Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453

DOI 10.1007/s10661-017-6166-1

Sludge quantification at water treatment plant and its

management scenario
Tarique Ahmad & Kafeel Ahmad & Mehtab Alam

Received: 11 November 2016 / Accepted: 3 August 2017

# Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Abstract Large volume of sludge is generated at the the sustainable management scenario involving benefi-
water treatment plants during the purification of surface cial reuses of the sludge has also been presented.
water for potable supplies. Handling and disposal of
sludge require careful attention from civic bodies, plant Keywords Water treatment sludge . Quantification .
operators, and environmentalists. Quantification of the Sludge management . Reuse
sludge produced at the treatment plants is important to
develop suitable management strategies for its econom-
ical and environment friendly disposal. Present study
Introduction
deals with the quantification of sludge using empirical
relation between turbidity, suspended solids, and coag-
Water treatment sludge (WTS) is an inevitable waste
ulant dosing. Seasonal variation has significant effect on
produced at the potable water treatment plants (WTPs).
the raw water quality received at the water treatment
It is estimated that on a global scale daily production of
plants so forth sludge generation also varies. Yearly
WTS exceeds 10,000 ton and a typical WTP generates
production of the sludge in a water treatment plant at
about 100,000 ton of WTS yearly (Ahmad et al. 2016;
Ghaziabad, India, is estimated to be 29,700 ton. Sus-
Babatunde and Zhao 2007). Purification of surface wa-
tainable disposal of such a quantity of sludge is a chal-
ter for potable supplies typically involves the process of
lenging task under stringent environmental legislation.
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and
Several beneficial reuses of sludge in civil engineering
finally disinfection before feeding into distribution sys-
and constructional work have been identified globally
tem. Surface water, during the course of its flow, often
such as raw material in manufacturing cement, bricks,
caries impurities such as sand, silt, clay, humic particles,
and artificial aggregates, as cementitious material, and
and other contaminants due to surface runoff and efflu-
sand substitute in preparing concrete and mortar. About
ent discharge from urban, and industrial sources. Most
54 to 60% sand, 24 to 28% silt, and 16% clay constitute
of the water treatment plants operating worldwide use
the sludge generated at the water treatment plant under
chemical coagulants to enhance the solid–liquid separa-
investigation. Characteristics of the sludge are found
tion in their treatment scheme. Al salts (e.g.,
suitable for its potential utilization as locally available
Al2(SO4)3.18H2O, Poly-aluminum chloride) or Fe salts
construction material for safe disposal. An overview of
(e.g., FeCl3.6H2O, FeCl2, FeSO4.7H2O) are mainly
added as coagulant during the treatment process to
remove the colloidal and suspended impurities, and the
T. Ahmad (*) : K. Ahmad : M. Alam
Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New
process seems to remain an essential component of the
Delhi, India water treatment process and sustain for longer time.
e-mail: tariqueahmadamu@gmail.com Hence, the colloidal and suspended impurities such as
453 Page 2 of 10
sand, silt, clay, humic particles etc. along with the coag-
ulant products (mainly hydroxides of Al and Fe) re-
moved during the purification process constitute the
waste or residue generated at the WTPs. This waste or
residue is termed as Bsludge^ and more commonly
known as WTS, since produced during the preparation
of potable/drinking water at WTPs. However, WTS are
more specifically referred to by the type of coagulant
used: alum sludge if Al-based coagulant is used, and
ferric sludge if Fe-based coagulant is used.
