Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Source: Industrial Water Quality

CHAPTER 3
Pre- and Primary
Treatment

3.1 Introduction
The objective of pre- and primary treatment is to render a wastewa-
ter suitable for discharge to a POTW (publicly owned treatment
works) or subsequent biological or physical chemical treatment.
Pretreatment of industrial wastewaters discharged to POTWs is a
major technical issue specifically regulated by EPA. This issue and
case histories are presented in Chap. 17. The concentrations of pol-
lutants that make prebiological treatment desirable are summarized
in Table 3.1. Pretreatment is often used to reduce or eliminate inhibi-
tion or toxicity to the biological process. It may also be used to ren-
der biorefractory organics more biodegradable through chemical
oxidation or other methods.
Some potential toxicants include heavy metals, pesticides, prior-
ity pollutants, and so on. Those found to be most significant of one
organic chemical manufacturing corporation are:

1. Surfactants
2. Cationic polymers
3. Free ammonia
4. Nitrite
5. Chlorine
6. Pesticides
7. Metals
8. Temperature

Some potential inhibitors may include:

• TDS (16,000 mg/L)

• Chlorides (8000 to 10,000 mg/L)

65
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])
Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd65 65 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

66 Chapter Three

Pollutant or System
Condition Limiting Concentration Kind of Pretreatment
Suspended solids >125 mg/L Sedimentation,
flotation, lagooning
Oil or grease >35 Skimming tank or
separator
Toxic ions Precipitation or ion
exchange
Pb ≤0.1 mg/L
Cu + Ni + CN ≤1 mg/L
Cr 6
+ Zn ≤3 mg/L
Cr 3
≤10 mg/L
pH 6 to 9 Neutralization
Alkalinity 0.5 lb alkalinity as Neutralization for
CaCO3/lb BOD removed excessive alkalinity
Acidity Free mineral acidity Neutralization
Organic load >2:1 Equalization
variation
Sulfides >100 mg/L Precipitation or
stripping with recovery
Ammonia >500 mg/L (as N) Dilution, ion exchange,
pH adjustment, and
stripping
Temperature >38°C in reactor Cooling

TABLE 3.1 Concentrations of Pollutants That Make Prebiological Treatment Desirable

• H2S-bacteria (100 mg/L, algae 7–10 mg/L)

• Heavy metals (1 mg/L [metal, its species, hardness, and pH])
• Ammonia 500 mg/L, f(pH), 0.02 mg/L (free ammonia) as
aquatic criteria
• Weak organic acids—<6.5 or >8.5 [microorganism metabo-
lism may increase pH, e.g., acetic acid and formic acid]

Microorganism metabolism may increase pH (e.g., acetic acid and

formic acid)

• Strong bases—Microbial respiration decreases BOD thereby

increasing CO2 and forming H2CO3 (about 0.5 lb alkalinity as
CaCO3/lb BOD removed or about 0.63 lb alkalinity as CaCO3/lb
COD removed)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd66 66 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 67

Gravity
oil Flotation
separation

Coagulation
Equalization Neutralization and Sedimentation
precipitation

Spill basin Filtration

Source
control

FIGURE 3.1 Pretreatment technologies.

• Contaminants which require specific pretreatment (i.e., pH,

alkalinity, TSS, fats, oils and grease [FOG], metals, etc.)
• Nutrient N, P, and trace minerals availability—Microbes
require ammonia and P plus trace metals for metabolism
• Variability

Common pretreatment technologies are shown in Fig. 3.1. This chap-

ter will discuss several pre- and primary treatment processes often
employed in industrial treatment. Other pretreatment technologies
will be reviewed in subsequent chapters of this book.

3.2 Equalization
Variation in wastestream flows, constituents, and concentrations
can significantly reduce the efficiency of unit processes and efflu-
ent quality. Most equations utilized for design assume steady-state
conditions. Effluent permits are typically based on average as well
as maximum discharge limits. Hence, variability reduction is criti-
cal to compliance with treatment and sustainability goals. Equal-
ization therefore is a very important unit process typically
preceding other pre- and primary treatment and subsequent treat-
ment methods.
The objective of equalization is to minimize or control fluctua-
tions in wastewater characteristics in order to provide optimum con-
ditions for subsequent treatment processes. The size and type of the
equalization basin varies with the quantity of waste and the variabil-
ity of the wastewater stream. The basin should be of a sufficient size

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd67 67 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

68 Chapter Three

to adequately absorb waste fluctuations caused by variations in plant-

production scheduling and to dampen the concentrated batches peri-
odically dumped or spilled to the sewer.
The purposes of equalization for industrial treatment facilities are:

1. To provide adequate dampening of organic fluctuations in

order to prevent shock loading of biological systems. The
effluent concentration from a biological treatment plant will
be proportional to the influent concentration. This is shown in
Fig. 3.2, which represents 24-h composited samples over a
period of 3 years for a petroleum refinery. As can be seen from
Fig. 3.2, the effluent variability tracks the influent variability.
If the wastewater is readily degradable an increase in the
influent will result in a lesser increase in the effluent due to an
increase in biometabolism. By contrast, if the influent contains
bioinhibitors, an increased effluent concentration will result.
2. To provide adequate pH control or to minimize the chemical
requirements necessary for neutralization.
3. To minimize flow surges to physical-chemical treatment
systems and permit chemical feed rates compatible with
feeding equipment.
4. To provide continuous feed to biological systems over periods
when the manufacturing plant is not operating.

1490

1341

1192
Influent BOD (mg/L)

1043

894

745 Influent

596 48
Effluent BOD (mg/L)

447 36
Effluent
298 24

149 12

0 0
0.01 0.1 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 405060 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.9 99.99
Percent less than or equal to

FIGURE 3.2 Variability in influent and effluent BOD.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd68 68 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 69

5. To provide capacity for controlled discharge of wastes to

municipal systems in order to distribute waste loads more
evenly.
6. To prevent high concentrations of toxic materials from
entering the biological treatment plant.

Complete mixing is usually provided to ensure adequate equal-

ization and to prevent settleable solids from depositing in the basin.
In addition, the oxidation of reduced compounds in the waste-stream
or the reduction of BOD by air stripping may be achieved through
mixing and aeration. Methods that have been used for mixing
include:

1. Distribution of inlet flow and baffling

2. Turbine mixing
3. Diffused air aeration
4. Mechanical aeration
5. Submerged mixers

The most common method is to provide submerged mixers

or, in the case of readily degradable wastewater, such as that
from a brewery, to use surface aerators employing a power level
of approximately 15 to 20 hp/million gal (0.003 to 0.0045 kW/m3).
Air requirements for diffused air aeration are approximately
0.5 ft 3 air/gal waste (3.74 m3/m 3). Equalization basin types are
shown in Fig. 3.3. It should be noted that in compliance with
NESHAP regulations many industries must cover headworks,
including the equalization basin, and satisfactorily treat the off-
gas emissions to an acceptable level. In some cases, the second-
ary treatment facility will also be affected.
The equalization basin may be designed with a variable vol-
ume to provide a constant effluent flow or with a constant volume
and an effluent flow that varies with the influent. The variable-
volume basin is particularly applicable to the chemical treatment
of wastes having a low daily volume. This type of basin may also
be used for discharge of wastes to municipal sewers. It may be
desirable to program the effluent pumping rate to discharge the
maximum quantity of waste during periods of normally low flow
to the municipal treatment facility, as shown in Fig. 3.4. Ideally, the
organic loading to the treatment plant is maintained constant over
a 24-h period.
Equalization basins may be designed to equalize flow, concen-
tration, or both. For flow equalization, the cumulative flow is plot-
ted versus time over the equalization period (e.g., 24 h). The
maximum volume with respect to the constant-discharge line is the

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd69 69 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

70 Chapter Three

Qin = Qout
Constant volume

High level

Qin variable Low level Qout = constant

Variable volume

Constant or variable volume

FIGURE 3.3 Constant-volume and variable-volume equalization basins.

equalization volume required. The required calculations are shown

in Example 3.1.

Example 3.1. Given the data in Table 3.2, design an equalization basin for a
constant outflow from the basin. The data are plotted as the summation of
inflow versus time as shown in Fig. 3.5. The treatment rate is (193,300 gal/day)/
(1440 min/day) = 134 gal/min (507 L/min). The required storage volume is
41,000 gal + 8000 gal residual or 49,000 gal (186 m3).

The equalization basin may be sized to restrict the discharge to a

maximum concentration commensurate with the maximum permis-
sible discharge from subsequent treatment units. For example, if the
maximum effluent from an activated sludge unit is 50 mg/L BOD5,
the maximum effluent from the equalization basin may be computed
and thereby provide a basis for sizing the unit.
For the case of near-constant wastewater flow and random input
variations that have a normal statistical distribution of wastewater

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd70 70 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 71
1.5
Cumulative inflow
Cumulative volume (million gal)

1.0

Maximum
storage
required

0.5 Cumulative discharge

8 A.M. 8 P.M. 8 A.M.

Hours of the day
15
Municipal: 6.47 million gal/d at 200 mg/L BOD
Industrial: 3.17 million gal/d over 10 h at 1200 mg/L BOD
Municipal rate of flow (million gal/d)

Industrial rate of flow (gal/h)

Municipal
10 100

05 50
Industrial

8 A.M. 8 P.M. 8 A.M.

Hours of the day
Note:
million gal = 3.78  10 3 m3
million gal/d = 3.78  10 3 m3/d
gal/h = 3.78  10 –3 m3/h

FIGURE 3.4 Controlled discharge of an industrial wastewater to a municipal

plant.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd71 71 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

72 Chapter Three

Time gal/min gal  gal  103

8 50 3,000 3.0
9 92 5,520 8.5
10 230 13,800 22.3
11 310 18,600 40.9
12 270 16,200 57.1
1 140 8,400 65.5
2 90 5,400 70.9
3 110 6,600 77.5
4 80 4,800 82.3
5 150 9,000 91.3
6 230 13,800 105.1
7 305 18,300 123.4
8 380 22,800 146.2
9 200 12,000 158.2
10 80 4,800 163.0
11 60 3,600 166.6
12 70 4,200 170.8
1 55 3,300 174.1
2 40 2,400 176.5
3 70 4,200 180.7
4 75 4,500 185.2
5 45 2,700 187.9
6 55 3,300 191.2
7 35 2,100 193.3

Note: gal/min = 3.78  103 m3/min

gal = 3.78  103 m3

TABLE 3.2 Equalization Basin Constant Outflow Design

Data

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd72 72 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 73

200

150
V1 = 41,000 gal
Cumulative gallons  103

100

Vequalization = 49,000 gal

50

V2 = 8000 gal
0
8 12 4 8 12 4 8
Time of day

FIGURE 3.5 Constant outflow equalization basin design.

composite analyses, the required equalization retention time for a

constant volume basin is1

Δ t(Si 2 )
t= (3.1)
2(Se 2 )

where t = equalization detention time, h

Δt = time interval over which samples were composited, h
Si2 = variance of the influent wastewater concentration (the
square of the standard deviation)
Se2 = variance of the effluent concentration at a specified
probability (e.g., 99 percent)
Example 3.2 illustrates this calculation.

Example 3.2. A waste with a total flow of 5 million gal/d (0.22 m3/s or
19,000 m3/d) was characterized as shown in Fig. 3.6. Extensive data were
collected every 4 h for 17 d. The average BOD was 690 mg/L and the maximum
value was 1185 mg/L.
Design calculations with activated sludge systems have indicated that the
effluent from the equalization basin must not exceed 896 mg/L in order to meet
the effluent quality criteria of an average BOD of 15 mg/L and a maximum
concentration of 25 mg/L from the activated sludge system.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd73 73 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

74 Chapter Three

1400

1200

1000
BOD (mg/L)

800
2 = 990 – 380
= 610
600 = 305

400

200 15.9 50.00 84.1

0
0.01 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 30 40 60 80 90 95 99 99.9 99.99
Probability of BOD being less than or equal to given value (%)

FIGURE 3.6 BOD probability analysis.

Design an equalization basin to meet the desired effluent requirements. Base

calculations on a 95 percent probability that the equalized effluent will be equal
to or less than 896 mg/L.

Solution
(a) Calculate the mean, standard deviation, and variance of the influent.
These parameters may be calculated graphically from Fig. 3.6.
(b) From this plot obtain the 50 percent value:

50 percent value ≈ X ≈ 690 mg/L

(c) Calculate the standard deviation, Si, as half the difference in the values
that occur at the 15.9 (50.0 minus 34.1) and 84.1 (50.0 plus 34.1) percentile
levels from Fig. 3.6:

value at 84 .1 % − value at 15 .9 %
Si =
2
990 − 380
=
2
= 3 05 mg/L

(d) Calculate the variance as the square of the standard deviation:

Si2 = (305)2

= 93, 025 mg 2 /L2

(e) Calculate the standard deviation of the effluent:

X = 690 mg/L
X max = 896 mg/L

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd74 74 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 75
The necessary condition for 95 percent of effluent BOD values to be less
than 896 mg/L is

X max − X
Se =
Z
896 − 690
=
1 . 65
= 125 mg/L

where Z = 1.65 is from the normal probability tables for a 95 percent

confidence level.
(f ) Calculate the allowed effluent variance:

Se2 = (125)2

= 15 , 625 mg 2 /L2

(g) Calculate the required detention time:

Δ t(Si2 )
t=
2(Se2 )

4(93 , 025)
=
2(15 , 625)
= 11 . 9 h
≈ 0.. 5 d

Where a completely mixed basin is to be used for treatment, such

as in an activated sludge basin or an aerated lagoon, this volume can
be considered as part of the equalization volume. For example, if the
completely mixed aeration basin retention time is 8 h and the total
required equalization retention time is 16 h, then the equalization
basin needs to have a retention time of only 8 h.
Patterson and Menez2 have developed a method to define equaliza-
tion requirements when both the flow and the strength vary randomly.
A material balance can be established for the equalization basin:

CiQT + C0V = C2QT + C2V (3.2)

where Ci = concentration entering the equalization basin over the

sampling interval T
T = sampling interval, that is, 1 h
Q = average flow rate over the sampling interval
C0 = concentration in the equalization basin at the start of the
sampling interval
V = volume of the equalized basin
C2 = concentration leaving the equalization basin at the end
of the sampling interval

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd75 75 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

76 Chapter Three

It is assumed that the effluent concentration is almost constant

during one time interval. This is valid, assuming the time intervals
are appropriately spaced.
Equation (3.2) can be rearranged to compute the effluent concen-
tration after each time interval:
CiT + C0V/Q
C2 = (3.2a)
T + V/Q

The range of effluent concentrations can then be calculated for a

range of equalization volumes V. A peaking factor PF is computed for
the influent strength and flow. The effluent PF for design purposes is
the ratio of the maximum concentration to the average concentration.
An equalization basin design is shown in Example 3.3.

Example 3.3. A survey of the discharge from a chemical plant showed the
following results:

Mean
Time Period Flow gal/min TOC, mg/L
8 to 10 A.M. 450 920
10 to 12 noon 620 1130
12 to 2 P.M. 840 1475
2 to 4 P.M. 800 1525
4 to 6 P.M. 340 910
6 to 8 P.M. 270 512
8 to 10 P.M. 570 1210
10 to 12 midnight 1100 1520
0 to 2 A.M. 1200 1745
2 to 4 A.M. 800 820
4 to 6 A.M. 510 410
6 to 8 A.M. 570 490

Develop a plot of peaking factor versus basin volume for a variable-volume

equalization system and determine the volume to yield a peaking factor of 1.2
based on mass discharge.

Solution. Assuming the equalization basin is a completely mixed basin where

no significant degradation or evaporation occurs, the differential equations that
govern the constant effluent flow system for each time interval are:

dVi (1)
= Q0i − Qei = Q0i − Q0avg
dt

d(Vi Ci ) dCi dVi dCi

= Vi + Ci = Vi + Ci (Q0i − Q 0aa vg ) = Q0i C0i − Qei Ci (2)
dt dt dt dt

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd76 76 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 77
where Vi = volume in the basin at time t for time interval i, gal
Q0i = influent flow rate at time interval i, gpm
Qe i = effluent flow rate at time interval i, gpm
Q0avg = daily average influent flow rate, gpm
C0i = influent concentration at time interval i, mg/L
Ci = concentration in the basin and effluent concentration at time t
for time interval i, mg/L

Assuming that Q0i, Qei, and C0i are constant during each time interval,
separation of variables, integration, and rearrangement of Eqs. (1) and (2) lead
to the following expressions for the volume Vi( f ) and the TOC concentration
Ci( f ) in the basin at the end of each time interval, respectively.

Vi ( f ) = V(i −1) ( f ) + (Q0i − Q0avg )Δ ti (3)

A
Ci ( f ) = C0i − (4)
(1 + BΔ ti )D

where
A = C0i − C(i − 1) ( f )

Q0i − Q0avg
B=
V(i − 1) ( f )

Q0i
D=
Q0i − Q0avg

V(i−1)( f ) = volume in the basin at the end of time interval i − 1, gal

ti = time interval i, min
C(i−1)( f ) = concentration in the basin and effluent concentration at
the end of time interval i − 1, mg/L

The TOC mass Mei( f ) that left the equalization basin during each time interval
can be calculated by

Δt i ⎡ A[[1 + BΔ ti ]1− D − 1]⎤

Mei ( f ) = Q0avg ∫ Ci dt = Q0avg ⎢C0i Δ ti − ⎥ (5)
0
⎣ B(1 − D) ⎦
The procedure to developing the spreadsheet to calculate the masses leaving the
basin at each time interval for a given volume of basin is:

1. The values for the first time interval (first row in the following table) are
calculated as:
• With the mean influent flow and concentration, the influent volume
and mass of TOC are calculated.
• The effluent flow rate, which is the same for all time intervals, is
calculated by dividing the total influent volume by the total time.
• For an initial basin volume (guess), the final volume is calculated by
using Eq. (3).
• For an initial concentration (guess), the final concentration is
calculated by using Eq. (4).
• The mass of TOC that left the basin is calculated by using Eq. (5).
2. The values for the other time intervals are calculated in a similar fashion
but the initial volume and concentration for each time interval are the
final volume and concentration of the previous time interval.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd77 77 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 78
Basin
Influent Effluent Volume Concentration
Mean Mean
Time Flow, TOC, Volume, TOC, Flow, TOC, Initial Final Initial Final
Period gpm mg/L gal lb gpm lb gal gal mg/L mg/L

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd78 78
8 to 10 450 920 54,000 414 672.5 673 278,200 251,500 1009 993
10 to 12 620 1130 74,400 701 672.5 681 251,500 245,200 993 1028
12 to 14 840 1475 100,800 1240 672.5 745 245,200 265,300 1028 1174
14 to 16 800 1525 96,000 1221 672.5 828 265,300 280,600 1174 1278
16 to 18 340 910 40,800 310 612.5 842 280,600 240,700 1278 1225
18 to 20 270 512 32,400 138 672.5 791 240,700 192,400 1225 1125
20 to 22 570 1210 68,400 690 672.5 767 192,400 180,100 1125 1151
22 to 24 1100 1520 132,000 1673 672.5 843 180,100 231,400 1151 1327
0 to 2 1200 1745 144,000 2096 672.5 960 231,400 294,700 1327 1504
2 to 4 800 820 96,000 657 672.5 946 294,700 310,000 1504 1318
Pre- and Primary Treatment

4 to 6 510 410 61,200 209 672.5 829 310,000 290,500 1318 1150
6 to 8 570 490 68,400 280 672.5 725 290,500 278,200 1150 1009

Mean = 802 lb
Maximum = 960 lb

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Peaking factor 1.20

Equalization Basin Design—Variable Volume

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/8/08 [Link] PM
 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 79
3. The volume guessed for the first time interval is modified until the
maximum initial or final volume in the basin is the selected volume.
4. The concentration guessed for the first time interval is modified until it
matches the final concentration for the last time interval.
5. The maximum and average masses leaving the basin are determined and the
peaking factor is calculated as the ratio of the maximum to average values.

The results of the calculations for a basin volume of 310,000 gal are presented
in the following table. Repetition of the calculations for different volumes allows
the plotting of the peaking factor as a function of the basin volume as presented
in Fig. 3.7.

1.5

1.4
Effluent mass rate peaking factor

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000
Volume (gal)

FIGURE 3.7 Variation in effluent mass rate peaking factor with basin volume
for a variable-volume equalization basin.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd79 79 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

80 Chapter Three

8000 1000

7000 Average 900

Minimum
Maximum 800
6000 Standard deviation

Standard deviation (lb/h)

700
EQB effluent (lb/h)

5000
600
4000 500

3000 400

300
2000
200
1000
100
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equalization basin volume (Mgal)

FIGURE 3.8a Effect of variable-volume equalization on EQB effluent BOD loading.

1000

900 Variable volume

Constant volume
800
Standard deviation (lb/h)

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equalization basin volume (Mgal)

FIGURE 3.8b Comparison of variable-volume and constant-volume equalization on

EQB effluent BOD loading.

In most cases with a variable flow, a variable-volume basin will

be most effective, as shown in Fig. 3.8. Load balancing for a pharma-
ceutical wastewater is shown in Fig. 3.9.
When occasional dumps or spills are anticipated, for example,
1 percent of the time, a spill basin with an automatic bypass activated
by a monitor should be used, as shown in Fig. 3.10. The spill basin

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd80 80 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 81

25,000
No balancing PF = 1.28 PF = 1.46
24-h balancing
20,000 12-h balancing
COD conc. (mg/L)

15,000

10,000

5,000
j
0
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131
Hours

FIGURE 3.9 Load balancing analysis.

From plant

Monitor High-
(TOC, TOD, UV, etc.) strength
holding
pond

Constant
flow

Equalization
basin

To biological treatment

FIGURE 3.10 Use of a high-strength holding pond for spills.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd81 81 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

82 Chapter Three

Objectives/object Parameter Technique

Sewage network Qualitative variability UV
Degradability, ”
treatability UV/UV*
Accidental discharge
UV
Phenols, sulphide, TOC
”
ammonia UV/UV*
Benzenic compounds Fluorescence
TPH IR
Treatment plant (general) Suspended solids UV-vis., NIR
Size (shape) of flocs and Image analysis
particles Sludge level Opacimetry
Biomass metabolism Fluorimetry
Treated effluent COD, BOD, TOC, nitrate, UV
phenol, sulphide
External wastes Variability, treatability, UV
fingerprint
Receiving medium COD, TOC, nitrate, Water UV
surface (oil) NIR
Turbidity ”

∗Including a UV photodegradation step.

TABLE 3.3 Optical Monitoring Applications

may be required for surges in organics (e.g., TOC), TDS, temperature,

or specific toxic compounds.
In Europe, monitoring and management of spills and other upset
conditions in the process and treatment train have included optical
methods as tabulated in Table 3.3. For some industries these have
proven cost effective as compared to conventional methods. Typical
design parameters for equalization basins are given in Table 3.4.

Detention time 12–24 h

Volume Daily plant flow
Mixing requirement 0.02–0.04 hp/1000 gal
Maintain aerobic conditions ORP > –100 mV
Depth Approximately 15 ft
Freeboard 3 ft
Minimum operating level 5 ft

TABLE 3.4 Design Parameters for Equalization

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd82 82 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 83

3.3 Neutralization
Many industrial wastes contain acidic or alkaline materials that
require neutralization prior to discharge to receiving waters or prior
to chemical or biological treatment. For biological treatment, a pH in
the biological system generally should be maintained between 6.5
and 8.5 to ensure optimum biological activity. The biological process
itself provides a neutralization and a buffer capacity as a result of the
production of CO2, which reacts with caustic and acidic materials.
The degree of preneutralization required depends, therefore, on the
ratio of BOD removed and the causticity or acidity present in the waste.
These requirements are discussed in Chap. 6. It should be noted that
some organic acids, such as acetic or formic, may result in an increase
in pH during biological treatment.

Types of Processes
Mixing Acidic and Alkaline Wastestreams
This process requires sufficient equalization capacity to effect the
desired neutralization.

Acid Wastes Neutralization through Limestone Beds

These may be downflow or upflow systems. The maximum
hydraulic rate for downflow systems is 1 gal/(min  ft 2 )
(4.07 × 10 −2 m 3 /[min  m2]) to ensure sufficient retention time. The
acid concentration should be limited to 0.6 percent H2SO4 if H2SO4 is
present to avoid coating of limestone with nonreactive CaSO4 and
excessive CO2 evolution, which limits complete neutralization. High
dilution or dolomitic limestone requires longer detention periods to
effect neutralization. Hydraulic loading rates can be increased with
upflow beds, because the products of reaction are swept out before pre-
cipitation. Since pH control is related to the bed depth, limestone beds
are applicable only to wastewaters in which the influent acidity is rela-
tively constant with time. A limestone bed system is shown in Fig. 3.11.
The design of a limestone bed is shown in Example 3.4.

