Assessment and Improvement of SALASALA Private Decentralized Fecal Sludge Management System

ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SALASALA PRIVATE DECENTRALIZED FAECAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
A dissertation Submitted to the graduate faculty of Environmental Engineering of Ardhi University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the graduate degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental engineering
By ULOTU GERALD July 2012.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DEPARTMENT SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (SEST) ARDHI UNIVERSITY P.O.BOX 35176 Dar es Salaam
COPYRIGHT
This dissertation is a copyright material protected under Berne Convention, the Copyright Act 1999 and other International and National enactments in that behalf, on intellectual property. It may not be reproduced by any means in full or in part, except for extracts in fair dealing, for research or private study, critical scholarly review or discourse with an acknowledgement, without written permission of the Directorate of Undergraduate Studies, on behalf of both the Author and the Ardhi University
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald iii |COPYRIGHT
ABSTRACT
This research set out to assess the Salasala privately operated decentralized faecal sludge management system which located at Tegeta Dar es Salaaam and to critically analyze the improvements which are needed to make it suitable a faecal sludge management system with a potential for citywide adoption. Currently the Salasala privately faecal sludge management facility is the only facility that is used to manage faecal sludge from on-site sanitation facilities of the whole area of Tegeta Boko, Bunju, Ununio, Wazo Hill, Salasala, KunduchiMtongani, Kunduchi, Africana and part of Mikocheni neighborhoods. Wastewater samples was taken from the sludge pond (i.e. at the inlet, middle and outlet), and outlet of constructed wetland system. The sludge volume of the pond was measured by configuring onsite offshore coordinate system along the breadth and span of the pond and the sludge depth was taken with a tape at each point X, Y of orthogonal projection and volume computation was done by using a Spot height method of Earth work computation. Sludge samples was taken from five sampling points, two points of three samples taken vertically down along the sludge depth and three points of single samples in the sludge pond. Analysis of physicochemical characteristics such Color, Turbidity, Total suspended solid and ammonia nitrogen of system wastewater was observed to be not within the minimum permissible amounts (i.e. TBS and WHO).The parameters of effluent wastewater that observed to be far away from the standards was Color, 900Pt-Co/L wheres TBS standards is 300Pt-Co/L, Turbidity 500NTU (TBS standards 300) and TSS 251.5 mg/L (TBS standards 100 mg/L). Chemical parameters, Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) was 200mg/l wheres TBS standards is 6mg/L, and a phosphate PO4 129.67 mg/L wheres TBS standards is 15 mg/L. Biological characteristic of effluent wastewater such as COD, BOD5, Faecal coliform and total coliforms was totally not within either TBS or WHO standards. COD and BOD5 was 636.67 mg/L and 318.33 mg/L wheres TBS standards are 60 and 30 mg/L respectively. Faecal coliforms and Total coliforms was 16 106 and 22 106 count/100 mL wheres TBS standards are 1000 and 10000 count/100mL respectively. For sludge volume and stability test, it was observed that the pond have a sludge volume of 252 m3 and the sludge have not yet stabilized enough. The system looks economical, as it makes a profit of about 51,840,000 Tsh/= per year, However the system improvements ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald vi |ABSTRACT
should be made to increase its performance in wastewater and sludge treatment as well a profit/year as per analysis, it does not effective recovers all resources suitably obtained through sludge treatment.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald vii |TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATION......................................................................................................................... i DECLARATION........................................................................................................................... ii COPYRIGHT............................................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................... v ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xiii LST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... xiv LIST OF PLATES ...................................................................................................................... xv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION .................................................................................... xvi CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Justification and Motivation.................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Research problem .................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Objective of the Study........................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Specific objectives .......................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Expected output..................................................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................... 5 LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Fecal Sludge .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Sewage sludge ................................................................................................................ 5 ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald viii |TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.1.2 Faecal sludge characteristics .......................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Nutrients in sludge.......................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Domestic wastewater............................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Domestic waste Water Characteristics ......................................................................... 11 2.3 Faecal Sludge Treatment..................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1 Solids/liquid separation ................................................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Gravity solids/liquid separation.................................................................................... 15 2.3.3 Mechanical solids/liquid separation ............................................................................. 16 2.3.4 Digestion....................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.5 Anaerobic Decomposition ............................................................................................ 17 2.4 Wetlands and sludge treatment ........................................................................................... 18 2.4.1 Natural wetland............................................................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Constructed wetland ..................................................................................................... 19 2.5 Biological processes in CWs............................................................................................... 27 2.6 Chemical processes ............................................................................................................. 28 2.7 Physical processes ............................................................................................................... 28 2.8 Process rates ........................................................................................................................ 28 2.9 Hydrological limitations...................................................................................................... 28 2.10 Wetland nitrogen processes............................................................................................... 29 2.11 Wetland in Phosphorus removal ....................................................................................... 30 2.12 CWs in Suspended solids removal .................................................................................... 31 2.13 CWs in Pathogen removal................................................................................................. 31 2.14 CWs in Heavy metal removal ........................................................................................... 31 2.15 Abiotic Factors and their Influence on Wetlands.............................................................. 32 2.15.1 Oxygen........................................................................................................................ 32 ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald ix |TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.15.2 pH ............................................................................................................................... 32 2.15.3 Temperature................................................................................................................ 32 2.16 Sludge drying .................................................................................................................... 33 2.16 Sludge composting ............................................................................................................ 34 2.16.1 Advantages of composting ......................................................................................... 35 CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 36 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................................. 36 3.0 Location of the study area ............................................................................................... 36 3.1 Climatic condition ........................................................................................................... 38 3.2 Existing situation ............................................................................................................. 38 3.2.1 System description........................................................................................................ 39 3.3 Materials.............................................................................................................................. 43 3.3.1Sludge depth measurements .......................................................................................... 43 3.3.2 Wastewater Sampling ................................................................................................... 43 3.3.3 Faecal sludge sampling................................................................................................. 44 3.3.3 Equipments used ......................................................................................................... 45 3.3.4 Reagents used ............................................................................................................... 45 3.4 Methods............................................................................................................................... 46 3.4.1 Site visits and interview................................................................................................ 46 3.4.2 Experimental setup for sludge stability ........................................................................ 46 3.4.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 47 3.4.3.1 Physical parameters ................................................................................................... 47 3.4.3.2 Chemical parameters ................................................................................................. 47 3.4.3.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand........................................................................................ 49 3.4.3.4 Faecal and Total coliforms (FC &TC) ...................................................................... 49 ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald x |TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.4.3.5 Data analysis and computations ................................................................................ 49 CHAPTER FOUR....................................................................................................................... 50 DATA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................... 50 4.1 Wastewater characteristics .................................................................................................. 50 4.1.1 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................ 50 4.1.2 Chemical characteristics ............................................................................................... 57 4.1.3 Biological characteristics.............................................................................................. 59 4.2 Pond Sludge stability and volume....................................................................................... 62 4.2.1Pond Sludge stability ..................................................................................................... 62 4.2.2 Sludge volume determination ....................................................................................... 64 4.3 Economic aspect of Salasala faecal sludge management system........................................ 66 4.4 Aesthetics assessment ......................................................................................................... 68 4.4.1Solid waste management................................................................................................... 68 4.4.2 Odor and smell.............................................................................................................. 68 4.4.3 Surrounding Land Use.................................................................................................. 69 4.4.4 Insect Attraction ........................................................................................................... 69 4.4.5 Personal protective equipments (PPEs) ..................................................................... 70 4.5 System improvements required ........................................................................................... 71 4.5.1General improvements................................................................................................... 71 4.5.1.1 Land use round system plant. .................................................................................... 71 4.5.1.2 Solid waste management at the system plant ............................................................ 71 4.5.1.3 Unit of sludge dewatering.......................................................................................... 71 4.5.1.4 Aesthetic and beauty of the surroundings system environment ................................ 71 4.5.1.5 Improvements to make Salasala faecal sludge management system cost effective . 72 4.5.2 Specific improvements..................................................................................................... 73 ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald xi |TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.5.2.1 Constructed wetland system improvements .............................................................. 73 4.5.2.2 Sludge pond improvements ....................................................................................... 73 CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 75 5.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 75 5.1 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................... 76 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 77 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 78 APPENDIXES ............................................................................................................................. 80 Appendix 01: AVERAGE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER........ 81 Appendix 02: AVERAGE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER ...... 82 Appendix 03: AVERAGE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER .. 83 Appendix 04: GAS VOLUME IN mL OF SLUDGE STABILITY TEST............................. 84 Appendix 05: SALASALA POND SLUDGE DEPTH AND VOLUME RESULTS............. 85 Appendix 06: RAW DATA OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS ........................... 86 Appendix 07: LONGITUDINAL SLUDGE PROFILE OF THE POND.......88 Appendix 08: CROSS SECTIONAL SLUDGE PROFILE OF THE POND.89 Appendix 09: PICTURES DURING WASTEWATER ANALYSIS ..................................... 90
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xii OF FIGURES
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Factors influencing FS characteristics.......................................................................... 6 Figure 2.3: Emergent macrophytes treatment system with surface flow...................................... 20 Figure 2.4: Emergent macrophytes treatment system with horizontal sub surface flow .............. 21 Figure 2.5: Section through Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland................................ 25 Figure 3.0: Topographical map of the study area..24 Figure 3.1 Schematic diagrams of Salasala Faecal sludge treatment system ............................... 38 Figure 3.2 Wastewater sampling points.44 Figure 3.3 Faecal sludge sampling points................................................................................... 44 Figure 3.4 Schematic diagram of typical experimental setup....................................................... 46 Figure 4.1 PH variations along the treatment plant. ..................................................................... 53 Figure 4.2 Temperature variations along the treatment plant ....................................................... 53 Figure 4.3 TDS variation along the treatment plant ..................................................................... 54 Figure 4.5 Conductivity variations along the treatment plant....................................................... 55 Figure 4.6 Salinity variations along the treatment plant ............................................................... 55 Figure 4.8 Colour variations along the treatment plant ................................................................ 56 Figure 4.9 Turbidity variations along the treatment plant ............................................................ 56 Figure 4.10 Ammonia-nitrogen variations along the treatment plant........................................... 58 Figure 4.11 Phosphate variations along the treatment plant ......................................................... 58 Figure 4.12 BOD5 variations along the treatment plant ............................................................... 60 Figure 4.14 Total coliforms variations along the treatment plant................................................. 61 Figure 4.15 Faecal coliforms variations along the treatment plant............................................... 61 Figure 4.16 Sludge stability progress for different sludge sample ............................................... 63 Figure 4.17 Cumulative gas volume of the sludge sample ........................................................... 64 Figure 4.18 Pond coordinate configuration .................................................................................. 65
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xiii OF FIGURES
LST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Characteristics of faecal sludges .................................................................................. 7 Table 2.2 Human excreta per capita quantities and their resource value........................................ 8 Table 2.3 Typical composition of untreated domestic wastewater ................................................ 9 Table 2.4 Composition of human faeces and urine ...................................................................... 11 Table 2.5 Vegetation type and water column contact in constructed wetlands ............................ 21 Table 2.6 Pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands ............................................. 22 Table 2.7 Wetland zones and their associated components .......................................................... 24 Table 2.8: Overview of pollutant removal mechanisms ............................................................... 25 Table: 4.5 Economic analysis of salasala faecal sludge management system .............................. 67
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LST xiv OF TABLES
LIST OF PLATES
Plate 3.1Orthophotographic map of the case study area .............................................................. 37 Plate 3.2 Screen chamber .............................................................................................................. 39 Plate 3.3 Salasala Faecal sludge pond........................................................................................... 40 Plate 3.7 Depth measurement ....................................................................................................... 43 Plate 3.7: Spectrophotometer ........................................................................................................ 45 Plate 3.5 Laboratory Sample analysis for physical parameter ...................................................... 48 Plate 3.8 Laboratory sample dilution for of chemical parameters analysis .................................. 48 Plate 3.9 Dumped Solid waste from screen .................................................................................. 68 Plate 3.6 Area used for grazing..................................................................................................... 69 Plate 3.7: Faecal sludge disposing activity conducted by worker wears PPE .............................. 70
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xv OF PLATES
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
BOD COD CW FC FS M+O NH3-N NH4-N SS TBS TDS TKN TOC TS TSh TVS WHO WSP
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Chemical Oxygen Demand Constructed Wetland Faecal Coliforms Faecal Sludge Maintenance and operation cost Ammonia Nitrogen Ammonium Nitrogen Suspended Solids Tanzania Bureau of Standards Total dissolved solids Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon Total Solids Tanzania Shillings Total Volatile Solids World Health Organization Waste Stabilization Ponds
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald xvi |ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION
CHAPTER ONE 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION In Dar es Salaam, it has been estimated to have a population of about 3.5 million people of which 70% of the population lives in 40 unplanned settlements. The total number of households is about 547,000 with an average size of 6.4 persons. Only15% of the households is connected to the old and degenerated sewerage system which discharges to the 8 oxidation ponds of which only 4 of the ponds are considered to be operating, University of Dar-es- Salaam Kurasini Mikocheni and Vingunguti The sewerage system covers only an area of City Center, parts of Sinza, Ubungo and Vingunguti. 80% of the households in the rest of Dar es Salaam depends on-site sanitation facilities such as septic tanks, soak-away pits or pit latrines for wastewater treatment. With interval of 2-3 years, the faecal sludge of onsite sanitation facilities needs to be dislodged Fecal sludge (FS) is defined as the sludge of variable consistency collected from on-site sanitation systems and is comprised of varying concentrations of settle able or settled solids (Heinss et al., 1998). From early, it has been know that, the managing of faecal sludge from local community is the municipal responsibility, however the current condition and fast expansion of Dar es salaam metropolitan, has cause the current system of wastewater and faecal sludge treatment to fail to satisfy the needs. Later, the circumstance has creates opportunity for local and private entrepreneurs to make money through treatment and disposal of faecal sludge. Most of private entrepreneurs lack knowledge of proper treatment, handling and disposal of faecal matter. Uncontrolled and indiscriminate dumping of FS removed from on-site or other faecal sludge treatment systems creates the potential risks for human health through human contact with untreated FS and the potential for drinking water contamination (Van oven, 2004). Faecal sludge treatment pools a great demand especially in developing countries, there are different methods used to treat Faecal sludge, each methods has its merits and demerits. ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 1 |CHAPTER ONE
Whereas there are great demands of treating and disposing faecal sludge in sprawling areas, final application or disposal challenges ascend. The widely and suitable option used is the land application. The constraints on the land application of sludge vary according to the treatment to which the sludge has been subjected and the crops which are produced subsequent to the sludge application. The constraints apply particularly to conventionally treated sludges where there is a greater risk of pathogens being present. The constraints have to be more stringent the greater the risk to the consumer. For example there is a much higher risk when fruit and vegetables are eaten raw, as with salads, than from processed cereals from arable land. In reality, sludge would not be used on land growing salad crops and this guidance would apply in situations where a farmer growing, for instance, arable crops fertilized with sludge plans to change the land use to salad crops without sludge. Evidence to justify the 10-month no-harvest recommendation for vegetables in ground contact was presented by Carrington et al. (1998) While the major output of the treatment system is wastewater and bio solids, Wastewater from treatment system also can presents a source of hazards to public health and environment. Watercourses when contaminated then utilized by man either as a source of portable water or for washing or bathing would present potential risk of transmission of large number of water related diseases (Horan, 1991) Therefore in order to achieve the goal of public health prevention and environmental protection, care must be taken while treating faecal sludge as well as wastewater before disposing to the land or to reuse for agriculture activities.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 2 |CHAPTER ONE
1.1 Justification and Motivation Dar es Salaam is the metropolitan city with each day increases in population. It has more than 2,500,000 populations in which large number of population depends on on-site sanitation facilities such as septic tanks, soak-away pits or pit latrines for wastewater treatment. In course of time, essentially 2-3 years the systems usually are emptied of sludge for final treatment and disposal. The Salasala Private Faecal sludge management systems receives the faecal sludge from on-site sanitation facilities of the whole area of Tegeta Boko, Bunju, Ununio, Wazo Hill, Salasala, KunduchiMtongani, Kunduchi, Africana and part of Mikocheni neighborhoods with hesitant from people around the facility and organization such as NEMC and OSHA about its performance and suitability in managing and treating faecal sludge. Uncontrolled and indiscriminate dumping of FS removed from faecal related management systems creates the potential risks for human health and environments as well. 1.2 Research problem The performance and aptitude of Salasala decentralized faecal sludge management system located at Tegeta Kinondoni Dar es salaam, in polishing Septic tank and pit latrine as a pre-treated domestic wastewater basically from Tegeta, Boko, Bunju and Kunduchi neighborhoods has been one of the big issue among the people and organizations such as NEMC and OSHA. The grievances here are If the system is suitable for management of faecal sludge hauled from septic tank and pit latrine though private cesspit emptier, and also, if the effluent comply with the required standards, i.e. TBS and WHO for treating domestic wastewater to meet irrigation purpose which is the current activity performed by the treatment owner with plant final effluent. Disposing of untreated or partial treated wastewater to the Environment, threaten and cause damage to Public health and Environments, especially if it does not comply with the required standards.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
1.3 Objective of the Study The general objective of this study was to assess Salasala privately operated decentralized Faecal sludge management system and critical analyze the improvements which are needed to make it suitable (cost effective) faecal sludge management system with a potential for citywide adoption 1.3.1 Specific objectives The specific objectives of this study were the following: Technical assessment of Salasala private operated decentralized faecal sludge management system, Assessment of aesthetic and land scape quality of Salasala private operated decentralized faecal sludge management system, Economic assessment of Salasala private operated decentralized faecal sludge management system, Analysis of the improvements needed to make the Salasala decentralized system a suitable faecal sludge management system, 1.4 Scope This study is limited to assess the performance of existing private decentralized faecal sludge management system located at, Tegeta-Dar es salaam and offer improvements which are needed to make it suitable faecal sludge management system with a potential for citywide adoption 1.5 Expected output The expected output involves a well writer report with the critical improvements needed to make Salasala private decentralized faecal sludge management system suitable faecal sludge management system with a potential for citywide adoption.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Fecal Sludge Faecal sludge is defined by as Sludges of variable consistency collected from on-site sanitation systems, such as latrines, non-sewered public toilets, septic tanks and aqua privies (Heinss et al. (1998). The faecal sludge comprises varying concentrations of settable or settled faecal solids as well as of other, non faecal matter. Fecal Sludge is a highly variable, organic material with considerable levels of grease, grit, hair, and debris. In addition to its variable nature, FS tends to foam upon agitation, resists settling and dewatering and serves as a host for many disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and parasites (USEPA, 1999). The helminthes eggs, ammonium, and organic and solids concentrations in fecal sludge are typically higher by a factor of ten or more than in wastewater (Montangero and Strauss, 2002).The criteria and procedures for the treatment of fecal sludges, therefore, differ from those used for domestic wastewater. As fecal sludge contains a variety of fertilizers, including nitrogen and phosphorus and is low in chemical contaminants, it tends to lend itself well to agricultural use. Prior to disposal of fecal sludge or land application for agricultural use, however, it must be stabilized to reduce levels of pathogenic organisms, lower the potential for putrefaction, and reduce odors (CWRS, 1999). 2.1.1 Sewage sludge Common value for sewage sludge is a solids content of around 2%. Anaerobically digested sludge generally has higher solids content, while aerobic sludge has lower solids content (De Maeseneer, 1997). In general, the nutrient concentrations of sewage sludge are lower than in human excreta and faecal sludge
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 5 |CHAPTER TWO
2.1.2 Faecal sludge characteristics The physical characteristics of fecal sludge (FS) vary significantly due, among other factors, to climate, tank emptying technology and pattern, storage duration (months to years), performance of tank, additional components of FS including grease, kitchen/solid waste, and potential groundwater intrusion (Montangero and Strauss, 2002).Compared to sludges from wastewater treatment plants or to municipal wastewaters characteristics differ widely according to location (from household to household, from city district to city district, from city to city).The factors influencing faecal sludge characteristics are illustrated in Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1: Factors influencing FS characteristics. (Source: Heinss et al., 1998)
General Characteristics of faecal sludge characteristics are given by SANDEC (1997) (Table 2.1).Concentrations of COD, ammonium, SS and helminth eggs in FS are much higher than in sewage due to the lower water contents.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Public toilet sludge Characterization Highly concentrated, mostly fresh FS; stored for days or weeks only
Septage
Sewage
FS of low concentration; usually stored for several years ;more stabilized than public toilet sludge
Sewage for comparison Tropical sewage
COD (mg/l) COD/BOD NH4-N (mg/l) TS SS (mg/l) Helminth (no/litre) eggs
20-50000 2:1-5:1 2,-5000 3.5% 30,000 20,-6000
< 10000 5:110:1 < 1000 < 3% = 7000 = 4000
500--2,500 2:1
30 - 70 < 1% 200 - 700
Table 2.1: Characteristics of faecal sludges (source: Heinss et al., 1998) 2.1.3 Nutrients in sludge Table 2.2 contains relevant characteristics and per capita quantities of human excreta, including its resource elements, viz. organic matter, along with phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium as major plant nutrients. Average nutrient contents of plant matter and cattle manure are also included for comparisons sake. Faecal Sludges, if adequately stored or treated otherwise, may be used in agriculture as soil conditioner to restore or maintain the humus layer or as fertilizer.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Faces Quality and consistence Gram/cap. Day (wet) Gram/cap. Day (dry) Including 0.35 litres for anal cleansing 250 50
Urine
Excreta
1200 60
1450 110 1800
gram/ cap. Day (wet) m3/cap.year (upon 0.04-0.07
storage and digestion for>1 year in pits or vault in hot climate Water content % Chemical composition Organic matter C N P 2 O5 K20 For sake N Human excreta Plant matter Pig manure Cow manure 9-12 1-11 4-6 2.5 P 2 O5 3.8 0.5-2.8 3-4 1.8 K20 2.7 1.1-11 2.5-3 1.4 comparison 92 48 4-7 4 1.6 75 13 14-18 3.7 3.7 % of dry solids 83 29 9-12 2.7 2.7 % of dry solids 50-95
Table 2.2 Human excreta per capita quantities and their resource value (Strauss 1985)
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
2.2 Domestic wastewater Domestic wastewater is the water that has been used by a community and which contains all the materials added to the water during its use. It is thus composed of human body wastes (faeces and urine) together with the water used for flushing toilets, and sullage, which is the wastewater resulting from personal washing, laundry, food preparation and the cleaning of kitchen utensils. The typical composition of domestic wastewater is presented in table 2.3 bellow. Content (all in mg/l except settle able solids) Alkalinity Ammonia (free) BOD5 (as O2) Chloride COD (as O2) Total suspended solids (TSS) Volatile (VSS) Fixed Settle able solids ml/L Sulfates Total dissolved solids (TDS) Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) (as N) Toatal organic carbon (TOC) (as C) Total Phosphorus(as P) Weak Medium Strong
50 10 100 30 250 120 95 25 5 20 200 20
100 25 200 50 500 210 160 50 10 30 500 40
200 50 300 100 1000 400 315 85 20 50 1000 80
75
150
300
10
20
Table 2.3 Typical composition of untreated domestic wastewater (Metcalf and eddy2003) ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 9 |CHAPTER TWO
Fresh wastewater is a grey turbid liquid that has an earthy but inoffensive odor. It contains large floating and suspended solids (such as faeces, rags, plastic containers, and maize cobs), smaller suspended solids (such as partially disintegrated faeces, paper, and vegetable peel) and very small solids in colloidal (ie non-settleable) suspension, as well as pollutants in true solution. It is objectionable in appearance and hazardous in content, mainly because of the number of disease-causing (pathogenic) organisms it contains. In warm climates wastewater can soon lose its content of dissolved oxygen and so become stale or septic. Septic wastewater has an offensive odor, usually of hydrogen sulphide. The composition of human faces and urine is given in Table 2.4. The organic fraction of both is composed principally of proteins, carbohydrates and fats. These compounds, particularly the first two, form an excellent diet for bacteria, the microscopic organisms whose voracious appetite for food is exploited by public health engineers in the microbiological treatment of wastewater. In addition to these chemical compounds, faces and, to a lesser extent, urine contains many millions of intestinal bacteria and smaller numbers of other organisms. The majority of these are harmless indeed some are beneficial but an important minority is able to cause human disease. Sullage contributes a wide variety of chemicals: detergents, soaps, fats and greases of various kinds, pesticides, anything in fact that goes down the kitchen sink, and this may include such diverse items as sour milk, vegetable peelings, tea leaves, soil particles (arising from the preparation of vegetables) and sand (used to clean cooking utensils).
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Quantities
Faces
urine
135270 g 1.0-1.3kg Quantity (wet) per person per day 3570 g 50-70g Quantity (dry solids) per person per day Approximate composition (%) 6680 4455 4.5 Moisture 8897 15-19 Organic matter 5.07.0 2.5-5.0 Nitrogen 1.02.5 3.0-4.5 Phosphorus (as P 2 O5) 4455 1117 Carbon 4.5 4.56.0 Calcium (as CaO) Table 2.4 Composition of human faeces and urine (Source: Gotaas 1956) 2.2.1 Domestic waste Water Characteristics Wastewater is mainly comprised of water (99.9%) together with relatively small concentrations of suspended and dissolved organic and inorganic solids which are highly hazardous in nature and may cause pollution of stream, underground water and lakes. So it is important to know the characteristics of wastewater which will give the idea of degree pollution and method of treatment to be adopted for safe disposal. These characteristics are divided into three classes i.e. physical, chemical and biological. (Chatterjee, 1973) 2.2.1.1 Physical Characteristics i. Temperature
The temperature of wastewater is usually higher because of the addition of warm water from domestic use. Wastewater temperature is important for two reasons. Biological processes are temperature dependent and Chemical reactions and reaction rates and aquatic life are all temperature sensitive. The best temperatures for wastewater treatment range from 15o C to 45o C
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
ii.
Solids Solid materials in wastewater can consist of organic and/or inorganic materials and organisms. The solids must be significantly reduced by treatment otherwise they can increase BOD levels when discharged to receiving waters. Solids are classified as; Total solids Suspended solids Dissolved solids Settable solids Fixed solids
2.2.1.2 Chemical characteristics i. Inorganic Inorganic minerals, metals, and compounds, such as sodium, potassium, calcium, phosphorus, nitrogen, magnesium, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc are common in domestic wastewater. Phosphorus and nitrogen are the most environmental significant elements in wastewater for causing eutrophication. Most of these inorganic substances are relatively stable and cannot be broken down easily by organisms in wastewater. ii. Phosphorus Phosphorus exists in wastewater in many forms and includes soluble orthophosphate ion (PO4-3), organically-bound phosphate, and other
phosphorus/oxygen forms, calcium phosphate. Effects of Phosphorous and Nitrogen (Nutrients) Increases algal photosynthesis (eutrophication) i.e. increased plant life on surface, Reduces light in lower levels. Organic nitrogen and ammonia are converted to nitrates in water Nitrates are converted to nitrites in digestive system ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 12 |CHAPTER TWO
Nitrites are assimilated into blood stream where they are converted by respired oxygen to nitrates May cause suffocation (blue baby syndrome) iii. Oil and grease
Oil and grease is the term given to the combination of fats, oils, waxes, and other related constituents found in wastewater. When large amounts of oils and greases are discharged to receiving waters from community systems they increase BOD level. iv. pH
The pH is the measure of the inverse concentration of hydrogen ions. The acidity or alkalinity of wastewater affects both treatment and the environment. v. Organic matter
Organic materials in wastewater originate from plants, animals, or synthetic organic compounds, and may enter in wastewater through human wastes, paper products, detergents, cosmetics, foods, and from agricultural, commercial, and industrial sources. vi. BOD biochemical oxygen demand
The BOD test measures the amounts of dissolved oxygen which is consumed by microorganisms in decomposing organic matter. Effect of BOD Depletes dissolved oxygen from streams, lakes and oceans May cause death of aquatic organisms Increases anoxicity in receiving water bodies
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
vii.
Gases
Methane, Hydrogen sulfide, Carbon dioxide and ammonia are common gases emitted from waste water. These gases are toxic and can cause odors. Ammonia as a dissolved gas in wastewater is dangerous to aquatic life beyond acceptable levels 2.2.1.3 Biological characteristics Pathogens Possible pathogens likely to be found in wastewater include viruses, parasites, and bacteria. Total Coliforms and Fecal Coliforms are indicators of pathogens and level of biological pollution in wastewater 2.3 Faecal Sludge Treatment Unlike digested sludge produced in mechanized biological wastewater treatment facilities or in other types of wastewater treatment works (e.g. waste stabilization ponds, oxidation ditches), the organic stability of FS attains varying levels. This variability is due to the fact that the anaerobic degradation process, which takes place in onsite sanitation systems, depends on several factors like ambient temperature, retention period and the presence of inhibiting substances. As the faecal matter is not being mixed or stirred, this impairs the degradation process (Koottatep et al., 2003). The choice of a FS treatment option depends primarily on the characteristics of the FS generated in a particular town or cities, budget availability, land availability and the treatment objectives (Montangero and Strauss, 2004). The widely varying quality and quantity of FS requires a careful selection of appropriate treatment options Primary treatment may encompass solids liquid separation or biochemical stabilization if the FS is still fresh but has undergone partial degradation during on-plot storage and prior to collection.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Figure 2.2 Overview of the modest faecal treatment options ( Montangero & Strauss 2004) 2.3.1 Solids/liquid separation Dewatering or the separation of the solids and liquids of the sludge is primarily meant to reduce the volume of the sludge and to increase the dry matter content. Most of the processes described in this paragraph are normally used for the treatment of (primary and secondary) sewage sludge, except the composting and vermi-composting processes which are also used for treatment or handling of other organic wastes. 2.3.2 Gravity solids/liquid separation Gravity dewatering makes use of sedimentation. Also, evaporation processes increased by wind and solar energy contribute to the reduction of the water content of the sludge. 2.3.2.1 Sedimentation tanks Using lagoons or sedimentation basins for sewage sludge dewatering a TS contents of 10 -35% and a volume reduction of 40 - 50% (and even more when one starts with a solids content of 2 5 %) can be achieved (NVA, 1994; Strauss, 1999). In sedimentation tanks sedimentation and ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 15 |CHAPTER TWO
flotation of solid material separate the water and sludge. Heinss et al. (1997) reported about a FS sedimentation/thickening basin, in which a thickening concentration TS = 15% could be attained. 2.3.2.2 Drying beds without plants Gravity dewatering can also take place in (unplanted) drying beds. Similar to lagoons, drying beds also require much space. Dewatering is attained both by evaporation and seepage. According to Heinss et al. (1997) 40 - 70% TS content in the dewatered faecal sludge may be attained within 8-12 days, with loading rates of 100 - 200 kg TS/m2yr. These loading rates are considerably lower than, for example, the loading rates that can be applied in sedimentation tanks, which results in a larger area per capita (0,05 m2/cap). However, the effluent of drying beds needs less polishing than the effluent of sedimentation tanks. Based on a questionnaire and visits to wastewater treatment plants in the USA, Kim and Smith (1997) reported that the type of sludge influences the loading rates that can be applied on sanddrying beds without plants. Using different drying bed criteria, the solid loading rates for open sand-drying bed range from 64 to 113 kg/m2yr. For anaerobic sludge, the EPA recommended 100 to 160 kg/m2yr. as sand drying bed design criteria. These conventional unplanted sanddrying beds are simple to operate and maintain, and are inexpensive to build. Some disadvantages are, however, that dewatering can take 2 to 4 weeks (depending on the climate, soil type etc.), the removal of the dried sludge requires intensive labor and there is always the danger of clogging or low dewater ability potential with undigested or only partly dewatered Sludges. 2.3.3 Mechanical solids/liquid separation Mechanical dewatering methods have low area requirement and the TS content of the solid fraction can be controlled precisely. Mechanical methods are characterized by high capital costs, high-energy consumption (1 - 10 kWh/m3) (STORA, 1981) and the need for adding chemicals for conditioning. Most common processes applied are: Vacuum filtering Filter pressing (Chemical added) centrifuging Belt filter pressing
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
The TS content that can be achieved by mechanical dewatering processes is comparable with natural dewatering processes: 15 - 45% (NVA, 1994). 2.3.4 Digestion The digestion of faecal sludge is not primarily meant for solid / liquid separation. During the digestion process the organic material is decomposed. The biogas produced during the process can be collected and used for cooking or heating, while the effluent of the digesters can be used for plant fertilization and soil amendment purposes. The sludge that remains in the digester has to be removed and usually needs some further treatment e.g. drying, composting, land application or incineration. Zhao Xihui reports about four different types of digesters that are used in China for night soil treatment (Xihui, 1988). These digesters can achieve a high parasitic ova reduction: > 93%.The effluent of the digesters needs a post treatment before discharging into surface water or sewer systems. The application of biogas digesters resulted in a reduced prevalence of infectious diseases and also the density of flies decreased remarkably. In Guatemala dome-shaped Chinese type digesters have been tested. Latrines fed the digesters. The experiments made clear that the low temperatures and the low air pressure had a negative effect on the treatment process. The underground-type Chinese digester used as a latrine produced biogas, solids and a relatively clear effluent. The solids and effluent can be used as fertilizer as the effluent contains high concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. The pathogen concentration in the effluent was acceptable for reuse in agriculture and fishponds (Estrada et al., 1986). 2.3.5 Anaerobic Decomposition In order to achieve anaerobic decomposition, molecular oxygen and nitrate must not be present as terminal electron acceptors. Sulfate (S4O2), carbon dioxide, and organic compounds that can be reduced serve as terminal electron acceptors. The reduction of sulfate results in the production of equally odoriferous organic sulfur compounds called mercaptans and hydrogen sulfide (H2 S). The anaerobic decomposition (fermentation) of organic matter generally is considered to be a three-step process. In the first step, waste components are hydrolyzed. In the second step, complex organic compounds are fermented to low molecular weight fatty acids (volatile acids) .In the third step, the organic acids is converted to methane. Carbon dioxide serves as the electron acceptor. ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 17 |CHAPTER TWO
Anaerobic decomposition yields carbon dioxide, methane, and water as the major end products. Additional end products include ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and mercaptans. As a consequence of these last three compounds, anaerobic decomposition is characterized by highly objectionable odors. Because only small amounts of energy are released during anaerobic oxidation, the amount of cell production is low. Thus, sludge production is low. This fact is used in wastewater treatment to stabilize and reduce the volume of Sludges produced during aerobic and anoxic decomposition.
Typically, direct anaerobic decomposition of wastewater is not used for dilute municipal wastewater. The optimum growth temperature for the anaerobic bacteria is at the upper end of the mesophilic range. Thus, to get reasonable biodegradation, the temperature of the culture must be elevated. For dilute wastewater, this is not practical. For concentrated wastes (BOD greater than1, 000 mg/L) and sludge treatment, anaerobic digestion is quite appropriate. 2.4 Wetlands and sludge treatment Wetlands are parts of the earths surface between true terrestrial and aquatic systems. Thus shallow lakes, marshes, swamps, bogs, dead riverbeds, borrow pits, are all wetlands irrespective of their extent and degree of human interventions. Wetlands are generally shallow and thus differentiated from deep water bodies. Wetlands often include three main components. These are the presence of water, unique soils differing from those of uplands and presence of vegetation adapted to wet conditions. Gosh (1995) 2.4.1 Natural wetland Natural wetlands are in many developing countries in use for the treatment of domestic and even industrial wastewater. In Tanzania, natural wetlands occupy over 7% of the country's surface area. Most natural wetland takes the form of swamps with macrophytes vegetation typical to such areas including reeds, bulrushes, cattails, and sedges. Some wetlands are naturally seasonal in nature and the controlled discharge of effluent from WSP or constructed wetlands can both maintain the natural swam through the dry season and allow it to polish the effluent before this reaches the watercourse. Compared to other wastewater treatment technologies they are a cheap ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 18 |CHAPTER TWO
and appropriate solution against water pollution. However, the controlled use of natural wetlands for water pollution may become a problem, especially when the wetlands are used for other purposes, for example as a clean water source. So the use of natural wetlands for wastewater treatment may conflict with important issues as wetland bio-diversity and the sustainable development of natural resources (Denny, 1997). Constructed wetlands may be more controllable alternatives, which are appropriate and may be cost-effective solutions. 2.4.2 Constructed wetland Constructed Wetlands (CW) is a biological wastewater treatment technology designed to mimic processes found in natural wetland ecosystems. These systems use wetland plants, soils and their associated microorganisms to remove contaminants from wastewater. Application of constructed wetlands for the treatment of municipal, industrial and agricultural wastewater as well as storm water started in the 1950s and they have been used in different configurations, scales and designs. CWs are receiving increasing worldwide attention for wastewater treatment and recycling due to the following major advantages: Use of natural processes Simple and relatively inexpensive to construct (can be constructed with local materials) Simple operation and easy to maintain Cost-effectiveness (low construction and operation costs) Process stability i.e. relatively tolerant of fluctuating hydrologic and contaminant loading rates Provide effective and reliable wastewater treatment Provide indirect benefits such as green space, wildlife habitats and recreational and educational areas. Research studies have shown that wetland systems have great potential in controlling water pollution from domestic, industrial and non-point source contaminants. As it has been widely recognized as a simple, effective, reliable and economical technology compared to several other conventional systems, it can be a useful technology for wastewater treatment. However CWs has the following disadvantages
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
The land requirements (cost and availability of suitable land) Current imprecise design and operation criteria Biological and hydrological complexity and our lack of understanding of important process dynamics. The costs of gravel or other fills, and site grading during the construction period. Possible problems with pests. Mosquitoes and other pests could be a problem for an improperly designed and managed SSF. The system may be used for small communities and, therefore, may be located close to the users. The dependence of wetland community on hydrologic patterns is most obvious in the change in species composition resulting from alterations in water depths and flows. There are various types of constructed wetland systems for treating wastewater based on the type of plants used, type of media used and flow dynamics. 2.4.2.1 Types of Constructed Wetlands Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment can be categorized as either Free Water Surface (FWS) or Subsurface Flow (SSF) systems. In FWS systems, the flow of water is above the ground, and plants are rooted in the sediment layer at the base of water column (Figure 2.3) In SSF systems, water flows through a porous media such as gravels or aggregates, in which the plants are, rooted (Figure 2.4). Table2.5 illustrates the type of wetlands, vegetation types and water column contacts in constructed wetlands.
Figure 2.3: Emergent macrophytes treatment system with surface flow ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 20 |CHAPTER TWO
Figure 2.4: Emergent macrophytes treatment system with horizontal sub surface flow
Constructed wetland type
Type of vegetation
Section column
in
contact
with
water
Free water surface (FWS)
Emergent Floating Submerged
Stem, limited leaf contact Root zone, some stem tubers Photosynthetic part, possibly root zone Rhizome and root zone
Sub-surface flow (SSF)
Emergent
Table 2.5 Vegetation type and water column contact in constructed wetlands SSF systems are most appropriate for treating primary wastewater, because there is no direct contact between the water column and the atmosphere. There is no opportunity for vermin to breed, and the system is safer from a public health perspective. The system is particularly useful for treating septic tank effluent or grey water, landfill leachate and other wastes that require removal of high concentrations organic materials, suspended solids, nitrate, pathogens and other pollutants. The environment within the SSF bed is mostly either anoxic or anaerobic Oxygen is supplied by the roots of the emergent plants and is used up in the Biofilm growing directly on the roots and rhizomes, being unlikely to penetrate very far into the water column itself. SSF ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 21 |CHAPTER TWO
systems are good for nitrate removal (denitrification), but not for ammonia oxidation (nitrification), since oxygen availability is the limiting step in nitrification. Constructed wetlands remove pollutants from wastewater through various physical, chemical and biological mechanisms. Some of the main pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands are presented in table 2.6 below:
Wastewater characteristics Suspended solids Soluble organics Phosphorous Removal mechanism Sedimentation Filtration Aerobic microbial degradation Anaerobic microbial degradation Matrix sorption Plant uptake Nitrogen Ammonification nitrification Denitrification Plant uptake, Matrix adsorption Ammonia volatilisation (mostly in SF system) Metals Adsorption and cation exchange Complexation Precipitation Plant uptake Microbial oxidation/reduction Pathogens Sedimentation Filtration Natural die-off Predation UV irradiation (SF system) Excretion of antibiotics from roots of macrophytes followed by microbial
Table 2.6 Pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands (source: cooper et al., 1996)
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
2.4.2.2 Configuration, Zones and components of constructed wetlands Influents to constructed wetland can range from raw wastewater to secondary effluents. Most constructed wetlands have the following zones: inlet zone, macrophytes zone, and littoral zone and outlet zones. The components associated in each zones are as shown in Table 2.7 and can include substrates with various rates of hydraulic conductivity, plants, a water column, invertebrate and vertebrates, and an aerobic and anaerobic microbial population. The water flow is maintained approximately 15 30 cm below the bed surface. Plants in wastewater systems have been viewed as nutrient storage compartments where nutrient uptake is related to plant growth and production. Harvesting before senescence may permanently remove nutrients from the systems. Within the water column, the stems and roots of wetland plants significantly provide the surface area for the attachment of microbial population. Wetland plants have the ability to transport atmospheric oxygen and other gases down into the root to the water column. Most media used include crushed stones, gravels, and different soils, either alone or in combination. Most beds are underlain by impermeable materials to prevent water seepage and assure water level control. Wastewater flows laterally, being purified during contact with media surface and vegetation roots. The sub-surface zone is saturated and generally anaerobic, although excess DO conveyed through the plant root system supports aerobic microsites adjacent to the root and rhizomes. Zones Components Functions Flow distribution across the full width at a Inlet zone Inlet structure, splitter box minimum of 3 5 m interval To provide the substrate with high hydraulic conductivity; to provide surface for the growth of Biofilm; to aid in the removal of Porous Macrophyte zone water, bed/substrate, vegetation, open fine particles by sedimentation or filtration; to island, provide suitable support for the development of extensive root and rhizome system for emergent plants. Reduce short circuiting by re-orienting flow
mixing baffles, flow diversion
path; reduce stagnant areas by allowing for mixing by wind; enable UV disinfections of ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 23 |CHAPTER TWO
Deep water zone
Usually deeper, non-vegetated
bacteria and other pathogens; provide habitat for waterfowl. Littoral vegetation protects embankment from
Littoral zone
Littoral area
erosion; littoral vegetation serves to break up wave action. Control the depth of the water in the wetland; collect the effluent water without creating of
Outlet zone
Collection devices, spillway, dead zones in the wetlands; provide access for weir, outlet structures sampling and flow monitoring.
Table 2.7 Wetland zones and their associated components 2.4.2.3 Processes in Sub-surface Flow Constructed Wetlands (SSFCW) Wetland can effectively remove or convert large quantities of pollutants from point sources (municipal, industrial and agricultural wastewater) and non-point sources (mines, agriculture and urban runoff), including organic matter, suspended solids, metals and nutrients. The focus on wastewater treatment by constructed wetlands is to optimize the contact of microbial species with substrate, the final objective being the bioconversion to carbon dioxide, biomass and water. Wetlands are characterized by a range of properties that make them attractive for managing pollutants in water. These properties include high plant productivity, large adsorptive capacity of the sediments, high rates of oxidation by micro flora associated with plant biomass, and a large buffering capacity for nutrients and pollutants (Cooper, 1990). Table 2.8 provides an overview of pollutant removal mechanisms in constructed wetlands.
Pollutant Organic material (measured as BOD)
Removal Processes Biological degradation, sedimentation,
microbial uptake Organic contaminants (e.g., pesticides) Adsorption, volatilization, photolysis, and biotic/abiotic degradation Suspended solids Nitrogen Sedimentation, filtration Sedimentation, nitrification/denitrification,
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
microbial uptake, volatilization Phosphorous Sedimentation, filtration, adsorption, plant and microbial uptake Pathogens Natural die-off, sedimentation, filtration,
predation, UV degradation, adsorption Heavy metals Sedimentation, adsorption, plant uptake Table 2.8: Overview of pollutant removal mechanisms 2.4.2.4 Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland (SFCW) A Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland is large gravel and sand-filled channel that is planted with aquatic vegetation. As wastewater flows horizontally through the channel, the filter material filters out particles and microorganisms degrade organics. The water level in a Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland is maintained at 5 to 15cm below the surface to ensure subsurface flow. The bed should be wide and shallow so that the flow path of the water is maximized (figure 2.5). A wide inlet zone should be used to evenly distribute the flow. Pre-treatment is essential to prevent clogging and ensure efficient treatment.
Figure 2.5: Section through Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
The bed should be lined with an impermeable liner (clay or geotextile) to prevent leaching. Small, round, evenly sized gravel (332mm in diameter) is most commonly used to fill the bed to a depth of 0.5 to 1m. To limit clogging, the gravel should be clean and free of fines. Sand is also acceptable, but is more prone to clogging. In recent years, alternative filter materials such as PET have been successfully used. The removal efficiency of the wetland is a function of the surface area (length multiplied by width), while the cross-sectional area (width multiplied by depth) determines the maximum possible flow. A well-designed inlet that allows for even distribution is important to prevent short-circuiting. The outlet should be variable so that the water surface can be adjusted to optimize treatment performance. The filter media acts as both a filter for removing solids, a fixed surface upon which bacteria can attach, and a base for the vegetation. Although facultative and anaerobic bacteria degrade most organics, the vegetation transfers a small amount of oxygen to the root zone so that aerobic bacteria can colonize the area and degrade organics as well. The plant roots play an important role in maintaining the permeability of the filter. Any plant with deep, wide roots that can grow in the wet, nutrient-rich environment is appropriate. 2.4.2.4.1 Adequacy of surface flow constructed wetlands Clogging is a common problem and therefore the influent should be well settled with primary treatment before flowing into the wetland. This technology is not appropriate for untreated domestic waste water (i.e. blackwater). This is a good treatment for communities that have primary treatment (e.g. Septic Tanks or WSPs) but are looking to achieve a higher quality effluent. This is a good option where land is cheap and available, although the wetland will require maintenance for the duration of its life. Depending on the volume of water, and therefore the size, this type of wetland can be appropriate for small sections of urban areas, peri-urban and rural communities. They can also be designed for single households. Horizontal Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands are best suited for warm climates but they can be designed to tolerate some freezing and periods of low biological activity.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
2.4.2.4.2 Health Aspects/Acceptance The risk of mosquito breeding is reduced since there is no standing water compared to the risk associated with Free-Water Surface Constructed Wetlands. The wetland is aesthetically pleasing and can be integrated into wild areas or parklands. 2.4.2.4.3 Maintenance of surface flow constructed wetlands With time, the gravel will clog with accumulated solids and bacterial film. The filter material will require replacement every 8 to 15 or more years. Maintenance activities should focus on ensuring that primary treatment is effective at reducing the concentration of solids in the wastewater before it enters the wetland. Maintenance should also ensure that trees do not grow in the area as the roots can harm the liner. 2.5 Biological processes in CWs There are six major biological reactions involved in the performance of constructed wetlands, including photosynthesis, respiration, fermentation, nitrification, denitrification and microbial phosphorus removal (Cooper, 1990). Photosynthesis is performed by wetland plants and algae, with the process adding carbon and oxygen to the wetland. Both carbon and oxygen drive the nitrification process. Plants transfer oxygen to their roots, where it passes to the root zones (rhizosphere). Respiration is the oxidation of organic carbon, and is performed by all living organisms, leading to the formation of carbon dioxide and water. The common microorganisms in the CW are bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoa. The maintenance of optimal conditions in the system is required for the proper functioning of wetland organisms. Fermentation is the decomposition of organic carbon in the absence of oxygen, producing energy-rich compounds (e.g., methane, alcohol, volatile fatty acids). This process is often undertaken by microbial activity. Nitrogen removal by nitrification/denitrification is the process mediated by microorganisms. The physical process of volatilization also is important in nitrogen removal. Plants take up the dissolved nutrients and other pollutants from the water, using them to produce additional plant biomass.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
2.6 Chemical processes Metals can precipitate from the water column as insoluble compounds. Exposure to light and atmospheric gases can break down organic pesticides, or kill disease-producing organisms (EPA, 1995). The pH of water and soils in wetlands exerts a strong influence on the direction of many reactions and processes, including biological transformation, partitioning of ionized and unionized forms of acids and bases, cation exchange, solid and gases solubility. 2.7 Physical processes Sedimentation and filtration are the main physical processes leading to the removal of wastewater pollutants. The effectiveness of all processes (biological, chemical, physical) varies with the water residence time (i.e., the length of time the water stays in the wetland). Longer retention times accelerate the remove of more contaminants, although too-long retention times can have detrimental effects. 2.8 Process rates The chemical and biological processes occur at a rate dependent on environmental factors, including temperature, oxygen and pH. Metabolic activities are decreased by low temperature, reducing the effectiveness of pollutant uptake processes relying on biological activity. Low oxygen concentrations limit the processes involving aerobic respiration within the water column, and may enhance anaerobic processes, which can cause further degradation of water quality. Many metabolic activities are pH-dependent, being less effective if the pH is too high or low. 2.9 Hydrological limitations The capacity of wetlands to treat wastewater is limited, both in terms of the quantity of water, and the total quantity of the pollutants. Hydraulic overloading occurs when the water flow exceeds the design capacity, causing a reduction in water retention time that affects the rate of pollutant removal. Pollutant overloading occurs when the pollutant input exceeds the process removal rates within the wetland (Metacalf., 1991). Hydraulic overloading may be compensated for by using surcharge mechanisms, or the design may be based on a flush principle, whereby large water flows bypass the wetland when used for storm water treatment Mashauri, 1993).
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Inflow variations are typically less extreme for wetlands treating municipal wastewaters, with incoming pollutant loads also being more defined and uniform. 2.10 Wetland nitrogen processes
+ 4 2
The most important nitrogen species in wetlands are dissolved ammonia (NH ), nitrite (NO ),
-
and nitrate (NO ). Other forms include nitrous oxide gas (N O), nitrogen gas (N ), urea
3 2 2
(organic), amino acids and amine (Kadlec & Knight, 1996). Total nitrogen in any system is
+
referred to as the sum of organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate and nitrous gas (Organic-N + NH +
4 -
NO + N O). The various nitrogen forms are continually involved in transformations from
3 2
inorganic to organic compounds, and vice-versa.

