See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259385286

Treatment of domestic wastewater using conventional and baffled septic tanks

Article in Environmental Technology · August 2013

DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2013.767285 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
46 4,134

2 authors:

Fayza A. Nasr Basem Mikhaeil Haroun

National Research Center, Egypt Western University
58 PUBLICATIONS 1,057 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 199 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bioenergy from lignocellulosic wastes View project

capacity building for wastewater treatment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Basem Mikhaeil Haroun on 03 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Ontario]
On: 25 August 2015, At: 08:56
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,
London, SW1P 1WG

Environmental Technology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

Treatment of domestic wastewater using conventional

and baffled septic tanks
a a
Fayza Aly Nasr & Basem Mikhaeil
a
Water Pollution Research Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
Accepted author version posted online: 17 Jan 2013.Published online: 26 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: Fayza Aly Nasr & Basem Mikhaeil (2013) Treatment of domestic wastewater using conventional and
baffled septic tanks, Environmental Technology, 34:16, 2337-2343, DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2013.767285

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.767285

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Environmental Technology, 2013
Vol. 34, No. 16, 2337–2343, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2013.767285

Treatment of domestic wastewater using conventional and baffled septic tanks

Fayza Aly Nasr and Basem Mikhaeil∗
Water Pollution Research Department, National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt
(Received 5 January 2012; final version received 13 January 2013 )

The main theme of the study was a comparative study of domestic wastewater treatment using conventional and baffled septic
tanks. The septic tanks were fed continuously with domestic wastewater at three different hydraulic retention times (HRTs).
The HRTs chosen were 24, 48 and 72 h with corresponding organic loads of 0.321, 0.436 and 0.885 kg chemical oxygen
demand (COD) per m3 per day, respectively. The performance of the septic tanks at the three HRTs gave satisfactory results.
For the conventional septic tank, COD removal was 53.4%, 56% and 65.3%, at an HRT of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively,
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015

with residual COD of 412, 380 and 334 mg/l, respectively. At HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h, the following percentages removals
were realized for: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), 68.4%, 57, 53.5%; total suspended solid (TSS), 65.3%, 58.3, 55%;
phosphorus, 29.3%, 26.9, 25.6%; total Kjeldahl nitrogen 26.8%, 20.8, 17.7%, respectively. On the contrary, ammonia con-
centrations increased by 7.1%, 5.2 and 4.2% under the same conditions. Consequently, the results showed that the removal
of fecal coliform at all HRTs was less than one log. The two baffled septic tanks exhibited superior results at HRTs of
72, 48 and 24 h. Comparing the treated domestic wastewater quality produced by the two types of septic tanks in terms of
physico-chemical and biological characteristics, better results were obtained using the two baffles type.
Keywords: domestic; wastewater; treatment; conventional; baffled; septic; de-sludging.

1. Introduction Septic tanks are used in nearly all onsite systems

Its considerable advantages mean that the simple septic
tank system is the most commonly known primary treat-
ment method for onsite wastewater treatment. Septic tanks
remove most settleable solids and function as an anaerobic
bioreactor that promotes partial digestion of organic matter.
The main cause of their failure is the unsuitability of the soil
and the site characteristics [1]. The system is inexpensive,
and simple to operate and maintain, although sludge may
cause an odour problem if left untreated for a long time [2].
Conventional onsite wastewater treatment systems are not
effective in removing nitrate and phosphorus compounds
and in reducing pathogenic organisms [3,4].
Septic tanks may be used alone or in combination
with other processes to treat raw wastewater before it is
discharged to a subsurface infiltration system. The tank pro-
vides primary treatment by creating quiescent conditions
inside a covered, watertight rectangular, oval or cylin-
drical vessel, which is typically buried. In addition to
primary treatment, the septic tank can reduce the sludge
and scum volumes by as much as 40%. It also conditions
the wastewater by hydrolysing organic molecules for sub-
sequent treatment in the soil or by other unit processes. The
outlet connections (e.g. a sanitary ‘tee’ fitting) retain the
sludge and scum layers in the tank and draw effluent only
from the clarified zone between the sludge and scum layers.
regardless of the daily wastewater flow rate or strength.
The tanks provide suspended solids removal, solids stor-
age and digestion [5]. Three zones are present in a septic
tank: a scum layer which forms a crust on the surface of the
tank liquor; the wastewater from which solids deposit; and
a bottom sludge layer of deposited material. The organic
matter in the tank may undergo anaerobic digestion. The
degree of digestion depends on the tank size, frequency of
cleaning and temperature. The capacity of the tank required
is governed by the number of people it serves and de-
sludging interval. Although a fraction of particulate solids
are removed by flotation and sedimentation, nearly all enter-
ing dissolved organics pass through the septic tank without
any significant treatment [6]. Moreover, these systems have
several technical and constructional weaknesses [7]. Thus,
septic tank effluent needs further processing in a post-
treatment system to meet environmental standards, which
increase the cost and complexity of the system.
The conventional septic tank removes chemical oxy-
gen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
total suspended solids (TSS), total Kjeldhal nitrogen (TKN)
and helminth eggs to a certain extent [8]. By integrating
in-tank baffles, a better contact can be achieved between
the wastewater and the active biomass (sludge), leading
to increased treatment efficiencies [9]. Many anaerobic

