BIOLOGICAL NUTRIENT REMOVAL

The benefits derived by utilizing the Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) processes for
the treatment of wastewaters, can be classified as environmental-, economical-, and
operational- benefits (Ref.No.2: Page Nos. 2 to 7).

Environmental Benefits

The nutrients present in the wastewaters, when discharged into the receiving waters,
stimulate the growth of algae and other photosynthetic aquatic life, which lead to
accelerated eutrophication, excessive loss of oxygen resources and undesirable
changes in aquatic populations.

Nitrogen compounds, particularly ammonia, will exert a significant oxygen demand

through biological nitrification and may cause eutrophication in receiving waters.
Ammonia (unionized) can be toxic to aquatic organisms and it readily reacts with
chlorine (affecting disinfection efficiency) and affect the suitability of wastewater for
reuse purposes. A high nitrate (NO3) level in water supplies has been reported to cause
methemoglobinemia (blue babies) in infants.

The best eutrophication control philosophy is simultaneous reduction of both N and P.

Additional environmental benefits of BNR are reduced chemical consumption, reduced
waste sludge production, reduced energy consumption by the treatment system and less
overall operational and disposal requirements.

Economical Benefits

The use of BNR processes for the treatment of wastewaters is more economical than
conventional activated sludge treatment or methods that incorporate chemical or
physicochemical processes.

The maximum energy recovery possible by denitrification, using BNR process is 62.5%
of that required for nitrification. An additional benefit of denitrification is the recovery of
one-half of the alkalinity destroyed during nitrification; this will reduce or eliminate the
need to add chemicals to meet effluent pH requirements.

A biological phosphorous removal process will eliminate / reduce the need for chemical
addition to remove P from most wastewaters.

Operational Benefits

If the system is properly designed and operated, a BNR process is more stable and
produces a better quality effluent as measured by BOD and TSS than a conventional
activated sludge process.
BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN REMOVAL

Nitrogen (N) in wastewater exists (Ref. No.3: Page No.1.633) commonly in the form of
ammonia (NH3 as a gas or NH4+ ions), organic nitrogen, nitrite and nitrate. The organic
nitrogen includes both soluble and particulate forms. The soluble organic nitrogen is
mainly in the form of urea and amino acids. The main sources are from human excreta,
kitchen garbage, and industrial (food processing) wastes. Typical domestic wastewater
contains 20 mg/l of organic nitrogen and 15 mg/l of inorganic nitrogen.

Treatment Processes

The process for nitrogen control may be divided into two categories:
1) Nitrification
2) Nitrification - Denitrification

The nitrification process is the oxidation of organic (heterotrophic bacteria hydrolyze

organic nitrogen to ammonia) and ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) to nitrate, a less
objectionable form. Denitrification is the reduction of nitrate to nitrogen gas. Thus,
nitrification is used only to control NH3-N concentration in the wastewater while
nitrification-denitrification is employed to reduce the total level of nitrogen in the effluent.

For a complete treatise on Nitrification & Denitrification, please refer to the

“DESCRIPTIVE PART ON AERATION TANK” under the standardization of process
units for WWTP for refinery & Petrochemicals.

An overview of the various BNR nitrogen only removal technologies is summarized

below of which the most commonly used is the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE)
process (Refer to Attachment –5 for the flow diagram).

Ludzack-Ettinger Process (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 789,791,797)

The first concept of a preanoxic BNR was an anoxic-aerobic operating sequence by

Ludzack and Ettinger (1962).

The anoxic zone is placed ahead of the aerobic zone to provide the denitrification
reaction the first opportunity to use the influent substrate. Denitrifying bacteria use the
oxygen contained in nitrate to metabolize the organic material in the wastewater.

The process relies on the nitrate formed in the aerobic zone being returned via the RAS
to the anoxic zone. Because the only nitrate fed to the anoxic zone is that in the RAS,
denitrification is limited greatly by the RAS recycle ratio. However, more recently, this
process has been used with increased RAS recycle rates to prevent rising sludge in the
secondary clarifiers due to denitrification.

The advantages of this process are:

- Saves energy; BOD is removed before aerobic zone.
- Alkalinity is produced before nitrification.
- Design includes an SVI selector.
Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) Process (Ref.No.1: Page Nos.
789,791,797)

Barnard (1973) modified the original Ludzack-Ettinger design, by providing the internal
mixed-liquor recycle to feed more nitrate to the anoxic zone directly from the aerobic
zone to increase the denitrification rate and hence the overall nitrogen-removal
efficiency.

Since much of the organic and ammonia nitrogen is converted to nitrate in the aerobic
zone, denitrification cannot occur unless the nitrified flow is recycled back to the influent
end of the anoxic zone. The internal mixed-liquor recycle flow ratio (= recycle flow rate /
influent flow rate) typically ranges from 2 to 4 and higher than 4 provides marginal
benefits. Higher recycle ratios also increase the potential for DO recycle to the anoxic
zone. DO control should be used in the aerobic zone from which the recycle stream is
taken to limit the amount of DO fed to the anoxic zone. When oxygen levels are depleted
in the anoxic zone, denitrification will occur.

With sufficient influent BOD and anoxic contact time, these recycle ratios result in an
average effluent NO3-N concentration from 4 to 7 mg/l when treating domestic
wastewater.

The MLE process is very adaptable to existing activated-sludge facilities and can easily
meet a common effluent standard of < 10 mg/l total nitrogen. Potential Nocardia growth
problem is reported, with this process.

Four Stage Bardenpho Process (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 789,790,791,797)

The Four Stage Bardenpho is a four-step process designed to achieve almost complete
Denitrification. Both preanoxic and postanoxic denitrification are incorporated in the
Bardenpho process.

Influent wastewater is combined with RAS and internal recycle in a non-oxygen

environment (First Anoxic Zone / preanoxic zone) to achieve partial denitrification.
Nitrification occurs in the aerobic zone, which is followed by a second anoxic zone
(postanoxic zone). Nitrates produced in the aerobic zone can be completely converted to
nitrogen gas in this second denitrification zone. The flow must pass through re-aeration
zone prior to clarification to strip the nitrogen gas from solution so that it does not
contribute to poor clarification in the final clarifiers and to keep the clarifiers from
becoming oxygen depleted.

In the postanoxic zone, the NO3-N concentration leaving the aeration zone is typically
reduced from about 5 to 7 mg/l to less than 3 mg/l, with methanol addition. The second
anoxic zone of the Bardenpho Process has a very low denitrification rate, resulting in the
detention time of the postanoxic stage about the same as or larger than that used for the
preanoxic zone. The addition of methanol to the second anoxic zone reduces the reactor
volume requirements.

With higher-strength wastewaters, Barnard found that biological phosphorous removal

occurred as well as nitrogen removal.
Sequencing Batch Reactors (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 792,798)

There are many important factors key to nitrogen removal such as the proper alternating
of aerobic and anoxic conditions, which can be accomplished in one reactor with proper
timing. The system involves more complex process design.

Important factors which must be included in the control strategy to achieve efficient BNR
treatment are:
- Level in the tank (volume)
- MLSS concentration
- DO levels
- Batchwise duration of sequential Fill/Mix (anoxic/anaerobic), React/Aerate,
Settle, Decant and Idle steps
Aeration and mixing must be carefully controlled during the different cycles.

SBR system also employs preanoxic denitrification using BOD in the influent
wastewater. Mixing without aeration during the Fill period is effective in the removal of
almost all of the nitrate remaining in the mixed liquor remaining, after the Settle and
Decant Steps and also in improving the sludge-settling properties. The use of SBRs
eliminates the need for final clarifiers. However, effluent equalization would be required
to avoid sizing the downstream disinfection system for peak decant flow rates.

