Performance Evaluation of Municipal Wastewater

Treatment Plant Based on Conventional Activated Sludge

Process in Srinagar City

Dilafroza Jan1 and Tanveera Ahad2

1
Ph. D. Scholar, Centre of Research for Development (CORD), University of Kashmir
2
Ph. D. Scholar, Department of Geography and Regional Development

ABSTRACT
The physical, chemical and bacteriological properties of wastewater were assessed in Brari Nambal STP by using
standard methods. The results show significant (P<0.05) reduction in some of the physico-chemical features and in
microbial load at outlet. Order of reduction was significantly (P<0.05) highest for chemical oxygen demand (COD)
(and faecal coliform (FC) with reference to physico-chemical features and microbial characteristics, respectively.
Overall, the wastewater treatment plant effectively removed total coliform, faecal coliform and faecal Streptococci
in the order of 55%, 43% and 35%, respectively. The results further showed positive correlation between some of
the physico-chemical features and microbial load at inlet. It was concluded from the study that all the physico-
chemical features and microbial load exceeded the permissible limit in the effluent as per Indian National
Standards. Therefore, as per the results, it is suggested that there is an urgent need for additional treatment before
the discharge of wastewater.
Key Words: Microbial Load, Sewage Treatment Plant, Pollution Load, Efficiency Rate.

1.INTRODUCTION
Sewage treatment is the process of removing pollutants from domestic sewage and effluents from industries,
tanneries and distillaries. Physical, chemical and biological pollutants are removed by various physical, chemical
and biological processes. Wastewater treatment aims at to generate an effluent and a solidified material known as
sludge which is appropriate for discharge or reuse back into the surroundings [1]. Inefficient removal of impurities
can pose a serious health hazard. However, reclaim must be secure to stay away from damaging wellbeing of the
public and the environment [2].
The potential undesirable effects of untreated water on receiving water bodies include loss of fish life, high levels of
sludge deposition ultimately resulting in septic conditions, higher oxygen demand, nutrient loading of the water
1768 | P a g e
bodies and odour production resulting from anaerobic reactions occuring at the bottom of the receiving water body,
increased water treatment cost, eutrophication and eventual loss of water resources [3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. In several
developing countries, direct addition of sewage into the waterbodies has caused their deterioration resulting from
contamination and has left them unfit for drinking, industry and aesthetics [10][11][12][13]. In developed nations,
where raw sewage is being given treatment by active means, purification consumes significant economic material
and energy resources.

Studies have shown that sewage treatment processes might also affect physico-chemical parameters of the final
effluent such as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), electrical conductivity, total
hardness, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen, some metals and non-metal ions [14]. Although, various microorganisms in
water are considered to be critical factors in contributing to numerous waterborne outbreaks, they play many
beneficial roles in wastewater influents. In addition, purification processes remove pathogenic microorganisms.
Furthermore, microbiological indicators have been used for decades to monitor fecal pollution of water ([15]. The
comparative studies between STPs have shown both significant and insignificant variation [16][17] in efficiency
rates. In the past, some studies have also shown that STPs deviate from normal permissible limit which have been
given by WHO and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [18][19][20].

The removal efficiency of each STP can be evaluated on the basis of presence of pollutants in influent as well as in
the effluent [1]. The performance efficiency of treatment plant depends on proper design and construction and also
on good operation and maintenance [17]. The most favoured wastewater purification system is that which is able to
purify the wastewater to meet the recommended physical, chemical and microbiological guidelines at a low cost
with least amount of operational and maintenance requirements [9].
In past, there has been no extensive study carried out to assess the efficiency and quality of this STP. Because of
the associated dangers of sewage, the present study was carried out to investigate the impact of the wastewater
effluent discharged and to estimate the pollutant removal efficiency of STP. It was predicted that removal efficiency
will depend on the characteristic features (working capability) of the individual STP, extent of aeration, hydraulic
retention time, contact time and type of treatment used.

