&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA 600 2 78 097
Laboratory May 1 978
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Separation of
Algal Cells From
Wastewater Lagoon
Effluents;
Volume III. Soil
Mantle Treatment
of Wastewater
Stabilization Pond
Effluent -
Sprinkler Irrigation
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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-600/2-78-097
July 1978
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON EFFLUENTS
Volume III:
Soil Mantle Treatment of Wastewater Stabilization Pond
Effluent - Sprinkler Irrigation
by
B. T. Hicken, R. S. Tinkey, R. A. Gearheart, J. H. Reynolds,
D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middlebrooks
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Contract Number 68-03-0281
Project Officer
Ronald F. Lewis
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. 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.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. The complexity of the environment and
the interplay between its components require a concentrated and integrated
attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
As part of these activities, this report was prepared to make available
to the sanitary engineering community the results of laboratory and field
tests of the effectiveness of land application of wastewater lagoon effluents
for the removal of algae, bacteria, and chemical components from lagoon
effluent.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
To evaluate the soil mantle as a means of polishing lagoon effluent, a
two-phase study was undertaken, A series of lysimeters was employed to
evaluate the impact of soil treatment on removal of total and fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcal organisms. The second phase consisted of a two-year
field study to evaluate the efficiency of the sprinkler irrigation soil
mantle wastewater treatment system when used to further treat wastewater
stabilization pond effluent.
All four Utah soils evaluated provided good removal of the three indica-
tor organisms, but the Utah State University Drainage Farm soil with a high
clay content produced the best bacterial removal. Nitrate-N concentrations
in the lysimeter effluents in excess of that expected from the soils was
observed. This was attributed to leaching of nitrate-N originally present
in the soils before placing them in the lysimeters.
The four soils were effective in removing organic carbon with the more
clay-like soils providing better removals than the sand or silty loam soils.
The finer textured soil, Drainage Farm soil, was the most efficient in re-
moving suspended and volatile suspended solids; however, all of the soils
were effective in removing suspended and volatile suspended solids with a
minimum removal of 85 percent of the applied solids.
Adsorption and precipitation of phosphorus compounds was observed.
Again, the higher clay content soils were the most efficient in removing
phosphorus.
In the field experiments, the solid set sprinkler irrigation system
provided trouble-free operation. However, the center pivot or self-propelled
systems are considered the better alternatives for sprinkler irrigation.
Leaching of salts from the soils on the Drainage Farm occurred, and
specific conductance and sodium adsorption ratio values were high in the
drainage water from the underdrain system. These values were high enough to
indicate that the re-use of the soil mantle treated water would be hazardous
to the growth of most plants. However, continued application of a reasonably
good quality water will eventually leach a considerable amount of the material
from the soils and the effluent may be acceptable after leaching is completed.
Phosphorus removal was high when the water passed through the soil sys-
tem; removal exceeded 80 percent. Some leaching of phosphorus at the lower
sampling depth was indicated by an increase in phosphorus concentration.
Again, as water is applied equilibrium will develop and a fairly constant
removal of phosphorus should occur. Direct nutrient uptake of phosphorus by
iv
-------
the vegetation appeared to be negligible. The rate of application of irri-
gation water made no significant difference in the phosphorus removal rate.
After two years of service, no observable change in the cation exchange
capacity of the soil occurred, indicating that phosphorus removal should
remain high in subsequent years of use.
Evidence of nitrate leaching was seen, and continued high rate irrigation
should lower the nitrate levels of the soil. The application rate of irri-
gation water was shown to have an insignificant effect on the concentration
of nitrate in the water samples from vegetated sites. On the bare sites
where nitrate concentrations in the soil were initially higher than the
vegetated sites, generally lower nitrate concentrations were observed in the
water samples as the application rate increased.
Ammonia stripping was found to be an important ammonia removal mechanism
when sprinkler irrigation was used and pH values of the irrigation water were
high. Thirty-five percent removal of the ammonia was obtained through the
stripping process when the pH value was approximately 9. The concentration
of ammonia in the treated water samples was not affected by the concentration
of ammonia in the irrigation water, the presence of vegetation or no vegeta-
tion nor the rate of application of irrigation water. The total organic
carbon (TOG) concentrations observed in the treated water samples generally
increased over those of the irrigation water. The properties of the soil
system determined the TOG concentrations of the treated water sample rather
than other factors such as TOG concentrations in the irrigation water, the
vegetation, or the application rate of irrigation water.
The soil mantle treatment system was efficient in removing suspended
solids from the percolating irrigation water. The mean concentration of the
suspended solids in the drainage water from the 4 ft. deep mole drain con-
tained an average of 2 mg/1 of suspended solids and 1 mg/1 of volatile sus-
pended solids, while the mean values in the stabilization pond effluent were
13 mg/1 suspended solids and 10 mg/1 volatile suspended solids.
Vegetation yield was not significantly different between sites receiving
different application rates of stabilization pond effluent, between sites
receiving irrigation waters of differing nutrient content, or between sites
with and without irrigation. The pH value, percent C, percent N, Ca, K, Na,
and P concentrations in the soil samples were not observed to change over the
two irrigation seasons. The N03~N concentrations in the soil samples declined
over the two-season period in 19 of the 24 sample sites observed, indicating
nitrate leaching. In most cases specific conductance of the soil sample
extracts were unchanged over the two seasons except in some cases where
initially high values were found.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
0281 by the Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, under the
sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vlli
Tables xi
Acknowledgments xiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
Lysimeter Experiments 3
Field Experiments 3
3. Recommendations 7
4. Literature Review 8
5. Methods and Procedures 15
Lysimeter Experiments 15
Sampling 18
Analyses 20
Field Experiments 22
6. Results and Discussion Lysimeter Experiments 32
Sampling Difficulties 32
Bacteriological Removal 32
Removal of Physical and Chemical Constituents .... 35
7. Results and Discussion Field Experiments 44
Operation Difficulties 44
Operation and Observations 44
Application to Logan System 46
Specific Conductance and Sodium Adsorption Ratio ... 46
Ammonia 49
Nitrate and Nitrite 56
Carbon 61
Phosphorus 63
Vegetation 70
Suspended Solids 70
Effluent Quality and Standards 71
Economics of Spray Irrigation of Wastewater 71
Solid Set Systems 73
Center Pivot System 83
References 88
Appendices
A. Results of Lysimeter Experiments 96
B. Results of Field Investigations ... 129
C. Spray Irrigation Economic Analysis . 194
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Design of lysiraeter (all dimensions are centimeters) 16
2 Lysimeter 17
3 Schematic drawing of Logan waste stabilization ponds .... 19
4 King tube and driver 21
5 Test sites 24
6 Drainage Farm test sites 25
7 Spray pattern 27
8 Sampling device 28
9 Soil moisture sampling device 30
10 Nitrate-N concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter
sampling depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage
Farm soil 37
11 Nitrate-N concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter
sampling depths for the lysimeters containing
Drainage Farm soil 37
12 Ammonia-N concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter
sampling depths for the lysimeters containing
Drainage Farm soil 38
13 Total organic carbon concentrations in the influent
and effluent samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
centimeter sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Drainage Farm soil 38
14 Total algal cell percent removal at the 38.1 centimeter
depth for all soils studied 38
viii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number
15 Suspended solids concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ... 40
16 Volatile suspended solids concentrations in the influent
and effluent samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage
Farm soil 40
17 Total phosphate concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ... 41
18 Orthophosphate concentrations in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling
depths for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil ... 41
19 The pH values for the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil 42
20 Salt concentration in the soil solution 48
21 Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters 50
22 Ammonia transformations in a soil mantle treatment system ... 54
23 Percentage removal of orthophosphate-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
(2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of
stabilization pond effluent 68
24 Percentage removal of total phosphorus-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
(2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of
stabilization pond effluent . 69
25 Cost of operation for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 77
26 Cost of ownership for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 78
27 Total system cost for on-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 79
ix
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
28 Cost of operation for in-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 80
29 Cost of ownership for in-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 81
30 Total system cost in-the-ground solid set irrigation
system 82
31 Cost of operation for center pivot irrigation system .... 85
32 Cost of ownership for center pivot irrigation system .... 86
33 Total system cost for center pivot irrigation system .... 87
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Description, Location and Use of the Four Utah Great Basin
Soils Studied 15
2 Lagoon Effluent Characterization 22
3 Mean Loading Rates Used in Lysimeter Study 23
4 Counts for Total Coliform, Fecal Coliform, and Fecal
Streptococcal Group at the 7.6 and 38.1 Centimeter
Depths 33
5 Mean Bacterial Counts Over a 21-Day Period 34
6 Removal Rates of Individual Organisms for the Four Soils ... 34
7 Chemical and Physical Characteristics of the Four Soils
Before and After the Application of Lagoon Effluent .... 36
8 Specific Conductance Statistical Analysis 47
9 Description of Classification Scheme Shown in Figure 21 ... 51
10 Ammonia Removal from Stabilization Pond Effluent Via
Stripping During the Sprinkling Process 52
11 Ammonia-N Statistical Analysis ... 54
12 Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured
During Season 1 and Season 2 55
13 Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured at
Sites Receiving Stabilization Pond Effluent and Sites
Receiving Control Water 55
14 Comparison of Mean Ammonia-N Concentrations Measured at
Various Sample Depths on Sites Receiving Stabilization
. Pond Effluent and Sites Receiving Control Water 57
15 Mean Ammonia-N Removals Obtained at Various Sampling Depths
and for Different Water Types 57
xi
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
16 Nitrate-N Statistical Analysis 58
17 Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured During
Season 1 and Season 2 58
18 Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at
Various Application Rates, Water Types, and Cover Types
For the Second Irrigation Season 60
19 Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at Sites
With Different Cover Types 60
20 Comparison of Mean Nitrate Concentrations Measured at Various
Sampling Depths During the Second Season 62
21 Total Organic Carbon Statistical Analysis 63
22 Comparison of TOC Concentrations Measured at Various
Sampling Depths 63
23 Orthophosphate-P Statistical Analysis 65
24 Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
During Season 1 and Season 2 65
25 Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
on the Sites Receiving Stabilization Pond Effluent and
Sites Receiving Control Water 66
26 Comparison of Mean Orthophosphate-P Concentrations Measured
at Various Sampling Depths on Sites Receiving Stabilization
Pond Effluent and Sites Receiving Control Water 66
27 Mean Phosphorus Removals Obtained at Various Sampling Depths
and for Different Water Types 67
28 Summary of the Mean Values of the Characteristics of the
Lagoon and Field Site Effluent Samples Collected During
Season 1 (1975) at 0.9 Meter (3 ft) Below the Soil
Surface 72
29 Summary of the Mean Values of the Characteristics of the
Lagoon and Field Site Effluent Samples Collected During
Season 2 (1976) at 0.9 Meter (3 ft) Below the Soil
Surface 72
30 Values Used to Calculate Costs Shown in Figures 25 Through 33 . 83
xii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the Logan City Engineer, Mr. Ray Hugie,
is greatly appreciated. Assistance in the operation of the Logan City Waste
Stabilization Lagoon System was provided by Logan City personnel. We wish to
express our appreciation to the many land owners that granted permission to
cross their property with the wastewater transport pipe.
xiii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Many wastewater treatment facilities now in existence cannot meet the
effluent quality standards which will be required by new laws (PL 92-500).
Municipalities and industries with facilities unable to meet the standards
will receive "cease and desist" orders from the courts. Failure to comply
with such orders will result in fines. Therefore, existing facilities must
be improved to an extent that the effluent standards can be met, or a better
method of treatment must be developed.
Upgrading facilities can be a difficult problem, especially for munici-
palities with a small tax base. Costs for wastewater collection and treat-
ment in certain locations have exceeded the assessed value of the real property
in the community served by the system. This creates a severe burden on the
citizens of a municipality and the logic of imposing such a burden is
questionable.
Wastewater stabilization pond effluent can often be improved to an ac-
ceptable level via soil mantle treatment by spray irrigation. Wastewaters in
general have been used for years as irrigation water, but limited study has
been made concerning wastewater stabilization pond effluent for such use (EPA,
1973). Soil mantle treatment by spray irrigation is an economically attractive
and physically viable alternative to other biological or physical-chemical
treatment methods.
To evaluate the soil mantle as a means of polishing lagoon effluent, a
two phase study was undertaken. A series of lysimeters was employed to evalu-
ate the impact of soil treatment on the removal of total and fecal coliform
and fecal streptococcal organisms. The second phase consisted of a two year
field study to evaluate the efficiency of the sprinkler irrigation soil mantle
wastewater treatment system when used to further treat stabilization pond
effluent. The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and economy
of upgrading wastewater stabilization pond effluent using soil mantle treat-
ment via spray irrigation.
Specific objectives were as follows:
1. To correlate soil characteristics with the efficiency of removal
and the survival of enteric organisms found in wastewater stabili-
zation pond effluents using lysimeters.
2. To evaluate the effectiveness of four Utah soils, with different
characteristics, in removing organic and inorganic constituents
found in wastewater stabilization pond effluents.
1
-------
3. To determine changes in the characteristics of the four soils
after use as a soil mantle wastewater treatment system.
4. Operate and maintain a field scale spray irrigation soil mantle
treatment system using municipal wastewater stabilization pond
effluent.
5. Operate the field treatment system for two successive irrigation
seasons to assess trends in treatment efficiency and soil
characteristics.
6. Monitor water quality parameters of the stabilization pond effluent
and the effluent from the soil mantle treatment system.
7. Monitor soil parameters which may affect water quality.
8. Compare the treatment efficiencies of soil vegetated with naturally
occurring weeds and grasses with soil barren of vegetation.
9. Determine the soil mantle treatment system efficiency in removing
algal cells and other pollutants from the stabilization pond
effluent.
10. Examine the soil mantle treatment process at different depths in
the soil profile and with different stabilization pond effluent
application rates.
11. Estimate the capital, operation, and maintenance costs of a spray
irrigation system and compare with costs of alternative methods of
upgrading wastewater stabilization pond effluent.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
1. All soils provided good removal of total coliforms, fecal coliforms, and
fecal streptococci, with the Drainage Farm soil producing the best
bacterial removal followed by the Draper, Nibley, and Parleys soils in
order of decreasing removal.
2. Bacterial removal by the Drainage Farm soil was enhanced by the dense
texture which provided removal by the three mechanisms of straining,
bridging, and straining and sedimentation.
3. Decomposition of organics present in the lagoon effluent and initially
in the soils and the oxidation of ammonia present in the effluent from
the oxidation ponds produced nitrate concentrations in the lysimeter
effluents in excess of that present in the lagoon effluents.
A. Leaching of nitrate-N from the soils occurred.
5. Nibley (silty clay loam) soils showed the highest concentrations of
nitrate-N in the lysimeter effluents with Drainage Farm (clay) soil next,
then Parleys (silty loam) and finally Draper (sandy loam) soils showing
the lowest concentrations.
6. All four soils were effective in removing organic carbon, but clay-like
soils (Drainage Farm and Nibley) provided better removal than the sandy
or silt loam soils.
7. Suspended and volatile suspended solids removals were approximately
equivalent for all four soil types studied, and approximately 85 percent
removal was obtained.
8. A combination of adsorption of phosphate and precipitation of compounds
of phosphorus accounted for the reductions in phosphorus with Drainage
Farm soil the most effective followed by Parleys, Draper, and Nibley
soils.
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
9. The aluminum pipes, valves, rotating "Rainbird" type sprinkler and
the centrifugal pump used in the solid-set irrigation system gave good
service.
-------
10. Where farm machinery must operate on the land, buried solid-set or center-
pivot or self-propelled sprinkler systems would be desirable.
11. The specific conductance and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values observed
in the drainage water were of such magnitude that reuse of the soil mantle
treated water would be hazardous to soils, especially those containing
clay, and to the growth of most plants especially under conditions of re-
stricted drainage.
12. The specific conductance and SAR properties of the stabilization pond
effluent indicated that the effluent was suitable for use as irrigation
water under most conditions.
13. Phosphorus removal was high using the soil mantle treatment system, and
removals exceeding 80 percent were obtained at a depth of 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
in the soil profile. The removal observed at shallower depths in the
soil was higher and averaged 95 percent removal at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
depth.
14. Adsorption appeared to be the major phosphorus removal mechanism with
uptake of phosphorus by the vegetation apparently negligible.
15. The rate of application of irrigation water made no significant difference
in the phosphorus removal.
16. After two years of applying lagoon effluent, no observable change in the
cation exchange capacity of the soil occurred, indicating that phosphorus
removal should remain high in subsequent years of use.
17. The nitrate-N observed in the treated water samples taken during this
study originated from nitrate-N present in the soil before the start of
irrigation.
18. Evidence of nitrate-N leaching was seen and continued high rate irri-
gation should lower the nitrate-N levels in the soils.
19. The nitrate-N concentrations in the water samples were determined by the
characteristics of the soil rather than those of the irrigation water.
20. The application rate of irrigation water was shown to have an insignifi-
cant effect on the concentration of nitrate-N in the water samples from
vegetated sites.
21. On the bare sites where nitrate-N concentrations in the soil were
initially higher than the vegetated sites, generally lower nitrate-N
concentrations were observed in the water samples as the application
rate increased.
22. Concentrations of nitrate-N observed in the water samples ranged on the
average from less than 20 yg/1 to over 30 mg/1. Observed concentrations
were primarily dependent upon the initial concentration of nitrate-N
present in the soil for a given sample site.
-------
23. Ammonia stripping was found to be an important ammonia removal mechanise
when sprinkler irrigation was used and pH values of the irrigation water
were high. Thirty-five percent removal of ammonia-N was obtained from
the stripping process in this study.
24. Total system ammonia-N removal exceeding 90 percent was observed through
the top 61.0 cm (2 ft.) of the soil profile. Overall removal dropped
considerably to 67 percent at the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth.
25. The concentration of ammonia in the water samples was not significantly
affected at the 95 percent confidence level by the concentration of
ammonia in the irrigation water, the vegetation or lack thereof, or the
rate of application of irrigation water.
26. The total organic carbon concentrations observed in the water samples
generally increased over those of the irrigation water,
27. The properties of the soil system determined the TOG concentrations in
the water samples rather than other factors such as the TOG of the irri-
gation water, the vegetation, or the application rate of irrigation water.
28. The soil mantle treated water appeared to be of lower quality than the
applied irrigation water on the basis of organic content. This increase
in organics is attributable to leaching of organics from the soil by the
lagoon effluent.
29. The mean concentration of suspended solids in the drainage water from
the 1.2 m (4 ft.) deep mole drain contained an average of 2 mg/1 SS and
1 mg/1 VSS while the mean values in the stabilization pond effluent were
13 mg/1 SS and 10 mg/1 VSS for the second irrigation season. Similar
results were observed during the first irrigation season.
30. The vegetation yield was not significantly different at the 95 percent
confidence level between sites receiving different application rates of
stabilization pond effluent, between sites receiving irrigation waters
of differing nutrient content, or between sites receiving no irrigation,
and sites receiving irrigation.
31. The pH value, percent C, percent N, Ca, K, Na, and P concentrations in
the soil samples were not observed to change over the two irrigation
seasons.
32. The N03-N concentrations in the soil samples declined over the two season
period in 19 of the 24 sample sites observed, indicating nitrate leaching.
33. In most cases the specific conductances (ECe) of the soil sample extracts
were unchanged over the two seasons except where initially higher values
were found. In these cases a decline in specific conductance was seen,
suggesting salt leaching.
34. The propagation of mosquitoes was a problem with the soil mantle treat-
ment system.
-------
35. Ponding of irrigation water on the soil surface due to excessively high
irrigation rates must be avoided.
36. Only the 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week rate applied to vegetated soil did not
pond and produce a mosquito problem.
37. Because most of the chemical parameters examined were unaffected by the
irrigation application rate, the control of mosquito breeding may be the
limiting factor in deciding the acceptable application rate.
38. Effluents from the soil wastewater treatment system consistently contained
suspended solids concentrations less than 3 mg/1 which easily meets dis-
charge standards of 30 mg/1 or less.
39. Organic carbon concentrations in the effluent from the soil wastewater
treatment system were frequently higher than those measured in the lagoon
effluent applied to the soil. This indicates leaching of organics by the
lagoon effluents, and once equilibrium is established, the effluents from
the soil system should easily meet the effluent standard of a BOD5 con-
centration of 30 mg/1 or less.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1, Long term effects of the application of wastewaters to soil-plant
systems should be evaluated.
2. An evaluation of full-scale soil-plant wastewater treatment systems
should be undertaken.
3. Operational procedures for soil-plant wastewater treatment systems
should be developed.
4. Current design criteria and design procedures should be evaluated and
design methods and procedures developed to reflect geographic conditions
and wastewater characteristics.
-------
SECTION 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of the history of sewage treatment indicates that wastewater
irrigation was originally developed in the early nineteenth century as a
system of both treatment and disposal (Rafter, 1897; Rudolfs, 1933; Mitchell,
1931). In recent years, other forms of waste treatment have replaced most
irrigation wastewater treatment systems. Increasing energy costs and the
need for less complicated treatment systems has resulted in re-examining the
treatment possibilities of certain industrial, agricultural, and domestic
wastewaters through the application of irrigation techniques (Riney, 1928;
Mitchell, 1930; Goudey, 1931; McQueen, 1934; DeTurk, 1935).
Land application of wastewater treatment plant effluents in the United
States dates back to the 1870's (EPA, 1973). The cities of Tucson and
Phoenix, Arizona; Lubbock, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Pomona, Whittier and
Riverside, California have used wastewater for irrigation (Wilcox, 1948).
Merz (1956) reported Bakersfield, Fresno, Wasco, and Tulare, California;
Abilene, Kingsville, and San Antonio, Texas as having obtained favorable
results with land application. As of 1966, California had a total of 199
sewage treatment plants that applied effluent to the land, Texas had 40,
Arizona 20, and New Mexico 21 (Eastman, 1967).
Recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated land
application of wastewater as a viable alternative to traditional treatment
discharge systems (Ward, 1975). When any project is to be considered for
federal funding under best practicable designation, land treatment must be
evaluated as one of the alternatives before funds may be granted. In as-
signing Best Practicable Technology (BPT) status to land treatment, the EPA
has expressed the need to protect the environment. According to the EPA's
BPT document (EPA, 1974),
land application practices should not further degrade the air,
land, or navigable waters; should not interfere with the attain-
ment or maintenance of public water supplies, agricultural and
industrial water uses, propagation of a balanced population of
aquatic and land flora and fauna, and recreational activities
in the area.
If primary drinking water standards are met by land treatment methods,
most of the above objectives should be achieved. Due to the.mobility of
nitrate-N in soil systems, the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1 of nitrate-N
(EPA, 1975) may be the most difficult to meet with land treatment leachates.
8
-------
In most cases the practice of irrigation with wastewater has resulted in
improvement of water quality. At the Pennsylvania State University wastewater
renovation project, effluents from trickling filters and activated sludge
systems were applied to cropland and fruitland using spray irrigation (Myers,
1975). Removal of 93 percent for nitrogen and 35 percent for phosphorus were
obtained when effluent was applied to a reed canary grass crop. On a hardwood
forestland, 90 percent phosphorus removal was obtained. The forest biosystem
was not consistent in lowering nitrogen concentrations.
Near Melbourne, Australia, raw sewage has been applied to the land for
over 70 years. A flooding technique is used to irrigate pastures. Drainage
effluents reportedly contain less nitrogen and phosphorus than generally found
in secondary biological treatment plant effluent. Organic nitrogen and am-
monia nitrogen removal were 93 percent and 91 percent, respectively. Total
phosphorus removal was 91 percent. Perennial rye grass dominates most of the
irrigated land (Seabrook, 1975).
The Muskegon County wastewater system is a spray irrigation land treat-
ment scheme with approximately 6,000 acres of land under irrigation. Corn is
grown for cattle feed as a part of the treatment system. Supplemental
fertilizer is added to the irrigation water before application to the field.
Treatment of the wastewater before irrigation is achieved with aerated lagoons.
Storage ponds are used to hold wastewater when irrigation is not practiced.
Reported phosphate removal was as high as 99 percent for the overall treat-
ment process during 1974. The nitrogen content of the leachate sometimes
exceeded that of the irrigation water during the same period (Demirjian, 1975).
The City of Tallahassee, Florida, applies trickling filter effluent to
the land by spray irrigation. Scrub oak and other natural vegetation cover
the irrigation site. Laboratory analyses indicated that the concentration of
orthophosphate decreased from 25 mg/1 at the surface to 0.04 mg/1 at the
depth of 3 m (10 feet) (Overman, 1975).
In west central Florida the General Electric Company operates a waste-
water spray irrigation site consisting of combined industrial and sanitary
waste. A subsurface drainage system collects percolating water and directs
it to a sump where the water is then pumped to an onsite lake. The resulting
effluent from the overall system exceeds the Florida State water quality
standards (Applegate, 1975).
Although good results have been obtained, irrigation with wastewater is
not a panacea for the economical treatment and disposal of wastes. Sanitary,
aesthetic, economic, ecological, and other practical and technical consi-
derations must be carefully balanced for a sound wastewater irrigation sys-
tem (Gearheart and Middlebrooks, 1974).
The effect of sewage effluent on the yield of agronomic crops in most
cases has been found to be beneficial (Hill et al.» 1964; Herzik, 1956; Merz,
1965; Wilcox, 1949). Henry et al. (1954) obtained a significant increase in
the yield of reed canary grass. Heukelekian (1957) obtained excellent crop
yields in Israel. Wachs et al. (1970) observed yield increases with Satarea
and Avena plants. Stokes et al. (1930) obtained yield increases in Florida
-------
amounting to 240 percent for both Napier grass and Japanese cane, when compared
with the non-irrigated crops, or the same crops irrigated with well water.
Day and Tucker (1960a,b) and Day et al. (1962) in Arizona, obtained beneficial
yield effects on small grains which were harvested as pasture forage, as hay,
or as grain.
More than 100 kinds of viruses are known to be excreted by man and ap-
proximately 70 of these have been found in sewage (Clarke and Chang, 1959;
Clarke et al., 1962). Viruses that appear to be transmitted through waste-
water are the entero-viruses, poliomyelitis (Paul and Trask, 1942a,b; Little,
1954; Kelley et al., 1957; Bancroft et al., 1957), coxsachie (Clark et al.,
1971), and infectious hepatitis (Hayward, 1946; Dennis, 1959; Yogt, 1961).
There are a limited number of studies on the movement of viruses through
granular media (Merell et al., 1963). These studies showed that rapid sand
filtration preceded by coagulation and sedimentation only partially remove
virus. The removal of virus from percolating water is largely due to ad-
sorption on the soil particles. Soils having a higher clay content adsorb
viruses more readily than those with less clay (Eliassen et al., 1967; Drewry
and Eliassen, 1968). Virus adsorption by soils generally increases with
increased ion-exchange capacity, silt content, and glycerol-retention capacity
(Drewry and Eliassen, 1968). The pH of the water soil system affects virus
adsorption. At pH values of 7.0 to 7.5 and below, virus adsorption is more
effective than at higher pH values (Drewry and Eliassen, 1968). Changes in
water quality can cause viruses attached to soil particles to de-adsorb re-
sulting in subsurface travel (Gerba et al., 1975).
It is feared that land disposal of domestic wastes may contaminate
groundwater if viruses travel deeply into the soil. Between 1946 and 1961,
61 percent of all waterborne disease outbreaks in this country were caused
by contaminated groundwater (Gerba et al., 1975).
Studies of bacteria removal by land treatment have shown that soil is an
effective medium for treating sewage. Removal of bacteria from sewage ef-
fluents during percolation through the soil is accomplished largely at the
soil surface by straining, sedimentation, and adsorption (Gerba et al., 1975).
Using radioactive phosphorus to label coliform bacteria, tests at the Tulza
collective farm in Rumania showed that 92 to 97 percent were retained in the
uppermost 1 .cm of the soil, with 3 to 5 percent retained in the 1 to 5 cm
layer (Malculeseu and Drucan, 1967).
Reports from 69 communities in California using wastewater for irrigation
indicate no groundwater pollution or disease transmission (Sepp, 1975).
Krone (1968) stated that, "The utilization of wastewaters ... has been
demonstrated to be feasible and reasonable safeguards are easily achieved."
Krone suggests at least primary treatment with secondary treatment and
chlorination recommended (Krone, 1968). *'From a communicable disease view-
point, land disposal is far less hazardous than disposal into rivers and
streams,*' (Bernarde, 1973).
Considerable concern .has been voiced over the danger of aerosols which
are generated when sewage effluents are applied to the land by sprinkler
10
-------
irrigation. Aerosol droplets may contain active pathogenic viruses or bacteria
which might then be inhaled by workers on the irrigation site or nearby
residents.
Bacteria and virus contamination of aerosols have been shown to exist
near spray irrigation sites. In Israel, a study showed the presence of coli-
form bacteria as far as 350 meters downwind from a municipal spray irrigation
site. In one case, a Salmonella bacterium was isolated 60 meters from the
source. Initial concentrations of coliform bacteria ranged from 10^ to 10°/ml
(Katzenelson and Teltch, 1976).
In another study, bacterial aerosols were observed significantly above
background levels 190 meters downwind from a spray irrigation site (Sorber and
Bausum, 1976). The aerosols emitted from a spray irrigation system using
chlorinated effluent contained biological aerosols of the same order of
magnitude as nonchlorinated wastewater applied to trickling filters (Sorber
and Guter, 1975). Chlorination may not ensure safety in practicing sprinkler
irrigation of wastewaters. Under the conditions that can exist some viruses
may not be inactivated by chlorination of effluents prior to irrigation (Sorber
and Guter, 1975; Sorber and Bausum, 1976; Bernarde, 1973). A buffer zone
around a spray irrigation site is advisable to prevent public contact with
aerosols. Pennsylvania requires a 61 m (200 feet) buffer zone (Morris and
Jewel, 1976).
While some studies have shown that potentially infective aerosols exist
near spray irrigation sites, there is a lack of epidemiological study on the
effects upon exposed groups such as workers and neighbors. Quantitative data
have been unavailable and inferences from qualitative data have not con-
clusively confirmed nor negated the existence of a health risk from viable
wastewater aerosols (Hadeed, 1976).
Twenty-six states have regulations or guidelines pertaining to land
application. Twenty-one of the twenty-six require secondary treatment prior
to land application. Typical guidelines and regulations cover items such as
system design, pre-application water quality, loading rate, buffer zone,
monitoring, cover crops, storage, public access, and effluent quality (Morris
and Jewel, 1976).
The soil system is composed of gas, water, microorganisms, minerals, and
organic matter which form the solid matrix. Experience has indicated that it
is a dynamic system undergoing physical, chemical, and biochemical inter-
actions. Wastewater applied to the soil mixes with the existing soil water
and may alter the nature and rate of change of the physical, chemical, and
biochemical processes in the soil system (Gearheart and Middlebrooks, 1974).
Physical clogging of the soil pores and the resulting loss in the infil-
tration rate have caused many wastewater soil treatment systems to fail
(Avnimelech and Nevo, 1964; Jones and Taylor, 1965; Mitchell and Nevo, 1964;
Winneberger et al., 1960; Thomas et al., 1966; Amramy, 1961). In the particu-
lar case of municipal secondary effluents, the suspended solids concentration
is typically low enough to avoid clogging (Morgan, 1975).
11
-------
Pretreatment of wastewater should precede application to the land. Pre-
treatment should accomplish:
(a) protection of the health and hygiene of the public
(b) reduce the risk of noxious odors
(c) reduce the risk of clogging the soil system
Conventional secondary treatment is probably the best form of pretreatment to
achieve these goals (Hartigan, 1974).
The potential hazard of high sodium accumulation to the physical proper-
ties of certain soils is of paramount concern. This hazard has been exten-
sively studied, and saline and alkali soils can be improved by the proper
management of irrigation practices (USDA, 1954).
It is well known that the addition of organic matter improves the aggre-
gate stability of soils. Wastewaters high in organics have been used for this
purpose (Merz, 1959). Baver (1969) showed that organic matter was conducive
to the formulation of relatively large stable aggregates and that the effect
of organics was more pronounced in soils containing small amounts of clay.
The addition of small amounts of organic matter appeared to promote large
stable aggregates of clay, silt, and sand.
The organic content of wastewater stabilization pond effluent, both dis-
solved and particulate (algae), may therefore have a beneficial effect on soil
permeability. Martin and Waksraan (1940) observed that the growth of micro-
organisms in soil led to the binding of soil particles, and the more readily
organic material decomposed, the greater the effect on aggregation. Plant
roots appeared to be very effective in promoting aggregation in soils. The
unusual aggregation of soils around the roots of plants was probably the con-
sequence of mechanical disturbance by roots and by wetting and drying action
together with cementation by organic compounds (Jenny and Grossenbecker, 1963).
The efficiency of spray irrigation of vegetated areas for wastewater treatment
was due in part to enhancement of permeable structures by plant roots.
Filtration is important for removing suspended particles from wastewater
effluents penetrating the soil and for retaining microorganisms that facilitate
biological decomposition of dissolved and particulate matter. Even though the
removal of suspended particles from water flowing through soils is easily
observed, the processes involved are difficult to describe. Listed below are
three of the simplest mechanisms which might describe a complex situation.
Case I - Straining at the soil surface. Under these conditions the
suspended particles accumulate on the soil surface and become
a part of the filter.
Case II - Bridging. Under these conditions suspended particles pene-
trate the soil surface until they reach a pore opening that
stops their passage.
12
-------
Case III • Straining and Sedimentation. This includes all of the con-
ditions for Case I and Case II except that the suspended
particles are finer than half of the smallest pore openings.
Irrigation with wastewater has a marked influence on the chemical equi-
libria of the soil. Organic matter and clay added via suspended solids can
increase the cation exchange capacity of the soil (Ramati and Mor, 1966).
