Natural System

.
Naturai .Systems for

Waste ManagemeflJ
and Treatment. Sherwood C. Reed

Ronald W. Crites
~:~
Joe iVIiddte brooks

. ..
.
~ ,;.::i ..
Second Edition
. ,.
. ,;:-~:;~: -
.;\~~~~7..
..
1 ~.'. ' .... '
.'} . :
McGraw-Hill, lnc .
New York San Francisco Washington, D.C. Auckland :'Eicig~
Caracas Usbon london Madrid Mexico CiLY. ~Milan
Montreal New Delhi San Juari satgapore
Sydney Tokyo Toronto
- . .
Library of Congress CataloJ,!ing--in-Puhlication Data

Heed. Sherwood C.
Z'\r;tural :-ystems for wc:tstt man<.igermnt nnd tn.'atnwnt / Slwrwood C.
Reed Ronnld W. Critt:'5. E. ,Jf>' ~Iiddlebrook;; .
- p.
em.
Inc.lude~ bibliographical -rc-fer.ences and index.
ISi3;-; 0-0 7-060~)82-9 i acid-free paper'
L Sewage-Purification-Biological treatmeJ ,. 2. Sewage sludgc~lanagemenL L Crites. Ronald W. II. Midd lebrooks. E ..Joe.
TIL Title.
TD755.R43
1995
628.3'5- dc20
94-33399
CIP
Copyright 1995'. 1988 by McGraw-HilL Inc. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United State~ vf America. Except a~ permitted under
.the United States Cop}-right Act of1976. no pan of this publication
may be reproduced or' dis:tr.hilled in any form or by any means. ur
stored in n data base or retri"\:il. sysr~m. v.ithout the prior written permi::sion of the publisher.
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12
~5 14 Bt:ME!KM 9 9 8 7 6
.ISB:\ 0-iH -06098:?-l?
Th.: ..;;p;n:~oring editor .t;:.r thi.- '-look u:a:-; Larry S. Hager. the t~diting
supenisor uas 0/ite B . Coilln. and the production !:w.peni.o.:or was
Pamela A Pdton. The nooh u:o::;; set iJ?. Cer:tury Schoolbook by
)fcGra.:c-Hrl!'.-; Pro;f:.c;.<::ional Bnn.~ Group mmpm;ition unit.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
;'
"
. ..... .
Contents
Preface
xi
Chapter 1. Natural Waste Treatment Systems: An Overview
1-1 Natural treatment Processes

Background
Wastewater treatment concepts and expectations
1.2 Project Development
References
1
1
2
9
9
Chapter 2.. Pfanning, Feasibility Assessment, and Site Selection

2.1 Concept Evaluation
Resources required
Preliminary estimates of land area
2.2 Site Identification
Screening procedure
Climate
Flood hazard
Water rights
2.3 Site Evaluation
Soils investigation
tnmtration and permeability
Bufferzones
2.4 Site and Process selection
References
Chapter 3. Basic Process Responses and ln.teracfions

3.1 Water Management
Fund2mental relationships
Movement af pollutants
Groundwater mounding
Underdrairuige
3.2 Biodegradable Organics
Removal of BOD
Removal of suspended solids
11
11
13
13
21
21
24
25
27
28
29
33
40
40
41
'
43
43
44
47
51
59
60
61
62
vi
Contents
3.3 Organic Priority Pollutants

Removal methods
Removal performance
Travel time In sons
3.4 : Pathogens
Aquatic systems
Wetland systems
.Land treatment systems
Sludge systems
Aerosols
3.5 Metals
Aquatic systems
Wetland systems
Land treatment systems
3.6 Nutrfents
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Pot:assrum and other micronutrients
References
Chapter 4. Wastewater Stabilization Ponds

4.1 Preliminary Treatment
4.2 Facultative Ponds
Areat loading rate method
Gtoyna equation
Co~plete-mix model
Plug 11ow model
Wehner-Wilhelm equation
Comparison of facultative pond design models
4.3 Partial-Mix Aerated Ponds
Partial-mix design model
Pond configuration
Mixing and aeration
4;4 Controlled-Discharge Ponds
4.5 Complete-Retention Ponds
4.6 Combined Systems
4.7 Anaerobic Ponds
4.8 Pathogen Removal
4.9 Removal of Suspended Solids
Intermittent sand fiJtrcrtion
MicroStrainers.
Rock filters
Other solids-removal techniQues
4 .10 Removal of Nitrogen
Design models
4.11 Removal of Phosphorus
Batch chemicaf treatment
Continuous-overflow chemical treatment
4.1? Physical Design and Construction
Dilce construction
.,.
...
Contents
Pond sealing
Pond hydraulics
4.13 Storage Ponds for Land Treatment Systems
References
Chapter 5. Aquatic Treatment Systems

5.1 Aoatlng Plants
Water hyacinth
Duckweed
5.2 Submerged Plants
Performance expectations
Design considerations
5.3 Aquatic Animals
Daphnia and brine shrimp
rash
Marine polyculture
References
>(' Chapter 6. Wetland Systems

6.1 Introduction
Naluraf wetlands
Mitigation and enhancement
Constructed wetlands
Design concepts
6.2 Wetland Components
Plants
Emergent species
Submerged specfes
Floating species
Evapotranspiration losses
Oxygen transfer
Plant diversity
Plantfunctions
Soils
Of!PD1isms
6.3
Perf~mrcnce Expectations
Removal of BOD
~erf!oval of nitrogen
Removal-of phosphorus
Remove! of metals
Organic priority pollutants
Removal of pathogens
6.4 General Design Procedures
6.5 HydrauUc Design Procedures
Free-water-surface wetlands
Subsurface-flow wetlands
6.6 Thermal Aspects
Summary
vii
127
128
129
130
133
134
134
158
165
166
167
167
167
168
170
170
173
173
173
174
175
177
178
178
179
180
181
181
182
183
184
185
186
186
187 .
189
191
196
197
198
199
200
202
203
205
210
211
216
221
viii
Contents
6.7 Design Models for BOO Removal
Free-water-surface :wettands
Subsurface-flow weUa.nds
Preliminary treatment
6.8 Design Models for TSS Removal
6.9 Design Models for Nilragen Ramoval
Nitrification filter bed
Summary
6.10 Design Models for Phosphorus Removal
6.11 Design of On-site Sys.t ems
6.12 Vertical-Flow Wetland Beds
6.13 Wetland Applications
Domestic wastewaters
Municipal wastewaters
Commercial and industrial wastewaters
Stormwater runoff
Combined sewer o.verffaws
Agricultural runoff
Livestock wastewaters
Landfif! leachates
Mine drainage
6.14 Construction Requirements
Subgrade construction and liners
Vegetation
Inlet and outlet structures
Costs
5.15 Operation and Maintenance
Vegetation .
Mosquito control
References
Chapter 7. Land Treatment Systems

7.1 System Types
Slow-rate systems
Overland-flow systems
Rapid-infittratio n systems
7.2 Slow-Rate Systems
Design objectiv~s
Preapplication treatment
Crop selection
Loading rates
Land requirements
Storage requirements
Application scheduling
Distribution techniques
Control of surface runoff
Underdrainage
System management
System monitoring
221
223
226
231
232
234
235
239
2tUi
250
250
252
256
258
258
259
260
261
263
265
268
269
272
275
275
2n
2n
2:79
280
280
281
281
285
285
285
286.
287
289
289
2..-Cl{J
291
2-03
.302
303
303
304
304
30S
'307
30S
Contents
7.3 Overland-Flow Systems

Design objectives
Site selection
Climate and storage
Design procedure
Land requirements
Vegetation selection
Distribution system
Slope design and construction
Runoff collection
Recycling
System management and monitoring
7.4 Rapid.Jnfiltration Systems
Design objectives
Design procedure
Treatment performance
Nitrification
Nitrogen removal
Phosphorus removal
Preappfication treatment
Hydraufic loading rates
Organic loading rates
Land requirements
Basin construction
Winter operation in cold climates
System management
System monitoring
References
Chapter 8. Sludge Management and Treatment
a1
Sludge Quantity and Characteristics .

Sludges from oatural treatment systems
Sludges from drfnking-wa1er treatme'n t
.8 .2 Stabilization and Dewatering
Methods for pathogen reduction
8.3 Sludge Freezing
Effects of freezlng
Process requirements
Design procedures
Sludge freezing facilities and procedures
ix
309
309
31C
310
3i1
311
315
318
319
320
320
320
320
321
321
32'1
322
322
323
325
325
326
32S
326
330
331
331
332
332
335
~.s
337
338
339
339
340
340'
~
342
345
8.4 Reed Beds
347
Functi.o n of vegetation
Design requirements.
Performance
Benefits
Sludge q~afity
8.5 Vermistabilization
Worm species
Loading eriteria
Procedures and performance
Sludge .quality
348
349
350
352
353
353
353
'354
354
355
Contents
8.6 Comparison of Bed-Type Operations

8.7 Composting
8.8 Land Application and Surface Disposal of Sludge
concept and site selection
Process d~sign, land application
Desrgn of surface disposal systems
References.
Chapter 9_ Oa-site Wastewater Management Systems

9.1 Types E>f On-site Systems
9.2 Site Assessment
Preliminary siteevaluation
Detailed site assessment
9.3 On-site Treabnent Alternatives
Septic tanks
Imhoff tanks
Oil and grease removal
lntennittent sand ft.lters
~ecirculaling fine gravel filters
Alternative nitrogen-removal processes
Package aeration systems
9.4 On-site Disposal Alternatives
Gravity leachfields
Pressure-dosed distribution .
Fill systems :
At::grade systems
Mound systems
Artificially drained systems
Evapotranspiration .systems
9.5 Management of On-site Systems
References
Appe.n dix
Table A.1
Table A.2
Table A.3
Table A.4
Index
Metric Conversion Factors (Sf to U.S. Customary Units)

Conversion Factors for Commonty Used Design Parameters
Physical Properties of Wafer
Dissolved Oxygen Solubility in Fresh. Water
423
. .
Preface
This book is intended for the practicing engineer involved in the .Plan.:.
ning, design, construction, or operation of waste management facilities (both wastewater and sludges) for on-site service, municipalities,
and industries.
The focus in this book is on waste management processes which
depend to a maximum degree on natural components and to a minima]
degree on.mechanical elements. This utilization of natural systems can
re4uce costs, process energy,
complexity of operation. These natural processes should be given priority consideration for planning new
systems and for.upgrading or retrofitting existing systems.
Some of the processes included in this book, such as pond systems,
may be familiar to many engineers, but the text presents simplified,
easy-to-use design procedures. The other, less familiar concepts can
provide very effective treatment for significantly less cost than
mechanical treatment alternatives. :D esign criteria for some of the
emerging tec-hnologies, particularly wetland systems, cannot be fmmd
in any other text.
Each design chapter provides a complete descriptian of the subject
technology, data on performance expectations, and detailed d esign procedures with supporting examples. Chapter 2 presents the basic
responses and interactions common to these natural biological systems.
The treatment responses for toxic and hazardous materials are cover.ed
in this chapter and discussed as appropriate in ~e de:,-ign ch~s.
Chapter 3 provides a rational procedure for planning and for process
and site selection for the natural treatment systems. Combined metric
and U.S. customary units are used tbrnughout the text.
and
Sherwood C. Reed
'
...
.~.
~:.:
_.,.
~
;:
~-=-
~-
Chapter
Natural Waste Treatment

Systems: .An Overview
The waste treatment systems described jn this hook are designed

specifically to utilize natural response$ to the maximum possible
degree while obtaining the intended waste treatment or management
goal. In most cases this will result in a system that costs less to build
and to operate and requires less energy than mecba11ical treatment
alternatives.
1.1
Natural Treatment Processes
All waste management processes depend on natural responses snch

as gravity forces for sedimentation, or on natural components such as
biological organisms. However, in the typical ca._~ these natural components are supported by an often-complex array of energy-intenSive
mechanical equipment. The term natural system as used in this text
is intended to describe those processes that depend primarily on their
natural components to achieve the intended purpose. A natural s-ystem might typically include pumps and piping for waste conveyance
but would not depend exclusively on e.nernal erlergy sources to maintain t he major treatment responses.
Background
Serious interest in natural methods for waste treatment .reemerged in

the United s tates following passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972
(PL 92-500). The major initial response was to assume that the "'zero
discharge" mandate of the law could be obtaine4 via a combination of
mechanical treatment units capable of aduanced u,.:astewatcr treat-
'.
Chapfer One
Chap. 6. Another variation of the concept, used for sludge drying, is

described in Chap. 8.
Terrestria~ treatment methods.
Table 1.3 pr;sents the typical design f~a

tures and' performance expectations for the three basic terrestrial concepts. AU three depend on the physical, chemical, and biological reactions on and within the soil matrix. In addition, the slow-rate (SR) and
the overland-flow (OF) methods require the presence of vegetation as a
major treatment component. The slow-rate process can utilize a wide
range of vegetation? from trees to pastures to row crop vegetables. As
described in Chap. 7, the overland-flow process depends on perennial
grasses m en~ure a continu~us vegetated cover. The hydraulic loading
rates, with some exceptions, on rapid-infiltration systems are typically
too high to support ~neficial vegetation. All three concepts can produce high-quality efilnent. In the ty-pical case the slow-rate. process can
be designed to produce drinking water quality in the percolate.
Reuse of the treated water is possible with all three concepts.
Recovery is easiest with overland flow. since it is a surface system
that discharges to ditches at the toe of the treatment slopes. Most
slow-rate and rapid-infiltration systems require underdrains or wells
for water recovery.
Another type of terrestrial concept is on-site systems which serve
single-fannly dwellings, schools, public facilities, and commercial
operations. These typically include a preliminary treatment step followed by in-ground disposal Chapter 9 describes these on-site concepts;. small-scale constructed wetlands used for the preli.nllnary
treatmen~ s~p are described in Chap. 6.
Sludge management concepts. The freezing, composting:t and reed bed
concepts listed in Table L4 are intended to prepare the sludge for
final disposal or reuse. The freeze/thaw approach described in Chap.
8 <:~ easily increase sludge solids content to 35 percent or higher
almost immediately upon thawing. Composting provides for further
stabilization of the sludge and a significant reduction in pathogen
content as w~ .as reducing moisture content. The major benefit ofth~
reed-bed approach is ~~e possibility for multiple-year sludgeapplications and drymg before removal is required. Solids concentrations
acceptable for landfill disposal can be obtained readily.
Land application of sludge is designed to utilize the nutrient content in the sludge in agricultural, forest, and reclamation projects.
Typically, the unit sludge loading is designed on the basis of the
nutrient requirements for the vegetation of concern. The metal content of
sludge may then limit both the unit loading and the design
application period for a particular site..
the
- .-
TABLE 1.3
~.
, , ...
,.
_,.._ -
- -' -"'
. , ,. . ..., ... ._.., ' ' r ... , ,,.,, ,..._
'''~
.,. .. _
""' -
- ...-...... -
;.">:;- .. __ ,...... ,,.,,.-,...,:6-..-(--
.. -...:"....,,.,. ....._~ .-. ....
ol o O f _._
- - ' " '- - -
Terrestrial Treatment Units, Design Features, and Performance 11 13

Typicnl criteria
Climate
needs
Vegotntlon
<hn>*
Hydrnulic
loading
(m/yr)
Secondnty, at
Watmer
Yos
23-280
0.5-6
AW'r
aonsons
'l'ren tmett t
go~l!3
Concepts
Slow i'nte
Area
Efllucnt
characteristics
(mg~)
BOD <2
-'fSS <2
TN <3t
TP <0.1
FCtO
H~ pid
6-125
BOD5
TSS 2
'l'N 10
TP <1
FC 10
Socnndnry,m
AW'l', Ill' ground
water toohrugo
NHnc
No
3-23
Overland flow
Secondary,
nltl'ogon tomoval
Wntmer
seasons
Yos
6-40
Onaite
Secondary Lo
None
No
Noi nppllcnble for n now of3785 m3/d. Size of bed
infil trnt.ion
m11/d,
DOD 10
TSS 10'11
TN <10
and potformanco depend on preliminary treatmont lovcl. See Chaps. 6 nnd 9.
tfJr~lnry
*'Fot de::tign flow of :178li
. 3-20
tNitrogen t'omovul dopohdB Otl type or crop nnd mnnngmnoni.
tFC = fccnl coliform, #/100 mL.

.
Me(lsured In immodint.o vicinity ofbuHin; lncrunH<ld tomovnl wiUtlnnget tt'ltVc!l diHtnn<:u.
'll'rotnl Hunponclocl aolid11 dopondH in pnrt on typo of wn~towatm nppliod.
~
..
.. ~! '..!
:~ -
. ,,.., .': .
: ~
,_..s
Chapter One
TABLE 1.4
Sludge Management with Natural Method_s 1
Concept
Freezing .
A method for condit ior:.i!'lg and dewatering s ludges in the winter months in cold climates. More effccti\e
and reliable than any
ofthe availa ble
mechanical devices.
Can use eJdsting sand
beds.
Compost
A procedure to further
stabilize and dewater
sludges, mth signifi-
cant pathogen kill,

so fe wer restrictions
on end use of fin al
product.
Reed beds
Land applicatirm
Limitations
Description
Must have freezing

weather for long
enough to freeze
the sludge layer
completely.
Requires a bulking
agent and mechanical
equipment for mixing
and sorting; ~nter
operations can be difficult in cold climates.
:Narrow i renche:; or
be-ds. \\i th sand bottom
and underd1ained,
planted v.ith reeds.
Veg"e tation assists
water remo\'al.
Best suited for warm to

m oderate climates.
Annual harvest and
Application of liquid or
partially dried sludge
on agricultural, forestc.-d., or re clamation
land.
State and federal regulations limit arinual

and cumulative loading
of metals. e tc.
Costs and energy. Intere::;t in natural concepts
disposal of \egetation
is required.
was
originally based
on the environmental ethic of recycle and reuse of resources -,.vherever
possible. .Many of the concepts described in the pr~vious sections do
incorporate such potentiaL However~ as more and i:nore systems were .
built and operational experience accumulate<L it was noticed that
these natural systems~ w hen si~e conditions were favorable, could
usually .be constructed and operated for less cost.and \vith less energy
than the more popular and more conventional mechanical .t echnologies. Numerous comparisons have documented these cost ~d energy
advantages_8 10 It is likely that these advantages will remain and
become even stronger over the long term. There were, for example,
about 400 .m unicipal land treat ment systems using \vastewater in the
United States in the early 1970s. That number had grown to at least
1400 by-the mid-1980s and is projected to pass 2000 by the year 2000.
It is further estimated that a comparable number of private industri-
Natural Waste
Treatm~nt
Systems: An Overview
al and commercial systems also exist. These process selection decisions have been and will continue to be madeon the basis of costs and
energy requirements.
1.2 Project Development
The development of a waste treatment project, either municipal or

industrial, involves consideration or'institutional and social issues in
addition to technical factors. These issues influence and can often
control decisions during the planning and preHminary design stages.
Current regulatory reqUirements at the federal, state, and local levels
ar e p~rticularly i:r:qportant. The engineer m ust determine these
requirements at the earliest possible stage of project development to
ensure that the concepts under consideration are institutionally feasible. References 3, 4, and 11 proVide useful gUidance on the institutional and social aspects of project development.
Table 1.5 provides summary guidance on the technical requiremen ts for project development, and indicates the chapter( s) in this
book which provide the needed criteria. Detailed infunnation on
waste characterization and on the civil and mechanical engineering
details of design are not unique to natural systems and are therefore
not included in this text. References 5 and 6 are recommended for
that purpose.
References
1. Banks, L . and~ Davis: Wastewater and Sludge Treatment by Rooted Aquatic
Plants in San.d a:ncl Gravel Ba..~, in Proceedings of a Workshop on LGu: Cost
Wast~water Treatment. Clemson Uni"-ersity, Clemson, SC. Apr. 1983, pp. 205-218.
2_. Bastian~ R. ~and S . c_ Reed <eds.): Aqua'culture Systems for Wastewater
TlWI.lment, EPA 430/9-80-006~ U.S. Environmt:ntal Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, Sept. 1979.
.
3. Deese, P . L: Institutional Constraints a nd Public Acceptance Barriers to
Utilization of Municipal Wa:,-tewater and Sludge for Land Reclamation and
Bioma5S Prodn.ction. in Utilization oj Municipal Wastert,ater and Sludge for Land
Reclamation and Biomass Production, EP-~ 430/9-81-013, U.S. Em.ironmental
Protection Agency, Washington. DC. July 1981.
4. Forster, D. L . and D. 'D: Southgate: Iostitn:tions Constraioing the Utllization of
Municipal Wa_~waters and Sludges on Land, in Proceedings of Workshop on
Utilization of J,funicipal Wastewater and Sludge on Land, University of. California,
Riverside, Feb.1983, pp. 29-45.
5. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc_: Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of
Wa...c:tewater;, .McGraw-Hill, New York. 1981.
6. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc_; W~eu:ater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reus~ 3d ed.,
McGra,~-Hiii, New York, 1991.
7. Middlebrooks, E. J ., C. H. Middlebrooks, and S, C. Reed: Energy Requirements for
Small Wast~water Treatment System5. J. Water Pollution Control Fed.. 53(7), July
1981,TPP 1172-1197_
8. Middlebrooks, E. J_, C_ H. Middlebrooks, J . H. Reynolds. G. z_ Watters, S.C. Reed,
and D . B. George: Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon Design, Performance and.
Upgrading. Mannillan, New York. 1982.
...
~-.
10
-: .
Chapter One
.
TABLE 1.5 .Guide to Project Development
Task
.Des cription
See Chapter
Characterize waste
Define the volume and

the composition of the
waste to be treated
Concept feasibility'
Determine which if
any of the natural systems are compatible
for the particular
waste' and the site conditions and require-
2,3
ments
waste
Process design
Determine the
constituent that controls design
Pond systems
4
5
6
Aquatic systems
Wetland systems
Terrestrial systems
Civil and m echanical

details
Sludge management
On-site systems
Collection network in
the community, pump
stations, transmission
piping, etc.
'*Not covered in this text; see Refs. 5 and 6.
9. Heed. S.C., R. Bastian. S. Black,. a.'ld R- K Khettr)r: Wetlands for Wastewater

Treatment in Cold CliiD:ates, in Proceedings Water Reuse III Symposium, American
Water Works Association, Denver, CO, Angnst 1984._
10~ Ree~ S. C., R W. Crites, R. E_ Thomas, and A. B. Hais: Cost of Land Treatment
Systems. EPA 430/9-75-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC,l979_
.
IL U.S. Environmental Protection .-\gency: Process Design Manua~-Land Treatment
ofMunicipal Wastewater,. EPA 625/1-81-013, Center for Environmental Research
Information. Cincinnati, OH. Oct. 1981.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual for Municipal
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds, EPA 625/1-83.-015, Center for Environmental
Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process ,Design Man]ml Supplement on
Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow, EPA 625/l-81-013a? Cente~ for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, 0~ Oct. 1984.
..
Chapter
Planning,
Feasi~ility
Assessment; and Site

Selection
It is important during the early planning stages of a waste manage. ment project to include as many alternatives as possible to ensure that
the most cost-effective process is selected. The feasibility of the natur:il
treatment processes described in this book depends significantly on. site
conditions, climate, and related factors. It is not ~ctical or economical, however, to condnct e~ve field investigations for every process,
at ever.y potential .s ite, dming planning and preliminary design. This
chapter provides a sequential approach which first determines potential feasibility and the land area required for treatment, and identifies
possible sites. The second step evaluates these sites, based on technical
economic factors, and selects one or more for detailed investigation.. The final step involves detailed field investigations, identification
of the most ~st-effective alternative, and development of the criteria
needed for final desiga
and
2.1 Coneept Evaluation

A convenient starting point is to divide the many possible processes
into discharging and nondischarging systems. ~e former group,
.which typically have an ontf~ or other direct discharge to surface
. waters, would usually include treatment ponds, a~tics,. wetlands,
and the overland-flow (OF) land treatment concept. The second,
nond.ischarging, group includes the other land treatment concepts,
11
"""~-
12
Chapter Two
on-.s ite methods, a nd the sludge treatment methods. Site topography,

soils, geology, and groundwater conditions are important factors for
the construction of discharging systems, but are often critical campo ..
nents in t he treatment process itself for the second group. Design features and performance expectations for both types of systems are
gi~en in Tables L 1 , 1.2, and 1.3; other special characteristics and
requirements are listed in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.
TABLE 2 .1
Discharge Systems: Special Site Requirements
Concept
Requirement
Treatment ponds
Proximity to a surface water for discharge, impermeable

soils or liner, no steep slopes, out of flood plain or diked, no
bedrock or groundwater within excavation depth
Aquaculture
Same physical features as ponds, also must have suitable

climate to support aquatic plants or other biological components
Prorimity to surface waters for discharge, impermeable

soils or a liner. siope~ 0-39<, not in .flood plain, bedrock and
groundwate~ below exeavatioo de-pth
0.-edund tlow 'OF i
Relatively impermeablesoils, day and clay loams, slop~s

O- l5<iC, depth to groundwater and bedrock not critical but
0.5-l m desirab!e, need access to surface water for discharge
TAEflE 2.2
Nondischarge Systems: Special Site Requirements
Concept
.Requir ement
Wastewater Systems
Slow rate <SRI
Clay loams and sandy loams, >0.15 to <15 crn/h permeability preferred. bedr~ck and groundwater >1.5 m~
slopes <20~. agricultural sites- <12~.
Rapid infiltration fRII
Sandy loams and sands, >5-50 cmlh permeability.

bedrock and groundwater >4.'5 ~ s lopes <10%, sites
where significant bac kfill required for construction
should be avoided. Look for. sites near surface waters or
oveF notHlrinking-water aquifers.
Sludge Systems
Land application
Generally the same as for agricultural or forested SR systems; see Chap. 8 for special requirements for toxic or
ha..~ous sludges.
.
Compos ting, freezing,

vermistabilization. or
reed beds
V sually on wastewater treatment plant s ite , so

special site investig;~. ti on not required; an three require
impermeable barrier to protect groundwater: freezing
and reed beds also need underdrains for percolate
Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection
13
It is presumed that any percolate from the nondischarging systems

mingles with any groundwater that may be present, and may eventu. ally emerge as subflow in adjacent surface waters: These systems are
typically designed to satisfy regulatory water-quality requirements in
the percolate/groundwater as it reaches tl1:e project boimdary. Some of .
these concepts can also be designed as a direct discharge if under-
drains, recovery wells, or cutoff ditches are included as system components. The underdrained slow-rate (SR) land treatment system at
Muskegon, Michigan,4 is an example of this type, while the forested
SR system in Clayton County, Georgia,' depends on natural subsurface flow. This subflow does emerge in surface streams which are part
of the community's drinking water sUpplies, but the land. treatment
system is not considered to be a discharging system as defined by the
U.S. Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) and by the State of
Georgia.
Resources required
A preliminary determination of process feasibility and the identifi-
cation of potential sites is based on the analysis of maps and other

existing information. The requirements in Tables 2.1 and 2.2,
along V\rith an estimate of the land area needed for each of th~ .concepts, are used in this procedure. The community maps sh~uld
. show: topography, water bodies and streams, flood hazard zones,
community layout and land use (e.g., residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, forest), existing water supply and sewer:age systems. anticipated areas of growth and expansion, soil types
within the community and adjacent areas. Sources for these maps
include the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Soil Conservation
Service {SCS), state agencies~ as well as local planni.D.g and zoning
agencies.
.Preliminary estimates of land area
The land area estimates derived in this section are used with the
information in Tables 2.1 and 2..2 to determine, with the map study~
if suitable sites exist for the process under consideration. These pre.liminary area estimates -are very conservative and are intended only
for this preliminary evaiua tion: They should not be used. for final
design.
Treatment ponds. The area estimate for pond systems will depend on
the effluent quality required [defined in terms of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD) and suspended solidS (SS)], on the type of po~ system
. ,;
14
Chapter Two
proposed, a nd on the geographic location. A fa~ultative pond in the

southern United States \"~.till require less area than the same process in
Canada. TP.e .equations ~ven below are for total project area and
include an allowance for dikes, roads, and unusable portions of the site.
F_'or a 1-m (3-ft)-deep oxidation pond assumed to be
in a wann climate, with 30 days' detention, and organic loading of 90
kg/ha/d (80 lb/add). the expected effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L,
88>30, mg/L. Then
Oxidation ponds.
A -op
= (k)(Q)
.
(2.1)
. whereA0 p = total project area, ha (ac)

Q = design flow, m 3/d (g/d)
.k = (3.2)(10- 3 ).,. metric (3.0 x 10- 5 , U.S. units).
Facultative ponds in cold crrmates. Assuming more than 80 days" deten-
tion in a 1.5-m (5-ftJ.-deep pond and organic loading of 16.8 kg/bald

( 15 lb/add), the expected. effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L, 88>30
mg/L. Then
(2.2)
where A
fc
= facultative pond site ~ ha (ac)
k ~ (1.68)(10 - 2 )~ metric (1.6o x .I0- 4, U.S.)
(other terms as defined previously)_

Fa.~ultative pondsin warm climates.
Assuming more than 60 days, deten. tion, in a 1.5-m {5-ft}-deep pond and organic loading of 56 kglha/d (50
. 1b/add), the expected efiluent quality is BOD = 30 ing/L, 88>30 mg/L.
. Then
.4.fw = (k "J(Q)
whe!e A
fw
(2.3)
= facultafu,.e pond, warm climate, site area, ha (ac)

= (5.1){10- 3 ), metric (4..8 X 10- 5 ; U.S.. units)
{other terms a.S dEfined preciously).
Controlled-discharge ponds are usedin

northern climates to avoid winter discharges and in warm areas to
match effluent. quality acceptable stream.fiow conditions. The typical depth is 1.5 m (5 ft), maximum detention time is 180 days~ and
expected effluent quality is BOD<30 mgiL, 88<30 mg/L. Here
Conlt'oled-dtscharge ponds.
to
....4.cd
= (k )( Q) .
whereAed = controlled-discharge pon(4 site area, ha(ac)
(2.4)
= (i.63)( 1o~ ), metric n.32 ;.-
....,
15
io-1, U.S. units)
(other terms as defined previously) . .

The size of partial-mix aerat~d ponds will
vary with climate. For this purpose assume more than 50 days detention, 2.5 m (8ft) depth, and organic loading of 100 kg/hald (89lb/add).
Expected effiuent quality is BOD = 30 mg/L, 88>30 mg/L. Then
Partial-mix aerated ponds.
Aap
= (k)(Q)
(2.5)
where Aap = aerated pond, site are~ h a (ac)

k = (2.9)(10- 3 ), metric (2.7 x 10- 3, U.S. units)
(other terms as defined previously).
Hyacinth systems. Hyacinth systems can be designed for treatment of
raw sewage or for any other level up to tertiary polishing of secondary

effiuent. As with other types of pond systems the critical design parameter is organic loading. The degree of nutrient removal ac~eved
with hyacinth systems is related directly to the frequency of 4,arvest. .
.Hyacinth systems are practical only in locations where the plant can
survive naturally; see Fig. 2.1 for this range and Chap. 5 for detailed
design criteria~
7
Hyacinth ponds for secondary treat;ment

are designed for a raw sewage input,. detention tinle more than 50
Secondary hyacinth ponds.
fJI
Year- round
mont~s per year

..
Figure 2.1
Suitable areas for hyacinth syst~.
16
Chapter Two
days. depth of 1.5 m c5 ftJ or less, organic loading rate of 30 kg/ha/d

( 27 lb/ac/d J, and water temperature above l0C. Expected effiuent
quality is BOD<30 mg/L, SS<30 mg/L. A major function of the
hyacinth plants is to suppress algae.
(2.6)
whereAh.Q
k
= hyacinth pond for secondary treatment, site area, ha (ac)

= <9.5)< Io -=~), metric <8.9 x 10- 5, U.S. units)
Advanced secondary hyacinth

ponds are designed to provide better than secondary treatment,
including some nutrient removal, with primary or equivalent input.
Assume detention time more than 6 days, depth less than 1 m (3 ft)~
organic loading 1000 kg/ha/d (900 lb/ac/d), supplemental aeration provided. Expected effluent quality is BOD<lO mg/L, 88<10 mg/L, with
nitrogen r emoval dependent on frequency of harvest. The~
Advanced secondary hyacinth ponds.
(2.7)
where A .
l l fL~
~~
pond, advanced secondary treatment, site

area, ha (ac )
i Q - . 1 r - I \
,. ( 9 .
6 T! ,...
.
.
, v.O J( \.~
., metnc
.U X 10
, u.t;. unttsJ
= hy.acint'h
-
Tettiary hyacinth ponds are designed to provide advanced treatment. with secondary effiuent input; other parameters are detention timemore than 6 days~ depth less than 1m (3
ft>. organic loading rate 50 kg/ha/d (44.5 lb/ac/d),. water tempera-
ture.>2o~c ~ no. supplemental aeration. Expected effluent quality .is
BOD<lO mg/L~ SS<lO mg/L, 'vith total N<5 mg/4 total P;-5 mg/L_
Then
Tertiary hyacinHt ponds.
(2.8}
where ~4.ht
= hyacinth pond, te~iary treatment, site area, ha (ac)

k = (7_1J(10- 4 ), metric <6.7 X 10- 6 , U..S_ units )
= (6_7)(10- 6 ) .. U.S. units
(other terms as defined.previously}.

Constructed wetlands_. Constructed wetlands are typically designed
for prima.r::y-: or equivalent-quality inpo:t,. to produce better than seconda.t-y effluent quality~ and to operate year-round in moderately cold
climates. Detention time is about 7 days, depth is 0.3 m (1 ft), and
organic loading is 100 kg/bald (89 lb/ac/d). Expect~d eillnent quality
is BOD<lO mg/L, 88<10 mg!L; total N<lO mg/L (during warm. weathe r), total P>5 mg/L The area estimate given by Eq. 2.9 does not
17
include the area required for a preliminary treatment system before

the wetland.
(2.9)
where AC'\\. = cofu-tructed wetland, site area, ha ( ac)
k = (4~31Jf10- 3 ), metric (4.03 x Io-5, U.S. units>
(other terms as defined previously)_
The size of an overland-flow (OF J project site will
depend on the 'length of the operating season for this process. Figure
2.2 can be used to estimate the number of nonoperating days during
which wastewater storage will be required. The design flow to the
overland-~ow system is then calculated using Eq. 2.10:
Overland flow.
_
+ (ts)(qc)
Qm - qt' (f )
(2.10)
where Ql~
= average monthly design flow to land treatment site,

m 3/mo \gal/n1o)
q:: = average monthly flc;w incommunitym 3/mo (gal/mo)

t . = number of months storag-e is required
"
ta
= nmnber of months in operating season
f'"::' "1
L::.:J.
2 t~ 5 days star-nne
for
. .....,.
operoti.ar.aJ fleJtibi I it-y
Ftgure ~ Recommended stor~ue days for overland-flow systems.
18
Chapter Two
The detention time on the OF slope is about 1-2 h , and depth of

water on the slope is a few centimeters or less. The process design is
not typ.i cally based on organic loading rates. Expectedeffluent quality
is BOD = 10' mg/L, SS = 10 mg/L, tota l N<lO mg/L, total P<6 mg/L.
The. area estimate given by Eq. 2.11includes an allowance for a 1-day
aeration cell, and for w!nter wastewater storage (if needed) as well as
the actual treatment area, with an assumed 15-cm/wk (6-iDJwk)
hydraulic loading.
A 0 r= (3.9
10- 4 )(Qm + 0.05qJ)
(metric)
(2.11)
(U.S.)
~here Aor ~ .overland fi?w project area, ha (ac)

.
.
Q = average monthly design flow to land treatment site,
m
m 3/mo (gai/mo)
..
q c = average monthly
flow in the community, m 3/mo (gal/mo)
.
t s = number of months storage is reqUired
.
Slow-rate systems. Slow-rate (SR) systems
~e
typically nondischarging systems. The size of the project. site will depend on the operati.Dg
season. Figure 2.3. can be used to estimate the number of operating
~onth~ for. locations. in the United States. The design flow to the SR
-
Figure 2.3 ApproX:imat~ months per year that wastewater application is possible for
slow-rate systems.
19
system is then calculated using Eq. 2.12. Organic loading is not usually the critical design param~ter. Either nitrogen or the hydraulic
capacity of the soil will control for most municipal effluents (see
Chap. 7); responses to industrial pollutants are considered in Chap. 3.
The area estimate given by Eq. 2.12 includes an allowance for preapplication treatment in an aerated cell as well as a winter storage
allowance and the actual land treatment area; a hydraulic loading of
5 c~wk (2 in/wk) is assumed. Expected effluent qua~ity is BOD<2
mg/L, 88<1 mg/L, total N<10 mg/L, total P<O.l mg/L_
Asr
= (6.0)(10- 4 )(Qm + 0.03qcts)
(2.12)
(metric)
(U.S_)
where Asr = slow-rate system, total project are~, ha (ac)
Qm = average monthly design flow to land treatment site,
m 3/mo (gal/mo)
qc = average monthly flow in the community, m 3/mo (gallmo)
t 5 = number of months storage is required
Rapid-infiltration systems. Typically, a rapid-infiltration <RD system is
a nondischarging system. Year-round operation is possible in all parts

of the United States, so climate is not a factor in design; the design
. treatment area is usually controlled by the hydraulic capacity of the
soils. As a result of the high hydraulic loadings,percolate nitrogen is
likely to exceed 10 mg/L at times, therefore sites. Should be selected
where ai:Ive'r se -$pacts .on drfnking water aquifers Will not occur.
Expected percolate quality is BOD<5 mg/L, SS<2 mg/L, total N>10
mg/L, total P beneath basin<1 mg/L. The area estimate given by Eq.
2.13 includes an allowance for preapplication treatment to the equivalent ofprimary quality_
A n.= (k)(Qm )
(2.13)
where Ari = RI project are~ ha (ac)

Qm =average monthly design flow to land treatment
m 3/mo (gal/mo)
k = (5.0)(10~ 5), metric (4.8 X 10- 7, U.S. units)
site~
The land area r-equired for a community

wastewater flow of 4008 m 3/d (1.06 mgd) is eStimated using Eqs. 2.1
through 2.13, for locations in a cold climate (5-month yvastewater
storage for SR and OF), in the mid-Atlantic states (3-month storage),
and in the southern United States (no storage). The results are presented in Table .2..3. Allowances are made in the tabulated results
for
.
Land area comparison.
20
Chapter Two
TABLE 2.3
Land Area Estimates for 4000-m3/d Systems
Area Cha )
Treatment
system
Pond systems
Oxidation
Facultative
Cont rolled discharge
Partia l mix, aerated
Hyacinth , secondary
Hyacinth. adva nced secondary
Hyacinth , tertiary
Constructed wetland
Slow rate
Overland flow
Rapid infiltration
North
Mid-Atlantic
NA*
67.2
65.2
20.4
NA .
43.6
65.2
NA
NA
NA
24.0
134.0
92.0
6.0
NA
South
12.8
20.4
65.2
ll.6
38.0
4.0t
22.8t
17.2
72.0
47.0
1~.3
NA
NA
20.2
102.0
. 69.0
6.0
6.0
'-'.NA = not applicable.

-i'Includes allowance for primary t reatment.
+Includes a 20-ha facultative pond.
:.
any preliminary
~reatrnent
that might be required and for unused
portions of the general site area.
Hyacinth systems ar_e not considered outside the range shown in

Fig. 2 .1. Wetland systeni.s
considered to 'be year-round operations
for th?-s ptupose. Treatment responses in a wetland would proceed at
a higher rate in warm climates, as descnoed in Chap. 6, so a smaller
area would be required as comp~d to a northern site. That difference is not critical at this stage of planning and process selection and
is not included in Table 2.3.
are.
Sludge systems. The land area required for sludge systems for composting~
sludge freezing~ vermistabilization, or reed bed dewatering is

dependent on sludge quantity, moisture content and local climate. It
is necessary to nse the procedures in Chap. 8 to determine the area
required for each situation_ A special site investigation may not be
necessary, since thes~ sludge treatment concepts are usually loC?ted
in the vicinity of a wastewater treatment facility and require a minor
portion of the total site area. The exception may be composting sites
for large quantities of sludge, where a remote site may be desirable to
avoid residential co~p1aints and to take advantage of lower land costs.
The area required for land application of sludges is also dependent
on sludge quantity and characteristics as well as the type of operation
intended. The loading rates in Table 2.4 can be ti.sed to calculate an
estimate of the land area required for each of the major land application options.
7
TABLE 2.4
21
Sludge Loadings for Preliminary Site Area Determination
Option*
Application schedule
Agricultural
Forest
Annual, for 10 years

One time, or at 5-year
intervals for 20 years
Onetime
Annual
Reclamation
TypeB
Typical rate
(mtJhaJ
10
45
100
340
*See Chap. 8 for detailed description of options.
2..2 Site Identification

The information presented or develop~d in the previous sections is
combined with maps of the community area to determine if feasible
sites for wastewater treatment or sludge disposal exist within a reasonable distance.
It is unlikely that a community or industry will have site conditions,
within reasonable proximity, for all of the y;rastewater treatment or
sludge concepts listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, and several will usually be
dropped from consideration at an early stage.. All of the technically
suitable sites should be located on the maps. In the next evaluation
step, local knowledge regarding.land use commitments, costs, and the
. technical ranking procedure (described in the next section) are considered to determine which process(es) and site(s) are technically feasible.
A complex screening procedure is not usually required for the pond,
aquatic, and wetland concepts, since the number of potential sites is
usually. limited. The critical factors in these cases are close proximity to
the.wastewater source and access to surface water for final discharge.
The opposite is true for the concepts that involve land application of
wastewater or sludge, since a significant number of potential sites may
exist. It will not be economjcal to -conduct detailed site investigations
on all potential sites: so a preliminary screening is justified.
Screening procedure
The screening procedure J:.ecom.mended by the EPA13 utilizes rating

factors to evaluate each potential site_ Those sites with moderate to
high scores are candidates for ~erions consideration .and site investigation and testing. The conditions included in the general procedure
include site grades, depth to groundwater, depth of soil, land use (present or f.irl;ure),. and the pumpjng distance and elevation for the wastewater treatment concepts. The economical haul distance for sludge
disposal/utilization concepts will. depend on solids concentration and.
other local factors and must be detei-:mi.ned on a case-by-case basis.
Tables 2.5 and 2.6 are applicable for land application uf wastewater.
22
Chapter Two
TABLE 2.5
Physical Rating Factors for Land Application o~ Wastewater16
Concept
Condition
Slow
rate
Overland
flow
Rapid
infiltration
Site grade (~ 1
Q..-..5
5-10
10-15
15-20
20-39
30-35
>35
Soil depth(m)t
0.3--0.6
0.6-L5
8
6
4
Forest only, 5
Forest only, 4
Forest only, 2
Forest only, 0
NS
3
8
8
5
2
NS*
NS
NS
NS
0
4
7
7
0
4
6
5
6
6
<0.~5
0.15-(}~50
3
5
8
8
10
8
6
1
1.5-3.0
>3.0
Depth to groundwater (m >
<1
1-3
>3
8
4
1
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
4
8
NS
2
6
Soil permeability.
most restrictive layer (em/h)
0.50-1.50
1.50-5.10
>5.10
NS
NS
NS
1
6
9
*NS = not suitable.

tsoil depth to bedrock or impeoneab1e barrier.
Table 2. 7 may be used for sludge concepts, and Tables 2.a and 2.9 are
for the special case of forested sites for either sludge or wastewater.
~e soil eype is not included as a factor in Tables 2.5 to 2.7; it was
included in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 .a::ild was part ofthe basis for preliminary
site idEmtifica:tion, so it is not included again as a rating fu.:ctor.
The relative importance of the various conditions in Tables 2.5 and
2.6 is reflected in the magnitndeof the valne assign~ so the: largest
value indicates the most important 'c haracteristic. The final category
in Table 2.6 relates to the ~cipated management of the land application site. It is possible, under favorable conditions, to find farms or
forestry operators in rural areas who may be willing to accept wastewater or sludges for their nutrient value and who would prefer to continue to manage the site.
.
The ranking for a specific site is obtained by snmmTng the individual values from Tables 2.5 and. 2.6_;The highest-ranking site will be
the mosi suitable. The suitability ranlring can be determined according to the following ranges:
'
... ...
TABLE 2.6
. .
:~; ,
23
Land Use and Economic Factors for land Application of Wast~~~er16
Condition
Rating value
Distance from wastewater source (kmJ

0-3
3-8
S-16
>16
Ele\'ation difference (m)

<0
6
5
3
1
0-15
15-60
>200
Land use, existing or planned
Industrial
High density, residential or urban
Low density, residential or urban
Agricultural, or open space, for agricultural SR or OF
Forested.
for forested sites
for agricultural SR or OF
Land cost and management
No land cost, farmer or forest company mana..:,uement
Land pttrehase~ farmer or forest company management
Land purchased, operated by industry or city
Low snitability
ndoderatesuitabLU~
. High suitability
0
0
1
4
5
3
1
<18
18-34
34-50
The restrictions on liquid (<7 percent solids) sludges in Table 2..7

are to contro1 .runo:ff or erosion of surface-applied sludges. Injection Of
liquid sludges is acceptable on 6- to 12-percent slopes~ but is not recommen~ed on bigher grades wit~out effective rnnaff control.
The values from Table 2.7 can ..be eombined with the land use and
.land c ost factors from Table 2.6 (if appropriate) to obtain an overall
rating for a potential sludge application site.. These combi;nations.prodnc~. the following ranges:
.~:-:::.i\1;,~,..,,..
Agricultural
.Reclamation
Low snitability
<10
<1.0
~oderate suitability
10-20
~g,h suitability
20-35
10-20
20-35
T~B
.<5
5-15
. 15-25
The transport distance is a critical factor and must be included in

the final ranking. The rating values for distance given in Table 2'~6
24
Chapter Two
TABLE 2.7
Physical Rating Factors for Land Application of Sludge17
Concept
Coudit i>:!l
S ite
Agricultura l
Reclama tion
Type B*
8
7
6
5
4
8
4
NSt
NS
NS
~,.rrade 1' i( 1
0-3
:)
3--6
6
4
3
6-12rno liquid s ludge on ground :;urfacE-1

12- 15 i no liquid s ludge 1
>15 rno liquid s ludge .l
Soil depth tm l~
~s
NS
NS
0 .6-1.2
>1.2
2
5
8
3
5
3
1
<0.6
Soil permeabiljty. most restrictive layer lcm'hl

<0.08
0.08-0.24
0.24-0.S
0.8--2 .4
>2.4
Dept h tn 5easuna1 groUi-i dw~ ter 1 m1
2
8 ..
NS .
NS
6
<{1.6
0.6-1.2
0
4
>1.2
KSc~ Chap. S for details on s urface treatment ofindustri~l wastes.

~NS -=
not s uitable.
:j:Soil depth to hedrock ot impermeable barrier.
can also be used fm agricultural sludge operations. In general, it is

economical to transport liquid sludges (<8 percent solids) about 16 km
1. 10 mi J from the souice; dewatering is more cost effective for greater
distances.
Forested sites for either wastewater or sludge are presented as a

separate category in Tables 2..8 and 2.9. In the earlier cases the type
of vegetation to be used is a .de~on dec~sion to optimize treatment
and the appropriate vegetation i!? usually established during system
construction. It is far more common forforested sites to depend on the
pre-existing vegetation .on the site, so the type and status -of that
growth becomes an important selection factor. 7 The total rating combines values from Tables 2.8 and 2.9. The final ranking, as with ot:I:ter
concepts, mnst include transport distance; the values in Table 2.6 can
be used for wastewater systems.
. Climate
The regional climate has a direct influence on sludge man~gement

options, as shown in Table 2 _10. Climatic factors are not included in
the rating procedure for w astewater systems, since seasonal con-
Planning, Feasibility Assessment. Site Selection
25
Rating Factors for Sludge or Wastewater in Forests, Surface

C(>nditlons 13
TABLE 2.8
Condition
Rating value*
Dorrunant vegetation
Pine
Hardwood or mixed
Vegetatio!l. age I)Tl
2
3
Pine
3
>30
20-30
<20
Hardwood
>50
3'0-50
2
3
<30
Mixed pine.tbardwood.
>40
25-40
1
2
3
<25
Slope(~)
>35
0
2
4
{}-I
.2-6
7-:35
Di;t:ance to surface waters t m .:
15-30
30--60
>'60
1
2
3
Adjacent land use

High-denSity residential
Low-density residential
1
2
2
3
Industrial
Undeveloped
"'Total ratin~ 3-4 = not .suitable, 5-6
= poor, 9-14 = good. >15 = e-xcellent.
.straints on operations are already included as a factor in the land
area determinations; Seasonal constraints and the local climate are

important factors in determining the design hydraulic loading rates
and cycles for wastewatr systems~ as well as the length of the operating season and stormwater runoff conditions for all concepts_ Table
2..11lists thepertinent climatic data required for finai design of both
sludge and wastewater systems. At least a 10-year return period is
recommended_ Refer~nces 8 7 9 7 and ~0 are useful sources for this
in:fa-rmation..
Flood- hazard
Th~ location
of sludge or wastewater systems within a flood plain can

he either an asset or a liability, depending on the approach used for
26
Chapter Two
TABLE 2:9 Rating Factors for Sludge or Wastewater in Forests, Subsurface
Condifrons13
Condition
Rating value*
Depth to seasonal groundwater (m)

<1 .
1-3
>10
Depth to bedrock (ml
<1.5
1.5-3
0
4
6
0
4
6
>3
Type ofbedrock
Shale
2
4
6
Sand...~ne
Granite-gneiss
Rock oui:c::rops (fk oft<1tal surface)
>33
10-33
1-10
None
SCS eroion.clas3.fication
Severely eroded
Eroded
Not eroded
0
2
4
6
1
2
3
SCS shri.ck.:...:.-well potential for the soil
High
1
2
3
Low
Moderate
Soil cation-e:n:hange capacity fmEq/100 g>
<10
10-15
->15
Hydrcn1ic: condw:titity of soil (em/h)
>15
<5
5-10
Surface iniiltrationrate (CmJh)
<5
5-10
1
2
2
4
6
2
4
6
>15
*Total raring: 5-10 =
n~t sui:t.ahle,
15-25 = p~or, 25-30 =good. '30-45 =excellent.
TABlE 2.. tll Climatic Influences on !..and Application of Sludge17

Climatic ~gion
Impa~
Warm/arid
w armlhmn.id
Coldlhuririd
Operating time
Operating cost
Sludge storage
Salt accumulation in soil
Leachlng potential
Runoff potential
Year-round
Lower
Less
Seasonal
Higher
More
High
Low
Seasonal
Higher
Most
Moderate
MOderate
High
Low
High
Low
High
27
.
TABLE 2.11
Climatic Data Required for Land Application Oesigns' 3
Condition
Required data
Type of analysis
Precipitatio~
As rain, as snow, annual

averages, maxima, minima
Frequency
Storm events
Intensity, duration
Frequency
Temperature
Length of frost-free
period
Frequency
Wind
Direction, velocity .
Assess aerosol risk
Evapotranspiration
Annual and monthly

averages
Annual distribution
p]anning and design. Flood-prone areas may be undesirabl~ ~ecause

of variable drainage characteristics and potential flood damage to the
structural components of the system.. On the other hand, flood plains
and siniilar terrain may be the only deep soils in the area.. If permitted by the regul~tory authorities, utilization of such sites for wastewater or sludge can be an integral part of a flood-plain man~ement
plan. Off-site storage of wastewater or sludge can be a design feature
to allow the site to flood as needed.
Maps of flood-prone areas have been produced by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) in many areas of the United States as part
of the uniform National Program for Managing Flood Losses. The
maps are based on the standard 7.5' US~S topographic sheets_ These
identify areas with a potential of a 1-in-100 chance of flooding in a
given year by means of a black-and-white overprint. Other detailed
flood information is usually available from local offices of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and flood-control districts. If the screening
process identifies potential sites in flood-prone~ local authorities
should be consulted to identifY regnlatory requirements before beginning any detru1ed site investigation.
!
Water rights
Riparian water laws, primarily in states east ofthe Mississippi River,

proteCt the rights of landowners along a watercolll"se to use the water.
Appropriative laws in the Western States protect the rights of prior
users ofthe water. Adaption of any of the natu:ral concepts for wastewater treatment can have a direct impact on water right concerns:
Site drainage, both quantity and quality, may be affected.
..Anondischarging system, or a new discharge location, will affect

the quaptity .o f flow in a body of water where the discharge previ. ously existed.
28
Chapter Two
Operational considerations for land treatment systems may alter

the pattern and the quality of discharges to a water body.
In addition to surface waters in well-defined channels or basins,

m any states also regulate. or control other superficial waters and the
groundwater beneath the surface. State .and local discharge requirements for the appropriate case should be determined prior to initiation of design. If the project has any potential for legal entanglement,
a water rights attorney sho~d be consulted.
2.3
Site Evaluation
The ne?tt phase of the site and system selection process involves field
surveys to coiLfirm map data and then field testing for verification and to
provide the data needed for design. 'This preliminary procedure includes
an estimate of capital and operation and maintenance costs so that the
sites identified in. previous steps can be evaluated for cost effectiveness.
A concept and a site are. then selected for final design based on these
results. Each site evaluation must include the following ~ormation:
Property o\V-nership, physical dimensions cf the site, current and
future land us~
Surfaee and
gr.oundwat~r .c onditions: location and depth of wells,
surface waters, flooding and drainage problems,. fluctuations in

groundwater levels: quality and users of groundwater
Characterization of the soil profile to 1.5 m (5 ft) for SR. and most
sludge systems,. to at least 3m (10ft) for RI and pond-type systems, both physical and chemical properties
Agricultural crops: cropping pattern.s .Yields, fertilizers used,
tillage a nd irrigation methods, end use of crop, vehicular access
within site
Forest site: age and species of trees, commercial or recreational
site, irrigation and fertilizer methods, vehicle access to and within
site
Reclamation site: existing vegetation, historical causes for disturbance: previous reclamation efforts, need for regrading or ten~ain
modification
. Investigation of RI sites requires special consideration of the topography, and of soil type and uniformity. Extensiye cut-and-fill or relat:e d earthmoving operations a re not only expensive but c~ alter the
necessary soil characteri.::.-tics through compaction. Sites with significant and numerous changes in relief over a small area -are not the
best choice for RL Any soil \'\-ith a significant clay fractiun (>10 per-
29
centJ \\'ould generally exclude RI construction if fill were required by

the design. Extremely nonuniform soils over the site do not absolutely
p1eclude development of an RI system, but the significantly increase
the cost and complexity of site investigation.
Soils investigation
Table 2.12 presents a sequential approach to field testing to define

the physical and chemical characteristics of the on-site soils. In addition to the on-site test pits and borings, examination of exposed soil
profiles in road cuts, borrow pits, and plowed fields on or near the site
should be part of the routine investigation.
.
Backhoe test pits to a 3-m {10-ft) depth are recommended where
soil conditions permit, in each of the major soil types on the site. Soil
samples should be obtained from critical layers, particularly from the
layer being considered as the infJtration surface for wastewater, or
the application layer for sludge. These samples should be reserved for
fut-1.1re testing. The walls of the test pit should be carefully examined
to define the characteristics listed in Table 2.13; Refs. 11, 15, and 18
are useful sources for this purpose. The test pit should be left open
long enough to determine if groundwater seepage occurs, and then
the highest level attained should be recorded. Equally important is
any indication of seasonally high groundwater, most typically demonstrated by mottling of the soils (see Re[ 15)_
Soil borings should pene~ate to below the groundwater table if it is
within 10 to 15m (30 to 50ft) of the surface. At least one boring should
be located in every major soil type on the site. If generally uniform conditions prevail, there might be one boring for every 1 to 2 ha (2 to 5 ac)
for large--scale systems. Small .systems (<5 ha) should consider three to
five shallow borings spaced over the entire site (see Refs. 17 and 18).
All of the parameters in Table 2_13 can be observed or estimated
directly in the field by experienced personnel. This prelimina.ry- field .
identification serves to confirm -or modify the published soils data
obtained during the map survey phase. Laboratory tests with reserved
samples confirm :field identification and provide criteria for design.
Soil texture and structure. Soil texture and structure are particularly
important when infiltration .of water is a design factor. The textural
classes and the general terms used in soil descriptions are listed in
Table 2.14. Soil structur-e refers to the aggregation of soil particles
into clusters of larger particles called peds. Well-structured soils with

large voids between peds will tr.ans~it water more rapidly than
structureless soils of the same texture. Even fine-textured soils which
are well structured can transmit large quantities of water.
Earthmoving and relat.e d construction activity can alter or destroy
.,
;)
TAB I.E 2.12 saquonoo of Flold Testing, Typical Order from Left to RlgJlt1
'!'oat pit
CnnlliHlntA
'ry pc u f lea t:
DntLl
noodod;
'fot~t. hmln~-IB
Bnckhoe pit, also inspect

tond cut.H, otc,
DJ'lllcq or nugcrod, also

Jogs of local W!.!lls for
aolla dntn and wntcr level
Dopth of' ptofila, t.oxturo,

litl'ucturu, l'oat.J'IoUng
Depth to groundwater,
depth
t~
lni1ILntJ1m tof"tfl"'
But~ln
rnolhud if poaHiblc
lnfiiLtuLion rut.c
N, P, melniH, o.tc.,
l'elenLiun, Hoi! oncl crop
management
Hydraulic capacity
Soil nmendmonis, crop

limitntions
bnrtiur
Moro teats for:

Also csUmnte:
Number of tests:
Ne(ld t'or hytlruuliu

conductivity taata
Ground water flow
Hydrt\ulic conductivity,
If needed
Hotizontal conductivity,
if needed
. Loading rntos
3-5 minimum/site, more

for lnrgc sites, poor aoll
uniformity
dir~;~ction
Quality of any percolnte
Groundwater mounding,
need for drainage
3/site minimum, more
for RJ than SR, more for
poor soil uniformity
Al::m ruvit~ w SCS 1-mils

BU J'V~YH
lnyors
'!'hen estimate:
S!JII t!IH!IliiH!.!'.Y't
2/site minimum, more for

Jorge sites or poor soil
uniformity
Depends on type of site,

soil uniformity, waste
character
*Required only for larid application of wnatowntorj some definition of subsurface po!'tnenbili~y ncoded for pond and sludge systems.
t Typic!llly needed only for lnnd Jl.pplichtiun nf sludges ot wn~tewntora.
'
..
-~t I ' '- ~j ., :AI - .',1,.,.:,. ,:JrJ.'J ..,Hff,hHU:Ot':; .... :,;..v~ l!:-"t;.,j~:'j..~~ :':. .:_~!J!!..,\i(l~:j,~l.s.s.:.ti!~....:.:tr...l4~.;,!t,~~.....
..
TABLE 2.13
31
Soil Characteristics in Field lnvestigations 1
Significance
Characteristic
Estim~te pel"Cl'lll gravel, sand an~ fines
Influences permeabi)ity
~il
Influences permeability
textural class
Soil color
Indication of seasonal groundwater,
soil minerals
0
Plasticity of fines
Permeability, and influence on cut or

fill earthwork
Stratigraphy and structure
Ability to move water vertically and

laterally
Wetness and consistency
Drainage characteristics
TABLE 2.14 Soil Textural Classes and General Terminology Used in Soil
Descriptions15
COIIllDDn name
Class name
Textul:e
uses symbol*
Sand soils
Coaise
Sand
Loamy sand
Loamy soils
Moderately coarse
Sandy loam
Fine sandy lo0 m
SP,SM-d
Clayey soils
Medium
Very fine sandy
MH.ML
GW,GP.,GM-d
sw
loam..~silt
loam.. silt
Moderately fine
Clay loam. sandy

clay loam., silty
clay loam
Fme
Sandy clay, silty

clay, clay
.sc
ClLCL
*USCS = Unified Soil Classification System:_
the in-situ soil structure and significantly change the natmal permeability_ Soil strncture can be observed in the side walls of a .test pit;
Refs_ 10 and 1:2 are suggested fur additional detaiL
The chemical properties of a soil affect plant 'growth,
C<?ntn)1 the removal of m.a.J;lY waste constituents, and influence the
hydraulic conductivity of tll~ .soil profile_ Sodium, for example, can
affect the permeability of soils by dispersing clay particles and thereby changing a .s oil structure which initially allowed water move!llent.
The problem is most severe in arid climates. Chapter q discusses
these sodium relationships and the importance of soil pH and soil
Ip.ineral.S in greater detail- Th~ potenti~ ehemical interactions
between waste materials and soil ~e particnlarly ini.portant for l~d
Soil chemistry.
Chapter Two
32
application or containment of toxic and hazardous materials. Chapter

8 contains information on land application of toxic sludg~s.
If the proposed concept involves land application of sludges or

wastewater and that in tum depends on surface vegetation as a treatment component, then soil chemistry is a verj important factor in the
development and future maintenance of that vegetatioi1. The following tests are suggested for each of the major soil types on the site:
a pH, cation-exchange capa city (CEC}, exchangeable sodium percent-
age (ESP) (in arid climates) background metals (Pb, Zn, Cu, Ni,
Cd), electrical conductivity (EC> of soil solution
7
Plant available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassi~

requirements for pH adjustment and maintenance
(K),
lime
. There are few standard test procedures for chemical analysis of

soils. References 2, 6 and 12 are suggested for this purpose. Table
2.15 can be used to interpret results of these chemical tests.
The cation-exchange capacity a soil is a measure of the capacity
of negatively charged soi1 colloids ta adsorb cations from the soil solution. This adsorption i:3 not neceSsarily penn.anent, since the cations
7
of
TABLE 2.15
interpretation ot Soil Chemical Tests16
Parameter and test result
Interpretation
pH of saturated SGil paste

<4.2
Too acid for most crops
5.2-5.5
5.5-8.4
>8.4
CEC CmEq/100 gl
1-10
12-20
>20
Exchangeable cations
Sodium
Calcium
Potassium
ESP tas w- of CEC i
Suitable for acid-tolerant crops

Snitahle for mo:rt crops
Too alkaline for most crops
Limited adsorption <sandy .soils}
~foderate adsorption Isilt loam 1
ffigh adsorption {clay and organic soils>
Desirab"ler.ange fas '1 ofCEC'I
<5
"60-70
5.-10
<5
Satk--fa.rtozy
>10
Redru:erl permeability in fine-tenured soils
>20
Reduced permeability in coarse soils .
EC fmmho3/cm@ 25~C of
saturation e..'\.i:ract)
<2
2-4
4-S
8-16
>16
No sal.icity problems
Restricts g:rovr..h of very sensitive crops
Restricts gt"O'Y.t1:h of many crops
Only salt-tolerant crops \vill grow
Only a very few salt-toler-cUrt crops "\.VUl grow
Planning, Feasibility
Ass~ssment,
Site Selection
33
can be replaced by others in the soil solution. These exchanges do not

significantly alter the structure of the soil colloids. The percentage of
the CEC that is occupied by a particular cation is termed the percent
saturation for th~t cation. The sum of the exchangeable H, Na, K, Ca,
and Mg expressed as a percentage of the CEC is called percent base
saturation. There are optimum ranges for percent base saturation for
various crop and soil combinations. It is important for Ca and Mg to
be the dominant cations rather than Na or K. The cation distribution
in the natural soil can be easily changed by the use of soil amendments such as lime or gypsum.
The nutrient status of the soil is important if vegetation is to
become a component in the treatment system or if the soil system is
otherwise to remove nitrogen and phosphorus. Potassium is also measured to ensure maintenance of a proper balance with the other nutrients. The N:P:K ratios for wastewaters and sludges are not always
suitable for optimum crop growth and there have been cases where
the addition of supplemental potassium was necessary. See Chap. 3
for a detailed discussion of nutrients.
... ,.
.'~
Infiltration and permeability
The ability of water to infiltrate the soil surface and then percolate vertically or laterally is a critical factor for most of the treatment concepts
discussed in this book. On the one hand, excessive permeability can
negate the design intentions for most ponds, wetlands, and OF systems.
Insufficient permeability will limit the usefulness of SR and RI sys'-t.ems
and result in undesirable waterlogged conditions for land application of
sludges. The hydraulic properties of major concern are the ability of the
soil surface to infiltrate water and the flow or ret.ention of water v,itlrin
the soil profile. T hese factors are defined by the saturated p enneahility
or hydraulic conductivity, the infiltration capacity, ~d the porosity,.
specific retention, and specific yield of the soil matrix.
Saturated permeabifrty. A material is considered permeable if it contains interconnected pores, cracks, or .other passageways through.
which water or gas can flow. H._ydraulic conductivity (synonymous
with permeability as used in this te..'rt) is a measure of the ability of
liquids and gases to pass through soiL A preliminary estimate of permeability can be fo~d in most SCS soil surveys. The final site and
process selection and design should be basedon appropriate field and
laboratory tests to confirm the initial estimates. Table 2.16 lists the
permeability classes as defined by the SCS.
Natural soils at the low end of the range are best .suited for ponds.
wetlands, OF, and treatment of indus~al sludges which might have
34
Chapter Two
TABLE 2.16
~CS Permeability Classes for Sat~rated Soif1
Soil penneability Ccm/h)
Class
<0.06
0.15-0.51
0.51- 1.50
1.50-5.10
5.1G-15.20
15.20-50.0
>50.0
Very slow
Slow
Moderately slow
Moderate
Moderately rapid
Rapid
Very rapid
toxic components. Soils in the mid-range are well suited. for SR and
for land application of sludges. These soils can be rendered suitable
for the former uses via amendments or special treatment. The soils at
the upper end of the range are suited only for RI systems in their natural state, but can also be suitable for ponds, wetlands, or OF with
construction of a proper liner.
The movement of water through soils can be defined using Darcy's
equation:
(2.14)
where q = flux of water, the flow per unit cross-sectional area, cmlh
.
(in/h)
Q = volmne of flow per unit time, cm3/h (in3/h).

A = unit cross-sectional area, cm2 (in2)
K = permeability {hydraulic conductivity}, cm/h (in/h)
H = total head, m (ft)
L = hydraulic path length, m (ft)
!lli/IlL = hydraulic gradient
The total head can be assumed to be the sum ofthe soil water pressure head (h) and the head due to gravitY (Z), or H = h+Z. When the
flow path is essentially vertical, the hydraulic gradient is eq:nal to I
and the v ertical permeability Kt. is used in Eq. 2.14. W hen the flow
path.is essentially horizontal, then t he horizontal permeability"Kh
should be used. The perm.e ability coefficient K is not a true constant,
bnt a rapidly changing function of water content.. Even under saturated conditions, the K value may change dne to swelling of clay particles, and other factors, but for general engineering design purposes it
can be consid, red a constant. The Kt. will not necessanly be equal to
the Kh
for most soils. In general, the lateral K.n will be higher, since
.
the interbedding of fine- and coarse-grained layers tends to restrict
vertical flow. Typical values are given in Table 2.17_
...
Pl~nning,
Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection
35
TABLE2.17 Measured Ratio of~ to Kv16

Comments
42
75
56
100
72
72
Silty soil
2.0
2.0
4.4
7.0
Gravelly
Near terminal morain
Irregular sUccession of
sand and gra:.tel layers,
from field mea.surement.sofK
20.Q
10.0
Infiltration capacity. The infiltration rate of a soil is defined as the

rate at which water enters the soil from the surface. When the soil
profile is saturated and there is negligible ponding at the surface the
infiltration rate is equal to the effective saturated permeability or
co.n ductivity of the immediate soil profile.
Although the measured infiltration rate on a particular site may
decrease with time due to surface clogging, the snbsurface vertical
permeability at saturation will generally remain constant. As a
result, the short-term measurement of infiltration serves reasonably
well as an estimate of the long-term saturated vertical permeability
within the zone ofinfluence for the test procedure being used.
7
Porosity~
The ratio of voids to the total volume of the soil is referred

to as the soil porosity. It is expressed either as a decimal fraction or
as a percentage as defined by Eq. 2..15.
n=
vt - v
vt
s=_t'
{2.15)
where n = porosity,. % as a decimal

~ = total unit volume of soil~ m 3 (ft3}
V s = tmit volume of soil fractio~ m s (~)
V v = unit volume ofvoids, m 3 (ft3}
Specific yield and specific retention.. The porosity <Jf a soU defines the
max:4num amount of water which a soil can contain when. it is saturated. The specific yield is the portion ofthat water wmch will drain
under the influence of gravity, and the specific retention is the _p ortion
which Will remain as a film and in very small voids. The porosity,.
therefore, is the sum of the specific yield .and sp~cific retention.
Figure 2.4 illustrates the relationship for typical in-~ consolidated
Californian soils.
;.
Chapter Two
36
50
45
/Porosity
40
...E
35
30
..0
>-
25
<II
20
::I
....c
u
~ 15
Specific retention
10
0
:
\it
"0
'l:l
.Q
u
>
.
t/16
c:
>-
f.
~
118
"0
'l:l
.c
....0
"'
E
c:
c:
c.>
. :0
i,:;:
i.L
c:
c:
1/4
>
2'
0
00
>
....
C'
-~
::J
:0
.......
L;
C'
c:l
'ii
...>
>
"'a
0
Cl
112
c:
~
CD
::J
"'
41
""0
"'0
CJ
'l:l
Cl>
z
16
32
"'ii
>
...,_
...
...
0
CJ'
t u"'
0
0
64
>
0~
CJ'
II>
~
.U
......"'
"C
:;
0
III
12B 256
Mmirr.urn 101.. grain size, mm
'
Figure 2.4 PurO:>

-it}-, specific retention. and s p?cific )ie1d Yarir.tions with grain size.
in-s itu consolidated soils.
Cl)a.stal
.
. .. . bGt.sin, California..
~
'The specific yield is used in defining aquifer properties, particularly

in calculating groundwater mounding beneath ponds and wastewater
application sites_ For relatively coarse-textured soils. and deep water
tables, it is acceptable to assume a constant value for the specific
yield. Since the calculations are not especially sensitive to small
changes in specific yield. it is usually satisfactory to estimate it from
other properties, as shotVn in Fig. 2.4 or 2.5. Neither Fig. 2-4 .nor 2.5
shonld be used to indicate the hydraulic properties of the medium in
subsurface-flow constructed wetlands. Groundwater mound analysis
can be. more complicated for finer-textured soils because of capillarity
effects in tbe soil as the water table moves higher; see Refs. 3 and 5
for details.
Test procedures and evaiuation. In some cases It may be acceptable to
utilize SCS estimates of soil permeability after confirnringtbe aetual

presence of 'U!,e spec#ic soil on the site during a field investigation.
This should be sufficient for pond and OF systems. on soils with naturally Inw permeabilities. Concepts where water flow in the soil is .a
major design consideration \\<ill require field and possibly laboratory
testing. Infiltration testing in the field is possible, anc;l recom.rnen~ed,
Planning , Feasibility Assessment, Site Selection
40
30
I Ii I
I lI v
>
>-
10
8.
~
>.
..
...
5
4
Q.
Ul
v~
~ .
1.-----~
-c
....
1---1--
II
.,2Q
E
::s
37
inlh 0.1
cmlh Q25
.; V
/,!
. !
I ;
. 02
O.S
I
Q.3 0.4
OB t
I
I
..
()..6 ()..6 1
1.5 2 2.5
2
5
3 4
8 10
6 8 10
15 2025
20
50
30 40 ED 8l 100
80 100 150200250
Hydraulic CX)ndlJCfivity
Agure 2.5 General relationship between "s pecific yield and hydraulic conductiwit}- for
fine-textured -~oils.
on the soil sm-face7 and with smaJler-5eale devices in test pits. It is

necessary t0 lli.~ize laboratory permeability tests on undisturbed soil
samples from test borings if deeper subsurface flow is a project con:
cern. A "ariety of methods are available to measure infiltration rate
or vertical saturated permeability (K C" ) in the field; some of the most
common methods are compared in Table 2.18.. The reliability of test
resultS is a function of the test area and the zone of subsurface material :influenced_ This relationship .is indicated indirectly in Table 2.18
by the ~rolume of water required to conduct a single test. As indicat.ed
in Chap. 7~ the increased confidence resulting from larger-scale field
tes:ts allows a reduction in th safety factor for the design of some
land treatment systems.
FJoocfmgba:si~ test.. A basin te:;t area of at least 7m2 (75 ft;2) is sug-
gested for. .a ll projects where infiltration and percolation of water are

design expe.c tations. The area can be surrounded by a low earthen
berm w ith an impermeable plastic cover, or aluminum flashing can be
partially set into the soil in a circular con.f4:,auration to define the test
area.. The use of a bent.onite seal around the aluminum flas~ng
perime~.r is recommended to prevent le~e of water. Tensiometers
at.a -depth of 15. ern: (6 ini and .30 em ( 12 in) -can be installed near the
center {)[ the circle tc? define saturated conditions at these depths as
the test progresses. The test basin should be flooded several times to
ensure saturated conditions and to calibrate any instrUmentation_
The actual test nm should he completed within 24 h of the prelimi7
.:... :~
. t;::
. "'
:'
38 .
Chapter: Two
TABLE 2.18 Comparison of Field Infiltration Testing Melhods1
Equipment
needed
Technique
Water needs
per test (L)
Time
. :)(}r test Ch)
Flooding _ha::,-in
1900-7600
4-12
Backhoe or
blade
See _this chapter for details
Air ent.ry pern:Ieameter.(AEPI
10
0.5-1
AEPdevice
See this chap-
Cylinder infiltrometer
400-700
1-6
Standard device
See Ref. 16 for

details
Sprinkler infil-
1000-1200
1.5-3
Pump, pressure
ta.nk, sprinkler,
collection cans
See Ref. 16 for

details
trometer
Comments
ter for details
nary trials~ This final test nm may require 3 to 8 h for coarse-textured soils..
The water level in the ba..~ is observed and recorded with time.
These valnes are plotted as intake rate (em/h) versus time. This
intake rate will be relatively high initially and then drop off with
time_ The- test must continue until the intake rate approaches
"steadv-::state" condition. This "steady-state" rate can be taken as the
limi~g irifiltration rate for the soil within the z~ne of influence of the
test. A safety factor is then applied to that rate for system design as
descnoedin Chap. 7.
Sine~ it .is the basic purpose of the test to define the hydraulic con-.
ductivity afthe near surfu.ce soil layers, the use of clean water (with
. about' tlie Sam~ ionic composition as the expected wastewater) is
acceptable in most cases. If~ however, the wastewater is expected to
have a high .solids rontent~ ...-vbich might clog the surface, a similar liquid should be used for the field test.
This basin test is most critical for the RI land treatment concept
. becatise large volumes of wastewater are applied to a relatively small
surfa...~ area. Most RI systems,. as described in Chap. 7, are operated
on a cyclic pattern of flooding and dcying to restore the infiltration
capacity ofthe basin.surface. If a particular project design calls for. a.
continuously flooded seepage pond mode, then the initial field tests
should be rontinued for a long enough period to simUlate this condition_ If site conditioru; require the construction of the full-scale RI
basins on backfilled mata-r.:ial (not recommended), a test fill should he
constructed on the site with the equipment intended for full-scale use
and then the .b asin test described above run in that materiaL The test
fill should be as deep as required by the site design or L5 m (5 ft\
whichever is less. The top ofthe fill area should be at least 5 m (15ft)
39
wide and 5 m ( 15 ft) long to permit the installation of a. flooding basin

test near the center. .
One flooding basin infiltration test should be run on each of the
major soil types on the site. For large continuous areas, one test for
up to 10 ha (25 ac) is typically sufficient. The test should be performed on the soil layer that will become the final infiltration surface
i.J;l the constructed system.
Air entry permeameter. The air entry permeameter was developed by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to meas.ure point
hydraulic conductivity in the absence of a water table. The device is
not available commercially, but specifications and fabrication details
can be obtained from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water
Conservation Laboratory, 4332 East Broadway, Phoenix, AZ 85040.
. . The unit defines conditio~ for very small soil zone, but the small
volmne of water required and short time for a single test make it useful to verify site conditions between. the larger-scale flooding basin
t-ests. It can also be used in a test pit to define the in-situ permeab~
ty with depth. The pit is dug with one end inclined to the surface,
benches are cut about 1 m (3 ft) wide by band, and the AEP device is
used on that surface.
The permeability of deeper

soils is usually measured via laboratory tests on undisturbed soil
samples obtained during the field boring program. Such data are usnally required only for design of RI systems or to ensure that su~soils
are adequate to contain undesirahleIeachates. In many situations it
. is desi:I:able for the design of RI systems to determine the horizontal
permeability of the subsn:rf:ace layers_ This can be accomplished with
.a field test called the auger hale tests- which in essence requires pump:mg a slug water out of a bore hole and then observing the time for .
the water level to recover via lateral flow. The u_s_ Bureau of
Reclamation has developed a standard procedure for this test, and
details can. be fonnd in Refs_ i1 and 14.
Definition of the groundwater position and flow direction is essential
for most of the treatment concepts discussed in.this book. Overlandflow and wetland syStems have little concern with deep groundwater
tables but might. still be affected by near-surface seaso~ally high
groun.dwater. Evidence of seasonal groundwater may be observed in
the test pits; water levels should be observed in any borings and in any
existing wells on site or on adjacent properties. These data can provide
information on the general hydraulic gradient and flow direction for
the area. Th~e data are also necessary if groundwater mounding or
underdrainage, as described in Chap. 3, are project C?ncerns.
Subsurface per.:Oeability and groundwater tiow.
of
40
Chapter Two
Buffer zones
Prior w the site investigation, state and local requirements for buffer
zones or setbac~ : listances should be determined, to be su~e - that adequate area exisb on site or can be obtained. rvrost requirements for
buffer zones or separation distances are 'based on.esthetics. and the
avoidance of odor complaints. The potential for a erosol transmission
of pathogens is a concern to some for the opetation of land appllcation
of wastewater and some types of sludge composting operations (see
Chap. 8 for a discussion of the iatter L A number of aerosol studies
have been conducted at both conventional and land treatment facilitie~ with no evidence of significant risk to adjacent populations.
E"-'tensive buffer zones for aerosol containment are not recommended.
If the system vvill utilize sprinklers, a buffer zone to catch the sprinkler droplets on windy days should be considered~ A strip 10-15 m
~ 30-50 ft) v;ride planted with conifers should suffice_ Odor potential is
the major concern for pond systems of the facultative type~ since the
seasonal O\.'erturn may bring anaerobic maten.a ls to the liquid surface
for a :=:hort period each spring and fall A typical requirement in these
cases is to locate such ponds at least 0.4 km. (0.25 mi) from habita-
tions. Mosquito control for wetland systems may require similar separation distances unless positive control measures a!e planned for the
system_ Recommended. setback distances for sludge systems are listed
in Table 2.19.
2A
Site and Process setection
The evaluation procedure to this poin~ has identified potential sites for
a particular treatment alternative and then condu~ field investigatioru: to obtai.Tl data fur the feasibility determination. The eYaluation of
the field data 1-~.J.t indicate whether the site requirements listed in
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 .e xist or not. If site conditions are favorable. it can be
.concluded that the'siteis apparehtly feasible for the intE:mded eoncept.
TABLE 2.13 Setback freccrnmendationsforSiudgeSystems"
Setback dis:an.ce- l!!ll
Suitable activities
15-SO
Sludge injection. and only near: .rernote single

dwellings. sma."l ponds, 10-yca:r h:igb.:-water mark
for streams. roads_No surface applications.
90-460
Injection or s urface application near: all the

above, plus s prings and wat~r supply wells;
injeci.iou on!y, neEr high-d'-nlrl t:y residendai
de~c:loprne:tt~.
Inj; ction tn :surfa ce application at
anabove.
Planning, Feasibility Assessment, Site ~election
41
If only one site and related treatment concept result from this
screening process, then the focus can shift to final design and possibly
additional detailed field tests to support that design. If m.ore than one
si.te for a particular concept, and/or more than one concept remain technically viable after the screening process, it will be necessary to do a
preliminary cost analysis to identify the most cost-effective alternative.
The criteria in Chaps. 4-9 should be used for a preliminary design
of the concept in ques:tJon. Equations 2.1~2.13 in this chapter should
not be used for this purpose. These equations are intended only as a
very preliminary estimate of the total amount of land which \vould be
required for a particular concept. The preliminary design s!:i9uld then
be used as the basis for preliminary cost estimate (capital and operating/maintenance) which should include land costs as well as pumping or transport costs to move the wastes from their source to the site.
A con1parison of these cost data will indicate the most cost-effective
altemative. In many cases the final selection will also be influenced
by the social and institutional acceptability. of the proposed site and
concept to be developed on it_
Referenc.es
1. Asano, T., and G. S. Pettygrove 1eds. !: Irrigation with Reclaimed 1Hc111;cipal
nastewater-_4. Guidance Manual, Water Re~o'urces Board, State of California,
Sacramento, July 1984.
2. Black, A C.ed.): 1.\tethods oj Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and li!icrobiologicd
Properties, Agronomy 9, American Society of A,.oronomy, Madison, WI, 1965.
3. Childs; E. C.: An. Introduction to the Physical Basis of Soil Water Phenomena, John
Wiley, London~ 1909.
4. Demirjiian, Y. 1L. J . Wilso!l., W. ClarkBon, and L Estes: Mw;kego:z Count)'
Wastewater Jfanagemer.l S_v.'item-Progress Report, 19.68-1975, EPA. 905/2-80-004,
U.S. Environme..-:ttal Proteetion Agency. Region V. Crucago, Feb. 1980.
5. Duke, H. R.: Capillary Properties of Soils-Influence upon Specific Yields.
Transcript.~ P.m. Scl{:__4gr. Eng_ 15:688-69~ 1972.
6. Jackson, 1\.L L.: Soil Chemical Prope-rtif.s. Prentice-Hall, E;nglev.-ood Cliffs. NJ.
1958_
7. Mcrci.ID, H. L.~ R. Cole, \V. Sopp.er, and W. Nuttr: Was.tewater App#ca:tions in.
Forest Eco-s_....stems. CRREL Report S2-19. U.S. Cold Regions .Research and
En.gine.c ring Laboratory" Hano....-ei', l\1--p-419&2.
8. National Oeeank and ;.-\:tm~-phe..-ic Adm.iP..istration: The Climatic Summary of the
United State.s.(a: 10-:)1-ear sumn1ary1. NO.AlL Roekville, !\.ID.
9. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Local Cli'Tnatologicci Data
(ar1noci! summari-es for ::eiecttd locations), NOAA, Rocbille-, ~ID.
10. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: The ~Uonthlv Summary of
Climatic. Data:, NOA.-!\. Rockvilfe. MD.
.
11. Reerl, S.C . and. R. W. Crites: l:IandJ;.ook of Land Treatment Systems for Industrial
and ~\furricipal Wastes . Noye~ Public-d.tions. Park Ridge" NJ. 1984.
.
12. Richards... L. A. (ed. l: Diagnosis and Improvement o{ Saline and Alkali SoilsJ
A::,aricwtnral Handbook Nn. 60, U.S. Department of Agrkulture. Wasf:rington., DC,
1954.
13. Tayl-or. G. L.: A Preliminary Site ..-~nation I-.1ethod for Treatu:ent of .Municipal
Wastewater by Spray Img--a.Iion ofForeEt Land. in Proceedings of the Ccmferen~.:e of
Applied Resi~arch a.nd Practice on Jfwzic:ipal and industrial W(!.';f.e~ Madi3on. \VI,
Sept... 1980.
42
Chapter Two
14. U .S. Dep.a rtment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation: Drainage Manual, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Was hington, DC, 1978.

15. U.S: Etwironmental Protection Agency: DesigrCManual-Onsite Wastewater
Treatment- and Disposal SystemS, EPA 625/1-80-012, Water Engineerlng Research
LaboratorY., Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 1980.
16. U.S. Emironrnental Protection Agency: Process Design ltfanual~ Treatment
of 1'\tfunoc.ipal Wastewater, EPA 625/1-81-013, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 1981.
17. U.S. En.,ironmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual Land Application of
Municipal Sludge, EPA 625/1-83-016, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 1983.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual Supplem..ent on

Rapid l'nfiltration and Overland Flow, EPA 625/l-81-013a, Center for
Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 1984.
~.
..
.. ,;
.
;:
. - :,
.._ ....
.,:
- ~
.!
..
. :! . . .
Chapter
Basi~
Process Responses
and Interactions
. - r'
This chapter describes the basic responses and interactions amqng

the waste constituents and the process components of natural tr~at
ment systems. Many of these responses are common to ~ore t han one
uf the treatment concepts, and are thereforediscussed in this chapter.
If a waste constituent is the limiting factor for. design, it .is also discussed in detail in the appropriate process design chapter.
\Vater is the major constituent of all of the wastes of concern in this
book, since even a "dried" sludge can contain more than 50 percent
'.\ater. The presence of water is a volumetric concern for all treatment
methods~ but it has even greater significance for many of the natural
treatment concepts since t h e flow patb and the flow rate control the
-:-:uccessful performance of the system.
Other waste constituents of major conern include the simple earb.Qnaceous organics (dissolved and suspended), toxic and hazardous._
orgamcs, pai:hogeB:S;-trace ~etals, nutrients (nitrogen~ phosphorus~
potassium), and other micronutrients. The natural s.,3-stem components which provide the critical reactions and responses inclnde bacteria, protozoa (algae, etc..), vegetation (aquatic and terrestrial),.~:and
the soil_ The responses involved include a range of physical, chemi~
and biological reactions.
3.1
Water Management
:\lajor c()ncems of water management include the potential for.t~:v:el

of contaminants with groundwater; the risk of leakage from pogp.s
and other aquatic systems, the potential for gro:undwater mm.mding
beneath a land treatment system, the need for drainage~ and the
43-
44
Chapter Three
maintenance of design flow conditions in

aquatic systems.
pond~,
wetlands, and othet
Fundame!ltal relationships
. . .
Chapter 2 introduced some of the hydraulic parameters (permeability . etc.) that are important to natural systems and discussed methods
for their determi~ation fn the field OT laboratory~ It is necessary to
provide furthei details and definition before undertaking any flow
analysis.
Permeability. The results from the field and laboratory test progran1
described in the previous chapter n1ay vary withrespect to both depth
Rnd areal extent, even if the same basic soil type is known to eXist
over much of the site. The soii layer with the most restrictive permeability is taken as the design basis for those systems which depend on
infilt!atitm and percolation of water as a process requirement. In
et her cases: where
considerable scatter to the data it is neces. there is
.
sa'!:y to detennine a. '-!mean'' permeability for design.
If the 5oil is u.."liform. then the vertical penneabi1itv K t should be
constant \c,!ith depth and area, and any differences in test results
:;hould be rlue to variations in the test proced.u re. In this case Kc~ e;an
be considered to be the arith~etic mean a~~defined by Eq. 3.1:
~
am
K, + K.,
.a:.
K3 + K
'3 .1).
~.
where- K am :i~ the arithmetic mean v.ertical perme ability and K 1-KII
are indhidual test results.
\Vher~ th"E soil profile consists of a layered series of uniform soils~
each with a distinct K 1_, generally decrea:,-ing \vith depth, the average
value can be represented as the harmonic mean:
D
(3.2)'
~;~:her-e .D
= soU profile depth
d r. = depth afnth layer

K.1m = harmonif.: mean permeabilitv
'.J
If nr: pattern or preference is indicated by a statistical analysis,
then a random distribution of the K .. values fO'r a. layer must be
assumed , and the geometric mean provides the most conseF,at.ive
estim.ate of the true K c:
;.
(3.3)
Basic Process Responses and Interactions
45
where Kgm = geometric mean permeability

.
Equation 3.1 or 3.3 can also be used with appropriate data to deter~ine. the later~l permeability Kh. Table 2.17 presents typical .values
forthe ratio Kh I Kv.
Groundwater flow velocity. The .a ctual flow velocity in a groundwater
systeni can be obtained by combining Darcy's iaw~ the basic velocity

equation from hydraulics, and the soil porosity, because flow can
occur only in the pore spaces in the soil.
V= (Kh)(~J
(n)(!lL)
(3.4)'
where V = groundwater flow velocity,. m/d (ft/d)

Kh = horizontal saturated penneability, mid (ft/d)
D.H
M. = hydraulic gradient~ m./n1 (ft/ft)
n = porosity {as a decimal fraction; see Fig. 2 .4 for typical values for in-situ soils) .
. Equation 3.4 can also be used to determine vertical flow velocity. In
this ease the hycl:rauJic gradient is equal to 1 and KL. should be used in
the -equation.
Aquifer transmissivity. The transmissivity of an aquifer is the .product
ofthe permeability of the material and the saturated thickness of the

aquifer. In effect it represents the ability of a unit width of the
aquifer to- transmit water. The volume of water moving through this
urlit width~ becalculated using Eq. 3.5:
7
!1H)
q = (Ki:)(b)(w)\L\L
(3.5.1
where q = volume of water moving throngh aquifer, m 3/d (ft}/d)

b = depth of saturated thickness of aquifer.. m (ft.')
w = \vidth of aquifer, for unit vtidth w = 1 m (1 ft>
!{H
~ =
hydraulic gradient, m/m (ft./ft)
L""l many situations well pumpi-11g tests are used to ~efin.e aquifer
properties.. The transmissivity of L~e aquifer can be ,e stimated using
pumping rate and_iz'aw-down data. from wcll tests; Refs. 6 and 32
provide details.
7
46
Chapter Three
Dispersion. The dispe-r sion of contaminants in the groundwater is

due to a combination of molecular diffusion and hydrodynamic mixing. The net result is that the concentration of the material i$less but
the zone of contact is greater at down-gradient locations. Dispersion
occurs in a longitudinal direction (D) and transverse to the f19w pat~
fD). Dye studies in homogeneous and isotropic granular media indicated that dis.p ersion occurs in the shape of a cone about 6 from the
application poi:at. 10 Stratification and other areal differences in the
field will typically result in much greater lateral and longitudinal dispersion. For example, the divergence of the co~e could be 20 or more
in fractured rock. 6 The dispersion coefficient is related to the seepage
velocity as described by Eq. 3.6:
D = (a)(v)
(3.6)
where D = dispersion coefficient, Dx longitudinal, D . transverse~ m 2/d

(ft~d)
.
)
a = dispersivity, a::: longitudinal, a')' transverse, ~ (ft)
u = seepage velocity of groundwater system, mid (ftld)
v
n
V = Darcys velocity fro~ Eq. 3.5.

n = porosity; see F:tg. 2.4 for typical values fQr in-situ .sOil~
The dispersivity is difficult to measure in the field or to determine
in the laboratory. Dispersivity is usually measured in the field by
adding a tracer at the source and then observing the concentration in
surrounding monitoring wells. An average value of 10 m 2/d resulted
from field experiments at the Fort Devens, Massachusetts, rapidinfiltration system,3 bnt predicted levels of contaminant transport
changd very little after increasing the assumed dispersivity by' 100
percent or more. Many uf the values reported in the literature are
site-specific, "'fittecf' values and cannot be used reliably for projects
elsewhere.
Retardation~
The hydrodynamic dispersion discussed in the previous

section affects all the contaminant concentrations e'q tially. However,
ad~orption, precipitation, and chemical reactions with other groundwater constitn.ents retard the rate of advance of the affected contaminants~ This effect is described by the retardation factor R d' which can
rang-e from a value of 1 to 50 for organics often encountered at field
sites. The lowest values are for conservative substances such as chlorides; which are not removed in the groundwater system. Chlorides
47
move with the same velocity as the adjacent water in the system, and
any change in obse'0'ed chloride concentration is due to dispersion
only, not retardation. Retardation is a function of soil and groundwater characteristics and i s not necessarily constant fo~ all locations.
The Rd for some metals might be close to 1 if th1. aquifer -is flowing
through clean sandy soils with a low pH, but close to 50 for clayey
soils. The lid for organic compounds depends on .sorption of the comP9unds to soil organic matter plus volatilization and _biodegradation.
The sorptive reactions depend on the quantity of organic matter in
the soil and on the solubility of the organic material in the groundwater. Insoluble compounds such as DDT, benzo[a]pyrenes, and some
PCBs are effectively removed by most soils: Highly soluble compounds such as chloroform, benzene, and toluene are removed less
efficiently by even highly organic soils. Because volatilizatio~ and
biodegradation are not necessarily dependent on soil type, the
removal of organic compoundS via these methods tends to .be more . ..
uniform from site to site. Table 3.1 presents retardation factors for a
number of organic compounds, as estimated from several literature
sources.3 10.27
Movement of pollutants
The movement or migration of po-llutants. with the groundwater is

controlled by the factors discussed in the previous section.. This might
be a concern for ponds and other a:qu.atie systems as well as when utilizing the slow-rate and re:pid-infil"t!ation land treatment concepts.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the suqsnrface zone of influence for a rapidinfiltJ;ation basin system, or a treatment pond where significant seepage is allowed.
It is frequently necessmy to determine the concentration of a polln- .

tant in the groundwater :plnme at a selected -d istance down-gradient
of the source. Alternatively? it may be desired to determine the distance at which a given concentration will occur at a given time, or the
time at which a given concentration will reach a particular point.
TABLE 3.1 Retardation Factots fcrSefected Organic Compounds
Material
Chloride
Chloroform
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Dichlorobenzene
Styrene
Chlorobenzene
3
9
3
14
31
35
52
Chapter Three
lateral distafice from. the source to the point of concern, m

( ft)
K, = effective horizontal permeability of the soil system, m/d
(ft/d)
.
.
Q; = lateral discharge f-r-om the unconfined aquifer system. per
unit width of the &w system, m 3/d/m ( ff>d ft)
=
K, lh 2
2d.I 0
h 2>
(3.11)
where d, = distance to the seepage face or outlet point (m) (ft)

h i= saturated thickness of the unconfined aquifer at the outlet
point, m (ft)
The travel time for lateral flow is a function of the hydraulic gradient, the distance traveled, the K;,, and the porosity of the soil as
defined by Eq. 3.12_:
t
where tD
-
(n)(d.)2
I
<Kh l(ho - h)
(3.12")
travel time for lateral flmv fron1 source to the point o_f
emergence in surface waters, m (ft)
K;, = effective horizont;# p~rmeability of the soil system, m/9.
tftld J
h 0 and h i = satm~ated thickness of the unconfined aquifer at the
source and the outlet point~ re~pectively~ m (ft)
di = clistance to the seepage face or outlet point, m (ft)
n = porosity, as a decimal fraction
=
A simplified graphical method for determining groundwater

mounding uses the procedure developed by Glover 1~ and summarized
by Bia:.l'lchi and Muckel5 The meihod is valid for square or:- rectangu1~ 1??Sips which lie abQve }e,,.el, fairly thick, homogeneous aquifers of
assu:med infinite extent. Ho\,ever, the beha-vio! of circular basinS eaD.
be adequately approximated by assuming a square of equal area.
\Vhen groundwater mounding becomes a critical project issue,. further
analysis using the Hantush method1 is recommended. Further complications arise with. sloped water tables, impeding subsurface layers
which induce ..perchedn monnds. or the presence of a nearby outlet
point. References 7~ 17. and 33 a r e suggested for these conditions.
The simplified method involYes the graphical determination of sever/
al factors from Fig. 3_3.. 3A, 3.5~ or 3 .6~ depending !>n whether th~
basin is square or :rectangular.
It is necessary to calculate the value of Tirf(4at) 112 and Rt as defined
in Eqs. 3.13, 3.14, and 3.15.
'
53
ei-
J;;
0::
w
Figure 3.3 Groundwater mounding curve for center of. a square
r-echarge basin.
er-
.r_O::
w
.Figure 3.4 Groundwater mounding curves for -center of .a rectangular
recharge area "With different ratios oflength !'L \to width (Wl.
----- =
[( 4)(a)(t-)]ll2
dimensionless scale factor
where W = width of the recharge basin~ m

o:=.
(Kh){ho)
(3.13)
(~l
(3.14)
"
where Kh = effective horizontal-penneability ofthe .aquifer, m/d (ftld)
54
Chapter Three
.,
1.0
..,
"'
3.0
0.9
Edqe of plot
0.8
Ej+a: 0.5
.c:.
. 0,4
0.2
0 .1
0.5
f..O
Figure- 3.5 Rise and horizontaJ spread of.a groundwater mound

recharge area.
below a square
',
1.0
- -3.0
0.9
0.8
~
Edge of plot
1.2
0.7
0.6
--0.8
0.5
w
J4a.t
- o.G
0.4 .
'.
0 .3
-:.o.4
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.4
-0.2-----
. 1.2
0.5
1.0
l(
.w
Figure 3.6 Rise and horizontal spread of a groundwater mound
below a rectangular recharge area with a length equal to twice its
width.
.
55
56
Chapter Three
h il '-' origtnal saturated thickn e::; ~ of the a q uifer. beneath the

center of the recharge area . m < ft i
Ys = specific yield of the soil: use Fig. 2.5 or 2.6 to determine,
m:1/m;1 f ff3/ft=>.)
(3.15)
(R><t J = scale factor, m 1ftJ

(/}
where R = (Y . . m/d (ft/d)

J
'
= infiltration
rate or volume of \,~ater infiltrated per unit

area of soil surface, m 3/m 2/d 1ft3 /ff2/dJ
t == period of infiltration, d
Enter either Fig. 3.3 or 3.4 with the calculated vaJue of lV/(4at) 12 to
determine the value for the ratio hm/(R l(t >. where hm :is the rise at the
center of the mound. Use the previously calculated value for fR)(t) to
solve for lz .
Figure 3.5 (for square areas > and Fig. 3.6 (for rectangular areas
where L = 2W") can be used to estimate t~ depth of the mound at
various distances from the center of the recharge area. The procedures involved are best illustrated \.ith a design -example.
nl
Example 3.3
Determine the height and the horizo-ntal ::pread of a groundwater

mound beneath a circular RI basin 30 m b diameter. The o.riginal aquifer
thickness js 4 m, and Kh as determined in the field is 1.25 mid. The top of the
original groundwater table is 6 m below the design infiltration surfa!:e of the
constructed basin. The design infiltration rate w11l he 0.3 rnld and the wastewater application period '"ill be 3 days in en:ry cycle 1"3 days of flooding. 10
day~ for percolation and drying; see Chap. 7 for detaiis .i.
solution
I. Determine LI-te size of an equiYalent area sqllilre basin_

- 1\3 . I.J..1D-f:
-. . --- <7f'!.fi
- A ~r:.{;
1-v . . ~ m
Then the width ( \VI -of an equivalem ::q-:;.a:re haSn = (/06.511 :! = 26.5 m...
?
Use Fig. 2.5 to determine specific yield I Y) .

K ,. = 1.25 mid = 5.21 crn./h
'
= 0.14
3. Determine the scale factors.

(Qd
!l.25ii41
= {'K. ylih.~l = - - = 35.7 ffi:!/0
10.14!
rt
'
.......
W/r4ct! J1 :!
:l6.5
::
{! 4Ji35.7 lC3JI 1 :!
57
= 1.:!8
0.3
R = - - = 2 m/d
0.14
(RJIO-= <2JC3J :.:: 6 m
4. use Fig. 3.3 to determine the factor h m/CR )if I.
h
_ ,.,_ .:. 0.68
{RlCtl
hm
= <0.68J{RJ!t) = <0.68)f2H3J = 4.08 m
5. The original groundwater table is 6 m belo\"1." the infiltration surface~ The calculated rise of 4.08 m would bring the top of the mound within 2 m of the
basin infiltration surface. As discussed previously, this is just adequate to
maintain design infiJtration rates. The design might consider a shorter isay,
2~day.l flooding period as discussed in Chap. 7, to reduce the potentia! for
mounding somewhat.
6. Use Fig. 3.5 to detern:rine the lateral spread of the mound. Use the curve f.-;r
W/14ett)1' 2 with the previousiy calculated value of 1.28, enter the grap'h "ith
selected values of x /W r\\here x is the lateral distance of conceni :, and rE:ad
values of h m I(R)Ct J.
Find the depth to the top of the mound 10 m from the centerline of basin.
X
TT7
tr
Enter the x/W axis with this

read 0.58 on the hm/(R)(t) axis.
hm
10
= -JS.()- = 0.377
value~
project up to W/!4at"ol.;2
= <0.58)(2)(3) =
= 1.28.
then
3.48 m
The depth to the mound at the 10-m point is 6 m - 3.48 m = ? 52 m.

Similarly. at x = 13 m, the depth to the mound= 3.72 m; and at .-:.= 26m,
the depth to the mound = 5.6 m. This indicates thc:t the water la\ocl is aJmo5t
back to the normal groundwater level at a lateral distance about equa l to two
times the basin v.."idth. Changing the application schedule to 2 days ~-tead
cf-3 would reduce the peEJk-water level-to about. :3- m helow_t.~e..in:fiJtration..
surface ofthe basin.

The procedure- demonstrated in Example 3.3 is valid for a single

ba...c:;ffi. However, a5 described in Chap. 7~ RI systems typically include
multiple basins which
loaded sequentially, and it is not appropriate to do the mounding calculation by assnming that the entire treatment area is unifonnly loaded at the .design hydraulic loading rate. In
many ~ituations this will result in the erroneou? conclusion thcrt
mounding will interfere with system operation.
...,.
It is necessary first to calculate the rise in the mound beneath a
single basin during the flooding period. \Vhen hydraulic loading
stops at time t, a uniform hypothetical discharge is assumed starting
are
58
Chapter Three
at t and continuing for the balance of the rest period. The algebraic
sum of these two mound heights then approximates t;he mound
shape just prior to the start of the next flooding period. Since adjacent basins may be flooded during this same period, it is also necessary _to determine the lateral extent of their mounds and then add
a_ny -increment from these sources to determine the total mound
height beneath the basin of concern. The procedure is illustrated by
Example 3.4.
Determine the groundwater mound height beneath a RI basin at
the end of the operational cycle. Assume that the ba.Sin is square, 26.5 m. on a
side, and is one in a set of four arranged in a row (26.5 m wide, 106 m long).
Assume the same site conditions as in Example 3.3. Also assume that flooding
~ommences in one .o f the adjacent basins as soon as the rest period for the basin
of_concern starts. The operational cycle is 2 days floo~ 12 days rest.
Example 3..4
solution
1. The ma'rimum rise be~~ath the basin of concern would be the same as calculated in Example 3.3 with 2-day flooding: hm = 3.0{} m.
2. The influence from the next 2 days of flooding in the adjacent basin would be
about equal to
mound rise at the 26-m point calculated in Example 3.3,
or 0.4 m. All the other basins are beyond the zone of influence. so the maximum pptential rise beneath the basin of concern is.
the
(3.00> + {0_4) = 3.4- m

The mound will actually not rise that high, since during tne 2 days the
adjacent basin is being flooded, the first basin is draining. However forthe
pmposes of this :calcnlation, assnme that the mound will rise the entire 3.4
m above the static groundwater table.
7
3. The R yalne for tbi.::: ~ami" discharge will be "$e same as calculated in
Example 3..2. but twill now be 12 days.
(Rl(t) = (2)(12> = 24- mid
4_
Calcolate a new W/( 4at~., since the ~ew..:. time is 12 days.

I ,
J./2 -
26.5
?-
Wil.4c:d) - -[(4)(35.7)(12)]!.'2 - O.iL
5. Use Fig. 3.3 to determine

"hm ""!<R)(t) = 0.30.
.
_ "'"h "= (24){0.3} = 7.2 m
""
This is the hypothetical drop in the monnd which could occur during the
lO-day rest period. However~ the water level cannot actually drop below the
static groundwater table. so the maximum possible drop would be tL4 m..
This indicates that the mound would dissipate well before the start ofthe
next flooding cycle. Assuming that the drop occurs at a uniform rate of 0.72
mid, tne 3.4-m mound v.ill be gone in 4. 7 days.
Basic Process Responses
~nd
Interactions
59
In cases where the groundwater mounding analysis indicates

potential interference with system operation, there are a number of
corrective options. As described in Chap. 7, the flooding and drying
cycles can be adjusted or the layout of the ba.-;in sets rearranged into
a configuration with less inte~asin interference. The final option is
to underdrain the site to control mound development physically.
Underdrainage may also be required to control shallow or seasonal
natural gr~uildwater levels when that might interfere with the operation of either a land or aquatic treatment system. Underdrains are
also sometimes used to recover the treated water beneath land treatment systems for benefici.al use or discharge eisewhere.
Underdrainage
In order to be effective, drainage or water recovery elements . must

either= be ~t-or...ID~hin2-the natural groundwater table or just above
SOilfe ~her flow barrier. When drains can be installed at depths of 5
m (16 ~) or less, underdrain..s are more effective and less costly than a
series of wells. It is possible using modern techniques to install semiflexible plastic drain pipe enclosed in a geotextile membrane using a
single machine that cuts and then closes the trench..
In some cases, underdrains are a project necessity to control a shallow groundwater table so that the site may be developed for wastewater treatment. Such drains~ if effective for groundwater control,
will also collect the treated percolate from a land treatment operation. The collected water must be discharged, so the use of underdrains in this case converts the project to a surface-water discharge
system unless the "Water is otherwise used or disposed of.. In a few situations, drains have been ~ed to control a seasonally high water
tabla This type of system may require a surface-water discharge permit .during the period {)f high groundwater~ but will function as a
nondischa.-rging system for the balance of the year.
The drainage d~01l consists of selecting the depth and spacing for
placement of tJ:!e 4ha:in pip~ or tiles. In the typical case, drains may be
at a depth of1-3m (3-10ft} and spaced 60 m (200 fi) or more apart. In
sandy soils the spacing may approach 150 m (500 ft). The closer spacings pr:o-Yide better water control, but the costs increase significantly.
The Hooghondt20 method is the most commonly 1.!5ed method for
calculating drain spacing. The procedure assumes that the soil is
homogeneous, that ~he drains are spaced evenly apart, that Darcy's
law is applicable, that the hydraulic gradient at any point is equal to
the slope of the water table above that point, and that a barrier of
some type underlies the drain. Figure 3. 7 defines the necessazy. parameters for drain design, and Eq. 3.16 can be used for design.
60
Chapler Three
HyC:raulic l::>ad.r.q rare L ,.
l l
- ----- ---
....
~?
t
Soil surface
.. ----- -------
--- ------
Water table I
C_
'
--~---------~--------.
d
//J~~
~'JISS/f'r..'WI$JW
lmp~rmeanle
Figure 3.7
Ioyer
Definition sketch for .calculation of drain spacing.
]ttl'
}\
= rl Ii ( 4.HKh )(h m-}
C2d + h
''
Lit + P
(3.16)
where S =
J(n =
hm =
L 14 =
drain spacing. m (ft.>

hqrizontal perm~ability of the soilt m/d (ft/d)
height of groundwater mound above the drains, m (ft)
annnal \vastewater loading rate expressed as a daily rate,
mid (ft/dj
P = average annual precipitation expressed as a daily rate,
m/d (ftld)
d = d istance from drain to barrier, m (ft)
The position ofthe top of the mound between the drains is t!stab.tished
by design or regulatm::y r-equirements for a particular project. RI system.s~ for .f'-xample, need a few meters of unsaturated soil above the
mound ln. order to ma mtailiibe design iiifilfration rate;-SR sffsems also
.require an unsaturated zone to provide desirable eonditions for the surface vegeta.tlon. See Chap_ 7 for further detail. Prooednres and criteria
for more complex ~e si~uations can be found in Refs. 32 and 39.
3.2 Biodegradable Organics

Biodegradable organic contaminants, in eith~r dissolved or suspended
fo17D1~ are characterized by the biochemical oxygen demand <BOD) of
the waste_ Tables 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 present typical. -...
BOD removal
______
" "'
t;;,;xpectations for _the natural treatment sy.st.ems

book.
de~cribed
o1
in thi::;
Removal of BOO
As explained in Chaps. 4~ 5, and 6, tl; .. BOD loading can be. the limiting design factor for pond~ aquatic, <ind wetland sys~ms. The. basis
for these limits is the maintenance of aerobic conditions ,\rithin the
upper water column in the unit and the resulting control of odors.
The natural sources of dissolved oxygen (DO) in these systems are
surface reaeration and photosynthetic oxygenation. Surface reaeration can be significant under windy conditions or if surface turbulence
is created by mechanical means. Observation has shown that the DO
in unaerated wastewater ponds varies almost directly with the level
of photosynthetic a~ity7 being low a t night and early morning, and
rising to a peak in the early afternoo~. ~e phytosynthetic responses
of algae are controlled by the presence of light, the temperatUre of the
liquid, and the availability of nutrients and other growth factors.
Because algae ru.--e difficult to r~move and can represent an unacceptable leve1 1Jf suspended solids in the effluent~ some pond and
aquaculture processes utilize mechanical aeration as. the oxygen
source. In p~-rtially mixed aerated pond~ the increased depth of the
pond. and the p3.rtiai mixing of the somewhat turbid contents limits
the development of algae as compared to a facultative pond. Hyacinth
ponds <.Chap. 5) and most wetland systems (Chap. 6) restrict algae
growth, since the vegetation limits the ,p enetration of light to the
water column.
Both hyacinths and the emergent plant species used in wetla..f'lds
treatment have the unique capability to transmit oxygen from the
leaf to the ant root. Tnese plants do not themselves remove the
BOD directly. Rather, they serve as hosts foi a variety of attached
growth organisms, and it is t.l:ris m icrobial a-ctivity which is primarily
responsible for the urganic decomposition. The extensive root system
of the hyaciniliplant,. ande-stems, stalks roots, and_rhizomes of :the_
emergent ~eties~ provide the necessffi.-y surfaces. This dependence
requires a reJ..~tiveiy shallow r:eactor and a relatively low flow velocity
to e~-ure optimum contact opportunities between the wastewater and
the attached microbial growth.
The BOD of the 1.vastewater o:r sludge is seldom the limiting design
factor for the land treatment processes desmoed in Chaps_ 7 and 8.
Other factors~ snch as.nitrogen.,. metals~ toxics, or the hydraulic capacity of the soils, control the design, so the system almost never
approaches the upper limi~ for successful biodegradation of organics.
62
Chapter Three
TABLE 3.2
TypjcaJ Organic Loading Rates for Natural Treatment Systems
Process
Oxidation pond
Facultative pond
.
Aerated partial-mix pond
Hyacinth pond
Constructed wetland
Slow-rate land treatment
Rapid-infiltration land treatment
Overland-flow Iand.treatment
Land applieationofmunicipal sludge
Organic loading (kg/ha/d)
40-120
22-67
50-200
20-50
100
50-500
145-1000
40-110
27-930*
*These _values were detenn.ined by dividing the annoal rate by 365 days.
Table 3.2 presents typical organic loadings for natural treatment systellls.
Removal of suspended SC?lids
The suspended s~lids content of wastewater is not usu.ally a limiting

factor for design, but the improper management of solids within the
system can result in process failure. One critical concern for both
aquatic and terrestrial systems is the attainment of proper distribution of solids within the treatment reactor. Theu.se of inlet diffusers
in ponds, .Step feed (mUltiple inlets) in wetl~d channels, and higherpressure sprinklers in industrial overland-flow systems are all
intended. to achieve a more uniformdistribution of solids and avoid
anaerobic conditions at the head of the process.
.
The remoy:alof suspended solidsin pond systems depends primarily on gravity sedimentation and, as mentioned previously, algae can
be a concern in some situations. Sedimentation and entrapment in
the microbial growths are both contributing factors in hyacinth wetland, and the overland-flow processes. Filtration in the soil matrix is
the principal mech~sm for SR and RI systems. Removal expectations for the various processes are listed. in Tables 1.1 1.2,. and ~3Removal will typically exceed secondary treatment levels,. except for
some of the pond systems which contain algal solids in their effiuents.
7
3.3 Organic Priority Pollutants
Many organic priority pollutants
..
fu.-e resistant to biological decompo-
sition. Some are almost totally resistant and may persist in the environment for considerable periods of time; others are toxic or hazardous and require special management.
63
Removal methods
Volatilization, adsorptiop, and then biodegradation are the principal

methods for removing trace organic~ in natural treatment systems.
Volatilization can occur at the water surface of ponds, wetlands, and
RI basins, in the water droplets from spri~ers used in land treatment, from the liquid films in overland-flow systems, and from the
exposed surfaces of sludge. Adsorption occurs primarily on the
organic matter in the treatment system which is ~ contact with the
waste. In manycases, microbial activity then degrades the adsorbed
materials.
Volatilization. The loss of volatile organics from a water surface can
be described using first-order kinetics, since it is assumed that the

concentration in the atmosphere above the water surface is essentially zero. Equation 3.17 is the basic kinetic equation, and Eq._3.18 can
b~ used to determine the "half-life" of the contaminant of concern. (see
Chap. 8 for ftrrther discussion of the half-life concept and application
to slnrlge organics).
Ct
Co
e-i~11(tY(y>
(3.17)
where Ct = concentration at timet, mg!L (or~)

C 0 = initial concentration at t = _0, mg/L (or giL}
k 1 = volatilization mass transfer coefficient, cmJh
VO.
= (k)(y)
k = overall rate coefficien~ h - I

y =depth ofliquid, em
t
where t 112
112
(0.:693)(y}
= -- --
{3.18)
k vol
time when concentration Ct = (~)(C0), h

The volatrlization mass transfer -c oefficient is a function of the molecular weight of the contaminant and the air/water partition coefficient as defined by the Henry's law constant, as shown by Eq. 3.19:
1=
-.;o
B-r
--
H
112
Y (B2 + H)(M) - .
where k...,01 = volatilization coefficient, h - l

H = Henry's law constant,.105 atm.- m 3 - mol- 1
M = molecular weight of contaminant of concern, g/mol
(3.19)
64
Chapter Three
The coeflicients B 1 and B 2 are specifi c to the physical systen~ of con- .

cern. Dilling 11 determined values for a \'ariety of volatile chlorinated
hydrocarbons at a well-mixed water surface:
B 1 = 2.211
8 2 = 0 ,01042
,Jenkins, et al. 16 experimentally determined values for a number of

volatile organics on an o~:erland-flow slope: .
B1
= 0.2563
The coefficients for the overland-flmv case are .much lower because
the movenlent of liquid down the slope is nont urbulent and may be
considered almost laminar flow (Reynolds number= 100-400). The
average depth of flowing liquid on this slope was about 1.2 cm. 16
Using a variation of Eq. 3.19, Parker and Jenkins22 determined
volatilization losses from the droplets at a low-pressure, large-droplet
wastewater sprinkler. In this case they tenn in the equation is equal
to the average droplet radius; as a result~ their coefficients are valid
only for the particular sprinkler system used. The approach is valid:
however, and can be used for other sprinkler s and operating pressures. Equation 3.20 was developed by Parker and Jenkins for the
organic compounds listed in Ta ble 3.3:
In _cS~ = <4.535)11k vo1' -r IL02<10- 4 >1.
<3.20)
!}
Volatile organics can also be removed by aeration in pond systems.

Clark, et al. 8 developed Eq._3.21 to determine the amount of air
required to strip a given quantity of volatile organics from wa ter via
aeration:
TABLE3.3
Volatile Organic Removal by Wastewater Sprinlding22
Substance
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobeozene
Bromoform
m-Dichlorobenzene
Pentane
Hexane
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrotoluene
PCB 1242
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Calculated k,.01' for Eq. 3.20 (em/min!

