Environmental Technology

ISSN: 0959-3330 (Print) 1479-487X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

Optimization of a full-scale Unitank wastewater

treatment plant for biological phosphorus removal

Zhen Zhou, Can Xing, Zhichao Wu, Fei Tong & Junru Wang

To cite this article: Zhen Zhou, Can Xing, Zhichao Wu, Fei Tong & Junru Wang (2014)
Optimization of a full-scale Unitank wastewater treatment plant for biological phosphorus removal,
Environmental Technology, 35:6, 766-772, DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2013.850519

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.850519

Published online: 25 Oct 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 280

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tent20
Environmental Technology, 2014
Vol. 35, No. 6, 766–772, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.850519

Optimization of a full-scale Unitank wastewater treatment plant for biological

phosphorus removal
Zhen Zhoua∗ , Can Xinga , Zhichao Wub , Fei Tongc and Junru Wangc
a College of Environmental and Chemical Engineering, Shanghai University of Electric Power, Shanghai 200090, China; b State Key
Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resource Reuse, College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai
200092, China; c Shanghai Chentou Wastewater Treatment Co., Ltd., Shanghai 201203, China
(Received 18 December 2012; final version received 25 September 2013 )

The Unitank process combines the advantages of traditional continuous-flow activated sludge processes and sequencing
batch reactors, and has been extensively employed in many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in China. Biological
phosphorus removal (BPR) of a full-scale Unitank WWTP was optimized by increasing anaerobic time from 80 to 120 min
in an operation cycle of 360 min and reducing solid retention time (SRT) from 21.3 to 13.1 d. The BPR efficiency of the
full-scale Unitank system increased from 63.8% (SRT of 21.3 d) to 83.2% for a SRT of 13.1 d. When the anaerobic time
increased from 80 to 120 min, the net anaerobic phosphorus release amount increased from 0.25 to 1.06 mg L−1 , and sludge
phosphorus content rose from 13.8 to 15.0 mgP·(gSS)−1 . During half an operation cycle, the average specific phosphorus
release rate increased from 0.097 mgP·(gVSS·h)−1 in 0–40 min to 0.825 mgP·(gVSS·h)−1 in 40–60 min. Reducing SRT and
increasing anaerobic time account for 84.6% and 15.4% in the total increment of phosphorus removal of 1.15 mg L−1 .
Keywords: wastewater treatment; Unitank process; biological phosphorus removal; optimization; solid retention time

Introduction To achieve the objectives of this study, a full-scale

To prevent eutrophication in waters, several biologi-
cal phosphorus (P) removal (BPR) processes, such as
anaerobic/anoxic/aerobic (AAO),[1–3] anoxic/anaerobic/
aerobic,[4] University of Cape Town,[3,5] the sequenc-
ing batch reactor (SBR) [6,7] and oxidation ditch,[8]
have been developed and applied in full-scale wastewa-
ter treatment plants (WWTPs). As an integrated biological
wastewater treatment process combine the characteristics
of continuous-flow activated sludge processes and the SBR,
the Unitank process was developed in the 1990s and pro-
vided with advantages of compact structure, small footprint
and low cost. The Unitank process has been extensively
employed in many WWTPs, especially in Pearl River Delta
[9–11] and Yangtse River Delta [12,13] of China.
In recent years, researchers reported that the Unitank
process was difficult to form a typical anaerobic P release
environment and thus caused lower phosphorus removal
efficiency.[14,15] Total phosphorus (TP) concentrations
in the effluent of some full-scale Unitank WWTPs were
usually higher than 1.0 mg L−1 . Therefore, auxiliary tech-
nologies such as adding independent anaerobic zone [10,11]
or chemical phosphorus removal [14] were employed to
decrease the TP in the effluent. However, few studies
have been reported on the operational characteristics and
optimization methods of the BPR in the Unitank process.
Unitank WWTP in Shanghai was surveyed to collect opera-
tional data related to BPR, and then optimized by increasing
wastage sludge and prolonging the anaerobic time. A phos-
phorus mass balance model was also put forward to evaluate
the contributions of these two optimization measures. The
results are expected to provide sound understandings of
the BPR characteristics and optimization methods for the
Unitank process.
Materials and methods
The full-scale Unitank WWTP
The full-scale Unitank WWTP in Shanghai was built in
2004 and receives the wastewater of approximately 700,000
inhabitant equivalents from a combined sewer system.
The WWTP, with a designed capacity of 400,000 m3 ·d−1 ,
includes a rotational flow grit chamber, 12 Unitank tanks
and a sludge retention tank. Twelve Unitank tanks were
divided into four groups (labelled 1#, 2#, 3# and 4#) with
independent waste sludge discharge system and effluent
channel. The waste activated sludge is drawn off from
the sludge retention tank and sent to sludge thickener and
dewatering machines.
Each Unitank process is divided into three tanks (shown
in Figure 1) with the same dimension of 35 × 35 × 7 m3 and