+ +Nitrosomonas 4, + 2 2
NH
+O
H + NO + H O
The nitrite produced is oxidized aerobically by nitrobacteria bacteria, forming nitrate as follows:
Nitrobacter 2 -
NO + O
2
NO
The first reaction produces hydroxonium ions (acid pH), which react with natural carbonate to decrease the alkalinity (Metcalf, 1991). In order to perform nitrification, the nitrosomonas must compete with heterotrophic bacteria for oxygen. The BOD of the water must be less than 20 mg/l before significant nitrification can occur (Reed et al., 1995). Temperatures and water retention times also may affect the rate of nitrification in the wetland. Denitrification is the process in which nitrate is reduced in anaerobic conditions by the benthos to a gaseous form. The reaction is catalyzed by the denitrifying bacteria Pseudomonas spp. and other bacteria, as follows:
Denitrifying Bacteria
NO + Organic-C
3
N (NO &N O)
2 2
(G)
+ CO
2(G)
+ H O (3.4)
2
Denitrification requires nitrate, anoxic conditions and carbon sources (readily biodegradable). Nitrification must precede denitrification, since nitrate is one of the prerequisites. The process of denitrification is slower under acidic condition. At a pH between 5-6, N 0 is produced. For a pH
2
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
below 5, N is the main nitrogenous product (Nuttall et al., 1995). NH is the dominant form of
2 4
ammonia-nitrogen at a pH of 7, while NH (present as a dissolved gas) predominates at a pH of

3
12. Nitrogen cycling within, and removal from, the wetlands generally involves both the translocation and transformation of nitrogen in the wetlands, including sedimentation (resuspension), diffusion of the dissolved form, litter fall, adsorption/desorption of soluble nitrogen to soil particles, organism migration, assimilation by wetland biota, seed release,
+ 4 + 4 3
ammonification (mineralisation) (Orga-N NH ), ammonia volatilization (NH NH (gas)), bacterially-mediated nitrification/denitrification reactions, nitrogen fixation (N , N O (gases
2 2 +
organic-N)), and nitrogen assimilation by wetland biota (NH , Nox organic N, with NO
4 3
usually as NO ). Precipitation is not a significant process due to the high solubility of nitrogen, even in inorganic form. Organic nitrogen comprises a significant fraction of wetland biota, detritus, soils, sediments and dissolved solids (Kadlec , 1996). 2.11 Wetland in Phosphorus removal Phosphorus is an essential requirement for biological growth. An excess of phosphorus can have secondary effects by triggering eutrophication within a wetland, and leading to algal blooms and other water quality problems. Phosphorus may enter a wetland in dissolved and particulate forms. It exits wetlands in outflows, by leaching into the sub-soil, and by removal by plant and animals. Phosphorus removal in wetlands is based on the phosphorous cycle, and can Involve a number of processes. Primary phosphorus removal mechanisms include adsorption, filtration and sedimentation. Other processes include complexation/precipitation and assimilation/uptake. Particulate phosphorus is removed by sedimentation, along with suspended solids. The configuration of constructed wetlands should provide extensive uptake by Biofilm and plant growth, as well as by sedimentation and filtration of suspended materials. Phosphorus is stored in the sediments, biota, (plants, Biofilm and fauna), detritus and in the water. The interactions between compartments depend on environmental conditions such as redox chemistry, pH and temperature. The redox status of the sediments (related to oxygen content) and litter/peat compartment is a major factor in determining which phosphorus cycling processes will occur. Under low oxygen conditions (low redox potential), phosphorus is liberated from the ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 30 |CHAPTER TWO
sediments and soils back into the water column, and can leave the wetland if the anaerobic condition is not reversed (Okun 1979). 2.12 CWs in Suspended solids removal Solids may be derived from outside a wetland (e.g., inflows and atmospheric inputs), and from within a wetland from plankton (zooplankton and phytoplankton), and plant and animal detritus. With low wetland water velocities and appropriate composition of influent solids, suspended solids will settle from the water column within the wetland. Sediment resuspension not only releases pollutants from the sediments, it increases the turbidity and reduces light penetration. The physical processes responsible for removing suspended solids include sedimentation, filtration, adsorption onto Biofilm and flocculation/precipitation. Wetland plants increase the area of substrate available for development of the Biofilm. The surface area of the plant stems also traps fine materials within its rough structure. 2.13 CWs in Pathogen removal Pathogens are disease-causing organisms (e.g., bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, helminthes). Wetlands are very effective at removing pathogens, typically reducing pathogen number by up to five orders of magnitude from wetland inflows (Reed at al., 1995). The processes that may remove pathogens in wetlands include natural die-off, sedimentation, filtration, ultra-violet light ionization, unfavorable water chemistry, temperature effects, predation by other organisms and pH (Kadlec & knight 1996).They showed that vegetated wetlands seem more effective in pathogen removal, since they allow a variety of microorganisms to grow which may be predators to pathogens. 2.14 CWs in Heavy metal removal Heavy metals is a collective name given to all metals above calcium in the Periodic Table of
3
Elements, which can be highly toxic, and which have densities greater that 5g/cm (Skidmore , 1983). The main heavy metals of concern in freshwater include lead, copper, zinc, chromium, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. There are three main wetland processes that remove heavy metals; namely, binding to soils, sedimentation and particulate matter, precipitation as insoluble salts, and uptake by bacteria, algae and plants (Kadlec, 1996). These processes are very effective, ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 31 |CHAPTER TWO
with removal rates reported up to 99% (Reed et al., 1995). A range of heavy metals, pathogens, inorganic and organic compounds present in wetlands can be toxic to biota. The response of biota depends on the toxin concentration and the tolerance of organisms to a particular toxin. Wetlands have a buffering capacity for toxins, and various processes dilute and break down the toxins to some degree. 2.15 Abiotic Factors and their Influence on Wetlands 2.15.1 Oxygen Oxygen in wetland systems is important for heterotrophic bacterial oxidation and growth. It is an essential component for many wetland pollutant removal processes, especially nitrification, decomposition of organic matter, and other biological mediated processes. It enters wetlands via water inflows or by diffusion on the water surface when the surface is turbulent. Oxygen also is produced photosyntheticcally by algae. Plants also release oxygen into the water by root exudation into the root zone of the sediments. Many emergent plants have hollow stems to allow for the passage of oxygen to their root tissues. The oxygen-demand processes in wetlands include sediment-litter oxygen demand (decomposition of detritus), respiration (plants/animals), dissolved carbonaceous BOD, and dissolved nitrogen that utilizes oxygen through nitrification processes (Kadlec & Knight, 1996). The oxygen concentration decreases with depth and distance from the water inflow into the wetland. It is typically high at the surface, grading to very low in the sediment water interface. 2.15.2 pH The pH of wetlands is correlated with the calcium content of water (pH 7 = 20 mg Ca/L). Wetland waters usually have a pH of around 6-8 (Kadlec and Knight, 1996). The biota of wetlands especially can be impaired by sudden changes in pH. 2.15.3 Temperature Temperature is a widely-fluctuating abiotic factor that can vary both diurnally and seasonally. Temperature exerts a strong influence on the rate of chemical and biological processes in wetlands, including BOD decomposition, nitrification and denitrification.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
2.16 Sludge drying All types of emergent macrophytes systems contain at least one species of rooted emergent aquatic macrophytes planted in some type of medium (usually soil, grave, or sand).Many plant systems e.g. Typha, Phragmites,and Scirpus (Schoenoplectus), are capable of not only becoming readily established in the various materials but also grow efficiently and assist in the treatment of the various systems. (Alexander & Wood (1987) Emergent macrophytes systems are, amongst other systems, in use for the dewatering of Sludges. The main reason for dewatering of the sludge is that it will decrease the transport and handling costs. Other reasons are that the high water content will be a problem when sludge is used for (co)-composting and also when the sludge is incinerated or disposed of to a landfill. Reed beds are used for dewatering and mineralization purposes as reed is expected to improve the treatment performance. The sludge is dried and together with the reed finally turned into compost, which can, for example, be applied as soil amendment or as landfill cover. The reed bed for the dewatering of sludge is composed of selected media supporting emergent vegetation and the flow path for liquid is vertical. The sludge is spread over the system and accumulates there for a period of considerable period of time - up to 8-10 years (depending on the loading rate, the capacity of the system and the mineralization rate).The pollutants are removed through a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes including sedimentation, precipitation, adsorption to soil particles, assimilation by the plant issue, and microbial transformations (Brix, 1994).The penetration of the stems of the plants (reed) through the different layers of sludge maintains adequate drainage pathways; evaporation takes place over the whole reed bed area and the plant contributes directly to dewatering through evapotranspiration. The root system of the vegetation absorbs water from the sludge, which is then lost to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration. For European and US conditions it is estimated that during the warm season the evapotranspiration can account for up to 40 percent of the liquid applied to the bed. Aerobic conditions in the soil or filter medium are maintained through the combination of root rhizome penetration, oxygen transfer which boosts the population and activity of naturally occurring micro-organisms and the mechanical effect of the tall reeds rocking in the wind. This will result in aerobic conditions on or near the root surfaces in an otherwise anaerobic environment which will enable different complementary microbiological processes to take place ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 33 |CHAPTER TWO
in the soil of the reed bed (Reed et al., 1994). The reeds fed with wastewater or sludge grows rapidly in the nutrient-rich medium and absorbs some of the minerals and water. Heinss et al. (1998) assumes that reed beds are a feasible treatment option for faecal sludge treatment. Compared to unplanted sludge drying beds, from which require dewatered of dried sludge removal every few weeks or months, the sludge and reeds may have to be removed after several years, as the root rhizome maintains the permeability of the filter and the increasing sludge layer. Not much is known about the application of reed bed systems for the treatment and resource recovery of the nutrients, organic matter and water present in faecal sludge. There is, however, quite some experience with macrophytes systems used for the mineralization of sewage sludge from activated sludge plants. Sewage sludge is to some extent comparable with faecal sludge as argued in chapter 2. Therefore, examples of sewage sludge treatment may also represent the possibilities for faecal sludge treatment. Most popular for application in dewatering beds is the common reed (Phragmites) which is usually planted in centres of 30 cm. Reed et al. (1994) mention that reed beds are not suitable for the application of raw sludge (and thus not for FS as well) due to the high organic content which will overwhelm the oxygen-transfer capacity of the plants. Strauss et al. (1999a), however, report that the treatment of faecal sludge is possible when a ventilation system is installed, which increases the oxygen input into the filter bed. A design criterion of 2.5 m2/p.e. for a minimal planted surface is given by Boutin (1987) based on one population equivalent of 40g of BOD, 100g of COD and 150 litres (what means that it has a sewage character). Usually an area of 4 10 m systems for wastewater treatment.52/p.e is used for macrophytes 2.16 Sludge composting The objective of sludge composting is to biologically stabilize putrescible organics, destroy pathogenic organisms, and reduce the volume of waste (Tim Evance 2003). During composting organic material undergoes biological degradation, resulting in a 20 to 30 percent reduction of volatile solids (Imhoff Karl et al 1971). In composting, aerobic microorganisms convert much of the organic matter into carbon dioxide leaving a relatively stable odor free substance which has some value as a fertilizer (J.Jeffrey pierce.et al 1998). Eccentric micro-organisms are also destroyed due to the rise in temperature of the compost. ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 34 |CHAPTER TWO
Composting includes the following operation: a. Mixing dewatered sludge with a bulking agent. b. Aerating the compost pile by mechanical turning or the addition of air. c. Recovery of the bulking agent. d. Further curing and storage. e. Final disposal. The resulting end product is stable and may be used as a soil conditioner in agricultural applications. Aerobic composting is more commonly used than anaerobic composting (Tim Evance 2003) the aerobic composting process is exothermic and has been used at the household level as a means of producing hot water for home heating. The major advantage of this is compost is a very good fertilizer but it is not much used yet (J.Jeffrey pierce.et al 1998) 2.16.1 Advantages of composting Composting is an important treatment process for many organic wastes and residues, including animal manure, municipal and industrial sludge, and solid or semisolid crop residues. Major Advantages of Composting It produces a biochemically stable product that has low odor and good physical properties, and it attracts few flies. It significantly reduces the volume of material that must be stored, transported, disposed of, or used. It is a forgiving, robust and simple process that can be done on-site without a tremendous investment in heavy infrastructure. The improved physical properties of compost include low moisture content (usually below 35 percent by mass), more uniform particle size, friable texture, reduced volume and reduced weight. These propertieslower the hauling costs per unit of active ingredient and make it easier to spread the material uniformly. Aerobic, thermophilic composting also inactivates or kills most pathogens and weed seeds.Phosphorus, potassium and other mineral elements are retained in composted material. While ammonia nitrogen may be volatilized, or lost to the atmosphere as a gas, total nitrogen usually remains stable as a proportion of total dry matter. Because of those advantages, there is greater market potential for compost than for un-stabilized organic wastes.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER THREE MATERIALS AND METHODS Abstract This chapter gives detail information on materials and methods used in the accomplishment of this study. This includes Laboratory analysis of Wastewater for Physicochemical and biological parameters which conducted at Ardhi university laboratory, Field activity of sludge depth measurement and experiment study of Sludge stability test which was carried out at Ardhi university research center. 3.0 Location of the study area The Salasala faecal sludge management system is located at coordinates 64058.16S, 39 1130.11E, Tegeta ward, Kinondoni municipal, Dar es Salaam-Tanzania, and is elevated about 47m above the sea level. The area is bounded by Mtongani in east, Mbopo in west, Manyema in south and Wazo in North. The case study area can be accessed via Bagamoyo, Scansca and Upendo roads.
Scansca road
Salasala Treatment Bagamoyo road
Figure 3.0: Topographical map of the study area ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 36 |CHAPTER THREE
Plate 3.1 Orthophotographic map of the case study area (source: Google earth)
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 37 |CHAPTER THREE
3.1 Climatic condition The climate of Salasala as other part of Dar es Salaam is characterized as hot and humid coastal tropical climate with high day and night temperatures with an annual mean maximum of 30.5 0C and annual average of 250C. Additionally it is characterized by high humidity range in between 60 73% and heavy rainfall of above 1000mm per year, the long rainy season spines from March to May and short season from November to December. 3.2 Existing situation Salasala faecal sludge management system was established by the private owner Mr. Macha on June 2007.The treatment system receive only domestic wastewater from pit latrine and septic tank systems by means of his private two cesspit emptier of 5000 liters volume capacity each for discharge fee of 60000=/Tsh per track . The treatment system comprises a screen chamber, one Pond and one horizontal surface water flow constructed wetland. Wastewater flow through the system is by gravity, the vacuum truck discharge the effluents though the plastic pipe of about 12cm diameter to the screen wheres start to flow through the system by gravity (Ref Figure3.1 below). The system effluent is collected and pumped to irrigate two plots of banana farm of about 2023m2 in size, one is located near the treatment system and another is contiguous the owner house.
Screen
Sludge Pond
Constructed wetland
From vacuum track
Storage tank
Banana farm Low lift pump Figure 3.1 Schematic diagrams of Salasala Faecal sludge treatment system ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 38 |CHAPTER THREE
3.2.1 System description. 3.2.1.1 Screen chamber The Salasala faecal sludge management system is consisting of a one hand cleaned course screen. A screen chamber have the size of (2.5 m2m) in dimension and consist of a bar racks of 10mm diameter with 45mm clear spacing between the bars. The screen removes coarse materials from the influents that could cause damage and blockage of the sysytem and also from setteld sludge that will inhibit the beneficial reuse of biosoil. From the screen chamber, the sludge flows by gravity to the pond.
Plate 3.2 Screen chamber 3.2.1.2 Sludge pond The Faecal sludge systems have only one faecal sludge pond of length to width ratio (Aspect ratio) of 2.The effective pond dimension is 31.8 m length, 16 .2m width and 1m depth, is used to retain faecal sludge and its contents to allow physical separation and biological treatment of pretreated faecal sludge and wastewater to occurs and later, wastewater enters the constructed ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 39 |CHAPTER THREE
wetland system where auxiliary treatments proceed. According
to the owner of the faecal
sludge management system, since the system was constructed year 2007, the sludge pond has not dislodged.
Plate 3.3 Salasala Faecal sludge pond 3.2.1.3 Constructed wetland system Salasala faecal sludge system also comprises a constructed wetland system of 56m length, 1.1m width and 0.6 m depth. The constructed wetland system which used for additional treatment of wastewater from sludge pond is located adjacently into the pond system. During research investigation it was found that, the wetlands system does not contain aquatic plants (macrophytes) and during interview with facility owner, he said that he was about to plant
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
aquatic plants to his wetland system but he have not clear acquaintance of what type of aquatic plant are implanted on constructed wetlands.
Plate 3.4 Constructed wetland system
Plate 3.5 Banana farm irrigated with final effluent ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 41 |CHAPTER THREE
Plate 3.6 Farm irrigated with final effluent (source: Site survey)
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
3.3 Materials 3.3.1Sludge depth measurements The sludge depths of the pond system were measured by configuring offshore coordinate system along the breadth and span bank of the pond. At each point X, Y of orthogonal projection, the depth of the sludge were taken with a white tape measure fixed to adjacent end of the rod. The white tape measure was allowed to stay for a while in the sludge at a specific point to give clearand visible reading
Plate 3.7 Depth measurement 3.3.2 Wastewater Sampling
Plate 3.8 A tape measurer fixed on a rod
Four wastewater sample points were established at various point of the Treatment system, at the inlet of the pond, at nearly middle of the pond, at the outlet of the pond (also inlet of the constructed wetland) and at the outlet of wetland system. The samples were collected in 1000ml bottles for analysis at Ardhi University Laboratory. A total number of 16 representative samples were collected during research investigation. ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 43 |CHAPTER THREE
Figure 3.2 Wastewater sampling points 3.3.3 Faecal sludge sampling Five sampling points of faecal sludge were established. Two points of triple samples vertically down is within sludge zone locality (i.e. sample of upper, nearly middle and bottom sludge layer), two points of single sample at Water zone locality and one point at the middle of the pond (Ref Figure 3.2 below).The number of samples that taken were selected based to the profile and accumulation of the faecal sludge in the sludge pond. Point of higher accumulation and high sludge depth, three samples were taken.
Figure 3.3 Faecal sludge sampling points ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 44 |CHAPTER THREE
3.3.3 Equipments used Physical parameters such as pH and Temperature were measured using pH C101 probe connected to pH meter (HQ30d) HACH product, HACH Sension 6 - DO meter, HACH Sension156 conduct meter capable of measuring specific conductivity, TDS and Salinity. Chemical parameters N-NH3, PO4 were measured using HACH DR/2010 Data logging spectrophotometer and Calorimetric with test strip methods respectively. Biological parameters such as COD and BOD5, were measured using EMDC1 1173: Part 4 Dichromate Digestion Method, Ratio method i.e. (COD: BOD=2:1) and Membrane filtration method using nutrient agar and MacConkey for Faecal coliform FS and Total coliform measurements. Sludge stability experimental setup equipments such as syringe, rubber stoppers, plastic pipes, 1000mls and 350 mls bottles for wastewater and faecal sludge collection and setup. Other equipment includes beakers, petri-dish, test tubes, pipette, measuring cylinders and aluminum foil.
Plate 3.7: Spectrophotometer 3.3.4 Reagents used
Plate 3.8 Membrane filtration system
Reagents and chemicals for COD determinations and physicochemical parameters used include Sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and Potassium dichromate, Ammonia salcylicate, ammonia cynurate, reagent Distilled water for sample dilution and minimization of sample concentration during analysis, the known concentrations of the samples used for spectrophotometer calibration; For ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 45 |CHAPTER THREE
sludge stability experimental setup only sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was used. For other parameters, only distilled water was used to rinse the probes of the equipments and for solutions preparation. 3.4 Methods 3.4.1 Site visits and interview Site visiting was conducted to have a visual inspection of the real situation of Salasala faecal sludge treatment system. These also include interview of the facility owner Mr Macha and the household nearby treatment system to get their views upon Salasala faecal sludge management system and identify the major problems caused by having treatment system nearly their house vicinity. Six households were interviewed 3.4.2 Experimental setup for sludge stability Experiment was conducted to determine sludge pond stability .The sludge samples were collected from Salasala faecal sludge pond and experimental setup was done at Ardhi University Research center. According to the sample taken, nine set of sludge stability test experiment were established. Single set of sludge stability test experiment system was comprises three reactors [Figure 3.3 demonstrates]; The first is the substrate reactor which contain a one liter of a sample sludge, Second is the gas collector reactor which contain a solution of 15% sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and distilled water and third a water collector reactor. The monitoring was done by measuring the volume of water displaced in 24 hours interval for 14days duration to determinethe amount of water displaced.
NaOH + H2O
Figure 3.4 Schematic diagram of typical experimental setup ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 46 |CHAPTER THREE
Gas collector reactors
Water collector reactors Substrate reactors Plate 3.9 Experimental setup of sludge stability test 3.4.3 Analysis 3.4.3.1 Physical parameters Conductivity, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) and Salinity were measured by a calibrated Hach Sension156 conduct meter in Micro Siemens per centimeter, S/cm or mS/cm, mg/L and respectively. Temperature and pH were measured using HANNA meter HI 8424 with pH and temperature probes. 3.4.3.2 Chemical parameters Chemical parameters NH3-N and PO4 were measured by using Portable Data logging HACH DR/2010 spectrophotometer instrument and Calometric method with test strips in milligrams per liter respectively.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Plate 3.5 Laboratory Sample analysis for physical parameter
So2 So1
So3
Plate 3.8 Laboratory sample dilution for of chemical parameters analysis ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 48 |CHAPTER THREE
3.4.3.3 Chemical Oxygen Demand 1.5 ml of potassium dichromate mixed with 3.5 concentrated Sulphuric acids was prepared in the test tube. 2.5 mls of sample was added in a test tube containing strong oxidizing agents, followed by thorough mixing, these processes were carried out in the fume chamber. The solutions were digested in the hot oven for 2 hrs at 150 oC and kept to cool at room temperature. Then using Spectrophotometer (Portable Data Logging Spectrophotometer) at wavelength of 600 nm COD was measured in mg/L, by first putting the blank solution into cuvert (containing only strong oxidizing agent and distilled water) for zeroing to calibrate the machine followed by reading the solutions containing the samples 3.4.3.4 Faecal and Total coliforms (FC &TC) 1 ml of Wastewater sample was measured using a sterile measuring cylinder, then diluted with 99ml of sterile distilled water to make a total dilution of 100ml. Another 1 ml from 100mls diluted was taken and mixed with 99mls of sterile distilled water. Another dilution was done to make a dilution factor of (106 ).The vacuum pump was assembled, the filtration funnel was rinsed by using hot water for the purpose of sterilization and the filter paper was placed just below the filter funnel, 100ml of diluted sample was sucked through the filter paper using vacuum pump. Then the filtration apparatus was disassembled and carefully by using sterile forceps, the filter paper was transferred onto a petri dish containing nutrient agar for fecal Coliform test and mackonkey for Total coliform. Both petri dishes of faecal coliform and total coliform test were bind together, labeled and incubated at 440C and 340C respectively for 24 hours. 3.4.3.5 Data analysis and computations The data from laboratory, experimental setup and from site measurements were analyzed and computed by using computer programs such as Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and AutoCAD 2012. Descriptive statistics tool in Microsoft Office Excel 2010 was mainly used to determine various statistics of interest.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER FOUR DATA RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Abstract This chapter gives results and discussions of physicochemical and biological properties of Wastewater, sludge stability test, various assessments such as Economic and aesthetics assessment. It also outlines the essential improvements of Salasala Feacal sludge treatment facility. 4.1 Wastewater characteristics 4.1.1 Physical Characteristics The requisite of determine Physical characteristics of wastewater are to assess both condition of waste water in treatment facility as well as its effect caused on reuse for irrigation. The physical characteristic of wastewater of Salasala faecal sludge management system is tabulated in Appendix 01. PH The highest mediocre pH value was 6.7 observed in two samples S02 & S04; these were the samples from middle of the pond (S02) and outlet of constructed wetland (S04). pH is a measurement of the concentration of hydrogen ions (H+) in solution. Lower and higher pH reaching alkaline and Acidity, hamper biological treatability of sewage, it also makes irrigated soil to be acidity and alkalinity depends on amount of water used to irrigate. For irrigation, pH has no direct effect on plant growth; however, it does affect the form/availability of nutrient elements in irrigation water, fertilizer solutions and the growing medium. The wastewater pH of Salasala plant for different localities of the treatment facility varies slightly throughout the system (indicated in Fig 4.1).However the effluent pH is within the standards, the pH range recommended by TBS is 6.5-8.5. Temperature Figure 4.2 shows the variations of temperature along the treatment system. It was noticed that the temperature variation along Salasala faecal sludge treatment system increases slightly from 27.6 ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 50 |CHAPTER FOUR
at inlet of the pond (sample S01) to 28.2 at outlet of constructed wetland (S04) which implies that wastewater treatment plant is not effective enough as it tend to influence temperature along the system. However temperature is within the standards; the TBS range for Temperature is 20-35 . Total dissolved solids (TDS) and Total suspended solids (TSS) The Total dissolved and suspended solid variation throughout the treatment system is indicated in Fig 4.3 and 4.4 respectively. As figures indicate, both TSS and TDS decreases throughout the system: TSS decreases from 1325 to 251.5 mg/l and TDS from 1616.5 to 1167.25 mg/l, which infers sewage stabilization occurs nevertheless the effluent TSS is not in the standards and TDS is still strong, the TBS standards for TSS is 100mg/l and the typical domestic wastewater have TDS of range from 200-week, 500 medium, 1000-stong (Metcalf and Eddy 2003) .This is implies that the efficiency of Salasala faecal sludge system in wastewater treatment is not sufficient enough. Conductivity and Salinity Conductivity and salinity are used to acquaint the presence of soluble ions such as salt ions in wastewater. Eminent levels of salt can have detrimental effects on production system and the environments. Throughout the treatment system [indicated in Figures 4.5 and 4.6], Conductivity decreases from 3.13 to 2.41 mS/cm and Salinity from 1.5 to 1.03 .Though the system reduced Conductivity and salinity but it does not reach the required permissible amount. Color and turbidity Colour and turbidity are used to assess aesthetical value of wastewater. Turbidity in water is caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, and plankton and other microscopic organisms. In wastewater reuse for irrigation, highly turbid wastewater may choke irrigation system. Color and Turbidity of wastewater of Salasala system plant, decreases from inlet to final effluent along system [indicated in figures 4.8 and 4.9]. Turbidity decreases from 1124.5 NTU to 500 NTU and Colour from 3175 to 900 mg Ptco/l. This shows treatment of wastewater occurs and mostly with constructed wetland as gradual change observed between inlet and outlet of constructed wetland for both Color and turbidity. However the wastewater effluent for both color and turbidity does not reaches the required
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 51 |CHAPTER FOUR
permissible amount. TBS standards for color and turbidity effluent from wastewater treatment system are 300 NTU and 300 mg Pt-co/L respectively.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
PH
6.74 6.72 6.70 6.68 6.66 6.64 6.62 6.60 6.58 6.56 6.54 6.52 S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04 6.60 6.65 PH 6.73 6.73
Figure 4.1 PH variations along the treatment plant.
Temperature (c)
28.40 28.20 28.00 27.80 27.60 27.40 27.20 S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04 27.67 27.60 Temperature (c) 28.27 28.15
Figure 4.2 Temperature variations along the treatment plant
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
TDS (mg/l)
1800.00 1600.00 1400.00 1200.00 TDS (mg/l) 1000.00 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 TDS (mg/l) S 01 1616.50 S 02 1203.25 S 03 1220.25 S 04 1167.25
Figure 4.3 TDS variation along the treatment plant
Total suspended solid TSS, (mg/l)

Total suspended solid TSS, (mg/l)
S 04
251.50
S 03
407.50
S 02
407.50
S 01
1325.00
Figure 4.4 Total suspended solid variations along the treatment plant ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 54 |CHAPTER FOUR
3.50
Conductivity (ms/cm)
3.13
3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 S 01
2.41 2.05 2.11
S 02
S 03
S 04
Figure 4.5 Conductivity variations along the treatment plant
Salinity ()
1.60 1.40 1.20 Salinity 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Salinity (%) S 01 1.50 S 02 1.23 S 03 1.13 S 04 1.03
Figure 4.6 Salinity variations along the treatment plant
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Colour (mg Pt-co/l)

3500.00
Colour (mg Pt-co/l)
3000.00 2500.00 2000.00 1500.00 1000.00 500.00 0.00 S 01
3175.00
2325.00
2275.00 Colour (mg Pt-co/l) 900.00
S 02
S 03
S 04
Figure 4.8 Colour variations along the treatment plant
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU) 1124.50 825.00
725.00
500.00
S 01
S 02
S 03
S 04
Figure 4.9 Turbidity variations along the treatment plant
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.1.2 Chemical characteristics The Chemical characteristics of wastewater have been obtained though analysis of a toxic pollutant Ammonia-nitrogen NH3-N (mg/l) and a nutrient phosphate in terms of PO4 (mg/l). Chemical characteristics of wastewater are presented in Appendix 02:
Ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) Ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) is a measure of the amount of ammonia, a toxic pollutant often found in sewage, waste products, liquid manure and other liquid organic waste products. Ammonia can directly poison humans and upset the equilibrium of water systems. In Salasala treatment plant, the percentage of ammonia reduction from inlet to outlet of the system plant is about 41.93%, the other 58.07% which is more than half of inlet amount is disposed to the environment through irrigation. Although ammonia reduction occurs along the system plant as figure 4.10 indicates, but the final effluent doesnt grasp the wastewater effluents permissible amount. A TBS standard for total nitrogen concentration is 15mg/l contrary to 129.67mg/l of final effluent. Thus, the above signposts efficiency shows that Salasala plant is not efficient enough in ammonia nitrogen reduction from wastewater. Phosphate (PO4) Phosphate (PO4) is one of the important chemical nutrients in wastewater used for irrigation as it provides nutrient (phosphorous) which is the one of the essentials plants nutrients. While its important wastewater parameter for agriculture and which its excess in the receiving environments cannot easily physically observed, effluent limit must be adhered. TBS effluent standard of phosphate is 6 mg/l .Though treatment reduction happens [As Figure 4.11 spectacle] but efficiency of treatment is not ample. From inlet to outlet the percentage of phosphate removed is about 42.85%, the other 57.15% is not removed.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
NH3-N (mg/l)
250.00
200.00
NH3-N (mg/l)
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 NH3-N (mg/l)
Sample 01 223.33
Sample 02 151.00
Sample 03 155.33
Sample 04 129.67
Figure 4.10 Ammonia-nitrogen variations along the treatment plant

600.00
PO4 (mg/l)
500.00 500.00
400.00
300.00 200.00 150.00 100.00
200.00
200.00
0.00 Sample 01
Sample 02 PO4(mg/l)
Sample 03
Sample 04
Figure 4.11 Phosphate variations along the treatment plant ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 58 |CHAPTER FOUR
4.1.3 Biological characteristics The biological characteristic of Wastewater of Salasala faecal sludge treatment plant system was measured in term of COD, Faecal coliforms and Total coliforms bacterial. BOD5 in 20C was calculated from assumption ratio of COD: BOD = 2:1. COD test is used to determine the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter that can be oxidized by a strong chemical oxidizing agent (potassium dichromate) in an acid medium. On other side the BOD5 is the important parameters because it determines the amount of oxygen required to stabilize waste biologically. Other parameters such as faecal coliforms and Total coliforms bacterial are used to assess and to identify presence of pathogens and specific organisms in connection with plant operation and effluent re-use. The biological characteristics of Salasala plant wastewater is tabulated in Appendix 03: COD (mg/l) Chemical oxygen demand in the system, measures the total amount of Oxygen needed to oxidize organic carbon present in wastewater .A higher value of COD signifies that wastewater has large amount of organic matters. Faecal sludge treatment plant efficient on organic matter reduction is not utterly sufficient comparing to the recognized minimum allowable standards of wastewater effluents from wastewater treatment facilities. Though the treatment plant removes COD with satisfactory efficiency of about 85% from inlet to outlet as fig 4.13 stipulates, but effluent concentration of 636.67mg/l is far away from 60 and 50 mg/l a TBS and WHO standards. This signifies that Salasala faecal sludge treatment system is not efficient enough in COD remove. BOD5 (mg/l) This is the important parameter in wastewater treatment and disposal because it articulates to which extent wastewater will pollute the receiving water bodies. BOD5 gives the amount of Oxygen needed to oxidize organic waste biologically. The Salasala plant efficient in BOD remove as calculated is not enough as per recognized minimum allowable standards of wastewater effluents from wastewater treatment facilities. As Figure 4.12 bellow demonstration, BOD removed from wastewater along the system plant is about 1935mg/l which is 85.88% of the BOD at the inlet point of the system. Though system reduces BOD with good efficiency,
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
nonetheless the final effluent BOD concentration doesnt grasp the required standard. TBS standard for BOD5 in 20C is 30(mg/l).
BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C
2500 2000 BOD5 (mg/L) 1500 1000 500 318 0 Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 1040 1015 BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C 2253
Sample 04
Figure 4.12 BOD5 variations along the treatment plant
COD (mg/l)
COD (mg/l) 4507
2080
2030 637
Sample 01
Sample 02
Sample 03
Sample 04
Figure 4.13 COD variations along the treatment plant
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Total and faecal coliforms Total and feacal coliform bacteria variation along the system plant is presented in figures 4.14 and 4.15 respectively. As figures indicated both total and faecal coliform decreases along the system .The System plant removes 33.52% of the faecal bacteria of inlet point and 61.49% of the Total coliforms of inlet point. However the effluent does not reach the required effluent standards as tabulated in Appendix 03.
Total coliform (Count/100ml)

70,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 10,000,000 0 Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04 37,666,667 35,333,333 22,333,333 Total coliform (Count/100ml) 58,000,000
Figure 4.14 Total coliforms variations along the treatment plant
Faecal coliform (count/100ml)

30,000,000 25,000,000 20,000,000 15,000,000 10,000,000 5,000,000 0 Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04 Faecal coliform (count/100ml) 24,066,667 23,333,333
21,000,000 16,000,000
Figure 4.15 Faecal coliforms variations along the treatment plant ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 61 |CHAPTER FOUR
4.2 Pond Sludge stability and volume The sludge pond stability was determined through analysis of data from sludge stability experiment. Both stability and volume of the sludge pond were determined so as to gives the efficiency of the system in stabilizing faecal sludge and sludge accumulation rates which later will lead to proper suggestion of improvement ideas and scaling up the decentralized faecal sludge management system to achieve better economies of scale, volume of the sludge present. 4.2.1Pond Sludge stability The stable sludge can be defined as the sludge which has been treated to reduce volatile organic matter, vector attraction and to reduce the potential of putrefaction and offensive odor. The more organic the greater the gas produced and vice versa. The vector attractiveness (frequently associated with odors and unsightliness) of sludge is an important parameter in protecting public health and the publics acceptance of bio solids land application. Odor is the most common complaint. This is the currently accepted methods for assessing vector attractiveness of anaerobically digested sludge. 4.2.1.1 Experimental results Experimental results for stability test (i.e. the gas volume mL produced per day interval for 14days duration are summarized and tabulated in Appendix 04: The fallouts shows that, the sludge on the pond has not yet stabilized enough as still it produces methane gas though decreases in time [Figures 4.17 and 4.18 indicates] this indicates that the sludge have either highly variable depending on the influent sludge characteristics or require an exorbitant amount of time to complete. Therefore, the pond system is not performing well in faecal sludge stabilization process and a need exists for establishing a more efficient and reliable method to complete sludge stabilization so as to minimize the vector attractiveness of anaerobic digested sludge
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
1000 900 800 700 Gas volume (ml) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 75 70 90 75 100 300
Volume of gas VS Days
S9 S8 S7 S6 S5 S4 S3 S2 S1
50 36 0 15 25 0 35 55 10 4 36 DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 70
Figure 4.16 Sludge stability progress for different sludge sample
SAMPLE NAME S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
DESCRIPTION Upper sludge sample from sampling point 01 Middle sludge sample from sampling point 01 Bottom sludge sample from sampling point 01 Water zone sludge sample from South side of the pond Water zone sludge sample from North side of the pond Sludge sample from middle point of the pond Upper sludge sample from sampling point 02 Middle sludge sample from sampling point 02 Bottom sludge sample from sampling point 02
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Cumulative Gas volume vs Sampling points

1000 900 800 Cumulative gas volume (mLs) 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Sampling points S6 S7 S8 S9 185 294 540 447 650 830 761.5 928 786
Figure 4.17: Cumulative gas volume of sludge samples
4.2.2 Sludge volume determination Since the sides and base of the sludge pond are planes, the sludge volume was computed by using a Spot height method of earth work volume estimation The coordinates was configured onsite by interval of 2m along the span and breadth of the sludge pond and sludge depth was taken at each intersection of x,y coordinates. [Figure 4.18 bellow shows]
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Inlet
Y (m)
Exit 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
X (m)
Figure 4.18 Pond coordinate configuration
From Spot height method Volume = plan area mean height Plan Area of one square = 22, A = 4m2
Therefore, volume for one square is given by
Where h(x,y) = sludge depth at x,y coordinates The result is tabulated in Appendix 05:
1 = 4 [h (0, 0) + h (2,0) + h(0,2) + h(2,2)] 4
The total sludge volume is 252.52 m3 equivalents to 55,546.6 gallons
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.3 Economic aspect of Salasala faecal sludge management system Salasala private decentralized faecal sludge management system receives faecal sludge from the community by means of two hauling private vacuum tracks of capacity of 5000 liters each, with a total charge of 60000/= Tsh per trip. This total charge includes fee for, sanction, transportation and dumping of faecal sludge. The table 4.5 summarizes the economic assessment of Salasala faecal sludge management system. As the Table 4.5 indicates, the Salasala Faecal sludge management facility makes a profit of about 51,840,000 Tsh/= per year. The system looks economical, as it makes a profit of about 34.5% of the investment cost, however it does not recovers effectively all resources suitably obtained through sludge management and treatment.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Plant size and sludge load Plant capacity Total surface area COD Loading BOD Loading Pond capacity Amount received per year Total charge /Trip/truck Average trip/day/truck Amount received/day per truck Amount received per month per truck Amount received per month for 2 trucks Operation and Maintenance cost (O+M) Item Labour Salary and Fuel cost Car services and plant repairing cost
63.13 m3 FS/y 582 m2 6100 mg/l 3050 mg/l 512m3
60000.00 3.50 210,000 (Tsh) 6,300,000 (Tsh) 12,600,000(Tsh) Total (Tsh)
151,200,000.0
Amount per day 250000.00
Amount per month 7,500,000.0
Amount per year 90,000,000.0
150,000 Total (Tsh)
1,800,000.00 91,800,000.0
Annual cost Life time of the plant interest rate [%]
4 years 0.05
Investment Cost (Tsh) Profit per year
150,000,000.0
Profit per year = [Amount received per year-interest rate -(O+M)] Profit per year = [151200000-(1500000005%) -91800000] Profit per year = 51,840,000 Total profit per year (Tsh/year) 51,840,000 Table: 4.5 Economic analysis of salasala faecal sludge management system
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.4 Aesthetics assessment 4.4.1Solid waste management In any faecal sludge or wastewater treatment plant, solid matter and wastes from influent is unavoidable. These wastes are mostly from pit latrine and other latrine types; these are simply because latrines can be one of the local disposing points of domestic solid wastes. In Salasala faecal sludge treatment plant, it was observed that solid waste exists mostly at the screen more than any part of the system and other small part of solid waste is generated by surrounding plants and human being, Also it was observed , there were no solid waste management activity taking place.
Plate 3.9 Dumped Solid waste from screen 4.4.2 Odor and smell From oral interview of plant nearby residents, complaints have been raised concerning odor and smell especially during disposing of faecal sludge when the truck arrived. In one way or another
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
it has been source of arguments about the system performance and suitability on treating faecal sludge. However they said that, few moments after disposing the smell disappears. 4.4.3 Surrounding Land Use The Salasala surrounding land is mainly used for cultivating fruit crops such as Banana, okra, African eggplants, salad, pawpaws, overdoes, mangoes etc. and grazing domestic livestocks. Waste water from the treatment system is used to irrigate adjoining farm, and small area surrounding the system (on west side of the pond) is adjoin the resident houses.
Plate 3.6 Area used for grazing 4.4.4 Insect Attraction It is quite common for insects to live and breed at faecal sludge treatment plants. Insects at faecal sludge treatment plants become a problem when there are large populations of them, and they create a nuisance for residents of neighboring properties.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
However according to physical observation and interview of people surrounding the plant area, no large populations of insects have been observed at the Home bush of Salasala pond in recent years and there have been no complaints about insect nuisance associated with the Treatment system. 4.4.5 Personal protective equipments (PPEs) Personal protective is one of the worth concern in any associated physical activity of which risk can be Physical, Mental or personal health. In wastewater and faecal sludge treatment plants, there are many risks which are associated with daily activities: In Salasala Faecal sludge treatment plant it was observed that, workers wears Personal protective equipments during activities.
Plate 3.7: Faecal sludge disposing activity conducted by worker wears PPE
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.5 System improvements required The following are the system improvements required to make Salasala faecal sludge management system suitable as well as efficient in faecal sludge management and treatment 4.5.1General improvements 4.5.1.1 Land use round system plant. As it was observed, the land use nearby Salasala treatment plant is for domestic livestocks keeping such as goats, chickens, pig and other agriculture activity, improvements attention of isolating the system plant from such activity should be taken so as to minimize risk of human and animal health against wastewater and faecal sludge vulnerabilities. 4.5.1.2 Solid waste management at the system plant One of the prevalent grumbles of residents contiguous Salasala Faecal sludge system was obnoxious odor from the system plant, as observed this is mainly caused by improper disposal of plant solid waste specifically from screen and pond outlet. Therefore the system should have solid waste treatment and disposal facility such as Incinerator. 4.5.1.3 Unit of sludge dewatering Any sludge treatment facility must have at least a single unit for sludge dewatering so as to achieve a complete sludge treatment, unfortunately there was no any Sludge dewatering unit at Salasala faecal sludge treatment system, Thus the system should have at least one sludge dewatering unit. 4.5.1.4 Aesthetic and beauty of the surroundings system environment The faecal sludge and wastewater treatment facilities is supposed to have a beautifully, clean and attractive environments. The Salasala surroundings environments are dirty, it is uninfluenced area to stay even for a single minute which perhaps swaying people to argue about it suitability on managing faecal sludge. The beauty can be achieved through different methods; one can create a pleasant area though paving some important areas, creating gardens of beautifully flowers with aroma smell and on top of that regular cleaners of the surroundings. Therefore this should be taken into consideration.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.5.1.5 Improvements to make Salasala faecal sludge management system cost effective The cost effective system can be attained by increasing the system profit per year through earn/recovery and selling more recourses from faecal sludge and its components i.e. More water for irrigation through faecal sludge treatment, organic manure through composting of dislodged faecal sludge and energy as biogas , the followings are improvements which required; More water through sludge treatment More water can be recovered principally by preventing water loss from the system typically through underground and side wall seepage by minimize the system leakages through lining/coating the walls of system units especially the pond with a cement materials so as to minimize both underground side wall infiltrations Energy recovery as biogas As sludge stability test shows in Appendix 04: The average amount of gas generated in 14 days by 1L of a sludge sample is about 602.3889 m3 or 43.0278m3/day .Each cubic meter (m3) of biogas contains the equivalent of 6 kWh of calorific energy. However, when biogas is converted to electricity, in a biogas powered electric generator, only 2 kWh of useable electricity is obtained, the rest turns into heat which can also be used for heating applications. For sludge volume of 252.52m3, more than 10,876,036.4 m3 of gas can be generated per day which is about 21,752.07 mWh. Therefore there is a need of modifying the system pond (to be biogas reactor) so as to capture the biogas produced and hence economic system. Organic manure through composting The sludge can be composted with organic solid waste and organic fertilizer can be wholesaled and another used to raise plants and thus the profit can be made through selling the organic manure as well as plant sprouts of different species
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
4.5.2 Specific improvements 4.5.2.1 Constructed wetland system improvements Through physical observation and interview it was observed that a Constructed wetland system is not properly designed and it does not contain any biological macrophytes plants. A constructed wetland is a system that utilizes natural processes involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other water source. It comprise plants species such as Typha, Cyperus latifolius, cyperus papyrus, hydrocotyle, hydrocleis etc, in general, these systems should be engineered and constructed outside naturally occurring flood plains. The degree of wildlife habitat provided by a constructed wetland, or sections of such wetlands, varies broadly across a spectrum. At one end of the spectrum are those systems that are intended only to provide treatment for an effluent or other water source, in order to meet the requirements of treating the wastewater, and that provide little to no wildlife habitat. Therefore this can be taken as the major improvements thats must be considered particularly to improve pollutants removal efficiency, as per laboratory chemical analysis results a constructed wetland system have little efficiency in Ammonia-Nitrogen reduction and virtually negative efficiency in nutrient phosphorous removal Ref (Fig 4.10 and 4.11) The other improvement consideration is redesigning of a constructed wetland system or perhaps goes to another type of constructed wetland system. 4.5.2.2 Sludge pond improvements The following are the improvement required to surge up pond performance as well as to make it suitable sludge management entity. Pond Geometry The optimal pond geometry is that which minimizes hydraulic short-circuit. Preventing flow short-circuiting through a pond will maximize retention time and improve final effluent quality. In general, rectangular anaerobic ponds have length-to-breadth ratio of 2-3 to 1 so as to avoid sludge banks forming near the inlet, unfortunately the location of inlet and outlet of Salasala system pond was observed to be on the same side of the pond. Therefore the inlet and outlet is required to be located in diagonally opposite corners of the pond. ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 73 |CHAPTER FOUR
Inlet and Outlet Structures The inlets to anaerobic ponds typically discharge well below the liquid level to minimize short circuiting and to make easily for the new incoming sludges be readily contact with present biological sludge and hence maximize sludge pond stabilization efficiency and odor reduction which are primary objective of sludge ponds. For recommendation of inlet structure, see Figure4.20 for anaerobic pond
Figure 4.20 Inlet arrangement of anaerobic pond Pond sides walls Like any other open water retain structures, side wall protection trough lining and inclination is important as it reduces side erosion and increases side stability against water surge and pressure and hence the structure will operate safely thought its design life. This also is the improvements which should be taken to improve salasala pond performance as it was observed the side walls of the pond is not lined/coated with a cement materials and is orthodox vertical. Dislodge of the sludge pond From sludge volume measurements a sludge pond have found to have about 252m3 of sludge volume which is almost 50% of the volume of pond 512m3and have not been dislodged since the system was started to operate 4years ago. Therefore the sludge should be dislodged from sludge pond as also it depreciates its performance, sludge stability test reveal this.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.0 CONCLUSION The primary objective of this study was to assess Salasala privately operated decentralized faecal sludge management system and critically to analyze the improvements which are needed to make it suitable (cost effective) faecal sludge management system with a potential for citywide adoption. The physicochemical and biological characteristics of system wastewater for essential parameters such as Color, Turbidity, total suspended solids, Ammonia nitrogen, COD, BOD5, faecal coliform and total coliform was observed to be not within minimum permissible amount [i.e. TBS and WHO]. Additionally, sludge stability test has shown that, the system is not performing well in sludge stabilization process and the pond system of a volume of 512m3 have the sludge volume of about 252m3 which is almost 50% of the volume of pond and have not been dislodged since the system was started to operate 4years ago. Furthermore the system surroundings was observed to be unpleasant, dirty and dull and there was no solid waste handling activity from treatment facility. However the system was found to be economical, as it makes a profit of about 51,840,000=/T.sh per year and has a benefit economic ratio (BCR) of about 1.6 From these observations it can be concluded that, Salasala Faecal sludge treatment system is not effective enough in Feacal sludge and wastewater treatment activity for final effluent to be used for irrigation and agriculture activities and also it does not effectively recover all resources suitably obtained through sludge management and treatment.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 75 |CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 RECOMMENDATION From the results obtained in this research, the following are recommendation Since the treatment plant is not work efficiently, there is the need of system owner to act upon stated improvements and hence to bring the effluent quality to the acceptable standards of irrigation as well as to make the system to be suitable faecal sludge management system. A need exists for establishing a more efficient and reliable method of treating faecal sludge to complete sludge stabilization and thus minimizes the vector attractiveness from anaerobic digested sludge. Soon after mentioned improvements are implemented there should be a regular checkup of the performance of the treatment plant so as to assess its performance. Forward-thinking on the study may be made on the investigation of presence of heavy metals in the system wastewater which will be from utilization of personal beauty products, maquillages, Antibiotics and other home use medicines
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |5.1 76 RECOMMENDATION
REFERENCES
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 77 |REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Alexander, W.V.; A. Wood, 1987, Experimental investigations into the use of emergent plants to treat sewage in South Africa, Water Science and Technology, Vol.19 Center for Water Resources Studies (CWRS), Dalhousie University. Septage
Management and Treatment Final Report: Domestic Septage Management Review, 1999. Cooper P F, Job G D, Green M B and Shutes R B E (1996) Reed Beds and Constructed Wetland for Wastewater Treatment, WRc Swindon, UK Denny, P., 1997, Implementation of constructed wetlands in developing countries, Water Science and Technology, Vol.35, No.5, pp 27-34 Estrada, Dr. Roberto Cceres, Dr. Armando Cceres, Alan Whitebread, Dr. Cesar Barrientos, Jaime Garland, Hugo Pineda, Manuel Tay, Roberto Lou, Mario Penagos, 1986, Excreta Reuse (Guatemala), In: Zandstra, Ilse; Alex Redekopp, Reclamation of nutrients, Water and energy from wastes: a review of selected IDRC-supported research, International Development and Research Centre, Canada Gosh, D., 1995, Integrated wetland system (IWS) for wastewater treatment and recycling for the poorer parts of the world with ample sunshine; basic manual, USAID, New Delhi Heinss, U., and Strauss, M. (1999). "Co-Treatment of Fecal Sludge and Wastewater in Tropical Climates.EAWAG,SANDEC Publications, Heinss, U., Larmie, S. A., and Strauss, M. (1998). Solids separation and pond systems for the treatment of fecal sludge are in the tropics." Rep. No. SANDEC report 5/98, EAW Switzerland, Horan N, J (1990) Biological Wastewater treatment systems, Theory and operation, John Wiley and sons. Ltd UK http://www.eawag.ch/publication_e/e_index.html (February 5, 2005) J.Jeffrey pierce, Ruth F.weiner, P.Aarne vesilind, Environmental Pollution and Control, Butter Worth-Heinemann 1998 ISBN 0-7506-9899-3.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Karl Imhoff, W.j.Muller and D.K.B Thistlethywayte, Disposal of Sewage and other water borne systems, London Butterworths 1971 Koottatep, T., Polprasert, C., Oanh,N.T.K., Suirnkil, N., Montangero, A.,Strauss, M. (2003), Constructed Wetlands for Septage Treatment Towards Effective faecal sludge management. Paper presented at IWA 8th Int. Conference on Wetlands Systems for Pollution Control, Arusha,Tanzania, September 15-19
Ligman, K, Hutzler, N and Boyle, W C (1974) Household Wastewater Characterization; Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, vol 100, no EE1, pp 201213
Metcalf-Eddy (Fourth edition) 2003, Wastewater Engineering; Treatment and reuse, Mc Graw-Hill, Inc. Montangero, A., and Strauss, M. (2002). "Fecal Sludge Treatment." Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science (EAWAG), SANDEC. Montangero, A., Strauss, M. (eds) (2004), Faecal Sludge Treatment, Swiss Federal Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (EAWAG)/SANDEC, Dubendorf, Switzerland
NVA, Slibwijzer 1994, Treatment of faecal sludge, NVA publication. SANDEC, 1997, Faecal sludge quantities and characteristics, unpublished. Shrestha R R (1999) Application of Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment in Nepal, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Pollution Control, University of Agricultural Sciences Vienna, Austria
Van Hoven, D. (2004). Septage in Jamaica: An Assessment of the Situation and an Evaluation of Treatment Alternatives, Report for the Ministry of Health.
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
APPENDIXES
ARDHI UNIVERSITY
Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 80 |APPENDIXES
Appendix 01: AVERAGE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT Temperature TDS PH Conductivity Salinity Colour Turbidity Sample Number (c) (mg/l) (ms/cm) () (mg Pt-co/l) (NTU)
Total suspended solid TSS, ( mg/l)
S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04 TBS Standards
27.67 12.44 27.68 12.43 28.15 12.61 28.27 14.14
1616.5 744.96 1203.25 565.19 1220.25 563.45 1167.25 549.54
6.6 0.36 6.73 0.26 6.65 0.31 6.73 0.35
3.13 0.49 2.053 0.65 2.12 0.49 2.41 0.49
1.5 0.67 1.23 0.56 1.13 0.51 1.03 0.46
3175 1431.08 1124.5150.56 2325 1071.45 2275 1035.37 900 432.43 725 150.00 825 150.00 500 81.65
1325 598.33 407.5 182.29 407.5 182.70 251.5 118.31
20-35
6.5-8.5
300
300
100
Key: S01-Sample from inlet of the pond, S02-Sample from middle of the pond, S03-Sample from outlet of the pond or Inlet of the constructed wetland, S 04-Sample from outlet of constructed wetland ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 81 |Appendix 01: AVERAGE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT
Appendix 02: AVERAGE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT
NH3-N (mg/l)
PO4(mg/l)
Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04 TBS Standard
223.33 20.82 151 10.15 155.33 6.43 129.67 5.03 15
500 0.00 200 86.60 150 86.60 200 86.60 6
Key: S01-Sample from inlet of the pond, S02-Sample from middle of the pond, S03-Sample from outlet of the pond or Inlet of the constructed wetland, S 04-Sample from outlet of constructed wetland
ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 82 |Appendix 02: AVERAGE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT
Appendix 03: AVERAGE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C COD (mg/l) Faecal coliform (count/100ml) Total coliform (Count/100ml)
Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04 TBS standard WHO standards
2253.33 245.1 1040 79.37 1015 58.95 318.33 17.56 30 25
4506.67 490.03 2080 158.75 2030 117.90 636.67 35.12 60 50
24,066,667 23,333,333 21,000,000 16,000,000 1000 1,000
58,000,000 37,666,667 35,333,333 22,333,333 10000 -
Key: S01-Sample from inlet of the pond, S02-Sample from middle of the pond, S03-Sample from outlet of the pond or Inlet of the constructed wetland, S 04-Sample from outlet of constructed wetland
ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 83 |Appendix 03: AVERAGE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER OF SALASALA SYSTEM ALONG THE TREATMENT PLANT
SAMPLE NAME S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9
Appendix 04: GAS VOLUME IN mL OF SLUDGE STABILITY TEST FOR FOURTEEN DAY DURATION DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY Sub 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Total 55 110 130 70 80 70 50 40 40 38 38 35 38 36 830 25 20 20 15 30 20 10 10 8 5 5 5 8 4 185 70 60 50 50 50 50 50 45 30 20 25 15 15 10 540 70 55 40 45 60 48 52 50 40 40 42 35 38 35 650 75 65 30 25 20 32 35 5 2 2 1 1 1 0 294 300 280 100 50 20 8 2 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 761.5 100 80 50 10 10 50 3 30 20 20 22 22 15 15 447 75 70 60 50 100 70 55 55 55 40 45 40 35 36 786 90 75 65 60 80 70 70 70 68 60 60 55 55 50 928 Total 5421.5 Average 602.3889 SAMPLE NAME S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 DESCRIPTION Upper sludge sample from sampling point 01 Middle sludge sample from sampling point 01 Bottom sludge sample from sampling point 01 Water zone sludge sample from South side of the pond Water zone sludge sample from North side of the pond Sludge sample from middle point of the pond Upper sludge sample from sampling point 02 Middle sludge sample from sampling point 02 Bottom sludge sample from sampling point 02
ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 84 |Appendix 04: GAS VOLUME IN mL OF SLUDGE STABILITY TEST FOR FOURTEEN DAY DURATION
Appendix 05: SALASALA POND SLUDGE DEPTH AND VOLUME RESULTS

X,Y 2,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 2,10 2,12 2,14 2,16 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 4,10 4,12 4,14 4,16 6,2 6,4 6,6 6,8 6,10 6,12 6,14 6,16 8,2 8,4 8,6 8,8 8,10 8,12 8,14 8,16 Z(m) 0.2 0.21 0.22 0.21 0.3 0.32 0.2 0.31 0.32 0.22 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.23 0.25 0.35 0.36 Volume (m3) 0.2 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.51 0.62 0.52 0.51 0.52 0.95 0.86 0.89 0.99 1 0.84 0.9 0.53 0.96 0.86 0.91 0.88 0.88 0.99 1.06 0.45 0.91 0.92 0.9 0.84 0.98 1.27 1.38 X,Y 10,2 10,4 10,6 10,8 10,10 10,12 10,14 10,16 12,2 12,4 12,6 12,8 12,10 12,12 12,14 12,16 14,2 14,4 14,6 14,8 14,10 14,12 14,14 14,16 16,2 16,4 16,6 16,8 16,10 16,12 16,14 16,16 Z (m) 0.15 0.3 0.21 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.42 0.43 0.33 0.23 0.22 0.27 0.32 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.38 0.44 0.41 0.4 0.47 0.48 0.54 0.53 0.55 0.51 0.5 0.54 0.53 0.52 0.57 0.56 Volume (m3) 0.39 0.94 1 0.99 1.13 1.19 1.37 1.56 0.48 1.01 0.96 1.03 1.28 1.36 1.46 1.57 0.71 1.38 1.3 1.3 1.46 1.6 1.71 1.79 0.93 1.88 1.86 1.85 1.94 2 2.11 2.2 X,Y 18,2 18,4 18,6 18,8 18,10 18,12 18,14 18,16 20,2 20,4 20,6 20,8 20,10 20,12 20,14 20,16 22,2 22,4 22,6 22,8 22,10 22,12 22,14 22,16 24,2 24,4 24,6 24,8 24,10 24,12 24,14 24,16 Z (m) 0.56 0.58 0.56 0.59 0.6 0.61 0.61 0.6 0.61 0.6 0.65 0.65 0.67 0.69 0.66 0.68 0.72 0.72 0.7 0.73 0.76 0.79 0.8 0.81 0.7 0.8 0.87 0.91 0.9 1 1 0.9 Volume (m3) 1.11 2.2 2.15 2.19 2.26 2.26 2.31 2.34 1.17 2.35 2.39 2.45 2.51 2.57 2.57 2.55 1.33 2.65 2.67 2.73 2.81 2.91 2.94 2.95 1.42 2.94 3.09 3.21 3.3 3.45 3.59 3.51 X,Y Z (m) 26,2 0.7 26,4 0.75 26,6 0.89 26,8 1 26,10 0.9 26,12 1 26,14 0.88 26,16 0.87 28,2 0.75 28,4 0.88 28,6 0.89 28,8 0.9 28,10 0.89 28,12 0.86 28,14 0.91 28,16 0.91 30,2 0.66 30,4 0.78 30,6 0.8 30,8 0.87 30,10 0.88 30,12 0.89 30,14 0.9 30,16 0.9 32,2 0.55 32,4 0.59 32,6 0.8 32,8 0.86 32,10 0.9 32,12 0.93 32,14 0.94 32,16 0.92 Total volume (m3) Volume (m3) 1.4 2.95 3.31 3.67 3.71 3.8 3.88 3.65 1.45 3.08 3.41 3.68 3.69 3.65 3.65 3.57 1.41 3.07 3.35 3.46 3.54 3.52 3.56 3.62 1.21 2.58 2.97 3.33 3.51 3.6 3.66 3.66 252.52
KEY X,Y-COORDINATES Z-SLUDGE DEPTH
NOTE All coordinates are in meters (m)
ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 85 |Appendix 05: SALASALA POND SLUDGE DEPTH AND VOLUME RESULTS
Appendix 06: RAW DATA OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS FOR WASTEWATER OF SALASALA FAECAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
a) Physical parameters
1)
Temperature (c)
TDS (mg/l ) 1918 1422 1426 1374
PH
Salinity (%)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total suspended solid TS, (mg/l) 1400 410 400 300
Colour (mg Ptco/l)
S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04
29.8 29.9 29 28.9
6.9 7.1 7 7.1
3.85 2.78 2.8 2.74
1.4 1.2 1 1
1200 600 900 600
3000 2400 2200 700
2)
Temperature (c)
TDS (mg/l ) 1590 1006 1128 1300
PH
Salinity (%)
Turbidity (NTU)
Total suspended solid TS, (mg/l) 1300 410 430 270
Colour (mg Ptco/l) 3400 2700 2500 1000
S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04
26.8 27.4 27.2 27..6
5.8. 6.5 6.8 6.9
2.78 2.12 1.72 2
1.6 1.2 1.1 1
998 600 1000 500
ARDHI UNIVERSITY Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 86 |Appendix 06: RAW DATA OF PHYSICOCHEMICAL PARAMETERS FOR WASTEWATER OF SALASALA FAECAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
3)
Temperature (c)
TDS (mg/l)
PH
Total Colour Conductivity Salinity Turbidity suspended (mg (ms/cm) (%) (NTU) solid TS, Pt(mg/l) co/l) 2.89 2.11 2.12 1.98 1.5 1.1 1.1 1 1000 800 700 400 1200 400 400 203 3300 2000 2000 1100
S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04
27.1 27.2 27.5 27.9
1478 1065 1267 995
6.2 6.7 6.3 6.3
4)
Temperature (c)
TDS (mg/l)
PH
Total Colour Conductivity Salinity Turbidity suspended (mg (ms/cm) (%) (NTU) solid TS, Pt(mg/l) co/l) 3 1.2 1.81 2.91 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1300 900 700 500 1400 410 400 233 3000 2200 2400 800
S 01 S 02 S 03 S 04
27 25.9 28.9 28
1480 1320 1060 1000
6.7 6.6 6.5 6.6
b) Chemical parameters
1) Sample 01 Sample 02 Sample 03 Sample 04
NH3N (mg/l) 230 160 148 135
PO4(mg/l) 500 250 100 250
NH3N (mg/l) 200 140 160 125
PO4(mg/l) 500 100 250 100
NH3N (mg/l) 240 153 158 129
PO4(mg/l) 500 250 100 250
c) Biological parameters
BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C 2250 1100 950 320
COD (mg/l) 4500 2200 1900 640
Faecal coliform (count/100ml) 25200000 22000000 20000000 17000000
Total coliform (Count/100ml) 57000000 35000000 38000000 18000000
BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C 2500 950 1065 335
COD (mg/l) 5000 1900 2130 670
BOD5 (mg/l) at 20 C 2010 1070 1030 300
COD (mg/l) 4020 2140 2060 600
07
89
90

Assessment and Improvement of SALASALA Private Decentralized Fecal Sludge Management System

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Assessment and Improvement of SALASALA Private Decentralized Fecal Sludge Management System

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ASSESSMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF SALASALA PRIVATE DECENTRALIZED FAECAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

By ULOTU GERALD July 2012.

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald iii |COPYRIGHT

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald vii |TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xii OF FIGURES

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xiii OF FIGURES

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LST xiv OF TABLES

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald |LIST xv OF PLATES

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald xvi |ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATION

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 2 |CHAPTER ONE

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 3 |CHAPTER ONE

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 4 |CHAPTER ONE

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 5 |CHAPTER TWO

Figure 2.1: Factors influencing FS characteristics. (Source: Heinss et al., 1998)

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 6 |CHAPTER TWO

Sewage for comparison Tropical sewage

COD (mg/l) COD/BOD NH4-N (mg/l) TS SS (mg/l) Helminth (no/litre) eggs

20-50000 2:1-5:1 2,-5000 3.5% 30,000 20,-6000

< 10000 5:110:1 < 1000 < 3% = 7000 = 4000

30 - 70 < 1% 200 - 700

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 7 |CHAPTER TWO

1450 110 1800

gram/ cap. Day (wet) m3/cap.year (upon 0.04-0.07

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 8 |CHAPTER TWO

50 10 100 30 250 120 95 25 5 20 200 20

100 25 200 50 500 210 160 50 10 30 500 40

200 50 300 100 1000 400 315 85 20 50 1000 80

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 10 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 11 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 13 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 14 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 16 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 19 |CHAPTER TWO

Constructed wetland type

Free water surface (FWS)

Emergent Floating Submerged

Sub-surface flow (SSF)

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 22 |CHAPTER TWO

mixing baffles, flow diversion

Deep water zone

Usually deeper, non-vegetated

Pollutant Organic material (measured as BOD)

Removal Processes Biological degradation, sedimentation,

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 24 |CHAPTER TWO

Figure 2.5: Section through Horizontal surface Flow Constructed Wetland

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 25 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 26 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 27 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 28 |CHAPTER TWO

inorganic to organic compounds, and vice-versa.

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 29 |CHAPTER TWO

ammonia-nitrogen at a pH of 7, while NH (present as a dissolved gas) predominates at a pH of

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 32 |CHAPTER TWO

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 35 |CHAPTER TWO

Salasala Treatment Bagamoyo road

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 37 |CHAPTER THREE

From vacuum track

wetland system where auxiliary treatments proceed. According

to the owner of the faecal

Dissertation by Ulotu Gerald 40 |CHAPTER THREE

Plate 3.4 Constructed wetland system