0.188
0.236
0 ..220
0.190
0.0987
0.175
0.260
0...239
0.0136
0.0322
0.0734'
O.llf
0.0218
Proces~
Basic
TABLE 3.4
Responses and Interactions
65
Properties of Selected V~latife Organics for Eq. 3.21 19
132
1000
133
166
154
5000
145
800
0
1
0
1
97
99
97
3500
8700
40
Chemical
lvf
Trichloroethylene
1, 1.1-Trichlo,octhnne
Tetrachlomethylenc:
Carbon tetrachloride
cis-1.2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dich loroethane
1,.1-Dichloroethylene
0
1
0
..
~) = 176.4)(1- ~:r (s)w)~..(MJ-'"(0.33)'
where (A/W)
S
(3.21)
= air-to-water ratio
= solubility of organic compound, mg/L

V = vapor pressure, mmHg
"Pttf = molecular weight, glmol
s = saturated condition oft he compound <:>f concern
= 0 for unsatuiated organics, 1 for saturated compounds
The values in Table 3.4 can be u sed in Eq. 3.21 to calculate the airto-water ratio required for some typical volatile organics.
Sorption of trace ()r:ganics to the organic matter present
in the treatment system is thought to be the primary physicochemical
mecbani..~ of removal.34 The concentration of the trace organic which
is sorbed relative to that in solution is defined by a partition coefficient K,
which is related to the solubility of the chemical. This Yalne
p
can be estimated if theoctanol-water partition coefficient K0~ and the
percentage of organic carbon in the system are defined: as shoWn by
E_q-_3..22.: __ -
.. . _ - ---- - --Adsorption.
log Ko!:
where Koc
= {l.OO)(log K
w) -
. ..
~
(it22)
0.21
.:i.'i
!
sorption coefficient expressed on an organic carbon basis
= KSl)rb!Oc
K~oro =
Oc =
sorption mass transfer coefficient, cmlh

percentage of organic carbon present in the system
Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
Reference 15 presents other correlations and a

of sorption in soil.'systems_
~etailed
discussion
.~
.
.'i
I
66
Chapter Three
Jenkins et al. 16 determined that sorption of trace organics on an

overland-flow slope could be described \Vith first-order kinetics with
the rate constant defined by Eq. 3.23:
k
=
sorb
B3
V
Kov:
(B
+ K ow)(M)112
(3.23)
where k sorb = sorption coefficient, h - 1

B3 = coefficient specific to the treatment system
= 0.7309 for the overland-flow system studied
y = depth of water on the over1and-flow slope (1.2 em)
K ow = octanol-water partition coefficient
B4 = coefficient specific to the treatment system
- 170.8 for the overland,-flow system studied
M = molecular weight of the organic chemical, gtmol
In many cases the removal of trace organics is due to a combination
of sorption and volatilization. The overall process rate constant k sv is
then the sum of the coefficients defined with Eqs. 3.19 and 3.23 and
the combined removal described by Eq. 3..24.
7
ct =
co
e - (ksr,;tl
(3.24)
where k SV = overall rate constant for combined volatilization and

-..sorption
= kvol + ksorb
cl = concentration at timet, mgiL (or pg/L)
C0 = initial concentration at t = 0~ mg/L. (or pg/L)
Table 3.5 presents the physical characteristics of a number of
volatile organics for use in the equations presented .above for
volatilization and sorption..
Example 3.5 Determine the remo-rnl of toluene in an -overland-flow land treatment system_ AsSliDle a 30-m-long t.errare; hydraulic loading of OA m3 h- m
(see Chap. 7 for discussion); mean resideDce time on. slope = 90 ~ wastewater ~pplication with a Io"W-pressure. la.-rge-d:mplet spriJ:ikler; physical .characteristics for toluene- (Table 3.6) ofK 0 ..., = 490., H = 515., M = 92; de-pth. af flowing
water on the terrace = 1.5 em; concentration of toluene in applied wastewater
= 70 giL.
solution
L Use Eq. 3.20 to estimate volatilization losses during sprinkling_
c
Inc=
,.
(4.535)jk vol,
+ 11.{)2(10- 4)J
ct =
( 70)[e-4.535~0.220 ~ 0.0011021}
'
Basic Process Responses an~. Interactions

TABLE3.5
67
Physical Characteristics for Selected Organic Chemicals .
Substance
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
m-Dichlorobenzene
Pentane
Hexane
Nitrobenzene
m-Nitrotoluene
Diethylphthalate
PCB 1242
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
2,4-Dinitropbenol
Ht
K ow*
93.3
135
490
692
189
2.4 X 103.
1.7 X 1<fl
7.1 X 1@
70.8
282
162
3.8 105
2.3Xl<fl
2.2 X 10'
34.7
Vapor pressure+
314
435
515
267
63
360
125,000
170,000
1.9
5.3
0.056
30
194
95.2
28.4
12.0
5.68
2.33
520 .
154
0.23
0.23
1
4
8.28
2.03
36
.. 3..9
0.001
x
x
to-"'
ro-
X 10-2
X 10-4
119
78
92
113
253
147
72
86
123
137
222
26
128
178
184
*Octanol-water partition coefficient.

tHemy's law constant. lOS atm m 3/mol at 20"C and 1 atm.
.
.
Molecular weight. glmol
tAt 25"C. -.
25.69pg/L
2. Usc Eq. 3.19 to determine the volatilization coefficient during flow on the .
overland-flow terrace.
Bt
y
vol
(B
H
+ H)(A1)1!2
0.2563
515
- - - - ------------::-::L5
(5...86 x ro-4" + 515)(92)ll2
=
(0~7087}(0.1042)
= 0.0178
3_ Use Eq. 3.23 to determine the sorption coefficient during ~ow on the overland-flow te..-rz:ace.
ksorb =
Ba
Kow
-Y- -(B_+_K....::.=.)_(M)_
_l!2._
4
ow
0.7309
490
-------~
L5
(170.8 + 490)(92)ta
= ---
= (0.4873)(0.0774}
0.0377
4- The ove:raii ra.te ~onstant is the sum ofk<'01 and ksortJ"
kt = 0.0178 + 0.0377 = 0.0555
68
Chap~er
Three
5. Use I<:q. :3.24 to determine the toluene concentration in the overl3nd~flow

runoff.
c = e
. _,
.~,,.,.
C,,
C:
= (25.681[c O.U'i:i:i !tlJ

= 0. 17 ~~1.. .
This represents about 99.8 percent removal. .
Removal performance
The land treatment systems are the only natural tre4t;m~nt: sy.stews
which have been studied e:>L1:ensively to determine. the remov.aJ~of'p'P.
ority-pollutant organic chemicals. This is probably due to the greater
concern about groundwater contamination with these sy~ems:
Results from these studies have been generally p~tive. As.indica~d.
previously~ the mor~ soluble compounds such as chlm:ofonn tend to
move through the soil system more rapidly than the J~ss soluble
materials such as some PCBs. In all cases t~e .amount escapjng the
treatment system with percolate or effluent is. very small. Table 3.6
presents removal performance for the three major land treatment
TABLE '3.-6
Removal of Organic Chemicals in Land Treat:nent Systems

SR22
Sandy soil
Substance
Chlorofcr.m
Toluene
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
<c;;;.l
98.57
>99.99
>99.99
99.97
--Bromoform- - - -------- --99.93 --- ---Dibramochlorometbane
99'.72
m-Nitrotoluene
>99.99
PCB l242
>99.99
Naphthalene
99.98
Phenanthrene
>99.99
Pentachlorophenol
>99.99
2.4-Dinitrophenol
Nitrobenzene
>99.99
m-Dichlorobenzene
>99.99
Pentane
>99.99
Hexane
99.96
Diethylphthalate
"'Not reported.
S:ilt.Y soil
(~!
99'.23
96.50
>99.9-9
>99-.99
9 9.00
99.99
>99.99
98.09
>99.99
99..98
93.99
>99.99
--99.96 ------91A3 -- - - -~~-~~- __ _
99.72
98.78
>99...99>'99.99
94.03
- *
>99. 99
96.4-5
>99.:}9
99.98
98.49
96.15
>99~99
99.19
>99.99
98.06
93:.44
>99.99
88.73
82.27
>99.99
>99..99
99..96
90.75
"-'u-.~
......... .
concepts. The removals ob:::;erved in th<: SR. ~yst<!m we re after l.G m of

vertic.a1.Htravel i:n. the soils indicated, _and a .low-pressure, large-droplet
SI{)iiinJcl:eli was used for the application. The removals in the OF syste-m, weue- measured after flow on a terrace about 30 m long, with
3P,~1u:Qation via gated pipe at the top of the slope at a hydraulic loadin~0.ffo~ 12 m :J tn h. The RI data were obtained from wells about 200
m; Gl.tw.n-gradient of the application basins.
'l'Ihe removals reported in Table 3.6 for SR syster.ns It7present con<;entrations in the applied wastewater ranging from 2 to 111 pg/Lr
~d: percolate concentrations ranging from 0 to 0.4 pg/L. The applied
Goncentrations in the OF system ranged from 25 to 315 pg/L and the
effluent from 0.3 to 16 p.g/L. Concentrations of the reported substances applied to the RI system ranged from 3 to 89 pg/L and the
percolate ranged from 0.1 to 0.9.
The results in Table 3.6 indicate that the SR system was more consistent and gave higher removals than the other two concepts. This is
probably due to the use of the sprinkler and the enhanced opportunity for sorption on the organic matter in these finer-textured soils.
Chlo:oform was the only compound t.o appear consistentiy in the p~r
eolate~ and t..~at was at very low concentrations. Although they were
slightly less effective than SR, the other two concepts still produ<:ed
ve1:-y high removals. If sprinklers had been u sed in the OF system, it
is likely. that the removals would have been even higher. Based on
these data, it appc~ars that all three concepts are more effective for
trace orgw.ic removal than activated sludge and other conventional
mechanical treatment systems.
Quantitative relationships have not yet been developed for trace

organic removal from natural aquatic systems. The removal due to
volatilization in pond and free--water-surface wetland systems. can at
least be estimated \'"\lith .E qs. 3.19 and 3.24.. The liquid depth in tbe~e
systems is much great.er than on an OF slope, but the detention time
is measured in terms of many days instead of minutes~ so the removal
can still be very significant. Organic removal in subsurface--flow wetlands may be comp.?r?-ble to the RI values in Table 3.6, depending on
the media used in the wetland. See Chap: 6; Table 6:-2;- for- d.ata~ on -- -----..
removal of priority pollutants in constructed wetlands.
Travel Ume in soils
The rate of movement of organic compounds in soils is a function of

the velocity of the carrier wat~r, the organic content of the soil the
octanol-water partition coefficient for the organic componn<L and
other physical properties of the soil system. Equation 3.25 can be
used to estimate the movement velmity of an organic compound' during saturated flow in the soil system:
7
- - ..-.- ._........ . . . -- . . -- . . - - -- --.. - ...------- .............. ...

;
. - ---
70
Chapter Three
V=
c
<K)(G>
(3.25)
n - (0.63)(p)(Qc)(K 0 "')
where Vc = velocity of organic compound, m/d (ft)d)

K = saturated permeability of soil, mid (ftld), in vertical or
horizontal direction
Kv = saturated vertical permeability, m/d _(ftld)
Kh = saturated horizontal permeability, :nifd (ft/d)
G = hydraulic gradient of flow system, m/m {ft/ft)
= 1 for vertical flow
=:
n
for horizontal flow, rnlm (ftJft); see Eq~
3.4 for definition
= porosity of the soil,% (as a decimal); see Fig. 2.4.
p = bulk density of soil, g!cni3 (lb/in3 )
Oc = organic content of soil, %(as a decimal)

Kow = octanol-water partition coefficient
3.4
Pathogens
Pathogenic organisms may be present in both wastewaters and

. sludges, and their control is one of the fundamental reasons for waste
management. Many regulatory agencies specify bacterial limits on
discharges to surface waters. Other potential risks are impacts on
groundwaters from both aquatic and land treatment systems, the contamination of crops or infection of grazing animals <>n land treatment
sites, and the off-site loss of a~osolized organisms from pond aerators
or land treatment sprinklers. Investigations25 have shown .that the
naturalaquatic., wetland, and land treatment concepts provide very
effective control ofpathogens.
Aquatic systems
The removal of-pathogens in pond-type systems is due to natural die<>if, predatio~ sedimentatio~ ~nd adsorption_ Helminths~ Ascaris,
and other parasitic cysts an:d eggs settle to the bottom in the.quiescent zone of ponds. Facultative ponds with three cells and about 20
days"' .detention tinie and aerated ponds with a separate settling cell
prior to discharge pro:vide more than adequate heJmin.th and protozoa
removal. As a .result~ there is .little risk of i:>arasitic infection from .
pond effluents or from nse of such effluents in agriculture. There may
be some risk when sludges are removed for disposaL These sludges
can either be treated or temporary restrictions on public access and
agricultural use can be placed ori the disposal site.
TABLE 3.7
71
Fecal Coliform Removal i.n Pond Systems36
No. of
Detention t ime
(d).
Fecal coli ( #/100 mL)
. Location
cells
Peterborough, l\'1-I
Eudora, KS
Kilmichael, MS
Corinne, UT
3
3
3
7
Windber, PA
Edgerton, WI
Pawnee, IL
Gulfport, M~
Partial-Mix Aerated Ponds

30
30
3
60
2
26
Influent
Facultativtl l'..nds
57
4.3 X 106
2.4 X 106
47
79
12.8 X 106
. 180
LOX 106
3
3
106
106
106
106
Effiuent
3.6
2.0
2.3
7.0
X lQ--;
X l<r!
X 10"
X 10(1
3.0 X 102
3.0 X 10 1
3.3 X_l0 1
1.0 X lOS
TABLE 3.8 Enteric Virus Removal in Facultative Ponds2

Enteric virus (PFU/L}*
Location
Shelby, MS, 3 cells. 72 d
Summer
Wmter
Spring
El Paso, TX, 3 cells, 35 d
Summer
Winter
Spring
Beresford, SD, 2 cells, 62 d
Influent
Effluent
791
0.8
-?
iJ_
0.7
53
0.2
348
87
0.6
74
LO
Ll
Snl!lmer
94
0.5
Wmter
44
50
.2 .2
Spring
0.4
*PEUIL = pi.aque-funningnnits per liter.
Bacteria and v~s removal The removal of both bacteria and viruses
in multiple-ceil pond .systems is v&y effective for both the aerated

and unaerated types? as shown in Table 3.7 and 3.8.
The effluent in all three of the cases :PI Table 3.8 was und.isinfected.
The viruses measured were the naturally occurring enteric types and
not seeded virnses .Or.bacteriophage. Table 3.8 presents seasonal
averages; Ref. 2 contains full details. The viral concentrations. in the
effiuent were cori.sistently low at _a ll times although~ as shOwn in ~e
table, .the removal ef;ficiency did drop_slightly in th.e winter at all
three locations.
Numerous studies have shown that the removal of fecal coliforms in

ponds depends on detention time and temperature. Equation 3..25 can
72
Chap ter Three
be used to estimate the removal of fecal colifonns in pond systems.

The detention time used in the equation is th e actual detention time
in the system as measured by dye studies. The actual detention time
in a pond can be as little as 45 percent of the theoretical design detention time due to short c{rcuiting of flow. If dye studies a re not practical or possible, it wouJd be conservative to assume for Eq. 3.26 that
the "actual" detention time is 50 percent of the design residence tiL-ne.
C
1
- 1 = ----C.L
(3.26)
where Ci::: influent fecal coli concentrationT #/100 mL

= effiuent fecal coli concent~ation, #/100 mL
t = actual detention time in the cell. d
n = number of cells in series
kT = temperature-dependent rate constant, d- 1
c,
= (2.6)(1.19)'Tu: - 20)
Ttr = mean water temperature in pond, oc
See Chap. 4 for a method of deternrining the temperature in the pond;
for the general case it is safe to assume that the water temperature
will be about equal to the mean monthly air temperature~ dmvn to a
m1ni.IDum of 2C.
Equation 3.26 in the form P.resented assumes that all cells in the
system are the same size. See Chap. 4 for the generai .form of the
equation when the cells are different sizes. The equation can be
rearranged and solved to determine the optimum number of cells
needed for a particular level of pathogen re-movaL In general, a threeor four-cell (in series) system with an actual detention time of about
20 days Vvill remove fecal roliforms to desired levels. lvlodel ~tndies
with polio and coxsackie v.irnses indicated that the removal of viruses
proceeds similarly to the fi:rst-Grder reaction described by Eq. 3.26.
Hyacinth ponds and similar aquatic units should also perform in
a~~o~c;~-~~th_fu ~~~..
. ...... .. - --- ----------- ----- ---- -- ---
.
Wetland systems
Pathogen removal i~ many wetland systems is due to essentially t he

same factors described above for pond systems.. Equation 3.26 :can
also be used to esti.nl:ate the removal of bacteria or virus in wetland
systems where the water flow path is alwve the surface. The detention time win be less in most cunstl-ucted "vetlands .as compared to
ponds, but the opportunities for adsorption and filtlation will b~
grea~er. The subsurface-flow wetland systems described in Chap. 6
remo"t"e pathogens in essentially the same ways as Iand treatment
TABLE 3.9
73
Pathogen Removal in Constructed Wetland Systems26
System performance
Location
Santee, CA, bullrush wetland+
Winter season (Oct.- Mar. I
Total coii, #/100 mL
Bacteriophage, PFl)'/mL
Summer season (Apr.-SepL)
Total coli, #/100 mL .
Bacteriophage, PFU/mL
Iselin, P A, cattails and grassest
Winter season (Nov.-Apr.)
Fecal roli, #/100 mL
Summer season (May-Oct.}
Fecal coU, #/100 mL
Arcata, CA, bullrush wetland .
Wmter season
Fecal coli, #/100 mL
Summer season
Fecal coli. #/100 mL
ListoweL Ont. cattails']i
Winter season
Su.n1111er .season
Influent
5 X 107
Effiuent*
10"
15
2,300
I(}'>
26
106
6,200
1.0 X 10;;
723
4,300
900
1.800
80
.556,00;")
1,400
198.000
400
1,900
6.5 :< 107
l.iX
*Undi.s:infected.
.
t Gravel ~- subsu...-face flow.
:tSand bed. Subsurface flow.
Free water stii'face..
'!JFree water surface.
systems. Table 3.9 smnm.arizes pathogen removal information for

selected wetlands.
land treatment systems
Since land treatment system:.s in the United States are typically preceded by some form of preliminary treatment and/or a storage pond,.
there should be little concern with parasites. The -eviden-ce i:r;l the literature of .infection of grazing ~mals25 is due to the direct ingestion
ot: or irrigation With, essentially raw wastewatei". The removal of bacteria and viroses in land treatment systems is due to a combination of
filtration, dessieatio~ ads~rptio~ ramation, and predation.
Ground surface aspects. The major concerns relate to the potential for
the contamination -of surface vegetati~ or off-site runoff. The persistence of bacteria or viruses o~ plant surfaces could then infect people
or animals if the plants were consumed raw. To eliminate these risks,
74
Chapter Three
it is generally recommended in the United States that agricultural

land treatment sites not be used to irow veg~tables that may be
eaten raw. The major risk is then to grazing animals on a pasture
irrigated with wastewater. Typical criteria specify a period ranging
from 1 to 3 weeks after sprinkling undisinfected effiuent before grazing animals may be allowed access. Systems of this type are divided
into relatively small paddocks, ~d the animals are moved in rotation
around the site.
Controi of nmoff is a design r.e quirement of SR and RI land treatment systems as descn"bed in Chap. 7, so there should be no pathogenic hazard from these sources. Runoff of the treated effluent is the
design intention of OF sy~ms, which typically can achieve about 90
percent removal of applied fecal coliforms. It will be a site-specific
decision by the regulatory agency regarding the need for final disinfection of treated OF runoff. OF slopes also collect precipitation of any
intensity which may happen to occur. The runoff from thes.e rainfall
events can be more intense than t~e design treatment rate, but the
. additional dilution provided results in equal or better water quality
than the normal nmoft:
Grotmdwater contamination. Since percolate from SR and RI land
treatment. can reach groundwater aq~ifers;> the risk of pathogenic
contamina.t ion most be considered. The removal of bacteria and viruses from tlte finer-textured agricultural soils used in SR systems is
quite effective. A 5-year study in Hanover, New Hampshire,25 demonstrated almost complete removal of fecal coliforms within the top 5 ft
of the soil -profile_ Similar studies in Canada4 mdicated that fecal coliforms were retained in the top 8 em (3 in) of the soil. About 90 per. cent of the baeteria died within the first 48 h, and the remainder were
eliminated over the next 2 weeks. V1IUS remova4 which depends initially o n adsorption, is also very effective in these soils.
The coarse-:textared .soils
big~ hydraulic loading rates used in
RI systems increase the risk of bacteria and virus transmission to
grmmdwater aqn:ifers. A considerable research effort, both in the laboratory and at oi>erational systems7 has fo~ed on viral movement
in Ill sy.stems_25 The results of this work indicate minimal risk for
the general case; movement can occur with very high viral concentral:ions ~the wastewater is applied at very high loading rates on very
co~e-textnred soils. It is 1inlikely that all .three factors will be present in the majfrrity of cases. Chlorine disinfection prior to waste-.
water application in a RI system is not recommended, since the chlorinated organie compounds formed represent a great er tbrea,t to the
gE'OliD.dwater than does the potential transmissionof a few bacteria
or vrrnses.
and
..
75
. .:..
TABLE 3.10
Typical Pathogen Levels in Wastewater Sludges
Pathogen
Untreated
(#/100 mL)
. Viruses
Fecal colifurms
Salmonella
Ascaris lumgbricoilhs
2,500-70,000
10 106
8,000
200-1,000
Anaerobically digested
(#/100 mL>
100-1,000 .
30,000-6 X lOS
3-62 .
0-1,000
Sl~dge syste~s
As shown by the values in Table 3.10, the pathogen levels 1n raw and
digested sludge can be quite high.
The pathogen content of sludge is especially critical when the
sln~e is to he used in agricultural operations or when pub~c expoS!Ire is a {:()ncem.. The slUdge utilization guidelines developed by the
U.S. EPA are discussed :in. detail in Chap. 8.. Sludge stabiliza~on with
earthwor:ri:ts (vermistabilization) iS also descnned in Chap. s, and
there is some evidence that a rednction in pathogenic bacteiia: occurs
during the process. The freeze-dewatering process will" not kill
pathogens. but can reduce the concentration in the remaining sludge
due to enhanced dramage upon thawing. The reed-bed drying concept
caD. achieve significant pathogen recmction due to dessication and the
long detention time in the systemPathogens are further reduced after sludge is land applied,. by the
same mechanist;n.S discussed previously for land application of wastewater. There is little risk of transmission of sludge path-ogens to
groundwater or
ronoff' to sn:rfa.ce waters if the Criteria in Chap. 8
are used in system design.
Aerosols
Aerosol particles may be up to 20 J.IIIl in diameter, wbich ~~f large

enough to transport b~ or virus. Aerosols will be pro~~ any
time tiuit liquid droplets are gprayed into the air,. or at the ~oW1.dary
layer above agitated water surfaces, or when sludges are moved about
or aaated. Aerosol particles can travel significant distances, and the
contained pathogens remain viable until inactivated by dessication or
ultraviolet light. The downwind travel distance for aerosol pcies
depends on the wind spee~ turbulence, temperature, humiditY, and
th~._presence- many bar-rier which might entrap the particle_Wrth the
impact sprinklers .conunonly used in land application of wastewater,
the volnme <Jf aerosols produced amounts to about 0-3 percent f1f the
,.
. . . :
76
Chapter Three
TABLE 3.11
Organism Concentration in Wastewater and Downwind AerosoP'
Organism
Standard plate count
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Coliphage
Fecal streptococci
Pseudomonas
Klebsiella
Clostridium perfringes
Aerosol concentr:ation
at edge of $prinkler
impact circle
I #/m 3 of airsampled)
Wastewater
concentration
1#/100 mL1 X 10';
2578
69.9
7.5
5.6
1.1
0.4
. 0.8
0.22
0.007
1.1
0.39
0.005'
1L3
71.7
<1.0
1.4
water leaving the nozzle.29 If there is no barrier, the greatest travel

distance will occnr with steady nonturbulent winds under: cool, humid
conditions, which are generally most likely to happen at night. The
concentrati.o n of organistpS entenng a sprinkler nozzle should be no
d ifferent than the concentration In .the bu~k Hquid or sludge.
immediately after aeroS>lizatio~, temp.e rature, sunlight, and humidit,y have an immediate and significant effect on .organism concentra. tion. This aerosol shock is demonstrated in Table 3.11.
As the aerosol particle t;r:ave)s down\vind, the microorganisms continu.e to die off at a slower;first-order rate due to dessication and
oJtraviolet radiation and possibly trace compounds in the air nn in
the aeroso}. Tills .die-off ean. be very significant for bacteria, but the
rates for viruses are very slow so it is. prudent to assume no further
d.ownWind inactivation of viru.ses by these factors. Equations 3.27 and
3..28 form a predictive model which can be used to estimate the downwind conrentration of aerosol organisms.
Cd = (Cn )(Dd J(e)l:mJ
+B
{3.27)
where cd = concentration at distance~ #/m3 (#/ft3 )

C11 = concentration released
at source,
#/s
3
Dd = .atmospheric diffusion factor~ s/m {s/ft3}
.x = decay or die-off rate? s- 1
= - 0..023 for bacteria (derived for fecal coliform.s)
= OJJO for viruses (assumed)
a =
dnwnwind 'd istance d

_
.
~m m s
wmd velocrty
(ft
ft s)
B = backgrormd c;meentrationm upwind air, #/m3 (#/ft$)

The initial eoncentration Cn leaving the nozzle area is afunction of
the original concentration in the bulk waste~ater (W),. the waste-
Ol
.. .
Basic Process Responses and .I nteractions
water flow rate (F), the aerosolization efficiency (E), and. a survival
factor([), all as described by Eq. 3.28:
. C,l = (W)(F)(E )([)
(3.28)
where cn =organisms released at source, #/m3 (#/ft3 )

W = concentration in bulk wastewater; #/100 mL
F =flow rate, Us (0.631 gal/mm)
E = aerosolization efficiency
= 0.003 for wastewater
....:. 0.0004 for sludge.spray guns
= 0.000007 for sludge applied with ~ truck sprinklers
I = survival factor
= 0.34 for total.coliforms
= 0~27 for fecal coliforms
= 0. 71 for coliphage
= 3.6for fecal streptococci
= 8{}_0 for enterovirnses
The atmospheric dispersion factor Dd in Eq. 3.27 depends on a

number of related meteorological conditions. Typical values for a
range of expected -conditions are given below; Ref. 35 should be eon:sulted for a more exact detennination.
Field condition
Wind <6 .kmlh, strong s'unfight
W"md <6~ cloudy daylight
Wm.d ~16'kmih.. strong-sunJ.ight
Wmd. ~lu]an/h. cloudy daylight
Wmd >16 ~strong sunlight
Wmd >1.6 kmlh, cloudy daylight
Wmd >ll km!h., ni.:,abt
l76 X
388. X
141
318 X
282 X
6oo x
10- 6
10- 6
10- 6
10- 6
600
1(.-6
1u--<>
x to-;;
.
.
Example 3.6 Fmd the fecal coliform concentration in aerosols. 8 m downwind of
a sprinkler impact zone. 'n!e sprinlder has a 23-m impact ,circle and is discharging at 30 Lis, fecal coiiforms in the bulk wastewater are 1 X 195 , tne sprinkler
is operating on a cloudy day with a winti speed of abo-ut 8 km.lh, and backgronndroncentration of fecal coliformsin the :upwind airis z&o.
1. The distance ofcrmcern is 31m do~wind ofthe nozzle source, and the wind
velocity is 2.?2 rnls. so we can calculate the a factor.
dov.rnwind distance
31 .
wind velocitr
= 222 = 13.96 s- I
a= .
78
Chapter Thr':e
TABLE 3.12
Aerosol Bacteria and Virus at Pleasanton CA land Treatment System

Using Undislnfected. Effluent
Location
Wastewater
(#!lOOmL I
Fecal
col ii~wm
Fecal
strcp.
Ps(udomonas
Enteroviruses
2.6 x lOS
2.6 :-- lOS
2.8
0.03
1 :-: 105
8.8
0.02
0.23
0.01
0.99
OA-6
0.23
1.45
0.60
OA2
0.34
0.39
0.21
10:;
Coliphage
l.'"p~;nd
t#fm lJ
ND*
Do\\.-n i\-ind
l#/m3l
10-30 m
31-So-m
81- 200 m
0.01
ND
ND
81
46
25
*ND = none detected.
2. Calculate the concentration lea~ing the nozzle area using Eq. 3.28.
"
= <WHF
= Cl
)(EJfD
x 105 JI30 L/sJ(Q.003J(0.27}
~ 2430 fecal colifoTIIlS released per second at the noZzle
3. Calculate the concentration_at the downwind paint of concern using Eq. 3.27_ .
D.J. = 318 x 10-6

Cd = <C,.)(DdJ(e)1z.;,_+ B
<~40)(318
x lo- s')(ero.o2313.961 +
o.o
= 0.54-fecal.colifonns perm3 of.2ir~ 8 m doWnwind of
the wetted zone ofthe sprinkler
This is an insignificant level of risk.

The very _low concentration predicted in. Example 3_6 is typical of
the very- low concentrations actnally mea.sured at a number of operational land treatment sites. Table 3.1.2 is .a s timmary of data c ollected
at an intensively strulied system where rmdisinfected effluent was
applied to the land.
It seems clear that the v-ery low ?-eroso.Jization effici~cies (E) as.
defined in Eq-. 3..27 for sludge 5p!ay inns and truck-moun~ sprinklers means that there is very little risk of aer-osol transport of
pathogens from these sources; and this has been confirmed by field
iri.vestigations.30
. Gomposting is a very effective process for inactivating most

microorganisms, including viruses, due to the high temperatures generated during the treatment (see Chap. 8 far details).._However, the
heat produced m the process also stimuJ_ates the growth of ther-
.f
...
I
Basic Process Responses and
Interaction~
79
mophilic fungi and actinomycete~, and concerns have been expressed

regarding their a~rosol transport. The a~rosols in this case are dust
particles released when the compost materials are aerated, mixed,
screened, or otherwise moved at>out the site.
. A study \vas conducted at four composting operations involving 400
on-site and off-site workers. !J The most significant finding was a higher concentration of the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus in the throat
and na~al cultures of t)le actively invol_ved on-site workers, but this
finding was not correlated with an increased incidence of infection or
disease. The fungus was rarely detected in on~site workers involved
only occasionally or in the off-$e control group.
The presence of this fungus is due to the composting process itself
and not because wastewater sludges are involved. The study results
suggest that workers who are directly and frequently involved with
c~~posting operations have' a greater risk af exposure, but .there is
negligible impact on those who are exposed only occasionally or on
the dow nwind off-site population_ It shoul~ be possible.to protect all
concerned with respirators for the exposed workers and a boundary
scree~ of vegetation around.the site_
3.5 Metals
Metals-at trace-level concentrations are fo~d in all w~ewaters. and
sludges. Industrial and commercial activities are the major sources
but wastewate! from p rivate reside~ces .c;an also have significant
metal concentrations. The metals of greatest concern are copper, nick. el, lea~ zinc, and cad.miu:n-4' and the reason for the concern is the risk
of their entry into the food chain or water supply.
A large percentage- of the metals present in wastewater will accumulate in tlie sludges prodU.Ced during the wastewater treatment
process. As a result; metals .are often the controlling design. parameter for land application of sludge, as described in detail in Chap_ S.
Metals are not m:,.--ually the crit ical design parameter fur wastewater
treatment.or r-euse,. -with the possible ex-ception of certain indns~es
Tab1e 3.13 compares the metal .c oncerrtrations in un~ated mmricipal
wastewaters and the requirements for irrigation arid dririkii:J.g-water
supplies.
7
Aquatic systems
Trace metals are not usually a concern for the design or perforniance
of pond systems that treat typical municipal wastewaters. The major
pathways for removal are ads(rrption on-organic matter and precipitation.
Since the opportunity for both is somewbat
limited,. the removal
.
.
..... ...
80
Chapter Three
TABLE 3.13 Metal Concentrations in Wastewater and Requirements for Irrigation

and Drinking-Water Supplies33
Untreated
was tewater (mg/Ll*
~Ictal
Cadmium
Lead
Zinc
Copper
Nickel
Drinking
Irrigation fmg/L)
water <mg/Ll
Continuoust
Short-term:i:
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.01
5.0
2.0
- 0.2
0.2 .
0.05
10.0
10.0
.5.0
2.0
<0 .005
0 .008
0.04
O.lS
0.04
1.0
*Median \'alues for t)-pical municipal wastewater.

7For waters used for an infinite time period on an.:y kind of soil.
+For waters used for up to 20 years on fine-textured soils when sensitive crops are to be
grown.
of metals in most po~d systems will be less effective than with activated sludge, for example, where more than 50 percent of t~e m~tals
present in the untreated waStewater can be transferred to the sludge
in a relati~~ely s hort time period. Sludges from pnnd sy~tem~ can,
howe-ver~ contain relatively high concentrations of metals due to the
long rete-ntion times and infrequent sludge removal. The metal concentrations found in ia~oon sludges at several locations are smnmarized in Table 3.14.
The concentrations shown in Table 3.14 are within t he range normally found in unstabilized primary sludges and therefore would not
TABtE3-14
Metal Concentrations in Sludges from Treatment lagoons28
Metal
Faculta~e lagoons*
Partial-mix. aerated
lagoonst-
Copper
Wet sludge~ mg/L
Dzysolids, .mg/kg
3.8
10.1:
53.8
S09'>
W~t- ~ludge~ m.,grL
0.1
Thy solids. mg/kg
9.0
L2
9.2
!ron
Lead
Wet.sludge:.:mg/L
Dry solids. mg/kg
Mercury
Wet slndge~ mg/L
Dry s olids, mgflig
Zinc
Wet sludge, mgfL
.Dry solids. mg/kg
8.9
144
0.1
2.4
54. 6
840
*Aerage of rnues from two facultati,e la,cvons in Utah. .
~A.-~:rage ofvalce5 from two partia1-mis. aerated lagoons in -~la"ka.
21.1
394
()'.2
4...7 .
85.2
2729
Basic Pr<?cess Responses and Interactions
TABLE 3.15
81
Metal Removal in Hyacinth Ponds 18
~eta!
Bor~m
Copper
Iron
.Manganese
Lead
Cadmium
Cb.romium
Arsenic
Influent concentration
Percent removal"
0. 14 mg/L
27.6 g1L
457.8 giL
18.2 giL
12.8 giL
0.4 giL
. 0.8 giL
0.9 g:/L
37
20
34
37
68
46
22
18
"'AYe..."'age of three parallel channels, detention time about 5 days.
inhibit further digestion, or land applieation as described in Chap. 8.

Tables 8.4 and 8.5 in Chap. 8 list other characteristics of pond
sludges_ The data in:Table 3.14 are frOin lagoons in cold climates. It is
likely that sludge metal concentrations may be higher than these values in lagoons in warm climates which receive a .significant industrial
wastewater input. In these cases the benthic sludge Will undergo furth~r digestion, which reduces t he organic content and sludge mass
hut not the metals conten~ so their concentrations should increase
with time_
If metals remuval is a pr<>cess requirement and the local dimate is
close to subtropical~ the use of water hyac~.nths in shall9w ponds, as
described in Chap"_ 5, may be considered.. Tests with full-scale systems
in both Louisiana and Florida18 have documented excellent removal,
with uptake by the plant itself a major factor. The plant tissue con-
centrations may range_from hundreds to thousandS of times that of
the. water or sediment concentrations, indicating that bioaccumulation of trace elements by tbe plant occurs. 1\.fetals removals in a pilot
hyacinth systel!l in central Florida are presented T~ble 3.15.
Hyacinths have also been shown to be particularly effective in
extracting metals from phot.o-pr<>cesSing wastewater at a system in
--~Q:!Ii_~~ -~-s__ -- - -. ,__ -- -- -- - . --- - . --...., ---- --- ---..---- ---- --..--
li'
;I
'I
:i
"
\"
"!i!i
II
Wetland systems
.f
'i
Ex!:ellent metal removals have been demonStrated in the type of constro.cted wetlands described in Chap. 6. Tests at pilot wetlands in
soi:rtbem California, with about 5.5 days~ hydraulic residence time,
indicated 99, 97~ ana 99 percent removal for copper.. zinc, and cadmium,. respecti~y. 13 However, plant up~ake by the vegetation. accounted for less than 1 p"ercent
the metals involved. The major m~cha
cisms responsible fur metal :removal were precipitation and adsorption interactio~s with the organicbenthic layer.
.
of
''
82
Chapter Three
Land treatment systems
Removal of metals in land treatment systems can involve both uptake

by any vegetation and adsorption~ ion exchange, precipitation, and
complexation in or on the soil. As explained in Chap. 8, zinc, copper~
and nickel are toxic to vegetation long before they reach a concentration in the plant tissue which would represent a risk to human or animal food chains. Cadmium, however, can accumulate in m~_ny plants
wit;hout toxic effects and may represent some health risk. As a result~
cadlnium is the major limiting f actor for application of sludge on agricultural land.
The near-surface soil layer in land treatment systems is very effective for removal, and m'Ost retained metals. are found in this zone.
Investigations at a rapid-infiltration system which had operated for
33 years on Cape Cod, Massachn...~s~25 indicated that essentially all
of the metals applied could be accounted for in the top 50 em (20 in} of
the sandy soil, and over 95 percent were contained 'vitbin the top 15
cm. (6 in). ::-.

J, '
. J::
Although the metal conce ntrations in typical wastewaters is low,

concerns have been expressed_regarding .1 ong-terni accnmulation in
the soil; which might then affect the futa::re agricultur.ai potential of
the site: Work by Hinesly and other525 seems to indicate that most of
.the metals...;re~ed over a long period in the soil are in forms which
are not readily available to most ~getation. The plants will respond
to the metals applied during th-e co.:rrent growing season but are not
significantly affected by pr-evious ac~mulations in the soil. The data
in Table 3.16 demonstrate the same re-lationship_ At Melbourne,
A~ after 76 years of application of raw 5ew~ the cadmium
concentration in the grass was ju....~ slightlY higb.er than in the grass
on the control site, which re.ceived no -wastewater_ 'The other locations
are newer syst.em.S in Calif~ and the- cadmium content is the
sa:ine order of :ID.agnitude as measured at :Melbon:ni~ suggesting that
TABLE-3.16 Metal Content of Grcissas.ati.and Trea~Sftes
Started:
Sampled;
.Metal
Cachruum
Copper
Nlc:ki!l
Lead
Zinc
Melixruroe. Aust:ralia Fresoo, Cal:ffimris Manteca. CalifOI:Di2.

(1.907)
(19611
<18961
fffi73)
(19721
0~73)
'Control ~rte
0:17
6.5
2.7
2.5
50.0
0~89
12.0
4:.9
.2.5
63.0
0.916.0
5_0
13.0
93.0
~on~ California
{1.964)
Cl973J
Ltt
Q3
13.0
45.0
15..0
I1:0
10.0
2:.(}
10.0
103.(}
.. '
. ...
'
83
the vegetation in all these loc~tions is responding to the metals

applied ~w:ing the cirrrent growing season and not to prior soil accu. mulation. The s~gficantly higher lead in the three California sites
as compared to Melbourne is believ~d to be due to motor vehicle
exl:iaust from adjacent highways.
Metals do not pose a threat to groundwater aquifers, even at the
very high hydraulic loadings used in rapid-infiltration systems.
Experience at Hollister,. California, demo~trates that the concentra. tion of cadmium in the shallow groundwater beneath the site is not
significantly different than normal offsite groundwater quality .24
After 33 years of operation at this site, the accumulation of metals in
the soil was still below or near the low end of the range normally
expected for agri~tural soils. Had the site been operated in the slowra~e mod~ it would have taken ove~ 150 years to apply the same volume of wastewater and contained metals.
3.6 Nutrients
~ere is a dual concem with re.sp~ct to nutrients~ since their control
is necessacy to avoid adverse health or environmental effects, but the
are
same 'nutrients
essential for the performance of the natural biological treatment systems discussed in 'this book. The nutrients. of
major importance for both pu:q>os~s are nitrogen; phosphorus, and
potassium. Nitrogen is the controlling parameter .for the design of
many land ~eatment and sludge application systems, and those
aspects are discussed in de~ill in Chaps. 1' and 8. This section covers
the potential for nutrientremoval using the {)thertreatment concepts,
~d the nutrient requirements of the various system comp~nents.
~ogen
W:rtrOgen is limited: in drinking water to protect the health of infants

and may be limited in surface waters to' pr<rtec:t fish life or to avoid
entropbication.. As described in.Chap. .7:- land tr-ea~ systems are
typically designed to meet the- 10-mg/L nitrate drinking-water stan-dard for any percolate or groundwater leaving the p.R!j~ct bOundary.
In soine cases nitrogen removal may also- be necessary prior to dis- .
charge to surface waters. More oft~ there is a :need to uxidize or otherwise remove the ammonia form of nitrogen, since this is toxic to
many fish and can also represent a significant oxygen demand -on the
stream.
Nitrogen is present in wastewaters in a variety of forms because of
the various oxidation states repr$ented, and it can readily change
from one state to another depending on the physical and biochemical
. . ...
84
Chapter Thre-e
conditions present. The total nitrogen concentration in typical municipal wastewaters ranges from about 15 to over 50 mg/L. About 60 per. cent of this is in ammonia fonn, and the remainder .i s in organic form.
Ammonia can be present as molecular ammonia (NHa) or as ammonium ions (NH4 +). The equilibrium between these two forms in water
is strongly dependent on pH and temperature. At pH 7 essentially
only ammonium ions are present, while at pH 12 only dissolved .
ammonia gas. This relationship is the basis for air-stripping operations in advanced wastewater treatment plants, and for a significant
portion of the nitrogen re~oval which occurs in ~a.Stewater treatment ponds.
Nitrogen can be removed in pond systems by plant ~r

algal uptake, nitrification and denitrification, adsorption, sludge
deposition~ and loss of ammonia gas to the atmosphere (volatilization). In facultative wastewater treatment ponds the dOminant mechanism is believed to be volatilization, and under ra~mrahle conditions
up to SO percent of the total nitrogen present can be l:ost. The rate of
:removal G:epends on pH! temperature; and detention tim.e . The
amo:u-nt of gaseous ammonia present at near neutral pH levels is relatively low. but when so~e of this gas is lost to the atmosphere,. additional ammonium i011s shift to the ammonia form to. maintain ~qcrili:b
ririm. Although the unit rate of conversion and 1<JSS may he vmy low,
the long detention time in these ponds compen.sates,. ra.~ting in very
effctiv-removal over the long term. Equ~tions describing .this r~itro
gen removal in ponds, which can be u...~ for design,. are presented in
Chap. 4. Since nitrogen is often the controlling design parameter for
land treatment, a reduction in pond effluent nitrogen c an ofi-c.e:a permit a very significant reduction ill the lruid a:rea needed for w&~
water application, with a comparable sa-cings in prqiect eo:,-;;s.
Pond systems.
Aquatic .systems~ Nitrogen removal in hyacinth ponds~ dne primarily
to nitrification/denitrification and plant uptake,. ean: be very effeci:W.e.

Th~ plant uptake will not represent perman-ent r .ezno.va4 however.,. .-- - .
uruess the plants are routinely harvested. A..camplete .harvest is n:ot
typieally possible, sincce another function nf the hya.c:inth plant is to
shade tbe water surface so that resn:icted J.J.ght penetration willli:nrit
algal growtlL. Since harvest might rem.ove only 26 to- 30 percent ofthe
plants in the basin at any one time,. the fall nitrogen-removal poten-tial <>f the plants is never rewed.
Nltrification and denitrification a:re possible in shallo,w hyacinth
ponds even if mecnanical aeration is used, due to the presence .o faerobic and anaer-obic' microsites within the dense ront zone of the floating plant .a nd the presence Of the carbon sources needed fur denitrification. Nitrog.en remmTals observed in hyaeinth ponds r~O'' from less
...... .
" -
.. u
...
... .
.. .
than 10 to oveF 50 kg/hafd C9-45 lb/ac/d), depending on the season

and the frequency of harvest. Some of these were carefully managed
pilot-scale or research faciliti~s. See Chap. 5 for further discussion.
\IIJetland systems. Volatilization of ammonia, denitrification, and
plant uptake {if the vegetation is harvestedj are the potential methods of nitrogen removal in wetland systems. 12 Studies in Canada40
~emonstrated that a regular harvest of cattails still accounted for
only about 10 percent of the nitrogen removed by the system. Th~se
findings have been confirmed elsewhere, which indicates that the .
major pathway for nitrogen removal is nitrification followed by denitrification.
Land treabnent systems. Nitrogen is usually the limiting design para-
meter for slow-rate land treatment of wastewater, and criteria and

procedures are presented in Chap7 7. ~trogen can also limit the
annual application rate for many sludge systems,.. as described in
Chap. 8. The removal pathways for both types of systems are similar,
and include plant uptake, ammonia volatiliza t ion, and
nitrification/denitrification. Ammonium ions can be adsorbed onto soil
partjcles~ and this provides a temporary contra( soil rri.icroorganisms
then nitrifY this ammonium!' restoring tbe original adsorptive capacity. :Nitrate,. nn the other hand, wl11 ;not be chemically retained by the
soil system. Nitrat,e removal by plant uptake oi denitrification can
occur only during the hydraulic residence time ofithe carrier water in
the soil -profile. The overrul capability for nitrogen removal will be
improved if the applied nitrogen is ammonia or other less well mridized farms..
Nitrification/denitrification is the major factor for nitrogen removal

in rapid-infiltration systems~ and crop uptake is a major method for
both slow-rate and overland-flow systems. Volatilization and denitrification also occUT with the latter two types of system and may
account from 10 to over 50 percent of the applied nitrogen, depending
on waste .c haracteristics 8J}d applicatian ~ethqd.s ~ d~s~~~- ~E
Chap_ 7_ Design procedures based .on nitrogen uptake ef agricult:ural
and.forest vegetation can be found in Chap. 7.
Phosphorus
?hosphorns has no 'knowp. health significance, but. is tbe wastewater

constituent that is most often associated with entrophication of surfare waters.. PhusphOIUS in wastewater can occur as po}ypho~hates,
orthophosphates, which can originate from a number of sources; and
organic Phosphorus"' wbieh is more coinmonly found inindustJ:]:al dis.cb.a:rges. The potential removal pathways in natural treatment sys-
----------~------------------ -
----- ---
86
Chapter Th~ee
terns include vegetation uptake. other biological processes, adsorption, and pr~cipitation.
The vegetative uptake can be significant in the slow-rate and overland-flow land treatment processes when harvest and removal are
routinely practiced. In t~ese cases .the harvested vegetation might
account for 20--30 percent of the applied phosphorus. The vegetation
typically used in wetland systems is not considered a significant factor fo:r phosphorus removal, even if harvesting is practiced. If the
p1ants are not harv~s_ted, their decomposition .releases phosphorus
back to the w~ter. in the system. -Phosphorus removal by water
hyacinths and other aquatic plants is limited to plant needs and will
not exceed 50-70 percent of the :phosphorus present in the wastewater~ even with careful management and regular harvests.
Adsorption and precipitatiQn reactions are the major pathways for
phosphorus removal when w~vmter has the opportunity for contact
with a significant volume ~soil This is always the case with slow-rate
and xapid-infiltrntion systems~ and same wetland systems where infiltration and laterni flow tlrrough the subsoil is possible. The possibilities
for contact between the wastewater and the soil are more limited with
the overland-flow process., since re1ative1y impermeablesoils are used_
The. soil reactions involve clay~ oxides of iron and alumin~ and
~cium compounds present and the soil pH. Finer-textured soils tend
to have the greatest potential for phosphorus sorption due to the
higher day content but also to the increased hydraulic residence
time. Coarse-texturetL acidic, or organic soils -have the lowest -capacity for phosphorus. ~eat s~ils are both acidic and organic, but some
have a significant sm:ption. po~ntial due to the presence .of iron and
aluminum_
A Jalloratory-seale adsorption test c an estimate the ammmt of phosphorus that a soil an remove during short application periods_ Actual
ph~spltorus rte.n:tion in the field will be at least two to five times the
value obtained dnririg a typical 5-day .adsorption test. The sorption
potential of a given soil Jay~ will eventnally be exhausted, but until
:that occurs, the removal. of phosph~ will ~e almost complete_ It has
beer,t~ that?.:~~ depth of sojl.~.. a_typical sl~-rate .s ystem
:migbt;~iiu/~ahn:ated~ii. phosphorus every lQ y~~- The phosphoros ccncentrationsinthe percoia:te from slow-rate systems usually
approach hac~nnd levelS fur the native-grm:indw?ter Within 2 m of
travel in the soiL The c oarser-textured soils utilized fur r apid infiltration.might reqnire an order-ilf-magnjtude greater travel distance.
Phosphorus is riot iisnally a critieal issue fer groundwater quality.
However, when the groundwater emerges in a nearby surface stream
or pond., there may be eutrophication roncern.S. Equation 3.29 ean be
used to estimate the phosphorus concentration at any point on the
87
infiltration/percolation, groundwater flow path. The equation was

originally developed from rapid:infiltration system responses, so it
provides a very' conservative basis for all soil systems.33
p = p
. .\'
e - kpt
(3.29)
where P :r = total Pat a distance x on the fl~w path, mg!L

P 0 = total Pin applied wastewater, mg/L
_
1
k = 0.048 at pH 7, a- (pH 7 gives the lowest value)
detention time7 d
= (xXW>I(Kj{G)
x = distance-along flow path, m (ft)
l.y = S?-~ted soil water content; assmne 0.4
K ::; = hydraulic conductivity of soil in direction .1; mid (ftld); .
. thus K,; = v~rticaL Kh . horizontal
G = hydraulic gradient far flow system
= 1 for vertical flow
t,
.t!L for lateral flow
The equation is salved in two steps~ rst for the vertical flow compon.ent,. fronl the .s oil snrfa~e to the subsurface flow barrier (if one
exists), and then for the lateral flow to the adjacent snrface water..
The calcui.ations are based on assumed saturated conditions, so the
lowest possible. detention time will resnli The aetna! verlical flow in
most cases will be tmSaturated, so the a~ d~tention time will be
much longer than is calculated with this pr.oced.nre. If the. equation
predicts acceptable removal, there is some assurance that the site
should perform reliably and detailed teSts should not be ilecessa.ry for
prelurrinary wOrk. Detailed tests .should be conducted for final design
oflarge scale proj'ect.s_
Poiassru.m and other micro~"'trlents
AS. a .waste:water con.stitue:st~ potassimn Usually has no health or

eiiV;ironmental effects. It .i s, however, an e ssential nutrient for vegetative gro~ an-d it is not typically present lliwastewaters in tb.~ optimum combination with ni:trugen and phosph~- Ifa land or aquatic
treatment system depends on vegetation for nitrogen removal, it may.
he necessary to add supplemental potassium to maintain plant
uptake ofnitrogen at the .o ptimum level. Equation 3.30 can be nsed to
estimate the supplemental potassium that may be required for aquatic systems and for land systems where t~e soils have a low level of
natural potassium
88
Chapter Three
(3.30)
where I(
U
Kww
=
=
annual supplemental potassium needed, 'kg/ha

estiinated annual nitrogen uptake of vegetation, kg/ha
an10unt of pctassium in the applied wastewater, kglha
l\1ost plants also require magnesium, calcium .. and sulfur and,.

depending on soil characteristics, there may be deficiencies in son1e
locations. Iron~ manganese, zinc, boron~ copperT molybdenum~ and
sodium are other micronutrients that are important for vegetative
growth. Generally, there is a sufficient amount of these elements iri
wastewater; and in some cases the excess can lead to phytotoxicity
problems. Some high-rate hyacinth systems may require supplemental iron to maintain vigorous plant growth.
Boron. Boron is at the same time essential for plant growth and toxic
to se.nsitive plants at low concentrations. Experience has shown that
soil systems have very limited capacity for boron adsorptio~ so it is
conservative to ass ume r.. z-ero r-emoval potential for land treatment
systems. Industrial wastewaters may have a higher boron. rontent
than typical muni~pal effiuents: the boron content may influence the
type of crop selected but will not control the feasibility of land treatment. Tolerant crops such ~.s alfa.lfa,. cotton, sugar beets, and sweet
clover might ac.cept up to 2-4 mg!L bo:ron in the wastewater.
Semitolerant crops such as corD., barley,. milo, oats~ and wheat nugbt
accept 1-2 mg/L, and sensitive crops su:ch as frnits and nuts should
receive less ~an 1 mgtr~
Sulfur, Wastewaters contain sulfur in either the sulfite or the sulfate
form. ~iunicipal wa.::.-t.ewa:ters do not t:ISO:ally contain enough sulfur to
be a design probiem., but industrial wastewate-rs from petroleum
refining and Kraft paper mills ean be a concern. Sulfate is limit-ed to25(} mg/L in drinking \\:"'liters and to 200-:600 mg/L for irrigation:~
.depending on tbe type -of vegetation. Sulfur iS W~}':. aiL~rbed
so-ijs, '5(} the ~jor p.at;4w.~ for r~oval is by plant uptake. The grasses typically used in Ian.d treatment ean remove 2-3 kg- of snlfur per
I GOO' kg .( 4 to 7 Ib per 2200 lb} of material harvested.21 The presence
of .snlfites or sulfa:tes in wastewater can lead t o serious ,odor problems .
if anaerebic eon~tions deyelop. This has occurred with some hyacinth .
systems,. and supplemental aer.ation is then needed
mamtain aerobic -conditions in tne b3b-in.
on
to
Sodiuw_ Sodium is not limited by pr.imary drinking-water standards~
nar are there significant environmental water-quality :concIlls w.ith:
89
respect to the sodium con.tent of typical municipal wastew~ter~. A

sudden change to a high sodium content will adversely affect the
biota in an aquatic system, but most systems can acclimate to grad-:ual changes. Sodiu..rn and also calcium influence scil alkalinity and
salinity, which in turn can affect the vegetation . in land treatment
systems. The growth of the plant and its ability to absorb moisture
from the soil are influenced by salinity_
.
The structure of clay soils can be damaged when there is an excess
of sodium with respect to calcium and magnesium in the wastewater.
The resulting swelling of some day particles changes the hydraulic
capacity of the soil profile. Tiie sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) as
shown by Eq. 3.31 defines the relationship among these three ele-
~~=
[Na]
SAR = { ([Ca ~ [Mg]}
wh~re
lin
SAR = sodium adsorption. rati&

[NaJ = sodium concentrati~ mEq/L
(mg/L in wastewater)
[Ca] = calcium concentration, mEq/L

(mg/L in wastewater}(2J
(40.08)
[Mgl = _magnesium concentration, mEq!L
(mg/L in wastewater9{2)
{24.:32)
The SAR for typical municipal effluents seldom exceeds :a value Qf5
t~ 8-; so there ~ould be no problem with most soils ill any climate..
Soils ~ up to 15 percent clay can tolerate a SAR o.10 GF less, wnile
soils with little day or with norb-:we.llin_g clays canaccept S.&."% np to
about 20-_ lndnstrial wastewate...---s can have a high SAR, and _periodic
soil treatment with gypstiiil or some other inexpensive som-ee {)f calcium may be necessary to reduce clay .swelling_
.
Soil -salinity is managed by adding an ex-cess ,of water .a bove tnat
required for crop growth tn Ieacll the s-alts from the soil profil?- A
""rn:le of thumb""' for total wa:t~r needed tu prevent saltbuildup in .a rid
climates is to apply the crop needs plus about 10 percent.23 Reference
37 ptnv-:ides further detaiL
90
Chapter.Three
References
1. Bauman, P.: Technical Development in Ground Water Recharge, in V. T. Chow
(ed.J, Advances in Hydroscience, voL 2, Academic Press, New York, 1965, pp.
209-279.
2. Bauswn, H. T.: Enteric Virus Removal in Wastewater Treatment Lagoon Systems.
PB83-234914, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, 1983.
3. Bedient. P. B., N. K Spz:i.nger, E. Baca. T. C. Bouvette, S. R. Hutchins, and M. B.
Tomson: Ground-water Transport from Wastewater Infiltration, ASCE EED Div.
J ., 109<2):485-501., Apr. 1983.
4. Bell. R. G., and J. B. .Bole: Elimination of Fecal Colifor-m Bacteria from Soil
Irrigated with Miuricipal Sewage Lagoon Effluent, J. Environ. Qual., 7:193-196,
1978.
. .
.
5. Bianchi. w. C., and C. Mucke4 Ground Water Recharge Hydrology, ARS 41-161.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, .AgriCulfural Research Service, Beltsville. !.ID;
Dec.l970.
.
6. Bouwer, H.: Groundwater Hydrology, McGraw-HilL New York, 1978.
7. Brock, R. P.: Dupuit-Forchheimer and Potential Theories for Recharge from Basins,
Water Resources Res.. 12:909-91.1, 1976.
8. Clark. C. s"'?H. S. Bjornson. J. Schwartz-Fulton, J. W. Holland, and P. S. Gartside:
Biological Health Risks Associated with the Composting of Wastewater Treatment
~t SlwJie, J. Water Pollution Control Fed.., 56(12):1269-1276, 19~.
9. Clark,. R. ~L. R. C. Eilers, arid J. A. Goodrich: VOCs in Drinking Water: Cost of
Remo~ASCE EED Div. J . 110(6):1146-1162, 1984.
10.. Danel,' P.: The Me.a sU:remerit of Ground-Water Flow, in Proceedings Ankara
.S;ymposium. on AridZorn! Hydrology_, UNESCO, Paris, 1953, pp. 99-107.
.
1L Dillmg, W. L.: Interphase Tt;ansfer Processes. II. Evaporation of Chlorometh.anes,
Ethanes, Ethylenes, Propanes, and Propylenes. from Dilute Aqueous Soln:tions~
Comparisons with Theoretical Predictions, Environ. Sci. Technol . 11:405-409".
1977.
.
12.. Ger~berg,~ R M., B. V. Elkins, and C. R. Goldman- Nitrogen Removal in Artificial
Wetl.Siids, Water Res., 17(9):1009-1014, 1983_
13. G ersberg, R. M:, S. R. Lyon, B. V_ Eikins, and C. R. Goldman: The Removal of

Hea-cy :Metals by Artificial Wetlands.. in Proceedings A ii'WA Water Reuse ill.
.American Water Works Association, Denver, CO, 1985, pp. 639-645.
14_ Glover, R. E.: Mathematical Derivations as Pertaining to Groundwater Rec:luuge,
U .S_ Department of-Agriculture, Agriculttiral Research Service, Beltsville, :MD_
1961.
1.5. Hutchins, S. R ., M. B. Tomsom. P. B. Bedient, and C. H. Ward: Fate of Trace
Organics dm:ing Land Application of .Muoicipal Wastewater. CriL Rec.. Enx:iron.
Control, 1.5(4-):355-416, 1985.
16. Jenkins, T. F., D_ C. L-eggett. L. V. Parker, and J . L . Oliphant: Toxic Organics
RemoVal Kinetics in Overland Flow Land Treatmen~ Water Res., 19(6):707-718,
19S5.
.
1.7. Kahn, .M. Y~ and D. Kirkham, Shapes of Steady Stcrte Perched Groundwater
.Mounds. Water.Resorur:esReS... 12:429-436,1976.
.
.
18. .Kamber~ D.::~.: Benefits' arid lriiplementation Potenticil o.f Wastewater Aq?JaCI.lltu~
. . . EPA Clllltract Report 68-01-6232, .U.S..Environ.m.entiU ProteCtion:A.:,~. Office of
. .. : . Water Regulations and Standards, Wasbington.. DC, 1982. .
19-. Love, O.T.., R Miltner. R. G. Eilers, and C. A. Fro]Jk-Lei.st: Treatmerit afVolc:tile
. Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water, EPA 600i8-83-0l9, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, .Municipal Engineeri.ngRe5earch LaboratOry, Cincinnati,. OR.
. .. 1983.
20. Lnthi:n, J. N.: Drainage Engineering, Kreiger~ Hnntington, NY, 1973.
21. Overcash, M. ~ and D. Pal: Design of Land Treatment Systems for lru:Iustrial
Wastes-Theory and Practice, Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbor.. MI. 1979.
22. Parker...,. L. V.., :and T. F. Jenkins: Removal of Trace-Level <nganjcs by Slow-Rate
Land Tre.at:m.em; Water Res., 20 (11), pp. 1417-1426, 1986~
23. Pettygro:v~ G. S. ~ and T. Asano (eds.):' lrrigation with Redaimed :Municipal
'
Basic Process Res ponses and Interactions
91
Wastewater- A Guidance Manual, prepared for California State Water Resources

Control Board, reprinted by Lewis PublishcrH, Cht:lsca, MI. 1985. .
24. Pound, C. E . and R. W. Crites: Long Term E{{eds of Land Application of Domestic
\Vaslewater- Hollistcr California, EPA 600/2-7H-084, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington. DC, 1979.
25. Reed, S. C.: Health Aspects of f.-and Treatment, GPO 1979-657-093/7086, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, OH, 1979.
26. Reed. S .. R Bastian, S. Black, and R. Kheltry: Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment
in Cold Climates, in Proceedings A\VWA Water Reuse Ill, American Water Works
Association. Den'\"er, CO, 1985, pp. 962-972 . .
27; Roberts. P. V. P. L. McCarty, M. Reinhard, and J . Schriner: Organic Contaminant
Beha..-ior during Groundwater Recharge, J. Water Pollution Control Fed.
52(1):161....:172. 1980.
28. Schneiter, R W. and E . J. Middlebrooks: Cold Region Wastewater Lagoon Sludge:
Accumulation., Characterization, and Digestion, Contract Report DACA89-79-C001L U.S. Cold .Regions Research and ~ngineering Laboratory, Hanover, .NJL
1981.
29. Sorber~ C. A. H.. T. Bansum, S. A. Schaub, and M. J .. Small: A Study of Bacterial
Aerosols at a Wastewater Irrigation Site, J . Water Pollution Control Fed.;
4Sf 10 ):2367- 2379, 1976.
.
30. Sorber,. C. A., B. E. :Moore, D. E. Johnson; H. J. Hardy, and R. E. Thomas:
:Microbiological Aerosols from the Application of Liquid Sludge to Land, J. Water
Pollution Control Fed.., 56(7J:830-83~. 1984.
.
3L Sorber, C. A... and B. P. Sagik: Indicators and Pathogens in Wastewater Aerosols
arid Factors Affect.ing Surnvability, in Wa~tewater A erosols and Disease, EPA
600/9~80-.078, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research
Laboratory~ Cincinnati, OH,. 1.980.. pp. 23-35.
32. U..S. Department of the Interior.. Burean of Reclamation: Drainage llfanual, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1978.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual-Land Tr-eatmeni.
of Municipal Wastewater, EPA 62511-81-013', Center for Environmental Research
Infm:matio~ Cincinnati, OH, Oct. 1981:.
34.. U.S. EnviroDmental Protection .Agency: Fate of Priority Pollutants in Publicly
Owned Treatment Works. EPA 440/1-82-303, EPA, Washington, DC, 1982.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Estimating Microorganism Densities in.
_4erosols from Sp:ray lrriga:tion of Wastewater, EPA 600/9-82-003. Center for
Environmental Research Infqnnatio.n., C'mcinnati,
1982.
.
36. tr..S. E nvironmental Protection Agency: Design t.fanuq._l Municipal Wastewater
Stabilization Ponds, EPA 625/l-8'3-Ql5. Center for Emironmental Research.
Informa~ Cmcinnati,. OR, 1983.
37. U.R Environme-n:t:al Protection Agency: Proce.<>s Design. Manual Lair.d Trea..tm.ent of
Municipal Wastl!II1ater Supplement un R'apid Infiltration and Or:erla:rr.d Flow, EPA
625/I-81-013a, Center for Environmental Research Information., Cincinnati. OH. .
oa
.Qct;_ LQ84.~
38_U.S. Env'ironmen:tal Protection Agep.cy: Protection of Public Water Supplies frr:rar.

Ground-Water Contamination, EPA 62.5 /4-85-016.. Center for Environmental
.Research Information,. Cmcinnat4 OH, Sept. 1985.
39. Van Scbifgaarde, J.: Drainage for .Agriculture, Americin Society of Agronomy
.Series onAgronom;y.. No. r7, 1974..
40. WileT I . G. Miller. and S. IDa.ck: Design and Use of Artificial Wetlands, in
Ecological 9onsiderotions in Wetla:nd.s Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van
Nostrand Reinhold:.. New York, 1985:. pp. 26-37.
........
.. . .
..... .. ...
~
- -------------- -
qhapter
Wastewater
Stabilization Ponds
Stabilization ponds have been employed for treatment of wastewater

for over 3000 years. The first ;recorded eonstroction of apond system
in the United States was at San Antonio, Texas, in 1901. Today~ over
7000 pond systems are used in the United States for the treatment of
~unicipal and industrial wastewaterst49 undeJ; a wide range of weather conditions ranging from tropical toArctic. Large numbers of pond
s.Yste:rris are used .throughout. the world.5 5 These pond systems c;an be
used alone or in combination with other wastewater treatment
processes.
Wastewaterp ond systems ~an be classified by dominant type of biological r.eacti~ dnration and frequency of discllarge, extent of treatmo-nt ahead of the pand, or arrangement among cells (if more than
n ne cell is llSedL The most basic classification depends on the dominant biological reactiOns occurring in the pon<L. arrd the four principal
types are:
Fac~tafure (.aerobic-anaerobic)
ponds
Aerated ponds
Aerobic panifs
~
Anaerobic pon~
M.J. fo:a:r types depend
on the interaction ~f the in-.situ biological

' ~amponents fur treatment and can be ~onside:red ~o- be "natm~al treatmfnt systems_""-G enera! .design features .and performance expectations are presented in Table 1~1 in Chap. 1.
~ most ~~on t.yp.e is the facultative pond. :Other ter.ms which
are commonly applied are oxidation pon~ sewage lagoon, ana photo-
94 .
Chapter Four
synthetic pond. Facultati,re ponds are usually 1.2- 2.5 m (4-8 ft) in
depth, \Vith an aerobic layer overlying an anaerobic layer, often containing sludge deposits. The usual detention time is 5-30 days.
Anaerobic fermentation occurs in the lower layer and aerobic stabilization occurs in the upper layer. The key to facultative operation is
oxygen prodU:ction by photosynthetic algae and surface reaeration.
The oxygen is utilized by the aerobic bacteria in stabilizing the organic material in the upper layer. The algae are necessary for oxygen
production, but their presence in the final efil~ent represents one of
the most serious performance problems associated with facultative
ponds.
The total-conta:inment. pond and the controlled-discharge pond are
forms of facultative ponds_ The total-containment pond is applicable
iri. clim~tes where evaporative losses exceed rainfu]]. Controlled-discharge ponds have long det~ntion times, and the effiuent is discharged once or twice per year when the effluent quality and stream
conditions are satisfactory. A variation of the controlled-discharge
pond, used in the southern United Stat~ is called a hydrograph controlled-release l3:::,aoon.. The pond discharge is matched to periods 1Jf
high flow in the receicing str~ using the stream hydrograph as the
control.
In an aerated pond,. oxygen is supplied mainly through mechanical
or diffused aeration. Aerated ponds are generally 2-6 m (6-20 ft) in
depth with detent:ioo. times of 3-10 days. The chief advantage of aerated ponds is that they require less land ar~ Aerated pondS c an be
designed as complete-mix reactors or as partial-mix reactors. In the
former case,. sufficient e nergy mnst be used to .keep the pond contents
in suspension at all tims.. The ba...~c design of a complete-mix reactor
is similar to that of an activated slu.c4:.o-e system without sludge recycle
and is- beyond the scope of tbis book. References 2, 26, 29>, and 50
shonld be cansulte.d.
Ae=robic ponds,. also :cailed high.-rate aerobic ponds,. maintain dissolved ox;ygen (DO) throughout their entire depth. They .are usua11y
3~ em (12- 18 !n} ~p~ allowing light to penetrate the full depth.
MiXing is often prnvided to expose all algae to su:iilight and to prevent
deppsili:nn.:and s uhseqn.ent anaerobic co:nditi<rn.s~ Oxygen is provided
byphotasyn.thesis and .smface r eaeration,. and aerobic bacteria stabilize the 'W""a.Ste. Detention time is sh~ 3-5 cfuys befug.usuaL Aerobie
ponds. are limited tow~ snm:ry cllmates and ar-e used infrequently
in the Uirited States.
Anaerobic ponds r-eceive such a heavy organic loading that there is

no aerobic zone. They are usually 2..5-5 m (8-15 ft) in depth and have
detention times of 20-50 days. The principal biological reacti~ns
occurring are acid fo:rm.ation and methane fermentation. Anaerobic
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds
95
ponds are usually used for treatment of strong industrial and agricultural.wastes, or as a pretreatment step where an industry is a signifi: cant contributor to a municipal system. They do not have w.i de appli.. cation to the treatment of municipal wastewater.
4.1 . Preliminary Treatment
In general, the only mechanical or monitoring and control equipment

reqnlred.for: wastewater pond systems are flow measurement devices,
sampling systems, and pumps. Design. criteria and examples for preliminary ~atment components can be found in a number of refer. ences,. as well as in equipment manufacturers' catalogs.2.26.4-I.,46.47 ,52.53
.Flow me:asurement can be accomplished _with relatively simple
devices such as Palmer-Bowlus flum~ V..;notch weirs, and Parshall
flumes u.Sed.
CO!}junction with a recording meter. Frequently, flow
me::isnrements and 24-h compositing samplers are combined in a common manhole, pipe, or other housing arrangement. If pumping facili. .ti~ are necessary, the wet well is sometimes.used as a point to recycle effluent or to add chemicals for odor controL Pretreatment facilities should be kept.to a minimum at pond systems.
4~2
Facultative .Ponds
Facultative pond design is based on BOD removal; however, the

majority of the suspended solids will be removed in the primary cell
of a pondsystem. Sludge fermentation feedback of o:rganic compounds
to the water in a pond system is ~onificant .and has an effect a n performance. During the spring and fall,. the thermal overtnrn. of the
pond contents can result in significant qwmtities .o f benthic solids
being resuspended. The rate of sludge acetmmla:tion is.affected 'f?y the
liquid temperature, and additional vo1mne is added fur sludge accumulation m cold. climates. Although suspended solids have a profound
influence on perfo:rm.ance Qf.pond SJSiems:- most design equations
simplify the in:corp.oration-of the inflnenc.e of suspended solids by
using an overall reaction rate constant_ Effluent snsp.e nded solids
generally consist of suspended organism biomass .a nd do not include
suspended waste organic matter_
Several empirical :;md rational models. for the .d esign of these ponds
have been developed. These include the ideal-plug-flow and completemix models, as well as mo-dels proposed by Fritz and Middleton,8
Gloyna, 11 Larson/6 Marais,23 McGarry and Pescod,25 o~wald et al.,32
and Thirumurth.i.42 Several produce satisfactory .results7 but the use
of some may be limited because of the difficulty of evaluating coefficients or the complexity of the modeL
95
Chapter Four
Areal loading rate method
Canter and Englande5 reported that most states have design criteria
for organic loading and/or hydraulic detention time for facultative
ponds. These criteria are as~umt:rl t<i tnsu<e satisfa'C:l1ry performance: however, repeated violations of effluent standards by pond
systems that meet state design criteria indicate the inadequacy of the
criteria. A summary of the state design criteria for each location and
actual design values for organic loading and hydraulic detention time
for four facultative pond systems evaluated by the Environmental
Protection Agency2950 are shown in Table 4.1. Also included is a list of
the months the federal effiuent standards for BOD5 were exceeded.
The actual organic loading for the four systems is nearly eqo.a.L but
the system in Corinne, Utah, consistently s atisfied the federal effinent standard. This may be a function of the larger number of cells in
the Corinne system-seven, as compared to iliree for the others. More
hydraulic short-circuiting is likely to occur in the three-cell systems,
resulting in an actual detention time which was shorter than exists in
the Cor1..nne system. The detention tiz--n.e may also be affected by the
location of the pond ceil inlet and outlet structures.
Based on many years of experience. the follo\\>ingloading rates for
Yarious climatic conditions are recommenued for use in designing facultative pond systems. For average winter air temperatures above
15~- c (59=F L a BOD5 1oading rate ra.Do~ of 45-90 kg/ha d {40 - 80
lb/ac d) is recommended. \Vhen the average winter air temperatnre
ranges between 0 and l5C (32-59F), the organic 1oading rate should
be in the range 22:--45 k.g/ha - d {20-40 Ib/ac - d}. For average winter
temperatures below occ (32cF), the o:rganj~ loadir1~ sh.onid be in the
range 11-22 kg/ha d (10--20 Ih/ac- d).
The BOD loading rate in the fust cell is 11.S"!1.ally limited to 40
kg/ha-d (35 Th/ac d) .or less~ and the total hyd:ranJ:ic detention time
in the s:.rstem is 120-180 days in -climates where the average air temperature is below 0C {32F). In mild .c limates where the air temperature is higher than 15C (59FJ, loadings on the pri.mazy cell can Oe
100 kglh3.- d {89 Ib/ac - d)_
Gloy.na equation
Gloyna11 has proposed the following empirical equ:a.tfulit for the design
offacultativ.e wa...c::tewaterstabilization ponds:
v = (3.5 X
1Q- 5 )(Q}(La.)fW 35 - TIJ({)(f')
where V = pond volume, m 3

Q = irJ1uent flow rate L/d
La = ultimate influent BOD or COD,mg/L
7
(4.1)
TABLE 4.1
Summary of Design ~md P.arfortnance Oat~ from ~PA Por~d Stud le~ 110 1i0
....,...,
Otgnnlt! londing (leg BOD/hu dJ*
Actuul
ll974-
Sluto
Months tfl1uent
dm;if.{rl
BOD CXCl'Cdld
Locnlion
1:1lUldltl'd
lf)7t.i)
stnndcwd
~utol'lmrough, NH
rm.a
J~ . n
Hi.2
08.2
38.1
45,0"'
4:3.0
3f:U
:3().2*
l7J,
18.8
29.7-t
I(JIIlllctuwl, MS
l~udotu, I<S
<Jc>!'inl.le, U'l'
Design
Vi.6*
~~----~--~~~~~~~~~
~usg/hn d.l x 0.8922 = l b/(~\c
'I'Ptlmnr,v call.
~:ID11Lirc HyHI.O tll,

*l~Ht.imnl.ptl f'l'om d,Vt Hl.ud~.
(/)
'l'ht!oteU<!Ul dotent.ion Linw
dofllgn
St.nte
....1
cl>.
Do:-~ ign
Nmw
Norw
t57
NOI\l!
47
180
180
7~
Act.uul
107
21 <1 .
2:H
70
:30 mg/L
--
OcL., I'cb. , Mm . Apr.
Nov., J uly
Mu1. Apr., Aug.
None
88*
~~~~------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------
98
Chapter Four
u = temperature correction coefficien~ = 1.085

T
= . algai toxicity factor
pond temperature, oc
.r = sulfide <?Xygen demand

: The BOD5 removal efficiency is projected to be 80-90 percent, based
on "unfiltered influent samples and filtered effiuent samples. A pond
depth of 1.5 m (5 ft) is suggested for systems with significant seasonal
variations in temperature and major fluctuations in daily flow. The
surface area desi~ using Eq. 4.1 should.always be based on a 1-m(3ft) depth. The algal toxicity factor ( f) is assumed to be equal to 1.0 for
domestic wastes and many industrial wastes. The sulfide oxygen
demand ({')is also equal to 1."0 for sulfate equivalent iori concentration ofl~ss than500 mgiL. The design ~emperature is usually selected
as the average pond temperature in the coldest month.. Sunlight is
net considered to be critical in pond design7 but cffi:t be incorporated
into Eq. 4.1 by multiplying the pond volume by the ratio of sunlight
at the design location to the average found in the southwestern
United States.
The- Gloyna method was evaluated using the data referenced in
Table 4..1. The equation giying the best fit of the data is shown as Eq.
4.2. There was consid.e rable scatter to the data, but the relatio~hip is
statistical!Y significant.
V
0.035Q(B0D)(1.099)LTGHTC35- Tll250
(4.2)
where BOD = BOD:.i> in the system influent, mg/L

LiqHT = solar radiatio~ langleys
V = pond volnme, m 3
Q= influent flow rate,. m 3/d
T = pand temperature, oc
Compfe.te-mix model
... ::.
.. The Marias and s.b:a:WZ.; "equation is based :on; a complete-mix model

~first-order kinetics. The basic ~elatinnshlp. is sh.own in Eq:.. 4.3:
.
~.
1t"
)It
l.
(4.."3)
I+kt ;'
en:
---.:Wb_~~ C = e ffluent BOD_ concentration,. mg!L

]1.
C0 =
k .c =
tn =
n=
:>
influent BOD5 concentration~ mg/L.

complete-mix first-order reaction rate, d-1
hydraulic residence time in each cell., d
number .o f equal-sized pond cells in series
..
. ., -
Wastewater Stabilization Ponds .
99
The proposed upper limit for the BOD5 concentration (Ce>roa.x in the
primary cells is 55 mg!L to avoid anaerobic conditions and odors. The
permissible depth of.the pond, d in meters, was found to be related to
follows:
.
c max
(c ) . as
700
. . (C~)max = 1.9d + 8
(4.4)
. where (Ce)cax is the maxinium effluent BOD, 55 mg/L, and dis the
de:,-ign depth of the pond in meters.
The influence of water temperature on the reaction rate is estimat-
ed llSing Eq. 4.5.:

k cT
= k c35_(1.085)T-J5
(4.5)
rate
where kt:.T. = . reaction

at water tempen:atnre T, d -:-l
kc35 = reaction rate at 35'0C
= 1.2 d- 1
T = operating water temperaturE; cc.
Plugifaw model
The basic eqoati~ far the plug-flaw model is
~: =exp(- v}
where
(4.6)
ce=
effiuen~ BODS concentration, mg/L

C0 = inflnent.BOD5 concentrnti~_ mg!L
= plug flow fust-order reaction rate, d - 1
~ = liydranlic residence time, d
The reaction.
rate Ckp ) varies: with the BOD loading rate as shown in
.
Table 4..2.
.
Vatiatiuu of the Rag-Flow .Reaction

=Rate Coustaal.wifh:O.rganT.c t.oaamg Rate3t
TABl:.E 4.2
k p (d:-1 )t
-o~o45
22
45
0.071
fSJ
90
().083
0.096
112
.
*kgiha d X 0.:8922 = Ib/ac d.

T'Readion rate COns:t.a:n.t at 20cc.
JC).O.
...,.
1oo
Chapter Four
The influence of water tem.p eraiure on the reaction rate constant

can be determined with Eq. 4J!!IJ'::
20
k pT- = k:p20(1.09)T.
(4.6aJ
'
where l~p 1 ....:.. a.i::z.dj.on rate at tem.p erature T, d- 1

k P-?O = reaction rate at ~vC, rl 1
T = operating water temperature, oc
- Wehner-Wilhelm equation
Thin.1murthi42 found that the-flow pattern in facultative ponds is

somewhere between ideal plug flow and complete mix, and h e recommended the use of the following chemical reactor equation developed
by Wehner 2nd Wllhelm54 for chemical reactor design~
(4. 7)
...... .
where C:., = influent .BOD concentration, mg.'L

C" = ~ffiuent BOD conamtration, mgJL
e = base .ofnaturai lO-ocraritnms , 2.7183
.r = r 1 ..!... 4ktD ;n.:)
h ~-= first-order reacli~n rate n ::lstant, d - I
t = h'{rdraulic
r.esidenre time' d
:..T
D = dimensionless dispersion number
(.J.
" -
"'
= Ht .
uL
L2
H = axial dispersion coefficieQ.t:- area per unit time
L' = fluid veloci,ty, len,gth per nrrit ~..me
L = length .Of travel path of a typical particle
D= H
Thirnm1n'thr2 prepared the chart s~o-r~n in Fig. 4..1 to faC11itate

the use of Eq_ 4_7. T@ dimensionless term kt is. plotted versus. the
percentage .of BOD- rema1nmg: for dispersion numbers r~:qging from
-zero for a~"'ide~ll plug 'flOw- unit to infinity for a ~9mpJet~ly . rn:iXed
unit_ Disper:=tion. numbers mE7run:i:red in wastewater ponds 1ange
from {Ll to 2_ 0=~ 'With most values less than 1.0 . The selection of a
va1l:e fo:r- D c~ dramatica11y affect the detention time r~quired to
. !h""Dduce a given quality m efilnent. The selection of a design value
f'or k -ccm have an equal effect_ If the chart in Fig. 4.1 is not used,
Eq_ 4. 7 can he solved on a trial-and--error basis as shown in
E.."<ample 4..L
10
15
20
30
40
101
SO ED
BOO remaining. %
Figure-4~'l
Wehner-'WiThelm equation chart.
To imnrove on the selection of aD value for use in Eq. 4.7~

Polprasert and Bhattarai34 de17eioped Eq. 4.8 based on data from pilot
and -full-scale pond s ystems:
D=
0.184[tv(~t + 2d)]0.489i_W)L5ll
.
(Ld)l:..;;s9
(4.8)
wha-e.D = dimensimiless dispexsion number

t = hydraulic residence tim~ d
v = 'kinematic "iscosity , m2/d
d = liquid depth af pondT m
w .. width af pon<L
L = length uf pond, m
'I"ne bydi:anlic reffidenre time used to--deri:vB Eq. 4.S w.as det-ermined
by tracer studies; therefore, it is still -difficult to estimate the value C?f
D tc use in Eq_ 4.7. .Agcrad appro.:cima.ti~'"l i_s t o assume that the actnal
102
Chapter Four
hy4z-aulic residence time is half that of the theoretical ~ydraulic residence time.
Agunwamba et al. 1 developed a simil~r method to ~alculate the
value of D; however? i~ is doubtful that improvements were.made over
the Poiyprasert and B~~ai34 -method. .
.
The .variation of the reaction rate constant k in Eq. 4. 7 with the
w~ter tempe~~e is determined using Eq. 4.9:
kT = k20(L09) T-20
(4.9)
. where kj. =reaction rate at water temperature T, d- 1

k~ = reaction rate at .2 ooc = 9.15 d- 1
T = ~erating water tempe~ature, C
Example 4.1 Determine t;he. design detention time in a facultative pOJ;Id by
solvmg Eq. 4.7 on a trial-and-error basis. Assume C~ = 30 mg!L, C 0 .= 200 mg/L
. k 20 = 0.15, D = 0.1, a= 1.5 m, Q = 3.785 m 3/d: and a water temperature of
0.5C .
solution
L Calculate kr using Eq. 4.9-.

kT = . k20(1.09)T- 20 .
= 0.15(1.09)0.5- 20
.. .
= 0 .028
2. Assume for the first iteration that t
= 50 days, and solve for a.
a = (1. + 4kTDt)o.s
= (1 + 4 X 0:.028 X0 .1 X
50)?!Y
= 1.25
3. S~e Eq_ 4.7 and see ifthe tWo sides are eqriaL
ct
.c
3o
..
C4)(L25>eitl2 ;.. o.u

= 200. :- (1 + L25)2~!2 x lr.11 - U- i..25Pe- L25Y2-.:
. .. .... ~. ...:.:_(..' .':? : .~:-~:~... .: ::; .
..' : ; .. .
~42..07
O:ll
o.1s= (5.o625)c5r8_
(n>-..:. co.o62s)co~on193)
= Q 283
0.15 does not eqb.al 0.-283 .so repeat the calculation_

.4_
The final iterati~n assume~ that t = 80 dayS_ .
O.l~ =
817.46
(5._55)(9~7.50} - (0.142)(0.00102)
= O.l4S
The agreement is adequate. so. use a design time o f 80 days.

5. Using Eq. 4.8, determine the L:W ratio that w.i1I yield a D of approximately
the assumed value ofO.l.
,:. . ~ J
....... .
Wastewater Stabilization_Ponds
103
0.1521 m 2/d
Volume. = 80 days x 3,785 m 3/d = 302,800 m 3

Divide the flow into two streams. Then
Volume in one-half ofthe system = 151 400 m 3
Divide the half-system into four equal volume ponds.
7
Volume in one pond = 37,850 m 3

_c..
f
d
37,850 .
. ')
_ = 25,233 mS unace area o one pon =
15
The theoretical hydraulic detention time in each pond is 80/4 = 20 days.
AsSume L:W = 4:1.

Suzface area = 4W x W
= 25~33 m 2
W = 79.4m
L = 317.7m
was
Equation 4.8
developed using a hydraulic detention time deter w ioed.
by dye studies; therefore, it is reasonable tG assume that the theoretical
hydra:nlic detention time is not the correCt value to ll.Se in Eq. 4Jt A good
appiuxi:ntat:Ion Of tile measured hydraUlic detention time is tG :use a vall.le a.f
one-half that of the theoretical value.
0.184[10 X 0.1521(79_4 + 2 X 1.5)]0.489(79A)L5li.
D10 =
(317. 7 X L5)US9
1.450.1
= !}720.8 = 0.149
n.. 20 = o.2os
To :il.lnst:rate the effect ofusing the theoretical hydranlic detentim:I. ~a
D value is cal~ated using the theoretical.v.alu~ and both values of D .are
usedin Eq. 4.7 to caiculate the effluent BOD5 concentratipn. Th.efheor~.cal
hydraulic d etention time is used in Eq. 4.7 because it V.'<B Cf.e:l.-elapedbased -on
the theoretiCal vafue.. The total detention trine .i snsed b~ ti;e equation
represex:.:tstheDi:ir~ systemand. not a -component~~ system.:
.
.
. : .. .
~ . .
.. . . . ~
.
_J:._
.C
4afi!12D .
=
- ---=---::=-=-----=---==(1 + a}2(ea12:D) -U - a'fl!..e"-'2D)
a = (1 +4ktD)0 ..5
Let D = 0.1 inif t = 80.

a= [I + 4(0.028 X 0.1
'80)]112 = 1.377
ct0.!
4(1.377)e 1112 x O.ll

= <I+ L377>~~77Jf2 Y.
817.5
Ce
= 200 x 0.148 = 29.6 mg/L
0..11
= 55231). = o.I48
." .
'
_j
104
":I
Chapter Four
. The latter part of the Jenominator in Eq. 4.7 was omitted because it is
insignificant in t his and mJst situations.
ForD = 0.149, Ce = 3?.5j m~IL, ~.nd D = 0.209, Ce = 35.4 mgi:L. As

shown by these calculatimls, small changes in D can . have a signifi
. cant influence on effluent qpality.
Comparison of facultative potd design .
no~els
1
l
Because of the many apprdaches to the design of facultative ponds, it

is .n~t possible to recommdpd the "best" procedure. An evaluation of
the design methods preseb.ted above~ with operational data referenced in Table 4.1, failed t~ show that any of the models are superior
to the. others ~ _terms of predictin_g the performance of facultative
pond systems.2 ' ;)0 Each o~ the desxg~i models presented above was
used to design a facultaqve pond for the conditions presented in
Table 4 .3 and the results aJ!-e sUIILmarized in Table 4.4.
The limitations on the Vkricms design methods make it difficult to
make dir.e-ct comparisons; ~owevert an examination of the hydraulic
detention times and total l\;olru:ri.e requirements calculated by all of
the methods show consrdefable consistency if t he n.1arais and Shaw
method is excluded and a~tvalue of 1.0 is selected for .the disperSion
fuc.tor in the \\" ~ hner-Wil elll). method. The major limitation of all
these met hods is the selec ,. on of a reaction rate constant or other fac. tors in the equations. Eveti with this limitation~ if the pond hydraulic
system is qe~<Jlled and. corstructed so that the theoretical hydraulic
detention time is approached, reasonable success can be assured with
an of the cle:::-ign methods. Short-circUt~ng is the ~eatest deterrent to
successful pond performance, .barring any toxic effects. The impo-r tance of the hydraulic design of a pond system cannot be nverempha7
sized.
T:he- surface loading rate approach t{) design requires a
minimmn of
input..data.. and is based__?n operational experiences .in various geographTAB-U; 4.3 Assumed Conditions for Facultative Design.Co.mparisoas.
Q = design flow rate = 1893 m::/a:<.0.5 mgd)

C0
= influent
C~ =
BOD = 200 mgiL
required -efilu.ent BOD
= 30 mg/L
T = 1."-at.er temperature at critical part of year =:' 10C
Ta = a\:erage. winter air temperature = 5C

L~t intensity
is adequate
ss =250mg/L
Sulfate = <500 mg!L
..,..-
..
'
TAaL.e 4.4 summary of Results from r;acultatlve Pond Deslgh Method$

Oq~anit
Volume (lila I
lll!Wntion Utnu Id J
~ll l'fllCIIIII'llll
--- -
l'rlmnry
M1thu1l
t\1-uttlluncUnu l'nlc
Primnry
(!!lll
'l'oiul
Prlmdt'>'
'1'11\.nl
l'l'imnry
1'ut.nl
H)'lll lllll
CC!ll
l'l)'~tcm
cell
HY11h11l1
Cl~
'1 1
1 3r>,:~oo
0.3
1Ui
ll2,1J00'1'
cell
dopt.h lm)
. 1.7
numhct
of cell!!
Pl'imnry
ill lll 11'it>:4
Ul>
H2,UOO*
12:1,00()
12.3.
1.rl
60
:l:!
--
:II
2
1
:.wu
,.,;-,
()0
I ill
( l.Q)t
Mut'llit~ nnd
Bhuw
17t
Ga.,:
Ping floW
:14
lin
!i~,ono*
H2,01JO*
64,000
123,000
Ul
H.3
2.6
o.a
2.1
1.7
' .
(1.4)t
63'~
Wchncr And Wllholrn
3fHi8
R2;900*
68,100-109,800
0.3
4.8...7.8
...
_.......
nY
* Con~rollctl
~tta.te lltn nduttls nnd oqllnl Lo vn lu c calculllLud for nn ntn:tl lnncllng rnLo of
60 lcg/()w d) nnri nn onuctl vc dopth or 1 A m.
tmmHlLivo c.Jopth.
:!:AIHh wmlld ho cunLntllocl by nLnt<l Hlnntlnt'dHfor lll'tllll luntlillf.t tntu; howt!Vtll'1 t.hu tnut.lwd lndudoH u
prnvlalun fot cnlO\tlut.lrut 11 vnhtu, ttncl thla uulculntt!d vulua l1:1~:~hown.
Bnfl1ing!'ocotnnHllld(Jd t.n lntpi'0\10 hyrlt'llllllt! uhnt;11t!lotltitlcs.
...
ffi
1.7.
(1 .4 lt
Tutnl
( 1.4 >'t
Oluyt1ll
lontliug
lk~ HOI1/hn dt
Ihnl
~.
Hll fill
106
Chapter Four
ic ar~ ofthe Uruted States. It is probably the most conservative of the

design. methodst but the hydraulic design still cannot be neglected.
The Gloyna method is applicable only for 80- 90 percent BOD
removal efficiency, and it assumes that solar .ene~gy for photosynthe.sis is above the saturation level. Provisions for removal outside this
-- :range are not made; however, an adjustment for other solar condition.s can'be made as described previously. Reference 21 should be
cons~ted if a detailed critique of the Gloyna method is needed.
The Marais and Shaw meth.o d is based on complete-mix hydraulics,
which are not approached in facultative ponds; but the greatest weaknessm the approach may lie in the requirement that the primary cell
will not turn anaerobic. References 21 and 22 can be consulted for.a
detailed discussion of this model.
Ping flow hydraulics and first-order reaction kinetics have been
found to adequately describe the performance of niany facultative
pt;md systems.27.29.3t,-42 A ping flow model .was found to best describe
. ~P.e. perforiil3nce of the four pond systems evaluated in an EPA
stti.dy_29.50 Because of the arrangement of most facnltative ponds in~o
a series of th:iee or more cells, logically it would be expected that the
hydraulic regime could be approximated by a plug flow model.
Use of the Wehner-Willie~ equation requires knowledge of both
the reaction rate and the dispersion facto~7 which further complicates
the des~ proced~e. If the hydraulic Characteristics of a proposed
pond coD.figurati{ID are known or can be determined (Eq. 4.8),. the
Wehner-WilheJm .eqnation will yield satisfactory results. However,.
because ofthe d.iaiculty of selecting both parameters, ~sign with one
of the simplereqnatinn.s is likely to be as good as using this model.
In. smary, all of the design methods discussed can provide a
valid design, if the proper parameters are selected and the hydraulic
characteristics ofthe system are controlled..
4.3 Partial-Mix Aerated Ponds

~
the :partial-mix aerated pond s.yste.m the aeration serves ~niy to

. providean adequate oxygen supply,. and there is no aitei:npt tO lreep
. . an Of the solids in suspenSion in the pond as is dane with complete... mix irilf.tactmated-sludge Systems. Some mixing obvionsly occni-s and
~ps portions of the solids suspended; however, anaerobic deg:rnda. tion ofthe .o:r:ganic matter that settles does <;>ccur. :The system is some... times referred to as a facultative aerated pond system_
Ev~ though the pond is only partially mixed, it is 1:onventional to
estimate BOD removal using a complete-m ix model a nd first-order
reaction kinetics. Recent sti:zd:ies29 have shown that a plug flow model
and first-arder kinetics more closely predict the performance of these
ponds when either surface or diffused aeration is used_ However~
107
most of the ponds evaluated in this study \Vere lightly loaded, and the
reaction rates calculated are very conservative because the rate
decreases as the organic loading decreases.31 Because of the lack of
better design reaction rates, it is still necessary to design partial-mix
ponds using complete-mix kinetics.
Partial-mix design model
The partial-rlrix design model using first-order kinetics and operating

n number ~f equal-sized cells in series is .g iven by Eq. 4.10:
c:
[1 +
1
(ktln)]n
(4 . 10)
where Cn =. effluent
BOD concentration in cell n, mg!L
.
.C0 = influent BOD concentration, .mg/L
k = first-order reaction rate constant, d- 1
= 0.276 d - 1 a:t 20C (assumed to be constant in all cells)
t = total hydraulic residence time in pond system, d
n = number of cells in the series
If other than a series of equal volume 'ponds is to be employed, it is
ner;essary to use the followinggeneral .eqnation:
1
1
~: 1 + ki,)( 1 +~,~J-( 1 + k.J
(4_1 )
= (
where k i , k 27 )l.n. are the reaction rates in cells 1 through n (all usu~y assmned equal for lack .o f .b etter information) and tP t 27 ,tn, are
the hJdn:!nlic residence times in the respective cells.
. ~t .bas been shown22 tliat a number of e qual-volume reactors in
series is more efficient than :unequal volumes; however dne tn site
topqgraphy ar other factors there may be cases where it is necessary
to .constrn.ct cells of unequal volume.
7
Selection of r:eaction rate constards. .Selection of th~ k value is the

critical decision m the design of any pond system_ A design vame of
D-.27.6 d- 1 is recommended by the Ten States Standards41 at20C
and 0.138 d - '1 at lC. Using these values to calculate the temperature coefficient yields a value of L036. Boulier :and Atcbinson4 recommend values -of k of 0.2 tn 0.3. at 20C and .o.I to.'G..l~ at O:.W:C- A
temperature -coefficient of 1..:036 r-eSults when the tw(}'Iower OI" higher values of k are used inthe calcnl.ation. Reid37 suggested a k
value -of (}.28 at 20C and :0.14 at 0.5C based on research with partial-mix ponds aerated with perforated ~ubing in central Alaska.
These values are e ssentially identical to the Tn States .Standards
recommendations.
108
Chapter Four
\Vhen the partial-mix design model is

used: the number of cells in series has a prqnounced effect on the size
of the pond system required to achieve the specified degree of treatment. The effect can be demonstrated by rearranging Eq. 4.10 and
solving fort:
Influence of number of cells.
t= -n
f('-cCc-}rr.. -
kl
1]
(4.12J
n. '
All tenns in this equation have been defined p~eviously.

Example 4.2 Compare detention, times for the same BOD removal levels in
partial-mix aerated ponds hanng one to fi'\e cells. Assume C0 = 200 mg!L, k =
0.28 d - 1, T IC = 20C.
solut.i on .
1. Solve Eq. 4.12 for a single-cell system. .
..
2. Similarly, when
n=2
: t=lld
n=3
t = 9.4d
n=4.
n=;i
t=82d
= 8.7 d
,(
3. Omtinuing w increax n -will result in fie. detention. time b~ equal to the

detention time in a pl!jg flow r-eactor. It can be .seen from the ta.bnla:tion
abov-e that the arl.:-a:ntages dirn.iniili afterrlre t:h:i:E'd orfourth celL
Temper~re effects_ The influence of 'temperature on the reaction

.rate is .d efined by Eq. 4 .1a:
..
'
.,
'
..
.b
k 20or u;.- :m
{4..13)
~7-
,,
wherekT = read:ion r.ate at temper&"ure 'L d- l

k 20 = reaction rate at 20C, d- 1
tt = temper.ature- .coefficient
= 1.036
'Tu.. = temperature of pond wate-r, =c
The pond water tempe1atw e (T) <:~ be estim-ated using Eq. 4.1~
d eveloped by Mancini and Ba:rnh.art..:xs
....,
J,
:;
. i
$W
..
&
tau
es
SUOI1Mt\ll'l . c aJ;o~ o4D
r-.c17o U ;:
4.....,4
....L
Wastewater Staoilization Po.nds
T =
u
Aj'T~ + .QT,
109
(4.14}
A{+ Q
where Tu: = pond water temperature, oc

Ta .:._ ambient air temperature, oc
if= surface area of pond, m~
f = proportionality factor = 0.5
Q = wastewater flow rate, m 3/d
An estimate of the surface area is made based on Eq. 4.12, corrected for
temperature, and then the temperature is calcUlated using Eq. 4.14.
After several iterations., when the water temperafurc u5ed to correct
the reaction rate coefficient agrees with the value calculated with Eq.
4.14, the selection of the detention time in the system is completed.
Pond configuration
The ideal ronfiguration of a pond designed on the basis of complete-mix

hydraulics is a circular or a square pond; however, even though partialmix ponds are designed nsing the complete-mix. model, it is r~m~
mended that .the cells be configured with a 1e:ngth-to-width ratio of -3 :1
or 4:1. This is done because it is recognized that the hydraulic flow pat-
tern in partial-mix systems more closely resembles the plug flow condition. The dimensions of the cells can be calculated by Eq. 4.15:
.
.
d
V = [LW + (L- 2sd)(W - 2sd) + 4(L- sd)(W- scl)J
(4.15>
.6
volume of pond or cell, m~

L = length of pond or cell at water sm:faceT m
W = width of pond or cell at water smfaceT m
s = slope factor (i.e.; 3:1 slope, s = 3}
d = d~pth of pond, m
where V
Mixing and aeration
The mcygen reqnirements eon.trol the :power inp.u t required for partial-mix. pond systems..17 A complete-mix system would require
approximately 10 times the power of a system designed t.u satisfy oxygen requrrements only. Several rational equations are available to
estimate the oxygen requirements for pond .systems; these an be
found in Refs. 2, 3, 10, 11, and 26. In most cases pa:rti.crl....nri:x: .system
design is based on the BOD ent.ering the system to estimate the biological oxygen requirements. After calculating the required rate of
oxygen tra:nsfer, equipment manufacturers'" catalogs should be used to.
determine the zone .of .c omplete oA.:ygen dispen,-ion. hy surface, helicaL
I
1
l
[J
I
~
110
Chapter Four
or air gun aera tors or the proper s pacing of perforated tubing.

Equation 4.16 is. u sed to estimate oxygen transfer rates:
(4.16)
where N
= equivalent oxygen transfer to tap water at Standard condi-
tions, kg/h
.
N a = oxygen required to treat the wastewater, kgfh (usually
taken as 1.5 X the organic loading entering the cell)
a = (oxygen transfer in wastewater)/{oxygen transfer in tap
water)
= 0.9
. CL = minimum dissolved oxygen concentration to be maintained in the wastewater; assume 2 mg/L

C $ = oxygen saturation value of tap water at 20C and 1 atm
pressure
= 9_17mg/L
T w = wastewater
temperature, oc
.
Csw fJ(C)P = oxygen saturation value ofthe waste, mg/L
p . wastewater saturation value/tap water oxygen saturation
Value = 0.9
value at temperature T w (see
C = tap water:axygen saturation
.
T~le A.4 in the Appendix for values)
P = ratio of barometric pressure .at the pond site to barometric pressure at sea level (assume LD for an -elevation of
lO(}m).
EqWrti.on. 4.14 :can be used to estimate the water temperature in the

pond during: the summer months, which will b~ the critical ;period fur
de#~ The nse of the p:artial-mix de~ procedure is illustrated by
Example 4.a .
Exampie4.3 Design a four-cell: partial-mix aer-~d pand farthefollowinge nvironmentai cencli~ns anawastewater-cbaiacteristics: Q = 1893 m3 /d, co = .200
mg/L;. e n ftum fimrt:h cell.= so mgiL,. kro = 0.:27& d-l? winter air temperature =
- 5C~ summer air temperature = aooc. elevation 10{}-m, maintain a minimum
DO.amcerrf:rntian of2m g!Lin all ce1.Is, use a pond depth of.3 in_
solution
1. Assume a wint-er pon d water temperature of l0C and calculate the volume
of a cell in t.h.e pond system_
k = (()-.:276)(1.036)110 -
~)
= 0.194 d- 'I
"'..,-~~~'..'. .
:,,_
't
(200)114
.]
- 1
30
t=
= t = t =t
2
= 12.5 d
12.5
= -- =3.l 'd
4
V 1 = (3.1)(1893 m 3/d)
111
=5868 m
.:"'
'
I
2. Assuming that the pond cells have a length-to-width ratio of 4:1., calculate
the dimensions ofthe cell using Eq. 4~15. :
v(!) =4W~ W + (4W- 2X3
3)(W- 2 . X 3 X 3) +4(4W..:_ 3X~)(W - 3 X 3)
2V = 4W.z + .4W2- 90W + 324 + 16W2- !SOW + 324
= 24:W2 -
270W + 648
or
W 2 - 11.25W = 0.0833V- 21 = 461.8
~lve the qmidratic eqnati~ by_:completingthe square..
W 2 - IL25W + 31M= 46L8 + 3L64
.
{W - 5.625)2 = 493..44
w- 5.625 =
22.21
. '
W=27...&tm
. L = (27.84.}(4) =lll..4m
The surface area. A
..- is
A= (111..4)(2'1.-84) = '310lm2
3. Check the pond temper.ltu:re- using the calculated cell area of 3.101 m 2 and
tne other.known charncteristii:s in Rq..ll4.
AfT.
=
&r
J%
+ QT. :
Af+ Q
{ID.01)(0.5X - 5) + (003){15}
(3101)({}.5)
+ 1893
= 6.0C . .
A tem.peratu:te of IOoCwas as._c::w:n.ed,. :So another iteration is necessary.
k = ({};2'16)(1..036)G-20) = Q162'.1f- l.
':. , ...
Us!ng Eq_-4.12r the total detention time for the four-Wl system i;; ~.0
or3-75d/celL
.:. :\~.:'.:..:.
. ,.. .....
V.~ = (3-75)(l:B93) ~ '1U99 m~
w-- n.25W = o~o8333V- 21

(W- 5:625) = 23..76
W= 29.4m
L = (29A)(4} = 117.5 m
.A = (29A:){l17.5)
=3456 m 2
... : .
'
,., L :
I\" '"l::''~:!.
112
_q~apt~r Fo~r .
U)
(3456X0.5X - 5) + (1893)( 15)

(3456X0.5} + 1893
This is close enough to the assumed value of 5C; therefore. adopt the
detention time and cell dimensions calculated in this iteration. Add a freeboard a llowance of 0.6 m. This will i.n.crease the eel! dimensions at the top of
the inside of the dike to 33.0 m by 12Ll m. The Sdvantage of a four-rell system was demonstrated in Example 4.2. In this case using only twq cells
instead of four will increas'e the detention time by about 50 percent and
increase the surface area and
by a factor of abOut a.. This would be
undesirable in cold climates because of the enha.nced potential for ice fonnation and in all locations because of the additional costs for construction. .
volume
5. Determine the oxjgen requirements forthis pond system based on the

organic loading in each cell and by using Eq. 4.16. The maximum oxygen
requirements will occur in the summer months.
Use Eq. 4.14 to estimate pond temperatures.
(3456X0.5)(30)
+ (1893Xl5)
=22C
(3456){0.5) + 1893
.., :
-;
At 22C ti:re tap water axygen. s atu..-ration value (Cu) is 8..72 mg!L {see
Tsb.le AA rlE.App.encfix furval::!es).
The urganic load in. the i.ofluent wastewater i s

(.Cu)(Q ) - \200 g!m3)(1893m:s/d)(d124h}(kg/1000 g)
= 16kglh
The effiuen:t_J 30Dfinm the fust c ell-can becalndated using Eqs. 4.10 and 4.13.
k22 = 0.276 (1.036) Zl-20
c:~ [(k{)
c} =
11' = (0.295)(3.75) + 1 0.474

=
200(0.474} = 95mgf.L
Thera...fore the org-anic loading on the second cell is

(95 ro~)(~93 m-a/d)flOQft ~>( ~~)( ~g
g)( 10!o~g)-~ 7.~ kglh
Sjmilarly.
BOD in cell.2 effluent~ 45 mg/L

~c .Io-c:.ding on~n 3 =
3.5 kglh
BOD .in cIT 3 effluent= 2.1 ~

Organic loading on cell 4 = L7 kglh
.T:.ll.e a:qgen. demand is assum.ed to be 1..5 times the organic loading, hence
N al = {L5)(l.D kalh'
=
a
~
'>d
- - 1.-::r/h
fT
$'J:TJ')ilal'l;y,,.Nn..... =
II.:~
kglh, N .,
u~
113
= 5.3 kg/h. N.
= 2.6 kg/h..
c:1
W.se ID:q. 4.16 to calculate equivalent oxygen transfer.
Na
N
a( (Csu; CL~ ]1.02~ru.-20

"
C."'"
= tfll(C_
....,l(Pl
= <0.9)(8.72 mg/LJ(l.{}) =
7.85 mg1L
24
N1 =
[(7 85-2 0)] .
= 39.7 kglh of02
0.9
.
{1.025)2!!- :!0
9.17
.
Similarly..
N 2 = 18.7 kglh of 0 2
N 3 = 8.8kglh of02
iV4
= 4.3.kg/h of02
6. Evaluate both suTfare '2.Dd diffused air aeration. equtpment. A value of 1..9 kg
O.jkWh (1.4 kg/hplh) is recommended for estimating power requirements for
sUrface aerators. A value of 2.7 kg 0.,/kWb.(2 kglhp/h) is recommended by
the manufacturers of this equipment. The gas transfer rate must be Vf:rified
for the equip.ment selected.
The total power for surface aeration is
Celli:
iJR7kglh ofO.,
1.9kg/kWh of02. = 20.9- kW (28 hp}
Cell2:
9.8 kW (13..1 hpJ
Cell&:
4.6 kw (6.2 hp}
Cell4:
2.3 kW t3.1 hp)
The total :powerfor difftt._<:e4 aeration is
cen1:
39J~of0
2 =l4_7kWt.I:.9.7hpj
2:. 7 kg/kWhof~
Similarly~
c~ 2
= 6.9 kW (9.3 hp.}
Cell3 = 3.3 kW (4.4 hp.l

Cell 4 = 1.6 kW (2.1 hp}
"These surface or diffused aerator power requirements must be corr.ected
for gearing and blower efficiency_ Assuming 90. percent efficiency for both
g-earing and blowers~ the total power for su.....face a~tors in cell 1 is 20.9
114
Chap~er.
Four
kW/0.9 = 23.2 kW <31.1 hpJ. The total power needs are about 42 kW for the
surface aer.a tors and 29 k\V for the diffused aerators. These are approximate
val~es and are used for the preliminary selection of aeration equipment. The
actual power requirements using surface aeration will he determined by
using the zone of complete oxygen dispersion reported by the equipment
manufacturers along with the calculated power estimates. The distribution
of the two t)-pes of aeration equipment are illustrated in Figs. 4.? and 4.3.
Zones of mmplete mixing

where solids suspensioO.
OCOJrS
LDartion of oertJ1ors.
varied 1o prevent
. . channel of flow :
lnfloent
F.tgure ~2 La)mrt of surface. aerators in first cell of a partiai.-
nm.: system.
........
Wastewater S tabilization Ponds
Blower house
Influent
Air distribution manifold
_.
'-
..
..
Cell1
Cell2
Cell 5
:'i.m_
--......_
!.ffiuert
..,...,..-
'.
1.5m
11 5
Cell4
Aeration
tubing
.A"-.
V J "'-..
I
't """
6m
I'
'-.....
IJ
12m
+
3m
f
'
-+
-+
Figure 4.3 Layunt of aeration system for partial-mix/diffused-air pond system.
Surface aeration equipment is subjected to potential ici:Dg proplems in cold

clima.tes, and the use of fine bubble perforated tubing reqmres that a diligent
maintenance program be e's tablished. A number of communities ha-re experienced clogging of the perforatio~s. particularly in hard-water areas_
Corrective action requires purging with HCl gas.
.
The final element recommended in this partial-mix aerated pOnd S)-stem is
a settling cell with a 2-da.,f detention time_
4..4 Controlled-Discharge Ponds
No ratianal or einprrica1 design model exists specifically for the design

of controlled-disciYrrge wastewater ponds as- utilized in. the northern
United States and Canada. However. facultative pond design m odels
may also be applied to the design -of controlled-discharge ponds provided allmvance is made for the larger storage volumes required_ The p~g
flow m o'del for facoltative ponds ean be applied to the controlled-.dis.c harge type if the h ydraulic residence time is less than 120 days. A
study ()f 49 controlled-discharge ponds in J\.ficlrigan indicated that residence times were 120 days or longer and discharge periods ranged from
5- days to 30 days for each ocCWTsnce. Ponds of this type lxav.e been successfully openrted in the north central United States u sing the following criteria:
116
11
Chapter Four
Overall organic loading: 22-28 kg BOD/ha d C20-25 lb BOD/ac d)

L1quid depth: not more than 2m {6
2.5 m (8 ftj in subsequent cells
ft)
in first cell, not more than
Hydraulic detention: at least 6 iilvnthc;; storage .above the 0.6.-rn (2ft) liquid level (including precipitation), but n&t less than tlJe period of ice cover
11
Number of cells: at least 3 for reliability, with interconnected piping for parallel or series operation
The design of a controlled-discharge pond must include an analysis

showing that receiving stream water quality stan~ardS will be maintained during the discharge period, and that the receiving w~ter
courses .can accommodate the discha.r ge rate from the pond_ The
design m.n st also develop a recommended discharge schedule.
Selecting the optimum day
hour for release of the pond conte-nts is critical to the success of this method. The operation and
maintenance manual must include instructions on how to..cOn-elate
pond discharge with effluent and stream quality. The pond am.i:ents
and stream must be carefully examined~ before and during the discb-.arge periodr
..
The foUov."Jlg steps are usually taken for discharge from .an sys-
and
tems.
lsolate the cell to be discharged, usnally the final one in. seiies~ by
. .valving off t~e inlet line from the preceding ceil..
Analyze .cell contents for parameters of concern in. the discharge

permit.
t
Plan activities to spend ftill. time on control of discharge d~ the

entire discrtarge period.
:M onitor conditions in receiving stream and request approval from

regulatory agency for discharge.
~
Omn:meuce discharge when approv--~ is recei-ved and :conti:rra:e as

long as weather is fa:vorabie~ and dissol;:red .oxygen. levels and turbidity are below ~ts. Typically the last i;wt) cells in. the series are
sequentially isolated"
dniwn down. Then d:iscba...~ is :i.nterr:upt.ed :for a week or more while raw wastewater is diverted to one of
tlae cells whlch has been dnn-..-n :down.. Th~ purpose here is to .iso-
late the fn-st cell prior to its discharge. When the .first cell iS drawn
.down to about .6 0 em (24 in} .d~th, the nsnal internru series flow
pattern, without discharge, is resumed.
and
u .During the discharge periods~ samples are taken:.at least three

times daily near the discharge pipefor immediate dissolved oxygen.
Wastewater Stabilizatiqn Ponds
i 17
analysis. Additional testing may be required for suspended solids

and other parameters.
Experience with the operational concept listed above is limited to
northern states with seasonal and climatic constraints on performance.
A continuous ice cover on a facultative pond will lower performance,
and little better than primary effiuent will result if discharge is permit- .
ted during such periods. Stringent limits on suspended solids may also
limit discharge during seasonal algal bloom periods. The concept will
be quite effective for BOD removal in any location. The process will
also work with a more frequent than semiannual discha:rge cycle,
depending on receiving water conditions ~d requirements.
The hydrograph-controlled release (HCR) po+td is a variation of this
concept, which was developed for use in the southern United States
bnt can be used effectively in most areas of the cormtry. In this case
the discharge periods are controlled by a gauging station in the
receiving stream and are allowed to occur dming high-flow periods.
Dming Iow:f1ow periods the effluent is stored in the HCR pond. The
process de...~an uses conventional facultative or aerated ponds for the
basic treatment, followed by the HCR cell .for stor~ge/discharge. No
.treatment allowances are made during design for the residence time
in the HCR cell; its sole function is storage. Depending on stream flow
conditions, storage needs may range from 30 to 120 days. The design
maximum water level in the HCR cell is typically about .2 .4 m (8ft),
with the minimum water level at 0.6 m (2ft). Other physical elements are similar to conventional pond systems. The major advantage of HCR systems is . the possibility of utJ.1izing lower discharge
standards during high-flow conditions as compared to a system
designed for ve:ry stringent low-flow req~ements and then operated
in that mode on a continuous basis.
45 Complete-Retention Ponds
In areas of the world where the moisture deficit.. -evaporation min-uS

:rainfull, .e xceeds 75 em (30 in) ~ually, a complete-retention wastew.ater pond may prove to be the most economical methud of disposal if
low-cost land is available.. The pond must be sized to provide the nec,e ssary surface area toevaporate the total annual wastewater volume
plus the precipitation that would fall on the pond. The -systein. should
be designed for the maximum wet year and minimum evaporation
year of reeord if overflow is not permissible under any circomstances..
Less stringent design standards may be appropriate in si~tio~
where occasional overflow is acceptable or an alternative disposal
area is available under emergency conditions.
118
Chapter Four
Monthly evaporation and precipitation rates must be known in.

order ttisize the system properly. Complete-retention ponds usually
r~quire large land areas, and .these areas are not productive once
they have been committed to this type of system. Land for this system inust be .naturally tlat or must be ~ haped to provide. ponds that
are uniform in depth andhave large surface areas. The design procedure fo17 .a complete-retention wastewater pond system is presented
in Ref. 50.
4.6 Combined Systems
In certain situations it iS desirable to design pond systems in combinations, i.e.; an aerated pond followed by a facultative or a tertiary
pond. Combmations of tbis type. are designed essentially the same as
the indivi~ual ponds. For example, the aerated pond would be
designed as described. in Sec. 4..3, and the predicted effi.uent quality
. from this unit would be the infinent quality for the facultative polishing pond, which would be designed a.S described in Sec. 4..2. Fm:ther.
. details .on combined pond systems
be found in Refs. ~ 1~ and 38.
Oswald~ has developed the .Atkanced 1nt~grated Pond system (AlP),
which c onsists of" four basic types of ponds in series. A facultative
pond with a "digester pif'' is followed by a high-rate poniL a settling
pond:1 an~ a maturation pond(s). Systems have been built in several
. locations in California and several countries thranghont the world_
The best-known facility of this type is located in St. Helena
California.
ean
4.7 Anaerobic Ponds
There is no agreement on the best approach to- the design ofanaerobic

stabilization pon~. Systems are .designed .o n the basis of surface .
loa~ rate? vrii1m1etric, loading rate,. and hydraulic detention time.
AltfJ.Qngh it is a one. fi:eqnently~ d:esign on the I>.asis of surface loading
rate probably is:~- Proper-.desi.gn shauld be based on the voi:uim~tnc Ioading.ra:te~ the temperatnre afthe liquitL and the hydraulic
. detention tiine. .
. In climates where the tempernnre ex~ds 22C the following

deSign criteria should yield a BOD5 removal of 50 pe-rcent ornette:r:55
7
Volumetric loading up to: 300 g BOD5f.m:S' _. d

.J\l:
Hydraulic detention tl:me of apprO-ximately 5 d
Depth. between 2.5 and 5 m
....
119
Five-Oay.BOD Reduction as a Function of Detention T!me

for Temperatures Greater than 20C55
TABLE 4.5
Detention time.(d)
.BOD11 reduction{ ~)
50
60
2.5
5
70
TABLE 4.6 Five-Day BOD Reduction as a Function Qf Detention Tune and

Temperatures
Detention time (d)
BOD reduction C%)
10 .
10-15
4--5
2-3
1- 2
40-50
1-2
60--80
15-20
20-25
25-30
0-10
30-40
49-60
rncold climates, detention times as great as 50 days aad volumetric

3 d may be required to achieve
loading rates as low as 40 g BODJm
a
.
50 percent reduction in BOD 5 The relationship of temperature,
detention time,. and BOD reduction is shown ill Tables 4.5 and 4.6.
4.8 Pathogen Removal

.
Bacteria,. pru:asite,. and virus removal is very .effective in innltiple-cell

wastewater stabilization ponds with suitable detention times.. A minimum of three cells is recommended_ It is e xpected that the normal
detention time provided for BOD removal in most pond systems may
be 'SJifficient to satisfY most regulatory l"eqnirements for bacteria and
virus removal without additional disinfection; however,. a 20-day minimumdetention time is suggested. A ~thocl for e:,-tima:ting -pathogen
removal in pond sjstems is presentedm SeC.. 3:..4..
4.9 : Removal .of Suspended Solids
Th~ occasional high concentration of suspen~ed solids. (SS)in the efflu-
ent, which caB. exceed 100 mg/4 is the major disadvantage ~f pond
systems. The solids are composed primarily of algae and other pond
detritus, not wastewater solids. These high concentrations are usually
limited to 2-4 months during the year_ Several; options~. diScussed in
the sections that follow, are available for improving system performance~ Further details can he fou:!Id :in Refs_ 29 44, 45, 46, and 50.
7
..
120
Chapter Four
Intermittent sand filtration
Intermittent sand filtration is capable of polishing pond effitients at

relatively low cost. It is similar to the practice of s1ow sand filtration
in potable water treatment or the slow sand filtration of 1aw sewage
which was practic~.d during the early 1900s. Intermittent sand filtration of pond effluent~ is the ap.pli~ti~ry of pond effluent on a p~riodic
or intermittent basis to a sand filter bed. As the wastewater passes
through the bed, suspended solids ~nd other organic matter are
removed through a combination of physical straining and biological
degradation processes. 'The particulate matter ~ollects in the top 5-8
em (2-3 in) of the filter bed, and this accumulation eventually clogs
the surface and prevents.effective infiltration of additional effluent.
When this happens, the bed is taken out of service, the top layer of
clogged sand is removed, and the unit is put ba.c k into service. The
removed sand can be washed and reused or discarded.
The effluent quality is almost totally a function of the sand gradation used. \Vhen BOD and SS below 30 mg/L will satisfy requirements, a single-stage filter with medium sand will produce ~ :reason
able :filter run. If better effinent quality is necessary, a two-stage filoation system should be used,. ,.,.i t;h :finer .sand in the second stage~
Typical hydraulic loading rates an a single-stage filter range from
0.37 to 0 ..56 m 3/m2 d (0.4 to 0.6 million ga1/ac d.J. If the suspended
solids in the influent to the filter will routinely exceed 50 mg/L, the
hydraulic l-oading rate shorud. be reduced to 0.19-0.37 m 3 /m 2 d
(0.2.::...0.4 nrillion gallac d> to increase the filter run. In cold-weather
locations, the lower end of the range ~ recori:rmended during winter
operations to avoid the possib1 need for b-ed cleaning during the winter months.
Th-e total filter area required for a single-stag operation is
obtained by dividing the anticipated influent flow rate by the
hydraulic loading rate selected for. the system. One spare filter unit
should he inc.lnded to permit continuGns operation, since the cleaning
-operation may require several days.. .An. alternative approach is to
pro-vid_e temporary storage in the pond units_ Three filter beds ru:e the
preferred a:rr..:angement~ to permit ma&imum ~bility. In small systems that depend on manual cleanin~ the individnaJ bed shoul4 not
be bigger than. about 90 m2 fiOOO ft2J_ Larger systems ":ith rp:ech~
cal -cleaning e~pment might have mifuidual .filter beds up to 5000
m 2 (55,000 ft2 } ~n area.
Selected sand ~s u.sua.Uy used as the filter mediwn. These sands are
generally.described by.their e{fi!ctiue size (e.s.) and uniformity coefficient (u). The -e..s. is the 10 perceJ;ltile size; i-e..., only 10 percent of the
filter sand, by weight, is smaller than that size_ The mri.fornrity coeffi- -
..
121
cient is the ratio of the 60; percentile size to the 10 percentile size. The
sand for single-stage filters should have an e.s. ranging from 0~20 to
0.30 mm and au of less than 7.0, Vvith less than 1 percent of the sand
smaller than 0.1 mm. The u value has little effect on performance,
arid values ranging from 1.5 ro 7.0 are acceptable. In the genet:al case,
clean, pit-run concrete sand is suitable for u.Se in intermittent sand
filters providing the e.s., u, and minimum sand size are suitable.
The design depth of sand in the bed should be at least 4-5 em {18 in)
plus a sufficient depth for at least 1 year of cleaning cycles. A single
cleaning operation may remove 2.5-5 em ( 1-2 in; of sand. A 30-day
filter run would then require an additional 30 em (12 in) of sand. In
the typical case an initial bed depth of about 90 em (36 in) of sand
usually provided. A graded gravel layer 30-45 em (12-18 in) separates the sand layer from the underdniins_ The bottom layer is grad. ed so that its e.s. is four times as great as the openings in the underdrain piping. The successive layers of gravel
progressively finer to
prevent intrusion of sand. An alternative is to u..se gi-avel aroi.md the
underdrain piping and then a permeable geotextile membrane tn S-parate the sand from the gravel. Fur.her details <ln design and performance ofthese systems Cru:t be found
Refs. 29, 39~ and 50. .
. .
is
are
Microstrainers
Early experiments with microstrainers t() .remove algae from pond

effluents were largely unsnccessful. This was generally attributed .t o
the algae being smaller than the mesh size of the microstrainers tested:. A polyester fabric with a 1-pm mesh size has si:nce been dev:-el~
aped, and it appears that nricrostrainers equipped with this fabric are
capable ofproducing an effiuent with BOD and SS concentrations less.
than 30 mg/L..
Microscreen manufacturers are promoting the use of the .1-pm.
screen Jith the return of the filtered algae to the pond. Short-term
experience fudiCates that
return of filter-ed
.does'
problems; however,. the potential exisi..::: for the filtered material to
accumulate and eventually cause oiVErloading of the sere& The
effects of solids recycle through me pond system shonld. be monitored
in newly constructed. microscreen systems_ The first full-scale micro-
strainer application to pond effluent~ a 7200-m3/d (L9-l:rril~ gal!d)
unit, was placed in operation in Camden., South Caro.li~ in
December 1981.14 Typical design criteria inc:lu:de snrfuce loading rates
of 90-120 m 3/m2 - d (1.5-2.0 gpm/ft2 ) and head losses up to -60 <:m: (2
ft). Otherprocess variables include dnrm. spee!L backwash rate,. and
pressure; these a.!"e normally determined on the b~-i.s .of infln'e:Ilt qual-
the
algae
not cause
122
Chapter Four
ity and effluent expectations. The service life of the screen is reported
to be about l'l2 years, which is considerably less than the manufacturer's prediction of 5 years. Difficulty with.screen binding and short run
times ~as experienced with the Camden system. Before . a microscreen for pond polishing is designed, careful study is recQmmended.
Rock filters
A rock ij.lter operates by allowing p'o nd effiuent to travel through a

submerged porotis rock bed, cau.Sing algae to settle out on the rock
surfaces. as the liquid flows through the void spaces. The accurimlated
alga~ are then degraded biologically. Algae removal with rock filters
haS been studied e>..i:ensively at Eudora, Kansas; California, Missouri;
an~ Veneta,. Oregon.4050 Many rock filters have been ~nstalled
throughout the United States and the world, and performance has
varied.28
.
.
.
The principal advantages of the rock filter are its relatively low
con.strnction cost.~d simple operation. Oqor problems can occur, and
the design life
the filters and the deaning procedures have not yet
been :firmly established. However,. several units have operated successfully for 10 to 15 years.
.for
. Other solids-iemoval techniques
A d'e ta:iied discussion of normal granular media filtration, dissolved

air flotation, autoflocculation, phase isolatio~ centrifugation, and
coagulation:-fl:occnlation is presented in Refs. 2 9 and 50. These ~
niqu.es are used infrequently, but the .d esigner should be aware of
their potential.
4.1& Removal .of. Nitrogen
. The BOD and SS 'removal e apahWty of pond systems bas ~een reasnn.ahly .w ell ~ocmnented, and reliabl-e..designs are possible; however,
. the nitrogen removal ca pability of' wast-e'\.vater. ponds is given little
co~dera:tio:n in most .syStem designs. Nitrogen removal.can be criti~
.. :~in many situations, since.~o:nia:.~.ogen. mlsw concentrations
. e~ adversely' affect :s ome yomig 'fish recro:ving waters. In adfition,
. as d-esc~bed in Chap .7:7 nitrogen isD.ften the -contiolli:ng parameter
for 'd~gn .of.land treatment syste~~ Any nitrogen removal in the
preliminary pond units can result in a vezy significant savings in the
land area required and therefore the -costs for land treatment.
. NitrQgen loss from streams, lakes~ impoundments, and wasteWater
ponds. has been .()'bserved for many years . Data on nitr-ogen losses
have been insufficient for a comprehensive analysis, and there has
.'~
. ..
123
been no agreement on ~he removal mechanisms. Various investigators have suggested: algal upt?.ke, sludge deposition, adsorption by
bottom soils, nitrification/denitrification, and loss of ammonia as a
gas.to the atmosphere (volatilization). ~ce_nt evaluations33 3550 suggest that a com~ination of. factors may be responsible, with the dominant mechanis m under fav~rable conditions being losses to the
atmosphere.
The EPA sponsore~ comprehensive studies of wastewater pond systems in the late 1970s. 'Dtese results provided absolute verification
that significant nitrogen removal does occur in pond systems. Table
4.7 summarizes the key findings from these studies, which confirm
that nitrogen re~oval is in some way related to pH, detention time~
~d temperature in the pmid system. The pH fluctuates as a result of
the algae-carbonate interactions in the pond, so wastewater alkalinity is important_ Under ideal eonditions, up to 95 percent nitrogen
removal can be achieved in wa.....c;tewater stabilization ponds.
Desigi:r models
Data were collected an a frequent scheduie from every cell at all of .
the pond systems listed in Table 4. 7 for at least a full annual cycle.
This l~e body of data allowed quantitative analysis with all major
var.uiliies 'included, and two. design modelS'were developed ind'e pendently_ These have been validated using the same .data from sources
not used in the model development_ The two models are summarized
in Tables 4.8 and 4~9; details ~n developm-ent of model 1 can be found
in Ref. 35,. and details o n model 2: can be foun'd in Refs. 33 and 50.
.Both are :fu:st-o:rrler models,. and both depend on pH,. temperature,
and detentiOn.time in the system. Although they both predict- the
removal of total nitr6gen, it. is implied in the development of each
that volatilization of ammonia is the maj0:r pathway for nitrogen
removal :frmn wastewater stabilization ponds. Figure 4.4 demon-:strates the application ofthe two models and compares the predicted
total nitrogen in the effi:nent to the actual monthly average values.
measured .at. P.eterBGToug~ New .Hampshire.. .
TABLE4-7 .D ata.S Ummary. ~am EP.A Pond .S tlldieSlS
I.()l atiuu
WatezDetention.
time
temperantre
{d )
c=a,
.Pe~ngh.....ltffi 13 cells)
107
lillm.ichael. ~IS (3 ceilsJ
214
I&A
.End.o~. KS
231.
42
(3 cells>
Corinne, DT <first 3 cellsl
pH
(median}
Alkalinity
Influent
llit:rogen
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
Removal
{%)
85
17..S
43
116
284.
35.9
14-1
7.I
8..2
8.4
80
82
10
9.~
555
50.8
14.0
46
124
Chapter Fa1a-r
Desigr.u Mi:Otlellf~..
TABLE 4.8
where .~l
:="'
::ft!wc:nt L~t:.Lnit r~~~.:~::~ ~~~,..i~1~!
= infi~ent t~tal :nitr1'\i~eo:n.'f#-'L

= k tTtf!Ji'T' :!u
ft = I. 0::3"::9
T = W<HE::t:r:.~rrpcrat.u.r:'c; ;;.s~S;q:-1-~~4>.;
k.J.(J = o.ocro;:a
- \1
kr = tero:~eratlT\!-d~~.;:r:d~F:t:-fa~if"OJYjt:?!lt. d I, 'P~L
~~)~
See Refs. 37 aod 50: fi:,.!r:t-~P.ical p.H:-,":::al.;-:-:;F E:stimate using_

.
pH :;:.-o 7.,3-~~ii{0-.0005\ALK.l] :
where ALK
= expec!-i influent ag~5~H:.\i~-: mg~ (derived from data in Refs. 37 and 50)
----------------------~-~~~-~-~~--------~------------~-
TABLE 4..9
"\7
~ ~
"fl.'f
- i'i
Design ModeI
~.so
i
1 + tl(h"i00516T - u.0002.S >=xpli LO~O - 0.(142Tj(pH - 6.6)]
. (4-.18)
Ail terms defined in Table 4.8_
'
lee c.over-ed
o ~~~~--~~~~--~--~~--~--~~~~
o
"fkn;tb
Figore4.4
Predicted versus actuai~t nitroge~ Peterborough.,
.
.
N~ Hampshb-e.
Both thes:e p19deis are written in terms of t&t?l nitrogen, and they
should not be confused with the still-valid equations in Refs. 33 and
507 which are limited to onlv the ammonia fraction. Calculations and
predictions based on total ..n"itrogen should be even more conservative
than: those earlier models.
1lllne: lfui:g;lrn-tr<ilite.
125
a mmm'tta removal by air stripping in advanced
was:t.e;\-)('3ttle:F ttlreatm.e nt depends on high (>10), chemically adjusted

p.ffil. Ttfu; aitgaill-earbonate inte_ractions in wastewater ponds can ele.:
vate.~ the: pHi ttCQ. similar levels for brief periods. At other times, at modera.ve.~ plffi l~\rels the rate of nitrogen removal may be low, but the long
de.te.n:tion: tlu!lle in the pond compensates.
App,Uc.aii))n.. These models should be useful for new or existing waste-.
wate.r: ponds when nitrogen removal and/or ammonia conversion is

requirea The design of new systems would typically base detention
time on the BOD removal requirements. The nitrogen removal that
will occur during that time can then be calculated with either modeL
It is prudent to assume that the remaining nitrogen in the effluent
will be ammonia, and.then to design any further remova1/conve:rsion
for that amount If .additional land area is available~ a final step can
be a comparison of the costs of providing additional detention time in
the pond for nitrogen removal with the <:osts of other removal alternatives. .
4.11
R'errioval of Phosphorus
The need for removal of phosphorus was discussed in Sec. 3.-6. In general, removal ufphosphorus is not often require d for wastewaters that
receive stabilization pond treatment, but there are a numberof exceptions fur s.y~tems in the north central United States and Canada
Batch chemical treatment
In order to meet a phosphorus requirement of 1 mg/L for discharge to

the <keat I.akes:> an. approach nsing in-pond chemical treatment in
controlled-diseharge ponds w~s developed in C anada. Alum:> f-erric
chloride:lime were all teSted by using a motorboat for distribution and mixing of the chemica]_ A typical alum dosage IIJ.;ight b~ 1:50
mg/L,_and this shonld P'l"odnce an e.ffiuent from the cantrolled-discharge p.ond i:ba:t Contains less. than 1 mgiL of phosphorus and Jess
than 26 mg!L BOD and SS~ The sludge buildup from the additional
cbemiea:Is iS insignificant and would allow years of operation before
requiring cleaning. The costs for this method were ve:y reasonable
and much less than conventional phosphorus remoVal methods.12
and
Continuous-overflow -chemical treatm~
Studies of in-pond precipitation of phosphorus~ BOD, and SS were

conducted over a 2~year :period in Ontario,. Canada. 13 The pnmary
126
Chapter Four
objective of the chemical dosing process wa~ to test remo.val of phosphorus with ferric chloride, alum, and lime. Ferne chloride doses of
20 mg/L and alum ~oses of 225 mg/L, :when added continuously to the
pond influent, effectively maintained pond effluent phosphorus levels
below 1 mg!L over a 2-year period. Hydrated lime, at dosages up to
400 mg/L,. was not effective in consistently reducing phosphorus
below 1 mg/L ( 1-3 mg/L was achieved), and produced no BOD reduction while slightly increasing the SS concentration. Ferric chloride
reduced efiluent BOD from 17 to 11 mg/L and SS from 28 to 21 mg/L;
alum produced no BOD reduction and a slight SS reduction (from 43
to 28-34 mg/L). Consequently, direct chemical addition appears to be
effective only for phosphorus removal.
A six-cell pond system located in Waldorf, Maryland, was modified
to operate as two three-cell units in parallel. 6 One system was used as
a control, and alnm was added to the other for phosphorus removaL
Each system contained an aerated first celL Alum addition to the
third cell of the system proved to be more efficient in removing total
phosphorus, BOD, and SS than alum addition to the first celL Total
phosphorus reduction averaged 81 percent when alum was added to
the inlet to- the third ~ell and 60 percent when alum was added to the
inlet of the first cell. T-otal phosphorusremoval in the control ponds
averaged 3,7 .P ercent. When alum was added to the third cell~ the
efllue.Qt total phosphorus concentration averaged 2.5. mg/L, with the
control "Units averaging 8.3 mg/L. Improvements in BOD and SS
removal by ainm addition were more difficult to detect; ai:ui at times
increases in efiluent concentrations were observed_
4.12 . Physical 'Design and Construction

Regardless of the c~e taken to evaluate coefficients and apply biol{)gical or kinetic models, if sufficient consideration is not given to -optimization of the pond layout and construction~ the actual efficiency
may be far less than the calcu.Iated efficiency_ The physical design of
a wastewater pond is as important as the bio1ogieal and kii:tetie
design_ The biological factors a:ffecting wastewatEr- :pond performance
are employed primarily to estimate the required. hydranlic n:sideace
time to achieve a specified efficiency_ Pb.:ysical factors,. such as lengthto-width ratio, will determine the actual efficiency achieved.
Length-to-width ratios .a re determined according to the design
model used. Complete-mix ponds should have a length-to-width ratio
ofl:1~ whereas plug flow ponds require a ratio1lf3:1 or-greater_
The danger of groundwater contamination may impo~e .seepage
restrictions, necessitating lining or sealing the ponil Reuse -of pond
eftluents in dry areas where all water losses are to be avoided may
... .
127
also dictate the use of linings. Layout and construction criteria should
be established to reduce dike erosion from wave action, weathe.r ,
rodent attacks, etc. Transfer structure placement .and.size affect flow
patterns within the pond and determine operational capabilitie~ in
controlling the water level and discharge rate.
Dike construction
Dike stabilitY is most often affected by erosion caused by wind-driven

wave action or rain and rain-induced weathering. Dikes may also be
destroyed by burrowing rodents. A good d~sign will:anticipate these
problems and provide a system which can, through cost-e:ffeetive operation and maintenance, keep all three under control
Erosion protection is necessary
all slopes;.however,. if winds are
. predorn'inantly from one direction, protection should be emphasized
for those areas that receive the full force of the wind-driven waves.
Protection should extend from at least 0.3 m (1ft) below the minimum water level to at least 0.3 m (1 ft) above the maximum water
. sn:rface. Asphalt, concrete,. fabric,. low grasses, and ripmp have all
been used to provide protection from wave action. The ll.Se.ofrip-rap,.
however, can make weed and rodent control more diffi.cult. fu some
cases when fabric liners are ll.Sed, a coVering of riprd.p is also used to
.protect the plastic materials from damaging ultraviolet radiation
from the sun.. Rodent control canbe achieved with earthen dikes by
periodiGally changing the water levels to ilood the burrows.. The selection of proper soils and compaction during const:raction can render~an
earthen dike essentially impermeable. Seepage collars shonld be provided around. any pipe penetrating the dike; these collars should
extend a minimum of 0.6 m (2ft} fr:mn the pipe.
orr
Pond sealing
The primary motive for sealing ponds is to prevent ~ which

can poTh:rte greundwaters .and affect treatment perlbiiiialiCe by c ausing .fluctuations. in the water depth.. Sealing methods.. can b e .g rouped
three eategories:
Syirthetic and iubber.fuiers

Compacted earth or soil -cement liners
Natural and ehemical treatment liners
Within each category also exists a wide variety of-application char;..
acte.ri::t--:tics. Choosing the appropriate lining for .a specific sit.e is a critical factor in pond design and seepage controL Seepage rates range
128
Chapter Four
from 0.003 cm/d (0.001 in/d I for synthetic membranes to about 10

crn/d (4 in/d) for soil cement liners."l' Detailed information is available
from manufacturers and in other publications. 15 10
Pond hydraulics
In the past, the majority of ponds were designed to receive influent

wastewater through a single pipe~ usually located towardthe center
of the first ceH in. the system. Hydraulic and performance studies7 9 19:w have shown that the center discharge point is not the most
efficient method of introducing wastewater to a pond. ~Iultiple inlet
arrangements are preferred even in small ponds [<0.5 ha (<1.2 ac)J.
The inlet points should be as far apart as possible, and the water
should preferably be introduced by means of a long diffuser. The
inlets and outlets should be placed sn that flow throughthe pond is
uniform between successive inlets and outlets.
Single inlets can be used successfully if the inlet is located at the
greatest distance possible from the outlet structure and is baftled~ or
the flow is otherwise directed to avoid .currents and short-eiret.IitiTlg.
Outlet structures should be designed for multiple-depth ~vithdrawal,
and all ,vjthdrawals should be a minimum of 0.3 m <1ft) below the
watel' surface to reduce the potential impact of algae and other surface detritus on effiuent quality.
Analysis of performance data from seleeted aerated and facultative
ponds indicates that four cells in series: are desirable to give the best
BOD and .fecal coliform removals for ponds designed as plug flow systems. Good performance can also be obtained -with a -smaller nmnber
of cells if bafiles Or dikes are used to optimiz-e the hydranlic ~ac
teristics of the system.
Better treatment is obtained when the flow is.guided more earefully
through t}1e pond. In addition to tr-eatment e-.ffi.ciency~ eCOIWm~cs and
esthetics. play an important role in deciding-w":aether<rr not baffling is
desirable. In g.e11:ernl the m~re baffimgis ~--ed,. the better are the flow
control and treatment efficiency. The lateral spacing and length of the
baffle should be specified SO that the c ress-sectional area Of flow is as
close to a constant as posSible.
Wind generates a circulatory flow in boclie.~ of water. To mjnjurize
short-circuiting due t-o...wind, the pond inlet-outlet axis should be
aligned perpendicular to. the prevailing wind direction ifpossibl;e. If
this is not possible, baffi!ilg .c an be.used to Con.tr.o.l wind-induced circulation to so-me ED..-tent. In a . constant-depth po-nd
surface current
will be in the diredion of the wind. and the return .flow will be in the
upwind direction alon.g the bottoiiL:
. Ponds that are stratified because of tem:per-a:tn.re differences
between the inflav~ and the pond contents tend to behave differently
1
the
129
in winter and summer. In summer the infl{l\'..- is genezally colder than

the pond, so it sinks to the pond bottom and flows toward the outlet.
In the winter the reverse is generally true, and the inflow rises to the
surface and flows toward the outlet. A likely consequence is that the
effective treatment volume of the pond is reduced to that of the stratified inflow layer (density current}. The result can b~ a dras.t ic
decrease in detention time and an unacceptable level of treatment.
4.13 Storage Ponds for Land Treatment
Systems
Ponds for seasonal effluent storage are sometimes required for tlje
land treatment systems described in. Chap. 7. Storage is necessary for
all nonoperational periods in.the land treatment system and is .desirable for flow equalization and emergency system backup.
Nonoperating periods may be due to climate, planting or han.-estin~
or main~nance operations. The design stomge volume is det~-rmi.ned
from a calculated wat.er balance d-aring design, as described in Chap.
7 (see Example 7.3 for the procedure).
The srorage pond may follow other conventional treatment .rgits
may be the final cell in a stabilization pond syst.em.. The storagE ~ll is
or
usually deeper than typical treatment pond cells and .can rnnge U:om
3 to 6 m (9 to 18 ft) in ~epth. Credit should be taken during desgn for
the additional treatment which Will ocenr in this s torage pond,. using.
the methods presented in this chap-ter and in Chap_ 3. Calcnlation of
nitrogen removal using either Eq~ 4..17 or 4.18 is parti~arly important. Nitrogen is often the limiting design factor for land treatment
systems, directly affecting the .land .area required for treatm~- Ally
nitrogen removal in the .storage pond V'.ill reduce the final tr-eatment
area and the costs. Similarly~ patb.Ggen. removal in thepond can often
satisfy requirements without further disinfectinn.
The operation -of the storage p9nd. will depend :on tbe type of land
treatment system in lBe_ fu rapid-irrfiltra.tion systems.. storag-e is usually provided only fm- emet-gencies. so the pond should be &-am:.M .as
soon as it is possible to do 5>. Since IJVerland-=.ffow systems are l!ot
very effective for algae removal (see :Chap. 7 for d-etails)", storage
ponds -for these systems are bypassed dm:ing algal bloom periods~ and
the ponds are d.:'"a:wn down when algae concentrations a:re .Jn.w. Alt,aae
are not a concern for slow-rate land treatment,. so the sto~e pond
may stay on lin.e .c ontinuously. This is :necessary if nitrogen or
pathogen removal is expected i11. the st.orage celL In ~ry_iscass treated
wastewater- flow into the cell should continue on a year-rormrl. basis;
and withdrawals should be schedUled for att.a.iillnent -of the specifi-ed
water depth at the end of the operating season for the land treatment
component.
130
Chapter Four
References
L Agunwaroba. .J. C .. N. Egbuniwe, and J. 0 . Ademiluyi: Prediction of the Dispersion
Number iri Wa:.-re Stabilization,, Water Res., 26:85, 1992.
2. Al-Layla. .M. A., S . Ahmad, and E . J . Middlebrooks: Handbook of Wastewater
Collection ana Treatment: Principles and Practices, Garland STPM Press, New
York, 1980.
3. Benefield, L.. D_ and C. W. Randall: Biological Process Design for Wastewater
Treatrr.ent, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
4. Boulier. G. A. and T. J. Atchinson: Practical Design and Application ofthe Aerated. Faculiaiir;e Lagoon Process, Hinde Engineering Company, Highland Park, IL. 1975.
5. Canter.. L. W . and_.\_ J . Englande: States' Design Criteria for Waste Stabilization
Ponds..J. Water Pollution Control Fed., 42<10>:1840-1847,1970.
6_ Engel W. T 'and T. T. Schwing: Field Study of Nutrient Control in a Multicell
LagoolL. EPA 600/2-80-155, U :S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal
Engineering .Researc:h Laboratory, Cincinnati,
1980.
.
7. F'mney, B. A, and E. J. Middlebrooks: Facultative Waste Stabilization Pond
Design,.J. Water P{)llution Control Fed., 52(1):134-147, 1980.
8. Fritz, J _ J., A. C. l\fiddleton,. and D. D. Meredith: Dynamic Process Modeling of
Waste~ater Stabilization Ponds, J. Water Pollution Control Fed
51(11):27.24-2743... 1979.
9-. George,. R. I.: Two-Dimensional Wind-Generated Flow Patterns~ Diffusion and
Mixing in a Shallov.~ Stratified Pond. Ph.D. dissertation. Utah State University,
' Logan. 1973.
.
.
10.: Glo~ E. F..: WO-i:te St.abil.i.z'ation'Por.ds, .Manogr<rph Series No. 60, World Health
oa
~~~lg7l.
!L G!oyna. E. F.: Facultative Waste Stabilization Pond Design, in Ponds as a