The quantity and quality of the produced sludge typi-
cally depends on the quality of raw water, the applied
treatment method, and the quality of final water needed at
the users’ end. The quality of surface water received at the
WTPs sometime varies noticeably, and the seasonal vari-
ation in the surface water quality can be easily observed
especially in rainy season. Change in the raw water quality
and/or variation in the nature as well as dosage of the
coagulants used in the treatment processes results in no-
ticeable change in the quantity and quality of sludge pro-
duction (Ahmad et al. 2016). Therefore, WTS generated in
WTPs has varying concentrations of microorganisms, or-
ganic and suspended matter, coagulant products, and
chemical elements (Babatunde and Zhao 2007). Thus,
proper handling and management of resultant WTS is very
important and needs to be improved continuously. Cur-
rently, many developing countries discharge their WTS
directly into rivers, streams, or nearby drains, but these
disposal methods, although less expensive, adversely af-
fect the environment. It causes undesirable formation of
mud deposits and pollutes the water along the discharge
channel with the chemical products used during treatment
processes. Landfilling and land application of the WTS
after dewatering are other disposal alternatives, consider-
ing WTS as non-toxic material. However, difficulty in
finding landfillsites andrelated cost oflandfilling hasmade
such alternative no longer viable in many modern cities. In
India also, Central Pollution Control Board has reported
that most of the WTPs discharge their clarifier sludge and
filter reject into nearby drains, which ultimately meet the
water source on downstream side of the intake. Some of the
WTPs clean their clarifiers once in a year and dispose the
sludge on nearby open lands (CPCB report, 2011). Al-
though, reuse of sludge and filter backwash water are under
consideration in some of the WTPs in India, but it requires
proper quantitative and qualitative investigation of the
produced WTS on individual basis.
Utilization of WTS would provide safe and sustainable
solution to WTS management problem. Ahmad et al.
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
(2016); Babatunde and Zhao (2007) presented a review
of several alternatives identified globally for safe WTS
disposal including utilization of WTS as building and
construction material such as supplementary cementitious
material and sand substitute in preparing concrete and
mortar (Alqam et al. 2011; El-Didamony et al. 2014; Sales
and De Souza 2009; Zamora et al. 2008), in making brick
(Chiang et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2005, 2001) and ceramics
(Kizinievic et al. 2013; Teixeira et al. 2011), in manufactur-
ing cement (Chen et al. 2010; Pan et al. 2004; Yen et al.
2011) and artificial aggregates (Huang et al. 2001; Huang
and Wang 2013), for payment and Geotechnical works
(Carvalho and Antas 2005; Dayton and Basta 2001). How-
ever, various factors govern the selection of suitable reuse
option such as characteristics and available quantity of the
produced sludge, haulage distance, related economics etc.
Available quantity of WTS is an important factor; there-
fore, WTS generation in a WTP should be estimated be-
forehand. The paper presents the quantification of yearly
WTS production at the WTP and emphasizes the need for
sustainable sludge management. Simple, economical, and
sustainable management scenario has also been discussed
in this study.
Materials and methods
Conventionally, surface water treatment practice involves
the process of coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation/
clarification, filtration, and finally disinfection in a series
to remove colloidal and suspended impurities from the raw
water. The study has been carried out for a 120 MLD
(Million Liters per Day) capacity WTP at Ghaziabad,
India, where water from the river Ganges is treated and
supplied to nearby localities. Schematic diagram of the
WTP is shown in Fig. 1. The WTP has been monitored
for one complete year during the period of September 2015
to August 2016 covering entire seasonal changes. Raw
water samples are analyzed on daily basis by plant author-
ity, for various water quality parameters and coagulant
dose is fixed based on Jar test method. However, in this
study, monthly ten samples have been collected from the
inlet tank and analyzed for physical and chemical param-
eters. All the parameters have been analyzed as per the
procedure explained in the Standard Methods for the Ex-
amination of Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998). pH is
measured using digital pH meter whereas Nephlometer is
used to measure turbidity of the collected samples. TSS is
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453 Page 3 of 10 453

Fig. 1 Water treatment scheme at the WTP

measured through gravimetric method, and optimum co-
agulant dose is found using Jar test apparatus.
Poly-aluminum chloride (PACl) is used as a coagulant
in the WTP for removing suspended and colloidal particles
from the raw surface water. The chemical sludge settled in
the clariflocculator unit is withdrawn through the sludge
pipe and led to disposal. The clarified water from the
clariflocculator is passed through rapid sand filters to re-
move the residual ultrafine particles retained continuously
on the filter beds. Backwashing of the exhausted filter beds
is done to remove the solids retained on the filter media.