Example 3.4. A wastewater flow of 100 gpm (0.38 m3/min) with 0.1 N H2SO4
requires neutralization prior to secondary treatment. This flow is to be neutralized
to a pH of 7.0 using a limestone bed. Figure 3.12 presents the results of a series
of laboratory pilot tests using a 1-ft- (30.5-cm-) diameter limestone bed. These
data are for upflow units, with the effluent being aerated to remove residual
CO2. Assume limestone is 60 percent reactive.
Design a neutralization system specifying:

(a) Most economical bed depth of limestone

(b) Weight of acid per day to be neutralized
(c) Limestone requirements on an annual basis

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd83 83 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

84 Chapter Three

Waste
acid Conveyor

Recycle
pump
Effluent
3 ft
of
limestone

Presedimentation Limestone bed Grit removal Final sedimentation

FIGURE 3.11 Simplified flow diagram of limestone neutralization. (Adapted from

Tully, 1958.)

10
0.1 N H2SO4

7
pH value

4 ft
3 ft
5 2 ft

1 ft
0.5 ft

2
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Rate of flow (gal/ft2 • h)
Note: ft = 30.5 cm

FIGURE 3.12 Allowable limestone bed loading rate vs. bed depth
determination.

Solution

(a) Most economical bed depth. Hydraulic loadings to get pH 7.0 with various
depths of limestone bed: From the figure the allowable hydraulic loadings
are estimated to be:

Depth, ft 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Hydraulic loading, 42 180 850 1440 1600
gal/(ft2 · h)

Note: ft = 30.5 cm
gal/(ft2 · h) = 4.07 × 10–2 m3/(m2 · h)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd84 84 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 85
Flow rate per unit limestone volume: The required flow rate per unit
volume of bed can be calculated by:

hydraulic loading
Q/V =
bed depth

Depth, ft 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

3
Q/V, gal/(ft · h) 84 180 425 480 400

Note: gal/(ft3 · h) = 0.134 m3/(m3 · h)

By plotting the flow rate per unit limestone volume against the limestone
bed depth, the most economical bed depth of limestone is found to be
⯝ 3 ft (0.91 m). This is the depth that gives the maximum flow per unit
volume; see Fig. 3.13.
(b) Weight of acid per day to be neutralized. The weight of acid can be calculated
by

100 gal 4900 mg H 2 SO 4 1440 min 8 .34 × 1 0 − 6 lb

× × ×
min L day (mg/L) gal
= 5890 lb/d (2670 kg/d)

500
Q/V (gal/[ft3 • h])

300

100

0 1 2 3 4
Bed depth (ft)

Note: ft = 30.5 cm
gal/(ft3 • h) = 0.134 m3/(m3 • h)

FIGURE 3.13 Determination of optimal limestone bed depth.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd85 85 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

86 Chapter Three

(c) Annual limestone requirements. The limestone requirements can be

calculated by:

5890 lb 50 g CaCO 3 365 d 1 lb limestone

× × ×
d 49 g H 2 SO 4 yr 0 .60 lb CaCO 3

= 3,660, 000 lb/yr (1,660 , 000 kg/yr)

Mixing Acid Wastes with Lime Slurries

This neutralization depends on the type of lime used. The magne-
sium fraction of lime is most reactive in strongly acid solutions and is
useful below pH 4.2. Neutralization with lime can be defined by a
basicity factor obtained by titration of a 1-g sample with an excess of
HCl, boiling 15 min, followed by back titration with 0.5 N NaOH to
the phenolphthalein endpoint.
In lime slaking, the reaction is accelerated by heat and physical
agitation. For high reactivity, the lime reaction is complete in 10 min.
Storage of lime slurry for a few hours before neutralization may be
beneficial. Dolomitic quicklime (only the CaO portion) hydrates
except at elevated temperature. Slaked quicklime is used as an 8 to
15 percent lime slurry. Neutralization can also be accomplished by
using NaOH, Na2CO3, NH4OH, or Mg(OH)2.

Basic (Alkaline) Wastes

Any strong acid can be used effectively to neutralize alkaline wastes,
but cost considerations usually limit the choice to sulfuric or possibly
hydrochloric acid. The reaction rates are practically instantaneous, as
with strong bases.
Flue gases, which may contain 14 percent CO2, can be used for
neutralization. When bubbled through the waste, the CO2 forms car-
bonic acid, which then reacts with the base. The reaction rate is some-
what slower, but is sufficient if the pH need not be adjusted to below
7 to 8. Another approach is to use a spray tower in which the stack
gases are passed countercurrent to the waste liquid droplets.
All of the above processes usually work better with the stepwise
addition of reagents, that is, a staged operation. Two stages, with pos-
sibly a third tank to even out any remaining fluctuations, are gener-
ally optimum.
There are a number of neutralizing agents available. Selection cri-
teria should consider:

• Type and availability

• Reaction rate
• Sludge production and disposal
• Safety and ease of handling for addition and storage
• Total cost including chemical feed and feed and storage
equipment

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd86 86 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 87

• Side reactions, including dissolved salts, scale formation, and

heat produced
• The effect of overdosage

The primary neutralizing agents are:

Basic agents

• Lime in various forms—strong

• Caustic soda—strong
• Magnesium hydroxide—medium
• Sodium carbonate—weak
• Sodium bicarbonate—weak

Acidic agents

• Sulfuric acid—strong
• Carbon dioxide—weak

The characteristics of typical neutralizing chemicals are shown in

Tables 3.5 and 3.6.

System
Batch treatment is used for waste flows to 100,000 gal/d (380 m3/d).
Continuous treatment employs automated pH control. Where air is
used for mixing, the minimum air rate is 1 to 3 ft3/(min  ft2) (0.3 to
0.9 m3/[min  m2]) at 9 ft (2.7 m) liquid depth. If mechanical mixers are
used, 0.2 to 0.4 hp/thousand gal (0.04 to 0.08 kW/m3) is required.

Control of Process
The automatic control of pH for wastestreams is one of the most trou-
blesome, for the following reasons:

1. The relation between pH and concentration or reagent flow is

highly nonlinear for strong acid–strong base neutralization,
particularly when close to neutral (pH 7.0). The nature of the
titration curve as shown in Fig. 3.14 favors multistaging in
order to ensure close control of the pH.
2. The influent pH can vary at a rate as fast as 1 pH unit per
minute.
3. The wastestream flow rates can double in a few minutes.
4. A relatively small amount of reagent must be thoroughly
mixed with a large liquid volume in a short time interval.
5. Changes in buffer capacity (i.e., alkalinity or acidity) will
change neutralization requirements.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd87 87 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 88
Calcium Calcium Sodium Sodium
Carbonate Hydroxide Calcium Hydrochloric Carbonate Hydroxide Sulfuric
Property (CaCO3) [Ca(OH)2] Oxide (CaO) Acid (HCl) (Na2CO3) (NaOH) Acid (H2SO4)
Available Powder, Powder, Lump, Liquid Powder Solid flake, Liquid
form crushed granules pebble, ground flake,
(various ground liquid

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd88 88
sizes)
Shipping Bags, barrel, Bags Bags (80 lb), Barrels, Bags Drum (735, Carboys,
container bulk (50 lb),∗ bulk barrels, bulk drums, bulk (100 lb), bulk 100, 450 lb) drums (825 lb),
bulk
Bulk weight, Powder 48 to 25 to 50 40 to 70 27.9%, 34 to 62 Varies 106, 114
lb/ft3 71; crushed 0.53 lb/gal†;
70 to 100 31.45%,
9.65 lb/gal
Commercial — Normally 75 to 99%, 27.9, 31.45, 99.2% 98% 60° Be, 77.7%;
strength 13% Ca(OH)2 normally 35.2% 66° Be, 93.2%
90% CaO
Pre- and Primary Treatment

Water Nearly Nearly Nearly Complete 0.58 @ 32°F, 3.5 @ 32°F, Complete
solubility, insoluble insoluble insoluble 1.04 @ 50°F, 4.3 @ 50°F,
lb/gal 1.79 @ 68°F, 9.1 @ 68°F,
3.33 @ 86°F 9.2 @ 86°F
Feeding form Dry slurry Dry or slurry Dry or slurry Liquid Dry, liquid Solution Liquid
used in fixed (must be

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
beds slaked to
Ca(OH)2)

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/8/08 [Link] PM
 Feeding type Volumetric Volumetric Dry- Metering Volumetric Metering Metering
pump metering volumetric, pump feeder, pump pump
pump wet slurry metering
(centrifugal pump

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd89 89
pump)
Accessory Slurry tank Slurry tank Slurry tank, Dilution tank Dissolving Solution tank —
equipment slaker tank
Suitable Iron, steel Iron, steel, Iron, steel, Hastelloy Iron, steel Iron, steel —
handling plastic, plastic, A, selected
materials rubber hose rubber hose plastic and
rubber types
Comments — — Provide — Can cake Dissolving Provide
means for solid forms for spill
cleaning generate cleanup and
slurry transfer much heat neutralization
pipes
Pre- and Primary Treatment

∗lb  0.4536 = kg
†
lb/gal  0.1198 = kg/L
‡
0.555 (°F  32) = °C

TABLE 3.5 Summary of Properties for Typical Neutralization Chemicals

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
89
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])
Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/8/08 [Link] PM
 90
To neutralize 1 mg/L
Acidity or Alkalinity Neutralization Factor,
(Expressed as CaCO3) Assuming 100% Purity
Chemical Formula Equivalent Weight Requires n mg/L for all Compounds
Basicity
Calcium carbonate CaCO3 50 1.000 1.000/0.56 = 1.786

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd90 90
Calcium oxide CaO 28 0.560 0.560/0.56 = 1.000
Calcium hydroxide Ca(OH)2 37 0.740 0.740/0.56 = 1.321
Magnesium oxide MgO 20 0.403 0.403/0.56 = 0.720
Magnesium hydroxide Mg(OH)2 29 0.583 0.583/0.56 = 1.041
Dolomitic quicklime (CaO)0.6(MgO)0.4 24.8 0.497 0.497/0.56 = 0.888
Dolomitic hydrated lime [Ca(OH)2]0.6 [Mg(OH)2]0.4 33.8 0.677 0.677/0.56 = 1.209
Sodium hydroxide NaOH 40 0.799 0.799/0.56 = 1.427
Sodium carbonate Na2CO3 53 1.059 1.059/0.56 = 1.891
Sodium bicarbonate NaHCO3 84 1.680 1.680/0.56 = 3.00
Pre- and Primary Treatment

Acidity
Sulfuric acid H2SO4 49 0.980 0.980/0.56 = 1.750
Hydrochloric acid HCl 36 0.720 0.720/0.56 = 1.285
Nitric acid HNO3 62 1.260 1.260/0.56 = 2.250

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Carbonic acid 31 0.620 0.620/0.56 5 1.107

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.

H2CO3

TABLE 3.6 Neutralization Factors for Common Alkaline and Acid Reagents

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/8/08 [Link] PM
 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 91

12

10

8
pH = 7 Second stage control
pH value

4
pH = 3.5 First stage control

0 1000 2000
mg lime/L of waste

FIGURE 3.14 Lime-waste titration curve for strong acid.

Advantage is usually gained by the stepwise addition of chemi-

cals (see Fig. 3.15). In reaction tank 1, the pH may be raised to 3 to 4.
Reaction tank 2 raises the pH to 5 to 6 (or any other desired endpoint).
If the wastestream is subject to slugs or spills, a third reaction tank
may be desirable to effect complete neutralization. Okey et al.5 have
shown an advantage to combining NaOH and NaHCO3. NaOH is
employed in the first stage and NaHCO3 in a second stage to provide
a buffer and avoid pH swings due to a change in influent characteris-
tics. Neutralization system design parameters are shown in Table 3.7.
Acid waste neutralization is shown in Example 3.5.

Example 3.5. A wastewater (100 gal/min) (0.38 m3/min) is highly acidic

and requires neutralization prior to secondary treatment. This flow is to be
neutralized to a pH of 7.0 by lime. The titration curve for the wastewater is
shown in Fig. 3.14, from which a two-stage control neutralization system will
be used with a total lime consumption of 2250 mg/L. The first stage requires
2000 mg/L and the second stage 250 mg/L.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd91 91 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

92 Chapter Three

Slaked lime
Slurry storage

Acid waste

pH control

Mixer

Equalizing
tank or
lagoon

Bypass
pH control
To treatment
or disposal
Alkaline waste

FIGURE 3.15 Multistage neutralization process.

Chemical storage tank Liquid—use stored supply vessel

Dry—dilute in a mix or day tank
Reaction tank:
Size Cubic or cylindrical with liquid depth
equal to diameter
Retention time 5 to 30 min (lime—30 min)
Influent Locate at tank top
Effluent Locate at tank bottom
Agitator:
Propeller type Under 1000-gal tanks
Axial-flow type Over 1000-gal tanks
Peripheral speeds 12 ft/s for large tanks
25 ft/s for tanks less than 1000 gal
pH sensor Submersible preferred to flow-
through type
Metering pump or control valve Pump delivery range limited to 10 to
1; valves have greater ranges.

Note: The selection of neutralizing agent will depend on availability, chemical cost, and
feeding methods.

TABLE 3.7 Neutralization System Design Parameters

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd92 92 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 93
The average lime dosage in the first stage is

(100 gal/min )(1440 min/d)(8 .34 lb/million ga

a l/mg/L)(2000 mg/L)

× 10 − 6 (million gal/gal) = 2400 lb/d (1090 kg/d)

The average lime dosage in the second stage is

100 × 1440 × 8 .34 × 250 × 10 − 6 = 300 lb/d (140 kg/ d)

The average lime dosage is 2700 lb/d (1.35 ton/d) (1230 kg/d). With this
dosage and type of lime each basin should be designed with a detention time
of 5 min.

Volume = 100 gal/min × 5 min = 500 gal (1 .9 m 3 )

Use two tanks, 4.6 ft (1.40 m) diameter × 4.1 ft (1.25 m) deep, so that diameter
and depth are approximately equal.
To maintain proper mixing in the reactor tanks, the power level required for
5 min detention time, D/T = 0.33, is 0.2 hp/thousand gal (40 W/m3) (Fig. 3.16).
Use 0.1-hp (75-W) mixers in each reaction tank.
Either one or two standard wall baffles, 180º apart, and one-twelfth to one-
twentieth of the width of the tank diameter, located 24 in (61 cm) from the
periphery of the impeller, are recommended for this operation.

1.0
0.8
0.6

0.4
0.3

0.2
D/T = 0.20
hp/thousand gal

D/T = 0.33
0.1
0.08
0.06 D/T = 0.50

0.04
0.03
Neutralization and D = turbine diameter
0.02 blending selection T tank diameter

0.01
1 2 3 4 6 8 10 20 50 100
Detention time (min)
Note: hp/thousand gal = 198 W/m3

FIGURE 3.16 Neutralizing tank power requirements.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd93 93 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

94 Chapter Three

3.4 Sedimentation
Sedimentation is employed for the removal of suspended solids from
wastewaters. The process can be considered in three basic classifica-
tions, depending on the nature of the solids present in the suspen-
sion: discrete, flocculent, and zone settling. In discrete settling, the
particle maintains its individuality and does not change in size, shape,
or density during the settling process. Flocculent settling occurs when
the particles agglomerate during the settling period with a resulting
change in size and settling rate. Zone settling involves a flocculated
suspension which forms a lattice structure and settles as a mass,
exhibiting a distinct interface during the settling process. Compac-
tion of the settled sludge occurs in all sedimentation but will be con-
sidered separately under thickening.

Discrete Settling
A particle will settle when the impelling force of gravity exceeds the
inertia and viscous forces. The terminal settling velocity of a particle is
defined by the relationship

4 g( ρs − ρl )D
v= (3.3)
3Cd ρl

where rl = density of the fluid

rs = density of the particle
v = terminal settling velocity of the particle
D = diameter of the particle
Cd = drag coefficient, which is related to the Reynolds
number and particle shape
g = acceleration due to gravity

When the Reynolds number is small, i.e., less than 1.0 (small par-
ticles at low velocity), the viscous forces are predominant and

24
Cd = (3.4)
N Re

where
vDρl
N Re = (3.5)
μ

rl and m are the density and viscosity of the liquid, respectively. Sub-
stitution of Eq. (3.4) in Eq. (3.3) yields Stokes’ law:

ρs − ρl
v= gD2 (3.6)
18μ

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd94 94 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 95

As the Reynolds number increases, a transition zone occurs in which

both inertia and viscous forces are effective. This occurs over a Reyn-
olds number range of 1 to 1000, where
18 .5
Cd = 0.6 (3.7)
N Re

Above a Reynolds number of 1000, viscous forces are not significant

and the coefficient of drag is constant at 0.4.
The settling velocities of discrete particles, as related to diameter
and specific gravity, are shown in Fig. 3.17.
Hazen6 and Camp7 developed relationships applicable to the
removal of discrete particles in an ideal settling tank, based on the
premises that the particles entering the tanks are uniformly distributed
over the influent cross section and that a particle is considered removed
when it hits the bottom of the tank. The settling velocity of a particle
that settles through a distance equal to the effective depth of the tank in
the theoretical detention period can be considered as an overflow rate:
Q
vo = (3.8)
A

1.0

Specific gravity = 1.001, 10°C

Specific gravity = 1.001, 20°C

0.1
Particle diameter (cm)

Specific gravity = 1.01, 10°C

0.01 Specific gravity = 1.01, 20°C

Specific gravity = 2.65, 10°C

Specific gravity = 2.65, 30°C

0.001
0.01 0.1 1 10
Settling velocity (cm/s)

FIGURE 3.17 Settling properties of discrete particles.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd95 95 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

96 Chapter Three

D Inlet Outlet
v
zone zone
vo

Sludge zone
t
(a) Discrete

v
D Inlet Outlet
zone vo zone

Sludge zone

t
(b) Flocculent

FIGURE 3.18 Ideal settling tank.

where Q = rate of flow through the tank and A = tank surface area. All
particles with settling velocities greater than vo will be completely
removed, and particles with settling velocities less than vo will be
removed in the ratio v/vo, as shown in Fig. 3.18. The removal of dis-
crete particles is independent of tank depth and is a function of the
overflow rate only.
When the suspension to be removed has a wide range of particle
sizes, the total removal is defined by the relationship

1 fo
Total removal = (1 − fo ) +
vo ∫0 v df (3.9)

where fo is the fraction of particles having a settling velocity equal to

or less than vo. Equation (3.9) must usually be solved by graphical
integration to obtain the total removal.
The foregoing analysis is based on the performance of an ideal set-
tling tank under quiescent conditions. In practice, however, short cir-
cuiting, turbulence, and bottom scour will affect the degree of solids
removal. Dobbins8 and Camp7 have developed a relationship to com-
pensate for the decrease in removals caused by turbulence (Fig. 3.19).

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd96 96 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 97
Values of v/vo
1.0 2.0 1.5 1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9

0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7
Removal ratio rr

0.6 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0
0.1 0.5 1 5 10 50 100
Values of vH/2E
Removal ratios for turbulent sedimentation

FIGURE 3.19 Effect of turbulence on the subsidence of particles. (After Dobbins8)

Figure 3.19 shows the effect of turbulence in reducing the removal ratio
of particles having a settling velocity v from the theoretical value of
v/vo, where vo refers to the overflow rate. The ratio vH/2E is a parame-
ter of turbulent intensity, where H is the depth and E is a coefficient of
turbulent transport. For narrow channels, Camp has shown the ratio to
be equal to 122v/V, where V is the average channel velocity.
Scour occurs when the flow-through velocity is sufficient to resus-
pend previously settled particles; it is defined by the relationship:

8β
vc = gD (S − 1) (3.10)
f

where vc = velocity of scour

b = constant (0.04 for unigranular sand, 0.06 for nonuniform
sticky material)
f = Weisbach-D’Arcy friction factor, 0.03 for concrete
S = particle specific gravity
g = acceleration due to gravity

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd97 97 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

98 Chapter Three

Scour is usually not a problem in large settling tanks but can

occur in grit chambers and narrow channels.

Flocculent Settling
Flocculent settling occurs when the settling velocity of the particle
increases as it settles through the tank depth, because of coalescence
with other particles. This increases the settling rate, yielding a curvilin-
ear settling path, as shown in Fig. 3.18b. Most of the suspended solids
in industrial wastes are of a flocculent nature. For discrete particles, the
efficiency of removal is related only to the overflow rate, but when
flocculation occurs, both overflow rate and detention time become
significant.
Since a mathematical analysis is not possible in the case of floc-
culent suspensions, a laboratory settling analysis is required to estab-
lish the necessary parameters. The laboratory settling study can be
conducted in a column of the type shown in Fig. 3.20. A minimum
diameter of 5 in (12.7 cm) is recommended to minimize wall effects.
Taps are located at 2-ft (0.61-m) depth intervals.
The concentration of suspended solids must be uniform at the
start of the test; sparging air into the bottom of the column for a few
minutes will accomplish this. It is also essential that the tempera-
ture be maintained constant throughout the test period to eliminate
settling interference by thermal currents. Suspended solids are
determined on samples drawn off at selected time intervals up to
120 min. The data collected from the 2-ft (0.61 m), 4-ft (1.22 m), and
6-ft (1.83-m) depth taps are used to develop the settling rate–time
relationships.
The results obtained are expressed in terms of percent removal
of suspended solids at each tap and time interval. These removals
are then plotted against their respective depths and times, as shown
in Fig. 3.21. Smooth curves are drawn connecting points of equal
removal. The curves thus drawn represent the limiting or maximum
settling path for the indicated percent; that is, the specified percent
suspended solids will have a net settling velocity equal to or greater
than that shown, and would therefore be removed in an ideal set-
tling tank of the same depth and detention time. The calculation of
removal can be illustrated from the data of Fig. 3.21.
The overflow rate vo is the effective depth, 6 ft (1.83 m), divided by
the time required for a given percent to settle this distance. All particles
having a settling velocity equal to or greater than vo will be 100 percent
removed. Particles with a lesser settling velocity v will be removed in
the proportion v/vo. For example, referring to Fig. 3.21a, at a detention
period of 60 min and a 6-ft (1.83-m) settling depth (vo = 6 ft/h [1.83 m/h]),
50 percent of the suspended solids are completely removed; that is,
50 percent of the particles have a settling velocity equal to or greater
than 6 ft/h (1.83 m/h). Particles in each additional 10 percent range will
be removed in the proportion v/vo or in the proportion to the average

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd98 98 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 99

6 in OD

5 12 in ID

1 in
1
4  2 12 in bolts
2 ft
Rubber gasket
8 ft 8 in

1 in

2 ft
Sludge sample
and drain
Lucite

2 ft Rubber
1 in
gasket

12 in
1 in
Note:
in = 2.54 cm
ft = 30.48 cm

FIGURE 3.20 Laboratory settling column for the evaluation of flocculent settling.

depth settled to the total depth of 6 ft (1.83 m). The average depth to which
the 50 to 60 percent range has settled in Fig. 3.21b is 3.8 ft (1.16 m). The
percent removal of this fraction is therefore 3.8 ft/6.0 ft (1.16 m/1.83 m), or
63 percent of the 10 percent. Each subsequent percent range is computed in
a similar manner, and the total removal developed as shown in Table 3.8.
The total removal of suspended solids of 62.4 percent can be accom-
plished at an overflow rate of 6 ft/h = 1080 gal/(d  ft2) (44 m3/[d  m2])
at a retention period of 60 min. In a similar manner various percent

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd99 99 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

100 Chapter Three

70
2 27 39 50 60 70
Depth (ft)

30 40 50 60

4 36 28 44 48 64

C0 = 393 mg/L
6 26 40 35 38 50 60

50 100
Time (min)
(a)
0

2 31 46 63 71 73 75
Depth (ft)

70

50 60
20 30 40
4 22 31 42 60 61 67

C0 = 550 mg/L
6 15 24 45 59

50 100
Time (min)
(b)
Note: ft = 0.3048 m

FIGURE 3.21 Flocculent settling relationships.

SS Range, % d/do SS Removal, %

0–50 1.0 50
50–60 0.64 6.4
60–70 0.25 2.5
70–100 0.05 1.5
Total removal 62.4

TABLE 3.8 Percent Ranges for Total Removal of

Suspended Solids

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd100 100 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 101

removals and their associated overflow rates and detention periods

can be computed.
Since the degree of flocculation is influenced by the initial concen-
tration of suspended solids, settling tests should be run over the antic-
ipated range of suspended solids in the influent waste. In many
wastes, a fraction of the measured suspended solids is not removed
by settling, so the curves developed from the laboratory analysis will
approach the removal as a limit.
Since the data obtained from the laboratory analysis represent ideal
settling conditions, criteria for prototype design must account for the
effects of turbulence, short circuiting, and inlet and outlet losses. The net
effect of these factors is a decrease in the overflow rate and an increase in
the detention time over that derived from the laboratory analysis. As a
general rule, the overflow rate will be decreased by a factor of 1.25 to
1.75, and the detention period increased by a factor of 1.50 to 2.00. The
development of these relationships is shown in Example 3.6.

Example 3.6. Laboratory data were obtained on the settling of a paper mill waste
(Table 3.9). Design a settling tank to produce a maximum effluent suspended
solids of 150 mg/L.

Removal, %
Time, min 2 ft 4 ft 6 ft
Initial solids, 393 mg/L
5 26
10 27 36 40
20 39 28 35
40 50 44 38
60 60 48 50
120 70 64 60
Initial solids, 550 mg/L
15 31 22 15
20 46 31
40 63 42 24
60 71 60 45
90 73 61
120 75 67 59

Note: ft = 30.48 cm

TABLE 3.9 Settling Data

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd101 101 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

102 Chapter Three

Removal of Overflow Rate,

Time, min Velocity, ft/h SS, % gal/(d · ft2)
C0 = 393 mg/L
27.5 13.1 41.6 2360
42.0 8.6 49.5 1550
62.0 5.8 57.3 1050
115.0 3.1 65.8 560
C0 = 550 mg/L
20 18.0 36.7 3250
27 13.3 46.8 2400
47 7.7 56.5 1400
66 5.4 62.5 980
83 3.8 70.8 690

Note: ft/h = 0.305 m/h

gal/(d  ft2) = 4.07  102 m3/(d  m2)

TABLE 3.10 Overflow Rate and % ISS Removal as Function of Time

Solution. With the values given in Table 3.9, Fig. 3.21 can be drawn and
Table 3.10 can be constructed by calculating the percent removal, the velocity,
and the overflow rate of different times as indicated above.
By plotting the SS removal versus overflow rate and time, Figs. 3.22 and 3.23
can be drawn.
From Figs. 3.22 and 3.23:
For 393 mg/L:

393 − 150
Percent removal = × 100 = 62
393
Overflow ra te = 770 gal/(d ⋅ ft 2 )(31 .4 m 3 /[d ⋅ m 2 ])
Detention time = 74 min

For 550 mg/L:

550 − 150
Percent removal = × 100 = 73
550
Overflow ra te = 540 gal/(d ⋅ ft 2 )(22 .0 m 3 /[d ⋅ m 2 ])
Detention time = 104 min

Design:

540
Overflow rate = = 360 gal/(d ⋅ ft 2 )(14 .7 m 3 /[d ⋅ m 2 ])
1 .5
104 min
Detention time t = × 1 .75 = 3 h
60 min/h

For 1 million gal/d:

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd102 102 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 103

90
Suspended solids removal (%)

70

50
550

393

30
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Overflow rate (gal/[d • ft2])
Note: gal/(d • ft2) = 4.07  10 –2 m3/(d • m2)

FIGURE 3.22 % TSS removal vs. overflow rate.

90
Suspended solids removal (%)

550
70
393

50

30
0 50 100
Detention time (min)

FIGURE 3.23 % TSS removal vs. detention time.

flow 106 gal/d

Area A = = = 2780 ft 2 (258 m 2 )
d ⋅ ft 2 )
overflow rate 360 gal/(d

t × flow
Effective depth =
A
3 h × 106 gal/d 0 . 134 ft 3 /gal
= ×
2780 ft 2 2 4 h/d
= 6 ft (1 .8 m)

The sedimentation performances for various pulp and paper-mill wastes are
summarized in Table 3.11.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd103 103 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 104
Removal %
Type of Flow, million Raw SS, Raw BOD, Temperature, Detention OR, gal/
Waste gal/day ppm ppm °F SS BOD Time, h (d · ft2)
Paperboard 4.5 2,500 450 85 90 67 5.35 504

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd104 104
0.75 136 85 90 50 1.15 940
1.36 10,000 360 62 85 24 5.40 430
2.5 1,185 395 96.1 19 5.3 525
31 524 195 110 42 25 9.4 438
30 850 250 95 80 25 0.5 1910
3.3 2,000 90 85 2.6 1028
0.25 50 100 100 80 25 4.5 39
0.301 1,150 250 110 98 50 90
35 4,000 200 100 90 10–15 1.5 374
Pre- and Primary Treatment

Specialty 9.4 203 97 81 94 86 2.56 832

2.2 6,215 120 120 90 1.5 157
1.8 665 620 95 91 58 0.5 406
50 120 85 100 80 16 18.2 477

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])
Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/8/08 [Link] PM
 Fine paper 6 200 65 95 90 3.9 695
6.0 254 235 90 50 34 2.2 890
9.9 500 364 70–100 90 35 2.4 1120
3.5 300 250 65 95 48 6.0 372

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd105 105
7.5–9.0 560 126 65 80 42 4.0 670
Miscellaneous 7 430 250 70 70 20 1.8 505
14 1,000 330 73 65 60 911
25 75 100 90 0.0 6.9 17
17 100 425 95 50 5.9 846
0.5 200 200 85 90 1.9 1590
1.0 1,000 900 100 95 2.9 509

Note: million gal/d = 3.75 ⫻ 103 m3/d.

Pre- and Primary Treatment

°C =
5 (°F ⫺ 32).
9
gal/(d ⭈ ft2) = 4.07 ⫻ 10–2 m3/(d ⭈ m2).
Source: Adapted from Committee on Industrial Waste Practice of SED.

TABLE 3.11 Settling Characteristics of Pulp and Paper-Mill Wastes9

Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
105
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])
Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

8/14/08 [Link] PM
 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

106 Chapter Three

Tanning wastewaters 10 with an initial suspended solids of 1200 mg/L

showed 69 percent reduction with a retention period of 2 h. BOD removals
of 86.9 percent were obtained from the settling of cornstarch wastes.11
The effect of the initial concentration of suspended solids on the sedimentation
efficiency of a pulpwood waste is shown in Fig. 3.24.

Zone Settling
Zone settling is characterized by activated sludge and flocculated
chemical suspensions when the concentration of solids exceeds
approximately 500 mg/L. The floc particles adhere together and the
mass settles as a blanket, forming a distinct interface between the floc
and the supernatant. The settling process is distinguished by four
zones, as shown in Fig. 3.25. Initially, all the sludge is at a uniform
concentration A, as shown in Fig. 3.25.
During the initial settling period the sludge settles at a uniform
velocity. The settling rate is a function of the initial solids concen-
tration A. As settling proceeds, the collapsed solids D on the bot-
tom of the settling unit build up at a constant rate. C is a zone of
transition through which the settling velocity decreases as the
result of an increasing concentration of solids. The concentration of
solids in the zone settling layer remains constant until the settling
interface approaches the rising layers of collapsed solids, III, and a
transition zone occurs. Through the transition zone C, the settling
velocity will decrease because of the increasing density and viscos-
ity of the suspension surrounding the particles. When the rising
layer of settled solids reaches the interface, a compression zone
occurs in stage IV.
In the separation of flocculent suspensions, both clarification of
the liquid overflow and thickening of the sludge underflow are
involved. The overflow rate for clarification requires that the average
rise velocity of the liquid overflowing the tank be less than the zone
settling velocity of the suspension. The tank surface area require-
ments for thickening the underflow to a desired concentration level
are related to the solids loading to the unit and are usually expressed
in terms of a mass loading (pounds of solids per square foot per day
or kilograms per square meter per day) or a unit area (square feet per
pound of solids per day or square meters per kilogram per day).
The mass loading concept for the thickening of industrial sludges
is developed in Chap. 11.

Laboratory Evaluation of Zone Settling and

Calculation of Solids Flux
The settling properties of flocculated sludges can be evaluated in a
liter cylinder equipped with a slow-speed stirrer rotating at a speed of
4 to 5 revolutions per hour (r/h). The effect of the stirrer is to simulate
the hydraulic motion and rake action in a clarifier and to break the
stratification and arching action of the settling sludge. In some cases,

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd106 106 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 107
90
Suspended solids removal (%)

80

70
Overflow rate = 1000–1400 gal/(d • ft2)
Detention = 1.5–2.0 h
T = 95–105°F

60
0 500 1000
Initial concentration C0 (mg/L)

Note:
gal/(d • ft 2) = 4.07  10 –2 m3/(d • m 2)
°C = 59 (°F – 32)

FIGURE 3.24 Effect of initial suspended solids concentration on percent

removal from a pulp and paper-mill wastewater.

an initial flocculation of the sludge occurs when it is added to the

graduated cylinder. The settling and compaction curve is developed
by plotting the height of the sludge interface versus the time of settling.

Clarifiers
Clarifiers may be either rectangular or circular. In most rectangular
clarifiers, scraper flights extending the width of the tank move the
settled sludge toward the inlet end of the tank at a speed of about
1 ft/min (0.3 m/min). Some designs move the sludge toward the
effluent end of the tank, corresponding to the direction of flow of the
density current. A typical unit is shown in Fig. 3.26.
Circular clarifiers may employ either a center-feed well or a
peripheral inlet. The tank can be designed for center sludge with-
drawal or vacuum withdrawal over the entire tank bottom.
Circular clarifiers are of three general types. With the center-feed
type, the water is fed into a center well and the effluent is pulled off
at a weir along the outside. With a peripheral-feed tank, the effluent
is pulled off at the tank center. With a rim-flow clarifier, the periph-
eral feed and effluent drainoff are also along the clarifier rim, but this
type is usually used for larger clarifiers.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd107 107 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

108 Chapter Three

I II III IV
B
B
B
A A A
C
C
D D
D
Height of sludge-liquid interface

Zone Transition
settling zone Compression
(A) (C) (D)

Time

FIGURE 3.25 Settling properties of a flocculated sludge.

FIGURE 3.26 Rectangular clarifier.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd108 108 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 109

The circular clarifier usually gives the optimal performance. Rect-

angular tanks may be desired where construction space is limited
and multiple tanks are to be constructed. In addition, a series of rect-
angular tanks would be cheaper to construct because of the “shared
wall” concept.
The reactor clarifier is another variation where the functions of
chemical mixing, flocculation, and clarification are combined in the
highly efficient solids contact unit. This combination achieves the high-
est overflow rate and the highest effluent quality of all clarifier designs.
The circular clarifier can be designed for center sludge withdrawal
or vacuum withdrawal over the entire tank bottom. Center sludge
withdrawal requires a minimum bottom slope of 1 in/ft (8.3 cm/m).
The flow of sludge to the center well is largely hydraulically motivated
by the collection mechanism, which serves to overcome inertia and
avoid sludge adherence to the tank bottom. The vacuum drawoff is
particularly adaptable to secondary clarification and thickening of acti-
vated sludge. A circular clarifier is shown in Fig. 3 .27.
The mechanisms can be of the plow type or the rotary-hoe type.
The plow-type mechanism employs staggered plows attached to two
opposing arms that move at about 10 ft/min (3 m/min). The rotary-
hoe mechanism consists of a series of short scrapers suspended from a
rotating supporting bridge on endless chains that make contact with
the tank bottom at the periphery and move to the center of the tank.
An inlet device is designed to distribute the flow across the width
and depth of the settling tank. The outlet device is likewise designed to
collect the effluent uniformly at the outlet end of the tank. Well-designed

FIGURE 3.27 Circular clarifier.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd109 109 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

110 Chapter Three

inlets and outlets will reduce the short-circuiting characteristics of the

tank. Increased weir length can be provided by extending the effluent
channels back into the basin or by providing multiple effluent channels.
In circular basins, inboard or radial weirs will ensure low takeoff veloc-
ities. Relocation of weirs is sometimes necessary to minimize solids car-
ryover induced by density currents and resulting in upwelling swells of
sludge at the end of the settling tank. The installation of a plate below
the effluent weir extending 18 in (45.7 cm) into the clarifier will deflect
rising solids and permit them to resettle. Improved performance of sec-
ondary clarifiers has been achieved with this modification.
Tube settlers offer increased removal efficiency at higher loading
rates and lower detention times. An immediate advantage is that
modules of inclined tubes constructed of plastic can be installed in
existing clarifiers to upgrade performance. However, it should be
noted that in some cases biological sloughing has resulted from place-
ment in secondary clarifiers following biological treatment.
There are two types of tube clarifiers, the slightly inclined and the
steeply inclined units. The slightly inclined unit usually has the tubes
inclined at a 5° angle. For the removal of discrete particles, an inclina-
tion of 5° has proven most efficient.
The steeply inclined unit is less efficient in removal of discrete par-
ticles, but can be operated continuously. When the tubes are inclined
greater than 45°, the sludge is deposited and slides back out of the tube,
forming a countercurrent flow. In practice most wastes are flocculent in
nature, and removal efficiency is improved when the tubes are inclined
to 60° to take advantage of the increased flocculation that occurs as the
solids slide back out of the tube. Steeply inclined units are usually used
where sedimentation units are being upgraded.
The hydraulic characteristics of a settling tank can be defined by a
dispersion test in which dye or tracer is injected into the influent as a slug,
and the concentration measured in the effluent as a function of time.
It is frequently possible to improve the performance of an exist-
ing settling basin by making modifications based on the results of a
dispersion test. A comparison of a hydraulically overloaded center-
feed tank converted to a peripheral-feed tank is shown in Fig. 3.28.

