Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: battilani@consorziocer.it (A. Battilani).
1. Introduction
Irrigation allows for crop production where water would other-
wise be a limiting factor. Moreover, under the pressure of market
globalisation and of the changes in dietary habits, agriculture is
evenmore depending onwater-demanding, highincome vegetable
and fruit crops. Therefore, in arid and semi-arid areas of the EU
0378-3774/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2010.10.010
386 A. Battilani et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2010) 385402
irrigated agriculture is fundamental to the local and national econ-
omy. In humid and temperate areas, irrigation provides a way to
reduce the risk of crop failure during periods of low rainfall or
drought, enhancing the yield and market quality of crops.
Whilst a rise of the agriculture water needs is expected, the
increasing overexploitation of water sources poses a threat to
Europes environment and future water availability and quality. To
mitigate these issues water reuse can be among the suitable solu-
tions, as indicated in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EU,
2000). Inland, treated wastewater is normally disposed of in nat-
ural or articial water bodies, where it can be withdrawn as any
other surface water resource to irrigate agricultural crops. Besides,
wastewater treatment plants and sewage collection are often not
functioning or overloaded and thus discharge incompletely treated
efuents into the surface waters. In these cases, it is expected that
the wastewater is sufciently diluted or that the self-depurative
capability of the receiving water body would have enhanced the
water quality before the use. There are several cities in northern
Europe that rely on indirect potable reuse for 70% of their potable
resource during dry summer conditions (UKWIR, 2004) and most
of the agriculture in southern Europe is bound to irrigate crops
with poor quality water resources. This common practice is termed
indirect reuse. Hence, wastewater is indirectly reused to differ-
ent extents without planned schemes. Further, irrigation with raw
or insufciently treated wastewater was and still is reported as a
common practice, e.g. countries of the Mediterranean region not
concerned by the WFD (Angelakis et al., 1999).
Therefore, the high anthropogenic pressure is becoming a criti-
cal factor in the food production chain all over the world. Statistics
andsurveys are reporting eachyear anincreasing number of people
being affected by foodborne diseases, although in fact the majority
of the less harmful cases are not reported (EEA and WHO, 2002).
Foodborne illness is caused by critical and/or toxic levels of micro-
bial pathogens, microbial toxins or heavy metals present in food,
in some cases originating from the irrigation water. Therefore, to
protect consumers and to avoid outbreaks of food borne diseases,
efforts must focus on each point in the eld to fork chain to better
prevent food borne hazards, like apply treatments better adapted
to produce irrigation water with functional characteristics.
A denition of functional water for irrigation might be as fol-
lows: A reclaimed water resource, which compared to the raw
input water, demonstrates measurable and consistent benets to
the crop, the agro-ecosystemandto the whole foodchainfromeld
toforkandwhichhave beenobtainedbyprocessingthe input water
to alter the physical, chemical or biological characteristics.
Thanks to the new technologies now available it is becoming
increasingly attractive to produce functional water from treated
wastewater for direct reuse. In addition, reuse can generate eco-
nomical benets since wastewater, if it is not to be reclaimed, can
require even more costly treatment before disposal.
Nevertheless, a poor irrigation water quality can also have neg-
ative effects on food chain. As an example, as heat treatment can
have a negative effect on the micronutrient or nutraceutic con-
tent of food derivatives and on their organoleptic characteristics as
well, mild treatment technologies are nowadays largely applied to
secure the fresh taste to sauces, pulps, fruit juices and pre-cooked
and industrial prepared dishes. In case of contaminated irrigation
water this could increase the risk of foodborne illnesses because
mild treatment is not sufcient to inactivate, e.g. environmentally
stable stages of the protozoan parasites Giardia and Cryptosporid-
ium. Further, a variety of enteric pathogen strains could reside
within the interiors of fresh fruits and vegetables (Teplitski et al.,
2009; Warriner et al., 2003; Burnett et al., 2000; Gandhi et al., 2001)
and some of them are symbiotic with the plant (Tyler and Triplett,
2008; An et al., 2001; Chelius and Triplett, 2000; Martinez et al.,
2003). Moreover, the edible portions of a plant can become con-
taminated by uptake in the root system and subsequent transport
of the pathogen inside the plant (Solomon et al., 2002; Guo et al.,
2002; Burnett et al., 2000). Rhizosphere colonization and endo-
phytic colonizationare usually highly correlated(Dong et al., 2003).
Therefore, irrigation with bacterially contaminated water can be
the starting point of a watersoilplant contamination pathway
(Chalmers et al., 2000).
Heavy metals are one of the major concerns in the environ-
ment: potentially a large part of the water utilised for irrigation,
not only inindustrialisedcountries, couldbe pollutedby some toxic
heavy metal (Liu et al., 2005; Gupta et al., 2008; Vink et al., 1999).
Heavy metals are a concern as well to human health as they tend to
bioaccumulate in the food chain (Jrup, 2003). Furthermore, water
itself can be geogenically polluted, especially with arsenic, and also
several fertilisers and pesticides contain heavy metals. For their
bioavailability and ecotoxicology, it is crucial whether the heavy
metals are dissolved in soil water, adsorbed onto solids or xed
within the crystal lattice through precipitation of soil minerals. The
latter can be screened out from the water or remain entrapped in
the soil pores, whilst the dissolved fraction can be adsorbed by dis-
solved and colloidal phase organic matter, termed mobile organic
sorbents (MOS), which are important constituents in the ow of
water and transport of solutes through soil macropores (Totsche
and Kgel-Knabner, 2004). As a rule, all surface waters contain col-
loidal matter. Polluted waters also carry colloids of sewage origin
mainly derived fromthe fecal matter, so irrigation can increase the
heavy metals mobility in the root zone resulting in a higher uptake
by roots and bioaccumulation in the food chain.
Furthermore, the use of poor quality water candamage the most
advanced and modern irrigation technologies. Without proper l-
tration, sediment can cause clogging or mechanical corrosion.
Soluble solids like irons or calcium can cause scale into the pipes
or drippers, small amount of organic matter can aggregate form-
ing a slime that can plug emitters (Pitts et al., 2003; Nakayama and
Bucks, 1986; Battilani and Mattarelli, 2000).
Althoughindirect wastewater reuse, evenuntreated, is anunde-
niable reality and amount of treated wastewater suitable for direct
reusehas increasedconsiderablyinrecent years, therehas beenand
still there is minimal pressure toradicallyalter existing water treat-
ment systems or practices. Upgrading technology usually means
mainly to add advanced control systems to improve the ef-
ciency and operation of centralised sewer systems. Decentralised
Wastewater Treatment Systems technologies are raising interest
amongwater stakeholders whoarekeenlyinterestedinnewsingle-
family, onsite and cluster technology and advanced wastewater
treatment, also to reduce the cost of centralised wastewater treat-
ment which are governed by an expensive piping infrastructure.
The high concern about water quality and for specic use and reuse
will force wastewater plant engineers and public ofcials to be
more sensible to novel technologies and to non-conventional solu-
tions. Large-scalesewagetreatment plants areoftenunabletomake
use of the treated water and instead of being recycled and returned
to the aquifers upstream much of it is discharged into rivers. By
treatingthewater onsite, neighbourhoodassets requiringirrigation
can receive the functional water produced. Decentralised solutions
make possible that treated wastewater can be returned to the river
not far from the withdrawal point avoiding that way any exces-
sive depletion of the river water ow and preserving its dilution
capability, thus its water quality. Reducing the sewage overload, as
well the risk of pollution of canal and surface water by the sewage
oodway during storms is reduced.
The purpose of the present study was to develop prototypes
of new technologies and assess the possibilities to reduce micro-
bial and inorganic pollution of irrigation water using decentralised
water treatment techniques. The prototypes developed and tested
were a novel hi-tech device on the one hand (compact pressur-
A. Battilani et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2010) 385402 387
Primary Wastewater
Polluted surface and
groundwater
Secondary Treated
Wastewater
Water sources
Membrane
Bioreactor
Field
Treatment
System
Irrigation
Method
SAFIR Treatment
phase 1
SAFIR Treatment
phase 2
SAFIR Treatment
phase 3
Irrigation
Management
CROP
Gravel
Filter
Fig. 1. SAFIR water treatment pathways. The present paper discuss only the SAFIR treatment phase 1.
ized membrane bioreactor technology) and simple, low cost lters
combinedas aninnovative treatment process (gravel lters, heavy-
metal specic lters) on the other hand, the rst adapted to the
economic setting of industrialised countries, the latter also t-
ting the needs of low-cost technology for developing countries.