The clarifier sludge along with the solids present in the
backwash water constitutes the WTS generated in the
WTP. Sludge generation in the WTP is estimated by using
references found in technical literature (Cornwell and Roth
2010; Vianna et al. 2014). Four dewatered and air dried
sludge samples have also been collected during the mon-
itoring period. The collected sludge samples are crushed
and analyzed for physical parameters such as pH, moisture
content, organic content, fixed solids, and grain size
distribution. The pH of sludge samples is measured ac-
cording to Indian Standard Method of Test for Soils: De-
termination of pH Value (IS: 2720 (Part 26)–1987); mois-
ture content, organic content, and fixed solids are deter-
mined following the Standard Methods for the Examina-
tion of Water and Wastewater (APHA 1998). Grain size
distribution is found through sieve analysis and hydrome-
ter analysis according to Indian Standard Method of Test
for Soils: Grain Size Analysis. (IS: 2720 (Part 4)–1985).
Loss on ignition is measured by heating the samples at
1000 ± 5 °C in muffle furnace.
Results and discussion
Raw water quality
The WTP is receiving raw water from upper end of the river
Ganges through a canal originating from Haridwar. The
water is received in the inlet tank and passed through a

Fig. 2 Monthly variation in the 8.30

pH of raw water
8.25

8.20
pH

8.15

8.10

8.05

8.00
453 Page 4 of 10
channel, where coagulant dose is added and then enters the
rapid mixing tank for coagulation process. After coagula-
tion, the water is passed into clariflocculator for slow mixing
for flocculation and settling of the discrete and colloidal
particles. The overflowing clear water is distributed over
filterbedsforremovingthe ultrafineparticles.Chlorinedose
is added to the filtered water and stored in the overhead tank
for 30 min for disinfection and then finally supplied to the
consumers. The quality of raw water is almost stable, how-
ever, found significantly varying with the seasonal change.
Since raw water source is in Haridwar, i.e., north-west part
of India, the raw water quality has direct effect of seasonal
variation in that region. Monthly variation in the pH of raw
water is shown in Fig. 2. The pH value of raw water received
at the plant lies in the range of 8.05–8.27, and April month is
observed to have the lowest monthly mean pH value of
8.12 ± 0.040 whereas July has the maximum monthly mean
pH value of 8.23 ± 0.025. pH of the incoming water is
fluctuating slightly as the expected pH value of raw water
is about 8. Monthly variation in the turbidity and TSS level
of the water received at the plant is shown in Fig. 3 and Fig.
4, respectively. It can be inferred from Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 that
large variation in turbidity and TSS of the raw water is
because of seasonal change. Turbidity value during October
to April varies in between 60 NTU to 10 NTU; however,
turbidity and TSS level starts increasing at the end of May
due to monsoon showers. Therefore, raw water received
during post-monsoon (October–December), winter (Janu-
ary–February), and pre-monsoon period (March–May) can
be considered as low turbid surface water. Monsoon hitting
the north-western part of India in the month of June and
Fig. 3 Monthly variation in the
turbidity of raw water
Turbidity (NTU)
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
causing very heavy rainfall in the month of July results in
surface runoffs and flooding in the river Ganges. Turbidity
and TSS level of the incoming raw water at the WTP are
found to be quite high during monsoon period (June–Sep-
tember). Average turbidity value of 12.57 ± 1.10 NTU is
found to be the lowest in the month of April whereas the
highest turbidity level of 899.9 ± 154.13 NTU is observed in
the month of July. Turbidity of raw water frequently crosses
the1000NTU markinthemonthofJulyandthereafterstarts
decreasing. Similarly, average monthly TSS level is also
observed to be the lowest as 85 ± 7 mg/L in April and the
highest as 2945 ± 634 mg/L in July. The river carries heavy
load of sediments, sand, silt, clay, plant fibers, and other
impurities from runoffs during rainy season, which imparts
higher turbidity and TSS concentration to the raw water
received at the WTP. However, after the monsoon period,
i.e., after September, water level of the river also starts
receding and quality of raw water received at the WTP
also starts improving. Turbidity and TSS correlation are
presented in Fig. 5. Coefficient of turbidity is found to be
3.21 in the present case; however, Cornwell and Roth
(2010) reported that the value of coefficient varies between
0.7 to 2.2 for the WTP practicing predominantly turbidity
removal. The coefficient is found to be high because of the
presence of discrete particles of variable size, which con-
tribute more towards TSS level rather imparting higher
turbidity. Monthly variation in the optimum PACl dose
required to remove the turbidity is shown in Fig. 6. The
PACl dose has similar trend in that of turbidity and TSS but
does not vary in the same ratio as the unstable and discrete
particles may not require higher coagulant dose.