Many of the dissolved chemicals in wastewater influence the suitability of
the soil for crop production. Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds have a
beneficial fertilizer value when retained in the soil. Data from Kardos
et al. (1974) indicated that removal of nitrogen from wastewater used for
irrigation was dependent upon the amount applied (i.e., the more wastewater
applied the more nitrogen removed). However, the efficiency of removal de-
creased when the application rate increased. Kardos et al. (1974) also indi-
cated that as nitrogen removal efficiency dropped due to high wastewater
application rates, nitrate concentrations in the percolate increased. The
amount of increase was dependent upon the type of crop grown. Pollution of
groundwater by nitrates can be a serious problem (PHS, 1961; Stewart et al.,
1967).
Phosphorus removal by crops, precipitation, and adsorption by soil col-
loids has been reported (Morgan, 1975; Enfield and Bledsoe, 1975). In most
cases the soil has a large capacity for phosphorus removal, and little move-
ment of phosphorus through the soil may be expected. The mechanisms of phos-
phorus removal were dependent on the soil texture, cation exchange capacity,
soil pH, presence of calcium, amount of iron and aluminum oxides present, and
crop uptake of phosphorus. Phosphorus forms precipitated with iron and
aluminum at pH values below 6. In neutral or basic soils, precipitation
primarily occurred with calcium (CRREL, 1972). If the phosphorus removal
capacity of the soil was exceeded, the release of phosphorus to surface waters
could be a problem (Taylor, 1967).
Increased concentrations of trace elements have been found in wastewater
irrigated soils (Seabrook, 1975). Boron content has caused concern in areas
where boron-sensitive crops were irrigated with wastewater (WPCB, 1955).
Toxic concentrations of copper and zinc have apparently accumulated in the
soil at sewage farms (Rohde, 1962).
The application of soil mantle treatment to upgrading stabilization pond
effluent is limited by soil and groundwater characteristics and by the avail-
ability of land. However, most stabilization ponds are generally constructed
near small cities and towns where land is available. Advantages of lower land
prices and flow scale economies often make soil mantle treatment a cost-
effective treatment method for these areas (Young and Carson, 1974), Several
possible monetary benefits of soil mantle treatment were listed by Found et al.
(1975):
1. Sale of crops grown
2. Sale of treated water
3. Lease of purchased lands to farmers for the purpose of soil
mantle treatment
4. Lease of land for secondary purposes such as recreation
13
-------
When properly managed, soil mantle treatment is a practical method of
upgrading stabilization pond effluent. Guidelines, design criteria, and
economic analyses have been developed and distributed by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (1975b,c,d,e).
U
-------
SECTION 5
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
Soil Types
The four Utah Great Basin soil types chosen were Nibley, Parleys, Draper,
and soil typical to the Utah State University Drainage Farm. These soils
were chosen on the basis of major acreage, potential irrigated value and
range in physical and chemical characteristics (Table 1).
Lysimeter Design
Eight lysimeters were constructed, 53cmx53cmx53 cm, with drains
installed at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm depths providing the two sample points.
The bottoms of the lysimeters have two way slopes which allow for complete
and final drainage (Figures 1 and 2). The lysimeters were filled to 1.3 cm
from the top, giving the drains mean depths of 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm with a 5
percent slope. The units were constructed of 15.9 mm (5/8") exterior ply-
wood, all corners reinforced with fiber stripping and the entire unit coated
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION, LOCATION AND USE OF THE FOUR UTAH GREAT BASIN SOILS
STUDIED
Soil Type Texture Sample Site Uge
Location
Nibley Silty Clay 1.4 km S. Irrigated crops
Loam 1 km E. of USU and natural
Animal Husbandry pasture
Farm
Parleys Silty Loam 2.4 km E. of Irrigated grain
Hyde Park on crops and
alluvial fan natural pasture
Draper Sandy Loam 2.4 km E. Perry Irrigated fruit
on alluvial fan crops and
natural pasture
usu Clay 4 km W. and Irrigated grain
Reclamation 1.6 km N. crops and natural
Farm Logan pasture
15
-------
53
CJ
(0
CJ
N;
CJ
UBBER
rUBING
SAMPLE BOTTLE
IO
a
-•n"
"IT
0)
q
IO
in
to
cq
tri
Figure 1. Design of lysimeter (all dimensions are centimeters).
16
-------
Figure 2. Lysimeter,
„
-------
with marine glass resin. The drains were 7.6 cm (3") polyvinyl-chloride (PVC)
with the top half removed beginning 7.6 cm from each wall (Figure 1) to avoid
collecting unfiltered samples due to possible sidewall channeling or short
circuiting. Stainless steel wire with a 1.6 mm (16/inch) mesh was placed over
the openings in the PVC and over the bottom drain outlet to prevent clogging.
Next, a 3.8 to 5 cm layer of washed pea gravel was placed on the bottom.
Each soil type was placed in two lysimeters, and one of the lysimeters
was saturated from the bottom up to the 7.6 cm drain and sampled at the 7.6
cm level. The second lysimeter was saturated up to the 38.1 cm level and
sampled at that point, giving two data points for each soil type.
Soil Preparation
Soil samples were collected and transferred to the lysimeters as near as
possible to the original soil profiles. The lysimeters were loaded in 10 cm
lifts, each lift being rodded to attain a maximum and uniform compaction in
all of the lysimeters.
A typical sample of each soil was submitted to the USU Soil, Plant and
Water Analysis Laboratory for testing before and after application of waste-
water stabilization pond effluent to measure the following properties: pH,
electric conductivity, phosphorus, potassium, texture, lime, organic matter,
exchangeable sodium, total sodium, water soluble sodium, cation exchange
capacity, and percent saturation.
Prior to the application of lagoon effluent, fresh water was applied to
the soils for at least one month, three to four times weekly to aid settling
and leach suspended solids from the filters. Five centimeters of lagoon
effluent were then applied to the soils three times a week and the specific
conductance of the lagoon effluent applied and effluent from the filters was
determined to approximate the time the filters were approaching steady-state
operation. At the time an apparent steady-state condition was reached all of
the chemical analyses were conducted on the influent and effluent from the
lysimeters. Bacteriological analyses were begun when the chemical analyses
were consistent.
SAMPLING
Sampling Schedule
Weekly determination of specific conductance started on September 5,
1974, and the chemical analyses began on September 25, and were conducted
weekly until November 25, 1974. On October 29, the bacteriological analyses
began. The bacteriological tests were conducted daily on the lagoon effluent
applied and the effluents recovered from the lysimeters until November 29.
Sampling Procedure
Lagoon effluent was collected each day from the second cell of the Logan,
Utah, wastewater stabilization pond system (Figure 3) in plastic, 19 1 (5
gallons) containers. Two and one-half cm of the treated wastewater were
18
-------
N
41.5
ACRES
1
1
29.8
ACRES
1
66.6
ACRES
A ^~
«-
73.8
ACRES
1
55.1
ACRES
+ *~
0
97.7 3
ACRES c
m
X
^
o
-n
97.9 J
ACRES $
^ INFLUENT
FINAL +
EFFLUENT
SAMPLING POINT
I ACRE = 0.40 ha
Figure 3. Schematic drawing of Logan waste stabilization lagoons.
-------
applied to the soils. Samples from the appropriate effluent port on each
lysimeter were collected in sterile 500 ml erlenmeyer flasks for the bacterio-
logical analysis (Figure 1). On days when samples were to be taken for the
chemical analyses as well, the bacteriological samples were collected first
and then 2.5 liters were collected in 4-liter plastic containers to be used
for the chemical analysis. The bacteriological and chemical analyses were
conducted within six hours of the time the lagoon effluent was first applied
to the lysimeters. The atmospheric temperature was always below 7°C; there-
fore, no further steps were taken to preserve the samples before analysis.
ANALYSES
Bacteriological Analyses
The bacteriological analyses were conducted according to Standard Methods
(APHA, 1971).
Chemical Analyses
The lagoon effluent and lysimeter effluent samples were analyzed for:
total carbon, total inorganic carbon, total organic carbon, suspended solids,
volatile suspended solids, total unfiltered and filtered phosphate, ortho-
phosphate, ammonia-N, nitrite-N, nitrate-N, pH, specific conductance, total
algae cell counts, chlorophyll "a" and pheophytin "a." Methods described
in Standards Methods were employed (APHA, 1971).
Final Soil Analyses
Upon completion of the testing period, the soils were allowed to freeze
so that undisturbed core samples could be collected with a King tube. The
soil core samples were separated by depth below the surface, and sub-samples
were taken at the surface, 2.5 cm, 5 cm, 7.5 cm, 12.5 cm, 20 cm, and 32.5 cm
levels, respectively. The sub-samples were analyzed for chlorophyll «'a'*
and the presence of total and fecal coliforms by the three tube multi-dilution
MPN technique described in Standard Methods (APHA, 1971).
The King tube is a stainless steel pipe 183 cm long with an inside dia-
meter of 2.54 cm. On one end is a sharpened head (bottom left of Figure 4)
with an inside diameter slightly smaller than that of the remaining tube. The
other end has a steel jacket reinforcing the end (Figure 4). A hammer is used
(bottom of Figure 4) to drive the tube into a compacted soil to remove an
undisturbed soil sample. The core is then removed from the upper end.
Samples used to determine remaining coliform populations at different depths
in the soil were collected with a King tube and hammer scrubber and sterilized
with methanol and flamed before each core sample was taken. The cores were
then placed in sterile long plastic bags so as not to disturb the soil cores.
For the coliform determination the solid cores were aseptically separated
at the desired depths below the surface. Approximately 4 grams of soil were
placed in a tared dilution bottle. Approximately the same amount from the
same depth was weighed, air dried and weighed again to determine the percent
moisture. The soil suspension was then diluted to conduct the three tube
20
-------
Figure 4. King tube and driver,
21
-------
multi-dilution coliform MPN and fecal coliform MPN test. The results of the
MPN determinations for coliforms or fecal coliforms in the soil are reported
as MPN per dry weight of soil.
Soil samples were also taken from the lysimeters at the surface and 32.5
cm depth and analyzed by the USU Soil Plant and Water Analysis Laboratory.
These results were compared with the soil properties before the application
of lagoon effluents.
Lagoon Effluent Characterization
The effluent used for this study was taken from the second cell of the
Logan, Utah, waste stabilization pond system. The lysimeter study was con-
ducted from October through December. Mean values for the various chemical
and bacteriological characteristics of the lagoon effluent is shown in Table
2. The loading rates for the various constituents applied to the lysimeters
are given in Table 3.
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
Field Facility and Design
The experimental facility consisted of eight 15.2 x 15.2 meters (50 x 50
feet) test sites located adjacent to each other on the Utah State University
Drainage Farm (Figures 5 and 6).
TABLE 2. LAGOON EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION
Mean Values for the Lysimeter Study
Total algal cell counts No./ml 23,800
Total coliforms No./100 ml 160
Fecal coliform No./lOO ml 64
Fecal Streptococci No./lOO ml 100
Temp. °C 8
D.O. mg/1 19
Nitrate N03-N mg/1 0.2
Nitrite N02-N mg/1 0.1
Ammonia NH3-N mg/1 4.1
B.O.D. mg/1 30
Specific conductance umhos/cm 640
Suspended.solids rag/1 28
Volatile suspended solids mg/1 17
Total phosphate, PO^P, mg/1 2.8
Orthophosphate, PO.-P, mg/1 ..2.1
pH 8.1
Total organic carbon mg/1 15
Total inorganic carbon mg/1 58
Total carbon mg/1 75
22
-------
TABLE 3. MEAN LOADING RATES USED IN LYSIMETER STUDY
NJ
U>
Parameter
BOD
Nitrate
Nitrite
Ammonia
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Phosphate
Orthophosphate
Total Organic Carbon
Total Inorganic Carbon
Total Carbon
Mean Cone . , , ,
mg/i ks/day
30 2.17 x 10~g
0.15 1.09 x 10~y
0.04 2.68 x 10"
4.1 3.04 x 10 ^
28.9 2.09 x 10 4
17.0 1.23 x 10~
2.81 2.03 x 10 5
2.09 1.51 x 10 ^
15.6 1.13 x 10~4
58.0 4.20 x 10~
75.0 5.40 x 10
kg/hectare/day
7.56
3.82 x 10"
9.35 x 10
1.05
7.30
4.30
7.10 x 10 l
5.28 x 10 l
3.94
1.46 x 10~2
1.91 x 102
Ibs/day
4.78 x 10~H
2.41 x 10~6
5.9 x 10
6.7 x 10
4.6 x 10
2.71 x 10 4
4.48 x 10 5
3.33 x 10 ^
2.49 x 10
9.25 x 10
1.19 x 10 3
Ibs/acre/day
6.78
3.41 x 10~2
8.35 x 10
9.35 x 10"1
6.54
3.84
6.35 x 10""1
4.72 x 101
3.52
1.31 x 102
1.71 x 102
Microbial Characteristics
Parameter
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Total Algal Cells
Avg . Cone .
No./lOO ml
160.0
64.0
100.0
23,800.0
Organisms/Hectare/Day Organisms /Acre/ Day
3.95 x 105
1.63 x 106
2.72 x 106
5.93 x 108
1.6 x 106
6.6 x 105
1.1 x 105
2.4 x 108
Loading rates based on 2.54 cm per day application.
-------
T-
50'
h-
BARE
SOIL
A
4" DRAIN
48" DEEP
NATURAL
—GRASS
PUMPV
VEGETATION
-IOO1-
6
• —
:
;
i •
VALVE
8
HOLDING
POND
©WELL
CONTROL
4"/wk
2"/wk
4"/wk
6"/wk
CONVERSION TABLE
I FT. = 0.3 M:
I IN. = H.5 CM.
SCALE-NO SCALE
Figure 5. Test sites.
24
-------
Figure 6. Drainage Farm test sites.
25
-------
Thirty-four test holes were cored on the Drainage Farm for soil charac-
terization purposes. The topsoil on the test sites was thin and composed of
silty clay loam. Beneath the top soil was a gleyed or mottled clay. Water
movement through the clay was limited. The clay presented a barrier to water
movement whether the water was moving down from the surface or up from an
artesian aquifer below.
The Drainage Farm is essentially level. An open drainage channel about
5 feet deep is located on the farm near the test sites. The open drain serves
to remove surface water and some irrigation return flow.
Four of the eight test sites were covered with naturally occurring weeds
and grasses and the other four sites were barren of vegetation. Effluent
from the second cell of the Logan, Utah, was tewater stabilization pond system
was used in the experiments. The effluent was pumped approximately two and
one-half miles through a PVC pipeline to a holding pond near the test sites.
From the holding pond the effluent was applied to the test sites with a solid
set sprinkler irrigation piping network. Irrigation application rates of 5.1
cm (2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), and 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week were used. One
vegetated and barren site was irrigated at each of the respective irrigation
rates for two seasons. In addition, one vegetated and one barren site received
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week of well water and served as experimental controls
during the second season.
A mole drain 10.2 cm (4 in.) in diameter located 1.2 m (4 ft.) below the
surface collected return flow from the sites. As shown in Figure 5 there was
a 15.2 meter (50 foot) buffer zone between each pair of vegetated and bare
sites to prevent interference from adjacent irrigation activities.
Equipment Design
The wastewater stabilization pond effluent was applied with a solid set
sprinkler irrigation system. The components of the system were all aluminum
piping with self-sealing and draining joints. The trunkline was 7.6 cm (3 in.)
in diameter and laterals were 5.1 cm (2 in.) in diameter. The sprinklers were
spaced 9.1 m (30 ft.) apart and were mounted on galvanized iron risers 76.2
cm (30 in.) above the soil surface. The sprinklers were of the "Rainbird''
type having a 0.32 cm (1/8 in.) orifice and a full circle spray pattern.
Wastewater was supplied to the sprinklers with a three horsepower centrifugal
pump.
As shown in Figure 5 each pair of test sites was served by a block of two
laterals. The system was designed to allow the simultaneous operation of two
blocks. Operation of the control sites was independent of the operation of
the sites receiving effluent. This allowed the control sites and the sites
receiving effluent to be operated at the same time. Control of the irrigation
system was managed with manually activated switches for pumps and manually
operated valves in the pipeline. The locations of valves are shown in Figure
5.
The sprinklers were located so that generous overlapping of the spray
patterns occurred (Figure 7). This ensured a high degree o'f uniformity in
26
-------
NJ
50'
-BE.
2" PIPE WITH SPRINKLER
3" FEEDER PIPE WITH VALVE
SITE BOUNDARY
I FT. = 0.3 M.
UN. =2.5 CM.
SPRAY PATTERN
Figure 7. Spray pattern.
-------
applying the effluent and control water. Much of the spray was applied out-
side the site boundaries to ensure application of water to each site under
varying wind conditions.
Field measured flow rates indicated that the sprinkler system was capable
of delivering 204 liters per minute (54 gallons per minute). This flow rate
is equivalent to an application rate of 0.50 cm (0.197 in.) per hour. Rain
gages installed at the soil surface showed that only 0.40 cm (0.159 in.) per
hour or 80.7 percent actually reached the ground. The difference was assumed
to be caused by evaporation and wind drift.
Effluent and control waters were applied to the sites on four succesive
days each week. On the remaining three days the sites were allowed to rest.
At the 0.50 cm (0.197 in.) per hour application rate, 7 hours and 37 minutes
were required on each application day to apply water to the sites receiving
15.2 cm (6 in.) per week. For the sites receiving applications of 10.2 cm
(4 in.) and 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week, 5 hours and 5 minutes and 2 hours and 33
minutes were required, respecpectively. Four hours and 33 minutes per day
were required to apply well water at a rate of 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week to the
control sites.
Sampling
On each of the test sites, soil moisture sampling devices were installed
at depths of 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3
ft.). Figure 8 shows two sampling devices as they appear when installed in
the soil. These samplers were used in collecting soil moisture samples to
determine variations in water quality with depth. The sampling devices con-
sisted of a length of PVC tubing with a porous ceramic cup attached to the
Figure 8. Sampling device.
28
-------
end placed below the soil surface and a two-hole stopper in the surface end
(Figure 9).
The size of materials that can enter the sampling device was determined
by the pore size of the ceramic cup. The porous ceramic cups were made of 1
bar ceramic material. The bubbling pressure is the pressure required to force
air through a plate of the ceramic material after the plate has been thoroughly
wetted with water. The bubbling pressure and pore size relationship is defined
by the equation D = 30 Y/P where D is the pore diameter in microns, Y is the
surface tension of water measured in dynes/cm, and P is the bubbling pressure
measured in mm/Hg (SEC, 1974). According to this formula a 1 bar (750 ram/Hg)
ceramic plate would have a pore diameter of 2,9 microns when the water tempera-
ture is 20°C.
Impurities in water range in size from a few Angstroms for dissolved sub-
stances to a few hundred microns for suspended particles (Weber, 1972). Col-
loidal particles normally range in size from 1 to 100 millimicrons (Sawyer
aiid McCarty, 1967). The 1 bar ceramic cups with 2.9 micron pore size will,
therefore, allow passage of water samples containing dissolved, colloidal size,
3nd a portion of the suspended size materials.
Tubing, connectors, and clamps were installed as shown in Figure 9. By
aPPlying suction to tube A with a portable hand pump when clamp b was closed
^d then closing clamp a, a partial vacuum was established in the sampling
device. After a period of 10 to 16 hours, depending on the available soil
Moisture, a water sample was drawn into the sampling device through the porous
^UP» The water sample was then collected by loosening clamps a and b and pump-
In8 the sample out through tube B into a container. Samples were immediately
transported to the laboratory for analysis.
In most cases analysis of the water samples began within one hour after
Sanipling. Refrigeration at 4°C in the dark was used for preservation when
storage of samples was required. Twenty-four hours was the longest time that
any samples were stored, and the most perishable parameters were analyzed first.
During the first irrigation season, one sampler at each of the four depths
.as used on the experimental sites. After discovering difficulties in obtain-
n8 sufficient sample volume with this arrangement, additional sampling devices
ere installed for the second season. Each site had two sampling devices at
«*ach of the four depths throughout the second season. These duplicate samples
Were combined in the field.
Soil samples were taken with a slotted 5.1 cm (2 in.) coring device from
ach of the eight experimental sites. The sample cores were selected to
solate depths from the surface to 15.2 cm (6 in.) below the surface, 22.9 cm
^ in.) to 38.1 cm (15 in.) below the surface, and 76.2 cm (30 in.) to 91.4
^ (36 in.) below the surface. Samples were taken just before the first irri-
gation season and at the end of the first and second irrigation seasons.
The water samples were analyzed for the N-forms, P-forms, total organic
aroon, and specific conductance on a weekly basis. The holding pond water,
29
-------
GLASS
CONN.
FLEX
TUBE
CLAMP
STOPPER
PVC TUBE
SECTIONAL VIEW
POROUS CUP
SCALE-1=1
Figure 9. Soil moisture -sampling device.
30
-------
control water, and the return flow from the 10.2 cm (4 In.) mole drain were
analyzed weekly for suspended solids and rehydrated volatile suspended solids.
^1 of the analyses were performed according to Standard Methods (APHA, 1971).
Soil samples were analyzed to determine NOjj-N, Na, K, Ca, percent N, per-
cent C, pH, P, specific conductance, and cation exchange capacity.
Samples
An experiment was conducted at the end of the second irrigation season
to determine if any differences in vegetative growth occurred on the different
test sites. Vegetation samples were taken from each of the sites receiving
wastewater stabilization pond effluent, the control site, and from an adjacent
area that received no irrigation. Five separate 1 square meter areas were
randomly chosen from each site. The vegetation was removed near the soil sur-
face from each area using electric clippers. The vegetation was air dried,
Weighed, and then each sample was ground into a homogeneous mass. Ten percent
°f each pulverized sample was ashed in a muffle furnace and the ashed weight
of vegetation per acre was computed.
Stripp-tnp
An experiment was performed to determine the amount of volatile ammonia
that was being stripped from solution during the spraying process. Samples
ere collected on three occasions and a sample was collected at a sprinkler
n°zzle and at the soil surface. Approximately five minutes were required to
c°llect an adequate volume of sample at the soil surface. The water sample
di
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
SAMPLING DIFFICULTIES
The lysimeters were constructed to monitor the effluents from the soil
at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm soil depths. Although there is much evidence to
indicate that the majority of the bacteriological and chemical removal occurs
in the first few centimeters of soil, it was very difficult to obtain reliable
data at the 7.6 cm depth for a number of reasons. Much of the data from the
7.6 cm sample points were invalid because of short circuiting at the soil sur-
face. This short circuiting was caused by the drying and cracking on the sur-
face between sewage applications. A lysimeter of the size used in this study
with so much surface area and surface disturbance as the lagoon effluent was
applied would cause nonuniform soil depth which was very critical in evaluating
removal at 7.6 cm depth. Often short circuiting was so extreme, samples were
not obtained at all from the 7.6 cm level. However, much of the information
gathered from the 7.6 cm level was valid and helpful in explaining some of the ;
conditions observed. Fortunately, the principal objective was not to establish
at what depth the removal occurred but to study which soil characteristics
produced best removals. The 38.1 cm sample points provided information that
lead to interesting conclusions.
BACTERIOLOGICAL REMOVAL
The results of the bacteriological analyses for total coliform, fecal
coliform, and fecal streptococcal group at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm depths are
shown in Table 4. Due to an error in technique or use of an inferior method
of determination, in some cases the fecal coliform counts were higher than
the total coliform which is unlikely.
Although all soils were effective in removing the indicator organism,
there was a marked difference in the degree of removal between the Drainage
Farm soil and Parleys soil. Removals obtained with Draper and Nibley soils
fall between the Drainage Farm and Parleys soils with some variability between
the Draper and Nibley soils. Table 5 shows the geometric mean bacterial
counts in the lagoon effluent applied to the lysimeters and the effluents
from the lysimeters for a 21 day period. Table 6 shows the removal of orga-
nisms per cm of soil depth for the four soils and the three organisms. These
rates clearly show that the Drainage Farm soil was the most efficient, followed
by Nibley, Draper, and Parleys. Graphical presentations of the. decrease in
counts with depth for the four soils are shown in Figures A-1 through A-4 in
32
-------
TABLE 4. COUNTS FOR TOTAL COLIFORM, FECAL COLIFORM, AND FECAL STREPTOCOCCAL GROUP AT THE 7.6 AND 38.1
CENTIMETER DEPTHS
Sample
Date
10/30
11/1
11/3
11/5 '
11/7
11/9
11/10
11/11
11/12
11/13
11/14
11/15
11/16
11/17
11/18
11/19
11/20
11/21
11/22
11/23
11/24
11/25
11/26
11/27
11/29
TOTAL COLIFORM
Lagoon
Effluent
OC
OC
48
76
494
300
650
720
200
60
64
L3
60
4&
65
45
25
20
27
40
10
33
8
60
50
Dra
7.6
cm
110
1
4
< 1
26
40
26
7
6
< I
5
<, i
< 1
< 1
OC
< 1
OC
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
45
21
29
per
38.1
cm
OC
OC
2
< 1
42
33
20
145
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
OC
OC
< 1
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
112
< 1
< 1
Nib]
7.6
en
NS
NS
OC
4
244
"NS
247
304
44
NS
12
NS
NS
35
US
SS
20
13
NS
40
20
32
NS
NS
NS
Ley
38.1
cm
OC
40
24
4
40
103
11
12
7
10
13
3
10
3
3
3
6
10
6
4
3
3
264
20
32
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
OC
OC
OC
60
OC
240
20
< 1
20
< 1
< 1
< 1
OC
OC
< I
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
30
< 1
146
180
250
eys
38.1
cm
OC
OC
44
12
66
400
96
68
20
24
9
4
< 1
2
OC
1
< 1
1
< I
2
2
< I
195
18
19
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
OC
oc'
OC
16
486
640
40
60
30
< 1
27
< 1
OC
20
< 1
OC
< 1
20
10
10
< 1
1350
920
200
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
5
< 1
< 1
1
4
3
< 1
2
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
< 1
< 1
3
< I
< 1
< 1
2
< I
< 1
< 1
FECAL COLIFOKM
Lagoon
Effluent
13
16
7
7
200
TNTC
TNTC
135
95
55
37
16
46
17
. 44
32
5
31
26
38
19
92
1000
520
610
Drap
7.6
cm
OC
1
2
3
2
22
10
2
7
7
2
5
6
9
5
3
1
4
5
1
2
2
200
10
2
er
8.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
33
26
18
51
8
3
"7
5
4
5
2
'1
3
3
2
1
1
3
70
4
1
Nib
7.6
cm
NS
NS
13
NS
NS
NS
141
130
NS
NS
1
NS
NS
< 1
NS
NS
68
44
NS
72
11
14
NS
NS
NS
ley
38.1
cm
OC
3
< 1
2
6
20
4
10
2
< 1
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
6
1
2
1
1
166
32
47
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
10
3
11
130
TNTC
TNTC
110
10
1
10
20
36
9
24
14
11
4
37
2
27
203
1000
80
50
eys
38. L
cm
OC
6
2
3
13
186
87
14
6
2
3
1
14
6
7
7
7
16
13
4
7
9
200
150
145
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
17
2
OC
157
TNTC
TNTC
115
45
40
10
10
48
9
31
14
OC
7
2
8
29
27
1200
95
42
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< I
< 1
< 1
FECAL STREPTOCOCCUS
Lagoon
Effluent
94
166
12
104.
187
285
274
135
180
137
112
78
56
47
50
57
107
37
107
30
52
85
1000
600
165
Dra]
7.6
era
44
47
20
22
26
30
23
19
36
28
21
24
21
9
16
20
8
7
9
9
2
5
48
31
2
jer
38.1
cm
75
19
9
4
80
3
16
18
9
8
6
3
5
6
4
4
3
1
4
3
2
1
11
5
1
Nib
7.6
cm
NS
NS
111
NS
98
NS
65
52
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
5
NS
NS
11
24
NS
30
< 1
26
NS
NS
NS
.ey
38.1
cm
15
7
3
8
4
1
5
15
3
3
1
< 1
2
1
3
3
2
7
3
16
14
14
59
30
25
Parl
7.6
cm
NS
25
90
145
217
320
188
155
< »
< 1
51
73
27
51
142
62
83
96
122
27
30
80
550
200
50
eys
38.1
cm
OC
63
< 1
15
2
22
Drai
Fa
7.6
cm
NS
141
335
291
302
275
42 324
6
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
1
27
a
2
8
26
5
4
3
59
50
39
152
nage
rm
38.1
cm
OC
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
211 < 1
120
362
510
112
2000
375
50
1205
812
4000
5700
630
2690
1530
1000
200
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< ]
< 1
< L
I
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
OJ
u>
NS—No Sample
OC—Overgrown
TNTC—Too Numerous To Count
-------
TABLE 5. MEAN BACTERIAL COUNTS OVER A 21-DAY PERIOD
Soil Type
Drainage
Farm
Nibley
Draper
Parleys
Depth Total
Below Coliform,
Surface Counts/ 100 ml
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Lagoon Effluent
Surface
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
160
92
1
160
81
15
160
9
7
160
47
41
Fecal
Coliform,
Counts/ 100 ml
64
34
<1
64
50
3
64
6
8
64
34
20
Fecal
Streptococcus,
Counts/ 100 ml
100
860
<1
100
42
6
100
20
10
100
94
11
TABLE 6. REMOVAL RATES OF INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS FOR THE FOUR SOILS
Bacterial Organisms
Soil Type
Drainage Farm
Nibley
Draper
Parleys
Kates —
Total
Coliform
0.091
0.050
0.062
0.015
Log organisms removed
cm of soil
Fecal
Coliform
0.083
0.068
0.051
0.031
Fecal
Streptococcus
0.088
0.060
0.052
0.050
Appendix A. The primary reasons for the better removals by Drainage Farm soJ
is the texture. The Drainage Farm soil was by far the most dense, and remov<
organisms by the three mechanisms of straining, bridging, and straining and
sedimentation. It appears that the texture is the most important factor be-
tween these four soils in terms of bacterial removal.
34
-------
REMOVAL OF PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS
A TIie results of the physical and chemical analyses are summarized in Tables
A'1 through A-15 in Appendix A. The characteristics of the four soils before
^d after the application of lagoon effluent are summarized in Table 7. Indi-
idual constituents are discussed separately in the following sections.
Figures 10, 11, and 12 show the concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen,
trite-nitrogen, and ammonia-nitrogen in the lagoon effluent and the effluent
ampieg collected at the 38.1 cm sampling point on the lysimeters containing
^ainage Farm soil. Variations in the concentrations with time at the 7.6
« 38.1 cm depths for the Draper, Nib ley, and Parleys soils are shown in
a 8ures A- 5 through A- 13 in Appendix A. Due to the short circuiting near the
urface, the 7.6 cm sample points cannot be considered reliable.
An appreciable increase in nitrate concentration over the amounts present
e lago°n effluent is shown in Figure 10 and Figures A-5 through A- 13.
increase is attributable to the production of ammonia from the decom-
al t*°n of organics present in sewage and trapped on and in the soil and that
ready present in the soil as well as the oxidation of ammonia present in the
effluent.
th . 10 and 12 show that in the lagoon effluent the concentrations of
e nitrate-nitrogen remained relatively constant and the ammonia-nitrogen
ncentration increased toward the end of the lysimeter study.
A balance of the nitrogen applied and removed from the lysimeter indicated
the soils contained significant amounts of nitrogen before the lagoon ef-
t, Uent was applied. Leaching of nitrates from the soils accounts for part of
6 "igh concentrations of nitrate-N in the lysimeter effluents.
ci h Nibley (silty clay loam) and Drainage Farm (clay) soils produced appre-
ably higher concentrations of nitrate in the lysimeter effluents collected
Dr the 38.1 cm depth than the effluents from the Parleys (silty loam) and
an PSr (sandy loam) soils. Nitrates are more easily leached from sandy soi-ls,
hi K^6 Denser or clay-like soils produced higher levels of nitrate with the
Pr H r amounts °f organic matter present. The Drainage Farm and Nibley soils
d tne lowest concentrations of ammonia-N indicating that ammonia is
as readily leached out.
Carbon (TOG)
a , . To explain the nitrate build-up in the soils, a high quantity of ammonia
ce °rganic nitrogen would be required. Ammonifiers comprise a large per-
of the bacteria and fungi in soil, and these organisms are hetero-
(utilize organic carbon for growth). Figure 13 shows the concen-
°f TOC in the influent and effluents from the lysimeters containing
Farm soil. Variations in TOC concentrations with time for Draper,
» and Parleys soils are shown in Figures A- 14 through A- 16 in Appendix
^, -
ley
fL figure 13 shows that the concentrations of TOC in the effluents correspond
rj-y close to the concentrations of TOC in the lagoon effluent applied.
35
-------
TABLE 7. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR SOILS BEFORE AND AFTER THE APPLICATION OF
LAGOON EFFLUENT
pH
ECe mhot/CB
P mg/1
K mg/1
Texture
Line
Org. Natter Z
Exch. Na ae/lOOg
Total Na me/100g
Water Sal. Ha. me/lOOg
Cation Exch. Capacity
ne/lOOg
Water Saturation Z
Moisture Storage •
Capacity e«/c«
DRAPER
Before
Test
Period
7.1
1.1
13.0
171.0
Sandy Loam
+
2.3
.2
,2
.1
9.9
28.0
2.54/34
After Test Period
Top
8.4
.7
21.0
81.0
Sandy Loan
+
.3
.2
.2
.1
5.1
21.0
2.54/34
32.5 cm
7.8
.5
19.0
110.0
Silt Loan
+
1.2
.2
.3
.1
8.8
29.0
4.45/34
NIBLEY
Before
Test
Period
7.4
.5
27.0
490.0
Silt Loan
•f
3.7
.3
.3
.1
23.6
56.0
4.45/34
After Test Period
Top
8.1
.7
31.0
378.0
Clay
•w-
1.0
.4
.5
.1
19.6
60.0
5.70/34
32.5 CB
7.7
.5
26.0
408.0
Clay
-H-
1.1
.3
.4
.1
21.2
66.0
5.70/34
Before
.Test
Period
7.6
.6
4.5
398.0
Silt Loan
-H-
1.9
.2
.2
.1
17.7
42.0
4.45/34
PARLEYS
After Test Period
Top
8.1
.9
11.0
315.0
Silt Loam
++
r:i
,4
.5
.1
11.8
42.0
4.45/34
32.5 cm
7.7
.6
3.9
389.0
Silt Loan
-H-
1.2
.4
.4
.1
12.2
44.0
4.45/34
DRAINAGE FARM
Before
Test
Period
8.1
.9
7.1
490.0
Clay
•H-
5.5
.8
1.2
.3
19.7
83.0
5.70/34
After Test Period
Top
8.2
.7
32.0
399.0
Sllty
day Loan
•H-
2.2
.4
.5
.2
12.0
81.0
5.08/34
32.5 cm
8.3
.5
4.4
450.0
Sllty
Clay Loam
•H-
2.8
.4
.6
.1
15.7
90.0
5.08/34
CO
-------
100.0
5 '0.0
2
1.0
0.01
z
NITRATE NOjH
O- Lagoon Effluent
^. Droiftag* Farm 38.1cm
——o- Drainngt Farm 7.6 em
VIZ
9/25 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 II/C 11/14 11/21 11/25
SAMPLE DATES
NITRITE N02N
o- Lagoon Effluent
.A. Drolnag* Farm 30.1cm
——-o- Drainagt Form 7.6cm
\ /
e 10. Nitrate-N concentrations
in the influent and ef-
fluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cen-
timeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters con-
taining Drainage Farm
soil.
9/12 »/2S 10/2 10/16 10/22 KVZ9 ll/« 11/14 11/21 n/25
SAMPLE DATES
Figure 11. Nitrate-N concentrations
in the influent and ef-
fluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cen-
timeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters con-
taining Drainage Farm
soil.
g^ An examination of the before and after analyses of the soils (Table -7)
s a
.
^"
a marked decrease in the organic material present in the soils . The
soils, Nibley and Drainage Farm, again show the greatest decrease
°r8anic matter, 70 percent and 50 percent, respectively; whereas, Draper
exPerienced a 48 percent reduction and Parleys was reduced by 37 percent
reductions calculated at the 38.1 cm depth).
th
13 shows that organics were leached from the soil or passed through
S0i1' Table 7 shows a significant decrease in organic content of the soil
tlle application of lagoon effluent indicating that the lagoon effluent
Beaching organics from the soils.
Pi8ure 14 supports the observation that the Drainage Farm soil provides
est treatment of lagoon effluent followed by Nibley, Draper, and Parleys
8- The removal of algal cells should be controlled by straining, bridging,
straining and sedimentation. At the beginning the per cent removal of
37
-------
10.0 r
1,0
60
55
AMMONIA NH3N
f> Lagoon Effluent
*- Dra.nofl. Form 38.1cm
——O- Droinogt Form 7,6cm
s
s
O 20
I..
10
V
0.01
•/Z9 10/Z
10/16 10/22 10/29 II/C 11/14. 11/2111/25
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
o Lagoon Effluent
-A- Drainage Form 38,ler»
O- Drainage Farm 7,6cm
SAMPLE DATES
Figure 12. Ammonia-N concentrations
in the influent and ef-
fluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cen-
timeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters con-
taining Drainage Farm
soil.
100 -
2 80
9/29 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 M/6 11/14 M/ZI II/2S
SAMPLE DATES
Figure 13. Total organic carbon concert
t rat ions in the influent an
effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 centi-
meter sampling depths for
the lysimeters containing
Drainage Farm soil.
80
60 -
REMOVAL AT THE 38.1 cm SAMPLE POINT
8.C.B. (Droptr)
Le. So. Main (Nibliy)
H.P.B. (ParUyi)
Dralnaft Farm
9/2S
10/Z
10/16
10/22 10/29
11/6
11/14
11/21
It/25
DATES SAMPLED
Figure 14.
Total algal cell percent removal at the 38.1 centimeter
depth for all soils studied.
38
-------
algae was much lower than toward the end of the experiments. This increased
removals could have been caused by the buildup of a film on the soil surface
or the elimination of soil separation (cracking) near the end of the experi-
ttent. Before the biological analyses began, lagoon effluent was applied to
the lysimeters only three times weekly as opposed to daily application near
the end of the experiment. In the soils with a higher percent clay, the
cracking would be expected to be more severe, thereby explaining the lower
algae removal by the Drainage Farm (clay) soil initially. As the algal cells
accumulated on the soil surface, the removal would be expected to increase as
observed. The sudden decrease in percent removal by the Parleys soil after
October 29 occurred because the soil surface of this lysimeter was re-leveled
drastically disturbing the clogged pores and decreasing the filterability.
After October 29, the suspended solids and volatile suspended solids in the
effluents from the disturbed lysimeter increased as shown in Figures A- 19 and
A~22 in Appendix A.
Figures 15 and 16 show the suspended and volatile suspended solids con-
centrations in the lagoon effluent and the effluent from the lysimeters for
the Drainage Farm soil for the duration of the lysimeter experiment. Both
suspended and volatile suspended solids were removed effectively with concen-
trations less than 5 mg/1 for the suspended solids and less than 2 mg/1 for
the volatile suspended solids passing through the soil. Variations in the
suspended and volatile suspended solids concentrations for Draper, Nibley,
^d Parleys soils are shown in Figures A- 17 through A-22 in Appendix A. The
concentrations of suspended and volatile suspended solids in the influent
remained fairly constant while concentrations in the effluents at the 38.1
011 sampling points were constantly decreasing. The increasing removal toward
the end of the period shows an increased filtering effect caused by straining
311(1 sedimentation and also utilization of the volatile or organic matter
Present. Drainage Farm soils produced the best solids removals with Nibley
second. Both of these soils have tighter pore spaces and longer residence
times which provide good removal by filtration and retain the liquid longer
flowing the organisms to utilize the organic matter. Solids removals obtained
*ith the Draper and Parleys soils were good with concentrations of less than
10 rag/1 in the effluents. The mean suspended and volatile suspended solids
removals provided by the Draper and Parleys soils were approximately 85 per-
Cfint after an acclimation period.
Phosphorus removal by a soil is a result of a combination of adsorption
?f Phosphate and precipitation of compounds of phosphorus. Shewman (1973)
J-ourxd that the soil properties most likely correlated with adsorption would
De surface area and the related properties, percent clay, and cation exchange
^Pacity. The quantity and condition of lime present probably influences both
eclPitation and adsorption.
Figures 17 and 18 of the Drainage Farm soil show that almost all of the
Phosphate exists as orthophosphate. Total and orthophosphate concentrations
111 the influent and effluent samples for Draper, Nibley, and Parleys soils
39
-------
O> 100
E
Q
z
I I 1 L
0.10 -
\
A
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
O- Lagoon Effluent
A- Dralnggt F«rm 38.1cm
o- Droinage Form 7.6em
/M IO/2Z lo/29
.SAMPLE DATES
'"25
9/2S 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 M/6 11/14 11/21 11/29
SAMPLE DATES
Figure 15.
Suspended solids concen- Figure 16,
t rat ions in the influent
and effluent samples col-
lected at the 7.6 and 38.1
centimeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters con-
taining Drainage Farm soil.
Volatile suspended solids
concentrations in the in-
fluent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and
38.1 cm sampling depths foC
the lysimeters containing
Drainage Farm soil.
are shown in Figures A-23 through A-28 in Appendix A. The total phosphate
concentrations in the samples collected at the 38.1 cm sampling point show
consistent results, fluctuating only when the influent concentration varies.
The removal of total phosphate appeared to be attributable to adsorption.
Orthophosphate influent concentrations were less than the total phosphate in
the influent, but the concentrations of orthophosphate in samples from the
38.1 cm sampling points were approximately equal with the total phosphate,
suggesting a change of form or increase from another source.
Drainage Farm soil was again the most effective treatment media followed
by Parleys, Draper, and Nibley. As stated earlier, phosphorus removal capacit
is based on surface area and these soils show this to be true. Drainage Farm
(clay), Parleys (silt loam), and Draper (sandy loam) were the most effective;
however, Nibley should have removed phosphorus more effectively based on sur-
face area. Nibley soil, a silty clay loam, should have removed phosphorus at
a rate comparable to the Drainage Farm soil.
40
-------
1.0
V
a
i
a.
0.1
10. c
e,
a.
TOTAL PHOSPHATE P04 - P
•—«• Lagoon Effluent
•*• Drolnoja Farm 38.1 cm
o- Droinagi Form 7.6 em
«/IO 9/12 9/2810/2 10/16 10/22 W/2» ll/« 11/14 11/21 11/28
SAMPLE DATES
0.01
ORTHO-PHOSPHATE
—•*• Lagoon Efflutnt
*• Dralnaft Farm M.I en
—-o- Orolnaot Form 7.6 em
I-'
9/2B 10/2 10/IC 10/22 «/*• 11/6
SAMPLE DATES
11/14 11/21 11/28
17.
Total phosphate concen-
trations In the influent
and effluent samples col-
lected at the 7.6 and 38.1
centimeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters contain-
ing Drainage Farm soil.
Figure 18.
Orthophosphate concentra-
tions in the influent and
effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 centi-
meter sampling depths for
the lysimeters containing
Drainage Farm soil.
Th
ev %Cati0n exchan8e capacities (C.E.C. ; see Table 7) of the soils were:
soil h d Drainage Farm, 19.7; Parleys, 17.7; and Draper, 9.9. Nibley
Was fc^e ^Shest (23.6) exchange capacity and better phosphorus removal
ex
the i p®cted< Either the Nibley soil did not have the capacity to perform at
irtflue n§ rates aPPlled, or there was short circuiting within the bed. The
to 4 n^ Phosphorus concentrations to the lysimeters were low varying from 2
therefore, only a small degree of short circuiting would heavily
0^C^ the concentrations in the effluents. The percent of clay and quan-
er K S la the soils (Table 7) also supports the observed results; how-
degre ere aSain Nibley does not follow the rule so we must conclude, a small
e Qf channeling may have occurred in this lysimeter.
EH
l8ure 19 shows the pH values for the lagoon effluent applied to the
and the pH values for the samples collected at the 7.6 cm and 38.1 cm
41
-------
10.0
9,0
• .0
7.0
pH
. Lagoon Effluent
Drainagi Farm 38.1cm
Drainage Farm 7.6 cm
I
9/9 9/10 9/12 9/16 9/25 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14 11/21 11/25
SAMPLE DATES
Figure 19. The pH values for the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 centimeter sampling depths
for the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil,
sampling depths in the lysimeters containing Drainage Farm soil. The pH
values for the influent and effluent from the lysimeters containing Draper,
Nibley, and Parleys soils are given in Figures A-29 through A-31 in Appendix
A. The pH values for the samples collected at the 7.6 cm sampling depth were
generally lower than the pH values in the lagoon effluent applied but not as
low as the pH values in the effluent collected at the 38.1 cm sampling depth.
The pH value of the lagoon effluent was usually in the range of 7.8 to
8.5. The pH values from the 7.6 cm samples averaged around 7.5 to 8 while
the 38.1 cm samples produced pH values around 7.0 to 7.25. The drop in pH
may have been caused by production of 002 and organic acids resulting from
bacterial action in the soil. Nitrification of the ammonium and removal of
carbonate also reduces pH. These factors would almost all be dependent on
the detention time for their degree of effect. Therefore, it is generally
observed that those samples from the 38.1 cm sampling depth which had the
longest detention time produced the greatest reduction in pH values.
Changes in Soil Properties
The soils studied provided good removal of various constituents and
bacteria, but their individual characteristics did not change drastically as
Table 7 indicates. As in the determination of chlorophyll "a** and pheophytifl
"a** in the lagoon effluent, the analysis of the core samples for chlorophyll
«'a** did not detect concentrations high enough to be of significant value.
The noticeable changes occurred in phosphorus, percent organic matter, and
cation exchange capacity.
The phosphorus, as would be expected, increased on the surface of all
soils especially on the clay (Drainage Farm). Because phosphate does not move
readily through the soil, an increase was observed on the surface and a slights
increase at the 32.5 cm depth. As indicated by Table 7, the phosphorus removal
by Parleys and Draper soils were also significant.
42
-------
The organic matter in the soils decreased considerably as discussed
earlier; however, it is apparent that this decrease had some affect on the
exchange capacity. The soils with a higher percentage of organic matter
the start, i.e., Nibley and Drainage Farm soils had a higher C.E.C. "Soils
in organic matter have substantial cation exchange capacities because of
large negative charge developed by the humus'' (Coleman and Mehlich, 1957).
Therefore, the C.E.C. was observed to decrease proportionally with the decreased
Or8anic material in the final analysis of the soils.
43
-------
SECTION 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FIELD EXPERIMENTS
OPERATION DIFFICULTIES
Obtaining adequate samples with the soil moisture sampling devices was
difficult especially during the first irrigation season. Often samples of
sufficient volume to run the entire battery of tests could not be obtained.
This problem was negated to a considerable degree during the second season
when additional sampling devices were installed.
Only soil samples were obtained on the control sites during the first
irrigation season because well water was not available. During the second
season well water was applied to the control sites.
Numerous mechanical failures prevented the collection of continuous data
during the first season, A submersible turbine pump was initially used in the
holding pond to supply stabilization pond effluent to the sprinklers. After
three weeks of satisfactory performance, the pump became hopelessly clogged
with the matted algal material growing in the holding pond. When the pump was
unclogged, only one or two days of operation was obtained. A centrifugal pump
was then selected to replace the submersible turbine pump. Uninterrupted
operation of the sprinkler system resumed on the eighth week of the first irri*
gation season. The centrifugal pump continued to give unfailing service for
the remaining part of the first season and throughout the second irrigation
season.
Several pipe ruptures occurred when exposed pipeline was damaged by
vehicles in the field or damaged by vandals. The pipeline appeared to be the
target for irresponsible marksmen. Such events hampered the operation of the
system and the collection of data.
The experimental time period covered 13 weeks the first season starting
on July 27 and ending October 8, 1975. The second season began on June 28
and ended on October 8, 1976, covering a span of 14 weeks. The data collection
proceeded without interruption throughout the second irrigation season.
OPERATION AND OBSERVATIONS
Some difficulties were encountered operating at the irrigation rates used
in this study. The 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week rate was far in excess of the
infiltration capacity and evapotranspiration demand of the Drainage Farm
44
-------
system. Throughout both irrigation seasons the vegetated and bare sites
eceiving 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of effluent experienced extensive ponding
°t water on the soil surface. This high application rate saturated the soil
0 5he Point that water was still standing after the weekly three day drying
Period. A floating algal mat developed in standing water on the bare site
receiving 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week. The clay layer beneath the topsoil pre-
sented a barrier to vertical movement of this excess water through the soil.
tne 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week rate, more water was available for percolation
an could pass through the clay barrier. Water infiltrated the topsoil until
eaching the clay and then moved horizontally beyond the site boundaries.
On the bare site receiving 10.2 cm (4 in.) of effluent per week, ponding
nd horizontal migration of the irrigation water also occurred, but the problem
xd not occur until mid-season. With the 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week application
ate it took a few weeks to fill the moisture capacity of the soil and then
Ponding and horizontal migration occurred. On the vegetated site receiving
th ™ ^ ^'^ °^ effluent Per week, ponding and migration of the water beyond
. e site boundaries did not occur until the last three or four weeks of the
rrigation season. During the hottest part of the summer, evaporation and
ranspiration rates were high and all water applied to the vegetated site
eceiving 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week was gone before the start of irrigation on
"e following day. In the fall, near the end of the irrigation season when
eiuperatures were lower and the growth of vegetation had subsided, ponding
sisted on the vegetated site receiving 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week.
With the 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week application rate, ponding and horizontal
Station of the irrigation water was not a problem at any time on the vege-
site< °n the bare site the problems did not occur until near the end of
t irrigation season. Five cm (2 in.) was well within the combined evapo-
*ansPiration and infiltration capacity found with the vegetated site. Even
a Htlle enc* of the irrigation season when the water demand was lowest, ponding
horizontal migration did not occur.
On all of the bare sites receiving effluent, an algal growth appeared on
e surface of the soil. The intensity of the algal growth appeared to be
a °ut the same with all of the application rates. Algal growth was not ob-
co^^ °n tne vesetated sites. Some algal growth was observed on the bare
_^ ntrol site. The intensity of the algal growth on the control site was minute
t? COmParison to that on the sites receiving effluent application. Apparently
e nutrient content of the effluent stimulated algal growth on the sites
pi Vlng ef fluent. Some of the algae observed on the surfaces of the bare
°ts were contained in the effluent and were trapped on the surface as the
ater passed into the soil. The moist conditions and high nutrient content of
e effiuent probably encouraged the algae to reproduce on the soil surface.
nding and horizontal migration of water on the control sites was similar to
We £ °Ccurrln8 °n the sites receiving effluent at the same 10.2 cm (4 in.) per
aPPlicatlon rate. This indicates that the heavier algal growth on the
test sites had little effect on the infiltration rate.
Large mosquito populations were observed in the Drainage Farm area. On
test sites there was a noticeable increase in the number of hostile
-------
Shallow standing water provided mosquito breeding areas on the sites receiving
15.2 or 10.2 cm (6 or 4 in.) per week.
Because mosquitoes are an unpleasant nuisance and a possible disease
transmission vector, it is important to operate a soil mantle treatment system
so that mosquito breeding areas do not develop. Of the application rates used
at the University Drainage Farm, only the 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week used on a
vegetated site avoided the mosquito problem. An absence of standing water
and frequent drying out of the area are desirable conditions to inhibit
mosquito reproduction. The control of mosquito breeding was directly related
to the application rate and the ability of the soil and vegetation to as-
similate the wastewater. The difficulties encountered in this study show the
importance of conducting pilot scale studies before installing a full scale
irrigation system for soil mantle treatment of wastewater stabilization pond
effluent.
The water recovered from the drainage system appeared to be colorless and
free from turbidity. The drainage effluent was also free of odors and was
similar to a typical effluent from an irrigation farm. Details of the changes
in the chemical and sanitary characteristics of the wastewater stabilization
pond effluent as it passed through the soil are presented in other paragraphs.
APPLICATION TO LOGAN SYSTEM
Approximately 32,200 m3/day (8.5 MGD) of wastewater are treated by the
Logan City wastewater stabilization pond system. A soil mantle treatment
facility of 1,160 hectares (2,860 acres) would be required to treat the ef-
fluent assuming an application rate of 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week and a 20 week
season. This is a conservative estimate of the land requirement since higher
application rates may be permissible during peak evapotranspiration periods.
Climate, soil type, vegetation employed, and the characteristics of the waste-
water are factors which will affect the land requirement. Land requirements
are site specific and must be evaluated at each location before a system is
constructed.
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE AND SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIO
The specific conductance data are shown in Tables B-1 and B-2 and graphi-
cally in Figures B-l through B-8. The results of the sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) determinations are shown in Table B-15.
The results of the statistical analysis of the specific conductance data
is summarized in Table 8. The statistical results showed that none of the
specific conductance results were significant at the 95 percent confidence
level. The correlation coefficient (R2) was only 0.10, which indicated that
one-tenth of the performance characteristics of the soil mantle treatment
process were attributable to specific conductance. The variation in the ob-
served specific conductance levels was probably caused by differences in the
soil system between sites and between depths in the soil profile.
Although not indicated by statistical results, some observations can be
made. Figures B-1 through B-8 show that the specific conductance of the
46
-------
TABLE 8. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Main Effects Significant @ 95 Percent
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
.Twp-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Water Type x Weeks
Sample Depth x Weeks
Water Type x Sample Depth
R2 - 0.10
R2 « 0.098^
Q
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
.j „ j
Noa
Noa
Noa
Noa
NA
Noa
Noa
Noa
Noa
Noa
Noa
Analysis of data with season 1
at>ilization pond effluent and the control water were approximately equal and
uch lower than that of the water samples collected each week. Several factors
ndicate increased salinity with depth. After passing through just the top 10
^m (4 in.) of soil, the specific conductance of the water samples was usually
ouble or more than that of the applied irrigation water. An apparent trend
increasing specific conductance is shown in Figures B-2 through B-8. The
£°nductivity of the soil mositure extract taken from soil samples also seem to
nc*ease with depth. Table B-15 shows that the SAR values for the water samples
®re usually higher in water samples taken at the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth than at
"e 10.2 cm (4 in.) depth. This is an indication that salinity not only in-
Creases with depth, but that the salts involved may be sodium salts. The ly-
simeter study showed that the specific conductance of stabilization pond ef-
uent increased as the water percolated through soil.
b The increase in salinity in the water samples can be explained by the salt
alance concept described by the following equation (USU, 1969):
Q C + S + others - (QdC + Sppt + SG) = 0
in which
Qc = quantity of irrigation water
Qd = quantity of drainage water
c = concentration of salt
sw = salt from weathering
47
-------
Sppt = salt precipitated
Sc = salt in the crops
Figure 20 illustrates the salt balance concept and how the salt concen-
tration of the soil solution can be affected.
by:
The apparent increase in salinity in the water samples can be explained
1. Consumptive use (evapotranspiration) of water by the vegetation
increases the concentration of salts in the soil solution (USU,
1969; Jurinak, 1975)
2. Salt concentration often increases with depth in the soil profile
due to the dynamic nature of the salt transport (USU, 1969)
3. Salt concentration is affected by weathering and precipitation
processes during irrigation (USU, 1969; Jurinak, 1975)
IN
IRRIGATION
WATER
OTHERS
IN
VEGETATION
SALT
in soil
solution
FROM
WEATHERING
PRECIPITATES
IN
DRAINAGE
J
Figure 20. Salt concentration in the soil solution.
48
-------
There was some evidence that leaching of salts occurred in the soil mantle
treatment system. The specific conductance values of the water samples taken
Curing the second irrigation season appear to be lower, on the average, than
during the first season. A downward or negative slope on the specific con-
ductance graphs (Figures B-2 through B-8) suggests leaching. In a majority of
the soil tests, a decrease in specific conductance and sodium was observed
between the initial specific conductance and the values observed at the end of
the second irrigation season (Table B-14). There is some question about the
reuse of treated wastewater that might be collected in subsurface drains.
^illsbury and Blaney (1966) considered water having a specific conductance of
'500 micromhos/cm or more ''essentially valueless for irrigation water.'' The
sPecific conductance of many of the water samples exceeded 7500 micromhos/cm.
This was especially true at the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) sample depth.
Figure 21 is a classification diagram for the evaluation of salinity and
s°dium hazards of irrigation water (USDA, 1954). The classification scheme
used in Figure 21 is explained in Table 9.
If values of specific conductance from Table B- 1 and sodium adsorption
ratios from Table B-15 are indexed on Figure 21, it can be seen that in most
cases the hazard due to salinity in crops was high to very high. The hazard
due to sodium ranges from low to very high. At the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth the
sodium, hazard was usually medium or high. The combination of C3 and C^
^linity hazard with predominantly S2, 83, and S4 sodium hazards, make the
Soil mantle treated water undesirable for reuse as irrigation water especially
a soil such as that found at the USU Drainage Farm (i.e., high clay, poor
AMMONIA
The ammonia-N removals obtained with the soil mantle treatment process
ate shown in Tables B-3 and B-4 and Figures B-9 through B-16. Mechanisms for
r of ammonia from wastewaters using a soil mantle treatment process
stripping when sprinkler application is used, nutrient uptake by vege-
and the changing of ammonia to other nitrogen forms by nitrification.
, The holding pond used in this study experienced a vigorous algal bloom
uring most of both irrigation seasons. The bloom was a thick, green, float-
n8 mass covering the entire surface of the shallow pond. Free carbon dioxide
® used by the algae in photosynthetic processes. The effects on the chemistry
the wastewater are described by the following relationships:
C02 + H20 £ H2C03 t HCO~ + H+
C03 + H20 £ HCO~ + OH
in If algae lower the concentration of carbon dioxide in the water, a shift
WJJ equiHbrium will occur resulting in a decrease in H+ and an increase in OH"
lch increases the pH value of the water.
49
-------
IOO
4 5678 IOOO
4 5OOI
N
<
I
<
*
_J
.
Q
Si
Si
OJ
3O
28
26
24
~ 22
o:
20
8
Q
18
,6
12
O
8 10
8
6
2
O
CI-S4
CI-S3
CI-S2
CI-SI
I
I I III III
C2-S4
C2-S3
C2-S2
C2-SI
C3-SI
I I I
IOO 25O 75O 225O
CONDUCTIVITY-MICROMHOS/CM (ECxIO6) AT 25°C
I
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY HIGH
SALINITY HAZARD
Figure 21. Diagram for the classification of irrigation waters,
50
-------
TABLE 9. DESCRIPTION OF CLASSIFICATION SCHEME SHOWN IN FIGURE 21
Conductivity
Low-salinity water (Ci) can be used for irrigation with most crops
on most soils with little likelihood that soil salinity will develop.
Some leaching is required, but this occurs under normal irrigation prac-
tices except in soils of extremely low permeability.
Medium-salinity water (C^) can be used if a moderate amount of
leaching occurs. Plants with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in
roost cases without special practices for salinity control.
High-salinity water (C^) cannot be used on soils with restricted
drainage. Even with adequate drainage, special management for salinity
control may be required and plants with good salt tolerance should be
selected.
Very high salinity water (C^) is not suitable for irrigation under
ordinary conditions, but may be used occasionally under very special
circumstances. The soils must be permeable, drainage must be adequate,
irrigation water must be applied in excess to provide considerable leach-
ing, and very salt-tolerant crops should be selected.
.Sodium
The classification of irrigation waters with respect to SAR is based
Primarily on the effect of exchangeable sodium on the physical condition
°f the soil. Sodium-sensitive plants may, however, suffer injury as a
result of sodium accumulation in plant tissues when exchangeable sodium
values are lower than those effective in causing deterioration of the
Physical condition of the soil.
Low-sodium water (Sj) can be used for irrigation on almost all soils
with little danger of the development of harmful levels of exchangeable
s°dium. However, sodium-sensitive crops such as stone-fruit trees and
av°cados may accumulate injurious concentrations of sodium.
Medium-sodium water (82) will present an appreciable sodium hazard
in fine-textured soils having high cation-exchange-capacity, especially
"nder low-leaching conditions, unless gypsum is present in the soil.
"ls water may be used on coarse-textured or organic soils with good
Permeability.
High-sodium water (83) may produce harmful levels of exchangeable
sodium in most soils and will require special soil management — good
drainage, high leaching, and organic matter additions. Gypsiferous
s°ils may not develop harmful levels of exchangeable sodium from such
aters. Chemical amendments may be required for replacement of exchange-
able sodium, except that amendments may not be feasible with waters of
V£ry high salinity.
Very high sodium water (84) is generally unsatisfactory for irri-
gation purposes except at low and perhaps medium salinity, where the
°lution of calcium from the soil or use of gypsum or other amendments
ay make the use of these waters feasible.
51
-------
Algae can also obtain carbon dioxide from bicarbonates and carbonates.
When this occurs, the chemistry of the system can be described by the follow-
ing equations:
2HCO
20H
Again, algal activity results in an increased hydroxide concentration and a
corresponding increase in pH value. The pH value of the wastewater stabili-
zation pond effluent was about 9 as a result of algal activity.
Ammonia exists in equilibrium with ammonium ions in a water solution as
described below.
NH? + OH~ $ NH° + H_0
[NH+HOH']
[NH°]
[NH°]
1.8 x 10
.[OH']
= 1.8 x 10"
-5
The above relationship indicates that approximately 36 percent of the total
ammonia in the stabilization pond effluent should be in the form of volative
ammonia at a pH value of 9. Stripping of this volatile ammonia requires air-
water contact. Considerable contact was provided during the sprinkling process
Table 10 represents the results of an investigation into the stripping process
during the second irrigation season.
The spraying process was highly efficient in stripping volatile ammonia
from the stabilization pond effluent. The average removal was 35 percent.
The pH value of the effluent and the large air-water contact surface provided
by the spray provided ammonia stripping conditions.
TABLE 10. AMMONIA REMOVAL FROM STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT VIA
STRIPPING DURING THE SPRINKLING PROCESS
Effluent at Sprinkler
Nozzle
Effluent at Soil
Surface
Percent
uate
8-17-76
8-25-76
8-30-76
Ammonia-N
ug/1
995
457
1220
PH
9.0
8.9
8.8
Ammonia-N
Mg/1
658
265
868
PH
9.0
8.9
8.7
Removal
34%
42
30
=35%
52
-------
The fate of ammonia in a soil mantle treatment system can be described by
one or more of the transformations shown in Figure 22. Stripping of ammonia
ft the soil system was minimal because of the limited air-water contact area.
he water application rates used were high enough that water saturated con-
ditions existed in the soil most of the time. The primary source of ammonia
was the spraying process as previously discussed.
As shown in Table 11, the cover type used was not a significant factor at
he 95 percent confidence level. This means the nutrient uptake by vegetation
as not an important ammonia removal mechanism. The vegetation utilized in
1X18 experiment was not harvested so ammonia-N taken up by the plants would
Probably be returned to the soil when the plants died. The net removal of
a/mu°nia-N would, therefore, be minimal even if uptake was significant. Ammonia-
adsorption on clay by cation exchange, entrapment in intermicellular layers,
and adsorption by organic matter are possible ammonia removal mechanisms (Lance,
. '2). Entrapment of ammonia-N in intermicellular layers of clay is limited
n m°st cases, while adsorption by organic matter has been shown in many cases
0 exceed adsorption by the mineral portion of the soil in ammonia-N removal
rom percolating waters (Lance, 1972). Under proper conditions, a
itrification-denitrification process may result in the ultimate removal of
nitrogen from a soil mantle treatment system. An aerobic condition for nitri-
ication followed by an anaerobic condition for denitrification is required.
"is removal process was probably quite limited with the sites receiving 10.2
^* (4 in.) and 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of irrigation water. The nearly con-
H^tly saturated condition of the soil was not favorable for aerobic con-
The nitrification-denitrification process may have played a role in
removal with sites receiving 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week of irrigation
r« With this application rate some drying of the soil was observed be-
application periods, and this is essential for aeration of the soil.
s There was a significant difference in the ammonia-N concentrations ob-
served between the first and second irrigation seasons. Table 12 shows the
tce of difference between the seasons.
s No significant difference in ammonia concentrations was observed between
reriS°nS at the four water sample depths. The difference between seasons occur-
hi h°nly with the stabilization pond effluent. Season 1 was significantly
_ 8ner in concentration than season 2. The concentration of ammonia-N ob-
in soil treated water samples appears to be independent of the concen-
L°n observed in the applied irrigation water.
No .Table 13 presents a statistical comparison of the two water types used.
Sa SJ-Snificant difference in the ammonia-N concentrations was shown between
Wat obtained from sites receiving effluent and sites receiving control
dtf?" The ammonia-N concentration in the irrigation waters was significantly
t erent. This further supports the hypothesis that the ammonia-N concen-
con ^served at any particular depth in the soil is independent of the
ob Centration in the applied irrigation water. The ammonia-N concentrations
laterVed in the soil treated water samples may be assumed to be a function
in ?*./ of conditions in the soil system rather than ammonia-N concentrations
irrigation water.
53
-------
AIR/SOIL INTERFACE
AMMONIA FROM
STABILIZATION
POND EFFLUENT
HARVEST
/NJ_
\
VOLATILIZATION
NUTRIENT UPTAKE
BY VEGETATION
SOIL
NITRIFICATION
DENITRIFICATION
(Reduction)
ADSORPTION
BY-CLAY
AMMONIA
z
CATION FIXATION ABSORPTION
EXCHANGE BY ORGANIC
MATTER
DENITRIFICATION
(Assimilation)
DECOMPOSITION
OF ORGANIC-N
NO;
SOIL/WATER TABLE
INTERFACE
UNUTILIZED
PORTION
Figure 22. Ammonia transformations in a soil mantle treatment system.
TABLE 11. AMMONIA-N STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Main Effects
Significant @ 95 Percent
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
Two-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Water Type x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
R
0.457
-------
TABLE 12. COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DURING
SEASON 1 AND SEASON 2
Sample Depth Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1); Season
| No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence)
—
!0.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
Stabilization
pond Effluent
47 (Sj)3
37 (Sj)
58 (Sj)
, 133 (Si)
2230 (S2)
57 (S2)
65 (S2) (
124 (82^
440 (S2)
832 (S2)
Code: (Sj) season 1, 1975. (S2) season 2, 1976.
Application rate and cover type are not significant at a 95 percent
confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means .
TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT
SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT AND SITES
RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
Sample D th Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1) ; Water Type
ep (_No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence |
___^___
1(>.2 cm (4 in.)
3°-4 cm (1 ft.)
51-0 cm (2 ft.)
91 -4 cm (3 ft.)
Irrigation Water
1 57
1 65
j 124
|456
832
(E)a
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
34
29
74
31
181
(C),
(C)|
(C)|
(C)|
(C)
Code (E) Stabilizaton Pond Effluent. (C) Control Water
Cover type and application rate were not significant at a 95 per-
confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
eason 1 data were excluded because no control water was applied during
Season 1.
55
-------
Some significant differences in ammonia-N concentrations were observed
between sample depths on sites receiving effluent irrigation water. Table 14
presents a statistical comparison of ammonia-N concentrations between sample
depths for the two water types used in this study.
With sites receiving stabilization pond effluent, a mean ammonia-N re-
moval of over 95 percent was obtained after percolation through the top 10.2
cm (4 in.) of the soil profile. At lower depths the ammonia-N concentration
increased, becoming significant at the 95 percent confidence level upon
reaching the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depth. There are several possible reasons for
the increase. Ammonia-N previously adsorbed on the soil by cation exchange
may have been released into the soil solution when competing cations such as
Ca and Ilg were introduced with the irrigation water. Because the soil was
saturated with water most of the time, anaerobic conditions likely existed in
the soil, especially at the lower depths. Under anaerobic conditions, de-
nitrification may occur. Nitrites and nitrates are both reduced by the process
of denitrification primarily to nitrogen gas by denitrifying bacteria, but a
few carry the process to ammonia-N (Sawyer and McCarty, 1967) . Nitrates were
present in abundance as will be shown in a following section of this report on
nitrates. The amount of total organic carbon present as an energy source for
denitrification increases with depth (see TOC Section). An anaerobic environ-
ment in the soil, the presence of denitrifiable forms of nitrogen, and an
organic carbon energy source, make assimilative denitrification a possible
explanation of the increased ammonia-N concentrations observed at lower depths
in the soil.
Ammonia-N is a product of anaerobic decomposition of organic matter
(Sawyer and McCarty, 1967). Decomposition of organic matter present in the
soil may be the reason or a contributing factor to increased ammonia concen-
tration at lower soil profile depths. Some increases in ammonia-N concen-
tration with depth were observed on sites receiving control water. These
increases were not significant at the 95 percent confidence level, however.
Table 15 summarizes the ammonia-N removal performance of the soil mantle
treatment system. Over 90 percent removal of ammonia-N was obtained in the
top 61.0 cm (2 ft.) of the soil. At the 91.4 cm (3 ft.) level the percent
removal of ammonia-N decreased substantially.
Ammonia removal from wastewaters is desirable because of its nutrient
value to troublesome aquatic plants and the nitrification oxygen demand ex-
erted in surface waters. The soil mantle treatment process significantly
lowers ammonia-N concentrations in percolated waters.
NITRATE AND NITRITE
The performance of the soil mantle treatment system for nitrate may be
seen graphically in Figures B-17 through B-24. The data are presented in
tabular form in Tables B-5 and B-6. Nitrite data are shown in Figures B-25
through B-32 and in Tables B-7 and B-8,
Nitrate is very mobile in soil systems (Sawyer and McCarty, 1967; USU,
1969) and the water samples obtained from the soil profile consistently
56
-------
TABLE 14. COMPARISON OF MEAN AMMONIA-N CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS
SAMPLE DEPTHS ON SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT
AND SITES RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
T, Ammonia-N Concentration (yg/1) ; Sample Depth
Water Type
I No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence i
i 55 (4) .sa (12) 108 (24)| 389 (36) 1165 (0)
Effluent ' - i - ~~~ -
Control Water | 29 (12) 34 (4) 74 (24) 181 (0) 310(36))
TABLE 15. MEAN AMMONIA-N REMOVALS OBTAINED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS AND
FOR DIFFERENT WATER TYPES
Water Type Sample Depth Ammonia-N Removal
Stabilization
Pond Effluent
Control Water
__^_
10.2 cm (4 in;)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
71.4 cm (3 ft.)
95%
95
91
67
84%
81
59
71
Both seasons data combined.
£0lltained nitrate-N. Because of its mobility, one would expect nitrate to
each from a soil containing nitrate when water is percolated through that
^1' There was evidence that leaching of nitrate from the soil system took
ace during the two irrigation seasons observed in this study.
j As noted in Table 16, the results of the statistical analysis of nitrate
7ata indicate a significant difference between the concentrations observed
uring the first irrigation season and the second irrigation season. Investi-
|ation revealed that the nitrate concentrations in water samples during the
l*st irrigation season were significantly higher at the 95 percent confidence
evel than the nitrate concentrations observed during the second season. This
°Qiparison was made for each season as a whole without regard to other main
tfects. A more specific comparison is made in Table 17.
57
-------
TABLE 16. NITRATE-N STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Main Effects
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
Two-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Water Type x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Significant
No
Yes
Yes
.Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
@ 95 Percent
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Yesa
Noa
R = 0.352
R2 = 0.620a
a
Analysis of data with season 1 excluded.
TABLE 17. COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DURING
SEASON 1 AND SEASON 2
Cover Type j
Vegetated
Bare
NO^-N Concentration (pg/1)
No Significant Difference at
| 111
1 70
79
I 446
8916
| 15570
(2,6)a
(2,4)
(2,2)
(2,6)
(2,4)
(2,2)
; Season; Application Rate
95 Percent Confidence Level]
2269 (1,6)
4941 (1,4)
1840 (1,2)
3233 (1,6)|
48200 (1,4)
13410 (1,2)
aCode: (Season, Application Rate) Sites received stabilization pond
effluent inches or cm T 2.54 per week.
58
-------
As shown in Table 17, the average nitrate concentrations observed appear
to be substantially higher for each test site at each application rate during
the first season with one exception. The difference between seasons is
significant at the 95 percent confidence level for the vegetated site receiving
5.1 cm (2 in.) per week and the bare site receiving 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week
°f stabilization pond effluent. The apparent reason for the lower nitrate
concentrations during the second season was leaching of nitrates through the
soil system. This observation is substantiated when the soil analyses shown
^n Table B-14 are examined. Nineteen of the 24 soil sample locations showed
a decrease in soil nitrate concentration from the initial (before irrigation)
value to the end of the second irrigation season value.
One might hypothesize that nitrification of N-forms was responsible for
nitrate found in the water samples. Three factors negate this hypothesis.
t, as shown in Table 18, nitrate concentrations in water samples from the
Vegetated sites, including the control, were not significantly different at
the 95 percent confidence level during the second season even though the nitrate
concentration in the stabilization pond and control water were significantly
Different at the 95 percent confidence level. Also, water samples from the
bare site which received 10.2 cm (4 in.) of control water and the bare site
which received 5.1 cm (2 in.) of stabilization pond effluent were not signifi-
cantly different in nitrate concentration. Over two seasons, these two bare
^ites had received approximately equal amounts of irrigation water and there-
fore had the same potential for nitrate leaching. Indications were that the
nitrate concentrations found in the water samples were not primarily functions
of the nitrate concentration in the applied irrigation water.
Second, the nitrate-N concentration alone in water samples taken from
the bare site receiving 5.1 cm (2 in.) per week and the bare site receiving
10*2 cm (4 in.) per week exceeded the average TKN of 5200 ng/1 found in the
ktabilization pond effluent during the second season (Filip, 1976). Third,
because of the high application rates used, anaerobic conditions likely
existed making large scale nitrification improbable.
Complete nitrification of N-forms could not account for the amount of
uitrate observed in these samples. It may be concluded that the nitrate-N
concentrations observed in the water samples were primarily due to the leaching
nitrate-N present in the soil before the beginning of irrigation.
As shown in Table 18, where significant differences are indicated, the
°ncentration of nitrate-N was least when the amount of water applied was
£reatest. When more water is percolated through the soil more nitrate may
leached from the soil.
There is a large difference between the nitrate concentration in water
es obtained from vegetated sites and bare sites as shown in Table 19.
*° factors probably cause the disparity between the observed results. First,
utr*ent uptake by plants can remove nitrate-N from the lagoon effluent as it
Psses through the soil. A second and more important reason for the higher
ate concentrations on the bare site is found when the soil analyses in
B-U are examined. In every case except for two samples, the initial
concentration of nitrate was higher in the soil samples from the bare
59
-------
TABLE 18. COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS
APPLICATION RATES, WATER TYPES, AND COVER TYPES FOR THE SEC-
OND IRRIGATION SEASON
Mean NO-j-N Concentration (ug/1);
Cover Type Application Rate; Water Type
|No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidencei
Vegetated
Bare
1 72
366
(4E)a
(6E)
79
6820
(2E)
(4E)
103 (6E)
1 11800 (4C)
214 (4C)|
12000 (2E)|
Code: (2E) 5.8 cm/wk (2 in./wk) w/stabilization pond effluent
(4E) 10.2 cm/wk (4 in./wk) w/stabilization pond effluent
(6E) 15.2 cm/wk (6 in./wk) w/stabilization pond effluent
(4C) 10.2 cm/wk (4 in./wk) w/control water
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT SITES
WITH DIFFERENT COVER TYPES
Application Mean No3_N Concentration (yg/1); Cover Type
Rate and |No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence Level I
Ja «-ov Tirno ... .. . — __l
Water Type '
6"/wk Effluent
4"/wk Effluent
2"/wk Effluent
4"/wk Control
I 103
72
79
214
(V)
(V)
(V)
(V)
366
6820
12000
11800
(B)|
(B)
(B)
(B)
V = vegetated
B = bare
sites than in the soil samples from the vegetated sites. This prevailed with
depth in the soil profile with the greater concentrations near the surface.
Unknown factors have caused the soil nitrate to be higher where the bare sites
were located. There appears to be a definite correspondence between the con-
centration observed in the soil treated water samples and the concentration
observed in the soil samples. As shown in Table 19, no significant difference
was found between nitrate concentrations in water samples obtained from vege-
tated or bare sites where the 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week sites were located.
This corresponds to the results in the soil analyses where the least dif-
ference between vegetated and bare sites was observed. Also, the greatest
difference in nitrate concentration between vegetated and bare sites in water
samples corresponds to the greatest difference in nitrate concentration between
vegetated and bare sites in soil samples. It is believed that initial soil
nitrate concentrations affected the amount of nitrate found in the leachates
more than any other factor.
60
-------
Continued high rate irrigation of Drainage Farm soils should result in a
further decrease in both leachate and soil nitrate concentration. An equi-
^ibrium value will be reached in time. This equilibrium value will be dictated
by the irrigation application rate, the nitrogen content of the irrigation
water, and the amount of nitrogen removed from the soil system by means other
than leaching, such as removal of crops containing nitrogen obtained from the
soil.
At the beginning of the irrigation seasons, higher nitrate concentrations
Were observed in the water samples than were observed after two or three weeks
ot irrigation on the vegetated sites. These peaks were probably due to nitro-
8£n being returned to the soil by decaying plant materials and by evaporation
concentration effects during the nonirrigation season. On the bare sites
these effects were masked by the much higher nitrate concentrations.
Table 20 indicates little significant difference in nitrate concentration
between depths in the soil.
No significant difference in nitrate concentrations in water samples was
°bserved for the vegetated sites. Where significant differences occurred on
"•e bare sites, no recognizable pattern of increase was shown.
Nitrate-N levels frequently exceeded the 10 mg/1 concentration drinking
w*ter standard in the water samples obtained from the bare sites. These
Citrate concentrations could possibly promote algal growth in surface waters
ut might be of use as a fertilizer in irrigation reuse.
CARBON
Several methods of testing the organic pollutional load of a water have
sen developed. The most common of these are the biochemical oxygen demand
g °D)> chemical oxygen demand (COD), and the total organic carbon (TOC) tests.
ecause of the time advantage with the TOC test and the large number of samples
0 be tested, TOC values were the most practical, even though the BOD and COD
ests are more commonly employed. The TOC concentration indicates the organic
p°Uutional strength of stabilization pond soil mantle treated effluents. The
6sults of the TOC analyses are presented in Table B-13.
^ The statistical analysis of the TOC data is summarized in Table 21.
J*ere was no significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level in the
j^C content in the water samples due to the type of irrigation water applied,
he Presence or absence of vegetation, or the application rate of irrigation
water- However, there was a significant difference in TOC concentration in
rater samples obtained at different depths in the soil. Table 22 shows the
Ationship between TOC concentration and soil depth.
There was a significant increase in TOC concentration as depth in the
Profile increased. The increase appeared to level off at the 30.5 cm
ft«) to 91 cm (3 ft.) depth. Because of the lack of statistical signifi-
e of other factors as well as depth in the soil profile, the increase in
concentration with depth was likely due to characteristics of the soil.
Presence of organic carbon in the soil effluent suggests that anaerobic
61
-------
TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF MEAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS DURING THE
SECOND SEASON
ro
Cover
Type
Vegetated
Vegetated
Vegetated
Vegetated
Bare
Bare
Bare
Bare
Water
Type
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Control
Effluent
Effluent
Effluent
Control
*Code: (application
rates)
Application
Rate
15.2 cm
(6 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
5.1 cm
(2 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
15.2 cm
(6 in,)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in.)/wk
5. 1 cm
(2 1n.)/wk
10.2 cm
(4 in,)/wk
Mean
I No si
14
18
294
19
77
77
77
19
N03-N concentration (yg/i); Soil Profile Depth
qnificant difference at 95 percent confidence
(12)* 14
(4) 77
(12) 77
(0) 31
(0) 202
(0) 303
(0) 5530
(0) 4150
(36) 77 (0)
(0) 800 (36)
(0) 88 (36)
(4) 32 (36)
(12) 223 (36)
(4 )| |10900 (36)
(4) |14100 (12)
(24) 5360 (12)
121 (24)
80.7 (24)
93.1 (24)
188 (12)
279 (4)
102 (12)
110 (4)
759 (24)
254 (4) 1080 (24)
12400 (24) 13000 (12) |
17000 (36) | 26300 (24)
[13300 (4) 38000 (36)
6 15.2 cm (6 in.)
4 10.2 cm (4 in.)
2 5.1 cm (2 in.)
0 Applied Irrigation Water
-------
TABLE 21. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON STATISTICAL ANALYSIS3
Main Effects Significant @ 95 Percent
Water Type No
Cover Type No
Application Rate No
Sample Depth Yes
Weeks Yes
.Twp-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate No
Cover Type x Sample Depth No
Cover Type x Weeks No
Application Rate x Sample Depth Yes
Water Type x Sample Depth No
Application Rate x Weeks No
R2 = 0.551
a
Analysis of data with season 1 excluded.
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF TOC CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING
DEPTHS
Mean TOC Concentration (mg/1) ; Sample Depth
Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence Level)
(0)a 14.9 (4) i 20.9 (12) ; 24.6 (36) 27.9 (24)
a
Code: (4) 10.2 cm or 4 in.; (12) 30.5 cm or 1 ft.; (24) 61 cm or
2 ft.; (36) 9 cm or 3 ft.; (0) Irrigation Water.
Cover type, application rate and water type were insignificant at
95 percent confidence level and were ignored in calculation of the
above means.
w of the solid soil organic components with ammonia produced as a
Product may have occurred. This was suggested earlier in this report.
PH°SPH
ORUS
Total phosphorus concentrations are shown in Figures B-33 through B-40
j, in Tables B-9 and B-10. Orthophosphate concentrations are shown in
B-41 through B-48 and in Tables B-11 and B-12.
63
-------
As irrigation water percolates through the soil, phosphorus may be added
to or removed from the water. Whether addition or removal of phosphorus occurs
depends upon the initial concentration of phosphorus in the irrigation water
and upon the characteristics of the soil through which percolation occurs. If
the initial concentration of phosphorus in the irrigation water is high, then
it is likely that subsurface return flows will contain less phosphorus than
the original water. If the concentration of phosphorus is low, then an in-
crease may occur during the percolation process.
The oxidation pond effluent used for irrigation water in this study con-
tained what may be termed *'appreciable'' amounts of phosphorus, 1 mg/1 or
more (USU, 1969).
Table 23 summarizes the initial findings of the orthophosphate-P statis-
tical analysis.
As shown in Table 24, there was a significant difference in phosphorus
concentration at the 95 percent confidence level between the first and second
irrigation seasons. The analysis exhibited in Table 24 shows that there was
no significant difference (95 percent confidence level) in orthophosphate con-
centration between season 1 and season 2 at the four soil depths where water
samples were collected. The orthophosphate concentration in the stabilization
pond effluent differed significantly between the two seasons. Although the
applied orthophosphate concentration differs, the concentration in the percolate
does not differ significantly, suggesting that the concentrations observed in
the percolate were independent of the concentrations applied. Table 25 fur-
ther substantiates this hypothesis.
Table 25 presents a statistical comparison of the two water types used.
No significant difference in orthophosphate concentration was observed between
sites receiving effluent and sites receiving control water at any of the
sample depths. This occurred even though the orthophosphate concentration in
the stabilization pond effluent was much higher than the concentration in the
control water. Because there was no significant difference in orthophosphate
concentration in the percolate between irrigation seasons when the applied
effluent differed significantly, and because there was no sigificant difference
in orthophosphate concentration in percolate coming from sites receiving ef-
fluent or control water when the control water was far lower in orthophosphate
concentration than the effluent, it may be assumed that the concentrations
observed in the percolate largely represent background levels inherent to the
soil system. The orthophosphate concentration in the irrigation water was not
shown to significantly affect concentrations observed in the percolate at any
given depth. There were, however, some significant differences in ortho-
phosphate concentrations observed between sample depths on sites receiving
effluent. Table 26 presents a statistical comparison of orthophosphate con-
centration between sample depths for the two water types used in this study.
After a large reduction in orthophosphate concentration at the surface,
a gradual but significant increase in concentration was observed as the sample
depth increased with sites receiving stabilization pond effluent. This general
trend occurred for vegetated and bare sites at the different application rates
used. As noted in Table 23, cover type and application rate did not
64
-------
TABLE 23. ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Main Effects
Significant @ 95 Percent
Water Type
Cover Type
Application Rate
Sample Depth
Season
Weeks
.Two-Way Interactions
Cover Type x Application Rate
Cover Type x Sample Depth
Cover Type x Weeks
Application Rate x Sample Depth
Water Type x Sample Depth
Application Rate x Weeks
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
R = 0.715
TABLE 24. COMPARISON OF MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
DURING SEASON 1 AND SEASON 2
Sample Depth
Orthophosphate-P Concentration (yg/1)
10-2 cm (4 in.)
3o-5 cm (1 ft.)
6l-0 cm (2 ft.)
9l-4 cm (3 ft.)
Stabilization Pond
Effluent
, 36 OS})3
j 56 (Si)
, 93 (S:)
1 122 (St)
i i
1530 (Sj)
74
118
186
243
1000
(S2),
(S2>,
(S2),
(S2),
(S2)
Code: (Sj) season 1, 1975; (S2) season 2, 1976.
Application rate and cover type were not significant at 95 percent
c°nfidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
S "i
"
^ ^Ificantly affect orthophosphate concentrations at the 95 percent confidence
T^e increase in orthophosphate concentration with sample depth on
receivin8 effluent was not significant between adjacent sample depths
between alternate depths, illustrating the gradual nature of the increase.
65
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
ON THE SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENT AND SITES
RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
, Orthophosphate-P Concentration (yg/1); Water Type
I No Significant JDifference at 95 Percent Confidence!
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.4 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
Irrigation Water
I 74
| 118
| 186
1 243
1000
(E)a
(E)
(E)
(E)
(E)
36
53
129
163
28
(C)|
(C)|
(C)|
(C)!
(C)
aCode: (E) Stabilization Pond Effluent. (C) Control Water.
Cover type and application rate were not significant at a 95 per-
cent confidence level and were ignored in computing the above means.
Season 1 data were excluded because no control water was applied during
season 1.
TABLE 26. COMPARISON OF MEAN ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED
AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS ON SITES RECEIVING STABILIZATION
POND EFFLUENT AND SITES RECEIVING CONTROL WATER
Orthophosphate-P Concentration (yg/1); Sample Depth
Water Type [No Significant Difference at 95 Percent Confidence Level|
Stabilization j58 (4)a 101 (12)[ 156 (24) 212 (36) 1270 (0)
Pond Effluent ' i ' |
Control Water 28 (0) 37 (4) 53 (12) 129 (24) 163 (36)
aCode (4) 10.2 cm (4") depth, (12) 30.5 cm (12") depth, (24) 61 cm
(24") depth, (36) 91.4 cm (36»») depth, (0) irrigation water
Season 1 and season 2 data combined for stabilization pond effluent. NO
statistical difference shown between season 1 and season 2 at given depths o*
levels in the soil profile (see Table 24).
The increasing orthophosphate concentration at greater sample depths was
probably due to the percolating water removing small amounts of phosphorus
from the soil particles, from the oxidation of organics present in the soil,
and/or from the soil solution. The mean concentration of orthophosphate also
-appeared to increase with depth on the sites receiving control water, but the
66
-------
increases were not shown to be significant at the 95 percent confidence
level.
After percolation through the top 10.2 cm (4 in.) of soil, orthophosphate
emoval of 90 percent and above were typically observed and removal as high as
Percent occurred at this depth. Similar performance was observed in the
eiuoval of total phosphorus. The overall phosphorus removal seen at the
Sweater sample depths was less than at the 10.2 cm (4 in.) depth but still
£h. Table 27 summarizes phosphorus removal by the soil mantle treatment
Process.
Table 27 also shows that phosphorus concentration was lower in the per-
late when the concentration was high in the irrigation water and that phos-
°rus concentration was increased in the percolate when the phosphorus con-
ei*tration was low in the irrigation water. This was as expected. The per-
oiate phosphorus concentrations were equilibriated to levels statistically
^distinguishable at the 95 percent confidence level regardless of the type
irrigation water used in this study.
Figures 23 and 24 graphically illustrate phosphorus removal during the
ficond irrigation season. The differences shown between cover types were
Significant at the 95 percent confidence level. This indicates that nutrient
Ptake by vegetation was not a significant phosphorus removal mechanism.
The silty clay loam soils used in this study supplies many adsorptive
for phosphorus removal. Adsorption was probably the major phosphorus
mechanism. Examination of the soil characteristics in Table B-14
that the cation exchange capacity was undiminished after two irrigation
ns with stabilization pond effluent. The basic environment of the soil
contains some calcium for precipitation with phosphorus. The soil sys-
should provide phosphorus removal for many years.
TABLE 27. MEAN PHOSPHORUS REMOVALS OBTAINED AT VARIOUS SAMPLING DEPTHS
AND FOR DIFFERENT WATER TYPES
Water Type Orthophosphate-P Total-P
Stabilization
pond Effluent
Control Water
~~__
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
10.2 cm (4 in.)
30.5 cm (1 ft.)
61.0 cm (2 ft.)
91.4 cm (3 ft.)
- 95%
- 92
- 88
- 83
- 31
+ 90
+ 364
+ 486
- 93 %
- 90
- 85
- 82
+ 108
+ 93
+ 176
+ 234
Code: - removal; + increase.
Both seasons data combined.
67
-------
UJ
DC
t-
z
LU
O
CC
UJ
0.
Figure 23.
IOO
90
8O
7O
60
50
4O
30
2O
IO
IOO
90
80
7O
6O
5O
40
30
2O
IO
IOO
90
80
7Ot-
6O
50
4O
3O
2O
10
6"/wk
VEGETATED
BARE
j u
_L
I 23456789 IO
12 13 14
VEGETATED
BARE
23456789 IO
12 13 14
2"/wk
VEGETATED
BARE
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/24 IO/l IO/2
SAMPLING DATE AND SAMPLE NUMBER
Percentage removal of orthophosphate-P at the 10.2 cm (4 in.)
sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm
(2 in.), 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of
stabilization pond effluent.
68
-------
1
_J
<
>
o
s
LU
o:
f-
2
LU
0
K
LU
a.
IOO
90
8O
7O
60
5O
4O
3O
20
IO
f G ^— TV 0—fl— ?—
j^/r IT ^^ O
^^
f
I
/ 6"/wk
/ VEGETATED — O —
• BARE — • —
•
-
i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
IOO
9O
80
70
6O
5O
4O
3O
2O
IO
r ^ ^^r^Q^^v—o— 2—^—0
o — ° * *^--di^
•
•
• ^^ /i * f 1^
^T * WT r\
VEGETATED — O —
RARF A
.
.
*
I iiiii iiiiii ii
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
IOO
9O
80
70
6O
50
4O
30
2O
IO
• • t^l^JI^
-*- -^5— ^^-^
-
2"/wk
VEGETATED — O —
n/\ r?r~ A
•
•
i i i i i i i i i i i i i •
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I! 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/G 8/13 8/2O 6/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 IO/1 IO/2
SAMPLING DATE AND SAMPLE NUMBER
tij
Sure 24. Percentage removal of total phosphorus-P at the 10.2 cm (A in.)
sample depth on vegetated and bare sites receiving 5.1 cm (2
in.)» 10.2 cm (4 in.), 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week of stabilization
pond effluent.
69
-------
The time of the irrigation season was a significant factor in the phos-
phorus removal performance of the soil mantle treatment system. Figures B-34
through B-40 and B-42 through B-48 show that the largest variation in removal
occurred at the beginning of the irrigation season. This variation was
probably caused by phosphorus concentrations which had built up in the soil
solution over the non-irrigation season when little water was moving through
the soil. Decaying plant material could contribute phosphorus to the soil
solution.
When irrigation resumed, this phosphorus was picked up with the soil
water sampling devices. After a few weeks of irrigation, phosphorus removal
became essentially constant.
In the lysimeter study using the Utah State University Drainage Farm soil*
an average orthophosphate removal of 92.8 percent at a 38.1 cm (15 in.) depth
was observed. A weekly application rate of 5 cm (2 in.) of effluent contain-
ing an average orthophosphate content of 2,300 Ug/1 was used in the lysimeter
study. This removal corresponds closely to the 92 percent removal observed at
the 30.5 cm (12 in.) depth in this field study. The phenomenon of high removal
near the surface followed by a slight increase in concentration at lower depth3
did not occur. The reason for the difference in behavior between the field
study and the lysimeter study was probably attributable to the fact that the
lysimeters contained disturbed (i.e., mixed) soil.
Studies have shown that vigorous algal growth can occur when the phos- ,
phorus content in a water is 100 pg/1 or more, and if growth is to be complete*'
eliminated, concentrations of less than 20 yg/1 are required (Wadleigh, 1968)•
Tables B-9 and B-10 show that subsurface return flows contained between 20 and .
100 yg/1 and often over 100 Mg/1 of total phosphorus. If subsurface water waSj:
to be collected in drains at a depth of approximately 90 cm (3 ft.) and return^9
to an open ditch or canal, algal growth could be expected to occur. Dilution
with low phosphorus water could reduce the nutrient concentration to a level
adequate to control algal growth, but the opportunity to dilute return flows
occurs infrequently.
VEGETATION
The results of the vegetation growth study are shown in Table B-16. The
comparison of mean growth between each of the vegetated sample sites showed
that there was no significant difference at the 95 percent confidence level
in the amount of vegetation. The additional moisture and nutrients supplied
by the stabilization pond effluent made no observable difference in vegetati°°
growth over areas receiving control water or no irrigation at all. No vege-
tation growth difference was observed between sites receiving different appli*
cation rates of effluent. The grasses were predominantly pasture grass, some
alfalfa, and dandelion.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Because the water collected in the 10.2 cm (4 in.) mole drain was a com-
posite of drainage from all of the test sites, including the control site, it
was impossible to make specific cause and effect comparisons between test
70
-------
actors such as cover type and application rates vs. suspended solids content.
°wever, a general observation may be made.
During the two irrigation seasons the suspended solids content of the
tabiiization pond effluent was lowered with the soil mantle treatment process.
^ shown in Figure B-49, the suspended solids in the treated water were con-
sistently lower than in the stabilization pond effluent.
Another observation was that the drainage water was not green in color as
as the stabilization pond effluent. Algal cells were removed by the soil
treatment process.
QUALITY AND STANDARDS
Suspended solids concentrations in the effluent from the mole drain col-
ns effluents from all eight test sites were consistently less than 3 mg/1
gure B-49) . The concentrations in the mole drain effluent were independent
the concentrations of suspended solids in the lagoon effluent. Suspended
.ids concentrations in the lagoon effluent were less than 20 mg/1 the
of the time, but when the concentrations were between 20 and 30 mg/1,
was no detectable difference in the quality of the effluent from the
drain. Based upon the lysimeter studies of soil treatment of wastewaters
other field studies, the removal of suspended solids by spray irrigation
(i be excellent and little difficulty will be encountered in meeting stan-
ds for secondary effluents.
Based on the reduction of TOG, it appears that the irrigation wastewater
system will not produce an effluent which would meet the secondary
in ent standards. However, the lysimeter studies showed significant changes
the organic content of the soils after the application of well water and
effluent (Table 7) . Leaching of organics from the soils accounts for
small decreases and frequent increases in TOC concentrations in the mole
effluents during the field experiments. The change in organic content
nt C^ of the Draina8e Fam soils during the field experiments were
a (Table B-14); however, the quantity of water passing through the soil
v the field sites was very small when compared with the quantity of well
c fr Used to compact the lysimeter soils. At some point in the future, the
ted n C0ntent of the Drainage Farm soils will stabilize and consistent carbon
re .tions will occur. Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict the time
to reach equilibrium with data from only two irrigation seasons.
i mmares of the mean concentrations of various constituents in the
Of8°°n. effluent and the samples collected at 0.9 m (3 ft.) below the surface
the field sites are shown in Tables 28 and 29 for 1975 and 1976, respectively.
comparisons and discussions for each of the characteristics were
ented in other sections of this report.
OF SPRAY IRRIGATION OF WASTEWATER
The use of land application techniques for meeting wastewater discharge
must not only meet the technical criteria as established by water
pQ --^ standards but must also meet economic constraints. The increasing
Pularity and increased technology in irrigation has greatly reduced the cost
71
-------
TABLE 28. SUMMARY OF THE MEAN VALUES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAGOON AND FIELD SITE EFFLUENT
SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING SEASON 1 (1975) AT 0.9 METER (3 FT) BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE
Characteristic
Specific Conductance, ymhos/cm
Ammonia-N, yg/1
Nitrate-N, yg/1
Nitrite-N, yg/1
Total-P, yg/1
Orthophosphate-P, yg/1
Oxidation
Pond
Effluent
658
2,330
655
103
2,160
1,530
Vegetated
Site
6"/wk
3,840
33
2,990
91
167
64
Bare
Site
6"/wk
2,650
-
-
83
240
102
Vegetated
Site
4"/wk
3,530
-
5,480
509
196
—
Bare
Site
4"/wk
12,500
297
24,400
1,090
281
147
Vegetated
Site
2"/wk
2,940
148
12,500
5
279
—
Bare
Site
2"/wk
41,800
85
9,380
769
233
168
TABLE 29. SUMMARY OF THE MEAN VALUES OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAGOON AND FIELD SITE EFFLUENT
SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING SEASON 2 (1976) AT 0.9 METER (3 FT) BELOW THE SOIL SURFACE
Characteristic
Specific Conduct-
ance, ymhos/cm
Ammonia-N, yg/1
Nitrate-N, yg/1
Nitrite-N, yg/1
Total-P, yg/1
Orthophosphate-P ,
yg/l
Total Organic
Carbon, m^/1
Oxidation
Pond
Effluent
570
832
69
58
1,460
1,000
12
Vegetated
Site
6"/wk
5,140
122
14
2
176
138
26
Bare
Site
6"/wk
1,940
74
81
30
195
95
18
Vegetated
Site
4"/wk
3,770
274
4
55
202
127
23
Bare
Site
4"/wk
9,180
1,330
10,900
1,900
696
556
25
Vegetated
Site
2"/wk
16,900
935
11
2
373
326
34
Bare
Site
2"/wk
12,100
151
19,000
517
344
224
29
Control
Water
483
181
20
1
74
28
4
Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
3,290
449
16
2
266
133
33
Bare
Control
4"/wk
12,100
182
38,000
589
226
195
32
-------
this type of equipment. There is a definite advantage from an economic
standpoint for irrigation systems in wastewater treatment. For the most part
other types of wastewater treatment systems are unique only to the wastewater
industry and have not benefited from large demand pressures. The principal
components of the irrigation system consist of pipe, pumps, control equipment
(electronic and hydraulic), and certain specialized application systems. The
aPPlication of wastewater to land would be a small component of the total irri-
gation picture in the United States if all waste were treated in this manner.
0116 of the obvious advantages, from an economic standpoint, for land appli-
cation of wastewater is the fact that research and development costs have been
Paid for and the private sector is highly competitive in the large market area
°* irrigation equipment. This situation allows for significant decreases in
c°st effectiveness for land application systems where land costs are not
Prohibitive and satisfactory soils exists.
The two most predominant types of irrigation systems » solid set and center
Pivot, will be evaluated and an algorithm developed for computing total system
c°st. Two alternatives were analyzed for solid set systems, (a) in- the- ground,
(b) on-the-ground wastewater distribution systems. A computer program was
to assist in determining alternatives as they relate to spray irri-
techniques. Input data include all system and wastewater variables
which affect the total cost. The output data are in the form of a graph which
Shows the cost of operation, cost of ownership, and the total system cost for
Carious flow rates and application rates. The analysis of these variables was
esigned to be as complete as possible to further the utility of the computer
in decision making and design of spray irrigation waste treatment sys-
A general discussion of the three configurations follows, and a detailed
scussion of the computer program and the derivation of the basic costs is
Presented in Appendix C.
SOLID SET SYSTEMS
Solid set or on-the-ground irrigation systems are characterized by the
Permanent or immobile nature of the distribution lines. In some cases these
istribution lines are buried to facilitate ease of operation and to increase
6 efficiency of on land water use. On ground systems, which are most often
utUized on small plots of land, are manually changed from section to section
as water demand necessitates. Determining the total acreage requirement for
given flow and application rate is the initial step in an economic analysis
, irrigation systems. The following formula was used to make this
termination.
ai
tn Which
Q/UC1
A = required application area (acres)
Q = design flow rate of wastewater (million gallons/day)
u = application rate (inches/day)
ci = conversion factor (1 acre-inch/day equals 0.027153 million
ju gallons)
e Power requirements for a given flow and application rate must next be
lculated. Since the area varies for different combinations of flow and
73
-------
application rate all friction loss factors will be unitized with respect to
area. The total friction loss is comprised of the static pressure due to
riser heights and terrain and the dynamic head losses due to velocity, flow,
and pipe size. Equation 2 is used to determine the total friction loss of the
system.
(AXH2)
(2)
in which
HT = total friction loss for the system (ft.)
A = area (acres)
HI = static head (ft.)
H2 = friction loss per acre (ft.)
Power requirements for the system can now be determined once the hydraulic
configuration for the design has been determined. Equation 3 has been used
to calculate the power requirements for the total system.
P = (Q x C x H )/4000 (drive efficiency) (pump efficiency)
(3)
in which
P = power (horsepower)
Q = flow (million gallons /day)
€3 - conversion factor (694 gpm/1.0 MGD)
Drive efficiency = 0.7
Pump efficiency = 0.95
The total operating cost can now be determined including the various cost
factors which are dependent on time and location.
Electrical Energy Cost
01 = P x (4 x 6 G.j/GR)
in which
0.
P
04
G-,
GR
electrical energy operating cost ($/year)
power (horsepower)
8760 hours/year
fuel cost ($/kw)
fuel consumption (bhp-hrs/kw)
Fossil Fuel Energy Cost
= P x
x
in which
P
0_
C,
power (horsepower)
fossil fuel operation cost ($/year)
8790 hours/year
cost of power unit maintenance ($/bhp-hr)
74
-------
J-°wer Tfai t- Maintenance Cost
•gSJ^Re servo-ir Maintenance
03 = C5 x D1 x A + (C6G3) ...- (6)
in which
0_ = power unit maintenance cost and reservoir maintenance ($/year)
D-| = capital cost of sprinklers, pipe, and drainage
^5 = maintenance constant (assumed to be @ 5/1000 of the capital
cost per year)
Cg = assumed manpower requirement for maintenance in hours per year
(80 hrs/year)
£3 = cost of maintenance ($l/hr)
•^bor^Cost to Operate System
0, = C-. x A X G. (7)
47 4
ilx which
L = labor requirement to operate system (hr/acre/day)
£7 = days in a year (365)
A = area (acres)
G4 = hourly wage for system labor ($/hr)
%2esting_cost
0 = D2 x A x K (8)
in which
0^ = harvesting cost ($/year)
C2 = cost of harvesting ($/acre)
^ = area (acres)
K = number of harvest per year
.Operation and Maintenance Cost
°T = °1 + °2 + °3 + °4 + °5 (9)
°T = total operation and maintenance cost ($/year)
1 = electrical energy cost ($/year)
°2 = fossil fuel energy cost ($/year)
3 = power unit maintenance cost ($/year)
4 = capital investment and maintenance cost ($/year)
C0st. 5 = harvesting cost ($/year)
associated with interest and principal payback must be considered for
segment of capital investment. The equations used for these deterrainations
below. The interest rate could be different for each segment of
investment which would necessitate rearrangement of the equation. For
Q£~n!!?s of this calculation the interest rate was the same for all categories
investment.
75
-------
T - I [(CQ x Q) + (45 x P) + (D- x A) + D. + (D, x A) + (D, x A)]
o J 4 _> o
+ (Dy x A/20) + (DQ x A) + (Dg x A/20)
(10)
in which
I
C8
Q.
D3
D4
Dg
interest factor
4951 (the capacity of the storage reservoir was assumed to be
one day's flow, the cost of a reservoir was assumed to be
$1.00/yd3, and 4951 yd^ is equal to a million gallons)
design flow (MGD)
cost of pipe ($/acre)
cost of pipe trailer
cost for sprinklers ($/acre)
cost for the drainage system ($/acre)
cost of installation of sprinklers and drainage system ($/acre)
dollar value of the crop grown on the land before the treatment
system was installed ($/acre)
cost of land acquisition ($/acre)
Value of the Crop
The economic value of the crop must be considered in the economic analysis
of the treatment system. The cost of the existing crop not realized is con-
sidered in the preceding equations. In most cases, if irrigation was not to
be used, the crop value of the wastewater system should exceed the crop value
prior to the installation of the irrigation system. This will not always be
the case, and some thought should be given to this consideration. The value
of the crop obviously depends on the specific crop grown and on the regional
market values for the crop.
x A x K
(11)
in which
WT
A
K
Wt
in which
0T
T
Wrp
total yearly dollar value ($/year)
area of the system (acres)
harvests per year (number/year)
crop value ($/acre)
0
T -
(12)
total operation and maintenance cost ($/year)
interest cost ($/year)
total yearly dollar value of crop grown ($/year)
system operation and maintenance cost including the annual
value of the crops ($/year)
Figures 25 through 27 show the operation and maintenance costs, the owner*
ship costs, and the total costs, respectively, for an on-the-ground solid set
irrigation system. Comparable costs for an in-the-ground solid set irrigation
system are shown in Figures 28 through 30. Various individual costs used to
calculate costs and plot the figures are summarized in Table 30.
76
-------
160,000,
28*000.
216,000,
1««000.
72,000.
0.
0-00090
i.Oooou
J..QUI.OC 3-ooinio
Design Flow Rate, MGD
1-OOQOO
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
Figure 25. Cost of operation for on-the-ground solid set irrigation system. (A = 2.0, B = 4.0,
C = 6.0, inches/acre/day.)
-------
43,000.0
00
o 17,200,0
0.0
O.OOOJu
1 .00000
3«OUUOO
Design Flow Rate, MGD
1.UUOCO
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
5.00000
Figure 26,
Cost of. ownership for on-the-ground solid set irrigation system. (A = 2.0, B = 4.0,
C = 6.0, inches/acre/day.)
-------
vo
'6,000.
0.
o.ooouu i.ujcoo i.ujooo J.ooooo
Design Flow Rate, MCD
!MGD = 3785m3/d
= 2.
Figure 27. Total system cost for on-the-ground solid set irrigation system. (A
C = 6.0, inches/acre/day.)
0, B = 4.0,
-------
3AO£00.
?88,00o.
?16,000.
00
O
144,000.
7i>000.
C.00000
i.00000
2.00000 3.0000C
Design Flow Rate, MGD
s.ooooo
Figure 28. Cost of operation for in-the-ground solid set irrigation system.
C = 6.0, inches /acre /day.")
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
(A = 2.0, B = 4.0,
-------
•16000, a
33^00,0
oo
u.o
0.00000
i.onooo
efiOOOOO 3.00000
Design Flow Kate, MOD
Figure 29.
Cost of ownership for in-the-ground solid set irrigation system.
C = 6.0, inches/acre/day.)
!MGD=3785m3/d
(A = 2.0,
•5.0QOCO
B = 4.0,
-------
400^00.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
320,000.
?«0,000.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4 <
4 4 J
4 4 / '
4 4 /
4 /
/
\ X
1- 4
^ 4
^ 4
00
160,000.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
*/
i ^
/*
t' x
/+
/ *
*' 4 X 4
/
'4 +
/ 4
X 4 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
80,000.
4
f
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
t 4
t 4
4 4 / * '
4 4 » 4
4 4 -X X
4 A1^^ *
4 A^ X 4
4 >^" 4 4
< *
.
4
4
4
4
444
444
444
» 4 4
444
444
T
4
4
4
4
4
0.00000
i.OOPOO
^•ooooo j.nonoc
Design Flow Rate, MGD
.00000
lMGD = 3785m3/d
"Figure 30. Total system cost in-the-ground solid set irrigation system.
C = 6,0, i-txcVvas/ acre/day -^
(A = 2.0, B = 4.0,
-------
TABLE 30. VALUES USED TO CALCULATE COSTS SHOWN IN FIGURES 25 THROUGH 33
FC = $0.05/kw, fuel cost
FEON = 1.18 bhp-hrs/kw, fuel consumption
OC - $2.0/gallon, oil cost
OCON = 9000 bhp-hrs/gal, oil consumption
CPU = $0.000045/bhp-hr, cost of power unit maintenance
CIEQ = $21.21/acre, cost of irrigation equipment
CRMAN = $3.0/hr, cost of reservoir maintenance
EFMM = 0.05 hr/acre/day, labor/equipment
WAGE = $3.0/hour hourly wage of system labor
CHAR = $18/acre, cost of harvesting
SFL = 121.5 ft./ft., standard friction loss
HPX = 3.0 harvests/year
WCPA = $75.0/acre, value of crop
TW = 120, Hazen-Williams coefficient
D = 0.822 ft., diameter of pipe
ISPF = $0.65/ft., installation of sprinkler system
ISDF = $0.20/ft., installation of drainage system
RINT = 9%, interest rate
RLE = 20 years, reservoir life expectancy
PMTLE = 15 years, pump, motor, transmission life expectancy
PLE = 20 years, pipe life expectancy
CPPA = $27.27/acre, cost of pipe
PTLE = 15 years, pipe trailer life expectancy
CPT = $350, cost of pipe trailer
SPLE = 20 years, sprinkler life expectancy
CPASP = $I/acre, cost for sprinkler
DSLE « 20 years, drainage system life expectancy
CPADS = $6/acre, cost for drainage system
CISPDS = $1.0/acre, cost of installation and drainage system
PC = $0/acre, cost of land outlay production due to its use as
treatment for lagoon effluent
LCPA » $600/acre, cost to buy the land
1 gal.
1 acre
1 ft.
3.7 1
0.4 ha
0.3 m
CENTER
PIVOT SYSTEM
The state-of-the-art in spray irrigation is the center pivot system con-
5 of a center feed with an extended traveler which pivots around the
a — feed either by electric motors or hydraulic motors. The spray nozzles
e Counted along the traveler in various configurations based upon the
83
-------
specific terrain, crop, and local climatology. The center pivot system
normally irrigates a circular area but with modifications can effectively wet
a square area. The center pivot systems are quite versatile and have encour-
aged many agriculturists to enter into irrigated crop programs. The center
pivot systems are attractive for use in irrigating with wastewater because of
relatively low initial cost, low labor cost, low maintenance requirements,
energy cost, and versatility as to application. One of the grestest advan-
tages of the center pivot irrigation system used in wastewater treatment is
the availability of trained manpower to operate this system. There already
exists a pool of trained manpower who have installed, operated, and maintain
spray irrigation systems. Parts and supplies are locally available in many
parts of the United States where center pivot systems are presently utilized
in agriculture. There are definitely some unique aspects of irrigating with
wastewater which must be addressed, but the hardware and labor aspects are
well established and readily available.
The costs for the center pivot system are calculated from Equations 1
through 12 with a minor change due to geometric consideration for circular
irrigated areas.
Kv/1.318)-1-85
in which
S » system headless (ft. /ft.)
R = hydraulic radius (ft.)
= Hazen-Williams coefficient
- design flow (MGD)
The next step is to determine the total headloss for the system. The
size of field required for a given flow and application rate is determined
from the expression given in Equation 14.
R = [(Ax 43.560)/Tr]i* ............ 0*)
in which
R = radius of the pivot in feet
A - area in acres
Once the radius of the required field is calculated then the dynamic
headloss can be computed for the radius of the area. The dynamic headloss
plus the standard headloss are then added to give the total headloss for the
system.
Figures 31 through 33 show the operation and maintenance costs, the
ship costs, and the total costs, respectively, for a center pivot irrigation
system. Various individual costs used to calculate costs and plot the figu*eS
are summarized in Table 30.
84
-------
38,000.
is 6000.
00
Ul
22,000.
0.00000
.00000
.00000 i.QOOOC
Design Flow Rate, MGD
Figure 31. Cost of operation for center pivot irrigation system. (A
inches/acre/day.)
".OOOCfl "i.00000
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
2.0, B = 4.0, C = 6.0,
-------
MOO,00
a.fl«o.oo
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4 4
4 <
4
4
4
4
4
4
* *
4 »
.
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 +
C 4 4
4 T •
44 +
4 4 *
444
44 +
444
44 +
: : X
* * -x*— -
4 ^X^
/
4 S
/*
/ *
iX 4
4
4
^r A
4
4
4
*
4
4
2,880.00
00
I,g2o.on
960.00
0.00
1,00000
,00000 3«00()OC 4,00000
Design Flow Rate, MGD
5.000UO
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
Figure 32. Cost of ownership for center pivot irrigation system. (A
1jac.\ves f aere / day .^
2.0, B = 4.0, C = 6.0,
-------
1201000.
96,000.
TZJBOO.
OO
48,000.
2«jOOO.
1.00000
2.00000 3.0000C
Design Flaw Rate, MGD
5.00000
Figure 33.
Total system cost for center pivot irrigation system.
inches/acre/day.)
ft.OOOCO
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d
(A = 2.0, B = 4.0, C = 6.0,
-------
REFERENCES
Amramy, A. 1961. Waste treatment for groundwater recharge. International
Journal of Air and Water Pollution 9:605-619.
APHA, AWWA, WPCF. 1971. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater. American Public Health Association, 1740 Broadway,
New York, N.Y. 10019.
Applegate, C. H., and D. V. Gray. 1975. Land application from a secondary
facility. Environmental Health General Electric Co., St. Petersburg,
Florida, Water and Sewage Works, 122(7):85-87. July.
Avnimelech, Y., and Z. Nevo. 1964. Biological clogging of sands. Soil
Science 98:222-226.
Bancroft, P. M., W. E. Englehard, and C. A. Evans. 1957. Poliomyelitis in
Huskerville (Lincoln), Nebraska--studies indicating a relationship
between clinically severe infection and proximate fecal pollution of
water. Journal American Medical Association 164:836-847.
Baver, L. D. 1959. Soil physics. Wiley, New York.
Bernarde, Melvin A. 1973. Land disposal and sewage effluent: Appraisal of
health effects of pathogenic organisms. Journal American Water Works
Association, 65:432-440.
Clarke, N. A., G. Berg, P. W. Kabler, and S. L. Chang. 1962. Human enteric
viruses in water, their source, survival, and removability. 1st Inter-
national Conference on Water Pollution Research, London, September 1962.
In: Advances in Water Pollution Research. 1964. edited by W. W.
Eckenfelder, Pergamon Press, 11:523-541.
Clarke, N. A., and S. L. Chang. 1959. Enteric viruses in water. Journal of
the American Water Works Association, 51:1299-1317.
Clarke, R., et al. 1971. Coxsachie virus in urban sewage. Canadian Journal
Public Health 42:103-107.
Coleman, N. T., and A. Mehlich. 1957. The chemistry of soil pH. Soil--the
1957 Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washingt^'
B.C.
88
-------
CRREL. 1972. Wastewater management by disposal on the land. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory
Special Report 1 71 .
Day, A. D. , and T. C. Tucker. 1960a. Hay production of small grains
utilizing city sewage effluent. Agronomy Journal 52:238-239.
Day, A. D. , and T. C. Tucker. 1960b. Production of small grains pasture
forage using sewage plant effluent as a source of irrigation water
and plant nutrients. Agronomy Journal 51:569-572.
Day, A. D. , T. C. Tucker, and M. G. Vavich. 1962. Effect of city sewage
effluent on the yield and quality of grain from barley, oats, and
wheat. Agronomy Journal 54:133-135.
Demirjian, Y. A. 1975. Muskegon County wastewater management system.
Presented at Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
water Effluents, Denver, EPA.
Dennis, J. M. 1959. Infectious hepatitis epidemic in Delhi, India.
Journal American Water Works Association 51:1288-1298.
E. E. 1935. Adaptability of sewage sludge as a fertilizer.
Sewage Works Journal 7:597-610.
y, w. A., and R. Eliassen. 1968. Virus movement in groundwater.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 40:257-280.
Eastman, P. W. 1967. Municipal wastewater reuse for irrigation. Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 93(IR3) :25-31 .
liassen, R. , W. Ryan, W. Drewry, P. Kruger, and G. Tchobanoglous.
1967. Studies on the movement of viruses with groundwater. Water
Quality Control Research Lab., Stanford University.
nfield, C. G., and B. E. Bledsoe. 1975. Fate of phosphorus in soil.
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 101 (IR3) : 145-155,
Protection Agency. 1973. Survey of facilities using land
application of wastewater. Office of Water Program Operations,
EPA- 430/9 -7 3- 006. Washington, D. C. July.
vironmental Protection Agency. 1974. Alternative waste management
techniques for best practicable waste treatment (draft). Office of
Water Program Operations, Washington, D.C. March.
^vironmental Protection Agency. 1975a. Proposed interim primary
drinking water standards. 40 CFR 141. March.
Protection Agency. 1975b. Evaluation of land application
systems. Office of Water Program Operations, EPA- 430/9 -75- 001,
Washington, D.C. March.
89
-------
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975c. Land application of wastewater
in Australia, The Werribee Farm System, Melbourne, Victoria.
Municipal Construction Division, Office of Water Program Operations,
EPA-430/9-75-017, Washington, D.C. May.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975d, Costs of wastewater treatment
by land application. Office of Water Program Operations, EPA-430/9-
75-003, Washington, D.C. June.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1975e. Cost-effective comparison of
land application and advanced wastewater treatment. Office of
Water Program Operations, EPA-430/9-75-016, Washington, D.C.
November.
Filip, D. 1976. Research Biologist, Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University, personal communication.
Gearheart, R. A., and E. J. Middlebrooks. 1974. Separation of algae
cells from wastewater lagoon effluents. In: Upgrading wastewater
stabilization ponds to meet new discharge standards. PRWG159-1,
Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan.
Gerba, C. P., C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick. 1975a. Viruses in water:
The problem, some solutions. Environmental Science and Technology,
9(13):1122-1126.
Gerba, C. P., C. Wallis, and J. L. Melnick. 1975b. Wastewater bacteria
and viruses in soil. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, 101(IRS):157-174.
Goudey, R. F. 1931. Reclamation of treated sewage. American Water
Works Association Journal 23:230-240.
Groundwater Contamination. 1961. Proceedings of 1961 Symposium, DREW,
PHS Publication No. W 61-5.
Hadeed, S. J. 1976. Dangers of wastewater aerosols: Evidence to date.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 48:631-632.
Hartigan, J. P. 1974. Land disposal of wastewater: processes, design
criteria, and planning considerations. Georgia Institute of
Technology.
Hayward, M. L. 1946. Epidemiological study of outbreak of infectious
hepatitis. Gastroenteriology 6:504.
Hem, J. D. 1970. Study and interpretation of the chemical characteristics
of natural waters. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1473.
Henry, C. 0., R. E. Moldenhauer, L. E. Englebert, and E. Truog. 1954.
Sewage effluent disposal through crop irrigation. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes, pp. 123-132.
90
-------
Herzik, G. R., Jr. 1956. Texas approves irrigation of animal crops
with sewage plant effluents. Wastes Engineering 27:418-421.
Heukelekian, H. 1957. Utilization of sewage for crop irrigation in
Israel. Sewage and Industrial Wastes 29:868-874.
Hill, R. D., T. W. Bendixen, and G. G. Robeck. 1964. Status of land
treatment for liquid waste-functional design. FWPCA Annual Meeting,
Bal Harbour, Florida. October 1.
Hurst, R. L. 1977. Statistical program package (STATPAC), Utah State
University, Logan.
Jenny, H., and K. Grossenbecker. 1963. Root-soil boundary zones as
seen in the electron microscope. Soil Science Society American
Proc., 27:273-277.
Jones, J. H., and G. S. Taylor. 1965. Septic tank effluent percolation
through sands under laboratory conditions. Soil Science 99:300-309.
, J. J. 1977. Lecture notes—salt-affected soils. Utah State
University, Logan.
Kardos, L. T., W. E. Sopper, E. A. Meyers, R. R. Parizek, and J. B.
Nesbit. 1974, Renovation of secondary effluent for use as a water
resource. EPA 660/2-74-016. February.
Katzenelson, E., and B. Teltch. 1976. Dispersion of enteric bacteria
by spray irrigation. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
48:710-716.
Kelley, S. M., J. Winsser, and W. Winkelstein, Jr. 1957. Poliomyelitis
and other enteric viruses in sewage. American Journal of Public
Health 47:72-77.
Krone, R. B. 1968. The movement of disease producing organisms through
soils. In: Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation, Louisiana
Tech. Alumni Found., Rustin, La.
Lance, J. C. 1972. Nitrogen removal by soil mechanisms. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, 44(7):1352-1361. July.
Little, G. M. 1954. Poliomyelitis and water supply. Canadian Journal
of Public Health 45:100-102.
^culeseu, I., and N. Drucan. 1962. Investigations using labeled
bacteria in the study of irrigation with sewage. Stud. Prot. Epur.
Apel., Buchavest, pp. 59-66, 1962. (Original not seen; from
McGauhey, P. H., and R. B. Krone.) Soil mantle as a wastewater
treatment system. SERL Report No. 67-11, Berkeley Sanit. Engr.
Research Lab., University of California, September 1967.
91
-------
Martin, J. P., and S. A. Waksman. 1940. Influence of micro-organisms
in soil aggregation and erosion. Soil Science 50:29-47.
McQueen, F. 1934. Sewage treatment for obtaining park irrigating
water. Public Works 69, October 16-17.
Merrell, J. C., et al. 1963. Water reclamation from sewage for recre-
ational use at Santee, California. Presented at the 36th Annual
Meeting of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Seattle,
Washington. October.
Merz, R. C. 1956. Direct utilization of wastewater. Water and Sewage
Works 103:417-423.
Merz, R. C. 1959. Utilization of liquid sludge. Water and Sewage
Works 106:439-443.
Merz, R. C. 1965. Direct utilization of waste waters. Water and
Sewage Works 103:417-423.
Mitchell, G. A. 1930. Sewage farm displaces filter beds at Vineland,
New Jersey. Engineering News Record 104:65.
Mitchell, G. A. 1931. Observations on sewage farming in Europe.
Engineering News Record 106:66-69.
Mitchell, R.,, and Z. Nevo. 1964. Effect of bacterial polysaccahride
accumulation on infiltration of water through sand. Applied
Microbiology 12:219-223.
Morris, C. E., and W. J. Jewel. 1976. Land application of wastes: a
50 state overview. Public Works. October.
Myers, E. A. 1975. An overview of four selected facilities that apply
municipal wastewater to the land. In: Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater Effluents--Case Histories. Chapter IV. The Pennsylvania
State University Wastewater Renovation and Conservation Project.
Environmental Protection Agency, Technology Transfer Seminar
Publication, pp. 37-41. January 1976.
Overman, A. R. 1975, An overview of four selected facilities that
apply municipal wastewater to the land. In: Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater Effluents--Case Histories, Chapter II. The
City of Tallahassee Spray Irrigation Project, Environmental Protection
Agency, Technology Transfer Seminar Publication, pp. 19-28. January
1976.
Paul, J. R., and J. D. Trask. 1942a. Occurrence and recovery of the
virus of infantile paralysis from sewage. American Journal of Public
Health 32:235-239.
Paul, J. R., and J. D. Trask. 1942b. Periodic examination of sewage
for the virus of poliomyelitis. Journal Exp. Med. 75:1-6.
92
-------
Pillsbury, A. F., and H. F. Blaney. 1966. Salinity problems and manage-
ment in river systems. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, 92(IR1):77-90.
Pound, C. A., and R. W. Crites. 1975. Treatment of municipal waste-
water by land application. Water and Sewage Works Reference No.
(April) R45-R56.
Pound, C. E., R. W. Crites, and D. A. Griffes. 1975. Costs of waste-
water treatment by land application. EPA 430/9-75-003.
Pound, C. E., R. W. Crites, and D. A. Griffes. 1976. Land treatment of
municipal wastewater effluents—design factors I. EPA Technology
Transfer Seminar Publication. January 1976.
Powell, G. M. 1976. Land treatment of municipal wastewater effluents—
design factors II. EPA Technology Transfer Seminar Publication.
January 1976.
Rafter, G. W. 1897. Sewage irrigation. U.S. Geological Survey
Publication No. 3, 100 p.
Ramati, B., and E. Mor. 1966. Utilization of sewage water for the
irrigation of field crops on shifting sands. Israel Journal of
Agricultural Research 16(2):59-76.
Riney, w. A. 1928. Irrigation with sewage effluent. Sewage Works
Journal 1:108.
R°hde, G. 1962. The effects of trace elements on the exhaustion of
sewage irrigated land. Inst. of Sewage Purification Journal and
Proceedings, Part 6, pp. 581-585.
Rudolfs, W., and E. J. Cleary. 1933. Sludge disposal and future trends.
Sewage Works Journal 5:409-428.
Sawyer, c. N., and P. L. McCarty. 1967. Chemistry for sanitary
engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Seabrook, B. L. 1975. Land application of wastewater in Australia.
EPA. May.
SePP» E. 1971. The use of sewage for irrigation: a literature review.
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, California State Department of Public
Health, Berkeley.
State Water Pollution Control Board of California. 1955. A survey of
direct utilization of wastewaters. Publication No. 12.
Stewart, B. A., et al. 1967. Distribution of nitrates and other water
pollutants. USDA Publication No. ARS 41-134.
93
-------
Soil Moisture Equipment Corp. 1974. Product bulletin A16. December.
Sorber, C. A., H. T. Bausum, S. A. Schaub, and M. J. Small. 1976. A study
of bacterial aerosols at a wastewater irrigation site. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48.
Sorber, C. A., and K. J. Guter. 1975. Health and hygiene aspects of
spray irrigation. American Journal of Public Health 65:47-52.
Stokes, W. E., W. A. Leukel, and R. M. Barnette. 1930. Effect of
irrigation with sewage effluent on the yields and establishments
of Napier grass and Japanese cane. Journal of the American Society
of Agronomy 22:550-558.
Taylor, A. W. 1967. Phosphorus and water pollution. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 22:228-251.
Thomas, R. E., Z. Schwartz, and T. W. Bendixen. 1966. Soil chemical
changes and infiltration rate reduction under sewage spreading.
Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 30:641-646.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1954. Agriculture handbook No. 60.
Quality of Irrigation Water, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of
saline and alkali soils. Agriculture Handbook No. 60. USDA.
Utah State University Foundation. 1969. Characteristics and pollution
problems of irrigation return flow. Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration.
Wachs, A. M., Y. Avnimelech, and E. Sandbank. 1970. Experimental
determination of stabilization pond effluent's fertilizer value.
The Ministry of Agriculture and the Technion Research and Develop-
ment Foundation, Limited, Haifa.
Wadleigh, C. H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
USDA Misc. Pub. No. 1065, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C. 112 p.
Ward, P. S. 1975. Don't ignore land treatment. Water Pollution Control
Federation. 47(2):232-235.
Weber, Walter J. 1972. Physicochemical processes for water quality
control. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Wilcox, L. V. 1948. Agricultural uses of reclaimed sewage effluents.
Sewage Works Journal 20:24-33.
Wilcox, L. V. 1949. Agricultural uses of reclaimed sewage effluent.
Sewage Works Journal 20:24-33.
94
-------
Winneberger, J. H., L. Francis, S. A. Klein, and P. H. McGauhey. 1960.
Biological aspects of failure of septic tank percolation systems.
Final Report, School of Public Health, University of California,
Berkeley.
Yogt, J. E. 1961. Infectious hepatitis outbreak in Posen, Michigan.
Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center Technical Report W 61-5.
87 p.
Young, E. C., and G. A. Carson. 1974. Economic analysis of land treat-
ment of municipal wastewaters. Water Resources Research Institute
of the University of North Carolina.
95
-------
APPENDIX A
RESULTS OF LYSIMETER EXPERIMENTS
1000.0
1.0
DRAPER
— -o- Tet«l Colltwm
*- FKII Cdifom
re
DEPTH SAMPLED (cm.)
IOOA
10.0
1.0
NW.CV
0- Tetol Camwm
* Fteal CoHtori.
O- F*c«l Str«r«oc
-------
Q
O
IE
100.0
o
»
S ».0
0.
f-
IE
Ul
O
z
O
u
IOO.O
tt
ui
3
i.O
7.6
DEPTH SAMPLED
Figure A-4. Average bacterial populations at
points within Drainage Farm soil
during test period*
-------
IOO.O
10.0 : ,
„ i »-
VO
00
_ 10.0
0.01 •
- Logoon EffWHit
• NIMq ».lc«
7.Co*
ft/a
4/44 ion
n/w max
n/c un4 vti
11/14 11/21 IV«S
SAMPLE DATES
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-5. Nitrate concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
Figure A-6.
Nitrate concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
-------
100.01
/
VO
NITIUTC NO$N
a- L«gM« EfHuml
it.itm
_l 1-
SAMPLE OATtS
Figure A-7. Nitrate concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing Parleys
soil.
o.a
NITRITE NOjN
o- Ligoon EHUwol
*- IMp«t 31.1»
—-o Dt<*M teen
_i_
_1_
KV2 XVK KV22 10/29 11/8
SAMPLE DATES
11/25
Figure A-8.
Nitrite concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
-------
1.0
NITRITE MOjN
——o- Lagoon Effliwit
*- Nlttaf M.I cm
7.«c«
O
O
NITRITE NOZN
——o- Lagoon Effluent
*• Porleyt 38.1cm
o- Parlors 7.6 cm
Figure A-9.
ires n/2 »m am n/2* ii/e II/H 11/21 n/»
SAMPLE DATES
Nitrite concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-10.
»/2S 10/2 10/16 10/22 IO/ZB 11/6 11/14 11/21 M/ZS
SAMPLE DATES
Nitrite concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
-------
\\,
\v
\
/-A
X
V
MMQIIU
.-.-p. Lagoon Effluent
Va «/I5 10/2 10/tt 1O/2Z 10/29
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-ll.
Ammonia-N concentration in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing Draper
soil.
AMMONIA NH,N
Lagoon Effluent
NlbKr 3t.tc«
NtMq T.«ca
;\
V
tni »/25 XVI IO/I* Kk/22 *
SIMPLE DAT€S
II/C 11/14 II/ZI It/25
Figure A-12.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing Nibley
soil.
-------
AMMONIA NH3N
Lagoon Effluent
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
0 Lagoon Effluent
fc- Dropw H.I cm
o- Draptr 7.6 em
v
A
f—-v
\ /
\ /
V
vw 10/2
Figure A-13.
SAMPLE DATES
Ammonia-N concentrations in the
influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1
cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing Parleys
soil.
IO/K 10/22 io/2» n/e II/M 11/21
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-14.
Total organic carbon concentrations
in the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
o Lagoon Effluent
»- NMtr 38.1 OB
TOTAL OMANIC CAMON
0 Lagoon Effluent
—*. pwicy* M.ICM
o- Parity* T«eni
KVIC K>/ZZ WZ»
SAMPLE DATES
ton
wvie toot to/t* n/s II/M 11/11 ii/ts
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-15.
Total organic carbon concentrations
in the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters containing
Nibley soil.
Figure A-16.
Total organic carbon concentrations
in the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
IOO
to
o
O
*-
———^«— Droptr 7.8 cm.
*__ Lagoon Effluent
Niblcy 7.6 cm.
Lagoon Effluent
Nibliy 38.1 em.
-»- Droptr 38.1 en.
Ift
O
O
in
o
z
Ul
a.
in
10 -\
1.0 -,
IO/I6
SAMPLE DATES
I'/Z5
M/25
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-17.
Suspended solids concentrations
in the influent and effluent
samples collected at the 7.6 and
38.1 cm sampling depths for the
lysimeters containing Draper soil.
Figure A-18.
Suspended solids concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
-------
I/MO
S
o
Ul
u>
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
o
a
u
a
z
u
a.
in
1.0
i i
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLOS
o- Lagoon Effluent
oto -,
SAMPLE DATES
art torn ant ii/«
SAMPLE DATES
11/14 II/ZI 11/25
Figure A-19.
Suspended solids concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
Figure A-20.
Volatile suspended solids concen-
trations in the influent and the
effluent samples collected at the
7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling depths fo
the lysimeters containing Draper
soil.
-------
100.0
V)
o
-------
w.o
1.0
O*
a.
*
o
a.
T01JU. PHOSPHATE PO
O- Ugoan Effluent
-*- »t«»»T M.I t«>
7.9cm
O.W -|
VIO VIS MftlO/S tO/WKMtn/t* MM M/M M/tl B/ZS
SAMPLE DATES
*/n
\ \
TOTAL PHOSPHATE P04
O- Lagoon Effluwit
A- NIMly St. I en
o- NlbHt 7.»cm
11/21
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-23.
Total phosphate concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
Figure A-24. Total phosphate concentration in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
-------
10.0
1.0
o
o.
o
00
— 1.0
I
O O.I
V
TOTAL PHOSPHATE PO4
o- Lagoon Effluent
•*• Parity* 38.1 cm
o- Porter* M «•
O.OI -
:\
A- *—
ORT HO-PHOSPHATE
o- Lagoon Ettlutnt
——»- Drow MJcm
——o- Dr«9«r 7.* CM
•/io»/iz tfunn nmwtztatttw* am
SAMPLE DATES
VIZ B/23 IO/2 10/16 IO/Z2 IO/2B
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-25.
Total phosphate concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
Figure A-26.
Ortho-phosphate concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
-------
IO.O
O
vo
^
E
|
I
I
g
g
a.
i
K
O
ORTMO- PHOSPHATE
EfflUMl
O.W-
OMTHO-mOSPHKTC
O- Lagoor Effluent
*- DraiMt* F«« St.lc
——o- Orabat* Fotin r.tt
trta ion io/ia
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-27.
Ortho-phosphate concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-28.
10/1 IO/IB KV22 HV29 11/8 11/14
SAMPLE DATES
Ortho-phosphate concentrations in
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
-------
10.0
•.0
T.O
——O- Lagoon Effluent
——*- Draw 38.1 em
——O- Drop*r 7.6 en
10.0
9.0
a.o
9/9
S/12
7.0
O- Lagoon Effluent
«v HM*i 30.1 em
O- HIMcr T.6 cm
W/IB 10/22 O/Z9
SAMPLE DATES
11/14 11/21 11/29
9/9 9/10 »/tt »/!• 9A9 K)/2 10/18 KV22 10/29 11/6 11/14 ll^l 11/29
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-29.
