Activated Sludge Manual
Activated Sludge Manual
Activated Sludge Manual
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PROCESS CONTROL
TRAINING MANUAL FOR WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT OPERATORS
Prepared by:
Operator Training and Certification Unit
Resource Management Division
Rick Snyder, Governor
Dan Wyant, Director
www.michigan.gov/deq
800-662-9278 Environmental Assistance Center
8/11
A.S.
BASICS
Volatile
50 %
Fixed
10 %
Fixed
30 %
Dissolved
40 %
Volatile
20 %
Volatile
70 %
Total Solids
100 %
Fixed
20 %
Fresh
Stale
15 - 25 %
50 %
Colloidal
75 - 85 %
Suspended
50 %
Soluble
Bio
Chemical
Oxygen
Demand
Carbonaceous BOD
Nitrogenous BOD
Total Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Total BOD = CBOD + NOD
5
The environmental impact of BOD on a receiving
stream may be illustrated with the chart below. On
0.17 - 0.22 lbs/d/capita
the left hand side of the chart, clean stream
conditions are indicated by a relatively high D.O.
concentration, maybe in the range of 5 7 mg/L and little sediment.
Clean Stream
Recovery
Active
Decomposition
Degradation
Clean Stream
BOD
Clean
Water
Recovery
Active
Decomposition
Degradation
Population
Clean
Water
Nutrients
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Flow
Measurement
Determine Loading on WWTP
Determine Loading on Stream
Discharge Permit Parameters
Budgeting
Primary Treatment
Most, but not all, activated sludge facilities include a primary treatment step ahead of the
secondary process. Primary clarification is a sedimentation process which is intended to
6
100
100
Settleable Solids
Percent Removal
80
80
60
Suspended Solids
60
BOD
40
40
20
20
Time, Hrs.
2
Time, Hrs.
Heterotrophic
Autotrophic
Primary
Effluent
Aeration
Tank
MLSS
Secondary
Clarifier
Secondary
Effluent
Return Activated
Sludge
Waste Activated
Sludge
This suspension, referred to as mixed liquor (or Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids,
MLSS), is supplied with oxygen and kept mixed by bubbling air through it. These are
naturally occurring organisms; there is no need to supply them from an external source.
As the organisms feed on the organic pollutants in the wastewater, the pollutants are
converted to more organisms (biomass) and some byproducts. The amount of biomass
produced is often estimated as about 0.7 pounds for each pound of BOD removed in the
secondary process. While an individual bacterium is not visible to the eye, they stick to
one another to form a biological mass which may be easily seen as a brown colored floc.
Following an adequate amount of treatment time the mixed liquor flows from the aeration
tank to a secondary clarifier where the biomass is allowed to settle out of the wastewater
New Cells
Slime Layer
Oxygen
Cell
Food Membrane
Storage
Enzymes
(Absorption)
Soluble Organics
Adsorbed
Particle
NH3
CO2
H2O
Pounds Formula
Lbs = MG X 8.34 Lbs
D
Gal
D
Lbs = MG X 8.34 Lbs
D
D
Gal
X Conc, mg
L
X Parts
M Parts
10
Quantity of Microorganisms
Determination of Mixed Liquor Suspended
Solids (MLSS) and Mixed Liquor Volatile
Suspended Solids (MLVSS)
The quantity of microorganisms available for treatment is also calculated using the
pounds formula. Since the microorganisms are in the aeration tank, pounds of
microorganisms are calculated by multiplying the volume of the aeration tank(s) in
millions of gallons times the weight of a gallon of water (8.34 lb/gal) times the MLVSS
concentration in milligrams per liter.
Food to Microorganism Ratio
Food to Microorganism Ratio (F:M) is one of
the primary controls used in activated sludge
plants. This helps the operator to maintain a
balance between the quantity of food
available, with the quantity of
microorganisms in the aeration tanks. Since
the food available to the microorganisms is
represented by the BOD of the wastewater,
the F:M ratio is calculated by dividing the
number of pounds of BOD entering the
secondary treatment system by the number
of pounds of MLVSS in the aeration tanks.
While best treatment may not occur at the
same F:M ratio in different plants, the range
for Conventional activated sludge plants is
often given as 0.25 to 0.45. Activated sludge
plants that operate in the Extended
Aeration mode typically operate with F:M in
the 0.05 to 0.15 range.
F:M
F:M Calculations
Calculations
Problem A:
How many pounds of MLVSS should be
maintained in an aeration tank with a volume of
0.105 MG receiving primary effluent BOD of
630 lbs/d ? The desired F:M is 0.3.
F =M
F/M
Problem B:
What will be the MLVSS concentration in mg/L ?
12
Example Problem:
CRT =
MLVSS = 6681 lbs
MLVSS Wasted = 835 lbs/d
Calculate the CRT.
6681 lbs
835 lbs/d
Keep in mind that the end result of this calculation is the flow in MGD, and since waste
flow rates are not large, the calculated MGD is typically a small number. Convert this to
gallons per day from MGD:
MGD x 1,000,000 = gallons per day
If wasting is to be done over a 24 hr. period:
.
WAS (gpm) = gallons/day
1440 minutes/day
If wasting is to be done over a shorter period of time:
WAS (gpm) =
gallons/day
.
min wasting to be done/day
The RAS rate may be calculated using a mass balance approach around the secondary
clarifier.
Q + Rq
Influent
Flow, Q
MLSS
RAS Flow, Rq
RAS SS
Basically, this approach is centered on the thought that in a secondary clarifier the
pounds of solids drawn from the clarifier (RAS) must be equal to the pounds of material
entering the clarifier (MLSS).
Without detailing all of the algebra involved, using the pounds formula to express pounds
of material going into the clarifier, setting that equal to the pounds of material drawn from
the clarifier, and solving for the RAS flow rate (Rq) yields the formula:
Rq =
Q X MLSS .
RAS SS MLSS
In this formula Rq is the calculated Return Sludge flow rate, Q is the influent flow rate,
RAS SS is the RAS suspended solids concentration in milligrams per liter, and MLSS is
the Mixed Liquor suspended solids concentration in milligrams per liter.
Note that the flow units for Rq will match the units used for influent flow Q; if Q is given in
MGD, Rq will be in MGD. If the operator needs to calculate Rq in terms of percent of
influent flow, just use 100 % for Q.
Rq, % = 100 % X MLSS
RAS - MLSS
Also note that total suspended solids rather than volatile solids are used in the RAS
formula for both RAS and MLSS. This makes sense, since we are concerned with the
total amount of sludge in the clarifier rather than just with the biological mass. Keep in
mind while using the RAS formula that while this calculation may provide a good starting
point or a check for the RAS rate, the most practical means of controlling the RAS rate is
by actual sludge blanket measurement.
RAS metering and control is another area in which the operator needs to be vigilant
when a new facility is being designed, or an existing plant expanded. The additional
capital costs associated with meters and valves is usually money well spent when the
operational difficulties existing at some facilities is considered.
18
Not Good
Better
Best
M1
Secondary
Clarifier
#1
RAS
Secondary
Clarifier
#1
Secondary
Clarifier
#2
RAS
Pump
P1
P2
V1
V2
Secondary
Clarifier
#1
Secondary
Clarifier
#2
Secondary
Clarifier
#2
V1
V2
M1
M2
P1
P2
Consider RAS control in the schematics above. In the first example the RAS lines from
the two clarifiers are tied into a common pipe to the RAS pump. There is no provision
for controlling flow or metering flow from either of the clarifiers; sludge blankets would be
very difficult to control.
In the second diagram each clarifier has its own RAS flow control valve and pump. The
two pumps discharge into a common pipe where the flow is metered. This is a better
situation, allowing the operator to vary the amount of RAS from each clarifier, but since
the meter only measures the total flow from the two clarifiers, it will be very difficult to
balance the RAS flow. Even with equally sized pumps and with the control valves set
the same, the RAS pumped from the two clarifiers will not be the same, since the
hydraulic head pumped against will be different for each pump. Installing a meter on the
pipe from each clarifier rather than on the combined flow would provide better control,
but adjusting the flow from one clarifier would still affect the flow from the other.
The third diagram represents the best approach. RAS from each clarifier flows through
a control valve and flow meter to a wet well, where a set of pumps draws from the wet
well. This arrangement allows the operator to make adjustments to the RAS flow from
each clarifier as needed.
IV. Biomass Settleability
Earlier we discussed the three steps of biological wastewater treatment which includes
Transfer, Conversion, and Flocculation and Separation. Even though the first two steps
may take place effectively, without the ability to separate the biomass from the
wastewater the process will not function. The organisms must combine into properly
sized particles that have sufficient density to allow them to sink to the floor of the
secondary clarifier. The biomass must compact well enough that the sludge blanket
does not occupy an excessive amount of space in the clarifier or solids may be lost in
the effluent.
19
Too Slow
20
Too Fast
It is also a good practice to allow the sample to set in the settleometer for an additional
30 to 60 minutes after the settling test. Watch for tiny bubbles which form in the settled
sludge. These nitrogen bubbles form as nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas
(denitrification) under anoxic conditions. As the bubbles rise they attach themselves to
floc particles and float them to the surface. A small amount of denitrification occurring in
the secondary clarifier will cause a scum to form on the surface, while a large amount of
denitrification may float a significant portion of the biomass to the top of the clarifier. The
settleometer test may give the operator the first warning that this may become a
problem.
Two main factors determine the settled sludge volume in the settleometer at the end of
the 30 minutes. The first, solids compaction indicates how much volume the biomass
will occupy. But the operator must recognize the influence of the second factor, MLSS
concentration, in settled sludge volume. As long as the MLSS doesnt change,
settleometer test results can be compared from one day to the next. But as the MLSS
increases, the settled sludge volume in the settleometer will increase. Since we use the
settleometer test mainly to indicate how well the mixed liquor compacts, we must
account for the concentration of the biomass in the settleometer. This allows the
operator to track changes in sludge quality even though the MLSS concentration
changes.
Sludge Volume Index (SVI)
SVI is used by operators to determine and compare mixed liquor settleability. It
mathematically relates settled sludge volume in the settleometer to MLSS concentration.
The definition for SVI is: The volume in milliliters occupied by one gram of
activated sludge which has settled for 30 minutes. Note that SVI relates sludge
volume in milliliters to MLSS concentration in grams per liter. A simple formula for SVI
is:
SVI = mls Settled in 30 min
MLSS Conc, grams/L
or
SVI =
mls Settled
.
MLSS, mg/l / 1000
mls Settled
. =
MLSS, mg/L / 1000
260 ml
. =
2400 mg/L / 1000
260 = 108
2.4
The SVI of 108 indicates that each gram of settled sludge will occupy a volume of
108 milliliters. The SVI is typically given without units. Keep in mind that as the SVI
increases, the sludge is less compact, occupying more volume (the sludge blanket in the
clarifier increases). A perfect situation is considered to be that in which 1 gram of sludge
will occupy a volume of 100 ml (SVI = 100/1.0 = 1.0). SVI in a range of 80 to 120
indicates good settleability.
21
grams/L of MLSS
.
mls settled in 30 min / 100
or
Consider the example given above where MLSS is 2400 mg/L and after 30 minutes of
settling the sludge occupies a volume of 260 ml. The SDI is calculated as follows:
SDI = 2400 mg/l / 1000 = 2.4 = 0.92
260 ml / 100
2.6
The SDI of 0.92 indicates that each 0.92 grams of sludge will occupy a volume of
100 ml. As the SDI increases compaction increases, and the volume that the sludge
blanket occupies decreases. Like SVI, a perfect situation is taken as one where 1 gram
of sludge occupies a volume of 100 ml (SDI = 1.0 / 100/100 = 1.0). The range of good
settleability when using SDI is 0.8 to 1.2; again the SDI is typically given without units.
SVI / SDI Relationship
Operators do not typically use both SVI and SDI, since both are indicators
of sludge compaction, but usually use the one that they are most
comfortable with. For those not wishing to try to remember both
formulas there is a simple conversion between the two: divide the one
that you have into 100 and you get the other.
SDI = 100 / SVI
For instance, if the SVI is 133, the SDI is 100 / 133 = 0.75. If the SDI is 0.6, the SVI is
100 / 0.6 = 167.
Relationship of SDI to RAS Concentration
The settleometer test is used to approximate conditions in the secondary clarifier. This
means that the concentration of the settled sludge in the settleometer should be
approximately the same as the concentration of the settled sludge in the clarifier, which
is the Return Sludge.
Consider the mathematical definition of SDI:
SDI =
grams/L of MLSS
.
mls settled in 30 min / 100
An SDI of 1.0 means that 1 gram of sludge occupies a volume of 100 ml:
SDI 1.0 =
1 gram / Liter
100ml / 100
So the concentration of the settled sludge in the settleometer (and the RAS from the
clarifier) would be 1 gram / 100 ml, or 10 grams per liter. Since water (and most sludge)
22
Or we can express the concentration of the settled sludge (RAS) in terms of mg/L:
SDI = 1.0 = 1 gram solids = 1000 mg solids = 10,000 mg solids = 10,000 mg/L RAS
100 ml water
100 ml water
1000 ml water
So if the SDI is 1.0, the RAS concentration would be expected to be 1%, or 10,000 mg/L.
300
Sludge Volume Index
200
23
AERATION
Diffusion Equipment
Air diffusers have been designed in many shapes and sizes through the years; some
have been more successful than others. Air diffusers may be generally classified as
either coarse bubble or fine bubble.
Coarse bubble diffusers have been used for many years in
activated sludge plants. As pressurized air from the blower
flows from the air header through a small orifice in the
diffuser the air is broken up into small bubbles. The diffusers
are generally made of plastic or stainless steel and provide
good mixing and aeration with minimal head loss. These
diffusers are resistant to plugging and may operate for long
periods of time with minimal maintenance. Reported
Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency in clean water for coarse bubble diffusers varies
from 9% to 13% at 15 feet of submergence. Actual Oxygen Transfer Rates range from
about 1 to 2 pounds of oxygen per horsepower hour, depending on the type of diffuser
and the configuration of the aeration tank.
Fine bubble diffusers began gaining popularity in the 1970s as energy costs increased
and discharge permit limits became more stringent. Given that power costs to operate
the aeration system in an activated sludge plant make up a very large part of the annual
budget for the facility, the need to maximize the efficiency of aeration systems is
obvious. Reported Standard Oxygen Transfer Efficiency varies widely depending on the
type of diffuser, ranging from 13% to 40% in clean water at 15 feet of submergence.
Again, it should be noted that actual transfer efficiency in wastewater will be lower than
in clean water, especially as the system ages. Actual Oxygen Transfer Rates vary from
about 1.3 to 2.5 pounds of oxygen per horsepower hour.
Early fine bubble diffusers included porous socks that were tied over coarse bubble
diffusers. These met with limited success, as it was not unusual for the operator to find
many of the socks floating in the aeration tank a short time after installation. Porous
plate diffusers were also developed which significantly improved oxygen transfer, but
often plugged and became maintenance intensive.
Currently there are several suppliers of fine bubble diffusers on the market, and many
activated sludge plants around Michigan have converted coarse bubble systems to fine
bubble systems. Modern fine bubble diffusers have reduced energy consumption in
activated sludge plants and are less susceptible to plugging.
Fine bubble diffusers are available in several configurations, including among others:
Ceramic Dome
Diffusers
Porous Flexible
Membrane Diffusers
4
Ceramic Disc
Diffusers
Example:
Determine the SOUR of a Mixed Liquor Sample Given the Following Data:
MLSS = 2500 mg/L Initial D.O. = 8.3 mg/L
Final D.O. = 2.4 mg/L
The oxygen depletion was recorded over 10 min.
MICROSCOPIC
EXAMINATION
Amoeboids
The cell membranes of Amoeboids are extremely flexible;
and the mobility of these organisms is created by the
movement of protoplasm within the cell. Food matter is
ingested by absorption through the cell membrane.
Amoeboids may predominate in the MLSS floc during startup periods of the activated sludge process or when the
process is recovering from an upset condition.
Flagellates
These organisms are characterized by the tail (Flagella)
which extends from their round or elliptical cell
configuration. Their mobility is created by a whipping
Ciliates
These organisms are characterized by the rotating hair-like membrane (cilia) which
cover all or part of their cell membrane. Their mobility is created by the movement of the
cilia, and the cilia around the gullet are utilized for the intake of food. Ciliates may
predominate during the period of fair to good settling of the activated sludge.
They are considerably larger than flagellates and for the purposes of microscopic
examination may be classified into two basic groups, which are the free swimming and
the stalked ciliates.
Stalked Ciliates
These organisms are frequently present when the free
swimmers are unable to compete for the available food. A
relative predominance of these organisms along with rotifers will
indicate a stable and efficiently operating process.
Rotifers
Although large in comparison with most other activated sludge
organisms, rotifers are a group of the smallest multi-cellular
microorganisms. They are strictly aerobic, existing only where
dissolved oxygen is plentiful. Rotifers may attach to floc particles by use
of a forked tail or may swim freely in the wastewater, grazing on bacteria,
algae, protozoa, and small particulate matter in the waste. At their
anterior end they possess cilia which are rotated to gather food as well
as to propel the organism through the water. Rotifers are more abundant
at higher cell residence times and are an indication of a high level of
treatment.
Date:
Time:
AM
PM
BY:
Temp:
Sample Location:
Microorganism
Group
Slide
No. 1
Slide
No. 2
Amoeboids
Flagellates
Free Swimming
Ciliates
Stalked
Ciliates
Rotifers
Worms
Relative Predominance:
1.
2.
3.
Slide
No. 3
TOTAL
Good Settling
Rotifers
RELATIVE PREDOMINANCE
STRAGGLERS
PIN FLOC
Stalked
Ciliates
Rotifers
Stalked
Ciliates
Nematodes
Rotifers
Free Swimming
Ciliates
Nematodes
Free
Swimming
Ciliates
Stalked
Ciliates
Free
Swimming
Ciliates
Rotifers
Flagellates
Free
Swimming
Ciliates
Amoeboids
Flagellates
Amoeboids
Flagellates
Flagellates
Amoeboids
Amoeboids
Stalked
Ciliates
Free Swimming
Ciliates
Flagellates
Amoeboids
CLARIFIERS
VII. Clarifiers
Purpose and principle
Clarifiers may be referred to as sedimentation basins or settling tanks. All three terms
describe the function of clarifiers, to provide a quiescent area which will result in the
separation of settleable solids from the wastewater flow.
Preliminary
Treatment
Bar Screens
Grit Removal
Primary
Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Aeration
Tank
Primary
Clarifier
Secondary
Clarifier
Primary clarifiers may be used following preliminary treatment to separate the heavy
organic solids from wastewater before the flow continues to the secondary (activated
sludge) process. Design detention time is typically about 2 hours. Primary clarifiers
remove a large part (up to about 40%) of the solids and BOD load which would
otherwise have to be treated in the secondary process, allowing smaller secondary
process design and improved efficiency. Primary clarification is typically not used in
extended aeration activated sludge systems, since the secondary treatment system in
these facilities is much larger than in conventional activated sludge plants.
Solids that accumulate in the primary clarifiers are commonly referred to as primary
sludge or raw sludge. This sludge is usually not pumped from the clarifier continuously,
but is pumped on a periodic basis, typically once or twice per shift. Since there is little
dissolved oxygen in this part of the process and the sludge is unstable, primary sludge
must be frequently removed from the clarifier to prevent anaerobic decomposition.
Sludge that is not removed often enough may cause excessive odors and floating sludge
as gasses (carbon dioxide and methane) are released from the decomposing organics.
Floatable material such as oil and grease is skimmed from the surface of the clarifier. In
many facilities this is pumped directly to the solids handling process, while some plants
have a separate system for concentrating the waste before disposal.
Primary clarifier effluent will contain the particulates which are not readily settleable as
well as all of the dissolved solids in the influent wastewater. This flow then passes on to
the secondary portion of the treatment process.
Secondary clarifiers follow a secondary biological treatment process. In the activated
sludge process secondary clarifiers separate the biomass (mixed liquor) from the flow,
concentrating it in the bottom of the clarifier. These solids are then pumped from the
bottom of the clarifier back to the head of the aeration tank as return sludge.
Although secondary sludge is usually more stable than primary sludge, it is important to
keep the sludge blanket level under control. Secondary sludge is typically lighter than
primary sludge and may be carried out of the clarifier if the sludge blanket level gets too
Fall Velocity
Density difference between the particle and water
viscosity of water
gravitational acceleration constant
diameter of the particle
Stokes Law indicates that the vertical drop (settling rate) of particles in water is directly
related to the difference in density between the particles and water and the size of the
particle. The settling rate is inversely related to the viscosity of water. So as the density
and size of the particle increase the settling rate increases. As the density and viscosity
of water increase the settling rate decreases.
The temperature of the water in the clarifier is related to both the density, and to a less
extent, the viscosity of water. As the temperature of water drops its density increases
(until 4oC). This means that as water becomes colder, its density becomes closer to the
density of the particles that are trying to settle, and the settling rate decreases.
The efficiency of the clarifier in removing solids is also related to the physical aspects of
the clarifier. Generally, as surface area increases the more efficient the clarifier. Depth
must be adequate to prevent scouring solids from the sludge blanket into the effluent.
The size of the clarifier as it relates to the quantity of flow through it (hydraulic loading),
the size of the clarifier as it relates to the quantity of solids (solids loading), the shape of
the clarifier, influent/effluent design, the solids removal mechanism, and operation and
maintenance of the clarifier all affect efficiency.
Flow characteristics in the clarifier are a big factor in determining its ability to settle
solids. The flow must be dispersed as evenly as possible throughout the clarifier so that
solids are not carried out by areas of high flow velocity. Short circuiting in clarifiers
may be defined as a situation in which the flow in part of the clarifier is higher than in the
rest of the clarifier. This condition may be caused by several factors including:
Missing or poor influent baffling
Uneven effluent weirs
Plant growths or accumulations of trash in the effluent weirs
Types of Clarifiers
While there are many differences among the various manufacturers of clarifiers, they
can be generally grouped into rectangular, circular, or inclined plate.
Inclined plate (Lamella) clarifiers have increased surface
area available for settling due to a series of plates (or in some
cases tubes) inclined in the clarifier. This type of clarifier
works well for many industrial applications, but has limited
use in biological treatment plants. Slime growths accumulate
on the plates causing short circuiting and plugging and
become very maintenance intensive.
Rectangular clarifiers are often used as primary clarifiers in
activated sludge plants, and are sometimes used as
secondary clarifiers.
Inlet
Inlet
Baffle
Effluent
Weir
Drive
Unit
Flight
Drive
Gear
Sludge
Trough
Sludge
Withdrawal
Pipe
Scum
Trough
Effluent
Launder
Idler
Sprockets
Drive
Chain
Rectangular Clarifier
Influent wastewater is dispersed throughout the tank by an inlet baffle. This baffle may
be a vertical plate, an inlet T, or a series of gate valves. As the flow passes through
the tank solids settle to the bottom and the clarified water flows over an effluent weir and
into the discharge launder.
Solids that settle to the bottom are scraped into a sludge hopper at the influent end of
the clarifier by a set of wooden or fiberglass flights. These flights are nearly as long as
the clarifier is wide and are attached to a steel or plastic chain driven by an electric
motor and sprocket. In most plants where rectangular clarifiers are used as primary
treatment the flights do not run continuously, but are turned on an hour or so before
sludge pumping begins and are shut off when pumping is completed.
3
Center Baffle
Drive Unit
Skimmer Arm
Scum
Baffle
Effluent
Weir
Effluent
Launder
Clarifier Influent
Sludge Sump
Sludge Plow
Circular Clarifier
tank into the center well. A circular baffle prevents the solids from being carried by the
flow directly to the effluent weir, directing them toward the floor of tank. Solids settle to
the floor of the tank where they are scraped to a sludge sump in the center.
In activated sludge plants, the sludge is pumped continuously (return activated sludge)
back to the influent end of the aeration tank. The sludge collection mechanism consists
Scum
Baffle
Effluent
Weir
Effluent
Launder
Effluent
Radial Discharge
Peripheral Feed
sludge collection mechanism sucks the sludge into pipes which rotate along with
triangular shaped sludge plows. The operator can control the sludge flow through each
pipe by adjustment of the telescoping valves pictured above at the far right.
In a somewhat similar design, the clarifier pictured at the
left, draws the sludge into a rotating horizontal tube.
Sludge collection systems using the vacuum approach
may have the sludge collector connected directly to a
sludge pump, or may rely on hydraulic pressure to draw
the sludge into the collector.
Clarifier Operation
Good clarifier operation begins with routine inspection and maintenance. Drive
mechanisms need to be lubricated and maintained as required by the manufacturer. At
least a couple of times each shift clarifiers should be observed for proper operation. At
least once each shift sludge depths should be determined in each clarifier.
In rectangular clarifiers the operator should watch for smooth operation of the sludge
collection system. Erratic movement may indicate broken flights, worn chains or
sprockets, or large debris in the tank. Floating sludge may indicate worn or broken
components. Tripped breakers or sheared pins on the drive mechanism are also
indications of excessive wear, improper alignment, or large debris jamming the
equipment.
In circular clarifiers the operator should check to see that the skimmer/sludge collector
operates smoothly. Also check to make sure that the scum trough is not plugged.
Solids tend to collect in the center baffle, along the weirs, and in the launder of circular
clarifiers, requiring frequent cleaning. Algae and water weeds grow quickly in summer
months when the water is warm and there is plenty of sunlight. Cleaning can be
accomplished in several ways, but most often involves an operator with a broom. Care
must be taken to not get into a situation where safety is compromised. Hosing the slime
growths off is probably safer and faster but may not be as effective.
Clarifier Loading
Clarifiers, like most wastewater treatment processes, are designed to treat a given
amount of wastewater. Flows in excess of that design value will result in loss of
efficiency and solids in the clarifier effluent. Clarifier loading may be expressed in terms
of hydraulic or solids loading. Hydraulic loading refers to the number of gallons going
into the clarifier as it relates to the size of the clarifier.
Tank Volume, MG X 24
Flow into Tank, MGD
Be careful to make sure that the tank volume units and flow units match; if volume is
given in millions of gallons use units of million gallons per day for the flow. If the volume
is given in gallons, use gallons per day as the flow. The 24 in the equation converts
from units of day to units of hours.
Surface Overflow Rate (SOR), a very commonly used expression of hydraulic loading
relates the number of gallons per day of water overflowing the clarifier, to its surface
area in square feet. Design values for average flow conditions are usually in the range
of 400 to 800 gallons per day per square foot.
SOR, gpd/ft2 = Flow, gallons/day
Surface Area, ft2
Weir Overflow Rate (WOR) is also often used to express hydraulic loading. WOR
relates the number of gallons per day overflowing the clarifier weirs to the number of
linear feet of weir. The design value for WOR is typically in the range of 10,000 gallons
per day per foot of weir.
WOR, gal/d/ft = Flow, gallons/day
Length of Weir, ft
Solids Loading Rate (SLR) relates the number of pounds of solids per day entering the
clarifier to its surface area in square feet. The design value for SLR is usually about 25
to 30 pounds per day per square foot.
SLR, lbs/d/ft2 = Solids, lbs/day
Surface Area, ft2
By becoming familiar with these clarifier loading calculations, the operator may be able
to troubleshoot settling problems. If clarifier effluent suspended solids are excessive, a
settleability test on the solids will help to determine whether they should have settled in
the clarifier. If the solids settle in a settleometer but not in the clarifier, determination of
hydraulic and solids loading on the clarifier may help to explain the problem.
NITROGEN
VIII. Nitrogen
The Nitrogen Cycle
Nitrogen may be a concern for environmental reasons as well as for public heath
reasons, depending on the form or compound that the nitrogen is in. For instance,
ammonia (NH3) is often limited in discharge permits due to its toxicity to aquatic
organisms, and because it causes an oxygen demand in water. Ammonia, nitrite (NO2-)
and nitrate (NO3-) are fertilizers, increasing the growth rate of weeds in rivers and lakes.
Nitrite and nitrate are limited in discharges to groundwater because of they interfere with
the respiration process in infants, causing a condition known as blue baby syndrome or
methemoglobinemia. Nitrite is a concern in the operation of wastewater treatment plants
in which chlorine is used as a disinfectant in that the nitrite causes a large chlorine
demand.
Nitrogen exists in many forms which transform continually in the environment and in
wastewater treatment plants. The Nitrogen Cycle diagram below illustrates these forms
and the various transformations that occur. Understanding the nitrogen cycle will be
important for wastewater treatment plant operators, especially when working with
facilities where nitrification and/or denitrification are required.
5
NH3
Aerobic
NO2
NO3
Autotrophic Bacteria
The nitrification process is important in wastewater treatment due to the concern for
ammonia toxicity and nitrogenous oxygen demand in effluents. It is not unusual for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for facilities
discharging to surface water to limit the concentration of ammonia in the effluent.
Depending on several factors, the limit may be less than 1 mg/L. With a typical influent
ammonia concentration of 15 20 mg/L, the facility must be capable of nitrification,
converting nearly all of the ammonia to nitrate before discharge. Nitrate is not generally
regulated in surface water discharges since it is not considered toxic and exerts no
oxygen demand.
Keep in mind that as organic pollutants are broken down by heterotrophic bacteria in the
activated sludge biomass, nitrogen is released in the form of ammonia. At the same
time the biomass is growing and taking up nitrogen; although the biomass typically does
not remove enough nitrogen to meet discharge permit limits for ammonia, biomass
uptake does account for a significant amount of nitrogen removal.
NH3
NO2
Nitrosomonas
NO3
Nitrobacter
NO3
Anoxic Environment
NO2
Heterotrophic
Bacteria
N2
Heterotrophic
Bacteria
As indicated by the equation above, in an anoxic environment (no dissolved oxygen, but
nitrate is present) heterotrophic bacteria are able to use oxygen from nitrate and nitrite,
releasing nitrogen gas.
Nitrogen gas released during denitrification sometimes presents an operational problem
in wwtps that are nitrifying. As mixed liquor enters the secondary clarifier, the solids
settle to the bottom. If the solids remain in the clarifier too long the D.O. may begin to
drop, creating an anoxic condition. Nitrate becomes denitrified, releasing nitrogen gas in
the form of very small bubbles which rise to the surface of the clarifier, bringing some of
the settled biomass with it. This may result in globs of biomass floating on the surface,
or it may result in a substantial amount of the sludge mass rising to the surface. If this
problem is suspected the operator should watch for nitrogen gas bubbles when
performing a settleability test. If bubbles are observed or if the biomass floats to the top
of the settleometer within a 1 hour settling time, care must be taken to keep the sludge
blanket in the secondary clarifier at minimal levels. Return sludge rates should be
adjusted to assure that the biomass does not remain in the clarifier long enough for
denitrification to occur.
Denitrification is required where nitrate or nitrite in the discharge is a concern. In
situations in which the wastewater treatment plant discharges effluent into groundwater,
a groundwater discharge permit is required. This permit usually limits the Total
Inorganic Nitrogen (TIN) (NH3-N + NO2-N + NO3-N) in the discharge to 5 mg/L. The
facility must be capable of first nitrifying the ammonia to nitrate, and then denitrifying the
nitrate to nitrogen gas.
The diagram below illustrates a typical flow schematic for a WWTP that is designed for
denitrification. BOD is reduced, and ammonia is nitrified to nitrate as the wastewater
passes through the first aerobic (oxic) reactor. The mixed liquor then flows into an
anoxic (zero D.O.) environment and is supplied with a food source. As bacteria in the
Return Sludge
Aeration Tank
BOD Removal and
Nitrification
(Oxic)
Denitrification
(Anoxic)
Oxic
C
Clarifier
Cl2 + H20
(2)
HOCl
(3)
OCl- + NO2-
HCl + HOCl
H+ + OClNO3- + Cl-
Since chloride has no disinfecting properties, disinfection will be impaired. The amount
of chlorine consumption by nitrite may be estimated as 5 milligrams of chlorine per
milligram of nitrite.
Cold Water NO2 Problem
At wastewater temperatures above 63oF (17oC) the conversion of ammonia to nitrite is
the slowest step in the nitrification process, with the conversion of nitrite to nitrate
occurring rapidly. This results in low concentrations of ammonia, low concentrations of
nitrite (< 1 2 mg/L NO2), and high concentrations of nitrate in the effluent.
NH3
NO3
NO2
When wastewater temperatures drop to between 54 and 57oF (12 and 14oC) the first
reaction step becomes the fastest. Ammonia is oxidized to nitrite, but the conversion of
nitrite to nitrate takes longer.
NO2
NH3
NO3
This causes an accumulation of nitrite (NO2 can reach 15 mg/L) in the effluent. With
each milligram of nitrite using up 5 milligrams of chlorine, it may be nearly impossible to
supply enough chlorine to disinfect the flow.
Warm Water NO2 Problem
Nitrite consumption of chlorine is not only a cold weather problem, but may also occur in
wastewater treatment plants that are nitrifying in warm water. In the process of
denitrification, nitrates are biologically reduced first to nitrite and then to nitrogen gas
which is released into the air. Denitrification occurs in an anoxic (low D.O.) environment
and requires that a food source be present for the heterotrophic bacteria. In the
absence of D.O. and with a food source present, the bacteria utilize nitrate oxygen as
they metabolize food, releasing nitrogen gas.
The reduction of nitrate to nitrite occurs quickly, while the reduction of nitrite to nitrogen
gas is a slower process.
NO3
NO2
N2
If a food source is present both steps occur rapidly enough that nitrite accumulation is
minimal. If a food source is not available during denitrification, the second step takes
NO2 +
If NH3 is present, free chlorine reacts with the ammonia to form chloramines.
NH3 + Cl
NH2Cl
PHOSPHORUS
IX. Phosphorus
Importance of Controlling Phosphorus
Phosphorus (P) is regulated in wastewater discharged to surface water due to its
properties as a fertilizer. Like nitrogen, phosphorus is taken up by living organisms
approximately according to the 100C:5N:1P ratio. It is one of the essential nutrients
needed to build cells and sustain life. Plants do not grow where there is not an adequate
supply of P. This is true in agriculture where P is added to soil to encourage the growth
of crops, but is also true in aquatic systems where limiting plant growth is desired.
Plant growth in lakes is related to the state of
eutrophication of the lake. Lakes that are cold and
deep, with minimal plant growth and very low nutrient
concentration are classified as Oligotrophic (oligo =
few, trophic = nutrient). Lakes that are in a changing
state with regard to nutrient load are classified as
Mesotrophic (meso = middle), while lakes that are
shallow, warm, and receive high nutrient loading are
classified as Eutrophic (eu = well, eutrophication = well
nourished).
Controlling the eutrophication rate of lakes involves controlling plant growth rate. This
can be accomplished by controlling the nutrient load into the lake. While nitrogen and
phosphorus are both nutrients needed by plants, nitrogen is too available naturally to be
used as a practical control method. Phosphorus on the other hand, is only available to
lakes as minerals containing phosphorus dissolve, or as fertilizers are discharged to the
lake from point source discharges such as wastewater treatment plants or from nonpoint sources such as agricultural run-off. Controlling phosphorus loading into lakes is a
practical method of limiting the growth rate of plants and the rate of eutrophication.
Phosphorus limits in Michigan have been established for most surface water dischargers
at 1.0 mg/L. However, this permit limit is determined by the quantity of flow to be
discharged, the characteristics of the receiving water, and current nutrient loading. In
addition to a concentration limit, many facilities are also limited as to the number of
pounds of phosphorus that can be discharged over a period of time. As the population
grows and development continues, phosphorus limits have become more restrictive in
some areas. This is especially true in areas near lakes where rapid development has
occurred and there are many sources of phosphorus contributing to the environment.
Forms of Phosphorus in Wastewater
The influent concentration of Total P for most municipal wastewater treatment plants
ranges from about 2.5 mg/L up to about 6 mg/L, depending largely on the amount of
inflow / infiltration into the collection system and industrial contributions. Total P includes
three common forms of P: Organic-P, Poly (condensed) P, and Ortho-P. All three
forms would be expected to occur in municipal wastewater influent.
Organic-P includes P that is a part of organic compounds; food scraps and human and
animal wastes contribute this form of P to the waste stream. Organic-P compounds may
be soluble (dissolved) in the wastewater, but are often associated with particulate
material. Poly-P is in the form of a long chain, consisting of many linked PO4 molecules.
Poly-P is soluble, found in many detergents, and is often added to public drinking water
1
Chemical
Chemical Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Removal
Removal
Total Phosphorus
Organic
Phosphorus
Metal Salt
Addition
Condensed (Poly)
Phosphates
Ortho
Phosphates
WAS
Ortho
Phosphates
RAS
Iron salt solutions have been used to effectively remove P for many years. Iron may
be added in its divalent state as Ferrous Chloride (FeCl2), or in its trivalent state as
Ferric Chloride (FeCl3). Both solutions are acidic, corrosive, and stain everything that
they contact with an orange color. Appropriate safety precautions must be observed.
FeCl2 is purchased from suppliers who obtain this as a byproduct of steel pickling (it is
sometimes referred to as pickle liquor), where hydrochloric acid solution is used to
2
Biological P Removal
Phosphorus Storing Bacteria
Acinetobacter (Assin Eato Back Ter)
Anaerobic
Fermentation
Acetate Production
Selection of Acinetobacter
P Released to Produce Energy
Aerobic
Stored Food Consumed
Excess P Taken Up
Sludge Wasted
When the MLSS passes into the aerobic reactor the Acinetobacter consume stored food,
and incorporate an excess amount of phosphorus into the biomass (often termed
Luxury Uptake). Secondary sludge is wasted while the organisms are aerobic, thus
removing P from the system.
Many different designs have risen
through the years in an effort to
maximize the quantity of P removed
by the biomass. The A/O
(Anaerobic / Oxic) process was one
of the earliest of the biological
phosphorus removal processes.
Though the A/O process had been
3
Biological P Removal
Phostrip
Chemical and Biological P Removal
Adrian, MI
Aeration Tank
Stripper
Lime
Precip
Clarifier
Sludge
Anaerobic
Aerobic
Aerobic
TROUBLE
SHOOTING
MODIFICATIONS
0.25 0.45
5 8 days
5 hours
AO Process (Anaerobic/Oxic)
A2/O (Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic)
D. Tapered aeration
Amount of Air Added is tapered
from Aeration Tank influent to
effluent. More air is added
where organic load and
biological activity is greatest.
Aeration
RAS
E. Step aeration
WAS
F. Step feed
Return Sludge and wastewater
are added at various points along
length of tank Intended to avoid
high and low areas of loading
and D.O. Approximates
Complete Mix.
H. Pure oxygen
High quality
Oxygen is
generated onsite to be used
rather than air
in the aeration
tank. Aeration
system is
covered to
minimize loss of
O2. Operated
at high F:M
Ratio. Designed to reduce area needed to treat large or high strength flows.
City of Detroit City of Wyandotte
City of Holland French Paper Company
I. Plug Flow
Wastewater and Return Sludge
enter head of Aeration Tank and
travel as a Plug through the
tank. Minimizes short-circuiting.
D.O. at head of tank may be low
due to localized introduction of
entire BOD load and increases
as ML travels to outlet.
N. Aero-Mod Sequox
The Sequox system by Aero-Mod is
a flow through activated sludge
process designed for biological
nutrient removal. An anaerobic
selector ahead of the aeration
system provides filament control
and encourages biological P
removal. Alternating aerobic/anoxic
reactors following first stage
aeration provide denitrification.
This is a compact design, utilizing air
lifts for most of the pumping
requirements. One of these facilities
is in operation at Kingsley.
BENCH SHEET
SAMPLE
DATE
MLSS
#1
MLSS
#2
RAS #1
RAS #2
MLVSS
MLVSS
RAS
VSS
RAS VSS
a. mls Sample
b. Filter Paper + Dry, grams
c. Filter Paper, grams
d. Dry Solids, grams
(b c)
(d i)
D.O., mg/L
A.T. #1
A.T. #2
SETTLEABILITY
mLs
Time
Settled
Time
5 min
10 min
15 min
20 min
30 min
SVI
Clar #1
Clar #2
RAS Flow
% Influent
Clar #1
Clar #2
WAS
gallons
OUR
For example, A fed sample OUR = 1.4 mg/L/min. The MLVSS of this sample is 2100
mg/L. The SOUR would be calculated by the following:
If this same example has the same OUR but a MLVSS of 3500 mg/L, the SOUR would
be:
In this example you can see that for the same value of OUR, the SOUR values are
changed significantly based on the MLVSS concentration. Based on the SOUR values,
the higher MLVSS actually has a smaller respiration rate per gram of active solids
(VSS).
Load Factor
Another calculation is sometimes used to interpret the fed and unfed numbers. Load
factor or load index is a ratio between the fed and unfed values (the fed number is
divided by the unfed number). This value indicates activity before and after feeding.
NUTRIENT
ADDITION
Both ammonia and nitrate are available as nitrogen sources, as well as organic
nitrogen (urea). However, if organically bound nitrogen is used and the waste
contains a carbon source that is easily metabolized (simple sugars and organic
acids), the nitrogen may not be available rapidly enough during the metabolism
of these wastes.
2.
If the organic loading varies, the nutrient supply should vary with the loading.
3.
Since each wastewater has its own particular nutrient demand, measurement of
effluent concentrations for orthophosphate, ammonia, and nitrate should be
performed. Concentrations of total inorganic nitrogen (NH3, NO2, and NO3) of at
least 0.2 to 0.3 mg/L and soluble Orthophosphate of 0.2 mg/L should be
maintained. Phosphorus measurements should be made on effluent samples
filtered through 0.45 m filter paper.
Supplemental nutrient feed is calculated based on the number of pounds of BOD coming
into the secondary process, the amount of nutrients already present in the incoming
waste, and the properties of the commercial chemical that will be used to supply the
nutrient. Take a step-by-step approach to make the calculation more understandable.
Start out by determining how much (mg/L) of each nutrient is required to supply
the amount indicated by the 100 C : 5 N :1 P : 0.5 Fe ratio.
Next, determine how much (mg/L) nutrient is needed in addition to that already in
the waste.
Using the pounds formula, calculate how many pounds of each nutrient must be
added.
Based on the properties of the commercial chemical that will be used to supply
the nutrient, calculate the pounds of the chemical must be used.
If the commercial chemical is a liquid, determine the number of gallons of the
solution that must be fed each day.
1
4.5 MGD
150 mg/L
2.5 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
P Required, mg/L
Fe Required, mg/L
BOD, mg/L
Ratio BOD:N
150 mg/L
100/5
150
20
7.5 mg/L N
BOD, mg/L
Ratio BOD:P
150 mg/L
100/1
1.5 mg/L P
BOD, mg/L
Ratio BOD:Fe
150 mg/L
100 / 0.5
0.75 mg/L Fe
150
100
= 150
200
3.
4.
=
=
P Additional, mg/L
=
=
Fe Additional, mg/L
=
=
P addition, lbs/day
Determine how many pounds per day of each commercial chemical will be
needed to supply the required pounds of nutrient:
Commercial Chemical, lbs/day =
Atomic Wt. of N
Molecular Wt. of NH3
Atomic Wt. of P
Molecular Wt. of H3PO4
= 1X3 = 3
= 31 X 1 = 31
= 16 X 4 = 64
=
98
A.S. HISTORY
INTRODUCTION
The design and operation of activated sludge systems represents one of the key topics
covered during any environmental engineers education. Our courses and textbooks
thoroughly examine the topic, shedding light and wisdom on a process whose finer
details have been mastered to a point likely more advanced than that of any other
wastewater treatment technology.
However, should you happen to ask any one of our students what they know about the
formative history of the concept, let alone the names and backgrounds of the responsible
engineers, youll quickly find that their corresponding knowledge ranges from bare to nil.
In large measure, the technical roots for activated sludge have largely been ignored
within our current texts and classes, such that most students likely share a common
misconception that activated sludge has forever been the preeminent option for
wastewater purification.
Most practicing engineers, though, belatedly develop an appreciation for the art of their
applied technology, transcending their textbooks wisdom about kinetics and
microbiology with a personal, human interest in the who, what, when, and why of the
affiliated history. This article will consequently examine the yesteryear circumstances
under which activated sludge was devised, and the early developments which largely
shaped its subsequent use.
Admittedly, there have been many articles written about this singular topic. The
following chronology provides a summarial overview of these prior review
publications: Porter, 1917; Ardern, 1917; Porter, 1921; Martin, 1927; Clark, 1930;
Mohlman, 1938; Greeley, 1945; Sawyer, 1965; and Alleman, 1984.
These works have progressively provided informative reviews and updates on the everexpanding history of activated sludge treatment. Porters two works alone, respectively
written in 1917 and 1921, are certainly indicative of the explosive interest which this
technology first drew. Barely six years after the idea had originally been published, the
associated literature had already grown in number to nearly 800 articles. The paper athand will, therefore, unavoidably retrace technical developments thoroughly documented
by these preceding activated sludge historians. This latest review will, however, attempt
to provide yet another slant on the topic, with new insights regarding the personal and
scientific motivations which catalyzed the original concept.
At this point, the solution of downstream dilution had become civilizations best
strategy for dealing with wastes. However, with these wastes now being funneled to
discrete outfalls, the idea evolved that these streams might actually be used for beneficial
gain as a convenient, and free, source of fertilizing nutrients. Punchs poem briefly
captures this mood, and Victor Hughs classic, "Les Miserables," offered an even more
convincing argument for reusing what he aptly described as the detritus of capital:
"A great city is the most powerful of stercoraries. To employ the city to enrich the plain
would be a sure success. If our gold in filth, then our filth is gold.these fetid streams of
subterranean slime which the pavement hides from you, do you know what all this is? It
is the flowering meadow, it is the green grass, it is marjoram and thyme and sage, it is
game, it is cattle, it is the satisfied low of huge oxen at evening, it is perfumed hay, it is
golden corn, it is bread on your table, it is warm blood in your veins, it is health, it is joy,
it is life."
These newly devised waste conduits were subsequently recognized as a prime
commodity for entrepreneurial gain, and a cottage industry of wastewater alchemists
quickly emerged intent on extracting the nutrient essence of sewage for monetary gain.
The Native Guano Company eventually dominated this manure market in England,
franchised and licensed to cities with the lofty expectation that they could transform their
foul wastes into a profitable artificial fertilizer. In retrospect, therefore, these original
treatment plants were frankly not built for environmental or sanitary gain. Instead, the
prime goal for this companys patented technology, known as the "ABC Process, was
considerably more focused on nutrient recovery (nitrogen and phosphorus).
In retrospect, though, the ABC Process started a sanitary revolution whose technical
prodigy would eventually lead us to full-fledged wastewater treatment facilities. This
original procedure, using alum, blood, and clay (i.e., "ABC") to optimistically promote a
sort of natural coagulation, no doubt qualifies as the seminal prototype for physicalchemical sewage treatment. Undoubtedly, this scheme was a malodorous first step, but
the precedent had been established against which future engineers could measure their
success.
viewed the enhanced deposition as a failure since he personally believed that sewage
impurities were to be rendered soluble or gasified for optimal treatment.
By 1910, the merits of aerating sewage in the presence of biological humus or slime were
beginning to find widespread acknowledgement. In their classic full-scale New York
study, Black and Phelps decided to abandon coarse rock media in favor of closely spaced,
wooden laths in order to achieve a higher surface area for desired slime accumulation.
(Black & Phelps, 1914) In essence, their unit was an aerated version of the prior Travis
Colloider or Hydrolytic Tank (which had also used wood laths, but in an anaerobic
contact chamber).
Clark and Gage also initiated similar laboratory studies at Lawrence in 1912, comparing
aerated treatment efficiencies of bottles inoculated with algal suspensions against that
obtained in packed slate beds. (Martin, 1927; Pearse, 1938) The slate bed concept should,
however, be attributed to Dibdin. (Dibdin, 1913) Having been unsuccessful at simple
aeration in 1884, Dibdin had successively studied intermittent filtration, contact beds and
serial contact beds before coming full circle to the notion of combining aeration with
biological treatment in a slate bed contactor.
At this point, 31 years had elapsed since Dr. Smith first examined the aeration of sewage.
However, the seemingly simplistic notion of accumulating a suspended biomass through
solids recycle was still unknown. Hence, the revelation by Fowlers students, Ardern and
Lockett, in May 1914 that these humus solids should be saved rather than discarded
proved to be an unqualified "bombshell" (using Fowlers description, provided during an
audience reply following presentation of Ardern and Locketts paper).
Ever sensitive to the fiscal realities of academic research, Ardern and Lockett
acknowledged their gracious appreciation for the monetary support which had been
provided by the Worshipful Company of Grocers. (Ardern & Lockett, 1914b) In
retrospect, the fact that grocers would have been interested in this sort of research topic
does seem rather odd. However, upon reading the audience comments following their
presentation, it is readily evident that they genuinely thought this systems waste sludge
would yield a marketable product given its nutrient content. Here again, as with the prior
ABC process, they were optimistically interested in recovering nitrogen and phosphorus
which otherwise was in critically short supply as a raw fertilizer feedstock. Rather
ironically, though, their ever-present shortage of fixed nitrogen would shortly have an
even more dramatic impact relative to its necessity for manufacturing the munitions
which would be needed for World War 1. Germanys acute awareness of this problem led
them (i.e., via Fritz Habers Nobel-winning research) to develop industrial processes for
synthesizing ammonia and nitratesat which point the opportunity or need for
recovering nitrogen from sewage largely became a moot issue.
Using fill-and-draw cycling, these latter authors had provided the premier demonstration
and pronouncement of activated sludge treatment. Even with viewed in the context of our
contemporary operations, their initial experiments were remarkably advanced. Indeed,
their presentation addressed such topics such as energy conservation, sludge handling,
and the sensitivity of nitrifying organisms to temperature and pH, all of which are still
debated in our contemporary literature. Perhaps more importantly, the audience of Ardern
and Locketts presentation immediately recognized the monumental value of their
discovery.
LAB TO FIELD TRANSFORMATION OF THE ACTIVATED SLUDGE
PROCESS:
1914 -> 1920s
Ardern and Lockett subsequently presented two further papers in 1914 (b) and 1915
which touched on a range of practical issues, including: performance capabilities during
continuous-flow and fill-and-draw operation, the detrimental impact of trade wastes,
aeration levels using plain tubes and porous tiles, required aeration intensities, and
biomass acclimation. The startling fact that it could reliably produce clear, non-odorous
effluents had extreme appeal for municipalities long frustrated with their aesthetically
unattractive options. Even as Fowlers pioneering research continued, therefore, the
process was already being tested on full-scale basis. In fact, at the same 1914 meeting
that Ardern and Lockett presented their second paper, Melling (1914) announced that he
had successfully applied activated sludge treatment to an 80,000 gallon per day flow at
Salford, England.
6
In quick succession, several full-scale English installations were placed into operation.
The following listing provides a chronological summary of these facilities: Salford, 1914,
Davyhulme, 1915; Worcester, 1916; Sheffield, 1916; 1917; Stamford, 1917; Tunstall,
1920; Sheffield, 1920; Davyhulme, 1921; and Bury, 1921. In the United States,
progression of the activated sludge process moved with similarly amazing speed. Edward
Bartow, a Professor at the University of Illinois, visited Fowlers group in Manchester in
August of 1914 and subsequently began his own bench-and pilot-scale experiments along
the lines established by Fowlers group. Within a period of several months, numerous
other American researchers initiated similar studies, including those by Hammond,
Hendrick, Hurd, Frank, Mohlman, Hatton, and Pearse. (Maring, 1927; Pearse, 1938;
Metcalf & Eddy, 1916;
Babbitt, 1926) Full-scale U.S. installations began to appear to 1916, and by 1927 there
were nearly ten full-scale systems spread throughout the country, including: San Marcos
(TX), 1916; Milwaukee (WI), 1916; Cleveland (OH), 1916; Houston (TX), 1917 & 1918
(2 each); Des Plaines (IL), 1922; Calumet (IN), 1922; Milwaukee (WI), 1925; and
Indianapolis (IN), 1927.
ENTREPRENEURIAL TRANSFORMATION OF ACTIVATED SLUDGE:
1913 -> 1940s
Within less than a decade, this rudimental, bench-scale concept had been installed at
numerous multi-MGD facilities. Based on its rapid growth during these first few years, it
would seem that activated sludge would have become the preeminent wastewater
treatment process virtually overnight. However, despite this initial intensity, activated
sludge did not truly find widespread application for several decades.
The cause for this delay is quite simple; namely, patent litigation curtailed most of the
technical momentum. Whereas Ardern and Lockett presented their research findings in
May of 1914, another pair of wastewater entrepreneurs (i.e., Jones and Attwood, Ltd.)
had actually beaten them to the punch by nearly a full year, filing four separate patent
applications dealing with "Improvements in Apparatus for the Purification of Sewage or
other Impure Waters" (UK patents #19915 at 1913; #22952 at 1913; #729 at 1914; and
#19916 at 1914). (Jones &
Attwood, 1913ab; 1914; 1915) Of these four, none actually employed the term activated
sludge. No. 729 clearly included the basics of the process though, particularly because of
its specific reference to solid recycle. Furthermore, the reactor figures provided by this
latter patent bear a striking similarity to contemporary looped designs marketed by
several proprietors.
Jones and Attwood must also be credited with much of the preliminary work towards
establishing the practical application of activated sludge. Several of the original full-scale
facilities (e.g. Worcester and Stamford) were, in fact, solely constructed at their expense
7
and risk as a means to demonstrate its pragmatic merit. In fact, the Worcester system was
designed and installed under a performance-based contract based on effluent quality.
The patent situation for activated sludge became even more complex in 1915 when Leslie
Frank, a U.S. Public Health Officer, obtained an American Patent (#1,139,024) which
covered much the same material as the Jones and Attwood claims. (Frank, 1915) Frank,
however, dedicated his patent for "activated sludge" (the misspelling reflects Franks
terminology) to all U.S. citizens. Hence, at this point, there were two different patent
entities dealing with activated sludge. Aside from these legal claims, Flowlers own
standing as the originator of activated sludge was also being disputed by Clark at
Lawrence. (Clark, 1915; Mohlman 1938; Greeley, 1945) However, despite this confusion
regarding the legal status and origination of activated sludge, the American engineering
community pushed ahead with its technical application.
In late 1914, Jones and Attwood, Ltd. Warned American engineers and cities that they
should use caution regarding patent infringements. (Hatton, 1916) And when American
engineers took credit for certain innovations which transgressed into their (i.e. Jones and
Attwood, Ltd) patented procedures (e.g., Clarence Hurds announcement of the spiralflow aeration pattern being used at Indianapolis), they were quickly rebuffed by the Jones
and Attwood group. (Hurd, 1929; Sandford, 1929) But as more and more plants were
built, municipal concerns about patent problems and complications diminished.
This mood quickly changed, though, with a suit filed by Activated Sludge, Ltd. (the
licensed patentee for Jones and Attwood, Ltd.) against Chicago in the late 1920s.
(Anonymous, 1933) Additional suits against Milwaukee, Cleveland, Indianapolis, and
several smaller cities soon followed. Legal rulings on all of these cases took several
years, during which time the sanitary engineering profession seriously reassessed the
prospects for near-term activated sludge utilization. In 1933, District Judge Geiger ruled
that Milwaukee had, indeed, violated patents held by Activated Sludge, Ltd.
(Anonymous, 1934a,b) An appeal was submitted, but in October, 1934 the Supreme
Court declined to rule against this decision.
In reflecting upon this outcome, Bloodgood (1982) indicated a belief that the District
Judge ruled against Milwukee moreso because of their outspoken lawyer than the
involved legal details. Whatever the case, the infringement ruling immediately rippled
throughout the country. Several existing plants quickly shut down to avoid monetary
fines, including the original San Marcos, Texas facility. (Otts, 1982) Many others chose
to continue their use of the activated sludge process based on a royalty fee of 25 cents per
capita. Amongst the 203 plants, Kappe (1938) reported that 150 were licensed by
Activated Sludge, Ltd. (Kappe, 1938) As for the large number of communities planning
to install new activated sludge plants, most simply elected either to build an alternative
system (oftentimes a trickling filter) or to wait until the applicable patents expired (e.g.
Washington, D.C. was a prime example).
Milwaukee and Chicago appear to have suffered the largest losses with each being fined
just under one million dollars (Activated Sludge, Inc., 1946) In Milwaukees case, these
monies were secured from the proceeds on a relatively new (i.e. since 1926) sludge
product, Milorganite, whose annual sales in 1934 were estimated at 3 million dollars. In
retrospect, Chicago probably wishes it had accepted the terms of an out-of-court
settlement offered by Activated Sludge, Ltd. (Activated Sludge, Inc., 1946) Rather than
paying for the imposed fine and several years of legal involvement, the case could have
been settled with a $90,000 settlement.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE SUPREMACY:
1950s -> present
Once the business of building wastewater treatment plants hit its peak in the United
States following World War II, the activated sludge process quickly became the dominant
design approach for secondary systemsand this supremacy remains in effect to this
day. Had it not been for the litigation stemming from its original British patents, this
transition from fixed film processes would probably have moved even faster. At this
point in time, though, activated sludge has proven itself to be durable technology in an
era where most engineering methods lapse into obsolescence only decades, if not years,
after their original development.
SUMMARY
Sixteen years ago Frank Schaumburg published this Figure as a stand-alone paper with
the Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation (NOTE: Even today, it is still
considered to be one of the most succinct publications ever carried on the topic of
activated sludge!). Entitled, "65 Years of Efficiency Progress in Activated Sludge," the
late Professor Schaumburgs goal was to visually (and probably sarcastically)
demonstrate - the fact that the performance levels achieved with activated sludge (i.e.,
BOD removal efficiencies) have changed extremely little over the decades in spite of
considerable research and publication on the topic! It worked well when first developed,
it works about the same today, and it should serve our needs for many more years.
Ironically, though, the problem of handling the resultant sludge, which Melling cited as
their "greatest bugabear" while commenting on the landmark paper in 1914, still remains
a distinct challenge!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The figures included within this text were respectively scanned from the following
sources:
-Pg. 1, Punch, pg. 41,31 July 1858;
-Pg. 2, top, Reyburn, W. (1989). "Flushed with Pride," Pavilion Books Limited, London,
UK;
-Pg. 2, bottom, Punch, pg. 71, 14 August 1858;
-Pg. 3, Minutes of Evidence, Royal Commission on Metropolitan Sewage Discharge,
Vol. III,
From May 1884 to October 1884 (1885);
-Pg. 4, Ardern, E. and Lockett, W.T. (1914). "Experiments on the Oxidation of Sewage
Without the
Aid of Filters." Journal of the Society of Chemical Industry, 33, pg. 524, 30 May;
-Pg. 7, Schaumburg, F. and Marsh, B.E. (1980), "65 Years of Efficiency Progress in
Activated
Sludge," Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, 51, pg.1.
10