International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

1 2

What are the requirements for a WWTP

of the future?
• High quality of treated water
– Pollution prevention
• Recover of wastewater resources
– The treated water (water reuse), energy and possibly nutrients (P)
• Low residuals (sludge) production
– Wastewater sludge should be used as a resource – not a waste
• Compact treatment processes (low space requirement)
– Availability of space increasingly more limited in urban areas – under roof
or underground plants
• Energy self-sufficient and minimal carbon foot-print
– Minimized energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

SET AS

3 4

How can we achieve energy neutrality ? What is deammonification?

Partial nitritation – Anaerobic ammonia oxidation (Anammox)
• Use anaerobic digestion for energy Distribution of energy usage for a typical
recovery from sludge BNR WWTP in the USA Nitrogen transformations Benefits of deammonification:
(400 000 m3/d Nitrifying Activated Sludge Facility) (Neethling et al, 2014)
• Produce sludge with high biogas potential 1. No carbon source needed
• Enhance digestion (thermal hydrolysis, THP) 2. Lower oxygen (energy) consumption
• 60 % lower
• Reduce pumping
3. Lower alkalinity consumption
• Primarily for return activated sludge (RAS) –
• 50 % lower
200-400 % of inflow
4. Lower sludge production
• Use biofilm processes (no RAS needed)
• >70 % lower
• Reduce aeration
Activated sludge aeration accounts for 50% of
energy demand • Proven technology
• Remove the particulate BOD directly by MOP 323, WEF 2009 in sidetream (reject)
physical/chemical methods
• Use deammonification processes – an • In R&D-stage in
alternative to nitrification/denitrification Deammonification – red lines main-stream
SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 1
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

5 6

Flow diagram example for a compact WWTP

My discussion based on proven technologies
Gas-motor, CHP
Biogas El
Termal
hydrolysis gas storage gas storage
scum layer Heat

I will discuss compact process technologies that may be used to meet the supernatant
layer
super-
natant

sludge digested
Dewatering Incineration
requirements we set for the WWTP of the future - by the use of two example Sludge
heater sludge

thickener
flow diagrams : return sludge

Anaerobic
stabilised
sludge

digestion
Ash

Deammonification
1. One based on well known compact technologies that are in use today Sludge (>4 % TS)
to biogas-plant
in MBBR-based IFAS

– Nitrification/denitrification for N-removal and deammonification in side-

stream Coagulant Sludge

Hydrocyclon Coagulant
Coagulant M Microsand
M M M

Outlet

2. The other based on emerging technologies, particularly Inlet

Coagulant

O3
– Deammonification for N-removal in the mainstream as well as the side-stream An Ae An
Injection Flocculation
Coagulation
Polymer
Lamella-
-
sedimentation

Fine-sieve Coagulation/DAF Combined pre- and post-DN Flocculation/lamella settling Micro Ozon- CMF Water
for pre- separation for MBBR for N- removal in compact separation sieve ation for
treatment P- rem. unit for biomass removal reuse
Ødegaard, 2015
SET AS SET AS

7 8

A compact primary stage A compact secondary stage

• A fine sieve (< 1mm) - for primary Carbon
• Coagulation /flocculation – for org. particles and P Fine (< 1mm) Coagulation/Flocculation Combined pre- and post-denitrification based on
• Dissolved air flotation (DAF) – for high sludge DS band sieve Dissolved air flotation
moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR)
Classification of organic matter in ww Anox
Anox Aerob
Classification
Size range Soluble Colloidal Supracoll. Settleable • Pure MBBR systems
< 0.08µm 0.08–1.0µm 1-100µm > 100µm o Carrier filling fraction
COD (% of total) 25 15 26 34 anything from 0% to 65 %
BOD (% of total) 31 14 24 31 o Commonly :
Grease (% of TS) 12 51 24 19
55-60 % in anoxic
Protein “ 4 25 45 25

60-65 % in aerobic
Carbohydrates “ 58 7 11 24
Biochemical
• Hybrid activated sludge/
oxidation rate, d-1 0.39 0.22 0.09 0.08 biofilm systems (IFAS) :
Balmat (1957), Heukelekian and Balmat (1959)
50-55 % in anoxic

55-60 % in aerobic
A very substantial portion (65 – 75 %) of the organic matter and energy potential of o Mostly used for upgrading of
the wastewater is associated with particles (suspended and colloidal)!! activated sludge plants
SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 2
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

9 10

Norwegian experiences with combined-

The combined pre- and post-DN MBBR denitrification MBBR plants
Low recirculation Nitrification rate DN-rate controlled MBBR
of oxygen controlled through O2 by carbon addition Temperature (oC) 3-14
Carrier fill fraction (%) 65,0
DN-rates with external carbon sources Average (max) HRT (hrs) 3,2 (2,0)
Recycle of NO3 Carbon
(practical results from combined-DN plant) Carbon source Ethanol
5
g CODadded/g TNequiv 3.3

Denitrification rate, g NO3-N/m /d

Ethanol

2
Methanol
4 Monopropylene glycol
Efficiency, 2005 Out (mg/l) Rem. (%)
3 BOD5 2,2 99
COD 35 93
2
WWTP of Lillehammer Tot N 2,9 92
1 (The 1994 Winter Olympic City) Tot P 0.12 98

0
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Temperature, °C Nowatek certification results - NRA WWTP • Overall energy consumption:
• Aerated when larger nitrification Nitrification - not aerated Rusten et al, 1996 - 0.245 kWh/m3 wastewater
B OD 5 T otal N N H 4 -N N O x -N
volume is needed (winter). O2 consumption only -
P rim a r y e f flu e n t 68 30 20 0 .0 1 • External carbon source added:
• Not aerated in summer – more in order to reduce the R e a c to r 4 e fflu e n t < 2 9 .4 0 .3 4 8 .0 - 1.6 g COD/g TN in primary effluent
pre-DN volume – higher recycle amount of recycled O2 R e a c to r 6 e fflu e n t < 2 2 .9 0 .3 7 0 .9 8
Rusten et al (2009)
SET AS SET AS

11 12

Compact MBBR biomass separation alternatives

Final treatment - for water reclamation
Coagulant BW water
• Advanced particle separation
– Membrane filtration

MBBR - Lamella settling MBBR – Microscreening • Organic micropollutant removal

– Physical, biological and chemical O3

• Multiple microbial barriers Backwash

– Physical and chemical
Ozonation Ceramic micro- UV Reclaimed
MBBR – Microsand ballasted lamella settling MBBR – Sand filtration filtration (CMF) (optional) water

MBBR – Dissolved air flotation (DAF) MBBR – Membrane (UF or MF) filtration

SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 3
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

13 14

Why MF ceramic membranes? Removal of organic

micropollutants (OMP)
Feed Channel Filtrate collecting channel
• High permeability (flux> 100 LMH)
∅ 2.5 mm
• High water recovery (> 98 %) Organic micropollutants will be
removed in all steps:
• High mechanical strength
Filtrate slits • Sorption on particles in the primary
• High stability for chemicals Filtrate and final particle separation steps
– Pre-ozonation may be used Incoming water • Biodegradation in biological step
– On-line CIP can be performed o Biofilms have been demonstrated
to be particularly effective in
• Well defined pore size distribution degrading OMP
• Accepts turbidity variation well
MBBR more efficient than activated
• Low operation cost
sludge in removing OMP
but
• High investment cost • Oxidation in ozone step

Reference plant:
Shibaura WWTP, Tokyo (Noguchi, 2015) Courtesy Metawater Falås, 2013

SET AS SET AS

15 16

Effect of ozone concentration on elimination

Removal of organic micropollutants (OMP) efficiency - Full-scale plant Regensdorf (CH)
Swiss (EAWAG) analysis
Calculation: 100 – 100 *cafter ozonation/ csecondary effluent
Evaluated processes Removal of selected compounds
Diclofenac

Trimethoprim
966 +/- 271 (Ozone in
Sulfapyridin 617 +/- 47
396 +/- 63 g/kg DOC)
Carbamazepin

Clarithromycin
0.6-0.8 g O3/g DOC is sufficient
Sulfamethoxazol
to significantly reduce (80-100%)
Metoprolol
the selected micropollutants
Methylbenzotriazol

Benzotriazol
EAWAG (2009)
For 0.8 gO3/g DOC and 5-10 g DOC m-3
Atenolol
wastewater electrical energy
Mecoprop
consumption is 0.06 - 0.13 kWh m-3
Atrazin (20-40% of nutrient removal WWTP)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Eliminiation (%)
Siegrist (2011)

SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 4
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

17 18

Thermal hydrolysis process (THP)

Microbial barriers
Process THP Anaerobic Dewatering
sludge process digester machine
Two strategies: Disinfection efficiency of ozonation
Regensdorf WWTP (Siegrist, 2011)
1. Remove as particles
2. Inactivate by disinfection Bathing water quality at O3-dosage Reject water
200 g O3/kg DOC
> 0,5 g O3/g DOC 210 g O3/kg DOC
410 g O3/kg DOC
• Chlorination 1.E+07 1.E+05 600 g O3/kg DOC
740 g O3/kg DOC
– Simple and cheap, but… 1.E+06 810 g O3/kg DOC
1.E+04
– Chlorinated compounds, 900 g O3/kg DOC THP – Continuous process, based

Intakte Zellen [Anzahl/ml]

1.E+05

[No/ml]
1240 g O3/kg DOC
on multiple, sequencing batch
no OMP-reduction
hydrolysis reactors (SBHR)

E. coli Punkte
1.E+03
1.E+04
• UV-irradiation Säulen

E.coli [cfu/100ml]
Intact cells (20-30 min, 150-175 oC, 6-8 bar)
1.E+03

[cfu/100ml]
– Quite energy consuming 500 cfu E.coli/100 ml
1.E+02
EU-Bath water directive Mech. thick. Silo Steam boiler Biogas use by CHP Sludge cake to disposal
– Quite costly at big plants 1.E+02
1.E+01 Courtesy Cambi
• Ozonation 1.E+01
• THP increases biodegradable organic fraction (i.e. biogas prodution)
– Simple but energy consuming 1.E+00 1.E+00 • THP reduces final sludge production and improves dewaterability
Influent
ZU Comp.1
P1 Comp.
P3 2 Effluent
AB Effluent
SF
– OMP-reduction • THP increases ammonium content in sludge reject water
Ozonation Sandfilter

SET AS SET AS

19 20

Treatment of sludge reject water (25 % of N-load) MBBR versus IFAS for deammonification
Partial nitritation/Anaerobic ammonium oxidation (Anammox)
MBBR IFAS

Deammonification is easier when:

• High temperature (> ~ 25 °C)
• High NH4-N ammonium (>500 mg/l) Sludge reject water treatment
• Low C/N
NO2

Advantages Disadvantages
• No carbon source needed O2 NH4 AOB
• Some nitrate is formed: NH4 = 1-1.5 mg/L
O2 = 0.5-1 mg/L
• Less air needed (than in N/DN): – 1 NH4+ + 1.32 NO2- + 0.042 CO2 -> 0.042 N2
NO2
NO2
~1,9 g O2/g N (60 % less) Biomass + 1 N2 + 0.26 NO3- + 0.08 OH- NO2
+1.87 H2O NO2
N2
• Very low sludge production NH4 NO2
AOB
i.e max N-removal ca 80 % AOB
~ 0,11 g SS/g NH4-N
• Less CO2 - production/ • The nitrite conc. in wastewater is low, Biofilm NO2 NO2
NH4 NO NH4
less alkalinity consumption why this has to be generated NO2 2 NO2 NH4
AnAOB AnAOB
• Slow growth rate, doubling time 11-13 Carrier
days - long start-up periods
MBBR favorable • Necessary to have a long SRT AOB in biofilm = NO2- limitation AOB mainly in flocs = less NO2- limit.
Courtesy AnoxKaldnes
SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 5
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

21 22

Full-scale test results 3,5

MBBR Tran-
sition
IFAS Flow diagram example for a compact WWTP

NH4 load & removal (kgN/m3.d)

ANITA™Mox , 3 based on proven technologies - revisited
Gas-motor, CHP
Sjölunda WWTP, Sweden 2,5 Biogas El
Termal
(Christensson et al, 2013) 2 hydrolysis gas storage gas storage
scum layer Heat
supernatant super-

1,5 layer natant

sludge
heater
digested
sludge
Dewatering Incineration
1 Sludge
• High removal rates and good NH4-load thickener return sludge
stabilised
Anaerobic sludge

N-removal with MBBR 0,5 NH4-removal digestion

Ash
0
Deammonification
• Very high removal rate with 90 Sludge (>4 % TS)
to biogas-plant
in MBBR-based IFAS

%NH4 and %TN removal

IFAS - up to 3 kg NH4-N/m3.d 80
70
(7.5 g NH4-N/m2.d) Coagulant Sludge

60 %TN-removal Hydrocyclon Coagulant

50 • K5 – filling fraction 50 % %NH4-removal Coagulant M Microsand
M M M

• Energy consumption : • DOMBBR = 1.0 - 1.3 mg/l Outlet

40
• DOIFAS = 0.2 - 1.0 mg/l %NO3-prod : NH4-rem Coagulant

1.1 -1.5 kWh/kg NH4-N removed 30 • MLSSMBBR = 20–400 mg/l

Inlet

Injection Flocculation
O3

20 • MLSSIFAS = 1800 – 4600 mg/l An Ae An Coagulation

Polymer
Lamella-
-
sedimentation

10
• Low N2O emission (0,2 – 0,9 % Fine-sieve Coagulation/DAF Combined pre- and post-DN Flocculation/lamella settling Micro Ozon- CMF Water
0
of Nremoved 930 950 970 990 1010 1030 1050 1070 1090 1110 1130 1150
for pre-
treatment
separation for
P- rem.
MBBR for N- removal in compact separation
unit for biomass removal
sieve ation for
reuse
Days Ødegaard, 2015
SET AS SET AS

23 24
Flow diagram example of for a compact WWTP
based on deammonification for N-removal
Thermal Biogas Gas-motor, CHP
El
hydrolysis
gas storage gas storage
scum layer
Heat

However - Sludge
sludge
heater
supernatant
layer

digested
sludge
super-
natant

Dewatering Incineration

the big leap forward will come thickener

Digestion
return sludge
stabilised
sludge

if we can also implement Sludge (>4 % TS) Deammonification

Ash

deammonification in the main-stream ! to biogas-plant in two-stage MBBR Bachwash

water recycle

Coagulant Bio-
C Coagulant
augm Coagulant

O3

Nitritation Anammox N DN

Fine sieve High-rate Coagulation/DAF Deammonification/denitrif. Coag/floccul/ Ozonation CMF for Water
for pre- MBBR for separation for in MBBR microsieve for for OMP-rem particle. for
treatment BOD-rem. biomass-/P- rem. for N- removal biomass rem. and disinfect. separ. reuse
Ødegaard, 2015
SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 6
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

25 26
Results from a high rate MBBR pilot project
Ødegaard et al (2004)
The C-step - Removal of organic matter Coagulant:
Fe + cationic polymer

Coagulant Extent of hydrolysis versus loading rate

100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %

Rp, [%]
50 %
40 % Secondary treatment standard + 90 % P-removal) could be reached at the following
30 %
20 %
process conditions (total residence time ~ 1 hr):
10 %
The high-rate MBBR 0%
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Fine sieve MBBR Coagulation/Flocculation Flotation
(2 reactors in series á 2 chambers)
BFCOD loading rate, [g BFCOD/m2 *d]

Helness et al, 2009 * HRT:10 min * HRT: 15 – 45 min * HRT: 5-10 min * HRT: 20-25 min
The idea behind the high-rate MBBR C-step: * 0.8 mm * 20-25 g CODfiltered/m2d * 5 mg polym/g SS * vf = 5-15 m/h
(15-20 g BOD5 filtered/m2d) + 35 mg Fe/g SS
• Let the coagulant take care of the suspended and colloidal organic matter (~1 mg pol./l+7 mg Fe/l
* 65-85 g CODtot/m2d
– Minimize coagulant dose – use combination of cationic polymer and iron (45-60 g BOD5 tot/m2d) at 200 mg SS/l)

• Let the biofilm only take care of the soluble organic matter * Sludge production: Sludge production in separation step:
– Design for so high organic load that hydrolysis of organic particles will not occur 0.5 g DS/g CODf, removed 1.0 g DS/g SSremoved

SET AS SET AS

27 28

The mainstream deammonification step

Sludge reject water
Summary : Features of the future WWTP
Deammonification
in two-stage MBBR
Recycled In order to meet the requirements of the treatment plants of the
BW water
Bio- C Coagulant
future, i.e. energy neutrality and resource recovery, one should:
augm
Water from
To water • Combine physical/chemical processes in an optimal way
C-stage
reclamation
stage • Use compact treatment processes
– Biofilm or granular sludge processes
Nitritation Anammox N DN Microsieve
– High rate physical/chemical processes for suspended solids removal
• Two-step deammonification system – each optimized
• Use deammonification processes for N-removal in side stream as well as
• Nitritation: DO= 1,5-2,0 mg/l, NH4-Nout: 4-5 mg/l (to maximize AerAOB and suppress NOB)
• Anammox: DO < 0,1 mg/l, NO3-Nout: 3-4 mg/l to (to make AnAOB overrule NOB for NO2) main stream (in combination with nitrification/denitrification)
• Use processes that produce sludge with a maximized biogas potential
• Post DN-step since there is very little sCODbiodegradable left in the recycled sidestream
• Use sludge treatment processes that maximizes energy recovery through
• Bioaugmentation of AerAOB as well as AnAOB by: biogas and heat.
• Returning the treated reject water to inlet of mainstream deammonification step
• Moving carriers back and forth from the sidestream to the mainstream
SET AS SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 7
International Seminar - University of Palermo 20 May 2016

29

You need to be brave in order

to make progress!!

Thank you for

your attention
The Pulpit, Lysefjord, Norway

SET AS

Hallvard Odegard 8