The pH values for the influent
and effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters contain-
ing Draper soil.
Figure A-30.
The pH values for the influent and
effluent samples collected at the
7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling depths for
the lysimeters containing Nibley
soil.
-------
BfflGHAM CfTY BENCH (DRAPER)
10.0
1.0
T.O
• lagoon Effltwnl
3».l en
-O- Pwkm 7.6cm
»/»
WZS 10/2 W/« KV22 M3/2S 11/6 11/14 II/ZI 11/25
SAMPLE DATES
Lagoon Effluent
— Bri^wm Cttf 38.1 Ml
— flrigkoni City 7.6 cm.
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-31.
The pH values for the influent
and effluent samples collected
at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm sampling
depths for the lysimeters contain-
ing Parleys soil.
Figure A-32.
Specific conductance values for
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Draper soil.
-------
I
SOUTH MAIN LOGAN
(NIBLEY)
Lagoon Effluent
So. Main Logan 38.1 cm
So. Main Logan 7.6 cm.
MOO
IfOO
1*00
HYDE PARK BENCH
(PARLEYS)
\
Lagoon Effluent
Hyd< Port B*nO\ 98.1 on.
HyiM Pork B*Kli T.C cm
SAMPLE DATES
SAMPLE DATES
Figure A-33.
Specific conductance values for
the influent and effluent samples
collected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Nibley soil.
Figure A-34.
Specific conductance values for the
influent and effluent samples col-
lected at the 7.6 and 38.1 cm
sampling depths for the lysimeters
containing Parleys soil.
-------
DRAINAGE FARM
2,000
I
1,200
•00 •
Lagoon Effluent
Draifiop Form 98.1
-------
TABLE A-l. RESULTS OF NITRATE (N03~N MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon
Draper
7.6
38.1
Nibley
7.6
38.1
Effluent
cm
cm
cm
cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/12
0.1
7.0
3.9
5.2
175.4
2.2
11.4
2.0
48.3
9/25
0.1
17.8
2.0
5.0
98.8
2.2
6.8
6.5
69.2
10/2
0.1
2.7
230.4
6.1
48.2
5.2
126.0
10/16
0.2
3.1
101.1
3.7
21.8
3.7
41.0
10/22
0.3
3.0
74.9
3.5
21.4
3.6
36.3
10/29
0.2
3.6
25.8
4.2
19.1
3.5
50.2
11/6
0.2
3.8
17.5
4.7
16.2
4.6
40.8
11/14
0.2
9.1
2.8
34.6
4.6
6.0
5.2
34.4
11/21
0.1
8.8
3.6
28.4
2.0
5.4
2.8
24.4
11/25
0.1
3.8
25.4
2.4
4.7
2.5
17.2
-------
TABLE A-2. RESULTS OF NITRITE (N02-N MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
9/12 9/25 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14 11/21 11/25
Lagoon Effluent
.1 <0.1 <0.1
0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0,l
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm <0. 1
1 <0. 1 <0. 1
). 1 <0.1
). 1 <0. 1
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
<0. 1
Parleys
7.6 cm
38,1 cm
>. 1
1.1
Drainage Farm
7.6cm
38.1cm
0.1
0.
-------
TABLE A-3. RESULTS OF AMMONIA (NH3-N MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38. I cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parley^
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
9/12
1.5
0.8
4.5
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
1.5
0.4
9/25
2.5
< 0. 1
0.1
< 0. 1
< 0. 1
0.2
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
10/2
3.8
0.3
< 0.1
0.6
< 0.1
1.0
< 0.1
10/16
4.7
0.8
< 0.1
1.6
< 0. 1
2.7
< 0.1
10/22
4.3
0.7
< 0. 1
1.4
0.2
2.9
< 0.1
10/29
1.6
0.3
< 0. 1
0.8
< 0.1
1.2
< 0.1
11/6
2.8
0.6
< 0.1
1.0
< 0. 1
1.3
< 0.1
11/14
5.9
< 0. 1
0.8
< 0. 1
1.2
0.2
1.6
< 0.1
11/21
6.9
0.2
0.8
< 0.1
3.2
0.2
2.5
< 0.1
11/25
7.4
0.7
< O.I
3.5
0.1
3.5
< 0.1
-------
TABLE A-4. RESULTS OF TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (UNFILTERED MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
13
15
10
11
9
19
12
16
7
10/2
12
9
14
3
12
16
4
10/16
6
8
8
10
4
8
3
10/22
5
4
6
9
2
4
2
10/29
37
27
32
48
38
56
36
11/6
36
36
36
40
28
32
36
11/14
13
14
7
6
22
11
18
5
11/21
14
13
6
5
21
8
18
4
11/25
14
8
6
25
9
17
7
-------
TABLE A-5. RESULTS OF TOTAL CARBON (UNFILTERED MG/L) ANALYSES
00
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38.1scm
Parleys
7.6 cm
'38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
67
79
72
70
89
93
82
82
127
10/2
69
80
82
88
68
76
102
10/16
56
68
72
77
58
72
98
10/22
55
64
67
72
58
63
96
10/29
103
107
116
134
102
144
118
11/6
106
106
112
108
100
104
162
11/14
69
78
70
87
94
82
85
123
11/21
75
81
73
89
97
83
87
125
11/25
72
73
91
100
86
88
128
-------
TABLE A-6. RESULTS OF TOTAL INORGANIC CARBON (UNFILTERED MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
54
64
62
59
80
74
70
66
120
10/2
57
71
68
85
56
60
98
10/16
50
60
64
67
54
64
95
10/22
50
60
61
63
56
59
94
10/29
66
80
84
86
64
88
152
11/6
70
70
76
68
72
72
126
11/14
56
64
63
81
72
71
67
118
11/21
61
68
67
84
76
75
69
121
11/25
58
65
85
75
77
71
121
-------
TABLE A-7. RESULTS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L) ANALYSES
to
O
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
NibleyN
7.6 cm
38.1 era
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
33
19
11
35
10
323
12
80
10
10/2
16
19
7
800
19
142
10
10/16
31
14
4
388
14
328
2
10/22
21
7
6
423
9
208
4
10/29
36
6
6
458
6
443
3
11/6
28
5
4
25
1
56
2
11/14
38
11
7
5
131
144
246
8
11/21
29
13
3
4
588
55
82
1
11/25
29
2
2
423
20
212
2
-------
TABLE A-8. RESULTS OF VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (MG/L) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
9/25
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
2
10/2
7
10
3
70
1
21
3
10/16
13
5
1
36
4
53
1
10/22
7
2
2
53
4
35
2
10/29
27
3
2
48
1
63
2
11/6
20
4
3
13
0
21
1
11/14
30
2
3
4
23
20
29
1
11/21
16
2
1
0
66
8
14
1
11/25
14
1
0
46
3
25
0
-------
TABLE A-9. RESULTS OF TOTAL PHOSPHATE (PO -P MG/L) ANALYSES
ro
S3
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
•38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/10
3.3
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
9/12
5.5
3.0
2.8
1.1
4.0
1.4
0.6
1.8
0.4
9/25
1.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
< 0.1
0.4
0.4
10/2
2.9
0.4
0.6
3.2
0.1
1.7
< 0.1
Sample
10/16
2.6
0.4
0.8
1.7
0.1
2.1
< 0.1
Date (1974)
10/22
2.4
0.3
0.6
2.2
0.1
2.1
0.1
10/29
2.6
0.2
0.6
1.0
< 0.1
1.3
< 0.1
11/6
2.5
0.2
0.6
1.3
< 0.1
1.4
< 0.1
11/14
2.6
< 0. 1
0.1
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.5
< 0.1
11/21
2.5
< 0.1
0.1
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.6
< 0.1
11/25
2.6
0.3
0.6
1.5
< 0.1
1.6
< 0.1
-------
TABLE A-10. RESULTS OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE (0-PO -P MG/L) ANALYSES
co
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7. 6 cm
38.1 cm
9/12
5.1
1.6
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
9/25
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
< 0.1
0.3
0.8
10/2
2.3
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.1
1.4
< 0.1
10/16
0.6
0.3
0.6
1.2
< 0.1
1.9
< 0.1
10/22
0.5
0.3
0.6
1.7
< 0.1
0.6
0.1
10/29
2.3
0.2
0.5
1.0
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/6
2.5
0.2
0.3
1.3
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/14
2.5
< 0.1
0.2
0.2
1.3
< 0.1
1-4
< 0.1
11/21
2.5
< 0.1
0.2
0.5
1.2
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
11/25
2,5
0.3
0.6
1.4
< 0.1
1.1
< 0.1
-------
TABLE A-11. RESULTS OF pH ANALYSES
ho
Sample Date
Lagoon
Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 "cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Drainage
Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/5
8.5
7.9
7.4
7.8
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.5
9/10
9.1
8.4
8.0
8.2
7.9
8.1
8.0
8.3
8.0
9/12
9.2
8.4
8.0
8.3
8.0
8.2
7.9
8.5
8.0
9/18
8.5
7.8
7.6
7.8
7.2
8.0
7.5
9/25
8.7
7.4
7.3
7.8
7.6
7.9
7.6
8.1
7.7
10/2
8.0
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
8.0
7.6
10/16
7.2
,
7.2
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.8
7.9
(1974)
10/22
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.3
7.0
7.7
7.4
10/29
7.6
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.8
7.6
11/6
7,8
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.8
7.6
11/14
7.6
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.2
11/21
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.0
7.5
7.2
7.6
7.2
11/25
7.5
7.2
7.0
7.4
7.0
7.5
7,4
-------
TABLE A-12. RESULTS OF SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE (ymhos/cm) ANALYSES
Sample Date (1974)
9/5 9/18 9/20 9/25 10/2 10/16 10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14 11/21 11/25
Lagoon Effluent 566 545 610 742 702 655 653 639 626 637 676 660
in
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
1,354 697 903 658 670
662 578 627 672 828 751 759 761 683 704 668 647
691 596 712
2,880 1,717 1,725 1,428 1,314 1,047 979 935 851 935 712 698
672 747 726 793 784 779 821 713 812 672 698
1,056 717 786 784 804 733 711 773 725 701 670 687
768 808 813 947 750 717 724 646 680 763 689 666
2,016 1,515 1,497 1,549 1,565 1,456 1,442 1,503 1,438 1,215 1,060 840
-------
TABLE A-13. TOTAL ALGAL CELL COUNTS (NUMBER/ML)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Nibley
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25 10/2 10/16
3,378 5,226 5,889
2,706
792 725 712
2,746
554 462 461
1,664 1,135 1,056
607 529 422
Sample Date (1974)
10/22 10/29 11/6 11/14
17,476 57,684 37,365 34,874
894
713 1,626 1,115 562
396 1,770 1,327 528
1,477 15,897 10,568 11,766
449 895 2,313 6,436
11/21
19,140
690
545
418
12,411
1,931
11/25
23,496
682
316
15,768
1,905
Drainage Farm
7. 6 cm
38.1 cm
4,249 4,314 1,622 1,387 47,856 54,901 18,182 23,427 27,855
1,121 370 343 401 316 367 307 247
-------
TABLE A-14. RESULTS OF PHEOPHYTIN "A" (MG/L) ANALYSES
to
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7 . 6 cm
38.1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sample Date (1974)
10/2
0
0
0
0.016
0
0
0
10/16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10/22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note--Pheophytin "a" tests were not conducted further because levels were too low to make the data
reliable.
-------
TABLE A-15. RESULTS OF CHLOROPHYLL "A" (MG/L) ANALYSES
10
oo
Sample Date (1974)
Lagoon Effluent
Draper
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Nib ley
7.6 cm
38. 1 cm
Parleys
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
Drainage Farm
7.6 cm
38.1 cm
9/25
0.057
0
0
0
0
0.010
0
0
0
10/2
0.026
0
0
0.003
0
0.025
0
10/16
0.045
0.003
0.001
0.025
0.002
0.012
0.001
10/22
0.026
0.002
0.001
0.012
0.002
0.007
0.002
-------
APPENDIX B
RESULTS OF FIELD INVESTIGATIONS
TABLE B-l. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, ymhos/cm
Test Site
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6'7wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2'7wk
Bare
2'7wk
Oxidation
Effluent
Depth
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
1'
2'
3'
Pond
Date- 1975
8/2
828
1000
27400
8430
909
3850
1760
3150
4870
8340
2710
4090
12300
780
8/9
940
1350
12500
4740
934
1481
1870
3010
2850
3760
5240
6840
7750
1640
21600
9110
45600
8/16
826
1350
2160
9220
877
2620
5280
10000
8100
20200
39400
730
9/20
598
930
3590
2390
571
934
560
1540
1650
591
1700
2840
8900 '
465
10/4
1050
1090
3720
3650
3340
1530
1560
828
776
3150
13400
11600
665
10/18
749
1230
1720
1970
707
1060
1360
1100
1920
1500
4950
20200
42700
9360
4240
8660
42600
706
10/25
697
1180
1370
1860
634
747
1140
870
1260
1670
820
2360
14700
1000
3900
38100
16400
969
4170
2820
39700
604
Avg.
810
1130
8380
3840
1180
1620
1530
2650
829
2300
3530
748
2430
4210
12500
21900
6630
2940
1300
11400
10200
41800
658
129
-------
TABLE B-2. SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, ymhos/cm
to
O
Test Site Depth
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare ' 4"
4"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk. 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk. 2'
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk. 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control Water
Date- 1976
7/9 7/16
1100
1270
2520
1910
1420
976
1910
3060
1810
536 623
474 500
7/23
980
1200
2110
31700
726
760
2090
1860
920
1300
1790
4840
961
2270
—
6920
_
4520
7560
13300
922
1920
12000
1040
1500
1560
3410
1670
1720
2780
10700
567
490
7/30
11SO
1490
2010
4430
830
920
1500
2490
970
1300
1610
3950
1140
1930
1930
7020
2450
6040
8930
12300
806
2290
5320
14100
1050
1590
1770
5120
1540
1560
3000
12000
561
496
8/6
1290
1180
2050
4170
824
970
2000
1700
1050
1030
1560
4370
1110
1910
1740
10200
5000
916
2250
6720
14900
1510
1680
4700
1050
4900
9280
592
514
8/13
1290
1260
3220
790
1090
1830
1710
1070
960
1350
4050
1711
1720
9640
1360
4050
11800
950
2070
8200
13300
1200
1540
1790
3940
1230
1940
3100
12200
600
486
8/20
3070
1200
1690
2680
2150
1690
1900
1590
950
854
1320
4320
1070
1690
1560
9390
1220
2280
7810
18900
932
1540
8280
13500
1040
1360
1690
4360
1190
1880
2600
14100
599
487
8/27
1390
1290
1680
2590
791
1040
1940
1690
1020
1000
1440
3120
1120
1790
1730
9850
2590
2600
21700
990
1870
9930
12100
1290
1570
1730
2610
1240
1780
2970
14400
603
481
9/3
1230
1320
2130
3550
856
1050
1890
1650
1010
1120
1350
3220
953
1730
1600
8810
1480
2000
19200
987
1630
4840
11000
1220
1540
1680
2470
1125
1820
3000
14100
602
463
9/10
1160
1140
1450
2260
725
1050
1940
1600
858
909
1280
2830
903
1940
1530
10200
1180
1940
5630
18700
1010
1640
7880
12000
1220
1620
1550
2550
864
1940
2810
13000
610
479
9/17
1260
1170
1310
2220
672
1030
2300
1870
950
944
1360
2610
933
1810
1480
9820
3030
1850
4890
17200
1170
1710
2870
11500
1360
1490
1550
2400
1100
1860
2810
11800
546
502
9/24
1210
1210
1310
1560
730
1280
1850
2470
906
893
1260
3610
910
1840
1500
9600
3640
2040
5050
17900
1000
1700
6600
11000
1360
1430
1470
2950
726
1870
2770
11500
526
455
10/1
1230
1210
1250
2220
717
1080
1950
2500
994
1490
1322
4180
1050
1930
1440
9900
4050
2290
6230
18200
1150
1700
2220
10700
1520
1630
1530
2210
1220
1940
2900
12000
502
484
10/8
1160
1180
1770
2030
720
900
1880
2230
936
942
1420
4130
992
1800
1250
8310
4580
2140
5670
17000
1100
1670
6040
9410
1270
1320
1360
3020
1100
1650
2600
10400
508
455
Avg.
1350
1240
1710
5140
910
1090
1970
1940
970
1060
1420
3770
1010
1860
1590
9180
2560
3060
6470
16900
1030
1830
6260
12100
1210
1500
1640
3290
1170
1810
3020
12100
570
483
-------
TABLE B-3. AMMONIA-N, yg/1
Test Site
Vegetated
6'Vwk
Bate
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
rirnth
8/2
4" 28
1* <1
2' <1
3' 14
4" <1
r
-------
TABLE B-4. AMMONIA-N, Ug/1
LO
tsi
Test r^ntt.
Site ueptn
Site ?/9
Vegetated 4" 90
6"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3*
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 196
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 82
Control Water 218
Date-1976
7/16
79
40
32
43
53
54
90
47
26
178
168
7/23
30
73
193
77
30
55
31
37
48
89
195
24
155
1060
108
35
30
36
52
38
739
29
32
69
333
,492
168
7/30
25
21
209
106
<1
28
101
<1
28
34
26
208
251
16
129
7320
89
190
246
1450
43
54
58
254
44
<1
<1
1020
39
49
28
222
1170
170
8/6
31
17
113
49
36
36
75
82
24
12
24
286
138
40
8
2710
64
197
2450
16
38
30
79
27
30
145
581
24
28
55
87
2160
204
8/13
37
45
224
124
73
24
43
66
23
42
18
765
15
40
7
887
44
113
799
2410
29
9
4
144
36
27
163
756
12
4
52
141
1950
178
8/20
29
30
80
27
60
170
90
21
21
17
38
29
21
39
28
268
549
29
26
64
110
44
43
133
459
23
29
30
189
1020
201
8/27
10
15
208
115
22
53
109
78
22
15
41
120
22
20
15
134
29
32
171
454
12
21
64
122
22
28
90
402
28
22
28
173
640
159
9/3
<1
<1
<1
<1
9
56
51
38
22
24
34
175
<1
<1
<1
<1
34
43
431
20
32
64
185
38
24
106
216
21
24
28
186
1830
197
9/10
28
12
378
223
42
72
131
116
69
51
39
292
31
32
47
159
32
51
168
515
36
31
111
227
34
48
117
337
32
25
25
199
1450
185
9/17
34
26
228
195
44
45
164
119
17
32
84
222
40
33
74
76
36
50
151
445
32
27
47
190
34
29
60
243
30
24
70
150
170
153
9/24
62
41
484
127
60
47
120
121
42
28
97
209
43
40
65
356
88
58
222
366
30
29
111
213
48
33
102
90
34
35
66
216
279
189
10/1
40
48
254
85
35
33
129
108
45
101
104
254
46
25
83
224
44
42
214
283
28
41
35
171
36
29
112
90
25
28
43
141
131
168
10/8
49
52
54
114
283
24
32
59
74
32
261
36
119
183
26
29
40
152
99
173
Avg.
41
34
255
122
39
44
98
74
34
38
57
274
61
42
51
1330
50
76
261
935
31
31
64
151
41
31
101
449
27
27
45
182
832
181
-------
TABLE B-5. NITRATE NC^-N, yg/1
Ui
u>
Test
Site '
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
Date-1975
L/CpUl
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
r
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
8/2
3750
12000
14800
16800
12600
16900
30400
37600
15700
101000
24200
8770
8/9
2070
1590
2080
227
945
2160
5360
7940
18200
3110
3380
6450
4260
4690
213
664
-8/16
2950
253
16
6110
269000
7940
8080
872
7750
118000
5150
9/20
7
23
47
886
28
6
6250
8520
25300
19300
4240
20300
10/4
6
6
17
< 1
2220
20700
32800
15300
9800
18700
10/18
22
19
5
6
23
31
1220
9810
10800
53400
47800
6680
29900
4510
4470
4400
4700
10/25
22
23
20
22
5
35
9200
3370
155
13800
87900
65600
38500
1240
26200
5737
1790
2320
2380
Avg.
979
2280
2830
2990
1000
2770
4770
627
9510
5480
24200
122000
30600
24400
3110
5060
22600
12500
3800
28700
8260
9380
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
2390
306
372
719
39
106
655
-------
TABLE B-6. NITRATE-N, jig/1
CO
Test
Site ^P*
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk r
A"
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk I1
2*
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk T
y
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2*
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control V/atet
Date-1976
7/9 7/16
265 2450
70
5190
1930
26300
186
508 7060
221
19500
18 226
in
7/23
814
64
1210
88
2540
104
989
72
12
1170
855
916
3110
34600
8640
12
935
11300
16200
8900
11500
18
2090
2110
16
59000
21300
9500
40900
• 13
8
7/30
<1
7
<1
<1
4
167
600
35
29
<1
5
22
<1
37200
29800
9910
310
178
54
8470
25300
38900
15100
70
3
769
28
61500
1040
9680
71400
32
18
8/6
5
9
7
5
244
981
2
9
4
13
6
<1
18300
22000
9840
397
86
78
38
6920
30000
46400
14400
10
6
36
1
15300
4930
40400
11
6
8/13
14
6
27
4
13
219
2620
21
10
6
7
4
213
16000
20700
11100
448
5
290
<1
4030
40000
69200
18000
32
9
6
<1
9810
13900
13600
43500
19
5
8/20
17
7
4
<1
353
<1
10
5
8
5
<1
14
9980
10300
14300
4
14
224
<1
2860
3710
19200
<1
92
<1
<1
6410
2080
4460
42900
8
1
8/27
5
5
6
14
<1
260
628
62
28
4
31
3
9
7370
13300
7900
7
8
10
1160
15200
24300
13600
2
1
42
< 1
3330
1550
1680
39800
3
2
9/3
6
<1
20
3
54
661
1750
159
2
3
4
<1
75
14500
5620
12
11
14
2
5240
16900
29000
39800
5
14
40
1
3060
324
2420
42200
18
10
9/10
11
8
10
5
77
197
352
44
6
3
5
2
13
763
10200
5
2
1
1110
5040
21300
22700
3
2
<1
3
1280
285
172
39800
33
13
9/17
5
16
10
6
35
131
405
43
38
8
11
1
17
4270
7650
11500
5
3
10
1
2800
5490
12600
29400
14
6
3
2
405
321
1710
34200
185
5
9/24
26
19
6
10
12
88
376
204
39
9
14
1
11
4420
2010
12400
10
18
102
3
438
4310
5960
25900
13
9
3
2
8
519
1430
9020
218
37
10/1
15
6
124
21
9
15
91
121
19
4
12
1
136
4820
1100
12500
5
<1
3
1030
4650
6490
2450
38
6
37
130
14
2950
171
23600
34
4
10/8
8
8
28
8
54
117
14
195
16
6
7
3
32
4740
2470
17400
9
<1
14
3
262
2350
15600
8
13
14
5
16
493
1
28100
262
16
Avg.
10
14
22
14
26
202
734
81
18
5
10
4
303
13000
32200
10900
110
29
93
10
5530
14600
24100
19000
18
15
18
16
13300
5360
4150
38000
69
20
-------
TABLE B-7. NITRITE N02~N, yg/1
u>
Ol
Test
Site Depth
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
Date-1975
8/2
6
53
342
345
6 .
9
94
31
3
31
351
490
8/9
12
85
639
173
106
209
213
136
55
2220
1220
2230
3900
441
304
125
88
8/16
7
7
284
14
27
93
341
1388
65
62
1720
9/20
< 1
3
3
26
6
2
2
8
26
7
58
451
10/4
< 1
< 1
< 1
2
15
40
109
< 1
22
82
3
10
10/18
< 1
< 1
1
< 1
8
4
23
< 1
1
4
91
930
2
11
5
15
24
156
10/25
< 1
< 1
< 1
< 1
8
4
24
56
2
< 1
3
25
583
1
5
150
5
16
469
7
1100
Avg.
3
24
164
91
27
48
79
83
3
12
509
25
280
471
1090
1
8
5
157
212
54
769
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
14
336
103
89
26
49
103
-------
TABLE B-8. NITRITE NC^-N, yg/1
u>
I'St Depth
Site
7/9
Vegetated 4" 14
6"/wk I1
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk T
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk V
T
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 2
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 7
CoftttolWatei < 1
Date- 1976
7/16 7/23
3 4
29
4
7
32
38 103
201 41
151 54
4
5
14
644
155
6
2160
4
170
58
7
720 26
32
951 80
<1 3
17
8 6
<1 5
290
280 1910
29
50
13 12
<1 <1
7/30
1
< 1
2
1
3
58
3
12
<1
7
7
<1
6
16
960
3390
5
7
3
2
14
32
112
658
1
2
1
2
17
761
6
188
3
-------
TABLE B-9. TOTAL-P, yg/1
LO
Test Site
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2**/wk
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Depth
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
V
2*
y
4"
1*
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3*
4"
r
2'
3'
8/2 8/9
540
613
396
523
126
512
332
432
486
541
587
505
4320
8/16
49
49
61
92
92
134
189
98
171
64
1270
Date-1975
10/4 10/18
22
80
86
121
32 134
61 103
147
45
142
74
104
202 172
282 207
70
118
271
171
131
89
449
909 2270
10/25
46
82
92
87
97
110
38
114
97
100
190
223
84
245
61
287
129
71
129
187
2020
Avg.
34
311
221
167
247
97
196
240
44
198
196
209
257
281
77
182
279
150
100
130
233
2160
-------
TABLE B-10. TOTAL-P, Ug/1
00
Test
Site Depth
Slte 7/9 7/16
Vegetated 4" 222
6"/wk 1'
2*
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1' 623
2' 592 1100
3' 623
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk T
lrr
y
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4" 495
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4" 774
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 774
3' 345
Bare 4" 757
Control T 454
4"/wk 2*
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 623 359
ControlWatei 141
Date-1976
7/23
353
1010
1360
337
160
159
178
171
3430
36
348
129
714
196
143
330
1690
101
7/30
948
754
212
68
89
372
111
68
68
90
134
622
92
89
923
363
920
62
95
95
683
255
74
151
335
422
178
307
1330
46
8/6 8/13
56
135
667
247
101
134
311
155
110
74
149
295
134
114
523
80
147
241
257
91
101
168
349
74
241
225
1740
216
8/20
162
139
120
269
153
72
61
125
224
126
106
433
46
54
292
46
61
201
355
72
73
113
244
52
61
162
21
1260
54
8/27
82
148
167
129
201
151
86
98
114
139
132
114
304
98
166
297
79
76
372
82
98
179
204
61
173
207
241
1460
54
9/3
69
156
119
62
159
84
116
181
97
94
184
59
69
297
56
59
250
81
91
113
178
56
500
244
194
1220
30
9/10
54
127
360
182
91
273
124
85
94
88
206
152
118
76
133
303
58
64
348
88
121
124
61
239
267
1980
42
9/17
85
257
345
206
124
91
448
188
94
118
121
185
136
176
252
275
152
148
409
76
88
121
333
64
94
155
206
64
76
215
276
2000
33
9/24
64
134
272
176
110
113
215
149
72
98
925
245
152
110
116
546
98
113
290
51
72
—
272
60
84
125
167
45
69
182
296
2360
45
10/1
78
169
260
151
115
118
229
160
69
100
100
238
118
121
305
115
121
278
82
66
88
262
39
84
121
157
58
66
181
211
1530
88
10/8
92
172
259
157
98
215
135
77
126
98
175
175
98
108
265
111
126
274
74
89
308
49
80
132
172
74
191
218
1410
42
Avg.
116
311
535
176
142
152
365
195
98
100
111
202
271
128
123
696
94
206
363
373
100
82
149
344
157
95
196
266
152
191
215
226
1460
74
-------
TABLE B-ll. ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P, yg/1
LO
™ Depth
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
4"
r
2*
3'
4"
1'
2*
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3*
Date- 1975
8/2
2
43
31
47
50
45
63
72
27
54
2
90
72
8/9
21
17
57
67
60
16
60
121
28
26
28
52
95
36
71
93
207
8/16
30
32
38
116
49
38
92
119
64
92
163
9/20
3
2
48
51
69
66
34
64
40
64
139
170
10/4
21
35
64
64
18
51
112
18
43
157
224
91
10/18
31
46
69
64
46
81
73
8
52
57
131
136
20
74
132
16
43
10/25
26
67
77
93
88
132
207
105
141
214
46
240
24
210
97
219
86
135
Ayg.
17
35
58
64
63
58
91
102
30
35
46
44
49
114
147
50
111
78
168
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
2320
1030
870
775
2160
2050
1530
-------
TABLE B-12. ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P, yg/1
Test
o:tp ueptn
*"* 7/9
Vegetated 4" 276
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk T
2'
3'
Vegetated 4*'
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
Control 1'
4"/wk 2' 286
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Oxidation Pond
Effluent 391
Control Vfater 47
Date-1976
7/16 7/23
58 134
631
820
44
71 385
206 252
94 72
92
22
160
143
435
86
3133
45 29
137
179
78 258
53
127 136
260 86
8
9 17
144
523
.
369 768
34 41
7/30
212
830
665
189
26
46
307
61
52
41
36
86
310
70
67
1350
453
257
670
49
57
78
229
83
69
52
197
33
24
154
171
988
28
8/6
44
91
473
156
63
77
185
81
62
42
94
175
272
73
54
382
484
423
28
169
112
168
49
78
108
184
29
38
148
136
1400
21
8/13
56
179
385
163
74
71
151
99
42
50
71
166
166
78
52
335
36
225
323
693
21
58
148
261
46
74
101
145
25
33
161
145
1100
30
8/20
50
143
280
120
67
58
180
95
39
35
49
157
111
79
43
210
32
38
82
251
8
21
135
234
48
54
104
154
20
30
118
160
1030
21
8/27
44
104
264
137
60
66
177
101
69
49
73
41
145
95
73
169
20
93
249
202
15
49
221
262
37
76
76
105
18
64
151
168
927
28
9/3
52
150
248
156
78
82
184
92
44
58
66
134
142
108
91
170
45
59
297
246
16
50
125
278
36
72
94
102
27
62
178
172
1480
29
9/10
40
153
224
141
61
64
192
92
63
63
51
129
130
101
86
204
37
87
278
233
28
262
242
109
38
74
87
116
40
29
155
172
1230
31
9/17
16
149
203
118
74
70
271
110
26
51
48
90
119
102
96
48
28
57
118
115
26
53
61
236
19
53
73
71
11
42
166
169
829
22
9/24
36
142
210
121
85
72
199
109
54
69
58
106
125
100
90
210
30
106
255
230
54
55
125
245
30
63
70
98
39
61
158
172
2090
19
10/1
48
149
195
92
91
76
174
121
45
71
60
165
121
89
92
254
30
94
287
243
53
53
54
240
41
68
94
107
30
59
160
174
642
18
10/8
46
140
215
126
89
78
172
103
54
80
60
135
85
69
83
206
20
92
323
275
58
63
242
251
32
65
91
106
29
54
155
185
881
25
Avg.
79
238
348
138
61
92
204
95
53
52
69
127
180
88
126
556
31
162
224
326
33
86
140
224
45
66
107
133
26
40
154
195
1000
28
-------
TABLE B-13. TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON, MG/L
Test ~ .
Site DePth
Vegetated 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Bare 4"
6"/wk 1'
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
4"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
4"/wk r
2'
3'
Vegetated 4"
2"/wk 1*
2'
3'
Bare 4"
2"/wk lf
2*
3*
Vegetated 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3'
Bare 4"
Control 1*
4"/wk 2'
3*
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control Water
Date- 1976
7/16
40
16
22
24
27
26
25
17
<1
28
48
6
39
6
<1
4
32
21
19
7/23
21
8
3
7
5
14
3
<1
<1
<1
6
5
8
21
<1
8
<1
44
<1
7
22
<1
5
3
2
<1
10
1
18
8
12
15
8/13
-------
TABLE B-14. RESULTS OF THE SOIL SAMPLE ANALYSES BEFORE AND AFTER IRRIGATION
ISJ
Sample Site
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bate
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
Bare
Control
4"/wk
Non-
irrigated
5
o.
If
CO "
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
3
|
0.4
0.5
4.2
<0.1
<0.1
4.2
1.0
4.0
4.3
0.2
0.3
8.5
0.7
1.2
3.0
1.0
8.4
10.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.5
6.7
Nameq/1
•Q ea
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
4.9
0.1
0.2
1.4
0.2
0.4
3.3
0.2
0.8
4.0
1.0
2.3
10.4
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.7
°i
"c *
W 00
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.4
2.9
0.2
0.4
10.5
0.3
0.8
2.3
-0.2
-0.2
0.9
0.3
0.7
1.8
|
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.3
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.2
Kmeq/1
»— I
°i
WOT
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
II
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.4
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
i
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.3
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.2
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.2
Ca meq/
End of
Season 1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0.1
Q.I
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
1
0 C
C *>
W to
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.2
0.1
< 0.1
0.2
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
0.6
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
< 0.1
0.8
< 0.1
3
If
4.1
3.2
0.7
2.7
1.9
0.7
2.3
1.3
0.5
6.0
3.0
0.4
3.6
2.7
0.4
5.1
3.1
0.5
4.8
2.1
0.4
4.4
2.7
0.5
%C
T-H
3.6
2.7
0.8
3.6
1.5
0.5
4.4
2.6
0.5
3.9
2.3
0.5
2.4
1.4
0.5
4.4
2.8
0.5
4.4
2.0
0.5
4.0
2.6
0.6
o §
4.2
3.4
0.9
3.6
3.4
0.8
4.4
2.3
0.6
3.8
1.8
0.5
2.2
1.2
0.5
4.4
2.8
0.5
3.8
1.8
0.4
3.4
2.5
0.8
9
3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
%N
°i
w <%
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
CJ
II
C oi
W 00
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
-------
TABLE B-14. CONTINUED
U)
w
"3.
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
Bare
Control
4"/wk
Non-
irrigated
1
CO CJ
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
0-6
9-15
30-36
NO3-N, mg/1
1
1
2.7
2.8
0.7
4.4
2.2
1.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
37.7
17.2
1.7
1.6
1.3
3.3
38.7
18.2
1.5
3.3
2.2
0.6
26.0
6.6
4.2
d-l C
O o
13
[I] CO
2.5
2.6
0.2
18.9
13.4
3.5
4.2
0.9
< 0.1
4.0
9.1
7.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
3.8
18.4
6.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
10.9
3.3
3.8
<•- a
°|
1.3
2.0
0.6
4.3
5.4
1.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
7.3
4.1
4.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
5.8
3.5
5.9
0.9
0.9
0.2
4.2
2.2
5.7
P Available, mg/1
1
6.9
4.7
3.0
14.0
6.4
3.3
25.0
13.0
4.4
12.0
6.3
1.4
6.0
5.0
1.3
7.8
4.6
3.4
4.1
1.6
1.5
10.0
4.8
2.0
11
W e
0 §
T3 S
c S
Wvj
8.0
8.5
8.8
8.1
8.2
8.8
8.0
8.4
8.9
8.2
8.6
9.0
8.3
8.6
9.2
8.3
8.8
8.9
8.3
8.6
8.9
8.5
8.6
9.0
C rS **^ ^^
|| |=1
24.8
22.1
18.7
24.8
21.7
17.2
24.8
19.2
17.2
22.7
17.7
21.2
22.7
18.7
17.7
23.8
21.7
18.2
21.2
18.7
22.7
26.3
16.3
23.6
20.2
19.2
Deviation from
Non-irrigated
meq/lOOg
+1.2
+1.9
-0.5
+1.2
+1.5
-2.0
+1.2
-1.0
-2.0
-0.9
-2.5
+2.0
-0.9
-1.5
-1.5
+0.2
+1.5
-1.0
-1.4
-1.5
-0.9
+6.1
-2.9
-------
TABLE B-15. SODIUM ADSORPTION RATIOS
Test
Site ]
Vegetated
6"/wk
Bare
6"/wk
Vegetated
4"/wk
Bare
4"/wk
Vegetated
2"/wk
Bare
2"/wk
Vegetated
Control
4"/wk
Bare
Control
4"/wk
7/16
4" 2
r
T
3*
4"
1' 2
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
4"
r
2*
3'
4"
1'
2'
3'
4"
r
2'
3'
Date-1976
7/23
1
36
4
31
21
16
8
5
4
7
16
1
3
17
20
3
7/30
1
1
10
13
2
15
9
2
10
8
36
4
4
11
22
20
3
11
15
25
2
3
5
15
2
4
7
23
8/6
1
9
13
2
7
12
1
6
7
29
3
6
24
18
2
12
21
2
12
20
23
1
2
5
18
2
3
8
17
8/13
1
1
9
12
3
2
5
14
2
6
8
2
5
20
2
14
2
12
9
6
1
1
4
17
2
2
5
11
8/20
1
11
2
2
2
7
37
3
5
8
2
5
23
2
9
11
13
2
1
4
19
3
7
6
8/27
1
2
10
2
8
15
2
4
7
20
3
7
29
10
3
7
20
3
10
27
15
2
2
5
13
2
8
7
9/10
1
2
9
2
6
13
2
2
6
18
4
5
25
39
1
4
25
2
10
39
46
1
1
3
12
2
3
5
17
9/17
1
1
3
8
2
11
13
2
2
5
13
2
4
22
47
3
3
12
34
2
6
16
46
1
1
3
9
2
5
20
9/24
1
7
10
1
2
5
15
3
5
19
29
4
3
27
2
7
26
1
3
14
2
5
22
Avg.
1
1
8
11
3
2
11
13
2
6
7
21
3
5
21
25
2
7
12
24
2
10
19
25
1
2
6
15
2
3
6
15
Oxidation Pond
Effluent
Control Water
Drain
1
1
1
2
10
1
2
12
1
1
4
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
14
2
2
2
2
1
2
9
-------
1,000 -
900-
£800-
| 700-
j.
a'
8 500-
o
5 400-
85 300-
ZOO —
100-
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
• Oxidation Pond Effluent
O Control Water
>^*N^ «. ^ ^ ^ m — ^-•L
/ •*— •+^"*r~ ^^-^~
• _. • ^-*-~ .
o^° — ° — o-~°—^-o — o^^^o---0-^^^^
I 1 1
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 II 12 19 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE 1976
1000
900
soo
V 700
ci
8
600
soo
- 400
300
200
100
I
8/2
2 i 4 5 6 78 9 10 II 12 13
V9 B/16 8/23 >/30 8/6 9/13 9/20 8/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-l. Specific conductance values of the stabilization pond
effluent and control water during 1976 (above), specific
conductance values of the stabilization pond effluent
during 1975 (below).
145
-------
5000
3000
o 2000
27,400 ©WEEK I
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
VEGETATED
-Q--
-a.--a
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
6/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 IO/2S
SAMPLE DATE
4000
" 30OO -
O 2000 -
1000 -
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE I Bort
e"/wk
0 I t 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/2O 9/Z7 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-2.
Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30,5 cm
(1 ft.), 6170 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 15.2 cm
(6 in.) per week irrigation application rate during 1975.
146
-------
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
8430 @ WEEK I
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4" / WEEK
J L
J L
J I I I
Ol 2 3 45 67 89 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
20000
16000
I
1 12000
E
1.
o
O
8000
4000 -
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 2 Bore
4"/«k
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11 ID/IB IO/2S
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-3.
Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10,2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 10.2 cm
(4 in.)-per week irrigation application rate during 1975,
147
-------
48000
40000
E
u
VI
o
\ 32000
o
S 24000
o
^
u
gj 16000
8000
0
_
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 6 vegdar«d O
t
2 Vwk l
|
1
t
,4"
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
r
_ i' oV i
/\J
s JGV
! * — -J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i x i
3 4 S 6
8/2 8/9 8/l€ 8/23 8/30 9/6
8 9 10 II 12 i j ,4
9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
48000
40000
e 3*000
24000
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE J BARE
2"/ wk
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 IO/II 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-4.
Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61._0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 5.08 cm
(2 in.) per week Irrigation application rate during 1975.
148
-------
5,000 —
4,000 -
,0
3,000 -
'£ 2,000 —
O
LU
(L
V)
1,000-
SPECtFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 8 Vegefaled
6"/wk
| 2
7/9 7/16
3456789
7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
10 II
9/10 9/17
i l I
12 13 14
9/24 10/1 10/8
5,000-
4,000 -
a.
3,000 -
8
o
2,000 -
1,000 —
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE I Bore
6"/wk
i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-5. Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 15.2 cm
(6 in.) per week irrigation application rate during 1976.
149
-------
10,000 —
9,000 —
E 8,000 —
c. 7,000 —
a.
_j 6,000 —
O
O 5,000 —
4,000-
Ul
OL
OT 3,000 —
2,OOO -
1,000-
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 7 Vegetated
4"/wk
I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 IO/8
SAMPLE DATE
^J
£
0
8
o
jjj
%
10.000 —
9,000 —
8,000 —
7flOO-
6,000 —
5,000 —
4,000 —
3,000-
2.000 —
1,000 —
^^--*— ^ ^"^ — ^.
/ x/s "" \
0. • SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 2 Bare Control
4"/wk
^^^-^^^^^^ar^r-^-^O— O—0—o
^^D-^r^r^iji^ . ""^^""^TD^
4"
I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 (0/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-6.
Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabiliza-tion pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 10.2 cm
(4 in.) per week irrigation application rate during 1976.
150
-------
20,000 -
18,000 -
E 16,000-
° 14,000-
E
^ 12,000-
Q
8 10,000-
o
i e/Doo-
w ejOOO-
4,000-
2,000-
A.
/
I
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 6 Vegeloled
2"/wk
7/9
2
7/16
3 4 5
7/23 7/30 8/6
6 7 8 9
6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
10 II
9/10 9/17
i i I
12 13 14
9/24 10/1 10/8
g
i
E
Q
§
O
u.
o
ie
20,000 —
18,000-
I6JOOO —
14,000 —
I2POO-
lOjOOO-
8X)00-
6^000-
4^00 —
ZjOOO —
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 3 Bare
2"/wk
ir-^v
/ "^>*
jf v_
^ ^v *-
^F
^\ o*
•^ \
-^*" "^ ^ A
^X \ / x-
/' \ / \
A A \ '
V
n 0^-° C>— °--Q oL^_H3— -Q—
^-^.^-^-^--S^^S^S^S^
4
^&
^-,
^
r' \ A
v /
V
•&•— ^}~— ^
I I
I 2 3 4 9
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6
6 7 8 9
8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
I I |
10 II 12 13 14
9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
Figure B-7.
Specific conductance values of the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.)., 61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites at a 5.08 cm
(2 in.) per week irrigation application rate during 1976.
151
-------
10,000 -
9,000 —
£ 8,000 -
£ 7,000 -
E
^ 6,000 -
2
8 5,000 -
O
t 4,OOO-
UJ
Q_
«" 3,OOO -
2,000 -
1,000 —
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
SITE 5 Vegetated Control
4'Vwk
A-^
,/ X-\
_,^> \
^ V
• _-^_ • __m^
w m -w
,7^=^^^-^^^^^^^
D— - 0— Q -^-Q-'^^ ^-^ ^
4"
1 1 I 1 I \ 1 1 1 I I
123456789 10 II
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17
SAMPLE DATE
14,000 —
13,000 —
12,000 —
£ !I,OOO —
.u
o IO.OOO —
e
^ 9,000 -
ci
Z 4
8 5,000 —
u
t 4,000 —
3,000 —
2,000 —
1,000 —
,r*~-\
/ \
A i* ^
/ \ /
* \ /
v / SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE
W SITE 4 Bare Control
* 4"/wk
A
/ \2'
f \c
/ \
/ V .
flr— * V^.^-^-.^.-A.
pi Q — O O o — -O Q O~
'-^^ i*
^-^.,-^-Q-^-CK^,^
,^X S
V
^gp^^^S^g
1 ! 1
12 13 14
9/24 10/1 10/8
\
t
-A--^--^
-•cr"
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-8.
Specific_conductance values of the soil mantle treated
control water at a 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm (1 ft.),
61.0 cm (2 ft.), 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the soil
profile on vegetated and bare sites .at a 10.2 cm (4 in.)
per week irrigation application rate during 1976.
152
-------
2000-
1800-
1600-
^ 1400-
* 1200-
O 1000-
< 800 -
600 -
400 -
200 -
AMMONIA NITROGEN
• OXIDATION POND EFFLUENT
CONTROL WATER
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE 1976
3000
o>
Z
O
*
<
zooo
1000 -
I Z 34 56 7 8 9 10 H 12 13
B/2 8/9 B/16 8/23 6/30 9/6 9/13 9^0 6/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/29
SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-9.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the stabilization pond effluent
and control water during 1976 (above) and ammonia-N concen-
trations in the stabilization pond effluent during 1975
(below). •
153
-------
100
so
_ 60
*»
w
a.
z
< 40
g
S
s
1
20
AMMONIA -N
SITE 8 VEGETATED
6" / WK
L /-
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 II 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
ISO
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II *2 IJ 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/J3 B/JO 9/6 9/li 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 IO/2S
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-10.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.H 61.0 cm (2 ft,), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
154
-------
100
BO
*- 60
40
AMMONIA - N
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4"/ WK
~0 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 9 10 II 12 13 14
6/2 B/9 B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/2O 9/27 IO/4 10/11 IO/I8 IO/25
SAMPLE DATE
480
400
320
240
160
80
AMMONIA-N
SITE 2 BARE
4" / WK
I 234 3 67 89 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-ll. Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
155
-------
IOO
80
60
20
AMMONIA - N
SITE 6 VEGETATED
2" / WK
8/2
23456
8/9 8/16 6723 8/30 9/6
1 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
zoo
160
120
•^
9
S.
? 80
<
z
o
z
40
AMMONIA -N
SITE 3 BARE
2" / WK
*---- ^ M
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 6/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 IO/2S
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-12.
Ammonla-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.)-, 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
156
-------
500-
400—1
300-
200 —
100 —
AMMONIA- N
SITE 8 VEGETATED
6"/wK
""••Ek
1 I T I I I I I I I I 1 I I
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
500-
400 —
^
S 300 —
Z
<
I 200 -
100-
AMMONIA- N
SITE I BARE
6"/wk
i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/1$ 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-13. Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
157
-------
500-
K
\
AMMONIA-N
SITE 7 Vegetated
4"/wk
I I I I I
12345
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6
I 1 T
6789
8/13 B/20 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
IO II 12 13 14
9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
500-
400 —
"^300—1
J200-
100 —
AMMONIA -N
SITES BARE
4" wk
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-14.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation, application rate
during 1976.
158
-------
3,000
2^00
IjOOO-
~ 800 —
.5-700 —
z
< 600-
§ 500-
2
400-
300-
200-
100-
AMMONIA-N
SITE 6 Vegetated
2"/wk
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
1000 —
900 —
800 —
700 —
"» 600 —
*5*
AMMONIA -N
SITE 3 BARE
2"/wK
? 500 —
§ 400^
S i
300 —
200 —
100 —
A >^*"*-*^.^
/ Vfc"r^-*^x.x^s ^
«k _/ /w!T A— — «V — g_ _. ^yr n ifv'
i 2 j H u o i o a iw il i£ ii 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-15.
Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
159
-------
IjOOO-
900-
800-
^ 700-
o>
2 600-
1
<
2 500 —
Z 400-
300 —
200-
100-
i
AMMONIA-N
SITE 5 Vegetated
4"/wk
^
\
^^^
V A
V / \
¥ \
\
Control V
^
\ *
v \
A">— ^J
r/i-i __TE.--O-m j.^TL~ rfV JY_
t-^T-}* •H3^i^' * -lJj-«q:p»*'1U=*"^:£ —
)fc^
i i i i i i i i i i i r
t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
AMMONIA-N
SITE 4 Bare Control
4"/wk
\ I I I I I I i i I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-16. Ammonia-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
control water at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm (1. ft.),
61.9 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile and vegetated and bare sites using a
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
160
-------
500 -
400-
500-
I
ro
200-
100-
NITRATE-N
• Oxidation Pond Effluent
O Control Water
r~ i r i i i i i i i P r I
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
7/9 10/4
500
400
300
200
100
a/z a/9
5 4 5 6
8/16 6/23 8/30 9/6
7 8 9 10
9/13 9/20 8/27 KV4
II 12 13
10/11 10/18 IO/29
SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-17.
Nitrate-N concentrations in the stabilization pond
effluent and control water during 1976 (above) and
nitrate-N concentrations in the stabilization pond
effluent during 1975 (below).
161
-------
100,000
lopoo
ipoo
100
NITRATE -N
SITE 6 VEGETATED
6" / WK
I I I
01 a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I! 12 II 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/2S 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
100,000 p-
10,000
1,000
100
NITRATE - N
SITE I BARE
6" / WK
123456 7 8 9 10 II IZ 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-18.
Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5
cm (I ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.A cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
162
-------
looooo
10,000
1,000
NITRATE-N
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4" / WK
i i i i i - 1 - 1
i i.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/3O 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
100,000
lOflOO -
I POO
100
10
NITBATE-N
SITE 2 BARE
4 " / WK
I 2 I4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/JO 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11 10/18 IO/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-19.
Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1975.
163
-------
100,000
10,000
I POO
I 100
1*1
o
NITRATE-N
SITE 6 VEGETATED
2" I WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
loopoo
lOJDOO
1,000
100
NITRATE-N
SITE 3 BARE
2" / WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 IJ 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/3O 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 IO/II 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-20.
Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in g
the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a 5.08
cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application fate during
1975.
164
-------
IOO.OOO -g
10,000 -
9
4.
(O
o
1,000-
100 -
NITRATE-N
SITE 8 Vegetated
6"/«vk
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lb H 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
NITRATE - N
SITE I Bare
6"/wk,
Figure B-21.
(00.000 -3
10.000 1
1,000-
100-
10-=
I I [ I I I I I I I I I I
I 2 34 56 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/)3 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 era (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 15.2- cm (6 In.) per week Irrigation application rate
during 1976.
165
-------
100,000 -a
NITRATE-N
SITE 7 Vegetated
4"/wk
1 T
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
100,000 -3
10,000-=
1,000 —
I
n
o
100-
10 -=
1
1
1
•
/
'
1
d — , — , — , — , — , — , — , — , — ,
\ T I I I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-22. Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilizaton pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm
-(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
166
-------
100.000 -
NITRATE-N
SITE 6 Vegetated
2"/wk
1 1 1 1—T~—I 1 1 1 1 1 T
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
100,000-=
10,000-=
1,000-^:
100 -
10 -
NITRATE-N
SITE 3 Bar*
2"/wk
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-23.
Nltrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)» 30.5
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
167
-------
100,000 -g
NITRATE-N
SITE 5 Vegetated Control
4"/wk
i i i i T i i i r i i i i i
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
IOO.OOO -3
10,000-
1,000-
10
O
IOO -
10-
NITRATE-N
SITE 4 Bare Control
4"/*k
1 I I I I I I I I I r I i i
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/2O 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-24.
Nitrate-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
cojitrol water at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5 cm (1 ft.),
6f.O cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a 10.2
cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application rate during
1976.
168
-------
100-
90-
80-
-70-
o>
_3, 60 -
Z
CM 50-
i
40-
30-
20 —
10 —
NITRITE-N
• Oxidation Pond Effluent
O Control Water 1
f\ 1
1 \ /
A / U
/ \ /
^ y w
"^ « ^ ^yl^-o^^^-^^^v^-o--.^^^
r
/
*
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
.336 p B/16
I
8/2
j 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 tS
8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9^0 8^7 I0"t lO/ll 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-25,
Nitrite-N concentrations in the stabilization pond
effluent and control water during 1976 (above) and
nitrite-N concentrations in the stabilization pond
effluent during 1976.
169
-------
lOfloo
1,000
100
10
NITRITE - N
SITE 6 VEGETATED
«"/ WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/2O 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
10,000
1,000
100
10
NITRITE -N
SITE I BARE
6" / WK
I
8/2
2 3 4 S 6
8/9 8/16 8/23 8/3O 9/6
7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/29
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-26. Nitrite-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.!
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft,), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare
sites using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation
application rate during 1975.
170
-------
1,000
100
NITRITE -N
SITE 7 VEGETATED
V f WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 IJ 14
8/2 8/9 S/16 8/23 6/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 IO/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
10,000
1,000
100
I
-------
10000
I.OOO
100
NITRITE-N
SITE 6 BARE
Z" I WK
OJ-fl'L
I
•a
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I I 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
10,000
I POO
100
o
z
NITRITE - N
SITE 3 BARE
2" / WK
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 || 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 I0/2i
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-28. Nitrite-N concentrations in the soil mantle .treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.!
_ cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare
sites using a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation
application rate during 1975.
172
-------
100,000 -=
10,000-:
e. 1,000-=
100-
NITRITE-N
SITE 8 Vegetated
6'Vwk
I I
t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
IOO,OOO-=
10.000-=
1,000-=
NITRITE-N
SITE I Bare
6"/wk.
1 T
i 2 34 56 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-29. Nitrite-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare
sites using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation
application rate during 1976.
173
-------
100,000 -=
10,000-
1.000 —
I
M
o
100 -
10 -s
NITRITE-N
SITE 7 Vegetated
\ I I I I I
123456789
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
I
10 II 12 13 14
9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
100,000 -=
10,000-
1,000-=
100 -
10 -
NITRITE-N
SITE 2 Bare
4"/wk.
-•A
try—ET
I I I T T T T T \ \ T I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-30.
Nitrite-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.), 30.5
em (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
174
-------
100,000 -=
10,000-=
1,000-=
H
100 -
NtTRITE-N
SITE 6 Vegetated
I I I I I 1 I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
100,000 -g
10,000 -=
1.000-
100-
10 -
NITRITE-N
SITE 3 Bare
2"/wk
—1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 T
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-31. Nltrlte-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.), 30.5
cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using
a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application rate
during 1976.
175
-------
100,000 -
10,000 -
1.000-=
N
Z 100 -
10 -=
NITRITE-N
SITE 5 Vegetated Control
4"/wK
r T > T ^
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
IOO.OOO -=
IO.OOO -=
I.OOO —
(M
o
too -
NITRITE-N
SITE A Bare Control
4'Vwk
ITiTT I I I T l I
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 M 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-32.
Nltrite-N concentrations in the soil mantle treated
control water at 10.2 cm (4 in.)» 30.5 cm (1 ft.),
61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths in the
soil profile on vegetated and bare sites using a
10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
176
-------
2600 —
2400 —
2200 —
2000 —
1800 —
1600 —
=• 1400 —
? '200-
-------
640 -
560 -
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 8 VEGETATED
6" / WK
0 I 2 34 56 789 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 6/9 8/16 B/Z3 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 (0/4 10/11 (0/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
900 -
400 -
300 -
200 -
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE I BARE
6" / WK
I
8/2
2
8/9
3 4 56 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/29
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-34.
Total phosphorus-P concentrations in the soil .mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
'depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
178
-------
500
400
300
200
100
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4" / WK
I 2 343 6? 8 9 10 I! 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
n.
i
_i
«r
t-
o
640
560
480
400
320
24O
160
80
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 2 BARE
"/ WK
o—o
Figure B-35.
'0 i 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 u 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/2J 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/M 10/18 IO«S
SAMPLE DATE
Total phosphorus-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
179
-------
5001—
400
300
200
100
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 6 VEGETATED
2" / WK
0 I Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/2O 9/27 IO/4 10/11 IO/I8 IO/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-36.
500
400
•300
ZOO
100
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 3 BARE
2"/ WK
I
8/2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IS 14
8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/Z7 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Total phosphorus-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
180
-------
1500
1400-
1300-
1100-
1000-
^ 900-
^ 800
0. 700 -
g 600 -
*~ 500 -
400-
300-
200-
KX>-
TOTAL PHOSHORUS
SITE 8 VEGETATED
6"/«k
"Q D~-Q Q.--0—.Q—CD 0
"i—r
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T 1 1 1 1
I 2 345678 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/34 |0/| )0/8
SAMPLE DATE
600-
500-
_ 400 —
~
i 300 —
g
200 —
100 —
\
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE I BARE
6"/wk
A
\
-a—,A
I i i i i i i i i i i i r i
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-37. Total phosphorus concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (A in.)»
30.5 cm (1 ft,), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
181
-------
600-
500-
a. 400 —
J-
0.
f. 300 —
o
200 —
100-
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 7- VEGETATED
I r i I i I i r i i i i f i
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
600 —
500 —
_ 400 —
•s,
9
^300-
200 —
100 —
\ A
TOTAL PHOSPORUS ^ / \
SITE Z BARE SO^ , \
\ / \
"vVxl ^
..._:.^.^
I I I I 1 1 1 I I
I 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-38.
Total phosphorus concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
182
-------
923 O
920
*-.
ji
Q.
1
_J
H*
t-
500-
450-
400-
350-
300-
250-
200-
150-
100-
50-
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 6 Vegetated
2"/wk fl
/ V
•— »-^— ^ \
"* *
Ai^*^
r
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/3O 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
500-
450-
400-
= 350-
3-300-
a.
J 250-
° 200-
150 —
100 —
50 —
A
/ I
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 3 Bare
T
13
14
Figure B-39.
I 9 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Total phosphorus concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
183
-------
774 I'- 4"
\ *714
\/\
V \
500 -
450 —
400 -
350 —
^r
o. 300 —
-3"
a 250 -
0 200 -
t-
150 -
100 —
50 —
/v \
'\ \
/ v \
/ U \ TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
/ \\ \ SITE 5 VEGETATED CONTROL
/ r i
I \ \ 4 /WK
* \ \ \ t /WR
^ \\ ^x
\\ \
\* \
\\ \
\L, V,
\ ^^^
Vxv\\/^r:
\ ^/ >3 — ®^ • ^
*T-r^ "™ "^ ^ •— ^ j— | ,
T-'- r^-^ — pi
"^" •
I I1II 1^ [ ! I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
5OO-
450 -
400
360
~ 300
• 250
Q-
200 —
100-
60
Figure B-40-
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
SITE 4 BARE CONTROL/
4"/wK
--
-------
2,600 -
2,400-
^ 2,200
o> 2.OOO —
oT 1,800 -H
1
tl 1,600 —
<
ORTHOPHOSPH
(III
bUU —
400-
200 -
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
• Oitidation Pond Effluent
O Control Woter
jt
/\
/ \
^ \ 1 ^
/ \ / \ / \
/ ^ v ^
/ *^
•--V
; i i ; ; i ; : „' i '-I J^ — r
9 i I 12 i» ,.
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 ,0/8
SAMPLE DATE
2600
2400
2200
— 2OOO
a>
*• IBOO
a. leoo
i
UJ
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
I Z 34 56 78 9 10 II 12 13
8/2 &9 8/16 8/23 8/3O 9/6 9/13 a?0 8/27 10/4 JO/11 10/18 10/29
SAMPLE DATE 1975
Figure B-41.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the stabilization
pond effluent and control water during 1976 (above)
and orthophosphate-P concentrations in the stabilization
pond effluent during 1975 (below).
185
-------
200
£
8
120
80
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 8 VEGETATED
6" / WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 B/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 IO/2S
SAMPLE DATE
200
160
I
a.
S 80
40
ORTHOPMOSPHATE-P
SITE ! BARE
6"/ WK
I 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 9 10 II 12 13 (4
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-42.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
186
-------
zoo
160
120
o.
? 60
ORTHOPHOSPHATE -P
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4"/ WK
6
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/23
SAMPLE DATE
200
I6O
120
80
40
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 2 BARE
4" / WK
0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
B/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/2O 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-43.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
187
-------
240
ZOO
I6O
=(
a.
120
8
I
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 6 VEGETATED
2" / WK
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 6/30 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/25
SAMPLE DATE
20O
o
I
a.
o
120
80
40
\
V
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 3 BARE
2"/ WK
I 2 3 4 9 67 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
a/2 a/9 a/is a/23 a/so 9/6 9/13 9/20 9/27 10/4 10/11 10/18 10/29
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-44.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.},
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 5.08 cm (2 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1975.
188
-------
900-
— 80°-
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 8 Vegetated
6"/wfc
J—D-
^JD-.-O Q
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 6/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
900 —
800-
^700-j
600
jsooH
|
CC
O
400 -T
300-
200
100 —
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE I Bare
6"/wk
'X V
I r
I 2
7/9 7/16
3 4 5 6 7 6 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-45.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 15.2 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
189
-------
500-
400-
200-
100 —
ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
SITE 7 VEGETATED
4"/wk
\^'
_ /'
L3'
\ ^ /^
<\x,^_ v..^^-
.—^Q
—D--
I
7/9
2
7/16
345
7/23 7/30 8/6
I 1 I I
€ 7 8 9
8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3
SAMPLE DATE
10 II
9/10 9/17
I I I
12 13 14
9/24 10/1 10/8
0 1350- 7/30
3133-7/23 * 1
5OO —
400 —
.300 —
200 —
100 —
ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
SITE 2' BARE
4"/wk
i i r r i i i r i i T i i i
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 B/27 9/3 9/IO 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-46.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.),
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
190
-------
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 6 Vegetated
2'Vwk
"I 1 1 1 1 1
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
900-
^800-
~
•t,?oo-
OL
Jj 600-
| 500-
1 «*>'-
o
f 300-
200 —
100 —
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 3 Bare
i i r i i i
I 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/2410/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-A7.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated stabilization pond effluent at 10.2 cm (4 in.)»
30.5 cm (1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.)
depths in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 5.08 cm (6 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
191
-------
300
280 —
260 —
240
1,200-1
~-200 —
uj'80
5 160 —
Q.
g 140-
§ '20-I
£100
0 80-J
60 —
40 —
20
ORTHOPHOSPHATE-P
SITE 5 VEGETATED CONTROL
4"/wk
I I I I I I 1 I I T 1^ 1 I 1
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE
. 200 —
ORTHOPHOSPHATE - P
SITE 4 BARE
4"/wk CONTROL
I I I I I I I T I I I I I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 IO/8
SAMPLE DATE
Figure B-48.
Orthophosphate-P concentrations in the soil mantle
treated control water at 10.2 cm (4 in.)» 30.5 cm
(1 ft.), 61.0 cm (2 ft.), and 91.4 cm (3 ft.) depths
in the soil profile on vegetated and bare sites
using a 10.2 cm (4 in.) per week irrigation application
rate during 1976.
192
-------
JO
v>
0
-9— SS POND EFFLUENT
-0-- VSS POND EFFLUENT
-•— SS DRAIN
10 -
5 -
2 345 678 9 10 II 12 13 14
7/9 7/16 tra 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 6/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
SAMPLE DATE 1976
Figure B-49.
Suspended and volatile suspended solids
concentrations in the mole drain effluent
from the eight experimental sites.
193
-------
APPENDIX C
SPRAY IRRIGATION ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The program for the economic analysis of spray irrigation will analyze
solid set, on the ground, and center pivot systems. It is assumed that the
system operates 24 hours a day as any waste disposal plant does. Output will
plot cost in dollars vs. MGD treated and generates three curves per graph that
correspond to three application rates (inches/acre/day) that was fed in with
the data. Three graphs are generated for each data set: yearly operational
costs, yearly ownership costs, and total yearly costs.
The computer plot routine dimensions the ordinate and abscissa based on
the largest number generated. The graphs were designed to depict order of
magnitude estimates of costs. The program also produces a table of values
which can be used for more specific estimates of ownership costs, operation
costs, and total costs.
PROGRAM GUIDE FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF SPRAY
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS UTILIZED IN THE TREATMENT
OF WASTEWATER STABILIZATION POND EFFLUENTS
Program Variable Terminology
Q MIN Minimum flow (MGD)
Q MAX Maximum flow (MGD)
AP Application rate (inches/day) 3 rates for each data set
FC Fuel cost ($/kw)
FCON Fuel consumption (bhp-hrs/kw)
OC Oil cost ($/gal)
OCON Oil consumption (bhp-hrs/gal)
CPU Cost of power unit maintenance ($/bhp-hr)
CIEQ Cost of irrigation equipment ($/acre)
CRMAN Cost of reservoir maintenance ($/hr)
EFFM Labor requirement to run the system (hr/acre/day)
WAGE Hourly wage of system labor ($/hr)
CHAR Cost of harvesting ($/acre)
SFL Standard friction loss (ft. of water)
194
-------
HPY Harvests per year
WCPA Worth of crop per acre ($/acre)
ISW Program indicator: (0 = solid set 1 = center pivot)
ISPF Installation of sprinkler system per ft. ($/ft.)
IDPF Installation of drainage system per ft. ($/ft.)
CW Hazen-Williams coefficient
D Diameter of the pipe (ft.)
RINT Interest rate (in percent)
RLE Reservoir life expectancy (yrs)
PMTLE Pump, motor, transmission life expectancy (yrs)
PLE Pipe life expectancy (yrs)
CPPA Cost of pipe per acre ($/acre)
PILE Pipe trailer life expectancy (yrs)
CPT Cost of pipe trailer ($)
SPLE Sprinkler life expectancy (yrs)
CPASP Cost per acre for sprinkler ($/acre)
DSLE Drainage system life expectancy (yrs)
CPADS Cost per acre of the drainage system ($/acre)
CISPDS Cost of installation of sprinklers and drainage system per acre
($/acre)
PC Cost of land out of production due to its use as treatment for lagoon
effluent ($/acre)
LCPA Cost to buy the land per acre ($/acre)
PLPA Friction loss per acre—3 friction losses are read in—one for each
application rate
.Solid Set or on the Ground
When the program indicator (ISW) = 0 the following routine will be
followed to calculate costs for a solid set system. Costs for an on the
Sfound system is calculated by substracting the in the ground costs from the
value obtained for the solid set system.
ACR (acres)
0.0271583 MG
AR (application rate) (0.0271583)
1 1 acre-inch of water
(total friction loss) - (ACRES X FLPA) + SFL
= Friction loss per acre
- Standard friction loss (discharge pressure, riser height, etc.)
195
-------
_ ,, v Q x 694 x TFL
P (horsepower) - ^ 266Q
Q (694 •"*•—I (TFL)
p Q (gpm) H (ft.) = x \ mgdj
4000 (Drive eff.) (pump eff.) 2660
Drive eff. = 0.7 Pump eff. = 0.95
CRM = Cost of repair and maintenance
CRM = 0
FC
CRM - CRM + P x 8760 x
FCON
CRM = CRM + HP x 8760 — x
yr bhp-hrs
kw
oc
CRM = CRM + P x 8760 x
OCON
CRM =
gal
CRM = CRM + P x 8760 x CPU
CRM = CRM + HP x 8760 ~- x $/bhp-hr
CRM - CRM + 0.005 x CIEQ x ACRES
CRM - CRM + 0.005 x $/ACRE x ACRES
CIEQ = Capital cost of sprinklers, pipe, and drainage
CRM = CRM + 80 x CRMAN
CRM = CRM + 80 x $/hr
It is assumed only 80 hrs a year are required for maintenance.
CRM = CRM + EFFM x 365 x ACRES x WAGE
CRM = CRM + hr/acre/day x 365 x ACRES x $/hr
CRM = CRM + CHAR x ACRES x HPY
Vi A 1* v^* Q ^
CRM = CRM + $/ACRE x ACRES x r
Plot CRM vs. Q (Annual operational costs)
T =0
T - T^+ RIN (I,IFUN2(RLE)) x 4951. x (IQ)
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $4951/MGD x Q MGD
RIN(I,IFUN2(RLE)) - Selects the interest factor from the program. The table
this information is derived from will be shown in the data section.
