Review and Evaluation of Aeration Tank Design Parameters

Author(s): G. A. Gagnon, C. J. Crandall and A. E. Zanoni

Source: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 49, No. 5 (May, 1977), pp. 832-841
Published by: Water Environment Federation
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25039355
Accessed: 30-01-2016 05:23 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Water Environment Federation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review and evaluation
of aeration tank design parameters
G. A. Gagnon
Donohue & Associates, Inc., Waukesha, Wis.

C. J. Crandall, A. E. Zanoni
Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wis.

Aeration time or detention time is clearly ment of wastewater resulted in the same
the simplest design parameter. The unit of degree of nitrification as 22 days of plain
aeration time is hours and is based on waste aeration.
water flow only unless otherwise noted. The Despite the early realization that activated
early literature on the development of the sludge treatment was affected by waste
activated sludge process indicates that aera strength and biomass concentration, aera
only
tion time was the only parameter considered tion time was considered in aeration tank de
in research or in evaluation of aeration tank sign up to 1940 in this country. Textbooks on
design. The concept of using aeration time wastewater treatment and research papers
apparently stems from very early research on generally recommended aeration times of 4 to
plain aeration of wastewater where very 10 h for domestic waste treatment.3-7 Some
long
aeration times were required for stabilization authors presented direct relationships between
of domestic wastewater. As the activated aeration time and biochemical oxygen demand
sludge process was the (bod) removal. For Metcalf and
developed, relatively example,
short aeration times required were compared Eddy presented the relationship shown in
to the very long aeration times required by Table I in 1930.
plain aeration. In the late 1930's and early 1940's other,
In 1914, Ardern and Lockett1 published a more complicated design parameters began to
landmark paper inwhich the "activated sludge" appear in the literature. However, aeration
terminology was used for the first time. They time continues to be used as a design param
cited the work of other researchers such as eter up to the present A national survey
day.
Clark, Gage, Adams, Fowler and Mumford of state regulatory agencies in 1948 indicated
who were the first to observe the rapid stabili that all of the agencies that had design require
zation of wastewater in the presence of "green ments for activated used aera
sludge plants
growths." However, Ardern and Lockett were tion time as the basic As
design parameter.9
probably the first to work with a biomass late as 1950 a textbook on wastewater treat
resembling what is presently known as acti ment by Hardenburgh presented only aeration
vated sludge. They found that a well oxidized time as a design parameter.10
effluent could be obtained with aeration times In later references, aeration time is presented
of 6 to 9 h. Although no attempt was made as a to other parameters.
supplement design
to formulate an aeration tank
loading based on These include textbooks by Babbitt and Bau
waste or amount of biomass, two very Metcalf and the various
strength mann, Eddy, Inc., and
important principles of waste treatment were editions of the "Ten States Standards."11-17
noted. The first was that a higher strength The use of aeration time as a design param
waste required a aeration time than a eter fails to consider two factors
longer generally
lower strength waste to achieve the same efflu considered to influence treatment plant effi
ent The second was that an increase These factors are the
quality. ciency. organic loading
in the concentration of biomass decreased the on the aeration tank and the amount of biomass
aeration time required to produce the desired present in the aeration tank. Because of this,
effluent quality. aeration time does not adequately describe the
Similar studies reported on by Bartow and conditions in an aeration tank. A 1948 study
Mohlman 2 in 1915 had very similar results. by Stanley and Berberich of operating results
They found that 5 h of activated sludge treat from 27 activated sludge plants demonstrated

832 Journal WPCF

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aeration Tank Design

TABLE I. Relationship between aeration TABLE IL Relationship between aeration

time and BOD. tank loading and percent BOD removal.
Percent BOD Aeration Tank Loading
Aeration Time?h Removal lb BOD/day/1 000 cu ft Percent BOD
(g BOD/m3 d) Removal
6 92
5 90 40 (640) 90
4 87 80 (1 300) 80
3 84 120 (1 900) 70
2 75 160 (2 600) 60
1 55 200 (3 200) 50
240 (3 800) 40

a poor correlation between aeration time and As with aeration time, aeration tank loadings
treatment plant efficiency.18 in g BOD/m3-d (lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft)
continue to be used even more
though sophis
ORGANIC LOADING PER UNIT VOLUME ticated parameters have been developed.
Organic loading per unit volume is generally Organic loadings per unit volume recommen
expressed in terms of pounds of bod per day dations were presented in the 1952, 1959, and
per thousand cubic feet of aeration tank capac 1960 editions of "Ten States Standards."11-13
ity, or in g bod/hi3-d (lb BOD/day/1 000 cu ft). The 1968 and 1971 editions of "Ten States
It is the authors' understanding that this param Standards" recommended various aeration tank
eter was originated by Karl Imhoff in Germany loadings for the different modifications of the
around 1930. However, the earliest reference activated process. These recommenda
sludge
to it in this country's literature is in a 1946 tions are shown in Table III.14?15
literature review which discussed a paper Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., similarly present
written by Imhoff in 1943.19 This paper loading recommendations for the various modi
recommended that aeration tanks be designed fications of the activated sludge process as
on the basis of an organic loading of 500 g shown in Table IV.17
BOD/m3-d (31 lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft). Also The primary advantage of using an organic
in 1943, Greeley presented a relationship be loading per unit volume parameter for design
tween organic loading per unit volume and is the of
this parameter state
acceptance by
treatment plant efficiency as shown in Table regulatory agencies, many of which use the
II.20 "Ten States Standards" in the planning review
After 1943, references to this parameter are process. while this parameter does
However,
frequent. Another paper by Greeley recom consider the on the aeration
organic loading
mended that aeration tank loadings for con tank, the amount of biomass in the aeration
ventional activated sludge plants should be tank is not considered.
400 to 480 g bod/hi3-d (25 to 30 lb Boo/day/
1000 cu ft).21 ORGANIC LOADING PER UNIT
A 1946 study of five activated sludge plants OF BIOMASS
by the National Research Council showed Organic loading per unit of biomass is gen
some correlation between bod removal and in terms of of bod
erally expressed grams per
the organic loading per unit volume. Plant
TABLE III. Allowable loadings for
efficiency was found to vary from 82 to 96
modifications in the activated sludge process.
percent bod removal at loadings of 110 to 500
g BOD/m3-d (7 to 31.5 lb BOD/day/1000 Allowable
cu Loading
ft).22
lb BOD/
In 1948 Stanley and Berberich studied the
g BOD/ day/1 000
effect of aeration tank loading on treatment Modification m3d cu ft
plant efficiency in 27 activated sludge plants.18
They found a poor correlation between treat
Conventional 40 640
ment plant efficiency and the organic loading High Rate 1 600 100
per unit volume. They found little difference Step Aeration 800 50
in bod removals at loadings ranging from 240 Contact Stabilization 800 50
to 850 g BOD/m3-d (15 to 53 lb BOD/day/ Extended Aeration 200 12.5
lOOOcuft).

May 1977 833

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Gagnon et al.

