Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207

www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Prospects for a self-sustainable sewage treatment system: A case study

on full-scale UASB system in India’s Yamuna River Basin
Nobuyuki Sato *, Tsutomu Okubo, Takashi Onodera, Akiyoshi Ohashi, Hideki Harada
Department of Environmental Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology, 1603-1 Kamitomioka, Nagaoka, Niigata, 940-2188, Japan
Received 4 February 2005; received in revised form 18 July 2005; accepted 29 August 2005
Available online 9 December 2005

Abstract

The government of India decided to launch a project to implement 16 full-scale Upflow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactors (with a
total capacity of 598,000 m3/d) in the Yamuna River basin under its Yamuna Action Plan (YAP). A polishing pond called the Final Polishing Unit
(FPU) was utilized for post-treatment. This paper evaluates the sewage treatment efficiency of the combined system of full-scale UASB reactors
and polishing ponds under Indian climatic conditions. Results have shown that the effluent from the sewage treatment plants (STPs) investigated
failed to comply with applicable discharge standards in terms of BOD, SS, and fecal coliform removal. Therefore, it is proposed that such proper
operation and maintenance as removing excess sludge and scum be conducted in order to increase treatment efficiency. Moreover, trained and
experienced workers are also required to operate and maintain the systems, along with a scientific approach.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sewage treatment; UASB; Polishing pond; Low cost; Operation and maintenance

1. Introduction
The Yamuna River, which flows through Delhi (the capital of
India), is the largest tributary of the Ganges River and regarded
as a sacred river (see Fig. 1). This river serves as a local water
supply, while pilgrims and religious people also bathe in it for
purification. Unfortunately, the river has been heavily polluted
during the past few decades (Karn and Harada, 2001; CPCB,
1984). Therefore, the government of India initiated the Yamuna
Action Plan (YAP) in 1993 in order to restore the quality of the
river’s water. Toward that end, the main emphasis was placed on
constructing sewage treatment plants (STPs) to improve the
quality of water.
Conventional sewage treatment processes (like the activated
sludge process) require high capital investment, excessive
consumption of energy, and high maintenance costs. As a result,
efforts to implement these methods in developing countries for
water pollution control have been seriously impeded. Con-
versely, low-cost treatment methods such as the Upflow
Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor have recently been
implemented in tropical countries including India (Draaijer et
* Corresponding author. Tel/fax: C81 258 47 9653.
E-mail address: satonob@s8.dion.ne.jp (N. Sato).
0301-4797/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.025
al., 1992; Wiegant et al., 2001; Khan et al., 2001; Tare et al.,
1997; Starkenburg et al., 2001; Hammad, 1996). Operation of
the UASB reactor is energy efficient since it produces useful
energy in the form of biogas. Moreover, a high degree of organic
materials and suspended solids can be removed with a short
retention time (Tare et al., 1997; Uemura and Harada, 2000;
Lettinga et al., 1983). Given these advantages, the government
of India decided to launch a project to implement 16 full-scale
UASB reactors (with a total capacity of 598,000 m3/d) under
YAP (see Fig. 1) (CPCB, 2003). However, the residual
concentrations of pollutants in the UASB effluent usually
exceed the maximum permissible level prescribed by the
effluent standards of most developing countries, including India.
Moreover, the anaerobic process cannot remove other undesir-
able constituents of sewage such as pathogenic bacteria
(quantified by fecal coliforms) and nutrients expressed as
nitrogen and phosphorous. From this standpoint, post-treatment
is necessary to remove these parameters (Steen et al., 1999;
Catunda and Haandel, 1996; Cavalcanti et al., 2001). The
importance of the parameters depends on how the final effluent
is to be used. In India, treated sewage is often used for irrigation
purposes or simply discharged into rivers. Consequently, the
National River Conservation Directorate (NRCD) of India’s
Ministry of Environment and Forests established effluent
standard parameters with priority placed in order of (1) the
removal of organic matter and suspended solids, (2) removal of
pathogenic bacteria, and (3) removal of nutrients (Khan et al.,
 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207 199

Fig. 1. Location of investigated STPs with treatment capacity.

