J . Chem. Tech. Biotechnol.

1991, 52, 291-300

The Preliminary Treatment of Wastewater

John M. Sidwick
Environmental Advisor, Juniper Cottage, Juniper Hill, Brackley,
Northants "13 5RH, UK

(Received 30 May 1990; accepted 3 February 1991)

ABSTRACT

A commentary on the 'state of the art' of the pretreatment of wastewaters

with emphasis on the removal of grit and screening practices and the
importance of other preliminary treatment processes as essential first stages
in most wastewater treatment systems. Note is made of the lack of attention
paid to preliminary treatment processes historically and on the paucity of
knowledge of the mechanisms involved even today. However, there are
developments and not only are conventional preliminary treatment processes
reviewed, new processes are discussed and an attempt is made to forecast
future trends.

Key words: grit removal, grit separation, industrial wastewater, physical

treatment, preliminary treatment, pretreatment, screening, treatment
processes, wastewater treatment.

INTRODUCTION

This article is not offered as a scientific treatise on the mechanisms of the

preliminary treatment of wastewater. It is a commentary on the 'state of the art'
presented, most importantly, to emphasise the absence of any real knowledge of
an important element of wastewater treatment, to draw attention to this very real
importance, and to offer a general exposition of preliminary treatment which
hopefully will be found to be informative to the specialist and generalist alike.
It might be argued that the preliminary treatment of wastewater is a physical
stage in a wastewater treatment sequence and that, as such, has little to do with
chemical technology or with biotechnology. Pedantically perhaps this might be
so, but preliminary treatment is an essential first stage in most biotechnologically-
based wastewater treatment systems and its effectiveness (or, more often, its

29 1

J Chem Tech Biotechnol 0268-2575/91/$03 50 (( 1991 SCI. Printed in Great Britain

292 J . M . Sidwick

ineffectiveness) can have very significant effects on all subsequent processes.

Pretreatment should always be perceived as being an important and intrinsic
component of the biotechnological whole. Indeed, if nothing else, this article might
help to direct the thinking of the designers of wastewater treatment systems towards
an area of treatment that they too often disregard, or at best regard as being of
relatively little consequence. In reality the preliminary treatment of wastewater is
just one element in the biotechnological whole and requires much more conceptual
attention than it usually receives if optimum overall operational efficiency and
economy are to be achieved.

PRELIMINARY TREATMENT

Preliminary treatment has been defined as the removal or disintegration of gross

solids in sewage and the removal of grit prior to sedimentation and/or biological
treatment.’ More recently’ a broader definition has been given;
‘The removal of screenings . . . is not only the physical removal of solids
present.. . by screens, but also their in-flow or side-stream disintegration.
Since the removal of screenings cannot be considered in isolation [the
definition also includes] ancillary, but important activities, such as conveying,
washing, dewatering, bagging and incineration as well as final disposal of
screenings.’
In the same reference the removal of grit from sewage was considered as including
not only the initial separation of grit from wastewater but also its removal from
the separation unit and subsequent treatment and disposal.
The definitions were related specifically to sewage (municipal wastewater) but
are equally valid for industrial wastewater (sometimes referred to as ‘trade effluent’)
of a nature requiring the separation from it of screenable materials or grit,
particularly if the latter is defined as including all potentially-troublesome heavy
components that have a settling velocity significantly greater than that of other
discrete solids that may be present.
Preliminary treatment is sometimes also said to include the separation from
wastewater of grease and/or oil. Grease and oil may be present in troublesome
quantities in some sewages, particularly where large quantities of oil are used for
cooking (e.g., some Mediterranean areas), in wastewaters from mass-catering units
(e.g., military camps and restaurants) and in a number of industrial wastewaters.
However, the need for a separate removal stage for grease/oil is unusual and where
removal is required the needs are often site-specific. The removal of grease and/or
oil is not considered further here.

HISTORICAL PRACTICE

Perhaps surprisingly, preliminary treatment is often considered as being of little

significance and, historically, it has attracted limited attention. It has generally
been appreciated that gross adventitious materials such as rags are best removed
The preliminary treatment of wastewater 293

from wastewater at an early stage to avoid their appearance in downstream

treatment processes; and that non-organic abrasive materials should be removed
from the wastewater stream to avoid undue wear of pumps and troublesome
settlement in pipes and chambers. However, the status of preliminary treatment
was, until very recently, such that little thought was generally given to the
mechanisms of the process, or t o the real effectiveness of the separation techniques
involved. The attitude was very much to install something at the inlet of a
wastewater treatment works because that was normal practice and there had to
be some benefit, albeit one that could not be quantified: anyway it didn’t cost or
matter much!
From an early stage the preliminary treatment of wastewater was almost always
limited to the separation of screenings using medium-bar screens (screens with
spacings between bars of 15-50 mm) and the separation of grit to simple settlement
tanks or ‘pits’-detritus tanks. (Definitions are given in Ref. 1.) The disintegration
of screenings was also practised sometimes, usually with disintegrating pumps in
situations where pumping was a requirement anyway; and mechanical detritus
tanks (detritors) were installed at some larger treatment works. In-line
disintegration of screenings in wastewater flow using comminutors was also
developed at a fairly early stage (c. 1938) to become quite common practice as a
substitute for screening on larger works.
Throughout these ‘dark ages’ the generally perceived, and commonly quoted,
optimum means of screenings and grit disposal were to ‘bury screenings on site’
and use grit ‘to make up paths on site’. The burial of screenings, themselves highly
objectionable and putrescent, usually results (and, indeed, often still results) in
serious smell and rodent nuisance, even when well controlled; and the high organic
content of the ‘grit’ made its utility as a material for paths at best questionable.
The quality of grit was improved somewhat by the introduction of hydrocyclone
grit washers but the reality was that screenings and grit were usually dumped, to
quote a well-known report, ‘out of sight and out of mind’ in some odd corner of
the treatment works.
Until relatively recently there were really very few developments in wastewater
screening practice. Mechanical raking mechanisms became less cumbersome and
more reliable and were progressively more available for fitting to smaller screens,
eventually to become capable of installation on the smallest treatment works.
Rotary screens were developed which, fitted with a screening mesh rather than
bars, allowed for finer screening: but these were perceived as being expensive and
their use was generally restricted to the screening of sewage prior to discharge
directly to the aquatic environment (commonly to sea), and to the pretreatment
prior to discharge to public sewer of a few industrial wastewaters where cost
savings could be clearly demonstrated by reduced effluent charges.
There were some concurrent developments in grit separation practices, notably
the constant-velocity grit channel (1933), and to a much lesser extent and
two decades later (introduced to Britain from the USA in 1957), the aerated
spiral-flow grit channel. These new systems, and particularly the aerated spiral-flow
channel, were, however, restricted in application to larger wastewater treatment
works.
294 J . M . Sidwick

Thus, until comparatively recently the principal preliminary treatment options

available to the designer were medium-bar screens and disintegrators (including
comminutors) for screening; and detritus pits, detritors, constant-velocity channels
and spiral-flow channels for grit removal. The possibility of using fine screens was
never considered except in very particular circumstances. The choices were,
therefore, very limited. However, if choice was limited, data upon which to make
selection were even more limited. Nothing of any real significance was known of
the real efficiencies of the available systems and selection was, in consequence,
always made solely on the basis of subjective preference based on habit or, perhaps,
on a judgement of mechanical reliability : there were no scientific alternatives.
This surprising situation is exemplified by a Manual of Practice on preliminary
processes published by the Institute of Water Pollution Control less than 20 years
ago.3 Some sparse and unscientific data were given on preliminary treatment unit
efficiencies but, whilst they were unarguably the best available at the time, they
were sadly lacking in any real value to the designer. The Manual also offers no
specific advice on preliminary treatment process selection: not because the
compilers were inadequate, rather, they had no information available to them
upon which to base definitive impartial guidance: information simply did not exist.
A similar difficulty was experienced more recently by the author. In 1983 a
research project was initiated by the Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA) with funding from the Water Research Centre
(WRc). The objective of the project was to examine the problems caused by the
presence of screenings and grit in sewage that adversely affect storm sewage
overflows, pumping stations, sewage treatment works and marine outfalls:
emphasis was on sewerage and sewage treatment but attention was also paid to
industrial wastewaters during the project. Attention was to be placed on costs,
particularly the costs attendant with overcoming identified problems, and
recommendations were to be made regarding identified improvements. Finally,
recommendations were also to be made on the type and performance of screenings
and grit separation plant for specified duty requirements.
It soon became very evident that there was a remarkable paucity of data.
Considerable time and effort were spent on trying to identify data. Extensive
searches of international data banks were carried out by the WRc and well over
200 detailed questionnaires were completed by Regional Water Authorities in
England and Wales, by Regional Councils in Scotland, by the Department of the
Environment in Northern Ireland, by Government Departments, Universities and
Polytechnics, and by private and academic respondents from the UK and overseas.
The outcome of this extensive exercise was the accumulation of considerable
information on the type of preliminary treatment plant installed but virtually
nothing on the reasoning for selection, or on unit efficiency.
Three CIRIA Technical Notes and a Project Record resulted from extensive
These reports comprehensively met perhaps 90 per cent of the project
objectives but many of the conclusions and recommendations were necessarily
based on experience and informed opinion rather than on scientific evidence.
The last of the three Technical Notes was published in 1988.5 In the short time
since then very little has changed in the field of preliminary treatment in terms of
The preliminary treatment of wastewater 295

gaining a basic scientific understanding of process mechanisms and there is no

clear, non-subjective consensus on what should be used where, and why.
Certainly there remains a singular and regrettable lack of any sensible method
for assessing the efficiencies of screens or disintegrators. Designers and operators
are much more aware now of the need for screening and grit removal ‘adequately’
to meet the needs of any particular situation, which is a large intellectual stride
from the ignorance and indifference of the recent past, but, although the needs
can be defined subjectively, it is still impossible with confidence to select the most
economical and efficient plant for particular needs. The key element of decision
making should not, but does, remain the unquantifiable and often doubtful
attributes of experience and ‘intuition’, particularly in the selection of a screening
device. The situation with grit separation is a little better because grit can be
graded easily and its organic content can be determined; but there is still no
accepted means of determining how much grit has not been separated, which is
really more important than knowing how much actually has been separated.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PRACTICES

Due to the continuing absence of any method of determining unit efficiency, and
hence sensibly comparing different preliminary treatment systems, there have been
no scientifically-based developments even with the increasing awareness that
preliminary treatment practices are often far from being ideal. However, some
initiatives have been taken, particularly by manufacturers of wastewater treatment
equipment; and more often abroad than in the UK. Commonly, these initiatives
have been taken either because of direct environmental pressures (e.g., the discharge
of wastewaters to the environment after preliminary treatment only) or, in the
case of industrial wastewaters, where reductions in solids concentrations have been
either obligatory, or desirable to reduce ‘trade effluent charges’. Until very recently
the same pressures have not been felt by public authorities operating ‘full treatment’
at sewage treatment works since any additional downstream treatment costs due
to inefficient preliminary treatment could be easily absorbed (if they were even
identified!), and any downstream problems were usually seen as being inevitable,
acceptable and affordable (an attitude that was demonstrated all too often in the
responses made in the questionnaires completed as part of the CIRIA Project2*6).
Perhaps one of the most significant advances in the area of screening has been
a negative one: the realisation by many that comminution usually does more harm
than good-although there remains an anachronistic minority that would
vociferously disagree with this. But the reality is that comminutors are only effective
as long as they are maintained in virtually pristine condition and that the expense
and manpower needed to achieve this is unacceptable in sensible practice. When
comminutors are not maintained in peak condition, and they almost never are,
they act as little more than effective shredders of rags and plastics, the shredded
material passing forward to cause major downstream problems. In the light of
current knowledge and financial constraints comminutors would not be considered
296 J . M . Sidwick

seriously by the unbiased and informed designer for any normal wastewater
treatment application.
However, this is most certainly not to discount in-line disintegration as a concept:
noting that comminutors are only one type of in-line disintegrator. Indeed, there
is a strong current trend towards installing at least one type of in-line disintegrator,
the MonoMuncher (Mono Pumps Ltd, Manchester, UK), for dealing with
screenings problems on smaller wastewater treatment works. Unlike the
comminutor the MonoMuncher does not require an expensive, tailor-made
structure and can often be arranged to fit into an existing channel: also,
maintenance costs are not excessive. The principal disadvantage of the machine
is that it is unsuitable for larger works, because of the need for a multiplicity of
machines for large flows, except as a side-stream disintegrator for treatment of
screenings that have already been separated from the wastewater flow. It is worthy
of note that in-flow disintegration was recommended from the CIRIA work as a
practicable and preferred option for treating screenings on small sewage treatment
works with an available electrical power supply.2
Developments have also been taking place in the area of fine screening, not
least because of the availability of new screening media, notably wedge wire
and perforated plastics. Both static run-down screens and rotary screens have been
focuses of attention. The main disadvantages of both systems are that they demand
a significant head loss and that they are relatively expensive. Also, the separated
screenings usually (but not always) have a high organic content which is commonly,
if wrongly, perceived as being another major disadvantage. Conversely, the
solids-separation efficiency of these screens is not in doubt since they are capable
of separating all materials at least down to the nominal size of the screening
medium, which can be 0.5 mm, or even less. Static run-down screens first gained
favour for use on industrial wastewaters and this remains their most common
application. Fine rotary screens are probably most usual for screening crude sewage
prior to its direct discharge to sea.
There have also been developments in medium screening. There are some items
of equipment currently available that have particular features. The Vickery’s
AquaGuard (Vickerys Ltd, Greenwich, London, UK) is a continuous
self-cleansing,bar-type screen that traps screenings, removes them from the sewage
flow without using a raking mechanism, and ejects them onto a conveyor, or into
a launder or container. The SAE Akua-Scalper is a continuous travelling-belt
screen. The Robert Hudson Bio-Screen elevates screenings, at the same time
partially dewatering them.2 Also, there is a very recent development from Norway,
the Masko-Zoll Screen (Fsrre Rsrveksted of Fsrdesfjorden), which can be a fine
or a medium screen depending on the size of the screening apertures and which
seems to offer an unusually high degree of separation efficiency and a relatively
clean product at low cost and, importantly, without need for an electricity supply.’
This patented equipment has been running successfully on full scale at two plants
in Norway for over a year and UK licensees are currently being sought (see
Acknowledgements). Doubtless, there are other systems being developed of which
the author has no knowledge now that the importance of effective screening is
becoming progressively better appreciated.
The preliminary treatment of wastewater 291

Another ‘development’ must be mentioned. There is a growing school of thought

that with some types of treatment plant screening should be omitted altogether
as a preliminary treatment stage. For example, it can sensibly be argued that there
is no need to screen wastewater prior to its biological treatment in an oxidation
ditch, providing there is no preceding primary sedimentation stage. The rationale
is that the screenings are thoroughly washed during their retention in the oxidation
ditch and that significantly smaller quantities of much cleaner screenings will pass
out of the oxidation ditch with displaced mixed liquor from which they can easily
be separated by screening to result in a clean product. Antagonists argue that this
practice results in an objectionable accumulation of screenings on oxidation ditch
aeration rotors but this is not so.
Developments in grit separation are fewer. Probably the principal ones have
been the introduction of the Pista grit trap (Jones and Attwood Ltd, W. Midlands,
UK) and of an alternative manufacture of the Dorr-type detritor (Ames Crosta
Babcock Ltd), but these developments are not very recent. More recently, although
not innovative in principle, quite a lot of attention is being paid to cyclone and
vortex grit separation systems: variants are available commercially, with the
probability that there will be others arising from current research programmes,
notably by a few UK polytechnics and universities.
An area in which considerable development has taken place is that of the
treatment and handling of separated screenings. For very many years screenings
have been perceived as being a highly objectionable product of wastewater
treatment, but unavoidably so. Due to the increasing concern about aesthetic
problems and potential health hazard, not least from operators, and problems of
ultimate disposal, steps have been taken to improve screenings quality and
handling techniques.
The main areas of development have been the introduction of screenings washers
and screenings dewatering systems (often in combination), and of mechanical
handling and transport systems, including automatic screenings bagging machines.
Some attention has also been paid to the development of dedicated screenings
incinerators, with at least one notable success, but incineration of screenings alone
is seldom, if sometimes wrongly, perceived as being an economic solution to
screenings disposal problems.
Some proprietory items of equipment achieve more than one operation. For
example, the Screezer (Jones and Attwood Ltd, West Midlands, UK) removes
screenings from the wastewater flow and then washes and presses them. This
equipment was developed from the comminutor, although the in-flow
‘comminutor’ element of the Screezer is no more than a screening device-it has
no cutting or disintegrating capability. The separated screenings are elevated from
the wastewater flow to an above-ground screenings washerlpress. The washed and
(dewatered screenings are relatively innocuous and may easily be disposed of by
any means appropriate to the local situation. A big advantage of the Screezer is
that it is designed easily to fit into existing structures that were originally designed
for comminutors.
A disadvantage of the Screezer is that it is not ideally suited to larger treatment
works where an unacceptable multiplicity of machines could be necessary (since
298 J . M . Sidwick

each is flow-limited). For this reason the manufacturers have developed a larger
and quite separate washing and pressing unit that is capable of achieving the same
high product quality as the Screezer, but at a much greater throughput.
Another example of equipment that achieves a relatively clean and dry end
product is the C & H Screenings Conditioner (The Haigh Engineering Co. Ltd).
This unit accepts as a feed screenings that have been separated conventionally
from the wastewater flow. It is a discrete and self-contained unit. Essentially, the
system fluidises objectionable organic solids by multiple-pass disintegration and
then separates the clean screenings from the liquid phase in a separating unit that
may crudely be likened to a spin drier. As with the Screezer the Screenings
Conditioner produces a relatively clean and easily-disposable end product.
Another system that achieves the same product quality, but without using
disintegration, is the Longwood Screenings Washer/Dewaterer. This machine was
developed from the commonly-used and effective Longwood ‘D’-Screen. It is
esseiitially two variants of the ‘D’-Screen operating sequentially: the first stage
operates as a washing/cleaning device, the second as a dewaterer.
There are other systems available that d o nothing more than dewater the
screenings in the form in which they are received after separation from the
wastewater flow. These machines operate at much higher pressures than washer/
dewaterers because of the greater resistance to dewatering of the much ‘dirtier’
screenings and equipment costs are high in consequence. Also, because of the
feedstock quality the press product is much more objectionable than a washed/
dewatered product. It is worth noting, however, that in common with all treatment
systems no single stage should be considered in isolation and it may be that a
‘dirty’ product could be advantageous. For example, a high organic content gives
a relatively high calorific value that can be an attractive feature if the screenings
are to be incinerated.
Discussion of preliminary treatment has essentially been restricted to situations
in which wastewater is screened and grit is removed from it at a treatment plant
designed and operated as a self-contained unit. However, largely because of labour
shortages and costs, there has recently become apparent a trend towards more
centralisation, particularly of sewage treatment facilities. In the context of this
article thought is increasingly being given to reducing preliminary treatment as
far as possible at smaller treatment works or, indeed, to eliminating it altogether.
But, of course, it is very seldom that preliminary treatment can be avoided: the
best that can be achieved is to transfer the treatment to some other point. One
option that is gaining in popularity is to allow screenings to settle out with the
primary sludge and then to transfer the settled sludge to a central treatment works.
Although this involves transport costs there are usually overall operational,
environmental and cost benefits. Sludge screening is not an area to be addressed
in depth here; but it is worth noting that the practice is increasingly being
introduced at larger treatment works. The screening of sludge can generate very
unpleasant screenings, but significantly reduces problems that can be caused by
screenings in subsequent sludge treatment processes and with the ultimate disposal
of the sludge, particularly where disposal is to agricultural land.
Grit separation, too, may be avoided at small treatment works. If a grit
The preliminary treatment of wastewater 299

separation unit is not installed then it is usual practice to allow the grit to settle
out with the primary sludge. Often the settled sludge is then transported to a
central works where it is discharged to the inlet of that works prior to grit separation
there. This technique has its drawbacks, not least the transfer of some of the
polluting content of the transported sludge from the solid to the liquid phase and
the consequential increase in the biological load on the central works treatment
units. A much better alternative would be to separate the grit from the transported
sludge itself, albeit also at the central works, but there is no economic means of
doing this at present.
Another option of interest is the growing perception that it is acceptable practice
to allow grit to be separated in oxidation ditches. Historically this has been thought
to be bad practice but the rate of accumulation in an oxidation ditch is not great
in the context of total ditch capacity and the need occasionally to remove settled
grit can often be an acceptable and small burden, particularly since the grit has
been thoroughly washed prior to its settlement by the agitating action within the
oxidation ditch.

THE FUTURE

At risk of repetition it must be emphasised that an urgent future thrust must be

to develop techniques to allow the efficiencies of different screening practices and
devices to be measured reliably and meaningfully. Two of the principal
recommendations of CIRIA Technical Note 119’ emphasise this;
‘It is recommended that techniques be developed whereby the efficiencies of
screenings and grit removal units can be measured. It is recommended that
carefully-structured investigations should be initiated to qualify and quantify
the screenings and grit that may be expected to arise in commonly-experienced
situations.’
These recommendations must be acted upon if the present nonsense is to be
perpetuated whereby preliminary treatment plant is still selected without any real
knowledge of its efficiency. There are new developments that seem to offer benefit,
like the Masko-Zoll equipment, and there will be others, but the impossibility of
determining their efficiencies in comparative terms will inevitably diminish their
acceptability.
Suitable techniques for measuring the effectiveness of preliminary treatment
systems must be developed as there is a continuing growth in the general awareness
that preliminary treatment really is important and is a legitimate and
environmentally-beneficial area of technical and scientific application and
development.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author is grateful to the Construction Industry Research and Information

Association, 6 Storey’s Gate, London SWlP 3AU and to Defence Technology
300 J . M . Sidwick

Enterprises L t d ; Silbury Boulevard, Milton Keynes M K 9 2HA, for allowing him

to draw upon reports for which they hold copyright.

REFERENCES

1. Institute of Water Pollution Control. Glossary of terms used in water pollution control,
The Institute of Water Pollution Control, Maidstone, 1978.
2 . Sidwick, J. M., Screenings and grit in sewage-Removal, treatment and disposal:
Preliminary report, Technical Note 119, Construction Industry Research and
Information Association/Water Research Centre, London, 1984.
3. Institute of Water Pollution Control, Manuals of practice in water pollution control,
Preliminary processes, The Institute of Water Pollution Control, Maidstone, 1972.
4. Sidwick, J. M., Screenings and grit in sewage-Removal, treatment and disposal: Phase
2: Further cost aspects of screening practice, Technical Note 122, Construction Industry
Research and Information Association/Water Research Centre, London, 1985.
5. Sidwick, J. M., Screenings and grit in sewage-Removal, treatment and disposal: Phase 3:
Storm water overflows and pumping stations, Technical Note 132, Construction
Industry Research and Information Association/Water Research Centre, London, 1988.
6. Sidwick, J. M., Screenings and grit in sewage-Removal, treatment and disposal:
Questionnaire data, Project Record R P 329 Construction Industry Research and
Information Association/Water Research Centre, London, 1988.
7. Sidwick, J. M., Technical report on the Masko-Zoll screening equipment, Defence
Technology Enterprises Ltd, Milton Keynes, February 1990 (Confidential Report).