Lecture 1

Introduction to water and wastewater treatment processes

Significant dates in public water supply

97 Inhabitants in ancient Rome use about 38 gpcd 1619 New River Company first to supply each home directly with its own water for a few hours per day 1854 John Snow establishes source of cholera epidemic in London as a contaminated supply well first understanding of water and health 1873 Continuous supplies in general use in London 1900 Most cities have a water supply with service pipes to homes

Source: Frerichs, Ralph R., 2005. John Snow. Department of Edipdemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Updated January 1, 2005. Accessed January 4, 2005. http://www.ph.ucla. edu/epi/snow.html. The map is reproduced from: Snow, John, 1855. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. John Churchill, London.

Source: Environment Canada, 2004. Water availability versus population. http://www.ec.gc.ca/water/images/info/facts/e-Water_availability.jpg. Accessed December 10, 2004.

Source for both images: Frerichs, Ralph R., 2005. John Snow. Department of Edipdemiology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California. Updated January 1, 2005. Accessed January 4, 2005. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html. The map is reproduced from: Snow, John, 1855. On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. John Churchill, London.
700 180 160 140 500 120 400 100 80 60 200 40 100 20 0
North America Asia ( excluding Middle East) Sub-Saharan Africa Central America & Caribbean South America Low Income Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries Middle East & North Africa Middle Income Countries United States Europe Oceania High Income Countries

600

U.S. total water use over time

Domestic water use (gal/cap/day)

Domestic water use (l/cap/day)

300

Based on data from: World Resources Institute, 2004. EarthTrends, The Environmental Information Portal, Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems, Searchable Database, http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.cfm?theme=2. Accessed December 10, 2004.

Source: USGS, 2004. Water Science for Schools: Trends in water use. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. May 06, 2004. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/totrendbar.html, accessed November 23, 2004. See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular 1268. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/index. html, accessed November 23, 2004.

Source: USGS, 2004. Water Science for Schools: Trends in water use. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. May 06, 2004. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/ totrendbar.html, accessed November 23, 2004. See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular 1268. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/ pubs/circ/2004/circ1268/index.html, accessed November 23, 2004.

Source: USGS, 2004. Source and use of freshwater in the United States, 2000. http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/summary95.html. Last Modified: May 06, 2004. Accessed November 23, 2004. See also: Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004.
Domestic water use by state
1600 350
2000 1800 1600 400 Water Consumption (gpd/cap) 350 300 250 200 800 150 600 400 200 0 Jefferson County, AL Greenville County, SC Lancaster County, NE Los Angeles, CA Little Rock, AR LA County, CA Berkeley, CA Jefferson County, KS Santa Monica, CA Rapid City, SD Boston, MA Wyoming, MI Baltimore, MD Memphis, TN Las Vegas, NV Greater Peoria, IL Grand Rapids, MI Hagerstown, MD Orlando, FL US average 100 50 0

NEVADA
1400

UTAH IDAHO

300

Water Consumption (l/d/cap)

1400 1200 1000

1200 Per capita use (l/d/cap)

250 1000

MAINE

US VI Average

200

800

150 600 100 400 50

200

Based on data from Hutson, Susan S., Nancy L. Barber, Joan F. Kenny, Kristin S. Linsey, Deborah S. Lumia, and Molly A. Maupin, 2004. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000. Circular 1268. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. May 2004. http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2004/ circ1268/index.html, accessed November 23, 2004.

AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA PR RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VI VA WA WV WI WY US total

Per capita use (gpd/cap)

Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.

2200

1600 1400 Water Use (gpd per dwelling unit) 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 12 4 8 12 Time of Day 4 8 12 90oF Day without Rain 90oF Day with Rain

Water Use (gpd per dwelling unit)

2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12

Typical Maximum Day Typical Winter Day

Daily Water Use Patterns, Maximum Day & Winter Day

Daily Water Use Patterns in R-6 Area: Maximum Day & Minimum Day
A.M P.M

A.M

Time of Day

P.M

Figure by MIT OCW. Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from: Viessman, W., Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and Pollution Control. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education, Inc., 2005.

800
Water usage (gallons per day per dwelling un it) Metered Flat-rate
Gallons per capita

130 120 110 100 90 80 70 90 70 50 30 10

700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Leakage

Dom estic

Sprinkling

Total

1890

1895

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

Consumption & use of meters, Boston metropolitan district.

Data from: Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff, 1967. A Study of Residential Water Use, A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Department of Environmental Engineering Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: Turneaure, F. E., H. L. Russell, and M. S. Nichols. Public Water
Supplies: Requirements, Resources, and the Construction of Works.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1940.

Percentage of services metered

Diff from year avg water use (mgd)

Min & Max temperature (oF)

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 32 53 94 125 156 187 218 248 280 311 342

600 400 200 0 -200 0 20 40

1982

Time (day of year) 3

Precipitation (n)

60

80

100

Avg Temperature (oF) Diff from year avg water use (mgd)

1 0

32

53

94

125

156

187

218

248

280

311

342

600 400 200 0 -200 -400 0 20

1983

Time (day of year) 1800

Total water use (mgd)

1600 1400 1200 1000

31

52

93

124

155

186

217

248

279

310

341

372

403

Time (day of year)

40 60 Avg Temperature (oF)

80

100

Daily min-max temperature, precipitation & water use in new york city for 1982.

Deviations from annual average water use versus average daily temperature for 1982 & 1983

Figure by MIT OCW.

Figure by MIT OCW.

Adapted from: Protopapas, A., S. Katchamart, and A. Platonova. "Weather effects on daily water use in New York City." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE 5, no. 3 (July 2000): 332-338.

MONTHLY AVERAGE TEMPERATURE & PRECIPITATION Average Temperature & Precipitation 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Precipitation

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 12

ROCKFORD, III Average Day Maximum Day Maximum = 181% of Av. Max. Hr.=188 x 181 = 340% Av. Average per cap = 67.5 Gal.

Temperature (oF)

Daily water use 1940

PERCENTAGES

MADISON, WIS. Average Day Maximum Day Maximum = 196% of Av. Max.Hr.=175 x 196 = 343% Av. Average per cap = 117 Gal.

MONTHLY WATER USE 60 Water use (mga/month) 50 Thousands 40 30 20 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 YEAR Monthly average temperature, Precipitation, & water use in new York city for 1982 to 1991

MILWAUKEE, WIS. Average Day Maximum Day Maximum = 171% of Av. Max.Hr.= 185 x 171 = 317% Av. Average per cap = 138 Gal.
NOON 2 4 6 8 10 2 4 6 8 10 12

A.M

P.M Hourly rates of consumption.

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: Protopapas, A., S. Katchamart, and A. Platonova. "Weather effects on daily water use in New York City." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE 5, no. 3 (July 2000): 332-338.

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: Turneaure, F. E., H. L. Russell, and M. S. Nichols. Public Water Supplies: Requirements, Resources, and the Construction of Works. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1940.

Based on U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in United States, Circulars 115, 398, 456, 556, 676, 765, 1001, 1004, 1081, 1200, 1268. Data for 1900 and 1924 from: Linaweaver, F. P., Jr., J. C. Geyer, and J. B. Wolff, 1967. A Study of Residential Water Use, A Report Prepared for the Technical Studies Program of the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Department of Environmental Engineering Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.

Based on U.S. Geological Survey. Estimated Use of Water in United States, Circulars 115, 398, 456, 556, 676, 765, 1001, 1004, 1081, 1200, 1268.

Per capita use of municipal water in United States

1000 900 800 Per capita use (gal/d/cap) 700 Per capita use (l/d/cap) 600 500 100 400 300 200 100 0 1900 0 2000 50 200
100% 90% 80%

Percent U.S. population served by municipal water supply

150

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

1000 900 Wastewater Generation (l/d/cap) 800 700 600 500 100 400 300 200 100 0 Greenville County, SC Jefferson County, AL Los Angeles, CA Little Rock, AR LA County, CA Berkeley, CA Boston, MA Rapid City, SD Santa Monica, CA Jefferson County, KS Lancaster County, NE Las Vegas, NV Greater Peoria, IL Grand Rapids, MI Baltimore, MD Hagerstown, MD Memphis, TN Wyoming, MI Orlando, FL 0 50 150 200 Wastewater Generation (gpd/cap)

Surface-water drinking water plant

Activated carbon

Chlorine and fluoride

Surface-water supply

Coagulant addition and rapid mix

Flocculation

Settling tank

Filtration

Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.

Chattahoochee Water Treatment Plant Intake Structure

River Flow

Chemical Addition / Disinfection

Alum: Promote flocculation Sodium Hypochlorite: Disinfection

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Chemical mixing

Flocculation / Sedimentation

Sedimentation

Flocculation

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Flocculation tank

Sedimentation tank (clarifier)

Sludge scraper

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Sedimentation tank collection troughs

Filtration

Flow from sedimentation tanks

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Courtesy of Joe Lin. Used with permission.

Post-Treatment Chemical Addition

Fluoride: To prevent tooth decay Lime: To raise the pH Phosphoric acid: To prevent corrosion of piping in the distribution system Sodium hypochlorite: To maintain disinfection residual in distribution system

Ground-water drinking water treatment plants

Disinfection and fluoridation
Chlorine Fluoride

Iron and manganese removal

Chlorine Fluoride

Aerator

Chlorine or permanganate

Contact tank

Filter

Ground-water drinking water treatment plants

West Bridgewater, MA water distribution system

Softening
Lime Soda ash Chlorine Fluoride

Image removed due to copyright reasons.

CO2 Aerator Mixer Flocculation Settling tank Recarbonation Filter

Wastewater generated vs water used

Water use and wastewater (flow gpd per service)

2000 1800 1600 1400 Rate (l/d/cap) 1200 1000 200 800 600 400 200 0 Jefferson County, AL Greenville County, SC Los Angeles, CA LA County, CA Berkeley, CA Little Rock, AR Rapid City, SD Jefferson County, KS Lancaster County, NE Santa Monica, CA Boston, MA Greater Peoria, IL Baltimore, MD Grand Rapids, MI Hagerstown, MD Las Vegas, NV Memphis, TN Wyoming, MI Orlando, FL 150 100 50 0 Water Consumption (l/d/cap) Wastewater Generation (l/d/cap) 400 350 Rate (gpd/cap) 300 250

600
WATER WASTEWATER

400

200

12

AM

NOON Time of Day June 23,1961

PM

Comparison of water use (solid line) & wastewater flow (dashed lines) on days when little sprinkling occurred.

Source of data: ASCE, 1979. Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York. Table 1, pp. 21-23.

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: Viessman, W., Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and Pollution Control. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005.

Typical Domestic Water Use

Other 5% Kitchen 10% Laundry 15% Toilet flushing 40%

5.0

TYPICAL DAILY HYDROGRAPH FROM TEST HOME II Total Daily Use: 245 Gal. Peak Demand
A - Home Laundry B - Dishwasher C - Foodwaste Disposer D - Shower E- Bath

4.0

Duration-min 1

Gal 5 10 20 26 64

Water Demand - gpm

3.0

2 4 15

2.0

60

1.0

0 0000

0200

0400

0600

0800

1000

1200 DC

1400 A B

1600

1800 C

2000 D DE

2200

2400

Bathing 30%
Data from: Droste, R. L., 1997. Theory and Practice of Water and Wastewater Treatment. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.

CC

Demand rates calculated over 4-min intervals were used.

Water Use

D B C D D

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: Anderson, J. S., and K. S. Watson. "Patterns of household usage." Journal American Water Works Association 59, no. 10 (October 1967): 1228-1237.

300

0.2 Flowrate

Pollutants in domestic wastewater

High strength TSS, Total suspended solids (mg/L) BOD, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (mg/L) Ammonia nitrogen (mg/L as N) Organic nitrogen (mg/L as N) Total phosphorus (mg/L) Oil and grease (mg/L) Total coliform bacteria (number/100 ml) Fecal coliform bacteria (number/100 ml) Cryptosporidium oocysts (number/100 ml) Giardia lamblia cysts (number/100 ml) 120 110 12 8 4 50 106 108 103 105 0.1 - 1 0.1 10 Medium strength Low strength 210 190 25 15 7 90 107 109 104 106 0.1 - 10 0.1 - 100 400 350 45 25 12 100 107 - 1010 105 - 108 0.1 100 0.1 - 1000

BOD concentration, g/m3 & BOD mass loading, kg/h

250 BOD Concentration 200 0.15

150

0.1

100 BOD Mass Loading 50

0.05

10

14

16

18 20

22

24

Midnight

Midnight

Time of Day Typical hourly variations in flow & strength of domestic wastewater.

Based on Metcalf & Eddy Inc., G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel, editors, 2003. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. Table 3-15, pg. 186.

Figure by MIT OCW. Adapted from: G. Tchobanoglous, F. L. Burton, and H. D. Stensel. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse. 4th ed. Metcalf & Eddy Inc., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Typical wastewater treatment plant

Bar Screen Grit Chamber Primary settling Activated sludge biological treatment Final settling Chlorination

Typical wastewater treatment plant

Contact basin

Bar Screen

Grit Chamber

Primary settling

Activated sludge biological treatment

Final settling

Flowrate, m3/s
Chlorination Contact basin

Noon

Activated sludge recycle

Activated sludge recycle

Sludge thickening

Preliminary treatment

Primary treatment

Secondary treatment

Disinfection

Sludge digestion

Can also have tertiary treatment to remove nutrients and other pollutants

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant

Bar screens Grit chambers

Bar screens

Bar screens

Traveling screen

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant

Primary clarifiers

Primary clarifiers

Primary clarifiers sludge scrapers

Primary clarifiers effluent wier

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant

AST aeration tanks

Activated sludge aeration tank

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant

Secondary clarifiers

Secondary clarifiers

Lynn, MA wastewater treatment plant

Chlorine Contact chambers

Chlorine contract chambers

Virtual tours of wastewater plants

Englewood, Colorado http://www.englewoodgov.org/wwtp/ Lynn, Massachusetts http://members.aol.com/erikschiff/prelim.htm Lexington, Kentucky http://www.lfucg.com/sewers/TBTour.asp

LECTURE 1
INTRODUCTION TO WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT, OVERVIEW OF
WASTEWATER AND TREATMENT PROCESSES

Water supply
Slide 2 - Volumetric water use in the United States US is in a relatively water-rich part of the world, although there are obviously local exceptions Slide 3 - Per capita use for domestic water supply US is one of largest water users using 600 l/cap/day = 160 gal/cap/day Slide 4 Significant events in history of water supply Most of the world still does not have centralized water supply with connections to individual households According to the World Health Organization roughly 1 billion of the worlds 6 billion people do not have access to an improved water supply.
JMC, 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United Nations Childrens Fund, http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global2.1.htm. Accessed January 4, 2005.

Access to water-supply services is defined as the availability of at least 20 litres per person per day from an "improved" source within 1 kilometre of the user's dwelling. An improved source is one that is likely to provide "safe" water, such as a household connection, a borehole, etc.
JMC, 2004. The Joint Monitoring Programme : definitions. WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United Nations Childrens Fund, http://www.wssinfo.org/en/122_definitions.html. Accessed January 4, 2005.

An improved water supply is defined as: Household connection Public standpipe Borehole Protected dug well Protected spring Rainwater collection
JMC, 2000. Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report. WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United Nations Childrens Fund, http://www.who.int/docstore/water_sanitation_health/Globassessment/Global2.1.htm. Accessed January 4, 2005.

Only 48% of the worlds population is connected at the household level.

JMC, 2004. Water supply data at global level. WHO and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organization and United Nations Childrens Fund, http://www.wssinfo.org/en/22_wat_global.html. Accessed January 4, 2005.

Slides 5, 6, & 7 Dr. John Snows analysis of cholera deaths in London in 1854. First study to show connection between contaminated water and impaired public health

Slides 8 & 9 - Patterns of water use Total US water use increased steadily until 1980s, but largely due to cooling water use for electric power Rate of increase exceeded rate of population increase Since 1980s water use has leveled off despite population increase Slide 9 increase of public water supply has been slower but unabated Slide 10 - Sources of drinking water in US Ratio of 3:1 surface water:ground water for overall use but heavier reliance on ground water for public water supply Slides 11 & 12 Large geographical variation within US Greater domestic water use in arid areas mostly for landscaping Note low use in Virgin Islands established practice of conservation: In this land of fun and sun, we dont flush for number 1 Maine - ??? Slide 12 large variation also holds true for cities Las Vegas has high water use for outdoor watering, not hotels as one might expect (Carmen Roberts, Vegas heading for dry future. BBC News, July 29, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4719473.stm) Slides 13, 14, & 15 Johns Hopkins study of water use Classic study completed in 1960s by Johns Hopkins University Conducted 1961-66 Continuous monitoring of water use by 41 homogenous residential areas with 44 to 410 dwelling units and several apartment areas Covered: 16 different water supply utilities, 11 metropolitan areas; 6 different climatic regions Slide 13 Winter graph shows household usage morning and early evening peaks Summer graph shows potentially profound effect of sprinkling Slide 14 shows summer usage with and without rainfall Factors affecting water use: Income rich people use more water Climate more water is used in dry climates (for watering lawns) Season less water is used in winter than summer Metering metered customers used less water for watering lawns than those on flat rates Slide 15 shows effect of metering on water use: little effect on household use but major effect on sprinkling Slide 16 Relation of water use to metering is not a new story this graph is from textbook dated 1940 After the change in economic systems in eastern Europe, there was concern about how to bring wastewater treatment systems up to western standards. Many were highly overloaded before the change, but once the authorities started to charge for water, usage went down, wastewater went down, and overloaded plants were no longer overloaded Slides 17, 18, & 19 Study of effect of weather on New York City supply Slide 17 use during 1982 shows fairly constant use until it gets hot above 72F water use increases linearly with temperature Slide 18 shows same pattern in 1983 2

Slide 19 pattern is absent in 1985 why? Mandatory water conservation measures imposed by city Slide 20 pattern of daily water use has not changed appreciably over the years curve for 1940 shows morning and afternoon peaks in usage Slide 21 shows that total usage increased, at least until around 1980 Slide 22 despite prevalence of public water supply systems, about 20 percent of the US population is self supplied usually by a ground-water well. This fraction has not changed appreciably for many decades. Slides 24-33 - Walk-through of typical water treatment process Slides 34&35 Ground-water systems Slide 34a often minimal treatment is required Slide 34b Ground waters often high in iron and manganese (particularly in New England) Removed by oxidizing to insoluble iron oxide (rust) or manganese oxide, which precipitate and can be removed by filtration If not removed in treatment plant, iron and manganese precipitate in distribution system and cause staining of laundry, fixtures, etc. Slide 35 Deep, old ground waters are often highly mineralized and hard (high concentrations of Ca and Mg) Water is softened by adding lime (Ca(OH)2) and soda ash (Na2CO3) Recarbonation removes excess lime and prevents scaling of equipment and pipes Slide 36 Water distribution systems brings treated water to homes and businesses not covered in this course

Wastewater
Slides 37 and 38 water supply begets wastewater generation, usually with a pretty close correlation Slide 37 Exceptions are: water supply > wastewater when sprinkling use is great (e.g., Las Vegas, Los Angeles) and/or exfiltration from sewers is high water supply < wastewater when infiltration into sewers is high (perhaps Greenville County?) Slide 38 Johns Hopkins study confirms this on day with little sprinkling Slide 39 Most water used in the household becomes wastewater via various routes Consumption (drinking, cooking) is pretty negligible Toilets use the most, hence low-flow toilets are a good water conservation measure Slide 40 Daily flow curves are averages over many households the flow from individual household is very episodic Under some circumstances, flow from individual homes can be coordinated: wastewater treatment plant workers in New York City claim to be able to tell the popularity of TV shows by the wastewater surge seen during commercials Slide 41 Wastewater quality
BOD, TSS for short-term effect on receiving water
3

N, P for long-term effect (eutrophication) on receiving water Oil and grease for short-term effect Pathogens for effects on human health Slide 42 Variation in flow also causes variation in strength of wastewater Why? At low flow, solids settle, reducing BOD concentration At high flow, solids get scoured from pipes, increasing BOD concentration Slides 43-49 Walk-through of typical wastewater treatment process Slide 50 Virtual tours of WWTPs: (really should be scratch and sniff) Englewood, Colorado http://www.englewoodgov.org/wwtp/ Lynn, Massachusetts http://members.aol.com/erikschiff/prelim.htm Lexington, Kentucky http://www.lfucg.com/sewers/TBTour.asp