TABLE IV. Recommended loadings for biomass parameter. In quoting lecture notes
modifications in the activated sludge from the 1944 Illinois Sewage Works Short
process. Course it is stated "Experimentation and study
of a great number of under
Recommended plants operating
Loading
normal conditions disclosed that it requires
g BOD/ lb BOD/day/
about two pounds of activated sludge present
Modification m3d lOOOcuft
in the aeration tanks for each of bod
pound
per day in the primary effluent." It is ap
Conventional 320-640 20-40
parent then that organic loading per unit of
Complete Mix 800-900 50-120
biomass parameters evolved from operating
Step Aeration 640-960 40-60
Modified Aeration 1 200-2 400 75-150 experience rather than from design practice.
Contact Stabilization 960-1 200 60-75 In 1944 Okun noted that the use of mlvss
Extended Aeration 160-400 10-25 data provided a better correlation between
Kraus Process 640-1 600 40-100 treatment plant efficiency and the F:M ratio
High Rate 1 600-16 000 100-100 than did mlss data.27 An extensive study of
Pure Oxygen Systems 1 600-4 QPO 100-250
operating results from 45 activated sludge
plants by Haseltine presented the relationship
between organic loading per unit volume and
grams of mixed liquor suspended solids (mlss) shown in Table V.28 other
efficiency Many
per day, g bod/g MLSs-d (lb BOD/day/lb references the same relation
present basically
mlss). Some references use mixed
volatile
liquor
ship between the organic loading per unit of
suspended solids (mlvss) in place of biomass and efficiency.29-33
mlss. This parameter to relate the
attempts There are several references which
bod loading on the aeration tank to the num present
different recommendations for the various
ber of microorganisms available for stabilization modifications of the activated sludge pro
of the waste and is often referred to as the 34> 35
cess.14-16' Probably the most commonly
food to microorganism ratio (F:M).
used of these are the recommendations given
It is very difficult to trace the origin of this
in 'Ten States Standards" and a textbook by
parameter. The literature seems to indicate
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., which are shown in
that this parameter evolved rather slowly. It Table VI.
was noted earlier that Ardern and Lockett The organic loading per unit of biomass
recognized that as the amount of activated
parameters is generally considered to be more
sludge was increased, the time required for of the actual conditions in the
representative
stabilization of the waste decreased.1 This aeration tank than the other parameters, be
basic concept is very similar to the F:M idea. cause these parameters consider both the
Similarly, in 1926, Harris et al began with the amount of matter to be stabilized and
organic
basic F:M idea and developed a parameter
which also included aeration time.23 Further
indications of the recognition of this idea ap TABLE V. Relationship between organic
peared in the 1930's as it was noted that weak loading per unit volume and efficiency.
wastes required less time for stabilization with
Organic Loading per
comparable mlss concentrations.6'24 How
Unit of Biomass Percent BOD
ever none of these discuss their
papers actually g BOD/g MLSS d Removal
findings in terms of an organic loading per unit
of biomass parameter. 0.1 90
In 1940 Sawyer found that increasing the 0.2 90
mlss concentration from 800 to 3 200 mg/1 0.3 90
r
caused the bod removal to increase from 84 to 0.4 90
97 percent at a constant aeration time.25 0.5 90
Using
his data the authors have calculated that the 1.0 75
1.5 67
F:M ratio varied from 0.6 g BOD/MLSsd (0.6
2.0 62
to 0.15 lb BOD/day/lb).
2.5 58
In 1945 Dreier observed that the concept of 3.0 57
adjusting the mlss concentration to
according 3.5 56
the waste strength was a common practice in 4.0 55
activated sludge plant operation.26 To the 4.5 54
authors' knowledge this is the first paper to 5.0 53

actually use an organic loading per unit of

834 Journal WPCF

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aeration Tank Design

the amount of biomass available for stabili TABLE VI. Recommendations for modi
zation. fications of the activated sludge process.
Loading per Loading per
ORGANIC LOADING PER UNIT OF Ten States Metcalf and
BIOMASS PER UNIT TIME Standards Eddy, Inc.
g BOD/g g BOD/g
There have been two parameters of this type Modification MLSSd MLVSSd
developed. One of these is a parameter de
fined as the grams of bod per day per kilogram Conventional 0.25 - 0.5 0.2 -0.4
Complete Mix 0.2 -0.6
of mlss per hour of aeration time per day, g Step Aeration 0.2 -0.5 0.2 -0.4
BOD/kg MLSS-h-d (lb BOD/day/1 000 lb mlss/ Modified or High Rate 1.0 or less 1.5 -5.0
Contact Stabilization 0.2 -0.5 0.2 -0.6
hr). The other parameter is actually more of
Extended Aeration 0.05 -0.1 0.05-0.15
an approach to design. This design approach Kraus Process 0.3 -0.8
consists of running bench scale or pilot plant Pure Oxygen 0.25-1.0

tests and plotting percent bod removal versus

the product of the mlss concentration and
time. An operating mlss concentration and
following equation for predicting efficiency.
desired percent bod removal is selected and
using this graph the required aeration time is =
100
E
calculated. This procedure is included in this 1 bx
discussion because of its similarity to the afore
mentioned
C+ WT
parameter.
In 1926, Harris et al hypothesized that the where

