Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of generalized empirical models for comparing effectiveness of wastewater nutrient removal technologies

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effectiveness of nutrient removal approaches was quantified at four wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) using mechanistic models. Generalized empirical models were developed applying statistical methods on the predicted values characterizing nutrient removal as a function of influent wastewater quality. The empirical models provide a framework to estimate nutrient removal effectiveness and inform system-level decisions on technology adoption. When carbon limited, more sophisticated approaches like five-stage Bardenpho and nitrite shunt provide the most notable benefit in removal efficiency (67% ± 3.3% and 89% ± 2.8%, respectively for total nitrogen (TN)), but little benefit is estimated under non-carbon-limited conditions between traditional solutions like anaerobic, anoxic, oxic (A2O), and advanced process configurations like five-stage Bardenpho (82% ± 2.8% and 85% ± 3.3%, respectively for TN). Sidestream physical/chemical processes can provide improvement in removal efficiency particularly at carbon-limited WWTFs, but negligible benefit is estimated with adoption of sidestream biological processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

5SBAR:

five-stage Bardenpho

NH3:

Ammonia

NH3-N:

Ammonia as nitrogen

ABAC:

Ammonia-based aeration control

AOB:

Ammonia oxidizing bacteria

AS:

Ammonia stripping

AAO:

Anaerobic ammonia oxidizing organisms

ANAMMOX:

Anaerobic ammonium oxidation

A2O:

Anaerobic, anoxic, oxic

BOD:

Biochemical oxygen demand

CaRRB:

Centrate and RAS reaeration basin

COD:

Chemical oxygen demand

DO:

Dissolved oxygen

HRT:

Hydraulic retention time

MLR:

Mixed liquor return

MLE:

Modified Ludzack Ettinger

NS:

Nitrite shunt

NOB:

Nitrite oxidizing bacteria

OHO:

Ordinary heterotrophic organisms

PO4-P:

Phosphate as phosphorus

PAOs:

Polyphosphate accumulating organisms

PAD:

Post-aerobic digestion

RAS:

Return-activated sludge

SRT:

Solid retention time

STD:

Standard deviation

SP:

Struvite precipitation

TIN:

Total inorganic nitrogen

TKN:

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TN:

Total nitrogen

TP:

Total phosphorus

TSS:

Total suspended solids

VFAs:

Volatile fatty acids

WWTF:

Wastewater treatment facility

References

  • Amand L, Olsson G, Carlsson B (2013, February) Aeration control - a review. Water Sci Technol 67(11):2374–2398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DM, Gilvert PM, Burkholder JM (2002, August) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Coast Estuar Res Fed 25(4b):704–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnard JL, Dunlap P, Steichen M (2017, November) Rethinking the mechanisms of biological phosphorus removal. Water Environ Res 89:2043–2054

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • CDPHE (2012) Nutrient Management Control Regulation 85. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekama G (1986, June) Procedures for determining influent COD fractions and the maximum specific growth rate of heterotrophs in activated sludge systems. Water Sci Technol 18:91–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • EnviroSim Associates Ltd (2017) BioWin. 5.0. EnviroSim, Hamilton, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley J, Haas D d, Hartley K, Lant P (2010) Comprehensive life cycle inventories of alternative wastewater treatment systems. Water Res 44(5):1654–1666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.11.031

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gori R, Jiang L-M, Sobhani R, Rosso D (2011) Effects of soluble and particulate substrate on the carbon and energy footprint of wastewater treatment processes. Water Res 45:5858–5872

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gustin S, Mrinsek-Logar R (2011) Effect of pH, temperature, and air flow rate on the continuous ammonia stripping of the anaerobic digestion effluent. Process Saf Environ Prot 89:61–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Howarth RW, Sharpley A, Walker D (2002, August) Sources of nutrient pollution to coastal waters in the United States: implications for achieving coastal water quality goals. Estuar Res Fed 25(4b):656–676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jimenez J, Wise G, Burger G, Du W, Dold P (2014) Mainstream nitrite-shunt with biological phosphorus removal at the Cityof St. Petersburg southwest WRF. WEFTEC. Water Environment Federation, New Orleans, pp 696–711

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey K (2018) Resource recovery. World Water 41(2):10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Y, Kirkegaard RH, Cokro AA, Liu X, Arumugam K, Xie C, Stokholm-Bjerregaard M, Drautz-Moses DI, Nielsen PH, Wuertz S, Williams RBH (2016) Integrative Microbial Community Analysis Reveals Full-Scale Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal Under Tropical Conditions. Sci Rep 6:25719

  • Metcalf & Eddy (2003) Wastewater engineering treatment and reuse (4th Edition ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse G, Brett S, Guy J, Lester J (1998) Review: phosphorus removal and recovery technologies. Sci Total Environ 212(1):69–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NCDEQ (2016a) Falls water supply nutrient strategy: wastewater discharge requirements. (N. C. Quality, Editor) Retrieved 2016, from North Carolina Deparment of Environmental Quality: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=0948fab0-5097-416a-925e-35b45f4ce3fb&groupId=38364

  • NCDEQ (2016b) NutrientsStrategies. (N. C. Quality, Editor) Retrieved 2016, from North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality: http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/nonpoint-

  • R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. (http://www.R-project.org/, Ed.) Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing

  • Reardon R, Davel J, Baune D, McDonald S, Appleton R, Gillette R (2013) Wastewater treatment plants of the future: current trends shape Future Plans. Florida Water Resour J 8-14

  • Reynolds TD, Richards P (2008) Unit operations and processes in environmental engineering. In: Cengage learning, 2nd Edition edn

  • Rivas A, Irizar I, Ayesa E (2008) Model-based optimisation of wastewater treatment plants design. Environ Model Softw 23:435–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchetana B, Rajagopalan B, Silverstein J (2016) A hierarchical modeling approach to evaluate spatial and temporal variability of wastewater treatment compliance with biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, and ammonia limits in the United States. Environ Eng Sci 33(7):11–524. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2016.0116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (2013) Wastewater treatment fact sheet: external carbon sources for nitrogen removal. In: US EPA, Office of Wastewater Management. US EPA, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • US EPA (2016) Nutrient pollution: the problem. Retrieved November 1, 2016, from US EPA Web Site: https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/problem

  • US EPA (2018) State progress toward developing numeric nutrient water quality criteria for nitrogen and phosphorus. Retrieved July 18, 2018, from US EPA: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/state-progress-toward-developing-numeric-nutrient-water-quality-criteria

  • WERF (2003) Methods for wastewater characterization in activated sludge modeling. Alexandria: Water Environment Research Foundation

  • WERF (2010a) Carbon augmentation for biological nitrogen removal. Water Environment Research Foundation, Nutrient Management Compendium. Alexandria: WERF

  • WERF (2010b) Nutrient management: regulatory approaches to protect water quality volume 1 - review of existing practices. Water Environment Research Foundation and IWA Publishing, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • WERF (2010c) Tertiary phosphorus removal. Water Environment Research Foundation, Nutrient Management Compendium. Alexandria: WERF

  • Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) (2011) Effluent standards and limitations for phosphorus. Chapter NR217

Download references

Acknowledgments

Its contents are solely the responsibility of the grantee and do not necessarily represent the official views of the USEPA. Further, USEPA does not endorse the purchase of any commercial products or services mentioned in the publication.

Funding

This publication was made possible by USEPA grant RD835570.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1372, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Brock Hodgson & Sybil Sharvelle

Authors
  1. Brock Hodgson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sybil Sharvelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brock Hodgson.

Ethics declarations

Author disclosure statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marcus Schulz

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

• Empirical models provide an approach to readily compare nutrient removal strategies

• It is important to consider influent COD when comparing effectiveness of strategies

• Sidestream chemical processes can benefit effluent nutrient concentrations

• Sidestream biological processes may have little to no benefit on nutrient removal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hodgson, B., Sharvelle, S. Development of generalized empirical models for comparing effectiveness of wastewater nutrient removal technologies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 27915–27929 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05761-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-019-05761-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation