Date post: | 21-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | ezekiel-adeniran |
View: | 432 times |
Download: | 2 times |
1
Alternative Sewage Treatment Option: The Effect of use of Water Hyacinth
(Eichornia crassipes) in the Treatment of Domestic Sewage
A. E. AdeniranWorks & Physical Planning Department
University of Lagos, [email protected]
2
• Conventional sewage treatment plants have been found to fail in the developing countries.
• They are expensive to construct, operate and maintain. • Many of these treatment facilities, where available, have broken
down due to lack of maintenance
Introduction
3
The result is polluted canals and water streams
4
Constructed Wetland and Sewage Treatment
Constructed wetlands (CW), are now widely used as an accepted method of treating wastewater and are cheaper than traditional wastewater treatment plants
• CW is appealing to developing nations in the tropics due to the high rate of plant growth (Kivaisi, 2001. Campbell and Ogden, 1999; Gopal, 1999; Kadlec and Knight, 1995; Kadlec, 1995)
• Water Hyacinth sewage treatment plant as a form of CW in improving the sewage effluent quality parameters is examined here.
5
Introduction Continued• We examined the effect of the growth of water hyacinth as a form
of constructed wetland with surface flow on selected sewage quality parameters on weekly basis for a period of 24 weeks.
• Observation after 24 weeks show:• 100% - Colour• 92.95% - Turbidity, • 84% - BOD• 88% - TDS,• 76% - Nitrate,• 87% - Phosphate • 99.65% - e-coli
• It is concluded that the use of water hyacinth plant on domestic sewage pond is a viable and cheaper alternative method of domestic sewage treatment
6
Innovation to Sewage Treatment: The Water Hyacinth Option
• A water hyacinth based biological treatment plant was designed and constructed at the Service Area of University of Lagos .
• The plan and section through the treatment plant is as shown below.
bed 1 bed 2bed 3
bed 5 bed 6
Exis
ting
dra
in
drai
n
drai
n
drai
n
circ
ulat
ion
are
a
Existing drain
circ
ulat
ion
are
a
200m
mse
wer
line
WATER HYACINTH BASED SEWAGE PONDS LAYOUT
bed 4
(Influent Point)
Effluent Point
300 300
7000 150
samplepoint A
samplepoint B
samplepoint C
samplepoint D
samplepoint E
1720
300
7100
630
7100
300
300
1850
8500150
8500300 300
flow channel water hyacinth based sewage ponds flow channelinfluent point
effluentpoint
21300 mm 24000 mm 25500 mm 25500 mm
LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FROM POINT A THROUGH E
A B C D E
Screen (steel gauze)BED 1 BED 2 BED 3 BED 4 BED 5 BED 6
water hyacinth based sewage ponds
InceptionChamber
water hyacinthplant
7
Operation & Hyacinth Growth• Domestic sewage, from the University
of Lagos sewer system, at a flow rate of 7.87m3/s (680m3/day) was introduced into the beds.
• Water hyacinth plants (Eichhornia crassipes) obtained from natural specimens grown in polluted canal at Iwaya, near the University of Lagos, Nigeria were planted on the ponds
• Initially, a total of 15.6m3 of water hyacinth was planted on the pond i.e. an average of 2.6m2 per bed.
• The area covered by the water hyacinth on each bed was measured weekly for 24 weeks from 18th March, 2010 to 31st August, 2010..
8
OBSERVATIONS• Samples of the sewage influent and effluent
were collected at Influent and Effluent Points on a weekly basis
• Observation Period was from 18th March, 2010 to 31st August, 2010.
• The samples were analysed in the laboratory to determine the level of concentration of the observed parameters
• Also, the growth patterns of the water hyacinth plants on each bed were monitored and measured.
Methods
9
Water Hyacinth Growth Profile• The growth profile of the water
hyacinth on the sewage ponds is plotted against time.
• It is observed that the growth profile follows an exponential profile.
• The plant growth slowly in the first few weeks and then grow exponentially until the 11th week when the whole pond was covered with the plant
• It was observed that the growth pattern increased from Bed 1 to Bed 6 just as the quality of the sewage improved
Total Area Covered
-
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
Tota
l Are
a C
over
ed (S
q.m
.)
Total Area Covered
Water Hyacinth Growth in Each Bed
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (weeks)
Are
a C
over
ed (s
q.m
.)
Bed1
Bed2
Bed3
Bed4
Bed5
Bed6
10
Colour• The effluent colour improved from initial level of 195pcu to 0pcu in
week 19 and remain so until week 24. • It was observed that the water hyacinth-based sewage treatment
plant was able to reduced the influent level for colour from average of 209 pcu to 0 pcu at effluent point after 19 weeks
• 100% removal level was achieved for colour
Influent and Effluent Colour % Colour Removal
Influent_Effluent Colour
-
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
Col
our (
pcu)
Influent Colour
Effluent Colour
% Colour Removal
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
% R
emov
al
% Colour Removal
11
Turbidity• The effluent turbidity improved from initial level of 100HTU to 64.2HTU
to 6.7 HTU at week 24. • It was observed that the water hyacinth-based sewage treatment plant
was able to reduce the Influent Turbidity from an average of 93 HTU to a final effluent level of 6.7 HTU
• 92.93% removal level for turbidity at the end of the 24 weeks observation
Influent_Effluent Turbidity
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Week)
Turb
idity
(HTU
)
Influent Turbidity
Effluent Turbidity
Influent and Effluent Turbidity % Turbidity Removal
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
% T
urbi
dity
Rem
oval
% Turbidy Removal
12
Biochemical Oxygen Demands (BOD)
• The effluent BOD improved from initial level of 508 to 83 mg/l.
• The average Influent BOD level of 513mg/l was reduced to a final effluent level of 83mg/l
• 83.84% removal level for BOD was achieved.
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
140.0
160.0
180.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Time (Days)
BO
D (m
g/l)
Influent
Effluent
Influent Vs Effluent BOD
% BOD Removal
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Time (Days)
% B
OD
Rem
oval
% BOD Removal
% TDS Removal
13
Removal of Nitrate• The effluent Nitrate improved from initial level of 9.5
to 2.33 mg/l. • The average Influent Nitrate level of 10.91mg/l was
reduced to a final effluent level of 2.33mg/l• 78.64% removal level for Nitrate was achieved
Influent and Effluent Nitrate % Nitrate Removal
Tnfluent_Effluent Nitrate
-
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Week)
Nitr
ate
(mg/
l)
Influent_Nitrate
Effluent_Nitrate
% Nitrate
-80.00
-60.00
-40.00
-20.00
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Week)
% N
itrat
e R
emov
al% Nitrate
14
Removal of Phosphate
• The effluent Phosphate improved from initial level of 20.60 to 2.60 mg/l.
• The average Influent Phosphate level of 21.75mg/l was reduced to a final effluent level of 2.60mg/l
• 88.05% removal level for Phosphate was achieved
Influent and Effluent Phosphate % Phosphate Removal
Influen_Effluent Phosphate
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Influent_Phosphate
Effluent_Phosphate
% Phosphate Removal
-
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
% P
hosp
hate
Rem
oval
% Phosphate Removal
15
E-coli• The average Influent e-coli level was 2077.2 cfu/100ml.• The effluent e-coli was reduced from about 1980
cfu/100ml to 7.0 cfu/100ml after 24 weeks of operation• The average percent removal of coliforms was 99.66%
was achieved.
Influent vs Effluent E-coli % E-coli Removal
Influent_Effluent e_coli (cfu/100ml)
-
500.00
1,000.00
1,500.00
2,000.00
2,500.00
3,000.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
e-co
li le
vel (
cfu/
100m
l)
Influent_e_coli
Effluent_e-coli
% e-coli Removal
-
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (Weeks)
% e
-col
i Rem
oval
% e-coli Removal
16
Summary of ResultsParameter Average
Influent Level
Final Effluent
Level
% Removal
Colour (pcu) 209 0 100.00Turbidity (HTU) 95 6.7 92.96TDS (mg/l) 616 74 88.00BOD5 (mg/l) 513 83 83.84Nitrate (mg/l) 10.91 2.33 78.64Phosphate (mg/l) 21.75 2.60 88.05E-coli (cfu/100ml) 2077.2 7.0 99.66
17
Energy Requirements and Cost Savings
ItemsWater
Hyacinth System
ConventionalSewage
Treatment
% Saving
Energy Requirement
45 KWh 340 KWh 87
Cost/hr N315.00 N2,380.00 87
Cost/day (20 hrs) N6,300.00 N47,600.00 87
Cost/mth (30days) N189,000.00 N1,428,000.00 87
Cost/yr (12 mths) N2,268,000.00 N17,136,000.00 87
Treatment Capacity = 680m3/day
18
Samples along Treatment Process
19
From Influent to Effluent The Difference is Clear!
20
THANK YOU