SBRs are capable of producing 6 – 8 mg/l TN with proper cycle times. Many facilities
have reported NO3-N concentration of less than 5 mg/l.

Process is flexible and redundant units are required for operational reliability. The
effluent quality depends upon reliable decanting facility.

Oxidation Ditch (For details refer to Ref.No.1: Page Nos.792 to 796)

Oxidation Ditch technologies such as

- Biodenitro (Preanoxic)
- Nitrox (Preanoxic)
- Orbal (simultaneous nitrification /Denitrification)
- Sym-bio (simultaneous nitrification /Denitrification)

have become very popular for small to medium size wastewater treatment facilities
requiring nitrogen removal. Oxidation Ditch technology lends itself to alternating between
oxic areas and anoxic areas achieving nitrification of organic and ammonia nitrogen to
nitrate and denitrification of nitrates to nitrogen gas. Oxidation Ditches tend to operate at
larger SRTs, meaning lower rates of nitrification and denitrification.
Denitrification Filters

Denitrification Filters utilize granular media (typically in a deep bed) to remove nitrates
after nitrification. The Denitrification filter is an attached growth technology. Raw
wastewater which contains high ammonia and high TSS is unsuitable as food source.
Methanol is the most commonly used food source for Denitrification filters at a dose rate
of 3 mg/l of methanol per 1 mg/l of nitrate. Most BNR treatment facilities need filtration
and in this situation, the Denitrification filters will serve dual purpose.

Design Parameters (Ref.No.1: Page No. 797)

Typical design parameters for commonly used nitrogen removal processes below:

TABLE: TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETRS FOR BNR PROCESSES

Process SRT*,d MLSS,mg/l Detention Time,h RAS,% Internal
of recycle,%
influent of
influent
Total Anoxic Aerobic
zone zone
MLE 7 - 20 3000 – 4000 5 – 15 1–3 4 – 12 50 – 100 100 – 200
SBR 10 - 30 3000 – 5000 20 – 30 Variable Variable 50 – 100
BARDENPHO 10 - 20 3000 – 4000 8 – 20 1–3 4 – 12 50 – 100 200 – 400
(4-STAGE) (1st (2nd
stage stage)
2–4 0.5 – 1 50 – 100
(3rd (4th
stage) stage)
OXIDATION 20 - 30 2000 – 4000 18 – 30 Variable Variable 50 – 100
DITCH
BIO-NITRO 20 - 40 3000 – 4000 20 – 30 Variable Variable 50 – 100
ORBAL 10 - 30 2000 – 4000 10 – 20 6 – 10 3–6 50 – 100 Optional
(1st
stage)
2–3 50 – 100
(2nd
stage)
* Temperature-dependent

Besides removing nitrogen, the preanoxic and SNdN ( Simultaneous nitrification and
Denitrification) processes (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 790) have additional advantages over
the postanoxic processes:
- recovery of alkalinity producing 3.57 g of alkalinity (as CaCO3) per g NO3-N
oxidized
- aeration energy savings
- ability to produce a sludge that settles well.
POSTANOXIC DENITRIFICATION – ENDOGENOUS / WITH EXTERNAL
CARBON SOURCE

After nitrification, the rbCOD is fully depleted and depending on the system SRT, most of
the pbCOD is likely to be depleted. Thus, the electron donor that creates the demand for
nitrate reduction, in lieu of DO, is mainly from activated-sludge endogenous respiration.
Alternately, an external carbon source has to be added to supply the energy for the
denitrifying organisms.

Postanoxic Endogenous Denitrification (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 780)

Postanoxic denitrification can be done in separate tanks within the same single-sludge
system following nitrification.

The endogenous oxygen equivalent utilization rate under anoxic conditions has been
found to be about 50% of that under aerobic conditions. Hence, the SDNR under
endogenous conditions (SDNRb) can be calculated from the endogenous decay rate as
follow:

SDNRb = 1.42 kd  = 0.5 (kd) ()

2.86

where,

1.42 = g O2 / g biomass VSS

2.86 = g O2 equivalent / g NO3-N
 = fraction of biomass that can use NO3-N in place of O2 as an electron
acceptor
kd = biomass endogenous decay coefficient, g VSS / g VSS biomass.d

(Use the values for kd at 20°C and the temperature correction coefficient as applicable of
Heterotrophic bacteria – Refer to the Descriptive part of ‘Aeration Tank.’)

The endogenous respiration SDNR value at 20°C, based on the total MLVSS
concentration, is given by the following empirical relationship, as a function of SRT:

SDNRMLVSS = 0.12 (SRT) - 0.706

where,

SDNRMLVSS = g NO3-N / g. MLVSS.d

Use a temperature correction value () of 1.08, for the above equation.
Postanoxic Denitrification with an External Carbon Source (Ref.No.1: Page
Nos. 784,785)

For postanoxic denitrification, nitrified influent is fed to a mixed anoxic tank along with an
external carbon source, which is commonly methanol. An SRT of atleast 5 days with
sufficient detention time is used to consume the methanol with NO3-N as the electron
acceptor and to assure good floc settling and thickening characteristics.

The anoxic tank is followed by a short aeration time of 10 to 20 minutes to release

nitrogen gas bubbles from the mixed liquor to promote maximum suspended solids
removal in the final clarifier.

The process is designed on a complete mix activated sludge (CMAS) process (note: the
SDNR design approach is not appropriate), based on the denitrification kinetic
coefficients with methanol as the growth substrate, given in the following table
(Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 785):

TABLE: Denitrification kinetic coefficients with methanol as the growth substrate

at 10°C and 20°C
Coefficient Unit @ 10°C @ 20°C
m gVSS / g VSS.d 0.52 1.86

k g bCOD/ g VSS.d 3.1 10.3

Y gVSS / g bCOD 0.17 0.18

kd gVSS / g VSS.d 0.04 0.05

Ks g / m³ 12.6 9.1

Where,

m = maximum specific growth rate

k = maximum specific substrate utilization rate

Y = synthesis yield

kd = endogenous decay coefficient

K s = half-velocity constant

Also the denitrification rate for methanol as carbon source is reported as 0.18 g NO 3-N/
g VSS.d @ 19 – 24°C. The COD available from the use of methanol is 1.5 g COD / g
CH3OH (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 787).
PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL

The typical forms of phosphorous found in wastewater include (Ref.No.3: Page No.
1.619) the orthophosphates, polyphosphates (molecularly dehydrated phosphates) and
organic phosphates. Orthophosphates such as PO43-, HPO42-, H2PO4-, H3PO4 are
available for biological uptake without further breakdown. The polyphosphates undergo
hydrolysis in aqueous solutions and revert to the orthophosphate forms. The hydrolysis
is a very slow process. The organic phosphorous is an important constituent of industrial
wastes and less important in most domestic wastewaters.

The average total phosphorous concentration in domestic raw wastewater is about 10

mg/l as P. Approximately, 30 to 50% of the phosphorous is from sanitary wastes, while
the remaining 70 to 50% is from detergents.

In most cases, the effluent standards range from 0.1 to 2.0 mg/l as P, with many
established at 1.0 mg/l.

CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION (Ref.No.3: Page Nos. 1.620 to 1.629)

In practice, phosphorous in wastewater is removed by chemical precipitation with metal

salt (alum, iron) or / and polymer, or lime.

The precipitation reactions for phosphorous removal by three chemical additions are as
follows:

Alum:

Al2(SO4)3.18H2O + 2 HPO42-  2 AlPO4 + 2 H+ + 3 SO42- + 18 H20

Al2(SO4)3.18H2O + 6 HCO3-  2 Al(OH)3 + 3 SO42- + 6 CO2 + 18 H20

2 Al3- + 3 OH-  Al(OH)3

Sodium aluminate:

Na2O. Al2O3 + 2 HPO42- + 4 H2O  2 AlPO4 + 2 NaOH + 6 OH- + 2 H+

Ferric chloride, FeCl3.6H2O:

FeCl3 + HPO42-  FePO4 + H+ + 3 Cl-

FeCl3.6 H2O + 3HCO3-  Fe(OH)3 + 3 Cl- + 3 CO2 + 6 H2O

Fe 3+ + 3 OH-  Fe (OH)3
Lime, CaO:

CaO + H2O  Ca(OH)2

5Ca(OH)2 + 3 HPO42-  Ca5(PO4)3OH + 3 H2O + 6 OH-

Mg2+ + 2 OH-  Mg(OH)2

Ca2+ + CO32-  CaCO3

The optimum pH for alum treatment is in the range of 6.0 to 6.5, whereas that for iron is
near 5.0. The effective pH for lime is above 10.

The molar ratio of metallic ion to phosphorous increases as the effluent phosphorous
concentration decreases. These ratios which range from 1.5 to 3 moles of iron (Fe3+)
and 1.3 to 2.5 moles of Aluminium (Al3+) are approximate because side reactions form
by-products, such as hydroxide and carbonates. Jar tests on wastewater are needed for
determining the actual amount.

In low-alkalinity waters, the addition of a base is necessary. The use of ferrous salts is
limited because they produce low phosphorous levels only at high pH values.

Typical alum dosage requirements for various levels of phosphorous removal is

tabulated below (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 506):

Table: Typical alum dosage requirements for various levels of phosphorous

removal
Phosphorous reduction, % Mole ratio, Al : P
Range Typical
75 1.25:1 - 1.5:1 1.4:1
85 1.6 :1 - 1.9:1 1.7:1
95 2.1 :1 - 2.6:1 2.3:1

Pre-precipitation (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 505):

The addition of chemicals to raw wastewater in primary sedimentation facilities is termed

‘pre-precipitation’. They react with the soluble orthophosphate to produce a precipitate.
Organic phosphorous and polyphosphate are removed by more complex reactions and
by adsorption onto floc particles. They are removed with the primary sludge.

Co-precipitation (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 505):

The addition of chemicals to

1) the effluent from primary sedimentation facilities,

2) the mixed liquor (in the activated sludge process) or
3) the effluent from a biological treatment process before secondary sedimentation
is termed ‘co-precipitation’ and the produced precipitates are removed with the waste
biological sludge.

Theoretically, the minimum solubility of AlPO4 occurs at about pH 6.3 and that of FePO4
occurs at about pH 5.3; however, practical applications have yielded good phosphorous
removal anywhere in the range of pH 6.5 to 7.0, which is compatible with most biological
treatment processes.

The effectiveness of primary and secondary treatment without (as in most conventional
plants) and with chemical addition for phosphorus removal as well as for SS and BOD
removal is presented in the following Table (Ref.No.3: Page No.1.621):

Table: Efficiencies of Primary and Secondary treatment without and with

mineral addition for phosphorous and other constituents removal
Process Phosphorous Suspended solids BOD
removal, % removal, % removal, %
Without With Without With Without With
Primary 5 – 10 70 – 90 40 – 70 60 – 75 25 – 40 40 - 50
Secondary:
Activated sludge 10 – 20 80 – 95 85 – 95 85 – 95 85 – 95 85 – 95
___________
Trickling Filter 10 – 20 80 – 95 70 – 92 85 – 95 80 - 90 80 – 95
___________
RBC 8 – 12

Postprecipitation (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 505):

Postprecipitation involves the addition of chemicals to the effluent from secondary

sedimentation facilities. This is to avoid the precipitation of phosphorous in the biological
process before microbial utilization and the shear of the chemicals flocs in the aeration
basin. Adding Al or Fe salts after secondary treatment (where organic Phosphorous and
polyphosphorous are transformed into orthophosphates) usually results in the best
removal. However, iron salts have little application because of residual iron remaining in
the treated wastewater.

In this process, the chemical precipitates are removed in separate sedimentation

facilities. Precipitation at neutral pH values may produce a colloidal precipitate requiring
an anionic polymer to obtain a minimum total phosphorous removal.

For low effluent phosphorous concentrations, effluent filtration, using alum as a filter aid,
may be required because of the high phosphorous content of the effluent suspended
solids.
Typical mixing times for the chemicals used in wastewater treatment facilities are
reported below (Ref.No.1: Page No. 540):

Table:Typical mixing times for various chemicals in wastewater treatment

facilities
Chemical Applications Recommended mixing
times, s
Alum, Al3+ Coagulation of colloidal <1
Ferric chloride, Fe3+ particles
Alum, Al3+ Sweep floc precipitation 1 – 10
Ferric chloride, Fe3+
Lime, Ca(OH)2 Chemical precipitation 10 – 30
Chlorine, Cl2 Chemical precipitation <1
Chloramine, NH2Cl Chemical precipitation 5 – 10
Cationic polymers Destabilization of colloidal <1
particles
Anionic polymers Particle bridging 1 – 10
Nonionic polymers Filter aids 1 – 10

BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL AND BIOLOGICAL NITROGEN &

PHOSPHOROUS REMOVAL (Ref.No.2: Page Nos.99 to 123):

Phosphorous, like N, is assimilated by bacteria and is removed from the water with the
excess sludge. The bacteria are exposed alternatively to anaerobic and aerobic
conditions. Certain bacteria, notably Acinetobacter, possess the ability to absorb low-
molecular-weight organics (e.g., fatty acids) under anaerobic conditions.

The rbCOD is the primary source of volatile fatty acids (VFAs) for the phosphorous –
accumulating organisms (PAOs), also called phosphorous –accumulating bacteria
(PABs) or polyP bacteria. The conversion of rbCOD to VFAs occurs quickly through
fermentation in the anaerobic zone. The more acetate, the more cell growth and the
energy required for this is made available by the release of phosphorous bound as
polyphosphates in volutin granules in the protoplasm of the bacteria and 7 to 10 mg
acetate results in about 1.0 mg P removal.

Other bCOD removal will result in additional P removal by normal cell synthesis.

Under subsequent exposure to aerobic conditions, the organic matter is oxidized and
energy is made available for growth and for the reaccumulation of phosphates into
polyphosphates in the bacteria.
The net effect is an excess content phosphorous in the bacteria possessing this ability.
PAOs have a competitive edge over other bacteria, since they can hoard the readily
available organic matter for their own consumption. Under proper conditions, they can
flourish and dominate the population, resulting in an increased P content in the waste
sludge.

Recent data indicate that the physical-chemical removal increases with increasing
biological P removal.
When nitrification and Denitrification is not occurring, the influent soluble BOD5 / soluble
P ratio should be greater than 10:1 in order to provide substrate for the bio-P organisms.
With nitrogen removal the influent COD/TKN must be greater than 12.

Factors affecting Phosphorous removal

Phosphates can only be removed from the treatment system through the waste sludge.
Therefore, P removal is a function of the % P in the MLVSS and the operating SRT. To
account for the effect of the MLVSS concentration, a 1 – day SRT is recommended for
the design of anaerobic contact zone.

Either P or available COD will be the limiting factor to determine the polyP bacteria
population and hence the % P in the MLVSS. Thus, the available COD to P in the
influent wastewater to the anaerobic zone determines both the % P in the MLVSS and
the effluent P concentration (Refer to Attachment No.1) and both parameters are
inversely related to the COD:P ratio.

Anaerobic HRT

If P is limiting, the soluble P in the effluent will be very low (< 0.5 mg/l) , unless
secondary release occurs in either the aerobic zone or the secondary clarifier. If COD is
limiting due to the fact that the influent wastewater does not contain enough total
organics or the organic compounds have not undergone sufficient fermentation to
generate the short-chain volatile fatty acids (SCVFAs) needed by the polyP bacteria to
form stored organics such as polyhydroxybutyrates ( PHB), the effluent P will tend to be
high (> 1.5 mg/l).

The effect of increasing the anaerobic zone size, i.e., nominal hydraulic retention time is
shown in Attachment 2 ( Fig. a). When TCOD:TP ratio is greater than 40:1, the
average effluent TP concentration is less than 1.0 mg/l, with P limiting. It is
recommended not to extrapolate the Fig.(a) beyond 2.5 hours. An increase in influent P
increases the fraction of polyP in the activated sludge when the system is not COD
limited and this results in an increase in the P removal capacity for the same anaerobic
HRT or anaerobic mass fraction.

The effect of anaerobic HRT on P removal when the TCOD:TP ratio is low (20 to 43) is
illustrated in Fig (b). It indicates that increasing the HRT above 2 hours provided little
additional benefit. The anaerobic HRT may be more important than the anaerobic mass
fraction, for design purposes.

The P removal is shown as a function of the anaerobic mass fraction in Attachment 3,

using the same data used in the graphs of Attachment 2. The anaerobic mass fraction
correlates strongly with P removal at steady state and the mass of SCVFAs available
is the prime factor that determines P removal. The anaerobic HRT must be long enough
to achieve substantial fermentation if the influent does not contain sufficient quantities of
SCVFAs. If the influent already contains sufficient SCVFAs, then the anaerobic zone
only needs to be large enough to store the SCVFAs as PHB.
Barnard (Ref.No.1: Page No.802) cautioned against using too long an anaerobic
contact time due to the potential for a secondary release of P, which is not associated
with acetate uptake. When secondary release of P occurs, bacteria have not
accumulated PHB for subsequent oxidation in the aerobic zone. PHB provides energy
for P uptake and storage. From SBR bench scale studies, it was found that secondary P
release occurred for anaerobic contact time in excess of 3.0 hour.

Solids Retention Time

Biological nutrient-removal systems with longer SRTs are less efficient for BPR than
shorter SRT designs. Observations of the influent BOD to P removal ratio for a number
of plants as a function of their design SRT are summarized in the following Table
(Ref.No.1: Page No.802). Though these data were obtained without the measurements
of the rbCOD in the wastewater, they provide a general trend on the effect of SRT on
BPR removal efficiency.

TABLE: OBSERVED BOD & COD TO PHOSPHOROUS - REMOVAL RATIOS FOR

BPR PROCESSES
Type of BPR BOD/P ratio, COD/P ratio, SRT,d
process g BOD / g P g COD / g P
Phoredox, VIP 15 – 20 26 – 34 < 8.0
A²O , UCT 20 – 25 34 – 43 7 – 15
Bardenpho > 25 > 43 15 - 25

Because of the changes on the polyP bacterial population as a function of the COD:P
ratio, BPR systems are virtually independent (Ref.No.2: Page No.104 to 108) of SRT
over the range from two to forty days.

The actual maximum P storage capability is 32% of the MLVSS, which is much greater
than that needed to remove P from municipal wastewaters. When the SRT is increased
(sludge wasting rate is decreased), the % P increases, because the fraction of the polyP
bacteria in the MLVSS increases. Therefore, the operating SRT for two-stage BPR
Processes ( A/O, A²/O & VIP) usually will be selected to prevent or minimize nitrification,
typically four to five days. Of course, SRT values this low maximize waste sludge
production, and this may not be desired. However, if SRT values high enough to permit
partial or complete nitrification are selected, steps to prevent NOx recycle to the
anaerobic zone must be taken.

The best way to size the anaerobic zone of a BPR system is to make the size variable.
That is, sufficient baffling plus mixing and aeration equipment should be installed to
expand or reduce the size of the anaerobic zone in order to obtain the desired effluent
soluble P concentration over the likely range of influent wastewater characteristics and
operating conditions. If prefermentation is used, a very small anaerobic zone can be
used, because the uptake and storage of SCVFAs is a very rapid reaction when not
limited by fermentation.
DO

If the VFAs are not completely assimilated in the anaerobic zone, the size of the
downstream aerobic zone should be enlarged to ensure completeness of the
phosphorous removal reaction after soluble substrate removal. The breakthrough of
readily available organics to the aerobic zone is likely to stimulate filamentous growth,
which can easily be avoided by including an anoxic zone ahead of the aerobic zone.

There must be sufficient DO maintained in the aerobic zone for the polyP bacteria to
completely metabolize the stored organics and also in the bioreactor effluent to prevent
P release in the secondary clarifier.

In case of high SRT systems with high internal recycle rate, it may be necessary to
maintain the DO concentration below 0.3 mg/l to prevent recycle of excessive oxygen,
which may necessitate redox monitoring instead of DO monitoring, for aeration control
purposes.

Effect of Recycle Streams

Recycle streams with significant concentrations of DO and nitrate can have significant
effect on the amount of influent rbCOD that is available for BPR as they
require((Ref.No.1: Page No.804):
2.3 g rbCOD / g of DO and 6.6 g rbCOD / g NO3-N.

Filter backwash recycle flows should be sent to the aerobic zone instead of the
anaerobic or anoxic zones. By the controlled addition of the recycle streams from sludge
thickening or digestion processes which contain high P concentrations (after
equalization) during times of the day when the influent wastewater strength is higher, a
better possibility exists of removing recycled P in the waste sludge. Alternately, the
recycle streams may be treated with chemical addition to minimize the P load.

Cation requirements

The cations, magnesium and potassium must be available to the polyP bacteria for P
uptake and release. The minimum requirements for each mole of P removed is 0.25
moles of magnesium and 0.23 moles of potassium, which are considerably less than
the quantities, available in most wastewaters. If Mg and K are found limiting in unusual
wastewaters, they should be supplemented.

Temperature Effects

Regardless of the diversity of the bacteria present that can accomplish BPR, the
potential to recycle and entrain the electron acceptors, DO and NOx, into the anaerobic
mixed liquor is much greater at low temperatures than at high temperatures which
would reduce the amount of substrate stored by the MLVSS in the anaerobic reactor and
consequently would reduce P removal, by the system.

 value of 1.045 is recommended to estimate BPR at low temperatures, during process

design. It is also recommended that operation at low SRTs (five days) and low
temperatures (< 12°C) be avoided.
pH Effects

BPR is optimum between pH 6.6 and 7.4, whereas lower pH values are detrimental.
Fortunately,most municipal BNR processes operate in the 6.6 to 7.4 pH range. Low pH
can be a problem while treating a low-alkalinity wastewater when the plant is fully
nitrifying and the pH can be adjusted back to the optimum range by including the
denitrification in the single sludge system.

The effect of pH on the phosphate uptake is placed in Attachment-4.

Effluent Suspended solids (Metcalf p 805)

Most BPR processes exhibit good settling characteristics and have secondary clarifier
effluent TSS concentrations of 10 mg/l or less. At 3 to 6% P in the solids, the P
concentration in the effluent TSS would be 0.3 to 0.6 mg/l, that would be significant if the
effluent standard for P is less than 1.0 mg/l. To provide very low effluent P concentration,
effluent filtration may be required.

If chemical addition is necessary for effluent polishing to achieve low P levels in the
effluent, sufficient clarifier capacity is required to handle the additional chemical
precipitate.

PROCESSES

Three biological phosphorous removal (BPR) configurations (Ref.No.1: Page No.799)

that are more commonly used are:
1) Phoredox & A/O
2) A2O
3) University of Cape Town and
PhoStrip process is used for sidestream P removal.

Combined removal of phosphorous and nitrogen methods include:

1) A²O
2) Modified 5 – stage Bardenpho
3) University of Cape Town
4) VIP
5) SBR
Refer to Attachment –5 for the flow diagrams of all the processes.

Phoredox Process ( A/O Process) (Ref.No.1: Page No.810)

Barnard (1975) used the term Phoredox to represent any process with anaerobic
contacting between activated sludge and influent wastewater before aerobic degradation
to promote BPR.

The A/O Process is similar to the Phoredox Process and was patented by Air Products
and Chemicals, Inc. The major difference is that in the A/O process, the anaerobic and
aerobic zone are divided into a number of equally sized completely mixed
compartments.
In theses processes, there is no nitrification and the anaerobic detention time is 30
minutes to 1 hour. Desirable SRT values range from 2 to 3 days at 20°C and 4 to 5 days
at 10°C for biological phosphorous removal to occur without nitrification.

A²/O Process (Ref.No.1: Page No.810)

The proprietary A²/O process by Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. is a modification of
the A/O process and provides an anoxic zone for denitrification. The detention period in
the anoxic zone is approximately 1 hour. The anoxic zone is deficient in DO, but
chemically bound oxygen in the form of nitrate or nitrite is introduced by recycling
nitrified mixed liquor from the aerobic section. Use of the anoxic zone minimizes the
amount of nitrate fed to the anaerobic zone in the return activated sludge.

UCT (standard and modified) Process (Ref.No.1: Page No.811)

The UCT process stands for the University of Cape Town (South Africa) where it was
developed.

The UCT process was developed to minimize the effect of nitrate in weaker wastewaters
in entering the anaerobic contact zone. The amount of nitrate in the anaerobic zone is
critical to the biological phosphorus removal efficiency.

The UCT process is similar to the A²/O process with two exceptions:
1) The RAS is recycled to the anoxic stage instead of the aeration stage and hence,
the introduction of nitrate to the anaerobic stage is eliminated, thereby improving the
uptake of phosphorous in the anaerobic stage.

2) The internal recycle is from the anoxic stage to the anaerobic stage. The recycle of
the anoxic mixed liquor, which contains substantial soluble BOD but little nitrate,
provides for optimal conditions for fermentation uptake in the anaerobic stage.

Because the mixed liquor is at a lower concentration, the anaerobic detention time must
be longer than that used in the Phoredox process, and is in the range of 1 to 2 hour.
The anaerobic recycle rate is typically 2 times the influent flowrate.

In the modified UCT process, the RAS is directed to an anoxic reactor that does not
receive internal nitrate recycle flow. The nitrate is reduced in this tank, and the mixed
liquor from the reactor is recycled to the anaerobic tank. The second anoxic tank follows
the first anoxic tank and receives internal nitrate recycle flow form the aeration tank to
provide the major portion of nitrate removal for the processes.

Modified Bardenpho (5 – stage) Process (Ref.No.1: Page No.811)

The 4 –stage Bardenpho process can be modified for combined nitrogen and
phosphorous removal. The 5 –stage system provides anaerobic, anoxic and aerobic
stages for P, N and C removal.
Mixed liquor from the first aerobic zone is recycled to the first anoxic zone. A second
anoxic stage is provided for additional denitrification using nitrate produced in the
aerobic stage as the electron acceptor, and the endogenous organic carbon as the
electron donor.

The final aerobic stage is used to strip residual nitrogen gas from solution and to
minimize the release of phosphorous in the final clarifier.

The 5-stage process uses a longer SRT (10 to 20 days) than the A²/O process, and thus
increases the carbon oxidation capability.

VIP Process (Ref.No.1: Page No.812)

The VIP process stands for the Virginia Initiative Plant (Diagger et al., 1988). It is similar
to the A²/O and UCT processes except for the methods used for recycle systems.

In the VIP process, all the zones are staged consisting of at least two completely mixed
cells in series.

The RAS is discharged to the inlet of the anoxic zone, along with the nitrified mixed
liquor recycle from the aerobic zone. The mixed liquor from the anoxic zone is returned
to the head end of anaerobic zone.

The VIP process is also designed as a high-rate system, operating with much shorter
SRTs, which maximize biological phosphorous – removal efficiency. The combined SRT
of the anaerobic and anoxic zones is generally 1.5 to 3 days, while the anaerobic and
anoxic detention values are typically 60 to 90 minutes each. The aeration zone is
designed for nitrification.

SBR with biological phosphorous removal (Ref.No.1: Page No.813)

If sufficient nitrate is removed during the SBR operation, an anaerobic reaction period
can be developed during and after the SBR fill period. An anoxic operating period is
used after a sufficient aerobic time elapses for nitrification and nitrate production.

Alternatively cyclic aerobic and anoxic periods can be used during the react period. The
nitrate concentration is thus minimized before settling and little nitrate is available to
complete for rbCOD in the fill and initial react period. Thus, anaerobic conditions occur in
the fill and initial react period, so that rbCOD uptake and storage by phosphorous-
accumulating bacteria can occur instead of rbCOD consumption by nitrate-reducing
bacteria.

PhoStrip Process (Ref.No.1: Page No.813)

The PhoStrip process combines biological and chemical processes for phosphorous
removal; its efficiency depends less on the influent rbCOD concentrations than for other
biological P-removal processes.
The anaerobic condition is created by holding RAS long enough in a gravity thickener
with residence times generally in the range of 8 to 12 hours. The released phosphorous
is elutriated, usually by adding primary effluent or raw wastewater, which also enhances
the anaerobic condition. The overflow from the stripper tank is then treated chemically
for phosphorous removal and the RAS is directed to the aerobic tank.

Lime is usually used as a chemical to precipitate phosphorous from the stripper tank
overflow. The lime dose needed to raise the pH for phosphorous removal is a function of
the wastewater alkalinity and not the amount of phosphorous present.

If alum and ferric salts are used instead, the dose is proportional to the amount of
phosphorous released.

Even though chemical treatment is used for phosphorous removal, there is some
enhanced phosphorous removal in the waste sludge due to the development of
phosphorous-storing bacteria. The phosphorous-removal performance would be
hindered by nitrification.

TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS (Ref.No.1: Page No.814)

TABLE: TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR COMMONLY USED BIOLOGICAL

