'.': .• (,je .r "'~....:!


.• ,


-; .......
- . ..;,',~'.



"~'. :-


...... ~ I.




_.1.' .- .


Design Manual for Mediterranean Europe



:~~ .,: .


•• (0

.'~~ltt:'l t.v: ,
. .: Ii".'.,

l! .,,"':.:..







WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION Regional Office for Europe

... ~; . . "~



Hater pollution
By 1990. all people of the Region should have adequate supplies of safe drinking-water, and by the year 1995 pollution of rivers, la.kes and seas should no longer pose a threat to human health.

Lndex r




" <; ; .




DE :....; S",:-';TE















EUR/rcP/cws 053




WASTE STABILIZATION PONDS Design Manual for Mediterranean Europe

University of Leeds, United Kingdom and H.W. Pearson University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

D.D. Mara

TlI~ issue of thi.> documcnt does ~Qt constitute formal public:o!io~. It shoul.;! not ~ ecviewed, Jb,tr.le!.d or quoted witho~t the .grecment of tM wotlo1 Health orpn~ti<ln Region:ll Office fee Europe. Authon alone are responsible for vieW!! ~)lpro,.~edin ,igoeo1 articles,
Di.. ". Do]{um~n[ ~!';<;hein! nich! ili rorm¢lI~ Veroffcn!fiChul'Ig. Es d~(f nur Mit G.~Chmigun? ces Reglonolblito; til! Europa der W.ltse~undh.citrorg;mis;1hon be'prochen. in K:llnf.~ung g'Oc=ht oder ~iti~rt werd~ll. Jleitra~. <;liemit Namonsunterscnnf] ~r:;cheinen, g~bel'l i1=clili~foti~ die M~irtung dl:3 Auton wieder,




Cc document ne coasatue pa~ une pUbtication. II ne don l~lie I·ooj.! d'aueun COMpte rendu ou r~Sl.lnl~ ill u'aueune <;it~tio~ sans ralllori~~!iOn du Buteau r.glonal ~~ I'£urope de J'QmJnisali(ln mondJalc de l~ Les opinio", .~prim~~s dans les =icJc~ sign,,~ n'tl'lg~nt Que !eUt~ auteurs.



IlOKYM~Hl' K~ ~6JtRl:Tcli O$HWlanhHoll nyi5nHKillbIelt He paspcw.e""'! pe!1eH3111l01JaTh.~QTlIPo""l"h ItIUI WITHPQ9al1. !l,OJ(y.,CHT 6C3 co~!!3,,1!JI: Espone!tcl(oro p~rl!Q~~"""ot'O 61Opo BC~M~PI1QR OpmHH3aID1K




OTII~I:TI1~KKOdl> j]Un;l''P'~N .;:;r-.l-n.JlX.




B~rltJlJlhl, ~MiK

nlp_.K...... ilBTDpLl.




4 4. Acknowledgements 1. 8 9 Current Process design guidelines 3..3 2. '" .5 4.•••. Annex 3. .1. Macrophyte ponds ..2 30 30 30 33 33 5.. • . Operation 5.2 4.5 3.3 3. . 13 1416 19 • 20 20 4.7 4. Start-up procedures Routine maintenance Operator requirements and evaluation •• Monitoring 6. Physical 4. --- CONTENTS Preface •.6 4. Small communities design guidelines 10 10 12 3.. Annex 2. Waste stabilization in ponds Advantages and disadvantages pond usage in Mediterranean • • Europe .1 Effluent storage reservoirs 40 41 References Annex 1. Facultative ponds Maturation ponds .. High-rate algal ponds Design examples 44 47 49 ..8 Pond location Geotechnical considerations Hydraulic balance Preliminary treatment •.1 3.3 4...1 4. . .2 1.4 12 . 1 l 1 1.. • • • Operator facilities and maintenance 20 21 23 24 26 29 29 5. Introduction 1. 3.. Types of pond .6 3.2 Effluent quality monitoring Evaluation of pond performance 33 35 38 7... Reuse of pond effluents 7.... Pond geometry •• • • Inlet and outlet structures Security .2 3. .1 5.7 Effluent standards Number of ponds Design parameters Anaerobic ponds .1 i 1.3 6. . .1 6.


Recommendations are also made for the operation and maintenance of pond systems. by . but they will also be applicable to other countries with a similar climate. Comments On the manual will be gratefully received the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization. The recommendations are made primarily for countries in southern Europe. wastewater. and for the agricultural reuse of pond effluents.!"I"" -i- PREFACE This manual. although these recommendations are also suitable for ponds treating industrial wastewaters that have biodegradability characteristics similar to domestic wastewaters. from Portugal to Greece. for their monitoring and evaluation. or predominantly domestic. It contains recommendations fol:' the process and physical design of pond systems to treat domestic. is addressed primarily to design engineers responsible for wastewater treatment. On the design of waste stabilization ponds in Mediterranean Europe.

Duncan Mara~ Department of Civil Engineering. for both his organization of the meeting and his detailed comments on the text. Centre national du :nachinisme agrico1e. france. . in particular. to Mr Michel Vuillot. Un i ve rs i t y of Liverpool. du Genie rural. and the authors and WHO wish to express their grati~ude to all those who attended this meeting for their valuable comments and. during the period 20-23 October 1986. United Kingdom. University of Le:eds. des eau. Groupernent de Lyon. Department of Botany. The draft text was reviewed in detail at a meeting convened by WHO in Lyon. United Kingdom.x et des forets (CEMAGREF).- II - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this manual were Professor. and Dr Howard Pearson.

Introduction Waste stabilization ponds are large. is not recommended for general use at the present time for the reasons given in Anne~ 2. facultative ponds may be divided into primary and secondary facultative ponds.ICP/CWS 7384. and facultative ponds.V 053 page l 1. when they are known as macrophyte ponds. and are then often referred to as polishing ponds. 1). and after a few weeks a highly purified effluent is produced. Such series of ponds are very advantageous~ as they enable the different types of pond to perform their different functions in wastewater treatment and so produce an effluent of the desired quality. are designed primarily for the removal of organic compounds. However~ in . whereas maturation ponds are designed mainly for the removal of excreted pathogens (for which faecal coliform bacteria are commonly used as indicator organisms) and plant nutrients (principally nitrogen and phosphorus salts). They. Anaerobic ponds. Maturation ponds are also occasionally planted with floating or rooted macrophytes. shallow. some removal of BOD occurs in maturation ponds and pathogens and plant nutrients are removed to some extent in anaerobic and facultative ponds. and maturation ponds are sometimes used to improve the bacteriological quality of the final effluent from conventional sewage treatment works. 1. as their name implies. usually expressed in terms of their biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). 1. and one that is unaided by man who merely allocates sufficient space for them to occur in a controlled manner. there is a fourth type of pond~ high-rate algal ponds~ which are primarily for the production of algal protein (rather than wastewater treatment). The biological treatment that occurs in ponds is an entirely natural process achieved principally by bacl:eria and microalgae. are devoid of dissolved oxygen and contain no (or very few) algae. usually rectangular basins in which there is a continuous inflow and outflow of wastewater.1 !l£~s of pond pond commonly llsed There are three principal types of waste stabilization anaerobic ponds. Anaerobic ponds are most advantageously used for the treatment of strong wastewaters (BODs> 300 mg/l) and those containing a high concentration of suspended solids. There are some variations of these types: for example. of course. Facultative and maturation ponds have large algal populations. although. but this is not generally recommended for the reasons given in Annex 1. which play an essential role in waste stabilization. This type of pond~ which is still largely e~perimental.2 Waste stabilization in ponds Waste stabili~ation in ponds is in one sense a very simple treatment process: wastewater enters and flows through a series of ponds by gravity. The three main types of pond are usually arranged In a series comprising either a primary facultative pond followed by one or more maturation ponds. which receive raw and settled sewage respectively (the latter commonly being the effluent from anaerobic ponds). facultative ponds and in Mediterranean Europe and elsewhere: maturation ponds. In addition. they are thus sometimes called photosynthetic or natural ponds. or an anaerobic pond followed by a secondary facultative pond and one or more maturation ponds (Fig.

a baffled secondary pond and 11 single maturation pond) another sense. where they ." Aerial view of Was te s tabi 1ization pond. Indeed. reference should be made to Gloyna. This section contains a very brief description of ponds and their processes of waste stabilization. They function essentially as open septic tanks. . The settleable solids in the raw wastewater settle to form a sludge layer.ICI?/CWS 053 7184V page 2.:lre .~o rtugaL (the series comprises an anaerobic pond. 1 .$ ser--:ing Sesimbra . Fig. Anaerobic ponds receive such a high organic loading (>lOO g BODs per m:! per day) that they are devoid of dissolved oxygen. in very small treatment works. Hawkes and Mara & Peat'son (1-3).. septic tanks are often used in place of anaerobic ponds. For a more detailed discussion. they are far from simple: their microbial ecology is much mor0 complex than those of activated sludge and trickling filters and is not yet fully understood.

odour nuisance does not occur with domestic wascewaters containing (500 mg S04/1. there In primary facultative ponds (those that receive are two main mechanisms for BOD removal (Fig. A scum layer often forms On the surface. the oxygen needed for this comes partly from the air through surface re~aeration. so leaving an excess of hydroxyl ions with the result that the pH can rise to above 10. the algae in return receive most of their carbon dioxide from the end product of bacterial metabolism. Depths less than 0.BOD removal in both types of facultative pond is in the range 60-80%. and this need not be removed. as does the pH since at peak algal activity bicarbonate ions dissociate to provide more carbon dioxide for the algae. 2): sedimentation and subsequent anaerobic digestion of settleable solids. The depth of facultative ponds is usually 1. This is due to the presence of species of anaerobic sulfide-oxidi~ing photosynthetic bacteria whose growth is beneficial in preventing hydrogen sulfide release. Q Odour release (mainly hydrogen sulfide) is commonly thought of as a major disadvantage of anaerobic ponds. after which it falls to a minimum at night. Anaerobi. the first of these two mechanisms does not occur to any significant e.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 3 digested anaerobically by acidogenic and methanogenic bacteria at temperatures above 15 C.::tent.5). The depth chosen for any particular anaerobic pond should minimize land area requirements and construction costs (the cost of excavation generally increases with depth). ranging from around 40% at 10 ~C or below Co over 60% at 20°C and above. and keep hydraulic short-circuiting to an acceptable minimum (see section 4. Yet if designed to receive a volumetric loading (400 g BOD per m3 per day (4) (see section 3. 3). there is a diurnal variation in the concentration of dissolved oxygen.4).c ponds usually have a depth of 2-5 In. . together with the solubilized products of anaerobic digestion. in exceptional cases.5 m. After sunrise. which grow profusely in the pond and colour it dark green. although depths between 1 m and 2 m are used. the dissolved oxygen level gradually rises to a maximum in the mid-afternoon. Total BOD removal is high. up to 30% of the influent BOD may leave the pond as methane gas (5). although fly breeding may be a nuisance in some instances in SunlIller and require remedial action. As a result of the photosynthetic activities of the pond algae. as rooted plants may grow in the pond and provide a shaded habitat suitable for mosquito breeding.2 Facultative po~s raw wastewater). so there exists a mutualistic relationship between the heterotrophic bacteria and the predominantly autotrophic algae in the pond (Fig. but it is provided mainly by the photosynthetic activities of the microalgae.. In secondary facultative ponds (those that receive anaerobic pond effluent). Anaerobic ponds sometimes appear dark red or purple. with a suitable biodegradable insecticide.9 m are not recommended. 1. aerobic bacterial oxidation of the non-settleable organic compounds.2. The position of the oxypause (the depth at which the dissolved oxygen concentration reaches zero) similarly changes. such as spraying with clean water or final effluent or.

__ fA_---."~l.. between algae an~_:!?2-5~1~£1? in tabilizat ig_"9___QQ_Q_ds a I gae ...C }II--i> Algae Soluble BOD destroyed Source: Marais (5)...thw.'\j~~ualistic __ relationship f acul tative was te .--.. J~~ £ facultative ponds abo lost as gas 'fJR. °2 L. Pa.. 2. Fig...Ys of BOD removal i~ ...1 light new cells J ..l....~~".ICP/CWS 7384V page 4 OS3 Fig...5 new cells .bacteria organic matter <41.

The principal parameters that affect the removal of faecal bacteria in ponds are temperature.4 Major microbial groups Bacteria Most aquatic bacterial groups are represented and implicated directly Or indirectly in the overall treatment process occurring in ponds. it is becoming increasingly clear that their ability to raise the pH of maturation ponds above 9 during daylight hours. but more commonly depths are the same as in facultative ponds (1-2 m).1 and 3. Good mixing ensures a more unifo"m distribution of BOD. bacteria and algae and hence a better degree of waste stabilization.6). is an important mechanism in destroying faecal bacteria. Maturation ponds usually show less vertical biological and physicochemical stratification and are well oxygenated throughout the day. Excreted protozoan cysts and helminth eggs are removed by sedimentation. but decreases with increasing organic load. This concentrated band of algae moves up and down through the top 50 cm of the pond in response to changes in incident light intensity. the size of the total heterotrophic bacterial population decreases along a pond series as the quantities of organic substrates diminish. However.3 Mat~ration ponds A series of maturation ponds receives the effluent from a facultative pond.6). chemical oxygen demand (COD). and is controlled by the pond chemistry. as a consequence of their photosynthetic activity. This heterotrophic bacterial population is in a. dissolved oxygen. In the absence of wind-induced mixing. Depths of up to 3 m have been used.5). and a series of ponds with an overall retention time of 11 days or more will produce an effluent free of cysts and eggs (6). the algal population tends to stratify in a narrOW band. Adsorption on to settleable solids is generally considered to be the principal removal mechanism. 1. there are too few data to predict with confidence the effect of organic loadingt and as a result design procedures are currently based only on temperature and retention time (see section 3.2. but this is an area that requires further research. 1.2. as it induces vertical mixing of the pond liquid. both temporally and spatially. Little is known about the removal of excreted viruses in ponds. continuous state of flux exhibiting dynamic changes. Faecal bacterial removal increases with increasing temperature and retention time. retention time and organic loading. and the size and number of maturation ponds is governed mainly by the required bacteriological quality of the final effluent (see sections 3. Although the key role of the algal population in facultative and maturation ponds is generally considered to be the generation of oxygen.rcr /cws 7384V 053 page 5 The wind has an important effect on the behaviour of facultative ponds. . In general. suspended solids) if the effluent take-off point is within this zone (see section 4. some 20 cm thick. during daylight hours. and causes large fluctuations in effluent quality (BOD.

+ + + + + + + ++ ..:resent was te stabilization in ponds' Algal genus Facultative _. in response to chang es in e nv i. and consequently fewer species are found in facultative ponds than in maturation ponds. 4) and fluctuates with environmenl:a1 changes associated with the seasons and also due to such factors as zooplankton . and Miractioium.H~P jews 0. flagellate genera s uch a.. but it depends on the BODs surface loading (Fig. Examples of algal ~ne. Motile. to a lesser extent~ the Chrysophyta and Cyanophyta. In general.t:?_. Chl?_!e~Je...r onrnent aL conditions and wastewater quality. Pyrobotr:x§ and Chlamydomonas tend to dominate in tbe more turbid conditions of facultative ponds. present -'" absent ... however..':13 7384V page 6 A knowledge of the types of algal species present and their biomass concentration provides a useful indication of pond status and wastewater treatment efficiency. where their ability to move towards surface l.:e.. Table 1. examples of typical algal genera found in stabilization pOIlds are listed in Table 1.ight gives them a competitive advantage over non-motile t o rms s uc h as Scenedesmus. Euglena. frequently in the range 1000-3000 ~g/l chlorophyll a..----_--------+ + Maturation Euglena Phacus Chlamydomonas Chlorogonium Pyrobotrys Eudorina Pandorin<il Scenedesmus Volvox Dic. species diversity in ponds decreases as the organic loading increases. which abound in the more transpacent waters of maturation ponds.tyosphaerium Oocystis Cyclotella Ankistrodesmus ChLo re l La Micractinium Rhodomonas Coelastrurn Navicula Cryptomonas Oscillatoda Anabaena Spiru1ina ~ + . . + + + + + + -+- + + + + + + + + + + "I- + The algal standing crop in efficiently operating facultative ponds u. Speciation will change. The dominan~ algal genera are usually members of the Chlorophyta and Euglenophyta and.

._ e D. None of the current models for nitrogen removal can yet be confidently used for design.5 Nitrogen and phosEhorus removal Nitrogen removal in ponds may reach 80% or mOre and appears to be related to pH.8).nsoll.. They suggested that increasing the nwnber of maturation ponds increases phosphorus removal. c <lI <. 1.lble phosphates r~spectively) and its r~turn to the pond liquid Vla mineralization and resolubilization.. • ~ e .. 4. transient chemical toxlcity and attack by phycopathogenic organisms. I • •• 0 100 I • SOO • Organic lcudinq.s w e 0 a. grazing.. temperature and retention time. as progressively more phosphorus becomes .ICP/CWS 7384V 053 page 7 Fig.2...! e" 0 800- e 0 w ~ x: "CJ 0 •• 400 l- 2 . and they showed that total phosphorus r-emoval would be around 45% in facultative ponds in which the BOD removal was 90%. as they incorporate large quantities of orthophosphate. The efficiency of phosphorus removal in ponds depends on the balance between phosphorus sedimentation and precipitation (as microbial biomass and l. Nitrification and denitrification do not appear to Occur to any significant extent (9). The standing crop is lower in maturation ponds (BODs loading <50 kg per ha per day) and decreases as subsequent ponds ~n a series become more lightly loaded. The principal mechanisms involved are volatilization of ammonia and sedimentation of organic nitrogen as microbial biomass (7. Algae comprise the largest component of organic phosphorus fraction in the pond liquid. and further studies are necessary if a fuller understanding of nitrogen cycling in ponds is to be obtained and ponds designed specifically for nitrogen removal. 300 kg BOOs ho-1 d'" Source: Mara & Silva (unpublished data). Houng & Gloyna (10) developed a first-order model fot' phosphorus removal and cycling in ponds. Variation of algal biomass with organic loading in primary facultative waste stabilization £onds at 25 aC <j' 01 1200 ::::l..

In the rv. i.a may be self-regulating since inhibition of photosynthetic activity reduces the pH and hence the toxicity of the ammonia. Su l f i[h~ also inhibits the activities of anaerobic heterotrophic bacteria. since ponds can withstand up to at least 30 mg/l of heavy metals without any reduction in treatment efficiency (ll). any toxic substance that affc~ts their metabolism will reduce its treatment efficiency. than ti.ngc of pH found in ponds.ab l 'i aa t i on ponds have many advantages in Mediterranean i over other types of wastewater treatment. its toxicity increases with de creas i. energy other than solar energy. hours rather than days~ and the toxicity of sub-lethal concentrations of ammon i. since a larger proportion is t. Waste s t. Heavy metals are not normally a problem with domestic wastes. low capital and operational costs. the ability to treat a wide variety of biodegradable industrial agricultural wastewater.an Cause facultative ponds to become completely anaerobic.ICP/CWS 053 738hV page 8 ilIUl]{~bilized the ox Ld i aed surf ace layers of the sediment in t ne se porid s . Sulfide is toxic to algae in its undissociated HzS state.e.5) and to withstand hydraulic and organic overloads. (SC(~ and to heavy .2). the ability to cope with increased (tourist) pc pu la t Lcn s in s urnmer section 3. thus~ in contrast to ammonia. which ~apidly penetrates the algal c~ll.o reguirement (see :section 5.e. Anunonia inhibition is reversible in the short term.hE"n in the unionized NH3 state. Inhibition of photosynthesis by high ammonia concentrations C. l. extremely simple maintenance Europe for including a zer. 6 logro units or from lOB to 102 per 100 ml) reduction of faecal coliforrns and complete removal of excreted protozoa and helminlbs. even when the BOD surface loading is low. The algae. and in particular their photosynthetic appa ra t.us are rnor e easily inhibited . including a relatively low sensitivity metals.ogen~ further work is needed to develop design equations for phosphorus removal in ponds.2.6 Toxicity factor~ Since the performance of a pond system depends on the activities of lts constituent algal and bacterial populations. and concentrations of 50-150 mg/l inhibit methanogenesis in anaerobic ponds (l~~).9999% (i. These include. Ammonia becomes exponentially mo re toxic above pH 8. Anunon:i. the major potential toxicants are ammonia and sulfide.ng pH. requirements very high removals of excreted pathogens! up to 99.a oncentrations c above 28 mg Nil are likely to be toxic to algae within the pH range experienced during daylight hours in ponds (12).w bacteria. in thus preventing the release of phosphorus back into the pond liquid. However. In ponds treating domestic wastewater. ~s with nitr. sulfide concentrations of 8 rng/l seriously inhibit photosynthesis. but the effect is reversible in the short term (13).

ponds will be the treatment system of choice.~ a A detailed analysis of the results obtained during the first operational phase of the experimental pond complex will be presented at the IAWPRC Specialized Conference On Waste Stabilization Ponds to be held in Lisbon during the period 29 June-2 July 1987. a few systems have Imhoff tanks instead. 6. the design population varies from 300 to 18 000.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page 9 The principal disadvantages of pond systems are that they require much larger areas of land than other forms of sewage treatment and that they have specific soil requirements (see section 4. comprise two anaerobic ponds. £2!rent pond usage in Mediterranean Europe Waste stabilization ponds are widely used in France and Portugal. 1986). A preliminary examination of the results obtained to date indicate that higher loadings than hitherto considered feasible can be safely used in Portugal (Gomes de Silva. the Federal Republic of Germany. design engineers must consider local land prices and soil suitability in selecting the least cost method of wastewater treatment. but this is now becoming less common. which is the first of its kind in Europe. although there are a few pond systems in use or under construction in Greece. These facilitiest which have been in full operation since 1984. Other disadvantages of ponds are that the final effluent may contain too high a concentration of suspended algal solids and that evaporative losses in hot~ dry climates may significantly reduce the amount of treated wastewater available for agricultural reuse. but this option is no longer favoured due to the increased maintenance involved. for example. Anaerobic ponds are used at nearly half the systems.18). In Portugal. one primary and two secondary facultative ponds and four maturation ponds. Usually. In 1982t an experimental pond complex was constructed at the Frielas wastewater treatment works in Greater Lisbon (Fig. led the Direc~ao Gera1 do Saneamento Basico to initiate a major research programme on ponds. ponds comprise one in eight of all wastewater treatment plants in France. pond systems consist of a single primary facultative pond followed by two maturation ponds. a total surface area of 10 mZ per person is usually adopted as the design criterion (this is equivalent to an organic loading of 100 kg BODs per ha per day on the facultative pond) (19). there are approximately 1500 pend systems that mainly serve small rural communities of less than 1000 population (lS. Italy and Spain. Their performance has been evaluated generally in accordance with the recommendations given in section 6. arranged as shown in Fig. Thus. Ponds are also used in some other European countriest especiallY. mainly in the south of the country.2). In many cases. 5). combined with a lack of knowledge of their local performance. there are at present 17 pond systems in operation. At present. each half the size of the facultative pond. Some pond systems include a rooted macrophyte pond (see Annex I). Anaerobic ponds are not used. but not at present in other countries in Mediterranean Europe. personal communication. as suitable land is often available at relatively low cost.16)t but they are also used for larger communities on the Mediterranean coastlinet especially where there are both important shellfisheries and major centres of summer tourism (17. and most include one maturation pond. . The increasing use of ponds in Portugal. In France. The conference proceedings will be published in Water science and techno1ogz in December 1987. 2.

oxidized ni t rogen or both) and faecal col ifo rrn organisms. the upstream river wa t e r qua l. facultative and maturation ponds must be regarded as tentative. S. the design recommendations given below for anaerobic. suspended solids.ve . 3. essential if ponds are to be designed as economically as possible.V pagi:l 10 053 Fig.i~!l. nitrogen (as aramon i a . there exist few reliable field data on pond performance in most countries in Mediterranean Europe. The maximum permissible concentra. Due to this current paucity of field data. should t be decided On the basis of what is to be done with the effluent.tion of each corrs i t uen t. A microcomputer-based procedure for pond design incorporating these recommendations is available (20).'i t y and r the available dilution are important. these recommendations will be refined and a second edition of this manual produ~ed. if it is to be d is char'ged into a ri.e HI terms s of organic matter (usually as BODs but increasingly also as COD). It is expected that. If the effluent is to be reused for . are also very effective ways in which reliable pond design criteria can be developed.1 Effluent standards Effluent standards are usually expressed by regulatory ag euc i._E2nd frielas. recommendations for pand monitoring and evaluation are given in section 6. The experimental~~st~a~iJi~. as more data become available.ICP!CWS 7384. Greater Lisbon comQlex at 3. The construction and operation of well designed experimental ponds. such as those in Lisbon described in section 2. Evaluation of existing pond performance 1t. For example. Process design g~jeli~~ Despite the number and growing popularity of waste stabilization ponds in Europe.~!:.

see section 7). A "" t -. or if the effluent is to be discharged into shellfish growing areas. the maximum permissible faecal coliform concentration depends On the type of crop to be irrigated (it should be less than 1000 per 100 ml if unrestricted irrigation is to be allowed.21). except in exceptional justifiable circumstances.j " " r M M • 1 ~ " r--: )( ['-0. the count of intestinal nematode eggs should be <1 per litre (see section 7). Greater Lisbon pqnd at Raw wastewater f A . In the absence of official standards. If the effluent is to be used for irrigation. x <>3 1 <0 x I ~ ~ . and this is readily achievable in a series of pondS having an overall retention time of at least 11 days (6)... 6. Mid-depth '" anaerobic pond PF "" primary facultative pond SF = secondary facultative pond M '" maturation pond pond dimensions are given in metres irrigation...--. <'""'- • SF PF " SF U'\ r: U"1 .ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 1l fig. t M t M m "" l Legend.. that and .. design engineers should ensure the final effluent from a series of ponds does not. the available dilution must be taken into account in order than the shellfish do not grown in water containing more than 10 faecal coliforrns per 100 ml (17. contravene the following recommended minimum quality requirements. Schematic diagram of the experimental waste stabilization Fr~~as.

tion: . <120 mg/l. e. even in the absence of official standards..n the peak population season (see Annex 3). The four most impor. including the oxygen demand of the algae in the effluent. however~ as noted above. it may be estimated from the following equa. acceptable designs are either an anaer[Jbic pond followed by a secondary facultative pond and one or more maturation ponds or a primary facultative pond followed by at least two maturation ponds. suspended solids. and in summer the reverse is true. filtered BODs. especially during critical conditions in summe r . (50 mg/I. but large comnunities may require a greater number.1 Temperature In winter. in the coolest month i. Thus. 3. (30 mg/l. Thus. discharge into GO<lstal or estuarine waters Or into a river with large dilution. <150 mg/l. For small comrnunit ies (<l000 population). In contrast. much mOre stringent requirements need to be met. less 3°C.ed COD. the BOD5 and faecal coliform concentrations of the raW wastewater and its flow. unfiltered BOD5.ow-weighted composite samples (see section 6.3. suspended solids. frequently. It is a moot point whether the effects of the algae should be included or not (22). especially if a high degree of pathogen removal is required (see section 3. clO 000 per 100 mI. faecal coliforms. This might be appropriate in certain circumstan~e~. (120 mg/I.2. it is recommended that rond systems comprise at least three ponds in series. French guidelines for pond effluent quality are based on filtered values (23). BODs If the wastewater exists.1). These guidelines are expressed in terms of unfiltered BOD and COD~ i. the winter design temperature should be taken as the mean monthly air temperature in the coldest month. but each case should be carefully justified. 3. <40 mg/l. its BODs may be measured using 24-hour fJ. to provide a small margin of safety. three ponds in series usually suff ice (see section 3. Only exceptionally should a system with less than three ponds in series be considered.c than the mean daily air temperature.g. If it does not.6).tant design parameters are temperature. the mean daily pond temperature is warmer by 2-3 . as follows: filtered COD.e.7).ICP!CWS 7384V page 053 12 unfil ter. but their inclusion results in a value that is generally a better estimate of the oxygen demand of the effluent in the receiving watercourse. In normal circwnstances.3. and t he sumrner design temperature as ehe mean monthly air temperature.

it is recommended that the Bavarian loading of 100 g per m3 per day be adopted for the winter design of anaerobic ponds. influent BOD. is directly proportional to the flow. g/m~/day) is given by: [2 ] where: Li Q V. This recommendation is consistent with Israeli practice (25). even in winter. g/caput/day wastewater flow.3. used in Bavaria. A suitable design value is 85% of the in-house water consumption.4 Flow The mean daily flow should be measured if the wastewater exists. 3. it must be estimated very carefully since the size of the pond installation.5 m3 per person (24). Otherwise. 3. the design wastewater flow should be based on local experience in sewered communities of similar socioeconomic status and water use practice. where they work well. and this can be readily determined from records of water meter readings. 3. They are. below which the activity of methanogenic bacteria essentially ceases and anaerobic ponds act merely as sludge storage basins (5).3 Faecal coliforms Grab samples of the wastewater may be used to measure the faecal coliform concentration if the wastewater exists. Higher loadings (up to 300 g per m3 per day) may be used in summer provided that there is local experience of their satisfactory operation. Federal Republic of Germany. as this is unduly high since it contains an allowance for losses in the distribution system. if designed on the basis of at least 0. this is equivalent to a maximum permissible volumetric BOD loading of 100 g per m3 per day.j. rng/l (_ g/m3) fl ow.4 Anaerobic ponds There is little experience of anaerobic ponds in Mediterranean Europe. m' / day anaerobic pond volume.3. and a suitable value is 50 g per caput per day. m' SincE winter temperatures in Mediterranean Europe are less than 15 °c.ICP/CWS 7384V 053 page 13 L\ where: Ll B 0. and a suitable design value is 1 'x io" per 100 ml. The wastewater flow should not be based on the design water consumption per caput. litre/caput/day design Values of B vary becween 30 and 70 g per caput per day. The usual range is 107-10~ faecal coliforms per 100 ml . The volumetric loading (Av. mg/l BODs contribution. and hence its cost. a loading of 100 g per m3 per day shQuld . If it does not. If these do not exist. however. Assuming a BOD contribution of 50 g per caput per day. and also with the general recommendation made by Meiring et ala (4) that volumetric loadings on anaerobic ponds should be between 100 and 400 g/m~ so as to maintain anaerobic conditions and avoid odour nuisance.: 1000 B/q [ 1] q = wastewater BODs.

but is probably rather too conservative at higher temperatures.27). wh lcu a re based on pond experience in the tropics.ified by Mara to give the following lLnaar design [4 I\~ =. give values that are too high for use in Mediterranean Europe~ for which a more appropriate equation is: I\~ ~ lOT [hi Equation 6 is satisfactory at temperatures up to 20°C. However. . (27) kg/ha/day °c 3 Was mod. Pond design procedures based on BOD surface loading are empirical.072)T r 71 Equations 3-7 are shown graphically in Fig.ous kinetic constants.20T-l20 I whe re : I\~ T Arthur design design BODs loading~ temperature. Their original equation. The former is not currently recomrnenJerJ. which describes the envelope of failure for primary facultative ponds. in france) a loading of 100 kg per ha per day is commonly used (19). for design purposes in Mediterranean Europe. whi~h is based on a doubling of the design load for every 10 °c rise in temperature. is mOre appropriate: I\~ = SO(l. Otherwise. e. a removal of 40% should be used. since there are too few reliable data on which to base design values for the vari. a winter removal of 40% can be llsed as a conservative basi5 for design.g. Climatic factors influence the permissible loading. mean air temperature. A higher cemoval (up to 60%) may be assumed for swruner operation provided that there is local experience of this level of performance. and the effecL of temperature Carl be taken into account by the method of McGarry & Pes cod (26). Solution of equation 2. is: [J 1 where: I\~(m"x) T Equation equation: = maximum BODs loading. but too few data exist to quantify the relationship. for which the following equation. which The removal of BOD in anaerobic ponds is a function principally of temperature (26). 7. 1$ translated into a physical design as explained in section 4. ~ to: °c kg!ha!day (28) changed equation I\~ ~ 20T-60 l5j Experience in Lsrae I (25) suggests that both equations 4 and 5.73S/IV page 14 lCP!CWS OS3 be used. The two most commonly us ed methods are those based on first-order kinetics and maximum permissible surf ace loading. then yields the required pond volume.5 Facultative ponds There are several ways in which facultative ponds may be designed (1. and local experience of pond performance may be used to establish a recommended design value. 3.

120 • eo 11../ . i.7384V page 15 ICP!CWS 053 Fig.. // / ""':ii' . 7 + Variation of permiss:h£~ organic loading with to equations 3~7 tempera~.r... the design loading should be calculated from equation 6~ although equation 7 may be used at design temperatures above 20 aC.' .l· / . The same design loading may be used for both primary and secondary facultative ponds~ although if a pond series comprises only an anaerobic and a secondary facultative pond.:/' ~/ / . / / I / . the design loading on the secondary facultative pond should be reduced by 30%. At higher temperatures.. if there are no maturation ponds. (Li~ Surface loading is related to the flow (Q.099JT -20T~60 • 10T • 20T ./ a o 10 TEMPERAME. / / . D 20 C Experience in France and the Federal Republic of Germany indicates that a loading of 100 kg/ha per day is satisEactor-y in winter. m3/d) and I:he BOD mg/l) of the wastewater and the pond area (Af• m!) as follows: [ 8] . IlO. /// /. and this value~ which corresponds to a temperature of 10°C in equations 6 and 7~ is recommended for design temperatures of 10 QC and below.072) T / / r I ( J1 .e.// .! ~ 0&00 i ~ ~ 200 I / / I I / .l /l / .ure according 600 .3(1.

1 of BOD in both primary and secondary related to the BOD loading.7 to 0.1 °c.e than ideal for the purpose. between 50 and 100 mg/1. For example.se .6 3. as explained in section 4.oad and so is able to treat the wastewa. kg/ha/day efficiency of BOD removal Values of a range from 0. which was developed from data from American ponds operating in the tempe ra tu re range 2-2. The use of the seasona.l population facultative pond design is illustrated in Annex 3. is applicable to maturation ponds in northern France. °c Winter conditions control the design if the seasonal less than this ratio.50 kg per ha per day. loadings.1 Maturation Pathogen ponds removal population factor in factor is Maturation ponds are usually designed primarily to remove excreted pathogens.. In s umme r' when the temperature r i. e. facultative ponds is of the general kind: [ LCJ 1 The remova. temperature.33).ter from a larger population (l:::l). so maturatiun ponds are usually designed to achieve a given removal of fa~cal coliforms. A1 though l. combining eC. as summer tourism can increase the resident (winter) population by a factor of 2-20.uat i ons 6 and 8: I: i) I The area calculated dimensions and the depth often from equation 8 is then translated into physical selected. 3.8 (26.re commonly used as indicators of excreted pathogens (32. if the s umme r' design t empe ra t ur e were 2.5 times the winter population.30) in tropical c Lima t e s .h can be highly variable. faecal coliform hac t o r i » ss !). it may be considered as functioning properly (31) and the subsequent maturation ponds will not be overloaded. France (34). Provided that the facultative powl effluent ha.gho r s l. the maximum permissible summer loading would be 2.5 °C. b u t few data exist from Mediterranean Europe. Swruner conditions control the design of f acul tat i ve ponds if the "seasonal population factor" (defined as the average summer population divided by the winter population) is greater than the ratio of the permissible summer to wintel. so a pond designed for a winter loading of laO kg per ha per day would be able to treat the wastewater from a summer population of 2. Recent research at the Ecole national de la sante publigue in Rennes. the pond is able to accept a hi.V page 16 Thus.s an unfiltered BOD. This is very useful. at least in terms of the removal of faecal coliforms and bacterial pathogens hllt not for thG! removal of excreted viruses whic.ICP!CWS 053 73'd' . by an equation where: At"' a areal BODs removal. The . when. i. has confirmed that the design procedure developed by Marais (35). from equation 6: seasonal where: T" Tw summer winter population ~C factor > T~/Tw [ II J temperature.6.29.e.g.

l6 0.54 0.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 17 method assumes Chat faecal coliform removal follows first-order kinetics and that the ponds are completely mixed.21 o 20 For a series of anaerobic.(day-l) T(OC) kT(day-l) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0. = = 8m "" number of faecal coliforms per 100 ml effluent number of faecal coliforms per 100 ml influent first order rate constant for faecal coliform removal at TQC.84 2.27 0.14 .32 0.77 0. d-1 maturation pond retention time.10 0. becomes: facultative and maturation ponds.46 0. equation 12 where N" and Ni now refer to the final effluent and raw wastewater respectively and n is the number of maturation ponds.23 0. " For unequally sized maturation ponds~ the term (l+kTem)n equation 14 is replaced by [(1+kTeml)(1+kTemz)(1+kT6mn)]. in to be .60 3.11 0. the resulting Equation for a single maturation pond is! [12 ] where: N" Nl '" k. day 5 temperatures is given by the equation (see [13 J The value of kT at various Table 2) : Table 2.18 2.38 0.92 1. Values of the first order rate constant for faecal coliform removal at various design temperatures (calculated from equation l3) T( °C) k. which are assumed all of the same size (this is desirable as it optimizes removal efficiency (35) but may not always be possible due to topographical constraints").19 0.54 1.09 3.68 4.65 13 14 15 l6 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 0. Thus.09 1.30 1.38 5.

OOlAe) 3 [1. the n first value of n for which 8m ( ) is then considered. or. If it does not.• and to consider the combination of 8m and n. For example~ one might try two ponds at seven days or three ponds at five days.ICP/CWS 053 73R4V page 18 In order to use equation 14 for design. but it may be safely assumed that a se ri es of maturation ponds. but if there is s i. for example). the first combination considered is adopted. examination of equation 14 shows that it is better to have a large numbe r of small ponds rather than a small number of large porid s of the Same overall retention time.5 mg/L a to calculate Xm1 an overall BOD reduction of 60% in the anaerobic and facultative ponds may be assumed at all design temperatures. Marais (35) recommends that the minimum retention time in maturation ponds (e: should be around three days so as to minimize short-circuiting. 3 •.f = retention time in facultative pond. it is better to solve eqUiltion 14 for N ~ 1. m4 evaporation. kg/ha/day' BODs loading on facultative pond. its use is illustrated in Annex 3. one that has been designed to produce an effluent containing less than 1000 faecal coliforms per 100 ml will usually produce an effluent with a filtered BODs of <2. ern and n.2 BOD removal Maturation ponds. which has a total retention time at least equal to that in the preceding facultative pond (as recommended in France. and so on. . until trial solutions give an acceptab18 value of Nc• However. kg/ha/day in The combination of and the next highest value of n (Le. which ~iS the highest value or n subject to the constraints that: 1n ) and: where: e f Am! A. This combination is selected as the design solution provided that it satisfies the second constraint given above.se design equation for BOD removal in maturation ponds in Mediterranean Europe. or else a design value of 1 x 10~ per lOa can be asswned. This design procedure ensures the solution with the least land area requirement. Thus. day BODs loading on first maturation pond. m inflow. is often stipulated as a required effluent standard (see section 3. 2.O. it is necessary to know the values of No and Nt and the retention times in the anaerobic pond (if there is one) and the facultative pond. The value of N. and is therefore solved trial and error. ill though designed primarily for faecal coliform r:emoval~ do achieve some degree of BOD removal. mJ/day pond area. rnm/day by Equation 13 contains two unknowns.5 I V Qi A e = = pond volume. and Ni can be measured if the wastewater exists. Insufficient data are available to develop a preci.gn ic a n t if evaporation it is mOre accurate to use the equation: e~ where: 2V/(2QI .6.1). times in the anaerobic and facultative ponds are usually taken as the volume divided by the flow. e: e:· 3. The retention.

m3 2 facultative pond area. mZ contributing population design temperature. The presence of algae in the final effluent often precludes the achievement of low concentrations of suspended solids and unfiltered BOD. The total area should be divided in the ratio AT/2:AT/4:AT/4 for the facultative and the two maturation ponds respectively. m 2 maturation pond area.ICP/CWS 053 738/. For such communities. it is suggested that they are designed on the basis of equation 6 with 70% removal of filtered BOD in the preceding facultative pond (or anaerobic and facultative ponds) and 25% removal of filtered BOD in each of the maturation ponds. and it may be necessary to include some simple algal removal system (36) to meet strict effluent discharge standards. especially if the effluent is not required to meet strict discharge standards. the design procedure given above may be too detailed.. . The pond depths should be 3 m for the anaerobic pond and 1.N page 19 If maturation ponds are to be designed solely for BOD removal. = 0. This equation is based on equation 6 and a BODs contribution of 50 g per caput per day.5 m far the facultative and maturation ponds. the amounts are variable and cannot at present be predicted any degree of certainty. For a pond system comprising an anaerobic pond followed by a secondary facultative pond and one maturation pond. The pond depths should be 1.5 m.5 P 30 PIT Am "" Af [17] [181 [1. the following equations should be used: v~ Af =. it is suggested that the following equation be used for a three-pond system comprising a primary facultative and two maturation ponds: AT '" 100 PIT where: [16J AT P T = total pond area. 3. 3.7 Small communi ties For small communities «1000 population). although removal does occur (see section 1.9J where: Va Af = Am anaerobic pond volume. °c (for temperatures T should be taken as 10) below 10°C.6. m These equations are based on a volumetric loading of 100 g per m3 per day an the anaerobic pond1 which is assumed to achieve 40% BOD removal. and equation 6.2).3 Nitrogen and phosphorus remov~l and with The use of maturation ponds specifically for the removal of nitrogen phosphorus is not recommended since.

The soil must also be suitable (see section 4.ICP/CWS 7384V 053 page 2.1 Pond location Ponds should be located at least 200 m downwind from the community they serve and away from any likely area of future expansion. At least four soil samples should be taken per hectare. In Europe. but the public may need assurance about this at the planning stage~ and a miniml~ distance of 200 m normally allays any fears. If there is no suitable local soil with which at least a stable and impermeable embankment c. If the local soil is totally unsuitable.4). used for lhe embankment slopes. maximwn dry density and optimc~ Atterberg limits. around ha l f the nurnber of malfunctioning ponds malfunction due to geotechnical problems that could have been obviated at the design stage. consistent with the available site. and the following properties of the soil at the proposed pond location must be measured: particle size distribution. is most likely to be a problem in a well designed system. so as to minimize earthwo~ks. '+. There should be vehicle access to the ponds and. the site should be flat or gently sloping. and they shou. as the birdlife~ especially seagulls. organic c:ontent~ coefficient of permeability. By-pass pipes. The maximum height of Che groundwater table should be determined.g. The physical design of pond systems is as important as their process design and can greatly influence their efficiency. Organic. if suitable. e. The geotechnical aspects of pond design are very important indeed. tty"'~icaldesign guidelines The process design prepared as described in section 3 must be translated into a physical design. peaty. Ponds should not be located within 2 km of airports.ld be as lmdisturbed as possible. and plastic soils and mediwn-to-coarse sands ore nnt suitable for embankment construction. even from anaerobic ponds. This is mainly to discourage people visiting the ponds (see section 4.ore Can be formed. Odour release. The samples should be representative of th~ soil profile to a depth 1 m greater than the envisaged pond depth. moisture content (modified Proctor test). Actual pond dimensions. security fencing and notices are generally required.6). must be calculated. attracted to the ponds m~y constitute a ~isk to air navigation. and facilities for pond o pe ra t o rs must be provided. .0 4. 4. embankments and pond inlet and outlet structures must be designed and decisions taken regarding preliminary treatment~ parallel pond systems and whether or not to line the ponds. construction costs will be very high and ponds may not be the most economie CreatmeIlt system.2 Geotechnical considerations The principal objectives of a geo t ec hn i ca L investigation are to ensure correct embankment design and to determine whether the soil is sufficiently permeable to require lining. it must be brought to the site at extra cost and the local soil.

m/s maximum permissible seepage flow (.OOlA(E + S) (201 where: Q! A E S inflow to first pond. 4. plastic floats (Fig. Slope stability should be ascertained according to standard soil mechanics procedures for small earth dams. and particularly at large pond installations.. and this is best achieved by precast concrete slabs (Fig. m hydraulic head (= pond depth + ~1).400A)][~1/~h] [21] where: k .[Q/(86. Embankment slopes are commonly 1 to 3 internally and 1 to 1.. of <10-7 mls (see section 4.OOIAE). although it is worth noting that ponds constructed completely in cut may be a cheaper alternative.3). The soil used for embankment construction should be compacted in 150-250 mID layers to 90% of the maximum dry density determined by the modified Proctor test. embankments require protection against erasion by wave action. rnm/day less rainfall). embankments should be constructed from the soil excavated from the sitet and there should be a balance between cut and fill. Such protection also prevents vegetation from growing down the embankment into the pond. Q~ A "" '" 61 ~h "" "" maximum permissible permeability.QI-O.e. Steeper slopes may be used if the soil is suitable. rom/day Seepage losses must be at least smaller than the inflow less net evaporation so as to maintain the water level in the pond. Embankments should be planted with grass to increase stability: slow-growing rhi~omatous species such as Cynodon_dactylon (Bermuda grass) should be used to minimize maintenance (see section 5. ml/day total area of pond series. m . as determined in situ. the inflow must be at least greater than net evaporation and seepage at all times.. m2 net evaporation (i.. After compaction.3 Hzdraulic balance To maintain the liquid level in the ponds. 8) or stone rip-rap (Fig. Shrinkage of the soil occurs during compaction (10-30%) and excavation estimates must take this into account... evaporation seepage. 9) at top water level. so providing a suitably shaded habitat for mosquito breeding. m3/day 2 base area of pond. the soil should have a coefficient of permeability. m depth of soil layer below pond base to aquifer or more permeable stratum. The maximum permissible permeability of the soil layer making up the pond base can be determined from d'Arcy's law: k . especiallY if embankment construction costs are high.. embankment design should allow for vehicle access to facilitate maintenance.2).ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 21 Ideally..5~2 externally. Internally. Thus: Qi l O. Wherever possible. 10) may be used. External embankments should be protected from stormwater erosion by providing adequate drainage. Alternatively.

\«:.l2.~ " "t.'''1lIII0. "\:l. f!g..." .~""-...£e_sas t concrete set at top water level slabs .. "- .TCP!CWS 053 7384V page 22.F' . <. Embankmen t pro tee t i on by ..~ --"... . Fig.~.')se .tion by stone rlp-rap extending to embankment b.. oJO. 9. .'. 8...... Embankment protec.• ~...

A variety of lining materials is available and local costs dictate which should be used. For larger populations. the pond must be lined._. Embankment pr9tection by plastic floats ·. the provision of a 50 mm bar screen to remove large solids is a sensible precaution.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 23 Fig. to prevent the }10-7 m/"...e. it is generally unnecessary to provide any form of preliminary wastewater treatment. Preliminary For small pond systems. (lO-S <109 m/s: m/s: the ponds will seal naturally.i If the permeability of the soil is more than the maximum permissible. the following interpretations may be placed on values obtained for the in situ coefficient of permeability: >106 m/s: the soil is too permeable and the ponds must be lined. 10. In coastal areas.. i. where the wastewater generally contains a large quantity of sand. further hydrogeological studies may be required). prior to treatment in ponds. Satisfactory lining has been achieved with ordinary portland cement (8 kg/m~)t plastic membranes and 150 mm layers of low-permeability soil..4 lO~9 mls and the groundwater treatmen~ there is no risk of groundwater contamination (if k ) is used for potable supplies. . mechanically raked SCreens and mechanical grit separators may be considered. . However. the need for grit removal facilities should be carefully assessed. manually cleaned twin grit removal (constant velocity) channels are sufficient. detailed 4. some seepage may OcCur but not sufficiently ponds fram filling. The design of such . such as screening and grit removal. As a general guide. those serving less than 1000 people. Normally...

Automatic flow recor-ders are advisable at large flows. primary facultativ~ ponds may be designed with a deeper section near the inlet to contain the incoming grit and other settleable solids and so permit tbeir easier removal (see section S. the pond should be located so that its longest dimension (diagonal) lies in the direction of the prevailing wind. there should be a stormwater overflow set at six times the dry weather flow. anaerobic and primary facultative ponds should be rectangular. High length-to-breadth ratios may also be achieved by placing baffles in the pond (Fig. 11). the freeboard may be calculated from the equation (37): . The most common shape is rectangular. since pon. for example. Ponds in France. vary considerably in their geometry. although there is much variation in t ho length-to-breadth ratio. but they are generally too troublesome at small installations. 12. Secondary facultative and maturation porid s s hou. These need to be corrected for the slope of the embankment. is that which minimizes hydraulic short-circuiting. so as to avoid sludge banks forming near the inlet. from overtopping the embankment.5-l m. The minimwn freeboard that should be provided is decided on the basis of preventing waves.2). as shown in Fig. have higher length-to-breadth d ratios (up to 10.l . and adequate provision should be made for the disposal of screenings and grit. the optimal pond geometry. to 1) so that they better approximate plug flow conditions. It this is seasonally variable. Clearly. and a Parshall or Venturi flume to measure the wa~tew~t. if the sewer system is not of the separate kind. wherever possible. As an alternative to grit removal fa.c short-circuiting.5 Pond geometry There has been little rigorous work done on determining optimal pond shapes. The dimensions and levels t hat the contractor needs to know are those of the base and the top of the embankment. the latter includes the effect of the freeboard.pr-eliminary treatment. For larger ponds. depending on site considerations.:r flow. In general. 1). For small ponds (under 1 ha in area) 0. Ponds do not need to be strictly rectangular but may be gently curved if necessary or if desired for aesthetic reasons (Fig. A flow measurement facility is essential. the freeboa~d should be 0. Lnduc ed by the wind. which includes not only the shape of the pond but also the relative positions of its inlet and outlet. the inlet should be located such that the wastewater flows in tbe pond against the wind. A ~ingle inlet and outlet are usually sufficient.5 m freeboard should be provided. with length-to-breadth ratios of less than 3.d performance cannot other-wise be assessed (see section 6).cilities. To minimi?:e hydraull. and these should be located in diagonally opposite corners of the pond. the summer wind direction should be used as this is when thermal stratification is potentially maximal. To facilitate wind-induced mixing. or even 20. The areas calculated by the design procedure described in section 3 are mid-depth areas) and the dimensions calculated from them are thus mid-depth dimensions. Immediately after. The use of complicated multi-inlet and multi-outlet designs is unnecessary and not recommended. for ponds between 1 ha and 3 ha. 4.7384V page 24 TCP!CWS 053 preliminary treatment facilities should follow convention~l recommended practice.

.(D+2F) -[ TWL ---="'- - ---t- F n D/2 ~--------------------------~~~---------~ D/l I.}:~':? ·.l\ .~ -- ..!CP!CWS 053 7384V page 25 Fig.-".' . .". top l + n.. .":~:'" ". Calculation of dimensions of pond base and embankment from those derived from the mid-depth area [1&.nO L J -----_.:~. southern France '. 11.!tL.G~77%i~:~~&n... 12...~_'.1- .~:. l .::'::'. Waste stabilization ponds with hAsh length-to-breadth ratios at Me~e.~ . -..~ .

they should be simple and inexpensive.6 Inlet and outlet structures There is a wide variety of designs for inlet and outlet structures. it is often advantageous to provide a deeper zone (2-5 m) near the inlet for sludge settlement and digestion. is important :. At pond systems serving more than 10 000 people. m 2 pond area.tcr /cvs 73'CAV 053 page 26 [22) where: F A = freeboard. 4. especially those with high length-to-breadth ratios. the simple "scum box" shown in Fig. the scum guard Should extend just below the maximum depth of the algal band when the pond is stratified so as to minimize the quantity of algae. and hence BOD. Firstly. 13 should be used. and in maturation ponds it should be at the level that gives the best possi!Jle microbiological quality. it is all too common to see unnecessarily cornplex and expensive structures. This is especially useful in coastal areas for small pond systems treating wastewater with a high grit load when no grit removal facilities are included. . Usually the series are equal. Inlets to secondary facultative and maturation ponds can discharge either above or below the liquid level.4).ty of scwn (which is important in facultative ponds).5 m.cant influence on effluent quality. In facultative ponds. while this should be self-evident. facultative ponds~ 1-2 m. 13 and 14. The following effluent take-off levels are recommended: by . In anaerobic and maturation ponds. In primary facultative ponds. For small pond systems provided with a 50 rrun screen (see section 4. it is often sensible (so as to increase operational flexibility) to have two or more serieS of pond~ 1n parallel. The available site topography may in any case necessitate such if subdivisiont even for smaller pond systems. 2-5 m. they should permit samples of the pond effluent to be taken with ease. Some simple inlet designs are shown in Fig. This is best done by providing penstock-controlled flumes ahead of ea~h series. The inlet to anaerobic and primary facultative ponds should discharge below the liquid level so as to minimize short-circuiting (especially in deep anaerobic ponds) and reduce the quanci. leaving: the pond. that is to say they receive the same flow~ and arrangements for splitting the raw wastewater flow into equal parts after preliminary treatment must be made. and provided they follow certain basic concepts their precise design is relatively unimportant. The outlet of all ponds should be protected against the discharge of sewn the provision of a scum guard. which is controlled by the sCwn guard depth.is can have a it signifi. m In the following ranges: Pond liquid depths are commonly anaerobic ponds. where algal banding is irrelevant. maturation ponds~ 1-1. although discharge at mid-depth is preferable as it reduces the possibility of short-circuiting. minimization of earthworks). the take-off should be nearer the surface: in anaerobic ponds it should be well above the maximum depth of sludge but below any surface c rus t. Se(:ondly. The t ake -of f level for the effluent. The depth chosen for any particular pond depends on site considerations (presence of shallow rock.

and Centre technique du genie rural.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page 27 lli· 13. D._-- ------1+--.0 matrss Sa~£. Inlet structure for anaerobic and prim~E_Y facultative Rands --t-. (27)._ ~- - Source: Mara.~: Agence de Bassin Loire-Bretagne des eaux ~t f6rets (19). Fig.D. 14. Inlet structure for secondary facultative and maturation p~~ds m I Ul I I --_-1---------'''- - -- ---_.- __j I scum bOll: o J 1. .

especially at large pond systems. mm The weir ne ed not necessarily be strictly linear. Scm. facultative ponds. 15. the following used to determine the head over the weir and so. for outlet structures are shown structure. . if evaporation is measured separately. to be able to by-pass anaerobic or primary facultative ponds to facilitate maintenance. knowing calculate the weir's required height: If a weir is used in the outlet Some simple designs in Fig. head of water above weir..d be sllch that the length of by-pass pipework is as short as possible. It is often advantageous.s recommended. This results in a temporary overload on the secondary facultative or first maturation pond. The installation of a variable height scum guard i. Since the flow into the first pond is also measured.ge 28 anaerobic ponds. e. in summe r for ponds designed for winter conditions or in La t e spring for ponds des igned for summer conditions. particularly desludging.J metres Source: Agence de Bassin Loire-Bretagne des eaux et f o re t s (19). s Ln ce i r.0567 h3/2 lis Often a U-shaped s t ruc t ure where: q h = = flow per metre length of weir. is more economical. Pond outlet structure o L 1 to ..pact t y . 60 em. Fig. permits the optimal take-off level to be set once the pond is operating. The pond layou t shou l. The outlet from the final pond in a series should discharge into a simple flow-measuring device such as a triangular or rectangular notch. the rate of seepage.rep lews 0):1 7384V p<J.g. 30 em. maturation pond$. q "" 0. formula should be the pond depth. but this is not usually too serious if it is restricted to the time of year when there is some spare ca. and Centre technique du genle rural. especially at high flow rates. this permits the rate of ~vaporatiQn and seepage to be calculated or. 15 and 16...

8 Operator facilities The facilities to be provided for the team of pond operators depend partly on their number (see section 5. are essential to discourage people visiting the ponds.ICP/CWS 053 738!~V page 29 Fig. Birdwatchers and hunters are also attracted to ponds by the often rich variety of wildlife. as they may be tempted to swim in the ponds.. attached to the fence and advising that the ponds are a wastewater treatment facility. which if properly maintained (see section 5) should appear as pleasant.0 metres Mara~ D. and therefore potentially hazardous to health. and they may not be aware that the ponds are treating wastewaters. but would normally include the following: . Warning notices.3). Children are especially at risk. (27) 4. Outlet weir structure d. I I -! L III II III II I I .I I I SCum board \. a Source: L 1. 16. inviting bodies of water. 4.7 Security Ponds (other than very remote installations) should be surrounded by a chain-link fence and gates should be kept padlocked..D. In several languages in tourist areas.

e rob i c ponds.g. Care should be taken to. e. om anae rob i c digester at a conventional sewage treatment works or with seepage froll!local septic tanks. these can be accommodated 1. fly and mosquito nuisance. storage space for protective clothing. primary facul tat i ve ponds should be filled with raw sewage and left for three to four weeks to a. Simple laboratory facilities and a telephone may be provided at larger.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 30 first-aid kit. Prior to commissioning.11 a simple. and it may be necessary during the first month Or' ::.0 to dose the pond with lime or soda ash. Otherwise. but they lIIuSt carried out regularly. 5. there will be serious odour. For small systems.". If freshwater is unavailable. such facilities are generally unnecessary." ~I""""'""""""""" be The maintenanc. wooden. It is preferable t. Routine maintenance tasks are as follows: removal of screenings and grit from the preliminary works. for example. The ponds should then be gradually loaded up to the design loading rate over the following week (or month if the ponds are not seeded).nstallations. 5. strntegically wash-basin and toilet. all ponds must be free from vegetation. sampling boat (if provided) <Inri life-jackets. building. If due to an initially low rate of sewer connections in newly sewered towns the sewage is weak or its flow low. This can also house.e requirements of ponds are very simple. i. .2 Routine maintenance . lake or well. 5.llow the microbial population to develop. Primary facultative ponds may advantageously be seeded in the same way as ana.1 Operation Start-up and meLfl. screen rake and other tools. grass-cutting and scum-cr emo va I equipment. some odour release is inevitable during the period. placed lifebuoys.. if required. but they should be available in the service vehicle. Anaerobic ponds should be filled with raw sewage and seeded with digesting sludge from. With the exception of the lifebuoys. Maintenance requirements and responsibilities must therefore be clearly defined at the design stage so as to avoid problems later.maintain the pond pH above 7 to permit the deve Lo pmen t of methanogenic bacteria. it is best to by-pass the anaerobic pond until the sewage strength and flow lS such that a loading of at least 100 g per m~ per day can be applied to it.~~nance procedures Pond systems should be commissioned in Mediterranean Europe in late sprlng or summer sa as to establish as quickly as possible the necessary mic:robial populations to effect waste stabilization. mains water is nat necessary) so as to permit the gradual d~velopment of the algal and heterotrophic bacterial populations. Adequate space for car parking is also required.o fill facultative and maturation ponds with f reshwa t e r (from a river.. sample bottles and a refrigerator for sample storage.

ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 31

cutting the grass on the embankments and removing it so that it does not fall into the pond (this is necessary to prevent the formation of mosquito-breeding habitats; the use of slow-growing grasses minimizes this task - see section 4.2); removal of floating scum and floating macrophytes. e.g. Lemna. from the surface of facultative and maturation ponds (this is required to maximize photosynthesis and surface re-aeration and obviate fly breeding); spraying the scum on anaerobic ponds (which should not be removed as it aids the treatment process). as necessary. with clean water or pond effluent to prevent fly breeding; removal of any accumulated solids in the inlets and outlets; caused by rodents~ rabbits or

repair of any damage other animals; repair of any damage

to the embankments to external fences

and gates.

The operators must be given precise instructions on the frequency at which these tasks should be done. and their work must be regularly inspected. In this regard. it is very helpful if the operators are provided with a local pond maintenance manual. examples of which are those produced by the Centre national du Machinisme agricole, du genie rural, des eaux et des forets (38) for France and Marecos do Monte (39) for Portugal. The operators should be required to complete at weekly, or at least fortnightly, intervals a pond maintenance record sbeet~ an example of which is given in Fig. 17. The operators may also be required to take samples and some routine measurements (see section 6). Anaerobic ponds require This occurs every n years: desludging when they are half full of sludge.



pond. m


p S


volume of anaerobic population served sludge accumulation

rate, m3/person/year

Very few sludge accumulation data for Mediterranean Europe exist. A suitable design value is probably around 0.1 m] per person per year. Thus. at a design loading of 100 g BOD per m3 per day and assuming a BOD contribution of 50 g per person per day, desludging would be required every 2.5 years. In Bavaria, anaerobic ponds are desludged everyone to three years by local farmers (using their own equipment) who spread the sludge on to ploughed fields (not pasture) in the autumn. In this case. the ponds are desludged long before the level of sludge accumulation would make its removal an operational necessity. In France, the rate of sludge accwnulation in primary facultative ponds is some 2-2.5 cm per year (Demi1lac et a1., personal communication, 1986). and desludging is required approximately every ten years. Sludge removal can be readily achieved by using a raft-mounted sludge pump, which discharges into either an adjacent sludge lagoon or tankers that transport it to a landfill site. central sludge treatment facility Or other suitable disposal location. Although the microbiological quality of pond

page 32




of routine maintenance



I?on<.l 10Ca[i0n: Date.



Ti.mc.: .,', "


cempe ra zur e .


WC.lther conditions:

Pumping statioTt (if there is one): • elapsed time meter reading: • electricity meter reading, • ob se rva t Ions r (floo<.ling) No.1 . .
L _ •••.••. _ •••..•


road: s t a t,e (vc ge t a t i.on, damage);





I?ond Sile:

~tate; maintenance





.. _.

.. __ ..... __ ...

Pretreatment works: state; mojnt~noncc • screen (s )-,- _. _, . , • other (grit, grease removal): V1SUAL INSPECnON

carried out






I .... ·,... __ ,_-",.,~,'


Colour of wa t e r brown/grey, <er"An, pink/red, mi Lky/ c lc ar ) OdO'.lr ---

Floatina m."l.cI:'oph_y~ Rooted macroj2h:ttc:;

or A.nh;:tr'lkments (ero!lion, r.odent damage, veeetation)

In Le t and ou t l.e (blockage)

WaCer level (hi eh, no emc l , low)



other maintenance




Centre national du Machinisme des f or e t s (38).


du genle rural,

des eaux


7384V page 33


sludge is better than that from conventional sewage treatment works and its toxic chemical composition no worse, its disposal must still be carried out in accordance with the relevant local or regional regulations governing sl~dge disposal (40). 5.3 Operator requir~~ents

The number of operational staff required for pond systems is a matter for local decision, but is small in comparison with conventional sewage treatment works and depends on the size of the system, the type of preliminary treatment (manually or mechanically operated), and the local cost and quality of labour. In general~ for systems serving up to 10 000 people, a full-time operator is not required~ and a part-time operator working for around two to ten hours per week is normally sufficient provided that grass cutting~ embankment repairs and other major maintenance work are done by a visiting service crew. For larger pond systems, a full-time operator is required. As a rough guide, one operator is required for every 10 000 people served, although local circumstances may suggest a greater or smaller number. 6. Monitoring and eval~ation

Once a waste stabilization pond system has been commissioned, a routine monitoring and evaluation programme should be established so that its real, as opposed to design, performance can be determined and the quality of its effluent known. Routine monitoring of the final effluent quality of a pond system permits a regular assessment to be made of whether the effluent is complying with the local discharge or reuse standards, and this information may be requir~d by the local regulatory river or health authority. Moreover, should a pond system suddenly fail or its effluent start to deteriorate, the results of such a monitoring programme often give some insight into the cause of the probl~m and may indicate what remedial action is required. The evaluation of pond performance and behaviour, although a much more complex procedure than the routine monitoring of effluent quality, is none the less extremely useful as it provides information On how underloaded or overloaded the system is, and thus by how much, if any, the loading On the system can be safely increased as the community it serves expands, or whether further ponds (either in parallel or in series) are required. It also indicates how the design of future pond installations in the region might be improved to take account of local conditions. 6.l Effluent guality moni19ring

Effluent quality monitoring programmes should be simple, but should none the less provide reliable data. Two levels of effluent monitoring are ceconunended (reference should also be made to the routine pond maintenance record sheets completed by the pond operators - see section 5.2 and Fig. 17): level 1: representative samples of the final effluent should be taken at least monthly, although for small installations quarterly samples usually suffice; these samples should be analysed in a local or regional laboratory for those parameters for which effluent discharge or reuse standards exist;

Table 3._------------Parameter Type of sample" Remarks Flow BOD. are so express~d. Table·~ gives a list of parameters whose values are required... although grab samples are necessary for same (pH.. duodenale and b Also on filtered if the discharge trichiura. one at 08()O-iOOO and the other at 1400-1600 h c C C ) ) ) Electrical conductivity Ca.. Mg. be determined in a "level monitoring programme 2." _~--"".. Ca. Na C C C C ) ) ) ) composite Only when effluent being used (or being assessed for use) for crop irrigation..-".-_. 24-hour f Lov-we i gh t ed composite samples are pr-eferable for most parameters.ICP!CWS OS] 7384V page 34 level 2.--.-'_-~. COD Measure both r aw was tewater and f 11\. Necator ame~icanus. necessary before any alteration to the pond system is attempted..: when level 1 assessment shows that a pond effluent is faiHng to meet its required discharge or reuse quality. Mg and Na are required for SAR & = 24-hour flow~weighted samples sample. c Trichuris Ancylostoma Since pond effluent quality shows OJ. together with directions on how they should be obtained. Composite samples should be collected in one of the following ways: and .-_ Parameters ----effluent ~-_---to quality ._. significant diurnal variation (rilthollghthis is less pronounced in maturation ponds than in facultative ponds).. temperature faecal coliforms). G ~ grab sample. standards Ascaris lumbricoides. _._.. a more de t a i Led study L.\ L effluent flows c c solids Unfiltered Unfiltered samplesb samples~ Suspended Ammonia c c G G G Faecal coliforms pH Temperature Total nitrogen Total phosphorus Chloride Boron Geohelroinths" C Take sample between 0800 and 100U h h Take two samp le s .

but it is the only means by which pond design can be adapted to local conditions. Pond column samples should be taken from a boat or from a simple sampling platform (Fig. manual flow weighting if this is not done automatically on labour by taking grab samples everyone to three hours (depending availability). sampler. If neither of these options is feasible.ICP!CWS 7384V 053 page 35 in an automatic with subsequent by the sampler. are necessary for most parameters. or by a university under contract to such a body. which ta ke s grab samples everyone to two hour s . The recommendations given below constitute a level 3 monitoring programme~ and they are based On the guidelines for the minimum evaluation of pond perfo~mance given in Pearson et al. 6. Samples should be taken and analysed on at least five days over a five-week period at both the hottest and coldest times of the year. Usually storage below 4 ~C for a maximum of 30 hours is sufficient (if a nonrefrigerated automatic sampler is used. 18 and 19. rainfall and evaporation should be obtained from the nearest meteorological station. such as a high influx of visitors at weekends. samples should be collected on Monday in the first week. It is often therefore a highly cost-effective exercise. This level of investigation is most likely to be beyond the capabilities of local organizations. Composite samples.1. collected as described in section 6. and it requires experienced personnel to interpret the data obtained. If feasible. Data on at least maximwn and m~nlmum air temperatures. and samples of the entire pond water column Should be taken for algological analyses (chlorophyll a and algal genera determination). with subsequent manual flow weighting. grab samples are required for pH and faecal co Li f o rrns . 20). Samp1e~ are required of the raw wastewater and of the effluent of each pond in the series and. It lS not intended that all pond installations be studied in this way~ but only one or two representative systems in each major climatic region of a country. Tuesday in the second week and so on (local factors. similar samples may be taken of the raw wastewater so that percentage reductions of the parameters may be determined and an estimate of the performance of the pond system obtained. may influence the choice of days on which samples are collected). . The subsamples used to make the composite sample should be properly preserved after collection. grab samples should be taken every two to three hours for as long a part of the day as possible and manually flow weighted. Table 4 lists the parameters whose values are required. so as to take into account most of the weekly variation in influent and effluent quality. (41) which should be consulted for further details. This type of study is also required when it is essential to know how much additional loading a particular system can receive before it is necessary to extend it. It is in many ways akin to research. and it would need to be carried out by a regional or national body.2 Evaluation of p~_per£ormance The evaluation of the performance and behaviour of a series of ponds is a time-consuming and expensive process. using the pond column sampler shown in Fig. the sample bottle container section should be packed with ice during warm weather).

.. eo ... ..I ... 0 "B '" ifJ ... (] <d '" ..t.... ..I l'<.I .. ffi OJ '" ...c'd u~ P-<ll ~ ~ . .. . ~. .... QJ .-1 "0 <lJ 'Q .... 0]) U C oj "'..:I r1 0 0...0 eo ... U o~ 0]) .u u ...o EI '-' '" !J <l) oJ III "" ... I]) (lJ e Q....... p...c 0 {............ 0 k ...I(Il 1-1 (lJ "=J "0 ill <l) <JJ r1..... . x...... u r1 I]) .... k QJ u r1 ''-' . 0....j M'"04....I o 0.... <lJ oat) III .."O~ :::.I dl ....r1 . u 0]) ::::§ 4-I~ ~~ r1 8 »..W . -.. 0 e-...l~ 0.. .r1 <lJ '"0 <.... ....... "" ... 1!..l <lJ fjJ Q ~ (I) ....... k IJl "0 c <. r1 ":.. .... 0 "" ~ {. k ...J 0) Po k tJ r1 .. Po OJ Ol . a .... c J..'1j o P.. . dJ u "0 C I-f c c...".. . u Q ..........:I .c= "0 <1l '" (lJ '"0 ~ <1l IJl "'" ..I1.....:l OJ .. oj 100 <:> .1 (lJ ... oj .... .k Q.1 .l r1 cO(/) <1l k "'=' """ <l) . -e "0 0..: QJ 100 0 0 @ 6 A rJ'. QJ <JJ k 0.......n~ 0.J ... p-.... 'r:Ju ......-j k :.t . 'l:........ "'""0 C . .... '" III A-t: >.. C 0 Q... 0..... 0......c -. !:= c '. k <l) <lJ ....--t 8I ... ... Q..o 'g 0 tJ OJ ~ ~... ....... .... '...c o 1-< '2'"2-g-g o 0 ~M aJ~"""'+""""~ .. rtj '-' QJ U o0 u .I "'" Po 0........1 <lJ 00 'D C C III 0 ....:'::8 !J : :< .. f. e u.. .. u ~ """U .. -t e.:l (/) o ...._.. :..... o <7 ....Q "0 ~ . <d ~ oj :j. <U ...........:l dl ...b ... .._.0 a ~ !': ....I . ?-t u 00 ~ (] .. :. Ar.....-1 ...... . ~ <l) . C' ""..I .._. o oJ) '" <lJ OJ o..... <I) 0) u '1j 00 C u.. ~ <lJ '" j....l ill -t"O u ~ q)'= k . .........I'1::..o . I'! £! 'II 8 OJ U <U IJl OJ fI) q) '" :::.. ro p-r... <lJ<lJ ""' 100 <IlO"O"O !=: ~ o0 P......~ '=' '1j'1j ~~ ...c III .. """ > u ........ OJ c'!)1 0) . 0. "'" ... e 0.. I]) (Il a . <l) III IJl <l) k£: 0 .:l a <1l u . ._.. U0 <d k oQ <lJ ..:10]) C <lJ ..1j <lJ ~u!J!J <lJ Q. 0 QJ '-' ~ <lJ% :.ICP!CWS 05J 7384V page 36 .. .c I!..>....... <Ii IJl C"O <l) 0 .. ~""'1l<U~~ . _Q ~~6:. 0.. "0 X-t =''l:. <l) <l) k QJ ...t=o~ El"'OClO I 0......:~~ ~UOojOk <l) r1 r1 C oj ... r1 .:..:l 00 o0 E! "'" N ::.......c: <lJ 111 0'" :> 0. kk QJ QJ ._. I]) o c (lJ .

ICP/CWS 7384V page 053 37 Fig. the depth of sludge in the anaerobic (if any) and facultative ponds should be determined. 18.d • 56~ I acryli( tutl() rubber seal 3 thick • ~75 G!la hOI~ Main body sizes as I~III 1 1UP\lC. and the mean depth calculated.7 m) may be increased as necessary. baIfolll end Item 1 Item 2 mjl) Item 3 botto~ hln9~d (O~t I (lletoi~i~9 pin I Item 4 I UPvC. If submersible electrodes are not available. samples should be taken manually every 20 cm. The sludge depth should be measured at five points in the pond. which closely approximates the mean daily pond temperature. should be determined by suspending a maximum-and-minimum thermometer at mid-depth of the pond at 0800-0900 h and reading it 24 hours later. but this feature may be omitted. using the "white towel" test of Malan (42). Note: The overall length of the sampler (here 1. since some sludge particles will have been entrapped in the towelling material (Fig.d • 51. away from the embankment base. White towelling material is wrapped along one third of a sufficiently long pole. and its diameter (here 50 mm) may be altered to 75 [runif required. 21). Profiles should be obtained at 0800. ~5 pi pe thread Details_ of pond column s~l?ler xd 63 50. which is then lowered vertically into the pond until it reaches the pond bottom. It is also useful to measure on at least three occasions during each sampling season the diurnal variation in the vertical distribution of pH~ dissolved oxygen and temperature. On each day that samples are taken. . The design shown here is a three-piece sampler for ease of transportation. The depth of the sludge layer is clearly visible. it is then slowly withdrawn. the mean mid-depth temperature of each pond. top end cap) (Bruss. 1200 and 1600 h.51. On one day during each sampling period. Alternative materials may be used.

18 .6) to produce an effluent with less than the recommended maximum concentration of faecal coliforms Lor unrestricted irrigation (1000 per 100 ml). Reuse of pond effluent5 The effluent from a properly designed and well maintained series of po rids normally very suitable for reuse for crop irrigation and for watering sports fields and golf cOur5eS. there will be no risk to public health. 19. and recent research has shown t ha t a three-pond system with an overall hydraulic retention time of at least 11 days is able to produce an effluent free from intestinal meatode eggs (6). Provided that it meets the microbiological quality criteria given in Table 5. which are based on an epidemiological appraisal of the actual health risks resulting f rom the agricultural reuse o I raw and treated Wastewater (43.44). Pond systems are readily designed (see section 3. A pond column sampler facultative pond in use on a \ 7.ICP!CWS 053 7 J8l+V pag~ 38 fig.

g.ICP/CWS 7384V 053 page 39 Fi. . 21. Determination of the sludge ~th by the "white towel" test ...i . A simple pond sampling platform Fig.20...

Irrigation should cease two weeks before fruit should be picked off the ground.. especially boron and heavy met~l$.~" ---------------------~-----~----. except when trickle irrigation is practised as they mny exacerbate problems of emitter clogging. fruit is picked.-. sports fields Public parks. Mic robiol£g. and it is only if the ponds are treating a significant proportion of industrial wastewater that is necessary to check this and also to ensure that the final effluent does nol contain harmful concentrations of phytotoxins. where this practice was developed..---".l§:£Li. animals and no to graze. is normally within the recommended limi t s for irrigation waters (45). industrial crops.'"'Restricted i£rigati~E . per 100 ml) .J~l_g_~alit2 guidel iues for agricul ~. and if the maximum draw-off level is at least 80 cm above lh~ reservoir base (25).--------------~ Adapted b from IRCWD Trichuris (43). and hookworms..~r0:1 and. 7. these storage reservoirs are 6~15 m deep and the effluent. is stored f o r four to six months.n Cgeometr ie mean riumb e [.e ca L coliform b a c t e r i. Algal removal is not necessary (in the soil... In Israel. Irrigation of trees. . which is used primarily for the irrigation of cotton and fodder c rcps .V 053 page 40 T:~ble 5. especially with rega rd to their electrical conductivity and sodium absorption ratio.~. C d Irrigation should cease two weeks before are allowed The physicochemical quality of pond effluents.1 ~[fl~~~~ storage reservoirs Pond effluent can be advantageously stored in deep reservoirs during winter when it is not required for irrigation (44).rr t ion i ga Irrigation of edible crops. algae act as slow release fertilizers).~91.ICP!CWS 738'. Ascaris. A mo re recent development is the llS(~ of these reservoirs for the treatment of raw wastewater: this works satisfactorily if the surface loading rate is restricted to 60 kg BODs per ha per day. fruit trees and pastured C <l <lOa 000 !1nrest r:Jc.cipal reuse of treated was t ewa t e r " Reuse process Intestinal nem~todesb (arithmetic mean nwnber of eggs per litre) Fa. lawns <l 000 dOO ----------------------------~------.

~: 187-201 (1983). R.Symposium on Waste Treatment Lagoons. P.F. Hawkes. R. Technigues et sciences municipales eau. Technigues et sciences mu. 54(4): 344-351 (1982). 11. 89: 7l-74 (1986). E. & Pearson. 310-320. & Silva. Un bel exemple d'epuration des eaux domestiques pousse jusqu'a 1a decontamination fecale avec des methodes naturelles douces et rustiques. 117-206. Volume 2. Mara. Ferrara. Toxicity of ammonia to algae in sewage oxidation ponds.C. A. S. & Gloyna. Laurence. KS. American Society of Civil Engineers. Biotechnolozz. In: McKinney. Reed.ICP/CWS 05.A. M. Journal of the Water pollution Control Federation.A •• ed. Boutin. Weinheim. S. VCR Verlagsgesellschaft. Biological activities and treatment process~. In: Curds. & Azov. Abeliovich. pp. R. 1986. H. et al. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Waste Treatment Lagoons. Le lagunage naturel: situation actuelle d'une technique d'epuration en France. Boutin. Bordeaux. 54. Dynamic behaviour of oxidation ponds. 1970. Removal of intestinal nematode eggs in tropical waste stabilization ponds. D. 1971. ed. Nitrogen dynamics in waste stabilization ponds. & Calignon. World Health Organization. 1983. Applied and environmental microbiology. des eaux et des forets. 18. London. Marais. UniVersity of Kansas. Drakides.A. Moshe. Le lagunage _!~aturel en France: complements d' information sur la situation actuelle. theoretical considerations. 8. A.R.W. Nitrogen removal in wastewater stabi1i~ation ponds.B.nicipales eau. Lagunes a charge estiva1e. 6: 273-284 (1986). 16. 17.v. J. 361-369 (1982) • 8. Academic Press. pp. D. H. & Hawkes. Pano.. G.S. & How$ley. 3. 5. 1983. M. pp . Water research. E.J. Waste stabilization ponds. P. Concomitant photoautotrophic growth and nitrogenase activity by cyanobacterium Plectonema boryanum in continuous culture.W.E. & Racau1t.T. ed. Artificial freshwater environments: waste stabilization ponds. C.ion. Anaerobic lagoons. Pretoria.oiAT 34). Nature. R.. Mara. 4. 1970.G.F. 1986. 7. R. E. P. 15. pp. & Avci. 13. ' 6. Houng. M. et al.J.R. National Institute for Water Research. Ammonia nitrogen removal in facultative wastewater stabilization ponds. Phosphorus models for waste stabilization ponds.. Y. In: McKinney. In: Schoenborn.E. 12. & Middlebrooks. W. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Ie bassin versant de l'etang de Salces-Leucate. 57(1): 39-45 (1985). Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation. 15-46. Ecologi~al aspects of used water treatment. Journal of tropical medicine and hygiene.D. H. KS. 1. Pearson. Ringuelet. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Divis. Effect of industrial wastes on oxidation pond performance. Centre national du machinisme agrico1e. R.D. University of Kansas. 1968 (CSIR Special Report \. du genie rural. Pfeffer. y. Vol. A guide to the use of pond systems in §outh Afric? for the purification of raw and partially treated sewage. 288: 263-265 (1980). Pierre-Benite~ Agence de Bassin Rh8ne-Mediterranee~Cor$e.3 7384V page 41 REFERENCES Gloyna. 14. Stabilization ponds. ed. 2. 31: 801-806 (1976). Laurence. ~: 1165-1171 (1972). Meiring. C. Proceedings of the Second International. 163-217. H.A. 10. Geneva. 110: 550-561 (1984). . 9.