.Wa.steu:ater Treatmtm1 Alternntir:e.,. Water Resources S}'ID.posium No. 9, University
ofTexas,.~tin.,l9-76.
12.. Graham. H.. J . and.R B. Hunsinger: Phosphorus Removal in Seasonal Retention

by Batch Chemical Precipitation, Project No. 71-1-13, Wastewater Tt chnology
Centre, Environment Canada, Bnriingtan, Ont.~ nnc:Ia:red..
.13.. ~ -a J . and R. B. Hun.singer: Phosphorus Reduction from Continuous
Overflow Lagoons by Addition ofCoa.:,~ts to Infln-ent Sewage, Research Report
No_ 65, Ontario Ministry ofthe Environment. Toronto, Ont-y 1.977.
14. Harrelson, M. K.. and J.. B. Cravens: U.se ofMicroscreens to Polish Lagoon Efil.uent;
J.,WctterPollutionControlFetL ~1);36-4.2:,.1982:.
15. Kays, W_ R: Constn.u:tion of I.inings {cir Reserv~ 'Tanks. arui Poflution Control
Fa.cilities.2d ed..,. Wiiey-I:il.ters:ieD.ce. New York, 1986.
16. Larson. T. R: ~ Dimf';Usinnles..s Design Equation far Sewage Lagoons, Dissertatio~
.Univers l,..v ofNewMeriro; -Wmquerqn.e., UJ74.
.
. 17.1\Ia-Tina, .J_ F..., R. Ka~ W. W. Eckenfe1der, Jr.... R F. Gloyna, and W. R. Drynan:
Design Guides for lfiological. WasteWater Treatment Processes, Report CRWR-76~
Center fur Research in Water Resources, University ofTexas, A.n:stin, 1972.
18.. :Man~ J _ L, and E. L. Ba:rnliart: Indnstrial Waste Treatment in Aerated
:L:goons.,. .in P{)n.cls as a Wastewtder Treatment Altemativ~; Water Resottrces
SymposinmNo. 9, University ofTexas~Austin, 1976_
1.9. '1\ifaDgelscn.. K A.;ay.draulics of Waste Stabilization Ponds. and: Its Influence on
'fr.eat:mentEfficiency~. P.hJ)- disse:d:a:tion. Utah StateUniv.eFsit;y, Lo~ 197L,.
20. .Mangei.son.. K ~and G_ Z. Watter:.s: Treatment Efficiency of Waste Stabilization
P.Onds.,. J. Scmit. Eng_ Dfv_.ASCE.. 98CSA2):407-425, 1972.
..
21. ~D.D...:Discnssion. Wa:ter.Res:. 9:59~ 1975.
.
. 22. Mara. D.D..: Sewage TTea.tment in. Hnt Climates.. John Wiley,. New Ym:k,. 19'16.
23. Tvfa:t:ais, G. V_ R..: D;yna:mic Behavior of Oxidation P~ in Proceedings ofSecond
Tnterrratioiral Sympoirium for Waste Treatment Lagoons .Kansas City, MO, Jrme
23-25, 1970.
24. ~Iarais. C_ v . R.. and V_ A. Shaw: A Rational Theozy for the Desi:g:a ~f Se-wa.:,ae
Stabilization Ponds in Central and Sou:th Africa, Tn:zii.s. S. Afr. Inst. Crm1 Eng.,
3:205,.1WL
,.
''
131
25. McGarry, M. C., and M. B. Pescod: Stabilization Pond Design Cri_teria for Tropical
Asia, Proceedings of Second International Symposium for Wa.ste Treatment
Lagoons, Kansas City, MO, June 23-25, 1970.
26. Metcalf and E~Jdy: Wastewater Engineering Trealmf:!nl Di.<>posal Reuse, 3d. ed.,
.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991.
27. Middlebrooks, E. J.: Design Equations for BOD Removal in Facultative Ponds,
waterSci. TechnoL, 19:12, 1987.
28. Middlebrooks, E . .J.: Review of Rock Filters for the Upgrade of Lagoon Effluents, J.
Water Pollution Control Fed., 60(9>:~657-1662, 1988.
29. Middlebrooks, E. J . C. H. Middlebrooks. J. H. Reynolds, G. Z. Watters, S.C. Reed,
and D. B. George: Wastewater Stabilization Lagoon Design, . Performance, and
Upgrading, MacmiU~ New York. 1982.
30. Middlebrooks, E. J . C. D. Perman, and I. S. Dnnn.: Wastewater Stabilization Pond
Linings, Special Report 78-28, Cold Regions Research.and Engineering Laboratory.
. Hanover, NH, 1978.
3L Neel, J . K, J. H. McDermott, and C. A. Monday: Experimental Lagooning of Raw
Sewage, J. Water Pollution Control Fed_ 336>:603-641, 1961.
32. Os-Wald, W. J., A. Meron. and M ..D. Zabat: Designing Waste Ponds to Meet Water
Quality Criteria, Proceedings of Second InteTTUZtional Symposium for Waste
. Treatment Lagoons, Kansas City? MO. June 23-25,. 1970.
:33. Pano, A, and E. J. Middlebrooks: Ammonia Nitrogen .Removal in Facultative
\.Vastewater. Stabilization Ponds. .J. Water PollutilJn Control. Fed.., 54(4):344--:35~
1982.
.34. Polprasert, C., and K. K. Bhatt.arai: Dispersion Model for Waste Stabilization
Ponds, J. Environ. Eng. Dir.:. ASCE. lll(EE1J:45-59,1985.
3'5. Reed, S. C.: Nitrogen Removal in Wastewater Pands, CRREL Report 84-13,Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover. NH, June 1984.
36. Reed. S . C.: Wastewater Stabilization Ponds: An Update on Pathogen Removal.. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution Control,

Washington, DO, Aug. 1985.
37. Reid, L : D., Jr.: .Desigri and Operation for Aerated Lagoons in the Arctic and
Subarctic, Report 120, U .S. Public Health Service, Arctic Health Research Center,
College, AK. 1~70.
38. Ri~ L. G.: Design Approach to,.Dna!-Pow-er Ae.-rated Lagoons, J . Environ. Eng. Diu.
'ASCE, 108(EE3):532, 1982.
39-. Russell, J. S-. E. J. Middlebro.ok:s. and J. H.. Reynolds: Wasteu:ater Stabilization
Lagoon- :lnter.mittent Sand Filter S~S".em.s, EPA 600i2-804>32. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. M'n:ni.cipal Engineering Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, OH,
w~
40. Swanson, G. :it, and K. J. Williamson: Upgra ding La,goon Effinexrts with. Rock
Filters, J. Environ. Eng. Dirr. ASCE. 106(EE6}:lill-1.119,. 1980.
41.. Ten States Recommended Standards for Sewage Works, A Report of the Committee
ofGreat Lakes-Upper Mississippi ~er Boa...-d ofState San:itary Engineers. Health
.Edncatian Services~ Inc... .AThany.,. NY.,. J.9.78.
42.. Thirnmurthi. R: Design Criteria 'for Wasre Stahi:lization Ponds, J . Wa~r Pollution
Control Fed:, 46(9:}:2094-2106~ 1974.
4K U .S. Department of Energy: Alte.rn.ati:t' e Wastewater Tr:-eatment:- Adua:ru:ed
Integrrrt2d Pond Systems~ DOE/CHIOOSB-24:6~ DE93018228.,. Oct. 1993.
44.. U.S_ 'En'llironmenta:l Protectiao. Agency: Upgrai!ing Lagoons, Technology Transfer
Docninen'tr U.S.En"ironmental Protection Agency.,. Wac:bington, DC, Aug. 19'13..
45. U.S_ Environmental Protecti.~ Agency: Process Design Manual for .Upgrading
Eri.sting Wastezoa.tr Treatment Plarr:ts:. Teclmology Transfer~ U.S. Environmental
Prore~n-~~ W~D~O~~~
46. U.R .Envi:rOD.ID.ental Protection .A.,ae.n.cy: Design Criteria. for .Jl!echcmir:a.l, Electrical
and Fluid System and Component Reliability, EPA 430/99-74-{)01, Office of Water
Program Operations. W asbington.. DC.,. 1974.
47. D~S. Environmental Protection .Agency-: Process Design Manual for Suspended
Solicis Remotal, EPA 62'5 /1-75-00.Ja, Cen t er for Environmental Research
Information. Cincinnati, OIL 1.975.
132
Chapter Four
Hi. U.S. Emironmental Protection Agency: Process Dcsign lv!anual {f'r Land Treatm ent
of Municipal Wastewal{!r, EPA 625/1 -8 1-0la, Center for Environmental Research
lnformation. Cincinnati, OH, 1981.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: The 1980 Needs Surtey, EPA 430/9-81-008.
Office of Water Prugr.:.m Operations, Washington, DC, 1981.
50. U.S. EnvironmeXttal Protection Agency: Design Manual: Munic:ipal Wastewater
. Stabilization Ponds. EPA o25il-8:3 -015, Center for EnYironmerital Research
Information, Cjnci'nnati. OH. l9S3.
51. Wallace , A . T .: Land Application of Lagoon Effluents. in Performance and
Upgrading of Wasteuater Stabilization PQnds, EPA 600/ 9-79-011 , U.S.
Em'irorimentaJ Protection _:\gency, Municipal Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, 1978.
52. Water Pollution Control Federation and American Society of Chil Engineers:
Wasteu:ater Treatment Plant Design. MOPi8. Water Pollntian ~ontrol Federation.
Washlngton., DC; 1977.
.
53. ~arer Pollution Control Federation: Preliminary Treatment for Wastewater
Facilit ies. MOP/0:\.!-2, Water Pollution Control Federation, Wa.sQ.ington, DC, 1980.
54. Wehne r. J. F_ and R. l i Wilhelm: Bom1dary Conditions ofFlow Reactor, Chem.
Er:.g. Sci., 6=69-93. 1956.
55. World Health Organization: Wasteuater Stabilization Ponds. Principles of
Pla:nning & Practice.; '\VHO Technical Publication 10, Regional Office for the
Eastem Mediterrane~ Alexandria.. 1987.
'
Chapter
Aquatic Treatment
Systems .
Aquatic treatment js defined as the u.se of aq-uatic plants. or animals

as a component in. .a wastewater treatment system. In many parts of
the worliL. wastewater is used for the preduction of fish or o.t her forms
of ~uatic biomass in aqnac.n lture operations. Some degree of wastewater renovation 1nay qecar in these cases, but it is not the primary
intent. The major focus in this chapter is on systems where .wastewater ~atment is the fxn:tctionai intent of the oper~tion.
Aquatic treatment systems may utilize one major type of p1ant or
animal in.a monoculture operat!on, or may use a variety of plants and
.animals in a :polycultw.e operation. Both .m arine (seawater) and
freshwater .concepts have been tested~ The major biological components include floating plants~ fish and mner animals, planktonic
o~sms~ and srilimerged plants. Emergent plants are aJso used, but
these are more characterJ.Stic of wetland systems and .are discussed in
~~a
The; treatment responses in an aquatic traatment system are due
either tO the direct.uptake of material by theplfu:"lts or anmais and
by the presence .o f these biot~ altering the physical environ~ent in
the s~ystem, or~ ?S in. the ca...c:e of water hyacinths, the plant roots' acting as the .host subgtrete for attached .m.iC.L~bialorganisms which provide a very significant degree of treatment.2~ All of these p lants and
animals have s.peciiie environmental require~n.ts that must be
maintained for their_snreessful use, and in most -cases a regular harvest is necessary to ensure optimum. performance. Performance
e..xpectations for. these S"JJStems are listed in Table 1.1 in Ch~p. 1 -and:
e1sew.h ere in this.chapter.
133
134
5.1
Chapter Ave
Aoating Plants
Aquatic plants have the same basic nutritional requirements as

plants gyowing on land and are influenced by many of the same environmental fa~tors. The floating aquatic plants with the greatest
.known potential for wastewater treatment include water hyacinths,
duckweeds, pennywort, and water ferns. Table 5.1 provides information on dlstribution of these p1ants in the United States apd some of
the critial environmental requirements. Hyacinths; pennywo~ and
duck~eeds. are the only varieties tested to date with wastewa~r. in
pilot or full..scale systems.
Water hyacinth
Water. hyacinth. CEichhornia crassipes) is a perennial, freshwater

aquatic macrophyte (wate~-tolerant vascular plant) with rounded,
uprightT .shiny ~n leaves and spikes of lavender flowers. The morphology of a typical hyacinth plant is shown in Fig. 5.1.
The petioles ofthe plant are spongy,. with many air spaces, and contribute to the buoyancy of the hyacinth plant. Size varies with habitat.. Root length varies with the nutrient status of the water and the
frequency of plant harvest. In nutrient-rich wastewaters with regnlar
harvests, the roots might extend 10 em (4 in) below the central rhizome. 26 If harvests are not performed, the roots can grow and penetrate th~ substrate
unlined basins. The plant will also grow in
moist soils. When they are grown in wastewater,. individual plants
range from 50. to 120 ~ (2() to 4 7 in) from the top of' the flower to the .
root tips.
The hyacinth flower produces seeds, but the principal means af
repruduction is via ofiShoots (stolons) from the underwater rhizome,
as Shown on .Fig. 5_1, which result in an interco~ dense mat -of
plants on the water surface. The plants spread laterally until the
surfa ce is cov.e .red and then vertical growth increase-s.
. Hyacinths are one ofth~ most productive photlli:,--ynthetic plants in tp.e
world. It bas been estimated that 10' .Plants cauld produce 600,.~)0 .
more during an 8-month growi.Qg s eason and .completely cover 0-4 b:a
:(1 ac) of a 'na:tural freshwater surface;.20 The rate c an be e ven higher
wastewater: ponds.:. Wolverton and McDonald have estimated aproductivity <>f 140 mtJba yr (154 tons/ac- yr) (dry weight) for hyacinths
grown in wastewater ponds.34 This very rapid. growth is the reason
that hyacinths. are a serious nui..~ce problem in Southern waterways, but these Sante attrih~tes become an. advantage in a waste. water treatment system. Because of its history as a nuisance weed,
the interstate transport of the rooted water hyacinth, E. azurea.,. is
in
water
l~:
TAf.1~E 6.1
Floating Aquatlt. f.ll~n~a fbr Wl1atewat(!r 1're~tmentqG

'_tiompel'uturu (0 0)
..
Common nnmo,
Nci~nti(to
namr!
Wntcr hynointh
.
Eichhorn Ia cl'llHHlpen
Water fmn
Azalia caroltnia na
Azalia /Uculald{l8
Duclcwc(!d
Spirocb.!ltt plyri!llzn
Lemna trit~cttlca
Lemna abscura
Lcmna minor
Lemnagibba
Wolfia app.
Olatl'l.bution
OeHimbltl
Survival
Mnximum anlinity
tolotanco (rngfL}
Optimum pH
20-ao
10
800
5-7
2/iOO
3.5-7
3500
5-7
Southern U.S.
>10
'l'hroughout tJ .S.
Throughout U.S.
20-30
'l'h1;nughout U.S;
Nott.hom U.S.
mmJtorn and southern u.s.
'l'hl'Oit).{hout U.S.
Gnmt. Plains and western U.S.
'r~tou_ql~~l!-~._U.~~~-~ -- -~--- -~ - '-~-
__
-.- ---~---~~-----~------~~~--------
. c . . . .
. ;
--
136
Chapter Fi.ve
Stolon
Hgur-e 5.1
.i\1orpho1 tJ~
of !he- hyacinth plant.
prohibited hy feder-al hnv. The floating v.ariety., E_ c:rassipes, is not

banned by federal Iaw.
The roots~ petioles~ flow~r stalks, and stolons all originate at the
basaJ rhizome. Under freezi...ng rondition5the Ieaves and flowers \\ill
die .and may expose the uppe:r tip of the rhizome. The plant can regenerate from
undamaged rhizome, hut if the
freezes the enti..-re
plant will die. Observations of systems in .F lorida and central and
southern Alabama are th.a.t water hyac:intbs can SU:nrive five ill six
freezing events that last 1 to 2 days at temperatures.of - 3 . 9"C {25F).,
provided that ;.varme:r weather occur-s heh\oee:n the events to. allow
plant regr<)\vth. 11 Th1~ se~sitivity to lo\v temperatures is the major
factor limiti.."lg the natural range of the hy.acit-:tth plant a:nd its use in
unnratected wastewater treatment facilities. Figure 2.1 dfines the
~;;as suit;ble fo~ .unprotected waste~ai:er
~V:Ste~ using
hyacinths. Short-tenn sununer use rr2ght he pnssibie farther north
than shown m.F ig. 2.1~ but th:is would requir-e a greenhouse for culturingand protecting the plants dmi.l'lg the remainder of theyear or
restocking. :Greenhouses,. when used, are constructed in the la:gaon fo~
efficiency in sto~~g in the spring~ a:: shown in. Fag. .5. 9- The Jll"Otective shelters that \.ould be required to sustain. a ye ar-round operation
north of the zones shown ln Fig. 2.1 may not be cost-effectiv-e. !:i
Th~ dry-weight composition of '~ater hyacinth plants removed from
wastewater s ystems -is given in Table 5.2.:?"J Th-e major -colb--ti.tuent of
the hulk plant is v.~:at~r.,: .comprising about 95 percent .o f tht= total
an
up.
ti"eatment.
Aquatic Treatment Systems
137
Figt!re 5..2 Water hyacinth pond in Headlands, Alabama, with in-pond greenhouse:.
1Courzes:r D. Haselou:. !
TA8LE 5.2 Composition of Hyacinth Plants Grown in.Wastewat~r
Percent of dry weight

Con_~tuent
Crude .protein
Fat
Fiber
Ash
.C.arbobydr.n:e
Kjeldahl nitrogen 1as 'N 1
Phosphorus (as P J
Range
18.-6
16.6
9-.7-23.4
L6-2.2
17.l-lS_5
ll.l-2.-0-.4
44.8
36:~L6
18.1
1.9.
2.9
L&-3.7
0.6
{}.3-0.~
mass. This very high water content is a significa.."lt factor in the economics of the various disposal or utilization options for the harvested
plants.
Performance expectations. Water hyacinth system-s are capable -of
removing high levels of biochemical oxygen deman~ fBOD )., s:us:pended solids cSS>. metals, and nitrogen, and significant .levels of
trac.e organics. The treatment concept has been developed through
extensive laboratory and pilot-scale research as \veli as evaluation
of full-scale facilities. Hyacinths can be used to upgrade existing:
systems or to produce secondary, advanced secondary, or terti.azy
138
Chapter Five
effluents, depending on the design .loading rates and management

practices used.
. Hyacinths on the water surface of a pond create a totally different
e!l:vironmental condition in the water as compared to an exposed
water surface. The dense canopy of leaves shades the surface and prevents algal growth. This in turn maintains.the liquid pH at near-neutral levels. The mass of plants on the surface also minimizes windinduced turbulence and mixing, as w~ll as surface reaeration, and
moderates .water-temperature fluctuations_ As a result, the near-surface water tends to be low in oxygen and the benthic zone is usually
anaerobic even .in shallow ponds.
The plant can survive and grow in anaerobic waters, since oxygen
is transmitted :fronl. the leaves to the root mass. The attached biological growth on the root mass is similarto trickling-filter and rotating
biological contactar (RBC) slimes, but in this case the oxygen source
(from the roots) is near the center of the mass rather
the outside. Bacteria, fungi, predators, filter feeders, ~d detritovores have
been reported in large numbers on and among the plant roots. Typical
performance data from several systems are given in Table 5.3. The
excellent performance of the Coral Springs, Florida, system is
believed to be in part due to the use of multiple cells and.the shallow,
38-cm (15-"in) depth, which allows a greater portion of the contained
wastewater to contact the root zone of the plants.
than on
Removal of BOD. The re~oval of BOD in a hyacinth pond is caused
by the same factors described in Chap. 4 for .conventional stabilization ponds. Further, very significant treatment eeontribntions can be
ascribed to the attached gtowth on the plant roots. The effiCiency of
BOD removal will be related diredlytothe density of the plant cover
and the depth of:wa_ter in the system.. At water depths ofl:--2 m {3-6
.ft}, a BOD loading of about 6_7 X l0-4- kg/kg of wet plant mass per
day has been recommended by Wolvaton'33 when facultative pond
.e filnent is applied to the hyacinth cells_ Assuming .1(}0 percent co:verage of dense plants on the water surface~ this tran!?Iat~s to a Sti:r:fuce
load.ll:J.g of about.225.kglha:. d (20() lb/ac ~d): BOD... At 80 percent:surface coverage, a loadfu.g of 140 kgfha.- d.BOD has b eenrecommended
by Wolvetton and McDonald:..a.t
Removal of suspended solids.. The removal of SlJSI)ended sOlids
o~
through entrapment in the plantroot zone and by gravity sedimentation in the quiescent water beneath the surface mat of hyacinth
plants~ Because of the less turbulent water .conditions,. sedimentation
will be more effuctive in a hyacinth pond than in a conventional pond
with an open water surface. Another major contnoo:tion t~ solids control is the suppression of algae growth, since the hyacinth plant
~~
~,~~
i-
TAaJ..I; 5.3 Pettort\"'once of Hyacinth Wastewater Treatment Syatertls

.. .
. ..
BOO (mg/L)
Lacnt.ton
NuMonnl Spncu 'l'eoh~
Lnh~, Mt3'~~
Lucodnlo, MS'I'
Ot~nnge
lnfluont
mmueht
Influent
Effiuont
ltO
07
10
tlil
23
125
14
6
3
49
15
40
91
no
Grove, MSt.
Williamson 01~., 'l'X

Coral Sprlnga, FL'll
...
Total N (rng!L}
SS (mg/L)
1a
Influent
12
Effiuent
Influent
Effiucnt
Rcfel'cnr(
3.4
317
116
aa, :~n
717
3.3
. 1.0
22.4
Total P {rng!L>
-7
-5.7
11
3.6
+Singlo, fncul~Atlve con, lt-12 om qo~;~p, 2 hn, duWIILillll Lllne li4 d, hydmulluloudln~ 240 rn:1/hl\ d, organic land 26 kg/hn . d BOD.
'I'Singlu, l'n~:ultu~lVIl llPll, 1'/U Ull! dilup, tliO
doton~lnll Limo Wt ~. hydi1UUII~ lundlllU 2M nt11 hn d. orgnnlo lund tltl kg/hn . d BOD.
*~'wocoU norntod pond, Uia i!IT\ daep, 0.9 hn, tlutontlon timo 'I d, hydraulhdnadln(t 3070 m11/hn d, org1mlc luudln!f 170 kglhn d BOD.
nn,
ftFourcoll fiJ!!III~QUvu pont!, 8Ci om clollp, (),Oc~ hn, llotPn~lon Limo 4~u d, hydraulic lnndlng tOQ m:i/hn d, otgnnlc lundlng ao kg/hn d BOD.
'IW1va-co11 fncultnMvu )llltld, aa \lll\ dOPJ), ()lfl hn, tiPtuntlnn tlmo 11 q, hytli'Ullllc lnntllng :37H m"lhu I d, orgnnic lundlnij tla kg/hn . d BOD.
I
:13
33
6
28
~....
140
Chapter Five
shades the water f:mrface and ptevents passage of sunlight to the

water column.
Plant uptake, ammonia volat_ilization, and nitrification/denitrification an eontribute to removal of nitrogen in
hyacinth systems. Plant upt&ke, with plant harvest, can be an important removal P.a thway, but nitrogen removal rates far in excess of
plant uptake levels have been observed in a number of systems. A
typical plant growth rate of about 220 kg/ha d (196 lb/ac d) (dl}'
weight) would account for about 10 kg/ha d (8_9 lb/ac d) of nitrogen.
The nitrogen removal actually observed at a number of systems was
about 19 kg/ha d (17 lb/ac d) when the nitrogen loading ranged
from 9 to 42: kgtba d {8 to 37 lb/ac d}.32 The major facter responsible
for this additional removal is believed to be nitrificationidenitrification. The nitrifier organisms can flourish attached to the hyacinth
roots, which provide q.xyge~ while adjacent microsites and the benthic layet provide the anaerobic ronditions and the carbon sources needed for d.eni.trification.. Nitrificationfdenitijfif;ation is mor-e likely at a
relatively shallo-w depth because the buJk of the wastewater has the
opportunity for contact with tbe hyacinth root zone.
Removal of nitrogen.
Pilot-scale experiments 1\iili hyacinths and other aquatic piants in

shallow containers [53 em CZl in) de.e p] showed that overall nitrogen
removal follows a first-ordt::'T- reaction rate. 21 The nitrogen r-emoval
observed was a function of plant density an4 temperature, as shown
by Eq. 5.1 and the rate .constants in Table 5.4.22
N
- - = ex:p{- kt)
(5.1)
(""
~-0
where N..
TABLE-5-.4
tot.al.nitrogen in system efiluent, mg/L
Raffi.Constants::far-Eq. S.r
;. :
Temp<.":r'ature and plant.:de~ity
Mean temperatnre 2.T'C l."'C

Pla:'lt density. kgina(dryweighv
3..920
10,230
20,.2.b0
Mean temperature 14=c =,tee

Plant density, kg/b.afdry:weightl
4,191) .
'6 .690
20.,.210
. 0.218
0.491
0.590
0.033
0.023
.184
141
1V0 = total nitrogen in applied wastewater, mg!L
k = rate constant, dependent on temperature and plant density, d - 1 !see Table 5.4 for values)
t = detention time in system. d
.
Equation 5.1 is similar in fonn to the equation in Table 4.8? which

estimates the nitrogen removal in pond systems. Either Table 4.8 or
4.9 can be used to estimat.e the nitrogen removal due to volatilization
in hyacinth ponds. The results are not additive to Eq. 5.L since.the
equation calCQlates o~erau nitrogen removal, which already includes
a component for volatilization.
An analysis of data frop:1 the hyacinth systems listed in T~ble 5.3.
as well as other sources, .indicates thai a correlation exists between
nitrogen removal and the hydraulic loading on the basin surface. The
relationship is described with Eq. 5.2, which is valid for a moderately
dense (80 percent or more of basin surface covered with hyacinths)
stand of plants \vith regular harvests to. maintain
optimum growth.
.
J5
c;)
\- ~.
where LN = hydraulic loading.. limited by nitrogen. removal,. m 3/ha d

1~ = nitrogen concerrtration required in systan effluen~ ~
N 0 = niirogen concentration in influent to hyacinth basins,
mg/L.
In U_S. Customary units (L~~ = . mjllion gailans per day. per acre}, the
equation becomes
L ...v
1
(1.2..3)(1- N/No)L72
Rerrroval of phasphon:s. The QnLy ~ig~ificant removal pathway f.or

pho.s:pho.rus is plant uptake~ and that w ill nsnally not exceed 30-50.
percent of the- phosphorus present in typical mtll)..icipw Ymstewaters.
T.ue remo"t.-al will nat evtm approach that range rinless there is a~ :
ful vegetation management pr.ogram involving frequent hariest~
1\;farimnm. plant npta.!re of phosphorus may also require supplemental
nitrogen fertil:ization, since the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in typ-:
icai wastewater.s is significantly different from the balance required
by the hyacinth. plarits (N:P = 6':1 L .As a result~ there niay be a nitr~
gen deficiency in the final basins of a hyacinth systen_:l? .and these
plants eanno~ utilize the available phospboros without a _d ditional
nitro.::0.
a-en..
1n typical systems whet~e careful -c.outznl and supp-lemental ~tria.Tlts are not provided, pha...~horo..s .r emoval will. prnbahly not exce~d
142.
Chapter Rve
25 percent. Chemical precipitation \J..'ith aluin, ferric chloride, or other

chemicals in a separate treatment step is recommended if high levels
of phosphorus removal are a project requirement. Equation 5.3,
derived from a number of operational systems, can be used to estimate the potential for phosphorus removal in hyacinth basins. As
with Eq. 52_ it is valid when the basin surfaces are at least 80 percent covered vvith plants and there is a regular harvest.
LP = (9353)
(p PO- 0.778P
)
~pe
e
(5.3)
wnere LP = hydraulic loading~ limited by phosphorus removaL
ma:/ha d
Pe = phosphorus concentration required in system efiluent, mg/L'
P fJ = phosphorus concentration in influent to hyacinth
basins, mg!L
3
(m /ha d)/(93~3.~:. :million gal/d ac
.
Hyacinth systems are capabl~ of hig~ levels of

metal remoal. Although plant uptake .can be significant, the principal mechanisms are believed to be chemical precipitation and adsorption on Substrate and on the plant smfaces. Mature plants' begin to
slo-ugh root matter, so any adsorbed material becomes part of the
detri~ or benthic sludge_ 1n a stndy in Texas, 1linges4 found that
metals
concentration in the bottom sediments exceeded the concen.
.
tration in the living hyacinth plant tissue by at least an order of mag:nitnde. T.his sediment .consisted ma ~-year accumulation of biological
solids as well -~ ..dead :and sloughed plant material. The removal of
trace-minerals observed m a 28-dB.y batch experiment and jn a 15-day
coutinums-flciw experiment are :compared inTable 5.5.
Removal .o f metals..
u.B!E.55 Trace EiementR'emov.albyWater Hyacinths15
Percent removal:
Wl.th hyacinths
Parameter
Arsenic
Boron
Cadmium
Mereu:ry
Selenimn
Batch
Coutinuous flow
12
12
69
41
36
85
9-2
60
70
w~ hyacinths
.Batch
Continuous- flov.-
23
23
60
0
3~
93.
21
. . ~. ~~--Aquatic Treatment Systems
143
The removal of some. organic pnority~pollu

tants has been measured in a pilot-scale hyacinth basin system in
San Diego, California. The hyacinth units in this case were used a s a
preliminary step, ahead of ultrafiltration, .reverse osmosis, carbon
adsorption, and disinfection, in a process intended to demonstrate the
~apability for complete water recycle and reuse. As shown in Table
5.6, excellent removal of trace .organics was demonstrated in these
hyacinth basins. The removal of trace organics is believed to be due
primarily to volatilization and decomposition of the compounds by
bacterial ~ction, although the plant itself can take up significant
quantities of these materials.
Removal of trace organics.
Design considerations. Hyacinth sjstems can be designed for treatment of raw wastewater~ p~ effiu.ent, upgrading of existing secondary treatment systems, or for advanced secondary or even tertiary
treatment. As with other pond systems, the critical design panimeter
. is the organic loading
the system.
If the project goal is secondary treatment~ th~. ,~ystem design is
essentially the same as given in Chap. 4 for a facultative pon<L.-';E'able
5.7 presents a summary of the appropriate engineering criteria when
hyacinths are used.. The major function of the hyacinth plant~ this
case is the stlrrace cover provided by the flo~tl..ng vegetation. This will
prevent alga.l growth and contribute to BOD and SS removal. The
performance of.t he hyacinth system -will be significantly better than a
on
TABLE 5.6 Trace Organic Removal in Hyacinth Basins"
Concentration CJig/L)
Hyacinth -effiuent*
P.arameter
UD!J:'eated wastewater
Benzene
Toluene
Ethylbemene
Chloro'bemene
Chlorof'onn
Chlorodibromometha.ne
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Phenol
Britylbenzyl .p hthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Isophorone
Naphtbalane
2..0
NDt
6.3
ND
l,~Dichlorobenzene
-3.3'
ll
4_7
5_7
4.4
4..7
6..2
ND..
ND
0..3
1\"1}
!Ill)
0..4
L2
2.1
;().4
0.8
0.2
0 .3:
.0:7
. 1 ..1
0..1
..
.
... ..
.~~.:.
..; . . . .
4 .
...
..
0..1
ND
"Pilot-scale system, 4.5-d detention time. 16 m.3/d flow. three sets o1 two- basins. :each. in
para]lil, plant density 10-25 kg;tm=!- Cwet weightL
t:N.D = nat detected.
..
-
144
Chapter Five
TABLE 5.7
Suggested Criteria for Secondary Treatment with Hyacinth Ponds10

Factor
Criterion
. BOD<30 mg!L. SS<30 mg/L
Untreated
Effiuent requirement::;
input
Organic loading:
Entire system surface . : :.
First cell in system
Water depth
Ma'Cimum area, single basin
Total detention time
Hydraulic loading
VVatertemperature
Basin shape
Influent flow diffusers
Mosquito control
Harvest schedule
Multiple cells
Wast~water
50 kglha d (4.5 !h/ac dJ BOD

100 kg/ha d l90 lb/ac d> BOD
<1..5 m .l5 il:.i'
0.4 ban acl
>40d
;. 200 m31ha d (21.600 gal/ac d)

>lO"'C b50"'Fl
Rectangular, LW>3:!
Recomme1;1ded
Necessary
Seasonal CJr annual
Essential, 2 sets of 3 basins, each recommended
comparable-sized facultative pond '\\rith an open water surface. In

addition to new designs,. hyacinth plants can be added to the fi:~~1 .
cells in existing facultative ponds tu upgrad~ effluent quality
acceptable levels.
.
:1\'lultipie cells in pond systems are essential for proper hydraulic
control {as described in Chap. 4)T and are also important in hyacinth
systems to ensure effluent. quality during harvesting and m.a.L'll.tenanc.e operations. A conservative approach
design, given in Table
5. 7~ divides the total treatment area requjn~d into two mterconnected
paralle1 :rows of basins, 'Vith at least thre.e basins in each set. This
allows temporary flow dive1sion for maintenance. withom disr.uption
of overall perfiunl?nee.
.
Some state-s require t.he design of duplicate hyacinth systems.,. ~ach
capable -of treating the design
flow. It is therefore
necessary. to .. Ch~ck
..
.
...
.
with the .appropriate regu:la:to...-ry authorities before proceeding with
fin..-li project -design.
Suggested engineer.L!lg criteria for advanced seeonda:ry treatm-ent
u~'"'ing hyacinth ponds are gjv.e n m Table 5.8. It is asSmn.ed in. this
case that .at least primary treatment has been provided in a p:.relim~
nary step. This .c ould be achieved with a suitable aerobic or ..anaerobic
pon~ With conventional prr...ma..ry treatment~ or with an Imhoff tank
for s:rilaTI com~j:ties_ It has b een shm.vn to be cost-ef;fective to pi-0vide supplementaT aeration in these hyacinth systems to acce1erate
the treatment and allow increased loadings. and :.Shorter .d etention
times. If aeatioa is not :pro'\'ided~ the Qrganic [oading-s shoold not
to
to.
.. .
:-:..
TABLE 5.8
Ponds
145
Suggested Criteria tor Advanced Secondary Treatment with Hyacinth.
F.aar~r:
Criterion
Effiuent rAApir.ements
BOD<IO mg/L, SS<IO mg!L. some nitrogen
W~.t.ew.ar~r:-ipput
Equi~alent to primary .
remmnl
Org{!nic loading:
Sntir.e systemsurface
Fi...w:stl cell st;rf2ce
Detentrion time
Aeration requirements
Water temperature
Water depth .
Hydraulic loading
Basin shape
Influent flow diffuser
Effiuent collection manifu!d
Single basin area
Mosquito control
Harvest schedule
Multiple ~lli
100 kg/ha - d (90 lb/ac d1 BOD

300 kg/ha d 1270 lb/ac- d1 BOD
>6d
Design as partial-mix aerated pond to meet

0 .. needs (see Chap. 4 .i; use submerged diffuSed aeration in first two cells of each set
>20"'C I 68"F)
<0.9 m (3ft)
<800 m 3 /ha d (86,500 gal/ac- d)
Rect.an..:,anlar. L:W>3:1
Essential
Essential
<0.4 ha {1 ac}
N ereEs-<11')
>monthly
Essex:rti:a:l. 2 irrterronneded paraJle-J sets of
3basi:n.se~
exceed the values given in Table 5.7. The shallower depth used in this
case also all(}ws the hyacinth plant to contribute more eff-ectively tn
treatment than in the previous case. A tertiary hyacinth system~ primarily for nutrient removal, can b e an add-on to the system described
in Table 5.7 or tQ any '()ther- secondary treatment process. Typical
engineering criteria are described in Table 5.9. 'The use -of the criteria
in these tables is ill.o...r;;trated :in the -design e xan1ples that. follow. .
Exampre 5.1 Deign .a hyacinth .,.;.v:stem to prodllce secondary efflnent with an
untreated mUD.icipal wastewater as inflnen:t. Assume: design :flow rate = 760
m3/d~ wastewater ch:ara....--teristics axe 'B OD5 = 240 mg/L. SS = 250 mg/L,. TN =
25 mg/L, TP = lS mgiL; and critical winter temperature >2.0"C {68Ft Effin.ent
reqniremen!E: BOD5 = <30 mg/L.. SSdlO mgiL.
solution
1: Detemrine BOD loading:

{240 mg/LJ\70 m3/d){ lOS Lfm:LJ{l kg1I0 6 mg> = 182..4 kgid
2.. Determine: basm surla:ce areas ha~ on criteria in Table 5.7: 50 kglha- -d
BOD for entire .area,. 100 kgf.ha d BOD for first cell.
"f\
:1.:0
tal. area reqmre

d .=
!82:.-4
'kg/d
h
kg/ha
_-d = v-6~ a
50
!)
146
Chapter Five
TABLE 5.9
Suggested Criteria for Tertiary Treatment with Hyacinth Ponds
Factor
Criterion
BOD<lO mg!L. SS<lO mg/L, TN and TP<5
mg/L
Secondary effiuent
Effiuent requirements
Wastewater input
Organic loading:
<50 kglha d C45lb/ac d) BOD

<150 kg!ha d ( 135 lb/ac d> BOD
~ 0.9 m ( ~3 ft)
<0.4 ha (<1 ac)
6 d or less, depending on depth :
<800 m 3/ha d (86,500 gal/ac - d)
Rectangular, L:W>3:1
>20"C .<>68'7>
Necessary
Surface of entire system

Surt:ace of fim cell
Water depth
1\I.aXUriu.m area: single cell
Detention time
Hydraulic loading
Basin shape
Water temperature
Mosquito control
Influent flow diffuser
Effluent collection manifold
Hanrest schedule
Multiple basins
Essential
Essential
Mature plants, every few weeks

Essential, same as Table 5.8
Suiface area of first cells =
1~~~b;'~d
= 1.82 ha .
3. Use b."\o primary cells, e?ch 0.91 ha in area; v.ith.L:W = 3:1, the dimeo.Sons
at the water surface will be
(L)
2
A=
. -w = (L) -3 =3- = (0-91 ha)(lO,OOOm /ba)
= 16;)m
..
and
165
W = --. =55m
3
4. Divide the remaining required area into two sets of two basi:ns each to pro-;
duce a total s_vstem '\"i.ith two parallel sets with three basins eacb..
T-otal area final cells = 3:.65 ha- 1.82 ha = L83 ha
Individual cells = l.Sa ha

. 4
0.46 ha
L 2 = <3)(0_46 ha)(lO.OOO :m2/ha) .
L =117m and W=
117m
=.39m
3
5. _-\!low 0.5 m for sludge storage and assume .a 1-m ~effect:b:e~ water depth for
. tr-eatment; tatal pond depth = L5 m. Use .3:i side s1opes. and tiSe Eq. 4.14 to
determine the-treatment '\:oiome.
v
= [IL x W1 + (L - 2sd)~- 2sdr + 4CL -
sd)(W- sdH ~
P~"Jeells:
'V = {(165il55) + (165- 2
X 3 X 1)(55 - 2 X 3 X 1J
+ 41166 - 2 X 1)(.55- 2 X 1)]..!_
.. . i .
147
Final cells:
\T = [(117)(39) + (117 - 2
ll(39- 2
+ 4117- 2
1)
.
X
1)(39 - 2
lJ}!
= 4208mi
6. Determine the hydraulic detention time~ the "effective"' treabnent zone.
8570m3
_
(760 m 3/d)/2 = 22.~ d
Primary cells:
Final eells:
= (760 m 3/d)/2 = 22.1 dajrs each
(2)(4208 m 3 )
Total detElltion time =
?9
5 + 22.1 = 44:..6 d
>40d
OK
7 :-c!leck hydraulic Ioadfug.

-760 ms/d = 208 3fb . d
3.65ha
m a
OK
8. Estimate nitrogen removal with Eq. 5.2 to be sure that sufficient nitrogen is
present to sustain. growth in. the fii1al cells and to determine h.arvest frequency. Rearrange Eq. 5.2:
(t _-7fl~)L72.
= 760
N0
. Ne =
. =
L)..
Na[I -
( z~rl.72]
25[1- (~;~ r~72J
This predicts a negative nitrogen concentration in. the effiue.nt. which is

not poss1'ble. The baSic equation predicts essentiallycompiete removai at a
hydrimlic loading of760' mS/ha d. Sint.'e tbe loading for this example is: only
208 m 3lha: : d, it is reasonable to expect 5 mg/L. of nitrogen in the final effiuerrt or less. 'Since the nitrogen will not be at optimum growth levels. in; this
system, an annual harve..~ is suggested. An influent flow diffuser in: each of
the primary cells is r-ecemmended to di.stri:bute the untreated influent.
&arnple-.5.2 Design a~ system to prodnce adva~ced secondary effiuent
on a sitewith limited a:vai:Iable area De5i.gn flow = 760 m 3/d; wastewater characteristics
are BOD_ = 240. mg/L, SS = 250 mgiL, TN = 25 mg/L, TP = 15 mg/L;
.
and winter water tem..peratn:res >20C (68FL Effluent requi f'ements: BOD5 =
<10 mg/L. SS = <10' mg/L,. TN<.l.O mg!L. As-c::nm~ that 80 percent plant coverage
is mamtamed on the basins and routine mo.ni:hly harvests are included.
~
148
Chapter Five
solution
1. Since the site area is limited, space is not available for preliminary treat-
ment in a pond unit. Use Imhoff tanks for primary treatment and supplemental diffi.LSed aeration in the hyacinth ponds to minimize area requirements. The Imhoff tank has the added advantage for this relatively small
flow in that separ~t.e sludge digestion is not required.
2. Design the:Imhoff tank.
Typical criteria:
Sedimentation detention time = 2 h
Sc.rfaceloading = 24 m3f-m?- d
Overflow weir loading
= 600 m 3/(lin m/d)
Surface area for scum= 209C of total surface

Sludge dige:.-tion volume = 0.1 m 3/capita for the population served,
or about 3~% of total tank volume .
. _
__
l\:1inimum sedllnentatlon area =
760m3/d
,..
., 2 d = 31. 1 m 2
94
- m~m
1
):finLmum total surface aiea = sedimentation+ scum

= t L20JC3L7 m 2 )
=.38m2
A "typical r.n nk might be 8 m long and 5 m wide. In this case the central
sedim-entation chamber-might be 4 m wide with open channels on each
side. about 0.5 m wide, for scum accumulation and gas venting. The slottet:L.
sloping bottom <bottom walls sloped at 5:4) would have to be about 3 m
deep t:.o provide the necessary 2-h detention time. The total depth tlf the
hopper bottomed tank might be 6-7 m including an allowance for freeboard
.and the slndge digel:!-tion volume.
A properly maintained Imhoff tank can achieve about 47 percent BOD
remo,.-al 2-l"ld up to 60 percent SS removal. 2 Assuming no nitrogen or phosphorus losses. the primary effluent for this e.xample would be
BOD5 = <240 .mg~Llf0.53) = 127 mg!L
SS = (250mg/L)fOAO) = lOO'mg/L
TN= 25mg!L
TP= 15mg/L
3. The- BOD l oading on the hyacinth basins would be
4.. Determine the ba.~ .surface areas. From Tabie 5-S. the -ailowahle organic
loading on the entire area would be 1.00 kg/ha d and up to 300 kg/ha d on
th.e .fu-51: cell.
.
96.5kg/d
.....
Total Sl:!:i:fu.ce area_reqwred =
kglha. . d = 0.91 ha
100

Surfac~ area for primary cells
149
96.5 kg/d
= 300 kg/ha . d
==
0.32 ha
5. Use two primary cells in parallel, each 0.16 ha in area; use rectangular
shape \'l.rith L:W = :1:1; then L = 69 m, W =23m.
6. Divide the remaining area into two sets of two cells each to produce t\vo
parallel sets \\:ith a total of three basins each.
0.97 ha - 0.32 ha
4
\Vith L :W = 3:1. L
= 0.16 ha each
= 69 m and W = 23m.
7. Allow 0.5 m for sludge storage and assume 0.6 m for "effective" water depth
for treatment in basins with 3:1 side slopes. Detennine treatment volumes
(see equation in Example 5:1).
All basins are the same siz.e , V = 855 m 3

855m3
Detentian time single basin = (
m /d)/ = 2.25 d
760 3 2
Total detention time = (2.25)(3) = 6.75 d>6 d
OK
8. Check hydraulic loading= 760 m 3/d/0.97 ha = 783 m 3/ba - d, which is less
thanSOO;OK
9_ Determine nitrogen remo'\"al (see Example 5.1 for basic .equation).
.
N e =N0 1 -. 760)11!.72]
[
( L
= 25(1 - {0 :97)VL72]
= 0.5 mg/L, <10 mg/L
OK
10:.. Design a partial-mix diffused aeration system for t:he first two hyacinth
basins in each set. Assmne that the reqi:llred oxygen is double the organic.
loarling, the air eontains about 0.28 kg/ma oxygen. and the aeration efficiency in the shallow b8..sins is about S percent (llSUally 16 percent or more at
normal lagoon depths!.
TotaJ .air required =

=
<2>ffi9"D, mg/L)CQ, UdXlD--13 mg/kg}

(E)(0.2S kg/m 3 )(86,400 s/d)
(2)U27 mg!L)(760 X 103. !ld){l0- 6)
(0.{)8)(0.28)(86,4{)(})
Manufacturers' li:ter:ature should be used to select the specific aeration

de'rices. In this case. about twc-thirds of the aeration capacity is split
'between each ofrlle primary hyacinth cells and ~ reqtaining one-third is
divided equally for the second cells in .each set. Typical su.bmerged aeration tubing can supp~y about 2.5 X 10- 3 m 3/min of air per meter of tubing
f0..:027 ft3/(min/lin ft)j. Determine the length and location ofthe aeration
t-..tbing.
150
Chapter Five
(0.1 m:;/sJ(60 s/min)

= 2400 m
<2.5 x 10- 3 m 3/minJ
Total length ::
.(2400)(0.667)
In primary basins=
Number of aeration lines
= 800 m each
tubing length
800 m
=
basin width .
23 m
= 35 each
Space these aeration lines on 2-m centers in the primary basins_

In second basins =
Number of lines =
(2400)(,0.333}
= 400 m each
400
= 17 in each basin
23
Space these at 4 m center to center for the full length of the basin.
lL An inlet diffuser system or sprinklerS is essential for the primary. cetls to
ensure uniform distribution of influent.. The use of Gambusia.fish or other
biological or chemical agents is necessary for mosquito control Harvest of
plants should be conducted about every 3-4 weeks with not more than 2.0
percent :Of the plant cover removed at any onetime.
12. The treatment system designed in this example will provide better performance than the system developed in Example 5.1 on less than one-third of
the land area. The major reasons are the use ofthe Imh.offtank for primary treatment and aeration in the first two basins in each set. In locations
wher~ land is limited or very expensi\:e, this approach to treatment might
still b.e cost-effective. even when just secondary level treatment is
required.
The small individual basins suggested in

Tables 5.7-5.9 are recommended to facilitate harvesting of the
hyacinth plants at small to moderate-sized systems. The long~ narrow configuration suggested is for hydraulic control and ease o-f
harvesting. The width of the basin will depend :on the capabilities of
the harvesting equipment_ If the system is drain-ed for plant
removal .on an annuai basis an access nrmp is needed in each
basin; the basm width is not especia:lly .c riticaL since a fro.nt-end
loader or .similar equipment can be used for basin cleaning. Tne
higher-rate systems '\\lith more frequent harvests requin~ access:for
floating devices, or they must have roads on the dikes for equipment access. A typical dragline bucket might have a 9-m (30-ft)
range, so a basin might he_: Hi-IS m (5~0 ft) wide and designed
for harvesting from both sides.
The use of-multiple influent points is recommended for.secondary
systems and is essential for the higher-rate, high-performance systems. This is to- en.s:nre proper wa...~ewater -distribution and effective
Structural elements.
. .. :
I~
151
use of the entire treatment volume and to maintain aerobic conditions

throughout the basin. Sprinklers can also be used for influent distribution and have the added advantage of providing some frost prote-ction during cold weather periods. Experience with long, rectangular
hyacinth cells with a single inlet has demonstrated that most of the
solids and BOD removal occur nea r the headworks. This can create
undesirable anaerobic conditions in this area, which can result in
odor -problems and ineffective mosquito control as well _as being an
ineffective use of the total treatment volume. When the basins are
square or re~gular, the influent works should be designed to apply .
wastewater uniformly over the initial one-third to two-thirds of the
surface area in the first hyacinth-covered basin in eac-h set. Other
inlet(outlet configurations, suggested .by Tchobanogl<;m s29 to ensure
better utilization of the basin area, are shown in Flg. 5.3.
An effinent manifold spanning the entire basin width the typical
rectangular cells is also recommended to avoid "dead" spots and the
resulting ineffective treatment near the on:tlet.. These manifolds are
suggested for interbasin transfer and for the final effluent discharge_
An alternative, as shown in Fig. 5:4!" is to narrow the channel width
as the outlet point is approached_ This se:rves to increase the flow
velocity toward the. outlet and thereby eliminates the ~dead"" spots.
These manifolds or. single discharge points
sh{}nld be a t the water
.
Figure 5.3 Suggested flow distribution in hyacinth

basins~
., ,
-:
152
Chapter Five
Effluent manifold or
water surfc.ice ~
Long,
I
narrow j
channels,
pion view
Flow--+
-<;,.
Fiow --+
l
Rea..:ce 110idth of channel
to ir.creose flow velocity
Effluent monifuld
Wa~r
surfm::E
ct -uter surfuce
---Y------------.r
_ --------------------------~
Wi:ler
rectongulc:'
basins
c-c.ss section
Figure 5.4 Outlet feat:..:r.es for hyadnth basin!:.
surface in all of the basins to ensure that all water is brought up into
contact ~'1.-:ith the hyacinth roots prior ~o diseharge. In relatively \.vide
basins~ ehangi..ng the w idth near the outlet will not be effective. The
approach in tlris e~ as sho~vn in Fig. 5A., is to slope the basin bottom npward :in the dEcharge zone to c-reate a shallow depth to ensure
contact with the plants. Screening or a haffle is necessary ahead of
the manifold or outlet to prevent loss -o f hyacinth plants with th~
effluent.
Long~ narrow cha.onels can be ron....c:tructed with concrete or other
structural side walls .a nd a. lined bottom. The constru.c tion -o f wider
basins is e5sentially the same as for the pond systems described in
Chap. 4. Exterior dikes should be aoout 3 m (10ft) wide at the top to
pe..rmit vehi~e movement; side slopes should be 3:1 .and the dike cqnstructed to provide about 0.5 m ( L6 ft) o.f freeboard .abov:e the d~sign
water surface.
.
State
local regulations Will control the . degree of permeability
allowed in tl1e basin bottom. It is likely that lining or som.e other
impermeable barrier will b~ r-equir-ed .i n most eases if permeable soils
are dominant ou the site (se.e See. 4.12 f-crr further d iscussionL The
or
153
bottom of the basin s hould be smooth and c_o nstructed at a slight

grade (0.5 percent) toward the outlet to facilitate drai-nage .
. Construction of a sump in the outlet area is aJso suggested for the
same purpose.
The optimum water depth in a hyacinth basin depends on the
intended function of the vegetation and on the desired effluent quality. The depth is not critical if the major purpose of the hyacinth
pl~t is surface shading to prevent algae growth. A relatively shallow depth is desirable when the plants are expected to provide signif~
icant nutrient removaL The optimum water depth in a carefully
managed high-rate system might range from 0.3 m (1 ft) in the first
basin to 0.45 m (1.5 ft) in the final basins. A greater depth is used in
the final cell because the hyacinth roots \~rill be longer when fewer
nutrients are present in the water. The discharge zone in these final
basins might then be reduced to the .0 .15 m (~.5 ft) shown in F:tg_ 5.4
to ensure full contact v.rith the plants prior to final dischaTge. A
design using these shallow depths (0.3-0.5 m l should be able to
reduce the ma.'Cimum design detention times given iB Tables 5.8 and
5.9_ A pilot-scale test is suggested for large-scale projects to optimize
these design parameters.
Operation and maintenance. The major operational concerns a..-re control of mosquitoes and odors, vegetatio-n managemei.It, s i.udge
removal, plant harvest, and the disposal or utilization of the harvested materials an.d slndge. Other requirements. include all af the routine activities common to the operation and maintenance 6-f vond systems, which .are the same for hyacinth systems and the lagoons
describ~d in Chap. 4.
Evapotranspiration effects. Although some r.esea:rchers>J have found
evapotranspiration (ET) rates much higher fur wa1:e:r hyacinths than
for other plants., it is more likely that the rates .are equivalent to
open-water evaporation rates_:n Evapo~piration is cantroll~ by
the solar energy input, air: tempern.ture, .humidity, and wind speed_
Mosquito control. Mosquito. control nsing chemical sprays is. not prac-
. tical, because the mosquito larvae in hyac=tnth ponds are at the water
surface, beneath the leaf -canopy. Several pilot syst.ems in California
were closed becanse of mosquito problems. An effective control
method is to stock: each basin with Gf:iliibrzsid or similar small surface-feeding fish th~t prey on the mosquito larv.ae. These fish. will not
tolerate anaerobic conditions and will not enter water zones with low
oxygen levels. Avoiding such anoxi.c conditions near the .basin inlets is.
one of the reasons for installing influent diffusers. These small tropi-
154
Cha~ter ~ve
cal fish will not to_lerate low water temperatures either. If a seasonal
. hy~eint}:l operation is planned, it will be necessary to restock the
basins. with both plants and fish at the start of the wann weather
perio-d_ A typical initial stocking rate for the Gambusia ~sh is about
.70()0 ~o 12,500/ha (2800 to 5000/ac) of surface area. Other species
u~ for mosquito control include goldfish (Carassius auratus), frogs
(Hyla. sp.), and grass shrimp. (Palemonetes kadiakensis). If cllgae control is necessary, blue tilapia (Tilapia aureaus/,. sailfin mollies
<Poccilia. latipinria), and Jap~ese koi (Cyprinus sp.) can be used. The
hyacinth basins in the system constructed at Austin, Texas., incorporate small fenced-off zones to maintain an open water surface and
sufficient aeration from natural sources to support the Gambusia
fish. 11 _T he ba.Sins should be stocked with fish a few weeks prior to
stocking with hyacinth plants.
Odor control Since the floating mat of plants suppresses algae and
prevents ~vind-induced surface reaeration, the only source of oxygen
is from..the photosynthetic respiration of the hyacinth plants. In
unaerated ba...~ this natn:rnl soirrce of oxygen will not be enongh to
sustain general aerobic conditions with moderate to high BOD Ioad~crs- If the ~-tewater contains more than 30 mg/L of sulfates, the
anaerobic
co~ditio.ns
will probably result in objectionable hydrogen
snlfi.de odors. This is another reason for the. broad distribution of the
influent in at Iea;st the first basin in a hyacinth system. Supplemental
aer~tion fa-!-" odor control may still. be ne~essary in these primary
basins at night and dming <Other phytosynthetically inactive periods.
VegetatiQD management.
The degree of vegetation management

required depends on the water-qnality goals of the "p roject and the
cb.oice between harvesti:D.g plants or frequent sludge removaL
Freqnen;t plant harvest may be necessary to Slli:,-tain a significant
level :o-f phosphorus remo-v al .but is not necessary for nitrogen
removal. Studies in Florida have shown nitrogen removal rates to be
two to thr-ee times higner in unharvested basins as compared to freque:rrtly harveste-d unes.
When the plant.-density on .t he water surface exceeds .about 25
kg/m2 {5. Ib/~_} (wet weight), slongbjng {)froot material commences.
This accmnnlati~n .of plant detritus on the baSin bottom will, after a
few man~ !exceed the mass of settled wasfewater solids. One
ap~ recommended by the state of Texas~ uses an annual draining and cleaning -ofeach basin instead of regular plant harvest. 6 All of
the. plants as well as the benthic sludge are removed and the b <t' in is
then re:filled and restocked with new plants. Systems in Florida and
elsewhere have adopted more frequent plant harvesting and less frequent basin cleaning_
,.: ... .... .

155
Frequent .harvests are considered necessary to keep the plants at

the optimum growth stage to ensure optimum phosphorus removal.
. In these cases, the plant density is maintained bet\veen 10 and 25
kg/m2 (2 and 5 lb/ft2 ) (wet weight). One technique for monitoring
plant density is to ~se mesh-bottomed floating baskets about 1 m on a
side. The baskets are periodically lifted out of the basin and weighed
to determine the wet weight density of the plant cover. System
designs based on Wolverton's research3334 recommend wet-weight
plant densities from 12 to 22 kg/m2 (2.5 to 4.6 lb/ft2 ) for optimum
treatment with loosely packed plants with 80-100 percent surface
coyerage. An initial plant stocking rate of L8 kg/m 2 (0.37 lh/ft2 ) has
been used in Florida.1
Nutrient.and micronutrient deficiencies have also been observed in
the final .basins of hyacinth systems. Plant" chlorosis (leaf yellowing)
due to ir{)n deficiency has oCClliTed .i n several syStems in Florida. The
problem was corrected \vith the addition of ferrous sulfate at a rate
sufficient to maintain the iron concentration in the water at about 0.3
mg/L. .
Insect infestati~ns can cause major damage to the plants. The
c~terpillar sf~cre of the moth Sameodes albiguttalis and the weevils
Neochetina eichhomiea and N. bruchi attack the plant stolon and the
' leaves,. :respectively. The weevils seem to be more active when the
to
. plants are under density stress~ ~nd the moths are more likely be a
p~oblem with hot, dzy .w eather conditions. The life cycle for the weevils is abont 60 days,. with peaks in the spring and falL Spot harvests
may be an effective control in the early stages, and the insecticide
Sevin has.h een used for major infestations. 16
. . The hy.acin.th.plant d nes not tolerate colfL and periods of continued
- free~ wea~er can destroy this .important component in the treatment process_ 'The L6-ha <.4-~.l hyacinth system in. Austin,. Tex~ is
entirely covered with a greenhouse structure to permit y.ear-ronnd
operation.. Other plant types .are also being inv-estigated for combined
use with. hy..acinths... One possibility is the pennywort (Hydrocotyle
umbelfat,a )~ w:bich is more ~old tolm-ant than the hyacinth and also
has. a nigher oxygen transfer rate to the root zo-na. Combined
.hyacinth-penny wurt systems in Florida p~rfrunt better and more reli. ably than ~onocultnre units with e ither of the plants.5
Sludge remow.t The benthic sludg-e consisting of wastewater.solids
and plant detritus mnst .ev.en:tua11y be removed from all hyacinth system~
An .a nnual cleaning ofthe: primary cells in very shallow highrat~ :systems. may be needed even with frequent harvests. The seco~ and tertiary cells in these systems may need cleanjng only
every 2-3 years. The deeper hyacinth systems with regnJar harvest,
which axe designed for secondary treatment only~ should be cleaned
.
156
Chapter Five
on a 5-year cycle. Systems with no harvest, or those operated on a

seasonal basis, should be cleaned on an annual basis. The Cleaning
method will .depend on the basin configuration and its construction
materials. Large basins constructed of compacted earth, concrete,
asphalt, or protecte~ membrane liners could use conventional frontend loaders to remove sludge from the drained basins. Small basins
could use float-supported suction pumps or dredges. Since the sludge
will contain wastewater solids, its subsequent treatment and disposal
must comply with local regulatory practices.
The harvest frequency may range from a few

weeks to a month or more depending on the le-y-el of nutrient removal
required. If a complete harvest is needed for insect control, frost damage, or other reasons, restocking at a density of about 7 kg/m2 (1.5
Ib/ft2 ) ('wet weight) will promote optimum growth and rapid coverage .
of the basin.16
A nmnber of methods have been tried for harvest of the hyacinth
plants~ including aquatic plant harvesters, front-end loaders,
draglin-es or backhoes equipped mth clamshell buckets -or weed buckets~ conveyors, conveyor-chopper systems~ chopper pum.ps, rakes, and
boats. The equipment selected shonld be able to easily reach any part
cf th e hyacinth basins to allo\v selective harvests of matur.e plants.
Wolverton and McDonald~ compared conveyor-choppers, a conveyor
with a pusher boat~ and a dragline equipped with a modified
clamshell "bucket. The conveyor-pusher boat and the dragline had
about the same production rates: 418 m 2/h (4500 ft2/h) with a plant
density of about 22 kg (wet wt)/m2. The dragline was recommended
for i:+-.s .greater mobility and ~ability. Modified truck or tractormounted backhoe devices have also been used su.Ccessfully. Instead of
the normal bucket attachment, basketfike tines are placed at the end
oftheartiealating arm. These :devices are suitable for small to moderate-sized systemS With channel-type -designs. The limiting factor for
the -ecoll:flmics. of the .o peration is the .cost of transport from the basin
to the dispesaJintili.zation site-_ A typical 12-ma- (16-y{}B) .d ump trnck
can hold about 5-7 ~ (&-8 tons) ofwet hyacinth plants.
Larger-scale SyStems designed for both wastewater treatment and
for biogas :production require in-basin harvesting techni<Jll:eS and a
more efficient transport system th211 the trucks used at smalleroper:ation5_ Recent developments in Fiorida utilize winch-operated floats
or a floating pusher vehicle move tbe plants to the onshore chopper
and progressive cavity pump:, which can then deliver the chopped
plants as a slufl:Y. (abont 4 percent) of solids directly to the biogas
digestor_ This ,equipment can harvest 9 mt (10' tons) of plants per
hour at an approximate cost of$2.00/mt ($2.30/ton).
Harvest procedures.
to
157
The hyacinth system in Coral Springs, FIOl;da~:ll:l reports the best

effluent" water-quality performance with "'loosely packed" hyacinths
on the water sut~face. A 4-week harvest schedule is used, and not
more than 15-20 percent of the plants are taken at one time. A tn.Ickmounted dragline wi.!.h a weed bucket is used, with a dump truck for
transport of the harvested material. A production rate of 700 m 2
{7300 ft 2 ) per hour was reported with this equipment. The harvest
was reported in volumetric units and was 2. 7 m 3 per 100 m 2 of basin
surface (3_5 yd3/1000 ft2 }. If a plant surface density of 22 kg!m2 (4.6
Ib/ft2 ) is assumed, the wet unit weight of the harvested plants would
have been about 815 kg/m3 (51lb/ft3}.
Hyacinth d""lSposal or utifrzation. Since the hyacinth plants are about 95
percent water, an intermediate drying step is usually employed prior

to disposal or n:tilization of the harvested material at the smaller systems. Preliminary grinding, chopping, and pressing have been tried
to accelerate the drying process. Covered solar drying racks have also
been used., but the most emnmon approach is to use a small open area
adjacent to the basins. for spreading and air drying of the whole bar~ested p1a.nts to the d~-ir'cll moistare content. The solar drying racks
used in Florida have a .5-d.ay dr:Ying cycle to reach a moisture content
of 2{J percent,.21 while an open bed might require 2-3 weeks to reach
the same level in the same climate.
The dried plants can be di.b-posed of in a landfill, or elsewhere, as

permitted by local regulatory .authorities. If the wastewater has very
high metal concentrations~ it may be advisable to check the metal
content of the dried plant to ensure that the levels do not exceed permit allowa:n:c:es for disposal/utilization (see Chap_ 8 for further discussion of these Ii:mits).
The simplest approach fur beneficial reuse of the harvested materials is to compost the semidry hyacinths and then .use that material as
a soil conditioner/fertilizer. Ana:erobie digestion of the plants and
sludge for methane prodnction and processing of the plants for animal .teed hav.e been shown to be teebniea1ly fea....c:ibie but marginaUy
cost-effective. Recent demonstrations in Florida nsing a 2:1 mixture
ofhyacinths and sindg ma vertical flow nonmixed anaerobic reactor
have produced high-q.uality methane in a east-effective J?rocess}8 The
major factor is the nmr-el reactor de~ which does not require the
mig i og energy used in eGnventional anaerobic iligestors. There may
not be sufficient plant production to sustain routine operation of
these more complex processes at wastewater flows less th.aD 3800
m 3/d (1 million gal/d). The cemposting option is the best-suited option
for smaller systems_
158
Cllrepter Five
Duckweed
Duck.w.eed, in the genera Lemna sp., Spirodela sp., and Wolffia sp.,
haye. all been tested for pollutant remo"Val, or ~ed in wastewater
treatment systems. These are all small, green~ freshwater plants with
a Ieaflike frond a few millimeters in width and a short root, u~ually
less than a centimeter in length. The morphology of tb~ plant is
shown in Fig. 5.5.
.
.
These duckweeds are the smallest and the simplest of the flowering
plants and have one of the fastest reproduction rates. A SJD.3J.l cell in
the frond divides and produces a new frond; each frond is capabl~ of
prodndng at least 10 to 20 mo:fe ~uring its life cyde.13 Lemna sp.
grown m wastewater effiuent {at 27C) doubles in frond numbers,. and
therefoEe area covered, ev~cy 4 days. It believed tb.at duckweed can
grow at least twice as fast as other vascular piants. The plant is
essentially all metabolically active cells, with very little structural
fiber.
DuckWeed, like hyacmth, contains about 95 percent water; the composition ofthe plant tissue is given in Tabie 5.10. _.!\. am:qmrison of the
values in 'Tables 5.10 and 5..2 indicates that duckweed.& ntains at
least twice as much protei~ fat, nitrogen, and phosphGnzs as
byacinth.. Several nutritional studies-have confirmed the value of
dnclnyeed as a food source for a variety of birds andanima~IZ
Duckweeds are more cold tolerant than hyacinths arid are found
through~ut the world. 'A minimum temperature of 7C (45F) has .
been suggested as the practical limit for g rowth of duckWeeds.IT As
shown in Fig~ 5.6,. the range for a year-~und duckweed treatment.
system is slightly greater than shown in Fig. 2.1 for hyacinths, but
seasonal duckweed systems operanng 6 months per year .should be
possible for most of the United States. In. 1992 there were. at least 15
:Operational wastewater treatment facilities deffiooned specifically as
duckweed systems. Mos~ are-designed~ BOD and TSS remnvaL One
is
,.
WatEr surfuc:e
~--~--
FigtJre:5.5
Morphoiogy <Jf-duck:weed plants.
- - -- -------.. -
. J (' .
TABLE5.10
159
Composition of Duckweeds Grown in Wastewater14
Percent of dry
~eight
Ran~e
Average
Crude protein
Fat
32.7-44.7
Fiber
Ash
7.3-13.5
12.0-20.3
38.7
4.9
9.4
15.0
35.0
5.91
1.37
Constituent
3.~:7
Carbohydrate
Rjeldahl nitrogen <as Nl
PhoSphorus (asP)
4.59-7.15
0.80-LS
syStem., in Devils Lake, NorthDakota, is designed as a seasonal oper-
atimi. for pJ:u~sphonis remoVal via a frequent and 1arge-sc3Ie harvesting operation.. Several. systems also contain supplemental aeration.
and attached growth media intended for nitrification of ammonia.
..
Performance expectations. Duckweed systems are capable of high lev-
els flf BOD and TSS removaL Significant removal of nutrients via
.h ioaccmnnl.ation in the plants. and then harvest requires large land
are~ and frequent harvesting operations and disposal of large quantities of the harvested material. In some cases the duckweed pond
may be combin~d ~vj th alum additions for phosphorus removal and
meehanical aeration for nitrification of ammonia. As compared to
hyacinths,. the ducbveed plant plays a less direct r~le in treatment
be~ of its small size. The lack of an extensive root .zone means
vecy: little substrate for attaehed microbial growth.
Growing plants form a single layer that covers the water surface
~mpie~~y; then some species grow on.top of others_ The-ir small size
makes the plants susceptible to the wind; initially this may result in
part of the h~ being nncovere<L but the long-term effect is a thick
mat .of Plants covering the entire ba.sin. This mat is still susceptible to
the win<L S{) floating booms or cells are usually used to hold the
plants in place. The fo~tion of this mat is probably the most signific~t. contnoution of the duekweed plant to wastewater treatment.
. T~ sm::face cover prevents algae growth,. stabilizes pH, and
ce nbances sedimentation, bnt is also likely to result in anaerobic conditinns due to the relatively low phytosynthetic oxygen prednction
frGm the.smaH plants. The plant can flourish under anoxic conditions,
btrt the rate -of bielogical activity in the water will proceed .a:t lesser
rates than in an aerobic environment.
The densitv of the plants at the water .surface depends on temperature,. availa.biiity of nriens, and frequency of harvest. The typical
density
a wastewater pond might range from 1.2 kg/m2 to 3_6
kg/m2 wet weight (0_25 to 0. 75 lb/ft2 ). The optimum growth rate is
on
...
m
; ~lilt
9.. '":'tt
Araatf where growth Is likely during all twel~

months of th~ year
4\
Areas where growth Is likely nine

months out of the year
~ AreaQ where grOWth I& likely six months
~ out of the year
~Qt.\lbn CJf duekwllild wt~wlltr

llbalrMnl f4\0 ih\l\1i\
l=lguro G.a PotonUnl gruwth diatr\but.lon
p_n~tot'l'\ f1.n' ducl~weed_.
Aquatio Treatment Systems
161
about 0.49 kg/m~ d (0.1 lb/ft 2 d1. Assuming a harvest every fourth
day to maintain the standing density, the dry weight of the harvest~
ed material would be .22 mtJha yr (20,000 lb/ac yr dry weightL At 5
p ercent n"itrogeti content, such a harvest would acc<?unt for 880
kg/ha yr (781;} lb/ac yr) of nitrogen. At 1 percent phosphorus content
the ha.nested material would account for. about 220 kg/h~. )'" ( 196
lb/ac yr;.
Removal of BOD. The major factors responsible for BOD removal in a
duckweed system are the same as described in Chap. 4 for facultative

stabilization ponds. The duckweed plants create the env-i..-ronment for
treatment but contribute very little directly to the removal of BOD.
Wolverton and McDo"n ald35 have reported on the performance of a
duckweed-covered basin (following an aerated cell> near Biloxi,
Mississippi. The organicloading on this 22-day-detEmtion-time basin ~
was about 24 k~a d (21 Ib/ac d), which is near the low end of the ..
range for conventional facultative ponds. The final efilnent from thi.:::
basin co-ntai.n ed about 15 mg/L of BOD and was anaerobic. T.he
Lemna Con)oration, which offers proprietary floating de1.:ices. fur containnlent o f the plants and for harvesting, s11oagests a po-nd sizing. .o f
12.8 m 2/m3 d (12 ae/mgd) to achieve a final BOD of 20 mg/L (with a
hydraulic residence time, or HRT, of about 20 d), and a pond.sizing of
. 21 m 2/m3 d (20 ac/mgd) (HRT 32 d) for a final BOD of 5 mg!L. In botb
cases the recommended pond depth is 1.5 m (.5 ft)_
Removal of suspended solids.
The removal of suspended solids in

duckweed basins is affected by the same factors as described above
far removal of BOD.- Removal of slL..c:tpended soli~ froD:! a duckweed~overed basin should be more effective compared to a C Onventional
stabilizatio-n pond dne to the lack of algae and the improved quiescent conditions under the surface mat. The final SS concentration
from the Ce dar Grov.e system discussed in tbe previous section averaged 14mg/L.
Removal of t-titrogen. Plant uptake and then removal 'b y harvest is
believed to. be the major pathway for nitrogen removal in a duckweed
basi~ '\.vithout supplemental aeration or a!tE?rnative treatments. As
cited previously, an annual ha.rVest .o-f 22 m:t/ha would remove about
880 kgi'ba of nitrogen. This would represent about 25 perren:t
the
wastewater nitrogen entering the system. In cold climates,. wher-e the
plants are dormant in the winter7 t~e amonnt rem.oved via ha:rves:ting
would be less than this.

Pond systems as descn'bed in Chap. 4 are ~-u.ally very effective for
removal of ammom a nitr:-o,gen via volatilization, which in. torn
of
162
Cha~ter Five
depends on the presence of algae and the related carbonate/pH relationship_s. When a pond is covered with duckweed, algae growth is
suppressed; the previous ammonia removal. pathway then no longer
exists and it is necessary to provide some form of supplemental .treatment to achieve low levels of effiuent ammonia nitrogen.
Frequent routine harvests are -necessary to sustain nitrogen removal
via plant uptake. Since the duckwee(i plant has essentially no root
zone, the nitrification-denitrification reactions described for hyacinths
canriot occur in these systems_ The Lemna Corporation has utilized
aerated~ submerged media, ni_
t ri:fication reactors with coarse bubble
. aeration in the latter stage of the pond, to nitrify the wastewater
ammonia. Essentially,. these are a suJ:>merged attacl:J.ed growth reactor
with plastic m~dia and aeration to provide the necessary aerobic environment. Performance data from these systems are limited and inconsistent. The conceptseems to be valid in that it should be possible to
calculate the specific snrface area required for nitrification from the
attached gro\\-1:h. literature and to calculate the oxygen required from
the mtt1fication literature. A very conservative safety factor is strongly
recommended in both ca....c:es to ensure successful performance~ since.the
device is continuously submerged and the rate of oxygen transfer to the
organisms.growing on the media surface is not well defined.
Assuming that nitrification can be achieved with the device
describe<t above or some other concept, the actual removal of nitrogen
then re~es a denitrification step. Although the general environment in the liqoid beneath the floating dt:rclaveed mat is anaerobic,
the availability of sufficient carbon to support denitrification is
unlikely in the vicinit;y of the nitrification .c omponents. This suggests
the use of recycle to thehead of the pond to ()btain the necessary carbon or utilization of a supplemental carbon source or a separat-e denitrification reactor. In. theacy, it might be possible t o utilize harvested
dnkweed as a carbon sot:I'ree, bot this will also- reintrodw:e additional
.nitrogen.: .
Removahlf .p hosphorus.. As nuted previonsly= a 22 mtlha annual .h~
vest would accotint far about 220 kg!ha phosphorus removaL Tiris
would represent about 16 per:centremoval of wastewater pho.sphoill.S
entering a typical duckweed pond system.. If w~tewater phosphorns
cont;.entrations are low and removal reqnirements are minimaL then
harvesting as practiced at the D evils L~e, North Dakota,. system
may be suitable. However, if significant phnsph{)rus reiDDval is a project requirement, the nse of chemical precipitation with alum, ferric
chloride, or other chemicals in a separate treatment step may be more
eost-effee:tive.
163
Plant uptake of meta~s plays a lesser role in duck.weed systems than described previously for hyacinths. Major removal
mechanisms are chemical precipitation and ultimately incorporation
into the benthic sludges. The following metals concentrations were
measured in the duckweed plant tissue growing on the municipal
duckweed system in Ellaville, Georgia: zinc, 180 mglkg; copper, <26
mg/kg; lead~ <86 mg/kg; chromium, <52 mg/kg; cadmium, <17 mg/kg;
nickel, <86 mglkg; and silver, <17 mg/kg. These concentrations are
well below the "ceiling concentrations" which wo.u ld limit the land
application of sludges (see Chap. 8 ).
Removal of metals.
Design considerations. Duckw~ is more widely used than hyacinth
systems for wastewater"'treatment in the United States. This is a

rever~al of former practice which bas occurred since the late 1980s
and is due primarily to unsatisfactory experience with hyacinth systems and their inherent climate limitations, and to very active marketing by the proponents of duckweed systems. The experience to
date with full-scale duckweed.syst.ems ~nerally verifies their <:apability for .BOD and TSS rem:Ov.i4 but is inconsistent with respect tn
ammonia removaL This experience suggests that the major function
of the duckweed plants"" an lagoons of conventional depth. is to provide a surface cover on the pond, rather than contributing directly tO'
removal of these pollutants (except for the harvested fraction).
The .design. of a duc1..-weed pond system c:;m follow the conventional
design prpcednres for facultative ponds as presented.in Chap_ 4_
Effiuent from a duckweed-covered system s~ould exceed performance
expectations fur BOD and TSS but will :nsu.ally provide lower ammonia nitrogep removal as .c ompared to a emw.entional pond -system with
an open water surface. Floating baffles to prevent short-circuiting
and ensure plug flow condi:~ons are commonly used .on these ponds..
These bafiles may contribute as .much t o the- performance improve. ment as the presence of~ dnd..'-weed plants_ Theeffluent from sum
a system is likely to he anaerobic,. and posta.eration of some type may
be necess?I.Y- The dnckw:..:d pond at Cedar Lake nse5 turbulent flo:w
during a <0.9-m (3-ft} dro.P ro aerate the final effinent.~
Since the duckweed plan:ts do not play a major role in direct
reinoval of pollUtants, the. nse of inlet diffusers forinitial wastewater
distn[nrtion is no.t critical as .it is for hyacinth systems_ Nor is the
maintenim.ce of an aerobic zone for mos quito control a factor, since
mosqnite larvae will 'not be able t o .penetrate a fully developed duckweed mat and are therefore not .a problem. An effiuent manifold is
desirable- to ensure utilization of the entire basin width for treatment.
A scn~en or other baffling s.ystem is essential at the outlet of the basin
164
Chapter Five
to prevent Joss of the small floating plants with the effluent. The
basin configuration must ensure plug flow conditions, and the use of
floating baffies is a11 effective approach'~
Pond systems in cold.e r clim.ates can be designed for the seasonal
use of duckweed to significantly improve performance during the normal algal growth sea.Son.. The pond cells can be initially seeded with
duckweed soon after all ice has melted, and their rapid growth should
ensure high-quality effiuent for the balance of the summer. Most of
the mat of floating plants on these systems should be harvested prior
to the onset of freezing weather to avoid an increase in effinent BOD
from the decom!)(lsing plants. It is not necessary to reseed the pond
every spring. Duckweed plants f~rm a ~winter bud"' at the onset of
. cold weather. Tiri.s "winter bud" ha.s a high specific gravity and sinks
to the bottom of the pond~ where it remains all winter. In the following spring they fl(tat and repopulate the pond with duckweed plants_
O~Jon
and maintenance.. The major operational . concems with

duckweed basins are essentially the same as for the facultative ponds
described in Chap_ 4. Maintenance- and harvest of the vegetation-, conn-OI ofodors and mosquitoes,. and sludge removal and disposal and
utilization require some special consideration.
Mosquito and odor control. As long as a thick surface mat {;3 maintained on the dud..-weed basins, mosquitoes -$ould not be a problem.
ft.iosqnito larvae can..'lot su...-rvive m the anaerobic water beneath the

surface cover and cannot penetrate a thick mat to obtain oxygen. To
ensure rapid plant regrowth ani!. maintenance of odor control, not
mDJ:e than 20 pereent of a basin should be harvested at any one time
during the growing sea...::vn..
Control o f .effluent -odor may be a concern,. because the water in the
b~-in is likely t o be anaerobic atall times_ Postaeration may he necessa_ry in some s ituations. Odors may also be a co-ncern o-n seasonal
---- -duc1..~eed systems in eolder climates~ These i>asinsm.ay experience a
:t.ft!"; g an:d. fall ~over tun{' due to temperatnre-indu:ced density differem:cs in the water.co.lnnm._ The resuspensian of benthic material during the "overturn""' period can result in objectionable odors_ The problem is not unique to. ducbveed basins. but can occur with any ty}>e of
unaer.ated pond in colder climates_ The typical solution is to locat~
these ponds at lea:::,--t 0_4 km ({}.25 mi) from any habitation. Seasonal
temperature differ-en-ces can also create -density crrrrents and sh(}rtcircuiting in the pond uniess adequate baffles are provided.
Vegetation .m anagement Frequent plant harvests are not usn:ally necessary since the major function of the duck--weed plant is t o pro-vide a
y
165
cover on the water surface. The harvesting frequency will depend on

plant density and on the nutrient-removal intentions. of the system. It
is necessary to have an effective surface mat of pla.n ts, but it is desirable to conduct a regular partial harvest to encourage semivigorous
growth and to remove dead and decaying plants. Harvesting a broad
area is not r~commended, since the remaining plants will he subjected to wind-induced drift, resulting in their lateral compaction and
further loss of surface cover. A reasonable value might be 20 percent
of the basin area or less at any one time. Harvesting procedures typically utilize some type of floating device such as booms or pusher
boats to bring the plants to the bank of the treatment cell .and then
their removal as previously described for hyaciliths. In small basin.S
this final removal can be a manual operation, because of the small
size of the individual plants. At operational systems constructed by
the Lemna Corporation, a patented floating plastic grid contains the
duckweed plants in square-shaped cel1s,. and a patented floating harvester tides over the top of the c ells to collect the plants.
At the system in Ellaville~ Georgi~ which has BOD, TSS,. and
ammonia limits, the plant density on the water surface is about1.2
kg/m 2 (0.25 lb/ft2 ). HarYesting removes a p ortion of the plants to.
achieve an average density {)f about 0.7 kginl2' (Q..15lb/.ft2 ). With barvesting every 4 days at an average of 0.5 kg!m2 (5000 kglha>~ the
annual harve~t represent~ 22 dry tonslha Yl..
Sfudge removal. Assuming that regular harvesting is praeticed7 the
benthic sludge in these duckweed basins shonld-be similar to sludges

in -conventional facultative treatment ponds, and the cleaning procedmes and frequency will also be similar. Chapter 4 and Refs. 19 and
30 provide guidance on sludge' -:removal from pond syst.ems.
Utitizationiclisposal of harvested .p lants. The harvested plants may be
used directly in the wet state as poultry or anima l feed if transportation requirements are minimal and if re.gnlato:ry agencies approve. lf
significant off-site transport is neeessary,. then on--si:b:! air _drying i5
recommended.. Drying times and procednr-es should be sinn1ar to
those described in the previous section on hyacinths. Composting {lf
the harvested duckweed plants is also feas1ole. Land application,
landfilling,. ~d composting ar-e the most commonly used disposal
methods at the operational duck-weed systems in the United States.
5.2
Submerged Plants
The use of suhmez:ged aquatic macrophytes for treatment of wastewater has been tested in the la:boratory and greenhouse and in a:
166
Chapter Five
pilot-scale.field study in Michigan. 18 Table 5.11 provides information

on some of the submerged freshwater plants that have been studied
or considered for use in wastewater treatment.
The desira~le water ~mperature f~r th~se plants ranges from 10 to
2'5oC (50 to 77F), With growing bein.g inhibit~d at temperatures
abo~e 35C (95F}. Turbidity of the water must not be high enough to '
prevent light transmission to the plants to support their photosynthetica~tjyity and an ae~bic environment is also necessary.
Performance expectations
The environmental requirements discussed previously suggest that

submerged 'p lants might be best suited for firiai nutrient removal
from previously treated and clarified wastewater; but there have been
small-seale greenhouse tests using primary. effluent in aerated contaiziers.9 The units with Elodea nuttalli did demon.strate significant
removal ofBOD'7 phosphorus, and nitrogen,. but the performance was
just slightly better than the control units that contained no plants~; ;; ,:::.
The other plant species that were tested (Myriophyllum heterophylb.m.t,. Gerataphylf.um demersum) were rapidly fuuled mth filamentous
algae, which m tum: reduced productivity and system performance.
Elodea was also a component in the pilot-scale pond systems tested in
Michigan~ 18 Very signjficant nitrogen and phosphorus removals
T~ 5.'t1
Submerged Aquafic Plants with Potential for Wastewater Trealment
Cammon~ scie:rrtific name
Pondweed, Potamogeton sp.:;P.

amplifolius is most studied
Distribution
Worldwide
type
Characteristics
Has botlifioating and
su"bmerged leaves.
reproduces from rhizomes growing in
sediments
Hi~ly brcmche} stem
Water milfoR Myri.ophJTlum

heterophyllum
Worldwide
'Vater~~ Elotfea sp..; E:

carmdensis is most stndied
type
Cooler pari.S ofNorth

and South .America
Irregular branching
stem, vegetative ..
reproduction
Coontail,. Ceral.ophyllum
Throughout U ..S.
Rootlessr branched
stem, pinnate lea""es,
vegetative reprodnction
Tropical and temper

ate U.S.
H i;.!hly branched from
up to 3 m lqn~ vegetative reproduction
demersum.
Fanwort~Cabbmba
carolinian.a
the base, whoded
leaves, vegetative
reproduction
.,
167
(nitrate from 15 mg/L to 0.01 mg/L a1;1d phosphorus from 4 mg/L to

0.03 mg/L) were achieved, but were . ascnbed to factors other than
plant uptake.
Design considerations
There are 'insufficient data for the development of process design criteria for pond systems based on submerged plants as a major treatment component. They may be suited for final effi~ent polishing after
wetlands or other pond units. Full-scale units would require a shallow depth.to ensure adequate light penetration and contact between .
the plants and the wastewater. Unfortunately, this same environment might
be an ideal setting for algae ~evelopment, requiring
another process st.ep for 'a lgal separation.
also
5.3 Aquatic Animals
The aquatic animals that have been considered for use in wastewater
~tment include Daplmia~ brine shrimp,. and a wide variety of fis~
cliins7 oysters, and lobsters in both monocultnre and polyculture systems.3..i.IS.25 Except for the predatozy fish and the lobsters? the primary function ofthe other species is the removal of suspended solids or
algae. AsSuming that the animals are routinely harvested, this will in
turn also improve nutrient removaL
Daphnia and brine shrimp
are
Daphnia
smaH crustaceans (l-.3 mm in length). They are filter
feeders,. and the major direct c.ontribntion ro wastewater treatment is
the removal of suspended solids. A 10-day-detention-time Daphnia
culture pond in Giddings, Txas, averaged about 77 per.cent BOD
rem~val {average influent BOD was 54 mg/L) ~ver a 2-month test
:period.7 When cultured in wast.ewata:, Daphnia is very sensitive to
pH,. since high pH values permit the presence -of un-ionized ammonia
(NH?), which is tm.-ic to the animal. A fimctional system therefore
requires sllading t{) suppreSS algae, which if liDC<Jntrolled would
result melevated pH levels. In. some c ases .gentle aeration .and the
addition of supplemental acid may be necessary. When. all {}f these
management requirements are considered, the use of Daphnia -culture basins for waste treatment is pr.obably not cost effective.
._
Brine shrimp require saline water:s fur survival, and that limits the
appii~b1e rang-e for this organism. They have been nsed in Iaborn:tory
and pilot-scale experiments in a two-step process where the brine
shrimp. are expected to clarify the effinent frmn algae ponds. Removal
of BOD and SS averaged 89 percent in pilot-scale sbrimp tanks that
168
Chapter Rve
were aerated and heated during the winter months. 7 The environmental and management req~irements for this shrimp culture may
not perniit cost-effective full-scale systems.
Fish
The utilization of fish has involved their placement in wastewater

treatment ponds, the addition of wastewater effiuent to fish ponds, and
the sequential conversion of wastewater nutrients to algae and
microinvertebrates prior-to discharge tO fish ponds. Table 5.12lists the
fish species which have_been used in wastewater treatment..s yst.ems.
Fish activity is highly d.~pendent on temperature, and most of the
species listed :in Tabl_e 5.12: with the exception of catfish and minnows,. require relatively warm water. Oxygen levels are also a critical
T~LE 5".12
Fish Species Us~din Wastewater Treatment
Common name.. :;cienti{ic name-
Silver carp.
.
H_,.paphthalmichthys moljtri.."r"
Pond location
Upper layers
Feedinc.c:: habits
Ph~i.oplankton
Bighead carp, .4ri.stichthys

nobilis
Upper layers
Phyt.Qplankton, zooplankton suspended

solids
Black carp~ Mylopharyngodon:

piceus
Bottom
Snails, crus'"c.acea:os:,.
mussels
Grass carp, Cte:n.ophar::.'n;godon

ideUa
Ubiquitous
Variable-
Common carp~ C.:~.prinis. carpio
Bottom
Phytoplankton. zeop}ankto.n, inseCt lar"\""ae
Tilapia., Tilapia sp.~

lJbiquitous
Plants,. _plankton,
Sa.rotherodan sp.
de:tr:itus, i:n.verte. - - -- --- ------ ----- -- ------- ---- - - .. :__~-- - --- -- b~tes--'-- _--- -
Catf'rsb,. IctalW7.LS sp.
Bottom
Crnstacean:s... alga-::..
fish .in.secr ~
Fathead mirrnov..--s, Pi:nephales

promelas
Bottom
Phytoplankton.. zOopla:rikton invertebnrtes.
Golden Sbiner.,.N-ote-migon:as
crysoleucas
Surface
Insectlarv~,zo~
Mosquito fish. Gambu~a

affinis
Bottom
Crustaceans, detri~,
Buffalofish, lctiobus .sp...
plankton, aJgae
insect larvae
169
Jf.UIT!a,.mateter; dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 2 mg/L are Jimi:tliint&, a:nd concentrations below 5 mg/L will allow only slow growth.
'U~ p.~esence
of un-ionized ammon~a (NH3 ) is also toxic to the young

o.fl t.h-e: llru-ger species. Sources of this ammonia are both the waste'.\ate.~ a:nd the wastes from the fish population. The combination of
th~.se; factors limits the use of the larger fish species to the final cells
oftreatment systems or the application of well-oxidized wastewater
to fish ponds. Other parameters of concern are salinity~ metals, and
toxic substances. The pH tolerance of fish ranges from about 6.5 to 9,
and this will not usually be a constraint in most wastewater systems.
Performance expectations.. There have been two major studies to eva!-
uate ~eatment performance in wastewater treatment ponds that
include fish. At the Qnail Creek wastewater pond system, channel
catfish were stocked in the third and. fourth cells, fathead minnows
and Tilapia were stocked in the third cell, and golden shiner m .i nnows
were plaeed in the fifth and sixth cells. 3 The first two ells of.this 140day-rletention-time system were aerated. The organic loading on the
e-lltll-e system was. about 47 kg!ha d ( 42 lb/ac - d),. and. the organic
loadin g on the first cell containing fish (number 3 ) was about 34
kgJha - d (31 lb/ac d)_ The detention time in the .final four cells containing fish was close to 90 days. The BOD was reduced in these units
fi.om 24 mg/L to 6 mgiL and the SS from 71 mg/L to 12 mg!L. The initial stocking rate for the fish was 29 kglha (26 lb/ac}, the fish biomass
increased significantly,. and the net production was 44 kg/ha mo {39
lb/ac. mo), but there is
direct evidence that the fish contributed
.significantly to wastewater treatment.
The study at the Benton Services Center, Arkansas, also utilized a
six-cell pond system, hut without aeration.. 12 The f irst study phase
c-ompared parallel operation of three cells in series, with one set
sto.cked with silver, grass, and bighead carp and the other set operated as a control witlwnt fish. Performance of the two .sets was generally similar~ but the fish enltn:re units showed somewhat better perfor.:: _.
mance. The efllnent from the fish unit had BOD ranging frOIIi. 7 t o45
mg/L, with values less than 15 mg/L obtained more than 50 percent of
the time_ The t::ontrol set had BOD ranging from 12 to 52 mg!L, wi;th
values less than 23 mg!L about 50 percent of the time. Effluent suspended salids were similar for the two systems most of the time.
The second phase of the stndy used all six cells in series with a new
baffle constructed in each to reduce short-circuiting of flow_ Silver
carp and bighead. carp were st{)cked in the last four cells and additional grass carp~ .buffalo ~ andchannel catfish in the final cell. No
supplemental feed or nutrients were added to the fish culture ponds_
The initial stocking rate was 426 kg/ha (380 lb/ac), and the estimated
no
170
Chapter Five
net production during the 8-month study was 417 kg/ha mo (3~0.
lb/ac mo). The J?OD removal for the entire si..x-cell system averaged
96 percent, with about 89 percent of the removal occurring in the first
two conventional stabilization cells. Overall performance was better
t~an the original unmodified six-cell systemT but it i!' not clear
whether the i:r:nprovement was due to the fish or the improved flow
pattern following construction. of the baffles_ It is likely that the fish
did ~ontribute to the low suspended solids in the final effluent (17
mg/L) via algae predation. These two examples, plus successful experience ~Isewhere raising catfish, fathead minnows, Tilapia, rainbow
trout, and muskellung14 in treated wastewater confirm the feasibility
of using wastewater in fish culture. Unfortunately, there is little evi~
dence. that fish culture can provide significant cost-effective benefits
for wastewater treatment. The final lightly leaded -cells in wastewater
pond- systems can be used for fish culture if a market for the harvested fish exists. At present, federal and ~urte health regulations prevent the sale !}f such fish for direct lm.man consumption, even though
microbiological s~dies have not detected any contamination_ The
.major markets for this harvested material would be bait fis1L. pet
food~ or fertilizer_
Maririe porycu~tur~
Several systems have been proposed or tested using a variety "Of

marine animals and .P~ for polishing of wastewater effluents... The
prmcipal goal is usually nitrogen removaL and the first step.is to con.vert wastewater nitrogen to biomass in algae ponds and then use
marine organisms with a commercial value to coll:5t:lme the ~- A
pilot s ystem of this type was const;ructed at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. Secondary .e:ffluen:t was. diluted with seawater and ~n intro~ced into shallow algae ponds. It was then .sent
through aerated channels with staqked tncys coniainir1g American
oys~ers, hard clams, and lobsters,. and :finally mto an aerated cell for
seaw.eed production.a;; It was not posable to -control the seasonal variatior,. in algal species~ which r~-ul.terl in .slow growth J:ates. .and lrigh
mortalities. of the shell:fis.h culture~ The overall cost effecti.v eness.of
the concept is q:ue,--tionable_ Success will.depend-onthe .a hilit.ytolimit
algal .gr!JWth in the initial ponds to desirable species, and this may
not bepractical orposSiole in a full-scale system mthe field_ .
Heferences
L Amasek. Inc.: Assessment of Operations, Water H}acint.h Nutrien:t Remov.al
Treatm~nt Process Pilot Plant, FEID 59-6000348, Florida Departme:nt of
Environmental Regulation, Kissimmee, FL. 1986.
,. ;
171
2. Babbitt, H. E., and E. R. Bnumann: SeU'('rage and Smi:age Treatment, .John Wiley.
New York, 1952.
3. Coleman, M. S.: Aquaculture as a .Mean s to Achieve Effluent Standards, in
Proceedings Wastewater Use in the Production of Food and Fiber, EPA 660/2-74041, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1974, pp. 199- 214.
4. Conn, W. M., an~ A. c: Lang.vorthy: Practical Operation
a Small Scale
Aquaculture, in Proceedings Water Re!Jse 'III, American Water Works Association,
Denver, CO, 1985, pp. 703-712.
.
5. DeBus~ T. A.: Community Waste Research at the Walt Disney World Resort
Complex, Reedy Creek Utilities Co., Lake Buena Vista, FL, 1986.
6. Dinges, R.: Development of Hyacinth Wastewater Treatment Systems in Texas, in
Proceedings Aquaculture Systems for ll'asteziater Treatment, EPA 430/9-80-006.
MCD 67. U.S. Enviroi:unental Protectio~ Agency, Office of Mmricipal Pollution
Control, Washington, DC, 1979, pp. 193-231.
.
7. Ding~ R.: Natural Systems for Water Pollution Control, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1982..
8. Doersam. J..: Use of Water Hyacinths for the Polishing of Secondary Effinent at the
City of Austin Hyacinth Greenhouse Facility,.Proceedings of Conference on Aquatic
Plants for Water Treatment a'nd .Resr;~urce Recouery, Orlando, FL, July 1986,
University of Florida,. Orlando, July 1987.
.
.
.
9. .Eighmy, T . 'I'-. and P . L. Bishop: Preli~nary Evaluation of Submerged .4quatic
Macrophytes in a Pilot-Scale Aquatic Treatment System~ Department of Civil
Engineerin~ University ofNew Hampshire, Durham, NH, 1985.
.
10. Gee & Johnson Engineers: Water Hyacinth Waslel.f.Jater Treatment Desigri Ma:nual
for N ..4.SA I NSTL. West Palm Bea.cb., FL, 1980.. .. :.,
11. Haselow, D_: Personal communication,. 1993.
12. Henderson~ S.: Utilization of Silver and Bighead Carp for Water Qtrality
Improvement, Proceedings Aquaculture Systems for Wast~ater Treatment. .E PA
of
. 430/9-80-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. DC,
197~,
pp.
309-350.
1.3 . ~:!illman, W. S., and D. C. Culley: The Use of Duckweed, Am. Sci., 66:442-451.
1978.
14. Hyde, H.- C., R. S. Ross. and L. Sturmer: Technology Assessment of Aquaculture
Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment, EPA 600/2-84-145, u _s_
Environmental Protection Agency, :Municipal Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati; OH, 1984.
15-. Kamber. D. M.: Benefits and Implementation Potential o[WasteiJ.:-ater Aquaculture,.
Contract Report 68-01-6232, U .S. EPA, Office of Regulations and Standa.rds., Jan.
m~
16. Lee. C. !...,. and T. McKim: Wat.er Hyaci-nth Wastewater Treatmenr System.. Reedy
. Creek Utilities Co., Buena Vist~ Fl., l98L
17. Leslie, 1\f.. : Water Hyacinth Wastewater Treatment Systems: Opport:u:nities and
Constraints in Cooler Climates, EPA 600/2-8'3-075~ U.S. Enviroin:nental. Protection
Agencyr Washington, DC, 1983.
18. Mc.."'\1ahb, C. D.: The Potential of Submerged Vascular .Plants far Reclamation of
Wastewater in Temperate Zone Ponds, .i n Biological Ccmtrol of Wat...or PoRution,
University ofPennsyl-rnnia Pres::?. P.hiladelphia. 1976~ pp. 123-132.
19. Middlebrooks, E. J., C. H. Middlebrooks~ cT. H. Reynolds,. G. ~ Watte:rs. S .. C.. Reed,
and D. B. George: Wastewater Stabilk.-a.tion Lagoon DesigTl., P'er{OT7IWJ'lce, and
Upgraifing, Macmillan, New York.1982.
20. Penfonnd., W . T. , and T. T . Earle: Th.e Biology af't.b. Water Hyacinth.. Ecol'.
Monogr. 18{4):447-472, 1948.
2L Reddy. K. R..: Nutrient Transformations in Aquatic Macrophyte Filters Used far
Water Purification, Proceedings Water Reuse Ill, American Water W.orks
Association, Denver, CO, 1985, pp. 660-678.
22. Reddy, K. R., and W. F. DeBusk: Nutrient Removal Potential of Selected Aquatic
Macrophytes, J. Enuiron. Qual., 14(4.,:459--462...1985. .
23. Reddy, K R., and D. L. Sutton: Water Hyacinths for Water Qnalicy Improvement
and Biomass Production, J. Environ. Qual., 13( 1 1:1-8., 1984..
-~:~ -
172
Chapter Five
24. Reed, S. G.. R. Ba~tiun, and W..Jewdl: Enginee1s Assess Aquaculture Systems lor
Wastewater Treatment, Civil Eng.. ,July 19fH. pp. 64-67.
25. Ryther. J . H .: Treated Sewage Effluent as a Nutrient Source for .Marine

