Soil Aquifer Treatment System Design Equation for Organic Micropollutant Removal

  • Ahmed M. Abdel SattarEmail author
  • Hossein Bonakdari
  • Abdelazim Negm
  • Bahram Gharabaghi
  • Mohamed Elhakeem
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 73)


Rapid population growth and mass migration from rural to urban centers have contributed to a new era of water sacristy, and a significant drop in per capita freshwater availability, resulting in the reuse of wastewater emerging as a viable alternative. The reuse of wastewater after treatment using the soil aquifer treatment (SAT) has recently gained popularity due to low operating/maintenance cost of the method. However, the presence of organic micropollutants (OMPs) may present a health risk if the SAT is not adequately designed to ensure required attenuation of the OMPs. An important aspect of the design of the SAT system is the large degree of natural variability in the OMP concentrations/loads in the wastewater and the uncertainty associated with the current methods for calculation of the removal efficiency of the SAT for the OMPs. This study presents a novel model for more accurate prediction of the removal efficiency of the SAT system for the OMPs and the fate of the OMPs trapped within the vadose zone. A large data set is compiled covering a broad range of aquifer conditions, and the SAT system parameters, including hydraulic loading rate and dry/wet ratio. This study suggests that removal of OMPs in SAT systems is most affected by biodegradation rate and soil saturated hydraulic conductivity, in addition to dry to wet ratio. This conclusion is reached by the application of the developed prediction model using data sets from the case study SAT systems in Egypt.


Extreme learning machine (ELM) Fivefold cross-validation Monte Carlo simulation (MCS) Organic micropollutants (OMPs) Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) 


  1. 1.
    Sattar AM, Dickerson JR, Chaudhry MH (2009) Wavelet-Galerkin solution to the water hammer equations. J Hydraul Eng 135(4):283–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Foda A, Sattar A (2013) Morphological changes in river Nile at Bani-Sweif for probable flood flow releases. In: Proceedings of the international conference on fluvial hydraulics, RIVER FLOW 2014, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sattar AM (2013) Using gene expression programming to determine the impact of minerals on erosion resistance of selected cohesive Egyptian soils. Experimental and computational solutions of hydraulic problems, part of the series geoplanet: earth and planetary sciences. Springer, Berlin, pp 375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sattar AM (2014) Predicting morphological changes ds new Naga-Hammadi barrage for extreme Nile flood flows: a Monte Carlo analysis. J Adv Res 5(1):97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sattar AM (2014) Gene expression models for prediction of dam breach parameters. J Hydroinf 16(3):550–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sattar AM (2014) Gene expression models for the prediction of longitudinal dispersion coefficients in transitional and turbulent pipe flow. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract ASCE 5(1):04013011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Hakeem M, Sattar AM (2015) An entrainment model for non-uniform sediment. Earth Surf Process Landf 4(9):1216–1226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sattar AM, Gharabaghi B (2015) Gene expression models for prediction of longitudinal dispersion coefficient in streams. J Hydrol 524:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Najafzadeh M, Sattar AM (2015) Neuro-fuzzy GMDH approach to predict longitudinal dispersion in water networks. Water Resour Manag 29:2205–2219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sattar AM, Gharabaghi B, McBean E (2016) Prediction of timing of watermain failure using gene expression models. Water Resour Manag 30(5):1635–1651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sattar AM (2016) Prediction of organic micropollutant removal in soil aquifer treatment system using GEP. J Hydrol Eng ASCE 21(9):04016027. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sattar AM (2016) A probabilistic projection of the transient flow equations with random system parameters and internal boundary conditions. J Hydraul Res 54(3):342–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sattar AM (2016) Closure to “gene expression models for the prediction of longitudinal dispersion coefficients in transitional and turbulent pipe flow” by Ahmed M. A. Sattar. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 7(4):07016002. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thompson J, Sattar AM, Gharabaghi B, Richard W (2016) Event based total suspended sediment particle size distribution model. J Hydrol 536:236–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sabouri F, Gharabaghi B, Sattar AM, Thompson AM (2016) Event-based stormwater management pond runoff temperature model. J Hydrol 540:306–316. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Atieh M, Taylor G, Sattar AM, Gharabaghi B (2017) Prediction of flow duration curves for ungauged basins. J Hydrol 545:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gharabaghi B, Sattar AM (2017) Empirical models for longitudinal dispersion coefficient in natural streams. J Hydrol.
  18. 18.
    Sattar AM, Gharabaghi B, Sabouri F, Thompson AM (2017) Urban stormwater thermal gene expression models for protection of sensitive receiving streams. Hydrol Process 31(13):2330–2348. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Hakeem M, Sattar AM (2017) Explicit solution for the specific flow depths in partially filled pipes. J Pipeline Syst Eng Pract 8(4):06017004. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sattar AM, Ertuğrul ÖF, Gharabaghi B, McBean EA (2017) Extreme learning machine model for water network management. Neural Comput Applic, 1–13.
  21. 21.
    Sattar AM, Beltagy M (2016) Stochastic solution to the water hammer equations using polynomial chaos expansion with random boundary and initial conditions. J Hydraul Eng 143(2):04016078. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drillia P, Stamatelatou K, Lyberatos G (2005) Fate and mobility of pharmaceuticals in solid matrices. Chemosphere 60(8):1034–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xu J, Wu L, Chang AC (2009) Degradation and adsorption of selected pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in agricultural soils. Chemosphere 77(10):1299–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maeng SK, Sharma SK, Amy G (2011) Framework for assessment of organic micropollutant removals during managed aquifer recharge and recovery. Riverbank filtration for water security in desert countries. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu Y, Liu Y, Wu L (2013) Sorption and degradation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(6):4261–4267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lin C, Shacahr Y, Banin A (2004) Heavy metal retention and partitioning in a large-scale soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) system used for wastewater reclamation. Chemosphere 57(9):1047–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fox P, Aboshanp W, Alsamadi B (2005) Analysis of soils to demonstrate sustained organic carbon removal during soil aquifer treatment. J Environ Qual 34(1):156–163Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Amy G, Drewes J (2007) Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) as a natural and sustainable wastewater reclamation/reuse technology: fate of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM) and trace organic compounds. Environ Monit Assess 129:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sharma SK, Harun CM, Amy G (2008) Framework for assessment of performance of soil aquifer treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 57:941–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Caballero MH (2010) Soil aquifer treatment as pre-treatment for organic micropollutant removal during membrane filtration. MSc thesis, MWI 2019-5, UNESCO-IHE, DelftGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abel CDT, Sharma SK, Malolo YN, Maeng SK, Kennedy MD, Amy GL (2012) Attenuation of bulk organic matter, nutrients (N and P), and pathogen indicators during soil passage: effect of temperature and redox conditions in simulated soil aquifer treatment (SAT). Water Air Soil Pollut 223:5205–5220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Onesios-Barry KM, Berry D, Proescher JB, Sivakumar IA, Bouwer EJ (2014) Removal of pharmaceuticals and personal care products during water recycling: microbial community structure and effects of substrate concentration. Appl Environ Microbiol 80(8):2440–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Suzuki R, Kameda I, Takabe Y, Nishimura F, Itoh S (2015) Removal of dissolved organic matter and disinfection by-products formation potential in the upper layer during soil aquifer treatment. J Water Environ Technol 13(2):107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huang GB, Zhu QY, Siew CK (2006) Extreme learning machine: theory and applications. Neurocomputing 70(1):489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abokifa A (2013) Modeling soil aquifer treatment processes during managed aquifer recharge considering soil heterogeneity and parameter uncertainty. MSc thesis, Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Cairo University, GizaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Regional Institute for Groundwater Modeling (RIGW) (2006) Evaluation of different uses for the groundwater in Sadat city. Technical Report No. 3, Research Institute for GroundwaterGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    El Arabi N, Mohamed A, Dawoud A (2012) Groundwater aquifer recharge with treated wastewater in Egypt: technical, environmental, economical and regulatory considerations. Desalin Water Treat 47:266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fadlelmawal A, Halem M, Vissers M (1999) Preliminary plans for artificial recharge with reclaimed wastewater in Egypt. In: Proceedings, 9th biennial symposium on the artificial recharge of groundwater, TempeGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Abu Zeid K (2009) Assessment of groundwater potential in Alexandria governorate. Report submitted to sixth framework programme, CEDARE InternationalGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ahmed MA, Abdel Samie SG, El-Maghrabi HM (2011) Recharge and contamination sources of shallow and deep groundwater of pleistocene aquifer in El-Sadat industrial city: isotope and hydrochemical approaches. Environ Earth Sci 62:751–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Safadoust A, Amiri Khaboushan E, Mahboubi AA, Gharabaghi B, Mosaddeghi MR, Ahrens B, Hassanpour Y (2016) Comparison of three models describing bromide transport as affected by different soil structure types. Arch Agron Soil Sci 62(5):674–687. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gharabaghi B, Safadoust A, Mahboubi AA, Mosaddeghi MR, Unc A, Ahrens B, Sayyad G (2015) Temperature effect on the transport of bromide and E. coli NAR in saturated soils. J Hydrol 522:418–427. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Safadoost A, Yousefi G, Mahboubi A, Gharabaghi B, Mosaddeghi M, Yousefi G, Safadoust A, Mahboubi AA, Gharabaghi B, Mosaddeghi MR, Ahrens B, Shirani H (2014) Bromide and lithium transport in soils under long-term cultivation of alfalfa and wheat. Agric Ecosyst Environ 188:221–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Safadoust A, Mahboubi AA, Mossaddeghi MR, Gharabaghi B, Unce A, Voroney P, Heydari A (2012) Effect of regenerated soil structure on unsaturated transport of Escherichia coli and bromide. J Hydrol 430–431:80–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Safadoust A, Mahboubi AA, Gharabaghi B, Mosaddeghic MR, Voroney P, Unce A, Khodakaramian G (2012) Significance of physical weathering of two-texturally different soils for the saturated transport of E. coli and bromide. J Environ Manag 107:147–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmed M. Abdel Sattar
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hossein Bonakdari
    • 3
  • Abdelazim Negm
    • 4
  • Bahram Gharabaghi
    • 5
  • Mohamed Elhakeem
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Faculty of EngineeringCairo UniversityGizaEgypt
  2. 2.German University in CairoNew CairoEgypt
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringRazi UniversityKermanshahIran
  4. 4.Department of Water and Water Structures Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringZagazig UniversityZagazigEgypt
  5. 5.School of EngineeringUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  6. 6.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  7. 7.Abu Dhabi UniversityAbu DhabiUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations