Plane
Operating Characteristics 76
22 Summary of Filter Plane Performance 93
23 Final Sedimentation Trickling Filter Plane
Effluent
Whey and Sewage 102
24 Characteristics of Pilot Plant Influent 106
-------
TABLES
(continued)
No. Page
25 Summary of Trickling Filter Pilot Plant
Performance
Whey Effluent 110
26 Summary of Trickling Filter Pilot Plant
Performance
Whey and Sewage Effluent 112
27 Comparison of Sludge Thickening Characteristics 121
28 Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Sludge Thickener Design 122
29 Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Centrifugation of Waste Sludge 126
30 Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Vacuum Filtration of Waste Sludge 133
XI
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Findings and conclusions drawn from the study reported on
herein are presented in numerical sequence below.
Theoretical Analyses of Trickling Filtration
1. A theoretically based analysis of BOD removal during
flow over an inclined plane and during flow through
full-scale trickling filter media has been developed
and verified by application to laboratory and full-
scale data.
The analysis is believed to be a new and useful tool in
the evaluation and application of packed tower trick-
ling filtration processes in the treatment of organic
effluents.
2. BOD changes concentration Lo to concentration Le after
flow over an inclined plane or through a full-scale
packed tower has been shown to follow a first order re-
action and to be related as follows:
(a) Inclined plane
^£ _ e-k'H/U
Lo
(b) Packed tower (Surfpac or equal)
5a = S-KTH/U
L0
where: H = Tower or plane height in feet
U = Liquid application rate expressed
as: gpm/LF of plane width for lab-
oratory units and gpm/SF of tower
area for full-scale units
-------
k1 = Specific BOD removal rate constant
for effluent treated obtained from
laboratory analysis
KT = BOD removal rate constant for
particular packing media used in
full-scale tower.
The value of k1 is specific and constant for the
effluent treated. The value of KT varies with the
type of full-scale packing media used and is com-
puted using the value of k1 and the characteristics
of the media. A defined scale-up or computational
procedure is employed as follows:
KT = k1 • Av • ft • Cw
where: Av = the specific surface area of manu-
facturer 's packing media
ft = the fraction of specific surface
available as slime area after cor-
rection for area reduction due to
slime thickness
Cw = a coefficient of efficiency of
hydraulic wetting of media.
3. The treatability of whey effluent using the filtration
process and plastic sheet flow media has been determined
as follows:
k
20 - 1-6 x 10~4 gpm/SF for whey @ 20° C
Av =27 SF/CF for Surfpac or similar
media
ft = 0.8 for whey
Cw = 0.90 for Surfpac or similar media
and
KT, = 1.6 x 10~4 x 27 x 0.8 x 0.9
= 0.03 gpm/CF @ 20° C.
-------
4. Using analytical techniques developed by QL&M prior to
this study and extended during study execution, litera-
ture data for whey application over vertical screens
used as trickling filter simulators have been success-
fully correlated. These data were heretofore uncorre-
lated in terms of a verified analytical model. The
specific rate constant (k1) obtained from these data
substantiated conclusions reached in this study, i.e.,
k1 = 1.6 x 10-4 gpm/SF @ 20° C.
5. A comparison between the treatability of whey and other
industrial effluents using full-scale packed towers and
a media similar to Surfpac demonstrates the compara-
tively high treatability of whey effluent as follows:
Trickling Filtration of Whey
Comparison of BOD Removal Rate Constants
Effluent K-gpm/CF
1. Integrated Kraft Mill Effluent .018 to 0.044
2. Ragmill Effluent .083
3. Boxboard Mill Waste .027
4. Canning Waste .021
5. Slaughter House Waste .044
6. Whey .030
The rate constants for the non-whey industrial efflu-
ents have been determined by application of the analy-
tical model presented in this study to full-scale data
from field installations.
Analysis of Laboratory Data
1. The analysis of laboratory data to develop (k1) values
for the process design of packed tower systems is
facilitated by the use of computer programming. A pro-
gram for the necessary analysis and display of informa-
tion has been developed and described in this report.
The program provides for the inclusion of additional
kinetic models other than a first order reaction.
2. The computer program has been designed to accomplish
the following purposes:
(a) Accept laboratory treatment data, execute all unit
(dimensional) conversions and print out tabula-
tion of laboratory results.
-------
(b) Prepare tabulations of all process parameters in
terms of process design dimensions such as: re-
moval efficiency, recirculation ratio, detention
time, temperature, hydraulic loading, etc.
(c) Prepare separate tabulation of the analytical
parameters required for evaluation of the kinetic
model selected for description of the BOD removal
process.
(d) Plot the graphical correlation associated with a
given kinetic model and determine, by least
squares curve fitting, the values of the process
design constants associated with the given kinetic
model.
Program subroutines for a first order and a retar-
dant reaction model have been completed. Addi-
tional models can be added as required.
Laboratory Equipment
Study results have shown that the performance of trickling
filters for whey and other effluents can be accurately
duplicated by laboratory equipment utilizing inclined
planes.
1. The laboratory apparatus has been demonstrated to be
responsive to changes in loading parameters and to be
capable of returning to steady state performance
rapidly.
2. The laboratory equipment requirements are not complex
and can be operated by personnel familiar with waste
treatment analyses.
3. Laboratory equipment requirements comprise the
following:
(a) Narrow planes of 1/2 in. width and lengths to 10
ft
(b) Feed and recirculation pumps
(c) Heating tapes and temperature controllers
(d) Refrigeration facilities.
-------
Process Design .Calculations
1. The development and comparison of alternative process
designs for full-scale packed tower filtration of whey
effluents using laboratory data are facilitated by the
use of computer programming. A program for the neces-
sary analyses and display of information has been
developed and described in this report. The program
provides for series or parallel filtration using, from
one to three stages.
2. The computer program has been designed to accomplish
the following:
(a) Accept waste loading and process design constants
as inputs and print out detailed tabulation of
process design requirements.
(b) Prepare detailed tabulation of all major process
design elements for each of the kinetic models and
alternative process design arrangements selected.
(c) Process design elements include:
(1) Removal efficiency per stage
(2) Area application rate per stage (gpm/SF)
(3) Recirculation ratio per stage
(4) Volume of packing media required per stage
(CF)
(5) Total volume of packing media (CF)
(6) Flow pumped per stage (gpm)
(7) Total flow pumped - all stages (gpm)
(8) Number of pumping stations required.
These printouts allow selection of a process design for
minimum cost to achieve a specified degree of treatment,
-------
Packed Tower Performance on Whey Effluent
1. Trickling filter performance is responsive, primarily,
to flow changes and has been shown to require a 6 to 8
hour time span to adjust to a 250% change in flow rate
when treating whey effluent.
2. The addition of ferrous iron has been shown to be of no
demonstrable value in increasing the rate of BOD re-
moval. Significant increases in removal rate can be
obtained by nitrogen addition. Nitrogen addition is
recommended in process design.
3. In accordance with theoretical predictions, a change in
BOD concentration has been demonstrated to have no sig-
nificant effect on whey BOD removal rate. BOD concen-
trations examined varied from 200 to 600 ppm.
4. The addition of recirculation will require additional
filter volume to produce a given efficiency of BOD re-
moval in the range of removals required for full-scale
design. Recirculation flow should be considered in
computing filter volume and is not recommended unless
required to maintain a minimum wetting velocity for the
particular media being employed.
5. pH changes from 4.5 to 9.8 have been evaluated in terms
of effects on BOD removal performance. Data indicate
an increase in rate constant as pH becomes acidic, e.g.,
k1 @ 9.8 = 1.1 x 10~3 and k1 @ 4.5 = 2.8 x 10"3.
6. Temperature variations from 15 to 30° C have been eval-
uated in terms of effects on BOD removal performance.
Data developed in this study and those obtained from
the literature have been shown to follow the Arrhenius
relationship:
k» = k^0 . e(t-20)
where Q has been verified as 1.035 for trickling
filters.
7. Slime growth has been demonstrated to be prolific and
to require that a media of high porosity in the verti-
cal plane be used as a packing media.
-------
8. Pilot plant operation has demonstrated that randomly
packed media will cause plugging due to slime sloughing
when treating whey effluent. This media is not rec-
ommended for design.
9. After trickling filtration, pH may be slightly acidic.
This pH may be additionally depressed if the detention
time in a conveying sewage system is sufficiently pro-
longed to cause auto-acidification prior to entry into
the treatment plant. Titration requirements for pH
adjustments after trickling filtration have been
measured and reported on in the study.
10. Suspended solids present in the untreated whey and in
the trickling filter effluent have been shown to ex-
hibit a BOD equivalent to 60% of their weight. The
achievement of high overall degrees of treatment will
require that suspended solids in the final effluent be
limited to minimum values.
11. Settling characteristics of trickling filter solids are
such as to require coagulant addition in order to in-
sure minimum suspended BOD in the treated effluent.
12. Odor generation from packed tower trickling filters is
not anticipated to be highly objectionable at filter
loadings required for high BOD removals. However, if
deodorization is required, a 10 ppm concentration of
ozone has been shown to be an effective control dosage
in the air stream passing through the filter.
13. Limited odor protection, consisting of covers for
packed towers and forced ventilation, is recommended if
units are to be located in the immediate vicinity of
odor-sensitive areas.
14. Biological sludge production from trickling filtration
is expected to average 0.7 Ibs per Ib of BOD removed.
Sludge Handling Characteristics
1. Secondary sludge from trickling filtration can be
thickened by gravity compaction to an ultimate concen-
tration of 3%. A thickener loading of 6 Ibs solids/SF/
day is recommended.
-------
2. Solids dewatering by centrifugation is not effective
for secondary sludge because of poor recoveries (80%-
85%) and low solids content of the dewatered sludge
(6%-9%) . Chemical addition to increase performance is
not economical .
3. Solids dewatering by vacuum filtration can be achieved
at a loading of 1.2 Ibs/SF/hr using 7% Fed., to produce
a cake of 20%-25% solids.
4 . Polymer addition is not economical when compared with
addition for vacuum filtration.
5. The addition of lime did not increase filtration char-
acteristics and in certain cases decreased filterabil-
ity .
6. Odor generation from the acidified conditioned sludge
will require that special ventilation facilities be
incorporated in the design of sludge filtration
facilities .
Packed Tower and Activated Sludge Comparisons
Process comparisons between packed tower trickling filtra-
tion and activated sludge are summarized as follows:
1. In order to maintain an SVI under 200, an organic load-
ing of less than 0.1 Ib BOD/lb sludge/day is indicated
for activated sludge.
Bench-scale pilot plant operation indicated a sludge
volume index of 145 when operating at a loading of 0.05
Ib BOD/lb sludge/day. These low organic loading re-
quirements may be compared with a nominal value of 0.25
Ib BOD/lb sludge/day for municipal sewage operation at
high degrees of treatment.
2. At an organic loading of 0.1 Ib/lb/day, and using a de-
sign mixed liquor solids concentration of 2,500 ppm, an
aeration detention time of at least 10 hrs per 100 ppm
of BOD is required for activated sludge operation at an
SVI of 200 or less.
3. At an organic loading of 0.1 Ib/lb/day, and a 2,500 ppm
mixed liquor, 3 days detention time would be required
for the Walton~Breakstone mixture. This volume would
be over 4-1/2 times the volume of packed tower.
8
-------
4. Activated sludge settling characteristics were found to
be periodically unstable at SVI values below 200.
5. Flotation of activated sludge mixed liquor, using bench-
scale equipment, indicated a design overflow rate of 600
gals/day/SF based on untreated waste flow. Flotation
would not be economically competitive in comparison with
sedimentation.
6. Activated sludge operation was observed to exhibit sig-
nificant sensitivity to pH, nutrient and temperature
control.
7. Waste sludge solids from the activated sludge process
were not amenable to dewatering by vacuum filters or
centrifuge.
8. Packed tower trickling filtration is preferred over the
activated sludge process.
Treatment of Breakstone and Walton Effluent
1. Process design for the combination of whey from Break-
stone Division of Kraftco and the Village of Walton, New
York, will be based upon the following design loadings:
Characteristic 1990 Condition
1. Flow 1.17 mgd
2. BOD 6,860 Ibs/day
3. Suspended Solids 1,580 Ibs/day
2. A BOD removal of 92% of total BOD and 95% of dissolved
BOD will be required to comply with New York State ef-
fluent requirements. A suspended solids removal of 92%
will be required.
3. Minimum cost for packed tower facilities is indicated
by two-stage filtration using limited recirculation.
4. Recirculation flow will be returned to the primary sedi-
mentation tanks to provide additional protection against
filter plugging, from heavy sloughing. Under normal
conditions, filter plugging using Surfpac or equal media
is not anticipated.
-------
5. A detailed analysis of capital cost requirements for
each of the major design loading parameters was made to
estimate changes in cost resulting from changes in de-
sign loadings. These values are summarized below for
an ENR index of 1540:
$139,500 per mgd of peak hourly flow
360,000 per mgd of average daily flow
272,000 per Ib per day of dissolved BOD
134,000 per Ib per day of suspended solids
6. A capital cost (ENR = 1540) of $2,749,000 is estimated
for a treatment plant for Breakstone effluent and
Walton sewage.
7. An annual operating cost for the initial year of opera-
tion is estimated at $127,000 for combined treatment.
8. Charges to Breakstone, based on relative contributions
of waste loadings, will approximate 70% of the capital
for treatment and 90% of the operating cost for treat-
ment.
9. Combined treatment will reduce total annual costs to
Walton by 30% to 40% of that required for an independent
municipal sewage treatment plant.
10
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations based upon study findings are presented
below:
1. Theoretical analyses and experimental measurements have
resulted in the development of a method of simulating
the performance of full-scale, packed tower, trickling
filters and scaling-up the results to prototype condi-
tions. Theoretical analyses have been made for two of
the five kinetic models which are used to define bio-
oxidation. Extension of the work to include the
remaining three kinetic models would provide a useful
tool for technical personnel involved in the treatment
of organic wastes.
2. Computer programming for development of process design
parameters for packed tower trickling filters using
laboratory data as input has been shown to be an effec-
tive methodology. A program for these analyses using
two of the five kinetic models available for the de-
scription of bio-oxidation processes has been developed
in this study. Extension of this effort to include the
three remaining kinetic models is recommended.
3. Computer programming for alternative process designs
for full-scale application of the trickling filtration
process using performance characteristics developed
from laboratory equipment has been developed in this
study. The program and the analytical work upon which
it was based can be employed to define the cost and
performance influences of design variables and to opti-
mize full-scale applications. The utility of this
effort extends beyond the treatment of whey effluents.
It is recommended that an effort be undertaken to ex-
tend the program for the purposes of design optimiza-
tion and/or cost minimization.
4. A laboratory simulation technique for packed tower
trickling filtration of organic effluents has been
developed and presented in this report. The methodol-
ogy employed can be of significant assistance to other
investigators involved in the evaluation of trickling
11
-------
filtration of organic effluents. It is recommended
that study results be effectively promulgated to inves-
tigators active in the field.
A method of analysis of full-scale trickling filters
has been developed which allows determination of the
specific BOD removal rate constant of the effluent and
the hydraulic characteristics of the packing or filter
media. A determination of these process design param-
eters for prototype units currently in operation could
result in a standardization of treatability descrip-
tions for trickling filters similar to that available
for activated sludge. Application of the analysis to
full-scale data is recommended for this purpose.
The trickling filtration process, using media similar to
Surfpac, has been shown to be an effective and operable
treatment process for whey effluent from Breakstone, Inc
in combination with domestic sewage from the Village of
Walton, New York. It is recommended that this process
be employed for full-scale design.
12
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The processing and manufacturing of dairy products is one of
the most widespread of all industries in the United States.
More than 20 million cows produce over 100 billion pounds of
milk yearly. A portion ,of the production is manufactured
into cheese and other dairy products. Many manufacturing
operations are located in small communities in or near the
rural milk production areas. Waste waters from milk opera-
tions are characterized by high putrescibility, high oxygen
demand, and the production of poor settling sludges follow-
ing biological treatment.
Waste, waters containing whey from the manufacture of cheese
are notorious for causing waste treatment problems, whether
treated alone or in conjunction with other wastes including
domestic sewage. In addition to possessing high putresci-
bility, whey may also present problems of pH control and
nutrient deficiencies in biological treatment processes.
Recovery by evaporation and drying is the most satisfactory
solution to the problem of waste whey. The recovered whey
solids may be incorporated in foods or in feeds, or may be
used for the manufacture of by-products. However, recovery
is a fractional proposition that misses about one-fifth of
the production that escapes as dilute rinse water. The
rinse waters characteristically possess several times the
strength of domestic sewage and have been reported to induce
problems at domestic activated sludge plants when present at
a level as low as 11% of the total BOD load. Parentheti-
cally, the consensus is that the treatment of dilute whey is
facilitated by the dilution and the improved nutrient bal-
ance offered by mixture with domestic sewage.
When significant dairy processing operations are located in
small communities, the resulting industrial waste may con-
tribute more pollutional load than the entire domestic popu-
lation. Under such circumstances, domestic sewage treatment
design criteria are inapplicable as evidenced by a history
of process problems, nuisance conditions and stream pollu-
tion.
The Breakstone Foods Division of Kraftco maintains a large
cottage cheese manufacturing operation at Walton, New York.
13
-------
The industry and the Village of Walton are tributary to the
west branch of the Delaware River, with the industrial BOD
loading being grossly larger than that of the Village. Since
practical considerations relative to available space dictate
joint treatment, and no applicable treatment process was
available, the situation constituted an ideal project for
the development of a treatment process widely applicable to
whey-bearing wastes.
Purpose and Scope
The Village of Walton was awarded WQO, EPA Research and
Development Grant No. 11060 DUJ, and Quirk, Lawler & Matusky
Engineers were retained to execute the study. Supplemental
support to the project was to be provided by the Breakstone
Foods Division of Kraftco and the State of New York Depart-
ment of Health. The purpose of the project was the develop-
ment of activated sludge and biological filtration processes
applicable to the treatment of whey-bearing wastes. The
scope included the determination of mathematical models of
process performance, the preparation of computer programs
for process design, and the evaluation of methods for de-
watering secondary sludges.
As the project progressed, uncertainties relative to commit-
ted support necessitated revision of scope. Since biologi-
cal filtration studies were under way, practicality dictated
elimination of the proposed activated sludge studies. To
partially compensate for the paring of the activated sludge
studies, reference to results of previous activated sludge
studies on similar waste is included in the report.
Previous Studies
Although waste treatment problems associated with whey-
bearing waste are frequently referenced in milk processing
and waste treatment literature, there have been relatively
few published studies of formal treatability investigations.
Wasserman [37] investigated the utilization of whey as a
substrate for yeast culture. The following analysis was
presented as representative of whey from the manufacture of
cottage cheese.
14
-------
Component Percentage
Total Solids 6.0
Ash 0.3
Lactose 4.0
Lactic Acid 0.5
Available Nitrogen 0.033
Optimum yeast yields of 0.57 Ibs of yeast per Ib of lactose
present were obtained at pH 4.7 to 5.0, with supplementation
of nutrient nitrogen.
The results of treatability studies with activated sludge
have been reported by several authors. Jasewicz and Forges
[17, 24] attributed the pronounced tendency of the culture
to bulk to nutrient deficiencies that included nitrogen as
well as other unspecified growth factors. Adamse [1] ob-
served that process response was more rapid at pH 5 than in
the more neutral range from pH 6 to 8.
The treatment of domestic sewage-whey mixtures by the ex-
tended aeration and contact stabilization modifications of
the activated sludge process was investigated by Quirk,
Lawler & Matusky Engineers [25]. The processes were indi-
cated to possess unstable culture characteristics and pro-
nounced dewatering problems were experienced with the waste
sludges.
Adverse experience was reported by Maloney et al. [21] rela-
tive to the introduction of whey into sewage stabilization
ponds. Culture changes, poor performance and odor evalua-
tion were attributed to the presence of whey in the influent
waste.
Significant contributions to the waste treatment literature
have been made relative to the application of biological fil-
tration to the treatment of whey-bearing wastes. Schulze
[29, 30, 31] employed laboratory test stands to obtain data
for verification of descriptive mathematical formulations.
He also observed culture growth characteristics.
Ingram [15, 16] operated a deep filter pilot plant biologi-
cal filter on whey-bearing waste. He advocated hydraulic
loadings in excess of 70 mgd to insure complete distribution
and to maintain freshness. Results were obtained showing
67% removal of BOD at a loading of 300 p t c f d. Under the
prescribed operating conditions, odor problems were not
encountered.
15
-------
Theory
The classic trickling filter comprises a bed of stone media
over which attached biological slime growths develop. Re-
moval of BOD is obtained by aerobic processes at the slime
surface and by anaerobic processes within the slime interior,
Packed tower modifications to the trickling filter intro-
duced plastic geometric packing media to obtain increased
surface area and porosity. Current practice employs a lat-
tice structure similar to an egg carton insert. BOD removal
performance is related to process parameters using an analy-
tical model descriptive of the biological relation observed
and the hydraulics of the reactors.
The theory of BOD removal by trickling filter slime over a
reaction surface similar to an inclined plane has not been
fully developed in the existing engineering literature. De-
sign formulations in current use have been developed by
empirical methods and/or by analogy to formulation used to
describe the exertion of BOD in general. The work presented
herein is based upon a detailed development and verification
of the reaction model for trickling filtration previously
developed by QL&M and extended for the purposes of this
study.
The theoretical development is presented in the following
sequence.
1. General model for removal
2. Specific model for selected bio-kinetics
3. Influence of recirculation
4. Influence of temperature
5. Graphical solution
6. Scale-up to full-scale tower.
General Model
General model for BOD removal on an inclined plane surface
is developed by the solution of a material balance statement
in which the hydraulics of liquid flow and the kinetics of
biological reaction have been defined.
16
-------
A schematic of an inclined plane system is shown on Figure 1.
The material balance statement is written thus:
INPUT - OUTPUT - REMOVAL = ACCUMULATION
INPUT and OUTPUT terms are self-explanatory. The REMOVAL
term is defined by the geometry of the reactor and the kine-
tics of the BOD removal reaction. The ACCUMULATION term
accounts for the change in the quantity of BOD stored in the
reactor volume. For inclined plane surfaces and trickling
filters this storage is negligible in relation to reactor
throughput.
The terms of the material balance statement are defined as
follows:
INPUT = (Q+R)L0
OUTPUT = (Q+R)Le
REMOVAL = KrVr
ACCUMULATION = 0
where:
Q = Untreated flow - gpm
R = Recirculation flow - gpm
Lo = BOD concentration as applied to reactor - ppm
L = BOD effluent concentration - ppm
Vr = Volume of reactor - gals.
K = A generalized BOD removal rate constant - ppm/min
For convenience, the unit conversion factor 1 lb/gal./120
ppm has been excluded from all terms.
The material balance expression is examined over a differen-
tial element of plane height (dH) as follows:
dVr = (d) (W) (dH) (#1)
17
-------
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION FIGURE 1
BOD REMOVAL OVER SLIMED SURFACE
18
-------
The conversion factor 7.48 gals./CF has been omitted from
(#1) for convenience.
BOD reduction over the differential of reactor height is ex-
pressed as (dL).
