Effect of physico-chemical pretreatment on the removal [Read-Only] [Compatibility Mode]
-
Upload
munanura-james -
Category
Documents
-
view
110 -
download
1
Transcript of Effect of physico-chemical pretreatment on the removal [Read-Only] [Compatibility Mode]
Effect of physico-chemical
pretreatment on the removal
efficiency of horizontal
subsurface-flow constructed
wetlandswetlands
Aracelly Caselles-Osorio and Joan Garcia (2006).
Review and Presentation by:
MUNANURA JAMES.
REG: NO: 2011/HD13/4234X
STUDENT NO: 211017023
APRIL 2013
INTRODUCTION
• Application of (SSF
CWs) for sanitation
of urban
wastewaters has
proven their proven their
feasibility for
removing organic
matter, nitrogen and
other contaminants.
INTRODUCTION
• Effect of a physico-chemical pretreatment on
contaminant removal efficiency in two
experimental horizontal subsurface- flow
constructed wetlands (SSF CWs).constructed wetlands (SSF CWs).
• One SSF CW was fed with settled urban
wastewater.
• Other with the same wastewater after it had
undergone a physico-chemical pretreatment.
INTRODUCTION
• The efficiency of the two systems was tested
under different conditions.
• At the end of the experiments, the hydraulic
conductivity was measured to determine how conductivity was measured to determine how
the physico-chemical treatment helped to
maintain it.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
• One of the problems affecting the efficiency of SSF CW efficiency is the progressive clogging that that occurs near the inlet as a result of solids entrapment and sedimentation, bio-film growth and chemical precipitation.growth and chemical precipitation.
• To prevent clogging use of intensive pretreatment processes would improve removal efficiency. (Coagulation, Floculation, Clarification)
OBJECTIVE
• To evaluate the effect of a physico-chemical
pretreatment on the effluent quality of SSF
CWs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• EXPERIMENTAL SSF CW.
• The two SSF CWs consisted of plasticContainers (0.93 m long, 0.59 m wide and 0.52m deep) filled with gravel extracted from nearm deep) filled with gravel extracted from nearthe outlet of one bed of a pilot SSF CWsystem.
• Each container had a drainage pipe located on the bottom of the effluent side. The bottom was flat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• The experimental SSF CWs were planted in June 2004 with developed rhizomes of common reed (Phragmites australis).
INFLUENTS AND FEEDING STRATEGY.
Both SSF CWs were fed daily in batch mode.• Both SSF CWs were fed daily in batch mode.
• One SSF CW was fed with primary settled wastewater (known as PE), and the other with the same settled wastewater (known as PTPE), after it had undergone a physico-chemical pretreatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS.
• INFLUENTS AND FEEDING STRATEGY.
• This feeding strategy was used instead of
continuous operation to avoid solids
sedimentation and adsorption onto the walls sedimentation and adsorption onto the walls
of tanks and pipes.
• Batch operation, is good for comparison of the
performance of the two experimental SSF
CWs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
• Hydraulic conductivity tests (HCTs).
• HCTs were carried out near the inlet of each
SSF CW (in exactly the same position) in order
to examine the effect of the pretreatment onto examine the effect of the pretreatment on
the hydraulic conductivity of the granular
medium.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• The waste water Temperature, Turbidity,
Electrical conductivity and evapotranspitation
were measured.
• Temp = Similar.• Temp = Similar.
• Turbidity reduced by physico-chemical pre-
treatment.
• As HRT increases the turbidity increases i.e. (2
day HRT).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• EXPLANATION FOR HIGHER TURBIDITY WITH
HIGH (HRT).
• Precipitation of CaCO3 and other carbonate
salts. salts.
• Formation of elemental sulphur from H2S.
• Presence of Sulphate reducing bacteria.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY.
• In general electrical conductivity slightly
higher in effluent than influents. Probably due
evapotranspiration.evapotranspiration.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
• (COD) Conc.
Changes.
COD CONC. CHANGES
• Influent PTPE COD < Influent PE COD. Due to physico-chemical treatment.
• Effluent Conc. COD PTPE < Effluent Conc. COD PE. When surface loading was very high in both SSF.
Global effluent COD conc. Differences between • Global effluent COD conc. Differences between the two SSF CWs were statistically significant.
• COD percentage removal efficiencies and COD mass surface removal rates were higher in the PE SSF CW due to the greater influent COD concentration.
COD CONC. CHANGES.
• The trend shows that the efficiency of SSF CW
systems cannot be evaluated using just the
removal percentage or the mass surface
removal rate, because it depends on the removal rate, because it depends on the
influent properties and not on the effluent
quality.
CHANGES IN NH3 Nitrogen.
CHANGES IN SULPHATE CONC.
CONCLUSION
• Use of a physico-chemical treatment as a preliminary step for SSF CWs did not improve the quality of the effluents in terms of turbidity, COD and ammonia N.
• After 8 months of operation the SSF CW fed with • After 8 months of operation the SSF CW fed with PE had a lower hydraulic conductivity than the SSF CW fed with PTPE.
• It was estimated that the physico-chemical pretreatment allowed to extend the life-span of the SSF in approximately 10 years in comparison to the SSF fed with settled wastewater.
CONCLUSION
• Physico-chemical treatment has certain
requirements that can make this process
unsuitable in the context of constructed
wetlands technology:wetlands technology:
�Cost of coagulants.
�Energy for adding and mixing coagulants.
�Sludge handling.
CONCLUSION
• Physicochemical pretreatment can
significantly extend the life-span of the SSF
CWs and at the same time be economically
viable.viable.
• One other possible advantage of the physico-
chemical pretreatment could be the additional
removal of phosphorus.
THANK YOU.