Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater 0323854214, 9780323854214

Citation preview

MODULAR TREATMENT APPROACH FOR DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER

This page intentionally left blank

MODULAR TREATMENT APPROACH FOR DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER Edited by

Satinder Kaur Brar Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre-Eau Terre et Environnement, Québec, QC, Canada

Pratik Kumar Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Agnieszka Cuprys Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

Elsevier Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. ISBN: 978-0-323-85421-4 For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco Acquisitions Editor: Louisa Munro Editorial Project Manager: Andrae Akeh Production Project Manager: Selvaraj Raviraj Cover Designer: Mark Rogers Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Contents

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater: introduction to a sustainable approach to decentralized treatment systems

Contributors ix Preface xiii 1. Introduction RAHUL SAINI, CARLOS SAUL OSORIO-GONZALEZ, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

1.1 Introduction References 9

A. DALILA LARIOS-MARTÍNEZ,
CHRISTELL BARRALES-FERNANDEZ, P. ELIZABETH ALVAREZ-CHAVEZ, CARLOS MÉNDEZ-CARRETO, FABIOLA SANDOVAL-SALAS, NORA RUIZ-COLORADO, STÉPHANE GODBOUT, SÉBASTIEN FOURNEL, AND ANTONIO AVALOS-RAMÍREZ

1

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

4.1 Introduction 55 4.2 Wastewater treatment 57 4.3 Wastewater treatment operations 57 4.4 Modular wastewater treatment approaches 60 4.5 Conclusions 64 References 64 Further reading 66

SABA MIRI, JAVAD GHANEI, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Introduction 13 Wastewater treatment infrastructure 14 Macropollutants in water and sludge 19 Micropollutants in water and wastewater 21 Water quality parameters 26 Bottlenecks and limitations of centralized drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities 29 2.7 Conclusion 31 References 31

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN KARIMI DARVANJOOGHI, WASEEM RAJA, PRATIK KUMAR, SARA MAGDOULI, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

5.1 Introduction 67 5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system 68 5.3 Operational challenges of modular treatment systems in a cold country 76 5.4 Conclusion 77 Acknowledgments 78 References 78

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal SEYYED MOHAMMADREZA DAVOODI, MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN KARIMI DARVANJOOGHI, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

3.1 Introduction to challenges related to removal of organic micropollutants and possible solutions 33 3.2 Organic micropollutants removal: current state of art 40 3.3 Source-to-tap: Where to apply the new modules? 47 3.4 Conclusion 49 Acknowledgments 49 References 49

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, ABHRADEEP MAJUMDER, AND PARTHA SARATHI GHOSAL

6.1 Introduction

v

81

vi

Contents

6.2 Wastewater and its components 82 6.3 Conventional practices and associated challenges in wastewater treatment 88 6.4 Prospect of modular wastewater treatment units in developing countries 93 6.5 Summary of findings 94 References 95

7. Phytoremediation as a modular approach for greywater treatment ~ FERNANDO JORGE MAGALHAES FILHO (CORREA) AND PAULA PAULO (LOUREIRO)

7.1 Phytoremediation and constructed wetlands: a modular approach 107 7.2 Greywater as a main component of domestic wastewater 109 7.3 Constructed wetlands as nature-based solutions for greywater treatment 109 7.4 Case study: authors experience with constructed wetlands and greywater 113 7.5 Challenges and perspectives 125 Acknowledgments 126 References 126

8. Design and principles of adsorbent-based reactors for modular wastewater treatment M. CHAUDHARY, N. JAIN, L. BARMAN, AND G.D. BHOWMICK

8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

Introduction 129 Adsorbent-based reactors 130 Flow direction and the extent of adsorption 133 Adsorbents used in adsorption-based reactors 134 Principle of adsorption and its mechanism 134 Design of multifunctional adsorbents 137 Decentralized/modular treatment systems: need, significance, and case studies 138 8.8 Challenges and future perspectives 142 8.9 Conclusion 143 References 143 Further reading 148

9. Electrode-based reactors in modular wastewater treatment GURUPRASAD V. TALEKAR

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Introduction 149 Electrooxidation 150 Electrochemical disinfection 157 CLASS (closed loop advanced sanitation system) 161 9.5 Conclusion 167 References 167

10. A review on advanced biological systems for modular wastewater treatment plants: process, application, and future in developing countries ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, ABHRADEEP MAJUMDER, AND PARTHA SARATHI GHOSAL

10.1 Introduction 171 10.2 Modular constructed wetland-based treatment units 171 10.3 Modular membrane bioreactorebased treatment units 178 10.4 Modular microbial fuel cellebased treatment units 179 10.5 Other advanced modular biological wastewater treatment units 180 10.6 Evaluation of the performance of modular treatment units 184 References 185

11. A life cycle assessment perspective to conventional and modular wastewater treatment BIKASH R. TIWARI AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

11.1 Introduction 187 11.2 Life cycle phases 188 11.3 LCA of modular wastewater treatment systems 194 11.4 Case studies centralized versus decentralized 198 References 202

vii

Contents

12. Concept of bioproduct recovery in relation to the modular treatment CARLOS SAUL OSORIO-GONZALEZ, JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, SATINDER KAUR BRAR, AND ANTONIO AVALOS-RAMÍREZ

12.1 Introduction 207 12.2 Sludge-to-energy concept 208 12.3 Biodiesel production 210 12.4 Biogas generation 212 12.5 Biofertilizers 216 12.6 Conclusion 220 Acknowledgment 220 References 220

13. Introduction to modular drinking water treatment system KAIVALYA KULKARNI, WASEEM RAJA, AND PRATIK KUMAR

13.1 Introduction 225 13.2 Modular drinking water treatment systems: advantages 226 13.3 Challenges in setting up modular drinking water treatment systems 227 13.4 Factors affecting selection of modular drinking water treatment systems 227 13.5 Design considerations for modular drinking water treatment systems 228 13.6 Conclusion 236 References 236 Further reading 237

14. Role and importance of filtration system in modular drinking water treatment system KAMALPREET KAUR BRAR, HAYAT RAZA, SARA MAGDOULI, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8

Introduction 239 Commercialized MDWTS 240 Case studies 242 Ultrastructure of filter vessel and important steps to be followed for efficient functioning in MDWTS 245 Basic sizing formula and example of filter media 247 Role of passive filter media to design a novel MDWTS 249 Microbiological aspect of drinking water 256 Conclusion 261

References 261 Further reading 264

15. Role of membrane filtration in modular drinking water treatment system PRITHA CHATTERJEE, UBHAT ALI, AND PRATIK KUMAR

15.1 Introduction 267 15.2 Types of membrane systems 268 15.3 Modular design: a membrane technology aspects for drinking water treatment 270 15.4 State of the art: application of the membrane treatment systems 271 15.5 Case studies 276 15.6 Conclusions 277 Acknowledgment 277 References 277 Further reading 279

16. Modular drinking water systems: chemical treatment perspective PRATISHTHA KHURANA, RAMA PULICHARLA, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

16.1 Introduction 281 16.2 Community drinking water treatment 16.3 The chlorination process 283 16.4 Chlorination by-products 289 16.5 Advanced chemical methods 290 16.6 Challenges and future outlooks 298 16.7 Conclusion 299 References 299

282

17. Modular drinking water treatment system using ozonation and UV XUHAN SHU, PRATIK KUMAR, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

17.1 Ozonation drinking water treatment system (DWTS): a modular approach principle of ozonation 303 17.2 UV-based treatment of drinking water sources: a modular approach principle of a UV light 307 17.3 Current benefit and possible challenges to provide solution for a smaller community 311 17.4 Case study and future perspective for the modular water treatment system 314 17.5 Conclusion 315 References 316

viii

Contents

18. Application of solar energy in modular drinking water treatment

19. Life cycle assessment drinking water supply and treatment systems

PRATIK KUMAR, AGNIESZKA CUPRYS, AND SATINDER KAUR BRAR

VR SANKAR CHEELA, UBHAT ALI, PRATIK KUMAR, AND BRAJESH K. DUBEY

18.1 Introduction 319 18.2 Solar energy used for desalination purpose 320 18.3 Disinfection of drinking water using solar energy: solar disinfection 326 18.4 Conclusion 332 Acknowledgments 332 References 332

19.1 Introduction 335 19.2 Case study 338 19.3 Review of LCA studies in water sector 19.4 Summary 348 Acknowledgment 348 References 348

Index 351

342

Contributors M. Chaudhary Department of Desalination and Water Treatment, Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheba, Israel

Ubhat Ali Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India P. Elizabeth Alvarez-Chavez Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA), Québec, QC, Canada; Département des sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

VR Sankar Cheela Environmental Engineering and Management, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India Agnieszka Cuprys Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway

Antonio Avalos-Ramírez Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre Eau Terre Environnement, Université du Québec, Québec, QC,
Canada; Centre National en Electrochimie et en Technologies Environnementales, Shawinigan, QC, Canada

Seyyed Mohammadreza Davoodi Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - CentreEau, Terre Environnement, Québec, QC, Canada

L. Barman Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Brajesh K. Dubey Environmental Engineering and Management, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Christell Barrales-Fern
andez Tecnol
ogico Nacional de México/ITS de Perote, Perote, Veracruz, México

Sébastien Fournel Département des sols et de génie agroalimentaire, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

G.D. Bhowmick Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Javad Ghanei Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Kamalpreet Kaur Brar Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Centre Technologique des Résidus Industriels en Abitibi Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada

Partha Sarathi Ghosal School of Water Resources, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Satinder Kaur Brar Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre Eau Terre Environnement, Québec, QC, Canada

Stéphane Godbout Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA), Québec, QC, Canada Ashok Kumar Gupta Environmental Engineering Division, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

Pritha Chatterjee Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

ix

x

Contributors

N. Jain Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India Mohammad Hossein Karimi Darvanjooghi Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Pratishtha Khurana Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Kaivalya Kulkarni The Municipal Infrastructure Group, Civil EIT - Water Linear, Toronto, ON, Canada Pratik Kumar Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India A. Dalila Larios-Martínez Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA), Québec, QC, Canada; Tecnol
ogico Nacional de México/ITS de Perote, Perote, Veracruz, México Fernando Jorge Magalh~aes Filho (Correa) CNPq Research Productivity Fellow (National Scientific Research Council), Brasília, DF, Brazil; PhD in Environmental Sanitation and Water Resources (UFMS), Campo Grande, MS, Brazil; Specialist in Project Management (USP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil; Postdoctorate (UFMS), Brazil and period at Aarhus University, Denmark and Technological University of Pereira, Aarhus and Colombia, Denmark Sara Magdouli Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Centre Technologique des Résidus Industriels en Abitibi Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada Abhradeep Majumder School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India Carlos Méndez-Carreto Tecnol
ogico Nacional de México/ITS de Perote, Perote, Veracruz, México Saba Miri Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre-Eau Terre Environnement, Québec, QC, Canada

Carlos Saul Osorio-Gonzalez Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Paula Paulo (Loureiro) Dom Bosco Catholic University, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil; PhD in Environmental Sciences (WUR), Delft and Wageningen, Netherlands; Specialist in Resource-Oriented Sanitation (SIDA), Stockholm, Sweden; Postdoctorate (WUR and TU Delft), Delft and Wageningen, Netherlands; Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS), Campo Grande, MS, Brazil Rama Pulicharla Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Waseem Raja Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India Hayat Raza Continental Carbon Group, Inc., Stoney Creek, ON, Canada Nora Ruiz-Colorado Tecnol
ogico Nacional de México/ITS de Perote, Perote, Veracruz, México Rahul Saini Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Fabiola Sandoval-Salas Tecnol
ogico Nacional de México/ITS de Perote, Perote, Veracruz, México Joseph Sebastian Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre Eau Terre Environnement, Université du Québec, Québec, QC, Canada Xuhan Shu Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada Guruprasad V. Talekar Research Associate, Applied Environmental Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, K K Birla Goa Campus, Goa, India Bikash R. Tiwari Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre Eau Terre Environnement, Université du Québec, Quebec, QC, Canada

Preface

modular water/wastewater treatment can be remarkably successful for nontransient, noncommunity water systems, housing developments, day care centers, schools, industries and parks, manufacturing facilities, as well as environmental remediation. Hence, this book is intended to keep the global research community, practitioners, industrialists, and young water professionals up to date with the current trend in this emerging field of modular water and wastewater treatment systems. This book summarizes the principles of modular design (Chapters 1e4), as well as the current developments and perspectives regarding the usage of the modular approach in a cold climate (Chapter 5). It introduces the modular approach in urban water treatment. The novel and up-to-date review of wastewater (Chapter 6e12) and drinking water (Chapter 13e19) treatment methods with incorporated modular strategy is presented. The life cycle assessments of water treatment plants as well as the perspectives of modular treatment usage are explained. We gratefully appreciate the hard work and patience of all contributing authors of this book. The views or opinions expressed in each chapter of this book are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as opinions of their affiliated organizations.

Early wastewater treatment plants during the Roman period were primary conduits carrying dirty water, which changed in the late 19th and early 20th century with the construction of centralized sewage treatment. As environmental quality became a key preoccupation in the mid20th century, the treatment systems became more complex and larger in size. With the passage of time, the technological, climatic, and demographic changes started affecting the performance of “centralized” urban water and wastewater treatment plants. Hence, a higher water quality and demand management necessitate the requirement of a novel approach for water treatment plant design. The modular systems came to the rescue as they allow a flexible, sustainable, and cost-effective water treatment service and operation. Such modular or decentralized water treatment system provides portability features, such as low footprint, and is amazingly effective for the development of the infrastructure that requires less engineering by adapting to the existing space. The purpose of this book is to present the modern approach of tackling the problem of high-quality water and wastewater treatment demand. The modular strategy allows the customized retrofit solution to constantly changing parameters of the urban water that is to be treated. The advanced treatment modules can be added or removed, depending on the current demand and requirements. The application of

The Editors

xi

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

1 Introduction Rahul Saini, Carlos Saul Osorio-Gonzalez, Satinder Kaur Brar Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

1.1 Introduction

necessary to include multidisciplinary objectives, process, and participatory agents with the aim to manage, develop, and improve the water systems (Haasnoot et al., 2011). In this sense, the sustainable water management considers the drinking and tap water as a fundamental for the human well-being, while promoting the healthy communities by creating the resilient environment. Over the past decade, resource recovery technologies from wastewater have been extensively studied as a potential alternative, used mainly to help in resolving the problem of water scarcity. However, the current problem of this type of technologies is that a large-scale implementation is still lacking. However, to talk about water management can be a hard topic because of the wide application of water and its differences in specific application. Additionally, well-being of humanity depends on the availability of drinking water, which directly related to the food production and wastewater treatment (EL-Nwsany et al., 2019). Drinking water supplies as well as stormwater disposal systems have been a massive challenge in all the places highly populated (10 millions). The main concerns surrounding this situation are the fast urbanization, which has largely surpassed most

The water sector around the world has faced many challenges regarding its management. However, a specific emphasis has been observed in urban water systems including drinking and wastewater systems. Water is one of the essential elements for sustaining quality of city life, livelihoods, and urban economy. In general, water management involves meeting regulatory criteria for safe drinking water, storage, treatment, wastewater discharge, drainage, and collection of stormwater to decrease risks of urban flooding. The current policies to water management have well served in terms of public safety, economic development, and public health (Meli
an, 2020). However, increasing impact of climate change, urbanization, strained ecosystems, and high energy requirements on water quantity and quality are becoming apparent and more visible. Fig. 1.1 shows the benefits of sustainable and integrated water management. Basically, the concept of sustainable water management includes the environmental, hydrological, ecological, and social integrity of water systems in the present and long-term future. However, because of the sustainable water management works with the above factors, it is

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00016-4

1

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2

1. Introduction

FIGURE 1.1

Illustration of benefits of sustainable water management.

of the used systems, but especially developing countries are the ones that have suffered the most due to this (Biswas, 2006). On the other hand, agriculture sectors require at least 70% of ground water for irrigation. Nevertheless, this percentage could increase rapidly with the time because of the increasing population as well as field irrigation and distribution losses (Chartzoulakis and Bertaki, 2015). Finally, wastewater system plays a critical role in water management. Conventionally, the goal of wastewater treatment is to protect the ecological user life and ecosystem integrity. Nevertheless, each of the systems can work as whole system but with different approaches and several applications directly or indirectly obtained from each system. For instance, stormwater recovered can be used on urban gardening and carwash establishments, among others. So far, the major research development has been focused on wastewater systems to remove toxic compounds and in a best exploitation and maximum production of high value-added products. Furthermore, one of the main aims of wastewater system is to remove the pollutants such as heavy metals, phosphorus, sulfur, nitrogen, or pathogens (Verstraete et al., 2009). As

mentioned before all water systems have different characteristics, applications, and technologies. In this sense, the modular treatment concept can be a potential alternative to improve its efficiency from the point of view of approachability to improve, replace, update, or change the equipment without changing the entire system due the freedom it brings to each stage of the process of the system. For example, one of the most used technologies in wastewater treatment systems is an anaerobic digestion where the microorganism consumes the organic content from wastewater. This type of process could be a good example to use a modular concept because for instance with base on wastewater characteristics two or more types of anaerobic reactor can be adaptable for the entire process (Verstraete and Vlaeminck, 2011). The above facts and statements drive the necessity to develop the sustainable technology with a modular concept as a resource to have a better water management as well as a high recovery and production of value-added compounds low energy requirement and low or no impact on environment with a circular resource flow that can contribute to increase the sustainable development goals (Guest et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2013).

1.1 Introduction

The present chapter focuses on the current status of urban water management including standards and guidelines. Issues regarding wastewater treatment and sustainability such as energy requirement, nutrient recovery, water quality monitoring, and modular modeling have been discussed in this chapter.

1.1.1 Urban water management: current state of the art Urban water management includes managing multiple parameters such as water storage, treatment, collection, discharge, industrial effluents, wastewater treatment, and storm water collection. In general, urban water management requires the holistic approach for performance assessment of water sustainability by including the multiple parameters and criteria including wastewater management, storm water management, and water demand management. Fig. 1.2 represents the different aspects of urban water management for sustainable use of water. It can also be characterized by urban water cycle, which includes the water stream flow around the environment.

FIGURE 1.2

3

1.1.1.1 Wastewater management The history behind of wastewater management is interesting in terms of all steps that are involved before obtaining the final product that basically is to remove certain compounds that come from human hygiene, food, pharmaceutical, and industrial activities. Furthermore, in addition to the previous sources in some countries, the stormwater is also included into the wastewater system. However, these actions depend on the structure that each location possesses that is closely related to the water directions they hold (Lofrano and Brown, 2010). Over the last century, significant changes have been made to the guidelines and legislation on wastewater management to further increase the pollution control and decrease the impact on ecosystem. These changes start with the Eight Report created by the Royal Commission on Sewage and Disposal in 1912, when for the first time, the inclusion of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) standard protocol was applied in wastewater effluents. After that, a cascade of new technologies, standard protocols, and different systems were developed, tested, certified, and patented. However, all this developed

The concept of urban water management for sustainable use of water has been illustrated.

4

1. Introduction

knowledge has been evolved through the time in different manners and different routes and every time each process began to be more specific in the direction of wastewater characteristics and concerning to the obtained products as an added value of the entire process (Brown and Lofrano, 2015; Hellweger, 2015; Villarín and Merel, 2020). Currently, a new concept to have a better exploitation and reliability of wastewater treatment process has been raised during the last decades. The main attribute that the modular system offers to the wastewater management process and specially in wastewater treatment plants is a high independence among all steps without disturbing the entire process flow. 1.1.1.2 Storm water management The constant and growing urbanization derived from the imminent growth population around the world has undesirable effects in the natural water cycle because the hydrological cycle is disturbed by artificial paths mainly constructed by concrete with low filtration capacity. The above fact affects the water permeability to the groundwater, which has given a way to a new paradigm regarding the treatment of the stormwater management process during the last decades (Khadka et al., 2020). The new paradigm has not been focused on naturebased solutions such as in situ reuse, infiltration, and storage. Nevertheless, the above solutions have been addressed using different processes such as green roofs, permeable concrete, bio-retention cells, or rain gardens. All these technologies are contemplated through different approaches such as water-sensitive urban designs (WSUDs), low-impact development (LID), low-impact urban design and development (LIUDD), integrated urban water management (IUWM), or sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS), among others. All these approaches are designed in a specific way and according to the necessities of each place around the world in which they are implemented

(Fletcher et al., 2015). Although, the use of the technologies mentioned above shows three considerable limitations in the moment of its development and application. Firstly, they cannot be used in all the urban places, for instance, the green roofs only can be used in some buildings or houses that were designed with this purpose; secondly, most of them have a high investment cost and maintenance, and thirdly, the efficacy in terms of water recovery and management is relatively low, which complicates its use and application on a large scale. Besides, once the stormwater has been recovered, most of it is discharged into the conventional drainage system (Saraswat et al., 2016). So far, the research has been focused to develop more suitable, efficient, and affordable technologies with low investment and maintenance costs. In this sense, the modular treatment concept represents a great opportunity to create a potential process that can contribute to solve above challenges in the sector of stormwater management. 1.1.1.3 Water demand management The water demand in urban regions has been increased due to population burst and economic activities. Derived from the two above situations, the water demand has been faced challenges such as enough sources to provide quality water, water availability, increase demand from the final users, as well as process factors like high energy demand, high operation, and maintenance cost. Likewise, another critical factor is related to the environment and most specifically to climate change because the anthropogenic activities disrupt the water cycle causing changes in raining frequency, periodicity, as well as the intensity (Da-ping et al., 2011; Mishra et al., 2020). So far, most of the developed studies have been focused to generate models that include environmental and anthropogenic factors. Additionally, both factors function as a socio-economical characteristics and water demand at the site where the model has

1.1 Introduction

been limitedly applied or will be applied. Nevertheless, these models do not consider a drastic changes in landscape, land use, and urban development, as well as extreme climatic events that may occur over time (Moazeni and Khazaei, 2021; Sanchez et al., 2020). On another hand, to face the operational and process challenges, the modular system concept can be a suitable alternative to improve the entire water supply process through a fast update of the old technology, easy maintenance, and substitution of some equipment in specific steps of the process, as well as offer alternatives to increase the water management on specific approaches such as quality control that is one of the most important parameters to consider. In summary, the management seeks to evaluate the impact of urbanization on water cycles. It requires an understanding the natural, predevelopment, and postdevelopment water balance. Similarly, Sustainable Water Management Improves Tomorrow’s Cities Health (SWITCH) is a research program funded by European Union (EU) in 2006 to facilitate modified concepts in urban water management (Howe et al., 2011). The SWITCH framework has funded in four characteristics: (i) interactive institutional action that includes urban water bodies and water cycle, (ii) foresee the effect of urbanization through learning alliance approach, (iii) a long-term strategy development for sustainable urban water management, and (iv) an efficient development of storm water, wastewater, and urban water management systems. Finally, the framework considers all the aspects of the urban water system in the cities as well as its modification with respect to the changes that can happen in the future time. Likewise, the framework makes and emphasizes on the used technologies and their robustness, including the sustainability concept all the time. Nevertheless, around the world, each country and each city have their own programs or can follow some of the international protocols that may vary widely between them.

5

1.1.2 International conventions, guidelines, and agreements According to the United Nations (UN), committee on cultural rights, social, and economic issues right to water statement, based on Article 11 and 12 of the International Covenant; everyone has the right to get the highest attainable standard of mental and physical health. Currently, two international global water conventions are active (Belinskij et al., 2020); the first one is the convention on the use and protection of international lakes and transboundary watercourses published in 1992, and the second one is the convention on international watercourses for its nonnavigational use published in 1997. However, whatever the international guidelines or protocols are implemented, they share three main principles regarding utilization, protection, and sharing the watercourse. Table 1.1 show the three principles and their main characteristics. However, although the water management guidelines follow the three previous principles, there are still several challenges that need to be considered for the development and implementation of models for the improvement of water management systems (drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater). And mention how modular system/technologies will help (five to six sentences).

1.1.3 Tackling the problem: sustainable water treatment There is no denying the fact that water scarcity has been a foremost problem all over the world. Moreover, overpopulation, climate change, pollution of coastal regions, and aquifers are continuously affecting the accessibility to sufficient quality water (Zhou et al., 2020). In general, toxic wastewater or sewage must be treated before being discharged or reuse. There are several pollutants which should be removed or treated as they affect both natural environment and human beings. These compounds

6 TABLE 1.1

1. Introduction

Demonstrate the principles to use international waterways. Principles

Reasonable and equitable utilization

No-harm rule (UNECE, 2013)

Cooperation rule (Belinskij et al., 2020)

The principle states that international watercourse must be developed and utilized in reasonable and equitable manner to achieve sustainable use and equal benefit through-out the place. In addition, several other factors should also be considered before taking the decisions on water utilization such as economic and social need, and the effect of water use on another state or area.

According to no-harm rule principle, authorities should take appropriate or strict measures to prevent the harm or damage to watercourses. For instance, state can pass the legislation to prevent to harmful or illegal activities in its territory.

The principle aims to increase the cooperation between two watercourse sharing parties to achieve the principles of no-harm rule and equitable utilization. According to the rule, states sharing the international waters must cooperate for sovereign equality. It can also include the joint monitoring, sharing information on current and future uses, and alarm procedures.

when discharged in aquatic system results in increase organic load, which further leads to eutrophication. Similarly, hormonal disruptors are another group of pollutants that pose huge health risk to animals and humans such bisphenol A, pesticides, and several bleaching agents
(Alvarez-Ruiz and Pic
o, 2020). In general, water treatment methods include several techniques such as physical, biological, and chemical methods. These treatments are designed inorder to achieve different levels of contaminant removal. Briefly, the physical treatment involves the screening to remove solids, large plastics, and grit by sedimentation. The biological methods mainly remove heavy metals, organic load, nitrogen, and phosphorus from the wastewater and sludge using technologies such as trickling filters, rotating biological contactors, anaerobic digestion, activated sludge process, aerated lagoons, and pond stabilization. Finally, the treated water effluent goes through advanced treatment systems where pathogens, viruses, and other bacteria are removed before discharging into the environment (OsorioGonz
alez et al., 2018). In this sense, the concept of modular system can be a good alternative helping to treat the wastewater generated from the different sources. The main advantage of modular concept is the independence that can provide to each system as well as its specificity

for each process. Furthermore, the modular treatment has the flexibility to use separate modules or semi-interconnected systems that can be used as a partial treatment in the same place where the water facilities are placed. Additionally, modular system offers a wide variety of adaptability to obtain several by-products such as bioenergy, biofertilizer, nutrient recovery, and many more. Further, a widely and detailed discussion about the application of modular concept as a potential alternative to improve the water management will be performed in the next chapters. 1.1.3.1 Low-grade energy It has been approximated that global energy demand would increase by 50% from 2010 to 2040. Hence, it drives the need to design the energy efficient treatment and recovery process. The wastewater treatment currently consumed w4% of total energy consumption in the United States and the United Kingdom (Xu et al., 2015; Oh et al., 2010). Approximately, 17.8 kJ/g chemical oxygen demand (COD) is present in municipal wastewater, which is five times higher than the energy required for the activated sludge process (Heidrich et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2016). Although, significant amount of COD-based energy is generally lost during microbial metabolism (Frijns et al., 2013). In the United States

1.1 Introduction

and Europe, more than 12 plants have been reported to achieve >90% of self-sufficiency energy (Gu et al., 2017). On the other hand, methane recovery from anaerobic process could provide 30%e50% of energy required during wastewater treatment (McCarty et al., 2011). In addition, if recovered energy from the process is used in the same or other process can be a potential alternative to decrease the carbon fingerprint or in some cases it neutrality could be achieved (Hao et al., 2015). 1.1.3.2 Nutrient recovery In general, fraction of phosphorus and nitrogen applied as a fertilizer in agriculture ends up in the wastewater plant (Daigger, 2009). It was estimated that fertilizers account for >1% of greenhouse gas emission, while 90% of the emission comes from ammonium fertilizer production (Sheik et al., 2014). In addition, ammonia fertilizer is known to require high input energy during its production stage, which then requires a large amount of energy to undergo nitrification and denitrification procedure. Hence, ammonia recovery would be an option to save energy only if it is done with lower energy than its production stage (Daigger, 2009). Similarly, the recovery of phosphorus also holds importance as its finite resource, which will soon be exhausted. It generally enters the wastewater from industrial effluents, detergents, and fecal matter (Xie et al., 2016). If the phosphorus is not removed, it can end up in water bodies and ultimately affect the ecological integrity (Cordell et al., 2009). The several technologies are available for nutrient recovery such as bio-electrochemical recovery, crystallization, reversible adsorption, electrodialysis, bio-drying, ammonia stripping, alkaline humic acid recovery, and membrane distillation (Kehrein et al., 2020). However, nutrient recovery procedure generally affected by lower concentration of nutrients present in the wastewater effluent; hence, few should be considered the nutrient accumulation or magnification by physical, chemical, or biological

7

means, the release of concentrated nutrients or the extraction of these concentrated nutrients by chemical or physical methods. Nevertheless, modular treatment allows to develop the model that can not only remove excess of nutrient such nitrogen, sulfur, or phosphorus from the water but can also reuse these extracted nutrients to grow forest trees as well as biofertilizers to increase the crop growth. 1.1.3.3 Sensing and monitoring Water such as wetlands, streams, coasts, rivers, and estuaries are the most important sources of water for life, while most of them are polluted in most of the countries (Jiang et al., 2020). Hence, sensing and monitoring would allow the people to understand, improve, and protect the aquatic life and water quality by developing standards and management practices. For instance, water quality monitoring network is designed for protecting and managing the water environment by collecting the information on states of water systems. Researchers have made immense efforts to further improve the monitoring network such as budget requirement, sampling frequency and duration, site selection, quality indicators, and many more (Behmel et al., 2016; Shi et al., 2018). In addition, World Health Organization (WHO) and environmental protection agencies such as USEPA, EPA, and EUEPA have published guidelines on monitoring activities and have been reviewed elsewhere (Behmel et al., 2016; Loo et al., 2012; Watkinson, 2000; Zhang et al., 2011). Water monitoring has evolved from lab-scale analysis to on-site monitoring and in-situ sensor-based monitoring, that helps in great manner to obtain a high knowledge “in real time”, which contributes to develop and adjust the water process management. Besides, the biosensor technology contributes to a sustainable development mainly in places where the water management has limitations related to infrastructure, that generate a high impact into the society (Viviano et al., 2014). Pollutant

8

1. Introduction

FIGURE 1.3

Detection of specific type of pollutant using sensors.

sensing and monitoring has been expanded from conventional stoichiometric analysis to spectrum-based analysis such as adsorption, scattering, and optical reflection. Biosensors are increasingly becoming popular in terms of detecting lower concentration of pollutants such as heavy metals, toxins, drugs, and pathogenic strains (Saini et al., 2019). Fig. 1.3 represents the pollutant sensing mechanism using sensors. The modular concept has an enormous potential to use in this context due to a separate and mobile module can be place, transport, or attach at the same place where the water management or process is performed. 1.1.3.4 Modular modeling The concept of modularization is with a base of the separation of complex production systems, something that can be defined as a “modular production.” The modular system concept gained strength in the 1980s, with the concept to use a strategy that would allow the development and implementation of a variety of combinations of the different production modules (Schilling, 2000; Langlois, 2002; Hegde et al., 2003; Hellström and Wikström, 2005). Currently, the concept of modular systems has evolved

through the inclusion of intrinsic factors and in some cases anthropogenic. The current framework in modeling, development, and implementation of production processes through modular systems has factors based on the concept of sustainability (economic, social, environmental) (Mannina et al., 2019). In this sense, the development and implementation of the sustainability concept in modular systems have been coupled with the constant and demanding change in environmental policies around the world as a prevailing objective for the success of these type systems (Hammad et al., 2019; Pakizer et al., 2020). Likewise, during the planning and design of modular systems, not only the factors mentioned above should be considered, because each system needs a different level of customization, in order to have a better adjust to the requirements of the system itself. Some of these factors are local conditions, in which the installation of modular systems has been a constant challenge to its success on an industrial scale. On the other hand, once the modular system model has been established, the optimization and standardization of the process must be carried out as a single system. This will allow cost reduction, which in turn will increase the

References

profitability and efficiency of the modular system (Saliu et al., 2020; Chopra and Khanna, 2014). With the aim of reducing heterogeneity and increasing its functionality, strategies such as functional modularization and massive customization of modular systems have been proposed. The above strategies are based on the fact that when dividing a complex system into more detailed modules, it depends firstly; the product to be obtained and secondly; the purpose of the modular system itself. This is mainly due to the fact that, although the modules are independent, they form a “whole,” which can be called in terms of the process as an “industrial ecosystem” where the main advantage is that the modules can be operated and replaced by other modules with the same or different function (depending on the requirements of the complete system) (Benito et al., 2002; Zhu and Ruth, 2013). An example of this type of system is the processes to produce biofuels or secondary metabolites, in the management of industrial or agricultural waste, where some modules act as raw material suppliers, pretreatment units, and purification, among others (Pang et al., 2017; Fenoll et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). In this sense, the establishment of the modules and their complement between them is a challenging task during their planning and standardization, since when this type of modular systems presents a weak interdependence (high independence from each other), which is beneficial for the entire system during the optimization and standardization period. Therefore, the implementation and use of modular systems in production, purification, and recovery processes is an extremely attractive alternative. Likewise, this modular system can be the beginning of a combined system, where the modular process system can become a business model with some minor adjustments, which leads to the creation of industrial clusters in a fast and sustainable route.

9

1.1.4 Conclusion The market of resource recovery from wastewater has been increased over the past years to meet the energy and elemental demands of societies. The focus on developing the circular water flow has increased along with the development of resource recovery routes to satisfy overall demand in most sustainable way possible. Several standards and convention are in-effect to implement the controlled and sustainable sharing of waterways across the world. On the other hand, developing ways to treat wastewater to achieve the standards laid by government before its reuse are under constant research. Furthermore, designing the water monitoring network is an essential aspect of sustainable water management.

References
Alvarez-Ruiz, R., Pic
o, Y., 2020. Analysis of emerging and related pollutants in aquatic biota. Trends in Environmental Analytical Chemistry 25, e00082. Behmel, S., et al., 2016. Water quality monitoring strategies d a review and future perspectives. The Science of the Total Environment 571, 1312e1329. Belinskij, A., et al., 2020. International governance. In: Saundry, P., Ruddell, B.L. (Eds.), The Food-Energy-Water Nexus. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 153e186. Benito, J., et al., 2002. Design and construction of a modular pilot plant for the treatment of oil-containing wastewaters. Desalination 147 (1), 5e10. Biswas, A.K., 2006. Water management for major urban centres. Water Resources Development 22 (2), 183e197. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620600690789. Brown, J., Lofrano, G., 2015. Overview of wastewater management through the ages. ASCE Library. Chartzoulakis, K., Bertaki, M., 2015. Sustainable water management in agriculture under climate change. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 4, 88e98. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aaspro.2015.03.011. Chopra, S.S., Khanna, V., 2014. Understanding resilience in industrial symbiosis networks: insights from network analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 141, 86e94. Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change 19 (2), 292e305.

10

1. Introduction

Daigger, G.T., 2009. Evolving urban water and residuals management paradigms: water reclamation and reuse, decentralization, and resource recovery. Water Environment Research 81 (8), 809e823. Da-ping, X., Hong-yu, G., Dan, H., 2011. Discussion on the demand management of water resources. Procedia Environmental Sciences 10, 1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.proenv.2011.09.187, 1173. EL-Nwsany, R.I., Maarouf, I., El-Aal, W.A., et al., 2019. Water management as a vital factor for a sustainable school. Alexandria Engineering Journal 58, 303e313. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2018.12.012. Fenoll, J., et al., 2019. Implementation of a new modular facility to detoxify agro-wastewater polluted with neonicotinoid insecticides in farms by solar photocatalysis. Energy 175, 722e729. Fletcher, T.D., Shuster, W., Hunt, W.F., et al., 2015. SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and more e The evolution and application of terminology surrounding urban drainage. Urban Water Journal 12 (7), 525e542. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314. Frijns, J., Hofman, J., Nederlof, M., 2013. The potential of (waste)water as energy carrier. Energy Conversion and Management 65, 357e363. Gu, Y., et al., 2017. Energy self-sufficient wastewater treatment plants: feasibilities and challenges. Energy Procedia 105, 3741e3751. Guest, J.S., et al., 2009. A new planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource recovery from wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 43 (16), 6126e6130. Haasnoot, M., et al., 2011. A method to develop sustainable water management strategies for an uncertain future. Sustainable Development 19 (6), 369e381. Hammad, A.W.A., et al., 2019. Building information modelling-based framework to contrast conventional and modular construction methods through selected sustainability factors. Journal of Cleaner Production 228, 1264e1281. Hao, X., Liu, R., Huang, X., 2015. Evaluation of the potential for operating carbon neutral WWTPs in China. Water Research 87, 424e431. Hegde, G., Pullammanappallil, P., Nayar, C., 2003. Modular AC coupled hybrid power systems for the emerging GHG mitigation products market. In: TENCON 2003. Conference on Convergent Technologies for Asia-Pacific Region. Heidrich, E.S., Curtis, T.P., Dolfing, J., 2011. Determination of the internal chemical energy of wastewater. Environmental Science & Technology 45 (2), 827e832. Hellström, M., Wikström, K., 2005. Project business concepts based on modularity e improved manoeuvrability through unstable structures. International Journal of Project Management 23 (5), 392e397.

Hellweger, F.L., 2015. 100 Years since Streeter and Phelps: it is time to update the biology in our water quality models. Environmental Science & Technology 49, 6372e6373. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02130. Howe, C., et al., 2011. Sustainable Water Management in the City of the Future: Findings from the SWITCH Project 2006-2011. Jiang, J., et al., 2020. A comprehensive review on the design and optimization of surface water quality monitoring networks. Environmental Modelling & Software 132, 104792. Kehrein, P., et al., 2020. A critical review of resource recovery from municipal wastewater treatment plants e market supply potentials, technologies and bottlenecks. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 6 (4), 877e910. Khadka, A., Kokkonen, T., Niemi, T.J., L€ahde, E., Sillanp€a€a, N., Koivusalo, H., 2020. Towards natural water cycle in urban areas: modelling stormwater management designs. Urban Water Journal 17 (7), 587e597. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2019.1700285. Langlois, R.N., 2002. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 49 (1), 19e37. Lofrano, G., Brown, J., 2010. Wastewater management through the ages: a history of mankind. Science of the Total Environment 408, 5254e5264. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.062. Loo, S.-L., et al., 2012. Emergency water supply: a review of potential technologies and selection criteria. Water Research 46 (10), 3125e3151. Ma, J., et al., 2013. Organic matter recovery from municipal wastewater by using dynamic membrane separation process. Chemical Engineering Journal 219, 190e199. Mannina, G., et al., 2019. Decision support systems (DSS) for wastewater treatment plants e a review of the state of the art. Bioresource Technology 290, 121814. McCarty, P.L., Bae, J., Kim, J., 2011. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producerecan this be achieved? Environmental Science & Technology 45 (17), 7100e7106. Meli
an, J.A.H., 2020. Sustainable Waste Water Treatment Systems (2018e2019). Mishra, B.K., Chakraborty, S., Kumar, P., Saraswat, C., 2020. Urban water security: background and concepts. Sustainable Solutions for Urban Water Security. Springer, USA. Moazeni, F., Khazaei, J., 2021. Optimal energy management of water-energy networks via optimal placement of pumps-as-turbines and demand response through water storage tanks. Applied Energy 283, 116335. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.116335. Oh, S.T., et al., 2010. Sustainable wastewater treatment: how might microbial fuel cells contribute. Biotechnology Advances 28 (6), 871e881.

References

Osorio-Gonz
alez, C.S., M
endez-Carreto, C., G
omezFalc
on, N., Sandoval-Salas, F., Larios-Martínez, A.D., 2018. Technological Developments in Industrial Wastewater Management. Handbook of Environmental Engineering, 1st. McGraw-Hill Education. Pakizer, K., Fischer, M., Lieberherr, E., 2020. Policy instrument mixes for operating modular technology within hybrid water systems. Environmental Science & Policy 105, 120e133. Pang, H., et al., 2017. Effective biodegradation of organic matter and biogas reuse in a novel integrated modular anaerobic system for rural wastewater treatment: a pilot case study. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 119, 131e139. Saini, R., et al., 2019. Chapter 13 - Advances in whole cellbased biosensors in environmental monitoring. In: Kaur Brar, S., Hegde, K., Pachapur, V.L. (Eds.), Tools, Techniques and Protocols for Monitoring Environmental Contaminants. Elsevier, pp. 263e284. Saliu, T.D., et al., 2020. Preparation and characterization of a decentralized modular yellow water nutrient recovery system. Journal of Environmental Management 276, 111345. Sanchez, G.M., Terando, A., Smith, J.W., García, A.M., Wagner, C.R., Meentemeyer, R.K., 2020. Forecasting water demand across a rapidly urbanizing region. Science of the Total Environment 730, 139050. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139050. Saraswat, C., Kumar, P., Mishra, B.K., 2016. Assessment of stormwater runoff management practices and governance under climate change and urbanization: an analysis of Bangkok, Hanoi and Tokyo. Environmental Science & Policy 64, 101e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.env sci.2016.06.018. Schilling, M.A., 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review 25 (2), 312e334. Sheik, A.R., Muller, E.E.L., Wilmes, P., 2014. A hundred years of activated sludge: time for a rethink. Frontiers in Microbiology 5, 47 Shi, B., et al., 2018. Quantitative design of emergency monitoring network for river chemical spills based on discrete entropy theory. Water Research 134, 140e152.

11

UNECE, 2013. U.N.E.C.F.E, Guide. In: to Implementing the Water Convention. ECE/MP.WAT/39, United Nations. Verstraete, W., Vlaeminck, S.E., 2011. ZeroWasteWater: short-cycling of wastewater resources for sustainable cities of the future. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 18 (3), 253e264. Verstraete, W., Van de Caveye, P., Diamantis, V., 2009. Maximum use of resources present in domestic “used water”. Bioresource Technology 100 (23), 5537e5545. Villarín, M.C., Merel, S., 2020. Paradigm shifts and current challenges in wastewater management. Journal of Hazardous Materials 390, 122139. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2020.122139. Viviano, G., et al., 2014. Surrogate measures for providing high frequency estimates of total phosphorus concentrations in urban watersheds. Water Research 64, 265e277. Wan, J., et al., 2016. COD capture: a feasible option towards energy self-sufficient domestic wastewater treatment. Scientific Reports 6 (1), 25054. Wang, Y., et al., 2020. A modular variable-process treatment system for operation liquid waste: a case study. Journal of Water Process Engineering 35, 101221. Watkinson, C.J., 2000. Oil spill prevention and response initiatives in the great barrier reef. Spill Science & Technology Bulletin 6 (1), 31e44. Xie, M., et al., 2016. Membrane-based processes for wastewater nutrient recovery: technology, challenges, and future direction. Water Research 89, 210e221. Xu, J., et al., 2015. Occurrence of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in a sewage treatment plant and its effluent-receiving river. Chemosphere 119, 1379e1385. Zhang, X.-j., et al., 2011. Emergency Drinking Water Treatment during Source Water Pollution Accidents in China: Origin Analysis, Framework and Technologies. ACS Publications. Zhou, Y., et al., 2020. Eutrophication control strategies for highly anthropogenic influenced coastal waters. The Science of the Total Environment 705, 135760. Zhu, J., Ruth, M., 2013. Exploring the resilience of industrial ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Management 122, 65e75.

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

2 Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment Saba Miri1,2, Javad Ghanei1, Satinder Kaur Brar1,2 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre-Eau Terre Environnement, Quebec, QC, Canada

2.1 Introduction

pipelines for better management of the water system. The changes in water quality can be attributed to emerging contaminants such as personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and viruses. While quantity changes are related to rapid population growth. There are several technologies and facilities used for the treatment of wastewater and drinking water. However, the wastewater effluent cannot be used as drinking water and needs more treatment. The wastewater quality can affect the necessary process of drinking water treatment. Most often, treatment infrastructure for wastewater and drinking water has some common steps and has a relation to the urban water cycle. Fig. 2.1 shows an overview of processes used in plants to treat water in two forms: wastewater and drinking water. Source separation and quality-separation sewage treatment and resource recovery are essential trends of wastewater and drinking water treatment. Modular packages can be designed for wastewater source-separation treatment and can be applied in resource recovery for remote camps

In the last century, understanding and knowledge of the relationship between water/wastewater treatment and public health have increased, so has the impetus for innovation of new treatments technologies. Due to increasing urbanization and new stringent regulations, the existing processes should be modified, and innovative technologies are an inevitable need for achieving enhanced removal of pollutants from wastewater and drinking water. Worldwide, 1.8 million children die from diarrhea every year due to water contamination (Supply et al., 2015), leading to an urgent need to provide efficient and affordable water treatment in developing countries. Water and wastewater facilities are often nonexistent in these countries, or current technologies cannot address water quality or quantity demand. Modular treatment systems allow flexibility in response to changing quality or quantity demands. Also, it provides the platform for availing a decentralized treatment system that can be linked with the central

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00007-3

13

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

FIGURE 2.1 Typical wastewater and drinking water treatment infrastructures.

and small communities such as single buildings, construction sites, or shopping complexes. Also, industrial users such as food and beverage companies can be benefited from this modular treatment. One of the advantages of modular treatment is the flexibility of adjusting the module size, so the number of modules can be changed to reach desirable water quality for different purposes (Tang et al., 2020). Also, it provides better wastewater facility and management where specific pollutants (for example, hospital wastewater (HWW)) that could be pretreated before they enter the wastewater system. Since, pharmaceutical compounds can create further trouble for the conventional central wastewater treatment and then drinking water facilities. Nowadays, research on the presence of pharmaceutical compounds in drinking water has been increased, and these chemical pollution might have the ability to cause harm This is surprising because drinking water would provide a

direct route into the body for any drugs that might be present. Accordingly, new technologies such as modular systems that provide multiple functionality, high efficiency, and high flexibility in configuration and system size are needed. In this chapter, the basic principles in drinking water and wastewater treatment infrastructure are discussed, and available techniques for removal of macro and micropollutants were evaluated. Then, bottlenecks and limitations of conventional drinking water and wastewater treatment systems are presented. This information can be used in setting research in designing modular systems to address the challenges in the conventional system.

2.2 Wastewater treatment infrastructure Wastewater is contaminated water from industrial, commercial, domestic, or agricultural

2.2 Wastewater treatment infrastructure

activities, which cannot be used again before treatment. Municipal and industrial wastewater and stormwater are the main categories of wastewater. Municipal wastewater is all the water that leaves people’s houses every day, including the water used in toilettes, kitchens, bathrooms, etc. Water goes through a wastewater collecting system and ends up in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Industrial wastewater is the outcome of industrial or agricultural activities. It may be polluted with heavy metals and particular chemicals, so it should be treated separately using a modular treatment system as a part of pretreatment technology. In many modern and smart cities, the industrial area has separate wastewater treatment facilities. In these facilities, wastewater would be primarily treated to reach specific standards; then, it can be added to the municipal wastewater flow for more treatment. Finally, stormwater is the result of rainfall. Some part of the rainfall would be absorbed to the ground, and some of it would be surface runoff and flows into the waterways, which ends up in the wastewater system. The proper designing of a central sewerage system takes into account both municipal as well as the stormwater. However, due to the old designed facilities (for more than 20 years), many cities worldwide need a fresh design where modifications could be envisioned to incorporate the linking of modular treatment facilities at several points in a city. The distribution of different wastewater types in total wastewater varies for different countries. For example, in Canada (2006), about 65% of the total wastewater had a residential origin, while the industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors were responsible for about 18% of municipal produced wastewater (Holeton et al., 2011). Meanwhile, stormwater accounted for 9% of sewer flows, and the remainder (8%) resulted from groundwater infiltration into sewer systems (Holeton et al., 2011). Thus, modern design or any needed modification for a city sewerage system could be planned

15

specifically based on the distribution of wastewater category. This way, an efficient and pertinent modular treatment system can be designed considering the smart guidelines that may be required in the future. Wastewater treatment aims to reduce impurities/pollutants like solids, biodegradable organic materials, pathogens, and toxic compounds. Then, the effluent would meet the regulatory requirement and be released to the stream water or used as the source of drinking water. Wastewater treatment in conventional WWTPs consists of different unit operations and processes to remove pollutants step by step. Each step, such as pretreatment, primary treatment, and secondary treatment, uses various equipment and technology to remove contamination based on their size. The load on each treatment unit could be reduced drastically by treating the wastewater near its origin. The provision of decentralized treatment facilities or modular treatment approaches could be convenient in meeting stricter discharge guidelines practiced in recent years because of new policy changes. However, the degree of dominance of the centralized socio-technical regime is geographically varied. Many countries such as the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland have developed very high penetrations of their modular systems and enforced central connection rates close to 100% (Indicators, 2005). Lower connection rates are found in other countries where large segments of the population are served by more or less functional decentralized wastewater treatment systems. Japan is a notable example that the development of small-scale treatment units known as Johkasou results in a current connection rate of 78% (Indicators, 2005).

2.2.1 Pretreatment In the pretreatment process, large particles like wood pieces and fabrics can be physically

16

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

separated. If these materials go to the next level, they may cause excessive wear and tear on pumps, and other plant equipment and operational problems may interrupt the system (Riffat, 2012). In particular, these large particles could be segregated intermittently at few critical places before the wastewater drains into the wastewater plant facilities. This periodical collection of big materials in parallel to the sewer pipelines (by-pass sewer lines) could effectively control their direct entry to the WWTP. The use of modular treatment systems inside the cities at various points could also help prevent the unwanted intrusion of these oversize materials up to a great extent. Several industries require pretreatment facilities or on-site treatment due to the nature of their wastewater to meet regulatory requirements or recover water or products (Patterson, 1985). Some examples of equipment for the primary treatments are discussed further. Bar screens: It stops more oversized items from entering the treatment equipment, removes the outliers from the sewage, and makes the sewage more homogenous. Items removed would be sent to the landfill stations. Screens can be cleaned manually or mechanically. Manually cleaned screens are smaller and suitable for small plants, and they have low maintenance and operation costs. Mechanically cleaned screens have a bigger size and low labor costs. Fig. 2.2 depicts a recent and ingenious idea that could be installed and regularized at the “point” of wastewater discharge (from industry or farmlands) that eventually goes directly into the central sewage pipelines or treatment facility. These mesh drains captures a huge amount of plastics (big sized) and also the debris of floating plants and other inert materials. Shredder/grinder: The larger particles would go into the shredder/grinder to be reduced in size. Usually, a shredder consists of two sets of counter-rotating cutters that use sheer force to reduce the solid size. After size reduction, the

FIGURE 2.2

Mesh drains to prevent bigger plastics and debris to get into the central sewer pipelines or other direct water body discharges.

materials can be back to the wastewater to be processed in the following steps. A shredder reduces the damage and maintenance of the downstream equipment but increases the volume of particles like plastic and decomposable materials in digestion tanks. Grit removal: Grit is the name for particles heavier than biodegradable organic materials in wastewater. It can comprise sand, gravel, cinder, eggshell, coffee seeds, and food waste. Grit can cause wear and abrasion in pumps and mechanical equipment, so grit removal is a necessary step. Grit cannot be removed by using chemicals, and special equipment should be applied. There are different types of grit removal equipment: • Vortex type grit chamber: Flow enters a cylindrical tank and creates a vortex flow pattern. Heavy particles settled in the bottom of the tank by gravity. These could also be a part of modular treatment systems as they occupy less space than a conventional grit chamber. • Aerated grit chamber: Here, the wastewater flows in a spiral pattern. Air introduced in the grit chamber causes a change in velocity pattern and heavier particles settled in the tank’s bottom.

2.2 Wastewater treatment infrastructure

• Detritus tank: Here, the wastewater flows in a constant-level, short-detention settling tank. Organic materials would be washed up. • Hydrocyclone: Using a high head pump, wastewater pumps into a cylinder that has a cone-shaped bottom. Heavier and larger particles go to the bottom of and exit from the cone stream, while light and small particles exit through the upstream. These could also be used as a part of a modular treatment system. These systems could be handy, especially in handling the kitchen wastewater or restaurant wastewater, where the modular treatment system containing hydrocyclone could efficiently dewater the organic waste and could be utilized for other purposes such as washing the dishes/utensils. The pretreatment process in modular design can be adjusted with the properties in wastewater to properly handle the separation of their material for the next level of treatment. The pretreatment module is necessary for collecting wastewaters because large particles can affect the efficiency of all modules and piping.

2.2.2 Primary treatment The primary treatment process follows the pretreatment step. In this stage, using primary clarifiers, materials are settled down and be removed continuously from the bottom using a mechanical force. Clarified water would be removed from the top of the tank and goes to the next step. In this step, only particles larger than 10 mm would be removed, so effluent with mainly organic particles less than 10 microns would remain. The solids generated from this step would be called sludge. The sludge is full of organic material that can be used as a fertilizer. For enhancing the settling velocity of particles in the clarifier, some chemicals are used, such as flocculent (like chitosan) and coagulant (aluminum-based like aluminum sulfate, aluminum chloride, and sodium aluminate and

17

iron-based like polyferric sulfate). These chemicals help that small particles stick together to make larger particles and enhance the settling velocity (Zouboulis et al., 2007). A combination of physical and chemical methods in modular treatment can efficiently remove such organic particles. For example, electrocoagulation has been successfully applied for wastewater treatment of food (Karpuzcu et al., 2002), textile (Kim et al., 2002), metal and galvanized metal, and petrochemical industries (Meng et al., 2002). Bashir et al. (2019) evaluated electro-coagulation-peroxidation for the treatment of palm oil mill effluent. The optimum treatment efficiency of 71.3%, 96.8%, and 100% for COD, color, and TSS was obtained, respectively. In a study, peroxymonosulfate-assisted electro-oxidation/coagulation combined with a ceramic ultrafiltration (UF) membrane was applied for micropolluted surface water treatment. This technique could offer a suitable effluent for sulfamethazine degradation (Du et al., 2019). However, research on modular treatment systems using electrocoagulation modules is still limited, and more work needs to be done as far as bridging the future gap is concerned. With appropriate knowledge and technology, the modular treatment system could become an integral part of the city sewerage system that could significantly remove the economic constraints over its wide-ranged benefit.

2.2.3 Secondary treatment In secondary treatment, the focus is on the degradation of biological sewage content. For this purpose, different steps like aeration, filtration, and clarification should be followed. • Aeration: Effluent from the previous step flows into the aeration basins, in which tiny air blowers in the bottom of the basins create bubbles. Microorganisms present in the returned activated sludge (RAS) would use

18

•

•

•

•

•

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

organic materials in the effluent water. For this process, a significant amount of bacteria uses a vast amount of oxygen. Secondary clarifiers: After the aeration process, the effluent pumps into the secondary filter or clarifier. The sludge would be removed and pumped back to the aeration tank. Disinfection process: Clarified water from the secondary clarifier would go to the disinfection process (that can be considered as tertiary treatment). About 85% of solids are removed from the sewage water till this step, but disinfection is still necessary. There are three different ways for disinfection: chlorine, ozone, and ultraviolet disinfection. Each method has its benefits and drawbacks. Chlorine: Chemicals like concentrated bleach would be added to the effluent and disinfects the living organisms in the water. Chlorine must be removed before it can be discharged so it does not kill anything in the discharge location. Ozone: Using an electrical current, oxygen (O2) molecules would react, and ozone (O3) would be formed. Ozone is a strong oxidant and would cause damages to microbe cells. Ultraviolet: The last method uses ultraviolet light to affect bacteria DNA, so they cannot multiply. In this method, bacteria would be sterilized. The bacteria are still alive, but it is harmless.

After the last step, the water can be added to the lake or stream or sent to a drinking water treatment plant to be ready for consumption. However, tertiary treatment can be designed based on wastewater characteristics. The entire process of wastewater treatment may take between 24 and 36 h. As each wastewater source is unique, selecting a biological module to meet particular treatment objectives in modular systems should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and adjusted based on water quality criteria. For example, a sequencing batch biofilter granular

reactor consisting of a mixture of biofilm and granules packed in a filling material can be effectively applied for textile wastewater treatment (Lotito et al., 2014). This system consists of a single basin and can be used in a modular system to simplify the treatment scheme for wastewaters characterized by a high content of recalcitrant compounds such as textile effluents.

2.2.4 Tertiary treatment Tertiary (also called advanced) treatment removes dissolved pollutants, such as metals, remaining nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) and organic chemicals, microbes, and some micropollutants. The treatment processes are categorized into three main methods: chemical, physical, and biological (as shown in Fig. 2.1). Previous studies have concluded that many micropollutants should be removed from wastewater by advanced tertiary treatments. Based on EPA (2012) report, the most common tertiary treatments implemented in the United States are UV irradiation (used in 285 facilities), chlorination (used in 1133 facilities), and sand filtration (used in 245 facilities). Choosing a suitable disinfectant for tertiary treatment is dependent on the following criteria: 1. Safe and easy storage, handling, and shipping 2. Ability to work and destroy infectious compounds under normal operating condition, 3. Absence of carcinogenic and mutagenetic compounds or toxic residual after the disinfection process (Disinfection, 1999). Advanced oxidation processes are also considered as a tertiary treatment that can be used for aqueous waste. Fenton’s reagents as advance oxidative compounds are effectively used for biological oxygen demand (BOD)/ chemical oxygen demand (COD), odor, and color removal. Fenton’s treatment requires a large amount of H2O2 and FeSO4 in the treatment

2.3 Macropollutants in water and sludge

process, and the H2O2/Fe2þ ratio is vital for the efficient treatment process. To maximize waste degradation by Fenton’s reagents, the reaction conditions like temperature and pH should also be optimized. Based on most literature, 30 C is the optimum temperature for waste degradation by Fenton’s oxidation; however, this may vary based on the characteristics of effluents (Ramirez et al., 2005; Alaton and Teksoy, 2007; Mandal et al., 2010). Ultrafiltration as a physical tertiary treatment method can effectively remove bacteria and viruses from wastewater. UF is a membrane separation technology that separates solutions between microfiltration and nanofiltration and removes particles with an approximate size of 0.005e10 mm. This ability makes UF the ideal technology for tertiary treatment to protect the public from pathogens. High cost, membrane fouling, and membrane life are still significant constraints for the application of UF for wastewater treatment, while this technology is considered a promising technique for industrial wastewater and drinking water treatment (Cordier et al., 2020). As mentioned above, UF can be considered as an effective treatment method for modular systems to treat micropolluted water. Nowadays, biotechnology is recognized as the best available technology for odor treatment by membrane bioreactors (MBRs) and biofilters due to their lower operating costs and environmental impact than their physicalechemical counterparts. Biofiltration and biotrickling filtration are conventional biotechnologies that are mainly implemented for odor elimination by removing the hydrophobic fraction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Generally, the presence of a water layer over the biofilm attached to the packing material in biofilters and biotrickling filters (conventional design) limits the mass transfer of the most hydrophobic VOCs from the gaseous phase to the aqueous biofilm. However, advanced designs under nonmass transfer limiting conditions guarantee a cost-effective

19

treatment for removing a hydrophobic fraction of VOCs (Lebrero et al., 2014). Membrane bioreactors are designed based on a membrane (microfiltration or ultrafiltration) and the microbial community attached to the membrane (biological wastewater treatment) for nutrient removal as well as odor control. The membranes have a solideliquid separation function (tertiary treatment), and the suspended microbial growth has function biological treatment (secondary treatment). The advantages of MBR are a reduced footprint, approximately 30%e50% smaller than conventional secondary treatment and tertiary filtration methods, and allow for the direct reuse of the treated water. Considering membrane technology used in MBRs, complete elimination of microorganisms can be achieved in the effluent, and also a high removal ratio for most abiotic contaminants is reported. Bioreactor configuration can make this technology suitable for the selective extraction of the target pollutants (Lebrero et al., 2014). These membrane technologies are highly in demand for modular treatment solutions. They are placed in the lorries referred to as “treatment on wheels” by many reputed global companies that provide an efficient and productive way to treat wastewater, wherever applicable. MBR can be ideally suited also for small plants potentially subject to relatively large hydraulic load variations; its investment and operating costs are usually high for that class of applications. It is becoming the industry standard for centralized WWTP.

2.3 Macropollutants in water and sludge There are two primary source contaminants for water: (1) Natural contaminants and (2) artificial by-products. Natural contaminants are mainly the geological materials presented in water due to water moving through soils and sedimentary rocks (attrition effects). A wide range of compounds at an unacceptable level can be

20

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

considered water contaminants such as chloride, calcium, magnesium, arsenate, nitrate, fluoride, and iron (Sharma and Bhattacharya, 2017). Artificial by-products are mainly generated from industrial and agricultural activities that include primarily heavy metals such as mercury, chromium, copper, lead, other hazardous chemicals like dyes, and other compounds like fertilizers and pesticides. Improper disposing or sorting household or industrial chemicals such as disinfectants, synthetic detergents, paints, solvents, medicines, batteries, pool chemicals, oils, diesel fuel, and gasoline can lead to groundwater contamination (Sharma and Bhattacharya, 2017). Hence, the modular treatment facilities across a city in the form of decentralized water treatment could target water pollutants specifically related to the area or wastewater sector. For example, near the agricultural lands sector in a city, the modular treatment system could be installed dealing with pesticides/fertilizer pollutants before being sent to the central or main sewer city pipelines, finally draining into the WTP facility. In addition, modular systems can offer several inherent advantages compared to traditional systems agricultural lands sector, including very low capital costs, lower operating costs, simplicity of design, less infrastructure, and ease of operation.

2.3.1 In drinking water Drinking water typically contains dissolved substances, as mentioned above, and a small amount of very finely divided solid particles of several kinds. These solid particles are composed of organic and inorganic materials of varying sizes ranging from colloidal dimensions to about 100 mm (Levine et al., 1985). They include human activities debris such as clays, acicular or fibrous particles of asbestos minerals, and organic particles resulting from animal and plant debris decomposition in the soil. These suspended

solids might have effects on the health of those who drink macro-pollutant contaminated water. Some of these particles, such as the asbestos mineral fibers, have biological effects in water since similar fibers are known to be carcinogenic when air is heavily laden with them. However, because of other contaminants of drinking water, organic colloid and clays, no evidence has been discovered that directly affects health. Nevertheless, it is possible that these contaminants, as they occur in water, may indirectly affect the quality of water because they can adsorb a variety of viruses, bacteria, and toxic substrates from suspension or solution. Thus, their occurrence characterization should be studied to find out if they serve to protect some water pollutants and concentrate them or not. A great deal of effort has been made to obtain background information from suspended particulate matter in treated and raw drinking water supplies in different typical communities. However, such a study should be coupled with the characterization of particulates concerning shape, composition, size, and adsorbed constituents and analysis of accompanying inorganic and organic material and microorganisms. It seems that information is required to study biological, organic, and inorganic toxicants adsorbed on organic and clay particulates (Council and Committee, 1977). This information could be effectively utilized for improving the modular or decentralized treatment approach. Different types of macropollutants have been recognized, including clay particles, inorganic and organic pollutants that their properties are discussed here, together with the tendency of bacterial, viruses, and chemicals to become concentrated at the surface of these particles. Macropollutants can be physically removed from drinking water by various processes. The sizes of the macropollutants are significant for their removal by sedimentation and filtration. Sometimes, water quality can be improved by storing it undisturbed or holding it without

2.4 Micropollutants in water and wastewater

mixing long enough to settle out or sediment of large particles by gravity. Since ancient times, sedimentation has been applied because of simplicity and low cost using settling basins or water storage vessels, storage tanks, and reservoirs. Storing water even for a few hours will sediment the dense and large particles, such as sands and silts, large microorganisms, and any microbes associated with denser, larger particles. Although sedimentation is an effective method to reduce water turbidity, it is not consistently effective in reducing macropollutants such as microbial contaminants. This is important to point out that recovering the supernatant water should be done with care to avoid disturbing the sedimented particles. Water should also be protected from contaminants during storage and collection after settling, and procedures and cleaning systems should be applied to clean the storage vessel. Filtration is another effective method to remove macropollutants that is also widely used since ancient times. The ease of use, practicality, availability, affordability, and accessibility of these filtration media make this method wide. Table 2.1 shows a variety of filter media and available filtration processes. Filtration can be considered a necessary module for modular systems because most package plants use water filtration processes and are typically not equipped for corrosion control, disinfection, and adsorption of organic pollutants by activated carbon.

2.3.2 In wastewater Macropollutants in wastewater can be defined as inert materials and large suspended solids that are mainly removed through preliminary treatment. Physical treatment is mainly used in preliminary treatment to remove such particles that may damage the mechanical part of the equipment in unit operations such as pumps. These floating or suspended materials

21

include weeds, rags, organic matter, twigs, and various solids. Screening devices are used to remove the larger materials before entering the wastewater stream to the pumps (as shown in Table 2.2). The removed materials are usually incinerated or disposed of in landfills. Different types of screens can be designed based on wastewater characteristics that can determine the size of the openings of screens (Riffat, 2012). Screen filters can be effectively combined in modular systems based on the water quality needs, and for industrial users, this module can be adjusted to address the specific problems and quality objectives in their wastewater treatment.

2.4 Micropollutants in water and wastewater Micropollutants are compounds found in water with a concentration in a range of microgram to less than nano-gram per liter of water (mg/L to below ng/L). All these chemicals are similar in one aspect, and that is persistence. These compounds could be found in wastewater. For example, when a person washes face with a dedicated cosmetic, its ingredients would go to the wastewater, and since WWTPs cannot remove them altogether, they partially go to the effluent and would end up in stream water. Also, some part of these compounds would remain in the sludge, and since the sludge is used as fertilizer, these compounds would find their way to the ground and finally go to the underground water. Different compounds (ammonia, perchlorate, arsenate), metals (Al, Hg, Fe, Cs, etc) and microorganisms (bacteria, protozoa) can be found in water. In addition to these categories of micropollutants, the emergence of other pollutants in the environment (i.e., antimicrobial agents/disinfectants, fungicides, detergents, herbicides, fragrances, organochlorine, and organophosphorus insecticides, as well as plasticizers) has been noticed (Kim and Zoh, 2016). Table 2.3 shows

22

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

TABLE 2.1

Characterization of Filters and Filtration Media for the Treatment of Drinking Water.

Filter type

Media of filter

Granular media filters (rapid filter)

Filter design

Cost

Advances

Sand, crushed • Bucket Easy to sandstone, anthracite, or filter moderate other soft rock, charcoal, • Barrel or and other minerals drum filter • Roughing filter

Low to moderate

Coating or co-mingling sand, coal, and other common negatively charged granular media with metal oxides and hydroxides of iron, aluminum, calcium, or magnesium

Sand filter

Sand

ND

Easy to moderate

Low to moderate

Using multiple filter units

Fiber, fabric, paper, canvas, membrane filters

Cloth, other woven fabric, wick siphons, synthetic polymers

• Coneshaped filter

Easy to moderate

Varies: Low for natural; high for synthetics

Advanced fabrication methods, special filter holders

Vegetableand animalderived depth filters

Sponge, coal, charcoal, cotton, etc

• Sponge filters

Moderate to difficult

Low to moderate

Combinations of layers made of different biomass

• Vessels • Hollow cylindrical candles

Moderate. Physically cleaning is needed regularly

Moderate to Made of different mineral media, high such as clay, glass, diatomaceous earth, and other fine particles to advance their efficiency based on pore size.

Ceramic Clay, other minerals filters and other porous cast filters

TABLE 2.2

Ease of use

Screens Used for Particle Removal.

Type of screen

The size range of opening

Trash racks

50e150 mm

Rectangular or circular steel bars Large debris and garbage arranged in a parallel manner

Coarse screens

25e75 mm

Two types: Automatic, Prevents excessive head loss by clogging • Chain-driven mechanically cleaned bar screens • Reciprocating rake • Catenary • Continuous belt

Fine screens

Less than 6 mm

They are located after coarse screens

For the treatment of combined sewer overflows

It involves low-speed rotating drum screens

For fine solids removal from treated • Drum screens effluents (used in the tertiary treatment) with fabric filter

Microscreens Less than 50 mm

Characteristic

Collected particle

Available commercial type • Rack machines

• Static wedge wire screen • Stair screen • Drum screen

23

2.4 Micropollutants in water and wastewater

TABLE 2.3

Classification of Micropollutants in Water (Drinking/Wastewater).