22. Cosser. Public health engineer. W. 1982.n of waste stabilizat~on a 29nds i~e£!Il .P. McGarry. 37. 191~ (unpublished document). Sanitation and disease: health aspects of ~xcreta and wastewater management. & Shaw. ization ponds in semi-arid areas.vilEngineers (Part 2). M. Council of the European Communi ties. R.!. 1986 (Progress Report. . 36(481): 533-540 (1983) . 38. Critical revi~. DC. La tribune du Cebedeau.t j:2~_[)_.R. . Microcomputer-aided design of waste stabilizatlon ponds in tourist areas of Mediterranean Europe. V. 22: 357-361 (1982).P. On the qual i t y required of Shell-fish waters (79/923/EEC). 21. Mara. Mara. 27. Zohar. Ellis. Sewage treatment in hot climates. recent re sea rcb in northeast Brazil. des eaux et f o re t s . DC. Jerusalem. 23. A reappraisal of the role of faecal indicator organisms in tropical waste treatment processes. __ 31. D. Public health eng1. D_: 197-213 (1981). 30. Marais. R~~. No. Lagoen algae and the BOD test.E~~le nationale de la sante publique. trai t emen t. M. Marais. Chichester.n. Mara.necr. No. des e. M. Stabi Iization ponds: design and operation. L'exploitation de~. & Pescod. 33. K.!l_n~~rat. Proceedings of. University of Kansas. et al. 36. 1: 205-227 (196l).!J:2 Francaise (1980) (N.fn: McKinney~ R.1). dimensionnement. A rational theory for the design of sewage stabiliZation ponds in central and south Africa. J. 13(2): 69-102 (1983).J. Laurence. & Feachem.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 42 Lagunage naturel et 1agunage aere: proc~d6s d'~puration des petites collectivites. 1983 (Technical Paper. Agence de Bassin Loire-Bretagne et Centre technique du genie rural. & Silv~~.hrican __ N Institution of Civil Engineers. D. 34. 20.~Hg~~.v. Oswald. Proceedings of the Second f.A.R. 1979.. & Baron. World of Bank. D. 114-132. Z(1): 31-33 (1979). 25. Y.§9. Inactivation com~&~.P.7). 11(1/2): 341-344 (1979).i s t e ri. Exp6rience des ~tangs de stabilisation non aeres en Bava r i e : domaine d 'utilisa t Lcn ..~J~. 1976. P. 28.A.ws in environmental cori t ro L.e Ll. Journal officid de la RepubJ_i_9.~_ £l:. D. Sewage treatment in waste stabilization ponds. John Wiley.G. 29. 1985 (Documentation teehnique FNDAE. 1983..C. The development of design equations for facultative waste s t ab i l.e ) . KS. ed... et al. R. Bucksteeg..Sb~ty. 35. World Bank. 1).(~_§ ~ b#cteries indicatrices de contamination f~cale en bassins de lagunage. Feachem~ R. G.~t~~!ional Symposium for Waste Treatment Lagoons. Orleans. Effluent and water tre!'illllenl journal.D.virus hyddgues e~ __J. Lyon.::U_LX usees diluees. G. 10395). Jouwal of the Environmental Engineering Division~ ~~!ic~9 . 14(2): 39-41 (1986). Washington.. 26.D.R. Washington. Pro£E~~s in water t!~chnology. S. No.on de determination s de la qua l i t e minLnale d' un rejet d ' eff l ue n t s urbain (circulaire Lnce rrni. Notes on the desig. Wastewater treatment by stabilization ponds in Israel. Transactions of the §9. Ministry of Health. 1agunages naturel_~.v. construction. 24. 1970. 19. of Civil Engineers.E. Wasti3 pond fundamentals.te_§__ developing countries.G. Official journal of the European ~~mmunities~ ~281:47-52 (1979). John Wiley. Chichester.D.~~. Gambrill. Centre national du machinisme agricole du genie rural. Cond i t i. 32. V..9. Arthur. J. K. Arthur. pp.G. J_OO(EE1): 119-139 (1974). Derrri Llac . Stabilization pond design criteria for tropical Asia •. des eaux et des forets. the Ins ti tU..B. FaHcal bacterial kinetics in waste stabilization ponds.

Water research~ 1987 (in press).I. 29. ~astewater irrigation in developing countries:~hea1th effects and technical solutions.M. Health aspects of wastewater and excreta use in agriculture and aquaculture: the Engelberg report. 44. 45. Pretoria. Rome. et a1.).W. L181: 6-12 (1986) (1181 (86. Guidelines for the minimum evaluation of the performance of full-scale waste stabilization pond systems. H. et al.4)). 1987. 41. World Bank~ 1986 (Technical Paper No. Nati. 43.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page 43 39. Shuval. Official_journal ot"the Europe?n Communi~ies. Laborat6rio nacional de engenharia civil. Water Jiuality for~gricultu~. IRCWD. 219). 23: 11-18 (1985). Manual de operacao e manutencao de siste~~s de lagunagem. Ayers. DC. No. D. 51). 40.7. & Westcot. 1964 (CSIR Research Report. Marecos do Monte. 42. H. Council of the European Communities. 1985 (Irrigation and Drainage Paper.S. R. Washington. 1. IRCWD news.W. M. On the protection of the environment. Rev.nal rnstitut~ for Water Research. No. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Malant W. .H. and in particular of the soil~ when sewage sludge is used 1n agriculture (86/278/EEC). Pearson. Lisbon. A guide to the use of septic tanks systems in South Africa.

P) from the pond liquid as a consequence of their own metabolism and that of the microbial flora at t a. the emergent macrophytes form a dense cover aCrOSS the pond surface and provide a surface for the development of a submerged epiphytic community of algae and bac t e r i. . suitable species include Phragmites communis and Scire_es lacustris 0.5 rn deep) and should ideally receive the effluent from primary maturation ponds. which can) v~a their f aeces . In rooted mac. However. if successfully applied. any local rhizomatous species capable of growth in nutrient-rich water could be used. Rooted macrophyte ponds attract animals and birds. The macrophytes require annual harvesting to prevent large amounts of decaying vegetation falling into the pond. and suspended solids in the effluent. but in fact they frequently receive facultative pond effluent.ICP/CWS 053 7381~V page 44 Annex 1 MACROPHYTE PONDS Although algae are vital to the efficient operation of both facultative and maturation ponds. cause the pond to silt up. To pr even t plant debris leaving the pond) the e f f Lue n t. but it is likely t. In Europe. eliminates the need to use expensive and more complicated mechanical and chemical algal removal techniques.). by growing large water plants in the final pond in a series. re-intr·oduce pathogens late into the treatment system.c d he to their roots and submerged sterns and leaf bases. which would otherwise increase tIle BOD. The use of macrophyte ponds has been based on the idea that. Once fully established.2. t he i r removal from the final effluent wou ld significantly reduce its BODs and suspended solids concentrations. the dense leaf canopy formed at or n bo ve the pond surface will shade out the algae. Current practice suggests that rooted rnacrophyte ponds should be shallow (around 0. especially Mansonia spp) and this has proved so intense that it has been advocated th~t the use of rooted macrophyte ponds should be discontinued) solely for this reason (3). so reducing their concentration III the final effluent and thus improving its quality_ This relatively simple technique. maintenance costs are increased because the screens require frequent cleaning as they rapidly become clogged with plant d~bris and attached microbial growth. The macrophytes also remove inorganic nutrients (N. The pond is then slowly filled with effluent from the preceding pond at a rate which ensures that the developing plants are oot totallY submerged and thus destroyed.h a t. young plants Or cuttings are embedded into the bottom of the empty final maturation pond at appropriate spacings fur the species being used. and these would benefit from being already adapted to local conditions. and) in the long term. is frequently passed through a metal screen or series of screens of decreasing mesh size. They a lso prov i de suitably shaded habitats for the breeding of mo squ i t oe s .r body by r e Leas i ng considerable quantities of phosphorus and nitrogen into the wa t e r a~~ they decay. High algal concentrations also degrade the quality of the receiving wate. which aids the was t ewa t e r treatment process.raphyte ponds.a . so accelerating the process of eutrophication.

particularly in the United States (5. including Salvinia. although the algal population does decrease in macrophyte ponds. otherwise. Macrophytes such as water hyacinth. In contrast. at higher loadings. its application even in warm European climates may be limited..n floating macrophyte ponds.6). Most shade out algae efficiently. macrophyte ponds should only . Lemna and Eichhornia (4). (duckweed) will survive freezing conditions and also grow (apidly at 30°C. but since the mosquitoes concerned are Cule~ spp.. odours develop at night. Information to date suggests that both types of macrophyte pond require considerably more maintenance than conventional ponds. if they escape from the ponds. Lemn~ spp. In particular. as their name implies. because the photosynthetic oxygen produced by the macrophyte leaves is lost directly to the atmosphere. These not only include increased maintenance costs and mosquito nuisance but also the finding that. contain plants that float on the water with their aerial rosette of leaves close to the surface and their fibrous root systems hanging down into the pond water column to absorb nutrients. it can be said that none of the proposed designs for macrophyte ponds. Spirodella. Furthermore. Floating m~£!2Ehyte ponds Floating macrophyte ponds. but the larger species with their correspondingly larger root systems are considerably more efficient at nutrient stripping. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the pond water column during the day are also very much lower than in conventional ponds. the reduction is freq\~ently only partial because shade-adapted algae develop instead.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page 45 Although pond systems incorporating rooted macrophyte ponds exist in. the use of nonindigenous macrophytes is totally unacceptable because. their popularity is declining with USe for several reasons. this can be controlled by the introduction of larva-eating fish such as Gumb~sia and Peocelia. In conclusion. France. Thus. has been evaluated sufficiently to confirm its long-term efficiency of operation. Since water hyacinth will not grow at water temperatures below 10°C. There are other factors that require careful consideration when using either rooted or floating macrophyte ponds. The main problems with duckweed are that it is less efficient than water hyacinth at nutrient stripping and its small size makes it susceptible to being blown across the pond surface to pile up as a thick odorotls scum in one corner. the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands. rather than Mansonia spp. for example. as has happened with Eichhornia. Mosquito breeding is also a problem 1. which trap clean water in their shaded leafaxils above the pond water surface. Eichhq£nia crassipes (water hyacinth) has been studied in most detail. pathogen rEmoval. also encourage the breeding of clean water mosquitoes. effluent quality is poot". It would seem that Eichhornia ponds recelv~ng effluent from a facultative pond can be loaded at rates of up to 40 kg BOD per ha per day. and in this case the larvae are safe from fish predation. either rooted or floating. due to the lower pH in macrophyte ponds. Several genera have been evaluated in pilot schemes. is very much less than in algal maturation ponds. they may have a highly deleterious effect On the ecology and quality of the local environment. Water loss via evapotranspiration from the leaf surfaces can be several times greater than evaporation from the free surface of an ordinary pond.

