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 30C.  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,
                20C

         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 20C 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 20C

     (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 20C

     (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  =  22C

        Q    =   694.4 gpm

        9    =   1.035

    Simple Retardant:

        K20  =   .03 gpm/CF

        n    =1

        W    =   1,800 BOD Ibs/day
                             69

-------
        Temperature  =  22C

        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 20C
        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 + 2C

    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 fr 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. 4A^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 TC

               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 30C.  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 20C to
2.2 x 10~3 gpm/SF at 29C.  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 22C, 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
                                   
-------
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 20C
                                                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 50F 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     - 59F

        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 20C

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
            80C in the dimensions of gallons per minute per
          -  cubic foot
                            151

-------
k20'k20  =  a sPecific biological rate constant at a standard
            reference temperature of 20C

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 20C

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 REMOnL 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/DAYIcOOCF

-------
                                          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/DAYmoocF
    25.703  LBS/DAYIPOnCF
     9.489  LBS/DAYinoocp


     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 1.2AND 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/CAYllOOCF


     "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/OAYloOOCF
33.039 LBS/OAYloOOCF
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/DAYI

-------
                                                          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 AYI

                         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/DAYlnOOCF
                                                      <>.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 vP SIZE3 ASSUMING l2fANO 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 FLOWCF/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
-------
                               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 30C.  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

-------