The material balance is then re-expressed in differential
terms as follows:
dL
dH =
Kr(d) (W)
(#2)
The term (Q+R)/W is conveniently grouped as a hydraulic load-
ing per unit of plane width (U1) as follows:
dL
dH =
(Kr)(d)
(U1)
(#3)
Equation (#3) is the general solution for BOD removal over a
slimed surface.
Speoifio Model for First Order Reaction
At this juncture, biological reaction kinetics may be intro-
duced to develop a specific reaction model, i.e., first
order, retardant, etc. A first order reaction has been
found to apply to trickling filter reaction.
First order kinetics define the generalized rate constant
(Kr) in terms of organism concentration and BOD remaining as
follows:
where:
Kr = (k) (S) (L) (#4)
k = a specific biological reaction rate
constant - 1/ppm x min
S = effective organism concentration - ppm
L = BOD remaining at a point - ppm
The effective organism concentration in a trickling filter
is defined in terms of the mass of organisms per unit volume
of liquid over the slimed surface as follows:
(As) (fw)
(AS)(d)
w
d
(#5)
19
-------
The conversion factor 7.48 gals./CF has been omitted from
( #5 ) for convenience.
where: A = area of slime
o
fw = a constant for the weight of effective bio
mass per unit of slime area
Substitution of the above definition for effective organism
concentration into the expression for the first order rate
constant equation (#4) yields the following:
w
r w (d) (d)
K = (k)(f)i!lL = (10 ' ....... (#6)
where :
= (k) (f)
w
The differential equation (#3) may now be defined in terms
of a first order reaction as follows:
k'L
-
dH ~ IT
Integration of the above expression provides the basic ana-
lytical relationship for BOD removal over an inclined
surface:
-k'H k'H
Le ~ur Lo ~lj~r
— = e u or — = eu (#8)
Lo Le
The second form of equation (#8) which employs a positive
(+) value for the exponential term is preferred in that sub-
sequent graphical solution techniques become more convenient
to apply.
Influence of Reaivoulat-ion
The ratio (Lo/Le) describes the change of BOD as applied to
the slime and therefore includes the effects of recircula-
tion. For design utilization, BOD changes related to the
untreated BOD concentration, i.e., BOD removal efficiency,
are required.
20
-------
The change in BOD is related to removal efficiency based on
the untreated BOD by a material balance as follows:
L0 _ 1 + r (1-E)
Le ~ - ~ f
where:
r = recirculation ratio R/Q
E = BOD removal efficiency
The factor (f) is introduced for topographical simplicity.
Influence of Temperature
The effect of temperature on reaction rate is introduced
using the Arrhenius relationship.
kt = k20eAT .............. .......... (#10)
where
k1 = reaction constant at temperature t
k' = reaction constant at standard temperature,
20°C
AT = reaction temperature differential °C-20
0 = constant, usually taken as 1.035
Graphic at Analysis of Plane Performance
The analysis equation for plane performance is completed as
follows:
kAn6ATH/U'
f = e 20 ................... (#11)
A graphical solution to equation (#11) is obtained by
taking logarithms as follows:
- ............ (#12)
A plot of data on semi-log paper will provide a linear cor-
relation with slope equal to (k'/2.3) and an intercept of
21
-------
log (f) = 1.0 at H9AT/U' = 0 as shown on Figure 2. The
graphical technique is employed in the analysis of test data.
Scale-Up Relationship for Full-Saale Tower_
Conversion to full-scale tower conditions is made by adjust-
ing plane performance for the following:
1. Hydraulic loading of full-scale tower
2. Slime thickness anticipated
3. Surface area characteristics of packing media
4. Hydraulic characteristics of packing media
Hydraulic loading in a full-scale tower is expressed in
terms of aerial units and is related to plane hydraulics by
geometry considerations as follows:
U = (U')/(V (#13)
where;
U = application rate to tower in gpm/SF of tower
surface area
U1 = application rate to plane in gpm/LF of plane
width
Ay = slimed area of tower packing media in SF/CF
of tower volume
Slime thickness reduces exposed surface area below that
available from clean unslimed media. A knowledge of media
configuration and slime thickness can be employed to deter-
mine the correction required as follows:
A; = (Av)(ft) (#i4)
where:
= wetted area of tower packing media support-
ing a slime growth
= a factor for the reduction of slime area
below that of media area due to thickness of
slime growth
22
-------
FIGURE 2
GRAPHICAL SOLUTION OF 3LL''Er ~'1_4"
EOD RE'-'QVAL ^ERFWAN'CF ^'CU.ATiru'
i'lxST ORDER REACTION
EQ'JATION:
1.0
Lo/Le = f
I/Hydraulic Loading SF/gpm
23
-------
Laboratory observations of slime thickness indicated an ft
value of 0.80 when using Surfpac media on whey wastes.
Hydraulic characteristics of packing media are introduced by
relating the wetted surface area Av and the tower reaction
rate to hydraulic loading of the tower.
Adjustments of this type are required primarily for packing
media and 'an "as-packed" geometry other than that obtained
with a sheet flow media similar to Surfpac. The adjustments
account for the change in wetted areas which occurs as
liquid impinges upon randomly packed media and is splashed
or otherwise diverted into contact with additional media
surface which would otherwise remain unslimed. Additional
adjustment can also be made for the possible changes in ap-
parent reaction rate as a result of a change in the rate of
transport of BOD from the flowing liquid to the slime sur-
face. This latter change can also include the effects of
removal of suspended BOD by agglomeration processes.
For randomly packed media, adjustments for hydraulic effects
can be made using a mathematical form prevalent in the che-
mical engineering field when packed towers are analyzed,
i.e.:
'
* (U)n .......................... (#15)
and
(U)n .......................... (#16)
Substitution of the above scale-up (#11) relationships into
the equation for plane performance yields the relationship
for full-scale tower performance as follows:
. A . f
v t (u)n =
where :
C = a combined constant for hydraulic effects.
The value of the exponent n will vary from a minimum of 0.50
for randomly packed media similar to gravel to 1.0 for pack-
ing similar to vertical sheets.
24
-------
For Surfpac or similar media, these adjustments are not con-
sidered necessary in that a sheet flow regimen dynamically
similar to that of plane hydraulics is maintained over the
media. However, an adjustment is made for use of less than
total media volume resulting from poor distribution hydraul-
ics through the tower. A constant relationship of 90% tower
media utilization is employed as follows:
= Cw = 0.90 ................... (#18)
where:
= wetted surface area - SF/CF
= manufacturer's rating for dry media - SF/CF
C = a coefficient for wetting efficiency
For Surfpac, or similar media, the value of the hydraulic
coefficient C equals Cw and the design relationship is
stated as follows:
where :
K20 = k20 ' AV ' ft ' cw
The identical form of equation (#17) and the current prac-
tice design equation for packed tower trickling filters is
noted .
A graphical solution to equation (#17) is obtained by
taking logarithms as follows:
[ (H9AT) ] 1
loc? [ (2.3) (log f) ] = n + K2Q ••• (#20)
A plot of full-scale data on log-log paper will provide a
linear correlation with slope equal to (n) and an intercept
at U = 1.0 equal to 1/K2Q- Tne graphical technique is em-
ployed in the analysis of test data.
Graphical illustrations of tower performance analyzed in
accordance with equation (#19) are presented in Figure 3.
25
-------
NJ
1000
800
500
200
100-
80
2.3 logf
20
10-
8
2
c
c
c
c
(
1
:OR
X
0
RE
X
5RAVEL
)N
SETTLED
EWAGE
*
X
LA'
X
1/f
X
10.01
noi
X
T
(20
X
^ KEY
X
n
A
X
- F
<
^
| |
1 1
1 1
TRICKLING FILTRATION PERFORWANCE - FULL SCALE
IRS
B
*"
T
/
^
0
X
R
/
>
01
/
ER
0
REACT
J
*s
0
ION
^
SYMBOL
o
n/
^
SURF PA
ON
INTEGRA
K!
*A
F
T
M
C
TED
ILL
RECYCLE
USED n
YES 1.00
NO 1.00
NO 0 . 56
| 1
TOWERS
^0
1.76 x 10'2
1.7G x 10-2
5.W x ID"2
GPM/CF
GPM/CF
GPM/CF
0.1 1 10
VJJ
U IN GPfl/SF OF TOWER
-------
Additional Kinetic Models
Kinetic models other than a first order reaction have been
employed to describe biological oxidation. While less popu-
lar than the first order assumption, these additional models
have been found to correlate bio-oxidation data in a suc-
cessful manner. Because of a lack of theoretical model
development in the area of trickling filter analyses, these
models have been applied primarily to non-fixed bed reac-
tors such as activated sludge, aerated stabilization basins,
etc.
The theoretical relationships for packed towers presented
above have been extended to include kinetic processes other
than first order as follows:
1. Retardant with BOD concentration
2. Zero order
Description of these kinetic models and the correlation
techniques developed for their application follow below.
Simple Retardant Reastion Model
In a simple retardant reaction, the rate of BOD removal per
unit weight of organisms is proportional not only to the BOD
concentrations remaining but also to the fraction or per-
centage of BOD remaining. Rates of removal decrease, or
retard, rapidly as high efficiencies of removal are ap-
proached. The kinetic statement is written as follows:
Kr = (k1) (S) (L) (L/LQ) (#21)
After integration, the completed equation for slimed plane
analysis is written as follows:
f = 1 + k' | H (#22)
After scale-up to full-scale conditions, the general packed
tower relationship is written as follows:
KT • H
27
-------
Graphical techniques to be used in correlating data for
plane and tower performance are illustrated on Figure 4.
Zero Order Reaction
In a zero order reaction, the rate of BOD removal per unit
weight of organism is constant and is not affected by con-
centration, degree of removal, etc.
The kinetic statement is written as follows:
Kr = (k1) (S)
After integration, the completed equation for slimed plane
analysis is written as follows:
(1+r) (H)
(f25)
The expression is simplified by expressing terms on the left
side as an organic loading (OL) of untreated BOD per unit
area of slime, i.e.:
(La) (U')
OL = (1+r) (H) ...................... (#26)
In terms of organic loading, the slimed plane relationship
is stated as follows:
(E) (OL) = k' ....................... (#27)
After scale-up to full-scale conditions, the packed tower
relationship may also be stated in terms of organic loading
for an n value = 1.0 as follows:
(E) (OL) = KT ....................... (#28)
When packing geometry and/or hydraulics are not such as to
yield n = 1.0, the full-scale tower relationship is re-
expressed as follows:
(Un) = KT ..................... (#29)
the BOD removal through the tower including the dilu
tion effect of recirculation = ELa/(l+r)
28
-------
Retardant Model Correlations
FIGURE i\
Analysis of Slimed Plane
Equation; LQ/Le = f = 1 + k'H
0 I/Hydraulic loading - H/U1 - SF/gpir,
i
-------
Graphical techniques to be used in correlating data for
plane and tower performance are illustrated on Figure 5
(01.)
Zero Order Model Correlations
Analysis of Slimed Plane
Fquation: (E)(OL) = k'
1.0
1/E
(OL)
Analysis of Packed Tower (3 n=l.n
Equation: (E)(OL) = KT
1.0
?nalysis of Packed Tov.'er fl n=n
Fauation: (Li)(Un) KT
(fit
log KT
1.0
log U
FIGURE 5
30
-------
SECTION IV
CONSTRUCTION AND PROCESS DESIGN
The object of waste treatment process development is to ob-
tain an understanding of the response of the process to con-
ditions encountered during prototype operation. Since the
influence of operational variables is most effectively
assessed under controlled conditions, it follows that lab-
oratory studies feature the attribute of efficiency. Paren-
thetically, some variables are not amenable to evaluation
unless the scale of the operation is sufficiently large to
be analogous to prototype operations. The present study
attempted to employ the attributes of both concepts by util-
ization of carefully controlled laboratory conditions for
evaluation of performance variables and utilization of a 7
gpm on-site pilot plant for generation of sufficient second-
ary sludge for practical evaluation of dewatering and dis-
posal characteristics.
Efficiency of Removal
Table 1 presents the combined effluent loadings and charac-
teristics for the whey and sewage mixture.
Table 2 presents the requirements for treated effluent and
the percent removal of suspended solids, and BOD necessary
to comply.
A dissolved BOD removal of 95% is required to reduce BOD
concentration to acceptable levels.
Tower Rate Constant
Surfpac or similar media are selected for design.
Equation (#19) is employed to determine the rate constant
for BOD removal at 20°C as follows:
(KT) = k1 • AV • ft • Cw (#30)
where:
k' = 1.6 x 10~4 gpm/SF for whey sewage
Av =27 SF/CF for Surfpac
31
-------
TABLE 1
Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Combined Loadings
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Characteristic
Flow - mgd
- gpm
Suspended Solids -
Ibs/day
Total
Volatile*
Inert
Suspended Solids -
ppm
Total
Volatile*
Inert
BOD - Ibs/day
Total
Suspended**
Dissolved
BOD - ppm
Total
Suspended**
Dissolved
Initial
Condition
1.08
750
1,790
1,560
230
198
173
25
4,920
1,125
3,795
545
125
420
1990
Conditions
1.17
815
1,580
1,260
320
162
129
33
6,860
1,000
5,860
705
102
fin^
*Estimated from laboratory analysis of synthetic waste.
**Based on 0.63 Ibs BOD/lbs SS as measured in laboratory.
32
-------
TABLE 2
Treatment of Whey and Sewage
BOD Removal Required
Initial 1990
Characteristic Condition Conditions
I. Effluent Required
1. Suspended Solids -
ppm 45 45
2. BOD - ppm
Total 60 60
Suspended 28* 28*
Dissolved 32 32
II. Percent Nominal
Removals
1. Suspended Solids
Influent 198 168
Effluent 45 45
Removal 153 123
Percent 77.2% 73.2%
2. Total BOD
Influent 542 730
Effluent _6_0_ 60
Removal 482 670
Percent 88.9% 91.8%
3. Dissolved BOD
Influent 391 623
Effluent 32 32
Removal 359 591
Percent 91.8% 94.9%
*Based on 0.63 Ibs BOD/lbs SS as measured in laboratory.
33
-------
ft = 0.8 for whey and sewage
Cw = 0.90 for Surfpac
and KT = 1.6 x 10~4 x 27 x 0.8 x 0.9
= 0.03 gpm/CF
Table 3 presents a comparison between the design rate con-
stant KT = 0.03 for the whey-sewage mixture and rate con-
stants found applicable to other industrial effluents.
Filter Volume and Geometry
For a given type of packing, tower volume can vary with the
following design parameters:
1. Liquid application rate
2. Recycle
3. Tower height
4. Efficiency of BOD removal
The effects of variations in the first three parameters are
dependent upon the necessity to maintain a minimum wetting
rate and the numerical value of the constant (n). In all
cases, an increase in efficiency of removal requires an in-
crease in tower volume. In general, the effects of design
parameters can be described as follows:
Design Change in Change in
Variable Variables Tower Volume
H Increase Decrease or no change
r Increase Increase
U Increase Increase
E Increase Increase
Structural requirements and hydraulic distribution problems
limit maximum tower height. Heights of 20 ft are common
with maximums to 45 ft.
Commercial packing of the lattice structure type appears to
require minimum application velocities of 1.0 gpm/SF. Oper-
ation below the minimum velocity can result in progressively
less utilization of tower packing.
34
-------
TABLE 3
Trickling Filtration of Whey and Sewage
Comparison of BOD Removal Rate Constants
Effluent and Media n
I. Surfpac Media
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Integrated Kraft ~M,ill Waste
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Integrated Kraft Mill Waste
Ragmill Effluent
i
Boxboard Mill Waste
Canning Waste
Slaughter House Waste.
Whey and Sewage
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
.021
.022
.017
.014
.018
.034
.044
.083
.027
.021
.044
.030
II. Random Pack Media (Gravel)
1.
2.
Dilute Black Liquor
Settled Sewage
0.57
0.56
.051
.055
35
-------
In order to maintain commonly used heights and provide a
minimum application velocity, effluent recycle is usually
required for high BOD removal efficiencies. The added tower
volume required to accommodate recycle varies with the effi-
ciency of removal sought.
Because of the non-uniform influences of design variables,
process design calculations involve relatively complex
manipulations .
Tower Volume
Equation (#19) is rearranged to determine the wetting ap-
plication rate (U) for tower operation using Surfpac or
similar media without recirculation (Uo) as follows:
A maximum tower height of 42 ft is selected to minimize po-
tential recirculation requirements, and application rates are
examined for parallel and series operation of filters.
Series operation will reduce total tower volume requirements
but will require additional pumping. Application rates and
stage removal efficiencies for single and multi-stage de-
signs are tabulated below:
Single Two- Three-
Stage Stage Stage
1. Efficiency/Stage - E% 95 77.5 65
2. Application Rate Without
Recirculation - UQ gpm/SF Q.42 0.85 1.23
Recirculation would be required on the single and two-stage
plants. Recirculation ratios are determined using equation
( #9 ) as follows:
(f - 1)
(#32)
The value of (f) is determined by substitution into equation
( #19 ) using a minimum application velocity Um = 1-0 gpm/SF.
36
-------
A tabulation of recirculation requirements versus stage de-
sign is then shown below:
Single Two- Three-
Stage Stage Stage
1. Efficiency/Stage - E% 95 77.5 65
2. Application Rate -
UQ gpm/SF 1.0 1.0 1.23
3. Recycle Ratio Required - r 6.6 0.4 0
A modification of the basic tower formulation is now used to
relate design variables and to determine tower volume
requirements .
The modification is achieved by expressing tower volume re-
quirements as a volume per unit of untreated flow (V) and
relating this unit volume to process variables.
A basic geometric identity is used to develop a definition
for unit volume (V) as shown below.
By flow balance:
V • U
(l+r)Q = — n —
and
v> = - <1+r> ................ (#33)
Unit volume requirements when recirculation is not required
(V0) are determined from equation (#33) by setting r = 0 and
substituting the value of application rate (Vo) from
equation (#31) as follows:
v' = 2.3 log (1/1-E) ............... (#34)
Km
where :
V* = CF of tower volume/gpm of untreated effluent
0 when tower is not recycled
Unit volume requirements for a recirculation reactor must be
increased over that for a non-recirculated design and are
37
-------
determined from equation (#33) by setting U - Umin, e.g.,
1.0 gpm/SF, and substituting the value of r as defined in
equation (#32). The design equation is stated as follows:
(E) _ _- ....... (#35)
r ,
tumin] [(1-E) (f-DJ
A summary of unit volume requirements versus stage design is
shown below:
Single Two- Three-
Stage Stage Stage
1. Efficiency/Stage - E% 95 , 77. -5 65.0
2. Application Rate - U and
UQ gpm/SF 1.0 1.0 1.23
3. Recycle Ratio - r 6.6 0.4 0
4. Unit Volume - V' and V1
CF/gpm 320 116.8 102
5. Total Volume CF/gpm* 256,000 91,000 80,000
6 . Organic Loading - Lb
BOD/1,000 CFD 22.8 64.5 73.0
*Inoludes unit volume of all stages.
Because of the high BOD removal required, a multi-stage
plant is necessary to reduce tower volume. In the multi-
stage design sedimentation of recycle flow prior to tower
application is indicated to reduce media plugging tendency.
Increased sedimentation capacity is then necessary for a
two-stage design. Using a nominal design recirculation
ratio of 0.5 for two-stage, the total , flow pumped, however,
is equal for a two- and a three-stage design, i.e., 3Q. A
comparison of the total capital cost for two- and three-
stage design alternatives for sedimentation, recycle pump-
ing stations, and trickling filters was made as follows
(ENR = 1540) :
1. Two-Stage $606,000
2. Three-Stage 596,000
38
-------
The cost saving for a three-stage design is within the accu-
racy of cost estimation and, thus, not significant. In
order to eliminate a third pumping station as a maintenance
center, the two-stage design is selected.
Sludge Disposal Facilities
A material balance for waste treatment plant sludge solids
is presented in Table 4.
TABLE 4
Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Material Balance for Sludge Disposal
(In Lbs/Day)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
•7.
8.
9.
Description
Influent SS
Effluent SS
Difference
Biological Solids
Produced
ST Raw and Biological
Solids '
Conditioning Chemicals
ST Conditioned Solids
Lime Precipitate '
Total Solids for
Initial
Condition
1,790
- 405
1,385
2,525
3/910
275
4,185
1,440
1990
Condition
1,580
- 420
1,160
3,900
5,060
355
5,415
1,50'0
Disposal 5,625 6,915
Under 1990 conditions, 5,060 Ibs/day of raw and biological
solids from various conventional treatment units require
disposal. An additional 1,500 Ibs/day of chemical precipi-
tate are anticipated as the result of lime addition to the
39
-------
final clarifier. Lime addition is included to adjust efflu-
ent pH and to increase final clarifier solids removal by
coagulation. Enhanced final clarifier solids removal is re-
quired to insure compliance with treated effluent BOD con-
centration limitations. The provision for ferric chloride
addition prior to dewatering increases solids loadings, e.g.,
355 Ibs/day. Total solids aggregate 6,915 Ibs/day.
Waste solids disposal will employ dewatering and landfill.
Thickening of primary and secondary solids prior to dewater-
ing will be required.
Based upon thickening studies, a solids loading of 6.5 Ibs/
SF/day can be used to achieve an underflow solids concentra-
tion of 3.0%. A total thickener area of 1,070 SF will be
required to process the design solids loadings of 6,915 Ibs/
day.
Sludge dewatering will be obtained by vacuum filtration.
Laboratory and pilot plant studies indicate the use of a
filter loading of 1.2 Ibs/SF/hr. Selection of a 6 hr/day
filtration schedule will require two 500-SF vacuum filters.
Special ventilation facilities will be included to control
odor levels in the filtration room.
Process Description (Proposed Flow Sheet)
A schematic flow diagram of the recommended waste water
treatment facilities is shown on Figure 6. The system em-
ploys primary settling, two-stage packed tower trickling
filters, final settling, coagulation, sterilization by
chlorination, and sludge dewatering.
The major process units are as follows:
1. Entrance structure
2. Mechanically cleaned bar screen
3. Comminutor
4. Screen by-pass
5. By-pass bar screen
6. Raw sewage pumping station and nutrient feeding
system
40
-------
FIGURE 6
VACUUM FILTER
LAND FILL
HZKtr
SLUDGE TRANSFER PUMPS
ODOR CONTROL
SLUDGE CAKE
VILLAGE OF WALTON
NEW YORK
FLOW DIAGRAM OF PROPOSED
WASTI--WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PACKED TOWER FILTER
QUIRK, LAWLER & MATUSKY ENGINEERS
NEW YORK- NEW YORK
-------
7. Meter
8. Primary settling tanks
9. Primary sludge pumps
10. 1st stage packed tower filter pumping station
11. 1st stage packed tower filter
12. 2nd stage packed tower filter pumping station
13. 2nd stage packed tower filter
14. Recirculation control box
15. Final settling and coagulation tanks
16. Coagulant feed system
17. Final sludge pumps
18. Chlorine contact tank and chlorination system
19. Effluent metering station
20. Plant effluent outfall
21. Effluent diffuser
22. Sludge thickeners
23. Thickened sludge and supernatant pumps
24. Mixed sludge storage tank
25. Sludge transfer pumps
26. Vacuum filter assembly and sludge dewatering
building
27 . Sludge conditioning equipment
28. Odor control equipment
29. Sludge handling equipment
42
-------
30. Control and administration building
31. Emergency power generator
Grit removal facilities have not been provided because the
raw waste is anticipated to contain virtually no grit and
digesters (requiring grit protection) are not included in
the sludge disposal system.
The available site for the treatment plant is between the
West Branch Delaware River and Delaware Street. Access and
service roads, transmission forcemain, lift station and site
work are included in this preliminary layout.
To attain the immediate and future effluent quality objec-
tives, treatment may be carried out by a combination of bio-
logical and chemical processes. If phosphate removal
becomes a future requirement, it could be achieved by lime
precipitation of the phosphate in the final settling and
coagulation tank or by alum addition. Sludge produced in
the final settling and coagulation tank is suitable for
dewatering.
Until such time when phosphate removal is required, the
plant will use only a limited quantity of lime for final
coagulation. The provision of lime-feeding equipment stor-
age bins and additional sludge dewatering system can be
deferred until such time as phosphate removal is practiced.
The process units are designed for an average flow of 1.16
mgd with peak hourly flow of 3.78 mgd.
The screened influent will be pumped and metered to the pri-
mary settling tank influent distribution chamber and mixed
with a recirculation flow from the 2nd stage packed tower.
The combined flow will continue through the primary tanks.
The effluent from the primary settling tanks is pumped up to
the 1st stage packed tower distributor. This 1st stage ef-
fluent is pumped to the 2nd stage packed tower distributor,
about 50% of the effluent of the 2nd stage packed tower will
be returned as a recirculation flow to the influent distri-
bution chamber of the primary settling tanks. The process
flow stream continues through the final settling and coagu-
lation tanks, chlorine contact tank and is finally diffused
in the receiving waters of West Branch Delaware River.
Sludge from the primary and final settling tanks and coagu-
lation tanks is pumped to sludge thickeners.
43
-------
The sludge thickener underflow will be stored in a sludge
storage tank prior to dewatering. The sludge cake will be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
The treatment of whey-bearing waste and its sludge dewater-
ing is associated with objectionable odors. Covers will_be
provided for the packed towers and odor control ventilation
equipment would be provided.
Cost of Construction Program
The estimated 1971 (projected ENR index in Walton area:
1540) construction cost is based on constructing the plant
by competitive contract methods. The estimates include an
allowance for contingencies and engineering services.
A combined State and Federal grant (60%) , as provided by
Public Law 660, has also been assumed.
A summary of cost estimates for a complete waste water
treatment facility and sewerage system is given in Table 5.
Alternative No. 1 would collect and treat all domestic and
industrial waste from Walton at a cost of about $5,806,000
while Alternative No. 2 would not accept certain industrial
discharges, notably those from Breakstone; its cost would be
about $3,645,000.
The predesign estimate of cost for Alternative No. 1 (all
Walton wastes, including those from Breakstone) is
$3,416,000 (Table 6). This amount represents a revision of
the costs given in the May 1968 Feasibility Report. The new
cost is based on the estimate for an entirely different
process than that used as a model in the May 1968 study.
Additionally, all estimates have been revised upward by 37%
of the estimate given in May 1968. This rapid rate of in-
crease reflects the continuing inflationary escalation in
construction of waste treatment plants at a compounded rate
of about 8% per year. Additionally, it is estimated that
the Binghamton area leads the national construction cost
average by about 10%.
The effect of sharing waste treatment and transmission costs
with Breakstone and the State of New York under its Con-
struction Grant Program is examined in Table 7 and Table 8.
44
-------
TABLE 5
Summary of Alternative Capital Cost Estimates
for Complete Wastewater Facility
Including Engineering and Contingencies
(ENR Index = 1540)
Description Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2
1. Treatment Plant $2,749,000 $ 680,000
2. Transmission
System 667,000 575,000
3. Initial Phase -
Sewerage 406,000 406,000
4. Subtotal - First
Phase Construc-
tion $3,822,000 $1,661,000
5. Final Phase -
Sewerage 1,984,000 1,984,000
6. Total Capital
Cost $5,806,000 $3,645,000
45
-------
TABLE 6
Estimated Cost of Treatment and Transmission Facilities
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste
(ENR Index = 1540)
I. Treatment Facilities
1. Treatment Plant $2,199,000
2. Engineering and Contingencies 550,000
3. Subtotal - Construction $2,749,000
II. Transmission Units
1. Force Main $ 137,000
2. Pumping Stations 102,000
3. Interceptors 287,000
4 . Rights-of-Way 8,000
5. Subtotal $ 534,000
6. Engineering and Contingencies 133,000
7. Subtotal - Construction $ 667,000
III. Treatment System
1. Treatment Facilities $2,749,000
2. Transmission Units 667,00^
3. Total $3,416,000
46
-------
TABLE 7
Allocation of Capital Cost of Treatment Plant to Waste Loading Parameters
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste
Item and Description
I . Effluent Treatment
Facilities
Entrance Structure,
Bar Screen,
Comminutor
Raw Sewage Pumping
Station
Parshall Flume and
Meter
Primary Settling
Tanks
Trickling Filters
Trickling Filter
Pumping Stations
Recirculation
Control Box
Final Clarifiers
Chlorine Contact
Tank
Yard Piping, Out-
fall and
Dif fuser
Chemical Feed
Equipment and
Storage
Nutrient Feed
Equipment
Estimated
Construction
Cost
(ENR=1540)
$ 58,000
63,000
7,000
102,000
455,000
128,000
18,000
140,000
41,000
87,000
97,000
21,000
Allocation Among Parameters
Peak Flow Average Flow Dissolved BOD Suspended Solids
Per- Per- Per- Per-
cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount cent Amount
100% $ 58,000 - -
100 63,000 - - -
100% $ 7,000 - - - -
100 102,000 - - - -
- - - - 100% $ 455,000
100 128,000 - - -
- - - 100 18,000
100 140,000 - - - -
100 41,000 - - -
100 87,000 - - -
- - 50 48,500 50 48,500
- - - - 100 21,000
Subtotal
$1,217,000 31.0% $377,000 24.'
$297,500 44.6% $ 542,500
-------
TABLE 7
(continued)
Item and Description
II. Sludge Disposal
Facilities
Sludge Pumping
4a. Station
00 Sludge Thickeners
and Pump Station
Sludge Dewatering
Equipment and
Building
Sludge Storage Tank
and Mixer
Odor Control
Equipment
Subtotal
Subtotal,
Effluent and
Sludge
III. Pro Rata Items
Administration
Building
Emergency Power
Generator
Piles, Foundation
and Dewatering
Estimated
Construction
Cost
(ENR=1540)
$ 59,000
98,000
425,000
52,000
115,000
$ 749,000
Allocation Among Parameters
Peak Flow
Per-
cent
Amount
Average Flow
Per-
cent
Amount
Dissolved BOD
Per-
cent
Amount
Suspended Solids
Per-
cent Amount
.788% $ 590,000 .212% $159,000
$1,966,000 19.2% $377,000 15.2% $297,500 58.0% $1,132,500 8.1% $159,000
64,000
12,000
78,000
-------
TABLE 7
(continued)
it*
VJD
Item and Description
III. Pro Rata Items
(continued)
Site Work and
Access Road
Land
Estimated
Construction Peak Flow
Cost Per-
(ENR=1540) cent Amount
$ 64,000
15,000
Allocation
Average Flow
Among Parameters
Dissolved BOD
Per- Per-
cent Amount cent Amount
Suspended Solids
Per-
cent Amount
Subtotal
$ 233,000 19.2% $ 45,000 15.2% $ 35,500 58.0% $ 136,000 7.1% $ 16,500
Total Treatment Plant $2,199,000 19.2% $422,000 15.2% $333,000 58.0% $1,268,500 7.6% $175,500
550,000 19.2 106,000 15.2 84,000 58.0 320,000 7.6 40,000
Engineering and
Contingencies @ 25%
Total Treatment
Plant
Loading Parameter Rate
Note: ft/day = Ibs/day.
$2,749,000 19.2% $528,000 15.2% $417,000 58.0% $1,588,500 7.6% $215,000
3.78 $139,500/ 1.16 $360,OOO/ 5,860 $272/
mgd mgd mgd mgd t/day #/day
1,580 $134/
#/day t/day
-------
TABLE 8
Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Allocation of Sludge Disposal Facilities' Capital Cost
to BOD and Suspended Solids Loadings for 1990 Conditions
Amount Relative
Source (Lbs/Day) Contribution
1. Raw Waste Solids 1,580 21.2%
2. BOD Solids
a. Biological
Sludge 3,900
b. Precipitate 1._, 500
c. Subtotal 5,400 78.8
3. Total Solids in
System 6,980 100.0%
4 . Composition of Sol-
ids Removed
a. Raw Waste
Source 21.2%
b. BOD Source 78.8
c. Total 100.0%
The division of capital cost between Breakstone and Walton
is based upon their relative contributions of four major de-
sign loading parameters and a detailed allocation of the
capital cost of each major treatment unit among the loading
parameters.
Table 7 presents the allocation of treatment unit costs to
loading parameter. The procedure assigns the cost of a unit
to the design parameter(s) which determines the capacity of
the particular unit operation. Allocation of the capital
costs of sludge disposal facilities is made between sus-
pended solids in the untreated waste and suspended solids
50
-------
generated from BOD removal. Solids generated from final
clarifier coagulation are allocated to BOD. Table 8 pre-
sents the waste solids material balance data in terms of
relative contribution from BOD and raw waste solids source.
Treatment plant items which cannot be attributed to a spe-
cific design loading, such as administration building, are
prorated among the design loading parameters based on the
allocations achieved for all other units. Cost allocations
are also presented in terms of capital cost per unit amount
of each design loading, i.e.:
$139,500 per mgd of peak hourly flow
360,000 per mgd of average daily flow
272 per Ib per day of dissolved BOD
134 per Ib per day of suspended solids
These unit capital costs may be used to estimate changes in
total capital cost resulting from changes in design loadings,
Capital cost distribution between Breakstone and Walton,
using the above rate structure, is summarized on Table 9. In
the case of plant Alternative No. 1, the State's share of
construction cost would be $2,050,000, Breakstone's share
would be $814,250 and Walton's share would be $551,750. With-
out State participation, Breakstone's share would be
$2,024,250 and Walton's share would be $1,391,750.
An independent municipal plant and transmission system would
cost Walton about $1,255,000 without State participation and
about $505,000 with State aid as shown in Table 10. Capital
costs for an independent Walton treatment plant were ob-
tained from a compilation of experience costs for various
plant sizes as prepared by State and Federal agencies.
i ., •'
Operating Costs , .
Operating posts for Alternative No.,1 treatment facilities
are estimated on Table 11. The predesign estimate is
$127,000 per year without State aid and $85,000 per year
with State aid, ,
i • • ' • • -,
The effect of .sharing treatment plant operating costs among
Breakstone,' Walton and the State of New York is examined in
Tables 12 through 14. ,
51
-------
TABLE 9
Distribution of Capital Cost for Waste Treatment
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste
(ENR Index = 1540)
Loading Parameters
Qm = Maximum Hourly Flow
Qa = Average Daily Flow
BODp = Average Dissolved BOD
SS = Average Suspended Solids
PR = Pro Rata
Treatment Units
I. Waste Treatment Facilities
Entrance Structure, Bar Screen and
Comminutor
Raw Sewage Pumping Station
Parshall Flume and Meter
Primary Settling Tanks
Trickling Filters
Trickling Filter Pumping Stations
Recirculation Control Box and
Equipment
Final Clarifiers
Chlorine Contact Tank and
Equipment
Yard Piping, Plant Outfall and
Diffuser
Chemical Feed Equipment and
Storage
Nutrient Feeding Equipment
Subtotal, Waste Treatment
Facilities
Parameter
Qm
Qa
Qa
BODD
Qm
BODD
Qa
Qm
Qm
Qa&BODD
BODn
Estimated
Capital
Costs
$ 58,000
63,000
7,000
102,000
455,000
128,000
18,000
140,000
41,000
87,000
97,000
21,000
$1,217,000
Distribution of Capital Costs
Breakstone
Percent
36.5%
36.5
54.2
54.2
91.0
36.5
91.0
54.2
36.5
36.5
72.6
91.4
65.6%
Amount
$ 21,200
23,000
3,800
55,750
414,000
47,000
16,400
76,200
15,000
31,750
70,400
19,200
$ 793,700
Walton
Percent
63.5%
63.5
45.7
45.3
9.0
63.5
9.0
45.6
63.2
63.5
27.4
9.0
34.4%
Amount
$ 36,800
40,000
3,200
46,250
41,000
81,000
1,600
63,800
26, .000
55,250
26,600
1,800
$ 423,300
-------
TABLE 9
(continued)
Treatment Units
II. Sludge Disposal Facilities
Sludge Pumping Station
Sludge Thickeners and Pumping
Station
(ji Sludge Dewatering Equipment and
U) Building
Sludge Storage Tank and Mixer
Odor Control Equipment
Subtotal, Sludge Disposal
Facilities
Subtotal, Items I and II
III. Pro Rata Items
Administration Building
Emergency Power Generator
Sheet Piles, Foundation and
Dewatering
Site Work and Access Road
Land
Subtotal, Pro Rata Items
IV. Total Treatment Plant
Estimate as above
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Estimated Cost
Parameter
BOD SS
BOD SS
BOD SS
BOD SS
BOD SS
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
Estimated j
Capital
Costs
$ 59,000
98,000
425,000
52,000
115,000
$ 749,000
$1,966,000
$ 64,000
12,000
78,000
64,000
15,000
$ 233,000
$2,199,000
550,000
$2,749,000
Distribution of Capital Costs
Breakstone
Percent
76.2%
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2%
69.5%
69.5%
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
69.5%
69.5%
69.5
69.5%
Amount
$ 45,000
75,000
325,000
39,600
88,000
$ 572,600
$1,366,300
$ 44,500
8,400
54,000
44,500
10,450
$ 161,850
$1,527,850
382,000
$1,909,850
Walton
Percent
23.8%
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8
23.8%
29.5%
29.5%
29.5
29.5
29.5
29.5
29.5%
29.5%
29.5
29.5%
Amount
$ 14,000
23,000
100,000
12,400
27,000
$ 176,400
$ 599,700
$ 19,500
3,600
24,000
19,500
4,550
$ 71,150
$ 671,150
168,000
$ 839,150
-------
TABLE 9
(continued)
01
Treatment Units
V. Transmission Units
Force Main
Pumping Station
Interceptors
Subtotal
Rights of Way
Subtotal
Engineering and Contingencies
Total Estimated Cost
VI. Total System Cost
Treatment Plant
Transmission Units
Total System
VII. Net System Cost
Total Estimated
State Grant
Estimated
Capital
Parameter Costs
Q $ 137,000
Q™ 102,000
Qm 287,000
Qm $ 526,000
PR 8,000
Qm $ 534,000
133,000
$ 667,000
$2,749,000
667,000
$3,416 ,000
$3,416,000
2,050,000
Distribution of Capital Costs
Breakstone
Percent
36.5%
0
14.0
17.1%
17.1
17.1%
17.1
17.1%
69.5%
17.1
59.0%
59.0%
59.0
Amount
$ 50,000
0
40,000
$ 90,000
1,400
$ 91,400
23,000
$ 114,400
$1,909,850
114,400
$2,024,250
$2,024,250
1,210 ,000
Walton
Percent
63.5%
100.0
86.0
82.9%
82.9
82.9%
82.9
82.9%
29.5%
82.9
41.0%
41.0%
41.0
Amount
$ 87,000
102,000
247,000
$ 436,000
6,600
$ 442,600
110,000
$ 552,600
$ 839,150
552,600
$1,391,750
$1,391,750
840,000
Net Cost
$1,366,000 59.0%
$ 814,250
41.0%
$ 551,750
-------
TABLE 10
Estimated Capital Cost, of Treatment and Transmission Facility
Alternative No. 2 Without Breakstone Waste
(ENR Index = 1540)
Cost
Treatment Facilities
1. Treatment Plant $ 530,000
2. Land 15,000
3. Subtotal - Construction $ 545,000
4. Engineering and Contingencies 135,OOP
5. Total $ 680,000
II. Transmission Units
1. Force Main $ 110,000
2. Pumping Stations 68,000
3. Interceptors 274,000
4. Rights-of-Way 8,000
5. Subtotal - Construction $ 460,000
6. Engineering and Contingencies 115,000
7. Total $ 575,000
III. Treatment System
1. Treatment Facilities $ 680,000
2. Transmission Units 575,000
3. Subtotal - Treatment System $1,255,000
4. ' State Aid 750,000
5. Net Cost $ 505,000
55
-------
TABLE 11
Treatment of Whey and Sewage
Estimated Treatment Plant Operating Costs - Alternative No. 1
Initial Condition
Description
Annual Cost
1. Labor
a. Sludge Disposal
b. General Operating
c. Total
2. Chemicals
3 . Process Power
4. Maintenance
5. Miscellaneous
General Power and Fuel
6. Subtotal
7. Contingencies @ 20%
8. Total
9. State Aid
10. Net Operating Cost
$ 20,000
20,000
$ 40,000
19,000
9,500
28,000
9,500
$106,000
21,000
$127,000
42,OOQ_
$ 85,000
56
-------
TABLE 12
Annual Contributions of Loadings
Initial Conditions - Alternative No. 1
Characteristic
Annual Amount
Percentage
1. Flow - mg
a. Breakstone
b. Walton
c. Total
240.0
47.5
287.5
83.2%
16.8
100.0%
2. Dissolved BOD - Ibs
a. Breakstone
b. Walton
c. Total
3. Suspended Solids - Ibs
a. Breakstone
b. Walton
c. Total
930,000
33,000
963,000
96.5%
3.5
100.0%
385,000
95,000
480,000
80.0%
20.0%
100.0*
57
-------
Ul
GO
TABLE 13
Allocation of Operating Cost of Treatment Plant to Waste Loading Parameters
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste
Operating Cost
1. Labor
a. Sludge
Disposal
b. General
Operation
c. Total
2. Chemical
3. Process Power
4. Maintenance
5. Subtotal
6. Miscellaneous,
General Power,
Fuel
7. Subtotal
8. Contingencies
@ 20%
9. Total
Annual
Amount
$ 20,000
20,000
$ 40,000
19,000
9,500
28,000
$ 96,500
9,500
$106,000
21,000
$127,000
Allocation to Loading
Flow
Percent Amount
BOD Suspended Solids
Percent Amount Percent Amount
78.8% $15,750 21.2% $ 4,250
100.0% $20,000
50.0% $20,000
13.2 2,500
58.0 5,500
44.0 12.400
39.5% $15,750
76.0 14,400
33.0 3,150
45.0 12,600
10.6% $ 4,250
10.8 2,100
9.0 850
11.0 3,000
42.0% $40,400 47.5% $45,900 10.5% $10,200
42.0
4,000 47.5
4,500 10.5
1,000
42.0% $44,400 47.5% $50,400 10.5% $11,200
42.0 8,800 47.5 10,000 10.5 2,200
42.0% $53,200 47.5% $60,400 10.5% $13,400
-------
TABLE 14
Distribution of Operation and Maintenance Costs
for Waste Treatment
Alternative No. 1 Including Breakstone Waste
Distribution of Annual Cost
Operation and
Maintenance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Labor
a. Sludge
Disposal
b. General
Operating
c . Subtotal
Chemicals
Process Power
Maintenance
Miscellaneous
Power and
Fuel
Subtotal
Contingencies
@ 20%
Total
Less State
Aid
Estimated
Amount
$ 20,
20,
$ 40,
19,
9,
28,
9,
$106,
21,
$127,
42,
000
000
000
000
500
000
500
000
000
000
000
Breakstone
Percent
93
83
88
93
87
90
89
90
90
90
90
.0%
.8
.0%
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0%
.0
.0%
.0
Amount
$ 18
16
$ 35
17
8
25
8
$ 95
18
$114
37
,600
,700
,300
,700
,300
,300
,500
,100
,900
,000
,800
Walton
Percent
7
16
11
6
13
9
10
10
10
10
10
.0%
.2
.0%
.5
.0
.5
.5
.0%
.0
.0%
.0
Amount
$ 1
3
$ 4
1
1
2
1
$10
2
$13
4
,400
,300
,700
,300
,200
,700
,000
,900
,100
,000
,200
10. Net
$ 85,000 90.0% $ 76,200 10.0% $ 8,800
59
-------
The division of costs between Breakstone and Walton is based
upon their respective contribution to the annual amounts of
flow, BOD and suspended solids contributed to the treatment
plant.
Table 12 presents the summary of annual contribution antici-
pated for the initial year of operation.
Table 13 presents the allocation of treatment operating
costs to loading parameters. The procedure assigns the cost
of operation to the parameter(s) which determines either the
capacity of a particular treatment unit or the need for oper-
ating attention. Maintenance is estimated at 5% per year
based upon estimated purchase price of mechanical equipment.
Miscellaneous items are prorated based upon allocation
achieved for other operating items.
Operating cost distribution between Breakstone and Walton
using the relative contributions from Table 12 and the allo-
cations presented in Table 13 are summarized on Table 14.
For Alternative No. 1, Breakstone's share of operating costs
is estimated at $114,000 per year without State aid, and
$76,200 per year with State aid. Walton's share without
State aid is estimated at $13,000 per year and at $8,800 per
year with State aid.
Operating costs for Alternative No. 2 (excluding Breakstone)
are estimated at $75,000 per year for the initial year of
operation. The estimate is based upon a compilation of
average operating cost experience data compiled by State aid
and Federal agencies.
Total Annual Cost Comparison
Total annual costs for Walton treatment and transmission
system for Alternative Nos. 1 and 2 are compared on Table 15.
As shown in the tabulation, a joint Breakstone-Walton treat-
ment and transmission would reduce Walton total annual cost
by 30% to 40% when compared with an independent alternative.
Excluding State aid, Walton's total annual costs for treat-
ment and transmission are reduced from $169,000 per year to
$117,500 per year. Including State aid, Walton's total an-
nual costs for treatment and transmission are reduced from
$87,500 per year to $50,300 per year. An effective rate of
interest of 7% per year has been assumed for Walton munici-
pal bonds in view of the persistently high cost of money
evidenced in the municipal bond market.
60
-------
TABLE 15
Total Annual Cost Comparison
Treatment and Transmission Facilities
Walton Sewage
Estimated Annual Walton Cost
Annual Cost Alternative No. 1 Alternative No. 2
1. Interest and
Amortization*
a. Treatment
Plant $ 63,000 $ 51,000
b. Transmission
Facilities 41,500 43,000
c. Subtotal -
Construction $104,500 $ 94,000
2. Operation of
Treatment Plant 13,000 75,000
3. Total Annual
Cost $117,500 $169,000
4. State Aid
a. Construction $ 63,000 $ 56,500
b. Operation 4,200 25,000
c. Total $ 67,200 $ 81,500
5. Net Total Annual
Cost $ 50,300 $ 87,500
*40 years at 7%.