3.5 Oil Separation

In an oil separator, free oil is floated to the surface of a tank and then
skimmed off. The same conditions holding for the subsidence of par-
ticles apply, except that the lighter-than-water oil globules rise
through the liquid. The design of gravity separators as specified by
the American Petroleum Institute12 is based on the removal of all free
oil globules larger than 0.015 cm.
The Reynolds number is less than 0.5, so Stokes’ law applies. A
design procedure considering short circuiting and turbulence has
been developed.13

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd110 110 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 111

Peripheral feed
Dye concentration

Center feed

Time (min)

FIGURE 3.28 Dispersion characteristics of two settling tanks.

An API oil separator is shown in Fig. 3.29. The performance of an

API separator is shown in Figs. 3.30 and 3.31 and typical efficiencies
shown in Table 3.12.14 Design criteria suggest that the flow rate should
not exceed 2 ft/min, the length to width ratio should be at least 5 to
avoid dead spots in the separator, and the minimum depth set at 4 ft.
Variability in performance reported by Rebhun and Galil15 is shown
in Fig. 3.32. The influence of initial oil concentration on separator effi-
ciency is shown in Fig. 3.33.14
Plate separators include parallel plate separators and corrugated
plate separators (CPS). Plate separators are designed to separate oil
droplets larger than 0.006 cm. It has been found by experience that a
0.006-cm separation will generally produce a 10-mg/L free oil non-
emulsified effluent. This quality can usually be met when the influ-
ent oil content is less than 1 percent. One problem with the CPS is
that reduced efficiency results from high oil loadings caused by oil-
droplet shear and reentrainment of the oil droplet. This is largely
overcome using a cross-flow corrugated plate separator in which
the separated oil rises across the direction of flow rather than against
the direction of flow (plates are angled at 45° and spaced at 10 mm).

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd111 111 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

112 Chapter Three

Cover distribution
chamber if desired
A Platform
Trash
Rack
B B
C C
Oil retention
baffle Designed for inserting
rubber balloon stoppers
Vertical for diverting flows for
baffle cleaning separator sections.
Sluice gates or gate valves
Flight may be installed if desired.
scraper
Sludge pump
chain
sprocket
Section A-A

Wood flight
scraper

Rotary oil Skimmed oil pump

skimmer

Oil retention
baffle
A

Section B-B

Section C-C

FIGURE 3.29 Example of general arrangement for API separator. (Courtesy of the
American Petroleum Institute)

The hydraulic loading varies with temperature and the specific grav-
ity of the oil. Nominal flow rates are specified for a temperature of
20°C and a specific gravity of 0.9 for the oil. A hydraulic loading of
0.5 m3/(h  m2) of actual plate area will usually result in separation of
0.006-cm droplets. A 50 percent safety factor is usually employed for
design purposes. A plate separator is shown in Fig. 3.34.
Several types of filtration devices have proved effective in remov-
ing free and emulsified oils from refinery-petrochemical wastewaters.
These vary from filters with sand media to those containing special

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd112 112 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

1,000,000
800,000
600,000
Conventional oil-water separator

400,000
Parallel-plate separator

Less than given value

200,000

100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000

FIGURE 3.30 Correlation between influent and effluent oil levels for existing oil-water separators.
20,000

10,000
8,000
6,000

Note: The data in this figure are taken from the 1985 API Refinery Survey.
4,000
Influent oil (mg/L)
2,000

1,000
800
600
400

200

100
80
60

40

20

10
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000

2,000

1,000
800
600
400

200

100
80
60
40

20

10

Effluent oil (mg/L)

113
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])
Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd113 113 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

114 Chapter Three

API design range

Oil specific gravity = 0.8–0.94
10,000
Temperature = 60–140°F
8,000
6,000 Less than given value

4,000

2,000

1,000
800
Effluent oil (mg/L)

600

400

200

100
80
60

40

20
10
1

6
8
10

20

40

60
80
100

200

400

600
800
1000
Inverse surface loading rate (ft2/[ft3 • min])

Note: The data in this figure are taken from the 1985 API Refinery Survey.

FIGURE 3.31 Performance of conventional oil-water separators.

Oil Content Oil COD SS

Influent, Effluent, Removed, Removed, Removed,
mg/L mg/L % Type % %
300 40 87 Parallel plate — —
220 49 78 API 45 —
108 20 82 Circular — —
108 50 54 Circular 16 —
98 44 55 API — —
100 40 60 API — —
42 20 52 API — —
2000 746 63 API 22 33
1250 170 87 API — 68
1400 270 81 API — 35

TABLE 3.12 Typical Efficiencies of Oil Separation Units

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd114 114 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 115
100

90

80
OWS
effluent
70
Probability (%)

60
Raw
50 wastewater

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Oil (mg/L)

FIGURE 3.32 Oil removal by the oil-water separation (OWS) unit.

800

700

600

500
Effluent oil (mg/L)

400

300

200

100

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Influent oil (mg/L)

FIGURE 3.33 Effect of influent oil concentration separator efficiency.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd115 115 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

116 Chapter Three

Recovered oil to
skimmed oil tanks

Separated oil

Water from Separated water to

pump stations equalization tanks
Corrugated
plates

Separated solids
to disposal

FIGURE 3.34 Corrugated plate interceptor oil/solids/water separator.

media which exhibit a specific affinity for oil. One type is an upflow
unit using a graded silica medium as the filtering and coalescing sec-
tion. Even the small particles and globules are separated and retained
on the medium. The oil particles, which flow upward by gravity dif-
ferential and fluid flow, rise through the coalescent medium and
through the water phase from which the oil is separated and collected
near the top of the separator. The bed is regenerated by introducing
wash water at a rapid rate and evacuating the solids and remaining oil.
This filtration and coalescing process is often enhanced by the use of
polymer resin media. The primary application of these units are for
selected in-plant streams which are dirt-free. Another application
would be ballast water treatment following phase separation.
Emulsified oily materials require special treatment to break the
emulsions so that the oily materials will be free and can be separated
by gravity, coagulation, or air flotation. The breaking of emulsions is
a complex art and may require laboratory or pilot-scale investigations
prior to developing a final process design.
Emulsions can be broken by a variety of techniques. Quick-breaking
detergents form unstable emulsions which break in 5 to 60 min to 95
to 98 percent completion. Emulsions can be broken by acidification,
the addition of alum or iron salts, or the use of emulsion-breaking
polymers. The disadvantage of alum or iron is the large quantities of
sludge generated.

3.6 Oil Processing in a Typical Petroleum Refinery

As mentioned in this chapter, there are several primary and secondary
oil removal options. It should be recognized that the process of oil
recovery and removal systems result in the creation of listed hazardous

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd116 116 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 117
wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
These include:

RCRA Hazardous
Waste Designation
• Oil separator bottom sludges K051
• Slop oil emulsions K049
• DAF float K048
• Heat exchanger bundles K050
• Leaded tank bottoms K052
• Primary oil separator sludges F037
and desalter muds
• Miscellaneous sludge floats F038

The handling of these listed hazardous residuals must be fac-

tored into the design, reprocessing, and disposal in accordance
with RCRA regulations.
The two most typical methods of crude oil desalting, chemical
and electrostatic separation, use hot water as the extraction agent.
In chemical desalting, water and chemical surfactant (demulsifiers)
are added to the crude, heated so that salts and other impurities
dissolve into the water or attach to the water, and then held in a
tank where they settle out. Electrical desalting is the application of
high voltage electrostatic charges to concentrate suspended water
globules in the bottom of the settling tank. Surfactants are added
only when the crude has a large amount of suspended solids. Both
methods of desalting are continuous. A third and less common
process involves filtering heated crude using diatomaceous earth.
The feedstock crude oil is heated to between 150 and 350°F to reduce
viscosity and surface tension for easier mixing and separation of the
water. The temperature is limited by the vapor pressure of the crude oil
feedstock. In both methods other chemicals may be added. Ammonia is
often used to reduce corrosion. Caustic or acid may be added to adjust
the pH of the water wash. Wastewater and contaminants are discharged
from the bottom of the settling tank to the wastewater treatment facility.
The desalted crude is continuously drawn from the top of the settling
tanks and sent to the crude distillation (fractionating) tower. A diagram
of the electrostatic desalting process is shown in Fig. 3.35.
As noted in Table 15.3, the desalter effluent water constitutes a
significant fraction of the total wastewater flow from a petroleum
refinery. As this flow contains high salt content (TDS), suspended
muds, and unremoved oil (O&G), the must be routed through the
appropriate oil removal process prior to the wastewater treatment
plant. The amount of sludge (muds) associated with the raw crude
must be removed to the maximum extent possible. A number of

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd117 117 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

118 Chapter Three

Electrical
Process power
water

Desalted
Alternate
crude

Unrefined
crude Gravity settler
Effluent
Heater Emulsifier water

FIGURE 3.35 Electrostatic desalting.

techniques can be used such as low shear mixing devices to mix

desalter wash water and crude oil, using lower pressure process
water in the desalter to avoid turbulence, and replacing waste jets
used in some refineries with mud rates which add less turbulence
when removing settled solids. The desalting process combined
with the hazardous waste designation of oil residuals, and vapor
control and recovery (subject to national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants [NESHAPs]) which includes benzene and
approximately 20 other chemicals which potentially can be emit-
ted from petroleum refineries. (40CFR, Part 60, Subpart QQQ).
A simplified process flow diagram of the desalter, oil removal/
recovery system, and wastewater treatment conveyance, using a CPI
(Fig. 3.34) as the primary removal process, is shown in Fig. 3.36.
Oil
distillation
and
refinery
Recovered
Water oil
Desalted phase Separation
crude
tank

Process Recovered
oil Emulsion
water
breaker
Desalter
Heater Chemicals
e
Raw crud CPI
Mixed
effluent DAF oil Refinery Final
CPI equalization
Effluent removal WWTP effluent
Separated tanks
solids
Mud
removal Coker
Solids
disposal

FIGURE 3.36 Process flow diagram desalter-oil recovery-wastewater treatment.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd118 118 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 119

3.7 Sour Water Strippers

Stripping processes are used to remove selected constituents from
liquid streams. The two most prevalent pollutants found in refin-
ery wastewaters which are susceptible to stripping are hydrogen
sulfide and ammonia resulting from the destruction of essentially
all the organic nitrogen and sulfur compounds during desulfur-
ization, denitrification, and hydrotreating. The use of steam
within the processes is the primary source of conveyance, as the
condensation occurs simultaneously with the condensation of
hydrocarbon liquids and in the presence of a hydrocarbon vapor
phase which contains H2S and NH3.13 Phenols also may be present
in these “sour water” condensates and can be stripped from solu-
tions, although the efficiency of removal is less than for sulfide
and ammonia. Other aromatics also can be stripped from solution
at various levels of efficiency. As the regulatory agencies are
imposing increasingly stringent quality standards for refinery
wastewater in terms of immediate oxygen demand (sulfide caus-
ative) and ammonia, the necessity of in-plant control through
stripping towers may be required whether it can be justified in
terms of product recovery or not.
The design criteria for sour water strippers is well docu-
mented and is outlined in detail elsewhere.13,16 There are various
types of strippers but most involve a single tower equipped with
trays or some type of packing. The feed water enters at the top of
the tower and steam or stripping gas is introduced at the bot-
tom. As H 2S is less soluble in water than NH3, it is more readily
stripped from the solution. High temperatures (230°F or more)
are required to remove NH3, where H2S could be stripped at 100°F
if NH3 were fixed or not present. Therefore, acidification with a
mineral acid or flue gas is often used to fix the NH3 and allow
more efficient H2S removal. Average operating characteristics of
some sour water strippers are cited in Table 3.13.16 Although acid-
ification enhances sulfide removal, it fixes the ammonia and pre-
vents its removal. This has led to a two-stage stripping and
recovery process developed by the Chevron Research Company.
The process includes a degasser-surge tank combination which
allows operational flexibility. After any floating hydrocarbon is
skimmed, it is routed to the first column where the H2S is stripped
and sent to a sulfur recovery plant. The water-ammonia mixture
then goes to a second fractionator for ammonia stripping. The
overhead ammonia, approximately 98 percent pure as it leaves
the condenser, is further purified passing through a scrubber sys-
tem, and is then liquefied as high-purity ammonia. The cooled
water bottoms from the system are then sufficiently free of H2S
and NH3 to satisfy most quality criteria, containing less than
5 mg/L H2S and 50 mg/L NH3.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd119 119 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

120 Chapter Three

Flow Removal Temperature

Rate of
Stripping Tower
Type of Medium, Tower Bottom,
Stripper SCF/gal H2S, % NH3, % feed, °F °F
Steam
With acidifying∗ 8–32 96–100 69–95 150–240 230–270
Without 4–6 97–100 0 200 230–250
acidifying†
Flue gas
With steam‡ 12.7 88–98 77–90 235 235
Without steam‡ 11.9 99 8 135 140
Natural gas
With acidifying 7.5 98 0 70–100 70–100

∗Data from eight towers.

†
Data from only one tower.
‡
Data from two towers.

TABLE 3.13 Average Operating Characteristics of Sour Water Strippers

3.8 Flotation
Flotation is used for the removal of suspended solids and oil and
grease from wastewaters and for the separation and concentration of
sludges. The waste flow or a portion of clarified effluent is pressur-
ized to 50 to 70 lb/in2 (345 to 483 kPa or 3.4 to 4.8 atm) in the presence
of sufficient air to approach saturation. When this pressurized air-
liquid mixture is released to atmospheric pressure in the flotation
unit, minute air bubbles are released from solution. The sludge flocs,
suspended solids, or oil globules are floated by these minute air bub-
bles, which attach themselves to and become enmeshed in the floc
particles. The air-solids mixture rises to the surface, where it is
skimmed off. The clarified liquid is removed from the bottom of the
flotation unit; at this time a portion of the effluent may be recycled
back to the pressure chamber. When flocculent sludges are to be clar-
ified, pressurized recycle will usually yield a superior effluent quality
since the flocs are not subjected to shearing stresses through the
pumps and pressurizing system.

Air Solubility and Release

The saturation of air in water is directly proportional to pressure and
inversely proportional to temperature. Pray17 and Frolich18 found that

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd120 120 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 121

Temperature Volume Solubility Weight Solubility Density

3
ft / lb/
Thousand Thousand
°C °F mL/L gal mg/L gal g/L lb/ft3
0 32 28.8 3.86 37.2 0.311 1.293 0.0808
10 50 23.5 3.15 29.3 0.245 1.249 0.0779
20 68 20.1 2.70 24.3 0.203 1.206 0.0752
30 86 17.9 2.40 20.9 0.175 1.166 0.0727
40 104 16.4 2.20 18.5 0.155 1.130 0.0704
50 122 15.6 2.09 17.0 0.142 1.093 0.0682
60 140 15.0 2.01 15.9 0.133 1.061 0.0662
70 158 14.9 2.00 15.3 0.128 1.030 0.0643
80 176 15.0 2.01 15.0 0.125 1.000 0.0625
90 194 15.3 2.05 14.9 0.124 0.974 0.0607
100 212 15.9 2.13 15.0 0.125 0.949 0.0591

Values presented in absence of water vapor and at 14.7 lb/in2 (1 atm).

TABLE 3.14 Air Characteristics and Solubilities

the oxygen and nitrogen solubilities in water follow Henry’s law over
a wide pressure range. Vrablick19 has shown that although a linear
relationship exists between pressure and solubility for most indus-
trial wastes, the slope of the curve varies, depending on the nature of
the waste constituents present. The solubility of air in water at atmo-
spheric pressure is shown in Table 3.14.
The quantity of air that will theoretically be released from solu-
tion when the pressure is reduced to 1 atm can be computed from

P
s = sa − sa (3.11)
Pa

where s = air released at atmospheric pressure per unit volume at

100 percent saturation, cm3/L
sa = air saturation at atmospheric pressure, cm3/L
P = absolute pressure
Pa = atmospheric pressure

The actual quantity of air released will depend upon turbulent

mixing conditions at the point of pressure reduction and on the
degree of saturation obtained in the pressurizing system. Since the
solubility in industrial wastes may be less than that in water, a correc-
tion may have to be applied to Eq. (3.11). Retention tanks will generally

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd121 121 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

122 Chapter Three

yield 86 to 90 percent saturation. Equation (3.11) can be modified to

account for air saturation:

⎛fP ⎞
s = sa ⎜ − 1⎟ (3.12)
⎝ Pa ⎠
where f is the fraction of saturation in the retention tank.
The performance of a flotation system depends on having suffi-
cient air bubbles present to float substantially all of the suspended
solids. An insufficient quantity of air will result in only partial flota-
tion of the solids, and excessive air will yield no improvement. The
performance of a flotation unit in terms of effluent quality and solids
concentration in the float can be related to an air/solids (A/S) ratio,
which is usually defined as mass of air released per mass of sus-
pended solids in the influent waste:
A sa R ⎛ f P ⎞ (3.13)
= − 1⎟
S SaQ ⎜⎝ Pa ⎠
where Q = wastewater flow
R = pressurized recycle
Sa = influent oil and/or suspended solids

The relationship between the air/solids ratio and effluent quality

is shown in Fig. 3.37. It should be noted that the shape of the curve
will vary with the nature of the solids in the feed.

0.08

0.06
Air/solids ratio (lb/lb)

0.04

A/S = 0.03

0.02

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Effluent oil and grease (mg/L)

FIGURE 3.37 Effects on A/S on effluent quality.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd122 122 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 123

Vrablick19 has shown that the bubbles released after pressuriza-

tion (20 to 50 lb/in2 or 1.36 to 3.40 atm) range in size from 30 to 100 mm.
The rise velocity closely follows Stokes’ law. The rise velocity of a
solids-air mixture has been observed to vary from 1 to 5 in/min (2.56
to 12.7 cm/min) and will increase with an increasing air/solids ratio.
In the flotation of activated sludge of 0.91 percent solids and 40 lb/in2
(276 kPa or 2.72 atm), Hurwitz and Katz20 observed free rises of
0.3 (9), 1.2 (37), and 1.8 ft/min (55 cm/min) for recycle ratios of 100,
200, and 300 percent, respectively. The initial rise rate will vary with
the character of the solids.
The primary variables for flotation design are pressure, recycle
ratio, feed solids concentration, and retention period. The effluent
suspended solids decrease and the concentration of solids in the float
increase with increasing retention period. When the flotation process
is used primarily for clarification, a detention period of 20 to 30 min
is adequate for separation and concentration. Rise rates of 1.5 to
4.0 gal/(min  ft2) (0.061 to 0.163 m3/[min  m2]) are commonly employed.
When the process is employed for thickening, longer retention peri-
ods are necessary to permit the sludge to compact.
The principal components of a flotation system are a pressuriz-
ing pump, air-injection facilities, a retention tank, a backpressure
regulating device, and a flotation unit, as shown in Fig. 3.38. The

Retention
tank
Air Thickened
sludge
Waste
influent Flotation tank

Pressurizing Pressure-
pump reducing
valve
Effluent
(a)
Influent waste

Pressure-
reducing
valve

Air release
Air
Recycle injection Effluent

Retention
tank
(b)

FIGURE 3.38 Schematic representation of flotation systems. (a) Flotation system

without recirculation. (b) Flotation system with recirculation.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd123 123 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

124 Chapter Three

FIGURE 3.39 Clarifier flotation unit.

pressurizing pump creates an elevated pressure to increase the solu-

bility of air. Air is usually added through an injector on the suction
side of the pump or directly to the retention tank.
The air and liquid are mixed under pressure in a retention tank
with a detention time of 1 to 3 min. A backpressure regulating device
maintains a constant head on the pressurizing pump. Various types
of values are used for this purpose. The flotation unit may be either
circular or rectangular with a skimming device to remove the thick-
ened, floated sludge, as shown in Fig. 3.39.
The induced-air flotation system, shown in Fig. 3.40, operates on
the same principles as a pressurized-air dissolved air flotation (DAF)
unit. The gas, however, is self-induced by a rotor-disperser mecha-
nism. The rotor, the only moving part of the mechanism that is sub-
merged in the liquid, forces the liquid through the disperser openings,
thereby creating a negative pressure. It pulls the gas downward into
the liquid, causing the desired gas-liquid contact. The liquid moves
through a series of four cells before leaving the tank, and the float
skimmings pass over the overflow weirs on each side of the unit. This
type of system offers the advantages of significantly lower capital
cost and smaller space requirements than the pressurized system,
and current performance data indicate that these systems have the
capacity to effectively remove free oil and suspended materials.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd124 124 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 125
Inductors
Valve manual Overflow weir
Pneumatic level
controller
Oily water
influent Treated
effluent
Pneumatic
valve
Float product by
gravity to sump

FIGURE 3.40 Induced-air flotation system (Wemco Envirotech Company).

The disadvantages include higher connected power requirements

than the pressurized system, performance dependent on strict hydrau-
lic control, less chemical addition and flocculation flexibility, and rela-
tively high volumes of float skimmings as a function of liquid
throughout (3 to 7 percent of the incoming flow for induced-air sys-
tems is common compared to less than 1 percent for pressurized-air
systems).
It is possible to estimate the flotation characteristics of a waste by
the use of a laboratory flotation cell, as shown in Fig. 3.41. The proce-
dure is as follows:

1. Partially fill the calibrated cylinder with waste or flocculated

sludge mixture and the pressure chamber with clarified
effluent or water.
2. Apply compressed air to the pressure chamber to attain the
desired pressure.
3. Shake the air-liquid mixture in the pressure chamber for
1 min and allow to stand for 3 min to attain saturation.
Maintain the pressure on the chamber for this period.
4. Release a volume of pressurized effluent to the cylinder and
mix with the waste or sludge. The volume to be released is
computed from the desired recycle ratio. The velocity of
release through the inlet nozzle should be of such a magnitude
as not to shear the suspended solids in the feed mixture but
to maintain adequate mixing.
5. Measure the rise of the sludge interface with time. Correction
must be applied to scale up the height of rise in the test cylinder
to the depth of the prototype unit.
6. After a detention time of 20 min, the clarified effluent and the
floated sludge are drawn off through a valve in the bottom of
the cylinder.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd125 125 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

126 Chapter Three

Calibrated plastic cylinder

(atmospheric chamber)

Sampling hose

Cork plug

Hose clamp
Rubber seat

Air cock
Pressure gauge
Air

Inlet valve
Check nut
Air-bleed valve

Top plate

Air sparger

Riser tube
Pressure chamber

FIGURE 3.41 Laboratory flotation cell.

7. Relate the effluent suspended solids to the calculated air/

solids ratio as shown in Fig. 3.37. When pressurized recycle is
used, the air/solids ratio is computed:

A 1 . 3sa R (P − 1)
=
S QSa

where sa = air saturation, cm3/L

R = pressurized volume, L
P = absolute pressure, atm
Q = waste flow, L
Sa = influent suspended solids, mg/L

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd126 126 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 127
100 100
90 Alum 90 Polymer

80 80

70 70
Residual (%)

Residual (%)
60 60
50 Turbidity 50
40 40 Turbidity
30 30
20 Oil 20
10 10 Oil

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Alum dose (mg/L) Polymer dose (mg/L)

FIGURE 3.42 Treatment efficiency in chemical flocculation.14

High-degree clarification frequently requires that flocculating

chemicals be added to the influent before it is mixed with the pressur-
ized recycle. Alum or polyelectrolytes are used as flocculating agents.
Hurwitz and Katz20 have shown that the rise rate of chemical floc will
vary from 0.65 to 2.0 ft/min (20 to 61 cm/min), depending on the floc
size and characteristics. Treatment efficiency with chemical addition
is shown in Fig. 3.42.
Flotation design for an oily wastewater is shown in Example 3.7.
Flotation units have been used for the clarification of wastewaters,
for the removal of oil, and for the concentration of waste sludges.
Variability in DAF performance is shown in Figs. 3.43 and 3.44. Some
reported data for petroleum refinery effluents are shown in Table 3.15
and for a variety of wastewaters in Table 3.16.

Example 3.7. A wastestream of 150 gal/min (0.57 m3/min) and a temperature

of 103°F (39.4°C) contains significant quantities of nonemulsified oil and
nonsettleable suspended solids. The concentration of oil is 120 mg/L. Reduce
the oil to less than 20 mg/L. Laboratory studies showed:

Alum dose = 50 mg/L

Pressure = 60 lb/in2 gage (515 kPa absolute or 4.1 relative atm)
Sludge production = 0.64 mg/mg alum
Sludge = 3 percent by weight

Calculate:

(a) The recycle rate

(b) Surface area of the flotation unit
(c) Sludge quantities generated

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd127 127 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

128 Chapter Three

100

90

80

70

Oil-water system
Probability (%)

60
influent
DAF to DAF
50
effluent
40

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Oil (mg/L)

FIGURE 3.43 Oil removal by chemical flocculation and DAF. (Adapted from
Galil and Rebhum, 1993.)

140
Note: Influent oil to
API separator:
120 50% value = 1020 mg/L
90% value = 2150 mg/L 90% value = 105 mg/L

100

DAF
80
Oil (mg/L)

influent
50% value = 68 mg/L

60

40

DAF 90% value = 26 mg/L (75% eff.)

20 effluent 50% value = 15 mg/L (78% eff.)

0
1 10 30 50 90 99 99.9
Percent equal to or less than

FIGURE 3.44 DAF performance variability.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd128 128 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 129

Influent Oil, Effluent

mg/L Oil, mg/L % Removal Chemicals∗ Configuration
1930 (90%) 128 (90%) 93 Yes Circular
580 (50%) 68 (50%) 88 Yes Circular
105 (90%) 26 (90%) 78 Yes Rectangular
68 (50%) 15 (50%) 75 Yes Rectangular
170 52 70 No Circular
125 30 71 Yes Circular
100 10 90 Yes Circular
133 15 89 Yes Circular
94 13 86 Yes Circular
838 60 91 Yes Rectangular
153 25 83 Yes Rectangular
75 13 82 Yes Rectangular
61 15 75 Yes Rectangular
360 45 87 Yes Rectangular
315 54 83 Yes Rectangular

∗Alum most common, 100–300 mg/L. Polyelectrolyte, 1–5 mg/L, is occasionally added

TABLE 3.15 DAF Performance Data

Oil Concentration, mg/L

Wastewater Coagulant, mg/L Influent Effluent Removal, %
Refinery 0 125 35 72
100 alum 100 10 90
130 alum 580 68 88
0 170 52 70
Oil tanker 100 alum  133 15 89
ballast water 1 mg/L polymer
Paint 150 alum  1900 0 100
manufacture 1 mg/L polymer
Aircraft 30 alum  250–700 20–50 90
maintenance 10 mg/L
activated silica
Meat packing 3830 270 93
4360 170 96

TABLE 3.16 Air Flotation Treatment of Oily Wastewaters

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd129 129 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

130 Chapter Three

The air/solids ratio for effluent oil and grease of 20 mg/L is found from Fig. 3.37:

A
= 0 . 03 lb air released/lb solids applied
S

At 103°F (39.4°C) the weight solubility of air is 18.6 mg/L from Table 3.14. The
value of f is assumed to be 0.85.

Solution
(a) The recycle rate is
( A/ S) QSa
R=
sa ( fP/ Pa − 1)

0 .03 × 150 × 120

=
18 .6 ([0 .855 × 515/101 .3] − 1)
= 8 .75 gal/min (33 .1 L/min )

(b) The hydraulic loading for oil removal is determined from Fig. 3.45,
and is 2.6 gal/(min  ft2) (0.11 m3/[min  m2]) for an effluent of 20 mg/L.
The required surface area is

Q+R
A=
loading
150 + 8 . 75
=
2.6
= 61 ft 2 ( 5 .7 m 2 )

40 Pressure = 50 lb/in2
Varied recycle
Effluent oil and grease (mg/L)

30

20

10

0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

Surface loading rate (gal/[min • ft2])

FIGURE 3.45 Hydraulic loading rate determination.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd130 130 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 131
(c) Sludge quantities generated:

Oil sludge = (120 − 20) mg/L × 150 gal/min × 1440 min/d

⎛ lb/million gal ⎞
× (million gal/106 gal) ⎜ 8 .34 ⎟⎠
⎝ mg/L

= 180 lb/d (82 kg/d)

Alum slu d ge = 0 .64 mg sludge/mg alum × 50 mg/L alum
× 155 0 gal/min

× (1440 min/d)(million gal/106 ga l)(8 .34)

= 58 lb/d (26 kg/d)
Total sludge = 23 8 lb/d (108 kg/d)
Total sludge volume = 238/0 .03 lb/d (gal/8 .34 lb)(day/1440 min )
= 0 .66 gal/min (2 .5 L/min )

3.9 Problems
3.1. An industry is required to equalize its wastewater and discharge it such
that the load in BOD/day to a POTW is constant over 24 h. The POTW sewage
flow is 6.47 million gal/d, with a BOD of 200 mg/L. The diurnal sewage
variation in flow is shown in Fig. P3.1. The industrial waste flow is 3.17 million
gal/d, with a BOD of 1200 mg/L, and is constant over 10 h (8 A.M. to 6 P.M.).

(a) Compute the volume of equalization (or holding) tank required.

(b) Plot the discharge curve of the industrial waste over 24 h.

15

11.6
Rate of flow (million gal/d)

10

1.6
1.6

0
8 A.M. 2 P.M. 8 P.M. 2 A.M. 8 A.M.
Hours of the day

FIGURE P3.1

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd131 131 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

132 Chapter Three

3.2. A survey of the discharge from a pharmaceutical plant showed the

following data.

Time Flow, gph COD, mg/L

Day 1
7:00 A.M. 1025 80
8:00 A.M. 600 55
9:00 A.M. 1200 48
10:00 A.M. 600 45
11:00 A.M. 720 95
12:00 P.M. 1080 66
1:00 P.M. 1200 41
2:00 P.M. 1620 39
3:00 P.M. 1200 29
4:00 P.M. 1320 138
5:00 P.M. 1020 146
6:00 P.M. 720 154
Day 2
7:00 A.M. 960 47
8:00 A.M. 900 40
9:00 A.M. 1020 139
10:00 A.M. 900 1167
11:00 A.M. 1140 491
12:00 P.M. 1320 163
1:00 P.M. 900 90
2:00 P.M. 1320 143
3:00 P.M. 1200 88
4:00 P.M. 900 35
5:00 P.M. 1140 35
6:00 P.M. 960 47

Compute the volume of an equalization basin to yield a peaking factor of

1.2 and 1.4 based on flow through the system at constant volume and on a
constant discharge rate (i.e., variable volume). For the variable-volume case
the low level in the basin will be 20 percent of the daily flow.

3.3. An acidic industrial wastewater flow of 150 gal/min (0.57 m3/min) with
a peak factor of 1.2 is to be neutralized to pH 6.0 using lime. The titration curve
is as follows:

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd132 132 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 133

pH mg Lime/L Waste
1.8 0
1.9 500
2.05 1000
2.25 1500
3.5 2000
4.1 2100
5.0 2150
7.0 2200

Consider providing the necessary capacity for a maximum 2-week lime

requirement for pH 7.0 with an hourly requirement 20 percent greater.

Determine:

(a) The lime feed rate for each stage in a two-stage system.
(b) The lime storage capacity (ft3) based on the controlling requirement
of either the mean monthly requirement or the maximum two-week
requirement. Assume the use of pebbled quicklime (CaO), which has
a bulk density of 65 lb/ft3 (1060 kg/m3).
(c) The capacity of the lime slaker and mechanism for transporting the bulk
lime based on the maximum estimated requirements.
(d) The mean and maximum slaking water requirements assuming a
10 percent by weight slurry.
(e) The size of the slurry control tank based on a minimum resident time
of 5 min.
(f) The size of the caustic storage tank based on 24-h caustic feed (NaOH) at
the maximum extended usage equivalent to a hydrated lime requirement
of 1000 mg/L. Assume NaOH is available with a purity of 98.9 percent
and a solubility of 2.5 lb/gal (300 kg/m3).
(g) The maximum caustic (NaOH) feed rate for backup of the lime
system.

3.4. A laboratory settling analysis for a pulp and paper mill effluent gave the
following results for Co = 430 mg/L, T = 29°C:

(a) Design a settling tank to remove 70 percent of the suspended solids for
1 million gal/d flow (3785 m3/d). (Apply appropriate factors and neglect
initial solids effects.)
(b) What removal will be attained if the flow is increased to 2 million gal/d
(7570 m3/d)?

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd133 133 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

134 Chapter Three

Suspended Solids Removed at Indicated Depth, %

Time, min 2 ft 4 ft 6 ft
10 47 27 16
20 50 34 43
30 62 48 47
45 71 52 46
60 76 65 48

Note: ft = 30.5 cm

3.5. A wastewater has a flow of 250 gal/min (0.95 m3/min) and a temperature
of 105°F (40.5°C). The concentration of oil and grease is 150 mg/L and the
suspended solids 100 mg/L. An effluent concentration of 20 mg/L is required.
An alum dosage of 30 mg/L is required. The required A/S is 0.04 and the
surface loading rate is 2 gal/(min  ft2) (0.081 m3/[min  m2]). The operating
pressure is 65 lb/in2 gage (4.4 relative atm).

Compute:

(a) The required recycle flow

(b) The surface area of the unit
(c) The volume of sludge produced if the skimmings are 3 percent by
weight

References
1. Novotny, V., and A. J. England: Water Res., vol. 8, p. 325, 1974.
2. Patterson, J. W., and J. P. Menez: Am. Inst. Chem. Engrs. Env. Prog., vol. 3, p. 2,
1984.
3. Thomas, O., and D. Constant: “Trends in Optical Monitoring, Trends in
Sustainable Production—From Wastewater Diagnosis to Toxicity Management
and Ecological Protection,” IWA Press, issue 1, vol. 49, London, 2004.
4. Tully, T. J.: Sewage Ind. Wastes, vol. 30, p. 1385, 1958.
5. Okey, R. W. et al.: Proc. 32nd Purdue Industrial Waste Conf., Ann Arbor Science
Pub., 1977.
6. Hazen, A.: Trans. ASCE, vol. 53, p. 45, 1904.
7. Camp, T. R.: Trans. ASCE, vol. 111, p. 909, 1946.
8. Dobbins, W. E.: “Advances in Sewage Treatment Design,” Sanitary Engineering
Division, Met. Section, Manhattan College, May 1961.
9. Committee on Industrial Waste Practice of SED: J. Sanit. Engrg. Div. ASCE,
December 1964.
10. Sutherland, R.: Ind. Eng. Chem., p. 630, May 1947.
11. Greenfield, R. E., and G. N. Cornell: Ind. Eng. Chem., p. 583, May 1947.
12. American Petroleum Institute: Manual on Disposal of Refinery Wastes, vol. 1, New
York, 1959.
13. Azad, H. S. (editor): Industrial Wastewater Management Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1976.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd134 134 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

P r e - a n d P r i m a r y Tr e a t m e n t 135
14. Ford, D. L., private communication.
15. Galil, N., and M. Rebhum: Water Sci. Tech., vol. 27, no. 7–8, p. 79, 1993.
16. Jones, H. R.: Pollution Control in the Petroleum Industry, Noyes Data Corp.,
Princeton, New Jersey, 1973.
17. Pray, H. A.: Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 44, pt. 1, p. 146, 1952.
18. Frolich, R.: Ind. Eng. Chem., vol. 23, p. 548, 1931.
19. Vrablick, E. R.: Proc. 14th Ind. Waste Conf., 1959, Purdue University.
20. Hurwitz, E., and W. J. Katz: “Laboratory Experiments on Dewatering Sewage
Sludges by Dissolved Air Flotation,” unpublished report, Chicago, 1959.

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd135 135 8/8/08 [Link] PM

 Technical 6x9 /Industrial Water Quality/EckenFelder /866-1/Chapter 3

Pre- and Primary Treatment

Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill ([Link])

Copyright © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved.
Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.

03_EckenFelder_Ch03_065-136.indd136 136 8/8/08 [Link] PM