Categories Group

Micropollutants

Molecular weight (gmolL1)

PhACs

Erythromycin

733.93

C37H67NO13

Neutral

8.9

3.06 1.55

Roxithromycin

837.05

C41H76N2O15

Neutral

9.0

2.7

e

Ofloxacin

361.36

C18H20FN3O4

e

5.8

2.0

0.25

Sulfamethoxazole

253.3

C10H11N3O3S

e

1.7; 5.6

0.89 0.45

151

C8H9NO2

Neutral

9.5

0.46 0.23

206.29

C13H18O2

e

4.47

3.97 1.44

Naproxen

230

C14H14O3

e

4.2

3.18 0.34

Mefenamic acid

241.285

C15H15NO2

e

3.8

5.12 2.04

Fenoprofen

242

C15H14O3

e

4.21

3.9

Ketoprofen

254.28

C16H14O3

e

4.29

3.12 0.41

Indometacin

357.78

C19H16CINO4

e

3.8

4.23 0.75

Diclofenac

296.15

C14H11C12NO2

e

4.08

4.51 1.59

218

C12H14N2O2

e

12

0.91 0.83

Carbamazepine

236.27

C15H12N2O

Neutral

13

2.45 2.58

Clofibric acid

214.65

C10H11ClO3

e

3.35

2.57 3.6

Gemifibrozil

250.34

C15H22O3

e

4.45

4.77 4.12

Bezafibrate

361.82

C19H20CINO4

e

3.44

4.25 e

Pravastatin

24.53

C23H36O7

e

4.2

3.1

Metoprolol

276.37

C15H25NO3

e

9.49

1.88

Propranolol

259.34

C16H21NO2

Neutral

9.6

3.48 e

Iopromide

790.0

C18H24I3N3O8

e

P1 ¼ 2 2.10 5.28 P2 ¼ 13

Iopamidol

777.1

C17H22I3N3O8

e

10.7

2.42 e

Iohexol

821.1

C19H26I3N3O9

e

11.7

3.05 e

Estrone

270.36

C18H22O2

Neutral

10.3

3.13 1.86

17C-estradiol

272.38

C18H24O2

Neutral

10.4

4.01 e

17a-ethinyl estradiol

296.4

C20H24O2

Neutral

10.3

3.9

Estriol

288

C18H24O3

Neutral

e

2.45 e

0.5

0.97 e

Antibiotics

Analgesic and anti- Acetaminophen inflammatory Ibuprofen drugs

Antiepileptic drugs Primidone

Blood lipid regulators

b-blockers

Contrast media

Hormones

Cytostatic drugs

Cyclophosphamide 260

Chemical formula

Electrostatic charge (pH 7) pKa

C7H15Cl2N2O2P e

Log Kow

Log D

0.38

e

e

(Continued)

24

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

TABLE 2.3

Classification of Micropollutants in Water (Drinking/Wastewater).dcont'd

Categories Group

Micropollutants

Molecular weight (gmolL1)

PCPs

Antimicrobial agents

Triclosan

289.6

C12H7Cl3O2

Neutral

7.8

5.34 e

Disinfectants

Triclocarban

315.6

C13H9Cl3N2O

Neutral

11.4

4.90 e

Preservatives

Propyl-paraben

180.2

C10H12O3

Neutral

8.5

3.04 1.86

Methyl-paraben

152.15

C8H8O3

Neutral

e

Insect repellent

N,N-diethyl-mtoluamide

191.3

C12H17NO

e

2

2.18 e

Sunscreens

Oxybenzone

228

C14H12O3

e

e

3.79 e

Herbicides

Atrazine

215.68

C8H14ClN5

Neutral

1.7

2.6

Diuron

233.1

C9H10Cl2N2O

Neutral

2.68

Insecticides

Diazinon

304.35

C12H21N2O3PS

e

2.6

Fungicides

Clotrimazole

344.84

C22H17ClN2

e

e

e

e

Tebuconazole

307.82

C16H22ClN3O

e

e

e

e

Bisphenol A

228.29

C15H16O2

e

9.6

DBP

278.34

C16H22O4

e

e

e

e

DEHP

390.564

C24H38O4

e

e

e

e

DMP

194.184

C10H10O4

e

e

e

e

Tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate

250.187

C9H15O6P

e

e

1.44 e

Tri(chloropropyl) phosphate

327.57

C9H18Cl3O4P

e

e

2.59 e

Pesticides

Industrial chemicals

Plasticizers

Fire retardants

Chemical formula

Electrostatic charge (pH 7) pKa

Log Kow

e

Log D

e

e

e e

3.8

e

3.32 e

Modified from refs Khanzada et al. (2020), Taheran et al. (2016), Liu et al. (2013), Luo et al. (2014).

the classification of selected organic micropollutants and their representative products. As can be seen in Table 2.3, the log Kow (>2.5) and pKa (a wide range of values) should be considered as the dominant properties of micropollutants to study biotransformation and adsorption of these compounds. The value of log Kow should be the most crucial factor in the process selection for the elimination of organic micropollutants. On the other hand, the molecular weight of organic micropollutants would be another important factor that should be

considered when membrane technologies are used for their separation. The perspectives on the usage of the modular system for this type of pollutants will be further discussed in Chapter 3.

2.4.1 In drinking water The guidelines for drinking water quality determine the efficiency of treatment processes. These guidelines were established based on current knowledge of health effects and aesthetic

25

2.4 Micropollutants in water and wastewater

effects (e.g., taste and odor) of compounds. However, many compounds are unknown in terms of their health effects, and recently, they have been taken into account for research on their health. Still, operational considerations are limited for these new pollutants. Table 2.4 presents the contaminants present in water before and after treatment in the effluent of drinking water treatment plants.

2.4.2 In wastewater Municipal wastewater is mainly the constituents of organic matter, suspended solids, and TABLE 2.4

Category

pathogens. The organic matter is measured indirectly by oxygen demand methods such as BOD, COD, etc. BOD is expressed in terms of oxygen equivalents that are needed for the biodegradability of organic matters. Typically, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) is used as a measure of organic concentration. The size range of organic matter in wastewater can range from less than 0.001 mm to over 100 mm. Nowadays, the main pollutants discharged into water streams are organic and solid matter. Thus, effective measurement technologies and strategic addition of agents, including flocculants, coagulations, filter aids, and the application of

Classification, Treatment Considerations, and Health Effect of Micropollutants from Drinking Water. Important compound/ agent

Source

Treatment goal

Microorganisms Enteric Animal and Minimum 3 protozoa human feces log and (Giardia and C inactivation of yptosporidium) oocysts/cysts

Minimum 4 log

Health effect

Treatment process

Reference

Commonly associated with gastrointestinal upset (vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea).

• Sedimentation • Microfiltration • Ozonation

Hsu and Yeh (2003), Canada (2020)

Gastrointestinal upset (vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea).

• Ultrafiltration • Flocculation • Aluminum hydroxide

Canada (2020), Bosch (1998)

Pose danger to public health

• Activated sludge • Electrocoagulation

Canada (2020), AguilarAscon (2019)

Enteric viruses

Human feces

Bacteria (E. coli)

Animal and Nondetectable human feces in 100 mL

Chemical

Ammonia, perchlorate, Fe, Al, Cr, CN, Cd, Ca, As, etc.

Naturally occurring, emission from industrial waste

e

Cancer, microscopic effects on organs and tissues, neurological effects, etc.

Different methods like filtration, ion exchange using resins, precipitation by pH change, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis, etc.

Canada (2020), Fischer et al. (2019), Xie et al. (2018)

Radiological compounds

Cesium, radium, indium, radon, uranium, etc.

Naturally occurring, emission from a nuclear reactor, etc.

e

Different types of cancer

Filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis

Canada (2020), Baeza et al. (2019)

26

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

optimized bacterial or fungal cultures, have attracted researchers’ attention to improve treatment practices’ performance. The discharge of wastewater without treatment might have adverse effects, such as depleting dissolved oxygen, unacceptable changes of color, turbidity, and solid content. Thus, the industry must remove the main pollutants from wastewater. Wastewater discharge from industries with the main pollutants of organic matter and suspended particles is controlled by regulations that set limits on the amounts of biochemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids (Riffat, 2012). The modular treatment units for smallscale industries located in and around the city would significantly reduce the load on the main wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, each industrial wastewater can be treated depending on the wastewater nature and required quality before entering the main drain.

2.5 Water quality parameters Turbidity and color are two terms commonly applied in particulate removal practice. Turbidity in water is due to suspended matter (i.e., slit, clay plankton, nonliving organic particulate). The particles in a colloidal solution are visible through the electron microscope but not through the naked eye. However, the particles in the suspension are visible through naked eyes and under the electron microscope. Thus, the turbidity measurement does not give complete information about the mass, size, and number of particles that absorb light. Small particles (those less than 0.1 mm, single viruses, and many asbestos mineral particles) are not detected by conventional measurements. The presence of natural organic matter causes the color in the water, and it may also be due to particular industrial wastes and caused by some metallic complexes. Turbidity and color measurements are expressions of specific light scattering and light absorption, respectively.

Particulate removal can be obtained using water treatment practices such as filtration, sedimentation, softening, and coagulation. Softening is the process by which calcium and magnesium ions are removed from the water, and these pollutants are usually removed as solids (i.e., magnesium hydroxide and calcium carbonate). Thus, water-softening plants have sedimentation, and filtration facilitates to separate solids from water by gravity. Coagulation is another process in which colloidal particles can be destabilized using suitable coagulants and promote the aggregation of particles for their removal by dissolved air flotation and sedimentation. Materials suspended (particle size up to 100 mm) in drinking water such as organic and inorganic solids may also have some other microorganisms and substrate attached to them. Carbonaceous constituents measured by BOD or COD analysis are essential to the activated sludge process design. Unlike BOD, some portion of the COD is not bridgeable, and it is important to know how much of the COD is particulate comprised of suspended solids and colloidal. So, total COD in the wastewater is soluble (unfilterable) and suspended COD (colloidal and particulate biodegradable and nonbiodegradable) that nonbridgeable particulates will contribute to the total sludge production. Even though soluble readily biodegradable COD is assimilated quickly by the biomass during the activated sludge process design, the colloidal and particulate COD must first be dissolved by extracellular enzymes and are thus assimilated slowly. Depending on surface functional groups, particle size, charge, and colloidal stability of COD particulates change up to 10 mm. The presence of pollutants with ionic character can also cause or support the aggregation of humic and fulvic particles. Secondary treatment for the biological breakdown of biodegradable particles has been recommended to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand, toxicity, and total suspended solids. Table 2.5 shows that even though many kinds of particles are harmless in themselves; they may

27

2.5 Water quality parameters

TABLE 2.5

Water quality parameters, souces, concern, and issues the aquatic environment.

Category (parameter)

Important subclasses

Clay particle

• Clays and • The amorphous • Clays are in soils • Conventional • Clay mineral organic colloids hydroxide flocs and sediments treatment plants components (the have not any formed in many formed during are effective in phyllosilicates) direct effect on coagulation soil development turbidity • Nonclay-mineral health. However, processes can through the removal and such as iron, both may adsorb trace since clay weathering of aluminum indirectly affect metals and parent minerals comprises a oxides, quartz, the quality of organic significant hydroxides, drinking water compounds. portion of amorphous due to the fact Hence, if they natural turbidity, silica, feldspar that they can pass through clay suspensions adsorb a variety filters and into can be removed of toxic the treated water, by filtration and substances, they may carry coagulation bacteria, and other substances viruses from with them. solution or suspension

Particulate organic matter

• Organic macromolecules such as humic and fulvic acid • All nonliving material (e.g., amorphous organic matter, detritus)

Major sources

Removal technique Concern and issues Effect on health

• Color and many • Municipal and other organic industrial waste macromolecules disposal is a and particulates major source of can be removed organic by conventional particulate processes. For matter in natural example, humic waters that serve and fulvic acids as sources for can be drinking water coagulated by iron (III) and aluminum (III) salts

• It may increase lead and copper concentration in treated water • It favors the development of biofilms in the distribution system • Formation of halomethanes and other chlorinated organics • Measurement of particulate content by turbidimetry is imprecise and cannot be relied upon as a sole indicator of the safety of an uncharacterized drinking water source

ND

(Continued)

28 TABLE 2.5

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

Water quality parameters, souces, concern, and issues the aquatic environment.dcont'd

Category (parameter)

Important subclasses

Mineral fibers

• Amphibole and chrysotile fibers

•There is concern • Synthetic mineral • Amphibole fibers • The ubiquitous over the occurrence of can be removed fibers, called slag biological effects fibrous or by coagulation wool or rock of the mineral acicular and filtration. wool, are fibers such as minerals, as well • Considerable produced by asbestos that as the wide difficulties have blowing air or occur in water variation in been reported for steam through composition, and • Evidence from small and molten rock or studies in both similarities of positively slag people and lab crystallographic charged • Man-made animals has make the chrysotile fibers vitreous (silicate) shown that analysis of fibers are a group asbestos can environmental of materials that increase the risk samples most include for some types of difficult refractory cancer ceramic fibers, glass wool, special-purpose glass fibers, rock wool, slag wool and continuous glass filaments

Microbiological particulates

• Large microorganisms including amebic cysts and algae

ND

Major sources

Removal technique Concern and issues Effect on health

• Escaping of • Large microbial microorganisms including amebic particulates: cysts and algae • Aggregation and are readily survival: Some removed by aspects of the filtration from resistance to properly disinfection of pretreated water viruses that have • 100% removal of been attributed microorganisms to the association is not feasible between organic particulate materials to produce complex.

•There is also strong evidence that microbes may contribute to many noninfectious chronic diseases such as some forms of cancer and coronary heart disease. Different diseases are caused by different types of microorganisms

ND: not determined.

indirectly affect water quality by acting as vehicles and releasing pollutants under different conditions. The above-mentioned water treatment practice can effectively remove most of the solids suspended in water; however, the conventional technique of measuring and detecting the

presence of particles using turbidity has serious deficiencies. Thus, the development of standardized methods is necessary to determine particle size distribution and concentration using an optical technique such as adsorption and light scattering (Rieger and Ditl, 1994).

2.6 Bottlenecks and limitations of centralized drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities

Pulp and paper industry wastewater treatment practice is one example of the presence of particulate and colloids such as carbohydrate and lignin-related compounds in the stream that resulted in a high value of BOD, turbidity, and even toxicity. The presence of toxic substances such as dioxins in effluents from pulp bleaching and its adsorption on particles resulted in the transport and protection of them from removal by water treatment. Conventional wastewater treatment systems comprising primary clarification followed by activated sludge processes have been applied in the pulp and paper industry. At higher levels of pollutants, the removal of contaminants has been achieved by supplementary treatments, including anaerobic biological stages, bioreactors, advanced oxidation processes, and membrane filtration practice (Hubbe et al., 2016). Also, these supplementary treatments can be served as a modular system to decrease the load of mentioned contaminates before entering to the wastewater treatment facilities.

2.6 Bottlenecks and limitations of centralized drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities A municipal WWTP is designed to work with conventional household wastewater. If unconventional wastewater enters the WWTP, the efficiency of treatment changes. One example of unconventional wastewater would be HWW. Different unconventional pollutants can be found in HWW, such as various toxic or persistent substances such as hazardous chemical substances, pharmaceuticals, pathogens, radionuclides and radioisotopes, radiographic developers, solvents, endocrine disruptors, and disinfectants in a wide range of concentrations (Yan et al., 2020). Even feces and patients’ urine contain high amounts of antibiotics, the metabolites of pharmaceuticals, cytotoxics, and X-ray contrast media. It is reported that a hospital, as

29

a significant point source, can discharge approximately 700 kg of pharmaceuticals in the marine environment annually. Untreated HWW, which contains high concentration norovirus and antibiotic-resistance bacteria, causes the death of zebrafishes and crustaceans after 96 h of exposure (Casas et al., 2015). Thus, the proper management, treatment, and disposal of HWW before entering the main drain can decrease international concerns. Most countries across the world did not have a good distinction between HWW and urban/ domestic wastewater. According to WHO safe management of wastes, the direct discharge of hazardous chemical and liquids wastes (e.g., pharmaceuticals) to the sewer is strictly prohibited. A separate pretreatment is required for such wastewater. The pretreatment can involve filtering, autoclaving, and acidebase neutralization. European pill project (2010e12) reported the effective treatment of HWW in terms of pharmaceutical compounds using membrane biofilm reactor and ozone/UV/H2O2/RO treatment (Kovalova et al., 2013). For the first time, a fullscale hospital WWTP was constructed in Denmark in 2013. The Herlev hospital was considered a significant point source. Its WWTP consists of secondary treatment with two biological tanks followed by the adsorption with granular-activated carbon, ozonation, and UV radiation (Casas et al., 2015). A modular system can be applied for the source removal of medical contaminants from HWW. The modular design can be placed on-site like hospitals, elderly homes, or pharmaceutical companies to remove the pollutants before entering the main wastewater system. Since HWW contains a wide range of chemicals and microbiological compounds that make its treatment different, two approaches are considered HWW. In some countries such as the United States, Italy, and France, it is regarded as industrial wastewater, so HWW can be discharged to municipal sewage after a different treatment. This separate treatment can be varied

30

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

from a simple pretreatment to separate onsite treatment. So, HWW can be treated in an on-site HWWTP using the modular treatment system or technologies, and effluent can be discharged to WW main streams. No need to mention that in this method, HWW sludge should be managed carefully. For example, Herlev Hospital (Copenhagen, Denmark) employs a modular system that contains filtration, biological purification, activated carbon, and ozone to remove the pharmaceutical active substances (Hartmann et al., 1998). In other countries, the different treatment of HWW is not considered, and untreated HWWs are discharged directly to the municipal WW. In this case, the effluent of WWTP should be monitored more carefully. In the effluent, the measurements of specific pollutants are required, such as adsorbable organic halogens, disinfectants, detergents, surfactant, sulfates, cyanides, organophosphates, total nitrogen, total and free chlorine, heavy metals, and rarely microbiological indicators (total coliform, fecal coliform, or Escherichia coli). However, it is noticeable that pollutant removal by advanced treatment inevitably requires additional financial costs that some countries cannot afford it. As mentioned previously, most industrial wastewater stream effluents contain a complex mixture of various organic compounds and solid particulates. A variety of challenges reported for those who set out to remove macropollutants from the industrial wastewater depend on the wastewater nature and required quality needed. Operating cost is one criterion that should be considered to obtain successful treatment. Advanced oxidation systems that can eliminate some of the highly colored and most challenging toxic components from industrial effluent have been criticized for their high operating cost. However, membrane treatment practice is becoming more popular

because of a substantial reduction in membrane price. Greenhouse gas emission is the other criteria to choose for appropriate treatment practice. Even though improved efficiencies often can be obtained using modern reactors designed for biological wastewater treatment, these facilities may require electricals energy (high) compared to conventional treatment systems. Replacing thermophilic with mesophilic (medium temperature) conditions in biological treatment plants might save some electricity. However, studies showed higher performance of thermophilic in many cases. Researchers usually recommend anaerobic wastewater treatment operations because they generate methane that can be retrieved. Quantity of sludge is the last but not least factor that should be minimized and remove pollutants from the wastewater. Focusing on anaerobic biological treatment as an early step in the treatment program and thermophilic natural treatment systems can achieve better efficiency and lower sludge amounts (LaPara and Alleman, 1999; Skouteris et al., 2012). Petroleum industries and refineries wastewaters mainly contain oil, organic matter, and other petroleum compounds. Pretreatment can reduce the concentration of oil, grease, and suspended materials. However, advanced treatment is needed to decrease/degrade the pollutants to acceptable discharge values. The critical parameters in treatment techniques for petroleum wastewater are COD, BOD, oil and grease, total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH), sulfate, and phenols. Biological techniques (Wang et al., 2015), adsorption (Al Hashemi et al., 2015), chemical oxidation (Hu et al., 2015), and coagulation (Farajnezhad and Gharbani, 2012) should be advanced in conventional treatment plants to remove the organic matter from petroleum wastewater. Using advanced treatment in a

References

modular system can be placed on-site to remove such complex contaminants before entering the main wastewater system. In this case, the scale of treatment can be reduced compared to central municipal wastewater systems.

2.7 Conclusion Modular systems can be designed in a way that provides all the advantages of conventional water treatment systems. Since they are prefabricated, packages can be easily installed for industrial and residential areas. The modular systems are flexibly designed to deal with specific problems and quality objectives of industrial and municipal users or even small communities. Pretreatment biological and tertiary modules should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on water quality objectives. The modular system can be placed on-site to reduce the overall cost of treatments; however, these systems’ choice depends on source water quality, treatment targets, operating, and maintenance costs. However, a modular treatment system may still be financially out of reach for some underdeveloped communities.

References Aguilar-Ascon, E., 2019. Removal of Escherichia coli from domestic wastewater using electrocoagulation. Journal of Ecological Engineering 20 (5). Al Hashemi, W., et al., 2015. Characterization and removal of phenolic compounds from condensate-oil refinery wastewater. Desalination and Water Treatment 54 (3), 660e671. Alaton, I.A., Teksoy, S., 2007. Acid dyebath effluent pretreatment using Fenton’s reagent: process optimization, reaction kinetics and effects on acute toxicity. Dyes and Pigments 73 (1), 31e39. Baeza, A., et al., 2019. Removal of radium in a working drinking water treatment plant: radiological hazard assessment and waste management. Journal of Hazardous Materials 371, 586e591.

31

Bashir, M.J., et al., 2019. Post treatment of palm oil mill effluent using electro-coagulation-peroxidation (ECP) technique. Journal of Cleaner Production 208, 716e727. Bosch, A., 1998. Human enteric viruses in the water environment: a minireview. International Microbiology 1 (3), 191e196. Canada, H., 2020. Summary of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Casas, M.E., et al., 2015. Biodegradation of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater by staged moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR). Water Research 83, 293e302. Cordier, C., et al., 2020. Optimization of air backwash frequency during the ultrafiltration of seawater. Membranes 10 (4), 78. Council, N.R., Committee, S.D.W., 1977. Drinking Water and Health 1. Du, X., et al., 2019. Peroxymonosulfate-assisted electrooxidation/coagulation coupled with ceramic membrane for manganese and phosphorus removal in surface water. Chemical Engineering Journal 365, 334e343. EPA, 2012. Clean watersheds needs survey. https://www. epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/ cwns_2012_report_to_congress-508-opt.pdf. Farajnezhad, H., Gharbani, P., 2012. Coagulation treatment of wastewater in petroleum industry using poly aluminum chloride and ferric chloride. International Journal of Research and Reviews in Applied Sciences 13 (1), 306e310. Fischer, A., et al., 2019. Development and application of relevance and reliability criteria for water treatment removal efficiencies of chemicals of emerging concern. Water Research 161, 274e287. Hartmann, A., et al., 1998. Identification of fluoroquinolone antibiotics as the main source of umuC genotoxicity in native hospital wastewater. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry: International Journal 17 (3), 377e382. Holeton, C., Chambers, P.A., Grace, L., 2011. Wastewater release and its impacts on Canadian waters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68 (10), 1836e1859. Hsu, B.-M., Yeh, H.-H., 2003. Removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in drinking water treatment: a pilot-scale study. Water Research 37 (5), 1111e1117. Hu, G., Li, J., Hou, H., 2015. A combination of solvent extraction and freeze thaw for oil recovery from petroleum refinery wastewater treatment pond sludge. Journal of Hazardous Materials 283, 832e840. Hubbe, M.A., et al., 2016. Wastewater treatment and reclamation: a review of pulp and paper industry practices and opportunities. Bioresources 11 (3), 7953e8091. Indicators, O., 2005. Health at a Glance. OECD, Paris. Karpuzcu, M., Dimoglo, A., Akbulut, H., 2002. Purification of agro-industrial wastewater from the grease-protein

32

2. Characteristic of wastewater and drinking water treatment

mixture by means of electroflotocoagulation. Water Science and Technology 45 (12), 233e240. Kim, T.-H., et al., 2002. Pilot scale treatment of textile wastewater by combined process (fluidized biofilm processe chemical coagulationeelectrochemical oxidation). Water Research 36 (16), 3979e3988. Kim, M.-K., Zoh, K.-D., 2016. Occurrence and removals of micropollutants in water environment. Environmental Engineering Research 21 (4), 319e332. Kovalova, L., et al., 2013. Elimination of micropollutants during post-treatment of hospital wastewater with powdered activated carbon, ozone, and UV. Environmental Science and Technology 47 (14), 7899e7908. LaPara, T.M., Alleman, J.E., 1999. Thermophilic aerobic biological wastewater treatment. Water Research 33 (4), 895e908. Lebrero, R., et al., 2014. Comparative assessment of a biofilter, a biotrickling filter and a hollow fiber membrane bioreactor for odor treatment in wastewater treatment plants. Water Research 49, 339e350. Levine, A.D., Tchobanoglous, G., Asano, T., 1985. Characterization of the size distribution of contaminants in wastewater: treatment and reuse implications. Water Pollution Control Federation 805e816. Lotito, A.M., et al., 2014. Textile wastewater treatment: aerobic granular sludge vs activated sludge systems. Water Research 54, 337e346. Mandal, T., et al., 2010. Advanced oxidation process and biotreatment: their roles in combined industrial wastewater treatment. Desalination 250 (1), 87e94. Meng, X., Bang, S., Korfiatis, G.P., 2002. Removal of selenocyanate from water using elemental iron. Water Research 36 (15), 3867e3873. Patterson, J.W., 1985. Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology. Ramirez, J.H., Costa, C.A., Madeira, L.M., 2005. Experimental design to optimize the degradation of the synthetic dye

Orange II using Fenton’s reagent. Catalysis Today 107, 68e76. Rieger, F., Ditl, P., 1994. Suspension of solid particles. Chemical Engineering Science 49 (14), 2219e2227. Riffat, R., 2012. Fundamentals of Wastewater Treatment and Engineering. CRC Press. Sharma, S., Bhattacharya, A., 2017. Drinking water contamination and treatment techniques. Applied Water Science 7 (3), 1043e1067. Skouteris, G., et al., 2012. Anaerobic membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment: a review. Chemical Engineering Journal 198, 138e148. Supply, W.U.J.W., Programme, S.M., Organization, W.H., 2015. Progress on Sanitation and Drinking Water: 2015 Update and MDG Assessment. World Health Organization. Tang, X., et al., 2020. Full-scale semi-centralized wastewater treatment facilities for resource recovery: operation, problems and resolutions. Water Science and Technology 82 (2), 303e314. Wang, Q., et al., 2015. Experimental and kinetic study on the cometabolic biodegradation of phenol and 4chlorophenol by psychrotrophic Pseudomonas putida LY1. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22 (1), 565e573. Xie, Y., et al., 2018. Physical and chemical treatments for removal of perchlorate from waterea review. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 116, 180e198. Yan, S., et al., 2020. Guidelines for hospital wastewater discharge. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier, pp. 571e597. Zouboulis, A., Traskas, G., Ntolia, A., 2007. Comparable evaluation of iron-based coagulants for the treatment of surface water and of contaminated tap water. Separation Science and Technology 42 (4), 803e817. Disinfection, Chlorine, 1999. "SEPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet".

C H A P T E R

3 Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal Seyyed Mohammadreza Davoodi1,2, Mohammad Hossein Karimi Darvanjooghi1, Satinder Kaur Brar1,2 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique - Centre-Eau, Terre Environnement, Qu
ebec, QC, Canada

3.1 Introduction to challenges related to removal of organic micropollutants and possible solutions

of other pollutants in the environment (i.e., pharmaceutical products, antimicrobial agents/disinfectants, fungicides, detergents, herbicides, fragrances, organochlorine, and organophosphorus insecticides, as well as plasticizers and fire retardants) have also been noticed (Fig. 3.1). Micropollutant toxicity to aquatic life and drinking water contamination are the most concerning global issues of persistent compounds. Some strategies have been proposed to reduce the release of micropollutants in surface water and preserve drinking water resources including (a) prevention and control of source, (b) source separation technologies and decentralized treatment, and (c) centralized end-of-pipe treatments. The first strategy aims to restrict the use of harmful compounds by focusing on the regulations at national and international levels. The second strategy targets treatment of the wastewaters with a high content of OMPs such as hospital effluents before pouring out to the other stream and dilution with high volumes of wastewater

Modern-day lifestyle is a source of new pollutants, also referred to as, “organic micropollutants” (OMPs) or “trace contaminants.” OMPs derive their origins from pesticides and fertilizers filtering through the ground to industrial and urban effluent via the water cycle. These types of pollutant usually present at low concertation in the environment and can generate adverse effects on living organisms. Hydrophobic pollutants (i.e., polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), heavy metals, dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)), as well as more polar compounds (i.e., pesticides) designated to be more biologically activated, are among the critical micropollutants that raise considerable ecological issues (Schwarzenbach et al., 2006; Chevre and Erkman, 2011). In addition to these categories of the micropollutants, the emergence

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00015-2

33

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

34

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

FIGURE 3.1

Micropollutants sources.

streams. In countries where municipal wastewater is usually collected via the sewer networks toward centralized wastewater treatment plants, upgrading treatment plants with advanced technologies is the most efficient strategy to treat micropollutants. The last but not least strategy includes measures to reduce by 80% on average load of micropollutants present in wastewater stream before discharge into sensitive waters or important water resources (Eggen et al., 2014). To address issues with release of OMPs, attention has been focused on decentralized system (second strategy) varying from individual onsite wastewater management systems to satellite treatment units. Considering the fact that decentralized systems should be modular, technologies available for reliable and efficient on-site systems can be developed to be used for on-site treatment.

3.1.1 Removal of OMPs during wastewater treatment processes To design a compact mobile trailer-mounted treatment system configured with different treatment units in a series, it is also necessary to know about:

e The fate of OMPs, removal processes in a typical WWTP, e Challenges while using conventional technologies, e Advanced water treatment techniques. The fate of OMPs, removal processes in a typical WWTP: Many processes are now in place at wastewater treatment plants to preserve natural resources, and the treatments used at water purification facilities have been improved to protect consumers. Despite treatments, traces of micropollutants can be found in tap water. Thus, research centers in collaboration with wastewater treatment plants and drinking water production plants have been researching for the past 10 years to better understand fate of micropollutants and improve water treatment processes (Abegglen and Siegrist, 2012). Conventional wastewater treatment plants are designed for the removal of suspended solids, nutrients, solid wastes, and easily biodegradable dissolved organic matter from wastewater. To remove micropollutants, the main mechanisms in conventional treatment are abiotic degradation and nitration (i.e., hydrolysis, photolysis, and nitrification, respectively), adsorption onto adsorbents or sludges or sediments, biological

3.1 Introduction to challenges related to removal of organic micropollutants and possible solutions

transformation (removal mechanism for hydrophilic organic pollutants), and volatilization (Eggen et al., 2014). Currently, domestic wastewater treatment is composed of different parts as follow to eliminate the primary pollutants from the wastewater streams (Das et al., 2017): • Pretreatment process to remove grease and fat (tanks where skimmers collect the floating fat) as well as coarse wastes, sands (decantation channel); that results in adsorption of OPMs on coarse debris, suspended, and sand particles. • Primary treatment involving primary sedimentation tank (or classifier) designed to remove the suspended solid by primary sludge: that results in OMPs adsorption on solid sludge during coagulation and flocculation and dissolved OMPs are transferred to secondary treatment. Adsorption on suspended particles and colloidal subsequent removal in sludge may occur for compounds with log K ow more than about 4.0 (Das et al., 2017). • Secondary treatment for removal of the residual solid easily biodegradable contaminants using biotransformation or biodegradation: that resulted in volatilization of OMPs (when the MP trapped in a layer of froth on the surface of liquid) as well as OMPs adsorption on solid sludge during

35

coagulation and flocculation. Moreover, dissolved OMPs that are transferred to disinfection unit can be exposed to photolysis process. In some WWTPs, one treatment step is designed to remove nitrate using biological denitrification, nutrients using biological nitrification, and phosphate by chemical precipitation. OMPs with biological degradation constant less than 0.0042 L/ gss/h (gss: suspended solid concentration) are not removed significantly (90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

Antibiotics

40%e90% >90%

>90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

X-ray contrast media

40%e90% >90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

Synthetic scents

40%e90% >90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

70%e90%

90%

PhACs

PCPs

Reverse osmosis

Membrane Nanofiltration Ultrafiltration distillation

38

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

Application of membrane separation processes with nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis membranes is growing among tertiary treatment methods, for use by sewage/wastewater treatment plants due to their abilities to separate salts and organic compounds with low molecular weights (MWs). NF might be utilized as the primary or secondary treatment processes. The 93%e99% removal of micropollutants achieved using NF is because the MW of the majority of micropollutants is either than the MW cut-off for the NF membranes that is 200 Da (Yu et al., 2018). For low MW pollutants such as carbendazim, phenacetin, and acetaminophen, low removal efficiency has been observed. Moreover, the charge of pollutants also affects its removal. For substrates with high pKa and low hydrophobicity with neutral charges such as diatrizoate and carbamazepine, the adsorption by reverse osmoses and NF is negligible, and size exclusion

is the effective mechanism. In this case, better removal rates have been attributed to the higher value of logKow (Yu et al., 2018). Thus, the low removal efficiency of heavy MW pollutants such as phenacetin is attributed to the hydrophobicity (log P ¼ 1.58) that results in repulsion between the hydrophobic membrane (i.e., polystyrene) and the pollutants (Yu et al., 2018). Various research studies have been conducted to investigate the mechanisms (electrostatic interaction, hydrophobic interaction, and size exclusion) involved in the separation of micropollutants from the wastewater stream by using reverse osmosis and NF, and it is obvious that different parameters such as size, solubility, charge, diffusivity, and hydrophobicity are the most important factors that must be studied (Fig. 3.3) (Bellona et al., 2004; Ojajuni et al., 2015). Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) seem to be appropriate alternatives for conventional

FIGURE 3.3 Different mechanisms of, (A) size exclusion, (B) hydrophobic and hydrophilic interaction, (C) electrostatic forces between surface and pollutants, and (D) adsorption for the elimination of micropollutants by using reverse osmosis and nanofiltration. Based on Khanzada et al. (2020).

3.1 Introduction to challenges related to removal of organic micropollutants and possible solutions

activated sludge (CAS) process as MBR process combines biological treatment with membrane technology. This process also provides high SRT and more biodiversity of the microorganisms compared to CAS. Sometimes, these mechanisms might result in more contamination and toxicity for the stream. For example, the sorption of micropollutants onto dissolved matter increases the solubility of hydrophobic substrates such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatics. Verlicchi et al. (2012) that reviewed removal of 29 antibiotics in conventional active sludge reactors showed that removal percentage varied from 0 for spiramycin to 98% for cefaclor and between 15% for azithromycin and 98% for ofloxacin in MBR (Verlicchi et al., 2012). Most recently, Trinh et al. (2012) traced 48 OMPs including pesticides, steroidal hormones, xenoestrogens, caffeine, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products in an MBR with more than 98% removal for many of the compounds (Sahar et al., 2011; Trinh et al., 2012).

3.1.2 Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal: benefits and limits According to the above-mentioned challenges related to OMPs, application of decentralized systems such as commercial and industrial modular wastewater treatment products might be necessary to meet source separation. For example, decentralized treatment of concentrated wastewater can be utilized for patient urine and stool, industrial waste, and hospital effluents before their dilution is combined with high volumes of the less contaminated wastewater stream (Lienert et al., 2007). The ease of construction, repair, and recycling of system components encouraged engineers to develop products composed of modular components. Packed wastewater treatment plants are potential solution in areas that are not connected to the traditional sewer system. With the high

39

cost of infrastructure replacement and demand for more stringent environment standard and modular treatment system to service small communities after understanding the applicable modular systems employed in wastewater treatment, pre-engineered and prefabricated packed wastewater treatment system are driving the adoption of decentralize solutions. Modular treatment systems might minimize collection network requirements, reducing pumping costs, and deliver reuse quality effluent. Scalability is the other advantage they offer that facilitate the addition of modular treatment units to serve as a subdivision with multiple phases and meet capacity requirements as they are needed. Last but not the least, tailoring modular systems is an optimized way to address specific needs of each individual application. Following lists steps should be considered to develop modular treatment system projects e Innovative design: Preplanning stage insures cost effective design and installation e Modular fabrication: Pre-engineered adjusted to client needs from high quality materials for extended durability e Delivery and installation: Delivered in preassemble blocks for rapid installation e Start up and commissioning: Turnkey solution testing, optimizing for cost efficiency e Maintenance and operation: compact design, less equipment, and less part to break e Training and support: Full services operation training, support manuals To design a compact mobile trailer-mounted treatment system configured with different treatment units in a series, it is necessary to know about the relationship between micropollutant concentration in effluent and dissolved organic carbon (COD), COD, bioBOD, and total suspended solid (TSS) in the treated stream. For example, removal of several micropollutants is strongly linked to the suspended solids removal. Thus, highly efficient removal of TSS in the effluent for instance using advanced decantation

40

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

and sand filtration will reduce micropollutant concentration. Gardner et al., (2007) also found that effluent concertation of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and PAHs were correlated with effluent DOC concentration suggesting that these micropollutants are associated with DOC rather than with suspended solids (Gardner et al., 2012). Correlation between the removal of COD, BOD, and ammonia with the removal of several pollutants shows that higher BOD degradation might result in better removal of the relatively easily biodegradable compounds estrogens (E2), triclosan, and salicylic acid. Gardner et al. (2007) reported that most of micropollutants were removed less than 40% in treatment plants without nitrification and more than 80% in treatment plants with complete nitrification. It is not clear that these better removal efficiencies should be attributed to cometabolism by enzyme, ammonia monooxygenase, responsible of the nitrification, longer SRT, and HRT (resulting in more microbial diversity in the sludge and more time for biodegradation, respectively) or the combination of the three. Therefore, modular systems with the removal of BOD, TSS, DOC, and ammonium will be more effective at removing several biodegradable micropollutants (Gardner et al., 2012; Margot, 2015). On the other hand, Akin (2016) that studied contaminant properties of hospital laboratory wastewater reported that pharmaceuticaloriginated micropollutants have significantly different characteristics (stability, dissolubility, volatility, absorbability, biological degradation, etc.) compared to macro-pollutants in the hospital wastewater (COD, BOD) leads to highly lower level of treatability in the conventional domestic wastewater treatment facilities. Moreover, pollutant concentrations of BOD, COD, TSS etc., were 3 times higher in hospital wastewater compared to domestic wastewater where micropollutants are at higher amounts (Akin, 2016). One challenge of designing a system composed of modular components is that there

is often uncertainty in many parameters that determine the performance of system. Another challenge is that for a given inventory, a very large number of possible system configurations exist. For example, in the photovoltaic-powered reverse osmosis system that can be applied for the removal of OMPs, the amount of input solar energy and water demand is variable (Ekblad et al., 2019).

3.2 Organic micropollutants removal: current state of art Different technologies and configuration can be identified depending on the customers’ feedwater conditions, desired application and final product water quality requirements can be built on modular platform from small scale to commercial wastewater treatment plants. For example, one practical application of modular and mobile wastewater treatment system is the recovery of oil spill recovery and clean-up techniques. Advanced modular technology can also be applied for the nitrogen removal from water to prevent water pollution problems such as algae bloom. This treatment system that is ideal also for wastewater containing hazardous organic contaminants in pulp and paper plants and refineries to remove suspended solids that are not water-soluble but emulsified (Bilton, 2013). These solutions that are ideal for fast response, and emergency situations can also be utilized for OMPs removal. Among them, the modular systems that offer effective barriers to microcontaminants (e.g., membrane filtration) and oxidation systems (e.g., ozone oxidation) are considered as solution to selectively remove micropollutants. For each application, system composed of modular components requires a custom design to select the correct configuration. For OMPs removal application, a great deal of effort has been made to optimize methods to configure the mobile water treatment system with various modular units including membrane filtration,

3.2 Organic micropollutants removal: current state of art

flocculation, coagulation, dissolved air flotation, ozone oxidation, GAC, and UV disinfection. Modular treatment systems that combine different mechanisms (in a single unit) such as adsorption and oxidation are suggested to be a cost-effective method to remove trace level organics (Petala et al., 2006). To design and tailor modular systems for each application, a deep understanding of different units applied for OMPs removal is needed.

3.2.1 Coagulation modular system For the reduction and removal of a wide range of micropollutants, suspended solid, and organic contaminants in industry effluent, from pharmaceutical production to metal processing, electrocoagulation (EC) or electro-oxidation modular system has been employed (Govindan et al., 2019). EC consisted of three components including power supply, the EC cell housing, and the EC electrodes. In EC, as influent passes through the EC cell, multiple reactions simultaneously take place (Simon et al., 2018). First, a metal ion is driven into the water. On the surface of the cathode, water is hydrolyzed into hydroxyl groups and hydrogen gas. Meanwhile, electrons flow to destabilize surface charges on micropollutants, emulsified oils, and suspended solids. As the reaction continues, large flocs form that entrain suspended solids and other contaminants. Finally, the flocs are removed from the water in downstream solids separation and filtration process steps. EC can be integrated into new treatment processes depending on the application. The final solids separation steps can be accomplished using settling tanks, dissolved air flotation, media filtration, ultrafiltration, and other technologies to achieve water quality goals. For example, as the water leaves the EC system, it can enter a series of settling tanks to accelerate the effect of EC reactions. The flocs generated during the EC process begin to react to each other and form larger flocs that

41

can settle out the water columns. Finally, the water can enter the last compartment of settling tanks and directed to the filtration system. As water enter the media filtration system, it flows down the bed of glass media, and larger particles are trapped on the top of media bed as effluent exit from the bottom. If enhanced filtration is required, ultrafiltration technique can be utilized in place of media filtration to provide a 10x improvement in filtration. Before leaving the system, the water passes through an autoactuated valve that analyze real-time water quality in order to ensure that the effluent water meet all target. The entire system process can be controlled by a process of automation system that minimize labor (Yoon et al., 2006; Ojajuni et al., 2015). Fig. 3.4 shows treatment steps applied for removal of OMPs. This integrated solution has specific applications in industries such as pulp and paper, textile, and pharmaceuticals. Modular EC solution has been used to remove pharmaceutical compounds from hospital and municipal wastewaters that are usually incompletely removed in conventional wastewater treatment plants (Ensano et al., 2017). Due to using clean reagent (electro) for the abatement of organic pollutant, this technology is currently gaining attention. However, unlike the convectional biological treatment, this technology does not result in detoxification of remaining pollutant in effluent (Rizzo et al., 2009).

3.2.2 Oxidation Among various water and wastewater treatment processes, advanced oxidation processes such as ozonation, UV, and H2O2 are likely to become key technologies for OMPs degradation and water detoxification. For example, ozone technology is a proven treatment process for removal of odor, taste, and color in drinking water systems. Demand for ozone treatment is growing among smaller water utilities, and it has the potential to expand even more with rising

42

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

FIGURE 3.4

Treatment steps for ultimate effect.

attention to a class of compounds known as contaminants of emerging concern. Among the oxidation processes applied as treatment practice, ozonation has been shown to be an effective treatment, thanks to ozone direct reactions with some organics and ozone decomposition into hydroxyl radical (HO•), a strong nonselective oxidant radical oxygen species (ROS) (Altmann et al., 2016). However, ozone decomposition in water involves a series of reactions, which prevent other less reactive ROS from being able to degrade most of the OMPs. To enhance the efficiency of ozonation processes and promote ozone decomposition into hydroxyl radical, ozone may be used in combination with certain catalysts and/ or radiation sources (Ch
avez et al., 2019). Thus, a great deal of research is recently devoted on reaction mechanism and different modes of ozonation operation, and all these findings can be applied to design modular systems. The tremendous demand in small communities that have the same treatment challenges as large plants encouraged companies that supplied large ozone drinking water treatment installations, encourage them to introduce this technology to municipal market (Yu et al., 2018). Ozone oxidation process is a very compact technology. The ozone generator and the power supply unit can be combined in one cabinet, and unlike big ozone generator projects, startup on ozone modular system takes less than 2 weeks.

Modular ozone system can be completed for treatment with reverse osmosis water. For example, ozone modular systems combined with reverse osmosis have been utilized recently to remove remaining pathogenic organisms from the lake water and reductions in micropollutant toxicity to fish in Nunavik and other northern communities in Canada (Maya, 2016). The effect of this process is that ozone generation is energy intensive. Thus, analysis of energy consumption for a commercial and industrial modular wastewater treatment product should be studied. Some literature studies are present using solar cells as an energy source while designing an ozone generator to solve this problem (Pines et al., 2005). Advanox as a state-of-the-art water treatment system is designed to remove organic material from the water using oxidation through reaction with hydroxyl radicals. This technology looks very simple, but a great deal of effort has been made to get to efficient reactor design (James et al., 2014). Hydrogen peroxide is usually dosed to the wastewater flow and fed into the reactor. When the hydrogen peroxide is broken down into a very reactive form of oxygen by the UVC light, the hydroxyl radical breaks down any organic pollutants in less than a millisecond literally burning them in the water with minima by-products. The result is water that has all micropollutants like medicines, hormones, and

3.2 Organic micropollutants removal: current state of art

other persistent compounds removed, and at the same time, all bacteria that might have developed antibiotic resistance are killed by the high UV-C dose (Ribeiro et al., 2019). The main advantage of advanced oxidation processes is the possibility of complete mineralization of the organic matter without sludge and secondary wastes (Silva et al., 2017). Advanced oxidation combined with existing infrastructure in decentralized water treatment can be utilized to degrade various recalcitrant pollutants as a polishing step. These recalcitrant pollutants (e.g., bisphenol A (plastic additive), 17a-ethynylestradiol (estrogen), 4-chlorophenol (pesticide), 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (fungicide), and carbamazepine (pharmaceutical)) that are considered membrane-permeable contaminants cannot be removed by conventional ozonation and chlorination process. However, some of the challenges inherent to advance oxidation process should not be overlooked during the AOP development stage. In addition to high energy and chemical demands, this technology suffers from potential formation of more toxic by-product including halogenated species, radical scavenging by bicarbonate and natural organic matter (NOM). To reduce cost and energy demands, the utilization of heterogenous catalysts as an alternative to homogenous processes has been proposed; however, catalyst surface fouling by reactants, mass transfer limitations, and potential loss to the effluent streams are challenges associated with this technique (Hodges et al., 2018). By addressing previous mentioned challenges and employing modular systems designed using AOPs, wastewater can be reclaimed onsite as a supplemental source for nonpotable used by removing consumerand industry-derived OMPs and synthetic contaminants (Schwarzenbach et al., 2006). Wide ranges of research have been conducted toward obtaining the efficient UV-utilized process for the elimination of micropollutants. Sun et al. (2019) studied the degradation of different micropollutants including carbamazepine,

43

triclosan, estradiol, sulfamethoxazole, and ethinylestradiol by UV irradiation. They reported that direct photolysis and reactive nitrogen species were responsible for the degradation of micropollutants. The degradation level of micropollutants (from 0% to 100%) by using direct irradiation of UV beams rely on the physical and chemical properties of the micropollutants, which is influenced by molecular structure and the absorption spectrum of specific micropollutants, and the intensity of UV irradiation (Table 3.3). It is concluded generally that the implementation of direct UV irradiation could not be as effective as other methods in eliminating the entire micropollutants; although, at the given low doses of UV irradiation (230 mJ/ cm2), some types of micropollutants (such as diclofenac) are successfully degraded (Chen et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2003; Ocampo-P
erez et al., 2010; Pereira et al., 2007a,b).

3.2.3 Membrane technologies As mentioned previously, to apply ozone modular system as well as coagulation modular system, sometimes it is necessary to utilize the ultrafiltration technique to provide an improvement in filtration. Ultrafiltration as a good alternative for sedimentation and sand filtration methods offers several advantages such as complete powdered activated carbon and bacteria retention and less space demand (Yu et al., 2018). Membrane filtration processes in combination with upstream PAC adsorption have been used in drinking water treatment; however, this setup can be applied for the effluent of WWTP as the main origin of micropollutants. Some literature applied ultrafiltration methods namely pressure-driven membranes operated in insideout mode and submerged UF membranes operated in outside-in mode (Swiezbin, 2017). These configurations have been applied for the WWTP operated as sequencing batch rector (SBR), that installation of buffer tank for storage

44 TABLE 3.3

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

Results of ultraviolet (UV) irradiation on the organic micropollutant removal. UV lamps power (W)

UV lamps type

Irradiation time (min)

UV flux (mJ/cm2)

Degradation (%)

Acetaminophen, caffeine, antipyrine, doxycycline, ketorolac

15

LP mercury

175

e

100

Rivas et al. (2011)

Atrazine diuron, alachlor, pentachlorophenol

e

LP (wavelength ¼ 254 nm)

1500 mJ/cm2

1500

58e86

Sanches et al. (2010)

Boldenone

150

MP

1

e

>98

Błedzka et al. (2010)

e

UVC (254 nm)

0.8

e

95

Gryglik et al. (2010)

15

LP Hg e (wavelength ¼ 253.7 nm)

100e5000

290 nm)

360

e

99

Avisar et al. (2010)

15

LP (wavelength ¼ 254 nm)

e

1700

99%

Real et al. (2009)

e

UV (wavelength ¼ 254 nm) and UV/VUV (wavelength ¼ 254/ 185 nm)

1.5

e

99

Szab
o et al. (2011)

15

UVC lamp (wavelength ¼ 254 nm)

120

e

56

Rivas et al. (2011)

Micropollutants

UV lamps power (W)

Iohexol

15

Mefenamic acid

UV lamps type

References

Adapted from Yang et al. (2014).

of the effluent is necessary. The buffer tank can be mixed by a submerged pump to reduce settlement of suspended matter. Both powdered activated carbon/UF processes can be fed from this buffer tanks. NF module can be utilized as the primary or secondary treatment process. As mentioned previously, 90%e99% removal of the OMPs has been reported since the MW of the majority of the OMPs are higher than the MW cut-off for the NF (200Da). NF module system has been recommended for effluents containing low MW OMPs since OMPs with MW less than 200 Da have usually low reactivities with hydroxyl radicals (advanced oxidation method). Modular sewage treatment plant equipped with submerged membrane unit with different configuration including flat sheet, reinforced hollow fiber, nonreinforced hollow fiber, and spiral

wound sheet has been used for hospital, hotel, and residential wastewater (Sim et al., 2013).

3.2.4 Adsorption process Micropollutants are partially removed from surface water sources in drinking water treatment plant by adsorption onto granular and powdered activated carbon (GAC and PAC) using fixed-bed filters (Piai et al., 2020). Different pilot filters packed with activated carbon have been studied before designing this technology for modular systems. For example, the high adsorption capacity and surface area of GAC, the absence of byproduct formation makes treatment with GAC attractive for the removal of a wide range of OMPs. However, there are some

3.3 Source-to-tap: Where to apply the new modules?

challenges designers of modular systems face such as high energy consumption of regeneration process following the breakthrough adsorption capacity of GAC. Moreover, the combination of big carbon particles, high dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations in the influent and short contact times leads to poor OMPs removal. To address these issues, combination of GAC adsorption and deep-bed filtration for OMP and phosphorus removal has been studied by Altmann et al., (2016) for treatment of drinking water. Moreover, companies working on mobile adsorber and module systems offer extensive range of equipment service solutions including service for transporting spend carbons to their reactivation facilities. Mobile adsorbers, preloaded and shipped on special trailers designed for food grade or industry versions, temporary or occasional services facilitate the removal of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs), PPCPs, organic materials from decaying plants, and other naturally occurring matter (NOMs). GAC process can also capture byproduct and residual chemicals that form due to partial mineralization of the OMPs and reduce the acute toxicity of partially reactive OMPs (Streicher et al., 2016). Recently, it has been showed that PAC led to a higher reduction in OMPs than GAC due to shorter internal diffusion distance and its greater surface area. The addition of PAC (10 min contact time) with coagulation dosage 5 mg/L resulted in the maximum removal efficiency for targeted OMPs (e.g., perfluoro octane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate) (Abegglen and Siegrist, 2012).

3.2.5 Biological treatment The CAS processes at wastewater treatment plants are no efficient in completely eliminating the OMPs due to the fact that these are designed eliminate simple organic matter and nutrients. Thus, in addition to modifications such as

47

change in the operating conditions and the addition of bioaugmentation and surfactants, there is a need to redesign the system. In other words, for the biological treatment to be commercially viable and industrial scalable, bioprocess development with efficient bioreactor system is highly essential. Advanced biological systems namely two-phase partitioning bioreactors, cellimmobilized bioreactor and membrane-based reactor systems have been examined recently. Most recently, MBR and integrated MBR systems have been applied for OMPs removal from wastewater. MBRs are considered as the most recent technology for the treatment of wastewater containing OMPs, and they can be made compact based (less space requirement unlike CAS treatment plant) on the volume of water that needs to be treated (Kanaujiya et al., 2019). MBR facilities have been recently applied for pharmaceuticals elimination from the waste streams and emerging contaminant such as PFAS from groundwater (Yu et al., 2018).

3.3 Source-to-tap: Where to apply the new modules? In order to prevent the transfer and propagation of particular pathogens, ecologically harmful and toxic antibiotics, and bacteria resistant to multiantibiotic, the integrated treatment processing of medical waste should be considered and proposed. The system that runs itself and supplies the customers with reusable water minimizes design and installation costs as well as production attention can be employed for removal of OPMs and other pollution. For hospital wastewater treatment, human urine accounts for less than 1% of the amount of wastewater; although, it comprises 50% of pharmaceuticals which is nonmetabolized and are excreted after the consumption (Kanaujiya et al., 2019). Therefore, it is recommended to apply particular treatment for elimination of these micropollutants

48

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

from human urine (Chevre and Erkman, 2011; Larsen et al., 2004). Due to the fact that particular treatment of medical center effluents would not be an appropriate choice for elimination of the pharmaceutical (most of the micropollutants are released to the environment from the individual home), localized and particular treatments process as well as the strategies for controlling the source of micropollutants production will be the most efficient and operational approach. Most of the novel and high-tech treatments approaches with high efficiency in micropollutants removal are expensive for localized installations, and complicated skills are required in order to be employed as localized treatment installations (Eggen et al., 2014). Jaquerod et al., (2010) studied the load of micropollutants in 47 wastewater treatment plants in the canton of Vuad (Switzerland) that 30 of them had less than 2000 PE streams. They showed that the small treatment plants influence the quality and contaminations content of water streams. They also reported that it is important to cease the destructive effects of the treatment plants and design a suitable treatment approach with the minimum energy need and cost of both maintenance and equipment requirement (Jaquerod et al., 2010). Margot et al., (2015) studied micropollutant removal from municipal wastewater using conventional treatments in Switzerland. They showed that every day in Switzerland, each inhabitant produces on average around 300 to 250 L of wastewater that need to be treated (Margot, 2015). Switzerland’s first full-scale facility (including mechanical treatment, biological treatment, ozonation, and sand filtration) for the removal of OMPs came on stream at Dubendorf in 2014. However, manufacturing modular treatment facilities for decentralized water infrastructure for customers such as small communities, resorts, industrial facilities has been attracted more attention recently due to

scalability, prefabricated, and advanced treatment. To remove activate impurities such as active pharmaceuticals from industrial wastewater and elimination of toxic content (e.g., pesticides), different products such as modular, residue-free Envochem has been designed to facilitate the expansion of the plant technology or treat the wastewater at the source. Kim et al. (2007) implemented different analytics devices for detection and measuring the mass fraction of OMPs in effluent stream of wastewater treatment and surface waters in South Korea (Katsoyiannis and Samara, 2007; Kim et al., 2007). Their results indicated that caffeine, naproxen, carbamazepine, iopromide, and tris 2-chloroethyl phosphate were the most significant micropollutants that were measured and detected in most of the water streams (higher than 80%). They also concluded that the conventional drinking water treatment methods could not be able to remove most of the micropollutants from water; therefore, they implemented GAC to eliminate the micropollutants with the highest efficiency (z99%) at the source. For example, modular systems which involve biological purification, filtration, and a final polishing with activated carbon and ozone have been employed in the treatment plant of hospitals to remove OMPs (Kumari et al., 2020). In addition, the MBRs revealed the selective removal of some types of micropollutants including hormones and pharmaceuticals such as acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and caffeine. Finally, they reported that the utilization of both reverse osmosis and NF led to excellent (>95%) elimination of nearly all micropollutants (Kim et al., 2007). However, the hospital located in Busan and Ulsan cities used to utilize activated sludge process after flocculation process for wastewater treatment (Sim et al., 2013). Table 3.4 shows list of companies supplying modular system for removal of OMPs from water and wastewater.

49

References

TABLE 3.4

List of companies providing solution for organic micropollutants removal.

Companies

Application

GAC

UV

Hydrogen peroxide

ENVIROCHEME

Drinking water

X

X

X

Industrial process water

X

X

X

MBR

Flocculation

Filtration X

X

X

Hospital

Newterra

Pharmaceutical industries

X

X

Drinking water

X

X

Industrial process water Hospital Pharmaceutical industries DEVISE

Drinking water Industrial process water Hospital

X

X

X

Pharmaceutical industries

3.4 Conclusion The diversity and complexity of OMPs in aquatic environments have been increasing during the last decade. Different strategies have been proposed to reduce the release of micropollutants in surface water and preserve drinking water resources. Modular approaches and source separation technologies that focus on treatment at resource have attracted researcher’s attention. Considering the fact that many OMPs are not effectively eliminated using conventional water treatment processes, advanced water treatment technologies have been studied to employed to effectively remove OMPs even at trace levels in effluents. Even though companies and countries pioneering in micropollutant removal supply full-scale wastewater treatment plant equipped with ozonation and biological posttreatments, modular approaches are driving the adoption of decentralized solution by minimizing overall costs and delivering reuse quality effluent. Another important advantage they offer is scalability. For pharmaceutical companies, hospitals,

and other project that are producing effluents carrying OMPs, wastewater treatment companies have proven solutionsdcompact, low maintenance potable water, and sewage treatment systems. Thus, modular treatment system such as mobile treatment systems can be used as a quick response during recovery process for contaminated water treatment plants.

Acknowledgments The work presented here was supported in part by Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, York University and any assistant from this organization is acknowledged.

References Abegglen, C., Siegrist, H., 2012. Micropolluants dans les eaux us
ees urbaines. Etapes de traitement suppl
ementaire dans les stations d’
epuration Swiss Federal Office for the Environment. Connaissance de l’environnement 1214, 87. Acero, J.L., Real, F.J., Benitez, F.J., Gonz
alez, A., 2008. Oxidation of chlorfenvinphos in ultrapure and natural waters by ozonation and photochemical processes. Water Research 42 (12), 3198e3206.

50

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

Akin, B.S., 2016. Contaminant properties of hospital clinical laboratory wastewater: a physiochemical and microbiological assessment. Journal of Environmental Protection 7 (05), 635. Al-Hamadani, Y.A., Chu, K.H., Flora, J.R., Kim, D.-H., Jang, M., Sohn, J., et al., 2016. Sonocatalytical degradation enhancement for ibuprofen and sulfamethoxazole in the presence of glass beads and single-walled carbon nanotubes. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 32, 440e448. Altmann, J., Rehfeld, D., Tr€ader, K., Sperlich, A., Jekel, M., 2016. Combination of granular activated carbon adsorption and deep-bed filtration as a single advanced wastewater treatment step for organic micropollutant and phosphorus removal. Water Research 92, 131e139. Asakura, H., Matsuto, T., 2009. Experimental study of behavior of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in leachate treatment process and evaluation of removal efficiency. Waste Management 29 (6), 1852e1859. Avisar, D., Lester, Y., Mamane, H., 2010. pH induced polychromatic UV treatment for the removal of a mixture of SMX, OTC and CIP from water. Journal of Hazardous Materials 175 (1e3), 1068e1074. Bellona, C., Drewes, J.E., Xu, P., Amy, G., 2004. Factors affecting the rejection of organic solutes during NF/RO treatmentda literature review. Water Research 38 (12), 2795e2809. Bilton, A.M., 2013. A Modular Design Architecture for Application to Community-Scale Photovoltaic-Powered Reverse Osmosis Systems. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Błedzka, D., Gryglik, D., Miller, J.S., 2009. Photodegradation of butylparaben in aqueous solutions by 254 nm irradiation. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 203 (2e3), 131e136. Błedzka, D., Gmurek, M., Gryglik, M., Olak, M., Miller, J., Ledakowicz, S., 2010. Photodegradation and advanced oxidation of endocrine disruptors in aqueous solutions. Catalysis Today 151 (1e2), 125e130. Błedzka, D., Gmurek, M., Olak-Kucharczyk, M., Miller, J.S., Ledakowicz, S., 2011. Photodegradation of nbutylparaben in natural water from Sulejow reservoir. Chemical and Engineering S 19, 517e525, 2012a. Canonica, S., Meunier, L., Von Gunten, U., 2008. Phototransformation of selected pharmaceuticals during UV treatment of drinking water. Water Research 42 (1e2), 121e128. Ch
avez, A.M., Ribeiro, A.R., Moreira, N.F., Silva, A.M.,
Rey, A., Alvarez, P.M., et al., 2019. Removal of organic micropollutants from a municipal wastewater secondary effluent by UVA-LED photocatalytic ozonation. Catalysts 9 (5), 472. Chen, P.-J., Linden, K.G., Hinton, D.E., Kashiwada, S., Rosenfeldt, E.J., Kullman, S.W., 2006. Biological assessment of bisphenol A degradation in water following

direct photolysis and UV advanced oxidation. Chemosphere 65 (7), 1094e1102. Chen, P.-J., Kullman, S.W., Hinton, D.E., Linden, K.G., 2007. Comparisons of polychromatic and monochromatic UVbased treatments of bisphenol-A in water via toxicity assessments. Chemosphere 68 (6), 1041e1049. Chen, Z., Park, G., Herckes, P., Westerhoff, P., 2008. Physicochemical treatment of three chemotherapy drugs: irinotecan, tamoxifen, and cyclophosphamide. Journal of Advanced Oxidation Technologies 11 (2), 254e260. Chevre, N., Erkman, S., 2011. Alerte aux micropolluants: pesticides, biocides, d
etergents, m
edicaments et autres substances chimiques dans l’environnement. Collection le savoir suisse 74. Das, S., Ray, N.M., Wan, J., Khan, A., Chakraborty, T., Ray, M.B., 2017. Micropollutants in wastewater: fate and removal processes. Physico-Chemical Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery 75e117. Eggen, R.I., Hollender, J., Joss, A., Sch€arer, M., Stamm, C., 2014. Reducing the Discharge of Micropollutants in the Aquatic Environment: The Benefits of Upgrading Wastewater Treatment Plants. ACS Publications. Ekblad, M., Falås, P., El-Taliawy, H., Nilsson, F., Bester, K., Hagman, M., et al., 2019. Is dissolved COD a suitable design parameter for ozone oxidation of organic micropollutants in wastewater? The Science of the Total Environment 658, 449e456. Ensano, B.M.B., Borea, L., Naddeo, V., Belgiorno, V., De Luna, M.D.G., Ballesteros, F.C., 2017. Removal of pharmaceuticals from wastewater by intermittent electrocoagulation. Water 9 (2), 85. Felis, E., Miksch, K., 2009. Removal of analgesic drugs from the aquatic environment using photochemical methods. Water Science and Technology 60 (9), 2253e2259. Gardner, M., Comber, S., Scrimshaw, M.D., Cartmell, E., Lester, J., Ellor, B., 2012. The significance of hazardous chemicals in wastewater treatment works effluents. The Science of the Total Environment 437, 363e372. Govindan, K., Angelin, A., Kalpana, M., Rangarajan, M., Shankar, P., Jang, A., 2019. Electrocoagulants characteristics and application of electrocoagulation for micropollutant removal and transformation mechanism. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 12 (1), 1775e1788. Gryglik, D., Olak, M., Miller, J.S., 2010. Photodegradation kinetics of androgenic steroids boldenone and trenbolone in aqueous solutions. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 212 (1), 14e19. Han, J., Liu, Y., Singhal, N., Wang, L., Gao, W., 2012. Comparative photocatalytic degradation of estrone in water by ZnO and TiO2 under artificial UVA and solar irradiation. Chemical Engineering Journal 213, 150e162. Hodges, B.C., Cates, E.L., Kim, J.-H., 2018. Challenges and prospects of advanced oxidation water treatment

References

processes using catalytic nanomaterials. Nature Nanotechnology 13 (8), 642e650. Huerta-Zepeda, A., Cabello-Guti
errez, C., Cime-Castillo, J., Monroy-Martínez, V., Manjarrez-Zavala, M.E., Guti
errez-Rodríguez, M., et al., 2008. Crosstalk between coagulation and inflammation during Dengue virus infection. Thrombosis & Haemostasis 99 (11), 936e943. James, C.P., Germain, E., Judd, S., 2014. Micropollutant removal by advanced oxidation of microfiltered secondary effluent for water reuse. Separation and Purification Technology 127, 77e83. Jaquerod, C., Ruegg, E., Vioget, P., 2010. Bilan 2009 de l’
epuration vaudoise. Etat de Vaud, Service des eaux, sols et assainissement (SESA): Vaud, Switzerland. Jung, C., Park, J., Lim, K.H., Park, S., Heo, J., Her, N., et al., 2013. Adsorption of selected endocrine disrupting compounds and pharmaceuticals on activated biochars. Journal of Hazardous Materials 263, 702e710. Kanaujiya, D.K., Paul, T., Sinharoy, A., Pakshirajan, K., 2019. Biological treatment processes for the removal of organic micropollutants from wastewater: a review. Current Pollution Reports 5 (3), 112e128. Katsoyiannis, A., Samara, C., 2007. The fate of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in the wastewater treatment process and its importance in the removal of wastewater contaminants. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 14 (5), 284e292. Khanzada, N.K., Farid, M.U., Kharraz, J.A., Choi, J., Tang, C.Y., Nghiem, L.D., et al., 2020. Removal of organic micropollutants using advanced membrane-based water and wastewater treatment: a review. Journal of Membrane Science 598, 117672. Kim, I., Tanaka, H., 2009. Photodegradation characteristics of PPCPs in water with UV treatment. Environment International 35 (5), 793e802. Kim, S.D., Cho, J., Kim, I.S., Vanderford, B.J., Snyder, S.A., 2007. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors in South Korean surface, drinking, and waste waters. Water Research 41 (5), 1013e1021. Kim, S., Chu, K.H., Al-Hamadani, Y.A., Park, C.M., Jang, M., Kim, D.-H., et al., 2018. Removal of contaminants of emerging concern by membranes in water and wastewater: a review. Chemical Engineering Journal 335, 896e914. Kirchner, K., Br€ uckner, I., Klaer, K., Hammers-Wirtz, M., Pinnekamp, J., Rosenbaum, M., 2020. Microbial counts and antibiotic resistances during conventional wastewater treatment and wastewater ozonation. Ozone: Science & Engineering 42 (2), 108e119. Kumari, A., Maurya, N.S., Tiwari, B., 2020. Hospital wastewater treatment scenario around the globe. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier, pp. 549e570.

51

Larsen, T.A., Lienert, J., Joss, A., Siegrist, H., 2004. How to avoid pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment. Journal of Biotechnology 113 (1e3), 295e304. Lienert, J., B€ urki, T., Escher, B.I., 2007. Reducing micropollutants with source control: substance flow analysis of 212 pharmaceuticals in faeces and urine. Water Science and Technology 56 (5), 87e96. Liu, X., Wu, F., Deng, N., 2003. Photodegradation of 17a-ethynylestradiol in aqueous solution exposed to a high-pressure mercury lamp (250 W). Environmental Pollution 126 (3), 393e398. Margot, J., 2015. Micropollutant Removal from Municipal WastewatereFrom Conventional Treatments to Advanced Biological Processes. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne. Margot, J., Rossi, L., Barry, D.A., Holliger, C., 2015. A review of the fate of micropollutants in wastewater treatment plants. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water 2 (5), 457e487. Maya, N.Y., 2016. An Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment by Ozonation for Reductions in Micropollutant Toxicity to Fish. Mutou, Y., Ibuki, Y., Terao, Y., Kojima, S., Goto, R., 2006. Chemical change of chlorinated bisphenol A by ultraviolet irradiation and cytotoxicity of their products on Jurkat cells. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 21 (3), 283e289. Neamt¸u, M., Frimmel, F.H., 2006. Degradation of endocrine disrupting bisphenol A by 254 nm irradiation in different water matrices and effect on yeast cells. Water Research 40 (20), 3745e3750. Ocampo-P
erez, R., S
anchez-Polo, M., Rivera-Utrilla, J., Leyva-Ramos, R., 2010. Degradation of antineoplastic cytarabine in aqueous phase by advanced oxidation processes based on ultraviolet radiation. Chemical Engineering Journal 165 (2), 581e588. Ojajuni, O., Saroj, D., Cavalli, G., 2015. Removal of organic micropollutants using membrane-assisted processes: a review of recent progress. Environmental Technology Reviews 4 (1), 17e37. Pereira, V.J., Linden, K.G., Weinberg, H.S., 2007a. Evaluation of UV irradiation for photolytic and oxidative degradation of pharmaceutical compounds in water. Water Research 41 (19), 4413e4423. Pereira, V.J., Weinberg, H.S., Linden, K.G., Singer, P.C., 2007b. UV degradation kinetics and modeling of pharmaceutical compounds in laboratory grade and surface water via direct and indirect photolysis at 254 nm. Environmental Science & Technology 41 (5), 1682e1688. Petala, M., Samaras, P., Zouboulis, A., Kungolos, A., Sakellaropoulos, G., 2006. Ecotoxicological properties of wastewater treated using tertiary methods. Environmental Toxicology: International Journal 21 (4), 417e424.

52

3. Perspectives on the use of modular systems for organic micropollutants removal

Piai, L., Blokland, M., van der Wal, A., Langenhoff, A., 2020. Biodegradation and adsorption of micropollutants by biological activated carbon from a drinking water production plant. Journal of Hazardous Materials 388, 122028. Pines, D.S., Min, K.-N., Ergas, S.J., Reckhow, D.A., 2005. Investigation of an ozone membrane contactor system. Ozone: Science & Engineering 27 (3), 209e217. Real, F.J., Benitez, F.J., Acero, J.L., Sagasti, J.J., Casas, F., 2009. Kinetics of the chemical oxidation of the pharmaceuticals primidone, ketoprofen, and diatrizoate in ultrapure and natural waters. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (7), 3380e3388. Real, F.J., Acero, J.L., Benitez, F.J., Rold
an, G., Fern
andez, L.C., 2010. Oxidation of hydrochlorothiazide by UV radiation, hydroxyl radicals and ozone: kinetics and elimination from water systems. Chemical Engineering Journal 160 (1), 72e78. Ribeiro, A.R.L., Moreira, N.F., Puma, G.L., Silva, A.M., 2019. Impact of water matrix on the removal of micropollutants by advanced oxidation technologies. Chemical Engineering Journal 363, 155e173.
Beltr
an, F., Graham, N., 2011a. ApplicaRivas, J., Encinas, A., tion of advanced oxidation processes to doxycycline and norfloxacin removal from water. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 46 (9), 944e951. Rivas, J., Gimeno, O., Borralho, T., Sagasti, J., 2011b. UV-C and UV-C/peroxide elimination of selected pharmaceuticals in secondary effluents. Desalination 279 (1e3), 115e120. Rizzo, L., Meric, S., Guida, M., Kassinos, D., Belgiorno, V., 2009. Heterogenous photocatalytic degradation kinetics and detoxification of an urban wastewater treatment plant effluent contaminated with pharmaceuticals. Water Research 43 (16), 4070e4078. Rosenfeldt, E.J., Linden, K.G., 2004. Degradation of endocrine disrupting chemicals bisphenol A, ethinyl estradiol, and estradiol during UV photolysis and advanced oxidation processes. Environmental Science & Technology 38 (20), 5476e5483. Sahar, E., David, I., Gelman, Y., Chikurel, H., Aharoni, A., Messalem, R., et al., 2011. The use of RO to remove emerging micropollutants following CAS/UF or MBR treatment of municipal wastewater. Desalination 273 (1), 142e147. Sanches, S., Crespo, M.T.B., Pereira, V.J., 2010. Drinking water treatment of priority pesticides using low pressure UV photolysis and advanced oxidation processes. Water Research 44 (6), 1809e1818. Schwarzenbach, R.P., Escher, B.I., Fenner, K., Hofstetter, T.B., Johnson, C.A., Von Gunten, U., et al., 2006. The challenge of micropollutants in aquatic systems. Science 313 (5790), 1072e1077.

Silva, L.L., Moreira, C.G., Curzio, B.A., da Fonseca, F.V., 2017. Micropollutant removal from water by membrane and advanced oxidation processesda review. Journal of Water Resource and Protection 9 (05), 411. Sim, W.-J., Kim, H.-Y., Choi, S.-D., Kwon, J.-H., Oh, J.-E., 2013. Evaluation of pharmaceuticals and personal care products with emphasis on anthelmintics in human sanitary waste, sewage, hospital wastewater, livestock wastewater and receiving water. Journal of Hazardous Materials 248, 219e227. Simon, R.G., Stöckl, M., Becker, D., Steinkamp, A.D., Abt, C., Jungfer, C., et al., 2018. Current to clean watere electrochemical solutions for groundwater, water, and wastewater treatment. Chemie Ingenieur Technik 90 (11), 1832e1854. Snyder, S.A., Westerhoff, P., Yoon, Y., Sedlak, D.L., 2003. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and endocrine disruptors in water: implications for the water industry. Environmental Engineering Science 20 (5), 449e469. Streicher, J., Ruhl, A.S., Gnirß, R., Jekel, M., 2016. Where to dose powdered activated carbon in a wastewater treatment plant for organic micro-pollutant removal. Chemosphere 156, 88e94. Sun, P., Meng, T., Wang, Z., Zhang, R., Yao, H., Yang, Y., et al., 2019. Degradation of organic micropollutants in UV/NH2Cl advanced oxidation process. Environmental Science & Technology 53 (15), 9024e9033. Swiezbin, J., 2017. Delivering results with mobile water treatment units. Filtration & Separation 54 (3), 28e29. Szab
o, R., Megyeri, C., Ill
es, E., Gajda-Schrantz, K., Mazellier, P., Dombi, A., 2011. Phototransformation of ibuprofen and ketoprofen in aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 84 (11), 1658e1663. Trinh, T., Van Den Akker, B., Stuetz, R.M., Coleman, H., LeClech, P., Khan, S., 2012. Removal of trace organic chemical contaminants by a membrane bioreactor. Water Science and Technology 66 (9), 1856e1863. Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., Zambello, E., 2012. Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater: removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatmentda review. The Science of the Total Environment 429, 123e155. Westerhoff, P., Yoon, Y., Snyder, S., Wert, E., 2005. Fate of endocrine-disruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environmental Science & Technology 39 (17), 6649e6663. Woldemariam, D., Kullab, A., Fortkamp, U., Magner, J., Royen, H., Martin, A., 2016. Membrane distillation pilot plant trials with pharmaceutical residues and energy demand analysis. Chemical Engineering Journal 306, 471e483.

References

Yang, W., Zhou, H., Cicek, N., 2014. Treatment of organic micropollutants in water and wastewater by UVbased processes: a literature review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 44 (13), 1443e1476. Yoon, Y., Westerhoff, P., Snyder, S.A., Wert, E.C., 2006. Nanofiltration and ultrafiltration of endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Journal of Membrane Science 270 (1e2), 88e100. Yu, Y., Choi, Y.H., Choi, J., Choi, S., Maeng, S.K., 2018. Multibarrier approach for removing organic micropollutants using mobile water treatment systems. The Science of the Total Environment 639, 331e338.

53

Yuan, F., Hu, C., Hu, X., Qu, J., Yang, M., 2009. Degradation of selected pharmaceuticals in aqueous solution with UV and UV/H2O2. Water Research 43 (6), 1766e1774. Zhan, M., Yang, X., Xian, Q., Kong, L., 2006. Photosensitized degradation of bisphenol A involving reactive oxygen species in the presence of humic substances. Chemosphere 63 (3), 378e386. Zhou, D., Wu, F., Deng, N., Xiang, W., 2004. Photooxidation of bisphenol A (BPA) in water in the presence of ferric and carboxylate salts. Water Research 38 (19), 4107e4116. Zhou, D., Huang, W., Wu, F., Han, C., Chen, Y., 2010. Photodegradation of chloromycetin in aqueous solutions: kinetics and influencing factors. Reaction Kinetics, Mechanisms and Catalysis 100 (1), 45e53.

This page intentionally left blank

C H A P T E R

4 Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater: introduction to a sustainable approach to decentralized treatment systems A. Dalila Larios-Martínez1,3, Christell Barrales-Fern
andez3, P. Elizabeth Alvarez-Chavez1,2, Carlos M
endez-Carreto3, Fabiola Sandoval-Salas3, Nora Ruiz-Colorado3, St
ephane Godbout1, S
ebastien Fournel2, Antonio Avalos-Ramírez4 1

Research and Development Institute for the Agri-Environment (IRDA), Qu
ebec, QC, Canada; D
epartement des sols et de g
enie agroalimentaire, Facult
e des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Universit
e Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada; 3Tecnol
ogico Nacional de M
exico/ITS de Perote, Perote,
et en Technologies Environnementales, Shawinigan, Veracruz, M
exico; 4Centre National en Electrochimie QC, Canada

2

4.1 Introduction

water bodies (Schuwirth et al., 2018; Zimmermann et al., 2018). One concern of the rapid increase in economic development is the discharge of wastewater with little or no treatment, into surface waters like rivers, lakes, and the sea (Balasubramanya and Wichelns, 2012). This leads to several water-related human diseases like cholera, typhoid, arsenicosis, gastroenteritis, and dental/skeletal fluorosis. In low-and middle-income countries, the overall sanitation treatment of the collected wastewater remains insufficient due to the cost

More than one billion people around the world do not have access to safe drinking water (Ali et al., 2009; Unicef, 2019). The water demand is increasing by approximately 1% per year, and it is expected that water demand will increase by one-third by the year 2050 (Shillington et al., 2020). Rapid population growth and the increase in human activities also generate several pollutants (nutrients, heavy metals, and organic micropollutants), which lead to the contamination of

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00003-6

55

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

56

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

and limitation of conventional treatment related to the infrastructure for sewers, pumping equipment, and earthworks systems. The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is the region that is considered to be the most water-stressed region in the world with serious consequences on population health, nutrition, cognitive development, and future livelihoods. In this region, very low proportions of wastewater are adequately treated (Unicef, 2021). Iraq is one of the countries that are significantly affected by water scarcity due to climatic changes, meteorological conditions (low rainfall and increase in average temperatures), and water infrastructure projects in surrounding regions. Sewage discharging into the river (without treatment) is also causing an increase in contamination of the raw water. Additionally, the distribution networks are aged what leads to leakages and the exchange of sewage with clean water in the pipelines (Unicef, 2019). Extreme weather events like droughts, thunderstorms wildfires, winter storms, and floods too disrupt water infrastructure and deplete or contaminate water supplies. Water contamination can happen by the broken or leaking sewer pipes and failing septic tank systems that leach sewage into the ground deteriorating or limiting wastewater infrastructure. In small communities, private groundwater wells or other drinking water systems where water is untreated or minimally treated are also susceptible to contamination following extreme precipitation events and subsequent runoff. Lakes and reservoirs that serve as sources of drinking water may also be contaminated by protozoan pathogens, bacteria such as E. coli, Giardia lamblia, Leptospira, and Campylobacter, or algal toxins like microcystins and cylindrospermopsin (Kumar et al., 2018). Water contamination from agricultural activities also contributes to the release of pathogens, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, inorganic compounds like fertilizers, or excessive growth or blooms of harmful algae that can be carried from

agricultural areas into surface waters, groundwater, and coastal waters. In the United States, a large livestock farm can produce between 2800 and 1,600,000 tons of manure each year. For this reason, agricultural activities represent an important source of contamination from the land into water bodies especially with a projected increase in heavy precipitation around the world (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2021). Future climate-related water shortages will increase, and it will be necessary to look for alternative sources for drinking water, including reclaimed water and roof-harvested rainwater for beneficial reuse (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2021). Thus, wastewater treatment and monitoring practices are primordial in communities around the world to avoid potential risks for health and promote water sanitation services. Social responsibility plays an important role to face the challenges mentioned above. Humanitarian engineering (HE) is an approach that has been incorporated into engineering programs in the past 2 decades to promote compassionate engineers and leaders (1) to develop solutions to benefit humanity; (2) to improve the local population’s living conditions, and (3) to promote sustainability (Blair et al., 2016; Ngo Truc Thanh et al., 2021). For example, Queen’s University and the Indian Institute of Technology Madras were working to define a community-level intervention program in Mylai Balaji Nagar, India, to improve the access to safe water and public health (Ali et al., 2009). Therefore, HE solutions support the implementation of sustainable concepts, which are essential to face challenges such as the water shortages that produce huge problems for industries, economies, and societies as shown in Fig. 4.1. There is a growing need to implement or improve water treatments in regions where centralized treatment and distribution via a pipe network is not possible or limited (Hilbig et al., 2020).

4.3 Wastewater treatment operations

FIGURE 4.1

57

Role of humanitarian engineering related to wastewater treatment.

4.2 Wastewater treatment The primary purpose of wastewater treatment is to remove contaminants, organic, and inorganic materials, which can be in particulate, suspended, or dissolved form to achieve water quality that is required by a regulatory body or for various reuse applications such as irrigation or horticulture purposes (Larios et al., 2018). The most common operations for wastewater treatment are: (1) sedimentation/settling; (2) air flotation; (3) chemical treatment (precipitation/ coagulation/adsorbents); (4) filtration; and (5) disinfection. The selection of water treatment operation is based on the characteristics of the raw water (i.e., nature and degree of contamination), infrastructure (i.e., energy, manpower, resources availability), as well as the cost. For example, for water used in boiler systems, the treatment includes mineral removal with membrane systems, reversal electrodialysis, or ion exchange. Sometimes, the addition of chemical treatment to control corrosion, deposition, or microbial

growth is required. Meanwhile, the water treatments for agricultural and drinking purpose include several filtration and disinfection technologies to remove bacterial, viral, protozoan pathogens and chemical compounds to prevent adverse effects. For industrial uses, a series of treatments such as microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and disinfection are also applied (Larios et al., 2018).

4.3 Wastewater treatment operations Wastewater treatment operations can be classified as physicochemical and biological treatments. Physicochemical operations mainly include sedimentation, coagulation, flocculation, filtration, reverse osmosis, and electrocoagulation. Coagulation and flocculation are the central part of wastewater treatment. It produces the destabilization of suspended particles (by a coagulant such as ferric chloride) to produce small aggregates by Brownian motion. After coagulation, larger and denser aggregates or flocs composed of insoluble particles and/or

58

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

dissolved organic matter are produced (flocculation). The flocculation is followed by the sedimentation to remove flocs of the water naturally under the force of gravity. These steps enhance the removal of colloidal and suspended particulates, which produce water turbidity. After that, water passes through granular filters (of sand or other filter media like crushed anthracite coal and granular activated carbon) to remove the remaining particles. These operations reduce the concentration of impurities and improve the permeate flux after sedimentation and improve the overall performance of wastewater treatment (Simate et al., 2011). Complementary physicochemical options include the use of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) added to both the coagulation/flocculation tanks and the filter. These considerably improve conventional treatments (Simate, 2015). The addition of CNTs in the coagulation/flocculation tanks acts as adsorbents to decrease turbidity and as a heterogeneous coagulant. Thus CNTs enhance mass transfer of particulates to the surface of CNTs for adsorption leading to an increase in the removal of particulates. Furthermore, CNTs bring superior adsorption capacities in the filter bed to remove a diverse range of contaminants such as bacteria, viruses, natural organic matter, and cyanobacterial toxins (Simate, 2015). Electrocoagulation combines the use of an anode and a cathode (usually iron and aluminum metals) to promote oxidatione reduction reactions. It offers many advantages over traditional wastewater treatment operations. The removal efficiency of electrocoagulation and cross-flow membrane systems can reach 99% and 90% of color and COD removal, respectively. Electrochemical treatments can be coupled in the latter stages of wastewater treatments. Advanced photoelectrochemical cells have been developed. These are equipped with a nanoparticle titanium anode and a Pt cathode that is exposed to ultraviolet irradiation to decrease metal ions (e.g., silver, copper,

chromium, and lead) deposition on the cathode (Wang et al., 2017). Filtration systems such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, reverse osmosis, and membrane biological reactors are used in tertiary treatment to decrease the concentrations of organic and inorganic compounds to satisfy the required standards for several uses. The integration of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis represents a highly competitive technological solution to treat water from reclaimed urban and municipal wastewaters and reuse it for different purposes (Dogan et al., 2016). Chemical compounds like ozone (O3), ultraviolet radiation (UV), chlorine dioxide (ClO2), and chloramines (NH2Cl) are used as a disinfectant in drinking water treatment. Chlorination is frequently used to prevent the proliferation of pathogenic microorganisms. The UV/chlorine process has emerged as an option for micropollutant removal in wastewater treatment because Cl concentrations facilitate electrochemical chlorine production, which enhances substantially the removal of target pollutants during UV irradiation (Zhang et al., 2020). Nevertheless, the risk of this operation is that health-damaging disinfection by-products (DBPs) can be produced due to the reaction of organic matter or organic nitrogen forms and chlorine. The most dominant organic and nitrogenous by-products are trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), haloacetonitriles (Yang et al., 2020), and halonitromethanes (HNMs) (Stef
an et al., 2019). Ozone is also widely used in water treatment to promote the oxidation of organic matter; decrease the presence of iron, manganese, taste, and odors, pesticides, THMs, HAAs, and inactivate pathogenic microorganisms. However, the formation of by-products like aldehydes, carboxylic acids, halonitromethanes, haloacetonitriles, cyanogen chloride, and tribromopyrrole during the ozonation process is a big challenge in water treatment because by-products can produce potential adverse impacts on human health (Laflamme et al., 2020).

4.3 Wastewater treatment operations

Biological treatments are used to complement water treatment. These include anaerobic digestion, biological nutrient removal, and aerated lagoons. Aerobic treatments use aerobic microorganisms to degrade organic matter (nonsettle-able solids) and produce biomass and gases (CO2, NH3, and N2O). Aeration devices are used to supply air/oxygen to the biological suspension. Aerated or agitated tanks primed use activated sludges containing bacteria, fungi, protozoans, and other microorganisms. Other options are the biofiltration towers (packed with plastic or redwood media containing the microorganism) or aerated lagoons. An inconvenience of the aerobic treatments systems is the disposal of the large quantities of sludge produced after treatment (Achilli et al., 2011). The anaerobic treatment is also implemented in water treatment to degrade organic matter. Anaerobic microorganism converts organic matter into biogas composed of methane (from 55% to 75%), carbon dioxide (from 25% to 40%), and traces of hydrogen sulfide. Anaerobic digestion is considered a sustainable method for wastewater treatment and is a stable and efficient high-rate system. This system can remove total suspended solids (TSS), decrease COD, and total phosphorus (TP) with an efficiency of more than 90% (Gu et al., 2019; Junior et al., 2019; Lakho et al., 2020). There are many types of anaerobic digestion systems such as anaerobic filter, anaerobic semi-continuous stirred tank reactor, anaerobic rotating biological contactor reactor, up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor, fixed bed reactor, microbial electrolysis cell, granular sludge systems, and fluidized bed reactor (Gu et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2017). Furthermore, this process can provide methane gas, a highcalorie fuel gas, in some cases used for the operation of other processes in an integrated hybrid system to treat low-strength wastewater (Pang et al., 2017; Wirkert et al., 2020). Another

59

variation of these systems is the adaptation of a biodegradable process, to eliminate large concentrations of sulfate and soluble heavy metals, such as ferrous, zinc, and copper, often a low pH. The chemical degradation promotes the precipitation of metal hydroxides and carbonates but generates large amounts of metal-rich residual sludge. That is why bacteria sulfate reduction has been investigated to treat wastewater containing large concentrations of heavy metal (Gu et al., 2019; Junior et al., 2019). These processes are characterized by the use of bacterial, microalgae, and protozoan to remove organic compounds and pollutants contained in the wastewater. Up-flow Anaerobic Sludge Blanket (UASB) is one of the most popular anaerobic reactors. In these reactors, wastewater passes upward through a dense bed of anaerobic sludge. Then, microorganisms in the sludge come into contact with wastewater to degrade organic matter and release biogas. UASB provides a highvalue quality of the effluent without the need for a postaerobic treatment. The inconvenience of these systems is that they require a larger initial investment and requires specialized personnel. Another inconvenience is that the use of a UASB is suggested for a high volume of effluents (higher than 700 m3 per day). In this context, new technologies such as anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR) are emerging to maximize wastewater treatment and at the same time enhance energy recovery (Larios et al., 2018; Selvaratnam et al., 2016). Some alternative microorganisms to degrade organic matter is the use of nonharmful fungal species such as Pleurotus ostreatus and Trichoderma harzianum cultivated in a submerged medium (Hultberg and Bodin, 2017). Trichoderma harzianum can efficiently decrease the COD (from 80% to 90%) of breweries wastewater. This technology has been suggested as promising wastewater treatment for small agroindustries. Furthermore, the biomass produced by this

60

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

class of fungus can be used for biotechnological applications such as the production of enzymes and biocontrol agents. There are many treatment options available for water reuse, including combined multiple technologies in water treatment processes. However, the development of technologies to decrease, remove, and quantify emergent contaminants to avoid risks to public health is still a challenge. At the same time, new alternatives for wastewater and drinking water treatment in places and communities where centralized water treatment systems are absent or limited to achieve an appropriate water quality are necessary.

4.4 Modular wastewater treatment approaches Modular wastewater treatment systems are also named small-scale, mobile units, decentralized, or distributed plants designed to treat onsite wastewater. These systems can be adapted to various treatment scenarios and represent an alternative to conventional and centralized systems mainly for suburban and rural settlements. Modular treatment systems can be also implemented in countries and areas with high touristic activity to clean beaches and decrease odor nuisance (O’Driscoll et al., 2019; Reymond et al., 2018) as well as in industrial, commercial, and residential areas according to specific needs (Capodaglio et al., 2017). These treatment systems are also installed in areas where insufficient disposal area exists for the load or when a centralized municipal wastewater treatment plant is unavailable, insufficient, or deficient to supply the needs (Jung et al., 2018). Fig. 4.2 represents the concept of modular wastewater treatment systems. Modular facilities are typically designed to treat flows ranging from 7500 to 1.9
106 LPD 2000500,000 GPD) (O’Driscoll et al., 2019). In Switzerland, modular treatment systems are designed for up to 200 population equivalents

(PE). A population equivalent is a unit used to compare pollution loads, including both industrial and residential organic loads. One PE corresponds to an organic load with a biochemical oxygen demand of 54 g of oxygen per day. Treatment systems with a maximum of 20 PE typically treat wastewater for a single- (or multiple-) -family household (“microtreatment”) while treatment systems with maximum 200 PE are more focused on the neighborhood and service a cluster of households (Eggimann et al., 2018). Modular wastewater treatment can include biological, chemical, and physicochemical processes assembled to remove solids suspended and specific pollutants such as metals, dyes, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, plasticizers (Barona et al., 2021; Fenoll et al., 2019; Gu et al., 2019; Lis et al., 2020; Sheng et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020). The most wastewater treatment operations used in these systems are reverse osmosis and ion exchange. Treatment operations are adapted to reach the properties of water for specific purposes. For example, softened water for showers and clothes washing; nutrient-amended water for landscape irrigation, and mineral water for drinking and cooking (Rabaey et al., 2020). The advantages of modular wastewater treatment systems include (1) small plants designed for specific uses or decentralized services; (2) the treatment of wastewater and its reuse is close to the point of origin; (3) same or very similar performance to those of centralized treatment; (4) reduction of cost for their implementation and maintenance (Reymond et al., 2018). Modular approaches can include the use of a settling chamber as primary treatment, an anaerobic baffled reactor, an anaerobic filter for secondary anaerobic treatment, as well as a planted gravel filter for tertiary aerobic treatment (Jung et al., 2018). Sharma et al. (2016) evaluated a modular wastewater treatment system in rural areas of the state of Uttarakhand (North India). In this region, there are no centralized treatment facilities to treat the highly polluted

4.4 Modular wastewater treatment approaches

FIGURE 4.2

61

Modular wastewater treatment systems approach.

fraction (black water) of domestic wastewater. The volume of the system was about 1200 L. The package system consisted of a modified septic tank followed by an up-flow anaerobic filter, both accommodated within a single. The anaerobic on-site system was considered the most suitable option to treat black water. The package system was made by using a linear low-density polyethylene (LDPE) material. The removal efficiency of COD was 73%, while the volatile fraction of suspended solids (VSSs) was 71%, for nitrogen 20%, and total phosphorus 24%. The systems had also a significant reduction of coliforms bacteria. A limitation of the evaluated package system was that it could not fulfill the prescribed Indian disposal standards for wastewater. Thus, this type of arrangement for a modular wastewater treatment system needs additional treatment operations to get correct disposal to the surrounding environment. Sand filters have been also suggested as an economic solution and a good way to treat domestic wastewater. However, these system still have several limitations for nutrients and bacteria removal. The treatment efficiency of sand filters can be highly variable. Some improvements include the addition of adsorbing material, such

as biotite to increase nitrogen BOD removal. Despite this adaptation, sand filters reach only the minimum requirements for the effluent discharge because some elements like phosphorus, enteric viruses, and coliforms bacteria can be found in the effluents of these filters signifying a risk of microbial contamination of nearby drinking water wells, as well as bathing and irrigation waters (Martikainen et al., 2018). Conventional sand filters were adapted to biological sand filters (BSFs) to remove particles and pathogens by a combination of biological, chemical, and physical processes. The efficiency of BSFs depends on the development of a biofilm (Schmutzdecke) approximately 3.0 cm below the resting water column. This biofilm removes nutrients, organic matter, and pathogens. Bacteria escaping the biofilm into underlying layers die due to nutrients and oxygen limitation while viruses escaping die for the lack of bacteria. The efficacy of BSFs can be limited due to lack of maintenance, and these have a limited capacity to remove dissolved contaminants like arsenic, fluoride, and uranium. To address this limitation, BSFs can be amended with metallic iron (Fe0). At pH > 4.5, Fe0 generates iron corrosion products or FeCPs, which remove chemical

62

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

contaminants (Yang et al., 2020). The BSFs-Fe0 includes a two-stage process in which contaminants are removed by coagulation/flocculation with Fe0 mixed at the beginning of the sand layer. The coagulation/flocculation process occurs in this section, and after that, the flocs are removed in the last sand section (fine sand, coarse sand, and gravel). Innovative modular constructed wetlands (MCWs) have been also proposed as an alternative to treat domestic wastewater with low maintenance costs and required energy. Zhao et al. (2020) evaluated one MCW system installed in a village in South China. The system had a treatment capacity of 60 m3/day. The removal efficiency for the continuous operation of 12 months was 76.8% for COD, 78.6% for NH3eN, 59.3% for TN, and 73.1% for TP (Zhao et al., 2020). It was considered as a potential approach to treat wastewater from agriculture effluents and for the reuse of water for irrigation and recharge groundwater purposes (Zhao et al., 2020). The main limitation of the MCW system is the possible presence of emerging micropollutants like pharmaceuticals and their uptake by crops irrigated with reused water. These systems can be combined with ultraviolet radiation disinfection (dosage of 100 mJ/cm2) or chlorine dosage (100 g/L-min) to treat and reuse greywater for nonpotable usages. A potential application of MCW is the implementation of sustainable drainage systems (SuDSs) to decrease the effect of urban surface water flooding and meet urban stormwater management for water conservation proposes. SuDS include water infiltration, detention, storage, purification, usage, and drainage. MCWs are been integrated into SuDS strategies in countries like China where the concept of sponge city is implemented (Zhao et al., 2020). Other modular treatment options include preengineered, rectangular plants for biological treatment (continuous or batch) with activated sludge. These systems are custom designed for municipal or industrial applications and also

for hotels, resorts, and camps. It can handle flows up to 757 m3/day (200,000 gpd). These systems have high performance, and the final effluent can be discharged safely into water streams. The treatment operation, which can be implemented in these systems, includes flow equalization, anaerobic selector, anoxic selector, aeration, clarification, tertiary filtration, chlorine, and/or UV disinfection (Alfalaval, 2022). Package laboratory wastewater treatment systems have been also suggested to handle laboratory and research effluent stream flows from 5 to 200 gpd. These are automated and require operator attention only for periodic instrumentation, calibration, and maintenance. It is possible to reduce heavy metals like Pb, Sn, Ni, Cu, Crþ6, fluoride, TSS, and TDS, cyanide among others (Digital Analysis Corporation, 2022). Modular ultrafiltration membrane tertiary filtration systems (nrPURs) are considered the most advanced ultrafiltration membrane technology for the industry. UF hydrophilic polymeric membranes are used in the nrPUR system as a physical barrier to any solids larger than 0.1 microns like suspended solids and microorganisms. Its characteristic enables it to reach the highest quality treated water for discharge or reuse. These systems treat flows from 2500 to 250,000 gpd. The first step in nrPUR is to remove nonbiodegradable solids that are collected in an equalization tank. The flow from this tank is recirculated between a continuously stirred bioreactor and a membrane tank (Enereau, 2022). Newterra clear3decentralized modular membrane bioreactor facility (MBR) sewage treatment systems are also a custom-engineered modular option. These systems can treat a flow from 5000 to 230,000 gpd and also from 100,000 to 1.5 Mgpd. Clear3 MBR technology is used when high-quality effluent is required for reuse. It can efficiently remove oxygen demand, TSSs, bacteria, total coliforms, ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, many pharmaceuticals, and emerging contaminants (Newterra, 2022).

63

4.4 Modular wastewater treatment approaches

Thus, over the recent few years, several modular water and wastewater treatment units have been suggested to reach high-quality drinking water as well as comply with stringent wastewater effluent quality to protect the water ecosystem and human health. In addition to the systems described above, Table 4.1 describes and compares other modular wastewater TABLE 4.1

treatment developments. This shown that modular systems have been adapted for multiple needs applications and conditions. The degree of efficiency of these systems depends on the incorporation and type of operations integrated into the water treatment. In general, it is possible to achieve a degree of quality of the treated water according to the use to which it is intended.

Modular wastewater treatment systems for several uses.

System (with references)

Applications

Results

Integrated modular anaerobic system (combination of anaerobic digestion and membrane filtration processes) Pang et al. (2017).

For rural wastewater treatment (pilotscale system) The flowrate of 3 m3/d and shock flowrate of 5 m3/d.

This integrated system provides a good alternative for rural wastewater treatment, which has the potential to become a sustainable and green process. The removal efficiency was: COD more than 80%; TN 33%; P 14%.

Mobile, modular and rapidly acting system (coagulation, sedimentation, air flotation, air stripping, and chemical oxidation units) (Sheng et al., 2018).

For chemical industries. Treatment system for optimizing and improving the removal of nonaqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) in groundwater.

Theoretical guidelines to effectively manage the rapidly-acting aboveground treatment of P&T system for NAPLs removal from groundwater. The air stripping unit showed satisfactory removal efficiencies for short-chain petroleum hydrocarbons and chloroalkanes (>80%).

Modular continuous flow bioreactor system at laboratory scale by using ironoxidizing bacteria (IOB) and sulfatereducing bacteria (SRB) (Gu et al., 2019).

Remediation of acid mine drainage (AMD). Recovery of heavy metals as sulfides using hydrogen sulfide produced by sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB).

Very good capability to treat high-level concentrations of heavy metal. The removal efficiency was: for zinc, copper, iron, and sulfate 99.08%, 99.13%, 94.83%, and 58.89% respectively.

Continuous modular bioreactor aerobic and anoxic conditions but predominantly anoxic. The capacity of 220 tons/day of byproducts from poultry, fish, and pig slaughterhouses. Daily average of wastewater generation of 200 m3. Primary treatment (settling, static sieve, and flotation) (Junior et al., 2019).

Industrial wastewater. Recycling industry of animal protein Wastewater, with high organic load, high concentrations of fat and different types of nutrients.

The degradation process begins, under alternating between aerobic and anoxic conditions and in conjunction with the decanting of suspended particles. The wastewater treatment demonstrated high efficiency after anaerobic digestion. High removal of ammonia and total nitrogen.

Vertical flow constructed wetland (MCW) designed as a trailer. The MCW was coupled to a drinking water treatment system using ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and a mixed bed ion exchange cartridge.

To treat wastewater from events lay a heavy burden on the environment (music festivals). The aim was to produce potable water by removing harmful components (e.g., metals and organic micropollutants).

Removal: COD 90%, BOD 95%, TSS 97%, TP76%, nitrite 99%, nitrate 83%, ammonium 95% respectively. With the potable water treatment system, good removal of nitrogen

(Continued)

64 TABLE 4.1

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

Modular wastewater treatment systems for several uses.dcont'd

System (with references)

Applications

Results

Dimensions of 6
2.5
1 m (L
W
D) (Lakho et al., 2020). Modular system (oil removal, viscosity Petroleum wastewater reduction, oxidation, coagulation, filtration, and UV disinfection) (Wang et al., 2020).

4.5 Conclusions There is a growing need to implement modular systems in regions where centralized treatment and distribution is limited or missing. Over the last years, several modular wastewater treatment units have been developed and adapted to get water conservation and water reuse to supply human water needs and also to protect the water ecosystem, which is subject to several challenges. Modular wastewater treatment uses common and innovative treatment operations and represents a potential alternative for wastewater treatment. These systems have shown different levels of effectiveness according to the applications to which they are intended. As expected, the most effective modular systems are those that include primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. Humanitarian engineering has played an important role in the development and implementation of modular wastewater treatment in the rural and the periurban areas of developing countries, which is a serious concern for the health of the people living in the vicinity. The application of modular water/wastewater treatment can be also effective for housing developments, daycare centers, schools, industries, and touristic locations, as well as environmental remediation and water supply. The regulation, inspection, and maintenance of these systems need to be strengthened for adequate

components was obtained and potable water was produced. The suspended solids, petroleum concentration, and median particle size of treated wastewater were less than 2.0 mg/L, 6.0 mg/L, and 1.5 mm, respectively.

implementation and to improve their efficiency and durability.

References Achilli, A., Marchand, E.A., Childress, A.E., 2011. A performance evaluation of three membrane bioreactor systems: aerobic, anaerobic, and attached-growth. Water Science and Technology 63 (12), 2999e3005. https:// doi.org/10.2166/wst.2011.559. Alfalaval, 2022. Package Treatment Plants. Retrieved from. https://www.alfalaval.com/products/processsolutions/wastewater-treatment-plants/packagetreatment-plants/?_ga¼2.178374124.952693117. 1642130312-901981148.1642130312. Ali, S., Hall, K., Aronson, K., Philip, L., 2009. Humanitarian engineering in Mylai Balaji Nagar: an integrated water, environment and public health project for slums in the Indian Subcontinent. Desalination 248 (1e3), 418e427. Balasubramanya, S., Wichelns, D., 2012. Economic incentives can enhance policy efforts to improve water quality in Asia. International Journal of Water Resources Development 28 (2), 217e231. Barona, A., Malo, A., Elías, A., Rojo, N., Santaolalla, A., Gallastegui, G., 2021. A feasibility study of the installation of a modular bioreactor inside a chemical scrubber at a wastewater treatment plant. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 147, 932e941. Blair, S., Jooste, D., Bryant, D., Ashkar, C., Burt, S., Ngo, T.T., Peterson, J., 2016. Humanitarian engineering opportunities and challenges in rural Dominican Republic: a case study of El Cercado. In: Paper Presented at the 2016 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC). Capodaglio, A., Callegari, A., Cecconet, D., Molognoni, D., 2017. Sustainability of decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. Water Practice and Technology 12 (2), 463e477.

References

Digital Analysis Corporation, 2022. pH Adjustment Systems. Dogan, E.C., Yasar, A., Sen, U., Aydiner, C., 2016. Water recovery from treated urban wastewater by ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis for landscape irrigation. Urban Water Journal 13 (6), 553e568. Eggimann, S., Truffer, B., Feldmann, U., Maurer, M., 2018. Screening European market potentials for small modular wastewater treatment systemsean inroad to sustainability transitions in urban water management? Land Use Policy 78, 711e725. Enereau, 2022. Smart Solution for Wastewater and Water Reuse (Modular Systems that Can Grow with Your Development). Retrieved from. https://www.enereau. com/. Fenoll, J., Garrido, I., Flores, P., Hellín, P., Vela, N., Navarro, G., Navarro, S., 2019. Implementation of a new modular facility to detoxify agro-wastewater polluted with neonicotinoid insecticides in farms by solar photocatalysis. Energy 175, 722e729. Gu, Q., Cui, X., Shang, H., 2019. Optimization of a modular continuous flow bioreactor system for acid mine drainage treatment using PlacketteBurman design. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering 15, e2469. Hilbig, J., Boysen, B., Wolfsdorf, P., Rudolph, K.-U., 2020. Economic evaluation of different treatment options for water reuse in industrial parks using modular cost functions. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination 10 (4), 419e430. Hultberg, M., Bodin, H., 2017. Fungi-based treatment of brewery wastewaterdbiomass production and nutrient reduction. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 101 (11), 4791e4798. Jung, Y.T., Narayanan, N., Cheng, Y.-L., 2018. Cost comparison of centralized and decentralized wastewater management systems using optimization model. Journal of Environmental Management 213, 90e97. Junior, A.T., Morejon, C.F.M., Hasan, S.D.M., 2019. Study of the operation of a continuous modular bioreactor used for treatment of wastewater from a recycling industry of byproducts from slaughterhouses. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 230 (4), 1e22. Kumar, P., Hegde, K., Brar, S., Cledon, M., Kermanshahi pour, A., 2018. Physico-chemical treatment for the degradation of cyanotoxins with emphasis on drinking water treatmentdhow far have we come? Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 6 (4), 5369e5388. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.08.032. Laflamme, O., S
erodes, J.-B., Simard, S., Legay, C., Dorea, C., Rodriguez, M.J., 2020. Occurrence and fate of ozonation disinfection by-products in two Canadian drinking water systems. Chemosphere 260, 127660. Lakho, F.H., Le, H.Q., Van Kerkhove, F., Igodt, W., Depuydt, V., Desloover, J., Van Hulle, S.W., 2020. Water

65

treatment and re-use at temporary events using a mobile constructed wetland and drinking water production system. The Science of the Total Environment 737, 139630. Larios, A.D., Pachapur, V.L., Alvarez, B., Kuknur, P., Palacios, J.H., Shivanand, P., Zhang, T.C., 2018. Chapter preliminaries. In: Surampalli, R.Y., Zhang, T.C., Brar, S.K., Hegde, K., Pulicharla, R., Verma, M. (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Engineering, first ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Lis, M., Donetti, M., Newhauser, W., Durante, M., Dey, J., Weber, U., ... Graeff, C., 2020. A modular dose delivery system for treating moving targets with scanned ion beams: Performance and safety characteristics, and preliminary tests. Physica Medica 76, 307e316. Martikainen, K., Kauppinen, A., Matikka, V., Veijalainen, A.M., Torvinen, E., Pitk€anen, T., Heinonen-Tanski, H., 2018. Efficiency of private household sand filters in removing nutrients and microbes from wastewater in Finland. Water 10 (8), 1000. Newterra, 2022. Clear3 MBR/F Custom Modular Sewage Treatment Facilities. Retrieved from. https://www. newterra.com/product-decentralized-modular-mbr/. Ngo Truc Thanh, T.T., Ngo, T.T., Chase, B., 2021. Students’ attitude toward sustainability and humanitarian engineering education using project-based and international field learning pedagogies. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 22 (2), 254e273. O’Driscoll, M., Bean, E., Mahoney, R.N., Humphrey, C.P., 2019. Coastal tourism and its influence on wastewater nitrogen loading: a barrier island case study. Environmental Management 64 (4), 436e455. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-019-01201-7. Pang, H., Wu, P., Li, L., Yu, Z., Zhang, Z., 2017. Effective biodegradation of organic matter and biogas reuse in a novel integrated modular anaerobic system for rural wastewater treatment: a pilot case study. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 119, 131e139. Rabaey, K., Vandekerckhove, T., Van de Walle, A., Sedlak, D.L., 2020. The third route: using extreme decentralization to create resilient urban water systems. Water Research 185, 116276. Reymond, P., Wahaab, R.A., Moussa, M.S., L€ uthi, C., 2018. Scaling up small scale wastewater treatment systems in low-and middle-income countries: an analysis of challenges and ways forward through the case of Egypt. Utilities Policy 52, 13e21. Schuwirth, N., Honti, M., Logar, I., Stamm, C., 2018. Multicriteria decision analysis for integrated water quality assessment and management support. Water Research X 1, 100010. Selvaratnam, T., Henkanatte-Gedera, S., Muppaneni, T., Nirmalakhandan, N., Deng, S., Lammers, P., 2016.

66

4. Modular treatment approach for drinking water and wastewater

Maximizing recovery of energy and nutrients from urban wastewaters. Energy 104, 16e23. Sharma, M.K., Tyagi, V.K., Saini, G., Kazmi, A.A., 2016. Onsite treatment of source separated domestic wastewater employing anaerobic package system. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 4 (1), 1209e1216. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2016.01.024. Sheng, Y., Zhang, X., Zhai, X., Zhang, F., Li, G., Zhang, D., 2018. A mobile, modular and rapidly-acting treatment system for optimizing and improving the removal of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs) in groundwater. Journal of Hazardous Materials 360, 639e650. Shillington, C.N., Cianfrani, C.M., Hews, S., 2020. Evaluating the performance of a decentralized graywater treatment system in a living building at Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, USA. Water Environment Research 92 (2), 291e301. Simate, G.S., 2015. The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse by integration of coagulation/flocculation and sedimentation with carbon nanotubes ‘sandwiched’in a granular filter bed. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 21, 1277e1285. Simate, G.S., Cluett, J., Iyuke, S.E., Musapatika, E.T., Ndlovu, S., Walubita, L.F., Alvarez, A.E., 2011. The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse: state of the art. Desalination 273 (2e3), 235e247. Stef
an, D., Erd
elyi, N., Izs
ak, B., Z
aray, G., Vargha, M., 2019. Formation of chlorination by-products in drinking water treatment plants using breakpoint chlorination. Microchemical Journal 149, 104008. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.microc.2019.104008. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2021. Water-related Illness. Unicef, 2019. Multi-Tiered Approaches to Solving the Water Crisis in Basra, Iraq. Retrieved from. https://www. unicef.org/documents/multi-tiered-approaches-solvingwater-crisis-basra-iraq. Unicef, 2021. Running Dry”: Unprecedented Scale and Impact of Water Scarcity in the Middle East and North Africa. Retrieved from. https://www.unicef.org/pressreleases/running-dry-unprecedented-scale-and-impactwater-scarcity-middle-east-and-north.

Wang, D., Li, Y., Puma, G.L., Lianos, P., Wang, C., Wang, P., 2017. Photoelectrochemical cell for simultaneous electricity generation and heavy metals recovery from wastewater. Journal of Hazardous Materials 323, 681e689. Wang, Y., Wang, X.C., Jin, X., Wang, R., Shi, X., Jin, P., Yu, Y., 2020. A modular variable-process treatment system for operation liquid waste: a case study. Journal of Water Process Engineering 35, 101221. Wirkert, F.J., Roth, J., Jagalski, S., Neuhaus, P., Rost, U., Brodmann, M., 2020. A modular design approach for PEM electrolyser systems with homogeneous operation conditions and highly efficient heat management. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 45 (2), 1226e1235. Yang, H., Hu, R., Nd
e-Tchoup
e, A.I., Gwenzi, W., Ruppert, H., Noubactep, C., 2020. Designing the next generation of Fe0based filters for decentralized safe drinking water treatment: a conceptual framework. Processes 8 (6), 745. Zhang, Y., Wang, H., Li, Y., Wang, B., Huang, J., Deng, S., Wang, Y., 2020. Removal of micropollutants by an electrochemically driven UV/chlorine process for decentralized water treatment. Water Research 183, 116115. Zhao, Y., Ji, B., Liu, R., Ren, B., Wei, T., 2020. Constructed treatment wetland: glance of development and future perspectives. Water Cycle 1, 104e112. Zimmermann, M., Winker, M., Schramm, E., 2018. Vulnerability analysis of critical infrastructures in the case of a semi-centralised water reuse system in Qingdao, China. International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection 22, 4e15.

Further reading Google Earth, 2022. Yanweizhou Park. Retrieved from. https://earth.google.com/web/search/China%e2%80% 99sþspongeþcities/@29.092207,119.665963,40. 98942886a,909.2834069d,35y,0h,45t,0r/data¼CoIBGlg SUgolMHgzNDQ5MTNkOTVmOGJkZGUzOjB4NDg2 MTZmZWJlOThhZDBlMRlXdsHgmhc9QCElVkYjnpdQCoXQ2hpbmHigJlzIHNwb25nZSBjaXRpZXMYAiA BIiYKJAml7QbTJxk9QBG9uz0q8hY9QBmwsKHBT OtdQCFQg0yF8eldQCgC.

C H A P T E R

5 Modular water treatment practice in cold countries Mohammad Hossein Karimi Darvanjooghi1, Waseem Raja2, Pratik Kumar2, Sara Magdouli3, Satinder Kaur Brar1 1

Department of Civil Engineering, Lassonde School of Engineering, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada; 2Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India; 3Centre Technologique des R
esidus Industriels en Abitibi T
emiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada

5.1 Introduction

2020). This could make the treatment systems complex to maintain and operate especially for a modular treatment technologies in cold countries. Winter and cold climate alter the activity of modular systems and the efficiency of water and wastewater treatment plants in terms of metals and organics removal. In such cases, the temperatures below 0 C lead the operation to be kept in special conditions where various factors and preparations such as providing hot air stream and adjusting suitable aeration rate or even aeration tanks coverings to keep the wastewater plant working efficaciously. Particularly, the lagoons are at high risk of malfunction in low temperatures due to the formation of frozen layer over the surface, although, the other facilities and indoor aeration beds might suffer from the temperature drops in the Nordic countries in the winter. It is clear from the previous research studies that for a 10 F temperature

Many factors involved in water and wastewater treatment should be considered in the daily operation of small modules; however, winter weather and cold temperature further complicate the operation and efficiency of the process. With the onset of cold weather (especially in the Nordic climate), a new and wide range of parameters must be considered and tracked (Kumakiri et al., 2000; Nocker et al., 2020; Pendergast and Hoek, 2011). Unfortunately and especially for the biological treatment process, freezing temperatures inhibit the function of the microorganisms activity that is essential for degrading wastewater organic and even some types of inorganic contaminants (Nocker et al., 2020). It also reveals that a large community of microorganisms is required to accomplish the similar activity as small communities of bacteria have at higher temperatures (Nocker et al.,

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00005-X

67

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

68

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries

drop, 90% of microorganisms activity and efficiency will be lost, which are needed to be considered as a negative factor in the treatment process (Nocker et al., 2020; Arthur et al., 2005; Elserougi et al., 2016; Guillen and Hoek, 2009; Kazemimoghadam, 2010). In an Arctic area, the method of water treatment technology that is used is established mostly by condition and quality of the accessible water supply as well as the treatment objectives. Apart from achieving the desired water standard, surface water supplies, and groundwater sources, which are directly influenced by surface, water must be managed to meet with different water treatment policies. Operational expenses, process efficiency, and public and client priorities and expectations also play into the selection of a water treatment process, especially for a modular treatment systems. In Nordic and Arctic climates, filtration and disinfection are necessary for surface water treatment, as well as other parameter-specific water purification processes to remove pollutants and keep concentrations at the low level to reach potable water specifications (Congress, 1994; Craun, 1988; Esrey, 1996; Howard et al., 2020). Water treatment is categorized as several consequent unit processes by which the groups of contaminants or one or two types of contaminants can be easily removed. For instance, the water hardness where a formation and accumulation of white precipitates and ionic crystals (in fixtures and in boilers) which is caused by the presence of calcium and magnesium ions can be removed by using the softening process. In addition to the water-softening process, other types of water treatments such as filtration and membrane process as well as disinfection can be used for the elimination of pathogens that directly threaten human health and safety. In the following section, the implementation of these water treatment methods is explained in detail particularly in cold countries with context to the modular water treatment system

(Congress, 1994; Craun, 1988; Esrey, 1996; Howard et al., 2020).

5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system 5.2.1 Modular filtration One may find cartridge or package filters, which are usually made from naturally derived polymer materials, with small filter pores sizes that range from 1 to 200 microns. Filters are efficient at eliminating colloidal-sized objects and are frequently utilized on small systems where the water supply frequently has reduced cloudiness or turbidity. When the filter is filled with sediment that has been collected within the filter medium, the cartridge must be cleaned or replaced. In this method of water treatment, the ions and dissolved materials in water can pass through the cartridge easily and leads to restricting its application for a specific sample of the water source. However, there is a wide range of cartridges that can be used to separate harmful protozoans including Cryptosporidium and Giardia due to the small pores, which are prepared inside the filer’s structures. Despite the efficient removal of micron-sized particles by using the filtration process, these methods of water purification are not categorized as a suitable approach for the elimination and separation of a wide range of pathogenic bacteria and viruses (Craun, 1988; Esrey, 1996; Howard et al., 2020). Granulated media filtration employs a bed of highly porous granular material to remove fine particles from water. Granular media filters are normally made of fine, high-quality granular soils with a specific particle size (anthracite coals particles) and are then utilized to filter the water. In order to remove particles and some types of pollutants in the Nordic condition, one type of specific medium (which is known as green sand) is employed. Greensand filters employ a

5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system

medium that does double function as a filter and also as an oxidizer, which facilitates the elimination of soluble iron and manganese (Congress, 1994). This could be beneficial for the water treatment in colder climate as the microorganisms are tough to deactivate or kill as compared to the other temperature conditions. Not only that, but these greensand filters have also been found useful in the removal of manganese and iron quite efficiently, which shows that it could be utilized in the cold countries where groundwater is the source of water. It is encouraged to the community living in cold regions to keep such filters in their home or one for each community (as a modular treatment system) to further treat the water contaminants that could have possibly left out during the conventional slow sand filter operation. The granulated media filters can function in what is called gravitational mode. This type of purification involves that water pressure is provided by gravity to move water through the filter. Filters can be opened to the atmosphere, and about a meter of water is kept just above the filter. The “granular filters” are open to the environment and are capable of maintaining the water pressure high enough at the point of entry to the treatment facility. As an instance, if the water supply is the lake at high elevation, piping water downward to the community leads to a high-pressure water stream, and this highpressure stream is capable of passing through the granular media of the filters in cold climates (Congress, 1994). Both gravity and pressure filters can properly eliminate particles due to a combination of pathways. Successful treatment of the micron-sized colloids, such as bacteria, usually involves the addition of a chemical coagulant to the water for the particles to adhere to the filter medium. In order to guarantee that the filter medium can be used extensively for prolonged operations and maintain the consistent treated effluent quality at a high level, efficient backwashing of

69

the granular filter medium is needed during the removal process. In this procedure, water is flowed in the filter in the reverse direction (which is needed to be treated as wastewater again) to remove all the fine particles from the granules (Congress, 1994). On the other hand, magnetically ballasted sedimentation is also used for water purification. Ballasted sedimentation is used to increase the absorption of suspended solids. It may be also utilized for tertiary treatment (for example, for the removal of phosphorus solids) or overflows treatment with high rates at low-temperature conditions (Congress, 1994). One type of new coagulant process that is used for cold climate is CoMag process. In this process, chemical coagulants and flocculants are used alongside magnetite as a blasting agent in order to remove pollutants from water stream. Indeed, the implementation of magnetite ballast agent is to increase the rate of precipitate settlement and chemical flocs due to its higher density. In this process to support nucleation sites for flocculation and enhance the rate of flocculants production, higher than 80% of the settled sludge is recycled and reused. According to the process flow diagram, the produced sludge will pass through a magnetic-recycling tank to recover the excess amount of magnetite particles before further processing, and finally, the recycled magnetite is introduced again to the process. CoMag Magnetite inclusion is used to increase biological floc settleability in the same way in the activated sludge phase, albeit in a slightly different method (Akyel et al., 1993; Booker et al., 1996; Ellis and Cathcart, 2008; Tozer and Woodard, 2007). Such properties of water coagulation treatment could be highly beneficial for a modular treatment systems in a cold temperature regions where low temperature factor could be neutralized up to a greater extent. Also, the context of the water treatment problem needs to be understood for the cold temperature regions. For example, in a water

70

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries

matrix, which does not have much natural organic matter (NOM) to remove, a prepolymerized coagulants such as PACl and polyferric sulfate could be used that are less sensitive to change in temperature. However, the same coagulant could not be helpful when there is a large amount of NOM present in the source water. This process uses a magnet to separate magnetite-rich sludge from water stream. This process allows for increased performance in the recovery of magnetite, which minimizes the necessary magnetite content. Because other processes that employ the chemical precipitation of phosphorus include constraints related to the speed and composition of the precipitation, its precipitation efficiency is dependent on certain parameters such as the nucleation

FIGURE 5.1 Woodard, 2007).

rate production and kinetics of flocculants production within the precipitation method. The nucleation and formation of aggregates, solids interaction, and ballast produced by the CoMag method assist phosphorus precipitates to be efficiently eliminated once they are produced (Akyel et al., 1993; Booker et al., 1996; Ellis and Cathcart, 2008; Tozer and Woodard, 2007) (Fig. 5.1). Although a wide range of application can be considered for filtration of water stream, there are challenges that need to be considered when it is applied in cold temperature (Yao et al., 1971). One factor which is needed to be studied mainly is the fouling and formation of ice crystals in the filters’ pores. The formation of these particles and fouling is completely related to

Process flow diagram for CoMag (Akyel et al., 1993; Booker et al., 1996; Ellis and Cathcart, 2008; Tozer and

5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system

71

the surface structure of filters and solutes, and it is elaborate due to the mechanisms involved in fouling of solute and particles which depend on (Yao et al., 1971):

particles and formation of the solid layer. With the increase in the surface interaction and attraction forces with particles and filter surface, the rate of fouling increases.

U Operation time Fouling produced by filtering processes may be a transient phenomenon that may happen after a start-up of filtration operations or after an alteration in the operating conditions. U Operating parameters Different process design variables including cross-flow axial velocity affect the rate of solid accumulation on the filter surface as well as their removal by means of fluid flow. Therefore, different process factors such as filter element geometry (plate, tube, spiral, etc.) and the flow design (cross-flow and dead-end filters) can also impact the rate of fouling over the surface of filters. U Solution properties Overall, the chemical and physical properties of the suspension play important roles in the precipitation of particles over the surface of filters. These properties are solute and particles concentration, the size distribution of suspended particles, geometry, and shape of suspended particles, the viscosity of the solution, etc. U Intraparticle interactions The surface properties of particles and the filter surface also are other important factors, which are needed to be considered when the filtration is used at low temperatures. With the decrease of temperature, the ice particles are formed at the surface of filters and boost the adsorption of suspended solids leading to a higher rate of fouling. Indeed, by controlling surface chemistry particles using the pH and other chemical additives (for modification of particles surface), the rate of fouling can be easily controlled. U Particle-filter surface interactions The surface chemistry of the filter and particles play an important role in the adsorption of

With all the above parameters discussed above which could hinder the normal operation of the granular filtration system in a cold temperature conditions, it is important to understand that the filter adsorbents and the water media both have to sync with each other so that the operation is closer to the normal conditions. Not only that, but the follow-up treatment steps post filtration, that is, disinfection and post ozonation depend significantly on the temperature conditions for their sustained operation. For example, the rate of disinfection using chlorine (conventionally used disinfectant) at 4 C could be 2 times lower than at 14 C. This can go worse if the NOMs are not properly removed during the filtration steps because of the low temperature conditions. Hence, the treatment steps for any adopted modular treatment systems first needs to be rightly investigated for any such abnormality that is expected due to low temperature conditions.

5.2.2 Modular membrane The demand for water supply has grown drastically in the past few years, and this universal water issue has become important as the world population and the economies of the nations is growing. According to the previous forecasting, the world population growth will reach 50%, and this leads to large agriculture industry expansion, which is completely established based on water resources. On the other hand, this expansion increases the need for fresh water supply especially in a cold region where the purification and treatment cost double compared to the most populated and warm places (Nocker et al., 2020; Pendergast and Hoek, 2011; Arthur et al., 2005; Elserougi et al., 2016; Guillen and

72

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries

Hoek, 2009; Kazemimoghadam, 2010; Slade and Jassby, 2016). This issue will require better and more convenient treatment methods in the form of modular or containerized water treatment systems, which can be used in a remote area or even in places where the purifications and water treatments are expensive due to the severe cold climate. Membranes are preferred over other water treatment systems such as disinfection by using UV and distillation, which requires a high amount of energy since they do not require chemical additions, heat, or regeneration materials. The pressure-driven membranes are recognized based on the mechanisms and intend of purification and pore size. Table 5.1 shows details of these treatment methods based on pore sizes (Nocker et al., 2020; Pendergast and Hoek, 2011; Arthur et al., 2005; Elserougi et al., 2016; Guillen and Hoek, 2009; Kazemimoghadam, 2010; Slade and Jassby, 2016). According to the data presented in this table, some types of membrane will be used for the separation of specific pollutants ranging from bacteria and protozoa to salts and ions. The implementation of these modular systems is beneficial in the cold region because they can be established indoors and a large quantity of water can be decontaminated. However, other factors such as membrane structures and their material properties needed to be investigated, and thus the most efficient membranes need high-quality materials and techniques for the preparation (Pendergast and Hoek, 2011). TABLE 5.1

One of the main scopes of water treatment development in the cold region is producing a ceramic membrane with high permeability of water and solute selectivity similar to reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF). These type of the membrane are resistance to temperature fluctuation, and their physicochemical properties remain constant in lower temperature compared to polymeric membranes. On the other hand, due to the mechanical properties and stability under pressure differences over the membrane and chemical stability, ceramics membrane is categorized as the prior choice for RO at low temperature. The first step was related to the results of molecular dynamics simulations of the zeolite-based membrane that might be useful for water-based osmotic purifications. Therefore, zeolite membranes were implemented as support in the RO system for the purification of brackish water and a wide range of wastewater samples even at low temperatures (Pendergast and Hoek, 2011). These membranes are fouling-resistant and stable compared to conventional polymeric membranes due to their surface structure properties. As one of the most important substances for increasing permeability, zeolites can be used because they are made of aluminosilicate minerals with uniform pore size structures on the scale of nanometer and prevent the formation of ice structure at low temperature (Pendergast and Hoek, 2011). These nanostructures produce a large number of cavities and

Membrane pore sizes and their application for separation processes (Pendergast and Hoek, 2011).

Pore size (d)

Membrane types

Species

Sizes (nm)

d > 50m (macropores)

Microfiltration

Yeast/bacteria/fungi Oil emulsions

300e10,000 100e10,000

2m < d < 50m (mesopores)

Ultrafiltration

Colloidal solids Viruses and proteins

100e1000 3e300

0.2m < d < 2m (mesopores)

Nanofiltration Reverse osmosis Forward osmosis

Antibiotics Metals ions Water

0.3e1.2 0.2e0.4 0.2

5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system

porosities that move ions and water molecules more facile (Pendergast and Hoek, 2011). Kumakiri et al. (2000) used zeolite (type A) to prepare ceramic membranes for water treatment. They examined the performance of the membrane by applying RO. They also indicated that the selectivity of water separation from the mixture of ethanol and water is around 40% (Kumakiri et al., 2000). The performance of polymeric and ceramic membranes differs from each other, and it depends on the solute type and concentration, temperature, membrane physicochemical properties such as porosity, density, active functional groups, and surface characterization. The comparison between these two types of membranes is pointed out in Table 5.2 (Kumakiri et al., 2000). One research also was done by Zhao and Zou (2011) to observe and understand the impact of working temperature on the performance of forwarding osmosis membrane (FOM, cellulose triacetate membrane) performance in desalination of brackish water (containing sodium chloride and 1.5 M Na2SO4). According to their results, a significant increase in permeation and water flux was observed as temperature increased. They finally reported that the water flux increased (3.1%)/ C and (1.2%)/ C for temperature increase from 25 to 35 C and 35 to 45 C, respectively (Zhao and Zou, 2011). Cellulose triacetate RO membrane also was used by She et al. (2012) to measure the water flux and separation performance at temperature ranges of 25e35 C and different pressure drops across the membrane. They used 1 M sodium chloride solution in both draw and feed stream. They reported that for the condition where the pressure drop was set at constant, the water flux enhanced up to (4.1%)/ C and the specific power increased at (4.1%)/ C for the temperature range of 25e35 C. They also concluded that the ratio of both solute and solvent permeability does not change by the increase of

73

temperature, and this indicates that the performance of the membrane is independent of the working temperature. Further, the conclusion was achieved at the condition where higher temperature leads to a significant increase in diffusivity by which the internal concentration polarization will reduce inside the membrane support. This enhanced the water permeability and selectivity of the membrane, which also contributed to the enhancement in water flux (She et al., 2012). Another study was done by Kim and Elimelech (2013) on the influence of operating temperature (ranging from 20 to 30 C) on the separation performance of cellulose triacetate RO membrane for water desalination (0.5 M sodium chloride for feed solution and 1, 1.5, and 2 M the same solution for draw stream). They observed that the increase in water flux was ranged from (5.0%)/ C to (7.1%)/ C. They also reported that the enhancement in water flux to its permeability is proportional. Touati et al. (2014) also used cellulose triacetate RO membrane to study the effect of solute concentration and temperature on the water flux and the permeability of the membrane (Kim and Elimelech, 2013). They found that the permeabilities of solute (salt) and solvent (water) were fitted accurately to the Arrhenius equations and indicating an appropriate correlation to the stream temperature. They also observed that the enhancement in separation power increased up to 0.33 W/m2 at the temperature range of 25e60 C (Kim and Elimelech, 2013; Touati et al., 2014). The above-mentioned description indicated that a wide range of membranes can be used for water desalination and the types of membrane influence their functionality at various working temperatures. However, it should be considered that the modular system of water treatment can be used in remote areas easily and implementation of such a system is a new way for desalination of water, particularly for membrane

74 TABLE 5.2

Type of membrane

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries

Performance of polymeric and nonpolymeric (ceramic) membranes.

Working temperature ( C)

Thickness of film (mm)

Solution and the concentration of solute (ppm)

Rejection (%)

Permeability of solute (m/s) 3 108

Permeability of water molecules (m/Pa.s) 3 1012 References

Polymeric seawater reverse osmosis

10e20

0.1e0.2

Sodium chloride/ 32000

99.7

1.5e2.5

2e4

Guillen and Hoek (2009)

Brackish water reverse osmosis

10e20

0.05e0.1

Sodium chloride/2000

98.5

6.5e8.0

8e11

Guillen and Hoek (2009)

High flux reverse osmosis

10e20

0.05e0.1

Sodium chloride/500 e1500

97.5

8e12

18e23

Guillen and Hoek (2009)

35e45

Guillen and Hoek (2009)

Nanofiltration 10e20

0.03e0.05 Magnesium sulfate/ 500 ppm

98.0

90e110

Zeolite Socony Mobil5-membrane

10e20

2.5e3.5

Sodium chloride/ 3600 ppm

76.7

65e75

0.01e0.02

Li et al. (2004)

Zeolite Socony Mobil-5membrane

30e35

2.5e3.5

Sodium chloride/ 3600 ppm

98.0

19e22

0.03e0.04

Li et al. (2007)

Zeolite Socony Mobil-5membrane

10e20

1.1e1.3

Sodium chloride/ 3600 ppm

99.4

5e7

0.03e0.04

Liu et al. (2008)

Sodalite-type zeolitemembrane

10e20

40e55

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

1.5e2.5

Kazemimoghadam (2010)

Lind-type A zeolitemembrane

30e35

4e6

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

0.02e0.04

Kumakiri et al. (2000)

desalting systems. This modular system can be easily transported and installed for water treatment and even the separation of finely waste particles from the water streams. The Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit (ROWPU) is

used for the desalination and separation of finely waste particles from water in remote areas with a cold climate in the United States and Canada (Fig. 5.2). The specification of these units is mentioned in the following figure (Harris, 2000):

5.2 Treatment units for modular drinking water system

FIGURE 5.2

75

Specification of Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Unit for utilization in cold climate (Harris, 2000).

5.2.3 Disinfection units Disinfection is the term used to describe the treatment process used to destroy or inactivate disease-causing organisms. Sterilization is the eradication of all life forms. Water in cold regions is not sterilized; it is needed to be disinfected to make it possible for safe drinking. Primary disinfection during water treatment is designed to kill harmful microorganisms before the water enters the distribution system in countries with low environmental temperature. In addition, a disinfectant residual can be applied to the water that will be entering the distribution system to deter the growth of microorganisms and to protect against contamination in the system. There are multiple ways to disinfect water these include heat treatment as in boiling, UV radiation, and chemical treatment such as chlorine (Punyani et al., 2006). Boiling water on a large scale is economically impractical particularly in cold regions and may concentrate unwanted inorganic or chemical contaminants such as lead and nitrate. UV light or

UV is the newest of the generally accepted disinfection strategies. UV inactivates microorganisms by irradiating them with ultraviolet light thus disrupting the metabolic activity and reproductive process of the organism rendering them inactive or incapable of reproduction. Particulate matter or turbidity interferes with UV light thus lowering the amount available for inactivating pathogens; therefore, UV is usually recommended for use after the water has been filtered. The most commonly used methods for disinfecting water are chemical treatments. Chemical disinfectants often used for treatment include chlorine chloramine chlorine dioxide and ozone (Punyani et al., 2006). The chemical chlorine has been used for many years as a disinfectant and oxidizing agent when chlorine compounds dissolve in water they are hydrolyzed immediately into hypochlorous acid and hydrochloric acid. Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid and consequently ionizes in water to a hydrogen ion and hypochlorite ion (Punyani et al., 2006). A wide range of disinfection methods can be used in cold regions since they are independent of

76

5. Modular water treatment practice in cold countries

FIGURE 5.3 Disinfection methods for water treatment in a cold climate. TABLE 5.3 Disinfection methods

Main characteristic and critiques on conventional water disinfection approaches (Pichel et al., 2019). Benefits

Disadvantages

Chlorination

U High activity for viruses and bacteria U Efficient activity for removing recontamination U A small amount of sodium or calcium hypochlorite for disinfection U High efficiency of decontamination at low temperature

U U U U

Ozonation

U High activity for viruses, bacteria, and protozoa U No need for chemical compounds U High efficiency of decontamination at low temperature

U U U U

Pasteurization

U Very simple operation U No need for chemical compounds

U High cost of energy U Unsustainable to environment U Low efficacy and feasibility

UV light

U U U U

U U U U

Effective in the elimination of virus, bacteria, cysts No change in taste and odor No hazardous by-production No need for chemical compounds

the operating temperature (Punyani et al., 2006). These methods are classified according to Fig. 5.3. There is a wide range of advantages and disadvantages for implementation of abovementioned disinfection methods. These critiques are mentioned in Table 5.3.

Sensitive to pH Hazardous chlorine gas production High cost of a trained operator Low efficiency in highly turbid and organicwaste water U Intense smell and odor U Low efficiency in elimination of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium High cost of operation Formation of bromate High cost of energy No uses and consequence efficacy for recontaminated water

Low efficiency of operation High cost of maintenance Mercury used in UV-light production Low efficiency after usage due to fouling

5.3 Operational challenges of modular treatment systems in a cold country At some places in some cold climate countries, biological containerized water treatment system have been found quite frequent in practice.

77

5.4 Conclusion

These containers are mobile, durable, and protected to provide water treatment solutions, which helps in reducing the long-term operational costs. The equipment can be incorporated quite well inside a compartment of 20  40 feet area, which removes the complexity of constructing water treatment system buildings. It can be shipped easily wherever required or needed. These modular-based water treatment are kept in the containers at a controlled temperature condition and allows greater productivity and less issues related to the project management for its normal operation. However, in the cold climate condition, it is desirable to keep the raw water fluids at a temperature above their freezing points as the electrical equipments might not work well at < 5 C. To counter this issue, the containers are insulated with heating equipment. This is especially needed to control the raw influent water temperature in the inflow water tank as the entering water from the wastewater discharge point is relatively much colder in temperature than the ambient temperature of the container. In some regions of Canada (a cold country), the snow stays on the ground for over 2e 3 months. In such cases, a return pump is run continuously, which delivers the water through a heat exchanger unit, and it backs through a return line to the intake which is not under operation. In such condition, 50%e60% treated water must be reverted back to the inlet chamber for an effective temperature control (Chowdhury, 2011). Also, in cold countries, where overnight courier service and quick response are not available, automated systems can be more reliable and need to be considered while designing the treatment module. The packaged treatment systems are already based on robust designing with a minimum instrument packaging; however, a nominal automation service is needed in an event of unit failure or other system faults at peak flow session especially. In cold regions, biological wastewater treatment can be a huge challenge. A modular

wastewater treatment system involving moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) could actually provide a solution by reducing the possibility of low rate reactions (nitrification/denitrification). Since MBBR is a fixed biomass system instead of a complete suspended biomass system, the parameter of sludge age is not an issue that could be used as a benefit to provide an effective wastewater treatment solution in cold regions. In a study by Andreottola and Ragazzi (2000), MBBR treatment system was found to achieve 70%e80% nitrification at temperature of 7 C for a hydraulic retention time of >5 h (Ahmed and Delatolla, 2021). In a conventional wastewater treatment facility using the activated sludge process, the nitrification ceases below 4 C and stops at a temperature below 1 C. On the other hand, MBBR has shown to maintain their nitrification activity down to 1 C. Although the relative abundancy was similar at 10e1 C (in step of 2 C), the kinetic activity of the ammonia oxidizing bacteria (AOBs) declined at temperature below 4 C (Ahmed and Delatolla, 2021). One critical observation at lower temperature (100,000), the discharge limits for BOD, TN, and TP are 15 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 0.5 mg/L, respectively (Swedish, 2008). In Denmark, the discharge standards for COD, BOD, TN, and TP are 75 mg/L, 10 mg/L, 8 mg/L, and 0.4 mg/L, respectively (Preisner et al., 2020; Vind, 2017). In India, the general standards of discharge in inland surface water for COD, BOD, TSS, and TN are 250 mg/L, 30 mg/L, 100 mg/L, and 100 mg/L, respectively (CPCB, 1993). Furthermore, the quality of wastewater needed for reuse in agriculture, horticulture, toilet flushing, boiler water, cooling water, process water, groundwater recharge, fish culture, etc. also require to be treated to an extent such that it does not harm the environment (CPHEEO, 2013; Leong et al., 2017). The maximum allowable BOD concentration of treated wastewater for various reuse purposes in India, Australia, China, Cyprus, Germany, Japan, Israel, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Spain, Tunisia were 5 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 10 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 10 mg/L, 15 mg/L, 10 mg/ L, 12 mg/L, 20 mg/L, 10 mg/L, and 30 mg/L, respectively (CPHEEO, 2013; Leong et al., 2017). It is challenging for conventional wastewater systems to treat high concentration wastewater and bring down the pollutant standards to their respective discharge and permissible limits. Also, improper management of such systems may lead to the overflow of wastewater, which in turn can have detrimental health effects on the people and animals living in the community (Carroll et al., 2006). Failure of large-scale CWWTTP can be accounted for a number of reasons, among which inappropriate technology

selection, financial constraints, and lack of regular operation and maintenance are most common (Bassan et al., 2015; Kumar and Tortajada, 2020). The advantages and drawbacks of CWWTPs have been depicted in Fig. 6.2.

6.3.4 Decentralized wastewater treatment system and associated challenges DWWTPs are usually owned and operated by nonprofessional organizations, which result in multiple limitations to these systems (West et al., 2016). These systems differ from centralized systems in terms of the volume of wastewater treated. They usually treat a small amount of water generated from a single household or a cluster of households in close vicinity, commercial, institutional, and recreational facilities (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Tchobanogious et al., 2004; Van Afferden et al., 2015). As a result, they have a small sewerage network and the cost associated with the collection, transportation, and treatment of wastewater is much less compared to CWWTPs (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Eggimann et al., 2018; Jung et al., 2018; Massoud et al., 2009). The associated operation and maintenance cost is also low because they are not completely depended on skilled labor, facilitate reuse of wastewater and sludge, technologies used are energy efficient, etc (Jung et al., 2018; Kumar and Tortajada, 2020). A cost comparison was carried out between centralized and decentralized wastewater systems using cost optimization. The cost associated with operation and maintenance in the decentralized systems was found to be significantly lower than in the centralized systems (Jung et al., 2018). Decentralized systems have also been known to reduce detrimental effects on the environment and are characterized by the reuse of wastewater (Boavida et al., 2016; Fane and Fane, 2005; Kavvada et al., 2016; Massoud et al., 2009; Sapkota et al., 2016; Van Afferden et al., 2010). Furthermore,

6.3 Conventional practices and associated challenges in wastewater treatment

91

FIGURE 6.2 Characteristics of centralized wastewater treatment plant (CWWTP), decentralized wastewater treatment plant (DWWTP), and modular wastewater treatment plant (MWWTP).

they can be designed based on the volume and characteristics of the wastewater coming out of the community (Boavida et al., 2016; Capodaglio et al., 2017; Eggimann et al., 2018; Massoud et al., 2009). Since these systems are designed specifically to meet the geographic criteria and wastewater quality of the site, they provide better treatment. As a result, many decentralized systems are also characterized by reuse of the wastewater (Boavida et al., 2016; Capodaglio et al., 2017; Lienhoop et al., 2014; Massoud et al., 2009). The advantages and drawbacks of DWWTPs have been depicted in Fig. 6.2. The most common decentralized primary treatment options are on-site septic tanks and Imhoff tanks. These systems are economical and easy to operate and maintain. However, the sludge produced can produce undesirable odor. These systems can effectively serve the purpose of pretreatment of wastewater in decentralized systems (Massoud et al., 2009;

Tchobanogious et al., 2004). Aerobic lagoons, anaerobic lagoons, CWs, suspended growth processes, UASB, MBR, and other attached or suspended growth processes have proved to be effective secondary treatment options in decentralized systems (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Kumar and Tortajada, 2020; Leong et al., 2017; Massoud et al., 2009; Tchobanogious et al., 2004). CWs could effectively remove up to 90% BOD, 94% COD, 98% TSS, 52% TN, and 70% TP (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2015). MBRs were found to be much more efficient having COD, TN, TP, and TSS removal efficiency of 90% e99%, 81%e86%, 83%e94%, and 100%, respectively. UASB could effectively remove around 60%e80% COD and 55%e85% TSS (Capodaglio et al., 2017). Singh et al. (2015) reviewed the performance of various decentralized wastewater systems. Waste stabilization ponds were only able to remove 50%e90% BOD, 55%e70% COD, and 15%e60% TSS. MBBRs also proved

92

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

to be efficient technologies as they could achieve more than 90% removal for both BOD and COD. Tertiary treatments, such as adsorption, membrane filtration, UV treatment, ozone treatment, etc., are feasible in decentralized systems because the volume of wastewater treated is less and the costs incurred are also less (Leong et al., 2017; Tchobanogious et al., 2004). Membrane processes, advanced oxidation processes, and adsorption using granulated activated carbon could effectively remove around 80%e90% COD and TSS (Leong et al., 2017). Since the tertiary treatment methods produce high-quality effluent, the treated wastewater can be reused for both potable and multiple nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation, groundwater recharge, recreational purposes, flushing, washing, firefighting, etc (Tchobanogious et al., 2004). The decentralized wastewater system must ensure public and environmental safety, overcome the negative mindset of people regarding on-site treatment systems, protect the water resources, promote reuse of treated water, etc (Boavida et al., 2016; Eggimann et al., 2018; Massoud et al., 2009; Zaharia, 2017). Decentralized systems require active community participation unlike that in a centralized system (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Eggimann et al., 2018; Fane and Fane, 2005; Massoud et al., 2009). Over the last few decades, there has been massive scientific advancement in the field of wastewater treatment (Capodaglio et al., 2017; Leong et al., 2017; Majumder et al., 2019a; Peter-Varbanets et al., 2009). However, many of these new technologies have been implemented only on a small scale. The decentralized systems should integrate such technologies in their systems in order to validate the practical significance of these technologies and to meet the stringent criteria of wastewater treatment. New technological advancements and modifications of existing technologies should be adapted to bring down the land required for treatment, cost of operation,

etc. It is only after achieving such milestones that these systems can gain public trust and support (Tchobanogious et al., 2004). However, the considerable incentive has not been observed in terms of innovation and improvement of existing technologies. The market for decentralized systems in developing countries do not favor innovation, the existing regulations hinder improvements of the treatment processes, and regulators are hesitant when it comes to the uptake of new approaches (Eggimann et al., 2018; Kiparsky et al., 2013, 2016). As a result, they are inefficient in handling fluctuations in wastewater quality and quantity (Eggimann et al., 2018). Furthermore, the capital cost for DWWTPs (Rs./MLD capacity) is usually higher than CWWTPs (Jung et al., 2018; Kumar and Tortajada, 2020; Stoklosa et al., 2017). Kumar and Tortajada. (2020) reported the capital cost for CWWTPs (Rs./MLD capacity) and the average cost for ASP, MBBR, SBR, UASB, MBR, and waste stabilization ponds were Rs. 10.8 million/MLD capacity, Rs. 10.8 million/MLD capacity, Rs. 11.5 million/MLD capacity, Rs. 10.8 million/MLD capacity, Rs. 30 million/MLD capacity, and 6.30 million/MLD, respectively. On the other hand, DWWTPS costed around Rs. 35 million/MLD capacity, which was considerably higher. As a result, decentralized systems have not been well perceived by many urban water professionals. All these factors severely limit the scope of development of the DWWTPs (Eggimann et al., 2018). On the other hand, MWWTP can be massproduced, automated, and can overcome various limiting factors and provide high treatment efficiency at low cost (Eggimann et al., 2016b, 2018; King, 2007; Wang et al., 2020a). They have the potential to outperform the decentralized systems owing to the incorporation of various modern technologies. These small MWWTPs are far more flexible in terms of handling varying wastewater load, as compared

6.4 Prospect of modular wastewater treatment units in developing countries

to centralized and decentralized units, making them suitable for rapidly growing cities (Cuenca and Alvarez, 2008; Derry and Maheshwari, 2015; Kadivarian et al., 2020; King, 2007; Maurer, 2009; Monsrreal, 2018; Wang et al., 2020b; Yuan et al., 2017). Existing costs for personnel dedicated to the monitoring of the treatment units can be avoided due to the availability of low-cost automation and remote monitoring. The functioning of the modular systems also does not completely rely on community participation (King, 2007; Pang et al., 2017; Reilly and Jelderks, 2015). The mass production and implementation of the modular systems can lead to substantial cost reduction and overcome the barriers preventing these technologies from getting wider practical applications (Eggimann et al., 2018; Wilderer and Schreff, 2000). The advantages of MWWTPs over the centralized and decentralized approaches have been depicted in Fig. 6.2.

6.4 Prospect of modular wastewater treatment units in developing countries The major challenges in implementing WTTPs in developing countries are the improper wastewater collection, variability of wastewater quantity and quality, lack of funding required to set-up, operate, and maintain the treatment plants, land availability, etc (Boavida et al., 2016; Capodaglio et al., 2017; Massoud et al., 2009). With the rapid development of cities and ever growing urbanization in the developing countries, the wastewater generated has also increased drastically (Rosegrant and Cai, 2009; Sanchez et al., 2020). The existing treatment systems have become inefficient in handling the increased volume of wastewater. Furthermore, due to the scarcity of water in many parts of the developing countries, it is vital to reuse the treated water for various domestic and industrial applications. This demands a very high-quality effluent meeting the desired reuse standards (CPHEEO, 2013; Leong et al., 2017). MWTTPs

93

for developing countries should be designed keeping in mind all the above-mentioned factors. Among the various advanced technologies the modular-based treatment are framed mostly with MBR, microbial fuel cell (MFC), CW, activated sludge process (ASP), SBR, etc. Some suitable option for developing countries should be selected primarily based on cost-effectiveness. CWs are cost-efficient and can handle wastewater of varying quality and quantity (Jain et al., 2020; Varma et al., 2020). This may seem like a lucrative solution for developing countries; however, the large amount of land required is a significant drawback for this system. Furthermore, proper functioning of CWs requires adequate knowledge regarding hydraulics of the system, biological, and chemical processes (Jain et al., 2020; Kivaisi, 2001; Sudarsan et al., 2016; Varma et al., 2020; Vymazal, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). The macrophytes in the CWs should be well maintained. CWs are often breeding grounds for various disease-causing vectors, which pose another significant problem in developing countries, where people already suffer from proper sanitation and hygiene (Brix, 1995; Kivaisi, 2001; Vymazal, 2011, 2013). MFCs provide excellent effluent quality and can also generate electricity. They also do not have large land requirements (He et al., 2016; Kadivarian et al., 2020). This technology can be efficient in areas of developing countries where there is a lack of funds and electricity not available throughout for the proper functioning of the plants. However, this process also requires extensive research on evolution of bioenergy to establish its application in energy sustainability. Apart from that, regular operation and maintenance and skilled labor are also required (Kadivarian et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2019; Liang et al., 2018). MBRs are subjected to membrane fouling and clogging and require repeated backwashing, chemical washing which increases their operation and maintenance cost. Furthermore, replacing the membranes is also a costly affair (Bayat et al., 2015; Judd, 2008; King, 2007;

94

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

Mutamim et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2006; Zsirai et al., 2012). Sludge handling is a drawback for various MWWTPs involving ASP, anaerobic digester, etc (Skardon, 2019; Tonhato Junior et al., 2019; Velasco-Gardu~ no et al., 2019). Hence, it is imperative to design MWWTPs, which can cater to all the requirements of developing countries. Out of the various components of different MWWTPs, some components are obligatory (screens, equalization tank, sedimentation tank) and others are situation specific (variety of biological systems and tertiary treatments). Among the primary modules, screen is almost common although components, such as equalization tank may not be always implemented (Monsrreal, 2018; Perslow et al., 2002; Reilly and Jelderks, 2015). However, the fluctuations of wastewater quality and quantity may be significant in small-scale applications and use of equalization tank can be instrumental to regulate the flow fluctuations (Pang et al., 2017; Reilly and Jelderks, 2015). The secondary treatment systems may be opted based on the wastewater characteristics and suitable add-on arrangements in terms of aerobic chamber, facultative chamber, anaerobic chamber, etc. may be used modular basis (Ezechi et al., 2019; Pang et al., 2017; Tonhato Junior et al., 2019; Velasco-Gardu~ no et al., 2019). The solideliquid separation arrangement generally opted as sedimentation except in MBR, which can be supplemented with additional aeration units (Behmann, 1991; Reilly and Jelderks, 2015). Various tertiary modules based on membranes, adsorption, and disinfection can be opted based on the reuse/disposal requirement (Ezechi et al., 2019; Ge and He, 2016; Monsrreal, 2018; Perslow et al., 2002; Rout et al., 2016; Skardon, 2019). The overall arrangement of MWWTPs should be framed concerning the technical and financial sustainability although the option for upgradation with advanced treatment modules may be kept open for handing complex wastewater

characteristics and meeting the stringent effluent quality standards.

6.5 Summary of findings Over the past few decades, rapid urbanization in developing countries has resulted in increased water consumption and wastewater generation. The wastewater generated from different sectors has varying characteristics making them difficult to be treated by conventional WWTPs. Domestic wastewater is generally characterized by low to medium organic loading with significant biodegradable fraction, although presence of some recalcitrant organic pollutants is also reported in several studies. Hospital effluents were rich in PhACs, PCPs, pathogens, etc. Industrial wastewater had significantly higher levels of COD, BOD, and TSS as compared to hospital and domestic effluent. Furthermore, wastewater generated from different industries were characterized by industry-specific pollutants. Effluent from petrochemical industries were rich in petrochemical hydrocarbons, phenols, etc., while effluent from textile industries hosted a variety of dyes. Electroplating industries, tanneries generated wastewater rich in heavy metals, such as chromium, zinc, nickel, cadmium, lead, etc. In developing countries, CWWTPs were most commonly used to treat municipal wastewater comprising of domestic, hospitals, and some industrial effluent. However, these systems are often not equipped with technologies to deal with the specific contaminants, such as recalcitrant organics, heavy metals, etc. generated from the various sources. Apart from that, extensive sewer networks are required for proper collection and transportation of the wastewater in centralized systems. Decentralized systems required smaller sewerage network, although those are sensitive to fluctuations in wastewater quality and quantity, which is a major problem in developing countries.

References

CWWTPs can treat large volume of water and cost-effective establishment. Operation and maintenance in CWWTPs are extensive tasks and also require regular monitoring. They are not suitable for treating the recalcitrant fraction of wastewater and often the PhACs, PCPs, and heavy metals persist in the effluent of the CWWTPs. The upgradation option for desired reuse requirements is a challenging task. On the other hand, the upgradation of DWWTPs is comparatively easier due to its lower capacity vis- a-vis better control. However, DWWTPs are not cost-effective infrastructure and require public participation. Furthermore, the various social challenges in developing countries hinder the functioning of these systems. In order to treat specific pollutants generated from different sources, MWWTPs are a suitable option because they are equipped with module based advanced technologies. These systems are usually automated and do not require active public participation. Furthermore, they are equipped to handle the fluctuation in wastewater quality and quantity. Over the past few decades, various modular biological treatment units have been developed. CW-based units, MBR-based units, MFC-based units, and other modular units, such as anaerobic reactor, integrated suspended reactor, integrated hybrid reactor, etc., have shown considerable performance in terms of removing various pollutants from wastewater. Most of the CW-based units and MBR-based units could provide greater than 80% removal for BOD, COD, and TSS. Specific arrangements of aerobic and anaerobic module could provide more than 90% removal for BOD, COD, and TN. Modular treatment plants can be opted as a promising alternative by incorporating low-cost treatment modules and situation-specific advanced treatment units to ensure technical and financial sustainability. This article provides a comprehensive outlook on the technicalities and feasibility of modular wastewater treatment in developing countries and may guide the policy makers and

95

researchers to improvise the paradigm shift from conventional systems to modular treatment plants.

References
Abalde, A.R., Prenafeta, M.G.F.X., Flotats, B.X., 2019. Characterization of microbial community dynamics during the anaerobic co-digestion of thermally pre-treated slaughterhouse wastes with glycerin addition. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering 42, 1175e1184. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00449-019-02115-8. Agarry, S.E., Oghenejoboh, K.M., Latinwo, G.K., Chiedu, N., 2018. Biotreatment of petroleum refinery wastewater in vertical surface-flow constructed wetland vegetated with Eichhornia crassipes: lab-scale experimental and kinetic modelling. Environmental Technology 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2018.1549106. Agunbiade, F.O., Moodley, B., 2016. Occurrence and distribution pattern of acidic pharmaceuticals in surface water, wastewater, and sediment of the Msunduzi River, Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35, 36e46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ etc.3144. Al Aukidy, M., Al Chalabi, S., Verlicchi, P., 2018. Hospital wastewater treatments adopted in Asia, Africa, and Australia. In: Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer Verlag, pp. 171e188. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 698_2017_5. Alarc
on, J.G., Martínez, A.R., Orozco, I.H., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment to Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant. Undefined. Amador, P.P., Fernandes, R.M., Prud^encio, M.C., Barreto, M.P., Duarte, I.M., 2015. Antibiotic resistance in wastewater: occurrence and fate of Enterobacteriaceae producers of class A and class C b-lactamases. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering 50, 26e39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2015.964602. Arias, C., Brix, H., Bayona, J.M., 2009. Preliminary screening of small-scale domestic wastewater treatment systems for removal of pharmaceutical and personal care products. Water Research 43, 55e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2008.10.005. Arslan, M., Xu, B., Gamal El-Din, M., 2020. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 via fecal-oral and aerosolseborne routes: environmental dynamics and implications for wastewater management in underprivileged societies. The Science of the Total Environment 743. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2020.140709. Artiga, P., Ficara, E., Malpei, F., Garrido, J.M., M
endez, R., 2005. Treatment of two industrial wastewaters in a

96

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

submerged membrane bioreactor. Desalination 179, 161e169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.064. Asses, N., Ayed, L., Bouallagui, H., Ben Rejeb, I., Gargouri, M., Hamdi, M., 2009. Use of Geotrichum candidum for olive mill wastewater treatment in submerged and static culture. Bioresource Technology 100, 2182e2188. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biortech.2008.10.048. Auvinen, H., Havran, I., Hubau, L., Vanseveren, L., Gebhardt, W., Linnemann, V., Van Oirschot, D., Du Laing, G., Rousseau, D.P.L., 2017. Removal of pharmaceuticals by a pilot aerated sub-surface flow constructed wetland treating municipal and hospital wastewater. Ecological Engineering 100, 157e164. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2016.12.031. Babu, B.R., Bhanu, S.U., Meera, K.S., 2009. Waste minimization in electroplating industries: a review. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 0501. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10590500903124158. Badani, Z., Ait-Amar, H., Si-Salah, A., Brik, M., Fuchs, W., 2005. Treatment of textile waste water by membrane bioreactor and reuse. Desalination 185, 411e417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.03.088. Badia-Fabregat, M., Oller, I., Malato, S., 2018. Overview on pilot-scale treatments and new and innovative technologies for hospital effluent. In: Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. Springer Verlag, pp. 209e230. https:// doi.org/10.1007/698_2017_23. Banerjee, A., Ghoshal, A.K., 2017. Biodegradation of an actual petroleum wastewater in a packed bed reactor by an immobilized biomass of Bacillus cereus. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 5, 1696e1702. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2017.03.008. Banerjee, S., Dubey, S., Gautam, R.K., Chattopadhyaya, M.C., Sharma, Y.C., 2019. Adsorption characteristics of alumina nanoparticles for the removal of hazardous dye, Orange G from aqueous solutions. Arabian Journal of Chemistry 12, 5339e5354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2016.12.016. Banu, J.R., Anandan, S., Kaliappan, S., Yeom, I., 2008. Treatment of dairy wastewater using anaerobic and solar photocatalytic methods. Solar Energy 82, 812e819. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.02.015. Barwal, A., Chaudhary, R., 2014. To study the performance of biocarriers in moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) technology and kinetics of biofilm for retrofitting the existing aerobic treatment systems: a review. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology 13, 285e299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-9333-7. Bassan, M., Kon
e, D., Mb
egu
er
e, M., Holliger, C., Strande, L., 2015. Success and failure assessment methodology for wastewater and faecal sludge treatment projects in lowincome countries. Journal of Environmental Planning

and Management 58, 1690e1710. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09640568.2014.943343. Bayat, M., Mehrnia, M.R., Hosseinzadeh, M., SheikhSofla, R., 2015. Petrochemical wastewater treatment and reuse by MBR: a pilot study for ethylene oxide/ethylene glycol and olefin units. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 25, 265e271. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jiec.2014.11.003. Behera, S.K., Kim, H.W., Oh, J.E., Park, H.S., 2011. Occurrence and removal of antibiotics, hormones and several other pharmaceuticals in wastewater treatment plants of the largest industrial city of Korea. The Science of the Total Environment 409, 4351e4360. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.07.015. Behmann, H., 1991. Modular Shipboard Membrane Bioreactor System for Combined Wastewater Streams. US5254253A. Beier, S., Köster, S., Veltmann, K., Schröder, H.F., Pinnekamp, J., 2010. Treatment of hospital wastewater effluent by nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Water Science and Technology 61, 1691e1698. https://doi.org/ 10.2166/wst.2010.119. Bisschops, I., Spanjers, H., 2008. Literature review on textile wastewater characterisation. Environmental Technology 24, 1399e1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09593330309385684. Boavida, S., Pinto, M., Salvador, T., 2016. Centralized vs. decentralized wastewater systems - potential of water reuse within a transboundary context. New Water Policy and Practice 2, 54e75. https://doi.org/10.18278/ nwpp.2.2.6. Bosso, C.J., Guber, D.L., 2005. Maintaining Presence: Environmental Advocacy and the Permanent Campaign. Bouki, C., Venieri, D., Diamadopoulos, E., 2013. Detection and fate of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wastewater treatment plants: a review. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecoenv.2013.01.016. Br
echet, C., Guyeux, C., Talon, D., Hocquet, D., Plantin, J., Sauget, M., Thouverez, M., Cholley, P., Bertrand, X., 2014. Wastewater treatment plants release large amounts of extended-spectrum b-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli into the environment. Clinical Infectious Diseases 58, 1658e1665. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciu190. Bri~ao, G.V., Jahn, S.L., Foletto, E.L., Dotto, G.L., 2018. Highly efficient and reusable mesoporous zeolite synthetized from a biopolymer for cationic dyes adsorption. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 556, 43e50. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.colsurfa.2018.08.019. Brik, M., Schoeberl, P., Chamam, B., Braun, R., Fuchs, W., 2006. Advanced treatment of textile wastewater towards

References

reuse using a membrane bioreactor. Process Biochemistry 41, 1751e1757. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.procbio.2006.03.019. Brix, H., 1995. Treatment wetlands: an overview. In: Toczylowska, I., Mierzejewski, M. (Eds.), Proceedings Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Technical University of Gdansk, Poland, pp. 167e176. Budd, R., O’Geen, A., Goh, K.S., Bondarenko, S., Gan, J., 2009. Efficacy of constructed wetlands in pesticide removal from tailwaters in the central valley, California. Environmental Science and Technology 43, 2925e2930. https:// doi.org/10.1021/es802958q. Cammarota, M.C., Xavier, A.M.F., 2002. Slaughterhouse wastewater treatment: evaluation of a new three-phase separation system in a UASB reactor Cl. Bioresource Technology 81, 61e69. Campanha, M.B., Awan, A.T., Mozeto, A.A., Fadini, P.S., 2015. A 3-year study on occurrence of emerging contaminants in an urban stream of S~ao Paulo State of Southeast Brazil. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 7936e7947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3929-x. Capodaglio, A.G., Callegari, A., Cecconet, D., Molognoni, D., 2017. Sustainability of decentralized wastewater treatment technologies. Water Practice and Technology 12, 463e477. https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2017.055. Carraro, E., Bonetta, S., Bertino, C., Lorenzi, E., Bonetta, S., Gilli, G., 2016. Hospital effluents management: chemical, physical, microbiological risks and legislation in different countries. Journal of Environmental Management 166, 185e199. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2015.11.021. Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Hargreaves, M., Frost, R., Dawes, L., 2006. Integrated risk framework for onsite wastewater treatment systems. Environomental Management 38, 286e303. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00267-005-0280-5. Casas, M.E., Chhetri, R.K., Ooi, G., Hansen, K.M.S., Litty, K., Christensson, M., Kragelund, C., Andersen, H.R., Bester, K., 2015. Biodegradation of pharmaceuticals in hospital wastewater by staged moving bed biofilm reactors (MBBR). Water Research 83, 293e302. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.06.042. Casas Led
on, Y., Rivas, A., L
opez, D., Vidal, G., 2017. Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment and extended exergy accounting of a horizontal-flow constructed wetland for municipal wastewater treatment: a case study in Chile. Ecological Indicators 74, 130e139. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.014. Chang, I.S., Clech, P. Le, Jefferson, B., Judd, S., 2002. Membrane fouling in membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128,

97

1018e1029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339372(2002)128:11(1018). CPCB, 1993. General Standards for Discharge of Environmental Pollutants Part-A: Effluents, the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. CPCB, Govt of India. CPHEEO, 2013. Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems: Part A Enigneering. Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. Crini, G., Lichtfouse, E., 2019. Advantages and disadvantages of techniques used for wastewater treatment. Environmental Chemistry Letters 17, 145e155. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10311-018-0785-9. Crist
ov~ao, R., Botelho, C., Martins, R., Boaventura, R., 2012. Pollution prevention and wastewater treatment in fish canning industries of Northern Portugal. International Proceedings of Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering 32, 12e16. https://doi.org/10.7763/ IPCBEE. Cuenca, M.A., Alvarez, J.M., 2008. Active Biological Contactor (ABC); a Modular Wastewater Treatment System. US7402248B2. Dahlgren, E., Göçmen, C., Lackner, K., Van Ryzin, G., 2013. Small modular infrastructure. The Engineering Economist. 58, 231e264. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0013791X.2013.825038. Daigger, G.T., 2007. Wastewater management in the 21st century. Journal of Environmental Engineering 133, 671e680. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)07339372(2007)133:7(671). Daniels, D., Krosnick, J., Tompson, T., 2011. Public Opinion on Environmental Policy in the United States. Debnath, D., Gupta, A.K., 2018. Optimizing the fabrication of nano-plasmonic silver-nitrogen co-doped zinc oxide (AgxZn(1-x)NyO(1-y)) mediated by ammonia template: insight into its enhanced physiochemical and photocatalytic behavior. Journal of Molecular Liquids 249, 334e345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2017.11.050. Debnath, D., Kale, M.M., Singh, K.S., 2013. Characterization and anaerobic treatability study of pre-hydrolysis liquor (PHL) from dissolving pulp mill. Water Quality Research Journal 48, 145e154. https://doi.org/10.2166/ wqrjc.2013.040. Debnath, D., Gupta, A.K., Ghosal, P.S., 2019. Recent advances in the development of tailored functional materials for the treatment of pesticides in aqueous media: a review. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 70, 51e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JIEC.2018.10.014. Derry, C., Maheshwari, B., 2015. Wastewater treatment by a modular, domestic-scale reedbed system for safe horticultural irrigation. The Science of the Total Environment 537, 243e249. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2015.08.010.

98

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

Dhangar, K., Kumar, M., 2020. Science of the total environment tricks and tracks in removal of emerging contaminants from the wastewater through hybrid treatment systems: a review. The Science of the Total Environment 738, 140320. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2020.140320. Dufresne, R., Liard, A., Blum, M.S., 2001. Anaerobic treatment of condensates: trial at a kraft pulp and paper mill. Water Environment Research 73, 103e109. https:// doi.org/10.2175/106143001x138750. Eggimann, S., Truffer, B., Maurer, M., 2016a. The cost of hybrid waste water systems: a systematic framework for specifying minimum cost-connection rates. Water Research 103, 472e484. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2016.07.062. Eggimann, S., Truffer, B., Maurer, M., 2016b. Economies of density for on-site waste water treatment. Water Research 101, 476e489. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2016.06.011. Eggimann, S., Mutzner, L., Wani, O., Schneider, M.Y., Spuhler, D., Moy De Vitry, M., Beutler, P., Maurer, M., 2017. The potential of knowing more: a review of datadriven urban water management. Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.est.6b04267. Eggimann, S., Truffer, B., Feldmann, U., Maurer, M., 2018. Screening European market potentials for small modular wastewater treatment systems e an inroad to sustainability transitions in urban water management? Land Use Policy 78, 711e725. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.landusepol.2018.07.031. El-Abbassi, A., Khayet, M., Hafidi, A., 2011. Micellar enhanced ultrafiltration process for the treatment of olive mill wastewater. Water Research 45, 4522e4530. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.05.044. El-Naas, M.H., Alhaija, M.A., Al-Zuhair, S., 2014. Evaluation of a three-step process for the treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2013.11.024. El-Sayed Mohamed Mahgoub, M., Van Der Steen, N.P., AbuZeid, K., Vairavamoorthy, K., 2010. Towards sustainability in urban water: a life cycle analysis of the urban water system of Alexandria City, Egypt. Journal of Cleaner Production 18, 1100e1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2010.02.009. Emmanuel, E., Perrodin, Y., Keck, G., Blanchard, J.M., Vermande, P., 2005. Ecotoxicological risk assessment of hospital wastewater: a proposed framework for raw effluents discharging into urban sewer network. Journal of Hazardous Materials 117, 1e11. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2004.08.032.

Ezechi, E.H., Kutty, S.R.M., Muda, K., Yaqub, A., 2019. A comparative evaluation of an integrated hybrid bioreactor treating industrial wastewater. Journal of Water Process Engineering 31, 100805. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jwpe.2019.100805. Faisal, M., Harraz, F.A., Jalalah, M., Alsaiari, M., AlSayari, S.A., Al-Assiri, M.S., 2020. Polythiophene doped ZnO nanostructures synthesized by modified sol-gel and oxidative polymerization for efficient photodegradation of methylene blue and gemifloxacin antibiotic. Materials Today Communications 24, 101048. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101048. Fane, A.G., Fane, S.A., 2005. The role of membrane technology in sustainable decentralized wastewater systems. Water Science and Technology 51, 317e325. https:// doi.org/10.2166/wst.2005.0381. Federal Law Gazzete, 2004. The Ordinance on Requirements for the Discharge of Waste Water into Waters (Waste Water Ordinance - Abwasserverordnung (AbwV). Federal Law Gazette, Bonn, Germany. Feng, F., Xu, Z., Li, X., You, W., Zhen, Y., 2010. Advanced treatment of dyeing wastewater towards reuse by the combined Fenton oxidation and membrane bioreactor process. Journal of Environmental Sciences 22, 1657e1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1001-0742(09) 60303-X. Fong, T.T., Phanikumar, M.S., Xagoraraki, I., Rose, J.B., 2010. Quantitative detection of human adenoviruses in wastewater and combined sewer overflows influencing a Michigan river. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 715e723. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01316-09. Ganesh, R., Balaji, G., Ramanujam, R.A., 2006. Biodegradation of tannery wastewater using sequencing batch reactordrespirometric assessment. Bioresource Technology 97, 1815e1821. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biortech.2005.09.003. García-Montoya, M., Sengupta, D., N
apoles-Rivera, F., Ponce-Ortega, J.M., El-Halwagi, M.M., 2016. Environmental and economic analysis for the optimal reuse of water in a residential complex. Journal of Cleaner Production 130, 82e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2015.06.109. Ge, Z., He, Z., 2016. Long-term performance of a 200 liter modularized microbial fuel cell system treating municipal wastewater: treatment, energy, and cost. Environmental Science: Water Research andTechnology 2, 274e281. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6ew00020g. Giri, R.R., Takeuchi, J., Ozaki, H., 2006. Biodegradation of domestic wastewater under the simulated conditions of Thailand. Water and Environment Journal 20, 109e202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-6593.2005.00014.x.

References

Gleick, P.H., Iwra, M., 1996. Basic water requirements for human activities. Meeting Basic Needs 21, 83e92. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02508069608686494. Godoy, A.A., Kummrow, F., Pamplin, P.A.Z., 2015. Occurrence, ecotoxicological effects and risk assessment of antihypertensive pharmaceutical residues in the aquatic environment - a review. Chemosphere 138, 281e291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.024. Gupta, B., Gupta, A.K., Ghosal, P.S., Tiwary, C.S., 2020. Photo-induced degradation of bio-toxic Ciprofloxacin using the porous 3D hybrid architecture of an atomically thin sulfur-doped g-C3N4/ZnO nanosheet. Environmental Research 183, 109154. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envres.2020.109154. Hall, J.W., Tran, M., Hickford, A.J., Nicholls, R.J., 2016. The future of national infrastructure: a system-of-systems approach. In: The Future of National Infrastructure: A System-of-Systems Approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107588745. Hargreaves, A.J., Constantino, C., Dotro, G., Cartmell, E., Campo, P., 2018. Fate and removal of metals in municipal wastewater treatment: a review. Environmental Technology Reviews 7, 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 21622515.2017.1423398. He, W., Wallack, M.J., Kim, K.Y., Zhang, X., Yang, W., Zhu, X., Feng, Y., Logan, B.E., 2016. The effect of flow modes and electrode combinations on the performance of a multiple module microbial fuel cell installed at wastewater treatment plant. Water Research 105, 351e360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.09.008. Hillenbrand, T., 2009. Analyse und Bewertung neuer urbaner Wasserinfrastruktursysteme, Schriftenreieh SWW - Band 134. Hoang, V., Delatolla, R., Abujamel, T., Mottawea, W., Gadbois, A., Laflamme, E., Stintzi, A., 2014. Nitrifying moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) biofilm and biomass response to long term exposure to 1
C. Water Research 49, 215e224. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2013.11.018. Hocquet, D., Muller, A., Bertrand, X., 2016. What happens in hospitals does not stay in hospitals: antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospital wastewater systems. Journal of Hospital Infection. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2016.01.010. Jafarinejad, S., Jiang, S.C., 2019. Current technologies and future directions for treating petroleum refineries and petrochemical plants (PRPP) wastewaters. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 7, 103326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2019.103326. Jain, M., Majumder, A., Ghosal, P., Gupta, A.K., 2020. A review on treatment of petroleum refinery and petrochemical plant wastewater: a special emphasis on constructed wetlands. Journal of Environmental

99

Management 272. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2020.111057. Ji, G.D., Sun, T.H., Ni, J.R., 2007. Surface flow constructed wetland for heavy oil-produced water treatment. Bioresource Technology 98, 436e441. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.01.017. Ji, B., Zhao, Y., Vymazal, J., Qiao, S., Wei, T., Li, J., € 2020. Can subsurface flow constructed wetMander, U., lands be applied in cold climate regions? A review of the current knowledge. Ecological Engineering. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2020.105992. Ji, M., Hu, Z., Hou, C., Liu, H., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Lu, S., Zhang, J., 2020. New insights for enhancing the performance of constructed wetlands at low temperatures. Bioresource Technology 24, 596e601. Jin, L., Ong, S.L., Ng, H.Y., 2010. Comparison of fouling characteristics in different pore-sized submerged ceramic membrane bioreactors. Water Research 44, 5907e5918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.07.014. Judd, S., 2008. The status of membrane bioreactor technology. Trends in Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.tibtech.2007.11.005. Jung, Y.T., Narayanan, N.C., Cheng, Y.L., 2018. Cost comparison of centralized and decentralized wastewater management systems using optimization model. Journal of Environmental Management 213, 90e97. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.01.081. Kadivarian, M., Dadkhah, A.A., Nasr Esfahany, M., 2020. Oily wastewater treatment by a continuous flow microbial fuel cell and packages of cells with serial and parallel flow connections. Bioelectrochemistry 134, 107535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioelechem.2020.107535. Kajitvichyanukul, P., Suntronvipart, N., 2006. Evaluation of biodegradability and oxidation degree of hospital wastewater using photo-Fenton process as the pretreatment method. Journal of Hazardous Materials 138, 384e391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.064. Kamata, M., Matsui, Y., Asami, M., 2020. National trends in pesticides in drinking water and water sources in Japan. The Science of the Total Environment 744, 140930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140930. Kamble, S.J., Chakravarthy, Y., Singh, A., Chubilleau, C., Starkl, M., Bawa, I., 2017. A soil biotechnology system for wastewater treatment: technical, hygiene, environmental LCA and economic aspects. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24, 13315e13334. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8819-6. Karadag, D., Köro, O.E., Ozkaya, B., Cakmakci, M., 2015. A review on anaerobic biofilm reactors for the treatment of dairy industry wastewater. Process Biochemistry 50, 262e271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2014. 11.005.

100

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

Karami, N., Mohammadi, P., Zinatizadeh, A., Falahi, F., Aghamohammadi, N., 2018. High rate treatment of hospital wastewater using activated sludge process induced by high-frequency ultrasound. Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 46, 89e98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018. 04.009. Kasprzyk-Hordern, B., Dinsdale, R.M., Guwy, A.J., 2008. The occurrence of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, endocrine disruptors and illicit drugs in surface water in South Wales, UK. Water Research 42, 3498e3518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.04.026. Katayon, S., Megat Mohd Noor, M.J., Ahmad, J., Abdul Ghani, L.A., Nagaoka, H., Aya, H., 2004. Effects of mixed liquor suspended solid concentrations on membrane bioreactor efficiency for treatment of food industry wastewater. Desalination 167, 153e158. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.124. Kavvada, O., Horvath, A., Stokes-Draut, J.R., Hendrickson, T.P., Eisenstein, W.A., Nelson, K.L., 2016. Assessing location and scale of urban nonpotable water reuse systems for life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmental Science and Technology. 50, 13184e13194. https://doi.org/10.1021/ acs.est.6b02386. Khan, A.H., Khan, N.A., Ahmed, S., Dhingra, A., Singh, C.P., Khan, S.U., Mohammadi, A.A., Changani, F., Yousefi, M., Shamshad, A., Vambol, S., Vambol, V., Khursheed, A., Ali, I., 2020. Application of advanced oxidation processes followed by different treatment technologies for hospital wastewater treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production 122411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122411. Khan, N.A., El Morabet, R., Khan, R.A., Ahmed, S., Dhingra, A., Alsubih, M., Khan, A.R., 2020. Horizontal sub surface flow Constructed Wetlands coupled with tubesettler for hospital wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Management 267, 110627. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110627. King, C., 2007. Membranes and wastewater: modular treatment systems offer solutions. Filtrieren und Separieren 44, 18e20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(07) 70143-X. Kiparsky, M., Sedlak, D.L., Thompson, B.H., Truffer, B., 2013. The innovation deficit in urban water: the need for an integrated perspective on institutions, organizations, and technology. Environmental Engineering Science. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2012.0427. Kiparsky, M., Thompson, B.H., Binz, C., Sedlak, D.L., Tummers, L., Truffer, B., 2016. Barriers to innovation in urban wastewater utilities: attitudes of managers in California. Environmental Management 57, 1204e1216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0685-3. Kivaisi, A.K., 2001. The potential for constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment and reuse in developing countries:

a review. Ecological Engineering. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0925-8574(00)00113-0. Koch, H., Vögele, S., 2009. Dynamic modelling of water demand, water availability and adaptation strategies for power plants to global change. Ecological Economics 68, 2031e2039. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2009.02.015. Koteswari, Y.N., Ramanibai, R., 2003. The effect of tannery effluent on the colonization rate of plankters: a microcosm study. Turkish Journal of Biology 27, 163e170. Kumar, M.D., Tortajada, C., 2020. Wastewater treatment technologies and costs. In: Assessing Wastewater Management in India, pp. 35e42. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-981-15-2396-0_7. Kumar, S.S., Kumar, V., Malyan, S.K., Sharma, J., Mathimani, T., Maskarenj, M.S., Ghosh, P.C., Pugazhendhi, A., 2019. Microbial fuel cells (MFCs) for bioelectrochemical treatment of different wastewater streams. Fuel 254, 115526. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.fuel.2019.05.109. Kumari, A., Maurya, N.S., Tiwari, B., 2020. Hospital wastewater treatment scenario around the globe. In: Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering. Elsevier, pp. 549e570. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012-819722-6.00015-8. Kurt, U., Apaydin, O., Gonullu, M.T., 2007. Reduction of COD in wastewater from an organized tannery industrial region by Electro-Fenton process. Journal of Hazardous Materials 143, 33e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2006.08.065. Le-Clech, P., Chen, V., Fane, T.A.G., 2006. Fouling in membrane bioreactors used in wastewater treatment. Journal of Membrane Science 284, 17e53. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.memsci.2006.08.019. Leong, J.Y.C., Oh, K.S., Poh, P.E., Chong, M.N., 2017. Prospects of hybrid rainwater-greywater decentralised system for water recycling and reuse: a review. Journal of Cleaner Production 142, 3014e3027. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2016.10.167. Li, J., Li, F., 2017. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the Yellow River estuary: levels, sources and toxic potency assessment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 116, 479e487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.11.043. Li, H., Hao, H., Yang, X., Xiang, L., Zhao, F., Li, H., Hao, H., Yang, X., Xiang, L., Zhao, F., 2012. Purification of refinery wastewater by different perennial grasses growing in a floating bed. Journal of Plant Nutrition 35, 93e110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.631670. Li, W.W., Sheng, G.P., Zeng, R.J., Liu, X.W., Yu, H.Q., 2012. China’s wastewater discharge standards in urbanization: evolution, challenges and implications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 19, 1422e1431. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11356-011-0572-7.