196
-------
The capacity of the reservoir is assumed equal to one day's flow. The cost
of a reservoir is $1.00/yd-* and 4951 yd^ is equal to a million gallons.
T = T + RIN (I,IFUN2(PMTLE)) x 45 x P
T - T + INTEREST FACTOR x $45/HP x HP
Pump, motor and transmission run approximately $45/horsepower.
T = T + RIN(I,IFUN2(PLE)) x CPPA x ACRES
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
T = T + RIN(I,IFUN2(PTLE)) x CPT
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/TRAILER
T = T + RIN(I,IFUN2(SPLE)) x CPASP x ACRES
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
CPASP - Capital cost of piping and sprinkler/acre
T - T + RIN(I,IFUN2(DSLE)) CPADS x ACRES
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ACRE x ACRES
CPADS - Capital cost of drainage system/acre
T = T x 1.01
1% of capital cost is considered the yearly cost of taxes and insurance.
T = T + CISPDS x ACRES * 20
CISPDS = Installation cost of sprinklers, pipe and drainage per acre.
The cost is spread over 20 years which is the design life of the system.
T = T + PC x ACRES
PC is dollar value per acre of the crop that was grown on the land before the
treatment scheme was installed.
T = T + LCPA x ACRES * 20
LCPA - Cost of land acquisition per acre (Interest must be included)
20 years is the design life of the system.
Plot T vs. Q (yearly operational costs)
WORTH = WCPA x ACRES x HPY
WORTH - Total yearly dollar value of crop grown
WCPA = Worth of the crop per acre
KPY = . Harvests per year
TOTAL COST = CRM + T - WORTH
Plot TOTAL COST vs. Q (total yearly costs)
197
-------
Center Pivot System
When ISW =* 1 this routine is followed:
DD4 - D T 4
This estimates DD4 as the hydraulic radius of the pipe.
ACR(ACRES) = Q/(AR*0.0271583)
Q is MGD
AR is application rate in inches-acre-day
0.0271583 is 1 acre-inch in million gallons
00 Pi = 3.1416
v » QC0.1337) (12.37)
1.318 x C x (DD4)°'63
w
S • POWER (S, 1.85)
This is a form of the Hazen-Williams equation
V - 1.318 0-63 °'5A
Put V in fps from MGD V =
•ffl
86400
day
Q0-54 = Q(MGD)(V) _ V
1.318 "
(n/r\ vl.85
^ ' £~\ S is system headless in Ft/Ft
C (DD4)0'63/
w
Since most of the discharge in a center pivot system occurs nearer the
periphery, S will be assumed constant throughout the radius of the pivot.
R = SQRT(ACR(IA,IQ)*43500/3.1416)
R is the radius of the pivot in feet
AREA = ACRES x 43500 f t.2/ACRE = TT R2
- R2 - ACRES x 43500/TT
"V"
TFL - (R * S) + SFL
0 _ .ACRES x 43500
K
198
-------
Total Headless = S(loss in TI^") x R (ft. in system)
T. C •
+ standard loss (discharge pressure, height of sprinkler, etc.)
694 U TFL
P (horsepower) = TFL
HP - Q (EPnO H (ft.)
4000 (Drive eff.) (pump eff.) 2660
Drive eff. = 0.7 Pump eff. « 0.95
CRM = Cost of repair and maintenance
CRM = 0
•
CRM = CRM + P (8760) x
CRM » CRM + HP x 8760 — x
yr bhp-hrs
kw
CRM = CRM + P (8760) x
CRM = CRM + HP (8760 — ) x
.
yr bhp-hrs
gal
CRM = CRM + P (8760) x CPU
CRM = CRM + HP (8760 — ) x $/bhp-hr
CRM = CRM + 0.005 x CIEQ x R
R is the radius of the pivot system in ft.
CIEQ is in $/ft of the pivot system
CRM = CRM + 80 x CRMAN
80 hrs is assumed the annual labor needed to maintain the reservoir
CRM = CRM + EFFM x 365 x ACRES x WAGE
EFFM = Efficiency of farm maintenance hr/acre/day
WAGE - $/hr
Y = CRM + CHAR x ACR x HPY
CHAR - Cost of harvesting
HPY - Harvests per acre
Plot Y vs. X or $ vs. Q in MGD (yearly operational costs)
T - o
T - T + RIN(I,FUN2(RLE)) x 4951 x Q
RIN(I,FUN2(RLE)) — Selects the interest factor from the program. The
table that this information is derived from will be shown in the data section.
Reservoir capacity is assumed equal to one day's flow. The cost of a
reservoir 1.00/yd^ and 4951 yd^ is equal to a million gallons.
T = T + RIN(I,FUN2(PLE)) x CPPA x R
T = T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/ft x ft
199
-------
CPPA is expressed in $/ft. because this is more practical in the
rotational system. This includes cost of pump-motor, etc.
T - T + RIN(1,1FUN2(PILE))-CPT
T - T + INTEREST FACTOR x $/TRAILER
T - T + RIN(I,IFUN2(DSLE))-CPADS x 8 x R
T - T + INTEREST FACTOR • $/FT x 8 x FT
A circular drainage system is planned.
Therefore, total footage will be 8 times
that of the radius. CPADS is expressed
in $/ft.
T = T 1.01
1% of total capital cost is assumed for yearly taxes and insurance.
T - T + (R x ISPF + 8 x R x IDPF)/20
T - T + (FT x $/FT + 8 x FT x $/FT)/20
The cost of sprinkler installation and the cost of drainage installation
are spread over 20 yrs.
AACRES - (2 x R xx 2)/43500
This calculation figures the number of acres actually needed for the sys-
tem if you are forced by buy square sections of land.
The area of the circle is ACR-ACRES
The area of the square is AACRES
T • T + PC x AACRES
T - T + $/ACRE x AACRES
PC » Production worth of the land now used in the treatment scheme
T • T + LCPA x AACRES/20
This distributes the cost of the land of 20 yrs which is the design life
of the system.
Plot T vs. Q (MGD) (annual ownership costs)
WORTH = WCPA x ACRES-HPY
$/YR - $/ACRE x ACRES x X/yr
WORTH is the annual value of the crop under spray irrigation.
COST = T + Y - WORTH
200
-------
COST is the sum of ownership and operation—the return of the worth of the
crop.
Plot COST vs. Q (MGD) (annual total cost)
Basic Data Used in Economic Analysis
* Fuel Cost (FC) was assumed $0.05/kwh
This accounts for the power consumed as well as the necessary transformer
costs to step the power to three phase from the Logan City power lines.
* Fuel Consumption (This is from the University of Mo. Extension.)
(FCON)
TABLE 1
Fuel Consumption (bhp-hrs. per unit of fuel)
Fuel
Diesel
Gasoline
Propane
Natural Gas
Electric
Average
12.5 per gallon
10.0 per gallon
8.0 per gallon
8.0 per 100 cu. ft.
1.03 per kw.-hr.
3
Standard
14.6
11.5
9.2
8-9 4
1.18
1
To estimate fuel used per hour, divide continuous brake horsepower by the
bhp-hrs/unit of fuel. For example, 60 bhp/10 bhp-hrs/gal - 6 gallons/hour.
Denotes the average of a large number of irrigation pumping units tested by
the University of Nebraska. Use these figures for estimating pumping costs
over the live of the system.
Nebraska Irrigation Pumping Test Standard. Pumping units that are new or in
excellent condition and adjustment should maintain this standard.
*1 hp = 746 watts, 1 kwh = 1.34 hp-hr, assuming the electric motor is 100%
efficient. As 88% efficient is more realistic, 0.88 x 1.34 - 1.18.
* Oil Cost (OC) $2/gal—This assumes the use of rerefined oil.
* Oil Consumption (University of Mo. Extension.)
(OCON)
Oil Consumption
Type Engine
bhp-hrs. per gallon of oil
Gasoline, tractor fuel, diesel
Propane, natural
Electric
Right angle gear drive
900
1000
9000
5000
201
-------
* Cost Power Unit Maintenance (CPU)
Since motor costs are calculated on a basis of $/hp, it is impossible to
say how many motors would require $10/yr.
Power Unit Repairs and Maintenance
Type Engine
Cost per bhp-hr
Gasoline, tractor fuel
Propane, natural gas
Diesel
Electric motor is assumed to be $10.00 per year
$.0016
$.0012
$.0019
Therefore, $4.5 x 10~5/bhp-hr is used, that is $10/8760 — x 25 hp.
25 hp is the basis for our $/hp figure which is shown later.
* Cost of Irrigation Equipment (CIEQ)
A percentage (1/2) of this cost is used to figure the repair and mainte-
nance cost. Included is the cost of sprinklers, pipe and drainage but not
their installation costs.
Solid set and on the ground
(This is figured in $/acre.)
1 Pipe set sprays
5000 ft.2 in each set:
290' - 2" PVC
60' - 3" PVC
10 sprinklers on
6' risers
170' - 4" PVC
3" PVC-
h^
1
" — 10° — -
— *-^ — A m <
- 30* 5
t
i
o'
r
/DRAIN -10' OVER ON
EACH SIDE- 4" PVC
2" PVC
2" PVC at $.32/ft. x 290 ft. = $ 92.80
3" PVC at $.65/ft. x 60 ft. = 39.00
4" PVC at $.60/ft. x 170 ft. - 102.00
10 sprinklers at $5.50 ea. = 55.00
$288.80
= 8.7 pipe sets/acre
43500 ft. / acre
2
5000 ft. /pipe set
8.7 x 288.80 - $2572.56/acre CIEQ
202
-------
Center Pivot
$28,000 for 1/4 mile of equipment—excluding motor
$21.21/ft. CIEQ
* Cost of Reservoir Maintenance (CRMAN)
$3/hr for all cases
* Labor Requirements to Run the System (EFFM)
(.05 hrs/acre/day was adopted for both the solid set and center
« -ff __ _ j_ \
pivot)
Labor Requirements
Equipment
Hours Labor Per Acre Per Application
Traveling gun sprinkler
Boom sprinkler
Towline sprinkler
Side-roll sprinkler
Center pivot sprinkler
135 acre size
35 acre size
Grated pipe
Handy carry portable sprinkler
Solid set sprinkler
.251
.78
.54
.55
2
3
.*60A
.92
This assumes four man-hours of labor plus one hour of supervision per day
for a sprinkler covering 20 acres per day (2 sets). A system with buried
Pipe and a hose reel requires approximately one hour of labor per set plus
one-half hour supervision per set.
2
This requirement is without moving time. This is two hours per revolution
for lubrication, adjustment, etc. plus two hours supervision per day. Moving
requires eight man-hours.
3
This requirement is without moving time. This is one hour per revolution
for lubrication, adjustments, etc. plus one and one-half hours per day
supervision. Moving requires six man-hours.
4.
This requirement is for systems requiring some pipe moving, and no tailwater
Pits. A system utilizing a tailwater return pump and no pipe moving should
require approximately two-tenths hours/acre/application.
5
These systems can be completely automated. One hour of supervision per day
is generally sufficient.
* Hourly Wage of System Labor (WAGE)
$3/hr
203
-------
* Cost of Harvesting (CHAR)
$4/acre to cut grass
$.56 to bale ea. bale ->• .25 x 25 -»• $14.00
1.5 tons/acre at 60 Ibs/bale -»• 25 bales
$18.00/acre to harvest
* Standard Friction Loss (SFL)
Assuming 6' risers for solid set
Assuming 6' elevated pivot
Discharge of 50 psi (115.5') for both
SFL = 115.5 + 6 = 121.5'
* Harvests Per Year (HPY)
3 mowings/year
* Worth of Crop Per Acre (WCPA)
1.5 tons of grass/acre at $50/ton
.•. $75/acre
* I-Switch (ISW)
0 - Solid Set 1 - Center Pivot
* Installation of Sprinkler Per Foot (ISPF)
Solid Set - 0
Center Pivot - $.65/ft.
* Installation of Drainage Per Foot (IDPF)
Solid Set - 0
Center Pivot - $2.00/ft. (includes gravel base)
* Hazen-Williams Coefficient (CW)
Solid Set - 0
Center Pivot - 120
* Diameter of Pipe (D) in feet
0.833 ft.
* Interest Rate (RINT) in percent
9
Life Expectancy and Interest Factors
Maximum Expected Life of Irrigation Equipment
Equipment Years
Well
Casing Gauge
8 25+
10 25
12 15
Standard 3/16 in. wall thickness 25+
204
-------
Equipment
Years
Pump
Line Shaft Propeller 10
Turbine Pump 15
Centrifugal Pump 10-12
Power Unit
Electric Motor 25
Diesel Engine 15
Natural gas, LPG, or propane 12
Tractor fuel, gasoline 10
Power Transmission Unit
Gear Drive or Belt Head 12
Belts 6
Electric Switches, Natural Gas Lines, Fuel Tanks,
and Land Plane
Switch 20
Gas Line
Iron 20
Plastic 18
Fuel Tank
Propane 20
Diesel 18
Land Plane 15
Water Pipe and Pipe Trailer
Underground Pipe
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) 20
Steel 20
Asbestos Cement 25
Aboveground Pipe
Rigid Plastic 15
Flexible Plastic (for Traveling Guns) 5
Steel 18
Aluminum 15
Pipe Trailer 10
Sprinkler System
Solid Set 15
Hand Move 15
Side Roll 12
Skid Tow 10
Wheel Tow 10
Boom Type 10
Traveling-Big Gun 10-12
Center Pivot 10-15
Irrigation Reservoir
Prairie Soils Under Cultivation, No Silting Basin 20
Prairie Soils Under Cultivation, With Silting Basin 30+
205
-------
Annual Depreciation and Interest Cost Factors
Cost Factors at Various Expected
Interest Years of Life
/o
6
6*2
7
7%
8
8%
9
9%
10
5
0.2300
0.2325
0.2350
0.2375
0.2400
0.2425
0.2450
0.2475
0.2500
6
0.1967
0.1992
0.2017
0.2042
0.2067
0.2092
0.2117
0.2142
0.2167
8
0.1550
0.1575
0.1600
0.1625
0.1650
0.1675
0.1700
0.1725
0.1750
10
0.1300
0.1325
0.1350
0.1375
0.1400
0.1425
0.1450
0.1475
0.1500
12
0.1133
0.1158
0.1183
0.1208
0.1233
0.1258
0.1283
0.1308
0.1333
15
0.0967
0.0992
0.1017
0.1042
0.1067
0.1092
0.1117
0.1142
0.1167
20
0.0800
0.0825
0.0850
0.0875
0.0900
0.0925
0.0950
0.0975
0.1000
*
Cost factors are used to calculate total annual depreciation and interest,
where depreciation = new cost divided by years of life, and Interest = % new
cost x current interest rate.
The program combines the interest rate and life expectancies to derive
the interest factor from the above table which is stored in the program.
* Pump, Motor, Transmission Life Expectancy (PMTLE)
Since the above are purchased as a unit, they are considered to have the same
life expectancy—15 yrs.
The cost of the above 3 items is figured at $45/HP and this figure is built
into the program.
25 hp PMT costs $1125
.*. 1 hp = $45
PMTLE is 0 for center pivot.
* Pipe Life Expectancy (PLE)
20 yrs for solid set and center pivot
* Cost of Pipe Per Acre (CPPA)
Solid Set
2" - $.32/ft. x 290' = $92.80
3" - $.65/ft. x 60' - 39.00
$131.80 x 8.7 pipe sets = 1146.66/acre
Center pivot (this includes cost of motor, pump and piping to center)
28,000 for pipe + $8000/1/4 mile
$27.27/ft.
* Pipe Trailer Life Expectancy (PTLE)
10 yrs
206
-------
* Cost of Pipe Trailer (CPT)
$350.00
* Sprinkler Life Expectancy (SPLE)
15 yrs
* Cost Per Acre for Sprinklers ($/acre) (CPASP)
10 sprinklers/set x 8.7 sets /acre x 5.50 ea.
$478.50/acre
This is 0 for center pivot because the sprinklers are included with the
pipe price.
* Drainage System Life Expectancy (DSLE)
20 yrs
* Cost Per Acre of the Drainage System (CPADS)
170' /set x $.60/ft. x 8.7 sets/acre = 887.40/acre
Center Pivot - $.60/ft.
* Cost of Installation of Sprinklers and Drainage System (CISPDS)
Solid Set
SP (2901 + 60') x $.65/ft. x 8.7 = $1979.25
DR (1701) x $2.00/ft. x 8.7 - $2958.00
$4937.25/acre
On the Ground
SP (3501) x $.05/ft. x 8.7 = $ 152.25
DR (1701) x 2.00/ft. x 8.7 $2958.00
$3110.25/acre
0 - Center Pivot
Drainage installation includes gravel.
* Cost of Land Out of Production (PC)
$0/acre — it is assumed the land is being reclaimed.
* Cost to Buy the Land for Use (LCPA)
$600/acre
* Friction Loss Per Acre (FLPA)
A head loss calculator is included
Use Main line calculations for 3"
Use Lateral calculations for 2"
at 2"/ac/day
2" pipe has .08' hi/100'
or - x 230 x 8.7 = 1.6' hi/acre
3" pipe has .036' hi/100'
207
-------
or - x 60 x 8.7 = .187' hi/acre
allowing 2 psl/acre for elbows and miscellaneous losses
(2 psi = 4.61')
2"/ac/day has FLPA of 6. 39 '/acre
4"/ac/day has FLPA of 10. 16 '/acre
6"/ac/day has FLPA of 15. 7 '/acre
4" and 6" application rates' head loss are figured in the same manner.
208
-------
Program Used to Calculate Economics
ISPF,IDPF
REAl U10)
AP<3> ,ACR<3,21)»P<3,2l),X<23) tY<3,21)
RIN(9,7) ,eOsT<3,21>,OwN<3.21)
FK9> ,F2<9) ,F3(9>,F4<9),F5<9)fF6<9),F7(9)
FOUfVALfNCF (RINU) ,Fl (1))
FOUTVALENCE (RlN ( 1 0) »F? < 1 1 )
(R!N(19) iF3(l) )
(RlN(2fl)fF4(l))
FOllTVALENCF f RlN (37) iF5 ( 1 1 )
FOIITVALENCE (RlN U61 »j 6 (V) )
Fl« .?3.,2325i.23«5..2375..24i.24?«i,.24«5t,?475, 25) 2n
nAT4((F?(I)iI«li9)*,l9#,7,,1992..2017..?042t.2067,.209?,.2117,.?U2 2l
C t •?! 67) 2?
nAT«((F3(I)iI«1.9)».l55..1575,.16,.1625t.l65..1675..l7,.1725..i75 21
^' - 24
nAT«((F»(I)iI«1.9)«.l3,.l325..l35i,l375».14..1425,.U5..U75».i5) 2«
nAT»((ff5(I)tI.lt9)..ll33,.1158i.llB3fll20«,.l233,.l2SB,.12B3..l308 ?l
C» . 1 ^33) 27
OATit (F6(I) »I«1«9)».0967,.0992». 1017,. 1042,. 1067.. 109?,. 11 I7i. 114? ?o
C..U67) 2
OATi ( (F7(I) •I»l,9)«.0fl,.0fl25f ,0fl5,.0875i .09,.092«;, . 09i;, .097S, l ) 3n
100 REAnll(i»GMrN,OMAX, (AP(I) ,Inl,3) ^"
110 FpRMAT(5tF5.0) ) 3'
TF (OMTN.EO. 999)60 TO 999
,.
PEAn(AO,120)FC»FCON,Oc»OCON»CPU,CTFQ,rRMAN,EFFM - 3=
FORMAT(7(F10.0»
130 FOPMAT(Ht9X,?FlO.O»
4'
(3TNr«(OMAX.QMlN)/NX 4
TFtfSW.EO.MGO TO 500
no T50 IA«li3
135
AH«AP(f«)
T50 IO«ltNX
209
5
-------
M«;FOPT04M 14.3) / "SOS S.i 04/11/77
A.I<»*Q/ «CRM*CHAH«ACR ( I A , 10) «HPy
X ( Tn) «0
0=0»OlNC
TFtTSW. FO.D GO TO
no ?5n !A«ii3 ,00
'
nn .
AC»FS«ACR(IA.lO) „
210
-------
Oo?
. .
T«T*RlM(I,lFURLE>*495j ,«»X ]
TFUPMT«IFUN2(PMTUP) JJ
T»T*RIN(IFUPMT)»45,»P(IA,IQ) '
TFUPLF«IFUN2(PLE>
T«T»RIN '
T«T*RlNdirFUSPL)*CPAsP*ACRES ,
TFUnSL»IFUN2(DSLE)
T«T»RlN(IiTFu6SL)«CPAnS*ACREs
T«T«CISPDS»ACRES/20.
T»T»PC««CRFS
TeT*LCP»*ACRFS/?0.
WpPTH»wrPA«ACRES*HPY
rio tO
200 CONTINUE
no *00 IA»liNlO
no noo to«itNx
R« «!QRT(ACR
T«TtRlN(IilFURLE>«49Sl.«X(IQ)
TFUBLE«IFUN2
-------
MSFORTRAN (4.3) / MSOS 5.1 04/11/77 PAGE 003
CALL PLOTIT«COST»X,Nln»NX*AP) 156
GO TO 100 157
300 FORMAT) 11X.*APPLICATION RATF.»*,F7.?*3x,*INCH£S/ACPE*»//. I5g
$ ?OX,*AREA** 159
J lTX«*OPERATlNG CO$T*»6X,*OWNERSHIP COST*,7X,*TOTAL COST**/) l6f)
350 FORMAT (17X.E1 0«*» lOX »fl0.4, lOXiF.10,4.1 OXtElO.4) 161
375 FO*MATflHltlOX**CENTER PIVOT SYSTEM*) 162
376 FoRMAT(lHl,10X»*SoLlD SET SYSTEM*) 163
999 CONTINUE 164
TF(nVEPFLF<5>.EQ.l) KuOPES"! 165
WRITE(61*9999) 166
9999 FORMAT(lHl) 167
?RORS
FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FOR SPRAY
JRORS
ME PLOTlT(Y,X,LL,M,AP) ^9
Yt3,Zl)»X(2i),T(23).Lll3)*Ap(3) 171
HATA ((CODE!I>*I"1»3)»4HA *4HR *4HC 17?
NX»M 173
CALL MTNMAX(X,NX»XMIN,XMAX> 174
nn roo K«I,LL i7«s
CALl TRANS(Y»T*NX*K) 176
CALL MTNMAX(T,NX»YMrN,YMAX> ^77
TF(K.ST.1> 60 TO 17? 17B
179
l8n
(?0 .TO 200 181
175 CONTINUE 182
TfT (YMAX.GE.AMAX) AMAX.YMAX ,83
TF(YMIN.LT.AMTN) AMIN.YM1N t84
200 CONTINUE 185
TF( AMiN.GT.O .AND, X(1),EQ.O ) AMTN*n. 186
187
18Q
CALL OPLOT(X*T*NX*COOc tT"Ul3) 197
AP
-------
FUwrTTnN
TF(X.FO.O) GO TO 10
POWFR" f>rP
niMrNSfON U(3,102) ,V
no Too I«I,N
213
-------
100 V(T)«U(JiI)
RfTllRN ?54
FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FOR TRANS
»ORS
SUBROUTINE MINMAX(X,N,XMTN,XMAX)
C
C SUBROUTINE TO SCALE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM VALUES USEO IN PLOT. ?58
nTMpNSTON X(23> ?59
r ?fin
r IF USING REAL*4 USE FUNCTION RFLOW. ?6i
C naf^lxxx) • ABStxxx) ?62
C
c DETERMINE AMIN AND AMAX.
C
AMTN • X(l)
AMAX • X(l) 967
no 199 I « 2t N ?6fl
TF J»BO
TF '(XMfN .LT. AMIN) AMIN « AMIN . 10,0*»KPOW ?«1
CALl SIODI6«AMAX.2,KPoW> ?«?
IF (XMAX .GT. AMAX) AMAX • AMAX * 10.0**KPOW ?83
XDIF * AMAX • AMIN
AOIF « XDIF
CAL( STGDIG(ADIF»2,KP0W)
TF (XDIF .LT. AOIF) AoIF « AOIF * 10.0««KPOW ?87
TF (DABS(AMIN) - OARS(AMAX)) 400,600,500 ?88
400 AMIM > AMAX • ADIF ?89
flO TO AOO ?90
500 AMAy • AMIN * AOIF ?9]
600 XMTN • AMIN 292
XMAy • AMAX 293
RETURN
PNO
FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FOR MlNMAX
SURBOUTINE SI60IG(VAL,NDIOTS.KPOW>
r ......... ROUTINE WTU REDUCE A NUMBER DOWN TO A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ?97
C SIGNIFICANT DIGITS. ?9t
r J»99
r . 300
C TF USING REAL«i UsE FUNCTION BELOW. 301
C nA*«!
-------
CONJ » 10.0 *« NDISTS
CON? • CON1 / 10.0
C
TF {VAL .EQ. 0.0) GO TO 199
C
100 fF fDARStVAL) .LT. COwl) 80 TO 15o
KPOW • KPOW • 1
VA|. « VAL / 10«0
ftp fo 100
150 IF fpARS(VAL) .GE. CON?) GO TO 199
KPOw » KPOW -1 ...
VAI. » VAL • 10.0 jj?
60 TO TOO
199 TVAi « VAL * 0*001
VAL • TVAL
\F (KPOW) 200,400,300 .?»
200 TPOW • - KPOW
no ?so I • if IPOW
250 VAL-VAL/10.0000
fiO TO 400 fl?
300 HO tSO T • 1, KPOW
350 VAL«VAL*10.0000
400 RETURN
FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FOR SIGOIG
SUBPOUTINE OPLOT(X,YfNfCOOEiXMAx,XHTN.YMAX,YMINtlPATH)
C X ARR4Y OF X-0«OINATES.
C Y ARRAY OF Y-OROINftTES.
C N NUMBER OF POINTS.
C COOF CHARACTER THAT WILL REPRESENT PLOTTED POINT.
C XM«X THE LARGEST X VALUE THAT IS TO BE PLOTTED.
C YMAy THE LARSF.ST Y VALUE THAT IS TO BE PUOTTEn!
r XMT.M THE SMALLEST x VALUE THAT is TO RE PIOTTEO. ,,.
C YMIij THE SMALLEST Y VALUE THAT TS TO BE PLOTTED. 33*
C THERE CAN RE N PLOTES ON ONE PRINT OUT.
C THEQE IS ONE SET OF SCALLING FACTORS FOR EACH PRINTED piQT
C CONTAINING ONE ON MORf SFTs OF POINTS.
C TF ftNE POINT FROM ONE SET OF POINTS OVERLAPS ANOTHFR POINT FROM
r ANOTHER SET OF POINTS AN =X= WlLL REPRESENT THE C^RLA?.
tNTFGER FRMTl(20)fFRMT2(20>.INUM(9),IPATH,N
TKITFGER LlNEdOlilon, CODE, SPACE, PLUS, MINUS, XXXX
niMJrNStON X(23>iV(23) ,XX(6)
nATA(SPACE.4H ),(PLUS.4H* ),«MINUS»4H- »,(XXXX«4HX )
OATA<(FRMT1
-------
r,n TO 105 3*3
r 36»
r ROUTINF FOR INITIALIZATION. 165
r 366
100 TSiVsO 367
lO1* TXCi*l6o
TxrfPl « TXCT * 1
fVCT r 50
TvrrPI a IYCT » I
no Tin i a 2, ixCT
no Tlo .) • 2. IYCT
110 | INPfl , J) a SPACE 37*
no T?o I - 2i IXCT 376
TYrTP?aIYCTPl*10 177
nn 720 J * 1» IYCTP2»iO 379
120 LTNflltJ) » MINUS 379
216
-------
<*.3) / MSOS «?,l 04/11/77 PAGE 001
r 380
no 130 I » It IXCTPltiO 3Bl
no T30 J » It IYCTP1 38?
130 LlNFd.J) « PLUS 383
00 T3S J«lt IYCTP1 384
135 LTNrnnltJ)«PlUS 385
<* 38*
DELX • UMAX - XMIN) / IXCT 387
OELY » * < 8.1) ) 391
1 60 TO UO 39?
FRMf2(T5) m INUM(I) 393
fiO TO 1*5 394
1*0 CONTINUE 395
FpMf?(15) » 1NUMC9) 396
1*5 00 i50 I » It 9 397
TF (DARSIYMAX) «LTi ln.O»»(8-I) .AND. DABS(YMIN) .LT* 10.0«»(B.I)) 19R
1 GO TO ISO 399
FRMTl(n9) « INUM(I) 400
00 TO 155 *01
150 CONTINUE 40?
FPMfl((i9) • INUM(9J 4{>3
r 40*
C ,»»«••••***•»*»•**«**•**•***•*»»»**»»»****•»»***•••***•»••••••»•««
r
155 IF '(ISw .EOt 1) GO TO 200 407
fiO TO 999 408
C 409
160 CONTINUE 410
ISW - 0 411
C *12
C ••»••*••••*•*•»•**•*»••**••»**••»•»*•»»•*••»****•*••****•**••»•*•• 413
C 4l*
f THIS ROUTINE DOES THE PLOTTING. 415
C 416
?00 00 100 I » 1» N 417
IX . (X(I) - XMIN) / OELX * 1.5 4lft
IF • YMIN) / DELY * 0.5) 420
IF (IY .LT. 1 .OR. IY .GT. lYCTpl) GO TO 300 421
TF (LtNE(IXtlY) «EQ. SPACE .OP. LINEdXtlY) ,EQ. PLUS .OP,. 422
1 LlNE(IXtlY) .EG. MINUS .OR. LlNE(IXtlY) ,EO. CODE) 80 TO 290 423
LINF(IX.IY) • XXXX 424
60 TO 300 *25
290 LINF(lXtlY) • CODE 42A
300 CONTINUE *27
C
f. ««•«*>*>••••*>»•«•»•>.>•«•••>*«***•*>**•*»••)•>•*»«>**.>».>**•)••»•>••*•••.>«•*»*
r *36
IF 60 TO *00 431
217
-------
MSFORTPAN (4.3) / MSOS 5.1
04/11/77
PAGE 002
350
c
c
c
c
c
400
420
430
C
440
999
9010
9030
SO TO 999
CONTINUE
»»««••••*««•**•«•»»•*••»***•••*•**••••«•»•••*»•*••*••*««•••«*«*•»«
ROUTINE PRINTS OUT PLQT.
JJ • 1
YY • YMAX
HO 430 J » It IYCTPI
TF (JJ .NE, J) GO TO 420
WRlfEUl»FRMTl)YYt (LINE < I » J> t I"l . IXCTP1)
JJ « JJ * 10
YY » YY - lO.O'OELY
no TO 430
WRlfE(M»90lO)(LlNE(I.J)tl.
CONTINUE
J • 1
XX(T) m XMIN
00 440 I • 20t IXCTP1, 20
J • J » 1
XX(J) « XX(J-1> * 20.0 •
WRTTE(IS1»FRMT2> (XX (I) ,I"1»J)
WRTfE(Al»9fl30)DELXtDELY
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••is***
RETURN
IRORS
FORMAT (1H
FORMAT UT REcoRn FOLLOWS ARRO« *
^ FLAGS ERR OR FIELD-END
«|0 0011 FRRhR JN BCDINP
40 0011 FRROR IN RCDINP
40 0011 ERROR IN BCDINP
40 0011 ERROR TN BCDINP
FORTRAN DIAGNOSTIC RESULTS FOR DA8S
(ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
(ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
CALLED FROM 76640
COST OF OPERATION
CALLED FROM 77?oi
COST OF OWNERSHIP
CALLED FROM 77207 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
CALLED FROM 77211 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
CALLED FROM 77213 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
CALLED FROM 77215 (ILLEGAL CODE ON INPUT)
218
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read faantctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-097
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON
EFFLUENTS; Volume III: Soil Mantle Treatment of Waste-
Stabilization Pond Effluent - Sprinkler Irrigation
5. REPORT DATE
July 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
B. T. Hicken, R. S. Tinkey, R. A. Gearheart, J. H.
Reynolds, D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middlebrooks
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0281
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory —Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final. 1973-1977
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Proiect Officer: Ronald F. Lewis, (513) 684-7644
See'also Vol. I (EPA-600/2-78-033) and Vol. II
Lysimeter studies and a two-year field study were conducted to evaluate the effi-
ciency of sprinkler irrigation wastewater treatment as a means of polishing wastewater
stabilization lagoon effluent. In the lysimeter study four typical Utah soils were
evaluated for their effectiveness in removing total and fecal coliform and fecal strep-
tococcal organisms as well as nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon compounds. The field ex-
periments evaluated the removal efficiencies for carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus com-
pounds .
All four soils used in the lysimeters were effective in removing the three indicat
or organisms, organic carbon, and suspended and volatile suspended solids. In the field!
experiments leaching of salts from soils on the drainage farm occurred. The quality ofl
the effluent from the soil wastewater treatment system appeared to be controlled by the
characteristics of the drainage farm system. Once equilibrium is established a far su-
perior quality effluent is expected. Phosphorus removal in the field experiments ex-
ceeded 80%. The rate of application of irrigation water made no significant difference
in the phosphorus removal rate. Evidence of nitrate leaching from the soil was also ob
served. Ammonia stripping removed approximately 35% of the ammonia when the lagoon ef-
fluent was sprayed on the land. Suspended solids removal by soil mantle treatment sys-
tem was excellent and the suspended solids concentrations in the drainage water from a
1.2 m (4 ft.) deep mole drain contained an average suspended solids concentration of
2 mg/A.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Sprinkler irrigation
Wastewater
Lagoon (ponds)
Effluents
Algae
Separation
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
233
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
219
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 — 757-140/1366
------- |