61
-------
System Costs to Walton
Components of a complete system for Walton comprise the fol-
lowing:
1. Initial phases of sewerage system
2. Treatment plant and transmission facilities
3. Final phases of sewerage system
Table 16 presents estimated capital costs for the first
phase sewerage system construction. Treatment and transmis-
sion capital cost under Alternative No. 1 have already been
presented on Table 5. Table 17 presents estimated capital
costs for the final phase of the sewerage system.
Table 18 examines the capital cost to Walton for a complete
system under Alternative No. 1, incorporating all financial
aid Walton is qualified to receive, ignoring the problem of
availability of funds. Walton's share of capital costs
would be about $1,739,250 for a complete system. The capi-
tal cost of the initial phase of construction of sewers,
treatment and transmission facilities would be about
$755,000.
Operating costs to Walton for treatment and transmission
under Alternative No. 1 are presented on Table 19. Oper-
ating costs for sewerage system needs are shown on Table 14.
Table 20 examines total annual costs under Alternative No. 1.
Incorporating all financial aid Walton is qualified to re-
ceive, Walton's share of total annual costs for treatment,
transmission and first stage sewerage construction is esti-
mated at $72,800 per year or about $66/year/connection
(assuming 1,100 connections). Of this amount, treatment and
transmission account for some $50,000 per year or $45.5/year/
connection.
In terms of tax rates, treatment, transmission and first
stage sewerage construction would be equivalent to $18/
$1,000 of assessed valuation. Of this amount, treatment and
transmission account for some $12.40/$1,000 of assessed
valuation.
62
-------
TABLE 16
Estimated Cost of Initial Phase of
Walton Sewerage System
(ENR Index = 1540)
Initial Phase
1. Sewer-in-Place 13,500 LF $ 260,000
2. Manholes 50 27,000
3. House Connections 220 48,000
4. Subtotal - Construction $ 335,000
5. Engineering and Contingencies 71,000
6. Total - Initial Phase $ 406,000
TABLE 17
Estimated Cost of Final Phase of
Walton Sewerage System
(ENR Index = 1540)
Complete Sewer System
1. Sewer-in-Place 72,400 LF $1,280,000
2. Manholes 240 128,000
3. House Connections 1,100 230,000
4. Subtotal - Construction $1,638,000
5. Engineering and Contingencies 330,000
6. Total - Final Phase $1,968,000
63
-------
TABLE 18
Capital Cost to Walton for Complete System
Alternative No. 1
(ENR Index = 1540)
1.
2.
Description
Treatment Plant
Transmission
System
Estimated
Amount
$2,749,000
$ 667,000
Grants and
Shares
$1,650,000*
765,000**
$2.415,000
$ 400,000*
49,250**
$ 449,250
Net
Amount
$ 334,000
$ 217,750
3. Sewer System
a. Initial Phase
b. Final Phase
c. Subtotal -
Sewerage
4. First Phase
Construction
a. Treatment
Plant
b. Transmission
System
c. Initial Phase
Sewage
d. Total - First
Phase
5. Complete
Construction
a. First Phase
Construction
b. Final Phase
Sewerage
c. Total - All
Phases
$ 406,000
1,968,000
$ 203,000*** $ 203,000
984,000*** 984,000
$2,374,000 $1,187,000
$1,187,000
$2,749,000
667,000
406,000
$2,415,000
449,250
203,000
$3,822,000 $3,067,250
$3,822,000
1,968,000
$5,790,000
$3,067,250
984,000
$4,051,250.
$ 334,000
217,750
203,000
$ 754,750
$ 754,750
984,000
$1/738,750
*State grant of 60% of cost.
**Breakstone share.
***FHA grant of 50% of cost.
64
-------
TABLE 19
Estimate of Operating Cost of
Walton Sewerage System
(ENR Index = 1540)
Description Annual Amount
I. Initial Phase of Sewerage System
1. Maintenance $ 2,100
2. Wages 3,100
3. Miscellaneous Expenses 2,100
4. Subtotal - Initial Phase $ 7,300
II. Final Phase of Sewerage System
1. Maintenance $ 4,800
2. Wages 7,200
3. Miscellaneous Expenses 4,800
4. Subtotal - Final Phase $16,800
III. Total - Sewerage System $24,100
65
-------
TABLE 20
Total Annual Cost to Walton for Complete System
Alternative No. 1
1.
2.
3.
Description
Interest and
Amortization*
a. Treatment
b. Transmission
c. Sewerage System
Initial Phase
d. Subtotal
e. Sewerage System
Final Phase
f. Total
Operation and
Maintenance
a. Treatment
b. Sewerage System
Initial Phase
c . Subtotal
d. Sewerage System
Final Phase
e. Total
Total Annual Cost
Estimated
Amount
$ 63,000
41,500
30,500
$135,000
149,000
$284,000
$ 13,000
7,300
$ 20,300
16,800
$ 37,100
Aid
Amount
$ 38,000**
25,000**
15,250***
$ 78,250
74,500***
$152,750
$ 4,200****
$ 4,200
$ 4,200
Net
Amount
$ 25,000
16,500
15,250
$ 56,750
74,500
$131,250
$ 8,800
7,300
$ 16,100
16,800
$ 32,900
a. Treatment,
Transmission
and Initial
Sewerage System $155,300
b. Final Sewerage
Phase 165,800
c. Total $321,100
*40-year bond @ 7%/year.
**State grant of 60% of cost
***FHA grant of 50% of cost.
****State grant of 33% of cost
Say
$ 82,450
74,500
$156,950
$157,000
$ 72,850
91,300
$164,150
66
-------
Computer Program for Trickling Filter Process Designs
Program Description
The purpose of the program is the preparation of a prelimi-
nary design for packed tower trickling filters utilizing a
number of alternative models. The models include: first
order, and a retardant formulation. ;
The program consists of two elements, i.e., a main program
and a subroutine. The file name is TPQ. The two elements
(main program and a subroutine) are called TEST1 and TEST2,
respectively. The program also consists of a data file
called DATA.
Process possibilities include the following:
1. A single-stage process with the possibility of from
one tQ four filters,in parallel.
2. A two-stage process (two filters in series) with the
possibility of from one to four filters in parallel.
3. A three-stage process (three filters in series) with
the possibility of from one to four filters in
parallel.
Units are sized assuming all of the above possibilities.
The Appendix contains a sample printout of the program.
Desovipt.ion of Input
First Line:
(a) The number of kinetic routines you want to use
(i.e., a number from 1 to 5).
(b) An identification number for each routine that is to
be used according to the following scheme:
1 = First order
2 = Simple retardant
3. = Zero order
4 = Michaelis Menton
5 = Concentration dependent
Models 3 to 5 are for future development.
67
-------
Second Line:
(a) The total overall efficiency required. It is read
in as a decimal.
(b) The minimum application rate required for the filter
media. It is expressed in the following units
(gpm/SF).
Third Line:
(a) First filter height selected (ft)
(b) Second filter height selected (ft)
Fourth Line:
Characteristics of First Kinetic Routine Chosen
(a) BOD removal rate constant at 20°C
(b) "n" value of the media chosen
(c) Lbs/day of raw BOD entering the filter
(d) Actual temperature in °C
(e) Raw waste flow in gpm
(f) Temperature correction factor 9
Fifth Line:
Characteristics of Second Kinetic Routine Chosen
(a) BOD removal rate constant at 20°C
(b) "n" value of the media chosen
(c) Lbs/day of raw BOD entering the filter
(d) Actual temperature in °C
(e) Raw waste flow in gpm
(f) Temperature correction factor 9
68
-------
Sixth Line to Eighth Line:
Same variables as lines four and five but for the third to
the fifth kinetic routines. Models 3 to 5 are for future
development and thus lines 6,7,8 are omitted at the pres-
ent time.
All the data are input in free format separated by commas.
The first line is inferred with no decimal points. All the
remaining lines must have numbers with an expressed decimal
point.
Numevioal Example of Input
Assume two kinetic models, simple retardant first and first
order. Next,
95% efficiency
1 gal./SF minimum application rate
Height No. 1 = 21 ft
Height No. 2 = 42 feet
First Order:
K20 = .03 gpm/CF
n =1
W = 1,800 BOD Ibs/day
Temperature = 22°C
Q = 694.4 gpm
9 = 1.035
Simple Retardant:
K20 = .03 gpm/CF
n =1
W = 1,800 BOD Ibs/day
69
-------
Temperature = 22°C
Q = 694.4 gpm
9 = 1.035
Actual input would appear as follows:
? ? 1
^ I *• I -L
.95, 1.
21., 42.
.03, 1., 1800., 22., 694.4, 1.035
.03, 1., 1800., 22., 694.4, 1.035
Actual Output
The output is neatly arranged and divided into the following
sections.
Section 1 General Design Criteria
This section lists the variables which were input to the
program and calculates the actual rate constant Km =
K20-et-2o.
The following parameters are printed out:
1 BOD removal rate at 20°C
2 Actual temperature
3 Temperature correction factor
4 Actual BOD removal rate1
5 Flow
6 BOD
7 Minimum application rate
8; Depth of tower
9 Total efficiency
i
Section 2 Design Criteria Including Branches 1, 2, 3
and 4 ; " ~
This branch prints out a table assuming that you have
either a 1 stage, 2 stage or 3 stage process. This
70
-------
first table assumes that the flow recirculation ratio is
zero. Recirculation is set at zero in this table in or-
der to provide a record of:
(a) The need to provide for recirculation and, therefore,
added tower volume, within any stage to insure
achievement of a selected minimum application rate
and
(b) The need to provide for additional -stages to insure
achievement of minimum application rates without
using recirculation on each stage or
(c) Both of the above.
The parameters printed out are:
1 Efficiency per stage
2 Application rate per stage (gpm/SF)
3 Recirculation ratio per stage
4 Volume of media per stage (CF)
5 Stage volume divided by raw flow (CF/gpm)
6 Total volume of media (CF)
7 Flow pumped per stage (gpm)
8 Total flow pumped (gpm)
9 Number of pumping stations required
Branch 2
This branch prints out the organic loadings to each
stage assuming either a 1, 2, or 3 stage process. For
each stage a nominal diameter is calculated from one to
four filters per stage. >
Branches 3 and 4
These branches are the same as 1 and 2 respectively ex-
cept that recirculation is added if required to make the
application rate equal to the minimum allowable.
This output is repeated for each kinetic model desired. The
program was written using Fortran V. The system used was a
Univac 1108 Executive VIII computer.
71
-------
SECTION V
CONSTRUCTION
Construction was limited to the installation of concrete
foundation slab for acceptance of a packed tower field pilot
plant. Photographs of the unit appear in Figure 24. A dia-
gram of the unit is shown in Figure 25.
73
-------
SECTION VI
EXPERIMENTAL
Laboratory Phase
Sewage and industrial waste discharges are subject to pro-
nounced hourly variations in flow, strength and characteris-
tics. Under such unsteady conditions, the challenge
associated with the field evaluation of the role of specific
variables on process performance becomes greatly magnified.
The evaluation of parameters is most effectively executed
under carefully controlled laboratory conditions enabling
isolation of the effects of specific variables. In addition,
the laboratory approach enabled the investigation of a whey-
sewage mixture prior to the provision of community sewage
collection. The present investigation employed laboratory
techniques for parameter evaluation except where practical
considerations as to scale dictated field studies. The
evaluation of sludge dewatering characteristics was the
principal area in which scale requirements dictated field
studies.
Methods and Materials
A synthetic waste substrate was formulated for use in all
laboratory studies. The waste substrate was prepared from
Breakstone whey, settled sewage from the city of Yonkers,
New York, skim milk and tap water in accord with the follow-
ing formula.
Whey 1.55%
Skim Milk 0.09
Settled Sewage 15.90
Tap Water 82.40
99.94%
The formula is a simulation of the waste mixture expected at
a Walton-Breakstone joint treatment plant. Representative
values of the COD, BOD and suspended solids for the syn-
thetic waste were 900, 650 and 100 ppm, respectively.
75
-------
The simulated waste was fed to four laboratory test stand
units designed to simulate trickling filter performance
kinetics. The test stand units, illustrated in Figures 1
and 8, were rectangular plane surfaces set at a specific in-
cline. The filter lengths were side channeled to provide a
controlled surface area of slime. The test stand units_were
constructed to provide flexibility in waste loading varia-
tion and system operation. Daily feed volumes were small
enough to allow the entire filter effluent to be stored in a
refrigerator for preservation during feeding and collection.
Slime surfaces were sufficiently large to enable the inves-
tigation of a wide range of BOD removal efficiencies.
Plane recirculation ratios, as well as BOD and hydraulic
loadings, were scaled to approximate prototype conditions.
Application of feed and recycle was continuous with auto-
matic temperature control. Operating characteristics are
presented on Table 21. A period of 24 hours was allowed for
development of steady state conditions between runs.
TABLE 21
Laboratory Trickling Filter Plane
Operating Characteristics
Laboratory
Characteristics Trickling Filter
1. Number of Units Run 4
2. Total Length (ft) 9 and 18
3. Available Media (SF) .375 and .75
4. Volume of Feed Required
per Day (1) 3-22
5. Temperature Automatic Control + 2°C
6. Sampling Procedure Manual Grab Samples
7. Duration of Runs 3 to 5 days
8. Operation Schedule 7 days/week
9. Method of Operation
a. Feed Continuous
b. Recycle Continuous
76
-------
TYPICAL LABORATORY SIMULATED
TRICKLING FILTER PLANE
SIDE VIEW
TEMPERATURE
CONTROL
FEED FROM
REFRIGERATOR
FRONT VIEW
COLLECTION
FUNNELS
MIXED LIQUOR SUMP
FEED
THERMAL
REGULATOR
EFFLUENT
MAGNETIC STIRRER
PUMP
EFFLUENT
TO REFRIGERATOR
-------
-J
00
en
oo
FILTER PLANL TEST STAND UNITS
-------
Analysis of the simulated waste indicated a filtered BOD of
approximately 600 mg/1. A nitrogen requirement of 5 Ibs
nitrogen per 100 Ibs of BOD or 30 mg N/l was indicated for
the whey-sewage waste. Analysis of grab samples of the
simulated waste indicated the following nitrogen content.
Nitrogen Nitrogen Concentration TSS
Form (mg-N/1) (mg/1)
Ammonia .75
Organic 6.0 100
Nitrate .7
Assuming all the nitrogen forms are available as nutrients,
a nitrogen deficit of approximately 22.5 mg N/l exists.
Nitrogen supplementation in the form of ammonium hydroxide
was selected. A dosage of 37.5 mg N/l was selected to in-
sure that nitrogen would not become limiting.
Representative effluent nitrogen concentrations for 75% re-
moval of soluble BOD were:
Ammonia 20 mg N/l
Nitrate Nitrogen 1.5 mg N/l
Organic nitrogen varied depending upon the effluent sus-
pended solids.
To prevent odorous nuisance conditions developing in the
laboratories, the trickling filter planes were enclosed in
plexiglass and facilities provided to deodorize the effluent
air stream. A minimum air flow of 40 CF/gal. was provided.
Total air flow over the four trickling planes averaged 40
CF/hr. A Welsbach Model T-816 laboratory ozonator was cho-
sen as the ozone source. Its rated capacity of 8 gms ozone
per hr using air as the feed gas insured adequate capacity
over and above the 10 ppm dosage recommended by the manufac-
turer for deodorizing sewage sludges. Control of ozonation
was accomplished using a Welsbach Model H-81 ozone meter. A
minimum reactor detention time of 5 minutes was provided be-
fore exhausting the deodorized air effluent outside the
laboratory-
Transient Response
In the investigation of biological systems it is necessary
to manipulate variables affecting the system in a carefully
controlled manner. A change in an input variable will cause
79
-------
the system to exhibit a transient and a steady-state re-
sponse. Since kinetic formulations deal with steady-state
responses, it was essential in the experimental design of
the present study to allow time for dissipation of transient
response prior to data collection.
The results presented in Figure 9 pertain to system response
to 9 to 1 step-down and 9 to 1 step-up in organic loading
inputs. The response to the step-down input required 22 hrs
to reach steady state. The response to the step-up input
required 6 hrs to reach steady state. The implication was
that it would be feasible to collect data for parameter
evaluation at intervals of 24 hrs following adjustment of
variables.
Effect of Nutrients
A series of experiments was made to determine the effect of
nutrient supplementation upon BOD removal performance. The
nutrients selected for investigation were combinations of
ferrous iron and ammonia. Data analysis indicated that the
results fell within two groups. The data, presented as
Figure 10, consisted of results obtained with no addition of
nutrients and with the addition of ferrous iron only. The
value of k^Q f°r this group ranged from 1.1 to 1.15 x 10~3
gpm/SF.
The second data group consisted of results obtained with ad-
dition of nutrient ammonia-nitrogen and with the addition of
nutrient ammonia-nitrogen, plus ferrous iron. These results,
given in Figure 11, yielded a value of k^o of 1-6 x 10~3
gpm/SF. Thus, the addition of 1.5 ppm of ferrous iron had
no effect on BOD removal, whereas the addition of 37.5 ppm
of ammonia-nitrogen effected a 40% increase in the rate co-
efficient for BOD removal. The linearity exhibited by the
plots supported the applicability of the formulation.
Effect of BOD Concentration
By grouping the data into high concentration and low concen-
tration populations, it was possible to examine the effect
of concentration on applicability of the proposed kinetic
formulation. Such an analysis is presented as Figure 12,
where the value of the BOD removal coefficient, k^Qj was
1.75 x 10~3 gpm/SF for both high and low concentration popu-
lations. It was concluded that within the range of experi-
mentation, the proposed model described variations in BOD
concentration of the waste.
80
-------
00
\-
i
i
2
£
C
. C
t
• ^
C.
L
t
:f
i-:'
1
4
J:.
J
J.:.
3":
»: :
rii:
.
'
onn
.oOO
*
r
I
-[
• i
.i
• :-
; 't
1
Iiii
nn
00
nn
iOO
fOO
on
mn
00
OD
•;;:
Utl
(S
:!ii
' ! ' !
1 \ i ;
!
ii
_
IH
i :
v>i
I '
t: :
-
: L
;;
\
•"•l;
r;::
;E;
J
:;
iiii
i il
; i
! ti-
ll i-i
'.'•'•':
!t:i
'
j
SEC
•Rll
::!;P
:.i|i-:
RE
M
::U
-iL'-li:.
'i>M
:^ii
:;::
i'ii
I'i'r
J—
:::r
;irf
u«-4
i:':
til !
:\
•^u
^»(
•:;:
H;:
1 ; .
i
i
1
ISf
Jrll
:UJ
*v
D
8,-.
K:'
TRich liwf:
!
— • —
]
.QA
•€fl
iPf
i^l
;:::
:;•;;:•
IB
.. ,
M/
/L
i.:.
'3
RESP
.»
.F
^
J :
,ji:-
::j:
FILTER iPlJiNti 8l ^*
DNSE TIME STUDY
"
8
1
1
-,
fj
Mi:
• ' ' 1
tf
*»
'•
j':.i
! : : .
W
:SfJWA|jE
— r-
- T -
i
'-i : •
M
fl'r
?
« .
'ii
--
i
!
.. -|. :.
v ,-:
IB
,p
iii:
\\\\
| [
—
1 -
i
i
iii;
r,,
fc
-•
1 |
i r r
-j —
.._
i
- — i— -
i
1
i
—
t
1
-
l
—
- -(-INC!
| fiROI
1
"T1!
. : . ;
TO
'
<
•il
i i : '
>
y
1
9
.£.
i
i
• j
-
/i
fe -
-
; . |.
; ;
;
i
{EASE
i O.n
i
i
•
3. 4£A^I-N6-
58 fiPIH/l F i
O.Q9JI qpjaj'LF : __
-•-
4"'
-— r -•
w
:"
••
•- - :" : 1
- ... ..^ _r_ ..
j I
1 1 *.
1 j.
, i i
• [
...... -. .. |.... ._
9/1 ' £_ J^
Tin-- - r-o-t-- -ii
i i
-^•^ii/m^"
i • •
-4-+-,-
-------
WHEY & SEWAGE
DISSOLVED BOD REMOVAL
EFFECT OF FERROUS IRON ADDITION
i
WITH 1,5 MG/LFE++ ADDED AT PH 7,0
ANGLE. _!
ULTHOUI NUTRIENXS-^Pti 7.0
-------
""" ' " TRIC!
!..
r .
- ;
PLANE
]
PLANE
^
r. K
EFFECT
0
ANGLE 45"
LENG}H 9 i
9
(0 J
(LING .FILTER PLANE PERFORMANCE
-j. -Jfitlttr
DIJ5SOLV
i
OF NflTRIEl
i .I i
1 Hi lip NUI
S
II
f-^^j
D BO;
;WA6E
J RL-M
1
ITS A|D Nt
J-P
;RiEsl5
,
"':
»- • 3^6--
H6AT =
L ^
k
^'20,
-••-*
SF/G
U'
TRICKLING FILTER PLANE
©WITH 37.5 MG - N/l
PLANS -ANGLE 45'
PLANS LENGTH 9
^— — <^~~~
SERIES 3
r r i
|0
-^T
—^
— T
1
J 50 100 150
—
!ML
KUbbl
1 7iO
Elfil
_l '••-
I
_ _j_. _1
J ALOI
^^
^~^
\
•• 1.6
-
lA-
Hr
^
*<2{
x 10
t
^
72-3
GPI
3ll)U
PM
PERFORMANCE
-• PH 7.0
1
1 i ~
f'20/2.3
200
a^^"
Or
1/SF
ft
i
x 1C
l"3 of
L
ni- "-I'-J
BE 11..
L
^-
0
5
^•
' \ \
: ; : ;
:-.: :-• '
^i ; ;
i
1/SF
I
250 300
H9AT/U' = SF/GPM
83
-------
PLANE PERFORMANCE!
-UTSSOLVED "EOT
CONCENTRATION
FIGURE 12
300 400
84
-------
Effect of Recycle
There is considerable controversy among researchers as to
the effects of recycle on the performance of biological fil-
ters. By grouping the data of the present study into popu-
lations with recycle and without recycle, it was possible to
obtain the analysis presented as Figure 13. With a recycle
ratio of from 2 to 3, the rate coefficient for BOD removal,
k^o/ was determined as 2.0 x 10~3 gpm/SF. The difference in
indicated rate constant is considered within the spread of
experimental data and it is concluded that, in accordance
with theory, recirculation does not materially affect the
value of BOD removal rate constant but must be included in
the determination of hydraulic loading.
Effect of pH
The level of pH influences enzyme activity and culture char-
acteristics in biological systems. The results of a limited
number of data collection runs at different levels of influ-
ent pH are given in Figure 14. Examination of the results
indicated a trend towards improved BOD removal rate at pH 7
or below. Data are sufficient only to show a trend toward
pH effects. It is noted that similar trends were obtained
by Wasserman [1] and Adamse [4] with other biological sys-
tems using whey as substrate.
Effect of Temperature
The performance of biological filters is affected by sea-
sonal and waste temperature changes. The proposed kinetic
formulation accounts for temperature effects by adjustment
of the value of the BOD removal coefficient, k', in the
following manner.
where:
k
k
9
t
= *
20
(#36)
BOD removal rate coefficient at T°C
BOD removal rate coefficient at 20 °C
constant
waste temperature, C°
85
-------
100
200
300 400 500
HOAT/U = SF/GPM
86
-------
FIGURE 1H
01
O)
-1 RKKi ifMitTEf -ftJWE PEf f?Mf# NfiF
H6AT = SF/GPM
"U7"
87
-------
A series of experiments was made over the temperature range
from 19 to 30°C. The results of the experiments are pre-
sented graphically as Figures 15 and 16.The value of k1
increased with temperature from 1.6 x 10 3 gpm/SF at 20°C to
2.2 x 10~3 gpm/SF at 29°C. The average value of 0 was com-
puted as 1.035 and was in agreement with value assumed in
current practice.
