Process consideration sludge handling and treatment plant

The processes reviewed in this section are the most common or most recent ones. Other processes which
do not appear here are considered inappropriate because they are energy intensive, unsustainable or
simply outdated due to technological advances.
THICKENING
The review of alternative routes for sludge thickening is summarised in the table on the next page.
(Metcalf & Eddy, 2003; DEWA, 2015; Grievson, 2011; MDEQ, 2004; HydrofluxHUBER, 2003)
The solid capacity of membrane thickeners vary widely depending on the number of membrane modules
operating in the system. (Baggett & Sober, 2012).Centrifuges can operate with or without polymer
addition and can be used to thicken or dewater sludge. Higher performances can be achieved with high
polymer dosage. (EPA, 2000)
STABILIZATION
ANAEROBIC DIGESTION: Comparison between Mesophilic and Thermophillic Anaerobic digestion
One of the objective of the design was to produce and use Biogas which result in the elimination of
Aerobic digestion processes and other routes which did not satisfy this criteria.
Anaerobic digestion can be sorted into further categories, mainly Mesophilic and Thermophillic. These
can be accomplished in a Single Stage process or a Multi-stage process. (EPA, 2006)
Multi-stage anaerobic digestion (MSAD) allows better control over the process by simply separating the
process into 2 or more stages. In a typical two-stage anaerobic digestion, the primary digester is heated to
optimize performance of the specific digesting micro-organisms. The secondary digester is not, normally,
equipped with mixing or heating facilities because the methane formation reaction, or gas phase, is
exothermic. The process will reviewed in much detail in the Conceptual Design. The table below shows
the operating parameters in a mesophilic and thermophillic system. (EPA, 2006)
PARAMETER MESOPHILIC SYSTEM THERMOPHILIC
SYSTEM
Optimal temperature (C) 35-40 55-60
pH 7.2-8.0 7.2-8.5
Temperatures fluctuation 3-5 1-2
tolerated by the system (C)
Hydraulic retention time (d) 15-25 3-10
Max. COD reduction (%) 65-85 85-95
Max. BOD5 reduction (%) 60-80 80-90
Max. Organic material reduction 45-55 55-70
(%)
Biogas production (Nm3/1000kg 920-980 950-1000
dry organic material)
Methane gas content of the biogas 60-70 70-85
(%)
Volatile acid (mg 1500-2500 3000-4000
CH3COOH/dm3)
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/dm3) 4000-6000 3000-5000

1
 Gravity Gravity Rotary Rotary Disk Centrifuges Dissolved Membrane
Belt settlement Screw Drum Thickener Air Thickener
Thickener Thickener Thickener Flotation
Usage frequency Commonly Commonly New & New & Commonly Seldom
Limited Often used
used used rising rising used used
Applicability PS; P+WAS;
WAS P+WAS WAS P+WAS WAS P+WAS
PS+WAS WAS
Hydraulic 580 4000 0.2 0.5
Capacity(m3/d) depending on Up to 2500 480 - 2400 140 - 2200 491 - 981 Up to 2880 480 (m3/d per
belt width m2)
Solid -Depends
4.8 14.4 Up to 0.24
Capacity(ton/day) 5 - 15 12 1.1 - 22 4.8 10 widely on varies
(ton/m.day) (ton/m2.day)
size
Polymer -2.3 4.5 -3.2 - 5.4
consumption(kg/dt1) 1.4 4.5 2.5 - 6 3-5 -Polymer -Polymer 0-4 2 4.5 0
dependent dependent
Power and energy
Low Low Low Medium low High High High
consumption
Operation and Easily
Simple Simple Skilled Need
Maintenance Simple and Difficult to Simple and maintained
maintenance operation & operators frequent
easy monitor easy but can be
but costly maintenance needed maintenance
costly
Capital cost Low Medium Medium Medium Medium High High High
O & M costs Low Low Low Low Low Low High High
Odours Need good Need good
Odourous Excellent Good Excellent Good Good
control control
Footprint Large Very large Small Medium Small Small medium Medium
Other remarks -Familiarity -Very
-Fairly
and ease of effective on Various
Floc can be noisy
operation 1ry sludge New New models and High quality
sheared by -Long start-
-Quick -Low Technology Technology sizes supernatant
the rotation up and
start-up and supernatant available
shutdown
shutdown quality

1
Dry ton solids

2
MSAD presents numerous advantages, they can adopt a specific system configuration to meet specific
requirements maximum volume of gas is produced, with a high methane composition- 50 to 70%.
Higher Biosolid quality can be produced, with much of the pathogens destroyed and the digester volume
is decreased.
But everything comes with a price, MSAD is a more costly process than single stage digestion. They also
have higher operation and maintenance costs.
The table below summarises the advantages and disadvantages of using a mesophilic or thermophillic
digestion.

Mesophilic system Thermophilic system

ADVANTAGES

-during the biogas production organic
material is stabilising;
-fermented sludge can be applied as dung
-sludges quantity reducing
-sludges fertilisation ability reducing
-sludges water downtake capacity getting
better
-increased gas output due to the faster
reaction;
-higher methane gas content and reduces
hydrogen-sulphide content in the biogas
-staying-duration shorter
-smaller reactor volume demand
-more pathogens destruction
-better sludge dehydration
-reduced foam formation in the reactor

DISADVANTAGES

-due to the longer staying duration - larger -higher heater energy demand
reactor volume demand, higher investments
costs
-sludgewaters quality getting worse -sludgewaters quality getting worse
fermentation blocking influence of heavy metals -sensitivity to the sudden temperature
fluctuation, more precise temperature regulation
demand sensitivity to the toxic heavy metals
(KARDOS, 2011)
DEWATERING
Dewatering routes include centrifuges, belt filter presses, drying beds and lagoons.
Centrifuges have been reviewed in the Thickening subsection.
In general, drying beds are used for plants serving small communities and where land is available and
labour cheap, it has been mentioned here only for comparison purposes. The same applies for drying
lagoons. (Metcalf & Eddy, 2003)

3
 Belt Filter presses Drying beds Drying Lagoons
Polymer consumption 3-8 Low to 0 0
(g/kg ds2)
Power consumption Medium Low Low
Feed composition Very sensitive Less sensitive Less sensitive
sensitivity
Operation and Close monitoring Minimal amount of Least amount of skill
Maintenance required skill and operator required
attention
Supernatant quality Good Moderately good Moderately good

Capital cost Relatively low Very low Very Low

O & M costs Relatively low Low
Odours, pathogen -High odour potential -Require stabilized -Odour and vector
and pollution sludge problems
-Potential for ground
water pollution
Footprint -Relatively small Very Large Very large
Other remarks -Quick start-up and -Labour intensive Climatic effects should
shutdown -Climatic be considered
considerations
(EPA, 2000)
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Rotary Screw Thickener was chosen for the thickening process due to its high hydraulic capacity.
The desired traits were small footprint, low power and polymer consumption and applicability on both
Primary and WAS.
A Thermophillic Two-Stage Anaerobic Digestion was chosen for the stabilisation process because it
can achieve higher decomposition efficiency at a higher rate producing larger gas volume with higher
methane composition, in smaller reactors with, eventually, a shorter retention time. The process,
however, demands high energy supply for heating and mixing facilities. The quality of biosolids
produced by the system is also a key reason for the choice.
Finally, the dewatering process will be accomplished by Belt Filter Presses. BFPs can treat more sludge
than centrifuges with less power consumption. A comparison in the capital cost for each equipment makes
the clear cut: One centrifuge processing 340 kg solids per day costs as much as two (2) belt filter presses
having a capacity of 735 kg dry solids per hour. The odour problem associated with BFPs should not be
such a hassle once a good ventilation and odour neutralization system is set up.

2 Dry solids

4
LITERATURE

1. Baggett, S. & Sober, J., 2012. NETX Seminar Evaluation of Sludge Thickening Technologies.
[Online]
Available at: http://www.weat.org/northeast/images/2014NETJeff_S_and_Scott_B.pdf
[Accessed 15 September 2015].
2. Chauhan, R. S., 2013. Treatment and disposal of sludge. [Online]
Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/Raghvendrasinghchauh/treatment-and-disposal-of-sludge
[Accessed 5 September 2015].
3. DEWA, 2015. Sludge Thickening and Dewatering. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dewaco.fi/products/sludge-thickening-and-dewatering
[Accessed 15 Sepptember 2015].
4. EPA, 1974. Process Design Manual For Sludge Treatment and Disposal. [Online]
Available at:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20007TN9.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&I
ndex=Prior+to+1976&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&
Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&Ext
QFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&F
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
5. EPA, 2000. Belt Filter Pres. [Online]
Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/mtbfact.cfm
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
6. EPA, 2000. Centrifuge Thickening and Dewatering. [Online]
Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/mtbfact.cfm
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
7. EPA, 2003. Gravity Thickening. [Online]
Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/mtbfact.cfm
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
8. EPA, 2006. Multi-Stage Anaerobic Digestion. [Online]
Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/mtbfact.cfm
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
9. Grievson, O., 2011. An Introduction To Wastewater And Sludge Principles. [Online]
Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/olivergrievson/an-introduction-to-wastewater-and-sludge-
principles-8017362
[Accessed 5 September 2015].
10. HydrofluxHUBER, 2003. Rotary Screw Thickener. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hydrofluxhuber.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ros2_en.pdf
[Accessed 16 September 2015].
11. HydrofluxHUBER, 2010. Disc Thickener. [Online]
Available at: http://www.hydrofluxhuber.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/ros2s_en.pdf
[Accessed 15 September 2015].

5
12. KARDOS, L. J. . P. G. O. J. B. K. Z. G., 2011. COMPARING OF MESOPHILIC AND
THERMOPHILIC ANAEROBIC FERMENTED SEWAGE SLUDGE BASED ON CHEMICAL
AND BIOCHEMICAL TESTS. [Online]
Available at: http://www.ecology.kee.hu/pdf/0903_293302.pdf
[Accessed 15 September 2015].
13. MDEQ, 2004. CHAPTER 70 SLUDGE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL. [Online]
Available at: C:\Users\Fanilo 1\Downloads\Documents\NPELF40-70.pdf
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
14. Metcalf & Eddy, 2003. Wastewater Engineering. Treatment and reuse. 4th ed. s.l.:McGraw-Hill
Companies.
15. Nelson, C. & Lamb, J., 2002. Final Report: Haubenschild Farms Anaerobic Digester. [Online]
Available at: http://www.mnproject.org/pdf/Haubyrptupdated.pdf
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
16. SEAI, n.d. Gas Yields Table. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Bioenergy/Bioenergy_Technologies/Anaerobic_Digestion/The_Pr
ocess_and_Techniques_of_Anaerobic_Digestion/
[Accessed 12 September 2015].
17. Stubbart, J. M., 2006. AWWA Wastewater Operator Field Guide. Denver: American Water
Works Association.
18. The United Nations University International Network on Water, E. a. H. (., n.d. Wastewater
Treatment: The Municipal Sludge Production Process. [Online]
Available at: http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/fms1/index.asp
[Accessed 5 September 2015].