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

net/publication/340594564

Water Sustainability using Pond-In-Pond Wastewater Treatment System: Case

Studies

Preprint · April 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.jwpe.2020.101281

CITATIONS READS
11 370

2 authors:

Kushal Adhikari Clifford B Fedler

Juniata College Texas Tech University
24 PUBLICATIONS 171 CITATIONS 85 PUBLICATIONS 702 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kushal Adhikari on 14 April 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Water Sustainability using Pond-In-Pond Wastewater Treatment System: Case Studies

Kushal Adhikaria*, Clifford B. Fedlera

a
Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering, Texas Tech University,

Lubbock, USA

*
Kushal Adhikari

Ph.D. Student

Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction Engineering

Email: kushal.adhikari@ttu.edu

Phone: 806.283.0788

Office: CECE 005

1
Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.1 Water Use in Agriculture ................................................................................................. 5

1.2 Wastewater Treatment System ......................................................................................... 6

2. Pond-In-Pond Configuration ................................................................................................... 8

3. Pond-In-Pond: Case Studies ................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Sewage Treatment Facility in Desert Lake Village near Boron, California .................. 10

3.2 Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding System (AIWPS), California ..................... 11

3.3 Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding System (AIWPS), Ethiopia ........................ 12

3.4 Integrated Facultative Pond, Lubbock, Texas ................................................................ 14

3.5 Municipal Wastewater Treatment System, Dove Creek, Colorado ............................... 14

3.6 Municipal Wastewater Treatment System, Colorado City, Texas ................................. 15

3.7 Other Systems ................................................................................................................ 17

4. Performance Data Analysis................................................................................................... 17

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 21

6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 22

7. Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 23

8. Research Significance ........................................................................................................... 24

2
Water Sustainability using Pond-In-Pond Wastewater Treatment System: Case Studies

Wastewater is an easily accessible but highly underutilized resource that could meet

irrigation needs while conserving freshwater for future generations. The use of

municipal wastewater for irrigation is often viewed as a positive means of recycling

water; however, only 6% in the US and less than 3% globally is reclaimed for

beneficial use. The goal of this study is to explore the use of the Pond-In-Pond

(PIP) system as an alternative for municipal wastewater treatment for reuse in

irrigation. The PIP is a treatment technology where two types of ponds--anaerobic

and aerobic--are combined into a single pond and consists of a deeper inner section

entirely submerged within the outer pond. This pond configuration helps reduce the

land area requirements for treatment and provides higher solid retention time thus

improving performance. This paper presents case studies on the PIP configuration

gathered from different climatic regions and two different types of waste streams.

Evaluation of available performance data from seven of these systems showed that

the PIP configuration provided an average biological oxygen demand (BOD)

removal of over 80% with less than 10% deviation. Thus, the PIP can be a

potentially viable and sustainable system for treating municipal wastewater for

reuse.

Keywords: pond-in-pond, natural treatment system, BOD removal, reuse, irrigation,

sustainability

3
1. Introduction

While the world’s population is increasing, the per capita freshwater resources are decreasing.

Current understanding of our freshwater resources indicates that the sustainable limit will be

reached by about the year 2030 for food production and 2040 for potable water (Fedler, 2017).

The climate-driven changes in evaporation, precipitation, and runoff have created additional

stress on water availability in many parts of the world. The changes in climatic factors are

expected to amplify levels of water scarcity by up to 40%, with an additional 15% of the global

population expected to suffer water shortages if the world warms by just 2 °C (Schewe et al.,

2014).

Water is not distributed evenly among the population of the world; and, thus, the

available water greatly varies among regions and so does the level of water scarcity. Regions at

risk from water scarcity include parts of southern United States, the Mediterranean, and the

Middle East. Countries like Jordan, Israel, and Iraq have faced up to a 45% reduction in their

available per capita water supply in the last few decades (Fedler, 2017). For instance – countries

like Jordan with a population expected to continue to rise and the primary source of water

affected by climate change will soon be in the category of absolute water scarcity. Absolute

water scarcity is identified as a commonly used threshold when available water per capita is less

than 500 cubic meters of water per year (Schiermeier, 2014). With the current trends, the per

capita water supply for Jordan will fall from the current 145 m3/yr to only 91 m3/yr by the year

2025 (Hadadin, Qaqish, Akawwi, & Bdour, 2010). Similar situations are expected to occur in

other countries in Africa and the Middle East, and most of the southern United States.

4
 In the United States, reduced surface water available for crop irrigation has resulted in an

increased dependency on groundwater. Thus, the easily accessible sources of quality

groundwater in the United States have been heavily consumed, and developing new sources is

difficult and costly, if even possible. After successive droughts in California, crop production has

been substantially limited (Aghakouchak et al., 2014). Additionally, Peterson et al. (2014)

project a 16-28% increase in the frequency of drought in the southwestern United States; and,

average temperatures are projected to increase in coming decades (Moser, Ekstrom, & Franco,

2012) with precipitation not expected to increase proportionately (Seager et al., 2014). Based on

current population growth and finite natural resources, incorporating water reuse technology is a

necessity. As Fedler (Fedler, 2006) noted, “It is not a matter of if we will utilize reuse technology

in the future; it is a matter of when we will use it to sustain economic growth and minimize

environmental impacts.”

1.1 Water Use in Agriculture

Irrigation is a major consumer of fresh water around the world. If no sustainable approaches are

adopted, there will be insufficient water available for this practice. Nearly 70% of the fresh water

consumed worldwide is by food production systems (UNESCO, 2014). In the United States, 42%

of the total freshwater consumed is used for crop irrigation (USGS, 2015). Higher crop yields

must occur in the future if countries are to meet the increasing need for food. Thus, the strain on

freshwater resources will continue to increase unless changes occur. While options are limited

for developing new water supplies, many sources of wastewater are readily available and are

produced within proximity of the crop production operations. If municipalities recycled their

wastewater for irrigation rather than using fresh water, that same volume of freshwater would

5
then be available for public consumption. Currently, the United States collects and treats about

45x109 m3/yr (1.2x1012 gallons/yr) of municipal wastewater of which less than 6% is reclaimed

for beneficial purposes (FAO, 2008). Yet, if this water was reclaimed for crop production,

approximately 10 million hectares (25 million acres) could be irrigated, representing about half

of the irrigated crop area in the United States (Fedler, 2017). The reclamation rate is even less in

the global context with only approximately 3% of the municipal wastewater being recycled

(FAO, 2016).

If our crop production systems can adapt to using reclaimed water, we will be able to

sustain and possibly increase crop production for a much longer time (Fedler, 2017) while

continuing to provide adequate drinking water. In addition, the use of reclaimed water for

irrigation improves the environment because it reduces the amount of waste (treated or

untreated) discharged into water courses. Further, it provides saving in the cost for treating

wastewater for municipalities as treatment requirements for reuse are less stringent compared to

stream discharge. If 10% of the wastewater in United States were treated to meet regulatory

requirements for land application to crops (typically effluent BOD < 60 mgL-1), the estimated

saving in operations and maintenance costs for wastewater treatment systems alone could be

about $3 billion annually compared to stream discharge. Additionally, considering the reduced

cost in treatment plant construction, billions more in capital costs could be saved in the future as

the population continues to grow.

1.2 Wastewater Treatment System

In the case of treatment technologies, there is a plethora of systems, from simple ponds to

complicated mechanical systems that could be used for wastewater treatment. Pond treatment

6
systems are much lower in cost as compared to conventional mechanical systems (Van Note

Robert, 1975; Batchelor, Bocarro, & Pybus, 1991; Xian-Wen, 1995; Isosaari, Hermanowicz, &

Rubin, 2010; Singhirunnusom & Stenstrom, 2010) and can provide the desired level of

treatment, if designed appropriately. Over the past several decades, numerous procedures have

been developed to design the various types of ponds used to treat wastewater. Even though many

of these pond designs have been in existence for decades, no standard design guidelines have

been established from the standpoint of pond depth, length-to-width ratio, retention time (both

hydraulic and solids based), or kinetic degradation rate based on waste constituents. And, there

exist strong contradictory viewpoints regarding pond dimensions and pond performance

(Adhikari & Fedler, 2019). This clearly shows that existing knowledge on the design of ponds is

inadequate.

Ponding systems have been primarily classified as aerobic (or aerated aerobic),

anaerobic, and facultative ponds based on dominant biological reactions occurring in the ponds

and their applications (Fedler & Wheeler, 1997). Each of the ponds has its own advantages and

limitations. Aerobic ponds, without aerators, require a larger amount of land compared to all

other ponds. Aerators help reduce the land area; but they produce high concentrations of

suspended solids in the effluent and usually require significant energy to complete the treatment

process. In addition, the short retention times associated with treatment do not provide sufficient

time for adequate coliform removal. The anaerobic and even the facultative ponds have a

potential problem with odors due to high organic loadings typically used in those ponds. One

possible solution to the inherent problems with the traditional ponds is to integrate the best

functions of each into a single pond to allow the symbiotic relationships of related

microorganisms to proceed without inhibition. Such an integrated, single-pond system, also

7
known as Pond-In-Pond (PIP), provides a unique treatment process by combining the best

functions of the aerobic and anaerobic ponds. The purpose of this paper is to explore the

potential use of the PIP configuration as an alternative system for wastewater treatment prior to

reuse. A detailed discussion on need and importance of PIP systems can be found in Adhikari

and Fedler (2019).

To the authors knowledge, PIP systems have not been discussed in detail in terms of

performance primarily due to lack of data. Thus, the objectives of this paper are to – 1) Gather

performance data from existing PIP systems and other ponds that are similar in configuration to

the PIP, thereby producing a larger dataset, and 2) Evaluate the performance of the PIP

configuration for reuse systems based on the data collected from existing operations. The

approach taken in this research looks at systems that date back to the 1960’s and adds

performance data for similar systems worldwide.

2. Pond-In-Pond Configuration

The first known combined pond was in Desert Lake Village near Boron, California in 1957

(Stone, 1960). There a small, deeper sub-basin was placed within one corner of a much larger

basin. This concept was further refined to include a slightly deeper section of the pond for

confining the influent (Oswald, 1968; Oswald, Meron, & Zabat, 1970; Dinges, 1982; Oswald,

1991; Fedler & Wheeler, 1997). Combined ponding systems with the appropriate design could

provide the desired level of wastewater treatment suitable for land application (Fedler & Borrelli,

1995; Oswald, 1996; Fedler & Wheeler, 1997; Fedler, 2006; Tzanakakis, Paranychianakis,

Londra, & Angelakis, 2011; Adhikari & Fedler, 2019). These combined systems require less

capital, energy, and operation and maintenance costs than typical mechanical systems (Van Note

8
Robert, 1975; Batchelor et al., 1991) and require less land, produce fewer odors, and fill in with

sludge much more slowly than ordinary ponds (Green et al., 1995). In the main treatment pond,

the entire interior pond is submerged within an outer pond. Thus, the term Pond-In-Pond (PIP)

was adopted as a simple descriptor for the system.

The PIP is a treatment technology in which two types of ponds--anaerobic and aerobic--

are combined into a single pond (Oswald, 1968; Fedler & Wheeler, 1997; Adhikari & Fedler,

2019). These ponds are aerobic near the surface allowing photosynthetic oxygenation resulting in

lower odor levels compared to traditional ponds. The bottom zone of the inner pond provides the

anaerobic environment required for more complete conversion of complex organic matter. The

basic premise of the PIP was to provide a protective zone for the anaerobic organisms to perform

without interruption, particularly from the annual pond mixing caused by temperature

stratifications that naturally occur.

The PIP system provides more efficient conversion of organic matter. The deeper section

of the inner pond allows for a greater solid retention time so that hard to degrade compounds can

degrade more completely under anaerobic conditions. The greatest part of the sludge gets

converted to gaseous form leaving behind only the fixed solids at the bottom. Thus, the PIP

offers an advantage over other pond systems by eliminating the need for periodic removal of

sludge. Handling of sludge build-up in the bottom of the ponds has been one of the major issues

in traditional pond systems, as it reduces the volume for treatment and thus the retention time.

The unique configuration of the pond within a pond serves as a baffled pond and induces flow

diversion which was found to be beneficial from several studies (Salter, Ta, Ouki, & Williams,

2000; Shilton & Mara, 2005; Abbas, Nasr, & Seif, 2006) using a computational fluid dynamics

9
(CFD) analysis on baffled ponds. Also, the structure allows for a reduction in the total area

required for wastewater treatment compared to individual ponds and, reduces the capital cost.

3. Pond-In-Pond: Case Studies

The PIP system provides more efficient conversion of wastewater, including high-strength waste,

to end products. In addition, it requires essentially no energy input, except for pumping of the

waste into the system if gravity flow is not possible (Fedler & Wheeler, 1997; Adhikari &

Fedler, 2019). The following section presents the case studies on such systems. The case studies

discussed in this paper are selected to cover the wide applicability of these systems.

3.1 Sewage Treatment Facility in Desert Lake Village near Boron, California

The Desert Lake Village system was built in 1957 to serve a planned community of

approximately 250 homes and other facilities in the community such as hotel units, a shopping

center, and a school. The system consists of a primary basin followed by secondary and tertiary

basins that could be run in series. The primary basin was designed similar to the concept of the

PIP, where a deeper sub-basin was placed inside the larger pond (Stone, 1960). The larger outer

pond has the wetted area of 1.82 hectares (4.5 acres) and a minimum liquid depth of 0.9 m (3 ft)

with a 0.6 m (2 ft) freeboard. The smaller sub-basin has an area of 2,090 m2 (22,500 ft2) and

additional water depth of 1.22 m (4 ft), and the raw sewage was discharged into the deeper sub-

basin. No performance data has been reported for this system, but the author (Stone, 1960)

reports that the system was working effectively.

Based on experience of five other similar installations, Stone (Stone, 1960) recommends

the use of increased depths. The deeper basin improves the depth diffusion of raw sewage

10
providing greater algal and bacterial activity and treatment efficiency than a shallow basin of

equivalent area. And, greater depths provide better control of swamp-type vegetation and better

inhibition of insect breeding. Additionally, this arrangement greatly reduced the excavation cost

(Stone, 1960). The total cost for installing the system including the pumping plant, automatic

controls, fencing, piping, and all other components was less than $15,000. The annual operating

cost was less than $1,000 a year. The operating costs for individual septic tanks and leach

systems in nearby communities with similar population and sewage characteristics was

approximately $15,000 annually.

3.2 Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding System (AIWPS), California

The first advancement to the concept of the PIP was adopted by Oswald (1968) when he placed a

deeper section within a larger outer pond and added berms around the inner pond. Oswald (1968)

called his system the Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding System (AIWPS), and it was

developed to provide stream discharge of the effluent. This system consisted of four ponds in

series, and all the systems were designed for treating municipal wastewater. The first pond in the

series is the PIP (referred to as an Advanced Facultative Pond-AFP). The PIP has aerobic

conditions on the surface and anaerobic at the bottom and consists of a deeper digestor pit inside

a typical facultative pond in which the sludge is digested under anaerobic conditions.