Model Verification
Figure 17 is a presentation of biological filter plane re-
sults obtained with a feed pH of 7 and a plane angle of 30°.
The excellent linearity of the plot over the wide range of
operating conditions, including different plane lengths,
verifies the applicability of the proposed kinetic formula-
tion for description of biological filter performance. For
the conditions represented by the plot, the BOD removal rate
coefficient, k^Q, was computed as 1.6 x 10~3 gpm/SF.
The analytical technique developed prior to this study and
extended during study execution was such as to allow direct
computation of BOD removal rate constants from laboratory
simulations of trickling filter surfaces. The literature
was reviewed for whey data to which the correlation could be
applied. The data of Schultze [31] were analyzed for whey
application over a vertical surface comprised of a screen
mesh. The correlation is shown on Figure 18 and supports a
(k') value of 1.6 x 10~3 gpm/SF over a temperature range of
14° to 22°C, and a BOD removal efficiency from 25% to 80%.
Summary of Filter Plane Performance
A summary of all laboratory runs for BOD and COD removals on
the trickling filter planes is presented in the Appendix.
Data are subdivided into series as follows:
1. A given plane condition was set, i.e., angle, length,
flow, rate, temperature, pH and nutrient addition.
2. After 24 and 48 hours, grab samples were taken for
analysis.
Each grab sample was considered a run. A total of 47 runs
or daily grab samples was obtained during the study. The
runs were divided into series according to the major param-
eter of study (Table 22).
88
-------
600 800
H/u' SF/GPM
89
1000 1200
-------
o ~Wi m BOOsoo 1000 1200
H/u' SF /GPM
90
-------
FIGURE 17
ftm
M
ICE
HERr
iD.'REfKWAL
EFFECT-0F
PLANE :LEN(ftt
WltH NUTR
ENTS
IfiS (
PLANE ANGl
30°
ftANf
PtAfH
LENGTH 9
tew^ftHli
xi
3
A
k'?
-i.J
X If
1--1-
-6
ififfltz:
H6AT = SF/GPM
U'
91
-------
92
-------
TABLE 22
Summary of Filter Plane Performance
Series
1
2
3
4
5
6
Note:
Plane Geometry
Angle Length
(°) (ft)
Nutrients
45 & 30
45 & 30
45
45
45
30
9
9
9
9
9
9 & 18
pH
No
Fe only
N only
All
All
All
7
7
7
Variable
7
7
Number
of
Runs
7
4
2
4
6
14
Parameter
Studies
Study
of
Nutrient
Addition
pH Study
Study
of
Angle
Series 6 run 12a3 13a and 14a are the first 9 ft of
18-ft planes evaluated in runs 12., 13 and 14.
Computer Program for Laboratory Data Analysis
The purpose of this computer program is to summarize the
trickling filter operation data, compute the trickling filter
kinetics, and prepare the kinetic correlations. This use was
based on the ability of the computers to operate at great
speed, to produce accurate results, to store large quantities
of information, and to carry out long and complex sequences
of operations without human intervention. Appendix 2 con-
tains a copy of the program printout. This program which has
been named WHEYTF consists of one main program, TRIFIL, and
three subroutines, PLOT, PLOTHD, and LEASQS.
In the main program, TRIFIL, comments and new data were read
and printed, unit conversions for raw data were executed and
printed. BOD or COD fed to the plant included recirculation,
BOD or COD removal efficiency, recirculation ratio, theoreti-
cal detention time of waste on the plane. All the correla-
tion parameters were computed and tabulated. Subroutines
were called to plot the kinetic correlations, locate the
lines of best fit, and compute the various reaction constants.
Kinematic viscosity and temperature relationships were ex-
pressed by three linear relationships. All the correlation
parameters were computed under the assumption of negligible
evaporation.
93
-------
In the subroutine PLOT, kinetic correlations were plotted.
Two graphs were drawn for the first order reaction while
only one was plotted for the simple retardant reaction. _The
subroutine sorted the abscissa-array (x-array) in ascending
order, computed minimum and maximum values in x-array and
Y-array (ordinate-array), checked the increment on Y-axis,
called the subroutine PLOTHD, printed out ordinate axis,
plotted out the values along with the x-axis, and called the
subroutine PLOTHD again.
The subroutine PLOTHD printed out the heading of the plot,
the variables plotted and the kinetic model selected.
The last subroutine LEASQS employed the method of least
squares to compute the slope and the intercept of the line
of best fit on each plot. The subroutine also computed the
reaction constants involved.
Description of Input
In this program, run identification or project name and/or
number was input first, followed by number of pieces of data,
type of plant, kinetic model selected, output device used,
plane length or tower height, operation data and the width
and inclined angle of plane or the diameter of tower. The
operation data included raw waste BOD or COD, effluent BOD
or COD, recirculation rate, raw waste flow rate and tempera-
ture. The data formats are as follows:
NC
(AA(J), J= 1, 16)
(AA(J), J= 1, 16)
Total NC cards or lines
(AA(J), J= 1, 16)
N, NTYP, NK, LL
HL
(CA(I), 1= 1, N)
(CE(I) , 1= 1, N)
(R(I), 1= 1, N)
(Q(I) , 1= 1, N)
(T(I), 1= 1, N)
W, A for planes or D for towers
where:
NC = number of cards or lines for run identifi-
cation, project name, project number or
other comments
94
-------
AA = Run identification, project name, project
number or other comments
N = Number of pieces of data
NK = 1 if first order reaction is selected
= 3 if simple retardant reaction is chosen
= 5 if Michaelis-Menton relationship is
employed
NTYP = 1 if plane is employed
= 2 if tower is used
LL = 1 if teletype is employed
2 if DCT is used
HL = plane length or tower height in ft
CA = raw waste BOD or COD in ppm
CE = effluent BOD or COD in ppm
R = recycle flow in ml/min for planes, or in
gpm for tower
Q = raw waste flow in ml/min for planes, or in
gpm for towers
T = temperature of waste in °F
W = width of plane in in.
A = angle of plane with horizon in degrees
D = diameter of tower in ft
Description of Output
The program output included the following four components:
(1) input data tabulation with both original and converted
units and list of some computed values, i.e., BOD or COD fed
to the plant including recirculation, BOD or COD removal ef-
ficiency, recirculation ratio, theoretical detention time of
waste on the plane; (2) tabulation of kinetic model corre-
lation parameters; (3) graphs of model correlations; and
(4) values of the slope and intercept of the line of best
fit and the reaction constants.
95
-------
First Order Reaction
A sample printout of the program result for first order reac-
tion is shown in the output of DATAZI. Two plots were drawn.
One was log f (ordinate) vs. H9AT/U" (abscissa) for planes or
log f vs. H9AT/U for towers. The slope of the line was
k'/2.3 for planes or k'Av/2.3 for towers. The other plot was
log H9AT/ i0g f vs. log U for towers. The slope of the line
represented the hydraulic loading exponent n, and the inter-
cept on the ordinate (log(H9AT/log f) axis) was log (2.3/k1)
for planes or log (2.3/k'Av) for towers.
Simple Retardant Reaction
A sample printout for the simple retardant reaction is shown
in the output of DATA 22. The relationship of f vs. HOAT/U"
(planes) or f vs. H6AT/U(towers) was plotted. The intercept
on the ordinate of the line of best fit had to be unity. The
slope of the line of best fit represented k1 for planes or
k'Av for towers.
Effluent pH and Neutralization
All sewage-whey process influents were adjusted to pH 7 dur-
ing this study. Grab sample effluent analysis showed a ten-
dency toward depressed pH with decreasing treatment. For
example, with 10% to 30% BOD removal, the effluent pH was
4-5, but with 60% to 75% BOD removal, the effluent pH was
near neutral. Figure 19 illustrates a titration curve for a
pH depressed, high BOD effluent. 4 me/1 of base were re-
quired to raise the pH from 4 to 7.
Calculated lime additions to raise this effluent sample to
pH 7 are 150 mg/1. Qualitative observation of the effect of
lime addition showed floe formation and improved sedimenta-
tion with lime additions as low as 25 mg/1.
Properties of Suspended Solids
In the analysis of wastewater and effluent, it is useful, for
conceptual purposes, to segregate suspended and dissolved
fractions of BOD. The concept assists in the visualization
of BOD removal by settling facilities and in the appraisal of
effluent characteristics.
The results of determinations of BOD equivalency of the feed
and effluent suspended solids from treatment of whey wastes
96
-------
97
-------
are given in Figure 20. The BOD equivalences for the sus-
pended solids were 0.63 and 0.62 Ibs BOD per Ib suspended
solids, respectively, for feed and effluent.
These values are employed to determine the following:
1. The dissolved BOD of untreated waste by deducting
suspended BOD values from total BOD measurements.
2. The dissolved BOD of treated effluent by deducting
the suspended BOD corresponding to effluent sus-
pended solids limitations from the total BOD
requirement.
3. The dissolved BOD removal required of the trickling
filters.
Examples of these computations are shown on Table 2.
Supplementary determinations of volatile content of feed and
effluent suspended solids were made. These results are pre-
sented as Figure 21. Feed and effluent suspended solids
were 87% and 88% volatile, respectively.
Solids-Liquid Separation
Several tests were performed on th,e laboratory trickling
filter effluents to determine sedimentation characteristics.
Effluent samples were settled for various detention times in
a standard 500 ml polyethylene cylinder. Supernatant sam-
ples were withdrawn at the 150 ml level.
Figure 22 illustrates the supernatant suspended solids after
varying detention times for a given trickling filter plane
operating condition with differing effluent suspended solids.
At 150 mg/1 effluent suspended solids, the supernatant sta-
bilized after 60 minutes at 85 mg/1. At 78 mg/1 effluent
suspended solids, the supernatant stabilized after 30 minutes
at 60 mg/1.
Eleven settling tests, summarized in Table 23, were conducted
at various trickling filter plane operating conditions for
differing effluent suspended solids concentrations at 30 min-
utes detention time. The average effluent suspended solids
concentration was 160 mg/1 ranging from 550 to 42 mg/1.
Supernatant suspended solids after 30 minutes average 100
mg/1 ranging from 200 to 30 mg/1.
98
-------
99
-------
WHEY j SEWAGE ! i j FIGlifiE 2\
VOLATILE S|SPEldlEB--S(kftlSJCONTf-NT--4
• SOOT
100
-------
101
-------
TABLE 23
Final Sedimentation Trickling Filter Plane Effluent
Whey and Sewage
500 ml Cylinder
Test Apparatus
1. Description - 500 ml Graduated Cylinder
2. Total Depth - 12-3/4 in.
3. Sample Depth for Sludge Removal - 8-3/4 in,
4. Detention Time - 30 min.
5. Overflow Rate (Equivalent) - 260 gpd/hr
Results
1. Initial Suspended
Solids (mg/1) ,
2. Percent Volatile
3. Temperature (°C)
4. Supernatant
a. Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
b. Percent Volatile
5. Percent Removal
Suspended Solids
Maximum
550
25
200
Average
160
80
20
100
84
37.5
Minimum
42
14
30
102
-------
The average of all effluent suspended solids determined dur-
ing this study was 360 mg/1. Samples were taken only during
times when planes were'90% to 100% covered with slime as
whey exhibits a high growth rate of organisms.
Based on the data illustrated in Figure 22, a detention time
of 60 minutes in the test cylinder (130 gpd/SF) would remove
all the settleable solids. Projecting the data of Figure 22
and Table 23, a supernatant suspended solids concentration
of between 75 and 100 mg/1 would be expected from gravity
sedimentation.
Relationship Between BOD and COD
The BOD test is of more significance than the COD test, but
the COD test is more rapid and more precise. With certain
wastes, it is possible to obtain satisfactory correlation
between BOD and COD to enable routine estimation of BOD from
COD determinations. '
Correlations between BOD and COD for whey waste influent and
effluent are given in Figure 23. The correlations were suf-
ficiently reliable to enable useful estimation of BOD from
COD within the range of the data. Generally, the BOD was
about 60% of the COD, irrespective of whether nutrient sup-
plementation was added.
Odor Control
Dairy wastes are often characterized by butyric-acid odors
caused by the decomposition of casein. Appreciable odor in
whey-bearing wastes from cheese production was reported by
Ingram [16]. Fraser [11] reported odors from a high-rate
single-stage trickling filter treating the effluent from a
dairy factory in Australia. He proposed that the odors were
due to anaerobic metabolism in thick slime layers.
To prevent odorous nuisance conditions developing, the
trickling filter planes were enclosed and facilities pro-
vided to deodorize the effluent air stream. A minimum air
flow of 40 CF/gal. was provided. Total air flow over the
four trickling planes averaged 40 CF/hr. A Welsbach model
T-816 laboratory ozonator was chosen as the ozone source.
Its rated capacity of 8 gms ozone per hr using air as the
feed gas insured adequate capacity over and above the 10 ppm
dosage recommended by the manufacturer for deodorizing sew-
age sludges. Ozone production control was accomplished
103
-------
_.t__t—.u ]-.
ITH 1.5 HGFa/l
NUTRIENTS
Q
W
_J
O
tRICKUHG f I LTEft" PLAillE "E
..,.,. -,-.-
104
-------
using a Welsbach model H-81 ozone meter. A minimum reactor
detention time of 5 minutes was provided before exhausting
the deodorized air effluent outside the laboratory.
During the experimental work, odor was detected only at the
higher BOD loadings, above .036 Ibs BOD/day-SF area or con-
verting to Surfpac prototype units above approximately
1,000 Ibs BOD/day 1,000 CF. Application of ozone at an ap-
proximate dosage of 10 ppm effectively deodorized the
effluent air stream. No evidence of odor was detected
either in the laboratory or at the air effluent exhaust.
On-Site Pilot Plant
Trickling filter studies on a pilot plant scale were per-
formed at Walton, New York on the site of the Breakstone
mill. The pilot plant was used to treat Breakstone effluent
and Breakstone effluent combined with settled sewage. The
principal function of the on-site pilot plant was the gen-
eration of secondary sludge on a scale sufficient to enable
the development of practical dewatering and disposal proc-
esses. As a matter of general interest, and for; control
purposes, some data were collected relative to the influence
of operating variables on pilot plant performance. Table 24
presents a summary of characteristics of each effluent.
Urea fertilizer was added to the waste as nitrogen supple-
ment. The dosage was 2.0 Ibs/day as N. The correlation of
BOD and COD for the Breakstone effluent was described by the
relationship: '
BOD = 0.75[COD] -40 (#37)
Pilot Plant Description
The pilot plant flow sheet at Walton consisted of a primary
settling tank followed by trickling filtration and batch
settling of filter effluent as shown on Figure 24.
The trickling filter was supplied by the Koch Engineering
Company, Inc. The unit, Figure 25, has a cross-sectional
area of 7 SF and a media of depth of 18 to 20 ft. The pack-
ing media was Koch Flexirings, a 3.5-in. plastic, webbed
cylinder with a specific surface of 28 SF/CF. The unit was
capable of receiving a wide range of raw waste flows and a
similar range of effluent orecirculation flows, i.e., up to
2.5 gpm/SF in each case.
105
-------
TABLE 24
Characteristics of Pilot Plant Influent
Whey Effluent Whey and Sewage**
Characteristic Average Range Average Range
Suspended Solids,
ppm 240 770-41
Total BOD, ppm* 830 1,593-440
Soluble BOD, ppm 560 1,075-170 241 310-172
Soluble BOD, % 76
Suspended BOD, ppm 173
BOD Equivalent of
Suspended Solid 0.72
Total COD, ppm* 1,440 2,390-840 451 595-307
Soluble COD, ppm 841 1,490-264
Soluble COD, % 74
Suspended COD, ppm 300
COD Equivalent of
Suspended Solids 1.25
PH 5.5-7 6-7
*This characteristic is taken from a smaller data population
than the other characteristics.
**Primary effluent from the Village of Oneonta was used to
simulate the combined waste.
106
-------
PACKED TOWER BASE 8 SEWAGE STORAGE TANKS
PACKED TOWER, FULL LENGTH
PRIMARY SETTLING TANK (LEFT)
TWO BATCH SECONDARY SETTLING TANKS (RIGHT)
TRICKLING FILTER PILOT PLANT
WALTON, NEW YORK
QUIRK, LAWLER a MATUSKY ENGINEERS
CT>
m
ro
-------
FIGURE 25
TO WASTE
INLET-SEWAGE OR
INO'L. WASTE
<—n——n 7~ar| —
^^••/^^'V--'. • DISTRIBU
..iiiiiiiiiiiUi4~-^_ .
DISTRIBUTOR
CONCRETE PAD
(BY CUSTOMER)
ROTARY DRIVE
UNIT
REQRCULATION
CONSTANT
LEVEL
HEADBOX
LADDER
\ SAFETY
CAGE
NUTRIENT
FEED (OPTIONAL )
NOTE
I. PUMPS t ELECTRICAL CONTROLS ARE
MOUNTED ON A CONTROL PANEL SKID
2. BASIC PIPING IS PREASSEMBLED
RECIRCULATION
CONTROL PUMP
KOCH FLEXIRING
PILOT PLANT
108
-------
Pilot Plant Experimental Procedures
The pilot plant was operated for a period of about 2-1/2
months. The operating period can be divided into the fol-
lowing phases.
1. An acclimation phase for growth of slime with occa-
sional grab samples for evaluation of acclimation.
2. Short periods (less than 1 day) for evaluation of
trickling filter detention time and BOD removal per-
formance at high hydraulic and high organic loading
rates.
3. Long periods (4 to 7 days each) of applying Break-
stone waste at constant hydraulic loading rates for
evaluation of secondary sludge characteristics and
BOD removal performance.
The primary and final settling tanks were not evaluated for
treatment performance. Samples collected for evaluation of
filter performance were collected directly from the influent
and effluent flows. The filter was evaluated for BOD and
COD removal with a distinction between the solid and liquid
phases.
The majority of trickling filter samples were continuous
composites for periods of typically 3 to 5 hrs. Grab sam-
ples were taken for shorter filter runs.
The samples were analyzed on the day following their collec-
tion. Preservation was accomplished by acidification and
refrigeration during transit and prior to analysis.
Sludge samples were obtained by collection of effluent into
two 350-gal. settling tanks operated on a batch basis.
After filling, the tanks were mixed and allowed to settle
quiescently for 1 hr. At the end of the settling period,
the supernatant liquid was pumped to waste and the sludge
was collected for shipment. Refrigerated samples of sludge
were transported to laboratories for analysis and evaluation,
Pilot Plant Performance
A summary of results relating to the performance of the bio-
logical filter pilot plant is given in Tables 25 and 26.
109
-------
TABLE 25
Summary of Trickling Filter Pilot Plant Performance
Whey Effluent
Waste Characteristics
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Soluble
COD
(ppm)
930
1,190
287
350
1,290
264
480
310
1,150
470
555
480
580
720
1,360
BOD
Soluble from Average
BOD COD Temperature
(ppm) (ppm) (°C)
700
860
192
260
830
170
415
283
700
320
430
370
404
440
775
18
18
18
19
18
16
11
11
10
10
9
9
9
11
16
Geometry
Height
H (ft)
18
18
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Hydraulic
Conditions
U
gal ./min
(SF)
.77
1.17
1.64
2.76
1.18
2.12
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
.93
.98
.99
Recycle
Ratio
(r)
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
6.1
4.4
4.2
Effluent
Characteristics Results
Soluble
COD
(ppm)
490
950
530
302
890
176
338
424
382
184
260
236
165
118
250
BOD
Soluble from COD BOD
BOD COD Removal
(ppm) (ppm) (%) (%)
370 47
670 20
408 <0
220 14
640 31
106 33
117 30
145 <0
262 68
52 61
190 53
165 51
128 72
63 84
156 82
47
22
<0
15
23
38
72
49
63
84
56
55
68
86
80
-------
TABLE 25
(continued)
Waste Characteristics
Run
No.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Soluble
COD
(ppm)
508
1,200
1,050
1,610
860
1,070
1,490
2,350
1,620
1,300
790
750
BOD
Soluble from
Average
BOD COD Temperature
(ppm) (ppm)
365
717
630
950
630
670
1,075
990
840
640
560
(°C)
13
15
13
13
20
15
14
16
16
11
18
Geometry
Height
H (ft)
20
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Hydraulic
Conditions
U
gal./min
(SF)
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.20
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.65
Recycle
Ratio
(r)
2
3.1
3.1
2.7
3.8
3.1
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Effluent
Characteristics
Soluble
COD
(ppm)
163
590
337
770
378
400
670
670
680
512
575
264
BOD
Soluble from
BOD COD
(ppm) (ppm)
118
407
240
550
290
300
520
520
530
390
450
190
Results
COD
BOD
Removal
(%)
68
51
68
52
56
63
55
71
58
61
27
65
(%)
68
43
62
42
54
55
52
46
54
30
66
-------
TABLE 26
Summary of Trickling Filter Pilot Plant Performance
Whey and Sewage Effluent
Waste Characteristics
Geometry
Hydraulic
Conditions
Run
No.
1
2
Soluble
COD
(ppm)
595
307
Soluble
BOD
(ppm)
310
172
BOD
from
COD
(ppm)
Average
Temperature
(°C)
15
12
Height
H (ft)
20
20
U
gal./min
(SF)
.68
.68
Recycle
Ratio
(r)
0
0
Run
No.
Effluent
Characteristics
Soluble Soluble
COD BOD
(ppm) (ppm)
BOD
from
COD
(ppm)
Results
COD BOD
Removal
1
2
346
234
75
120
42 76
24 30
-------
The results are presented graphically in Figure 26 to illus-
trate the relationship between BOD removal and BOD loading.
Substantial scatter of points was evident, but a trend for
better than 50% removal was exhibited for BOD loadings of
less than 150 ptcfd.
Erratic performance was attributed in part to plugging of
the media due to the extensive slime growth effected at high
loadings. Poor performance, black sludge and poor draft in
smoke tests were evidence that the pilot plant was occasion-
ally affected by anaerobic conditions.
Media Detention Time
A detention time study was performed to insure that pilot
plant residence time was within the range anticipated for
full scale and to evaluate the parameters for residence time
correlation. A concentrated sodium chloride solution was
added to the influent and traced in the effluent samples by
measuring specific conductance. Effluent samples were taken
at various intervals, usually 10 seconds, until the specific
conductance was close to the background value measured
before the salt was added. Six hydraulic loadings of .775,
1.17, 1.18, 1.64, 2.12 and 2.76 gpm/SF were used for deter-
mining the detention time for each (with slime on the media).
Hydraulic loading was taken as the time from dosing to the
centroid of the effluent concentration-time curves.