Polyculture, Procel!dings Aquaculture SystemR for Wastewater Tre~tment. EPA
4:30/9-80-006, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington~ DC, 1979, pp.
351-876.
26. Stephenson, M .. G. Turner, P. Pope, J. Colt, A. Knight, and G. Tchobanoglous: The
Use and Potential of Aquatic Species for Wastewater Treatment, in Appendix A:
The Emironmental Requirements of Aquatic Plants, Publication No. 65, California
State Water Resources Control Board, Sacr-amento, 1980.
27. Stewart. E. A: t'tilization of Water Hyacinths for Control of Nutrients in Domestic
Wastewater-Lakeland, Florida, in Proceedings Aquaculture Systems for
Wastewater Treatment, EPA 430/9-80-006, MCD 67~ U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution ControL Washington, DC, 1979. pp. 27.3-293.
28. Swett, D.: A Water Hyacinth Advanced Wastewater Treatment System, in
Proceedings Aquaculture Systems for Wasteuater TreatmentT EPA 430/9-80-006,
MCD 67. U .S . Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Municipal Pollution
Control, Washington. DC, 1979, pp. 233-255'.
29. Tchobanoglous, G.: Personal communication.:
30. U.S. Emironment.a.l Protection Agency: Design Manual .kfunicipal Wastewater
Stabilization Ponds, EPA 625/ 1-83-015, Center for Environmental Research
Information, Cincinnati, OH, 1983.
31. Water Pollution Control Association: Naturol .$..vstems for Wa.steu:ater Treatment,
s!an.ual of Practice FD-16, Water PoUution Control Association. Ale:xancf..-ja_ VA.
.
.
.
..
1990.
3:) Weber, A. S .., and G. Tchobanoglous: Nitrification in warer Hyacinth Treatment
Systems, ,J. Entriron. Eng. Diu.4.SCE, llf 51:699-713, 1985. :
S'S. Wolve1ton, B. C.: Engineering Design Data fo:r Sm.all Vas~a:r _4quatic Plant
\Vastewater Treatment Systems. in ~roceedings Aq.u acuUure s_vst:ems for
Wasteuater Treatment, EPA 430/9-80-006. MCD 67, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office ofMunicipal PoU~tion Control, Washington, DC. 1979, pp. 179-192.
34. Wolverton. B. C .. and R. C. McDonald: Nutri:tiona,l Composition ofWaterHyacintr...s
Grown {)n Domestic Sewage, Econ. Bot., 32i4):363--370~ 1978..
:
35. Wolverton, B . C .. and R. C. McDonald: Upgrading Facultathe Wastewater Lagoons

with Vascular Aquatic Plants, J. Water Polfution Control Fed.~ 51(2}:305-313. 1979.
Chapter
Wetl_
and Systems
6~1
Introduction
Wetlands are defined in this book as land where the wat~r surface is
near the ground surface for long enough each year to maintain saturated soil conditions, along with the related ve~etatia-.u_ Trees a!"e the
dominant type of vegetation in S"\vampsT hogs .are characterized by
mosses and pea~ and marshes by g..rasses and emergent macrcphyteF_
All three types of wetland have been used for wastewater treatn1ent,
but the majority of currently operational .systems are in the mai-sh
category. These wetlands can aL~ contain. some of the floating ~d
submerged p lant species discussed in C~ap ~ 5, with duckw-eed
(Lemna). b~lng the most common. Performan~e expectations for
major wetland types. are smnma:rized in Table 1 9. in Chap:_ L Ther:e
are at least five major combinations involving w.astewa:ters and"wetlands which can be .observed in the l..Trriteif State::,-45:
the
Dis}?osal of tre~ed efiluent into natural wetlands

Use-ofnatural wetlandsJoi-further. w~-tewa:ter:.reno-vaiio.n
Use of-effluents <lr partially treated ~-~~~wa:t.er for
restora.tian or creation .ofwetk!ids
enhaneeme~
Use of constructed wetlands as a wastewater treatment. process
Use of constrncted w~dands fo.r treatm.e!rt. .of agr:icllitm-al runoff:

combined sewer -overflo.ws (CSO ), land.fill laachate..~ and mme
drainage
.N atural wetlands
fu the United State~. there .are some con::ti aints on the use .o f many
natural wet1a:nds
as fund:mnal eo-mponents of. wastewater treatm-ent
.
173
174
Chapter Six
systems. These wetlands are considered under the law to be "waters

of the United States."' and as such a permit is required for any discharge. The water-quality requirements for this discharge are specified by the applicable federaL state, and/or.local agencies and are
typically at least equal to secondary effluent standards.
Most states make no distinction between a wetland and the adjacent surf?ce waters and apply the samf7 requirements to both. Under
these conditions economics may not favor the utilization of natural
wetlands as a major component in a wastewater treatment process,
since the basic treatment must be provided prior to discharge to the
wetland_
Use of natural wetlands for diiect waste treatment may also create
significant public and environmental concerns. Preservation of the
remaining wetiffiids in the United States has become a major issue~
and the habitat values _in these existing natnral wetlands would be
altered by the introduction of the higher nutrient levels commonly
associated v.ith wastewater effluents. Use of natural wetlands for this
purpose also creates significant engineering problems affecting performance
the system_ The hydraulic regime in most natural wetlands has evolved over a long time period; the majority of the a:cea
may be "we~"" .b ut due to hannelization the major portion of the flow
through the wetland occ:U:rs through a relatively small portion of the
. total area. In. the extreme case, only 10 percent of the wetland area
might come in contact with wastewater efiluents introduced to the
wetland, so only 10 percent of the total a:rea can be considered to be
effective in providing treatment. It is not possible to COlTect this problem by grading or other -engineering activity and still preserve the
valnes: -of the original na:tural wetland.
of
:Mirr:gafion and enbanrement
The use of treated effine:rrts for mitigation, or enhancemen~ restoratici~ or cteaion ofwetlands.,. Can. be a very desirable and env.ir.onmentally eom_patihle adiv:izy_ In many of the arid Western states, many
.e xistingw.etlands were drained in past years. The nse oftreated efifu.ents allows-r-estoration of same of these wetlan:ds "\-vithmrt an unacceptable impact on-t he a~ailable freshwater resources. Similarly, the
use -of treated effinents in creating mitigation or replacement wetlanCis is a feasible appr.oach which can assure the availability ofsufficient water and nutrients to sustain growth over the long term. In
one case,. land-applied stabili.zation pond effluent has been used to
increase the marsh habitat fo:r the endangered 1\'Iississippi sandhill
crane. 38 Descriptions of similar activities can be found~ R-efs_ 14, 2~
and44..
..,
Wetland Systems
'
175
The concept most likely to offer cost-effective treatment potential is

the use of constructed wetlands. Constructing a wetland where one
did not .exist before avoids the regulatory and environmental entan. giements associated with naturo.ll , wetlands and allows design of the
wetland for optimum wastewater treatment. Typically~ a constructed
wetland should perform oetter than a natural wetland of eq~ area~
since the bottom is u.sually carefully graded and the hydraulic regime
in the. system is controlled. Process reliability is also improved
because the vegetation and the other system components can be managed as required. The constructed wetland is therefore the major
focus of this chapter. However, much of tbe information provided on
plant respons~ treatment reactio~ and other factors is also applicable to natmal wetlands.
An issue of con~m with respect to con.stni.cted wetlands as defined
in this text relates to their future status rmder the laws and regulations governing 'jurisdictional~ wetlands. In order to protect the
inventory <!f .natnral wetlands in the United States., a body of law and
regulation. has ,d:evelriped which prabibits the destru.ctiou or alteration
of these natural "ju::ri::-.dictional"' wetlands without permission and
appropriate mitigation. There has been a general consensus that the
restored or created wetlands discn.s-~d in the previous section are
included in this category. Since constructed wetlands are built specifically for wast-e treatment., it is believed that they shon:ld not be
included in the 'jurisdictional" grou~ and :that is the position of the
U.S. En"ironmental Protection A::,aency (EPA}. These constructed wetlands may have fiome habitat valnes.,. bnt they are intended primarily
for wastewater treatment.. It should be posSiole to modify the operation when nece::.-sary to improve performance, and t.o abandon the system whe-n: th-e need no longer exists,. just as is possible with other
waste treatment concepts.
It is e_qhnatM tbat about 1000 ~OBd w.etland systems are currentJ;,y in op~ for a variety of-purposes, an a worldwide basis. At
leaEt half oftho.se are i:n. cl:ie United States. A. database -of wetland.
systerru: m NorthAmerica. was recently prepared fur the EPA..34 There
are- two types of constructed wetlands in use in tbe United States
in much of the world. The first is called a free-water-:SILT{ace {FWS)
wetland. In this type,.. the water surface is exposed to the atmosphere,.
the bed contains emergent aquatic vegetation, a layer of soil to serve
as a rooting media,. a Iiner if necessary t{). protect the groundwater,
and appropriate inlet and ol'ltlet structures. The water depth in this
type of wetland can range from a few centimeters to 0.8 m or more,
depending on the purpose .of the wetlancl A nonna:I operating depth
and
176
Chapter Six
of 0.3 m ( 1 ft) is typical. Design flows for these FWS wetlands range
from less than 4 m:1/d ( 1000 gpd) to over 75,000 m 3/d <20 mgd). A system is under design for the Lake rt~lanzala region in Egypt with a
design flow of 1 X 106 m:~/d~ 53
The secund type of wetland is called a subswface-flow (SF) \l/etland.
In this case the excavated ba.~ is filled with a porous media, us~y
gravel, and the water level is maintained below the top of the gravel.
Yne same species of vegetation are used in both types of wetlands. In
the SF case the vegetation is planted in the upper part of the gravel
media~ A liner is also tL<:ied., if necessary, to protect groundwater quality. The depth of the media is typically 0.3-0.6 m ( 1-2 ft). Existing
systems of this type range from those serving single-family dwellings
to large-scale municipal systems. The largest operational system in
the United States is in Crowley, Louisiana, with. a design flow of
13~000 m 3/d (3.5 mgdJ.
.
There are several adv.antages to the SF wetland concept. The biological 1eacrions in both types of wetlands are believed to be dne to
.attached grm\rth orgarrisms. s-mce the gravel media has more surface
a.-rea than the F\VS wetland,. the grn:vel bed will
higher re~ction
:rates .and ther.efme can be- ;;;maUer in: area. Since the water surface is
be1ow the top of
media .and: not exposed, the SF type doesnot have
mosquito problems, whi-ch can be an issue for FWS wetlands in some
locations. Si.l'l.ce the water suzfuce is. not exposed, there are no- publica.C""'.:..ess problems~ and this t...,pe of wet!a..11d is often used as a component in on-5ite treatmentJdisposal systems for schools, parks., public
and commercial buildings, etc. Tlus type of wetland can also prov1de
greater therm:al :f':rotection in cold climates., since the water surface is
below ~1.e tup of the gravel. A technology assessment of the SF wetlan.d .c oncept was published in 1993 by the EPA.42
P.J:! uf these potential .advantages of the SF concept may be offset by
the r~lativeiy high cost to procure, deliver, and place the gravel media
in .the be{4 ev.en though tb.e total area required. will be less 't~l-ran for a -FWS-t"-7etland.. It is :very unlikel-y..that the-SF. C{)nCept will-he-ost comp.eti:Li.ve with .a FWS system for communities or industries with a
design flow in excess of 4000 m 3/d (1 mgd). The feasibility for lesser
flows will. depend on the local costs fur land, the type of liner, and for
the media used in the SF system. In many cases the advantages of
the s~ cencep~ as cited above,. outw-eigh the eost factors for small and
pos....c:T.bly even medium-size :;,y;::,ten ~.
In .addition to municipal wastewaters, eons~cted wetlands have
been :used for a variety of industrial operatia.n..s, f9r agricultural
runoff, stormwater rnnoft Iandfillleachate; eombined sewer overflow
(CSO.>~ mine drainage, .a nd d:o:mestic :wastewater in small on-site wetland units following conventional &eptic tanks. There are probably
have
me
Wetland Systems
1n
dose to 500 ofthese on-site wetland units in the United ~ta_tes, and
essentially all of them are the SF wetland type. The FWS wetland .
type is widely used as an inexpens1ve method for treating acid mine
drainage and ash pile drainage in coal-mining regions.
Design concepts
A number of different procedures for design of constru.cted wetlands

still exist, since there is not yet a total consensus among the experts
as to which is the "best" approach. Some authors depend on multiple
regression analysis of performance data from operating systems to
derive design criteria. Others utilize an areal loading approach,
where performance is related to the yolume of water or mass of a
particular constituent per unit time divided by the surface area of
the wetland. A third group assumes that the biological reactions
which occur in these wetlands are similar to those describil)g the
same type of reactions in other attached-growth wastewater treatment processes.
.
All three approach~ can produce:y~d results if the procedures are
developed properly., ..and this ~~apter utilizes .examples 0:f the three
types wh-ere appropriate. .However, the dqminant approach used in
this text is based on 'the third approach~ which assumes that wetland
performance can be adequately described using fam.iliar biological
design models which are also used to design other wastewater treatment systems. This decision leads to the utilization of a first-order
plug flow design model in which the response is.based on the
hydraulic .residence time <HRT) and on the temperature in the system.. As u.>J.th other wastewater treatment concepts which use the
same appro~ it is re.cognized that a wetland is not .an ideal plug
flow reactor; but the response tends to be closer to plug flow than to
the complete-mi."{ alternative. The actual flow regime in the wetland
is probably .somewhere between these two limits~ but there are insufficient data ayail?ble.fQ:r.4?!1n:itiqg of a generally applicable and reasonably easy-to-lise -ii~on m:odel
-- - ---- - - - - - - -------- The areal loading method is similar to that 11Sed for desigfi of land
treatment systems as described in Chap~ 7 of this book. In those .cases
the areal loading i.s a '-Wd criterion, since the wastewater is generally applied unifonnly over mos-t of the land area involved via sprinklexs or .s imilar devices. As a result~ the un1t Ioadlng on a unit area is
approximately nniform.. However~ that is not the case in most wetland
systems, ;.vftere -t }rpically .all of the influent is applied at the head ef
the channel~ so the unit loading per unit area ~f tbe wetland is not
u.n.lfonn. AnotheT' limitation of the areal loading meth-od is that it
does not take into account the dep-th of water and the relate-d
178
Chapter Six
hydraulic 1esidence time I HRT) in the wetland. The areal loading (of
water or any other constituent} could be constant for a particular system, whether the water depth was only a few centimeters or almost a
meter. The HRT, and the expected performance, in such a wetland
would vary significantly with the depth of water even though the
areal loading were constant. .
.
The areal.loading method also does not allow direct recognition of
th~ influe1;1ce of temperature on the process. Some authors, who support ~e areall~ading approac~ further stiggest that temperature
does not influence theremoval ofbiochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
and nitrog~n in _ wetl~d systems. It bas been well established that
te;mperature does influence the biologica1 reaction rates involved; so
an assumption that wetlands are somehow un.ique is not valid. Some
wetland systems with a relatively long HRT do not show significant
season~ difference in performance when BOD is measured only in
~e infl~ent and final effiu.ent. It is believed that in these cases, the
long detentiof.!. time .c ompensates for the reduced reaction rates during~ \Yinter, so the inlet-to-outlet performance appears to be independent temperatttre.
of
6.2
WeUan~ Co~ponents
The maj~y. ~:vst~m components which may influence the treatment

process ll.t. \~etlandS includes the plants, detritus, soils, bacte~ pro-
toz~
.hlgher "a nimals. Their functions and the system per.formance are in turn influenced by water depth, temperature, pa and
dissolved oxygen concentration.
and
Plants
A -wide .v ariety of aquatic plants have been use~ in wetland syste.m..s

design.ed.. for wastewater treatment. The larger trees {cypress, ash.,
willow;:etc:) often preexist on natural bogs, strands. a;nd 4ldomes"" used
for waste\Yater treatment in Florida and elsewhere.. There has been
no attemp~-:to -Se these speci-es in a c,o nstructed wetland:,. nor bas
their funct:ion"as-a..treatment component in the system been defined..
The emergent aquatic macrophytes .a re the most commonly'fonnd
species .in the marsh-type constructed wetlands used for wastewater
4"eatment. The most frequently used ~re cattails (Typha sp.)T reeds
(Phrognzites commu:n:is)~ rushes (Junci5 sp.), ho:lrnshes (Scirpus sp:..)
. and sedges <Carex sp.J. Bulrush and _cattails, or a combination of the
two, are the dominant species on most of the constructed wetlands in
t..h.e Unit-ed States. There are a t'e w systems "-rith. Phragmites in the
United Sta~ but this species is the dominant type _,selected for the
constructed wetlands in Europe. Systems designed specifically for
7
Wetland Systems
179
habitat values in addition to treatment usually include a greater variety of plants, with an emphasis on food and nesting values for birds
and other aqmitic life. Information on some typical plant species common in the United States, and a discussion of advantages and disadvantages for use in a constructed wetland,. is provided in the fol10wing
brief paragraphs. Further details on the characteristics of these
plants
be found in a number of references.253552
can
Emergent species
cattail. Typical varieties: Typha angustifolia,. narrow-leaf cattail; T.

latifoliaJ' broad-leaf cattail. Distribution: worldwide. Optimum pH:
4-10. Salinity tolerance: narrow leaf, 15-30 ppt; broad leaf, <1 ppt.
Growth: rapid, via rhizomes, spreads laterally, dense cover in <1 yr
with plant spacing 0.6 m (2 ft). Relatively shall_o w root penetratio~ in
gravel =0.3 m (1 ft). Annual yield: =30 (dw) mtlha (14 tons/acL
Tissue: (dw basis) ::=45% C, 14% N; 2% P; 30% solid~. Habitat values:
seeds and roots a food source for water birds, m~krat, nutria, and
beaver; nesting cover for birds. Hydroperiod: can be permanently
inundated >0.3 m {1 ft), can also tolerate drought. Commonly u_~ on
many FWS and SF wetlands in the United States:. The relatively
shaliow root p-enetration is not desirable fm;- SF systems without
adjustment in de~ign depth of the bed.
Bulrush. Typical varieties.: Scirpus acutus,. hardstem bulrush, -common tuie; S. cypernius, wool grass; S. fluuiatilis, river bulrush; S.
robustus, alkali bulrash; S. ualidus-,. soft-stem bu!r:ns.h; S. lacustris,
bUlrosh. ~stribution: worldwide. Optimum; pH: 4-9_ Sali.~ty tolerance: h.ardstem, wool grass.., river, soft stem: 0-5 pp~ alka~ Olru!y"s.,
25 ppt. Growtb: alkali bulru~h, wool grass., river bulrush moderat,
-dense cover in _1 yr with plant spacing 0.3 m (1ft); all others moder.ateto rapid; dense eover in 1 yr with plant spacing 0.3--(}.:6.m (1-2 ftJ.
Deep r~at penetratmn in gravel =0~6 m (2ft)_ Annual yild: =20 {dw-J
mt/ha (9 tons!a-c}. Tissue: (dw basis} =18% N., 2% P;. 30% .solid.:;_
Habitat valu.e.s.: seeds and rhiZomes a food souree for many w.atellkds, muskrat, nutria, and fish; nesting area for :fish. when inundated. Hydroperiod: can be permanently inundated, :hardstem up to I m
(3 ft)~ most others 0_15-B-.3 m (0.5-1 ft), some can tolerate dro~ht
conditions_ Commonly used on many SF' constructed' wetlands in the
United States..
Reeds. '!Jpical varieties: Phragmites .australi.s~ common 'reed, \vild

reed.. Distribution::. worldwide. Optimum pH: 2-8. Salinity toleranc.e
<45 ppt. Growth: very rapid, via rhizomes~ lateral spread = 1 m/yr (3
180
Chapter Six
ftJyr), very dense cover in 1 yr with plants spaced at 0.6 m <2 ft). Deep
root penetration in gravel =0.4 m ( 1.5 ft). Annual yield: -40 (dw)
mt/ha ( 18 tons/ac). Tissue: (dw basis) =45% C, .20~ N, 2% P; 40%
solids. Habitat values: low food .value for most birds and animals.
some value as nesting cover for birds and animals. Hydroperiod: can
be permanently inundate~, up.to =1m (3 ft) 1 also very drought resistant. Considered by some to be an invasive pest species in natural
wetlands in the United States. Very successful utilization at constructed wastewater treatment wetlands in the United States. The
dominant species used for this purpose in Europe. Because of its low
food value, this species is not subject to the damage caused. by
muskrat and nutria which has occurred in constrUcted wetlands supporting other plant species.
Rushes. Typical varieties: Juncus articulat'u!i_. jointe.d rush; J. baltic us~ Baltic rush; J. effusll_s~ soft 'nish. Distribution: worldwide.
Optimum pH: 5-7.5. Salinity tolerance: 0 to <25 ppt depending on
type. Growth: ver_y slow, via rhizomes~ lateral spr-ead <ftl m/yr (<0.3
ft/yr), dense cover in 1 year with plants spaced at 0:.15 m (0.5 ft!.
.i\nnuai :yield: 50 (dw) mtlha (45 tons!acL Ti..~-u.e: {.dW basis) =15% N,
2% P; 50% solids. Habitat values.: food for many hird species~ r~ots
food for muskrat. Hydroperiod:-some ty-pes can suStain permanent
inundation up to <0.3 m (1 ~), prefers dry-down perinds. O~lwr plants
better suited as the major Species for '\Va.5tewater Wetlands; rushes
are well suited as a peripheral planting for habitat enhancement.
Sedges~
Typica! varieties: Carer .aquatil~ water sedge; C_ lacus~

lake sedge; C. stricata~ tussock sedge. Species distribution: worldwide..
Optimum pH: 5-7.5. Salinity tolerance: <0.5 ppt. Growth: mo~-ate
to slow., via rhizomes, lateral.sprea~ <0.15 "J:illyr {0.5 ft/~), rl?....nse
cover in 1 year \Vith plants spaced at 0.15 m {0.5 ft}_ A.rmual yield: <5
(dw) mtlha (<4 tons/ac). Tissue:. (dw basis} =l~ N, 0:.:1% P; 5W .solids.
... . __ .. Habitat .values: ..fo.od .source . . for num.ero.U:.fLbirds__an.d....mo.ose:.. ........... .
Hydroperiod:
types can sustain Il~ent . Trpindatioa .Others
need a dry-down period.. Other plants.a..re bet'-tEr sni1:-ed as the m ajor
species for wastew:at~r wetlands; sedges are well suitP..rl as a pe-ripher.:..
al planting for habitat enhancement.
some
Subrnsrged species
Submerged. plant species have been used in deepwater zones fif FWS
wetlands and are a .c omponent :ina patented process which has been
used to improve water :quality in freshwater lakes,. pands, and golf
coln-se water hazards.. Species which have been u.::,-ed for this pnrpO.se
include: Ceratophyll:um de1nersum (coontail.. or hornwart), Elodea.
Wetland Systems
181
( waten\:eed J, Po-tamogeton pectinal us (sago pond weedJ,

.Potamongeton perfoliatus (redhead grass}, Ruppia maritima (widgeongrass}~ Vallisneria americana (wild celery), and .Myrioph}'llum
sp. (watermilfoi}). The distribution of this species is worldwide.
Optimum pH: 6-10. Salinity tolerance: <5 to 15 ppt for most varieties. Growth: rapid, via rhizomes, lateral spread >0.3 m/yr (1 ft/yr),
dense cover in 1 year with plants spaced at 0.6 m (2 ft). Annual yield:
coontail 10 (dw) mt/ha (8.9 tons/ac>~ Potamogeton =3 (dw) mtiha (2.7
tons/ac), watermilfoil 9 (dw) mtlha (8 tons/ac}. Tissue: (dw ba;:;is)
=2- 5% N, 0.1- 1% P; 5-10% solids. Habitat values: food for a wide
variety of birds~ fish, and animals, sago pond weed especially valuable
for ducks. Hydroperiod: continuous inundation, depth of acceptable
water a function of water clarity and turbidity, since these plants
depend on penetration of sunlight through the water column. Some
these plants have been used to enhance the habitat values is FWS
const:ructed wetlands. Coontail, Elodea, and other species have been
used for nutrient control in freshwater ponds and lakes; regular har- .
vesting removes the plants and the nutrients. See Chap. 5 for further
discussion of submerged plants.
of
Floating species
A.s described in Chap. 5, several floating plants have been used in

wast-ewater treatment systems. These floating plants are not typically a det,--ign component in constructed wetlands. The species most likely to occur incidentally in FWS wetlands
Lemna sp. (duckweeciJ..
The presence of duckweed on the water surface of a wetland can be
b{)th beneficial and detrimental. The benefit occurs because the
growth of algae is suppressed; the detrimental effect is the reduction
in transfer of atmospheric oxygen at the water surface because ofth-e
duckweed mat.. T"he growth rate of this plant is very rapid, and the
annual yield can be 20 (dw) mtlha (18 tons/ac) or more. The tissue
composition is: (dw basis) =6% N, =2% P; 5'% solids. Salinity toler-
.ance: <0.5-ppL Habitat values: food-source for ducks anrif.other. wa.ter----~..-:-
birds., muSkrat,. and beaver. The presence of duckweed on FWS wet.Iands cannot be prevente<L since the plant also tolerates partial.
shade. Open-water zones in FWS wetlands should he large aoough so
that \.\.rind action can periodically break up and move any dnC.k-weed
mat. to. permit desirable reaeration. The decomposition o f the .
unplanned duckweed may also impose an uilexpected seasonal nitro-
,g en load on the system..
are
E~a.potranspi:ration .losses
Water losses due to evapotranspiration should be C Onsidered for wet-:Iand designs in arid climates and can be a factor during the warm
182
Chapter Six
summer n1onths in all locations. In the Western states, where appropriative laws govern the use of water, it may be necessary to replace
the volume of w~ter lost to protect the rights of downstreruJ?. water
users. Evaporative water losses in the summer months decrease the
~ater volume in the system, and therefore the concentration of pollutants remaining in the system tends to increase even though treatment iS very effective on a mass-removal basis. For design purposes,
the evapotranspiration ratecan be taken as being equal to 80 percent
of the pan
evaporation rate
for the area This in effect is equal to the
.
.
hike evapo?tion rate. In the past there was some controversy regard- ..
ing the effect of plants on the evaporation rate_ It is the present consensus that the shading effect of emergent or floating plants reduces .
direct evaporation from thewater, but the plants still transpire. The
:n~t effect is ronghly the same rate:t whetl?-er plants are present or not.
The pr:evioos edition of. this book indica~ed relatively bigh ET rates
for some emergent plant species. These data were obtained from rela-:
tively small culture tanks and containers and are not representative
offi.1ll-scale wetland systems.
Oxygen transfer
..:. .
~
BeCa.use of the continuous inn.ndatio~ the soilsr or the media in a SF

wetland,_ar-e anaerobic, which is an environment that is not well suit~
ed to support most vegetative species- However~ the emergent plant
Sjlecies described p:reviou.siy have all developed the ability to absorb
oxygen and ather needed gasses from the atmosphere through their
.leaves and above-water stems,. and they have lar.ge gas vessels, which
conduct those gasses to the roots so the r{)ots are sustained aerobically :in..an Qtherwise anaerobic environment. It has be~n estimated that
these plants .c an transfer between 5 and 45 g. of oxygen per day per
.square J;D.eter.of wetland surface are~ depending on plant density and
o.x;Ygen stress levels in the. root zone_5 35
. lYios.t ofthis._oxygen is utilized at the plant roots~ and availability is
limited for support of extermir microbial activity_ However, some of
this oxygen is believed to r.each the .surfaces of the roots and rlrizomes.
.and..:.c reae aerobic- micro-sites at these points. These aerobic
micr.o sites can. then:support aerobic: reactions. such as nitrification if
Dth~ conditions are appropriate_ The plant seems to .respond with
.more ~ as the demand increases at the rootS, but the transfer
capability is limited. Heavy dep osits of raw sludge at the head of
some const:rncted wet lands have apparently overwhelmed the oxygen
transfer capability and resulted. in plant die-off. This OA-ygen souice is
of most benefit in the SF constructed: wetfan~ where the wastewater
flows tlirough the media and comes in direct contact with the roots
and rhizomes of the plants. In the FWS wetland the wastewater flows
..
Wetland Systems
183
abo\e the s'oil fayer and the contained roots and there is no direct contact with . this potential oxygen source. The major oxygen sour~e for
the FWS wetland is believed to be atmospheric reaeration at the
water surface. To maximize the benefit in the SF case it is important
to encourage root penetr!'ltion to the full ~epth of the media so there
ate potential contact points throughout the profile. As described in a
later section of this chapter, the removal of ammonia in a SF wetland
can be correlated directly with the depth of root penetration and the
availability of oxygen..42
Plant diversity
Natural \vetiands typically contain a wide diversity of plant life.
Attempts tO replicate that diversity in constructed wetlands designed
for wastewater treatment have in general n9t been successfuL The
relatively high nutrient content of most wastewaters tends to favor
the grmv-th of cattails, reeds? etc., and these tend to crowd otrt other,
less .competitive species over time_ Many of these constructed wetlands in the U~d States andEurope have been planted as a ~ono
cnltn:r:e or at most with two or three plant species,. and these have all
sm vived and provided excellent wastewater treatment.
The SF wetland concept has significantly less potential habitat
value as compared to the FWS wet1and because the water is below
the ~urfu.ce of ~e SF media and not directly accessible to' birds and
animals. The presence of open-water zones within an SF system
negates many of the advantages of the eoncept and a.re not normally
ineluded .in the system plan.. Enhancement ~f habitat values . or
esthetiCs is possible -via selected plantings arm:md the perimeter of
the SF bed Since optimum wastewater treatment is the basic purpose <Jf the SF concep~ it is .acceptable to plan for a single plant
~ based on successful experience in both the United States and
Em-ope,. Phrogmi:tes offers a number of advantages.
The FWS wetland concept has greater potential for henefici.ai habitat values becanse- the water surface is exposed and accessible to
buds and .a nimals; Fmther enharu:ement is possible via in.corpor~tion
ofdeep =open-water zones ami the use ofselected plantings to p~vide
attra.cti:Ve food sources (i.-y sago pond weed and.similar plants).
Nesting islands can als{} be constructed within these deep-water
zones fur fi:n:ther eDhancement. 'These deep--water zones can also provide treatment ben-efits since they increase the HRT in the system
.and serve to redistribute the flow, if they are properly eonstrncted..
The portions of the FWS wetland designed specifically for treatment
can be planted with a single species. Catta:il.s and hu1rnsh a:reu ften
used but are at risk from muskrat and nutria damage; Phragmites
offer significant
advantages in this regard.
.
.
7
....
184
Chapter Six
A number of F\VS and SF wetlands in the Southern states were initially planted with attractive flowering species (Canna. lily, iris, etc7 )
for esthetic reasons. These plants have soft tissues which decompose
very quickly when the emergent. portion ~ies back in the faJl and after
eVI:n a mild frost. The rapid decomposition has resulted in a measurable increase in BQD and nitrogen leaving the wetland system. In
some cases the systenx managers utilized an annual harvest for
removal ~f these plants prior to the seasonal die back or frosts. In
most cases, the probl~ms .have been completely avoided by replacing
these plants -vvith the more resistant reeds, rushes, or cattails, which
do not require an annual harvest. Use of these soft-tissue flowe!ffig
species is not recomm~nded in future systems, except possibly as a
border.
Prant functions
The terrestrial plants used in land treatment systems described in

Chap. 7 provide the major pathway .for removal of nutrients in those
systems. In those ca5es. the system design loading is partial1y
matched to the plant uptake capability of the plants, and the treat.m ent area is c::i:zed ar:cordjng].y. Harvesting then removes the nutrients from th_e g""te. The :e~r~nt aquatic plants use~ in J.vet1ands also
take up nutrients and other wastewnter constituents. Harvesting is
. not, P,r.rw.ever, practiced roUtinely in these wetland systems, because
of problems of access and the relatively high labor costs. Studies have
shown that harvesting af the plant material from a constructed wetland pr.o~~ides a minor nitrogen-removal pathway as compared to biological activity in the wetland. In tw-o cases 21.28 a single end-{)f-season
ha.rv.est accou:~.ted for le~ "than 10 percei_lt of the nitrogen remeved by
the system. Harvesting {)n a more frequent schedule would certainly
increase that percentage bn~. would also increase the -c ost and compleJr.-ity of system iii~gement. Biological activity becomes the dominant mechanism in .c onstru.c ted wetlands as compared to land treatmart" systems, partly ueCau.se of the sigriifica.n11y longer HRT. ln. the
form.er systems. Wher;r. :water is applied to the soil surface in most
land treatment "systems, the residence time for water as it passes
frm:n the surface through the active root zone is measured in minutes
or heurs. The residene time in most constructed wetlands, in con~ is usually measured in terms of at least several days.
ln some cases these emergent aquatic .plant::: are known to take up
and transform organic compounds! so harve::.--ti.ng is not required for
removal of these pollutants. In the case of nutrients,. metals 7 and
other consel"Vative substances,. harvesting and removal of the -plants
is necessary if plant nptake is the design pathway for permanent
removal. Plant uptake and han!est is not nsnally a design considera7
Wetland Systems
185
tion for constructed wetlands used for domestic, municipal, and most
industrial wastewaters.
Even though the system may be designed as a biological reactor,
and the potential for plant uptake neglected, the presence of the
plants in these wetland systems is still essential. Their root systems
are the major source of oxygen in the SF concept, and the physical
presence of the leaves., stems, roots, rhizomes. and detritus regulates
water flow ~d provides numerous contact opportunities between the
flowing water and the biological community_ These submerged plant
parts provide the substrate for development and support of the
attached microbial organisms which are responsible for much of the
treatment. The stalks and the leaves above the water smface in the
FWS wetland provi4e a shading canopy which limits .sunlight penetration and controls algae growth_ The exposed plant parts die back
each fall., but the presence of this material reduces the thermal effects
of the wind and convective heat losses during the winter months. The
litter layer on top of the SF bed adds even more thermal protection to
that type of system.
Soils
In natural w.etlan.ds most of the .nutrients required for plant growth

are obtained from the soil by emergent a quatic plants. Cattai1s, reeds,
and bulrushes will grow in a \vide variety of soils an~ as shown in
the SF wetland concep~ in relatively fine gravels_ The '<Void spaces in
the media serve as the flow channels in the SF wetland. Treatment in
these easeS is provided by microbial organisms attached to the roots,
rhizomes,. and media sm::fu.ces_ Because of the relatively light loading
in most SF wetlands, this microbial growth -d oes not produce thick
layers of attached maerial such as typically occur in a trickling filter,.
so clogging from this smrree does not appear to be a probleHL.u.43 The
major flow path in FWS wetlands is above thesail surface, and the
most active microbial activity occurs en the Strrfaces of the ..detrital .
layerandthe snbmergedplant parts.
Soils with some clay content can be very effectiVe for phosphorus
n~movaL AS descnoedin Chaps. 3 and 7, phosphorus removal in the
soil matrix of a land treatment system can be a major J:>a.thway for
almost complete phosph~ removal for many decades. In FWS wetlands., the on..,ly mntact opportunities are at the soil surface. During
the first ye2raf system operation, phosphorns rem~al ~be excellent dne to this soil activity and pla:nt developmn..t. These pathways
tend to come to e quilibrium after the first year or so, and phosphorus
removal drops off significantly_ Soils have been tried in Europe for SF
wetlands~ primarily for their pho.sphoru.s removal p.otential These
attempts. have not
successful in most cases7 since the limited
been
186 Chapter Six
hydraulic capacity of soils results in most of the applied flow moving

across the top of the bed rather than through the subsurface voids, so
the anticipated contact opportunities are not realized. The gravels
u sed in most SF wetlands have a negligible capacity for phosphorus
removal.
Soils, again with some clay content, or granular media containing
some clay minerals, also have some ion-exchange capacity. Thi.s ionexchange capability may contribute~ at leas~ temporarily, to removal
of ammonium (NH4+), which exists in wastewater in ionic form. This
. capacity is rapidly exhausted in most ~F and FWS wetlands:. since
the contact surfaces are continuously under water and continuously
anaerobic. In vertical-flow SF beds," described in a later section ofthis
chapter, aerobic conditions are periodically restored and the adsorbed
amnionium is released via biological nitljfication, which then releases
the ion-exchange sites for further ammonium adsorption.
Organisms
.(\. ~de variety of beneficial organisms, ranging from bacteriii"'tri ::protozoa to higher animals, can exist in wetland systems. The r~ of
species present is similar to that found in the aquatic and pond ~
terns described in C.~s. 4 and 5. The water hy~ci:nth sys1;ems dis,. cussed i.l). Chap. 5. depend on attached microbial growth in their root
zone for treatment.. In the case. of emergent aquatic vegetation in wetlands, this microbial growth ocen:rs mi the submerged portions 1lf the
plants, on .the litter, and directly on the media in the SF wetland
ca...~.
Wetla.Iids and the nverland-flow {OF) concept described in Chap. 7

are similar in that these two,. and water hyacinths, are " attached
growth" biological systems and .s hare many common attn-'Imte.s. with
the familiar trickli!'g filters and rotating biological contactors (RBCs).
All these systems require a substrate for the development of biological growth; their performance d epends on the detention.time in the
system and on the contact opporbmities piUV:ided and is regulated by
. the crvailability of oxygen and bythetempemt;tl:ie.
6 .3 Perfo.nnance Expectations
Wetland .systems can effectively treat hig4 levels .of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended -solids (SS),. and nitrogen, as well as
significant levels of metals, trace organics, and pathogens_
Phosphorus removal is minimal due to. the limited contact opportunities with the soiL The basic treatment mechanisms are :Sinrilar to
those described in Chaps. 4 and 5 and include sedimentatio14 ehemical precipitation and adsorption,. and micr<>bia1 interactions with BOD
. i, .
~~:: .
~etland
Systems
187
an~
nitrogen, as well as some uptake by vegetation. Even if harvesting i~ not practiced, there is a fraction of the decomposing vegetation
which remains as refractory organics and results in the development .
ofpeat in wetland systems. The nutrients and other substances associated with this refractory fraction are considered to. be permanently
removed.
Removal of BOD
The removal of settleable organics is vecy rapid in all wetland systems and is due to the quiescent conditions in the FWS type and to
deposition and.filtration in the ~F systems. Similar results have been
ob~rved with the overland-flow systems described ill Chap. 7, where
close to 50 percent of the applied BOD is removed within the firstfew
meters of the treatment slope. This settled BOD then undergoes ae.robiclanaerobic. decomposition depeiuling on the oxygen status at the.
point of depoSition.60 The remaining BOD, in colloidal and dissolved
forms, continues to be :removed as the wastewater comes in contact
With tb.e attached ~crobial gro~ in the system. This biological
a~tivity niaj be aerobic near the water surface in FWS systems and at
aerobic microsites in SF systems, but anaerobic decomposition prevails in the remainder of tbe system.
FigU.re 6.1 illustrates BOD input versus output for both FWS and
SF wetland ~ems in North America receiving waStewater ranging .
in quality from primary to tertiary quality. The system locations represente~ in. the fignre range from Canada to the Gulf states in the
United States.
All etnu.ent values in Fig. 6.1 are below the 20-mg!L :reference level
which is a common permit requirement and this per:furmance ca:ii be
7
...J
.......
______L::mg/L _______ _ - - - -.jI
~.
0\
0 .
0
cP
0
0
.Q
+
+a o .
++
+OO
cf'O
f!DO
+-
10
20
30
qo
50
60
70
BOO input,(mq/L)
+
SF wetlands
oo
o 'FWS we.t rands
Figureii.1 "BOD input versus output for .c onstrncted wetlands.
188
Chapter Six
~
0...
c
C>
8
0
0
CD
QL-~---L--~~--~--~~~~--~--~~
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
oct
Nov
Dec.
Date (1992)
.a. Influent
Figure 6.2
Effluent
C Effluent
Phraqmites
Bulrush
BOD removal in a SF constructed wetlanci
achieved reg~dles~ of the input concentration. Data. from similar systems in ~urope show essentially the. same r~Jaiion.;;hjp . with ~m
BOD concentrations up to 150 mglL. 7
.

The consistency and reliability of BOD remo-val in.wetland systems
is illustrated by Fig. 6.2, which presents perf1>nnance data for a SF
wetland in Kentucky~ qver a full annual period.. There are
par&L
lel wetland beds at this site, of identical size and confioauration; one is
planted with Phragmites and the othr with. Scirpus. ~ause of
minor hydraulic coirtrol problems,. the HRT on the Phrag]nites bed is
.3.3. days and it is 4.2 days on the Scirpus side_ The Verti.ca1 agi~ on
the graph is logarithmic so that all o! the: data can be shown .c onveniently_ During the time period shown., the wetland influent BOD
ranged from a low of 8 mg/L to almost 500 m.g/L. In spite of these
wide excursions, th~ _:e ffluent BOD from bBth cells consistently
:remained below 6 mg!L~ "In this ey:>tem., the Phragmites. ned genernlly
performed better-than theScirpus celt even though the ~- was
almost 1 .d ay less on un~ Phragmites de_ This may he due to an
enhanced
s~ply from the more extensive Phrogmites- roots
. which were observed.45
The BOD removal observed ':rithin the first few days,. at: relatively
warm temperatures~ is vezy rapid and -can he reasonably approrimat-
e d with a .first-order plug flow relationship_ The subsequent removal
is more limited .and is. believed tobe inflnenced hy the production of
residual BOD from decomposition of the "plant Titter and other natural
organics. present in the wetland. These w-etlands are -nnique in that
respect, since BOD is produced within the system from these natural
sources. ~~ a result, it ,is not possible to dP...s.ign a sys:te.rt:i f.gr zero BOD,
two
oxygen
Wetland Systems
189
regardless of the HRT provided. In the genera.! case the effluent BOD
will range from 2 to 7 mg/L and is believed to be composed entirely of
residual natural organic materials. This response is illustrated in Fig.
6.1, where input BOD levels of as low as 10 mg/L still resUlt in effluent values of 2-5 mg!L.
Removal of suspended solids i? very effective in both types of constructed wetlands, as sho~n by the input-output comparison in Fig.
6.3. In"this case, the mput total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations ~g~ up to 160 mg/L but the effiuent levels were consistently
below the 20-mg/L reference level. with one exception. This one system was a SF wetland experiencing significant surface overflow7 and
this short-circuiting resulted in an effluent level of about 23 mg/L.
Data from the same systems used for Fig. 6.1 are used iii this figure.
The high input TSS values in Fig. 6.3 are from facultative lagoons
which precede the wetland and discharge high concentrations of
algae. Th~se algae are effectively removed in both FWS and SF wetlands, but the~r subsequent decomposition can release additional
ammonia to the water flo~-:ing through the wetland.
Solids removal is quite rapid in these wetlands; at the FWS system

in Arcat[-1. California, essentially all the solids removal occurred in
the initial 12-20 p ercent of the cell area. 21 At the pil<?t FWS system in
Listowel, Ontario, some of the channels received rmsettled .efiluent
from an aeration cell, and TSS r~ached 406 mg/L at times.28 Removal
of TSS was stHl very effective but resulted in the buildnp of a sludge
bank and dieback of cattails near the inlet~ Similar results have been
40r-~-------------------------------------,
_:l
.....
"D"
E
-=
30-
--
~
~
+ .
:!:!:
0
20!----------------
"2
..
fO '"" .
o .o
0:
o
2D
+ SF 1111etlam!s
46
0
0
B*"+
ootm
-------v
co +
+
0
a:J
- f----- --
.2 .0.mq/L .
so
o an o
0
oo
$l
0 aDO
lP
0
I
eo
100
120
Suspended solids input, mg/L
o FWS
t40
1.6(
wetlands
figure li.3 TSS .inpnt versus output for FWS and SF constmcted wet- .
lands.
190
Chapter Six
observed at a FWS system in Pembrook, Kentucky. The SF beds at

Sante~, California, planted with cattails also experienced dieback
near the inlet following extended application (>6 months) of primary
effiuent; the bulrush and reed beds
this same system were not .
affected by. the same t:onditions. The dieback in all of these cases is
apparently due to the oxygen demand from the wastes exceeding the
oxygen-transfer capability of the vegetation. Cattails have a relatively
shallow root zone compared to reeds and bulrushes and therefore produce a smaller ~tal volume of oxygen_
Clogging of the pore spaces available for flow in t~e gravel-media
SF wetland can be a concern. Partial clogging, near the inlet~ has
occUrred in .a few systems which utilize a subsurface distribution
manifold and which also permit occasional high-concentration solids
d ischarges- ln'l{.estigations at several operational systems in
Loui.::.-iana4 L~ found that.the void spaces in the rock typically contained less than 1 percent solids and that at least 80 percent of these
solids were inorganic. This.suggests that.these solids may have been
soils and similar debris, caiHed into the site with the gravel media
dati og constn:rct.ion activ.ities. In the worst case,. the solids concentration measnred 6 percent,. bnt 80 percerlt.ofthat was still inorganic. A
pilot study in Tennessee- has measured the root volume of Scirpu_s in
a gravel-bed SF wetland. The plants had been growing vigorously for
over ayear~ :and the roots .h ad penetrated to the bottom ufthe bed. In
all cases the root volume occupied less thall5 percent of the available
.void spaces,. and other solids less than 1. percent. It is not believed
that .complete clogging from accumulation of normal wastewater
solids or plant roots is a significant riskdnringthe design life of'these
SF wetlands'" However., partial clogging can reduce the hydraulic condnc.tiv.it.y of the media7 and appropriate design safety factors must be
nsed.a s described in Sec. 6:...4..
Significant .c logging of the void spaces in th~ SF wetland_ ~ result
in surface overlTnw which negates the purpose of the SF concept and
.afrects perfo:rmane.e_ The, smface overflow .observed on a number of
these systems in the :G ulfstates is due to inadeqUate hydraulic design
and not to clogging from accumulated wastewater solids or plant
roots:-41.43 as described in Sec. 6..3. The olliy SF systems. which have
been observed with. significant clogging near the inlet zone are those
where preliminaT,y treatment is provided by activated slndge and
w:here _sludge management in the activated ..slndge rmit is not adequate:. If this rondition is anticipated in f.l:u."ur.e systems, it wOOid be
prudent to locate the inlet devices for the wetland above the media
surface. Most of the accumulated sludge can then be readily removed
fr:-qm the bed. .Remo:ving .accnmnlated sludge from a bed with a subsurface inlet won1d reqnire removal and replacement of the gravel media
in
'
, S
'
Wetland Systems
191
Removal of nitrogen
Nitrogen removal can be very effective in both FWS .a nd SF constructed wetlands, and the major removal mechanisms are similar for both.
Although plant uptake of nitrogen d~es occur, only a minor fraction of
the total nitrogen can be removed by this mechanism in these systems. Nitrogen removal in these wetlands can range up to 79
percent.34 Harvesting trials at the FWS wetlands at Listowel and
Arcata accounted for less than 10 percent :of the nitrogen removed by
the system. 1929- A range of 12-16 percent WID? estimated for. removal
by plant uptake at the Santee,. Californi~ system..22
The nitrogen entering wetland systems ~ be in a variety 'of foi-ms
such.as organic nitrogen, ammonia [the combination of ammonia and
organic N is expressed as total Kjeidahl nitrogen (TKN)], nitrite, and
nitrate. The ammonia in wastewaters (!an .h e in two related forms: unio~ed ammonium ions (NH.t > and dissolved ammonia gas (NHs); the .
balance between the two forms .depends on pH and temperature
described in Chap. 3. In this chapter~ use of the general term ammonia can refer to either typeor a combination, unl~~ a specific reference is made to the particular form. The biological ccinversion of these
various nitrogen forms is temperature sensitive to val"ying degrees.
The design of the wet~d th~refore has to.take in~o account the form
. of nitrogen entering the system :and the expec;ted temperature and
ozygen status in the system. The potential for nitrogen r-emoval may
take several years to- develop in ~ wetland system, since it.may
require at least two. or three growing seasons
f{)r the plants~ roOt sys.
.
terns, litter layer, soils~ and.benthic materials to reach equilibrium.
Septic tanks~ primary treatment SJTStems, and facnltative lagoons
do not usually contain nitrates in th-eir effiuents but normally have
significant levels of organic N .a:nd ammonia. Dnring the wai:m summer months, facultative lagoons. :m.ey have low levels of ammonia in
th.e effluent, dne to effective volfu.~tion. .as described in Chap_ 4, but
.o ften contain higb concentratioliS m organic N assoeiated with the
algae leaving with the efiluent_ .Most aerated secondary treatment
system eftln.ents typically OD.tain.low Ie"~ls of .organic N but eontafu.
significant concentrations .of .either ammonia or nitrate, .or both.
Systems with high-intensity or long-term aeration., or with units
designed specifically for nitrificatio~ nsually have mostof the nitrogen in the nitrate form.
as
Organic nitrogen. The organic N entering a wetland is typicailly asso-
ciated with particul~ matter such as organic wastewater solids

and/or algae. The initial remo.val of this material, as TSS, is usually
quite rapid. lVIu.ch 'Of this organi~ N then undergoes decomposition or
mineralization and releases ammonia to the water. The plant detritns
192
Chapter Six
and other naturally occurring organic materials in the wetland can

also be a source of organic N~ resulting m a seasonal release of ammonia as decomposition occurs. A conservative approach to design would
therefore assume that most of the organic N fraction of the entering
TKN would appear as ammonia in the system.
Ammonia nitrogen. Biological nitrification followed by denitrification

is believed to be the major pathway for ammonia removal in both SF
and FWS constructed wetlands as they are presently c-onstructed .?Jld
operated in the United States. The opportunities for nitrification exist
where conditions are aerobic, when there is sufficient alkalinity and a
suitable temperature and after most of the BOD has been removed so
that the nitrifying organisms can compete with the heterotrophic
organisms for the available oxygen. The nitrifYing organisms are also
thought to prefer attachment to substrate surfaces_ 'Experience has
shown that the limiting condition for nitrification in these wetlands is
the availability of oxygen. Theoretical relationships indicate that 4~6
g of o::...-ygen are required to oxidize 1 g of:N"'H4~--N. 57 . :
Figure 6.4 compares input ammonia to effluent ammonia for a
number of representative F\VS and SF wetlands_ The data shown are
from the same systems used for Figs. 6.1 and 6.3. The dashed line in
the figure indicates when input ammonia equals output ammonia~ or
zero removal. A number of the data points in Fig. 6.4 lie ~hove that
line, indicating there has been a net production of ammonia within
the system.. The source of this extra ammonia .i s believed to be from
mineralization of the organic N in the wetland combined with insufficient oxygen and inadequate aerobic conditions. :required fOr nitrification within the HRT allowed by the system.'
7
..,..,
q....../
../
.;,.--c..-- --- . -- --- --------- - ----. --- ....

....~o
a
0
Inpllt ;
out\,
pt:t
./
./"
..,. ..........
+o
_,
../--:: +
0 ./
...
0
.Q
..,.+..-a
...,.. . /
./'
+ ...... --;
./
.....-'0
.,
0~--~L-----J-----~----~----~----~----~
f"JH3 input
+
SF wetlands
8
.mgJL
10
t2
!4
o 'FWS watlands
figure 6.4 Ammonia input versus output for FWS and SF con.structed
wetlands.
Wetland Systems
193
The a vrutahutitJ~ of oxygen is related to the efficiency of atmospheric

reae!;a,tio.llli m tt.he FvVS ease and to the exten~ of root penetration and
a_ffic.ien~y. of (!}~gen transfer to those roots in the SF case. The latter
IJeJi:.t.ion~bip.: i~ illustrated by the data shown later 41 Table 6.5, where
th~ d~pbht o.f li00t penetration in the Santee, Caiifornia, SF system is
compared! t.o; the capability for ammonia removaL The bulrush chan- .
nels, whi~h had root penetration to the bottom of the bed, removed 94
B-er.cent of'the applied nitrogen; while cattails~ whose roots penetrated
only to mi<i:-depth of the bed, removed 28 percent of the nitrogen; and
the cont.z:ol bed, with no vegetation, removed 11 perc-ent..22 These
r.esults clearly demonstrate the necessity of vegetation in the SF wetland and also the importance of matching the depth of the bed to the
potential root penetration depth if significant nitrification is expected.
Any flow beneath the root zone in the subsurface medium v.ill be
anaerobic? and nitrification in that area will not be possible. The rate
of oxygen transfer, even with a fully developed root zone, is still relatively slow, and a HRT 6-8 days during wann weathr will probably be necessary to achieve the desired level of nitrification in these
horizontal-flow beds.
The relationships among HRT? depth of root penetration in tb.e- SF
wetland, and the presence
algae in the wastewater are illnsttated
by the data presented in Table 6.1.42
The systems listed m Table 6.1 With algae presE:nt in the wetland
influent all have facultative lagoons for preJ.im.ina,.ry treatment, the .
HRT is relatively short in the wetland component~ and instead of
removal they all show ammonia production in the s-ystem.. The
remaining systems with poor ammonia removals also have a re1atively short HRT and only partial root de1;'-elopment... The -only two systems listed with excellent ammonia remo-v.al had n.o. algae m tfi:e
of
of
TABLEi7.1
Ammonia RemQvaJ. in SF Wet.fands
Ammonia
remo-.al
Location
.Me~ ..
(%)
present
Denham Springs. M
.Haoghton. LA
Carville, LA
Benion.KY
Mandeville-, LA
Hardin, KY (bulrush>
H:ardin, KY (reeds)
Degussa Corp.? AL
Monterey, VA
Bear Creel4 AL
Santee.. CA (Scirpus)
- 1328
Ys
-554
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
- 22
- 45
- 50
IS
20
45
6
80
'94
BRT
- - iii} -
N{}
No
No
No
No
N(}
*Root depth expressed as a percentage oftotal bed depth.
l
-4:..5
'Bed
Root
ilepth
.
depth
----y-ni}__ _______
i~y--
{):61
50
50
50
.1--=
0..76
0.76
{}j)l
40'
0.7
0_61
:s'O
4.4
3.3
1
.0:61
0.61
0.61
50.
40
50
0 .9
3.9
7
O.SI
0.30
0.61
100
100
..
30:
--
194
Chapter Six
wastewater, had a longer HRT, and the root system .was fully developed. Nitrification is usually quite rapid in an aerobic environment
with warm- temperatures; the fact that it took 4-7 days for effective
nitrification to occur at the Bear Creek and Santee sites indicates
that the availability of oxygen in these systems. is a limiting design
parameter. Simihrr r esults can be shown for FWS wetlandsT With an
eve n longer HRT required for nitrification. Effective ammonia
removal in these sys tems will require either an extended HRT or
some supplemental oxygen source for nitrification.
Ammonia removal is also temperatUre dependent, as shown by the

data present ed in Fig. 6.5. These are effiuent data from a FWS wetland in Iowa with a HRT of about 14 days. Preliminary treatment is
provided by an aerated lagoon~ and the system operates continnousl_y
on a year-round basis, with an influent 8mmonia concentration of
about 16 mg/L. A 4-year period of record is shown in the fi.gare.
During the warm months.the effiuent ammonia is consistently 1 mgiL
or less; during the cold winter months, the effluent concentration
increase~ depending on the water temperature (the wetland effiuent
water temperature was 0C in January 1991).
Alkalinity is also required to support the biological nitrification
reactions. The accepted theoretical design ratio is 7.1 g alkalinity (as
. CaC03 ) J>erg NH4+- N
oxidized.~
It is prudent and con.."&Vative to
. design for 1~ g of alkalinity per gram.of ammonia b~cause of extraneous losses. Typical municipal wastewat~rs in most Qf the. United
States may have sufficient alkalinity.,. but supplemental additi.o11s
may be required to achieve very low ammonia levels and for so.ine
industrial wastewaters wiUllow alkalinity. About half of the the6reti20r-----------------------------------------~
JASONDJFMAMJJASONOJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAS
.
1990-
H~Sl
19.92.
1993
Figure 5..5 Ammonia removal in aFWS wetland in a cold climate.
Wetland Systems
195
cal alkalinity can be recovered when the nitrate produced is biologically reduced by denitrification. :; 7
Nitrate nitrogen. The remov~l of nitrate (N03 ), via biological denitrifi-
cation, in wetlands requires anoxic conditions, an adequate carbon

sonrce and acceptable temperature conditions. The presence of anoxic conditions is almost guaranteed in most constructed wetlands, and
water temperature depends on the local climate and season? so the
availability of an adequate carbon source tends to be the facto~ controlling the process. Methanol and other easily degraded carbon
sources are used in conventional AWT processes for denitrification.
These supplements are not cost effective for use in wetlands, so the
denitrifi~tiQn process must depend on organics present in the wastewater or naturally present in the wetland. However7 as discussed previously, the biological nitrification step typically requires prior
removal of much of the BOD (to 20 mg/L or less), so there may not be
much of the original available organic carbon present in the wastewater by
time denitrification is expected to occur. As a rule of
thin:nb,.it is estimated that ~9 g of J?.OD are required to denitrify 1 g
af N03-N.-57 A wastewater with 15. mg/L nitrate would therefore
require up to 135 mg/L of BOD for complete denitrification. The otlier
nngor caibon source in the wetland is the plant litter and the other
natural organics presen~ in the benthic layer. The tissue in Typha
;and Pkmgmites and similar emergent plants contains about 45 percent carbon on a dry-weight basis. Assuming an annual yield of about
30 mtlha (dw) {14 tons/ac} and that at least 40 percent of the tissue
carbon is av2ilable to support denitrification, then 5.4 mtlha (2.52
tons/ac) w ould be availabl~. At a C:N03- N ratio of 5:~ ~s carbon
source could support denitrification of 1.1 mt of N03-N per year, if
temperature c onditions are favorable. That should be more than adequate to support denitrification at the hy<h-anlic- and nitrogen loadings nmmally used in these con::iixucted wetland systems. The FWS
wetland cype :should have an advantage in this regard, since the plant
litter. is a:lieady in the water and susceptible to more rapid decomposition as compared ta the SF wetlan~ where the p1ant litter rests .on
top of'the media
Figure :t6 .compares nitrate input .to D.i~te effiuent for selected
FWS and SF constructed wetlands. The dashed line represents the
.c ondition where input equ:a1s output o~ zero removal In this t=ase,. all
of the data indicate at least some removal as compared to Fig. 6.4y
which .shows internal ammonia production in several wetland sisterns. The gerieral anoxic conai:t;ion present i_n both types 0~ construct-ed wetlands is the major factor responsible for the performance
snown in both these figures.
7
the
196
Chapter Six
20
18~
...J
.......
0
16
14
-::ra.
!2
:::r
0
+
()
4
+
SF wettor:ds
Figure ....6
~1r.rate
0
0
10
t2
8
Nitrate input, mglL
14
!6
18
20
o FWS wetlands
input "ersns output for FWS and SF constructed
wetland..s.
The data shown in F~.. 6.6 .suggest that 3:t input concentratio;o.s
@.eater than 6 mg/L the remO\.lCU seems to be more effective fa:r the
FWS-type wetland. This is possib-ly due to the increased availability
of the necessary -carbon._ s:>urce in this type -of :wetland as comp~red to
tb;e- SF wetlands where _the rQot .systems wereuot fully developed and
could not provide a comparable carbon sou-rce.
Remoyai of phosphorus
Phosphorns removal in natural systems occurs as a result of a~sorp

tion,. complexati~ and precipitation and is very effective in the soilbased land treatment Sy-stems described in Chap. 7. Phosphorus
removal in wetland systems is not as effective beeause of the limited
.c ontact oppm:trmities between the wastewater and the soiL A wetland
system may show -vezy effective phosphorus removal during the first
year or twn .of operations due to soil adsorption at the contact surface
.and .plant uptake dur.ing the .eax.Iy vigorous growth and expansion -of-the plallt cover_ When snch a system reaches .eqrcilibrium, howev~~ .
the phosphor:u:s removal is likely to be reduced_ Piantuptake rilritinues to. occur~ bu.t .subsequent decompositio~ rel~ases some of that
phosphorus back to the water_
F1g11re -6~7 c.umpares: phosphorus input tfr output for representative
FWS and SF constructed wetland systems. The dashed line in th~ figure represents the case where inpnt is equal to output_ Fcnr of the
points ~e at .or slightly above the line~ but the majority indiCate sig-:
nifu=ant removal in the range of 30-50" percent. It is believed that this
rem-()'\<""al cap-ability .c an be su.struned over the long term dming the
design life of the system..
Wetland Systems
197
lO r---------------------------------------~
/
/
/
filpuf "' output~_,.,./
/
0
_,.
_,.,.c;
/
0
.o
0
0 ' 0
00
//
0+
0
/
/
10
Phosphorus input. mgiL

+ SF wetlands
-o FWS wetlands
Figure 6.7 Phosphorus input versus output for FWS and SF constructed wetlands.
The one SE' sjstem shown in Ftg~ 6. 7 Vvith an input Df 5 rng/L and
an out}Jut of less that 0.5 mg/L is a unique case: The fine gravels used
in this system appear to be coated with iron oxides~ and this coating .
is believed responsible frir the ~gh pho&phoru5 removaL ).fa ny SF
systems in Europe have used soil as the media in hopes of improving
phdsphorus remolal. The attempts have not . been successful; the
milch lower hydr-a.nlic conductivity of a soil bed r-esults in Er,anificant
surface flow, so the wastewater has little opportunity for contact with
the subsurface soil particles.. Some:ex.perimental and developmental
work has been. undertaken using expanded clay aggregates and iron
or aluminum oxide addi.tives; some of these treatments ,may have
promise, but the long-term expectatian.s. have not been defined.
Removal of metalS
1'h2 meeha:nism fur metals removal in wetlands are c:.jmilar to those ..

described previously for phosphorus and can include plant uptake~
.adsorptio~ complexatio~ and precipitation. Since the organic and.
ill().rganie sediments are continuously increasing (at a slQw rate) in
these wetlands the availability of fr-esh adsorption sites is als{)
inereased. Figure 6-8 :illustrates metals removal capability for two SF
constructed wetlands. Almost complete l'emoval -..vas observed, and
this is comparable to the Iand treatment systems discuss-ed fu Chap. 7
and Sec. 3.5. Both FWS and SF wetlands .are .similar in their capability for metals removal, and this capacity .c an be sustained ove r the
long term during the design me of the system_
.
198
Chapter Six
80
0
>
c:...
.........
40
a.
20
0
AI
Cu
Cd
Zn
Wastewoter parameter
E2:J I+.Jrdin. KY
~ Santee. CA
3-day
6-day
Rgure 6.8 Removal of metals in constructed wetland systems.
Metals .will accumulate in.the wetland system, but at the concentrations normally found in w~tewa~ers they should not r-epresent a
long-term threat to the habitat values of the site OI' t~ long-term alternative uses. If a wetland is planned for treatment of an industrial
wastewater with high metals content, the potential cumulative metal
loadings .desqibed in Chap. 8 should be considered during.design_ A
wetland of thiS type 'vill continue to function and r.emove metals and
other pollutants effectively, but the impact of concern. is rm.the. fu:tm-e
habitat v:aiues or site use after system cloStii'e.
The famous ~sterson Marsh situation, where high ccncentrations
of accumulated selenium proved toxic to waterfowL shmilii not be a
problem for constructed wetlan.d s if they are properly designed and:
managed.At Kesterso~ most of the applied water evaporatetL leaving an 1ncreasing accumulation of selenium and -other substances.
The potential for similar :conditions must be evaJnated during system
design in arid climates, and if avOidance o-r corrective action is Il1)t
feasible or .c ost effective, then the consb UL"ted wetla:nd concept may
have to be abando.n ed. The most reasonable approach is not to :permit
complete evaporation of the applied wastewater but tQ design the sjr&:tem for continuous discharge and/or infiltration so. the objectionable
constituents do not accumulate to toxic levels.
Organic priority pollutants
the
As describe!=l in Sec. 3.3,

removal of priority-pollutant organic
compounds occurs via V(}latiliz.ation or adsorption and biodegradation..
The adsorption occurs. primarily on the orgamc matter .p resent in the
, ,. :\<
Wetland Systems
199.
system. Table 3.6 shows removal of organic chemicals in land treatment systems exceeding 95 percent, except in a very .few cases where
>90 percent was observed. The removal in constructed wetlands is
even more effective, since the HRT in wetland systems is measured in
days as compared to the minutes or hours for land treatment con:..
cepts, and significant organic materials for adsorption .are almost
always present .. As a .result, the opportunities for volatilization and
adsorption/biodegradation are enhanced in the wetland process.. Table
62 lists removals observed in pilot-scale constructed wetlands with
24-h HRT. The removals should be even higher, and co-mparable to
those in Table 3.6, at the seve.r al-day HRT commonly used for wetland design.
Removal of pathogens.
Pathogen removal in wetlands is due to the same factors described in

Chap. 3 for pond systems, and Eq. 3.26. can be' n~d to estimate
pathogen removal in these wetlands. Actual removal should be more
effective due to the additional filtration pr.o vided by the: plants and .
litter l~yer in a wetlan~. Table 3.9 contains perfcrrmaricErdata for both
FWS and SF systems. The principal removal mechanism in SF wet1imds is physical entrappment and filtration_ As shnvm in Tab~e it9~
the finerte~"tured material used at Iselin, Penn:::!'"}'ivani~ ~ dearly
superior to the gravel used at Santee,: California. Removals of both
bacteria and vi:ru.s are equally efficient in beth SF andFWS wetlands.
The pilo-t FWS wetlands at Arcata, Californic; removed about 95 percent of the fecal coliforms and 92 percent of the virus with a HRT of
about 3.3 days; at .the pilot study site in Santee,.Califurn::ia, the- SF.
TABI.E62 Removc:il of Organic Priority Pollutants in ConstrudedWetrands
Initial co~e.c:t:mtion
Compound
Benzene
Biphenyl
Chiorobenzene
Dimethyl-phthalate
EthyThenzene
Naphthalene
p-Nitrotoluene
Toluene
p:-Xylene
Bromoform
chlorofomi
1,2-DiChloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 -Tr.i.chloroethane
(mglLi'
721
8-.21
' 531
1033
430
Ren:urrn1 in 24h
(%)
81
96
81
8:1
.88
707
9()
'986.
9.9
591.
-'398 .
41
838
822
457
7~6
ss
S2
9-3
69
49-
75
OS
200
Chapter Six
t:::F~:~=
.z
E
1000.
..
1000
::>
c
E
~.2
0
0
c:
<J
.,.
u..
10
J
Jar.
Feb
Mer
Ape
May
Jun
Jul
AuQ
Sep
Oct
Dote ( 1992)
&
Influent
a Effluent
.Phragmites
Effluent
Bulrush
Figure 6.9 Fecal coliform removal in a SF constnicted wetlancL
wetland achieved >98 percent removal of coliforms and >99- pel-cent

'Virus removal ~vith a HRT of about .6 days. 2023 Figure 6.9 presents
fecal -coliform removals over a 1-year period at the SF~ gravel hed,.
constructed wetland at Hardin, ~ntu~k:y. .
This same system was used for the comparison shoT;n in Fig. 6. 2.
The HRT in the Phragmite'S .cell was 3.3 days, and it was 4..2 days in
the parallel Scirpus cell. In general, the Scirpus cell performed betier:but this i~ probably dne to the longer HilT and not to the plant
species. There does not appear to be any .consistent seasonal effect on
removal performance, .since the initial removar is due to physical separation of the particles even though the actual die-off is tempe:ratwe
dependent as defined by Eq. 3..26.
The results shown in Fig. 6.9 are compatible with experience elsewhere for both FWS and $F. wetlands~ \vith a removal of 1~2 Iogs at
3-7 days RRT. A HRT o~>l4 days might achie-ve a 3-4logremoval
6.4 General Design Procedures

_.\II constructed wetland systems can be on-sidered to ba attach~rl:
growih biological :reactors, and the!r perf-ormance can be estimated
with :frrst-ord~r plug flow kinetics far BOD and nitrogen r.emn~al.
De~ign models are presented in thi~ chapter for removal ofBOD~ 'TSS.
ammonia nitrogen, nitrate, total nitrogen~ and phosphorus, f or both
.F'WS and SF wetlands. In some cases an altemative model from .f fther
sources is a-lso presented. for comparison po_rposes7 since .a nniv-ersal
consensus. i):oes not exist on the "best" design app~oach. The ~c
.relationship forpl'ug flew reactors is given by Eq. 6.1:
Wetland Systems
Cr. = exp(
. - K T t)
-~
201
<6.1J
v.:here: .~.. ~: .uent w.ollutant concentration, mg/L

<?;_u,
::;.; ilrmfiu.ent: pBllutant concentration, mg/L
Kr: ~' tt~.m:Iperature-dependent first-:order reaction rate constant,. d- 1
t = . ley.draulic residence time, d

The hydraulic residence time in the wetland can be calculated
using Eq. 6.2;
LWyn
t = --=-{6.2)
Q
where L = length ofthe wetland cell,. m (ft)
W = width of the wetland cell, m (ft)
y = depth ofwater in the wetland cell, m (ft)
n = porosity, or the space available for water to ilow through
the wetland. Vegetation and litter occtipy smpe space in
the FWS. wetland and the me~ roots and other solids do
the same in the SF case. Porosity is a percent, expressed
as a decimal.
Q = the a"\>ernge flow through the wetlru""J:d, m 3/d (ft3/d)
Q = Qin, + Qout
(6.3)
lt is. necessary tfi. determine the average flow uSing Eq. 6.3 to compensate for water l-osses or gains via seepage Or precipitation as the
wastewater flows thro~ah the wetland. A conservative design nright
assmne no seepage a,nd adopt reasonable estimates for .evapotran?piration losses .and rninfall gains from local records for each month of
eoneem.. This requires a .P reliminary assumption regarding tbe sur.face area of the wetland so the volume of water lost or..added can be
cale~a~. It~ ~n(lUy~~~nable for-a p~IfiDTnary- design -eStJa,-ate. .
toassumetbat!lm~Qom-
.
..
It is then. posffible- to determine the surface area of the wetland by
c~bi:zring ~qs. 6.1 and 6.2:
Q1n(C IC)
A =LW =
"
Kryn
{6-4)
where .A = smface area of wetland_. m 2 (ft. 2)

The value :used far KT in Eq_ 6_1 or 6.4 depends on ~e pollutant
requiring r-emoval and ou the temperature; these are discussed. in
later sections ofthis .chap~-
202
Chapter Six
Since t}:le biological reactions involved in treatment are temperature dependent, it is necessary for proper design to estimate the
water temperature in the wetland. The performance and basic feasibility of FWS 'wetlands in very cold climates are also influenced by ice
formation on the system. In the extreme case .a relatively shallow
. wetland might freeze to the bottom~ and effective treatment would
cease_ Therefore, this chapter includes calculation proCedures for estimating water temperatures in the wetland and for estimating the
thickness of ice which will form.
The hydraulic design of the wetland is just as important as the
models .which determine pollutant removal, since those models are
based on the critical plug flow assumption, with uniform flow across
the .wetland cross section and minimal short-circuiting. Many of the
early designs for both SF and FWS wetlands did not give sllfficient
consid~ation to .the hydraulic requirements; the result was often
unexpected flow conditions, including short-circuiting, and adverse
impactS on expected performance. These problems can be avoided by
using the hydraulic design procedures in tbis chapter. .
A valid design reqmres cons:i.derati{)n ofhydraulics and the thermal
aspects,. as well .as. removal kinetics_ The procedure is usually iterative in that it is.necessaiy to assume a water depth and temperature
to solve the kinetic equations. These will predict the wetland area
iequ:ired _to remmre the pollutant of concern.. .Th ~ pollutant requiring
the 1arge5t area for rem&va1 is the limiting design parameter. (LDP),
and it controls the size of the wetland. Once the wetland area is
known, the thermal equations can: be used to determine the theoretiCal wate-r tempe.nrtw:e in the wetland If the original a8sumed water
t.emperatu:re and tlris: c alculated temperature do not agree, further
~anons mthe .calculations are required until the two temperature
valries converge. The last step is.to use the appropriate hydrauliccalculatiorrs to determine tbe final aspect ratio {length:width) and flow
velocity in the wetland. Ifthese final values are significantly different
:than. those assumed for the thermal calctilations,. then another iteration ~y be nece&:!-cuy._
6.5 Hydraulic .Design .Procedures

T he hydraulic d:esign of con.structed wetland systems is critical to
their s:uccessful performance_ All of the design models in current use
assume uniform flow amditions and rmrestricted opPortunities for
contact between the wastewater constituents and the organisms
reS})onsible for treatment. In the SF wetland eoncept it is also nece-.s.sary to -ensure that subsurface fi:ow conditions are maintained under
nm:maJ: ci:rcmnstancesfor the design life ofthe system.. These assump-
.... ,,
Wetland Systems
203
tiqns and goals can be realized only through careful attention to

hydraulic design and proper constrUction methods.
.
.
Flow through wetland systems must overcome the frictional resistance !n the system. This resistance is imposed by the vegetation and
litter layer in the FWS type, the media, the plant roots, and accumulated solids in the SF type. The energy to overcome this resistance is
provided by the head differential between the inlet and the outlet of
the wetland. Some of this differential can be provided by constructing
the wetland with a sloping bottom. However, it is neither cost-effective nor prudent to depend on juSt a sloping bottom for the head differential r~quired,. Since the resistance to flow may increase with time
and the bottom slope is fixed for th.e life of the system. The preferred
approach is to construct the bottom with sufficient slope to ensure
complete drain:age When necessary and to provide an outlet :which
permits adjustment ofthe water level at the end of the wetland. This
adjustment can then be used to set whatever water surface slope is
required and in the lowest position used to drain the.wetland. Details
. .. h" on these adjustable outlets can be found in a later section of this
. :~..... chapter.
.
The aspect ratio (L:W') selected fur the wetland strongly influences
the hydraulic regime and the resistance to flow iil the system. In the
design of some early FWS systems
jt
was thought tbat a v:ecy high
aspect ratio was necessary to ensure plug flow conditions in the wetland and to avoid short-circnit:ing., and aspect ratios ()fat least 10:1
were reoommended_25 A Iru!Tor problem with this apprpach is that the
resistance to flow increases as the length ofthe flow path increases~ A
FWS systemconstructed in California with an aspect ratio of about
20:1 exp~ced overllow at.the-h earl ,ofthe wetland after a few years
because .o f the increasing flow resistance from the accmnulating vegetative litter. Aspect ratios from :less than 1:! up to ab<mt 3:1 fir 4:1 are
acceptable. Short-circuiting c an be minimized by careful coD..::t-truction
and maintenance ofthe vv:etland bottom, .by use -o f mnltiple cells, and
with intermediate open-water zones for flow redistn1n.Ition... These
techniques are .fiiscussed in greater detail in later .sections of this.
c.ba.pter_
~e flow of water in a FWS wetland is .d escribed 'Qy the Manning
equation=- winch .defines f low in O pen c:hannels:. The .flow velocity .in
the wetland, as described by Eq. 6.5., depends on the depth of flow,
the slope of the water snrface and the v~getation density. Other
applications of the 1\fanning -equation to op~n-ehannel flow assume
that the frictio:n:al r~ce occurs only at the bottom and the sides
7
--
204
Chapter Six
of the channel. In these FWS constructed wetlands the resistance is

distributed over the entire depth of the water column beca.u se the
emerge.n t plants and litter are present in that entire space. The
Manning equation also assumes turbulent flow, which is not completely valid for wetlands but is an acceptable appr?ximation.
1 . "'"" ( 11"')
.
v=
n: ty-'") s
(6.5)
wher.e v = flow velocity, rn/s (ftis')

n = l\Ianning's coefficient~ sfm!J3 (s/ft~'3)
y = depth of water in the "~Netland, m (ft)
s ~ hydraulic gradient, or slope ofthe water surface, m/m (ftift)
In wetland systems, Mannings number (n } is a function of the
depth of the water because of the resistance imposed by the emergent
vegetation. The resistance in tum depends on the density of the vegetation and tl1e litter,
which can varv with the location and the season.
.
The relationship.:is defined hy Eq. 6.6:
where a
{.6)
= y1'2
= resistance factor~ s mL'6 (s - ft)
- 0.4 s m (0.887 ~ ft) for sparse, low-standing vegetation, }'>0.4 m

116
-m
- 1.6 s m 116 (3.549 s - ft} for moderately dense vegetation

a wastewater wetland withy=0.3 m (=1ft)
= 6.4 s m 116 (14..197 s- ft) fo.r '\1-er)'. dense vegetation and litter
layerT in wastewater wetland withy< 0.3 m (<1ft)
In most si"ttJa#ons, '\vith typical emergent ~ae.tation.. it is acceptable to assume for design purposes that the valne (}fa lies betWeen 1
and 4. Substitution of Eq. 6.6 in Eq. 6_5 produces
_Jj?
v =
L _y"lf'Jj;'112.
a
or
1 - 6:_1/'1
v = -JI'
::.-a
(6.7)
It is then possible by substitution and rea..rrangement. of tenns to

develop an equation for determining the :absolute maximum length of
the wetland cell, since
...4.
s = (m )(y)
v= Q
lV = __.::..
and
.
. L
~Yy
L
Wetland Systems
W = width of wetland cell, m
As
=
=
205
(ft.)
m 2 (ft2 }
surface area of wetland..

L
length of wetland cell, m (ftJ
m = increment of depth serving as head differential,% as a
decimal
Substitution of these terms in Eq. 6.7 and
~eariangem:ent
of terms
prod~ces
= [ (A)(y)
(m)~(86,400} ]2,3
813
(a)(Q)
or
= [ (As)(y)2:667(m)0..5(86,400) 1o.6667
(a)(Q}
. (6.8)
.l
The surface area of the . wetland (As }. is first determined

with the
.
limiting design model for pollutant removal presented in later sections of this chapter. Equation 6.8 then allows the direct calculati{)n
of the ma.Wn.nm acceptable cell length ~Ch is compatible 1vith the
selected hydraulic gradient. It is desirable to use the- smallest possible hydraulic gradient to provide a reserve for fU:ture adjustm.ents if
necessary. An aspect ratio (L:W) of ~:1 -will usually be the most costeffective selection, but other combinations of length and hydraulic
gradient are also feasible, in order to accommodate th~ wetland to the
constraints of site topography. The m value used for design in Eq. 6.8
will typically be between 10 and 36 percent of the potential head
available. The maximum potential head is. equal to the fu.il water
depth (y} of the wetland when"!-= 100 pe:reent. Tha:t is not a oonserv-ative design confignration: since the wetland would. be dzy at the
effluent end~ and there would be no rese..."""Veeapaci:ty ifthefl-ow resls:tance in the wetland. were m increase fm:ther.
The Q value in Eq. 6 .8 is the average flow through the wetland
--[(Qrn, + . Qaaf)/2],. to-take..into_accormt_~r lq~ses -~!:E.0}_~. ~E-e !~-~~!?.:
a transpiration,. seepage, and precipitation.. It is u.snaily acceptable for
a preliminary
design ro assume that Q.lU = QOu..
__ The final 5_YBtem
design should take inro account vn3:ter losses and .gain5 dne to evapotranspiration, seepage,. and precipitation.
Subs.urface-ffaw wetlands
Darcy,s law, as .d~fin:ed hy Eq. 6.9, describes the flow regime in a

porous media and is generally accepted for design of SF wetlands
usiDg sails and gravels as the bed nredi.a. A higher level of turbulent
flow may occU.r in beds using very coarse rock:, and Exgun~s equation is
more appropriate for this case. Da.rcY~ law iS.not strictly appiieahle to
206
. Chapter Six
subsurface-flow wetlands because of physical limitations in the actual

system. It assumes laminar flow conditions. but turbulent flow may
occur in very coarse gravels when the design utilizes a high hydraulic
gradient: Darcy's law also assumes that the flow in the System is constantand uniform, but in the actual case the flow.may vary due to precipitation, evaporation, and seepage; and local short-circuiting of flow
may occirr due to un.e qual porosity or poor construction. If small to
moderate-sized gravel is used as the media, if the system is properly
constructed to minimize short-circuiting, if the system is designed to
depend on a minimal hydraulic gradient and the gains and losses Of
water are recognized, then Darcy's law can provide a reasonable
apProximation ofthe hydraulic conditions in a SF wetland.
u=ks
s
Since
u=.!L
Wy
.. . ir:.
Then
Q=kAs
s c
{6.9)
= average flo~ through the wetland,. m 3/d (ft3/d}

=,[{Qin + QOut)/2]
'
k s = hydraulic
conductivity of a unit area of the w:etland per.
where Q
p~dicular
to the flow directio~ m 3fm?-/d (ft3/ft''/d)

A c = tot~ cross-sectional area perpendicular to flo-w, m 2 (ft2 )
s ~ hydraulic gradient, or ""slope"" 6f the watei surface .in the
flow system, m/m (ftlft)
v = ~Darcy"s velocity,r-- the apparent flow velocity throngli the

entire cross-sectional area of the b~ m/d (frldJ
It is possible by substitution and rearrangement of terms to- develop
an equation to .determine the .a cceptable minimum wid$ af the SF
\vetland cell which is compatible with the hydraulic gradient -selected
fordesi~ .s ince
~ = (m)(y)
,.,
A
=__.E. .
where W = width ofthe wetland cell, m {ft)

A s = surface area ofwetland, m 2 {ft2)
L = length ofwetland~eli, m (ft)
m = increment of depth serving as head differential, % as a
decimal
.
y = depth of water in the y;etland, m (ft)
\".
Wetland Systems
. \.V = 1 [ ( Q )(A
. .~) c).:.
y (m )lk,)
- ..
207
(6.10 )
.The surface area of the wetland <A..) is first determined using the
design model for pollutant removal presented later in this
chapter. Eq~tion 6.10 then allows direct calculation of the absoiute
minimum acceptable c;ell width which is compatible with the selected
hydraulic gradient. Other combinations of width and ,}:lydraulic gradi- .
ent are also p9ssible if topOgraphic constraints exist at the proposed
site. Them :value in Eq. 6.10 will typically be between 5 and 20 percent
of the potential head available. The maximum potential head is equal .
to the full water depth (y) of the wetland when m = 100 percent. That
is not a conservative design configuration, since the wetland would be
dry a:t; the e~uent end and there' woUld he no reserve capacity if the
flow ~ce in the wet1~d
tQ increase further. It is strongly
reco~ended that a vab:i.e <~ of the effective hydrauli~ COnductivity
(ks } be selected and that m be not more than
20 percent
to provide a
.
.
~safety factor against potential clogging~ viscosity effects, and
other cOntingencies that may be unlmown at the time of.de~i@;:..
Equations 6_9 and 6.10 arevalid as long as the flow thtough the
void gpoces: in the media fs laminar, whi:h is, the ease when -the
..Reynalds number is less than 10. The Reynolds number is a function
:Ofthe flow velocity, the size of the void spaces, and the kine~atic viscosity :af wateror as shov..'Yl by Eq. 6.11. For most cases N R will be much
.less than ~ so laminar flow will prevail and Darcys law is valid. If
:trurbrilent flow .c onditions exist, then the effective hydraulic conduc.t ivity will be significantly less than predicted by Dar~y's law.
limiti~g
were
N = (v)(D)
R
-I
(6.11)
wher-e NR = Reynolds number~ dimensionless .

u =Darcy's '\"'elocity (from Eq. 6..9), m/s (ft/s)
D = diameter of void Spaces in media, taken as -equal to average size of the medi~ m {ft)
= kinematic visco~ity' of water, m 2/s .(ft2/s) (see Appenrl:ix.,
. TableA3)
.
The hydi-aulic conductivity {ks ) in Eqs. 6.9 and 6JO varies directly
With the viscosity of the water, which in turn is a function ,e f water
temparature:
(6.12>
where .k~>
=.hydraulic conductivity at temperatures Tan~ 20C
208
Chapter Six
viscosity of water at temperatures T and 20C (see Table
J..1 =
A.3J
In cold climates, with a SF wetland operating during the winter

mon-ths, the viscosity effects can be significant. For example, the
hydraulic conductivity at a water temp.e rature of 5C would be 66 percent of that at 2occ. This effect is already taken into account in the
previously .recommended safety factor (design kssYa of measured
-effective" ks).
The hydraulic conductivity (kJ in Eq& 6.9 and 6.10 also varies with
the number and size of the void spaces in the media used in the SF
wetland. Table 6.3 presents order-of-magnitude estimates for a range
of granular materials which might be used in a SF wetland.
It is strongly recommended that
hydranlic conductivity of the
media be me.a sured in the field or laboratory prior to final design. A
peiniearneter is the standard laboratory device, hut it is not well suited. to the coarser gravels and rocks often used in these systems. Fig:u:re
6_10 illustrates a permeameter trough which has been developed by
the
TAB'~E U..3
'Typical Menta Char:acteristics for SF Wetlands
Effect:n=e si-ze
D10 1mm}
Coarse sand.
Gravelly sand
Fine gravel
:VIediu:m g:ra,..-el
Coarse rock
Porosity.
(o/c'J
2~-32
8 '
15
32
30-35
35-38
128
36-40
38-45
r-Test grovel
Cat ibrated
Hydraulic conductivity. k.,

(m':.lfin'.!;'d l*
100-1,000
500-5,000
1,00(}--10,000
. . 10,00(}--50,000
. 50,000-250,000
. plot7
Perforoted
a:im~iner ------
Figuresso .Perm.eameter trough forme.a....c:nring hydranlic conductivity.
.-
Wetland Systems
209
McCulley, Frick, and Gilman17 and has been used successfi?.IIy to measure the "effective" hydral\lic conductivity of a range of gravel size:s.The total length of the trough is about 5 m ( 16.4- ft.>; perforated plates
are located about 0.5 m <1.5 ft> from each end. The space between-the
perforated plates is filled w ith the-media to be tested. The manometers
are tised to observe the water level inside the permeameter, and they .
are spaced about 3 m (9 fiJ apart. Jacks or wedges are used to raise the
head end of the tFougb slightly above the datum.. Water flow into the
trough is adjusted until the gravel media is flooded but without free
water on the surface. The discharge (Q) is measured in a calibrated
container and timed With a stopwatch. The cross-sectional flow area
(A) is estimated by noting the .d epth of the water as it leaves the perforated plate at the end of the trough and multiplying that value by the
width of the trough. The hydraulic gradient (s) for each test is (v1 y 2 )/x (dimensions shown in Fig. 6.10). It is then possible to calculate the
hydraulic conductivity~ since the other parameters in Eq. 6.9 have all
been measured. The Reynolds number should als(} be calculated for
each t-est to ensure that the assumption of laminar flow was valid.
The porosity {n) of the media to be used in the SF \Vetland should
also be mea....c:nr.ed prio:r to final system design. This .can be measured
in the laboratory using a standard ASTM procedure. An estimate can
be made in the field~ usmg a large container with a .known volmne.
The container is filled with the media to be tested, and construction
activit:Y is simulated by some compaction, or lifting and dropping the
container. The .container is then filled to a specified mark with a measured volume of ~ater. The volnme of water added defines the volume .
ofvaids (Vc). Since the total voluine (V1) is known, it is possible to calcnlate the porosity {n ).
n
v:.
-=:::-<100)
vt
(6~3)
Pcr.asity values for a range of soils and gravels are published in

many r~erffi.l~es ~are sho~'n in F'ig. :2..4 in this book.. These values
tend to he much I{}wei .t han
given Table 5.3-or wruCh-will oe
measured by the "field test .described above. These pub~hed valJI:~S
(and Fig. 2.4) are !or in-situ soil and gravEl deposits which have been
na1::eriill:y ~on-~lida:ted, and they are not appropriate for design of SF
constructed wetlands. Wh-en coarse gravels or rocks areused as the
me~ it is possible to use ~ relationship. based on the Ergun equatian31 t(} estimate the hydraulic conductivity:
those
k s = (n.)3.T
This
equation~
liminary~
m.
{6.14)
and the values in Table 6_3, are llSeful only for a preorder-of-magnitude estimate. The final design of a SF wet-
21 0
. Chapter Six
land must be based on actual measurements of both porosity and

hydraulic conductivity.
Many existing SF wetlands were designed \vith a high aspect ratio
<L:lV = 10:1 or. more) to ensure plug flow in tbe system. Such high
aspect ratios are unnecessary and have induced surface flow on these
systems, since the available hydraulic gradient is inadequate to
ensure the intended subsurface flow. Some surface flow will occur on
all SF wetlands in response to major storm events, but the pollutant
concentrations are proportionally reduced and treatment efficiency is
not usually affected. The system should be initially designed for the
average design flow and the impact of peak floWs and storm events
evaluated.
Th~ previous recommendation that the design hydraulic gradient

be limited to not more than 20 percent of the potential h.e ad has the .
practical . effect of limiting the feasible aspect ratio for the system to
relatively low values (~:1 for beds 0.6 m deep :S035:1 for beds 0.3 m
deep). SF systems in Europe., using soil instead of gravel, have been
constructed with up to .8 percent slopes to elh:t-ure an adequate
hydraulic gradient, and they have still experienced continuous snrface flow due to an inadequate safety factor. .
Some SF design procedures recommend that the width of the SF
wetland bed be determined by the organic loading (kg BOD/m2 d) an
the cross-sectional area at the entry zone of the system, to avoid' clogging. This :recommendation w.as based on .an unpublished observation
by the principal anth(}r of this book and has never been validated.
The preferred design guidance given aboVe for the SF design to be
based ori ~0 percent of the pot~ti.al hydraulic gradient has a more
rational basis and will still have the effect .of Teqnir:ing a wide entry
zone and result in .minimal clogging from
wastewater solids.
.
.
7
6.6 Thermal Aspects
The temperatm~ conditions in a wetland affect both the physical and

biological activities in the system.. In the -extreme case, sustained low- .
temperature conditions and the res:alting ice formation could result in
physical failure of the wetland. The bio1ogi:ca1 reactions responsible
for BOD :rem.o~ nitrifi~ and =d .enitrifica.tin :are known =.t o :.b e
temperature -dependent..320 How~ver, in ID:CIDY cases the BOD removal
performance of existing wetland syste:n:tS in col~ c"Itmates has not
demonstrated
obvious tempe:ratore dependence. This is believed .
due to the long hydranlic residence tim~ pro-tided by these systems,
which tends to compensate for the lower reaction rates during the .
winter months. Several systems in Canada and the United States do
demonstrate a decrease in ability to remove nitrogen dnring the winter months. This is believed to be due to a combination of the in:fln-
an
Wetland Systems
.'
211
ence of temperatur:e on the biological reactions and to the lack of oxygen once an ice cover forms on the water surface .
. Te_m peratui.-e-dep(mdent rate constants for the BOD and nitrog~n
removal models are presented elsewhere in this chapter. It is therefore necessary to provide a reliable method for esti'mating .the water
temperabl!e in-the_wetland for proper and effective use of the biological design models. This section presents ca]culation techniques for
determining the water temperature in SF and FWS wetlands, and for
predicting the thickness of ice which mi~t form on an JfWS ~etlan d.
Subsuiface-flow wetlands
The actual thermal status of a SF wetland bed can be very complex.

There can be heat gains or losses to the underlying soil._ to the wastewater flowmg through the system~ and to the atmosphere. Basic ther.mal. mec~sms involved include conduction to or from the grouncL
conduction ~ or from the wastew.ater'7 conduction and convection to or
from the atmosphere, and radiation tn or from the atmosphere.
Energy g'ams from the ground can be significant hat are typically
neglected in a conservative design 1t is also consemrive t.o ignore
any energy gains from solar radiation,. and this is appropriate dnring
winter atnorthern sites where the temperature conditions are most
critical. In the American Southwest, where solar radiation can be
very significant on a year-round basis, this factor might be included
in the calculatim;ts. Convection losses due to wind action on an open
water surface ean be signjficant, but this snould n()t be the case fur
most SF wetlands, where a dense stand of vegetation, a litter layer,.
and a layer of relatively .dey gravel is typicallY present. These damp
out the wind effects oil the nnded_ying water in the w:etland and, :as .a
.result, convection losses are relatively minor and can be ignored in
th~ thermal model The simplified m.odel developed bel-ow is therefore
based only on conduction l05ses fu the a.tmeb-phere, and is conservative. This pro.cedrzre was developed from basic beat transfer relationsbip~3 with the assistance ffi experts on the topic.11..31
The temp.e:ra.tnre atany ;paint in a SF wetland can be predicted by
comparing.the estimated heat losses to. the energy available in the
system. 'T he losses are assumed to .o.ccnr via e onduction tG the atmosphere7 and the only- energy sourc:e available is assmned to be the
wat.er flowing through the _wetland_ As water is cooled it releases
-energy; this energy is defined as the specific heat. The specific heat of
watE~r is the amount of energy that is either stored or released as the
temperature is either increased or decreased. The .specific heat i.s
dependent ()n pr-essure and to a minor degree -on temperature. Since
atmospneric ;pressure prevails at the water sn:rface in the systems
discussed in .t bis book, and since the temperature inflnence is minor,
212
Chapter Six
the specific heat is assumed to be a constant for pract ical purposes.

For the calculations in this book.. the specific heat <cp J is taken as
4215 J/kg oc (1.007 Btu/lb cFL The specific heat relationship
applies down to the freezing point ofwater: occ (32F>. Water at ooc
will still not freeze until the available latent heat is lost. The later1t
heat is also assumed to be a constant and equal to 334~944 Jlkg (144
Btu/lb). The latent heat is i n effect the fmal safety factor protecting
the system against freezing. However, when the tem.p erature drops to
ooc7 freezing is imminent and the system is on the verge of physical
failure. To ensure a conservative design, the late~t heat is included as
a factor in these -calculations only when a determination of potential
ice depth is made.
The available energy in the water flowing through the wetland is
d~~~~a~
(6.15)
where q G
= energy gain fi.-Qrn:water, J/cC (Btt.EFFJ
cP = specific heat capacity of water.., 4215 J/kg - oc ( 1.007
.Btu/ib- F}

3 = -density of-water, 1000 kg/rna. (62.4lb/ft3}
A:; ~ su...-face area of wetland~ m 2 (ft2 }
y = depth of water in wetland, in I ft !
n = .p orosity of wetland (i~e-, space ava:ilahle for water to :flo,v;
the remainder is occupied by the mema (see Table 6.3 far
typical values)
If it is desired to -calculate the daily temperatm'.e chiDJge of th-e
water as it flows throughthe wetland
the term A s. I t is substituted fo:r
.
A\-~ in. Eq. 6.15,.
).(tl)(~s).(y)(n }
qG = (C
. P :F
(6.16)
whe i:e qG = energy.g amd:r:iiiitg-1 :aayoffiow:. J"FC- d(Btufop-i!r: . ~ ... .:

. ~ = hydraulic resid~nce time m the sy~tem, -d
(.other terms as defined previously)_
The heat losses from the .e ntire SF wetland can be defined by Eq.
6. !7: .
.(&17)
whereqL = energy lost v.ia .e onduction tatheatmospher~
T,0 = water temperature entering wetlantL =c {=F)
Tair
J (Btu}
average air temperature dm:ing period of..eancern:,. C -(op)_
Wetland Systems
213 .
U = heat transfer coefficient at the smface of the wetland bed,

\Vfm'l. oc (Btulh ft 2 F)
rr = time conversion, metric: 86,400 s/d, U.S.: 24 hid
A.~= surface area ofwetland, m 2 (ft2 )
t = hydraulic residence tune in the wetland, d
If it is desired to calculate heat losses and temperatures on a daily .
basis, Eq. 6.17 becomes
qL =
cz;,- T.w-l(UJ(u)(~' )(1 d)
(6.18)
where qr. = daily energy losses, J/d (Btu/d)

T 0 = water temperature entering wetlan~ segment of concern,
oc (oF)
{other terms as defined previously)_

The T air values in Eqs. 6.17 and 6.18 are. obtained from local
weather records or from the closest weather station to the proposed
wetland site. The year with the lowest winter tempe~atures during
the past 20 or 30 years of record is selected as the "design y~ar7> for
calculation purposes. It is desirable to use an average air temperature over a time period equal to the design HRT in the wetland for
these thermal. calculations. If monthly average temperatures for the
""design year" are all that is av~ilable, they will usually give an
acceptable first approximation for calculation purposes. If the results
of the thermal calculations suggest that marginally acceptable conditions will prevail, then further refinements are necessary for final
system design._
The .conductance or U value in Eq. 6.17 is the heat-conducting
capacity of the wetland profile. It is a combination of the thermal conductivity of each of the major components divided by its thicknessT as
shown in Eq. 6.19:
u=
....
:L
,... .
(~:)+ (~:) + (~:)+ (~:)
. -: .. -:-(6.t9F
where U = conductan.c~ W/m2 oc (Btu!ft2 "F - h}

kn-n 1 = conductiricy of layers 1 to ~ W/m C (Btu!ft F h)
y11 _~~ =thickness oflayers 1 ton, m (ft)
Table 6.4 p.re-.c::ents conductivity values fm: materials that are typically present in $F wetlands.
The c{)ndnctivity values for all or the material.s, except the wetland
litter layer,. are
established and can be formd :in numerous literatnre sources_ The conductivity for a SF wetland litter layer is believed
well
214
Chapter Six
TABLE 6.4
Thermal Conductivity of SF Wetland Components
k
Material
W/m oc
Btnlft . F . h
,;\ir Cno convection)

Snow Cnew, loose)
Snow (long term) .
IceCat 0C)
Water (at 0C)

Wetl~nd iitter layer
Dry (25% moisture) gravel
Saturated gravel
Dry soil
0.024
0.08
0.23
2.21
0.58
0.05
L5
2.0
0.8 .
0.014
0.046
0.133
L277 .
0.335
0.029
0.867
L156
0.462
to be conservative but is . l~s well established and should be used

with some caution nntil further verification is available.
Exampfe 6-1 Determine the conductance of a SF wetland bed with the follow-
ing characteristics: 6-in litter layer, 3 in of dry grave], 2 ft of saturated gravel.

Compare -mines for 12 in ofsnow and without a snow cover.
sorution
With 12 in of snow,.
1
U = (l/0.133} + <0.510.029} + (0.25/0.867) + (2/L156)
1
26.78
(0.210 W/m2 - C)
Wrlhont snow cover:
u = 1)~6: = 0.052 Btu/ft~. F . h
. (0.295 W/m 2 C)
The presence .of snow cover redw:es the heat losses by about 40 percent.
.Although snow cover is oft-en present in colder climates, it is prudent for design
purposes to- assmne that snow is not present.
The change in temperature Tc due

to the heat losses and gains
.
defined by Eqs. 6-.15 and 6_16 can be found by combining tb.e two
eqn:ations:
q
Tc = q~ =
(T0 - Tair{U)(u )(A_)(t)
..(cP)(B)(A$)(y)(n)
(6.20)
.
.
whei-eTc = tempemture change in wetland,. oc (F)
(other terms as defined pr-eviously)_
The effinent tempe.ratnre T e from the wetland
is
.
. T = T0 - Tc
(6.21)
(!
or
T = T - (T - T . '
-c
(U)(a)(t)
)(o)(y)(n)
air' (c
(6.22)
.:
Wetland Systems
215
The. calculation must be performed on a daily basis, T 0 ~s the entering water temperature to the wetland segment of"-concern and . Te is
the effluent temperature from that segment, and T air is the average
daily air temperature during that time period.
The average water temperature Tw in the SF wetland is then
To+Te
Tw =
{6.23)
This a verage' temperature is compared to the temperature value

assunied :When the size and the HRT of the wetland were determined
with either the BOD or nitrogen removal models. If the two tempera-
tures do not correspond closely~ then further iterations of these calculations are necessazy until the assumed
calculated temperatures
and
conv:erge..
Further refinement Of this pro~dnre is possible by including ener--:gy gains and losses from s9Iar radiation and conduction to or from the
ground. During the winter months conduction from the ground is likely to represent a net gain of energy, since the- soil temperature is likely to be bigber than the water temperature in the wetland in the fall
and winter. The energy input from the ground can be calculated using
Eq. 6_17; .a reasonable
value would be 0.32 W/m2
(0.056
2
Btu/ft "F- h),. and a reasonable ground temperature might be l0C
(50F). The solar gain can be estim~ted by detenninhig the net daily
solar gain, for the location of inter-est~ from appropriate records.
Equation :6.24 t:an then be used to estimate the heat input from this
.u
oc
source.
qsolar = <4>XA)Ct)(s)
.(6..24)
whereqsoTar = energy gain from solar radiation, J (Btu)

<f> = solar radiation for site, J/r:n?- d (B:tu!ft2 d)
. t\,= .srrrfm:e area of wetlan<L .(ft2)
t = HRr for the wetland,. d
rrr
s .= percentage of solar radiation EmergY which Teaches the

water in the sFwetland, typically0~-65 or less
The results.:from Eq. 6.24 should be used With -caution. It is.possible
that much of this solar energy may not .ru:tnally
the water in
the ?F wet1an~ sin-ce the. :radiation first impacts nn the veg~tation
and litter layer and: a possible.:reflective .snow cover!t so an adjustment
is nea!ssary .in Eq. -6.24. As indicated previously, it is co:ri.serva~ve to
neglect .any heat input to the wetland from these sources. If these
additional hea:t gains are calculate~ they should be added to the
results from Eq. 6:..15 or -6 .16 and this total used in the denominator of
Eq. ~.20 ro determfu.e the temperature change in. the system.
reach
216
Chapter Six
Since the water SUI-face is exposed to the atmosphere in a FWS wetland,

some ice formation, at least on a temporary basis, is likely in northern
locations which experience periods of subfreezing air temperatures. The
presence of some ice can be a benefit in that the ice layer acts as a thermal barrier and slows the cooling of the water beneath. In ponds, lakes,
and most rivers. the ice layer floats freely and can increase in thickness
without significantly reducing the volume available for flow beneath the
ice cmer. In a .F'WS \Yetland the ice may he held ~ place by the n~er
ous stems and leaves of the vegetatio~ so the volume available for flow
can be significantly reduced as the ice layer thickens. In the eXtreme
case, the ice layer may thicken to the point where flmv is constricted,
the stresses induced cause cracks in the ice,. and flow commences on top
of the ice layer. Freezi&J.g of that surlace flow will occur and the wetland
will then be in a failure mode nntii wann weather returns. The bioloiical treatment activity in the wetland will also cease at that point. This
situation mll!::!-t be prevented or avoided if a constructed wetland is to be
used. In locations which experience very long perio~ of very low air
temperatures [< - 20::c ~<O"Fi~ :the solution may be to utilize a seasonal wetland con1ponent with w.a_c:;;tewate.r stored in a lagoon during the
extreme \"\rinter months._ A number o.f svstem5
.
.in South Dakota and
9 5
northwestern Canada operate this way. .1 FVVS constructed w etlar:Js
have. on. the other han<L per-(ormed successfully throughout the .winter
months in Ontario, Canada, and in several communities in Iowa where
extreme "t\lint.er temperatures .are also expe..r:i.enced. F-or any project in a
northern climate~ it is essential to conduct a thermal analysis as
described in this section to en.snre. that the wetland ~'ill be physi~y
stable during the winter months and can sustain wat-er temperatur-es
\vhich allow the biological r-em."timJs to proceed.
The calculation procedure pr-e sented in this section was derived
from Ref. 1 with the assistance of Da1Ty! Calkins of the U..S. Cold
Rgio.ns Research and ~ain.e~ring La::b~)ra:tory in Hano-ver, New
Hampshire_ The procedure has :tb.re parts:
....
L Calculate water ~:t;npera:tures
in the wetland until conditi{)ns (3G

water tem.pera"b..rre) that allow ice formation commence. SepaFate
calculations are reqnired fo" densely vegetated wetland segments
and for large-area .open-water z ones.
2_ CaJcnlate watar temperatures for the ice-co--vered case_
3.
E~e
the total depth of ice which may form aver the period of
concern.
The tem:peramres determined during :Steps 1 and 2 are also used to
determine tbe basic feasibility of a FWS wetland
in the loCation under
.
.
Wetland Systems
217
consideration and to ve1;fy the temperature assumptions made. when

sizing the \Vetland with either the BOD or nitrogen removal modeL
These BOD and nitrogen models are the first step in the design
process~ since their res ults are necessary for determination of the
wetland size, the HRT, and the flow velocity which are used in the
subsequent thermal calculations_ The tot~ll depth of ice estimated in
the third step also pro-vides an indication of the feasibility of a wetland in the location under consideration and is used to determine the
necessary operating water depth during the wi~ter months.
Equation 6.25 is used to
calculate the water temperature at the point of interest in the wetland. Experi~.nce has shownL 11 that ice formation begins \vhen the
bulk temperature in the liquid approaches 3C (37F}; because of
density differences and convection losses at the water surface_
Equation 6.25 is therefore repeated until a temperature of 3C is
reached, or until the end of the wetland cell ~ reached, whichever
c9mes first. If a temperature of 3cc is reache:d before the end of the
wetland, then Eq. 627 is used to calculate the t-emperatures tm.der
an ice cov~r. If the wetland is .c-omposed of '"t"'egetated zones interspersed with de-eper op.en-t?-.:rat~r zones, Eq. 6 ..25 must be- use-d
sequentially, With the .appTCt'priate heat trn.n~fer coefficient (U5 ~~ t~
calculate the wat~r temperatures.
Case 1: FWS wetland, prior to ice formation.
T = T
u
....~...
air
- U (x- x J]
r
(T - T
"'
i>
o
:n) expl (5 )(-_v."i(v )fc
. p )
(6.25)
whe..-re T"., = water-temperature .at di:.,-tance~ sc (F.i (x inm orft)

T tii:r = a~ag-e air tempera:ture dmingperiod of intere~ C (F)
~ = water tempera.t.~e at distan~e .l:0"" the- entry point for the
wetlarid segm~mt ofinterest, !)C CFlh0 in m o.rft)
.
2
Us = heat transfer coefficient at wetland surfaco....... W/m - !;C
(Btu!ft2 - h - F}
= 1.5 Whn 2 C {(}.264 Btntft2 - h =y) for -den....~ marsh yege--
taian
cc
= 1:0-:'J5-W/m2
(L161-::t403Btu/ft2- h ::~p) .fur open
water~ high valne for windy -eonditinns: uith no- SDDW .cover
= density of water, lOOO.kgtm~ (62.41b/ft3).
y = depth .ofwate:r, m (ft)

v = flow velocity in wetland, m!s (ft/h)
eP = specific heat, 4"9,15 J/kg - cc (L007 B:tn/lb
:~F}
If the first iteration shows a: temperature of Jess than 3C in the

final. effluent from the wetland. Eq_ 6.25 can he 1earran.ged and
SOlved for the ilistanre X at Wlricb.. the temperature be.con:ies 3. C:
218
Chapter Six
(o)(y)(uj(cP)
_;_ - - - - Us
x0 J
(x -
[.In (3~- Ta) ]
(6.26)
(To - T air)
Example 6.2 Calculate the water temperatures in a three-stage FWS wetland.

Stage 1: length 180 m, depth 0.3 m, densely vegetated, flow velocity 0.00103
m/s
Stage 2: deep open-water zone,length 50 m, depth 1..2 m. flow velocity 0.00026

mls
Stage 3: same as stage 1; T air = - 2"C, influent temperature = IO:)C
solution Use Eq. 6..25 to calculate the teD?perature at the ~d of stage 1.

.
( 2o) (1 oo [ 2 o])
[
- L5(180)
+
- . exp (1000J(0Jl)(0.00103)(4215)
= :-
= (-2~} + (12"X0.813J
= 7.75cC
Calculate the water temperature at the end of~cr.e; 2.
T - 1'-<>=1 . (.,..,. 75o _

a -
= ( - 2)
'
,_2
'-
on
.:>
- 15(50}
=.x:p (liJ00)(1..2H0-00026 }{4215J
+ (9.75)(0.565}
= 3.5"C
Calculate the water temperature at the end .afthe wetland.
T ,.. --
( - 2") + {? =>
~.a
.
- 1..5(180)
]
expl (1.000){0..3)(07001(}3)(423:5}
r - 2 =])
t
= ( -2") + (5.5)(0:813)
= 2..5"C
Since the effluent temperature is bel~ ~C. ice funnation will begin on the
third segment of this wetland. Equation 6.2& shoul<l be used te detenni:ne that
this pain:t won1d o cmr about 76 minto the t:bird wetland segment Equation
-627 then predicts.a final eff:'b:reiJt water t.empe:ratnre mL5C_
case 2: FWS wetland; flaw under .an 'feeCOVeY. once 31:1 ice euv:erfurms,
the heat t ransfer from the underlying water to fh~ ice prQceeds at a
constant rate which is.rmt influenced by the afr tem,Perature or the
~nee or absence of a snow cover on t.op. of the ice_ This is because
the ice surface, at the interface with the water,. remain~ at ooc Ullt.Lj}
all of the water is frozen_ The rate of ice formation is influenced by
the air temperature .and the presenc-e or absence of snow,. hut the
cooling rate the underl_ying water is not.. The wetlann water temperature under an ice cover can be estimated using Eq_ 6.:27,. which is
of
Wetland Systems
219
identical in form to Eq . 6.25, wi t h changes in two of the terms to

reflect the presence of the ice cover:
U 1.(x - x)
]
0
T = T + T - T ) ex w
(6.27}
[ (S)(y)(u)(cp)
where T u: = water t emperature at distance x, oc ( F)

T m = ice melting point, occ (32F)
T 0 = water ~mperature at dis tance x 0 , oc (F )
= assume aoc {37.4F) where an ice cover commences
U . = heat transfer coefficient at ice/water interface7 W/m 2 - ac
(Btulft2 - F - h)
l
(~ther terms as
defined previously).
The Ui valne in Eq_ 6.27 depends on the depth of water beneath the
ice arid the flow velocity~
(u)o.s
ui = <~>(y)o.2
(6.28) .
where Ul. =.. heat transfer coefficient a:t ice/water interface, W/m2 - ac
.
(Btu/ft2 - F -h)
4> = proportionality coefficient
= 1622 Jfm2.6 s 0 .2 ac (0.0022} Btulft2.6/h02/F)
v = flow velocity, m/s {ftih} (assume same as no ice condition)
y = depth of water, m (ft)
Case 3: FWS wetland, thickness of ice. formation. Ice will begin to fo:rm
on the surface of the FWS wetland when the bulk water temperatnre
reaches s cc arid will continue as long as the temperature remains at
or below ooc_ In northern climates where extremely low air temperatares can p ersist for very long periods, the FWS wettand may not b e a
feasible year-round treatment since extensive ice formation can re:sni:t
in physical failure of the system. The thlclm.ess, or depth, of ice wmch
will form ~a 1-day period.can be estimated using Eq_ 6..29:
(t)(o-) [
y = (o)(Q)
.( Trr:. - T nr)
]
y fk + ylk . + llU - UlTw- Tn) ,
$
where y
{6.29)
= thickness of ice formation per day,.m/d (ftld)
t = time period of concern, d
(1 d)
= time conversion factor, metric: 867400si<L. U.S..: 24 h/d

.a = .densityofice, 917 kg/m3 (57...2lb!ft3) .
Q = latent heat, 334,944 J/kg (144 Btullb}
Tm = melting point of ice. ooc (32F )
T air = ava.~ue air temperature during time period of concern.
t T
.(OF}
y~
= depth of snow cover, m (ft)
o.c
220
Chapter Six
ll = conductivity of snow <from Table 6.3 J

Y, = depth of daily ice formation, m (ft>
k, = conductivity of ice (from Table 6.3)
:.
.~
U.~ =
heat transfer coefficient at surface,

= 1.5 W/m2 oc (0.264 Btu/ft2 h- F) for dense marsh vegetation
= 10-25 W/ m 2 - cc (1.761-4A03 Btu/ft2 - h F) for open
water, high 1.ralue for windy conditions with no snow cover
U; = heat transfer coefficient water to ice, from Eq. 6.28
.
Tu.- = average water temperature during period of concern, from
Eq. 6.27
It is. necessary to repeat the calculation in Eq. 6.29 for each day of
interest, with appropriate adjustments in the depth of ice and snow.
The time period of concern for the previous FWS thermal models is
equal to the design HRT for the wetland; the time period of concern in
dris .case may be the entire winter season if significant periods of subfreezing temp.eratures occur. A reason?-ble firs~ approximation of
pvtennal ice fonnation can be made by using the average monthly air
temperatures {in the coldest winter ofreeord) during the period of
concern. This model was also derived from Ref. 1 Vvith the ~sistanee
of Darryl Calkins of the U.S. Cold Regioris Research and.En'gineering
Laboratory in Hanover, New Harn..pshire.11
The rate of ice formation will be the highest on the first day of
.freezing~ when neither an ice cover nor a snow layer is present to
retard heat losses. In addition;,the final term in Eq. :6.29", U;(Tu: T m )], is ~-ually small and can be neglected for estimation purposes.
As a res~ E'q. 6.29 redu.res to the Stefan49 formulation:
v =
<m>[(Tm
2
- T 3Jr'
. l(t)lu
-
where y = depth ()fice which wiU form over time period t,. m tft}
T~ m = freezing. point ofice, ooc (32F)
.
... .
.
T:m = average .air temperature dnrin;gtime period t,. e.F;.
t = number of days in the period of interest d
m = proportionality coefficient,. m./C 1l 2 d 112 (ft.!opl12 ~ (ll/2)
= 0 .027 m/C 112 - d li2 (0.066 ft/F 112 - d 112) for open-water
zones, no snow
= 0.018 m/C~12 - d v 2 (0.044 ft/F 112 d 112 ) for open-water
zon~ wrt..h snow
= 0.01(} m/UC1'2. d 1 '2 (0..024 ft/F 112 d 112 ) for wetland \vith.
dense vegetation and Jitter
ac
Equation 6.30 can be used to estimate total ice formation 'On FWS
wetlands. over the entire winter season or for shorter time periods if
- l
.... l
..
Wetland Systems
221
desired. This equation can be used to determine the feasibility of winte r operations fo~ a wetland in locations with very low winter temperatw~es. For example. a site with persistent air temperatures at -25C
(- 13. F) would result in a wetland 0.457 m ( 1.5 ft) deep freezing to
the bottom in about 84 days.
The term (Tm - Ta)(t) is known as the freezing index and is an_environmental characteristic for a particular loca~on; values can be found in
published references. 12 Equation 6.30 is also used in Chap. 8 to determine the depth of sludge which can pe frozen for dewatering purposes.
Summary
If the then:nal models for either SF or FWS wetlands predict sustained intern.al water temperature of less than 1
(33.8F), a wetland may not be physically capable of winter operations at the site
under consideration at the design hydraulic residence time (HRT).
Nitrogen removal is likely to be negligible at those temperatures.
Similarly~ if Eq. 6.30 predicts a seasonal ice thickness whjch is
greater than about 75 percent of the design depth of a FWS wetlan~
the use af a wetland during the winter months may be questionable.
It may be possible to increase the operati~g depth in these cases as
long as the desired .treatment r-esults can still be acbie\"ed at <3~C
(<37.4F) and beneath an ice cover which \viii further impede oxygen
transf-er for nitrogen removal.
Constructed wetlands can operate successfully during the winter in
most of the northern temperate zone. The the:qnal models presented
in this section should be used to verify the temperature assumptions
made '-Wen the wetland is sized With the biological models for BOD o r
nitrogen r~ovaL Several iterations of the :calculation procedure may
be necessary for the asSU:L-ned and calculated temperatures t~ conver:ge.
oc
All eriiJ:strrrcted wetland systems can be considered to be attachedgrowth biological reactors, and t4eir performance ean be approximately descn'bed by first-'Order plug-flow kinetics~ Figure 6. 11 presents the results ill a tracer study using lithium chloride {an inm-gan~ c onservative tracer) which was conducted in 1991 at an operational
SF .wetla:nd sy::,tem' in Louisiana. The curve does nnt exlribit ideal
p1ug flaw response, but it is .closer toplug flow than to the {:ODipletemix alternative. The centroid of the .curve indicates a HRT of 21 h,
which is very close to the theoretical HRT of 23 h for this system.
Similar tracer study resn.Its have been. found in FWS wetlands.~
222
Chapter Six
3~------------------------------------~
..J
.....
0'
E
c:
0
.;
g""0 ...
U
E
.2
:: I
- ....J ..
Time. b
Figure S:.:t1 Lithium tra.c er study. SF coostrocted v.retJand.
The flow regime in these wetlands is neither ideal plug flow nor
complete m.ix, but somewb.ere between. De~on models deve16ped by
Wehner and Wilhelm (see Chap. 4 for details) describe this intermediate C<ISe and are available for lagoon systems and are possibly also
applicable for constructed wetlands_ The model (Eq. 4..7) is rather
complex and requires definition of an axial dispersion coefficient.
DifficUlties in evaluating the coefficient have limited the use of the
model, so lagoo:ns and .sinu1ar treatment concepts continue to be
designed as plng:fl.o.w reactors..
.
Kadlec et al33' have proposed that flow in these wetlands can be
described as a plug flow reactor (PFR) in series with several complete-mix, or ~-continnm:rsJy stirred tank reactors (CSTR)."' Up to 15
CSTRs in .series have been proposed for defining flow in a large FWS
wetland in Florida. It is possible to fit some combination of PFR and
CSTR assumptions to a tracer curve for any wetland, after the wetland has been .de:,-igne(L constructed, and placed in operation. It is
much mor-e diffic:ttlj; and :pasSil>ly arbitrary~ to decide prior to system
desi~ what that conibinatinn should be. In addition, the practical
effect mtbis: P.FBJCSTR.a.ppr.oach for pollutant removal design is.negligible. Since several CSTRs in series. will behave siinilcrrly to a plug
flow reactor~ a design model based on a PFR fallowed by several
CSTRs will in :effect prediet similar final effiuent qn:ality as one determined on the simpler assamptinn that the system is qllivalent to a
plug flow reactor with .first-order kinetics. The PFR/CSTR approach
may give better definition of internal performance from point to point
inside the wetland, but that information is of limited interest to a
designer. Validation {)fthe PFRICSTR approach is not possible
. .::. :
Wetland Syst~ms
223
because of the very limited internal performance data which is currently available for these systems. As a result, th~ plug flow assump_tion.Will prevail in this book for design of both FWS az:1d SF ~etlands.
Free-water-surface weUands
The ijrst editioQ. of this book developed a design model for BOD
removal in wetland systems based on experience with overland-flow
land treatment and trickling filters, both of which are attached- .
growth reactors. Chapter 7 describes the overland-flow land treatment concept. It
necessary the time to develop the model from
that base, since there were limited data from FW~ wet~ands and
those data were reserved for model validation. The basic form of that
model is
was
Ce _
[
Co -Aexp ,
at
0.7CKT)(Av)L75 (L)(~(y)(n) ]
Q
(6.31.)
where Ce = effiuent BOD, mgiL

Co = influent BOD~ mgtL
.4. = fz-aon ofBOD na~ removed a5 settleable solids ll;ear the
hea.dworls:s nf the syste~ a variable depending on water
qUality (as a decimal fraction)

KT = temperatu~-dependent, first-order rate constant, d-1
Ac- =specific surface .area available for microbial activity,.
1n'Ym3
L = length of ~em (parallel to flow path}, m (ft}

W = width of syst~ m (ft)
y = aYerage -water .deifill in -t he system,. m (ft}
.
n = porosity of system (space available .f or water to fiow) as a
decimal fraction
3
Q = aVim!ge flaw in th~ S.J!7tem., m (ftS)
Although Eq. 6.31 is considered to l)e theoretically correct, there

are two P;:--oblems invri!:v.ed with itE. use. since it is difficult to measnre
or -evaluate .ei~ the A or the _4:. :factors_ The A !actor was actnallv
measured fur '(}verland-flow land treatment 'Of primm;y emu~ and
was determined.to be 0 ...52 {48 percent of' the applied BOD remained
near the entry zone as particulate mater). The A valne should
increase for secondary and. tertiary effluents app-lied ta FWS wetIan~ since the suspended solids. content which is J.ike.ly to re-main at
. the head of the wetlan.d 'viii. becmne less and less. An A value of
between 0. 7 and 0.85 is probably appropriate for secondary efilnents,
~d {}_9 or higher might be appropriate for highly ~ated tertiary
effluents..
~
224
Chapter Six
The A 0 value is a measure of the surface area available in the system for the development of at"-!.3-ched-growth organisms. In trickling
filters and RBC units it is the entire wetted surface area and is relatively easy to determine. In a FWS wetland the A 0 is_a measure of the
surface area of the submerged portions of the vegetation and the litter layer which is in contact with the wastewater. As a resul~ it is
almost impossible to nieas:ure accurately i:a a functioning wetland
system, and an approximation is all that is possible. The value for Au
used in previous publications was 15.7 m.2/m3
Since the surface area A 8 of the wetlandis equal to (LXW), it iS possible by substitution and rear:rnngement of terms to solve Eq. 6.31 for
the area required to achi.~ve th1:> desired I.ev.e l of treatment:
QClnC0
(6.32)
= surface area of F'W~ wetland~ rn-2 Cft2.)

KT = K"w(1.06)<T- ~}
.
1
K 20 = 0.2779-d.
= 0.65-0.75 aower number far dense; mature -vegetation}
A = 0.52 {primary effluent)

= 0.7-0.85 (seconu"Yefflnent)
= 0.9 {ter"r.iarv &:fluent}.
.
~
Equation 6.32 wi....TI give .a reliable Q-timate Qf the FWS wetland: surface area. It is also presented in other texts and design manuals.40.56
However, to avoid the difficulties .imrolved with evaluating A and the
Au a second approach has been derived from .analysis of perfoi"mance
data ofoperational .FWS weilantt systems:
cf!
co =
-K,
(:6~}
.;J.;J
;.
;( ..:..... i'fi"(I."UOJ
n~t.T -
~-~
20)
~ =' 0:.5'Z8d-~
-{:aa4r
(6.35)
The wetland surface area can be determined using Eq76.36:
Q{ln.Co -InC)
As =
where Kx
Kf.y)fa}
= rate constant, from Eqs.. 6.34 and 6.35, d - 1
y = design .d epth ofwater

the .sys~ m
n = "poro~ -ofthewetlancL. {t.6 5-0.75
;..
_,
.. .
~ \~
..
where A s
n
::
....
lnCe + ln.A)
K:z.<.y)(n.)
.::
(6JJS}
Wetland Systems
225
The depth of the water in the wetland can range from a few centimeters up to 1 m for brief periods. Typical design de pths range from
0.1 m to 0.46 m depending on the season and the water-quality expectations for the system. In cold climates where winter ice formation is
expected, the water depth can be increased somewhat to compensate.
During the warm summer the system can be operated with a minimal
depth, consistent with water-quality goals, to imptove oxygen transfer potential and encourage vigorous plant growth. Example 6.3 at
the end of the section demonstrates this approach . ...
Equation 6.36 will produce a more conservathe design than Eq.
6.32 with its original design assumptions. Figure 6.12 compares the
predicted performance using Eq. 6.36 to the actual performance of
representative FWS syst.ems...
There is one important limitation on the use .of either Eq. 6-.32,
6.33, or 6.36., since the final efiluent BOD is influenced by the production of residual BOD within the wetland from decomposition of plant
detritus and other naturally occurring organic3. This r~--idnal BOD is
. typically in.the .r ange of 2 to 7 mg/L. As a result, the clfluent BOD
.. from .thes~ ~ktland sy~te.rn.s is due to these resi4uai organics and not
tp wastewater sources. Therefore, Eqs. 6.33 and 6.36 cannot be used
with designs for a final effluent BOD<5 mg/L. This is approximated
in Figure 6.1~ where the predicted curve becomes linear a:t about ,9 5
percent removaL
.
34
Knight et al_ have proposed Eq. 6.37 based on a regression analysis of the entire North American Data Base (N...L\.DB) compiled for the
EPA. The analysis included both FWS and SF wetland systems.
l -----..
-------r-----
:::.
0
.E
Q:>
co
...
00
CD
...c:
c.
u
:!L.
1'0
0o~--~--~--~---4~--~5----6L
. --~7---.~s--~g~.--~,o .
HRT, days
- E q. 6.35
o t<adlec FWS da:ta
Figore6.12 Predicted versus act:o:alpe:d'annance. FWS wetland systems-
-~
226
Chapter Six
C<' = <0.192J(C)
+ (0.097)(HLRr
n
(6.37)
where Cc = effluent BOD, mg/L

C0 = influent BOD, mg/L
HLR = hydraulic loading rate, cm/d
Equation 6.37 will predict about the same effluent BOD as Eq. 6.33
with typical wetland. configurations and warm-weather temperature
conditions. This can.be accepted as a-confirmation ofEq. 6.33, and the
rate
as defined by Eq. 6.35. However, Eq. 6.37 has limited
value for .design purposes since it does not include a temperature-correction factor, and it should not be used to determine the wetland surface area r equired. Manipulation of the equation to attempt a solution
for the surface
area of
wetland (As ) is not. valid. The. unit
.
hydraUlic loading rate.- as used in the equation will have the same
value regardless of the actual water depth and detention time in the
wetland.
constant
the
Subs'urface-flow wetiands
The basic :inechanisms for BOD removal in SF wetlands are the

sa_-rn.e ~-those described for FWS wetlands. However, t"~e re~o~es
can proceed at a higher rate because the SF wetland has more subm-erged .surface area and therefore greater potential for development of attached-growth organisms_ One cubic meter of wetland
bed .c ontaining 25-mm-s.iz:e gravel would have at least 146 m 2 of
surfaee area_, in a"4dition to any root surfaces present .. A comparable
vollliE.e in a FWS wetland might contain 15-50 m 2 of available surface area_
...
Equations 6.33,. 6.3'4, and 6.36 are also valid models for the design
of.8F wetlands. The -only differences are the magnitude of the porosity (n} and the rate constantK;0 For SF wetlands. the porosity varies
with the -cype of media used in the system as shoWn in Table 6.3:, and
it snm:iid be mea.sBTed fur the media proposed for nse during imal system d.e:sioan. The rate constant for SF wetlands is temperatnre dependent as defined by. Eq. 6.34; its value at 20C is
K20 =. ~104d- 1
(6.38)
The removal of BOD in these wetlands, and in the facultative

lagoons descnned in Chap-. 4, e.an. be related tc. the organic loading
imposed on the system_ This-relationship is .shown on Fig. 6.13, where
the apparent rate constant increases linearly as the organic loading
incn:ases, up to an -organic loading .o f at least 100 kg/ha d (89 lb
BOD/ac d). The facultative lagoon data used for the figure comes
... .
Wetland Systems
1.6
1.4
2':.::
c
.E
.,
1.2
t.O
8 0.8
CD
SF wetland\/
~ 0.6
0
(II
0.4
0 .2
.,'
/
I!
i-''
,?---20
0 .0
0
~----
--
..
.,
,"
f-"""
40
60
80
_,
,........,!--
! .,..- ........
--r
:,..... rf!xu!t:rtive lagoon
./__
......... /
--
v. .
_, ...
......
, ...
227
FWS
~~-
\\
wetland~
'
--1----r--~:100
120
t60
140
Organic loadinq. kq/ha/d
Agure 6.13 BOD removal rnte constants verstJS orga.nlc loading.
from Table 4..2; the data on FWS and SF wetlands are from analyses
of full-scale operating systems in the United States.
Figure 6.13 is intended to confirm that the rate constant for SF
wetlands is consistently higher than for the other two -concepts, probably because <Jf the greater availability of surface area for the .development of microbial activity_ The figure can be used to evaluate performance of existing systems but is not intended as a design tool for
future systems. Many -o f the wetland systems used in the analysis
had relatively long hydraulic residence times but had data only on
input and final output BOD. Analysis of that type of data may produce a low apparent K:ro., s ince the major portion
BOD removal
{)Ccurs within a relatively short time period an.d does not require- the
entire HRT t6 reach the c oncentration measured at final discharge.
Once the BOD reaches an eqt:tilibrium level in the wetlan-<L it tends to
be sustained by :tbe'contrilmtion from the decomposing litter layer.
The wetland s,ystems .at the low end .of the scale on Fig. 6..13, V\ritb a
low.organic loading and K2D, are underloaded, usually because tbe
original designeru:verestima:ted either the inPut BOD level and/or the
input flow rate. Based on snccessfui per.forma:nee in the United States
elsewhere in the world, both. FWS and SF wetlands can be reliably designed for organic loadings up to 100 kg/ha- d (89 Ib BOD/ac
d). and JI;0 vafues as defined .b y Eqs. 6.35 and Eq_ H.38. FigUre 6 .13 .
can be used to- assess the perf_ormanre -of existing systems,.but there
is no point in designing a new wetrand system with an unn-ecessarily
low K 20 value.
Figure 6.14 c ompares the resnlts of the SF design model to actual
performance data fer typical systems. As with FWS systems, the
and
..
''
228
Chapter Six
IOOr-------~----------------------------~
oo
0
tO
HRT. days
-
SF mpdel
o Field data
Figure 6_14 Predicted versus actual performance, SF wetland systems.
plant detritus and other natural organics contrip-g..~to the BOD within the SF wetland. This condition is.
Fig. 6.14 where
the curve becomes linear at about 95 percent removal. These SF systems should not be designed to achieve an effluent BOD greater than
approx.im.3.tetrm
:S5 mg!L becaus! of the contribution from the natural organics in the
system.
A SF wetland bed typically contains up to 0.6 m (2 ft) of the. selected :p:tediUllL This is sometimes overlain With a layer of fine gravel
7-6--150 .mm (3--6 in) deep. The fine gravel serves as an initial rooting
media for the vegetation and is maintained in a dry condition during
normal .o perations. If relatively small grnvel, <20 mm, is selected for
the main treatment layer, a finer top l ayer is probably not need~
but the total depth should be increased slightly to ensure a dry zone
at the top ofthe bed.
Most opa-ational SF wetlands in the United States have a treatment zone and opera~ng water .d epth 0.6 m (2 .ft) deep. A few, in
wann_.ciiffiates. where- freeZing iS not a signlficarrt :rls~ operate "lvltb a
bed deptli of 0:$ m. (1 ft.t The shallow depth enbances the oxygen
transfer p.otential but. requires a greater surface area and is at
greater risk of freezing in .c old climates. The d:eep 0'.6 -m bed also
requires s:pecial .oper.atiln to induce des:ii-:able root penetration to the
bottom of the bed.. The'.eontribntion to treatment from thepreseDeof
the roots and rhizomes in the wetland bed is dem<>nstrated. by Table
6.5.
It is clear from the data in Table 6.5 that treatment performance for
BOD and ammonia nitrogen is related directly to the depth of root
pen~traticm.. In view of the warm year..:round climate at Santee
1
and
Wetland Systems
229
6.5 Performance Comparison for Vegetated and Unvegetated Gravel Bed

Wetlands at Santee, California22
TABLE
Effiuent quality Cmg/LI
Root
Bed condition*
penetration (em 1
BOD
TSS
NH.1
76
5.3
22.3
30.4
36.4
3.7
7.9
LS
5.4
5.5
5.6
22.1
Scirpus
Phragmites
T_,pha
No vegetation
"'Q
>60
30
0
= 3 .04 n::rl!d; HRT = 6
d; bed dimensions, L = 18.5 m. W = 3.5 m._v

= 57 mgiL.. N~ = 25 mg/L.
17.7
= 0..76 m: primary
wastewat.eri:nfluen:t.. BOD = US mgiL TSS
the continuous growing season, it is likely that the depth of root penetration shown in Tahle 6.5 for these three plant species represents the
maxim.am pra~ca1 potential limit. This in turn suggests that there is
little pmpose in selecting a design depth for a SF wetland that is
beyond the potential root penetration of the intended emergent vegetation. Further disenssion ofthiS issue .can be formd in Sec. 6.8.
Example 6.3 Compare sizing of a SF and a FWS wetbmd for the same design
conditions. Q = 10& m 3/d, influent BOD 100 xng:/4 required effluent BOD = 10
. mgl4 water :temperature entering wetland= l<rC~ air temperature in critical
winter
design
month = - IO;,C. Use 0.61 m of 25-m.m gravel (n = 0.38. k $ =
.
.
25.000 m 3!m2 d) in a SF wetland with a top gra"Vellayer 76mm deep. Winter
war.er depth in the FWS wetland = 0.4o/ m, summer water depth :.::0.15 m,
""poro~ ofFWS wetland = 0.65.
solution
I . .Assmoiugthat design wa:tertempetaiwe in th.e SF wetland is ~C.. find the

BOD rate constant using Eqs. 6..34 and 6 .38.
K9
= L l04n..:o6)'9 - -
:w. = o.s&Is a
-l
2.. Determine the surface ar-ea required for the- 'SF w.etland under winter conditions using Eq. -6.3.6 .
A = . ~100Jlln!100110i] = 1700.m 2
~
('(}..5815'}{ 0!:61>(0.138)
HRT
= ( !708)({)._-6:1)10..38)
(lQOi
= 4d
3. C:alcnla:t-e the watert~ez ature in thewetfand using Eq. 6_22.

U= ({}.152/0.05} +
10.0~6/1_51 + (0.610/2) = 0-29"4
<0..294)(86AOOJ(4) .
Effluent temperature= lfr - [10 - (-IOH (42IS)(lOOO)(O.fil)IO.S8 )
= 10- (20HO~l03.)
= 1!3::C
230
Chapter Six
Average water temperature=
10 + 7.9-:.
2
= 9~C
The assumed water temperature ~-as also 9~C. so the wetland size is OK.
4. Divide the ~etland area into three parallel cells of 569 m 2 each. Determine
the aspect ratio using Eq. 6.10 with m = 0.03. Q = 100/3 = 33.33 m 3 /d.
w=
L =
_ 1_ (33.33)(569)
0.61 l C0.03}(8333)
]L'
= 143m
.
569
_ = 39.8 m
14 3
L:W = 2.8:1
OK
5. ASsuming that the design water temperature in the FWS v.-et!.end is

determine the rate constant' and the surface area of the wetland..
:ro, = 0.2999 d - 1
K 6 = 0.678(L06)'6 -
A =
UOO)[ln(I00/10)]
"
<02999X0.457X0.65)
I
I
'
j
1'I
l
I
I
l
!.
HRT
f..
= (2584)(0.4<>1){0.65} -
(100}
2584
-
'7 ,...
rn2
- . t.l
6. Assuming no ice fon:natio~ determine the wa.te 1:emperatu:re nsing Eq.

6.25. Assume thatL:W = 3:L
3l~ =
2584
W= 29.3m
L= 88m
soc.
Ve1ocity =
t; =
7 _7( 24~~GO.)(GO) = 0.00~132 m/s

( - lQ)
+ [(IO) - ( - lO)}
exp[ <1000"1( OA;;.~:-~:~132l(~<>l.J
= - 10 + (20)(0.595} = 1.9"C
7. Ice formation will begin at 3C and cl:r.ange thennc:l.conditions. Use.Eq. 6. 96.

t.O detelmine where ice will form..
.=_
.x
=
(1000:)(.0.457}(Q:.OOOI32X4215.i
(!.5}
1n{~ flOIS- <-HH] l

(-10)] J
7.3m
TotaiL = 88m
Ice covet on: SS. - 73 = 15m
8. Use Eq. 6.27 to dete:onin.e effluent water temperature a~: the end ofrlleicecovered zone.
lJ .
U. = (162ZJ[(O.OOOlSZ)o.s = 1A9
I
0-.457 )0.2
. ~-~-
Wetland Systems
,. =
0 + <3 - Oi ex:
49 5
1. (1 }
J.
p <1000Ji0.457 J!0.000132)(4215 )
0 + (3 )(0.91)
=
2.8"C
Average water temperature =
lO?C
~ 2.soc
231
.. ...
=
6A:=c
We assumed 6C initially, so the area determined is OK
9. Divide the FWS wetlarid into two parallel cells of 1292 m 2 each, then determine the summer waterdepth using Eq. 6.36 and the ~-pect ratio using Eq.
6.8. Assume that the summer water temperatm-e is 2o::c.
K;_~ = (0_678}
A = {50)[lnn00/10)] = 1299 .
s
W-. 678)(y)(0.-65)
- m
y=02m
Assume that m
. . -
0_03 anda = G-in the Manning equation. Then
L = [ {1292)(0.2.)2667(0_03)0.5(86T400}
]0.667
.: .
()(50)
= 92m
A length of up to 92 m would be OK for: the assumed conditions. Use the

Ori.gin:ai assumption that L:W = 3:1 or L =:: 88:~ W = 29m.
1fr_ Summary:
total area 2584 m2~ HRT 8 d, 2 ceTis, L = 88 m, W = 29 m,.

water depth 0.2 m summer, 0.457 m winter, winter effluent temperature
FW~ -wetland:
gee_
SF wetla:zid: total area 1708 m 2, HRT 4 :d-. '3 cells, L = 40 ~ W = 14 m,

water depth G1 m year-round, operate all thTee cells -d uring-winter.,. ro-tate
cells so- 'One is dormant for one month at a time during s ummer to .encour-age root penetration, winter effluent temperature g.:~c
The FWS wetland is 50 percent larger than the .SF wetland in tbis
.example because of~ lower rnte co:n.stant and the lower winter water
temperatures in. the FWS wetland.. The FWS
mig1J..t,.. .howe-ver,
still be th.e most economical choice depending on the locai :CoSt. for suit-
wetlaD.d
able gr.a:veL
,;:.,:..:_.,
. :~!~~.~:.:::,
Prefiminary treatment
Both FWS and SF wetlands in the United States utilize -at least the
equivalent of primary treatn1ent as the preliiD.inary treatment prior
to the wetland component. This might be obtained with s~ptic tanks,
Imhoff tanks., ponds.,. conventional primary treatment,. or sil:n.ilar sys-
232
Chapter Six
terns. The purpose of the preliminary treatment is to ~educe the concentration of easily degraded organic solids which otherwise would
accumulate in the entry zone of the wetland system and result in
clogging, possible odors, and adverse effects on the plants in that
entry zone. A system de~igned for step feed of untreated wastewater
might overcome these problems.
A preliminary anaerobic reactor would be useful to reduce the
organic and solids content of high-strength industrial wastewaters.
Many of the SF wetland systems in Europe appiy screened and
degritted wastewater to a wetland bed. This does result in sludge
accumulation, odors, and clogging,. but it is acceptable in remote .locations. In some cases an inlet trench is used for solids deposition and
the trench is cleaned periodically_
6.8 Design Models for TSS Removal
....
~;
The removal of suspended solids. (TSS) in both FWS and SF wetlands

is due to physical processes and is influenced only by tempera.t."-are
through the viscosity effects on the flow of water. Since the settling
distance for particulate matter is relatively small and the residence
time in the wetland is very long, these viscosity effects can be neglected_ The removal ofTSS in these wetlands is not likely to be the limiting design parameter for siz~ the wetland, since TSS removal is
very rapid as compared to remmral of either BOD Or nitrogen.
Most of the solids in domestic, municipal~ and many in'dus:trial
wastewaters are organic in natore and will decompose in time,. leaving minimal' residues. The equivalent of primary treatment,. as with
BOD~ will prmride an acceptable level of preliminary tr-eatment prior
to the wetland component for these types of wastewaters. The subsequent de<:omposition of tb remaining solids in the wetland should
leave minimal residues and result in. minimal clogging. Wetland s_ystems designed for storm water, combined sewer overflows, and smne
i~~tri~ ~~~~t~r~ -~]lj~h_ 'l!~e I!ig!!..~~!!~en~Qfl.S of i norg?nic
solids may
need' primary treatment but"niight "need a settling
pond or cell as the first unit in a wetland system to avoid rapid accumulation of inorganic solids in the wetland_
Figure 6.15 presents representative TSS removal performance for
both FWS and SF municipal wastewater wetland systems versus
the hydraulic loading rate on the systeiiL The solid line in the fignre is the regression line of best fit for the SF case. The dasb.M line
in the figtrre is the FWS case. The equations far these tw.o conditions are:
not
SF wetlands:
Ce = Co [0.1058
.
+ O.OOll<HLRH
(-6 .39)
;,
'
..
'.
'
.'.
...,
."!:
Wetland
Sy~tems
23.3
100r-------------~----------------------~
~
~..
't.
to oB
0
90 "
o
0
r -
i;
E 801m
....
:o
--0-00
'!.
000
0
~ 70r
------
0
0
C>
Q.
(T)
60
I-
50-
0
0
40~~1--~'--'~~--~'~'~~--~~--~--~,~--~--~~
0
10 t1
12
13
14 . t5
Hydraulic loadinQ rote. cm/d
Figurefi.t5
TSS removal in wetlands versus hydraulic loading rate.
. FWS wetlands:
Ce = CJ0.1139 + 0.00213(HLR)]
..-
..:
._:.~~~
(6_40)
where Ce = effluent TSS, mg/L

C"' = influent TSS~ mg/L
HLR = hydraulic loading rate, cm/d
At low to moderate hydraulic loading rates? Eqs. 6.39 and.6.40 'Will
predict essentially the sap~e effiuent TSS for eitb.e~ SF or F\VS wet. lands. This is consistent with performance expectations for the two
wetland types since both are very effective for TSS remova4 and TSS
removal is not the J:im.iting parameter for design ofeither-system.
There are several limitations to the use of both models. They ar-e
not valid fur hydranlic loadings beyond the range used to derive ~
models (HLR = 0-~75 cm/d}. Very high or rmrealistically 1ow HLR
assumptions wi1.I give incorrect results. In addition, the removal of
TSS in these wet1an_d s is limited by the same consb:aint as was diS. .. eu:ssed pie~1ollixij :iDT BODr.enroval 1n -that 'the sYstem -itself pi:OOiiee5
residual organic materials.. These residual mga.nics ean appeai- 'in the
final effinent as 'TSS, .so Eqs. 6:..39 and 6.40 should not be used to predict a final effiuent <5 mgiL. It is also not intended that Eq_ -6.39 ar
-6 .40 be reamnged and used to. detennine the r-equired size of the
wetland.. The wetland should b e Sized. 11sing either the BOD or Ili:tnr.gen des@l model. The hydraulic loading-rate can then be determined
and Eq. 6.39- or 6-40 solved tfr estimate the 'TSS_perfon;rumce af the
system.
Example fi..4 Determine tbe .effluent TSS for. the twn wetland systems sized in
Example 6.3 fur BOD removaL Assume that the influent TSS (C.) = 13(} mgiL
234
Chapter Six
solution-
I. Determine HLRs for both systems~
FWS:
SF:
HLR = ( : )nom
= ( ;~84 YIOO> = 3.87 cm/d
HLR = {_~)(100)
= ( 1~08 )noo> =
0
5.85 cm/d
2. Estimate effiuent TSS using Eqs. 6.30 and 6.40.

"FWS:
SF:
C = <130J[0.1139 + 0.00213(3.87>] = 15.9mg/L
"
C = i130)[0.1058 + 0.0011(5.85)] = 14.6mg!L
"
6.9 Design Models for trrtrogen Removal
A design for nitrogen removal in either FWS or SF wetlands is a complex procedure, because nitrt>gen can be present in a "\-rariety of forms
and requires a number of chemical and environmental conditions for
transformation or rem.oyaL Ammonia nitrogen is the form most frequently regulated in the final effinent since un-ionized ammonia can
be toxic to fish in vecy small concentrations and oxidation of ammonia
in the receiving stream can depress the oxygen leveL Section 6.2 provides a detailed discussion of the various forms ~f nitrogen and the
constraints on their removal in wetland systems.
. Nitrogen removal is tisu.any the limiting design parameter when
stringent effiuent limits for e ither ammonia or total nitrogen prevail.
In cold climates. with extended periods nf very low temperatures,
nitrogen requirements may limit the feasibility of winter operations.
In these cases, winter storage ofwastewater and summer operation -of
a wetland may be necessa::ry_ Sizing the wetland for nitrogen removal,
as described in this section,. mnst be combined with the thermal cal.eu]ations described in Sec. 6..5 to.ensure feasJ.offity.
When the system design reqn:ires ammonia removal~ :it is pm.dent to
.assume that all .of the Hjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) entering the .s.;rstem
will eyentnallybe oo~d to ammonia A small fraction of the enter~
ing organic N .m ay remain p~tly bound w.ith thebenthic mate-
.rials, butthis~ be negl&.""ted in a conservative design_DUring the
first year.ortwo of system operation the ammonia removal may.e xceed
expectations. This is dn:e to soil adsorption and plant uptake by the
rapidly expanding vegetative cover_ N-ear the end .o f the serorid growing season the ecosystem may begin to approach equilibrium and the
ammonia removal wt1T stabilize. The design procedures in tbis chapter
are intended for long-term performance expectatians.
\. '
Wetland Systems
. .
235
Free-watersurface wetlands
.
.
The major oxygen source for nitrification in F WS wetlands is atrnos-

pheric reaeration at the water surface. However, even with a shallow
water depth, the bulk of ihe liquid is anaerobic. As a result,.mtrification can occur near the water surface and denitrification is possible in
the .remainder of the liquid. Temperature has an influence in several
ways, since both the biological nitrification and denitrification reactions are temperature dependent, as is the solubiJity of oxygen in the
water. The major carbon sources supporting. denitrification are the
submerged plant litter and other benthic detritus and the residual
waffiOOwaterBOD.
.
.
N"rtrification~ The recommended design model assumes. that ammonia

rem~val iS due entirely to nitrification and no credit is given to plant
uptake7 since h~estmg is not normally praCticed_ 1f harvesting is
included in system design, and is practiced routinely; the am~ -of
nitrogen removed via this pathway can be .e stimated Using the tissue
concentrationspresented in Sec. 6-I. f~ the plant ~es af ~erest.
The model also a5sW:nes that srifiicient alkalinity is present {see .Sec.
6..2 for discussion) and that the oxygen concentratian.S in the water
are comparable ~ those norrrially :prese~.t in a FWS wetlan(t, If special m~asures, such asae-Tation, are provided to enhance nltrifieation,
'then.the ba~c design model does not appzy..
.
The temperature 'de.Pendenee of tbe nitrification reactions in FWS
wetlands is. similar to that o bserved in conveirtional attached-growth
devices snch as trickling filters and RBC units~ . At .water temperatures of 10ac and higher~ nitrification is less dependent on temperature than. BOD remo.val; .at tem:Peratures less than lO.qC~ nitrification
isstrongly temperature dependent; and at o.cc,. nitrification activity
ceases completely_ The genera! farms of Eqs. 6-~ ..2:,. 6.3.,. and -6_4 all
apply for the design of am-m-onia r:em.oval in a FWS wetland_
Equations 6.41 and 6.42 are Eq.s. 6~ and 6Ai expressed in terms .o f
ammonia concentratio.D..5.
Ce = exp(- K~)
. .:'.::.,~::.:(iL41}
, ..; , : ::.";: :":. : ; .:
-f
A = QJn(CiC)
s
!.pn
where A s = sur:fuce area Ofwe.t1anL m 2 {ft2)

G = effi:nent ammonia
concentration, mgiL
.
C = influent TKN concentratio~ mg/L
~
()
.. : : .~:,. t~~~: ~:
(6_42)
235
Chapter Six
KT = temperature dependent rate constant, days- 1

(0C)
0 d - 1
{
KT = 0.2187(1.048)1T- 20)~ d- 1
(lC +)
n = porosity of the wetlandr 0.65-0.75
t = hydraulic residen~ time, d
y = depth of water in the wetlan~ m (ft)
Q = average flow through the wetland,. m 3/d (ft3/d)
Q
= Qin + Qout . .. .
2
(6.43)
The rate constant (KT) for temperatures between ooc and 1oc is
determined by interpolation (J4. = 0.0389 at 1C). Figur~ 6.16 compares the predicted effluent ammonia concentrations using Eq. 6 .41
to the long-term seasonal concentrations at an operational FWS system in Iowa with a HRT of14 days.
When designing a FWS wetland for both B()D and ammonia
removal, Eq. 6.36 is used to determine the area required for BOD
removal and Eq. 6.42 is then used for ammonia removal. The a.-rea
used for design is the large:r; ofthe two and not the sum.
most situations, where stringent ammonia limits prevail, Eq. 6.42 will require
a larger area than Eq 6.36~ In this case, the expected BOD removal
should be recalculated to reflect the larger area of the final system.
Equation 6.41 will typically- require a HRf of between 7 and 12
days to meet stringent ammonia limits under summer conditions, and
an even longer period at low winter temperatures. A cost-effedi:ve
In
-111
OL_~~~~~o=J
o
0
-6
10
1~
14
16
Effluent temperatur~ ~c.
t8
20
Figura 6.16 Pr-edicted .:ersus actual FWS effiuent anunonia
22
24
Weti.aiJd Systems
237
alternative to a large FWS wetland designed for ammonia .rem~val

may be the use of a nitrification filter bed (NFB). In that case the
FWS wetland can be designed for BOD removal only and the relatively compact NFB can be used for ammonia re~oval. The combination
of the FWS wetland and the NFB bed should require less than onehalf of the total area that would be necessary for a FWS wetland
designed for ammonia. removal. The NFB bed can also be used to
retrofit existing wetland systems. Design details for th~ NFB concept
are presented on page 246 of this chapter.
Other design models for ammonia removal are also available in the
published literature. Equations 6.44 and 6.45 appear in the Water
Pollution Control Federation (WEF) Manual ofPra~ice FD-16.40 .
In(C) = 0.688 ln(C0 )
+ 0.6551n(HLR) -
1.107
(6.44)
where HLR = hydraulic loading rate, cm/d

C 0 = influent ammonia concentratio~ mg!L
Cc = effi:nent ammonia concentration mg/L
7
{lOO)(Q)
(SA~)
where A s = surface area of wetland, m 2

.
Q = design flow, m 3/d
Equation 6_46 was developed by Hammer and Knight26 wit h a
regression analysis of 17 FWS systems:
C = (11.39)(C)(Q)
e
As
(6..46)
where A .s: = surfa-ce .area ofwetlan<4 m 2

Q = design flow, mt!Jd
_
C 0 = infiuentammoniaconcentration,-:-mgf.L
ce= .effiuenta:mmonia conamtxation, mg!L
Temperatnre-- atljnstmen.ts are not possible with. e ither Eq. 6-44 or

Eq. 6.46,. nor oo they take into account the depth nfwatera rthe HRT
the wetlarui They can be lisen as an independent check, fur warmweather co~mis only,. of the results from the remmmended model
{EqS.. 6.41 and -6.42). Equati'Ons -6.41 and 6.44 predict approximate]JJ
the same effinent con-centration for summer eonditiOH:.S and a water
depth of about 0.3 m (1ft) in the FWS wetland.
238
Chapter Six
Denitrification. The previous models account only for conversion of

ammonia to nitiate, and predict the area reqwred for a given level of
conversion. When actual removal of nitrogen is a project requirement,
it is necessary to consider the denitrification requirements and size
the wetland accordingly. In the general case, most of the nitrate produc-e d in: a FWS wetland will be denitrified and removed \Vithin the
area pr()"\-rided for nitrification and without supplemental carbon
solirces. Figure 6~6 suggests that FWS wetlands can be more effective
for riitrate removal than the SF type because of the greater availability of carbon from the plant detritus. The recommended design model
for estimating nitrate removalvia denitrification is Eqs. 6.47 and 6.48:
_e =
exp( -
K t)
T
(6.47)
A=
s
iv:h~re ~o; =
Qln(C /C)
o
KTyn
(6.48)
.su:rface area of wetland, m 2: (ft2 )
Ce = effiuent
. citrate concentration, mg/L
influent nitrate concentration,. mg/L
Rr = temperature-dependent rate constant
[0 d~T at ~C; l_OQO(l.l5)1T- 201 d- 1 at lC +J
n =.porosity ofthe wetland; 0.65-:-().75
t .= hydraulic residence time, d
y = depth of water in the wetland,. m .(ft)
Q =av-erage flow through the .wetland from Eq. 6.43, m 3/d
{ft3/d)
.qo =
The influent nitrate concentration (C0 ) u.Sed in Eq~ 6.47 or 6.48 is the
d:iff-erence between :influent and -e ffiuent concentrations determined
with Eq. -6.41. Since Eq. 6.41 determines the ammonia remaining 3fter
nitrification in the wetland, it can be conservatively assumed that the
-d ifference (C0 - C) is available as nitrate_ The rate of denitrification
~tween occ and lC can.-b e determined by interpolation <K;. = (}J)23=at
lC)_ For.practical purposes, denltri.fication is insignificant at these
temperatures-;. It:must be remembered thatEqs. 6.47 and. 6.48 are
applicable onlyfmtnitrate that is present in the wetland system.
Since the FWS wetland is generaily anoxic but .also has aerobic
sites near the water snrfa~ it is possible tq obtain both nitrification
and denitrification in the same reactor volume. Equation 6.48 gives
the wetland surface area required for denitrification. This "denitrification" .area is not in addition t.o the area required for nitrification a!?
determined with Eq. 6-.42; it should be less than or equal to the
Wetland Systems
....
239
results from Eq. 6.42, depending on the input level of nitrate in the
untreated wastewater and the water temperature.Total nitrogen. Whef! d~nitrification is req~red, there is usually a
discharge limit on tot~l nitrogen (TN). The 'rN in the system effluent
is the sum of the results from Eqs. 6.41 and 6.47. The determination
of the area requi~d to produce a specific effluent TN value is an iterative procedure using ~Q- 6.42 and.Eq. 6.47:
1. Assume a value for residual ammonia <C;) and solve Eq. 6.42 for
the area required for nitrification. Determine HRT for that system.
2. Take (C0 _ - C~) as the nitrate produced by Eq. 6.42 and use this
value as th~ influent (C) in Eq. 6.47. Determine effluent nitrate
~h-Eq. 6.47.
3. The efilueirt TN is the sum of the Ce values from Eqs. 6.42. a:nd
-6.47. If that TN value- does not match the required TN, another
iteration of the calculations 'is. necessary.
The WEF MOP FD-1640 also contains a model for TN removal:
c e =
0.193{C
) + 1..55 Jn(HLR) - 1.75
(6.49)
_where HLR = hydraulic loading rate, cm/d

ce = effluent total nitrog~, mg/L
Co = influent t-otal nitrogen, mg/L
(lOO)(Q)
As= G.645(C ) - -0:.125(C)

+ 1.129
0
(6.50)
(!
w'here.As = smface
area of wetland.. m 2
.
Q = design flow, m 3/d
Eq~cn 6A9 can be nsed as an .i ndependent check of the results
:fr&m the recommended TN calculation procedure described abovE; fur
warm-weather conditions only. It is not possible to, adjust the results
o fEq. 6...-49-or-6..50 .for temperature, nor do they recognize the effect of
dep.t h and HRT in the wetland, sa their use for design is not reeommended. Equation 6.49 and the sum ofEqs. 6~42 and 6.47 will predict
approximately the same effluent TN for warm-weather conditions
and a -water depth .ofabout 0.3 m.
Subswface-ffowweflands
Since the water level is maintained below the media surface in SF

wetlands, the rate of atmospheric reaeration is likely to be signifi-
240
Chapter Six
cantly less than for the F\V"S wetland type. However, as described
previously, the roots and rhizomes of the vegetation are believed to
have aerobic microsites on their s1.1rfaces, and the wastewater as it
flows through the bed has repeated opportunities for contact with
these aerobic sites in ~n otherwise an~1erobic environment. As a
result, conditions for nitrification and denitrification are present in
the same reactor. Both thes~ biological nitrificat.i on and denitrification reactions are temperature dependent, and the rate of oxygen
transfer to the plant roots may var.y: somewhat with the season_ .
The major carbon sources supporting denitrification are the dead
and decaying roots and rhizomes, the other organic detritus, and the
residual wastewater BOD_ These carbon sources are probably more
limited for SF wetiands during initial operati9ns, compared to the
FWS case, since most of the plant litter collects on top of the bed.
After a few years of litter bnildnp and decay, both types of wetlands
1nay have comparable carbon so'I.I!1res for support of denitrifi-cation_
Since a major smn-ce of oxygen .in the SF case is the plant roots~ it is
ab~o!utely essential t.o ensur-e that the root system penetrates to the
full design depth of the bed. Any water that flows beneath the root
zone is in a completely a:na.erobie en"ironmen~ and .nitrification will
not pccur except by diffusion into the upper layers. This response is
illustrated by the drta in Table L5, where removal of ammonia can
be correlated directly with the qeptb of penetration by the plant roots_
The beds conta~n~ne Typha (root penetr-ation about 40 percent of the
bed d.e pth) achieved only .32 percent ammonia removal as compar-ed
to the Scirpus beds, which achieved 94 percent removal and had complete root penetration_
Many existing SF systems in the Unit-ed States were designed
u....c:.ing the assumption that regardless of the plant species selecteL
the roots would :;omehow automatically grow to the bottom of th-e
bed and supply all .o f the necessary oxygen_ This has not occn:rrecL
and many of these systems cannot meet their discharge limits for
ammonia. This problem can be avoided in the fu:ture if proper ca:re is
takendurin.g design and -opera:tian ill the systeiD.. The""root deptlis:
listed in Table _5 for Sant~, Caiifo~ prt>bably f\epresent the
maximum potential depth for the plant species ~sted,. sin~ Sant-ee
has a warm c1imate with a con~nons growing season and the
applied wa..t,-tewater -co-ntain::: sufficient nutrients_ This suggests f:b.?t
the design depth of the bed should nnt be greater than thepotential
root depth of the plant -intended for use if oxygen is needed for
ammonia re:moval.
Operational methods for actually achieving the maximum potenti~
root penetration will still be necessary, since the plants can obtain all
of the needed moisture and nw..-rients with the roots in a r-elatively
Wetland Systems
241
shallow position. In some European systems, the water level is .lowered gradually.in the fall of each year to induce deep root penetration.
It is claimed that three growing .s easons are required toachieve fuH
penetration by Phragmites using this method. Another approach in
cool climates, where winter treatment requirements typically require
a larger area, j~ to construct the bed with three parallel cells and
operate only two for a month at ? time during the warm periods. The
roots in the dormant cell should penetrate as the nutrients in the
water are consumed. In warm climates, where freezing is not a risk, it
is possible to limit the bed depth to ~-3 m, which should allow rapid
and complete root penetration. The volume of gravel required will be
constant regardless of the bed depth, but the surface area needed to
achieve the same level of treatment will increase as the depth
decreases.
Nitrification. There is no consensus on how much oxygen can he furnished to the root zone in SF wetlands or on the oxygen transfer e:fliciency of various plant species. There is a consensus that these .e mergent plants transmit' enough oxygen to their roots to ~y alive nnder
nonnal stress levels. The disagreement occurs over ho.w much o;-.::ygen
is available at the root surfaces to support biological activity.
Pnblished estimates range from 5 to 45 g O./m2 d -of wetland surfacearea. 5 :i5 The oxygen demand from the waStewater BOD and other
naturally present organics may uti.Ji.ze most of tms available ozygen~
but based on the ammonia removals observed at Sa:ntee, California
(Table 6.5)~ there m~ still be significant oxygen in the root .zone to
support nitrification.
Jf the ammo.nia removals observed at Santee .are ass:~ u' ed to :be due
to biological nitrificatio~ it is possiole to cal~ate the amount of oxygen which should have been availab-le for that purpose, sin<;e it
requires abont .fi. g of oxygen to nitrifY 1 g of ammonia. The resnlts of
these calculations are shm.vn in Table 6.6-
---- -- - - - ---------- -- ... -- - -- - --- -TABLE '6.6
PolentfaiOxygen from Emergea~Wetland Vegelafion

Root depth*
Plant type
(m)
,'
Scirpus (Bulrush}
Phragmites (Reeds)
Typha (cattails)
Average
0.'76
7.5
5..7
{};60
8..(}
7.0'
7.5
4.8
2.1
9.30
.
*Total depth ofgravel bed 0.7&m.

t A\'ailable oxygen per unit: , o1mne of measured' root zone.
:t:Available o:s.:ygen per unit: surface aTea: of 0.7il-m-deep bed.
- --- ...
242
Chapter Six
The oxygen available for nitrification per unit of wetland surface

area ranged from 2.1 to 5. 7 glm2 d because the depth of root penetration varied with each plant species. These oxygen values are near the
low end oft]3.e published range (5-45 g Ojm~ d). Howev~r, the available oxygen, when eXpressed in tenns of the actual root. zone of the
various plants, is about the same, regardless o f the species (average
7 g Ojm3 - d). This suggests that, at least for these three species,
the oxygen ayailable for nitrification will be abont the same so the
rate of nitrification is therefore dependent on the depth of the root
zone which present in the SF bed. Equation 6.51 defines this relationship:
-.
:s
is
KNH = 0.01~54 + 0.3922Cr:zf-6077
(6.51)
= nitrification rate constant at 20C~ d- 1

rz = percent of SF bed depth occupied by the root zone,.a
whereKll.~
decimal fraction {0 to-1}
The K~""H val~e would be. 0.4107 1vith a fully developed ro~--:zone,
and 0.01854 if there were no vegetation .on the bed_ These values are
consistent with performance re:::-ults observed at several SF sitesevaluated for the EPA42 Independent coirlirma:tion ofthiS rate coDS"!.&lt is
proVided _by the design model published by Bavqr et al.2 This model
takes the same form as Eq 6.52 with a rate constant at 20C of OJOT
d - l in a gravel bed system where the plant .root zone occupied
between 50 and 60 percent of the bed depth.
Having defined the basic rate consta~t K~'H' it is possible to determine the ammonia removalt via nitri:fita:tion, in a SF' -wetland nsing
Eqs~ 6.52 and 6 .53:
.
= exp( -
"-"7:'-)
(6.-52)
o.
A
::
=. Qln(C oICe )
~yn
(6.53)
where As = surface. area o-fwetlan~ m 2 (ft2 )

= effluent ammonia concentratio~ mglL
C0 = illflnent TKN concentrati<lll, mgiL
ce
Kr=
tempera~ependentrateco~d-1
n. = porosity ofthe wetland {see Tciliie-6.3)

t
hydraulic residence time, d

y = depth .o f water in the wetland. m (ft)
Q = average flow through the wetlan-d from Eq. ~.43, m 3/d
(ft3/d)
=
..
Wetland Systems
243
The temperature dependence of the rate constant Kr is as follows:
K0
= 0
d- 1
14 = KNH(0.4103). d - l
~
= Kllo"H(l.048)<T- 20>, d - 1
(6.54)
(6.55)
(6.56)
For all temperatures it is necessary to frrst solve Eq. 6.51 to determine the KNH value. Interpolation is used for temperatures between
ooc and 1C.
It is not acceptable to.assume that the root zone will automatically
occupy the entire bed volume, except for relatively shallow [~0.3 m
(Sl ft)] systems using.small-sized gravel ($20 rom). Deep beds of= 0.6
m ( =2ft) require the special measures discussed previously to induce
and maintain full root penetration. If these special measures are not
u~ it would be amservative to assume that the root zone occupies not more than 50 percent ofthe bed depth unless measurements
show otherwise_ It is also unlikely, based on observations at numerous ~perational systems, that the plant roots will penetrate deeply in
~e large void spaces occurring when large-size rock [>50 m.m (>2 in)]
is selected as the ned media.
Equation 6.53 will cypically require a HRT of between 6 and 8 days
tq meet stringent ammonia limits under summer conditions, with a
fully developed root zone, and an even longer period at low winter
temperatures. A cost-effective alternative to a large SF wetla:nd
designed for ammonia removal may be the use of a nitrification filter
bed CNFB). In that case the SF wetland can be designed for BOD
removal only and the relatively compact NFB -can be nsed for ammonia removal The combination of the SF wetland and the NFB bed
should require less tb.a.n one-half of the total area that wunid 'be necessaxy for a SF wetland designed for ammonia removal. "'llie NFB bed
can also be lL..c:ed to r.etrofit existing wetland systems. Design details
for the NFB CODept are presented on page 246 of this .chapter_
Denitrification~
Equations 6.51-6_56 account only fur conversion of

ammoni?,. to nitrate, and predict the area required for a given lever nf
conversion:. when actUal removal of-nitrogen is a project reqnirem.ent~.
it is n-ecessary to consider the denitrification requi.reme.nts .and size
wetland accordingly. In the general C"aS.e , most of the nitrate produced in .a SF wetlarid will be denitrified .a nd removed within the
area provided for nitrification and witho-ut supplemental carbon
sources. Figure 6.6 s~ggests that FWS wetlands can be more effective
for ' ' H.r ate removal than the SF cype because .of tb.e greater availability o f:c arbon from the plant detritus~ at least dru ing the first few years
the
?44
Chapter Six
uf <;pcration. Even though the SF we~land has more surface area for
biological respon~":::. it is likely that the av'ailability of carbon in the
system limits the denitrification r~te so that SF and FWS wetl:mds
perfonn comparably. The recommended dc::;ign model for estimating
nitrate removal via denitrification is Eqs. 6.57 and 6_.58.
C.
K
C' =expC - T t}
"
A _ Q ln(CjC,)
s
Kryn
(6.57)
(6.58)
where A !; = surface area ofwetland, m2 (ft2 )

cl! = e~luent nitrate concentration, mg!L
C,, = influen~ nitrate concen,tra.tion, mg/L
KT = temperature-dependent ~ate constant
(0 a - l at ooc; 1.000(1.15)'T-: 201 d - l at l C + ]
1!- = porosity of the wetland (see Table 6.3 for typical values) .
.t = hydraulic residence time, d
y = depth of water in the wetland, m (ft)
Q = av-erage flow through the wetland from Eq. 6.43, m 3 /d
(ffi/d)
The influent nitrate concentration (C0 ) used in Eq. 6.57 or 6.58 is
the difference between influent and effluent concentra.tion,s determined wjth Eq. B.5~. Since Eq. 6.52 determines the ammonia
remaining after nitrification in the SF wetland,. it can be conservativelv
.assumed that the .difference (Co - Ce ) is available as :riitra.te.
J
The rate of denitrification bet\veen .ooc and 1 oc can be determined
by interpolation. For pr.actical puxposes, denitrificati!J.ll is insignificant at these temperatm-es. 1t must be remembered that Eqs.. 6.57
and .6_58 :are applicable m1ly for nitrate that is present in the wetland
system ..
Since- the SF 'Wetland is generally anoxic but also hasaerobic sites
on the surfaces of the roots and rhizomes, it is possible to- obtain both
.n itrification and denitrification mthe :;arne reactor volume. Eq:Uaticin
6.5f? give~ the wetland surface area requi:Fed
denitrification. This
"denitrification" area is not in addition to the area requ:ird for nitrification as determined with Eq. 6_53; it is usually less than or equal to
the results from E-q. 6 ..53, depending on the input level <If ni.trate in
the untr-eated wastewater and th~ water temperature..
far
T-atar nitrogen.. When denitrification is. required,. there is usually a
discharge limit .o n total nitrogen (TN)_ The TN in the SF wetland

effluent is the sum of the results from Eqs. 6.52 and 6.57. The deter-
Wetland Systems
245
mination of the area required to produce a specific effluent .T N value

is an itera tive procedure using Eqs. 6.53 and 6.57:
l. Assume a value for residual ammonia (Ce) and soive Eq. 6 ..53 for
the area required for nitrification. Determine HRT f~r that sy5tem.
2. Assume that (C0 - C) is the nitrate produced by Eq. 6.53 and~
this VC).!ue as the influent (C) in Eq. 6.57. Determine effiuent
. . ~q
,... . a......."7
. nitra te usmg
~ .
3. The efiluent TN is the sum of the Ce values from Eqs. 6.:~2 and
6.57. If that TN value does not match the required TN, another
iteration of the calculations is necessary. Example 6.5 demonstrates this procedure.
Example 6.5 Compare sizing of a S1f and FWS wetland for the same nitrogen-
removal design conditions: Q = 100 m 3 /d;
Co = 25 mg!L; Ce (ammonia) = 3
.
mgiL; Ce ('Thl = 3 mg!L; water~ = 20C; FWS, y = 0.3 .11'4 n = 0.65;
SF,y= 0.6m, n = .().38; tryw.i:th.rootzoneat50and 100 percent.
L Use Eq. a42 tD di:ternrine the.FWS ares-required for ammonia rem(Wsl...

(IDO)[ln(2513)J
.,
A~= {G.2lS7){tl:3)\0.6S) = 4972 mHRT:
t = (4972)(0.3}(0:65)1(100 ) = 9.7 d
2. UseEq.6..471n determine..e ftlrnmt nitrate. .
Wetland nitrate = (25mgil. - 3 mg!L) =
~2 mg/L
Effi.nentDittateC~ = {22)expi - (1..000){9'.7)1 < 0.01 mg/L
.a. Detamine .effiuent TN.

'T N =
:a~o
+ OJH = :3.01mg/L
3 mg/L TN, OK
4.. For the SF wetland, determine Kl'-"H for 50 and 100 percent root zane rising
Eq6.5:L
~ 50% rz) =
{).91854+ (t39-22(0..5)12:6aTi1 = 0.0829d- 1
Kmr<100%n} = OA107:d-1
5. Deten:n:fue.sF wetland. area:f.or:a mm.o nia removal using .Eq_ 6.53.
{I00)1In(2513)J
(n =50%};
HRT:
(rz =
.100:%);
HRT:
A = (0.0829}(~.6){0.38)
:~~:
= ll,.21S m
(U.218)(-fl.6)(0.38)
-- = 26d
t= - - - -(100)
As = 2264m2
t =
5.2.d
246 Chapter Six
6. Detennine effluent nitrate using Eq 6.57.

(rz =50%):
Ct = (22) exp[ - (LOOO)(R5)] < 0.01 mg!L
.(rz = 100%):
Ce = (22) exp[ - (l.OOOX5..2)] < 0.12 mg!L
7. Determine SF wetland effiuent TN.

(rz = 50%):
TN= 3 + 0.01 = 3.()1 mg/L
= 100%):
TN= 3 + 0.12 = 3.12 mg!L
(rz
s 3 mg/L, OK
> 3 mg/4 too high
The area and HRT provided.with the 100 percent root 'z one assumption are
~small to achieve sufficient denitrification. Try another iteration and size
for ammonia :removal to 2 ~giL.
A. =
(100)[In(25/2)]
7
(0Al07X<L6X0.3S) = 2 69- rn2
(2697){0.6}(0.38)
HRT:
t =
- -- - - - = 6.1 d
100
Effiuent nitrate C~ = (23) exp[ - (l.OOOX6.1)} < 0.05 mg/L
2 mg1L + 0.05mg/L = 2.05 mg/L

<a mg!L, OK
.
. .
9. At the ;t00-m3/d design fiow,..the J;IlUch smaller area required to achieve.the
TN limits. at 100 percent root zone, is worth the operational costS to
aclrieve full root penetration. If suitable land is limited or very expensive,
then. the design should require manageiJient to a.cbieve the ~00 percent rz
and use :the 269-m2 sm:face area (Step 6}-~owever:,. an alternate method for
nitrification is suggested (see the next section ofthis.chapter).
'10. The SF wetfan~l with the :5 0 percent rz asSumption is at least twice the :Size
.of a FWS -wetiS.na. fD.r the same .effluent quality. IT 100 percent rz is
achievedin the SF wetlan~ it could be about 54 percent of the FWS wetland size.. Both :the FWS and the SF wetlands wou:ld be about three times
lm:ger than. the area required just for BOD removal (from 100 mg/L to 10
mgiL4sn nitrogen. removal would 1:ontrolfur the assumed: conditions
lL Jt.cannot be.mndnded d!rectiy that the SF wetland !WO.Uld.ile- the cast-effec:tive:clloicefDrthls case just beca:u:se it requires a:smaller area for:nit:rogen
rem1).val. The lln.al selectionwotild depend :on.land.casts,. giBJ1el. costsr thermal 00~ and winter water-quality requirements7 ana on the less
Effluent~ =
'
tangible:mosquii:a and publlc-expasn.re:i&.c;ues.
Nittifiionfilter bed .
The nitrific:a: ian .filter bed (NFB) mn.Cept was developed by the senior
author of this hook as a retrofit for existing wetland systems which
were ~ving difffuultymeeting their ammmria .discharge limits. It has
been used successfully for both FWS anrl SF wetland systems. As
Wetland Systems
247
~
SF bed
/Coarse
graver
Recyc le
FWS bed
FigureEi:t7 Schematic diagram ofn..=t:ri.fication filter bed.
shown in Fig. 6.17, it consisk of a vertical-flow gravel filter bed on

top of the existing SF or FWS wetland bed_ In the latter case, the
fine-gravel NFB is supported by a layer of coarse gl-avel to ensure
aerobic con.d.itiDns in the NFB.
The NFB mrit can be located at the head of the wetland channel or
.near the end.. In either case:- the w-etland efiluent is pumped to the top
of the .NFB and distributed uniformly. The lnlet location has advantages in that the nitrified pen:nla:te WJi1l .mix. with the influent: wastewater:. The.resniting .dfLnitrificatian will remove nitrogen. from the syste~ further reduce the BOD7 and recover some of the alkalinity consum~ during the nitrification. step. Locating the NFB near the end of
the wet~ ce1I wil:l produce the desired lev-el of nitrification, bnt
there is ins:nfficient time for significant denitrification sa most {)f the
nitr.are prnduced will pass {)ut of the system. with the effluent.
;rmnp:I:ngeapadty and paw.er costs will be higher ful-tb.e inlet location,
particularly fur retrafit e f lang, :narrow wetland channels. AU-shaped
wefland channel with the Iinlet adjacent
to the .o:tltlet would retain. the
.
advantageSofdenitrification: and minimize plllllping reqnirements.
The NFB.is similar m concept to the familiar recirculating sand IDter, which has been used successfully :for many years to polish and
nitrifY s~ tank ,effl:uent..~ These recircu1a.ting sand filters normally
operate with a hydnmlic loading of less than 6.2. m/d (5 gal/ft~- d).
Gravel is used in the 1\WB ta increase the hydraulic conductivity of
the media and permit mncll higher hydraulic loading rates on the sys-
248
Chapter Six
tern. The hydraulic loading (with a 3:1 recycle r ai.in 1 i~ :tbn1.:i ~ rnJd
f 100 gaVffl dJ on one of the operatio~al NFB sy~toms in ;-,,;:n,:.::::35:::.
The design procedure for the NFB .is based on nitri~:;:~~;;':;{;, c~-:p!.-11~
ence '\\ith 'trickling-filter and RBC attached-growth i:t~~.t'~:,_.,'.r~. v. h~:t1~:
the removal capability is related to the specific surface .?ln::::l :::.tvailr.ilh:
for development of the attached-gto\\rth .n itrlfing. orgnnis;:r:$::'-:; :SevGieJ:
conditions are required for successful ' nitrifi.cati(l :1 ::(!!-r"on :;':;J::.::;:. ce : .ft\}e
BOD level must be low <BODtrKN<lJ; there m usr b~! ~;;f;ii,~t::tn: ..;:~iP:-
sure to the atmosphere .or to an oxygen source to m2.im ::1.t~~ :::z.e-!.>
:b.ic
conditions in the attached film of nitrifying organisms; the :5:'l.::-1f~:ee
must be moist at all times to sustain organism acti\.-~ty at opt.:::Jwn,
rates; there must be sufficient alkalinity to support the niirifi ;.::-~:t.ion
reac1;Lons ( = 10 g alkalinity/! g ammonia; see discussion in Sec. c..1J.
Equation 6.59 can he used to estimate the specific surface are.9. !At)
required to achieve a particular effiuent ammonia (C.) at the bo~tom
oftheNFB:
..
. .. .
A =
2713 - 1115(Cc ) + 204tC.t!).2
12(Ce P
KT
where A 1 = specific surface area, m::!fkg NH+ ~ d (1m2/kg NH/d
4.882 = ft.2/lb - d)
{6.59}
X .
. .
desired NFB ~ffluent ammonia concentration: mg/L

KT = temperature-dependent coefficient
1(1.048>cT- 20 ' (dimensionless)
(at l0C+
{~.626(1.15)'r- 10' (dimensionless)
(at I-l0C)
Ct.
Equation 6 .59 is based on curve fitting of :perfonnance data from

attached-growth nitrification reactors,. and the units involved. are not
dimensionally eompatible. It will, however~ give a reasonably accurate estimate of the .Specific surface area .r equired ta achieve effinent
ammonia levels in the.range 0-6 mg!L.
Table 6 .7. presents information on the spec:ific sm:fiice area per tmit
. vom:riJ-e foi' a iiumoer eipOteijliai media typeS.: The _pecific SIIrffie -ar~
available for the natural sand and gravel media types tends -to increase
as the potential hydraulic condu.ctivity decreases.. The plastie media
listed in Table 6_7 are spherical in shape,. with a variety of internal
membe1s to increase the available surface .a:reaper unit_ These hav.e a
very high specific surface and an equally high potential hydranlic.-con-
ductivity. Rigid corrugated plastic media and flexible hanging plastic
sheets are also available. These plastic- media are cammci.nly used in
trickling-fil.ter units designed for nitrification, and coUld be used in the
same capacity as a nitrification eomponent in a wetland system. A relatively $mall container filled -with this plastic media has been used as a
nitrification component for small-scale wetland syStems~
Wetland Systems
249
TAaLe 6~7! SP,.~flc Surface Area for a Variety of Medla Types
Specific surface
. Median size.
M'it.di.a type
(mm)
Mediumt~d
~ea~v.el
Gravel
Gravel
Plastic Media Random
Pac:k
3
14.5
25
102 .
area
(in)
(m2/m 3)
(ft21ft3)
Void
ratio
0.12
886
280
69
39
270
40
85
28
104
21
12
40
lOS
48
106
85
48
38
90
1.01
93
95
108
0.57
LO
4.0
25
LO
50
2.0
280
157
89
3.5
125
(mid)*
roe
Maximum potential hydranlic conductivity, NFB design shq~d utilize a sma1Ifraction of
this wlue roensnre unsatarated flow.
The natural sand and fine gravel media do not drain quickly,
and it is. usually necessary to .~~ign for intermit+...ent wet and dry
cycles to allow a portion of the bed .to d!ain and restare aerohic
.c on.d itions. The. coarse gravel and the plastic media .can ~e exposed
to continuous hydrau1i~ loading (at a reasonable rate) and still
maintain aerobic conditions in the media. It is also necessary to
ensure that the media surfaces are completely wet at all times to
yield optiln:mn responses from the .nitrifjing organisms. The minimum. ;hydraulic loading for this pn:rpose on the plastic media is ~
the range of 24 to. 72 m3fd m 2 (590 to 1757 gpdlft2) ofbed surface
area The typical hydraulic loading on an intermittent sand filter
bed is. 0.03-0.06 m 3Jm2 /d d {0.75-15 gpd!ft2). Recycle may not be
~ecessary as long as we~g of the media is eamplete and sUfficient oxygen is- present in the profile.. In the case of sand and fin-e
gravel s5stem~ a larger bed area, divided into cells, is provided tG
allow fBr .intermittent hydraulic loading and d:rninage periods.
Assurt!iFig that on e-half ijf the system is d:r3.fuiBg -at any 000 t~
the pumping rate wotrld have to he 2Q; as crimpa.-red m ,l.Q fur a:
~con.tinnous1y operated bed.
'IYPically, the efiluent from the wetland ceil is applied. to the NFB
to ensure a low BOD concentration .in the liquid. Nitrification in the
NFB -c an be expecte4 when the ,a pplied water has a BODt:rKN ratio of
less than 1.0 and the so-Inble BOD concentration is l ess than 12
mgJL_54 The ratio of soluble tototal BOD in typieal wetland ,e.ffi'uents
. C11J0
-~ nt. 0.u--\:J.
~ ,{.\.
1S
s.4:1,43.
Eq uation 6.5.9 is .used. t1} determine the specific surface area

required to achieve the necessacy .effinent ammania level. The Characteristics af an: appropriate media .a re selected.from Table 6.7 ro daer-
250
Chapter Six
mine the volume of media required. Usually the NFB beg. will be
0.3-0.6 m (1-2ft) deep. and extend the full width of the wetland cell
to ensure complete mixing with the wastewater flowing through the
wetland. The use of sprinklers for distribution on top of the NFB is
recommended to ensure proper distribution and maximum aeration.
In cold climates with extended periods of subfreezjng temperatures~
an exposed bed with sprinklers as shown in Fig. 6.17, may not be feasible_ In this cas~ the use of plastic media in a protected tank or similar container should be considered. Such a tank would have to be
vented provide the necessary air flow_
A design for a retrofit NFB at an existing wetland has to conform to

the existing wetland configuratiop. and effiuent water-quality conditions. In maQ.y cases the combination of a NFB and a wetland
designed f~ BOD removal may be more cost-effectiv~ than the much
larger area required for a wetland~ remove both BOD and ammonia.
In this case the wetland is sized for BOD removal to 5-10 mg/L; the
. ammonia removal expected in this wetland is determined with appropriate models and then the 1\lFB is designed for the balance of ~o:..
ma requiring removaL A cost comparison will then show if the NFB
combination is more CODOmical than a larger wetland system.
7
to
Summa!Y
The recommended nitroge~ removal models presented in the previous

sections were developed froma limited database and should be used
with some cauti9n. They are believed to provide a reasonablyi!onservatiye estimate of performance for both SF and FWS wetland systems.
A pilot study for development of specific design criteria is recommended for large-scale projects where stringent nitrogen limits areexpected.
6.10 Design Models for Phosphorus
Removal
Ph~horns removaL, as described in See- 64 is not amp~ effective in either FWS or. SF wetlands..During the :m-St year or :Sa cf~oper
a:tion, phosphorm; rem~val may be excellent, especially in FWS wetlands, dne to adsorption on the freshly exposed soil surface at the bottom of the wetland. The removal of phosphorus o.ver the long term,
however, can occur only through long-term accumulation 'Of:sediment.

Deposition to the sediment occurs via particulate sedim-entation,
chemical precipitation, and refractory organics fram senescing v.egetatio~ This s~nt accumulates as peat within the water oobunn ofa
FWS wetland and both within and on top of thebed it!. a SF. wetland..
.Wetland Systems
. .
251
Phosphorus is retained in this sediment as precipitates of iron, aluminum, or calcium.
Phosphorus is usually present in most municipal wastewaters in concentrations ranging from 4 to 15 mg!L. At the flow rates and hydraulic
loadings normally associated with these wetland systems it ~ay be
possible to remove 3~0 percent of the influent phosphorus, as .shown
in Fig. 6.7. If the discharge limits require a very low effitient phosphorus concentration (<1 .mg/L), then phosphorus removal in either a preliminary or a postwetJand step should be considered to avoid the very
large wetland land area which would otherwise be necessary.
Since sediment deposition is the major removal pathway for phosphorus, the mass removal rate is a function of the surface area in the
wetland and the phosphorus concentration in the wastewater.
Numerous investigatm-s agree on the general form of a first-order,
area-specific model for this purpose; there is, however, a lack of consensus on the magnitude of the rate constant which is associated with
that modeL A 16,000-ha (40,000-ac) FWS constructed wetland has
been proposed, based on this model, for phosphorus re moval from
drainage water entermg the Everglades in Florida.
34
Based on an analysis of the North American Data Base, Kadle22
has proposed a "first-order rate constant equal to 10 m/yr for estimating phosphorus removal in .constructed wetland systems. The 10 mly r
is equivalent to an average daily rate of 2.74 cm/d for use in Eq. 6.60:
(-K)
C
_e=
e:xp
P ,
C0
HLR
(6.60)
where ce = effluent phosphorus, mg/L

C0 = inflnentpbosphorns,mg/L
KP = 2~73 c:m!d {6.93in/d)
HLR = average annual hydraulic loading rate, cm/d:Cmld}
A =
s
(b)(Q) ln.(C IC )
.
KP'
(6.61 )
where As= Sll':Iface area .of wetland,. m 2 (ft2)

b = conveliSion coefficient
= lOG cm/m (metric units)
. = 12in/ft (U.S_ customary units}
Q = th.e .avernge flow through the,wetland frmn Eq_ 6_43:, m 3/d
{ft3/d)
Although the model was developed primarily from FWS wetland

~ it should be vali~ fur predicting the annual average phnsphorus
-removal :for both SF and FWS wetlands since it is dependent o.:n areal
252 . Chapter Six
s urface deposition and not on biological reactions occurring on the specific surface area of the media or plant detritus within the flow zone.
Determine the phosphon~s removal for the FWS and SF wetlands
r.!meral conditions~ Q = 100 rn 3 /d; phosphorus concentration in
influent = 12 mg/L; FWS wetiand area = 4972 m2; SF wetland area = 2697 m 2
AlsoT determine wetland sizes for an effiueut phosphorus of 0.5 mg/L.
Example 6.6
~'"' Ex~:mp!'? 6.5.
solution
L Determine hydraulic loadingrateforeach system.

(100.)(100 m 3/d )
FWS:
HLR =
SF:
HLR =
= 2 .0lcm/d
4972 zn.!!
(100){100)
2697
= 3 .71cm/d
2. Deten:nine effluent phosphoras ning Eq. 6.60.
FW:S:
C = C2>
t"
SF:
C,.
73
expf(2..
)] = 3.1.mg/L .
l .
~ .01 .1
<9 73 )]
.
1l2>e..'\.-p[ - \ ; . =5.8mg/L
71
3 . Find the wetland surface area require.d to achieve an effluent phosphorus

concentration of 0.5 m.gtl.;,1,1Se Eq. 6.61.
FWS andSF:
A:. =
(10{)-)t100>{hll.l2/0.5)]
2.
73
= 20,076 m 2
4. A very large-land ar.ea is required to. achieve the 0-5--mg/L limit in the con:;tructed watiand. This 2()-;076 m 2 required fur phosphorns removal iS at least
four ti.me:sl~ger than the area required to meet the nitrogen limits specified
in Thample 6.5 and at least 12 times larger than necessary to meet normal
BOD re:moT.al reqt.riJ:cment.".i.
.As sh.o:wn by Examp1e 6.6, a very large wetland area is reqUired to.
.achieve lew l-evels of p hosphoni.s in the final -e ffiuent. In most si:tuatimls, tlris may not be a cost-effective approach and alternative phosphorus removal teclmiques sharild be considered. In these cases, the
wetland wuuid be sizedfor the specified nitrog~ removaL The phosphoms removal capability isthen -d etermined using Eq. 6.59 and the
-design incorporates an ai~mative removal method for the balance of
phosph.oTO.S requiring removal.
6-.11
~ign
of On-site Systems
On-site systems ari} -defined as relatively ~ facilities serving a single wastewater :SOT:IrC~ or possibly .a cluster of residential units in a
Wetland Systems
253
development. Usually, the on-site system is at the same location as

the wastewater source, but in some cases pumping to a remote site is
necessary if :Suitable soils for in-ground discharge do not exist at the
original wastewater source. Preliminary treatment is typically provided by septic tanks or similar de,..ices, but in some cas~s packaged
secondary treatment plants have been used.
In most cases, the advantages inherent in the SF wetland concept

(i.e., no insect vectors, subsurface flow so no risk of public contact
with the untreated wastewater.. etc.) favor its use. for . these on-site
systems. The disposal of the final effluent from ~ wetland is still a
project requirement, even in arid climates where evaporation and
seepage (if allowed) may account for a large fraction .of the wastewater.
Surface discharge or in-ground disposal are the only two alternatives available. In-ground disposal methods are described in Chap. 9;
surface discharges must meet applicable state and local discharge
requirements. 1v1any states and iocal governments will not permit
surface disr.harges from small o n-site systems, sothat alternative s
must be explored with the appropriate agencies prior to beginning
any design. The site investigation requirements for on-site in-ground
disposal are discussed in Chap. 9. The simple percolation test may be
marginally adequate for very small systems at single-family
dwellings, but it is not adequate for larger facilities and f1ows. 55 In
these cases it is necessary to determine the actual hydranlic conductivity of the :in-situ soils and to determine the groundwater position
and gradient to e.nsure that mounding and sy.Stem failure will no~
occur.
.
Most cnrrent criteria for in-ground disposal systems via leach
fields, beds, mounds, ete., specifY a hydraulic loading rate in m 31m2 - d
(gpd/ft2 } based on the results of the site inve~aation as modified .by
prior performance experience. These hydraulic loading rates are
baserl in part on the hydralilic characteristics of the soiL and m part
on th- clogging pot.ential of typia1 septic tank effluent,. .since a. clogging layer accrmmlatffi at the .s oil/disposal bed interface.
Since the UBe ofa wetland system prior t-o the disposal step C~ p:FO.dnce the equivalent of tertiary effinent. the potential for doggfug is
significantly reduced and it sljould he possible to reduce the surface
area ,of the disposal bed ,o r trenches significantly_ A disposal bed or
trench after a wetland system can typically be at least one-third to
one-half o f the "no-nnaf'" infiltra.tit:tn area because of the improved
water qua,Jity. It is still esse:ntl.a:l to measure (or estimate, for very
small systems) the actual hydranlic conductivity ofthe receiving-soils
to. validate the size reduction. Heavy clay soils7 for example, have limited permeability I'e.e..aan:lless of the quality of the water applied.. In
7
254
Chapter Six
somecases, in-ground disposal on coarse, highly permeable. s~ils is

also pre:ve~ted because the applied wastewater does not have enough
"time" an.d contact for adequate treatment. The use of an on-site wetIan~ prior to in-ground disposal should alleviate the problem and
allow ~evelopment on such soils.
Several approaches are available for design of on-site wetland systems. One of the most prominent is covered by guidelines issued by the
Tennessee- Valley Authority <JYA).50 In a re<;ent evaluation42 published
by the U.S. EPA, it was concluded that these TVA guidelines are probably adequate for design of small-scale systems at single-family dwellings
but are deficient for laige:r :flows and for surface..diSch.ging systems_
The deficiencies relate to the lack of soils investigations for the larger
disposaifields; the lack of design criteria for nitrogen removaL and the
lack of any temperature dependence, which ~ ~ect winter water
quality in colder climates. The EPA evaluation recommended that
design of on-site syste;ns should follow the same .Procedures used fur
large-scale sy~tellis, ~e tbe dsign principles and thermal con....c;traints
are the same.. As a resnit,. the design prucednres fuund in earlier sections ofthis clJ.a:pter slionld be used-f or Oil-5ite wetlands also.
The EPA docrrmen~ ~cmests several sim:p1i:fying assmuptions for
the designofwetlands fer smaller.on-site systems:
Determine the design flow; 0.23 m 3/d (6(} gpd} is a :reasonable
aSSUJ:Jlptiori fur per-c3.pita flow for residential systems. St~te or local
criteria will govern.
Use a nmlticompartment septic tank. Use one tank for sin:gle-:famiIy dwellings; use twoor more tanks in series for larger-scale (>10~000gpd) projects_ The total volnme ofthe tank{s} shonld be at least twice
the desgn ~aify flow
.Assume tfu!t the BOD {C) Iea:vmg the septic tank(s) is conservative
{~0(} mglL).
Assume
that
wetlaml effiu:ent BOD {C ) -will not exceed 10
.
the
mgiL_
U se clean, washed gravel as the treatment m~ in the bed, size

rnnge 1.25-Z:5 em {{l-.5-1 in), with a total depth of .{}.-6 m (2 ft}. For
d~ assmne that ~e "effuctive" water depth in tJ;Ie bed is. 0:55 m
{LS ft)_ Reasm~able
are:. hyrlr.:mlic .cenductivity {k) = 1~0().
3
em:mmtes
m
(5009 :ft3fft2 - d); porosity = 0~38. If a large nmribermsystems
are to be installed~ same materials~ 1ield -o r Ia!nm:rtmy testing
for hydrn:ulic condnd:ivity (k) and porosity (n). is recommended.
Use reeds.(Phnr:gmi:tes} as the preferred plant speciesEstimate the smer and winter water tempera:tm-es to be -expected in the bed. In the summer, andi nyear-:round warm climates,.20C
is reasonable. In eold winter climates a winter infiu~ water tempera:tar.e of-6C is a reasonable assumption..
/m2 - d
....
..-,
Wetland Systems
255
Detennine the bed surface area using
(L)(W) =
Q[lnC /C)]
K T dn
(6.62)
As a safety factor, .us~ a rate constant K 20 which is 75 percent of the

base value (1.104 d - 1). For design of small, on-site systems, K 20 =
0.828 d:-1 .
.
At ~0C, and with the other factors defined above, this equation
reduces to:
Metric:
U.S. units
Metric:
U.S. units:
Adj~tm.ents for
A=
13.3l(Q)-= m 2
s
A8
4.07(Q) = ft2
As = 30.1(Q) = m2
A s = 9.2(Q} = ft2
(Qinm3/d)
(Q in ft3/d)
{Q in m 3/d)
(Q in ft3/d)
other temperatures, ather media types, etc.., should

use the basic design equations.
Adopt an aspect ratio (L:W) of 2:1 and calculate bed length (L) and
Width (W), since the surface area was detennined above. In the general case, an aspect ratio of 2:J_, or les~ with a bed depth of 0.6 m (2 ft)
will satisfY the Darcy's law constraints on hydraulic design ofthe bed,
so hydraulic calculations are not required_ If site conditions will not
permit use of .an L:W of 2:1 for the bed and a 0.:6-m bed depth, then
hydrmilicCcdculations as described previously will be-necessary.
This approach will give a .HRT of abon:t 2 .8 days {at 20"C) in the
bed., which is more than adequate- for BOD removal to go mg/L If
nitrogen removal to 10 mg/L is required, the size.ofthe system should
be doubled t&. produce a HRT o~ about 6 days. Nitrogen removal duringthe winter months in Cold climates may reqtrlr.e a.HP..T.ofabout 10
days. In these case57 lleat-luss calr:rrlations. :shau!d be per:fur med to
ensure that the bed is .adequately protecte~ against :freezing..
Construct the bed as a single cell fur s:ingle-fumily dwellings. Use
~ultiple cells {at !east two) in par~ fur hU-ger-sized :systenl.s_
Use clay o:r a .synthetic finer to prev-ent seepage~ the be.cl..
Construct the bed with a .flat battQm and a .P erfOrated effiuent
manifold at the bottom. o.fthe bed. A perforated inlet maniiDld a few
inches above the bottom of the bed is a.deqna:te- for most smalJ systems. These inlet and outlet zones should use 2.5.- 5 em (1- 2 in.)
washed rock for a length of about 1 m (3 ft)~ and for the full depth of
the bed..
;,
. ..
256
Chapter Six
The effluent manifold should conned to either a swiveling standpipe or a flexible hose for discharge, to allow control of the water leve~
in the bed.
The inlet and effluent manifolds should have accessible cleanouts
at the surface of the bed.
The system as described above should produce an effluent with
BO~lO mg/L, TSS<IO mg!L,. and TN~lO mg/L, and should therefore
be suitable for either surface or in-ground discharge. The excellent.
water quality should permit a significant reduction in the area
required for tbe disposal field. For example, a typical conventional
on-site system for a family of four (1 m 3/d, 300 gpd) might include a
4-~ 3 { 1000-gaD septic tank and a 46-m2 (500-ft2 ) infiltration area in a
sandy loam soil. Addition of a wetland component with a 6-day HRT .
would require about 28m2 (300 ft2) of area. If appropriate credit for
the higher level of tr-eatment is allowe~ the total area for the wetland <:ell and the infiltration bed could be iess than 46 m 2 ( <500 ft2}.
6.12 Vertical-FlowWetland Beds
n this verti~al-flo.w wetland concept, the wastewater is applied nnifonnly to the t.op of the be~~ and the effluent is withdrawn: v.ia perforated pipes on the bottom, parallel ro the long axis of'the bed. The
concept is based on the work of Seidel,48 and is in use at se-veral locations in Europe. A system typically consists of two groups; or stages!'
of vertical-flow cells in series followed by one or more horizontal-flaw
polishing cells. Each stage of vertical flow units consists of several
individnal wetland cells in parallel; \Vastewater is applied :intermittently in rotation.. The operatio~ systems in Europe apply- either
primary effluent (typically from a septic 'tank) or in some eases
untreated Taw sewage.
T:ypicall_y, the beds are dosed for up to 2 days and then rested or
4--& days_ A 2-day wet and 4-day dry cycle (2/4) requires a mfuimmn
of three sets of stage I ,cells; a 2/8 cycle requires at least five eells. The
number of stage ll cells is .one-half of the stage I com.pon;.o.rr3,. and
these are also loaded in rotation.
The main advantage of the concept-is tb.~ :restonrtion of aerohle crinditions dnring the periodic resting and drying period_ This allows
removal m BOD and ammonia nitrogen at higher rates than can be .
.achieved in the continuously saturated' and 'g enerally anaero~J:C horiz~ntal-flow SF wetland bed. .As a result, vertical-flow beds es2 be
somewhat smaller in area trum comparable SF wetlands designed for
the same performance leveL
The hydraulic loading during- the dosing period on the stage I beds
is typically 0.3 mid (7.4 galfft2' d} for J.lrimary effluent!' and dtmhle
,.
Wetland Systems
257
that for the stage II cells. Such a two-s tage system can typically
achieve better than 90 percent BQD and TSS removal.
The bed profile contains s everal layers of various-sized granular
materials. A typical profile, from the top of the bed, would include:
25 em freeboard
8 em coarse sand, planted v.rith Phragmites
~5
em pea gravel (=6 mm size)
10 em washed medium gravel( =12 m.m size)

15 em washed coarse gravel (=40 mm size)
Perforated 1.mderdrain pipes are laid on the bottom of tbe cell on
about 1-m centers. The upstream ends of these pipes extend up.to and
abo-ve the bed Surface to create a "chimney" effect and encourage oxygen transfer to the profile. The upper portion of this perforated pipe is
.contained within a solid pipe jacket to prevent short-circuiting of perrotate flow_ Additional vertical ~chimney" pipes are placed at 2-m centers in the rows.between the perforated effluent piping. These vertical
pipes are perfOrated in the bottom layer of gravel and solid from there
t.o the surlaee end above.
Tnere are in:,-ufficient performance data available for this concept
t.o permit develOpment of a rational design model. The following equations below are based on peiformance of a system in the United
Kingdom10 with a 2-day wet and 4-day dry cycle. They can be used
with extreme -cantion <because of the limited database) to estimate
the perf~rmance of similar systems.
BOD remavai~ perstaaae., is
~: = exp(- ~)
where Ce = effinent BOD~ mg/L
C0 = influent BOD~ mg!L
KT =
.=
:temPera:t~e-dependent
{l.317l(~OO)<T-2fl~
rate co:i:iStant~ a-r - ....
(6_63)
>
. .
d.
HLR =average daily hydraulic loading rate, during the dosing
cycle;, m/d
1
Ammonia removal,. per.stage,. is
(.:_K)
-9: =exp H ~
where C.e -effluent ammonia ' mg/L
Co = infhrent ammonia. mg/L
258
Chapter Six
KT =
temperature-depend~nt
rate constant? d - l
d- l
~R = average daily hydraulic loading rate during the dosing .
cycle, m/d
= 0.1425{1.06)'T-
201,
Ordinarily~
a higher rate of ammonia removal should be expected in

the second stage of a two-stage system. However~ in this..twO-stage
system the rate of animonia removal per stage is about equal, since
the BOD loading on the second stage is still hlgher than desired for
optimum nitrification, as discussed previously for the nitrification filter bed (in Sec. 6.8). This response sugg~ts that further improvements and optimization of the vertical-flow concept as used in Europe
are desirable.. The first stage ~hould be. large enough tO produce .an
efiluent BOD in the range 10-15 m~. The second stage could then .
be optimized for ammonia removal, and the principal role of SF wetland used as the third component would be denitrification and final
poli.s hing. The same functions can also be accomplished with the
ni:trlfication filter bed SF wetland combination described in Sec. 6.8.
5..13 Wetland Applications
The previous sections ~of this -c hapter provide information on design

model!? and performance eXpectations, available wetland type~ and
internal oomponents. Th.lS section provides guidance on the apPlication ~r constructed wetlands for a variety purposes.. Th_e se applications include domestic Wastewater., municipal wastewater~ commercial and industrial wastewaters., stormwater runoff, combined sewer
overflo-ws {CSO}, agricultural runoff, livestock wastewaters~ and:milie
drninage.
.
of
Drimesfic wastewaters
In the :mc:Yority .of eases, the rrtilization of SF wetlands is prefen:-ed

.averthe FWS type for on-site systemS to treat dmnestic wastewaters.
Tlris is dile to the advantages ofthe SF concept;which -excludes mosquitoes and other insect vectors and :e liminates risks ofpm:sonal c ontact with or exposure to the wastewater being treated; In northern
c1:i:inates, the additional thermal protection provided by the SF eonce.pt is also an adv:an~u.e.
The design of these systems should follow the recommendations

giv.en in. Sec. 6.167 supplemented by ~thef .sections as required.. If
nitrogen remo.va:l is a project requiTement., the USe .o.f either
Phragmites OF Scirpus as the system vegetation is recommend-e d. If
stringent nitrogen limits prevaiL the use of a compact recircnlating
NFB bed with a plastic medium should b e cansidered to minimizethe
Wetland Systems
.., . . ...259
total area of the wetland <See Sec. 6.8 for details). In locations with
relatively warm wi~ter conditions, a 0.3-m-deep bed with Typha
would ~lso be suitable, but such a bed would require twice the surface
area of a comparable 0.6-m-deep Phragmites or Sc'irpus bed~ If nitrogen remoyal is not requiTed, then the use of ornamental plants or
shrubs is acceptable. In these cases, a layer of suitable mulch on the
bed s Urface will enhance plant growth. The use of at least two parallel wetland cells i.s recommended, except for the smallest applications
for single-family dweJJings.
Municipal wastewaters
The selection of either a FWS or a SF constructed wetland for municipal wastewater depends on the volume of flow to be treated and on
the :eonditions at the proposed wetland site. As described previously,
the SF wetland, because af the higher reaction rates for BOD and
nitrogen remov~ will require a smaller total surface area than a
FWs wetland designed for comparnhle effiuent goals. However., it is
no.t.always obvious which concept will be more cost-effective for a particular sitnatinn.. The iinal decision will depend on the availability
and cost or"suitable land, and on the cost of acquisition, transport,
and placement of the gravel media used in the SF bed.
It is lik-ely tiiat economics will favor the FWS concept for large systems, since these are typically located at relatively ~emote sites and
same of the advantages of the SF concept do not represent a significant benefit_ The cost trn.de-off .could occn:r at design flows less than
378 m 3/d (1 X 104 gpd) and should certainly favor tJ:le FWS concept at
design flows over 3785 m;r/d (1 mgd}. In some cases, however., the
. advantages ettlle SF c oncept outweigh the cost factors. A SF wetland
system haS :i:ecent1y been designed by the senior author of this-book to
treat a portion: of the wastewater at Halif~ Nova Scotia, and the
tbennal advantage ofthe SF wetland type justified its selection for
fQa;t location..
.Where nitrogen. removal to low levels is a project requirement~ the
.af Plzr.agmi.tes i>r Scirprzs on a SF system is recommended. These
species ur Typha should all be suitable on FWS systems, but
Pkrogmi:tes will be less snsceptib1e to damage from animals (see Sec.
6...1). The. use ma nitrifying iiiter bed {NFB) as described in Sec. 6.8
shmifd be -considered as an a1.teroative when stringent ammonia limits :preVail
Incorporation of deeper-water zones in the FWS concept will
in~rease the overall HRT in the wetland and may enhance oxygen
~er from the atmosphere. The :individual deep-water zones must .
he large enough ta permit movement of the dnck.weed cover by the
use
...
260.
Chapter Six
wind; a semipermanent layer of duckweed on the water will prevent

oxygen transfer. If the deep-water zones represent more than 20 percent of the total system area, the system should b~ designed as a
series of wetlands and ponds using the procedures in this chapter and
in. Chap. 4. The use of submerged plant species (see Se'C. 6.1) in the
deep-water zones will enhance habitat v alues, and may i;IDprove
water quality. In such cases, the water depth in the zone must be
compatible with the sunlight transmission requirements of the plant
selected, and the development of a d':lckweed mat must be avoided.
A careful thermal analysis is necessary for all systems located.
where subfreezing temperatures occur during the winter months.
This is to ensure adequate performance via the temperature-sensitive
nitrogen and BOD-removal responses, and to determine if restrictive
freezing will occur in extremely cold climates. A number of FWS sjrstems designed for northwestern Canada faced the risk of severe winter freezing and therefore have been designed for winter w&-tewater
storage in a lagoon and wetland application during the warm months.
Incorporation of habitat and recreational values is more feasible for
the FWS wetland concept~ since the water surface is exposed and V~rill
attra-ct birds and other wildlife. The. use of deep-w.ater -zone$ with
nesting islands will significantly enhance the habitat values af a ~ys
tem, as will the supplemental planting of desirable food source vegetation such as sago pond we~ etc. (see Sec. 6.1).
Commercial and industrial wastewate-rs
Both SF and FWS wetlands can be suitable far ~ommercial .and industrial wastewaters, depending on the same conditions .as described
above for municipal \.Vastewater. Wastewater eharncterization is especially important for both commercial and .industrial wastewater.s.
Some of these wastewaters are high-strengt~ low in
high
or Iow in piL and contain substances which may be trnac or inhilrlt
_biologi.cal treatment responses.in. a wetland. It .m ay be necessary,. for
exampl~ to pr:6vide supplemental nutrients far support m biological .
activity in the wetland. or a preii:mina:ry treatment step. See Table
6.13, bel-ow, for a list of nutrients and m.icro.nutrients which are
essential for biolQgical oxidation. If"these nutrients or micronutrients
are not pr-esent in the wastewater., the rate .constants fur BOD and
nitrogen removal may be an order of Irul.z:,artitude less than those given
in Sees. -6.6 and 6.8.
High-strength wastes and high concentratio:n.s illpriority pollutants

are typically subjected to an anaerobic treatment step prior to the
wetland component. Constructed w-etlands~ both SF and FWS, .are
currently in use fur wru,"tewater treatment :frmn pulp and paper oper-
nntrirurts.,
Wetland Systems
261
ations, oil refineries. chemical production, and food processing. In

most cases the wetland component is used as a polishing step after
conventional biological treatment. The performance expectations for
these wetlands are described in Sec. 6.2. System design follows the
procedures described in Sees. 6.4-6.9. A pilot study may be necessary
when unfamiliar toxic substances are present or for design opLimization for removal of priority pollutants.
Stormwater runoff
Sediment removal is typically the major purpose of wetlands designed

for treatment of urban stormwater flow from parking lots, streets,
and landscapes. In essence, the wetland is a stormwater retention
basin with vegetation, and the deSign uses mari.y of the basic principles of sedimentation basin design. The presence of vegetation
fringes~ deep- and shallow-water zones, and marsh segments
enhances both the treatment and habitat functions_ These wetlands
have been shown to pro\':ide benefi~al responses for BOD, TS~ pH,
N03 , phosphates, and trace metals. 17
.
At a minimum~ a stonnwater wetland ~stem (S\VS! will n:sually_
have some combination of deep ponds and shaUow marshes. In addi-.
tion~ wet meadows and shrub areas c:s:n a1sa ne used. Since- the flew
. rate is highly variable and there is a potential for accumulation and,
clogging with inorganic splids~ the SF wetland concept is not practical
for this applicatio~ so the marsh component in the SWS system will
typically be FWS constrn~ed wetlands_ These may be configured as
shown ill Fig. 6.18 or in alternative combinations. Key components.
inelude an inlet structurE; a ditch or basin. for initial sedimarta'Q:OD.r a
spreader swale or weir to distribute the flow laterally if a wet meadow or marsh is the next .component, a d-eep pond, and some type of
outlet device wlrich permits overflow onditions during peak storm
events and allows slow discharge to the datum~ water level in the
system. The "datum" wa~er level is usually established to maintain a
shallow water depth in the marsh camponentB.. Use- -of drought--resistant plant .species in the marsh components would permit complete
dewatering fur extended periods.
Typh~ Scirpus, and Phragmites can withstand up to 1 m (3 ft) of
temporary inundation, and this would estahlish the maximmn water
level b.efore ov.e rtlow in the SWS if these species are used. The~
mum storage depth should be about 0.6 m (2ft) ifgrassed w-et meadows and shrubs are used.. The optimum :Si;{}rage .c apacity of the wetland (the depth between the "da~m~ and the overflow level) should
be a volum~ equal to 1.3 mm (O_!i in) of water on the watershed eontributing to the SWS.. The minimum storage v-olume for effective per-
262
Chapt.elr Six
formanre should be equal to 6 mm <0.25 in) of water on the contributing watershed. The storage volumes for these or any other depth can
be calculated using Eq. 6.65:
(6.65)
where V
= storage volume in stormwater wetland, m 3 (ft3 )
C = coefficient
= 10 for metric units .
= 3630 for U.S. units
y = design depth ofwater on watersh~ mm (in)

Aws = surface area of watershecL ha (ac)
The minimum
surface area of the. entire SWS at the overflow eleva.
tion is based Oil: the flow occurring during the 5-year storm event, and
can be caleulated using Eq. 6.66:
Asws = (C)(Q)
..
(6.66)
- i ..:. :::
where A 5'*5 = minimum surface area of SWS at overflow depth, m 2

(:ft2)
C = coefficient
= 59Q, metric units
,= 180, U.S. units
Q = expected flow from 5-year design storm,. m 3/s (ft3/s}
The aspect ratio ofth:e SWS should be close to 2:1 if possible, and
the inlet should be as far as possible_:from the outl~, or suitable baf.fles -can b~, used. The spreader swale and inlet zone should be wide
enough to, reduce the subsequent flow velocity to 0.3"-0.5 m/s {1-~5
ftls)_
In essence, the SWS performs as a batch reactor. The water is static between storm events, and water quality will continue toimprove. When a storm event occurs, the entering flow will displace
~ome OF all of tbe existing volume of treated water before overflow
commences. It is possible, using the design models presented in previous sections, to estimate the water-quality improvements wb.ich
will occur rm.der various combinations of storm events. It is necessary first te determine the frequency and intensity of storm events.
These data can then he used to calculate .the hydrauli-c retention
tim.e during and between storm events; it is then possible to. determine the pollutant removal which will occur with the appropriate
design model.
. ... '-.;... ~~
Wetland Systems
263
Combined sewer overflows
Management of combined sewer overflow (CSO) is a significant proble'!ll in many m:ban areas, where the older sewerage network carries
both stonnwate~ and untreated wastewater. When peak storm events
occur, the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant is exceeded; in
past years this 'c ondition often led to a temporary bypass and discharge of the untreated CSO to r~iving waters. Current regulations
now prohibit that practice, and wetlands are. being given strong consideration as a treatment alternative for CSO discharge.
A wetland designed for CSO management faces essentially the
same requirements as a stormwater wetla..itd, and the FWS constructed wetland is the preferred concept for the same reasons as cited previously. Since the CSO flow always contains some untreated waste~~r, the ~evel of pathogens and the mass of pollutants contained iii
the storm event may be higher than is found in normal storm.water
flow_ The "first flush" with many stormwaters contains the bulk of
pollntan~ bnt that may not be the case with CSO discharges because
ofthe ~astewater component.
The ~esign ofthe CSO wetland must commence with an analysis of
the frequency and intensity of storm events, and the capacity
the
existing wastewater treatment facilities. This will determine the volume of excess cso flow' to be contained hy the proposed wetland.
Containment of the CSO from
least a 5-year or a 10-year storm
event is a typical baseline wetlarul volume. The CSO wetland will act
as a batch reactor, and water-quality improvements will depend on
the intensity and frequency of storm events. Assuming that the wetland is' .sized for the CSO from a 10-year storm event, the flow from
any lesser event will. be completely contained and any discharge will
be composed of previonsly contained and treated water.
The hydr.atilic retention time in the wetland must include :eonsider.atimi of precipitation on the wetland, seepage, and evapotranspiration,. as wen. as the input CSO flow. Water-quality expectati.ons are
ns:nally established by regnlatm:y authorities. If significant seepB-oae is
all~ecL the CSO wetl<md will pe:r fmm similarly to the rapid-infiltration roncept described m.Chap. 7. Onee the HRT in the.wetland is . ~Jished for various situati!Jns, it is possible to estimate the.waterquality impruvements which will ocenr by using the .d esign modelsin
this. chapter and in Chap. 7 {if seepage is pennitted). Ifthe wetland :is
Iocat~d adjacent to the ultimate receiving water and the hydrological
investigation indicates that the seepage will flow directly to the
reeeivi.Di surface water~ then seepage can be very beneficial, partieu1arlywith respect .t o phosphorus removal.
;
of
at
264
Chapter Six
In some cases! trash removal and some form of preliminary tre.a tment are provided separately. If not, these functions shquld be the
initial components in the CSO wetland, with trash racks or something similar, and a deep basin for preliminary settling. The wetland
~0mp1 : :1 ant should be designed as a F\VS marsh system with a "normal" operating depth of 0.6 m. The use of Phragmites, Typha, or
Scirpus will permit a temporary inundation of up to 1 m dUring peak
storm events. The use of Phragmites should be avoided if the cso
wetland is planned for habitat and recreational benefits in addition to
water-quality improv~ment_ The wetland component should have at
least two parallel trains of two cells each to allow flexibility of management and maintenance.
Determining the elevation of the bottom of the wetlan,d component
is critical for successful performance~ particularly in situations where
a shallow .fl~ting grormd~ater table exists, and where seepage is
to be permitted. It is desirable to have the bottam soils moist at all
times~ e,;e.n during drought conditions, but allowing the grormdwater
to ocCUftV a. significant portion of the containment volume during wet
weather should be avoided. Phragmites. and to a lesseF degree Typha,
are dro'!..tgh:i: resistant and pennit location of the w.e tland bottom ~ a
position which will avoid seas.e nal groundwater intrUsion. Designing
the wetland for inclusion .of habitat vaJues
complic~tes
this proce-
dun~- In this case, the wetl~nd can con.:::ist of marsh s~rfaces above
the .n ormai groundwater lev.e l, and deeper pools which intersect the
minimum. groundwater level sothat some water is permanently available far birds and other wildlife.
Table 6_8 summarizes the r.esults of a feasibility study. of a CSO

const...ru.c ted wetland, conducted far the city of Portland, Oregon, by
.Blaclr .& Veatch and other consultants,. fu.cluding the senior author of
this book..-t: The wetland eomponent was designed to contain the 10'ye.ar .storm .evimt which produced a total CSO flow of about 45,00G m 3
TABLE 6.8 Water-Quality' Expectations fora CSO Wetland at Portland, Oregon<l-
Parameter'
FloP> (m 3 )
BOD. ll:il,af.LJ
TSSimg/V
'I"'{N 'mgiL!
N0:1-N fmg/:L}
IF cmg/L}
Fecal (#/100m])
Untr-eated
Prelinrinary treatment
CSG
effiuent*
.31.00(}
100
100
7J}
0..2
f}_
110.000
31,000
85
70
6.J.
0.2
0.45
200
Wetland
Seepage
15.000
2
2
3
0.1
<0.05
<20
Ovez:flow
3,00(}
10
10
. 2
0.00.17
10
Wetland Systems
265
(11.8 Mgal) from the peak 7-h flow. Because of land area limitations,
it was decided to provide separat~ facilities for trash removal and preliminary treatment. The potential wetland area contained about 9.3
ha (23 ac), and a 0.6-m (2-ftJ water depth in the wetland would contain about 57,000 rna (15 Mgal). The soil beneath and adjacent to the
proposed wetland and the ultimate receiving water was a permeable
sand. The water-quality expectations for this system are given in
Table 6.8.
The data in Table 6.8 are intended as an example only and cannot
be utilized for system design elsewhere. It iS necessary to detennine
the CSO characteristics and the site conditions for a wetland for
every proposed system because of possibly unique local conditions.
AgriculturaJ nmoff
Nonpoint runoff from cultivated fields adds pollution to receiving

water in the form of sediments and nutrients,. particularly phosphorus_ The U_S_ Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has developed a
process for treatment .and management of these runoff waters.3058 A
schematic diagram o f the sjStem is shown in Fig. 6.18; ~omponents
include .an tmderdra.ined wet meadow a marsh, and a pond in series.
An optional final component is a vegetated polishing area. The combined concept is called a nutrient/sediment control system {NSCS) by
the SCS. A number of these systems are in successful use in northern
Maine for treatment of runoff from cultivated fields. The NSCS
should not he installed as the sole control syst-em: It should be nsed
T
Ffgure 6.18 S.c:b:ematic. diagram. agricu1tural rnno.ffamtrol with a wetlanci
266
Chaptef' Six
only in conjunction with best conservation practices, which are

applied for erosion control on the agricultural fields of concern.
Equations 6.67-6.71. developed below, are used to size the c;omponents in the NSCS concept. These are based on an ~ssumed modular
width of 30.5 m (100ft) for the general case: Pimensional modifications are possible to fit the sYstem to specific site constraints as long
as the surface area of each NSCS component remains about the
s~e. The design procednre is considered valid for agricultural land
including row crops, hay, and p&t-ture with average slopes up to 8 .
percent.
Typically, the agricultural rniloff is conveyed to the NSCS in. an
appropriately sized ditclL The. first NSCS cOiilponent is a trapezoidal
sedimentation trench which runs ~e full width of the system_ The
.bottom width of the trench should be 3 m (10 ft) to facilitate cleaning
. with a front-end loader_ The vegetated side slop_es shonld not be
greater than 2:1, and the depth should be at least L2 m (4ft}. Aimilp
is constructed at one end of the trench to permit access fur cleaning.
The top, downstream, edge ofthe bench includes a level-lip spreader.
co:Ostructed of crushed stone to distribute the water unifurmly over
the full .w idth of the system. This sp1:eader cbnsists of a 2.5-m:{S-.ft}wid~ zone af stone.,. ~ding th~ .full widfl?. uf the Sj~em3 and very
caref~y coristru.cted to ensure 3: level surface. Within that zone,
there isa ~.3-m (1-ftJ.-deep trench 1-2 m wide~. also filled with tbe
same stone. The stone .size m:a.y range from. 25 .t o 76 mm. .(1 ta 3 in)..:
The necessary stirfa.ce. area o:f this trench can be calciilated using Eq.
am:
. Metric mrits:
U.S. units: .
~ = 178- + l.U74(W.:t} + 0.04{WA_)2]
(6J)7a)
.._4ST = {843 + 4.54~4.) + 0.:07(WA)2J
(6j)7b}
where A::wr
= surface. a_rea o fsedimentation tre~ m 2 (ft2)
:S.L
WA = area ofrontDDn:tingwatershed,. ha (ac)
The wet meadow is composed of un.derdrained, permeable soils.
plarited . witb coal-season grasses {other than -reed .Canary gra:ss):This mrit must be absolutely level from side to side to pn)mote sheet
:flow.,. and -shocld slope from 0...5 to 5 perce:n in the direetian offlow.
Underrlrain pipe [100 mm {4 in)] is phu!ed an .about 6 -m (26--ft) cente:s perpendicular to the ilow direction. These d rains are baclrlilied
with a gravel pack, which is c-overed With an appropriate filter fabric. These drains discharge,. below the water surface, in the marsh
-component. The first drain Ene .should be about 3 m (10 ft} downs_lop~ from the lev:el-lip spreader_ At least 76. mm (3 in) of topsoil
. ,, .....
.,:
::
Wetland Systems
267
should be spread over the entire wet meadow ar ea prior to grass

planting. The surface area of this wet meadow
be calculated
using Eq. 6.68~ an~ the required slope length (L) in the flow direct~on using Eq. 6.69.
can
Metric units:
U.S. units:
AWM = [783 + 10.4(W:-t> + 0.37(~~)21
{6.68a)
AWM = [8430 + 45(WA) + 0.7(WA)2]
(6.68b)
.
.
whereAWM = 5uifaceareaofwet meadow, m 2 (ft2)
WA = area ofcon~butin~ watershed, ha (ac) .
Metric units:
tr.s. units:
"Lvrn = 22.9+ 0. 753(WA)
(6.69a)
LWM. = 75 + WA
(6~69b}
The wetland or marsh component is the same area-as the wet

meadow-and also extendS the full width of the system. Eqmition 6.68
can. be nsed to determine the surface area of""this _com_p-onent. The
marsh should be leyel fro~ side to Side of the system and range from
zero -depth at the interface with the wet mea~nw to {}_46 m {1.5 ~) .
deep at the interface with the deep pond. Typha is the recommended
plant species. The habitat values. of the system will be .enha nced hy
planting sago pond weed where the water depth
the marSh will
exceed 0.4 m..
.
:
The d~p pond (DP) provides a limnetie bio1ogieat filter for nUtrient
and fine-sediment removal. The area oftbe porul can be de.te=mined
using E~ 6.70:
Metric units:
.ADP =
372 + 55(WA)
{ 6_70a)
u.s. units:
A:np =
400(} + 240(.W:-t}
(6.70b)
The pond should be stocked with indiganaas fish wmch feed on

plankton and other microorganisms. Com.man Dr golden shiners are
.often used. The stocking r.ate should be 250-5"{)0. fish per 465 n::l- {5000
ft2) of pond area. The fish may be periodica.lly :h arvested and snid as
bait fish. Freshwater mnssels are-also :Stocked at a rate :of lDG per 900
m 2 (3000 ft2 ) . The pond shonld be between 2_4 m (8ft) and: 3.7 m :{ 12
:ft) deep. The principal disc~ structure fium the pond shm:ili! be
de~igned to maintain the desired water level aE.d accommadate the
expected flow from up to a 5-year storm. A .g rass-covered emergency
spillway is sized and located to accommodate flows in excess ofthe 5year storm.
268
Ch~pter
Six
The final optional component is a grassed polishing area which

receives tpe discharge from the deep pond. If they are practical,
another ditch and level-lip spreader are desirable to ensure uniform
flow jn this poJishing area. This areaL-\
l can be sized using Eq. 6.71:
.
p
Metric units:
U.S. units:
Ap = 232
~ 1L5(l~-t)
(6.71a)
+ 50( ~-t >
i6.71b)
Ap = 2500
The perfonnance of a NSCS system in nortb.em Maine~ over two

operational seasons, is summarized in Table 6.9. This system collected the runoff from a 7-ha cultivated wa te!shed growing potatoes.30
This s:.vstem, over the 2 years, achieved an average sediment removal
of 96 percent, and 87 percent for total phosphorus.
Livestock wastewaters
Wastewaters from feed lots: dairy barns, swine ~ poultry operations, and similar acti:vitie~ te~d to have high. strength, high ~olids,
and high ammonia and organic nitrogen concentrations. It is
sary to reduce the concentrations of these mate-~s in a pre!iminazy
treatment step, and an anaerobic pond is typically the most cost-effective choice. Procedures in Chap. 4 can be used fnr design of" this SyStem component.
.
In most cases, a FWS wetland \\ill be the cost-effective ~hoice for
treatment of these wastewaters~ since the smaller land area and
other potential advantages of the SF concept~ not usually" essential
in an agricultural setting. The SF roncept may b~ at a disadvantage if
spills occur in the preliminary treatment step ai:ui lllgh solids concentrations are allowed to enter the wetland. The SF enncept may still be
neces-
TAB.lE6.9
Performance of Agricuituraf .Rr.snaff Cantrof3ll System
.Flow{m3 )
Season
1990
Spring
Smn.mer
'IPtli;g)
VSS(k:g;
TSSC"kg1
In
On+
In
.o
144
3
ll3
546
152
.6 63
0.06
3.06"
4..63
7.7-6
In
Ont
In
648
1768
7
1144
3884
5036.
54
101
26
3505
11
34
7
393
84
10
as
484
4()-
16.6
2~2
(} .
Fall
Total
1991
7296
12295
8236
14062
Spring
1387
Summer
Fall
Total
2023
7685
743
1526
3102
49~6:
ri.53o
644
4203
Om:
8
{}
r?
D-
35
42
0.30
12.4
Ont
0.1.3
1:...26
LSS
0.76
(Lll
0.70
1.57
Wetland Systems
269
desirable for year-round operations in cold climates because of the

enhanced thermal protection provided by this system.
Design of a wetland component for this application should follow
the procedures described in Sees. 6.4-6.9. Table 6.10 presents a summary of performance d?ta from a two-cell FWS wetland system treating wastewater from swine barns.27 An anaerobic lagoon was used as
the preliminary treatment step and that effiuent was mixed with
periodic discharge from a stormwater retention pond prior to introduction ~ the ~etland component.
.
Since flow rates were not measure~ it is not possible to determine
the HRT in this system. The volume of flow from the stoimwater
pond was about 1.5 :fimes the volume from the anaerobic lagoon.
The 500-animal swine operation is estimated to produce 90. kg
BOD/d., which is:reduced to 36 kg/d in the diluted wetland influent.
The organic loading rate on the 3600 m 2 of wetland surface area is
100 kg/d ~ which is.identical to the value recommended in Sec. 6.6.
Landfill feachates
Bnth FWS and SF wetlands have been used for the treatment oflandfillleacha~. 6 3639 A combination system utilizing a vertical-flow wetland bed (see Sec. 6.11) followed by a FWS wetland has been proposed
for treating .landfill leachate in Indiana.37 In some cases the leachate
iS appliect directly t.o the wetland; in others the leachate flows to an
equalization pond from which it is transferred to .the wetland unit...
The pond at the Escambia County landfill in Florida is aerated~ since
septage is also added to the poruL36
Characterization of the leachate is essential for proper wetland

design, since it can contain high concentrations of BOD, annnonia..
metals,. high or low pH, and possibly priority pollutants of-concern.. In
addition, the nutrient balance in the leachate m.ey not be adequate m
support vigorous plant growth in the wetl.an<L and sup::Plemental
.p otassium, phosphorus;, and other micromrtrients may be necessa:ry_ Sm.ce leachat-e -composition will depend on .the type and quantity of
TABlE6..10 Pollutant Removal from Swine Wastes.
Fecal
.BOD
Location
.Anaerobic ~aoon
1.11
. Sto~pond
32
Wetland influent
Wetland effluent cell.l
W-e tland .effluent cell :2:
TSS
(mg'/L) (mg/L)
64
14
10
346
51
105
25
31
TKN
NBs
TP
Coli
Strep..
#/IO()ml
#/IOOml
49
3
81.7,500
lls;JEO:
1022
67~
26-
175,164
'16..121
J.l
2,733
-3,.927
4732
1.523
(mg/L) (mg/L) {~)
116
4
26
18
9
84
I
55
13
5
270
Chapter Six
materials placed in the landfill and on time, a generic definition of

characteristics is not possible and data must be collected for each system design.
Table 6.11 presents examples of leachate-water quality from several landfill operations in the midwest. These data confirm the.statement above that BOD COD~ . NH3 , and iron can exist in relatively
high conc~ntrations. Some volatile organic compounds such as acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone, and phenols can also be present in significant concentrations.
The design of a wetland for leachate treatment will follow the same
procedures as descnoed in Sees. 6.4-6.9. The removal of metals and
priority pollutants is as described in Sec. 6.2. Typically the wetland
will be sized to achieve a specific level of ammonia or total nitrogen in
the final effiuent This can be achieved with only a wetland bed,
w!th a wetland bed combined with either a nitrification filter bed (see
.Sec. 6.8) or a vertical-flow cell (see Sec. 6.11). The atmospheric expo. sm-e and relatively. long HRT provided by any of these options will
result in very efte~ ~moval of the volatile priority pollutants. If
the leachate BOD is consistently above 500 mg!L, the use of a preliminacy anaerobic pond ~r .cell shonld be considered. 1\IIany ofthe advantages of tb.e SF wetland concept are not necessary at most.landfilJ
locations, so ci FWS wetland may be the more cost-effective choice.
even though more land will berequired. The exception may be in cold
c~ where the thermal protection provided by the SF concept is
an operational advantage.
Table 6.12 summarizes performance from SF constructed wetlands
treating J:andfill leacbates in pilot studies at Tompkins County~ New
Yor:k,39 .andBroome County NewYot:k..6
The- HRT in the "coarsew gravel ce1l at Tompkins Coun.tY was estimated to be ab~ut 15 days, the total HRT in the two SF cells at
Broome Camrty .at the estimated. leachate flow of about 1 m 3/d is calcuiated to be about 22 days. At these long detention times the expected removal of BOD and ainmonia should have been much ,g reater
than is indicated by the results in Table 6.12. Equation 6JJ3 predicts
an effi:nent BOD of <5 mg!L at both locations, and Eq,_ 6.52. predicts
an effiuent ammonia concentration of about 72 mg/L at Tompkins
Caun:t;y d:uring the summer months.
The poor pez:furmance observed fur BOD removal- in :buth. of these
systems is ~lieved to be dne to insufficient phosph-orns in the
untreated leachate to support the necessary biological reactions. The
phosphorus concentration was only 0..15 mg!L at TompKins Connty
and was not measured at the Broome County site. This very low phosphO:rtiS level is insufficient to Stip.port the organisms which remove
the BOD loading applied,. regardless -of the detention~ p1rovided in.
the system. There a ppears to be su:fficient .quantities -of nitrogen and
7
or
Wetland Systems
TABlE6.11
'
271
Examples of Landfill Leachate Characteristics

Location
Southern,
Parameter
BOD Cntgt'Lt
CODfmgtl..l
TDStmg!Ll
Sulfu!e rmg!L;
Oil and grea..o:e lmgfLl

pH
~"H.
.,
N03
Chloride {mgiL)
ey~(mgtL)
Flnoride {mg/L)
Aluminll.I!1 (mg/L)
Arsemc (mg!Lt
B~<mg{U
Boron Cmg/L)
Ca:dmimn t.mg;lL)
Calcimn (mgtL~
Cfunmmm. (mgiL)
Cobalt t,mWLl
Cop.Per f~cr!L-)
lnm{mgl.L"t
Lead(mgfL)
M:agnesimn Cmg/L)
M:anganese (mg/L)
Mercmy (mg/L)
NiCkel (mg7'Ll
Potassiuin (mg/Ll
Phosphorus (mg/L)
Selenium fmg/Ll
Silver (mg/L}
Sodimn (mgii.l
Thallium (mglL )
'Tin(mg/L}
.Zinc (mg/L)
Acetone (ppb l
Benzene(ppb)
Chlaroethane{ppb}
.Di'eth;yl ether<ppb)
Etfzylbenrene. (p;pb)
Methylenediiaride (ppb)
.Methyl etbylketone <ppo)
Methyl i.sohat.yiketane (ppb)
Tetrah)Hh ofunm (ppb)
TOT:nene (pPbJ
m- and p-Xyle:o.es Cppbl
.Di-a.-bo.t,ylphthalate (ppb)
Phenol (ppb)
A1:rizine (ppb l
.2.4-D (ppb}
TL .
2,130
4,420
5,210
56
15
6.9
132
0 .6
835
0.2
2..9
72
0.6
0.3
Berrien
Co. l\fi
Elkart
Co., IN
Forest
Lawn.!\fi
2,430
802
12
<5
14
160
6.3
-s
275
420
<0.005
0.3
<0-.003
4
<0.01
0.32
1.3
<0:005
235
0.014
<0.005
3.3
<0~02
ti52
0.1
0.1
0.1
283
0.:2
336
<0.0002
332.
0.003
.,
0..03.
r20
<0.001
l57
1~8
179
9.8
<0.001
0.2
<0.03
14
0:015
14
<0.0004
0.2
0.0002
1.34
<0.0002.
0.06
<0.@
42
378
1
<0...1
<0.02
791.
<G.l
.
133
Q.l
11
'20
10
62
.20
33
400
17
'2,260
7.8(}
ISO'
30(}
13
24
555
<0.005
<0.01
672
3.5
23,000:
53
840
25
58
44.;300
220
: .
10
15
12
*A blank: space inthe .tal:ile indicates tha:tno ~ was perlUrmed.
. . ..
<0.03
0.22
690
17
1994
68
.290
2,200
58
407
370
155'
272
Chapter Six
TABLE 6. 12
Landfill Leachate Treatment in SF Wetlands"
Location and parameter
Untreated leachate Cmg/Lt
Wetland effluent !mg/L)
Tompkins Co. ?\TY:
BOD
NH4
N03
Total phosphorus
Sulfate
Potassium
Aluminum
Calcium
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
~!anganese
Kickel
Broome Co., NY:"i:'
NH4
NO:l
Aluminum
185
253
0.5
0.15
3
235
0.2
160
<0.01
0.02
0.01
11
0.05
120
2..9
0.10
isg
1.8
QA
..
124
136
0.5
0.07
1.5
192
0.14
100
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
5.3
<0.01
80
1..9
<0.01
19
2..3
0.1
54
Calcium
184-
Magnesium
Potassium
Iron
Manganese
Zinc
!}7
an
188
31
1.9
51
0.2.
0.2
LO
0.1
*Average values for t:beectire study periodS..