Performance data from the AIWPS systems at multiple locations in California (CA) is

presented in Table 1, and it illustrates that the PIP component can remove influent BOD in the

range of 70% to above 90%. In addition, this design minimized the sludge handling

requirements. The system in St. Helena (Table 1) has operated for 20 years without sludge

removal (Oswald, 1991). Likewise, the Hollister system has been in operation for 10 years

11
without sludge removal and was found to be of sufficient capacity for at least another 10 years

(Oswald, 1991). Based on the performance observed from the AIWPS, it indicates that it is

possible for the PIP to stand alone as a single pond for treating municipal wastewater sufficiently

for reuse as crop irrigation water.

Table 1: Performance of PIP and AIWPS at multiple locations

Influent Advanced Integrated

System BOD Pond-In-Pond (PIP) Wastewater Ponding
(mgL-1) System (AIWPS)
Retention Effluent Effluent
time % %
BOD BOD
Removal Removal
(days) (mgL-1) (mgL-1)

St. Helena, CA* 223 20 17 92 7 97

Hollister, CA* 194 32 43 78 7 96
Delhi, CA* 224 - 56 75 4 98
Bolinas, CA† 160 - 47 70 14 91

*Data obtained from Tuba & Victor (Tuba Ertas and Victor M. Ponce, na)
† Data obtained from EPA (EPA, 2011)

3.3 Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding System (AIWPS), Ethiopia

The pilot-scale AIWPS facility was installed at the Modjo Tannery in Ethiopia to study the

seasonal and diurnal variations of pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), and temperature within the

AIWPS. The system was comprised of a PIP (referred to as AFP) followed by a secondary

facultative pond (SFP) and a maturation pond (MP). The PIP was square in shape with 3 m (9.8

ft) sides and 3.5 m (11.5 ft) depth and consists of a cylindrical submerged pit of 1.6 m (5.2 ft) in

diameter and 5 m (16.4 ft) deep. No significant variations in pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), or

12
temperature were observed in the PIP as compared to the SFP and MP (Tadesse, Green, &

Puhakka, 2004), which indicates the use of deeper ponds in the PIP system is appropriate.

The system was operated under three different feed flows. The raw waste was passed

through successive bar screens and was retained for 1 day in a two-chamber horizontal settling

tank (HST) prior to the PIP unit. The performance data demonstrated that the entire system

preceded with simple pre-treatment can adequately treat tannery wastewater (Tadesse et al.,

2004) as shown in Table 2 (data extracted from Tadesse et al. (2004)). Among all the AIWPS

units, the PIP had the highest BOD removal with 89, 73 and 82 percent for feed phase I, II, and

III, respectively.

Table 2: Mean removal performances of the HST, PIP and AIWPS

Pond-In-Pond (PIP)
Raw Overall
Feed
Feed tannery HST* Influent Retention Effluent removal
Flow
phase wastewater BOD time BOD (AIWPS†)
(l/d) Effluent
(mgL-1) (mgL-1) (days) (mgL-1) (%)
BOD (mgL-1)

I†† 500 3580 2225 (38) 2225 8 250 (89) 99

II†† 800 3075 2075 (33) 2075 5 560 (73) 92

III†† 1275 2810 2142 (24) 2142 3 396 (82) 94

* Horizontal Settling Tank

† Advanced Integrated Wastewater Ponding Systems
†† Data obtained from Tadesse et al. (Tadesse, I., Green, F. B., & Puhakka, J. A. , 2004)
Values in parentheses are % removals.

13
3.4 Integrated Facultative Pond, Lubbock, Texas

This system was built in the Animal Science farm of Texas Tech University and was designed to

treat the waste from 1,000-head cattle and a 280-sow farrow-to-finish piggery operation. The

purpose of the study was primarily to evaluate the potential contamination of the underlying

subsurface beneath the digestor pit without a liner and energy recovery through methane capture

(not presented here). However, the study brings forth several merits of using the PIP system in

high-strength wastewater treatment and provides strong arguments for adopting the PIP design

approach for water reuse purposes.

The system consisted of a 6 m (19.6 ft) inner pond integrated with an outer pond,

followed by shallow ponds for production of aquatic plants and fish. The effluent from these

ponds was collected in a storage basin and used in a slow-rate land application system. In

addition to treatment of wastewater within the limits of required effluent BOD for land

application of wastewater, the aquatic plants and fish produced in the other ponds provided the

ability to produce additional revenue for the industry utilizing the technology. This technology

could provide an annual revenue of over $ 5 US million from the cattle feedlots located in Texas

when accounting for the energy and nutrients available (Parker & Fedler, 1994; Fedler & Parker,

1995; Fedler & Wheeler, 1997). Additional revenue is possible from the crops produced when

the effluent is applied on a land application system. Thus, the integrated system has capabilities

of meeting the required BOD standards for reuse while providing economic returns.

3.5 Municipal Wastewater Treatment System, Dove Creek, Colorado

The treatment facility at Dove Creek, Colorado serves approximately 700 people with an average

14
annual influent BOD of approximately 250 mgL-1. The system is similar to the Pond-In-Pond

concept as it consists of a deep sludge cell preceding the aerobic cell. The anaerobic pit is

approximately 6.1 m (20 ft) deep and the aerobic portion has a depth of about 4 m (13 ft). The

pond system is then followed by a free water surface wetland.

The performance data was measured in the wetland following the pond system and no

effluent data is available for the pond system. The wetland, however, was used only for the

polishing of the effluent thus a major fraction of treatment is expected to occur in the pond

system. The final effluent BOD was approximately 30 mgL-1 for most of the period between

2000-2006, except few exceedances during start-up and during winter months (EPA, 2011). The

high-quality effluent from the system could be due to the additional aeration provided to the

aerobic cell.

3.6 Municipal Wastewater Treatment System, Colorado City, Texas

A PIP system in Colorado City in West Texas was designed for treating municipal wastewater

for a population of 10,000 with an average annual influent BOD of approximately 280 mgL-1 and

has been in operation for more than 15 years. The system consists of two PIP units, each with a

surface area of approximately 24,000 sq. m. (6 acres), a 3:1 side slope, and a retention time of 22

days. The depth of the inner pond is 4.6 m (15 ft), and the outer pond is 3 m (10 ft) deep.

The performance data for the last 10 years of operation from 2010 through 2019 show

that the system is performing within its design limits of an effluent BOD of less than 60 mgL-1.

The detailed analysis of the performance data has been provided in Adhikari and Fedler (2019),

and it was observed that the overall average annual and monthly effluent BOD were

15
approximately 40 mgL-1. This clearly shows that the PIP system can be used for water reuse

systems. Table 3 and Table 4 present the annual and monthly average effluent BOD respectively.

Table 3: Annual average effluent Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Effluent BOD Effluent BOD

Year Year
(mgL-1) (mgL-1)

2010 45 2015 69*

2011 44 2016 36

2012 45 2017 23

2013 50 2018 23

2014 58 2019 26

* Year 2015 have some data that are more than two standard deviations from the mean.

Table 4: Monthly average effluent Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

Effluent BOD Effluent BOD

Months Months
(mgL-1) (mgL-1)
Jan 40 Jul 35
Feb 42 Aug 27
Mar 59 Sep 33
Apr 66* Oct 30
May 55 Nov 42
Jun 37 Dec 44

* 59 mgL-1 when year 2015 excluded from analysis.

16
3.7 Other Systems

In addition to the case studies discussed in this paper, similar systems are in practice at several

other locations in United States and other nations (EPA, 2011). Some of the reported systems in

United States are in Napa - CA, Ridgemark Estates - CA, Hilmar - CA, and some recently built

systems in West Texas. Likewise, these systems have been reported in other countries such as

India, New Zealand, and Australia. These systems are not discussed in this paper due to

unavailability of sufficient data.

4. Performance Data Analysis

The performance data gathered from the existing systems from different climatic regions shows

that the PIP configuration can provide effluent within the required limits, typically 60 mgL-1, for

reuse in land application. Figure 1 shows the influent and effluent BOD and percentage BOD

removal for systems treating municipal wastewater. The performance data from six different

systems shows that the effluent BOD is below 60 mgL-1 for all cases with a BOD removal of

more than 80% on average. Likewise, results from similar observation for systems treating high

strength industrial waste, as in Figure 2, show that the systems on average removed

approximately 82% of the BOD.

17
 Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)
300 100

% BOD Removal
250
BOD (mgL-1)
80
200
150 60
100
40
50
0 20
Dove
St. Helena, Hollister, Delhi, Bolinas, Colorado
Creek,
California California California California City, Texas
Colorado
Influent 223 194 224 160 250 280
Effluent 17 43 56 47 30 40
% Removal 92 78 75 70 88 86
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems

Influent Effluent % Removal

Figure 1: Influent BOD, Effluent BOD and percent BOD removal for PIP configuration treating

municipal wastewater

Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD)

2500 100

% BOD Removal
2000 80
BOD (mgL-1)

1500
60
1000
500 40

0 20
Feed I Feed II Feed III
Influent 2225 2075 2140
Effluent 250 560 396
% Removal 89 73 82
Industrial Wastewater Treatment Systems, Modjo Tannery

Influent Effluent % Removal

Figure 2: Influent BOD, Effluent BOD and percent BOD removal for PIP configuration treating

industrial wastewater [data obtained from (Tadesse et al., 2004)]

18
 Further, variability in influent and effluent BOD shows that regardless of incoming

influent BOD, the effluent from the systems treating municipal wastewater are always within the

required standards for reuse as shown by box and whisker diagram1 in Figure 3. The influent

BOD for municipal wastewater shows a large variability with values ranging between 160 mgL-1

to 280 mgL-1. Both the mean and median BOD is approximately 225 mgL-1. The effluent,

however, ranges between 17 mgL-1 to a maximum of 56 mgL-1 with an average effluent BOD of

around 39 mgL-1.

Lastly, the BOD removal percentages for all the systems were evaluated. No significant

variability was observed among systems treating either municipal or industrial wastewater. The

PIP systems in both cases provided the removal efficiency ranging from 70 to above 90% with a

median about 82% as shown in Figure 4. Moreover, all the systems regardless of the prevalent

environmental conditions and influent BOD have shown to reduce BOD by approximately 82%

on average. The performance thus shows that, for typical municipal wastewater, the PIP alone

can provide adequate treatment required for reuse in land application.

1
The central rectangle represents the interquartile range (IQR) with segment inside the rectangle
representing the median. The whiskers above and below the box show the location of the
maximum and minimum. And, any data points 1.5*IQR or more above the third quartile or 1.5*IQR
or more below the first quartile are considered as outliers.

19
Figure 3: Variability in Influent and Effluent BOD for the PIP treating municipal wastewater

Figure 4: Variability in percentage BOD removal for PIP systems

For reuse of effluents on land application the major concern is odor, so the BOD should

be limited to about 60 mgL-1. Thus, this paper only considered BOD removal for evaluating the

performance of the PIP systems for water reuse. But, for many systems studied, data were

available for influent and effluent Total Solids (TS) and Total Coliform (TC) and are often

reported to have significant removal performance.

20
5. Discussion

The PIP combines the functionality of two different ponds, and the deeper pond submerged

inside the outer shallower pond provides additional benefits to the treatment process. The PIP

induces a flow diversion within the pond while increasing solids retention time thus improving

performance. The systems discussed in the paper were designed for different purposes such as

stream discharge, energy and nutrient recovery, and reuse of effluent on land application sites.

Regardless, all the systems have adopted the concept of the PIP as their first treatment unit and

have been found to be successful in producing required quality effluent.

• The AFP in AIWPS system is no different than the PIP, and performance data from all

systems used for treating municipal wastewater showed that the PIP can produce effluent

within the BOD limits required for reuse in irrigation.

• For high strength industrial waste, the PIP has been found to substantially remove the

BOD concentration with more than 80% removal on average; however, for reuse of the

effluent, additional treatment unit must follow the PIP.

• The PIP system used for treating municipal wastewater in Dove Creek, Colorado and

Colorado City in West Texas produced an average annual effluent much lower than the

required limits of 60 mgL-1 for reuse.

• The system designed for treating cattle waste showed that it could provide revenue

through use of effluent for multipurpose use such as producing aquatic plants and fishes

and through use of effluent for land application.

In addition to the improved performance, the configuration of the PIP helps reduce the

land area required as compared to conventional pond systems for the same level of treatment.

21
The PIP is, therefore, a lower-cost treatment system. However, poorly designed deep ponds can

be more costly and can often lead to operational issues such as odor problems, short-circuiting of

flows, and the need for sludge removal. These problems are the major reasons why most

authorities in the field tend to prefer shallow ponds over deeper ponds. Considerable experience

from the existing systems has clearly shown the relative importance of increased depth. Thus, the

PIP system, given proper research and a more in-depth study on pond design and configuration,

could be a potential system for wastewater reuse.

6. Conclusions

With the increasing population and changing climatic factors, there is a need for sustainable

practices in utilizing our limited freshwater resources. Ponds have been in use for decades for

treating wastewater, and several design approaches have been proposed for designing those pond

systems. However, no standard design guideline exists. Additionally, there exist strong

contradictory viewpoints regarding optimal pond dimensions and performance. This clearly

illustrates that existing knowledge on the design of these ponds is inadequate. Given the wide use

of ponds for wastewater treatment and the lack of appropriate design parameters, a simple and

low-cost Pond-In-Pond (PIP) could be used instead.

The consistent performance data from several systems showed that the Pond-in-Pond

(PIP) system has the potential to be used for many types of influent ranging from municipal

wastewater to industrial wastewater and animal waste. The performance data from the PIP

systems examined provided an average BOD removal of above 80% with a standard deviation of

less than 10%. Thus, for typical municipal wastewater, with an influent Biological Oxygen

Demand (BOD) concentration between 200 to 300 mgL-1, the PIP unit alone could provide

22
adequate treatment required for reuse in crop irrigation. In addition, the PIP can be used in

combination with other processes in a treatment system for treating high-strength wastewater and

for other uses such as stream discharge, aquaculture, fishery, and others. Lastly, the savings in

capital costs due to reduced area requirements, savings in operations and maintenance, and

revenues from reclamation of effluent make the PIP a potentially viable and sustainable

technology for wastewater treatment especially for reuse purpose.

7. Limitations

The biological activity slows down during cold weather conditions thus inhibiting anaerobic

reactions. This could potentially lead to longer retention times required or higher rates of sludge

accumulation in the PIP systems. The applicability of such systems in low temperature is yet not

fully explored due to the limited data available for cold climates.

Despite of simple construction, the PIP type systems still lack specific design guideline,

especially the depth for anaerobic pit, the shape with respect to influent and effluent pipes, and

the heights of the berms surrounding the anaerobic pits. All the case studies and the previous

research show an improved performance with deeper ponds as opposed to shallow ponds, but no

optimal depth has been determined. The systems are designed with depths ranging between 3 m

(10 ft) to above 6 m (20 ft) with performance not expected to increase proportionately. A study

on AIWPS pond design for last few decades shows an increasing trend in the adopted depths

from about 3 - 4 m (9 – 13 ft) to about 6 - 7 m (19 - 23 ft) in recent years (EPA, 2011). The

increase in depth helps to reduce the area requirement thus lowering the capital cost, however,

more research is required to study the effects of depth on pond performance.

23
8. Research Significance

• A single unit system (such as the PIP) can be effectively used for treating municipal

wastewater when followed by reuse of the effluent. Adopting these systems for use of

reclaimed wastewater in irrigation eliminates the need for treating wastewater to stream

discharge quality, thus providing huge savings in capital, operations and maintenance

costs, and energy requirements. For instance - In the case for the AIWPS, the effluent

from the AFP was well below 60 mgL-1 as required for reuse. Treatment from the three

other units of that system combined provided only about an additional 15-20% removal

of BOD; however, the operation of those units is energy and cost intensive. Thus, use of

the PIP system for wastewater reuse in irrigation helps minimize cost for treatment while

indirectly saving freshwater for human consumption in future years.

• Most of the municipal treatment systems are centralized and incur huge costs in

transporting the raw wastewater. Likewise, additional cost will be required for carrying

the effluent to the point of discharge, which typically is at a long distance. On the other

hand, the PIP can be operated as a decentralized unit avoiding the conveyance costs. The

PIP system has wide applicability in small and rural communities where the wastewater

produced in the community can be treated locally and reused on adjacent farms. Adopting

the PIP system for treating domestic waste will help these small communities by reducing

the cost for treating their wastewater and developing economic benefit from the reuse of

that water for crop irrigation.

• The PIP is an economical system because it reduces the land area requirements by

approximately 50% as opposed to other pond treatment systems for the same level of

treatment. In addition, the PIP facilitates energy capture since most of the sludge is

24
 converted into methane and carbon dioxide. Such energy can be used back in the system,

if required, or can be a source of additional revenue.

• Lastly, the PIP can be a better replacement to the existing first units in conventional

ponding systems where higher quality effluent is required.

Bibliography

Abbas, H., Nasr, R., & Seif, H. . (2006). Study of waste stabilization pond geometry for the

wastewater treatment efficiency. . Ecological Engineering, , 28(1), 25-34.

Adhikari, K. & Fedler, C.B. (2019). Pond-In-Pond: An Alternative System for Wastewater

Treatment for Reuse. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103523

Aghakouchak, A., Feldman, D., Stewardson, M. J., Saphores, J. D., Grant, S., & Sanders, B.

(2014). Australia's drought: lessons for California. . Science, , 343(6178), 1430-1431.

Batchelor, A., Bocarro, R., & Pybus, P. J. . (1991). Low-cost and low-energy wastewater

treatment systems: A South African perspective. . Water Science and Technology, , 24(5),

241-246.

Dinges, Ray. (1982). Natural Systems for Water Pollution Control. New York, NY.: Van

Nostrand Reinhold Company.

EPA. (2011). Principles of Design and Operations rinciples of Design and Operations o of

Wastewater Treatment Pond Systems f Wastewater Treatment Pond Systems f for Plant

Operators, Engineers, and Managers. Cincinnati, Ohio: Office of Research and

Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

25
FAO. (2008). AQUASTAT Main Database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO). Retrieved 2018, from

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/didyouknow/index.stm

FAO. (2016). AQUASTAT Main Database, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO)., 2016. [Online]. Available:. Retrieved 2018, from

http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/data/query/index.html?lang=en.

Fedler, C. B. (2017). Water Stewardship: A Sustainable Perspective for Agriculture. ASABE

Paper Number: 1700805, Annual International Meeting (p. 1). American Society of

Agricultural and Biological Engineers. doi: https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.20 1700805

Fedler, C. B., & Parker, N. C. (1995, June 18-23). Waste Treatment System Alternatives for the

21st Century (No. 954499). . ASAE - Paper No. 954499 .

Fedler, CB and Borrelli, J. (1995). Designing for optimum land application systems.

International Summer Meeting of the ASAE. Chicago, IL. June (pp. 18-23). Chicago: The

American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Fedler, CB and Wheeler, DA. (1997). Integrated Facultative Ponds: Their use for Wastewater

Treatment Prior to Reuse. Australian Waste Water Association Incorporated, Artarmon,

NSW, 217-223.

Fedler, Clifford B. (2006). Potential biomass production from recycled wastewater. 2006 ASAE

Annual Meeting (pp. 47(7), 46-50.). American Society of Agricultural and Biological

Engineers.

Green F. B., Bernstone L., Lundquist T. J., Muir J., Tresan R. B., Oswald, W. J. (1995). Methane

Fermentation, Submerged Gas Collection, and The Fate of Carbon in Advanced

Integrated Wastewater Pond Systems. Water Sci. Technol.,, 31 (12) 55-65.

26
Hadadin, N., Qaqish, M., Akawwi, E., & Bdour, A. . (2010). Water shortage in Jordan—

Sustainable solutions. . Desalination, , 250(1), 197-202.

Isosaari, P., Hermanowicz, S. W., & Rubin, Y. (2010). Sustainable natural systems for treatment

and disposal of food processing wastewater. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science

and Technology, , , pp. 40(7), 662-697.

Moser, S., Ekstrom, J., & Franco, G. (2012). Our changing climate 2012. Vulnerability and

adaptation to the increasing risks from climate change in California. Summary Brochure,

Report on the Third Assessment from the California Climate Change Center, Sacramento,

CA.

Oswald. (1991). Introduction to advance integrated wastewater ponding systems. Water Science

and Technology, 24(5):1-7.

Oswald, W. J. (1996). A syllabus on advanced integrated pond systems. University of California,

Berkeley.

Oswald, W. J., Meron, A., & Zabat, M. D. (1970). Designing Waste Ponds to Meet Water

Quality Criteria.

Oswald, William J. (1968). Advances in Anaerobic Pond Systems Design.

Parker, N. C., & Fedler, C. B. (1994). Bioenergy production: Integrating livestock treatment with

byproduct development . Western Regional Biomass Energy Program, . Reno, NV

(United States).

Peterson, T. C., Karl, T. R., Kossin, J. P., Kunkel, K. E., Lawrimore, J. H., McMahon, J. R., ... &

Yin, X. (2014). Changes in weather and climate extremes: state of knowledge relevant to

air and water quality in the United States. . Journal of the Air & Waste Management

Association, 64(2), 184-197.

27
Salter, H.E., Ta, C.T., Ouki, S.K., Williams, S.C. (2000). Three-dimensional computational fluid

dynamic modelling of a facultative lagoon. Water Science and Technology,, 42(10-11),

335-342.

Schewe, J., Heinke, J., Gerten, D., Haddeland, I., Arnell, N. W., Clark, D. B., ... & Gosling, S. N.

(2014). Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences,, pp. 111(9), 3245-3250.

Schiermeier, Q. (2014). Water risk as world warms. Nature News,.

Seager, R., Hoerling, M., Schubert, S. D., Wang, H., Lyon, B., Kumar, A., ... & Henderson, N. .

(2014). Causes and predictability of the 2011-14 California drought: assessment report.

Shilton, A.N., Mara, D.D.,. (2005). CFD (computational fluid dynamics) modelling of baffles for

optimizing tropical waste stabilization pond system. . Water Science and Technology, 51,

103-106.

Singhirunnusom, W., & Stenstrom, M. K. (2010). A critical analysis of economic factors for

diverse wastewater treatment processes: case studies in Thailand. Journal of

Environmental Engineering and Management, , 20(4), 263-268.

Stone, R. F. (1960). Waste Stabilization Basins for a Desert Sewage Treatment Plant. Civil

Engineering, 30(3), 158-160.

Tadesse, I., Green, F. B., & Puhakka, J. A. . (2004). Seasonal and diurnal variations of

temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen in advanced integrated wastewater pond system®

treating tannery effluent. Water research, , 38(3), 645-654.

Tuba Ertas and Victor M. Ponce. (na). ADVANCED INTEGRATED WASTEWATER POND

SYSTEMS. Retrieved 09 06, 2019, from http://ponce.sdsu.edu/aiwps.html

28
Tzanakakis, V. A., Paranychianakis, N. V., Londra, P. A., & Angelakis, A. N. (2011). Effluent

application to the land: Changes in soil properties and treatment potential. Ecological

Engineering, 37(11), 1757-1764.

UNESCO. (2014). The United Nations world water development report 2014: water and energy;

facts and figures; 2014. Retrieved 10 12, 2019, from World Water Assessment

Programme (UNESCO WWAP): http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-

sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/2014-water-and-energy/

USGS. (2015). Freshwater Withdrawals in the United States. Retrieved 10 02, 2019, from

https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/freshwater-

withdrawals-united-states?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects

Van Note Robert, H. (1975). A guide to the selection of cost-effective wastewater treatment

systems [sewage disposal; water treatment plants]. US Environmental Protection

Agecny. .

Xian-Wen, L. . (1995). Technical economic analysis of stabilization ponds. . Water Science and

Technology, , 31(12), 103-110.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Civil, Environmental and Construction

Engineering at Texas Tech University for its assistantship support for this research. The authors

would like to acknowledge Dr. Kathleen Ellis for her editorial review of this manuscript.

Author Agreement/Declaration

29
 All authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted. They

warrant that the article is the authors' original work, has not received prior publication, and is not

under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Declaration of Interest

There are no conflicts. There is no financial/personal interest or belief that could affect the

research’s objectivity.

Funding Source Declaration

This study did not receive any funding or research grants.

Permission Note

The manuscript does not have any content that needs permission from the published property.

Proper acknowledgement and citation have been done when using any prior published material.

Data Availability Statement

Data used in the manuscript are gathered from previous published articles and proper citations

have been made.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

30

View publication stats