efficiency of a biological treatment system is

E = as a percentage
related to the "intensity of interfacial contact" efficiency expressed
C ? a. constant in day-1 indicative of the
between the waste and the activated sludge.23
ultimate proportion of the organic load
They related the intensity of interfacial contact
that is transferrable to the sludge phase
to: the velocity and direction of movement im
under the most favorable conditions
parted to the mixed liquor by the aeration and dependent on the chemical compo
device; the ratio between the volume of sludge
sition of the wastewater and sludge
and wastewater; and the duration of contact
between the wastewater and as
b = a constant in day2 depending on the
sludge. By
suming that the velocity of movement is con physical and chemical make-up of the
wastewater and to some extent also on
stant, this factor was eliminated from the
its temperature
the mlss and aeration
parameter. Although
time were in
x= the weight of putrescible matter in
varied several bench scale tests,
pounds per day in the incoming settled
they found that as long as the coefficient of
was a wastewater
interfacial contact constant, constant
of treatment was W = the total weight of activated sludge in
degree provided.
A discussion of this type of parameter does the system in pounds
T = aeration time
not appear in the literature again until a 1946
study by the National Research Council.21 data from 19 wastewater treatment
Operating
17 wastewater treat
Using operating data from facilities was presented in a graph (Figure 1).
ment a between
facilities, correlation percent The following equation was fitted to the
bod removal and organic loading per unit of plotted points.
biomass per unit time was developed.
A similar study by Stanley and Berberich =
100
E
found only a fair correlation between this
and bod removal.18 How
1+ 0
parameter
ever the correlation
percent
was considerably better
?&)"
The graph shows considerable scatter in the
than between percent bod removal and organic
data although the scatter is less than in graphs
loading per unit volume. In 1944 Okun found
presented by previous researchers.
similar results in a of pure oxygen acti
study A 1952 study of pilot plant data by Smith
vated sludge systems.27 showed a very high degree of correlation at
was in great
very high loadings, ranging from 190 to 1 600
This type of parameter studied
est detail by Fair and Thomas.36 They began g BOD/kg MLSS-frd.37
with a simplistic mathematical model of the There does not appear to be any additional
activated sludge process and developed the research on this parameter after 1952. How

May 1977 835

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gagnon et al.

efficiency are included?the waste strength,

the amount of biomass carried in the system,
and the time of contact. It is, of course, a
somewhat more parameter than
complicated
the others discussed.
Since various researchers have not found a

oc high degree of correlation in the plots of this

x of versus it is
type parameter efficiency, ap
CO
<n parent that it still leaves something to be
-J 100 h desired. In 1955 Haseltine criticized the use
of organic loading per unit of biomass per unit
CO
m time on the basis that aeration
parameters
time was not an important factor
O affecting
o He believed that
o efficiency.28 sludge age,
which can be related to organic loading per
iO h unit biomass
than
parameters,
aeration time.
was much more
and
im
Ber
O
ffl
portant
berich had earlier speculated that the scatter
Stanley

.
co ioh found in the data when using organic loading
m
per unit of biomass per unit time parameters
was caused by the failure of the parameter to
consider: the chemical character and nutri
tional quality of the organic matter in the
wastewater; temperature; and nitrification or
the stage of decomposition and nitrification
during treatment.18

76 80 84 88 92 96 100
PERCENTBOD REMOVAL
FIGURE 1. Aeration tank loading versus
percent BOD removal by Fair and Thomas.36

ever Fair et al present a design methodology

based completely on the work of Fair and
Thomas.38
Another approach to design which is very
similar to the use of this has re
parameter
ceived some additional attention. McCabe
and Eckenfelder, among others, have sug
gested conducting activated sludge bench scale o 10
or pilot plant tests and plotting the percent of o
m
bod versus the of mlss and
remaining product
aeration time.39 A typical graph is shown in
Figure 2. Equations of the general form
shown below can be fitted to such curves.
10?
L=
(1+ nSat)
where

L = percent bod remaining

= mlss concentration
Sa
t= aeration time 10 15 20 25
?
n,m empirical constants MLSS X TIME X I03

The use of these parameters is appealing FIGURE 2. Typical plot of percent BOD
because the three factors generally considered remaining versus MLSS X time by McCabe
to be the most important to treatment plant and Eckenfelder.39

836 Journal WPCF

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aeration Tank Design

In the 1960's much of the attention of re

searchers shifted from the relatively simple
parameters discussed here to the complex
mathematical models that resulted in the com
plete mix activated sludge design methodology.
Except for one or two papers men
general
tioned earlier, there has been little research on
the relationship between bod removal and basic
aeration tank loadings since the 1960's.
early

