Biological Nutrient Removal

INTRODUCTION
1.1 General:

Fig. 1 Eutrophication

The increasing occurrence of eutrophication has become a serious environmental

problem. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus have been recognized as the major
factors including eutrophication. The removal of nutrients, especially nitrogen and
phosphorus, has become the primary object of wastewater treatments. The biological
nutrient removal (BNR) process has been widely used in wastewater treatment and the
activated sludge process is the dominant BNR process. Typically, BNR includes
anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic phases for nitrification, denitrification, and phosphorus
removal, respectively.

Removal of phosphorus from the effluent of municipal facilities discharging to

the Great Lakes was implemented by the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972
between the US and Canadian governments. Most utilities added chemicals to the
activated sludge process to precipitate the phosphorus to less than 1mg/L in the effluent.
At this point, biological phosphorus removal was observed but not at understanding.
The protection of San Francisco Bay required the removal of nitrogen. The EPA Manual
on nitrogen removal (Parker, 1975) showed that 79% of the nitrogen derived from point
sources and 11% from dairies and feedlots. Nitrogen was also the limiting nutrient in
bays and estuaries on the East Coast and Florida. In South Africa, the high concentration
of population in the relatively dry interior resulted in indirect recycling of wastewater,
and even though there had been an ammonia standard in place since 1954, discharges of
nitrates and phosphorus had not been reduced. By the late 1960s, dense growth of blue-
green algae resulted in the poisoning of animal's taste and odour problems for

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 1

 Biological Nutrient Removal
downstream water users. Windhoek, the capital city of Namibia was running out of
reliable water resources. In the late 1960s, the National Institute for Water Research in
South Africa launched intensive research concentrating especially on the reclamation of
wastewater for potable re-use.

1.2 What are nutrients?

Nutrients are substances essential for the growth of humans, plants, and animals.
Nutrients are taken in by organisms and promote growth. Carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorus are essential nutrients to most aquatic organisms.

1.3 Why do we care about nutrients in wastewater?

Water is an important resource that we must protect to enhance our quality of life and
that of our children.
Currently, many water bodies are impaired due to nutrient-related causes, such as:

 Nitrogen  Ammonia
 Phosphorus  Biological integrity
 Oxygen depletion  Turbidity
 Algal growth
These impairments can cause algal blooms, fish kills, murky water, increased microbes
that are harmful to human health, and the loss of desirable aquatic plants and animals.
To reduce impairments point source dischargers, such as wastewater treatment plants,
have received strict and often reduced effluent limits for nitrogen and phosphorus - the
main culprits. Using chemicals to remove nutrients may prove costly and may add
undesirable chemicals to the sludge and effluent.

Biological nutrient removal removes total nitrogen and total phosphorus from
wastewater by;

 Using microorganisms
 Adjusting environmental conditions in the treatment process.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 2

 Biological Nutrient Removal
1.4 What nutrients are in wastewater and why do we need to
remove them?
Phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon are nutrients that are essential to aquatic health;
however, in excess, they pose a serious problem. For this reason, wastewater treatment
facilities must meet nutrient effluent limits for phosphorus, nitrogen, carbon, and various
micronutrients found in wastewater.

Nutrient-containing streams may cause eutrophication, ammonia toxicity, and nitrate

contamination of groundwater.

Eutrophication – nutrient over-enrichment of a body of water, causing increased

growth of algae and rooted plants and premature aging of lakes.

 The accelerated growth of algae and rooted plants becomes a major concern as
plants and algae die and decay, which in turn reduces the dissolved oxygen in
the water.
 Nitrogen and phosphorus are two necessary components for controlling
eutrophication.
 By controlling the growth-limiting nutrient (namely phosphorus or nitrogen, or
both), eutrophication can be managed.

Fig. 2 & 3 Eutrophication

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 3

 Biological Nutrient Removal

Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Process

Biological nutrient removal activated sludge (BNRAS) system has become an

established technology in wastewater treatment practice to control eutrophication, and
this development has been facilitated by an improved understanding of nitrification,
denitrification, and excess biological phosphorus (P) removal (EBPR) (Ekama and
Wentzel 1999). However, the need to implement the BNRAS system to meet more
stringent effluent requirements of both nitrogen (N) and P cost-effectively and
sustainably has brought with it a new set of challenges, including:

 Slow (variable) growth rates and low yield of nitrifiers (requirements for either
long sludge age or large aerobic mass fraction or both)
 Sludge bulking and P content in the effluent solids from settling tanks.
 Lack of carbon source in influent and the competition for carbon source between
denitrification and EBPR organisms.

To address these issues, research has focused in the last decade on the treatment
processes in the mainstream line, sludge treatment train, and (reject liquids generated
in sludge treatment processes, e.g., anaerobic digestion, dewatering).

COMMON REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY

FORM
MECHANISM LIMIT, mg/L
Total Nitrogen Ammonia-N Nitrification <0.5
Nitrate-N Denitrification 1-2
Particulate Organic-N Solids separation <1.0

Soluble Organic-N None 0.5-1.5

Microbial uptake and/or Chemical

Total Phosphorus Soluble P 0.1
precipitation

Particulate P Solids removal <0.05

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 4

 Biological Nutrient Removal
Biological Nitrogen Removal
2.1 How do you remove nitrogen?
Raw domestic wastewater contains around 40 mg/L of total nitrogen. This typically is
measured as Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). About 60% of the influent total nitrogen
is ammonia and 40% is organic nitrogen.

Nitrogen is required for cell growth and reproduction. Bacteria take in (assimilate)
nitrogen from wastewater in a process known as assimilation. The new biomass contains
about 12% nitrogen.

In the aerobic treatment process, most of the organic nitrogen is changed to ammonia in
a process known as ammonification. The ammonia is then available to the nitrifying
organisms. A small portion of the organic nitrogen remains in organic form and is
removed physically or will pass through to the effluent.

Biological nitrogen removal is a two-step process that involves nitrification and

denitrification.

 Nitrification is an oxidizing process that occurs in the presence of oxygen under

aerobic conditions using bacteria (often Nitrosomonas) to oxidize ammonia to
nitrite, and then using another type of bacteria (often Nitrobacter) to oxidize the
nitrite (NO2) to nitrate (NO3)
Ammonia + Oxygen + Alkalinity + Nitrosomonas = Nitrite
(NH3) (O2) (NO2)
Nitrite + Oxygen + Alkalinity + Nitrobacter = Nitrate
(NO2) (O2) (NO3)

 Denitrification is a reducing process that occurs in the absence of oxygen under

anoxic conditions using heterotrophic bacteria (usually Pseudomonas) to reduce
nitrate to nitric oxide, nitrous oxide, and nitrogen gas
Nitrate + Organics + Pseudomonas = Nitrogen gas + Alkalinity
(NO3) (N2)

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 5

 Biological Nutrient Removal
Non-biodegradable organic nitrogen that is in particulate form is not removed through these
processes, but rather through the physical process of solids separation (sedimentation or
filtration

Fig 4 and 5: Nitrogen cycle and Nitrogen removed from nitrification and denitrification

2.2 Conditions necessary for good removal of nitrogen

I. Nitrification
For optimum nitrification, strive for these conditions:
 A solids retention time (SRT) long enough to allow a stable population of
nitrifiers to be maintained in the process. The target SRT will vary with
temperature, DO, pH, and ammonia concentration.
 The temperature must be greater than 70 C to provide a stable population of
nitrifiers.
 Dissolved Oxygen above 2.0 mg/L generally will not limit nitrification.
 Nitrifiers perform poorly with wide swings in pH, so maintain pH between
6.8- 8.0.
 The nitrification process will consume alkalinity at a rate of 7.14 mg CaCO3
per 1 mg nitrogen. Effluent alkalinity of at least 50 mg/L and preferably 100
mg/L is recommended to stabilize the pH in the system.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 6

 Biological Nutrient Removal
 A hydraulic retention time (HRT) long enough to allow biomass enough time to
react with the ammonia. Systems with longer HRTs are less likely to see
ammonia break-through due to temperature changes, variation in flow and
loading
 Nitrifiers are sensitive to many organic and inorganic substances, so eliminate
toxic substances from the system.

II. Denitrification
For optimum denitrification, these conditions are necessary:

 An anoxic zone that has dissolved oxygen levels less than 0.1 mg/L. Denitrifying
bacteria are facultative and prefer to use oxygen to metabolize CBOD. Any
oxygen in the zone will be used before the bacteria start to reduce the nitrate.
 Sufficient readily degradable CBOD in the anoxic zone. Denitrification
consumes 2.86 mg CBOD per mg of nitrate denitrified. Carbon augmentation
may be necessary with low CBOD to nitrogen ratios and nearly all separate stage
denitrification.
 There are benefits to combined nitrification and denitrification :
 Denitrification will reduce 2.86 mg of the CBOD per mg of nitrate without the
expense of adding air.
 Reduce the alkalinity demand by producing 3.57 mg of alkalinity per mg of
nitrate denitrified.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 7

 Biological Nutrient Removal
Biological Phosphorus Removal

Phosphorus stimulates the growth of plants, both in soil and in water. If an excess of
phosphorus enters a water body, algae and aquatic plant growth can become
unmanageable, choke up the waterway and use large amounts of oxygen. The lowered
dissolved oxygen levels may harm aquatic life. For this reason, reducing the amount of
phosphorus in wastewater effluent is essential.

Phosphorus-removal techniques can take advantage of microorganisms to remove

phosphorus from wastewater. This process is called biological phosphorus removal.
Biological phosphorus removal is possible because of the microorganisms' ability and
needs to utilize phosphorus in energy transfer and for cell components.

2.3 Where does phosphorus in wastewater come from?

Almost half comes from human wastes, but industrial process wastewater and food soils
are significant sources as well. The rest comes from multiple sources, such as water
treatment, household cleaners, and even toothpaste.

Most phosphorus in wastewater occurs as;

 Orthophosphate – the simplest form consisting of individual molecules of

phosphate
 Polyphosphate – large molecules containing many individual molecules of
orthophosphate
 Organic phosphate - phosphate combined with an organic compound, such as
human waste

During biological treatment, most polyphosphate and organic phosphate are converted
to orthophosphate, a form that is readily assimilated by microorganisms

2.4 How do you remove phosphorus?

In wastewater effluent, ‘total phosphorus’ includes both soluble and particulate
phosphorus. Like organic particulate nitrogen, particulate phosphorus is removed using
a solids removal process.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 8

 Biological Nutrient Removal
Removing soluble phosphorus requires the use of a biological process employing
organisms that can store excess phosphorus (called 'phosphorus-accumulating
organisms' or 'PAOs'). Usually, the PAOs under anaerobic conditions, convert organic
matter to energy-rich carbon compounds called Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs). The
energy required for this process is generated through the breakdown of polyphosphate
molecules, resulting in an increased concentration of phosphate in the anaerobic state
(phosphorus release). Under aerobic conditions, energy is restored through phosphate
uptake.

2.5 Conditions necessary for good bio-P removal

Six conditions are necessary for good bio-P removal:
 Sequential anaerobic and aerobic exposure of mixed liquor.
 Available volatile fatty acids (VFAs) in the anaerobic zone. A BOD5 to TP ratio
of 20:1 or 7-10 mg /L of VFAs are required per mg of phosphorus removed by
bio-P.
 Waste biomass when the mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) is aerobic and
the phosphorus is stored in the cell mass.
 Avoid secondary release of phosphorus. Anaerobic zones should have a
hydraulic detention time of about one hour, depending on MLSS. Concentration
and a solids retention time (SRT) of 1.5-2 days. Monitor sludge blanket in
secondary clarifiers so it does not go anaerobic and release phosphorus.
 Take care in managing recycle streams. Recycle from sludge handling can
contain high quantities of nitrogen and phosphorus.
 Minimize dissolved oxygen and nitrate recycled back to the anaerobic zone.
Dissolved oxygen and nitrate will interfere with fermentation. Avoid producing
aeration through pumping and turbulence between tanks.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 9

 Biological Nutrient Removal

TREATMENT PROCESS

Following are the list of the treatment process:

 Integrated fixed-film activated sludge process

 Sequential batch reactor process

 Step feed process

 Moving bed biofilm reactor process

 Membrane biological reactor process

 Oxidation ditch process

3.1 Integrated fixed-film activated sludge process (IFAS)

It has been used very successfully to reduce the basin requirements for nitrification. The
floating media are added to the aeration zone to supply surface area for nitrifying
organisms to cling to, and kept in place by screens. In an MLE configuration, mixed
liquor passes through the screens and is recycled to the anoxic zone for denitrification.
Pilot plant work at Broomfield CO, Cheyenne WY, and Mamaroneck, NY showed that
the SRT of the suspended growth media could be reduced by 50% (Johnson et al., 2004).
Sponge media provided more than 80% of total nitrogen removal through SND in one
New England plant (Masterson et al., 2004).

Fig 6: IFAS

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 10

 Biological Nutrient Removal
3.2 Sequencing Batch Reactors (SBR)

SBR performs all the necessary functions of nutrient removal in a single tank with
variable water levels and timed aeration. This system requires a minimum of three tanks
and advanced automation equipment to control the cycle times and phases. The SBR
control systems allow the operation to be configured to operate as almost any other
suspended growth reactor by adjusting the cycle phases between fill, mix, aerated, settle
and decant.

Fig 7: SBR

Advantages:

 It is flexible and easy to operate.

 Mixed- liquor solids cannot be washed out by hydraulic surges.
 Equalization is provided.
 Quiescent settling provides low effluent TSS.
 5-8 mg/L TN is an achievable concentration.

Disadvantages:

 It is a more complex process design

 Effluent quality depends upon a reliable decanting facility.
 May need effluent equalization of batch discharge before filtration and
disinfection

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 11

 Biological Nutrient Removal
3.3 Step Feed Process:

It has been successfully used for nitrogen removal by the City of New York and others.
In a four-pass system with a feed point to the head of each pass, anoxic zones were
created at every feed point. (Chandran et al., 2004). This required intensification of the
biological processes such as adding alkalinity to optimize nitrifier growth rate; precise
control of the oxygen supply; additional carbon for denitrification in the limited anoxic
zones; and the need for extensive instrumentation. With these and other measures, it will
be possible to reduce the effluent TN concentration to below 4 mg/L which is the goal
for 2014. McGarth (2006) used the ability of the step-feed plant for routing storm flows
while still achieving high overall nitrogen removal.

Fig 8: Step-feed

Advantages:

 Nitrogen concentrations less than 5 mg/L are possible.

 5 to 8 mg/L TN is achievable.

Disadvantages:

 It is a more complex operation.

 Potential Nocardia growth problem.
 Requires dissolved oxygen control in each aeration zone.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 12

 Biological Nutrient Removal
3.4 Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor Process (MBBR):

The MBBR is a highly effective biological treatment process based on a combination of

conventional activated sludge process and biofilm media. The MBBR process utilizes
floating plastic carriers (media) within the aeration tank to increase the amount of
microorganisms available to treat the wastewater. The microorganisms consume organic
material. The media provides increased surface area for the biological microorganisms
to attach to and grow in the aeration tanks. The increased surface area reduces the
footprint of the tanks required to treat the wastewater. The media is continuously
agitated by bubbles from the aeration system that adds oxygen at the bottom of the first
compartment of the aeration tank. The microorganisms consume organic material. When
compared to conventional secondary treatment it provides superior efficiency and value.

In fact the MBBR media have an active surface area. It is a complete mix, continuous
flow through process which is based on the biofilms principle that combines the benefits
of both the activated sludge process and conventional fixed film systems without their
disadvantages.

Fig 9: MBBR

Advantages:

 Compact units with small size

 It can be expandable
 It is a single pass process
 Minimal maintenance is required
 It can remove complete solids
 There is no need for periodic backwashing

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 13

 Biological Nutrient Removal
3.5 Membrane Biological Reactor Process (MBR):

MBR technology has already passed through the first or, even second stage of
development and the only reason that it is not universally applied is the power cost
associated with it. Barnard (1998) discussed the future of the activated sludge process
and proposed a flow sheet in which both nitrogen and phosphorus removal can be
obtained. Nitrogen removal requires biological nitrification and denitrification that can
be accommodated in an MBR which functions better at a solids retention time (SRT)
over 10 days which allows nitrification to very low ammonia concentrations.
Denitrification then becomes necessary to save power and eliminate the need for
alkalinity.

Fig 10: Flowsheet for MBR plant at Cauly Creek (Daily 2006)

Since most existing MBRs operate in the MLE mode, effluent ammonia concentrations
are quite low, but effluent TN values are around 8 mg/L.

Daily (2006) stated that the Cauly Creek plant in Georgia, which was designed with an
anaerobic zone in addition to the MLE configuration, was able to reduce phosphorus
concentration to less than 0.5 mg/L without any chemical additives, and that with the
addition of either alum or ferric chloride (FeCl3) to the membrane compartment, average
effluent TP of 0.1 mg/L was achieved. The COD/TKN ratio was 11.2 and 81% nitrogen
removal was achieved.

Gnirss et al., (2006) operated a pilot plant in Berlin, Germany in two different modes
and reduced the TN from 60 mg/L to 10.7 mg/L in the conventional configuration for
denitrification, and 6.7 mg/L during operation in the post-denitrification configuration.
The COD/TKN ratio was 10.6. The nitrate concentration in the effluent was 4.5 mg/L,

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 14

 Biological Nutrient Removal
the rDON concentration was 2.2 mg/L, and the SRT (aerobic) was 8 days. When the
plant was operated at a higher aerobic SRT, the concentration of nitrates in the effluent
was closer to 2 mg/L. Since nothing much can be done in the MBR to remove the rDON,
only the nitrates could be further reduced.

The contradictory high removal rate of nitrates in the post denitrification zone may be
attributable to the wastewater characteristics that allowed organic carbon to be absorbed
and carried through to, and be available in the post-anoxic zones. Van Huyssteen and
Barnard (1990) noticed an accelerated denitrification rate in a plant where VFA was
added to the anaerobic zone and proposed that there was some glycogen storage by
bacteria that could supply carbon for denitrification, but it is unlikely to be carried
through the aeration zone to assist in denitrification in the post-anoxic zone. The option
of using the post-denitrification configuration in an MBR system should be further
investigated in light of the contradictory evidence about endogenous denitrification in a
second anoxic zone.

Fig 11: MBR configuration for nitrogen removal (Gnriss, 2006)

With a membrane reactor, there is no need for filtration and the option of using a
denitrification filter for moving residual nitrates has been eliminated. To achieve low
effluent nitrate levels, configurations should be considered to ensure denitrification to
very low levels. Barnard (2005) proposed the flow diagram that would include an
attached growth section ahead of the membrane basins where methanol-degrading
organisms can grow on the media and not be washed out, ensuring less than 1 mg/L of
nitrates in the effluent. McQuarrie (2006) found that when adding media to a post-anoxic
zone, the rate of denitrification with methanol is doubled. It should be experimentally

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 15

 Biological Nutrient Removal
determined if a downflow fixed media or floating media would be the best choice for
post anoxic denitrification

Fig 12 MBR Configuration with attached growth second anoxic zone

Advantages:

 It has higher volumetric loading rates.

 It has longer SRTs resulting in less sludge production.
 Less space is required for wastewater treatment.

Disadvantages:

 It has a high capital cost.

 It has limited data on membrane life.
 It needs to control membrane fouling.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 16

 Biological Nutrient Removal
3.6 Oxidation Ditches:

Oxidation ditches can perform biological nitrogen removal by creating an anoxic zone
in parts of the ditch. This configuration is like the Wuhrmann process (is a single sludge
nitrification system followed by an anoxic zone for denitrification. This system is
limited by the lack of carbon source in the anoxic zone also requires more alkalinity to
maintain a steady pH in the aeration tank. Nitrogen gas in the clarifier inhibits settling).
By changing the location of the aerators and mixers the oxidation ditch can operate like
the Modified Ludzack-Ettinger process (adds a mixed liquor recycle from the end of the
aeration tank to the beginning of the anoxic tank. This returns more nitrates to the anoxic
zone increasing the nitrogen that is removed. High recycling rates can introduce
dissolved oxygen in the anoxic zone and dilute the substrate thereby reducing the
performance). The oxidation ditch can create high recycle rates without the need for
pumping the return.

Fig 13: Oxidation Ditches

Advantages:
 It is more reliable owing to a constant water level and continuous discharge.
 It has a long hydraulic retention time and complete mixing.
 It processes less sludge due to extended biological activity.
 Energy-efficient operations result in reduced energy costs.

Disadvantages:
 Effluent suspended solids concentrations are relatively high compared to other
modifications of the activated sludge process.
 It requires a larger land area than other activated sludge treatment options.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 17

 Biological Nutrient Removal

Biological Nutrient Modeling

Based on the successful application of activated sludge models and more stringent
effluent requirements, the biological process modeling for BNR plants has been
extended to include the processes in the sludge treatment line, such as anaerobic
digestion, sidestream processes, and sludge fermentation (also including chemical
precipitation, pH, and gas-phase models ) to make a whole plant process model. Whole
plant process modeling makes it possible to completely analyze WWTPs for optimal
design and operation purposes.

To apply process modeling in practice, a computer program (so-called simulator) is

required to implement all unit process models and link them (including mainstream
wastewater, solids treatment trains, and reject water generated in the sludge treatment
processes, termed side stream) to set up a specific wastewater treatment plant model
with the particular flow scheme, influent characteristics, and operation conditions. The
model, after being set up in the simulator, needs to be calibrated and validated before it
can be used for different purposes.

The mathematical models for the whole plant treatment process are complex but, with
the availability of easy use and user-friendly simulators, can prove to be very useful
tools for optimizing design and operation.

There are two approaches to implementing the various process models required to model
biochemical activity, including interactions, across the wastewater treatment plant: an
interfacing transformer approach and a single matrix approach (Dold et al ., 2007).

Interfacing Transformer Approach: In this approach, different available models are used
to simulate different processes, e.g., the AS train, anaerobic digestion (AD), and the
sidestream (SS) processes. In this approach, different models are not based on the same
set of state variables, and the issue of passing streams between AS, AD, and SS must be
addressed. For example, for the oxidized N components, activated sludge models
typically only consider nitrate (e.g., ASM1, ASM2/2d); anaerobic digestion models
(e.g., ADM1) do not consider either nitrite or nitrate; side stream modeling (SSM)
requires consideration of both nitrite and nitrate and the relevant reactions. This

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 18

 Biological Nutrient Removal
interfacing transformer approach requires constructing complex model mapping
interfaces (transformers) (e.g., Dold et al., 2007; Vannorolleghem et al., 2005; Volcke
et al., 2006).

Fig 14. Requirements to set up a WWTP process model

Single Matrix Approach:

This approach is to apply a single, integrated (AS + AD + SS) model (considering all
components and relevant reactions) to the whole plant processes in a single matrix (i.e.,
without the need for interfacing). This approach is more widely applicable in a process
sense than the transformer approach. The single matrix approach tracks the fate of
components (e.g., active biomass) in the different processes (e.g., activated sludge,
anaerobic digestion) in a whole plant and thus can provide an estimation of active
biomass transfer between the different processes, whereas the transformer approach
requires the detailed elemental composition of each component that is not readily
available and also relies on the fixed component composition (Jones et al ., 2004, 2007).
In practice, this is not readily applicable when elemental compositions change.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 19

 Biological Nutrient Removal

SUMMARY

1. BNR is an established technology

2. Implementation and operation are a challenge
3. Complex and high cost
4. Requires trained design engineers and operators
5. BNR process modeling is a useful tool for the design and operation of WWTPs

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 20

 Biological Nutrient Removal

REFERENCES

1) Amir Mohaghegh Motlagh et al., (2014), “ Water Reclamation and

sustainability”, “Journal of Biological Nutrient Removal”, ELSEVIER
2) Bo Li and Guangxue wu, (2014), " Effects of sludge Retention Times on
Nutrient Removal and Nitrous Oxide Emission in Biological Nutrient Removal
Process", "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health",
www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph.
3) Abdul Wahab Mohammad et al., (2019), "Membrane Separation Principles and
Applications", "Journal of Biological Nutrient Removal", ELSEVIER.
4) Kay Curtin et al., “Biological and Chemical Phosphorus Removal”, “The
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency” acknowledges with appreciation the
“Water Environment Federation and the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources”
5) Zhi-rong Hu et al., (2012), “Biological Nutrient Removal in Municipal
Wastewater Treatment: New Directions in Sustainability”, “Journal of
Environmental Engineering”.

Dept. of Civil Engineering, SDM I T, Ujire 21