.
+Two wetlaod cells. in series. are preceded by an "overland-flow- zone with a permanent
pool of water.
the other essential nricronntrients. Treatment 'optimization at these

two landfills and: possibly at ma:n.y others would require r~ar aarlition.s of at least 51Ipp1emental phesp.horns. Table 6.13 presents the
nutrient and micromrtrie:nt req:triremerrts -for hioiQgical o:ridation_16
Landfillleachates,. industrial ~d commercial wastewat~, and similar u:nique discharges should b e tested for these .companen.ts prior to
design of a wetland system.
If nutrients or micr.onutrie:nts are deficient in these landfill
leacbates, the. rate constants for BOD and nitrogen removal may be
an ,o rder of:ma:gnltu~ less th~given in. Sees. 6.. 6 an~ 6.8.
Mine drainage
There are Ci few hunc4"ed FWS. wetland systems in the United States
intended for treatment of acid mine drainage. In some cases the sizing and cOn:figu:r.ation of these .systems was not rationally based. In
7
Wetland Systems
273
TABLE 6.13 . Nutrients and Micronutrients Required for Biologicat'Oxidation
Minimum required qtiantity
<kg/kg BODJ
Parameter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Manganese
Copper
Zinc
Molybdenum
Selenium
. Magnesium
Cobalt
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
0.043
0.006
10 x .l0- 5
14.6 x 10 5
16 x w -5
43x w-s
14 x
30 X
13 x
62 X
5 x
45 x
12 x
2.7 X
Iron
Carbonate
:..
w-Io
10"-'
w- 5
10-.;
Io- s
ro-.o
ro-3
10-.;
:r~1ost
cases, howeve:rT the systems are providing the desired treatment

benefits. The rru;jor ~-u5 of {:Oncern are renovaJ, of iron and mar:lganese and moderatim1 of the liq-uid pH. The FW'S wetland ha:s been
preferred for th1c: service because .of the greater potential f-or aerobic
conditions in the ~-.,.stem, and because the precipitated iron and manganese c ould result in clogging of a SF w.etland be~
The acidic condition Gf mine drainage is often caused by oxidation
ofiron pyrite:
2FeS2 . + ?.f\:0 = 2F,e.2 +
+ 4H+ + 48042 -
The ferrous iran ;produced by the pre-viffiiS reaction undergp~ further

oxidation :in a wetland system:
4Fe2+ +
0 2 + 4H
... = 4Fea+ + 2~
Pf '0
.
. .
If sufficient ar.raHnity is not present to protide a buffering eap:acity~
tbe hydrolysis ~f illi: fe:rric- iron (Fel+) "Will further decrease the pH in
the we:tiandef.fi':l!Fi?nr:
~j':fo9'll+
F e 3+ -. ~
- v:~:e~'OH>3 -,-. -a,[].(
-
Several wetland
.svste:n:s
described by Brodie et al. s are effective in
.
.
rem{}va.I ofiron and manganese, but the pH decreases fnJm 6 ta: about
3 because of .~he reaction .given .a~ve:.. Previous :a tteiDI.its ntilizing
exposed llipestone filter beds and addition of buffering ag-ents have
. either been ineffecti:ve..or pnsved too expensive. Orides o f iron ~d
alli::minmn would p recipitate
an tb.e. .exposed limestone surfaces nnder
.
.
274
Chapter Six
aerobic conditions, and that surface coating would prevent further

. c~lcium dissolution and eliminate any furth~r buffering capacity. To
correct this problem, the TVA has developed an anoxic limestone
drain <ALD ). Crushed high-calcium-content limestone aggregate
(20-40 mm size) is placed in a trench 3-5 m (10-16 ft) wide and to a
depth ranging from 0~6 to 1.5 m (2 to 5 ft). The bed cross .section must
be large enough to pass the ma..'rimum expected flow as defined by
Darcy's law (see Sec. 6.4). The exposed portion of the trench is backfilled with compacte~ clay to seal the bed and ensure anoxic conditions in the limestone. The interface between the clay and the ~e
stone is usWilly protected with a plastic geotextile. The upstream end
of the trench or bed is located to intercept the source of the acid mine
drainage.
Brodie et aLs have suggested specific guidelin~s for utilization of
the ALD component:
I. Eri:,--ting alkalinity >80 mg!L, Fe <20 mg!L, only the wetland system is reqUired.
2. Existing a1k?Jinity >80 mg/L, Fe >20 mg/L~ a wetlands system
without an ALD is probably adequate, although the ALD wonld be
beneficial.
3. E$ting alkalinity <80 mg{L, Fe >20 mg/L, an ALDis recommended.
4. Existing alkalinity <80 mgJL, Fe <20 nig/L, the ALD is not essential but is still recommended.
5: Existing alkalinity ~0 mg/L, Fe ~0 mg/L, the ALD will 'b e necessary as the Fe c oncentration approaches 20 mgi.L_
6. Di,ssolved oxygen in liquid >2 mg/L or pH >6 .and -eH > 100 mV will
result in oxide coatings and negate benefit of an .ALil.
A sedinia;ttation pond is recommended as a treatment .c omponent .
. prior t0 wetland, whether or not an .ALD CODJilOnent is tJSed\ in the
system. Tiris is to .allow precipitation of a large fraction of the dissolved iron in a basin whiCh can be dredied more easily than thew.etland rompon;mt.
The.cnrrent practice for design of .t he -wetland component iS: based
on empirical evaluation of performance <>f successfiilly -ope:ratings ystems_ The TVA recommends a hydiaulic loading between 15 x In- s
and 42 x 10-3 m/d (0.37 and LO gal/ft2 d~ for hun ~ovaL depending on the pH, alkalinity, and iron concentration. in the inflow_
Others59 recommend up to 0~14 m/d (3.5 gal/ft2 d) for the same p.m-pose. The treatment cells are designed for the base flow and then sufficient freeboard is provided to accommod8;te.the design storm event.
1v!nltiple cells with a water depth. in treatment zones of1ess than 0.5
.:.\.
Wetland Systems
275
. m i~ recommended. Deep-water zones can also be provided if s upplemental habitat values are a project goal. Recommended flow veloci~es in the wetland cells range from 0.03 to 0.3 m/s <"0.1 to LO ftJsJ. A
separate wetland cell shoUld be constructed for each 50 mg/L of iron
content in the inflow because of the need for reaeration afler oxidation of this amount of rron. If topography permits, a cascade spillway
is recommended between these wetland cells.
6.14 Construction Requirements
The basic construction requirements for wetlands include a subsurface flow barrier, selection and placement of the bed medium for the
SF type, establishment of vegetation, and the inlet and outlet works.
Pumping stations, disinfection facilities, and transmission piping may
also be needed; but these are not unique to wetlands and are covered
in other referenes. Since the dissolved oxygen levels in both SF and
FWS wetland efiluent tend: to be low, some form of postaeration may
be necessary. Where topography permits, a riprap covered ca.._~e
will serve adeqnately for this purpose.
Subgrade- constructi~n and liners
Both types of wetlands
typic~y
require an impermeable bamer to
ensure containment of wastewater and to prevent contamination of

groundwater. In some cases this may be provided if clayis naturally
present 'Or if in-situ soils can be compacted to a nearly impermeable
state. Chemical treatments, a bentonite layer:. asphalt,. ,or membrane
liners ar-e also- possibilities~ In the case of a wetland treating landfiii
[eaehate, a double liner with leak detection may be required by soine
regulatory .a~cies.
. The bottom of. the wetland must be vezy carefully graded prior toplacement of the liner_ Topsoil Can. be stripped from the sit e and
reserved: for,us~ as the planting medium for FWS wetlands or for
-other uses. The bottom snrface must he level from side to side for the
entire iength:af the wetlaD.d h~d. Both types nf weti_ao.ds may have a
slight miifarm slope tO' ensure drainage bnt~ as des'cribed previously.,.
the bottom slope should not be designed to pro-tid~ i:he Reessary
hymaufic conditions for flow in the..sYs-tem.. The necessa:ry hydraulic
gradient and w:ater level eont:rol in e ach wetland cell is provided by
an adjustable o utlet device_ Figure .19 illustrates one typ.e of
atljustable outlet for this purpose.
During the final grading operations, th-e bottom of the wetland
should,. be compacted to a degree similar to that used for highway subgrades_ The purpose is to maintain the design surface during subSqu..ent construction activities_ Several constructed wetland syste-ms,
".
' .
276
Chapter Six
Horizooiai position
~~
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Vertical position
Elevatioo
Plan view
-F.gure 6 .1:9 Adjustable outlet for constrncted wetlands .
.. ...
both SF an-d FWS types, have been found to. have significant flow
short-circuiting due to inadequate grade control during system. constmction. A particular conce1~ for the SF type .isaccess by the trucks
delivering the gra..-d meqia.. The ruts from just a few of these vehicles
can induce permanent: short-circuiting in the completed system .
. Construction traffic should not be permitted on the cell bottom during
wet weather conditions.
The membrane liner, if used~ is placed directly on the completed

cell bottom. The SF media
be placed .d irectly on heavy-duty liner
materials. For FWS wetlaJl.ds, a layer of reserved topsoil is .placed
on. tep of the liner to serve as a rooting media for the vegetation.
Selection of SF media type is critieal to the successful performance
of the system. Unwashed cro..shed stone has been used on a large:mu:nber of existing proj~~-. Truck de1ivery of such material during
.cen5trnction can lead to problems due to segregation of fines. fu the
truck during transit,. and then deposition of all of the fine material in
.a single spot when the load is drrmpeiL This can result in a number
of small blockages in the flow path and internal short-circuiting in
the system_ Washed stone or gravel is preferred. C'oarse aggregates
for concrete constrnction are commonly available throno.at.tont the
United States an(J: would be suitable for construction of SF wetland
systems.
The d.ik.es and be:rms fur the wetlaild cells. are constructed in the
same mann~ as those for lagoons and similar water impoundments.
ean
Wetland Systems
-277
For large-scale systems, the top of the dike should be 'vide enough to
accommodate sm~ll trucks and maintenance equipment. Each cell in
the system must have a ramp into the cell to permit access for maintenance vehicles.
Vegeta.tion
Establishing vegetation at an appropriate density is a critical requirement for construction of both types of wetland systems. Local plants
are already adapted to the regional environment and are preferred if
available. A nUmber of commercial nurseries are also capable of providing the plant stock for large projects. Planting densities are discussed in Sec_ 6.1; the closer the initial spacing, the sooner the system
will be at full derisity. Most of the species will propagate from seed,
and aerial seeding might be considered for large-scale projects. Plant
development from seed takes a significant amount of time, requires
very careful water control, and seed consumption by birds can be a
problem. The quickest and most reliable approach is to transplant
rhizomes of the vegetation of choice to the prepared treatment bed.
Each :rhizome cutting shanld have at least one bud or prefetibly a
growing shoo~ .and is planted with one end about 4 em (2 in) below the
surface of the medi~ with the bud or shoot exposed to the atmosphere..
above the saturated mediUm. Planting of seeds or rhizomes can occur in
the spring after the last frost; rhizome material can also be planted in
the fall The bed is flooded and the water level maintained at the soil or
media surface for at least 6 weeks ur until significant new growth has
dev:eloped and emerged. At thls stage the wetland can be placed in full
operation as long as the water level is not above the tops of the new
p1ant growth. Iffresh water is used d~g the inca.bation period, the use
of.some supplemental :fertilizer is deSirable to accelerate plant growth.
For v.ery large systems one might consider planting the vegetation
in pm-allei bands, with the long axis of the band perpendicular to the
ftow direction. Each hand would commence .operation with relatively
dense -vegeta:tlo~ and the space between 'bandS ean be' filled .
the
lo-ng term. If there are eost constraints it is advantageo-us tO. put
.about 75 percent of the v.egetation stock in the last half-of the cell anrl
25 per:cent in the.f irst half.
rwer
hllet and oatlei structures
.Both SF and FWS wetlands require uniform flow conditions through

each cell to aclrieve the experted 'Performance. This .can be acbjeved
with small to me~erate-sized systems with perforated manifold p-ipes
extending the full width of the .cell, for both inlet :and ontiets. .An
278
. Chapter Six
apove-surface inlet manifold provides access for adjustment and control and is. preferred for most systems. This manifold typically consists of suitable-sized plastic pipe 100-200 mm (4-8 in) in diameter,
with a "teew placed in the line every 3 m (10 ft). These "tees" are
attached to the line witl. 0-rings and are adjustable. The operator
can move each "tee~ through a vertical arc and thereby visually adjust
and equalize the flow from each. These surface-discharging manifolds
may require thermal protection when used in cold climates. Small onsite SF systems typically include a perforated manif~ld placed on the
bottom of the bed in a coarse rock envelope. The efiluent manifold for
both SF and FWS systems is typically a perforated pipe laid on the
bott{)m ofthe bed at the outlet end of the cell. In some cases this outlet manifold is laid in a shallow,.. rock-filled trench slightly below the
botto~ ofthe wetland cell; to allow for complete drainage.
Larger systems typically have concrete inlet and outlet structures
containing :a weir or similar device; in the case of the outlet structure,
the Weir~ or stop logs, or si1 nilar control device, should be adjustable
to permitc~ntrol of the water level in the ceiL These structures
shoold not be spaced more than 15m (50 ft) apart; 3-m (10-ft).spacing
will provide excellent distribution and uni.furm collection of the liquid.
The cell bottom.should be aboo.t 2 m below the ~aonnal" water surface
in a zone around each of these outlet stmctnres. This will maintain
open wat.e:r in the immediate vicinity of the weir and minimize clogging_ The Outlet Etructu:re should have a baffie plate npstream of the
aqjustahle weir plate to prevent d<lgging by iloating debris.
Theinlet strncture fur agricultural Tnnoffwetland includes a sedimenbmrm trench-with a levei:..Jip spreader on the downstream. face.
'This. le-V'el-Iip spreader extends the full width of the l>ed and is supposed tn fimction as a broad crested weir to eiiSUl'e -mri:furm distribuuon across the entire width .offue bed. Such constro.ction is necessary
in this case, since the deviee has to accommodate a wide range of
stormwater flow;;_ However)" experience has shown that it is difficnlt
tom;aintain mri:fonn flo.w when. this level-lip spreader is construrled
oflDose rock riprnp_ A concrete lip followed by a rip:rnp zone fur energy diSsipation rriig1rt l:Je prefecreiL
.Som~ constnicted wetlands ineorporate deep-water zones for
enhanced atmospheric reaeration and/or -for .enhanced habitat values_
These deep-water zones should be at least 1..5 m (5 :ft) deep to prevent
colonization. by t1:te emergent.plant sp'ecies _g zuwing in the r~mcrinder
of the w.etlan<L These open-water znnes must also be large enough so
that normal wind action can move duckweed and other floating :plants
to the edges_ In. one .case~ these zones were -constructed as relatiyely
narrow tnmches perpendi~u:lar to the flow directi-on_ The resnlting
open-water srrr:face was toQ; narrow for the wind to have any eff~
.'
Wetland Systems
~'
279
and a pers1stent mat of duckweed sealed the surface and prevented

any significant reaeration. If open-water zones are used, they should .
be at least 20 perce~t of the cell area and wide enough to penmt effective wind action. Small, patchlike open~water zones will only increase
. the risk of flow short-circuiting in the system. The placement of nes,ting islands in these open-wate!- zones must also be given careful consideration to avoid flow short-circuiting.
Costs
The major cost factors for FWS wetlands include the land, .a liner,
and the size of the dikes or berms proposed for the system. The costs
of a FWS system could range from $75,000 to $170,000 per hectare
($10,000 to $70,000 per acre), depending on these factors. In addition
to these components, the gravel media f9r SF wetlands is a major cost
factor_ Where land costs range froin $2500 to $10,000 per hectare
($1000 to $4000 per acre) the ceb-t of a lined FWS wetland. would be
approximately $74,000/ha ($30,000/ac) for piapnir~g purposes. The
cost per unit area for a SFwetland might be about 50 percent higher,
depending on the local cost. of aggregat-e.. However~ the SF wetland
will require a smaller land area to treat the same volume of waste. water; so the total cost of a $F wetland is nut always greater than for
th~ FWS type. Gearhart18 presented thecost distribution shown in
Table 6.14 fora 0.5-mgd FWS wetland with a HRT of i4 days and
with 10 acres of total area.
.
A comparable SF wetland for treatment of 0.5 mgd might require
. oDly 6.6 .acres, so the cost of most items in Table 6.14 wouid be
TABlE5.14 Constructio'D~~i'ma 1'Cr-AcreFNS Wetland
It.em
Q uantit
,
)
Dikes
Clear .and gn.ID
Vegetation @2ft
IO,OOOcy
l.Oac
Planting .
InletS
On:flet:s
Cla:Y. liner
Plastic .liner
Piping
Landrosts
lO ac
ID:ac
6 .e a
-S'ea
l{}.ac
l.Oac
2;000 If
lDac
EDg., u'gai, Admin., Contingencies <20'K.)
Unit cost
Total-cost
$8.59' cy
$2,{}0(}: ac-
$2~{)00
~8{}/J...OOGtribers
$18,.0 00
$2.,00(} ac
SI,SOOLS
$20;.000
$85,000
$1,500
$3-~UOO
$3,000LS
56;090 a.c
550,000 ac
$6' lf
~000 ac
Const::ructian costs: w/clay liner
wfplastic: liner
54()1.{100
$259-,500
($699-,500)
Total 'COSt w/clay liner

wfplasticliner
($839,.400)
$6{},000
$1.2;(300
$31~400'
-...
280
Chapter Six
reduced. Ho,vever. approximately 20.00~ cubic yards of gravel aggregate would be required for a 2-ft depth of media in the SF case. If
local aggregate costs {for purchase and placement) were $14/cy or
less, the SF wetland with a plastic liner would be less costly than a
F WS wetland sized for the same flow. The rvvS w: :land with a clay
liner would be the more cost-effective choice "':lnless purchase and
placement of the gravel aggregate were less than $5/cy, which is very
un.ljkely.
6.15
Operation and Maintenance
The routine operation and maintenance procedures for these wetlands are si~ilar to those for the pond systems described in Chap. .
4. Grass mowing on the dikes and regul!i!r inspections for damage
from muskrats and other burrowing rodents a re the major tas~.Special requirements for the FWS case may include mosquito controL Removal of vegetation re&dnes on a long-term basis may also
be desirable if interference
flow in FWS wetlands is
.
. with .tbe
'
observed.
Vegetaion
The vegetation is a Clitical component orboth SF and FWS wetlands,.

an~l successful performance .depend on a relatively dense stand of
healthy plants_ Dise.ase and insect infestation .c an cause problems~
but this has not been experienced to date at operational constructed
wetlands in the United States_ The oxygen transfer capability of the
plant can be ov.erwi1elm-ed by very~high-strength wa.ste5, and the
affected plants may decline and die_ This has ocemTed in a few systems at the inlet -end nf the be~ when significant rm.st.abilized
deposits of sludge were allowed to ac~e.. A major threat to
some of the emerg-ent vegetation used in cofu:-:trncted wetlands is
damage from m uskrat fuJ.d nutria. These animals n:se both Typha and .
.Seirpus .as a food source and fur nesting material. At one FWS system
in western Ke.rrtnc:1.-y, an im:E:=l-ion of muskrat dmr.ing a drought period
completely "!i\':iped <Out the vegetation in the wetland celL This system
was revegetated with Phragmites. w~,ich does not serv.e as a food
source for these animals~
Routine harvest of the vegetation is not necessary fo.r either FWS
or SF wetland systems. Som.e of the early SF systems in the southern
Uillted States used soft-tissue flowering plants. These proved highly
susceptible tq frost, and their rapid decomposition has adverse
water-quality impacts. In some cases, a fall harvesting program was
.adopted to control this problem. The pr-ublem can be avoided alto-
Wetland SyGtems
281
gether by not using such soft tissue vegetation on constructed wetlands. Removal of accumulated plant detritus may be necessary on
an infrequent has is in FWS wetlands to avoid. restriction of flow in
the system.
Mosquito control
.
Mosquitoes are common inhabitants of natural wetlands, and their

presence at approximately the same density in F\VS constructed wetlands is to be eA-pected. 1vlosquitoes should- not be a concern for SF
wetlands as long as the system is properly operateL with the water
level maintained below the top of the b~d.
Mosquito control is more difficult in polluted wat~s with a hig~
organic contentt snch as might exist near the inlet end of a FWS wetland. Insecticide doses might have to be at least double the normal
amount in this portion ofthe FWS wetland. The procedures d.escr::ibed
in Chap. 5 for hyacinth systems are also applicable to FWS wetlands.
Gambusia fish provide effective control during warm weather con9-itions. An annu:al restocking of these fish may be necessary in cold climates with low winter temperatures.
The FWS wetland in Arcat~ California, 21 successfully used both
Gambusia fish and a pupaecide (Altosid) for -mos<mito contr.{)L
. Bacterial insecticides (Bacillus thuringiensis israeliens(sJ and B.
sphaericus) have been used successfully on a number of wetland systems. The use of B. thuringiensis israeliensis was recomm.ended.51 for
use after trials with several insecticides at wetland systems in
Kentucky. The side slopes of the containing dikes should be as s~ep
as possible, and any vegetation on these surfaces controlled. The~
ence of duckweed may also contribute to mosquito oontrol by .c overing
the water surface, lmt this will also interfere with oxygen tran..s:fur
from the atmosphere.
References
L Ashton.. G. (ed.. ): River and Lake Ict! Engineering. Water Resum:ces "Publications,
Littleton. co. 1986.
2. Bavor~ H. J., D. J. Roser, P. J. Fishel:. and I. C. Smalls: Joint Stu.dy on SeJXage
Treatment Using Shallow Lagoon-Aquatic Plant Systems. Wate-r Research
Labm:atocy. Hawkesbury Agricultural Col!ege.. .Hichmand, NSW,.Australia. :1.986. .
S. Benefield. L. D . and C. W. Randall: Biological Process De.sigrx far Wa...-<;jemater
Tn?at:ment. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-cii:ffsr NJ. 1980.
4.. :Black and Veatch: Treatment of Combineil Seu:er Ot'.u[!.ows rh:rough ConSh:rJ.cte:Ji
We:t:Iar.ds, Bureau of Environmental Services, -c-.m -ofPortland. OR. 1999"
5. BoO-n. A. G.: Report nf a Visit by Members and Staff of lVarer Resources Centr.e to
Germany to Inuestigate the Root Zone Method .for.Treatment of Wasteu.aJm. Water
Research Centre, Stevenage, Eng':land. Aug. 1985..
6. Boul~ D, R., J. M .. Bernard, and D. if Gnmde-r: Leachate Treatmen:t $_ys:te:m.
282
Chapter Six
Using Constructed Wetlands, Town of Fenton Sanitary Landfill, Broome County.

New York, Report 94-3, New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority, Albany, NY, 1994.
7. Brix, H: An Overview of the Use of Wetlands for Water Pollution Control in
Europe~ in Proceedings: IAWQ Wetlands Systems Conference. Sydney, Australia..
Dec. 1992.
8. Brodie, G. A., C. R Britt, T. M. Tomaszewski, and H. N. Taylor. Anoxic Limestone
Drains to Enhance Performance of Aerobic Acid Drainage Treatment Wetlands:
Experiences of the Tennessee Valley Authority, in: Constrocted Wetlands for Water
Quality J.mproc;ement, Le"'isPublishers, Chelsea, MI, 1993, pp. 129-138.
9. Bull, G.~ NovaTec, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada: Personal communication. 1994.
10. Burka, U~ and P. C. Lawrence: A New Community Approach to Waste Treatment
with Higher Water Plants, in Constructed Wetlands in Water Pollution Central,
IAWPCR. London,.1990,. pp. 359-371.
lL Calkins,. D., U..S.. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hano~er.
NH: Personal communication, 1993.
l2. Canadian Society of Civil Engineers: Cold Climate Utilities Manual, 2d ed..
Canadian Society ofCivilEngineers~Montreal, Que., Canada, 1986.
13. Chapman, A. J.:.Heat Transfer, 3d ed., Manrn11an, New York, 1974.
14.. Dinges, R: Natural Systems for Water Pollution Ccntrol, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1982.
15. Dombush, J. N.: Constructed Wastewater Wetlands, in Constructed Wetlan.ds for
Water Quality Improvement. Lewis Publishers, Chelse~ MI, 1993, pp. 569-576..
16. Eckenfelder; W. W.: Industrial Water Pollution Control, 2d ed., McGraw-Bill, New
York, 1989.
.
lT_ Ferlow, D. I...:. Storm.water Runoff Retention and Renovation: A Back Lot FEIDtian.
or Integral Part of the Landscape, in Constructed Wetlands jor Water (/ua!i.t:
lmpr~nef!lent.. Le"t~V-is Publishers. Chelsea, 1\IT, 1993,. pp. 373-379.
IS. Gearhart, R. A.: Consf:rll.ction7 Construction Monitoring and AncillCJJ' Be;r.efits.,
Environmental Engineering Department, Humbolt State University, Arcata. CA.
1993. . ..
19. Gearhart, R A.., B. A. Fmn~y. S. Wilbur,. J_ Williams, and D. Hull: The Use of
Wetland Treatment Processes in Water Reuse, in Future of Water Rease,. VoL 2,
.American Water Works Association Research Faundatio~ Denver.,. CO~ 19ffii.. pp:.
617-638.
'
20~ Geadlart,. R.. A., .A. F_ Klopp, and G. Allen: Const:nu:ted Free :Sm:fuc:e Wetlands to
Treat and Receive WasteWater: Pilot Pmject to Full Scale. in D. A. Hammw (ed.},
Constructe~ \Vetlaiuls for Wastewater Treabnen:t; Lewis Pohli-5:hers.. Chelsea,. MI.
J.989.,. pp.l21-137.
21.. Geaibea:rt. R. .J.rK "Wi1b114 :J. Williams.. D. .Hnn, B. Finney.. and S. Sundberg: Fmol
Report City of.Arcata Jfarsh Pilot Project Effluerrt Quality Results-System Design.
and .]-[cmagem.ent, Project Report C-06-2270, City of~ Department of Public
W9Tks, Area~ CA.,.l983.
22.. Gersberg;.R.. M..,. B. V. Elkins, .S.. R. Lyons, and C. R. Goldman: Role of Aq:oa.tic: f'Iao:ts
in Wastewater Treatment by Artificial Wetlands. Water~ 20:363-367~ 198523. Gersberg,. R. M., .R. A. Gear~ and M. Ives: Pa.tbogen Remove} in Con5t::rm:t.e.d
Wetlands-. in D A. Hammer (ed.), Constructed Wetlands for Waste:u:ai:er TreC1IITlJ!1l1.
Lewis Publishers, Cbelsea7 MI. 1989, pp":431--445.
24. God.fre-y7 P. J..., E. R . .Kaynor, S. Pelczarski7 and J_ Benfaraii:o:-.Ecological
Conside:nztions- in W-etlaruls Treatment of :Municipal Wastewa.ter.s.,. Van Nostnmd
.Reinbold. New York. 1985.
25. Hammer~ D. A..: Creating Freshwa:ter Wetlands, Lewis Pob1ishers~ Chelsea, J!..fi.
1992:.
.
26. Hammer.,. D. A..,. and R L.. Knight: Designing on.stro.c.ted Wetlands for Nrtrogen
Removal. in Wetland Systems in Water Pollution Colltrol, In.tem.ationa1 Association
Water Quality. Sydney.. .Australia, 199~ pp. 3J.-3.37.
27. Hammer, D . A..., B_ P. Pullen, T. A. McCaskey, J. Eason, and V_ W. E. Payne:
Tre:3.ti~g Livestock Wastewaters with Constructed Wet!an.ds,. in Constructed
...
.}
:..:.
'.....
. .".
Wetland Systems
283 .
Wetlands for Water Quality lmprocement, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, 1993, pp.
343- 348.
.
.
J .: Town of Listowel Artificial Marsh Project Final Report, Project No.
128RR, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ont., Sept. 1986.
29. Herskowitz, J ., S. Black, and W. Lewandoski: Listowel 'Artificial Marsh Treatment
Project, inK Reddy and R Black Ceds.l, Aquatic Plants for Water Treatment and
Resource Recovery, Magnolia Publishing, Orlando, FL, 1987, pp. 247-254.
30. Higgens, M.. J..., C. A. Rock. R. Bouchard, and B. Wengrezynek: Controlling
Agricultural Runoff by Use of Constructed Wetlands, in Constructed Wellands for
Water Quality Improue:men~ Lewis Publishers, C~ :MI. 1993, pp. 359--367.
31. Kadlec, R. H.: Hydrologic. Factors in Wetland Water Treatme~ in D. A Hammer
(ed.); Constructed Wetlands for Wastewciter Treatment. Lewis Publishers. ChelSea.
1\fi, 1989. pp.2l-40.
.
32. Kadlec, R. H.: Personal commmrication, 1994.
33. Kad.l~ R. ~ W_ Bastiaens, and D. T. Urban.: Hydrological Design of Free Water
Surface Treatment Wetlands, .in G. Moshiri (ed.)~ Constructed Wetlands for Water
Quality Improvement. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea.~ 1993, pp. 77-86.
.34. Knigh~ R., R.. Kadlec, and S. Reed: Database: North American: Wetlands for Water
Quality Treatment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Reduction
Emi:romnental Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, Sept. 1993.
35.. Law-~ G. .J..: Cultiuating Reeds (Phrogmites australis) fur Rout Zone Treatment of
Sewage. Project Re.port 9~ Institute of Terre::ii:rial Ecology, ClliDbria, England,
Oct.198-5.
36. Martin~ C. D-~ G_ A- Moshiri. and C. C. Miller: 1\:litigation of Landfill Leachate
incotpoxating In-Series Constructed Wetlands . of a Closed-Loop Design, in
Can.st:Fucteii Wetlancfs for Water Quality lmpror:ement. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
MI. 1993", PP- 473-476.
31. Ogden.,. 1!.~ South West Wetlands Groop, Santa Fe. NM: Personal communication,
J.S94_
38. ~ J. W "? 7. G. Searle, ami S . V. Gaddes: Land Treatment Enhances Habitat of
the Enaangered Mississippi sand H ill Crane, in Proceedings Water Reuse Ill,
American Water \Vorks Association, Denver, CO, 1984, pp. 649-059_
39-. P.everl_y ~ J., W. E.. Sanford. T . S. Steenhuis,- and J . M. Surface, Constructed
Weti.aruls for Mrzn:icipai Solid Waste Landfill Leachate Trea:tmerrt, Report 94-1,
New York State Energy Resea..Tt:b and Development Authority, .Albany, NY, 1994.
40. .Reed. S. c_ (ed..): Natural Systems for Wastewater Treatment, MOP FD-16, Water
Envii;on.meo:t Federatio~ Alexa:ndria.. V ~ 1990.
41.. Reed:.. S . C...: Const:r:uc:tea Wetlands Characterization: Ccrroille & Mandeville,
Lauisiana.. U.S. Ei:rvironmen.tal Protection Agency, RREL, C"mcianati, DH. Sept_
28.
Hersko~;tz.
1.9.9~
42.. Reed,. .K C..: Subscufa.ce Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment::- A
Technology Asses!mlent,. EPA 832-R-93-eOS, U.S_Environmental Protection Agency.,
Wasnington,.DC .Jnly 19~3.
43... ReeL S. C.: Constructed. Wetlands Characterization: Hair.mwnd cmd. Greeale.a:ves,.
Louisiana:, u.s_ Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction En.vi:romnent.al
Laboratory? c-mcirma:ti,
Sept. 1993.
44.. .Reed7
C.,. and R K.. Bastian (eds.): Aquac:ulture Systems for Wastema:ter
Treatment: An Engineering Assessment~ EPA 430/9-80-007, available as PB.
.sn5oo89, from National Tedmical Infonrurtion Service, Springfield, VA. 1980.
45_ Reed,. s_ C_ and :R.. .K. Bastian: Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: An
Engineering Pei:spective~ in Ecological Coasiderations in Wetlands Treatment af
Mmri.cipal Wastewa:ter.s, VanNostrand Reinhold. New York, 1985, pp. H4 450.
4ft Reed. S .. C .... aim M.. Hines. Constructed Wetlands for Industrial Wastewaters,
Proceedings 1.993 Pnrifne Indo:stria1 Waste Cm:ference, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea,
oa
s_
~fl.l994.
47. Sanders, F.: Per.sonal-communication, 1992.

4& .SeideL K.: Rei:nigung von Gerwassern durch hohere Pflanzen (in German>.
Deutsche Naturruiss.... 1..2:.297-298, 1966.
284
Chapter Six
49. Stefan, .J.: Th<!ory vf {c( F()rmatiun, Especially in the Arctic Ocean lin German lr
Wien Sitzunsbcr.4.kad. Wiss. A 4212}:965-9&3, 1891.
50. Steiner. G. R., and .J. T. Watson: General Design, Construction, and Operational
Guidelines Constructed Wetlands tVastewater Treatment Syste.i ns for Small Users
lnc:luding Individual Residences. 2d ed .. TVA/WM-93/10. Tennessee Valley
Authority, Chattanooga, TN, 1993.
51. Tennessen, K. J .: Production and Suppression of Mosquitoes in Constructed
Wetlands. in Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement, Lewis
Publishersr Chelsea. .1\:IL 1993, pp. 591-601.
52. Thmnhnrst. G. A.: Wetland Planting Guide for: the Northeastern United States.
Environmental Co nee~ Inc... St. Michaels. MD. 1993.
.
53. U ...~. Developmental Program: Gl.obal Environmental Facility: Egyptian Engineered
Wetlands. Lake Man:::ala, July 1993.
.
54. ti.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual for Nitrogen
Control, EPA/625/R-931iHO, Center for Enviro-nmental Research Information,
Cincinna~ OH. 1993.
55. lLS. Environmental Protection Agency: Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal S;ystem..s, EPA 625/1-80-012. Center for Environmental
Research Information.. Cincinnati, OH. 1980.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Design Manual Constructed Wetlands and
Aquatic Plant S;ystems, for Municipal Wastewater Treatme.nt. EPA-625/1-81-013,
Ce.'1t~r for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, OH, 1988.
57. U.S. Env:ironmental Prctection _1\gency: lifanual: Nitrogen Control. EPA/625/R93/DlO. Center for Envirorrmental Research Information, Cincinnati. OH. Sept.
1993.
58. U.S. Sc}il Consen ati.on Senic:e: Nutrient and Sedimerct Control Svstem.. Technical
Note N4... U.S. Depar-Llllent .of -~aricultare. Washington. DC,l\lfar. I-993.
59. 'W!tthar, S. R. : \\ierland Water Treatment S.: -stems. in Construc.tecl Wetlands for
\rater Quality Im;lrut~mt~nt, Lewis Publishers. ChElsea, .ML 1.993, pp. 147-156-.
60. Zirschky. J.: Basic Design Rationale for Artificial Wetlands, Contract Report 68-01
7108. U.S. Em.-ironm~ntal ProteCtion Agency, Office of Municipal Pollution ControL
Washington. DC. June 1986.
..
...
,
Chapter
Land Treatment
Sys~ems
Land treatment processes include .s~ rate (SR), overland flow (0F)
and rapid infiltration {ffi). In additron tO these three proe~sses.. land 1s
aho used for :vaiions on-site sail absorptim systems de~ to treat
septic tank effluent. On-site so~ syste:r:ns are descn'"bed in Chap. 9.
7 .
7.1
System Types
Land trea1ment is the controlled application of wastewater tn soil to

achieve treat:ment of cOnstituents in the wastewater_ The three types
of land treatment systems all use the natural physical, chemica4 an d
biological processes within the soil-plant-water mat:r?x. The SR and RI
processes rrtilize the sail matrix: for treatment after infiltration of the
w--a-~watEr~ the .Iru3or difference between the processes being the rate
at which the wastewater is loaded onto the site. The OF process uses
the Oil Sm-face ana vegetation for treatment, with the treated effiuent
collected ,as rtiDJJff. The cbaracter.i::sties ofthese systems are compared
in Table T..1.; .and perfm::nlance expectations :are given in Table l.R
. Slow-rate sysiems
Slow-rate systems are the predominant form of land 1;reatment of

municipal a nd industrial wastewater. The technology is similar to
that of -conventional agri:cnltural in:iga:tio.n, and the loading :rat~ as
shown in Tahle 7_17 are the lowest <>f the hind treatmerrt methods..
Howev~F, as: discussed in Chap. ~ SR has the wid~st range of acceptable soil
and permeabilities. A liSt of large mtmicipal ~ systems is preseritedin Table 7.2.
Slo.w -rate Systems have been traced back to 1531 in Brmzla~
Germany: and 1650 in Edlnhm-ghr Scotland.2o. The pr.actic~ was well
types
'2B5
286
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.1
Characteristics
of Terrestrial Wastewater Treatment Systems

System type
Characteristic
Application
method
Minimum preapplication treatment
Annual lqading, . .
Slow rate
Sprinkler or surface
Overland flow
Rapid infiltrati.ori
Sprinkler or surface
Fine screening
. I:Timary
..
Primary
.l.
0.5-S
3-20
6-125
Evapotranspiration
and percolation
Surface nmoff and

evapotra.nspiration
Percolation
rate(m/yrJ
Disposition. of
applied waste-:
water
..
..:
Usually surface
... I
TABLE 7.2 Selected Municipal Slow-Rate Land: Treatment Systems
Location
BakersfieltL CA
Clayton County, G...\

Lubbock, TX.
Mitcbel4 SD
Muskegon County, MI
Petaluma,. CA.
Vernon, RC. Canaaa
Flow
System. area
(m3/d}
(ha)
73,600
2,060
75,950
62,500
9,300
110.400
20,000
10;300
960
2,000
520
2,1.60 .
220
591
Application
method
Ridge and furrow and
border strip surface
application
Solid-set sprinklers
Center-pivot sprinklers
Center-pivot sprinklers
Center-piv~t sprinklers
Tmveling-gnn Sprinklers
Tra.Vliling:-gun and sideroll sprinklers
ocganized in Eagland from the 1850s through the 1870s.13 In the

1880s,. many U _g_ municipalities were reported. to he using wastewater for irrigation, a practice that started
1872 in Augus~
30
M8ine_ The large SR system in Melbm1rne-, .Anstralia,. wasestablished in 1897.33 'l'h.ere are new mrer :8Q(} .o p'eratingslow-rate systems
in the United Sta:tes_41 A typical S:R system is shown in Ftg.. 7.L
Overland-flow systems . .
Overland flow is a land treatment process in whlcl:t wastewater is

treated as it lows down earefullygraded griJ..s.s-rovei-ed slopes. In contrast to the SR process, in which surface runoff is avoided,. snrface
runoff is. a design requirement. for overland flow., the ~d nmoff
. being collected at th~ bottom of the slopes. To achieve the required
runoff: the soils mlli:!-t either he slmvly per.m.eable, be .compacted during con.stmction to~ liniit percolation,. or have .an impermeable layer
just' below the surface.. Wastewater is either sprinkie.r or snrface
t~
f,......
..,
..\ '
Land Treatment Systems
2B7
. .:
Figure 7.1 Typical slow-rate land treatment system_
applied to the top of the slope, and treatment occrirs during the slo:W
travel of the water in thin sheet flow down the slope. The slopes are
typically 2-8 percent in grade and 30-61 m {I00-200 ft) in length_
The features of an OF system are shmri.t in Fig: 7 .2.
The OF process evolved in the United Sta~ from "5pray runafl" as
practiced with food proces::ing wastewater-3 to an advanced treatment process capable of .being d~~ fur removal of biocltemical
oxygen dem~d (BOD)~ suspended solids {SS), and nitrogen..39
Modifications to achieve significant pbnsphmw; :rem.uval. by precipitation with added almn on the OF slopes ruive been 'I'E:Searched.3 s A
process used in England and-Austral~ lmown.as grass filtration,. is
in essence an OF process~ and the <:on_.:tructed. wetlands. described in
Chap. s .are.also similar in concept: and p:enai-mance.
There are about 50 mnnieipa] OF systems in the United .Sta:tes.
Some -of the full...,scale ones are listed
Table 7_3_ An f:?'xample- OF
-s ystem is shown in Fig. 7~3.
Sapid-infiltration.systems
Rapid infiltration is a iand treatment process in which ~-t:ewater i~

treated as it percolates through a permeable soiL Appiications:r usually to shallaw spreading .basins:o are intm:mittent_ Treatment is accomplished by physical~ -chemica,4 and ~iologicai processes :as the wastewater infiltrates
the soil surface
and travels tln:uugh the.sGil.
.
.
- . ... ' ..
~'
288
Chapter Seven
Evapotranspiration
Sprinkler application
.. Effluent --=~~:::_~..:::.;....:.;.._--;--;--;--....
criUection
channel
Percolation
.
'----'t.!'on+rrtiu.1tJatch and
biologio:ll slime toyer

Figure 7.2
0\erland-flow process- schematic
TABE.E7-3 Municipal and Industrial OF Systems in1he

United States
1\tU:micipal systems
Alma.,AR
Aln:m. Creek Lake. OH
Beltsville. 1.-ID
Carbondale, IT.
Cle~eland.. 1\.U
Carsi~TX
Davis, CA.
Falkner_~n
Gretna, VA
Heavener.,. OK
Kenbridge. VA
Lamar.AR
Mesquite. NV
.Mmden-Gardnerrille. ~-v
1\.ft. Ofu-e~ NJ
Ne~CA
Norwalk, IA
Raiford. FL
Sta:cke.FL
Vmton.LA
Industrial .systems
Cbesrertown.lVID
Davis. CA
ElPaso. TX
.Middlebury. IN
Napoleon. OH
Paris. TX
'Rosenberg, TX
Sebastopol,. CA
Woodbury.,. GA
2~9
Figure 7.3 O.erland-flow .system at .Mesquite;Nevada.
Vegetation is usually not a part af RI systems, because loading

rates are too high for nutrient uptake to be effective. There are~- however, situations in which vegetation can play an integral role in stabilizing surface soils and maintaining high infiltration rates.32
The treat-ed water from most of the 300 municipal RI systems flows
through the subsm:fuce until it joins a surface water body. This indirect. surface discharge is generally encouraged by regulatory agencies. .
as opposed to permanent groundwater discharge to .d rinking-water
aquifers. There .are, however, installations in which the pe-rcolate is
recovered by pmnping, such as at Phoenix, Arizona, and in the Dan
.r egion of IsraeL3 19
..
--
7.2. Slow-Rate Systems
Design objectives and process design procedures for SR system.:; are

-described in this.secti1>n; details on site selection~ these systems
.a re presented in Chap. 2.
Design.objectives
There are basically two types of SR systems. Type 1 systems,

designed on the basis.of the, limiting design factor (!LDF! concept,.
apply the maximum possible amount -of wastewater to the minimum
290
Chapter Seven
possible land area. The critical parameter or factor that limits the
loading rate is 1dentified for the specific site and the particular wastewater by, comparing the wastewater loadings allowed for each constituent. For municipal SR systems, the LDF is usually the hydraulic
capacity of the soil profile or the nitrogen content of the wastewater.
For industrial SR systems, the LDF may be hydraulic capacity, nitrogen, BOD, metals~ or~ in the case of toxic wastes, the primary toxic or
hazardous constituent.25
:J'he type 2 SR system
designed to optimize the water reuse
potentiaL In this case just enough water is applied to s~ the total
irrigation requirements cf the crop being grown.; The water loading
rate sets the land area requirements and depends on the climate, the
soil, the crop,. th:_e leaching requirements, and the method of irrigation. The basic intent with these systems is to irrigate the maximum
possible amount of land..
is
P.reappfication treatment
The treatment needed prior to. SR land treatment depends on the

type ofwa....qewater,. the type of crop, the degree of public access to the
sit,. and the percolate quality requirements. For .m unicipal wastewater the main c oncern is to reduce the pathogen content of the
wastewater and to minimize the nu~sance potential by providing at
least primary treatment. For industrial wastewater the preapplication treatment vanes with the type of wastewater and may include
fine screening, pH adju:stmenj; sedimentatimi, and/or giease.removal.
Guidanee for assessing preapplication treatment is presented in
Tabl7.4.
Preapplication treatment for most municipal SR systems consistsof bio1ogi~ treatment in ponds. Ponds are generally a cost-effective
method ~f treatment and can also provide some of the storage v:oium.e neede-d in most SR systems. Ponds can pr<J\":ide removal of fecal
TJmlE7.4 GuidanceonPreappJi'catian-Treatment for Municipal Sfow-Rate
S_ys1Ems
A.. Pr:im.azy treatment-acceptable for isolated locations with re::.-tricted, public access
.and wlum limited to crops not for direct human consumption..
.B. Biological ~ent by lagoons or :in-plant proces_c:es plus control for fecal ealiform
.count -:to Tess tban IOOO rJPN*/100 mL-acceptahle for controlled agricultural irrigatiane:ttcept for human fuodcrops to be eaten raw.
7
C. Biological treatment by Ia.:,auons orin-plant processes, with additional BOD or SS

-c ontrol as needed for esthetics, plus disinfection to Jog mean of 200/1 00 mL CEPA
fuca1 coliform. criteria far bathingwatersr-actept.abls- for application in publicaccess areas such as. parks and go.1fcourses.
*l\IPN =most -probabfe nmnber.
! . .:
291
coliforms, as described in Chap. 3~ and can effectively reduce nitro. gen concentrations, as described in Cpap. 4. The latter is particularly important because .n itrogen is often the LDF for muniCipal SR
systems.
Crop selection
'rhe crop is very important in the SR process because it removes
nitrogen, maintains or increases wastewater infiltration rates,. and
can produee revenue,. particularly in type2 (water -reuse) syste~. In
type 1 syste~, in which wastewater application rates are maximizecL the crop is often selected ~ maximize nitrogen removal or
withstand high hydraulic loading rates. Nutrient uptake rates for forage .a nd."field crops are. presented in Table 7"..5 and nitrogen uptake.
rates for forest ecosystems are presented in Table 7 .6. Nitrogen
up-t ake is a function of crop yield as well as nitrogen content of the
7
TABlE 7.5 . _Nutrient Uptake Rafes:forSeieeted CropSG-41 ~
Ntrtrient (kg/ha:. yr)
-Crop
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Forage Crops
Alfalfa*
Bromegrass
Coastal bermuda grass
Kentucky bluegrass
225--675
130-224
400-675
200-270
35-45
45
Quack grass
23~280
3{}-g)
Reed canary .grass_

.Ryeg:.ra.c:s
Sm=et clover*
335-450
200-2.80
175--300
40--45
60-85 .
20L-40
30
20--5()
24
.45
"Taii.:fescne
On:hard grass
Timothy
Vetch
15(}-325
.25.0--350
150
390
22--84
174-224
4~6-
247
225
200
.27.5
315
2.70--325
100--aOO
300
225-315
200
270
Field c:rop5
Barley
.Com.
Cotton
Grain .sorgJimn
Oats-
125-166
175-25(}
15-18()
15-2:5
20-40
15--28
15--40
20-120;
llQ:.:.-20()
40:-100
70-l'JO.
120
245-325
Potatoes
135-250.
l15
230
RiceSo.yhea:ns*
Sugar beets
Wheat
no
:2.6-
125
2:5Cf-:325
255:
HiQ:.-1.75
10-28
30-120
26
450
20-160
17
.2(}
!~(f
*Legumes- may .also take up a minimal amoun.t of nitrogen from the atm.Dsphere when
under nitrogen fertilization.
.
. '
292
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.6
Nitrogen Uptake for Selected Forest Ecosystems~~'
Forest type
Mixed hardwoods
Red pine
Old field v.-ith white spruce
Pioneer succession
Tree age (yr)
Annual nitrogen
uptake fkgJba yr>
40-60
220
25
no
15
280
280
5-15
Southem Forests
Mixed hardwoods
Southern pine. without un.d.er.stor_.:
. Southern pilie with understory
41)....60
20
20
.340 .
220*
3:2{)
Lake State FOJ"eSts

Mixed hardwoods
Hybrid poplar7
50
5
110
155
We::.--tern Foresr.s
Hybrid poplaz-7
fir planta:tiun
Slash pine
Dougl~
:300-400
15:-:23
:?G
150-=250
379
*Principal soutbe:-n pine .i.n duded in these e~imates is loblolly pine.

7Shurt-tenn mtation :-ith harvesting at 4-5 yr. represents first grov.th cycle from planted
seedlin,as.
ha.n:ested portion of the t.TOp. As are~ in efunates -where the yield

of the crop.'"s dry matter is high~ the total nitrogen r.emoval {in kilograms per hectare) 'Will be higher than in colder climates with .shorter
g:rowmg sea...~nsLegu.ffie crops can fL"'I:. nitrog:en from the air; however, they .are
active sca\~engers for nitrate nitrog11 if it is present in the soil. As a
result~ if legnmes are fertilized with n:itrnge~ most afthe crop uptake
will come from the fe-rtilizer or wast-Watec
In tropical Or snbtropical clima:t~ fox.ages . .51lch as bahia grass or
California grass can be grown,. which will take up substantially more
nitrogen than the fo-rages listed in Table 7_5~ For example~ Califmnia
grass has been_ fo.und to remo~e 200.0 kg/ha yr (1780 lb/ac .:yr) of
nitrogen in field e:q)eriments. H>
Other crop characteristics of importance in .a dditi.o n to nitrngen
u-ptake are evapotranspiration {ET},. water tolerance, salinity tolerance: .and :revenue potentiaL Ev.apDtranspiratiWl is the eonsmnptiv.e
use of water {both evaporation and transpiration) by the growing
crop. 'The ET rate is controlled by atmosphene c onditi.ens .an<l soil
293
water availability. If sufficient soil water is available, the potential

ET . will be determined by solar radiation, air temperature, wind
speed, and relative humidity. A map of average potential ET and
mean annual precipita~io~ is presented in Fig. 7.4.
For forage grasses and trees, the actual ET will be nearly the same
as the potential ET. For field crops, the actual ET will usually be less
than the potential ET, especia1ly at the beginning and end of the
grO\ving season. Estimates of potential and actual ET values in most
Western states can be obtained from local agricultural extension
offices, research st...ations, or the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCSJ.
Potential ET values.can be estimated from temper3;ture and o.t her climatic data.1131
Selection of the crop f~r a type 1 SR system should focus on nitrogen removal, compatibility with hydraulic loadings (tolerance of
overirrigation}, and ease of management <minimal cultivation .and
harvesting requirements). Consideration of all these factors usnally
leads to the selection of forage or tree crops as best suited for type 1
SR systems.
The ~mportant crop selection criteria for type 2 syste:rr..s are ~~ater
requirements, r evenue potential, compatlmlity with local climate and
soils? :and salinity tolerance. Field crops are usually chosen because of
their revenue potential and compatibility with existing local practices. The tolerance for salinity must be conSidered for :field crops,
because some are sensitive to total dissolved solids values over 700
mg/L Tolerance for chlorides and boron needs also to be cansidered
for field and fruit crops. 44
Loading rates
Ma::,-t SR systems are limited by either hydraulic or nitrogen loading
rates:. The hydraulic loading rate for type l ~ems is based on the
soil ,p ermeability. Hydraulic loading rates .a re expr-essed in centimeters per "\veek or meters per year (inches per week or feet per year) tareflect an average loading over a hydraulic loading cycle that includes
a.PJilication periods and dcying -periods.
For type 2 systems the hydraulic l-oading rate is based {}D :irrigati~
requirements, which reflect crop ET rates and a leaching {percolation)
fraction that is used to pr:event buildup uf salts in the soil profile_
Nitrogen and BOD loading rates as well as any umqc:e censtituents
should be checked for industrial wastewater systems_
Hydraulic loading for type f SR systems.. The water bala.il.ce equation. i~
the basis of the hydraulic rate determination:
L u; =ET - P ' + P u
( 7.1)
..
tn
...
..
+
C:
..r:.
-- +
294
.t
' I , .:.
295
where Lw .= wastewater hydraulic loading rate

ET = evapotranspiration rate
Pr = precipitation rate
P w . percolation rate
.
(Note that units must be consistent for all terms of the equation.)
Any s~ace runoff isassumed to be captured and reapplied. The

water balance is often used on a monthly basis to determine the
allowable wastewater loading rate based on the permeability of the
limiting layer in the soil profile (see Chap. 3). To determine the
monthly balance, the design values of precipitation and ET must be
dete~ed; the wettest year in 10 is often a~opted as the design
year for this purpose.
.
To determine the minimum permeability of the soil profile, it is
usually necessary to oonduct field tests. Acceptable tests include the
basin flooding technique41 and the use of cylinder infiltrometers,
- sprinkler infil~meters, or air-entry penneameters.31 41 An average
percolation rate can be calculated as described in Sec.. 3.1.
The design percolation rate P u: is calculated from the length of the
a:pplication period in comparison with the overall cycle of wetting and
d:rjri:ng and other factors such as the variability of soil conditions.
When using eitQ.er SCS permeability ranges o r field test results, it is
recommend~d that the daily design percolation rate range from 4 to 10
percent of the measured or publiShed rate. If the scheduled frequency
uf application is one day per week on a given portion of the application
.site~.the4-10 percent value would be incorporated 3:s foUows:
.
P)daily) = K{24 h/d)(fr.Q4 to 0.10)
-{ 7.2)
where Pw = design percolation rate, cm/d
K = permeability oflimiting soil layer, -cmlh (in/h)

0.04 to 0.10 = adjustment factor to account for wet/dry ratio and
ensUFe a conservativ-e -value for infiltration of wastewater
1'he adjustment. factor d~pends on the variabil.izy ill the site soils
and the wet/dry ratio. The wet/dry ratio is 0.15 or less for mast .SR
systemS and will not affect the adjustment factor unless it is less than
0.04. The lower end of the range (0.04) should b e used fortheadjnstment. factor when the soil permeability val:nes are -variable and the
wet/dry ratio is low~ and 0.10 should be used as the adjustme~ factor
when soil permeability values are relatively uniform and the wet/d:ry
ratio i$ 0.10 or higher.
The design rate calculated by Eq. 72 assumes that the wastewater
infiltrates at the measured rate K but for only a portion of the mo~th.
. ..
)
296
Chapter Seven
During month s with high rainfall the wet/dry ratio for the site
changes, and more total water infiltrates. Since type 1 systems are
designed for maximum wastewater application, the water balance
equation is modified, and the monthly wastewater P u: is still applied
in the months 'when precipita~ion exceeds ET if weather and crop conditions permit. In the gez:1eral case, all the precipitation and wastewater will still infiltrate even in the wet n:tont~ because of the very
conservative
adjustment factors used in determining P ~. Operational
.
adjustments may be necessary to avoid -wastewater applicati9n during intense rainstorms. Equation 7.1 is applied directly during the
months when ET exc.eeds precipitation, so the monthly wastewater
loading can be increased above the P u value to make up for the ET
deficit. The monthly percolation can then be determined by multiplying the daily value of plL' by the number
application days per
.m onth. Because the precipitation must also percolate (or be lost to
ET)~ any downtime for precipitation should ~ot be included in the
'-Vater balance. Howevert the downtime for ha_rvesting, planting, or
wintertime soii freezing must be included. Example 7.1 demonstrates
the procedure for developir.g a project water balance and (he design
hydrau1ie loading for a type 1 SR system.
'
of
Exampl~
7.1 Determine tb~ monthly water ba:Jance and t:.l-te desi,on hydr.au.lic
loading rate based on soil permeability. Assume that tlte soil profile bas a moderately slow penneability of 0.5 cm/h_ The site is in a relatively warm climat~
but operating days are restricted by freezi..TJg temperature:; to IO days m
J.aIJ.ll.arY,.l2 da,JS in February~ 15 days .in March, 15 days in No~ember~ and 10
days in December; precipitation <Prl and ET records are available from Ioca!
agencies..Assume a .grass for-.:tge crop. so cultivation is not required but harvest
ing will require 5 days in July and in September.
solution
1. Determine the allowable- daily percolation rate for the applied wastewater .
with an assumed aclju::.-tment factor of 0.07.
Pt~: =
Kt24 h/dJ(0. 07 J
= (Q.5)(24lH):07 I
= 0.84 cm/d
2:. Tabulate ET and precipitation valc.e s and determine ne.t loss or gain_
l\Wnth
J.an.
F.eb.. .
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
ET<cmimo)
1~
}_..!.
3.0
5.2
9.8
15.0
16.5
pr (crn/mo)
ET- P r {c.m/mol
14..&
14..1
-13.4
. - 12.7
13:.4
-10.4
11.0
- 5.8
-0..2
3.3
9.6
11.7
1:2.0
4_5
. .. ,..
297
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
16.0
14.5
6.1
5.0
9.9
9.5
7.2
Nov.
Dec.
3.0
1.3
4.5
8.6
2.7
- 5.6
- 10.7
- 28.5cm
12.0
122.6cm
94.1 em
Annual
The minus signs in the righthand column indicate that precipitation

e.xceeds ET in those months and on an annual basis.
3. Determine the monthly Pu: values by combining the daily Pu: values and the
operating days specified for each month, tabulate the results with the net ET
from the table a~ve, and determine the monthly hydraulic loa~ings tL,).
Month
Jan..
Feb.
.Mar.
P.., {cm/mo}
Operating days
8.4
10
12
15
.lO.f
.1 :26
a~
~-
Ma
:
-June
$1
25.2
26..&
30
~r-m:
-0
9~
Aug.
Sept.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
L u: (crri.hrro
~
.
8.4
-13.4
-
1J
- '
- 10.4
- 5.8
10.1
12.6
25.2
- 0.2
26.0
.,- 09-
3.3
28. i)
31
21.8
26:0
....
25
21.0
4.5
9.9
9.5
31
15
Oct..
Net ET (cm/mo)
26.0.
12:.
8.4
2:2:3.3' em
....1Q_
266
. 2.7
- 5.6
-10.7
-28.5 em
26.3
-;; ..: 0
:,~.,
30.5
28.7
12.6
8.4
253.2cm
The- annual hydraulic loarling fur wastewa'ier .on this project could be 2..5
mfyr (8.20 fJ:Jyr -or 61.4 gai!.ft2 - yrJ. The total liquid percolate at the site,
including rainfall, would be 2.8:2 m (9.25 ft).-
Hydraulic foadingbased-Q_n nitro~ !_imi:ls.__
In many SR systems.. nitrogen is fhe limiting design fact-or (LDF) when protection-of potable
g ronndwater is a :concern_ 'Limitations on total nitrogen applied are
based on a limiting nitrat-e nitrQgen concentration of 10 mg/L in the
r-eceiving groundwater at the pro-ject bonndary. To ensnre ~ conservative appro~ the design assumption is made that the wastewater
pe-rcolate will be eqnai to 1(}. mg/L before it mingles with the in-situ
groundwater. The nitrogen balance for this case is given in Eq. 7.3:
.L n
U + InVJn
r ) + A(Cp )(Prr )
V\rhereL& =mass loading<Jfnitroge14 kg/ha- yr (Ib/ac yr)
(7.3)
:.
298
Chapter Seven
crop uptake, kg/ha yr <lb/ac yrJ

f ~ fraction of applied nitrogen lost to den"itrification,
volatilization~ and soil storage
A = conversion factor, 0.1 SI units (2.7 in U.S. units)
Cp = percolate
nitrogen
concentration, mg!L, usually set at 10
.
mg/L
P u. = percolate flow, cm/yr (ft/yr)
=
in
Crop uptake rates can be estimated from Tables 7.5 and 7.6. The
fraction lost ~ denitrification, volatilization, and soil storage depends
primarily on ~e wastewater characteristics and climate. For highstrength wastewaters with BOD-to-nit:n;lgen ratios of 5 or more~ the f
value can range from 0.5 to 0.8. !;.ower values apply for cold climates
and higher valn~s apply for warm climates. For primary municipal
effluent, an {value of0.254>.5 can be used. For.secondary municipal
effluent a value between 0.15 and 0.25 should be used. For advanced
wastewater treatmeri effi~nts, a valu~ of 0.10 should be used.
... ..... .. Equation 7.3 can be transformed and solved for P w as shown in Eq.
....'7.4:
(7.4)
The applied nitrogen, LrC is also related to the nitrogen-limited

hydraulic 1oadingrnte,
L wn, as shown in Eq_ 7.5:
.
(7.5)
where 0.1 = conversion actor (.2..7 .in UB. mrits)

en = nit.r.Ogen concentration in applied wastewater, mg/L
L = hydranlic loading rate
controlled by nitrogen as the LDF., .
.
crn/yr (ft/yrwhen .2.7 is used as conversion. factor)
~
By c mnbinirigthe w.at.erbalanceeqnation ~-1 with Eqs_ 7_4and 7.5y

the value ofL
can be determined:
1ltD.
L
..:... C.p(P:r- ET) + lOffJ)

wn.
{1 - flCC ) - C
n
p
(7.6)
(The conversion coefficient 10 is based on centimeters per year for P,

E~ and L=; the -coefficient~ U.S. units is 0.37 whenPr ET,. ana Lwn
are expressed in feet per year_)
.
Equation 7.6 -can be used to generate monthly or annual nitrogen
b-alances and to solve for the resnlting hydnrulic loading :rate~ The
equation is conserva:tiv:e for design since, as stated :l)reviously, the
concentration cp in the percolate is used in.::,---tead ofth~ ~nal ground-
::
..
"';
299
water concentration at the project boundary', which may reflect furtheF m~xing and dispersion (see Chap. 3 for procedures). Ex.a mple 7.2
illustrates the us~ of this procedure and the method for determining
the- LDF for a particular project.
e xample 7.2 Calculate the .e stimated annua l nitrogen-limited hydraulic loading rate for the system deScribed in Example 7.1. Compare this rate with the
hydraulic rate as limited by soil permeability and determine the LDF for this
project. The nitrogen concentration in the municipal primary effluent to be
applied is 30 mgiL As..c::ume that orcba:rd grass will eventually dominate the
fields; from Table 7..5, assume an anon a I uptake (U) of 2.5 0 kglha - yr.
solution
1. Use Eq. 7.6 to determine the nitrogen-limited hyd.:Caulic loading rate.

Assume that Cp = 10. mgiL and. since
it is primary effiuen~f = 0.25..
.
CP (pr - ET) + lO(U}
L...-r:-~------
(1.'- {l(C") - C.,
From Example 7.1. ammalPT = 122.6 cmlyr and ET

= 94.1 em/yr. Then
L ,., =
uo
mi'Lxmn r:m.l:yr- 94.1 ~)(101{25okg/lta.- yr>

(1 - 0 '25)!:25 mg/L)
- 10 '!IlgfL
2785
= --
8.75
= 318 crn/yr
2. Determine the limiting design factor (LDF) for this project.
The m.a:rimmn hydr:au1ic loading based -on soil pemi~ili:ty limitations is,
from Example 7.IT 2..a mfyr_ The .nitrogen.-liniited hydraulic loading as c aleula~ ahm-e is 3..2 m/yr. The smaller ofthe two is the LDF SO in this case the
soil permeab.ili::ty :controls.,. and th-e sysrem design: should be based on .an
annttal hydraulic loa mug of.2.5mlyr. I:fthis hadbeen an industrial~ it
might be necessary t:o :eheck ot:her wastew:rt-er-.constitnents as potential
LDFs.
7
Hydraulic loadiEg. Ior fpe 2 SRsystems_ For SR .systems located in

arid region.;;, the .hyd:rnnfic loading is :often b~ed on cr:np irrigation
requirements .ra:ther than soil perme~ty~ beeanse there 'is an ~co
nomic incentive to conserve water a:Q.d maximize its beneficial use.
T he hydraulic loa:ding rate then depends on the ~g.ation reqnirementandargr precipitation accordiBgto Eq:. 7.7:
. .
L =JR -. P r
~
where L u: = hydranlic loading rate .

m = crop irrigation r-equirement
(7.7)
.,. '
.....1
300
Chapter Seven
Pr = precipitation
(units must be consistent, i.e.. cmlyr, m 'yr, etc.}.
The irrigation requirement depends o~ ~he crop ET, the irri&ation
efficiency, and the leaching requireruent. A more g~neral for~o,G.E.<t1 .
7. 7 is given in Eq. 7.8, incorporating the le.achi:,pg- fa;otor-and h;rig~l.@i.
.
efficii:mcy:
L u.r
(ET- Pr )(l +
t<ro;,
LRi(..._._..,.),
}Jt'!
l7~-)
where ET = crop evapotranspiration

.Pr = precipitation
LR = leaching requirement
E = efficiencyoftheirrigation system
The leaching requirement may range from 0.05 to 0 .:30, depending

on the crop~ the amount of precipita.tio~, and the tot~ dissolved solids.
(TDS) in the wastewater. The relationship between wa5tewater 'ID~
crops:- and the leaching :reqc..rirement fraction is shown in Fig. 7_5_
Because most wastewaters have a TDS of 400 mg/L or mor-e, the
leaching requ.lrement is usually in the range 0.1 to 02.
The irrigation efficiency represents the fraction: of the applied.
water that is accounted for in erop consumptive use or ET. The.1ower
the efficiency, the higher is the fraction of applied water that passes
the root zone and percolates to deeper soil zones. For surface irrigation systems the -efficiency ranges from .0.65 to 0.7~:; sprinkler systems usually have efficiencies of 0. 7 to 0.8, and drip irrigation can
achieve efficiencies of 0.9 to. {};95.
The monthly wat-er balance is used to determine the annual
hydraulic loading rate and the amormt of off-season WilStewater storage. The annual hydraulic loading rate based on irrigatinn :reqnirements should be checked against the nitrogen limits tD -d etermine the
LDF.
Organic loa~ng rates.
Organie loading rates are not limiting f-or

municipal SR systems and are not usnally limiting for industrial SR
sys""lms. For food processing and other high-str~z:.h wastewateTS:r
BOD loading :r:-ates often -exceed 110 kglha - d (1410 lb/ac- d} and oceasio.n ally exceed 330 kglha - d (30.0 lb/ac- d}. A lb-t of existing systems
with loadings in this range is presented in Table 7_7_ The...c:e systems
have successfully avoided odor prohlems b y nsing adequate di:ying:
times between applications and by other management practices.
Organic loading rates beyond 500 kg!ha - d {445lbfac - d} should gen:.e rally be avoided for SR systems.
60 "
501
' "" "

I
40 ,___,_.____.
301
ao
1200
1400
TDS concentrat ion of applied water, mg/ L

Figure 7,Q PHI't't'Ji 1. lu111!h lng I'Uqulrutnont:;
vur JJIJtl tlli1i ul t,v nH'
vminliH l!t'up H.
1600
" 1800
2000
302
C~p.ter Seven
BOD Loading Rates at Existing Industrial land Application
TABLE 7.7
Systems9.,27
BOD loading rate

Location
Wastewater type
Almad~n.McFarland. CA
Bisceglia Brother;-s, Madera; CA

Tri Valley Gr.owers, Modesto, CA
Anheuser-Busch. Houston., 'IX
Anheuser-Busch, Williamsburg. VA
Ore'-Ida Foods. Plover. WI
Hilmar Cheese. Hilmar, CA
Citrus Hill_ Frostproof,. FL
Winery stillage
Winery stillage
Tomato
Brewery
Brewery
(kglb~-
d)
473
314
200'
403
Potato
291
215
Cheese
Citrus
151
448
Land requirements
The land area requirements for. SR systems can be significant and

include the field application area plus area for roads,. bu:ffa- zones,
storage ponds,. and preapplication treatment_ The field area can be
calculate{l'usmg Eq. 7_!l:
Q +V
A=
s
(7_9)
CLW
.where A = field area, ha (ac)

Q -:- annual flow,. m 3/yr (million gal/yr)
~ = net .loss .or gain in stored wastew~ter volume due to precipitation on and evaporation and 'seepage from the stor-.
age pond, m 3/yr (million gal/yr)
C = constant= IOO(Q_027in U...S.., units)
Lu = design hydraulic loading rate based on the LDF, :c m/yr
{in/yc)
Tu aetamiue the field a rea for systems With open pond storage,. it
is rec-ommended that an iterative approaeh be used hecanse -of the
re1ationshlp between the storage pond area ana the gain. or los~ in
V.oimne_ The pr.ocedm:e is as follows:
L .Assmne no net
gain or Joss in storage volume and calculate the
field area
2.. Using the monthly water balance and an aSsumed initial depth of
the storage pond,. determine the net precipitation or net evaporation and/or seepage for the assnm.ed poniL Then include this value
-o fV$ in Eq. 7_9_
~L Sol~
Eq. 7 ..9 !or the revised.fie1d area
'
land Treatment Systems
303
4. Repeat the monthly water balance using the revi sed field
area. Adjust the surface area of the depth of the storage pond as
necessary.
Stor~ge
requirements
Most SR systems require some storage for periods when cold/wet

weather or crop planting/harvesting stop or reduce wastewater applications. Storage needs from cold or wet weather can be estimated
from climatic data using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
computer programs.4 1 (See Fig. 2 .3 for some general guidance on storage needs.} The water balance can be expanded to include -columns for
incremental changes in storage and cunl.ulative storage, as shown in
Example 7 .3.
Application scheduling
For type 1 SR systems the app~cations are usually scheduled once a

week far sprinkler .systems and once every 2 weeks for surface irrigation.. The application area is divided into subsections or sets~ which
are irrigated sequentially: overthe 1- or 2-week application cycle.
For type 2 SR systems or for nitrogen-limited SR systems with
monthly ni:trate limitations, the applica:tion schedule depends on the
crop and the cliinate. The purpose is to maintain the crop in optimum
growth condition by scheduling applications so that the soil moisture
is depleted by no mare tban 30--50 percent_
The ~ation water requirements and leaching ~action can sometimes b e acbieved by a heavy preplanting application (for annual
crops) 1lr spring application {for perennial crops). The advantages of
tiris practice are red.Uctionin.soil salinitY,. especiallyin the upper root
zon~ filling of the soil resa-vOir with water of low salinitY~ and reduc. tinn in the amount {)f leaching required dnring the growin,g season..
The ~or disadvantage is the larger stoi<I:,cre requirement~ .
Fxainple 73 Determine 1:he cumulative stoTao~ requirements for .t he SR system -cleso:ibed m'Ex2mp!e 7.L A:.-s:ume that the average wastewater flow.:rate is
'1:0.,.0 00m 3/d and.the d esign.field area is I45 ha_
::~;1~-,- > ..
.. ..
~. t
..-
-... . .
'
1.. .Detennine the wastewater\."olume 2"-<Iilable each mon th_
<IG,.OOOm3/d}(365 d/yr)(l(:)O cm!m)
W=
!10,'000 m 2/.ha')(l45 ha)( 12 mo/,yrl
= 21.:0 cm/mo
2. Expand Lhe water balance table to include storage factors:
..:.
.:: :
304
Month
Nov.
Dec.
Chapter Seven
L ;.. 1cm!mo1
Aug.
Sept.
1:2.6
8.4
8.4
10.1
12.6
25.2
26.0
28.5
26.3
35..9
30.5
Oct.
2a1
Jan.
F-eb.
Mar.
Apr.
Ma):
Ju:ne
July
Total
253.2cm
W(cm/moJ
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0 .
21.0
21.0
2LO
2LO
21.0
Change in storage
Ccmfmo)
Cumulative storage
8.4
12.6
12.6
10.9
8.4
- 4.2
- 5.0
-7.5
8.4
21.0
33.6
44.5
52.9
48.7
43.7
36.2
30.9
16.0
6.5
0.0
-5.3
-14..9
- 9.5
-7.7
(cm!moJ
252.0cm
3'. Determine the maximum required storage volume: The peak equivalent storage from the table above is 52..9 cm/mo- in the D;lOnth <>f March. The actual
Et.orage volo:me required is this value. applied over the entire 145-ha treatmen:tarea:
c52:..9 cm/moJI145 haXlO,OOO m~tba)

n.oo cm/m)c 10,000 m3/d)
= 77 da,ys ma:xirrium storage
Distribu:Uon~ecbniques
There are three- general distribution techniques: sprinkler. surface>

-and drip application. Suitability factors and conditions of use for
these syste~ are presented in Table 7.:8.
Sprinkler application is common to many of the more recent SR systems and all the forested systems. 10 Surface application, by either
ridge-and-furrow Qr graded borders, is common to many of the older
SR systems~ especially those in the West and Southwest. Drip applica. tio.n with wastewater effi.uent can lead t{} clogging af emitters unless
proper sizing is done23 and the effluent is screened to remove so1ids.5
fu adifi:tiD.n to SS :removal~ the effiuent should ~e low in iron,. hydrogen
sulfide, and total bacteria.44 Drip .application is- an evolving tedmology, which will become more important for type 2 SR. systems in the
future.
Controf.of stnface n:tnoff
Surface nmnff of applied wastewater must be eoxitrolled. in most SR

systems. In addition,. control of stormwater runoff is usually recommended to avoid erosion problems.
For .surface-application systems, the surface :runoff 6f applied
wa....~e"'\vater is known as tailwater. Collection o.f tai.Iwater and its
TABLE 7.8
305
Suitability Factors for Wastewater Distribution Systems

~linimurn
Di~tribution
te<:hnique
Maximum
Suitable crops
grade (lfr.J
infiltration
rate fCmJb >
Sprinkler Systems
Solid set
Portable hand move
No restrictions
No restriction:;
Orchards, pasture,
20
Side-wheel roll
Center pivot
All crops <1 m high

All crops but tall
Traveling gun
Pasture, grain, field

crops
0.1,2
0.25
grain. alfalfa
10-15
15
0.25
0.50
15
0.75
trees
Surface Systems
Graded borders
lnarn)\\.-, 5 m widet
Grnded borders
(mde., up tel 30m)
Straight furro\VS
Pasture. grain.
alfalfa. ~neyards
Pasture. grain.
alfalfa. orchards
Vegetables, row
crops. orchards.
0.75
0.5-1
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
vineyards
Graded contour
furrows
Vegetables, mw
crep5. .orchards4
vineyards
Drip Systems
No restrictions
Otd:m:uls. Ian&,-cape,
vineyards, uegetabl~ nursery plants
Aibqlted from Ref. 3.1 .
r-eturn to either the storage- pond or tb~ distribution system are an

:integral part of the design. In ad.dition sprinkler-application systems
may employ tailwater iunoff control to avoid {)ff-site discharge of
.applied mstewater. A 1ISual tail water-return system .ca:iiSistS :ofa col- .
lection channel m: a collection smnp... a pump, and a retum fun:em.ain
t01 storage or the distribution system. Guidelines for estimating the
d uration af tailwater flow, the runoff volume, and the ~ested maxi:n;Inm design vo.lmne are presented in Table 7.9:
"Wheye stormwater runoff can be significant, measures to prevent
. euessive erosion shoUld. be emplnyed. Terracing of steep siopes is an
aerepteif agi.icultural practice to miqimize erosion.. Other practices
include sediment-eontrol basins, .contour plowing~ no-till farming~
grass boEder strips, and -stream bUffer zones. _Pr-ovided that wastewater application is stopped prior to a starm~ the st{)rm-indnced
nmoff need not be collected or retained on-site.
7
306
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.9
Recommendations for Tailwater System Designn
Permeability
classfor
the soil
Permeability
(em/hi
Very slow
to slow
Slow to
moderate
0.15-0.5
Moderate to
moderately
rapid
1.~15.0
0.5-1.5
Te:\."ture
range
Clay to
clay loam
Clay loam
to silt
loam
Silt loams
to sandy
Ioams
.Maximum
duration of
tailwater
Estimated
tailwater
\."Olume
l\fa..ximum
. design
\."olume
flow (Ck J*
(%}7
(%)t
33
15
30
33
25
50
75
35
70
*Maximum duration oftailwater flow as a percent of application time..

+Tailwa~r volumes as a pe.rrent of the application volume..
Underdrainage
Underdrains are used in some wastewater SR systems Where sribsurface drainage is impeded by shallow groundwater or by a .rel?tively
impermeable layer in the soil profile. The u:n.derdrains serve to

remove th~ water from the subsurface and thus allow wastewater
application : rates to continue without saturating the root zoneor otherwise affecting performance.
The ~ajor consideration in adding underdrai:ns is to maintain an
nnsatuxated aerobic zone the upper soil .Profile_ An unsaturated
tbickn,ess of 0.-6-1 m {2-3 ft) is considered to. be a minimum for effective aeFobic treatment. To maintain this unsaturated thickness .during operation may require either addition of underdrains or redn.ction
in the hydraulic loading rate for a site with a s:ibsmf'ace restriction..
The ,cost of ~Iing rmderdra:i:ns must be compared with the c ost ~f
developing a larger land ar-ea nrider a lower hyqraufic loading so that
rm.derdr.ains ~1 not be required_
Bmied p lastic pipes witb perfarations a_re eypi...cally. used for nn.derdrains. Open trenches. or ditches can also .be used; however.. if the
spacing~ .as close as 15 m (50 ft), the ditches .w ill consume too much
land and interfere with fanning operations.
.
Buried drains are typically about 1_'8-2.4 m (6-8ft} deep and about
10-1:5 em (4-6 in) in .d iam-eter. In sandy soils typical spacings are
10{).:-120 m (3Q0-400 ft), with a range of 60-300. m (200-1000 ft.) in
practice. In chiyey soils the spa.c ings are often closer, a typical range
being 15-30: m (5(}-100 ft)_ Procedures for determimng ..drai.n spacing
ared~cribed in Sec. 3_L
.
..
-. .: .: . .
-~'
.. _. ___ .
)"
......._
System
307
m~nagement
For SR systems to operate properly, the soil and crop must be well
managed. The soil conditions to be managed are the infiltratioi) rate,
compaction, nutrient status, and chemical characteristics.
Infiltration rates. Soil infiltration rates can be reduced in time as a
result of compaction or surface sealing. The causes include:7
Compaction of the surface soils by machinery, including harvesting

and cultivating equipment
Compaction froiJ?- grazing animals when the soil is wet
A clay crust developed by water droplets or water flowing over the
surface
Cloggirig resulting from buildup of suspended particles, organic

materiaL or trapped gases
The compaction or crnstmg can be broken up' by cultivating, plow-'
ing, or ether tilling operations.. Minimum tillage and no-till methods
minimize the cOmpaction of soils by heavy equipment. Actively grow.i ng vegetation and decomposing residual plant material can help
maintain infiltration rates at their maximum for the existing soil texture and structure. An illustration of the effeet of vegetation on infiltration rates is presented in Fig. 7 .6 .
.At sites where clay pans (hcird, nearly impermeable layers) have
formed and reduced the soil permeability, it may be necessary to plow
to a depth of 0.6-1.8 1!1 (2-6ft) or more to mix the impermeable soil
layers with more permeable surface soils. Low-permeability layers in
the .soil profile can be modified by deep plm\ring.'14 This method.sho.md
be COnsidered p~or to. system startup to improve the initial soil permeability. Periodic deep plowing may be r-equired if annual crops .a;re
w.:o~ whereas less frequent Plowing (at 5-year or longer intervals}
may be
. required if .perennial crops .ar.e grown.
Nutrient status.. . Daring SR system design,. the nutrient .status of the
soil Shonld be evaluated. Sufficient nitrogen,. phosphorus,. and potassimn

generiill:y supplied in most municipal wastewaters_ Potassium
is the nutrient that is most likely to be deficient, because it is usually
.present in concentrations of 10-15 mg/L in snch waters_ Some soils,.
IJarticolarly in the eastern United States, may be deficient in potassin:m:.: Ifthis nccurs,..the vegetation cannot function at anoptimum level
for nitrogen removal owing to the potassium imbalance. The need fur
sUPPI:elnental potassium fertilize1: can be estimated for tbis. situation
tiSing Eq_ 3_30.
are
_.,
Chapter Seven
308
Old permanent
7.0 .------.----....------.,------,----r-----::.,...., pasture or heavy
m~lch
50 1:----+----+----f---~---:J!'.c..--+--~~
.
E
U
.0
..__---+--'----i----~-,"-----:+71""---+--~~
3-4 yew old

permanent pasture
ligh11y grazed
Permanent pasture
moderotely grazed
Hay
c
....
-
'E 3.0 I - - -- - + - --+T:-F--f--7,c;....-:;;;oo+...-:::;;.-
pasture
--t---:::::;;-""'1 Permanent
heal~~ gmzed
Sirip- cropped or
mixed cover
2.0 r----r~~r:P..~---::j;7"'""""'-4----::::::::j:::;;;;;;;-o-j, Weeds or groin
10
20
40
30
50
60
Time. min
Figure 7.ii Effect of vegetation on infiltration rate.
For SR ~ystems the soil chemical eharacm addition to so il n .n trients,. are pH,
excllangeable so_d ium -percentage~ and salinity or-electrical condnetivitY- The rang-es of acceptable values afthese parameters are presented
in Tahle .2.15.
Soil pH can be :raised by addingJime or Iowa-ed by adding gypsum
(acidulating material L Exchangeable s odium can be reduced by addition of sulfur materi-als or calcium materials .(such as .g ypsmn) fol1owed by Ie.!:l.ching t o :remove the displaced sodium. Salinity control
may require added leaching {increasing percolate flow} for type 2 SR
systems.
SoU chemical characteristics.
teristics Of impar~ce,
Ag.riculfurat ~rap management. .A..'ln.ual field crops require .field preparatio~ p13ntin~ cnltiV:ati~ and harvesting. Perennial forage .crops
require less managemen~ with the grass being periodically harvested
by cutting or grazing. Soil moisture at hanresttime shcrnld be low
enough that compaction from harvesting quipment :or anii:nai hooves
is nrinimize.i l The time required between the last wastewater applica-
309
tion and harvesting depends on soil texture and drainage and the
weather. On. coarse-textured soils the drying time can be as little as
3-4 days. 15 On fine-textured soils or where drainage is poor, a drying
tlme of i- 2 weeks is usually sufficient if there is no significant precip~
itation.
Forest crop management. Most forested SR sYStems are designed for

existing forests, 10 and tree harvesting is not practiced in m ost of these
systems.
If harvesting of existing forests is desired~ selective harvesting and
thinning are recommended. Excessive thinning can promote gro~h
of understory vegetation and can make trees susceptible to Wind
throw. Thinning to develop the proper forest composition and vigor
should be done prior to construction and about once every 10 years to
minimize site damage and soil erosion. Wastewater applicati~s to
harvested areas should be reduced tempora.rily7 tD allow the forest
ecosystem to restore its treatment capacity.
System monitoring
..
Slow-rate systems should be monitored (1) 1.0 ensttre that the desire.d
treatment perfOrmance is being achieved, (2) to determine if any corrective measures are needed to protect the environment or to. maintain the treatment capability, and (.3) to aid in system operation.
Monitoring shotlld normally include the wastewater quality and in
many cases the groundwater quality. In -eertain eases monitoring of
the soil or vegetation may also be advisable.. The values for .soil chemical properties in Table 7.10 can be used in soil monit.oring pxogrnms.
For type 2 SR systems the chemical p roperties of the wastewater
to be applied .should be compan~d with the values in Table 7 .10 to
determine the potential effects Bn crops .a nd soils from sp.ecific constituents. For wastewaters with less than 0.7 dS/m (decisiemens per
meter~ or mmbos per centimeter) a leacbing. :fraction -of lii percent
w:ouid be acceptable and no other management practices wunid be
required. 44 For clay soils it is important tu -co-nsider the sodium
adsorption ratio in order to avoid soil permeability problems_
7
7.3
Overland-AowSystems
Design objectives
Overland flow systems can be designed to achieve secondary treatment, advanced secondary treatment, or nutri-ent removaL depending
on treatment requirements_ To achie,re secondacy treatment.,. the
preapplication opei:ation generally consists .o f fine sC'.l"eenini. primary
treatment, or equivalent treatment.
310
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.10
Guidelines for Interpretation of Water Quality for Irrigation""'
Potentia l
problem
Salinity
EC*
TDS*
Permeability <based
on SAR and EC>t
SAR = 0--3
SAR= 3-6
Units
dS/m. mmhos/cm
mg/L
SAR is Tlllitless
EC in d.S/m
SAR= 6-12
SAR = 12-20
SAR= 20-40
Specific ion toxicity
Sodiuht
SUrface-applied
Sprinklers
Chloride
Surfate-applied
Sprinklers
Boron
Degree of restriction on use

Slight to
None
moderate
Severe
0.7
0.7-3.0
45{}-2000
<450
EC>0.7
EC>L2
EC>1.9
EC>2..9
EC>5.0
0.7-09'
1.2-0.3
L9-0.5
2.9-L3
<3
<70
3-9
>70
<1.40
140--350
>100
0.7-3.0
5.{}-2.9
<100
<0.7
>3.0
>2000
<0.2
<0.3
<0.5
<L3
<2.9
>9
>350
>3.0
*EC is electrical condnctitity in decisiemens per meter and IDS is total dissolved solids.
tUse SAR CsoOium a!Lt::Orytian ratio) together with EC to e.-aluate potential effects ou soil
penneability.
Advanced .secondary treatment {15 mg!L of BOD and SS) can typiC?llY be achieved with additional preapplication treatment or lower
application rntes.43 Remo.val of nitrogen reqUires somewhat lower
application rates than are used for BOD removal. 21 Phosphorus
rez.noval reqnir.es either pre- or postapplication treatment_
site selection
in
Pr.ocecfures for OF site selectir.m are presented

Chap_ 2. Overland
flow is generally best suited to sites With snrface soils that have permeabilities of (t5 cmJh (;().2 inlh} or less. This low penneability is
already present When fhe site contains fine-textured clay or clay loam
soils, o r it can be develaped ny mnipacting a somewhat more permeable soiL Acceptable .sites :ea:n also have a restrictive Iayer;- snch"as
har.d.pan or cia~ .at depths of0.3-0.6 m (1-2 ft), which will result
in limited deep percolation.
Preapplicationtr.eaflatem
Experience has shown that minimum levels of p:reapplication treatments can be successful -when the treatment includes fine screening
.:
3.11
of municipal wastewater. L:Jo.:Ji.:J9 Fine screening, primary sedimentation, or a ! -day-detention-time aerated pond should be considered for
preapplication treatment, depending on waste\vater characteristics,
slmlge-handling concerns, and the remoteness of the site. The EPA
recommends screening plus aeration (not romplete-mix activated
sludge) for urban locations. Remo'\~ai of algal solids from OF syStems
is difficult.2945 Preapplication treatment processes such as nonaerated ponds with long detention times are not recommended for OF systems.
Cli~ate and st~rage
The OF process js affected by both cold weather and rainfall Cold

weather reduces the treatment performance and usually requires
storage instea9 of continued app1ication as indicated in Fig. 2.2.
Rainfall also affects the perfannance of OF systems in terms -of BOD
and SS concentrations and mass discharges. 12. The effects on BODare
minimaL however, and storn==-oe is :n{Jt; necessary dwi,t:tg normal rainfall events. If mass loadings of SS or strict SS concentrations must be
m.aintaine(L applications may need t~ be curtailed during some rainfall events.
7
Design procedure
The empirical approach to OF design has been to seleet a h_ydranlic

loading rate based on successful practice at other locations_ The
hydraulic loading :rates have generally ranged from 2 to 1'(} cm/d {0.8
to 4 in/d).. Recent research,. however,. has shown that process. perl'ormance is :related mme closely to application rate than to hydraulic
loading rate:.35..36 The relationship between hyd:ra:nlic Ioadmg rate and
application :rate is shown in Eq_ 7.10:
qP{l{){}.crnJm}
{7_10)
where
L :m = h_ydranlic ~:aifingrate; crn!d (in!d)
.
q = application rate per unit w:idth g the slop~ .m~lh - m
~Drin-ft}
.
P' = application peri-od,. hid
Z = slope Ie~ m (ft)
Application rate. The relationship among application r.ate, slope length,
and BOD removal for nmnicipal wastewater is shown in Eq. 7.11:
' ~..~ ..:. ...
':.
312
Chapter Seven
\~ c = Aexp( -q~)
(7.111
where C.= effluent BOD concentration at point Z, mg/L

= residual BOD at end of slope
= 5mg/L
Cn = BOD of applied wastewater, mg/L
Z = slope length, m
q = application rate, m=1/b - m
K,. n = empirical constants
The equation is. presented graphically in Fig. 7.7 for primary eflluent: It has been validated for screened raw wastewater and primarjr
effluent, as shown in Table 7 .11., but not for industrial wastewater with
BOD values of 400 mg/L or .m ore. Althoug4 the 5 mg/L of BOD is called
"'residnal" BOD, it is more likely that it represents decaying organic
matter from the slope rather than a omponent of the influent BOD.
SfoJle {ength. Treatment -performance has been shown to lJe a function of slope length for BOD. SS. and nitr{)gen. 46 The higher the
degree of treatment required., the longer t he slope length must be.
Typically, t.be slope length will range from 30 to 60m (100 to 200ft)_
For surface appli~ation (gated pipe, etc_), the slope length should be
30-45 m {1:08-150 ftt For higher-pressure sprinkler application,
whlcll is -cypically used -with industrial wastewaters ofhigber SS content: the slope lengtb is usually 45-60 m (150-200 ft); however, the
minimum leffocrth should usually be 20 m {66 ft) greater than the wet
ted diameter a:f the sprinkler .application area.
srope gta.de... Grades from 1 to 12 percent have been used for OF systems. At Paris, Texas, the optimn:m range was found to be 2-6 percent.30 Grades beyond 8 peFcent increase the risk <Jf erosion, while
gt:ades: les-s than 1 percent increase the risk :Of ponding in low spo'4;.
Application period:.. Application periods nsnally range from 6 to 12 h
each day for 5 to 7 days a l.veek. Typically., an 8-h/day period is selected in order tu be compatible with normal work schedules.
Occasionally~ OF systems can o.perate 24 b/day fur relatively short.
periods.42 T..b..e ability to oxidize ammonia is impaired with .an application schedUle heynnd 12 h on and 12 h ofE21 The 8-h-on and '1:6-h.-oif
scliednle allows the total area t o be d ivided into three subareas and
rm: the system to operate .24 hiday when r-equired.
Organic loading rates fur OF are limited to :the

oxygen transfer efficiency into and through. the thin film o f wasteOrganie loading rntes.
313
1.00r--------r--~----~------~--------or---------
Q80r-------~------~~------~------~~------~
c
0
........
0.20 '
lll
(J
c
c
0
E
~
,.._
c:
-...
0
0.10
n os
0..06 ','
ll>
0.04
I
t
f'
0.:02 :---------'------____,~------+.--------ir--------l
Fa.:nffyuf fmesrepresent .
. I
diffecent opplico:titm
cat~m3/hm
o~o1~--------------~------~~------~------__.
10
.2 0
.5 0
40
50
Distance downslope, m
'F igure 7J BOD fraction remaining versns: distance down :slope for different appli.cat:ion
:;:ate:.s with primary effluent.
water (usually O.fi -em deep or less.) en th-e slope. The limiting rate
a:ppearir to be about 10-0 kg/ha d (89 lb/ac , -d} ~{} avoid excessive
anaerobic conditions on th-e slope. The organic loading rat-e can be cal-
culated from Eq_ 7.1?.

(7.12)
314
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7~.1: 1 Comparison of Actual and Predicted OF Effluent BOD

Concentrations Using Primary and Raw Wastewater3 6
Applied
wastewater
Location
Application
rate
3
(m /h m )
S lope
length
0.25
0.37
0.12
0.10
0.13
0.21
30.5
30.5
30.5
36
36
53A
Primary
Hanover. ~T}l
Primary
Primary
Ada. OK
Primary
Easley SC
Raw
Raw
(m)
BOD concentration
. (mg/L)
Actual
Predicted
17
16.3
17.5
9.7
8.2
9.9
9.6
19
8.5
8
10
23
.
.
whereL8 on =BOD loadingrate kglha d (lb/ac .d)
0.1 = conversion factor (0.225 in U.S. units)
Lu. = hydraulic loading, cm/d (in/d)
7
qPWm!Z
= application rate
m 3/h m {gal/min ft)

P = application period, h
.
W = w idth of application slope.. m (ft)
Z = le:ngth o~ application slope7 m (ft)
m = conversion factor
= 100 .c m/m ~96.3 for U.S. units)
C{} = BOD of applied wastewater, mg/L
q
When the BOD of the applied wastewater exceeds about 800 mg/L,
theoxygen transfer capacity of OF systems b-ecomes limiting. To overcome this constraint, one industrial wastewater system used an effinent recycle system_ The raw wa...c::tewater7 with a :BOD of 1700-1800
l:llg/'4 was diluted l:l .and "3:1 with sys~ runoff in a p!1ot stud_y.28
The resnitant BODremoval was 97 percent at a BOD lnading rate of
~6 kg/ha- d {50 Ib/ac d). The concept has been proved on. a full-scale
basis at Rosenberg,-.Texas.
Suspended solids foad~gs.. With the exception of algae'T wastewater
solids will generally, not b e lim-iting in OF :System -d-e signs_

Suspended solids are effectively removed on the slopes by sedimentation and filtration becanse o f the low velocity and :the shallow depth
.of flow_ When surfa.ce..,application method~. are use~ most of the SS
is remaved within the first few meters of the application point. This
can create sludge problems with (industrial) wastewaters of high SS
conte~ and the l:1:Se of sprinklers for more uniform distribution is
reconrmendecl.
- .
315
Nitrogen removal. Nitrogen removal is dependent on adequate

BOD/nitrOgen ratios, adequate detention time (low application rates
and. long slopes), and te~perature. Nitrification and denitrification
account for inost of the nitrogen removal.31 Soil temperatures below
4C will limit the nitrification reaction. Denitrification appears to be
most effective when screened raw or primary effluent is applied,
because of the high BOD/nitrogen ratio. The application of municipal
effiuents with nit.iate instead of ammonia to OF slopes results.in very
little nitrogen removaL26 Apparently, the initial.r~tention of ~onia
in the soil by adsorption iS an important first step, prior to nitrification and denitrification.
Up to 90 percent removal of ammonia was reported at 0.10 m 3Jh m
(0.13 gal/min- .ft) at the OF system .in Davis, Califomia.21 Slope
lengths of45-6G m (150-200 ft) may be required to achieve this level
ofammoniarem.aval36
At Garland, Texas, nitrifica~ion studies were conducted with secondary -e ftluent to determine if a 2-ing{L sUiilmer limit for ammonia
.. and ? 5 -mgt.L.winter limit could be attained. Removal data for the two
~: periods are presented in Table 7.12 for these different application
rates. Wmter air temperntu:res :canged from. 3 to 21C (26 to 70F).
The recommended application .rate for Garland was 0.43 m 3 Jh. m
(194 in/d) for a 10-h operating day and a terrace length. of 61 m (200
ft}with sprinkler app1ication.41
t.andt"equir.ements
The field area required for OF depends on the flow, the application
ra~ the slope length., and. the period of applkation, as shown in Eq.
7_13,.wmcll. assmn~s no- seasonal wastewater storage; .
'TASIE7:..12 Ammonia Cancenbatfons(m mgll} Jn.Overland 'Flow System at

. Gaifan~ Texas47
Length:~:lownslope- (m)
Applicati~n
Months
S IJIIII rpr
~-Oct..
WI.IItei
Nov.-Feb:.
~te (m3Jh m)
46'
61
'9:1.:
0.57
0.43
0.33
0.57
.0.43
1.51
fMi5
0 .40
0.27
0..12
0.14
2.7fr.
o~oa
0'..11
0'.{)3
1.83
0.39
0.28
9:.90'
0:03
0.1.4
0:.33
1.29
0.13
Note: Summer applied ammonia nitrogen = 16.0 mg/L; winter applied ammonia nitrogen
= 14...lmi)L..
...-;,.
316
Chapter Seven
QZ
(7.13)
A = --~
qPC
v~here As
= field (surface) area required, ha (ac)
Q . . .: wastewater flow rate, m 3/d (gaUmin)

Z = slope length, m dt)
q = application rate, m 31h - m (galimin . ft)
P = perioa of applicatio~ li
C = conversion factor
= 10~000 m 2/ha (726 in U.S. units)
If waste~ater sto~e is a project requirement, the field area is

determined usingEq. 7.14:
A s
where V s
D =
Lu =
C' =
-
365Q+V
s
DLu:C'
(7.14)
net loss or gain in storage volume

due to precipitation,
.
evaporatio.n, _a nd seepage~ m 3/yr (ft3/yr)
number cf operating days per year
.
design hydraulic 1oading{.see Eq. 7.12 for definition},.-cn;Ifd
(in/d)
conversian factor
100 (metric), 3630 (U.S.)
If the organic loading rate is limiting, the field area can be calculated using Eq. 7.15:
A = CC"Q
0
a
.:;
(7.15)
L _I.BOD-
where _4.. = field are~ ha

. (ac)
Crj = BOD of applied wastewater, mg/L
CJr = conversion factor
= 0.1 (metric units-} 16.24 x l:{)-- 5 (U.S. units))
3
Q:a = design flow
. rate to the OF site~ m /d (ft7/d}
LLBOD = limiting BOD loading r.ate
= 100 kglha d (89.fb/:ac d}
~
Exampre 7.4 Determine the field area reqtiirements fur a municipal OF system
to treat 4000 m 3/d. The primary effiuent has a BOD 6f 15(} mg/L ,and the efflne-nt d:iscl:xazge BOD limit is 30 mgz'L. Assume 20 days of storage..
solution
1. C<?rripute the required. removal ratio.
cz - 5 =
CO
.30 - 5 =
15(}
n.
"F..,.
U .LI
317
U~ing Fig. 7.7. entelf~he graph .at a BOD remaining fraction of0.17 and proceed to the maxirntulll: application rate, or 0.37 ma,' h m: The resulting slope
length .is 30 m.
.
.3. Select an application period of 8 h. per qay.
4. l)sing a safety factot"'of.L5, compute the 'design application rate q.
2.
037 0 25 '>lh
q = --=
- mv m
1.5
5. Calculate the hydraulic loading rate.
,. = ~
z
=
(O.~ri(S)
= 0.067 m/d
6. Calculate the nwnber of operating days.

365 - 20 = 345 d/yr.
7. Assuming that the seepage and evaporation from the storage pond off:-et the
precipitation, calculate the field area.
A,. = (345)(0.067 m/d#lO,OOO m 2/ha)

= 6.3-ha
The application rate used for design of municipal OF syst-ems

depends on the LDF, the climate, and to some extent,. the preapplication treatment level. Suggested application ~tes .and hydra.nlll: loading rates are pr-esented in Table 7.13.
. .
Winter opgration. Cold-weather storage requirements are not well
defined for OF systems because of the limited nperating ~xpe:::ience
available_ Figure 2 .2 presenis some. general guidelines based on geographic location_ Oper.ations can. continue at soil temperatures n~
oac and v..ith surface application systems .beneath..a.~aw corer_ ..
Wastewata- .app1ieatien5 shonld cease when an ice oover fmms Qn the
slope. Opern.tinn of sprinkler systems..can be very difficnlt at air- temperatures: below .freezing. In locations where night-tiine temper.atnJ;-es
full below ooc.(32F) but daytime temperatures exceed 2C (36"F): ~
day-only upe~ may be chosen in which all the ne1d area is nse;d
. within 10--12 h.
Storage~ .The- winter or opernting storage pond sh.(}uld be located
.off-line so that it .contains wastewater for only the minimum time..
The pond .should oe drained as soon a,s possible when applieation per~ so that algae_.growtn is minimizeiL As indicated in Chap. 4 .,. stor-
318
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.13
Application Rates Suggested for Overfand Flow Design
Stringent
requirements and
cold climates
Preapplication
treatment
Screening!
primary
Aerated cell
(1-d detention)
Secondary
Moderate
requirements and
climates
m3/
hm*
emf
d
mJ/
emf
hm
0.07-0.1
0.16--0'.25
. 3-5
0.08-0.1
0.16-0.33
0.16-0.2
0~-0.33
Least stringent
requirements and
warm climates
m3/
hm
em/
d
0.25-0.37
5-7
3-6
0.33-0.4
4-6
0.~.4
*m3Jh - m X L34 = gal/min ft.
age ponds are generally more than 3 m (10 ft) deep to minimize the .
land are~ required_
Vegetation selection
The grass used on the OF slopes is important~ its ability to provide

a support medinm for microorganisms~ to p1inimize erosiD~ and to
take up nitrogen and phosphorus. The crop is not ~ended to be marketed unl~ss the ~ther important functions
.fulfilled. The grass
should be perennial species, have high moisture tolerance, have a
long growing season,. and be suited to the local climatic con.ditiOJ?:S. A
list of grasses commoni~y used in OF systems is presented in Table
'7 .14- .
A mixture of grasses- is :rerommen:ded fur most sites. The mixture
should include warm-season and r:ool-season species,. as well as sod
formers and biiD.Ch grasses. Some grasses, snch as reed ean.ary grass,
are slow to become established and reqa:ire a nTT"S:E=e er:op such. as
annual rye grass far gronnd rover d n iug t4e early part .o f the first
operational season.. Rye grass will not u:snally last more than a few
years<m the slope..
Local agricultural .advL~s shouldbe consui:ted to select the g rasses
listed in Table 7 ~4.. Pn:re stands Jf ~es snch. .as Jclln.san grass~
yellow forlail~ and most grass species that have a single seed stalk
should be avoided.
_
. Most of the grasses for OF are establis~ed by seeding., alth<mgh
coastal Bem:mda and other improved Bennuda grasses need to he
sprigged. Details on. seeding and e~lisbm~nt ofOF grasses are provided in Ref. 42. Hydroseeding may also be used if the range of the
distributor is adequate to provi~e coverage of the slop:es withant
v.ehicnlartravel on.the seedbed.
are.
. ...
Land Treatment Systems .
TABLE 7.14
319
Perennial GrassesSuitable fc;>r OF Systems4 ~
Common name
Rooting
characteristics .
Growing
. he ight (em)
Cool-Season Grasses
Reed canarY
Tall.fescne
Redtop
Kentucky bluegrass
Orehard grass
Sod
Bunch
Sod
Sod
Bunch
120-210
90-120
60-90
30-75
15-60
Warm-Season Grasses
Common Bermuda
Coastal Bermuda*
Dallis grass
Bahia
Sod
Sod
Bunch
60-120
SOd
60-120
30-45
3()....6(} .
Includes other improved Bermuda~ varieties.
,.
..
The grasses should be watered with a portable sprinkler system as

soon as seeding is complete_ Short)' frequent waterings with fresh
wat er are preferred, and no runoff should be allowed. The permanent
wastewater distribution system should not be used until the grass is
well established, to avoid eroSion pf the bare soiL Th~ first~ cuttings should be allowed to remain on the slope to help lmil.d.up the
mganic mat, provided that .t he clippings are relatively short [15 em (6
in)}:.. An OF system may take3 -4 months o f acclimation and start-up
before full treatment capability is established..
Distribution system
Municipal wastewater can be snrfae-applied to OF systems; however, industrial wastewater should he .sprinkler-applied.. Sur.fuce .application using gated pipe offers. lower energy d~d and avoids
aerosol generation_ Slide gates .at 0.6-m (2-ft) spacings are recommended over screw-adjusted orifices.. Pipe lengths o.f160. m {30.0 ft) .or
more require in-line valves to allow adequate .t;low control and isola:. iion ofpipe segments for separate operation.

Sprinlder distribution is recommende4 f<>r wastewater with :BOD or
ss levels of aoo mg/L or more. Impact sprinklers located about onethird of the way down. the slope are generally used. Wind speed ~nd
dir-ection ~ust be considered in locating sprinklers and in dete:nnin.ingthe -overlap in the spacing b etween .spriniders.
-- ~
--
320
Chapter Seven
Slope design and construction
Even naturally occurring slopes mus~ be regraded or reshaped t9

ensure a smooth swface for uniform flow of water down the slope.
Design methods are detailed in Ref. 41.
Wnere extensive cut-and-fill opt:.rations are used, settling of the fill
sections may occur after rough grading. If such precipitation is
absent, it may be necessary to water the slope and correct for any settling that occurs thereafter. Existing depressions shocld be brought
level vvith adjacent areas. ~ith 15-cm (6-in) lifts compacted to the
density of the adjacent nndk-tnrbed soils.
After the slopes have been formed in the rough-grading operation, a
heavy disk should be used to break up the large clods of soil A land
plane should then be used to smooth out the slope_ Typically, a grade
tolerance of L5 c::m. (0.05 ft> from th.e final elevations. can be achieved
with three passes ofthe l~d plane.
Runoff colfectior.
Treated effiut31't is usually collected in open drainage chann.els at the

toe of the slope_ There may be cases in ~~..ich the d.rai:nage channel is
lined or cnn:verted into a pipeline. ECL.rthen. ollection channels are
n...cmally Yegetated 'vith the same g rass species as the slopes and are
graded to prevent erosio!L Si4e slopes on V-type channels .!:)hould no.t
exceed4:L
Unless UPstream
drainaae is channeled around the OF site., .the
drainage channels and discharge structures should be designed for
tbe discharge from the entire sit~ nfrt just the OF slopes. Drainage
cllannel:s should have ad~e c apacity to contain the peak rate of
nmQf;f from a 25-year, 24-:n &eqn:ency ston:n, with 0.1 m (4 in) of freehoard as a nrinimliiD...
~
Recyding
For high-st:ro...ngth. indu:s:t:rial.w~ater., a recycle opeFation to blend

treated nm.rrEf w!:th influent wa....c:tewater may be practical. The colleetinn syst~ ffiould include a .sump from ~him the treated runoff can
be pumped back fu the distnlmtion system. Storm.water runoff should
be allowed to bypass therecyclesnmp andhe,discnarged directly.
System mana9.e ment and manrrormg
Overland-flew systems require minimal management. The grass

should be cut twa .a r three ~es per year. The cu:ttmgs.can be left on
the slope nnless nitrogen :remuval 1s a project expectatian. .If the .cut
321-
grass is too tall, i.e., higher than :30 em (12 in). it should be removed
so as not to smother the new growth.
Slopes must be sufficiently dry before mowing that no ruts or
depressions are formed. The drying time may range from a few days
to 2 weeks, depending on the soil and climatic conditions.
Weeds and native grasses will often begin growing on the slopeS.
They are of concern only if they invade and replace the planted species,
especially if the weeds or native grasses are annual species and replace
the perenirial grasses intended for the system. In some cases burning of
the weeds or disking and reseeding of grass may be necessary.
System monitoring includes influent and runoff quality af:ld flow,.
groundwater quality and levels, surface-water quality, anq soil and
. vegetation characteristics. Only two groundwater-monitoring wells are
usually needed, unless groundwate!:' levels are relatively high i>r permeable soils are used. Measurements of surface-water .q uality above
and below the final point of system discharge are usually required.
Monitoring of soils and vegetation is similar to that fo:r SR systems~
7 ..4
Rapid-Infiltration Systems
Process design procedures and examples for Rl .s ystems are presented

in this section. Details on the critically important site selection and
infiltration testing are pres~nted in Chap. 2., and groundwater management and drainage fmidamentals. are presented in Chap. 3.
Design Objectives
The design objectives for RI systems can include treatment followed by:
Recharge of streams by interception of gronn~ate:r
Recovery of water by wells or under.drains,.. with. .subsequent rense
or discharge
Groundwater recharge
s Temporary storage of :renovated watermmeaqiiifet -

The typical use ofRI involves-the indirect recharge of adjacent surface wat~ with occasional systems having underdrains.8
Design procedure
The pro-cess design pr-ocedure f(}r RI systems is ou:tlined in Table 7_15.

The first step is to..Characterize th~ slte adequately., as des~n"bed in
Chaps. .2:~d 3. The potential fu:fi!tration rate is based on the infiltration testingperfm:med at the site. Generally., the-mean of a number of
steady-state test results is used :as the basis for this determination.
322
Chapter Seven
TABLE 7.15
_Pro~edures
for Rapid-Infiltration Process Design

Description
Step
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Determine the potential infiltration rate.

Predict the hydraulic pathway.
Determine treatment requirements.
Select preapplication treatment leveL
Calculate the annual hydraulic loading rate.
Calctilate field area.
Check for grouruhvater mounding:.
Select the final hydraulic loading cycle.
Determine the application rate.
Detetmine the nmnber of basins.
Determine the monitoring requirements.
,,
...
...:.
.:=::7'
...
The site work should also include numerous backhoe pits and soil
borings to determine the.snbsu.rface lithology. Based on the soil profile and hydrogeology of the site,. the hydraulic pathway of the treated
percolate can be predicted. The percolate will flow to groundwater
unless a subsurface layer impedes the vertical flow .
.Treatment perf~ce
The treatment performance of RI systems generally improves as the

hydraulic loading rate decreases. The improvement in BOD and SS
removal is only s~t for loading rates less than 10.0 mlyr (330 ft/yr).
The improvement is more marked for nitrogen and phosphorus
and if removal of these constituents is reqo.ire4 the loading
rate :fur them sho:riid be considered_ In addition., organic loading r ates
for industrial wastewaters should be checked.
removar,:
Nitrification-
Ammonia: remc.val by nitrification can be readily accompf"l:Shed by RL

Alth~ nitrifi.cafion is atrected bytempern:tnre, recent e xperience at
Boulder~ Cofurado,. has Shown that nitrification can .{)CCur even at a
temperature of 4cc (40-::l)_28 Reducing the application rates. in.the .
cold :periods will compensate f'or redUced rates ofnitrification .and will
also allow more ofthe applied ammonia to be absorbed by the soil
Nitrification rates as .high as 67 kg!ha - d (60. 1b/ac d} have been
reported;1>.t Ammonia loading rates should not .exceed this value if
nitrification 1~ a treatment objective.. The loading cycle fur nitrification sheuld consist of 1-3 days of flooding followed by 5-10 days ~r
drying to restore aerobic conditions in the near-surface soil profile-.
Land Treatment Systems'
323
Nitrogen removal
Nitrogen removal by denitrification in RI systems requires both adequate detention time and adequate organic carbon to be effective..
Generally~ primary effiuent with a BOD/nitrogen ratio of 3:1 or hjgher provides adequate organic carbon .for the denitrification reaction.
Secondary effiuent, however, contains insufficient organic carbon to
achieve more than about 50 percent nitrogen removaL To improve
nitrogen removal with secondary effiuent, it is necessary to flood the
basins for as long as 7-9 days, followed by 12-15 days of drying.
Nitrogen removal is also- related to the infiltration rate, as demonstrated with secondarv
effluent at Phoenix, Arizona22 As. shown in
.
Fig. 7 .8, nitrogen removal increased in the column studies from about
30 'to 80 percent when the infiltration rate decreased from 30 to 15
cm/d (12 to 6 in/d)_
To achieve 80 percent nitrogen r-emoval in RI systen:is, it appears
that the following maximum infiltration rates shon:ld not be exceeded:
Pri:mm:y efiluent: 20 cm/d (8 iD/d)
Secondary effluent: 15 c:niid (6 in!aj
T.ne design _proredme fi?r mtrogen removal :in RI s,ystems is as follows.
10
20
30 4'0 5060
Infil1rotion rote.. em/day
agur:e 7.11. Effect of infiltration rate on: nitrogen

removal.
324
Chapter Seven
1. Calculate the mass of ammonia nitrogen that can be adsorbed as
ammonium based on the cation-exchange capacity of the soil.

2. Based on the wastewater ammonia concentration and daily application rate (hydraulic loading rate in meters per cycle divided by
the number -o f days of application per cycle), calculate the length of
the loading period that can be used \vithout exceeding the mass
loading from step 1.
3. Compare :the ammonia and organic nitrogen (combined) loading
rate with the 67 kglha d (60 Ib/ac d) criterion to ensure that
nitrification can be expected..
4. Based on the ammonium adsorption capacity (step 1 ), establish

the length of the acceptable loading period. The drying penod to
achieve nitrification and denitrification should be selected from
Table 7~16.
5. Balance the nitrate nitrogen produced again::,-;; the BOD applied to
ensure .an adequate BOD/nitrogen ratio.
6. Reduce the infiltration rate as necessary to produce the nitrogen

removal needed. The infiltration rate can be reduced by lowering
the depth of flooding, by incorporating finer-textured soils i.Tlto the
soils of the basin~s rnfiltratiori surface, or by compacting tbe soil.
Nitrification and denitrification \vill be reduced in cold weather.
Continued application during freezing conditions will result in accumulation of ammo:n:inm in the soil profile. In the sprin~ with the
onset of warm weather, nitrification of the adsorbed ammonimn will
result in a high concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the perco-late
"F.ABLE 7.16
Suggested Loading Cycles for Rapid lnfi1trafioW1
Objecth~e
3fari:mize
infiltration. rate
~!arimize
Wastewater
type
Season
Primacy
Application
period tdr~
Dl'}ing
periodfdl
Summer
~2
5-7
Winter
I- 2
7-12
Secondary
Smnmer
W""urter
1-3
1-3
~i)
Primz.ry
Summer
Winter
1-2
1-2
W.zn:ter
1-3
1-3
nitrifieaticn
Secondary
r~Iaximize
S~er
P:rimarj
Summer
1-2
Secondary
\V"mt-er
Summer
Winter
1-2
7-9
:9-!2
n...tr-ogen removal
5-lD-
5-7
7- 12
4-5-
5-10
JJ)-14
12-16
10-15
12:-16
"'Rega.rdle-ss of sea_.-::on or objecth-:e-. ~plication periads for pr:i.mary effluent should be Iimited "to 1...:2 days to pre\'ent e:..:cessive soil clogging.
325
until the de nitrifying bacteria become active and can begin to assimilate the available nitrate. 24 For systems that require nitrogen
removal throughout the year some winter storage may be required at
cold climate locations.
T
Phosphorus removal
The phosphorus-removal capability of an RI system can be estimated

by using Eq. 3.29. The detention time is critical and is a function of
the percolation rate through the soil profile and of the flow distance.
If the flow distance is insufficient, reevaluation of the selected site or
use of some other method for phosphorus removal may be necessar:Y.
The infiltration rate can be reduced by compacting the soil or by lowering the depth of wastewater application_ These changes can influence the residence time in the near-surface soils but will have little
effect on.the deeper natural profile.
Phosphorus removal at -existing RI systems is better than would be
predicted :from Eq:. 3.29 since the flow is actually unsaturated in the
near-surlaee profileT and the equation assumes ~worst-case~ saturated
flow and th~"":e:fare a sh.orter detentron tia'"!le. Removals at five .RI svs'"'
tems are presented in Table 7.17~ along with the travel distance to
the sampling point. As indicated in. Chap. 3, phosphorus .adsorption
tests -can be conducted with site-specific soils if phosphorus removal is
critical.
Once the treatment requirements have been established and the

eapacity of the Rl system for treatment deterniined:t the l~vel of
preapp!ica:tiontreatment can he selected.. For municipal wastew.qter
the appropriate level of preapplication treatment is typically primary
sedim.entation.. An equivalen-t level of SS :removal can be achieved
with a short-detention-ti:m.e pond. The advantage of the pond is the
saving in s!ndgehandling, treatment, and disp_o;;~
TASl.E7-17 ~bospharos RemovaJ D atafor Serected
m Systems u
Pen:olate
Appned
,concent:mtion.
Distance to
s amplepaint
conceiitnd:ion
Removal
Location
(mg/L}
(m}
(lngtL)
(%)
C-:.>Jumet 1\fi
'
Dan Region,
Israel
3.:5
1700
150
61}3
2.1
Ft Devens. ~fA
Lake Gen.~. NY
9"~0
45
2.1
P.hoenix,.Xl.
5.5
600
.30
QD3
Q.lO
0.014
0.37
99
99
. 99
99
93
326
Chapter Seven
Long-de~ention-time
ponds of the type des.c ribed in Chap. 4 are generally not appropri~te for use ahead of RI basins. The algae produced
in oxidation ponds \vill significantly reduce the infiltration rates'in RI
systems. Biological treatment may be cost-effective prior to the RI
component in urban settings_
Hydraulic loading rates
The design hydraulic loading for an RI system is usually limited by

the hydraulic characteristics of the soil profile because of the intent to
apply .l arge volumes of wastewater to a relatively small surface area.
For some systems, however, the LDF may be the nitrogen or BOD
loading rate.
The potential infiltration rate ~ the st~dy-state rate at which
wastewater would be expected to infiltrate into the soil for a significant period of time. To account for the cyclical nature of RI loadings,
the normal variability of site conditions, and the limitations of the
relatively small-scale field-test procedures, a small percentage of the
potential infiltration rate is used for designpurposes to calculate the
annual hydraulic loading rate. If the basin infiltration test is used
and if' site conditions are generally unifol"ll4 the safety factor can be
7~15 pe~nt. For the much smaller-scale cylinder infiltrometer tests
or air-entry -permeameter measurements, the safety factor should
only be 2-4 percent because of the smaller zone of influence of these
test proredures. The selectio~ :of a specific safety factor dep,ends on
. the muxiber and type of field ineas~rements and their variability an~
{ffi the tmifor:m_ity of soil conditirms. When a large number of field
tests B!e condn~ the. results are not wide~y variable, and soil conditions are generally uniform over the site, the larger safety factors
-can..b"e used, as .shown in Table 7J.B.
&ample 7.5 Determ.inethe- hydraulic loading rate and the application rate for
anm s ystem
usiDg primaxy.effinent and with- the design intention ofmaximizing
.
.
TABlE7-1a: Design Safety.Factarfor.RI Hydraulic loaomgDetermination

Safety~
Procedore
Condition A*
Condition B-F
Basin flooding test

C.yfinder infiltrometer, aireo:t:ry-pe::meameter. and
similar s:n.cli-scaie te::-ts
7-10
lD--1-5
*Cbnservatrre range. tiSe-with variable field data or site conditions..

t Less conservative valne. appropriate when variations oftest re::.-ui.ts and site conditions
are low~
..
327 .
infiltration rates. 'IJle measured infiltration rate using the basin flooding test is 4
em/h. Few field tests were ronducted, and the results were quite variable.
solution
1. Compute the annual potential infiltration rate using the 4-cmlh steady-state
field test re3Ults.
(4 cmlhX24hfdX365 d/yr) =
mf
350 4
100 crn/m
yr
This is the potential annual rate at which water could infiltrate on a continuouS year-round basis if the soil profile were uniform and aerobic and
clogging did not occnr. Since none of these requirements is likely to prevai4
it is necessary tG use a safety factor from Table 7.18 for design.
2. Calculate the annual h_ydraulic loading. Since the test results were variable,
select a .c:onsenative percentage from Table 7.18; the range 7-10 percent'is .
appropriate. Use 8.5 J,ercent as the midpoint ofthe range.

. LID = (0.085)(350.4 If!./yr) = 29.8 mlyr
This annual hydraulic loading is the volume of water that might be
applied t.o the site on a year-round basis if there were no downtime for seasonal restrictions,. maintenance, or special operational cycles involving very
short wetting periods followed by a very long dcying period.. For the cypical
case this annual hydraulic loading can be determined prior to selection of
the wastewater Iaaamg ~ and it will be compatible with all oftbe cypi.c-d
loading cycles given in Tab!~ 7.16. If year-round operation is not intended, it
is necessary to reduce proportionally the annual hydraulic laa.d ing rate for
the nonoperatianai periods.
3. Determine the application ;rate. Since the design intent is to maximfre infilrates, select a Ioadin.g cycle {)f 2 days of application and 12 days of
drying from Table 7.16~ since"Winter conditions will control.
tration
Qy,cl.esperye3r =
365 il/yr = 26cycles/vr
1.4 d!cycle
Application rate per cycle? Lufcycles per year

-
29mlyr
elesf = L15 mlcycle
26 cy
.yr
_
L 15 mlcycle
0.58m/d
~a.ily:application rate = 2 &cycle
.
.
..
'This is the average d.ail_y application rate dnrilig the 2-day applieatirm
periOd at. the ;Start .af each cycle.. Thia application xate is less t!um the
steady-5tlrt:e infilt:ration :rate{4 cmlh X 2!! hfd/10(}. cm/m = 0.96 mld}7 SG all
the applied water should: infiltrate soon after the 2-<faN application periodis
completE; lea~ the balance of the remaining 12 da~ fur dcying of the
basins, Some clngging .may OCCtir after long-term operation, and eventually
mainten.a.nce will be lEquired. Assume, for example, that the iB:fiitration
.ratein tliiscaseis reduced to about 25 percent of'the measured steady-state
xate.{0~'96 mid) dw:ing'the second day of wastewater application, and calculate the total time required to fufiltrate the applied water.
/
0.515 mid
t = 1 + ((}..2SX0.96 mfd) = 3 .4days
328
Chapter Seven
This would .still leave almost 1 f day~ for drying, Vv-hich is adequate for
this type of system.
Organic loading rates
For RI systems the exact limit for organic loading has not been developed_ Experience with winery wastewater has shown that BOD loading rates above 670 kg/ha-d (60.0 lb/ac- d) can lead to odor problems. 9
A primary effiuent loaded at 8 cm/d and.'\rnth a 150-mgJL BOD level
would generate 120 kg/ha d ( 107 ib/ac - d) of BOD loadingy which
should not. cre~te odor problems.
Land requirements
Land requirements include the RI basins, access roads, preappiication treatment, plus any buffer zone or area for future ex:pansi<>n .
.Land for the required bottOm area in the RI basins is -c alcu1ated by
Eq_ 7.16. Additional area must be added. for dikes or berms and access
ramps.
CQ(365d/yr}
A.=
u:
where A = application area, ha (ac)

C = conversion. factor -_
= 10- 4 ha/m2 {3.06 x lo- 6 ac- ft/galJ
Q = average wastewater flow~ m 3id {million. gal/d)
Lw = annual loading rate, m/yr (ft/yr)
The land areas required for the nitrification and organic loading :rate
criteria should be checked. if applicable. Iflfrrger are~ are required
for these loading rates, the largest area shoul.d be :used.
~ber
The number of RI basins or .sets of basins

depends on the hydraulic loading cycle and the topography of the site.
The decision on :the
ot"baS:nls andthe m:unber to be flooded at
one time affects the distribution system hydraulics. The minjmum
number of basins required fora continuous flow ofw:a:stewater is presented in Table 7.19. A typical layout.of infiltration basins is. shown
in Fig. 7.9.
of- basin sets.
number
Application rate-- The applieati.ori rate is dete-rmined by tbe annual
loading rate and the hydraulic loading cycle.. To det.ermine the applicatiort rate, diVide the anm,.ralloading r~e by the nuinbei -of loading
cycles per year and then ,di,':ide the loading :per cycle by, the application period, as shown in Example 7.5.
TABLE 7.19
Minimum Number of AI Basins Required for Continuous

Wastewater Flow arid YearRound Application.;1
Application period
Drying period
(d)
. (dJ
5-7
5- 7
7- 12
7- 12
4-5
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
7
8
9
.7
8
9
4--5
4-5
S.:.lO
5-10
5-10
10-14
10-14
12- 16
12- 16
10-15
10-15
10-15
12-16
12-16
12-16
Minimum number
of basins
6-8
4--&
~!3
5-7
5-6
3--4
3
6-t'>
...
4--6
3-5-
11-15
6-5
1~1.7
7-9
3-4..3
3
S--4
3
3
'
.Figure7...9' Typical :r.apid'-'infiltration ba..sin layout.
329
330
Chapter Seven
Some temporary mounding of groundwater

beneath the basin due to percolate flow is acceptable, provided that it
does not interfere with infiltration at the basin surface and provided
that it dissipates quickly enough to allow for aerobic restoration of
the near-surface soil profile. Groundwater m~unding equations and
nomographs in Chap. 3 can be used to det~rmine if the groundwater
mound will interfere with RI operations. If mounding will interfere,
there are several opti.Qns to consider, ix:tcluding adjustment of.the
flooding and drying cycle,. alternation of the operations pattern. of
basin usage to minimize mounding, reduction in the loading rate, and
addition of underdrai:ns...42 Basins can be separated within the si~ if
practical; by placing preapplication treatment or ad.ministrative facilities between sets ofbasins.
Groundwater mounding.
Basin construction
Care should be taken in constructing Rl basins so as not to compact

...~~ infiltration surfaces_ The ~an shonltL if possible, avoid basin
coristruction on backfilled. ma:teria[s. This is because standard construction equipm~ will t.end tocampact the fill material and may do
rrreparable damage to the hydraulic properties ofthe soil
The permeability of.soil at a given field densicy ,c an vary depending
the moisture content of the soil at the time .of compaction. If a soil
containing signifi~ clay conte-nt is worked and compacted on the
"wet'" side ofthe optimum moisture ontent,. the penne3bility could
lower by an order ofmag:aitude than the value that might be expected
if the soil were placed -with the moisture conte-nt on the "dry" side of
optimum On the basis{}:[experience with failure .o f .RI .s ystems built
on :fill materiaL32. the follawfug :rerommenda:tiens apply if the use af
backfill is a project neeessicy:
on
be
one
l_ If:fif.f is to he usetL at least

na5ln flooding test ,should be con. due:ted m a ~..,.:fiR. which s1:rm:ilif he cim:stn:reted with the ~e
equipment intended fur full-scale cm1-c:trn..ctinn.. The width -ofthe test
fill a:rea: shouldbe twreeihe diameter nfthe test 'basin~ ami the
depth of the fill :3:umld be eqUal t.a the final design fill :depth or 1.5
m. {5ftl;.whicb.everis less_ Thedesign.hydraulie loading rate fur the
fill areas should be based on the results ofthese tests.

2.. Placement {)f any. fill ~ the infiltration. area shotild be conducted
rmlywhen the soil moisture cont-ent is on the dzyside ofnpti:mmn.
3_ Clayey .sands with a .c lay .content of 1.0 percent or moreare n:nsuitab1e for use as fill. :material in R1 b:asins_
4.. The crinstrnction sequence to be followed using dry soils is:
.a.. Cut or fill
to the specified elevation.
b:. Fme-grade to the specified tolerance.
331
c. Rip the bas.i n bottoms to a depth of 0.6-1 m (2-3ft) in two perpendicular djrections.
d. Disk the surface t.o break up ~onsolidated material.
The dikes around the RI basins need not be very high; 1 m (3 ft) or
less is usually adequate. Tall dikes increase the co~struction cost,
increase the potential for erosion~ and compound the problem of
access to the basinS. Erosion control of dike soils is. important during
construction to ensure that fine-textured materials are not washed
onto the infiltration surfaces in the basins. The use of silt fences or
other barriers is recommended until grass is established. A ramp into
each basin for maintenance equipment is essential.
W"mteroperation in cold climates
Rapid-infiltration systems can operate successfully on a year-round

~ as bas been shown in such cold climates as those of Idaho?
Mcintana, South Dakota, ~ficbigan, Wiscon~ and New York State.
Proper thermal protection for the pipes, valves? and pnmp.stationsis
essential. Ice formation . on or in the upper soil profile is the critical
problem to avoid during winter operation of an RI system.
Approaches that can be used successfully include the following_
1. Ridg e and furrow surface application combined with a: floating ice

sheet. The ice gives thermal protection to the soil and. rests on the
ridge tops as the wastewater infiltrates the furrows.
2: Inductimi of s now drifting with snow fences in the basins followed
by flooding.beneath the snow lay.er_
3~
Design of o .ne or more basins for continuous loading dnring

extreme conditions. These basins would be taken off-line and "rested" for .an extended period during the foliowingsmmner.
4.. Retention of the available heat in the wastewater by using preapplication treatment processes '9ith shart detention times_
~tem
management
It is essential that RI basins be o perated f:ID. an intenn:it"Liillt basis. The

scheduling ofthe application period and the d:ryiJ:lg period is an ~ar:
tant operational task. The length of time required fur each basin to
dry should be recorded ea$ cycle_ An :incr-ease in tb~ intended drying
time can be an indication ofthe need for ha:sinmaintenanre..
Periodic basin maintenance ma:y include scarificatio-~ scraping,. or
disking of the basin surface. Equipment traveling across the basins
should be minimized and allowed on the basins only when ~e soil is
dry. Any thick deposits. of soil fines or organic material should be
332
Chapter Seven
removed. If grass is grown, it should b~ mowed or should be burned at

least once per year, 'preferably just before v.rinter.
System monitoring
Monitoring sho~ld. be conduct~ to provide data for system management or adjustments and to comply with regulatory requirements; it
should cover the applied wastewater, ironndwater qualitY, and
groundwater levels. Groundwater wells should be 'placed both up-gradient and dm.vn-gradient from the application a rea Details of gronndwater monitoring wells can be found in Ref. 34.
References
l . .Abernathy, A . R. J . Zirsebky, ana l'L B. Borup: Overland Flow Wastewater
Treatment at Eas-ley. S.C., J. Water PoUu:tion Control Fed.. 57(4):291-~9; .Apr.l985..
2 . Baillod: .C. R., et al ~ Prelimina..ry- Evalnatipn of 8S Years of P..apid Infiltration of
Raw- ]rfn.>llcipal ~wage.. at Calll.met. l\liehi::,ua:n. in- Land as a Waste Management
Altemati1.:e~ Ann .c\l"bor Scince.l977.
:3. Bomva:,. H_ and .R C . .P..:ic:e: Reno~mion -of'Waste~ater at the 23rd Avenue Rapid
infiltra 'tion ~ect.,..J. Wc::te.r PoElution Cemtro/.Fed_" 56il.i:76-83. 1984.
.
4 . Broadbent. F.]!:_ and R~ ). Reisen.auec Fate of Wast.ewater Constituents in Soil
.and Gxotmdw.a:t.er: ?;itr-~ge:rr. .a:o:d Pliospb<Tllii. in Pettygiove. G. S. and As:mo, '!2-
(ed:u, Trriga:tion z:cfth Rt!claimc.d. Mu.n.i dpcrl
Wcr.:;t.~wat~r--a Guidan.c~
Manual.
California. State Water. Resources. Control Board. Sacramer.~o. July '1984.

-5. Cadiou, A., and L. 'f..esavre: Drip irrigation with Municipal Sewage. Clogging of~e
Distributors. io Pro(:eedings Thircf Water Hew;e Symposium, San Diego, CA, Aug.
26-3'1. 1984.
'6. California Fertilizer Association: Western Fertilizer Handbook, 7th ed., Interstate .
Pri..nter.s- & P.tlb1.i.s~rs.,. Danville.,. I4 1985.
.
7. Crites.,. R . W..: Site Char:acteri:;'tics~ in Irrigation xdth Reclaimed :Municipal
Wasteu..:ater-Gu..idance ManuaL Califomia Sta"te Wata"' Resources Control Board:,
Sacramez:tto~ Jo:ly 1:984.
.
.
8. Crites. R. W.: Nitrogen Removal in Rapid Infiltration Sy.stems. J. Enl.'iron. Eng.
Div. -4ECE..1.11H>J:865-&73.1985.
9 . Cr.itQ., R.. W..., and R. C. Febrmann.: Land Application of\\lmery Stillage Wa:.-res. in
Proceedi.'f?-'i 'Third .4:n:mcd .l'fadi.<wn Corrfon:nce 011: Applied Research in J.lfwzicipal
Indwd:rial Waste. Sept. 10-12., 1980. pp .12;_21.
10. Crite:;, R. W .. an~ .:$.. C. Ree 'r~.ol9gy :and Costs of'Wastewa~er A_pplic.q:r;t_ ~o
Fore:.~ Spte.ms. in Proceedings Fonzst Lmu:fApplicaticms Symposium., Sea:ttle.. WA..
.
1986..
ll. Doorenbos. -L .and '\V.. 0. Pruitt: Crop Water. Requirements, FAO lrrigation and
Dramage Paper .No. 24.. U.N.. Food and .'\;,arieulture O.rganizatio~ Rome,. 1977.
1'2.. .Figueiredo.,. R.. F ... .R. G. Snrith, and E. ]}_ Schroeder: Ra.infall and Oi..-erland Flow
Pe~..L Em:iron. E'ng. Diu. ~4.SC~ 110f3)d>78-694, 1984.
13. Folsom~ c_ F ..: Seventh A7iJ1..u..al Report o f the State B'oartl of Health of
'}.fassac.'lm...t;~ Wright & Potter~ B'm:.-t~ 157tL
.
14.. Fox, D . R , and J. C. Thayei-:: Impr.oting Ben.se S.itl?- Strit:abili:ty by :Modifying the
Soil Profile, in Proceedings Third Water Reuse Symposium. San Di.?go, CA, Aug.
26-31, 1984.
.
15. Geor.ge. nL ~G. A. Pettygrov-e and. W .B. Dm:is: CropSelection and Management,
in Irriga,tioa rcitli. Reclaimed ~[unicipal Wastewater-A Guidance Manual,
Calill:rrni:a State Water Resaurces: Control Boa:r:d. Sacramento~ July 1984~
7
333
16. Handley. L. L.: Elll uenl Irrigation ()f California Gra!j::;, in Procet!dings Second Water
Reus e Symp11 ...;iu m, Vol. 2 , Am e rican Water Works As sociation Research
Foundation, Denver, CO, 1981.
.
17. Hart, R . H.: Crop Selection and Management, in Factors /n.uolued in Land
Application of .4gricultural and Municipal Wa.<;tes. Agricl;lltural Research Station:
Belts";ne, ;,.to, 1974, pp. 178-200.
.
18. Hartling, E. C.: Impacts of the Montebello Forebay Groundwater Recharge Project.
CWPCA Bull., 29(31:14-26, 1993.
.
.
19. Idelovitch, E.: Unrestricted frrigation with Municipal Wastewater, in PrOceedings
National Conference on Environmental Engineering. American Society of Ch.-il
Engineers, Atlanta, GA. July 8-10. 1981.
20. Jewell. W. J . and B. L. Seabrook: A History of Land Application as a Treatment
Alternative, EPA 430/9-'79-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Office of
Water Program Operations. Washington, DC, 1979.
2L Kruzic, A.. P . and E. D. Schroeder: Nitrogen Remo.val in the Overland Flow
Wastewater Treatment Process-Removal Mechanisms, Res. J. Water. PolW.tion
Control Fed., 62(7):867-876,1990,
22. Lance, J . C., F . D. Whisler, and R. C. Rice: l\.1aximizing Denitrification during Soil
Filtration of Sewage Water, J.. Environ.. QuaL. 5:1~ 1976.
23. Lau, L . S., D. R.. .McDonald, and L ~- Wn: Improved Emitter and Network System
Design for Reuse of Wastewater in Drip Irrig:atian.. Proc.eedings Third Water Rease
Symposium.. San Diego.. CA,. Aug. 2~u, 1984.
24. Leach, L. E ., e t al.: Bilateral Wastewater Land Trea't ment Research, Water
'Environ.. Techn.ol., 2<!2J:36-41, 1990.
25. Loehr, R. C. and 1'\.L R. O'Cercash: Land 'Treat..l'llent af Wastes: Con~epts _and
Genera! Design,.J.. Enr:imn. Eug_Dfu...ASCE. ll.l(2}:141-160, 19-~5-.
26. Martel. C. J.: Der:elopment of a Rational .Design ProcPdure for Overland Flow
Systems. CRREL.Report 82-2, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory~
Hanover, NH.1982..
27. Nolte & Associates: Report on Land Application of Stillage \Vaste for Southern
Etharwl Limited, Nolte & Associates, Sacramento, CA. Mar. 1986.
28. Perry, L E.., E. J . Reap, and .M. Gilliand: Pilot Scale Overland Flow Treatment of
High Sbreng th Snack Foad Processing Wastewaters, Proceedings National
Conference -an Eru:rinmment:al Engineering~ American Society af Civil Engineers~
Environmental Engineering Division, Atlanta, GA. Jnly 1981. PP- 460-467.
29. Peters, R E.., C. R. L~ and D. J_ Bates: Field lnL'estigations of Overland Flow
Treatment of Municipal Lagoort. Effl.u.ent, Technical Report E.L-81-9, U.S. Army
Cor:ps ofEngi.ne.e:.rs, Waterweys Experiment Station.,. VJ.Cksburg. ME~ 19-81..
30. Poun.d, C. E -. an.d. B._ W. 'Crites: Wast.eu:ater Trecrf:77!ent C1J1.d Reuse by Land
Application, EPA 660/2-73-006b~ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency~ Office &f
Waier Program Operations, Wa---hingto~ DC~ 1.973.
3L Reed. S. C .. and R. W . Crites: Ha:nd.hook on Land Tr-eatment Systems for Industrial
cmd Municipal Wastes. Noyes Data. Park~ NeT? 1984.
32. Reed, S. C .., R. W. Crites, and A.. T. Wallace: Pro~ wi~ .~d ~2!1:::-A
Post Mortem.Analys:isrJ. Water Pollution Cantrol Fed~. 5-7(8).:854--858:, 1985:..
.33 .Seabrook, B.. L.: Lanclli:pplicrttiim ofWastei:V<Iter ia Ar:rstroli.~ EPA 4:30/9-'15-0!.7,
.U..S. Errriranme:otai Protection ~aen.cy, 'Office of Water Program Operatio-~
Washington.,.DC.l975..
34. .Signor,. D. C..:. Groundwater Sampling during .Artificial Recharge: Eq-pment,
Tecliniques .a:n..d Data A.n.alyses., in T. As.ano (ed.}, .Artifidal Iledro:rge of
Groun:dwater. BntterwOI:'ii4 Stonebam.l\IA.-1985, P.P- 151-202..
.
35_Smith, R. G.: Development ofa Rational Basis for the Design and Operation .of the
Overland Flow Process,. in. ProCi!edings Na.tiop.al Seminar un Oaerland Flpw
Techrwfogy for !Yfunicipal Wastezro:ter;. Dcill~ TX. Sept- 16-18, 1980..
36. Smith, R.. G.., and E.. D. Sc:broeder: Demonstration of the O aerla:nd Flaw Process .for
.the Treatment of Mu.nic:ipal Wast.ewatu-Phase 2. Field Studies, California State
Water Resources Control Board. Sacramento, 1982.
37_ Smith. R G'T and E. D. Sdiroede:: FI.eld Stndies of the Overland .F low.Process for
334
Chapter Seven-
the Treatment of Raw and Primary Treated Municipal Wastewater, J. Water

Pollution Control Fed.. 57<71:785-794, 1985.
38. Thomas , R. E., B. Bledsoe. and K- .Jackson: Overland Flow Treatment of Raw
Wastewater -with Enhanced Phosphorus Removal, EPA 600/2-76-131, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC, 1976.
39. Thomas. R. E.. K . Jackson. and L. Penrod: Feasibility of Overland Flow for
Treatment of Raw Domestic Wasteu:ater. EPA 660/2-74-087, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, 1974.
40. U.S. Department of the Interior: Drainage Manual, GPO No. 024-003-00117-1, U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washlogton, DC, 1978.
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual for Land Treatmentof Municipal Wastewater, EPA 62511-81-013, Center for Environmental Research
Infonnation. Cincinnati, OH. 198L
42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Process Design Manual for Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater. Supplement OlZ Rapid Infiltration and Ouerland Flow,
EPA 6?...511.-81-01~ Center for En~romnental Research Information. Cincinnati,
OII,1984.
43. Water Pollution Control Federation: Na:txual Systems for Wastewater Tre~
Mannal ofPracticeFD-16.. Alexandria, V~ 1990.
44. Westrot, D. W., and R. S. Ayers: Irrigation Water Quality Criteria., in Irrigation
with Reclaimed .:."'funicipal Wastewater-A Guidance Manual, California State
Water ResOnrce:s-C'ontroi Board. Sacramento,.JoJy 1984..
45. Witherow~ J . !.., and B. E. Bledsoe: Algae Removal by the Overland Flow ProceSS~
J_ Water Pollution Control f'ed-. 55(10r.1256-1262. 1983.
46. Witherow~ J. L..., and B. E. Bledsoe: Design Model for the Overland Flow Proces:., J.
Water Poil:ation -Control Fed-~ 58(-5):381-386, May 1.986.
47. Zirscnk-y,. .J... et al.:' 'M eeting Ammonia Limits Using Overland Flow, J. Water
Pollaticn Control Fed. 61:1225-1232. 1.989.
.. .
Chapter
SludgeManagement
and Treatment
Sludges are a common by-prodnct from all waste treatment systems,.

including some of the na.tnxai processes descnb
. ed in previous chapters. Sindges are al..c::o produced by Water treatment operations and by
many :indn::,-trial and commercial activities. The economics and safety
of disposal or reuse options are sttiJngly influenced by the water content of the sludge and the degree of stabilization- with respect to
. pathogens,. organic content, metals conten~ and other contaminants.
'This chapter describes several natu:ra!I methods fur sludge .t reatment
.and reuse. In-plant sludge processing methods~ such as thickening,
dige::s-tio~ and mechanical methods. fur conditioning and dewatering,
are not inclndea in this text; Refs_ 15,. 3~ and 36 ~ recommended
fur that pmpose.
8..1 Studge Quantity and Char~ristics
. ~ :first step. in the .d esign :af a treatment .o r disposal process is to
determine the amormt .af sludge that mnst be managed and its dmr:.acteris:tics_ A -reliable estimate ean be produced by deriving a solids
mass balance for the treatment -system under .consideration. The
solids input and output for evecy.component in the sys~ must be
calCDlated. 'Ij1picai values for solids corrcentrations from in-plant
operations and processes are reperted in Table KL Detailed procedures for condncting mass halance .calcniations :fur wastewater treatment systems can be fonnd in Refs. 15and 32..
The characteristics of wastewater tr~tment sludges. are strongly
dependent <On the composition ofthe mrtreated wastewater and on the
335
336
Chapter Eight
Typical Solids Content from Treatment Operations 15
TABLE 8.1
Typical dry solids

Treatment operation
Primary settling
Primary only
Primacy anci waste-activated sludge
Primary and trickling-filter sludge
Secondary reactors
A.ctrrated sludge
Pare oxygen
EA't~nded aeration
Tricliling filters
Chemical plus primary sludge
High lime (>800 mg/L)
Low lime (<500 mg/L)
Iron salts
Thickenen;
Gravity type
Primary sludge
Primary and waste-activated sludge
Primary and trickli~g filter
Flotation
Digestion
Anaerobic.
PrimaTy ;;-1udge
.
Primary and waste-activated sludg~
Aerobfc
Pirimar_y and waste-activated sludge
{"I,..
.c
kg/103 m 3+
5.00
1.50
5.00
150
1.25
2.50
1.50
1.50
85
130
100
70
10.00
4.00
7.50
800
300
600
8.00
4.00
5.00
4.00
14f1
'l:OO
3.50
21B
IQ5
2.50
80
45
150
7t}
.90
:m
"'P ercent solids in liquid sludge:

tkg/103 m:l = dcy solids/1000 m 3 liquid sludge. See Table A.l in the Appen dix for comersion factors.
TABLE 8-.2 Typical Composition of Wastewater Sludges15
Component
Total solids, TS {st l
Volatile .solids (% .of TS 1
pH
. .. -
~ ~
.. ---
Alkalinity tmg/L as CaC03 )

CellUlose{~ af TS>
Gre~ and fats(:ether snluble. ~.ofTS}
Pxotein {Sf ofTS)
Silica (Si02 -lk ofTS)
T
5J3
65.0
6.0 .
00
1.0.0
6-30
25.0
15.0
10:.0
4(}J}
7J} .
3000
l:flJ}
5-20
lS.O
1(}_.(}-
tmit operations in the treatment p rocess. The values reported in

Tables 8.2 and '8.3 represent typical conditions only and ar.e not a
suitahle h~-is for a specific project design_ The sludge ch:a:racteris:tics
m:ust e ither be meast rred or carefully -estimated from similar .experi.~
.e nce elsewheret o provide the data for final designs.
Sludge Management and Treatment
337
TABLE 8.3 Nutrients and Metals in Typical Wastewater

Sludgesn.J9,40
Component
Total
nitrogen(~. )
Cas N, <:'r:l
N03 - <as N. %1
NH~
Phosphorus ~~)
Potassium c~)
Copper <mglkgt
Zinc (mg/kg}
Nickel Cmg/kg)
Lead (mg/kg>
Cadmium ( mg/kg)
PCB-1248 (mgfkgl
Median
.Mean
3.3
0.09
0.01
2.3
0.3
Mean
3.9
741
i200
43
134
7
n.os
0.65
0.05
2.5
OA
Std. de\.-iation
962
1554
95
198
12
1586.
Sfudges f m m natural treatment systems
A sign]ficant advantage for the natural wastewater treatment systems described in previous chapters is the minimal sludge production
in comparison to mechanical treatment processes. Any major quantities {)f sludge are typically the result of preliminary treatments and
not the natural pn1cess itself. The pond systems described in Chap. 4
are an exceptinn in that, depending .on the climate, sludge will accumrilate at a gradual but significant rat; and its ultimate removal and
disposal mtiSt be given consideration dmmg design.
In colder climates; studies have established that sludge accumulation proceeds at a :f-~-ter rate~ so removal may be requir-ed more than
.once over the design life of the pond. The results .o f investigations in
Alaska and in UtaJ:i22 on sludge accumulation and composition in both
facultative and partial-mix aerated lagoons are reported in Tables 8.4
and8.5.
A comparison of the values in Tables 8.4. .and 8.5 with those in
Tables. K2 and 8.3 indicates that the pond sludges .are q:oite similar in
their characteristics to untreated primary sludges.. The major differ
ence is that the solids content, both total and volatile, is higher for
most pond sludges than for priniary sludge, and the fecal roliforms
.are significantly lower. This is reason able in &ght of the very l{)ng
detention time in ponds as compared with primary clarifiers. The
long detention time allows fur significant die-off offec.a.I eoliforms and
for some .consolidation of the sludge solids. All fonr of the lagoons
descnoed in Tables 8.4 and 8.5 are asspmed to be located in a cold -climate. Pond systems in the southern half of the United States might
expect lo.Wr accu:mnlation rates than those indicated in Table 8.4.
338
Chapter Eight
Pond Sludge Accumulation Data Summaty22
TABLE 8.4
Aerated ponds,
Facultative ponds,
Utah
Panimctcr
Flow (rna/d)""
D_
681
13,117
8,100
5
33.5
85.8
59.5
. 284
2,520
1,500
8
27.7
9.8
4.8
170
Surface I m:!l
Bottom cm:!.l
Operated since Ja._c::t deaning (yrJ
.Mean sludge depth ' em)
Total solids igfU
Volatile solirlslg/Li
\Vaste~ater. ~--pc---11ded solids tmg/LJ
~ Alaska
694
37,850
384,188
345.000
13
14.940
11.200
9
7.6
76.6
6L5
69
8.9
58.6
40.5
62
185
*SeeTable Al in the Appendi"<: for comersion factors.
TABLE 8.5 C ompositiortof.P om:fSludges-22
Aerated ponds,
Alaska
Factiltative ponds.
Utah
Total.solidsI'H .
Total solids .(mgtL>
Volatile solids E%>
Total organic eai-.bo~ TOC (mg/L}
pH
Fe,cal coliforms [f#/HlOmLi X 1051
K;jeldahlnitmgen~ IKN (mg/Ll
TKN(%ofTSt
Ammoniani:trogen f:as N. mg/L}
"-- . .
~om~u:ritrogen
t as -,.-:.:..>1, ~
rc .ofTS!
5..9
56.000
69.1 ..
5,513
6.7
0.7
1.028
1.75
72.6
0.12
Farameter
7.7
8:6
756,60(}
85,80ff
69~3
80.3
6;009
:9
1..0
. 1?037
1.35
13,315
6.4
0.4
6~.6
1,674
1 .95
93.2
0.09 .
Q:.ll
0.89
9,80()
' 48.9..
2,651
6.8
2.5
336
3.43
44..1
(}.45
-+see Table .d...'I in th~ ~di:l.:for co:trt'ersion :factors.

.
S~udges f:n:mt drinking.-water.'"tJ......

eal-d......
ment
Sludges o.ccn:r in water treatment Systems as a result of turbidity

removal,. :softening; and filter backwash. The dey weight ufsludge produced per day fr{)m:.softening .and turbidity remnva1 operntioris ~an:oe.
calculated using Eq. 8..L..12

S
= 84.4Q(2Ca + 2_6Mg + OA4Al + 1.:.9Fe + SS +A)
where S = sludg-e solids~ kg/d

Q = design.water treatment flow.,. m 3/s
Ca = .c alcimn hardness removed (as CaC03 ), m-g/L
(8..1)

Mg =
AI=
Fe =
SS =
A= ~
339
.....
magnesium hardf?.ess removed (as CaC03 ), mg/L
"':: .,
alum dosea.s 17.1% Al 20 3 , mg!L
iron salts dose (as Fe>, mg/L
ra\\'-water suspended solids, mg/L
.
additional chemical,.; (polymers, day, activated carbon,
etc.)~ mg1L.
The major components of most of these sludges are due to the rawwater suspended solids (SS) from the raw water and the coagulant
and coagulant aids used in treatment. Sludges resulting from coagulation treatment are the most common ~d are typically found at all
municipal wa~r treatment works. Typical characteristics of these
sludges are reported in Table 8.6.
8.2 S tabilization and Dewatering

Stabilization of wastewater sludges and dewatering of most all types
of sludge are necessary far eC9nomic,. environmental and health reasons. Transport of slndge from the treatment plant to the point o.f disposal or reuse is a major factor in the costs o f slndge manage~ent.
Table 8.7 presents the desirable s1ndge solids content for the major
. disposal and reuse options.
Slti;dge stabilization rontrols .offensive odors, lessens the possibility
for further decomposition~ and significantly reduces pathogens.
Typic@: pathogen content in unstabilized and anaerobically digested
sludges .are compared in Tabie 3..10.
7
. Methods for pathogen reduction
T'ne pathogen content of slc::d~cre is especially critical wheD. the

sludge is -robe .used in .ag:ricultnral operations o r when public exposure js .a concern. Four preresses tn.sigi:rificantly reduce pathogens
TASLE.S.-6
Characteristicso f'WamrT-reatmentsrudg.es12
Range of-val:c.~s.
Volmne (as% ofwat:er treatEd)

Suspended 501ids concentration
Solids content
Solids content after long-t.enn .settling
C-omposition:. ainm.s1ndge
Hydrated:aluminwn o:ride
Other inorganic materials
OzganiC~
<1-0
0'..1-1000 mgfL
{}.1.-3.5~
1-0-35%
15-401JC
70-35%
15-25.%
., .
.;
34(1
Chapter Eight
TABLE 8.7
Solids Content for Sludge Disposal or Reuse37
Disposal/reu..::e
method
Reason "to
dewater
Land application
Reduce transport and

other handling costs
Landfill
Re~latory
require-
Required
solids
(~)
>10*
ments
Incineration
Process requirement to
reduce fuel required to
evaporate water
>26
*Greae:r t:ban. 20~ in some states.
and seven processes to further reduce pathogens are recognized by

the U_S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as described in
S?~p 3A-_3
8..3 Studge Ff.eezing
_.t'reezing and then tha~wing a sludge will convert an nndrainable jellyJike mass. into a granular material that will drain immediately upon
thawing. This natnral process may offer a east-effective method for
dewateri.rig.
Effects of freezing
same
F:reeze-thawing will have the

.effect on any cype of sludge but is
particrila:rly beneficial with chemical .aDd hiachemicaJ slndges.contajni_ug al~ whic.h are extremely slow to :d rain natnrally. Energy
costs for artificial freeze-thawing are promoi~ so the concept mnst
-depend nn natnral freezing to be cost-eRective.
Process requirements.
The design .of a freeze dewatering system must be based on wurst-case

c nnrlitiens to ensure ?Jlttessful performance at all times_ If sludge
freezing is to be a :reliable expectation -evEzy year, the design mnst be.
based on the warmest winter during the period Df concern (typiaicy' 20
years or lnnger). T'ne secrmd critical factor-is the thlclrness ofthe sllldge
layer that will freeze ~thin a reasonable perie.d if freeze-thaw cydes
are a :nan:nal -0CCUIT'Ilre dUring the winter.. A common mi~take- With
pa...t:t attem;p~..at slu~c:re freezing has been to apply sludge in .a single
341
deep layer. In many locations a large single layer may never freeze
completely to the bottom, so only the upper portion goes through alternating free~ng and. thawing cycles. It is absolutely essential that the
entire mass of sludge be frozen completely for the benefits to be 'r ealized, and once frozenand thawed, the change is irreversible.
General equation.
T~e freezing or thawing of a sludge layer can be
c!escribed by Eq. 8.2:
y = m(tlT. t)112
{8.2)
where Y = depth of freezing or thawing, em {in)

. m = proportionality coefficient, cm(C : d)- 1 i 2
= 2.04 cm(C d)-I12
= 0.60 in(F d) 112
AT t = freezing or thawing ind~ cc d (F d )
~T = temperature .difference between: OPC (32c F) and the average ambient air temperature dm-ing the period of interest,
oc (oF)
t = time period of cone~ d

Equation 8.2 bas been in general use for many years to ,p redict the
depth' of ice fonnation on ponds and streams. The proportionality eoefficient n~ is related to the thermal conductivity, the density~ andthe
latent heat of fusion for the material being frozen o r thawed. A m-edian
value of 2.04 was experimentally determined fur wastewater sludges in
the range of 0-7 percent solids. rs The same value is applicable to Water
treatment and indu.strial sfud;ges in the same concentration ranga
The freezing or thawing index in Eq.. 13-.2 is an e n\"ir.onmental eh~
acteristic for a particniar location_ It can be calculated from weather
records and can al.sO> ne found directly in .o ther sonrces.40 The facto-r
!!T in Eq. 8..2 is the di:ll1=reic-e between the ave..l"'3.ge air temperature
during the period ofeoncern .arul OOC (32'PJ. Example S.l illu....c:trates
the basic calcnla:tion pmredm:e.
- - .. ... -
.Exampfe&.1- . DeterminatioiL cf"{re.ezing inde:r: "The a-rerage <!aily air tem:perirtu:res for .a .5 -day period are- listed beiow_ Caicu:Jate the freezing inilex. fur that
perioci
Da_y
Mean tempera.tm:e c ~c~
-'6
3'
- 9
+3
-8
342
Chapter Eight
solution
1. The a\erage air temperature during the period is - 4C.
2. The freezing index for the p eriod is

aT d
= [O - c -
4)](5)
= 20C d
The rate of freezing decreases with 'time under steady-state temperatures~ since the frozen material acts as an insulating barrier
between the cold ambient air and the remaining nnfrozen sludge. As
a result, it.is possible to freeze a greater total depth o( sludge in a
given time ~the sludge_is applied in thin layers.
Design sludge depth. In vei:y cold climates with prolonged winters,
t he tbidmess of'the.sludge layer iS not gi~cal. However, in more
temperate regions~ particularly those that experience alternating

freeze-thaw periods, the layer thickness can be very important.
Calculations by Eq. 8.2 tend to .c onverge on an 8-cm (3-in) layer as a
practical value for almost all locations where freezing conditions
occrrr. At -5:lC (23F). an 8-cm layer should freeze in about 3 days; at
- 1 cc (.30F) it would take about 2 weeks.
A greater depth should be feasible in colder climates. Dulnth,
Minnes9ta, fo~ example, successfully freezes .sludges from a water
treatment-plant in 23-cm (9-in) layers.21 It-is suggest~d that
8-cm
depth be nsed for
feasibility assessment and preliminary
designs. A
.
. .
larger iru:rement may then be justified by a detailed evaluation during .fiilal design~
an
Design procedures
The proc-e ss design for sludge freezing must be based -<?n the
warmest. winter of record t o .e nsure reliable performance at all
times.. The most accurate approach is to .examine the weatne.r
reco:rd~ for a particular lncation and determine :h ow many 8-cm (3in) layers could be frrizen in each winter. The winter 'With the lowest
total depth is then the design year. This approach. might assume,. for
examp1e,. that the first layer is applied to the bed on Novembe- l
each year~
.E quation 8.2 i_s rearranged and used with the weather data tn
determine the number of days required to freeze the layeF(Y/m}2
t =....,..- - ~T
With an .S-cm layer~ and m
= 2.04, the equation becomes
(8.3.).
.,
343
15.38
t = ---'--
&T
In.U.S. Customary units [3 in-layer, m = 0.6 in(F day)- 1i 2 ]?

25.0
8T
t = --
Calculation methods. The mean daily air temperatures are used to

calculate the AT value. Account is taken in the calculations of thaw
periods" and a new sludge application is not made until the previo~
layer has frozen completely. One day is then allowedfor a new sludge
application and cooling~ and calculations with Eq. 8.3 are repeated to
again determine the freezing time. The procedure is repeated through
the end of the winter season. A tabular summary is recommended for
the data and calculation results. This procedure can be easily pro-
grainmed. for rapid calcnlations with a small computer o~ desktop cal-
culatUr.
.Effect ot thawing.. Thawing of previously frozen layers during a warm

period .i s not a ~ajor concern, since these s~lids will retain their
transformed roaracteristics. Mixing of a new deposit of sludge with
thawed solids from a previously frozen layer will extend the time
required t.O refreeze the .combined iayer (solve Eq. 8.3 for the combined thickness). If an extended thaw period occurs, rem~v.al of the
tbawed sludge .cakeis recommended.
Preliminary designs. A. rapid method~ useful for feasibility a.Sses.sment .
and preliminary design, relates the potential depth offroien sludge t{)
the maximum depth. .of frost penetration into the soil at a particular
location. The depth offrost penetration is :also dependent on the freezing index fur a particular location; published values can be futmd in
the literatur:e-.40 Equation 8.4 correlates the total depth of sludge that
c ould be :frozen if applied in 8-cm increments with the m.:aximnm
depth of frost ;penetration:
.LY= 1.16(F)
p
101
= L76(Fp ) - 40
(metric units)
. (8.4)
(U.S. units)
where l:Y is the total depth <>fsludg~ that can b e fr.ozen in .~ .(3-in.)
layers, dnring the 1.varmest "design" year, in eerrtimeters {inches),. and
Fp is the maximum depth of frost penetration in centimeters (~ches).
The maxim~ depth of frost penetration for selected locations in the
na-rtheill United: States and Canada is reportd in Tahie 8 ..&
.,
-~
"~-"
- .
344
Chapter Eight
TABLE 8.8 Maximum Depth of Frost Penetration and Potential

Depth of 'Frczen Sludge
Maximum frost
penetration
Locati(Jn
Bungor, ~IE
Concord. ~"H
H artford. CT
Pittsbt.rrgh. PA
Chicago. IL
Dulnth.MN
1-linneapolis. :\IN
MontreaL Que,
Cern I
183
152
124
97
Potential depth of
fro.lC:! ;:}t1dge
rem I
221
166
117
70
122
113
206
261.
190
203
256
233
Design limits. It can be demonstrated by use of Eq. 8.4 that slru:I;cae

fr~ng will not be feasible unle's s the maximum depth of frost pene-
tration is at least 5-7 em (22 in} for a particular loeation. In generaL

that '"ill begin to occur above the thirty-eighth parallel of latitnde
and wiil include most of the northern half of the United States
the exceptiOJl df the West Coast. However" sludge freeT41g will not be
cost-effecti"t"e j f only one or. two 8-cm (3-in) layers can be frozen in the
:design" .Year.
.
A maximnm frost penetration of about 100 em (39 in) would aiiow
sludge freezing for a. total d.e pth of 75 em (30 in). The process should
be .cost-effec.tive at that stage, d~pending on iand and construction
costs. The results of calculations using Eq. 8.4 are plotted in Fig. 8.1,
and indicate the potential depth of sludge that con!d be f rozen at all
locations in the United States_ This figure or Eq_ 8-3 can ~ used far
preliminary estin:ia.tes~ hut the final design shauld be based on actna1
weather recocds for the site and the calcul?~On procedure. described
earlier_
mth
Thaw _period. The time required to thaw the frozen slu~Et_can _be:~
culated using.Eq,_ 8.2--and- th~e -appi-.opriate th.a~ index_ Frr:. ze-n

sludge will drain q;uite rapidly. in field trials with wa.stew.G:ter
sludges in New Hampshire, so-lids concentrations approached 25 percent as soon as the material was. completely thawed.18 .An.additional2
weeks. of dry.ing produced a solids concentration of 5 4 percent.. :'fhe
sludge particles retain their transformed c~a:racte~es and ~e
~t rninfaTI on the bed will drain. immediately~ as indicated by the
fact that the solids concentration was still about 40 percent 12 hours
after an intense rainfall ( 4 c.m} at the New Hampshire field tria.l. 18
.T he -e~ets for a v:ciriety of ~er.ent sludge .type~ are reported :in
Tabl~ 8 ..9.
Sludge Management andTreatment
345
Egurea1 Pmential depth of sludge that could be frozen ifapplied in S-cm layers.
TABLE8.9
Effects of Sludge Freezing9,18.20~2 1
Location: .and
sludge t:vlre
Percent solids .content

Before freezing
After freezing
Wa::.---tewaters:I~y wit:b alum

Water treatmen~ with iron salts.
0.7
7.6
Water treatment, wi:th. alum
3.3
!8.0
.3 6.0
27.0
Cincinna."'i, OH
Ontario, Canada
Wa:.-1:e-activated ~ae
:Anaerobically digested
Aerobically digested
0~6
5.1
2.2
17.0
26.0
21.0
Han<mrr~.NH
Digested:. wastewater sin.dge, with alnm

Digested primary
2-1
3-8
25-35
30--3S
Sludge freezing .facilities and procedures
The :same basic fuciiity can be used for water treatment sludges a1;1d
wastewater sludges_ The area can be designed either as a series. of
underdrained beds, similar in detail to convention_?} sand drying
beds~ or as deep:- lin~ and :underd:rained trenches. The Duluth
1\.fin:nesota wa:te.r treatment plant 1l:Se:5 th~ .trench concept..21 The
346
Chapter Eight
sludges are pumped to the trenches on a routine. basis throughout the

year. Any supernatant is drawn off just prior to the onset of winter.
After a.n initial ice layer has formed, sludge is pumped up from
. beneath the ice, spread in repeated layers on the ice surface, and
allowed to freeze. The sand bed approach r equires sludge storage
elsewhere and application to the bed after the freezing season has
begun:
Effect of snow. Neither beds nor trenches require a roof or a cover. A

light snowfall (less than 4 em) will not interfere with the freezing,
and the contribution of the meltwater to the total mass will be negligible. What must be avoided is application of sludge under a deep
snow layer. The snow in this case will act as an irum1ator and retard
freezing of the sludge. Any deep snow layers should be removed prior
to a new sludge application.
Combined systems. If fr-eezing is the only method used to dewater
.- waStewater sludges, then stafage- is required during warm periods.~
more cost-effective alternative is to combine winter freezing with
polymer-assisted summer -dewatering on the same bed. fu. .a typical
case7 winter slndge appncation might start in November and continue
in layeJ;S Until about 1 m (3ft} of frozen material bas accmnulated. In
most. locations this wi.Jl thaw and drain by early summer. Polymerassb-ted dewatering can then continue on the same beds dwing th~
SlllDJ;Iler and early full.. Sludge storage in deep trenches dm ing the
warm months is better suited for water treatment -operations where
putrefaction and o_dars are not a problem..
Sfudge removaJ. It is -recommended :tbat the drained wastewater
sludges be removed e ach year_ Inert cllemical sludges from water
treatment and indus1rial {)perations can remain in :place for several
ye~~ In these e~s a trench 2-3 m (7- 10 ft) deep- can be eonstruc::ted,. SO the dried solid~ :tEs:i.dne remains on t.he bottom_ In addition to
newco.nstraction:.. the lndge freezing concept ean alle.w the nse of
existing conventiomd sand 'beds7 wh..=i.ch .are not now used in tlle winter .m onths.
t:xamea2 A community near Pittsburgh,.P-enn.syivania.,. is considering .freezing as :t:Oe dewatering method for their ~-timated .a.m:ma1 wastewater sludge
prodnction of 1500 m:t (7 percent. solids). Marimu:m frost penetration (from
Table &8 ) .is 97 em.
solution
L UseEq. .SA:to determine potential design depth offrozen sludge.
347
IY = L76rF p J- 101
1. 76(97) - 101
70cm
2. Thep, detennine the bed area required for freezing.
Area
1500 m 3
0 .70m
.,
= 2143 m-
This could be provided by 16 freezing beds, each 7 m by 20m. Allow 30 em

for freeboard,. so:
Constructed depth
3~
= 0. 70 + 0-30 =
LO m
Determine the time required to thaw the 0.70-m slu~a:e layer~ if average
temperatures are l0C in March, l7C in April~ and 2JOC in May. Use Eq.
8 .3 with a sludge depth of 70 em.
1\Tt=(:y
=
1177C d
(March) + (April) + (1-17 May}

~ t
= (31}(10) + (30)(17)
+ (17)(21) = llTr'C d
Therefore, the sludge layer should be completely thawed byMay 18 nnder

the assumed conditions.
Sludge quality. Although the detention time for sludge :Oil the :free.z-
.ing_beds may be several months, the lo\v temperatures involved will

preserve the pathogens :r:ather than destroy tlretH As a .resn:lt,. the
process can be .e onsidered only as a conditioning and dewaterltlg
operation,. with little additional stabilization provided. Ho:wever~
wastewater sludges treated in this way may be ""eleaner.,.,. than
sludges that are air-dried on typical sand beds. This ia .-d ue to- the
rapid drainage af sludge liquid after tha~ which can::iEs: away a
sig:nificant portion of fhe dissolved comtaminants... In. contrastr airdried sludges will still eontain most of the- metal salts -and ilther
evaporation residues..
8.4 Reed Beds
Reed bed systems. are similar in some ways to the constrn:ctedwetlands described in Chap. 6 _ In this: case the bed is composed of
selected media supporting emergent vegetatiu~ but the flo:w path
for liquid i:; vertical rather than horizontaL These ::;y&tem s have
been used for wastewater treatme~ l andfiU leachate t:reatm:ent.
7
348
Chapter Eight
..
and sludge dewatering. This section describes the sludge dewatering.

use, where the bed is typically underdrained and the percolate is
returned to the basic process for further treatment. These beds are
similar in concept and function to conventional sand drying beds.
In conventional sand beds, ~ach la)~er of sludge must be removed
when it reaches the desired moisture content, prior to application of
the next sludge layer. In the reed bed concept~ the sludge layers
remain on the bed and accumulate over a period of many years before
removal is necessary. The significant cost savings from this infrequent cleaning is the major advantage of reed beds. Frequent sludge
removal is necessary on conventional sand bedS:, since the sludge
layer develops a crust and becomes relatively impermeable, with the
result .that subsequent layers do not drain pr~perly and the new crust
prevents complete evaporation. \Vhen reeds are used on the bed, the
penetration of the stems through the previous layers of sludge maintains adequate drainage pathways aTl.d the plant contributes directly
to dewatering through evapotranspiration.
This sludge dewatering method is in use in Europe~ and tbe~e are
a pproximately 50 operational systems in the Uniied States. All of the
operational beds have been planted with the common reed
Phragm.ites. Experience bas shown that it is n~cessaey to apply wellstabilized wastewater sludges to these beds . .Either aerobic Qr anaerobically digested sludges are. acceptable, but untreated raw sludges
with a high organic content will overwhelm the oxygen-transfer capability of the plants and may kill the vegetation.. The concept will also
work successfully with inorganic water treatment plant sludges and
high-pH lime sludges.
The structural fucility for a reed bed is sinn1ar m ronstrnction to an
open, underdrained sand drying bed_ Typically., -either .concrete or .a
heavy membnm.e nner is U5ed ro :prev-ent groundwater conta:mirurtian..
The bottom medium layer is usually 25 em (10 ll;l) of wash~d gravel (20
mm); this layer contains the nnderrlrain piping for pe:reola.te collection.
An intermediate layer of pea gravel about S em tbiek .(3 in.) prevents
intrusion of sand into the lower gr:a;vel The top layer is 10 -em {4 in) of
filter sand (:0.3-R mm.}. The Phragmites ibizo!ll.eS a:re plant ed at :the
interface between the sand .and gravel1ayer.s. At lea..~ 1m (>3ft} of:freeboard is provided for Iong-:term slurlge accumnlation_ "The Phragmites
are planted o n about 30.-cm (12-in) ee:nters~ and the vegetation is .
allowed .t o become well ~Jlshed before the first sludge application.1
Function- of v.egetation
The root system of the vegetation absorbs water from. the sludge.,
which is then lost to the atmosphere v"ia, twa.potransP:Ir:ati0-!1- It is
349
estimated that during t~e wann grov.ring season this evapotranspir_-ation pathway can account for . up to .40 percent of the liquid
applied to the bed. As described in Chap. 6~ these plants a re capable of transmitting oxygen from the leaf to the roots; thus, there
are aerobic microsites (on the root surfaces) in an otherwise ~ naer
obic environment, wh~ch can assist in sludge st~bilization and
mineralization.
Design requirements
Sludge application to these reed beds is similar to the freezing

process preViously described, in that sequential layers (}f slt,Jiige are
applied during the operational s~ason. The SE!lids content of the
sludge can range up to 4 percent, but 1.5-2 percent is preferred_2 A
solids content greater than 4 percent will net a1lnw .uniform distribution of the sludge on the densely vegetated bed_ The annual loading
rate is a function of the solids content and whether the sludge has
been digested anaerobically or aerobically. Aeruhically d~gested
sludges impose less stre.s s on the plants and can b~ ai;Plied ht slightly higher rates. At 2 percent solids, anaerobically digested sludges
can be applied at a hydraulic loading of about 1 m?lm 2 yr {25
gal/ft2 yr} and aerobically digested shrdgeB at :2 m :.1Jm 2 }T {50
gallft2 yr). The corresponding solids loadings would be: 20 kg/m 2 yr
(4.2 lb/ft2 yr) for anaerobic sludges and40 kgfm2 jr (8.3lb/ft2 yr}
.for aerobic sludges_ For each 1 percent mcrease in solids content {up.
to 4 percent), the hydraulic loading shonld be reduced by about l:Qpercent {example: aerobic sludge at 4 per.cent .solids;: hydraulic load:ing is L6 m 3/m2 yr). For 'COmparison, the r-ecommenaedsolids loading on conventional sand beds wonld be abo.ut 80 kg/m2 - yr .(16.4
1b/.ft2 yr) for typical a.vated s~es_ This snggests. that the t.otal
surface area required for these reed beds will be large-r :than for Cfinventional sand beds.
The -cypical operational cycle allows a sludge application -ever,y lQ
days during the
:moo:ths and
20-24- days during-the wint er. This schedule allows 28 slndge- a:pp1Icatiens per year; fur 2 pecent solids aerobic sludges, e ach layer af sln-dge would lie abont .11}_7
e m (4 in). It is recommended that dnring the first year .of opera:tien
the loadings .b elimited to..o:ne-half of the design values to limit ~s
on -the developing plants_
An annual harvest .of the Phragmites plants is typic.aliy r-ecommended_ This usually occurs dming the winter months? after the top
of the sludge has frozen. Eiectrieai or gasoline-powered hedge clippers can be used. The plant stems are .cut at .a p.oint which will still
he above the .top of the sludge layers expected diirmg the.remailider
warm
every
350
Chapter Eight
of the winter. This allows the continued transfer of air to the roots
and rhizomes. -Iri the spring. the new growth will push up through
the accumulated sludge layers without trouble. The harvest produces about 56 mt (wet weight) per hectare (25 t/ac, dry solids 2.5
tiac). The major purpose of the harvest is to physically remove this
annual plant. production and thereby allow the maximum sludge
accumulation on the bed. The harveste~ material can .be. composted.
or burned.
Sludge applications ori a bed is stopped about 6: months before the
time selected for cleaning. This allows additional undisturbed residence time for the pathogen content of the upper layer to be reduced.
Typically, sludge application is stopped in early spring and the bed is
cleaned out in late falL The c~eaning operatio~ removes all of the
.accnmulated sludge plus the upper portion of the sand layer. New
sand is then placed to restore the original depth.. New plant growth
ocmrs from the roGts and rhizomes that are present in the gravel
.layer.
The number of separate reed beds at a facilitY will depend on. the
frequency of sludge wa::.-ting~ and the. volnme wasted during each
event.. Typically:. the -wh"lter perio"d controls the design because of the
1e5.s frequent :Shldge applic?-tioris .(2:1-24 days) permitted. For exampi~ assume that a facility wastes aerobically digested sludge on a
daily basis.at a rate of 10 m 3/d (2 percent solids). The minimum total
bed area . required is {10 m 3/d)(365 dlyr)/(2 m 3/m?- - yr) = .1825 m 2 Try
12 beds,. each 152m2 in area; assume that each is loaded for 2 days in.
sequence to produce a 24-day resting cycle during the winter months.
The mri:t loading is. then (10 m 3/d)(2 d)/(152 m 2 )- = 6".13 m = 13 .em.
This is close to the reeommended 10_7-cm layer deptnfor a single
application; therefore, i:n this case a minimum of 12 :Cells would be
acreptahle..
.
PerfoinJanCe.
It is ,~ that 75-8{). percent of the vo]at:He-solids (VSS) in the

.sludge'willl>e redueed during the lang detention time .o n the bed. As a
result o f thi-s reduction and the moisture loss, 3-m-deep annual
application will be rednced to 6-10 e m of residual sludge. The useful
. life ofthe bed is therefore 6-10 years between demlingt;ycles_
Wi~ one exception,. all the reed oed systems in the United States
are lneated where some freezing weather ~ccurs each winter. The
exception is th~ reed bed system at Fort Camp'bell, Kentucky_
Observations at .these systems indicate that the volume reduction
experienced at F-ort Campbe:"R Kentucky, is significantly less than
~EXperienced at systems in colder climates. The reason is believed
..
Slu.dge Management and Treatment
of
351
to be the freezing and thawing the sludge that occurs i~ the colder
climates, which results in much more effective drainage of water from
the accumulated sludge layers. ThiS s~ggests that reed beds in cold
climates should follow the criteria described in a previous section for
freezing rather than .t.h e arbitra:ry 21-day cycle for winter sludge
app~ca.tio~. This should result in ii' more eff~ve process., and in
colder climates, more frequent sludge application_
Because volatile solids are lost during the long detention ~~ on

these reed beds~ . there is a coilcem that the metals concentrations of
the residual sludges could 1ncre~e to the point Where beneficial use
of the material or normal disposal options are limited: ';fable 8.10
summarizes data from t4e reed bed system serving
community of
Beverly,.New Jersey.
.
The reed bed system in Beverly, New Jersey., has been in operation
.for 7 years; therefore, the average age of the accinnuiated sludge was
3.5 years. The applied sludges sampled from 1990 to 1992 are
believed to be represe~ative afthe entire period. The tabul~ted data
o:q._acGtiiiiiilated sludge represents a -c ore sample of the entire 7-year
sludge acctm:mlation on tlie bed. The total vola:tiie solids eXJ)erienced.
a 7l pereent redm:tion~ and the total solids demOILc:trate 251 pe~~
increa....c::e 4ine to the effective dewatering. .All of the metals concentrations shO"W ari increase-_ If"he-nefi_cial use-of the removed sludge is a
project goal~ it is suggested that the critical metals iii the accumulated Sl~d.ge be measured on an annual basis. These data. will provide
the basis for fullowmg the trend m iticreasing -conceD.:tration and can
be used to decide when to remove the sludge from the bed prior to
developing ti.nacce_ptahle metal con<:entrations_
the
P.a:ta:meter
Totals olid.s (%)

Vola:tile.solids (% }
pH
A..-rsenic (mg/kg)
.Applied sludges*
Accnnmlated siudget
7.1
81..14
17.8
.56
5.3:
0:64
LG
Caciwium (:mg/Jr,g)
s.n
8.3
hro:mimn(mg/kg).
Hi.3
996.5
510
10:2
29:.8
4150'
{;2_3
Copper (mg/kg)
Lead (mgi'kg)
Merrrrry (mg!kg)
NiCkel (mg(kg}
Zinc (mglkg)
2120
1130
28.3
45-7
-6400
352
Chapter Eight
Another issue of concern in some states is the use of Phragmites on

thesP. systems. The Phragmites plant has little habitat value arid has
been known to crowd out more beneficial vegetation species in marshes. The risk of seeds or other plant material escaping from the operational 1:eed bed and infesting .a natural marsh is negligible. However,
when the sludge is cleaned oat of the bed; some root and rhizome
material m ay also be removed with the sludge. The final sludge disposal site may have to be considered if regrowth the Phragmites at
that site would pose a probleni.. Disposal in landfills or utilization in
normal agricultural applications should not create problems. If it is
absolutely necessary, the removed: sludges can be screened and the
root and rhizome stock separated. It also should be possible to stockpile the removed sludge and cover it with dark plastic for several
additional months to kill the rhizome materiaL
of
Benefits
The maj.o r advantage pf the reed bed concept .is the ease of operation
and maintenance and the very high final solids content (smtable for
l.andfiU disposal)_ This significantly reduces the cost for siud;ge
remgval and transport. A .6- to 7-year cleaning cycle for the beds
seems to be a reasonab1e _assumption ~ One disadvantage is the
requirement for an annual harvest of ~e vegetation and disposal of
that material Hawevet; over a 7-yea:r cycle the total mass of sludge
residue and \regetation reqojring dispa:sal will be less than the sludge
requiring disposal from sand drying beds or other form~ of mechanical dewatering.
F"ampJe8.3 A community near Pit'"L.Sbu:rgh.. Penn.:,-ylvania (see Example 8.2)y
proifuces ~000 ms- of sludge {at .3.5 percent solids> per year. Compare reed beds
-fur de>nttering with a combination reed-freezing bed system.
solution.
L As.sume a +month freezing season; ~an loading for reeds = 2..0 m3/~; .
design depth fox: freezing = 70 em (satisfactory val~pie 8.2 indicates

ama:ximumiJotential depth of70 c:m as feasible). Use 12beds.
2. Galcu1ate bed area ifreed dewatering is used alone.
Total: area =
Individual bed =
.,
300Gm3
.,
= 1.500 m31
2 m m - yr
1500
;m2 = 125.
12
nr
3 .. The schedule .allows '2 8 .slndge applications peryear to the reed beds. 'Dlen
3000 ma/12 beds/28 applications/125 m:!fbcd = 0.07 m/application
353
= 7 em
21 warm-weather applications = i21 >7 em )= 147 em

7 "Winter applications using reed_bed criteria =
17}C7)
= 49 em
4. Freeze/thaw criteria allow a total winter application of 70 em; therefore, an
additional 21 crr1 or three additional a pplications are allowed, for a total of

10, and an annual total of 31. At 31 annual applieations~ the allowable loading is 2.17 m :;mz yr and the required bed area is 3000 ma/2.17 m 3/m2 yr =
1382 m 2 , so each of the individual beds can be reduced in area to 115 m2
This savings in area might be very significant in climates colder than that in
New Jersey.
Sludge quafrty
The dewatered material removed from the reed beds will be similar in
chaxactel- to composted sludge 'vith respect to pathogen content
stabilization of organics.. The long detention times combined with the
final 6-month rest period prio-r to sludge removal ensure a stable final
product.fur reuse or d:L91osaL H metals are a concern, then a routine
~onit...oringproira:ID can track th~ ,.m~tals content ofthe accumulating
slu~g~ In some cases:-.ihe metal content may be the basis for sludge
. remov~ rather than the volumetric -capacity of the bed.
and
8.5 Vermistabilization
Vermistabilizatio~ i.e.,. sludge stabilization and dewatering using
ea:rthwo:z:ms!' has been investigated in numer-ous locations and has

been. successfully tested full scale on a pilot basis.8 13 A potential cost
advantage for the ca.neept in wastewater treatment systems is the
-capability for s tabiliZation and dm"lat-ering in one step a.S compared to
thickening,. digestion? -conditioning!' and dewat.eri.Jlg in a conventional
precess_ Vermistabilizatian has also been. used successfully 'With
dewatered s1n~o:es- :and selid wastes. The concept is feasiole only for
s1u~a:es whieh cmrtain .sufficient organic matter and nutrients to support the \Wm popnlatian.
Warm species
In most locations the fa.cilities required for the vermistabilization pra.cedu:re will be si.n:.riiiD:- roan tmderdrained sand ai-ymg bed -enclosed in:
a heated shelter. S:turlies at Cornell University evaluated four earthw:Orm species: Eise nia foet.i.d~~ Euilrilus eugeniae, Pheretima
hq,wayana, and Perionyx excauatus. E. foetida showed the best growth

and repraductjve resp-onses~ with temperatures in the range of
354
Chapter Eight
20-25 ~
<68- 77F). Temperatures near the upper end of the range

are necessary for optimum groWth of the other species.
Wonns are placed on the bed in single initial application of about'
2 kg!m2 (0.41b/ft2 )flive weight). Sludge loading rates of about 1000 g
of sludge volatile solids per square meter per week (0~2 lb/ft.3/week)
were recommended for liquid primary and liquid waste-activated
sludge. 13
. Liquid sludges used in the Cornell University tests ranged from 0.6
to 1.3 percent solids, and the final stabilized solids ranged from 14 to
24 perc~nt total solids. 13 The final staqilized ~ludge had about the
same characteristics regardless of the type of liquid sludge initially
applied. Typical values were:
Total solids = 14-24 percent

Volatile solids = 460-550 g per kg TS
Chemical oxygen demand = 606-730 gper kg TS
Organic nitrogen = 27-35 g per kg TS
p~ =
6.6-7.1
Thickened and dewateted sludges have also been used in operations in Texas, with essentially the same results.8 Application of
liquid. slu~ges (<1 percent) is feasible as long as the liquid drains
rapidly so that aerobic conditions can be maintained in the unit. F.mal
s1ndge removal from the unit is required only at long intervals:J abant
12months.
very
Loading.criteria
The recoml:nended loading of1000 glm2 - wk (0.2 Ib/ft2 ) is equivalent~

for typical sludges, to a design area: requirement of 0.417 m 2/atpita
(4.5 ft2/capita}_ This is about 2J} times .larger than a conventional
san~ drying bed The constmctlan. cost difference will be e:ven .greater,
since the vernri:stabilization bed must be covered and possibly hated..
However major cost savings are p ossible for the overall sy~ since
thickening~ digestion, and dewatering writs may J;Wt be r~d if
vermistabilization is used with liriuid slndges_ .
7
.Procedures and performance
At an operation in Lufkin, Texas,. thickened {3.5-4 percent solids) primary and waste-activated sludge are sprayed at a rate of 0.24lrgim2 d {0.05. Th/:ft2 - d) dry solids over beds contairring worms and sawdust.. .
T he latta: acts as a bulking agent. and absorbs some ,o f the 1iqniiL
355
assisting in maintaining aerobic conditions. A,n additional 2.5- to 5cm <1- to 2-in) layer of sawdust is added to the bed after about 2
months. The original s~wdust depth was
20 em (8 in) when the
beds.were placed in operation.
'
The .m ixture of ~arthworms, castii;lgS, and sawdust are removed
every 6-12 months. A small front-end loader is driven into the bed to
move the material into windrows. A food source is spre;ad adjacent to
the windro~s~ and withiD 2 days essentially all .the worms .have
migrated to the new material. The concentrated worms are collected
and used to inoculate a new bed. The ca8tings and sawdust residue
are removed, and the bed is prepared for the next cycle.8
about
Example 8.4 Determine the bed area required to utiliz.e vermistabili.zation for
.a tn.Unicipal wastewater treatment facility serving 10,000-15,.000 people.
Comiiare advantages ofliquid versus thickened sludge.
solution
1. .Assuming an activated sludge systemor theequivalep.t, the ~y_sln.dge production "will be about 1 -rot dry solids per day. H the sludge containS about 65
percent ~Iatile solids (see Table 8.2) the Cornell Ioad!ng.rate of 1 kg fn:iZ ~
wk. is .e qual to 1.54 kglm2 wk of total solids. Assnme 2 weeks per~
downtime for bed .cleaning and genernl maintenance:. The Luflrin, Te:!i:as.,.
loadi~g:Tate fortlrickened .s ludge is equal to 1.78 kg/m2 wkoftotaJ soli.ds.
2~ Calculate the bed area for liquid U percent solids or less) and for thickened
(3-4 percent solids) sludges.
For liquid sludge:

Bed area.= (100Q-jq1d)(365 d/yr}/(L54 kgl.fli2- wk){50wk)
= 4740.m2
FOJitbickened sludge:
Bed area.'= (1000 kg/d)(365 d/yr)/(1.78 kg/~- wk){50wk)
410.1m2
.3. A cost analy.sis is :required to identify the most cost-ef:fecti~e alte.matit=e.. The
smaller ned area for the second c ase is o:f'fuet by the ai!ded costs r:eqa:i:red ro
baild and operate a sludge thickener:.

SJu~ge quality
The slndge organics pass through-the gnt of the worm and.: emerge a5
dzy, virtually odorless castings_ These .are s:rritable fur use as a sail
amendment ()r low-order fertilizer if metal and.organic chemica::1 cantent.are within acceptable limits (see Table 8.13 for metals criteria)_
There are limited quantitative data on remo.valnf pathogens with this
process. The Texas Departme:D.t af Health fonnd n() Salmonella in
356
Chapter Eight
either the castings or the earthwonns at a vennistabilization operation in Shelbyville, Texas. that received raw sludge.s
A market may exist for the excess earthworms harvested from the
system. The major prospect is as bait for freshwater sport fishing.
Use as animal or fish food in commercial operations bas also been
suggested. However, numerous studies 17 have shown that earthworms accumulate very significant quantities of cadmium, copper .
and zinc from wastewater sludges and sludge-amended soils.
Therefore, worms from a sludge operation should not he the major
food source for animals or fish in the commercial production of food
for human consumption.
.
as Comparison Of Bed-Type Operations
The physical plants for freezing systems, reedsystems, and ve:Imistabilization systems are similar.in appearance and function.. In all ca....<:es a
bed is required to contain the sand or other support m~ the bed
must be underdrained, and a method for uniform distribution of ~lndge
is-essentiaf. Vermistabilizarion beds must be covered and probably heated during the winter months in most of the U~ted States. 1'1!~ diller
two co~cepts require neither heat nor co'"ers- Table 8~ll snm.i:n:ari:zes
the criteria and the performam:e eJ\:pertations for these tln-ee-concepts.
The annual loading rate fro; the vermistabilization process is :much
_less than for the other concepts discussed in this set;timL However,
T AB.L'E 8.11
Comparison. of Bed-Type Operations
Factor
Freezing
Reeds';.
F:ree..~ and reeds
WOI:J:ru>
Sludge types
All
Nonto:ric:
Non:to:ric
Organic
nonta:ric
Bed enclosure
None
No
1-S
Non~
No
3-4
Ncne
No
Yes
Yes
3.~
1-4
40t
20-50
(}
50-90;$.-
5(}.
<20:
2(}-90
1~25
No
Some
Some
Yes
IOCjf
10~
Heat req-uired
Initial solids C'k)
Typical loading rate,
C:kgim!!fvr)t
Final solids ('k}

Further stabilization
pro~ded
Sludge removal
.frequency (yd
"'Assumes year-round operation in.a-\\:arm climate.

tAmmalloading in tenns of dry solid~ see Table A.l :in the
tors.
+Includes nse ofbed for conventional drying.in. summer.
Fmal solids depe.o ds on length. of.fma.l drying: period.
fllie ,egtation is typically harested annually.
Appe~
far
~e:sion
fac-
357
Yermistabilization may still be cost-effective in small to moderatesized operations, since thickening, digestion, conditioning, and dewatering. can all be eliminated from the :pasic process design. Freezing
sludge does not provide any further stabilization. Digestion or other.
stabilization of wastewater sludges is strongly recommended prior to
application on freezing or reed beds to avoid odor pr<?blems.
3_7 Composting
Composting i:S a biological process for the concurrent stab~ization and

dewatering of sludges. If temperature and reaction time satisfy criteria, the final product shanld meet the class A pathogen and vector
attraction reduction requirements (see SeC. 3.4)_ There are three basic .
types of compost systems.33
Wmdrow: The material to be composted is placed in long rows,
which are periodically turned and miXed to expose new surfaces to
the air.
.
Static pile; The material tobe camposted is pl-aced in a pile, and air
is eith.e r blown or drawn through the pile by mechanical means.
Figure 8..2 illustrates the various configurations of static pile syste:n.s.
Enclosed reactor~: These can range from complete. self-contained
reactor units to structures that partially or completely enclose static
pile or windrow-type operations. The enclosure in these latter cases
is usually for odor and climate control.
The process does not require digestion or stabilization of sludge
prior to composting, although there may be increased odor production
issues to rleal with when composting raw slndges. Composting. projects are frequently designed based
20 percent .solids, but many
operating prejects ar-e starting with 12-18 percent solids, and as ~
resnlt end up using more bulking agent "to absorb moisture to get to
.approrima.t~Iy 40 percent solids in the mix of sludge and.huilring
agent. The end product is useful as a: soil c~nditioner (and :i& sold for
that purpose in many locations) and has good storage charact-eristics_
The major process requirements include: oxygen at 10-15 percent,
carlmnfnitrogen ratio at 26:1 to 30:1, volatile solids over .30 percen~
water content 50-60 pe:rcen:4 and pH= 6-11. High cD.IIentrations of
metals,. salts~ or toxic .snbstances may affect the process as well as the
end H.Se of the final prodnct.. Ambient site te~peratures and precipitation can ha-ye a direct influence on tJ"le opera~on. Most municip~
sludges are tOo wet and too dense to be effectively :composted.alone,. so
the rise af a bulking agfmt is necessary. Bulking agents in suecessful
en
358
Chapter Eight
Wnoci chips
Nonpet f01 a ted pipe

~p't for" water
condensa1'e drain
:l'l' UJI!ip(l5t'
hOles
Poeotls base:
(o)
..
{b)
FI!JUre 8.2 Static pile romposting systems: ~ a) single statie pile; <b) .extended aerated
pne.
nse- have inclnded: wood drips., bar~ lea:VesT corneoo~ paper, strnw.,
peannt and! rire lmlls7 shred:ded tir~ sawdust, dried sludge, and finished compost- Woodc hips nave been the most common .agent and are
often separated from the finished camp.ost .mixtare and used again_
The am~t ofbnlking agent reqtrired is.a ih riction.of sludge moisture
content_
mixiure ofs.h:illge aml bUlking agent should have a mois:tllre .cm;:rtent ~en. 50 and 60, percent for .e ffective .cmnposting.
Sludges mtlt 15--:?5.;percent solids ml:gbt ~quire ~etween a 2:1 and a
.3:1 rati<r of weodchips t~. sludge to attain. the desired moisture con-'{:
tent inthe mi ~ 1*, e_30'
.Mixing of the: sludge and the hulling agent can he accompi:ished
witb a front-end loader for SJnall operatians_ Pngmill mixers,.
rototiller:s, and special :eomposti:ng macbine.s are more effective and.
better suited for larger operations.38 s-unilar equipment is also used ro
buil~ turn, and tear down the piles or windrows. Vibratm:y-deck.,
rntazy.- and trammel screens have all been used when sepanrtion and
recovery of the bulking agent is a proc.ess requirement-
me
359
The pad area for either windrow or aerated pile composting

should be paved. Concrete has been the most successful paving
material. Asphalt may be suitable, but it may soften at higher composting temperatures and may itself be susceptible to com posting
reactions.Outdoor Cf?mposting operations have been somewhat successful in
Maine and in other locations with severe winter conditions. The
labor- and other operational requirements are more costly for such
conditions. Covering the composting pads with a simple sh~d roof .
will provide .g reater control and flexibility and is recommended for
sites that will be exposed to subfreezing temperatures and significant precipitation. If odor control is a conce~ it may be necessary to
add walls to the structure and include odor control devices in the
ventilation system.
For staticpile systems, the aeratian piping shown in Fig.. 8..2 is typically surrounded by base of wood chips or unscreened :c ompost
about 30-45 em (12-18 in) deep. This base ensures uniform air distribution and also absorbs excess moisture. In some eases permanent air
dnct.s 'are cast into the concrete base pad_ The nrixtt:rre ofslndge and
bulking agent is then placed on the porous base material. Experience
has shown that the total pile height should not exceed 4 m ( 13 ft) to
avoid aeration problems. Typically., t he height iS limited by the capabilities of most front end loaders. A blanket of screened or unscreened
ompost is used to cover the pile for thermal insnlation and to adsorb
odors. About 45. em (18 in) of unscreened or about .25 em {10 in) of
screened compost is used. Where the extended pile -configuration is
used, an insulating layer only 8 ~ (3 in) in thickness is applied to
the side that will support the next compo~ addition:. Wood. chips
or other coarse material are not recommendecL. since the loose structure will promote heat loss .a nd odors_
.
The eonfignration shown in Fig_ '8.2 draws air into the pile and
exhausts it thr-ough a filter pile of s creened eom.post.. This pile should.
co~ a~t 1 m'3 (35 :ft-'3-) of screened Compost for every .3 mt (3_3. t}
of sludge dry solids mthe compost pile. To be effective this iilter pile
must remain dry; when the.moistn:re content r.eacl:res 70 percen~ the
pile should be replaced.
Several syste.msT both experimental and openrlionaL use :positive
pressure toblow air throngh the compost pile.ll.16 The blowers in .t his
ca~e are controlled by heat sensors in the pile_ The advantages
claimed for this approach include more rapid composting (12 versus
21 days), a higlrer level of volatile SGlids stabilizati~ and a drier
final product. The major concern is odors l'ince the air is exhausted
directly to the atmosphere in an outdOOF uper.ation.. Positive aeration?
if not carefully controlled, can result in desiccation Of tbe lower part
360
Chapter Eight
of the pile and therefore incomplete pathogen stabilization. The

approach seems best suited to larger operations with enclosed facilities, in which the increased control will permit realization of the
potential for improved efficiency.
The time and temperature requirements for either pile or windrow
composting depend on the desired level of pathogen reduction. If "significant" reduction is acceptable, then the requirement is a mip.imum
of 5 days at 40C (105F) \\rith 4 h at 55C (13{)F} or higher_ If "ilrrther" reduction is necessary, then at 55C (130CJ for 3 days for the
pile method or 55C Cl30cF) for 15 days with five turnings for the
\vindrow method is required.
both cases the minimum composting
time is 21 days, and the curing time in a stockpile, after separation of
the bulking agent, is another 21 days.
A system design requires a mass balance approach to manage the
input and output of solid material fslndge and bulking agent) and to
account for the changes in moisture content and volatile solids. A continuing materials balance is also essential for proper oper.ation of the
system. The pad area for a :composting operation can be determined
using Eq. 8.5:
In
A = l.lS(R + 1)
H
where A
= pad area for activ.e compost piles, m 2 (ft2 )
=
R =
. . (8:5)-
total volume of sludge pr{)duced in fonr weeks, m 3 {ftS)

ratio of bulking agent volmne to sludge volume
height of pile, not including cover or base- material, m (ft)
A design using odor-control filter piles should allow an additional
I 0 percent of the area caleulated above for that plllJloSe. Equation 8.5
assumes a 21 -day .c omposting period b:at provides an additional 7
days of capacity tG allow for low temperature,. excessive precipitation,
and malfunctions. If.enclosed facilities :are used and/or if positive pile
aeration is pl.anne~ proportional reductions in the design -rurea are
pessible..
The area calculated nsing Eq_ 8-5 assumes that mixing .of sludg-e
and bulking material wjll. occur directly on the composting pad.
Systems designd for a sludge capacity m more than 15 dry tons per
day should provide additinnal area fuc a pugrnil l or drnm m:nrer.
In many Ioea:tions the finished compost from the .suction-type aeration will still be very moist; so spreading and additional dzyi:ng is typically included. The processing area for this drying and screening to
separate the bulking agent is ~ypically equal in size to the composting
.area for a site in coo~ humid climates_ This can be reduced iB more
.arid climates and where positive-draft .a eration is used..
361
An area capable of accommodating 30 days of compost production is

recommended as the minimum for all final curing locations.
Additional storage area may be necessary depending on the end use
of the compost. Winter storage may be required, for example, if the
compost is used only during the gro~ng season..
Access roads, turnaround space~ and a wash rack for vehicles are
all required. If nmoff from the site and leachate from the aeration
system cannot be returned to the sewage treatment plant, then a
nmoff collection pond mn._~ also be included. Detention time in the
pond might be 15-20 days with the effluent applied to the land as
described in Chap. 7. Most composting operations also have a buffer .
zone around the site for odor control and visual esthetics; the size will
depend on local conditions and regnlatory requirements.
The aeration rate for the 5llction-type aerated pile is typically 14 m 3Jh
(8 ft3/min) per ton sludge dry solid~. Positiv:e-pressure aeration, at higher rates, is sometimes ns~ dming the Iatter part of the composting
period to increase drying. I-6 Kuter et aL11 used temperature-controlled
positive-pressure aeration at rates ranging from 80 tu 34o m 3Jh ( ~7 to
200 ft3/min) per t{)n sludge G ry .solids and achieved -a Stable eompo& in
17 days or less. These hlgh aeration rates r~suJt in le~r temperanz::res
. in the pile [below 45
ll3FH. The ilirection Of air flow -can be
re,ersed during the latter .stages :to elevate the pile temperature above
the required 55cc (131 cF}. The temperatures in the final curing pile
should be high enough ro -ensm:e the required pathogen kill oo the romposting operation can be optimized for stabilization of volatile solids.
_
Monitoring is essential in any composting operation. to eD.Sllre :efficient operations as well as the quality of the final product. Critical
parameters to be determined :are:
cc {
Moisture content
fu sfurlge- and bulking material tD ensure- pr-oper -nperati.ons
!tletals and taxies
fuiilirdge toensure product quaJ.ity and compost reactions
Pa:t.ho~ns
A5 ri:quiredhy. regulations
:PH
In sJ:adge,. particnlaxly. iflime.o r similar chemicals _
Tempe:rature
Oxygen
are:nSed
Daily on:t:ii the required number ofdays above55:C
(130-'JF) is reached,. weekly thereafter at multiples ites
to ensure that .e ntiremass is sn:bjected to appropriate
temperatures
Initially~ toset blower operation.
Example .8..5 Dete:rm.ine the area required for a .c onventional extended-pile

.composting -o-peration fo-r the ~-te-~-ater treatment :;ystem descri~.ed in
362
Chapter Eight
Example 8.3 ( 1500 m :1 sludge production per year at 7 percent solidsJ. Assume
that a site is a vailable next to the treatment plant so that runoff and drainage
can be returned to the treatment system.
solution
1. Use wood chips as a bulking agent. At 7 percent solids the sludge is still
-"'wet,,. so. a mi..'ring ratio of at least 5 parts of wood chips to 1 part sludge will
be needed. Assume top of compost at 2m.
4-wk sludge production =
.
U500l(4J
CZ . = 115.4 m 3
~
2. Use Eq. S.5 to calculate the composting area..
A = 1.1S(R +
.
H
1)
= L1(~15A)(5 + 1) =
3.
. . 4..
:.; 5.
6.
7.
381 2
2
Ftlterpile.s for aeration = 10 percent ofA = (0.1)(381) = 38.1 m 2
.Processmgand screening ru:ea =A= 381m2
Curingarea: _-\.s.:.-ume 150m2.
Wood. chip and compo& storage: Assume 200m2
Roads and miscellaneous Allow 20 percent of total.
TotaL4. = 381 + 38.1 + 381 + 150 + 200 = 1150 m~
RoadS = {0.2)(1150) ~ 230m2

s_ Total
area includmir~ads = 1380 m
2_
4-buffer zone m ight also: be necessary,. depending on site conditimis.

The area caktrlated here is significantly less than the area..caletifated
in Example 8.2 for D:-eeze .i fcying beds.. This is because composting can
continue .on a year-rmm~ basis bnt tl;le freezing beds must
large
e nough t(} C{JD.tain the entire annual sludge production.
be
a g Land ~ppl:ieation. and Surface Disposal ot Sludge
Ne-w .sap.dards {40 CFR Part 503) fur the use ordisposal ,3 1 seWage
sfudge ~ere published in tli Feileral Register on February 197 199!t3'
'The r e gu.1ati..On discusses land :applicatio.n; .surface di.sw.sal;:: ::pathogens and vector at:f:I:'?:cti.on reductio~ and incineration.. Land
application. is. defined as beneficial use of the slud ge :at.agr:ono-mic
rn:tes~ w hile all other placement on the land is-considered ta be surface- disposaL Heavy-metal .c oncentrations are limited by two levels of
sludge quality: pollutant -ceiling concentrations and pollutant oncentnl:tro.n.s ("hi.g:h quality, ). TwQ classes -of quality with :regard to
patbDz.:,aens den!?ities (class A and class B) are described. Twn typ-es of
'.
363
vector attraction reduction are presented: sewage sludge processing

'or the use. of physical barriers.
For land application, sewage sludge or material derived from
sewage sludge must as a minimum meet th~ pollutant ceiling concentr?-tions, clas_s B requirements for pathogens, and vector attraction
reduction requirements. Cumulative pollutant loading rates are
required for sewage sludges that meet the pollutant ceiling concentrations bnt do not satisfy the pollutant concentrations.
The .c oncepts d~scribed in this section are generally limited to those
operations designed for treatment and/or reuse of the sludge via land
application or surface disposaL Landfills and other "high-quality" surface disposal practices are covered in other texts.3 1.3234 Some degree of
sludge stabilization is typically used prior to land application or surface disposal~ and dewatering may be economically desirable.
However, systems are designed so that the receiving land surface pro- .
vides the final sludge treatment as well as utilizing the sludge organic matter and nutrients. These natural sludge mcmagement systems
c an be grouped intu two major cypes~ land application and surface disposal.
Land application. systemS involve the vegetation, the soils~ and the
related eco.s:yste:m for final treatment and ntilization of the sludge.
The design sludge loadings are based <m the nutrient and orgariic
needs of the site as constrained by metals, toxics, vector controL and
pathogen content of the slndge.35 Systems in this group include agricultural and forest O.Perations where repetitive sludge applications
are planned o ver a .long ter~ and redam.a tion projects where the
sludge is used to reclaim and revegetate disturbed land. The site is
designed and then operared so that no iutm:e restrictions are placed
on use cfthe land_ Th~ flo-m:hart in Fig. 8.3 presents a series of steps
to folfuwthat make it ~to determine iflan-d application of a sludge
23
1S appropnate
Surface disposal .systems depend almost entirely on reactions in the
upper soil profile :for treatment. Vegetation is typically not an aetive
treatment compone~ and there is n.G attempt to design for the beneficial utilization ,af sh;dge .oz-ganic matter or nutrients.. The site iS
often dedicated fur this purpos e:t ann there may be restrictions on the
fut:n:re llSe .of the Ian~,. especially for crop production involving the
bmDan .food chain Systems :receiving biodegradable sludges utilize
acclhnated s.Oi[ '01-gaiJi"SIDS fur tfiat purpose and are designed for periodic lOading and rest p eriods. Petrolemn sludges and similar industrial wastes ar~ often managed in this way. Figare 8.4 is a flowchart
that makes it e asy to determine the applicability of sn:rface disposa!'
msm~~
364
Chapter Eight
<
(tol'\...l~t
,f,-.,,-:,t.:
oJ '/l ti.'Vl':.OI"'1
,UI lflohlo!ltl: :o:,olol 1'111

1~'''1
JM"IUI'ot'IO ('"'
r-u.JT.II
l'!t:t:t"ltlrll.
m n>esiudge
A-.m~.oollu"""s in m .. o1""1l"
or.no: =teria: ~m:.n. t"e
Ot tntl m:~ta: C'!"'fr"'i'd
$1uc:;o ~ :sr ~wz! tn 01e

ltmits in~ a 15"1
'to~~ t~""Stt.an ~V"_.ualto.lT"...
At1t:!'re :=!!"'*'=
,.'CTI'l'
fimitsintt~5.157
C..:n;r.a'fblz.t!;:.~s..i ofnu tra"'~.n:
I
.
~-;:tionanv .,,gh qu.a!rtv sludge

~nd" V'OtJ are net limited bythl
~I ?eavirements Cal.
1~~~ Pnl.t;ticcs(.a:...a:10
"<aiii~!.Land8.16.1t1f"sludge
II -~ral
Uftdon.
land
-f"cres:s
-
Pu~ic.ccntac:t sites.
- AodamAiio" siles
-~d
..
Yuu "l;JY o-'fJI~., SIIJfiGI! ::'1 Un.d
...
1UI1VIIhllU lilt! 1utiOWifl-IJ':tfV 111111:
,..
~-
- i > =res
Cumullltiv<>Fol~~
-!.:&wn'llr' ncmo g-an:fens.l!ll
Llrmts In Tattle.R.'t4a:zD!\11D
.sludgr.ap;>lic:ci= on:
..-v ma-:..t;.orather c:o~
Yn.; "'"". ;;,nuly~futici"c to l.,nd -

' prnv'!mu '.'~'' ru_li~\~~~~.!J. fl!l! mer
Cumula!Mt P:>rluaont loading
Vou m;t\' :lOJJtv ;;~,f.Jt' to :an.t prO'V tdlnQ th! follow,ng ::e :':"cl:
Slq.mavl>e~pliedmm"'
!.imots in Ta::;. B.14 :a;:>ply to
fallawin!J ,..;mo.ut Armu.J 'Or
Slud;;<! 8Pi!ficalon on:
'Cumul.aiw: "Palfuam:Limb:
"'at !oQIV'r<;j "tO ~~~d (bl

-~na..a:.ms lr.d
(al .L:<'tesso!:'lenwise ~ulre<: lly
Jtttrii?A 'iiep;Onllf Adtrtitt:lf'TIIriort
artfrr! Stm! O.rw:tor oFa sr-
- ~otureioond
-Agriodturtrlanc1
-Fotes:s
-Fot..c.
'~ n.::s:::::~r::rved sludge
-F0>1!SU
.
- PUI>Iic=n:a::: sitiOS
- Re<:!BmBbcn .,,.,.
-Rons;elanU
trUr~mo:ran::~;rm.
- P..rures
-Pas::n:s
I.!>I F.>.-t:..il ar=ld!giw:n ,._.,.
Annu&l ?alt.::a.,. .l.mxl<t:g llaus

in T..alll~t.e.1~1D.Siuc:;e
t1>at 1$.sold or-giverr-v in ...
~r.:natcs:enmpt1Tom
.bag;'ur~rc:otalliMrfcr ~
Sluc!;e
I>& g:;...en .......y
m=ld rnb:lg cr. a:hef contaimrrrot ~to land.
Slu._rmry nat11e~to
Sludgamay'Nit be siwEn mnv

..,. sold in Cal;> or asl>er:rr>-
,(iy nigrt cu.,;.r;. slur;tge."t:rtr

-;;..,.,,-,:~"g. Manimring. ....rl'
p~l:am:t.Mu.s:llr:>el
lawnsorltame~
. Wwtlse<II'Omoo~
~;;ccu.iremdTTtS.
~=wlm ddirTcd
-~tm.f.:jr:rn-J fivnr ~
p...~~)tic: ::::m%<% siiJ:s
{ - ~mat~on sires
l- F~ta:Te
"""'nat
- f'ublicCCitltac:Tsi\.S
-'R<damalionsi=
-R<IftJiolllnc1
-Pa:nures
QiD<:I'Iar.a;n>!QtiaR'lD limd.
Sludge....., naJ:be 3tli>liec1 to
infarmcian. 'Bullt.sludQe' may

nat bot a;:ptied to t.wns. ar
home ganlons..
.AIJGenetJ!Ir~.~II""''"t~l=cl>zsnat""""""'ngII"'nomicmosfC>tnitrogeonl,
~ng.lloaliDrin;i, I::IO lle;>aning Reqviremenu must beiTIO:'t.
:figure-e.3. Flowchart to determine the appUeability ofland application of slu.dge-.23
~e basi~
feasioility of these natmal sludge management options is

totally dependent <>n the federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines that control both the sludge .q mility and the methodology_ It is
-strongly reconnnended f-or all sludge management designs that the-first
step should be a .determination of the possible sludge disposal/utilization
Sludge Management and
Treatm.~nt
365
-.
So V'CU wan: lO OOSQOM o !' AVIIIIIQC

sluCiv-l>i r.w ourf-=- ~
......
Yo&
Wdl ldoul .,..wtl.cedl-1
unOT....,tam"'-te..,aq:>lfie<7
II not. a c.,.,. anCI '-..,....calloctoon
.,_,..,
_ _ _ _ _ ___,
sys:.,., :n.v ~ot be-I'OKIUi~
No
Are me pou-nts in tTie alu:lge less
01t c:q..,lto the limits m P.-t 513
~u~ lcn?
Vn
lcttleltmitofttlotllttM>eCis;>c:::ulunot
gre....-tNn 150
I&S2 ,_,
fr<lm tTie prope'fY liM1
.,...,a
- v
Yeo
""'
W:il r.:e p.o:mming aulhO'l! ~r

anttsrtt CJte--~'"'t'Cif\c poU~t:f1"1'ttS
ianhl ....~<lis penal u=rtl
No
Is noe cOIICA!ntrarion '"' iNICI' ~

brHnt~ chromiumm end nic.keli Scss
0\;Pl Or equ4t1ot'tl~ttimits ar~
dimmc&:o not~ rn Pat15031>~...Lo:io..,>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _N
.;.;o~ Don tflo sluclll" lrneet the Class A or
r.
Oaso II Pothogon req..;,...,ents?
l5slud;'e~.v.i1h.soitcra:nwr
.t!aes.tlte_sludgelmnt one ~111c

Vec1ar An<action ReductJOn Critt:ti. '\
ti:Tl)U!Jh 101
~llrtloe eaczuf P<:!r:l'P<!I'IOng
C:rv1 Is- Voctor A:1not:hon l!'ec..:tion

Critaria111
Figare:B~ii- ~ to determine the-applicability ofsnrface- disposal of slndge..2 "'
options .for the area under consideration.' The engineer can then decide
what ll:as tobe done f.o.the sludge in the wey oftreatment and .dewatering so that it '\Vill be suitable for the available options. The most costef:rect:Ne cOrnbination of in-plant pmeesses aild :final disposal options is
not always cbvio~ so itera:tive design procedure is. required.
an
Concept and site selection
A preliminary evaluatian should identifY the available options as well

as the e:Xpected physical, chemical~ and biological characteristics. for
the sludge. The- chemical cbara.cte.ristics will control the following:
366
Chapter Eight
TABLE 8.12
Preliminary Sludge Loadings for Site ldentification37
Option
Application schedule
Typical ra te CmUha l
Agricultural
Annual
One time, or at 3- to 5-year intervals
One time
Annual
10
45
100
340
Forest
Reclamation
Surface
1. Can.the sludge be applied in a cost-effective manner?
2_ Which options are technically feasible?
3. What is the amount of sludge permitted per unit area on an annual and a design-life basis?
4. What types and frequencies of site monitoring and other regulatory controls are imposed on. the operation?
The biological characteristics of greatest concern are the presence
. of to~c o~CS 7 pathogens, and the potential for od{)rs du:ring transpo~ sto~ and application_ The most important physical c.bara.cteristic is the sludge moisture content. Once the amount of sludge to
be manage~ is estimated, it is necessary to corufuct a map snrv.ey,. as
described in Chap_ 2, to i~entify sites with potential fe~"bility f~
agriculture,. forests, reclamation, or surface treatment. Table 8.12
presents preffurinary loading rates for the four application eptions_
These values shuuld be :used only for this preliminary s creening, .and
not for design.
The land ~rea estimates pr-oduced with the w.lues in Table .s J2
are the treatment area only, with nc allowance for .slndge storage:,.
buffer zones, and other requirements. The preliminary screening to
i dentify suitable sites can be a desktop analysis using co-mm.Qnly
available information. Numerical rating procedures~ on soil .and
groundwater conditions~ slopes~ existing land use?. flood put:ential,
and economi~ factors were ~escribed in Chap_ 2.: and in references_19 3r.~ . These proced::o:res should b e used to identifY the lliDSt.
.d esirable .sites if a choice .e xists. This pre.limincn:y screening is
advised because it is.. very c ostly to eondnct detailed field mves~.,.. . .
tions on every potential site.
The final site selection is ,b ased on the technical data obtained by
the si~ investigation, on a cost-effectiveness evaluati-on ofcapr"t.al and
operating costs, and on tbe social acceptability ofboth the site and
the intended sludge management -option.
The requirements for pathogen reduction were discussed in Sec.
3_4? and details can be obtained by consUlting 40 CFR Part 500~
Fede:ral Register, February 197 1993.3
367
Process design, land application
The basic design approach is based on the underlying assumption

that if sludge is applied at rates that are equal to the requirements of
the design vegetation, over the time period of concern., there should
not be any greater impact on the groundwater than from normal agricultural operations. The design loading~ based initially on nutrient
requirements, is mo4ified as required to satisfy limits on metals and
toxic organies. As a result of this design approach., extensive monitoring sh{)uld not be required,. and the use of sludge by private farmers is
made possible. As the loading increases, as it may in fore::.-ts and on
dedicated sites, the potential for nitrate contamination of the groundwater increases, and it is then u.sually necessary to design a municipally owned and opera~ site to ensure proper management and
monitoring.
.
Metals. The following is extracted from 40QFR Part S03.13 pollUtant
limits.3 Bulk: sewage sludge or sewage sludge sold or given away in a
bag or other -container shall not be applied to the land if the concentration of any pollutant in the sewage sludge exceeds the ceiling ronrentration shown in Table 8.13.
If bulk se.wage sludge is applied to agricultur-c:tl lan.4 .for-est, a public contact site, or a reclamation site,. either the cu:rn.nlative Iaading
rate. for each pollutant shall not exceed the_cu~ulative loading rate
for the pollutants shown in Table 8.14y or the concentration of any
pollutant in the sewage sludge shall not -exceed the cet1ing concen:i:Fation shown in Table 8.13. If bulk slndge meets the .cmgh-quaJity" pollutant concentrations -shown in Table 8_15, the cumulative pollutant
loading rates (Table 8 .14) do not apply becau...c:e these materials can be
applied at agronomic rates for 100 years without ronrerns about limitingcmn~ativ.e loading rates.
If bulk sewage slndge is applied to a lawn or a home garden, the

:COncentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge shall not excea....d
the .-c oncentrations shown in Table 8.15. Ifsew~cre sludge products are
sold or given away in a bag o-r o-ther rontainer fur E:pplicatfun to-the
landr elther the concentration of each pollutant in the sewage sludge
shall meet the pollutant concentrations in Table 8.15~ or the product
label will provide product use dira:tions to li:mit the annual pollutant
Ioa.cling .nrtes shown in Table Rl6. E qna:t:ion _8 .6 shows the relationship between the annual pollutant loading rate (APLR) and the ann:U. al whole sludge application rate (AWSAR)_
APLR
or
C x AWSAR x 0.001
{8.6)
368
Chapter Eight
TABLE 8.13
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
L~ad
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Ceiling Concentratio_n s3
Ceiling concentration
( mg/kg, dry weight ba~"i
75
85
3000
4300
840
57
75
420
100
7500
TABLE8.1-4 CUmulative Pollu~t loading Rates3
Cumulative pollutant loading-raze

Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead:
Mercury
~Iolybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
(kgiha) .
41
39
300{)
I50lJ
300
17
. 18
420
100
2800
TABLE 8.15 PoHtrtant Concerrtrafions {Hi;gft o.uarttyp
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Monthly average.amcentr:ation
Cmgtkg, dry weight basis.J
41
39
1.2.0(}1
15{}0
300
17
18
420
36
2800
Siudge Management and .T~e~tment
TABLE 8.16
369
Annuaf Polluta~t Loading Rates3
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
Annual pollutant loading rate

- (kg/ba per 365-day period 1
2.0
1.9
150
75
15
0.85
0.90
21
!iO
140
APLR
AWSAR.= C x 0.001
where APLR =
C=
AWSAR =
0.001 =
annual pollutant loading rate in kilograms ;per

hectare .Per 365-day period
pall:utant c oncentration in milligrams per kiillgram of
total solids on a dry weight basis
a:n.n.ual whole sludge application rate in metric tons.

per hectare per 365-day period on a dry weight basis
a conversion factor
Equation 8.6 can be modified to calculate the lifetime loading -of the
heavy metals:
CPLR
LWSAR = C X 0.001
(8.7>
where LWSAR = lifetinie whole sludge application rate in metric tons

per hectare
CPLR = cumulative poJ!u:tant loading rate in kilograms per
hectare
..... . ....... . ......... _--- ________ ..
(other term-s aS define.d previously)_
To determine AWSAR or LWSAR fur a sewage sludge,. an:a1yze a
sample of the sewage sludge to d-e termine the concentration <>f each
pollutant .l isted in Table 8.16. .I nsert the prop~ APL.Rs fr..om Table
8_16 or the :proper CPLR from Table '8.14 and the milligrams-of pollutnnts per kilogram of dry solids. into Eq~ 8..6 <lr &7 to deter:n;rine the
annual or cumulative whole sludge application rate. The AWSAR or
LWSAR for the sewag~ sludge is the lowest value calculated for r:11~
v:ari~ metals. For example, a measured onceirtration -of -co-Pper of
370
Chapter Eight
2000 mg/L and an APLR of 75 kg/ha per 365-day period would yield
an AWS. ~
.
of 2000/C 75 x 0.001) ~ 26,667 mt/ha per 365 days.
Calculate values for the other metals and select the lowest AWSAR
for desigJJ:.
Some states may -have more stdngent metal limits than those presented ha--e; therefore, it is essential to consult local regulations prior
to design of a specific system.
Some states -require that the nutrient-limited sludge

loading be based o~ the phosphorus needs of the design vegetation to
ensure even more positive protection. This also ensures a: safety factor agallist nitrate contamination,. since most sludges contain far less
phosphorus than nitroge:Q~ but most crops require far more N than P,
as shown in Table 7 .5. If optimnm crop production is a project go~
this .approach wiU require supplemental nitrogen fertilization.
Equation 8_8 can be nsed to determine the phosphoruS-limiting
sludge load:IDg. It is based on the common assumption37 that only 50
percent ofme total phosphorus in the sludge is available.
Phosphorus.
c~)
. (K) (:. R =
p
(8.8.)
where R :- phosphorus-limited annual sludge ap plication rate,

. P assuming 50Ck availability in the slud~E; mtfha (t/ac)
. ~ = 0.001 fmetcieunits}, IOJl02. (U.S. units)]
.U, = Annual crop uptake ofphosphorus; see Table 7.5 for selected
p
~ Chap. .a -o-f this text for :further di...c::cussio~ and Ref.
37 formore -ffi:act data for :Midwestern. crops, kg/ha (lb/ac)
cp = total pbosphoro.s in sludgt; "as a de~ fraction (equation has already been aqjusted for 50% availability, but
t1:riE conld he.a.tUust ed if daa.are available to indicate a
higher- or lo..w-er prcent a:va:ilahle total phosphorus)
Nifr-rige~. C:aicn.la:tion of the nitr{)gen--Ii.mited sludge loading rate is
the most complicated .ofthe calculations invoivedbecause of the various forms nf nitrogen .a~;railable in the slrulge, the various .application
tecl:iniqnes,. :and the pathwa_ys: nitrogen can take following land applicafi.o:n.. lVfost of the nitrogen in municipal sludges is morganic fotm,
tied up as protein in the solid matter_ Th.e balance of the nitrogen is
in ammonia furm. ~J. When liquid sludges are applied to the soil
surface and allowed to dry before incorporation, about 50 percent of
the ammonia. ~ont.ent is 1ost to the atmosphere through
\Tola.tiliiation..2'6 As a result., only 50 percent of the ammonia is
371
assumed to be. available for plant uptake if the sludge is surfaceapplied. If the liquid sludge is injected or immediately incorporated,
lQO percent pf the ammonia is considered to be available.
The availability of the orgaillc N is dependent on the "mineralization" of the organic content of t:he sludge. Only a portion of the
organic N is available in the year the sludge is applied, and a
decreasing amount continues to be available for many years thereafter. The rate will be higher for higher initial organic-N-content
sludges. The rate drops rapidly with time,. so for almost all slndges,
after the third year it is down to about 3 percent per year of the
remaining organic N.
For the first few years of a sludge application, the nitrogen contribution from mineralization can still be significant. It. is essential to
include this factor when the design is based on annual applications
and nitrogen is the potential limiting parameter. The nitrogen available (to plants) during the application year is given by Eq. 8.9, and
the available nitrogen from that same sludge in subsequent year.s iS
given byEq. 8-10. When ammal applicatitlns are p1anned, .it is necessary to repeat the calcUlations using Eq. 8..1() and then add the
results to those ofEq. 8..9 to determine the total available :nitro~n in
a giveQ. year. These results.will. converge on a relatively constant
value after 5--~6 years if sludge characteristic and application ntes
remain about the same.
Available nitrogen in the .8J?plicirtion year is given by
(8.9)
where Na =
K,.o,; =
. =
N03 =
k t" =
NH4 =
. .f.n =
N0 =
plant-av~le :nitrogen. in the
slud,ge during the application yearT kg/mt dry solids (Ib/t dry solids)
1:000 (metric rmits)
2000. (U.S_ m:iits}
percent nitrat-e~ the sludgE; as a decimal
voTa:tilization. factm:
0 ..5 for smfaee-appliedEqoid sludge
LQI far incorporated :liquid sh1.dge and ifewa.tered digested
sludge applied in anynranner
fraction .afammonia: nitrogen.in sludge (as a :decimal}
minernfu:a.tion :fi:tctor for m-ganic nitrogax in first year n
= 1 (seeTable8_l7f arvalues)
fraction of m;ganic nitrogen in s]ndge (as a decimal)
Nitrogen availab~e in sn.~seqnent years is
NJID: = ~fflN)2 + f3<N/3 + - Fn(Nr..>J
(8'.10)
372
Chapter Eight
TABLE 8.17
Typically Assumed Mineralization Rates for Organic Nitrogen

in Wastewater Sludges2637
Time
after sludge
application
1
2
3
~1ineralization
Raw.sludge
40
20
.9
10
5
3
3
3
3
3
10
5
6.
7
8
rate {'},J
Anaerobic digested
Com posted
20
10
5
3
3
10
.:>
3
3
,.
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
where N ~n = plant availab.le nitrouen

available in year n from miner~
.
alization of sludge applied in .a previous year, kg/int

(lb/t) dry solids
(.J.V,)77 = decimaJ fraction of organic. nitrogen remainmg in the
s1udcre
n
;::, in .vear
..
(other tenns as defined previously).
The nitrogen-limiting annual sludge loading is then calculated
using Eq. .8.11:
wb.e:r.eRx =annual slndge 1aading in year ofconce~ mtlha (t/ac)

U 'X = annual .c rop uptake of nitrogen (see Tables 7.5 and 7.:6},.
kg/ha (lb/ad
_jV c = pJ.an mraiiahle ni'i:!ogen fram cWient year~s sludge, from ..
Eq_ 8_9, kg/mt (lb/t) of dry solids .
N rm = plant available ni:irogen frain Illiiiera!ization of <all _p revions applications, .kg/mt Qb/t) dry solids
In addition to the a-vailable nitrogen -c alculated above, it is also necessary-that nitro~ from .any other source be ~clnded when c alculating agronomic rates_
Calculation of .land. area. Equations 8.6 , 8.8, and 8_JI should be solved
to..determine .the parameter limiting the sludge loa-ding. Some regulatory authorities require limits on constituents other than nitrogen,
phospborns, or metals_ The limiting parameter for -design will then be
Sludge Management and Tr~a.tment
373
the constituent that r~sults in the lowest calculated sludge loading.

The application area can then be determined using Eq. 8.1~ . The
area calculated using this equation is only the actual application
area; it does not include any allowances for roads., buffer zones. arid
seasonal storage.
A - Qs
(8.12j
RL
where A = application area required, ha (ac)

. Qs = total sludge production for the time :Period of ~nee~ mt
(t) dry solids
.
R L = limiting sludge loading rate as defin~d by previo~ e~
tjons~ mt/ha - }T (t/ac yr) for annual sy~ems or for the
time period of concern
It 1s not likelj.that the design procedure described above will result
in the ideal balance of nitrogen, phosphoras,. and potassinm for optimum crop production in an agricultural operation. The amounts of
these nntrien~. ii?. the sludge to be applied should be compared with
the fertilizer recommendations for the desired crop yield, and supplemental fertilizer ..applied if necessary. Reference 37 givas typical
m.ttrient requirements fur crops in the ~Midwe,-te:rn states; agricultural agents and .e xtension services c an provide similar data fer most
other locations.
Annual applications are a common practice on agricoltnral: operatinns. F~-ted SjBtems typically apply sludge On: a 3- to 5-year interval due to the more difficult site access .and distribution. The total
sludge .loading is designed nsing the '!Da:tions. presented above-_
~wever7 'becanse- of mina.alization -of the Im:ger single applicati~
there may be a brief period m nitrate loss during the year of sludge
appFtcation..
Reclamation and revegetation ef disturbed land genera1Iy require a
large quantity of organie matter and nutrients at the start o-f the
.effert to be effective. As a result., the sludge application is typiCally
designed~ a -one-time -operation,. and the lifetime metal funits. given
in. Table &.1.4 are .controlling .on the assnmption that the sit-e might
someday be used for agrietiltrrre.. A single large applicatio-n .o f sludge
may result in a temporary nitrate impact -on the site groundwater.
That impact shon:ld be brie=4 .a nd prefernhle to the Iong-ter:m environmental impact from the mrrecl.aimed area.. When. etmLulative met~
loaoog limits ~ the sludge loading~ the same t.otal .applica:tian
ai'ea will be needed for either agricu:Rn:ral orredamation projects_
Forest systems may require the largest total land area of the .thr~e
eoncepts because uf access .and .a pplication difficulties. Application of
374
Cttapter Eight
liquid sludge has been limited to tank trucks with sprinklers or spray
guns. The maximum range of these device~ is about 37 m (120 ft). To
ensure uniform coverage, the site will need a road grid on about 76-m
(250-ft) centers o.r limit applications to 37 m (120 ft) on each side of
the existing road and firebreak network.
Experience has shown that tree seedlings do poorly in :fresh anaen:r
bically digested sludge.6 It may be necessary to wait for 6 months
before planting to allow for aging of the sludge. Weeds and other
undergrowth will crowd out new seedlings~ so herbicides and cultivation may be necessary for at least 3 years.27 Sludge sp~j;ing on young
deciduous trees sbonld be limited to their dormant period to avoid
heavy sludge deposits on the leaves.
Example 8.6 Fmd the area reqtrired for sludge application in an ag:ricnJ:tmal
operation. A?sume the following cb.aracteristics arid conditions: anaerobically

djgested sludge production. 3 mtld dry solids; sludge solids content 7 percent;
total nitrogen 3 percent; ammonia nitrogen 2 percent; nitrate 0; arsenic 50
ppm; cadmiumls:ppm; chromium 1000 ppm; copper 400 ppm; lead 43fr:ppm;
men::a:ry 20 ppm;. molybdenum 15 .P pm; nickel 80 ppm; selenium 50 ppni; zinc
900: ppm (ppm = mglkg). A marketable crop is not intend~ but the site will be
planted with a grass mixture. It is expected that the orchard grass m.ll ~entu
ally doniinate.. The local regulatory authorities accept" the .E nvironmental

P~tion Agency metal limitations and: allow a design based on Iritrogen fertilization requirements: A parcel of land is available within 61an af the treatment
plant.
-saiufian
L A .preli:mi:na.Iy cost analysis indicates that -transporl of the liqcid slud,ge to

the nearby site will be cost-effective, .so further dewateriDg will not he
required and t.h e application technique will be sn:rface application:.
. 2. !\fetal limits are (from Table8.14): As 41 kglha, C-d 39 kg;lha?" Cr 3000 ~
.Cu. 1500 k~ Pb 309- k~ Hg 17 ~ Mo- 18 kg.~ Nl 420 kg/fur.. Se
100 kg/ha, Zn 2800 kglha. The annna1 nitrogen uptake af the grass will be
(from Table 7.5} 224 kglha - yr. .The mineralization iates {from TairJe. 8.1.7}
fOr 8:naerohically digested sludge will be: 20, 10, !),. and .~ percent,. ~c.
3.. The lifetime metal loadings are -calculated1I5ing~q.8.7:
CPLR
LWSAR= .
cxo~oor
Fm-.arsenic.
41kg&a .
LWSAR = 50'-x 0:.001
""' 820 mt of dry sludge! ha
Similarly,
375
= 2167 mt. of dry s ludgetha

LWSAR = 300.0 mt of dry sludgelha
LWSAR = 3750 mt of dr.y sludgelha
Cd:
LWSAR
Cr.
Cu:
= 698 mt of dry sludgefha
Pb:
LWSAR
Hg:
LWSAR = 850 mt of dry sludgelha
Mo:
LWSAR = 1200 mt of dry sludgelha
NI:
LWR-\R = 5250 mt of dry slridgelba
Se:
LWSAR = 200(} mt of dry sludgelha
Zn:
LWSAR = 3111 mt ofdry slnrlcaelha
Lead results in the lowest sludge loading and is tberefore the limiting
metal parameter_ As a res~ 698 mtlha of sludge can be applied dming.the
useful life ofthe site jf sludge conditions remain the.same. If all of the metal
concentrations had b een below the pollutant concentration limits :ili.own in
Table 8_15. heavy metal constraints wotild not affect the sizing ofthe facility.
4. Use Eqs. 8:9 and 8.10 to calcolate th.e available nitrogen in the sludge. Since
IiqW.d. sludge will be surface-applied. there \'\ill be volatilization losses
and k~. will equal 0-5. Assume that organic nitrogen equals total nitrogen less
ammonium nitrogEn.
the
N 0 = <Kx) [(N03 ) + k/l\Tff_J + fr.<N0 )}

=
I 1000)[(0)
+ (0.5){0.02) + (0.20)((}.0l)J
= 11000)(0.012)
=
12 kg/mt of dry solids
The residual nitrogen in this sludge in the second year is
= 0.008
{as a decimal fraction}
'l'h;e second year mineraliZation is

(~){N',)2
= (0.10")(0.00.8) = 0.0008'
Residna1 nitrogen in. t:1re third year f.s

{No)3 = (0.008)-: ('0.0008) = 0.0072
Similarly~
~intbird.year =
{).0004
:fi:Jrlr-Jl year = {)_0002
fifth year = 0_0002, etc.

The total crvailable nitrogen :in. the second yerir is the second-year contributiOn pln:s the residnal from the first year.
376
Chapter Eight
lL~T
: "t
ll
l - 1\ 7 I l
J
-
..
If
.._
.
{C"')
l" .,
r.~ . .
I\.,
'-
(I
= 12 + t!OOOH0.0008)
= 12.8 kg/mt of dry sludge
Similar-ly,
cN::Ia
= INc\""" K._. .,:ff'.!.UI/)2 -+- f 1tN,>:!

=
12
7-
0:0001(0.0008-+- 0.0004) = 13.3 kglmt
CNa1. = 13.4 kg/mt

INII L:"' = 13.6 kglmt, etc.
.Assum.i.rig that the sludge characte.rk-t:ics stay the same, the available
nitrogen 'rul remain at aboat 13.6 kg/nit of dry sludge froin the fifth year on.
5. Use Eq. 8.11 t.o calculate the annual .nitrogen-limited sludge loading.
13_6 kg/mt as the ~.ady-state yalue from step 4.
R =
X
U~e
='"
N a. + N pn
224
!3..6
= --
= 1 6..5 mtlhai.yr of dry .sludge
Higher loadings may he appli-ed during the first 2 years if desired, since
the full . ''umu1ative effects of mineralization will not be realized until the
third year .
.6:.. Use Eq. 8.12 t.o find the required application ar-ea. Since food chain .crops are
not mvohed, the annual loading. is based on the nitrogen limits.
A= Qs
RL
= {3 mt/d)(365 rl/yrJ/<16.5 mtlba ~T)
= 66'ha
7. Dete:z::mine the u_~ life cf the- -site for sludge application.. This will ensnre
1:bat there are no restriCtions on potential future land uses, includi:ng production of huma..Tl fo.od q ops:... The lead limited slud:ge loading c aJcnlated in
step 3 11vill co.n tnll.
U seful life = (698 mt/ha)/Clo.5 mtlyrJ
= 42.3yr
A syst~ design for a reclamation site wo~d typically use a single sludge
application_ The "total annual sludge production is 1095 mtlyr (:3 mt/d x 365
d/yr>. At a single loading of 698 mtlha .there would be a reqtri.rement for L6
ha of 1and requiring reclamation each year. Reclamation project designs
must :ensure :that sufficient land will be available for each year.ofthe.intended operational life.
3n
Design of su~e- disposal systems
The.. design: of surface disposal systems typically includes all of the

fao.t~ms.;dtiScussed
for land application systems,' since metals and nutrientS;.llla:Y. still control the sludge loading and the useful life of the site.
f.th Cl:'dilltiion, sludges intended for surface disposal systems may cont@itll <g larger fraction of biodegradable material than typical munici~; ~).ldg~s,. and have significant concentrations of toxic or hazardous
S!lb.~imces. These materials, more common in petroleum an~ many
ind~trial sludges, are q~te often organic compounds. Their presence, if degradable, may control the frequency as well as the size of
the: design unit loading on the system. If the pollutants are nondegradable,. the application site should more properly be considered
as a disposal or containment operation; information on such systems
may be found elsewhere.2529
The primary mechanism for degradation of organic chemjcals in
soil is dne to. the activity of the soil microorganisms: Volatilization
may be significant for some compounds,4 10 and plant uptake may be a
f~tor if vegetation is a system component,. but biological reactions
are the major treatment mech.a.-rism.
Design approach. T'ne design approach for these organic materials is
based on their haif-Iife iri the soil system. This is analogous in some
respects to the mineralization rate approach .for nitrogen management. If, for example, a substance in the sludge has a 1-.year half-.Jife
and the sludge is applied on an annual basis, .half of themass of the
substance will still be left in the soil at the end of the first year. At
the end of the serond year., three-quarters .o f thecmnual mass appliEd
will still he in the soil,. and so forth, un~ at the seventh year the
mass remaining in the soil will be very dose to the ammm.t of the
annual applicatiGn.
It is suggested that,. for C ompounds with a half-life of up to 1 year,.
fhe amount allowed to accumulate in the soil shonld not exc~~ twice
the .aruru.al application ef the substance..;.5 This can be achieved ey .
&dopting an applkation schedule that is.equ.al to one half-life. for- the
substance of concern.
The biological reactions in the s&il are influenced by soil texture
and strnctnre, moisture content,. t~mperature, oxygen level~ nutrient
:status, pH, and the type .and number -ofmicroorganisms. present_ The
<Optimum condi:tions for all ofthese factors are essentially the same as
thnse required for su-ccessful operation of an agricultnrai land application system. An a~rabic soil witb a pH of 6-7, a temperature of at
least l0C {50F), and St}il mosture at field capacity would represent
near-optimum conditions .f or most situations. An additional special
378
Chapter Eight
concern with toxic organics is their impact on soil microbes. A unit .

loading that is too high may actually sterilize the soil. Mixing of the
soil and the sludge reduces this risk and promotes aeration and contact between the microbes and the waste. As a result of this need for
mixing, surface vegetation is not typically a treatment component in
systems __designed for short-half-life sludges.
Data requi~ements.
Characterization of the sludge constituents is a

critical first step in design, especially if potentially toxic or hazardous
organic ~ompotL"1ds are present. Essential data include: inorganic
chemicalsy electrical conductivity! pH, titratable acids and bases,
moisture (water) conten~, total organic matter, volatile organic eompmmds, extractable organic compounds~ residual solids, and a bio1Qgica1 assessment to detennine acnte and genetic toxicity_ The inorganic
chemicals might include the same metals, nutrients~ and halides and
other salts that would be included in an analysis for land application
designs._
The degradatio-n and bai.f-life of -complex
-o -rganic compounds are ~ypically determined in the laboratory by a
series of soil respirometer tests. Representative samples of soil and
,_._sludge are mixed in a proportional range .and placed in s~aled .
flasks, which in turn are placed in an incubation chamber_
Humidified, carbon dioxide-free .air is passed through each flask..
The carbon dioxide evolved fr~ microbial activity in the flask is
picked up by the air and then c{)llectedin columns -containing 0.1 N
sodium hydroxide. The sodinm hydroxide solutions are changed
about three times a week and then titrated with hydrochloric acid_
Detailed procedu:res can be fennel in Refs~ 4 and 28. The typical
incUbation period is up t o- -6 months. ~ -~on:trol tests are rnn at
20C (68-F), but if field te-n:qJeratures ar-e expected to vary by more
than 10:C, the half-life at these other te-n:qJeratures .should also he
determined_ In. some ca~.s _i t is desirable to _yer;ify_Iahor~toxy
r~ul~ wi-th pilat studies m the "tieR soil sam]1Jes are taken .on a
rou:tine.basis after application <md mixing of the sludge and soiL
The analysis sbonld include total o zganics as well as -compound& of"
specific concem _
,,
In addition to measurements of carb~ .dioxide evolution by the
:respirometer tests, it is recommended that the organic .fractions ofthe
original sample and that of the final soil-sl~o-e mixtme be determined. The degradation rates are then d etermined using Eqs. 8.1"3
and.S.l..lf:..
Fortotal carlJon degradati~
Half-life determination.
Sludge Manage.ment and Treatment
C0.27 J([C02t - lC021.~ J
379
(8.13)
where D 1 ..:.. fraction of total carbon degraded.over timet

[C02 t . = cumulative C02 evolved by soil-waste mixtur~
[C02]s = cumulative C02 evolved by unamended soil
C = carbon applied witb the sludge
For organic carbon degradatio~
D
IP
1 - (Cr.D - Cs)
C
(8.14)
a.D
where Dt,o = frac~on of"organic carbon. degl:aded over timet

C r.o = amount. of residual carbon in the organic fraction of the
final sludge-soil mixture
C
=amount
oforganiccarbonextrnctedfrom the unamended
..
s
soil
Ca.o = amount of carbon in the organic fraction of the applied
sludge
The degradation rates of individnal organic subfracti{)ns are also.

determined by Eq. 8.14.. The baTf-:Jife rer the t.otal organics or for .a
specific waste is determined ~...ng Eq~ 8.15:
(0.5 }{t}
(8..15)
where ~m = half-life-of the organics af.conc~ days

t = time period nsed to prodrice the data f-or Eq~ .8.}:3 or 8.14:
days
Dt . fraction ofecrrbon degraded :over timet
If vegetation is to be a routine treatmart .compnnent in the Qperational system, greenlum...c;:e andlorpilot :field studies are ~essazy to
evaluate toxicity ail1l develop. o-pl I,uu" r loading rates. Greerihn.~e
studies. are easier and less costly to ~ but field studies are mor-e
reliable. Systems desi.oaned aniy fm- soil treatment need not
tested
unless vegetation is planned .as a :pastelosrrre activi.ey_
Since a range,af sladge-siDI :mixtures is tested in tbe r-espirometers,.
it is :also posSI"b1e tG determine the cuneentration at wlrich acceptable
microbial .activity occn:cs. It is then possrhle to detennin.e the annual
loading from tbis valne as.d the previously det~rmined h:al:f-Jife:
ne
= f0.5)(c)
yr
tl12
(8..16)
380
Chapter Eight
where C,T
Cc
t L.2
annual application rate for the organic of concern,

kg/ha/yr (lb/ac/yr)
= critical concentration at which acceptable. microbial toxi.
city occurs~ kg/ha (lb/ac 1
= half-life ofthe mganic of concern, yr

=
The loading rate is then calculated using a variation ofEq..B-6:
o.c
c~T
cw
(8.17)
where Ro.c = loafing rate limited by organics, kglha/yr (lb/ac yr)

cvr = annual applic;ation rate for organic of.concern (Eq 8.16),
kg/ha. '}"T (lhlac yr)
Cu: = fraction of the organic of concern in the sludge (as a decimal)
If the half1i.t.'% of the organic of concem is less than 1 year, theRo.c ciilculated from Eq. 8.16 may be appiied on a more frequent schedule. In
this case the nn.m:ber of.appl~cations becomes
-r
.L
N=-
{8.18)
:[I.<?
. where N is ti-.t.e number of applications per year and t 112 is half-life, in .

Jrears.
The land area required is then determined using Eq. 8.12. As with
l211d application systems, t he calcnlations are performed for mitrients::- metals~ and o ther petentially limiting factors_ The Jjmiting para.m eter for ~gn is then the eonsritnent requiring the largest land
area as calculated by Eq. 8 1-'>.
Loading Alomenclatnre. Depending c:m. industrial conventions and
~actices, the Ioadingrat:5 and application rates used in the design
calcu1ations may he eipre:ssed in a variety o f units_ F'Or example, in
the petrol:eum mdnsb:y it is cominon ro ex'pl"es5 the taadmg:m te:rnis
ofbarrel,:; pe- hecla:re: In :most cases the .slndge is mix-ed with. the sn:rfare 50il. This sm.:faee zone, termed the incorporatian zone,. is.typieally
1~ em. (6 in) thick. .As. a rescl~ the loading is also often expr-essed as
kilf>grams per meter .gf incm:po:ration. zone or as a p .e rcent'age ofa contaminant (.on a mass ba.S.s) in me in-corporation znna The ealcula:..
.t ions below illnSt1"ate:-the v::ariilu.s possibilities_
One barrel (bbl) 1Jf-oil .contains 159 L., which is abotrt 143 kg fff oil~
One cubic meter of "typical" soil contains about 1270 kg -of soil (1 ft3 =
80 Ib ofsoil).
O.ne hectare -of treatment area with a 15-cm {6-in). .inc{}rporation
zone :contain:s (0~15){10,000t = 1500. :rn3/ha (217437 ftS/a~L .At 100: bbl-of
381
oil per hectare (40 bbl/ac), the mass loading will be !100 ll143J/1500 =
9.53 kg/m3 (0.6 lb/ft1) of incorporation zone. At 500 bbl!ha (200 bbl/a~),
the mass loading (on a percentbasis) will be (500)(143)/(1500)(1270) =
3.75 percent oil in the incorporation zone.
Example 8.7 Find the land area required for treatment of a petrolewn sludge
produced at a
of 5 mtld, containing 15 percent critical organics. The following data were obtained with respirometer tests:
rate
Applied carbon (C) = 3000 mg
C02 produced (90 dJ
1500 mg f~e
lOOmg{sail onlyJ
soih
A field test indicated that the critical application Cc for

soil microbes was 71,500 kg/ha yr (3.75 percentt
main~ce
of the
solution
1. Use Eq. 8 .13 to determine evolved CO..... <Jn a t otal carbon basis.
((}. 27}{(CG_:~J". -
D, =
])90 =
=
CO!!})
C'
(0.27)(1500 - IOD-1
3000:
0.13
.2. Determine the half-life for the .organic compounds u......<iing Eq. S..15.
(0.5Ji t}
.D:
-
(0.5 )(90)
0..1.3
= 346d
= 0.95 yr
3. Detamme the aw.~n ratefor :the critica:l .com_Pon:nifs
usmg Eq. 8.16.
. (0.5)(C)
c yr =
-~-.....::.....
'1,'2
(0~5 H7l:)i00)
0.95
= 37~'32 kg/ba - ;yr
4. Determine the organic-controlled loading rate nsing Eq. 8.17.
R
o.c
-_E!..
C
.....
382
Chapter Eight
= 37,632
0.15
(),C
= 250,880 kg/ha yr
= 251 mtJha/yr
5. Determine the required land area using Eq. 8.12.
A= Qs
RL
=
(5)(365)
251
= 7.3ha
6. To c omplete the design calculations, the area required for nutrients. metals,
and any other limiting substances should be determfued. The largest ofthese
calculated .areas will then be the design treatment area.
Site details for surface disposal systems.. The site selection procednre
and design Will depen-d on whetbe_r the site is to be permanently dedicated fur a treatment/disposal operation or if it is to be restored .and
made available for unrestricted use following the operational life_ A
system of the former _type may be operated as a treatment system,
but ultimately one or mor-e of the waste constituents will exceed the
specified cumulative limits, so the site must be planned as a disposal
operation. Criteria for these disposal operations can be found in RefS.
25and29.
The general site characteristics are similar for both land application and surface disposal systems. A major difference is often the con.tr.ol of runoff. Off.site runoff is not generally pennitted for either type
of operation; however, in the case of agricultu:ral .sludge operatimm~
rnnof.fis contained bn:t then may be allowed to infiltrate on the application site. Runoff is a more serious _concern for .surface disposal oper.atio~ since the sludge may contain mobile toxic or bazardous constituents.
The site i;. typ~ally .selected, or con.Struc~ en a gentle slope {1--:3
pereent) and subdivided into: diked plots. The pm:Jl05e is to induce
controlled nmoff' and ensure minimUm. infiltration and percoiati-cm... A
complete hydrogr~phlc analysis is required to dete:n:nin.e the criteria .-
for design .of colleetion ;.channels,. retention basins~ and structures to
prevent off-:Site runoff from entering the sit-e. Such .designs should be
based on the peak ilise~ge from a 25-year storm, and the retention
basins far a 25-year., 24-ho:nr-return.-period storm.. The d:isc harge
pathway from the retention basin will depend on the composition of
the water_ In many cases it .m ay be land applied using -o ne or more of
the teclmiqnes described in .Chap. 7. Special treatments may be
...
-
383
required for critical materials; sprinklers or aeration in the retention

~asin are often used to reduce the concentration of volatile organics~ ~. If clay or other liners are a site requiremen~ then underdrains will
be necessary. Underdrains may also be required to control groundwater levels in an unlined site and to ensure maintenance of aerobic conditions in the incorporation zone. Any water collected with these
drains must also be retained and possibly treated.
Th_e site dESign must also consider the application method to be
used and appropriate access for vehicles must be provided. Sprinklers
and portable spray guns have been liSed with liquid sludges. In this
case, the civil engineering aspects of site design are quite similar to
those for the overland-flow concept described in Chap. 7. Dry sludges
can be spread and mixed with the same type of eqaipment that would
be nsed for land application operations.
On-site temparacy storage may also be a reqn:irem.ent, particnlarly in
colder climates. Optimal soil temperatures for mierobiai activity are
20C (68F) or higher. Iflower temperatures are exp~d, the interval
between applications can be extended (as determined by field or
respirometer tests), or the sludge can be stored during the cold periods.
The soil temperature for bare soil surfaces a:re commonly great~r
than the ambient air temperature by 3-5C during daylight ho~s.
Su:rface soils a many land treatment sites may exceed ambient
peratures. by 5-l0C owing to the microbial activity and increased
. :railiation absorption when dark, oily wastes are incorporated.14 In the
general ease .it -ean. h e assned that active degradation is possible
when the ambient air temperatures are l0C (50"F) or higher and no
frost .remains in the soil profile_ On this basis the operational season
for a surface disposal system may be slightly longer than for a land
application system in the same location..
tem-
References
L B~ L.... and S . F- Da-vis: Desiccation and Treatment of Sewage .Slw:Ige .and
Chemical .Slimes with the .Aid of ffigher ~ in Proceedings Symposium o.n

1"\!ncicipal ani!: T:ruiu.strUzl Sfmige Utiliza.tion .ani:f Ilisp~ Rutgers ~er.sit.Y</-At1antic -C ity..N.f7.Apr.-6-8. 1983. pp.172-173_
. . ~- -:-":' .
2.: Banks,. L., .and S_ F. Davis: Wastewater and Sludge Treatment by Rooted .Aq.f
.Plants in Sand and Gravel Basins.. Proceedings Workshop on Low Cost Wa:Stezliath:~.
Treatment, Clemson Univex:sity Clem.son, SC,.Apr. 1983, pp. 205-218.
~t Bastian, R. K.: Summary of40CFR Part 503. Standards for the Use or Disposal of
Sewage SlutigE_ U...S. Environmental Frotecti:tm Agency, Washington, DC~ Mar~ 8,
7
19934.. Brown, K. W.= Haza.rdcms Waste Lmzd .Tn?ctment. EPA Report SW-874. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofSalid Waste and EmergencyRespons~.

Washington, DC, Apr. 1983.
;.;.-:
5. BurnSide.. 0_ V..: Prevention: and Detmffication of Pesticide Residues in Soils. in
Pesticides in Soil and Water.. Soil Scientists of America, Madison, WI. 1974, pp.
387-412.. .
,.,)

.
.# ...
384
Chapter Eight
6. Cole. V. \V. , C. L. Hemy. P. Sch i~:;s, and R .J. Zasoski: Tlw H'.''
Fore..sts in
Sludge and Wastewater Utilization Programs, in fJroceeding.o.; i :'' : .
:),sh:"JP on
Utilization of Municipal Wa..~teu:ala and Sludge on Land. tin:-...~~:i~ ; . '. .-.lif:Jmia.
Riverside. 1983. pp. 125-143.
7. Costic & .'\.ssociates: Engineers Report- Washington. Town ..:hip z. f: .; .: .J,;;: i-.\ ;r!l) ..
Sludge 1'rcalmenl Facility, Costic & Associates, Long Valley. N,J , l ~' :-. . .
.
B. Donovan. J .: Engineering AsHes~ment of \.rcrmicomposting JJ~ : I : -: .>. :! / \,::;,-c,[(;...'"
Sludges. EPA-600/2-81-075, available as PB 8!-196933 from :: ; : ~ ':' :, ; ~>::. ::.;:H t;~J. ]
Information Service, Springfield, VA. .June 1981.
9. Farrell. J . B., J . E. Smith, Jr.. R B. Dean, E. Grossman. anc G. L. ~:.; _ .,..-..:. :~:.: a:,.:J:ai :
Freezing for Dewatering of Aluminum Hydroxide Sludges, J. _..:. ... i\ 'r::':<.:.:;- :r.r.:r~.;;-,
Assoc.. 62(12):787-794, 1970.
10. Jenkins. T. F.; and A. J. Palazzo: nrastewater Treatment bY a. Prv;:_:t ~ ':"t.: -~vi!.: Rfrte
Land Treatment S_vslem, CRREL Report 81-14, Cold Region:< ?.:~-:.:.;- ~,::::i1~ i~d.
Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, ~"H. Aog. 1981.
lL Kuter. G. A .. H. A. J. Hoitink. aod L~ A. Rossman: Effects of Aez:-ation., ~nd
Temperature on Com posting of Mnnicipal Sludge in a Full'- Scale Vessel System, JWater Pollution Control Fed. 57141:309-315. 1985.
12: Lang. L. E.. J. T. Bandy, and E. D. Smith: Procedurs for Etaluating and
Jm.prot,ing Water Treatment Plar.l Processes at Fixed .4rm_y Facilities, Report of the
U.S. Army Coll$i:rudion Engineering Research Labaraio.ry, Champaign, :rr_ 1985.
13. Loehr, R C., J. H. Martin, E.. F. Neuhauser?and:M.R:M::alecki:Waste_\fa-nagement
Using Earthworms-Engineering and Scientific Relationships. National Science
Foundation ISP-8016764, CorneD Uni-c.-ersity.,. I:th~ NY. Mm-. 1984.
l-.. Loebr, R C . and J. Ryan: Land Trea:t.mi'Tlt Practices in the Petrolewn lndW:.-try,
American Petroleum Institute. Wasbin.,atoo, DC. June-1.983.
.
15. Metcalf & Eddy. Inc.: Wastc-u:atP-r Enguu.cring: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse; 3d ed. 1
McGraw--Hill. New York, 1991.
16. Miller. F. C ., and M. S . .Finstein: ).-Iateria1s Balance in ~he Composting of
Wastewater Sludge as Affec~d by Process Control Strategy, J. Water Pollution
Control Fed.. 57(21:122-127. 1985.
17. Pietz. R. I., J. R. Pet.erson. -J. E_ Prater~ and D. R.. Zenz: Metal Concentrations in
Earthworms from Sewage Sludge Amended Soils. at a.Strip !\fine Reclamation Si~
J. Environ. Qual., 13(41:651-654, 1984.
18. Reecl S .. C., J. Bouzoun, and W. S_ Meddin.g: A Rational Method for Slud~
De1.vatering ";a Freezing, in Camptes Rendn..~. 7'-' Sjmposi.u.m: sur le traitmeTif cles
~ua:r: .zu;'ees. Montreal, Nov. 20-21, t9S4, pp. 109-117.
19. Reed. S. C .. and R. W. Cri~ Handbook of Land Tre.a:t:m.en:t Systems for Industrial
and Municipal Wa.5tes. Noyes Pubfications,. Park 'Ridge. N.J,.l984.
20. Rush, R. .J.. and A. R. Stickney: .N atural Freeze-Tha:w Sludge Conditioning ancl
Deuatering. Report EPS 4-WP-79-~ Ero:i:ron:ment Canada, Ottawa, Jan.. 1.9'79-.
21. Schlepp.enbach, F. X.: Water Filtrrr.tian at .DuluHr ~!irme!;oto. EPA 600/2-84-083.
a\ailabie as PB 84-!77 807 from National' Technical Information Servic-e.,.
Springfield, VA, Aug.l:983.
.
.
... .
. .
22. Schneiter, R W.., E. J. Middlebrooks,. R.. S. :SI:etten.. .and S.. C. Reed: .Accumulation..
Characterization and Stabilizalion of Sludges: from Card llegi.on:s Lagoon~ CRREL
Special Report 84-8, U.S: Army Cold Regions Research and Engin.eering
Laberatory, Hanover.,. l\c1!. Apr. 1984.
.
23. Sieger, R. Rr and G. J_ Herman: Land .Application. Requirements of the New ShidgeRuies,.Water I En,gnemng & ~Ia:nagemerrt, 1.4{)('8J:31'J-31, 1993.
24. Sigmund. T _ W.1 and R. B. Sieger: The New Surfa-ce Disposal Reqairem~nts..
Wac;;r / Engineering & Management, 14Dl9.J :.l8-19, 1993..
25. Sittig, 1\IL: La ndfiU Disposal of Hazt:rrdous Wa5tt?s -a mi Sludges,_ N a-yes Data Corp....
Park Rid.ge-r NJ', 1979.
26. Sommers, L. E .. C. F. Parker, and G. J. 1\l .yers: Volatilization. Plant Uptake and
MiT.Lera/iz.a;tion of.Nitrogen .i.n Soils Treated u:ith. Seu:age Sludge, Technical Report
133, Purdue Unive:r.sity Water Re...::;otrreeS Re5ean::h {'...enter, West Lafu~J;te, IN,
198L
. .
..
'27 .
385
.-: ~:;;n..::. \\. E .. tH:l~; S, X .. Kerr 'i'd~. ::Utilization u{J!u.nicipa/ ::it!tmge Eflluent flnd
.'-ii.lrdgc on: !Fi.~J?est: &. I!HMurbed Land. Pennsyhania State Univerl:iity Pres's ,
U:.rri~\t'IT~t:v. l'at:k,. ll919.

28. ):l)ttWJ.~.y.;, G~: zytic.~;obiai Respiration. in Methods o{ Soil Analy...;i.,-Pari 2, Chemical
qwd:i;Wiimoliiat Prop!lrties. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wl, 1965, pp.
li)'ffil? 1.57:2:'.
2.9J.lt$. ~rmy,. Corps oC Engineers: Technical Manual- Hazanf,.:ts Waste !Jand
[h$f!Qs.ar a.nd Land Treatment Facilities, TM 5-814:-7. Hnntsvill~:: Division~ U.S.
Am~;,.G<sr;ps of Engineers. Huntsrille, AL. Ang. 19~
3J>)~ .lL"S:- . ~~partment of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency: Manual for
G~l['.~pDsting Sew.age Sludge by the Beltsrille krated Pill:: }.[ethod. EPA 600/8-8002.?.:;.$-P.A Municipal Environmental Re..c:ean::h Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, May
lmlO;
3lt .U. S~- En"'ironmental Protection Agency: Pro<:ess De.:;;ign J.Janual: ~\olunicipal Sludge
L.c ptdfills. EPA 625/1-78-010, available as PB-279 67:5 from National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA,. Oct..l97S.
..
32, U:S. Environmental Protection AgenC}:: Process Design: Manual: Sludge Treatfnent
and. Disposal. EPA 625/1-79-011. Environm~mtal Protec.:tion .Agency, Cincinnati,
September1979.
.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Composting Processes to Stabilize and

Disinfect Municipal Sewage Sludge.. EPA 430i9-Sl-OlL Office of Water Program
Operations, Washington. DC, June 198L
34. U.S. Environmental Protection-~ .Prot:essDesigr;. Manual: Land Treatment of
~Municipal WasteU'ater, EPA 625/1-81-013., Cente-r fin .Environment'1 Research
Infor:mation,. Cincinnati. OH. Oct. 19&1.
.
35. U.S. En,ironmental Protection Agency~ U.S. Department of -~aricnltm'.::. Food &
Drug Administration: Land .<!pplication of ~\tunicipa:l Sewage Slr;r.d.gr.: for theProduction of Fruits arull'egetables-AStat!:!mt:nt o,FFederal Poiic_v a.nd GuidanCe.
Office ofMnnicipal Pollution Cuntr.:>L Wasmr;gt.en,. DC, 1961.
36. U.S. Enrironmental Protection A.,a:ency: Process Design Manual: Deuatering

Munidpcrl Wastewater Sludge$. EPA 6 25/1-82-014, Center for Environmental
. Re-c:ean::h Information, Cincinnat:L OH... Oct. 1982.
37. U.S. Emiromnental Protection..Agenq::: Proces.r:: Design "'"'fanual: Land .4pplic:ation
of }[un.U:ipal Sludgtr, EPA 625!1-&3:-016. Center for- Environmental Resear.eh
Information, Cincinnati OH, Oct. 1983.

.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency: Sludge Composting and lT{lpraLed
Incinerator Per{oirmaru:e. TechnoiJ:igy Transfer S,e.minar Report. Gent:er for
Environmental Resean:h.Inft"!:1ll.Grtlon. mci:nnati, OH, .J.n.Iy 1984.
.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection .1\gs:ll.-y.. National Sewa.:,ae Sludge Su..rvey. Fed. Reg..
55t218), Nov. 9~ 199~.
40. Whiting; D. M..: Use of Climatic D!I..'fU. in Design o{&fll Trei:z.tm.errt Syi:i'fems. EPA
660/2-75-018, Environmental Protecrion A.::,cr.:ncy Con::a n;;; Environm.a47J Research
Laboratoey. Con-:alli"'. OR. Sept. lS%..
'
:, ..
"-:...
Chapter
On-site
WasteWater
.
Management Systems
.
There are over 20 million soil absorptiOn systems used far on-site
wastewater management in the United Sta:t.es..I.& These wa.:,-tewate:r
management systems generally operate with minimal or no operational attenti~n for many years and can be permanent management
systems if they are properly sired and designed.. In this chapter the
foUowing topics are discussed.: types of on-site.systems,. site assessment,. on-site treatment alternatives,. on-site disposal altern..atives,.
and on-site wastewater management districts.
9.1 : Types of On-sife Systems
The typical on-:sit.e treatment and disposal system for individual h{}mes.
consists of a septic tank and a g:a vity, snbsurface soil _a bsorption system. Alternative- treatment systems may inclttde grease traps for
indtistrial~ conmierclaL OT :restan:rant wastewater,. Imhofftanks: for
multifamily or clnsters ofhom~ and additional trea:tment beyond primary (septic tank} treatment, such as sand filter.s and aerobic treatment units. In nia::.-t eases septic: tanks (ofvariom; sizes.) 'Will he the preferr-ed initial treatment un:.t Sr::ibseqnent treatment fur nitrogen or
pathQgen removal may use one or more ofthe following proce.sSes:
Intermittent .sand: filters

Recrrculating fine gravel filters
Ponds (.see Chap~ 4}
Disinfection (ultraviolet light or chlorination)
The conventional method of septic tank effiuent disposal is an
gr-avity-flow Ieachfield tr-ench_ A schematic of a typical
.intermittent~
387
388
. Chapter Nine
Barrier
materia~
2-4ft min.
distribution
Water table or
p1pe
cteviced bedrock
Figu:re-2.1 T :rp icrrl ttenclt :::)stem for s:.y tic t2nk effluent disp.'15al.16
~ench sys-tem is presented

Fig. 9,1. :fhe depth of the trench is usuaHy dictated by the local etr\'Uonmental health department and may
range from 1}_3 t'"} 1-5m (1 to 5. ft).
Alternative diSposal techniques have been developed for site conditions t h at -callSe problems for conventional leachfields, such as high
.g roundwater, steep slopes,. ~ow soiL and slowly permeable soiL
\Nhere minimum soil depths are ~-ufficient for effective pathogen
removal, .additional treatment is usually recommended, or alternative
disposal methods can be used. A list of alternative disposal methods
is presented in. Table 9~ for different site t:onstraints.16
9..2 Site Assessment
The- naure .of the on-site soil is the critical question in si~e assessment for on-site wastewater management. The discussion, techniques, and criteria for soil. and groundwater testing and field evaluat~r.r.n in Chaps . 2 and 3 should be considered.. The scale ap.d l~vel af
de-tail o-f a site assessm.ent de-pend on the wastewat~r flows and
strength, the nature Of the soils., the hydrogeological setting, site
slope ~ -existing landscape., and swface .drainage features. The assessm~nt is usually conducted in at least two phases.
TABl.E9,1
$oleotloh of OJ$pQ&PI Molhe)ds under Vatlous Site Oonsttalnt~ 1 1i

Site cnnKl.tnintM
----. - -
---~
__,..---~
:-;Ill:\ ll
Dc!JlLh tu
Hull ln.lttttonhll lty
l1t!plh to ht!rll'lll!h
Bhnlluw
Shnlluw
nn<l
nntl
WII(UI'
tnhJt!
Stopa!
ht siZl'
_.....,_,_~------"
Muthurl
')
Voi'Y
nupitl-
I'Ll phi
111!Uiol'nk
.
Hlnw-
X
X
1'lH10hoH
IJud11
llluW_..,..
l:lcup
..-.-... -.-...
non rJIII'nUu
.X
X
. X"
X"
}(It
Dtwp
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
>:
dr11inud !lYIIllllllll
Rhulluw
X
X
SnntlllnurJ
lJ'L!IlChl!tl Ill' lll!IJI~
Arlificinlly
plli'!Hitl
X''
X
X
PII.H
Mmtml~
Pill HYIIiOtlltl
Y~li'.Y
()...fi'~ -
- X-
fi-1 :;;;
>15'"i
X
X
:\
X
..,..
xr
X
X
X
Nvnpr!rnllllll
infiltnl.iun
lu1tucrna
EvnporaLion
lttlfO!lOK (II nul( )/.~
tn'l' hudur
X
X
t.l'onchca fl incdY1
X
X
X
X
X
J!l'J 'A huda
ur ~rurwhvlll
X ..
X
..
....
.
"Only whvl'O !lUtfnco Hnil Cllh hl-l HLrlppud to liXpOHU /:lllllCl 011 Hondy Inurn mHI.urinl.
''Con HLI'llc~ only olll'lhf.J dry 11oll colld_ltltlllH. UHu Ltont!h cunfh,'tttntlun only.
_.
rl}',onchcfi only.
"Flow J'otluol,lo_n auggol:lilld.
''High ovf)poroiion potential roqt.diotl.
IH.ucununundocl fot H!luth-fitclnl-{ 1-ll~pOI-1 only,

X moqnti thuL Hyl:llum cnn f\mcLion unuctlvuly wiLh t.lml Cllll/"ILI'Uillt..
xr
390
Chapter Nine
Preliminary site evaluation
The first step in conducting a preliminary site evaluation is to meet

with the party developing the property and determine the current
and proposed land use and the flow and characteristi.c s of the wastewater expected. The next step is to gather information on site characteristics, including:
Soil type
Soil depth
Slope
Runoff potential
.
Drain~ features (streams, gullies wetlands)
7
Existing structures
\Vater wells
Zoning
Landscaping
~er
col;lecting .all the pertillent data on the site, the next step is to
consult with the local regnlatory agency to determine the regulatory
requirement~ A list o f.typica1 regulatory issues and restrictions is'
presented~ Table 9.2. 10
Detairedsite assessment
The principal issues that usually require .fieldmvestigation are soil

typ.Ei and d~.pth, depth ta:.gr.oundwater, and percolation rate.
Depending on the local regn:I.ations)' backhoe pits, piezometers, and
1Jffil.E9.2 Typical HeguJatoty'Factorsin On-site Systems1u
Setoack distances.(horizontal separatitm. from wells, springs, surfac.e.w~ escarpments, s ite bo:rm.dari.es,. imildiogs)
.M:aximt:mLslope far on-site .disposal field

Soil.clta,racteri:stics:
Depth
P.en:ola.ti.on T~
~Enimnm deptb to groundw.ater
Septic tank (miuimum size)
Maximum hydraulic loading.rates for leachlields

M.a:rimu:m loading rates for -sand filters
....
'
- -
On-site Wastewater Management Systems
391
{b)
Rgure 9.2 Assessing the stritability .of a proposed home site for the disposal of septic
tank efiluent {a) excavation Qf~-t pit with backlme; {b) -examination -ofexposed soils.
and soil formations ..L'i
percolation tests may be I\eqnireil Backhoe pits and piezometers are

used ro determine soil ebaracteristics, depth, and groundwater depth
as described in Chap. 2. Backhoe pns also allow detailed examination
of the sail profile~ as iliustrnted in~ 9.2.
.
The most commonly used test for percolafum rate determination is
the percolation test. Although the percolation test is a relatively sim-
pie, widely used test,. the results of tests conducted in the same soils
eari. varyby 9o percent or more. 1621 The large variability.can be attributed to the proeednre used, the soil moisture .content prior to the test;
and the technique ill.t he individnal -conducting. the test. For individual
homes~ the fulling-head percolation test ca:n be used,. as outlined m
Tanie9 .3.
For higher flows (more than iOOO gaild), .a shallow trench pump-in
test or a basin infiltration test (see Chap. 2) can be used. In the
trench :pump-in te5t:. a shallow trench about .2--3 1Il (.6-l(} ft) long is
excav.ated in an area where the actual disposal :field treBChes are to
be pJ2:ced..15 A -wnoden box is-typica.]Iy placed in the. trench and the
tren.ch::is packed with gravel as shown in VJ.g.. 9.3:. A constant head is
maintained using a pump water meter.,. and float. Observation wells
ar-e drilled a:reund the trench to allow obse..rvati.on of the spxead of
water.
To conduct the t~ the trench is filled with water t.o a given depth
and that water .d epth is maintained throUghout the duration of the
test; wl:ticl:r may last from 2 to 8 days_ The water will move laterally
and vertically as illustrated in. Fig. 9.3. The soil acceptance rate can
then be approximated as shown in the following example_
7
'
-
.... : '
392
Chapter Nine
TABLE 9.3
Falling-Head Percolation Test Procedure16
1. Number and location oftests

Commonly a miri4:Dum of three percolation tests are performed within the area proposed for a n absorption system. They are spa.~ed uniionnly throughout the area. Tf .
soil conditions are highly variable.. more te:.-ts'may be required_
2. Preparation oftest hole

The diameter of each test hole is 6 in. dug or bored to the proposed d'epths at the.
absorption systems or to the most limiting soil horizon. T<>e:xpose a nato:ral soil
surface, the sides of the hole are scratched with a sharp-pointed in~ent and
the loose material is removed from the bottom of the test hole.. Two inches ofYz- to
~-in gravel are placed in the bole to protect the bottom from scouring action when
the water is added.
3. Soaking period
The hole is carefully filled "';th. at least 12 in of clear wazer_1'bis depth of water
sboold be maintained for at least 4 h and preferably o~emight if clay .soils are pre;:.
s ent. A funnel with an attached hose or similar deYice m::ay be used t:c pret"ent
water from washing dov:n the sides of the hole. Autore.a:tic siphons or float vah'<:!s
may be employed to maintain the water le~el automatiraUy during the -soaking
period; It is extremely impm-..ant tbat the soil be allowed to .soak .fur a sn:ffi.ciently
long period of time "to allo-w the soil to SV>eli if accma-...e re:strlts are to~ ob.tained.
In sandy soils "'ith little or no clay, soaking is not ne~-a::ry. :U: after :filling the
hole twice v.;th 12 !n of water, the wat& seeps completely away in less than I{}
m~ the test can proceed immediately.
4 . lv{easuremenl of the percolation rate
Except for sandy soils. percolation rate measureme nts are made 15 h but no more
than 30 h after the soaking period~ Any soil mat s1ongbed iritothe bole dnring the soaking period is removed and. the water lev=! is adjnsted to 6.in. above the
gravel (or 8 in above the bottom oftbe hole). At no time during the test is the water
level allowed to rise more
6 in aho-..e the gr;avet
than.
Immediately after a~ent. the ~.ater-. trrel js :tneaall!"ed from a fixed ~furence.
point to .t he nearest Y!6 in at 3Q.:min i~. The test is continued um:il ~ .sm:cessive w.ater leve1 draps do not ~.ary by more titan
in. At least three .me&'""'tll;'Em.ents are made.
\6
.After each measurement. the -water level is readjusted to the o-in 1e"ll-el. The last
\Vater 1eve1 drop is used to calcnJate- t1re :percol..ation -rnJ:e_
In sandy soils or soils in w.hich:the fi:rst 6 in ofwaa:teradded m-er the sea:Icin..:,.~od

seeps away in less tha:n "30 ~ w.a:ter l~'el m->a~
~ents are made at J:.f}-.:min
i.ritemlsfor a 1-h period.. The last warerk:"t"e~ ~ap' 1:: 'U.Sed to.mlcnlatethepercoT.a:tion.rate.
5. Calculation ofthe percolation rate
The percolation rate i.s- calcnlated. for each "teSt hole by di~d:ingtne time .inte:rv.a:I
used between mea_c;ureroents by the- magn!tude of the l..a..st: water level drop... Tins
calculation results in. a percolation rnte in terms of miJ:rmes. per inch.. To d.eter:mine
tbe percolation rate for the are~ the .rates Qbtained frox;t each hole ar-e a~eraged. ('".t.f
tests in the area vary by more than 2() min/in, variations in soil: type are indicated..
Under these circumstancesT percolation rates should not be averaged..)
.Example: If the last measm:ed' drop in w.ater level after SO min is
tion rate = (30 min l/(~ in) = 48:min.t1n.
%in. the :peroola-
On~site Wastewater Management Systems
393
:
I
~
. \
. -1
- ~~
nnc:tt
~~
(il)
Flgure9.3 Field test procednreforpump-in test for hydraulic capacity. 15
Example 9.1 Determine- the soil acceptance rate using the results of the following-pump-in test.
1. Trench dimensions= 2m (6~6 fH long. 0.3 m (1 ftJ widey and 1m (3.3 ft}-deep.
2. Extent of water plume, determined by water appearance in surrounding observation wells. is 37 m 2 ( 400 ft2 ).
3. Water depth in the bottom of the trench is 0.3 m (I ft).
4.. Water depth below the bottom of the :trench at the periphery of plume is 0.6 m
(2.ft).
5. TJ:te height ofthe capillary zone is 0.3-m (1ft).

6. The saturation percentage .ofthe capillary zone- is 35 per.cent.
t~ Sail paro..c:ity = 0.4-
'8 . Water applied during -re::.-t = 15 m 3 {3963 gal).

:9. 'll:me ofte.:.-t = 120-h..
I
so.lati'on
L Water absmiled = total water applied - water remaining... Ca.Icu.1a:te-i:he

water remaining by adding the three components tog-ether: water in: the
trench, waterfu the saturated zqne, and water in the unsaturated zone.
2. Calculate the -water remaining in .the trench.
W1 = 2 m
0.3
1 m = 0.6 m3
394
Chapter Nine
3. Calculate the water remaining in the saturated zone. Use a truncated pyramid to calculate the volume (including the volume of the trench). The base of
the pyramid has an area of37 m 2 The height ofthe pyramid is 1m.
Wsz = soil porosity j0.5 <37m2 + 0.6 m 2 ) x 1 m - 0.6 m 3 j
= 0.408.2} =
7.3 m3
4. Calculate the water remaining in the capillary zone. As::.-ame the same area
as defined by the extent ofthe water plume.
C%
37 m 2 X 0.3 m X 0.4 X 0.35
5. Water-remaining = 0.6 m 3 + 7.3 m 3 + 1.6 m 3 = _!;}.5 m3

6. \Vater ~orbed= 15m3 - 9.5 m 3 ::: 5.5 m 3
7. Calculate the soil acceptance rate.
5.5 m 3
Soit ~eptance rate = 37 m2 (120 h/24 h. rl}
.
.
= 0.0297 mid
((}.73 gaJJft d)
Alternative tests to the pump-in test include the large-scale basin

test (50--IQO nr) as described in Chap_ 2.. Other te::,--t.s ma_y be nec-essarY- if a barrier to vertical percolation exists within the top 3m (10
ft}-of soil Under this condition the potential far groundwater mounding must usually be examined as described in Chap_ 2_
If groundwater occurs within 3-8 m (10-25 ft) of the gr{)und surface~ the elevation~ gradient, and -quality of the groundwater should
be determined.18 Shallow groundwater ~ells: Gr piezometers may be
needed to sample the groundwater -nT7 in the case nf piezome~ to
monitor the depth _to groundwater over time_ Some regnlatory ~aen
cies require piezOm.eter readings -o ver the months when groundwater
levels are XJ)ected to be highest.:
"9:.3 On-site Treatment Alternatives
:' .
The rop.ventional on-site- treatment system lES a septic tank fur prellini:narytreatment prior to ~~sm:face land application. Advanced.
seeanda:cy treatment ean be accomplished: using intermittent ar :recirmlating sand/fine _g ravei filters -nr constro.cted wetlands (see Chap_ 6):.
~-t-anrants and industrial discharges need.. to nse grease traps or
adartional septic tanks to remove oil andgr-easa
Septic'tanks
Septic tanks are prefabricated tanks that comlrine sedimentation,

flotatio~ and anaerobic digestion.. Most septic tanks are made of con-
On-site Wastewater Manag~ment Systems
395
crete, although ~berglass tanks are available commercially and steel,

redwood and polyethylene tanks have been used. Most regulatory
agencies no longer accept steel or redwood tanks. 15
SChematics of both a single-compartment and a two-compartment
tank a re shown in Fig. 9.4.. The interior wall or baffie in the twocompartment tank is intended to contain the solids (sludge and
scum) in the first compartment. An altemative. to the two-compartment tank is tl:le effiuent filter vault as shown in Fig. 9.4. The effiu7
bw1ding
sewer-
Sludge layer
(a)
Riser
Ground surface
I
(b)
E,gere:9.4: Septic-tanks: (a:) typical septic tank with one compartment :and eflluart filter; (b) COnventional ~mpartment septic tank.
396
Chapter Nine
ent from the tank flows into the vault through inlet holes located
around the circumfer~nce of the vault in an area below the scum
layer and above the sludge layer. Velocities through the screen ar.e
low and inlet holes, typically 3 mm (0.125 in) in d~ameter, do not
clog. If necessary, the s~reen can be removed and cleaned.
Experience has shown that the screen needs to be cleaned only when
the tank js pumped.
Influent solids settle out in septic tanks, while the oil and floatables
form a scum layer. A clear layer fonns between the sludge layer and
tht scum layer. When the sludge layer reaches 530 mm (21 in)~ or
when the scum layer exceeds 250 mm ( 10 in\ the septa.ge (contents of
the septic tank) needs to be pumped~ For a 3785-L (10~0-gal) tank
and a three-bedroom household generating wastewater, the frequency
of pumping the septic tank should be e very 12 years..1
Septic tanks should be watertight. A test should be conducted in
the field for water leakage and structural integrity hy completely filling the tank with water before and after "illi.-tallation and checking for
water loss after 24 hours.
The volume of the septic tank depends on the domestic wastewater
flow. For comme:r.cial .a nd :industrial applications the actual flo.w rates
should be measured and conside:r:ation should be given "to providing
excess volume for solids concentrations over 250 mg/L and high oil
and grease loads. For domestic wastewater a detention time .o f 2-3
days is recommended for flows of 1.~5-7 m 3/d (500-1500 gal/d). For
flows above 5.7 m 3/d (!500 gal/d), use a bydranlic detention time of 2
days to estimate the net volume of the septic tank.
Septi tanks remove much of the suspended solids and a portion of
the BOD. The p erformane.e of septic tanks for solids retention
depends on the -de::,-ign. the influent characteristics~ and the use of the
effiuent scre-e-a Septic tank effinent quality is pr-esented in Table 9.4
for facilities with and without .efiluent sereens.
~mhoff tanks
rates
When the flow

for en-site systems exceed about 3'.8 m 3 /d
(lOTOOO galld>-:o C~derati>On. should be given to th~ more efficient
Imhoff tank as .compared to large septic tanks. Imhoff tanks are
two-story tan1.-s in which sedimentation occurs in the upper compartm.ent and digestion of the settled solids ocCtirS m the unheated
lower compartment. Gas. pr.odnced in the digestion process
the
lower tank escapes through vents. An averhang ing lip in the- bottQm
of the sedimentation .eliamber keeps rising, gas-buoyed sludge partides from the low er .chamber from rising into the effinent zone in the
top chamber. 2-!5
On-si1e Wastewater Management Systems
'FAB.tE' 9.4
397
Septic Tank Effluent Quality (mgl l)
Design
flow
Loca,tion
aoston Harbor, WA
Eastsound, WA
Elkton. OR
Glide, OR
Irrigon. OR
Lapine, OR
Loon Lake, WA
Montesano, WA
Penn Valley. CA
Tangent, OR
West Point, CA .
(gal/d)
25,000
45.000
20,.000
105:000
4.7,000
32,000
105:000
. Effiuent
screen?
BOD.
TSS
20% .
120
214
122
113
117
26
53
Yes
Yes
93
103
No
90
' (PS
Xo
Yes
'
34
20
45
225,000
39.000
Yes
Yes
128
28
27,000
Yes
104
25POO
Yes
136
31
32
30
Oil and grease removal
Oil and grease from restam.cmts and other commercial and industrial
facilities can be a serious problem. in an on-site disposal system. Ifn ot
removed by pretrea tment, oi l a."'l.d grease can cl~g so.i1 absorptio-n
tnanches.
Interceptor tanks ur grease traps are typicaTiy use.d to :retain <P-1

and grease by flotation. To be effective, the detention time must be
greater than 30 min.. Peak flows and temperatm-es .m ust be measured
and accormted for m design. If grea.Se traps are to be .effectiv~ they
must be cleaned periodically and not allow SIIrgeS of hot oil to pass
thre-agh unaffected. Often an.additional septic tank in series will
serve t.o c.oal offarid retain oil and grease..
intermittent sand 'filters
As described in Chap. 4, intermittent sand filters (ISF) are shallow

beds. of fine to medium sand with :a smf'ace distribution system .and
an imderdrain sj:s.tem_ fu the late 1800s ril.ai:ly Massaclmsetts com.;
mtmities used sl~ sand filte:r.s m treat septic tank .effluent,. with
the first one ~.built at Lenox.. Massa.clmse~, in 1876..s The ISF
systems in: Massachusetts were tbe forermmers of rapid infiltrati~ with loading rates ranging.from l9 to 113 mm/d {0.4S to 2.77
,g alld- ft).
.
A cypical ISF is shown in Fig. 9.5. Septic tank effluent is applied
mtennittently to ~e st:trfare of:the sand bed. The treated water is 'collected in the underdrain system located at the bottom of the filters
prinr to .d isposal or reuse. Intermittent filters axe either open .o r

buried,. with the 1rnYarit.Ybeing buried..
. 398
Chapter Nine
Elfluenr rom
:;eottc :an"
on ~orate<t unoerara.n 2 on no1es

5 .non center 2 at 120 taong ClO\Orn
.t
Singleor doub'e 30 mtl PVC !mer

. _ , H - - t18m holes taang up
:r-:iH-- 1 tn PVC Taterat
(aJ.
To draanfield
or 10. external
pump baSin
Pea
grayei
4in
(b}
Rgureg.s Typical internrlttent sand filter. 5
The treatment pe-rformance n"f I SF systems is presented in

Table R,5. Suspended solids .are removed by filtration and sedimentation.: Bacteria oxidize the BOD and ammonia Inter.mittent -applica-
ti:on .anclventing_ofthe underdrains helps maintain .aerobic conrlitions
within t he filter. Denib:ificatio.n .c an be enhanced by flooding the
underdrains.
The principal design. cr.iteria fur ISF systems are ~and size, sand
depth, hydraulic loading ra~ and dosing :frequency~ 'Generally,. bigherperl"ormance: for :SIL"Jleruled solids:!' ammflni~ and BOD removal-can
be aehieved with lower hydrauli c loading rates~ smaller eWective sand
size.,. and greater sand depth.. Th e smaller sand sizes fR25 mm .or 0-~1
in} generally cause eventaal clogging and require periodic raking or
removal of the solids_ Use Of the larger-diameter sands (0..35-tl.5 mm
'tAI:H..~ 9;8 Jlorrartttttrtco of lr1(Eittf11ttent S~nd ~llt~ts

" '\' '
~-~
.,. -
t f "
-~
.- !i...
.-
"' (':
~--
. -~
,. . . - ;
LocnLiuu unci
rofi:!tctwe
t'loJldn l'll
li'llll'lda I.D I
Otugon lUl l
til-lntwn IlrHlch, CAIU I
uo lJavl~; OA 1HJ
Pnl'n_dlse,
OA r~r
-~
,rc.-..... ...
---..,--.n..
~--
sta ..- 7m
~-~- --~ .--.....---..----.
IU!lhct.lvu
IU\Tlcl fliY.e
(mml
l),21l-OA6
0,2fi-J ,(},J
0.14-0.tl
O.~o"'"O,I-1
o.~~-u.oa
o.~Q-O.tm
1,
Aa
. .-,. . ----.. .
--
----;r---"----~----......--~---..n.
;,n
~ uiW:
130_UQ t rt~U(_L>_ _,.__
~unt.llnu
l'llll!
tgnl/f't.:l dl
!nf,
Ell'.
t/{,l'tlltl'
1 . 7~-1.0
.tdH
n7
l.ri.O
. J.R
90
2,0- 13.0
O, fJ3~0.88
1.23
Lll-4.0
0.1>
217
20:3
82
1~8 ..
.
9~
'l'o~nl
N l.mHILI
lnl'.
Ell'. .
':rrom.
:n
ao
32.o
1a.o
17
---------
'"
3.:l
UH
llA
30.0
-l~
11.0
O.fi
94
()7
41.0
2fi
flO
6.0
Ofi
14
38
7.2
. W.O
4i
f>O.
..
...
'
i.:
400
Chapter Nine
TABLE 9.6
Effluent
Design Criteria for Intermittent Sand Filters Treating Septic Tank
Design criteria
Design factor
Filter medium
Material
Effective size
Uniformity coefficient
Depth
UndETd.rain bedding
Type
Size
U nderclrain. piping
Unit
t;nm
u.c.
in
in .
T:vpe
Size
SlCJpe
in
'1t-
llimge
Typical
Washed durable granular material

0.2S-0.50
0.35
~1
<4
24-36
24
Wash~d durable gravel or crushed stone

"'-= 1\ .....0 .<>.J...r-y.Jv
Slotted or perforated drain pipe

3-4
4
0- l
Flat
Pr-=S=>I.lre dk--tr=Jnttian
Pipe size"'
Orifice size
Head on orifice
Lateral s:paci.Qg
Orifice !;pacing
DEsign parameterS
.Hydrauli~ loaitin~
Organic ~BODJ loading

Dosing frequency
Dosing t~k ~nm.e

Filtermediumtemp.
in
in
ft
ft
ft
ga11ft2 . d
lb/ft2 d
1-2
0.125-0.25
3-6+
L5-4
1.5-4
{}_6-2.0
0.0005-0.002
. r.imes/d
4-24
days nnw
0.5-l.G
OF
1.25
0.125
5+
2
2
1.2
<0.001
6
. 0.5
>41
"'Size depends on. the flaw rate.

Adapted from Refs. 10. 15. end 16.
-or 0~014-0.02 i:u} can result in long-term operation without raking .or.
solids r.emoval, prm:rided that the hydrcrulic loading ra:te is not too
high <.50 mmld .or L.2 gal/ft2 d) and the temperature averages 4C
(39F) or more in the. -coldest month. The sand must be washed and
free affine~: ''I)rpical d~ign criteria .are "Presented m Tah1e- 9.6.
Recirculating fine gravel filter
In: a recircrilating fine grav-el :filter septic tank, effluent flows mto a
recirculatio-n tank (see F:tg. 9.6), where it mixes with fitter e~uent.
The .emrtents o.f the recirculation tank are pumped ov.er the: :filter two
to three tim'es .e ach hm:rr_ A ~dive in the recirculation tank allows: filter effiuent to either enter the tank or be disch.argecL depending on
the liquid level in the tank. Tne major diffe~ences between.ISF and
rec-T...r.culating filters are that {1) coarser media ar~ l:l sed: {21 the
On-site Wastewater Management Systems 401
_ .,_: SEPTIC
f TANK
-----
----- '
DRAIN FJElD
FUTURE
REPLACEMENT
AREA
SYSlE\11 SCHEMATIC
TYPICALROSS-SEn.ON
fignre9'~
PLAIN. VIEtl'tl
1:..:.-vpical recir~ulatingfine gi'a'\."f!l 'filter.10
hydraulic loading rate :is higher~ and (3).wastewater reciieu:lation

ratios .a f 3::1 to :1 are used with recirculating gravel filters. m some
.areas c oarse
is used and the process is called' recirculating sand
sand
filters (RSF).
ne added' facilities.in. RSF systems makes them more expensive
than ISF for :i.t""'l.dividual barnes. However~ the cost effectiveness o fRSF
.and r~eirct1lating. :f4re gravel filters .o ccurs with highe-r flCJWs 'becaU:Se
hydraulic loading rates c an be thr.ee to four times higher thai! for 1SF.
systems.
T~e performance :0f recirernating fine gravel filters.:(RFGF} is shown.
in 'T able. 9.7. The gra:vel size in these filters is. large enough that fiit.e.r
..
'fAfll.a 1).1
P&rlOtrf!Moe o1. ti~olro"l~tl_

~~ _Clrn~~~-~~M~diU.~-~~~~!_t_!_
_ _~---~--- ------ ---- -~--~--~-------..
. ..
"'
Location and
teforonpt,t
. ..[7]
Mtohtaan
Oregon [181
Paradise, OA [9]
Pa.r adise, OA [9]t
.: EO'octlve
:medium sli'.e
. cmm)
. o.~
1.~0
. 3.00
3.00
.. .
Total N (mg/L)
BOD&(mg/Ll
LondJng
rnto
<guViV d)
Inf.
Err.
%rem.
lnf.
EfT.
- ~-~---------------------------------------~-------a.oo
240
25.0
90
92
34
1.45
4.40
2.50
217
134
60
~...........-.~~_,.
"'37-unit apartment complex.

t6-unit apartment complo~
2.7
12.0
8,0
-.~-.~~"!T'<.r-...---,.........-,,_....,.....~~~
09
91
58
03
57
137
........
-~--~~
32
36
26
- --
~..........---~-
~rem .
60
45
44
54
403
clogging does not normally occur, provided that well-<;lesigned septic

tanks or equivalent primary treatment precedes the filter.
Recirculating gravel filters can nitrify effectively (over 90 percent) .
. One consideration to be checked with recirculating filters is the tendency toward low pH in the recirculation tank As ammonia is nitrified, 7
mg of aikalinity is .destroyed for every 1 mg .of ammonia oxidized to
nitrate_ If the community water supply is a soft, low-alkalinity-water,
there may be insufficient alkalinity to buffer the pH during nitrification.
Ifthe pH is reduced through the filter~ the performance of the bacteria
for BOD and ammonia removal can be impaired. A source of alkalinity,
such as sodiUm or calcium carbonate7 can be added. Alternatively, the
denitrlflcation process, which restores about half of the alkalinity lost in
nitrification, can be maximized. 4Jtematives to maximize nitrogen
rer.r;toval in~ systems are d~cribed ~ the next section_.
T.fl:ri.cal design criteria for recircnlating fine gravel filters are presented in Table 9_8. The effective size of the gravel medium is typically
TAm.E9..8 DesignCr1teriaforReCirculatingFme Gravel Filters Treating Septic
Tank EftTuent
Design criteria
Design factor
Unit
Filtermedimn
Material
E.ffi:!ctive size
Uniformity coefficient
Deptii
Under.fu:ain.bedifing
mm
uc
in
Range
Typical
?J:ashed durable granular material

I .Q:-5.0
. 3.0
<2:5
2.0
18-3624
Wasbeddm:able gravel or crushed stone
Type
Size
Un.denttam piping
Type
Size
Slope
Pressme ifist:cibnfion
P"ipesize*
Orifix:e.size
Head on o1::ifu:e
I<Oietal spacing
Orifice s.Pacing
{).375-0.75
Slotted or perforated drain pipe

3-6
.
4
0-1
Flat
:in
in
ft
ft
ft
1-2
0.125-0.25
3-5+
.I.5-4
L5-4
1.5
'0.125
5+
2
:2
~-p.a:rai!leteiS
H;ydnmiic.I:oadmg
Oxganic ~BOD~loading
Dosingfrequency
F rcin:ulation ratio
gallft2 -d:
...
min/30 m:i:rh
1bBOD~-d
"SIZe depenrlson flow rate.

Adapted from. RefS. IO~ 15, and l Ei
2 :5--{).0
0.0005-0~{)02
1-10
<0.00"1
5
3:1-=5:1
4:1
404
Chapter Nine
3 mm. The recirculating sand filters (RSF) in the literature use effective
sand sizes of 0.3 1:0 1.5 mm..5 'f:he finer medium in RSF will tend to clog
when dosed with septic tank effluent, whereas the RFGF will not clog.
Alternative nitrogenMrernoval proce:sses
Because lack of nitrogen removal is often liste"d as a shortcoming of

on-site systems, alternative nitrogen-remova"I processes have b.e en
proposed for on-site systems. These alternatives can be classified as
Source separation
Physical/chemical
s:
Biological
Source separation. Most of the .nitrogen discharged from :residences is

contained in the blackwater (toilet wastewater)_ Black"Water contains
more than 75 percent of t:11e total nitrngen in domestic wastewater.,
although it amounts to only about 40 perrent of the flow. I 7 The oo:n.cept of source sep2ation is to collect me b1acbvater and g.ra}rwat m(rem.ainder of household wastewater) :Separately. ".!!he graywater .can
be treated and disposed of m .a -c:onventianal septk t-ank and leadlfield system or, altemarive1y, it can be reused for subsmface irrigation of plants and la.r1dscapmg.15 The black-water can 'be treated b_y
one of the physical/chemical er mo1ogica1 processes an-site~ avoided by
using non-water-eairiage toilets and .c omposting or in~eration, or
sent off-site for treatment. 19
Physical/chemica! treatm:ent io.r nitrogen.. V :ariaus phy:sical/che:mieal
treatment methods can be used f.or ~en. removaL including ian
exchange,. reverse fuiulosis, chlarine ~dation,. and air stripping_!5 Ion
exchange has been eansida-ed for either .:=nnm.onirrm or nitrate removaL
Clinoptilr.1ite,. a na.x.."l::!rall,y occur 1 7t~g zeolite tbat has high selectivity for
ammonium .o-ver me~ Dtller cations in wastewater.,. can. be :Use.d VJi:th
septic tank eff!ue!u:. The <resins Dlil:St b~ regenerated periodically_
If tbe septic tank is nitrified (such as with an ISF or RSF).,. the
nitrate .c an be removed. with an .aninrr-e.xchange resin. Anion
exchange: for nitrate remm:al has been. u:se.d f-or water treatment
H:iologicat nitrogen t'ernovat Several alter:a:.ativ.e proces...~ have been
developed which use biological denitrification for nitrogen :removal.

Four such processes are diagr~TJ:led in Fig. '9.7. Peat filters have also
been proposed fur nitrogen reiil.Oval,.19 but a recent stUdy -demo&-trated no significant advantages ofpeat over 5a:i'"":l.d..2 0
On-site Wastewater ManagementSystems
Cal Aec:irculf'tlt.ng sand filter w1th
405
~naerobj:: rittt:t
ttl) Recirculati.-.g sand fill.e r witll anaerobic fitter and carbon SQI.In:e
Ccl Recirculating san11 filter Dnd rock storage til;"1:r RSF:?'I
4-------------~ -
- =-'=..--
ldlRUCK.
Figure 9.7 Alternative biological nitrogen-removal processes. Lq
The use of an anaerobic or anoxic filter in conjunction with a r.ecircul~. sand filter can provide the. ana~robi~ ..:.~tions .a nd deten-_
tion time needed for denitrification... The third: -necessary component is
a carbon source, which is provided by the septic tank effine .. S~
tank effluent is discharge.d into the bott.om of the anaerdb:lc r ock filter~ where it mixes with the nitrified filter effluent. The treat~ mixture flows into the r-ecircnlation tank and is pumped .o ver :the filter7'
whe:...-re nitrification occnrs.12
The second flowsheet has the same components. a:s in the first .flo-wsheet (Fig. 9.7a), with the exreption that the carbon source is an
external tank o( methanol or corn syrup. The anaerobic iilte.r is located art.er. the RSF, as shown in. F1g. B-.7b.
The third flowsheet has b een refen:ed to as RSF because it combines
406
Chapter Nine
rock storage filters \\~th recirculating sand filters. Septic tank effluent
is discharged to one end of a rock filter tank that lies directly below
and in the same compartment as a sand filter. Septic tank effluent
flows through the rock filter horizontally and enters a pump chamber
at the other end. The wastewater is then pumped over the ,c:;and filter,
where it is nitrified. Sand filter effiuent is collected in a second recirculation tank and pumped back to the septic tank for denitrification. A
portion of eftlnent from the second pump chamber is d:i.~harged. 14
The fourth flowsheet is known as the RUCK process. The two separated flow streams, blackwater and graywater,. are collected and discharged ro separate septic tanks. Efiluent from the black-water septic
tank is tr~ated in an ISF. Nitrified ISF effiuent is combined with
effluent from the graywater septic tank and denitrified in an anaerobic filter.
The effectiveness of these processes ranges from about 50 percent

to 90 percent nitrogen removal, depen~ on the adequacy ofthe carbon source. The most reliable flowsheet is the second flowsheet (Fig.
9.7b)t because of the added carbon source.. However, costs and cam.plexi.ty of operation must also be con...~19
Package- aeration systems
Comm~rcially
available prefabricated treatment units, known as

packageplants!' are.sometimes used. for wastewater treatment in ansite systems. The two mnst common -versions o faerobic biological activated sludge are the batth-flow .or sequencing batch reactor {SBR}
and the continuous-flow extended aeration process,. as shown in. Fig.
9:.8. The sequencing batch reactor can .also be operated for.high (more
than 89 percent) nitrogen. removal.
The major design arui operational is.snses that affect the pedhrmance of package plants are listed in Table 9.9. The -performance -of
package plants can be improved by sizing the treatment facilities eon_servatively, especia1Iy the clarifie~T5 The key to consistent perfor1 pance ~s . ~gular operational atte:rtionand t:on.siSfent removal Gf
:sludg~. .. .
9L4 On-site Dlsposat Altemalives
.
The most CGmmon IDl-site disposal meth.o.d is the grmrity-fiow 1eac:h.field: or trencl:J. system_ Tiiis type of-an-site disposal wo-rks well where
soils are deep and permeable, groundwater-is deep~ and the site is rel-atively leveL .Altemative infiltration systems have oeen developed to
. '
Effluent
Blower
High water
alarm
Influent
Pump shut-off
elevation
407
.
.
..
__ ..
.....
Pump
.tir r)
...,........,_.~--
Diffuser
Batch-extended aeration
Effluent
~
- .
Settling
chamber
Aeration
\_
...__;
Fl_ow-through extended aeration

Figure 9.8 Examples ofextended-aeration J?ackage plant configurations. 1 ~>
TAB.tE9.9 Design and Operational .Issues That Affect Performance of'P.ackage
PJants'TE
1. Hydraulic shock loads-the Iarge.v:ariations m flow from smail commu.nities.,

accentuated hy the use of oversized pumps wbere wastewater is plliil:ped
?
Very large finctna:tions in both flow and BOnlnading
~L . Very small .flows that make the de.:;ign ofself- cleansing .conduits and channels d:iF. . ......ncult
.
4. Adequat-e or positive s1ndge return, requ:i:cingprovisions .for areci:rcciatimt.rate of
up to 3:1 for extei;tdedae~tion systems to meet all narmal ceonditiom;
5. Ad.e qnatepi'O"rision for scmn and grease reiD.fJ\ral: :from final darifiers
6. Denibification in final clarifier, with.resultant so1idsom:yo':-er.
7. Jnadeqt:xate removal and improper :provision 'for handTmg and db-posing:.of'~
sludge
8.. Adeqaat.e alnrol of mixed-liquor suspended solidsin the aeration tank
9 . A4eqnate antifoaming control measur-es
.IO. Adeqa.atecantrol of air supply rate
..
408
Chapter Nine
overcome adverse site cond~tions as indicated in Table 9. L On-site

disposal systems described in this section include:
G1avity leachfield:::
Pressure-dosed distribution
Fill systems
At-grade systems
I\:Iound systems
Artificially drained systems
Evapotranspiration systems
G--ravity leachfields
Septic ta_Tik effiuen.t f lows by gravity into a series of trenches or beds

for subsurface absorption. Trenches are usually shallow, level excavations~ rangingfrom0~3 to !.5 m (1 to 5 ft) deep and 0.3 to 0.9 m (1 to 3
fU wide_H; A typical trenc.~ cross section
shown in Fig. 9.9. The hottom of the trench is :filled. with 6 in 050 mm} of washed drainrock.
The 100-mm (4-in 1 perfbrateii distribution pipe is next placed in the
c.E nter of the trench.. Additional drainrock is placed over the distribution pipe, fo1J~ywed by a layer of barrier n1aterial, typically building
paper or fabric. The purpose of the barrier material is to prevent
migration of fines from :the backfill into the drainrock. hritially, both
the trench. Sidewalls and the trenCh bottom are infiltration surfaces~
but as the bottom ~clogging mat" formst the trench sides become the
long-term rmrte for -w-:ater passage_
Bed system5 consist -of an excavate-d area or bed with perforated
distribution pipes that are :0..9-LS m {.3--6. ft} apart. The principal
route for wat-er passage is through the bed bottom. Bed .systems can
also oem.p1oy infiltration .chambers, which. create underground caverns
ov-er the 5t7-ii.~s infiltrative surface and therefor~ do not need the gravel
or harrier
IIJ..Cite1i.al.
----.
.
Leac:hlng chamb-e rs constructed out .of :concrete ~e .open-bottomed
sheil:s fuat replace pe:r:fm;ated pipe and gr-avel for distribution and sturage .o f the waste.water. 'T he chambecs interlock to form an undergr-ound -cavern over the soil. Wastewa:t~r is -d ischarged into the cavem .
tbroUz:,d.h .a .c entral w.eir~ trough, or splash plate and ~owed t& flow.
over the in..filtrative ~urface in any direction. Access holes in ~e ~p uf
the cbanrber.s allow the surface to he in:sp~ted and m~tained as nec-es~.ary. A large number of leaching cbamb er systems (see Fig. 9.1H}
haYe been installed in the northeastern United States-.18
Typical site criteria for u se of disposal iieids and beds .are presented
in Tab1e 9.1:0. Loadmg rate.s fe:r trench and bed sy.stems ean be based
is
Natlvtl a.oll bscl<flll
Fabric or
building paper
.~.,....r-rr-r-"T""'f
2*1n, rnlr11mum
rock over pipe
lllL!.
.. . . . 1. . ~kiJ,iit:~#S~t\Fzsz~~~~-36" max ~
arook
. in,minimum
of
. ~ . . . u-
under pipe ., .,
,_p_
314M 21/2,.in. diameter
I .
"
24 ln. min. - -
washed drain rook

f:IQUro-9.9 'ryplcnl
gtnvfty~fucl Roll nbHtll'pl.lun trench
cross :-;cct.icrn. 111
'
1.0
41 0
Chap.ter Nine
Fresh Air
Vent
Flgure9...1Q
Schematic Of a leaching chamber. 16
on percolation test results and regulatory tables,. on soil cha_racteristics,. or on a combination of both. Some states have .abandoned the nse
of percolation tests in favor of soil profile exanrinations~15 Disposal
field load1ng rates rec()mmended. by the EPA for desi~.based on bottom area,. for various types of soils and observed percolation rates are
shown iii. Table 9~11.
The loading rate based on the most conservative criterion is to
equate the rate of percolation to the rate .oftlow tbrungh the biological
mat (biomat Or clogging mat). On tbis basiS the hydraulic wading rate
is 5 lfm2 ~ d (0~125 gal!ft2 -d) based {)1l txenc:h side wall a.reas orily.22
Where the soils ~ontain significant amnmrts ofday,. it is suggested
that the disposal :fiel;d be d.i.\d.ded into tw~ and that the two: fields be
alternated every .6 months. When two fields are nsed,. the actnallaadingra:te for the field inoperation is 1() IJ-rn?--- d -(G:.25 gaJ/ft2 - d). 15.22
Pressure-dosed distrmutian
A pressure distribrition system .has the advantages over gravity-flow

distribution .o fpi'ovid:ing a tmifonn dose to the entire.absorption area,
promoting unsaturated flow~ and providing a consistent d:rying/reaeration period between doses. Pressur.e dosing {:aD. be acnieved using
either fl dosing siphon or a Inw-head pump.
Pressure-dosed distribution can allew the ab~orpti.on site to. be
uphill from the septic tank and will also allow a shallow (6- to 12-in)
distribution network. Wrth screened septic tank -effinent or sand filter
.; ..
TABLE
9.10 Typical Criteria for Trench and Bed Systems 18

.
Criteria
. , lt.
411
..
. :t: ..
Level, well-drained arees, crests of slopes, cOI:i

vex slopes are most desirable. A'\.""Oid depress ions, bases of slopes, and concave slopes unless
suitable surface drainage is provided..
0-25~. Slopes in excess of25% can be nsed. but
construction equipment selection is I.imited.
Landscape form*
Slope*
'l)pical horiz.ontai setbackst

Water supply sells
Surface waters, springs
Escarpments, man-made cuts
Boundary of prop.e rty
Building: foundations
Soil
TeXture
Stiucto:re
Cotor
Layering
Unsa.t:matea depth
50-100ft
50-100ft
10-20 ft
5-10ft
10-20ft
Soils with sandY or loamy textures are best
suited. Gravelly and cobbleysoi!s with open
pores and slowly permeable clay soils are less
desirable.
Strong granular, bioc:'ky., or prismatic strtict:ures
are desirable. Platey or un.st:rm:titr.e massive
soils sho'nld be avoidedBright. uniform coloz:s.in..dicate well--drain~
well-aerated soils: dull. gray., ormottled.sail.s
indicate continuoil.S or s easonal satu:cid:Ion and
are UDStiitable.
Soils exhibiting layer.s w:ih.distinct textnral or
s tructural changes .should b e evaluated careful. ly to ensure that w.ater moveme:ilt will not be
severely restricted.
.
2-4ft (0.6-1.2 m) of'tlllSatm:ated soil Shoold
exist between the bottom ofthe disposal field
and these-c:anally high water table or bedrock..
*Landscape position and s!ope

more restric:-trre for seep2g2 beds ha::a:use oftlie depthaf
cot on the npsiope side.
.
..
t lntemied only as a guide Srife distance ~ from site ro site, based on focal codes.
tn,pog:rgphy, .soil penneabilityT gron:ndwater gradie:ots.geology. etc
. Nate:. ft X 0.3048 = m .
~
effinent,. the distnOution system ean use 3-:m:m. (0~1.2.5-in) .orific~ ..

generally spaced.0:.6--1..2 m (2--4ft) apart. !.a For septic tank ellu~nt.
the orifiee size is typically "6 mm (0.25 in).
.
Because the .ebjective of pr~-ur.e dosing is to provide- unifonD: Cfis-:
tribution with unsaturated 'flnw beneath the pipt; the spacing anq.
sizing of orifices shon!d be uniform. In heavier soils the spacing ean..
be increased ~o 1.2- 1.8 m .{ 4-6 ft}. There is little advantage tO :pres-
sure distribution in soils where tbe acceptance rate is less trum. 12
L/m2 - d {0.3 galfft2'. d), because the c logging biomat will occur \Vlth
septic tank effluent regardless ,ofthe eype of distribution..10
..
412
Chapter Nine
Recommended Rates of Wastewater A pplication for Trench and Bed

Bottom Areas 18
TABLE 9.11
Soil texture
Percolation rate f min/in)
Gravel, coarse sand

Coarse m medium sand
Fme sand.. loamy sand
Sandy 1oam. loam
Loam. porous-silt loam
Silty day ioam. day loamd.r
Clays.. colloidal days
Application rate based. on

bottom area
<galJft:! dr"
Not suitabie--
L2
<1
1--5
6-15
16--30
31-60
0.8
0.6
0.45
61-120
0.2
Not suitable'
:>120
"Rate:: based. on septic tank effluent fro!ll a dome:,-tic- waste source. A factor of safety may
be d-esn able fur waste'il.aters of significantly different strength or character.
!:Ma:v be sui+...able for side-"'-<ill infiltration rates.
rSoils with percolation ~tes<.l :minrm may he snit:ahle fur septic tank efiluent if a 2-ft (0.~
Ill ! layer of loamy sand or odler suitable soil is placed above or in place of the native topsoil.
~e ~il.s are sui table if they are with.oat signifil:ant amounts of expandable daY5.
~sm1
easily ci:unaged during_ronstruction.

pretreatment may be needed and alternati\e dk-posal t wetlands or e"'3potransp-iration systems) may be reqt:!:L.-ed.
~\lt.:rnaLin!-
fiil systems.
Fill systems involve importing suitable off-site soils and placing them
.o--;er the soil absoi"j}tion .area overcome lm:ir-LEd depth of soil or limited depth to groundwater_ Car-e must b: taken in selecting suitable
soil to use in a fill syste~J and in the timing and conditions of importIng the ?oil Several .cnn:ditions II'fll:St be satisfied to constrUct a suceessful .f ill system.
to
1. Native soil-should be scarified prior to .fill import_

?.
The fill sb.anld b-e installed when the sail is dry.
3. The fill material s'hould also be dry to- prevent compaction_

-4.. The firSt: 150 mm .(-6' in) .of fill should be mixed thoroughly wh the.
nativesmL
'
. .. .
. . ...
At-grade systems.
Th....:e at-grade system was developed in W~ns:in as an intermediate

system be-tween in-ground distrihrrtion and the mound ~- The
~ogtegate or d.....rurrock is placed -on the sail su::rface (at grade) and a
soil cap is added over the top. Typically, the ~e is fille~ drainrock is
placed .o n _the tilled area, distribution pipe is positioned within the
dnrin rock, 5;.-y.n:thetic fabric is spread -over~ drai:nrocl4 and final soil
cover (-G.3 m '0r !2 in) is placed o.v.er the s.yE:tffin.. At-g:r-.._tl.e systems do
Bamer .,ateuat \
\
Abs'Ottltlon bed ,
413
So cao
OISU'OJhon lateriUS
'
Water r~ cr fraaurect tledrcdl
Figure 9.11 Typical mound system. 1"
not need the 0.6 m (24 in) of sand that mounds have .a nd are therefore
less costly.
Mound systems
Mound systems are in effect, bottomless intermittent sand filters.

Components of a typical mpund, Shm"m in Fig. 9.11, include a .0.6-m
(24-in) sand layer, dean drainroc~ distnoution laterals~ barrier
materia~ and the .soil eap. Pre&:i-rrre distribution is used a:nd dosing is
done four to six times per day.
Mounds may be used on sites \vith slopes up to 12 percent if soils
are permeable. If the native soil is of low permeability,. the use of
mounds shonld be restricted to slopes of less than 6 percent.
Monnds were first developed by the North Dakota .Agricoltural
College in the late 1940s. They were known as NODAK systems and
were designed to overcome problems with slo'\vly permeable .s oils or
areasha'\-in~ high groundwater tables.~'ffi
7
Artificially -drained-systems
.H igh gronruJwate,r tahles in th~ area of the soil absorption fields may
he ai-tificially lowered by vertica.J:-:drains or underd:rains. Underdra:ins
~be perim~er drains~ used f"or Ievei sites and sites with ~!.opes np
to 12 perce~ or .curtain drams-{upslope side only) for sites with
slopes greaterthan 12 pereent. 10
Evapatranspiralion systems
W here arid cfunatie conditions prewiL e:vapotxanspiratiml (ET) systems can be used. Effinen1 from the septic tank
applied through
perlor.ated pipes to- a fu.I"~d sand bed that is typically 0.6-0. 75 m
(24 30 in) deep-: Thesnr(aee ofthe sand bed is coyered wifil: a shallow
layer of t~soil:t" wlrich can be- planted tp; vegetation. W aste'Water is
is
414.
Chapter Nine
drawn from the sand bottom to the surface by capillary forces and is
evaporated at the surface.
An alternative approach is the evapotranspiration-absorption
(ETA) system~ where the sand bed is not lined. This approach is. used
where percolation is acceptable or possible. Observation wells are
used to monitor the depth of water in the beds . .Both ET and ETA systems are designed using the hydraulic loading rate. For ET systems
the hydraulic loading rate is the minimum monthly net evapotranspiration ~ ~gal/ft2 d) for at least 10 years of record.. For ETA systems
the minimum monthly percolation rate is added to the minimum ET
rate.
9.5 Manag.ement of On-site Systems
Most on-site systems require very little operational attention, and

very Iittle is ever pr{)vided. Most system failures are the result of onsite system owne:rs ignoring system operation and maintenance completely_ Operations can be man~aed by private service contracts, .b y
homeowners., associations, or by on-site wastewater management districts {OWl\.IDs).
.An OWMD must perfutm certain basic functions if it is to provide for
the proper management and control of on-site systems. These basic
functions ~ may be accomplished in conjunction with state or local
.en:v:iT:onmental health depa:r tment programs.. For a management district
to- Wl:1Fk effectively, the follawingbasic functions m:nst be performed.
L Regulations. Regulations must be developed for site evalua:tion,

design,. i:n...c;;tallati~ and operation.. The OWMD sfumld periodically
~view and modifY these regulations
as necessary.
2.. B_vstem IIIId plan review. Proposed systems mnst be reviewed for
~mplianre -with the- regulations.. "..YPically, a site evaluation report
includes .a n assessors parcel map:r a: preliminary site devei(}pment
plan, and a description of soil -a nd grormdwater conditions OR the
site..
3. Routine inspecl:io.ns.: . Rontine.inspections of existing on-site sys"te:ins must he performed to detennine .their working:C onditions.
Reports on the inspections will. reflect the need for any repairs,
replacementsT or abandonments. The frequency of :inspections will
vary with. the complexity ofthe sysl;ems and with the OWMD.
4. Record TCUiintenan-ce The Ow:MD staff mu....~ maintam records
and collect fees for operating the district. The record for a given
system shm:dd note the type of system, description of components;
service history., status of complianre with regulations,. and any
,othez-infm:matinn.pertinent to system opeEation..
. ".:
TABLE 9.12
415
Examples of On-site Wastewater Management Districts
On-site management
district
Year
fonned
Georgetov."D. CA*
1970
Paradise, CAt
San Lorenzo, CA~
Sea Ranch, CA
1992
Stinson Beach, CACJl
198.5
1990
1978
Number
of.units
700
12,000
12,00(}.
Frequency of
inspections
Conventional-9 mo
Complex-quarterly
3-7yr
Rotation
867
Con~entional--3 yr
635
Innovative--! yr
Biannual
*Georgetown Divide Public Ub.lity District, Aubmn Lake Trails. El Dorado County.
!Town of Paradise Onsite Wastewater 1\I.anagement Distrirl, Butte County.
~an Lorenzo Valley. Department-of Emironment:al Health. Santa Cruz Connty.
Sea Ranch Onsite Wastewater Management Zone. Sonoma County.
lj[Stinson Beach Onsite Wastewater )fanagement District, Marin County.
5. Enforcement. The regulations and orders of the OWMD must be

legally enforeeahle. F.or ea-:es where the system does not.meet site
:~valuation, design7 or installation regulations,. a simple permit
denial
sufficient. In cases where the homeowner refuses to
obtain an operating permit or cm:rect a failing system, the district
may turn off the wate:r sapply~ place a lien on the property~ or
enter the noncompliance on the deecl oftrust.
is
Examples of on-site districts are provided in Table 9.12. The OWMDs

in Table 9.12 provide a variety -of services including site evaluations~
inspections~ ordering repairs or :replacements, monitoring system performance, monitoring water quality., and public education. Optional
functions inclnde de~an .services fer homeowners,. mamtenanee
duties, and arrangements for financing_ The Stinson Beach district
has pioneered new state Iegisfu:tion aDd bas developed a financial
plan for loans.fursj!stem repail::s.
References
.L Boun.a s, T _ R..:. Deter:m:ining Sepi~c Tmik Sep:tage Pumping lnteroa!s, OrencO:
Systems,.lnc. ~OR,l9S:7
2.. Dia~ A.. N.:Pet:forinance Eribancing 1\Iod:ifications .of Imhoff Tank/Slow Sand
Filter for a Small Conmmnity in Tib~er Canol;y~ Xew Yor~ in Proceedings of the
6th National Symposium on Iruiividuril .arzd Smail Com.rnimity Sewage Sy.<rtems.
Chicago.. American Society .of~tm:aiEnginee:rs (AS.i\E). Dec.16-17.,.199~p.
17.
s ... w_ T.. Cala~y. znd -G. R Gratham: Intermittent Sand Filte:s- .

Multiple Loadings. Sewage Ind. W crstes; 27(3.)-"'61.-276. 1955.
4. Grantham.,. G. R~ D. L.. Emer::on. and A. K Hi:IIIY- Intermittent Sand Filter
Studies. Sewage Works J., 2lk 1002-H>15,. 1949.
5. Hines. M.. J~ and R. F. Favreau: Recircrrlatin.g Sand Filter: .An Alternative to
Traditional Sewage _tilisarption Syst~ in Proceedings National Home Sewage
Disposal Symposium. Chicago. J.9,74. pp. 130-136.
3. FUTTDan; T.
..
416
Chapter Nine
6. Ingham, A. T.: Guidelines for _,.,round Systems, California State Water Resources
Control Board, Sacramento, Jan. 1980.
7. Loudon, T. L., D. B Thompson, .and L. E. Reese: Cold Climate Performance of
Recirculating Sand Filters, in Proceedings of the 4th National Symposium on
. Indhidual and Small Community Seu:age S:ystems, New qrieans, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers !ASAE>, Dec. 10-11, 1984, pp. 333-341.
8. Mancl, K. .M., and J. A. Peeples: One Hundred Years Later. Reviewing the Work of
the Massachusetts State Board of Health on the Intermittent Sand Filtration of
Wastewater from Small Communities, in Proceedings of the 6th National
Symposium on lnditidual and Small Community Sewage Systems; Chicago,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), Dec. 16-17, 1991. p. 155.
9. Nolte & Associates: Literature Review of Recirculating and Intermittent Sand
Filters-Operation and Performance, Tou:n. of Paradise, Prepared for the California
Regional Water Qua]jty Control Board, Sacramento, June 1992.
10. Nolte & Associates: Manual for the Onsite Treatment of Wastewater,. ToiEn of
Paradise, CA, Nolte & Associates, Sacramento, CA, July 1992.
11. Nor, l\=L lL:. Performance of Intermittent Sand Filters: Effects of Hydraulic Loading
Rate, Dosing Frequency, Media Effective Size, and Uniformity Coefficient. Thes~
Departm~t of Civil Engineering, University of California, Davis, 1991.
12.. Pl1uk. R. J., and 0 . J. Hao: Evaluation of Onsite Waste Disposal System for
Nitrogen Reduction, J. Environ. Eng. Div.4SCE, 115(4):725-740, 1989.
13. Ronayne. M.A., R. C. Paeth, and S. A. Wilson: Oregon Onsite Experimental
Systems Program. Oregon Department ofEn.rironmental Quality, EP.A.rU00/14. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency., C'mcinnati. OH, 1984.
14. Santiy, A. T. , W. A Sack, and S. P. Dix: Enhanced Nitrogen Remo..-.al Us:T...ng .a
~Iodified Rec!n:ulating Sand Filter <RSF> in Proceedings of the 5tii National
Symposium on Tlldiuidual and Small Compzunity Seu:age S:.;stemsr Chicago,
Ame-rican Society fif Agricultural Engineers i.AS~>. Dec. 1--15. E87 .pp.. 161-1:70.
15. Tchobanoglous, G., and F. L. Burton. Metcalf-& Eddy. In.c.: Wasteu.:ater
Engineering: Treatment, Dispo_sal, and Reuse, 3d ed~ 1VIcGraw-HiiT, New Y.ork,
1991.
.
.
16. U.S- E..'lvironmental Protection Agency: Onsite Wastewater Trootmer..t a.nd Di...c;posal
Systems- Design Manual_ Municipal En\-:ironmentai Researcbi Laboratruy,
Cincinnati, OH, .Oct. 1980.
17. University of Wisconsin, :Madison: Management of Small Waste Flews, Small Scale
Waste Management Project, U.& Eri-..i:ronmentai Protection -~'"Y Repart EP.A60012-7&-178., 1978.
.
18-. \Vater Pollution Control Federation: Natural Systems for Wa~,;-tewater Trea:t:m21rt,
Ma:n-u:al <>f Practice FD-16,. Water Pollw:ion Control Federation, _4.J.e:mndria,. :VA,
1990..
19-. Whitmyer, R. W., et -a.l.: Ovemew oflndividaal O:nsite.Nitrugen Removal Sysi.E.roS,
in Proceedings of the 6th National Sym.pasium o-n I.n.dn..'idual and S~all
Comm mrity Sewage Systems. Chicago, American ~<Of ~cul~-al Engineers
I.AS.~.E'J. Dee. 16-17., 1991, p. 143.
,
2.0~ Winkler, E . .S., .and P. L M. Venema:n: A DeDitrifica:tion System fur $ep:tic ":rank
Effi.nent Using Sp-hagnum Pea Moss, in Proceedings of the 6t:Jz Ncrtiorra.i
Symposium on In.dicidz.;al and Small Commurrity Sezcage 5-yste'!rLS,. Chica:go~
American Society of Agricultural E~rs (ASAE.l~ Dec. 15-17.,.199:1 _p. 155.
2L W.t.m1eberg:er, J.. H. T.: Correlation of Three: Techniques for. Determining Sail
Permeability,.Env{ron. Health~ 37:I08-H8'7 1974.
22. \Vinneberger.. .J. H. T.: Septic Ta:n.k Systems: A :Cansultcm:t."s T-oolkit,. Bntterwnrth..
Boston, 198-t.
Appendix
4.17
{1:1
TAJ31..E A.1
- -,; -
, . ,
-- .
~JT
. ,. ' '
M~trlc
'"" '
converslcm
Factors (SI ~o U.S. customary Units).
.. . . . . .
.... .
. ,
, -, ,
--
-~ ~~-.-
~.-.,....--,
-,- - ,-;
-~...,-~
...
....--.--,-- ..,-- ~
Multiplyt.he. SluniL
-., -- ,
- - ___,.,....- -,-.-~.
---..,
- -
- --
Tu oh~nin the U.S. unit
by
Byn)boJ
NnmP
Nmnc
Symbol
Al~~.,
h!!clnt'H I lO,QO() nt\1)
ml!
lle(Untu mci.Q!'
Ent!r(W
l~iloJo~lc
joule
muglijuulo
.
condu~~mco, thermnl
comluctlvtty, thcrmnl
l1ont trnnst(w !!nonich:Jnt
lutvnt hllll~ flf Wll~OJl
llpooiOo hoiiL, wttto1 .
lillow ttttu
hn
clll~
km~
ktn~
Ill~
lltjtiuru cuntitno~ut
st)Unto kllomutor
HqUmd kllotMt~r
llljUnto n1otcl'
'
cuhl!! 11\ith.!I'IIJW!' tluy

cuhl~ lti~ttll'llJIIlt' tiny,
cubic rl1otor~ fJil~ HPccilld
t:Ubl!l motot'll f11,ll' llucontl
k,J
J
MJ
W/m'J ua
W/tu
Wlm'4 "d
tJ44,1:ltl4 J/1\g
nc
Ill!
nero
In~
HC(untn
O.Sa61
mil!
24'1.1064
nc
!I<JUrtrl!
IICI'O
10.'7639
1,1060
ft.2
llqUIII'U
,veil!
font
l:lqumu yurt!
Btu
British lhctmnl unil
ltWh
kilown~lhour
ltlli'IIO( lO WOrhuur
2,47.11
o,tolio
0.9478
g, 7778
0.3725
0,1701
0.67'18
0, l7rt1
X 10 7
hp' It .
Utu/h n.~ t~
Utu/h It nfi'
II t.u/h ft'l '' 1~
42lo ,J/Itu qc.

11\:t/d
/d
Jl\i1
m111H
mn/11
:.Jfi4.1 no
!.1,!141'/ X lU
an,at57.
cunductnnco
cnntlncUvlty
hunl Lt'llnllfut coclliclonl
ll4 DLu/lh
J,()07 Hlu/lb' P(i'
JotonL hontur wntor

Rpccllic honl of wntcr
~nl/cl
gnllnn11 pur clny

mllllun J(nllonK pur duy
cubic fool per second
million gullons pur dny
gullunK put mimrt.t
gnlltms pur dny
MOll .
1lN11
~~.82411
MGD
lli.8fi0il
tJa
~rnl/mln
22.8~'-'l/i
~:tnlld
collLimotor
em
(l,:J{)i17
in
l\lilitT\ULIH'
lun
11 . 11~ 11 .
Ill I
mtlv
Ill
It wit
llllblu llHlltll'fl put IIIICUI\tl

Jltllt'll )lt!l' IIU!.'IIJlq
1ll:1/ll
LcnJrth
Ill
au.:J?oL
nwt.ur
Tli
U.~HOH
fi!Utl.ll'
Ill
llllltt!l'
HllllltllP~Ilr
llllh
J,oun(i
0,039:1'/
Inch
milo
ll
,vu
l11
Inch
filllt
ynnl
inch
Mnsr~
grilln
gtl\tn
ldlogrntn
mouuuNtrlt uo:1kif)
ctno~ric ton>
o.oall:J
111.
!:{
U,00~2
1~u
2.2046
lh
lb
i.102:J
t.cmiP
Mg
<tn~l
~on
Mtr
0 ,984~
Lon
klloWI\tl
kW
kW
0.9478
1.0410
inIIIII
Urlth1h thoJrnnlunltfl pill' ,;ccund

hOJ'IIt!JIOWCI'
lhlln~
puundR poa lltltlllt'e Inch
kllownt~
hp
Prolf~Uttu
PnCN/m~l
pbtwul
'fompi.lrntur.,
dugt't'tl duiHIIIH
kulvln
Vt~louiW
ltllullrolbi'H pnr twconcl

nu,l.rll Ill' I' ,wl'ulul
Vnhmw
cuhl!! curtlhnulut
cubic mutua
cubic meter
cubic motel'
cubic metca~
liter
liter
litcr
.
mcgalitar CL x 106)
lnn IRhml: 2000 lhl
111onngtrun
Powor
IP
ounce
pounrl
puuncl
"0
~~
lun/11
m/H
cm:l
rna
m11
ma
rna
1.4801) X HI
1.H<"Cl + a2
1.13(1( I . lfi!l.ll7
"It'
''ft'
:
2.2:169
a.2HOR
O;OIHO
ar;.a L47
1.:1079
2H4.1720
8.1071 x 10 4
mllu11 (ll'r huut
1\/u
ltl(ll
cuhlc Inch
11/1
~ub ll! li10~
yda
unl
ncfl.
cllhlc ynrd
unllon
o.oar;a
gul
:33,8150
('1.11
u~
. ..
ptll' H~!t!IJI\tl
in:'
0.2642
0.2042
d~Js.tl'l!l! fi'nhl'lmhcit
dugruu fo'nlll'lmlwlt.
lltl/h
ML
Ounj!: 2240 lhJ
MG
.. Uctu lho~
unllnn
cubic li1t1lounou tU.H. ltuldl
million unllunR
....
..
. '.
.h
'fAl3LE A.2 Corivetsldn Factors for Cornmonly Used Design Parameters

~~--~~~~--~~~-~~~~
- ~
---~-~--------------
Mulltr!Y Llw SI unit.
Putomo~m
c~1blc mot.ol'll ptll'
aocuncl
cubic moll.li'IIJIOI' duy
ldlcl!ITUill pOl' huclnrn
::
by
IIIJII.r\c lllll JIOI' hupllli'O

cllhlc illOf.ut' illll' hou~ttt'o JIO.I' dnY
ltll!tgr!tnlll iliJI'IIII~III_'!! nw1.o1 put cln.Y
tn /H
nf1/d
:!~.7'27
~134.1720
ltt~lhn
O.HU~:i!
Mnlhn
II.IIUl
111'1/hll . cl
lq~/m u t1
Pnrnmetr.1'
Symbol
Symbol
- 11
To obtnin the U.S. CustonH\I',Y unil
I llii.flOflol
II.~IJ<il-1
millinn gn\lunH pl'J:dny

per clny
pounclR fllll' ncn
IIIIJU
gnl/d
lh/uc
~;:nllnnH
lun/m:
llllll! IHhUI'll )ll'l'
ual/ltc rl
lb/lF d
HlllltlllH IJL'I' lll'l'l' IJL'I' Llny

pnundH ptr :;Lp.IIIJ'e liwt
1\.11/MU
cuhic l'tPI per million ~:ll
gn l/ft.~
Hllllflllil
lll'l't'
fll'l' d.IIY
C!llhk.'l'tltlr ltwlhiHI )lUI'
W1 t!llhit! IIH!li!JIl Illqu Iell
111a/l ()' m:t
l :I;J.IIHI
lunH
!!llhlc IIHliHI'/l tliqUill) Jllll' H!JIII\1'1' illttJ.ul lll l'l!H I
lll'lllllH.ltll!ll!h.il pol' !lnhlc IHUI.(II' llltjllld I
Cl.lhlo 0\U~!ll'fl lllfl'IJWI; llllhill lliPill' ll.htllltll Jlt!t 111111111!!

l~ ll hWliU-11 p~l'
Hf'!!Uhlc llW~utll.nnlt vuluttJ(!l
ltlinh'1'UIJH\ PllJ'IJllhl!! 11\Ullll'

c~thlc lll!!~or l)ttl' l:ntllf.ll
bllflholll nor hcictllro
' "-
111'1/ui:1
HI Ill:'
nra/ru:l min
UIJ,.l!N
H.IW1I
IIIIIO.IJ
lh/MU
tWto:~
min
(ll!l' "'JIIIIl't' litol
puu1Hl~
pel' 111illiun gnllunH

cuhic fLLt uf nil' pt!l'
mlnlllll ptll' 1000 n:t
t~W/1011111: 1
1).11:1~\11
kl{h11:1
ll\t1\:lH!I
ma/!!11111~11
IIG.:t I17
hufhn
..
OAIH 7
hp/toa IV1
lh/10:1 fl,:l
IV1/copltn
l>u/nu
hut'HllJlnWer pm~ 1000 ft :t

ll.:'
cubic f~lll per cupitn
huHiwlH p.o r ncrl'
JlCIIIIHIII (ll!t 1000
---
Appendix
TABLE A.3
Physical Properties of Water
Dynamic visco:;1t y
Temperature
Density
X 1()-1
( Cl
flqy'm3 l
tN -sim~;
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
40
999.8
1ooo.o
999.7
999.1
998.2
997.0
L781
L51S
L307
Ll39L002
0.890.
0.79S
0 .653
50
60
70
80
90
100
421
~5.7
992.2
988.0
983.2
977.8
971.8
965.3
. 958.4
o~547
0 .466
0-404
0..354
0.315
0..282
Kinematic viscoity r y 1
X 106
tm 2/s J
1. 78fi
1.519
. 1.306 "
1.139
1.003
0.893 '
0.800
0.658
0.553
OA74
0.413
0.364
0..326
0...294
422
Appendix
TABLE A.4
Dissolved Oxygen Solubi!ity in Fresh Water*
Temperature C"'CJ
Dissolved oxygen solub.ility (mg/L)
0
1
2
14.62
14.23
13.84
13.48
13.13
12.80
12.48
12.17
1L87
11.59
1L3l
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
1~08
10.83
10.60
10.37
10.15
9.95
9.74
9.54
9.3-5
9:17
8..99
21
22
8.83
23
24
8.53
8.68
25
s.3s
26
8.22
27
28
29
"8.07
7..92
ao
7_77
7.-63
*Saturation values of dissolved .o>.o.ygen when. exposed to dry 3ir :eontaining

20.909Co:-a.-ygenrmder a total pressure 6f7-60 IlJlllHg:
....
Index
Acid 1Wrte draingage, 174, 272-275

Activated sludge. characteristics of, 336
Adsorption. 47
in aqnatic system.s:
ofmetals,142
ofpbosphoniS, 141.,196
in soil sy~ 64. 68, 196
Aerated ponds. 93, 106-115
area estimates for planning. 15
description of. 93. 106
design considerations for.
BOD remo'rnl,. 3, 106
cell config>.rration, .1 09
kinetics, 107-109
mixing and aeration. 109-115
nitrogen rem~~ 8-1
..:\gricultnral crops:
function "Of. in ore...rland flow. 318-319
~of. 308-3()g
. selection of, 291-293
in slowrate system.s, 291- 293

Agricultural.rti!loff. 1~ Ii6, 265-268
Air ennypermeameter~ 37. 39,295,.326
Air stripping:
"Of ?!TIT"rnria'. 123

-of~63-00
(See nlsv Voia.tiiization)

~29L..3{Jl
o~erofceDs, IOS
Mgae:
effect ()IJ: oxygen supply? 3, 61. 94
cl'f&t on pH.. 3
remaval in ~etlandsy:;tems, 191-193
sz.pp:re::""Eiml.of. m. aquatic S}:stems.3., ~
organic loading, Sl
pathogen removal, 70-71
phospporus remaval~ 3, 125-126.
Alkalinity. importance-of. for ammonia

r em.aval..84, 1.23-124,194
solids rem~ 61-62

temperature effects, 107. 108
desi_gn model for,. 107. lOS
performance expectations for, 4site selection for. 12
sludge accumulation in. :m7-338
Aeration:
.
in aquatic "systems. 144, 149
io.coinpost s;ystems, 257-3
in pond Systems, 60, 1Q9:..-115
Aerators:
inaqaaculf:nre..l49
diffusedai:rt ll3
energy req:airements for.. na. ll4
in pondS. 1-09-115
su:r:fiu:e llilits. ll3-114;
Aerobic ~onditinns:
in aqaatic systems, :6~ 13S
in :pond sY.stems., 61
in wetlands_yste:ms, 1..82;-18a, 235.!241-243
.Aerobic-ponds.. 93
Aerosolshock. 76
Aerosols,.4o?7o, 75-79
bacterial, "76
compo~ 78--19slo.dge. 77- 78
-.,iral. 78
1~161
~:
:faro!Phosphorus rem~al. 125,. ~&.. I4'2

s1ndge "ititb., 339~ 345=
Ammonia:iorm ofnitrogen, 83.140,:{92-194
remoruof;
ey~~ 85.,.23-t
b y mt:rifkati.an a:nd .derUtrificatio~ 85.
124.140. 1~ 192- 1.94.. ~2.g,
SJ.a,.322-325
by...:oTatrlizatio~ ~
I2a. 140. 162

Aru!erobic :conditions:
m aqnati.c~ llillfil
in. pond .systems, ~ 9'4:
mv;et.land..systems..J8?'-1S3,.. J:93., "23"5..
~.244
.
~digestion. 74 .
in Imhofftanks, 148
:fur~ stabiiiza:tion. 339
.A:Iraerolri:c:pOIJ.ds. 93., llS-ll~

Amrmrls:
as compone:nt fu aquatic.s:srem""'. 168,170

conrol ot:in.pond:~Ji stcins. 127
grnzing, in.Iand.treatmen:t,. 74.,.307-308.
Anoxic conditians, effect of, onmosq:oito
de~npmen t:
in aqnat:ics_ystems.. 154.
in ~etla:nd sy;;t:ems. 281:
,...
424
Index
Application methods:
in hyacinth systems. 150-153
in land treatment. 208. 304
Application period. 312
Application rates:
for l:l.nd treatment, 286
for on:rland flow. 311- 312
for rapid infiltration. 326, 328
slow rate [.see Slow rate lSRJ land treatment!
for sludge systems. 366-~H2
Application scheduling. 303
Aquatic sy~ms. 2-4, 133-134
and aquatic anim.als_ 168, 170
description of. 133
design considerations for, 133-167
BOD remo\oal, 3, 137-139, 144, 145
cell ~anratio:n. 144
metals remond, 142
mixing and aeration. 145
nitrogen remo'-a.l.. 3. 13~141
organic loading, 3, 138. 144. 145
pbo5p.~t~ rem~al. 3,.1.39-14?.
;:;olids rem rp,.-al. 3. 138-139~ 144.. 145
tempe;ar:.:n-e effects. 136
traceorg:anie:s rei<:J:ovaJ, 13.3
Aquifer:
:fTow char.ac.reristics -of: 39, 45- tH
propenies uf.,. 3.5-.37
protection for r 289
transm~shi:ty of.. 45
.Areal loading or:. wetlands, 171-178~
Ba:;ins: t CCJIII. 1:
in RI systems. 48. 328-331
Batch chemical treatment for phosphorus
removal in ponds, 125
Bedrock location, 24, 26

Benzene.48,64,66,68
Bennuda grass, 291, 301. 318-319
Bighead carp, 169
Biochemical oxygen demand lBODJ, 61-62
remo"<:!l of:
in aquatic syste:ns. 3, 61-6~ 137-148,
16L 169-170
in land treatment, 6, 311~314., 316--317
in pond systems,. 3, 61, 95-105
in wetland systems. 5. 185--189,
201-202. 221-.231
Black .carp, 169
Black.\mter onsite systems. 404
Bogs.l73
.
Borings. 29-30
Boron. 81. 88, 142,. .293, 310
Brewery v.-c::St.es, 302
Br ine shrimp, 167- 168
Brome grass. 291
Bromoform.. 64, 65
Buffalo fisll. 169
Buffer zones, 40-41
Bullci:ng agents, 354, 357-362'
Bulrushes <Scirpusl:
ch :w:\cteristics of, 179
pe;r"urmance of. in wetland systems. 179,
1~~.190,200,241,261
225-..226. 232:....2 33
Artificially drained on.site-system,.413
Ascaris, 70
~-pect
ratio tL:Wl, 109-, 126:.203,:206--:-207,

210
.
A..::;pergz7lus fumigatus. 78-79~-grade onsiteS3"Stems, 41~-413
.\:ntofiOttUla.tio~ 122
Backfill forrapicl .infiltration roru.-trnction.

.330--33:1
Bacteria:
aerosol, "75--78
paihog-enic.. 70-'iR 119, 290
Bacteria remoral:
in aquatic S}'Stems, 70
in land treatment, 72- 73,.290
in _p ond s.rstems. 70--72.119"
in sludge systems. 74-75
in. wetland. systems. 72, '13
Ba:file:s.. 1.28.150
Bahia grass, 291
Barley,291
Basin<=:
~an testing.. 37-39~ ~
Cadmium, 79, 81, 82, 198, 337. 351, 356,

368~369,374
removal of:
in e:quatic S) .. tems. 81. 142
in land treatment, 81-82
in wetl2nds. 81. 198
CalifOrnia grass, 292
Carbon sources far den:itrificatio~ 195-l96.
238. 240. 243-~ 405-406
Carbon tetrachl~ 65
Carp. 168-169
Ca.:t:fish. 169
Cation e:xrbange -capacity <CEC), 26, 33
Ca:t:tails. t 1jpha ;~ 179cb2ra.Cteristics of, 179
performance expectations, 179, 189-190'~
Loa~ 241.. 261
Chambers. Teaching, 408-410
Cheese processing wastes, 302
Chemb-t:ry. soil, 26,31-33, 197,308
Chlorides, 48, .293, 310
Chlorobenzene 48,64,66,68, f43
Chloroform.48.,. 64, 66, 68, 143
CitrllS ~sing wastewater, 302
Climatic influences, 24. 27

in aquatic sys tems, 136. 155
in land treatment, 27.292-296.311.317,
331
in pond systems, 108-109
in sludge systems. 26. 356
in wetland systems. 5. 194, 202. 21o.-..:22i.
232
CJinoptilolite, 404
Clogging !:n SF wetlands. 190
Clostridium perfringes, 76
Coastal Bermuda grass. 291, at8
Combined pond systems, 118
Combined sewer o~~:dlows. 173, 263-265
Combined systems for sludge dewatering,
Constructed wetlands, design procedures

for cCunt. 1:
subsurface flow wetlands, 200-257
hydraulics, 202-210
operation and maintenance, 280-281
performance expectations, 5, 69, 186-200,
228.233
site selection, 12
.-egetation selection.. 178-185, 259
Construction:
of aquatic systems. 150-153
ofland treatment systems. 319-321,
330-331
of pond systems, 126-129
of~gesys~. 382-383
ofwetiands~e~.275-279
346
Complete mix model, 98-99. 106, 221. 222
Complete retention pon~ .94,.117
Composting. 1.a, I5J.:...I58,.3al-362
aeration. 358-361
aerosols, 78--79
area required for, 360-362
design example, 362
odors. 3.5!hJ60
perfmmanre expec'"..ations, :301
Concept evalnari.on:,.6-UI
Concept selection, 40--41
Conducti..ity:
electr.ieal(E.C 1, 32. 33, 30{}, 309-'310

hydraulic, 33, 206-210
Configmation:
of aqaatic systems, 144. 145:.,. 1.50-153

ofpond .systems. IOO,.lll-ll:S, 126-129
ofwetland sy.stems. 2M-205.. 206-207 ..
(See .also Aspect ratio)
Co.ni:fer:s~ 2.92
Con....c:trm:ted wetla..n.ds:
areaestima:teforpTanning, 16-17, :259
descriptian at: 1'15--.IIT
design.considerntionsfor, 177-178,
200-20"2,. .203--'216, .234--244BOD removal 3_186-188-. 221-231
.cell .crm:figzn:at:i.204--:2'05.. 2'06-207.
~itation,
1,53--1.54.- ;u n:-IS2
~..tics, 200-202. :221'-231,.234:-2.44
IIit:ro,06J: remo..al,. a .l.S.I-1:9&. :23-f.-244.

259
org.anic.Ioading. ~ 62,..227
.m.:men .reqo:iremems. .lS2-13.,. 187,
235., 241-243,.:2&,""'9
pathogen rermwal, 72,. 73
phospfwros remm:al.. .196-.197.,.250-252
solids ~.5. -63', 189-199.-:232-233
~-effert&, I::S, 194..:210:-.221.
235-'236
design ex.am;ple,;_229- 231, 245-246, 252
design procednres f'O:
free water ;;urlace wedanits, 200-~1
Controlled disCharge pond, 4.14. 94. 115-117

Can\'ersian factors, 41 t-419
C.opper. 80:. 81, 82., 198.337,351. 356, 368,
.
369,3-74
Corn. 291, 301 .
Costs and energy. 8 -9. 279-280
Cotton., 291
.Crop selection., 25. 291-293
Crop uptake, l79-1Si., :291-29'2
Crn_<=t:acean~, 17{}
Dalli.s grass.. 291

Daphnia, 167-168
Darcy's law, 34,46, 47,205-207DDT (dichlorodiphenyl-trichloroethane), 47
Denitrification:
in aquatic-systems. 140
in land t:Teatment systems, 298, 315,
.323-325
in onsite SJ:stems. 404:---406in pond .S:jst:eriiS. 123
in wetland.5ystt!ms, 192, 195
Depth:
to bedrock and :groancfwa:ter, 22,.24
of:water and gravel in.SF wetlands, 176,
193., ?98, 240-2.41. 260, 261
. Design mqd!=ls:
.
for aerated ponds., 10&--107
fo11 fucn:Itative p.ond.s. -95-106
for heat1J:ansfer .in. wetlaruisystems-,
2ill-221
for hyacinth ponds, 140-141
for overland fio w, 311-314
furrapid.infiltration. 322.-324
far slow rate syst-ems, 29a'-300
fOF sludge:freeriog... 341-344- ~
for slndge-land.application, 362-374
fur wetlands, 200-202,.22.1- 231, 23+.-245
Dewatering:
by .composting. 357-362
by reedb eds, 348-35a
426
Index
Dewatering (Cont.):
by sludge freezing, 340-347
by vennistabilization, 353-356
Diffused aeration, 113, 115
Dike construction. 127. 276
Disinfection, 7t. 75
Dispersion. 47, -H3
DL<qMlS81:
ofharvested plants, 157
ofsiudge. 156
Dissolved a:ggen:
.
in aquatic systems, 61, 138! 140. 144. 161.
168
in ponds, 61. 94. 112-115
in wetlands.. 62, 182-183.. 186. 190., 193..
235
Distribution tecbrriqa.es:
in. aquatic systems.. 150-153
mland treatme:at.. 286., 304-305T 319. 328
in ponds, 128
in :weilands,.277-278
Di~zy in wetfands, 183-I84
Doi!l.eStic wastewater-treatment in wetlallds.
~-~9
Dr:ain spacing. 80. aos
.Drai:n.a::.ot::
.snbsorface, 59- 6L 306
sm::fu.ce, 304--305
.Drinking water requirements, "79. sa
Drip irrigation, 304
Dz::!ing beds (see~>
Dn.Ckweed fLenma), 158-166, 173, 1.81
composition. !59description, 158
perfonnanre expectations, 159-163
Emergent plants, 178-185

Entro";ruses, 78
Evapotranspiration (ET), 153-154, 181-182,
292-297
Evapotranspiration beds. 413
Fru:ultative ponds:
area estimate for planning, 14
construction of: 127- 129
description of:. 93, 94
design considerations for:
BOD rem~. 3, 95
cell oonfignra.tion, 111-115
lcinetit;:S. 96-104
nitrogen removal. 3, 84, 122-125
organic loading, 62. 96, 97
pathogen :removal, 70-72
phOsphorus rem~ 3, 1.25-126
eindge acrnmnlation ~ 337-338
solids removal, 4, .95, 11.9--122
temperature effects.. 95-97, 100
design. models for,. 96-104
Fecal coliform removal:
inaerosols, 7fr.79
in aquatic systems, 70
:in land treatment, 72...:.75, 290
in. ponds, 70--72. 337
i:a-..:etland.s, 72
Fecal streptococci, 76
F.eda:a!Regi.,-ter, 40CFR_Part 503,362
Fedenil regulations, 2, 12. 51, 74-75. 79,.. 82,
1?6, 362-376
Fertilizer value:
ofsludge,?70-376
ofwa..~.291
Fescoe.~l
EarthwOT.IllS" furslndgi! "treatment {vermista-
lrrlizafion), 75,..353:-35"6 '

EOlllDIDic :fuctors"fur-.site sele~ .23.
EflEctiVetreat:mentarea.farwetlands~1:r4
Effinent c:har2deristics:
.
from aquatir systans, 3. 139, 1A2, I43-.
Iffi-1@. 169
.from Ia:n.d treatment. 'I,. 314-al5.. 32a
from.ponds,. 3
from. wetlands, 5. 181,.188-, 191-200, 233
Eicb.harnia .c rassipes!water.hyacinth),
I34:-:I5S
ro:mposition.,. Ta6-137
ifes:ription at: IM--1.37
.growth requirements for. 1'35-1.35
perlm:m.ance-expectations fur. 137-138.
139. 1.42,.143
(See also Hyacinth ponds>
Electri.cal:.condnctillity (EC}, ~ 33,.. 300.
309-BIO
Eloderz..166-lti7
Fzeidarea., 302,.316-31.7, 328

Field. crops, 291,. 301
Fteld investigations_ 26-41.
Pill fbr-onsite systems, 412
F.ilters:
in:termittent sand, 120-121,.387, 397-400"
rec:i:rculatingsand. 38-7? 40Q-..404
.rock.122 .
F"lsli:
effect of ammonia: on. J??

for.mosqoito,:controi; 1.54
.as trea:t:rilent mmpoile:nt.I67- 170
Floatingplants,.134-16&,181
~e.s.ystems, 170:
operation..and maintPnance of, 153-158,
164
perlormance eqred:ations for, 138-146,
159-163
polycaltnresys:tems., 168-170
site selection. 12
Flood :plajn, 25-27
..Index
Flooding basin test, 37-39, 326

Food chain, 79
.
Forage grasses, 291, 301
Forested systems:
site selection for, 24-26
for sludges, 26,373-374
for wastewater, 24-26, 292, 309
Free water surface wetlands, 173-279
advantages of. 176
area estimate for planning. 16-17
aspect ratio. 203
construction of. 5, 275-279
costs, 176, 279
description of: 175
design considerations for:
BOD removal.. 5, 187-189
cell configuration. 203
heat trans'~ 216-??l
hydraulics.. 202- 205
kinetics, 200-202.221-231.. 235--239
nitrogen removal 5~ 84, 191- .196:.
234-239
.
organic loading. 62,..22.7
axygen tran..c:fer.,l&?...-1~,235
pathogen removal. 73. 199-20(}
pbosphorns remm..-aL 185;.1.9&-!97?
250-252
soils in. 185-186
solids reiiUmrl, 5, 62., 189=-190,.232-233
temperature effects,. 194. 2!0--221, 224,
236,238
.
design procednres for,. 200-257
opera:tion..and maintenance of.280-28l
performaru:eexped:ations,. 5.186--200..233
site selection far.l2, 16-17
'-'egetatiD.Ir
management o(200-281.
seled:ion:of. '178-.185
Freezing sludges:
description of: 75:. 34Q,
design"QUJ'ij?les<If: 341--342. 846--M7
operati:on and maintenance-Of. 345-346
system ronst.md:ion. oJ;:345
Frmgns in mmpnsting,1'8-79
427
Grade 1Cont. I:
in we.llands, 203, 210. 275- 280.
Grass:
management of. 308
selection of, 291-293
Grass filtration, 287
Grass shrimp, 154, 167-168
Grease traps, 387~ 394. 397
Greywater onsite systems. 404
Groundwater:
depths for onsite systems, 394
monitoring, 332
pathogen contamination of. 74
pollutant travel. 48-50
design example of, 50:-Sl
protection of. 289
Groundwater mounding t~e Mounding,
groundwater}
Guide to project development, S-:9'
Gypsum, 89, 308
Babitaf ;.-alues in wetlands, 174, 179-181,

18~,:260
Half-life for-organic compounds, 63, 371-380
Harvest:
ofaquatic plants. 1~157, 165
ofterrestrialplan:t.5, 307-309,320-321
of wetland plants,.184-185, :280-'281
Heat transfer in wetland systems, :2~():...221
Heavy metais <see Metals)
Helminths~ 70
Hemy..s law -constant. 64. 66
Hyacinth ponds:
area-estimate for-planning, 15-16.. 144.
145
.construction of,. ~'50-153.
description of. 1.34-137
.de:.-ign considerations for:
BODremovaL3.'s2,W~I38,.l39,144,
145, 146'
cell coDiignra:tion,. 144, 145, 146,
150-153
m.ixing and aeration, 145, 146
nitrogen removal, 3r ~ 139-.14'4 146
nnttdrerof~7 144,t45r146
Gambu.Sia: a:ffi:ais (Gambusiadishi. 154:,.169

Gas transfer:
in -em.ez:geotplant:s .182-163. 2.in-242
in fioating::pla:rrts,.l-38
in ponds,~ 109-115
Gated pipe, 'SI2,.iH.9
Gloyna model,. .SO. .98; 104
Golden sinner. 169
Grade:
inlandap_plied.sln.dge ~stems,.25
in land tr eatmen:t. 24. :286-287. 312:. '33'1,.
366
otgariic load:i:ng,.-&2; I., I , 146

patboglm rema.al. 72
phosphoros removal,~ BS.. 139.141-142
soliJis:removal,. 62, 138-140, 1~ 145,
146
temper.itoreeffeds.15.136,. 144.145,
145.. 155
Hydra:ulic condw:tivity (see 'Permeabilicy)
Hydrm.tlic coJ.Itrol in ponds, l2S
HJdranlicoesign for:
FWS wetlands, 202-204
SF wetfands, 205-210
.' ~:
..
.,
428
Ind ex
Hydraulic gradient:
in Darcy's law, 35, 46, 206-207
in land treatment, 69
in wetlands, 205. 206, ~07, 210
Hydraulic loading:
in aquatic systems, 144, 145, 146
in land treatment, 7, 286, 293,
295-297
for nitrogen limits, 297-299
in type 2 land treatment, 299-300
in wetlands," i 77, 202, 225-226, 232-233.
237,251- 252
Hydraulic residence time CHRTJ:
in aquatic syst.e ms, 3, 144. 145, 146
in ponds, 3, 94., 96, 98-102, 104. 105,
107
.
in wetlands, 5, 117-178, 188. 193. 200,
201, 205,238
Hydrogr.aph-controlled release 1HCR1 pond.
94.117
!ce cov-er:
on ponds. 117, 124
o~ rapid infiltration, 33i
on. wetlands,-202, 216, 218-,'J'Jl
Jmhotftanks, 144. 148, "387, 396
fndU::>-inal waste\~ater$, 1.76, 26{1-.:261. 302
Infiltration, 33--39 .
.
.
rapid <.see Rapid infiltration)
in soils, 34-35
Infiitratian rates:
effect of vegetation, 308
rapid infiitratian systems, 323~ 326-328
slow rate systems, 307-308
Infiltration testing:
>~:th air entry permeameter, 38, .39. 32.
\\."ith flooding basin, 37-39, 326
Infiltr<lmeters, 38, 39; 326
lnle~ structures, 150-153

Insets:
mosquitoes, 40, 154, 281
ISee also Mosquito..controlJ
moths, 155
!\'l:eevils, 155
fntermit:tentsandfil.tr-.~:tion, 12~121., 387?
39T~Go
Ion a"'change. 404
!.roD.:
deficiency .of. in. hyacinth:systems, 156

r~o,;al at: 81
in sludges, SO
Irrigation efficiency, 300
I:n:i,gation r~irement. 300
.Japanese koi. 154
J.~~o02U\~etU1nds,175
Kentucky bluegrass. -291

Kinetic~:
of aquatic systert15. 140-142

of facultative ponds. 9&-103
partial rob.: model. 106
plug-flow model, W-100.
of nitrogen removal,. 123, 140-l4L 234-244
ofpathoge!l re.!llm.-al, 71-72
of phosphorus rema.-al, 86, 1-12... 251-252
of toxic organics rerno.-al, 62'-09
of wetlands. 180. 201-202.221-~1,.
234-244
Klebsiella. 76
Lagoons (see Aerated. ponds; FacultatiY>e

ponds; Hyacinth ponds)
Land application -ofsludge:
concept selection, 362:...366
design procecitires for:
municipal slruiges, 363-376
toxic sludg-es, 362.
metallimits 36&-STt}
7
nitrogen limits, $70-376

site selection, 13:, .2G-.3?
siudg~ characteristi.ts_ 335--339
(S~ al:w :3h.:.Cge}
Lana requi:re,.,.,.ent::;:
fa:r a:quatic:,.;:~s. 15-1:5. 145-150

estimates for ;;Janning; IS-21
for iand t:rea!llle!lt:
m.-e-land flOiW_ i/-16~ :3.15--:-3.17
Yapid. infi.ltrntian..l9-2Q .328
s1ow rate. 18-1:9-7302
for pond systems, 13-16, 109, 111
fur sludge systems. '20-21. 347. 349-, :350T
352,. 355-. 3a;J. 3til... '362
'for 'WO;!tl=-zd ::.s~ems, 16-!7, 201,. 224.
229-231,5:1-252
Land treatment<:SfQlStewater:
area estimates forplarmfug; 17-1.9
climate and :stora,~ 303-304, 311, 3.1 6-aii
crO!} managemem, .308-309~ 321
crop seiection.,. 291.-:293
. .. .
de:."ign examples. 29&-297.,.299, 30H--30~
SI&-:317
design o~i-es,.:285-::?$S
di:,trib-ution tecbniqu...~.. 2S6.r 304
hyd:ranl:ic loading: 28o, 293... 295-297
Iand.:regu:iremerrts:. .302..31.5-317~ 3'2&
nitrog~ID loading, 291-29:2,. '29-7-29S~ 315,.
'322'-324
~loading. .{ )2, ~00.,. in~-31~ 328.
pathogen -concerns,. 7.2-74
phosphorus removal,. 86-87~ 325
potassium. requiremen~ ST, 307
preapp!i.catlon treatment.. 290,..iH(}4i1.
.325-326
) I
Index
Land t reatment of wastewater 1Cone;1

s ite selection. 20- 24. ~8-to. 310
slow rate [see S low rate ISRJ land treatment]
surface n.moff control. 304-306, 320
Landfill leachate; 173, 269-272
Leachfields, 388, 408-412
Leaching requirements. 30()......303
Lead. 79, 80, 82. 337. 351, 368,369, 374, 375
Legumes .291-292
Le~(d~eed~158-166,173,181
Limiting design factor {LDF). 61-62, 2t:2.

289-291. 297
Liners:
for aquatk systems, 153
for ponds, 127
far sludges.. 345, 348
for wetlands, 2T
i>-276
Livestock. wastewaters, 268-269
Loading rates:
far aquatic systems, 138. 144,..
145, 146
for land treatmen t =':'-stems. 286, 293,
295-'297, :312-314.'326-32&
for ansit:e :>y.stems. 410-412
for~ 96, 9'7. 116
fur sh ;dge 5)-=tems. 352, 355, 38L 383
for. wetian:is. 226. 227, 233
429
.Micro!;traincrs. 12 1-12:l
Mine drainage, 173. 272- 275
Mineralization of s ludge nit rogen, 370-376
example of, 37~76
rates of, 372
Mixing i n pondS, 94. 97. 116
Monitoring:
of land treatment systems, 309, 320-321,
332
ofsludge s.;-s:tems, 366-368
Mosquito control, 4 1
in aquatic syst.em.s, 153,.154, 164-165
in wetland systems, 281
Mound systems, 413
Mounding, groundwater, 5 1-59
description of. 48. 51- 57, 330
design example of. 57-59
design procedure for. 52-57
Mm,.ement ofpollutants in groundwater,
48-51
!\hmicipal wastewater treatment in wetlands. .21.9--220
Natural we:t!.ands, 173-1T4
Nickel, 79, 82, 337. 351. 368. 369, 374
N'"ltrates:
jn groundwater. 297- 298
Ul\ietUulas, 195-196,235-244
Macrophytes:
amer,geat~. 179-ISO
fio~pianis. 134-166
.Maintenance:
afaquaticsy~. 153-158
removal of,l23. 195-196, 239, 243-245

Nitrification:
in aquatic systems, 84, 140

in land treatment. 64, 315, 3"22
in ponds, &4123
in wetlands, 84-85. 191- 193.:235-237.
of land treatment .5-.YS~ 308-309.
241- 243
'320-321. 331.-332
ofwet:1.a:n.d s_ystems,. 280-281
Nitrification filter bed. 246-250

. Nitrogen. 83-85. !39. 140- l.U
Management-ofonsite ,_,,tem.s, 414;-415
limits for ~"ig:n oE
Manning's equation,. 200--204
land' t reatment: .s ystems_.297-298
Marais and Shaw design mod.::J, 98-99
!'lodge systems. '370-372
remo\'al of
M:arsbe.s [see Con::.-t:ructed wetlands; Free

water S'1lrfaCe i~~retlands; Subsm:fac.e .flow
in. aquatic. 5)'St~ 3. 84. 139, 140-241.
<SFJ wetlands]
162
Membnme liners (see i.!ners)
in Jand treatment 7. 291=-293,2.97- 298.
Men:aryr 80~. 142
'3.15~ a23-325.
in .onsite systems, 404-406.
Metals:
in ponds, 3, 84.12?-125
~JI1:ellt in sln.dges, 89.. S37
:Emits fur land application 1>f slnd..aes~
in slndge sys tems,. 310--S76
368-370.574-376
in wetlands.. 5, 84, 85, l 9 I-I94.196.
removal o f.
234:-244
in z.quatic systenp. .8 4142- 143
Nutrient status of.soils. 307
in Jand treatment,. BI-83
in.pan~Sfr
in sfudge 5}-"'St:ems, .36S
Octanol-waterpar.titi.an coetTlcient. 64. 65_
in wetland sys tems, 81, 197-198

'Metric.can.ersion fact.ms.. 4n-419
Odorcontro},. 41,1~300. 328
.Microntt:t.rients. 87--89
Oil and grease. :3.94-. 3g&..:s97
69
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

SHER~ooo C. REED has 30 years of experience in the re...::earch
and design of natural systems for waste treatment and
other ernironmental engineering facilities. He is principal af
Environmental Engineering Consultants (E.E.CJ~ an engineering firm located in No~ich. Vermont. He has authored
several books and more than 100 technical articles on
w~-tewater and sludge management.
RoxALD W. CJUT""J:S is Director-Water Resources for Nolte

and Associates, an engineering con.:.-ulting firm in
.
Sacramento, California. He is an internationally recognized
a-pert on ]and application ofwa5tes,. water rerise,. const:rncted wetlands~ and other natural treatment processes.. He has
25 years of experience in wastewater managemEnt and has
\\Titten se,eral books and numeroiG joru nal articles.
DR. E. JoE Mroo~ROOKS. is a teacher~ college administrator,
researci1er, author of numerous books and articles, and recognized authority on lagoons and .aquatic syst.en:rs_ He is
currently\vi.th the Civil EngineeringDepartment at the
Univer.:::ity of Nevada at Reno.
,,.

Natural System

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Natural System

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

.

Naturai .Systems for

Joe iVIiddte brooks

1 ~.'. ' .... '

Library of Congress CataloJ,!ing--in-Puhlication Data

Copyright 1995'. 1988 by McGraw-HilL Inc. All rights reserved.

.ISB:\ 0-iH -06098:?-l?

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Chapter 1. Natural Waste Treatment Systems: An Overview

1-1 Natural treatment Processes

Chapter 2.. Pfanning, Feasibility Assessment, and Site Selection

Chapter 3. Basic Process Responses and ln.teracfions

3.3 Organic Priority Pollutants

Chapter 4. Wastewater Stabilization Ponds

Chapter 5. Aquatic Treatment Systems

>(' Chapter 6. Wetland Systems

6.7 Design Models for BOO Removal

Chapter 7. Land Treatment Systems

7.3 Overland-Flow Systems

Chapter 8. Sludge Management and Treatment

Sludge Quantity and Characteristics .

8.4 Reed Beds

8.6 Comparison of Bed-Type Operations

Chapter 9_ Oa-site Wastewater Management Systems

Metric Conversion Factors (Sf to U.S. Customary Units)

Natural Waste Treatment

The waste treatment systems described jn this hook are designed

Natural Treatment Processes

All waste management processes depend on natural responses snch

Serious interest in natural methods for waste treatment .reemerged in

Chap. 6. Another variation of the concept, used for sludge drying, is

Table 1.3 pr;sents the typical design f~a

. , ,. . ..., ... ._.., ' ' r ... , ,,.,, ,..._

;.">:;- .. __ ,...... ,,.,,.-,...,:6-..-(--

.. -...:"....,,.,. ....._~ .-. ....

- - ' " '- - -

Terrestrial Treatment Units, Design Features, and Performance 11 13

Noi nppllcnble for n now of3785 m3/d. Size of bed

and potformanco depend on preliminary treatmont lovcl. See Chaps. 6 nnd 9.

*'Fot de::tign flow of :178li

tNitrogen t'omovul dopohdB Otl type or crop nnd mnnngmnoni.

tFC = fccnl coliform, #/100 mL.

Sludge Management with Natural Method_s 1

cant pathogen kill,

Must have freezing

Best suited for warm to

State and federal regulations limit arinual

Costs and energy. Intere::;t in natural concepts

The development of a waste treatment project, either municipal or

Define the volume and

Civil and m echanical

'*Not covered in this text; see Refs. 5 and 6.

9. Heed. S.C., R. Bastian. S. Black,. a.'ld R- K Khettr)r: Wetlands for Wastewater

Assessment; and Site

2.1 Coneept Evaluation

on-.s ite methods, a nd the sludge treatment methods. Site topography,

Discharge Systems: Special Site Requirements

Proximity to a surface water for discharge, impermeable

Same physical features as ponds, also must have suitable

Prorimity to surface waters for discharge, impermeable

0.-edund tlow 'OF i

Relatively impermeable- soils, day and clay loams, slop~s

Nondischarge Systems: Special Site Requirements

Slow rate <SRI