∗ Corresponding author. Email: zhouzhen@shiep.edu.cn

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 Environmental Technology
Influent
Side tank A Middle tank B
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the Unitank process.
Table 1. Operation matrix of the full-scale Unitank WWTP.
Time (min) Side tank A
0–40 Feeding and agitation
40–135 Feeding and aeration
135–155 Aeration
155–180 Settling
180–220 Settling, draining and sludge discharging
220–315
315–335
335–360
effective depth of 6 m. The designed sludge load and sludge
concentration are 0.11 kg BOD5 ·(kgSS·d)−1 and 4.0 g·L−1 ,
respectively. The designed hydraulic retention time (θ ) is
15.9 h, and the hydraulic load of side tank (used as sec-
ondary clarifier) with inclined plates is 1.13 m3 ·(m2 ·h)−1 .
The dissolved oxygen (DO) in the aerobic stage was con-
trolled at about 2.0–3.0 mg L−1 . The operation matrix of the
full-scale Unitank process before optimization is shown in
Table 1.
Optimization and analytical method
Operation data from 25 December 2011 to 7 February 2012
(stage 1, S1) were collected as control data for optimization.
The optimization study was commenced on 8 February 2012
in the full-scale Unitank WWTP. From the commence day to
23 March 2012 (stage 2, S2), the wastage sludge discharge
was increased to reduce the solid retention time (SRT), and
the time for feeding and agitation (in Table 1), namely anaer-
obic time, was prolonged from 80 to 120 min in a cycle.
During stage 3 (S3) from 24 March 2012 to 7 May2012,
the wastage sludge discharge was further enhanced, and
the anaerobic time was kept at 120 min at a cycle. The aver-
age temperatures of mixed liquor in the Unitank system
during the three stages were, respectively, 14.1 ± 1.1◦ C,
13.2 ± 0.8◦ C and 18.8 ± 2.4◦ C due to seasonal variation.
Twenty-four-hour composite samples were regularly
collected every day to analyse pollutants in influent and
effluent of the Unitank WWTP. Activated sludge samples
were regularly collected from 36 Unitank tanks at aeration
stage to determine mixed liquor suspended solid (MLSS)
and mixed volatile suspended solids (MLVSS). To analyse
767
Effluent
Side tank C
Middle tank B Side tank C
Aeration Settling, draining and sludge discharging
Aeration
Feeding and aeration
Feeding and aeration
Aeration Feeding and agitation
Aeration Feeding and aeration
Feeding and aeration Aeration
Feeding and aeration Settling
in-process variations of phosphorus and nitrogen during the
agitation stage, grab samples were regularly collected at the
point of 3 m below the water level in side tank of the Uni-
tank process at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 min. Samples
were filtered and taken to determine relevant compositions.
Measurements of chemical oxygen demand (COD), 5-day
biological oxygen demand (BOD5 ), ammonium nitrogen
(AN), oxidized nitrogen (nitrite nitrogen + nitrate nitrogen,
NOx -N), total nitrogen (TN), TP, suspended solids (SS),
MLSS and MLVSS were performed according to Chinese
NEPA standard methods.[16]
Activated sludge samples for sludge P content mea-
surement were collected at the end of aerobic stage when
sufficient P uptake by phosphate-accumulating organisms
(PAOs) occurred, and TP concentrations of mixed liquor
and filtrate from samples were measured. The difference
between two TP concentrations divided by the MLSS yields
the sludge P content.
Continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) models
To obtain net P release and uptake amount in the Uni-
tank process, the contribution of TP in the influent must be
deducted by mass balance equation calculation. The side
tank can be approximated as a CSTR, and the mass balance
equation can be described as
dC
V = Q0 C0 − Q0 C − VR, (1)
dt
where Q0 is the influent flow rate (m3 ·d−1 ), C0 and Ce are,
respectively, the pollutant concentrations in the influent and
768 Z. Zhou et al.

