Comparison of Down-Flow Hanging Sponge and Woven Fiber

Membrane Systems for Treatment of Polluted Canal Water

by

Ellis Lloyd Andrew Tembo

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Engineering in
Urban Water Engineering and Management at the Asian Institute of Technology
and
the degree of Master of Science at the UNESCO-IHE

Examination Committee: Prof. Chettiyappan Visvanathan (Chairperson)

Dr. Carlos Manuel Lopez Vazquez (UNESCO-IHE)
Dr. Sangam Shrestha
Dr. Oleg Shipin

Nationality: Malawian
Previous Degree: Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
University of Malawi, Malawi
Scholarship Donor: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation/ UNESCO-IHE
– AIT Fellowship

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Engineering and Technology and School of Environment, Resources and
Development
Thailand
May 2014
 Acknowledgements

The author would like to express his profound gratitude and sincere appreciation to his
advisor, Prof. C. Visvanathan for his guidance and overall untiring support during this
study. The author would also like to thank the co-chairman, Dr. Carlos Manuel Lopez
Vazquez for his guidance and support

The author would also like to express his grateful appreciation to his examination
committee members Dr. Oleg Shipin and Dr. Shresha Sangam for their valuable
comments, guidance and support.

Many thanks are extended to Prof. C. Visvanathan’s research group, especially Mr. Paul
Jacobs, and Mr. Thusitha Rathnayake for their regular help and technical support. The
author wishes to thank all laboratory staff specially Mr. Chaiyaporn, Ms. Orathai and Mr.
Panupong for their technical suggestions and help. The Environmental Engineering and
Management (EEM) secretaries Ms. Suchitra and Ms. Chanya are highly appreciated for
their administrative assistance.

The author gratefully acknowledges Bill and Melinda Gate Foundation (BMGF),
UNESCO-IHE and AIT fellowship for the financial support.

In addition, the author would also like to pay his best regards to all his friends, colleagues
and group members for their encouragement and extended help, especially Mr Supawat
Chaikasem, Mr. Vitharuch Yuthawong, Mr. Mov Chimeng, Ms. Wiratchapan Suthapanich,
Ms. Tantima Suwannapan and Mr. Zeng Chengui.

Last but not least, the author would like to convey his sincere gratitude to his beloved son,
Themba, for allowing me to go to school when it was his time to do so.

ii
 Abstract

This study investigated the performance of the Down-flow Hanging Sponge (DHS) system
in treating mildly polluted canal water. The DHS system and the Woven Fiber
Microfiltration (WFM) were operated parallel to each other for performance comparison
and the two systems were fed with the same wastewater.

The research was carried out with laboratory scale DHS and WFM modules and the
experiment was set up at the AIT EEM research station. Both systems were operated under
ambient physical conditions. The feed wastewater comprised of a mixture of pond water
and septage. This mixture had characteristics close to those of a typically polluted canal
with COD concentration of 140 ± 20 mg/L. For the DHS reactor, the experiment was
conducted under three concurrent operational runs, with differing organic loading rates
(OLRs) of 1, 2 and 3 kg COD/m3.d. Cleaning of the WFM was done by drying the module
in the sun. The experiment was carried out over a period of over 100 days.

The results showed that the DHS system achieved removal efficiencies of 77 %, 84.7%,
80% for COD, BOD5, TKN respectively and 1.4 log removal for total coliform, at an OLR
of 1 kg COD/m3.d. At an OLR of 2 kg COD/m3.d, the DHS reactor achieved 76% COD
removal, 84% BOD removal, 72% TKN removal and 1.2 log removal of total coliform.
The removal efficiencies at the OLR of 3 kg COD/m3.d were 86% 89% 90%, 95%, for
COD, BOD5, TKN, respectively and 1.3 log removal of total coliforms. The effluent of the
DHS system met reuse standards at all OLR. The average removal efficiencies for the
WFM were 70% for COD, 70% for BOD5, 40% for TKN and 0.5 log removal for total
coliforms. These removal efficiencies were all lower than those of the DHS reactor, and
did not meet reuse standards.

During the study, cleaning of the WFM was done by drying the membrane in the sun. The
membrane performance after the cleaning did not diminish, showing that the cleaning
method was effective.

The optimum OLR for the DHS reactor was found to be 1 kg COD/m3.d and at this OLR.
The WFM average permeate flux was only 2 L/m2.h, which is not economically desirable.
It was concluded that the DHS is a more efficient system than the WFM for treating dilute
wastewater.

iii
 Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Title Page i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
List of Abbreviations ix

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of the Study 2
1.3 Scope of the Study 2

2 Literature Review 3
2.1 Surface Water Quality for Thailand 3
2.1.1 Surface water pollution 3
2.2 Biofilms 5
2.2.1 Biofilm formation 5
2.2.2 Biofilm reactors 5
2.3 DHS System 6
2.3.1 DHS system first generation type 6
2.3.2 Second generation DHS (curtain) type 7
2.3.3 Third generation DHS (trickling filter) type 7
2.3.4 Fourth generation DHS (random) type 8
2.3.5 Fifth generation DHS reactor 8
2.3.6 Sixth generation DHS reactor 8
2.3.7 DHS as a stand-alone treatment unit 9
2.3.8 Role of sponges 10
2.4 Seed Sludge and Acclimatization 11
2.5 Synthetic Wastewater 11
2.6 Organic Loading Rate (OLR) 12
2.7 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT ) 12
2.8 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR) 13
2.9 Woven Fiber Membrane 13
2.9.1 Woven fiber membrane treatment mechanism 14
2.9.2 WFM configuration and classification 14
2.9.3 Transmembrane Pressure (TMP) 15

iv
3 Methodology 16

3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 DHS Module Description 16
3.3 DHS System Inoculation with Seed Sludge 17
3.4 DHS Reactor Set-up With Synthetic Water 18
3.5 DHS System Acclimatization Run with Synthetic
Wastewater 18
3.6 Operational Conditions of the DHS Reactor During
Acclimatization Run 19
3.7 Laboratory Analysis 19
3.8 Pond Water/ Sewage Mixture Tests 20
3.9 Experimental Setup with Pond Water/Septage Mixture 21
3.10 Down-flow Hanging Sponge System Set Up 21
3.11 Woven Fiber Microfiltration System Set Up 22
3.12 Woven Fiber Membrane Properties 23
3.13 Woven Fiber Membrane Cleaning 24
3.14 Analytical Methods 24
3.15 Operation and Maintenance Guideline 24

4 Results and Discussion 25

4.1 Introduction 25
4.2 Downflow Hanging Sponge System Acclimatization Run 25
4.3 Operating Conditions During Acclimatization Run 25
4.3.1 Temperature 25
4.3.2 Turbidity 26
4.3.3 pH 26
4.3.4 Dissolved oxygen 26
4.4 Summary of the Operational Conditions for the
Acclimatization Run 26
4.5 DHS System Performance During the Acclimatization
Run 27
4.5.1 COD removal 27
4.5.2 Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS) and
total dissolved solids (TDS) 27
4.5.3 BOD5 removal 28
4.5.4 TKN removal 29
4.6 Pond Water/ Septage Run System Performance 29
4.7 Operating Conditions for the Pond Water/ Septage Run 29
4.7.1 Temperature 29
4.7.2 Turbidity 29
4.7.3 pH 29
4.7.4 Dissolved oxygen 30
4.7.5 DHS dissolved oxygen profile 30

v
 4.8 Summary of the Operational Conditions for the Pond
Water/Septage Run 31
4.9 WFM System Runs 31
4.9.1 Woven fiber pure water flux 31
4.9.2 WFM system performance 32
4.10 Removal Efficiency for the system 33
4.10.1 COD removal 33
4.10.2 COD removal profile 34
4.10.3 BOD5 removal 35
4.10.4 TKN removal 35
4.10.5 TKN profile across the DHS reactor 36
4.10.6 Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS)
and total dissolved solids (TDS) 36
4.10.7 Total coliforms 37
4.11 Summary of the DHS & WFM Run Efficiency 37
4.12 DHS Performance Compared to other Studies 38

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 39

5.1 Conclusions 39
5.2 Recommendations for Future Study 40

References 42

Appendix A 46
Appendix B 47
Appendix C 48
Appendix D 64
Appendix E 67

vi
 List of Tables

Table Title Page

2.1 Wastewater Reuse Standards in Thailand 3

2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages Low Cost Technologies 4
2.3 DHS Removal Efficiencies at Different OLR 10
2.4 Composition of Synthetic Starch Wastewater 11
2.5 Classification of Membrane 14
3.1 Seed Sludge Characteristics 18
3.2 Operational Conditions of the DHS Reactor 19
3.3 Instruments used for Measuring 19
3.4 Analytical Methods for the Study 20
3.5 Characteristics of Pond Water and Septage 20
3.6 Calculation of Organic Loading Rate (OLR) 21
3.7 Determination of Flow from Various OLR 22
3.8 Flat Sheet Membrane Specification 23
4.1 Acclimatization Run Operational Conditions Summary 26
4.2 Pond Water/Septage Run Operational Conditions Summary 31
4.3 Summary of the DHS & WFM Run Efficiency 37
4.4 DHS Reactor Performance Compared to other Studies 38
C.1 Operational Parameter for the DHS Reactor 52
C.2 Troubleshooting of the system 55
C.3 Operational Parameter for the WFM Reactor 59
C.4 Membrane Specification 59
C.5 WFM System Troubleshooting 63
D.1 Standards used for this research 64
D.2 Typical Pollution of Surface Water 64
D.3 Thailand Surface Water Quality 65
D.4 Thailand Surface Water Quality Parameters and Classification 65
D.5 USEPA Guidelines for Water Reuse 66
E.1 pH, DO, Turbidity Temperature and TDS during DHS
Acclimatization Run 67
E.2 DHS COD and BOD5 Removal during Acclimatization Run 68
E.3 DHS pH, DO, Turbidity Temperature and TDS during Pond 69
Water/Septage Run
E.4 pH, DO, Turbidity Temperature and TDS for WFM System Pond
Water/Septage Run 71
E.5 COD Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run 73
E.6 BOD5 Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run 74
E.7 TKN Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run 74
E.8 Total Coliform Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run 74
E.9 Pond Water/Septage Mixture Characteristics 75
E10 WFM Run Pure Water Flux Run 78
E.11 WFM Run Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run 77

vii
 List of Figures

Figure Title Page

2.1 Membrane separation mechanism 13

3.1 Methodology framework 17
3.2 DHS set up with synthetic wastewater 18
3.3 Pond water/septage setup 21
3.4 WFM system setup 23
4.1 Synthetic wastewater temperature range 25
4.2 Synthetic wastewater DO range 26
4.3 Synthetic wastewater DHS COD removal 27
4.4 Synthetic wastewater TS, TSS & TDS removal 28
4.5 Synthetic wastewater BOD5 removal 28
4.6 DHS DO profile for water/septage mixture 30
4.7 Oxygen uptake segment with holes 31
4.8 Pure water flux for both WFM modules 32
4.9 WFM flux and TMP 32
4.10 COD removal 33
4.11 COD removal efficiency 33
4.12 COD profile across the DHS reactor 34
4.13 BOD5 removal 35
4.14 TKN removal 35
4.15 DHS TKN profile for water/septage mixture 36
4.16 TS, TSS, TDS removal 36
4.17 System Coliform Removal for water/septage mixture 37
A.1 DHS system set-up
set for acclimatization 46
A.2 Pond Water and septage (where the water for the study is
taken) 46
C.1 DHS Reactor module dimensions 50
C.2 System layout at the canal 52
C.3 DHS Reactor setup at the canal 53
C.4 WFM System layout at canal 59
C.5 WFM Set up in treatment tank 61
C.6 WFM Module Cleaning by solar drying 62

viii
 List of Abbreviations

AHR Anaerobic hybrid reactor

AIT Asian Institute of Technology
APHA American Public Health Association
AWWA American Water Works Association
BMR Bangkok Metropolitan Region
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CAS Conventional Activated Sludge
CEHA Centre for Environmental Health Activities
CFU Colony Forming Units
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DHS Down-flow Hanging Sponge
DO Dissolve Oxygen
EPS Extracellular Polymeric Substance
FC Faecal Coliforms
HLR Hydraulic Loading Rate
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
MF Microfiltration
MLSS Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids
MPN Most Probable Number
OLR Organic Loading Rates
PF Polyurethane foam
PO43 Phosphate
PV Photovoltaic
SBF Sponge Bio-Filter
SLR Solids Loading Rate
SMBR Submerged Membrane Bio-Reactor
SND Simultaneous Nitrification and De-nitrification
SRT Solid Retention Time
SS Suspended Solids
TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TKN Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen
TMP Trans Membrane Pressure
TS Total Solid
TSS Total Suspended Solid
UASB Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket
WEF Water Environment Federation
WFM Woven Fiber Micro- filtration Membrane Filter
WHO World Health Organisation
WWDR World Water Development Report
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

ix
 Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Water is vital in all areas of mans livelihood environmentally, socially and economically.
As such, this asset needs to be managed with great sense of objectiveness, putting the
interests of the community at large. In spite of unprecedented advancement in technology,
globalization and urbanization across the world, a vast number of developing countries are
lagging behind in providing basic sanitation and adequate water supply to their people.
There is water scarcity in most developing countries and the problem will soon be
compounded by the growing population. Demand for water for agricultural, household,
recreational and environmental uses is rapidly increasing due to continuously increasing
population. (Vairavamoorthy et al., 2008). The available water resources are not readily
available for human usage due to the absence of technology for adequate treatment before
use. Discharge of chemicals from various industries, which unfortunately is on the rise in
the developing world, causes hazardous effects on humans, animals and environmental
balances.
The rural areas take the brunt of the water scarcity effects as projects that are undertaken in
water and sanitation are usually directed towards urban areas, leaving the communities to
fend for themselves. It is not strange, therefore, to see that migration to the urban is still
rampart despite a lot of efforts to abate it. People are leaving the rural area due to the
shortage of resources, especially water.
There is a need, therefore, to provide sustainable water sources that can be provided at low
cost using appropriate technologies to these isolated rural areas. Self sustaining,
technologies that require low operation and maintenance cost would be vital for the rural
masses. If these wastewater treatment technologies produce effluents that meet the national
reuse standards, this would be of great benefit both to the communities and the
environment.
According to the World Water Development Report (WWDR 2006), most of the
developing countries in Asia and Africa have less than 2,000 cubic meters of water per
capita per year and are considered water stressed Water stress is illustrated by poor
availability of fresh water and high levels of pollution in fresh water. These factors present
a major problem in many developing countries (Rijsberman, 2004).

Wastewater is mostly discharged into rivers and canals and this act pollutes these
waterways. Most Asian and African countries have tremendous potential for agri-
aquaculture wastewater reuse. The reuse of wastewater has been practiced for generations
but more on informal/ad-hoc approach. Most of the peri-urban agri-aquaculture activities
depend to a large extent partially treated domestic and industrial wastewater. Nevertheless,
promotion of reuse by the government with appropriate technical and legislative assistance
would pave way for increased reuses enabling added benefits to the farming community.

For wastewater disposal, most rural communities do not have properly working waste
water plants and those that have the plants, do not operate them in an effective way. Most
treatment plants are a responsibility of local governments. However, these local
1
governments depend on the central government for the operation these treatment plants. As
always expected, the funds from the central government are not always enough and so,
when effecting budgets cuts at the local level, treatment plants are the first to suffer. It is
not surprising, therefore, to note that most wastewater is discharged into canals and rivers
without any treatment.

The main pollutants that pose problems to water quality in Thailand are organic wastes,
bacteria, nutrients, and solids. Most rivers have water that is on inferior quality to the
Surface Water Quality Standard and its classification. The major water quality problems
are high coliform bacteria (in term of total and fecal coliform bacteria) high solids (in term
of turbidity and total solids,), total phosphorus (TP), low dissolved oxygen (DO),
Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), and high organic matter. (Simachaya, 2002). The situation in
Thailand is a reflection of most developing countries especially in Asia and Africa.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1. Determine the DHS operational parameters and conditions that will give the
effluent characteristics that comply with widely accepted water reuse
standards.
2. Develop a simple operation and maintenance guideline for application of
this system in a rural community.
3. Compare the performance of the DHS system to one other wastewater
treatment systems (Woven Fiber Micro- filtration Membrane)

1.3 Scope of the Study

This study was carried out with an experimental laboratory scale DHS reactor and WFM
module.

1.3.1 The DHS reactor was run with synthetic wastewater for a period of two months
acclimatizing it before the run with wastewater. The following parameters were
monitored: COD, BOD5, TKN, TSS, TS, TDS at an OLR of 2.6 kg COD /m3.day
and HRT of 2 hours.
1.3.2 The DHS was set up to run with a mixture of pond water and septage. The mixture
had similar characteristics to a typical polluted canal. The parameters analysed
were COD, BOD5, TKN, Total Coliforms TSS TDS , TS. The readings of
temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH and turbidity, were monitored on a
daily basis.
1.3.3 A Woven Fiber Microfiltration Membrane, (WFM) system was set to run in
parallel to the DHS reactor, using the same pond water/ septage mixture, to
compare its performance.

2
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Surface Water Quality for Thailand

Standards of surface water use in Thailand are put into classes, from 1 to 5, the best class
being 1 and the last class 5, as shown in Appendix D, Tables D.1, D.2 and D.3. Table D.4
lists USEPA standards, which are used by other African and Asian countries. Allowable
parameters for each class are laid out and these are the standards for use. Our main interest
is in agricultural water reuse, which falls in class number 3. For this class, number 3, Table
2.1 shows the accepted limits of the parameters.

Table 2.1 Wastewater Reuse Standards in Thailand (OEPP, 1999)

Parameter Units Range Method of Examination

BOD5 mg/L 10 - 30 Azide Modification at 20°C, 5
days
DO mg/L >2 Azide modification
pH 6-9 Electrometric pH
Total Coliform MPN/100
20,000 Multiple Tube Fermentation
Bacteria ml
Fecal Coliform MPN/100
1,000 Multiple Tube Fermentation
Bateria ml
NO3 –N mg/L 5.0 Cadmium Reduction
NH4 –N mg/L <5 Distillation Nesslerization
Temperature o Not more than 3o
C Thermometer
Change

Several low cost technologies for wastewater treatment are available. Even though most of
these technologies are comparatively cheap and readily available, politics in these
countries prevent their implementation. Politicians put very little emphasis on wastewater
discharge. Table 2.2 is a tabulation of the advantages and disadvantages of some of the
low cost technologies.

2.1.1 Surface water pollution

Pollution due to human activities contribute to the degradation of surface water. Organic
pollution occurs when large quantities of organic compounds, which act as substrates for
microorganisms, are released into water courses. During the decomposition process, the
dissolved oxygen in the receiving water may be used up at a greater rate than it can be
replenished, causing oxygen depletion and having severe consequences for the stream
biota. Organic pollution of surface waters deprives these waters of dissolved oxygen,
which is essential for aquatic life. Organic pollutants consist of proteins, carbohydrates,
fats and nucleic acids in a multiplicity of combinations. Organic wastes from people and
their animals may also be rich in disease-causing (pathogenic) organisms.

3
Excess nitrogen in the agriculture water can potentially cause nitrogen injury, excessive
vegetative growth, delayed growing season and maturity, all which are not desirable to the
farmer. (Asano et al., 1985). Excessive amount of nitrogen can also cause eutrophication, if
discharged to water ways.

Table 2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages Low Cost Technologies (UNEP, 1998)

Treatment Advantages Disadvantages

Type
Aquatic Systems
Stabilization Low capital cost Requires a large area of land
lagoons Low operation and maintenance costs May produce undesirable odours
Low technical manpower
requirement
Aerated Requires relatively little land area Requires mechanical devices to
lagoons Produces few undesirable odors aerate the basins
Produces effluents with a high
suspended solids concentration
Terrestrial Systems
Septic tanks Can be used by individual Provides a low treatment
households efficiency
Easy to operate and maintain Must be pumped occasionally
Can be built in rural areas Requires a landfill for periodic
disposal of sludge and septage
Constructed Removes up to 70% of solids and Remains largely experimental
wetlands bacteria Requires periodic removal of
Minimal capital cost excess plant material
Low operation and maintenance Best used in areas where suitable
requirements and costs native plants are available
Mechanical Systems
Filtration Minimal land requirements; can be Requires mechanical devices
systems used for household-scale treatment
Relatively low cost
Easy to operate
Vertical Highly efficient treatment method High cost
biological Requires little land area Complex technology
reactors Applicable to small communities for Requires technically skilled
local-scale treatment and to big cities manpower for operation and
for regional-scale treatment maintenance
Needs spare-parts-availability
Has a high energy requirement
Activated Highly efficient treatment method High cost
sludge Requires little land area Requires sludge disposal area
Applicable to small communities for (sludge is usually land-spread)
local-scale treatment and to big cities Requires technically skilled
for regional-scale treatment manpower for operation and
maintenance

4
2.2 Biofilms

2.2.1 Biofilm formation

Biofilm formation is the accumulation of microorganisms, including extracellular

compounds, on a surface due to either deposition or growth or both. (Hamilton, 1985).
Biofouling is the extent of biofilm formation on the surface, hampering smooth operation
of a membrane. Biofouling causes operational problems and these may include. pressure
drop, flux reduction, salt passage increase. The biofilm is held together by excreted organic
polymer matrix of microbial origin called extracellular polymeric substances, EPS,
(Allison et al., 1984). It is often the this biofilm matrix that causes many of the economic
problems associated with biofilm formation since it acts as a layer of immobilized water
Biofilms can contain many different types of microorganisms, e.g. bacteria, protozoa, fungi
and algae.

Formation of a biofilm usually involves three subsequent phases:

(i) adhesion and attachment of microorganisms to a surface,
(ii) growth,
(iii) stationary phase.

Especially in the stationary phase in laboratory biofilm systems, biomass detachment is

observed by erosion and sloughing. Sloughing refers to the removal of biomass layer by
fluid frictional forces. It can result in the removal of large sections of biofilm.

2.2.2 Biofilm reactors

In biological wastewater treatment, two conditions exist:

(i) active microorganisms have to be concentrated within the system,
(ii) microorganisms have to be removed from the treated effluent before the water
leaves the system. (Henze et al., 2008).
In biofilm reactors, microorganisms are immobilized in a dense layer growing attached to a
solid surface. Maintaining active biomass in the biofilm reactor does not require a settler.
Bacteria in suspension can be washed out with the water flow, but in biofilms, the bacteria
is protected from washout and can grow in locations where their food supply remains
abundant. Bacteria is imbedded in a matrix of extracellular polymeric substance (EPS)
containing polysaccharide proteins, free nucleic acids, and water (Sutherland 2001). The
EPS is basically the glue that holds the biofilm in place.

Biofilms behave in the following way:

(i) convert compounds available in the bulk liquid which is used in biological
wastewater for the removal of unwanted compounds,
(ii) take up space and interfere with bulk water flow, which in some cases is
desirable and other, is detrimental,
(iii) harbor pathogenic microorganisms that are difficult to remove within the
biofilm.
In all types of biofilm reactors, the following conditions have to be met:
(i) retention of microorganisms is based on attachment of biomass to the surface of
the support medium, rather than using solid liquid separation and biomass
recycle,
5
 (ii) water containing the polluting compounds is brought into contact with the
biofilm and local mixing conditions and turbulence will determine the effective
mass transport from the bulk water to the biofilm,
(iii) biofilm growth has to be balanced with biofilm detachment to avoid clogging of
the reactor while retaining sufficient active biomass in a stable biofilm.
There are three groups of bioreactor: non-submerged systems, submerged fixed bed
biofilm reactors and fluidized bed reactors. Key differences between these groups is the
specific surface area, mechanism for removing excess biomass and gas transfer. (Henze et
al, 2008)

2.3 DHS System

The lastest entry to the family of non-submerged biofilm reactors is the Down flow
Hanging Sponge (DHS) system. The system was developed by Harada and his research
group at Nagaoka University of Technology, Japan, for the treatment of sewage in
developing countries. The DHS reactor is composed of several modules, each 2-4 meters
vertical length filled with hundreds of series-connected hanging sponge-cubes. The tubular
vessel is filled with sponge cubes which are diagonally linked using nylon strings. A large
surface area is thus created and this is where the microbial growth takes place in non-
submerged conditions. Wastewater is supplied at the top end of each module, and trickles
down toward the lowest end of the module, (Machdar et al., 1997).

As wastewater is trickling downwards through the sponges, the microorganisms take up

nutrients from the wastewater. No mechanical air device is used in the DHS system even
though the process is aerobic (Tandukar et al., 2006). As the sponges in DHS reactor are
not submerged and freely hang in the air, oxygen dissolves into the wastewater as it flows
down. This repeated phenomenon maintains dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the
wastewater at a level which exceeds the need of microorganisms that reside in DHS sludge
(Tandukar et al., 2006)

The DHS system can be operated under anaerobic conditions and provide for the recovery
of dissolved methane gas. In 2010, Matsuura et al., investigated a two stage DHS system
for the post treatment of UASB effluent in Nagaoka, Japan. Most of the dissolved methane
(99%) was recovered by the two stage system, whereas about 76.8% of influent dissolved
methane was recovered by the first stage operated at 2 hours hydraulic retention time
(HRT). The second DHS reactor was mainly used for oxidation of the residual methane
and polishing of the remaining organic carbons. The removal of COD and BOD5 in the
first stage was insignificant as there was no air supply; however, high removals were
expected in the second stage due to sufficient supply of air, which quickly oxidize the
residual dissolve methane in the upper reactor portion before being emitted to the
atmosphere as off-gas.

2.3.1 DHS system first generation type

Since its inception, the DHS system has been developed through several pilot experimental
researches. This was due to the desire to develop a more affordable treatment technology
for the developing countries.

6
In 1997, Agrawal developed to a "first generation type" or "cube type" DHS reactor. The
reactor used sponge cubes each 1.5cm connected to each other diagonally with a nylon
string and arranged in series. (Agrawal et al., 1997; Machdar et al., 2000). The full scale
reactor had three segments, each two meters high. Each segment was filled with 120
sponge cubes, which measured 1.5 cm, and were linked diagonally with a nylon string.
Inoculation was done by placing the segments and the cubes into activated sludge for 48
hours. The sponges occupied about 28% of the DHS reactor volume. The reactor was fed
by the effluent of a UASB reactor. The reactor was operated at a hydraulic loading rate
(HLR) of 0.06 m3/m2d, with a flow of approximately 30 liters per day in winter time and
an HLR of 0.11 m3/m2d (flow of 60 L/d) in summer time. The DHS reactor was evaluated
for residual organics removal and nitrification under natural air intake only. The influent
COD was in the range of 100 – 135 mg/L and the average ammonia concentration was 35
mg NH4-N/liter. During the evaluation, it was observed that with post de-nitrification and
an external carbon source, 84% in average N (NO3 + NO2) was removed with a hydraulic
retention time (HRT) of less than 1 hour, for temperature range of 13 to 30 0C. The effluent
contained a negligible amount of SS and total COD was only in the range of 10 to 25
mg/L. The DHS reactor was capable of stabilizing total nitrogen through nitrification,
which ranged from 73-78% (Agrawal, et al., 1997)

2.3.2 Second generation DHS (curtain) type

Since then, a second generation or "Curtain type" reactor has been developed. The sponge
shape changed to triangular strips, 75 cm long and 3cm wide for the second generation
reactor. The sponges were tiled on both sides of a plastic sheet with a height of 2 meters.
(Machdar et al., 2000). All the other measurements of the cube type DHS reactor remained
the same. The influent also came from the effluent of a UASB reactor, as before. The
reactor was operated for a total of 550 days. The reactor was operated at a HRT of 2 hour
and a temperature of 25o Celsius. The DHS reactor successfully achieved 92% of BOD5
removal, 62% of COD removal, and 79% of TSS removal, and 61% of NH4-N removal As
in the first generation type, the complete system neither requires external aeration input nor
withdrawal of excess sludge. The final BOD5 effluent concentration was 6 to 9 mg/L.
Similarly, FC removal was 3.5 log with a final count of 103 to 104 MPN/100mL in the
effluent. Nitrification and de-nitrification in DHS accounted for 72% removal of total
nitrogen (effluent concentration of 11 mg N/L) and 60% removal of ammonium nitrogen
(effluent NH4-N of 9 mg N/L) over the total operational period. The system was a
combined UASB+DHS (Machdar et al, 2000)

2.3.3 Third generation DHS (trickling filter) type

A third generation type or "trickling filter type" was developed by Mahmoud et al in 2009.
The reactor utilized small sponge pieces encased in a supporting material on the outside.
(Tawfik et al., 2006) The DHS system had a capacity of 133 liters, consisting four
segments connected vertically. Each segment was filled with 6 liters of polyurethane foam
(PF), wrapped with perforated polypropylene plastic material, randomly distributed in the
whole reactor. The foam occupied 18% of the reactor volume. The reactor was fed with the
effluent from an Anaerobic hybrid reactor (AHR). The reactor was operated at an HRT of
2 hours, organic loading rate of 2.1 kg COD/m3.d and a flow of 0.288 m3/day. The system
achieved 87% of BOD5 removal, 69 % of COD removal, 66% of TKN removal and 85% of
NH4-N removal. The reported results indicated that the third generation DHS reactor is
very effective not only for the reduction of chemical oxygen demand (COD),

7
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and ammonia but also for faecal coliform removal
(Mahmoud et al., 2009)

2.3.4 Fourth generation DHS (random) type

A fourth generation DHS reactor (Tandukar et al., 2006), had box modules with long
sponge strips, placed inside a net-like cylindrical plastic cover. This provided rigidity to
the sponges. The strips measured 2.5cm x 2.5cm x 50cm. (Tandukar et al.,2005). The
system was developed to enhance the dissolution of air into the wastewater and to avert the
possible clogging of the reactor. The DHS reactor had a volume of 375 liters and consisted
of four modules put one above the other with a gap in between, giving a total height of 4
meters. The sponges were put inside a net-like cylindrical plastic cover to provide rigidity.
Fifteen such sponge units were arranged in a row, and were then stacked one above another
but in directions 90o to each other to make 20 rows. Gaps between consecutive rows were
maintained at 0.7 –1.0 cm. Three hundred sponges, in total were put inside the module and
this represented 39% of the reactor volume. The reactor was fed with the effluent from a
UASB reactor using a peristaltic master-flex pump. The reactor was operated at a HRT of
2 hours with a temperature range of 20o C – 25o C. to simulate an annual average ambient
temperature of most of the developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions. The
DHS system was started with clean sponge saturated with water without the use of
inoculation. The start-up period was less than two weeks. The DHS system achieved 90%
of BOD5 removal, 76 % of COD removal, 30% of TKN removal and 28% of NH4-N
removal. Investigation on DHS sludge was made by quantifying it and evaluating oxygen
uptake rates with various substrates. Average concentration of trapped biomass was 26 g-
VSS/L of sponge volume, increasing the SRT of the system to 100-125 days. Removal of
coliforms obtained was 3-4 log10 with the final count of 10(3) to 10(4) MPN/100 ml in
DHS effluent. (Tandukar et al, 2006).

2.3.5 Fifth generation DHS reactor

The fifth generation reactor (Tandukar et al., 2007) made improvements to the sponge
arrangement for the second generation reactor by lining up several sponge sheets. The
reactor had total volume of 480 L, based on the sponge volume. Polyurethane sponge with
pore size of 0.63 mm was used for the construction of DHS. Void ratio of sponge was
more than 90%, The DHS reactor was filled with sponges arranged in a curtain,
constructed by adhering the sponge with undulating surface on both sides of a thin plastic
sheet. The reactor was fed with effluent from a UASB reactor, without any pretreatment. .
The flow from the UASB reactor was by gravity. The HRT for the DHS reactor was 2.5
hours, and was operated for 300 days. DHS system was comparable to that of activated
sludge process (ASP). Unfiltered BOD5 removal was more than 90%. COD removal of
over 70%, TKN removal of over 60% and a 3 log removal of Fecal Coliforms.

2.3.6 Sixth generation DHS reactor

The sixth generation reactor has the basic design similar to the third generation reactor but
utilizes rigid sponge media which is manufactured by copolymerizing polyurethane with
epoxy resins. (Onodera et al., 2014). The reactor consisted of four segments, each segment
being 76.5 cm tall and 24 cm in diameter separated by 15 cm connecting segments. The
total volume of the reactor was 136 liters and the sponges occupied 33.8% of the volume.
The connecting segments had removable windows to allow the reactor to be ventilated and

8
wastewater samples to be collected. It had a rotary distributor at the top of the reactor. The
reactor was operated at a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 2 hours, calculated on the
sponge volume. Fed with effluent from a UASB reactor, it was started without any
inoculation. The system gave reasonable organic and nitrogen removal efficiencies. The
reactor achieved a BOD5 removal efficiency of 96 % TKN removal efficiency of 43%. The
nitrification performance was good, this being attributed to the rigid sponge media. There
was a high concentration of dissolved oxygen under natural ventilation.

2.3.7 DHS as a stand-alone treatment unit

The DHS system has mostly been used for the post treatment of effluent from system like
the UASB. (Mohamed et al., 2011; Agrawal et al., 1997; Machdar et al., 2000). Although
DHS reactor has many advantages, it is not appropriate for the treatment of raw wastewater
which contains high concentrations of suspended solids (SS). The presence of high SS
concentrations in the influent interferes with the transfer of oxygen and substrates into the
biofilm (Guo et al., 2010). It is therefore, recommended to remove coarse suspended solids
prior to entering DHS reactor.

In 2011, Uemura et al., conducted research on direct treatment of sewage sludge using
three DHS reactors which employed different sizes of sponge media but with the same
total sponge volume of 240 cm3. Three identical DHS reactors, 2000 mm in working height
and 20 mm in width, were used. The largest sponge medium used was the same size as that
used in previous pilot and demonstration studies of curtain type DHS units (Machdar et al.,
2000). All the reactors were seeded with concentrated activated sludge by soaking the
sponges in the sludge. The reactors were fed with wastewater drawn from the primary
settlement tank of the sewage treatment plant, making sure that the liquid was drawn at
exactly the same time every day of the experiment. The reactors were run at an HRT of 2
hours with a controlled room temperature of 25o C and were operated for more than 130
days. All the reactors showed excellent performance in the removal of COD, ammonium
nitrogen, and fecal coliform at a fixed hydraulic retention time of 2.0 h based on the
sponge volume. It was also shown that smaller sponge media produced better removal
efficiencies for all the parameters listed above. The most reasonable explanation for this
might be that smaller sponge media allows better oxygen uptake in the stream flowing
down through the reactors.

DHS as a stand-alone system was carried in 2013, by a at the Asian Institute of

Technology, AIT (Ehsas, 2013). A laboratory scale DHS reactor was used which had a
volume of 35.3 liters, made from plexi-glass. The reactor had four segments, each 0.5
meters in length and a gap of 0.1 m in between. The material forming part of the 0.1 m gap
was perforated with holes which allow the diffusion of air. The module was randomly
packed with polyurethane cylindrical sponges, measuring 3 cm x 3cm and they occupied
30% of the module’s volume. The system was inoculated with seed sludge taken from the
AIT Wastewater Treatment Plant (AIT WWTP), mixed with canal water. The system was
acclimatized for two weeks before starting observing it performance. The reactor was run
with three different OLR runs of 0.29, 0.65 and 4.8 kg COD/m3d. Synthetic wastewater,
made from dog food, was used as the influent to the DHS system. The removal efficiencies
obtained from the research were as follows as in Table 2.1..

9
Table 2.3 DHS Removal Efficiencies at Different OLR (Ehsas, 2013)

Run HRT OLR TSS COD BOD5 TKN NH4-N Total

(h) (kg (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Coliform
COD/m3d) (mg/L)

Run 1
Influ. 6 40 28.6 4.6 1.9 17000
3 0.29
Efflu. 1.3 18.1 12.2 0.9 0.2 8900
%R 78.3 54.7 57.5 81 90.5 47.6
Run 2
Influ. 11.3 54 33 2.3 0.3 13500
2 0.65
Efflu. 0.3 13 3.1 0.4 0 6000
%R 97 76 90.6 81.3 100 55.5
Run 3
Influ. 102.2 200 162 10.4 0.8 11000
1 4.8
Efflu. 42.5 88.2 38 5 0.1 1700
%R 58.4 56 76.5 51.4 83.3 84.5

The effluent qualities at kg COD/m3 d of 0.29 kg COD/m3.d and 0.65 kg COD/m3.d

met the agriculture reuse standards except for Total Coliform; on the other hand the
effluent qualities at kg COD/m3.d 4.8 kg COD/m3 d for TSS, COD, BOD5 and Total
Coliform did not meet the agriculture reuse standards.

2.3.8 Role of sponges

In the year 2010, Guo et al investigated the role of sponges as an active mobile carrier for
attached-growth biomass in three typical types of aerobic bioreactors to treat a high
strength synthetic wastewater. Different pore sizes of reticulated polyester urethane sponge
(S45R, S60R and S90R) from Joyce Foam Products, Australia, were used in this study and
occupied 10% of the reactor volume. The sponges were cut in shape and acclimatized to
wastewater before use. Synthetic wastewater was pumped into the reactor using a feeding
pump to control the feed rate while the effluent flow rate was controlled by a suction
pump. A level sensor was used to control the wastewater volume in the reactor. For
Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) removal, the removal efficiencies of S45R and S90R
dropped 15% with 3 cm thickness of the sponge, while there were only slight changes in
DOC removal efficiencies of 1 and 2 cm sponges. As the NO3–N and NO2–N
concentrations in the effluent were less than 0.5 and 0.01 mg/L, respectively. This
demonstrated that the sponge itself has a function of simultaneous nitrification and
denitrification (SND). This phenomenon was also verified the decreasing DO gradient
occurring inside of the sponge cubes. The 1 cm sponge exhibited the best T-N and T-P
removal (39.9% and 61.0% for S45R and 51.7% and 89.1% for S90R, respectively)
compared to 2 and 3 cm sponges, which indicated there is an optimum thickness for active
biomass working on and inside the sponge. Moreover, it could be seen visually that a thin
layer of biofilm formed faster on 1 cm sponge than those on 2 and 3 cm sponges. The
conclusion from these results was that sponge thickness deteriorated the organic and
nutrient removal and 1cm is the optimum thickness for fixed-bed sponge biofilter (SBF).
The sponge volume had significant impact on phosphorus removal rather than organic or
nitrogen removal, and 20% volume of sponge could achieve 100% T-P removal within 3h

10
in a sponge batch reactor (SBR). Sponges show a better performance when coupled with
submerged membrane bioreactor (SMBR).

2.3 Seed Sludge and Acclimatization

For biological wastewater treatment, a considerable time is involved in the start-up of the
process, especially when certain restrictions set for the initial loading rate and its increase
are not obeyed. (Zeeuw ,1981). The biomass also needs to be acclimatized to the substrate
that it is meant to treat. The main task in the start-up is to develop, in a period as short as
possible, a highly active and settleable sludge from the poor quality seed sludge. A careful
start-up procedure entails seeding the bioreactor with sludge, supplying proper nutrients to
facilitate bacterial growth and applying appropriate loading rates that do not exceed the
maximum potential of the biomass in the bioreactor or cause biomass washout.

In his pioneering experimenting on the first generation DHS, Machdar (1997), inoculated
the DHS unit by soaking it into activated sludge, mixed liquor, for one day prior to start-
up. In subsequent experiments, the DHS unit was not seeded as it received effluent directly
from the primary treatment unit which had prior seeding. (Mahmoud et al. 2009).

2.4 Synthetic Wastewater

There are various compositions of synthetic wastewater, as given by various publications.

These various compositions are to simulate various desired wastewater to be treated.
Tapioca starch synthetic wastewater According to Chen et al., (1991), tap water was used
to dilute a mixture of Glucose (C6H12O6), Ammonium Chloride (NH4Cl) and phosphate
(PO43) as the source of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus source, respectively. To add
alkalinity, Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3) was added to the synthetic wastewater.

Thailand is one of the largest producers and exporters of Tapioca (Roh et al., 2006) and the
abundance of the crop might mean that the polluted open water will contain tapioca waste.
In simulating the wastewaters of open waters in Thailand, it makes sense to use tapioca
starch based synthetic wastewater. In the preparation of their synthetic wastewater for the
treatment of starch waste by digester membrane system, Roh et al., (2006) used the
compositions as in the Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Composition of Synthetic Starch Wastewater (Roh et al. 2006)

Components Concentration (mg/L)

Starch 2000
(NH4)2SO4 250
MgSO4. H2O 50
FeCl3.H2O 0.25
CaCl2 3.75
KH2 PO4 263.5
K2 HPO4 535
MnSO4.H2O 5
NaHCO3 2000

11
2.6 Organic Loading Rate (OLR)

Organic loading rate (OLR) is defined as the application of soluble and particulate organic
matter. It is typically expressed as kilogrames of BOD5 per cubic meter day, such as
(Otis, 2001; Siegrist, 1987). Control of organic loading can be accomplished by reducing
the BOD5 and TSS concentrations or by increasing the size of the infiltration area to reduce
the mass loading per unit area. (WA DOH, 2002)

For biological wastewater treatment system, OLR refers to the rate at which biomass
(BOD5) is fed into the system. As biomass contains the substrate on which the micro-
organisms feed, OLR indicates the rate at which the substrate is supplied to the organism.
As in any other animal, how much food is supplied directly affects the rate of growth of the
organism. If too much food is given out, only a little will be utilized and the rest will go
untouched and if too little is supplied, the organisms will starve to death. In terms of
wastewater treatment, allowing a lot of biomass not to be utilised means the treatment is
not effective. The undesirable substance that was meant to be removed will just passing
through the system. It is, important, therefore, to supply the right amount of substrate that
can optimally be digested by the organisms.
The organic loading rate, in our system, depends on the available organic matter (Biomass)
in the waters, the flow of the water into the reactor and the reactor cross section area.

/
Organic Loading Rate, (OLR) = Equation. 2.1

Mahmoud et al. (2011), operated the DHS reactor at organic loading rates of 6.2, 4.8, and
3.2 kg COD/m3d and concluded that the increase in OLR leads to decrease in the produced
oxidized nitrogen form (NOx-N). It was also noted that the performance of DHS reactor
was quite good for carbonaceous and nitrogenous compounds removal even at an OLR of
4.8 kg COD/m3d.

2.7 Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT )

The amount of time the fluid stays in the treatment system is referred to as the hydraulic
retention time (HRT). It is the average time spent by the influent in the reactor, before it is
discharged as the effluent. The higher the inflow rate Q, the sooner the influent wastewater
will reach the outlet and therefore the lower will be the residence time or hydraulic
retention. It is calculated by dividing the reactor volume by the flow rate. A long HRT
increases the chances of the biomass being utilized by the organisms.

= 24 ( ℎ) Equation. 2.2

HRT for the DHS reactor is calculated as volume occupied by sponge divided by the flow
rate. (Global Environment Centre Foundation, 2005).

The rate of flow of the fluid to the reactor is the flow rate. It is the volume in a unit time.
This can be expressed in liters per second per cubic meters per day. The flow rate can be
used to vary the organic loading rate.

12
2.8 Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)

Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) process consists of a biological reactor integrated with

membranes that combine clarification and filtration of an activated sludge process into a
simplified, single step process. The membrane is an absolute barrier to suspended matter
and microorganisms and it offers the possibility of operating the system at high mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration. The implication of maintenance of high
MLSS are— requirement of a smaller footprint and operation at high solids retention time
(SRT) under low F/M ratio, hence, yielding reduced excess sludge. In the operation of an
MBR conventional activated sludge plants become single step processes, which produce
high quality effluent potentially suitable for reuse. (Hai et al, 2010).

2.9 Woven Fiber Membrane

A membrane can be defined as a selective barrier that permits separation of certain species
in a fluid by a combination of sieving and sorption diffusion mechanisms (Singh, 2000). It
is a thin sheet of natural or synthetic material that is permeable to certain substances and
prevents the passage of others in solution. Figure 2.1 shows the membrane separation
mechanism. In terms of energy, membrane separation have an important advantage in that,
unlike evaporation and distillation, no change of phase is involved in the process, thus
avoiding latent heat requirements. No heat is necessarily required with membranes, and it
is very possible to produce products with functional properties superior in some respect to
those produced by conventional processes.

Membrane
Phase 1 Phase 2

Feed Permeate

Driving force
Figure 2.1 Membrane separation mechanism

A wide range of particle sizes and Molecular weight can be separated by a membrane. The
sizes range from macromolecular, materials such as starch and protein, to mono-valent
ions. A membrane should be selected such that the sizes of the pores are smaller than the
size of the smallest particle in the feed stream that is to be retained by the membrane.
Membranes are available in several different configurations i.e. tubular, hollow fiber, plate
and frame, and spiral-wound. Some of these designs may work better than the others for a

13
particular application, depending on such factors as viscosity, concentration of suspended
solids, particle size, and temperature.

Woven fiber membrane is another alternative to conventional wastewater treatment

process. However, its main disadvantage include operation high costs, mainly due to
membrane fouling. Membrane fouling is caused by the deposition of biomass and
suspended solids on the membrane surfaces and within the membrane pore. This
deposition leads to an increase of the hydraulic resistance and reduced permeate flux
(Cho, 2002). If the challenges faced by fouled and the associated cleaning costs are
addressed, this technology could become very attractive for wastewater treatment.

2.9.1 Woven fiber membrane treatment mechanism

Woven fiber technology underwent significant development at the Pollution Research

Group, University of Natal, in the 1980s, (Pillay, 1998). The system consists of two layers
of a woven polymer material, stitched together to form rows of parallel filter tubes, called a
"curtain". Feeding the system is done from the inside. Clear liquid permeates the tube wall,
and runs down the outside of the tubes as permeate. The system is used in cross-flow or
dead-end mode.

Physical or chemical cleaning of the membrane is required to remove foulant and maintain
optimum membrane performance in long term operation. Fouling can be limited by
maintaining the permeate flux below critical flux (Jc). This flux is related to flux and
transmembrane pressure (TMP). Above critical flux fouling takes place and cleaning
practice are necessary to restore membrane flux. It has been observed that the critical
flux decreases with the increase of sludge concentration and it could be enhanced by
improving the aeration intensity.

Fiber membranes have different pore sizes that are used in treatment of wastewater and the
choice of the pore size depends on the desired final effluent.

2.9.2 WFM configuration and classification

Membranes are classified according to their pore size. The membrane with the smallest
pore size is the reverse osmosis and microfiltration membranes have the largest pore sizes.
Table 2.5 shows the four classification of membranes and the range of pore size and
operation pressures.

Table 2.5 Classification of Membrane (Mulder, 1996)

Classification Pore Size Operational pressure Flux Range (L/m2.h)

(µm) (bars)
Reverse Osmosis (RO) 10-4 – 10-3 30 – 60 > 50
-3 -2
Nano Filtration (NO) 10 – 10 10 – 20 10 - 50
-2 -1
Ultra Filtration (UF) 10 – 10 1 – 10 1.4 - 12
Micro Filtration (MF) 0.1 – 1 <1 0.05– 1.4

14
The woven fiber membrane can be configured to run in two categories, spiral wound and
flat sheet and operated in either cross flow or dead end mode. In cross flow operation, the
feed is pumped tangential to the surface of the membrane, to maintain a continuous
removal of rejected solids from the surface. In dead end mode, the feed is pump parallel to
the permeate, through the membrane. Rejected solids in dead end mode, accumulate on the
surface and must be removed by backwashing.

2.9.3 Transmembrane Pressure (TMP)

Transmembrane pressure is defined as the difference in pressure between the feed side of
the membrane and the permeate side of the membrane. The driving force affects the TPM
of the membrane. TPM is the overall indicator of feed pressure requirements and is used,
together with flux, to determine whether there is fouling on a membrane. (WEP press,
2006).

15
 Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

To achieve the objectives stipulated in the first chapter, the research was undertaken in
three phases. These phases, as shown in figure 3.1, are as follows:

 Phase I: Acclimatization of the DHS system with synthetic wastewater.

 Phase II: Running the DHS and WFM systems with pond water/septage
mixture.
 Phase III: Instructional manual write-up.

3.2 DHS Module Description

A laboratory scale DHS (random type) module was used. Fabricated from acrylic, the
module has an internal diameter of 0.15 m and a volume of 35.3 liters. It has four identical
segments connected vertically in series. Each segment is 0.5 m high and between each
segment there is be a gap of 0.1 m (Refer to Figure A.1, in the Appendix A). The pieces in
the gaps are perforated with holes, for oxygen diffusion. Each segment of the reactor is
randomly packed with polyurethane cylindrical sponge measuring 3 cm by 3 cm and the
sponges are supported by perforated polypropylene plastic material woven into a mesh, to
keep them rigid. For even distribution of water, a sprinkler is placed at the top of the
reactor. The sponges occupy 30% of the reactor volume.

16
 PHASE I: ACCLIMATIZE WITH SYNTHETIC WATER
Wastewater Characterization

Monitor:
DHS System Inoculation with Seed COD, BOD, TKN
Sludge DO, pH, TSS,TS,TDS, T
Turbidity

DHS System Run for Two Months

(ACCLIMATIZATION)

Pond Water/ Septage

PHASE II: RUN WITH CANAL WATER

Woven Fiber Monitor: Flux, TPM COD, BOD, TKN,

Mixture
Membrane System Set DO, pH T. Coliforms, Temp., E. Coli
Up TDS, TSS, TS
DHS System Set Up

WFM System Run

(Flux and TMP
System Acclimatization Monitoring)

Monitor: COD, BOD, TKN, DO, pH, T.

DHS System Run Coliforms, Temp., E. Coli, TDS, TSS,
(Varying OLR) TS. Turbidity
PHASE III

Simple Guideline Development

Figure 3.1 Methodology framework

3.3 DHS System Inoculation with Seed Sludge

To introduce microorganisms into the system, the DHS reactor was inoculated with seed
sludge. Inoculation was done in a separate tank and lasted for three days. The activated
sludge was taken from AIT Wastewater Treatment Plant (AIT WWTP), and mixed with
ordinary tap water. The table below shows the characteristics of the sludge:

17
Table 3.1 Seed Sludge Characteristics

Parameter Unit Value

pH 7.64
Suspended Solids mg/L 70
COD mg/L 80
TDS mg/L 260
O
Temperature C 30

3.4 DHS Reactor Set-up with Synthetic Water

The DHS system was set behind the AIT EEM Ambient laboratory. The reactor was
supported on a wooden plank which was laid up against the building’s wall. The synthetic
wastewater was mixed in a 200 liter tank. The water was fed to the top of the reactor using
a peristaltic pump. There was no recirculation of the treated water. The set up was as
shown in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 DHS set up with synthetic wastewater

3.5 DHS System Acclimatization Run with Synthetic Wastewater

In the set up, tapioca starch was used to make the synthetic wastewater. This tapioca starch
is made from cassava and is available commercially. To the mixture, a nitrogen and
phosphorus buffer were added using Potassium Sulphate, (KH2PO4) and Ammonium
Chloride (NH4Cl). Tap water is used for dilution of the mixture. Following the rule that
C:N:P ratio should be in the range between 100:10:1 and 100:5:1., 25g of starch is added to
1.25g of Ammonium Bicarbonate (NH4HCO3)and 0.25 g of Potassium
Phosphate.(KH2PO4) giving a C:N:P ratio of 100:5:1 The calculation of the OLR was
done as in Appendix C.
Effluent
The system was run for sixty one (61) days. This start up is the most crucial stage and
determines the subsequent performance of the system. The acclimatization determines if a
highly active biomass with good settling abilities, the two important desired characteristics,
are formed in the reactor. During the acclimatization, microorganisms required for the

18
process are allowed to grow until a sufficiently active population is present in the biomass
to enable digestion to progress stably.

3.6 Operational Conditions of the DHS Reactor During Acclimatization Run

Table 3.2 shows the operational parameters during the acclimatization run with synthetic
wastewater.

Table 3.2 Operational Conditions of the DHS Reactor

Parameter Operational conditions

HRT (h) 2
Temperature (◦C) 28 ± 2
Flow rate (m3/d) 0.185
Organic loading rate (kg COD/m3 d) 2.6
Down flow velocity (m/h) 1.3

3.7 Laboratory Analysis

Grab samples were taken for lab analysis once a day, every day. Around the same time,
the physical parameters that could be measured immediately with on sight instrument were
taken. These parameters are: temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity and
turbidity. Table 3.3 shows the instruments that were used for measuring the physical
parameters and table 3.4 shows the methods used in analysis.

Table 3.3 Instruments Used for Measuring

Parameter Instrument Used

Temperature DO meter (YSI model 550 A)
Dissolved Oxygen DO meter (YSI model 550 A)
pH pH meter (Mettler Toledo AG SG2)
Conductivity Conductivity meter (DKK TOA CM-21P)
Turbidity Turbidimeter (HACH 2100P)

19
Table 3.4 Analytical Methods for the Study

Parameter Unit Method Equipment Freq. Ref.

BOD5 mg/L Azide Titration Once a week APHA et al,
Modification 2005
COD mg/L Closed reflux Titration Twice a week APHA et al,
2005
TKN mg/L Semi-micro Semi-micro Once a week APHA et al,
Kjeldahl Kjeldahl 2005
Total Solids mg/L Dry at 103- Filter/Oven Twice a week APHA et al,
105oC 2005
TSS mg/L Dry at 103 - Filter/Oven/ Twice a week APHA et al,
105oC Water bath 2005
T. MPN/100ml MPN Every 2 weeks APHA et al,
Coliforms 2005
E. Coli MPN/100ml MPN Every 2 weeks APHA et al,
2005
DO mg/L Do meter Daily
pH pH meter Daily
Conductivity mg/L EC meter Daily
O
Temperature C Thermometer Daily
Turbidity NTU Turbidimeter Daily

3.8 Pond Water/ Sewage Mixture Tests

After acclimatization, the DHS set up was moved to the AIT EEM Research Station for the
polluted water study. The water for the study was obtained from an existing pond. The
water was pumped into a tank and the mixed with septage.

Tests were carried out to see which mixture of the pond water to sewage could replicate a
typical polluted canal (COD 140 mg/L ± 20 and BOD5 of 50 mg/L ± 10).

Table 3.5 Characteristics of Pond Water and Septage

Parameter Unit Pond Water Septage

COD mg/L 50 11,300
BOD5 mg/L 18 3,390
TS mg/L 191 9,986
TSS mg/L 51 -
TDS mg/L 140 -
pH 6.8 7
Turbidity NTU 11 -
VSS mg/L - 7,570
TKN mg/L - 481

20
3.9 Experimental Setup with Pond Water/Septage Mixture

For the study, the experiment was setup at the AIT EEM research station, under an existing
shed. The setup was as in figure 3.4.

Figure 3.3 Pond water/septage setup

The pond water was pumped into a 1000 liter tank and then mixed with septage according
to the calculated mixing ratio. This mixture was then distributed to the two tank: DHS
influent tank, and WFM treatment tank using submersible pumps placed inside the mixing
tank. The septage addition to the tank was done manually using a 10 liter bucket as the
quantities were manageable.

Water level in both the DHS tank and WFM tank was kept at a constant level using a level
sensor. Every time the water dropped to a certain level, the pump was automatically
switched on and the tank was refilled and this ensured that there was water in the tank at all
times.

3.10 Down-flow Hanging

anging Sponge System Set Up

The DHS reactor was set up in a slightly different way to the set up for acclimatization for
the acclimatization stage
age as described in section 3.4, the main difference being the method
of water feeding to the reactor. The reactor was supported by a wooden plank which rested
on an existing tank which is not in use.
use. The feed tank was above the reactor and so water
flow into the reactor by gravity.

Table 3.6 Calculation of Organic Loading Rate (OLR)

COD COD Flow COD Load Reactor Vol. OLR

(mg/L) (kg/m3) (m3/d) (kg COD/d) (m3) (kg COD/m3.d)
120 0.12 0.41 0.049 0.035 1.4

21
All the parameters, apart from flow, for the system setup can be assumed constant.
Therefore, to run the reactor at various OLR the flow into the reactor has to be varied and
the following is the determination of the OLR and the corresponding flow.

Table 3.7 Determination of Flow from Various OLR

COD COD OLR Vol. of Reactor Flow (Q) Flow (Q)

(mg/L) (kg/m3) (kg COD/m3.d) (m3) (m3/d) (L/d)
140 0.14 1 0.035 0.25 252
140 0.14 1.6 0.035 0.40 403
140 0.14 2.6 0.035 0.66 656
140 0.14 3.6 0.035 0.91 908
140 0.14 4.6 0.035 1.16 1160
140 0.14 5.6 0.035 1.41 1412
140 0.14 6.6 0.035 1.66 1664

3.11 Woven Fiber Microfiltration System Set Up

The WFM was immersed in put in a 300 liter tank, which contained the water to be treated,
and a peristaltic pump was used for suction, as shown in Figure 3.5. Just like for the DHS
reactor, a level sensor was used to control the level of the water in the tank.

The membranes run for a period of ten (10) days before they could foul and hence be
removed for cleaning. There were two sets of the module and while one was running, the
other one was drying for cleaning.

22
 Figure 3.4 WFM system setup

3.12 Woven Fiber Membrane Properties

The membranes that were used had specifications as shown in table 3.8

Table 3.8 Flat Sheet Membrane Specification

Item Unit Property

Membrane type - Dead-end mode, outside-in, flat sheet
2 sheets (fixed) + 1 steel screen (between the
Filter -
sheets)
Material - Woven Fiber
Pore size µm 1-3
Size: L x W cm x cm 37.0 x 25.5
2
Total membrane area m 0.9435
2
Pure Water Flux LMH (L/m .h) 12 (at 12 kPa)

23
A pure water flux test was done on the membrane on the day before mounting the module
into the treatment tank.

3.13 Woven Fiber Membrane Cleaning

Cleaning of the fouled WFM module was done by solar drying. The fouled membrane was
taken out of the treatment tank and put in the sun to dry. It took less than six hours for the
sludge on the module to start peeling off. Pictures of the drying process are shown in
Appendix C.

3.14 Analytical Methods

Analytical methods to evaluate the removal efficiencies were done in the same way as for
the synthetic wastewater, according to the standard method described in APHA et al
(2005), as shown in table 3.4

3.15 Operation and Maintenance Guideline

A simple guideline for operation was written. This guide line is simple enough to be
followed and understood by people with low literacy levels and is aimed at rural
population. The guideline is included in Appendix C.

Power consumption of the two systems was compared to see which one is more
sustainable. This was a simple power consumption calculation based on the amount of
electricity used by the pumps, amount of time spent in setting up reactor and amount of
time dedicated to operation of the system.

24
 Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the results for the study on the laboratory scale DHS reactor and WFM
systems are presented. The results comprise of the study from the acclimatization stage on
the DHS system, and the run with pond water/septage mixture. The acclimatization stage
was run over a period sixty days, using synthetic wastewater as a feed to the DHS reactor.
The acclimatization stage was mainly to acclimatize the DHS reactor and also to study the
performance of the reactor when run under controlled stable conditions. Only the DHS
system was studied in this phase. For both setups, the following parameters were analysed:
pH, DO, temperature, turbidity, TDS, TS, TSS, COD BOD5 and TKN. The study with
pond water/septage mixture was done with three runs of differing OLR of 1, 2 and 3
kgCOD/m3.d. Besides these parameters, for the WFM, flux and TMP were also analysed.

4.2 Downflow Hanging Sponge System Acclimatization Run

This phase was mainly to let the microorganisms in the DHS reactor adjust to the
environment and also see the performance of the reactor under more controlled conditions.

4.3 Operating Conditions During Acclimatization Run

The following were the operating conditions for the system, during the acclimatization run:

4.3.1 Temperature

32
31
Temperature (oC)

30
29
28 Influent T

27 effluent T

26
25
0 20 40 60
Time (days)

Figure 4.1 Synthetic wastewater temperature range

Figure 4.1 shows the influent and effluent temperature for the DHS system during the run.
Temperature for the run ranged from 26 to 32 oC and. This is the normal temperature
variation for Thailand and most wastewater treatment systems in the country are to the
same temperature range.

25
4.3.2 Turbidity

It was very difficult to keep the turbidity to a steady value. The influent turbidity fluctuated
between 10 and 64 NTU. For most of the treatment period, the system removed a steady
amount of turbidity regardless of the fluctuations.
.
4.3.3 pH

The pH fluctuated between 5.5 and 8. The lower limit for pH in most studies has been 6.5
and so, this wastewater sometimes fell below the limit. However the average pH was 6.5.

4.3.4 Dissolved oxygen

The DHS system is an aerobic system and therefore needs a good supply of oxygen. The
oxygen for the system is naturally supplied through the holes in the segments on the
module and there is no mechanical means of air supply through a compressor. Figure 4.2
shows the influent and effluent oxygen for the DHS system.

8
7
6
5
4
DO (mg/L)

Influent DO
3
Effluent DO
2
1
0
0 20 40 60
Time (days)

Figure 4.2 Synthetic wastewater DO range

The system shows an average DO oxygen uptake of 4 mg/L which his sufficient for
microorganism activities in the reactor.

4.4 Summary of the Operational Conditions for the Acclimatization Run

Table 4.1 Acclimatization Run Operational Conditions Summary

Parameter Unit Operational Condition

o
Temperature C 28 ± 4
pH - 6.4 ± 1.0
Turbidity NTU 40 ± 20
Dissolved oxygen mg/L 5 ± 1.0
Hydraulic retention time h 2.0 ± 0.5
Flow rate m3/d 0.200 ± 0.020
Organic loading rate kgCOd/m3.d 2.6 ± 0.3

26
4.5 DHS System Performance During the Acclimatization Run

With the operating conditions discussed above, the following was the performance of the
system in the acclimatization phase with synthetic wastewater.

4.5.1 COD removal

500 100

400 80

Removal Efficiency (%)

COD (mg/L)

300 60

200 40 Effluent COD

100 20 Influent COD

0 0 Organics Removal
0 20 40 60 Rate
Time (days)

Figure 4.3 Synthetic wastewater DHS COD removal

The system COD removal was as shown in Figure 4.3. The average COD removal
efficiency was 86 ± 10 %. This efficiency is comparable to the removal rate obtained by
Racho in the treatment of tapioca starch wastewater, which was 89 ± 6 % (Racho 2009).

From the results, the reactor had stabilized to fully efficient by day 15 of the run and by
this time, it could be regarded as acclimatized. Further COD tests were done to determine
the soluble COD and it the results were as follows:

Influent soluble COD 330 mg/L

Effluent soluble COD 37 mg/L
Removal efficient 89 %

Soluble COD indicate biological activity in the wastewater treatment and this high
percentage shows that the system is fully acclimatized and the microorganisms are fully
active.

4.5.2 Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS)

As a filter, the DHS rector showed a good performance in the removal of total suspended
solids (TSS). However, the total solids (TS) remained high in the effluent because the
reactor is not designed to remove total dissolved solids (TDS). Figure 4.4 shows the
removal of TS, TSS and TDS.

27
 250

200

150
(mg/L)
Influent
100 Effluent

50

0
TDS TSS TS

Figure 4.4 Synthetic wastewater TS, TSS & TDS removal

TDS calculated from the daily electrical conductivity reading gave a slightly different
value from the measured one. The value is lower by a 100 mg/L. The TDS for both
influent and effluent, ranged from 130 to 160 mg/L. A factor of 6.4 was used to convert
electrical conductivity to TDS. This might be the main cause of such a difference.
However, the most importance fact to note is that the DHS system is not designed to
remove TDS. The TDS measured during the acclimatization run values are given in
Appendix E, Table E.1.

4.5.3 BOD5 removal

Influent BOD Effluent BOD Removal Efficiency

140 100
120
Removal Efficiency (%)

80
100
BOD (mg/L)

80 60

60 40
40
20
20
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (Days)

Figure 4.5 Synthetic wastewater BOD5 removal

BOD5 removal for the system is pressented in Figure 4.5. The BOD5 for the system
removal averaged 71%, and this is considered reasonably good for the treatment of tapioca
starch synthetic wastewater.

28
4.5.4 TKN removal

The system removed considerable amount of TKN with synthetic wastewater and the
average removal was as follows:

Influent TKN 42 mg/L

Effluent TKN 3 mg/L
Removal efficiency 93%

4.6 Pond Water/ Septage Run System Performance

After being satisfied with the acclimatization of the reactor, the system was moved to the
research station where a comparative study with woven fiber microfiltration membrane
(WFM) system was carried out. The DHS system was fed with the same wastewater as the
WFM system and a mixture of pond water and septage was used.

The DHS study was done in three runs of differing OLR for over a period of 100 days. The
operational runs were as follows:

First run 12 December 2013 to 8th January 2014

Second run 9th January to 17th February 2014
Third run 18th February to 31st March 2014

The organic loading rates for the runs were 1, 2 and 3 kgCOD/m3.d respectively.

4.7 Operating Conditions for the Pond Water/ Septage Run

The following were the operating conditions for the study at the research station:

4.7.1 Temperature

The coldest temperature was in January (around 20 oC) and the hottest temperature was in
March (32 oC). Even though the average temperature was higher than the one used in the
synthetic wastewater run, the temperatures are within the range used for the other DHS
studies (Machdar et al., 1997, Mahmoud et al., 2011)

4.7.2 Turbidity

For the first run, turbidity was kept under check and there was not much variation. But for
the second and third run, turbidity varied much. This was mainly due to the much
concentrated pond water/septage mixture. The influent turbidity for the DHS system
ranged from 6 to 610 NTU and for the WFM, it ranged from 4 to 520 NTU. Both systems
seemed to coped well with the high turbidities produced effluent with low turbidity.

4.7.3 pH

The study was operated under a pH range of between 6.5 and 8. This range is the same as
for the synthetic wastewater acclimatization run and also is the recommended range for
biological wastewater treatment systems, as microorganism do well in the pH range of 6.5
to 8.5

29
4.7.4 Dissolved oxygen

The DHS system, which is aerobic, needs oxygen for the wastewater treatment. This
oxygen is supplied naturally through the holes on the DHS module. During the colder
month of January, the levels of oxygen in the DHS intake reached as high as 7 mg/L and
dropped to around 5.5 mg/L during the hottest month of March. The WFM system main
mode of removal is filtration and so DO is not very important for this system. This amount
of DO was more than enough for all the biological processes in the DHS reactor.

4.7.5 DHS dissolved oxygen profile

DO (mg/L)
Influent
0 2 4 6 8 0.2 mg/L
0.0
1
Distance from the top of the reactor

0.5 5.5 mg/L

2
1.0 5.2 mg/L
(m)

3
1.5
4.6 mg/L

2.0 4

6 mg/L
Effluent
Figure 4.6 DHS DO profile for water/septage mixture
.
Figure 4.6 shows the dissolved oxygen profile across the DHS reactor. Almost all the
needed oxygen is supplied from the first segment, as the DO increases from 0.2 mg/L in
the influent to 5.5 mg/L as the water enters the second segment. Segment number three
seems to use more oxygen than the rest of the segments. This oxygen might be utilized in
the nitrification and denitrification. Mahmoud et al., 2009 found that there was a gradual
increase in dissolved oxygen, with the first segment having the least value and the last
segment having the highest value. This difference comes because of the differences in the
oxygen uptake windows on the reactor module. For Mahmoud study, the windows were
small as compared to this study. The sections between the two segments of the reactor
were aligned with holes for the entire length 0.1m, as shown in the picture in Figure 4.7.
Also the top plate of the module has got a lot of hole that let the reactor take up oxygen.
This design has greatly improved the oxygen uptake.

30
 Figure 4.7
4. Oxygen uptake segment with holes

4.8 Summary of the Operational Conditions for the Pond Water/Septage Run

Table 4.2 Pond Water/Septage Run Operational Conditions Summary

Parameter Unit Operational Condition

o
Temperature C 27 ± 6
pH - 7.5 ± 1
Turbidity NTU 50 - 600
Dissolved oxygen mg/L 6.0 ± 1.5
Hydraulic retention time h 2 ± 0.5
Flow rate m3/d 0.250 ± 0.03
Organic loading rate kgCOD/m3.d 1-3

4.9 WFM System Runs

There were two identical WFM modules (designated module 1 and module 2) that were
used alternatively for the study. Cleaning of the fouled module was done by drying in the
sun, and no chemical was used (pictures
( in Appendix C, Figure C.5).
). The alternate running
of the modules allowed the study to run concurrently with the DHS reactor without a
break.

4.9.1 Woven fiber pure water flux

f

A pure water flux test was done on each module at the very beginning of the study. The
pure water flux is a measure of how much pure water (water that contains no foulants)
passes through a membrane.

31
 80
70 y = 6.5442x + 10.973
60 R² = 0.9394
Flux (L/m2.h) y = 6.4461x + 7.3107
50 R² = 0.9504
40
30 Module No 1
20 Module No 2
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
TMP (kPa)
Figure 4.8 Pure water flux for both WFM modules

Figure 4.8 shows the results of pure water flux test for both WFM modules. The test
showed that both membranes were performing normally, giving increased flux with
increased TMP and were both capable of giving a flux of 60 L/m2.h at a TMP of 8 kPa.
The flux, with polluted water, at the same trans-membrane pressures, is expected to be
lower.

4.9.2 WFM system performance

Flux TPM
9 60
8
50
7
Flux (L/m2.h)

TPM (kPa)
6 40
5
30
4
3 20
2
10
1
0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Time (hrs)

Figure 4.9 WFM flux and TMP

Figure 4.9 shows the performance of the WFM module. For the first few hours after
starting the treatment, the WFM produced a flux of up to 8 L/m2.h. The flux then dropped
as the membrane became more and more fouled and settled to a steady value of around 1.5
L/m2.h. Trans-membrane pressure, on the other hand, increased with increased fouling.
The module attained a TMP of 50 kPa, before being cleaned. The actual values of flux and
TMP measurements are presented in Appendix E, Table E.10.

32
4.10 Removal Efficiency for the System

4.10.1 COD removal

Figure 4.10 shows COD removal and Figure 4.11 shows the COD removal efficiency for
both systems. COD removal for the first run showed that the DHS meets the reuse standard
while the WFM is slightly above the reuse standard. For the second run both the WFM
and DHS effluents are above the reuse standard. For COD concentration of above 200
mg/L, the effluent for the DHS system is slightly above reuse standards but for COD
concentration of 160 mg/L or below, the effluent meets e reuse standards.

DHS Influent COD DHS Effluent COD WFM Influent COD

WFM Effluent COD Reuse standard

1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run

400
COD (mg/L)

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (days)

Figure 4.10 COD removal

WFM COD Removal efficiency

1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run

100
Removal efficiency (%)

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (days)

Figure 4.11 COD removal efficiency

33
The removal efficiency in the pond water/septage mixture run is almost the same as for the
acclimatization stage. The detailed COD removal are presented in Appendix E, Table E.5.

4.10.2 COD removal profile

COD (mg/L)
0 200 400 600 Influent
0.0 394 mg/L
Distance from the top of the

1
0.5
reactor (m)

337 mg/L
1.0 2
183 mg/L
1.5
3
2.0 158 mg/L
4
25 mg/L
Effluent

Figure 4.12 COD profile across the DHS reactor

The reactor removes considerable amount of COD in the third and fourth segments of the
module, as shown in Figure 4.12. This is mainly due to filtration, as the water gets more
and more filtered as it goes down the module. This result is comparable to the results found
by Mahmoud et al (2009).

Filtered COD was measured on two days, day 46 and day 58. On day 46, the unfiltered
COD removal efficiency was 92 % and on day 54 the unfiltered COD removal efficiency
had dropped to 29%. The filtered COD removal efficiency was 67% on day 46 and only
11% on day 54. This shows that when the reactor’s performance is good, it removed a lot
of filtered COD. Filtered COD is removed through biological means. On both days the
filtered COD removal for the WFM is very low which shows that there is not much
biological activity on the membrane.

34
4.10.3 BOD5 removal
1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run
90
80
70 DHS Influent BOD
60 DHS Effluent BOD
50
BOD (mg/L)

WFM Influent BOD

40
WFM Effluent BOD
30
20 Reuse Standard
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (days)

Figure 4.13 BOD5 removal

BOD5 Removal for the system was as shown in figure 4.13. The average effluent BOD5 for
the entire study was 10 mg/L against an average influent BOD5 of 60 mg/L. The DHS
effluent for all the three runs met reuse standards. As for the WFM, only the first run met
reuse standards but for the second and third runs did not meet reuse standards. The detailed
BOD5 removal is presented in Appendix E, Table E.6.

4.10.4 TKN removal

DHS Infl. DHS Effl WFM Infl. WFM Effl

50 1st Run 2nd Run 3rd Run

TKN removal (mg/L)

40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (days)

Figure 4.14 TKN removal

TKN removal, for both the systems, is shown in Figure 4.14. Although the influent TKN is
already below the reuse standards, the DHS TKN removal efficiency shows that the system
is capable of good TKN removal with average removal rate of 85 %. The WFM TKN
average removal efficiency, on the other hand is only 40%. Table E.7 in Appendix E gives
the actual TKN removals for both systems.

35
4.10.5 TKN profile across the DHS reactor
Influent
TKN (mg/L)
0 10 20 30 40 37.7 mg/L
Distance from the top of the

0.0 1

0.5 15.4 mg/L

reactor (m)

2
1.0 9.2 mg/L

1.5 3
4.8 mg/L
2.0
4
5.3 mg/L
Effluent
Figure 4.15 DHS TKN profile for water/septage mixture

Figure 4.15 shows the TKN profile across the DHS reactor. According to Agrawal et al.
(1997), nitrification occurs in the second and third segments of the reactor. This was also
collaborated by Machdar et al., (2000) and Mahmoud et al., (2009). However, for the study
on the ten segment DHS reactor module by Kubota et al (2014), on day number 301 and
day number 401, the rector removed nitrogen mainly from box number 2 downwards. This
means right after the second segment, nitrification occurred. Since box number 2 was 0.5
meters from the top this means nitrification started after the water had moved just one
eighth (1/8) of the reactor. This distance in our two meter high reactor falls within the first
segment of the reactor. Therefore, the TKN profile is similar to the nitrogen profile found
presented by Kubota et al., 2014 The abundance of oxygen in the first segment also
contributes to the TKN removal in the first segment.

4.10.6 Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS) and total dissolved solids (TDS)

400

300

200 TS
TSS
100
TDS
0
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
DHS WFM

Figure 4.16 TS, TSS, TDS removal

Figure 4.16 shows TS, TSS and TDS removal. The TDS increased from the first run the
third run. This is due to the increase in concentration of the mixture. Both systems clearly
show that they are not good at removing TDS. However, water with a TDS value of below
36
1000 mg/L is classified as excellent for irrigation. Since the DHS is not designed to
remove TDS, the system should not be used for the treatment of waters with a TDS of
greater than 1000 mg/L, especially when the effluent is intended for agricultural reuse.

4.10.7 Total coliforms

1.4
1.2
Log Removal

1.0
0.8
DHS
0.6
WFM
0.4
0.2
0.0
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

Figure 4.17 System Coliform Removal for water/septage mixture

Total Coliform removal by the system was not particularly good as shown in Figure 4.17.
In the recent study by Onodera et al (2014), the DHS reactor was reported to have a 2.5 log
removal of total coliform, which represents an efficiency of 99.69%. However, the
percentages are higher than those found by Ehsas (2013) on the same reactor module that
is in use, using synthetic wastewater. Ehsas run the reactor for only 45 days as compared to
over 100 days for this study. It should be noted that in the study by Onodera, the value for
the coliform removal were obtained in the second operational year of running the reactor
(i.e. after day 366). This reactor would definitely perform in the same way or better if run
for more than. 365 days. Table E.8 in Appendix E shows the actual numbers for the total
coliform removal for the system

4.11 Summary of the DHS & WFM Run Efficiency

Table 4.3 Summary of the DHS & WFM Run Efficiency

WFM
RS 2nd RS 3rd RS
Parameter 1st Run
Met Run Met Run Met RS
Aver.
Met
COD 77% Yes 76% No 86% No 70% No
BOD 84% Yes 84% Yes 89% Yes 70% No
TKN 80% Yes 72% Yes 90% Yes 40% No
TS 95% Yes 90% Yes 80% No 90% Yes
TC 1.4 Log No 1.2 Log No 1.3 Log No 0.5 Log No
RS = Reuse Standards

37
4.12 DHS Performance Compared to other Studies

Table 4.4 DHS Reactor Performance Compared to Other Studies

DHS OLR HRT Temp pH Removal Rates (%)

Type (kgCOD/m3.d (h) (oC) SS COD BOD5 TKN T/Coli. Ref.
Agrawal
G1 1 13-30 6.8 100 75 - - - et al.,
(1997)
Machdar
G2 2 25 6-8 36 60 92 57 -
(2000)
Tawfik et
G3 1.9 11-21 - 74 75 - 77 -
al. (2006)
Tandukar
G4 2 20-25 - 74 76 88 30 99.41 et al.,
(2005)
Tandukar
G5 2.5 9-32 - 56 63 88 72 99.93 et al.,
(2007)
Onodera
G6 2 2 9-27 6-7 61 72 87 86 99.69 et al.,
(2014)
This This
1 2 22-34 7-8 56 85 85 85 95.76
Study Study

The performance of the DHS reactor in comparison to other studies done as shown in table
4.3.

38
 Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

This research focused on the ability of the down-flow hanging sponge (DHS) reactor in
treating dilute polluted wastewater. The DHS reactor was operated in three concurrent
operational runs, with differing organic loading rates (OLRs) of 1, 2 and 3 kg COD/m3.d.
A woven microfiltration membrane system was set-up in parallel to the DHS reactor, for
performance comparison. The two systems were fed with the same wastewater. The
wastewater characteristics resembled those of a typically polluted canal.

Specific conclusions achieved from this research are presented in the following part with
recommendations for further studies in this research area.

5.1 Conclusions

The DHS reactor had the ability of treating dilute wastewater to the point of giving effluent
that meets reuse standards for most Asian and African countries.

 When feeding the reactor with wastewater, the OLR for the DHS reactor should not
exceed 1.5 kg COD/m3.d. Operating the reactor at this OLR ensures that the flow
rate of the water is not too high to cause a washout of the micro-organisms from the
reactor.

 The optimum physical operating parameter ranges are as follows: temperature 25 ±

5 oC, pH 6.5 ± 1, turbidity of less than 200 NTU, dissolved oxygen (DO) 6 ± 1
mg/L. The design of the DHS reactor allows the system to take up enough DO for
the treatment. The effluent water temperature never increased during the process
and this was within the surface water discharge standards.

 The COD removal efficiency for all the three runs of OLR 1, 2 and 3 kg COD/m3.d
were 77%, 76% and 86% respectively. The effluent COD for run 1 met the reuse
standard but for run 2 and 3 were higher than the reuse standard. The OLR of 2 and
3 kg COD/m3.d were obtained by increasing the influent COD concentration, and
hence the higher effluent COD despite the high removal efficiency.

 All the effluent BOD5 at the OLR of 1, 2 and 3 kg COD/m3.d met the reuse
standard and the removal efficiencies were 84%, 84% and 89% respectively. For
the dilute wastewater, the BOD5 were all below 100 mg/L and so the treated
effluent easily met the reuse standards.

 The effluent TKN values for all the three runs met the reuse standards. The removal
efficiencies at 1, 2 and 3 kg COD/m3/L OLR were 80%, 72% and 90% respectively
and the residual TKN was not a threat to cause eutrophication if the water
overspills to the water bodies.

 For all the three operational runs, the DHS removed enough TSS and the effluent
meets the reuse standards. The removal efficiency for all the runs at an OLR of 1, 2
and 3 kg COD/m3/L were 95%, 90% and 80% respectively. The DHS reactor,

39
 however, is not designed to remove TDS and therefore should not be used for water
with a very high TDS.

 Total Coliform removal for all the three runs averages 1.2 log removal. This
removal is fairly high enough but the effluent does not meet the reuse standards at
all the three OLR.

In comparing the performance of the DHS to the WFM systems, the DHS reactor
performed better than the WFM. The operating conditions were the same as those of the
DHS reactor. The WFM runs lasted for 10 days each and the membrane module was
removed for cleaning by drying in the sun. The flux of the WFM for all the runs averaged
1.5 L/m2.h, which was no high enough for economical reuse.

 The COD removal efficiency for all the WFM runs averaged 70 %, which is lower
than for all the three DHS runs and the effluent COD was above reuse standard.
The WFM treatment is only by filtration and therefore the system does not remove
any soluble COD. The average filtered COD removal efficiency for the DHS
reactor for all the three runs was 60% while for the WFM removed 30%.

 The WFM effluent BOD5 for all the runs did not meet the reuse standard and the
average removal efficiency was 70%. The DHS removal was better than the WFM
for all the three runs.

 The average TKN removal efficiency for the WFM runs was 40%, which is lower
than the DHS TKN removal efficiency. This clearly shows that the DHS system
performance was superior to the WFM in the removal of TKN.

 The WFM performed better than the DHS system in the removal of TSS, with an
average removal efficiency of 90% as opposed to 70% for the DHS system.
However, for the WFM system, when the influent TSS is increased, the flux
reduces while for the DHS reactor, the increase in influent TS does not affect the
quantity of the effluent. For both the systems, the effluent TSS meets the reuse
standard.

 The total coliform removal for the WFM system was lower than that of the DHS
system, with an average log removal of only 0.5. The effluent total coliform for the
WFM system does not meet reuse standards.

The operation of both the DHS and WFM systems is simple enough for the rural people to
follow.

5.2 Recommendations for Future Study

Based on the results obtained, the following recommendations are suggested for future
study in this field:

 Sustainability of the DHS system in rural area where electricity is not readily
available should be studied. The possibility of using solar power for pumping of
water should be studied further. The study should also include minimum energy
needs of the DHS reactor.

40
 There is a possibility of using gravity as a suction pressure for the WFM and this
should be studied further. Using gravity suction pressure, coupled with the solar
cleaning of the membrane would further reduce treatment power needs, and make
the system more attractive for use by less privileged communities.

 This study was conducted over a period of just over 100 days. A study with longer
period should be undertaken, using real canal water. The longer period study will
help to reveal how the DHS reactor behaves in all seasonal weather changes for the
entire year.

41
 References

Agrawal, L., Ohashi, Y., Mochida, E., Okui, H., Ueki, Y., Harada, H., and Ohashi A.
(1997). Treatment of raw sewage in a temperate climate using a UASB reactor
and the hanging sponge cubes process Water Science and Technology, 36 (6-
7), 433–440.

Allison D., and Sutherland, I. (1984). A staining technique for attached bacteria and its
correlation to extracellular carbohydrate production. Journal of
Microbiological Methods., 2 (2) 93-99.

APHA, AWWA, and WEF. (2005). Standard methods for the examination of water and
wastewater (21th Edition). Washington DC, USA: American Public Health
Association. ISBN: 0-184-339106-6.

Asano, T., Smit R., Tchobanoglous G. (1985). Municipal wastewater: Treatment and
reclaimed water characteristics. In: Irrigation with reclaimed municipal
wastewater-a guidance manual. Pettygrove G. S.; and T. Asano (eds), Chelsea,
Mississsippi, United States of America.

Brito, A.G, and Melo, L.F. (1999). Mass transfer coefficients within anaerobic biofilms:
effects of external liquid velocity. Water Research, 33 (17), 3673–3678.

Chen, Z., Wen, Q., Wang, J., and Li, F. (2005). Simultaneous removal of carbon and
nitrogen from municipal-type synthetic wastewater using net-like rotating
biological contactor (NRBC), Process Biochemistry 41, 2468–2472.

Cho, B.D. (2002). Treatment of high strength wastewater using membrane bioreactors.
PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

de Zeeuw, W., and Lettinga, G. (1980). Acclimation of digested sewage sludge during
start-up of an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor.
Proceedings of the 35th Industrial Waste Conference, Indiana, United States of
America.

Ehsas, A. (2013). Development of a Community Based Low Cost Domestic Wastewater

System for Kandahar City, Afghanistan. (Master Thesis No. EV13-01, Asian
Institute of Technology, 2013). Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology.

Geesey, G.G. (1982). Microbial exopolymers: Ecological and economical considerations.

ASM News, 48, 9-14.

Global Environment Centre Foundation. (2005). Ministry of the Environment, Japan.

Retrieved February 7th, 2014, from, http://nett21.gec.jp/water/data/water_13-
1.html.

Guo, W., Ngo, H., Dharmawan, F., and Palmer, C.G. (2009). Roles of polyurethane foam
in aerobic moving and fixed bed bioreactor. Bioresource Technology, 101,
1435-1439.

42
Hai, F., Yamamoto, K., Nakajima, F., and Fukushi, K. (2010). Recalcitrant industrial
wastewater treatment by membrane bioreactor (MBR). In S. Gorley (Eds.),
Handbook of Membrane research: Properties, Performance and Applications
(pp. 67-104). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Hamilton W., (1985). Sulphate-reducing bacteria and anaerobic corrosion. Annual Review
of Microbiology. 39, 195-217.

Henze, M., van Loosdrecht, M., Ekama, G., and Brdjanovic, D. (2008). Biological
Wastewater Treatment: Principles, Modelling and Design. IWA Publishing.
ISBN: 1843391880.

Kubota, K., Hayashi, M., Matsunaga, K., Iguchi, A., Ohashi, A., Li., Y., Yamaguchi, T.,
and Harada, H. (2014). Microbial community composition of a down-flow
hanging sponge (DHS) reactor combined with an up-flow anaerobic sludge
blanket (UASB) reactor for the treatment of municipal sewage. Bioresource
Technology,151, 144 - 150.

Machdar, I., Harada, H., Ohashi A., Sekiguchi, Y., Okui, H., and Ueki, K. (1997). A novel
and cost-effective sewage treatment system consisting of UASB pre-treatment
and aerobic post-treatment units for developing countries. Water Science and
Technology, 36 (12), 189–197.

Machdar, I., Sekiguchi, Y., Sumino, H., Ohashi, H., and Harada, H. (2000). Combinationof
a UASB reactor and a curtain type DHS (downflow hanging sponge) reactor as
a cost-effective sewage treatment system for developing countries. Water
Science and Technology, 42 (3), 83–88.

Mahmoud, M., Tawfik, A. and El-Gohary, F. (2011). Use of down-flow hanging sponge
(DHS) reactor as a promising post-treatment system for municipal wastewater.
Chemical Engineering Journal. 168, 535–543.

Mahmoud, M., Tawfik, A., Samhan, F., and El-Gohary, F. (2009). Sewage treatment using
an integrated system consisting of anaerobic hybrid reactor (AHR) and
downflow hanging sponge (DHS), Desalination Water Treatment, 4, 168-176.

Matsuura, N., Hatamoto, M., Sumino, H., Syutsubo, K., Yamaguchi, T., and Ohashi, A.
(2010). Closed DHS system to prevent dissolved methane emissions as
greenhouse gas in anaerobic wastewater treatment by its recovery and
biological oxidation. Water Science Technology, 61, 2407-15.

Mulder, M. (1996) Basic principles of membrane technology, (2nd edition). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN: 0-7923-4248-8.

Notification of the National Environmental Board. (1994). Under the Enhancement and
Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act (1992). Royal
Government Gazette, No 8, Vol. 111 part 16. Thailand.

Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP). (1999). Executive Summary, The
State of Thailand’s Environment., Thailand.

43
Onodera, T., Tandukar, M., Sugiyana, D., Shigeki Uemura S., Akiyoshi Ohashi, A., and
Harada, H. (2014) Development of a sixth-generation down-flow hanging
sponge (DHS) reactor using rigid sponge media for post-treatment of UASB
treating municipal sewage. Bioresource Technology, 152, 93-100.

Otis, R.J. (2001). Boundary Design: A Strategy for Subsurface Wastewater Infiltration
System Design and Rehabilitation. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Procedures:
Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small
Community Sewage Systems. (pp. 245-260). ASAE. St. Joseph MI.

Pillay V. (1998). Development of a Crossflow Microfilter for Rural Water Supply. WRC
Report No 386/1/98, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Racho, P. (2009). Investigation of Downflow Hanging Sponge (DHS) System Using

Bacterial and Fungal Cultures as a Post Treatment for the UASB Effluent of a
Taipoca Starch Wasterwater. PhD Thesis, Suranaree University of
Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand.

Rijsberman, F. (2004). Sanitation and access to clean water. Global Challenges, Global
Solutions. (pp. 498-527). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Roh, S.H., Chun, Y.N., Nah, J.W., Shin H.J., and Sun-Il Kim (2006). Wastewater
Treatment by Anaerobic Digestion Coupled with Membrane
Processing.Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 12 (3), 489-493.

Siegrist, R.L. (1987). Soil Clogging During Subsurface Wastewater Infiltration as

Affectedby Effluent Composition and Loading Rate, Journal of Environmental
Quality, 16 (2), 181-187.

Simachaya, W. (2002) State of Surface Water Quality in Thailand. Paper presented to the
Seminar on Water Quality Management at Medical Department, Ministry of
Public Health, Thailand.

Simachaya, W. (2002). Water Quality Monitoring and Modeling Application in Thailand

Paper Presented to the Third World Water Forum Session “Water Quality
Monitoring and Modeling- The Present Situation and Partnership in the
Future.” October 16-17, 2002 at the United Nation University Center in Tokyo,
Japan.

Sutherland, I. (2001). The biofilm matrix – an immobilized but dynamic microbial

environment. Trends in Microbiology, 9 (5), 222-227.

Tandukar M., Uemura S., Machdar I., Ohashi A., and Harada H. (2005). A low cost
municipal sewage treatment system with a combination of UASB and the
fourth generation down flow hanging sponge reactors, Water science and
technology, 52, 323 – 329.

Tandukar, M., Machdar, I., Uemura, S., Ohashi, A., and Harada, H. (2006). Potential of a
combination of UASB and DHS reactor as a novel sewage treatment system for

44
 developing countries: long-term evaluation, Journal of Environmental
Engineering, 132 (2), 166–172.

Uemura, Sh., Suzuki, S., Maruyama, Y., and Harada, H. (2011). Direct Treatment of
Settled Sewage by DHS Reactors with Different Sizes of Sponge Support
Media. International Journal of Environmental Resources, 6 (1), 25-32.

UNEP. (1998). Sourcebook of Alternative Technologies for Freshwater Augmentation in

Latin America and The Caribbean. ISBN No: 9280714772.

UNESCO. (2006). Water: a shared responsibility. In: The United Nations World Water
Development Report 2. (2010-10-12). Retrieved February 19, 2014, from
http://wwwunescoorg/water/wwap/wwdr/ wwdr2/.

USEPA, (2012). Guideline for water reuse. United States Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA/600/R-12/618 September 2012.

Vairavamoorthy, K., Gorantiwar, S., and Pathirana, A. (2008). Managing urban water
supplies in developing countries: Climate change and water scarcity scenarios.
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 33 (5), 330–339.

Visvanathan, C., and Cippe, A. (2002). Strategies for Development of Industrial

Wastewater Reuse in Thailand, A Report. School of Environment, Resources
and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

Washington State Department of Health (WA DOH). (2002). Water Management

Programme: Rule Development Committee Issue Research Report – Organic
Loading Rates. Washington DC, United States of America

Water Environment Federation (WEP). (2006). Membrane systems for wastewater

treatment. New York: WEP Press McGraw-Hill.

World Health Organization (WHO), (2006). A compendium of standards for wastewater

reuse in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Document No: WHO-
EM/CEH/142/E. Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Regional
Centre for Environmental Health Activities.

Zaveri, R., and Flora J. (2002). Laboratory septic tank performance response to electrolytic
stimulation. Water Research, 36, 4513–4524.

ZoBell C.E, and Anderson, D.Q. (1936). Vertical distribution of bacteria in marine
sediments. Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 20,
258-269.

45
 Appendix A

Pictures of Experiment Location

Figure A.1
A DHS system set-up
up for acclimatization

Figure A.2 Pond Water and septage (where the water for the study is taken)

46
 Appendix B

OLR Calculations for Synthetic Wastewater

The following are the exact proportions of the synthetic wastewater mixture

Tapioca starch, 25 g
Ammonium Bicarbonate (NH4HCO3) 1.25 g
Potassium Phosphate (KH2PO4) 0.25 g
Frequency of feeding: Twice a day: at 07:30 hrs and 19:30 hrs

The reactor was run at an Organic Loading Rate (OLR) of 2.6 kg/m3.d. The inlet flow
was kept constant and the OLR was varied by the amount of tapioca starch that was fed to
the reactor per day.

Organic loading rate was calculated using equation 2.1:

Average COD = 300 mg/L

Volume of reactor = 0.353 m3
Flow = 310 L/d
.
OLR = = .
= .
= 2.6 kg COD/m3.d

47
 Appendix C

Appendix C – 1

Operation and Maintenance Manual

Down
Down-flow Hanging Sponge System

48
 Table of Contents

Required Apparatus …………………………………………………… 50

Operational Parameters……………………………………………….. 52
DHS set-up at the canal……………………………………………….. 52
DHS start up and operation…………………………………………… 53
System monitoring and cleaning………………………………………. 54
Trouble shooting………………………………………………………... 55

49
 1. Required Apparatus

 DHS Reactor Module

DHS Module (Figure C.1)

 4 x segments randomly packed with
sponges.
Sponges:: 30 mm x 30 mm each
 150±20 20 sponges in each segment

Volume = 0.353 m3

Figure C.1 DHS Reactor module dimensions

50
 Tanks

1 x Buffer tank
1 x DHS Feed tank
1 x Effluent storage tank

 Submersible pumps:

1 x from canal to buffer tank

1 x from buffer tank to DHS tank

 Mixing pumps

[Ty

1 x pump for buffer tank

1 x pump for DHS tank

[T
[Ty
pe a

51
2. Operational Parameters

Table C.1 Operational Parameter for the DHS Reactor

Parameter Unit Minimum Value Maximum Value

o
Temperature C 20 35
pH - 6 8
Turbidity NTU - 200
Hydraulic retention time h 1.5 2.5
Flow rate m3/d 0.200 0.300
Organic loading rate kg COD/m3.d 1 3

3. DHS System Set-up Outline at a Canal

Figure C.2 System layout at canal

52
 Figure C.3 DHS Reactor setup at the canal

4. DHS startup and operation

(A) Start-up

 Inoculation with seed sludge – done in separate tank

 Sock the sponges in water using a sixty liter bucket

 Add 5 liters of septage from a septic tank.
tank
 Insert air pipes,, from a compressor, into the mixture.
 Switch on the air compressor and let it run for at least 24 hours before turning of
off.

53
 Leave the mixture for another two days after switching off the compressor.

 After three days, carefully fill each segment of the DHS module with 150 sponges
sponges.
(B) Operation

 Assemble the DHS reactor, with inoculated sponges inside.

inside
 Carefully tighten the nuts, making sure there is no leakage from the module.

 Connect the influent pipe to the DHS reactor inlet pipe valve

 Turn on the inlet pipe valve.

 Adjust the flow rate to 200mL /minute (using a graduated cylinder)

 Connect the pipe to the DHS reactor

5. System Monitoring and cleaning

 Check for pipe clogging as listed in Table E.3

54
  Observe water and its velocity into DHS Module.
 Clean sprinkler, pipes and overhead tanks every three weeks.
 Remove algae growth every time the growth appears. If the reactor module is made
of transparent material, cover the module with a black cloth. Use only opaque
pipes.

6. Troubleshooting

Table C.2 Troubleshooting of the system

Problem Probable Cause Possible Solution

Clean the pipe thoroughly. Clean the,
Influent pipe or sprinkler pipes, sprinkler and DHS tank is every
blockage three weeks.
No effluent
Close the inlet pipe valve to the reactor.
DHS Module clogging
Open the effluent pipe and let tall the
and flooding. Too high
water drain out. Reduce the flow of the
OLR
water into the reactor.
Turbid effluent Too high inflow velocity Reduce the flow velocity of water into
causing through-flow the reactor.
Water flowing
Reactor not well Realign the reactor vertically. Use a line
along the reactor
vertically aligned level for the alignment
wall
Cover all transparent parts with
System exposed to
Algae growth preferably a black cloth. Use only
sunlight
opaque pipes for the system
Micro fauna
Flies attracted to the Cover all holes on the DHS reactor with
invasion (flies,
sludge inside the reactor a mesh, but don’t block aeration holes.
snails)
Accumulation of
Solids settling at the Cleaning the tanks every three weeks and
sludge in feed
bottom of the DHS tank replace the feed water.
tank

55
 Appendix C – 2

Operation and Maintenance Manual

Woven Fiber Microfiltration System

56
 Table of Contents

Required Apparatus …………………………………………………… 58

Operational Parameters……………………………………………….. 59
WFM set-up at the canal……………………………………………….. 59
Installation……………………………………………………………… 60
WFM start up and operation…………………………………………… 61
System monitoring and cleaning………………………………………. 61
Trouble shooting………………………………………………………... 63

57
1. Required Apparatus

Woven fiber Microfiltration sheets & Frame

Flat sheet membrane

Woven fiber flat sheet Hole in which

Membrane the steel rod
1 x support frame is inserted

Sheet size:
Length: 370 mm
Width: 225 mm
Tubes and fittings

Tanks

1 x treatment tank
1 x effluent storage tank

Pumps

1 x peristaltic pump (for suction)

1 x submersible pump

58
 Pressure gauge

2. Operational Parameters

Table C.3 Operational Parameter for the WFM Reactor

Parameter Unit Minimum Value Maximum Value
o
Temperature C 20 35
pH - 6 8
Turbidity NTU - 200

Table C.4 Membrane Specification

ITEM UNIT PROPERTY

Membrane type - Dead-end mode, outside-in, flat sheet
2 sheets (fixed) + 1 steel screen (between the
Filter -
sheets)
Material - Woven Fiber
Pore size µm 1-3
Size: L x W cm x cm 37 x 25.5
Total membrane
m2 0.9435 (Depend on number of sheets)
area
Pure Water Flux LMH (L/m2.h) 12 (at 12 kPa)

3. WFM set-up at the canal

Figure C.4 WFM System layout at canal

59
4. WFM Installation
Connect filter ends of the membrane plate to the connecting tube.
 Connect the other end of the tube to the pipe leading to the suction pump
pump. Insert the
steel rod into the membrane plate holes on the corners of the sheet

Steel rod inserted

through the membrane

 Connect at least five membrane sheets to form one unit module

Flat sheet connected into one

module

 Complete the set up by inserting the flat sheet module into the treatment tank

60
 Figure C.5 WFM Set up in treatment tank

5. WFM start up and operation

 Pump speed set to 2
 Turn on pump
 Check flow and pressure every six hours.
 Once flux drops, increase pump speed
6. System monitoring and cleaning
 Regularly check pressure reading
 Once pressure gauge reaches 60 kPa, turn off the pump
 Remove the dirty membrane and place in the sun
 After 24 hours, remove the dry sludge from the membrane
 Use a soft brush to remove the dry sludge.

61
 a b

e
d

( a, b ): Fouled module taken out of the treatment tank

( c ): Fouled module next to a clean module
( d ): Module drying in the sun and peeling off the sludge
( e ): Collected peeled off sludge

Figure C.6 WFM Module Cleaning by solar drying

62
7. Trouble shooting
Table C.5 WFM System Troubleshooting
Problem Probable Cause Possible Solution
(ii) Make sure all connectors are
No Permeate but
Loose connection secured tightly and there is no pressure
pump running
causing pressure lose leakage

No permeate but
pressure gauge
Membrane fouled Remove membrane and clean
giving a high
reading

System exposed to Use opaque pipes.

Algae growth
sunlight Clean off the algae regularly

63
 Appendix D

Surface Water Quality

Table D.1 Standards used for this research

Parameter Unit Standard Reference

BOD mg/L 10 OEPP,1999
COD mg/L 30* WHO, 2006
TKN mg/L < 5* WHO, 2006
TS mg/L < 480** USEPA, (2012)
TSS mg/L < 30 USEPA, (2012)
TDS mg/L < 450 USEPA, (2012)
Total Coliform MPN/100mL < 1000 WHO, 2006
Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 2 OEPP,1999
O
Temperature C Not more than 3o Change OEPP,1999
pH 6-9 OEPP,1999
* Discharge limits
** TDS + TSS = TDS

Table D.2 Typical Pollution of Surface Water

BOD5 COD TDS pH DO Turbidity Reference

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU)
Malawi 35- 70 - 586 - 6.8 – 7.5 Sajidu et al.,
244 (2007)
Egypt 30 - 170 1000 - 7.2 -7.6 0.4 – 5.8 Shaban et al.,
1400 (2010)
Sri 40 - 100 46 - 2.0 – 3.7 0.5 – 3.3 Jinadasa et al.,
Lanka 153 (2012)
Thailand 35 -65 170- 270 5.5 -8.9 1-2 285 Ongsakul et al.,
300 (2006)

64
Table D.3 Thailand Surface Water Quality

Classification Objective/Condition and beneficial use

Class 1 Extra clean fresh surface water resources used for :
(1) Conservation not necessary pass through water treatment process
require only ordinary process for pathogenic destruction
(2) Ecosystem conservation where basic organisms can breed naturally
Class 2 Very clean fresh surface water resources used for :
(1) Consumption which requires ordinary water treatment process before
use.
(2) Aquatic organism of conservation.
(3) Fisheries.
(4) Recreation.
Class 3 Medium clean fresh surface water resources used for :
(1) Consumption, but passing through an ordinary treatment process
before using.
(2) Agriculture
Class 4 Fairly clean fresh surface water resources used for :
(1) Consumption, but requires special water treatment process before
using
(2) Industry
Class 5 The sources which are not classification in class 1-4 and used for
navigation

Table D.4 Thailand Surface Water Quality Parameters their Classification

Classification
Parameter Unit
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
o
Temperature C N N N N -
pH N 5-9 5-9 5-9 -
Dissolved Oxygen (DO) mg/L N 6 4 2 -
BOD (5 days, 20°C) mg/L N 1.5 3 4 -
Total Coliform Bacteria MPN/100 mL N 5,000 20,000 - -
NO3 -N mg/L N 5 5 5 -
NH3 -N mg/L N 0.5 0.5 0.5 -

N = Natural, Source: (NNEB, 1994)

65
Table D.5 USEPA Guidelines for Water Reuse

Type of Category & description Treatment Reclaimed Water

Required Quality
Impoundments Secondary, pH = 6 to 9
Unrestricted: Filtration, BOD ≤ 10 mg/L
The use of reclaimed water in an impoundment in Disinfection Turbidity ≤ 2 NTU
which no limitations are imposed on body-contact

Restricted Secondary BOD ≤ 30 mg/l

The use of reclaimed water in an impoundment Disinfection TSS ≤ 30 mg/l
body- where contact is restricted. FC ≤ 200 /100 mL
Environmental Reuse: Variable BOD ≤ 30 mg/L
The use of reclaimed water to create Secondary, TSS = 30mg/L
wetlands, enhance natural wetlands, Disinfection FC ≤ 200/100mL
or sustain stream flows.
Agricultural Secondary, pH = 6 to 9
food crops: Filtration, BOD ≤ 10 mg/L
The use of reclaimed water for surface or spray Disinfection FC ≤ 0/100mL
irrigation of food crops which are intended for Turbidity ≤ 2 NTU
human consumption, consumed raw

Processed Food Crops

The use of reclaimed water for surface irrigation pH = 6 - 9
of food crops which are intended for human Secondary BOD ≤ 30 mg/l
consumption, commercially processed. Disinfection BOD (7)
TSS ≤ 30 mg/l
Non-Food Crops: TSS
The use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops FC ≤ 200 /100 mL
which are not consumed by humans, including
fodder, fiber, and seed crops, or to irrigate pasture
land, commercial nurseries, and sod farms

Source: USEPA (2012) Design Manual: Guidelines for Water Reuse

66
 Appendix E

Experimental Results

Table E.1 pH, DO, Turbidity, Temperature and TDS during DHS Acclimatization
Run

Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 6.69 6.52 6.49 5.87 - - 26.7 27.6 150 150
2 7.34 7.50 5.89 5.27 - - 27.3 28.1 153 153
3 7.06 7.34 2.97 5.65 - - 28.0 29.1 148 147
4 7.22 7.90 2.81 7.20 - - 27.4 29.1 146 146
5 6.21 6.89 0.78 4.42 - - 28.0 28.9 150 150
6 5.76 6.45 0.29 3.12 - - 26.7 27.1 147 147
7 - - 0.18 2.84 - - 27.2 28.0 146 145
8 5.82 6.56 0.19 3.08 - - 27.3 28.4 137 134
9 5.54 6.56 0.19 3.08 - - 27.8 29.0 130 130
10 - - 0.31 2.36 - - 28.3 29.4 144 143
11 6.55 6.39 2.07 3.57 - - 27.5 26.8 137 135
12 6.28 6.61 0.35 2.59 22.53 8.97 29.0 29.6 139 140
13 6.28 6.52 1.58 2.94 6.80 7.80 28.3 27.9 137 140
14 5.95 7 1.01 2.93 53.17 16.87 26.7 26.2 135 135
15 6.91 6.91 0.98 3.24 7.33 10.88 28.1 29.0 139 141
16 6.39 6.67 0.28 3.08 7.35 9.00 28.7 29.5 144 146
17 - - 0.29 2.52 20.43 7.90 27.5 28.2 146 146
18 6.25 6.79 0.27 1.91 63.67 14.17 27.8 27.5 143 150
19 - - 0.31 2.36 53.33 8.16 27.4 27.2 143 145
20 0.44 2.98 9.35 7.72 27.4 27.2 148 150
21 6.51 6.79 0.21 2.89 33.67 9.03 28.9 30.0 151 152
22 6.09 6.48 0.44 3.08 58.93 34.83 30.3 31.5 140 144
23 6.63 7.09 1.28 3.70 36.07 22.20 29.4 30.6 145 147
24 7.07 7.11 2.34 3.71 13.70 5.03 29.4 30.6 145 147
25 6.53 6.93 0.23 3.56 27.77 10.28 30.0 30.4 146 152
26 6.32 6.85 0.25 3.88 40.23 14.50 27.8 27.6 144 144
27 5.90 6.29 0.65 3.03 34.17 14.13 27.0 27.0 148 147
28 6.67 5.78 0.25 3.47 26.57 10.13 27.3 28.2 147 147
29 6.96 7.88 0.26 3.56 39.83 16.87 27.5 28.1 149 147
30 6.60 7.23 0.28 2.81 29.87 19.53 27.4 28.1 149 152
31 6.49 7.10 0.21 2.72 31.30 14.13 28.0 28.8 151 152
32 6.40 7.03 0.30 1.95 16.40 16.20 28.4 29.3 - -
33 - - - - - - 28.0 28.8 - -
34 - - 0.38 3.01 28.57 14.23 28.7 29.4 158 157
35 6.90 7.11 0.23 1.57 24.10 17.00 27.8 28.4 156 155
36 6.73 7.06 0.23 2.43 28.23 15.50 27.8 28.9 152 152

67
 Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
37 6.51 6.88 0.31 2.10 19.23 8.90 28.4 29.3 149 150
38 6.47 6.64 0.25 2.31 28.23 15.57 29.0 29.5 148 150
39 6.34 6.76 0.12 2.18 18.03 7.81 29.1 26.4 150 152
40 6.32 6.54 0.26 1.14 21.37 10.60 - - 152 155
41 6.33 6.58 0.38 3.22 25.50 11.14 29.1 29.6 148 148
42 - - 6.27 5.44 32.80 3.25 - - 153 147
43 6.78 6.89 2.42 5.22 19.33 7.31 29.3 29.9 - -
44 6.19 6.48 0.40 4.63 32.50 22.67 28.8 29.5 - -
45 6.82 6.59 2.68 5.14 22.47 10.53 28.5 29.6 153 147
46 6.81 6.43 2.78 3.60 18.13 10.49 30.1 31.0 - -
47 6.44 6.59 0.41 2.66 31.00 14.37 29.1 29.9 - -
48 6.28 6.59 0.28 4.13 24.07 12.77 29.7 29.2 - -
49 6.18 6.28 0.34 2.48 17.50 13.57 28.8 28.6 - -
50 6.56 6.44 0.26 2.75 29.40 16.70 28.2 29.2 - -
51 6.56 6.68 0.30 2.65 33.97 20.53 28.5 28.5 152 155
52 6.57 6.53 0.28 3.07 47.87 28.13 28.6 29.1 - -
56 6.21 6.53 0.33 3.19 41.30 20.63 29.1 28.6 153 151
61 6.38 6.87 0.29 3.87 34.17 15.80 28.6 29.0 159 155

Note: Infl. = Influent

Effl. = Effluent
TU = Turbidity

Table E.2 DHS COD and BOD5 Removal during Acclimatization Run

Day Infl. Effl. COD Removal Infl. BOD5 Effl. BOD5 Removal
COD (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
(mg/L)
3 - - 138 60 57
5 46 150 69 - - -
9 117 292 60 - - -
13 277 24 94 - - -
16 - - - 42 10 76
29 - - - 50 11 77
30 310 34 89 - - -
34 316 8 97 - - -
38 410 21 95 57 14 76
42 203 7 96 26 4 84
51 311 36 89 - - -

68
Table E.3 DHS pH, DO, Turbidity Temperature and TDS during Pond
Water/Septage Run

Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 7.72 7.49 1.8 5.3 22.6 2.39 - - 224 220
2 - - 2.13 5.01 15.8 2 27.2 27.5 231 225
3 7.49 7.18 1.29 6.14 10.6 4.53 26.8 26.3 236 241
4 7.55 7.58 1.53 6.08 5.93 2.52 27.1 27.2 245 234
5 7.49 7.59 1.13 5.13 8.07 3.36 27.8 28.2 255 243
6 7.46 7.4 1.18 5.14 5.36 2.84 28.6 29.3 254 243
7 7.58 7.54 0.95 6.32 10.2 2.04 28.3 27.8 260 241
8 7.61 7.81 1.2 6.9 19.5 7.87 24.6 24.3 260 243
9 7.59 7.97 1.33 6.3 11.8 1.89 24.1 24.7 267 251
11 7.23 7.49 1.24 7.7 15.9 3.69 23 23.4 264 259
12 7.42 7.54 1.67 7.24 7.07 2.41 22.7 22.5 259 253
14 7.42 7.60 1.38 7.5 14.7 2.91 22.6 23.3 278 272
15 7.3 7.67 1.15 7.66 20.7 5.19 23.2 22.7 284 271
16 7.3 7.56 1.03 7.5 44.9 4.3 23.3 23.2 256 253
17 7.19 7.57 1.32 7.05 6.91 3.46 22.8 23.5 273 263
19 7.23 7.74 1.33 7.54 - - 21.7 21.8 - -
20 - - 1.44 7.50 - - 21.5 22.2 - -
28 - - 0.99 7.55 - - 26.2 26.4 - -
29 7.46 7.79 1.87 7.10 - - 26.1 26.3 - -
30 7.45 7.57 0.33 7.36 96.6 2.66 27.1 26.1 265 289
31 7.39 7.93 0.79 7.53 96.9 1.58 27.5 26.8 260 264
32 7.24 7.85 0.77 7.30 19.2 1.20 26.7 27.9 268 264
34 7.2 7.73 1.12 7.30 15.1 2.81 26.5 27.3 269 266
37 7.31 7.56 0.47 7.73 106 3.73 23.1 22.3 284 272
38 7.39 7.43 0.32 7.50 482 7.09 21.9 23 288 275
39 7.6 7.58 0.45 7.29 443 31.9 22.2 22.4 296 269
40 7.55 7.85 0.24 7.05 324 2.84 24.4 25 277 268
41 - - 0.37 7.5 169 4.27 22.5 23.2 267 269
42 7.77 7.87 0.48 7.4 110 6.86 21.8 22.1 244 242
43 7.32 7.36 0.46 7.5 165 12.3 22.5 22.8 242 241
44 7.4 7.32 0.76 7.44 119 9.89 23.1 24 261 252
45 7.41 7.31 0.9 7.28 75.9 10.1 21.6 22.1 270 259
46 7.36 7.29 0.96 7.05 50.9 8.96 21.5 22.4 274 262
47 7.26 7.12 0.50 7.20 113 9.12 21.2 21.5 296 277
48 7.34 7.3 0.76 6.53 59.9 44.8 23.8 25.8 307 286
49 7.34 7.29 0.56 6.80 - - 23.7 24.2 304 286
50 - - 0.37 6.39 122 40.9 27 28.4 332 310
51 7.49 7.44 0.31 7.28 120 45.3 24.9 25.3 324 301
52 7.14 7.06 0.19 6.34 113 53.4 25.2 25.7 335 321

69
 Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
53 7.09 6.92 0.31 6.50 95.4 59.1 25.3 24.5 333 312
54 6.98 6.71 - - 173 84.1 - - 340 325
55 7.24 6.84 - - 104 112 26.9 27.7 341 317
56 7.21 7.19 0.2 4.3 176 104 28.5 29.4 350 331
57 7.23 7.09 0.17 5.60 209 62.9 27.1 25.8 346 301
58 7.31 7.08 0.15 6.00 67.5 23 29.9 29.9 318 317
60 7.4 6.94 0.18 5.52 63.5 33.5 29.2 30.6 363 341
61 7.41 7.12 0.19 5 62.1 22.5 28.9 30 399 345
62 7.38 7.33 0.16 5.40 44.3 31.4 28.6 29.6 397 346
63 7.5 7.27 0.32 6.74 97 33.2 26.3 24.7 364 317
64 7.47 7.19 0.30 6.50 48 34.6 26.1 25.1 365 349
65 7.42 7.15 0.3 6.3 80.4 11 27 27.7 391 349
66 7.52 7.26 0.14 6.10 110 25.9 28 27.9 410 361
67 7.47 7.26 0.27 6.20 71.2 30.7 27.9 27.8 422 353
69 7.36 7.04 0.33 6.50 168 35.9 27.7 27.6 435 423
70 7.39 7.07 0.14 6.1 125 28.2 28.2 28.4 455 413
71 7.17 6.88 0.17 6.42 76.3 46.2 27.5 28.2 450 419
72 7.58 7.5 0.16 6.30 125 26.5 28.7 28.3 451 407
73 7.38 7.5 0.17 6.30 138 66.5 27.4 26 433 367
74 7.41 7.65 0.2 6.39 82.4 43.3 24.9 23.7 407 339
76 7.49 7.35 0.27 6.10 409 41.2 28 29 444 406
77 7.49 7.38 0.17 6.10 140 69.2 28.7 29.1 468 438
78 7.41 7.28 0.18 6.12 113 58.5 28.5 30.4 474 457
79 7.44 7.25 0.27 6.01 92.1 57.2 28.3 28.6 478 440
81 7.35 7.26 0.17 6.12 487 17.9 29.5 30.2 500 436
82 7.24 6.95 0.18 6.10 205 46.6 28.4 28.4 494 458
83 7.33 7.05 0.14 6.13 145 18.8 29.1 29.4 498 451
84 7.87 7.78 0.22 6.24 173 20 29.4 30 520 458
85 7.94 7.6 0.13 6.11 201 24 28.5 28.8 461 396
86 7.41 7.58 0.17 6.30 348 5.37 28.6 28.4 468 419
88 7.45 7.39 0.19 6 173 39 30.1 30.1 479 435
89 7.35 7.34 0.14 6 191 31.9 30.7 30.6 480 434
90 7.42 7.42 0.17 6.30 200 32 29.5 29.3 467 430
92 7.31 7.58 0.29 6.40 173 13.9 29.6 27.3 - -
93 7.48 7.58 0.18 6.15 611 99.2 29.5 29.1 422 362
94 7.87 7.45 0.12 6.26 336 66.6 29.8 30.1 426 395
95 7.56 7.46 0.13 6.41 257 21.5 29.6 28.5 429 362
98 7.43 7.56 0.12 6.11 357 31.7 30.7 30.5 436 370
99 7.30 7.65 0.13 6.35 371 53.7 30.8 30.9 461 398
101 7.45 7.3 0.14 5.5 187 107 33.8 34.5 481 440
102 7.45 7.21 0.16 6.32 190 104 30.4 28.7 454 407
104 - - 0.24 5.75 201 68.8 31.9 32.4 434 397

70
 Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
105 7.7 7.87 0.18 5.55 178 51.2 30.7 31.1 426 369
107 7.34 7.26 0.17 5.5 218 43.4 31.4 29.3 478 408
111 7.29 7.2 0.16 5.90 129 13.5 31.2 30.8 500 424
114 7.25 7.22 0.13 5.70 226 19.2 31.1 30.6 525 427
118 7.51 7.22 0.24 5.30 72.1 19.2 28.8 29.7 484 424
122 7.27 7.10 0.13 5.6 441 21 31.5 30.8 - -

Table E.4 pH, DO, Turbidity Temperature and TDS for WFM System Pond
Water/Septage Run

Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
1 7.66 7.68 0.97 5.49 21.6 1.07 - - 237 227
2 - - 2.54 5.83 17.60 0.78 26.8 27.5 246 237
3 7.73 7.64 2.12 4.56 7.79 0.54 26.4 28.8 250 248
4 7.76 7.69 2.1 5.64 6.39 0.8 26.9 28.2 257 250
5 7.71 7.70 0.87 5.50 7.47 0.92 27.6 30.3 266 260
6 7.67 7.68 0.98 5.90 3.72 0.56 27.9 27.6 273 264
7 8.11 7.95 3.96 5.75 33.2 1.13 28 28.2 278 272
8 8.14 8.06 5.58 7.00 46.6 0.54 25 25.5 282 278
9 8.15 8.06 6.18 7.38 12.4 0.85 23.7 24 281 251
11 7.71 7.58 6.15 7.12 7.08 0.73 22.8 25.7 285 279
12 7.51 7.34 5.13 7.30 11.9 0.42 22.2 24.5 273 269
14 7.33 7.28 3.98 6.5 8.42 0.58 22.8 24.4 269 266
15 7.33 7.30 3.97 7.35 8.23 0.77 22.7 23.7 270 265
16 7.46 7.12 5.05 7.5 11.3 0.93 22.8 23.5 270 259
17 7.38 7.32 4.5 6.30 10 0.48 22.6 23.6 273 263
28 - - 4.20 6.30 - - 26 27.4 - -
29 7.7 7.65 2.50 4.50 - - 26.1 27.5 - -
30 7.42 7.46 0.88 4.61 9.38 0.8 26.9 28.2 282 276
31 7.35 7.62 1.15 5.30 8.02 0.84 27.2 27.6 275 268
32 7.34 7.08 3.03 5.30 18.60 0.77 26.7 27.3 275 268
37 7.34 7.42 2.22 2.36 34.8 32.4 23.1 23.1 291 291
38 7.37 7.25 0.35 1.80 120 29.5 22 21.9 295 288
39 7.62 7.65 0.29 6.88 158 0.7 22.2 23.5 303 291
40 7.81 7.85 0.25 5.42 395 1.15 23.4 24.4 298 284
41 - - 0.29 6.5 193 0.84 22.7 23.3 244 238
42 7.74 7.71 0.57 3.8 234 1 21.9 23.1 255 250
43 7.37 7.41 0.22 6 110 1.74 22.5 22.7 257 253
44 7.32 7.44 0.36 5.94 132 1.59 22.1 23.5 266 252
45 7.36 7.51 0.4 5.87 79.5 0.72 20.8 22.6 271 262
46 7.37 7.62 0.62 6.72 29 1.6 21.1 22.5 278 265

71
 Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
47 7.25 7.87 0.82 7.09 44 1.65 21.2 23.7 287 278
48 7.31 7.6 0.8 7.26 30.9 2.24 23.2 24.9 296 282
49 7.34 7.9 0.68 6.6 - - 23.6 24.5 296 288
50 - - 0.42 4.58 18.1 2.53 26.5 28.5 322 321
51 7.49 7.71 0.54 3.37 47.5 44.6 25.3 26.3 323 326
52 7.55 7.19 0.32 0.44 36.4 34.5 25.8 26.6 333 334
53 6.97 6.97 0.44 0.57 31.8 29 25 25.4 330 342
54 6.77 6.96 - - 46.7 37.7 - - 340 344
55 7.07 7.37 - - 43.9 42.2 26.4 27.4 345 348
56 7.22 7.33 0.24 2 46.1 39.3 28.1 29.1 358 359
57 7.21 7.56 0.16 2.88 61.7 68.5 27 27.2 352 351
58 7.42 7.48 0.24 2.55 49.9 47.2 29.1 30.5 323 333
60 7.44 7.46 0.12 1.48 39.8 5.5 29.2 30.5 394 391
61 7.44 7.47 0.13 2.08 64.3 7.11 29 29.7 399 392
62 7.45 7.48 0.25 2.47 34.9 9.61 28.3 29.1 399 396
63 7.52 7.57 0.27 3.58 46.4 9.26 25.9 24.7 366 351
64 7.51 7.53 0.28 2.81 34.2 8.4 25.8 26.4 390 365
65 7.46 7.47 0.30 2.11 28.1 7.33 27.8 28.4 403 397
66 7.52 7.50 0.18 2.24 38.1 9.43 28.2 28 417 408
67 7.52 7.68 0.21 3.36 38.8 14.6 28.2 29.1 422 422
69 7.40 7.41 0.25 1.86 47.3 12.5 28 28.7 437 424
71 7.04 7.06 0.27 2.21 65.9 59.7 28.5 28.8 448 455
72 7.62 7.63 0.34 0.57 79.9 65 28.8 29 454 407
73 7.45 7.59 0.25 2.40 189 6.87 27.6 26.2 438 415
74 7.92 7.48 0.24 1.21 101 2.64 24.7 24.4 419 403
76 7.47 7.45 0.14 0.73 143 14.4 28.5 31 455 456
77 7.54 7.61 0.39 1.02 142 3.07 28.9 30.2 468 465
78 7.37 7.37 0.32 1.32 81.6 1.9 28.5 30.4 472 469
79 7.49 7.47 0.19 1.52 58.8 1.78 28.3 28.6 475 470
83 7.48 7.56 1.76 4.7 467 6.99 28.7 29.8 509 513
84 7.82 7.4 0.22 3.78 127.5 1.3 29.4 32 512 513
85 7.53 7.93 0.17 3.6 268 1.15 28.4 29.6 467 448
86 7.54 7.54 0.19 3.7 521 1.38 28.8 30.3 483 481
88 7.56 7.49 0.14 3.84 341 3.39 29.9 31.5 502 503
89 7.46 7.32 0.15 3.24 242 3.83 30.2 32.9 490 510
90 7.98 7.88 0.31 3.85 416 7.19 28.8 30.9 484 483
92 7.51 7.49 3.18 0.16 296 14.7 30.8 29 - -
93 7.56 7.44 0.17 3.48 401 9.17 29.6 31 472 467
94 7.48 7.31 0.1 3 426 14.1 29.8 31.2 472 471
95 8.12 7.4 0.11 3.06 374 12.2 29.4 31.2 472 488
98 7.46 7.42 0.13 2.28 639 16.7 30.6 31.6 467 461
99 7.49 7.51 0.15 2.25 563 15 30.5 30 481 486

72
 Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Infl. Effl. Inf. Effl.
Day DO DO TU TU Temp Temp TDS TDS
pH pH
(mg/L) (mg/L) (NTU) (NTU) (oC) (oC) (mg/L) (mg/L)
101 7.38 7.36 0.12 2.5 423 9.5 32.7 33.6 506 502
102 7.45 7.38 0.15 2.85 442 24.9 30.3 31.6 482 476
104 - - 0.17 1.04 247 2.83 31.2 30.8 420 410
105 7.76 7.52 0.28 1.25 200 1.1 30.7 31.5 419 369
107 7.4 7.39 0.13 4.4 332 0.78 31.3 30.7 450 436
111 7.34 7.22 0.2 3.5 146 5.77 31.4 31.3 476 472
114 7.34 7.07 0.14 2.25 118 10.5 31 31.2 506 497
118 7.6 7.51 0.17 3.5 1000 1.03 28.9 31.3 499 506
122 7.29 7.22 0.14 2 572 15 31.4 32.3 - -

Table E.5 COD Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run

DHS WFM
Infl. Effl. COD Removal Infl. COD Effl. COD Removal
Day
COD (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
(mg/L)
1 65 47 28 65 58 11
2 75 56 25 83 38 55
7 36 36 0 88 16 82
9 30 28 8 40 3 94
11 42 26 39 49 29 41
16 156 36 77 88 32 64
23 120 36 70 - - -
30 214 60 72 - - -
39 576 56 90 236 112 53
42 316 59 81 358 63 82
46 130 (33)* 10 (10) 92 (67) 127 (47) 43 (40) 66 (14)
54 240 (70) 170 (62) 29 (11) 124 (93) 101(54) 19 (43)
58 166 166 0 166 155 7
63 160 96 40 132 48 64
69 252 114 55 114 35 69
75 251 50 80 137 42 69
86 511 89 83 627 50 92
95 394 25 94 444 39 91

Note (*) the figure in brackets are for filtered COD

73
Table E.6 BOD5 Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run

DHS WFM
Day Infl. BOD5 Effl. BOD5 Removal Infl. BOD5 Effl. BOD5 Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
1 72 15 79 - - -
2 27 6 78 27 5.1 81
9 51 7.8 85 34.5 13.2 62
32 52.5 2.55 95 46.5 3.6 92
47 60 9.6 84 52.5 16.2 69
75 66 10.2 85 72 24.45 66
84 60 7.2 88 63 17.4 72
98 81 7.95 90 85.5 24.45 71

Table E.7 TKN Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run

DHS WFM
Infl. Effl. TKN Removal Infl. TKN Effl. TKN Removal
Day
TKN (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
(mg/L)
1 - - - 30.8 8.96 71
3 20.44 1.40 93 21 16.52 21
31 27.16 2.52 91 25.2 14 44
44 20.72 9.24 55 21.84 14.56 33
60 23.8 2.52 89 20.44 10.08 51
86 33.04 1.96 94 45.64 21.28 53
99 36.68 5.32 85 31.64 18.2 42

Table E.8 Total Coliform Removal during Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run

DHS System WFM System

Run Influent Effluent Log Rem. Influent Effluent Log Rem.
No. (MPN/100m (MPN/100mL) Rem % (MPN/100mL) (MPN/100mL) Rem %
L)
Run 9.2 x 10 4 3.9 x 103 1.37 96 2.2 x 104 4.7 x 103 0.67 79
1
Run 3.5 x 105 2.2 x 10 4 1.2 94 2.4 x 104 1.2 x 104 0.30 50
2
Run 2.4 x 104 1.3 x 103 1.27 95 1.6 x 10 5 3.5 x 104 0.66 78
3

Note: Rem. = Removal

74
Table E.9 Pond Water/Septage Mixture Characteristics

Day COD BOD5 TKN TS TSS TDS pH Temp DO Turb

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (oC) (mg/L) (NTU)
232
1 68 - - 264 18 (246)* 7.77 - 1.03 19
2 - 14 - - - 253 - 28.5 4.8 49.1
3 - - 20.16 - - 253 7.77 27.4 0.5 17.6
4 - - - - - 255 7.85 28 1.18 8.22
5 - - - - - 274 7.72 28.6 0.49 9.99
6 - - - - - 273 7.76 29.2 1.05 6.1
7 68 - - - - 273 7.81 28.4 0.4 20.9
8 - - - - - 271 7.81 24.6 0.65 15.8
9 32 54 - - - 283 7.88 26.4 2.35 10.1
11 52 - - - - 276 7.68 24.4 2.7 14.7
12 - - - - - 278 7.47 24.4 1.25 8.38
14 - - - - - 288 8.01 23.8 1.32 18.2
15 - - - - - 290 7.42 23.5 1.35 10.2
16 140 - - - - 298 7.47 24.1 1.15 10.2
17 - - - - - 289 7.38 24.3 0.97 8.23
19 - - - 300.5 9 (292) 7.48 23.9 1.75 -
20 - - - - - - - 23.1 1.07 -
23 148 - - - - - - - - -
28 - - - - - - - 28 0.87 -
29 294.5 25.5 (269) 7.62 26.7 1.22 -
30 101 - - - - 272 7.48 27.3 0.29 14.3
31 - - 25.48 - - 270 7.41 27.3 0.43 8.83
32 - 52.5 - - - 275 7.08 27.7 0.49 19.6
34 - - - - - 275 7.39 27.8 0.79 44.1
37 - - - - - 289 7.37 24.2 0.58 25.2
38 - - - 509 - 305 7.47 23.8 0.28 289
39 456 - - - - 308 7.6 23.7 0.21 194
40 - - - - - 269 7.83 26 0.31 152
41 - - - - - 232 - 24.1 0.74 86.3
42 236 - - - - 239 7.75 22.6 0.54 50.1
43 - - - - - 274 7.81 22.7 4 101
44 - - 20.44 - - 276 7.39 23.7 0.76 47.5
45 - - - - - 274 7.42 26.8 0.63 31.4
46 80 - - - - 278 7.34 22.7 0.33 53.9
47 - 73.5 - - - 314 7.23 23.7 1.01 37.9
48 - - - - - 309 7.37 25.2 0.65 30.2
49 - - - - - 302 7.43 23.6 0.23 -
338
50 - - - 337 44.5 (293) - 27.3 0.73 36.3
51 - - - - - 328 7.7 25.6 0.24 38.8
52 - - - - - 348 7.57 25.7 0.19 44.6
53 - - - - - 342 7.17 25 0.28 63.6

75
Day COD BOD5 TKN TS TSS TDS pH Temp DO Turb
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (oC) (mg/L) (NTU)
54 163 - - - - 349 6.93 - - 56.1
55 - - - - - 356 7.17 27.5 - 57.2
56 - - - - - 364 7.27 29.4 0.27 54.3
57 - - - - - 356 7.43 27 0.17 50.8
58 178 - - - - 336 7.38 28.7 0.32 61.2
60 - - 21.84 - - 413 7.51 28.5 0.31 45.6
61 - - - - - 408 7.47 29.5 29.5 71
62 - - - - - 405 7.48 28.6 0.14 41.3
63 148 - - - - 392 7.59 26.4 0.34 34.3
390
64 - - - 385 44.5 (341) 7.55 26.2 0.18 51.6
65 - - - - - 394 7.49 27.3 0.21 41.8
66 - - - - - 435 7.59 28.2 0.28 34.4
67 - - - - - 429 7.56 28.5 0.63 50.3
69 165 - - - - 456 7.41 27.9 0.31 44.3
70 - - - - - 453 7.47 28.8 0.24 76.5
71 - - - - - 454 7.32 28.2 0.38 59.9
72 - - - - - 454 7.39 28.5 0.3 48.3
73 - - - - - 431 7.42 27.7 0.35 71.8
74 - - - - - 407 7.86 25.2 0.23 84.7
75 145 81 - - - - - - - -
76 - - - - - 489 7.65 29.1 2.15 64.2
77 - - - - - 492 7.6 29.3 1.1 212
78 - - - - - 480 7.4 28.5 0.43 92.1
79 - - - - - 483 7.45 28.4 247 85.8
81 - - - - - 515 7.51 29.4 1.1 74.6
82 - - - - - 504 7.34 28.8 0.14 232
83 - - - - - 517 7.42 29.5 0.19 99.9
84 - 64.5 - - - 510 7.76 28.2 0.2 84.8
85 - - - - - 449 7.69 28.5 3.02 76.4
86 248 - 26.6 - - 445 7.53 28.9 0.18 465
88 - - - - - 480 7.49 29.4 0.4 138
89 - - - - - 472 7.42 30.1 0.17 94.4
90 - - - - - 417 7.97 29.4 283 98.1
92 - - - - - - 7.53 29.7 0.14 124
93 - - - - - 416 7.59 29.4 1.58 89.5
94 - - - - - 422 7.45 30 0.19 165
95 168 - - - - 431 7.45 29.8 0.19 78.9
98 - 81 - - - 412 7.43 30.2 0.1 64
99 - - - - - 448 7.44 31.1 0.17 128
100 - - 30.52 - - - - - - -
101 - - - - - 461 7.43 32.5 0.14 97.1
102 - - - - - 450 7.4 30 0.12 88.3
104 - - - - - 418 - 30.8 0.16 90
105 - - - - - 420 7.68 30.1 0.24 88.1
107 - - - - - 493 7.36 30.9 0.32 66.3
111 - - - - - 502 6.92 31 0.37 77.4

76
 Day COD BOD5 TKN TS TSS TDS pH Temp DO Turb
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (oC) (mg/L) (NTU)
114 - - - - - 527 7.23 30.9 0.16 39.2
118 - - - - - 460 7.52 29.2 0.17 75.6
122 - - - - - - 7.28 30.8 0.13 95.1

Note * Number in brackets is the TDS obtained by lab analysis

Table E.10 WFM Run Pure Water Flux Run

Pure Water Flux (Module 1)

Pump Pressure Actual
speed Volume Time Q Area Flux TMP
Reading Pressure
(L) (h) (L/h) (m2) (LMH) (kPa)
(kPa) (kPa)

1 2.6 0.4 0.025 0.017 1.5 0.9435 1.6 0.4

1.5 2.8 0.6 0.107 0.017 6.42 0.9435 6.8 0.6
2 3.1 0.9 0.169 0.017 10.14 0.9435 10.7 0.9
2.5 3.4 1.2 0.224 0.017 13.44 0.9435 14.2 1.2
3 3.8 1.6 0.304 0.017 18.24 0.9435 19.3 1.6
3.5 4.1 1.9 0.352 0.017 21.12 0.9435 22.4 1.9
4 4.8 2.6 0.44 0.017 26.4 0.9435 28 2.6
4.5 5.6 3.4 0.52 0.017 31.2 0.9435 33.1 3.4
5 6.8 4.6 0.614 0.017 36.84 0.9435 39 4.6
5.5 7.7 5.5 0.698 0.017 41.88 0.9435 44.4 5.5
6 8 5.8 0.784 0.017 47.04 0.9435 49.9 5.8
6.5 8.9 6.7 0.868 0.017 52.08 0.9435 55.2 6.7
7 10.5 8.3 0.942 0.017 56.52 0.9435 59.9 8.3
7.5 12.6 10.4 1.026 0.017 61.56 0.9435 65.2 10.4
Pure Water Flux (Module 2)

1 2.4 0.2 0.04 0.017 2.4 0.9435 2.5 0.2

1.5 2.4 0.2 0.104 0.017 6.24 0.9435 6.6 0.2
2 2.6 0.4 0.172 0.017 10.32 0.9435 10.9 0.4
2.5 2.8 0.6 0.225 0.017 13.5 0.9435 14.3 0.6
3 3.1 0.9 0.292 0.017 17.52 0.9435 18.6 0.9
3.5 3.5 1.3 0.354 0.017 21.24 0.9435 22.5 1.3
4 3.9 1.7 0.427 0.017 25.62 0.9435 27.2 1.7
4.5 4.4 2.2 0.5 0.017 30 0.9435 31.8 2.2
5 5.4 3.2 0.602 0.017 36.12 0.9435 38.3 3.2
5.5 6.9 4.7 0.72 0.017 43.2 0.9435 45.8 4.7
6 7.8 5.6 0.761 0.017 45.66 0.9435 48.4 5.6
6.5 8.7 6.5 0.82 0.017 49.2 0.9435 52.1 6.5
7 9.9 7.7 0.9 0.017 54 0.9435 57.2 7.7
7.5 10.4 8.2 0.965 0.017 57.9 0.9435 61.4 8.2

77
Table E.11 WFM Run Pond Water/Septage Mixture Run

Module No 1 Module No 2
Cum. Cum.
Run No Time Flux TMP Time Flux TMP
Time Time
(h) (L/m2.h) (kPa) (h) (L/m2.h) (kPa)
(h) (h)
1st Run 0.0 0.0 0.7 5.7 0 0.0 6.9 5.4
1.0 1.0 1.3 5.7 1 1.0 14.6 4.1
2.0 2.0 2.4 5.7 4 4.0 24.8 3.5
3.0 3.0 3.4 5.7 8 8.0 40 4.7
4.0 4.0 4.1 5.7 17 16.5 39.9 3.6
18.8 18.8 9.5 5.4 20 20.0 46.1 3.4
22.3 22.3 6.4 5.4 23 23.0 48 3.4
26.5 26.5 12.5 5.3 26 26.0 48.9 3.4
39.0 39.0 43.3 3.4 28 28.0 48.4 3.4
43.0 43.0 56.8 3.9 32 32.0 48.3 3.1
46.7 46.7 56.3 3.3 41 41.0 50.1 2.8
51.0 51.0 55.6 3.1 48 48.0 49.3 2.8
67.0 67.0 49.9 2.4 50 50.0 49.3 2.8
71.0 71.0 56.7 2.7 53 53.0 48.5 2.7
74.0 74.0 57.9 2.7 63 63.0 48.7 2.5
- - - - 69 69.0 51.7 2.5
- - - - 74.5 74.5 47.1 2.4
- - - - 91 91.0 45.6 2.2
- - - - 95.5 95.5 49.4 2.5
- - - - 99.5 99.5 49.1 2.5
- - - - 115 115.0 50 2.4
- - - - 117.5 117.5 50.6 2.4
- - - - 124.5 124.5 50.2 2.4
- - - - 138.5 138.5 50.8 2.4
- - - - 142 142.0 50.5 2.3
- - - - 147 147.0 50.8 2.3
- - - - 164.5 164.5 50.6 2.1
- - - - 170 170.0 51.7 2.1
- - - - 173.5 173.5 51.2 2.1
- - - - 188 188.0 50.6 2.1
- - - - 191.8 191.8 51.3 2.2
- - - - 197 197.0 50.8 2.1
- - - - 212 212.0 50.5 2.1
- - - - 217.5 217.5 50.7 2.1
- - - - 221.5 221.5 50.7 2.4
- - - - 235.8 235.8 50.9 2.2
- - - - 240 240.0 50.9 2.2
nd
2 Run 0 74.0 2.6 5.6 0 240.0 15.3 7.9
4 78.0 8.8 5.3 1 241.0 33.9 6.0
8 82.0 5.3 5.6 4 244.0 38.1 4.5

78
 Module No 1 Module No 2
Cum. Cum.
Run No Time Flux TMP Time Flux TMP
Time Time
(h) (L/m2.h) (kPa) (h) (L/m2.h) (kPa)
(h) (h)
16.5 90.5 6.2 5.6 18 258.0 43.8 3.2
24 98.0 3.5 5.6 22 262.0 44.2 3.2
28 102.0 4.8 5.5 27.5 267.5 43.6 2.8
32 106.0 3.7 5.5 42 282.0 41.8 2.8
40.5 114.5 4.3 5.5 45.5 285.5 43.5 2.8
46.5 120.5 4.3 5.5 51 291.0 43.3 2.8
52.5 126.5 8.6 5.5 66 306.0 42.8 2.8
66 140.0 7.2 5.5 69.5 309.5 43 2.8
71 145.0 4.8 5.7 75.5 315.5 42.4 2.8
76 150.0 4.5 5.6 89.5 329.5 44.2 2.3
91.5 165.5 9.2 5.2 93.5 333.5 45 2.3
97 171.0 9.6 5.5 100 340.0 44.4 2.2
100.5 174.5 9.3 5.6 113.5 353.5 43.4 2.3
115.5 189.5 10.5 5.4 118 358.0 45.6 2.3
121 195.0 10.6 5.6 123 363.0 45.1 2.3
125 199.0 11 5.5 138 378.0 45.3 2.2
138.5 212.5 26.3 4.4 142 382.0 45.6 2.0
142.5 216.5 12.6 8.1 147.5 387.5 44.1 2.2
150 224.0 15.9 8.0 162.5 402.5 45.2 2.0
163 237.0 15.9 8.0 166.5 406.5 45.8 2.0
167.5 241.5 15.8 8.0 171 411.0 45.4 2.0
173 247.0 15.7 8.1 186.5 426.5 45.4 1.9
186.5 260.5 16 8.1 190.5 430.5 45.4 1.9
192 266.0 17.4 8.1 197.5 437.5 45.1 2.0
197.5 271.5 18 7.9 209.5 449.5 45.4 1.9
211 285.0 17.5 7.9 215 455.0 45.5 1.9
- - - - 219 459.0 46 1.9
- - - - 234 474.0 46.4 1.8
- - - - 241 481.0 51.7 1.9
rd
3 Run 0 285.0 3 8.0 0 481.0 28.4 5.7
1 286.0 8.5 8.0 3 484.0 37.8 3.9
4 289.0 13.6 7.8 6 487.0 39.1 3.3
18 303.0 17.2 7.5 20.5 501.5 41.6 2.5
32.5 317.5 10.3 8.0 24 505.0 42.5 2.7
36 321.0 24.4 7.0 30.5 511.5 43 2.5
42.5 327.5 47.4 2.5 44 525.0 43 2.3
56.5 341.5 46.6 1.9 48.5 529.5 44 2.3
59.5 344.5 46.9 1.9 54 535.0 44.1 2.3
66.5 351.5 46.6 1.9 68.4 549.4 43.9 2.0
80.5 365.5 47.1 1.7 71.9 552.9 44 2.0
84.5 369.5 47.8 1.7 78.5 559.5 43.8 2.0
89.5 374.5 47.7 1.7 93 574.0 43.8 1.9
104.5 389.5 48.1 1.7 96.5 577.5 44.2 1.9
108.5 393.5 48.1 1.7 102.5 583.5 43.5 1.9

79
 Module No 1 Module No 2
Cum. Cum.
Run No Time Flux TMP Time Flux TMP
Time Time
(h) (L/m2.h) (kPa) (h) (L/m2.h) (kPa)
(h) (h)
123.5 408.5 47.4 1.5 117 598.0 44 1.8
127 412.0 48.3 1.5 120.5 601.5 43.9 1.9
133 418.0 47.9 1.7 127 608.0 43.6 1.8
147.5 432.5 47.7 1.5 141 622.0 44.5 1.8
153.5 438.5 47.7 1.5 145 626.0 44.4 1.8
167 452.0 47.7 1.4 163.5 644.5 44.5 1.7
175 460.0 48.2 1.5 168.5 649.5 45.5 1.7
192 477.0 47.8 1.4 196 677.0 46.8 1.9
196 481.0 47.9 1.5 212.5 693.5 46.4 1.7
200.5 485.5 47.4 1.4 222 703.0 45.8 1.7
- - - - 237.5 718.5 46.3 1.4
- - - - 246 727.0 46.3 1.4
- - - - 261.5 742.5 46.8 1.4
- - - - 266.5 747.5 46.6 1.3
- - - - 284 765.0 47 1.3
- - - - 290 771.0 46.6 1.3
- - - - 294 775.0 47.4 1.3
- - - - 310.5 791.5 47.2 1.3
- - - - 314.5 795.5 46.6 1.3
- - - - 319 800.0 47.1 1.3
- - - - 333 814.0 47.1 1.3
- - - - 338.5 819.5 46.8 1.3
- - - - 343 824.0 47.1 1.3
- - - - 357 838.0 47.1 1.3
- - - - 362 843.0 46.5 1.3
- - - - 376 857.0 47.2 1.3
- - - - 380 861.0 47.1 1.3
- - - - 385.5 866.5 46.9 1.3
- - - - 400.5 881.5 47.2 1.3
- - - - 406.5 887.5 47.2 1.3
- - - - 425.5 906.5 47.2 1.1
- - - - 429.5 910.5 47.1 1.1
- - - - 433.5 914.5 46.6 1.1
- - - - 448.5 929.5 46.8 1.1
th
4 Run 0 485.5 41.3 4.5 0 929.5 2.5 7.4
3.5 489.0 47.2 2.3 3 932.5 21.6 2.5
15.5 501.0 47.5 1.8 8 937.5 25.0 2.3
20.5 506.0 47.9 1.8 25 954.5 29.5 2.4
24.5 510.0 47.3 1.8 32 961.5 30.8 2.3
40 525.5 46.9 1.7 48 977.5 35.7 2.3
45.5 531.0 45.3 1.7 53.5 983.0 35.8 2.3
50.5 536.0 41.9 1.5 59 988.5 36.2 2.3
63 548.5 37.8 1.4 71 1000.5 37.8 2.2
69.5 555.0 38.6 1.3 76 1005.5 38.3 2.2

80
 Module No 1 Module No 2
Cum. Cum.
Run No Time Flux TMP Time Flux TMP
Time Time
(h) (L/m2.h) (kPa) (h) (L/m2.h) (kPa)
(h) (h)
75.5 561.0 43.3 1.4 83 1012.5 37.4 1.9
88.5 574.0 40.8 1.4 95.5 1025.0 40.3 1.9
93.5 579.0 42.2 1.4 101 1030.5 41.1 1.9
98.5 584.0 40.9 1.4 107 1036.5 41.6 1.9
112.5 598.0 43.8 1.4 120 1049.5 42.8 1.9
116.5 602.0 44.8 1.3 126.5 1056.0 42.9 1.9
121.5 607.0 42.9 1.3 143 1072.5 43.3 1.8
136.5 622.0 47.9 1.4 150 1079.5 43.7 1.8
143.5 629.0 47.7 1.4 168.5 1098.0 43.9 1.8
160.0 645.5 47.1 1.4 174.5 1104.0 44.4 1.8
165.5 651.0 41.5 1.3 191.0 1120.5 44.0 1.8
183.5 669.0 41.0 1.3 195.0 1124.5 44.9 1.7
192.5 678.0 39.0 1.3 201.0 1130.5 45.1 1.7
208.0 693.5 43.8 1.3 216.5 1146.0 45.8 1.7
212.5 698.0 43.9 1.3 - - - -
230.5 716.0 44.7 1.3 - - - -
236.0 721.5 45.8 1.3 - - - -
242.0 727.5 44.5 1.3 - - - -
256.5 742.0 45.6 1.3 - - - -
263.5 749.0 44.7 1.3 - - - -
280.50 766.0 46.8 1.3 - - - -
289.50 775.0 45.1 1.3 - - - -
304.00 789.5 46.7 1.3 - - - -
327.00 812.5 46.5 1.1 - - - -

81