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
Fig. 4 Monthly TSS variation of 4000
raw water
3500
3000
TSS (mg/L)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Total sludge estimation
Estimation of WTS generation rate is difficult as there is
no concrete method to predict spike in turbidity levels
and optimum coagulant dose required to treat them.
However, considering the coagulant reactions during
coagulation process and empirical relation to account
for WTS contribution from turbidity removal, sludge
production can be closely estimated (Cornwell and
Roth 2010). The following empirical formula has been
used to estimate the total yearly sludge production at the
WTP where suspended solids are removed using PACl
as coagulant (Cornwell and Roth 2010):
S ¼ Qð0:8Al þ TSS þ A Þ ð1Þ
where S = sludge produced (kg/day)
Q = Plant Inflow (MLD)
Al = PACl dose as 10.3% Al2O3(mg/L)
TSS = Total Suspended Solids present in the raw
water (mg/L)
A = Additional chemicals used such as polymer, clay
or activated carbon
WTPs where suspended solids are not measured
routinely, a logical correlation between turbidity and
TSS unit should be developed and used in place of
TSS in Eq.1:
TSS ðmg=LÞ ¼ b  Turbidty ðNTU Þ ð2Þ
As discussed in the above section, the value of b
(turbidity coefficient) ranges between 0.7–2.2 and may
vary seasonally for the incoming raw water at the same
WTP. Vianna et al. (2014) verified the above empirical
Page 5 of 10 453
relations by calculating the sludge produced at two
different WTP in Minas Gerais, Brazil. These WTPs
were conventional type, and alum was used as coagulant
to treat the surface water. The author found that the
empirical formula is adequate to estimate the sludge
production at WTPs practicing only coagulation-
flocculation process. Kawamura (1991) also gave simi-
lar empirical formula (Eq.1) for calculating WTS, how-
ever, suggested that TSS (mg/L) and turbidity (NTU)
ratio in Eq.2 ranges from 1 to 2. Monthly correlation
between TSS and turbidity suitably works for the calcu-
lation of sludge production. In the present study, TSS v/s
turbidity ratio is observed to be 3.21 (Fig. 5), and the
monthly TSS v/s turbidity ratio for different months is
also found around this value. As discussed above,
higher value in the present case could be attributed to
the presence of discrete particles in the raw water
10000
y = 3.21x
R² = 0.9907
1000
TSS (mg/L)
100
10
1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Turbidity (NTU)
Fig. 5 Turbidity v/s TSS correlation
453 Page 6 of 10
Fig. 6 Monthly variation in the
coagulant dose
Dose (mg/L)
received at the WTP, which contributes more towards
TSS level rather imparting higher turbidity. However,
TSS level is also measured along with the turbidity
during the monitoring period for better estimation of
WTS production. Monthly variation in the production
of WTS during the monitoring period is shown in Fig. 7.
