See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26696486

Characterization of Screenings from Three Municipal Wastewater Treatment

Plants in the Region Rhone-Alpes

Article  in  Water Science & Technology · July 2009

DOI: 10.2166/wst.2009.391 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

16 2,960

5 authors, including:

Bruno Barillon Pascale Martel Naquin

SUEZ Independent researcher
28 PUBLICATIONS   398 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rémy Gourdon
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Lyon
147 PUBLICATIONS   2,292 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Design and performance of vertical flow constructed wetlands View project

BIOSOL project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rémy Gourdon on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only.
Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published by IWA Publishing. IWA Publishing recognizes
the retention of the right by the author(s) to photocopy or make single electronic
copies of the paper for their own personal use, including for their own classroom use,
or the personal use of colleagues, provided the copies are not offered for sale and
are not distributed in a systematic way outside of their employing institution.

Please note that you are not permitted to post the IWA Publishing PDF version of
your paper on your own website or your institution’s website or repository.

Please direct any queries regarding use or permissions to wst@iwap.co.uk

 525 Q IWA Publishing 2009 Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009

Characterization of screenings from three municipal

wastewater treatment plants in the Region Rhône-Alpes
R. Le Hyaric, J.-P. Canler, B. Barillon, P. Naquin and R. Gourdon

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study was to analyze the composition of the screenings sampled from three R. Le Hyaric
R. Gourdon
municipal wastewater treatment plants (wwtp) located in the Region Rhône-Alpes, France. University of Lyon, INSA of Lyon, Lab. LGCIE,
20 av. A. Einstein, F-69621, Villeurbanne cedex,
The plants were equipped with multi screening stages with gap sizes ranging from 60 to 3 mm. France
Waste production flows from each plant were monitored over at least 48 hours in each sampling E-mail: ronan.le-hyaric@insa-lyon.fr;
remy.gourdon@insa-lyon.fr
campaign in order to calculate average production rates. Waste samples of at least 7 kg were
J.-P. Canler
collected from each screening stage in each plant at different seasons to evaluate the influence CEMAGREF of Lyon,
3 bis Quai Chaveau, CP 220,
of different parameters on the composition of the waste. An overall 30 samples were thereby F-69336 Lyon cedex 09,
collected between May 2007 and February 2008, dried at 808C for a week, and subsequently France
E-mail: jean-pierre.canler@cemagref.fr
hand sorted into 10 fractions of waste materials. Results showed that the average production
B. Barillon
varied between 0.53 and 3.49 kg (wet mass) per capita per year. The highest production rates CIRSEE—Suez Environnement,
1 rue d’Astorg, F-75008,
were observed during or immediately after rainy weather conditions. The dry matter content Paris,
ranged between 14.4 and 29.2% of wet mass, and the volatile matter content was between 70.0 France
E-mail: bruno.barillon@suez-env.com
and 90.5% of dry mass. The predominant materials in the screenings were found to be sanitary
P. Naquin
textiles which accounted for 65.2% to 73.6% of dry weight and fines (,20 mm) which accounted Polden INSAVALOR,
CEI, BP 52132, F-69603, Villeurbanne cedex,
for 15.2% to 18.2% of dry weight. These proportions were relatively similar in each plant and France
each sampling campaign. E-mail: pascale.naquin@insavalor.fr

Key words | characterisation, municipal wastewater treatment, pre-treatment, screenings,