. 5.e rcour s e . Journal of the Environmental Enginee@_g_Division.gue des r::aux us ee s domestiques : las lJts macrophytes. Arnex-ican Soci. MQntpellier~ 22-23 May 1984. J . 6 be considered for use as an additional treatment process subsequent to conventional maturat ion ponds.J. }. Le$ procedes ext~nsifs d£. REFERENCES 1. ed. P'i t t s burgh .. M..e r . University of Pennsylvania Press. The p~rification of wastewater with the aid of rush or reed ponds. Cornmen concevo i r un 1agunage sous climat rnedi t e r r anccn e t t en zone littorale a forte variation de population: I e fruit de qu i nz e ann~es d'experience. In: Tour b i..ety or Civil Engineers.D. pp • 133-137. G~owth of water hyacinths in treated sewage effluent.R. R.. Ministere de i'agriculture. OtBrien~ W. Wooten. and then only when a high degree of a l gaI ornutrient removal is necessitated by the ecology of the receiving wat.ng . J.!g'ation biologi. J. Economic botany. PA. J. Paris. Hauser.W. Ringuelet. lQZ(EE4): 681-698 (1981). 6. 2.W.£ollution cont_£ol fede~ation. & Dodd.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page: 1. Journal of wa~"~. Use of water hyacinth aquatic treatment systems for arnrnon i a control and eff 1uen t pol Ls h i. R. De Jang. Use or aquatic macrophytes for wastewater treatment. 56(3): 219-225 (1984). & Pierson. 3. 1976. J. 1980. Vaucouloux. Collogue Franco-Espagnol. Biological control of wat o r pollution.:.Q: 29-37 (1976). a 4.

the pond is mixed by stirring.ef (6) increased the depth from 0. A high-rate algal pond usually takes the form of a shallow channel 2-3 m wide with a water depth of 20-60 cm and arranged in a "rac. Their short retention time may appear to offer a significant reduction in land area requirements.6). up to 350 kg BOD per ha per day in the tropics and subtropics and still. more recently. The shallow depths of high-rate algal ponds and their short retention times make them very sensitive to changes in environmental conditions and shock loads. produce an effluent with <20 mg/l of filtered BODs. Yields of up to 160 000 kg of algae (dry weight) per ha per year have been reported. in Israel t Azov and She l. reduced operational efficiency during the winter months has been c. either continuously or at regular intervals.ICP!CWS 053 7384V page 47 Annex 2 HIGH-RATE ALGAL PO~~S High rate algal ponds are highly specialized waste stabilization ponds that are primarily designed to maximize the production of algae. The influent wastewater lS pretreated by primary sedimentation Or pretreated in an anaerobic pond to remove settleable solids (if removed by primary sedimentation. The current state-of-the-art stems from the pioneering work of Oswald et al. but this is offset by their shallow depth and low removal of excreted pathogens. it follows that efficient harvesting of the algae is crucial to the economic viability of the system. followed by forced air flotation (7). such as Daphnia and Mainia.3 m in July to a maximum of 0. Detention times are between two and six days and are therefore much shorter than those in conventional pond systems. South Africa (4) and Israel (5. Harvesting techniques that have been used include centrifugation.60 m in January. mechanical filtration. this is the reason for the economic attractiveness of these ponds. with paddles located along its length. from studies in south-east Asia (3). and as a consequence of fungal infections. High-rate algal ponds can be heavily loaded with wastewater.2) in California and. Such a strategy can also reduce dilution and washout of the algae from ponds during periods of heavy rainfall. Correction of such problems is possible but requires a very high degree of . so it is claimed. few full-scale systems are yet in operation. autoflocculation and chemical flocculation. these solids can be digested anaerobically and the methane thus produced used as an energy source for sterilization and drying of the final algal product). which may require the use of maturation ponds to produce a satisfactory effluent. To prevent the algae settling out. Since these ponds are designed to maximize algal biomass production. This is equivalent to 80 000 kg of protein per ha per year. In warm temperate climates. even after more than 20 years of research.e track" configuration. which is far in excess of that achieved by conventional agriculture.ountered by increasing the retention time. For example. This has been achieved by increasing the pond liquid depth as ambient temperatures fall. Most of the information has come from small-scale pilot installations and. (1. Reduced algal yields have been associated with predation by zooplankton.

& Shelef. Y. REFERENCES 1. W. et al. S.l}. Operation of high-rate oxidation ponds. Azov. Their use should only be contemplated when the necessarily highly trained and experienced techni. Even when these ponds are being skilfully operated. El1is~ R.~£_!esearch.).~ 79: 437-457 (1957). ed .ng. theory and experiments. A dynamic model of the high-l"'atealgal bacterial wastewater treatment pond.. 1980~ pp. Azov. 2.c. 93: 87-92 (1969).J. .§. C. Critical reVlews in envimnmental ~~~rol. s Am$terdam. Chemical Engineering Pro_g_r~~§. Algae b i.oma s . Alternative operating strategies for high-rate sewage oxidation ponds.J. Jg~EQ_al of the Water Pollution Control Federati9. McGarry~ M. ~E: She Le f . et al. Water reclamation and algae harvesti. l§_: ll53-1160 (1982.:!l staff are routinely available and when the algal product can be economically used. They are much more complicated to operate than activated sludge systems. & Miller. Sewage and industrial_ ~§. H.TCP!CWS 053 73H4V page 48 microbiological competence. _ series 65. Algae in waste treatment. C. U(2): 69~102 (1983). C. 3.9-37 (lSl80). Careful manipulation of the performance of high-rate algal ponds may also be necessary in an attempt to control algol speciation in instances where the reuse strategy requires a particular type ()f algal product. G. 4. & Tongkasame. & Soeder. Y.~: 821~-835 (1971). 6..S'y-mposiuro. and they cannot be considered as a simple alternative to conventional pond systems. Stabilization ponds: design and operation. Buhr. Oswald. Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press.B. 7. Wa ter:"_r~_§~arch. Current status of microalgae from wastes.V. Wat. 523-529.O. the microbial quality of the effluent is not usually a s good Or reliable as that from conventional pond systems. However~ this sort of quality control is extremely difficult. 5.~~.J. it should be emphasized that high-rate algal ponds are highly sensitive biological reactors that require very ~areful control and maintenance by highly skilled personnel. 17: 2. W. Oswald. In conclusion.G.

0 17. the values of the first rate constant faecal coliform removal are given by: for .9 16. The final effluent is to contain <10 000 faecal coliforms in winter and ~lOOO in summer.3 9. Mean mgnth1y air temperature (OC) at er~posed pond location Month January February Temperature 7.6 Solution Two designs are presented: The following (a) (b) one with and one without anaerobic are common BOD to both designs: = ponds. the winter design temperature is 7 °C (January).6 12. Table 1. The mean monthly air tenlperatures are given in Table 1.7384V ICP!CWS 053 page 49 Annex 3 DESIGN EXAMPLES Design a series of ponds to treat the wastewater from a community with winter and summer (July-september) populations of 2000 and 10 000 whose BOD and wastewater flow are 50 g per caput per day and 150 litres per caput per day respectively. the influent '" The winter wastewater flow 50 x 10001150 333 mg/l 2000 x 150 x 10300 m3/day 1500 m3/day and 3 "" = CC) The summer wa.3 7. (e) Thus. and net evaporation (evaporation less rainfall) is 0 rnm per day in winter and 7 rnm per day in summer.0 18.2 n.6 March April May June 23. calculations From equation 1.0 8.4 Month July August September October November December Temperature 23. from equation 12. the summer design temperature (that of the coolest month in the peak population season less 3°C) is 20 ~C (September).stewater flow Cd) From Table 1.2 25.

For this combination~ the BOD~ loading on the first matu.:!n Further values of n are not considered as the last is less than (3 days).l in summe r l !2.0 days for n ~ 4 . The first combination of 8m and n is rejected as 1n ) Sr. . e:in and n = 4 requires more land than the third combination._.. the permissible w i n t e r loading on the primary facultative pond is 100 kg per ha per day._J.~.esign t empe ra t ur e in (10 "C.2 days for n ~ 2 3.001 x 25 000 x 7)] 26. assuming NI = 1 x lOe per 100 ml and noting that Sa = 0.8f)(1 {[N\/N<:!'(l = ~ + kTem)D] + kTer)]l/" ~ l}/kT {[108/1000 (1 +(2.o 0.-2. which is therefore chosen. The design procedure is as follows.6 X 26.~im.5 days Calculate 8m from equation 14 for n ~ 1~2.6 e: 8:.60 d .ration pond is calculated from the equation: or. and the fourth combination is also rejected since em < amln• The combination of 8m .O.19)r. (c) coliform = NI/[(l + k.6 (1.27 d in winter 2.5»]1/~ 550 days for n . for faecal removal in summer (N~ '" 1000 per 100 ml). since AmD = Qem.5/[(2 x 1500) .1}/2.OOlAce) 2 x 25 000 x 1..5 ill is acceptable. and the surrunerloading 1S given by equation 6 as: LOT 10 x 20 ZOO kg/ha/day Summer conditions control the design of the facultative pond s t nc e t he seasonal population factor (= 5) is greater than the ratio of the permissible summer to winter loadings (~2).9 days for n = 3 2.~ithout anaerobic pond) Since the winter d..) from 15 on the assumption that a pond depth (D) of 1. 2AfD/(2Q .3 .(0.ICP!CWS 053 73tl4V page 50 2. 1 14. (a) Calculate the facultative pond area (Ad from equation 9: = LiQ/T 333 x 1500/20 25 000 m2 equation (b) Calculate the facultative pond retention time (8.

.9 512 kg/ha/day in the facultative pond: This value is higher than the loading on the facultative pond (200 kg per ha per day) and therefore unacceptable. when flows are five times less and Check conditions in winter times five times greater: = (2) 10 LiQ/A 10 x 333 x 300/25 000 40 kg/ha/day~ which is satisfactory AfD/Q 25 000 x 1.4 d for n = 2 {[Nl/N. the effluent = Thus.6 x 10)J\/" - . a combination (d) retention (1) \" of n ~ 2 and 8m = 3 days is chosen.5/200 10 days time in the subsequent maturation ponds is now calculated from: The retention = = +.5 8833 mZ a If Ne summer.1 2. which is also satisfactory~ ponds.4 x 333 x 1. 8f = x lS)]Z} flow (e) To calculate the areas of the maturation from the facultative pond in summer is calculated: Q. the calculations checked for were required to be 1000 per 100 ml in winter as well as in design would be unsatisfactory.6 x 26. In this case.27 7800 per 100 ml.(2. all the would be repeated for winter conditions and the resulting design conditions in summer.27 x 50)][1 +(0.OOlAfe 1500 ..5/300 125 days Nl/[(l + kT8f)(1 + kT8ml)(1 + k.5/3.S m and a 60% BOD reduction 10 x 0.(l + kTedO [/rt l}/kT + (2. QI O.6 Thus. AmI should be taken as 200 kg per ha per day and ml calculated from: e = 10 LID/Att\l 10 x 0.heml)] {[l08/1000(1 +.ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 5l Asswning a depth of 1. Thus..(0.5))(1 20 days for n ..4 x 333 x 1.27 x 125)][1 +(0.8m)Z] 10s/{[1 +(0.1}/2.001 x 25 000 x 7) 1325 m3/day - the area of the first maturation pond is given by: = Qo8m ~ /D 1325 x 10/1.

of 8m for the first maturation calculate N~: . Assuming that summer conditions control the design. in the first maturation pond.. = = 4995 rn area is.2 days (c) Calculate 8m from equation 14 for n = 1.5/200 pond and 3 days for Using this value the second and third.6 x 3..(0.51[(2 x 1500) . pond volume LiQj).6 Since for the thi:rd combination em is less than e::. 0. the required The retention Assuming a 40'% reduction in BOD removal in the anaerobic the secondary facultative pond area fJ:"omequation 9: LiQ/T = = pond. the design procedure is as follows. .3 days for n { [Nt/NcO . (b) calculate of 3 m.001 x 10 000 x 7)1 10.ICP/CWS 7384V 053 page 52. This results in a value of 3 Xm1 of 512 kg per ha per day. \~I is taken as 200 and em calculated from: = 10LiD/\ml 10 x 0. Thus." 333 x 1500/100 (Va) from equation 2. and 8m = 3. 1665 ill 2 • Asswning a depth time is 3.2.z»)]l/n ll~5 days for n "" 1 7.6 X lO.OOlAfe) 2 x 10 000 x 1. (a) Calculate the: anaerobic.1 days for n = 2 3 2. Allowing for the evaporation losses.2)3 ••• for faecal coliform removal in 5~ame~ (N~ ~ 1000 per 100 ml)) assuming Nl ~ 1 X l08 per 100 ml: em "" = "" =' ::::.1}/kT kT {[108/1000(1 +(2. the retention time is given by equation 15: = = 2AfD/(2Q . Design B tile and (~Jth anaerobic pond_:::J_ The permissible loading on the anaerobic pond is 100 g per m~ per day In both winter and s umme r .3 days.O.3))«(1 .5 m and ignoring evaporative losses from the anaerobic pond (due to SC1~ formation these aJ:"e negligible). 9a)(1 + k~ef)]l/n . - 1}/2.. consider the combination of n ..4 10 days X 333 X l..4 x 333 x 1500/20 10 000 m2 Assuming a depth of 1.. as in design A? which is higher than the permissible loading on the facultative pond (200). area of the second maturation pond is similarly calculated as 2526 m2.:.. that of the third as 2490 m2.l" (3 days)..

respectively.27 x 501 x [1 + (0. 5/300 (e) Following the proc~dure in design A(e).ICP/CWS 053 7384V page 5J N" 108/[1 + (2. Comparison of d2signs The pond areas required for the two designs are summarized in Table 2.". (2.ra maintenance required Cdesludging every twa to three years. third maturation ponds are calculated as 9535 m2. see section 5. Comparison of mid-depth areas r~quired for designs A and B Area (mz) Pond Design Anaerobic Facultative First maturation Second maturation Third maturation A Design 1 665 lO 000 B 25 000 8 833 2.27 x 15)]2} 3420 per 100 ml) which is also satisfactory 2727 m2 and 2688 m2 the areas of the first) second and 50 days x 1..6 x 10)] x [1 + (2. Table 2. Design A therefore requires 46% more land than design B. which is satisfactory = = 10 LiQ/Af 10 x 0.. Ni/(l + kTe~)(l + kTef)(l + kTem1)(1 + kTernZ) Check conditions in winter: LQ!V~ = 333 x 300/4995 20 g/m3/day.2) may outweigh this advantage.D/Q 10 000 = N" = lO&/{[l + (0. The total area for design A is 39 ha and) for design B. 27 ha.5)] x [1 + (0. 526 9 535 2. which is satisfactory A.6 x 3)2] 520 per 100 mI.3)} x [1 + (2.6 x 10.6 x 333 x 300/10 000 60 kg/ha/day. 727 2 490 38 849 2 688 Total area 26 615 .27 x 50)] x [1 + (0.2)] x [1 .27 x 16. which is satisfactory (d) (1) \. Design engineers should thus always consider the inclusion of anaerobic ponds as they result in significant economies.6 x 3. although for small schemes the ext.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful