EnvironmentalTechnology,Vol.22.

pp13631371

SelperLtd,2001

EXCESSSLUDGEPRODUCTIONANDCOSTSDUETO PHOSPHORUSREMOVAL
E.PAUL*M.L.LAVALANDM.SPERANDIO

LaboratoryofEnvironmentalProcessEngineering.DepartmentofIndustrialProcessEngineering, NationalInstituteofAppliedSciences.135AV.deRangueil31077ToulouseCedex4,France

(Received25May2001;Accepted28June2001)

ABSTRACT Basedondatacollectedfrom35Frenchwastewatertreatmentplantsandonpublisheddata,excesssludgeproductionand chemical consumption associated with phosphorus removal is estimated for the three following phosphorus removal processes: chemical precipitation, Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal and hybrid process. The influence of wastewater characteristics on excess sludge production are assessed. Chemical costs and costs associated with sludge disposal were calculated and results for the three phosphorus removal processes are compared. The global costs for phosphorusremovalarethenestimated.

Keywords:Urbanwastewatertreatment,chemicalprecipitation,biologicalphosphorusremoval,sludgeproduction,costs

INTRODUCTION

Phosphorus is considered to be one of the limiting nutrientsinmostfreshwaterlakes,reservoirsandriversand so a low P concentration may control algae booms and eutrophication.Phosphorusinputsfrompointsourcessuchas municipalsewageeffluentsaremoreamenabletocontrolthan from nonpoint sources. Therefore, regulations for phosphorusdischargesinsensitiveareashavebeensetbythe EU Urban Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC). In sewage wastewater, phosphorus comes mainly from human wastes anddetergent(about30%oftotalPinsewageinFrance[1]). Duringwastewatertreatment,partofthesolublephosphateis transferred to a solid phase, generally entrapped into the organic sludges. This is achieved during normal biological degradationprocessesbutcanalsobeachievedbyEnhanced BiologicalNutrientRemovalorbyaphysicochemicalprocess afterchemicaladdition.Itisevidentthatphosphorusremoval increases the cost of wastewater treatment. This is due to investment costs, chemical costs and increased amounts of sludgetobedisposedof. Phosphorusremovedfromwastewatercanberecycled together with sludge for land application, hence decreasing the phosphorus input from fertilisers. However, contamination of sludge places this disposal route under increasing financial and social pressure. In addition, the agricultural market now demands a consistent and assured

quality. The cost for landdisposal of sludges is increasing and P removal may result in further additional costs for sludge disposal (reduction of land application rate and frequencies)[2].Therefore,Precoverymaybeattractiveifthe sludgemasstobedisposedofissignificantlyreduced[3]. Thispaperestimatestheexcesssludgeproductionand thespecificcosts( .kg1 Pinfluent)relatedtoPremovalinthe urbanwastewatertreatmentfield.Toreachthisobjective,we firstexplainthehypothesismadeforcalculations.Parameters such as wastewater characteristics, type of chemicals and chemicalprocessesusedforPremoval,thechemicaldosage applied for precipitation, etc. are given based both on bibliographicdataandon datafrom35Frenchwastewater treatmentplants(WWTP)whereatleastan80%Premovalis achieved(fromatotal of77plantswhichrespondedtoour survey,35achievedthislevelof80%).Basedonthedefined valuesfortheseparameters,theexcesssludgeproductiondue to phosphorus removal is then calculated, considering differentstrategiesforPremoval.SpecificcostsassociatedP removalandalsothetotalcostinFranceisfinallyestimated. In addition, the impact of phosphorus coming from detergentsisdiscussed.
METHODS

WastewaterCharacteristics

83

Influent wastewater characteristics have a great importanceonbiologicalPremovalcapacity.Thecontribution of P by population equivalent was first assessed. Values ranged between 1.7 [4,5,6] or 2 [7] to 2.7 g p.e.1.d1 P for wastewaters in England. Nowak [5] observed a decrease in thisvaluewhenindustrialwastewaterismixedwithdomestic wastewater. Our sample survey seems to confirm this tendencywithlowervaluessuchas1.3to1.5encountered. A study made by Geoplus [1] gives values of 1.2 to 1.6 g capita1.d1P(meanvalue1.4gcapita1.d1P)forhumanwastes (urine+faeces),0.3gcapita1.d1Pforfoodwastes,and0.75g capita1.d1Pfordetergents.ThisleadstoatotalPamountof around2.5gcapita1.d1 P.Asimilarvalueisfoundfromour samplesurvey.Inthisstudywehavethereforeconsidereda valueof2.5gp.e.1.d1 PasrepresentativeofPproductionin France. ForCODproductionweconsideredanaveragevalueof

135gp.e.1.d1 CODcharacterisedbyaBOD/CODof0.5.For 90%CODremoval,theCODremovedwillbe120gp.e.1.d1 COD. The mean ratios of COD/P and BOD/P are then around50and25respectively.

TypeofDephosphatationProcess The type of processes used and the nature of the chemical added are also required to assess costs associated withPremoval.Datafromthesurveyarepresentedinthis section. In the sample survey carried out in this study, the proportion of physicochemical, EBPR and hybrid EBPR + physicochemicalprocessesisabout47%/17%/36%(Figure 1).Simultaneousprecipitationrepresentsthemajorityofthe physicochemicalprocessesusedforPremoval(Figure2).

Figure1.PercentageofthedifferenttreatmentprocessesforPremoval.ResultsofthesurveyofFrenchWWTP(total=47).

Figure2. Proportion of the different physicochemical treatment processes for Premoval. Results of the survey of French WWTP(total=39).

84

Figure3. ProportionofthedifferentchemicalagentsusedinchemicaltreatmentprocessesforPremoval.Resultsofthesurvey ofFrenchWWTP(total=36).

Figure4. ProportionofchemicalagentsusedinchemicaltreatmentprocessesforPremoval.ResultsofthesurveyofFrench WWTP(total=36).

Figure5.MeanpriceforthedifferentchemicalsusedinthesurveyofFrenchWWTP.

85

Figure6.Proportionofsludgedisposalroutes.ResultsofthesurveyofFrenchWWTP(total=47). ChemicalUse Ninety three percent of the plants surveyed use Fe based chemicals of which FeCl3 (commercial 40% ferric chloride solution) represents 70% (Figures 3 and 4). This is certainlyduetothesimplicityofuseofthisliquid product. Theseobservationsledustobaseourcalculations,ofexcess sludgeproductionandcostsconsideringonlyferricchloride. As the molar weight of Fe is higher than that of Al, the mineralexcesssludgeproducedwillbehigher.Thepriceof aluminiumbasedproductismuchhigherthanthepriceofFe basedproductresultinginasignificantincreaseinthespecific cost( .kg1P). Price variations (Figure 5) are important and can be attributed to market fluctuations, transport costs and local parameters (such as distance from producer industries or equipmentline).Forourcalculations,wehaveconsidered theironbasedchemicalstohaveameanpriceof100 .t1. ChemicalDosage Chemical dosage is an important parameter for cost estimation.ThephysicochemicalmechanismsofPremovalin wastewater treatment are very complex. In the case of iron salts, iron(III) ions form strong complexes with pyrophosphate and tripolyphosphates, which are probably removed by adsorption onto iron(III) hydroxophosphate surfaces [7]. Competition between hydroxyl and phosphate ions for iron ions at the point of addition, the reaction of bicarbonate ions forming iron hydroxides, and the need to destabilise iron phosphates and other colloids probably account for the stoichiometric excess or variations of iron required for phosphate precipitation. With the objectives imposed by the EU Urban Wastewater Directive (91/271/EEC), i.e. an 80% P removal yield (based on P contentoftherawwastewater)or1mgtotalPintheeffluent, themolarratioFe/Premovedusedinpractisevariesbetweenless than 0.5and 2.Using results obtained at various treatment plants,[8]showedthatthelowertheFe/Pratio,thehigherthe dispersion in the effluent P concentration. Results of the samplesurveyshowedFe/Premovedvaluesrangingfrom0.8and 2forwastewatertreatmentplantswhosephosphorusremoval yieldwashigherthan80%.Ithastobepointedoutthat,inour biomassgrowthconditions,atypicalmolarratioof1moleof Fe/molePremovedcorrespondstoamolarratiobasedon totalphosphorusintherawwastewaterofaround0.6mole Fe/moleP. Pre, post and simultaneous precipitation is encountered at wastewater treatment plants. The chemical dosagerequired ishigherforpreandposttreatmentsthan for simultaneous removal process and generally largely exceedsthestoichiometry.Forsimultaneousprecipitationthe reaction time for Premoval is a function of the Solids Retention Time (SRT). In spite of some good removal performances obtained at sewage works using a molar Fe/Pinfluent of less than 1 (around 0.60.8), we chose for our calculationsforsimultaneousprecipitation,aFe/Pinfluentof0.9 whichcorrespondstoFe/Premovedof1.5. ExcessSludgeProduction In an activated sludge process, sludge production is due to the net growth of the microorganisms, the accumulationofrefractoryorganiccompoundsandminerals. The latter can be significantly increased when Premovalis practised. Biological sludge production has been studied at our laboratory. The observed yield of organic sludge production followed the classical relationship described bellow:

YObs =

Y 1 + k d b

withY=0.44gVSS.g1CODconsumedandKd=0.05j1. So for an SRT of 15 days, Yobs is 0.251 gVSS.g1 COD consumed.AconstantVSS/TSSof0.8isappliedgivingatotal solidproductionof0.31gTSS.g1CODconsumed. ExcessSludgeProductionduetoPhysicoChemicalProcesses For an Fe/P ratio of 1, which is the theoretical stoichiometricrequirement,itisconsideredthatallFeisused forPremovalasFePO4.IroninexcessisremovedasFe(OH)3. ThecorrespondingsludgeproductionquantifyingbothFePO4 andFe(OH)3ispresentedinTable1.Withamolarratioof1 1.5 mole Fe / mole P, Henze [9] estimated the sludge productiontobe57kgSS.kg1P. ExcessSludgeProductionduetoEnhancedBiologicalPRemoval (EBPR) InEBPRprocesses,phosphoruscanberemovedmainly bythreemechanisms[10].OneistheclassicalPassimilation for metabolism and growth as nucleic acids, phospholipids andnucleotides.SecondisPstorageaspolyP(Men+2PnO3n+1, n indicates the chain length of polyP and Merepresents a metalcation).Usually,Mg2+andK+areassociatedwithpolyP synthesis.Finally,precipitationandadsorptioncanalsooccur. JardinetPpel[10]showedthattheadditionalnonvolatile solids production in EBPR is approximately 3 gTS.g 1 P. Henze [9] assumed a polyphosphate composition of (K+)0.3 (Mg2+)0.15(Ca2+)0.2(PO43).ThebioPsludgeproductioncan

Table1.

Excess mineral sludge production due to precipitationofPusingferricchloride.

86

MolarFe/Premoved 1 1.5 2

gsalts.g1Premoved 4.87 6.59 8.32

sludgestolandiswidelyused(about64%).Wehaveassumed ameanpriceforsludgedisposalinFranceof150 .t1DS.This pricemaybesignificantlyhigherforexampleinbigcitiesand inareaswherelandapplicationisunderpressure.

RESULTS

then be calculated as 3.4 kgSS.kg 1 P. When mechanical thickeningsystems(centrifuge,flotation,screeningdrum)are present, Prelease is normally very low. However if these facilities are not present Prelease may be important. Precipitationcanoccuranditisverydifficulttoevaluatethe excessmassofmineralsludgeproduced.Inourcalculations, weconsider thatfor EBPR, 3 gTS is produced in excess by eachgPremoved. Excess Sludge Production for a Hybrid Process (Chemical Precipitation+EBPR) Inhybridprocesses,EBPRisusedandchemicaldosage of ferric chloride is carried out in order to improve the P removal.Insomeplants,chemicaldosingwouldberequired atleastduringwintermonthstocomplywithEUregulations. Lossofperformanceinbiologicalphosphorusremovalisdue toalowconcentrationofeasilybiodegradablematter.Indeed, EBPRperformances are highly dependent on the quality of the biodegradable COD contained in wastewater. BioP bacteriauseonlythereadilybiodegradableCOD(RBCOD),or more accurately volatile fatty acids (VFA) for growth and phosphorous accumulation. COD characterisation of French wastewatersshowedthatthisCODfractionrangedfrom1.5 to16%ofthetotalCODinwastewater[11]. Biologicalphosphorousremoval(FP,EBPR)wascalculated for different RBCOD:COD ratios. With the phosphorous contentofsludgeat0.016gP.g1 TSSfornormalheterotroph bacteria, and 0.3 gP.g1 TSS for BioP bacteria [12] the followingexpressionisobtained: FP,EBPR=0.016(1RBCOD:COD)YobsCOD+0.30 (RBCOD:COD)YobsCOD From the assumption that EBPR produced 3 gTS in excess for each g P removed and chemical precipitation produced 6.59 gTS.g1 P removed (considering that 1/3 of ferrousisconvertedinFe(OH)3),thetotalexcessproductionof sludge linked to biological and physicochemical processes becomes: FX,excess=3.(0.300.016)(RBCOD:COD)YobsCOD+6.59 (0.8*2.5FP,EBPR) CostsforSludgeDisposal Sludgeisdisposedtolandorlandfillorisincinerated. Thedisposalcostwilldependstronglyonthedisposalroute usedbutinoursamplesurveytheaveragepricesgivenbythe treatmentplantoperatorsaremostlyaround150 .t1DS. As shownon Figure 6 representing the proportion of thedifferentdisposalroutesinourcasestudy,applicationof

IncreaseintheSludgeProductionduetoPRemoval Thespecificmineralandorganicsludgeproductionhas been estimated for the chemical precipitation and EBPR processes, respectively. These sludge productions are now compared with the normal activated sludge production for various operating conditions and wastewater characteristics (BOD/PandRBCOD/COD). ExcessSludgeinChemicalPrecipitation AmassbalanceonP,basedon1p.e,(2.5g.p.e. 1d1P) andamolarFe/Pof1.5isperformedaroundthebiological reactor(Figure7).PartofthisinfluentPisremovedbythenet cell growth, the complementary mass being removed by chemicalprecipitation.Theformerdependsontheobserved growthyieldandhence,ontheorganicloadofthebiological reactorandtheoperatingconditions. The excess mineral sludge production deduced (ratio between the amount of excess sludge and the total sludge productionofaconventionalprocess)ispresentedinFigure8 for different BOD/P ratios. For a conventional wastewater, theBOD:Pratiorangesfrom20to30.ForanFe/Pof1the excesssludgeproductionisbetween15to27%.ForanFe/P of 2.5 the excess sludge production increases to 55%. Therefore, this excess mineral sludge production greatly dependsontheinfluentBOD:Pratioandontheappliedmolar Fe/P. ExcessSludgeinEnhancedBiologicalPhosphorusRemoval Foraglobal80%PremovalefficiencyandaBOD/Pof 25, the excess sludge production due to EBPR is 4.5 g.p.e. 1 1 d TSS. Therefore, a 12 % excess sludge production is obtained.Thisexcesssludgeproductionbecomes9%to16% fortheBOD/Pratioof30to20respectively. Comparison of Excess Sludge Production between EBPR and ChemicalPrecipitation In the BOD/P ratio of 30 to 20 the extra sludge production resulting from the phosphorus removal in an EBPRprocessisbetween30to60%ofthatobtainedwitha chemical process for Fe/P from 1 to 2.5. Henze [9] found values between 50 to 70% for Fe/P between 1 to 1.5. Comparisons should be performed not only between theexcesssludgeproducedbyEBPRorchemicalprecipitation processesbutalsothetotalsolidproduction.Inthiscase,the increase is much less significant. Total solid production obtainedwiththeEBPRprocessrepresentsbetween0.75and

87

0.95ofthetotalsolidproductionobtainedbyaprocesswith chemicalprecipitation(Fe/Pof1to2.5).FortheBOD/Pof25, whichisthetypicalvalueforaFrenchwastewater,therange

becomes0.80.93forFe/Pof1to2.5respectively.

2.5 gP/p.e.d 120 gCOD/p.e.d

Chemical sludge

residual

SRT =15 d

0.2*P = 0.5gP/p.e.d
Biological sludge

30 gVSS/p.e.d = 37.2 gTSS/p.e.d 9.9 gsalts/p.e.d 0.5 gP/p.e.d

Figure7.MassbalanceonPandsludgeproductionforchemicalcoprecipitation(Fe/P=1.5).

1.5gP/p.e.d

Figure8. ExcesssludgemassassociatedwithchemicalPremovalforvariousFe:Pmolarratiosasapercentageofthetotal sludgegeneratedbyaconventionalprocess.

Excess Sludge Production due to Combined EBPR and Physico ChemicalProcesses Figure 9 shows the effect of the BOD/P and

RBCOD/CODratiosontheexcesssludgegeneratedduetoP removalcomparedtoaconventionalprocess. ForaBOD:Pratioof25andanFe/Pof1.5,theexcess sludge removal associated with P removal is between 12%

88

and 25%, for RBCOD:COD values of 16% and 1.5% respectively.Thewastewatercharacteristicshaveasignificant effect on the extra mass of sludge produced.

Phosphorusfromdetergentsrepresents30%ofthetotal Pinrawwastewater.FromFigure9,adecreaseinPcontentof therawwastewaterduetotheremovalofPfromdetergents

Figure9. Relationship between excess sludge production associated with P removal and the BOD:P ratio at different RBCOD:CODratios;Fe/Premoved=1.5.

leadstoashiftfromaBOD/Pof25toaBOD/Pofalmost36. In that case, for a typical French wastewater with a RBCOD/CODof8%,Premovalof80%shouldbeachievable using only EBPR, without specific adaptations (VOC feed, sidestreamPremoval),resultinginadecreaseinglobalcosts. Cost calculation for the Different Strategies used for P Removal CostsforChemicalPrecipitation For a mean cost of the commercial 40% ferric chloride of 100 .t1,i.e.0.72 .kg1Fe,thechemicalcostdependsdirectly ontheFe/Pmolarratio(Table2).

EnhancedBiologicalPhosphorusRemoval OperatingcostsforPremovalusingEBPRisprimarily due to excess sludge production. As the additional non volatile solids production in EBPR is approximately 3 kgTS.kg1Premoved, the operating cost related to EBPR is 0.45 .kg1Premoved.ThisvalueismuchlowerthanthecostforP removal using physicochemical processes. On the other hand, the higher investment costs and more complex operation(controlandtrainedoperatorsrequired)needtobe takenintoaccount.

Table2.CostsofchemicalprecipitationusingferricchloridefordifferentFe/Pmolarratios. Excessmineralsludge production (kgTS.kg1Premoved) 4.87 6.59

Fe/Prem. 1 1.5

Costforchemical ( .kg1Premoved) 1.3 1.94

Sludgeelimination cost .kg1TS) 150 150

Sludgeelimination cost( .kg1Premoved) 0.74 1.0

Totalcost ( .kg1Premoved) 2.04 2.94

89

2 2.5

2.6 3.25

8.32 10.04

150 150

1.27 1.5

3.87 4.75

Hybridprocess:ChemicalcoPrecipitationtogetherwithEBPR For a typical French wastewater (BOD/P 25; RBCOD/COD8%)andan80%Premoval,normalbiological uptakerepresents22%,EBPR36%andchemicalprecipitation 22%. Under those conditions, 2.5 kg of excess sludge is producedand0.6kgironconsumedperkgofinfluentP.A totalcostof0.8 .kg1Pinfluentisthencalculated. Operating costs associated with Premoval are summarisedinTable3. TotalCostinFrance According to the IEEP study, the total sewage works load in France is 70.6 M p.e., with 20.6 M discharging to sensitive areas (29.2 %). Equivalent figures restricted to agglomerations of >10,000 p.e. are 57.9 M and 15.4 M, respectively.ConsideringthattherearealsoPremovalplants outsidesensitiveareasfor2.5Mpopulationequivalent,this gives a total figure of 18 M p.e., or 25.5 % of wastewater discharges. Applying this percentage to the total French population (about 60 M inhabitants) gives an estimation of about15.3Minhabitantswhosedischargeswillbetreatedfor Premovalafterfullimplementationoftheurbanwastewater directive. Asomewhatlowerestimationcanbemadeonthebasis ofdatapublished inLassainissement desGrandes Villes. Accordingtothisreport,34Minhabitantsliveincommunities of > 10000 pop. equiv. and discharge 58 M population equivalents.Thus,wecanestimatethatabout29.2%of34M, ie10Minhabitantsliveincommunitiesof>10000p.e.located insensitiveareasascurrentlydesignated. Nevertheless forprecautionaryreasons,wewillretain thehighestvalueofabout15.3Minhabitantsforthefollowing computations.Foradailyproductionof2.5g.p.e.1d1P,these peoplewoulddischargeabout13900TP.y1. Assuming a repartition between coprecipitation (Fe/Premoved=1), EBPR and hybrid precipitation+EBPR (Fe/Premoved =1.5) of 40/20/40, the mean elimination cost is about1.08 .kg1Pinfluent.Thetotalcostisthen15M .y1. The

excess sludgeproducedis2.94kgTS.kg1 Pinfluent whichgives 40900T.y1drysludge(4.5%oftheannualsludgeproduction fromurbanwastewaterinFrance). If only Pbased detergents are considered (0.75 gP/ p.e.1d1P),thenpeoplewoulddischargeabout4180Ty1 and thetotalcostbecomes4.5M .y1.Theexcesssludgeproduced is12300T.y1drysludge,butshouldbecomparedwithsludge resultingfromsubstitutesusedinPfreedetergents.
CONCLUSION

Bibliographicdataandresultsfrom35FrenchWWTPs (from a total of 77 surveyed) were used for estimation of majorcostsassociatedwithPremoval.Thecostsconsidered wererestrictedtothecostforexcesssludgedisposalandthe chemicalcost. Thestronginfluenceofthewastewatercharacteristics, i.e.theBOD/P,theRBCOD/CODaswellastheFe/Pmolar ratio on the excess sludge production and the global costs werehighlighted.ForatypicalFrenchwastewater,an80%P removal should be achievable using the EBPR process without specific modifications by reduction of influent P contentindetergents. Chemicalprecipitationiscostlymainlyduetochemical costs (2/3) compared to sludge production. EBPR is much cheaper (1/7, on the basis of costs due to chemicals and sludgedisposal)andshouldbewidelyused.EBPRalsohas morepotentialconditionsforPrecovery. ThetotalcostassociatedwithPremovalforFrancehas beenestimatedas15M .y1.Thiscostshouldberelatedtothe globalcostforwastewatertreatment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

TheauthorswouldliketothankCEEPforfundingand technical assistance. We acknowledge Pascal. Isnard and Edith Cerbelaud from Rhodia for their technical assistance andalsoallthepersonswhoparticipatedinthesurvey.

Table3.

OperatingcostsofEBPRchemicalcoprecipitationusingferricchlorideandhybridprocess(chemical+EBPR)fora typicalFrenchwastewater(BOD/P25;RBCOD/COD8%)and80%Premoval. Fe/Prem. Process EBPR Costforchemical ( .kg1Pinfluent) Excessmineral sludgeproduction (kgTS.kg1Pinfluent) 1.8 Sludgeelimination Cost( .kg1Pinfluent) 0.26 Totalcost ( .kg1Pinfluent) 0.26

90

Chemical precipitation Hybrid

1.5 1.5

1.16 0.43

3.95 2.5
REFERENCES

0.6 0.37

1.76 0.80

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Lassevils,J.F.andBerruxD.,Geoplus,"EtudeduPhosphoreproportionduphosphoreissudesdtergentsdansles eauxcontinentales"Pers.Comm.(2001). Edge,D.,Perspectivesfornutrientremovalfromsewageandimplicationsforsludgestrategy. Environ.Technol.,20, 759763(1999). Woods,N.C.,Sock,S.M.andDaigger,G.T.,Phosphorusrecoverytechnologymodelingandfeasibilityevaluationfor municipalwastewatertreatmentplants.Environ.Technol.20,663679(1999). Nowak, O., Franz, A., Svardal, K. and Mller, V., Specific organic and nutrient loads in stabilised sludge from municipaltreatmentplants.WaterSci.Technol.,33.243250(1996). Nowak,O.,Expenditureontheoperationofmunicipalwastewatertreatmentplantsfornutrientremoval.WaterSci. Technol.,41,281289(2000). Andreottola,G.,Bonomo,L.,Poggiali,L.andZaffaroni,C.,Amethodologyfortheestimationofunitnutrientand organicloadsfromdomesticandnondomesticsources.Europ.Water.Pollut.Control,4,1319(1994). Yeoman,S.,Stephenson,T.,Lester,J.N.andPerry,R.,Theremovalofphosphorusduringwastewatertreatment:a review.Environ.Pollut.49,183233.(1988). Arvin,E.,Chemicaltreatmentofwastewater.Recyclinginchemicalwaterandwastewatertreatment.Schriftenreihe ISWWKarlsruheBd.50(1986). Henze, M., Biological and chemical processes for phosphorus removal from wastewater. Proc. of Journes InternationalesdtudeduCEBEDEAU,Lige,Belgium,2223may,pp2739(1997). Jardin,N.andPpel,J.,Behaviourofwasteactivatedsludgefromenhancedbiologicalphosphorusremovalduring sludgetreatment.WaterEnviron.Res.,68,965973(1996). Sprandio, M., Urbain, V., Ginestet, P., Audic, J.M. and Paul, E., Application of COD fractionation by a new combinedtechnique:comparisonofvariouswastewatersandsourcesofvariability. WaterSci. Technol., 43,181190 (2001). Wentzel,M.,Ekama,G.A.andMarais,GcR.,BiologicalexcessphosphorousremovalSteadystateprocessdesign. WaterSA,16,2948(1990).

12.

91

92