ABSTRACT

Two industries in Kumasi were identified to possess Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTP) to
treat the large volumes of wastewater they generate on a daily basis before it was discharged into
a nearby river. This research examined the efficiency of treatment of these two wastewater
treatment plants. Samples were collected from the WWTP of both companies at the point of
entry into the plant, during the treatment process and after the treatment process. Laboratory
analysis was performed for each sample collected to determine the BOD5, COD, TDS, pH,
Nitrate and Nitrite contents of the water. Also, further data was obtained from both companies.
This data contained information on the quality of wastewater before and after treatment for a
period of three months. Results from our analysis revealed that the efficiency of treatment of the
WWTP of one company was 93.4, 94, 61.2, -127.3% for BOD, COD, Turbidity and TDS
respectively but failed to produce water that generally met the EPA standards for wastewater
discharge. The second companys WWTP on the other hand recorded efficiency levels of 90,
56.7, 54.1, 22.6, and 93.3% for Nitrite, BOD, COD, Turbidity, and TDS respectively but
managed to produce wastewater that generally met the EPA standards for wastewater discharge.
100% efficiency meant all of the pollutant was removed from the waste water while 0%
efficiency meant no pollutant was removed. Negative percentage efficiency meant that
wastewater became more polluted after passing through wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).

CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................... I
CHAPTER ONE: ................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 3
1.3 JUSTIFICATION ......................................................................................... 3
1.4 AIMS AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES: ......................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO: ................................................................................................. 5
2.0 LITREATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 5
2.1 Wastewater treatment .................................................................................. 5
2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants ........................................................................... 5
2.3 DESIGN OF COMPANY A AND COMPANY B PLANTS .......................................................... 9
2.4 Parameters of interest ............................................................................... 11
CHAPTER THREE: .............................................................................................. 16
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................... 16
3.1 STUDY SITES .......................................................................................... 16
3.2 SAMPLING SITES ....................................................................................... 18
3.3 SAMPLING: ............................................................................................ 25
3.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS: ..................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER FOUR: ............................................................................................... 29
4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................ 29
4.1 LABOURATORY RESULTS FOR WASTEWATER SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM COMPANY A AND COMPANY B WWTP ........... 29
CHAPTER FIVE: ............................................................................................... 42
5.0 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 42
5.1 OVERALL TREATMENT EFFICIENCY OF THE TWO TREATMENT PLANTS ............................................. 42
CHAPTER SIX: ................................................................................................ 53
6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................... 53
6.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 53
6.2 Recommendation ....................................................................................... 54
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 55
APPENDIXES .................................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX 1 : EPA Standards ................................................................................. 57
APPENDIX 2 :Paired t-test for Company A .................................................................... 58
APPENDIX 3 : Paired t-test for Company B ................................................................... 59
APPENDIX 4 : simple t-test for company A and company B Effluent ............................................ 60
APPENDIX 5 : Simple t-test for company A and company B influent ............................................ 60
APPENDIX 6 : Post hoc results for three month analysis of efficiency of Company A WWTP ..................... 61
APPENDIX 7 : Post hoc results for three month analysis of efficiency of Company B WWTP ..................... 61
APPENDIX 8 ................................................................................................. 62

LIST OF PLATES
PLATE 1: Areal view of the premises and layout of WWPT at Company A ...16
PLATE 2: Areal view of the premises and layout of WWPT at Company B ...17
II

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1: Basic design of Company A plant .. ..21
FIGURE 3.2: Basic design of Company B plant .....24
FIGURE 4.11: TDS results for Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP ....30
FIGURE 4.12: pH results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP ...31
FIGURE 4.13: Turbidity results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP .....32
FIGURE 4.14: COD results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP ....33
FIGURE 4.15: BOD5 results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP .34

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1: Design specifications of Company A WWTP from WWTP manufacturer ..9
TABLE 2.2: Design specifications of Company B WWTP from WWTP manufacturer .10
TABLE 4.1: Results for nitrate and nitrite analysis of wastewater from both companies ..35
Table 4.2: Efficiency during the treatment process of wastewater from both WWTPs..35
Table 4.3: Results of the mean wastewater quality and standard deviation over three
Months from Company A .......37
Table 4.4: Results of the mean wastewater quality and standard deviation over three months
from Company B. ...38
Table 4.5: Efficiency after the treatment process of wastewater from both WWTPs.......39

Table 4.6: Quantity that was removed and remained after the entire treatment process from both
Companies...40

III

CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
Wastewater is any water that has been adversely affected in quality by anthropogenic
influence that goes down the drain or sewage system. It comprises liquid waste discharged by
domestic residences, commercial properties, industries, and agricultural facilities. It can
encompass a wide range of potential contaminants at variable concentrations. In the most
common usage, it refers to the municipal wastewater that contains a broad spectrum of
contaminants resulting from the mixing of wastewater from homes, businesses, industrial
areas and often storm drains, especially in older sewer systems. Municipal wastewater is
usually treated in a combined sewer, sanitary sewer, effluent sewer or septic tank.

The composition of wastewater varies widely. Most commonly found in wastewater include
water (about 90%) which is often added during flushing to carry waste down a drain;
pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, prions and parasitic worms; non-pathogenic bacteria;
organic particles such as faeces, hairs, food, vomit, paper fibers, plant material, humus, etc.;
soluble organic material such as urea, fruit sugars, soluble proteins, drugs, pharmaceuticals,
etc.; inorganic particles such as sand, grit, metal particles, ceramics, etc.; soluble inorganic
material such as ammonia, road-salt, sea-salt, cyanide, hydrogen sulfide, thiocyanates,
thiosulfates, etc.; animals such as protozoa, insects, arthropods, small fish, etc.; macro-solids
such as sanitary napkins, nappies/diapers, condoms, needles, children's toys, dead animals or
plants, etc.; gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.; emulsions such as
1

paints, adhesives, mayonnaise, hair colorants, emulsified oils, etc.; toxins such as pesticides,
poisons, herbicides, etc.

Wastewater quality may be defined by its physical and chemical characteristics. Physical
parameters include colour, odour, temperature, and turbidity. Insoluble contents such as total
solids (TS), oil and grease also fall into this category. Chemical parameters associated with
the organic content of wastewater include biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical
oxygen demand (COD), and total organic carbon (TOC).

There are numerous processes that can be used to clean up wastewaters depending on the
type and extent of contamination. Most wastewater is treated in industrial-scale wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) which may include physical, chemical and biological treatment
processes.

The most important aerobic treatment system is the activated sludge process, based on the
maintenance and recirculation of a complex biomass composed by micro-organisms able to
adsorb the organic matter carried in the wastewater. Anaerobic processes are widely applied
in the treatment of industrial wastewaters and biological sludge (Burton et al, 2003). Some
wastewater may be highly treated and reused as reclaimed water. For some wastewaters
ecological approaches using reed bed systems such as constructed wetlands may be
appropriate. Modern systems include tertiary treatment by micro filtration or synthetic
membranes. After membrane filtration, the treated wastewater is indistinguishable from
waters of natural origin of drinking quality. Nitrates can be removed from wastewater by
microbial denitrification, for which a small amount of methanol is typically added to provide
the bacteria with a source of carbon. Ozone Wastewater Treatment is also growing in

popularity, and requires the use of an ozone generator, which decontaminates the water as
ozone bubbles percolate through the tank (Burton et al., 2003).

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Two industries have been identified in the Kaasi industrial area in Kumasi to generate large
quantities of wastewater as a result of their manufacturing processes. Both industries are in
the food production sector and for the purpose of this project would be addressed as
Company A and Company B. Both industries have modern wastewater treatment facilities
that treat wastewater generated through rigorous cleaning of machinery to prevent the growth
of microbes, the pasteurization process, and heating and cooling, Residual material from
bottles broken or rejected in the packaging areas along with liquid in the process tanks, also
contributes to wastewater.

Treated wastewater from these companies is discharged into the River Sisa (which forms a
part of the Sisa-Oda catchment area of the eastern part of Kumasi) which is a few meters
away from the company sites. Improperly treated wastewater has negative effects on surface
waters. These effects include increase in Oxygen demand, escalated microbial growth, dying
of aquatic organisms due to O2-deficiency and possibly toxic compounds accumulating and
polluting the river water.

1.3 JUSTIFICATION
Around 90% of wastewater produced globally remains untreated, causing widespread water
pollution, especially in low-income countries such as Ghana. Increasingly, agriculture is
using untreated wastewater for irrigation. Cities provide lucrative markets for fresh produce,
so are attractive to farmers. However, because agriculture has to compete for increasingly
3

scarce water resources with industry and municipal users, there is often no alternative for
farmers but to use water polluted with urban and industrial waste directly to water their crops
(Drechsel et al., 2010). Communities downstream of the river also use the water for domestic
purposes such as cooking, drinking, bathing and washing.

The practice whereby wastewater from manufacturing industries is released into water bodies
is a potential for national disaster when proper care and attention is not given to the treatment
of the wastewater before releasing into our rivers. This project seeks to identify the pollution
load on the river Sisa from the two companies by determining the treatment efficiency of the
WWTP of both companies.

1.4 AIMS AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES:

The aim of this project was to determine the treatment efficiency of wastewater from
two different beverage producing industries in Kumasi.

The specific objectives were as follows:

To determine the physico-chemical properties (BOD5, COD, Total Dissolved Solids,

Turbidity, Nitrates, Nitrites and pH) of raw wastewater from the two companies.

To determine the reduction in levels of contamination in the wastewater after

treatment by comparing the wastewater quality before treatment to the quality after
treatment.

To determine potential problems in the wastewater treatment procedure/plant that

may be affecting its efficiency for improving wastewater treatment and to make
appropriate recommendations to remediate such problems.

CHAPTER TWO:
2.0 LITREATURE REVIEW
2.1 Wastewater treatment
Wastewater is water that has come into contact with any of a variety of contaminants and is
not fit for human consumption. Wastewater has its source in domestic settings, commercial
operations, industry and agriculture (The FreeDictionary, 2013). To ensure the safe discharge
and use of wastewater it seems fairly obvious that we need to treat wastewater not only to
recycle the water and nutrients but also to protect human and environmental health.

2.2 Wastewater Treatment Plants

Generally WWTP are constructed to ensure that wastewater generated is remediated to meet
the requirements set by local and governmental regulators and environmental protection
agencies. The assessment of the efficiency of sewage treatment plants in Nagasandra and
Nailasandra in Bangalore, India by Ravi et al (2010) provides a typical example of how
important wastewater treatment plants are. Bangalore city hosts two Urban Wastewater
Treatment Plants (UWTPS) towards the periphery of Vrishabhavathi valley, located in
Nellakedaranahalli village of Nagasandra and Mailasandra Village, Karnataka, India. These
plants were designed and constructed with an aim to manage wastewater so as to minimize
and/or remove organic matter, solids, nutrients, disease-causing organisms and other
pollutants, before it reenters a water body. It was revealed from the performance study that
efficiency of the two treatment plants was poor with respect to removal of total dissolved
solids in contrast to the removal/reduction in other parameters like total suspended solids,
BOD5 and COD (Ravi et al., 2010).
5

Wastewater treatment plants should be designed so that the effluent standards and reuse
objectives, and biosolids regulations can be met with reasonable ease and cost. The design
should incorporate flexibility for dealing with seasonal changes, as well as long-term changes
in wastewater quality and future regulations (Syed, 1999). Before the construction of a
wastewater treatment plant, analysis is always performed on the quality of the raw
wastewater that is required to be treated. The determination of the quality aids in identifying
which treatment processes are capable of improving the quality of the wastewater and finally
selecting the best treatment process among all the options.

The operation and maintenance of the completed facility requires expertise from various
fields in engineering and science. Principles from a wide range of disciplines: engineering,
chemistry, microbiology, geology, architecture, and economics are required to carry out the
responsibilities of designing, constructing, operating and maintaining a wastewater treatment
plant (Syed, 1999).

For every industry type there is a peculiar configuration of effluent treatment plant setups.
For example, brewery industries have a peculiar setup for a WWTP. Similarly, the leather
industry has its own, the dairy industry has its own, and the textile dyeing industry also has
its own setup. But the general processes of treatment are:

1. Pretreatment: This removes materials that can be easily collected from the raw
sewage before they damage or clog the pumps and sewage lines. It may include
activities such as:
o Screening: sewage water passes through a bar screen to remove all large objects like
cans, rags, sticks, plastic packets.
6

o Grit Removal: This involves a sand or grit channel or chamber, where the velocity of
the incoming sewage is adjusted to allow the settlement of sand, grit, stones, and
broken glass.
o Flow Equalization: Equalization basins may be used for temporary storage of diurnal
or wet-weather flow peaks. Basins provide a place to temporarily hold incoming
sewage during plant maintenance and a means of diluting and distributing batch
discharges of toxic or high-strength waste which might otherwise inhibit biological
treatment
o Fat and Grease Removal: According to Roy (1971), in some larger plants, fat and
grease are removed by passing the sewage through a small tank where skimmers
collect the fat floating on the surface.
2. Primary Treatment: In the primary sedimentation stage, sewage flows through large
tanks, commonly called "pre-settling basins", "primary sedimentation tanks" or
"primary clarifiers". The tanks are used to settle sludge while grease and oils rise to
the surface and are skimmed off (Roy, 1971).
3. Secondary Treatment: It is essentially designed to substantially degrade the
biological content of the wastewater. Secondary treatment systems are classified as
fixed-film or suspended-growth systems.
Fixed-film or attached growth systems include Trickling Filters, Biotowers, and
Rotating Biological Contactors, where the biomass grows on media and the
wastewater passes over its surface. The fixed-film principle has further developed into
Moving Bed Biofilm Reactors (MBBR), and Integrated Fixed-Film Activated Sludge
(IFAS) processes.
Suspended-growth systems include activated sludge, where the biomass is mixed with
the sewage and can be operated in a smaller space than trickling filters that treat the
same amount of water.
7

However, fixed-film systems are more able to cope with drastic changes in the
amount of biological material and can provide higher removal rates for organic
material and suspended solids than suspended growth systems (USEPA, 2004).
4. Tertiary Treatment: The purpose of tertiary treatment is to provide a final treatment
stage to further improve the effluent quality before it is discharged to the receiving
environment (sea, river, lake, and ground). More than one tertiary treatment process
may be used at any treatment plant. If disinfection is practiced, it is always the final
process. Tertiary treatment processes include sand filtration, nutrient removal
(nitrogen and phosphorus) and disinfection (chlorination, ozonation, ultra-violent)
(USEPA, 2004).
5. Odour Control: Odours are emitted by wastewater treatment and are typically an
indication of an anaerobic or "septic" condition. Early stages of processing will tend
to produce foul smelling gases, with hydrogen sulfide being most common. Most
industrial WWTP will often treat the odours with carbon reactors, a contact media
with bio-slimes, small doses of chlorine, or circulating fluids to biologically capture
and metabolize the obnoxious gases. Other methods of odour control exist, including
addition of iron salts, hydrogen peroxide, and calcium nitrate (Harshman and
Barnette., 2000)

2.3 DESIGN OF COMPANY A AND COMPANY B PLANTS

2.3.1 WWTP at COMPANY A

The WWTP at company A was constructed in the year 2004. The plant was designed to
handle an average wastewater of 2100 m3/day and a peak flow of 105m3/hour. According to
the specifications of the design, the plant could handle incoming wastewater with the
following characteristics.
Table 2.3.1: Design specifications of Company A Wastewater Treatment Plant from WWTP
manufacturer

COD (mg/l)

TSS (mg/l)

BOD5 (mg/l)

NITRATE (mg/l)

MAX

5813

713

3328

0.86

MIN

1967

195

1453

0.36

AVERAGE

3783

310

2322

0.61

The discharge parameters of the plant design are also listed below:
Flow m3/hr (peak)

105

pH range

6-9

TSS

50mg/l

BOD5

50mg/l

COD

250mg/l

Nitrate

50mg/l

Source: Environmental Department Of Company A.

2.3.2 WWTP at COMPANY B

Company Bs WWTP was also constructed in the year 2004. The plant was designed to
handle an average of 1400m3/day of wastewater and a peak flow of 95m3/hour. According to
the specifications of the design, the plant could handle incoming wastewater with the
following characteristics:
Table 2.3.2: Design specifications of Company B Wastewater Treatment Plant from WWTP
manufacturer

MAX

COD

TSS

BOD5

NITRATE

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

2,500

100

1,500

The discharge parameters of the plant design are also listed below:
95

pH range

6-9

TSS

50mg/l

BOD5

50mg/l

COD

150mg/l

Nitrate

5mg/l

Phosphate

2 mg/l

Source: Wastewater Treatment Department Of Company B.

