water

Article
Application of the Mathematical Simulation Methods
for the Assessment of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Operation Work Reliability
Dariusz Młyński 1, *, Piotr Bugajski 1 and Anna Młyńska 2
1 Department of Sanitary Engineering and Water Management, University of Agriculture in Krakow,
Mickiewicza 24–28 Street, 30-059 Krakow, Poland; [email protected]
2 Department of Water Supply, Sewerage and Environmental Monitoring, Cracow University of Technology,
Warszawska 24 Street, 31-155 Krakow, Poland; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-12-662-40-41




Received: 29 March 2019; Accepted: 23 April 2019; Published: 26 April 2019


Abstract: The aim of the present work was the modeling of the wastewater treatment plant operation
work using Monte Carlo method and different random variables probability distributions modeling.
The analysis includes the following pollutants indicators; BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen Demand),
CODCr (Chemical Oxygen Demand), Total Suspended Solids (SSt ), Total Nitrogen (TN), and Total
Phosphorus (TP). The Anderson–Darling (A–D) test was used for the assessment of theoretical and
empirical distributions compatibility. The selection of the best-fitting statistical distributions was
performed using peak-weighted root mean square (PWRMSE) parameter. Based on the performed
calculations, it was stated that pollutants indicators in treated sewage were characterized by a
significant variability. Obtained results indicate that the best-fitting pollutants indicators statistical
distribution is Gauss Mixed Model (GMM) function. The results of the Monte Carlo simulation
method confirmed that some problems related to the organic and biogenic pollutants reduction may
be observed in the Wastewater Treatment Plant, in Jaworzno.

Keywords: pollutants indicators; probability distribution; simulation; wastewater treatment plant

operation work reliability

1. Introduction
The dynamic development of water supply and sewage systems that has been observed in Poland
for many years contributes to the discharge of a large amount of sewage. The sewage is defined
as the community’s spent water. Although it mainly consists of pure water (over 98%), it contains
waste of almost every form and description, with the remainder being dirt. Approximately 25% of
the pollutants in normal domestic sewage are in suspension and 75% in solution. Sewage contains
many complex organic and mineral compounds. The organic portion of sewage is biochemically
degradable and, as such, is responsible for the offensive characteristics usually associated with sewage.
Furthermore, sewage contains large numbers of microorganisms, most of which are bacteria [1]. Before
the discharging of treated sewage into the natural sewage receivers, there is a necessity for reach the
required level of sewage treatment, because of the natural environment [2–4]. Because of this, it is
important to make a general assessment each of the wastewater treatment plant, both in terms of the
effectiveness of pollutants reduction and the reliability of the operation work of wastewater treatment
plant facilities. Extensive analysis of the research results allows for predict the improprieties and for its
elimination in the future. This is a significant point for attaining effective surface water protection
against pollution [5].

Water 2019, 11, 873; doi:10.3390/w11050873 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2019, 11, 873 2 of 17

Surface waters are very important source of water for large urban agglomerations. Continuous
urban agglomerations development leads to an increase in human impact on the aquatic environment.
Pollutants in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters pose a significant threat to the water reservoirs users,
because of discharging the sewage after treatment processes into the natural environment. In extreme
cases, pollutants that are introduced with sewage into the water can lead to the extinction all of the
biological life forms in water and for purging the sewage natural receiver, e.g., surface water or ground
water that have self-cleaning skills [6–8]. In recent decades, some problems related to the deficiency
of required quality water have intensified. Rapid urbanization and the increase in the number of
residents contributed to the surface water quality deterioration. In addition, due to the still growing
water demand and its limited amount, there is a necessity for water recover through the wastewater
treatment plant processes [9–11].
In order to achieve the required level of pollutants indicators in treated sewage, it is necessary to
control the operational work of the particular wastewater treatment plant facilities. It is connected with
the permanent or periodic complex control of the sewage treatment processes. The aim of control of the
wastewater treatment plant facilities is due to the necessity of its maintaining in permanent readiness
to the proper work, which provides the required treated sewage quality at the outflow. The growth of
the wastewater treatment plant technological reliability, affects the quick detection of devices failures
and measuring apparatus failures. In addition, a technological control including daily observations
of the treated sewage quality and quantity, the condition of activated sludge and other parameters,
affects the sewage treatment process effects in a special way.
Generally, the assessment of the operation work of the wastewater treatment plant is performed
based on some pollutants indicator concentrations in treated sewage, which are compared with legally
required pollutants indicators values. These limitation values are determined by the obligatory legal
acts, such as the water and legal permission acts, and other regulations concerning the quality of treated
sewage. However, the method of assessing the operation work of the wastewater treatment plant that
is presented above is a bit simplified. This is because of the basis only on the empirical sample of the
analyzed random variables. The reliability of the wastewater treatment plant is mainly considered as the
percentage share of time, during which the expected treated sewage content meets the requirements [12].
A variability of the pollutants indicators values in sewage should be considered as a function of the
probability distribution that determines the physicochemical parameters of treated sewage content.
Thus, the mathematical simulations for the wastewater treatment plant operation work should be
conducted. It allows for make more reliable assessment of the operation work of the wastewater
treatment plant in comparison to the usually used methods that are based on short observations series
for pollutants indicators. It should be noted that the using of a mathematical simulations for the
optimization of sewage treatment processes is justified. Mathematical simulations give the possibility
for elaboration the dynamic mathematical models of sewage treatment processes. Mathematical models
allow making a decision about the changes in the sewage treatment processes. An additional advantage
of using a mathematical models is the possibility of considering the variability of inflowing sewage
quality (parameters). The wastewater treatment plant operator makes an assessment of the wastewater
treatment plant operation work only based on the analysis of the pollutants indicators in treated
sewage. Sometimes, the values of pollutants indicators in sewage at the inflow and sewage at the
outflow from the wastewater treatment plant are compared with each other. Based on this comparison,
it is possible to determine the reliability of the wastewater treatment plant operation work that is
expressed by the reduction degree (%). Based on the conducted simulations, wastewater treatment
plant operator is able to estimate the risk, i.e., the probability of occurrence in the future pollutants
indicators values greater than its permissible limits. Thus, the higher risk value, the greater the need for
the modernization or extension of the wastewater treatment plant facilities. A prediction of such values
is even more important, because currently observed climate changes, demographic changes, and water
consumption changes can affect significantly the changes of the wastewater treatment plant load, both
in terms of the sewage volume (hydraulic load) and pollution sewage load. Finally, it can affect the
Water 2019, 11, 873 3 of 17

treated sewage quality. Because of this, a prediction seems to be very important [13]. Simulation issues
of technological processes of sewage treatment are often considered research problems, both during
designing process of the wastewater treatment plant facilities, its modernization, and exploitation too.
Because the operation work of the wastewater treatment plant is basis on the complexity technology
processes, many different models for describing its operation work may be found. Modeling of the
wastewater treatment plant operation work can be performed by using Artificial Neural Networks
(ANN), where the number of input variables can be separated by cluster analysis or by principal
component analysis [14–16]. Moreover, Activated Sludge Simulation Models (ASIM) are widely
discussed in literature, e.g., Snip et al. [17], Wu et al. [18], Machado et al. [19], Alikhani et al. [20],
Guo and Vanrolleghem [21]. Modeling of the wastewater treatment plant operation work can be
conducted using particular types of probability distributions. Bugajski et al. [22], Marzec [23], and
Jóźwiakowski et al. [24] considered the possibility of using Weibull distribution for modeling the
wastewater treatment plant operation work reliability.
The analysis of the operation work of the wastewater treatment plant using the probability
distributions allows the description of the analyzed phenomena in a wider range. An important
point of the presented method is the possibility of modeling complicated dependences between the
considered variables and forecasting the pollutants indicators values in some period of time. Results
obtained in this way may be helpful for the assessment of the risk of improper operation work of
the wastewater treatment plant. However, it should be stressed that some assumptions about the
unique form of pollutants indicators distribution may be incorrect. Thus, the stability of mechanisms
having an impact on pollutants indicators reduction is suggested. In reality, there are many proposals
basis on the same empirical sample. Because of this, for each empirical distribution of random
variables, the best-fitting theoretical distribution should be determined. One of the methods used for
selection of the best-fitting theoretical distribution is the Akaike (AIC), or Schwartz (BIC), information
criteria [25]. Alternative statistical tests also could be used for the assessment of theoretical distributions
performance. One of them is an Anderson–Darling (A–D) test that compares the whole range, but it
gives more weight to the upper tail [26]. The main disadvantage of these goodness-of-fit metrics is that
they not provide any information about the precision limit and the inclusion of untypical (outlying)
values. Moreover, it is not possible to assess the values of test statistics. But on the other hand, some
methods that are commonly used for the assessing of rainfall–runoff hydrological models, such as
percentage error in peak flow, percentage error in volume, efficiency coefficient, peak-weighted root
mean square error, sum of absolute residuals, or sum of squared residuals, should be considered. Also,
for the verification of the best-fitting probability distributions, the other criterions, such as the Akaike
criterion (AIC) or Bayesian information criterion (BIC), can be used. However these criterions also
have some limitations, e.g., the necessity for the estimation of distributions parameters using only
maximum likelihood method.
Based on the some information presented above, the aim of the study was determined. In this study,
simulation of the wastewater treatment plant operation work using selected statistical distributions
was performed. It will allow the determination of the wastewater treatment plant reliability coefficients,
not only in the range of the empirical sample, but also based on the forecasting the values of pollutants
indicators. The novelty of this study is the identification of the best-fitting theoretical function by
adopting Peak-Weighted Root Mean Square Error (PWRMSE), which is commonly used for calibrating
the parameters in hydrological models. Finally, the performed analysis aimed to determine the
wastewater treatment plant operation work reliability coefficients.

2. Research Object
The wastewater treatment plant that is considered in this study is located in Jaworzno, Silesian
Voivodeship, Poland. The Wastewater treatment plant (WTP) in Jaworzno combines a mechanical
and biological sewage treatment processes using an activated sludge method in a biological phase.
Designed capacity of the object is 25 000 m3 ·d−1 . Total population equivalent (p.e.) for WTP in
Jaworzno is 125 000. Mechanical facilities of the WTP in Jaworzno include bar screens, grit chamber,
Water 2019, 11, 873 4 of 17

and primary radial settling tank. Biological sewage treatment is performed in bioreactor using the
activated sludge processes. Before the treated sewage is discharged into the natural receiver, sewage is
directed into the two secondary settling tanks in order to separate the activated sludge from treated
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17
sewage. After this, treated sewage is discharged into the Przemsza River (Figure 1).

Figure 1. A simplified scheme of the wastewater treatment plant in Jaworzno.

Figure 1. A simplified scheme of the wastewater treatment plant in Jaworzno.
3. Materials and Methods
3. Materials and Methods
The analysis was made based on the data including the values of the following pollutants indicators;
BODThe analysis was made based on the data including the values of the following pollutants
5 , CODCr , SSt , TN, and TP. Data was sourced from the period of 2015 to 2016 and included
indicators;
measured values BOD5of , COD Cr, SSt, TN, and TP. Data was sourced from the period of 2015 to 2016 and
pollutants indicators for 48 samples of treated sewage. Performed analysis consists
included measured values of
of a few elements: the initial analysis pollutants
of theindicators
pollutantsfor 48 samples
indicators series,oftheoretical
treated sewage. Performed
distribution fitting
analysis consists of a few elements: the initial analysis of the pollutants indicators
for pollutants indicators, selection the best-fitting theoretical function to the empirical distribution, series, theoretical
distribution
modeling fitting
of the for pollutants
pollutants indicatorsindicators,
values, and selection the best-fitting
determination theoretical treatment
of the wastewater function to the
plant
empirical distribution, modeling of the pollutants indicators
reliability coefficients values based on the performed simulation results. values, and determination of the
wastewater
According treatment plant reliability
to the Polish obligatory coefficients
standard [27],values
forbased on the performed
the wastewater treatment simulation results.
plant with over
According
100,000 p.e., theto the Polish obligatory
permissible value of BOD standard
in [27], for
treated the wastewater
sewage is 15 mg O treatment
·dm plant with
−3 , COD – 125over
mg
5 2 Cr
100,000 −3 p.e., the permissible
−3 value of BOD 5 in−3 treated sewage is 15
O2 ·dm , SSt – 35 mg·dm , TN – 10 mg TN·dm , and TP – 1 mg TP·dm . Moreover, the Regulation mg −3 O 2∙dm−3, CODCr – 125 mg

O2the
of ∙dmMinister
−3, SSt – 35 mg∙dm−3, TN – 10 mg TN∙dm−3, and TP – 1 mg TP∙dm−3. Moreover, the Regulation of
for Environment [27] determines the minimum amount of the collected sewage samples
the Minister for
after treatment processEnvironment [27]Indetermines
per year. this case, forthetheminimum
wastewateramount of the plant
treatment collected
that sewage samples
is characterized
after treatment process per year. In this case, for the wastewater treatment
with over 100,000 p.e., there are 24 control sewage samples per year. As the cited Regulation (2014) plant that is characterized
with over at
indicates, 100,000
most, p.e.,
threethere are do
of them 24 not
control
havesewage
to meetsamples
the qualityper requirements.
year. As the cited Regulation (2014)
indicates, at most, three of them do not have to meet the quality requirements.
3.1. Preliminary Data Analysis
3.1. Preliminary Data Analysis
Preliminary analysis of the pollutants indicators series includes the calculations of the descriptive
Preliminary
statistics. Besidesanalysis
minimum of (Min.),
the pollutants
mean (Mean), indicators series includes
and maximum (Max.) the calculations
values, of the
the measures of
descriptive such
dispersion, statistics. Besidesdeviation
as standard minimum (Min.),
(s) and mean (Mean),
coefficient and (C
of variation maximum (Max.) values, the
s ) were calculated.
measures of dispersion, such as standard deviation (s) and coefficient of variation (Cs) were
3.2. Statistical Distributions Fitting
calculated.
Based on the observational series of pollutants indicators in treated sewage, the best-fitting
3.2. Statistical distributions
theoretical distribution Fitting variables to its empirical distribution was considered. The analysis
of random
includes General
Based on the Extreme Values (GEV),
observational seriesGaussian Mixture
of pollutants Model (GMM),
indicators Log-normal,
in treated sewage, Normal, Pareto,
the best-fitting
theoretical distribution of random variables to its empirical distribution was considered. The analysis
includes General Extreme Values (GEV), Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM), Log-normal, Normal,
Pareto, Rayleigh, Triangle, and Weibull theoretical distributions. Each of the f(x) functions is
described as follows [28–33].
Water 2019, 11, 873 5 of 17

Rayleigh, Triangle, and Weibull theoretical distributions. Each of the f (x) functions is described as
follows [28–33].
GEV distribution:
−y
f (x) = α−1 e[−(1−κ) y−e ] (1)
κ(x − ξ)
y = − κ−1 log{1 − }, κ , 0 (2)
α
(x − ξ)
y = , κ = 0 (3)
α
where,
κ—shape parameter;
α—scale parameter;
ξ—location parameter.
GMM distribution:
K
X
f (x) = ωk NP (x, 0P , Σk ) (4)
k =1

where,
K—number of components;
ωk —weights such that Σk ωk = 1
NP (0 P , Σk )—multivariate Gaussian distribution
Log-normal distribution:

1 2
1 [− (ln(x)−µY )]
2σ2
f (x) = √ e Y (5)
xσY 2π

where,
σY ; µY —parameters of the log-normal distribution: variance and mean value, respectively.
Normal distribution:
2
1 [− 1 (x−µ)]
f (x) = √ e 2σ2 (6)
σ 2π
where,
σ2 —variance value;
µ—mean value.
Pareto distribution:
f (x) = α−1 e[− (1−κ) y] (7)
κ(x − ξ)
y = −κ−1 log{1 − }, κ , 0 (8)
α
(x − ξ)
y = , κ = 0 (9)
α
Rayleigh distribution:
x −( x22 )
f (x) = e 2σ (10)
σ2
Triangular distribution:

2(x − a)
for a ≤ x ≤ m


 (b−a)(m−a)
f (x) =  (11)

2(b−x)
for m ≤ x ≤ b


 (b−a)(m−a)
Water 2019, 11, 873 6 of 17

where,
a—lower limit;
m—mode;
b—upper limit.
Weibull distribution:
κ x x κ
f (x) = ( )( )κ−1 e−( α ) (12)
α α
The assessment of theoretical distributions compatibility with pollutants indicators empirical
distributions was made using Anderson–Darling (A–D) test. This type of the statistical test is sensitive
in the whole distribution function range. In this case, the possibility of detection of some differences
between the distribution functions is greater. Thus, in comparison to other tests, the A–D test provides
better assessment of the distribution compatibility. It test includes two opposed hypothesis: H0 : data
follow a specified distribution and H1 : data not follow a specified distribution. The calculations were
performed for the statistical significance level of α = 0.05. The Anderson–Darling (A–D) statistic is
described as follows [34–36]
n
X (2i − 1) ln(F(Xi ))+ ln(1 − F (Xn+1−i ))
A–D = −n − (13)
n
i=1

where,
n—number of observations;
F—theoretical cumulative distribution;
Xi —ordered data.

3.3. The Best Statistical Distributions Fitting

The best-fitting of theoretical function to the empirical random variables distribution was identified
based on the metric used in the assessment, e.g., in hydrological modeling: peak-weighted root mean
square error (PWRMSE). The studies concerning the possibilities of its using for the assessment of the
best-fitting statistical distributions were considered by Młyński et al. [37] preliminary. The analyzed
goodness-of-fit metric is described by the following formula [38,39].
v
u
u
u −
Oi + O
− Pi )2 ·
tP
n
i = 1 ( Oi −
2·O
PWRMSE = (14)
n
where,
n—size of the observation series;
Oi —observed value;
Pi —predicted value;
−
O—mean of observed values;
−
P—mean of predicted values.
Also, the Anderson–Darling statistic was used to compare the fit of analyzed distributions to
determine which one was the best. The distribution with the largest p-value usually has the closest fit
to the data.

3.4. Pollutants Indicators Modeling

Modeling of the pollutants indicators values in treated sewage was performed using Monte Carlo
method. This method is defined as the using of the sequence of random numbers for creating the
Water 2019, 11, 873 7 of 17

sample from the hypothetical population. Based on this population, there is a possibility of determining
a statistical parameter estimator of the searched solution [40–42]. Essentially, this is a creation of the
stochastic model that describes real phenomena. Next, this model is running many times with using
randomly generated variables (according to the assumed probability distribution). Finally, statistical
analysis of the obtained results is performed. As some papers show [43], the Monte Carlo method is
commonly used for the analysis of water and sewage management facilities operation work. It should
be emphasized that the Monte Carlo method has some advantages and disadvantages. This method is
very flexible and the empirical distributions of random variable can be handled. Moreover, the method
can generally be easily extended and developed as required. Finally, this method is easily understood
by non-mathematicians. Regarding the disadvantages, use of the Monte Carlo method usually requires
specialist software. Next, the calculations can take much longer than analytical models. Moreover,
the solutions are not exact, but depend on the number of repeated runs used to produce the output
statistics. That is, all outputs are estimates.
It should be emphasized that Monte Carlo method has already been used for assessment of the
wastewater treatment plant operation work. However, previous research has focused on the assumption
of a specific form of statistical distribution for pollutants indicators (e.g., normal distribution), values
of distribution parameters and the prediction of the pollutants indicators values based on the assumed
information, such as at work [44]. However, it should be stressed that some assumptions about
the unique form of pollutants indicators distribution may be incorrect. In reality, there are many
functions which may describe the empirical sample. Hence in this paper some novelties related to
the Monte Carlo approach were included. Namely the specific form of distribution was not assumed.
In performed analysis a few functions were considered. Next the best-fitting statistical distribution
describing the empirical distributions of pollutants indicators was identified. Next for this function a
simulation, using Monte Carlo method, was performed. One simulation series consist of 365 created
random values of pollutants indicators. For each of the generated data set, 24-element’s sample was
generated in a random way. In each of the series, the number of simulation observations that not meet
the technological efficiency condition was determined, i.e., if simulated values were greater than the
permissible levels. Next, the result of the control of the wastewater treatment plant operation work
was determined as follows; CF = 1, in case of the negative assessment result, i.e., if the number of
samples that not meet the requirements exceeded the maximum amount of these type samples; CF = 0,
in otherwise. Then, each simulation series was repeated 100 times.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Preliminary Analysis of Pollutants Indicators

At the beginning, the values of the descriptive statistics for tested pollutants indicators
observational series were determined and presented in Table 1. In turn, Figure 2 shows, noted
over the whole investigation period, pollutant indicators values in treated sewage with its their
permissible levels.

Table 1. The values of the descriptive statistics for pollutants indicators observational series.

Descriptive Statistics
Pollutants Indicators
Min. Mean Max. S Cs
BOD5 [mgO2 ·dm−3 ] 2.0 9.6 25.0 5.8 0.61
CODCr [mgO2 ·dm−3 ] 15.0 46.7 82.0 18.2 0.39
SSt [mg·dm−3 ] 4.0 14.2 48.0 8.3 0.59
TN [mg TN·dm−3 ] 3.7 11.1 26.0 6.4 0.57
TF [mg TP·dm−3 ] 0.1 0.4 1.4 0.3 0.76
Water 2019, 11, 873 8 of 17
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

Figure 2. The values of pollutants indicators in treated sewage with its permissible levels: (a) Biochemical
FigureDemand
Oxygen 2. The values
(BOD5 ),of(b)
pollutants
Chemicalindicators in treated
Oxygen Demand sewage
(COD with its permissible levels: (a)
Cr ), (c) Total Suspended Solids (SSt ),
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD 5), (b) Chemical Oxygen Demand (CODCr), (c) Total Suspended
(d) Total Nitrogen (TN), and (e) Total Phosphorus (TP).
Solids (SSt), (d) Total Nitrogen (TN), and (e) Total Phosphorus (TP).
The results presented in Figure 2 and Table 1 indicate that the range between the minimum
and maximum Table BOD
1. The5 values
valuesofwas
the descriptive
23 mg O2 ·dm −3 . For
statistics for pollutants
the wholeindicators observational
investigation period,series.
17% of the
observations (eight samples) exceeded the limitation value for BOD5 of 15 mg O2 ·dm . In turn, −3
−3
Descriptive Statistics
the statisticalPollutants
range of COD Cr limit values was 67 mg O2 ·dm . In the case of CODCr , the exceedance of
Indicators
Min.
its permissible level of 125 mg O2 ·dm−3 was not observed. ForMean Max.solids (SSS), a difference
total suspended Cs
t
BOD5 [mgO2∙dm−3] 2.0 9.6 25.0 5.8 0.61
Water 2019, 11, 873 9 of 17

between the minimum and maximum concentration was 44 mg·dm−3 . Only one treated sewage
sample did not meet the SSt quality requirements. The range of between the minimum and maximum
total nitrogen concentration (TN) was 22.3 mg TN·dm−3 . Between 2015 and 2016, 19 samples of treated
sewage (38% of all) exceeded the permissible level of total nitrogen concentration (10 mg TN·dm−3 ).
In turn, the difference between the lowest and the highest noted total phosphorus (TP) concentration
was 1.3 mg TP·dm−3 . Three samples of treated sewage were characterized by the exceedance of the
limitation value for TP concentration of 1mg TP·dm−3 . The exceedance of the permissible values
of pollutants indicators in treated sewage may be caused by different factors, such as sewage
inflow irregularity or sewage pollutants content irregularity and sewage temperature in bioreactor.
Both sewage quantity and sewage quality is strongly dependent on the city households’ character.
Inhabitants without an access to sewage systems and treatment plants are accustomed to save the
water. This is the reason for greater pollutants concentration in smaller water volume. Moreover,
the water usage trends in households cause noticeable sewage drainage heterogeneousness. It leads
to sewage treatment systems operation work instability [43]. Taking into consideration a coefficient
of variation Cs (Table 1), it can be stated that pollutants indicators values were characterized by a
considerable variation. Such irregularity is typical for household sewage. Research results presented
by [45–49] also indicate on the irregularity of pollutants concentration in household sewage.

4.2. The Results of Theoretical and Empirical Distributions Fitting

Theoretical distributions fitting to empirical pollutants indicator distributions was performed
using the following functions; GEV, GMM, Log-normal, Normal, Pareto, Rayleigh, Triangle, and
Weibull distribution. The assessment of the compatibility of distributions fitting was made using
Anderson–Darling (A–D) test for the significance level of α = 0.05. Analysis results are presented in
Table 2.

Table 2. The results of theoretical distributions fitting to empirical random variables distributions.

Statistical BOD5 CODCr SSt TN TP

Distributions A–D p A–D p A–D p A–D p A–D p
GEV 0.786 0.491 0.322 0.920 0.258 0.966 0.401 0.847 0.233 0.979
GMM 0.445 0.803 0.187 0.993 0.351 0.895 0.224 0.982 0.193 0.992
Log-normal 0.696 0.561 0.730 0.534 0.288 0.947 0.709 0.550 0.352 0.894
Normal 2.053 0.086 0.307 0.932 2.013 0.091 2.386 0.057 2.421 0.055
Pareto 1.684 0.138 3.405 0.017 3.734 0.012 6.463 0.001 1.098 0.309
Rayleigh 1.700 0.135 1.346 0.218 1.195 0.269 1.707 0.134 4.697 0.004
Triangular 2.428 0.054 5.673 0.001 9.783 0.000 5.147 0.002 11.083 0.000
Weibull 0.969 0.373 0.277 0.954 1.033 0.340 1.392 0.204 0.555 0.690

Based on the results presented in Table 2, it can be stated that BOD5 observational series can
be described using all of the analyzed probability distributions. This is evidenced by the p-values
for each of the calculated A–D parameters. Its values were greater than assumed significance level
of α = 0.05. In the case of CODCr , A–D test showed that for Pareto distribution, p-value is less than
5%. Therefore, in this case, H0 hypothesis about the compatibility of theoretical distribution with
empirical distribution was rejected. As the results indicate (Table 2), for SSt , there is no possibility for
empirical distribution using Pareto and Triangular functions. Statistical analysis of TN showed the
lack of the compatibility of theoretical and empirical distributions in the case of Pareto and Triangular
distributions. Finally, H0 hypothesis for TP concerning the distributions compatibility was rejected in
the case of Triangular and Rayleigh functions.
The performed analysis showed that almost in every case, Triangular distribution cannot be used
for the statistical describing of pollutants indicators observational series. Only in the case of BOD5 , there
is a possibility of using a Triangular distribution. However, it must be noted that the calculated p-value
for BOD5 of Triangular distribution (p-value = 0.054) was close to the H0 hypothesis acceptability
Water 2019, 11, 873 10 of 17

limit for Anderson–Darling test. The lack of the possibility of using a Triangular distribution is the
result of the function characteristic. According to the Stein and Keblis [50] and Pereira et al. [51],
Triangular distribution is a homogeneous function that is described by the most probable minimum
and maximum values. Sewage treatment is a complex process. There are many time-variable factors
affecting the sewage treatment processes that are the reason for the pollutants indicators variability in
treated sewage. In consequence, prediction of the most repeated minimum and maximum values for
Triangular distribution is difficult. In addition, it must be mentioned, that not much random variables
types may be described using a Triangular distribution.

4.3. Selection of the Best-Fitting Statistical Distribution

The performed analysis showed that pollutants indicators observational series may be described by
using more than one theoretical distribution. Thus, the selection of the best-fitting statistical distribution
using PWRMSE parameter was conducted. Calculations were made only for these functions, where
the A–D test confirmed functions compatibility with random variables empirical distribution. The
results of the analysis are presented in Table 3. In turn, Figure 3 shows quantile-quantile (Q-Q) graphs
for the best-fitting statistical distributions.

Table 3. The results of the peak-weighted root mean square (PWRMSE) analysis for tested
pollutants indicators.

Statistical PWRMSE
Distributions BOD5 CODCr SSt TN TP
GEV 2.369 2.266 1.222 5.211 0.100
GMM 0.802 1.511 1.733 0.545 0.028
Log-normal 1.825 7.344 1.780 1.780 0.119
Normal 1.748 29.476 4.124 4.124 0.631
Pareto 1.283 - - - 0.065
Rayleigh 1.413 6.297 1.413 1.940 -
Triangular 1.263 - - - -
Weibull 1.083 2.193 3.100 3.100 0.071

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that both for BOD5 and CODCr , the best-fitting theoretical
distribution is the GMM function, which is evidenced by the PWRMSE values equal to 0.802 mg O2 ·dm−3
and 1.511 mg O2 ·dm−3 for BOD5 and CODCr , respectively. In the case of SSt , the best-fitting theoretical
distribution is GEV function (PWRMSESSt = 1.222 mg·dm−3 ). In turn, for biogenic compounds,
the best-fitting statistical distribution is GMM. This is evidenced by the PWRMSE values for total
nitrogen (PWRMSENt = 0.545 mg TN·dm−3 ) and for total phosphorus (PWRMSEPt = 0.028 mg TP·dm−3 ).
The analysis allowed us to indicate, unequivocally, that for both organic pollutants indicators (BOD5
and CODCr ) and for biogenic compounds (Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus) the best-fitting
theoretical distribution is the GMM function. Although in the case of SSt, the best-fitting function is
GEV distribution, nevertheless, there is also a possibility of using GMM distribution. This is because
of the similarity of PWRMSE parameter for total suspended solids GEV and GMM distributions.
The possibility of using Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) for the assessment of the operation work
of the wastewater treatment plant was also presented by Yu [52] and Bouzenad and Ramdani [53].
The results of the analysis performed using PWRMSE parameter turned out to be compatible with the
results of Anderson–Darling (A–D) test. Both for GMM distribution (in case of BOD5 and CODCr ) and
for GEV distribution (in case of SSt ), A–D test achieved the lowest values, while the p-value was the
greatest among the tested distributions. One of the main A–D test disadvantages is the necessity for
determination the critical values for each statistical distribution separately [54]. In addition, the use
of the A–D test requires using advanced mathematical tools. Therefore, PWRMSE method can be an
effective alternative tool for A–D test, because of its simplicity of using. This is especially important in
Water 2019, 11, 873 11 of 17

the case of using the statistical methods in practical activities, especially by the wastewater treatment
Water 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
plants operators.

Figure 3. Quantile-quantile (Q-Q) graph type for the best-fitting random variables statistical
Figure 3. Quantile-quantile
distributions: (a) BOD5 , (b) COD(Q-Q) graph type for the best-fitting random variables statistical
Cr , (c) Total Suspended Solids (SSt ), (d) Total Nitrogen (TN), and (e)
distributions:
Total (a) BOD
Phosphorus (TP).5, (b) CODCr, (c) Total Suspended Solids (SSt), (d) Total Nitrogen (TN), and (e)
Total Phosphorus (TP).

The results presented in Table 3 indicate that both for BOD5 and CODCr, the best-fitting
theoretical distribution is the GMM function, which is evidenced by the PWRMSE values equal to
0.802 mg O2·dm−3 and 1.511 mg O2·dm−3 for BOD5 and CODCr, respectively. In the case of SSt, the best-
fitting theoretical distribution is GEV function (PWRMSESSt = 1.222 mg·dm−3). In turn, for biogenic
Water 2019, 11, 873 12 of 17

4.4. Determination of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation Work Reliability Coefficients
Determination of the pollutants indicators values was made based on the results of the best-fitting
distributions selection using the Monte Carlo method. This method is commonly used in generating
draws from a probability distribution. The conducted calculations relied on repeated random sampling
to obtain numerical results. The essential idea of simulation was using randomness to solve problem
that might be deterministic in principle as in the case of assessment of operation work reliability for
WTP. GMM distribution was used for organic and biogenic pollutants indicators modeling. In turn,
for SSt , simulation was conducted based on the GEV distribution. Obtained simulation results were
used for the calculation of technological efficiency coefficient R, reliability coefficient CR and the risk of
the “negative” control of the wastewater treatment plant operation work Re (Table 4).

Table 4. The values of the wastewater treatment plant operation work reliability coefficients determined
based on the Monte Carlo simulation method.

Reliability Reliability Coefficients

Parameters BOD5 CODCr SSt TN TP
R 0.947 1.000 0.995 0.909 0.977
CR 0.651 0.371 0.397 1.100 0.435
Re 0.810 0.000 0.000 1.000 0.160

Based on the obtained results (Table 4), it can be stated that wastewater treatment plant in Jaworzno
works properly in terms of the organic pollutants reduction. The values of technological efficiency
coefficient R are close to or equal to 1.0 for BOD5 and CODCr , respectively. These values indicate that the
number of treated sewage samples that not fulfill the quality requirements may be noted occasionally.
This is also evidenced by the reliability coefficient CR values. In turn, Re parameter for BOD5 showed
that the number of treated sewage samples with exceeded BOD5 limitation values may be greater than
the permissible samples amount. As the results indicate, in the case of CODCr , such risk is not predicted
(Table 4). Obtained results showed that sewage treatment processes on the WTP in Jaworzno provide an
effective SSt reduction. The values of R and CR parameters showed, that exceedings of the permissible
SSt concentration at the wastewater treatment plant outflow may be observed. However, the number of
these exceedations is not greater than the permissible limit for over 100,000 p.e. wastewater treatment
plant. This is evidenced by the calculated value of Re parameter (Table 4). Performed simulation
showed, that in the case of biogenic pollutants indicators, the requirements concerning to the TN and
total TP concentration at the wastewater treatment plant outflow may be not fulfill. The values of
technological efficiency coefficient R and reliability coefficient CR confirmed that biogenic compounds
concentration in treated sewage may exceed its limit content. In addition, the values of Re parameter
for biogenic compounds, suggest that the number of TN and TP exceedings may be greater than its
limitation. Especially in the case of TN, the value of the risk of the “negative” control of the wastewater
treatment plant operation work (Re=1.0) allowed for the statement, that, in the analyzed period, WTP in
Jaworzno did not provide the required reduction of total nitrogen concentration. Based on the obtained
simulation results, it can be stated that the sewage treatment processes on the WTP in Jaworzno were
partially improper. Therefore, wastewater treatment plant operators should take actions to increase the
organic and biogenic pollutants reduction effectiveness. The results of the analysis were based on the
simulation (prediction) of the wastewater treatment plant reliability for pollutants indicators values in
49 sewage samples. These pollutants indicators indicate on the current wastewater treatment plant
reliability. However, using this data, it is possible to forecast the sewage treatment processes reliability
in the future. It is possible to forecast the wastewater treatment plant operation work in the future
with the current hydraulic load and current pollutants content in sewage. It must be emphasized that
presented simulation method can be used for modeling the sewage quality parameters after the next
stages of sewage treatment process. It is possible to make an analysis of sewage quality parameters
Water 2019, 11, 873 13 of 17

before biological sewage treatment (mechanical treatment). Thank to this, wastewater treatment plant
operators are able to make a prediction about the occurrence of increased pollutants indicators values
in sewage after mechanical treatment processes. Increased pollutant indicator values in sewage after
mechanical treatment may cause some problems related to the achieving the required pollutants
reduction after biological treatment. The performed simulation can give some information about the
necessity for performing in the future the modernization of wastewater treatment plant, including,
first, mechanical facilities modernization, without modernization of biological facilities. Similar to the
above, calculations may be performed only for biological facilities. Obtained results can indicate to the
risk of the negative operation work of some wastewater treatment plant facilities. It will allow us to
indicate which of the facilities should be modernized in the future.
The assessment of the water and sewage infrastructure (facilities) reliability may be also carried
out using the other methods. In the paper [55], the graph theory method was presented as a means
to identify the most critical elements in a network with respect to malfunctioning of the system as
a whole. The method is objective and independent on the type of storm event and requires limited
computational effort. In the paper [56], it was found that the ‘bathtub’ type failure rate curve can
describe failures for particular objects of sewage infrastructure. Registration of failure data is very
important aspect too. In the paper of Korving and Langeveld [57], the uniform registration of failures
was performed. This method enables cooperation of the different management authorities on the level
of daily operations. Additionally, the comparison of the performance can be made between different
water and sewage facilities and changes in the performance of system components can be identified
more easily.
As it was already mentioned, the irregularity of pollutants content in sewage inflowing to the
bioreactor is one of the main factor affected the disruption of sewage treatment processes. Both in the
case of the WTP in Jaworzno and any other similar objects located on rural areas in Poland, sewage
coming from septic tanks represent a substantial part of treated sewage. Sewage from septic tanks
is characterized by high pollutants concentration; in addition, it is rotten sewage. Because of this,
it is necessary to determine the permissible share of the sewage coming from septic tanks in total
amount of treated sewage [58–60]. In order to increase the reduction of sewage biogenic pollutants,
it is suggested to consider the application of biofilters before the bioreactor with activated sludge in
wastewater treatment plant facilities. Biofilters will be used for nitrification process. In turn, total
nitrogen and total phosphorus reduction process will take place in anaerobic and anoxic activated
sludge chambers. Separation of the nitrobacteries from heterotrophic organisms will result with its no
competition and greater stability of nitrification population [61]. Research related to determination of
influence to the reduction of biogenic pollutants was also conducted by Wasik ˛ et al. [62]. It should be
noted that the decisions about the optimization of the water and sewage management, cannot be make
only based on the empirical data analysis. Negotiations between the involved managers of the water
and sewage facilities and other similar activities should be also considered [63]. It is observed very
often, that some decisions about the sewage infrastructure facilities is partially making based on the
intuition, without any reliable confirmation or arguments [64].

5. Summary
The aim of the paper was the modeling of the wastewater treatment plant operation work using
Monte Carlo method. The analysis includes some pollutants indicators in treated sewage: BOD5 ,
CODCr , SSt , TN, and TP. A simulation was performed using the following probability distributions:
GEV, GMM, Log-normal, Normal, Pareto, Rayleigh, Triangular, and Weibull functions. A–D test was
used for the assessment of theoretical and empirical distributions compatibility. In turn, the selection
of the best-fitting statistical distributions was performed using PWRMSE parameter. Obtained results
indicate on a significant variability of tested pollutants indicators in sewage after treatment processes on
the wastewater treatment plant in Jaworzno. As the results of A–D test showed, Triangular distribution
should not be used for statistical description of pollutants indicators observational series. Based on
Water 2019, 11, 873 14 of 17

the results obtained using PWRMSE parameter, it was stated that the best-fitting random variables
statistical distribution is GMM function. Because there was observed a similarity of PWRMSE method
results and A–D test results, it was found that PWRMSE parameter can be an effective alternative for
using A–D test. The results of Monte Carlo simulation method confirmed that some problems related
to the organic (mainly BOD5 ) and biogenic pollutants indicators reduction may appear on the WTP
in Jaworzno. Finally, it was found that Monte Carlo simulation method is a useful tool for modeling
the wastewater treatment plant operation work reliability. However, it is important to indicate an
appropriate theoretical distribution for random variables. With this, it is possible to create a new
data, maintaining simultaneously a current correlation structures between the random variables. New
values obtained in this way may be helpful for the assessment of the wastewater treatment plant
operational work and for preparing different scenarios of its operation, which has a significant content
in many aspects of the assessment of the wastewater treatment plant operation work. Simulation
method can be used by the wastewater treatment plant operators for making an assessment of the risk
of the failures the wastewater treatment plant facilities that can occur at specific random incidents.
Presented methods allow for consider the risk of the failures in a wider scope. This “wider scope”
includes especially a prediction of the changes of the amounts of inflowing sewage and the changes of
pollutants content in sewage. Thanks to this, it is possible to speed up or to dismiss over time the need
for the wastewater treatment plant modernization or the expansion of some wastewater treatment
plant facilities. It is very important economical aspect. Such activities allow planning the expenses
intended for modernization or expansion the wastewater treatment plant.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.M. and P.B.; Methodology, D.M.; Formal Analysis, D.M.; Investigation,
D.M.; Resources, P.B.; Data Curation, P.B.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, D.M.; Writing—Review and
Editing, D.M., P.B., and A.M.; Visualization, D.M., P.B., and A.M.; Supervision, P.B.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Psomopoulos, C.S.; Barkas, D.; Ioannidis, G.C. The Recycling Potential of Submersible Sewage Pumps in the
EU. Recycling 2018, 3, 14. [CrossRef]
2. Bergel, T.; Bugajski, P.; Pawełek, J. Analysis of the sewage system expandability in Mściwojów commune.
GLL 2013, 2, 7–14. [CrossRef]
3. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Kaczor, G. Influence of the size of flow of rainwater on the composition of raw
wastewater in small sewer system. Acta Sci. Pol. Formatio Circumiectus 2016, 15, 3–11. [CrossRef]
4. Młyński, D.; Chmielowski, K.; Młyńska, A. Analysis of hydraulic load of a wastewater treatment plant in
Jasło. J. Water Land Dev. 2016, 28, 61–67. [CrossRef]
5. Nowak, J.; Chmielowski, K.; Chmielowska, B.; Bedla, D. The efficiency of pollutant elimination in the Dobra
treatment plant. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 3, 737–747.
6. Todeschini, S. Hydrologic and environmental impacts of imperviousness in an industrial catchment of
Northern Italy. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2016, 21. [CrossRef]
7. Gizińska-Górna, M.; Jóźwiakowski, K.; Marzec, M.; Pytka, A.; Sosnowska, B.; Różańska-Boczula, M.;
Listosz, A. Analysis of the influence of a hybrid constructed wetland wastewater treatment plant on the
water quality of the receiver. Rocz. Ochr. Sr. 2017, 19, 370–393.
8. Młyński, D.; Kurek, K.; Bugajski, P. An analysis of seasonal waste draining for the urban agglomeration
using statistical methods. Water 2018, 10, 976. [CrossRef]
9. Angelakis, A.N.; Gikas, P. Water reuse: Overview of current practices and trends in the world with
emphasison eu states. Water Util. J. 2014, 8, 67–78.
10. Taheriyoun, M.; Moradinejad, S. Reliability analysis of a wastewater treatment plant using fault tree analysis
and Monte Carlo simulation. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 187, 4186–4199. [CrossRef]
11. Psarrou, E.; Tsoukalas, I.; Makropoulos, E. A Monte-Carlo-based method for the optimal placement and
operation scheduling of sewer mining units in urban wastewater networks. Water 2018, 10, 200. [CrossRef]
Water 2019, 11, 873 15 of 17

12. Olyaei, M.A.; Karamouz, M.; Asce, F.; Farmani, R. Framework for assessing flood reliability and resilience of
wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 144, 1–14. [CrossRef]
13. Trigo, A.P.; Tinetti, B.; Falkner, H.; Jugdoyal, K.; Pahal, S.; Mudgal, S. ENER Lot 28—Pumps for Private and
Public Wastewater and for Fluids with High Solids Content—Task 3—Consumer Behaviour and Local Infrastructure
Working Document; Report for the European Commission: Paris, France, 2014.
14. Yang, Y.; Yu, K.; Xia, Y.; Lau, F.T.K.; Tang, D.T.W.; Fung, W.C.; Fang, H.H.P.; Zhang, T. Metagenomicanalysis of
sludge from full-scale anaerobic digesters operated in municipal wastewater treatment plants. Appl. Microbiol.
Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 5709–5718. [CrossRef]
15. Bayo, J.; López-Castellanos, J. Principal factor and hierarchical cluster analyses for performance assessment
of an urban wastewater treatment plant in the Southeast of Spain. Chemosphere 2016, 155, 152–162. [CrossRef]
16. Wasik,
˛ E.; Chmielowski, K.; Operacz, A. PCA as a data mining tools characterizing the work of nitrification
reactors in the sewage treatment plant in Trepcza. Acta Sci. Pol. Formatio Circumiectus 2016, 16, 209–222.
[CrossRef]
17. Snip, L.J.P.; Boiocchi, R.; Flores-Alsina, X.; Jeppsson, U.; Gernaey, K.V. Challenges encounteredwhen
expanding activated sludge models: A case studybased on N2 O production. Water Sci. Technol. 2014, 70,
1251–1260. [CrossRef]
18. Wu, X.; Yanga, Y.; Wu, G.; Mao, J.; Zhou, T. Simulation and optimization of a coking wastewater biological
treatment process by activated sludge models (ASM). J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 165, 235–242. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Machado, V.C.; Lafuente, J.; Baeza, J.A. Activated sludge model 2d calibration with full-scale WWTP data:
Comparing model parameter identifiability with influent and operational uncertainty. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng.
2014, 37, 1271–1287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Alikhani, J.; Takacs, I.; Al-Omari, A.; Murthy, S.; Massoudieh, A. Evaluation of the information content
of long-term wastewater characteristics data in relation to activated sludge model parameters. Water Sci.
Technol. 2017, 75, 1370–1389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Guo, L.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Calibration andvalidation of an activated sludge model for greenhouse gases no.
1 (ASMG1): Prediction of temperature-dependent N2 O emission dynamics. Bioprocess Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 37,
151–163. [CrossRef]
22. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Kaczor, G. Reliability of a collective wastewater treatment plant. J. Ecol. Eng.
2016, 17, 143–147. [CrossRef]
23. Marzec, M. Reliability of removal of selected pollutants in different technological solutions of household
wastewater treatment plants. J. Water Land Dev. 2017, 35, 141–148. [CrossRef]
24. Jóźwiakowski, K.; Bugajski, P.; Mucha, Z.; Wójcik, W.; Jucherski, A.; Nastwany, M.; Siwiec, T.; Mazur, A.;
Obroślak, R.; Gajewska, M. Reliability and efficiency of pollution removal during long-term operation of a
one-stage constructed wetland system with horizontal flow. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2017, 187, 60–66. [CrossRef]
25. Sun, X.; Lall, U. Spatially coherent trends of annual maximum daily precipitation in the United States.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2015, 42, 9781–9789. [CrossRef]
26. Delignette-Muller, M.L.; Dutang, C. An R package for fitting distributions. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 64, 1–34.
[CrossRef]
27. Rozporzadzenie
˛ Ministra Środowiska z dnia 18 listopada 2014 r. w sprawie warunków, jakie należy spełnić
przy wprowadzaniu ścieków do wód lub do ziemi, oraz w sprawie substancji szczególnie szkodliwych dla
środowiska wodnego (Dz.U. 2014 poz. 1800). Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.
xsp?id=WDU20140001800 (accessed on 26 April 2019).
28. Glickman, T.S.; Xu, F. The distribution of the product of two random variables. Stat. Probab. Lett. 2008, 78,
2821–2826. [CrossRef]
29. Wang, X. Vehicle Noise and Vibration Refinement; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2010.
30. Zoran, D.; Weiss, Y. From learning models of natural image patches to whole image restoration. In Proceedings
of the International Conference on Computer Vision, Tokyo, Japan, 25–27 May 2011; pp. 479–486.
31. Yu, G.; Sapiro, G.; Mallat, S. Solving inverse problems with piecewise linear estimators: From gaussian
mixture models to structured sparsity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2012, 21, 2481–2499.
32. Wał˛ega, A.; Rutkowska, A.; Policht-Latawiec, A. Sensitivity of beta and Weibull synthetic unit hydrographs
to input parameter changes. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2014, 1, 221–229.
Water 2019, 11, 873 16 of 17

33. Alam, M.A.; Emuro, K.; Farnham, C.; Yuan, J. Best-fit probability distributions and return periods for
maximum monthly rainfall in Bangladesh. Climate 2018, 6, 9. [CrossRef]
34. Zeng, X.; Wang, D.; Wu, J. Evaluating the three methods of goodness of fit test for frequency analysis. JRACR
2015, 5, 178–187. [CrossRef]
35. Evans, D.L.; Drew, J.H.; Leemis, L.M. The distribution of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Cramer–von Mises, and
Anderson–Darling test statistics for exponential populations with estimated parameters. Comput. Probab.
Appl. 2017, 247, 165–190.
36. Jäntschi, L.; Bolboacă, S.D. Computation of probability associated with Anderson–Darling statistic.
Mathematics 2018, 6, 88. [CrossRef]
37. Młyński, D.; Wał˛ega, A.; Petroselli, A.; Tauro, F.; Cebulska, M. Estimating maximum daily precipitation in
the upper Vistula basin, Poland. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 43. [CrossRef]
38. Wał˛ega, A.; Ksia˛żek, L. Influence of rainfall data on the uncertainty of flood simulation. Soil Water Res. 2016,
11, 277–284. [CrossRef]
39. Wał˛ega, A. The importance of calibration parameters on the accuracy of the floods description in the Snyder’s
model. J. Water Land Dev. 2016, 28, 19–25. [CrossRef]
40. Halton, J.H. A retrospective and prospective survey of the Monte Carlo method. SIAM Rev. 1970, 12, 1–63.
[CrossRef]
41. Schauberger, G.; Piringer, M.; Baumann-Stanzer, K.; Knauder, W.; Petz, E. Use of a Monte Carlo technique to
complete a fragment set of H2S emission rates from a wastewater treatment plant. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013,
263, 694–701. [CrossRef]
42. Hendren, C.O.; Badireddy, A.R.; Casman, E.; Wiesner, M.R. Modeling nanomaterial fate in wastewater
treatment: Monte Carlo simulation of silver nanoparticles (nano-Ag). Sci. Total Environ. 2013, 449, 418–425.
[CrossRef]
43. Barton, L.E.; Auffan, M.; Durenkamp, M.; McGrath, S.; Bottero, J.; Wiesner, M.R. Monte Carlo simulations
of the transformation and removal of Ag, TiO2 , and ZnO nanoparticles in wastewater treatment and land
application of biosolids. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 511, 535–543. [CrossRef]
44. Andraka, D.; Dzienis, L. Modeling of risk in the operation of wastewater treatment plants. Rocz. Ochr. Sr.
2013, 15, 1111–1125.
45. Wał˛ega, A.; Chmielowski, K.; Młyński, D. Influence of the hybrid sewage treatment plant’s exploitation on
its operation effectiveness in rural areas. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2689. [CrossRef]
46. Wasik,
˛ E.; Chmielowski, K. Evaluation of the operation of the sewage treatment plant, Kujawy in Cracow.
Teka. Kom. Ochr. Kszt. Środ. Przyr. 2013, 10, 481–488.
47. Kaczor, G.; Bergel, T.; Bugajski, P.; Pijanowski, J. Aspects of sewage disposal from tourist facilities in national
parks and other protected areas. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2015, 24, 107–114. [CrossRef]
48. Bugajski, P.; Almeida, M.A.A.; Kurek, K. Reliablity of sewage treatment plants processing sewage from
school buldings located in non-urban areas. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2016, 4, 1547–1557.
49. Chmielowski, K.; Wasik, ˛ E.; Operacz, A.; Bugajski, P.; Kaczor, G.; Jurik, L. Analysis of sewage susceptibility
to biodegradation on an example of sewage treatment plant in Wodzisław Ślaski. ˛ Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural
Areas 2017, 4, 1427–1443.
50. Stein, W.; Keblis, M. A new method to simulate the triangular distribution. Math. Comput. Model. 2009, 49,
1143–1147. [CrossRef]
51. Pereira, E.J.S.; Pinho, J.T.; Galhardo, M.A.B.; Macêdo, W.M. Methodology of risk analysis by Monte Carlo
Method applied to power generation with renewable energy. Renew. Energy 2014, 69, 347–355. [CrossRef]
52. Yu, J. A nonlinear kernel Gaussian mixture model based inferential monitoring approach for fault detection
and diagnosis of chemical processes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2012, 68, 506–519. [CrossRef]
53. Bouzenad, K.; Ramdani, R. Multivariate statistical process control using enhanced bottleneck neural network.
Algorithms 2017, 10, 49. [CrossRef]
54. Saculinggan, N.; Balase, E.A. Empirical power comparison of goodness of fit tests for normality in the
presence of outliers. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2012, 435, 1–12. [CrossRef]
55. Meijer, D.; Van Bijnen, M.; Langeveld, J.; Korving, H.; Post, J.; Clemens, F. Identifying Critical Elements in
Sewer Networks Using Graph-Theory. Water 2018, 10, 136. [CrossRef]
56. Korving, H.; Ottenhoff, E.C. Analysis of the causes of pump failure and differences of failure characteristics.
Water Sci. Technol. 2008, 57, 1271–1276. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Water 2019, 11, 873 17 of 17

57. Korving, H.; Langeveld, J.G. Uniform registration of failures in wastewater systems—Experiences from pilot
projects. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK,
31 August–5 September 2008; pp. 1–10.
58. Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Kaczor, G. Optimizing the percentage of sewage from septic tanks for stable
operation of a wastewater treatment plant. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2016, 4, 1421–1425. [CrossRef]
59. Bugajski, P.; Satora, S. The balance of sewage inflowing and brought to the treatment plant based on example
of the chosen object. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural Areas 2009, 5, 73–82. (In Polish)
60. Zdebik, D.; Głodniok, M.; Zawartka, P. Anaerobic digestion model analysis of the fermentation process
in psychrophilic and mesophilic chamber in accordance with the amount of biogas sourced. Inżynieria
Ekologiczna 2015, 42, 63–71. (In Polish) [CrossRef]
61. Wał˛ega, A.; Chmielowski, K.; Młyński, D. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal from sewage in biofilter—
Activated sludge combined systems. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 1939–1947. [CrossRef]
62. Wasik,
˛ E.; Bugajski, P.; Chmielowski, K.; Nowak, A.; Mazur, R. Crystallization of struvite and hydroxyapatite
during removal of biogenic compounds on the filter bed. Przem. Chem. 2017, 96, 1739–1743. (In Polish)
63. Van Riel, W.; Van Bueren, E.; Langeveld, J.; Herder, P.; Clemens, F. Decision-making for sewer asset
management: Theory and practice. Urban Water J. 2015, 13, 57–68. [CrossRef]
64. Van Riel, W.; Langeveld, J.; Herder, P.; Clemens, F. Valuing information for sewer replacement decisions.
Water Sci. Technol. 2016, 74, 796–804. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).