Comparison between the WTS calculated using month-
ly mean TSS value and TSS v/s turbidity correlation is
also presented in the Fig. 7. WTS production is found to
be significant during monsoon period with maximum
quantity of 10,635 ton in the month of July. Highly
turbid raw water received at the WTP during the month
of June to September resulted in the production of such a
quantity of WTS. Total yearly production of WTS is
calculated to be 29,700 ton using TSS value measured
during the monitoring period. However, using TSS v/s
turbidity correlation, total sludge is estimated to be
28,100 ton with the difference of only about 5%. Hence,
using TSS v/s turbidity correlation could also be used to
Fig. 7 Monthly variation in the
WTS production
Sludge (tonne)
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
estimate the yearly sludge production at the WTP. The
WTP produces a significant quantity of WTS in a year,
therefore, requires proper sludge management strategy
for economical and safe disposal of the produced WTS.
WTS characteristics
Physical characteristics of the WTS samples collected
during different seasons of the year (winter, pre-mon-
soon, monsoon, and post-monsoon) are presented in
Table 1, and particle size distribution of the WTS is
shown in Fig. 8. pH of the WTS ranges from 6.82 to
7.90 whereas moisture content varies from 2.30 to
10.65% depending on the dryness of the samples. Vol-
atile matter mainly due to organic matter present in the
WTS ranges from 2.62 to 13.5. Plant fibers and leaf
debris are clearly visible while sieving constitutes the
organic matter contained in the WTS. However, major
portion of the WTS is inorganic in nature unlike the
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
Sludge (using TSS value) Sludge (using Turbidity v/s TSS correlation)
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
Table 1 Characteristics of the sludge produced at the WTP
pH 6.82–7.90
Moisturea (%)
Volatile matterb (%)
Fixed solids (%) 74.54–89.86
Loss on Ignitionc (%)
a The WTP at Ghaziabad, India, generates an estimated
Heated at 105 ± 5 °C for 24 h
b quantity of about 29,700 ton WTS yearly. Disposing such a
Combusted at 550 ± 5 °C for 2 h
c
Fired at 1000 ± 5 °C for 2 h
sewage sludge which is treated as organic sludge. Inor-
ganic nature of the WTS can further be inferred from
higher fixed solids value ranging from 74.54 to 89. 86%.
Particle size distribution curve (Fig. 8) of WTS collected
in November 2015 (S1), January 2016 (S2), April 2016
(S3), and July 2016 (S4) includes seasonal variation in
India. However, all the WTS samples are found to have
similar composition as the sand particle ranges from 54
to 60%, silt ranges from 24 to 28%, and clay is about
16%. Hence, the WTS produced at the WTP in this
study can be classified as silty sand as per the unified
soil classification system. Based on physical properties,
WTS can be beneficially utilized as civil engineering
materials and in geotechnical works (Ahmad et al. 2016;
Babatunde and Zhao 2007).
WTS management scenario
Proper handling and disposal of the inevitable WTS pro-
duced at the WTP remains a challenging task for plant
managers. In fact, sustainable management of voluminous
Fig. 8 Particle size distribution
of the WTS
Percentage passing
Page 7 of 10 453
WTS in economically and environmentally acceptable
manner has become an important issue for the environ-
mental scientists and engineers. Constructive utilization of
2.30–10.65 WTS can pave the way of sustainable disposal under strict
2.62–13.58 environmental legislations. Utilization of WTS for benefi-
cial reuses has been investigated globally and reported in
7.48–11.72 several research articles and reports.
quantity of WTS simply by discharging into nearby hydric
source or landfilling after dewatering is not a sustainable
disposal option. Therefore, WTP needs a suitable WTS
management strategy for disposing its inevitable waste in
an eco-friendly manner which is economical at the same
time. WTS produced at the WTP under study can be poten-
tially utilized in construction industry which could be a
useful and sustainable disposal option. Ahmad et al.
(2016), Babatunde and Zhao (2007) reported several reuse
options for safe disposal and valorization of WTS into
useful material in their review. Constructive utilization of
WTS in civil engineering and constructional work would
pave the way for sustainable sludge disposal. Several stud-
ies have reported that WTS could be potentially utilized or
reused as raw material in manufacturing cement, bricks,
ceramics, and artificial aggregates; as cementitious material
and sand substitute in preparing concrete and mortar; in
pavement and geotechnical works (Tantawy 2015).
