|
Journal of Environmental BiologypISSN: 0254-8704 ; eISSN: 2394-0379 ; CODEN: JEBIDP |
|
Google Search the Journal web-site: |
Abstract - Issue Oct 2007, 28 (4) BackDisinfection of wastewater:
Comparative evaluation of chlorination
and DHS-biotower Anju
Pant and Atul K. Mittal* *akmittal@civil.iitd.ac.in Environmental Engineering
Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Technology, New Delhi-110 016, (Received:
June 12, 2006 ; Revised received: December 05, 2006 ;
Accepted: January 01, 2007) Abstract: The
present study reports the onsite evaluation of two pilot scale disinfection
units. One of the pilot plants is based on chlorination, and other is based on
fixed film aerobic process (biotower). Evaluation
study consisted of onsite monitoring of COD, BOD5 and TSS and
fecal coliform over a period of three months. Samples
were collected from the inlet and outlet of the pilot plants. These pilot
plants were evaluated so as to have an appropriate disinfection technology for
the treatment of the effluents from upflow anaerobic
sludge blanket reactor (UASBR) based sewage treatment plants which could meet
the biological quality standards. All the influents samples collected from both
the pilot plants contained fecal coliform ranging
from 105 to 106 MPN/100 ml. The results show that the fecal coliform
removal is up to 98.2% and 100% for biotower and
chlorination, respectively. Both, the chlorination and down hanging sponge-biotower (DHS-biotower) improved
the quality of effluent from the UASBR in terms of COD, BOD5 and TSS. Though
chlorination performed better compared to the DHS-biotower,
however, it has additional risk associated with the formation of trihalomethanes (THMs). Key words: Chlorination, Disinfection, Fecal coliforms, Municipal wastewater and UASB, Biotower PDF file of
full length paper is available with author Copyright
© 2007 Triveni Enterprises. All rights reserved. No part of the Journal can be reproduced in any
form without prior permission. Responsibility regarding the authenticity
of the data, and the acceptability of the conclusions enforced or derived, rest
completely with the author(s). |