This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ebbers CG Environmental Systems Sdn. Bhd. ABSTRACT Treatment processes evaluation of the wastewater treatment plants for two recycled paper mills in Malaysia are presented. The system comprised of primary solid removal; followed by a two-stage biological treatment system using trickling filter tower and extended aeration system. Performance data from the wastewater treatment plants showed that the two-stage biological system was able to resist shock-load well. It was also efficient in area usage and low in energy consumption. On average, the COD removal rate in the trickling filter tower was about 1.8 kg COD/ (day x m3) for both the mills. During high load, when the incoming COD was 25% higher than the average value, the COD removal rate in the trickling filter towers increased to 5.0 kg COD/ (day x m3) for one mill and to 2.3 kg COD/ (day x m3) for the other mill. In terms of amount COD removed per unit area, the trickling filter tower occupies a lesser area as compared to the extended aeration system. The COD removal rates per square meter per day for the two systems were: • Between 7.68 and 8.72 kg COD/(day x m2) for the trickling filter • Between 3.67 and 5.44 kg COD/(day x m2) for the extended aeration system The trickling filter tower consumed less energy as compared to that of the extended aeration system. The COD removal rates per kilowatt-hour for the two systems were: • Between 1.46 and 1.53 kg COD/kWh for the trickling filter • Between 0.87 and 1.21 kg COD/kWh for the aeration tank KEYWORDS Two-stage biological system, trickling filter, recycled paper mill.
INTRODUCTION Background Recycled paper mills produce a variety of products like printing paper. Various production techniques are used to produce these products. 2 . Within the same mill. Depending on the paper quality that is required.000 1. For example: . COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand) and TSS (Total Suspended Solids). Wastewater characteristics Variations in the production techniques between paper mills result in a deviation in the quantity and quality of the raw wastewater produced.Higher water consumption resulted in more diluted pollutant level in wastewater . These changes can be significant. Fine solids (fibers) are removed using a static arc screen at closer openings. newsprint and packaging paper. contaminant load level in the raw wastewater changes as well. Fibers collected in one of the two mills are recycled back to the factory for reuse.000 1. Wastewater flow and contaminants are equalized in an equalization tank that uses coarse bubble aeration for mixing.000 Treatment plant description The wastewater treatment processes for the two mills are the same and they are depicted in Figure 1.200 Mill 2 15 10.000 1. tissue paper.000 5. The treatment plant must be able to comply at all times. when production switches from one type of paper to another. strings) are removed using an automatic bar screen with set openings. Table 1 Selected raw wastewater parameters Parameter Water usage Flowrate COD BOD TSS Unit m3/ton m3/day mg/l mg/l mg/l Mill 1 40 15. This is reflected in size of treatment plant components as well as in the amount of chemicals and nutrients consumed in the two systems. especially during the high load period.000 3.500 4. Design criteria used in sizing of the treatment plant components are different for the two mills due to the variation in the contaminant loads of Figure 1 Treatment plant process flow the wastewater. Suspended solids are conditioned with coagulation/flocculation process and solid flocs are separated to produce clarified effluent using dissolved air flotation system.Better quality paper produced resulted in higher contaminant loads in the wastewater These variations explained the difference in the value of the parameters measured at the two mills (Table 1). chemical such as bleaching agent is used in the process. Raw pollutant discharges from the mills are measured in BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand). Primary Treatment Coarse solids (rags.
Tertiary Treatment Tertiary treatment is required at locations having stringent discharge limit (Standard A) or when there is high level of recalcitrant contaminants still present that can not be removed in the secondary treatment system. A multi media type filtration system (MMF) can be used as a final polishing step for the removal of remaining suspended solids from treated water. • Excellent activated sludge settling characteristic. • Low energy consumption of the trickling filter tower. which separates the biomass and produces clear treated water for final discharge (Figure 2). Mixed liquor from the aeration tanks is clarified in the secondary clarifiers. The extended aeration tank is an activated sludge system. Figure 2 Secondary Clarifiers Sludge Management Dewatering of the sludge from the wastewater treatment plants is done with both belt press and screw press type de-watering equipment. The first stage consists of a trickling filter tower. It utilizes the advantages of both systems (Tchobanoglous. The two-stage biological system is better then either stage on a stand alone basis. • Low area requirement of the trickling filter tower. The aerobic biomass uses dissolved oxygen to oxidize the organic pollutants in the wastewater. The second stage comprises of an extended aeration system.Secondary Treatment Dissolved contaminants are removed in the secondary treatment using a two-stage biological system. 2003): • Shock-load resistance of the trickling filter tower. Tertiary oxidation process is proven to work well for this type of wastewater. The first three advantages are evaluated and discussed in this paper. 3 . • Higher effluent quality yielded by the activated sludge system. The trickling filter tower is an attached growth biological system using cross-flow plastic media to support the growth of biomass slime.
Result for COD is known after about 3 hours. Similarly. plant that consumed less energy is a welcome benefit to all. area usage 3. 4 . Data used in the evaluation is collected between October 2003 and February 2005. This is due to these two reasons: 1. energy consumption Pollutant loads in raw wastewater changes according to the type of paper in production and it can be significant. In these two paper mills. Treatment plant has to withstand shock load so that it can operate satisfactory during period of high load. COD data are more complete and they are used to evaluate plant performance. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) are carried out on a regular basis with the BOD test conducted occasionally. Mill 2: Samples are taken twice daily from a fixed sampling point at all stages of the treatment plant. The evaluation of the wastewater treatment plant performance is based on these criteria: 1. Final treated water quality Figure 3 shows the COD value for the final effluent of the treatment plants for the two mills. In both paper mills. 2.MATERIALS AND METHODS The common parameters of measuring contaminant load are Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) of the wastewater. result for BOD is only known after 5 days. COD is much less labor intensive to conduct and it is also cheaper to do. It is not practical for a quick response in case of plant upsets. Land is always a scarcity and treatment system that is very efficient in area usage will be definitely an important factor to consider. shock loading 2. Data used in the evaluation is collected between April 2004 and April 2005. the COD test is done using Hach Reactor Digestion Method. Mill 1: Samples are taken once daily from a fixed sampling point at all stages of the treatment plant. This testing method is USEPA approved for wastewater analysis reporting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Final effluent results for the treatment plants are presented.
125 DOE Std.TF ) CODremoval rate = Vmedia (1) 5 . Table 2 Grouping of COD data Influent COD compared to average influent COD Below average 0-25 % above average > 25 % above average Mill 1 [days] 185 73 29 Mill 2 [days] 209 163 28 The COD removal rate was calculated with this equation: Q ⋅ (CODin. The assessment was made by grouping the data into three groups of increasing COD load with the average COD as the baseline comparison. Shock-load resistance The shock-load resistance of the trickling filter tower was evaluated for Mill 1 and Mill 2 during the period noted. B discharge limit Mill 1 Mill 2 100 Final discharge COD [mg/l] 75 50 25 0 1-Jul-04 8-Jul-04 Date 15-Jul-04 22-Jul-04 Figure 3 Final discharge COD for mills Final discharge COD constantly meets the regulatory discharge requirement.TF − CODout .
0 2.0 1. For Mill 1. 6. TF COD out. the trend on COD removal rates at the trickling filter tower is clear.0 3. Result of COD removal per unit volume of media is shown in Figure 4. 6 .0 COD removal rate [kg COD/ (day x m3)] 4.0 Below average Average 0-25 % above average >25 % above average TF Tower: Influent COD Figure 4 Effect of influent COD on COD removal rate at TF tower From the figure. It was capable of treating the wastewater to comply with the DOE standard. the treatment plant has withstood the shock load well. the COD removal rate at the towers increases. As the incoming COD into the Trickling Filter tower increases. As depicted in Figure 5. This showed that the Trickling Filter tower is handling the shock loading well with improved COD removal at higher incoming COD load. TF Vmedia = daily COD load removed per volume of media [kg COD/(day x m3)] = flowrate [m3/day] = COD of influent into the trickling filter tower [kg COD/ m3] = COD of effluent from the trickling filter tower [kg COD/ m3] = Volume of plastic cross-flow media in trickling filter tower [m3] Trickling filter media volume for Mill 1 and Mill 2 is 1521 and 2205 m3 respectively. there was a period of very high incoming COD load to the Trickling Filter.0 0.0 Mill 1 Mill 2 5.Where: COD removal rate Q COD in.
67 Mill 2 3922 450 8. AT Q COD out.TF − CODout .72 12174 2239 5.4000 DOE Std. Table 3 Area utilization Process Trickling Filter Aeration Tank Parameter COD removal Area Area utilization COD removal Area Area utilization Unit [kg COD/day] [m2] [kg COD/(day x m2)] [kg COD/day] [m2] [kg COD/(day x m2)] Mill 1 2689 350 7. AT = Q ⋅ (CODout.44 7 .TF = Q ⋅ (CODin. TF COD removed. B discharge limit Influent COD TF Effluent COD TF Final Discharge 3000 COD [mg/l] 2000 1000 0 1-Oct-04 Date 31-Oct-04 Figure 5 Period with shock-load to Mill 1 Area utilization & energy consumption Assessment on area utilization and energy consumption was made based on the COD reduction in trickling filter tower and extended aeration tank using the following equations: CODremoved . AT = daily COD load removed in the trickling filter tower [kg COD/day] = daily COD load removed in the aeration tank [kg COD/day] = flowrate [m3/day] = COD of effluent from the aeration tank [kg COD/ m3] Area requirement The area occupied by each biological system is presented in Table 3.68 10283 2800 3.TF − CODout . AT ) Where: COD removed.TF ) (2) & (3) CODremoved .
87 Mill 2 3922 2556 1.. Stensel. Table 4 Energy consumption Process Trickling Filter Aeration Tank Parameter COD removal Required energy Energy consumption COD removal Required energy Energy consumption Unit [kg COD/day] [kWh/day] [kg COD/kWh] [kg COD/day] [kWh/day] [kg COD/kWh] Mill 1 2689 1836 1. McGraw-Hill. Energy requirement Table 4 showed the amount of COD removed per KWh of energy consumed for both trickling filter tower and extended aeration tank.21 For Mill 1. G. occupied less area and consumed less energy. For mill 2. about twice the amount of COD was removed per unit area in trickling filter tower compared to extended aeration tank. The wastewater treatment systems for both mills were shown to resist shock loading well.For mill 1. about 60% more COD was removed per unit area in trickling filter tower compared to extended aeration tank. the trickling filter tower removed 26% more of the COD per KWh of energy consumed. New York. the trickling filter tower removed 67% more of the COD per KWh of energy consumed. REFERENCES Tchobanoglous. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse.46 10283 11760 0.53 12174 10020 1. CONCLUSION Wastewater treatment plants comprises of physical and chemical treatment. followed by a twostage biological system using trickling filter tower and extended aeration system for the two recycled paper mills are effective in treating the raw effluent from the mills for meeting regulatory compliance. 2003 8 . For Mill 2. and David H. Franklin L. Burton.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.