Recently, in various studies, cement or sand is
substituted with WTS in various proportions for prepar-
ing concrete and mortar mix. Zamora et al. (2008)
utilized WTS generated at the Los Berros drinking water
plant as supplementary cementitious material and sand
for producing cement mortar and concrete. They ob-
served that the compressive strength of the specimens
100
90
80
70 S1
60 S2
50 S3
40 S4
30
20
10
0
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Particle size (mm)
453 Page 8 of 10
prepared from sludge-cement ratio of 90:10 and sludge-
lime-cement ratio of 90:5:5 is higher than those of
equivalent mortar prepared using the Mexican comple-
mentary technical criteria to design and build masonry
(i.e.,125 kg/cm2). Sales and De Souza (2009) reported
the feasibility of partial substitution of natural fine ag-
gregate with WTS in many construction applications.
Replacement of sand up to 4% by WTS in medium
strength structural concrete prepared with natural coarse
aggregates increased the axial compressive strength.
Kaosol (2010) partially substituted the fine aggregate
with WTS in the concrete mix up to 50% for making
hollow concrete blocks. The author found that all the
test blocks passed the Thai Industrial Standards (TIS
109) for hollow non-load bearing concrete block where-
as test blocks containing up to 20% WTS were found
suitable for hollow load bearing concrete block. Haider
et al. (2013) partially replaced the cement with WTS in
high-performance concrete and reported that 6% re-
placement has improved the compressive strength and
tensile strength when compared with control mix. In a
similar study, El-Didamony et al. (2014) partially
substituted OPC with granulated blast furnace slag and
fired WTS. They found that up to 5% replacement by
weight, the compressive strength increases, as the fired
WTS acted as nucleating agent to give higher strength
with curing time. Alqam et al. (2011) replaced cement
with WTS in the range of 10–50% in the production of
paving tiles and found that all the produced tiles met the
desired compressive strength of 2.8 MPa.
Huang et al. (2001) mixed WTS with dam sediment
to produce bricks and reported that at firing temperature
of 1050–1100 °C and below 20% mixing of WTS, the
produced bricks met the criteria of first and second class
bricks. In a similar study, Huang et al. (2005) mixed 15–
30% WTS with excavation waste soil and produced
construction bricks. They found that WTS up to 15%
can be utilized to produce first degree brick at the
temperature commonly attained in the brick kiln.
Chiang et al. (2009) manufactured lightweight bricks
using WTS and rice husk and observed that at firing
temperature of 1100 °C and rice husk less than 15%, the
compressive strength of lightweight bricks complies
with Taiwan traditional building brick standards.
Hegazy et al. (2012) used WTS, rice husk ash, and silica
fumes in different proportion by weight to produce
bricks. They concluded that at the temperature common-
ly attained in brick kiln, the produced brick with WTS-
silica fumes-rice husk ash ratio of 50%:25%:25% had
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
superior quality when compared to clay control bricks
and to those available in the Egyptian market. Teixeira
et al. (2011) found that WTS up to 10% could be used to
prepare solid bricks at firing temperature below 1000 °C
and above this temperature, up to 20% WTS can incor-
porated into brick and roof tiles. Ceramics produced
with 5% WTS incorporation improved the compressive
strength by 16%, and significant improvement in other
mechanical as well as physical properties of the ceramic
body was also observed (Kizinievic et al. 2013).
Chen et al. (2010) substituted the siliceous raw ma-
terial, shale with WTS in the production of cement and
reported that up to 5.5%, WTS increases the compres-
sive strength at all ages. Similarly, Yen et al. (2011)
substituted the conventional raw material with different
waste material to produce eco-cement. They observed
that the eco-cement produced with 39.4% limestone,
39.4% marble sludge, 10% WTS, 1.8% basic oxygen
furnace sludge, and 9.5% sand had given higher com-
pressive strength at 28 days when compared with con-
trol paste prepared from conventional raw material.