screenings quality

INTRODUCTION

Solid wastes such as screenings and greases are generated
from the operations of pre-treatment of municipal waste-
waters. Due to the relatively small production of screenings
in currently operated WWTP as compared to sludge pro-
duction, little attention has been paid to this type of waste
(Sidwick 1991). Yet, increasing production may be expected
from the technological evolutions of wastewater treatment
processes that require increasingly fine screening (sieving)
pre-treatments. A better characterization of these waste
flows, both at the quantitative and qualitative levels, is
therefore needed to implement adequate treatment
strategies.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.391
A few studies were carried out in Great-Britain and in
France in that objective. The regional observatory of wastes
in the Region Ile-de-France (ORDIF 1999) issued a general
report about the management of wastes generated in
WWTP, including screenings. Another study by Clay et al.
(1996) reported an investigation concerning the develop-
ment of disposal strategies of screenings at minimal costs.
These studies reported data relative to the volumes of
screenings generated, their composition and the existing
treatment methods, but they were carried out at least 10
years ago. Since then, consumer habits, wastewater collec-
tion systems and treatment technologies have changed,
 526 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants
and screenings composition has been highly affected. The
data therefore need to be updated.
One of the major recent evolutions was in the gap sizes
of the screens used, which decreased from a few cm to a few
mm and now less than 1 mm in some plants where membrane
bioreactors are used (Frechen et al. 2006). Table 1 illustrates
the gap sizes used for screenings and sieving operations
depending on the treatment process used on the plant.
The most commonly used methods of disposal for
screenings in Europe are currently landfilling and incinera-
tion (Bode & Imhoff 1996; Clay et al. 1996), depending upon
local availabilities of adapted landfills or incinerators.
Landfilling however is not favoured by the European
waste regulations (Council directive 1999/31/EC on waste
landfilling) which enforce a decrease in the amounts of
biodegradable organic matter disposed into landfills. More-
over, landfilling is not allowed for waste with water content
above 70% w/w, whereas screenings often exceed this
upper limit (Huber et al. 1995; Clay et al. 1996; Naud et al.
2007). Incineration is considered as a good alternative,
although the high water content is also an unfavourable
characteristic that may jeopardize the operating conditions
of the incineration plant in terms of combustion tempera-
ture and gaseous emissions (Bode & Imhoff 1996).
Treatment methods other than landfilling or incineration
may therefore prove to be more adapted for screenings. In
order to develop adequate strategies of management and
treatment, the objective of this study was to determine the
amounts and compositions of screenings generated from
medium-size WWTP, and evaluate the influence of key
parameters such as the gap size of the screens and sieves used,
the treatment capacity of the plant, and the rainfall regime.
Table 1 | Classification of screens and sieves according to gap size and treatment
process associated (after Frechen et al. 2006)
Type of screen
or sieve Gap size (mm)
Coarse screen 60 mm through 20 mm
Middle screen 20 mm through 10 mm
Fine screen 10 mm through 2 mm
Coarse sieve $1 mm
Fine sieve ,1 mm
Micro sieve #0.05 mm
Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Selection of WWTPs
Three wastewater treatment plants were selected for the
present study based on a series of criteria:
† size of the plant: treatment capacities ranging between
30,000 and 100,000 population equivalent;
† geographical location: Rhône Alpes region at a distance
of less than 100 km from Lyon;
† nature of the wastewaters: mostly municipal, with no
more than 35% industrial effluents;
† the type of wastewater collection: combined or separate
sewer system;
† and the gap size of the screens used: from 3 to 60 mm, i.e.
from sieving to coarse screening.
The characteristics of the plants with respect to these
criteria are shown in Table 2.
Implementation of sampling campaigns
The method used for the collection of samples was
mainly based on the European standard NF EN
14899:2005 and the five technical reports that go with it
(CEN/TR 15310-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 2006).
A technical visit of each plant was organized before the
first sampling campaign in order to avoid technical problems,
minimize risks, and elaborate adapted sampling strategies in
collaboration with the technical staff of the plants. Employ-
ees of each plant were informed in advance about the
research program and the sampling operations. Good
communication and collaboration with local staff proved to
be necessary for the success of the program. Operating data
such as daily influent flow, BOD (biological oxygen demand),
COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand), SS (suspended solids),
etc. were provided by the management staff of the plants.
Wastewater
These routine analyses were performed by the technical staff
treatment process
of the plants following regulatory standards.
Activated sludge
Sampling campaigns of screenings were carried out bet-
ween May 2007 and February 2008. Two 7-day campaigns
Biofiltre
(May and September 2007) were done on Givors plant for a
Membrane bioreactor
detailed characterization, and one 2 day-campaign was done
technology (MBR)
in Bourg-en-Bresse (November 2007) and in Annemasse
( January 2008).
 527 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009

