Modeling Suspended Growth Systems: - See Grady, Daigger & Lim

Modeling Suspended
Growth Systems
– see Grady, Daigger & Lim
Environmental Biotechnology
CE421/521
Tim Ellis (originally prepared by Dr. Eric Evans)
October 25, 2007
Monod Equation and Unified
Model
 Reactor performance as a k s (1  b c )
function of SRT.
S
 Fails to account for:
 c ( ˆ  b)  1
 Particulate removal rate
 Anaerobic/anoxic
Y (S0  S )  c
conditions
X
 Variable flow and loading
 Biological nutrient removal
1  b c 
International Association on Water
Quality Activated Sludge Model 1
(IAWQ-ASM 1)
 In 1983, IAWQ appointed a task group to
develop a model.
 In 1986, ASM 1 was completed.
 ASM 1 able to predict performance of soluble

and particulate substrate removal, nitrification
and denitrification under steady state and
dynamic conditions.
Traditional vs. Lysis-regrowth
Traditional vs. Lysis-regrowth
ASM 1
 Tracks 13 individual components through

eight separate processes.
 Assumes heterotrophic growth under
anoxic conditions.
 Limited anaerobic activity.
 Uses lysis-regrowth approach
IAWQ – ASM 2
 In 1995, ASM 2 was released capable of

tracking biological phosphorus flows.
 Now able to model enhanced biological

phosphorus removal.
ASM 2
 Tracks 19 separate components through 19 processes.
 22 stoichiometric coefficients and 42 kinetic parameters
 Ammonification and hydrolysis simplified to stoichiometric

terms; i.e. rates implicit.
 Includes anaerobic fermentation, uptake of acetate,

formation of PHB and PHAs, and release of soluble
phosphate from hydrolysis of polyphosphate.
 Several assumptions made that constantly need revision

as knowledge evolves.
Activated Sludge Models
 Cannot solve analytically.
 Use computer algorithm based on numerical techniques
 SSSP, Bidstrup and Grady (MS-DOS based, ASM 1)
 GPS-X, Hydromantis, Inc.
 BioWin, EnvironSim Associates Limited.
 ASIM & AQUASIM, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic
Science and Technology, EAWAG.
 EFOR, DHI, Inc.
 STOAT, WRc Group.
 WEST, Hemmis N. V.
 SIMBA, IFAK-System GmbH.
 ASM 2 integrated into software algorithm provides a
powerful tool.
Steady-state performance –
Particulate versus Soluble
 Particulate hydrolysis is a rate limiting step.
 A particulate feed requires a longer SRT to

achieve treatment.
 Particulates compose all of MLSS at low HRTs

and active fraction is washed out.
Dynamic performance –
Particulate and Soluble
 Flow & substrate concentrations vary during
diurnal pattern.
 Particulate and soluble feeds have different

effects on performance.
Nitrification – low max and KS
Diurnal flow has a negative
effect on nitrification
Nitrification
 Nitrifiers are
affected by:
 Temperature
 Low oxygen
concentrations
 Inhibition by
some organics
Nitrification
 Autotrophs are a
small fraction of
MLSS.
 Nitrification
consumes large
amount of oxygen.
Denitrification
 Denitrification –
 Organics are
Nitrate
electron donor
 Nitrates are electron
Carbon
acceptor
 Optimum Carbon to
Nitrate ratio based on
balance between
electron donor and
acceptor.
Denitrification
 Oxygen is
preferred
electron
acceptor…
Diurnal flow with different aeration strategies
 Single CSTR may be set to:

 Maintain a constant dissolved oxygen
concentration in the tank
 Constant oxygen flow into tank
Modified Ludzack Ettinger
 Use an anoxic basin and an aerobic
basin to select for denitrification after
nitrification…
 Why denitrify?
 Where would you place anoxic selector in
flow scheme?
Effect of SRT on MLE
 SRT is biomass in
system divided by
biomass wasted from
system where
system includes both
aerobic and anoxic
basins…
CSTR
MLE
Dashed lines indicate performance of a single CSTR of the

same volume as the anoxic and aerobic reactors.
MLE
 Recycle affects performance in MLE
 Greater recycle leads to:

 Nitrate flow into anoxic reactor and thus higher
consumption of nitrates and organics.
 Dilution of ammonia in anoxic reactor.
ANOXIC
AEROBIC
Solid lines indicate the anoxic (first) reactor and the dashed indicate
The second (aerobic) reactor.
Diurnal Flow
 Wastewater
flow and
strength reflect
activity of
population.
 Expect diurnal
flow pattern.
Diurnal Flow
Steady-state equation
 Dynamic flow results
in lower
Ks (1 bH θc )
performance. S
θc (ˆ H  bH ) 1
 Performance not
solely a function of Ks (1 bH θc  θXc dXdt )
S
SRT. θc (ˆ H  bH  X1 dX
dt ) 1
 Also depends on
Dynamic equation
biomass change as a
result of changing
input.
Diurnal Flow
 Recall effect of
diurnal flow on
flow weighted
nitrification in
CSTR.
 Must increase
SRT to
compensate for
dynamic
condition.
Active Populations
 Heterotrophs
 Environment=Aerobic
 Electron Donor
 Organics
 Electron Acceptor
 Oxygen
 Benefits
 Removes organics that
suffocate or are toxic to the
environment
 Drawbacks
 Consumes Oxygen (Costs
money)
 Produces large amounts of
sludge
Active Populations
 Heterotrophs
 Environment=Anoxic
 Electron Donor
 Organics
 Nitrates
 Benefits
 Removes nitrates
 Reduces oxygen use
 Generates alkalinity
 Drawbacks
 Anoxic environment may be
difficult to create
Active Populations
 Autotrophs
 Environment =Aerobic
 Electron Donor
 Ammonia
 Oxygen
 Benefits
 Removes ammonia
 Drawbacks
 High oxygen consumption
 Reduces alkalinity
Active Populations
 Phosphate Accumulating Organisms
 Environment=Anaerobic/Aerobic
 Benefits
 Removes Phosphorus
 Drawbacks
 Complex life cycle
 Requires numerous recycle lines
 Phosphorus rich sludge
EBPR
Virginia Initiative Plant
 System to remove:  Environments

 Organics needed:
 Aerobic
 Anoxic
 Nitrogen
 Ammonia
 Anaerobic
 Nitrates
 System
 Phosphorus
configuration?
 System configuration:
 Anaerobic
 Anoxic
 Aerobic
 Recirculation
 RAS to Anoxic
 MLR from Aerobic to RAS

 MLR from Anoxic to Anaerobic
VIP
VIP
 Benefits?
 Drawbacks?
VIP
VIP
 Important
consideration:
 BOD5/Total P ratio
 BOD5/ΔP ratio needed
for VIP Process?
 15-20 mg BOD5/mg P

Modeling Suspended Growth Systems: - See Grady, Daigger & Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling Suspended Growth Systems: - See Grady, Daigger & Lim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling Suspended Growth Systems: - See Grady, Daigger & Lim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling Suspended

 Biological nutrient removal

 In 1986, ASM 1 was completed.

 ASM 1 able to predict performance of soluble

 Tracks 13 individual components through

 In 1995, ASM 2 was released capable of

 Now able to model enhanced biological

 22 stoichiometric coefficients and 42 kinetic parameters

 Ammonification and hydrolysis simplified to stoichiometric

 Includes anaerobic fermentation, uptake of acetate,

 Several assumptions made that constantly need revision

 A particulate feed requires a longer SRT to

 Particulates compose all of MLSS at low HRTs

 Particulate and soluble feeds have different

 Single CSTR may be set to:

Dashed lines indicate performance of a single CSTR of the

 Greater recycle leads to:

 System to remove:  Environments

 MLR from Aerobic to RAS

You might also like