ADVANCING A NOVEL PROCESS FOR POST‐ANOXIC DENITRIFICATION

Alexander Mockos EIT, Matt Winkler EIT, Erik Coats P.E. Ph.D, University of Idaho, Department of Civil Engineering
Two publications: Coats et al. (2011), Post‐anoxic denitrification driven by PHA and glycogen within EBPR, Bioresource Technology; Winkler et al. (2011), Advancing post‐
anoxic denitrification for biological nutrient removal, Water Research.

INTRODUCTION PROPOSED PROCESS

Reclaimed water standards are becoming increasingly stringent, Post Anoxic Denitrification associated with EBPR:
Post‐Anoxic
pushing wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) to expand. For total
The proposed process would operate similar to conventional post‐anoxic
nitrogen removal, WWTFs must integrate internal flow recycling and
denitrification, but without carbon addition. Instead, the process makes use
increase bioreactor volumes. With regard to phosphorus removal,
of Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal (EBPR) carbon reserves to
WWTFs must incorporate chemical treatment systems, which
efficiently remove phosphorus, ammonia, and nitrate from the wastewater
significantly increase capital and operational costs as well as the
Completely Mixed
sludge production. With current treatment approaches, the benefit of
improved effluent quality is offset by increased energy usage,
increased operational costs, and decreased operational flexibility; this
Efflue
arguably adds cost both to the environment and to the taxpayer. In our nt

view,
view for a truly sustainable society
society, water reclamation and reuse Influe
nt
Anaerobic Aerobic Anoxic
objectives should be centered on effluent quality in relation to energy Waste

consumption, facility footprint, capital and operational costs, and

process control and flexibility. Time

STUDY OBJECTIVES ƒ
ƒ
Reactors were inoculated with biomass from the Moscow, ID WWTF
Real Wastewater was fed to the reactors
1) Assess the effectiveness of the proposed post‐anoxic ƒ VFA rich fermenter liquor was added to wastewater
denitrification with EBPR process ƒ Solids Retention Time (SRT) = 20 days
2) Identify the carbon source driving denitrification ƒ Hydraulic Retention Time (HRT) = 18 hrs
3) Assess specific denitrification rates (SDNRs) under variable
operating conditions
4) Determine the importance of EBPR and VFA augmentation
ADVANTAGES OF POST
POST‐ANOXIC
ANOXIC EBPR
ƒ Eliminates need for internal recycle flows
5) Evaluate the stability of the process in terms of phosphorus ƒ Reduces facility footprint
removal and nitrate removal under varied loading conditions ƒ Eliminates need for anoxic carbon addition
6) Investigate operational changes that optimize the process ƒ Achieves high Phosphorus and Nitrogen removal efficiencies
7) Characterize the bacterial population for Phosphorus ƒ High operational flexibility and Control
Accumulating Organisms (PAOs) and Glycogen Accumulating ƒ Readily retrofitted to existing SBR facilities
Organisms (GAOs)
RESULTS
1.Effectiveness of Post‐Denitrification with EBPR 3. Importance of VFAs and EBPR 5. Towards Process Optimization
160 25 160 25 160 25
140 AN AE AX AN AE AX AN AE AX
140
monia, Nitrate (mg/L)

20
mg/L)

20 20
Phosphate (mgg/L)

120
Phosphate (mgg/L)

120 Phosphate 120

Phosphate (mg//L)

Ammonia Phosphate
onia, Nitrate (m

Nitrate (mg/L))
100 15 100 15
Nitrate 15
80 Nitrate
80 80
60 10 60 10 10
Phosphate
40 40 40
Ammonia 5 5 5
Amm

Ammo
P

20 Nitrate 20
0 0 0 0 0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Time (hr) Time (hr) Time (hr)
ƒ Post‐Anoxic
Post Anoxic Nitrate Removal occurred without ƒ Process is sensitive to VFA concentration in influent ƒ N removal efficiency >90%
compromising EBPR performance ƒ EBPR behavior is fundamental for process success ƒDecreasing the aerobic time and lengthening the
ƒ P removal Efficiencies on average exceeded 96% as it initiates the cycling of PHA and glycogen which is anoxic time enabled us to access the full
ƒ N removal Efficiencies averaged 74%‐ 92% necessary to drive post‐anoxic denitrification denitrification potential of the microorganisms
ƒ High SDNRs : 0.85‐1.17 mg NO3 (hr‐g MLVSS)‐1
2. Carbon
b Source Driving
i i Post‐Anoxic
i Denitrification
i ifi i 4 Eff
4. Effects
t off EExcess VFA augmentation
t ti CONCLUSIONS
240 16 280 25 • Post‐anoxic denitrification can accomplish near‐
AN AE AX 14 AN AE AX complete soluble inorganic N and P removal (> 99%).
200 240
20
PHA (mg/gMLLVSS)

12 Glycogen Process success is enhanced at elevated aeration

Nitrate (mgg/L)
Glycogen (mg//L)
Glycogen (mg//L)

160 200 rates but significant removal can be achieved at

rates,
10 Nit t
Nitrate
160 15 reduced aeration.
120 8 • Intracellular glycogen, synthesized associated with
Glycogen 6 120 10 EBPR, is an important carbon source used by the
80
VFAs 4 80 mixed microbial consortium to achieve denitrification.
40 PHA 5 Appositive correlation between the SDNR and
2 40
intracellular glycogen concentration was observed.
0 0 0 0 Furthermore, glycogen oxidization for denitrification
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 does not compromise subsequent anaerobic VFA
Time (hr) Time (hr) uptake and PHA storage, which is critical to EBPR.
• A mixed VFA substrate (HAc, HPr, HBu, and HVa)
ƒ VFAs and internally stored polyhydroxyalkanoates ƒ High Nitrate Removal efficiencies (>84%)
appears to be more beneficial to process performance
(PHA) are not present anoxically ƒ Effluent Nitrate < 3.2 mg/L
and supports a higher percentage of PAOs than an
ƒ No change in MLVSS was observed therefore cell ƒ Effluent Phosphorus < 0.09 mg/L
acetate‐dominated substrate.
death cannot be responsible for nitrate removal ƒ High SDNRs (1.36 mg NO3 (hr‐g MLVSS)‐1
• Post anoxic secondary P release can occur with NOx
ƒ Glycogen utilized anoxically to drive denitrification ƒMore influent VFAs = more PHA = more glycogen
depletion. However, P release was only observed
ƒ The cycling of PHA and glycogen drives the process available for denitrification = better nitrate removal
when SOT was prevented, and the rate of release was
such that effluent P was only moderately increased.
The post‐anoxic biological nutrient removal process represents a potentially sustainable wastewater treatment • The proposed process configuration is potentially
process: high nutrient removal efficiencies coupled with a small facility footprint, no recycle flows, and no post‐ sensitive to low influent ammonia (< 20 mgN/L), but
anoxic carbon supplementation translate to lower energy requirements and better effluent quality. In addition to stable performance can be maintained by minimizing
reducing energy consumption and operating costs
costs, current EBPR facilities can be readily retrofitted with the SOT
SOT.
proposed process and therefore significantly reduce capital costs associated with a typical process upgrade. • All tested reactor configurations achieved significant P
removal despite variability over time in the relative
PAO fraction, and also considering a relatively
significant GAO population.