Figure 27 is a logarithmic plot of detention time versus
hydraulic loading. Two lines are fitted through the six
points. The dotted line assumes that the minimum wetting
rate, i.e., the flow required to fully utilize the available
surface area, is less than or equal to .775 gpm/SF. The
solid line assumes that the minimum wetting rate is less
than or equal to 1.17 gpm/SF and therefore, was fitted,
without the first point. Based on manufacturer's estimation
that minimum wetting rate for the 3.5-in. Flexirings is
1 gpm/SF, the values of N1 and C were selected as 0.38 and
0.16, respectively-
Sludge Production
Biological sludge production data were collected for Break-
stone effluent for a period of 4 days. The average biologi-
cal solids production was 1.0 Ibs of dry solids per Ib of
BOD removed. During the period of observation, the BOD re-
moval of the trickling filter averaged 75%. Generally, low
113
-------
SOU-L.4-^£00 1 -ZQQ . :
-------
FIGURE 27
TRICKLING FILTER KOCH PILOT PLANT
WHEY EFFLUENT
DETENTION TIME VS HYDRAULIC LOADING
TD = CT H
UN
LU
10,0
8,0
6,0
5,0
4,0
3,0
2,0
LU
h-
LU
Q
1,0
H=20FT
,6 0,8 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5",0
HYDRAULIC LOAD/ U/ GPM/SQ.FT
LEGEND
MINIMUM
SYMBOL WETTING RATE
SLOPE
N'- C
-p;
^, ,775 ,,29 .15
^ 1.17 .38 .16
115
-------
yields are associated with high degrees of BOD removal (80%
to 86%). Lower degrees of removal normally generate higher
unit sludge yields. The field studies were not extensive
enough for the development of a sludge production model.
The unit sludge production for the sewage-Breakstone waste
should not differ appreciably from the value observed for
the Breakstone effluent. A value of 0.7 Ibs of SS per Ib of
BOD removed is recommended for biological sludge production
for Breakstone waste or for the anticipated blend of Break-
stone waste with Walton sewage. This value equals the
biological yield coefficient for activated sludge treatment
as determined from literature data.
Trickling Filter Effluent
The BOD and COD suspended solids equivalent of Breakstone
trickling filter effluent were measured during the study.
The effluent suspended solids were a combination of Break-
stone effluent solids and biological growth. By elimination
of the Breakstone effluent suspended solids and their equiv-
alent BOD and COD, an estimation of the BOD and COD equiv-
alents of the biologically produced solids was obtained.
These values are .43 Ibs of BOD per Ib of SS and .94 Ibs of
COD per Ib of SS and approximate the theoretical values
expected.
The soluble COD-BOD relationship of Breakstone's treated ef-
fluent followed the relationship:
BOD = 0.85[COD] - 30 (#38)
Solids Separation and Compaction
Solids-liquid separation is required to achieve one or more
of the following objectives: effluent clarification, sludge
thickening, or sludge dewatering.
Effluent Clarification
Effluent clarification is necessary following biological
filtration to effect separation of biological growth gener-
ated in the process.
The clarification unit serves as an effluent clarifier and a
sludge thickener. The thickened sludge (underflow) under-
goes further thickening and/or dewatering before disposal.
116
-------
Measurement of filter effluent clarification of Breakstone
waste was made, routinely, by pumping the trickling filter
effluent into the holding tanks. When full, the tank was
sequentially mixed, sampled, allowed to settle for 30 min-
utes, and resampled near the surface. The suspended solids
removal averaged 79%. This should be considered a limiting
value, i.e., attainable at low overflow rates, unless chemi-
cals are used to aid settling. Clarifier underflow is
expected to be approximately 1% solids.
Sol-ids Compact-ion
Sludge thickening devices are use,d to minimize the sludge
volume for further dewatering and ultimate disposal. Grav-
ity thickening is the most common thickening method and the
one investigated in this study.
Batch analyses of sludge compaction characteristics, using
1-liter graduated cylinders equipped with a 1/6 rpm stirrer
mechanism, were performed for various initial solids concen-
trations. A batch analysis will provide the means of deter-
mining the relationship between sludge compaction and solids
loading. The batch relationship may be scaled-up to proto-
type conditions using experience factors obtained from
previous comparisons.
Compaction performance is described in terms of a concentra-
tion effect relating the increase achieved in solids concen-
tration to the initial concentration as follows:
C = SY"Sa = AS (#39)
P S-, Sa
a. d
where:
C = compaction performance
Sy = solids concentration in thickener underflow
S = solids concentration applied in thickener
inflow
AS = increase in solids concentration achieved
Concentration performance obtainable in a gravity-thickener
will decrease as solids loading to the unit increases. The
relationship between compaction performance and solids load-
ing may be expressed, empirically, as follows:
117
-------
C = Kt (#40)
P (SL)nt
where:
Kt = a thickening constant descriptive of test
geometry and initial solids concentration
nt = a constant descriptive of sludge type
SL = solids loading in Ibs/SF/day
The value of nt is, normally, constant for a given type of
sludge solids. The value of Kt, and therefore the thicken-
ing characteristics of the sludge, will, however, vary with
the initial concentration of solids applied to the thickener,
The dependency of Kt on solids concentrations is formulated
using an exponential relationship as follows:
Kt -n S'
— = (e) ncba (#41)
Kt
where:
K^. = the maximum value of' the constant K^ obtained
for dilute solids concentration
S* = initial solids concentration expressed as
ppt, i.e., ppm x 10~3
nc = a sludge characteristic descriptive of the ef-
fects of sludge concentration, i.e., if nc =
0, sludge concentration has no effect on the
value of Kt
Compaction tests were performed on selected sludge samples
of Breakstone and combined sewage-Breakstone waste. Graphi-
cal representations of equations (#40) and (#41) are shown
in Figures 28 and 29 for the respective sludges. Table 27
compares the compaction characteristics obtained in this
study with those of other effluents.
Thickener design relates solids loading to the compaction
performance required and to the effects of initial solids
concentration. A quantitative relationship is achieved by
combining the preceding equations as follows.
118
-------
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
WHEY EFFLUENT
-EFFECT OF SOLIDS LOADING ON SLUDGE COMPACTION
COMPACTION VS SOLIDS LOADING Kt VS SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
PO^NT Sa PPM AVG. Nt Kt
H 5650 0.57 13.2
• 10,400 .0.57 7.7
13,300
20
'0 10 20 30 40 50 70
SOLIDS LOADING/ SL LBS/SF--DAY
10
8
6
5
4
3
•(EMPERAtURE 20lc
~ncsa
( = 37
nc = ,167
Su = 30,000 PPM MAXIMUM
4 6 8 10 12 14
SOLIDS CONCENTRATION - PPt>" X 10~
IF
llj
oo
-------
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
UHEY S SEUAGE
EFFECT OF SOLIDS LOADING 0(1 SLUDGE COMPACTION
10, Q
POINT SaPPM AVG nt Kt
"6 8 10 20 30 40 50 60
SOLIDS LOADING, SL LBS/SF -DAY
50
Kt VS SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
30
20
10
TEMPERATURE 20°C
Su = 30,000 PPM MAXIMUM
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
SOLIDS CONCENTRATION - PPM X 10
14
-------
TABLE 27
Comparison of Sludge Thickening Characteristics
Thickener Constants Concentration Constant
Sludge Source NtK£ N
gc
1. Sewage 1.05 150 .088
2. Yeast
Effluent
and
Sewage 1.00 350 .270
3. Kraft
Effluent 0.56 41 .086
4. Kraft and
NSSC
Effluent 0.70 115 .220
5. Whey
Effluent
from
Trickling
Filtration 0.57 37 .167
6. Whey and
Sewage
from
Trickling
Filtration 0.80 46 .121
121
-------
SL =
l/n4
(#42)
Scale-up to full-scale is achieved from previous comparisons
between Kt values obtained for a given batch testing geom-
etry and for prototype condition. A scale-up factor (batch
to prototype) of 0.65 for Kt has been shown to apply over a
wide range of prototype operation conditions [39].
Solids loading is related to overflow rate by the following
material balance:
OR = §L 106 (#43)
where:
8.34
OR = overflow rate in gal./day/SF
Table 28 presents overflow rates for a range of influent and
underflow solids concentrations for both the Breakstone ef-
fluent and sewage-Breakstone mixtures. These results demon-
strate that the sewage-Breakstone combination exhibited
better settling characteristics than those of the Breakstone
effluent alone.
TABLE 28
Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Sludge Thickener Design
Initial Suspended
Solids (ppm)
7,500
10,000
12,500
Overflow Rate (gal./day/SF)
Su=20,000 Su=25,000 Su=30,000
190
185
192
125
111
101
91
78
66
122
-------
Sludge Centrifugation
A centrifuge test of the trickling filter sludge was con-
ducted at the Warminster Laboratory of the Sharpies division
of the Pennwalt Corporation. Photographs of the centrifuge
facility are presented as Figure 30.
The sludge sample used for testing was a composite of sludge
collected during two days' operation. During the normal op-
eration, the trickling filter effluent was pumped alternately
into two tanks and allowed to settle. The resulting super-
natant was pumped out and the remaining concentrated sludge
was saved for the centrifuge test. The average time between
sludge collection and the centrifuge test was 1.5 days. Am-
bient air temperatures of 50°F were employed for sample
preservation. The average trickling, filter operating condi-
tions during the sludge collection and for 5 days preceding
were as follows:
Waste - Breakstone Effluent
Hydraulic 'Loading -'111 gpm/SF
Reclrculation Ratio -"3.1
BOD Loading - 130 lb/day/1,000 CF
Filter Temperature - 59°F
BOD Removal Efficiency - 51%
Centrifuge Test Description
A 100-gal. sample of a 0.74% sludge was used for the centri-
fuge test. Jar tests, for chemical aids, were conducted for
a qualitative evaluation of coagulation. Nalco 610 appeared
to be the most effective and was selected for evaluation dur-
ing the centrifuge runs.
Two types of centrifuges were evaluated. The first was the
Super-D-Canter P-600, which is a continuously fed, 6-in.,
horizontal bowl centrifuge. The unit was evaluated at vari-
ous feed rates without the addition of the chemical aid, and
at a selected feed rate with various amounts of chemical aid.
The second centrifuge was a Fletcher Model 2PP-200, which is
an automatic, cyclically fed, vertical bowl centrifuge. This
123
-------
SUPER-D-CANTER
CD
FLETCHER
QUIRK, LAWLER 6 MATUSKY ENGINEERS
-------
unit was evaluated at various feed rates without the addi-
tion of the chemical aid. The effect of chemical aid was
estimated by assuming the same improvement as that which
occurred with the Super-D-Canter. Samples of the centrate
liquid and sludge cake were measured for suspended and total
solids, respectively.
Centrifuge Test Results
Table 29 presents results for all the centrifuge runs.
Interpolation of percent recoveries at common feed rates
shows that the Fletcher model had higher recoveries than the
Super-D-Canter. The addition of 9.3 Ibs of chemical per ton
of dry solids at a feed rate of about 19 Ibs per minute
raised the percent recovery of the Super-D-Canter to the
level of the Fletcher model. The cake solids concentration
of the Super-D-Canter and the Fletcher were respectively 6%
and 9%.
Both models appear to give reasonable feed rates for accept-
able recoveries of 80% to 85%. However both models' cake
solids concentrations are well below the desired values.
Vacuum Filtration
Laboratory Studies
Rotary vacuum filters are the most popular mechanical
devices for the dewatering of waste sludges. The equipment
features gentle handling of the sludge during the dewatering
operation which enables maximum exploitation of chemical
conditioning as a means of improvement of sludge character-
istics. Chemicals can be added to the sludge to effect
release of water from gels and aggregation of fine particles.
The resultant suspension can be dewatered at increased rates
if the aggregates are not disrupted by subsequent turbulent
transfer operations. Vacuum filters also possess the asset
of production of a relatively dry dewatered product.
Limitations associated with vacuum filtration are that bio-
logical sludges may undergo structural collapse upon appli-
cation of a vacuum with concomitant clogging of the filter.
Also, relatively skilled operation is required.
Vacuum filtration may be effectively evaluated in the lab-
oratory by specific resistance concepts obtained from
Buchner funnel and filter leaf tests. The Buchner funnel
125
-------
TABLE 29
Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Centrifugation of Waste Sludge
Super-D-Canter Fletcher
Slurry Chemical Aid P-600 2PP-200
Feed Feed Rate Cake Cake
Rate (Ibs/ton of Percent Solids, Percent Solids,
(Ibs/min) Dry Solids) Recovery Percent Recovery Percent
2.1 - - - 99.2 Average
6.5 - - 99.4
9%
9.5 - - - 93.7
23.5 - - 77.2
6.8
9.9
18.9
23.7
18.3
19.2
19.3
98
98
59
59
9.3 81
19.6 82
33.0 86
.9
.7
.0
.8
.7
.1
.7
5.5
6.3
-
5.7
5.9
-
6.5
126
-------
test is advantageous for rapid screening of sludge condi-
tioning agents and procedures, whereas the filter leaf pro-
vides performance more nearly analogous to prototype rotary
vacuum filtration.
The rate of filtration can be described in terms of two
resistances in series: the resistance offered by the filter
medium and that offered by the cake.
dV _ PA2
dt ~ M(rcV + R^ A) (#44)
where:
V = filtrate volume
t = time
P = pressure difference
A = area
M = filtrate viscosity
r = specific resistance
c = sludge solids concentration in filtration
process
= unit resistance of filter medium
If the vacuum level is kept constant, the expression can be
integrated and rearranged to give the following relation
where C is the mean value of sludge solids concentration
during the filtration.
t _ MrCV MRm
V ~ 2PA? + PA U 5;
Generally, the resistance of the filter medium is negligible
compared to the resistance of the sludge cake - permitting
elimination of the second term and direct calculation of
specific resistance.
Coakley and Jones proposed the analysis of laboratory fil-
tration results on the basis of specific resistance to
obtain unbiased comparison of the filtration characteristics
127
-------
of sludges. The determination of specific resistance is ac-
complished by filtration of a measured volume of sludge
through a Buchner funnel apparatus modified only in that the
filtrate receiver is graduated. Readings of filtrate volume
are taken at frequent intervals. Specific resistance is
calculated from the following equation (assuming negligible
resistance through the filtration medium) :
r =
2bPA2
where :
b = experimentally determined constant relating
the volume of filtrate to the filtering time
The mean value of sludge solids concentration during filtra-
tion may be estimated from the relationship:
C = (l-Ci)/Ci - (l-Cf)/Cf .......... (#47)
where :
C^ = initial weight of solids per unit volume of
sludge, g/ml
Cf = final weight of solids per unit volume of
sludge, g/ml
Most waste sludges of biological origin form compressible
cakes in which the filtration rate and the specific resist-
ance are functions of the pressure difference across the
cake. The effect of pressure difference on the specific
resistance of such sludges can be described by the following
reaction:
r = r0Ps ............................ (#48)
where :
o = specific resistance at unit pressure
r = specific resistance
P = pressure difference
s = coefficient of compressibility
128
-------
The effect of sludge compressibility on specific resistance
was determined. Measurement of specific resistance versus
pressure (Figure 31) resulted in a coefficient of compressi-
bility of .91. The high coefficient of compressibility
implied that filtration rate was relatively independent of
pressure difference. For this reason, a moderate vacuum
pressure of 12 in. Hg was selected for leaf test and design
conditions.
Specific resistance was used to select a chemical condi-
tioner and its optimum dosage. The three conditioners eval-
uated were: ferric chloride, a Dow Chemical Company polymer
Purifloc C-31, and lime addition in conjunction with ferric
chloride. Figure 32 presents a comparison of ferric chlor-
ide with Purifloc C-31. The two conditioners were compared
using: dosages of comparable cost. The results favored the
use of ferric chloride rather than the polymer. In addition
to the above tests, various dosages of lime in conjunction
with a constant dosage of ferric chloride were evaluated.
Specific resistance was found to increase as lime was added
to the samples. For this reason, lime was eliminated from
consideration and ferric chloride was selected as the condi-
tioner for further tests and final design.
The determination of the optimum dosage of ferric chloride
was made by measuring specific resistance versus dosage on
three representative samples. Figure 33 illustrates the re-
sults of these tests. The figure indicates that regardless
of the initial value of specific resistance, the values
after the optimum chemical addition were approximately the
same. From this figure, 7 Ibs of -ferric chloride per 100
Ibs of suspended solids was selected as the optimum dosage.
Leaf Test-Ing
Vacuum filter solids loading rates were determined by per-
forming a series of filter leaf tests on a selected sludge
sample. Table 30 presents a summary of test conditions and
results. The ferric chloride dosage used in runs 5 and 6
was less than the optimum dosage previously indicated. This
resulted from an initial solids concentration that was
higher than estimated. Design of filter loadings from these
tests will provide a margin of safety by which higher che-
mical dosages can be used to increase filter capacity.
129
-------
FIGURE 31
en
i— i
i
x
c\i
CJ
LU
CO
UJ
o
CO
t— 1
CO
UJ
o:
o
LU
Q_
CO
10,C
8,C
6,0
5,0
3,0
2,0
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
WHEY EFFLUENT
SPECIFIC RESISTANCE
VS
FILTRATION PRESSURE
(NO CONDITIONING)
L08 910
o 0,91
(1,65 x 10") P
- ,91
20 30 40 50 60 7 80
FILTRATION PRESSURE/ IN, HG,
130
-------
PUIJMFLCXp
t-31 !
131
-------
FIGURE 33
CO
I I
CD
X
o
cxi
o
LU
CO
CO
LLJ
LU
a.
CO
TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT
WHEY EFFLUENT
SLUDGE FILTRATION CHARACTERISTICS
/ .u-
6,&
5,0-
/i n
T I U
7. n
J i U
;
2 0
1,0
rv
!
V
D 0^
^
s
0
%
0
• SPEC
-
IIFIC RESISTAflCE
VS
FECL3DOSAGE
^
^n^
1
SYMEC
)L
SAM PL
E
o 9-30
a 10-2'!
A 9-25
••^•^^^
i
-*
— • —
— •—'
^
^
3456789
FECl_3 LBS/100 LB OF SUSP. SOLIDS
132
10 11 12
-------
TABLE 30
Trickling Filtration Treatment
Whey and Sewage
Vacuum Filtration of Waste Sludge
(Pressure 12 in. Hg)
Run
No.
H 1
OJ
OJ
Form
Time
tf
(min)
Loading
Solids
Dry Cycle Time Loading Sludge
Time tc (min) Rate Initial Cake
w/15% (lbs/SF/ Percent Percent
0.5 25.5
1.0 37.4
2.0 43.4
3.0 46.6
1.0
2.0
4.0
Chemical
(gm/SF) (min) Dead Time
1.77
3.54
7.10
6.0 10.6
hr)
1.90
1.40
0.80
0.58
Solids
2.06
2.06
2.06
2.06
Solids
25.2
20.4
20.7
23.8
Conditio]
None
None
None
None
1.0
5.8
2.0
3.54
2.16
4.02 21.7 2.5% FeCl-
2.0
7.9
4.0
7.10
1.47
4.02 20.6 2.5% FeCl-
-------
Design of a vacuum filter from the above leaf test data re-
quires a modification of the presented loading rates to
account for the following design conditions:
1. A manufacturer's recommended cycle time of about
4 minutes
2. A vacuum filter dead time of 15%, i.e., no vacuum on
this portion of the filter
3. A manufacturer's recommended effective submergence,
or form time, of 25%
4. A reduction of leaf test loading rates by 20% based
on manufacturer's experience with previous leaf test
and full-scale comparisons
5. A difference in initial solids concentration between
test and full-scale application.
Design Calculations for Vacuum Filtration
A cycle time of 4 minutes and a 25% effective submergence
results in a form time of 1 minute. Run 5 of Table 30 indi-
cated a solids loading of 5.8 gm/SF for this form time.
Using this loading, a cycle time of 4 minutes and a scale-up
factor of 80%, the solids loading rate is initially computed
to be 1.5 Ib/SF/hr.
A modification of the initial loading rate is made for the
parameter C given in equation (#44) . The value of C for de-
sign conditions is 61% lower than the value that occurred
during the leaf tests. Raising this factor to one-half
power reduces the loading rate to 78% of the test loading.
The final value of filter loading rate is computed to be
1.2 Ibs/SF/hr.
Cake solids concentration is estimated by comparing the dry-
ing time of the test with the design conditions. The drying
time for design is obtained by subtracting the form and dead
time from the cycle time. This results in a drying time of
2.4 minutes. Run 5 provided a 21.7% cake with 2.0 minutes
drying time. Design conditions should yield a cake dryness
of 22% or greater.
134
-------
The vacuum filter design is summarized as follows:
1. Cycle time, 4 min
2. Effective submergence, 25%
3. Loading rate, 1.2 Ibs of solid per SF per hr
4. Vacuum pressure, 12 in. Hg
5. Cake solids concentration, 20%-25%
6. Chemical dosage, 7 Ibs FeCl per 100 Ibs of dry
solids.
135
-------
SECTION VII
DISCUSSION
The study work reported herein was undertaken as an out-
growth of a proposal titled "Dynamic Process Development for
Biological Treatment of Whey Bearing Wastes" submitted to
the WQO, EPA. The proposal envisioned the application of
frequency response techniques to activated sludge in an ef-
fort to develop a stable system having satisfactory sludge
separation characteristics; additionally, investigations
were to be made into the applicability of sheet-media packed
tower trickling filters to whey-bearing waste treatment. The
study had the dual objectives of research into the problem
area of whey waste treatment, as documented by other works;
and development of a prototype process design and cost esti-
mate for a specific whey waste treatment problem existing in
the Village of Walton, New York.
As required by the grant offer, an outline of the proposed
work was submitted to the Project Officer (and to all inter-
ested parties) prior to commencement of the study. During a
subsequent review meeting, a plan was developed wherein
packed tower filters equipment and field pilot would start
the program. Information from the initial experiment could
be compared with activated sludge laboratory work already
done on the whey-bearing waste in a previous assignment for
the Village of Walton.
Project Scope Modification
The original program anticipated active participation in
several study phases by the State of New York Department of
Health and Breakstone Sugar Creek Foods Division of Kraftco
Corporation. Breakstone Sugar Creek Foods was able to pro-
vide a pilot plant site for the erection of a packed tower
early in the study. However, the NYSDH was not able to
cover operations of the field pilot nor supply laboratory
assistance in staffing an activated sludge experiment.
Eventually, the delays in reaching a decision regarding
State personnel resulted in the transference of personnel
and budget allocations to cover the ongoing program needs.
The successful operation of a stable filtration system,
based on laboratory experiments using plastic-sheet media,
encouraged the continuation of these experiments. Emphasis of
the packed tower experiments and the inability of the NYSDH
137
-------
to react to the original program resulted in modification of
the original study outline to minimize the activated sludge
system investigations.
Project Budget and Cost Participation
The proposal for the study presented a detailed budget total-
ing $80,347. The WQO, EPA estimated that $80,047 of the pro-
posed budget would be eligible for Federal participation and
a grant offer was made for $52,730. The offer was accepted
by the Village of Walton.
Trickling Filtration of Whey Effluent
Trickling filtration of whey effluent and whey effluent mixed
with sewage has been shown to be an effective treatment
method both on absolute terms and on a relative basis when
compared with activated sludge.
A comparison of whey treatability with that of other indus-
trial effluents demonstrates that whey treatability exceeds
that of the average industrial effluent when packed tower
trickling filters are employed.
