Design and operations experience with flocculator-clarifiers in large plants

Parker, Denny; Butler, Richard; Finger, Richard; Fisher, R.E.; Fox, W.; Kido, Wendell H.; Merrill, Steve; Newman, Gary; Pope, Rod; Slapper, Jeff; Wahlberg, Eric J.

doi:10.2166/wst.1996.0327

Cited by 19 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…And a comprehensive evaluation of the flocculation and breakup kinetics of a large number of conventional activated sludge plants allowed confirmation of standardized flocculation zone residence times (Wahlberg et al,1994). Computational fluid dynamics modeling and field testing allowed simultaneous optimization of flocculator center well diameter and depth, sidewater depth and effluent launder position, as described in a paper describing the history of the flocculator clarifier development (Parker et al, 1996). Typical features of the flocculator clarifier, as designed by Brown and Caldwell, are shown in Figure 6.…”

Section: The Flocculator Clarifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction of New Process Technology into the Wastewater Treatment Sector

Parker

2010

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovative wastewater treatment technologies are developed to respond to changing regulatory requirements, increase efficiency, and enhance sustainability or to reduce capital or operating costs.Drawing from experience of five successful new process introductions from both the inventor/developer's and adopter's viewpoints coupled with the application of marketing analysis tools (an S curve), the phases of new technology market penetration can be identified along with the influence of market drivers, marketing, patents and early adopters. The analysis is used to identify measures that have increased the capture of benefits from new technology introduction. These have included funding by the government for research and demonstrations, transparency of information, and the provision of independent technology evaluations.To reduce the barriers and speed the introduction of new technology, and thereby harvest the full benefits from it, our industry must develop mechanisms for sharing risks and any consequences of failure more broadly than just amongst the early adopters. WEF and WERF will continue to have the central role in providing reliable information networks and independent technology evaluations.

show abstract

Section: The Flocculator Clarifiermentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction of New Process Technology into the Wastewater Treatment Sector

Parker

2010

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 showed that it could be used for nitrification of ammonia laden filtrate from solids processing, while reducing the SRT that would otherwise to sustain nitrification down to the lowest temperatures anticipated (10 o C). High rate clarifiers were constructed to allow for the high peak wet weather flows (Parker et al, 1996). Table 2 shows the design criteria for the activated sludge portion of the plant, while Table 3 shows typical operating data.…”

Section: Figure 2 -The Bar Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Nitrification through Bioaugmentation

Parker¹,

Wanner²

2007

proc water environ fed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high costs of upgrading treatment plants for either nitrification or nutrient removal has spurred many investigators to examine bioaugmentation as a means to increase nitrification rates and thereby reduce the costs (and space requirements) for nitrification. In the case of biological nutrient removal (BNR) plants, this would allow release of reactor space to accommodate either nitrogen removal or phosphorus removal or both. In this paper, two types of bioaugmentation schemes are reviewed, external and in situ. Both types apply to activated sludge systems, while only in situ schemes apply to fixed film systems. The advantage of external bioaugmentation schemes is that the promotion of nitrification within the mainstream process can be decoupled from its aerobic SRT. The advantage of in situ schemes is that there is less concern about the loss of activity of the seed nitrifiers when transferred to the mainstream process, because their conditions of growth are similar to those prevalent in the mainstream process. The literature is reviewed on all process types, and new information is provided on the Bioaugmentation R (BAR) process which has seen the broadest full-scale applications of any bioaugmentation scheme. The various forms of bioaugmentation are compared and contrasted and the practical limitations in their implementation are reviewed.

show abstract

“…This way of denitrification may benefit the treatment of wastewater since organic substrates and ammonia are simultaneously oxidized during conventional treatment, which results in a shortage of the organic substrate needed for subsequent denitrification. Results of other studies postulated that, because of the competition between heterotrophic bacteria and nitrifiers, nitrification is not initiated until the soluble COD drops to less than 27 mg/ l or the soluble BOD 5 drops to 20 mg/l [18,19].…”

Section: Nitrogen Removalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between biological and chemical treatment of wastewater containing nitrogen and phosphorus

El-Bestawy

Hussein²,

Baghdadi

et al. 2005

J IND MICROBIOL BIOTECHNOL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present work compared chemical and biological treatment methods to achieve the most efficient treatment for the reduction or elimination of phosphorus and nitrogen from mixed industrial-domestic wastewaters. Batch chemical precipitation by ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate (alum) and a continuous biological suspended growth system were investigated as well as the optimum operating conditions. Concerning chemical treatment, Alum generally achieved a higher removal efficiency percentage for the investigated pollutants compared with FeCl(3) at their optimum pH and dose, especially with chemical oxygen demand (COD). FeCl(3) treatment achieved success only with phosphorus removal, while none of the COD, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD(5)), total nitrogen (TN) and N-NH(3) achieved acceptable treatment and remained above the maximum permissible limits (MPL). Thus, for such wastewaters, alum is more efficient than FeCl(3). Biological treatment exhibited higher efficiencies, particularly towards nitrogen. TN removal increased by increasing the flow rate to 30-60 l/day. N-NH(3) removal was effective at the slowest flow rate and decreased with increasing flow rate, while an opposite trend was recorded for N-NO(3). At all flow rates, phosphorus levels were below the accepted MPL for discharging into natural systems. Moreover, there was a general trend for the proposed biological treatment to achieve a high removal efficiency for BOD(5) and COD, bringing them to acceptable levels to be released into watercourses safely, especially at the slowest flow rates. Thus, integration between the proposed chemical and biological treatment is highly recommended, producing high-quality effluents acceptable by the environmental law.

show abstract

Design and operations experience with flocculator-clarifiers in large plants

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Introduction of New Process Technology into the Wastewater Treatment Sector

Introduction of New Process Technology into the Wastewater Treatment Sector

Improving Nitrification through Bioaugmentation

Comparison between biological and chemical treatment of wastewater containing nitrogen and phosphorus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About