Post-Treatment of Kennel Wastewater With Different Aeration Strategies

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the introduction of a complementary aerobic treatment composed of a submerged aerated biological filter (SABF) with a secondary clarifier (SC), followed by horizontal subsurface flow constructed wetlands (CWs), after anaerobic units, on the ability to remove pollutants in different aeration phases (Ph1, Ph2, and Ph3) at the effluent treatment station of the Parque Francisco de Assis (PFA) dog shelter. Ph1 and Ph2 had 7 and 5 hours of daily aeration, respectively, and Ph3 had intermittent aeration every 2 hours. The phases were monitored regarding the removal efficiency of organic matter, solids, nutrients (N, P), coliforms, and detection of Giardia and Cryptosporidium. It was found that post-treatment provided greater removal efficiencies and that the aeration strategy of Ph3 showed mean efficiencies of 71% for COD removal and 77% for BOD removal, being similar or statistically higher, even with less biodegradable effluent, than those of Ph1 and Ph2. The SABF and SC removed N by nitrification and denitrification, leaving a total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentration in the effluent of 18 mg L−1. The CW showed potential for simultaneous nitrification and denitrification (SND), in addition to solid filtration. The system did not satisfactorily remove thermotolerant coliforms (ThermC) (1 ± 0 log). PCR suggested the presence of the pathogens Giardia and Cryptosporidium in all post-treatment units in Ph1 and Ph2.

Applicability of biological wastewater treatment for various industries

Biological treatment methods are used to remove organic and some inorganic substances from wastewater using the simplest organisms that use these substances for nutrition, breaking them down using cellular processes. The article deals with the aerobic, anaerobic and anoxic stages of biological wastewater treatment. Their differences are explained and the best way to use biological processes is analyzed according to the type of industry/production. At wastewater treatment plants, anaerobic treatment is often used at first to remove a significant part of organic substances from wastewater before sending them for further aerobic treatment. Aerobic treatment is effective for various types of wastewater, especially with lower biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). A comparative analysis of wastewater composition from food, oil and gas processing, pharmaceutical and pulp and paper industries was carried out. In the presence of organic compounds, the technology is chosen depending on the total organic matter content or the total COD content, which characterizes the total organic matter in water. A combination of anaerobic and aerobic methods is possible, if a discharge into the sewer system or into water bodies is required. The grounds for the application of biological wastewater treatment of these industries are given.

Comparative life cycle assessment of aerobic treatment units and constructed wetlands as onsite wastewater treatment systems in Australia

Life Cycle Assessment was used to evaluate onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS): aerobic treatment unit (ATU) with reinforced concrete (C.ATU) and HDPE (H.ATU) tank; and constructed wetland (CW) with three biochar concentrations in the substrate (0%; 10, and 20% v:v), dubbed CW.BC0, CW.BC10 and CW.BC20, respectively. CML 2001 in SimaPro® was used to evaluate the impacts of the treatment of 1 m3 wastewater. The OWTS were compared on their overall environmental performance scores (OEP). ATUs have higher impacts on human toxicity, eutrophication, freshwater and marine ecotoxicity. The CW.BC20 has the lowest global warming impact (GWP) while CW.BC0 has the highest. Electricity consumption was the largest contributor to the impacts of the ATUs. PVC pipes, coir peat, geomembrane, and electronic devices were the biggest contributors to the impacts of the CWs. The OEP of the CWs were almost a third of the ATUs’ (6.07E-03). Changes in electricity sources were tested according to the 2030-Australian targets; increasing renewables share improves the OEP of ATUs by 39%; nevertheless, CWs continue to outperform the ATUs. Variations in biochar biodegradation has small effect on the OEP of CWs; being relevant only to GWP. This study provides a reference to policy makers for better evaluation of OWTS.

Correction to: Impact of a combined multimodal-aerobic and multimodal intervention compared to standard aerobic treatment in breast cancer survivors with chronic cancer-related fatigue - results of a three-armed pragmatic trial in a comprehensive cohort design

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.