PHOSPHOROUS - REMOVAL PROCESSES
Process SRT, d MLSS, h RAS, % Internal
mg/l Anaero Anoxic Aerobic of recycle,% of
bic zone zone influent influent
zone
A/O 2–5 3000 – 0.5 – 1.5 - 1.0 – 3.0 25 – 100
4000
A²/O 5 – 25 3000 – 0.5 – 1.5 0.5 – 1.0 4.0 – 8.0 25 – 100 100 – 400
4000
UCT 10 – 25 3000 – 1.0 – 2.0 2.0 – 4.0 4.0 –12 80 – 100 200 –
4000 400(anoxic)
100 –
300(aerobic)
VIP 5 – 10 2000 – 1.0 – 2.0 1.0 – 2.0 4.0 – 16 80 – 100 100 –
4000 200(anoxic)
100 –
300(aerobic)
Bardenpho 10 – 20 3000 – 0.5 – 1.5 1.0 – 3.0 4.0 – 12 50 – 100 200 – 400
(5-stage) 4000 (1st (1st
stage) stage)
2.0 – 4.0 0.5 – 1.0
(2nd (2nd
stage) stage)
PhoStrip 5 – 20 1000 – 8 – 12 4 – 10 50 – 100 10 – 20
3000
SBR 20 – 40 3000 – 1.5 – 3.0 1.0 – 3.0 2 – 4
4000
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS (Ref.No.1: Page No.815)
TABLE: ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF PHOSPHOROUS – REMOVAL PROCESSES
Process Advantages
Phoredox (A / O) - simple operation when compared to
other processes
- low BOD / P ratio possible
- relatively short HRT
- produces good settling sludge
- good P removal
A² / O - removes both N and P
- provides alkalinity for nitrification
- operation relatively simple
- produces good settling sludge
- saves energy
UCT - nitrate loading on anaerobic zone is
reduced, thus increasing P removal
capability
- improved P removal for weaker
wastewater
- produces good settling sludge
- good nitrogen removal
VIP - nitrate loading on anaerobic zone is
reduced, thus increasing P removal
capability
- requires lower BOD / P ratio than UCT
- produces good settling sludge
Bardenpho - can achieve 3 to 5 mg/l TN in unfiltered
(5-stage) effluent
- produces good settling sludge
SBR - removes both N and P
- easy to operate; flexible operation
- MLSS cannot be washed out by hydraulic - design is more complex
surges
- Quiescent settling results in lower TSS in for N removal only
the decanted effluent
- flexible operation
PhoStrip - can be incorporated easily into existing
activated-sludge plants
- process is flexible; P removal
performance is not controlled by BOD / P
ratio
- significantly less chemical usage than
mainstream chemical precipitation process for stripping
- can achieve reliable effluent
orthophosphate conc. < 1 mg/l
Limitations
- P removal declines if
nitrification occurs
- limited process control
flexibility is available
- RAS containing nitrate is
recycled to anaerobic zone, thus
affecting P removal capability
- N removal is limited by internal
recycle ratio
- needs higher BOD / P ratio than
the A / O process
- more complex operation
- requires additional recycle
system
- more complex operation
- requires additional recycle
system
- more equipment required for
staged operation
- less efficient P removal
- requires larger tank volumes
- more suitable for smaller flow
rates
- needs larger volume than SBR
- more complex operation
- effluent quality depends upon
reliable decanting facility
- skilled maintenance is required
- requires lime addition for P
precipitation
- requires higher mixed liquor DO
to prevent P release in final
clarifier
- additional tank capacity required
- lime scaling may be a
maintenance problem
AERATION REQUIREMENTS

BPR system always required less oxygen than the conventional system. The oxygen
mass balance for the BPR system was always less than the theoretical amount , by an
average of 16.7%. It is recommended that the theoretical requirements be reduced by
10% for design purposes.

MIXING REQUIREMENTS

The purpose of mixing in anaerobic and anoxic zones is simply to keep the mixed liquor
solids suspended while minimizing surface turbulence to minimize transfer of oxygen
from the atmosphere.

An appropriate formula for determining the mixing requirements of activated sludge as a

function of the MLSS concentration has been derived from data presented by
Reynolds (1982), and is shown as follows (Ref.No.2: Page No. 122):

P = 0.00094 ()0.3 (MLSS)0.238

V
where,
 = 1.0087 at 20°C

P / V = kilowatts per / m³

MLSS = mg/l

DESIGN STEPS FOR TWO-STAGE BPR SYSTEM (Ref.No.2: Page Nos.119,120)

The following are the steps, recommended for BPR design, using the graphs in the
Attachments:

1) Select the desired effluent P concentration.

2) Determine the COD:P and BOD5:P ratios of the process influent.

3) Use Attachment 1, to determine the effluent P concentration possible with the

COD:P ratio of the process effluent.
 If the COD:P ratio is > 40:1, the effluent P concentration possible with
optimum design and operation will be < 1.0 mg/l.
 If the COD:P ratio is < 40:1, an effluent P concentration of < 1.0 mg/l will
be difficult to achieve and maintain.
If the required effluent concentration cannot be obtained by BPR with the
process influent, then either prefermentation to supplement the influent
SCVFAs or effluent polishing by chemical precipitation is necessary.

4) Compare the COD and BOD5 values to estimate the degree of fermentation of
the process effluent .
  If the COD:BOD5 ratio is >2, and the COD:P ratio is > 40, use
Attachment 2 Fig.(a) to select the appropriate anaerobic HRT, based on
the P removal desired, if the removal required is < 6 mg/l.

If the removal required is > 6 mg/l, use an anaerobic mass fraction of 25%
or greater(Refer to Attachment No.3).

 If the COD:BOD5 ratio is >2, and the COD:P ratio is < 40, use
Attachment 2 Fig.(b) to select the required anaerobic HRT if it is
possible to achieve the required effluent P concentration.

If the effluent P cannot be achieved, select either prefermentation or

chemical polishing. If prefermentation is selected, use an anaerobic mass
fraction of 5% to 10% (Refer to Attachment No.3).

If chemical polishing is selected, use the anaerobic HRT obtained from

Attachment 2 Fig.(b).

 If the COD:BOD5 ratio is <2, and the COD:P ratio is > 40, use a minimum
anaerobic HRT of 90 minutes or a minimum anaerobic mass fraction of
15%, whichever is more appropriate for the system being designed (Refer
to Attachment No.3).

 If the COD:BOD5 ratio is <2, and the COD:P ratio is < 40, use a minimum
anaerobic HRT of 90 minutes or a minimum anaerobic mass fraction of
15%, but use Attachment 2 Fig.(b) to estimate whether or not enough P
removal can be obtained with the anaerobic HRT of two hours or less to
achieve the desired effluent quality.

If sufficient removal cannot be predicted, then prefermentation or

chemical polishing should be used to accomplish BPR.

NOTE:
Chemical co-precipitation with either aluminium or iron salts, i.e., addition
of chemical directly to the activated sludge, can be used to obtain effluent
P concentrations as low as 0.7 mg/l simultaneously with BPR.

If lower concentrations are required, then effluent filtration and/or tertiary

precipitation will be probably required.

5) Adjust the selected design anaerobic HRT for temperature using a theta
coefficient of 1.045 for temperatures less than 20°C, if the system is COD limited,
i.e., TCOD: TP < 40.

Assume that the design HRT times from Attachment 2 are for 20°C. No
adjustment is necessary if the system is P limited.

6) Adjust the temperature-adjusted anaerobic HRT for pH, using Attachment- 4.

7) Determine the design aerobic HRT for the system using P uptake kinetics.
 8) For a two-stage BPR system, design the activated sludge basin as a plug-flow
unit and divide the anaerobic zone into atleast three sub-zones using baffles.
Equip the anaerobic sub-zone with both mixing and aeration equipment so that it
can be operated as either an anaerobic or an aerobic section.

If designing a three-stage BNR system, the three anaerobic sub-zones should be

equipped with mixing equipment only, but part or all of the anoxic zone should be
equipped for either anoxic or aerobic operation, to have operational flexibility.

DESIGN OF 3-STAGE, 4-STAGE AND 5-STAGE BNR SYSTEMS (Ref.No.2:

Page No.123 to 146)

Deciding on a 3-, 4-, or 5- stage unit will depend on a number of factors, some of which
are listed below:
1) waste characteristics
2) effluent requirements
3) COD:TKN ratio
4) COD:P ratio
5) selection of aeration device
6) type of clarifiers used
7) minimum and maximum operating temperatures
8) alkalinity of the wastewater

Waste Characteristics

In affluent countries where water is abundant, the wastewater tend to be weak while the
COD:P ratio is low. In the third world countries and those with scarce water resources
tend to have stronger wastes with a higher COD:P ratio. Industrial effluents may have
varying concentrations of nitrogen and phosphates which may be easier or difficult to
treat, depending on the type of industries.