II.MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted at Brari Nambal sewage treatment plant situated at an altitude of 1587m (a.m.s.l) with the
geographical coordinates of 34005ʹ 03.96ʺ N latitude and 74048ʹ 56.31ʺ E longitude near Brari Nambal lagoon
which is connected with the Dal lake through Nowpora channel. This lagoon due to its specific topography receives
sewage/drainage from an area of about 270 hectares. To save this lakelet from further deterioration, a pilot project
viz., Pollution Pilot Sewerage Scheme Brari Nambal (PPSSBN) was incepted for its first phase in 1983 by the Urban
Environmental Engineering Department (UEED). This scheme envisages tackling of the sewerage discharge from
1769 | P a g e
the areas around Brari Numbal which include Munawarabad, Aqilmir, Khanyar, Nowpora, Rainawari, Bohri Kadal,
Mukhdoom Sahib, Nowhatta, Baba Dem, Malik Angan, Fateh Kadal, Maharaj Gunj, Baba Pora, Barbar Shah,
Boulevard and Naqashpora and treating the same in 17.08 MLD capacity treatment plant situated at Brari Nambal
itself before its disposal into the River Jehlum at Chinkra mohalla in Habba Kadal [21]. The Brari Nambal
Treatment plant is based on the principle of activated sludge process. The water samples were collected at inlet and
outlet on monthly basis for a period of 24 months between June 2010 and May 2012 for analysis of physico
chemical features, in white plastic containers, which were previously sterilized with 70% alcohol and rinsed with
distilled water. For microbial analysis, samples were collected seasonally. At the sites, the containers were rinsed
thrice with the wastewater before being used to collect the samples.
Physico-chemical parameters of water samples
The influent and effluent water samples were collected between 10.00 and 15.00 h from the sampling points (inlet
and outlet) in 1 L polyethylene bottles (Fig. 1). The parameters temperature, pH and conductivity were recorded on
the spot. For the estimation of dissolved oxygen, separate samples were collected in separate glass bottles and fixed
at the sampling sites in accordance with the Winklers method [15]. BOD was determined by the 5 day test method,
while COD determination was carried out using the open reflux method as per Standard Methods in APHA (1998).

Microbial examination of water samples

Microbiological examination of samples was conducted promptly as possible (within 24 h) after collection or were
stored at 4°C in a refrigerator until use. Serial dilutions were prepared immediately after sample collection. The
proper dilutions for various bacterial groups were selected so that number of colonies on plate was between 30 and
300 using spread plate method. A multiple tube fermentation technique or most probable number (MPN) technique
was used to determine the bacterial indicators as coliforms (FC) and faecal Streptococci (FS) according to standard
methods described in APHA (1998). Multiple tube fermentation method used in the present work included
measurement of total plate count and MPN of coliform. After incubation for 24 h at 35°C, results were recorded
when acid and gas liberated in Durham tubes had changed in color to yellow. The spread-plate method was used for
all counts. FC agar and FS agar were used for enumeration of faecal coliform and faecal Streptococci. Each test was
done in triplicate and the geometric means were recorded. The removal efficiency of bacterial indicators was
calculated using the following formula:

Removal efficiency was calculated by using the following formula as per [22][23][19]:

1770 | P a g e
2.1 Statistical analysis
Student’s t-test was used to assess the statistical significance in efficiency rate between raw and effluent in physic-
chemical features and microbial load. Similarly, efficiency rate in two years was tested by using Student’s t-test.
Correlation analysis was carried out to assess the association between physicochemical features and microbial load
at inlet and outlet. All statistics were carried out with the SPSS 11.5 statistical software package with significance
levels set at P<0.05.

III RESULTS
The data shows significant differences (P<0.005) in physico chemical features and microbial data between the inlet
and outlet samples (Tables 1 and 3). The temperature, pH and conductivity in the raw sewage was found to be
17.58±8.940C, 7.52±0.16 and 1043.79±173.5μScm-1 respectively. The DO, BOD and COD concentration in raw
sewage ranged from 0.35±0.47mg/L, 245.58±54.8 mg/L and 588.61±91 mg/L respectively. The temperature, pH and
conductivity in the effluent was found to be 16.8±8.82 00C, 7.71±0.14 and 809±138.4 μScm-1 respectively. The DO,
BOD and COD concentration in effluent ranged from 2.09±0.43 mg/L144.5±26.27 mg/L and 333.47±83mg/L
respectively (Table 1). The values of efficiency rate of conductivity, BOD and COD in the STP depicted
significantly greater values (P<0.05) as 22.50±2.51, 40.47±5.0 and 42.82±4.77 % (Table 2).

In the case of microbial load, TCC, TC, FC and FS concentrations in the inlet sample were found to be 8.87±0.1 to
9.08±0.41(cfu/ml), 8.9±0.07(MPN/100ml), 7.95±0.09(MPN/100ml) and 7.02±0.11(MPN/100ml), respectively
(Table 3). TC, FC and FS concentrations were found to vary in the outlet water samples as 7.32±0.39 (cfu/ml),
7.11±0.04 (MPN/100ml), 6.89±0.07 (MPN/100ml) and 6.31±0.06 (MPN/100ml), respectively. Observations also
revealed that the percent removal efficiency of TC, FC and FS was found to be 47.019±3.5, 55.15±3.35, 43.80±3.04
and 35.11±3.9, respectively (Table 4).

Table 1. Mean values of physico-chemical features in the influent and effluent of Brari
Nambal STP

Parameter Brari Nambal STP

Influent Effluent
t-test P value
Temperature (00C) 17.58±8.94 16.8±8.82
0.26 0.79
pH 7.52±0.16 7.71±0.14
-4.2 0.0001

1771 | P a g e
Conductivity (µScm-1) 1043.79±173.5 809±138.4
9.8 0.0001
Dissolved oxygen
0.35±0.47 2.09±0.43
(mgl-1) -14.2 0.0001

BOD (mgl-1) 245.58±54.8 144.5±26.27

13.8 0.0001
COD (mgl-1) 588.61±91 333.47±83 13 0.0001

Table 2. Mean values of removal efficiency (%) in Brari Nambal STP

Parameter
Removal efficiency (%)
Conductivity
22.50±2.51
BOD
40.47±5.0
COD 42.82±4.77

One Way ANOVA (Overall)

F-test P-value
21.2 P<0.0001

Table 3. Mean values of microbial features in the influent and effluent of Brari Nambal STP

Parameter Brari Nambal STP

Influent Effluent t- test p value

Total colony count 26.27 0.0001

(cfu/ml) 9.08±0.41 7.32±0.39

Total coliform 8.9±0.07 7.11±0.04 26 0.0001

1772 | P a g e
 (MPN/100ml)

Faecal coliform 27.1 0.0001

(MPN/100ml) 7.95±0.09 6.89±0.07

Faecal Streptococci 20.2 0.0001

(MPN/100ml) 7.02±0.11 6.31±0.06

Table 4. Mean values of removal efficiency (%) in microbial load in Brari Nambal STP

Microbial features Removal efficiency (%)

Total colony count 47.019±3.5

Total coliform
55.15±3.35
Faecal coliform 43.80±3.04

Faecal Streptococci 35.11±3.9

IV DISCUSSION
Although data shows significant differences in physico- chemical features and microbial load between the inlet and
outlet, nevertheless, these variations do not meet the Indian national standards. As per Indian standards, to discharge
effluents into water bodies, BOD, COD and faecal coliform should be less than 30 and 250 mg/L and 2500
MPN/100ml, respectively [24].
The higher temperature recorded for all sewage samples was because of the addition of warm water from domestic
use and composite composition of sewage. The variations between inlet and outlet samples were, however, not
significant. Our results correspond very well with the findings of earlier researchers like [25][26].
The pH of the sewage was found in the alkaline range which may be attributed to the presence of organic pollution,
alkaline chemicals, soap and detergents produced due to commercial and residential activities [27]. This investigation
is in agreement with the findings of [8] [28][29] who also found increase in pH level during treatment process. [30]
attibuted the production of carbon dioxide and ammonia oxidation to the decrease in pH of alkaline waste waters in
the activated sludge process. The pH range recorded for all the sampling sites lie within the WHO pH tolerance limit,
that is, 6 to 9 for wastewater to be discharged into water body. Our results coincide with the findings of [8] who also
found increase in pH level during treatment process. In addition, lower values of dissolved oxygen recorded at inlet

1773 | P a g e
sites may also be due to the organic matter in water, probably sewage or other biodegradable disposable residues,
which lead to the rapid decrease in this oxygen availability [31]. Data presented here, however, agree with those
reported elsewhere [32][33][34]. The DO concentrations of the effluents in our study were less than 5 mg/l.
Consequently, these water sources would not be suitable for use in aquatic ecosystems.
High COD and BOD concentration observed in the wastewater might be due to the use of chemicals, which are
organic or inorganic that are oxygen demanding in nature [35]. The values for most of the parameters in the
discharged effluent were almost higher than the acceptable limits. The raw and effluent sewage showed significant
differences in the sewage treatment plant. Since the BOD concentration of the influent was greater than 200 mg/L
the strength of sewage can be considered to be high.The percentage removal of BOD was found to be below the
expected value of 85 to 90%, thus showing that BOD reduction is less than the expected.

The high coliform count in raw sewage obtained in our results may be an indication that the sewage is comprised of
faecal matter coming from household latrines [15]. The presence of pathogenic bacteria in treated wastewater
effluent is a potential public health hazard, as this water source is directly discharged in receiving water bodies and
may be used by communities for multiple purposes. Additionally, the concentration of physico-chemical parameters
of sewage were relatively high which causes microbial biomass development, particularly coliform and faecal
Streptococci [36]. Similar sewage characteristics were obtained by [36]. It is clear from our results that some
amount of microbial load is retained even after the treatment process. In our case, it was observed that tertiary
treatment was not carried out to remove pollutants from the wastewater. So, it is essential to include a tertiary
treatment step in STPs so that the purification process results in bacterial concentrations that are in compliance with
discharge [37]. The results show that faecal Streptococci are more resistant and persistent as compared to faecal
coliforms. These results coincide very well with the findings of [38]. The reduction of microbes in activated sludge
process also depends on protozoan predation, settlement of suspended solids, inactivation due to sunlight, activity of
bacteria, lack of aeration, improper loading and environmental conditions [39][40][41][42][43][44].
The present study depicted the poor operational state of activated sludge based sewage treatment plant located at
Brari Nambal. This could be due to inadequate maintenance of most of these municipalities sewage treatment works,
i.e. design weaknesses, overloaded capacity, faulty equipment and machinery, toxic nature of sewage and
insufficient aeration in the aeration tank [45][40][41][46][44]. One more possible reason for the inefficiency of Brari
Nambal STP could be based on the fact that it receives an organic load higher than the design capacity [40][41]. It
has been designed to treat a load of 17 MLD which sometimes reaches to 32MLD that means the present hydraulic
load is almost 2 times more than the design capacity. Thus the results in our study are comparable with previously
reported works of [47][48] who observed an increase in effluent values due to overloaded conditions. Bulking which
is a wide phenomenon in ASP based treatment systems occurred seasonally and periodically, which bring serious
operating problems and take a relating long time to restore [49][50][34].
1774 | P a g e
V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
All the municipal wastes that may have otherwise gone untreated into the environment are restricted from entering.
Thus, these treatment plants play an important role in the control of pollution level. However, performance of this
STP do not meet the permit standards set by the Indian national standards and WHO. Therefore, it is suggested that
authorities should improve the efficiency of STP by including tertiary treatment processes such as chlorination,
rapid sand filtration, UV disinfection, artificial lagoons, wetlands, adequate contact time, etc. In addition, there is
need of trained and technical staff for proper monitoring and operation of this STP in a standardized manner.
Furthermore, regular monitoring of this STP by national experts is necessary in order to improve its operational
capability.

REFERENCES

[1] A Metcalf and I Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3 rd Ed (Tata McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1991).
[2] M Gomez, A de la Rua, G Garralon, F Plaza, E Hontoria and MA Gomez. Urban wastewater disinfection by
filtration technologies. Desalination, 190, 2006, 16–28.
[3] DD Mara. Sewage Treatment of Sewage in Hot Climates (John Willey and Sons Ltd., New York, 1976).
[4] DWAF, WRC. South African water quality management series. Procedures to assess effluent discharge impacts.
WRC Report No. TT 64/94, 1995. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and Water Research Commission,
Pretoria.
[5] HP Singh, LR Mahaver and JP Mishra. Impact of industrial and sewage wastes on water qualities in middle
stretch of river Ganga from Kanpur to Varanasi. Ibid., 20, 1999, 279-285.
[6] WRC, 2000. National Eutrophication Monitoring Programme. Implementation Manual. Draft Report, Water
Research Commission, Pretoria.
[7] MHB Daniel, AA Montebelo, MC Bernardes, JPHB Ometto, PB De Camargo, AV Krusche, MV Ballester, RL
Victoria and LA Martinelli. Effects of urban sewage on dissolved oxygen, dissolved inorganic and organic carbon,
and electrical conductivity of small streams along a gradient of urbanization in the Piracicaba river basin. Water,
Air, and Soil Pollution, 136, 2001, 189–206.
[8] GO Morrison, OS Fatok and A Ekberg. Assessment of the impact of point source pollution from the
Keiskammahoek sewage treatment plant on the Keiskamma River. Water. SA., 27, 2001, 475-480.
[9] IO Hodgson. Performance of the Akosombo waste stabilization ponds in Ghana. Ghana J. Sc., 47, 2007, 35-44.

1775 | P a g e
[10] A Gadgil. Drinking water in developing countries. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 23, 1998,
253-286.
[11] AK Kivaisi. The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries:
A review. Ecological Engineering, 16, 2001, 545-560.
[12] M Nelson, HT Odum, MT Brown and A Alling. Living off the land: Resource efficiency of wetland wastewater
treatment. Advances in Space Research, 27(9), 2001, 1547-1556.
[13] V Chipofya, A Kraslawski, Y Avramenko. Comparison of pollutant levels in effluent from wastewater
treatment plants in Blantyre, Malawi. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering,
2(4), 2010, 79-86.
[14] KP Rawat, A Sharma and SM Rao. Microbiological and physicochemical analysis of radiation disinfected
municipal sewage. Water Res., 32(3), 1998, 737-740.
[15] American Public Health Association (APHA).Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
20th Ed (American Water works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation Publication, Washington, D.C,
1998)
[16] P Jamwal, AK Mittal and JM Mouchel. Efficiency evaluation of sewage treatment plants with different
technologies in Delhi (India). Environ Monit Assess., 153, 2009, 293-305.
[17] P Kumar, LB Pinto and RK Somashekar. Assessment of the efficiency of sewage treatment plants: A
comparative study between Nagasandra and Mailasandra sewage treatment plants. Kathmandu University Journal of
Science, Engineering and Technology, 6 (2), 2010, 115-125.
[18] EO Igbinosa, AI Okoh. Impact of discharge wastewater effluents on the physico-chemical qualities of a
receiving watershed in a typical rural community. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 6 (2), 2007, 175-182.
[19] S Antunes, L Dionisio, MC Silva, MS Valentene, Borrego. Coliforms as indicators of efficiency of wastewater
treatment plants. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IASME/WSEAS International Conference on Energy, Environment,
Ecosystems and Sustainable Development. Agios Nikolaos, Greece 2007.
[20] M Akpor Muchie. Environmental and public health implications of wastewater quality. African Journal of
Biotechnology., 10(13), 2011, 2379-2387.
[21] UEED. Pilot Sewerage Scheme Brari Nambal. Urban Environmental Engineering Department, Jammu and
Kashmir (Technical report, 2012). (Unpublished).
[22] Y Kalogo, JHM Bouche and w Verstraete. Physical and biological performance of self-inoculated UASB
reactor treating raw domestic sewage. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 127(2), 2001, 1-5.
[23] A Metcalf and I Eddy. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. 4 th Ed. (Tata McGraw Hill
Publishing Co. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 2003).

1776 | P a g e
[24] NRCD, 2005. Ministry of Environment and Forest Annual Report 2001–2002.
<http://envfor.nic.in/report/0102/chap06.html>
[25] R Lloyd. Pollution and Freshwater Fish. Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1992, Limited, Great Britain.
[26] ML Saha, A Alam, MR Khan and S Hoque. Bacteriological, physical and chemical properties of the Pagla
sewage treatment plant’s water. J. Biol. Sci., 21(1), 2012, 1‐7.
[27] OI Charles, IA Okoro. Comparative evaluation of physical and chemical parameters of sewage water from
some selected areas in Port- Harcourt metropolis, Rivers State Nigeria. Continental J. Water, Air and Soil Pollution,
2(1), 2011, 1 – 14.
[28] E Awuah, KA Abrokwa. Performance evaluation of the UASB sewage treatment plant at James Town (Mudor),
Accra. In: 33rd WEDC International Conference on Access to Sanitation and Safe Water, Global Partnerships and
Local Actions. Accra, Ghana, 2008.
[29] A Fosu. Assessing the efficiency of the KNUST Sewage Treatment Plant. M. Sc. Thesis, 2009. Department of
Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana.
[30] K Viehl. Ober den Einfluss der Wasserstoffionenkonzentration auf die Wirksamkeit und Biologie des
Belebtschlamms. Zentbl. Bakt. Parasitkde Abt., 86, 1932, 34-43.
[31] SMM, Filha, SS Freitas and J Carvalho. Nutrientes como parametro de avaliacaoda qualidade da agua do
estuario do rio Poxim (SE), 22a Reuniao Anual Sociedade Brasileirade Quimica, Pocos de Caldas, Minas Gerais,
3:048, 1999.
[32] JH Doughari , JS Dodo and FA Mbuh. Impact of effluent from Gudu District Sewage Treatment Plant on Gudu
stream in Abuja, Nigeria. J. Appl.SCI. Environ. Manage., 11(1), 2007, 79-83.
[33] MO Jaji, O Bamgbose, OO Odukoya, TA Arowlo, Water quality assessment of Ogun river, south west Nigeria.
Environ. Monit. Assess., 133(1-3), 2007, 447-482.
[34] M Sadeghpoor, B Hosseini and GD Najafpour. Assessment of wastewater treatment plant’s performance in
Amol Industrial Park. American-Eurasian J. Agric. and Environ. Sci., 5 (5), 2009, 707-711.
[35] D Jan, AK Pandit and AN Kamili. Efficiency evaluation of three fluidised aerobic bioreactor based sewage
treatment plants in Kashmir Valley. African Journal of Biotechnology, 12(17), 2013, 2224-2233.
[36] AB Rajeb, H Kallali, N Saidi and S Abidi. Physicochemical and microbial characteristics performency in
wastewater treated under aerobic reactor. American Journal of Environmental Sciences, 7(3),2011, 254-262.
[37] J Koivunen, A Siitonen and H Heinonen-Tanski. Elimination of enteric bacteria in biological-chemical
wastewater treatment and tertiary filtration units. Water Research, 37, 2003, 690 698.
[38] J Cohen, HI Shuval. Coliforms, faecal coliforms and faecal Streptococci as indicators of water pollution. Water,
Air and Soil Pollution, 2, 1972, 85-95.

1777 | P a g e
[39] BE Rittmann and PL McCarty. Environmental Biotechnology: Principles and Applications (McGraw-Hill
Publication, New York, 2001).
[40] G Bitton. Encyclopedia of Environmental Microbiology. Vol. 4, 2002, John Willey and Sons, New York.
[41] P Madoni, The Handbook of Water and Wastewater Microbiology (Academic Press (Elsevier), U.K, 2003).
[42] A Katsoyiannis and S Samara. Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the sewage treatment plant of
Thessaloniki, Northern Greece. Water Res., 38, 2004, 2685-98.
[43] SY Lee, HG Kim, JB Park and YK Park. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of bacterial
populations in 5-stage biological nutrient removal process with step feed system for wastewater treatment. J.
Microbiol., 42, 2004, 1-8.
[44] VK Tyagi, S Subramaniyan, AA Kazmi and AK Chopra. Microbial community in conventional and extended
aeration activated sludge plants in India. Ecological Indicators, 8, 2008, 550 – 554.
[45] RE McKinney. Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1962).
[46] MNB Momba, AN Osode and M Sibewu. The impact of inadequate wastewater treatment on the receiving
water bodies – Case study: Buffalo City and Nkokonbe Municipalities of the Eastern Cape Province. Water SA.,
32(5), 2006, 687-692.
[47] S Asaad. Performance of Alsamra waste stabilization pond. MSc. Thesis, 2006, submitted to University of
Jordan, Jordan.
[48] A Kamel and A Nada. Performance of wastewater treatment plants in Jordan and suitability for reuse. African
Journal of Biotechnology, 7(15), 2008, 2621-2629.
[49] M Richard, S Brown and F Collins. Activated sludge microbiology problems and their control. In: Proceedings
of The 20 Annual USEPA National operator Trainers Conference, Buffalo, New York, 2003.
[50] B Xie, XC Dai and YT Xu. Cause and pre-alarm control of bulking and foaming by Microthrix parvicella -A
case study in triple oxidation ditch at a waste water treatment plant. Journal of Hazardous Material, 143, 2007, 184-
191.

1778 | P a g e