Table 2 | Characteristics of the WWTP selected for the sampling campaigns

Screening stages and

Location of wastewater Actual treatment associated gap size (mm)

treatment plants capacity (p.e.) % Domestic influent Sewer system Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Givors 65,000 . 90% Combined 60 25 6

Bourg-en-Bresse 90,000 65% Partially separate (72.7% separate) 15 3 –
Annemasse 70,000 . 90% Partially separate (40% separate) 60 15 3

In order to determine waste composition as a function
of the gap size of the screens and sieves, samples from each
screen were collected separately in each plant (when it was
technically possible). Each sample was therefore made of
the daily production of each screen. Samples were then
transported to the laboratory and stored for a maximum
of one week at 108C before analysis. Table 3 summarizes
the operating conditions for the sampling campaigns on
each plant.
temperature of 808C over at least one week, until constant
weight. The dry samples were weighed to calculate the
humidity of the wet samples, and sorted by hand into 10
categories of materials (see Table 4). Then each one of the
fractions was weighed to calculate their mass proportion in
the dry matter of each sample.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Classification of fractions
The procedure followed here was aimed at the character-
ization of the waste and should not be viewed as a possible
treatment process. Each screenings sample (gap size
. 6 mm) was analyzed for the type of materials it contained
(sievings were not sorted by hand). The method used was
based on the French standard NF XP X30-466:2004 initially
developed for the characterization of domestic wastes. The
whole samples were first weighed (wet mass), and the
volume was measured to calculate the volumetric mass.
They were then dried in a large capacity oven at a
Quantitative analysis
A total of 30 samples were collected from the different
campaigns (20 from Givors, 4 from Bourg-en-Bresse and 6
from Annemasse). An overall mass of 1,366.4 kg was
thereby collected in Givors (668.4 kg during the first
campaign, 698.1 kg during the second one), 906.7 kg in
Bourg-en-Bresse and 1,341.5 kg in Annemasse. Tables 5
and 6 summarize the results obtained for the three plants.
The average generation rate was found to be relatively
constant in the 2 campaigns done in Givors in May and
September 2007 (0.53 and 0.56 kg per capita and per year).
Although not done at the same season, the rainfall

Table 3 | Conditions of sampling campaigns

Number of Number of samples

sampling Date of sampling collected per campaign
Wastewater treatment plant campaigns campaigns and per screen Screenings collected

Givors 2 May 2007 and 5p “screenings . 60 mm” and

September 2007 “60 mm . screenings . 6 mm”†
Bourg-en-Bresse 1 November 2007 2 “screenings . 15 mm” and
“15 mm . sievings .3 mm”
Annemasse 1 January 2008 3 “Screenings . 60 mm”
“60 mm . screenings . 15 mm” and
“15 mm . sievings .3 mm”
p
From Monday to Thursday, one sample per day. From Friday to Sunday, one sample for three days.
†
Wastes from the “25 mm screen” and the “6 mm screen” were not separable from each other.
 528 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009

Table 4 | Description of the categories of materials considered for the characterization of screenings

Screenings fractions Fraction components

Sanitary textiles Tampons, sanitary towels, wipes…

Fine fraction (, 20 mm) Ash, sand, broken glass, vegetal waste and fine residues that pass the sieve
Vegetal Cut grass, herbs, flowers, twigs, branch, leaves…
Paper, cardboard Newspapers, packages, brown corrugated cardboard, paper rolls, office paper…
Plastics Plastic bags, plastic films, plastic containers, pipes, pens, toothbrushes, tubes of toothpaste,
condoms…
Textiles Natural fibre textiles (cotton, wool, linen…) and synthetic fibre textiles (tights, sport bags…)
Metal, Aluminium Cans, keys, tools and all ferrous and non ferrous materials
Composites Packaging made of several materials (paper, plastic, aluminium) not separable (packaging
coffee, milk box and juice box…)
Combustible Crates, boxes, wood (planks…), leather (shoes, bags…), rubber…
Incombustible Glass, minerals and other inert materials not classified in other categories such as ceramics,
pottery, porcelain, brick, plaster…