The waste characteristics can be changed by the topography of the urban area and the
ambient temperature. Where the topography is flat, the wastewaters are pumped to the
treatment plant from interceptors which serve as excellent acid fermenters, thus
preparing the wastes for BNR plants. With steeper topography, pumping is seldom
necessary, and the wastes arrive at the plant in a fresh condition and need to be
fermented.

Effluent Requirements

The number of stages used in BNR plants will, to a large extent, be dictated by the
effluent requirements which are:
1) P removal with no nitrification
2) P removal with nitrification but no denitrification
3) P removal with only partial denitrification
4) P removal with nitrification only in summer
5) Year-round N & P removal

and the ways in which these are met is briefed below:

COD:P Ratio

Allowing for a COD:BOD ratio of approximately1.8 : 1 for sewage, this corresponds to a

BOD:P ratio of 20:1. Excellent removals at lower values have been reported, but
at this ratio the situation gets critical and it shall be ensured that the use of the
available carbon is optimized. Again, no nitrates should be allowed to compete
for the available SCVFAs, while the remaining carbon should be used optimally
for denitrification. This would require maximum denitrification by endogenous
respiration and a selection of stages to accomplish this.

The industrial wastes shall not be treated in such a way that the carbon is removed and
the N & P passed on to the BNR plant.

COD:TKN Ratio

Most wastes have a COD:TKN ratio in the order of 8 to 10:1, after primary
sedimentation. High COD:TKN ratios do not interfere with the P removal, since most of
the nitrates are removed during treatment. At the lower ratios, greater reliance on
endogenous respiration is necessary to optimize utilization of the available carbon.
Where the Carbon is not sufficient and good N and P removal is required, primary sludge
may have to added after fermentation, or the prefermented primary sludge can be
centrifuged with the centrate being returned to the anaerobic basin. A note of caution,
however – some polymers used for sludge conditioning are toxic to Nitrosomonas.

Selection of Aeration Device

The aeration device selected and the resultant geometry of the aeration basin play an
important role in the design and operation of BNR plants.

In BNR plants, it is essential to have the ability to control the oxygen input. Overaeration
may lead to the recycling of too much air to the anoxic zone, resulting reduced
denitrification and nitrates in the effluent and the RAS.

Energy savings because of high oxygen transfer efficiency resulted in the popularity of
use of fine bubble diffuser systems. Also, diffused air aeration systems allow great
flexibility in meeting the varying oxygen demands along the length of the aeration basin.
It is advisable to draw mixed liquor some distance from the end of the aeration basin
reducing the DO to about 0.5 mg/l at this point, for internal recycle to the anoxic basin;
this way the oxygen recycled to the anoxic basin can be reduced. Further, allowing a
short distance for high aeration at the outlet end will raise the DO in the mixed liquor
discharged to the final clarifiers, which will prevent the release of phosphates.

During low air demand periods, it is possible to turn down the oxygen supply and banks
of diffusers can be switched off to produce a rolling action to assist in keeping the solids
in suspension. New membrane fine bubble systems allow greater flexibility than ceramic
domes in that they can be switched off without severe blockages occurring.
The placing of the diffusers over the entire floor of the aeration basin ensures that no
anoxic zones will form in the aeration basin. This is also helpful in avoiding low DO
sludge bulking.

Point source aerators (such as vertical spindle surface aerators, horizontal brush
aerators, turbine aerators and jet aerators) allow for a much higher rate of denitrification
in the aeration basin which may influence the tank configuration, without the need for
formal anoxic basins; ignoring this may lead to serious operating problems. The correct
spacing of aerators, according to oxygen demand along the length of the tank, is rather
inflexible and the right choice should be made at the design stage.

Selection of Clarifier

The more the RAS rate can be reduced while still maintaining sufficient MLSS, the better
for plant performance. Thus, the clarifier design is important as it has an influence on the
possible RAS rate. It is necessary to provide sufficient concentration to control the
recycle rate to a reasonable level, without sacrificing the effluent quality. The clarifiers
should be operated with some sludge blanket, but not so deep that release of
phosphates to the liquid will result.

DESIGN STEPS FOR 3-, 4-, or 5- STAGE PLANTS (Ref.No.1: Page No. 132 to
146)

The first assumption is that a total analysis of the wastewater is available and that the
operating parameters have been determined. This may have to include judgement on
the minimum mixed liquor temperatures likely to be experienced, as well as any toxic
interferences for either biological nitrification or phosphate removal.

More or less the following steps shall be followed:

1) Determine if the acetate plus propionate concentration in the influent is sufficient

for ensuring the required P removal; roughly 5 to 6 times the TP concentration is
desired.

Depending on the choice of sludge handling processes, additional SCVFA may

be produced by the primary sludge thickening process.

2) If the SCVFAs are not sufficient, decide on some form of prefermentation for
boosting the concentration. This may be activated primary, a thickener with
recycle, or a batch fermenter plus thickener.

3) Determine the overall plant size, using any reliable model for the carbon and
nitrification system, assuming that the anaerobic zone will take up about 12% of
the reactor capacity, the anoxic zones will take up about 38% and the aeration
section will take up the remainder. Adjustments can be made later.
 This would involve making an estimate of the fraction of COD removed in the
primary sedimentation tanks and the fraction returned as VFA to the biological
reactor.

Select the MCRT that will ensure nitrification at the lowest expected temperature,
allowing for a safety factor that reflects the daily peak TKN values. Take into
account that nitrification is only possible in the aerated sections of the plant and
that some balancing will reduce the peaks and thus the necessary safety factor.

4) Size the anaerobic basin for the uptake of acetate to a concentration of up to 6

times the TP in the influent at a rate of 6 mg COD / mg active VSS / d.

5) Make an estimate of the remaining easily degradable COD on the basis that
about 1.06 kg acetate as COD will be taken up by the Acinetobacter for every kg
P released.

Estimate the mass of nitrates that could be removed by the first high rate of
denitrification.

6) Determine the mass of nitrogen loss in the PST plus any feed back from the
sludge treatment processes in order to calculate the mass of nitrogen to the BNR
process.
Estimate the loss of nitrogen in the WAS and in the effluent.Determine the mass
of nitrogen that must be nitrified and denitrified.

7) If the F/M ratio in the first section exceeds 10, there is likely to be a ‘selector
effect’, resulting in a change in the OUR (Oxygen Uptake Rate) patterns. If there
is a consistently high rate of OUR through the aeration basin, the loss of nitrates
through denitrification will be high depending on the type of aeration device used.
This loss may range from 20% of the total nitrogen for a fine bubble aeration
system to 100% removal for a surface aerator when more slowly degradable
compounds such as edible oil are present. The degradation rate of the
compounds could serve as an indicator as to the % removal. If unable to
determine the rate, allow for a maximum of 20% removal.

8) Subtract the nitrates lost in the effluent, lost in the aeration basin and lost through
denirification using the high rate of denitrification adjusted for minimum
temperature, in order to determine the removal required through the lower rate
and endogenous respiration.

9) Assume a maximum mixed liquor recycle rate to the anoxic zone of 4Q (Q is the
average wastewater flow rate) and an RAS rate of 0.8Q. Assuming that all the
nitrates recycled to the anoxic basin will be removed in the anoxic basin,
calculate from a mass balance the nitrates that must be removed in the second
anoxic zone to achieve the desired results. Size the second anoxic zone.

10) Calculate the retention time required by the first high rate of denitrification, the
time required for the removal of the remainder of the nitrates in the first anoxic
zone by the second slower rate and total these to give the retention time of the
first anoxic zone.
 11) Check the sizes against the first assumptions and, if necessary, recalculate.
For the less stringent nitrogen removal, use the same procedure, but without the
second zone. Calculate the nitrates in the effluent. Allow for some denitrification in the
final clarifier and allow for some anoxic retention time for the removal of the remaining
nitrates in the RAS. This anoxic zone could be ahead of the anaerobic zone with
allowance for a small portion of the primary effluent to assist denitrification.