Recently, Geraldo et al. (2017) prepared a geopolymer
using non-calcined WTS as partial replacement of
metakaolin in the proportions of 0, 15, 30, and 60%,
and sodium silicate solution from rice husk ash. The
geopolymer prepared with 15% WTS as metakaolin
replacement had compressive strength of 25 MPa at
28 days, which could be used to make concrete or
building components.
Huang et al. (2001) produced lightweight aggregates
(LWA) from WTS by sintering at high temperature and
prepared the concrete specimens in the ratio of 2:1:1
(natural sand: LWA: cement). The specimen prepared
from LWA manufactured at the sintering temperature of
1100 °C met the standard for constructional concrete.
Huang and Wang (2013) investigated the WTS from ten
WTPs of Taiwan for their feasibility in manufacturing
LWA for both structural and non-structural use. WTS
from half of the WTPs were found suitable for
manufacturing both structural and non-structural LWA.
WTS from the Hsing-Zu plant was used to produce
LWA, using a commercial rotary kiln for large-scale
production, and the structural as well as non-structural
LWA were successfully produced meeting the require-
ments of ASTM C330.
Earlier studies have also showed the utilization of
WTS in geotechnical works such as sub-base material or
filler material in road construction, as soil barrier and
landfill cover (Carvalho and Antas 2005; Dayton and
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
Basta 2001). Several other reuse options have also been
investigated globally for constructive utilization and
safe disposal of WTS. However, depending on the na-
ture of WTS, there is a need to explore the cost-effective
disposal alternatives.
Conclusions
WTS generation is the inherent part of the water treat-
ment process, and a significant quantity is produced
during the treatment of surface water. Sustainable man-
agement of these wastes or residues requires serious
attention. Qualitative and quantitative study of the pro-
duced sludge beforehand at any WTP is necessary to
outline suitable sludge management strategies. Quality
and quantity of produced WTS depends on the quality
of raw water received at the WTP which in turn depends
upon the source. Seasonal variation has greater impact
on the quality of surface water which is the main source
of raw water at WTPs.
Empirical formula given by Cornwell and Roth
(2010) works well in the quantification WTS at WTPs
involving coagulation-flocculation process. Yearly pro-
duction of WTS in the WTP at Ghaziabad, India, is
estimated to be 29,700 ton. The WTS contains about
54–60% sand, 24–28% silt, and 16% clay thus, classi-
fied as silty sand. The produced WTS could be utilized
as local construction material; however, optimum utili-
zation percentage and other relevant factors should be
investigated for safe and successful application. Other
viable options could also be investigated for exploring
beneficial reuse options as it became paramount for
sustainable WTS management.
References
Ahmad, T., Ahmad, K., & Alam, M. (2016). Sustainable manage-
ment of water treatment sludge through 3BR^ concept.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 1–13.
Alqam, M., Jamrah, A., & Daghlas, H. (2011). Utilization of
cement incorporated with water treatment sludge. Jordan
Journal of Civil Engineering., 5(2), 268–277.
American Public Health Association (APHA). (1998). Standard
methods for the examination of water and wastewater (twentieth
ed.). Washington, DC: American Public Health Association.
Babatunde, A. O., & Zhao, Y. Q. (2007). Constructive approaches
towards water treatment works sludge management: review
of beneficial reuses. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology, 37, 129–164.
Page 9 of 10 453
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1985). Method of test for soils:
Grain size analyses. IS: 2720 (Part 4)-1985, New Delhi.
Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1987). Method of test for soils:
Determination of pH value. IS: 2720 (Part 26) – 1987, New Delhi.
Carvalho, M., Antas, A., (2005). Drinking water sludge as a
resource. In: Proceedings of IWA Specialised Conference
on Management of Residues Emanating from Water and
Wastewater Treatment, Johannesburg.
Chen, H., Mab, X., & Dai, H. (2010). Reuse of water purification
sludge as raw material in cement production. Cement and
Concrete Composites, 32, 436–439.