References

Li, Y., Luo, X., Huang, X., Wang, D., Zhang, W., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of a municipal wastewater treatment plant: a case study in Suzhou, China. Journal of Cleaner Production 57, 221e227. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2013.05.035. Liang, P., Duan, R., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Qiu, Y., Huang, X., 2018. One-year operation of 1000-L modularized microbial fuel cell for municipal wastewater treatment. Water Research 141, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2018.04.066. Lienhoop, N., Al-Karablieh, E.K., Salman, A.Z., Cardona, J.A., 2014. Environmental cost-benefit analysis of decentralised wastewater treatment and re-use: a case study of rural Jordan. Water Policy 16, 323e339. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2013.026. Liu, Q., Zhou, Y., Chen, L., Zheng, X., 2010. Application of MBR for hospital wastewater treatment in China. Desalination 250, 605e608. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.desal.2009.09.033. Liu, J., Sun, F., Zhang, P., Zhou, Y., 2021. Integrated powdered activated carbon and quorum quenching strategy for biofouling control in industrial wastewater membrane bioreactor. Journal of Cleaner Production 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123551. Lofrano, G., Brown, J., 2010. Wastewater management through the ages: a history of mankind. The Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2010.07.062. Loganath, R., Senophiyah-mary, J., 2020. Critical review on the necessity of bioelectricity generation from slaughterhouse industry waste and wastewater using different anaerobic digestion reactors. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134, 110360. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2020.110360. Lucas, D., Badia-Fabregat, M., Vicent, T., Caminal, G., Rodríguez-Mozaz, S., Balc
azar, J.L., Barcel
o, D., 2016. Fungal treatment for the removal of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in veterinary hospital wastewater. Chemosphere 152, 301e308. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chemosphere.2016.02.113. Luja-Mondrag
on, M., G
omez-Oliv
an, L.M., SanJuanReyes, N., Islas-Flores, H., Orozco-Hern
andez, J.M., Heredia-García, G., Galar-Martínez, M., Dubl
anGarcía, O., 2019. Alterations to embryonic development and teratogenic effects induced by a hospital effluent on Cyprinus carpio oocytes. The Science of the Total Environment 660, 751e764. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2019.01.072. Lutterbeck, C.A., Kist, L.T., Lopez, D.R., Zerwes, F.V., Machado, E.L., 2017. Life cycle assessment of integrated wastewater treatment systems with constructed wetlands in rural areas. Journal of Cleaner Production 148, 527e536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.024.

101

Majumder, A., Gupta, A.K., 2020. Enhanced photocatalytic degradation of 17b-estradiol by polythiophene modified Al-doped ZnO: optimization of synthesis parameters using multivariate optimization techniques. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering 8, 104463. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2020.104463. Majumder, A., Gupta, B., Gupta, A.K., 2019a. Pharmaceutically active compounds in aqueous environment: a status, toxicity and insights of remediation. Environmental Research 176, 108542. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.ENVRES.2019.108542. Majumder, A., Ramrakhiani, L., Mukherjee, D., Mishra, U., Halder, A., Mandal, A.K., Ghosh, S., 2019b. Green synthesis of iron oxide nanoparticles for arsenic remediation in water and sludge utilization. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 1e19. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10098-019-01669-1. Mandal, T., Dasgupta, D., Mandal, S., Datta, S., 2010. Treatment of leather industry wastewater by aerobic biological and Fenton oxidation process. Journal of Hazardous Materials 180, 204e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2010.04.014. Mangone, G., 2016. Constructing hybrid infrastructure: exploring the potential ecological, social, and economic benefits of integrating municipal infrastructure into constructed environments. Cities 55, 165e179. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.04.004. Massoud, M.A., Tarhini, A., Nasr, J.A., 2009. Decentralized approaches to wastewater treatment and management: applicability in developing countries. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 652e659. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.07.001. Maurer, M., 2009. Specific net present value: an improved method for assessing modularisation costs in water services with growing demand. Water Research 43, 2121e2130. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2009.02.008. Meyer, T., Edwards, E.A., 2014. Anaerobic digestion of pulp and paper mill wastewater and sludge. Water Research 65, 321e349. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2014.07.022. Miranda, L.A.S., Henriques, J.A.P., Monteggia, L.O., 2005. A full-scale UASB reactor for treatment of pig and cattle slaughterhouse wastewater with a high oil and grease content. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering 22, 601e610. Mishra, S., Chowdhary, P., Bharagava, R.N., 2018. Conventional Methods for the Removal of Industrial Pollutants, Their Merits and Demerits, Emerging and Eco-Friendly Approaches for Waste Management. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-10-8669-4_1. Mizyed, N.R., 2013. Challenges to treated wastewater reuse in arid and semi-arid areas. Environmental Science and

102

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

Policy 25, 186e195. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2012.10.016. Monsrreal, J.R.P., 2018. Modular Wastewater Treatment Plant. US9890067B2. Murcia, J.J., Hern
andez-laverde, M., Rojas, H., Mu~ noz, E., Navío, J.A., Hidalgo, M.C., 2018. Study of the effectiveness of the fl occulation-photocatalysis in the treatment of wastewater coming from dairy industries. Journal Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 358, 256e264. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jphotochem.2018.03.034. Mustapha, H.I., van Bruggen, J.J.A., 2018. Optimization of petroleum refinery wastewater treatment by vertical flow constructed wetlands under tropical conditions: plant species selection and polishing by a horizontal flow constructed wetland. Water Air and Soil Pollution 229, 137. Mutamim, N.S.A., Noor, Z.Z., Hassan, M.A.A., Olsson, G., 2012. Application of membrane bioreactor technology in treating high strength industrial wastewater: a performance review. Desalination. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.desal.2012.07.033. Nielsen, U., Hastrup, C., Klausen, M.M., Pedersen, B.M., Kristensen, G.H., Jansen, J.L.C., Bak, S.N., Tuerk, J., 2013. Removal of APIs and bacteria from hospital wastewater by MBR plus O3, O3 þ H2O2, PAC or ClO2. Water Science and Technology 67, 854e862. https://doi.org/ 10.2166/wst.2012.645. Oliveira, T.S., Murphy, M., Mendola, N., Wong, V., Carlson, D., Waring, L., 2015. Characterization of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in hospital effluent and waste water influent/effluent by directinjection LC-MS-MS. The Science of the Total Environment 518e519, 459e478. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.SCITOTENV.2015.02.104. Olukanni, O.D., Osuntoki, A.A., Kalyani, D.C., Gbenle, G.O., Govindwar, S.P., 2010. Decolorization and biodegradation of reactive blue 13 by Proteus mirabilis LAG. Journal of Hazardous Materials 184, 290e298. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.08.035. Ontiveros, G.A., Campanella, E.A., 2013. Environmental performance of biological nutrient removal processes from a life cycle perspective. Bioresource Technology 150, 506e512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.059. Ooi, G.T.H., Tang, K., Chhetri, R.K., Kaarsholm, K.M.S., Sundmark, K., Kragelund, C., Litty, K., Christensen, A., Lindholst, S., Sund, C., Christensson, M., Bester, K., Andersen, H.R., 2018. Biological removal of pharmaceuticals from hospital wastewater in a pilot-scale staged moving bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) utilising nitrifying and denitrifying processes. Bioresource Technology 267, 677e687. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biortech.2018.07.077.

Ouellet-Plamondon, C., Chazarenc, F., Comeau, Y., Brisson, J., 2006. Artificial aeration to increase pollutant removal efficiency of constructed wetlands in cold climate. Ecological Engineering 27, 258e264. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2006.03.006. Padilla-Rivera, A., G€ uereca, L.P., 2019. A proposal metric for sustainability evaluations of wastewater treatment systems (SEWATS). Ecological Indicators 103, 22e33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.03.049. Padilla-Rivera, A., Morgan-Sagastume, J.M., Noyola, A., G€ uereca, L.P., 2016. Addressing social aspects associated with wastewater treatment facilities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57, 101e113. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.11.007. Pang, H., Wu, P., Li, L., Yu, Z., Zhang, Z., 2017. Effective biodegradation of organic matter and biogas reuse in a novel integrated modular anaerobic system for rural wastewater treatment: a pilot case study. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 119, 131e139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2017.04.006. Paraskeva, C.A., Papadakis, V.G., Tsarouchi, E., Kanellopoulou, D.G., Koutsoukos, P.G., 2007. Membrane processing for olive mill wastewater fractionation. Desalination 213, 218e229. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.desal.2006.04.087. Patil, Y.B., Paknikar, K.M., 2000. Development of a process for biodetoxification of metal cyanides from waste waters. Process Biochemistry 35, 1139e1151. Periasamy, D., Sundaram, A., 2013. A novel approach for pathogen reduction in wastewater treatment. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering. 11, 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2052-336x-11-12. Perslow, J.A., Krebs, M.E., Matthews, J.A., 2002. Modular Wastewater Treatment System. US6379545B1. Peter-Varbanets, M., Zurbr€ ugg, C., Swartz, C., Pronk, W., 2009. Decentralized systems for potable water and the potential of membrane technology. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2008.10.030. Pokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., 2004. Treatment of pulp and paper mill wastewater - a review. The Science of the Total Environment 333, 37e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2004.05.017. Prasertkulsak, S., Chiemchaisri, C., Chiemchaisri, W., Itonaga, T., Yamamoto, K., 2016. Removals of pharmaceutical compounds from hospital wastewater in membrane bioreactor operated under short hydraulic retention time. Chemosphere 150, 624e631. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.031. Preisner, M., Neverova-Dziopak, E., Kowalewski, Z., 2020. An analytical review of different approaches to wastewater discharge standards with particular emphasis on nutrients. Environmental Management 66, 694e708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-020-01344-y.

References

Priya, T., Tarafdar, A., Gupta, B., Mishra, B.K., 2018. Effect of bioflocculants on the coagulation activity of alum for removal of trihalomethane precursors from low turbid water. Journal of Environmental Sciences 70, 1e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JES.2017.09.019. Quintana, B., Rodil, R., Reemtsma, T., Rodrı, I., 2008. Organophosphorus flame retardants and plasticizers in water and air I. Occurrence and fate. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 27, 727e737. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trac.2008.07.002. Ramrakhiani, L., Halder, A., Majumder, A., Mandal, A.K., Majumdar, S., Ghosh, S., 2017. Industrial waste derived biosorbent for toxic metal remediation: mechanism studies and spent biosorbent management. Chemical Engineering Journal 308, 1048e1064. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.CEJ.2016.09.145. Reilly, J.P., Jelderks, V.A., 2015. Modular Wastewater Treatment System Management. US9079125B2. Richardson, S.D., Kimura, S.Y., 2016. Water analysis: emerging contaminants and current issues. Analytical Chemistry. https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04493. Richardson, S.D., Kimura, S.Y., 2017. Emerging environmental contaminants: challenges facing our next generation and potential engineering solutions. Environmental Technology and Innovation 8, 40e56. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.eti.2017.04.002. Rodriguez-Mozaz, S., Chamorro, S., Marti, E., Huerta, B., Gros, M., S anchez-Melsi
o, A., Borrego, C.M., Barcel
o, D., Balc
azar, J.L., 2015. Occurrence of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in hospital and urban wastewaters and their impact on the receiving river. Water Research 69, 234e242. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2014.11.021. Rosal, R., Rodríguez, A., Perdig
on-Mel
on, J.A., Petre, A., García-Calvo, E., G
omez, M.J., Ag€ uera, A., Fern
andezAlba, A.R., 2010. Occurrence of emerging pollutants in urban wastewater and their removal through biological treatment followed by ozonation. Water Research 44, 578e588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2009.07.004. Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X., 2009. Global water demand and supply projections: part 2. Results and prospects to 2025. Water International 27, 170e182. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/02508060208686990. Roshan, R., Gaur, A., Balomajumder, C., 2009. Cyanide in industrial wastewaters and its removal: a review on biotreatment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 163, 1e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.06.051. Rout, P.R., Dash, R.R., Bhunia, P., 2016. Development of an integrated system for the treatment of rural domestic wastewater: emphasis on nutrient removal. RSC Advances 6, 49236e49249. https://doi.org/10.1039/ c6ra08519a.

103

Sanchez, G.M., Terando, A., Smith, J.W., García, A.M., Wagner, C.R., Meentemeyer, R.K., 2020. Forecasting water demand across a rapidly urbanizing region. The Science of the Total Environment 730, 139050. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139050. Sapkota, M., Arora, M., Malano, H., Moglia, M., Sharma, A., George, B., Pamminger, F., 2016. An integrated framework for assessment of hybrid water supply systems. Water (Switzerland) 8, 1e19. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w8010004. Sato, T., Qadir, M., Yamamoto, S., Endo, T., Zahoor, A., 2013. Global, regional, and country level need for data on wastewater generation, treatment, and use. Agricultural Water Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agwat.2013.08.007. Schleich, J., Hillenbrand, T., 2009. Determinants of residential water demand in Germany. Ecological Economics 68, 1756e1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2008.11.012. Shang, K., Wang, X., Li, J., Wang, H., Lu, N., Jiang, N., Wu, Y., 2017. Synergetic degradation of Acid Orange 7 (AO7) dye by DBD plasma and persulfate. Chemical Engineering Journal 311, 378e384. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cej.2016.11.103. Shen, Y., Linville, J.L., Urgun-Demirtas, M., Mintz, M.M., Snyder, S.W., 2015. An overview of biogas production and utilization at full-scale wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the United States: challenges and opportunities towards energy-neutral WWTPs. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 50, 346e362. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.129. Simon, R.W., Thomasine Rudd, A.N., 1994. Fate and effects of cyanide during wastewater treatment processes. The Science of the Total Environment 2. Singh, N.K., Kazmi, A.A., Starkl, M., 2015. A review on fullscale decentralized wastewater treatment systems: techno-economical approach. Water Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2014.413. Singh, A., Kamble, S.J., Sawant, M., Chakravarthy, Y., Kazmi, A., Aymerich, E., Starkl, M., Ghangrekar, M., Philip, L., 2018. Technical, hygiene, economic, and life cycle assessment of full-scale moving bed biofilm reactors for wastewater treatment in India. Environmental Science & Pollution Research 25, 2552e2569. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11356-017-0605-y. Skardon, J., 2019. System and Apparatus for a Mobile, Modular Agricultural Bioreactor, and Methods Related Thereto. US20190010069A1. Starkl, M., Anthony, J., Aymerich, E., Brunner, N., Chubilleau, C., Das, S., Ghangrekar, M.M., Kazmi, A.A., Philip, L., Singh, A., 2018. Interpreting best available technologies more flexibly: a policy perspective for municipal wastewater management in India and other developing

104

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 71, 132e141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.03.002. Stoklosa, R.J., del Pilar Orjuela, A., da Costa Sousa, L., Uppugundla, N., Williams, D.L., Dale, B.E., Hodge, D.B., Balan, V., 2017. Techno-economic comparison of centralized versus decentralized biorefineries for two alkaline pretreatment processes. Bioresource Technology 226, 9e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.biortech.2016.11.092. Sudarsan, J.S., Annadurai, R., Subramani, S., George, R.B., 2016. Petrochemical wastewater treatment using constructed wetland technique. Pollution Research 35, 727e732. Sunderland, E.M., Hu, X.C., Dassuncao, C., Tokranov, A.K., Wagner, C.C., Allen, J.G., 2019. A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-0180094-1. Swedish, 2008. Wastewater Treatment in Sweden. Swedish EPA. Tchobanogious, G., Ruppe, L., Leverenz, H., Darby, J., 2004. Decentralized wastewater management: challenges and opportunities for the twenty-first century. In: Water Science and Technology: Water Supply. IWA Publishing, pp. 95e102. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2004.0011. Tian, X., Song, Y., Shen, Z., Zhou, Y., Wang, K., Jin, X., Han, Z., Liu, T., 2019. A comprehensive review on toxic petrochemical wastewater pretreatment and advanced treatment. Journal of Cleaner Production 245, 118692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118692. Toczyłowska-Mami
nska, R., 2017. Limits and perspectives of pulp and paper industry wastewater treatment e a review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.021. Tonhato Junior, A., Morejon, C.F.M., Hasan, S.D.M., 2019. Study of the operation of a continuous modular bioreactor used for treatment of wastewater from a recycling industry of by-products from slaughterhouses. Water Air and Soil Pollution 230, 1e22. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11270-019-4133-x. Tran, N.H., Gin, K.Y.H., 2017. Occurrence and removal of pharmaceuticals, hormones, personal care products, and endocrine disrupters in a full-scale water reclamation plant. The Science of the Total Environment 599e600, 1503e1516. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2017.05.097. Tran, N.H., Reinhard, M., Yew-Hoong Gin, K., 2017. Occurrence and fate of emerging contaminants in municipal wastewater treatment plants from different geographical regions-a review. Water Research 133, 182e207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.029.

Traversi, D., Bonetta, S., Degan, R., Villa, S., Porfido, A., Bellero, M., Carraro, E., Gilli, G., 2013. Environmental advances due to the integration of food industries and anaerobic digestion for biogas production : perspectives of the Italian milk and dairy product sector. Bioenergy Research 6, 851e863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155013-9341-4. Uddin, M.K., Baig, U., 2019. Synthesis of Co3O4 nanoparticles and their performance towards methyl orange dye removal: characterisation, adsorption and response surface methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production 211, 1141e1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.11.232. Van Afferden, M., Cardona, J.A., Rahman, K.Z., Daoud, R., Headley, T., Kilani, Z., Subah, A., Mueller, R.A., 2010. A step towards decentralized wastewater management in the Lower Jordan Rift Valley. Water Science and Technology 61, 3117e3128. https://doi.org/10.2166/ wst.2010.234. Van Afferden, M., Cardona, J.A., M€ uller, R.A., Lee, M.Y., Subah, A., 2015. A new approach to implementing decentralized wastewater treatment concepts. Water Science and Technology 72, 1923e1930. https://doi.org/ 10.2166/wst.2015.393. Van De Moortel, A.M.K., Meers, E., De Pauw, N., Tack, F.M.G., 2010. Effects of vegetation, season and temperature on the removal of pollutants in experimental floating treatment wetlands. Water Air and Soil Pollution 212, 281e297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-010-0342z. Vareda, J.P., Valente, A.J.M., Dur~aes, L., 2019. Assessment of heavy metal pollution from anthropogenic activities and remediation strategies: a review. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2019.05.126. Varma, M., Gupta, A.K., Ghosal, P.S., Majumder, A., 2020. A review on performance of constructed wetlands in tropical and cold climate: insights of mechanism, role of influencing factors, and system modification in low temperature. The Science of the Total Environment 142540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142540. V
azquez-Rowe, I., Kahhat, R., Lorenzo-Toja, Y., 2017. Natural disasters and climate change call for the urgent decentralization of urban water systems. The Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2017.06.222. Velasco-Gardu~ no, O., Mendoza-Res
endiz, A., FajardoOrtiz, C., Beristain-Cardoso, R., 2019. Simultaneous ammonia and organic matter removal from industrial wastewater in a continuous novel hybrid carrousel bioreactor. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 16, 3429e3436. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13762-018-2017-z.

References

Verlicchi, P., 2018. Hospital Wastewaters: The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-319-62178-4.
D., 2010. HosVerlicchi, P., Galletti, A., Petrovic, M., BarcelO, pital effluents as a source of emerging pollutants: an overview of micropollutants and sustainable treatment options. Journal of Hydrology. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.06.005. Verlicchi, P., Al Aukidy, M., Zambello, E., 2015. What have we learned from worldwide experiences on the management and treatment of hospital effluent? - An overview and a discussion on perspectives. The Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2015.02.020. Viero, A.F., de Melo, T.M., Torres, A.P.R., Ferreira, N.R., Sant’Anna, G.L., Borges, C.P., Santiago, V.M.J., 2008. The effects of long-term feeding of high organic loading in a submerged membrane bioreactor treating oil refinery wastewater. Journal of Membrane Science 319, 223e230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.03.038. Villarín, M.C., Merel, S., 2020. Paradigm shifts and current challenges in wastewater management. Journal of Hazardous Materials 390, 122139. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jhazmat.2020.122139. Vind, J., 2017. Wastewater Innovation in Denmark - Water Technology Alliance a Report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Coppenhagen. Vlyssides, A.G., Loizides, M., Karlis, P.K., 2004. Integrated strategic approach for reusing olive oil extraction byproducts. Journal of Cleaner Production 12, 603e611. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00078-7. Vo, T.K.Q., Bui, X.T., Chen, S.S., Nguyen, P.D., Cao, N.D.T., Vo, T.D.H., Nguyen, T.T., Nguyen, T.B., 2019. Hospital wastewater treatment by sponge membrane bioreactor coupled with ozonation process. Chemosphere 230, 377e383. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chemosphere.2019.05.009. Vymazal, J., 2011. Plants used in constructed wetlands with horizontal subsurface flow: a review. Hydrobiologia 674, 133e156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-011-0738-9. Vymazal, J., 2013. Emergent plants used in free water surface constructed wetlands: a review. Ecological Engineering 61, 582e592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.06.023. Vymazal, J., 2014. Constructed wetlands for treatment of industrial wastewaters: a review. Ecological Engineering 73, 724e751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.09.034. Wang, X.W., Li, J.S., Jin, M., Zhen, B., Kong, Q.X., Song, N., Xiao, W.J., Yin, J., Wei, W., Wang, G.J., Si, B.Y., Guo, B.Z., Liu, C., Ou, G.R., Wang, M.N., Fang, T.Y., Chao, F.H., Li, J.W., 2005. Study on the resistance of severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus. Journal of Virological Methods 126, 171e177. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2005.02.005.

105

Wang, X., Liu, J., Ren, N.Q., Duan, Z., 2012. Environmental profile of typical anaerobic/anoxic/oxic wastewater treatment systems meeting increasingly stringent treatment standards from a life cycle perspective. In: Bioresource Technology. Elsevier Ltd, pp. 31e40. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.09.009. Wang, M., Zhang, D.Q., Dong, J.W., Tan, S.K., 2017. Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate d a review. Journal of Environmental Sciences 57, 293e311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.12.019. Wang, Q., Wang, Y., Chen, L., 2019. A green composite hydrogel based on cellulose and clay as efficient absorbent of colored organic effluent. Carbohydrate Polymers 210, 314e321. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.carbpol.2019.01.080. Wang, A.-J., Wang, H.-C., Cheng, H.-Y., Liang, B., Liu, W.-Z., Han, J.-L., Zhang, B., Wang, S.-S., 2020. Electrochemistrystimulated environmental bioremediation: development of applicable modular electrode and system scale-up. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology 3, 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2020.100050. Wang, Y., Wang, X.C., Jin, X., Wang, R., Shi, X., Jin, P., Yu, Y., 2020. A modular variable-process treatment system for operation liquid waste: a case study. Journal of Water Process Engineering 35, 101221. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jwpe.2020.101221. Wen, X., Ding, H., Huang, X., Liu, R., 2004. Treatment of hospital wastewater using a submerged membrane bioreactor. Process Biochemistry 39, 1427e1431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-9592(03)00277-2. West, C., Kenway, S., Hassall, M., Yuan, Z., 2016. Why do residential recycled water schemes fail? A comprehensive review of risk factors and impact on objectives. Water Research 102, 271e281. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.watres.2016.06.044. Wilderer, P.A., Schreff, D., 2000. Decentralized and centralized wastewater management: a challenge for technology developers. Water Science and Technology 41, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2000.0001. Willis, J., 2012. Barriers to Biogas Use for Renewable Energy. Water Environment Research Foundation. https:// doi.org/10.2166/9781780401010. Wu, S., Wallace, S., Brix, H., Kuschk, P., Kirui, W.K., Masi, F., Dong, R., 2015. Treatment of industrial effluents in constructed wetlands: challenges, operational strategies and overall performance. Environmental Pollution 201, 107e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.envpol.2015.03.006. Wuyep, P.A., Chuma, A.G., Awodi, S., Nok, A.J., 2007. Biosorption of Cr, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu and Pb metals from petroleum refinery effluent by calcium alginate immobilized mycelia of Polyporus squamosus. Scientific Research and Essays 2, 217e221.

106

6. Introduction to modular wastewater treatment system and its significance

Xiao, F., 2017. Emerging poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances in the aquatic environment: a review of current literature. Water Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres. 2017.07.024. Yan, Y., Xu, J., 2014. Improving winter performance of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in northern China: a review. Wetlands 34, 243e253. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13157-013-0444-7. Yan, L., Ma, H., Wang, B., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., 2011. Electrochemical treatment of petroleum refinery wastewater with three-dimensional multi-phase electrode. Desalination 276, 397e402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal. 2011.03.083. Yan, Z., Zhu, B., Yu, J., Xu, Z., 2016. Effect of calcination on adsorption performance of Mg-Al layered double hydroxide prepared by a water-in-oil microemulsion method. RSC Advances 6, 50128e50137. https://doi.org/ 10.1039/c6ra05253c. Yang, W., Cicek, N., Ilg, J., 2006. State-of-the-art of membrane bioreactors: worldwide research and commercial applications in North America. Journal of Membrane Science 270, 201e211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2005.07.010. Yen, N.T., Oanh, N.T.K., Reutergardh, L.B., Wise, D.L., Thu Lan, N.T., 1997. An integrated waste survey and environmental effects of COGIDO, a bleached pulp and paper mill in Vietnam, on the receiving waterbody. Studies in Environmental Science 66, 349e361. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0166-1116(97)80055-6. Yigit, N.O., Uzal, N., Koseoglu, H., Harman, I., Yukseler, H., Yetis, U., Civelekoglu, G., Kitis, M., 2009. Treatment of a denim producing textile industry wastewater using pilot-scale membrane bioreactor. Desalination 240, 143e150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.11.071. Yuan, Z., Fu, S., Xu, X., Wendling, L.A., 2017. Mineral processing residue use as substrate in a modular engineered wetland for wastewater treatment. Environmental

Process 4, 523e547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710017-0247-6. Zaharia, C., 2017. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems: efficiency and its estimated impact against onsite natural water pollution status. A Romanian case study. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 108, 74e88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.02.004. Zareitalabad, P., Siemens, J., Hamer, M., Amelung, W., 2013. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in surface waters, sediments, soils and wastewater - a review on concentrations and distribution coefficients. Chemosphere. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.chemosphere.2013.02.024. Zeng, X., Liu, Z., He, L., Cao, S., Song, H., Yu, Z., Sheng, G., Fu, J., 2015. Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering the occurrence and removal of organophosphate ester flame retardants/plasticizers in a municipal wastewater treatment plant in the Pearl River the occurrence and removal of organophosphate ester. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A 4529. https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2015.1055158. Zhang, D.Q., Jinadasa, K.B.S.N., Gersberg, R.M., Liu, Y., Ng, W.J., Tan, S.K., 2014. Application of constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in developing countries a review of recent developments (2000-2013). Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2014.03.015. Zhu, Y., Xu, S., Jiang, L., Pan, K., Dan, Y., 2008. Synthesis and characterization of polythiophene/titanium dioxide composites. Reactive and Functional Polymers 68, 1492e1498. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.REACTFUNCTPOLYM.2008.07.008. Zsirai, T., Buzatu, P., Aerts, P., Judd, S., 2012. Efficacy of relaxation, backflushing, chemical cleaning and clogging removal for an immersed hollow fibre membrane bioreactor. Water Research 46, 4499e4507. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.05.004.

C H A P T E R

7 Phytoremediation as a modular approach for greywater treatment Fernando Jorge Magalh~aes Filho (Correa)1,2,3,4, Paula Paulo (Loureiro)5,6,7,8,9 1

CNPq Research Productivity Fellow (National Scientific Research Council), Brasília, DF, Brazil; 2PhD in Environmental Sanitation and Water Resources (UFMS), Campo Grande, MS, Brazil; 3Specialist in Project Management (USP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil; 4Postdoctorate (UFMS), Brazil and period at Aarhus University, Denmark and Technological University of Pereira, Aarhus and Colombia, Denmark; 5Dom Bosco Catholic University, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil; 6PhD in Environmental Sciences (WUR), Delft and Wageningen, Netherlands; 7Specialist in Resource-Oriented Sanitation (SIDA), Stockholm, Sweden; 8 Postdoctorate (WUR and TU Delft), Delft and Wageningen, Netherlands; 9Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS), Campo Grande, MS, Brazil

7.1 Phytoremediation and constructed wetlands: a modular approach Phytoremediation can be defined as the cleanup of pollutants primarily mediated by photosynthetic plants, which involves the natural ability of certain plants to bioaccumulate, degrade, or render harmless contaminants into soil, water, or air. Wetlands are shallow water bodies containing higher plants (as Typha latifolia, Phragmites australis, Eichornia crassipes, Heliconia rostrata, Canna indica, and Cyperus papyrus). The major advantage of wetland phytoremediation over traditional techniques is the cost. Traditional remediation methods depend on electricity, pumping, and/or oxygen additions and often require large concrete or steel vessels,

Modular Treatment Approach for Drinking Water and Wastewater https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85421-4.00011-5

while phytoremediation uses free solar energy and does not require a sophisticated containment system (Sukumaran, 2013; Horne, 2000). In summary, wetlands are defined by three common components: water for at least a few weeks per year, permanent or temporarily anoxic soils, and a characteristic vegetation. Constructed wetlands (CWs) have been used for the treatment and/or disposal of wastewater such as domestic and industrial sewage, agricultural runoff, urban storm runoff, acid-mine drainage, and sludge dewatering (Brix, 2017; Vymazal, 2008). CWs are designed to maximize the removal of a specific pollutant or group of pollutants (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009). Masi et al. (2018) identified the main applications as follows: Greywater treatment; rainwater

107

© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

108

7. Phytoremediation as a modular approach for greywater treatment

treatment and storage (including first flush); combined sewer overflow (CSO) treatment and storage; treatment of persistent organic molecules in low concentrations for water reuse; nutrient recovery (fertigation, biomass production); and ecosystem services (readaptation of ornamental green areasdgreen roofs, green walls, indoor green areas, roundabouts, sidewalks, parks, permaculture productive areas; recreation and wetland ecosystems). More recently, interesting results have been reported related to biochemical processes taking place with pharmaceuticals in plants, indicating the occurrence of mechanisms that cope with pharmaceutical compound toxicity and possible elimination (Carvalho et al., 2014; de Oliveira et al., 2019). Constructed wetland phytoremediation is thought to be the most sustainable wastewater treatment option for developing countries. The suitability of the species for phytoremediation and the usefulness of the technique are naturebased solutions for reuse and improving water quality (Anning et al., 2013). CWs are engineered systems that mimic the processes in natural wetlands. Being a simple and robust technology that can be used in resource-oriented sanitation systems for recovering nutrients and carbon, as well as for growing biomass for energy production. Integrating green infrastructure and ecosystem services into urban developments can facilitate circular economy approaches and has a positive impact on environment, economy, and health (Langergraber and Masi, 2018). Besides the advantages, CWs have flexibility in size, with little economy of scale, and simple maintenance requirements (very similar to widespread irrigation systems), if properly designed and operated. CWs allow location and vicinity of their implantation and make them particularly appropriate for decentralized wastewater treatment applications (Langergraber et al., 2020). The integration of nature-based solutions in the urban tissue is enlarging the potential application of CW in the future schemes of smart

cities, which will have to be designed following new goals (Masi et al., 2018). CWs are ecotechnologies that are naturally designed to modular approach, mainly the vertical flow systems. In Brazil, for instance, the recommendation is to use modules up to 400 m2 (von Sperling and Sezerino, 2018), based on international recommendations (Dotro et al., 2017). Besides the application for conventional domestic sewage, modular approach also applies for the treatment of sludge and raw domestic wastewater, both vertical flow systems, with the French systems being widely applied in France. Of special importance, phytoremediation technologies as CW can be applied in a modular approach to integrate and improve the performance of existing wastewater treatment, or as individual solution (household level), especially toward the emerging micropollutants, that is, organic chemicals and pharmaceuticals (Schröder et al., 2007). Although genuinely designed by modules, when in larger scales, it is customary to adopt geomembrane and geosynthetic clay liner as waterproofing material (DWA, 2017). When applied in a household level, it is possible to use materials such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and fiberglass to prevent the infiltration of the effluent into the soil (von Sperling and Sezerino, 2018), keeping the modular concept, besides also using prefabricated materials, which reduces production costs. In resource recovery solutions, separate collection of the effluents at households is usually required (Ronteltap and Langergraber, 2016). This means that different treatment goals apply, compared to conventional domestic wastewater. An important factor is that there are different configurations of CWs available that can better perform or be more efficient in economic terms than others technologies (Langergraber and Masi, 2018). However, this approach is more cost-effective for new homes with adequate crawl spaces or mobile or modular homes. Retrofitting existing homes,

7.3 Constructed wetlands as nature-based solutions for greywater treatment

especially those with concrete floors, can be expensive.

7.2 Greywater as a main component of domestic wastewater Domestic wastewater can be source separated in different fractions where the most common is greywater, which corresponds to the effluent stemming from bathtubs, showers, washbasins, washing machines and washtubs, kitchen sinks and dishwashers, and blackwater whose source is the toilet bowl, containing feces, urine, and toilet paper (Fig. 7.1). The greywater generally has a lower load of pathogenic microorganisms and nutrients than conventional domestic sewage. Greywater may have subdivisions, separating wash-generated effluents in different fractions, according to their origin. In the nomenclature found in the Brazilian literature, in general, light greywater does not consider the kitchengenerated fraction. However, there are no guidelines regarding greywater nomenclature. For instance, some countries name light (or weak) greywater, the one excluding, the laundry

109

(washing machine and/or tank), besides the kitchen fraction. After treatment, greywater is a potential alternative for reuse not only as a source of water but also for its nutrient contents; although in lower concentration than in conventional sewage, it can be used aiming at the integration of treatment and building landscaping. It enables a lower potable water consumption for gardening and development of green areas, reducing the water and sewage tariff. To allow safe reuse, there is a range of technologies being developed or adapted for treating greywater including natural treatment systems, filtration, physicochemical, and biological processes. The most adequate technology depends on many factors, such as operation scale, final water use, socioeconomic factors related to water cost, and tariff charged, in addition to habits and local practices.

7.3 Constructed wetlands as nature-based solutions for greywater treatment Constructed wetlands are considered a suitable ecotechnology for onsite treatment of greywater (Paulo et al., 2009).

FIGURE 7.1 Representation of source separation of greywater and blackwater in a household. Technological option is represented by the Evapotranspiration and Treatment of Greywater (EvaTAC) system, a nature-based solution using phytoremediation mechanisms for controlling domestic pollution.

110

7. Phytoremediation as a modular approach for greywater treatment

According to the review of Arden and Ma (2018): • CWs have been proposed as an economically and energetically efficient unit process to treat greywater for reuse, although it may need posttreatment to meet water quality standards required for a given purpose; • Life cycle analysis (LCA) studies indicate that nature-based solutions, such as CWs, provide lower CO2 emission than other technological options; • The 3e5 days hydraulic retention time (HRT) range allows an effluent within characteristics recommended concerning physicochemical parameters (BOD