Nutrient additions other than ammonia nitrogen were not pro-
ductive of increased rates of biodegradability. The addition
of ferrous iron did not, as anticipated by other investiga-
tors, result in an increased treatability.
The inherently acidic reaction of a whey effluent was shown
to have no adverse effect on trickling filtration performance
using high porosity media. pH variations from 7.0 to 4.5
were not detrimental but, rather resulted in an increase of
BOD removal rate as pH decreased. pH increases above 7.0
were shown to result in a reduction of BOD removal rate. Al-
though these comments are based on limited data, the trend of
pH influence appears clear. pH variations in a prototype
plant are not anticipated to be detrimental to packed tower
trickling filter performance.
Trickling filter operating variables of temperature, recircu-
lation and hydraulic application rate have been quantified in
a verified, process design model presented in the report.
While the number of implications which can be drawn from a
detailed sensitivity analysis of the model are too extensive
to be within the scope of this study, several qualitative
comments can be made as follows. Increased temperatures are
138
-------
beneficial for process performance. Recirculation should be
included only to insure adequate application velocities and
not to provide additional removal efficiency. The inclusion
of recirculation will require provision for additional fil-
ter volumes which will normally outweigh the effects of
repeated application. The need to maintain application
velocities sufficiently high to insure adequate wetting of
packing media will require towers of maximum practicable
height or stage treatment to provide high BOD removals, eco-
nomically. This latter requirement is dictated by media
characteristics rather than whey characteristics.
Trickling filter performance will be sensitive to flow varia-
tion rather than BOD variation. Response times of from 6 to
24 hours should be experienced after a significant change in
hydraulic application rate. Under normal operating condi-
tions, filter performance should be stable.
Filter sludge growth will be prolific and will require a
high porosity media of low susceptibility to retention of
sloughed filter slime to avoid plugging. An open media
similar to Surfpac is appropriate.
Sludge growth should be comparable to that quantity experi-
enced by activated sludge.
Filter odors should not be offensive at organic loadings
requested for high BOD removals. However, filter installa-
tion should be provided with covers if proximate to odor-
sensitive areas.
Final sedimentation of filter effluent may require coagula-
tion for production of a low solids effluent and/or for
removal of suspended BOD to insure an overall plant perform-
ance above 90% BOD removal.
Secondary sludge can be thickened using gravity equipment;
however, thickener requirements will be significantly
greater than that used for domestic sewage.
Dewatering of secondary sludge can be accomplished by vacuum
filtration. Centrifugation performance would be poor and
would not be recommended. Vacuum filtration characteristics
of trickling filter sludge exceed, significantly, those of
activated sludge. Dewatering may well control the selection
of the BOD removal process.
139
-------
Laboratory Treatment Methods
A verified simulation method for analyses and scale-up of
trickling filters is not currently available in the engi-
neering literature.
Such a procedure has been recently developed and extended in
this study.
Equipment requirements are comparatively simple and oper-
ating time can be reduced to requirements less than those
for activated sludge.
Scale-up procedures to full-scale design are presented and
employed for detailed sizing of treatment units.
Application of these procedures to the study undertaken has
demonstrated the utility of the technique.
The procedure is applicable to other industrial effluents
and can be utilized by industrial personnel to determine the
treatability of individual effluents.
Analyses and Scale-Up of Laboratory Data
In order to effectively utilize laboratory treatment, tech-
niques must be capable of analysis in terms of practical
design parameters and must be susceptible to scale-up to
full-scale conditions using logically supported procedures
which can be readily verified.
Computer programming is employed to accept laboratory data
as input and to: produce a tabulation of correlation param-
eters for alternative kinetic models, perform the graphical
correlation required in a particular kinetic model, and
compute the reaction rate constants for BOD removals.
The laboratory rate constant can be scaled up to full-scale
tower values using the geometric and hydraulic characteris-
tics of the packing media. A comparison between rate con-
stants developed by analysis of full-scale data and by
scale-up computations indicates a close comparison.
Full-Scale Packed Tower Process Design
The utility of projects information is completed when the
laboratory data have been analyzed, a kinetic model has been
selected, scale-up and media selection has been completed,
140
-------
and alternative process designs have been defined in suffi-
cient detail to allow a final design selection.
The report presents a detailed quantitative development of
the process design procedures involved in defining alterna-
tive designs, including a numerical example for a specific
situation.
In addition, computer programming has been employed to
accept waste loadings treatment required, and reaction rate
as input and to output tabulations of alternative process
designs for designer selection.
Cost for Treatment
A detailed capital and operating cost estimate has been pre-
pared for packed tower trickling filtration of whey effluent
in combination with a relatively small contribution of
domestic sewage.
The estimates have been prepared on a unit operation base
and provide a convenient basis for evaluation of the compo-
nent costs of whey treatment.
Additionally, the detailed rate structure for assigning the
capital and operating costs to each of the major waste load-
ing parameters involved in sizing waste treatment facilities
was made. This procedure results in a unit cost for each
waste loading and provides a guideline for assessment of the
relative economies of in-plant modifications to reduce efflu-
ent loadings.
141
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Recognition is in order for the technical and financial support
needed to make possible an investigation of the scope reported
herein. Though it is not possible to identify each separate
contribution, mention shall be made of the important financial
role of the Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Pollution
Control Program under the direction of William J. Lacy and Mr.
H. George Keeler manager, and the technical awareness of their
staff members.
Appreciation is given to the late Mr. Hayse H. Black of the
State of New York Department of Health, for his interest and
encouragement; to Mr. Herbert F. Marston, President of Breakstone
Sugar Creek Foods Division of Kraftco Corporation, for his desire
to provide a proper solution to a pressing problem; and to Mayor
Clifford L. Dennis and the Board of Trustees, Village of Walton,
New York, for undertaking the responsibility of authorizing
this investigation.
The study outline was initially prepared by Dr. William A. Parsons,
formerly of Quirk, Lawler & Matusky Engineers; its development
and execution were under the direction of Mr. Thomas P. Quirk.
- 143 -
-------
SECTION IX
REFERENCES
Adamse, A.D., Response of Dairy Waste Activated Sludge
to Experimental Conditions Affecting pH and Dissolved
Oxygen Concentration, Water Research (Brito), Vol. 2,
pp. 703 (1968).
Ames, Behn and .Ceilings, Transient Operation of the
Trickling Filter, Journal of Sanitary Engineering, ASCE
8£, April 1962.
Atkinson, Busch and Dawkins, Recirculation, Reaction
Kinetics and Effluent Quality in a Trickling Filter Flow
Model, 17th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue
University, 1962.
Balakrishnan, S., Eckenfelder, W.W. and Brown, C.,
Organics Removal by a Selected Trickling Filter Media
Water & Wastes Engineering, January 1969.
Behn, V.C., "Trickling Filter Formulations," Advances in
Biological Waste Treatment, Eckenfelder and McCabe,
Macmillan Co., New York, 1963, p. 219.
"Biochemical Activity of Biological Film," Water
Pollution Research, 63, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
London, England (1957).
Bloodgood, D.E., Teletzke, G.H., and Pohland, F.G.,
"Fundamental Hydraulic Principles of Trickling Filters,"
Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal, Vol. 31, No. 3,
March 1959, p. 243.
Bryan, E.H., and Moeller, D.H., "Aerobic Biological Oxi-
dation Using Dowpac," Advances in Biological Waste
Treatment, Eckenfelder, W.W., and Brother Joseph McCabe,
Macmillan Co., New York, 1963, p. 341.
Eckenfelder, W., Trickling Filter Design and Performance,
Journal Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE 87, July
1961.
145
-------
10. Ettinger, M.B., Universal Factors in Aerobic Biological
Purification, 30th Annual Meeting, Central States
Sewage and Industrial Wastes Association, June.1957
(Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center'publica-
tion) .
11. Fraser, J.S., "Dairy Factory Effluent Treatment by a
Trickling Filter," The Australian Journal of Dairy
Technology, p. 104, June 1968.
12. Gutierrez, L.V., Jr., "The Hydraulics and Organic Re-
moval Capacity of an Experimental Trickling Filter,"
M.S.C.E. Thesis, Purdue University, 1956.
13. Rowland, W.E., "Flow over Porous Media as in a
Trickling Filter," Prac. 12th Industrial Waste Confer-
ence, Purdue University, 94, 435 (1958).
14. Rowland, W.E., Pohland, F.G., and Bloodgood, D.E.,
"Kinetics in Trickling Filters," Advances in Biological
Waste Treatment, Eckenfelder, W.W., and J. McCabe,
Macmillan Co., New York, 1963, p. 233.
^.5. Ingram, W.T., Experimental Treatment Plant at Dutch
Hollow Foods, Inc., Water Pollution Control Board
Research Report No. 3, New York State Department of
Health (Oct. 1959) .
16. Ingram, W.T., Trickling Filter Treatment of Whey Wastes,
Journal pf Water Pollution Control Federation, 33, 8,
844 (1961).
17. Jasewicz, L. and Forges, N., Aeration of Whey Wastes
Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 30, 4, 555 (April 1958).
18. Kashavan, Behn and Ames, Kinetics of Aerobic Removal of
Organic Wastes, ASCE, Journal of Sanitary Engineering,
February 1964.
19. Kornegay, B.H., and J.F. Andrews, "Kinetics of Fixed
Film Biological Reactors," J.W.P.C.F. - Research Sup-
plement, Vol. 40, November 1968.
20. Maier, W.J., "Mass Transfer and Growth Kinetics on a
Slime Layer, A Simulation of the Trickling Filter,"
Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University,'at Ithaca,,New York,
1966.
146
-------
21. Maloney, T.E., Ludwig, H.F., Harmon, J.A-. , and
McClintock, Effect of Whey Wastes on Stabilization
Ppnds,' J.W.P.C.F., 3J2, 12 1283 (1960).
22. McDermott, J.H., "Influence of Media Surface Area upon
the Performance of an Experimental Trickling Filter,"
M.S.C.E.
23. Nemerow, N.L., "Theories and Practices of Industrial
Waste Treatment," Addispn-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.,
Reading, Mass., p. 325/1963.
24. Porges, N., Newer Aspects of Waste Treatment Advances
in Applied Microbiology, Vol. II, ppl (1960).
25. Quirk, Lawler &; Matusky Engineers, Waste Water Facili-
ties Report, Walton, New York (May 1968)'.
26. Rempe, J.E., Jr., "Influence of Contact Time upon Puri-
fication Capacity," M.S.C.E. Thesis, Purdue University,
1957.
27. Sanders, W.M., III, "The Relationship Between the
Oxygen Utilization of Heterotrophic Slime Organisms and
the Wetted Perimeter," Ph.D'. Thesis, The Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland (1964).
28. Sanders, W.M., "Oxygen Utilization by Slime Organisms
in Continuous Culture," Air and Water Pollution - An
International Journal, Vol. 10, April 1964, p. 253.
29- Schulze, K.L., "Hydraulic Load, Organic Load, and Effi-
ciency in Trickling Filters," 32nd Annual Meeting, '
FSIWA, Dallas, Texas, October 1959, Dept. of C.E.,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
30. Schulze, K.L., Load and Efficiency of Trickling Filters,
J.W.P.C.F., 3£, 3, 245 (1960).
31. Schulze, K.L., Experimental Vertical Screen Trickling
Filter Sewage and Industrial Wastes 29, 4, 458 (April
1957) .
32. Sinkoff, M.D., Porges, R. and McDermott, J.H., "Mean
Residence Time of a Liquid i'n a Trickling Filter,"
Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division of A.S.C.E.
85, No. SA 6, p. 51 (1959) .
147
-------
33. Stack, V.T., Jr., "Theoretical Performance of the
Trickling Filter Process," Sewage Industrial Wastes 29,
No. 9, 987-1001 (1957) .
34. Stumm and Busch, Kinetics of Aerobic Removal of Organic
Wastes, ASCE, Journal of Sanitary Engineering, Vol. 90,
August 1964, p. 107.
35. Swilley, E., Film Flow Models for the Trickling Filter,
M.S. Thesis, Rice University, Houston, Texas, 1963.
36. Walters, C.F., "The Effect of Contact Time Obtained by
Static Detention, on the Purification by a Biological
Slime," M.S.C.E. Thesis, Purdue University, 1959.
37. Wasserman, A.E., Hopkins, W.J. and Forges, N., Sewage
and Industrial Wastes 30_, 913 (1958) .
38. Webb, B.H. and Whittier, E.O., The Utilization of Whey,
Journal of Dairy Science 31, pp. 139 (1948) .
39. Edde, H.J., and Eckenfelder, W.W., Jr., "Theoretical
Concept of Gravity Sludge Thickening; Scaling-up Labora-
tory Units to Prototype Design," Journal WPCF, Vol. 48,
No. 8, p. 1488, August 1968.
148
-------
SECTION X
GLOSSARY
Abbreviations
BOD = Biochemical Oxygen Demand
6005 = Biochemical Oxygen Demand after 5 days incubation
at 20°C
COD = Chemical Oxygen Demand
°C = degrees Centigrade
CF = cubic feet
FeClo = ferric chloride
Fe = ferrous iron
ft = feet
gal. = gallon
gm = gram
gpm = gallons per minute
gpd = gallons per day
HG = mercury
hr = hour
in. = inch
1, = liter
Ibs = pounds
LF = linear feet
mg = million gallons
mgd = million gallons per day
149
-------
mg/L = milligram per liter
min = minute
mL = milliliter ' '
N = nitrogen
NaOH = sodium hydroxide
OR = overflow rate expressed in dimensions of gallons
per day per square foot
ppm = parts per million
2
sec = seconds squared
SF = square feet
SVI = sludge volume index
0 = degrees
% = percent
Mathematical Typography
As = area of slime
Av = area of wetted surface area of media in trickling
filter expressed in dimensions of square feet per
cubic foot of filter volume
A = area of slime surface in trickling filter expressed
v in dimensions of square feet per cubic foot of fil-
ter volume
AV = area of dry surface area of trickling filter pack-
ing media per cubic foot of filter volume
A = area
b = a constant of integration
C = a constant
C = a coefficient of performance for gravity compaction
150
-------
ci = initial sludge solids concentration in filtration
process
cf = final sludge solids concentration in filtration
process
cs = sludge solids concentration in filtration process
C^ = a constant equal to the ratio of wetted media to
total media area in a trickling filter
d = depth of liquid flowing over a slimed surface
dH = a differential element of height
dL = a differential change in concentration
DVr = a differential segment of volume of a BOD removal
reactor
e = the naperien base 2.718
E = efficiency of untreated BOD removal
f = a factor representing the ratio Lo/Le
F = Fahrenheit temperature
ft = a factor equal to the ratio of surface area of
slime to surface area of media supporting slime
growth
f = a factor applied to slime area to obtain weight
"W
of surface slime effective in obtaining BOD re-
moval from flowing liquid
H = height of slimed surface and length of slimed
surface for non-vertical geometries
k,k',k" = a specific biological rate constant for BOD
removal
K2Q = a BOD removal rate constant for a specific efflu-
ent and a specific trickling filter packing media
expressed at a standard reference temperature of
80°C in the dimensions of gallons per minute per
- cubic foot
151
-------
k20'k20 = a sPecific biological rate constant at a standard
reference temperature of 20°C
Kr = a general BOD removal rate expressed in dimen-
sions of concentration change per unit of time
k.,k! ,kV = a specific biological rate constant at a given
temperature t
K{. = the maximum value of the constant K^.
K{- = a constant descriptive of gravity thickening
characteristics obtained for given geometry of
thickening system and for given solids applied to
thickener
L = concentration expressed in dimensions of weight
per unit volume
La = BOD concentration applied to trickling filter ex-
cluding diluting effects of recirculation
expressed in dimensions of weight per unit volume
Le = BOD concentration as effluent from slimed surface
LQ = BOD concentration as fed to slimed surface
including effects of recirculation
L^. = BOD concentration removed by trickling filter in-
cluding the dilution effects of recirculation
expressed in dimensions of weight per unit volume
n = a constant
nc = a gravity thickening constant descriptive of the
effects of applied solids concentration on thick-
ening characteristics
nt = a gravity thickening constant descriptive of
sludge type
OL = organic loading to trickling filter expressed in
units of weight of BOD per unit of time per unit
of trickling filter volume
P = pressure differential during vacuum filtration
process
152
-------
Q = untreated waste flow rate
R = treated waste flow rate recirculated through trick-
ling filter
r = recirculation ratio equal to the ratio R/Q
rs = specific resistance of solids being filtered
Rm = unit resistance of filtering medium in vacuum fil-
tration process
rQ = specific resistance of solids being filtered at
unit pressure differential
S = concentration of organisms in dimensions of weight
per unit volume
s = a constant descriptive of solids compressibility
AS = change in solids concentration achieved in thickener
S_ = solids concentration applied to thickener in inflow
S^ = Sa x 1/1000
SL = solids loading in dimensions of pounds per square
foot per day
Su = solids concentration in underflow from gravity
thickener
t = elapsed time
AT = a temperature differential from 20°C
U = a flow rate including recirculation, if any, per
unit of cross sectional area of media filled trick-
ling filter
U1 = a flow rate, including recirculation, if any, per
unit width of slimed surface
u = filtrate viscosity
U0 = a flow rate per unit of cross sectional area of a
media filled trickling filter when recirculation is
not employed
153
-------
= a minimum flow rate, including recirculation, if
any, per unit of cross sectional area of a media
filled trickling filter
V = volume of filtrate obtained during vacuum filtration
process
V = volume of trickling filter per unit of flow of un-
treated waste flow
V' = volume of a non-recirculated trickling filter per
unit of flow of untreated waste flow
9 = a constant
0 = degrees
" = inches
154
-------
APPENDIX
INCLINED PLANE FIRST ORDER REACTION
155
-------
8XQT
WHET BEAKING WASTE bTUOT 179-0
PLANE LENGTH = 9.00 FT.
PLANE WIDTH = .50 IN.
ANGLE OF PLANE WITH HORIZON = 145.0 DE6.
bLIME AREA = .375 SF.
NO.
I
2
3
M »
01
(T, 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
16
19
LA
(PPM)
570.0
570.0
570.0
190.0
490.0
490.0
720.0
670.0
720.0
600.0
550.0
560.0
f>40.0
480.0
540.0
540.0
270.0
270.0
blO.O
LO
(PPM)
451.2
509.5
244.9
432.6
272.3
181.3
513.3
570.0
473.0
399.2
396.7
473.3
365.0
264.5
540.0
540.0
270.0
270.0
510.0
LE
(PPM)
380. 0
440.0
180.0
380.0
220.0
135.0
410.0
510.0
370.0
310.0
320.0
430.0
240.0
170.0
220.0
330.0
230.0
125.0
190.0
E R
(ML/MIN)
.333
.226
.664
.224
.551
.724
.431
.239
.486
.481
.413
.232
.625
.646
.593
.369
.143
.537
.627
11. 0
10.4
H.2
12.0
10.0
10. 0
10. 0
10.0
ll.O
9.0
10. 0
10. 0
ll.O
10. 0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
Q
(GPM) (ML/MlN)
.0029
.0028
.0030
.0032
.0026
.0026
.0026
.0026
.0029
.0024
.0026
.0026
.0029
.0026
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
6.6
12.0
?.?
lt.0
2.4
1.5
•5.0
6.0
4.6
4.0
5.0
S.O
5.0
4.4
3.7
6.1
M.S
3.0
3.6
(GPM)
.ooir
.0032
.0006
.0029
.0006
.0004
.0013
.0016
.0012
.0011
.0013
.0013
.0013
.0012
.0010
.0016
.0036
.onofl
.0010
R/Q
1.67
.67
5.01
1.09
4.17
6.67
2.00
1.67
2.40
2.25
2.00
2.00
2.20
2.28
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
F THEORE.
DET.TIME
(SEC)
1.187
1.156
1.361
1.136
1.238
1.343
1.252
1.116
1.278
1.288
1.240
1.101
1.521
1.556
2.455
1.636
1.174
2.160
2.684
24.8
20.9
29.2
20.4
30.7
32.4
28.4
26.6
27.1
30.5
27.1
26.7
25.6
27.4
67.2
49.3
28.4
78.4
6B.5
TEMP.
(F) (C)
78.0
80.0
82.0
81.0
82.0
81.0
70.0
76.0
76.0
76.0
82.0
85.0
85.0
85.0
87.0
82.0
87.0
84.0
fl7.0
25.6
26.7
27.6
27.2
27.6
27.2
21.1
24.4
24.4
24.4
27.8
29.4
29.4
29.4
30.6
27.8
30.6
2fl.P
30.6
REMARKS
-------
FIRST OKOEK CORRELATION PAKAMETFRS
LET TF = TEMP. CORRECTION FACTOR
NO. U
(GP*I/FT) (ML/MIN/IN)
TF
L06F H.TF/U H.TF/LOGF
(SQ.FT/GPv) (FT)
L06(H.TF/LOGF) LOGU
1
2
3
4
b
b
7
H °
13 »
10
11
12
13
14
Ib
16
17
18
19
.112
.142
.085
.146
.079
.073
.095
.101
.099
.082
.095
.095
.101
.091
.023
.039
.086
.019
.023
35.2
44.8
26.8
46.0
24.8
23.0
30.0
32.0
31.2
26.0
30.0
30.0
32.0
28.8
7.4
12.2
27.0
6.0
7.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.211
.258
.307
.282
.307
.282
.039
.16b
.165
.165
.307
.384
.384
.384
.438
.307
.438
.358
.438
1.187
1.158
1.361
1.138
1.238
1.143
1.252
1.118
1.278
1.288
1.240
1.101
1.521
1.556
2.455
1.636
1.174
2.160
2.684
.0746
.0637
.1337
.0563
.0926
.1281
.0076
.0483
.1066
.1099
.0933
.0417
.1821
.1920
.3100
.2139
.0696
.3345
.4288
97.63
79.70
138.42
79.12
149.58
158.23
98.31
103.37
106.02
127.22
123.65
130.95
122.77
136.41
551.57
304.07
151.17
642.36
566 . 89
145.Q9
177.67
87.95
?04.90
127.07
90.09
95.79
217.
98.
95.
126.
?98.
68.
64.
33.
54.
185.
36.
30.
10
34
45
09
69
40
87
18
99
B3
54
18
2.1643
2.2496
1.9442
2.3115
2.1040
1.9547
1.9813
2.3367
1.9927
1.9798
2.1007
?.4752
1.8351
1.8121
1 .5209
1.7403
2.2691
1.5627
1.4797
-.9523
-.8476
-1.0707
-.8361
-1.1044
-1.1372
-1.0218
-.9937
-1.0047
-1.0839
-1.0218
-1.0218
-.9937
-1.0395
-1.6297
-1.4125
-1.0675
-1.7207
-1.6416
REMARKS
-------
APPENDIX
INCLINED PLANE SAMPLE RETARDENT ANALYSIS
159
-------
*hEY BEARING WASTE STUDY 179-0
PLANS LENGTH « IB.00 FT.
PLANE WIDTH • .50 I-N,
ANGLE or PLANE *IJTH HORIZON • 30,0 UEG.
SLIME AREA • ,790 SF.
H
CTl
o
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
LA
(PPM)
550.0
550.0
380,0
400.0
390.0
390.0
LO
(PPM)
550.0
550.0
380.0
400.0
179,0
390.0
LE
(PPM>
140.0
160.0
110,0
00,0
85.0
26.0
E R
(ML/MIN)
.745
.709
.711
.800
.782
,933
.0
.0
.0
.0
8.3
.0
0
(QPM) (ML/MIN)
,0000
,0000
.0000
.0000
.0022
,0000
3.8
3.6
3.9
3.8
3.7
4.2
(QPM)
.0010
.0010
.0010
.ODlO
.oolu
.0011
R/3
.00
,uo
.00
.00
2.24
.00
F THEORE.
DET.TIME
(SEC)
3.929
3.433
3.495
5.000
2.106
15.000
155.8
166.7
151.1
156.4
73.5
142.0
TEMP,
(C)
76,0
68,0
79.0
75,0
72.0
82.0
24,4
20,0
26,1
23.9
22.2
27.8
REMARKS
SIMPLE RETARDANT CORRELATION PARAMETERS
LET TF • TEMP. CORRiCTION FACTOR
.0. U
(6PM/FT) (ML/MIN/1N)
1
2
3
4
1
6
.024
.023
.025
.024
.076
.027
7
7
7
7
24
8
.6
.2
,8
.6
,0
.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
TF
.165
.000
.234
.143
.079
.307
F H.TF/0
(SQ.FT/GPM)
3
3
3
9
2
15
.929
.438
.455
.000
.106
,000
870
788
898
853
255
883
.45
.54
.18
.97
,36
.24
REMARKS
-------
APPENDIX
TRICKLING FILTER DESIGN OUTPUT
161
-------
IC ' lv;tLb TO txPLAIM fOC REMO«nL FOR
pr.CKfc.L5 TOn/ER rrflcKLIN':; FILTER
GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA...
BUD REMOVAL RATE AT 20 c
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TLMKESATURE CORRECTION FACTOR (THETA)
BOD REMOVAL HATE AT ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED (FLOW)
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED .226
^CIRCULATION RATIO .000
VULUnr / bTAGF. (CU.FT.) 64658.1
STAGE VOLUME/ RAW FLOWrCF/GPM 93.11
TOTAL VOLUME (CUBIC FEET) 6465A.1
NOMINAL FLOW PUMPED PER STAGE 694.<*
TOTAL NOMINAL FLOW PUMPED 694.4
NUMBER OF PUMPING STATIONS 1
77.64
.451
.000
32329.0
46.56
64656.1
694.4
1388.8
2
F STAGF
63.OR
.67(1
.000
21507.3
30.07
64522.p
694.4
2083.?
3
ORGANIC LOADINGS TO FILTER
FOR 1 bTAGF FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
z
3
4
FOP 2 STAGF FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
27.B39" LBS/DAY—
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
62.6 FEET
44.3 FEET
36.? FEET
- 31.3 FEET
55.677 LBS/DAY—IcOOCF
-------
OR6ANK LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
12.1*50 LBS/OAY--1000CF
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE -
i
2
3
FOR 3 !>TAS=- FILTRATION...
- ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTEK
ONGANJC LOAD TO T^IRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
1
2
3
I*
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
44.3 FEET
31.3 FEET
25.6 FEET
22.1 FEET
B3.692 LBS/DAY— i
Sn.897 LBS/DAY— tnOCCF
11. HOT LBS/DAY— trOOCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
36.1 FEET
25.5 FEET
20.o FEET
18. t FEET
H
ON
SINGLE STAGE T'VO STAGE THREE STAGF
EFFICIENCY / <;TAGE <*> 95.00 77.64 63.np
APPLICATION RATE {GPM/SQ FT> 1,000 i.ooo i.por
HtCIRCULATION RATIO 18.714 2.603 .77?
VOLUMF / STAG"F
-------
3
4
FOP 3 ;>TAOE FILTRATION...
OKOANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTEK
OKGANIC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STASE
i
2
3
It
GENERAL OtSISN CRITERIA...
BOD REMOVAL RATE AT 20 c
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOR (THETA)
BOO REMOVAL RATE *T ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED (FLOW)
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED IBOO>
MINIMUM APPLICATION RATE
OtPTH OF TOWER
•NI VALUE OF MEDIA CHOSEN
TOTAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY REQUIRED
32.6 FEET
28.2 FEET
69.623 LBS/DAY—moocF
25.703 LBS/DAY—IPOnCF
9.489 LBS/DAY—inoocp
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
39.6 FEET
28.0 FEET
22.9 FEET
19.8 FEET
.03214
22.0 C
1.0350
.03443
694.4 e.P.M.
1800.0 LBS/DAY
1.00 e.P.M./SO.FT.
42.0 FEET
1.000
95.00 K
KINrllC MODEL CHOSEN WAS FIRST ORDER
UNITS »eRE SIZED ASSUMING 1.2»AND 3 STAGES
SINGLE STAGE T.*0 STAGE
EFFICIENCY / STAGE (*) 95.00
APPLICATION RATE Q FT> .483
RECIRCULATION RATIO .000
VOLUME / VTAOE JCU.FT.) 60359.0
STAGE VOLUME/ RAW FLOWrCF/SPW 86.92
TOTAL VOLUME (CUBIC FEET) 60359.0
NOMINAL FLOW DUMPED PEK STAGE 694.4
TOTAL NOMINAL FLOW PUMPED 694.4
NUMBER OF PUMPING STATIONS 1
77.64
.966
.000
30179.5
43.46
60359.0
694.4
1388.8
2
63.no
1.45J
.ono
20077.3
28.Q1
60232.0
694. i*
2083.2
ORGANIC LOADINGS TO FILTER
FOR 1 STAGE FILTRATION...
OKGANTC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
?Q.822 LRS/CAY—llOOCF
"iIAMETEH
»ER STAGE
42." FEET
30.7 FEET
-------
3
4
FOR 2 STAGF FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKPANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTE"
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
z
3
4
FOP 3 STASF FILTRATION...
OrtGANTC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGAMC LOAD TO SECOND FILTE*
OKRANTC LOAD TO THIRP FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
4
24.7 FEET
21.4 FEET
59.643 LBS/DAY— IpOOCF
13.337 LBS/DAY— i
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
30.3 FEET
21.4 FEET
17.5 FEET
15.1 FEET
S9.653 LBS/DAY--1000CF
13.09B LBS/DAY— toOocF
1?.219 LBS/DAY— I rOQCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
24.7 FEET
17." FEET
IH. 9 FEET
IZ.K FEET
ON
VJ1
SINGLE ST^GE T-O STAGE
*.} 95.no
AKPLICAT1UN RaTE
-------
ON
ON
PARALLEL FILTERS
PEK STAGE
i
2
FOP 3 STAGE FILTRATION...
OKGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OHGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
i*
GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA...
BOD REMOVAL RATE AT 20 c
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION FACTOK (THETA)
BOD REMOVAL RATE AT ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED (BOn)
MINIMUM APPLICATION RATE
DEPTH OF TOWER
•N' VALUE OF MEDIA CHOSEN
TOTAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCT REQUIRED
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
30.P FEET
21.8 FEET
17.9 FEET
15.U FEET
S9.IW LBS/OAY—loOOCF
33.039 LBS/OAY—loOOCF
12.197 LBS/DAY--)oooCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
2*.7 FEET
17.5 FEET
m." FEET
12.3 FEET
.03000
22.0 C
1.0350
.0321H
69<*.H G.P.M.
isoo.o LBS/DAY
1.00 G.P.M./SQ.pT.
21.0 FEET
1.000
95.00 X
KINFTIC MODEL CHOSEN WAS SIMPLE RETARDENT
UNITS WERE SIZED ASSUMING 1,2,AMD 3 STAGES
SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE THREE STA6F
EFFICIENCY / STAGE (%) 95.00 77.6<» 63.no
APPLICATION RATE (GPM/SO FT) .036 .19<» .395
RECIRCULATION RATIO .000 ..000 .OCn
VOLUME / STAGE (CU.FT.) 410545.5 75024.7 36921.U
STAGE VOLUME/ RA* FLOW,CF/6PM 591.22 108,0* 53.17
TOTAL VOLUME (CUPIC FEETJ ^ms^s.s 150019.5 UP76<*.?
NO"I\j;.L FLOW PUMPED PEK STAGE 69U.H 69 1388.8 2083,?
NUMBER OF PUMPING STATIONS 1 2 ^
OKGAMC LOADINGS TO FILTER
FOP 1 iTASc FILTRATION...
OKGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
"*.38i LBS/DAY—I
-------
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
FOP 2 STAGE FILTRATION...-
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
FOR
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
4
3 STA8E FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
ORGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
ORGANIC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
ON
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
H
DIAMETER
PER STA6E
157.? FEET
111.6 FEET
91.1 FEET
78.9 FEET
23.99? LBS/DAY— i
5.365 LBS/CAY— inOOCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
67.5 FEET
47.7 FEET
38.9 FEET
33.7 FEET
48.752 LBS/DAT— IciOOCF
17.998 LBS/DAY— loOOCF
6,645 LBS/DAY— tnOOCF
PER STAGE
47.? FEET
33.5 FEET
23.7 FEET
SINGLE STAGE- TWO STAGE THREr STAGF
EFFICIENCY / <;TAGE (X) 95.00 77.f,1 63.He
APPLICATION RftTE (GPM/SQ FT) l.nOO l.nnO — l.O^r
RECIRCULATION RATIO" 27.153 t.lUS 1.53P
VOLUMF / STAGE (CU.FT.) "H0545.5 7502H.7 36921.u
STAGE VOLUME/ RAW FLOWfCF/GPM 591.22 108.04 S3.17
TOTAL VOLUME (CUBIC FEET) TAGE FILTRATION...
OKGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
4.384 LBS/r AY—I
niAMETER
PER STAGE
157.F FEET
111.6 FEET
91,1 FEET
-------
76.9 FEET
FOR
FOP
2 STAG? FILTRATION...
ONGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTEK
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
4
3 STAGF FILTRATION...
OKGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANIC LOAO TO SECOND FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
8
3
4
DtSIGM CRITERIA...
BOD REMOVAL RATE AT 20 c
ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TtMPEPATURE CORRECTION FACTOR (THETA)
•300 PTMOVAL RATE AT ACTUAL TEMPERATURE
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED (FLOW)
TOTAL WASTE TO BE TREATED (80r>
MINIMUM APPLICATION RATE
OtPTH OF TOWER
•N« VALUE OF MEDIA CHOSEN
TOTAL REMOVAL EFFICIENCY REQUIHEO
21.99? LBS/DAY— i
•5.365 LBS/DAY— IfOOCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGF.
67. «5 FEET
47.7 FEET
38. a FEET
33.7 FEET
U8.752 LBS/QAY--K.OOCF
17.99B LBS/DAY—lnOOCF
<>.64S LBS/DAY — inOOCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
47.3 FEET
33.5 FEET
27.3 FEET
23.7 FEET
,032m
22.0 C
1.0350
694.4 G.P.M.
IflOO.O LBS/DAY
1.00 G.P.M./SQ.cT.
42.0 FEET
1.000
95.00 *
KINETIC MODEL CHOSEN WAS SIMPLE RETARDEMT
UMTS v£P£ SIZE3 ASSUMING l»2fANO 3 STA5ES
SINGLE STAGE TWO STAGE
THR« STAG>-
• TAGE lit} 95.UU 77.54 63.0
APPLICATION Kf.TE (GPM/SO FT) .076 .416 ,B'lf
KtCI^CULATlOM RATIO ,000 ,000 .OC;
VULUMF / !>TAGr (CU.FT.) 38324fl,6 70036.4 34466.=.
STAGE VOLUWt/ RAW FLOW»CF/PPM SSI.91 100.86 49.f*
TOTAL VOLUME IriG STATIONS 1 2
-------
OH6ANIC LOADINGS TO FILTER
FOP 1 STAGE FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
it
FOR 2 bTAGF FILTRATION...
OK6ANTC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGANjc LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
PAKALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
3 bTAS- FILTRATION...
OK6ANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OrtGANIC LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
OKGANTC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
z
3
"4.697 LBS/DAY--1fOOCF
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
107.« FEET
76.2 FEET
62.2 FEET
53.9 FEET
2"5.70I LBS/OAY — ] "OOCF
•5.71+7 LBS/OAY — I
PER STAGE
46.) FEET
32.6 FEET
26. ft FEET
23.1 FEET
5?. 225 LBS/DAY— li-OOCF
19.280 LBS/DAY— ICOOCF
7.118 LBS/DAY— JPOOCF
"IAMETER
"ER STAGE
32. ^ FEET
22.9 FEET
18.7 FEET
16.? FEET
SINGLE STAGE T,0 STAGE THRE^ STAGr
/ =TASE <*i 95.00 77.ei 63.<-p
APPLICATION RATE (GPM/ba FT) 1.000 1.000 1.0nC
RATIO 12.im i.noi .1^2
/ STAGe- (CO.FT.) 383218.6 70036.H 3<«i*66.=
STAGE VOLUME/ RAW FLOWiCF/GPM 551.91 100.86 49.6?
TOTAL VOLUME (CUBIC FEET) 3832*8.6 11*007?.8 1 03399.f
NO-.'1-JfL FLOW PUMPED PER STAGE 912«j.O 1667.5 820.f
TOTAL NOMINAL FLOW PUMPED 9125.0 3335.1 2U61.c,
MUW8E»< OF PUMPING STATIONS 1 2 '
OHGAMIC LOADlMGS TO FILTER
FOP 1 STAGE FILTRATION...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
4.697 LBS/DAY—tQOOCF
-------
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STAGE
i
2
3
4
FOP 2 bTAG~ FILTKAT10K...
ONfiA^TC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKGA'JTC LOjVJ TO SrcP^- F1LTEK
FO"
PER STAGE
3 STAGF FILTKATIJf ...
ORGANIC LOAD TO FIRST FILTER
OKSANTC LOAD TO SECOND FILTER
OKGANIC LOAD TO THIRD FILTER
PARALLEL FILTERS
PER STA<;E
i
2
3
i*
DIAMETER
PER STAGE
107,0 FEET
76.? FEET
62.? FEET
53.0 FEET
25.701 LBS/DAY — 1 "OOCF
^.7l;7 LpS/CAY— 1 '
?IA'1F.TER
PER STAGE
46.1
32.6 FEET
26. f> FEET
23. P FEET
FEET
ia.280 LBS/DAY — UOOCF
7.11? LBS/r,*Y— InOnCF
PER STAGE
32. ^ FEET
22.0 FEET
18.7 FEET
16.? FEET
OF IN
-------
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF TRICKLING FILTER PLANE PERFORMANCE
WHEY AND SEWAGE
171
-------
Summary of Trickling Filter Plane Performance
Whey and Sewage
Series tl
ro
No nutrients
pH = 7.0
Filter Geometry
Run Angle
No . ( ° )
I 45
2 45
3 45
4 45
5 30
6 30
7 30
Length
(ft)
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Area
(SF)
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
Temperature
( 29
(
( 29
29
27
30
( 22
(
( 25
( 20
(
( 21
( 28
(
( 31
Hydraulic
Conditions
U1
gpm/LF
.070
.070
.095
.111
.123
.068
.065
.046
.045
.014
.014
Recycle
Ratio
10
10
2
1.67
1.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Soluble BOD5
(ppm)
Feed
600
600
570
570
620
360
500
360
620
475
440
Effluent
140
140
380
380
485
330
420
310
480
220
140
Soluble
BOD 5
Removal
77
77
33
33
22
8
16
14
23
54
68
-------
(continued)
Series #2
Fe
+3
as nutrient
pH = 7.0
Filter Geometry
Run Angle
No. (°)
1 45
2 45
3 30
4 30
Length Area Temperature
(ft) (SF) (°C)
( 29
(
( 29
9 .375 (
( 30
( 29
( 27
9 .375 (
( 27
9 .375 21
( 28
9 .375 (
( 30
Hydraulic
Conditions
U1
gpm/LF
.095
.095
.095
.095
.085
.079
.065
.015
.013
Recycle
Ratio
2
2
2
2
5
4.2
0
0
0
Soluble BODr
(ppm)
Feed
La
530
600
620
570
570
490
620
280
320
Effluent
490
390
400
390
180
220
470
110
170
Soluble
BOD5
Removal
/ o, \
V "5 /
7.5
35
35
32
68
55
24
61
47
-------
(continued)
Series #3
N as nutrient
pH = 7.0
ij
Filter Geometry
Hydraulic
Conditions
Run Angle Length Area Temperature U1 Recycle Feed Effluent Removal
No. (°) (ft) (SF) (°C) qpm/LF Ratio La
45
45
.375
375
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
29
29
30
29
27
27
U1
gpm/LF
.095
.095
.095
.095
.146
.142
Recycle
Ratio
2
2
2
2
1.1
.9
Soluble BOD,
(ppm)
Soluble
BOD 5
560
600
620
570
490
570
420
310
300
300
380
440
25
48
52
47
22
23
-------
(continued)
Series #4
N as nutrient
pH = variable
Filter Geometry
Run Angle Length Area Temperature U1 Recycle Feed Effluent Removal
No. (°) (ft) (SF) (°C) gpm/LF Ratio La Le (%)
Hydraulic
Conditions
Soluble BOD5
(ppm) BOD5
1 45
pH=4.5
29
.375 (
( 24
.11 2.2 640
.082 2.25 600
240 , .63
310 48
2 45 9 .375 29 .091 2.3 480 170 65
pH=4.8
3 45 9 .375 24
pH=5.7
,099
2.4
720 370
4 45 9 .375 24
pH=9.8
10
1.7
670 510
-------
(continued)
Series #5
H
^j
ON
Fe+3 and N as nutrients
Plane angle variable
Filter Geometry
Hydraulic
Conditions
Run Angle Length Area Temperature U'
No. (°) (ft) (SF) (°C) gpm/LF
( 29
( 29
1 45 9 .375 ( 30
( 29
( 28
2 45 9 .375 21
3 45 9 .375 31
4 45 9 .375 27
5 45 9 .375 28
( 31
6 45 9 .375 ( 31
( 29
.ff95
.095
.095
.095
.095
.095
.086
.073
.039
.023
.023
.019
Recycle
Ratio
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Soluble BOD5
(ppm)
Feed Effluent
La Le
560
600
620
560
550
720
270
490
540
540
600
270
300
250
270
430
320
410
230
135
330
220
190
125
Soluble
BOD5
Removal
46
58
56
23
42
43
15
72
39
59
68
54
-------
Series #6
(continued)
Fe+3 and N as nutrients
Plane angle variable
Filter Geometry
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Angle
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Hydraulic
Conditions
Length Area Temperature U1
(ft) (SF) (°C) gpm/LF
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
.375
25
( 25
( 23
22
25
23
( 27
( 26
23
( 27
( 28
( 29
29
.090
.086
.081
.077
.071
.070
.068
.065
.067
.049
.047
.047
.025
Recycle
Ratio
6.1
2.5
2.4
3.3
0
.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Soluble BOD5
(ppm)
Feed Effluent
La Le
530
530
580
580
530
580
450
490
580
490
450
500
490
160
290
260
260
430
380
360
390
500
330
330
400
200
Soluble
BOD5
Removal
70
45
55
55
19
34
20
20
14
33
27
20
59
-------
Series #6 (continued)
(continued)
and N as nutrients
Plane angle variable
Filter Geometry
Hydraulic
Conditions
Run Angle Length Area Temperature U1
No. (°) (ft) (SF) (°C) gpm/LF
( 29
10 30 9 .375 ( 27
( 29
H
o> 11 30 18 .75 22
( 28
12 30 18 .75 (
( 26
( 26
12a 30 9 .375 (
( 26
. (24
13 30 18 .75 (
( 24
.021
.020
.018
.076
.027
.025
.025
.025
.024
.024
Recycle
Ratio
0
0
0
2.2
0
0'
0 .
0
0
0
Soluble BOD5
(ppm)
Feed Effluent
La Le
490
500
450
390
390
380
380
280
400
550
150
200
150
85
26
110
280
110
80
140
Soluble
BOD5
Removal
69
60
67
78
93
71
26
61
80
75
-------
Series #6 (continued)
Fe+^ and N as nutrients
Plane angle variable
(continued)
Filter Geometry
Hydraulic
Conditions
Soluble BODt
(ppm)
Soluble
BODC
No.
13a
14
14a
Angle
(°)
30
30
30
Length Area
(ft) (SF)
9 .375
18 .75
9 .375
Temperature
( 24
( 24
(
( 24
( 24
20
( 20
(
( 20
U1
gpm/LF
.024
.024
.024
.024
.023
.023
.023
Recycle
Ratio
0
0
0
0
0
0
Feed
400
195
550
240
550
550
270
Effluent
200
80
270
140
160
290
160
Removal
50
59
51
42
71
47
41
-------
-__
c I Organization
_U
n Number
2
Subject Field & Group
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
QUIRK, LAWLER & MATUSKY ENGINEERS
Title
WHEY EFFLUENT PACKED TOWER TRICKLING FILTRATION
10
Author(s)
T. P. QUIRK
J. J. ZAMBRANO
J. HELLMAN
16
Project Designation
12130 DUJ (11060 DUJ)
2] Note
22
Citation
23
Descriptors (Starred First)
Biological Treatment, *Computer Programs, *Cost Allocation, *Dairy Industry, *Design
Criteria, *Estimated Costs, *Mathematical Models, *Model Studies, *Sewage, *Sewage
Treatment,, *Trickling Filtration, *Capit6l Costs, Centrifugation, Hydrogen ion Concentration,
Neutralization, Nutrients, Odor, Operating Costs, Pilot Plants, Separation Techniques,
Sewers, Sludge Treatment, Temperature, Water Quality
25
Identifiers (Starred First)
Whey, *Chemical Treatment, Clarification, Detention Time, Recycle Sludge Conditioning,
Thickening, Vacuum Filtration
27
Abstract
An analysis of BOD removal during flow over an inclined plane and through full-
scale trickling filter media is developed and verified.
A defined scale-up procedure is used to calculate the full-scale reaction rate from the
laboratory rate. The former varies with the packing used, the latter is constant.
The treatability of whey effluents is demonstrated b.y comparison with other industrial
effluents, using a Surfpac-like medium in packed towers. A computer program is described,
handling series or parallel filtration using one to three stages.
Ranges of operating parameters tested were: BOD 200 to 600 ppm; pH 4.5 to 9.8; temperature
15 to 30°C. Filter performance responded primarily to flow changes. Secondary sludge can
be thickened by gravity compaction, and dewatered by vacuum filtration. Centrifugation is
not effective.
In comparison, the activated sludge process requires an organic loading less than 0.1 Ib.
BOD/lb. sludge/day to maintain an SVI under 200, operation is sensitive to all parameters,
and neither vacuum filtration nor Centrifugation is effective for sludge dewatering.
Process designs and cost analyses are developed for a combination of whey and domestic
sewage as follows: flow - 1.17 mgd; BOD - 6,900 Ibs/day; suspended solids - 1,600 Ibs/day.
Abstractor
T.P. QUIRK
Institution
QUIRK, LAWLER AND MATUSKY ENfiTNFERg
WR:I02 (REV. JULY 1969)
WRSIC
SEND, WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT, TO: WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972-484-484/130 1-3
------- |