Table 5 | Masses of waste generated from each screening stage in Givors

Givors I (May 2007) Givors II (September 2007)

Wet mass Dry mass Wet mass Dry mass

Gap size Kg kg/(p.e. year) kg Kg/(p.e. year) kg kg/(p.e. year) kg kg/(p.e. year)

60 mm 352.3 0.28 147.9 0.12 330.5 0.27 145.9 0.12

6 mm 316.1 0.25 117.9 0.09 367.6 0.29 102.3 0.08
Total 668.4 0.53 265.8 0.21 698.1 0.56 248.2 0.20

Table 6 | Masses of waste generated from each screening stage in Bourg-en-Bresse and Annemasse

Bourg-en-Bresse (November 2007) Annemasse (January 2008)

Wet mass Dry mass Wet mass Dry mass

Gap size kg kg/(p.e. year) Kg kg/(p.e. year) kg kg/(p.e. year) kg kg/(p.e. year)

60 mm – – – – 372.7 0.97 61.5 0.16

15 mm 483.7 0.98 77.1 0.16 588.2 1.53 74.9 0.20
3 mm 423.3 0.86 65.3 0.13 380.6 0.99 56.5 0.15
Total 907.0 1.84 142.3 0.29 1,341.5 3.50 192.9 0.51

conditions were relatively similar for the two campaigns.
The volume of wastewaters treated in the plant over the
duration of the sampling campaign was thereby very similar
in the 2 campaigns (Table 6).
However, big differences were observed from one plant
to another, from 0.53 –0.56 kg per population equivalent
per year in Givors to 3.50 kg per population equivalent per
year in Annemasse. Three factors may explain the observed
differences. Firstly, the waste generation was logically
correlated with the gap of the screens, since more waste
was generated in Bourg-en-Bresse and Annemasse where
3 mm sieves were used as compared to Givors where 6 mm
screens were used. In addition, samplings in Bourg-en-
Bresse and Annemasse were done during rainy periods,
whereas the 2 campaigns in Givors were done in mostly
dry weather, thereby increasing waste generation in
Bourg-en-Bresse and Annemasse. Finally, waste generated
in Givors was treated by compaction on the plant, thereby
reducing the mass through dewatering process, which was
not the case on the other 2 plants.
 529 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009

The effect of rainfall regime on waste production may
be taken into account by referring the mass of waste
generated to the volume of wastewater treated on the
plant during the same period of time (Table 7). For Givors
where only two days were rainy over the sampling
campaign, it can be seen that the waste production is
increased by 50 to 100% during rainy as compared to dry
days: 0.008 to 0.009 kg/m3 on dry days and 0.012 to
3
0.018 kg/m on rainy days (Table 7). These results confirm
the correlations between rainfall regime and the volume of
screenings already reported by Clay et al. (1996) and
Canler & Perret (2004).
Qualitative analysis
Table 8 shows the dried solids content and volatile solids
content of the screenings of each WWTP. Without any
treatment, an average of 15% dried solids content can be

Table 7 | Quantity of screenings generated according to the influent volume treated

Entire sampling campaign Rainy days only

Influent volume treated Wet mass of waste Influent volume treated Wet mass of waste
3 3 3
m Kg kg/m m kg kg/m3

Givors I 82,949 668.4 0.008 34,816 400.8 0.012

Givors II 74,316 698.1 0.009 28,062 506.5 0.018
p
Bourg-en-Bresse 57,664 907.0 0.016 57,664 907.0 0.016
Annemassep 39,040 1,341.5 0.034 39,040 1,341.5 0.034
p
Rainy weather over the whole sampling campaign.