2001; Foundation for Greentech Environmental Systems,
2004).
The UASB reactors implemented in the Yamuna River basin
are followed by polishing ponds called Final Polishing Units
(FPUs) for post-treatment. The popularity of such polishing
ponds in India can be attributed to their simple design and
operation, and low investment costs, which are prerequisites in
developing countries. The main objective of post-treatment by
using a polishing pond for anaerobically pretreated sewage is
improving the quality of the final effluent for meeting the
standards set by NRCD for public health protection, environ-
mental considerations, and water utilization.
Although UASB reactors with polishing ponds have been
operated at 16 STPs (with a total capacity of 598,000 m3/d) in
India’s Yamuna River basin, no comparative study has been
made on the treatment efficiency among the various STPs. This
paper evaluates the sewage treatment efficiency of the
combined system of full-scale UASB reactors and polishing
ponds under Indian climatic conditions.
2. Materials and methods
The authors conducted the sampling and analysis of the
water quality at 15 STPs located in 10 Indian towns (see
Fig. 1). In the figure, the numerical values express the
treatment capacity of the respective STPs. The treatment
capacity varies from 10,000 m3/d (at the Yamuna Nagar STP
and Panipat STP) to 78,000 m3/d (at the Agra STP).

Table 1
Removal efficiency at sewage treatment plants processed by UASB reactors in India (unit: mg/L)

STP* COD BOD TSS Ref.***

Inflow UASBeff FPUeff Inflow UASBeff FPUeff Inflow UASBeff FPUeff
Kanpur-5 563 (164)** 149–178 214 (47) 54–66 – 418 (157) 107–134 – [1]
Kanpur-36 838 (299) 398 (169) 398 (119) 200 (77) 846 (552) 373 (215) [2]
Kanpur-36 1,180 (190) 510 (85) 480 (66) 188 (31) 1,000 (191) 455 (77) [3]
Mirzapur 397 (74) 170 (38) 83 (5) 191 (22) 70 (10) 36 (6) 360 (48) 124 (26) 56 (20) [4]
3 3
Note: *: Kanpur-5Z Kanpur STP 5,000 m /d, Kanpur-36Z Kanpur STP 36,000 m /d; **:Parenthesis indicates standard deviation; ***:[1] Draaijer et al., 1992, [2]
Tare et al., 2003, [3] Wiegant et al., 1999, [4] Hammad, 1996.
 200
Table 2
Dimension of STPs and design parameter

STP Town Ca- Dimension of UASB Dimension of FPU Design parameter for influent Start of Popu-
pacity operation lation