∗ Corresponding author. Email: Basem_MF_82@yahoo.com

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

 2338 F.A. Nasr and B. Mikhaeil

modified septic tank systems have been used and tested

in different countries [10].
Baffled septic tanks are suitable for all kinds of wastew-
ater, but preferably for those with a high percentage of non-
settleable suspended solids and low COD/BOD ratio. They
are ideal for decentralized wastewater treatment because
they are simple to build and operate. Hydraulic and organic
shock loads have little effect on treatment efficiency. A baf-
fled septic tank consists of several chambers in series. This
lets upflow equalized wastewater contact, pass through and
be treated by the formed bacteria-rich sludge layer in the
bottom of each chamber [11]. In the baffled reactor, the
baffles force the incoming wastewater to flow under and
over the baffles from the inlet to the outlet of the tank. Figure 1. Schematic diagram of conventional septic tank.
This improves the contact between anaerobic accumulated
sludge and entering wastewater which, in turn, improves
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015

the removal of suspended solids due to enmeshment of
dissolved anaerobically biodegradable organics [12,13].
There are still important gaps of in our knowledge such
as the optimal number of baffles, the optimal hydraulic
retention time (HRT) and the potential benefit of an anaer-
obic filter as polishing stage [14]. Baffled treatment units
have shown significantly higher removal efficiencies than
the conventional septic tank in terms of total solids (TS),
TSS, COD and BOD [15]. Compared with other treatment
technologies, an anaerobic modified septic tank occupies a
smaller land area, does not need skilled labour to operate it,
has much lower operational and maintenance requirements,
involves less construction cost, generates much less sludge
and releases methane gas, which can be considered a good
source of energy if properly recovered [16].
The main objectives of this study were to compare the
treatment performance of a conventional septic tank with
the baffled type and to try to define the optimal operating
conditions.
2. Materials and methods
To accomplish the study’s objectives, laboratory-scale mod-
els of a conventional and a two-baffle septic tank were
designed and manufactured. Each type tank was made of
Perspex material with approximately the same volume of
95 L and dimensions of 64 cm long, 38 cm wide and 39 cm
deep. They had ‘T’ shaped inlet and outlet pipes. Each
compartment of the septic tanks had several ports for sludge
sampling and other ports on both sides near the top of the
tank for the influent feed and effluent discharge (Figure 1).
The tanks were covered with 0.6 cm thick polyvinylchloride
(PVC).
The treatment systems were operated outdoors at ambi-
ent climatic conditions in the experimental area of the Water
Pollution Research Department at the National Research
Centre in Cairo. The systems were fed continuously with
domestic wastewater via connection to a neighbouring
building. At first no sludge was added to accelerate the
growth of the sludge in the models. Dosing pumps were
used to feed the septic tanks. The septic tanks were oper-
ated at different HRTs and hence different organic loading
rates (OLR) in order to arrive at the optimum operating
conditions (Table 1).
The two-baffle septic tank has the same capacity and a
similar design to the conventional one, having two baffle
plates installed which divide the tank into three equal com-
partments in order to achieve for more contact time between
domestic wastewater and sludge (Figure 2).
2.1. Sampling and analytical methods
Twenty-four hour composite samples from the treated efflu-
ent at the outlet point of the septic tanks and the raw
wastewater were collected and analysed on weekly basis.

Table 1. Operating conditions of the septic tanks.

Operating conditions

HRT (h) 72 48 24
Flow rate Q (L/d) 31.7 47.5 95
HLR (m3 /m3 /day) 0.33 0.5 1
OLR (kg COD/m3 /day) (0.248–0.393) (0.321)* (0.321–0.535) (0.436)* (0.708–1.050) (0.885)*
OLR (kg BOD/m3 /day) (0.114–0.187) (0.150)* (0.145–0.240) (0.193)* (0.320–0.445) (0.387)*
Duration period per day 210 210 210

Note: HLR, hydraulic loading rate.

∗ Average loading rate.
 Environmental Technology 2339

respectively (Table 2). This corresponds to high strength

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of two-baffle septic tank.
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015
wastewater according to the classification of Metcalf and
Eddy [3]. The ratio of COD: BOD for domestic wastewater
was around 2.3:1; this provides a good indication that the
wastewater can be treated biologically. These values are in
agreement with Nasr et al. [18] who stated that, for domestic
sewage which is known to be readily biodegradable and can
be treated successfully worldwide using a variety of biolog-
ical treatment methods, the COD/BOD ratio varies from 1.5
to 2. With regard to the nutrient requirements of the wastew-
ater micro-organisms, the average BOD/TKN/TP ratio was
100:16:1. Fecal coliform concentrations recorded an aver-
age value of 2.7 × 109 . These values are in agreement with
results obtained Nasr et al. [18], but are higher than the
results reported by El-Hamouri et al. [19]. The higher value
may be attributed to the lower rate of water discharge.

The measurements covered pH, temperature, total BOD,

total chemical oxygen demand (COD), TSS, TS, alkalin-
ity, ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4 -N)+ , TKN, total phospho-
rus (TP) and fecal coliforms. Periodic measurements of
the sludge on a monthly basis covered sludge volume,
sludge weight, volatile suspended solids (VSS) and the
quantity of accumulated sludge in grams per day during
the study period. The analysis was carried out accord-
ing to the standard method for examination of water and
wastewater [17].
Raw wastewater and treated effluent from the two sep-
tic tanks were subjected to microbiological investigation
using fecal coliforms as an indicator of fecal pollution.
Raw wastewater and treated effluent samples were col-
lected in sterile test tubes, covered and sent to the laboratory
within minutes. The fecal coliforms were calculated using
the multi-tube technique [17].
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Raw wastewater characteristics
The characteristics of the domestic wastewater investigated
in this study in terms of COD, BOD, TSS, TKN, NH4 -
N+ and TP were 960, 450, 295, 71, 26.2 and 4.4 mg/l,
3.2. Performance of the conventional septic tank
The performance of the conventional septic tank in this
study was investigated using three organic loading rates,
ranging between 0.321 and 0.885 kg COD/m3 /day. The
results of monitoring the performance of the conventional
septic tank at HRT of 24, 48 and 72 h (Table 3) indicated
a higher efficiency of 65.3% for COD removal at 72 h
descending to 53.4% at 24 h. Corresponding residual COD
increased proportionally with the decrease in HRT. Simi-
lar results were observed with BOD, which scored 68.4%
removal at 72 h HRT and 53.5% at 24 h. TSS percentage
removals were 65.3, 58.3 and 55% at HRTs of 72, 48 and
24 h, respectively. These results agree with those obtained
by Panswad and Komolmethee [10], who used a full-scale
conventional septic tank/anaerobic filter unit with a reten-
tion time varying from 22.5 to 90 h and achieved percentage
removals of 52.1%, 56% and 53.6% for COD, BOD and
TSS at an average retention time of 22.5 h.
The results of the present study are also in line with
those obtained by Nguyen et al. [14], who obtained average
removal efficiencies from 48 to 65% and 44 to 69% in terms
of COD and TSS, respectively, depending on the HRT in

Table 2. Characteristics of raw wastewater investigated in this study.

Domestic wastewater
Parameters Units Minimum Maximum Average

Temperature ◦C 16 32 27.2
pH 5.54 7.68 6.6
Total COD mg O2 /l 743 1180 960
Total BOD mg O2 /l 341 560 450
TSS mg/l 200 412 295
TS mg/l 635 1150 842
Total phosphorus mg P/l 3.2 6.6 4.44
TKN mg N/l 48 100 71
Ammonia mg N/l 20.12 31.92 26.2
Alkalinity mg/l 200 340 250
Fecal coliforms MPN/100ml 9.30E+07 5.20E+09 2.7E+09
 2340 F.A. Nasr and B. Mikhaeil

Table 3. Average characteristics of the conventional septic tank effluent and percentage removal.

72 h HRT 48 h HRT 24 h HRT

Parameters Units Average Study R% Average Study R% Average Study R%

pH 7.3 0.23 7.4 0.34 7.5 0.35

Temp ◦C 27.5 4.31 24 1.92 27.3 0.94
Alkalinity mg/l 280 20.1 −12 272 10.7 −10 240 10.8 −4
TSS mg/l 103 16.1 65.3 115 13.7 58.3 123 12.9 55
TS mg/l 522 44.6 38 685 43.9 27 690 46.3 24.6
COD Mg O2 /l 334 33.3 65.3 380 43 56 412 38.9 53.4
BOD Mg O2 /l 142 15.9 68.4 164 19.8 57 180 17.8 53.5
TP mg/l 3.14 0.3 29.3 3 0.4 26.9 3.14 0.3 25.6
TKN mg/l 52.3 6.3 26.8 54.4 5.3 20.8 54.4 2.8 17.7
Ammonia mg/l 28 2 −7.1 27.1 1.8 −5.2 26.6 1.9 −4.2
Fecal coliforms MPN/100ml 3.12E+08 3.21E+08 86 8.83E+08 6.57E+08 85 7.60E+08 2.73E+08 83
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015

the conventional septic tank. However, the results from the
present study are higher than those obtained by Burubai
et al. [20], who recorded a COD removal range from 53.1
to 57.3% at HRTs of 24 h and 72 h. The present study results
are lower than those obtained by Moussavi et al. [21], who
studied the performance of a pilot-scale upflow septic tank
for on-site decentralized treatment of residential wastewa-
ter at 24 h HRT, and achieved removal of 85%, 77% and
86% for BOD, COD and TSS, respectively, at steady state
operation.
Since anaerobic digestion takes place in the septic tank,
little removal of nitrogen and phosphorus can be expected
[22,23]. The results of this study indicated that the removal
of phosphorus at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h were 29.3%,
26.9% and 25.6%, respectively. These results are higher
than those obtained by Mahmoud et al. [24], who attributed
the lower phosphorus removal achieved to the relatively
low biomass production in anaerobic systems. However, the
results are in line with Wanasen [25], who interpreted the
phosphorus removal as being utilized for biomass growth,
precipitated and entrapped with the digested sludge.
The ammonia concentrations at HRTs of 72, 48 and
24 h increased by 7.1%, 5.2% and 4.2%, respectively.
The present study results correspond favourably to those
obtained by Harrison et al. [26], who obtained residual
NH4 -N+ with an average value of 29.3 mg N/l. The removal
values of total Kjeldahl nitrogen at the above-mentioned
less than one log at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h, with an average
residual value in the final effluent of 108 most probable
number (MPN) per 100 ml. This study’s results are in line
with those obtained by Harrison et al. [26], who obtained a
fecal coliform bacteria count in the effluent of septic tanks
ranging from 2.5 × 107 to 1.2 × 108 MPN per 100 ml.
One of the mechanisms septic tanks use to remove solids
is to make solids settle as sludge at the bottom of the tank
[28]. The results indicated that the volume increased pro-
gressively with time at all retention times, from 3400 cm3
to 12,500 cm3 , from 2700 cm3 to 10,500 cm3 , and from
1500 cm3 to 8500 cm3 at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respec-
tively. Sludge weight results followed the same trend from
130 g to 1850 g, from 100 g to 1150 g, and from 25 g to
560 g at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively (Figure 3).
The sludge weight per day showed consistent results with
those obtained for sludge volume and weight, i.e. from 4.3 to
8.8 g/d, from 3.3 to 4.5 g/d, and from 0.8 to 2.7 g/d at HRTs
of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. The volatile organic matter
content of the sludge decreased over time from 72.1% to
56%, from 70.2% to 54.1%, and from 68.2% to 53.5% at
HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. A sludge volume
of 12,500 cm3 , 10,500 cm3 and 8500 cm3 was measured at
the end of seven months of operation of the conventional
2000

HRTs were 26.8%, 20.8% and 17.7%, respectively. In addi- 1800 72hHRT

tion, the results correspond favourably to those obtained 1600 48h HRT
Sludge accumulation (g)

1400
by Mahmoud et al. [24] and Dama et al. [27], who 24h HRT
1200
attributed the increase in ammonia concentration to degra-
1000
dation of biodegradable nitrogen compounds, and explained
800
the removal of non-biodegradable nitrogen compounds as
600
becoming entrapped in the reactor sludge. In the present
400
study, the alkalinity concentrations at HRTs of 72, 48 and
200
24 h increased by 12%, 10% and 4%, respectively, and the
0
total solids percentage removals at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h 30 60 90 120 150 180 210
were 38%, 27% and 24.6%, respectively. Time (days)

Bacteriological examination of the conventional septic Figure 3. Accumulation rate of sludge over time in conventional
tank effluent revealed a removal efficiency of fecal coliform septic tank.
 Environmental Technology 2341

septic tank at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h. Assuming that sludge
accumulation is proportional to time of operation and that
de-sludging should occur at 60% of the septic tank vol-
ume as recommended by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) [5], de-sludging will be required after 32,
38 and 47 months of operation at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h,
respectively.
3.3. Performance of the two-baffle septic tank
The performance of the two-baffle septic tank was inves-
tigated using three organic loading rates, ranging between
0.321 and 0.885 kg COD/m3 /day. The results of monitor-
ing the performance of the two baffles septic tank at HRTs
of 24, 48 and 72 h as shown in Table 4 indicated a higher
efficiency of 74% COD removal at 72 h descending to 57%
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015
important reason for not achieving high removal efficiency
rates in the tank in some cases [14].
The removal values of total Kjeldahl nitrogen at the
above-mentioned HRTs were 31.2%, 26.5% and 21.8%,
respectively. These results were higher than those obtained
by Koottatep et al. [15]. This is explained by the removal
of non-biodegradable nitrogen compounds as they become
entrapped in the reactor sludge. The alkalinity concentra-
tions at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h increased by 18%, 15%
and 7%, respectively. The total solid percentage removals
at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h were 42.9%, 35% and 31.3%,
respectively.
Bacteriological examination of the two-baffle septic
tank effluent revealed a removal efficiency of fecal col-
iforms of 95%, 93% and 90% at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h,
respectively, with average residual values in the final efflu-

at 24 h. Corresponding residual COD increases proportion-
ally with the decrease in HRT. Similar results were observed
with BOD, which scored 76.5% removal at 72 h HRT and
60% at 24 h. TSS percentage removals were 76%, 72% and
68% at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h, respectively. These results
agree with those obtained by Kamel and Hegazy [29], who
obtained more than 65% reduction in BOD and TSS when
operating the baffled septic tank at a HRT of 60.5 h. The
present study results were in line with those obtained by
Nguyen et al. [11], who obtained average removal efficien-
cies from 58% to 76% and 61% to 78% in terms of COD
and TSS, respectively, depending on the HRT in the baffled
septic tank.
The present study results indicated that the removal
of phosphorus at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h were 33.1%,
31% and 29.3%, respectively. These results are in line with
results achieved by Nasr et al. [18] and Wanasen [25].
The ammonia concentrations at HRTs of 72, 48 and 24 h
increased by 14.2%, 10% and 7.2%, respectively. These
results correspond favourably to those obtained by Nguyen
et al. [14], who attributed the increase in ammonia concen-
tration in the effluent compared with the concentration of
the influent due to the hydrolysis of wastewater occurring in
the tank. High nitrogen ammonia concentrations could be an
ent of 108 MPN/100 ml. These results agree with those
obtained by Kamel and Hegazy [29].
The results indicated that the volume of the accumulated
sludge increased progressively with time at all retention
times from 3800 to 13,600 cm3 , from 3080 to 12,600 cm3 ,
and from 1720 to 10,100 cm3 at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h,
respectively. Sludge weight results recorded ranged from
162 to 3400 g, from 121 to 1600 g, and from 26 to 850 g
at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively (Figure 4). The
sludge weight per day showed consistent results with those
obtained for sludge volume and weight, i.e. from 5.4 to 16.2
g/d, from 4.1 to 7.6g/d, and from 0.87 to 4.1g/d at HRTs
of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. The volatile organic mat-
ter content of the sludge decreased over time from 72.1%
to 56%, from 70.2% to 54%, and from 68.2% to 53.5% at
HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively. A sludge volume of
13,600 cm3 , 12,600 cm3 and 10,100 cm3 was measured at
the end of seven months of operation of the two baffle-
septic tank at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h. Assuming that
sludge accumulation is proportional to operation and that
de-sludging should occur when the sludge volume reaches
60% of the septic tank volume as recommended by USEPA
[5], de-sludging will be required after 29, 31.5 and 39.5
months at HRTs of 24, 48 and 72 h, respectively.

Table 4. Average characteristics of the two-baffle septic tank effluent and percentage removal.

72 h HRT 48 h HRT 24 h HRT

Parameters Units Average Study R% Average Study R% Average Study R%

pH 7.5 0.23 7.6 0.33 7.8 0.33

Temperature ◦C 27.8 4.43 24.1 1.97 27.2 1.18
Alkalinity mg/l 296 37 −18 285 9.8 −15 246 11.8 −7
TSS mg/l 71 17.1 76 77 10.8 72 87 12 68
TS mg/l 481 40 42.9 608 42.7 35 629 46.4 31.3
COD Mg O2 /l 248 38.7 74 314 46.1 64 380 40.1 57
BOD Mg O2 /l 106 18.2 76.5 134 19.9 65 156 22.6 60
TP mg/l 2.97 0.36 33.1 2.83 0.47 31 2.98 0.39 29.3
TKN mg/l 49.2 3 31.2 50.5 2.6 26.5 51.7 2.3 21.8
Ammonia mg/l 29.9 1.5 −14.2 28.3 1.2 −10 27.4 1.1 −7.2
Fecal coliforms MPN/100ml 1.08E+08 1.02E+08 95 3.99E+08 6.79E+08 93 4.38E+08 4.34E+08 90
 2342 F.A. Nasr and B. Mikhaeil
3500
72hHRT
time (24, 48 and 72 h) for the baffled septic tank is higher
3000
48h HRT
than corresponding values of the conventional septic tank
Sludge accumulation (g)

2500 24h HRT

sludge. The variation in volume ranges from 10 to 15%.
Sludge weight shows similar results where it is found to be
2000
higher for the two-baffle septic tank than for the conven-
1500 tional one. Similarly the average sludge accumulated per
1000 day is higher for the two-baffle septic tank than the con-
ventional one. When comparing the sludge volatile organic
500
matters of the two tank types at each HRT it is found that
0 the average value is almost equal and ranges from 53.5% to
30 60 90 120 150 180 210 56%. These results are similar to those obtained by Mous-
Time(days)
savi et al. [21] and lower than those obtained by Halalsheh
Figure 4. Accumulation rate of sludge over time in two-baffle et al. [31]. The due time for de-sludging of the two-baffle
septic tank. septic tank is 30.5, 31.5 and 39.5 months at HRTs of 24,
48 and 72 h, respectively. These figures are all less than the
durations for de-sludging of the conventional septic tank,
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015

3.4. Comparison between conventional and two-baffle
septic tanks
As can be inferred from its name, the flow direction through
the reactor in a baffled septic tank is changed to the vertical
flow mode rather than the conventional horizontal flow. This
type of operation improves the contact between anaerobic
accumulated sludge and entering wastewater, which in turn
improves the removal of suspended solids due to enmesh-
ment of dissolved anaerobically biodegradable organics
[12,13].
There is no doubt that the number of baffles plays an
important role in the treatment process [15,30]. The aver-
age results of this study clearly indicate the considerable
potential of the baffled septic tank as an alternative to con-
ventional septic tanks for domestic wastewater treatment.
Average removal efficiencies from 57% to 74%, from 60%
to 76.5%, and from 68% to 76% in terms of COD, BOD and
TSS, respectively, could be reached, depending on the HRT
in the baffled septic tank. However, the conventional septic
tank reactor, under identical working conditions, had aver-
age removal efficiencies from 53.4 % to 65.3%, from 53.5%
to 68.4%, and from 55% to 65.3% in terms of COD, BOD
and TSS, respectively. Figure 5 shows the treated effluent
characteristics of both tanks.
Comparing the sludge characteristics produced by the
conventional and two-baffle septic tanks it is observed that
the accumulated sludge volume at each hydraulic retention
500 COD BOD
400
300
mg/l
implying that faster accumulation of sludge takes place in
the two-baffle type than in the conventional type.
4. Conclusions
The average characteristics of raw domestic sewage investi-
gated in this study in terms of COD, BOD and TSS were 960,
450 and 295 mg/l, respectively. This raw wastewater can be
categorized of high strength as per a globally recognized
classification.
Operating the conventional septic tank at HRTs of 24 h
and 72 h gave a COD removal rate between 53.4% and
65.3%. The two-baffle septic tank exhibited superior results
at the same HRTs with a COD removal rate between 57%
and 74%.
Operating the conventional septic tank at HRTs of 24 h
and 48 h gave close results at the two HRTs. Similarly,
operating the two-baffle septic tank at HRTs of 24 h and
48 h also gave close results at the two HRTs, an indica-
tion of the feasible selection of the 24 h HRT for optimum
performance/operation based on economic advantage.
Comparing the treated domestic wastewater quality pro-
duced by the two types of septic tanks in terms of physico-
chemical and biological characteristics, better results were
obtained using the two-baffle type an indication of the
adequacy of both types for primary treatment. Further pro-
cessing by a post-treatment system, however, has to be
applied to meet environmental standards.
Faster accumulation of sludge took place in the two-
TSS baffle septic tank compared with the conventional type as
the accumulated volume variation was 10–15% in excess
to that of the other type. As a result, the frequency of de-
sludging of the two-baffle septic tank was higher than that

200 required for the conventional type, i.e. 29, 31.5 and 39.5
100 months versus 32, 38 and 47 months at HRTs of 24, 48 and
72 h, respectively.
0
72h 72h 48h 48h 24h 24h Based on the results achieved, the two-baffle septic tank
conventional two-baffles conventional two-baffles conventional two-baffles is considered a viable solution for the on-site decentralized
Figure 5. COD, BOD and TSS of the treated effluent by treatment of high strength domestic wastewater especially
conventional and two-baffle septic tanks. at rural communities.
 Environmental Technology
References
[1] Les D, Ashantha G. An investigation into the role of site
and soil characteristics in on-site sewage treatment. Environ
Geol. 2003;44:467–477.
[2] He Q, Li J, Liu H, Tang C, de Koning J, Spaniers H. Efficiency
of a pilot-scale integrated sludge thickening and diges-
tion reactor in treating low-organic excess sludge. Environ
Technol. 2012 Jun;33:1403–1408.
[3] Metcalf and Eddy Inc. Wastewater engineering: treatment,
disposal and reuse. 4th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
[4] Cullimore DR, Viraraghavan T. Microbiological aspects
of anaerobic filter treatment of septic tank effluent at low
temperatures. Environ Technol. 2008;15:165–173.
[5] US Environmental Protection Agency. On-site wastewater
treatment systems manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Water and Office of Research and
Development; 2002.
[6] Tchobanoglous G, Burton FL, Stensel HD, editors. Wastew-
Downloaded by [University of Western Ontario] at 08:56 25 August 2015
ater engineering: treatment and reuse. 4th ed. Metcalf and
Eddy Inc. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[7] Coelho AL, do Nascimenio MB, Cavalcanti PF, van Haandel
AC. The UASB reactor as an alternative for the septic tank for
on-site sewage treatment. Water Sci Technol. 2003;48:221–
226.
[8] Andreadakis AD, Christoulas DG. On site filtration and sub-
surface disposal of domestic sewage. Environ Technol Lett.
1982;3:69–74.
[9] Langenhoff AM, Stuckey DC. Treatment of dilute soluble
and colloidal wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reac-
tor: effect of low temperature. Water Res. 2000;34:3867–
3875.
[10] Panswad T, Komolmethee L. Effects of hydraulic shock loads
on small on-site sewage treatment unit. Water Sci Technol.
1997;35:145–152.
[11] Nguyen VA, Nga PT, Nguyen HT, Morel A. Improved sep-
tic tank and, a promising decentralized wastewater treatment
alternative in Vietnam. Paper presented at: GMSARN Inter-
national Conference on Sustainable Development: Issues and
Prospects for GMS; 2006 December 6–7; Hanoi, Vietnam.
[12] Zeeman G, Lettinga G. The role of anaerobic digestion
of domestic sewage in closing water and nutrient cycle at
community level. Water Sci Technol. 1999;39:187–194.
[13] Luostarinen SA, Rintala JA. Anaerobic on-site treatment
of kitchen waste in combination with black water in
UASB-septic tanks at low temperatures. Bioresour Technol.
2007;98:1734–1740.
[14] Nguyen VA, Pham TN, Tran HN, Morel A. The potential of
decentralized wastewater management for sustainable devel-
opment – a Vietnamese experience. Paper present at: Water
Environmental Federation (WEF) International Conference:
Technology; 2005 August 28–31; San Francisco, CA, USA.
[15] Koottatep T, Morel A, Sri-Anant W, Schertenleib R. Potential
of the anaerobic baffled reactor as decentralized wastewa-
ter treatment system in the tropics. Paper presented at: 1st
International Conference on Onsite Wastewater Treatment
& Recycling; 2004 February 11–13; Perth, Australia.
[16] Sabry T. Evaluation of decentralized treatment of sewage
employing upflow septic tank/baffled reactor (USBR)
View publication stats
2343
in developing countries. J Hazard Mater. 2010;174:
500–505.
[17] APHA. Standard methods for the examinations of water
and wastewater. 21st ed. Washington, DC: American Public
Health Association; 2005.
[18] Nasr FA, Doma HS, Nassar HF. Treatment of domestic
wastewater using an anaerobic baffled reactor followed by a
duckweed pond for agricultural purposes. Environmentalist.
2009;29:270–279.
[19] El-Hamouri B, Jellal J, Outabiht H, Nebri B, Khallayoune K,
Benkerroum A. The performance of a high-rate algal pond in
the Moroccan climate. Water Sci Technol. 1995 Dec;31:67–
74.
[20] Burubai W, Akor A, Lilly M, Ayawari D. An evaluation
of septic tank performance in Bayelsa State, Nigeria. CIGR
Ejournal. 2007;IX:1–9.
[21] Moussavi G, Kazembeigi F, Farzadkia M. Performance of a
pilot scale up-flow septic tank for on-site decentralized treat-
ment of residential wastewater. Process Saf Environ Prot.
2010;88:47–52.
[22] Ruiz I, Álvarez JA, Díaz MA, Serrano L, Soto M. Municipal
wastewater treatment in an anaerobic digester – constructed
wetland system. Environ Technol. 2008;29:1249–1256.
[23] Mohapatra DP, Ghangrekar MM, Mitra A, Brar SK. Sewage
treatment in integrated system of UASB reactor and duck-
weed pond and reuse for aquaculture. Environ Technol.
2012;33:1445–1453.
[24] Mahmoud M, Tawfik A, Samhan F, El-Gohary F. Sewage
treatment using an integrated system consisting of anaerobic
hybrid reactor (AHR) and downflow hanging sponge (DHS).
Desalin Water Treat. 2009;4:168–176.
[25] Wanasen S. Upgrading conventional septic tanks by integrat-
ing in-tank baffles [thesis]. EV-03-20. Bangkok, Thailand:
Asian Institute of Technology; 2003
[26] Harrison RB, Turner NS, Hoyle JA, Krejsl J, Tone DD,
Henry CL, Isaksen PJ, Xue D. Treatment of septic effluent
for fecal coliform and nitrogen in coarse-textured soils: use
of soil-only and sand filter systems. Water Air Soil Pollut.
2000;124:205–215.
[27] Dama P, Bell J, Foxon KM, Brouaert CJ, Huang T, Buckley
CA, Naidoo V, Stukey D. Pilot-scale study of an anaero-
bic baffled reactor for the treatment of domestic wastew-
ater. Paper presented at: 3rd International Conference on
Ecological Sanitation; 2005 May 23–26; Durban, South
Africa.
[28] Crites R, Tchobanoglous G. Small and decentralized wastew-
ater management systems. International edition. Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
[29] Kamel MM, Hgazy BE. A septic tank system: on site
disposal. J Appl Sci. 2006;6:2269–2274.
[30] Barber WP, Stuckey DC. The use of the anaerobic baffled
reactor (ABR) for wastewater treatment: a review. Water Res.
1999;33:1559–1578.
[31] Halalsheh M, Sawajneh Z, Zubi M, Zeeman G, Lier J, Fayyad
M, Lettinga G. Treatment of strong domestic sewage in
a 96 m3 UASB reactor operated at ambient temperatures:
two-stage versus single-stage reactor. Bioresour Technol.
2005;96:577–585.