effluent (mg L−1 ), V is the CSTR volume (m3 ), R is the
reaction rate (mg·(Ld)−1 ), C is the pollutants concentration
in the reactor (mg L−1 ) and t is the operation time (d). In
the CSTR, Ce is equal to C; therefore, if the reaction item
is not considered, Equation (1) can be deformed as
dC
V = Q0 C0 − Q0 C. (2)
dt
Because θ is equal to V /Q0 , Equation (2) can be integrated
as
C = C0 (1 − e−t/θ ) + m, (3)
where m is a constant and can be calculated by the measured
pollutant concentrations at t = 0.
Results and discussion
Carbon source supply and SRT of the Unitank WWTP
As shown in the operation matrix of Table 1, in an operation
cycle of 360 min, wastewater was fed into side tank under
anaerobic environment during 0–40 and 180–220 min, and
into the side tank or middle tank under aerobic environ-
ment in the other time. This illustrates that 22.2% of the
influent evolved through the anaerobic–aerobic (AO) pro-
cess, and 77.8% of the influent were only treated by the
aerobic process, causing high-level consumption of COD
in the influent by oxygen. Therefore, only a small fraction
of COD in the influent was utilized as carbon source for
anaerobic P release, and thus the Unitank process is dif-
ficult to reach satisfying BPR efficiency. The increase of
anaerobic time from 80 to 120 min could enhance the pro-
portion of wastewater treated by AO process from 22.2%
to 33.3%.
In the full-scale Unitank system, the middle tank was
always aerated and thus considered as a reaction tank,
whereas the two side tanks were used as settling tank for
205 min during a cycle of 360 min. Since volumes of the
three tanks were the same, the reaction volume accounted
for 62.0% of the total volume. Taking both wastage sludge
discharge and effluent SS into consideration, the SRT can
be calculated as shown in the following equation:
0.62VX
SRT = , (4)
Q e Xe + Q w X w
where V is the total volume of the Unitank system (m3 ), X ,
Xe and Xw are, respectively, SS in the reactor, effluent and
wastage sludge (mg L−1 ) and Qe and Qw are the flow rates
of the effluent and wastage sludge (m3 ·d−1 ). The calculated
SRT of the Unitank WWTP during three stages were 21.3 ±
3.5, 14.5 ± 2.0 and 13.1 ± 1.8 d, respectively.
Pollutants removal of the full-scale Unitank process
Table 2 shows the average concentrations of pollutants in
the influent and effluent of the full-scale Unitank WWTP
during three stages. As shown in Table 2, the average COD
and BOD5 in the effluent after optimization were slightly
higher than those in the effluent in stage 1, and incre-
ment of COD and BOD5 were below 2.5 and 0.2 mg L−1 ,
respectively. Compared with stage 1, the average AN con-
centrations in the effluent rose by about 0.6 in both stage
2 and stage 3. The increase of both organic pollutants and
AN in the effluent might be attributed to the decrease of
20 min aeration time; however, higher influent COD and
BOD5 could also lead to the increase of COD and BOD5
in the effluent. Furthermore, the decrease of SRT after opti-
mization probably caused the increase of organic pollutants
and AN in the effluent.[17]
Fluctuations of TP and TN in the influent and effluent
of the full-scale Unitank WWTP during three stages are
illustrated in Figure 2. Compared with stage 1, the average
TN and TP in the effluent both decreased by about 24.0%
both in stage 2, and respectively, 35.4% and 39.0% in stage
3. As shown in Figure 2, a relatively high platform of TP
was observed in the period between 20th and 25th February
during stage 2 owing to the malfunction of the aeration
system. Without considering this period, AN and TP in the
effluent were 1.54 ± 0.88 and 0.85 ± 0.23 mg L−1 in stage
2, respectively.
From stage 1 to stage 3, COD and BOD5 in the influ-
ent gradually increased, while influent TN decreased by
about 3 mg L−1 . This caused the gradual increase of C/N
(COD/TN) ratio from 6.73 in stage 1 to 8.44 in stage 3.
C/P ratios (COD/TP) were 87.06, 96.15 and 86.62 for the
three stages, respectively. With the increase of C/N ratio,
more nitrogen was removed and average TN in the efflu-
ent dropped from 12.55 mg L−1 at stage 1 to 8.11 mg L−1
at stage 3. Wu et al.,[2] who worked with an AAO system
under different C/N ratios, also found that higher C/N ratio
decreased the TN in the effluent. In the lab-scale UniFed
SBR reactor reported by Zhao et al. [7] at C/N ratios of

Table 2. Average concentration of pollutants in influent and effluent of the full-scale Unitank WWTP [in (mg L−1 )].

Pollutants COD BOD5 AN SS TN TP

Stage 1 Influent 325 ± 92 170 ± 56 35.10 ± 5.65 222 ± 59 48.33 ± 9.65 3.73 ± 0.87
Effluent 41.2 ± 6.9 4.3 ± 1.2 1.23 ± 1.27 16.7 ± 2.6 12.55 ± 3.13 1.23 ± 0.22
Stage 2 Influent 349 ± 124 186 ± 67 30.92 ± 6.63 238 ± 67 45.46 ± 9.38 3.63 ± 1.24
Effluent 43.5 ± 6.2 4.5 ± 0.9 1.87 ± 1.22 15.5 ± 3.1 9.55 ± 1.60 0.93 ± 0.28
Stage 3 Influent 381 ± 106 206 ± 65 35.88 ± 8.41 261 ± 59 45.12 ± 9.71 4.40 ± 1.04
Effluent 42.5 ± 5.6 4.5 ± 1.0 1.82 ± 1.09 16.7 ± 2.4 8.11 ± 1.72 0.75 ± 0.31
 Environmental Technology 769

4.0 50
3.5 45
40
3.0
35

TN (mg·L -1)
TP (mg·L -1)
2.5 30
2.0 25

1.5 20
15
1.0
10
0.5 5
0.0 0
12/23 1/12 2/1 2/21 3/12 4/1 4/21 5/11 12/23 1/12 2/1 2/21 3/12 4/1 4/21 5/11
Date Date
Influent/1.6 Effluent Influent/1.6 Effluent

Figure 2. TP and TN in the influent and effluent of the full-scale Unitank WWTP during process operation.

(a) (b) 22
55
20
Effluent COD (mg·L-1)

50

Effluent SS (mg·L-1)
18
45 16

40 14

12
35
10
30 8
1# 2# 3# 4# Total 1# 2# 3# 4# Total
Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

(c) 4.5 (d) 2.0

4.0 1.8
3.5 1.6
Effluent AN (mg·L-1)

Effluent TP (mg·L-1)

3.0 1.4
1.2
2.5
1.0
2.0
0.8
1.5
0.6
1.0
0.4
0.5 0.2
0.0 0.0
1# 2# 3# 4# Total 1# 2# 3# 4# Total

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Figure 3. Average COD, SS, AN and TP in the effluent of each Unitank group.

6.5 and above, phosphate could not be detected in the efflu- As shown in Figure 3(a), the average COD concentrations
ent and complete phosphorus removal had been achieved. in effluents of the four groups during three stages all fluctu-
Yagci et al. [18] also reported a complete removal of phos- ated between 41.1 and 45.1 mg L−1 , whereas the average SS
phorus at a C/P ratio of 20. Nevertheless, the full-scale concentrations ranged from 15.0 to 17.3 mg L−1 . There was
Unitank system with relative high C/N and C/P ratios only no obvious difference in COD and SS in the effluent among
yields a BPR efficiency ranging from 67.0% to 83.0%, four groups during three stages, indicating that the enhance-
which was probably attributed to the low proportion of ment of anaerobic time and the increase of wastage sludge
carbon source utilized for anaerobic P release. discharge had insignificant influence on COD degradation
and solid–liquid removal efficiency.
Compared with stage 1, the average AN concentra-
Comparison of effluent pollutants among Unitank tions in effluents of the four groups all increased in stage 2
groups (Figure 3(c)). Since the temperature in stage 2 was almost
Average COD, AN, TP and SS in the effluent of four Uni- the same as that in stage 1, the slight increase of AN in
tank groups during three stages were illustrated in Figure 3. the effluent is probably a result of reducing SRT. Average
770 Z. Zhou et al.
AN concentrations in effluents of groups 1#, 2#, 3# and
4# in stage 3 were 1.45, 0.87, 0.42 and 0.50 mg L−1 higher
than those in stage 1, and increments of average AN con-
centrations in groups 3# and 4# were lower than those in
groups 1# and 2#, respectively. In fact, AN concentrations
in mixed liquor of the side tank was below 1.0 mg L−1 after
75 min aeration. These results suggest that the enhancement
of anaerobic time does not have obvious negative impact on
nitrification efficiency, although this optimization method
leads to the loss of 40 min aeration time.
Variations of TP in effluents of groups 1# and 2# can
be used to analyse the influence of SRT on BPR removal,
and data in stages 1 and stage 3 were employed due to their
similar C/P ratios. The average BPR efficiency of groups
1# and 2# increased from 63.8% for a SRT of 21.3 to 83.2%
for a SRT of 13.1 d. The finding was in agreement with the
study of Lee et al. [17] who reported that the BPR efficiency
of an AAO SBR decreased from 47.1% (SRT of 5.9 d) to
31.0% for a SRT of 16.2 d.
Average TP concentrations of effluents in groups 1# and
2# in stage 3 were 0.55 and 0.67 mg L−1 lower than that in
stage 1, while the drop of average TP concentrations in
groups 3# and 4# were 0.75 and 0.47 mg L−1 , respectively.
As shown in Figure 3(d), the average TP concentrations in
effluents of groups 1#, 2# and 3# were close (1.34, 1.36 and
1.40 mg L−1 , respectively), and higher than that of group 4#
(1.15 mg L−1 ). Therefore, the drop in group 4# was lower
than the other three groups. With similar effluent TP in stage
1, the drop in group 3# was higher than those in group 1#
and group 2#, indicating that the enhancement of anaerobic
time was able to improve the BPR of the Unitank process.
Influence of anaerobic time on BPR of the Unitank
process
The TP and NOx -N variations in side tank of Unitank group
3# during anaerobic phase (0–60 min) in stage 3 are shown
in Figure 4. By increasing the anaerobic time from 40 to
60 min in half a cycle, NOx -N in the filtrate decreased
from 3.97 to 3.25 mg L−1 owing to the increase of carbon
source supply for denitrification. During the 60 min anaer-
obic stage, TP in the filtrate obviously increased from 0.27
to 1.95 mg L−1 . Nevertheless, owing to continuous feeding
of wastewater in the Unitank process, the contribution of
influent TP should be taken into consideration to calculate
the net released P under anaerobic environment.
The average influent TP of the Unitank system is
3.60 mg L−1 , and θ of the side tank is 5.3 h. The anaerobic
stage is started at 0 min with initial TP of 0.27 mg L−1 . Sub-
stituting the above data to Equation (3), the theoretical TP
variation during anaerobic stage is shown in the following
equation:
CTP = 3.87 − 3.60e−t/318 (5)
The measured TP concentrations in Figure 4 subtract-
ing calculated values of Equation (5) can obtain the net
2.0 5.5
TP
1.6 Net released TP 5.0
NOx-N
NOx -N (mg·L-1)
TP (mg·L -1)
1.2 4.5
0.8 4.0
0.4 3.5
0.0 3.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Anaerobic time (min)
Figure 4. Variations of TP and NOx -N in side tank of the
full-scale Unitank system.
anaerobic P release amount, as shown in Figure 4. After the
anaerobic time increased from 80 to 120 min, the net anaero-
bic P release amount increased from 0.25 to 1.06 mg L−1 . In
half of an operation cycle, the average specific phosphorus
release rate (SPRR) increased from 0.097 mgP·(gVSS·h)−1
in 0–40 min to 0.825 mgP·(gVSS·h)−1 in 40–60 min. The
anaerobic P release rate was enhanced obviously by pro-
longing the anaerobic time. The SPRR was significantly
lower than the initial SPRR reported by Panswad et al.
[19,20] which was because the reported SPRR was mea-
sured in the environment rich in carbon source. Although
high C/P ratio was provided in the WWTP, the presence
of NOx -N (Figure 4) and low distribution of COD in the
anaerobic stage resulted in a phosphorus release process
that probably limited by carbon source supply. Activated
sludge samples were collected for sludge P content mea-
surement from side tank of each Unitank group at the end
of aerobic stage (155 or 335 min) in stage 3. The measured
sludge P contents were illustrated in Figure 5. The aver-
age sludge P content of groups 3# and 4# with anaerobic
time of 120 min was 15.0 mgP·(gSS)−1 , which was higher
than that of groups 1# and 2# of 13.8 mgP·(gSS)−1 . These
results suggest that the enhancement of anaerobic time was
conducive to the accumulation of phosphorus in activated
sludge.
In two full-scale AAO WWTPs in Shanghai with C/P
ratios above 60, measured sludge P contents were 27.40 ±
0.53 and 27.84 ± 0.56 mgP·(gSS)−1 (n = 3). In the AAO
process, wastewater are first fed into the anaerobic stage
and utilized as carbon source for phosphorus release; there-
fore, its BPR environment is easier to form than the Unitank
process. Lee et al. [21] reported a lab-scale anaerobic-
intermittent aeration process with sludge P content of
44.2–59.5 mgP·(gSS)−1 at similar SRT (15 d) but lower C/P
ratio (30). In the lab-scale AO process studied by Panswad
et al. [20] the sludge P content was 53 mgP·(gVSS)−1 at
C/P ratio of 50. Although enhanced to 15.0 mgP·(gSS)−1
by the improvement of anaerobic P release environment,
 Environmental Technology 771

18
15.4 increasing sludge P content (CP,EPC ) can be calculated as
14.6
MW (XP2 − XP1 )
Sludge P content [mgP·(gSS)-1 ]

17
CP,EPC = . (9)
16 Q0
14.1 According to the influent and effluent data in Table 2, the TP
15
13.6
removed in stage 1 and stage 3 was 2.50 and 3.65 mg L−1 ,
and thus the increment of phosphorus removed by the two
14
optimization methods was 1.15 mg L−1 . If the effect of SRT
13 fluctuation on sludge P content is ignored, the average
sludge P content of groups 1# and 2# can be regarded as
12 background data to evaluate contributions of two optimiza-
tion measures. Based on the background sludge P content
11
1# 2# 3# 4# of 13.8 mgP·(gSS)−1 and wastage sludge discharge in stage
Unitank group No. 1 and stage 3, the calculated CP,SRT was 0.99 mg·L−1 .
Figure 5. Sludge P contents in four Unitank groups in stage 3 When sludge P content rose from 13.8 mgP·(gSS)−1 to
(n = 6). 15.0 mgP·(gSS)−1 by the enhancement of anaerobic time,
the increment of P removed (CP,EPC ) was 0.18 mg L−1 .
The sum of CP,SRT and CP,EPC was 1.17 mg L−1 ,
the sludge P content was still significantly lower than the which was very close to the measured increment of P
reported data. These results indicate that the typical BPR removed (1.15 mg L−1 ). In the total increment of phos-
environment is difficult to form owing to the configuration phorus removal, phosphorus removed by reducing SRT
and operation of the Unitank process.[10] contributes 84.6%, while that removed by the enhancement
of anaerobic time accounts for 15.4%. These results sug-
gest that the improvement of BPR efficiency was mainly
Model-based evaluation of BPR optimization methods the result of increasing wastage sludge discharge.
In BPR systems, phosphorus in wastewater was transferred
to activated sludge by excess phosphate uptake of PAOs and
anabolism of other biomass, and then removed by wastage Conclusions
sludge discharge. Therefore, the mass balance equation can The BPR of a full-scale Unitank WWTP was optimized by
be formulated as increasing anaerobic time from 80 to 120 min (for group 3#
and 4#) and reducing SRT from 21.3 to 13.1 d, and the main
Q0 CP0 = Qe CPe + Qw Xw XP (6) conclusions of the study can be summarized as follows.

where CP0 and CPe are, respectively, TP concentrations (1) In the Unitank process, relatively low fraction of
in the influent and effluent (mg L−1 ) andXP is P content anaerobic time (feeding and agitation) in the total
of wastage activated sludge [mgP·(gSS)−1 ]. The wastage time of an operation cycle usually limits anaero-
sludge discharge flow rate is significantly lower than influ- bic P release, and then leads to relatively low BPR
ent flow rate; therefore, the effluent flow rate could be efficiency.
assumed as influent flow rate. Equation (6) can be deformed (2) The increase of wastage sludge discharge can
as improve BPR effect. The BPR efficiency of the Uni-
Qw Xw XP Mw X P tank system increased from 63.8% (SRT of 21.3 d)
CP0 − CPe = = , (7) to 83.2% for a SRT of 13.1 d.
Q0 Q0
(3) In the Unitank process, the increase of anaer-
where Mw is the wastage sludge discharge (g·d−1 ). obic time can enhance anaerobic phosphorus
The phosphorus removed by different optimization mea- release amount, and thus increase sludge P
sures can be calculated by Equation (7). When the wastage content. The average SPRR increased from
sludge discharge increases from Mw1 to Mw2 , the increment 0.097 mgP·(gVSS·h)−1 in 0–40 min to 0.825 mgP·
of phosphorus removed by reducing SRT (CP,SRT ) can be (gVSS·h)−1 in 40–60 min in half a cycle.
calculated as (4) Reducing SRT and increasing anaerobic time
account for 84.6% and 15.4% in the total increment
(MW2 − MW1 )XP of phosphorus removal of 1.15 mg L−1 .
CP,SRT = . (8)
Q0

If the sludge P content rises from XP1 to XP2 by optimiza- Funding

tion measures (such as increasing anaerobic time in the This work was supported by Chinese National 863 Pro-
Unitank process), the increment of phosphorus removed by gram [2012AA063403]; Shanghai Chenguang Program
772 Z. Zhou et al.
[2011CG60]; Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal
Education Commission [12YZ137]; 085 Project Program
‘Energy Storage Technologies of Intelligence Network’.
References
[1] Ma Y, Peng Y, Wang X, Wang S. Nutrient removal perfor-
mance of an anaerobic–anoxic–aerobic process as a func-
tion of influent C/P ratio. J Chem Technol Biotechnol.
2005;80:1118–1124.
[2] Wu C, Peng Y, Wan X, Wang S. Performance and micro-
bial population variation in a plug-flow A2 O process treating
domestic wastewater with low C/N ratio. J Chem Technol
Biotechnol. 2011;86:461–467.
[3] Makinia J, Swinarski M, Dobiegala E. Experiences with
computer simulation at two large wastewater treatment
plants in northern Poland. Water Sci Technol. 2002;45:
209–218.
[4] Guerrero J, Tayà C, Guisasola A, Baeza JA. Understanding
the detrimental effect of nitrate presence on EBPR systems:
effect of the plant configuration. J Chem Technol Biotechnol.
2012;87:1508–1511.
[5] Zhou Z, Wu Z, Wang Z, Tang S, Gu G, Wang L, Wang
Y, Xin Z. Simulation and performance evaluation of the
anoxic/anaerobic/aerobic process for biological nutrient
removal. Korea J Chem Eng. 2011;28:1233–1240.
[6] Zhu R, Wu M, Yang J. Effect of sludge retention time
and phosphorus to carbon ratio on biological phosphorus
removal in HS-SBR process. Environ Technol. 2013;34:
429–435.
[7] Zhao C, Peng Y, Wang S, Takigawa A. Effects of influent
C/N ratio, C/P ratio and volumetric exchange ratio on bio-
logical phosphorus removal in UniFed SBR process. J Chem
Technol Biotechnol. 2008;83:1587–1595.
[8] Lim SH, Ko KB, Rho KE. Biological nutrient removal using
an IACOD process: determining the combined effects of low
temperature and long solids retention time. Environ Technol.
2006;27:467–475.
[9] Zhang FG, Liu JX, Sui J. Sludge concentration dynamic dis-
tribution and its impact on the performance of UNITANK. J
Environ Sci. (China) 2007;19:141–147.
[10] Li L, Lei M, Tao T, Chen Y. Study on anaerobic environ-
ment and optimization of UNITANK process. China Water
Wastewater. 2006;22:86–89 (in Chinese).
[11] Wang L, Miao H, Zhou Y. Commissioning and operation
of UNITANK process in Dali wastewater treatment plant.
China Water Wastewater. 2008;24:92–94 (in Chinese).
[12] Dong S, Wang X, Wang W, Xu Z, Yao C. Non-steady stage of
ortho-phosphate concentration in a Unitank process. Environ
Chem. 2007;26:1–4 (in Chinese).
[13] Zhang H, Huang W, Cheng L, Qiang X, Xu H, Jin J. Appli-
cation of modified UNITANK process in extension project
of Zhuji WWTP. China Water Wastewater. 2008;24:67–71
(in Chinese).
[14] Qiu Y, Li Y, Zhou S, Wu S, Du H, Li Y. Analysis of oper-
ation effect of UNITANK process. Environ Sci Technol.
2010;33:124–127 (in Chinese).
[15] Lei M, Li L, Su X, Li Y, Zhang Y. In-depth cognition on
conventional Unitank process. Environ Eng. 2006;24:35–36
(in Chinese).
[16] Chinese NEPA. Water and wastewater monitoring methods.
Beijing, China: Chinese Environmental Science Publishing
House; 2012.
[17] Lee JK, Choi CK, Lee KH, Yim SB. Mass balance of nitro-
gen, and estimates of COD, nitrogen and phosphorus used
in microbial synthesis as a function of sludge retention time
in a sequencing batch reactor system. Bioresourc Technol.
2008;99:7788–7796.
[18] Yagci N, Artan N, Cokgor EU, Randall CW, Orhon D.
Metabolic model for acetate uptake by a mixed culture
of phosphate and glycogen-accumulating organisms under
anaerobic conditions. Biotechnol Bioengin. 2003;84:359–
373.
[19] Panswad T, Doungchai A, Anotai J. Temperature effect on
microbial community of enhanced biological phosphorus
removal system. Water Res. 2003;37:409–415.
[20] Panswad T, Tongkhammak N, Anotai J. Estimation of intra-
cellular phosphorus content of phosphorus-accumulating
organisms at different P:COD feeding ratios. J Environ
Manag. 2007;84:141–145.
[21] Lee D, Kim M, Chung J. Relationship between solid reten-
tion time and phosphorus removal in anaerobic-intermittent
aeration process. J Biosci Bioengin. 2007;103:338–344.