10

PHOSPHATE
(mg/l)

Flow m3/hr (peak)

pH

11.8

3.5

2.4 Parameters of interest

There are numerous parameters that may be used in determining the quality of water, whether
drinking water or wastewater. These parameters include alkalinity, colour, COD, BOD5,
conductivity, pH, TDS, total phosphorus, TSS, turbidity, nitrate, total coliforms, heavy metal
content, E. coli. For each kind of water analysis that is performed, parameters are selected
based on a number of factors which include the intended use of the water, the source of the
water, the kind of treatment which the water may have already undergone, the likely sources
of contamination of the water. Analysis of water which is intended for drinking purposes for
example must definitely include bacteriological analysis of total coliforms and E. coli.
Wastewater from an industry such as a mining industry must definitely include in its
analytical parameters heavy metal concentration.

For the purposes of this project, which examined wastewater from beverage production
companies, the following parameters were identified and analysis was done based on them;
BOD5, COD, total dissolved solids, turbidity, nitrates, nitrites and pH. Each parameter was
chosen considering its impact on the environment as the wastewater was discharged directly
into the surrounding environment. Also these parameters were selected because both
WWTPs were designed for the treatment of such parameters in wastewater.

2.4.1 BOD5

Biochemical oxygen demand or BOD5 is the amount of dissolved oxygen needed by aerobic
microorganisms in a body of water to break down organic material present in a given water
sample at certain temperature over a specific time period. The BOD5 value is measured in
11

milligrams of oxygen consumed per litre of sample in 5 days of incubation at 20 C and it

indicates the degree of organic pollution of water (Sawyer et al., 2003).

Most natural waters contain small quantities of organic compounds. Aquatic microorganisms
have evolved to use some of these compounds as food. Microorganisms living in oxygenated
waters use dissolved oxygen to convert the organic compounds into energy for growth and
reproduction. Populations of these microorganisms tend to increase in proportion to the
amount of food available. This microbial metabolism creates an oxygen demand proportional
to the amount of organic compounds useful as food. Under some circumstances, microbial
metabolism can consume dissolved oxygen faster than atmospheric oxygen can dissolve into
the water or the autotrophic community (algae, cyanobacteria and macrophytes) can produce.
Fish and aquatic insects may die when oxygen is depleted by microbial metabolism
(Goldman and Horne, 1983).

2.4.2 COD

Chemical Oxygen Demand is the amount of oxygen required to chemically oxidize organic
matter in water. It is expressed in milligrams per litre (mg/L) also referred to as ppm (parts
per million), which indicates the mass of oxygen consumed per litre of solution (Sawyer et al,
2003).

Though BOD5 and COD all measure the organic content of water, COD values are far larger
than BOD5 as not all organic material can be oxidized biologically. High COD values have
similar environmental effects as high BOD5 values

12

2.4.3 TDS

Total Dissolved Solids is a measure of the combined content of all inorganic and organic
substances contained in a liquid in: molecular, ionized or micro-granular suspended form.
Generally the operational definition is that the solids must be small enough to survive
filtration through a sieve the size of two micrometer. Although TDS is not generally
considered a primary pollutant (e.g. it is not deemed to be associated with health effects) it is
used as an indication of aesthetic characteristics of water and as an aggregate indicator of the
presence of a broad array of chemical contaminants.

High TDS levels generally indicate hard water. A number of studies have been conducted and
indicate various species' reactions to high levels of TDS range from intolerance to outright
toxicity. Most aquatic ecosystems involving mixed fish fauna can tolerate TDS levels of 1000
mg/l (Boyd, 1999).

Research has shown that exposure to TDS is compounded in toxicity when other stressors
are present, such as abnormal pH, high turbidity, or reduced dissolved oxygen (Hogan et al.,
1973).

2.4.4 TURBIDITY

Turbidity is the cloudiness or haziness of a fluid caused by individual particles (suspended

solids) that are generally invisible to the naked eye. Fluids can contain suspended solid matter
consisting of particles of many different sizes. While some suspended material will be large
enough and heavy enough to settle rapidly to the bottom of the container if a liquid sample is
left to stand, very small particles will settle only very slowly or not at all if the sample is
13

regularly agitated or the particles are colloidal. These small solid particles cause the liquid to
appear turbid. The most widely used measurement unit for turbidity is the NTU
(Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) (Baton, 2007).

In water bodies such as lakes, rivers and reservoirs, high turbidity levels can reduce the
amount of light reaching lower depths, which can inhibit growth of submerged aquatic plants
and consequently affect species which are dependent on them, such as fish and shellfish.
High turbidity levels can also affect the ability of fish gills to absorb dissolved oxygen (Court
et al., 1979).

2.4.5 pH

pH approximates the concentration of hydrogen ions in a solution. The pH value is the

negative logarithm (base 10) of the concentration of Hydrogen ions in the solution. pH is
measured on a scale of 0 to 14 with the lower values indicating high hydrogen ion activity
(more acidic) and high values indicating low hydrogen ion activity (less acidic). A pH of 7 is
neutral. Every whole unit of pH change represents a ten-fold change in the hydrogen ion
activity. For example, a pH of 5 is ten times more active than a pH of 6 and a pH of 4 is one
hundred times more active than a pH of 6. In the laboratory pH is measured by electrometric
pH measurement which is the determination of the activity of the hydrogen ions by
potentiometric measurement using a standard hydrogen electrode and a reference electrode.
The pH of the environment has a profound effect on the rate of microbial growth. pH affects
the function of metabolic enzymes. Acidic conditions (low pH) or basic conditions (high pH)
alter the structure of the enzyme and stop growth. Most microorganisms do well within a pH
range of 6.5 to 8.5. However, some enzyme systems can tolerate extreme pHs and will thrive
in acidic or basic environments. Abnormal or irregular pH in biological treatment processes
14

can result in a significant decrease in the rate of removal of organic compounds from the
environment, which will affect the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) measurements
(Bates, 1973).

2.4.6 NITRATE / NITRITE

Nitrates and nitrites are nitrogen-oxygen chemical units which combine with various organic
and inorganic compounds. Unlike dissolved oxygen and TDS, the presence of normal levels
of nitrates usually does not have a direct effect on aquatic insects or fish. However, excess
levels of nitrates in water can create conditions that make it difficult for aquatic insects or fish
to survive.

Algae and other plants use nitrates as a source of food. If algae have an unlimited source of
nitrates, their growth is unchecked. Large amounts of algae can cause extreme fluctuations in
dissolved oxygen. Photosynthesis by algae and other plants can generate oxygen during the
day. However, at night, dissolved oxygen may decrease to very low levels as a result of large
numbers of oxygen consuming bacteria feeding on dead or decaying algae and other plants
(Madhab and Satya, 2009). Nitrates, when present with phosphates in water bodies, could
cause a condition known as eutrophication, which could further result in an anoxic event
(lack of oxygen).

Nitrate is a soluble nutrient found in fertilizers and sewage that percolates through the ground
and into aquifers. People who use aquifers as their source of drinking water are at a risk as
high nitrate (NO3) levels cause methemoglobinemia, or Blue Baby Syndrome, which can be
fatal to infants

15

CHAPTER THREE:
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 STUDY SITES
Two industries have been identified in the Kaasi industrial area in Kumasi to generate large
quantities of wastewater which ends up in the river Sisa. Both industries are in the food
production sector.

Plate 1: Areal view of the premises and layout of WWPT at Company A.

Company A is a Ghana-based company that is principally engaged in brewing. The
company was founded more than 40 years ago and is based in Kumasi, Ghana. The company
produces three alcoholic beverages and three non-alcoholic beverages.

16

Sampling from Company A was done at the wastewater treatment plant. The image at the
top shows the layout of the company site with the area marked blue indicating the production
site and the area marked red indicating the wastewater treatment site of the company. The
wastewater treatment plant of Company A is based on two separate proprietary biological
processes. Both processes incorporate a random packed media system, which is also a
propriety product:
1. Hybrid technology (Anaerobic)
2. Submerged Aerobic filter (Aerobic)

Plate 2: Areal view of the premises and layout of WWPT at Company B

Company B is located at Asokwa in Kumasi, Ghana. The Company produces and markets
seven main brands, five carbonated soft drinks and two water brands.

17

Sampling from Company B was done at the wastewater treatment plant. The image at the
top shows the layout of the company site with the area marked blue indicating the production
site and the area marked red indicating the wastewater treatment site of the company.

The wastewater treatment plant of Company B is based on one principal biological process
which is the Activated Sludge Process (Aerobic). This process is repeated in three tanks
during the process of treatment.

3.2 SAMPLING SITES

3.2.1 COMPANY A

The plant has a concrete inlet sump designed as two sections within a common structure. It is
covered to contain odour which is directed to the odour control unit for treatment. The
influent flows by gravity through a 25mm manually raked bar screen into the second section
of the inlet sump. Submerged pumps then transfer the wastewater from the secondary section
to a rotary screen. The rotary screen has a 2mm wedge wire screen and particles larger than
2mm were removed from the wastewater.

The screened wastewater passes out through a drum via gravity, into the balancing tank. If
the wastewater is outside the normal operation conditions, it is directed to the divert tank. The
plant has a balancing tank of 8 hours maximum retention time for influent load equalization
through the process of fermentation. It also has a divert tank with a 2 hour retention time
capacity. Both the balancing tank and the divert tank were constructed of glass coated
sectional steel. The balancing tank however was designed to include a pre-acidification stage

18

for pH control and also has a vented roof for odour collecting to the odour control unit. The
content of the divert tank was fed back to the inlet sump in a controlled manner for treatment.

Variable speed pumps then transferred the water from the balancing tank to the anaerobic
reactor. The reactor was constructed from glass coated sectional steal and has a sealed roof.
The upper zone of the reactor contained randomly packed plastic media to a depth of two (2)
meters. On entering the reactor, the wastewater immediately mixed with the anaerobic
biomass. The reactor converts the COD content of the wastewater to methane, CO2 and new
biomass. C6H12O6

3CH4 + 3CO2. The treated wastewater, biogas and some of the

anaerobic biomass flowed up into the packed media zone. At this point, three-phase
separation took place, dividing the liquid, gas and biomass into their separate constituents.
The treated wastewater flowed through the media and out from the reactor via a peripheral
launder channel into the degassing column. The anaerobic biomass was detached from the
biogas and separated from the treated wastewater as it passed through the packed media zone.
The biomass then fell back into the reactor and the biogas rose into the roof space above the
packed media zone.

From the degassing column, the wastewater flowed under gravity to the submerged aerated
filter where the second stage of the biological treatment took place via an aerobic process.
The reactor was constructed with glass coated sectional steel. The reactor contained randomly
packed plastic media, elevated and separated from the base of the reactor by a media support
platform but submerged in the anaerobically treated wastewater. The media provided a large
surface area on which the bacteria attached themselves. Air was pumped into the reactor by
blowers and was controlled via a dissolved oxygen probe located in the reactor. The air and
wastewater mixed and rose slowly to the packed media zone where it made contact with the

19

aerobic biomass on the media surface. The aerobic bacteria further degraded the COD content
of the wastewater to produce more water, new aerobic biomass and CO2

The aerobically treated wastewater then moved from the aerobic tank to the clarifier tank.
The clarifier tank was constructed of glass coated sectional steel with a sloping concrete base.
The effluent from the submerged aerated filter (SAF) gravitates to the central diffuser drum
to allow the solids in the effluent to be separated. The clarified effluent flowed to a peripheral
launder and gravitate over a v-notch weir. The solid deposited at the base of the clarifier
were transferred to a central hopper by a half bridge scraper. The sludge was then pumped to
the aerobic sludge holding tank.

The clarified effluent then gravitates through the service water tank to the discharge point to
be discharged from the facility.

20

Wastewaterfrom
fromthe
brewery
Wastewater
brewery

Pre-Treatment

Manual screen
S1002

Screen press

Influent Pit
Bypass

Buffering
Divert Tank

Balancing Tank

pH correction tank
Acid

Anaerobic Effluent tank

Caustic

Buffer tank
T2001

Submerged Aerated
Filter

AEROBIC
TREATMENT
acid

Divert tank

Clarifier
T2002

FINAL EFFLUENT
DISCHARGE
FIG 3.1: Basic design of Company A plant and sampling points
FIG 3.1: Basic design of Company A plant and sampling points
21

POST
TREATMENT

3.2.2 COMPANY B

Wastewater from the production hall or any other place reached the treatment plant by first
passing through the bar screens. The bar screen is a manually operated two step bar installed
in the existing drain from the pumping station inlet. Its main purpose is to remove large
particles in the wastewater such as crown caps and drinking straws.

From there the wastewater flowed into a Sand-Oil trap (Grit chamber). This chamber serves
as a sand and oil trap to separate coarse matter like broken bottles, sand and stone. The preclearified water passed the overflow into the neutralization chamber.

In the neutralization chamber, there was an agitator that constantly mixed the wastewater
while the water was being dosed with acid (HCl). The constant agitation of the water
prevented sedimentation and bad odour. The pH of the wastewater was controlled by a pH
measurement unit which automatically checks the pH of the wastewater and then dosed the
water in other to attain optimum pH for treatment.

The neutralized water flowed by gravity into a pump pit where two submerged pumps were
installed. These pumps pumped the water into the biological treatment unit BENB (Balancing
Equalization and Neutralization Basin).

The BENB was constructed from glass coated sectional steal and has a maximum capacity of
780m3. Water was pumped into this basin at a rate of 180m3/h. The BENB uses biological
means through an activated sludge process to partially treat the water. After a fixed time of
aeration and settlement, the clear water is pumped into the SBR1. The SBR1 (Sequencing
Batch Reactor 1) was constructed from glass coated sectional steal and has a maximum
22

capacity of 780m3. The neutralized and treated wastewater from the BENB having settled,
was pumped into the SBR1 where treatment was same as in the BENB. The treated
wastewater from the SBR1 was pumped into the SBR2 where treatment was same as in the
SBR1. The SBR2 (Sequencing Batch Reactor 2) was constructed from glass coated sectional
steal and has a maximum capacity of 780m3. With the aid of oxygen in compressed air from
blowers into the tanks, microorganisms reduce BOD and COD in the water.

After treatment of the water in the SBR2 the wastewater was transferred into storage tanks.
The storage tanks act as temporary storage of the effluent before it was discharged into drains
out of the premises of the company.

23

Wastewater from the production hall

PRE-TREATMENT

Bar Screen

Sand-Oil trap

BUFFERING

Neutralization chamber

PUMP

BENB
PUMP

AEROBIC TREATMENT

SBR1
PUMP

SBR2

STORAGE

FINAL EFFLUENT DISCHARGE

FIG 3.2: Basic design of Company B plant and sampling points
24

POST
TREATMENT

3.3 SAMPLING:
Sampling for this project was conducted in two separate groups. One group of samples was
obtained from the wastewater treatment facility on the premises of Company A, while the
other group of samples was obtained from the wastewater treatment facility on the premises
of Company B. Composite samples were collected for this project and were collected at
intervals of 2hrs for a 24 hour period. Sampling for this project was done once.

Three samples were collected from each treatment plant using water sampling bottles as seen
in Fig 3.1 and Fig 3.2. The three samples collected from each plant were taken from:
1. Wastewater entering the treatment facility (influent). These samples were labeled
A1 for Company A and B1 for Company B.
2. Wastewater in the treatment plant which was undergoing treatment. These samples
were labeled A2 for Company A and B2 for Company B.
3. Treated wastewater being released from the treatment plant into a drainage system
(effluent). These samples were labeled A3 for Company A and B3 for
Company B.

3.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS:

All six samples collected (A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3) were transported in an ice chest to the
laboratory at Ghana Water Company office at Suame. Laboratory analyses of the samples
were conducted there to identify chemical and physical properties of all the samples
collected.

25

3.4.1 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

Physical parameters analyzed were total dissolved solids (TDS), pH, and turbidity. The pH
analysis was done using a pH meter, while the turbidity was done using the turbidimeter.
Analysis of total dissolved solids in the samples was done using a conductivity Meter.

3.4.2 CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

Chemical parameters of the samples analyzed where COD, BOD, Nitrates and Nitrite. The
COD test was done using a COD reactor, where 2ml of each sample was put in a test tube
containing a reacting agent (Potassium dichromate) and then the test tube put into the reactor
for 2 hours.

The BOD5 test was carried out by diluting each sample with oxygen saturated dilution water,
measuring the dissolved oxygen (DO) and then sealing the sample to prevent further oxygen
dissolving in. The samples were kept at 20 C in the dark to prevent photosynthesis (and
thereby the addition of oxygen) for five days, and the dissolved oxygen was measured again.
The difference between the final DO and initial DO was the BOD5.

The nitrate test was carried out by taking 20ml of each sample and putting in separate
containers. Each sample was digested using Palintest Nitratest powder. The digested solution
was shaken to properly mix. The solution was then allowed to stand for a while to settle and
decant. A portion of the decanted solution was collected into a round test tube and put into a
Palintest Photometer. A wavelength of 570nm on the photometer was used to determine the
presence of nitrate in the samples.
26

The nitrite test was carried out by collecting 50ml of each sample into test tubes. 2ml of
ILOSVAYs N2 1 solution was added to each sample in the test tube. This was followed by
adding 2ml of ILOSVAYs N2 2 solution to each test tube. After 15 minutes the samples
were filtered into another container using a filter paper and then analysed with a Nessleriser
for presence of nitrite.

3.4.3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A number of statistical analysis were conducted on the results obtained from our laboratory
analysis of wastewater from both companies WWTP. These analysis were:
1. Paired t-test: This analysis was done by comparing the mean values of the wastewater
characteristics before treatment and after the treatment processes to determine if there
was any statistically significant difference between them.

2. Simple t-test: This analysis was done by comparing the mean values of wastewater
characteristics of the influent of both companies to determine if there was any
significant difference between them. Similarly, the analysis was done for the effluents
of both companies to determine if there was any significant difference between them.

3. Post hoc: This analysis was done by comparing the mean values of wastewater
treatment efficiency over a period of three months to determine if there was any
significant differences in efficiency between the three months. This analysis was done
for each company separately. The analysis was conducted for data obtained from the
laboratories of the two companies.
27

A table is represented in the appendix that summarise the results of the statistical
analysis that was conducted. The statistical software that was used was SPSS version
16.0 and also a Graphical representation software (Microsoft Excel) was used to
generate graphs of the results we obtained.

28

CHAPTER FOUR:
4.0 RESULTS
The results obtained from laboratory analysis of the samples collected from Company A
and Company B are presented in this chapter.

4.1 LABOURATORY RESULTS FOR WASTEWATER SAMPLES

COLLECTED FROM COMPANY A AND COMPANY B WWTP

Laboratory results that were obtained from Company A samples revealed some level of
improvement in wastewater quality. Parameters such as pH, nitrate content and nitrite content
remained fairly the same after the treatment of the water. Total dissolved solid in the
wastewater on the other hand increased in concentration after the treatment of the wastewater.
Turbidity, BOD5 and COD recorded some level of reduction after treatment. Initial
concentrations of COD and BOD5 before treatment of the wastewater were very high.

Results from Company B wastewater analysis also showed varying degrees of treatment.
Generally every other parameter experienced some level of improvement after the treatment
process. Total dissolved solid were in large quantities before the commencement of the
treatment process but after the treatment the amount was greatly reduced.

pH, Turbidity, COD and BOD5 were in low concentrations before the commencement of
treatment as compared to that of Company A. These parameters of the wastewater were also
reduced after the treatment process. However turbidity of the water during treatment of the
water increases significantly by 328.93% of the initial level before treatment. Nitrate and

29

Nitrite had low initial concentrations and were undetectable in the wastewater after the
treatment process.

Laboratory analysis of the wastewater quality over the last three months was also obtained
from the two companies and presented in a table 4.3. The data from the past three months
were obtained so as to compare with the results we obtained from our laboratory analysis, and
also to analyze the level of consistency in the treatment of the wastewater from the WWTP of
both companies.

Fig 4.11: TDS results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP

TDS for Company A wastewater increased throughout the treatment process from 725mg/l to
1358mg/l and further increased to 1648mg/l after the entire treatment process (Fig 4.11).
30

TDS of Company B on the other hand dropped from 1056mg/l to 187.2mg/l during the
treatment process and then finally dropped to 70.7 mg/l after the treatment process (Fig 4.11).

Fig 4.12: pH results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP

pH for Company A wastewater increased from 8 to 10 during the treatment process but
reduced to 8.1 after the entire treatment process (Fig 4.12).

pH for Company B reduced from an initial point of 9.4 to 8.1 during the treatment process.
But it further reduced to 7.9 after the treatment process (Fig 4 12).

31

ntu
Fig 4.13: Turbidity results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP

Turbidity for Company A reduced from an initial 240.3ntu to 136.2ntu during the treatment
process. It further reduced from 136.2ntu to 93.3ntu after the treatment process was completed
(Fig 4.13)

Company B however recorded an increase in turbidity from an initial point of 23.85ntu to

102.3ntu during the treatment process. The turbidity finally dropped from 102.3ntu to 18.45ntu
(Fig 4.13).

32

4.14: COD results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP

COD of wastewater at Company A before treatment began was very high, but it reduced
drastically from the initial 15850mg/l to 4050 during the treatment process. After the entire
treatment process, the COD had further reduced from 4050mg/l to 1030mg/l (Fig 4.14).

COD of wastewater for Company B increased from an initial 305mg/l to 2450mg/l during the
treatment process but reduced to 140mg/l after the treatment was over (Fig 4.14).

33

Fig 4.15: BOD5 results for 'Company A' and 'Company B' WWTP

BOD for Company A wastewater recorded a large reduction from an initial amount of
8242mg/l to 2146.50mg/l during the treatment process. It further reduced to 545.5mg/l after
the treatment process (Fig 4.15).

BOD of Company B wastewater increased from an initial of 161.65mg/l to 1250mg/l during

the treatment process but reduce to 70mg/l after the treatment process (Fig 4.15).
34

Table 4.1: Results for nitrate and nitrite analysis of wastewater from both companies
COMPANY A
NITRITE (mg/l)

COMPANY B
NITRITE (mg/l)

COMPANY A
NITRATE (mg/l)

COMPANY B
NITRATE (mg/l)

BEFORE

bdl

0.15

bdl

0.01

DURING

bdl

bdl

bdl

bdl

AFTER

bdl

bdl

bdl

0.001

From the results that were obtained and presented in the Table 4.1 above, nitrate and nitrite
were below detection level (bdl) in the influent and effluent of Company A wastewater.
Company B however recorded 0.15mg/l and 0.01mg/l for Nitrite and Nitrate respectively in
influent entering the treatment plant. Nitrate and nitrite levels were not detected in Company
B WWTP during the treatment process but an amount of 0.001mg/l of nitrate was detected
after the treatment of wastewater from Company B WWTP.

Table 4.2: Efficiency of the treatment process of wastewater from both WWTPs

PARAMETER

COMPANY A
(%)

COMPANY B
(%)

- 87.3

82.3

Turbidity (ntu)

43.4

-328.9

COD (mg/l)

74.4

-705.6

BOD5 (mg/l)

73.9

-637.3

Nitrite (mg/l)

100

Total

dissolved

solids

(mg/l)

Negative values in Table 4.2 are an indication that the wastewater became more polluted
during the treatment process. Positive values are an indication of a reduction in pollution in the
wastewater during the treatment process. Company B recorded the highest level of efficiency
of TDS removal (82.3%) while Company A recorded an increase in TDS addition of 87.3%
35

during the treatment process due to the addition of Ammonium Sulphate (NH4)2SO4 as nutrient
for microbial growth in Company A WWTP.

The highest turbidity removal (43.4%) was recorded in Company A while Company B
recorded an increase of turbidity by 328.9% during the treatment process. COD and BOD
removal efficiency was also high in Company A at 74.4% and 73.9% respectively. Company
B recorded an increase in COD and BOD levels at 705.6% and 637.3% respectively. This was
expected because Company B used an activated sludge system. Company B recorded a 100%
reduction in Nitrite concentrations but in Company A nitrite was below detection limit during
the treatment process.

36

Table 4.3: Results of the mean wastewater quality and standard deviation over three
months from Company A

DECEMBER

NOVEMBER

OCTOBER

MONTH

PARAMETER

BEFORE

DURING

AFTER

COD (mg/l)

4,5481362.22

2,364935.63

711130.32

BOD5 (mg/l)

614.75948.84

--

483103.24

pH

111.3

6.90.3

7.60.2

TSS (mg/l)

24264.01

40872.09

19031.49

NITRATE (mg/l)

181.41

--

--

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

227.78

52.511.90

--

TEMPERATURE (oc)

361.39

35.90.53

32.40.87

COD (mg/l)

6,7542709.03

1,180764.43

823212.29

BOD5 (mg/l)

1,3311815.68

--

30298.40

pH

110.6

70.2

80.3

TSS (mg/l)

344198.2

568146.45

355177.95

NITRATE (mg/l)

4237.48

--

--

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

223.54

6012.35

--

TEMPERATURE (oc)

35.10.8

36.70.9

32.55.7

COD (mg/l)

9,2821928.87

61321265.83

978538.45

BOD5 (mg/l)

8166022.78

--

23638.22

pH

10.60.83

7.11.4

80.4

TSS (mg/l)

345201.15

462126.63

362116.87

NITRATE (mg/l)

251.13

--

--

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

445.22

6712.73

--

TEMPERATURE (oc)

36.71.09

37.31.7

33.40.9

37

Table 4.4: Results of the mean wastewater quality and standard deviation over three months
from Company B.

DECEMBER

NOVEMBER

OCTOBER

MONTH

PARAMETER

BEFORE

AFTER

pH

9.10.3

7.90.4

TURBIDITY (ntu)

50.8514.7

4010.2

COD (mg/l)

3169

12020

BOD5 (mg/l)

17025

4224.9

NITRATE (mg/l)

1.120.5

1.350.51

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

1.960.3

1.70.22

TEMPERATURE (oc)

32.51.4

291

pH

9.50.22

8.90.2

TURBIDITY (ntu)

100.7340.5

15.112.4

COD (mg/l)

42015

3213.2

BOD5 (mg/l)

25010

207.4

NITRATE (mg/l)

1.060.04

0.160.02

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

1.860.55

1.70.6

TEMPERATURE (oc)

301

28.91.5

pH

8.80.4

90.2

TURBIDITY (ntu)

47.815.2

19.925.6

COD (mg/l)

30527

40.3216.1

BOD5 (mg/l)

12525

28.65.4

NITRATE (mg/l)

1.150.01

0.160.04

PHOSPHORUS (mg/l)

0.970.66

1.70.02

TEMPERATURE (oc)

290.3

28.21.3

38

Table 4.5: Efficiency of the treatment process of wastewater from both WWTPs

PARAMETER

COMPANY A
(%)

COMPANY B
(%)

Total dissolved solids (mg/l)

-127.3

93.3

61.2

22.6

COD (mg/l)

94

54.1

BOD5 (mg/l)

93.4

56.7

Nitrite (mg/l)

90

Turbidity (ntu)

Company A recorded a negative value for efficiency of removal of TDS (-127.3%) as it

rather increased the amount of dissolved solid present in the wastewater after the treatment
process due to the addition of nutrients for microbial growth. Company B on the other hand
recorded a positive efficiency value (93.3%) since it succeeded in removing much of the
dissolved solids in the wastewater after the treatment process.

Company A recorded a 61.2% reduction in turbidity as compared to Company Bs 22.6%

reduction in turbidity after the treatment process. Company A also recorded the highest
percentage of efficiency for COD and BOD (94% and 93.4% respectively) as compared to
Company B which recorded 54.1% and 56.7% respectively for COD and BOD.

39

Nitrite was below detection limit in Company As wastewater, hence, there was no efficiency
of removal determined. Company B on the other hand recorded 90% efficiency in nitrite
removal.

Table 4.6: Quantity that was removed and remained after the entire treatment process
from both Companies

COMPANY

A
B

TDS

TURBIDITY

COD

BOD

(mg/l)

(ntu)

(mg/l)

(mg/l)

REMOVED

-923

147

14820

7696.5

REMAINED

1648

93.3

1030

545.5

REMOVED

985.3

4.5

165

91.65

REMAINED

70.7

18.45

140

70

Table 4.6 above shows the actual values of how much of contamination were removed from
the wastewater and also how much of it remained in the wastewater after treatment in the
WWTP of both companies. Negative values in Table 4.6 are an indication that more
contamination were added to the wastewater after the treatment process and the wastewater
became more polluted while positive values indicate that waste was removed from the
wastewater after the treatment process and the wastewater became less polluted

After the treatment process, 923 mg/l of TDS was added to Company A wastewater
resulting in a total of 1648 mg/l of TDS in the final effluent. Company B recorded a
removal of 985.5 mg/l of TDS resulting in a final effluent of 70.7 mg/l of TDS.

147 ntu was removed from Company A wastewater after treatment, thus producing an
effluent with 93.3 ntu. Only 4.5 ntu was removed from Company B wastewater after
treatment, hence resulting in a final effluent of 18.45 ntu.
40

14820 mg/l of COD was removed from Company A wastewater and 1030 mg/l of COD
remained after treatment. 165 mg/l of COD was also removed from Company B wastewater
after treatment, while 140 mg/l remained in the wastewater after the treatment process.
7696.5 mg/l of BOD was removed from Company A wastewater while 545.5 mg/l of BOD
remained in the wastewater after the treatment process.

Company B recorded 91.65mg/l of BOD removal while 70mg/l of BOD remained in the
wastewater after the treatment process.

41

CHAPTER FIVE:
5.0 DISCUSSION

5.1 OVERALL TREATMENT EFFICIENCY OF THE TWO

TREATMENT PLANTS
The overall efficiency of each plant was calculated by considering the TDS, pH, Turbidity,
COD, BOD, Nitrate and Nitrite of the influent and final effluent (Table 4.4).

5.1.1 TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

Results from the laboratory analysis on Total Dissolved Solids showed that great variations
existed in the treatment of TDS in wastewater from both companies (Fig 4.11). Company B
recorded a 93.3% efficiency in TDS removal (Table 4.5). In other words, Company B
treatment plant successfully removed an average of 985.3 mg per every litter of wastewater
that flowed through it (Table 4.6). This meant that an average of 70.7 mg of dissolved
material remained in the wastewater after treatment representing 6.7% of the initial amount of
TDS present before treatment. With an effluent of TDS 70.7 mg/l, it falls within the Ghana
EPAs standards for TDS (1000mg/l) (Fig 4.11). Hence company B effluent TDS level was
14 times lower than what was expected from them by the Ghana EPA.

Results for Company A wastewater analysis indicated that the treatment plant rather
increased the total amount of Dissolved Solids after the entire treatment process by 127.3%
of the initial amount of dissolved solids present (Table 4.5). In figures, an additional average
of 923 mg of dissolved material was added per litre of wastewater after the treatment process
(Table 4.6). The increase in the amount of total dissolved solids could be attributed to the
42

addition of nutrients such as Ammonium Sulphate (NH4)2SO4 to the treatment tanks so as to

sustain microbial growth. Also, occasional foaming occurs in the tanks and anti-foaming
chemicals were added to mitigate the foaming effect. The final effluent from Company A
does not meet EPA standards for TDS because it was 1.65 times higher than what was
expected from them by the EPA.

5.1.2 pH

pH was a very crucial property of wastewater that may determine the degree to which it may
be treated. pH may directly or indirectly affect the levels of removal of BOD, COD,
Dissolved solids and nutrients. Influent entering the treatment plants was generally
characterized by high pH. This was due to the use of Caustic Soda in washing bottles that are
returned to the factory before refilling them. Caustic soda also known as Sodium Hydroxide
(NaOH) was a highly basic material which was white in colour

In the case of wastewater analysis of effluent from both companies, pH of influent and
effluent fell well within the optimum necessary for treatment (Fig 4.12). That was to say the
pH fell within a range of 6 9. However Company A recorded an increase pH to 10 during
the treatment process of the wastewater. This could most likely affect microbial growth in
both the aerobic and anaerobic tanks; thus affecting the efficiency of those tanks.

At a confidence level of 95%, a paired t-test on pH of Company A wastewater before

treatment and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.041. This indicated that the difference
between pH levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was statistically
significant. At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on pH of Company B wastewater
before and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.131. This indicated that the difference
43

between pH levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not statistically
significant.

5.1.3 TURBIDITY
The turbidity of wastewater from Company B did not see much improvement (Fig 4.13)
Turbidity of the final effluent reduced by 22.64% from an initial of 23.85 ntu (Table 4.5). It
was also mentioned in our results that turbidity of the wastewater in Company B treatment
plant increase by 328.93% during the treatment process (Table 4.2). This was most likely due
to the mixing of the water with the aerobic bacteria present in the aerobic tank. The final
treated effluent from Company B meets the turbidity requirements of the EPA standards
because it was 4.06 times less than what was expected from them by the EPA.

Analysis of Company A wastewater for turbidity revealed a slightly different result from
the other company. In Company As results, turbidity reduced steadily from its initial point
of 240.3 ntu to 93.3 ntu (Fig 4.13). In other words, turbidity reduced by 61.17% (Table 4.5).
Company A did not experience an increase in turbidity during the treatment process (Fig
4.13) due to the possibility of a more effective system of separation of biomass from the
wastewater or poor mixing of the wastewater with the aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. Despite
the relatively high level of reduction of turbidity in wastewater from Company A, the
effluent did not meet EPA standards for turbidity because it was 1.24 times higher than what
was expected from them by the EPA (Fig 4.13).

At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on turbidity of Company B wastewater before

treatment and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.175. This indicated that the difference

44

between turbidity before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not statistically
significant.

5.1.4 COD
Laboratory results on wastewater from Company A revealed 93.5% efficiency in the
removal of COD (Table 4.5). Only 6.5% of the initial amount of COD remained in the
wastewater after treatment. The treatment plant was able to remove 14820 mg of COD per
litre of wastewater that passed through it (Table 4.6). The remaining level of COD however
was higher than EPA required level. With a COD level of 1030 mg/l, it was four times higher
than EPA standard.

The treatment plant at Company B however managed 54.1 % efficiency in COD removal
with respect to results obtained from laboratory analysis of wastewater from the plant (Table
4.4). The plant successfully removed 165 mg of COD for every litre of wastewater that went
through it (Table 4.6). Despite the low level of efficiency of Company B treatment plant in
terms of COD removal, the final effluent met EPAs standard for COD in effluents as it was
1.78 times lower than what was expected from them by the EPA (Fig 4.14).

In comparison, Company A treatment plant was more efficient than Company B by a ratio
of 1.7: 1. However Company B final COD levels fall within the standard requirements for
discharge, while Company A does not (Fig 4.14).

At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on COD of Company A wastewater before

treatment and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.097. This indicated that the difference
between COD levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not
45

statistically significant. At a confidence level of 95%, a paired t-test on COD levels of

Company B wastewater before treatment and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.014.
This indicated that the difference between COD levels before treatment and after treatment of
the wastewater was statistically significant.

5.1.5 BOD5
With respect to the results obtained from the laboratory, Company A treatment plant
managed to remove 93.38% of the total BOD that was present in the wastewater before
treatment (Table 4.5). This means that only 6.62% of the total BOD remained in the
wastewater after treatment. Initial amount of BOD was recorded to be 8242 mg/l, hence the
plant was able to remove 7696.5 mg of BOD per every litre of wastewater (Table 4.6). This
was quite a high level of efficiency; however the final BOD content of the treated effluent
does not meet the requirement of the EPA (50 mg/l). This means that the BOD content of
effluent from Company A was more than ten times the amount required by EPA standards
(Fig 4.15).

The treatment plant at Company B managed to remove 56.70% of BOD from the
wastewater after the treatment process (Table 4.5). 43.30% of the initial BOD was still
present after the treatment process. Initial BOD recorded before treatment was 161.65 mg/l
hence the plant was able to remove an average of 91.66 mg of BOD per litre of wastewater
passing through it (Table 4.6). With a final effluent with BOD of 70 mg/l, it still did not meet
the EPA requirement of 50 mg/l.

Comparing the initial BOD load on both plants, it was obvious that Company A BOD load
was far greater than Company B BOD load (8242 mg/l against 161.65 mg/l. Roughly 50: 1
46

ratio) (Fig 4.15). Though Company B recorded a BOD value close to the EPA standard, its
plant recorded just 56.70% BOD removal efficiency. Company A on the other hand
recorded a much higher BOD removal efficiency of 93.38% though it was also very far from
meeting the EPA standards.

At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on BOD5 of Company A wastewater before and
after treatment produced a p-value of 0.276. This indicated that the difference between BOD5
levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not statistically significant.
At a confidence interval of 95%, a paired t-test on BOD5 levels of Company B wastewater
before and after treatment produced a P-value of 0.023. This indicated that the difference
between BOD5 levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was statistically
significant.

5.1.6 NITRATE AND NITRITE

Results we obtained from our analysis of wastewater from both companies revealed that both
nitrates and nitrites were below the minimum detection level of analytical methods we used
(Table 4.1). The lack of nitrates and nitrites could affect the degree to which microbial
populations in the treatment plant of Company A would break down and remove BOD in the
wastewater. This was because these compounds are nutrients for the microorganisms to be
able to act upon organic matter.

Company B results however showed some amount of nitrate and nitrite was present in the
influent entering the plant (Table 4.1). Though the amount of nutrient was quite insignificant,

47

results on the finally treated effluent revealed that more than 90% (Table 4.5) of the nutrient
was used up during the treatment process most likely by microbes.

At a confidence level of 95%, a paired t-test on Nitrate/nitrite levels of Company B

wastewater before and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.212. This indicated that the
difference between Nitrate/nitrite levels before treatment and after treatment of the
wastewater was statistically insignificant.

5.1.7 TEMPERATURE
At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on temperature of Company A wastewater before
and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.009. This indicated that the difference between
temperature levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was statistically
significant.

At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on temperature of Company B wastewater before

and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.17. This indicated that the difference between
temperature before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not statistically
significant.

5.1.8 PHOSPHATE

At a confidence level of 95%, a paired t-test on phosphate levels of Company A wastewater

before and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.02. This indicated that the difference
between phosphate levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was
statistically significant
48

At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on phosphate levels of Company B wastewater

before and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.805. This indicated that the difference
between phosphate levels before treatment and after treatment of the wastewater was not
statistically significant

5.1.9 TSS
At an alpha value () of 0.05, a paired t-test on Total Suspended Solid of Company A
wastewater before treatment and after treatment produced a p-value of 0.752. This indicated
that the difference between Total Suspended Solid levels before treatment and after treatment
of the wastewater was not statistically significant.

5.1.10 Effect of plant design on efficiency

The design of the treatment plants of both companies influenced the degree to which
contaminants were efficiently removed from the wastewater. Generally Company As
WWTP was more efficient than Company Bs WWTP. A number of factors could be
attributed to why Company A was more efficient than Company B. These factors include:
1. Type of secondary treatment employed: Company A WWTP was designed to treat
wastewater using two different kinds of biological processes (anaerobic and aerobic).
Anaerobic decomposition requires less amount of energy as compared to aerobic
decomposition, hence more of the contamination in the wastewater was removed by
the anaerobic treatment stage of Company A WWTP. In Fig 4.14 and Fig 4.15, it
was observed that COD and BOD levels reduced by a large margin during the
49

treatment process (after the first biological treatment processes which was anaerobic
in the case of Company A). The combination of anaerobic treatment followed by
aerobic treatment in Company A WWTP ensured higher efficiency of wastewater
treatment,
Company B WWTP was designed to treat wastewater using one kind of biological
process (aerobic). Due to the sole use of an activated sludge system, it was observed
that BOD, COD and turbidity levels increased during the treatment process (Fig 4.13
Fig 4.14 and Fig 4.15). This is because the addition of activated sludge increased the
biomass in the wastewater as well as making the wastewater more turbid.

2. The retention time of the treatment tanks: When wastewater spends more time in the
treatment tanks, it offers the microbes in the tanks more time to act upon the
contaminants in the wastewater and reduce the concentration of the contaminants. The
retention time of the treatment tanks in Company A WWTP was 3 hours while the
retention time of treatment tanks in Company B WWTP was 2 hours. Company A
WWTP provided more time for the treatment of wastewater as compared to
Company B WWTP, hence Company A had a more efficient treatment plant.

5.1.11 Effect of age of plant on efficiency

Both treatment plants were constructed in the year 2004 and have been in operation for the
past nine years. Comparing the design specifications of both plants (table 2.3.1 and table
2.3.2) and the current level of treatment efficiency (table 4.5), it was observed that the
efficiency of both treatment plants had reduced over the nine years period of operation. This
could be attributed to the influence of environmental conditions such as temperature changes
50

and rain fall on the WWTPs. Also the degradation of mechanical parts of the WWTPs due to
the consistent use of the plants over the years could have affected the plants efficiency of
treatment.

5.1.12 Effect of raw wastewater characteristics on plant efficiency

High amounts of contamination in wastewater can affect the efficiency of treatment of the
wastewater. In the removal of COD and BOD for example, oxygen may be required,
however, if there is too much demand for oxygen in removing contaminants in the
wastewater, anoxic conditions may develop that would result in the death of aerobic microbes
in the wastewater. These microbes are responsible for the removal of contaminants in the
wastewater, hence their death will reduce the efficiency of treatment of the wastewater.

In comparing the wastewater generated by both companies as a result of their production

activities, Company A generated more load in their wastewater as compared to Company
B. Company A principally engaged in brewing which involves a lot of fermentation
processes. Raw materials used in production in Company A include malt extract, hops,
special grains (maize or rice) and yeast. These fermentation processes generate high amounts
of biomass waste which end up in the wastewater fed into the treatment plant. Company B
principally engages in the production of soft drinks. The production of soft drinks does not
involve fermentation. Hence Company Bs production activities did not generate much
contamination in their wastewater entering the treatment facility.

A second t-test was conducted to ascertain if there were similarities in the influents and
effluents that were fed into the WWPTs and released from the WWPTs of both companies.
The results however indicated that at a confidence interval of 95% and a P-value of 0.178,
51

Company A WWTP received influents with statistically insignificant different

characteristics compared to the influent fed into Company B WWTP. The t-test results also
revealed that at a confidence interval of 95% and a p-value of 0.104, Company A and
Company B WWPTs produced effluents with differences which were statistically
insignificant from each other.

A Post Hoc analysis was conducted for the data received from both Company A and
Company B laboratories. Analysis on Company A data indicated that wastewater treatment
efficiency for the three months (October, November, and December) was not consistent. That
was to say that at a confidence interval of 95%, the P-values for monthly comparisons were
all greater than 0.05.

Post Hoc results on Company B indicated that there was no homogeneity in the treatment
efficiency of the WWTP over the three month period at a confidence interval of 95%. This
meant that the WWTP of Company B had experience varying degrees of efficiency over the
three month period, with some months recording higher levels of efficiency than others.

According to the research done by Ravi et al, (2010) on WWTPs in Nagasandra and
Mailasandra, TDS and COD removal efficiency was the least in both plants. In comparison to
our work, TDS removal efficiency was low for Company A but high for Company B while
COD removal efficiency was low for Company B but high for Company A.

52

CHAPTER SIX:

6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion
Results obtained from sample analysis and data obtained from both companies indicated that
wastewater treatment efficiency of both plants has decreased over the years since the time of
construction of both wastewater treatment plants. The efficiency of treatment however has
not been consistent even for short periods of time (three month period).

It was also observed that higher levels of efficiency of treatment did not necessarily translate
to the meeting of standards for discharge of effluent into the environment. This was mainly
due to the already high level of load in the influent before treatment, such that even a high
degree of treatment still produced effluent that did not meet the standard. This was observed
mostly in the results of Company A.

Though Company B produced relatively lower levels of efficiency of treatment, its final
effluents were within the required standards for discharge of effluent into the environment.
These phenomena could also be attributed to the amount of load contained in the influent
entering the plant for treatment.

The overall efficiency of treatment was in the order TDS < Turbidity < BOD < COD for
Company A WWTP and Turbidity < COD < BOD < Nitrite < TDS for Company B
WWTP.
53

From the research conducted, it can be concluded that the efficiency of the wastewater
treatment plant was influenced by a number of factors which included
1. The age of the plant
2. The type of treatment process employed
3. The characteristics of the raw wastewater.
It can also be concluded that the load contained in the raw wastewater will determine if the
final treated wastewater will meet discharge standards irrespective of the efficiency of the
WWTP.

6.2 Recommendation
With the outcomes of our research, we make the following recommendations.
1. In the planning, designing and construction of a WWTP for industrial use, hybrid
systems that combine both Aerobic and Anaerobic processes should be considered for
higher levels of efficiency.
2. In an attempt to meet regulatory standards, high amounts of load into the WWTP
should be avoided as much as possible.
3. Regular revamps of the WWTP should be conducted to make up for the deterioration
of the treatment plant over the years.
4. It was also recommended that further studies be conducted to identify the linkages
that exist between the various characteristics of wastewater and how they influence
the efficiency of treatment of wastewater.

54

REFERENCES

American Public Health Association (APHA). (1995). Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th ed.). APHA. Washington, DC
Bates G. R. (1973). Determination of pH: theory and practice. Wiley. Wisconsin Madison
Baton R. (2007). Surface Water Quality Standards. Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality. LA Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC). Title 33, Part IX,
Chapter 11.
Boyd E. C. (1999). Water Quality: An Introduction. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group.
Norwell, Massachusetts. pp.41-68
Burton F. L., Tchobanoglous G. and Stensel H. D. (2003). Wastewater Engineering
(Treatment Disposal Reuse). McGraw-Hill Book Company (4th ed.). Michigan
Court J. S., Nedra C. and Pieper C. B. (1979). Decline of Submerged Plants in
Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Michigan.
Drechsel P., Scott C. A., Raschid-Sally L., Redwood M. and Bahri A. (2010).
Wastewater irrigation and health. Assessing and mitigating risks in low-income countries.
Earthscan-IDRC-IWMI, UK, 404 pp.
Ghana EPA. (1999). General Effluent Quality Guidelines for Discharges into Natural
Bodies of Water.
Goldman C. R. and Horne A. J. (1983). Limnology. McGraw-Hill pp.88&267
Harshman V. and Barnette T. (2000). Wastewater Odour Control. An Evaluation of
Technologies". Water Engineering & Management.

55

Hogan C. M., Patmore C. L. and Seidman H. (1973). Statistical Prediction of Dynamic

Thermal Equilibrium Temperatures using Standard Meteorological Data Bases. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-660/2-73-003.
Madhab C. D. and Satya P. D. (2009). Fundamentals of ecology. McGraw Hill, New
Delhi.
Ravi P. K., Pinto L. B. and Somashekar R.K. (2010). University Journal Of Science,
Engineering And Technology. Vol. 6, No. Ii, Pp 115-125
Roy F. W. (1971). Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater Treatment
Plants. Water Resources Scientific Information Center. Washington, D.C Chapter 3
Sawyer C. N., McCarty L.P. and Parkin G. F. (2003). Chemistry for Environmental
Engineering and Science (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill. New York
Syed R. Q. (1999). Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Design and Operation.
Technomic Publishing Company.
The

FreeDictionary.

(2013).

wastewater.

Retrieved

May

21,

2013

from

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wastewater
USEPA. (2002). The Microbiology of Drinking Water Part 1 - Water Quality and Public
Health
USEPA. (2004). Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems. Document no.
EPA 832-R-04-001.

56

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1 : EPA Standards

Alcoholic Beverage Industry

PARAMETERS

MAXIMUM
PERMISSIBLE LEVELS

1. Alkalinity(mg/l)

150

2. Color(TCU)

200

3. COD(mg/l)

250

4. BOD(mg/l)

50

5. Oil & Grease(mg/l)

6. Conductivity(mg/l)

1500

7. pH(mg/l)

6-9

8. TDS(mg/l)

1000

9. Total phosphorous(mg/l)

10.TSS(mg/l)

50

11.Turbidity(N.T.U.)

75

57

APPENDIX 2 :Paired t-test for Company A

PARAMETER

BEFORE

BOD
AFTER
BEFORE

COD
AFTER
BEFORE

pH
AFTER
BEFORE

Standard
deviation

Standard
Error
mean

3673.11267

1836.556

146.37701

73.189

4892.84

2446.42

145.822

72.911

1.218

0.609

0.221

0.111

12.702

7.333

PHOSPHATE
AFTER
BEFORE

7.251

4.187

0.636

0.45

TEMPERATURE
AFTER
BEFORE

TSS
AFTER

0.071
59.181

97.346

df

Sig.

1.319

0.279

3.454

0.041

3.442

0.041

-7.044

0.020

6.2

0.102

0.363

0.752

0.05
34.168

56.203

58

APPENDIX 3 : Paired t-test for Company B

PARAMETER

BEFORE

BOD
AFTER
BEFORE

COD
AFTER
BEFORE

pH
AFTER
BEFORE

Standard
deviation

Standard
Error
mean

52.653

26.327

22.234

11.117

55.908

27.954

54.979

27.489

0.316

0.158

0.608

0.304

0.567

0.254

df

Sig.

4.284

0.023

5.126

0.014

2.067

0.131

1.483

0.212

2.107

0.17

1.767

0.175

0.280

0.805

NITRATE
AFTER
BEFORE

0.573

0.256

1.803

1.041

TEMPERATURE
AFTER
BEFORE

TSS
AFTER
BEFORE

0.436
32.29

0.252
16.145

11.268

5.634

0.545

0.315

PHOSPHATE
AFTER

0.404

0.233

59

APPENDIX 4 : simple t-test for company A and company B

Effluent

Sum of
Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Between Groups

650775.233

650775.233

3.099

.104

Within Groups

2519837.563

12

209986.464

Total

3170612.796

13

APPENDIX 5 : Simple t-test for company A and company B

influent
Sum of
Squares

df

Mean Square

Sig.

Between Groups

3.948E7

3.948E7

2.052

.178

Within Groups

2.309E8

12

1.924E7

Total

2.703E8

13

60

APPENDIX 6 : Post hoc results for three month analysis of

efficiency of Company A WWTP

(I) month

(J) month

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

-585.40000

1.74744E3

.940

-969.00000

1.74744E3

.846

585.40000

1.74744E3

.940

-383.60000

1.74744E3

.974

969.00000

1.74744E3

.846

383.60000

1.74744E3

.974

APPENDIX 7 : Post hoc results for three month analysis of

efficiency of Company B WWTP

(I) month

(J) month

Mean Difference (I-J)

Std. Error

Sig.

-52.40000

61.25316

.674

-7.17714

61.25316

.992

52.40000

61.25316

.674

45.22286

61.25316

.744

7.17714

61.25316

.992

-45.22286

61.25316

.744

61

APPENDIX 8

Sequencing Batch Reactor 2

Sequencing Batch Reactor 1

62

Balancing Equalization and Neutralization Basin

Glass coated sectional steal

63

Company A WWTP Site

64