EPA-600/2-76-240
September 1976
Environmental Protection Technology Series
AUTOMATED TREATMENT AND RECYCLE OF
SWINE FEEDLOT WASTEWATERS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
TECHNOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent
environmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This
work provides the new or improved technology required for the control and
treatment of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-76-240
September 1976
AUTOMATED TREATMENT AND RECYCLE OF
SWINE FEEDLOT WASTEWATERS
by
E. Paul Taiganides
Richard K. White
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Grant No. R-801125
Project Officer
Eugene F. Harris
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report contains a comprehensive review and evaluation of the
design, construction, and operation of a system for the automated flush-
ing of wastes from an animal production unit and the biological treat-
ment and recycling of the treated liquid effluent as flushing water.
The treated solids were disposed of on farm fields. The system was
operated for three years in a swine confinement production unit on a
farm at Botkins, Ohio.
The procedure included (a) hydraulic removal of the wastes in the
building by flushing gutters with water from overhead siphon tanks
and tipping buckets; (b) primary treatment consisting of a stabiliza-
tion sump, solids separation with stationary and vibrating screens,
aerobic stabilization of solids, solids storage tanks, and final dis-
posal of settled solids on farm land, (c) secondary treatment consist-
ing of an oxidation ditch, final clarifier, and re-use of clarifier
effluent as flushing liquid in the building; and (d) tertiary treatment
consisting of a laboratory evaluation of the use of high-pressure-
driven membranes for the removal of chemical nutrients from the
clarifier effluent.
The report also contains the main components and findings of a computer
program developed to simulate the operation of a biological treatment-
cum-cropland disposal system for wastes from any swine confinement
production unit. The computer simulation program developed in this
project should prove useful in providing functional design parameters
and economic cost data for evaluation of alternative management schemes
•for animal production units under various cropping patterns for a given
farm size and weather conditions.
The main emphasis of this project was on assessing and demonstrating
the technical feasibility and environmental impact of a totally auto-
mated waste handling, treatment, and recycling system without creating
gross water pollution or public nuisance. It was demonstrated that such
a system is both technically feasible and environmentally acceptable.
No in-depth analysis of the marketability of the system was made.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number R-801125
(formerly 130UO EOL) by The Ohio State University Research Foundation,
Department of Agricultural Engineering, under the partial sponsorship
of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center. The project was initiated January 1,
1970, and was completed May 30, 1971*.
-------
CONTENTS
Section
ABSTRACT iii
FIGURES viii
TABLES xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xiii
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 3
III INTRODUCTION 4
General Background 4
Project Development 6
Project Objectives 7
IV DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SYSTEM 8
Design of System Units 8
Animal Unit 13
Flushing 13
Sump 13
Screen 14
Aerobic Digester 14
Solids Storage 14
Oxidation Ditch 14
Aeration Equipment 15
Clarifier 15
Clear Well 17
System Operation 17
Period of Operation 18
Mode of Operation 18
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures 20
Sampling Points 20
Sample Analyses 20
Test Procedures 20
V EVALUATION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS 25
Waste Collection and Transport 25
Nuisance Gases 27
Animals in Production Unit 30
Wastewater Volume 31
v
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Section Page
Primary Treatment 36
Surge Tank 38
Solids Separation 38
Stationary Screen ^0
Vibrating Screen ^0
Cylinder Sedimentation ^0
Solids Aeration kk
Solids Disposal 50
Secondary Treatment 56
Oxidation Ditch 56
Aeration 56
Velocities of Flow 58
Foam Control 58
Loading Rates 60
Mixed Liquor 60
Clarifier 63
Settling Rates " 65
Effluent Quality 65
Tertiary Treatment 67
VI SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 7k
Overall Efficiencies 75
Microbiological Characteristics of System 78
Aerobic Bacteria 78
Indicator Bacteria 78
Environmental Impact Statement 82
Introduction 82
Project Site 82
Climate 8*4-
Noise 8k
Odors 88
Soil Impact 88
Impact on Stream 88
Conclusions 90
VI
-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VII COMPUTER SIMULATION PROGRAM 95
Main Program 95
VIII REFERENCES CITED 111
Appendices
A AGENCIES AND PERSONS AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE
PROJECT llil
B CONSTRUCTION PLANS OF SWINE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 115
C EXPERIMENTAL DATA FROM THE ANALYSIS OF WEEKLY SAMPLES
AT DESIGNATED POINTS OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT 121
vn
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 A schematic of the flow lines of waste materials from the
confinement building to the waste treatment units and
back to the building for reflushing 9
2 The unit operations of the treatment plant are arranged
to conserve space and construction materials and to
permit prefabrication of the system and its components 10
3 The treatment plant as seen on April 22, 1971, when it
was first put in operation 11
k Animal unit layout and flushing system arrangement 12
5 Aeration devices used in the oxidation ditch and
aerobic digester 16
6 Winter operation exposed plant to extreme cold and
snow conditions 19
7 Location of sampling points in the treatment plant system 22
8 Hydraulic cleaning and transport of wastes from animal
unit 26
9 Carbon dioxide concentration in animal unit over shallow
gutter and over slotted floor 29
10 Animal population and total live weight in swine
production unit 35
11 Stationary screen in operation 39
12 Sedimentation cylinder used in laboratory investigations
of the solids separation efficiencies of settling tanks 14.3
13 TSS and COD removal efficiencies at various detention
times in a sedimentation tank of a slurry with initial
TSS concentration of 5000 mg/,0 ^5
lk TSS and COD removal efficiencies at various overflow rates
in a sedimentation tank for a slurry with initial TSS
concentration of 5000 mg/,0 ^6
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
15 Temperatures of aerobic digester, oxidation ditch and
ambient air ^9
16 Use of a mixer to agitate solids in digester tank 50
17 Scum in solids storage tanks, which tended to form when
tanks were full, appeared to aid odor control 50
18 Mole-plow subsurface waste disposal system in soils 52
19 Work required per ton of waste disposal 38 cm below soil
surface at various application rates per hectare 5^-
20 Foam formation and control methods 59
21 Influent BOD averages and frequency distribution 62
22 Final clarifier of treatment plant 6k
23 Settling characteristics of mixed liquor with different
TSS concentrations 66
2k Effluent BOD averages and frequency distribution 68
25 Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean plant effluent
COD, June, 1971 to May, 197^ 70
26 Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean plant effluent
TSS, June, 1971 to May, 197^4- 71
27 Membrane separation experimental apparatus 72
28 Average monthly BOD and COD removal efficiencies 77
29 Comparison of average effluent BOD with monthly average
of influent BOD 79
30 Comparison of effluent COD with average monthly
influent COD 79
31 Project site location 83
32 Soil type distribution at project site 83
IX
-------
FIGURES (continued)
No. Page
33 Wind direction chart at project site ®5
3^ Location of points where sound level readings were taken 86
35 Automated swine wastewater treatment and recycling plant 9^
36 Flow chart of main computer program simulating waste
management system 96
37 Schematic presentation of the events defined for simulating
the swine waste treatment and disposal system 97
38 Flow chart of subroutine POP 99
39 Flow chart of subroutine WETHR 100
kO Schematic of the biological waste treatment system
simulated in this study 101
hi. Flow chart of subroutine TMT 102
h2 Experimentally determined relationship between specific
growth rate (u) and soluble substrate concentration (Ss) 103
^3 Experimentally determined relationship between the ratio
of dilution rate to observed yield coefficient (Q/VYO)
and specific growth rate (u) 10^
kh Flow chart of subroutine SOLID 106
^5 Flow chart of subroutine HAUL 107
k6 Flow chart of subroutine EHAUL 109
h-7 Flow chart of subroutine EVENTS 110
B-l Site plan 116
B-2 Plan and sections 117
B-3 Sections 118
E-k Miscellaneous details 119
B-5 Electrical Plans 120
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Sampling Procedures and Analysis of Samples Taken at
the Sampling Point 23
2 Measurements of Nuisance Gases in Animal Unit at
Different Rates of Flushing 28
3 Summary of Performance of Pigs in the Swine Production Unit 32
k Total and Average Live Weight of Pigs Produced During
the Three Years, 1971-1971*- 33
5 Characteristics of Wastewater Flushed Out of the Animal
Production Unit 37
6 Results of Efficiency of Solids Removal by Stationary
Screen (Efficiency Represents Percent Retained on Screen
and Thus Diverted to Solids Digester) ^1
7 Results of Solids Removal Efficiencies by Vibrating Screen
(Efficiency Represents Percent Retained on Screen and
Thus Diverted from Main Flow Path) U2
8 Unit Area and Overflow Rate Requirements to Concentrate
Solids to &f0 for Slurries with Various Initial Solids
Concentrations ^7
9 Temperature and Reduction Achieved in Other Parameters
when Operating Aerob-o-jet as a Batch System ^-8
10 Average Power Requirements for Subsurface Mole-Plow
Disposal of Waste Slurry 51
11 Comparison and Relative Assessment of Major Waste
Disposal Methods 55
12 Feasibility Matrix for the Selection of the Most
Suitable Waste Disposal System 57
13 Average Influent Characteristics and Oxidation Ditch
Loading Rates 6l
XI
-------
TABLES (Continued)
No.
lU Mixed Liquor Monthly Average of BOD, COD, TS, MLSS,
TVS, SV, T, and C 63
15 Statistical Analysis of Effluent Qualities at Various
Times of the Year 73
16 Results of Tertiary Treatment of Effluent by Reverse
Osmosis Membranes 73
17 Average Annual and Seasonal Treatment Efficiencies in
BOD, COD, TS, TSS, and TVS 75
18 Removal Efficiencies and Monthly Averages of Influent
and Effluent BOD, COD, TS, TSS, TVS 76
19 Number of Heterotropic Aerobic/Facultative Bacteria at
Four Stages of Waste Treatment 80
20 Number of Indicator Bacteria Found at Four Stages of
Waste Treatment 8l
21 Measured Noise Levels dB(A) Around Waste Treatment
Facility 87
22 Soil Impact of Minerals in Liquid Discharges from
Treatment Plant 89
23 BOD, COD, TS and TVS of Weekly Samples of
Loramie Creek, Botkins, Ohio 91
C-l BOD and JCOD Influent, Mixed Liquor, and Effluent 122
C-2 TS, TVS, and TSS of Influent, Mixed Liquor, and Effluent
of Oxidation Ditch 125
C-3 Weekly Data of Temperature, pH, and Dissolved Oxygen
of Mixed Liquor in Oxidation Ditch 129
C-k Weekly Data on Sludge Index, Alkalinity, and Conductivity
of Mixed Liquor in Oxidation Ditch 133
xu
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was a cooperative effort of 32 people, four public
institutions, and one private company. Those actively involved in the
project and the services provided are listed in Appendix A. We grate-
fully acknowledge their cooperation and fine contribution to the suc-
cessful completion of this project.
We would also like to acknowledge the understanding and encouragement
of Dr. G. L. Nelson, Chairman, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
and Dr. R. M. Kottman, Director of the Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center, The Ohio State University.
We are grateful to R. Hill and R. Warwick of The Ohio State University
Research Foundation for providing us with excellent administrative
services.
Xlll
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This demonstration project has shown that the handling and treatment
of swine wastes may be automated with no resulting water pollution
and with minimum odor nuisance. The average annual mean BOD removal was
?8% for the aerobic treatment unit. Effluent BODs as low as 2h mg/l
were reached during the summer months. The BOD removal during the
winter months was significantly less. The treated effluent was still
not suitable for direct discharge into a stream. Its use as recycled
flushing water was a key element in the automated system.
Odor nuisance, both in the swine building and near the waste treat-
ment facility, was kept at a minimum. The frequent flushing of the
swine manure from the building controlled odor and gas production which
improved the working conditions for personnel and the environment for
the animals. Tests for ammonia, triethylamine, hydrogen sulfide, and
other sulfur compounds indicated that these specific compounds were
below odor threshold in the building and near the waste treatment
facility. This control of odors can be attributed to the regular flush-
ing of wastes from the building and aerobic treatment of the wastes.
Solids separation was routinely performed with a stationary, rundown
screen. Tests were also conducted for solids separation with a
vibrating screen. Optimum separation for the stationary screen was
obtained with a wire spacing of 0.10 cm at 120 ,0/min. The vibrating
screen improved the removal efficiency slightly but had less capacity.
The aeration of the separated solids proved effective in stabilizing
the organic material in order to control odors. The aeration devices,
both of a propeller-air induction type, provided adequate aeration but
did not elevate the temperatures of the slurry to the mesophilic range
as had been initially conceived.
The filtrate from the screen was treated in an oxidation ditch. The
loading rate of the oxidation ditch was about twice the normal design
criterion, due to the recycling of wastes which still contained BOD.
Screening the particulates permitted a higher loading rate with accept-
able performance. Tests indicated that the mixed liquor suspended
solids should be less than 8000 mg/£ to provide suitable settling in
-------
the clarifier. Detention time of the clarifier should.be equal to or
greater than the time duration of the initial settling phase.
The principal problems encountered with the oxidation ditch were
freezing during winter weather and foaming. Freezing problems were
solved by covering the oxidation ditch with plywood sheets and using
the propeller-air induction type aerator in place of the cage rotor.
The foaming problem was controlled best by the use of a water spray.
A tertiary treatment using reverse osmosis indicated that effluent of
a quality equivalent to potable water can be obtained.
A computer simulation model of a biological treatment and cropland
disposal system for waste from a confinement swine production unit was
developed. The computer simulation program has been developed to a
satisfactory degree and can now be used to study numerous swine waste
treatment and disposal situations.
Based upon the experience in this demonstration project, the unit
operations involved may be applied to commercial production operations.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMYIENDATIONS
The primary objective of this study was to determine the technical and
environmental feasibility of the system. No special effort was made to
determine the economic feasibility of the system.
It is recommended, therefore, that a study be undertaken to evaluate
the economic feasibility of the system developed in this project with
two approaches; i.e., one study to determine the costs of the various
component units, the construction, and the operation of the system, and
the other to evaluate the marketability of the system.
The cost study should use the computer program developed in this
project to arrive at the size and type of unit components which would
be required to meet specific levels of effluent quality for various
parts of' the country and for various .sizes and types of animal feedlots.
A cost survey of various sizes of equipment and their availability
should be made. Operating costs for the system should be determined
utilizing the computer program developed in this study and performance
data from equipment manufacturers and independent sources.
System costs should be determined on the basis of costs for the removal
of a given quantity of pollution, for achieving a certain level of
effluent quality, and per unit of meat or eggs produced in the feedlot.
Once the cost study is initiated, a marketability study should be
started to explore the possibilities of prefabricating the system to
reduce the production and installation costs. The marketability study
should explore the number and type of animal farms which eould economi-
cally utilize the type of treatment system tested in this study. •
In Japan several companies are marketing packaged, prefabricated
treatment systems containing components similar to those studied in
this project.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL BACKGROUND
What modern producers are looking for in animal waste management are
minimum labor requirements (i.e., mechanization, automation, etc.),
trouble-free operation (i.e., independent of weather changes, minimum
equipment, little repair, reliability of hardware components, etc.),
minimal environmental pollution (i.e., no gross pollution, no nuisance,
good sanitation, healthy and safe working conditions, etc.), plus lowest
cost possible. In engineering terms, the three criteria which must be
met are technological feasibility, environmental feasibility, and
economic feasibility.
Thanks to unprecedented advances in science and technology, we are now
raising animals in an "assembly-line" type of operation. Transition
from pasture to confinement "factory" production of animals has ushered
in an era of specialization and large concentrations of animals per unit
of land. Today, some animal units have capacities as high as 2-million
hens, 100,000 pigs, 10,000 dairy cattle, or 200,000 beef cattle in a
feedlot.1?2J3 Technologically achieved increases in productivity per
animal have made it possible during the last 20 years to meet escalating
demands for meat, eggs, and milk without an increase in number of pigs
on American farms and with an actual decrease in the number of hens
and dairy cows. Only the number of broilers and beef cattle increased
as a result of rising demands brought on by changes in our dietary
patterns over the last 20 to 3° years.4
Success of the large confinement units being built today often hinges
on the effectiveness of waste management systems. It is now becoming
clear to livestock producers and engineers alike that there exists a
need to develop a waste management technology analogous to animal pro-
duction technology. For the past 10 years, research and development
programs have been initiated on "Coprology," a word coined for the
science of animal waste management after the Greek words for manure
(copros) and science (logos).1'2'3 More work on coprology is needed
-------
because standards being set by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (NPDES) demand zero discharge from animal feedlots.5
The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act required
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish effluent guide-
lines to meet the zero discharge goal through the application of the
"Best Practical Control Technology Currently Available" (BPCTCA) by
July 1, 1977, and the "Best Available Technology Economically Achiev-
able" (BATEA) by July 1, 1983.e Studies commissioned by EPA concluded
that elimination of pollutant discharge from feedlots could be best
achieved by recycling of wates on croplands. Land disposal is becoming
more attractive because of recent developments in tank wagons,
sprinklers, nozzles, soil incorporation devices for liquid animal
wastes, and because of the development of bigger and better equipment
for handling animal wastes as solids.
However, there are several important limitations to land disposal. In
most situations, there is not enough farm land to assimilate efficiently
all the nutrients in the wastes. Additional land sometimes is very dif-
ficult to obtain since neighbors tend to be apprehensive about odor
nuisance problems. Transporting wastes from the production unit to
distant land sites could become economically prohibitive because of
costs in labor, equipment, and energy consumption. Cropping patterns
could present severe limitations to land disposal. If any crop is
grown, all manure applications have to be accomplished either before
the field is seeded or after the crop- is harvested. This usually leaves
only a few weeks in spring and late fall; however, at such times of the
year weather is likely to be uncooperative.
With decreases in the capacity of air and water resources to receive
the ever-increasing megatons of wastes from urban centers and rural
areas, and as laws and regulations calling for "no discharge of pollu-
tants" into air and water bodies are enacted and enforced, land becomes
the only available depository for the plethora of our discards. Land
resources are immobile and are not regenerated as are air and water
masses. Therefore, soil pollution could become an ultimate crisis if
care is not taken to process wastes sufficiently to permit effective
soil assimilation of the waste components. Treatment of wastes, there-
fore, might become inevitable even if the wastes are to be applied on
land.
Recycling of animal wastes represents both a desire of the concerned
public and a strict requirement of public laws. Several processes of
recycling, besides land disposal, have been researched,7 such as
coprophagy, (i.e., refceding to animals2'8'9), energy extrac-
tion,10'11'12 and many other utilization schemes.13 The major limita-
tions of these schemes are that their feasibility in actual field con-
ditions has not been proven and, furthermore, that they have been
studied as individual processes, not as a total system.
-------
No integrated waste management and animal production systems have been
investigated in actual operations over a sufficient period of time to
demonstrate their technical, environmental, and economic feasibility.
A project was initiated, therefore, to develop, design, operate, and
evaluate an animal production unit with a completely integrated system
of waste management. The system was to be a total system with features
which would meet the demands of the public for a quality environment
and the requirements of the animal producer for automated waste han-
dling, treatment, disposal, and recycling.14'15 To test the true feasi-
bility of the system, it had to be constructed on an actual farm and
operated not by research personnel but by farm workers. The project,
therefore, became a cooperative undertaking between private industry
and public institutions.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The project was conceived as a cooperative effort between the Ohio State
University, Botkins Grain and Peed Company, the Ohio Agricultural
Research and Development Center, the Ohio Cooperative Extension Service,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. This project was to demon-
strate to farmers the feasibility of the system. An effort was made to
involve practicing consulting engineers in order to expose them to the
design of an agricultural waste treatment plant. At the same time, the
treatment plant was to be used as a teaching unit for graduate and
undergraduate students in agricultural engineering and related fields.
Three graduate students did research which was based partially or
totally on data collected at the treatment plant; two were M.S. students
and one wrote a Ph.D. thesis.
Appendix A shows the number of people directly involved with the project
and the fields of expertise they represented. More than 30 people were
involved professionally with the initiation and completion of the pro-
ject. These people represented more than ten academic disciplines.
A brief chronology of the events leading to the initiation and develop-
ment of the project might be of value. An application for a demonstra-
tion grant was submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency in
February, 1969. The application was approved for funding beginning
January 1, 1970. Construction plans were drawn and bids for construc-
tion were accepted in September, 1970. Construction began in February
1971, and the plant was completed in April, 1971.
The plant was constructed on the research farm of Botkins Feed and
Grain Co., located in Botkins, Ohio, a small city approximately 1*4.0 km
northwest of Columbus, Ohio. Besides the swine production unit, there
were several other animals being raised on the farm; i.e., beef cattle
turkeys, broilers, layer hens, and ducks. '
-------
The waste treatment plant was open to inspections on an almost daily
basis to visitors to the farm. Since the opening of the plant, a
steady stream of visitors toured the operation, and many have written
for information. Articles about the system have been published in
almost every farm magazine in the United States and Canada and in
several foreign countries. Feature articles and pictures have appeared
in periodicals such as Agricultural Engineering, Nation's Agriculture,
American Farmer, Pennsylvania Farmer, The Ohio Farmer, Prairie Farmer,
Feedstuffs, Country Living, Country Guide, National Hog Farmer,
Successful Farming, and many others. Furthermore, a description of the
project and the results obtained have been presented in many research
conferences and seminars in the United States and Canada, and in many'
parts of East and West Europe and Japan.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the project were
1—to demonstrate the type of waste treatment unit operations
which could be used to process wastewaters from animal
production units in such a way that handling, treatment,
and recycling of the wastes is done automatically and
without creating a public nuisance or contributing to
water pollution; and
2—to develop from actual field operations values for design
parameters of unit operations which could be used singly
or in combination with the treatment and disposal of live-
stock wastewaters.
-------
SECTION IV
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AID OPERATION OF SYSTEM
The system was designed to operate automatically and to take as little
space as possible. It was designed to handle the wastewaters from a
swine production unit with a capacity of 500 pigs and 10 sow unit. The
system was put together as a combination of several unit operations.
Figure 1 is a schematic presentation of the flow of materials from the
confinement building to the various unit operations and the return of
the treated water for flushing the gutters of the building. Figure 2
shows the physical arrangement of the various units of the plant, and
Figure 3 shows views of the total plant and various components of it.
Blueprints giving details of the construction of the wastewater plant
and its components are given in Appendix B.
Briefly, the system and components operate as follows:
The flushed wastewater is pumped over a screen which separates solids
from liquids. The solids are aerobically digested, deodorized, and
stored before final disposal onto agriculturally productive land.
The liquids separated at the screen are discharged into an oxidation
ditch for treatment. Ditch-mixed liquor is clarified in a settling tank
and the supernatant is recycled through the building gutters as flushing
water. Provisions to disinfect the recycled water for odor and disease
control can be incorporated into the system. Also, in case of infec-
tious disease outbreak, filtered water from a deep well can be connected
to the system -for flushing the shallow gutters where animals would have
access to the flushing water.
DESIGN OF SYSTEM UNITS
Details on the design parameters considered and the final values used
are given for each of the major units of the total system.
-------
WELL
FLUSHED
n OVERFLOW fcu.MT V WASTES
BYPASS
_ INFLUENT
FLUSHING
TANKS
BUILDING
SOLIDS
SCREEN
OXIDATION
DITCH
/ AEROBIC \
0
V DIGESTER I
WASTE
SOLIDS
TO
FIELD
9VERFLOV?~f~^ PUMP
Figure 1. A schematic of the flow lines of waste materials
from the confinement building to the waste treat-
ment units and back to the building for reflushing
-------
OXIDATION DITCH
Figure 2. The unit operations of the treatment plant are arranged to conserve
space and construction materials and to permit prefabrication of
the system and its components
-------
Overall view of animal unit
and treatment plant
b. Top view of treatment plant
in operation
c. Visitors are shown the
anaerobic digester
equipment and screen
Automated
& Pollution
DEMON
d. E. Harris, EPA Project Officer;
R. K. White, Principal Investi-
gator; E. Paul Taiganides,
Project Director, on opening
day of treatment plant in front
of tableau indicating project
cooperators
Figure 3- The treatment plant as seen on April 22, 1971, when
it was first put in operation
!}
-------
a. Layout of confinement unit
NURSERY GROWING WEIGHING
a FEED
FINISHING
SHALLOW GUTTEK
Siphoning begins when water Level
reaches 56cm
BELL
30 cm Height
30 cm Diam,
d. Design details of siphon
bell for a 10-cm pipe
b. Automatic siphon
tanks as installed
above gutter No. 2
c. Cutaway of automatic siphon
showing location bell
inside tank
Figure U. Animal unit layout and flushing system arrangement
-------
Animal Unit
The layout of animal building is shown in Figure h. It is a complete
confinement unit housing a total of 500 pigs. Pigs are brought into the
nursery section when they weigh about 10 kg (22 Ib). At 20 kg (hh Ib)
the pigs are moved into the growing section and from there into the two
fattening-finishing sections of the unit. Pigs are marketed when they
weigh 100 kg (220 Ib).
Building dimensions are 11 m (36 ft) wide by hO.Q m (l^h ft) long.
There are 6 pens in the nursery, 10 in the growing section, and 2h in
the finishing section. Pens in the finishing section are 1.8 m (6 ft)
wide by 4-9 m (16 ft) long.
Except for gutter No. 1, all gutters are 1.2 m (h ft) deep and are
covered with 1.8 m (6 ft) slotted floors. Gutter No. 1 is shallow, 1 m
(3 ft) wide and 5 cm (2 inches) deep. The slope of the gutters is 0.3%.
Flushing
The swine wastes are flushed from under slats in the nursery, growing,
and one side of the finishing sections (see Figure ha). The other side
of the finishing section (No. 1 in Figure ha) had a dunging channel
along the outside wall.
The flushing system was designed to work on four-hour intervals when
flushing beneath the slatted areas and on an hourly interval through the
dunging channel. Two types of flushing devices were used: an automatic
siphon and a tip tank. The tip tank was used only in the nursery area,
and it consisted of a triangular-shaped tank which would right itself
when it tipped because of a shift in the center of gravity as the water
was discharged. Approximately 3?8 I (100 gal) of water were flushed
each time the tank tipped.
The components of the automatic siphon are shown in Figures he and hd.
Figure ha shows the tank installed over Gutter No. 2. As the water
level rises in the tank, the air in the valve is compressed and forces
water standing in the trap out the discharge pipe. When the water
standing in the trap is completely removed, air will then enter the bell
reducing the pressure, which initiates the siphoning action. The
capacity of the siphon tanks used for pits No. 3 and 4 were 756.8 e,
(200 gal) and for pits No. 1 and 2 were 1135-3 1, (300 gal). The daily
amount of water used for flushing was designed to be 20,435-2 &
(5^00 gal) or 41.6 S, per pit (ll gal/pig).
Sump
The water and the waste flushed from the building flowed by gravity to
a common sump which has a capacity of 8.8 m3 (2330 gal). The sump
13
-------
construction details are given in Appendix B. A self -priming pump,
located on top of the sump tank, was capable of handling solids up to
5 cm (1-95 in.) in diameter and was set to run at 302.7 ,0/min (80 gal/
min). A gate valve was located in the discharge line to control the
flow rate. The sump could be used as a storage tank, in case of failure
of the treatment plant. It was also designed with a large opening at
the top so its contents could be pumped out with a tank wagon for field
spreading. Additionally, the gutters beneath the slotted floors in the
building have storage capacity of several months if no flushing water
were used.
Screen
The original screen had a 60-mil (O.OoO-inch) spacing which did not
separate a large enough fraction of the solids for treatment in the
aerobic digester; it was replaced with a ^O-mil (O.O^O-inch) screen.
The screen is manufactured by Bauer Bros. Co., Springfield, Ohio, and is
marketed under the trade name Hydraseive. Details of the installation
of the screen are given in Appendix B.
Aerobic Digester
The aerobic digester is h.3 m (lk ft) in diameter and 2 m (6.5 ft) deep
(see Appendix B for construction details). Liquid depth in the tank,
from 2 m maximum to 1.5 m minimum, is controlled by weir. Digested
solids overflow into the storage tank. The tank may be emptied into
the storage tank by opening a gate valve located at the bottom of the
tank (see Appendix B).
Solids Storage
After the solids are stabilized in the aerobic digester, they are dis-
charged into the solids storage tanks . These tanks are designed with a
detention time of 20 days . The total volume of the storage tanks is
lH,8l6 I (11,050 gal).
There are two tanks, each 3-U m (11 ft) wide, b.2 m (lU ft) long, and
1.5 m (5 ft) deep, each with a 1.2 m (k ft) deep hoppered bottom. The
hoppered bottom of each tank is designed to allow for ease of removing
the tank contents. A 20-cm (8-inch) pipe is connected to the bottom of
each tank and extends above the liquid level of the tank (see Appendix
B ) . Tank wagons connect to these pipes for the removal of the solids
and their disposal onto the surrounding cropland.
Oxidation Ditch
The volume of the liquid in the oxidation ditch at 1.2^ m depth of flow
is 10? m3 (3780 ft3). The ditch length is kl m (15^ ft), and it is
14
-------
1.8 m (6 ft) wide. Surface area of the ditch is 86 m2 (925 ft2).
Volume can be varied by varying liquid depth. (See Appendix B for more
details.)
Aeration Equipment
A 1.5-m (5-ft) long rotor was installed in the south side of the ditch
as is shown in Appendix B. It is 70 cm (27.3 in.) in diameter and is
rated to aerate 1 kg (2.2 Ib) BOD/m/hr at 70 rpm and 15 cm (5.85 in.)
of immersion. It is driven by a 5-hp motor running at 1750 rpm on
3-phase, 60-Hz, 230 V line. A fiberglass shield was placed over the
brush rotor to control splashing. Figure 5 shows the various aeration
equipment used.
The rotor was imparting a velocity in the mixed liquor exceeding 30 cm/s
(1 ft/s*), so an adjustable 30-cm (l ft) baffle was installed 5.5 m
(18 ft) below the rotor.
During the cold winter months, the brush rotor was replaced with an
Aerob-o-jet. Figure 5 shows how this device was installed both in the
oxidation ditch and in the aerobic digester.
In the aerobic digester, initially, aeration was accomplished with the
Licom. As shown in Figures 3 and 5? the device was supported on an
overhead cable and immersed into the solid slurry. Aeration and mixing
were accomplished by an impeller on the end of a shaft passing through
a pipe. The impeller was immersed approximately 60 cm (23.4 in.) into
the solid slurry. As the impeller was turned in the slurry, a vortex
was created which drew air through the pipe and dispersed it into the
slurry.
The motors were wound for different voltage and cycles than that at the
waste facility. However, even after having the motors rewound, con-
tinued problems were encountered with overheating and excessive vibra-
tion. The Licom was replaced with an Aerob-o-get, shown in Figure 5.
The propeller is attached to a hollow shaft and driven by a 3-hp motor.
This unit was immersed approximately 60 cm with the propeller shaft
pointed directly down in the center of the aerobic digester. As the
propeller turned, a vortex was created which drew air through the hollow
shaft and dispersed it out into the slurry. Fine air bubbles which
aerated the slurry were produced.
Clarifier
The clarifier is a circular tank Ik.3 m2 (l^k ft2) in surface area,
k.3 m (Ik ft) in diameter, and 1.5 m (5 ft) deep with hoppered bottom
which is 2 m (6.6 ft) deep with 1:1 side slopes. A peripheral saw-
tooth weir I3.k m (kk ft) long is fastened to the sides of the tank.
15
-------
b. Licom aerator in operation in
aerobic digester tank
a. View of rotor in operation
showing occurrence of
typical foam; picture also
shows baffle and cover over
rotor to control splashing
c. Aerob-o-jet in operation in aerobic
digester--view from north east
d. Aerob-o-jet in operation
in aerobic digester--view
from west
Figure 5. Aeration devices used in the oxidation ditch
and aerobic digester
16
-------
Supernatant flows over the weir into the clear well from where it is
pumped up to the animal unit for recycling.
Mixed liquor from the oxidation ditch entered the clarifier in the
center and was directed downward by a 1 m (3 ft) diameter baffle (see
Appendix B). The level of the liquid in the oxidation ditch was con-
trolled by a telescoping valve in the inlet to the clarifier as shown
in Appendix B.
The bottom of the clarifier was hoppered and settled solids were re-
cycled to the oxidation ditch by means of air-lift pump. The capacity
of the air pump was k$.2 I (13 gal/min). The solids concentration in
the oxidation ditch was controlled by wasting settled sludge to the
aerobic digester tank. The rate of sludge being wasted was controlled
by the time the air-lift pump was allowed to pump into the aerobic
digester. The usual time was 50 minutes per day which would waste
2.5 m3 (650 gal)/day.
Clear Well
Overflow from the final clarifier was conveyed into the 378^-3-^
(1000-gal) clear well tank. The location of the clear well within the
plant and details on the overflow pipe and drainage pipes are given in
Appendix B. The capacity of the clear well was not sufficient, so
additional storage was added by installing a 5-7 m3 (1500 gal) concrete
tank on the north side of the clear well and connecting the two tanks
with a 10-cm (U-inch) pipe.
Liquid from the clear well was pumped back into the animal unit through
a 5-cm (2-inch) pipe (see Appendix B). The recirculation pump is
located in the dry well as is shown in the construction plans in
Appendix B. The pumping rate of this pump was approximately 75-7 A
(20 gal/min).
Overflow from clear well was discharged into a grassed waterway north
of the pliant, as shown in Appendix B. At the end of the overflow line,
a recording parshall flume was installed to measure the quantities of
wastewater overflow.
SYSTEM OPERATION
A comprehensive program to monitor the operation by personal observa-
tions and periodic sampling was inaugurated soon after completion of the
construction of the plant. The data collected are reported in this
section; results of the analyses of the data are presented in the next
section. This section also outlines chronologically some of the most
important events and the procedures used in data collection and inter-
pretation.
17
-------
Period of Operation
The waste treatment plant was started up for full operation on April 22,
1971. It has been operating ever since except for times it has been
shut down for repairs or maintenance, which did not exceed a few days
at a time. The plant was inoperative for a period of approximately two
months between January 19, to March 22, 1972. A severe snow storm with
air temperatures well below freezing caused the inlet pipe from the sump
to the screen to burst. Figure 6 shows the effects of freezing weather
on the plant operation. For the winters of 1973 and 197^ all pipes,
equipment, and the oxidation ditch itself were covered with plywood
sheets prior to the advent of freezing weather. The plant operated con-
tinuously during the winter months of 1973 and 197^-
A change in the aeration of the oxidation ditch during winter months was
accomplished by replacing the brush rotor with an Aerob-o-jet. The
advantages of the Aerob-o-jet were (a) air was introduced into the mixed
liquor below the liquid surface without splashing water into the air,
and (bj the air was heated as it moved around the motor on its way
through the cylinder tube to the propeller. Thus, it became possible to
maintain temperatures considerably above freezing in the oxidation
ditch. On the other hand, the rotor tended to aggravate the temperature
problem because it threw the mixed liquor up into the air thus exposing
the liquor to freezing temperatures.
The plant is fully operational to this date (September, 197*0; however,
systematic sampling ceased at the end of May, 197^- Three full years
of sampling data were collected. Originally, the treatment plant was
to be constructed and tested for a period of only one year. However,
because of the significant effect of cold temperature on the operation
of a biological treatment system such as the one in this project, an
extension of the test period was solicited and was granted.
Mode of Operation
The total system was operated by farm personnel; at no time did
University personnel operate the plant. University personnel outlined
general guidelines for the operation of the plant, and it was left up
to the farm personnel to implement those guidelines. Through weekly
sampling and visits by University personnel, the operation of the plant
was monitored and changes in operation were made.
The plant operator was the swine herdsman, who observed plant operation
every day, turned valves to waste final clarifier sludge, took required
readings from recording equipment, ran a limited number of tests, and
recorded on project logs the time spent on routine activities, any
unusual events, and any malfunctions he had noticed. If a major piece
of equipment or component of the system was not operating properly, then
the swine herdsman would talk to his immediate supervisors or call
18
-------
a. Ice formation over rotor during winter
1972. when ditch had not been covered
b. Snow-covered plant in winter 197^- continued
to operate thanks to plywood cover of plant
and changes in aeration system
Figure 6. Winter operation exposed plant to
extreme cold and snow conditions
19
-------
the project personnel. If the malfunction could be repaired by farm or
company personnel, the repair was done without consulting University
personnel. However, if the repair required purchase of major equipment,
project personnel would be asked to decide on a course of action.
At first, the plant operator was required to fill out a report only when
something unusual had occurred or was happening. For example, when
excessive foaming was occurring, the operator would file a report, but
not if everything was functioning normally. During the last year of
operation, from March 29, 1973, to March 8, 197^, a daily operating re-
port was completed by the plant operator. In these daily reports, the
operator would check for foaming conditions, record flow meter readings,
estimate additions of water to the treatment plant from well water, the
conditions of the screen, changes in levels of liquids in the various
components of the system, equipment failures, etc. These forms were
picked up by the University technician once a week at the time of the
sample collection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Both farm and University people collected data. Generally, samples re-
quiring laboratory testing and evaluation were collected by University
personnel on a weekly basis. Samples were transported to Columbus,
Ohio, within a few hours after collection.
Samples were stored in a refrigerator where temperature was maintained
at 2-^°C. However, most tests were set up on the same day or within
2k hours after the sample was collected. In some cases, a few days
would elapse between sampling and actual testing.
Besides weekly sampling, composite samples for several consecutive days
were collected occasionally. On the other hand, all points were not
sampled every week. The plant operators also collected data and, in
some cases, took samples.
Data were also collected in the laboratory and in other field installa-
tions . The laboratory studies were conducted mainly to obtain biologi-
cal treatment parameters by using laboratory models. Field
installations and laboratory models were used to collect data on compo-
nents of the system; for example, two types of screens for the separa-
tion of solids in untreated wastewater were investigated at an
installation on The Ohio State University's Don Scott Farm.
Sampling Points
Samples have been taken on a systematic basis at 13 points. Nine of
these points were sampled to monitor the operation and efficiencies of
the treatment system components. The other four points were sampled to
20
-------
monitor the impact of the system on the surrounding environment. Most
of the samples were grab samples.
Figure 7 shows the location of various sampling points on the total
system. Table 1 gives the sampling period and frequency for each
sampling point plus the type of sample and the parameters for which the
samples were analyzed.
Sample Analyses
Samples were analyzed to determine their physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics. Standard methods of procedure were gener-
ally used except where noted below. The analyses .were not comprehensive
but were limited to major engineering parameters (see Table l). The
major physical parameters for which the samples were tested were Volume
(V), Specific Gravity (SG), Total Solids (TS), Total Volatile Solids
(TVS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Total Fixed Solids (TFS), and
Temperature (T).
The major chemical tests run were Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Hydrogen
Ion Concentration (pH), Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD), Total Nitrogen (TN), Ammonia Nitrogen (NH3) and other forms of
nitrogen, Conductivity (c), and Alkalinity (A).
Biological examination of samples consisted of total counts of hetero-
trophic aerobic/formulative bacteria and of indicator coliform bacteria.
Data were collected for one full year—October, 1972, to November, 1973-
The biological tests and their interpretation were made by Dr. Robert
Miller, Professor of Soil Microbiology, Department of Agronomy, The
Ohio State University.
Except for the biological tests, all other analyses were made by
technicians in the Agricultural Pollution Control Research Laboratory
of the Department of Agricultural Engineering, The Ohio State
University, under the supervision of the project director and investi-
gators .
Test Procedures
Unless otherwise indicated, the analyses of the samples were made
according to standard procedures given in the 12th Edition of "Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater."16
For the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) test the standard procedure of
filtration through an asbestos mat in a Grooch crucible (ref. 16,
p. k2h) was used until May, 1973- After that a less cumbersome proce-
dure was used. A kO-ml sample was placed in a centrifuge tube for 10
minutes with the centrifuge running at U200 rpm. The solids at the
bottom of the tube were washed with distilled water into a crucible of
21
-------
/V«— SAMPLING POINT
to
o
ui
o
o
UI
cc
BARN
SUMP
SCREENED
.SOLIDS/^
'SCREEN
AEROBIC
DIGESTER
SOLIDS
STORAGE
SOLIDS TO
FIELD
T
MAGNETIT
LOW METER
*-L
z
UJ
L_
L 2 -
\ ,/v — nJ
\
'
" UJ
en
%
RECYCLE
SLUDGE"
SLUDGE
'-A, :
V_^
OVERFLOW
/jv
ROTOR
OXIDATION DITCH
AEROB-0-JETS
/ FOR WINTERS
\ OPERATION /
FLUSH WATER
PARSHAL FLUME
FLOW METER
//'
***&&>
CLARIFIER
CLEAR
WELL
FLOW METER
Figure ?• Location of sampling points in the treatment plant system
-------
Table 1. SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS. OF SAMPLES
TAKEN AT THE SAMPLING POINT
Sampling
point no.
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Name
Influent to
oxidation ditch
Mixed liquor of
oxidation ditch
Effluent; recycled
for flushing
Activated sludge
Digestor content
Production unit
effluent
Digestor effluent
Digestor influent
Well water
Creek-upstreem
Creek-downstream
Creek-tile
effluent
Sampling period,
mo/yr to mo/yr
6/71 - 5/71*
6/71 - 5M
6/71 - 5M
6/71 - 5M ,
6/71 - 5/74
V72 - 7/73
7/73 - 9/73
7/73 - 9/73
7/71 - 5/74
7/71 - 5/71*
7/71 - 5/74
Type of
Sample
Grab ft
Composite
Grab &
Composite
Grab &
Composite
Grab &
Composite
Crab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Frequency
of sample
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Occasional
Weekly
Occasional
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Parameters for which
tested (So. of tests)
BonOo6), ron(U2),
T3(lll*), TVS(lll),
TSa(2't), 0(16),
BOD(9l(), COD(96),
TS(103), TVS(lOl),
TSS(9!*), SV(122),
C(60), A(55), pH(122),
T(122), D0(120)
BOD(117), COD(120),
TS(119), TVStll1*),
TSS(UO), C(38),
T(122), pH(122)
BOD(6), COD(9),
IS (80), TVS (76)
BOD(l8), COD(18),
TS(75), Tvs(8l),
T( ), pH( )
BODftl), CODC*7),
TS(82), TVS(77),
TSS(63-)
BOD(7), COD(7),
TS(7), TVS(7)
BOD(12), COD(13),
TS(13), TVS (13)
IS, C, A
BOD(1*9), COD(l+5),
TS(57), TVS(48)
BOD(53), COD(50),
TS(59), TVS(5l)
BOD(50), COD(l+7),
TS(57), TVS(50)
23
-------
known weight and placed in a 103°C oven for 12 to 16 hours. It was then
weighed and the TSS were calculated. To determine volatile and fixed
suspended solids, the crucible would then be placed in a 600°C furnace
for 30 minutes and reweighed.
A shorter version of the procedure for the determination of COD was used
in the bench scale treatment apparatus used for the determination of
microbial kinetic parameters. This short test for COD takes 15 to 20
minutes vs. 2 to 3 hours for the standard procedure (ref. 16, p. 510).
However, comparable values were obtained. The short COD test is accom-
plished as follows: place 25 ml of oxidizing agent [dissolve 2.5 g of
potassium dichromate (K2CR207) in 25 ml of distilled water and add
500 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2S04) and 500 ml of concentrated
phosphoric acid (H3P04)] in a 125-ml Erlenmeyer flask; add also 0.05 g
silver sulfate (Ag2S04); add 1 to 5 ml of sample to the flask and heat
to 165°C for 3 to 5 minutes; rinse flask several times with 200 ml of
distilled water and transfer contents to a 500-ml Erlenmeyer flask;
allow flask to reach room temperature; add 5 drops of ferroin indicator
and titrate with 0.1N ferrous ammonium sulfate Fe(804)2(NH.±)2. (See
ref. 16 p. 512 for preparation of this reagent.) A blank sample should
also be run; the difference in titer multiplied by the normality of
titrants, times 8,000, divided by number of ml of sample would give COD
value as in Standard Methods (ref. 16, p. 51*0-
Total counts of aerobic/facultative bacteria were made on glucose-yeast
extract agar and nutrient agar using standard dilution planting tech-
niques (ref. 16, p. 592). Triplicate plates were prepared from each of
the three dilutions of each sample. Prepared plates were incubated for
7 days at 26°C before counting.
Counts of the three basic "indicator bacteria"—total coliforms, fecal
colifors, and fecal streptococci—were made on appropriate dilutions of
the waste samples using Membrane Filtration Techniques.17 Prepared
ampules of M-Endo MF Broth and M-FC Broth17 were used for total and
fecal coliforms, respectively. M-Enterococcus agar used for fecal
streptococcus counts was prepared from BBL dehydrated medium.17
24
-------
SECTION V
EVALUATION OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS
The total system was put together by combining several unit operations.
The major components of the system may be categorized as follows:
(a) Waste Collection and Transport, (b) Primary Treatment, (c) Secondary
Treatment, and (d) Tertiary Treatment. Each system component consisted
of one or more unit operations designed to meet specific objectives.
To determine whether unit operations should be added or deleted, sub-
projects were developed for intensive evaluation.
The objectives of each unit operation and a brief description of the
results of the evaluation made to determine whether those objectives
were met will be given in this section. Results of the overall system
will be given in Section VI.
WASTE COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT
During the three years of operation of the animal production unit, the
wastes produced inside the building were removed by the flushing water
which was running down the shallow gutter or the channels beneath the
slotted floors. While the flushing system was operating, it never be-
came necessary to remove the waste from the building any other way. As
shown in Figure 8, pigs tended to use the gutter for defecation. At
times some individual pig pens had problems. The pigs would defecate
by their sleeping or feeding areas. In such cases, the swine herdsman
had to occasionally scrape the droppings into the gutter or into the
slotted floors.
In order to train the pigs to use the gutter, when they were first moved
into the building, the frequency of the gutter flushing was high. After
the pigs learned to use the shallow gutter, then the flushing frequency
could be reduced. Generally, however, there appeared to be no problem
and the system was adequate in removing the waste from the building
without much additional effort on the part of the swine herdsman.
25
-------
a. Pigs soon learn to urinate and
defecate on the dunging alley
b. Flushing underneath the slotted gutter
proved effective in the removal of the
wastes. Animals stayed cleaner; pens
never had to be cleaned manually
Figure 8. Hydraulic cleaning and transport
of wastes from animal unit
26
-------
Nuisance Gases
To evaluate whether waste collection was accomplished without creating
a nuisance, changes in certain air constituents in the building were
measured while changing the frequency of flushing.
A Draeger Multi Gas Detector was used to measure C02, H2S, NH3, and
(C2H5)3N levels at three locations; i.e., over the shallow gutter
(No. 1 in Figure Va), over the slats in the finishing unit (No. 2 in
Figure 4a), and over the slats in the growing unit (No. 3 in Figure ka).
Samples were analyzed while flushing intervals were varied from high
rate (36-^3 min between flushes), to medium (ij-5-66 min between flushes),
and to low (75-88 min between flushes).
Table 2 and Figure 9 present results from the gas detector analysis.
Over the shallow gutter the triethylamine concentration varies approxi-
mately with the flow rate but over the slats in both the finishing and
growing units, the triethylamine concentration does not correlate to the
flushing rate. The NH3 level seems to be independent of flush rate
within the limited range studied. It appears that the carbon dioxide
level was generally lower over the shallow gutter than it was over the
deep slatted gutters. The Draeger equipment was unable to detect any
hydrogen sulfide or dimethylsulfate in either place. Table 2 indicates
that the average gas levels of (C2H5)3N and NH3 were higher (2Q% and
38%, respectively) over the slats in the growing unit than in the
finishing unit. This could be attributed to several factors, including
lower flushing frequencies, lower ventilation rates, and higher protein
feeds in the growing section of the building.
All the nuisance gases measured were below both safety threshold and
odor threshold. For ammonia the safety threshold is 50 ppm and odor
threshold is 5 ppm. The ammonia concentration in the building did not
exceed 3 ppm. The safety threshold for C02 is 0.5$ by volume. For
H2S, the safety threshold and odor threshold are 10 and 0.1 ppm, respec-
tively.
The concentration of hydrogen sulfide was also measured using detectors
from Metronics Corp. Two types were used. The first was on a card that
is left exposed to the atmosphere for a period of time and then the
concentration determined by charts based upon color and length of expo-
sure. It measured H2S concentration at 0.0065 ppm over Gutter No. 1
and at 0.0312 ppm, or almost five times greater, over the slats in
Gutter No. 3 in the growing unit (see Figure ka.}. The second type
detector is on a round card and is spun by a piece of equipment for a
predetermined length of time and the concentration is determined by the
color of the detector after the exposure. The "Rotorod" sampler deter-
mined the H2S concentration over slats in Gutter No. 3 to be 0.0165 ppm,
or seven times larger than that measured over the shallow gutter in the
27
-------
Table 2. MEASUREMENTS OF NUISANCE GASES IN ANIMAL UNIT AT
DIFFERENT HATES OF FLUSHING
Location
Shallow
gutter
AVERAGE
Finishing
unit;
slats
AVERAGE
Growing
unit;
slats
AVERAGE
Flow rate
into siphon
tank, gal/min
2.27
2.27
3-06
4.68
4.68
3.09
3.09
4.16
6.38
6.38
2.56
2.56
4.25
5.28
5.28
Flush
interval ,
min
84.6
84.6
62.8
4l.O
41.0
88.0
88.0
65-5
42.7
42.7
75-0
75.0
45.2
36.6
36.6
{ r* u ^ AT
I vv^^S / 3^* ?
ppm
6
• 4
5
2
2
3
3.72
4
4
3
5
3
2
3.5
4
4.5
5
i(.
4.5
5
-.5
C02,
% Vol
0.08
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.095
0.10
0.14
0.15
0.10
0.11
0.08
0.113
0.05
0.09
0.10
0.11
0.10
0.15
0.110
NH3,
ppm
2
2
2
-
2
1
1.8
1
2
2
-
2
1
1.6
2
2
2
_
3
2
2.2
H2S,
ppm
0
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
0
_
0
0
0
0
_
0
_
28
-------
to
5
o"
o
0.20 r
0.15
0.10
0.05
SLOTTED GUTTER
SHALLOW GUTTER
FINISHING UNIT SLATS
1
I
I
I
J
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
FLUSHING INTERVAL (min)
80
90 100
Figure 9- Carbon dioxide concentration in animal unit over shallow
gutter and over slotted floor
-------
finishing unit. In both cases, however, the H2S concentration was below
the odor threshold of 0.1 ppm.
No mercaptans were detected in concentrations greater than 2 ppm, which
is the lower limit measurable by the equipment. The oxygen level was
determined to be greater than 20$> by volume throughout the building.
The results of measuring the effects of changing the flushing rate were
basically inconclusive. It was hoped to lower the flushing rate until
a significant difference appeared in the gas concentration levels, but
other limits came into play; e.g., the recycling lines became plugged
with settling solids and hair at low flow rates. Also, a thick floating
scum developed on the clarifier when the flow rate was reduced. From
the data that were obtained, it appears that an increase in concentra-
tion of odorous gases is not the limiting factor in designating flushing
intervals.
The lower carbon dioxide level over the shallow gutter as compared to
the deep gutter with a slatted floor is particularly interesting. The
difference may be due to waste collecting on the walls of the deep
gutter and decomposing there. This may also explain the fact that
there is no correlation as opposed to a general (though rough) correla-
tion in the shallow gutter of the triethylamine concentration with the
flushing rate.
In general the gas levels determined were all well within safety ranges
and, in most cases, below threshold odor levels. However, there is a
detectable odor inside the building. One explanation might be the
hypothesis that the sub-threshold odors have an additive effect and
their combination becomes detectable. Another explanation is that some
gases other than those measured were causing the odor.
It was concluded that the quality of the atmosphere in the building was
acceptable for both the well-being and production of the animals and
the health of the employees. Since there are no noticeable odors out-
side the building, the impact of the swine growing and finishing
building upon the surrounding air environment is insignificant from the
standpoint of odor.
Animals in Production Unit
The pigs being raised in the animal unit were being monitored by
Dr. M. Nelson, Director of Research of the Botkins Grain & Feed Co.
Checks were made by the swine herdsman for any outbreaks of disease or
unusual animal behavior. Also, routine checks were made on the quality
of the carcasses of the slaughtered animals. No evidence was uncovered
through these checks to indicate- that the waste collection and handling
system caused any significant health or economic losses. No disease
30
-------
outbreak was ever attributed to events associated with the waste manage-
ment scheme.
The pigs in the animal unit came from a closed herd. All piglets were
from the sow herd belonging to the farm; the numbers of litters and pigs
per litter are given in Table 3. No piglets were bought from other
farms. This is an important factor in the control of disease outbreaks.
If any major disease outbreaks had occurred, a microbiological analysis
of the flushing water would have been made to see whether it was the
carrier of the disease agent. Also, disinfection equipment originally
designed to introduce chlorine into the recycled water would have been
installed. This equipment was never installed for continuous operation
because no disease outbreaks nor bad health effects were observed during
the three full years of operation. Therefore, disinfection of the
recycled treated water did not become necessary. Studies at the Iowa
and Illinois Agricultural Experiment Stations18'19 on the refeeding of
aerated but not disinfected wastewaters back to the same animals pro-
duced no evidence that such procedures degraded animal performance.
As given in Table h and shown in Figure 10, the number of animals in the
production unit ranged from a minimum of 18^ to a maximum of 593? while
the total live weight ranged from 7,123 kg (15,670 Ib) to 2k,693 kg
(5^,325 Ib). The average weight of the pigs ranged from 22 to 66 kg
(h& to 1^5 Ib) per pig.
Approximately 1.8% of the animals in the building would be sold each
month and 21% new pigs would be added. Feed intake ranged from 5% of
live weight per day when the pigs weighed below 20 kg (kh Ib) to h'fo of
live weight per day for pigs averaging between 20 and 70 kg (^4 and
15^ Ib) and less than k% for heavier pigs; in other words, young pigs
ate 1 kg (2.2 lb)/day, "growing" pigs 2 kg (k.k lb)/day, and "finish-
ing" pigs 3 kg (6.6 Ib) of feed per day. Daily weight gain ranged from
0.5 to 1 kg (1.1 to 2.2 lb)/day. Feed efficiency was 3.3 kg (7-3 Ib)
of feed per kg of average weight gain. Pig feed was typical of the
feed being used in commercial confinement units, and consisted of
80-90$. corn or equivalent grain and 10-20$ feed concentrate. It took
anywhere from 11*1 to 135 days to bring weaned pigs to market weight.
Wastewater Volume
During the summer of 1972 several wastewater flow meters were installed
on a trial basis. Plugging and corrosion were the big problems. After
several trials, a 10-cm (3-9 in.) Fischer and Porter magnetic meter was
installed on the discharge line of the sump pump. This flow meter
measured the total flow from the building into the waste treatment
plant. The volume of water recycled from the clear well back to the
building for flushing was measured with a 5-cm (2-inch) rotary meter
installed in the flush water line in the dry well (see construction
plans in Appendix B). As previously pointed out, another source of
31
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE OF PIGS IN THE SWINE PRODUCTION UNIT
Year
No. of litters
Pigs/Iittera
No. of Pigsb
No. of Daysc
Av. Daily Gain
Feed Efficiency6
% Dressing
Grade, %
0
1
1971
94
8.4
856
114
0.67
3.3
73.2
15.5
48.9
1972
101
8.5
696
124
0.65
3-3
76.2
16.3
55.9
1973
112
7-2
767
135
0.55
3-3
73.9
20.0
64.5
1974
3&s
72.3
37.8
49.3
a
'Average number of pigs per litter alive after 21 days
Number of pigs marketed
nt
"Number of days it took to bring animals from weaning (20 kg; 44 Ib)
to market weight (94-100 kg; 207-220 Ib)
Average gain in kg/day
3
"Ratio of kg of feed per kg of weight gain
Carcass weight as percent of live weight
sFor the first half of the year
f
32
-------
Table 4- TOTAL AND AVERAGE LIVE WEIGHT OF PIGS PRODUCED
DURING THE THREE YEARS, 1971-1974
Date
5/1
6/2
7/1
8/1
9/2
10/2
11/1
12/1
1972
1/1
2/1
3/1
4/1
5/1
6/1
7/1
8/1
8/24
8/31
9/28
10/15
10/30
11/15
11/30
12/15
12/28
1973
_-'w-j -
1/15
1/31
2/15
2/28
3/15
3/26
4/15
4/30
5/15
No.
animals
311
263
327
345
383
376
385
352
375
282
186
184
229
219
306
363
386
347
333
293
383
308
308
370
332
381
344
367
332
322
246
330
309
346
Total live weight
kg
14,037
11,506
13,025
13,331
13,954
15,963
20,321
18,457
17,808
16, 840
12,279
11,136
8,698
7,108
11,165
14,427
17,715
15,629
16,130
15,994
14,906
13,594
14,223
17,074
15,039
17,940
18,616
19,983
19,663
18,621
12,465
13,780
10, 9^7
13,288
Ib
30,945
25,366
28,714
29,390
30,763
35,192
44,800
40,690
39,26o
37,125
27,070
24,550
19,175
15,670
24,615
31,805
39,055
34,455
35,560
35,260
32,861
29,970
31,355
37,642
33,155
39,550
4l,o4o
44,055
43,350
41,052
27,480
30,380
24,134
29,295
Average live weight
kg/Pig
45
44
40
39
36
43
53
53
48
60
66
60
38
33
36
40
46
45
49
54
39
44
46
46
45
47
54
54
59
58
51
42
35
39
Ib/pig
100
96
88
85
80
94
116
116
105
132
146
133
84
72
80
88
101
99
107
120
86
97
102
102
100
104
119
120
131
127
112
92
78
85
33
-------
Table 4 (continued).
TOTAL AND AVERAGE LIVE WEIGHT OF PIGS PRODUCED
DURING THE THREE YEARS, 1971-1974
Date
1973
5/30
6/15
6/27
7/15
7/30
9/15
9/28
10/29
ll/l
11/15
11/30
12/15
12/28
1974
1/15
1/29
2/15
2/27
3/15
3/28
4/15
4/20
5/15
5/29
No.
394
352
332
332
304
356
449
377
320
415
366
374
319
354
305
448
532
548
520
505
538
506
593
Total live weight
kg
13,875
14,769
14,810
15,350
15,604
19,950
18,888
18,593
13,216
16,354
14,429
14,545
15,205
17,516
15,032
17,547
18,475
19,582
17,507
17,223
18,960
20,038
24,642
lb
30,588
32,560
32,650
33,840
34,400
43,982
4l, 641
4o,990
29,135
36,055
31,810
32,065
33,520
38,615
33,140
38,685
40,730
43,170
38,595
37,970
41,800
44,175
54,325
Average live weight
kg/Pig
35
42
44
46
51
56
42
49
4l
39
39
39
48
49
49
39
35
36
34
34
35
39
42
lb/pig
78
92
98
102
113
124
93
109
91
87
87
86
105
109
109
86
77
79
74
75
78
87
92
34
-------
OS
01
I I I I I I I I I I I
600
500
- 400
- 300
200
100
u_
o
o:
LU
CO
YEAR
Figure 10. Animal population and total live weight in swine production unit
-------
liquid into the system was well water. Well water was used to dilute
the oxidation ditch mixed liquor when concentration of key nutrients or
parameters exceeded optimum levels in the oxidation ditch. Also, well
water was used to make up for evaporation losses from the oxidation
ditch during the summer. Furthermore, water would be sprinkled on the
animals on hot days from a pipe laid across the full length of the
building. The amount of water added either for dilution or for make up
of evaporation losses or for sprinkling purposes was estimated by
recording the time of flow. Because the well pump was operating under
constant pressure, the amount of water discharged was proportional to
the time the water line was open.
From August 7 to September 13, 1973, the total amount of flushing water
going into the building and the total wastewater volume coming out of
the production unit were measured. Also during this 37-day period, the
volume of water added by the sprinkler from well water was estimated.
These measurements indicated that the average daily waste generated by
the pigs amounted to 213*4- t (56U gal)/day. The number of animals in the
building during the measurement period varied from 30k to 356, the
average being 332. The average live weight of the animals was 53.5 kg
(118 Ib). The volume of wastewater generated by the animals is esti-
mated to be 12 ,0/day per 100 kg of live weight (1.4 gal/day per
100 Ib/pig). This volume of wastewater contains wasted feed, spilled
water from drinking outlets, and urine and feces defecated by the
animals. On weight basis, the wastewater generated daily from the
building is estimated as 10-12$ of live weight per day, while theoreti-
cally urine and feces are produced at the rate of 5$ of live weight per
day.3
The total daily volume of wastewater flushed out of the building and
into the treatment system was determined to average 58 m3
(15,^00 gal)/day. On a per animal basis this average daily flow
amounted to 330 ,0/day per 100 kg pig (kO gal/day per 100 Ib pig). The
range for these two parameters was from 39 m3 (10,000 gal)/day to
106 m3 (28,100 gal)/day. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of the
wastewater.
PRIMARY TREATMENT
The purpose of the primary treatment was to separate settleable solids,
stabilize them, and dispose of them.
The main unit operations involved in primary treatment were the surge
tank for the collection of all wastewaters, solids separation, aerobic
digestion of solids, solids storage, and solids disposal. Both field
and laboratory tests were made to test the technical performance of
solids-separating devices. Two types of aerating devices were used for
the aerobic digestion of the solids. The solids were removed from the
36
-------
Table 5. CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER FLUSHED OUT OF THE
ANIMAL PRODUCTION UNIT
Parameter
Volume*
ii
t!
Total Solids (TS)
it ii
Volatile Solids (TVS)
it it
Suspended Solids (TSS)
ii it
BOD
it
COD
it
Units
£/day
gal/day
gal/day per
100 Ib pig
mg/,0
kg/day
mg/e
kg/day
mg/0
kg/day
mg/,0
kg/day
mg/0
kg/day
Range
37,850-106,359
(10,000- 28,100)
2,100- 3U,UOO
1,0^0- 27,900
5^0- 17,200
390- 6,160
550- 28,100
Average
58,289
(15,^00)
ko
8,500
U95
7,233
1*22
M36
253
1,530
89
6,362
371
^Majority of wastewater volume is the recycled effluent of treatment
plant
37
-------
storage tanks with a vacuum pump attached to a 5676-liter (1500 gal)
tank wagon. The tank wagon would be backed up and connected to the out-
let pipes and the solids would be sucked into the tank and spread in the
fields every 3 to 4 weeks. At times of bad weather the solids storage
tanks would overflow back into the oxidation ditch. The overflow was
usually clear and of good quality.
Surge Tank
The first operation involved the collection of the wastewater in a sump
tank from which the wastewater was pumped up to the stilling basin of
the screen. The pumping rate was measured to be 284 S, (75 gal)/min. At
this pumping rate the flow over the stationary screen was at the design
level of 6 ,0/cm (4 gal/in.) of screen width.
Only once during a freezing storm, when a pipe burst, did the pump
break down and require repairs. On several occasions the pipe line
plugged, but it was an easy task to unplug the pipes. To protect the
pump and associated piping, a covering structure was erected over the
pump assembly. The covering building, constructed of plywood with
styrofoam insulation, proved adequate for the winters of 1973 an
-------
a. Screen in the forward just before
receiving liquid from the surage
sump tank shown in the background
b. Side view of screen with
liquid flowing over
screen surface
c. Solids separated from
liquid by screen
d. Close up of screen showing spacing
of openings (hO mils) and nature
of solids being screened out
Figure 11. Stationary screen in operation
39
-------
Furthermore, vibrating screen h6 cm (l8 in.) in diameter and with a
surface area of 1639 cm2 (25^ in.2) was tested. The reason for testing
a vibrating screen and also investigating a sedimentation cylinder
was the need to develop data to allow selection of alternate methods
of solids separation.
Stationary Screen—Table 6 is a summary of solids removal efficiencies
obtained with the hydrasieve screen of the type used in the treatment
plant. There was great variability in the data. Studies at the plant
site showed even greater variability. The test results indicate that
the smaller size screen (0.10 cm opening spacing) consistently gave
better efficiencies at low loading rates around 120 l (32 gal)/min. At
that rate the screen produced a liquid effluent with 65% of the influent
TS, 59/o of the influent TVS, and 3&% and 31% of the influent BOD and
BOD, respectively. The optimum results for the larger screen (0.15-cm
opening spacing) give best efficiencies at loading rates in the range
of 180 to 200 g, (If8 to 53 gal)/min.
In determining changes in the volume flow rate brought about by the
screen, the value of O.k% removal of flow volume will be used. If the
average daily volume flow from the animal unit is 58,300 g, (15,^00 gal)/
day (see Table 5) then the daily flow rate into the ditch would be
99.6f0 of that, or 58,070 g, (15,3^5 gal)/day, while the volume diverted
into the solids digester tank is 230 g, (60 gal)/day. The character-
istics-of the liquid effluent of the screen (influent of oxidation
ditch) was determined through regular sampling.
Vibrating Screen—Table 7 shows results of solids removal efficiencies
using a 46 cm (18 in.) diameter vibrating screen. There was consider-
able variability in the data and in the results, as shown in Table 7.
Analysis of the test data, as summarized in Table 7, indicates that each
screen size has an optimum application rate, which in the screens tested
was in the 67 & (l8 gal)/min range. The screen with the largest open-
ings (0.039 cm) produced the most desirable results. At an application
rate of 67 g, (l8 gal)/min solids were concentrated to l6.h% on wet
basis with only 0.6% of the inflow being retained on the screen. The
liquid effluent from the screen contained JQ% of the applied TS, 72^ of
the applied TVS, and 8k% of the applied COD. The remaining would be
retained in the separated solids.
Cylinder Sedimentation--Figure 12 shows the sedimentation cylinder used
for the laboratory studies2"1 which were run to develop design data for
various methods of solids separation. The cylinder represents the
settling out of solids in a sedimentation tank which may be used in a
treatment plant instead of a screen.
40
-------
Table 6- RESULTS OF EFFICIENCY OF SOLIDS REMOVAL BY STATIONARY SCREEN
(EFFICIENCY REPRESENTS PERCENT RETAINED ON SCREEN
AND THUS DIVERTED TO SOLIDS DIGESTER)
Parameter
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Flow volume
TS volume
TS eonc.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Loading rate
,0/min
123
it
it
tt
it
ti
183
it
11
it
ti
tt
235
it
tt
it
it
ti
313
tt
it
it
tt
tt
,0/min per m
352
it
it
ti
tt
tt
526
tt
tt
ti
ti
tt
675
it
tt
it
ti
ti
897
it
n
it
n
1!
Units
% Inflow
tt tt
% Wet basis
% Inflow
n n
n tt
% Inflow
tt tt
% Wet basis
% Inflow
n tt
n ii
% Inflow
it n
% Wet basis
fo Inflow
n n
n n
% Inflow
n n
% Wet basis
% Inflow
it tt
n n
Size of
0.10
2.1
35.2
9-1
21.5
62.2
69.1
2.9
25.8
7.2
30.5
38.1*
63.8
2.5
27-5
7.6
33-7
51-7
71.1
0.6
11.3
6.9
13-7
13-7
51.6
openings, cm
0.15
0.1*
3.0
10.9
17.7
13.9
11. U
0.3
1*.2
6.1*
0.9
U.I
11.5
0.3
9.8
6.0
5.3
3^.0
2U. 2
0.1*
1*.2
6.0
5.6
5.6
i
24.1
41
-------
Table 7. RESULTS OP SOLIDS REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES BY VIBRATING SCREEN
(EFFICIENCY REPRESENTS PERCENT RETAINED ON SCREEN
AND THUS DIVERTED FROM MAIN FLOW PATH)
to
Parameter
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Flow volume
TS volume
TS cone.
TVS volume
BOD volume
COD volume
Loading rate
.g/min
41
It
II
II
It
It
67
11
tt
ti
ii
it
110
ii
11
ii
11
n
$, /min per m^
248
n
n
it
ii
11
411
11
n
11
ii
n
670
n
n
n
ii
n
Units
% Inflow
n n
% Wet basis
% Inflow
n n
n ii
% Inflow
H II
% Wet basis
% Inflow
n n
n n
% Inflow
n it
% Wet basis
fo Inflow .
n n
n n
Size of openings, cm
0.012
0.2
2.5
5.7
3.3
—
1.2
13.8
8.5
18.5
__
--
2.1
18.7
4.8
42.8
—
""•""M
0.017
0.5
5.8
3.9
8.4
—
3.3
0.7
14.0
10.9
17.0
—
15-3
0.8
1.8
1.9
2.4
__
12.5
0.021
2.8
14.3
8.7
12.4
^.5
16.3
0.7
9-8
10.8
12.9
2.4
8.9
0.9
7.0
4.8
9.0
3.9
10.7
0.039
0.4
12.6
12.2
4.3
—
10.0
0.6
22.2
16.4
28.1
__
16.1
1.6
12.3
4.9
17.2
--
12.2
-------
Direction of Air
Flow
Air Cooling Coils
Water Bath
for Water
Temperature
Control
Plexiglass Cylinder
6' (183 cm) Long,
7.75"(19.7cm) Diameter
Fan for Air Flow
• Constant
Temperature Air Space
0.125"(3mm) Outlet-
outlets onl2"(30.5cm)
Centers with First 6"
(15.2cm)from Top
Clamp
Figure 12. Sedimentation cylinder used in laboratory investigations
of the solids separation efficiencies of settling tanks
43
-------
The sedimentation cylinder was used to study the settling character-
istics of slurries with suspended solids (TSS) concentrations varying
from 0.5% to U.0%.
Figure 13 shows that with a detention time of 30 minutes in the sedimen-
tation cylinder, 73% of the original TSS and **5% of the original COD are
removed from the slurry with less than 5 S/& (0.05 lb/gal) TSS concen-
tration. Detention time longer than 30 minutes does not result in
significantly greater removals of either TSS or COD. Figure Ik shows
that for the same slurry, TSS and COD removal efficiencies decrease as
overflow rate increases.
Solids settling in slurries with an initial concentration of TSS larger
than 1% occurs as a zone settling process. Removal of solids from these
slurries is governed by unit area requirements.20 Table 8 gives unit
area requirements for slurries with initial TSS concentration larger
than 10,000 wg/g,. The tests indicated that as the initial concentration
of suspended solids increased the unit area required increased. As
higher underflow concentrations are sought, the unit area required in-
creases. After four hours of detention time, TSS removal efficiencies
were 90% for all slurries with initial concentrations of 1, 2, and 4%
TSS. This was confirmed by field tests at the Botkins treatment plant,
where TSS removal efficiencies of 9^% were achieved in the final
clarifier, irrespective of the TSS concentration of the incoming liquid.
Solids Aeration
Stabilization of the solids was to be accomplished by aerobic digestion
to produce odorless solids for disposal in the field. The aeration
device used as the Licom which had been developed in West Germany in
1969 by M. Fuchs who had promised a unit for testing in the United
States. A unit was flown to the project site in time for opening day,
April 22, 1971. Unfortunately, the unit never worked as was expected.
The device, as installed, is shown in Figures 3c and 5b. Air is drawn
through the air pipe on top, over the hot motors, and is released near
the bottom end of the propeller shaft. In tests performed at several
research institutes in West Germany,22>23>24 the Licom was shown to
raise liquid temperature to 50°C and, in some cases, as high as 56°C
during summer2'5 and 60°C when using three Licoms in series.26
Every effort to get the Licom to operate properly failed because the
motors would burn out. After rewinding the motor several times, it was
finally replaced by a new motor. The Licom operated for approximately
one month in 1973- During that time no reduction was observed in BOD,
COD, or TS. The DO remained below 1
44
-------
100 r-
Q
O
O
Q
Z
<
U.
O
o
s
UJ
o:
0.5 1.0
DETENTION TIME (hr)
1.5
Figure 13. OBS and COD removal efficiencies at various detention
times in a sedimentation tank of a slurry with
initial TSS concentration of 5000 mg/H,
45
-------
O)
100 r
£ 80
Q
O
O
Q
60
TSS
COD
40
LU
CC
20
0
L
I
I
I
I
25 50 75 100 125
(m3/day)/m2
150 175 200
Figure 1^. TSS and COD removal efficiencies at various
overflow rates in a sedimentation tank for
a slurry with initial TSS concentration of
5000
46
-------
Table 8. UNIT AREA AND OVERFLOW RATE REQUIREMENTS TO CONCENTRATE
SOLIDS TO 8/0 FOR SLURRIES WITH VARIOUS
INITIAL SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS
Initial TSS cone.
%
1
2
h
mg/j!
10,000
20,000
Uo,ooo
Unit area required
per day
id2 /ton
1.1
3.0
6.6
ft2/ton
11
29
65
Overflow rate
per day
ma/m2
89
17
U
gal/ft3
2180
1*15
92
The Licom was finally abandoned and replaced with an Aerob-o-jet
installed vertically as shown in Figures 5c and 5d. Table 9 shows that
the Aerob-o-oet did raise the liquid temperature from 15°C to 36°C
within 11 days when ambient air temperature remained below 20°C and
when operating on a batch basis. No new solids were added to the
digester tank during this period. BOD was reduced from 53000 to 2100
mg/J. When operating on a continuous basis, the Aerob-o-jet maintained
temperature in the digester higher than that in the oxidation ditch,
but only by a few degrees, as shown in Figure 15- As also shown in
Figure 15, the temperature in the digester remained well above zero.
Aerobic digestion at mesophilic temperatures was achieved by aeration
with the Aerob-o-jet. No thermophilic temperatures we're reached with
any of the aeration devices used. A simple motor equipped with a shaft
and a fertilizer mixer, shown in Figure 16, controlled odors from the
digester tank. The mixer propeller formed a vortex which apparently
drew enough air into the mixer to prevent the generation of malodors.
Control of odors with the aeration devices was effective, and the mixer
proved adequate.
Original plans were to raise the liquid temperatures to 50-70°C, not
only to compost the solids and kill pathogenic organisms but also to
utilize the heat to keep the ditch from freezing. After the tank had
been constructed it was ascertained that to^reach such high tempera-
tures the tank would need to be insulated.
Experience indicated that neither the Licom nor the Aerob-o-jet^could
reach and maintain thermophilic temperature ranges for long periods of
time for a continuous flow system. However, both of them are effective
in odor control even at high solids content.
47
-------
Table 9. TEMPERATURE AND REDUCTION ACHIEVED IN OTHER PARAMETERS WHEN
OPERATING AEROB-0-JET AS A BATCH SYSTEM
00
Date,
mo/day/yr
5/ 1/73
5/ 3/73
5/ 4/73
5/ 8/73
5/U/73
5/15/73
5/18/73
5/22/73
Temperature, °C
Air
20
9
12
18
16
13
18
Liquid
15
26
3^
32
36
33
30
20 27
i
DO,
rag/&
0
1
0.7
0.7
—
0.8
Conductivity,
lumho/cm
—
3900
3900
3800
3400
3900
--
--
BOD,
pH mg/,0
7.0 4970
7.3 44oo
7.5 4330
7.6 1259
8 1259
—
7.4 2100
COD,
mg/£
--
29,500
I9,4oo
19,000
9,700
12,100
—
8,270
TS,
% wb
3.7
3.1
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.0
TVS,
% db
--
83
82
80
82
79
--
70
-------
<£
UJ
IU
0.
2
LU
D a AEROBIC DIGESTER
•OXIDATION DITCH
AMBIENT AIR
«
I.ft, DIGESTER
YEAR
Figure 15. Temperatures of aerobic digester, oxidation
ditch and ambient air
49
-------
Figure 16. Use of a mixer to agitate solids in digester tank
Solids Disposal
The effluent from the aerobic digester tank was stored in the solids
storage tanks shown in Figure 17. The formation of scum appeared to aid
odor control. Even though solids remained for several weeks to months
in the storage tanks, no obnoxious odors were emitted from the storage
tanks.
The hoppered bottoms of the tanks proved effective in concentrating
solids and in the removal of the solids by a suction pump and a vacuum
tanker. It took approximately 20 minutes to load the tanker, haul to
the fields north of the treatment plant, spread the sludge onto the
land, and return for another load.
Figure 17. Scum in solids storage tanks, which tended to form
when tanks were full, appeared to aid odor control
50
-------
Two studies were initiated with respect to solids disposal. One was
the design of an irrigation system which would operate automatically to
pump solids to the fields and spread the wastewater through sprinklers.
This study was not implemented, even though design plans were drawn up,
because farm personnel felt it was not necessary and thus did not want
to provide the land area adjacent to the plant for the experimental
studies. The other study was the investigation of the power require-
ments to dispose of the wastes by subsurface means.
Advantages of subsurface disposal are control of odors, control of fly
breeding, and faster soil decomposition and assimilation of the waste.
The method of subsurface waste disposal used in the study was the mole-
plow system. This system, as devised, is shown in Figure 18.
Studies were made with the system shown in Figure 18 using manure with
3.4$ TS. Figure 19 shows the amount of work expended per ton of waste
disposed 38 cm below the ground surface. Table 10 shows the power
requirements for plow depths of 25 and 38 cm.27 Subsurface disposal
at 15 cm below ground surface was also studied, but the procedure is
not recommended because the slurry was squeezed out of the mole channel
during compaction.
Table 10. AVERAGE POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSURFACE
MOLE-PLOW DISPOSAL OF WASTE SLURRY
Parameters
tons/hr
tons /ha
hp-hr/ton
Depth of mole plow, cm
25
19.6
12.5
0.68
38
19.2
8.1
2.06
^ 25 & 38
19. h
10.2
1.30
Subsurface waste disposal was compared with other methods of solids
disposal using a matrix of criteria such as total cost, days available
per year for field operation, labor requirements for the method, impact
on plants, suitability of land, and pollution potential.27 Five waste
disposal methods were evaluated, as shown in Table 11. Subsurface
injection of waste is assumed to have the best impact on plants, is
suitable for most all types of soils, and would cause less pollution
51
-------
a. Floating beam mole-plow with waste disposal
•unit attached and in operating position
\\ \\.\\\
b. Crawler tractor with mole-plow and tank wagon
in waste disposal-operating arrangement
Figure 18. Mole-plow subsurface waste disposal system in soils
52
-------
LOOSENED SOIL ZONE
MOLE
c. Mole channel cross section as formed
PREVIOUS
OPERATIONS
ACTION
\
\
\
^ ^^
^i\i>-
n
/
_4£2£_
PLOWING
v
d. Mole channel formation and compaction
Figure 18 - (Continued)
53
-------
en
V)
c
o
O
_J
Q.
Q_
<
UJ
CO
30
20
10
0
38 cm DEPTH
234
WORK PER TON DISPOSED (hp-hr/ton)
Figure 19- Work required per ton of waste disposal 38 cm below soil surface
at various application rates per hectare
-------
Table 11. COMPARISON AND RELATIVE ASSESSMENT OF MAJOR WASTE DISPOSAL METHODS
Disposal
system
Surface spreading
system (solid)
Surface spreading
system (liquid)
Plow- fur row- c over
system
Subsurface
injection system
Lagoon and
irrigation system
Relative index (1.0 is most favorable)
Cost
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.8
1.0
Days
available*
1.6
1.6
2.2
2.2
1.0
Labor
8.8
k.k
5.5
5.1*-
1.0
Effects on
plants
1.9
2.1
1.1
1.0
2.1
Land
suitability
1.8
1.8
3.9
1.0
1.1
Least
pollution
k.h
9.9
1.3
1.0
18. k
Ol
Ol
*Days available for field operations under Ohio climatic conditions and for average Ohio farm
animal production units
-------
than the other methods. However, the labor demands would be 5-^ times
those of an irrigation system.
The question remaining is how to decide which method to choose from
those shown in Table 11. That can only be answered subjectively because
the relative significance of each criterion would change from one farm
to another. For example, if the farm is located near an urban housing
development, the pollution factor would be most critical. For a farm
in a remote rural area, perhaps labor or days available for field work
would be more critical. The feasibility matrix of Table 12 is a con-
venient chart for choosing the most appropriate method by assigning
relative values of impact for each factor. The factor which would be
of critical importance would be given the value of 1 and the other
factors are ranked relative to the critical one. Multiply the relative
index for each factor by the relative index for each system and the
sum up each column. The system with the lowest sum would be the most
suitable. Dividing the other sums by the lowest sum would give the
relative suitability of each system.
SECONDARY TREATMENT
Secondary treatment begins with the aeration of the liquid effluent from
the screen in the oxidation ditch followed by final clarification and
recycling as flushing water back into the building. The operation of
the oxidation ditch and the other components of secondary treatment were
monitored throughout the three-year period from weekly samples at
various points in the system (see Figure 7 and Table 1). A unit to
disinfect the recycled water was purchased and installed but was soon
removed because there was no need for disinfection. No disease outbreak
or health effects attributable to the recycled liquid were observed in
the building or detected during routine examination of the animal
carcass at the time of slaughter.
Oxidation Ditch
The major problems with the operation of the oxidation ditch were
freezing during extremely cold weather, foaming, and maintaining proper
velocities and dissolved oxygen in the mixed liquor.
Aeration—Aeration of the oxidation ditch contents was accomplished
with the rotor aerator. The dissolved oxygen in the oxidation
ditch remained above zero at all times except for the first 11 weeks of
operation. During the first 11 weeks, the speed of the rotor was 1*9 rpm
instead of the designed rate of 79 rpm. Once the rpm of the rotor was
brought up to the design level, the rotor proved to be adequate in pro-
viding oxygen for the aerobic stabilization of the mixed liquor.
56
-------
Table 12. FEASIBILITY MATRIX FOR THE SELECTION OF THE J/DST SUITABLE WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
Feasibility
criteria
Cost
Days available for
operation
Effect on labor
Availability of nutrients
and effect on plant
Least pollution: odor,
surface runoff,
subsurface H2Q
Land suitability
Assigned relative
factor index
k = most impact
(between 1 & k]
Sum total
Relative value for type of system
(1.0 most favorable)
System Ac
Index8 P.b
1.2
1.6
8.8
1.9
k.k
1.8
System Bc
Index* P.t>
1.3
1.6
k.k
2.1
9-9
1.8
System Cc
Index* P.b
1.7
2.2
5.5
•1.1
1.3
3-9
System Dc
Indexa P.b
1.8
2.2
5.1*
1.0
1.0
1.0
System Ec
Index8 P.b
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
18.U
1.1
Ol
-a
alndex from Table 12
^Product of two indexes
System A - Surface spreading (solid), System B - Surface spreading (liquid), System C - Plow-furrow-cover,
System D - Subsurface injection, System E - Lagoon and irrigation
-------
Dior ing the winter months of 1973? "the rotor was replaced with the
Aerob-o-jet, as stated previously. The Aerob-o-jet did not put as much
oxygen into the oxidation ditch as the rotor. However, during the cold
months of the year, the oxygen demand was much less and also the oxygen
transfer efficiency was greater. Therefore, no particular difficulties
were noted. For the 197^ winter, two Aerob-o-jets were put in the
ditch. Both the rotor and the Aerob-o-jet operated without any major
repairs or difficulties.
Velocities of Flow--Several measurements were made in the oxidation
ditch to test the velocity of flow. At first the velocity was fairly
high, reaching close to 90 cm (3 ft)/s. A baffle was installed in
front of the rotor, as shown in Figure 20a. This baffle reduced the
velocities to 30 cm (l ft)/s. The baffle was designed so that it
could be slanted at different angles.
Foam Control--One of the major problems with the oxidation ditch was
foaming (Figure 20b). At times the foam would rise above the banks of
the wall and overflow into the solids storage tank, into the clear well,
and onto the ground surrounding the treatment plant. For a period of
eight months (between July, 1973, and February, 197^) daily records were
kept of the foam problem in the ditch. For 6% of the time foaming was
severe, 17$ of the time it was moderate, and 75fo of the time it was very
small. Foaming was most severe during the month of September, and
severe foaming was observed in spring weather.
Several attempts were made to control the foam. The addition of oil,
particularly vegetable oil, would tend to break down the foam within
a short period of time. However, the foam would rise soon after the
oil ceased to be introduced into the system. Many times the foam would
form during the night. During the daytime it was possible for an
operator to notice the foam formation and control it by the introduc-
tion of oil. Even then, however, it was a nuisance to put oil into the
system every two or three hours. Several other methods were tried;
none of them proved to be successful.
Defoaming agents are manufactured by several companies and are usually
sulfonated oils, organic phosphates, or silicone fluids. Representa-
tives of Nalco Company from Chicago, Illinois, were invited to test some
of their antifoam products. A Nalco antifoam chemical No. 128 applied
at the rate of 7 ppm proved to be effective in destroying foam. How-
ever, the foam control agent had to be applied every time there was
foam. The disadvantage of such an application would be the same as that
of oil. The cost of continuous application of this material proved to
be prohibitive.
A third method tried was mechanical breakdown of the foam bubbles. The
first mechanical device used was a drum placed in the ditch, as shown
58
-------
Typical foam formation in ditch--
this foaming would be considered
very small; picture also shows
abandoned drum used for one year
and baffle installed in front of
rotor to slow down velocities in
ditch
Foam development in aeration
digester tank during Licom
operation. Note foam cutters
on Licom. Foam created dur-
ing aeration with aerob-o-jet
is shown in figure 5c and d
c. Spraco "easy flush" spraying
foam in ditch with liquid
from the clear well; this
proved the most effective
foam control method
Figure 20. Foam formation and control methods
59
-------
in Figure 6a. The drum was run at low speed pushing down bubbles and
breaking them up. It was abandoned after one year's operation.
The second mechanical means of foam control was that of spraying the
ditch with water from nozzles under high pressure, as shown in Figure
20c. Instead of using drinking water, water from the clear well was
pumped through the nozzles. This proved to be adequate in breaking the
foam without burdening the system with additional water. After full
operation of this system for the summer and autumn, 1973? it was decided
that this mechanical control of foam was the best method and has been
used since.
Loading Rates--Average loading rates for the various periods of the year
are given in Table 13. Average detention time was approximately 2 days,
with the range being 1 to 3 days. Therefore, the ditch did operate
within normal detention periods for oxidation ditches and extended
aeration plants.
Table 13 indicates that the average loading rate of the oxidation ditch
was alhnost twice as much as the design value for TVS [1 kg/m3 (60 Ib
TVS/1000 ft3) per day] and also for BOD, whose design value was 0.28
kg/m3 (1? Ib BOD/1000 ft3) per day, and larger than the 0.5 kg/m3
(33 Ib BOD/1000 ft3) per day recommended for livestock wastes. 8 The
ratio of influent BOD to the weight of MLSS is also twice as high as
that being recommended for dilute waste with one day detention time.29
Rotor loading averaged 2.2 kg BOD/hr per meter of rotor
(1.5 Ib/hr per ft), or twice the recommended loading rates.30
There was considerable scatter in the data, as shown in Figure 21.
Figure 21a indicates that there was more variability in the BOD data
during the period November-March than during the summer months. The
coefficient of variation for the monthly averages of influent BOD
ranged from 27$ to 91% &&& was calculated to be"87% for the annual
average.
Figure 21b is a cumulative frequency curve for BOD. It shows that the
median value of influent BOD is smaller than the mean for all periods
of the year. This same relationship between mean and median values was
found to be true for the other parameters used in the characterization
of the influent to the ditch; the same is true about the scatter of
data. Actual data collected over the three-year period of the project
are given in Appendix C.
Mixed Liquor—Table ik shows average values for the various parameters
for which mixed liquor samples were tested over the three-year life of
the project. The actual data are given in Appendix C. The sludge
volume (SV) values for the mixed liquor are too high during the cold
periods of the month, indicating unfavorable settling characteristics.
It improved during the summer where it ranged between kOO to 600 ml/,0
60
-------
Table 13. AVERAGE INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS AND OXIDATION
DITCH LOADING RATES
Parameter
Volume of flow*
Mixed Liquor
Susp. Sol. (MLSS)
Total Solids
(TS)
Volatile Solids
(TVS)
BOD
COD
Unit
f/day
mg/J
kg
Ib
mg/J
kg/m3 per day
lb/1000 ft3 per day
mg/£
kg/m3 per day
lb/1000 ft3 per day
Ib/d per 100 Ib MLSS
m§A
kg/m3 per day
lb/1000 ft3 per1 day
Ib/d per 100 Ib MLSS
mgA
kg/m3 per day
lb/1000 ft3 per day
Average
Annual
58,070
8,555
915
2,013
5,826
3.2
197
3,367
1.8
11U
21
1,1*00
0.76
1*7
8.9
. I*, 606
2.5
156
Apr-Oct
58,070
7,600
813
1,789
5,196
2.8
176
2,967
1.6
100
21
1,215
0.66
1*1
8.7
3,391
1.8
115
Nov-Mar
58,070
10,026
1,073
2,360
6,91*9
3.8
235
M93
2.2
138
22
1,733
0.9!*
59
9A
6,189
3.U
209
^Assumed same for all periods
61
-------
Q
O
CO
UJ
4200 -
3900 -
3600 -
3300 -
3000
2700
2400
2100
1800
1500
1200
900
600
300
•
4310
• —WEEKLY GRAB SAMPLES
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
a. Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean
plant influent BOD, June, 1971, to May, 197^
INFLUENT BOD
b. Cumulative frequency curves for influent BOD
for year-round and April-October operation
Figure 21. Influent BOD averages and frequency distribution
62
-------
Table 14 . MIXED LIQUOR MONTHLY AVERAGE OF BOD, COD, TS,
MLSS, TVS, SV, T, AND C
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual
Apr-Oct
Nov-Mar
BOD COD TS TVS MLSS SV
mg/£
22li4-
2404
1901
1666
1982
1973
1225
1407
2003
5716
4318
3^15
2613
2333
3044
11170
16708
11576
11033
8124
8>*55
7595
7013
9622
18619
14403
13103
11410
10268
13153
12260
13725
12597
9686
9797
7602
8853
8941
10524
13013
12900
13447
11138
9929
12966
7981
9717
8830
6887
6290
^995
59^0
6080
724l
8563
8798
9426
7563
6672
8934
8714
10508
9796
6078
5383
6854
6381
7995
9225
9490
11686
9347
8555
7600
10026
954
991
879
445
436
447
532
435
550
862
946
900
700
535
930
T,
°C
12
11
15
12
16
22
23
24
22
16
12
10
16
19
12
c,
Mmho/cm
5700
7312
6600
4475
3966
4125
3600
4020
4200
4366
4066
5366
5025
4156
5895
which shows good settling characteristics. In determining SV, the
30 minute time used was found to be a good indicator of the settling
characteristics of the mixed liquor, as shown by our studies with a
sedimentation cylinder.2"0 A one-liter, graduated cylinder was filled
with mixed liquor; thirty minutes later a reading was taken of the level
of sludge in the cylinder to determine the SV value as reported here.
Total solids content of the mixed liquor averaged more than lf0, which
is high; yet, the dissolved oxygen in the oxidation ditch ranged from
0.1 to 7.2 mg/^ (see Appendix C), and the pH remained above 7-0 most of
the time. Alkalinity as CaC03 ranged from 200 to 3500 mg/e, with most
of the values ranging from 600 to 1500 mg/J.
Clarifier
Clarification of the mixed liquor entering the clarifier depended on the
properties of the mixed liquor itself. Since there was considerable
scatter in the mixed liquor characteristics, the clarity of the effluent
also varied considerably. Another problem with the clarifier was the
occasional formation of a floating scum on the surface, as shown in
Figure 22. This scum caused severe clogging problems in pipes and
frequent recycling-pump breakdowns.
63
-------
a. Final clarifier as it appeared in normal operation
showing inflow valve and overflow weir; picture
also shows pump used in pumping liquid from clear
well through nozzle to spray foam in ditch
b. Scum formation over final clarifier; this
occasional scum caused severe clogging problems
in pipes and frequent recycle pump breakdowns
Figure 22. Final clarifier of treatment plant
64
-------
Settling Rates—Average flow of the mixed liquor into the clarifier was
59 m (15,000 gal)/day which would give an overflow rate of only U m3/m2
(99 gal/ft )/day. However, the instantaneous rate would be equal to
the pumping rate from the surge tank which averaged 280 £ (?U gal)/min
which is equivalent to 1*03 m3/day, giving an overflow rate of 28 m3/m2
(690 gal/ft )/day. As shown in Figure lU, at such overflow rates TSS
removal would be more than 90f0 if the TSS concentration of the influent
is around 5000 mg/^.PO The average TSS concentration of the influent
was 8555 mg/,e.
Settling tests were made with the mixed liquor from the oxidation
ditch.2i One cylinder was filled with mixed liquor as it came from the
ditch, and two others were filled with mixed liquor that had been
diluted with 25 and 50/0 distilled water, respectively. The purpose of
the dilutions was to provide settling data on mixed liquors with dif-
ferent suspended solids concentrations. Samples were taken of the
material in each cylinder for suspended solids determination.
Once the cylinders were filled, a record was made of the position of
the liquid-sludge interface as time elapsed. The data thus obtained are
plotted in Figure 23a; the curves show that as the suspended solids
concentration of the mixed liquor increases, the rate of sludge settling
declines. Figure 23b indicates that the sludge initially settles at
a slow rate and then after a while at a faster rate and that as the
suspended solids concentration increases the length of the initial
slow settling period increases
Settling occurs at such a slow rate in mixed liquor with an initial
suspended solids concentration of 78?5 mg/^ that it is probably not
practical to design systems to operate with suspended solids (TSS)
concentrations greater than 8000 mg/,0.
The prime consideration for the design of clarifiers for the purpose of
providing a clarified effluent (as opposed to concentrating the sludge),
is the rate at which the sludge interface settles and leaves clear
water. Figure 23ta shows that the initial settling rate is many times
(k to 9) slower than the secondary settling rate. It could be assumed
that the settling velocity is zero for the time period equivalent to
the initial settling phase. This means that the surface area of the
clarifier could be designed on the basis of the second-stage settling
velocity. When the clarifier is built, provisions should be made for
the clarifier to have a detention time equal to or greater than the
length of time the initial settling phase exists. Providing the re-
quired detention time should be of little concern, for more than ample
detention time is usually built into the clarifier as sufficient depth
is provided to accommodate sludge collection and removal.
The required surface area for clarification can be determined by
dividing the clarifier effluent rate by the settling velocity. For the
65
-------
O5
cn
E
o
h-
b
LjJ
X
LU
u:
o:
u
in
i
o
D
O
36
32
28
24
20
£ 16
LJ
O
Q
12
0
TOP OF CYLINDER
mg
SS//
O
1800 mgSS//
I L
_L
10
20
30 40
TIME (hr)
50
60
70
Settling curves for mixed liquor with different
suspended solids (TSS) concentrations
Initial Phase
Secondary Phase
Settling Velocity = 2.1 cm/hr
10
20 30 40
TIME(hr)
50
60
t>. Analysis of settling curve for a mixed liquor
with a suspended solids content of 7900 mg/,0
Figure 23. Settling characteristics of mixed liquor with different TSS concentrations
-------
mixed liquor with a TSS concentration of 7900 mg/,0, the settling
velocity is 2.1 cm/hr. Therefore, the required surface area for a
flow rate of 16,800 cm3/hr (280 f/min), would be 8,000 cm2 or 8m2.
For the mixed liquor with a TSS concentration of 5300 mg/£, the settling
velocity is 9 cm/hr, and thus the clarifier surface area would be 5m2.
Effluent Quality—The quality of the effluent from the secondary treat-
ment of the system varied with the time of the year. Figure 2ha. shows
that the monthly mean of the BOD of the effluent was much larger during
the winter than the summer months. Also, there is much more scatter in
the data collected over the cold months of the year than during summer.
Figure 21b shows that 50f0 of the time monthly BOD of the effluent was
below 80 mg/4 during the April-October period, while the average monthly
BOD was 157 mg/,0. During this period BOD effluent as low as 21 mg/,0 was
reached once and remained in the range of 20-50 mg/j} for several weeks
of operation. The effluent BOD in this period was below 360 mg/.g 90fo
of the time.
Some trends observed in the data on effluent COD and TSS are shown in
Figures 25 and 26 and in Table 15. It appears that excellent quality
effluent could be achieved with the treatment plant during the warm
months of the year. Settling characteristics of the mixed liquor are
severely affected by cold weather. Data on effluent quality are given
in Appendix C. More analysis of the results are presented in the next
section.
TERTIARY TREATMENT
A laboratory study was undertaken to evaluate the efficiency of membrane
separation systems in the clarification and the removal of nutrients
from the effluent of the treatment system at Botkins. The experimental
apparatus used in this study is schematically presented in Figure 27a;
Figure 27b is a photograph of the apparatus as assembled. The main
components of the apparatus are the membrane module, the high-pressure
pump, and apurtences for recording and collecting samples from the
system.
The membrane module used in this investigation was UOD No. ^20, of
1.3-cm (0.5 inch) diameter tubular configuration. The backing material
was epoxy-bonded fiberglass on which a cellulose acetate membrane ^was
cast. The 18 tubes in this module were connected to each other with
U-shaped connectors in the module headers. The net membrane area was
929 cm2 (1 ft2). The pore size of the membrane varied from 10 to 30 A;
i.e., 10~10 m. A high-pressure pump was used which could reach pres-
sures of 100 to 500 psig at flow rates of 1 to 6 f/min.
Both the wastewater sample and the permeate were analyzed for TS, TSS,
BOD, COD, and C; total nitrogen and phosphates; and color and turbidity.
67
-------
•
1590
• -WEEKLY GRAB SAMPLES
Q
o
QQ
I-
Z
UJ
D
_J
U_
u.
LU
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
a. Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean
plant effluent BOD, June, 1971 to May,
Figure 2k. Effluent BOD averages and frequency distribution
68
-------
C/)
UJ
_J
o:
o
O
UJ
UJ
h-
LL
O
h-
2
UJ
o
cc
UJ
Q.
r APRIL-OCTOBER
NOVEMBER-MARCH
I
500
oooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooo
EFFLUENT BOD (mg//)
b. Percent of time effluent BOD was equal or
less than a given value for the period
April-October and for year-round operation
Figure 2.k - (Continued)
69
-------
4500 r-
4200
3900
3600
^ 3300
"o> 3000
"X 2700
t;
LU
2400
2100
1800
1500
1200
900
600
300
0
•4298
-WEEKLY GRAB SAMPLES
*•
V^' VW _ V A -
» » * *
I I I I I I I I I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
Figure 25. Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean
plant effluent COD, June, 1971 to May,
70
-------
o>
CO
CO
I-
UJ
u.
b_
UJ
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
• —WEEKLY GRAB SAMPLES
MONTHLY MEAN
••*}•». 7^. •/,
I T • I * I
I I I I
I
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
Figure 26. Weekly, average monthly, and annual mean
plant effluent TSS, June, 1971 to May,
71
-------
ROTAMETER
(L.C.=0.004//min)
ROTAMETER
(L.C.=0.04//mm)
PERMEATE
TEMPERATURE
RECORDER
a. Schematic diagram of laboratory apparatus used
in the study on tertiary treatment of wastewaters
by reverse osmosis high pressure membranes
b. Apparatus as assembled in laboratory
Figure 27. Membrane separation experimental apparatus
72
-------
Table 15. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF EFFLUENT QUALITIES
AT VARIOUS TIMES OF THE YEAR
Parameter
BOD
COD
TSS
Unit
mg/£
mg/g
rag/.2
Percent time equal or less
90 50 10
Annual
760
3200
1500
lUo
1100
370
^5
520
100
90 50 10
Apr-Oct
360
2250
800
80
880
300
35
^70
70
90 50 10
Nov-Mar
1050
1+500
3200
500
1950
7^0
130
1010
220
Colors of the samples were estimated but their absorbance characteris-
tics were measured in the visual, as well as in the ultraviolet wave-
length range on a spectrophotometer.
Results of this phase of our study, presented in Table 16, indicate
that an effluent of excellent quality, equivalent to potable water, can
be produced from the treatment of the plant effluent with high-pressure
membranes.
Table 16. RESULTS OF TERTIARY TREATMENT OF EFFLUENT
BY REVERSE OSMDSIS MEMBRANES
Parameter
Total Solids (TS)
Suspended Solids (TSS)
BOD
COD
Nitrogen (TN)
Phosphorus (?)
Conductivity (c)
Turbidity
Color*
Unit
mg/i,
mg/,0
fflg/0
mg/£
mg/e
mg/e
mho/cm
ppm Si02
Initial
Cone.
5150
2238
^73
278!*
53*
188
5900
1+500
It .1+0
fa Removal
Min.
81*
100
81*
97
8k
95
71+
99
98
Max.
96
100
93
99
90
97
86
99
99
*Maximum absorbance from the spectograph at 290 nm
73
-------
SECTION VI
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The waste treatment plant has been operating in Botkins, Ohio, since
April 22, 1971. Except for a two-month period during the winter of
1972 when a severe snowstorm and freeze caused the bursting of a pipe
next to the sump pump, the plant has operated satisfactorily. Mainte-
nance and repair of components of the plant required shutting down the
system for a few days to two weeks at the most. Overall the plant 'has
operated adequately through three winters and four summers.
The performance of the total plant was evaluated, as was pointed out in
a previous section, both by taking samples and by observing the plant
and obtaining the opinion of the farm personnel who operated the plant
for the last three years. The opinions of the farm personnel were
considered in reaching the conclusion that the plant, as operated for
the last three years, could be used in animal swine production opera-
tions under conditions similar to those at Botkins, Ohio, and can be
expected to give satisfactory results.
The average monthly BOD removal efficiency of the plant ranged from a
minimum of 65% in winter months to a maximum of 88$ in summer months,
with the annual mean being 78%; COD removal ranged from 51$ to 76%.
Effluent BOD was less than 80 mg/£ 50% of the time during April
through October and less than l5o mg/£ 50% of the time for the
three-year testing period. Effluent BODs as low as 2k mg/,0 were
reached during the summer periods; influent BOD averaged 1^00 mg/,0.
Average monthly removal efficiencies for other parameters were 67% for
COD (51% -76%), 82% for TSS (k2.%-$k%}, 57% for TVS (M*%-6U%), and k3%
for TS (31%-52%). Conductivity, temperature, sludge volume index, foam
severity, and maintenance and repair requirements of each of the system
components were also monitored.
74
-------
OVERALL EFFICIENCIES
The overall seasonal treatment efficiencies are given in Table 17.
Analysis of the annual data indicate that the best average annual'
removal efficiency was obtained in the removal of total suspended
solids, which amounted to 82% for the year.
Table 17. AVERAGE ANNUAL AND SEASONAL TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
IN BOD, COD, TS, TSS, AND TVS
BOD
COD
TS
TSS
TVS
Annual
mg/.g
Infl
1400
4606
5826
3886
3367
Effl
30U
1508
3338
69^
1UU9
%
Removal
78.3
67.3
42.7
82.1
57.0
Apr-Oct
mg/,0
Infl
1215
3391
5196
2967
Effl
157
1137
2898
1211
%
Removal
87.1
66.5
kh.2
59-2
Nov-Mar
mg/,0
Infl
1733
6189
69^9
U093
Effl
595
2306
4272
1998
%
Removal
65.7
62.7
38.5
51.2
Table 17 indicates that during the period of April-October the overall
efficiency of the plant was approximately 9% higher than during
the annual period and that during the November-March period, the
removal efficiency was about 84% of that for the yearly average.
There does not seem to be much difference in average removal effi-
ciencies between the averages of April-October when compared to that of
the annual for COD, TS, and TVS. However, when the annual average is
compared to those obtained for the periods between November and March,
the removal efficiencies for the COD, TS, and TVS parameters are any-
where from 7 to 10% lower.
Table 18 shows the removal efficiencies based on averages of influent
and effluent values for BOD, COD, TS, TSS, and TVS for the three years
of data collection. The lowest BOD removal, 62%, was during the month
of November; and the maximum BOD removal, 91%, was in the month of Sep-
tember. Maximum monthly BOD removal was 10 percent higher than that of
the annual average while the lowest monthly average BOD removal was
20 percent lower than that of the annual average. Similar relation-
ships exist for COD, TS, and TVS. Figure 28 is a plot of the average
75
-------
Table 18. REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES AND MONTHLY AVERAGES OF INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT BOD, COD, TS, TSS, TVS
Infl.
Effl.
-------
100 i-
90
80
70
o
L±J
O 60
LL_
U_
LU
50
40
O 30
LU 20
(T
10
J I
m
LU
or
<
or
a.
<
>-
<
O
ID
<
CL
liJ
C/)
O
>
O
O
MONTH
Figure 28. Average monthly BOD and COD removal efficiencies
77
-------
monthly BOD and COD removal efficiency. COD efficiencies are approxi-
mately 10% lower than the BOD removal efficiency during the
months of April-October, but COD removal efficiency is similar to that
of BOD for the cold months of the year. During the cold months of the
year, the biological activity is at a minimum and, therefore, removal
of pollutants is accomplished by mechanical settling out of the solids,
rather than by biological action. It is interesting to note in Figures
29 and 30 that both the BOD and COD of the influent is lower during the
summer months than during the winter months. Also, the effluent of BOD
and COD for those periods shows the same trend. This is due to the
recycling of effluent for flushing water.
MICROBIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SYSTEM
Numbers of aerobic/facultative bacteria and pathogenic indicator
bacteria were determined at four sampling points in the waste treatment
plant. Sampling techniques, media, and methods employed were given in
Section IV.
Aerobic Bacteria
Numbers of bacteria were consistently higher on nutrient agar than on
glucose-yeast extract agar, as indicated in Table 19. Basically, these
data suggest that proteolytic bacteria dominate those utilizing
carbohydrates, which in turn probably reflects the chemical makeup of
swine wastes.
Numbers of bacteria were consistently high (> 10s bacteria/100 ml) at
all sampling locations. In general, there were greater numbers of
bacteria in the oxidation ditch than in the waste at the inlet, reflect-
ing increased microbial activity during the treatment process. De-
creased numbers in the clarified effluent reflect the removal of waste
solid substrates. Continually high bacterial populations in the waste
solids imply that the solids have not been completely stabilized.
Sample variability was high between sampling periods and reflects
variability in system operation and the occurrence of flushing of fresh
wastes into the system. The season had no apparent influence on numbers
except for an increase in bacterial numbers at all sampling points
during January-February. Increases at that time reflect decreased
biological oxidation during winter temperatures and more carry-over of
solids into the treatment system.
Indicator Bacteria
Indicator bacteria were present in relatively high populations (see
Table 20) at all sampling points, including the clarified effluent.
Their presence is indicative of the potential for the presence of
78
-------
CD IOOO
E
— 900
0°
O
CD
MONTH
Figure 29. Comparison of average effluent BOD with
monthly average of influent BOD
8000 •-
MONTH
Figure 30. Comparison of effluent COD with
average monthly influent COD
-------
Table 19. NUMBER OF HETEROTROPIC AEROBIC/FACULTATIVE BACTERIA AT
FOUR STAGES OF WASTE TREATMENT
Location
Inlet
Ditch
Clarifier
Solids
Date
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr -May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr-May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr -May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr-May 73
Aug-Sep 73
No. bacteria/100 ml, (x 10s)
Glucose-yeast ext. agar
25
18
130
15
23
3k
22
20k
11
kk
3
10
2k
2
18
119
27
75
10
66
Nutrient agar
^37
76
2Qk
78
51
387
199
895
109
203
33
132
272
3k
79
5^7
196
382
iOk
213
80
-------
Table 20. NUMBER OF INDICATOR BACTERIA FOUND AT FOUR STAGES
OF WASTE TREATMENT
Location
Inlet
Ditch.
Clarifier
Solids
Date
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr -May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr-May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr -May 73
Aug-Sep 73
Aug-Sep 72
Oct-Nov 72
Jan-Feb 73
Apr-May 73
Aug-Sep 73
No. bacteria/100 ml, (x 105)
Total
Coliforms
1500
h6o
399
302
603
660
250
167
Ik
83
26
298
67
10
56
850
klO
H99
30
82
Fecal
Coliforms
1330
360
221
13
176
90
180
87
10
59
9
102
25
2
32
256
160
802
10
39
Fecal
Streptococci
280
13
313
191
QQk
70
25
10^
22
81
11
21
9^
22
Ik
39
16
113
5
~>Q
3o
81
-------
enteric pathogens in the recycled clarified effluent as well as the
solids being spread on land surfaces. The severity of this potential
hazard depends upon overall health of the swine herd.
Population variability was very high between sampling times. As dis-
cussed previously, this probably reflects the -variability of sampling
as related to the flushing of waste solids into the system and the
overall operation of the system.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was written after completion
of the project, which was carried out over a two-year period. The pur-
pose in writing the EIS is to discuss the performance of the treatment
plant as it should have been evaluated before construction was initi-
ated. Hopefully, this discussion will lead to a better understanding
of the system performance.
Introduction
It is now a requirement that new technology be assessed not Only as to
its relative efficiency, required maintenance, and other traditional
indicators of worth, but also to assess its impact upon the environment
and the well-being of the people who will be using it. With this in
mind, we felt that it would be useful to try to ascertain the effects
of the swine growing and finishing barn and waste treatment facility at
the Botkins Grain & Feed Co. Farm near Botkins, Ohio, upon the local
environment. This local environment includes the atmosphere inside the
barn as well as the soil, air, stream, and human environment near the
facility.
No attempt will be made here to compare the environmental impact of
alternatives in facility construction and waste-handling methods since
the barn and treatment operation already exist and there is nothing to
be gained from comparing alternatives. Typically an environmental
impact statement is written before construction, most often while a
plant is in the planning stages. Under such circumstances it is impor-
tant to know which of several possible solutions is best. The intent
here, however, is to show that an existing facility either is or is not
harmful to the environment.
Project Site—The plant is serving a 500-head swine growing and finish-
ing building on Botkins Feed and Grain Co. Research Farm, located one
mile south of Botkins, Ohio, along Interstate 75. The location of the
farm and the locations of the various fields, buildings, and treatment
plant are shown in Figure 31. Soil is made up of two main types,
Blount and Morley. The soil distribution is shown in Figure 32. These
82
-------
City ofV
Botkins (
«~^x
1-75-
D
I 1
Field Field, I Field, Field
CD I ©
I5.6ha M.6ha
a-i
BOTKINS GRAIN CO.
Research Farm Buildings
I. Home
2. Chicken Barn
3. Beef Barn
4. Farrowing House
5. Oxidofion Ditch
6. Finishing Born
7. Turkey Barn
95 MILES TO COLUMBUS
-Lock-Two Rd
SOIL TYPE
6B2.. BLOUNT
683 MORLEY
SOIL CAPABILITY
B I....2-6% Slope
Plow Layer=Top Soil
C2...-.6-l2% Slope
Plow Layer = Subsoil
and Top Soil
Scale I = 1334
Scale I =1334
Figure 31. Project site location
Figure 32. Soil type distribution at project site
-------
soils have little slope, erosion has been moderate, and the drainage is
from very poor to moderately poor.
Climate--The climate of the area is temperate. The peak monthly rain-
fall, 11.k cm, occurs during June. The high and low average tempera-
tures are 23°C and -2°C, in July and January, respectively. The wind
is toward the Northeast 23.5% of the year and toward the Southwest
Ik.6% of the time. Figure 33 is a wind direction chart for the year.
The area in which the farm is located is a low-density population
agricultural area. The nearest neighbor is approximately kOQ m to the
Northeast, upwind in the predominant wind direction. Interstate 75 bor-
ders the farm on the west. The nearest stream is approximately 500 m
from the oxidation ditch, and there is never any direct discharge into
the stream.
Noise--A sound-level meter was used to determine the noise level in
dB(A) near the rotor and Aerob-o-jet at various distances and locations
around the treatment plant and inside the swine barn in the growing and
finishing units. The locations of the various readings are indicated
in Figure 3^.
The noise level varied around the treatment plant from a high of
86 dB(A) on the walkway in front of the rotor to a low of 62 dB(A) 12 m
(39.h ft) east of the ditch. Table 21 is a tabulation of the noise
levels for the two test days. It can be seen that the sound level drops
off as the distance from the ditch increases unless there is another
source interfering. Interference can be seen on the data taken east of
the ditch. The increased noise level is due to exhaust fans in the
swine barn. To the west of the ditch, building noise from the farrow-
ing house and road noise from 1-75 traffic resulted in high readings.
To the north, because there were no other noise sources, noise levels
are low.
In the barn, the higher noise level in the finishing unit on the first
test day occurred because the pigs would not quiet down after being
disturbed by the technician.
Even at the highest noise level, just in front of the rotor, the noise
is not higher than that recommended for an eight-hour work day exposure.
Also, the noise is low frequency. The nearest residence is about 200 m
(656 ft) from the treatment plant. This alone would put it far enough
away from the plant that no noise would be detectable, but the house
is in the direction of 1-75 so that the traffic noise is higher than
any possible noise coming from the treatment plant. There is another
house to the northeast of the plant, kOO m (1312 ft) away; but it is
too far away for the plant to affect its environment.
84
-------
!IT^II1
0 5 10 15 20 25
% OF TIME
Figure 33- Wind direction chart at project site
85
-------
oo
o
Qe)
©
®
(S)
Solids
Storage
Roter
en:
Sump
1
>
t
0)
(A
V-
*
o>
•- c
§ oJ
6
©
1
Q-
•D
|2
Deep Gutter - Slatted Floor
Finishing Pens
&h
Shallow Gutter
Scale l"=25'
Figure 3^. Location of points where sound level readings were taken
-------
Table 21. MEASURED NOISE LEVELS dfi(A) AROUND
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
Location
Rotor
Aerob-o-jet
East edge
3 m (10 ft) east
6 m (20 ft) east
9 m (30 ft) east
12 m (1*0 ft) east
15 m (50 ft) east
West edge
No.*
1
2
3
h
5
6
7
8
9
3 m (10 ft) west | 10
6 m (20 ft) west
9 m (30 ft) west
12 m (hO ft) west
15 m (50 ft) west
North edge
3m (10 ft) north
6 m (20 ft) north
9m (30 ft) north
12 m (hO ft) north
15 m (50 ft) north
Finishing unit
Growing unit
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Sound level dB(A)
Test 1
80
70
67
72
70
67
62
6h
72
70
69
70
70
71
__
--
--
--
--
—
92
Test 2
86
82
63
62
63
76
7k
77
— M
7^
69
77
—
--
Qh
79
75
73
68
69
72
73
Avg.
83
76
65
67
66.5
71.5
68
70.5
72
72
69
73-5
70
71
&h
79
75
73
68
69
82
73
*See Figure $h for locations of sampling points
87
-------
The conclusion reached was that the measured sound levels in all
directions from the facility were not high enough to be a nuisance or
to adversely affect the health of people working in and around the
swine facilities.
Odors--Measurements were made for the presence of specific odorous gases
such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia which are known to be present
around animal units; results of those measurements were given in
Table 1. No hydrogen sulfide was measured with the devices used.
Ammonia levels were below odor threshold levels. However, there was a
typical odor inside the building and within 10 m (33 ft) of the exhaust
fans. No odors were emanating from the waste treatment facility.
Attempts to measure odorous gases near the around the facility did not
show presence of any obnoxious odors.
During the first 10 weeks of operation, there was a complaint lodged
against the odors of the.treatment plant by the lady living in the
house hOO m (1312 ft) downwind from the plant. An investigation showed
that the speed of the rotor was only h9 rpm instead of 80 rpm and thus
not enough oxygen was being transferred to the wastewater. Once the
rotor speed was increased, the ditch became aerobic and the lady did
not complain again.
Soil Impact--The impact of the system on the soil is from the disposal
of the sludge solids and of overflow liquid from the clear well. The
quantities of sludge solids disposed and the minerals to be applied on
soil are given in Table 22. Based on quantities of mineral uptake by
corn and forages, the maximum average required would be 6 hectares
(15 acres). No particular problem is expected in finding that much
area for waste disposal.
Overflow discharges were at a point 500 m (l6UO ft) away from the
nearest stream and over a vegetated waterway. The biggest problem was
that wet conditions developed at the point of overflow discharge hamper-
ing field operation and putting out of production approximately a third
of a hectare. Therefore, a much bigger clear well storage would be
desirable than the capacity of this system.
Impact on Stream—The effluent from the treatment plant is recycled
except when excessive volume builds up. When there is excessive volume,
some of the clarified effluent in the clear well is discharged into a
grass waterway approximately 500 m (16^0 ft) from the nearest stream.
This discharge is of small volume and at intermittent levels.
A drainage tile outlet into the stream is monitored by sampling the out-
fall as well as the stream above and below the outfall. The tile out-
let is the outlet for several acres, including the treatment plant
discharge area. However, no discharge of effluent was ever made
directly into the tile line itself. The plant discharge goes on the
88
-------
Table 22. SOIL IMPACT OF MINERALS IN LIQUID DISCHARGES FROM TREATMENT PLANT
oo
so
Discharge
Sludge
ii
Overflow
n
Unit
mg/,0
kg/yr
W/t
kg/yr
Total
Solids
10,700
17,570
3,200
^,730
Plant nutrients and minerals
P
> 214
> 376
> 64
> 65
K
170
299
179
183
Ca
316
555
120
123
Mg
91
160
32
33
Ma
16.1
29
5.1
5.2
Si
> 214
> 376
> 6k
> 65
Mn
2.3
4
.6k
0.6k
Fe
7.2
13
2,1
2.1
Bo
.42
0.7
.27
0.3
Cu
.61
1
.17
0.2
Zn
1.5
2.6
.45
0.5
Al
11.8
20
3.3
3-^
Sr
1.2
2
.36
0.4
Ba
.14
0.2
.04
0.05
Mo
.14
0.2
--_
---
N
314
551
120
123
-------
surface of a waterway and not directly into a tile line; therefore, the
suspended solids, as well as many of the dissolved nutrients in the
discharge, will be filtered out and/or used by the vegetation cover.
The quality of that portion of the treatment plant discharge which
would eventually reach the tile line will be very much better than at
the point of discharge. There is no reason to expect a correlation
between plant discharge quality and quantity and outfall quality and
quantity.
Table 23 gives the data collected at the three sampling points on
Loramie Creek from July, 1971, to December, 1973- Sampling point
Ho. 10 is upstream from the tile outlet, and point No. 11 is downstream.
Over the period of sampling, the BOD at the upstream point averaged 30$>
less than the 6.6 mg/0 average of the downstream. However, its COD was
120$ larger than the 13 mg/g at sampling point 11. The average TS was
almost the same for both of these points. It is difficult, therefore,
to say what effect the tile discharge had on the water of the creek.
If anything, the conclusion could be that the tile effluent did not
change the stream water quality.
The average BOD of the tile effluent was 18 mg/,0, with a range of 1 to
96 mg/J. Average COD was 1^1 mg/f while TS and TVS averaged 918 mg/,0
and 350 mg/,0, respectively.
Conclusions
After examining the factors which could possibly have a detrimental
impact on the environment, it appears that the treatment plant would
have no negative impact on the surrounding environment. The waste
treatment eliminates the normal odor problem that exists when disposing
of raw or septic wastes upon open fields. Also, since the liquid
effluent is used to flush the gutters in the building, the need for
fresh water is greatly reduced. So, the swine barn with the waste
treatment plant has an overall positive impact on the environment when
compared to similar facilities with no treatment capabilities. More-
over, just on its own merits, the plant reduces the need for chemical
fertilizers on the cropland while creating no significant environmental
difficulties in other areas.
Figure 35 shows the facility with some of the designers and monitors.
90
-------
Table 23. BOD, COD, TS AND TVS OF WEEKLY SAMPLES OF LORAMIE CREEK, BOTKINS, OHIO
Date
1971
7/21
7/28
8/5
8/12
8/18
8/25
9/1
9/8
9/15
9/22
9/29
10/6
10/13
10/20
10/2?
11/3
n/io
11/17
12/1
12/22
1972
1/19
4/4
)i /ii
Total Solids, % WB
Sampling point
10
Up
.0553
.Ote3
.01+73
.0473
.0447
.0380
.0267
.0441
.0589
.0512
.0467
.0493
.0540
.0350
.0574
.0671
.0216
.0602
.0522
.0497
.0461
.0423
n)i 10
11
Down
.0430
.0497
.0489
.0655
.0490
.0433
.0632
.0713
.0552
.0522
.0786
.0640
.0392
.0648
.0566
.0294
.0710
.0506
.0499
.0441
nliTa
12
Tile
.2240
.1300
.0980
.1060
.1330
.1190
.1580
.1540
.1040
.1310
.1390
.1580
.1080
.1570
.1380
.0454
.1080
.1360
.0606
.0651
nc;1?!!
Volatile Solids, $ DB
Sampling point
10
Up
21.7
24.8
33.5
39.5
49.8
12.1
19.4
28.8
36.4
23.1
31.3
31.8
34.7
26.9
34.0
40.8
36.5
44.6
k£ A
11
Down
37.1
31.6
46.8
13.7
28.2
28.4
38,0
26.2
34.5
34.4
34.5
26.1
39.8
39.7
39-8
Qft £
12
Tile
39-4
31.9
29.7
31.1
28.2
24.9
51.0
38.2
32.8
33.1
53.7
34.3
29.2
34.0
28.4
35.8
48.8
32.8
in k
BOD, mg/t
Sampling point
10
Up
3.05
3-60
1.30
3.15
4.67
5.28
2.45
3-90
2.46
3.50
3.66
1.03
3.09
2.41
5.92
o£
11
Down
3.65
6.11
11.90
4.79
11.80
7.52
4.00
3.88
2.68
4.88
26.40
3.59
5.00
2.90
3.00
i .no
12
Tile
52.20
16.60
33.30
7.76
96.20
31.90
26.10
29.30
24.30
71.20
18.60
46.70
9.40
4.16
.*{>
COD, mg/g
Sampling point
10
Up
28.8
25.9
40.7
6.0
28.9
32.9
37.0
14.2
34.7
30.0
20.3
91.8
44.9
31-9
24.9
4.0
22.7
in.i
11
Down
25.7
40.7
14.0
71.4
59-5
150.0
28.3
151.0
40.0
20.0
61.5
106.0
63.0
32.9
10.0
17.0
?n.P
12
Tile
827.0
296.0
182.0
126.0
381.0
206.0
370.0
394.0
274.0
182.0
420.0
282 o
394.0
173.0
461.0
24.1
-------
Table 23 (continued). BOD, COD, TS AND TVS OF WEEKLY SAMPLES OF LORAMIE CREEK, BOTKINS, OHIO
Date
1972
4/18
4/25
5/2
5/9
5/16
5/23
5/31
6/6
6/13
6/20
6/2?
7/25
8/8
8/25
9/12
10/5
10/12
10/19
11/2
11/9
11/16
11/24
11/30
12/7
12/14
12/21
12/28
Total Solids, % WB
Sam
10
Up
.0378
.0380
.0453
.0368
.0465
.0496
.0490
.0477
.0505
.0476
.0220
.0382
.0376
.0704
.0511
.0632
.0272
.0524
.0552
.0582
.0350
.0331
.0517
pling point
11
Down
.0447
.0369
.0446
.0634
.0399
.0498
.0506
.0545
.0481
.0494
.0507
.0589
.0308
.0369
.0354
.0693
.0541
.0855
.0529
.0298
.0570
.0497
.0612
.0441
.0324
.0453
12
Tile
.0559
.0552
.0695
.0597
.0708
.0695
.0809
.0744
.0679
.2260
.1000
.1000
.0398
.0390
.0759
.0584
.0300
.0530
.0541
.1510
.1310
.0514
Volatile Solids, % DB
Sampling point
10
Up
31.2
32.6
28.6
38.7
31.4
33.9
16.4
65.3
18.6
32.1
64.3
4o.o
38.3
22.7
27.0
50.8
48.5
11
Down
30.7
37.1
27.1
28.9
40.3
41.2
48.7
34.9
35.5
33-5
41.3
27.8
62.7
23.3
13.6
32.1
55.4
37.8
69.5
29-7
29.9
49-5
35.9
12
Tile
37.9
42.1
39-4
45.6
52.0
36.6
51.9
18.7
49.2
17.5
63.1
31.8
48.2
57.0
34.5
29.0
35.5
42.7
BOD, mg/,0
Sampling point
10
Up
9.36
3.68
3.60
2.60
3.24
1.20
3.08
11.7
1.92
3.64
1.60
2.32
1.20
1.96
6.4o
5.4o
2.10
1.24
1.72
1.84
2.60
2.28
3.80
2.52
11
Down
4.08
3-76
3.60
5.40
4.96
2.80
7.32
3.24
12.10
2.28
3.08
2.08
20.40
1.12
.80
2.52
5.52
3.16
5.20
2.30
3.56
1.52
2.36
4.60
.96
3-56
i.4o
12
Tile
6.28
4.oo
14.50
.96
5.12
31.00
6.16
18.20
5.64
5.60
7.44
5.28
3.64
1.60
3-72
1.96
3.20
2.84
1.20
2.52
.84
2.84
3.20
COD, mg/0
Sampling point
10
Up
ii~3
12.0
28.6
21.8
19.8
37.7
17.9
17.9
3.9
15.9
14.2
46.3
32.6
11.9
16.5
22.5
49.2
3l.o
28.2
32.0
11
Down
35.9
14.1
12.0
145.0
28.6
15.6
36.6
8.0
34.6
8.0
22.4
11.8
73-9
23.9
16.2
54.0
70.5
19.8
20.7
22.5
53-7
22.7
16.1
10.0
12
Tile
15-9
18.4
108.0
22.4
13.7
126.0
32.0
75.2
20.0
24.5
98.8
3.9
59.8
16.2
15.9
18.4
24.8
39.3
24.1
15.4
to
iss
-------
Table 23 (continued). BOD, COD, T3 AND TVS OF WEEKLY SAMPLES OF LORAMIE CREEK, BOTKINS, OHIO
Date
1973
1/4
1/23
2/20
3/20
6/12
7/9
7/17
7/31
8/7
8/21
9A
10/2
10/31
11/28
Total Solids, $ WB
Sampling point
10
Up
.0364
.0359
.0371
•0463
.0510
.0510
.0530
.1180
.1280
.0450
11
Down
.0382
.0388
.01+90
.0356
.0786
.0550
.0540
.0500
.o46o
,.0810
.o46o
12
Tile
.0444
.0596
.0496
.0484
.0463
.0750
.0810
.2073
.0800
.0520
.05>*0
.0480
.0670
Voltaile Solids, % DB
Sam]
10
Up
38.3
1+8.7
43.3
38. 4
43.0
36.0
51.4
30.5
37.0
16.9
pling point
11
Down
32.5
50.8
36.5
39.1
34.6
1*3.5
31.0
46.3
30.0
16.7
30.4
12
Tile
38.1
44.1
37.1
^7.9
39.5
1+5.6
30.5
39-5
2k. 0
52.1+
56.0
23.8
18.8
BOD, mg/f
Sampling point
10
Up
2.68
7.00
1.08
1.80
3-30
ii+.6o
14.1+0
1+4.90
11
Down
2.52
2.12
11.80
1.72
1.80
17.10
29.20
10.90
53.90
12
Tile
3-60
2.1+8
1.60
1+.70
43.00
79.00
30.17
30.40
9.17
55.40
25.90
COD, JDS/JR
Sampling point
10
Up
35.0
20.0
32.6
35.0
0
24.4
87.6
11
Down
35.0
20.3
20.0
32.6
i4.o
7.8
40.7
31-9
12
Tile
35-0
36.6
20.4
27.0
61.0
418.0
164.0
31.0
36.9
11.9
co
co
-------
(0
Figure 35• Automated swine wastewater treatment and recycling plant
-------
SECTION VII
COMPUTER SIMULATION PROGRAM
One of the main goals of this demonstration project was to use our
findings to devise programs by which we could help the animal producer
evaluate different schemes of waste management and disposal. A computer
program was developed which would simulate the total system demonstrated
in this project but would treat each unit operation separately so as to
be able to devise the combinations of unit operations which would be
best suited for the conditions of the individual producer.21 Mote21
wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on this aspect of the study. The reader is
referred to his thesis for the details of the program since in this
report only major elements of the computer program are presented.
GASP II was the simulation language used because it is well suited to
the representation of a real system32 and because it uses FORTRAN
language. GASP II was available on Ohio State University's IBM 370
Model 165 digital computer.
MAIN PROGRAM
Figure 36 shows that the Main Program can be with or without biological
treatment. Simulation of the system was achieved by considering the
operations of the system points in time as events. The six events
defined in -the simulation program are presented schematically in
Figure 37. Two additional events are needed by the GASP II simulation
procedure to keep things going properly and to end the simulation in
the desired fashion.
Of the six events, two do not actually represent a state of the system.
They were included, however, because they represent facets of the
system environment which influence directly the operation of the system.
They are the animal population event (POP) and the soil trafficability
event (WETHR). POP is designed to feed to the program wastewater flow
rates based on the number of animals in the production unit. It is
activated every time there is a change in the number of animals. Such
changes occur when finished pigs are marketed or when new piglets are
95
-------
I Main Program |
T
Read in Data and Zero Storage Arrays
Determine the Maximum Annual Sludge Application for Each Crop
Estimate Maximum Sludge Hauling DistanceI
Estimate Size and Construction Cost of Production Unit
Calculate Waste Volumes and Flow Rates
Yes
±
Is a Biological Treatment
Plant to be Designed?
No
Correct Kinetic Parameters
for Temperature
Determine Storage Tank
Capacity
Calculate Reactor Volume &
Mixed Liquor Waste Rate
Zero All Treatment Design
Values
Initialize Kinetic Rates
Design Clarifiers
Calculate Oxygen Require-
ment and Estimate Size of
Aeration Equipment
Determine Storage Tank Cap. |
Estimate Construction and Annual Costs
L
Call GASP
End
Figure 36. Flow chart of main computer program simulating
waste management system
96
-------
/°
Population Event
(POP)
Biological Treatment Event
(TMT)
~cr
i
/I
Solids Storage Event
(SOLID)
\
\
Field Spreading of Solids Event
(HAUL)
\
End of Hauling Event
(EHAUL)
Soil TrafficaMlity Event
(WETHR)
O—
Information
Transfer
Scheduling
Links
Figure 37. Schematic presentation of the events defined for simulating
the swine waste treatment and disposal system
97
-------
brought to the nursery section of the unit (see Figure 38 ?OT
chart for Event POP).
The Event WETHR occurs once a day during simulation periods. At the
time of this Event, the amount of precipitation to be received that day
is predicted and the resulting soil moisture is calculated. Figure 39
shows how soil trafficability is determined by soil moisture, which, in
turn is affected by rainfall occurrences and soil type. Precipitation
probability tables were used to simulate rainfall occurrences. Plastic
soils were considered trafficable if moisture at the upper two feet
layer does not exceed 100$ of field capacity. In nonplastic soils
(sandy) moisture must be below 5k% of field capacity.
The first Event in the simulation of the waste management system itself
is the biological treatment event (TMT). At the time of TMT, bacterial
growth and metabolism rates, oxygen demand, mass of volatile suspended
solids, and resulting COD in the effluent are determined. TMT occurs
once every 0.01 day.
Development of a program to meet the objectives of the treatment Event
(TMT) required writing an equation to represent the operation by which
microorganisms oxidize organic waste in a biological reactor. The
organisms in the reactor convert the organic matter in the waste stream
into energy and new microorganisms. The effluent from the reactor flows
into a sedimentation clarifier where the organisms are removed from the
treated water. Some of these activated organisms are returned to the
reactor and others are wasted. A schematic of the equations involved
is shown in Figure ho. Figure hi. shows the computer subroutine for TMT.
Computer simulation required that the operation of the system shown in
Figure ho be expressed in the form of equations.21 Operational equa-
tions were developed by writing mass balances with respect to soluble
substrate (Ss), mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (x), biomass
(X0), and influent VSS (Xi). To solve the system equations, the bio-
kinetic parameters of Specific Growth Rate in ,0/mg COD-day (k), Maximum
Specific Growth Rate in day'1 (u), and Soluble Substrate Concentration
in the aeration reactor in mg COD/& (Ss) had to be experimentally
determined. These parameters are related as follows: U = kSs < U.21
Figure h2 presents the experimental data obtained.21 The value of k
was calculated to be 0.00051 ,0/mg COD-day at 23.6°C or 0.00056 at 20°C,
other parameters calculated from Figure ^4-3 were Y = Yield Coefficient,
quantity of cells formed per quantity of substrate consumed = 0.21, and
M = Maintenance Energy Constant, quantity of substrate consumed per unit
time per quantity of cells present (day'1) = 0.11 day"1. The experi-
mental data were obtained at an average room temperature of 23.1°C and
were converted to 20°C according to the Arrhenius equation. Observa-
tions at the oxidation ditch at Botkins indicated that the averaged
mixed liquor temperature was equal to the above-average daily air
temperature during cold periods of the year. Therefore, in simulating
98
-------
Subroutine POP
Update Calendar |
In
±
Are Pigs Being Moved Into or Out of the
Production Unit?
Out
Schedule Next Event for
Moving in Pigs
Collect Statistics on the
Size of the Population
Increase the
Population
Is Production Unit Over
Populated?
No
Yes
Set Population Equal to
Capacity of Prod. Unit
Schedule Next Event for
Moving Out Pigs
Collect Statistics on the
Size of the Population
I
Decrease the
Population
Collect Statistics on
Total Waste Flow Rate
Calculate the Waste Prod.
and Waste Flow Rates
\
i
| Return |
Figure 38. Flow chart of subroutine POP
99
-------
Subroutine WETHR
J.
Update Calendar and Schedule Next WSTKR Event
I
Calculate the Amount of Water in the Soil
Collect Statistics on Soil Conditions
No
i.
-\ Is Soil Plastic? \-
Yes
Is Soil Too Dry
for Hauling?
Yes
Specify Soil as
Not Trafficable
Specify Soil as
Trafficable
Yes
Is Soil Too Wet
for Hauling?
Specify Soil as
Trafficable
I Store Soil Trafficability for Output
;
No
Will It Rain Today?
Yes
I Set Precipitation to ZeroI
Determine Amount of
Precipitation
Store Monthly Cumulative Precipitation for Output
Calculate Actual Evapotranspiration for Today
Calculate Capillary Storage at End of Day
Is Capillary Storage Above Field Capacity?
No
Available Gravity Storage
Equals Gravity Storage
from Previous Day
Yes
Add Excess to Available
Gravity Storage and Set
Capillary Storage Equal
to Field Capacity
Calculate Actual Gravity Storage at End of Today
Return
Figure 39. Flow chart of subroutine WETEffi
100
-------
Reactor
Sludge
Thickener
Clarifier
(Q-QW),X,SS,XO
Recycle Sludge
-, CX, 83,
Waste Sludge
Effluent
Treated Effluent
Q, = Influent rate to reactor (,0/day)
Xi = Volatile suspended solids concentration of influent (mg/,0)
Sis = Soluble substrate concentration of influent (mg COD/4)
Sit = Total substrate concentration of influent (mg COD/,0)
V = Volume of the reactor (l)
X = Volatile suspended solids concentration in the reactor (mg/^)
Ss = Soluble substrate concentration in reactor mixed liquor (mg COD/,0)
Q,w = Effluent rate from reactor to clarifier from which sludge is
wasted (,0/day)
C = Sludge concentration factor
X0 = Concentration of organisms in the reactor (mg/,0)
Figure ho. Schematic of the biological waste treatment system
simulated in this study
101
-------
Subroutine TMT
1
[ Update Calendar ]
Calculate Mass of Substrate, VSS, and
Viable Organisms in the Reactor
Calculate and Collect Statistics on
Oxygen Requirement
Calculate Substrate, Organism, and VSS
Concentrations
Yes
Is Waste Rate to Be Varied So as to
Maintain Effluent Substrate
Constant ?
No
Set Effluent Substrate
Cone. Equal to Effluent
Goal
Collect Statistics on
S and X
Determine Kinetic Constant Temperature
Correction Factor
Calculate Kinetic Constants
Calculate Kinetic Rates
Determine Mixed Liquor
Waste Rate
Store Monthly Avg. QW and S for Output
Yes
-to
IB Waste Rate
to
Effluent
Be Varied So as to Maintain
Substrate Constant
-1™
Schedule
Next
No
TMT Event [•*•— '
Return
Figure 1+1. Flow chart of subroutine TMT
102
-------
o
co
g -g
2 H 0.5
0 z
a: <
U. _J
Q &-
u H 0.4
-------
8r
si
o -o 7
^ £
UJ r~
ile
LJ -I
S3
~ CO
UJ _
Ul
00
dl
§3
Q <
l_ pi
-------
biological reactor operation during various seasons of the year, the
biokinetic parameters are modified accordingly.
A detailed description of the equations and assumptions made in solving
these equations in the simulation program can be found in reference 21.
A second Event is the Storage Event (SOLID). As indicated in Figure 1A.
at the time of this Event (i.e., the beginning of each day of the simu-'
lation period), the fraction of the storage tank being utilized is
determined and a decision is made as to whether or not handling opera-
tions should be initiated. If the answer is "yes," then a Haul Event
(HAUL) is scheduled. Figure 4 5 shows the chart of subroutine HAUL. At
the time of HAUL, stages of crop production, previous application
history, and soil trafficability conditions are checked to determine if
it is possible to apply a load of material from the storage tank onto
the cropland. If the answer is "yes," then the quantity of material in
the storage tank is reduced by an amount equal to that hauled away by
the tank wagons. When the storage tanks are emptied, then an End to
Hauling Event (EHAUL) is scheduled. As shown in Figure k6 a record is
kept as to the quantities applied in each parcel of land so as not to
exceed maximum application rates. Maximum application rates are set on
the basis of the recommended quantities of plant nutrients for a given
crop.
All these events are scheduled according to the flow chart given in
Figure UY. The listing of each subroutine in FORTRAN language and
specific instructions fer initializing and running the computer program
are found in reference 21.
105
-------
Subroutine SOLID
Update Calendar |
i
Calculate the Volume of Solids in Storage Tank
Yes
1
1 ±t> O OUJ.
1
Store Quantity of Overflow
for Output
Is Storage Tank Overflowing ]
No
1
Set Volume of Solids
Equal to Storage Capacity
_L
Collect Statistics on
Time Tank Overflowed and
Specify Tank as Overflow
Record Time that
Overflow Began
Is Storage Tank Full to
Haul Out Level?
Yes
No
No
Schedule Haul Event
Are Hauling Operations
in Progress?
Yes
Schedule Next
SOLID Event
I Return |
Figure kk. Flow chart of subroutine SOLID
106
-------
I Subroutine HAUL I
Update Calendar
I
Zero Applied Sludge Volume at End of Growing Season
1
No
Is, It Winter?
Yes
Is the Soil Trafficable?
No
Is the Ground Frozen?
[Yes
I Is any Wheat Being Grown? [
Yes
Yes
No
Is Wheat Land Available
for Hauling Onto?
Yes
Has Maximum Application
Been Attained?
No
Schedule End of Haul
Event to Wheat Land
-| Is any Corn Being Grown?
Yes
Is Corn Land Available
for Hauling Onto?
Yes
Has Maximum Application
Been Attained?
No
Schedule End of Haul
Event to Corn Land
| Are Soybeans Being Grown? \
Yes
No
Is Soybean Land Available
for Hauling Onto?
So „
Yes
Has Maximum Application
Been Attained?
Yes
-| Is any Forage Being Grown? |
No
Yes
Is Forage Land Available
for Hauling Onto?
Yes
Yes
Has Maximum Application
Been Attained?
Figure k-5. Flow chart of subroutine HAUL
107
-------
Schedule End of Haul
Event to Soybean Land
Schedule End of Haul
Event to Forage Land
No
Specify No Hauling Operations
in Progress and Collect
Statistics on Time
Devoted to Hauling
No
Is There any Uncultivated
Land?
Yes
Yes
Has Maximum Application
Been Attained?
No
Schedule End of Haul Event
to Uncultivated Land
Specify Hauling Operations in Progress
_L
Reduce Volume of Sludge in Storage
Was Storage Tank Overflowing?
Yes
Calculate and Collect Statistics on the
Time the Storage Tank Overflowed
Specify Storage Tank as Not Overflowing and
Collect Statistics on Overflow Status
-»] Return
Figure lj-5 - (Continued)
108
-------
[ Subroutine EHAUL
| Update Calendar ~\
Determine Onto Which
Cropland the Load Was Hauled
(ATRIB(U) = ?)
Increase Application on
Corn Land
Increase Application on
Uncultivated Land
Increase Application on
Wheat Land
Increase Application
on Soybean Land
Store Quantity
Applied to Uncultivated
Land for Output
Increase Application
on Forage Land
Increase the Total Applied During Simulation Period
and Store Quantity Applied for Output
Are There More Solids to Be Hauled?
No
Yes
Specify No Hauling Operations
in Progress and Collect
Statistics on Time Devoted
to Hauling
Schedule Haul Event
Return
Figure k6. Flow chart of subroutine EHAUL
109
-------
Subroutine EVENTS
-T~ Event Code = ? f-
| Call TOT | |Call HAUL |
[ Call EHAUL ""|
'§ [e_
| Call SOLID I | Call EpSM |
Call WETHR
"Call POP I
Return
Figure kj. Plow chart of subroutine EVENTS
-------
REFERENCES CITED
1. Taiganides, E. P. Agricultural Wastes Coprology: a Pollution
Solution. Agricultural Engineering. 55_(lj-):21, 197k.
2. Taiganides, E. P. Coprology. Canada Poultryman. 59(2):22-2^,
26, 28, 35, 1972.
3. Taiganides, E. P. and R. L. Stroshine. Impact of Farm Animal
Production and Processing on the Total Environment. St. Joseph,
Michigan, ASAE Publ. No. PROG 271, 1971. p. 95-98.
k. Kottman, R. M. and R. E. Geyer. Future Prospects of U. S. Animal
Agriculture. St. Joseph, Michigan, ASAE Publ. No. PROG 271, 1971.
P. 9-18.
5. Environmental Protection Agency. Notice of Proposed Farm and
Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Agricultural and Silvicultural
Activities. Federal Register. 38(85):10960-10968, May 3, 1973.
6. Quarles, et al. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for Feedlots
Point Source Category. EPA M<-0/l-73/OOi*. Washington, B.C. 20^60,
August 1973.
7. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
ASAE Publ. No. PROC-271, 1971. p. 229-260.
8. American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Livestock Waste
Management and Pollution Abatement. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
ASAE Publ. No. PROC-271, 1971. p. 291-320.
9. United States Department of Agriculture. Animal Waste Reuse--
Nutritive Value and Potential Problems from Feed Additives.
Washington, D.C. ARS kk-2.2h. February 1971.
10. Appell, H. R. and R. D. Miller. Fuel from Agricultural Wastes,
In: Symposium: Processing Agricultural and Municipal Wastes,
Inglett, G. E. (ed.). Westport, AVI Publishing Co., 1973.
p. o%-92.
Ill
-------
11. Schlesinger, M. D., ¥. S. Sanner, and D E. Walfson. Energy from
the Pryolysis of Agricultural Wastes. In: "Symposium: Processing
Agricultural and Municipal Wastes, Inglett, G. E0 (ed«). Westport,
AVI Publishing Co., 1973. p. 93-100.
12. Taiganides, E. P. et al. Anaerobic Digestion of Hog Wastes.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research. 8(4):327-333,
1963.
13. Inglett, G. E. Symposium: Processing Agricultural and Municipal
Wastes. Westport, AVI Publishing Co., 1973. 221 p.
14. Taiganides, E. P. Wastes: Resources Out of Place. Nation's
Agriculture. ^5_:(10):10-13, 1970.
15. Taiganides, E. P. and R. K. White. A Total Waste Handling System.
Hog Farm. No. 2:26-27, 1971-
16. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water. New York, American Public Health Association, 1970.
17. Millipore Corporation. Biological Analysis of Water and Waste-
water. Application Manual AM 302. Bedford, Millipore Corporation,
1972.
18. Scmitt, L. W., T. E. Harzen, and R. J. Smith. Influence of In-
gest ion of Anaerobic Effluent on Growing Swine. Proceedings
Waste Management Conference. Ithaca, Cornell University, 197^.
19. Harmon, B. G., D. L. Day, and A. H. Jensen. Itfutritive Value of
Aerobically or Anaerobically Processed Swine Waste. Journal
Animal Science. 37:510-513, 1973.
20. Thompson, A. V. Separation of Solids from Swine Slurries. M. S.
Thesis. Columbus, Ohio State University, 1971. 91 P.
21. Mote, C. R. A Computer Simulation of Biological Treatment, Stor-
age, and Land Disposal of Swine Wastes. Ph. D. Dissertation.
Columbus, Ohio State University, 1971)-. 205 p.
22. Ruprich, W. Einsatz des UmwHlzbelufters fur die Elussigmist-
Afbereitung. Landtechische Forschung (Bad Krsuznach, W. Germany) 1970.
23. Riemann, U. Aerobic Treatment of Swine Waste by Aerator-Agitators
(Fuchs). Ithaca^ Cornell "University Conference on Agricultural
Waste Management, 1972.
2k. Thaer, R., A. R. Ahlers and K. Grabbe. Untersuchungen zum Prozess-
verlauf and Stoffumsatz bli der Fermentation. Landbauforschung
Volkenrode, W-. Germany, 23:117-126, 1973.
112
-------
25. Persson, L. The Destruction of Parasites in Liquid Cattle Manure
by Using Licom System. Zbl. Veterinary Medicine. 20:289-303, 1973.
26. Anonymous. DeLaval Designs Dairy Waste System. Farm Building
News. March 1973. p. 29-30.
27. Bell, R. A. Subsurface Disposal of Animal Wastes. M. S. Thesis.
Columbus, Ohio State University, 1972. 96 p.
28. Jones, D. D., D. L. Day, and A. C. Dale. Aerobic Treatment of
Livestock Wastes. Bull. 737. University of Illinois Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1971.
29. Loehr, R. Agricultural Waste Management. New York, Academic Press,
"1 t-\t~V\i
30. Taiganides, E. P. and R. K. White. Automated Handling, Treatment
and Recycling of Wastewater from an Animal Confinement Production
Unit. St. Joseph, Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abate
ment, ASAE Publ. No. PROC 271, 197L P. 1^6-1^8.
31. Mehta, B. S. and E. P. Taiganides. Tertiary Treatment of Animal
Wastewaters by Reverse Osmosis Membranes. Columbus, Ohio State
University, (mimeo) 197^.
32. Pritsker, A. B. and P. J. Kiviat. Simulation with GASP II.
Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969.
113
-------
APPENDIX A
AGENCIES AND PERSONS AND THEIK INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROJECT
Agency
EPA*
osu*
It
II
ft
tl
1
t
1
t
t
t
OABDC*
OCES*
tt
BG&F*
It
tt
tt
II
II
D.
E.
E.
K.
D.
C.
D.
R.
J.
D.
J.
J.
J.
R.
R.
B.
B.
R.
S.
E.
R.
S.
A.
R.
J.
L.
W.
M.
R.
A.
J.
R.
Name
E. Taylor
F. Harris
P. Taiganides
Shumate
Alcock
R. Mote
Bell
Burris
Fetters
Shafer
Parker
Shutt
Upper camp
K. White
Miller
Mehta
Brown
Davis
Frey
Lewis
Sellers
Stalman
Thompson
Bell
Blickle
Lutz
Loy
Nelson
Maurer
Maurer
Kelley
Loy
Title
Professor
Assoc. Prof.
Clerk
Grad. Assoc.
B.S. Student
As st. Prof.
Assoc. Prof.
Post. Doct.
B.S. Student
Grad. Asst.
ti it
Professor
Cty. Agent
President
Res. Director
Plant Engr.
Farm Director
Farm Manager
Swine Herdsman
Discipline
Ag. Econ.
Civil Eng.
Agr. Engr.
Civil Eng.
Agr. Engr.
it it
tt tt
Anim. Sci.
Agr. Engr.
it tt
ii tt
Anim. Sci.
Agr. Engr.
Soil Micr.
Agr . Engr .
Zoology
Elec. Engr.
Eng. Phys.
Microb .
Math
Pre-Med
Agr. Engr.
tt tt
Agr. Engr.
Ag. Ed.
Ag. Econ.
Anim. Sci.
Anim. Sci.
Ag. Econ,
Project
responsibility
Project Officer
Project Officer
Project Director
Advisor
Secretarial Services
Computer Modeling
Lab Assistant
it it
Field Sampling
Engineering Aide
Lab. Asst.
Engineering Aide
Plant Operator
Prin. Investigator
Investigator
Investigator
Technician
Solids Separation Tests
Land Disposal
Advisor
Advisor
Co-sponsor
Investigator
Cooperator
Cooperator
Cooperator
Plant Operator
Period
mo/yr
1/70
11/70
1/70
1/70
7/70
7/72
6/72
3/70
6/72
3/73
9/72
9/72
8/72
1/70
It/72
1/74
12/73
9/73
10/71
7/70
1/71
4/70
3/70
6/71
1/70
1/70
1/70
1/70
1/70
6/73
1/70
7/72
of service,
to mo/yr
- 11/70
- present
- present
- 6/72
- 6/73
- 8/74
- 6/73
- 6/70
- 6/73
- 6/73
- 6/73
- 9/73
- 6/73
- present
- 6/74
- 6/74
- 6/74
- 12/73
- 8/73
- 9/71
- 9/71
- 10/70
- 6/71
- 10/72
- 6/73
- 6/71
- 3/74
- 3/74
- 3/74
- 3/74
- 6/73
- 3/74
Services performed
Monitor progress and funds
tt tt tt it
Overall supervision
Consultant
Typing, accounting
Ph.D. thesis
Laboratory analyses
n it
Collect samples
Plant operation
Lab. Analyses
Test result analyses
Operate plant
General supervision
Biological analyses
Tertiary treatment
Supervise tests
tt
it
it
it
ti
M.S . thesis
ti it
Consultant
it
Farm facilities & services
Supervision of animal unit
Plant maintenance
Plant supervision
Farm supervision
Plant operation
•"Acronyms for: EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; 030= The Ohio State University; OARDC = Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center, Wooster, Ohio; OCES = Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Columbus, Ohio; BG&F=Botkins Grain and Feed Co.,
Botkins, Ohio.
-------
APPENDIX B
CONSTRUCTION PLANS OF SWINE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
115
-------
OSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION
SWINE WSTEWATEB TREATMENT PUWT
BOTKIHS, OHIO
Figure B-l. Site plan
-------
OSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION
SWINE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BOTKINS, OHIO
Figxire B-2. Plan and sections
-------
oo
OSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION
SWME KWSTEWMER TREATMENT PUWT
BOTKNS, OHIO
Figure B-3. Sections
-------
-T jnr.gj.aq
b-j
rx^/CsQi. Q/^MMG ^JT^Sg._
-s
PT\! T i i
'^psfyssff^y
Xjyg" S£f?3&f:?7'_J
-------
to
o
OSU RESEARCH FOUNDATION
SWINE WftSTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BOTKiNS. OHO
Figure B-5. Electrical plans
-------
APPENDIX C
EXPERIMENTAL DATA FROM THE ANALYSIS OF WEEKLY
SAMPLES AT DESIGNATED POINTS OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT AND SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT
121
-------
Table C-l. BOD AND COD INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND EFFLUENT
BOD, mq/£
Sampl inq Point
Date
1971
~T5716
6/25
6/30
7/ 7
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/ 4
8/11
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 8
9/15
9/22
9/29
10/ 6
10/13
10/20
10/27
ll/ 3
11/10
M/17
11/24
12/ 1
12/ 8
12/15
12/22
12/29
1972
I/ C
* / ?
1/12
3/28
4/ 4
4/11
4/18
4/25
5/ 2
5/ 9
5/16
5/23
5/31
6/ 6
1
1112
2143
2344
1329
911
969
748
748
780
865
905
979
556
1030
1980
1170
1190
1120
1372
2010
1250
141-0
725
2870
2330
4410
1330
1070
1380
1690
1530
945
391
582
170
806
845
540
474
372
2
2798
3193
1750
1393
1011
956
796
1328
1040
790
57
1258
2160
2970
3550
3740
3610
4600
5640
6880
6860
5030
7750
5850
6010
3560
4490
5660
3130
1910
1830
860
1540
714
1130
999
741
1900
1020
1690
3
812
1219
1833
1054
46
42
41
33
.30
48
24
45
49
53
128
92
142
127
86
66
322
342
487
880
995
3550
1170
545
1120
790
987
387
38
119
77
77
76
251
252
62
89
COD, mq/
f
Sampl inq Point
1
3280
5180
6530
5384
3340
3597
296
2656
6922
3643
3466
3599
3296
2910
5580
3270
2650
3160
4250
4480
2920
3430
1620
6600
5760
11300
4140
2870
4120
5570
4440
3380
1750
3340
910
2420
1910
__-_
2040
1500
1460
2
14613
16035
12839
6259
6142
5953
7384
7079
6747
6240
6811
7550
9360
13100
1 1900
12100
14200
14500
16341
15500
18000
14200
19400
17200
19000
13900
15000
18300
16200
8020
10700
7200
9430
7170
5980
6120
3910
8.590
5250
6000
3
2226
3563
4452
3774
564
914
2587
1100
1025
1194
1048
776
1090
1120
1420
1290
960
1470
1340
1014
1220
1330
1790
3010
2700
9390
4490
2500
1780
4100
3590
2020
1150
1370
830
853
1030
899
1320
780
816
122
-------
Table C-1 (continued). BOD AND COD INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND EFFLUENT
BOD. mq/£
Samp) inq Point
Date
1972
"57T3
6/20
6/27
7/ 5
7/12
7/18
7/25
8/ 8
8/15
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 6
9/15
9/22
10/ 4
10/13
10/19
10/24
11/ 2
11/ 9
11/16
11/23
11/30
J2/ 7
12/21
12/28
1973
~THt
I/ 9
1/16
1/23
1/3O
• / Jv
2/ 6
2/13
2/20
2/2?
3/ 6
3/13
3/20
3/27
4/ 3
4/10
"/ 1 vl
V17
4/24
1
4310
665
1250
915
588
471
631
540
1138
1970
1820
1940
1200
1000
794
313
312
963
1810
1210
2500
1090
1396
1580
9883
-___
....
2468
1546
959
913
1582
732
400
....
1300
2
1130
i860
2850
1903
1126
104?
1130
2177
2131
2079
2300
3030
2040
3090
2599
2077
3273
2360
3470
2210
2340
2300
2025
1710
2264
2478
____
____
2007
-.—__
2869
....
1623
____
_-__
685
, , 3
156
55
129
122
21
97
87
60
278
53
78
110
141
29
59
76
80
60
526
218Q
1160
1590
1830
837
____
139
88
218
401
459
____
5696
898
688
787
488
____
156
293
....
46
COD, mq/£
Sampl inq
1
8820
2200
35^0
2258
2257
1819
1912
1748
2941
3857
4610
6450
3260
3250
2602
1900
1076
2919
5625
4480
10100
5700
7064
8280
__--
30997
__--
---_
____
13101
9188
3014
___-
6052
5290
3210
2590
«._..
4040
2
6100
7030
7780
6727
6534
8607
3654
5398
6718
8863
7540
8060
9060
10600
11888
9177
9586
11123
10898
10100
16600
13500
11428
9750
11200
20370
____
13281
*..«.
21210
13690
.__.
6350
Point
3
787
964
877
754
689
578
468
472
618
656
698
495
652
571
685
730
652
480
1918
7662
3240
8700
10700
5425
1000
1033
1298
2010
2206
41868
5601
4141
4298
3555
1575
2890
....
661
123
-------
Table C-l (continued). BOD AND COD INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND EFFLUENT
BOD, rnq/f
Sampl inq Po int
Date
1973
HJri
5/ 8
5/15
5/22
5/29
6/ 5
6/12
6/19
6/26
11 2
7/ 9
7/17
7/23
7/31
8/ 7
8/15
8/21
8/30
9/ 4
9/li
9/18
9/25
10/ 2
10/16
10/24
10/31
11/7
It/ /
11/14
11/21
1 1/28
I 1 / fcW
12/ 6
12/14
I t-l 1 *T
12/20
12/27
1974
~T7~4
1/11
1/17
1/24
1/31
2/ 7
2/14
2/21
3/ 1
3/ 7
3/14
3/21
3/28
V 4
5/ 2
1
806
2140
813
20?
263
687
971
111
r_
2459
3022
961
755
880
837
4729
1062
2618
2431
31 -JQ
J I J\J
3446
_.__
1361
600
2653
1765
1071
1137
552
2094
988
1588
4740
1053
2908
2189
2
620
289
616
301
831
1043
2294
1466
2214
1862
1293
1014
3644
2196
2841
2122
1782
2978
1738
2215
2105
1977
4370
7466
3
63
69
90
55
47
39
57
286
134
350
84
531
368
370
363
143
155
241
67
746
2059
2070
123
4071
264
2108
133
1478
422
203
191
340
724
143
746
1531
525
2645
705
COD, mq/l
Sampl inq Point
1
3710
5690
5880
940
1400
1360
2800
4232
5695
238
5636
10870
4681
2859
1885
4210
4355
8172
7274
5439
7929
8335
6690
2228
3619
1469
7540
3069
6924
2879
3634
2034
10085
3977
3396
9214
9732
5160
5552
2
6430
1625
7698
10508
10327
9482
6155
81 17
«.«_—
3826
7706
7881
6101
5141
10653
15868
10951
10175
11134
24314
7518
10606
14255
13244
13699
13777
20590
3
779
607
471
354
336
410
679
1980
1452
5826
220
6955
835
1372
2181
1051
1831
913
1660
645
4952
6984
7081
2046
13853
1114
9426
---_
-____
2793
6306
1661
827
1209
1414
2463
1416
11698
9060
3017
10089
2458
124
-------
Table C-2 TS TVS, AND TSS OF INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR,
AND EFFLUENT OF OXIDATION DITCH
_ __
Date
1971
6/1 fi
6/25
6/30
7/ 7
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/ 4
8/11
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 8
Q/IC
,?/ ' ->
9/22
9/29
10/ 6
10/13
10/20
10/27
ll/ 3
11/10
11/17
11/24
12/ 1
12/ 8
12/15
12/22
12/29
1972
1/12
3/28
4/ 4
~l nt
4/11
4/18
4/25
5/ 2
5/ 9
5/16
5/23
5/31
TS
Sampl
1
,
.50
.57
.50
-37
.41
.33
.36
.65
.43
.65
-47
.44
46
• TV
.64
.42
-33
.42
.62
.56
.41
.45
.22
.82
.66
1.15
.52
.42
.56
.71
.44
I.-)
.28
.43
.22
.40
.47
.39
-34
inq
2
.12
1.28
1.12
.84
.64
.61
.72
.74
.78
.86
.73
.89
1 03
1.12
1.21
1.25
!.55
1.75
1.67
1.57
1.88
1.40
1.70
1.45
1.86
1.48
1.67
1.83
1.74
.78
1 05
'.89
.94
.71
.81
.78
.56
.99
.72
WB
Point
3
26
.'36
.40
.35
.17
.22
.21
.25
.24
.28
.35
.31
-32
3 1
• J 1
.32
.30
.24
.31
.31
.28
.27
.30
.34
.44
.40
1.00
.55
.41
-49
.58
.36
.22
.24
.22
.23
.24
.25
.32
.25
1
Samp
1
6? 1
\J £- , 1
67.2
70.6
68.7
62.2
60.3
57.2
52.0
69.0
62.7
42.8
67.6
60.5
fil Q
01.3
61.6
62.9
63.2
57.2
53.7
60.2
55.9
55.1
57.6
62.4
58.9
66.3
54.6
54.9
53.3
54.6
67.5
58.8
59.8
44.3
57.8
59.2
50.7
44.4
"VS, %
il inq
2
76 1
/O.I
77.7
77-4
77.6
70.5
66.7
66.4
68.3
67.7
69.9
61.6
68.6
71.6
79 8
//.O
70.1
71.2
73.5
73.8
74.3
71.8
72.3
72.5
73.4
72.3
71.2
73.8
72.9
73.4
73.0
71.2
73.3
~7L ft
/H * O
72.8
73.9
67.9
67.7
65.9
56.8
68.4
62.7
TS
Point
3
6l'4
63.8
63.4
35.2
37.5
38.1
41.7
33.0
44.2
52.3
56.6
53.2
52 8
44!4
36.1
50.3
43.8
33.7
35.8
39.6
40.7
43.7
47.3
48.2
64.3
56.2
46.4
49.3
47.7
64.5
50 8
46^3
41.4
41.6
42,3
38.8
38.7
42.3
37-4
TSS, [
Sampl i nq
2
10250
10250
9250
4530
7000
5250
7750
9250
4500
8000
5500
1200
•5 ty f-n
4500
10900
8700
1 1 300
10300
13100
14600
16900
12100
15100
13800
13200
8550
12600
13200
10800
4100
5000
5375
3750
3880
3630
2580
6380
5750
nq/?1 ~
Point
3
675
875
75
425
180
100
213
125
375
350
750
1320
300
360
425
424
180
203
630
485
740
592
6500
2130
3050
770
730
1080
153
170
145
180
155
168
2190
100
125
-------
Table C-2 (continued).
TS, TVS, AND TSS OF INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND
EFFLUENT OF OXIDATION DITCH
Date
TS. % WB
TVS. % TS
Sampling Point
Samp I ing Point
3
TSS. mg/C
Sampling Point
1972
~TT6
6/13
6/20
6/27
7/12
7/18
7/25
8/ 8
8/15
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 6
9/15
9/22
10/ 4
10/13
10/19
10/24
ll/ 2
11/ 9
11/16
11/24
11/30
12/ 7
12/21
12/28
1973
-TT4
I/ 9
1/16
1/23
1/30
2/ 6
2/13
2/20
2/27
3/ 6
3/13
3/20
3/27
4/ 3
4/10
.35
.84
.50
.61
.48
!31
.31
.40
.68
.59
.69
-45
.52
.48
.42
.33
.56
.78
.70
1.16
.86
.81
.94
2.28
.89
.81
.94
1.03
.98
.90
1.13
.48
.67
.68
.88
.98
.06
.08
.22
.40
.22
.22
.32
-30
.22
.37
.48
.21
.10
.15
.69
1.49
1.16
.82
.30 1.86
.77
49
.... ,.67
.38 ....
.37
.29
.27
.33
.34
-32
.32
.16
.22
.21
.25
.28
.31
.30
.31
.34
.32
.32
.48
1.03
.75
1.13
1.23
.69
.29
.28
^38
.36
3.43
.58
.56
.58
.58
.29
.43
43.4
65.8
42.3
55.4
47-7
46.3
56.3
48.2
60.0
66.8
66.4
65.2
48.9
52.6
45.3
44.1
45.9
51.2
56.3
53.6
64.1
53.5
63.1
63.7
72.8
67-7
61.2
60.9
56.8
65.6
63.8
53.9
66.3
59.2
61.7
64.4
62.0
64.1
64.9
66.9
67.0
68.3
74.0
64.4
65.2
63.9
64.6
65.9
65.5
64.8
66.2
64.2
64.8
66.1
68.4
67.7
66.5
71.5
73.5
72.0
72.8
72.3
35.1
34.9
35.6
39.7
41.0
31.4
32.2
35.8
35.7
42.5
31.7
38.8
36.5
28.6
26.9
29.5
33.6
33.6
45.8
61.7
56.5
61.0
63.8
59.2
35.5
40.0
32.1
43.2
76.1
55.6
52.1
54.7
49.4
50.3
57.0
2810
4750
7000
11900
6875
5750
5625
6625
10500
4000
12500
27000
10000
13250
7750
8750
10750
11600
12700
10700
12200
10100
8750
5750
12700
11250
11000
14500
175
100
170
160
515
770
450
200
123
575
555
515
490
420
365
270
230
165
20°0
8000
7000
7750
8250
3480
115
407
255
83
255
22600
1525
1550
1380
775
1055
1810
126
-------
Table C-2 (continued). TS, TVS, AND TSS OF INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND
EFFLUENT OF OXIDATION DITCH
Date
1973
4/54
C/ 1
r/ fi
C/l C
:>/ IP
Q/77
S/7Q
ji f~y
6/ «;
w 3
6/12
A/1 Q
o/ iy
A/7A
7/9
// ^
7/ O
// y
7/17
// ' /
7/97
1 1 1-3
7/71
1 1 3\
8/ 7
8/15
ft/91
O /7A
Q/.5V
9/ 4
9/11
O/ 1 Q
y/ is
o/oc
y/Zp
IO/ 2
1 ft/l£
in/oli
10/31
11/7
1 I/ /
11/14
I 1 /71
1 1/98
12/ 6
17/14
12/20
12/27
1974
~17~4
1/11
1/17
1/24
1A1
2/ 7
2/14
2/21
TS
Sampl
1
/.c
• t;>
4?
CO
«py
Wi
71*
.28
9ft
./o
ill
liO
-**y
A7
.O/
7/1
. Jt
1 17
I.I/
1.45
.62
lift
On
• ly
.51
-49
Qc
• °:>
.81
A7
.o/
nc
.yo
.98
en
,yy
P.7
.o/
1.70
1.35
1.10
1.05
i no
i .uy
.87
1 1 1
.95
R?
.95
CQ
• yy
.67
.98
.92
.83
7C
.18
44
1C
.06
14
.43
WB
Point
3
9fi
9n
7*>
O 1
f>\
1Q
• iy
.22
•>A
0-7
O/
7 I
O I
"7 1
. /I
«n
./^
Q1
.yi
.29
.35
lid
OJ,
- Jl
.36
.28
?ll
.25
71
• / I
.90
.90
74
2.38
-35
.96
.35
.54
80
•in
.52
•?•?
.40
TV
Sampl
1
rf. \
i>o. 1
f.1 •}
O 1 . i
(.•} a
oj.y
f.n /,
?7 Q
j/.y
44.2
hf. C
Cl f.
i>l .D
C7 ^J
bi -3
tl O
ll 0 O
tj' i
Aft Q
68.6
63.9
CO O
by.-'
gr\ f.
62.4
61.1
71 1»
/ 1 •**
32.2
(.•} O
(.-i •}
O/ . i.
66.0
C5 0
3J.^
63.5
•3Q C
JO. P
49.8
53.6
56.1
61.9
49.3
57.2
47 1
74.2
S, D/
inq
2
C.C. c
ooo
at a
05.0
46.9
f,Ii "3
D'J. J
68.6
71.2
69.1
70.1
7n 1
/U. 1
33.5
£Q n
65.1
64 q
66.1
Ai n
62.4
68.9
64.1
60.9
56 4
65.2
69.4
6q 4
71.5
TS
Point
3
77 7
J/ • /
7O C
jy.p
7ft 7
JO. /
7C 7
JP- /
7fi 7
iO. J
33.3
7A ?
jo. 3
lift n
lie L.
Al •>
7 1 c;
ji-y
AQ Q
oy • y
40.1
47.8
ct c
30. p
ct; ft
33.O
52.5
45.8
7Q C
iy-y
60.9
All 7
OH . J
63.9
65.1
18 c;
lO.p
76.6
37.3
65.7
38.5
49.1
i»n i
45.7
TSS,
Sampl inq
2
OQQn
48
7O7n
jyjV
1020
11204
8338
ft71 7
°J 1 J
6115
6544
77 IO.
i/ iy
4073
6960
6485
5543
4A8n
8460
1 1 "5^f>
QQ i r\
9003
11523
mg/£
Point
3
707.
127
1 40
66
1 ^1
35
AA7
7CQfl
499
723
1 77ft
7Q1
ty<
924
519
7A7
zo/
473
ccc
>3P
6144
3669
1 1 7
18936
510
5575
645
1978
i i £,cn
1 IDpU
"5 "5*7
$£f
283
ZiAn
753
127
-------
Table C-2 (continued). TS, TVS,.AND TSS OF INFLUENT, MIXED LIQUOR, AND
EFFLUENT OF OXIDATION DITCH
TS , % WB
Sampl inq Point
Date
"37" 1
3/ 7
3/14
3/21
3/28
4/ 4
c/ •>
1
.56
.48
1.00
1.13
1.21
Rt
2
.92
1.19
1.44
1.38
1.45
1.55
•> iifl
3
.37
1 .20
1.07
.51
1.19
c->
TVS, %
TS
Sampl inq Point
1
56.7
59.7
66.3
67.3
67.6
2
66.2
69.1
69.6
68.9
70.7
3
52.1
69.9
67.1
47.9
67.6
TSS,
mg/£
Sampl inq Point
2
6653
11303
10500
1 1720
12385
lAfiAS
3
1769
637
9130
7703
7513
llld?
128
-------
Table C-3. WEEKLY DATA OF TEMPERATURE, pH, AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN OF
MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Date
1971
~67T6
6/25
6/30
7/ 7
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/ 4
8/11
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 8
9/15
9/22
9/29
10/ 6
10/13
10/20
10/27
H/ 3
11/10
11/17
11/24
12/ 1
12/ 8
12/15
12/22
12/29
1972
I/ 5
1/12
3/28
4/ 4
4/11
14/18
4/25
5/ 2
5/ 9
5/16
pH
Sampl inq Point
2
7.5
7.7
5.6
7.2
6.9
8.1
6.8
6.1
6.7
7.0
6.5
7.3
7.0
6.7
6.6
7.0
8.0
7-4
7.7
8.1
7.7
8.0
7.9
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.8
7.8
7.0
7.9
7.5
7-3
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
Temp. , °C
Sampl inq Point
2
20
22
23
21
21
24
25
21
19
25
17
14
18
17
15
5
17
9
8
11
15
9
10
6
15
15
11
18
1 0
1 /
15
Dissolved Oxygen
. mq/g
Sampl i nq Po int
2
.2
.4
.1
1.1
2.6
1 .0
3.5
.4
2.1
2.5
.6
3.0
4.2
2.0
r- O
3."
6.2
7/N
.9
7.1
7.0
21
. i
7.2
60
.8
5.3
5.4
5.6
5.9
3.0
5.9
C Q
J • J
7 0
/ • \s
5.2
5.0
.6
.7
.7
129
-------
Table C-3 (continued). WEEKLY DATA OF TEMPERATURE, pH, AND DISSOLVED
OXYGEN OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Date
1972
~5723
5/31
6/ 6
6/13
6/20
6/27
7/ 5
7/12
7/18
7/25
8/ 8
8/15
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 6
9/15
9/22
10/ 4
10/13
10/19
10/21*
ll/ 2
ll/ 9
11/16
11 /23
11/30
12/ 7
12/21
12/28
1973
~T7^»
I/ 9
1/16
1/23
1/30
2/ 6
2/13
2/20
2/27
3/ 6
3/13
PH
Sampl inq Point
2
7.9
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.7
8.1
7.8
8.2
___
8.5
8.7
7.8
7.8
8.3
7.8
8.0
7.9
8.5
8.0
8.6
7.0
6.3
6.7
7.1
8.0
9.1
—
—
—
7.8
___
—
___
7.5
—
—
—
Temp., °C
Sampl inq Point
2
19
18
20
20
22
20
19
2k
2k
25
20
2k
—
--
25
—
22
__
—
18
9
—
18
10
12
11
13
13
7
15
17
13
12
15
12
11
10
6
11
23
20
Dissolved Oxygen
m/t
Sampl inq Point
2
.3
1.7
.3
.9
1.2
.6
.2
.6
.7
._-
—
.k
.3
.1
.6
—
2.8
—
3.1
2.6
k.3
3.5
1.1
.__
___
1.1
___
.3
1.5
.5
.7
.k
2.2
.2
__-
.3
.1
i
.1
.k
130
-------
°lss°LVE°
Date
1973
3/20
3/27
4/ 3
4/10
4/17
4/24
5/ 1
5/ 8
5/15
5/22
5/29
6/ 5
6/12
6/19
6/26
7/ 2
7/ 9
7/17
7/23
7/31
8/ 7
8/15
8/21
8/30
9/ 4
9/11
9/18
9/25
10/ 2
10/16
10/24
10/31
U/ 7
11/14
11/21
11/28
12/ 6
12/14
12/20
12/27
1974
I/ 4
J/ll
pH
Sampl ing Point
2
7.6
_.-
8.5
—
7.5
—
—
—
7.6
8.3
—
_..
8.1
7.8
8.4
7.9
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.0
8.3
8.0
875
7,8
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.6
7.8
8.2
8.3
_--
7.8
8.7
8.8
"***"*
Temp., °C
Sampl inq Point
2
20
10
11
9
1)
16
16
16
15
18
19
25
25
24
24
26
28
23
26
24
24
25
**"•
35
27
20
1 Q
lo
22
22
if)
lo
16
15
9
13
15
16
1 1
18
1 1
1 1
Dissolved Oxygen
mq/t
Sampl inq Point
2
1.3
1.1
2.8
5.1
—
5.1
6.1*
5.0
7-4
1.1
i.O
2.1
3.7
.2
.4
.1
.2
1.5
2.4
.4
.5
i,
, *t
£
• o
i)
'.k
.5
.4
1.7
1.5
6.1
4J
9.1
1.5
131
-------
Table C-3 (continued). WEEKLY DATA OF TEMPERATURE, pH, AND DISSOLVED
OXYGEN OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
pH Temp., °C Dissolved Oxygen
mq/l
Sampl ing Point Sampl ing Point Sampl ing Point
Date 2 2 2
197^
T7T7 7.4 12 1.5
1/24 7.2 14 .7
1/31 — 11 1-9
2/ 7 — 15 6.3
2/14 7.8 12 1.2
2/21 7.8 15 2.1
3/ 1 7.6 13 2.1
3/ 7 7.8 17 -9
3/14 8.1 13 1.4
3/21 8.4 14 1.6
3/28 7.9 14 1.6
4/ 4 8.1 16 1.0
132
-------
Table C-4. WEEKLY DATA ON SLUDGE INDEX, ALKALINITY, AND CONDUCTIVITY
OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Date
6/16
6/25
6/30
7/ 7
7/15
7/21
7/28
8/ 4
8/11
8/18
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 8
9/15
9/22
9/29
10/ 6
10/13
10/20
10/27
ll/ 3
11/10
11/17
11/24
12/ 1
12/ 8
12/15
12/22
12/29
1972
I/ "5
1 / -•*
1/12
3/28
4/ A
Vll
4/18
V25
SI 2
5/ 9
5/16
Sludge Index
mq/£
Sampl inq Point
170
350
380
280
250
140
110
155
190
210
190
150
220
330
280
500
620
970
850
950
940
985
540
970
820
850
650
7*»0
860
«._«.
700
90
200
___
310
240
300
300
280
Alkal ini ty
mq/.f CaCOti
Sampl inq Point
2
-__-
186
1195
1087
780
357
1730
2010
3460
3570
2020
2860
3000
3090
2730
2620
2960
— — — —
3420
1010
1157
1209
864
984
1200
855
Conduct ivi ty
umho/cm
Sampl inq Point
2
5000
5100
2200
1900
1300
----
---"-
--•"•-
"•"*"""
----
•""""•*
•""••""
--"-
""""~
•"•*"•"
....
""""""
™" *" ™ *
133
-------
Table C-4
Date
1972
5/23
5/31
6/ 6
6/13
6/20
6/27
11 5
7/12
7/18
7/25
8/ 8
8/15
8/18
w/ I V
8/25
9/ 1
9/ 6
9/15
Q/22
j/ £.__.
!0/ A
10/13
10/19
10/24
ll/ 2
ll/ 9
11/16
11/24
11/30
12/ 7
12/21
12/28
1973
I/ 4
I/ 9
1/16
1/23
1/30
2/ 6
2/13
*-/ i J
2/20
2/27
3/ 6
3/13
3/20
(continued). WEEKLY DATA ON SLUDGE INDEX, ALKALINITY, AND
CONDUCTIVITY OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Sludge Index
mg/f
Sampl inq Point
2
400
320
400
430
430
450
410
300
300
890
210
320
800
740
850
960
980
980
980
___
990
990
990
990
990
990
990
990
990
990
990
—
—
990
qga
jyj
990
990
990
910
990
Al kal in i ty
mq/ t CaCO^
Sampl inq Point
2
1000
1232
1107
955
1030
885
670
770
750
870
625
600
wUU
610
600
550
870
1060
1 \J\J\J
1016
675
695
1053
2685
2350
2920
2920
2900
3110
2290
2198
....
2328
3323
_-__
« ___
Conduct ivi ty
yUmho/cm
Sampl inq Point
2
_____
_____
____-
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
_____
7200
5800
5600
5800
5500
4400
6000
7000
8250
6000
9400
10100
7700
134
-------
Table C-4 (continued). WEEKLY DATA ON SLUDGE INDEX, ALKALINITY, AND
CONDUCTIVITY OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Date
1973
"3727
4/ 3
4/10
4/17
4/24
5/ 1
5/ 8
5/15
5/22
5/29
6/ 5
6/12
6/19
6/26
7/ 2
* ' *•
7/ 9
7/17
7/23
7/31
8/ 7
8/15
8/21
8/30
9/ 4
9/H
9/18
9/25
10/ 2
10/16
10/24
10/31
11/ 7
11/21
11/28
12/ 6
12/14
12/20
12/27
1974
~TT4
1/11
1/17
1/24
Sludge Index
mq/t
Samp] inq Point
2
840
900
250
500
210
0
200
820
750
990
850
50
510
900
-..*»
940
980
800
990
995
540
675
985
480
730
950
1000
985
990
985
960
970
980
990
980
1000
990
980
980
Alkalinity Conductivity
mq/-t CaCO^ yUnho/ciTi
Sampling Point Sampl incL Point
2 2
5400
4500
4700
4400
4300
4100
4500
3300
----
3200
3200
---- ----
--—
4900
4500
3900
3600
4200
1467 4600
4900
4900
4400
1746 5100
3600
4500
3600
1 294 4000
4600
1 549 4500
4200
4100
".- 3900
4300
4800
4500
5100
5200
5300
6800
135
-------
Table C-4 (continued). WEEKLY DATA ON SLUDGE INDEX, ALKALINITY, AND
CONDUCTIVITY OF MIXED LIQUOR IN OXIDATION DITCH
Sludge Index Alkalinity Conductivity
_ mq/l _ mq// CaCOo _ /a mho/cm
Sampl ing Poi nt _ Sampl ing Point _ Sampl ing Poi nt
1/31 970 ---- 5900
2/ 7 990 ---- ----
2/\k 990 ---- ----
2/21 990 ---- 5600
3/ 1 990 ---- 5600
3/ 7 995 ---- 6200
3/14 995 ---- 5800
3/21 995 ---- 5^00
3/28 995 ---- ----
V k 950 ---- ----
136
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-76-240
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AUTOMATED TREATMENT AND RECYCLE OF SWINE FEEDLOT
WASTEWATERS
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976 (Issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
E. Paul Taiganides and Richard K. White
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Agricultural Engineering Department
The Ohio State University
2073 Neil Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43210
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-801125
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
- Ada, OK
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (4/72-9/74)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT • ,
A system for the automated flushing of hog wastes was designed and operated
in conjunction with the biological treatment and recycling of the treated liquid
effluents as flushing water. The treated solids were disposed of to farm fields.
The system included tipping buckets, overhead siphon tanks, and flushing gutters
with the waste receiving primary treatment with solids separation and aerobic
stabilization of solids and secondary treatment in an oxidation ditch and final
clarification before returning the liquid to the flushing system. Tertiary
treatment utilizing high-pressure-driven membranes was evaluated.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATl Field/Group
Swine; Agricultural Wastes
Water Recycle; Flushing;
Treatment Processes;
Land Disposal
02/A, C, E
3. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
RELEASE UNLIMITED
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
151
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
137
It. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1977-757-056/5532 Region No. 5-11
------- |