Chiang, K.-Y., Chou, P.-H., Hua, C.-R., Chien, K.-L., &
Cheeseman, C. (2009). Lightweight bricks manufactured
from water treatment sludge and rice husks. Journal of
Hazardous Materials, 171, 76–82.
Cornwell, D.A, Roth, D.K., (2010). Water treatment plant resid-
uals management. In: Edzwald J(ed) Water Quality and
Treatment A Handbook on Drinking Water. Am. Wat.
Works Assooc. McGraw Hill. 22.1–22.80.
Dayton, E. A., & Basta, N. T. (2001). Characterization of drinking
water treatment residuals for use as a soil substitute. Water
Environment Research, 73(1), 52–57.
El-Didamony,H.,Khalil,K.A.,&Heikal,M.(2014).Physico-chemical
and surface characteristics of some granulated slag-fired drinking
water sludge composite cement pastes. HBRC J., 10, 73–81.
Geraldo, R. H., Fernandes, L. F. R., & Camarini, G. (2017). Water
treatment sludge and rice husk ash to sustainable geopolymer
production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 146–155.
Haider, M. O., Roszilah, H., & Mohd, R. T. (2013). Physical and
mechanical properties of high performance concrete with
alum sludge as partial cement replacement. Jurnal
Teknologi, 65(2), 105–112.
Hegazy, B. E., Fouad, H. A., & Hassanain, A. M. (2012).
Incorporation of water sludge, silica fume, and rice husk
ash in brick making. Advances in Environmental Research,
1(1), 83–96.
Huang, C., Pan, J. R., & Liu, Y. (2005). Mixing water treatment
residual with excavation waste soil in brick and artificial
aggregate making. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
131, 272–277.
Huang, C., Pan, J. R., Sun, K. D., & Liaw, C. T. (2001). Reuse of
water treatment plant sludge and dam sediment in brick
making. Water Science and Technology, 44(10), 273–277.
Huang, C.-H., & Wang, S.-Y. (2013). Application of water treat-
ment sludge in the manufacturing of lightweight aggregate.
Construction and Building Materials, 43, 174–183.
Kaosol, T. (2010). Reuse water treatment sludge for hollow con-
crete block manufacture. Energy Res. J., 1(2), 131–134.
Kawamura, S. (1991). Integrated Design of Water Treatment
Facilities. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc..
Kizinievic, O., Zurauskiene, R., Kizinievic, V., & Zurauskas, R.
(2013). Utilisation of sludge waste from water treatment for
ceramic products. Construction and Building Materials, 41,
464–473.
Pan, J.R., Huang, C., Lin, S., (2004) Reuse of fresh water sludge in
cement making. Water Science and Technology, 50(9), 183–
188.
Sales, A., & De Souza, F. R. (2009). Concretes and mortars
recycled with water treatment sludge and construction and
demolition rubble. Construction and Building Materials, 23,
2362–2370.
453 Page 10 of 10
Tantawy, M. A. (2015). Characterization and pozzolanic proper-
ties of calcined alum sludge. Materials Research Bulletin, 61,
415–421.
Teixeira, S. R., Santos, G. T. A., Souza, A. E., Alessio, P., Souza,
S. A., & Souza, N. R. (2011). The effect of incorporation of a
Brazilian WTPs sludge on the properties of ceramic mate-
rials. Applied Clay Science, 53, 561–565.
Vianna, M. R., Ferreira, B. O., & Filho, J. C. M. (2014).
Quantification of solids production in potable water treatment
Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:453
plants in Minas Gerais, Brazil: study of two cases. Int. J.
Emerg. Tech. Adv. Eng., 4(9), 6–12.
Yen, C.-L., Tseng, D.-H., & Lin, T.-T. (2011). Characterization of
eco-cement paste produced from waste sludges.
Chemosphere, 84, 220–226.
Zamora, R. M. R., Alfaro, O. C., Cabirol, N., Ayala, F. E., &
Moreno, A. D. (2008). Valorization of drinking water treat-
ment sludges as raw materials to produce concrete and mor-
tar. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 4(3), 223–
228.