N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207

(m3/d) equivalent
L!W!D (m) No of Volume L!W!D (m) No of Volume COD BOD SS (mg/ sewage UASB FPU
reactor (m3) pond (m3) (mg/L) (mg/L) L) temp HRT HRT
(oC) (hr) (d)
Ya-25 Yamuna 25,000 40! 24!4.58 2 9000 222!90!1.25 1 25,000 500 200 300 20 8.4 1.0 Sep 2000 130,000
nagar
Ya-10 Yamuna 10,000 16!24!4.58 2 3500 126.5!63!1.25 1 10,000 500 200 300 20 8.4 1.0 Apr 2002 55,000
nagar
Pa-35 Panipat 35,000 32!24!4.58 1 13,000 255!110!1.25 1 35,000 545 175 275 20 8.4 1.0 Apr 2000 240,000
40!24!4.58 2
Pa-10 Panipat 10,000 16!24!4.58 2 3500 128!64!1.25 1 10,000 545 175 275 20 8.4 1.0 Jun 1999 69,000
So-30 Sonepat 30,000 32!24!4.58 3 11,000 220!110!1.25 1 30,000 500 200 300 20 8.4 1.0 Apr 1999 200,000
Fa-20 Faridabad 20,000 32!24!4.58 2 7000 180!90!1.25 1 20,000 450 180 300 20 8.4 1.0 Sep 1998 110,000
Fa-45 Faridabad 45,000 32!24!4.58 2 16,000 270!135!1.25 1 46,000 450 180 300 20 8.4 1.0 Sep 1998 250,000
40!24!4.58 2
Fa-50 Faridabad 50,000 40!24!4.58 4 18,000 320!125!1.25 1 50,000 500 200 300 20 8.4 1.0 Aug 1999 270,000
Gu-30 Gurgaon 30,000 32!24!4.58 3 11,000 220!110!1.25 1 30,000 500 200 300 20 8.4 1.0 May 1998 150,000
Ka-40 Karnal 40,000 32!24!4.58 4 14,000 241!135!1.25 1 41,000 375 150 275 20 8.4 1.0 Mar 2000 270,000
No-27 Noida 27,000 24!28!6.10 3 14,000 110!120!1.60 2 42,000 450 200 400 15 10.9 1.6 Apr 2000 190,000
Gh-56 Ghazia- 56,000 32!32!6.10 4 20,000 180!120!2.00 2 86,000 450 200 400 15 10.7 1.5 Jul 2002 350,000
bad
Gh-70 Ghazia- 70,000 40!32!6.10 4 26,000 190!144!1.75 2 96,000 450 200 400 15 10.7 1.4 Jul 2002 430,000
bad
214!93!1.60 1
Ag-78 Agra 78,000 24!40!5.25 6 10,000 130!160!1.60 1 97,000 450 200 350 15 9.3 1.2 Jan 2004 570,000
123!163!1.60 1
Sa-38 Saharan- 38,000 24!28!6.10 4 28,000 (12,700 m2) DZ1.50 2 38,000 600 200 400 15 10.4 1.0 Mar 2000 310,000
pur

Source: On-site survey

 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207 201

Fig. 2. General layout of combined UASB-FPU system.

2.1. Design criteria for UASB and FPU Fig. 2 shows the general layout of the combined UASB-FPU
system. Raw sewage flows through a screen and grit chamber
System configurations of full and demo-scale STPs at (see Fig. 3) to the UASB (see Fig. 4), and then finally to the
Kanpur (with respective capacities of 36,000 and 5000 m3/d) FPU (see Fig. 5). Fig. 6 shows the general design of the UASB
and Mirzapur (14,000 m3/d) located along the Ganges River reactor. Feed inlets were installed at a certain distance for an
(see Fig. 1) were used as the STP design models under YAP. equal distribution of sewage. Biogas from the UASB was
Table 1 lists the performance capabilities of these STPs. The collected in a gas dome. On the other hand, the polishing pond
influent wastewater of these STPs was mainly domestic was designed by installing two baffles to form three lanes, thus
wastewater except at the Kanpur STP (36,000 m3/d), which improving treatment efficiency (see Fig. 2) (Cavalcanti et al.,
receives a combination of industrial wastewater (9000 m3/d) 2001).
and domestic wastewater (27,000 m3/d) (Draaijer et al., 1992;
Hammad, 1996; Tare et al., 2003; Wiegant et al., 1999).
All STPs under YAP were almost identically designed and
constructed (see Table 2). For example, the hydraulic retention
time (HRT) was almost uniformly designed as 8.4–10.7 h for
the UASB and 1.0–1.6 days for the FPU. The ponds were
designed with a significantly shorter HRT since the removal of
residual pollutants from the UASB reactors was considered
much easier (Starkenburg et al., 2001; Hammad, 1996;
Cavalcanti et al., 2001). The combined systems were designed
to handle 150–200 mg/L of influent biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and 275–400 mg/L of influent suspended
solids (SS) for meeting the required standard of 30 and
50 mgSS/L in the final effluent. In May 2000, NRCD added
fecal coliforms as an additional parameter to the discharge
standard, along with a maximum permissible limit of 104 MPN/
100 mL (Khan et al., 2001; Foundation for Greentech
Environmental Systems, 2004). Fig. 3. Photograph of screen and grit chamber at Karnal STP (40,000 m3/d).
202 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207
Fig. 4. Photograph of UASB reactor at Karnal STP (40,000 m3/d).
2.2. Analysis
Influent sewage was sampled after exiting the grit chamber.
Likewise, effluents from both the UASB and FPU were also
collected for analysis (see Fig. 2). Samples were collected
during the daytime from February to March 2004.
Such parameters as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, chemical
oxygen demand (COD), BOD, SS, and fecal coliforms for the
influents and effluents were measured to assess the treatment
efficiency of STPs. DO was measured by using a DO meter
(TOA DO-24P, TOA OE-270AA). Likewise, pH was measured
by using the HORIBA compact pH meter, type B-212. A
colorimeter (HACH DR/890) was utilized for measuring COD
by using the dichromate method. BOD, SS, and fecal coliform
(A-1 medium of BECTON DICKINSON) were measured
according to the standard methods (APHA, 1998). The
employees of the STPs were interviewed directly to understand
the present state of operation and maintenance.
3. Results and discussion
Tables 3–4and Figs. 7–11 summarize the relevant charac-
teristics of sewage before and after treatment in order to
Fig. 5. Photograph of FPU at Karnal STP (40,000 m3/d).
Fig. 6. Section of UASB reactor.
evaluate the performance capabilities of the combined UASB-
FPU system.
3.1. Sewage characteristics
Table 3 lists the sewage characteristics of the 15 STPs that
were investigated. Sewage temperature ranged from 17 to
24 8C. Likewise, COD varied from 363 mg/L (at the
Saharanpur STP, 38,000 m3/d) to 1194 mg/L (at the Faridabad
STP, 20,000 m3/d), BOD from 141 mg/L (at the Karnal STP,
40,000 m3/d) to 365 mg/L (at the Faridabad STP, 50,000 m3/
d), and SS from 169 mg/L (at the Saharanpur STP, 38,000 m3/
d) to 920 mg/L (at the Faridabad STP, 45,000 m3/d). Note that
some figures were higher than those at the Kanpur or Mirzapur
STPs, which served as the model for constructing the STPs
under YAP (see Table 1). Various industries (such as paper,
sugar, chemical, leather, dye, distillery, and pharmaceuticals)
are located in the Yamuna River basin (CPCB, 2000). Effluents
from these industries contributed to the increased concen-
trations of organic materials and suspended solids, especially at
Faridabad (1055–1194 mgCOD/L) and Panipat (487–
985 mgCOD/L) according to interviews given at these STPs.
Therefore, the sewage from the investigated sites can be
categorized as being high- and medium-strength domestic
wastewater (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1991).
3.2. Organic removal
Fig. 7 shows the COD concentrations in effluent from the
combined UASB-FPU system, which ranged from 120 mg/L
(at the Saharanpur STP, 38,000 m3/d) to 446 mg/L (at the
Panipat STP, 10,000 m3/d). Meanwhile, BOD ranged from
42 mg/L (at the Karnal STP, 40,000 m3/d) to 154 mg/L (at the
Faridabad STP, 50,000 m3/d) (see Fig. 8). None of the STPs
was found to meet the set standard of 30 mg/L for BOD. There
are several reasons for this failure. One suspected reason is the
higher concentration of pollutants in the influent due to the
incorporation of industrial wastewater into municipal sewage.
 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207 203

Table 3
Influent characteristics at STPs

Influent, sampled
STP* Temp (sewage) PH COD (mg/L) BOD (mg/L) SS (mg/L) NH4-N (mg/L) FC** (MPN/
(8C) 100 mL)
Ya-25 18.4 7.0 702 250 372 22 4.0!105
Ya-10 17.3 7.5 939 318 374 23 9.2!106
Ka-40 19.7 7.4 443 141 236 27 6.3!106
Pa-35 23.8 7.6 487 196 320 22 1.0!106
Pa-10 18.6 7.5 985 411 33 7.9!106
So-30 18.5 7.5 481 160 189 27
Fa-20 22.5 8.2 1,194 20
Fa-45 23.8 8.8 1,055 318 920 26 7.8!105
Fa-50 23.7 8.0 1,113 365 593 48 2.0!105
Gu-30 18.6 7.3 870 318 435 43 7.9!106
Sa-38 21.6 7.3 363 169 22 4.9!106
Gh-56 21.7 7.4 418 185 29
Gh-70 21.2 7.4 829 293 458 35 2.3!106
No-27 20.0 6.9 674 247 558 35 2.3!106
Ag-78 18.8 7.3 762 264 514 38 3.3!106

Note: *:Refer to “STP” in Table 2; **:Fecal coliform.

In most of the STPs, the raw sewage strength exceeded the
values considered during design of the treatment system (see
Table 2, Figs. 7 and 8). Although industrial wastewater was
also discharged into the sewage network, the factors
contributing to industrial pollution have not been accurately
estimated (CPCB, 2000). For this reason, it is worthwhile to
investigate whether wastewater is being discharged according
to the discharge standard. If unacceptable wastewater is being
discharged, the authorities concerned should force the
industries to stop this discharge or treat the wastewater before
discharging it.
SS concentrations in the effluent varied from 63 mg/L (at the
Karnal STP, 40,000 m3/d) to 622 mg/L (at the Agra STP, 78,
000 m3/d). These values significantly exceed India’s discharge
standard limit of 50 mg/L (see Fig. 9). For better effluent
quality, the removal of SS in the UASB reactors could be

Table 4
Summary of water quality investigation at 15 STPs

Parameters Sampling points Min Max Ave Std dev*

Temp (8C) Inf 17.3 23.8 20.5 2.2
UASB 17.0 24.1 20.2 2.0
FPU 16.4 23.3 19.1 1.8
pH Inf 6.9 8.8 7.5 0.5
UASB 6.8 8.1 7.2 0.4
FPU 7.0 8.2 7.4 0.4
DO (mg/L) Inf – – – –
UASB – – – –
FPU 0.2 2.2 0.9 0.6
COD (mg/L) Inf 363 1,194 754 272
UASB 152 950 403 206
FPU 120 446 238 100
BOD (mg/L) Inf 141 365 258 84
UASB 54 184 130 42
FPU 42 154 96 36
SS (mg/L) Inf 169 920 410 202
UASB 103 860 380 210
FPU 63 622 262 151
NH4-N (mg/L) Inf 20.0 48.0 30.0 8.4
UASB 23.0 54.0 33.0 9.8
FPU 19.0 54.0 34.4 10.6
FC** (MPN/100 mL) Inf 2.0!105 9.2!106 2.3!106 100.5
UASB 2.0!105 3.3!106 1.0!106 100.5
FPU 1.1!105 2.2!106 4.6!105 100.4

Note: *Standard deviation; **Average and standard deviation for FC is calculated by log 10 base.
204 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207

Fig. 7. COD of influent sewage, UASB effluent, and FPU effluent at STPs.

improved by taking some simple measures. High concen-
trations of SS in the UASB are largely due to the washout of
sludge. Sludge washout is generally the result of too much
sludge being accumulated in the reactor, low temperature, a
high flow velocity, vigorous gas production, and other factors.
Several researchers have reported the operation of UASB
treating Indian municipal sewage at a temperature range of 18–
30 8C without any significant SS problem (Draaijer et al., 1992;
Hammad, 1996; Wiegant et al., 1999). Moreover, the upflow
velocity is about 0.5 m/h, which is within the acceptable range
(Haskoning Consulting Engineers and Architects and Wagen-
ingen Agricultural University, 1994). In addition, the structure
of the UASB reactor prevents the effects of gas production on
rising sludge (see Fig. 6). Therefore, the main reason for sludge
washout is probably the accumulation of sludge inside the
UASB reactor. According to Indian guidelines, a profile of
sludge in the UASB reactor should be made every month.
Based on this profile, the amount of sludge to remove and time
interval for removing sludge are determined (Haskoning
Consulting Engineers and Architects and Wageningen Agri-
cultural University, 1994). However, our observations and
direct interviews have revealed that no monthly sludge profiles
are made, and excess sludge is not periodically removed from
the UASB reactors investigated. In addition, scum generally
accumulated on the top of UASB reactors. The scum must be
removed along with the excess sludge.
Conversely, the concentration of SS tends to increase in the
polishing pond along with excessive algae growth (Arceivala,
1998). However, since DO was around 0.2–2.2 mg/L in the
polishing ponds investigated by this study, it is difficult to
consider the occurrence of extensive algal growth as a cause of
the high concentration of SS in the final effluent. Higher
concentrations of SS in the final effluent may be the result of
overloading of SS from the UASB reactors. It was found that
11 of the 15 STPs investigated had FPUs in operation for more
than three years, which may explain the accumulation of too

Fig. 8. BOD of influent sewage, UASB effluent, and FPU effluent at STPs.
 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207 205

Fig. 9. SS of influent sewage, UASB effluent, and FPU effluent at STPs.

much sludge. However, most of these polishing ponds have yet
to be cleaned up even though applicable guidelines prescribe a
clean-up operation every 1–2 years, or whenever the
accumulation of sludge exceeds 40 cm (PHED, 1995a,b;
Foundation for Greentech Environmental Systems, 2004).
According to direct interviews, this problem is more or less
due to not recognizing the importance of sludge management.
Therefore, the periodic removal of excess sludge and scum
from the UASB reactors and polishing ponds can be expected
to increase SS removal efficiency in the combined UASB-FPU
system.
3.3. Nutrient removal
Ammonia–nitrogen was monitored as a parameter for the
removal of nutrients. Ammonia is mainly produced by the
hydrolysis of organic nitrogen in the UASB reactor. Ammonia
is primarily removed from a pond system by the propagation of
new algal biomass rather than by nitrification and denitrifica-
tion (Stone et al., 1975; Ferrara and Avci, 1982; Reed, 1985;
Mara and Pearson, 1986). Ammonia incorporated into the algal
biomass settles at the bottom of the pond as algae die. During
extensive algal growth, effective photosynthesis should be
observed based on an increase in pH and DO levels. However,
this was not observed since pH was 7.0–8.2 and DO was 0.2–
2.2 mg/L (see Table 4). Therefore, only a small amount of
removal was possible, leaving a very high concentration of
ammonia in the effluent (19–54 mg/L) (see Fig. 10). At the
STPs such as K-40, F-20, F-45, F-50, Gu-30, Sa-38, and N-27,
ammonia-nitrogen concentrations in the FPU effluent were
found to be even higher than in the UASB effluent. However, it
could be assumed that the hydrolysis of organic nitrogen still
controlled the concentration of ammonia in the FPU rather than
removal of ammonia by algae due to unfavorable algal growth
conditions. In fact, the growth of algae takes at least 2–
2.25 days (Ferrara and Avci, 1982). Conversely, the retention

Fig. 10. NH4-N of influent sewage, UASB effluent, and FPU effluent at STPs.
206 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207
Fig. 11. FC of influent sewage, UASB effluent, and FPU effluent at STPs.
time of the FPUs investigated was only 1.0–1.6 days. Under
this condition, algae are easily washed out. A short retention
time is considered a main reason for the high concentration of
ammonia in the final effluent. Another reason to consider is that
the investigation was conducted in February and March, which
is still during winter in India. The photosynthesis of algae
generally becomes more active in summer. Still, it will be very
difficult to remove ammonia without preventing the washout of
algae by extending the retention time.
3.4. Fecal coliform (FC) removal
Undoubtedly one of the most important parameters, FC
should be removed in the polishing ponds, especially when
treated water is to be used for irrigation (Cavalcanti et al.,
2001). The principal mechanisms for FC removal in ponds are
known to be the effects of high pH (O9), highly dissolved
oxygen, high light intensity, and other factors. Since the
photosynthesis by algae was insignificant, pH and DO levels
were low (see Table 4). Moreover, it was presumed that the
penetration of sunlight into the ponds was hindered by a large
amount of SS. Due to all these factors, the conditions of the
ponds investigated are considered unfavorable for FC removal.
As a result, the total process provided a poor effluent quality
with 1.1!105–2.2!106 MPN/100 mL of FC in the final
effluent (see Fig. 11). STPs were constructed without due
consideration given to FC removal because there was no
standard regarding FC in wastewater discharge when the
existing STPs were designed. This parameter was only recently
added to the discharge standard (104 MPN/100 mL). Caval-
canti et al. (2001) reported that it takes 7–9 days to remove FC
from wastewater for achieving less than 104 MPN/100 mL in a
plug flow regime such as the investigated ponds. NRCD
acknowledges this situation and has investigated several STPs
to determine the most effective means of removing FC by using
a few experimental disinfecting facilities to comply with the set
standard (Foundation for Greentech Environmental Systems,
2004).
4. Recommendations and conclusions
It is difficult to analyze the performance capabilities of the
combined UASB-FPU system by relying solely on one-time
sampling. However, one-time sampling for the 15 STPs along
with on-site interviews and observations are sufficient to assess
the overall tendency of treatment efficiency by the UASB
reactors and FPUs.
The present investigation observed that all STPs investi-
gated were unable to produce effluent that complies with the
discharge standard in terms of BOD, SS, and FC removal. In
order to improve the efficiencies of the STPs, the treatment
systems must be properly operated and maintained, sources of
raw sewage identified, and existing facilities upgraded. As for
proper operation and maintenance, there is a need for trained
and experienced workers to analyze the treatment performance
at defined time intervals. If the final effluent still does not
satisfy the standards through proper operation and maintenance
under appropriate sewage characterization, the STP facilities
may need to be physically improved (upgraded). There are
several possible aspects of such physical improvement with
regard to simple operation and maintenance, and minimal
investment, which are prerequisites for developing countries
such as India. Our observations reveal no significant UASB
design flaws. Still, applicable operational guidelines should be
strictly followed. One guideline could be stringent sludge
management as a main tool to enhance UASB performance.
Conversely, the physical improvement of FPUs could include
adding an aerator and extending the retention time. However, a
more detailed investigation is necessary before making
physical modifications due to the large investment required.
When existing FPUs are unable to satisfy the effluent
standard without physical improvement, the post-treatment
system should be re-evaluated with improved FPUs and other
technologies such as a trickling filter and rotating biological
contactor. In addition to existing technology, novel technology
could be included as one of the alternatives for post-treatment.
At the Karnal STP, a demonstration-scale Down Hanging
Sponge (DHS) system with a capacity of 1000 m3/d has been
 N. Sato et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 80 (2006) 198–207
installed and operated for more than two years for post-
treatment of the UASB reactor. The DHS process is similar to
the mechanism of the trickling filter, but uses sponges as a site
for growth and attachment of active biomass. The construction
of the DHS is simple and can be easily accomplished using
local resources and manpower. Additionally, the operation and
maintenance of this process is very simple. Under an HRT of
2 h without any external aeration and chemical additives,
effluent with 6–10 mgBOD/L and 7–11 mgSS/L can be
guaranteed (Kirishima et al., 2003; Okubo et al., 2004). This
type of low-cost novel treatment process may be considered a
possible solution for post-treatment following UASB reactors.
References
APHA (American Public Health Association), 1998. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health
Association, Washington, DC.
Arceivala, S.J., 1998. Wastewater Treatment for Pollution Control, second ed.
Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi.
Catunda, P.F.C., Haandel, A.C.V., 1996. Improved performance and increased
applicability of waste stabilization ponds by pretreatment in a UASB
reactor. Water Sci. Technol. 33, 147–156.
Cavalcanti, P.F.F., Haandel, A.V., Lettinga, G., 2001. Polishing ponds for post-
treatment of digested sewage, Part 1: Flow-through ponds. Water Sci.
Technol. 44, 237–245.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 1984. The Ganges Basin, Part II,
Basin Sub Basin Inventory of Water Pollution. Central Pollution Control
Board, Delhi.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2000. Water Quality Status of
Yamuna River. Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.
CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board), 2003. Status of Sewage Treatment
Plants in Ganga Basin. Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi.
Draaijer, H., Maas, J.A.W., Schaapman, J.E., Khan, A., 1992. Performance of
the 5 MLD UASB reactor for sewage treatment at Kanpur. Indian Water
Sci. Technol. 25, 123–133.
Ferrara, R.A., Avci, C.B., 1982. Nitrogen dynamics in waste stabilization
ponds. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 54, 361–369.
Foundation for Greentech Environmental Systems, 2004. Case Study on
Sewage Treatment Plants and Low-Cost Sanitation Under River Action
Plans. New Delhi.
Hammad, S.M., 1996. Performance of a full scale UASB domestic waste water
treatment plant. J. Inst. Public Health Eng. India 1, 11–19.
Haskoning Consulting Engineers, Architects and Wageningen Agricul-
tural University, 1994. Design, Construction, Operation, and
Maintenance of UASB-reactors for Domestic wastewater. Nijmegen
(Netherlands).
Karn, S.K., Harada, H., 2001. Surface water pollution in three urban territories
of Nepal, India and Bangladesh. Environ. Manage. 28, 483–496.
Khan A., Khan P., Wiegant W., Schaapman J.E.,, Sikka B., 2001.
Implementation of UASB technology in river conservation projects in
207
India—policy development for wastewater treatment. Proceedings of Ninth
International Conference on Anaerobic Digestion, Belgium. Part, pp.
151–156.
Kirishima, Y. Okubo, T., Machdar, I., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2003.
International collaboration research on a novel sewage treatment process
with minimum energy requirement and applicable to developing countries.
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Conference of JSCE, Tokushima (Japan),
pp. VII-302 (in Japanese).
Lettinga, G., Roersma, R., Grin, P., 1983. Anaerobic Treatment of Raw
Domestic sewage at ambient temperatures using a granular bed. Biotechnol.
Bioeng. 25, 1710–1723.
Mara, D.D., Pearson, H.W., 1986. Artificial freshwater environments: waste
stabilization ponds. In: Schoernborn, W. (Ed.), Biotechnology, vol. 8.
VCH, Weinheim, pp. 177–206.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal,
and Reuse, third ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Okubo, T., Kirishima, Y., Ohashi, A., Harada, H., 2004. Evaluation of full-scale
UASBCDHS combined system for sewage treatment with minimum
energy requirement in India. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of
JSWE, Sapporo (Japan), pp. 229 (in Japanese).
PHED (Public Health Engineering Department), 1995a. Detailed Project
Report, 10 MLD UASB Sewage Treatment Plant, Panipat Zone I. Public
Health Engineering Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.
PHED (Public Health Engineering Department), 1995b. Detailed Project
Report, 30 MLD UASB Sewage Treatment Plant, Gurgaon. Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.
Reed, S.C., 1985. Nitrogen removal in wastewater stabilization ponds. J. Water
Pollut. Control Fed. 57, 39–45.
Starkenburg, W.V., Maas, J.A., Kazmi, K.A., Wiegant, W.M., 2001. The
Mirzapur domestic wastewater UASB treatment plant: six years of
operation. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Anaerobic
Digestion, Belgium. Part 2, pp. 567–569.
Steen, P.V.D., Brenner, A., Buuren, J.V., Oron, G., 1999. Post-treatment of
UASB reactor effluent in an integrated duckweed and stabilization pond
system. Water Res. 33, 615–620.
Stone, R.W., Parker, D.S., Cotteral, J.A., 1975. Upgrading lagoon effluent
for best practicable treatment. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 47,
2019–2042.
Tare, V., Ahammed, M., Jawed, M., 1997. Biomethanation in domestic and
industrial waste treatment—an Indian scenario. Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Anaerobic Digestion, Japan. vol. 2, pp.
255–262.
Tare, V., Gupta, S., Bose, P., 2003. Case studies on biological treatment of
tannery effluent in India. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 53, 976–982.
Uemura, S., Harada, H., 2000. Treatment of sewage by a UASB reactor under
moderate to low temperature conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 72, 275–282.
Wiegant, W.M., Kalker, T.J.J., Sontakke, V.N., Zwaag, R.R., 1999. Full scale
experience with tannery water management: an integrated approach. Water
Sci. Technol. 39, 169–176.
Wiegant, W.M., Khan, A., Khan, P., Schaapman, J.E., 2001. Modular design of
UASB plants for domestic wastewater in Haryana state, India. Proceedings
of the Ninth International Conference on Anaerobic Digestion, Belgium.
Part 2, pp. 151–153.