STUDY PROGRAM
The study program consisted of using op
erating data from an activated treat
sludge
ment facility to study the relationship between
treatment plant efficiency and aeration tank
loading. This was accomplished by using
computer generated plots of effluent bod con
centration or percent bod removal versus three
of the aeration tank design parameters ex
amined in the historical review. The three
parameters studied were organic loading per
unit volume, organic loading per unit of bio
mass, and organic loading per unit of biomass
unit time.
per CHLORINATION
-?
DATA SELECTION LAKE MICHIGAN
In order to effectively study the load-effi
ciency relationship, it was necessary to select a FIGURE 3. Schematic of Jones Island con
body of data that, as much as possible, did ventional activated sludge wastewater treat
not include factors which would obscure the ment facility.
load-efficiency As a result, data
relationship.
from a large, activated several large industries, the plant experiences
well-operated sludge
plant was considered to be the most desirable. considerably higher organic loadings during
It was felt that the load-efficiency relationship the week than on weekends.
in a large plant would not be affected by shock Data from the west plant of Jones Island
organic or hydraulic loadings as much as in a from January 1970 to March 1971 was selected
smaller plant. It was also necessary to use for analysis. This particular data was selected
data from a plant with a history of good opera for several reasons. Personnel of the Sewerage
tion and sufficient monitoring of the process to District advised that the performance of the
provide the required data. In addition, plant west plant was more consistent than the east
data which included a wide range of aeration plant for various reasons that will not be dis
tank loadings was needed. cussed here. The January 1970 to March 1971
Permission was obtained from the Milwaukee time period was selected because during this
Metropolitan Sewerage District to use operat time the west and east plants were being oper
ing data from the District's Jones Island waste ated as two completely separate plants for an
water treatment facility. A schematic of the EPA funded research project on phosphorus
Jones Island plant is shown in Figure 3. The removal. Pickle liquor was being added to the
Jones Island plant is actually divided into an east plant only while the west plant was used
east plant and a west plant and is designed as the control.
for a total wastewater flow of 757 000 m3/d Since a biological load-efficiency relationship
(200 mgd). Fine screens are used for primary was being examined, it was felt that days dur
treatment. The plant uses
plug flow aeration ing which the plant efficiency might be af
basins. Air is supplied through a "ridge and fected by factors other than aeration tank
furrow" aeration system of porous plates in loading should be eliminated from the analysis.
stalled in the floor of the tanks. Waste acti This would eliminate the effect of such factors
vated sludge from the plant is gravity thick as periodic clarifier overloads, plant upsets or
ened, vacuum filtered, dried and sold as other operating problems. It was felt that the
fertilizer. Because the treatment facility serves effluent suspended solids (ss) concentration

May 1977 837

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gagnon et al.

TABLE VIL Summary of effluent ss concentration (455-day period).

Effluent Suspended Solids Concentration (mg/1)
>50 41-50 31-40 21-30 <20

Total No. of Days 16 304

11 3089
% of 3.5
Total 2.4 6.6 67.9
19.6
?
Cumulative % of Total 5.9 12.5 100 32.1

would provide the best indication of when such the general trend shown in each of these graphs
factors might be affecting the treatment plant indicates that the treatment efficiency increased
efficiency. Table VII provides a summary of as the aeration tank loading increased. This
the effluent ss concentration for the 455-day is contrary to the common belief that the
treatment plant efficiency should decrease as
period.
Based on this analysis it was decided to the aeration tank loading is increased. In
eliminate the days where the effluent sus addition, it should be noted in Figure 4 that
pended solids concentration exceeded 30 mg/1. at the lower loadings the efficiency varied
It was felt that on these days the plant effi widely from 80 to 97 percent. At the higher
ciency would be affected more by the effluent loadings results were more predictable since,
solids concentration than the aera as shown, the varies from
suspended efficiency roughly
tion tank loadings. Some additional days of 90 to 98 percent. Plots of the percent bod
data were eliminated because of missing bod removal versus the organic loading per unit

data, leaving 394 days of data to be analyzed. mass and the organic loading per unit of bio
mass per unit time indicated essentially the
RESULTS same relationships.
The plant data indicated that during the In an attempt to get a clearer picture of the
time period studied the aeration tank loading trends in the data, all the days which had
varied as shown in Table VIII. effluent ss concentrations exceeding 20 mg/1
The effluent bod concentration varied from were eliminated and additional graphs were
3 to 27 mg/1. The percent bod removal based plotted. The results were very similar. The
on the screened wastewater bod varied from effect of wastewater temperature on percent
80 to 98 percent for the days studied. bod removal was also studied. No correlation
the effluent bod concentration was found.
Calculating
versus the organic loading per unit volume Up to this point all of the plots had been
indicated no correlation. Similar results were based on plotting one point for each day of
obtained when the effluent bod concentration data. Since there obviously was much scatter
was plotted versus the organic loading per unit in the data, it was felt that possibly the ob
of biomass or the organic loading per unit of served efficiency on any given day might
biomass per unit time. actually be a function of the aeration tank
Figure 4 shows the results of plotting the loading of several previous days rather than
percent bod removal versus the organic loading the loading on any single day. This idea was
per unit of biomass. All of the data points fell tested by computing the averages of the
within the shaded area indicated on the graph. aeration tank loading and percent bod removal
Although the scatter in the data is considerable, for 30-day intervals. These 30-day averages

TABLE VIII. Variations in aeration tank loading.