The developed systems were tested in different hydro-climatic and
socio-economic settings in Serbia, China, Crete and Italy.
2. Materials and methods
Prototypes of a compact pressurised membrane bioreactor
(MBR, Grundfos BioBooster A/S, patent pending) and of a modular
eld treatment system (FTS) were developed to allow a safe use of
wastewater produced by small municipalities/industries or, more
generally, of water sources now polluted by human activities.
The SAFIR project is based on a holistic perception of technolog-
ical development with the aim to signicantly reduce risk of food
quality and hygiene impairments, whilst poor quality water along
with its nutrients content is reclaimed. SAFIR integrated water
treatment consist of three stages (Fig. 1). Treatment in phase 1 pro-
vides water which is treated with MBR or FTS technology. Properly
treated secondary wastewater (SWW), although not ltered and
disinfected, could be treated only with a simple gravel lter. Phase
2 provides a further renement of water by means of a suitable irri-
gation method. Buried drip line (sub-surface drip irrigation, SDI) is
considered the best option, however also drip irrigation, sprinkler
and furrowwere tested and compared with SDI. Phase 3 (irrigation
strategy) is considered as a part of the integrated water treatment:
for example, implementation of resting periods to allow microbial
die-off directly inuence irrigation scheduling. Waste or polluted
water can be treated onsite by the compact pressurised membrane
bioreactor or in centralised sewage plant then discharged into sur-
face water. Polluted surface and groundwater, as well as treated
wastewater, can be improved through FTS treatment. Both proto-
types are designed to deliver treated water directly to the irrigation
system. Only the effectiveness of the MBR and FTS technologies are
discussed in this paper.
Raw water sources ranged from primary untreated wastewater
from small residential or industrial areas (Italy and Beijing, China)
to secondary treated wastewater (Crete and XinXiang, China) or
canal water (Serbia). In Italy primary treated wastewater was
directly fed to the treatment device. In Crete and the two sites in
China, water was transported from the treatment plant and stored
in tanks for several days. Water produced by the MBR prototype
was storedfor a maximumperiodof 24hina 10m
3
tank before use.
Samples were collected before storage from freshly produced per-
meate. The maindifcultyencounteredwas downscaling industrial
devices to the low nominal ow required by the small experimen-
tal areas irrigated with FTS treated water (Table 1). Hence, increase
the nominal owto serve a larger area is easier than further reduce
it. The compact pressurised MBR is designed to be modular, thus it
can be easily expanded with more modules.
The total volume of water treated per year and per site is
reported in Table 2. Variations in the treated volumes are related
to the irrigation requirements and to the number of irrigated
plots.
Table 1
Raw water sources, irrigated area of the experimental plots and prototypes nominal ow.
Site/year 2006 2007 2008 Irrigated area (m
2
) MBR nominal
ow (m
3
h
1
)
FTS nominal ow
(m
3
h
1
)
Italy PWW PWW+HM spiking PWW+HM spiking 2040 0.50
Italy SWW SWW+HM spiking SWW+HM spiking 2040 3.36
Serbia Canal water Canal Water +HM spiking Canal water +HM spiking 421 1.40
Crete SWW
a
SWW
a
+HM spiking SWW
a
+HM spiking 600 1.60
Beijing PWW
a
PWW
a
PWW
a
+HM spiking 600 0.76
XinXiang SWW
a
SWW
a
+HM spiking SWW
a
+HM spiking 432 1.40
Note: SWW, secondary treated wastewater; HM, heavy metals +metalloid; PWW, primary treated wastewater from residential/industrial areas.
a
Stored on site.
388 A. Battilani et al. / Agricultural Water Management 98 (2010) 385402
Table 2
Volume of water treated with MBR and FTS.
Site Treatment 2006 2007 2008
m
3
year
1
m
3
year
1
m
3
year
1
Italy MBR 398 1044 462
Italy FTS 6243 6601 5331
Serbia FTS 1500 3180 3510
Crete FTS 9044 13,430 14,333
Beijing FTS 3374 9642 5400
XinXiang FTS 7493 2811 4329
2.1. Compact pressurised modular membrane bioreactor (MBR)
technology
Membrane ultraltration performances with respect to remov-
ingorganic, nutrient andmicrobial loads fromrawwastewater or to
rene (tertiary treatment) primary or secondary treated wastewa-
ter are reported by several studies. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
approved MBR systems as a municipal water treatment technol-
ogy (Adhamet al., 2004). The innovative compact pressurized MBR,
as investigated in this project, combines biological treatment with
ultraltration in a single process step managed by a unique device.
Thereby, theprototypehas different characteristics thantraditional
at sheet membranes or hollow-bre modules with sidestream or
submerged conguration. In Table 3 the main operating charac-
teristics of the prototype tested in SAFIR are compared with the
design criteria adopted to test the MBR systems approved by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
Thecompact MBRis developedinto400mmdiameter, 5-mreac-
tors, which are placed in a modular system of 20in. containers.
The prototype developed by Grundfos Biobooster A/S, and tested in
SAFIR, is especially designed to be a turn-key containerised modu-
lar plants, completely constructed at the factory and shipped as a
plug and play device. Containerised plants are delivered pre-wired
and pre-assembled and minimize eld installation labour and they
are easily placed and relocated.
The MBR was fed with primary treated wastewater (PWW).
Untreated wastewater was screened to remove the brous mate-
rial, hair, paper, sanitary products, leaves, straw and greenery
normally found into the sewage water which can damage to the
pump impellers and other components or form a fouling cake on
the membranes. The raw wastewater was then pre-treated over
a 100200m mesh screen, automatically cleaned, to achieve the
primary treatment.
The MBR then treated PWW by active sludge in a pressurised
environment. The active sludge volume stored inside each MBR
reactor is of about 300L. The SAFIR prototype can operate (Table 3)
with a very high mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) average
content of 23.7kgm
3
. During the test the average sludge ratio
per gram of inlet COD (F/M) was of 0.36gg
1
with a daily pro-
duction of sludge of 665g in the average. The sludge retention
time of 20.9 days is two to three time higher than in conventional
activated sludge treatment, whilst the average hydraulic retention
time of 2h:02min is more than three time fast. Pressurised air is
Fig. 2. Compact pressurized membrane bioreactor (MBR) conguration.
pumped into the mixed liquor in order to keep the oxygen content
>5.5mgL
1
O
2
, a concentration much higher than the standard.
Temperature inside the reactor ranged from 23.0 to 33.4
C, with
an average of 26.8
34
N, 11
32
HNO
3
was added to the tank beforehand to reach pH 2 at the end of
the sampling duration. Acidication was able to stabilise metals
for one month or more whereas other contaminants like arsenic
(redox-sensitive) might havebeenless stable. At theendof theinte-
gration period, sub-samples of 200mL were collected for analysis.
Acidication of the unltered water samples allows to analyse the
total input of contaminants to the plot (suspended and dissolved)
even after a long storage period. To backup integrated sampling,
grab samples were collected three times a season in order to better
assess the variation in the concentrations of the inorganic com-
pounds. The analytical procedures are provided in Surdyk et al.
(2010).
For bacterial water quality analysis, a composite sample consist-
ing of three individual 1L samples was collected over a 4h period.
Samples were collected in 1L sterile glass bottles. For the helminth
egg analysis a 10L composite sample was required. Samples were
collected and kept in clean plastic containers until further pro-
cessing. Samples were stored in a cool box and transported to the
local laboratory for further analysis. Analysis of water samples for
E. coli was always initiated on the day of collection. Samples for
helminth egg analysis were stored at 45