Table 8 | Dried solids and volatile solids contents of the screenings and sievings of each WWTP

Givors Bourg-en-Bresse Annemasse

% Dried solids % Volatile solids % Dried solids % Volatile solids % Dried solids % Volatile solids

Screenings 26.7 86.4 15.9 89.4 14.1 87.2

Sievings – – 15.4 89.4 15.1 90.6

Table 9 | Proportions of each category of material (as kg of dry waste per capita and per year and % of dry mass) in screenings of each WWTP

Givors I Givors II Bourg-en-Bresse Annemasse

Fractions kg % w/w kg % w/w kg % w/w kg % w/w

Sanitary textiles 0.403 74.7 0.399 71.3 0.746 76.1 1.692 67.7
Fine fraction (, 20 mm) 0.082 15.2 0.106 19.0 0.127 13.0 0.380 15.2
Vegetal 0.024 4.4 0.018 3.2 0.019 1.9 0.005 0.2
Papers, cardboards 0.009 1.8 0.007 1.3 0.046 4.7 0.327 13.1
Plastics 0.014 2.6 0.018 3.3 0.020 2.0 0.028 1.1
Textiles 0.002 0.4 0.005 0.9 0.007 0.7 0.005 0.2
Metal, Aluminium 0.002 0.4 0.001 0.1 0.001 0.1 0.001 0.0
Composites 0.001 0.2 0.002 0.3 0.004 0.4 0.004 0.2
Combustible 0.002 0.3 0.004 0.7 0.010 1.0 0.050 2.0
Incombustible 0.000 0.1 0.000 0.0 0.001 0.1 0.007 0.3
Total 0.53 100 0.56 100 0.98 100 2.50 100
 530 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants
Figure 1 | Composition of screenings according to the gap sizes of the screens.
expected. The treatment by compaction of the screenings in
Givors increases the rate of dried solids content rate by
dewatering the waste.
Table 8 shows homogenous volatile solids content of
the screenings (about 90% volatile solids of total dry mass)
which underlines high organic matter content.
Table 9 shows the proportion of each category of
materials analyzed in each sample of screenings (gap size
.6 mm) and the respective production thereby calculated.
Due to their physical aspect, waste generated by the sieves
(3-mm screens) in Bourg-en-Bresse and Annemasse were
not sorted by hand because the different types of materials
could not be visually identified and separated.
Table 9 shows that, for the 3 plants studies and all the
samples analyzed, the predominant fraction were by far (i)
sanitary textiles (from 67.7% to 76.1% of total dry mass) and
(ii) fine fraction (from 13.0% to 19.0% of total dry mass).
The high proportion of sanitary textiles underlined both
the increasing use of disposable wipes (for body care or
cleaning surfaces) and the poor information of the
consumers who often discard their sanitary textiles into
the toilets whereas they should dispose of them along with
their household waste.
To simplify the description of the waste composition,
the 10 fractions presented in Table 4 were grouped into 6
main fractions: sanitary textiles, fine fraction, vegetal,
papers and cardboards, plastics and “others” (composed
Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009
of all the remaining fractions, i.e. textiles, metal, composites,
combustible and incombustible).
Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of the 6 categories
according to the gap size of the screens: 60 mm, 15 mm and
6 mm. It can be seen that for the fractions “vegetal”,
“papers/cardboards”, “plastics” and “others”, the pro-
portions were always low (usually well below 10%) and
relatively similar for all the plants and the gap size of
screens, except for the paper fraction, in Annemasse
concerning 60 mm bar screen, which was surprisingly
high. For the “sanitary textiles” and “fine fraction” however,
the proportions were found to depend upon the gap size of
screening. There were logically more “fine fraction” with
low gap size screens (from 5 – 8% at 60 mm to more than
20% at 6 mm), and consequently the proportions of
“sanitary textiles” were found to decrease with the gap size.
CONCLUSIONS
Quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the pro-
duction of screenings from three municipal wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) in Rhône-Alpes (France) were
determined in this study, as a first step towards the
development of an adequate management strategy for
these wastes. The selected WWTPs had nearly the same
treatment capacity and were equipped with gap sizes of the
screens ranging from 60 to 3 mm.
 531 R. Le Hyaric et al. | Characterization of screenings from three municipal wastewater treatment plants
Quantitatively, the annual generation rates per capita
calculated from the results presented in this study were
found to differ a lot between each plant, from 0.53 to 3.50 kg
(wet mass). The waste production was affected by numerous
parameters such as the minimal gap size of the screens, the
rainfall regime during the sampling campaigns, and the
compaction of the waste.
Screenings sampled from the 6-mm to the 60-mm
screens were manually sorted into 10 fractions of waste
materials in order to determine their composition. Only 6
significant fractions were finally considered to analyze the
results: sanitary textiles, fine fraction(, 20 mm), vegetal,
papers and cardboards, plastics and a fraction named
“others” comprising all the other types of materials. The
composition of the wastes was shown to differ only slightly
among the three WWTPs studied. The major fractions were
“sanitary textiles” (ranging from 67.7% to 76.1% of total dry
mass) and “fine fraction” (ranging from 13.0% to 19.0% of
total dry mass).
Based on these data, other types of analyses concerning
physical and biological properties will be conducted to
evaluate the feasibility of different treatment options. The
final objective is to develop an adapted management
strategy considering both the waste characteristics and the
local situations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the competitiveness cluster on
chemistry and the environment of Lyon—Rhône-Alpes
(Axelera) for the implementation of this research program.
They also gratefully acknowledge the Region Rhône-Alpes
for financial support.
REFERENCES
Bode, H. & Imhoff, K. R. 1996 Current and planned disposal of
sewage sludge and other products from the Ruhrverband
wastewater treatment. Water Sci. Technol. 33(12), 219 –228.
View publication stats
Water Science & Technology—WST | 60.2 | 2009
Canler, J.-P. & Perret, J.-M. 2004 Etude des prétraitements compacts
basés uniquement sur le tamisage fin (Study of compact pre-
treatment focussed on sieving). CEMAGREF, Antony, France.
Characterization of municipal solid wastes: analysis on dry product.
French experimental standard NF XP X30-466:2004 (2004).
AFNOR, Paris, France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Framework
for the preparation and application of a sampling plan.
European standard NF EN 14899:2005 (2006). AFNOR, Paris,
France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Part 1:
Guidance on selection and application of criteria for sampling
under various conditions. Technical report CEN/TR 15310-
1:2006 (2007). AFNOR, Paris, France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Part 2:
Guidance on sampling techniques. Technical report CEN/TR
15310-2:2006 (2007). AFNOR, Paris, France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Part 3:
Guidance on procedures for sub-sampling in the field.
Technical report CEN/TR 15310-3:2006 (2007). AFNOR,
Paris, France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Part 4:
Guidance on procedures for sample packaging, storage,
preservation, transport and delivery. Technical report CEN/TR
15310-4:2006 (2007). AFNOR, Paris, France.
Characterization of waste—Sampling of waste materials—Part 5:
Guidance on the process of defining the sampling plan.
Technical report CEN/TR 15310-5:2006 (2007). AFNOR,
Paris, France.
Clay, C., Hodgkinson, A., Upton, J. & Green, M. 1996 Developing
acceptable sewage screening practices. Water Sci. Technol.
33(12), 229 –234.
Frechen, F.-B., Schier, W. & Wett, M. 2006 Pre-treatment of
municipal MBR applications in Germany—current status and
treatment efficiency. Water Pract. Technol. 1(3), 8.
Huber, H., Tanik, A. B. & Gerçek, M. 1995 Case studies on
preliminary treatment facilities at marine outfalls. Water Sci.
Technol. 32(2), 265 –271.
Naud, P.-Y., Perret, J.-M. & Canler, J.-P. 2007 Vers une meilleure
connaissance des déchets issus de l’étape des prétraitements
(Toward a better knowledge of residual wastes from pre-
treatments). Technique Sciences Méthodes 10, 131.
Observatoire Régional des Déchets d’Ile-de-France (ORDIF) 1999
Les sous-produits du traitement de l’eau en Ile-de-France:
constat, diagnostic des filières de traitement, propositions
d’actions (Residual wastes from sewage treatment in the
Region Ile-de-France: assessment, diagnosis of treatment
strategies, suggestions of actions). IAURIF, Paris, France.
Sidwick, J. M. 1991 The preliminary treatment of wastewater.
J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 52, 291 –300.