Loading Parameter Maximum

Minimum

Organic Loading per

Unit Volume 170 g bod/iti3 -d 1 200 g BO?/m3 -d
Organic Loading per
Unit of Biomass 0.07 g BOD/g mlvss-d 0.69 g BOD/g mlvss-d
Organic Loading per
Unit of Biomass
per Unit Time 6.4 g bod/kg mlvss h d 94.8 g BOD/kg mlvss h d

838 Journal WPCF

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aeration Tank Design

were then plotted versus the three loading

parameters.
One effect of averaging the data in this
manner was a considerable reduction in the
range of efficiency and loadings. Each of these
graphs showed no relationship between the
bod re m
aeration tank loadings and percent
moval. Although the range of loadings was
fairly narrow, these graphs indicated that very I
high efficiencies can be achieved at loadings UJ
where efficiency is generally believed to fall or

off. For it was found that the o

example, per o
cent bod removal exceeded 94 at an m
percent
average aeration tank loading of over 50 g
BOD/kg MLVsshd. The data from Fair and UJ
o
Thomas indicates that only 86 to 88 percent or
UJ
bod removal can be at this o_
expected loading.

DISCUSSION
The analysis of the data showed that an
effluent quality of 3 to 27 mg/1 could be pro
duced over a wide range of aeration tank

loadings. Since the effluent quality was fairly ww j_i_i_i

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
consistent, the percent bod removal tended to
increase as the aeration tank loading increased. LBS. BOD/DAY/LB. MLVSS
It must be acknowledged that this phenomenon
could be unique to the Jones Island treatment FIGURE 4. Plot of percent BOD removal
the treatment versus organic loading per unit of biomass?
facility. However, although
does have some the Jones Island data.
facility unique features,
basic activated sludge process is no different
treatment operator can control the or
than at other activated One plant
any sludge plant.
ganic per unit of biomass to some
possibility is that at higher bod loadings the loading
extent by varying the mlvss concentration.
treatment could be receiving more
facility
The authors have observed that in many plants
easily removable organic matter. However,
the mlvss concentration is maintained at an
there is no evidence that this is the case.
excessively high level, causing the organic
It should be recalled that most of the past
research which established the classical load loading per unit of biomass to be very low.
Unless the solids inventory is very carefully
efficiency relationships was done at the bench this often results in ex
or pilot scale level. At a minimum this study controlled, practice
cessive accumulation of solids in the final
has shown that the classical relationships do
clarifiers causing various operating problems
not always hold in a full scale activated sludge
the results of one such study including floating or bulking sludge.
plant. While
cannot be considered
The results of this study indicate that load
universally applicable,
these results have important implications for ings in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 g BOD/g
mlvss d produce inconsistent results. Further
design and operation of activated sludge
more, it was shown that throughout the range
plants.
The results show that there is little or noth of 0.3 to 0.7 lb BOD/day/lb mlvss, plant effi
ciency was and more pre
to be conservative generally higher
ing gained by overly design.
dictable. This wide range the operator
The use of higher design loadings can, of gives
in costs.
considerable latitude in selecting what level of
course, result lower construction
mlvss to carry in the aeration tank. The
While plant performance would undoubtedly
suffer because of excessive it
selected organic loading per unit of biomass
organic loadings, which the strives to maintain can
operator
would appear that some of the currently ac
then be based on considerations other than
cepted design parameters are unnecessarily efficiency. Such considerations may include
restrictive. the amount of excess the
sludge production,
These results also have implications for amount of air to maintain an adequate
required
operation of activated sludge plants. The do concentration or other operating variables.

May 1977 839

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gagnon et al.

It should be recognized that an overly con Authors. Gary A. Gagnon is Project En

servative can restrict the operator's gineer with Donohue and Associates, Inc.,
design
latitude in selecting an organic loading per Waukesha, Wis. Clifford J. Crandall and
unit of biomass for An oversized A. E. Zanoni are respectively, Associate Pro
operation.
aeration tank can make it impossible to carry fessor and Professor, Department of Civil En
a loading of 0.5 g BOD/g mlvss *d or higher gineering, Marquette University, Milwaukee,
because of the very low mlvss concentration Wis.
which would be required. Designing for a
aeration tank loading will allow the REFERENCES
higher 1. Ardern, and Lockett, W.
to use a wide E., T., "Experiments
operator range of loadings by on the Oxidation of Sewage Without
varying the mlvss concentration within the
Filters." Jour. Soc. Chem. Ind., 33, 521
usual range of 1 500 to 4 000 mg/1.
(1914).
2. Batow, E., and Mohlmon, F. W., "Sewage
CONCLUSIONS Treatment Experiments With Aeration and
1. There appears to be no correlation be Activated Sludge." Eng. News, 73, 647
tween the effluent bod concentration and the (1915).
aeration tank in the studied. 3. Babbitt, H. E., "Sewerage and Sewage Treat
loading range
2. to the classical ment." John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
Contrary load-efficiency
percent bod removal at the York, N. Y. 470 (1922).
relationships, Jones A.
4. Fowell, P., "Sewerage" John Wiley and
Island treatment facility increased as the aera
Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y., 342 (1936).
tion tank loading increased within the range 5. Freese, S. W., "Aeration Tanks for Activated
studied. Plants." Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil
Sludge
3. The amount of scatter in the graphs of Engr. 63, 1535 (1937).
percent bod removal versus the aeration tank 6. Regester, R. T., "Problems and Trends in

loading did not differ for the three types of Activated Sludge Practice." Proc. Amer.

parameters evaluated. Soc. Civil Engr. 65, 1501 (1939).

7. K., and G. Treat
4. Performance of the treatment facility Imhoff, Fair, M., "Sewage
ment" John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New
appeared to be more predictable at aeration
tank loadings exceeding 560 g BOD/m3*d (35 York, N. Y. 144 (1940).
8. Metcalf, L., and Eddy, H. P., "Sewerage and
lb BOD/day/1000 cu ft), 0.3 g BOD/day/g Book
Sewage Disposal." McGraw-Hill Co.,
mlvss-d, and 35 g mlvss *d than at
BOD/kg Inc., New York, N. Y., 636 (1930).
lower loadings. Aeration tank loadings as high 9. "National Survey of Sewage Works Design
as 1120 g BOD/m3-d (70 lb BOD/day/1 000 Requirements." Sewage Works Engineer
cu ft), 0.7 g BOD/g mlvss-d, and 95 g BOD/kg ing, 19, 3, 117 (March 1948).
mlvss *h*d were able to produce bod removals 10. Hardenburgh, W. A., "Sewerage and Sewage
Treatment" International Textbook
consistently in the 92 to 98 percent range. Co.,

5. Assuming that these results would be Scranton, Pa., 301 (1950).

11. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board
valid for other treatment facilities, designing at for
of Public Health Engineers, "Standards
these higher loading rates would reduce the
con
Sewage Works" 39 (May 1952).
required aeration tank size and reduce River Board
12. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi
struction costs. of Public Health "Standard for
Engineers,
6. The results of this study favor operation Sewage Works." 38 (Feb. 1959).
of an activated sludge plant at loadings over 13. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board
0.3 g BOD/g mlvss-d or over 35 g BOD/kg of State Sanitary Engineers, "Recom
mlvss-h-d. results also indicate that the mended Standards for Sewage Works" 38
The
treatment plant operator has considerable lati (May 1960).
14. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board
tude in choosing an acceptable loading at
of State Sanitary Engineers, "Recommended
which to operate a plant.
Standards for Sewage Works." Health
Education Service, Albany, N. Y., 73
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (1968).
Credits. The authors wish to express their 15. Great Lakes-Upper Mississippi River Board
to R. Borchardt, L. Ernest, and of State Sanitary Engineers, "Recommended
appreciation
Standard for Sewage Works" Health Edu
R. Manthe of the Milwaukee Metropolitan
cation Service, Albany, N. Y., 73 (1971).
Sewerage District. This paper was presented 16. Babbitt, H. E., and Baumann, E. R., "Sewer
at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Central and Treatment" John Wiley
age Sewage
States Water Pollution Control Association in and Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y., 525

Arlington Heights, 111.,May 19-21, 1976. (1958).

