Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: A Guide To Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options

Public Disclosure Authorized
WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE

AND REUSE
A Guide to Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options

Jean-Martin Brault,
Konrad Buchauer,
and Martin Gambrill

Brault, Buchauer, and Gambrill
W21009
About the Water Global Practice
Launched in 2014, the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice brings together financing,
knowledge, and implementation in one platform. By combining the Bank’s global knowledge with
country investments, this model generates more firepower for transformational solutions to help
countries grow sustainably.
Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/water or follow us on Twitter: @WorldBankWater.
About GWSP
This publication received the support of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership
(GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor trust fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global
Practice and supported by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austria’s Federal
Ministry of Finance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/gwsp or follow us on Twitter: @TheGwsp.
AND REUSE
Jean-Martin Brault, Konrad Buchauer, and Martin Gambrill

© 2022 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank
1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000; Internet: www.worldbank.org
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations,
and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of
Executive Directors, or the governments they represent.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors,
denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of
The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its
knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution
to this work is given.
Please cite the work as follows: Brault, Jean-Martin, Konrad Buchauer, and Martin Gambrill. 2022. “Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse: A Guide to Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications,
The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@
worldbank.org.
Cover design: Sue McGillivray, [e]merge Creative, and Bill Pragluski, Critical Stages, LLC.
Report design: Circle Graphics, Inc.
Contents
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1
About This Guide 1
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Objective and Target Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
How to Use This Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the Guide’s Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Citywide Inclusive Sanitation Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Considerations for Small-Town

Wastewater Treatment 5
Definition of a Small Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Common Characteristics of Small Towns Relevant for Wastewater
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Wastewater Resource Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technology

for Small Towns 9
Background to the “Appropriateness” of Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Types of Wastewater Treatment Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Levels of Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Pretreatment Options and Process Considerations for Small Towns . . . . . . . 10
Preselection of Wastewater Treatment Technologies Appropriate
for Small Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse iii

Technology Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The Optimum Combination of Technologies for Primary and
Secondary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
The Optimum Combination of Treatment Technologies for
Wastewater Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4 Factors to Address for WWTPs in Small Towns 71

Project Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Feasibility of Sewers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Total Connections to the WWTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Fecal Sludge/Septage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Regulations for Wastewater Treatment, Effluent, and Sludge
Discharge and Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Available Land for the WWTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Power Supply to the WWTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Technology Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Treatment Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Ease of Upgrading to Enhanced Nutrient Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Land Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Labor Qualification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Availability of Replacement Parts and O&M Inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Wastewater Sludge Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Energy Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
O&M Costs (OPEX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Investment/Capital Costs (CAPEX) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Reuse Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Climate Change Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5 Applying This Guide in Practice:

A Step-by-Step Approach 104
Methodology: Overview of Suggested Five-Step Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Step 1: Familiarize Yourself with the Guide’s Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Step 2: Convene Key Stakeholders to Discuss the Project Criteria . . . . . . . 105
Schematic Work Plan for Step 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Step 3: Convene Key Stakeholders to Discuss the Project Criteria . . . . . . . . 107
Step 4: Identify and Apply Nonnegotiable or Exclusion Criteria . . . . . . . . . 108
iv Contents
Step 5: Assign Weighting to Technology Criteria and Calculate
Total Score for Remaining Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Schematic Work Plan for Steps 3 to 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
How to Weight Criteria and Calculate Total Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
6 Case Studies 113

Case 1: Small Town in Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Case 2: Small Town in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Case 3: Small Town in El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Appendix A: Extended Aeration versus

Conventional Activated Sludge 137
References 142
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse v

Figures
Figure 1.1 When to Apply this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 3.1 Examples of Combinations of Treatment Options for Different
Wastewater Reuse Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Figure 4.1 Defining Project Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73
Figure 4.2 Relative Increase in BOD Load in a WWTP as a Function of the
Combined Discharge of Municipal Wastewater and Different
Fecal Sludge Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 4.3 Summary of BOD5 Effluent Quality Ranges of Different Wastewater
Treatment Technologies for Medium-Strength Wastewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Figure 4.4 Summary of Land Requirement Ranges of Different Wastewater
Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Figure 4.5 Economy of Scale Effect on Land Requirements of WWTPs for
Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Figure 4.6 Summary of Sludge Production Ranges of Different Wastewater
Treatment Technologies (Assuming a Sludge Dry Solids Content
of 20 Percent SS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Figure 4.7 Summary of Electric Power Consumption Ranges of Different
Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Figure 4.8 Summary of OPEX Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Figure 4.9 Economy of Scale Effect on OPEX of WWTPs with Different Wastewater
Treatment Technologies and Treatment Standards (2019 Price Level) . . . . . . 94
Figure 4.10 Summary of CAPEX Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment
Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Figure 4.11 Economy of Scale Effect on CAPEX of WWTPs with Different Wastewater
Treatment Trains (2019 Price Level) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Figure B4.2.1 NPV Results for Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Figure 5.1 Overview of the Key Steps in the Application of this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Figure 5.2 Project Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Figure 5.3 Schematic Work Plan for Step 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Figure 5.4 Technology Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Figure 5.5 Schematic Work Plan for Steps 3 to 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Figure 6.1 Summary of Weighted Scoring for Remaining Technologies after
Step 4 for the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Step 4 for the Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Step 4 for the El Salvador Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Figure A1.1 Schematic Diagram of an Oxidation Ditch EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Figure A1.2 Schematic Diagram of a Carousel Type EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Figure A1.3 Schematic Diagram of a Plug-Flow Type EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
vi Contents
Tables
Table 2.1 Population for Small Towns, by Country and Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3.1 Levels of Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3.2 Typical Pretreatment Options and Process Considerations for
Small-Town WWTPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 3.3 Long List of Treatment Technologies and Preselection of Appropriate
Technologies for Small-Town WWTPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Table 3.4 List of Wastewater Treatment Technologies that Met the Preselection
Criteria of Being Appropriate for Small Towns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 3.5 Typical Wastewater Treatment Trains for Preselected Treatment
Technologies for Small-Town WWTPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Table 3.6 Typical Sludge Treatment Trains for Preselected Treatment Technologies
for Small-Town WWTPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Table 3.7 Correspondence between Log Units and Removal Efficiency
Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Table 4.1 Summary of Treatment Efficiency Scores for Different Effluent
Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Table 4.2 Examples of Different Scenarios of Required Treatment Performance . . . . . 82
Table 4.3 Summary of Scoring for Ease of Upgrading to BNR and Examples
of Scores for Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Table 4.4 Summary of Scoring for Relative Land Requirements and Corresponding
Examples of Scores for Different Scenarios of Land Requirements . . . . . . . . 84
Table 4.5 Summary of Scoring for O&M Labor Needs and Corresponding
Examples of Scores for Different Scenarios of O&M Labor Needs . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 4.6 Summary of Scoring for O&M Inputs and Replacement Parts and
Corresponding Examples of Scores for Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 4.7 Summary of Scoring for Needed Frequency of Sludge Removal . . . . . . . . . . 89
Table 4.8 Summary of Scoring for Energy Demand and Examples of Scores
for Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Table 4.9 Energy Consumption and Treatment Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Table 4.10 Summary of Scoring for O&M Costs (OPEX) and Corresponding Ranges . . . 94
Table 4.11 Summary of Scoring for Investment Costs and Examples of Scores for
Different Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Table 4.12 Analysis of the Reuse Potential of Products Resulting from a
Treatment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Table 5.1 Summary of Suggested Scores for Each Technology (Standard Defaults) . . 110
Table 5.2 Summary of Weighted Scoring for Each Technology, Based on
Suggested Standard Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 6.1 Project Criteria for the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Table 6.2 Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . 115
Table 6.3 Summary of Excluded Technologies for the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Table 6.4 Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for
the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse vii

Table 6.5 Summary of Weighted Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4
for the Morocco Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Table 6.6 Project Criteria for the Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Table 6.7 Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . .123
Table 6.8 Summary of Excluded Technologies for the Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Table 6.9 Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the
Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
for the Vietnam Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126
Table 6.11 Project Criteria for the El Salvador Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Table 6.12 Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the El Salvador Case . . . . . . 131
Table 6.13 Summary of Excluded Technologies for the El Salvador Case . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Table 6.14 Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the
El Salvador Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
for the El Salvador Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Boxes
Box 3.1 Examples of Selection of Technology for Agricultural Wastewater Reuse . . . 70
Box 4.1 Disinfection Considerations: Formation of Chlorination By-Products . . . . . . 79
Box 4.2 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
viii Contents
Acknowledgments
Jean-Martin Brault led the preparation of this guide with the support and guidance of
Konrad Buchauer, Nishtha Mehta, and Martin Gambrill.
The guide benefited from the contributions of relevant background literature, the sharing
of experiences, and the feedback provided by many people at different stages of its
development. We are grateful for such contributions and insights from Clémentine Stip,
Rebecca Gilsdorf, Klaus Neder, Dimitri Xanthoulis, Daniel Nolasco, Gustavo Heredia, Sean
Nelson, Nathan Engle, and Richard Abdulnour.
The authors are also grateful to the numerous colleagues and peer reviewers from inside and
outside of the World Bank for their valuable comments and support during the preparation
of the guide, including Ravikumar Joseph, Habab Taifour, Irma Setiono, Ernesto Sanchez-
Triana, Andreas Rohde, Gang Qin, Gustavo Saltiel, and Colette Génevaux. Finally, we want
to thank Seema Thomas and Erin Barrett for helping us finalize and publish the guide.
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse ix

Executive Summary
Small towns in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are growing rapidly and struggling
to meet the increased demands of wastewater collection and treatment. To avert public
health crises and continued environmental degradation, small towns are actively seeking
safely managed sanitation solutions, appropriate for their scale, institutional capacity,
financial resources, and overarching needs. This document is designed to provide a guide
of small-town wastewater treatment processes in order to assist engineers, managers
and other stakeholders responsible for wastewater service provision in identifying and
selecting appropriate wastewater treatment processes for small towns. This guide is part
of a World Bank suite of tools and other material to support World Bank teams and their
government counterparts in the planning, design, and implementation of sanitation projects
in urbanizing areas.
Addressing the specific context of small towns, the format of this guide begins with an
introduction of key concepts for a decision maker to understand and then applies a
suggested five-step approach to exploring appropriate wastewater treatment technologies,
culminating with case studies from three regions applying this approach. The guide’s
introduction delves into the unique considerations for small-town wastewater treatment
and the exploration of corresponding technologies. Before demonstrating the application
of the approach, the guide also navigates (a) factors external to the technologies that
define the characteristics and environment of a given small town and that will affect
technology choice, coupled with (b) technology-specific information that will ultimately
influence decision making. Before embarking on the formal planning and design process,
the user is highly encouraged to become familiar with the guide methodology in its entirety
while drawing on the principles of the Citywide Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS) approach. 1
Sewers and wastewater treatment should be pursued only in small towns where such a
service-delivery approach is deemed the most appropriate, following the comparison of
its advantages and disadvantages with onsite sanitation and fecal sludge management
alternatives, as espoused by the CWIS approach.
Note
1. For more information about the Citywide Inclusive Sanitation approach, see the World Bank’s CWIS website
at www.worldbank.org/cwis.
x Executive Summary
Abbreviations
ABR anaerobic baffled reactor MBR membrane bioreactor

AL aerated lagoon MLD million liters per day (1 MLD = 1,000 m3/d)
ANDA Administración Nacional de Acueductos MLSS mixed liquor suspended solids
y Alcantarillados MPN most probable number
ANF anaerobic filter N 2O nitrous oxide
AS activated sludge NPV net present value
AT aeration tank; O&M operation and maintenance
BAF biological aerated filters ONEE Morocco’s National Electricity and Water
BD biogas digester Office (Office National de l’Électricité
BNR biological nutrient removal et de l’Eau Potable)
BOD biochemical oxygen demand OPEX operating expenditures
cap capita PE population equivalent
CAPEX capital expenditures PE60 population equivalent of 60 g BOD5
CAS conventional activated sludge per capita per day
CEPT chemically enhanced primary treatment P&ID piping and instrumentation diagram
CH4 methane PP polishing pond
Cl chlorine or chlorination PST primary sedimentation tank
CO2 carbon dioxide RBC rotating biological contactor
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalents RDF rotary disc filter
COD chemical oxygen demand RF rock filter
CW constructed wetland SBR sequencing batch reactor
CW(1-st) single-stage constructed wetland SDG Sustainable Development Goal
CW(hybrid) hybrid constructed wetland SF sand filter
CWIS Citywide Inclusive Sanitation SpTP septage treatment plant
DBP disinfection by-products SS suspended solids
EA extended aeration (= low-load activated ST septic tank
sludge) TF trickling filter
FAB fluidized aerated bed TF/SC trickling filter/solids contact process
FC fecal coliforms THM trihalomethane
F/M food to microorganism ratio TSS total suspended solids
FSM fecal sludge management UASB upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
FST final sedimentation tank UASB-TF UASB followed by a TF
GHG greenhouse gas UASB-WSP UASB followed by a WSP
GWP global warming potential UV ultraviolet [disinfection]
IFAS integrated fixed film activated sludge WSP waste stabilization pond (here consisting
IMH Imhoff tank of the classical configuration of anaerobic,
ISF intermittent sand filter facultative, and maturation ponds)
LMIC low- and middle-income countries WWTP wastewater treatment plant
MBBR moving bed biological reactor
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse xi

About This Guide
1
Introduction and Background
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) generally lack adequate wastewater infrastructure,
and although 39 percent of the global population used a safely managed sanitation service
in 2015, only 27 percent of the global population used facilities connected to sewers that led
to wastewater treatment plants (WHO and UNICEF 2017). This gap between collection and
treatment varies across regions—for example, 69 percent of the wastewater collected in Arab
States is safely treated (LAS, ESCWA, and ACWUA 2016), compared with 30 to 40 percent in
Latin America (Rodriguez and others 2020) and roughly 10 to 20 percent in Asia and the Pacific
region (UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme 2017). This gap is important because
it poses a critical obstacle to reaping the benefits of improved human health, environmental
protection, and water security, particularly as wastewater is increasingly seen as a valuable
resource that should be managed effectively. Investment needs associated with closing this
gap are substantial, contributing to the need for a paradigm shift with respect to wastewater
planning, management, and financing. There is a need for adaptive solutions that can be
incrementally implemented, building off what is already in place.
This paradigm shift is particularly relevant for countries dealing with rapid urbanization.
In these countries, small towns create a unique challenge as they exist at the nexus of
urban and rural dynamics and can thus play a strategic role in bridging the gap between
wastewater collection and treatment. For this to happen, appropriate wastewater treatment
solutions should be selected to allow small towns to cope with the challenges of providing
services without the potential for economies of scale offered in larger urban centers, and
with the limited human and financial resources that are often found in small towns but
which need to be considered when assessing the operation and maintenance (O&M)
requirements of treatment plants.
Identifying appropriate wastewater treatment solutions for small towns in LMICs requires
thinking beyond the conventional technologies applied in developed contexts and
requires an understanding of how local constraints on human and financial resources,
road connectivity and/or available inputs, such as chemicals and replacement parts, could
influence technology choice. Although ultimately technology recommendations and
designs will be the responsibility of a technical specialist or consultant, those responsible for
wastewater service provision—engineers, managers and decision makers more broadly—
should oversee this selection process and have the necessary information to discriminate
between different treatment trains.
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse 1

This guide was inspired by a report, “Definition of priorities, including minimizing investment costs
a Tool for Evaluating Unconventional Wastewater and ensuring operational sustainability.
Treatment Technologies,” commissioned under
the World Bank-financed Oum Er Rbia Sanitation
Project to provide Morocco’s Office of Electricity Scope and Limitations
and Drinking Water (Office National de l’Électricité Although the guide details a methodology to
et de l’Eau Potable [ONEE]) with a decision-making determine appropriate wastewater treatment
tool to diversify its menu of technological options processes for small towns, it does not aim to provide
for small towns as part of the rollout of the country’s a definitive answer as to which wastewater treatment
National Sanitation Master Plan. This guide has technology would be “optimal” for a given small
complemented the evaluation criteria proposed town. The reader should be mindful about the
therein to highlight the priorities of wastewater variability of contexts and the interpretation of the
treatment for small towns and aims to bring a more different aspects explored.
global perspective to the associated challenges
(Golla 2014). In adapting the criteria used in the As a result, it is likely that, after applying the
Morocco report, the guide relies on available data methodology proposed in the guide, more than
and publications from developed countries that the one appropriate solution will be identified and
authors consider relevant to LMIC contexts. The peer a more detailed analysis (particularly regarding
review process also allowed for practitioners working costs) may be necessary to further narrow down the
in LMICs to provide inputs on the applicability and selection. A more experienced user of the guide
relevance of the guide’s recommendations and its may still wish to include other technologies for
methodology in these contexts. additional comparison. The user should evaluate
these additional technologies with the same
criteria that are applied in the guide so as to be
Objective and Target Audience able to compare them with the technologies
The objective of this guide is to assist engineers preselected here. Furthermore, the guide does not
and managers responsible for wastewater service provide specific guidance on, or standards for, the
provision in understanding which solutions are engineering design of each technology, as a large
technically feasible and in line with the priorities number of such resources already exist.1
of their small town. It provides a methodology for The guide emphasizes opportunities for cotreatment
these decision makers to identify the characteristics of wastewater with fecal sludge, where appropriate,
of their service area that will be most important although it does not provide guidance on fecal sludge
in choosing appropriate wastewater treatment management (FSM) or treatment.2
solutions and to understand the trade-offs between
different solutions that meet their needs. The
information presented in this guide therefore aims How to Use This Guide
to support decision makers in reviewing the work of
This guide supports decision making in the
an engineering consultant but not to supplant the
prefeasibility and feasibility phases of a project
work of such a consultant.
cycle, as illustrated in Figure 1.1. Thus, the guide
The guide highlights key factors in the decision- is meant to help optimize, at a very early project
making process, such as treatment facility design, stage, when such optimization is easiest and most
possibilities for reuse, and receiving water quality. effective, the direction and the content of subsequent
The comparison of technologies considers several more detailed analysis.
2 About This Guide

FIGURE 1.1
When to Apply This Guide
Project
initiation
• Detailed review of available technical alternatives

Prefeasibility • Definition and examination of commercail, technical, financial, economic, Apply
environmental, social, and regulatory prerequisites
and feasibility
• Life-cycle costing analysis
guide
studies • Risk analysis here
• Preliminary and final project selection, respectively
Preliminary • Establishment if design bases and criteria

• Development of mass and energy balances, process flowsheets
engineering
• Development of preliminary P&ID, plans, and layouts
design • Definition and sizing of major equipment
• Definition of all construction details, by discipline (civil, mechanical, chemical,

Detailed process, electrical, instrumentation and control, etc.)
engineering • Finalization of P&IDs, plans and layouts, equipment drawings, sizing and costing
design • Development of commissioning and start-up procedures
• Development of O&M manuals and procedures and “as-built” drawings
Procurement,
construction,
commissioning,
and start-up
Operation and
maintenance
Note: O&M = operation and maintenance; P&ID = piping and instrumentation diagram.
Overview of the Guide’s treatment. This section introduces the concept of

a small town and presents the unique challenges
Structure of wastewater service provisions in such settings.
Chapter 1 describes the guide’s purpose, target Chapter 2 also presents wastewater resource
audience, contents and organization, and provides recovery considerations for small towns.
guidance to the reader on how to use it.
Chapter 3 introduces basic concepts of wastewater
Chapter 2 presents specific considerations to treatment technology for small towns. This section
understand the context of small-town wastewater addresses different wastewater treatment levels

incorporated in a treatment train and presents sanitation. The CWIS approach promotes a range
individual technology sheets for the different of technical solutions—both onsite and sewers,
technologies considered appropriate for small centralized or decentralized—which are tailored
towns, as well as presenting appropriate treatment to the dynamics of the world’s burgeoning
trains. cities and their large pockets of informality by
integrating financial, institutional, regulatory and
Chapter 4 builds upon the foundational knowledge
social dimensions, and by harmonizing the sanitation
in the prior chapters and delves into the factors
solutions with related urban services, including water
influencing the choice of small-town wastewater
supply, drainage and solid waste management.
treatment solutions. It identifies specific criteria that
should be employed when using the guide. Criteria As part of the implementation of these CWIS
are split into those that are specific to a given town principles, the World Bank is developing a suite of
or context (project criteria) and those that relate to tools and other material3 to support Bank teams
technology (technology criteria). and their government counterparts when engaging
on CWIS initiatives. This suite of tools and other
Chapter 5 applies the suggested five-step
material are intended for use by World Bank task
methodology to identify the appropriate wastewater
teams and their government counterparts for the
treatment solution in a given small town, drawing
planning, design, and implementation of urban
on the theory and background provided in the prior
sanitation projects, and they may also be of use to
sections. It details the aim of each step and the
others working on sanitation challenges in urban
corresponding process to employ in carrying out
areas around the world.
the step.
Chapter 6 provides examples of the guide’s

application through the use of three case studies Notes
from Morocco, Vietnam and El Salvador. 1. See, for example: (a) G. Chen, G. A. Ekama, M. C. M. van
Loosdrecht, and D. Brdjanovic, Biological Wastewater
Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design (London: IWA
The Citywide Inclusive

Publishing, 2020); (b) S. R. Qasim and G. Zhu, Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse: Theory and Design Examples
Sanitation Approach (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2018); and (c) Metcalf and Eddy,
Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, 4th ed.
The World Bank Water Global Practice, in (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003).
partnership with sector partners, have together 2. For more information on FSM, see, for example, the Fecal
Sludge Management Alliance at https://fsm-alliance.org/
advanced an approach to
and L. Strande, M. Ronteltap, and D. Brdjanovic, Faecal
tackling urban sanitation
Sludge Management-Systems Approach for Implementation
challenges termed Citywide and Operation (London: IWA Publishing, 2014). For fecal
Inclusive Sanitation (CWIS). sludge treatment plant design, see K. Tayler, Faecal Sludge
This comprehensive and Septage Treatment: A Guide for Low and Middle
Income Countries (Rugby: Practical Action Publishing,
approach aims to shift the paradigm regarding
2018), https://practicalactionpublishing.com/book/693/
urban sanitation interventions by promoting a faecal-sludge-and-septage-treatment.
range of technical solutions that help ensure 3. For more information about the CWIS approach, see the
that everyone has access to safely managed World Bank website at www.worldbank.org/cwis.
4 About This Guide

Considerations for Small-Town
Wastewater Treatment 2
Definition of a Small Town
Although there is no universally agreed upon definition of a small town, in most countries
there is an understanding (formal or otherwise) of what areas to classify as small towns,
which are typically based on population size and density.
The lower bound for the population of a small town is typically between 2,000 and
5,000 people, though in some areas (especially in Asia), the lower bound can be as
high as 10,000 residents. The upper size limit varies even more, from 20,000 to 50,000
to as high as 100,000 people (again,
the latter limit is found mostly in Asian
TABLE 2.1
countries). The population densities in
Population for Small Towns, by Country and Region
small towns also vary widely: In Niger,
for example, the average small town
REGION COUNTRY POPULATION
population density is14 people per square
Africa Benin 2,000–20,000
kilometer, whereas in Bangladesh it is
Ethiopia 2,000–60,000
1,033 people/km2 (Economic Consulting
Mozambique 2,000–100,000
Associates 2015). Table 2.1 shows examples
Uganda 5,000–25,000
of the population ranges for small towns in
Asia Bangladesh 25,000–200,000
different regions. These values were drawn
India 10,000–50,000
from legal definitions and from data from
Indonesia 10,000–100,000
World Bank staff.
Philippines 10,000–100,000a
Some definitions of small towns include Europe Eastern Europe 2,000–10,000
additional criteria. For example, small towns Latin America and Bolivia 2,000–20,000
may be defined as having certain key the Caribbean
Ecuador 12,000–50,000
pieces of infrastructure (for example, types
Haiti 3,000–10,000
of public buildings or roads) or an average
Honduras 5,000–30,000
household income above or below given
Nicaragua 2,000–50,000
values. Geographical location can also
Peru 2,000–30,000
differentiate small towns from other urban
North Africa Morocco 10,000–50,000
centers, as small towns are geographically
Tunisia 2,000–50,000
more remote and are more separated
In the Philippines, the definition further specifies that small towns are places where people are
from major markets than are primary
a
mostly not farming, where it is not a predominant activity, and where the population density is
or secondary cities. Nevertheless, small greater than or equal to 500 people/km2.

towns are often well connected to major roads
Common Characteristics of
and/or waterways, giving them better access to
markets and other urban centers than rural areas. Small Towns Relevant for
Although small towns typically have access to Wastewater Management
markets (for both buying and selling goods), it may
In most parts of the world, urban areas, including
take longer to get to these markets, and the cost
small towns, are growing faster than rural areas.
of goods may consequently be higher than in larger
In small towns with high growth rates, planning
urban centers. Their comparative remoteness also
on traditional time scales can be challenging,
means that small towns typically have fewer highly
and towns often struggle to keep pace with their
trained technical professionals. Additionally, small
growing populations. These fast growth rates call
towns cannot generally take advantage of existing
for more flexible and adaptive urban planning to
service provision from large cities, such as the main
allow for continued expansion of the population
electricity grid or their water supply and sanitation
and of the town more broadly (for example, any
services.
industrial expansion).
Small towns targeted by this guide also tend to This adaptive approach to planning can be
be closer to rural areas and thus to agricultural particularly challenging in small towns, where
fields. This aspect of small towns is important for institutions are often less developed. This is
several reasons. First, such small towns often serve especially true in agglomerations that have only
as a central location for collecting food before recently grown large enough to be considered a
sending it to larger markets, making agriculture key town. In these areas, water supply and sanitation
to their economies. Second, these small towns are may have historically been managed by community
close to an ideal market for end-use products of boards, but these models may no longer be
wastewater treatment systems (treated wastewater appropriate. Where utilities do exist, they are often
for irrigation, biosolids for fertilizer, and so on). In newer and less established. However, a wide range
addition, combined with collected animal waste, of institutional models exists, from community-run
these wastewater end-use products offer increased systems to centralized management handled by a
options for biogas production. More broadly, small nearby larger town. To have sufficient institutional
towns are often closer to natural resource extraction capacity (especially in terms of technical skills) and
activities, such as mining—and, like agriculture, to more generally use economies of scale, it may
the mining sector provides another possible market make sense to link multiple nearby small towns
for end-use materials (for example, reusing treated together. Legal institutions and frameworks may also
wastewater). Overall, as with most urban areas, be less evolved, which can affect the development
the economies of small towns can be diverse, of guidelines for both wastewater treatment and
though they are often dominated by one of the reuse—if reuse is to be permitted at all.
aforementioned sectors.
In small towns already experiencing industrial
Finally, please note that the definition of small towns growth, the institutional framework selected for
presented in this guide excludes rural villages with treatment plant operation will undoubtedly be
populations below the ranges stated above for small affected by the choice of treatment technology,
towns, and excludes periurban areas surrounding and vice versa, because the roles of regulation and
major urban centers and large cities. monitoring will increase if industrial wastewater is
6 Considerations for Small-Town Wastewater Treatment

also collected and treated. Additionally, the type help map and assess demand for reuse products,
of industry in a small town may affect not only the which are differentiated under the following broad
treatment technology but also possible markets categories:
for product reuse. For example, both the mining
and agricultural sectors may use treated wastewater, 1. Water, consisting of wastewater effluent
but the water quality standards for each will differ, treated to a level appropriate to the end
as will the capacity and skillset required to produce, use, such as for groundwater recharge, for
monitor and enforce them. irrigation of parks and lawns or of agricultural
crops, for industrial processes, and so on
At present, small towns use a wide range of
technologies for managing sanitation. This variation 2. Sludge,1 such as reuse as a soil amendment
is mostly explained by the different status of or as a fuel
sanitation services in small towns in LMICs. Some
3. Nutrients, through the treated wastewater
small towns still have high rates of open defecation,
effluent or the treated biosolids2
whereas others may fully rely on onsite solutions
(for example, latrines and/or septic tanks) or count 4. Energy, through the conversion of biogas
on a single centralized sewer system. This guide into electric power and/or thermal heat,
focuses specifically on wastewater treatment, thus and through the combustion of processed
excluding any small town using only onsite sanitation. solids (when these are converted into fuel
Nevertheless, although the guide focuses on briquettes) instead of fossil fuels
contexts in which sewers are the dominant technical
solution for conveyance of waste (that is, sewered
For example, nearby agricultural activity could
collection of blackwater and graywater), the
represent a reuse market for treated wastewater
treatment technologies presented here may still
effluent and biosolids, or it could also present
be appropriate for small towns handling sewage
the opportunity to carry out the codigestion of
combined with a certain amount of fecal sludge/
agricultural waste with the sludge from the WWTP.
septage (see “Fecal Sludge/Septage” in Chapter 4).
Alternatively, a mining company may be interested
in the treated effluent from a small town’s WWTP to
Wastewater Resource Recovery use directly in its processes.
The ability to recover resources generated in In addition, when considering the recovery of
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) has become wastewater treatment by-products, it is important to
increasingly important in recent years, as several assess the expected production or supply of reuse
treatment by-products can have significant products in a realistic manner. Treatment plants
economic value for the utility or for the small town tend to be oversized, and it can take many years,
in the vicinity of a treatment plant, and as awareness even decades, to achieve the design flow. This, in
grows regarding the importance of circular economy turn, can result in the much smaller production of
approaches in development. The evaluation of treated wastewater effluent, biogas and biosolids
wastewater treatment alternatives for a given context than the amount originally planned for. Smaller than
should consequently always assess potential demand expected by-product outputs result in oversized
for and supply of these resources. The proximity reuse structures, generate less revenue, and can
of certain economic activities to a small town can cause a project to fail. These negative outcomes

are especially likely in biogas recovery projects, by-products also requires specific organizational
in which designers often tend to blur the thresholds arrangements to ensure process operationalization;
between the potential for biogas generation and the utility responsible for the WWTP may not,
the amount of biogas that can indeed be captured however, be interested in, or able to be directly
for reuse, resulting in a financial burden for the involved in, the resource recovery process. A project
sustainability of the related infrastructure. A realistic should therefore identify both the demand for
estimate of treatment by-products is also important by-products and the players who will be responsible
in estimating the potential income generation from for system management before wastewater treatment
the sale of these by-products. by-product recovery is considered. This is particularly
true for small towns, which may be well positioned
The evaluation of wastewater treatment alternatives
should also take the existing legal and institutional to connect with potential users of reuse by-products
framework for reuse into account—considering but may require support from regional or national
environmental, public health and economic agencies to help operationalize a reuse scheme.
regulations, and identifying key players involved in
its operationalization. In some contexts, reuse has no
Notes
legal status or existing environmental/public health
1. Sewage sludge refers to the solids separated during the
standards may make reuse unattractive—for example,
treatment of wastewater.
the cost to treat to the necessary standard would be 2. Biosolids refers to sewage sludge treated to a degree
greater than any possible revenue from the sale of that meets pollutant and/or pathogen requirements for
the end product. The use of wastewater treatment beneficial reuse.
8 Considerations for Small-Town Wastewater Treatment

Appropriate Wastewater Treatment
Technology for Small Towns 3
Background to the “Appropriateness” of Technologies
Wastewater treatment is undertaken in a series of steps that can have increasing effectiveness
and complexity, depending on the financial means and the human resources available
to operate the systems. To guide the user through the identification of a wastewater
project’s physical, technical and financial boundaries, this section provides a list of
criteria and a methodology that can help identify a subset of “appropriate” wastewater
treatment technologies or process configurations for a specific project’s particular
context. Depending on the context, it may also be important to adopt an adaptive and
incremental approach to wastewater treatment to better respond to the realities found in
the small towns of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and to ensure that desired
effluent quality levels and/or treatment objectives can be realistically met. This section
will therefore focus on introducing wastewater treatment technologies that are deemed
appropriate for small towns.
To support this guide, a series of two-page technology sheets has been developed. These
provide an overview of the technology itself, the level of treatment that can be expected
from each technology, selection criteria, and design considerations. The technology
sheets, which are presented in Chapter 3, were developed with the considerations and
criteria presented in this section in mind, and with the understanding of actual operating
conditions of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in small towns. Experience indeed
shows that poor performance of treatment plants in LMICs, particularly for small towns,
is often a result of a lack of operational expertise and of financial resources for adequate
operation and maintenance (O&M), as well as whether the plant design included plans for
O&M based on the available resources in the first place. That being said, it should be noted
that the present document is not meant to serve as a design or an O&M manual, nor should
the list of technologies presented hereafter be considered exhaustive. The aim of this
section is to assist the user in intuitively making appropriate and informed decisions about
technology selection by providing basic information that can be relevant for the design,
financing, implementation, monitoring and O&M of cost-effective wastewater treatment
systems in small towns. In addition, as wastewater treatment systems are composed of
combinations of technologies in the primary, secondary and tertiary treatment steps, this
section will also present appropriate wastewater treatment and sludge “treatment trains”
for small towns.

Types of Wastewater along with other basic process considerations for
small-town WWTPs.
Treatment Systems
Wastewater treatment systems can be extensive
(or natural) and intensive (or primarily mechanically Levels of Wastewater
driven) systems. In extensive systems, such as
anaerobic and facultative lagoons, treatment rates
Treatment
are typically relatively slow, requiring large retention Wastewater treatment plants are typically grouped
times and land requirements to achieve acceptable into different levels of treatment, commonly referred
treatment levels. Intensive systems, such as aerated to as pretreatment, primary, secondary and tertiary
lagoons, are based on higher reaction rates, resulting treatment. Additional treatment steps include
in more compact reactor volumes and a smaller advanced treatment and sludge treatment. These
treatment plant footprint, but at the cost of treatment levels group a variety of unit operations
engineering complexity, and thus typically requiring and processes of wastewater treatment, as presented
continual operational support, regular routine in Table 3.1.
maintenance, and a continuous, reliable external
The technology sheets presented in this guide
source of energy.
focus on primary, secondary and tertiary levels of
Extensive, or natural, treatment systems should be wastewater treatment. No specific technology sheets
prioritized as much as possible for small towns as are provided for pretreatment or for the sludge
they are typically robust and are associated with low treatment stages; however, general guidance is
energy consumption. Where space is limited, however, provided on these treatment stages in this section.
alternative WWTP solutions are available along The sequence that treatment facilities typically
the broad extensive-intensive spectrum combining use, consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary
more technologically complex configurations that treatment stages, are known as wastewater treatment
aim to increase treatment rates using a smaller layout trains. Similarly, sludge treatment trains describe
footprint. Examples of these technologies include the multiple stages that are needed to treat the
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, sludge generated from the wastewater treatment
trickling filters (TFs) or anaerobic baffled reactors train. Appropriate wastewater treatment and sludge
(ABRs). These so-called seminatural systems are treatment trains are presented later in this chapter
relatively robust and simple to operate but require (see “The Optimum Combination of Technologies
more operational attention than natural systems, for Primary and Secondary Treatment” below).
and they typically require additional steps to achieve
a secondary level of treatment.
The technology sheets clarify the level of treatment Pretreatment Options and
that can be expected from each technology, except Process Considerations
for the pretreatment technologies for which no
specific sheets were created. Nevertheless, given for Small Towns
their importance in enhancing the performance As mentioned in Table 3.1, pretreatment (also
of downstream treatment processes, typical referred to as preliminary treatment) is critical to
pretreatment unit operations are presented in the protect downstream treatment process units and
next section (“Levels of Wastewater Treatment”), equipment from materials or substances that
10 Appropriate Wastewater Treatment Technology for Small Towns

TABLE 3.1
Levels of Wastewater Treatment
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT DESCRIPTION
Pretreatment The importance of pretreatment for small-town wastewater treatment solutions cannot be stressed enough.
(also referred to Pretreatment of wastewater protects the units and equipment further downstream in the treatment process
as preliminary from materials or substances that could hamper their performance or that could excessively increase the
treatment) frequency or intensity of their maintenance needs. Pretreatment can help provide sustainable and cost-
effective wastewater treatment solutions to small towns and, depending on the quality of the wastewater to
be treated, several pretreatment processes could be required.
Primary Primary treatment consists of the partial removal of suspended solids, organic matter and nutrients from
wastewater. It produces a liquid effluent suitable for downstream secondary biological treatment and separates
out solids as a sludge that should be treated before its ultimate disposal or reuse. Primary wastewater treatment
is typically achieved by means of physical processes, such as sedimentation, but other types of treatment units
can also be considered to provide a primary level of treatment, either on a stand-alone basis (septic/Imhoff tanks
or digesters) or as the first step of a longer treatment chain (anaerobic ponds). Primary treatment can also help
reduce fecal coliforms,a but secondary, and potentially tertiary, treatment will generally be required to make it fit
for agricultural reuse.
Secondary Secondary treatment aims at removing soluble and colloidal organic matter and suspended solids from
wastewater, and it converts biodegradable organic matter into biomass, or sludge, through microbiological
processes. Effective treatment can be achieved through aerobic processes, which require oxygen typically
supplied by intensive mechanical aeration, facultative processes in which oxygen is supplied to bacteria
through atmospheric reaeration and algal respiration in the water layer near the surface of lagoons, or
anaerobic processes that harness anaerobic bacteria to convert organic matter into biogas. Secondary
treatment can help further reduce fecal coliforms, but most options will still require tertiary treatment to
produce effluent fit for agricultural reuse.
Tertiary Tertiary treatment further improves the treatment level, beyond secondary treatment, of specific wastewater
effluent parameters, such as nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids, as well as its hygienic quality (i.e.,
the removal of bacteria, viruses and other pathogens). The most common tertiary treatment process is a final
disinfection stage, using ultraviolet radiation or chlorination. Other processes, such as polishing ponds, rock
filters and other filter technologies, may also be used to meet specific effluent quality requirements. Such
tertiary treatment effluent levels may, for instance, be required for agricultural reuse, groundwater recharge
or discharge to recreational or protected waters. A small set of reuse options (for example, for potable reuse)
would involve the use of additional steps, typically referred to as advanced treatment, including technologies
such as reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration and microfiltration.
Sludge All types of wastewater treatment plants produce sludge/biosolids as a by-product. In most small towns,
sludge will require volume reduction before its disposal or reuse. Simple drying beds are typically a common
solution, as they dewater the sludge and provide pathogen reduction. Additional treatment could be required
to ensure further pathogen reduction before agricultural reuse.
a
Fecal coliforms are bacterial organisms that are used to indicate the presence of fecal contamination.
could hamper their performance and/or their Protecting wastewater treatment systems in this
maintenance needs. Examples of wastewater way is particularly relevant to small-town contexts in
contents or properties that could excessively increase terms of promoting sustainable and cost-effective
maintenance needs include coarse materials, wastewater treatment solutions in them. Table 3.2
grit, oil and grease, as well as acute variations in presents typical pretreatment options and process
wastewater concentrations and flow volumes. considerations for small-town WWTPs.

TABLE 3.2
Typical Pretreatment Options and Process Considerations for Small-Town WWTPs
PRETREATMENT
COMMON OPTION OR
PRETREATMENT PROCESS
ISSUE CONSIDERATION DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Coarse material (rocks, Screening/sieving Bar screens can be used to remove coarse material (rocks, sticks, leaves,
sticks, leaves, garbage devices garbage and other debris) from wastewater that would otherwise damage
and other debris) can pumps and other equipment or interfere with plant operability. Depending
damage pumps and on the downstream needs, there are various types of screening devices
other equipment from coarse (100 to 25 mm) to medium (20 to 10 mm) to fine (10 to 3 mm),
and/or interfere with as defined by the gap separating the parallel screen bars, and there are
plant operability manually and mechanically cleaned screens.
Sieves feature further improved retention of solid matter because of small
square or circular openings (mostly 1 to 5 mm in opening size), with their shape
avoiding the passage of slim and longitudinal materials that can otherwise
pass even fine screens. Sieves have, for instance, become common standard
equipment upstream of UASBs to minimize scum formation in the latter.
Rotating microscreens are special types of screens or sieves, in which the
wastewater enters a slowly rotating drum, with the effluent passing through
its cylindrical screen/sieve surface while solids are retained inside the drum.
To avoid clogging, the retained matter is removed automatically by special
cleaning and removal systems. In most cases, rotating microscreens have
only small openings, ranging from about 0.1 to 3 mm, and the smaller
the openings, the more the treatment efficiency of rotating microscreens
resembles that of conventional primary settling tanks.
Grit with the potential Grit removal systems Grit is the inert matter present in wastewater, which is heavier than the
to create clogging, biodegradable organic solids to be degraded in the downstream treatment
damage equipment processes. If not removed, grit can clog downstream systems, reduce
and reduce efficiency treatment efficiency by occupying valuable reactor volume, and cause
abrasion damage and wear in equipment. Grit removal equipment should be
located after screening devices and before primary treatment units.
7 H orizontal flow grit chamber. In small installations, grit can be removed

by maintaining a low flow velocity in specific pretreatment channels or
reactors, allowing grit to settle and lighter organic solids to be maintained
in suspension and thus transported out of the channel. The settled grit
can be manually or mechanically collected, though the former is typically
favored in small plants.
7 Vortex-type grit chamber. These units make beneficial use of
hydraulically induced vortex flow conditions. The grit spirals down along
the perimeter of the cone- or cylinder-shaped reactor and is collected
and removed at the bottom, and the degritted effluent is usually
collected at the top.
7 Aerated rectangular grit chamber. Aerated rectangular grit chambers
or aerated channels are typically used in larger works. In these
installations, aerators diffuse coarse bubbles and produce a rolling motion,
perpendicular to the wastewater flow. The heavier grit, washed free from
organic matter by the turbulent flow, is collected at the bottom of the tank
while lighter organic particles are suspended and eventually carried out.
These systems also effectively allow for a preaeration of the wastewater
and can be used to eliminate oil and grease within the same unit.
(continues on next page)

TABLE 3.2
Typical Pretreatment Options and Process Considerations for Small-Town WWTPs (Continued)
PRETREATMENT
COMMON OPTION OR
PRETREATMENT PROCESS
ISSUE CONSIDERATION DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Varying levels of Oil and grease Oil and grease removal from wastewater involves separating substances
viscosity and density removal or compounds that have a lighter density than water from the wastewater
stream, and is commonly achieved through gravity separation, assisted
flotation or chemical treatment. Whereas oil describes liquid products, such
as vegetable oils, mineral oils and light hydrocarbons, the term grease refers
to solid products or substances that originate from animal or vegetable
sources and that may end up aggregating with suspended solids. Unit
operations for oil and grease removal can also help collect other floating
products, such as debris, soaps, foams, scum, detergents, plastics and so on.
Variable conditions, Equalization Wastewater treatment processes, particularly biological ones, work best
such as uneven with uniform conditions, and shocks in the form of sudden changes in the
concentrations or flow concentration of organic matter or of nutrients in the wastewater can lead
to process upsets. Equalization can be done either to eliminate or dampen
wastewater flow variations that may arise during the day (flow equalization)
or to dampen concentration variations in wastewater (concentration
equalization) that may be associated with heavy storms or industrial
contributions, for example. In certain cases, it might be recommendable to
include an equalization step in the treatment train in order to:
7 Provide constant wastewater flows for the subsequent treatment steps

and avoid feeding sudden concentration peaks to the biological steps
of treatment processes. This can also help reduce the use of chemicals,
as increased stability will require minimal dosage readjustments, thus
minimizing wastage;
7 Avoid by-passing the treatment plant during heavy storms; and
7 Discharge an effluent of more constant quality into the receiving environment,
thus reducing the risk of noncompliance with effluent standards.
Need to continually Flow measuring All wastewater treatment plants require efficient flow measurement devices,
monitor/control flow devices and flow at a minimum for both influent and effluent flows. Devices include Parshall
in the system for distribution flumes, venturi flow meters, electromagnetic or ultrasonic flow meters, and
improved stability of a variety of weirs in open channels. Weirs and flumes tend to be the most
wastewater treatment common devices as they offer a simple way to measure flow.
Flow distribution devices, such as distribution boxes, flow splitters or tipping
buckets, are a key element of treatment plants in that they allow the influent
flow to be shared between two or more parallel treatment trains.
Wet weather flow Stormwater detention For combined stormwater and wastewater sewer networks, it is often
exceeds wastewater basins necessary to add an additional treatment step to handle combined sewer
treatment plant overflow events. Stormwater detention basins refer to the combination of
capacity units that can help mitigate events when wet weather flows exceed the
wastewater treatment plant capacity by diverting excess flows away from the
treatment plant and providing a limited level of treatment (settling) before
discharge into the environment—and/or after heavy rain events, the water
stored in the stormwater basins can be progressively pumped back toward
the wastewater treatment plant. This type of basin can also be part of a
system for flow equalization.
Note: UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

Preselection of Wastewater Nevertheless, the long list does not include
technologies for which only few large-scale
Treatment Technologies references exist or for which design rules are
Appropriate for Small Towns still under discussion within the engineering
and academic communities. For this reason,
Although a wide array of wastewater technologies
technologies such as evaporative systems
exists, not all of them are well suited for the
requirements of small-town WWTPs. Therefore, or epuvalisation were not included in the
to narrow down the technology options included long list.
in this guide as likely to be most appropriate (b) Default to the most recent variation
to small towns, twenty-one have been shortlisted of an established technology. Some
using preselection criteria and these preselected technologies have been improved and
technologies are the focus of this guide. upgraded into variations, which are now
This shortlist was developed in two stages: widely considered to be safer and more cost-
effective and show improved performance
◾ First, a long list of technologies was established. and general process robustness. In such
◾ Then, the long list was subjected to preselection cases, the improved version of the
criteria, which led to the exclusion of certain technology was included and not the older
technologies from further consideration if precursor technologies. For instance, the
deemed unsuitable to small-town wastewater infiltration-percolation technology (also
treatment. Only the remaining technologies called intermittent sand filters [ISFs]) is now
are further developed as part of this guide. being abandoned for new construction
projects globally in favor of constructed
For the establishment of the long list of wastewater
wetlands (CWs), which are de facto sand
treatment technologies, the following inclusion
filters complemented by vegetation. These
criteria were used:
have proved to be even more efficient in
(a) Only well-established WWTP technologies terms of organic, solids, nutrients and
are included. These are technologies that pathogen removal, with improved stability
have been applied frequently in large- against hydraulic peak loads and with
scale projects and for which generally considerably less risk of clogging compared
acknowledged design rules exist. with ISFs.
Applied three
Applied four
preselection
criteria to
Numerous criteria to
determine Long list of Shortlist of
wastewater determine
well-established thirty-two twenty-one
treatment suitability for
wastewater technologies technologies
technologies small-town
treatment
wastewater
technology
treatment

(c) New technologies that are proving Small towns are defined in Chapter 2 as
to be efficient and that are gaining having a population of mostly less than
prominence. The guide includes various 50,000 people, sometimes less than
new developments that have recently 100,000 people and, very rarely, even more
become increasingly popular, such as hybrid than 100,000 people. In addition, the
CWs, and combinations of secondary expected per capita wastewater pollution
treatment components, such as UASB-waste level in LMICs and transition countries, where
stabilization ponds (WSPs) and UASB-trickling this guide is intended to be applied, is most
filters (TFs). Such combinations can prove likely to be less than 60 g BOD5/cap/d (for
quite advantageous when compared to example, in the range of 30 to 50 g BOD5/
non-combined single process units because cap/d). An appropriate design capacity of
such combinations usually reduce costs such WWTPs should typically be < 50,000
and simultaneously increase treatment
PE60 (roughly equivalent to < 5 MLD), with
efficiencies.
a maximum of < 100,000 PE60 (< 10 MLD) in
(d) Not all variations or modifications of a rare cases. Therefore, WWTP design sizes
technology are appropriate or relevant. It appropriate for small towns are < 50,000 PE60
is common practice in wastewater treatment and < 5 MLD (with rare maxima of up to
to use simple terms to describe complex 100,000 PE60 and < 10 MLD).1
technologies, such as activated sludge,
trickling filter, anaerobic treatment, and (b) Technologies should be simple to operate
so on. However, such simplifications and present low operational risks.
can mask a wide range of quite different Finding sufficient personnel to operate
technological variations, not all of which and maintain WWTPs in small towns can
may be appropriate for specific projects—in present a challenge, so the technologies
this case, for small towns. This is particularly chosen should be simple to operate with
true for activated sludge and its extended low operational risks.
aeration (EA) or low-load modifications.
(c) Capital expenditures (CAPEX) and
This applies to both batch-wise variations,
operating expenditures (OPEX) associated
such as sequencing batch reactors (SBRs),
and flow-through type facilities, such as with technologies should be affordable.
oxidation ditches (ODs). A comparative Financial aspects play a crucial role in the
description and analysis of conventional sustainable running of small-town WWTPs,
activated sludge (CAS) and EA is presented so CAPEX and OPEX should be kept within
in Appendix A. the service provider’s financial capacity.
This is particularly important to consider
The resulting long list of well-established technologies
for electromechanical installations, as these
is presented in Table 3.3. This long list was further
tend to get over-proportionally expensive
narrowed down using the three following specific
to purchase, operate and maintain as
criteria in order to identify a short list of appropriate
they get smaller. Technologies such as
WWTP options for small towns:
chemically enhanced primary treatment
(a) The technology design capacity should (CEPT), flotation or thermal sludge dryers
be appropriate for small town sizes. were therefore not considered as part of the

TABLE 3.3
Long List of Treatment Technologies and Preselection of Appropriate Technologies
for Small-Town WWTPs
APPLIED FOR SIMPLE TO FINANCIALLY

WWTP DESIGN OPERATE WITH COMPETITIVE
SIZES < 50,000 LOW OPERATIONAL FOR SMALL/
# WASTEWATER TECHNOLOGY a ABBREV. PE60 AND < 5 MLD RISKS MEDIUM WWTPS b
Primary treatment (only)
1 Septic tank ST (only for clusters of Yes Yes
houses)
2 Biogas digester BD Yes Yes
3 Imhoff tank IMH Yes Yes Yes
Primary + secondary treatment
4 Anaerobic baffled reactor ABR Yes Yes Yes
5 Anaerobic filter ANF Yes Yes Yes
6 Waste stabilization pond WSP Yes Yes Yes
7 Aerated lagoon AL Yes Yes Yes
8 Single-stage constructed wetland CW(1-st) Yes Yes Yes
9 Hybrid constructed wetland CW(hybrid) Yes Yes Yes
10 Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor UASB Yes Yes Yes
11 Conventional activated sludge process CAS (> 20,000 PE60) No No
12 Sequencing batch reactor (conventional) SBR (conv.) (> 20,000 PE60) No No
13 Extended aeration (AS type) EA Yes Yes Yes
14 Extended aeration (SBR type) SBR EA Yes Yes Yes
15 Trickling filter TF Yes Yes Yes
16 Rotating biological contactor RBC Yes Yes Yes
Activated sludge variations
17 Nereda® c NEREDA Yes No No
18 Membrane bioreactor MBR Yes No No
19 Two-stage AS with high-loaded first stage AB No No No
Attached biomass growth system variations
20 Biological aerated filter d BAF Yes No No
Combinations of AS and attached growth
21 Integrated fixed film activated sludgee IFAS Yes No Yes
22 Moving bed biological reactor f
MBBR Yes No Yes
23 Trickling filter/solids contact process TF/SC No Yes Yes
24 UASB-WSP UASB-WSP Yes Yes Yes
25 UASB-TF UASB-TF Yes Yes Yes
26 UASB-AS UASB-AS Yes No Yes
Tertiary treatment (additional)
27 Disinfection with UV system UV Yes Yes Yes
28 Disinfection with chlorine Cl Yes Yes Yes
29 Polishing pond PP Yes Yes Yes
30 Rock filter RF Yes Yes Yes
31 Sand filter SF Yes No No
32 Rotary disc filter RDF Yes Yes Yes
Note: AS = activated sludge; CAPEX = capital expenditures; MLD = million liters per day; OPEX = operating expenditures; PE = population equivalent; UV = ultraviolet;
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
a
Appropriate WWTP technologies are presented in green text.
b
Technologies that have considerably higher CAPEX and/or OPEX figures than other technologies are not considered to be financially competitive.
c
Nereda is a proprietary variation of AS based on aerobic granulation.
d
These systems can come under different proprietary variations and trademarks such as BIOFOR® and BIOSTYR®.
e
These systems can come under different proprietary variations and trademarks such as STM-Aerotor™.
f
These systems can come under different proprietary variations and trademarks such as Kaldnes™, Linpor™ and Captor™.
long list of this guide. Economies of scale TABLE 3.4
effects also exist for civil works-intensive List of Wastewater Treatment Technologies
technologies, but this effect is usually less That Met the Preselection Criteria of
pronounced than for electromechanical Being Appropriate for Small Towns
installations.
TECHNOLOGY SHEET: APPROPRIATE
Technologies were excluded for being inappropriate # TECHNOLOGY FOR SMALL TOWNS
for small towns if they did not meet all three of the Primary treatment only
aforementioned criteria. For example, the CAS 1 Septic tank (ST)
process (high-load) or membrane bioreactors 2 Biogas digester (BD)
(MBRs) were not considered part of the guide 3 Imhoff tank (IMH)
because they are widely known to require a Primary and secondary treatment
combination of higher levels of CAPEX and OPEX,
4 Anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)
highly skilled staff, a constant electricity supply,
5 Anaerobic filter (ANF)
high levels of chemical consumption and a highly
6 Waste stabilization pond (WSP)
developed management system that ensures that
7 Aerated lagoon (AL)
the facility is correctly operated and maintained.
8 Single-stage constructed wetland (CW(1-st))
In addition, given the economies of scale and the
9 Hybrid constructed wetland (CW(hybrid))
reduced fluctuation of influent characteristics in
10 Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB)
larger towns and cities, these options are deemed
11 Extended aeration – activated sludge type (EA)
more appropriate for the treatment of large flows
Extended aeration – sequencing batch reactor type
in such settings. 12
(SBR(EA))
In Table 3.3, wastewater treatment technologies 13 Trickling filter (TF)
that meet all of the preselection criteria, and are 14 Rotating biological contactor (RBC)
therefore deemed appropriate for small towns, 15 UASB followed by WSP (UASB-WSP)
are presented in green text, and those excluded 16 UASB followed by TF (UASB-TF)
technologies, based on the fact that they do not Tertiary treatment
meet the preselection criteria for small towns, are 17 Disinfection with ultraviolet system (UV)
presented in red text. 18 Disinfection with chlorine (Cl)
19 Polishing pond (PP)
Twenty-one options met the preselection criteria
20 Rock filter (RF)
of being appropriate for small towns, as presented
21 Rotary disc filter (RDF)
in Table 3.4. More experienced users of this guide
may still wish to include other technologies for
additional comparison. However, we suggest that
any additions be assessed against the same criteria Technology Sheets
that are applied in this guide for comparability
To help better navigate the reader around the
with the preselected technologies here.
technology sheets, we present here an outline
For those technologies that met the preselection template that provides an overview of how each
criteria, technology sheets were developed. These technology sheet is structured and an explanation
are presented in the next section (“Technology of how to interpret the different figures that are
Sheets”). used to characterize each technology.

TECH SHEET #1
Septic Tank (ST)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Primary anaerobic treatment
POTENTIAL
The septic tank is the most common, small-scale and decentralized treatment tech- ▶ Effluent not fit for
nology worldwide. The septic tank is a watertight chamber that performs preliminary reuse.
treatment through sedimentation and anaerobic digestion. Physical treatment happens ▶ Not enough biogas
through the retention of solids: the gravity separation of solid particles between
produced for reuse.
flotation (formation of a grease cap) and sedimentation (formation of a sludge bed)
produces a totally liquid effluent. Biological treatment occurs through anaerobic
digestion which liquefies solids retained in the pit and
produces some biogas. The effluent is infiltrated
onsite and spread through a leach field,
IA
ER
where further filtration occurs. Treatment
I T
efficiencies vary greatly depending on
C R i t a l co
/cap )
s ts Treatm
ent
t
operation and maintenance and L e n
tm (CA PE X ef f
ic i e
climatic conditions. I A Inve s nc
y
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
Avail ts and O&M inp ent
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

access covers
vent
inlet outlet
scum
sedimentation zone
sludge
Source: Tilley et al. 2014.
PROJECT DESIGN OPERATION

▶ Connected population: ▶ Simple and robust technology ▶ Regular desludging must be
(Household) or with long service life; can be ensured.
(Cluster of houses) sized and constructed by non- ▶ A septic tank is appropriate
▶ Population growth can be expert. where there is a way of
accounted for as the sizing is ▶ Small land area required (can be dispersing or transporting the
relatively flexible to a maximum built underground). effluent.
of 200 population equivalent. ▶ Treated wastewater can be
▶ Consider existing capacity for dispersed into the soil for onsite
sludge treatment in neighboring infiltration.
areas. Mixed wastewater flow is ▶ If septic tanks are used in
not allowed. densely populated areas,
onsite infiltration should not be
used, otherwise, the ground
will become oversaturated and
contaminated, and wastewater
may rise up to the surface,
posing a serious health risk.
▶ Even though septic tanks
are watertight, it is not
recommended to construct them
in areas with high groundwater
tables or where there is frequent
flooding.

TECH SHEET #2
Biogas Digester (BD)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Primary treatment, anaerobic process, sludge treatment
POTENTIAL
The biogas digester consists in a chamber where blackwater, sludge, and/or bio- ▶ Effluent not fit for
degradable waste is introduced with no aeration to create the ideal conditions for reuse.
anaerobic bacteria to break down (digest) the organic matter from the inputs into ▶ Market for reuse
simpler chemicals components. Anaerobic digestion is a process which take place in
exist for biogas and
low oxygen or anoxic environments. In these conditions, anaerobic bacteria thrive and
sludge (digestate)
break down organic carbon into biogas (methane and carbon dioxide) and produces
valorization.
a digested slurry (digestate) rich in organics and nutrients, almost odorless and where
pathogens are partly inactivated. Because this digester is used for strong sub- ▶ Gas production is
strate only, biogas production is high; however, significant gas production cannot be directly related to
achieved if blackwater is the only input. This process can be very useful to treat aris- the organic fraction
ing organic waste such as sewage sludge, organic farm waste, municipal solid waste, of the substrate.
green waste and industrial organic waste. ▶ Digestate is rich in
stabilized organic
matter and nutrients
and can be reused
IA as a fertilizer.
T ER
C RI /cap
i t a l co
s ts Treatm
e nt e
L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
t (CA ien
es cy
Inv
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
e g y us
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

inlet gas outlet access cover
overflow
outlet
biogas
slurry

▶ Connected population: ▶ Often, biogas reactors are ▶ The main parameter is the
(Household) or directly connected to private or hydraulic retention time, which
(Cluster of houses) public toilets with an additional should not be less than 15 and
▶ Power and water supply: access point for organic 25 days in hot and moderately
Does not require electricity or materials. warm climate, respectively.
constant water supply. Will not ▶ For economic reasons, it is Below 15 °C biogas digesters
accommodate only wastewater not suitable for weak liquid are less appropriate for colder
and therefore benefits from wastewater, as the total volume climates as the rate of organic
nearby agricultural or industrial of wastewater must be agitated matter conversion into biogas is
activity to supplement inputs and kept for full retention time very low.
with animal manure, green waste inside the digester. This leads to
or organic waste, or a food large digester volumes and thus,
waste collection system. to high construction costs.
▶ Mixed wastewater and organic ▶ Can be built underground if
waste is allowed. However, the soil conditions and initial space
influent should remain strong allows.
and the system will not deal well ▶ Construction requires masonry
with dilution. knowledge.
▶ To minimize distribution losses,
the reactors should be installed
close to where the gas can
be used.

TECH SHEET #3
IMHOFF Tank (IMH)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Primary anaerobic technology
POTENTIAL
The Imhoff tank is a communal settling tank that treats raw wastewater by sep- ▶ Effluent not fit for
arating solids and liquids. The settled solids are then digested and partially reuse.
stabilized in the lower chamber through anaerobic digestion. The V shape ▶ Treated wastewater
allows solids to trickle into the digestion compartment while preventing gas
can be discharged
from rising back up and disturbing the settling process. Gas vents direct the
in ocean or large
gas to the sides, transporting sludge particles and creating a scum layer.
river only.
Imhoff tanks work for domestic or mixed wastewater flows, though the effluent
requires additional treatment. The combination of solid- ▶ Not enough biogas
liquid separation and sludge stabilization in one produced for reuse.
unit is advantageous.
IA
T ER
C RI a pi t a
l c os ts Treatm
e
nt/c EX) nt e
L e
tm (CA P f f ic
IA
ien
es cy
Inv
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

gas vents
scum
flow tank / cleanout
settling
compartment
sludge outlet
gas bubbles
sludge digestion compartment

▶ Connected population: ▶ Due to depth of tank, the height ▶ Process operation in general is
(Cluster of houses) or of the groundwater table should not required, and maintenance
(Town) be considered carefully. is limited to the removal of
▶ Consider existing capacity for ▶ Moderate area requirement (can accumulated sludge and scum
sludge treatment in neighboring be built underground). every 1 to 3 years.
areas. ▶ Low odors due to containment
▶ Mixed wastewater flow is of gas.
allowed. Resistant against ▶ Performance depends on
organic shock loads, but not temperature. In colder climates,
suitable for hydraulic overloads. a larger tank may be needed for
longer retention.
▶ Usually, the biogas produced
in an Imhoff tank through
anaerobic digestion is not
collected because of its
insufficient amount.

TECH SHEET #4
Anaerobic Baffled Reactor (ABR)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
An anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR) is an improved Septic Tank with a series of baffles ▶ Effluent not fit for
under which the wastewater is forced to flow through several compartments. The reuse.
ABR also treats of non-settleable and dissolved solids by bringing them in close con- ▶ Treated wastewater
tact with active bacterial mass that accumulates on the reactor walls. The increased
can be discharged
contact time with the active biomass
in ocean or large
results and the upflow chambers
river only.
provide enhanced removal
IA
ER
and digestion of organic ▶ Not enough biogas
T
matter. RI pi t a l
C
c os t s Treatm
/ca ) ent
produced for reuse.
L ent X ef f
tm (CAPE ic i e
IA e s nc
Inv y
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

settler anaerobic baffled reactor (ABR)
access covers
vent
inlet outlet
scum
sedimentation zone
sludge
baffles Source: Tilley et al. 2014.

▶ Connected population: ▶ Moderate area requirement ▶ Process operation in general is
(Cluster of houses) or (can be built underground). not required, and maintenance
(Town) is limited to the removal of
▶ Consider existing capacity for accumulated sludge and scum
sludge treatment in neighboring every 1 to 3 years.
areas. ▶ Low sludge production; the
▶ Mixed wastewater flow is sludge is stabilized.
allowed. Resistant to organic
and hydraulic shock loads.

TECH SHEET #5
Anaerobic Filter (ANF)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
The anaerobic filter, also known as fixed bed or fixed film reactor, consists in an anaer- ▶ Effluent not fit for
obic baffle reactor structure equipped with additional material that forms a filter on reuse.
which bacteria can grow. This increases the surface area where wastewater is in con- ▶ Treated wastewater
tact with active biomass and improves treatment. The treatment of non-settleable and can be discharged
dissolved solids occurs through contact with this surplus of active bacterial mass. The in ocean or large
bacteria affix themselves to solid particles and river only.
on the reactor walls. Filter material,
such as gravel, rocks, cinder or
▶ Not enough biogas
produced for reuse.
plastic pieces designed as IA
T ER
such media provide addi- I
CR
s ts
i t a l co Treatm
tional surface area for t /cap ) ent
L m
n
e PE X ef f
ic i e
IA
s t (CA nc
bacteria to settle. Inve y
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
use gy
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

access covers
vent
inlet outlet
scum
filter
sedimentation zone
sludge
filter support
anaerobic filter units

settler
Source: Tilley et al. 2014. baffles

▶ Connected population: ▶ Hydraulic retention time is ▶ Risk of clogging, depending on
(Cluster of houses) or the most important design pre-treatment.
(Town) parameter influencing filter
▶ Consider existing capacity for performance. The hydraulic
sludge treatment in neighboring retention time should be in the
areas. range between 1.5 and 2 days.
▶ Mixed wastewater flow is
▶ For domestic wastewater,
allowed. constructed gross digester
volume (voids plus filter mass)
may be estimated at 0.5 m3/
capita.
▶ Moderate area requirement (can
be built underground).

TECH SHEET #6
Waste Stabilization Ponds (WSP)
DESCRIPTION
Primary/secondary/tertiary anaerobic treatment
Secondary/tertiary aerobic treatment
Waste Stabilization Ponds are man-made ponds and can be used at all stages of
wastewater treatment, in series or as one step in a broader treatment chain.
 As primary anaerobic treatment, ation and algal respi ration, while

anaerobic lagoons or ponds operate the sludge settles at the bottom
much like open septic tanks and are and provides an anaerobic environ-
used as the first step to treat strong ment where decomposition occurs
wastewater and reduce organic load. and the sludge has to be regularly
The depth of anaerobic ponds pro- extracted. Usually, a facultative pond
motes sedimentation: settleable receives settled water from an anaer-
solids fall to the bottom of the pond obic pond and therefore operates
to form a sludge layer, where they
undergo anaerobic digestion. The
anaerobic bacteria (acidogenic, ace-
togenic, and methanogenic) operate IA
T ER
RI
at temperatures above 15°C and ts
s
i t a l co Treatm
transform the organic carbon in C /cap
ent PEX)
e nt e
L m f f ic
IA
t (CA ien
the solids into biogas (metha- es cy
Inv
neand carbon dioxide), leav- 3
C
N
en
ing a nutrient-rich sludge.
A
E a nce
N
ha
)
The scum layer that often

X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
forms on the surface
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
does not need to be
d in
M
removed. Anaerobic
O&
g to val
ponds are particu- o
larly well adapted for 1
warm countries.
Land availa
 As secondary treat-
g y use
ment, facultative
ERIA
ponds rely on both

En e r
ili t y b
aerobic and anaer-

obic processes. Fac-
RIT
ultative ponds stratify

L C
influent by working on
n
La
tio
TA
two levels: the top layer

bo
uc
qu
od
contains dissolved oxygen
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
due to atmospheric reaer- on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

under lighter organic loading than REUSE
POTENTIAL
anaerobic ponds. Wastewater flows
into the pond in a continuous man-
ner. Facultative ponds are used to ▶ If the anaerobic
treat raw municipal wastewater in pond is covered,
small communities and for primary the biogas can be
or secondary effluent treatment for recovered for reuse.
small or large cities.
▶ Maturation lagoon
 As tertiary treatment, aerobic effluent is fit for non-
or maturation ponds rely on nat- restrictive irrigation.
ural aeration, sedimentation and
UV disinfection to treat wastewa-
▶ Due to high algae
ter. This process mirrors the nat- production, use
ural treatment occurring in a river through drip
body. Natural oxygenation occurs irrigation requires
through atmospheric reaeration filtration to remove
and algal respiration, promoting the suspended
organic degradation and nutrient solids.
removal. Wastewater flows in con-
tinuously, and the shallow depth of
the pond allows sunlight to reach
the whole pond depth, combining
with the oxygen to promote patho-
gen removal. All these processes
contribute to good fecal bacte-
rial removal. Photosynthetic algae
release oxygen in the water while
consuming the carbon dioxide pro-
duced by bacterial activity. They
are also used as the polishing step
after an anaerobic system, such as
USABs (see sheet 10). Maturation
ponds contribute significantly to
pathogen removal and effectively
remove the majority of nitrogen
and phosphorus if used in combi-
nation with algae harvesting. The
algal population in maturation
ponds is much more diverse than in
the facultative ponds.

anaerobic facultative maturation

▶ Connected population: ▶ Works best in series. ▶ Odor release (mainly hydrogen
(Cluster of houses) or ▶ Requires relatively large areas of sulfide) is a major disadvantage
(Town) land, and therefore is still best of anaerobic ponds.
▶ Can accommodate high organic suited for peri-urban areas or ▶ Anaerobic treatment requires
loading. large, rural settlements. a longer start-up time, alkaline
▶ Mixed wastewater flow is ▶ Anaerobic lagoons are usually addition and anaerobic microbes
allowed. Population growth can 2 to 5 m deep and the height of are sensitive to toxic substances.
be accounted for as the sizing is the groundwater table should be ▶ Anaerobic lagoons must be
relatively flexible. considered carefully. de-sludged approximately
▶ Facultative ponds usually are once every 2 to 5 years, when
1.5 m deep, although depths the accumulated solids reach
between 1 m and 2.0 m are one third of the pond volume.
used. Depths less than 0.9 m are Sludge accumulation is slower
not recommended, as rooted for other lagoons.
plants may grow in the pond ▶ The classic ponds configuration
and provide a shaded habitat (anaerobic pond + facultative
suitable for mosquito breeding. pond + maturation ponds)
▶ Maturation ponds are usually usually reaches complete
1–1.5 m deep. removal of protozoan cysts and
helminths eggs.
▶ Anaerobic lagoons receive raw
wastewater with high organic
▶ Mosquitoes and similar insect
loading (>100g BOD5/m3 per day). vectors can be a problem if
emergent vegetation is not
▶ Aerobic lagoons can be built controlled.
in series for most effective
treatment and to provide a high
▶ Facultative ponds have good
level of pathogen removal. resistance to temporary organic
overloads.
▶ Although fecal bacteria are
partially removed in the
▶ Maturation ponds achieve a high
facultative ponds, the size and reduction of solids, BOD and
number of the maturation ponds pathogens and high nutrient
determine the quantity of fecal removal if combined with algae
bacteria in the final effluent. harvesting (Tilley et al. 2014)
and should reach high coliform
removal efficiency (3–4 Ulog).

TECH SHEET #7
Aerated Lagoons (AL)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Secondary aerobic treatment
POTENTIAL
The aerated lagoon (also known as aerated pond) consists of a man-made pond ▶ Treated water can be
receiving mechanical aeration. This process mirrors the natural treatment occurring used for restrictive
in a river body but is aided through mechanical or diffused aeration. The oxygen irrigation (fruit trees,
promotes organic degradation and nutrient removal. industrial crops).
The wastewater flows in continuously and the wastewater. The treatment of waste
▶ Effluent requires
solids are maintained in suspension by water by lagoon processes is charac- disinfection
the aeration. Dissolved oxygen and sus- terized by its high buffering capacity treatment for non-
pended solids are maintained uniform with respect to variations in organic restrictive reuse.
throughout the basin. If aeration is main- or hydraulic loads, due to its hydraulic
tained in the upper layer only, the pond retention time being much higher than
is called a facultative aerated lagoon. that of other processes.
In that case, a portion of the suspended
solids settle to the bottom of the
basin, where they undergo anaerobic
decomposition. In the settling stage,
IA
the suspended solids agglomerate in T ER
the form of sludge, which has to C RI /cap
i t a l co
s ts Treatm
e nt e
L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
be regularly extracted. t (CA ien
es cy
Inv
3
C
Aerated lagoons can be built

N
en
A
in series for most effective
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
treatment, with modulated
of utr
(O
up ien
aeration along the series. 2
ts
gra t rem
cos
The wastewater first goes
d in
M
O&
g to val
through the facultative
lagoon and the effluent o
is then polished in an 1
aerated or high perfor-
Land availa
mance aerated lagoon.

g y use
Facultative lagoons are

ERIA
larger, shallower and less

En e r
aerated than high perfor-

ili t y
mance aerated lagoon.

RIT
The aerated lagoon is

L C
particularly adapted to
n
La
tio
TA
bo
communities where artisanal

uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr
or industrial activities have dg
e
on
ati
f ic
M
Slu
a significant influence on the N
O
pa r uts
IR
nature of the organic pollutant in
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

influent S effluent S
(aerator)
sludge

▶ Connected population: ▶ Work best in series. ▶ The power level needed to
(Cluster of houses) or ▶ Requires relatively large areas of maintain uniform dissolved
(Town) land, and therefore is still best oxygen in the basin—or top
▶ Water and power supply: suited for peri-urban areas or layer of the basin—depends on
No need for continuous water large, rural settlements. the aeration equipment (if any)
supply. Continuous energy and the influent quality.
▶ As the process is resistant to
supply is required to operate the organic and hydraulic shock
▶ Energy use will be higher for
aeration mechanism. loads, no equalization step is aerated than for facultative
▶ Mixed wastewater flow with needed. aerated lagoons.
organic industrial wastewater ▶ The sludge must be removed
is accepted, as are variations in from the aerated pond, or from
organic or hydraulic loads. the subsequent sedimentation
pond, for continued
performance.

TECH SHEET #8
Single-Stage Constructed Wetlands
(CW 1-stage)
DESCRIPTION
Constructed wetlands are man-made areas mirroring the structure of natural wetlands
to take advantage of natural treatment processes for wastewater. They consist in a
porous layer of rock, gravel or sand and a planted bed. The porous layer performs
filtration functions and traps some of the suspended solids. The planted bed absorbs
some of the pollutants and promotes the development of invertebrates and micro-
organisms that further treat the water as it flows through by degrading the organic
pollutants. Nutrients are also taken up by microorganisms and plants. The bottom is
usually lined with an impermeable liner to control wastewater flow and protect the
surrounding area. Constructed wetlands can be distinguished according to criteria
such as hydrology (water surface flow and subsurface flow), macrophyte growth form
(emergent, submerged, free-floating and floating leaved plants) and direction of flow
(horizontal and vertical).
 Vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCW)

require less area than horizontal flow
wetlands given the downward flow of
RIA
the wastewater, which is loaded
I TE
CR
s ts
from the top as uniformly i t a l co Treatm
t /cap ) e nt e
L e n
tm (CAPE
X f f ic
IA
as possible to allow for ien
es cy
Inv
oxygenation. Intermittent
3
C
N
loading, using a pump or en

A
E a nce
N
siphon, further increases
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
the oxygenation and
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
aerobic phase. An
cos
d in
M
anaerobic phase
O&
g to val
then follows once
o
the wastewater 1
infiltrates further into
the medium and
Land availa
until it is collected
g y use
and discharged at
ERIA
En e r
the bottom of the

ili t y b
system.
RIT
 In horizontal flow
constructed wetlands
L C
(HFCW), wastewater
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
flows horizontally
r
qu
od
EN
a li
pr f ic
through the basin and dg
e
on
ati
M
Slu
undergoes filtration as it N
O
pa r uts
IR
makes its way to the other side
NV
ability of replacem
of the wetland, pushed by new /E

TECHNI CAL

influent. The vegetation transfers REUSE
POTENTIAL
a small amount of oxygen to the
root zone so that aerobic bacteria
can colonize the area. The soil ▶ Effluent not fit
remains saturated, providing limited for unrestricted
nitrifying capacity compared to reuse but fit for
vertical flow constructed wetlands. restricted irrigation
However, mechanisms to feed the (trees, crops eaten
wastewater into HFCW are simpler, cooked).
making them the preferred choice ▶ Treated wastewater
unless nitrification is required to
can be discharged
meet discharge standards.
in stream.
 In free water surface constructed
wetlands (FWSCW), water flows
above ground and plants are rooted
in the sediment layer at the base of
the basin or floating in the water.
Compared to subsurface wetlands
(horizontal flow or vertical flow),
FWSCW can be vegetated with
emergent, submerged and floating
plants. In these systems, the water
surface of the wetland is exposed
to the atmosphere which can
theoretically provide oxygen to the
water and UV disinfection.

Vertical flow constructed wetlands (VFCW)
distribution pipe
influent
impermeable liner
sand/gravel layers
effluent
drainage pipe
Horizontal flow constructed wetlands (HFCW)

water
level
influent
effluent
impermeable liner
coarse sand/fine gravel layer water level control

Free water surface constructed wetlands (FWSCW)
inlet outlet
sludge
impermeable liner
sediment layer
PROJECT plants, such as the common reed, OPERATION

cattail and bulrush.
 Connected population:  In VFCW, 4 to 10 times a day
 The main function of the plants
(Cluster of houses) or feeding of wastewater, whereas
is to counteract clogging of the
(Town) HFCW is continuous.
filter.
 Power supply: When using a  For HFCW, the water level in
 VFCW will require a pump or
pump for wastewater loading, the wetland is maintained at
sufficient gradient for a siphon
will require electricity supply on 5 to 15 cm below the surface
pulse-loading system.
a set schedule. Works with both to ensure subsurface flow and
continuous and intermittent
 Oxygen transfer rates can be avoid bad smells.
wastewater inflow. improved by using sand and/or
 The quantity of sludge is affected
gravel beds and ensuring
 Mixed wastewater flow is not by the liquid temperature but
intermittent loading, so that the
recommended. remains below that of other
beds are not water saturated.
secondary treatment processes.
 In HFCW, the outlet should be
DESIGN The vegetation transfers a small

variable so that the water surface
amount of oxygen to the root
can be adjusted to optimize
 Typical depths range from 0.5 to zone so that aerobic bacteria
treatment performance.
1.0 m for HFCW, from 0.8 to 1.4 m can colonize the filter media.
for VFCW and 0.15 to 0.60 m for
 FWSCW typically require a
 The risk of mosquito breeding is
FWSCW. larger area than subsurface
reduced in HFCW compared to
systems (HFCW and VFCW),
 Wetland species of all growth VFCW and FWSCW since there
as the porous subsurface filter
forms have been used in is no standing water.
medium in subsurface systems
constructed wetlands. However, provides a greater contact area  In HFCW, the filter material at the
the most commonly used species for treatment activities. inlet zone will require replacement
are robust species of emergent every 10 or more years.
TECH SHEET #9
Hybrid Constructed Wetlands
(CW-Hybrid)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
Hybrid Constructed Wetlands (Hybrid CWs) make primarily use of the components ▶ Effluent not fit
described in the Technology Sheet on 1-stage CWs, i.e. horizontal flow CW (HFCW) for unrestricted
and vertical flow CW (VFCW). At least 2 of such components are employed in series, reuse but fit for
but also 3, 4 or even more stages are sometimes used. This brings about distinctive restricted irrigation
advantages, as compared to 1-stage CWs, such as: (trees, crops eaten
cooked).
▶ Total land requirement is reduced ▶ Hybrid CWs can be designed ▶ Treated wastewater
to roughly 50% of 1-stage CW. A for enhanced biological nutrient
can be discharged
common plant footprint of Hybrid removal (BNR). The VFCW in
in stream.
CWs equals 2.0–2.5 m2/capita in such designs usually serve for
moderate climates, possibly less in nitrification, the HFCW usually
hot climates. serves for denitrification.
▶ Treatment efficiency becomes more
stable, and even improves (in spite
of smaller footprint).
E RIA
IT
CR i ta l c os t s Treatm
/cap e nt e
L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
t (CA ien
es cy
Inv
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1 Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

sequential
batch first stage
preliminary feeding horizontal flow
treatment (HFCW) second stage
system
vertical flow
(VFCW)
influent
Source: Dotro et al. 2017. effluent

▶ Connected population: ▶ For construction details typical ▶ The same principles apply as
(Cluster of houses) or characteristics described in for 1-stage CWs. That means,
(Town) the Technology Sheet for O&M is very easy, and does not
▶ Feasibility of sewerage: 1-stage CWs apply with small require particular qualifications.
sufficient water supply needed. modifications, e.g. use of slightly
coarser gravel in the first stage.
▶ Fecal sludge: not suited
for direct treatment of fecal
▶ For design maximum permitted
sludge; but can be applied after load criteria for hydraulic and
effective primary treatment such organic loading need to be
as BAR. considered. Treatment efficiency
can be derived via kinetic
▶ Regulations for treated parameters.
discharge & reuse: high-quality
secondary treatment level can
be achieved; better disinfection
than in most other secondary
treatment technologies.
▶ Available land for WWTP:
relatively high footprint (even
though less than 1-stage CW).
▶ Power supply to WWTP:
usually only needed for
wastewater pumping; but mere
gravity flow is possible in case of
advantageous topography.

TECH SHEET #10
Upstream Anaerobic Sludge
Blanket reactor (UASB)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
The Upstream Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) reactor consists in a tank at the bottom ▶ Treated wastewater
of which a ‘sludge blanket’ forms and anaerobic digestion takes place. Wastewater can be discharged
is introduced as uniformly as possible over the reactor bottom, passes through the in ocean or large
sludge bed, and enters the settling zone where solids will further settle. The active river only.
sludge is suspended in the lower part of the digester and serves directly as a filter ▶ Biogas produced
medium. This blanket is made of granular sludge where anaerobic bacteria thrive and
can be used.
process the wastewater as it flows through it. The most characteristic device of the
UASB reactor is the phase separator. This device, placed at the top of the reactor,
divides it into a lower part, the digestion zone, and an upper part, the settling zone.
Wastewater will enter the settling zone via the aperture of the phase separators as it
flows upwards.
Upstream velocity and settling speed of the
sludge are in equilibrium and forms a locally
IA
stable but suspended sludge blanket.
T ER
After some weeks of maturation, gran- R I s ts
i t a l co Treatm
C t /cap ) e nt e
ular sludge forms which improves L e n
tm (CAPE
X f f ic
IA
ien
es cy
the physical stability and the filter Inv
3
C
capacity of the sludge blanket.

N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

gas collector
gas outlet
sludge bed
effluent sludge outlet

Source: Helmer et al. 1997.

▶ Connected population: ▶ The technology is relatively ▶ To maintain a stable sludge
(Cluster of houses) or simple to design and build blanket, the flow rate must be
(Town) but requires several months to controlled and properly geared
▶ Existing capacity for sludge mature and to develop sufficient in accordance with fluctuation of
treatment in a neighboring granular sludge for treatment. the organic load. In smaller units,
urban center can help to use ▶ There is no need for primary it is not possible to stabilize
this technology. A UASB is not settling. the process by increasing the
appropriate for small or rural hydraulic retention time without
▶ If biogas capture is not a priority,
communities without a constant lowering the upstream velocity.
can be built underground
water supply or electricity. to optimize the space and
▶ The fully controlled UASB
▶ Mixed wastewater flow is structure. is used for relatively strong
allowed. Appropriate for heavy industrial wastewaters.
load urban wastewater and ▶ The UASB reactor has the
industrial wastewater. potential to produce higher
quality effluent than Septic
Tanks and can do so in a smaller
reactor volume.
▶ Sludge production is very low.

TECH SHEET #11
Extended Aeration:
Activated Sludge Type (EA)
DESCRIPTION
Extended Aeration (EA) is a well-established variation of the activated sludge pro-
cess. Contrary to other, more complicated representatives of that process, EA is built
around the principle of simplicity. There are no Primary Sedimentation Tanks, and the
waste activated sludge is subjected to such long retention times in the aeration tanks,
that no sludge digesters are needed for sludge digestion / stabilization. That is, waste
sludge removed from the tanks can be directly thickened and dewatered. EA comes in
several variations, of which the most common ones are characterized as follows:
▶ Oxidation ditch EA: In this ▶ Carrousel type EA: Similvar

configuration the Aeration Tank
to Oxidation Ditches, however
is constructed as a closed loop
employing larger tanks with more
channel, leading to what is
U-turns; there are typically 4 lanes.
called “completely mixed” flow
Water depth
conditions. Typically, water depth
is in the order of 2 m only, and thus
enables the use of horizontal shaft
mechanical aerator brushes, or
E RIA
IT
CR
similar installations. Sometimes i ta l c os t s Treatm
/cap e nt e
also vertical shaft aerators L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
t A ien
es (C cy
are used, and located Inv
3
C
at the U-turning point

N
en
A
towards the end of
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
those tank loops. The
of utr
(O
up ien
aerators provide the 2
ts
gra t rem
cos
necessary oxygen for

d in
M
O&
g to val
microorganisms, and o
they also provide
horizontal thrust 1
to facilitate good
Land availa
mixing conditions.
g y use
In a subsequent
ERIA
Secondary
En e r
Sedimentation Tank
ili t y
the sludge flocs are

RIT
allowed to settle by
L C
gravity at the tank

n
La
bottom, from where the

tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
sludge is pumped back
d
EN
ro a li
ep ati
f ic
to the Aeration Tank.
g
lu d on
M
N
S
O
pa r uts
R
VI
ability of replacem
N
A L/E
TECHNIC

is sometimes increased to about REUSE
POTENTIAL
5 m, which facilitates better energy
efficiency of aeration.
▶ Plug-flow EA: The Aeration Tanks ▶ Effluent not fit for
are shaped such that flow enters on irrigation.
one end, and leaves at the other ▶ Treated wastewater
end (“longitudinal” flow, also called can be discharged
“plug-flow” conditions). Mostly in stream.
this is done to improve efficiency:
that is, pressurized aeration is
used, water depth is increased to
mostly 5–6 m, aerated zones and
non-aerated zones are installed
intermittently, and smart automation
systems for the control of air supply
are introduced, complete with
effluent quality control sensors and
frequency-controlled blowers.
▶ SBR type EA: For this variation a
separate Technology Sheet has been
prepared, due to the very different
flow conditions of that process.
The advantages of EA are a very robust
process with large reactor volumes that
can also cope with brief organic and
hydraulic shock loads. It can be employed
in any climate conditions, and it can be
designed for any secondary treatment
level. Due to economy of scale effects
on cost, this technology should not be
considered for very small facilities.
Disadvantages are a requirement for
sound process understanding by oper-
ators, regular maintenance needs, high
energy consumption for aeration, high
OPEX and CAPEX, and a risk of the for-
mation of filamentous micro-organisms,
which negatively hamper sedimentation
and may thus seriously affect treatment
efficiency.

compressed air
clarifier
inlet outlet
sludge
recirculation
extracted sludge

▶ Connected population: ▶ The aeration tank volume ▶ O&M requires process
(Town) sizing is done such that the understanding by well-trained
▶ Feasibility of sewerage: sludge stays sufficiently long staff. This involves finding the
sufficient water supply needed. in the Aeration Tank so that it right balance between incoming
can be considered stabilized pollution loads and adequate
▶ Fecal sludge: only very limited (represented by what is called biomass, and at the same time
volumes of fecal sludge can be “high aerobic sludge age,” or permitting stabilization of the
co-treated. “high aerobic sludge retention sludge. But also appropriate
▶ Regulations for treated time (SRT),” or “low F/M (food/ control of the sludge depth
discharge & reuse: high-quality microorganisms) ratios”). in the sedimentation stage is
secondary treatment level can needed, and appropriate and
▶ Typical design values are SRT in
be achieved. fast trouble-shooting to sludge
a range of 15–25 days, with cold
▶ Available land for WWTP: small climates in the upper range, and sedimentation problems may be
footprint. warm climates towards the lower necessary, too.
▶ Power supply to WWTP: high range. ▶ Regular maintenance of pumps
(particularly for aeration, but also ▶ The Secondary Sedimentation and aeration system (diffusers +
for pumping purposes); constant Tanks are designed as classical blowers, or mechanical aerators)
and reliable power supply sedimentation tanks, based on is needed.
needed. parameters such as retention
time and hydraulic surface
charge.

TECH SHEET #12
Extended Aeration:
Sequencing Batch Reactor Type (SBR-EA)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
The sequencing batch reactor (SBR) constitutes a particular variant of activated sludge ▶ Treated water can be
and in the case of small towns is most relevantly used for extended aeration (EA). EA used for restrictive
applies best to smaller waste loads and requires longer mixing times given that all irrigation (fruit trees,
processes (agitation of sludge and decantation) occur in the same clarifier, leading industrial crops).
to high sludge age. The SBR follows the same basic principles as activated sludge: ▶ Effluent requires
biological treatment, such as the formation of suspended biomass, the concentration
disinfection
of biomass in the reactor and the separation of biomass from the treated effluent. The
treatment for non-
special feature of this variant is that the settling of the biomass is carried out directly
restrictive reuse,
in the aeration tanks rather than in a separate clarifier.
and filtration and
The process operates in batch mode in a sequence typically comprising the following disinfection for reuse
phases: filling, reaction (aeration and mixing), decantation, and withdrawal of the by drip irrigation.
supernatant or effluent. The performance of this system is theoretically equivalent ▶ Sludge needs to
to the conventional “activated sludge” process be digested for
associated with a clarifier. applications.
EA can also be carried out in oxida- IA
T ER
RI
tion ditches, which tend to be s ts
i t a l co Treatm
considered an older technol- C /cap
ent PEX)
e nt e
L m f f ic
IA
t (CA ien
ogy and require more space es cy
Inv
3
C
than SBR.
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
2 up ien
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4
influent filling aeration + mixing settling effluent withdrawal
treated effluent
sludge wasting

▶ Connected population: ▶ To optimize the performance ▶ The choice of SBR-EA is not
(Cluster of houses) or of the system, two or more recommended for applications
(Town) batch reactors are used in a where the wastewater is diluted
▶ Power supply: Requires predetermined sequence of or where there is a high flow of
continuous electricity supply. operations. parasitic water.
Functionality with low loads ▶ SBR are typically used at ▶ The choice of SBR is not
must be evaluated where there flowrates of 20.000 m3/d or less recommended for irregular
is a combined sewer system. but the most SBR installations applications with periods of low
▶ Mixing incoming wastewater are used for smaller wastewater loads or absence of loads which
with industrial wastewater could systems of less than 8.000 m3/d. could lead to deterioration of the
impact treatment performance. ▶ Flexible sizing means potential biomass, though sometimes it is
Resistant to shocks in organic population growth can be complemented with additional
and hydraulic loading. considered at design. feed in low load periods.
▶ Potential capital cost savings by
▶ Potential plugging of aeration
eliminating clarifiers and other devices during selected
equipment. operating cycles.
▶ Due to the high level of
sophistication and complexity
of the process, not all parts
and materials may be locally
available.

TECH SHEET #13
Trickling Filter (TF)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
Trickling filters consist in a structure containing a substrate (rocks, gravel, shredded ▶ Treated water can be
PVC pipes, pozzolana) that acts as support for the development of microorganisms. used for restrictive
These form the biological film, which is composed of aerobic bacteria on the surface irrigation (fruit trees,
and anaerobic bacteria deeper in the medium. As previously decanted wastewater is industrial crops).
sprinkled and infiltrates through the medium, the biofilm grows around the support and ▶ Effluent requires
detaches when the water percolates. At the outlet of the trickling filter, the biofilm is
disinfection
trapped by settling in a secondary clarifier and forms
treatment for non-
sludge. The water separated in the settling
restrictive reuse.
tank is often recirculated to improve per-
formance and maintain the filter wet. RIA
I TE
CR i ta l c os t s Treatm
In most cases, the wastewater /cap e nt e
L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
is distributed at the top of t (CA ien
es cy
Inv
the bed by a rotary distrib-
3
C
N
utor (sprinkler), though en

A
E a nce
N
it can also be supplied
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
by gravity.
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
ili t y b
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

rotary influent distributor
sprinkler
filter media
inlet
air
filter support
outlet
collection

▶ Connected population: ▶ Best suited for peri-urban or ▶ Influent distribution must be
(Cluster of houses) or large rural settlements. uniform to allow for treatment
(Town) ▶ Requires primary clarification to and avoid preferential paths.
▶ Continuous flow of influent is avoid clogging. ▶ Periods of non-supply to
important to avoid drying of ▶ The sprinkler is the most suitable the trickling filter lead to its
the biofilm, and continuous and widely used distribution desiccation and are to be
energy supply is required if system with a sufficient flow avoided.
used to transport and/or supply rate to generate a rotational ▶ Replacement parts are
the wastewater. In this sense, movement. needed for the pumps and the
continuity of water supply may distribution system (sprinkler).
▶ Must be coupled with secondary
also affect performance, or
settler to remove suspended ▶ If influent distribution is done
require a storage/equalization
solids. with gravity, then there is no
tank.
energy input need.
▶ Limited ability to accept
mixed wastewater flow. Good
resistance to transient organic
overloads (50% organic load
increase is accepted).

TECH SHEET #14
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
POTENTIAL
A rotating biological contactor (RBC) is a biological aerobic process. Discs serve as ▶ Treated water can be
the supports for microflora growth. They are partially immersed in the wastewater and used for restrictive
driven by a rotational movement along a horizontal axis, which ensures both mixing irrigation (fruit trees,
and aeration. The microorganisms develop and form an active biological film on the industrial crops).
disc surface. The rotation alternates the immersion state of the biomass, allowing both ▶ Effluent requires
its oxygenation and absorption of organic matter. The rotational speed, which controls
disinfection
the contact intensity between the biomass and the wastewater and the rate of aeration,
treatment for non-
can be adjusted according to the organic load in the
restrictive reuse.
wastewater.
The influent is previously decanted to
IA
avoid clogging of the support mate-
T ER
I
CR
s ts
rial. When the biomass layer is i t a l co Treatm
t /cap ) e nt e
sufficiently thick (about 5 mm) L e n
tm (CAPE
X f f ic
IA
ien
es cy
some biomass detaches Inv
3
C
N
and is deposited at the en

A
bottom of the unit. The
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
sludge is separated
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
from the treated water
gra t rem
cos
d in
by secondary clari-
M
O&
g to val
fication. The treat-
o
ment performance
1
is of the same order
of magnitude as
Land availa
activated sludge or
g y use
SBR. Also very effec-
ERIA
En e r
tive in the removal of

bili t
pathogenic bacteria.
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

rotating disk
primary clarifier final clarifier

influent
water level effluent
basin sludge
optional aeration pipe
sludge treatment underflow solids

▶ Connected population: ▶ Must be coupled with secondary ▶ Requires operating personnel
(Cluster of houses) or settler to remove suspended with electromechanical skills.
(Town) solids. ▶ Additional oxygen supply may
▶ Power supply: Requires a ▶ Typical arrangement for secondary be particularly helpful when the
continuous electricity supply. treatment comprises 3 or 4 stages. loads of the influent are high.
▶ The process is highly stable, In small installations these stages ▶ The sludge from the secondary
resistant to shock hydraulic or can be on the same shaft, the clarifier must be extracted daily
organic loading. sections of support medium to prevent sludge buildup and
separated by baffles to produce effluent losses.
a series of hydraulically
▶ Must be protected against
independent compartments.
sunlight, wind and rain (especially
▶ The addition of an air injection against freezing in cold climates).
system to the wastewater in the
disc tank is optional.
▶ If the organic load of the
influent is variable, an aerated
equalization basin is needed
upstream.

TECH SHEET #15
UASB Followed by WSP (UASB-WSP)
DESCRIPTION
The UASB reactor as first biological stage removes the bulk of organic pollution, and
the sludge from this stage is well-digested. Combined with the ponds for disinfection
and polishing this treatment technology is thus ideal for a focus on removal of organic
pollution, combined with disinfection.
 Several advantages exist: Anaerobic sible use of the biogas from UASB
sludge yield is generally low, which— for energy generation may be an
combined with the efficient stabi- attractive side-effect. Taking the
lization and thickening inside the low total energy consumption into
UASB reactors—permits for direct account, such systems can hence
cost-efficient sludge dewatering. even become energy independent
Fecal sludge can be efficiently co- from the public grit.
digested in UASB. The high organic
load reduction in UASB permits the
polishing ponds to be designed with
an optimized focus on disinfection
RIA
(e.g. optimum water depth).
I TE
CR
s ts
The disinfection of ponds i t a l co Treatm
t /cap ) ent
L m
n
e PEX ef f
ic i e
is efficient, and typically
I A Inve s t (CA nc
y
no tertiary disinfection
3
C
N
stage is needed for en

A
E a nce
N
direct effluent reuse

ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
in non-restrictive
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
irrigation. Sludge
cos
d in
M
removal from the

O&
g to val
ponds can be
o
limited to pro- 1
longed intervals
> 10 years fre-
Land availa
quently. Even-
g y use
tually, the pos-

ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

 Disadvantages are that UASB reac- REUSE
POTENTIAL
tors generate biogas, rich in meth-
ane, which must be properly man-
aged to minimize risks of explosion. ▶ Effluent is fit for non-
That also implicates a need for well- restrictive irrigation.
trained personnel. Further, prelimi- ▶ Due to high algae
nary treatment must be efficient and
production, use
well operated, too. If this is not done
through drip
the formation of scum on the sur-
irrigation requires
face of UASB can be considerable;
filtration to remove
removing such scum from the inside
the suspended solids.
of reactors that are designed to be
possibly gas-tight, is a challenge. ▶ Treated wastewater
This challenge is further complicated, can be discharged in
since the scum tends to solidify, and stream.
then proves hard to remove. Even if
the UASB is properly managed, some
biogas always remains dissolved in
its liquid effluent, and then escapes
to the open air, contributing to GHG
emissions. Upgrading to BNR can
be done, but requires extra stages
for nitrification. Finally, it remains to
mention that the ponds require con-
siderable land footprint, and are not
feasible in case of very limited land
availability.

gas outlet
gas
collector
preliminary
treatment anaerobic pond facultative pond maturation pond
O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
sludge bed
digested receiving body

sludge (for
dewatering) Source: de Lemos Chernicharo 2007.

▶ Connected population: ▶ For UASB design see separate ▶ O&M of UASB requires
(Cluster of houses) or Technology Sheet. While careful attention to keeping
(Town) there are a series of different preliminary treatment efficient
▶ Feasibility of sewerage: parameters that need to be and functional, as well as regular
sufficient water supply needed. taken into account, for very rough scum removal, and proper
sizing an average retention time biogas management. This is not
▶ Fecal sludge: to some of 6–12 hours may be assumed particularly time-consuming, but
reasonable extent fecal sludge (6 h for wastewater temperature requires well-trained operators.
can be co-treated in UASB. > 26°C, 12 h for 18°C). Typical ▶ The maturation ponds only need
▶ Regulations for treated UASB water depth is 4–6 m. regular trimming of grass on its
discharge & reuse: secondary ▶ The maturation ponds are embankments and intermittent
treatment level can be achieved; designed for hydraulic surface cleaning.
however, organic parameters charge and retention time
may even increase in pond (minimum 3–4 days to permit
effluent due to formation of proliferation of algae). Water
algae (algal BOD5 is not the depth is about 1 m.
same as raw wastewater BOD5,
but nonetheless is shows up
in analysis); nutrient removal is
limited.
▶ Available land for WWTP: high
footprint, particularly for ponds.
▶ Power supply to WWTP: low; if
power is needved, it is primarily
for wastewater pumping and for
operation of preliminary treatment.
Biogas from UASB could be
used for energy generation.

TECH SHEET #16
UASB Followed by TF (UASB-TF)
DESCRIPTION
The UASB reactor as first biological stage removes the bulk of organic pollution, and
the sludge from this stage is well-digested. Combined with a Trickling Filter (TF) the
effluent quality can be further improved, even to BNR standards. For disinfection a
tertiary stage is needed.
 Several advantages exist: Anaerobic may be an attractive side-effect. Tak-
sludge yield is generally low, which— ing the low overall energy consump-
combined with the efficient stabilization into account, such systems can
tion and thickening inside the UASB hence even become energy indepen-
reactors—permits for direct cost- dent from the public grit, or at least
efficient sludge dewatering. The reach a high percentage of power
waste sludge from the TF stage can coverage from the biogas.
also be co-digested in the UASB, as
well as fecal sludge. The high organic
load reduction in UASB permits the
TF volume to be designed signifi-
RIA
cantly smaller than in classical TF
I TE
CR
plants. The combined effects l c os t s Treatm
a pi t a ent
nt/c EX)
of 2 high-rate reactors L e
tm (CAP
ef f
ic i e
I A I nves nc
y
(UASB + TF) leads to a
3
C
N
WWTPs with low foot- en

A
E a nce
print, comparable to
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
Activated Sludge
(O
2 up ien
ts
systems. In addi-
gra t rem
cos
tion, such a sys- d in

M
O&
g to val
tem with two
o
separate stages 1
can cope well
with hydrau-
Land availa
lic and organic

g y use
shock-loads in
ERIA
En e r
raw wastewater.
ili t y b
The possible
RIT
use of the bio-

gas from UASB for
L C
energy generation
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
d qu
EN
ro p f ic
a li
ge d on
ati
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
A L/E
TECHNIC

 Disadvantages are that UASB reac- REUSE
POTENTIAL
tors generate biogas, rich in methane,
which must be properly managed to
minimize risks of explosion. That also ▶ Effluent is fit for
implicates a need for well-trained restricted irrigation
personnel. Further, preliminary treat- or can be discharged
ment must be efficient and well in stream.
operated, too. If this is not done the
formation of scum on the surface of
UASB can be considerable; remov-
ing suchscum from the inside of reac-
tors that are designed to be possibly
gas-tight, is a challenge. This chal-
lenge is further complicated, since
the scum tends to solidify, and then
proves hard to remove. Even if the
UASB is properly managed, some
biogas always remains dissolved in
its liquid effluent, and then escapes
to the open air, contributing to GHG
emissions. Upgrading to BNR can be
done, but requires extra TF volume
for nitrification.

gas
outlet
gas
collector
trickling filter
rotary influent secondary to
preliminary distributor settler receiving
treatment
sprin- body
kler
sludge bed air
sludge
collection
filter filter effluent
support media recycle
digested
sludge (for
dewatering) return excess
sludge
Source: de Lemos Chernicharo 2007.

▶ Connected population: ▶ For UASB design see separate ▶ O&M of UASB requires
(Town) Technology Sheet. While careful attention to keeping
▶ Feasibility of sewerage: there are a series of different preliminary treatment efficient
sufficient water supply needed. design parameters that need and functional, as well as regular
to be taken into account, for scum removal, and proper
▶ Fecal sludge: to some very rough sizing an average biogas management. This is not
reasonable extent fecal sludge retention time of 6–12 hours may particularly time-consuming, but
can be co-treated in UASB. be assumed (6 h for wastewater requires well-trained operators.
▶ Regulations for treated temperature > 26°C, 12 h for ▶ The operation of the TF stage
discharge & reuse: secondary 18°C). Typical UASB water depth does not require particular
treatment level can be achieved; is 4–6 m. process know-how; however,
nutrient removal can be ▶ The TFs are designed for keeping the electro-mechanical
incorporated. volumetric organic loading installations well maintained, is
▶ Available land for WWTP: low and hydraulic surface charge, not up to unskilled labor.
footprint. dependent on specific
▶ Power supply to WWTP: conditions. Filter depth is usually
low; power serves primarily 3–5 m in modern filters.
for wastewater pumping and ▶ Secondary Sedimentation
for operation of preliminary Tanks are designed similar
treatment. Biogas from UASB to such installations after
could be used for energy Activated Sludge tanks (see
generation. e.g. Technology Sheet on EA).
Albeit after TFs they can even be
designed somewhat smaller due
to good settling characteristics
of the TF sludge.

TECH SHEET #17
Disinfection with
Ultraviolet System (UV)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Tertiary treatment, water disinfection
POTENTIAL
Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection uses mercury arc lamps to expose wastewater to con- ▶ Effluent fit for
centrated UV light, which kills pathogenic microorganisms. Wastewater flows per- nonrestrictive
pendicular or parallel to the lamps, which are encased in a protective quartz sleeves irrigation.
(instead of glass) to protect them from the cooling effects of the wastewater. The
concentrated light inactivates microbial cells and prevents them from reproduc-
ing. The process takes place in an opaque tube in order to protect operators from
exposure. The effectiveness of a UV disinfection system depends on the charac-
teristics of the wastewater, the intensity of UV
radiation, the time the microorganisms are
exposed to the radiation, and the reac-
IA
tor configuration. Some simplified
T ER
I
CR
UV tubes have been developed l c os t s Treatm
a pi t a ent
nt/c EX)
for household-level use. As L e
tm (CAP
ef f
ic i e
this disinfection process is I A I nves nc
y
3
C
purely physical, it provides

N
en
A
an interesting alterna-
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
tive where by-products
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
from chlorination are a
gra t rem
cos
d in
concern.
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
d qu
EN
ro p f ic
a li
ge d on
ati
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
A L/E
TECHNIC

inlet outlet
UV light module

▶ Connected population: ▶ UV disinfection equipment ▶ UV disinfection is a physical
(Cluster of houses) or requires less space than other process rather than a chemical
(Town) methods. disinfectant; thus eliminating
▶ Power supply: Requires a the need to generate, handle,
constant electricity supply. transport, or store toxic/hazardous
or corrosive chemicals.
▶ Low dosages may not effectively
inactivate some biological
organisms.
▶ Organisms can sometimes repair
and reverse the destructive
effects of UV.
▶ Turbidity and total suspended
solids (TSS) in the wastewater can
render UV disinfection ineffective.
▶ Inadequate cleaning is one of
the most common causes of a
UV system’s ineffectiveness.
▶ Lamps need to be replaced
every 6–12 months.

TECH SHEET #18
Disinfection with Chlorine (Cl)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Tertiary treatment, water disinfection
POTENTIAL
Chlorine kills most bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms that cause disease. ▶ Effluent fit for
Wastewater and chlorine are first mixed completely and then enter a baffled con- nonrestrictive reuse
tact chamber to allow time for disinfection to occur. The radicals formed when the for irrigation.
chlorine dissolves in the water ‘attack’ microorganisms and pathogens by breaking
molecular bonds and cells. The effluent is then discharged to the receiving water
body or reused, as applicable. The effluent contains residual chlorine, which ensures
it is not re-contaminated for a certain amount of time.
Disinfection is usually accomplished with liquid
chlorine (sodium hypochlorite), elemental chlo-
rine gas, calcium hypochlorite (solid), or
IA
ER
chlorine dioxide (gas). The chemi-
cal should be selected after due I T
CR
s ts
i t a l co Treatm
t /cap ) e nt e
consideration of wastewa- L e n
tm (CAPE
X f f ic
IA
ien
es cy
ter flow rates, application Inv
3
C
and demand rates, pH of

N
en
A
wastewater and chemi-
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
cal availability.
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
qu
od
EN
a li
pr e f ic
dg ati
on
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
IR
NV
ability of replacem
/E
TECHNI CAL

chlorine addition
contact basin
inlet outlet
mixing unit

▶ Connected population: ▶ Chlorine is a well-established ▶ The chlorine residual that
(Household), technology, easy to use, remains in the discharged
(Cluster of houses) or solubilize in water and rinse wastewater can prolong
(Town) with water. disinfection even after initial
▶ Form of chlorine to be used will ▶ Presently, chlorine is more cost- treatment and also provides a
depend on local availability and effective than other disinfection measure of the effectiveness.
connectivity to suppliers. methods. ▶ Chlorine by reacting with certain
natural organic compounds
creates toxic or ecotoxic
by-products. However, the WHO
considers that the health risks of
these by-products are still low
compared to those caused by
inadequate disinfection of water.
▶ All forms of chlorine are highly
corrosive and toxic. Thus,
storage, shipping, and handling
pose safety risks.
▶ Corrosion or embrittlement of
certain plastics and corrosion of
many metals (including stainless
steel) if the pH of the medium is
lower than 8.

TECH SHEET #19
Polishing Pond (PP)
DESCRIPTION
Tertiary treatment for removal of effluent suspended solids (SS)
Polishing Ponds (often also called Sedimentation Ponds) are e.g. employed in the final
effluent of Aerated Lagoons, to minimize effluent suspended solids. This is usually done
to improve effluent quality as such, since reduced SS also implies reduced BOD5, COD,
TN, TP. Or it may be indirectly necessary to permit UV radiation for disinfection
(UV radiation only works efficiently if SS is low.)
Polishing Ponds permit to achieve effluent SS
in the range of 20 to 60 mg/L.
IA
T ER
C RI /cap
i ta l c os t s Treatm
e nt e
L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
t A ien
es (C cy
Inv
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
d qu
EN
ro p f ic
a li
ge d on
ati
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
R
VI
ability of replacem
N
A L/E
TECHNIC

influent S effluent S effluent
aerated lagoons (AL) polishing pond

▶ Connected population: ▶ Hydraulic retention time in ▶ Embankments need to
(Cluster of houses) or Polishing Ponds should be be checked regularly and
(Town) chosen between 1 to 2 days. maintained free from large
▶ Feasibility of sewerage: To meet this requirement at plants; grass needs to be
sufficient water supply needed. all times, it is recommended trimmed from time to time.
designing for 1 day at design In certain intervals sludge
Regulations for treated
▶
▶
horizon. In order to minimize removal is required. To that ends
discharge & reuse: dependent algae formation, unnecessarily it is either necessary to empty
on design conditions of prior large Polishing Ponds should be the pond first, and then enter
treatment. avoided. with machinery to remove the
▶ Available land: low-medium ▶ Construction of Polishing Ponds sludge. Or floating rafts may be
footprint. follows the principles described employed which have sludge
▶ Power supply: usually not in the Technology Sheet on pumps mounted.
needed. WSPs. Common water depth ▶ Sludge removal becomes
is 1.5 m. necessary as soon as the
sludge is covered by less than
1.0 m water, to minimize odor
emissions. Hence with a typical
total liquid depth of about
1.5 m in Sedimentation Ponds,
the maximum sludge depth is
limited to about 33% = 0,5 m.

TECH SHEET #20
Rock Filter (RF)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Tertiary treatment for algae removal
POTENTIAL
Rock filters provide low-cost, low-maintenance polishing of pond effluents. Their ▶ Effluent fit for
prime effect is removal of algal suspended solids. The system consists of a submerged nonrestrictive
bed of rocks. Rock filters can be located either in the lagoon / pond effluent zone, or irrigation.
they can be installed as separate units downstream of the lagoon / pond. The algal
solids settle and/or attach to the rock, where they are
then decomposed by bacteria.
Typical SS removal rates are in the order
IA
of 40 to 60%. Consequently, properly
T ER
designed rock filters can achieve
C RI /cap
i ta l c os t s Treatm
e nt e
effluent SS of ≤ 30 mg/L. L m ent PEX) f f ic
IA
t A ien
es (C cy
Inv
3
C
N
en
A
E a nce
N
ha
)X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
d in
M
O&
g to val
o
1
Land availa
g y use
ERIA
En e r
bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
d qu
EN
ro p f ic
a li
ge d on
ati
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
R
VI
ability of replacem
N
A L/E
TECHNIC

anaerobic pond facultative pond maturation pond
O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2
inlet outlet
rock filter

▶ Connected population: ▶ The design of rock filters usually ▶ Optimum cleaning procedures
(Cluster of houses) or is done via hydraulic loading are not clearly established, but
(Town) rate (HLR). Typical loadings are periodic removal of accumulated
▶ Water supply: sufficient water in the order of 1,0 m3 effluent/d humus may be recommendable.
supply needed. being applied to 1,0 gross m3 of
rock filter.
▶ Regulations for treated
discharge & reuse: dependent
▶ The system consists of a
on design conditions of prior submerged bed of rocks, mostly
WSP. 75 to 100 (50 to 200) mm in size,
with a bed depth of about
▶ Available land: low-medium 1,5–2,0 m, through which
footprint. the lagoon effluent flows
▶ Power supply: usually not horizontally. The rocks should
needed. extend at least 100 mm above
the water level, to minimize
mosquito breeding and to
avoid odor emissions from
cyanobacteria that like to
develop on wet surfaces
exposed to sunlight.

TECH SHEET #21
Rotary Disc Filter (RDF)
DESCRIPTION REUSE
Tertiary treatment
POTENTIAL
Rotary Disc filters (RDF) are a physical treatment process relying on the filtration of ▶ Effluent fit for
wastewater through disc-shaped filters affixed in a rotating drum to remove residual restrictive irrigation.
suspended solids from secondary effluents. The rotating drum is divided into segments, ▶ Fit for unrestrictive
themselves covered with filter media. The wastewater is introduced at the center of the
reuse after
drum through a feed tube and pressed through the fil-
disinfection.
ter media by the pressure differential between
the filter channel and the collection area
RIA
outside. Treated water is collected at
the bottom of the drum and con- I TE
CR
l c os t s Treatm
veyed. Sludge accumulates in a pi t a ent
nt/c EX)
L m e P
ef f
ic i e
the filter media and, once it I A Inv
e s t (C A nc
y
reaches a certain thickness, 3
C
N
activates the backwashing en

A
E a nce
N
ha
)
process which consists

X
se d n
PE
FI
of utr
(O
in spraying effluent
up ien
2
ts
gra t rem
cos
(clean) water on the
d in
M
filter while the drum

O&
g to val
is rotating, collecting
o
the washwater into 1
a specific pipe for
discharge. Filtration
Land availa
g y use
can be either con-

stant with continu-
ERIA
En e r
ous backwashing or
intermittent. bili t
y
RIT
L C
n
La
tio
TA
bo
uc
d qu
EN
ro p f ic
a li
ge d on
ati
M
Slu
N
O
pa r uts
R
VI
ability of replacem
N
A L/E
TECHNIC

washing water
for backwashing
water pressed
through filter media
effluent
effluent sludge
influent
Source: Enerhall and Stenmark 2012.

▶ Connected population: ▶ When using as a tertiary filter, ▶ Backwash automatized;
(Cluster of houses) a very fine pore size is required backwash filter cleaning every six
▶ No flexibility in changing leading to low hydraulic months.
influent quality. Activities capacity. ▶ Acid cleaning can be used for
increasing Suspended solids in ▶ With prefiltration, less energy is mineral fouling if needed.
effluent feeding the ISF are not required.
accepted.

The Optimum Combination both of which serve to reduce the water content
in sludge, thereby decreasing the sludge volume.
of Technologies for Primary Thickening is the first step of water reduction and
and Secondary Treatment is done mostly by gravity. It can also be achieved
mechanically on moving belts or in rotating drums.
There are many components and treatment stages
Flotation, which is also a means of thickening, was
available, and selecting the optimum combination
excluded in the preselection stage because it is
of technologies—that is, treatment trains—can be a
not considered financially competitive for small-
challenge. For this reason, this guide also presents
town WWTPs. Dewatering, the second step in water
several predefined and well-established treatment
reduction, is usually done extensively in drying beds
trains and their main components.
or intensively in different types of centrifuges or
Tables 3.5 and 3.6 present the commonly employed presses, such as belt filter presses or screw presses.
wastewater treatment trains for small-town WWTPs.
If sludge is not properly stabilized in the wastewater
These draw from the preselected technologies listed
treatment train—that is, if it continues degrading and
in Table 3.4, with Table 3.5 focusing on wastewater
emitting bad odors after removal from the treatment
and Table 3.6 focusing on sludge treatment. The
train—there is a need for sludge stabilization.
following points should be taken into account:
Anaerobic digesters and aerobic stabilization are
the most commonly used options. UASB reactors
◾ Pretreatment is an indispensable requisite for
can also be used to digest both the primary sludge,
almost any treatment train, apart from a few stand-
which accumulates inside those reactors, and the
alone primary technologies.
secondary sludge from the subsequent stages.
◾ Primary treatment options can be used as
Finally, if the dewatering is still insufficient for the
stand-alone technologies, albeit with reduced
disposal or reuse of the sludge, sludge drying may
treatment efficiency.
also be employed. Possible technologies range from
◾ The most common WWTP technologies are simple drying beds to solar drying greenhouses.
those that employ a combination of primary and Thermal driers are excluded here because they
secondary treatment elements. are considered too costly and too operationally
demanding for the purpose of small-town WWTPs.
◾ Tertiary treatment is considered as further
improvement after primary and secondary
treatment. It is usually not applied after primary
The Optimum Combination
treatment.
of Treatment Technologies
In addition, Tables 3.5 and 3.6 present components for Wastewater Reuse
of treatment trains that are typically found in small
The challenges of achieving the Sustainable
towns (indicated with black cells), as well as those
Development Goals (SDGs), combined with water
that are considered to be optional in that they
security, have driven countries to identify ways
can complement “typical” treatment chains or
of deriving value from wastewater streams. The
replace some of their components (indicated with
potential for wastewater reuse for agricultural,
brown cells).
environmental, industrial, residential or municipal
In sludge treatment trains, the most common uses has consequently become a key factor in
treatment stages are thickening and dewatering, WWTP designs. As mentioned in previous chapters,

TABLE 3.5
Typical Wastewater Treatment Trains for Preselected Treatment Technologies for Small-Town WWTPs
WASTEWATER TREATMENT TRAIN
PRIMARY TERTIARY
PRETREATMENT TREATMENT SECONDARY TREATMENT TREATMENT
MATURATION POND
ROTARY DISC FILTER

FACULTATIVE POND
GRIT/FAT REMOVAL
ANAEROBIC FILTER
AERATED LAGOON
ANAEROBIC POND
PLASTIC MEDIA TF
DISINFECTION–UV
BIOGAS DIGESTER
PLANTED GRAVEL
POLISHING POND
STONE MEDIA TF
DISINFECTION–
EQUALIZATION
IMHOFF TANK
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPTIC TANK
ROCK FILTER
SEPARATION
CHLORINE
SCREEN
FILTER
SIEVE
UASB
ABR
RBC
SBR
PST
FST
AT
# TECHNOLOGY ABBREV.

1 Septic tank ST
2 Biogas digester BD
3 Imhoff tank IMH
4 Anaerobic baffled reactor ABR
5 Anaerobic filter ANF
6 Waste stabilization pond WSP (as needed)
7 Aerated lagoon AL
8 Single-stage constructed wetland CW (1-st)
9 Hybrid constructed wetland CW (hybrid)
10 Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor UASB
11 Extended aeration (AS type) EA
12 Extended aeration (SBR type) SBR (EA)
13 Trickling filter TF
14 Rotating biological contactor RBC
15 UASB-WSP UASB-WSP (as
needed)
16 UASB-TF UASB-TF
Typical component
Optional component (either additional or replacing another component)
Note: The term waste stabilization pond (WSP) refers to the classical configuration consisting of anaerobic, facultative and maturation ponds. The term polishing pond is used for an optional component to complement technologies and treatment
trains, whereas the term maturation pond is strictly used as part of WSP systems in this guide. AT = aeration tank; FST = final sedimentation tank; PST = primary sedimentation tank; UV = ultraviolet; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
TABLE 3.6
Typical Sludge Treatment Trains for Preselected Treatment Technologies for Small-Town WWTPs
SLUDGE TREATMENT TRAIN
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE DRYING
SOLAR DRYING
STABILIZATION
DIRECT REUSE
COMPOSTING
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
TREATMENT
ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
THICKENER
WETLAND
DIGESTER
AEROBIC
SEPTAGE
GRAVITY
POST-
TANK
UASB
BED
# TECHNOLOGY ABBREV.
1 Septic tank ST
2 Biogas digester BD
3 Imhoff tank IMH
4 Anaerobic baffled reactor ABR

5 Anaerobic filter ANF
6 Waste stabilization pond WSP
Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
7 Aerated lagoon AL
8 Single-stage constructed wetland CW (1-st)
9 Hybrid constructed wetland CW (hybrid)
10 Upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor UASB
11 Extended aeration (AS type) EA
12 Extended aeration (SBR type) SBR (EA)
13 Trickling filter TF
14 Rotating biological contactor RBC
15 UASB-WSP UASB-WSP
16 UASB-TF UASB-TF
Typical component
Optional component (either additional or replacing another component)
67
Note: WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

small towns present unique opportunities for reuse wastewater are fecal coliforms (FC) and helminth
in that there is a likely advantage for the treated eggs (particularly intestinal nematode ova), the
wastewater to be generated closer to potential removal efficiency of which is typically expressed
reuse sites. This is particularly true for agriculture. using a logarithmic scale (log units). For example,
a reduction in FC concentration from 107 FC/100 mL
Whereas the primary and secondary technologies
to 104 FC/100 mL would correspond to a reduction
presented herein are effective, to varying degrees,
of 3 log units, or 99.9 percent, as shown in Table 3.7.
at removing suspended solids and organic matter
Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that although
from wastewater, they are generally not sufficient
90 percent removal efficiencies may seem high, this
for the removal of pathogenic microorganisms to
represents only a 1 log unit reduction. Much higher
an acceptable level (WHO 2006). Given the health
pathogen removal rates will generally be required
hazards associated with direct and indirect treated
to achieve low effluent concentrations given the
wastewater use, pathogen elimination and monitoring
high incoming pathogen concentrations in raw
of control measures should be considered an integral
sewage, which is particularly the case in LMICs
part of the wastewater treatment train. Similar to
which are often characterized by higher pathogen
wastewater treatment in general, the optimal
prevalence in the population and lower overall
combination of technologies to reach a certain level
water usage, with both leading to higher pathogen
of pathogen removal in a given situation will depend
concentrations in the wastewater. For example, even
on a variety of factors. Different combinations
with a 3-log unit reduction, there would still be
involving extensive and intensive treatment options
10,000 FC/100 mL left in the effluent, falling short
can be used to achieve the desired effluent quality
of the required microbial quality to irrigate root
levels required for reuse, as shown in Figure 3.1.
crops (unrestricted reuse), according to the 2006
The most commonly used indicator parameters World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for
to monitor the presence of pathogens in treated the safe use of wastewater, excreta and graywater,
FIGURE 3.1
Examples of Combinations of Treatment Options for Different Wastewater Reuse Scenarios
Extensive treatment Use Intensive treatment
• Wastewater stabilization • Irrigation of fruit trees, • Extended aeration

pond forest, meadows • Trickling filter
• Constructed wetland • Industrial crops • Rotating biological
• Crops eaten cooked contactor
• Industrial
Additional tertiary • Nonrestrictive irrigation of Additional tertiary

treatment and/or crops eaten uncooked treatment and/or
pathogen removal by: • Urban use for irrigation of pathogen removal by:
• Maturation pond parks, golf courses, etc. • Disinfection
• Soil infiltration • Groundwater recharge • Removal of nitrogen
• Industrial and phosphorus
Source: Authors’ own work.

TABLE 3.7
Correspondence between Log Units and Removal Efficiency Percentages
PATHOGEN INDICATOR PATHOGEN INDICATOR

CONCENTRATION IN REMOVAL CONCENTRATION IN
RAW WASTEWATER EFFICIENCIES EFFLUENT
(FC/100 mL) (Log units) (%) (FC/100 mL)
10 7
1 90 106
107 2 99 105
107 3 99.9 104
107 4 99.99 103
107 5 99.999 102
Note: FC = fecal coliforms.
and representing a potential public health risk if effluent requirements with disinfection may not be
the treated wastewater were to be reused without able to sufficiently reduce effluent concentrations of
further treatment. viruses, helminth eggs or protozoa, such as Giardia
or Cryptosporidium, thus potentially contributing
Average pathogen removal efficiencies for several
to public health risks if its effluent is discharged
technologies and combinations of technologies can
to surface waters that are used downstream as
be found in the literature, together with information
drinking water sources, or if the treated wastewater
on the removal levels achievable by various control
is used for the irrigation of crops. It is therefore
measures aimed at protecting the health of workers
critical to also carefully consider the importance
and consumers from wastewater pathogens,
of pathogens that may be a local or regional public
particularly in the case of treated wastewater reuse
health concern, such as protozoa and helminths
for irrigation (Oakley and Mihelcic 2019; WHO
2006). Such protection can be achieved through the (instead of just focusing on FC, for example) when
establishment of several barriers to contamination, selecting treatment technologies for reuse.
namely: (a) barriers upstream of the reuse perimeter, Box 3.1 provides two examples of agricultural
through the wastewater treatment process itself; wastewater reuse, where a combination of
(b) barriers at the place of reuse; and (c) barriers at technologies would need to be selected to achieve
the consumer and household level. For example, certain effluent quality objectives. In both cases, the
although WSPs can typically achieve a reduction of
selection is dictated by the end use of the treated
3 to 5 log units, adopting localized (drip) irrigation
wastewater or the type of crop to be irrigated.
could provide an additional pathogen reduction
of 2 to 4 log units, depending on whether the
harvested parts of the crops are in contact with the Note
soil; the cooking of produce can provide additional 1. Based on a production rate of 100 L wastewater/cap/d. In
pathogen reduction of 5 to 6 log units. addition, BOD5 refers to the five-day biochemical oxygen
demand; PE60 refers to the per capita BOD5 loading
In addition, it is important to note that a well- produced during 24 hours, or population equivalent (PE), of
operated treatment plant meeting its bacterial 60 g BOD5/cap/d; and MLD refers to million liters per day.

BOX 3.1
Examples of Technology Selection for Agricultural Wastewater Reuse
EXAMPLE 1: Intensive treatment option to irrigate lettuce crops. In this case, costs associated with land acquisition
are prohibitively high and an intensive treatment combination could be implemented so that investment costs
associated with the civil works and the earth works are minimized. As per the 2006 WHO guidelines (and bearing in
mind the need to protect the health of workers in wastewater-irrigated fields against excessive risks of viral, bacterial,
protozoan and helminth infections), we see that only a 3 to 4 log unit pathogen reduction will be achieved by the
wastewater treatment, whereas a conservative total reduction of 7 log units is needed to ensure the safe consumption
of wastewater-effluent-irrigated lettuce. Similarly, additional technologies may be required for the effluent to be
considered safe in terms of helminth egg concentrations, which should be reduced below or equal to 1 helminth
egg/L, as per these same guidelines. The treatment process could thus include:
TREATMENT PATHOGEN REMOVAL HELMINTH EGG REMOVAL

LEVEL TECHNOLOGY (LOG UNITS) (LOG UNITS)
Pretreatment Screening, oil/grease removal 0 0
Primary Primary sedimentation <1 <1
Secondary Trickling filters and sedimentation tank 1–2 1–2
Tertiary Chlorination 2–6 < 1a
Tertiary Disc filters with a mesh size of ≤ 10 µmb <1 > 3c,d
a
As part of a recent research project, chlorination was found to provide removal efficiencies of up to 20% (< 0.7 log units). Cornel, P., Kneidl, S., Bishop,
F., Schmaußer, S., Merkl, A., and Dehnert, M. 2016. “Elimination of Helminth Eggs.” Closing event for the EXPOVAL Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF) Joint Project, Essen, Germany, October 5–6.
b
Disc filters are increasingly being used not only for solids but also for helminth eggs removal.
c
Cornel, P., Kneidl, S., Bishop, F., Schmaußer, S., Merkl, A., and Dehnert, M. 2016. “Elimination of Helminth Eggs.” Closing event for the EXPOVAL Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Joint Project, Essen, Germany, October 5–6.
d
Quinzaños, S., Dahl, C., Strube, R., and Mujeriego, R. 2008. “Helminth Eggs Removal by Microscreening for Water Reclamation and Reuse.” Water Science
and Technology 57 (5): 715–20.
In this example, chlorination is used to reach this high level of pathogen removal, but such tertiary treatment could
also be substituted by posttreatment control measures, such as drip irrigation, exposure to the sun, or rinsing and
washing of the lettuce at home. In terms of helminth eggs, the efficiency of their removal will depend on the ova
content in the influent wastewater, which can vary significantly, particularly in LMICs (Jiménez and Galván 2007).
Assuming a high content of helminth eggs, such as 2,000 eggs/L, the proposed treatment process would be able to
reach the recommended limit of £ 1 helminth egg/L, but only with the addition of the disc filters.
EXAMPLE 2: Extensive treatment option to irrigate olive tree plantations. In this case, the costs associated with
land acquisition are not prohibitive, and land is available near the small town. An extensive treatment solution could
thus be implemented, and the operation and maintenance costs could be minimized. An additional 2 to 4 log units
of pathogen removal can be achieved through the inclusion of a control measure at the place of reuse, and because
olive trees are a high-growing crop, drip irrigation should allow the reuse system to reach a removal of an additional
4 log units. The treatment process could thus include:process could thus include:
TREATMENT LEVEL TECHNOLOGY PATHOGEN REMOVAL (LOG UNITS)

Pretreatment Screening, oil/grease removal 0
Primary Primary sedimentation <1
Secondary Constructed wetland 3–4
Posttreatment control measure Drip irrigation 2–4

Factors to Address for WWTPs
in Small Towns 4
Users of this guide will be directed through the selection of technologies with the help
of two categories of criteria: (a) project criteria, which are external to the technologies
and define the characteristics and environment of a given small town and which will affect
the technology choice; and (b) technology criteria, which include the technology-specific
information (for example, technical performance and characteristics) which will ultimately
influence decision making. This section describes each criterion, provides examples, as
appropriate, and offers guidance on refining them for a specific context.
Project Criteria
Project criteria aim to identify small-town characteristics that will affect technology choice.
The guide suggests six core project criteria that outline important characteristics of the
small town, which should be considered when selecting a wastewater treatment system.
These highlight the importance of several different aspects that decision makers need
to take into account relating to population, growth, local activities and existing services
and practices.
Feasibility of Sewers
The presence and quality of other urban services in the target small town will affect the
selection of wastewater treatment options. The institution responsible for wastewater
management will likely need to engage with other urban service providers to ensure
alignment of activities and parameters. The most important urban services which have
an influence on the feasibility and efficiency of sewer systems are typically water supply,
drainage and solid waste management. The density of housing, and the distance between
neighboring houses, also has an important impact on the viability of sewered sanitation as
compared to on-site sanitation approaches, such as those provided by septic tanks and
pit latrines. The denser the housing in the small town in question, the shorter the sewer
extensions, and the more viable are sewers from a financial perspective. Some service
providers, such as eThekwini Water and Sanitation in South Africa, have used upfront
analyses of the capital cost of laying sewers in comparison to the cost of installing properly
designed and constructed on-site sanitation alternatives, in order to identify which approach
makes the most financial sense to the utility in a given neighborhood.

Water supply: costs of the WWTP. Combined sewer systems also
Water supply is a key factor when assessing the increase the likelihood of overflow events leading
feasibility of sewers. If there is only intermittent to untreated wastewater being directly discharged
water supply, or if households do not have their own to the environment, which may be of particular
water connections, a sewered sanitation solution concern in areas where the receiving body is
may not be appropriate, or it may be appropriate environmentally fragile or where humans may come
only in certain parts of the town. The same also into direct contact with the receiving body.
applies if the water supply consumption per capita Nevertheless, planning for a separate sewer system
is very low and/or if the population is using most (in which wastewater and stormwater are conveyed
of the generated wastewater or graywater for separately) is no guarantee of well-functioning sewers,
irrigation purposes—for example, in private as there are numerous examples of defunct or
gardens or vegetable allotments—leaving almost poorly maintained stormwater drainage systems
no wastewater for discharge into sewers. that have serious negative impacts on the sewer
Where water consumption is sufficient and regular, system. In situations in which the drainage system
not only can it help estimate the volume of is not working properly, residents may try to divert
wastewater generated by each household with stormwater flows to the sewer system, even if this is
simple assumptions about the wastewater return not allowed, and the sewers may consequently be
coefficient, but the consumption volumes are also hydraulically overloaded. This can lead to combined
closely related to wastewater strength, as measured wastewater-stormwater flows being inadvertently
by its five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) discharged at certain points of the sewer network
or chemical oxygen demand (COD). Where water and possibly overwhelming the hydraulic capacity
consumption is high, wastewater tends to be weaker/ of the WWTP. In addition, drainage systems may be
more diluted, whereas in many LMICs where water deliberately intercepted and discharged to sewers,
consumption can be relatively low, wastewater and in such cases, the dilute nature of the flows
is correspondingly stronger. Knowing whether would also need to be duly taken into account when
households also use their water supply for irrigation conceptualizing and designing the WWTP.
purposes will help define the return factor, or the
portion of water use that is discharged to the sewer Solid waste management:
as wastewater. Usually, a value of 0.8 is used, but
If solid waste is not properly managed in the town,
if a larger part of the water is used for irrigation, a
excess solid waste may end up in the sewers and at the
factor of 0.6 could be taken. In addition, if roofs are
treatment site. Common implications associated with
connected to the sewers (even if that is against local
this include clogged sewer pipes and wastewater
regulations), peak wastewater flow values during
pumping stations, emitting bad odors and leading
rainfall events will be correspondingly larger than
to wastewater spillage, as well as the transmission
usual, thereby also affecting wastewater treatment
of the solid waste to the WWTP. Solid waste that
plant (WWTP) process selection and sizing.
arrives at the WWTP can be managed but must
be planned for and may require additional steps
Drainage/stormwater management: of pretreatment and operation and maintenance.
If the town uses a combined sewer system (in which Ideally, the solid waste should be collected at
wastewater and stormwater are both collected), the source and not allowed to enter the sewers,
WWTPs will need to be sized accordingly—and this where it typically requires subsequent elaborate
may affect the associated capital and operational removal efforts.
72 Factors to Address for WWTPs in Small Towns

Total Connections to the WWTP FIGURE 4.1
Defining Project Boundaries
Total connections to a WWTP are usually expressed in
terms of capita (equivalents), reflecting the permanent Low-density areas
population and the nonpermanent population, the

sewer connection rates, industrial discharges and any
fecal sludge that may be disposed of at the WWTP.
Isolated areas
In addition, the WWTP capacity requirements need to
take future growth into account to avoid overloading,
and WWTP design horizons are nowadays typically Project areas
defined on the basis of forecast developments of
about 15 to 20 years.
Connected population:
The connected population defines the minimum treatment technologies, particularly as it relates
treatment capacity that needs to be installed for to graywater.1 The characteristics of graywater
a given wastewater collection system. It should depends on several factors, including lifestyle,
include not only permanent residents but also living standards, social and cultural habits, types
people passing through or commuting to work in and quantities of household chemicals used, food
the small town. Such nonpermanent residents are residues, and so on. The biochemical characteristics
usually multiplied by a factor of 0.3 to 0.5 and then of graywater can vary greatly, which can influence
added to the number of permanent residents. The the selection of wastewater treatment options. For
resulting total number is often termed as population example, in areas where manual laundry washing is
equivalents or capita equivalents, with each capita common, an increased amount of fiber could make
equivalent representing the typical pollution its way to the WWTP, requiring fine screening to
generated by one permanent resident. improve the pretreatment’s efficiency. Graywater
can also represent an important part of the total
In some cases, only parts of a town will be covered
water consumption of a household (and thus of the
by the sewer system, whereas others will remain
wastewater flow generated), and an understanding
with other forms of sanitation services. Political,
of whether it is discharged into the street, to drains
topographical, urban development and density
or to sewers will help further guide the selection
factors should be considered when defining the
of wastewater treatment processes for a given small
sewer project boundaries. Even when a project is
town. Variations in diet can also influence the amount
meant to cover the whole town, the boundaries
of organic waste produced per person per day (as
between urban and rural areas may not be clearly
measured by BOD5 or COD), and graywater from
defined, and decision makers will need to justify
kitchen sinks can contain elevated amounts of oil
whether to include low-density or isolated areas
and grease, which would require grease traps at
(see Figure 4.1) while ensuring that the project is
the treatment facility. Again, as described earlier,
economically sustainable.
in situations in which not all of the daily wastewater
Having a good understanding of the social norms generated by a subgroup of the population is
and behavioral characteristics of a relevant sample discharged to the sewers (such as that of visitors/
of the targeted population for the new sewer commuters), the population equivalent of that
network can also be beneficial when selecting subgroup is reduced by a factor reflecting the

percentage of pollution that they do, in fact, discharge should also be taken into account where such
to the sewers. facilities exist. The outcome of this exercise then
needs to be converted into capita equivalents,
Another key aspect related to defining the wastewater
either through flow- or pollution-specific per-capita
flow and treatment capacity of a given system is
assumptions (for instance, based on 100 liters/cap/d
whether households in the target area end up being
or 50 g BOD 5/cap/d). These theoretical capita
actually connected to the sewage network. In many
equivalents should then be added to the connected
cases around the world, we often see situations in
population equivalents, as described earlier.
which secondary sewer networks are installed and
pass in front of houses but not all households
connect to them. This can occur for several reasons Fecal sludge/septage:
including, for example, a lack of financial resources Similarly to the case of industrial pollution, fecal
to pay for the connection fee or for the necessary sludge/septage discharged to a WWTP also needs
intradomiciliary works, unwillingness to forgo their to be taken into account when estimating the total
existing sanitation solution, and/or an inability to capacity requirements for a small-town WWTP. The
bear the cost of sealing a septic tank. Maximizing the fecal sludge volumes are most likely to be of minor
connection rate to the sewer network will help service relevance compared with the volumes originating
providers and the broader community realize the from the sewer system, but fecal sludge is usually
financial, public health and environmental benefits highly concentrated and the pollution load per cubic
associated with the investments in sanitation. For meter that is sent to treatment facilities could still be
more information on how to design and implement rather high. This fecal sludge pollution load should
sewer connection programs, see the “Connecting therefore be considered when estimating the total
the Unconnected” guidance document (Kennedy- connections to a WWTP and be converted into
Walker and others 2020). population equivalents. The volume of fecal sludge/
septage produced will depend on several factors,
Connected industries: including containment type, groundwater infiltration
and emptying frequency. The volume of sludge taken
Another source of pollution originates from industrial
to a WWTP will be influenced by septage tanker
wastewater flows connected to the municipal sewer
sizes, tanker numbers and the tanker working hours.
system. Estimating the characteristics of these flows
Bearing these factors in mind, the following rule-
can prove difficult, given that industries are often
of-thumb estimate can be used to calculate the
not forthcoming with relevant information and that
equivalent load associated with septage discharge:
their water supply schemes may be drawing from
100 people serviced by septage collection and
private boreholes instead of the public water supply
discharge to a WWTP is equivalent to the load of
network. These factors notwithstanding, an estimate
one person serviced by a sewer system.2 For more
of the relevant parameters is needed and, ideally, the
details on the issue of fecal sludge and wastewater
effluents of major industries should be monitored
cotreatment, see the “Fecal Sludge/Septage” criterion
and analyzed for a period of time in advance of
below.
designing the WWTP. If this is not possible, guides
on industrial pollution can offer rule-of-thumb values
for pollution generated per ton of input processed, Urban and industrial growth:
per ton of output produced, or per ton of live weight When designing WWTPs, it is important to assess
killed for slaughterhouses, and so on. Pollution current and future changes in the characteristics of
reduction by pretreatment of industrial effluents a given small town that may affect the treatment

system. For example, the nature of the local economy, following comments refer only to situations in which
especially the growth of local industry and/or the cotreatment may occur. For the separate treatment
likelihood that increased or more diverse industrial of fecal sludge/septage in those situations in which
activity could move into a certain area, may affect cotreatment is not undertaken, see the bibliography
the nature of the wastewater influent and therefore listed in this section.
the type of treatment needed. Not unlike any
The main issue associated with cotreatment of fecal
feasibility study of treatment alternatives, investigating
sludge is that WWTPs are typically not designed
the dynamics of a small town in terms of population
for such cotreatment. Consequently, overloading is
and industrial growth is thus a critical part of the
frequent because even small volumes of fecal sludge
selection process. can represent high pollution and solids loads for
The connected population should include not only a small-town WWTP. This can manifest itself at
the current (permanent and nonpermanent) residents the pretreatment stages, where septage is usually
but also an appropriate estimate of the population discharged from tankers. Screens are not designed
growth over the life span of the WWTP (i.e., the project to treat waste with such a high solids content, and
horizon). Both vegetative growth and migration the raking installations to remove screenings can
from nearby rural areas should be considered. If the be overwhelmed. Likewise, grit removal units often
population growth rate is already particularly high cannot cope with the additional solids, and grit
or estimated to increase in a significant way over cannot be separated properly from the fecal sludge.
the coming years, it may make sense to consider This results in a potential domino effect, whereby
primary settling tanks and sludge removal units
treatment plant options that are modular or that
are overloaded with both grit and sludge, in turn
allow for incremental capacity to be added over time
overloading the secondary treatment stages and
as population grows (rather than overdesigning at
ultimately negatively affecting the final effluent
the onset and then operating with a substantial idle
quality. In extraordinary cases, the fecal sludge may
capacity for several years).
even contain toxic substances, and because inlet
In addition, designers and decision makers should quality control is often weak or nonexistent in small-
always bear in mind that planning for future town WWTPs, then the whole treatment train can
generations should not come at the detriment of be brought to a standstill, requiring emptying of
first ensuring that all of the existing population has treatment units and a complete restart of the WWTP
access to sanitation services. processes. Given the nature of fecal sludge, the
problems mentioned herein also often come hand-
in-hand with the emission of bad odors, leading
Fecal Sludge/Septage to even stronger rejection of cotreatment practices,
both by WWTP operators and by neighboring
Fecal sludge/septage can be treated separately
residents. It is therefore not surprising that success
in fecal sludge treatment plants or cotreated at
stories of cotreatment, particularly at small WWTPs
WWTPs. There is a growing body of knowledge,
in LMICs, are rare. This is not to say that cotreatment
experience and literature available concerning
is unfeasible. It should, however, be incorporated
typical characteristics of fecal sludge, and its collection,
properly into WWTP design and be managed and
transport and treatment.3 However, global practical
monitored carefully.
experience of cotreatment of fecal sludge/septage
at WWTPs is mixed, and failures are frequent. Since Consequently, this guide advises the limiting of
this guide focuses on wastewater treatment, the cotreatment of fecal sludge at small-town WWTPs

and the allowance of such practices to take place volumes on the organic load to be treated
only if all of the following four conditions are met: at a WWTP is presented in Figure 4.2. For
example, whereas a fecal sludge volume
(a) The disposal of fecal sludge is documented representing 2 percent of the total influent
reliably at the WWTP, including the truck discharged to a WWTP can have limited
driver’s name and the origin of the delivered affect on the BOD load at a fecal sludge
fecal sludge. concentration of 1,000 mg/L (representing
a 10 percent increase in the organic loading
(b) The accepted daily volume of fecal sludge of the WWTP), a more concentrated fecal
should not lead to overloading of the sludge of 5,000 mg/L, discharged at this same
WWTP and should be carefully checked. 2 percent influent volume, could quickly
Although cotreatment may be realistic at lead to the overloading of the WWTP (as it
large WWTPs with well-trained and qualified would represent a 50 percent increase in the
personnel, and where the necessary devices organic loading of the plant).
for fecal sludge input control are available
(c) The fecal sludge has been factored into the
and properly maintained, small WWTPs
WWTP design.
usually do not count on these features. Only
very small amounts of fecal sludge should, (d) The fecal sludge reception station is
therefore, be accepted. An example of the equipped with a coarse screen and an
effects of cotreatment of different fecal sludge equalization basin or tank that has a
FIGURE 4.2
Relative Increase in BOD Load in a WWTP as a Function of the Combined Discharge
of Municipal Wastewater and Different Fecal Sludge Volumes
5
FS BOD of
1,000 mg/L
Fecal sludge volumes as percent of influent (%)
FS BOD of 2,000 mg/L
2
FS BOD of 5,000 mg/L
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Relative increase in BOD load (%)
Source: Authors’ calculations.

Note: Expressed as a percentage of the total influent discharged to the plant (considering a constant wastewater BOD concentration
of 200 mg/L). BOD = biochemical oxygen demand; FS = fecal sludge; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

minimum volume equivalent to the volumes ◾ Select an area that is not too central and/or
of two conventional vacuum trucks used for surrounded by residential areas, in order to avoid
the collection and transport of fecal sludge.4 complaints about odor issues, traffic, noise, and
From there, the fecal sludge should then so on, but that is also not too distant from the
be progressively dosed into the wastewater small town to avoid high capital expenditures
treatment train. (CAPEX) associated with pipe procurement and
laying and high operating expenditures (OPEX)
needed for any pumping required;
Regulations for Wastewater
◾ Avoid elevated grounds that would require higher
Treatment, Effluent, and Sludge
OPEX for pumping;
Discharge and Reuse
◾ Avoid flood-prone areas in order to minimize
During the design process, stakeholders need to ask
CAPEX needed for flood protection and to
themselves several questions regarding the legal and
guarantee the WWTP’s operational safety.
regulatory framework in which a particular project
Selecting the location should be based on the
is to be set: “Are there regulations on wastewater
best climate change information available and
treatment plant design, effluent discharge, sludge
not, for example, only on historical flood data;
management, emissions, and so on?” “Is reuse an
issue?” “If so, what are the existing regulations, and ◾ Ensure that the area possesses adequate
which effluent quality standards are required to be geotechnical characteristics to sustain the
met?” “How are the existing regulations enforced, construction of heavy structures and thus
if at all?” Alternatively, “are there water quality or minimizes CAPEX for foundation works; and
environmental standards that would influence reuse, ◾ Ensure that it offers some reserve areas for
even if these are not specifically geared toward its potential expansions of the treatment capacity/
regulation?” footprint.
In certain cases, there may not be any regulations
at all, and stakeholders will need to establish their Even if some of the aforementioned criteria cannot
be fully adhered to, it is likely that there will be
expectations and derive certain minimum quality
several alternative locations for the WWTP and
standards that the design of the WWTP should meet.
the maximum available land footprint at those
In general, the key parameters that are relevant for locations will be broadly known. This information
WWTP design, and that need to be cross-checked in will be critical for the comparison of the different
the available regulations, are BOD5, COD, suspended technologies available for a given WWTP because,
solids, nitrogen, phosphorus and fecal contamination as mentioned earlier, the treatment technologies
indicators, such as fecal coliforms (FC). selected have a direct correlation with their land
area requirements.
Available Land for the WWTP

When initiating the prefeasibility and feasibility Power Supply to the WWTP
phases of the project cycle, it is likely that stakeholders Before the selection of appropriate technologies,
have already identified suitable locations for the the availability of a reliable power supply to the
planned WWTP. When selecting the location, decision planned WWTP location will need to be verified,
makers should also, to the extent possible: and where it doesn’t exist, it should be confirmed

whether one can be installed. In addition, certain Treatment Efficiency
key characteristics of the available power supply will
When comparing the treatment performance of
need to be well understood, such as the maximum
different technological options, it should be kept in
possible capacity of that power connection and the
mind that this assessment can be performed through
duration of power blackouts in the town’s power grid.
various lenses:
If the power supply were interrupted, for example,
flow conveyance could be discontinued, resulting
◾ Removal of organic loads, as measured by BOD5
in upstream flooding of pumping stations and
and COD
an interruption to the normal operation of the
downstream wastewater conveyance and treatment ◾ Removal of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria,
facilities. This limitation is typically addressed by protozoa and helminths, as conventionally
providing an emergency power supply, which will measured with biological indicator parameters,
add to the CAPEX requirements. such as FC and helminth eggs (particularly
intestinal nematodes)
Many wastewater treatment technologies require a
continuous external supply of electricity. If electricity ◾ Removal of nutrients, namely nitrogen and
is not reliably available in the town, these solutions phosphorus
will likely not be appropriate. Alternatively, other
technologies require only medium to low power Wastewater treatment should result in water quality
requirements, or they may not require any power at which is compatible with the sensitivity of the area
where the treated effluent will be discharged (i.e.,
all. In some cases, the necessary power may even be
the receiving environment) and which is suitable for
generated onsite from renewable resources, such
any particular reuse application that is envisaged,
as from biogas and/or from photovoltaic modules
as well as for the regulatory requirements for both
which, when fully and appropriately assessed, could
discharge and reuse. If people will come into direct
increase the case of the WWTP not requiring a
contact with the body of water to which the effluent
dedicated energy supply line. In many cases, an
stream is discharged, pathogen concentrations are
unreliable public electricity grid connection may
typically of greatest concern, whereas in areas where
serve only as a backup to a dedicated power line
human contact is unlikely, the adverse effect on
or to an onsite power generation system, when
the receiving water quality of high organic and
unexpected system failures occur or as a response
nutrient concentrations may be the issue deserving
to peaks in power demand.
the most attention. On some occasions all of these
parameters may be of relevance. Ultimately, the
technology chosen will need to comply with the
Technology Criteria discharge standards in effect locally.
Technology criteria are considered to be treatment When selecting a treatment option, the user should
technology-specific, and this guide uses eleven bear in mind that trade-offs between these treatment
core technology criteria to consider, together objectives may need to be made, including between
with suggested scoring. Chapter 5 (see “How to the types of pathogens to be removed. Although
weight criteria and calculate total scores”) provides “natural” systems, such as lagoons or constructed
a summary and an example of the calculation of wetlands, are effective in removing helminth eggs,
total scores, based on a set of suggested standard bacteria, protozoa and viruses, disinfection methods,
scores and weights. such as chlorination and ultraviolet (UV) radiation,

which are typically coupled with more energy- medium-strength raw wastewater (i.e., concentrations
intensive treatment processes, do not remove of about 300 mg of BOD5/L). This is considered the
helminth eggs as these are very resistant and key parameter for identifying the content of organic
behave differently from bacteria and viruses during pollution present in raw and treated wastewater,
treatment (Jimenez and others 2010). Box 4.1 hence it is ideally suited to represent the treatment
presents additional considerations when selecting efficiency in terms of removal of organic pollution.
an adequate disinfection method for a small-town If raw wastewater quality were to deviate strongly
WWTP. from this medium-strength figure, the indicated
effluent BOD5 levels could then go up or down
It is also important to note that the location of accordingly, but this figure serves as a basis for
the WWTP could affect the required treatment comparison. To allow an assessment of different
performance, as plants located closer to urban categories of achievable effluent qualities, the
areas or next to small or sensitive water bodies may effluent BOD5 concentrations are further compared
require higher efficiency levels, demanding more with three arbitrarily defined standards that represent
complex treatment systems and higher investment the common range of typical standards found around
costs than WWTPs located further from urban areas. the world: 20 (strict), 60 (relaxed) and 120 (very
relaxed) mg of BOD5/L.
For the purpose of this guide, BOD5 will be used
as the proxy to illustrate and compare the treatment Figure 4.3 presents minimum, mean and maximum
efficiency of different technologies using typical effluent BOD5 concentrations5 for a wide range of
BOX 4.1
Disinfection Considerations: Formation of Chlorination By-Products
Selecting an adequate disinfection method is an important part of the appropriate disposal and possible reuse
of treated effluents, not only in terms of removing potentially pathogenic agents but also in terms of controlling
potentially harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs). Disinfection processes can indeed result in the formation of
both organic and inorganic DBPs, such as trihalomethane (THM) compounds and haloacetic acids when chlorine is
used, and the presence of these compounds is an emerging public health concern to both human health and the
aquatic environment, with some compounds having carcinogenic, mutagenic and genotoxic properties (“Science
for Environment Policy” 2018). Because chlorination continues to be an important method of disinfecting municipal
wastewater—particularly with sodium hypochlorite, which is considered to be a simple and cost-effective process
not requiring extensive technical expertise—a prudent course of practice should be pursued to balance the need for
removing pathogenic agents and reducing or eliminating the formation of DBPs.
In addition, it has been found that the formation of halogenated organic by-products, such as THMs, is higher in
the absence of ammonia and that in WWTPs that do not nitrify, THM formation may not be a problem (Black &
Veatch Corporation 2010; Rebhun, Heller-Grossman, and Manka 1997). Since the design and operating conditions
associated with small-town WWTPs are unlikely to be favorable to nitrification, THM formation is likely to be minimized
in such settings. Chlorination can thus remain an acceptable disinfection option for small-town WWTPs without
nitrification. Nevertheless, operating conditions observed in underloaded WWTPs may still lead to nitrification and,
notwithstanding the aforementioned consideration, the THM issue may arise in such circumstances. It is therefore
important to reliably forecast sewer connection rates (see “Feasibility of Sewers” in Chapter 4) when selecting the
optimum disinfection technology for a small town.

FIGURE 4.3
Summary of BOD5 Effluent Quality Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment
Technologies for Medium-Strength Wastewater
300
Mean effluent concentration
250
Effuent BOD5 (mg/L)
200
150
120 mg/L Very relaxed standard
100
60 mg/L Relaxed standard
50
20 mg/L Strict standard
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR(EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
Source: Data collected for this guide.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand;
CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; RBC = rotating biological
contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor;
UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
technologies to help the user make some preliminary being complemented with tertiary treatment.
comparisons between the available options. The Examples of complementary tertiary treatment
following key conclusions and recommendations units include:
can be drawn in terms of treatment efficiency:
▪ Rock filters, which are typically used as tertiary
treatment after ponds (WSP, UASB-WSP
◾ It is clear that primary treatment options alone and AL), including to remove algae from the
(septic tank [ST], biogas digester [BD] and Imhoff effluent, and can help bring total suspended
tank [IMH]) cannot comply with any of the typical solids (TSS) and BOD5 levels down to about
BOD5 discharge standards. These technologies 30 mg/L, if properly designed and operated;
are thus usually not applicable as stand-alone and
treatment regimes in situations where discharge
▪ Polishing or sedimentation ponds, which are
standards apply.
typically used as tertiary treatment after AL
◾ Secondary treatment options, either of anaerobic and can help bring TSS and BOD5 levels down
type or those involving ponds (anaerobic baffled to about 20 mg/L, if properly designed and
reactor [ABR], anaerobic filter [ANF], waste operated. Polishing or sedimentation ponds
stabilization pond [WSP], aerated lagoon [AL], are characterized by shorter retention times
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor [UASB], than maturation ponds—usually less than one
UASB-WSP), can only rarely meet typical strict or day—and operate under conditions that allow
relaxed BOD5 discharge standards. Depending for some algae to settle and for algal biomass
on the specifics of a particular project, such production to be minimized or eliminated,
technologies could thus be eliminated or require leading to improved effluent parameters.

◾ In addition, ANF and UASB are rarely used may consider the scenarios presented in Table 4.2,
with tertiary treatment, as these technologies in which treatment performance is linked to the final
are most often followed by another secondary destination of the effluent to be discharged.
treatment stage, leading to treatment trains,
In terms of pathogen removal, the majority of the
such as the ones included in Figure 4.2, namely
technologies presented in Figure 4.3 cannot meet
UASB-WSP or UASB-trickling filter [TF].
typical standards for indicators of pathogens in
◾ Several types of secondary treatment, such as wastewater effluent, which are typically defined as
single-stage constructed wetland (CW(1-st)), FC < 1,000 to 10,000 MPN/100 mL, where MPN is the
hybrid constructed wetland (CW(hybrid)), “most probable number,” and as ≤ 1 helminth egg/L.6
extended aeration (EA), sequencing batch Only WSPs, if properly designed and operated, may
reactor (extended aeration variant) (SBR(EA)), meet such requirements. However, with appropriate
TF, rotating biological contactor (RBC) and tertiary treatment, such as UV or chlorination and
UASB-TF, can meet strict BOD 5 discharge filtration, all technologies would be able to meet
standards directly, without tertiary treatment. these pathogen standards.
It remains to be said that fecal sludge treatment

With this in mind, scores for treatment efficiency are
plants (typically using WSPs or CWs) can also meet
presented in Table 4.1.
standards similar to what has been described above.
In most cases, effluent discharge standards are Nevertheless, and as mentioned in Chapter 1,
often already prescribed by the local legislation, this guide focuses on wastewater treatment. For
particularly for BOD5, TSS and pathogens (although further information on fecal sludge treatment plant
they may be less so for nutrients), and designers technologies, see the sources indicated in “Fecal
and decision makers will use these effluent quality Sludge/Septage.”
standards as a starting point to plan for wastewater
treatment investments. However, the story can be
Ease of Upgrading to Enhanced
quite different when it comes to, for example, reuse
for irrigation, in which case designers may have to Nutrient Removal
decide the extent to which the targeted effluent Both primary and secondary treatment technologies
quality must go beyond the discharge regulation. remove nutrients from wastewater, in particular
In that sense, and in addition to respecting local nitrogen and phosphorus. The typical removal
discharge regulations, designers and decision makers mechanisms involved are sedimentation, adsorption,
TABLE 4.1
Summary of Treatment Efficiency Scores for Different Effluent Concentrations
RELATIVE TREATMENT EFFLUENT

EFFICIENCY SCORE CONCENTRATION TECHNOLOGIES
Very relaxed 1 120 mg BOD5/L and higher Primary treatment only options
Relaxed 2 Between 60 and 120 mg BOD5/L ABRs, ANFs, WSPs, ALs and UASBs
Strict 3 Less than 60 mg BOD5/L CWs, EA, SBR(EA), TFs, RBCs, and UASB-TF
and UASB-WSP
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BOD5 = five-day biochemical oxygen demand; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended
aeration; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

TABLE 4.2
Examples of Different Scenarios of Required Treatment Performance
TREATMENT
SITUATION OBJECTIVE(S) EXPLANATION
Effluent to be discharged Removal of organic The focus of treatment can be limited to the removal of coarse solids
into a river with a large loads and settleable organic matter. Primary treatment could thus be sufficient.
dilution effect (that is, a
dilution factor of 1 in 100,
for example)
Effluent to be reused for Removal of pathogens The focus of treatment can be on the removal of pathogens (to protect
irrigation of a tree crop and organic loads workers’ health) and organic loads. Natural systems, such as lagoons-WSPs,
(for example, for olive or other secondary treatment options with disinfection, for example,
trees) would be appropriate. In this particular case, nutrient removal could even
be considered counterproductive as the nutrients will naturally help crop
growth without the need for artificial fertilizers; additional TSS removal could
be needed if drip irrigation is to be used (so as not to clog the drippers).
In cases in which there exists a risk of eutrophication of surface or coastal
waters, or of phosphorus-induced deficiency of micronutrients in soil,
for example, technologies that can achieve high nutrient removal rates
might be better suited for the situation, provided that the effluent
discharge regulations require nutrient removal.
Effluent to be discharged Removal of Removal of pathogens would be required as the effluent could come into
in a lake requiring water pathogens, organic direct contact with people, whereas the removal of organic loads and
quality for recreational loads and nutrients nutrients would be required to preserve water quality and contribute to
uses curbing the potential for eutrophication. Secondary or tertiary treatment
options would be required, depending on their potential for nutrient and
pathogen removal and based on the effluent guidelines in place.
Note: TSS = total suspended solids.
and the use of those nutrients as building blocks to nutrients. In such cases, consideration should be
for microbial growth, although the efficiency of given to the ease with which a particular technology
each of these mechanisms, even when combined, can be upgraded to include BNR standards. Bearing
is relatively limited, ranging from 10 to 30 percent this in mind, scores for the ease of upgrading to
nutrient removal (see, e.g., Metcalf & Aecom 2014). BNR are presented in Table 4.3.
This is why, when employing technologies that It is important to highlight that upgrading for
are able to provide nutrient removal rates that go enhanced nitrogen removal is generally particularly
beyond this conventional range, the terms enhanced costly. The CAPEX requirements for such an
nutrient removal or biological nutrient removal (BNR) improvement typically amount to an additional
are used. With such technologies, nitrogen and 20 to 30 percent of the original WWTP investment
phosphorus removal efficiencies can climb to 60 to figures. The OPEX of the WWTP will also increase
90 percent or even beyond (Metcalf & Aecom 2014). accordingly, as per the higher power requirements
associated with increased aeration, return pumping
When designing a WWTP, effluent standards and cycles and/or additional mixers. The case for
the discharge legislation prevailing at that time may phosphorus is somewhat less costly, but the most
not require BNR. However, standards evolve and common technology used for enhanced phosphorus
may eventually become more stringent with regard removal—that is, chemical precipitation—requires the

TABLE 4.3 from cost constraints, may be a challenge for other
Summary of Scoring for Ease of Upgrading reasons. Space requirements can be a limiting
to BNR and Examples of Scores for factor where population density already constrains
Different Scenarios new land development, where the space for the
treatment plant is already allotted and cannot be
EASE OF expanded, and/or where topography constrains the
UPGRADING TO BNR SCORE TECHNOLOGIES availability and/or the suitability of sites for certain
Difficult – Upgrading 1 7 ST technologies. Space constraints and proximity to
to BNR standards is 7 BD
populations may also trigger the need to eliminate
difficult or not possible 7 IMH
7 ABR certain technologies that can be associated with
7 ANF undesirable odors, for example, and may also
7 WSP
7 AL
require the adoption of treatment systems that are
7 UASB enclosed or that are complemented with adequate
7 UASB-WSP odor minimization methodologies or treatment
Medium – Upgrading 2 7 CW(1-st) process units. The proximity of the WWTP to urban/
to BNR standards is 7 TF
residential areas will affect the cost of land (which
possible, involving 7 RBC
medium-level difficulties 7 UASB-TF may also be higher the closer the plant is to the
and medium-level urban center) and may trigger the NIMBY effect.7
financial resources
Easy – Upgrading 3 7 CW(hybrid) For the purpose of this guide, relative space
to BNR standards is 7 EA requirements are provided for each technology, as
technically easy and 7 SBR(EA)
specific requirements will be largely dependent
can be done with
relatively limited on the number of capita (population equivalents)
financial resources the plant serves and on local conditions (particularly
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic for natural treatment systems).
filter; BD = biogas digester; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CW(1-st) =
one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = Table 4.4 presents scores for the relative land
extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; RBC = rotating biological contactor;
SBR = sequencing batch reactor; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = requirements of different treatment technologies
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; and examples of the scores allocated for different
UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
scenarios of land requirements.
Figure 4.4 presents typical land requirements

constant dosage of chemicals, implying an elevated per capita (population equivalents) for different
OPEX and a reliable supply of those chemicals. technologies to help the user make some preliminary
It is also to be noted that tertiary treatment comparisons between the available options. Septage
technologies, which are already considered upgrades treatment plants (SpTPs)8 using WSPs and CWs
and thus are serving a specific purpose, are not are also included here to allow for comparison with
considered to be suited for upgrading to BNR— the different wastewater treatment technologies.
for example, tertiary disinfection does not assist in In addition, the following key conclusions and
biological nutrient removal. recommendations can be drawn in terms of land
requirements:
Land Availability ◾ The different treatment technologies presented
As noted earlier, land requirements affect the overall here show a wide range of land requirements.
cost of the investment, but land availability, separate As a rule of thumb, one may conclude that the

TABLE 4.4
Summary of Scoring for Relative Land Requirements and Corresponding Examples of Scores
for Different Scenarios of Land Requirements
RELATIVE LAND
REQUIREMENTS SCORE TECHNOLOGIES
High 1 7 All types of ponds/lagoons and CWs, including combinations, such as UASB-WSP.
Medium 2 7 Although generally considered to be rather compact processes, UASBs present medium land
requirements, particularly because of the need for them to be followed by posttreatment
steps, such as TFs or lagoons.
7 PPs and RFs are also associated with medium land requirements.
Low 3 7 Technologies more suitable for clusters of households rather than entire small towns, such as
BDs, ANFs and STs, present low land requirements. In addition, these systems and ABRs can
typically be built underground.
7 Activated sludge-based technologies and TFs are typically considered to be among the most
compact technologies.
7 IMHs, RBCs, RDFs and disinfection by chlorination and UV are also associated with low land
requirements.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; CW = constructed wetland; IMH = Imhoff tank; PP = polishing pond; RF = rock filter;
RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anae robic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-WSP = UASB
followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
FIGURE 4.4
Summary of Land Requirement Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
(m2/cap)
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR(EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP-(WSP)
SpTP-(CW)
UV

Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; Cl = chlorination; CW = constructed wetland; CW(1-st) =
one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF =
rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); SpTP = septage treatment plant; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling
filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste
stabilization pond.

easier to a technology is to operate, the more Labor Qualification
land it requires, and vice versa.
The level of complexity of the O&M tasks associated
◾ Three aspects mainly influence the footprint of with a given treatment system has implications on
an individual technology, namely: (a) wastewater the required labor force’s qualifications to perform
temperature; (b) required effluent quality; and these tasks. The existence or absence of this kind of
(c) economies of scale. In general, if temperature support is an important factor in selecting a treatment
is low, effluent quality standards are strict and/or process. The qualifications and technical knowledge
the WWTP capacity is projected to be small, land level of the local workforce may need to be assessed,
requirements are likely to be as indicated by the weighing the demands of each treatment alternative
upper end of the whisker plots shown in Figure 4.4 against the effective capacity of the entity responsible
for each technology. Conversely, if the temperature for meeting them. The institutional arrangements
is high, effluent quality standards are relaxed for running the WWTP will also influence the ease
and/or the WWTP capacity is projected to be high, of access of staff with the necessary qualifications.
land requirements are likely to be as indicated A small town that is disconnected from an urban
by the lower end of the whiskers. As is the case for
hub, for example, might not be able to ensure the
the other technology criteria listed in this section,
presence of trained or skilled personnel onsite at
the importance of the size of a particular facility is
all times to operate a UASB system. Alternatively,
high, as shown in Figure 4.5, which presents the
a regional utility could decide to assign one operator
land requirements for different technology trains
to supervise the O&M of several isolated treatment
designed to treat different volumes of wastewater
plants using simpler technology, such as anaerobic
in India and in Europe (ARAconsult 2018).
and facultative lagoons, which typically require a
lower skill set and presence.
FIGURE 4.5
Economy of Scale Effect on Land This labor qualification criterion, therefore,
Requirements of WWTPs for Different incorporates two dimensions:
Wastewater Treatment Technologies
◾ Required qualification level for O&M — that is,
0.40
skilled labor (trained or specialized technician
UASB
with minimum background in wastewater
treatment or an equivalent field) or unskilled
Land requirement (ha/MLD)
0.30
labor (someone who does not require any prior
training or certification to perform the required
0.20
task)
AS
WWTPs in Chennai (AS) ◾ Frequency of the O&M tasks — in particular,
0.10
whether a permanent presence is required
BIOFOR WWTPs in Europe (AS, SBR, TF) onsite because of the complexity of the tasks or
MBBR/FAB
0.00 because of the need to perform frequent analyses,
0 50 100 150 200 250
which can inform treatment plant operation, for
Capacity (MLD)
example
Note: AS = activated sludge; BIOFOR® = biological aerated filter;
MBBR/FAB = moving bed biological reactor/fluidized aerated bed; MLD =
million liters per day; SBR = sequencing batch reactor; TF = trickling filter; Since all technologies require a certain number of
UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; WWTP = wastewater
treatment plant. unskilled laborers to be on site at least temporarily,

this criterion focuses on the type and frequency of support structure to provide a regular supply of
required skilled labor inputs. Certain technologies consumables and spare parts. Similarly, the system/
may also require only unskilled and periodic support, engineering design should ensure that the expected
such as in the case of ABRs, which require very limited O&M costs of the treatment plant being proposed
attention to operation and for which maintenance remain within budget and/or within the income-
is generally limited to periodic inspections and the generating potential of the intervention—such a
removal of accumulated sludge and scum. costing analysis should be undertaken in coordination
with a financial specialist.
With this in mind, Table 4.5 presents the scoring of
O&M labor requirements and examples of scores
for different scenarios of O&M labor needs. Availability of Replacement Parts
In addition to considering technical capacity, it may and O&M Inputs
be appropriate and necessary to evaluate human Service providers in small towns with limited
resource capacity for administrative and financial connectivity to urban or industrial centers, or that
management tasks. A treatment plant demands host a limited range of economic activities, may lack
technical expertise and a minimal institutional and resources to purchase or procure replacement parts
administrative capacity. Keeping a treatment plant for the wastewater treatment system equipment
in adequate condition requires not only a qualified and other necessary inputs for O&M, such as
team of professionals but also an administrative chemicals, inputs for testing, monitoring, and so on.
TABLE 4.5
Summary of Scoring for O&M Labor Needs and Corresponding Examples
of Scores for Different Scenarios of O&M Labor Needs
LABOR NEEDS SCORE TECHNOLOGIES

Several skilled 1 7 EA, SBRs, ALs and UASBs typically require several permanent skilled laborers to operate the
laborers required system, monitor and adjust operation, as needed, and maintain and repair equipment. Smaller
on site UASB systems may only require one skilled laborer onsite, but because UASBs tend to be
followed by posttreatment (WSPs or TFs, for example), there may be the need for additional
personnel, even in those cases.
7 UV, chlorination and RDFs are also associated with higher levels of training and skill.
One skilled 2 7 TFs typically require one skilled laborer to monitor the filter, regularly clean and maintain the
laborer required rotary distribution system and repair pumps, as needed.
on site 7 Small RBCs typically require one onsite skilled laborer, with the support of various unskilled
or semiskilled personnel for the various maintenance elements, such as replacing seals
and motors, servicing bearings and spray-washing discs to clean the attached-growth
media.
Periodic support 3 7 WSPs mostly require unskilled laborers to remove aquatic plants in the ponds and scum, which
from skilled may have built up on pond surfaces, and to keep vegetation in check around the banks of the
laborer required ponds. Periodic support and visual inspection from skilled operators can help adjust operation,
maintain treatment efficiency and plan sludge dredging campaigns for the anaerobic ponds,
but it is not required daily.
7 All primary treatment options and CWs, PPs and RFs also require only periodic support from
skilled laborers.
Note: AL = aerated lagoon; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; O&M = operation and maintenance; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological
contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR = sequencing batch reactor; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UV = ultraviolent;
WSP = waste stabilization pond.

Alternatively, proximity of the small town to certain logistical and technical challenges. The same could
suppliers and the reach of the suppliers in a be said regarding the procurement of technical
particular country, though advantageous for certain studies, engineering designs, and construction and
well-established technologies, could complicate supervision services. Consequently, a market study
access to products needed for undertaking the could help identify potential contractors, equipment
O&M of other treatment technologies, which are suppliers and consultants in order to understand their
not typically used or are not part of the menu of size and limitations and thereby inform and improve
options currently offered by the local market. When procurement planning with regard to civil works and
selecting a treatment technology, an assessment related services, particularly if a decision has been
of the supply market for these O&M elements made to expand the menu of available wastewater
would therefore be useful to help characterize treatment technological options in small towns.
the likelihood of providing acceptable treatment
performance and compliance at all times for a given With these considerations in mind, scores for the
option, particularly in environments in which market availability of replacement parts and O&M inputs
competition for technological equipment is likely are presented in Table 4.6, together with examples
to be limited, as is the case in remote areas with for different scenarios.
TABLE 4.6
Summary of Scoring for O&M Inputs and Replacement Parts and Corresponding Examples
of Scores for Different Scenarios
O&M INPUTS AND

REPLACEMENT PARTS SCORE TECHNOLOGIES
O&M inputs and 1 7 On top of their regular O&M inputs, technologies that include aeration equipment,
replacement parts are such as EA, SBRs(EA) and ALs (although ALs typically have simpler aeration equipment
both needed on a regular than SBRs), will also require readily available replacement parts to prevent extended
basis downtimes that would otherwise result in the creation of anaerobic conditions in the
associated reactors.
7 Tertiary treatment options, such as UV and RDFs, require O&M inputs and
replacement parts on a regular basis. For example, the proper O&M of a UV
disinfection system includes cleaning of all surfaces between the UV radiation
source and the target organisms, as well as the periodic replacement of lamps,
quartz sleeves and ballasts.
7 Systems that require the constant use of chemicals to enhance sedimentation or help
with the conditioning of sludge, for example, would also receive a score of 1.
Regular O&M inputs but 2 7 RBCs, TFs and UASB-TF combinations require few regular O&M inputs, but a readily
few replacement parts available supply of seals, motor parts and bearings would be needed.
are needed 7 Chlorination requires regular O&M inputs to clean the various components of the
system, as well as needing replacement parts for the chemical dosing pumps and
chlorine residual analyzers, for example.
Few regular O&M inputs 3 7 Primary and secondary treatment options, such as IMH, BDs, STs, ABRs, ANFs, WSPs,
and replacement parts CWs and UASBs (and UASB-WSP), require few O&M inputs and few replacement parts.
are needed 7 Tertiary treatment options, such as PPs and RFs, are also assigned a score of 3.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff
tank; O&M = operation and maintenance; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR = sequencing batch
reactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF =
UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

Wastewater Sludge Production the only approach is to discharge the WWTP sludge
to a dumping site, for example, then this criterion
Wastewater sludge production and treatment, and
will suggest prioritizing a wastewater treatment
the frequency of sludge removal that is required
technology that minimizes sludge production.
to maintain optimal treatment performance, can
together have a significant effect on the O&M costs With these considerations in mind, scores for sludge
of a WWTP, such as those associated with sludge production are presented in Table 4.7.
dredging, stabilization, conditioning, thickening,
Where a separate wastewater sludge treatment
dewatering and/or landfilling, as well as on its
plant/step exists, the complexity of the O&M tasks
capital costs by affecting the size of the WWTP’s
at the plant can also be considered as a criterion.
footprint when including sludge drying beds,
In other words, even if the sludge removal frequency is
for example. Sludge handling can represent a
low (every two to five years), complex sludge removal
particularly important cost for small WWTPs a
and treatment might provide an added burden to
transport to a municipal landfill site, after dewatering,
the plant’s overall O&M. In such cases, the ease of
is often the default solution for small towns unless
access for removing and transporting the sludge
there is an economically viable land application
should be considered. For example, difficult access
reuse opportunity for the sludge. Alternatively,
to sludge accumulated in anaerobic or facultative
depending on the connectivity of the small town
lagoons could either render the dredging process
with larger agglomerations, sludge from small
incomplete or costlier, so ease of such maintenance
WWTPs may be transported to larger plants where
should be incorporated into the design.
further sludge treatment could take place, offsetting
some of the transport costs with opportunities It is difficult to pinpoint a precise frequency of
such as generating biogas at scale at the larger desludging that can be associated with a particular
plant. However, it is important to note that in many technology because it will largely depend on the
LMICs, the distances separating small towns from selected pretreatment and primary treatment steps,
larger urban centers may make such considerations as well as on the design, operation and maintenance
unaffordable. of the system. For example: an SBR operated in
The amount of sludge production will also be extended aeration mode will require daily sludge
influenced by the existence of a fecal sludge/ removal; a septic tank may require monthly, yearly
septage management and treatment system in or even less frequent desludging, depending on
or near the small town under consideration. If a the size of the tank; and facultative ponds will need to
separate septage treatment facility exists, the be dredged once every two to five years, or when
WWTP should not be burdened with such additional the accumulated solids reach approximately one-
discharges, but if cotreatment at the WWTP is third of the pond’s volume. Nevertheless, the scores
pursued, it is important to account for the volume presented here are intended to help further guide the
and characteristics of the fecal sludge/septage user through the selection process by categorizing
as compared with the wastewater (given the appropriate technologies according to typical sludge
comparatively high strength and high solids content removal needs.
of the former, as discussed early in this guide).
Figure 4.6 presents sludge production ranges
It is important to note that on rare occasions increased for a selection of technologies to help the user
sludge production is beneficial—for example, if there compare the available options in a preliminary
is a market for the reuse of the treated sludge. In way. The literature refers to sludge production of
other situations, where no such market exists and different technologies with a wide array of units,

TABLE 4.7
Summary of Scoring for Needed Frequency of Sludge Removal
NEEDED FREQUENCY
OF SLUDGE REMOVAL SCORE TECHNOLOGIES
Daily 1 7 EA, SBR(EA) and CW(1-st) require daily sludge removal, and TFs (and UASB-TF) and
RBCs also require daily handling of the sloughed sludge.
7 Sludge is also removed daily from RDFs, typically with a scraper placed at the top of
the filter.
Monthly 2 7 ANFs, CW(hybrid) and UASBs (and UASB-WSP) are associated with a monthly sludge
removal frequency.
Every year or more 3 7 All primary treatment options and WSPs, ALs, PPs and RFs require low sludge removal
frequencies.
7 For example, anaerobic ponds in WSPs may need desludging every year, whereas
facultative and maturation ponds typically require lower frequencies of two to five
years and 10 to 20 years, respectively.
Note: AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; PP =
polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR = sequencing batch reactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor
(extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a
WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
FIGURE 4.6
Summary of Sludge Production Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies
(Assuming a Sludge Dry Solids Content of 20 Percent SS)
70
60
50
40
(L/cap/y)
30
20
10
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP (WSP)
SpTP (CW)
UV

Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed
wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF =
rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); SpTP = septage treatment plant; SS = suspended solids; ST =
septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV
= ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

including: liters per capita per year (L/cap/y); grams of from these systems is generally transported to
suspended solids (SS) per capita per day (gSS/cap/d); the treatment site. Part of the fecal load is, in fact,
grams of SS per gram of COD removed; and grams infiltrated from septic tanks into soak pits or similar
of SS per gram of BOD5 at the inlet; among others. devices and that from pit latrines infiltrates directly
Understanding these units and using them to into the surrounding soil, which explains the lower
compare technologies can quickly become a difficult sludge production figures shown in Figure 4.6.
task for non-specialists. So, in order to facilitate the
comparison of the various technologies, sludge Energy Use
production data are presented here in L/cap/y and Energy use associated with wastewater treatment
is based on a sludge dry solids content of 20 percent depends on a variety of factors, including the location
of SS, a common dewatering result. of the WWTP, the treatment process, effluent quality
A few key conclusions and recommendations can requirements, the experience of its operators, and
be drawn in terms of sludge production: the age of the plant and its size (in terms of population
equivalent or organic or hydraulic loads).9 For small
◾ Primary treatment technologies usually produce towns, the size of a plant is a particularly important
a typical sludge volume of about 20 to 30 L/cap/y. factor affecting energy consumption, as smaller
◾ Similar sludge volumes are also produced by plants tend to use more energy on a per-unit basis
several secondary treatment options, even though and can present a limited ability to use energy in a
these produce better effluent quality than primary more efficient way, as opposed to larger plants.
treatment options. Particularly outstanding for Electricity costs in water and wastewater utilities
their appealing combination of low sludge typically vary from 5 to 30 percent of a utility’s running
production and excellent effluent quality are CWs costs (ESMAP 2012) and have been reported
and UASB-TF (see Figure 4.3 for effluent quality). to comprise between 15 and 50 percent of the
total operating costs of WWTPs, with higher costs
◾ Secondary treatment options based on aerobic
most likely for very small WWTPs because of the
treatment only, such as EA, SBR(EA), TF and
implications of economies of scale, lower efficiency
RBC, have the highest sludge production rates,
of installations, less sophisticated automation and
typically averaging 50 L/cap/y. This is roughly
lower staff skills (Vazquez Alvarez and Buchauer 2014).
double the sludge production of any other option.
As energy use can be a large part of the O&M costs
◾ Tertiary treatment options are associated with
of WWTPs, selecting treatment technologies that
either no additional sludge production (such
fit the responsible entity’s capacity to cover these
as for UV and chlorine disinfection) or low
costs, and the availability and reliability of the
additional volumes of sludge, in the order of
electricity supply, will thus be critical to ensure the
about 5 L/cap/y. It should be noted that that
sustainability of sanitation services in small towns
these are additional volumes of sludge that
employing WWTPs. Depending on the reliability of
should be added to those of primary and/or
the electricity supply available in the small town in
secondary sludge volumes as tertiary treatment
question, this technology criterion could be given
is never employed as a stand-alone step.
more weight, with intermittent or expensive energy
◾ Fecal sludge/SpTPs typically present the lowest supply skewing technology selection toward solutions
sludge production rates among treatment that do not require continuous supply or that present
solutions, although it is important to bear in mind low-energy consumption. In addition, the distance
that the full amount of the fecal/pollution material of the WWTP from the town center may imply higher

energy use linked to conveyance of the wastewater Figure 4.7 presents electric power requirement
(that is, the greater this distance, the greater the ranges for an array of technologies to help the user
piping and the pumping costs). There may also be make some preliminary comparisons between the
energy requirements if the flow at the inlet to the available options, from which several key conclusions
WWTP needs to be elevated to provide gravity and recommendations can be drawn:
flow throughout the WWTP or if pumping to an
equalization tank or basin is needed, such as in ◾ All primary and tertiary treatment options and
the case of flow-sensitive treatment technologies. SpTPs are associated with very low energy
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the energy consumption.
required for the pumping of the wastewater from the ◾ Within the range of secondary treatment options,
small town to the WWTP is generally not considered there are technologies that have low, medium and
here because this may or may not be required high energy consumption. Energy consumption
depending on local conditions; furthermore, this is mostly driven by treatment efficiency—that
energy requirement will be identical for any of the
is, a higher energy consumption goes hand in
possible WWTP technologies/treatment trains in
hand with a higher treatment efficiency, and vice
such a small town setting.
versa. However, this is not always necessarily the
With these considerations in mind, scores for energy case, as shown in Table 4.9: CWs and RBCs, for
use are presented in Table 4.8, including different instance, have excellent treatment efficiency but
scenarios of energy demand. very low energy consumption.
TABLE 4.8
Summary of Scoring for Energy Demand and Examples of Scores for Different Scenarios
ENERGY DEMAND SCORE TECHNOLOGIES

Energy required 1 7 EA variations are associated with high energy consumption as a constant and reliable
continuously and/or source of electricity is required to maintain an aerobic environment. They sometimes require
on a set schedule aeration to be provided according to a planned schedule; thus, reliability is also critical.
Low to medium 2 7 ALs require a reliable source of electricity to maintain an aerobic environment, either in a
energy demand, constant manner or according to a planned schedule.
with energy required 7 Although energy demand may be lower than for aerated systems, attached growth
non-continuously or systems, such as TFs (and UASB-TF) and RBCs, require a continuous power supply to
on a non-scheduled function properly. For example, TFs require pumping to dose wastewater to the top of the
supply filter, and for recirculation, sludge pumping, digester mixing and centrifuges when these
are included in the treatment chain.
7 Certain types of CWs if pumping is needed for flow distribution.
No energy required 3 7 WSPs and certain types of CWs do not require energy if gravity is used for the flow
between process units.
7 UASBs consume considerably less energy than aerobic systems but require a constant
wastewater flow as these reactors tend to be less robust in the face of organic and
hydraulic variability at the inlet. Nevertheless, as upstream pumping energy requirements
are not considered here, UASBs are ranked as also consuming negligible amounts
of energy.
7 Primary treatment options, such as ABRs, ANFs, IMH and STs, do not require electrical
energy inputs.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; RBC = rotating
biological contactor; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

FIGURE 4.7
Summary of Electric Power Consumption Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment
Technologies
60
50
40
(kWh/cap/y)
30
20
10
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP (WSP)
SpTP (CW)
UV
stabilization pond.
TABLE 4.9
Energy Consumption and Treatment Efficiency
TREATMENT EFFICIENCY
ENERGY CONSUMPTION LOW MEDIUM HIGH

Low energy consumption ABR, ANF, WSP, — CW(1-st), CW(hybrid),
UASB, UASB-WSP RBC
Medium energy consumption — AL TF, UASB-TF
High energy consumption — — EA, SBR(EA)
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland;
EA = extended aeration; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

◾ Power requirements also depend on the effects of savings. For more on the effects of climate change on
economies of scale, with larger plants consuming technology selection, see “Climate Change Impact”
less energy per capita of wastewater treated in this chapter.
than smaller ones. However, this effect is not
as pronounced for energy consumption as it is
O&M Costs (OPEX)
for land requirements or for OPEX and CAPEX
implications. Figure 4.8 presents OPEX cost ranges for a wide
range of technologies to help the user compare the
In addition to energy use, greenhouse gas (GHG) available options in a preliminary manner, keeping
emissions are among the aspects that have in mind that O&M costs can vary based on local
become increasingly critical in assessing the overall markets and other factors.
performance of WWTPs and a deciding factor in With these considerations in mind, scores for O&M
technology selection. Wastewater treatment facilities costs (OPEX) are presented in Table 4.10.
are potential sources of GHG emissions, such as
carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous A few key conclusions and recommendations can
oxide (N2O), contributing to climate change and air be drawn in terms of OPEX costs, namely:
pollution. CO2 is also emitted during the production
◾ Primary treatment usually involves OPEX costs
of the energy required for the plant operation, and
of less than 1 US$/cap/y. OPEX costs associated
it can be directly reduced by enhancing energy
with SpTPs are also generally at about this level;
efficiency at WWTPs, thus creating opportunities
to simultaneously reduce environmental effects ◾ Secondary treatment, depending on the chosen
and treatment costs by seeking to maximize energy technology and project specific conditions,
FIGURE 4.8
Summary of OPEX Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies
60
50
40
(USD/cap/y)
30
20
10
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP (WSP)
SpTP (CW)
UV

wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; OPEX = operating expenditures; PP = polishing pond; RBC =
rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); SpTP = septage treatment
plant; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by
a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

TABLE 4.10
Summary of Scoring for O&M Costs (OPEX) and Corresponding Ranges
RELATIVE OPEX
RATING SCORE COST RANGE TECHNOLOGIES
High average 1 More than 20 US$/cap/y EA, SBR(EA)
Medium average 2 3–20 US$/cap/y ALs, TFs, UASBs (as well as UASB-TF and UASB-WSP), including a
nonnegligible part for scum removal, and RBCs
Low average 3 Less than 3 US$/cap/y Primary treatment alone, tertiary treatment options and ABRs, ANFs,
WSPs and CWs
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; OPEX = operating expenditures;
RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor;
UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
implies OPEX in the range of 0.5 to 50 US$/cap/y. Investment/Capital Costs (CAPEX)

This cost range holds true globally for small-
Investment costs include all construction and
town WWTPs with design sizes ranging from
equipment costs for the treatment processes,
about 5,000 to 100,000 capita. These values may
including electric and mechanical equipment supply
even be higher for very small WWTPs serving
and installation, materials, civil engineering, auxiliary
less than 5,000 capita;
buildings and contractor overheads.
◾ A key factor for the estimation of appropriate
OPEX of WWTPs is the impact of economies of FIGURE 4.9
scale. The smaller a facility, the higher its OPEX Economy of Scale Effect on OPEX of
per capita are likely to be, and vice versa, which WWTPs with Different Wastewater
may indicate that the wide ranges of OPEX shown Treatment Technologies and Treatment
in Figure 4.8 for various treatment solutions are Standards (2019 Price Level)
only partially influenced by the locally prevailing
60
unit cost levels. In addition, the design size of a
given facility is of major relevance, as illustrated 50
in Figure 4.9, which demonstrates this effect Central Europe: SBR (BNR)
for the OPEX of different technologies. As
OPEX (US$/cap/y)
40
can be seen from the data collected in different

30
regions/countries, there is generally a unit cost
Brazil: UASB+TF (C)
increase by a factor of about two between a 20
WWTP designed for 100,000 capita and a WWTP
India: SBR (C)
designed for 5,000 capita. Although this OPEX- 10
China: EA (BNR)
related economy of scale effect is not as strong
0
as it is for CAPEX, it is significant enough to be 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
taken into account; and Design population equivalent

◾ Tertiary treatment contributes to a WWTP’s Note: EA (BNR) = extended aeration for biological nutrient removal;
OPEX = operating expenditures; SBR (BNR) = sequencing batch reactor
total OPEX costs but is usually of relative minor designed for biological nutrient removal; SBR (C) = sequencing batch
importance when compared with the OPEX costs reactor designed for carbon removal only; UASB+TF (C) = upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, followed by a trickling filter, designed
of the secondary treatment options. for carbon removal only; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

Investment costs are typically expressed in local Although the total investment costs should also
currency units per capita and, when possible, average include the cost of the land needed for the WWTP’s
figures should be drawn from existing in-country footprint, it is treated as a separate criterion in this
experience in installing each process unit, with guide (see “Land Availability”). This will have an
these figures being reviewed with the local service effect on the classification of certain technologies
provider. If no such information is available, costs with regard to investment costs, particularly waste
could then be adapted from experiences in other, stabilization ponds/lagoons. All types of WSPs/
comparable, countries using a ratio comparing lagoons can present high investment costs because
investment costs in the target country with those in of their large land requirements depending, of course,
the comparator country for which data are available. on the local price of land. However, because, for the
The values chosen for this criterion should be purpose of this guide, the cost dimension of land is
defined with the service provider and based on the incorporated into the land requirements criterion,
local market conditions. WSPs/lagoons are scored as technologies with
For the purpose of this guide, each technology is medium investment costs. It should be noted that
provided with a relative investment cost rating based a WWTP located further from the urban center or
on typical experience. Table 4.11 presents the scoring residential areas may incur higher investment costs
of investment costs and examples of scores for related to the wastewater conveyance infrastructure
different scenarios of investment costs. (piping and pumping) but may result in lower land
TABLE 4.11
Summary of Scoring for Investment Costs and Examples of Scores for Different Scenarios
RELATIVE
INVESTMENT
COSTS SCORE COST RANGE TECHNOLOGIES
High 1 More than US$ 150 per capita 7 EA and SBR(EA) is generally associated with high investment
costs because of the importance of the civil works and the
complex equipment needs.
7 The same applies to CWs, RBCs, TFs, UASB-TF and
UASB-WSP.
Medium 2 US$ 50–150 per capita 7 Primary treatment options, such as IMH, ANF and all types of
lagoons and UASBs, are generally associated with medium
investment costs.
Low 3 Less than US$ 50 per capita 7 Technologies more suitable for clusters of households rather
than entire small towns, such as BDs and STs, present low
investment costs.
7 ABRs are generally associated with low investment costs.
7 Tertiary treatment options, such as PPs, RFs and RDFs,
are associated with low investment costs. Disinfection
technologies, such as chlorination and UV radiation, when
taken on their own, have low investment costs, although they
are typically incorporated into a larger treatment chain with
higher investment cost implications.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; CW = constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank;
PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant);
ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP;
UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

costs given the increased distance from the small- important for trickling filters, lagoons and UASBs, for
town center. example, which are typically used for larger small-
town population clusters. In addition, the costs
It should also be kept in mind that certain technologies
presented for individual technologies would need to
included in this guide are meant to be used together
be added, depending on the treatment train chosen.
as part of a treatment train. In practice, this means
that each step of the treatment train would need to A few key conclusions and recommendations can
be costed to understand the full cost of treatment be drawn in terms of CAPEX costs, namely:
for different treatment systems (each of which may
◾ Primary treatment usually corresponds to CAPEX
include several treatment technologies).
of less than US$ 50 per capita;
Figure 4.10 presents typical construction costs per
◾ Depending on the technology employed and
capita for different technologies to help the user
on project specific conditions, the CAPEX for
make some preliminary comparisons between the
secondary treatment range from US$ 50 to
available options. Nevertheless, it is important to
600 per capita. This cost range holds true globally
acknowledge that although some technologies
for small-town WWTPs with design sizes ranging
may have similar per capita construction costs,
from about 5,000 to 100,000 capita, and these
certain technologies (for example, septic tanks
values could even be higher for very small WWTPs
or sand filters) are more appropriate for individual
of less than 5,000 capita;
households or clusters of households and therefore
offer limited opportunities for economies of scale. ◾ A key factor for the estimation of appropriate
The issue of economies of scale for capital costs is CAPEX of WWTPs is the effect of economies of
FIGURE 4.10
Summary of CAPEX Ranges of Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies
700
600
500
(USD/cap)
400
300
200
100
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP (WSP)
SpTP (CW)
UV

stabilization pond.

scale. The smaller a facility, the higher its CAPEX systems are further reduced by the fact that no
per capita are likely to be, and vice versa, which extensive sewer system is required.
may indicate that the wide ranges of CAPEX
The CAPEX and OPEX figures are presented
shown in Figure 4.10 for various treatment
separately here, which could lead to questions
technologies are only partially influenced by the
concerning the overall least cost solution when
locally prevailing unit cost levels. In addition,
combining the CAPEX and the OPEX. To guide
design size of a given facility is of major relevance,
the user with regard to this issue, Box 4.2 presents
as illustrated in Figure 4.11, which demonstrates
an example of a life-cycle cost analysis and the
this effect for CAPEX of different technologies.
calculated net present value (NPV) for different
As can be seen from the data shown from different
wastewater treatment technologies. The outcome
regions/countries, there is a general unit cost
offers some useful insights However, given that this
increase by a factor of about 2.5 to 3 when
analysis is based on the assumptions presented in
comparing a WWTP designed for 100,000 capita
the box, and since specific project conditions may
and one designed for 5,000 capita;
deviate considerably from these assumptions, the
◾ Tertiary treatment contributes to a WWTP’s total results should be interpreted accordingly.
CAPEX but is usually of relative minor importance
when compared with CAPEX costs of secondary Reuse Potential
treatment options; and
This section discusses which products are generated
◾ SpTPs are advantageous in terms of CAPEX, by a given treatment process and which of these lend
and capital investment figures of such sanitation themselves to reuse. As mentioned in the “Wastewater
Resource Recovery” section of Chapter 2, when
FIGURE 4.11 selecting an appropriate technology for a small town,
Economy of Scale Effect on CAPEX the quality of these end products and their potential
of WWTPs with Different Wastewater uses should be matched with existing or potential
Treatment Trains (2019 Price Level) local demand for the products. This criterion is thus
most relevant where there is interest in the reuse
700
of such products. However, keeping this criterion
600 in mind can also be helpful in cases where informal
Central Europe: SBR (BNR) reuse is ongoing and could be formalized, where
500
legislation is in place for such reuse but it is not
CAPEX (US$/cap)
400 yet practiced, and/or where decision makers are

Philippines: SBR/RBC (C)
300 considering or drafting legislation to enable the reuse

Brazil: UASB+TF (C)
of wastewater reuse products.
200
India: SBR (C) In addition, interrelations between wastewater
100
China: EA (BNR) treatment and the treatment, handling and disposal
0
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000
of the generated wastewater sludge, need to be
carefully studied when selecting and designing a
Design population equivalent
treatment option, particularly as sludge disposal or
Note: EA (BNR) = extended aeration for biological nutrient removal; reuse may require a certain sludge quality, which in
OPEX = operating expenditures; SBR (BNR) = sequencing batch reactor
designed for biological nutrient removal; SBR (C) = sequencing batch
turn calls for appropriate treatment of the sludges
reactor designed for carbon removal only; UASB+TF (C) = upflow produced along the wastewater treatment chain
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, followed by a trickling filter, designed
for carbon removal only; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant. (Andreoli, Von Sperling, and Fernandes 2007). For

BOX 4.2
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
The life-cycle cost analysis presented here is based on the following assumptions:
◾ Capital expenditure (CAPEX) figures are the average values presented in Figure 4.10.
◾ CAPEX is split into a civil works (CIV) component and a mechanical-electrical (ME) component according to
typical percentages.
◾ Operating expenditure (OPEX) figures are the average values presented in Figure 4.8 and are assumed to be
constant over the total calculation period.
◾ Life span of CIV = 30 years.
◾ Life span of ME installations = 15 years.
◾ Discount rate = 4 percent.
◾ The net present value (NPV) calculation was undertaken for a period of 15 years, with the ME component
completely written off by then and with a 50 percent residual value for the CIV component at the end that
15-year period.
FIGURE B4.2.1
NPV Results for Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies
700
600
500
(USD/cap)
400
300
200
100
0
ST
BD
IMH
ABR
ANF
WSP
AL
CW(1-st)
CW(hybrid)
UASB
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-WSP
UASB-TF
CI
PP
RF
RDF
SpTP (WSP)
SpTP (CW)
UV
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage
constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; NPV = net present value; PP = polishing
pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant);
SpTP = septage treatment plant; ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by
a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

BOX 4.2
Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (Continued)
The results show an extremely wide range of NPV values, and the following conclusions can be drawn from this
exercise regarding life-cycle costs:
◾ Intensive secondary treatment technologies, such as extended aeration (EA), trickling filters (TFs) and
rotating biological contactors (RBCs), are by far more expensive than extensive technologies, such as waste
stabilization ponds (WSPs) and aerated lagoons (ALs), and are more expensive than primary treatment
technologies and septage treatment plants (SpTPs). Additionally, tertiary treatment stages, such as
disinfection and polishing, do not result in important additional life-cycle costs;
◾ Within the group of intensive technologies, the two investigated extended aeration variations of the
activated sludge process, namely EA and sequencing batch reactor (SBR)(EA), are approximately 50 percent
more expensive than other intensive alternatives, such as TF, RBC and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket
reactor with ponds (UASB)-WSP and UASB with trickling filters (UASB)-TF;
◾ Among secondary treatment extensive technologies, WSPs, ALs and hybrid constructed wetlands (CWs) are
the most cost-efficient options; and
◾ When additionally comparing the ability to meet effluent quality standards, in parallel to life-cycle cost
considerations, hybrid CWs stand out as a cost-effective solution because this technology delivers an effluent
quality comparable to activated sludge systems (see “Treatment Efficiency”) but for an NPV of just about
25 percent of that of the EA systems.
example, the following additional sludge treatment (d) Pathogen removal when agricultural reuse
steps may be required: is considered through, for example, lime
treatment, composting and/or solar/thermal
(a) Sludge stabilization is important for most
drying.
kinds of reuse because it minimizes bad
odors emitting from the sludge. Hence, to The production and use of biogas from the sludge
render sludge attractive for users, this is a may require additional treatment steps and process
common minimum requirement. Stabilization units—for example, contaminants in the digester
can be achieved by various means: anaerobic gas that should be reduced for co-generation
digestion, extended aeration or the application include moisture, hydrogen sulfide and siloxanes
of chemicals; (Kalogo and Monteith 2008; Vazquez Alvarez and
Buchauer 2014). In all cases, the selection of a
(b) Sludge conditioning, through the addition of
technology for reuse purposes would need to meet
chemicals (coagulants and polyelectrolytes)
the corresponding reuse standards.
to improve solids capture;
Table 4.12 presents a template that can be used
(c) Sludge dewatering, which has an important
to evaluate the reuse potential of the different
impact on transport and final destination
wastewater treatment products.
costs, as well as on ease of sludge handling
(if a WWTP is close to agricultural land and It should be noted that no scores are assigned for
sludge quantities are not significant, the this criterion, but the potential for reuse of either the
dewatering step may be eliminated as the treated effluent, the solids and/or the nutrients,
sludge could be applied directly to the land and/or the possibility of energy generation, should be
in its liquid form); and factored in during the technology selection process.

TABLE 4.12
Analysis of the Reuse Potential of Products Resulting from a Treatment Process
PRODUCT USE TREATMENT LEVEL REQUIRED

Water Restricted irrigation (crops that are not eaten Secondary
raw by humans)
Unrestricted irrigation (crops such as fruit trees Secondary
and olives, for example, which don’t come into
direct contact with the ground/irrigation water)
Unrestricted irrigation (root and leaf crops that Tertiary
may be eaten uncooked)
Urban landscape irrigation (parks, road margins, Tertiary
sports facilities, and so on)
Industrial uses Varies: in some situations, industries will purchase secondary
effluent and handle tertiary/advanced treatment themselves
Environmental/surface flow Secondary
Seawater intrusion barrier through groundwater Secondary/tertiary
recharge
Aquifer recharge Tertiary/advanced
Potable Advanced
Soil amendment Sludge stabilization, conditioning, dewatering, drying and/
or composting
Biosolids (solids Solid fuel Dewatering, drying
and nutrients)
Fuel briquettes Charring
Construction materials Dewatering, drying
Fertilizers (particularly phosphorus) Chemical extraction or crystallization
Fuel Digestion + advanced conditioning
Biogas Heat Digestion + boilers
Electricity Digestion + treatment + combustion (through turbines,
combustion engine/generator sets, direct drive engines or
Stirling engines, for example)
Note: See “Levels of Wastewater Treatment” in Chapter 3 for the definitions of primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.
Climate Change Impact ◾ Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated

with WWTPs can be both direct and indirect.
Climate change considerations are usually not
used as an independent criterion when selecting ▪ Direct GHG emissions are associated with
wastewater treatment technologies and have been gases that are released or produced during
included in the discussions regarding the other wastewater and sludge treatment processes,
criteria presented earlier in this guide. The following whether intentionally or as a by-product.
text provides some insights with regard to the Methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are
interface of wastewater treatment and climate the most important GHGs directly produced
change and will help the user in better incorporating from excreta in sanitation systems. Over a
these considerations at the prefeasibility and 20-year time horizon, the global warming
feasibility phases of the project cycle: potential (GWP) of CH4 is 81.2 times larger

than for carbon dioxide (CO2), whereas CH4 recovery parameter. The amount of CH4
for N2O the GWP is 273. Over a horizon of transformed into CO2 through flaring or energy
100 years, the GWP of CH4 and N2O, is 27.9 generation should be included in the overall
and 273 times larger than CO2, respectively.10 GHG emission calculation for the plant.
Direct CO 2 emissions from wastewater
With these considerations in mind, the following
are not considered in the IPCC Guidelines
can be said:
because these are from a biogenic origin.
▪ Indirect GHG emissions are those caused ◾ When individual factors are viewed in isolation,
by the use of energy and chemicals in the high GHG emissions are seen to be associated
wastewater treatment process and in the with technologies that feature high electricity
generation, production and transportation consumption, that target enhanced removal of
of these chemicals to the WWTP. Electricity nitrogen, and/or that include anaerobic stages
is particularly relevant for indirect GHG in which the generated biogas is not captured.
emissions, especially in countries where it is
◾ When individual factors are viewed in isolation,
largely generated using coal or other fossil
low GHG emissions are more likely to be
fuels. In such cases, the quantification of GHG
observed for technologies with low electricity
impacts should consider either the country-
requirements that only target organic pollution
specific mix employed in power generation
(BOD5) removal, even when this is combined with
or the site-specific energy mix if there will be
disinfection, and that do not include anaerobic
any investment in onsite energy generation
treatment stages.
(diesel, solar photovoltaic systems, biogas
capture, and so on). In some cases, water and ◾ There are trade-offs between these factors.
wastewater treatment plants are the largest For example, many anaerobic treatment
energy consumers in certain municipalities technologies, such as deep ponds, have low
and can account for 30 to 40 percent of the energy requirements but can still emit significant
total energy consumed. Chemicals used in methane emissions if biogas is not captured.11
the treatment process also contribute to
indirect GHG emissions because of the Electricity consumption and GHG emissions thus
energy embedded in them, but chemicals show a similar trend: the higher a technology’s
are typically not considered key components energy requirements, the higher its GHG emissions
of WWTP operation. associated with energy usage and the lower its
score. This dimension of the potential GHG impacts
◾ All direct and indirect GHG emissions at WWTPs of different WWTP technologies is partially captured
are added together for each component of in the earlier section on the technology criterion
the treatment train and are converted into “Energy Use.” Likewise, the GHG impact of
‘carbon dioxide equivalents’ (CO2e) based on treatment objectives is also indirectly captured in
the corresponding GWP factor.
this way since enhanced nitrogen removal typically
◾ Wastewater treatment facilities can include implies higher energy consumption. In addition, the
anaerobic steps. CH4 generated at such facilities negative impact of anaerobic stages on the overall
can be recovered and combusted in a flare or GHG balance can be reduced or eliminated by
energy device, and the amount of CH4 handled collecting, capturing and flaring biogas or turning
this way at the plant should be subtracted from it into energy. This applies to anaerobic ponds,
total emissions, through the use of a separate UASBs and ABRs.

Consequently, for the purpose of this guide, no 2014); for fecal sludge treatment plant design, see
(b) K. Tayler, Faecal Sludge and Septage Treatment: A Guide
stand-alone GHG or climate change criterion is
for Low and Middle Income Countries (Rugby: Practical
included given the trade-offs between decisions Action Publishing, 2018), https://practicalactionpublishing.
that can affect both direct CH4 and N2O emissions com/book/693/faecal-sludge-and-septage-treatment;
as well as the indirect emissions from energy use, and for co-treatment of fecal sludge and wastewater, see
as discussed here. It is recommended that, as part (c) D. Narayana, Co-treatment of Septage and Fecal Sludge
in Sewage Treatment Facilities (London: IWA Publishing,
of the prefeasibility and feasibility phases of the
2020).
project, GHG analyses be undertaken along the 4. The typical volume of trucks used for the collection of
above lines in order to compare treatment options fecal sludge in small towns ranges from 3 to 10 m3 (see
and to assess whether capturing CH4 could bring K. Tayler, Faecal Sludge and Septic Treatment: A Guide for
Low and Middle Income Countries (Rugby: Practical Action
additional benefits.
Publishing, 2018).
In addition to GHG considerations, climate change 5. If the reader needs to compare with COD concentrations,
COD effluent concentrations can be estimated (a) by
adaptation is increasingly being recognized as
multiplying effluent BOD5 values by a factor of about 2.5
important for defining the location and managing to 3.0 in case of effluent BOD5 concentrations higher than
the performance of WWTPs. The potential effects 100 mg/L and (b) by multiplying BOD5 concentrations by
of climate change on the design and operation a factor of 3.0 to 5.0 for cases of low effluent BOD5 (the
of WWTPs should be factored in when selecting lower the BOD5 concentration is, the higher the factor).
6. See, for example, the 1989 and 2006 WHO guidelines:
the location of the small town WWTP and when
(a) WHO, “Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewater
defining an appropriate treatment train for it, in in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Report of a WHO Scientific
order to improve its overall climate resilience (World Group” (Geneva, Switzerland, November 18–23, 1987, 1989);
Bank 2020).12 For example, taking into account the and (b) WHO, “Excreta and Greywater Use in Agriculture,”
vol. 4 in Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta
hydrological risk associated with recurrent droughts
and Greywater (Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2006).
when designing a WWTP could help minimize 7. The not-in-my-backyard, or NIMBY, effect is the potential
the impacts of reduced water consumption and rejection by neighboring communities to having a wastewater
wastewater flows on its performance and on the treatment plant built and operating near their homes.
associated CAPEX and OPEX. Similarly, it is worth 8. This guide refers to SpTPs as independent treatment
plants that are specifically designed to treat septage
considering the current and future climate change-
delivered to these facilities in tankers.
related flood risk when choosing a treatment site 9. Energy consumption in WWTPs is often reported as per
and the location of onsite equipment. the volume of treated wastewater or unit of population
equivalent (PE) on an annual basis—that is, kWh/m3/year or
kWh/PE/year, respectively. Although international practice
Notes typically points to the use of an average influent PE60
1. Graywater is defined as “water generated from washing where 1 PE60 = 60 g BOD5/d or PE120 where 1 PE120 =
food, clothes and dishware, as well as from bathing, but 120 g COD/d, considered typical values of organic pollution
not from toilets. It may contain traces of excreta (e.g., from discharged through wastewater by 1 capita in many
washing diapers) and, therefore, also pathogens” (Tilley developed countries, for small towns in LMICs, the value
and others 2014). of PE40 is considered more accurate. These figures
2. Based on the assumption of 0.25 L septage per capita can vary with, for example, 35 g BOD5/d (Morocco) and
per day and a concentration of 2,000 mg BOD5/L (see, 50 g BOD5/d (Brazil) values commonly used as well.
for example, sources cited in Footnote 3, comparing one 10. Preliminary figures from the Intergovernmental Panel on
person serviced through a sewer system producing a Climate Change (IPCC) AR6 WGI, “Chapter 7: The Earth’s
wastewater pollution of 50 g BOD5/cap/day). Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity –
3. For overall principles and issues concerning fecal sludge Supplementary Material,” 7SM-24, https://www.ipcc.ch/
management, see: (a) L. Strande, M. Ronteltap, and D. report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_
Brdjanovic, Faecal Sludge Management-Systems Approach Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf. Figures still
for Implementation and Operation (London: IWA Publishing, subject to final editing as of October 20, 2021.

11. It should also be noted that any emissions associated with 12. See, for example, A. Zouboulis and A. Tolko, “Effect
latrine/septic tank use, with the fecal sludge/septage of Climate Change in Wastewater Treatment Plants:
as well as wastewater collection systems, and with the Reviewing the Problems and Solutions,” in S. Shrestha,
disposal of sludge at landfills or at other disposal sites, A. Anal, P. Salam, M. van der Valk (eds) Managing Water
are all outside of the scope of those emissions that can Resources under Climate Uncertainty, pp 197–220 (Cham:
be solely attributed to the treatment stages, and are thus Springer International Publishing, 2015).
considered beyond the scope of this guide.

Applying This Guide in Practice:
A Step-by-Step Approach 5
The selection of appropriate wastewater treatment technologies for small towns presents
a challenge to national, regional and local policy makers and decision makers because
(a) recent technological developments provide a large menu of options for the treatment
of wastewater and (b) small towns often lack financial, technical and human resources to
implement the treatment solutions commonly used for larger populations.
The selection process will depend on where the solution is being implemented and which
factors are deemed most important by the decision makers and other stakeholders. This
section, drawing on concepts presented earlier, applies a suggested five-step approach
for decision makers to identify appropriate wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) for small
towns. The approach will be detailed for each step, describing the aim, the suggested
process to be followed, the expected result and any additional considerations.
The guide methodology and overall selection process is demonstrated in Chapter 6

through the use of case studies.
Methodology: Overview of Suggested

Five-Step Approach
The criteria detailed in the present subsection form the crux of the guide’s methodology,
which aims to provide small towns with decision-making support in the identification of
appropriate wastewater treatment solutions. To apply this guide to a real-life situation,
decision makers should rely on a five-step approach (see Figure 5.1).
1. Familiarize themselves with the guide methodology, as described in prior sections.
2. Convene key stakeholders to discuss the project criteria and agree, through workshops
and/or focus groups discussions, on the characteristics of the town(s) as per the
different criteria presented herein. This guide suggests six core project criteria that
outline important characteristics of the small town to consider for the choice of a
wastewater treatment system as they relate to population, growth, local activities,
and existing services and practices.
3. Convene key stakeholders to discuss the project criteria by holding discussions

on the acceptable values for the technology criteria based on the local context. The
technology criteria are based on each technology’s specifications, and their value
104 Applying This Guide in Practice: A Step-by-Step Approach

FIGURE 5.1 remaining technologies, decision makers
Overview of the Key Steps in the should arrive at a reduced list of applicable
Application of This Guide technologies and/or treatment trains. Based
on these options, a preselection and/or
Step Familiarize with decision can be made regarding the
1 guide methodology appropriate technology train for the small
town in question.
Step Convene key stakeholders and

2 discuss project criteria Step 1: Familiarize Yourself
with the Guide’s Methodology
Step Convene key stakeholders and The aim of this step is to become familiar with
3 discuss technology criteria
the foundational theory and application of the
guide before following the subsequent steps of
the suggested five-step approach. This entails
Step Identify and apply nonnegotiable
4 or exclusion criteria
understanding the context of the small town, and of
wastewater treatment technologies for small towns,
and then drawing up preliminary considerations of
Assign weighting to technology criteria and the project and technology criteria. At the end of
Step
calculate total score for remaining
5 technologies Step 1, the user of the guide should have a strong
understanding of the basic concepts of small-town
wastewater treatment technologies and be prepared
is therefore set in each technology sheet, to apply the guide in the subsequent planning/
independent of the local context. assessment process.
4. Identify the nonnegotiable or exclusion

criteria to narrow down the list of potential Step 2: Convene Key
technologies and treatment trains and agree
upon the priorities (for example, minimal
Stakeholders to Discuss
energy use, minimizing space requirements, the Project Criteria
potential for wastewater reuse for agriculture, The aim of Step 2 is to find agreement on the
and so on). It is important to identify which project criteria through workshops and focus group
technology criteria are nonnegotiable discussions. The discussion on project criteria allows
because of local constraints or other priorities/ for relevant stakeholders to mutually agree on the
factors. It is also important to determine
conditions that will influence technology selection
which provide more flexibility so they can
for a given small-town WWTP. Although stakeholders
be marked accordingly in the application
are, at this stage, not yet likely to be able to define
of the guide’s methodology and so help
all project conditions very accurately, the order
eliminate technologies that do not meet the
of magnitude of certain criteria or their tentative
identified requirements.
importance need to be agreed upon before the
5. After assigning weighting to technology technology criteria can be applied. This relates,
criteria and calculating total scores for the for instance, to issues such as the population to

be connected through sewers to the WWTP, how The guide suggests six core project criteria that
much land is available for the WWTP, how reliable outline important characteristics of the small
power supply is at the suggested WWTP site, town to consider for the choice of a wastewater
whether the WWTP is expected to deliver a high- treatment system. The following brief discussion
quality effluent or primarily only remove the bulk of and Figure 5.2 summarize the suggested project
pollution, and so on. criteria (for more details, see Chapter 4 “Project
FIGURE 5.2
Project Criteria
For this criterion, an analysis of whether there is sufficient housing density and sufficient water
Feasibility of
supply—and thus wastewater discharge—available will be developed, which would justify the
sewerage implementation of a sewer system and WWTP.
A rough estimate of the total expected capita (equivalents) that shall be connected to the WWTP should be
Total developed. This involves estimating, among other aspects, not only the actual population, connection
connections percentages, and converting industrial discharges into capita equivalents but also forecasting future
to the developments. The outcome of this estimation exercise will determine whether the total connections and
WWTP thus expected WWTP capacity are indeed within the range for which this small town guide was developed.
In addition, this criterion will help assess, for instance, absolute land and power requirements for the WWTP.
This criterion will help define if the fecal sludge collected in the small town can also be transported
Fecal to and treated at the WWTP or if a separate system for fecal sludge management and treatment
sludge needs to be established. Whether the latter is required, there is no need for consideration of fecal
loads in the WWTP design.
Regulations
The required level of treatment plays a key role in technology selection because not all technologies
for treated
can deliver any given quality requirement. It is thus important to agree on the required treatment
discharge standards.
and reuse
Available As a rule of thumb, it can be stated that the smaller the available land area for a WWTP is, the more
intensive the technology needs to be, and vice versa. Thus, large available land areas allow for the
land for
implementation of technologies that are cheaper to operate and that require less-qualified
the WWTP personnel.
Stakeholders also need to develop an understanding of the potential for power supply to the WWTP
Power site. Some technologies depend fully on permanent and high levels of power supply, whereas others
supply to may not require any power at all. High power needs usually require a robust grid connection and
the WWTP reliable power supply, whereas medium to low power requirements might also be generated onsite
from renewable resources, such as biogas or photovoltaic panels.
106 Applying This Guide in Practice:A Step-by-Step Approach

Criteria”), explaining why each plays an important FIGURE 5.3
role in the selection of appropriate wastewater Schematic Work Plan for Step 2
treatment technologies.
Schematic Work Plan for Step 2 Total connections

> 5,000 and <
No Guide not
applicable
As part of Step 2, key stakeholders need to determine 50,000* capita?
the applicability of the guide methodology as

illustrated in Figure 5.3 and in agreement with the Yes
characteristics of the small town presented in
chapter 4 “Project Criteria.”
Feasibility of No Guide not
At the end of Step 2, the stakeholders should sewerage? applicable
have recorded their tentative agreement on
the characteristics of the small town, including
information on population, growth, local activities Yes
and existing services and practices, which will
inform Step 3.
Acceptable No Develop separate
amount of fecal solution for fecal
sludge? sludge management
Step 3: Convene Key
Stakeholders to Discuss Yes
the Project Criteria
The aim of this step is to find agreement on the Decide on project
Regulations for No
acceptable values for the technology criteria discharge/reuse expectations for
available? effluent quality
through workshops and focus group discussions.
Step 3 requires discussion about the technology
criteria for which the guide suggests a total of Yes
eleven criteria (see Chapter 4 “Technology Criteria” Decide on
for details), as shown in Figure 5.4. maximum
available land area
Stakeholders may wish to add additional criteria for WWTP
and/or eliminate some of the suggested criteria

based on the local context. Similarly, if local cost
Decide on
data are available, stakeholders should modify maximum possible
the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost/ power supply
capacitites
investment cost criteria with the use of specific
values (according to acceptable cost levels for the * Can be as high as 100,000 people (mostly in Asian countries).
town[s]) rather than use the relative low/medium/
high assessment given in Chapter 4 “Technology
Criteria.” This process needs to be undertaken
only for technologies that are being considered

FIGURE 5.4
Technology Criteria
Technical/environmental criteria Financial criteria Other important considerations
• Treatment efficiency • O&M costs (OPEX) • Reuse potential

• Ease of upgrading to enhanced • Investment/capital costs • Climate change impact
or biological nutrient removal (CAPEX)
(BNR)
• Land availability
• Labor qualification
• Availability of replacement parts
and O&M inputs
• Sludge production
• Energy use
Note: CAPEX = capital expenditures; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures.
for a given context (that is, some technologies may or exclusion criteria. Steps 3 and 4 will thus first define
already have been ruled out). and apply the exclusion criteria, leading to a
narrowed down list of technologies, which will be
At the end of Step 3, the stakeholders should
further analyzed in Step 5, as described in the next
have agreement on potential changes to and/or
section.
specifications for the values that they have adopted
for the technology criteria. For instance, technologies with a larger footprint
requirement should be excluded if the land available
for the WWTP is limited. Similarly, technologies
Step 4: Identify and Apply that cannot achieve a specific required treatment
efficiency should be eliminated, and those that
Nonnegotiable or Exclusion present capital expenditure (CAPEX) or operating
Criteria expenditure (OPEX) figures beyond the operating
The objective of Step 4 is for the stakeholders to utility’s capacity should similarly not be included
collectively determine which technology criteria are in the subsequent steps of the assessment. In
nonnegotiable due to local constraints or priorities another example, the ability to meet the required
and which provide more flexibility. These criteria discharge quality or space requirements may be
nonnegotiable depending on the sensitivity of the
should be assessed by following the guidance
receiving body of water or the space available.
provided herein and can thus help eliminate
technologies that do not meet the identified By the end of this step, and after the application
requirements. By making reference to the outcome of the nonnegotiable and/or the exclusion criteria,
of the discussion on project criteria (Step 2), the stakeholders should have reduced the list of potential
users will be able to approach technology selection technologies and treatment trains for consideration
with an improved understanding of which criteria in the next step. In addition, stakeholders should
will have a more significant impact on a specific agree upon local context priorities, such as minimal
WWTP project and will be able to decide which energy use, minimizing space requirements, potential
of these should be understood as nonnegotiable for wastewater reuse for agriculture, and so on.
108 Applying This Guide in Practice:A Step-by-Step Approach

Step 5: Assign Weighting Schematic Work Plan for Steps 3 to 5
to Technology Criteria and The step-by-step methodology described earlier
for Steps 3 to 5 is summarized in Figure 5.5.
Calculate Total Score for
Remaining Technologies
How to Weight Criteria and
The aim of Step 5 is to assign weights to the
Calculate Total Scores
technology criteria and to calculate the total scores
for the remaining technologies. This can be seen This section provides an overview of how to perform
as a subjective exercise as it will be dependent on the criteria weighting exercise. A summary table
of nine technology criteria and their respective
the perspectives of the decision makers involved
scores is first presented, with the exception of two
in the selection of the appropriate technologies
of the criteria—reuse potential and climate change
for the given small town. Nevertheless, because
impact—for which qualitative guidance has been
the objective of this guide is to support its users in
provided earlier in the guide. Those scores are
bringing together all the information considered
thereafter weighted, and a total score is calculated.
relevant for decision making, this weighting exercise
is seen as a practical way to help narrow down Table 5.1 presents a matrix of the nine technology
the number of technologies appropriate for a criteria and the preselected technology options.
specific context. It presents the suggested standard scoring defaults
in which a technology with a higher score would be
For each technology that was considered
considered more advantageous regarding a certain
appropriate for small-town WWTPs, Chapter 4
criterion (3 being the highest score and 1 the lowest).
“Technology Criteria” suggests a scoring table for all
For example, in terms of land availability, an ABR
technology criteria, except for the reuse potential
and climate change impact aspects, for which
qualitative guidance is instead provided.
FIGURE 5.5
The user is free to apply the suggested scores or, Schematic Work Plan for Steps 3 to 5
alternatively, develop a set of customized scores for
the technology criteria in question, which should
Discuss technology criteria and decide which
thereafter be weighted to arrive at the calculation ones are nonnegotiable
of a total score. The highest score should then be
considered as the best option based on the decision
makers’ assumptions and conditions. Apply nonnegotiable criteria and eliminate
technologies that do not meet these criteria
Step 5 should culminate in the establishment of
a reduced list of applicable technologies and/or
treatment trains from which a preselection and/or
Apply scoring and weighting to remaining
decision can be made on the appropriate technology technologies, as described in Step 5
train for the small town in question.
In addition, the case studies presented in Chapter 6

Discuss scoring and weighting results and
provide working examples on how this approach make decision on recommended technologies
can be applied.

TABLE 5.1
Summary of Suggested Scores for Each Technology (Standard Defaults)
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY CRITERION
4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 4.2.7 4.2.81 4.2.9
EASE OF AVAILABLE
TREATMENT UPGRADING LAND LABOR PARTS + O&M SLUDGE ENERGY
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATIONS INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX
1 ST 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 BD 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 IMH 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
4 ABR 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 ANF 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2
6 WSP 2 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 2
7 AL 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2
8 CW(1-st) 3 2 1 3 3 1 2 3 1
9 CW(hybrid) 3 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 1
10 UASB 2 1 2 1 3 2 3 2 2
11 EA 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 SBR (EA) 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 TF 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1
14 RBC 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1
15 UASB-WSP 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1
16 UASB-Tf 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1
17 UV N/A N/A 3 1 1 N/A 3 3 3
18 CI N/A N/A 3 1 2 N/A 3 3 3
19 PP N/A N/A 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
20 RF N/A N/A 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
21 RDF N/A N/A 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland;
CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; N/A = not applicable; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor;
RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF;
UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
that requires an average area of 0.30 square meters made to the presented approach, then experienced
per capita is assigned a score of 3 and would be specialists should be included in the stakeholder
considered more advantageous than a WSP that discussions to help make technically sound decisions.
requires an average area of 4.75 square meters per In situations in which this may not be possible, or in
capita and is thus assigned a score of 1. Detailed which the users of the guide are less experienced
explanations of the scoring rationale can be found with technology selection, it is advised to use the
in Chapter 4 “Technology Criteria”. standard recommendations provided here. In any
case, whether the proposed standard approach
To produce a total score for each technology using
or a modified approach is used, definitions and
the individual scores presented in Table 5.1, thus
decisions should always properly reflect local
permitting an overall comparison of technologies,
conditions and the preferences of the relevant
a weight should be assigned to each criterion,
stakeholders. In addition, the users also need to
taking into account that not all of the criteria may
incorporate qualitative information provided by
be of equal importance to a specific situation. The
employing the reuse potential and climate change
exercise described in this section will generate
impact criteria when interpreting the results.
scores for the seven technical criteria and the two
financial criteria listed in the table. It is further It should also be kept in mind that the resulting total
proposed to group the technical and the financial weighted score is not a fixed result but rather the
criteria and to give equal weight to these two outcome of assumptions and subjective assessments
groups—that is, the total of the scoring resulting and, as such, should be considered with the
from criteria 1 to 7 receives an overall 50 percent flexibility inherent in the prefeasibility and feasibility
weight, and the total of the scoring from criteria 8 phases of a project cycle. Furthermore, the user
and 9 also receives a 50 percent weight. should continue to take into account the potential
combinations of technology trains presented in
The grouped scores are worked out as an average Table 3.5 (“Typical Wastewater Treatment Trains for
of the total scores of each grouping. Table 5.2 Preselected Treatment Technologies for Small-Town
presents an example of the outcome of a grouping WWTPs”) and Table 3.6 (“Typical Sludge Treatment
and weighting exercise, with 3 continuing to be the Trains for Preselected Treatment Technologies for
maximum achievable score per criterion. Small-Town WWTPs”) during the prefeasibility and
The users of the guide are free to modify the feasibility phases of the project cycle, which will be
standard approach described above, as deemed further illustrated in the case studies presented in
appropriate for the small town in question. In doing Chapter 6.
so, the proposed standard 1-2-3 scores for each The typical outcome of applying the guide’s
criterion could be revised, as could the weighting. methodology should not point to a single optimum
Furthermore, additional criteria together with their technology but rather to a group of technologies
associated scores, could be added to the list of the that represent the best, or near-best, score, each
eleven proposed criteria, and/or certain criteria of which thus potentially representing a sound and
could be removed from consideration, depending appropriate wastewater treatment solution for a
on the project circumstances. Nevertheless, it is specific small town and each of which then deserve
strongly advised that if substantial revisions are further detailed analysis.

112
TABLE 5.2
Summary of Weighted Scoring for Each Technology, Based on Suggested Standard Defaults
TECHNICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL
Applying This Guide in Practice:A Step-by-Step Approach
TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA FINANCIAL CRITERIA WEIGHTED SCORE
AVERAGE SCORE WEIGHT OF AVERAGE SCORE WEIGHT OF

# CRITERIA #1–7 CRITERIA #1–7 CRITERIA #1–7 CRITERIA #8–9 CRITERIA #1–7 CRITERIA #1–7 TOTAL
1 ST 2.43 50% 3.00 50% 1.21 1.50 2.71

2 BD 2.43 50% 3.00 50% 1.21 1.50 2.71
3 IMH 2.43 50% 2.50 50% 1.21 1.25 2.46
4 ABR 2.57 50% 3.00 50% 1.29 1.50 2.79

5 ANF 2.43 50% 2.50 50% 1.21 1.25 2.46
6 WSP 2.29 50% 2.50 50% 1.14 1.25 2.39
7 AL 1.57 50% 2.00 50% 0.79 1.00 1.79
8 CW(1-st) 2.14 50% 2.00 50% 1.07 1.00 2.07
9 CW(hybrid) 2.57 50% 2.00 50% 1.29 1.00 2.29
10 UASB 2.00 50% 2.00 50% 1.00 1.00 2.00
11 EA 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43
12 SBR (EA) 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43
13 TF 2.14 50% 1.50 50% 1.07 0.75 1.82
14 RBC 2.14 50% 1.50 50% 1.07 0.75 1.82
15 UASB-WSP 2.00 50% 1.50 50% 1.00 0.75 1.75
16 UASB-TF 2.00 50% 1.50 50% 1.00 0.75 1.75
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH
= Imhoff tank; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB
followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
Case Studies
6
The three case studies presented below—from Morocco, Vietnam and El Salvador,
respectively—provide specific examples of applying the different criteria and working
through the guide’s methodology, which can be helpful in conceptualizing the application
of the guide’s approach to a specific context.
Case 1: Small Town in Morocco

The analysis of this case study follows the general methodology described in Chapter 5.
Step 1: Familiarize with GUIDE METHODOLOGY

Decision makers from ONEE, Morocco’s National Electricity and Water Office, convened
and familiarized themselves with the approach.
Step 2: PROJECT CRITERIA

The project criteria described in Chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the decision
makers, and Table 6.1 was produced to summarize the outcome.
TABLE 6.1
Project Criteria for the Morocco Case
PROJECT CRITERION COMMENTS

1. Feasibility of sewer
Responsibility for water supply and Water, sanitation, and electricity are all handled by the same utility: ONEE.
sanitation service delivery
Water availability Most households in small towns are connected to the public water network (consumption
is approximately 50 L/cap/day), though water availability may vary (water availability in
Morocco has dropped over the past decades and has reached physical scarcity levels).
Stormwater management Sewage and stormwater are managed separately (i.e., there is no combined system). It was
also established that the drainage of stormwater is properly maintained and working well,
enabling the construction of cost-efficient separate sewers.
Solid waste management It was agreed that solid waste should have a minimal/negligible impact. It is collected and
disposed of adequately.
Conclusions Sewer system appears feasible

TABLE 6.1
Project Criteria for the Morocco Case (Continued)

2. Total connections to WWTP
Project horizon 20 years
Residential population 20,000 people
Sewer connection rate A 90% connection rate was assumed.
Industrial waste streams Industrial waste streams are present, particularly from olive oil mills/presses (margines),
with a high concentration of phenols. All stakeholders agreed that the wastewater pollution
from these sources may be high, though it is generated only seasonally. Without specific
data on this waste stream, it was agreed to assume a maximum industrial pollution equal
to about 5,000 PE.
Fecal sludge and/or septage Dumping of fecal sludge at WWTPs is not common and was not considered a factor.
Urban/industrial growth 1.5% annual growth, mostly attributable to vegetative growth. No industrial growth.
Conclusions Total future population = ca. 27,000 PE
Connected total future population = ca. 24.000 PE
Industrial loads = 5,000 PE
Total estimated capacity of WWTP = 29,000 PE
3. Fecal sludge
Conclusions (see item 2) Possible overloading of the WWTP by fecal sludge is not considered a factor.
4. Regulations for treated discharge and reuse
Discharge regulations Regulation for WWTP discharges to receiving waters exist in Morocco and focus exclusively
on removal of organic pollution, with BOD5 ≤ 120 mg/L. There are no nutrient standards
for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Reuse regulations No major regulatory (environmental) constraints, although the legal and regulatory framework
for wastewater reuse is incomplete, leading to common informal reuse of raw or treated
wastewater, which poses important health risks. New regulations in this regard are currently
under development. In general, irrigation standards in Morocco require a minimum hygienic
quality, with fecal coliforms ≤ 1,000 MPN/100mL and an absence of nematode ova.
Conclusions Standards for discharge quality exist and are defined primarily by requirements for
removal of organic pollution—that is, BOD5 Ä 120 mg/L. Reuse for irrigation is not a
project criterion, but if effluent is hygienically safe, this could constitute an added benefit.
5. Available land for the WWTP
Land assigned for WWTP Space is available and will not constrain any new construction for a wastewater and sludge
treatment plant. The intention is to locate the WWTP relatively distant from the residential
areas to avoid any odor or other issues.
Elevation No major pumping head is required. The additional distance sought to minimize issues with
odors may increase the pumping costs, but this is accepted as a nonavoidable cost.
Flood protection There is no flooding risk at the potential WWTP sites.
Geotechnical characteristics The soil is generally rather stony. No issues are expected with heavy structures.
Reserves for later expansion There is sufficient land for future expansion.
Conclusions No issues are foreseen at this point with finding suitable land for the WWTP.
114 Case Studies

TABLE 6.1
Project Criteria for the Morocco Case (Continued)

6. Power supply to the WWTP
Reliability of electricity Electricity is available and reliable.
Maximum possible capacity No clear conclusion could be drawn concerning the maximum power capacity, and
moderate to low power requirements should therefore be targeted. This will increase
safety and reduce OPEX.
Onsite generation of power Solar power generation could be an option because there is plenty of sunshine and strong
solar radiation in the area. However, project stakeholders were uncertain as to whether such
a source of electricity would be sufficient for the WWTP and/or whether it should serve to
provide emergency power backup.
Conclusions Electricity from the grid is safely and reliably available. Moderate to low power
consumption is preferred. Solar panels may also be considered.
Note: BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; ONEE = Morocco’s National Electricity and Water Office; OPEX = operating expenditures; PE = population equivalent;
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, and using the decision tree presented in figure 5.3 as a guide, Step 2
concludes that (a) this guide is applicable; (b) a sewer system is indeed feasible; (c) fecal
sludge disposal/cotreatment will not be a relevant factor or constraint; (d) there are clear
definitions of the required treated wastewater quality; and (e) both land and power are
sufficiently available.
Step 3: TECHNOLOGY CRITERIA

The technology criteria described in chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the
decision makers, and table 6.2 was produced to summarize the outcome.
TABLE 6.2
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Morocco Case
TECHNOLOGY
CRITERION COMMENTS EXCLUSION OF TECHNOLOGIES?
Treatment As described in table 6.1, effluent treatment targets Comparing the treatment targets with the information
efficiency are defined by: provided in chapter 4 “Treatment Efficiency,” it
becomes clear that primary treatment options only
7 BOD5 ≤120 mg/L; and
(ST, BD, and IMH) cannot comply with the required
7 The desire (but not legally binding requirement)
BOD5 limit and thus need to be excluded.
for a hygienically safe effluent quality to
minimize risks associated with (currently No technology should be excluded because of the
unofficial) reuse in irrigation. hygienic requirements because all those technologies
could be equipped with a separate tertiary disinfection
stage. However, it is noted that WSPs could help avoid
such an additional stage because they effectively
remove pathogens as part of their treatment process,
an advantage that should be considered at a later
stage (weighting of technologies).

TABLE 6.2
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Morocco Case (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Ease of upgrading No such future requirements are expected by the This criterion is consequently considered
to enhanced decision makers. irrelevant.
nutrient removal
Land availability Land availability is not considered an issue, as Notwithstanding, and although a smaller footprint
concluded in table 6.1 is assumed to constitute an advantage, no
technology is to be excluded because of this
criterion.
Labor qualification Technical capacity of the WWTP operator (ONEE) is Finding or hiring sufficient skilled laborers is
of a high level, though low-tech treatment processes considered feasible for any technology, and
are typically used. High-tech solutions are often used no technology exclusion is thus considered
in cooperation with the private sector, and ONEE is necessary for this criterion. However, technologies
in the process of building its capacity to implement with lower skill requirements should be scored
more high-tech solutions for small towns. higher.
Although the technical and financial capacities

are both at a high level, staff numbers are limited.
In addition, staff are often asked to operate or
supervise numerous treatment plants often far
apart from one another. Minimizing O&M labor
requirements may thus be desirable.
Availability of ONEE’s administrative capacity is sufficient at both No technology exclusion is required.
replacement parts the central and regional levels to support operators
and O&M inputs and provide a regular supply of consumables and
spare parts. As this small town is relatively close to a
larger city, the need for replacement parts or O&M
inputs is not considered a risk factor.
Sludge production Sludge production as such is not considered to No technology exclusion is required, though
constitute a significant issue, as sludge can be weighting should give preference to technologies
easily stored onsite at the WWTP or reused by with low desludging frequencies.
local farmers. It is, however, recognized that a
requirement for daily sludge removal may be
problematic and/or will require higher personnel
presence and thus OPEX.
Energy use Energy supply is considered to be reliable. No technology exclusion is required, though
weighting should give preference to technologies
with low energy consumption.
OPEX Decision makers agreed to select technologies All technologies with an OPEX score of 1 (see
with low operating costs, even though tariff and table 5.1) are excluded, namely EA and SBR(EA).
cost recovery levels allow for more expensive
technologies to be implemented.
116 Case Studies

TABLE 6.2
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Morocco Case (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
CAPEX The National Urban Sanitation Master Plan (which All technologies with a CAPEX score of 1 (see
includes small towns) defines financing for the table 5.1) are excluded, namely CW(1-st),
sector as shared between ONEE (50%) and CW(hybrid), EA, SBR(EA), TF, RBC, and
municipalities (50%—either provided themselves UASB-WSP and UASB-TF.
or with support from the Ministry of the Interior).
Financing from ONEE is generally available, but
projects cannot move forward if the remaining
portion has not been secured by municipalities,
which may end up dictating the level of CAPEX that
can be made available for these small towns.
Reuse potential Reuse is not currently planned, though the informal No technology exclusion is required.
reuse practice has already been phased into the
assessment of technology criterion 1: treatment
efficiency. No further considerations are deemed
necessary.
Climate change The information in chapter 4 “Climate Change Treatment technologies incorporating anaerobic
impact Impact” states that higher GHG emissions are stages are here excluded, namely anaerobic
typically associated with high energy consumption ponds and UASBs. In addition, ABR, ANF, and
and with anaerobic stages. The former dimension all primary treatment stages are excluded, as
is included in technology criterion 7: energy use they involve anaerobic processes.Nevertheless,
and does thus not require further consideration. As if anaerobic technologies would constitute the only
for the latter, and even though all decision makers remaining options after this exercise, this criterion
could not fully agree whether GHG emissions should not be applied.
should indeed be considered as a relevant criterion
for their WWTP, it was decided that technologies
incorporating anaerobic stages would be excluded
from further consideration in this particular case.
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; CAPEX = capital expenditures; CW(1-st) =
one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; GHG = greenhouse gas; IMH = Imhoff tank; O&M = operation and
maintenance; ONEE = Morocco’s National Electricity and Water Office; OPEX = operating expenditures; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch
reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP =
UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
Step 4: NONNEGOTIABLE or EXCLUSION CRITERIA

As described in chapter 5 “Step 4: Identify and Apply Nonnegotiable or Exclusion Criteria,”
the decision makers determined which technology criteria were nonnegotiable because
of local constraints and priorities and which provide more flexibility. These criteria were
marked accordingly in the application of this step and helped to eliminate technologies
that did not meet the prior identified requirements.

TABLE 6.3
Summary of Excluded Technologies for the Morocco Case
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY CRITERION LEADING TO EXCLUSION
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11
AVAILABLE
EASE OF PARTS + CLIMATE
TREATMENT UPGRADING LAND LABOR O&M SLUDGE ENERGY REUSE CHANGE
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIAL IMPACT
1 ST excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded excluded
2 BD excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded excluded
3 IMH excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded excluded
4 ABR OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
5 ANF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
6 WSP OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OKa
7 AL OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
8 CW(1-st) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK OK
9 CW(hybrid) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK OK
10 UASB OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
11 EA OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded excluded OK OK
12 SBR (EA) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded excluded OK OK
13 TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK OK
14 RBC OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK OK
15 UASB-WSP OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK excluded
16 UASB-TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded OK excluded
17 UV OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
18 CI OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
19 PP OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
20 RF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
21 RDF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland;
CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary
disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB
followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
a
WSP are acceptable; only anaerobic ponds should be excluded.
The only remaining technologies meeting the decision makers’ criteria and preferences are
waste stabilization ponds (WSPs), preferably without an anaerobic stage or pond, and aerated
lagoons (ALs). In addition, because WSPs and ALs can be designed to meet the effluent
quality requirements of this project, none of the tertiary treatment steps (UV [ultraviolet], Cl
[chlorination], PP [polishing pond], RF [rock filter], and RDF [rotary disc filter]) would be necessary.
Step 5: Assign WEIGHTING to technology criteria, calculate

TOTAL SCORE for remaining technologies
The scores proposed in table 5.1 are used here, and the suggested weighting approach
of assigning equal weight to technical/environmental criteria and financial criteria. The
criteria for ease of upgrading to BNR is excluded from consideration because it was
considered irrelevant by the decision makers.
Tables 6.4 and 6.5 present the outcome of that scoring and weighting exercise, with 3
continuing to be the maximum achievable score.
TABLE 6.4
Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the Morocco Case
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11
AVAILABLE
# EFFICIENCY TO BNRa AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIALb IMPACTb
6 WSP 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 2
7 AL 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 2
Note: AL = aerated lagoon; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures;
a
Considered irrelevant and thus not considered here. b Not used for scoring.
TABLE 6.5
Summary of Weighted Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the Morocco Case
TECHNICAL/
ENVIRONMENTAL
CRITERIA FINANCIAL CRITERIA WEIGHTED SCORE
AVERAGE AVERAGE
SCORE WEIGHT OF SCORE WEIGHT OF
CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA
# #1–7 #1–7 #8–9 #8–9 #1–7 #8–9 TOTAL
6 WSP 2.50 50% 2.50 50% 1.25 1.25 2.50

7 AL 1.67 50% 2.00 50% 0.83 1.00 1.83
Note: AL = aerated lagoon; WSP = waste stabilization pond.

FIGURE 6.1
Summary of Weighted Scoring for CONCLUSION
Remaining Technologies after Step 4
The analysis leads to two potentially
for the Morocco Case
suitable technologies for this small town,
3.0 namely WSP (without an anaerobic pond)
Technical/environmental criteria and AL, with WSP showing a considerably
2.5
Financial criteria better score. These two technologies are
2.0 deemed appropriate for this particular small
town and should be further analyzed as the
Total score
1.5
project moves into the next phase.
1.0
0.5
0.0
WSP
AL
Note: AL = aerated lagoon; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
Decision makers will also need to continue to take into account the potential combinations
of technology trains for these two technologies presented in tables 3.5 and 3.6 during the
prefeasibility and feasibility phases of the project cycle, for which the relevant rows of the
tables are presented here.
TERTIARY
PRETREATMENT PRIMARY TREATMENT SECONDARY TREATMENT TREATMENT
MATURATION POND
FACULTATIVE POND
GRIT/FAT REMOVAL
ANAEROBIC FILTER
AERATED LAGOON
ANAEROBIC POND
PLANTED GRAVEL-
PLASTIC MEDIA TF
DISINFECTION–UV
BIOGAS DIGESTER
POLISHING POND
STONE MEDIA TF
UASB REACTOR
DISINFECTION–
EQUALIZATION
IMHOFF TANK
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPTIC TANK
ROCK FILTER
SEPARATION
CHLORINE
SCREEN
FILTER
SIEVE
ABR
RBC
SBR
PST
FST
AT
OPTION TECHNOLOGY ABBREV.
Primary + Secondary treatment

1 Waste stabilization pond WSP (as needed)
2 Aerated lagoon AL

POST-THICKENER
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE DRYING
SOLAR DRYING
STABILIZATION
DIRECT REUSE
COMPOSTING
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
TREATMENT
ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
DIGESTION
WETLAND
AEROBIC
SEPTAGE
GRAVITY
TANK
UASB
BED
Primary + Secondary treatment Typical component

Optional component (either additional
1 Waste stabilization pond WSP
or replacing another component)
2 Aerated lagoon AL
Note:
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AT = aeration tank; FST = final sedimentation tank; PST = primary sedimentation tank; RBC = rotating biological contactor;
SBR = sequencing batch reactor; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UV = ultraviolet.
120 Case Studies

Case 2: Small Town in Vietnam
The analysis of this case study follows the general methodology described in chapter 5.

Decision makers from the utility covering water and sanitation convened and familiarized
themselves with the approach.

The project criteria described in chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the decision
makers, and table 6.6 was produced to summarize the outcome.
TABLE 6.6
Project Criteria for the Vietnam Case

Responsibility for water supply and Water and sanitation are handled by the same utility.
sanitation service delivery
Water availability Water availability is guaranteed. It is estimated that about 99% of the population has
access to safe water.
Stormwater management Sewage and stormwater are managed separately (that is, no combined systems),
though there are imperfections in the system and stormwater infiltration can be high.
Solid waste management Solid waste is collected separately. As is observed in the existing sewer system, solid
waste has no relevant negative impacts on the sewer network.
Conclusions Sewer system already exists and is working properly.
Sewer connection rate More than 90% of the population is already connected.
Industrial waste streams Not a major concern, but industries may contribute about 10%–20% of the overall
wastewater pollution, which is currently being collected.
Fecal sludge and/or septage Fecal sludge volumes are low because the majority of the population is already
connected to a sewer system.
Urban/industrial growth An annual growth rate of 2%–3% appears realistic. An average of 2.5% is assumed.
Connected total future population = ca. 75,000 PE
Industrial loads = 20% of population = 15,000 PE
Total estimated capacity of WWTP = 90,000 PE
3. Fecal sludge
Conclusions (see item 2) Fecal sludge is not considered an important factor for the WWTP, even though a
septage reception station should be installed.

TABLE 6.6
Project Criteria for the Vietnam Case (Continued)

Discharge regulations The quality of treated effluent is regulated in Vietnam through “QCVN 14/2008”
(National Technical Regulation on Domestic Wastewater), which distinguishes between
wastewater discharges into waters that are either used or not used for water supply. In
this case study, the former applies, leading to the following criteria: BOD5 Ä 30 mg/L,
ammonium-N Ä 5 mg/L, nitrate-N Ä 30 mg/L, and total coliforms Ä 3,000 MPN/100 mL,
among others.
Reuse regulations Direct reuse of treated wastewater is not envisaged in the foreseeable future.
Conclusions Standards for discharge quality require both removal of organic pollution (BOD5)
and oxidation of nitrogen (nitrification). Denitrification (removal of oxidized
nitrogen) requirements are weak. In addition, disinfection is required.

Land assigned for WWTP Land is relatively expensive in the vicinity of the small town. Limiting the required
WWTP footprint is thus considered to be important.
Elevation Land is flat, requiring some pumping. Long conveyance distances to the WWTP should
be minimized.
Flood protection There is considerable flooding risk at the possible WWTP sites, requiring special
attention in the design phase.
Geotechnical characteristics Clay soil and alluvial sediments. Heavy structures will require geotechnical surveys and
appropriate foundations.
Reserves for later expansion Feasible, but because of high land prices, such expansions should be limited.
Conclusions Suitable land for the WWTP exists but is expensive. Minimization of the WWTP
footprint is thus important.

Reliability of electricity Electricity is available and reliable. Energy cost is not high.
Maximum possible capacity No particular known limits.
Onsite generation of power If feasible, this is considered to be an interesting option.
Conclusions Electricity from the grid is reliable and not too expensive.
Note: BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; PE = population equivalent; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, and using the decision tree presented in figure 5.3 as a guide, Step 2
concludes that (a) this guide is applicable; (b) a sewer system is already in place and
its use has been proven; (c) fecal sludge disposal/cotreatment will not be a relevant
factor or constraint; (d) wastewater treatment requires very efficient removal of organics,
nitrification, and disinfection; (e) land is available but costly; and (f) power supply is good.
122 Case Studies

The technology criteria described in chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the decision
TABLE 6.7
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Vietnam Case
TECHNOLOGY
Treatment As described in table 6.6, treatment targets are Comparing the treatment targets with the
efficiency defined by: information provided in chapter 4 “Treatment
Efficiency,” it becomes clear that only a limited
7 BOD5 ≤ 30 mg/L;
range of technologies can comply with the BOD5
7 Ammonium-N ≤ 5 mg/L;
limit. The only remaining technology options are
7 Nitrate-N ≤ 30 mg/L; and
CW(1-st), CW(hybrid), EA, SBR(EA), TF, RBC, and
7 Total coliforms ≤ 3,000 MPN/100 mL.
UASB-TF.
No technology needs to be excluded because of

the total coliforms requirement because all these
technologies could be equipped with a separate
tertiary disinfection stage.
However, tertiary stages, such as PP, RF, and

RDF, are not needed to achieve the treatment
targets with the previously indicated remaining
technologies and are hence excluded.
Ease of upgrading Decision makers recognized that discharge Ease of upgrading is to be considered in the
to enhanced requirements could become even more stringent in technology assessment.
nutrient removal the future.
Land availability Land is available but expensive. Technologies requiring large land areas should
be excluded. In particular, and when considering
the information presented in chapter 4 “Land
Availability,” this means that WSP, CW(1-st),
CW(hybrid), and UASB-WSP should be excluded
from further consideration.
Labor qualification It is assumed that the utility will be able to find No technology exclusion is required.
and hire qualified personnel, as dictated by the
technologies to be selected.
Availability of Administrative capacity is sufficient to support No technology exclusion is required.

replacement parts operators and provide a regular supply of
and O&M inputs consumables and spare parts.
The town is well connected to major cities, and

availability of replacement parts is therefore not a
challenge.
Sludge production Sludge production is not considered to be a No technology exclusion is required.

limiting factor.
Energy use Reliable and relatively cheap energy supply can be No technology exclusion is required.
provided.
OPEX Is considered important to compare technologies. No technology exclusion is required.

TABLE 6.7
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the Vietnam Case (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
CAPEX Is considered important to compare technologies. No technology exclusion is required.
Reuse potential Not of particular relevance, as long as the treated No technology exclusion is required.
effluents meet the official requirements.
Climate change Decision makers decided that this criterion may be No technology exclusion is required.
impact applied, as deemed appropriate.
Other Decision makers also considered the following: TF, UASB-TF, and RBC are excluded from further
consideration.
7 In Vietnam, TFs are not allowed for WWTPs with
a capacity beyond 50,000 PE.
7 It was mutually agreed that the RBC technology
is usually employed only for plants smaller than
the one in this case.
Note: BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration;
O&M = operation and maintenance; PE = population equivalent; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter;
SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF;
UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; WSP = waste stabilization pond; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

As most technologies are excluded, only two options will thus be subjected to scoring,
namely extended aeration (EA) and sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant)
(SBR(EA)).
124 Case Studies

TABLE 6.8
Summary of Excluded Technologies for the Vietnam Case
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11 4.3.12
EASE OF AVAILABLE CLIMATE

TREATMENT UPGRADING LAND LABOR PARTS + SLUDGE ENERGY REUSE CHANGE OTHER
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION O&M INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIAL IMPACT CRITERIA
1 ST excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2 BD excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
3 IMH excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
4 ABR excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
5 ANF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
6 WSP excluded OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
7 AL excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
8 CW(1-st) OK OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
9 CW(hybrid) OK OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
10 UASB excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
11 EA OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
12 SBR (EA) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
13 TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
14 RBC OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
15 UASB-WSP OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
14 RBC OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
15 UASB-WSP excluded OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
16 UASB-TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK excluded
17 UV OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
18 CI OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
19 PP excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
20 RF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
21 RDF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed wetland; CW(hybrid)
= hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter;
SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet;
Step 5: Assign WEIGHTING to technology criteria, calculate TOTAL
SCORE for remaining technologies
The scoring employs the standard defaults suggested in this guide in table 5.1 (that is, the
suggested scores for each technology and the standard default scores). Likewise, for the
weighting applied here, the suggested approach of giving equal weight to the technical/
environmental criteria and the financial criteria is used.
TABLE 6.9
Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the Vietnam Case
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11
AVAILABLE
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIALa IMPACTa
13 EA 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 SBR (EA) 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
27 UV N/A N/A 3 1 1 N/A 3 3 3
28 CI N/A N/A 3 1 2 N/A 3 3 3
Note: BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; EA = extended aeration; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX =
operating expenditures; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); UV = ultraviolet.
a
Not used for scoring.
TABLE 6.10
Summary of Weighted Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the Vietnam Case
TECHNICAL/
ENVIRONMENTAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE
# #1–7 #1–7 #8–9 #8–9 #1–7 #8–9 TOTAL
13 EA 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43

14 SBR (EA) 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43
Note: EA = extended aeration; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant).
126 Case Studies

FIGURE 6.2
Because both of these remaining
for the Vietnam Case
technologies, EA and SBR(EA), received an
1.6
Technical/environmental criteria identical score, it can be anticipated that
Financial criteria
even a more detailed analysis may not lead to
1.4
major differences between these two. In such
1.2
situations, either a decision could be made
1.0 before bidding or both technologies could
Total score
0.8 be permitted as part of the bidding process.

0.6
0.4
0.2
Decision makers will also need to continue to take into
account the potential combinations of technology
0.0
trains for these two technologies presented in
EA
SBR (EA)
tables 3.5 and 3.6 during the prefeasibility and

feasibility phases of the project cycle, for which the
Note: EA = extended aeration; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended
aeration variant). relevant rows of the tables are presented here.
PRETREATMENT PRIMARY TREATMENT SECONDARY TREATMENT TERTIARY TREATMENT
MATURATION POND
ROTARY DISC FILTER

FACULTATIVE POND
GRIT/FAT REMOVAL
ANAEROBIC FILTER
AERATED LAGOON
ANAEROBIC POND
PLASTIC MEDIA TF
BIOGAS DIGESTER
PLANTED GRAVEL
DISINFECTION–UV
POLISHING POND
STONE MEDIA TF
UASB REACTOR
DISINFECTION–
EQUALIZATION
IMHOFF TANK
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPTIC TANK
ROCK FILTER
SEPARATION
CHLORINE
SCREEN
FILTER
SIEVE
ABR
RBC
SBR
PST
FST
AT

1 Extended Aeration (AS type) EA
2 Extended Aeration (SBR type) SBR (EA)

POST-THICKENER
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE DRYING
SOLAR DRYING
STABILIZATION
DIRECT REUSE
COMPOSTING
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
TREATMENT
ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
DIGESTION
WETLAND
AEROBIC
SEPTAGE
GRAVITY
TANK
UASB
BED

Typical component
Primary + Secondary treatment Optional component (either additional or
1 Extended Aeration (AS type) EA replacing another component)
2 Extended Aeration (SBR type) SBR (EA)
To meet the disinfection requirements, it is also to be noted that both technology options
will require either UV or chlorination as an additional (tertiary) disinfection stage.

Case 3: Small Town in El Salvador
The analysis of this case study follows the general methodology described in chapter 5.

Decision makers from the national water supply and sanitation utility convened and
familiarized themselves with the approach.

The project criteria described in chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the decision
TABLE 6.11
Project Criteria for the El Salvador Case

Responsibility for water supply and Responsibility for water supply and sanitation services lies with the national water
sanitation service delivery supply and sanitation utility ANDA.
Water availability Water services reach the majority of the population, mostly through the public water
network (85%–90%) or via public standposts. Some houses also have private wells.
Typical water consumption is about 100 L/capita/day.
Stormwater management Stormwater is not properly managed. To the extent possible, it is directed toward the
nearest quebrada, or “ravine.”
Solid waste management Solid waste is poorly managed, with only 50% of solid waste collected throughout the
municipality. Trash is often burned in gardens or open areas or left out in the street.
Conclusions Sewer system appears feasible.
However, it is to be noted that O&M of the sewer system will most likely experience
several issues, such as clogging caused by solid waste or considerably increased flows
during rainfall. The WWTP should be able to cope with such conditions.
128 Case Studies

TABLE 6.11
Project Criteria for the El Salvador Case (Continued)

Sewer connection rate The existing sanitation system predominantly consists of onsite installations
(mostly latrines, with a limited number of septic tanks) with no proper fecal sludge
management. Some individual houses or clusters of houses may have a small local
sewer network, which typically discharges into the nearest quebrada. These quebradas
are formed by erosion caused by surface runoff and are a typical feature of many
municipalities in El Salvador. The depth of such quebradas can range from a few meters
to several dozen meters, and as the embankments are usually very steep, it is relatively
easy to discharge into them without the risk of backflow.
The project wants to do away with these sanitation systems and connect about two-
thirds of the population in the town’s denser areas to a proper sewer system with
centralized wastewater treatment. The remaining one-third of the population will
continue using onsite sanitation facilities to be incorporated into a properly managed
fecal sludge service chain in the future.
Industrial waste streams Industrial waste streams are not considered a relevant factor. Only a few family
businesses are making a living from agricultural and food processing, which should not
contribute in a significant way to the waste streams.
Fecal sludge and/or septage Fecal sludge and septage are currently not well managed, with a small-scale private
sector offering emptying of septic tanks, but there is no clarity of where the waste is
being transported and treated.
After project implementation, any septage collected should be disposed of and treated
at the new WWTP.
Urban/industrial growth Population growth is relatively high but has been affected by migration to larger cities,
particularly to the capital, San Salvador. A growth rate of 1%–2% may be realistic.
A growth rate of 1.5% has been assumed.
Connected total future population = ca. 15.000 PE
Industrial loads: not relevant
About 8,000 PE will continue with onsite sanitation. The majority of those will continue
using latrines, which are backfilled once full. Only a limited number of residents will use
septic tanks, and the septage volume hauled to the WWTP in future will not be large.
Total estimated capacity of WWTP = 16,000 PE (including a provision of 1,000 PE

for septage)
3. Fecal sludge
Conclusions (see item 2) Possible overloading of the WWTP by fecal sludge is not considered a factor as the
expected volumes are not particularly high.

TABLE 6.11
Project Criteria for the El Salvador Case (Continued)

Discharge regulations The required treatment standards are set by ANDA’s “Normas Técnicas para
Abastecimiento de Agua Potable y Alcantarillados de Aguas Negras.” This norm
requires BOD5 Ä 60 mg/L and SS Ä 60 mg/L.
Reuse regulations Some households have gardens in which graywater is reused for irrigation. Reuse of
untreated wastewater for the irrigation of crops is also common.
Conclusions Standards for discharge quality are defined by requirements for removal of organic
pollution—that is, BOD5 and SS. Informal reuse for irrigation is common; thus,
improved hygienic discharge quality would be an added benefit.
Land assigned for WWTP Space availability is generally low. The only location downstream of the small town that
is suitable and available for the WWTP has an area of only about 5,000 m2.
Elevation No pumping head is required.
Flood protection Flooding is not considered an issue.
Geotechnical characteristics Unknown. Nevertheless, the soil is typically prone to erosion, and heavy structures may
thus require proper foundations.
Reserves for later expansion Expansion is not possible.
Conclusions The only suitable land for the WWTP has a very limited footprint. Because no
expansion is possible at that site in the future, a small plant footprint is considered
even more important.
Reliability of electricity Electricity coverage is generally good, but power outages do happen. Hence, the
lesser dependence on the public grid, the greater the possibility of safe operation.
Maximum possible capacity Unclear maximum capacity.
Onsite generation of power Solar generation of power could be an option.
Conclusions Electricity supply is good, but outages do happen. Low power consumption is
preferred. Solar panels may also be considered.
Note: ANDA = Administración Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; O&M = operation and maintenance; PE = population
equivalent; SS = suspended solids; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, and using the decision tree presented in figure 5.3 as a guide, Step 2 concludes
that (a) this guide is applicable; (b) a sewer system is feasible; (c) fecal sludge disposal/
cotreatment will not be a relevant factor or constraint, though some provision is included
for septage in the total estimated capacity of the WWTP; (d) treatment focuses on the
removal of organic pollution and (to the extent possible) on improving hygienic quality;
(e) land availability is limited; and (f) power consumption should be minimized.
130 Case Studies

The technology criteria described in chapter 4 of the guide were discussed by the decision
TABLE 6.12
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the El Salvador Case
TECHNOLOGY
Treatment As described in the previous table, treatment Comparing the treatment targets with the information
efficiency targets are defined by: provided in chapter 4 “Treatment Efficiency,”
it becomes clear that only a limited range of
• BOD5 ≤ 60 mg/L; and
technologies can comply with the BOD5 limit. The
• SS ≤ 60 mg/L.
only remaining technology options are CW(1-st),
CW(hybrid), EA, SBR(EA), TF, RBC, and UASB-TF.
No technology needs to be excluded because

of the hygienic requirements because all those
technologies could be equipped with a separate
tertiary disinfection stage.
However, tertiary stages, such as PP, RF, and

RDF, are not needed to achieve the treatment
targets with the previously indicated remaining
technologies and are thus excluded.
Ease of upgrading No such future requirements are expected. No technology exclusion is required.
to enhanced
nutrient removal
Land availability Land availability is considered an issue. The only Comparing land availability to the information in
plot available has a footprint of about 5,000 m2, chapter 4 “Land Availability,” it becomes clear
which relative to the envisaged WWTP capacity of that the CW(1-st) and CW(hybrid) technology
16,000 cap. equals 0.31 m2/cap. options both need to be excluded from further
consideration. WSP and UASB-WSP should also be
excluded because of their high land requirements.
Labor qualification Technical capacity varies, depending on ANDA’s No technology exclusion is required.
involvement in system management, though
the number of highly trained staff is limited
and concentrated in the larger urban areas.
Nevertheless, it is expected that ANDA will be able
to find and hire suitably qualified personnel for the
selected technologies.
Availability of Accessibility to larger urban centers has improved No technology exclusion is required.
replacement parts over the years. Despite this, using technologies that
and O&M inputs minimize the need for replacement parts or O&M
inputs may be desirable.
Sludge production Most of the sludge may be reused by local farmers No technology exclusion is required.
in agriculture. Sludge volume is therefore not
considered relevant for decision making.

TABLE 6.12
Technology Criteria and Exclusion Criteria for the El Salvador Case (Continued)
TECHNOLOGY
Energy use Although electricity supply is not considered a No technology exclusion is required.
limiting factor for technology selection, low financial
capacity may render a lower energy consumption
(and therefore costs) desirable.
OPEX High OPEX would definitely put a major strain on No technology exclusion is required.
public finances; thus, low OPEX is preferable. This
criterion is considered to be important to compare
technologies.
CAPEX Similar to OPEX. No technology exclusion is required.
Reuse potential As mentioned in the project criteria, there is interest No technology exclusion is required.
in water reuse options for agricultural uses.
This requirement is already included in technology

criterion 1: treatment efficiency.
Climate change The information in chapter 4 “Climate Change No technology exclusion is required.
impact Impact” states that high GHG emissions are
typically associated with high energy consumption
and with anaerobic stages. The former dimension is
already included in technology criterion 7: energy
use and thus does not require further consideration.
The decision makers decided that no additional
criteria should be applied in this regard.
Note: ANDA = Administración Nacional de Acueductos y Alcantarillados; BOD5 = five-day biological oxygen demand; cap = capita; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed
wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; GHG = greenhouse gas; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures;
PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor; RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant);
SS = suspended solids; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP;
WSP = waste stabilization pond; WWTP = wastewater treatment plant.

Five technologies and two disinfection options remain.
132 Case Studies

TABLE 6.13
Summary of Excluded Technologies for the El Salvador Case
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11
AVAILABLE
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIAL IMPACT
1 ST excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
2 BD excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
3 IMH excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
4 ABR excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
5 ANF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
6 WSP excluded OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
7 AL excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
8 CW(1-st) OK OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
9 CW(hybrid) OK OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
10 UASB excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
11 EA OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
12 SBR (EA) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
13 TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
14 RBC OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
15 UASB-WSP excluded OK excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
16 UASB-TF OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
17 UV OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
18 Cl OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
19 PP excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
20 RF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
21 RDF excluded OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
Note: ABR = anaerobic baffled reactor; AL = aerated lagoon; ANF = anaerobic filter; BD = biogas digester; BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; CW(1-st) = one-stage constructed
wetland; CW(hybrid) = hybrid constructed wetland; EA = extended aeration; IMH = Imhoff tank; O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures; PP = polishing pond; RBC = rotating biological contactor;
RDF = rotary disc filter; RF = rock filter; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); ST = septic tank; TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF;
UASB-WSP = UASB followed by a WSP; UV = ultraviolet; WSP = waste stabilization pond.
Step 5: Assign WEIGHTING to technology criteria, calculate
TOTAL SCORE for remaining technologies
The scoring employs the standard defaults suggested in this guide in table 5.1 (that is, the
suggested scores for each technology and the standard default scores). Likewise, for the
weighting applied here, the suggested approach of giving equal weight to the technical/
environmental criteria and the financial criteria is used.
TABLE 6.14
Summary of Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the El Salvador Case
4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7 4.3.8 4.3.9 4.3.10 4.3.11
AVAILABLE
# EFFICIENCY TO BNR AVAILABILITY QUALIFICATION INPUTS PRODUCTION USE OPEX CAPEX POTENTIALa IMPACT a
13 EA 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
14 SBR (EA) 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 TF 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1
16 RBC 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 1
25 UASB-TF 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 1
27 UV N/A N/A 3 1 1 N/A 3 3 3
28 CI N/A N/A 3 1 2 N/A 3 3 3
Note: BNR = biological nutrient removal; CAPEX = capital expenditures; Cl = chlorination; EA = extended aeration; N/A = not applicable;
O&M = operation and maintenance; OPEX = operating expenditures; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant);
TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF; UV = ultraviolet.
a
Not used for scoring.
134 Case Studies

TABLE 6.15
Summary of Weighted Scoring for Remaining Technologies after Step 4 for the El Salvador Case
TECHNICAL/
ENVIRONMENTAL
AVERAGE AVERAGE
# #1–7 #1–7 #8–9 #8–9 #1–7 #8–9 TOTAL
13 EA 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43

14 SBR (EA) 1.86 50% 1.00 50% 0.93 0.50 1.43
15 TF 2.14 50% 1.50 50% 1.07 0.75 1.82
16 RBC 2.14 50% 1.50 50% 1.07 0.75 1.82
25 UASB-TF 2.00 50% 1.50 50% 1.00 0.75 1.75
Note: EA = extended aeration; RBC = rotating biological contactor; SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF = trickling filter; UASB = upflow
anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF = UASB followed by a TF.
FIGURE 6.3
The outcome shows considerable
for the El Salvador Case
differences in the weighted scoring, with
2.0
Technical/environmental criteria EA and SBR(EA) clearly inferior to the
1.8
Financial criteria other three technology options, mainly for
financial reasons. Consequently, it would be
1.6
recommended to consider only the three
1.4 best scorers—namely trickling filter (TF),
rotating biological contactor (RBC), and
1.2
upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor
Total score
1.0
(UASB)-TF—for further analysis.
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
EA
SBR (EA)
TF
RBC
UASB-TF
Note: EA = extended aeration; RBC = rotating biological contactor;

SBR(EA) = sequencing batch reactor (extended aeration variant); TF =
trickling filter; UASB = upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; UASB-TF =
UASB followed by a TF.

Decision makers will also need to continue to take into account the potential combinations
of technology trains for these three technologies—as presented in tables 3.5 and 3.6—
during the prefeasibility and feasibility phases of the project cycle, for which the relevant
rows of the tables are presented here.
PRETREATMENT PRIMARY TREATMENT SECONDARY TREATMENT TERTIARY TREATMENT
MATURATION POND
ROTARY DISC FILTER

FACULTATIVE POND
GRIT/FAT REMOVAL
ANAEROBIC FILTER
AERATED LAGOON
ANAEROBIC POND
PLASTIC MEDIA TF
BIOGAS DIGESTER
PLANTED GRAVEL
DISINFECTION–UV
POLISHING POND
STONE MEDIA TF
UASB REACTOR
DISINFECTION–
EQUALIZATION
IMHOFF TANK
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPTIC TANK
ROCK FILTER
SEPARATION
CHLORINE
SCREEN
FILTER
SIEVE
ABR
RBC
SBR
PST
FST
AT

1 Trickling Filter TF
2 Rotating Biological Contractor RBC
3 UASB-TF UASB-TF

POST-THICKENER
SEDIMENTATION
SLUDGE DRYING
SOLAR DRYING
STABILIZATION
DIRECT REUSE
COMPOSTING
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL
DEWATERING
TREATMENT
ANAEROBIC
THICKENER
THICKENER
DIGESTION
WETLAND
AEROBIC
SEPTAGE
GRAVITY
TANK
UASB
BED

1 Trickling Filter TF Typical component
Optional component (either additional or
2 Rotating Biological Contractor RBC
replacing another component)
3 UASB-TF UASB-TF
To meet the reuse requirements, it may be noted that TF, RBC, and UASB-TF will require
an additional (tertiary) disinfection stage, such as chlorination or UV.
136 Case Studies

Appendix A: Extended Aeration versus
Conventional Activated Sludge
Issues with the CAS Process

The conventional activated sludge (CAS) process is built around the idea that the total
reactor volume should be minimized, and despite the fact that CAS is one of the most
energy intensive of wastewater treatment technologies, energy consumption should
nevertheless be reduced along the wastewater treatment train. This, however, comes at a
price: capital expenditures (CAPEX) associated with electromechanical equipment increase,
even if CAPEX associated with civil works decrease to minimize reactor volume. This brings
about an increased dependence on control and automation systems, more challenging
maintenance requirements, and the need to establish the capacity for swift repairs and
to ensure efficient spare part management and procurement. These factors increase the
complexity of plant operation and point to the basic need for efficient administration and
skilled operators.
CAS systems generate two types of sludge, namely fresh sludge from the primary
sedimentation tanks and waste-activated sludge from the aeration tanks. Both require
stabilization to minimize the emission of bad odors during disposal or reuse. To that
end, CAS usually employs anaerobic sludge digesters, which are expensive to build and
difficult to operate. Anaerobic digesters indeed require large volumes, and in low- and
middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, about one-third of their total cost is associated
with the electromechanical installations required both within and outside the digesters.
In LMICs where the equipment often has a relatively higher price than the civil works, the
electromechanical components can amount to more than 50 percent of the total digester
cost. In addition, digesters are considered risky because methane is produced during
sludge digestion, which has caused several explosion incidents at wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) worldwide, including in high-income countries. Digester operation thus
requires skilled operators and well-established procedures for preventive maintenance.
Finally, it is important to underscore that the financial/economic assessment of CAS systems
almost always seeks to take advantage of the potential for the conversion of the generated
methane into electric energy—but such systems require high operation and maintenance
(O&M) skill levels. Thus, they will make financial/economic sense only in situations in which
energy unit costs are high and/or in which carbon credits for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions can be leveraged.
However, most of these conditions are typically not found in small-town settings of
LMICs. Consequently, the CAS process—or at least key components of its treatment

train—frequently fails in such environments. In digesters are therefore not needed. Because of a
fact, a WWTP using the CAS process but with larger total reactor volume (as compared with CAS),
malfunctioning digesters is associated with odor- CAPEX figures associated with the EA wastewater
related issues and complaints by neighbors and treatment train thus tend to increase, but the CAPEX
operators, so it can pose a severe risk to the plant’s figures associated with the sludge treatment train
security. In addition, if the digestion is not working are lower than those of CAS. In terms of total life-
properly, a domino effect can set in: The sludge cycle costs, EA usually comes out equal to or more
volume after digestion will be higher than designed, attractive than CAS for small and medium-sized
often overwhelming the complete downstream WWTPs. In many LMICs, the breakpoint at which
sludge treatment train. This in turn leads to even CAS becomes more financially attractive than EA
poorer dewatering results, further increasing the is associated with WWTPs designed for 100,000 to
dewatered sludge volume. Eventually, it may 500,000 population equivalents (PE). Only in high-
become difficult for the landfill operator to accept income countries can this threshold be set lower
sludge volumes that are larger than expected and than 100,000 PE.
that are of inferior quality, and the plant operator will For small-town WWTPs, the aforementioned
be forced to remove insufficient quantities of sludge factors—namely, financial costs, ease of operation,
from the wastewater treatment train. Consequences reduced safety risks, less problematic sludge disposal,
of such scenarios include an increase in the mixed and improved effluent quality compliance—all point
liquor suspended solids (MLSS), increased energy toward favoring EA rather than CAS. Consequently,
consumption, and a deterioration in effluent quality. CAS has been excluded from this guide at the
In summary, the CAS process at medium-sized preselection stage (see table 3.3), whereas EA
plants implies CAPEX figures that are comparable remains one of the technologies considered to be
with those of many other advanced technologies, appropriate by the guide.
such as extended aeration (EA), trickling filters
EA systems can be grouped into two fundamentally
(TF), and so on, but it also comes with serious risks
different flow regimes: (a) flow-through and
associated with unsuccessful O&M, increased
(b) batch-wise treatment variations. The most
operating expenditures (OPEX),1 and noncompliant
common configurations are as follows:
effluent quality. Such scenarios are in fact rather
frequent.
Flow-through
EA-Activated Sludge Systems ◾ Oxidation ditch EA: In this configuration, the

aeration tank is constructed as a closed-loop
Contrary to CAS, the EA alternative is simpler in channel, leading to what are called completely
that (a) it is not preceded by primary sedimentation mixed flow conditions. Water depth is only
tanks, and (b) as the waste-activated sludge is typically in the order of 2 meters, thus enabling
subjected to long retention times in the aeration the use of horizontal shaft mechanical aerator
tanks, no digesters are required to stabilize the brushes or similar installations. Vertical shaft
sludge. Sizing of the aeration tank volume ensures aerators can also sometimes be used and are
that the sludge stays sufficiently long in the aerobic located at the turning points toward the end
zones so that it can be considered stabilized of the loops. In general, aerators in oxidation
(represented by a high aerobic sludge age or low ditches not only provide the necessary oxygen
food to microorganism [F/M] ratios). Separate sludge for microorganisms but also provide horizontal
138 Appendix A: Extended Aeration versus Conventional Activated Sludge

FIGURE A1.1
Schematic Diagram of an Oxidation Ditch EA
carrousel type extended aeration
clarifier
brush aerator outlet
sludge
inlet brush aerator
recirculation
extracted sludge
thrust to facilitate constant movement and mixing efficiency, given that pressurized aeration is
of the wastewater-sludge mixture, thereby used; water depth is increased to 5 to 6 meters;
avoiding settlement of the sludge MLSS. aerated zones and nonaerated zones are
installed intermittently2 with high initial substrate
◾ Carrousel type EA: The tank configuration of
concentrations, allowing for faster biological
carrousel plants is a further development of
reaction rates; and smart automation systems
oxidation ditches, typically employed for larger
for the control of air supply are introduced,
WWTPs. Instead of a single closed-loop channel
complete with effluent quality control sensors
(with two 180-degree turning points, one at each
and frequency-controlled blowers.
end of the system), carrousel facilities typically
use tanks with four turning points, before the
loops are closed. Water depth is also often Batch-wise treatment
increased to 5 meters or more. To increase the
◾ Sequencing batch reactor (SBR) type EA: This
low-energy efficiency of mechanical surface
configuration employs batch-wise treatment of
aerators, the aeration system can be changed
the wastewater. In its classical variation, there
to a pressurized one at the bottom of the tank,
are at least two parallel SBR tanks, where one
but in such cases, horizontal flow thrust needs to
tank receives fresh flow (filling and treatment),
be introduced by the use of special mixers.
and in the second tank sludge is settled and
◾ Plug-flow type EA: In this configuration, tanks are the supernatant is withdrawn and discharged
shaped so that flow enters one end and leaves (sedimentation and discharge). After some time,
at the other (providing longitudinal flow or plug- following a timed program, the two tanks switch
flow conditions). This is mostly done to improve roles: The second tank receives fresh flow, and

FIGURE A1.2
Schematic Diagram of a Carrousel Type EA
oxidation ditch extended aeration
brush aerator
clarifier
outlet
brush aerator
sludge
inlet
recirculation
extracted sludge
FIGURE A1.3
Schematic Diagram of a Plug-Flow Type EA
plug-flow type extended aeration
inlet
clarifier
outlet
sludge
recirculation
extracted sludge
140 Appendix A: Extended Aeration versus Conventional Activated Sludge

the first one transitions to the sedimentation with no CAPEX advantages when compared
and discharge mode. Although the flow pattern with EA in a small-town context and poses
changes over the course of its operation, the serious O&M challenges, potentially leading
biological principles in the SBR remain identical to process failures. Such failures usually start
to the other EA configurations described earlier. with the malfunctioning of the digester, leading
The key difference lies in the fact that the aeration to odor issues, increased sludge volumes,
and the sedimentation take place in the same increased OPEX, problems with sludge disposal/
tank, allowing for the elimination of the piped reuse, and noncompliant effluent quality, not
interconnections between the aeration tanks and to mention potential complaints from nearby
the final sedimentation tanks, as well as for the populations and the plant operators.
piping for the return sludge pumping. In addition, ◾ EA is a simpler form of activated sludge that
the overall WWTP footprint can be reduced as may be suited for certain small-town WWTPs.
rectangular tanks closely aligned to one another In this guide, two different variations of EA are
can be used, and the classical traveling bridges presented: (a) EA representing the flow-through
in the final sedimentation tanks are no longer configurations and (b) SBR(EA) representing the
needed. Modern SBR systems also focus on batch-wise treatment configurations.
efficiency, employing 5- to 6-meter-deep tanks
and optimized aeration systems. In summary, Notes
SBR type EA systems present slightly lower
1. OPEX may increase for various reasons: (a) high maintenance/
CAPEX figures when compared with the other repair costs associated with electromechanical installations;
EA variations described earlier, whereas OPEX (b) inefficient digestion processes increasing the demand
figures are comparable to those of optimized (and costs) in polymers for sludge dewatering; (c) inefficient
digestion processes leading to higher sludge volumes and
completely mixed or plug-flow EA types.
thus higher sludge disposal costs; and (d) inefficient digestion
processes producing little or no biogas—therefore, electricity
has to be purchased fully from the grid to satisfy the WWTP’s
Conclusions needs.
2. Operating in an intermittent aeration mode allows for an
◾ This guide does not consider CAS to be improved nutrient effluent quality while minimizing OPEX
appropriate for small-town WWTPs: It comes associated with energy consumption.

References
Andreoli, C. V., Von Sperling, M., and Fernandes, F. 2007. Sludge Treatment and
Disposal. Vol. 6 of Biological Wastewater Treatment Series. London: IWA Publishing.
ARAconsult. 2018. “Evaluation of Sewage Treatment Options Meeting New Indian

Standards.” Technical Study, financed by KfW. 134. September.
Black & Veatch Corporation. 2010. “Chapter 6 – Disinfection of Wastewater.” In White’s

Handbook of Chlorination and Alternative Disinfectants. 5th ed. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons.
de Lemos Chernicharo, C. A. 2007. Anaerobic Reactors. Biological Wastewater

Treatment Series, Vol. 4. London: IWA.
Dotro G., Langergraber G., Molle P., Nivala J., Puigagut J., Stein O., and Sperling M. 2017.
Treatment Wetlands. Biological Wastewater Treatment Series, Vol. 7. London: IWA.
Economic Consulting Associates. 2015. Strengthening Public Institutions in Engaging

and Regulating Domestic Private Sector the Provision of Water and Sanitation
Services in Rural Growth Areas and Small Towns: Best Practice Report. London.
Enerhall, C., and Stenmark, S. 2012. “Disc Filters to Reduce Wastewater Pathogen
Levels in Raw Water Sources: Risk Reduction Potential for Göta älv.” Master of Science
Thesis 2012:54, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chalmers
University, Göteborg, Sweden.
ESMAP (Energy Sector Management Assistance Program). 2012. “A Primer on Energy

Efficiency for Municipal Water and Wastewater Utilities.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
Golla, Georges. 2014. “Définition d’un Outil d’Évaluation des Technologies Non
Conventionnelles de Traitement d’Eaux Usées.” Unpublished Report.
Helmer, R., Hespanhol, I., and World Health Organization. 1997. Water Pollution
Control: A Guide to the Use of Water Quality Management Principles. New York: E
& FN Spon.
Jimenez, B., Mara, D., Carr, R., and Brissaud, F. 2010. Wastewater Treatment for Pathogen
Removal and Nutrient Conservation: Suitable Systems for Use in Developing
Countries, IWMI Books, Report H042608. International Water Management Institute,
Colombo (Sri Lanka).
142 References
Jiménez, B., Maya, C., and Galván, M. 2007. “Helminth Ova Control in Wastewater and
Sludge for Advanced and Conventional Sanitation.” Water Science and Technology 56
(5): 43–51.
Kalogo, Y., and Monteith, H. D. 2008. State of Science Report: Energy and Resource
Recovery from Sludge. For the Global Water Research Coalition (GWRC), Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF), Alexandria (USA).
Kennedy-Walker, R., Mehta, N., Thomas, S., and Gambrill, M. 2020. “Connecting the
Unconnected. Approaches for Getting Households to Connect to Sewerage Networks.”
World Bank, Washington, DC.
LAS (League of Arab States), ESCWA (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for
Western Asia), and ACWUA (Arab Countries Water Utilities Association). 2016. MDG+
Initiative Second Report 2016. Amman, Jordan.
Metcalf & Eddy and Aecom. 2014. Wastewater Engineering, Treatment and Resource
Recovery. 5th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oakley, S., and Mihelcic, J. R. 2019. “Pathogen Reduction and Survival in Complete Treatment
Works.” In Water and Sanitation for the 21st Century: Health and Microbiological Aspects
of Excreta and Wastewater Management (Global Water Pathogen Project), edited by
J. B. Rose and B. Jiménez-Cisneros. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, MI UNESCO.
Rebhun, M., Heller-Grossman, L., and Manka, J. 1997. “Formation of Disinfection Byproducts
during Chlorination of Secondary Effluent and Renovated Water.” Water Environment
Research 69: 1154–62.
Rodriguez, D.J., Serrano, H.A., Delgado, A., Nolasco, D., Saltiel, G. 2020. “From Waste to
Resource: Shifting paradigms for smarter wastewater interventions in Latin America and
the Caribbean.” World Bank, Washington, DC.
“Science for Environment Policy.” 2018. European Commission DG Environment News

Alert Service, Issue 514, edited by SCU, The University of the West of England, Bristol.
Tilley, E., Ulrich, L., Lüthi, C., Reymond, Ph., Schertenleib, R., and Zurbrügg, C. 2014.
Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies. 2nd rev. ed. Dübendorf,
Switzerland: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag).
UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. 2017. The United Nations World Water
Development Report 2017: Wastewater: The Untapped Resource. Paris.
Vazquez Alvarez, V., and Buchauer, K. 2014. “East Asia and Pacific: Wastewater to Energy
Processes: A Technical Note for Utility Managers in EAP Countries.” World Bank,
Washington, DC.
WHO (World Health Organization). 2006. “Volume 4: Excreta and Greywater Use in
Agriculture.” In Guidelines for the Safe Use of Wastewater, Excreta and Greywater.
Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.

WHO (World Health Organization) and UNESCO (United Nations Children’s Fund).
2017. Progress on Drinking Water, Sanitation and Hygiene: 2017 Update and SDG
Baselines. Geneva.
World Bank. 2020. “Resilient Water Infrastructure Design Brief.” Washington, DC.
https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/epdf/10.1596/34448.
144 References
About the Water Global Practice
Launched in 2014, the World Bank Group’s Water Global Practice brings together financing,
knowledge, and implementation in one platform. By combining the Bank’s global knowledge with
country investments, this model generates more firepower for transformational solutions to help
countries grow sustainably.
Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/water or follow us on Twitter: @WorldBankWater.
About GWSP
This publication received the support of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership
(GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor trust fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global
Practice and supported by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austria’s Federal
Ministry of Finance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International Development Cooperation
Agency, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Please visit us at www.worldbank.org/gwsp or follow us on Twitter: @TheGwsp.
WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE

AND REUSE
Jean-Martin Brault,
Konrad Buchauer,
and Martin Gambrill
Brault, Buchauer, and Gambrill
W21009

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: A Guide To Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: A Guide To Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse: A Guide To Help Small Towns Select Appropriate Options

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized

WATER GLOBAL PRACTICE