METHODS TO IMPROVE BPR SYSTEMS EFFICIENCY

Methods to improve performance for overall P removal include the following (Ref.No.1:
Page No.805):
1) Provide additional rbCOD to import an exogenous carbon source (i.e., acetate)
or to produce VFAs from fermentation of primary clarifier sludge.
The VFA production ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 g VFA / g VSS applied to the
fermenters.
2) Reduce the process SRT
3) Add alum or iron salts in primary treatment or for effluent polishing
4) Reduce the amount of nitrate and / or oxygen entering the anaerobic zone.

KEY WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS AND THEIR RELATIONS FOR PROCESS

DESIGN

While the wastewater characteristics reported in the form of COD,BOD, TSS, VSS,
TKN, NH4-N, NO3-N, TP and alkalinity are sufficient for some designs, additional
information is needed for Biological Nutrient-Removal process designs for the
following complete list of wastewater components (Ref.No.1: Page No.667):

BOD (Total 5-d biochemical oxygen demand): BOD, sBOD, UBOD

COD (Total chemical oxygen demand): COD, bCOD, pCOD, sCOD , nbCOD,
rbCOD, rbsCOD, sbCOD (s=slowly), bpCOD, nbpCOD, nbsCOD

N (Nitrogen) : TKN, bTKN, sTKN, ON, bON, nbON, pON, nbpON, sON, nbsON

SS (Suspended Solids): TSS, VSS, nbVSS, iTSS

(Prefixes: s = soluble ; U = Ultimate; b = biodegradable; p = particulate; n = non; r =

readily; T= total ; K = Kjeldahl; O = organic; V= volatile; i = inert )

Fractionation of COD in wastewater is tabulated below (Ref.No.4):

Total COD (100%)

Biodegradable COD (80%) Nonbiodegradable COD (20%)
Readily Slowly Nonbiodegradable Nonbiodegradable
biodegradable biodegradable (soluble) (7%) (particulate)
(soluble) (20%) (particulate) (60%) (13%)
Complex VFA Colloidal Particulate
Fractionation of Nitrogen in wastewater is tabulated below (Ref.No.4):

Total Kjeldahl Nirogen (100%)

Ammonia N (~75%) Organic N (~25%)
Biodegradable (~12%) Nonbiodegradable
Soluble Particulate Soluble Particulate
(~3%) (~10%)

Fractionation of Phosphorous in wastewater is tabulated below (Ref.No.4):

Total Phosphorous (100%)

Soluble P (~70 to 90%) <--- Organically bound P (~ 10 – 30%)
10 – 20% in the activated sludge process

Note: The % of various fractions of COD, N and P, as stated in the tables may be used,
in the absence of reliable data on the characteristics of wastewater.

Summary (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 621,669,670,672,673,674,689,707,708,718)

In summary, correlations between the constituents of the wastewater is given below:

UBOD = 1.5 BOD (for domestic wastewater)
sBOD = 0.5 BOD
bCOD = ~ 1.6 (BOD)
COD = bCOD + nbCOD
nbCOD = nbsCOD + nbpCOD, where nbsCOD = the soluble COD concentration of an
activated sludge process effluent, sCODe
nbCOD = sCODe + nbpCOD
sCODe = sCOD– 1.6 sBOD
BODe = sBODe + ( 1 g BOD / 1.42 g VSS) (0.85 gVSS / gTSS)

bCOD = sbCOD + rbCOD

TKN = NH4-N + ON
ON = bON + nbON
nbON = nbsON + nbpON
fd = fraction of cell mass remaining as cell debris of heterotrophic bacteria
= 0.15 g/g

NH4-N = 60 to 70% of TKN

nbON = 6% of the nongradable VSS as COD in the wastewater
nbsON < 3% of TKN
= 1 to 2 mg/l in domestic wastewater

nbVSS = 1 - bpCOD VSS

pCOD

bpCOD = (bCOD / BOD) (BOD – sBOD)

pCOD COD – Scod
fN = (TKN – sON – NH4 as N)
VSS
where,
fN = fraction of organic nitrogen in VSS, g N / gVSS

nbpON = fN (nbVSS)

bsCOD = 2.86
NO3-N 1 – 1.42 Yn

Yn = Y
1 + (kdn) SRT

• The conversion of rbCOD to VFAs occurs quickly through fermentation in the anaerobic
zone and 7 to 10 mg of acetate results in about 1.0 mg P removal by enhanced P
removal. With continuous VFA addition, the effluent soluble P concentration decreased
from 2.5 to 0.3 mg/l and the VFA / P ratio was 6.7 g/g, an amount lower than the
estimated 7 to 10 g/g (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 801,802).

• About 10 g of bsCOD will be required to remove 1 g of P (Ref.No.1: Page Nos.627).

• Recycle streams with significant concentrations of DO and nitrate can have significant
effect on the amount of influent rbCOD that is available for BPR as they require
(Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 804):
2.3 g rbCOD / g of DO and 6.6 g rbCOD / g NO3-N.

• The P concentration in the effluent TSS would be 0.3 to 0.6 mg/l in the Secondary
clarifier effluent with TSS concentrations of 10 mg/l, considering 3 to 6% P in the solids,
on a dry basis (Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 805).

• The VFA production ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 g VFA / g VSS applied to the fermenters
(Ref.No.1: Page Nos. 805, 806).

GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF BNR PROCESSES (Ref.No.4)

Nitrogen Removal
• Four Stage Bardenpho Process (
TKN/COD < 0.09)
• Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (MLE) Process (TKN/COD > 0.10)

Nitrogen and / or Phosphorus Removal

• A/O, A2/O,Five Stage Bardenpho (Phoredox) Process (TKN/COD < 0.07 ~ 0.08)
• University of Cape Town (UCT) Process (TKN/COD < 0.12 ~ 0.14)
• Modified UCT Process (TKN/COD < 0.11)
• Virginia Initiate Process (VIP)
BPR process requirements for various effluent total phosphorous limits (Ref.No.4)

Effluent TP, Phoredox UCT A/O Phostrip

mg/l
1.0 – 2.0 BPR BPR BPR BPR
1.0 BPR + Filtration BPR + Filtration BPR + Filtration BPR
(or) (or) (or) (or)
BPR + Chemical BPR + Chemical BPR + Chemical BPR + Chemical
precipitation precipitation precipitation precipitation
0.3 BPR + Filtration BPR + Filtration BPR + Filtration BPR + Filtration
+ Chemical + Chemical + Chemical
precipitation precipitation precipitation

REFERENCES:

1) Metcalf & Eddy

Wastewater Engineering – Treatment and Reuse (Fourth Edition)

Tata Mc-Graw Hill Publishing Company Ltd., Delhi (2003)

2) Clifford W.Randall, James L.Barnard & H.David Stensel

Design and Retrofit of Wastewater Treatment Plants for Biological Nutrient

Removal

Technomic Publishing Co.Inc. Pennsylvania, USA (1992)

3) C.C.Lee & Shun Dar Lin

Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations

(Second Edition)
McGraw Hill (2007)

4) Jae K.Park
Biological Nutrient Removal – Theories & Design (Power Point Presentation)

University of Wisconsin-Madison
Dept.of Civil & Environmental Engineering

REFERENCE PROJECT DRAWINGS:

1) Reference Drawing for Anoxic & Aerobic Zone

Project No. P 076 Muscat Wastewater Scheme Project

STP at AL ANSAB

Drg.Title: Biological Treatment – Anoxic & Aerobic Zone (Sectional Plan)

Drg.No. : 08 – 4008 – M – N – 108A