840 Journal WPCF

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Aeration Tank Design

17. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., "Wastewater Engi Division, "Advances in Secondary Processes
neering, Treatment Collection, Disposal" of Sewage Treatment in the Period
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, October 1, 1954 to June 1, 1957." Jour.
N. Y., 482 (1972). San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., 84,
18. Stanley, W. E., and Berberich, J. F., "bod SA2, 1612 (1958).
Loadings in Activated Sludge Plants," 30. Joint Committee of the American Society of
Jour. Boston Soc. Civil Engr., 35, 3, 263 Civil Engineers and the Water Pollution
(July 1948). Control Federation, "Sewage Treatment
19. Imhoff, Karl, "Simple Calculations for Biolog Plant Design" WPCF Manual of Practice
ical Treatment Works." Gesunheits In No. 8, 113 (1959).
genieur, 66, 164 (1943). 31. Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr., "Activated Sludge,"
20. Greeley, S. A., "High Rate Biological Sewage In Advances in Sewage Treatment Design
Treatment." Sew. Works Jour., 15, 6, Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Man
1062 (1943). hattan College, 9 (May 15, 1961).
21. Greeley, S. A., "The
Development of the 32. Haseltine, T. R., "Suggested Design Criteria
Activated Sludge Method of Sewage Treat for the Activated Sludge Process." In
ment." Sew. Works Jour., 17, 6, 1135 Advances in Sewage Treatment Design?
(1945). Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Man
22. National Research Council Subcommittee on hattan College, 69 (May 15, 1961).
Sewage Treatment, "Sewage Treatment in 33. Downing, A. L., "Factors to be Considered in
Military Installations." Sew. Works Jour. the Design of Activated Sludge Plants,"
18, 5, 794 (1946). In "Advances in Water Quality Improve
23. Harris, F. W., Cockburn, T., and Anderson, ments." E. F. Gloyna and W. W. Ecken
T., "Observations on the Biological and felder, Jr., Eds., University of Texas Press,
Physical Properties of Activated Sludge and Austin, Tex. (1968).
the Principles of its Application." Surveyor 34. O. in Activated
Schmidt, J., "Developments
(G. B.), 70, 30 (1926). Sludge Practice." Pub. Works, 94, 9, 109
24. Whittemore, L. C, and Anderson, N. E., (1963).
"Design of the Sewage Treatment Works 35. Stewart, M. J., "Activated Sludge Process
of the Sanitary District of Chicago." Sew. Variations?The Complete Spectrum (Parts
Works Jour., 9, 256, (1937). 1, II, III)." Water and Sewage Works,
25. Sawyer, C. N., "Activated Sludge Oxidations 111, 153, 246, 295 (1964).
VI?Results of Feeding Experiments to 36. Fair, G. M., and
Thomas, H. A., Jr., "The
Determine the Effect of the Variables Tem Concept of Interface and Loading in Sub

perature and Sludge Concentration." Sew. merged, Aerobic Biological Sewage Treat
Works Jour. 12, 244 (1940). ment Systems." Jour, Proc. Inst. Sew.
26. Dreier, D. "Summary
E., of Experience in Purification, III, 235 (1950).
Mechanical Activated Sludge Plant Opera 37. Smith, D. B., "Aerobic Biological Stabiliza
tion." Sew. Works Jour., 17, 101 (1945). tion of Organic Substrates." Sew. ir Ind.
27. Okun, D. A., "A System of Bioprecipitation Wastes, 24, 9, 1077 (1952).
of Organic Matter From Sewage." Sew. 38. Fair, G. M., Geyer, J. C, and Okun, D. A.,
Works Jour., 21, 713 (1949). "Water and Wastewater Engineering, Vol.
28. Haseltine, T. R., "A Rational Approach to 2, Water Purification and Wastewater
the Design of Activated Sludge Plants." Treatment and Disposal." John Wiley and
Water ir Sew. Works, 102, 487 (1955). Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y., 34 (1968).
29. American Society of Civil Engineers, Sub 39. McCabe, J., and Eckenfelder, W. W., Jr.,
committee on Secondary Treatment of the "bod Removal and Sludge Growth in the
Subcommittee on Sewerage and Sewage Activated Sludge Process." Jour. Water
Treatment of the Sanitary Engineering Poll Control Fed., 33, 3, 258 (1961).

May 1977 841

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Sat, 30 Jan 2016 05:23:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions