WASTE WATER TREATMENT

A Project Work Submitted

in the Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements
of the Bachelor degree of Science in Chemistry

by
PURAN MEHER
Roll No: S04520CHE009
Reg.No-14709/20
Semester : VI

2023
Guided By
Mansh Ranjan Bhoi
Assistant Prof. in Chemistry
Department of Chemistry
Panchayat College, Bargarh
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Sincerely thank to Mr Mansh Ranjan Bhoi sir, Department of
Chemistry, PCB for his encourage and guidance in carrying out this
project work on ‘WASTE WATER TREATMENT’. I wish to
express my sincere gratitude to Sipun Sethi, Head of the Department of
Chemistry for providing me an opportunity to do my project work. I
would be pleased to extend my thanks to all the staff of the chemistry
department and my friends who have always had their helping hand
during my time of need. Finally, I am deeply thankful to my parents and
teachers who helped and inspired me in completing this project.

PURAN MEHER
 Declaration
I, Puran meher, do hereby declare that the review
entitled “ Waste water treatment “ submitted to the
Department of Chemistry, Panchayat College,
Bargarh has been carried out by me for the partial
fulfilment of BACHELOR DEGREE OF SCIENCE IN

CHEMISTRY. To the best of my knowledge this

project work has not been submitted to any
Institute/University for the award of any degree.

PURAN MEHER
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the work embodied in this
dissertation entitled “Waste water treatment" carried
out by Puran meher in partial fulfillment for the degree of
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry, Panchayat College,
Bargarh under my supervision.

To the best of my knowledge he/she bears a good moral

character. I wish him/her all success in life.

(Manas Ranjan Bhoi)

Assistant Professor
Department of Chemistry
Panchayat College, Bargarh
TABLE OF CONTENT

Serial no. Topic name Page no.

1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1-Objective of waste water treatment 3
2.2-Characteristic of waste water 4
2.3-Types waste water 5
2.4 Status of waste water 5
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 6
3.1-Primary test 11
3.2-Primary treatment 12
3.2.1-Sedimentation 13
3.2.2-Chemical coagulation 14
3.2.3-Mechanical flocculation process 15
3.3-Secondary treatment 16
3.3.1-Oxidation ditch 17
3.3.2-Oxidation pond 17
3.4-Tertiary treatment 18
3.4.1-Ion exchange 18
3.4.2-Adsorption process 19
3.4.3-Electrodialysis 19
3.4.4-Electrolytic recovery 19
3.4.5-RO-reverse osmosis 19
3.5-Case study on treatment 21
4. RESULTS 23
5. DISCUSSION 26
6. CONCLUSION 29
 ABSTRACT

The analysis of modern solutions for wastewater treatment at small treatment plants showed
that such constructions are carried out in the form of block-modular systems. They can be made from
metal, plastic, rarely, reinforced concrete. Such constructions are used both as individual plants and in
low capacity facilities in the cottage towns, recreational and therapeutic stand-alone institutions, leisure
centers, etc. Certain proposed technological schemes include the use of feed material. Such technologies
create conditions for the use of facilities in a ragged mode, when the water comes to treatment plants
unevenly during the month/year. The feed material allows to save the biomass and to ensure the
maximum fast start up of the biological process of treatment plants. The analysis of modern solutions for
wastewater treatment at small treatment plants showed that such constructions are carried out in the
form of block-modular systems. They can be made from metal, plastic, rarely, reinforced concrete. Such
constructions are used both as individual plants and in low capacity facilities in the cottage towns,
recreational and therapeutic stand-alone institutions, leisure centers, etc. Certain proposed
technological schemes include the use of feed material. Such technologies create conditions for the use
of facilities in a ragged mode, when the water comes to treatment plants unevenly during the
month/year. The feed material allows to save the biomass and to ensure the maximum fast start up of
the biological process of treatment plants. One of the solutions proposed to solve this problem is to
treat sewage wastewater to be suitable method by removing toxic pollutants from it. This review sheds
light on the traditional and modern methods applied for this purpose with a focus on the use of natural
materials as sustainable and environmentally friendly sources for creating new materials used in this
regard. Furthermore, the review concentrates on the utilization of polymer nanocomposites (specially
derived from or based on natural polymer) in water treatment as a relatively modest trend.

Keyword:waste water, sewage treatment, wastewater treatment, water reuse, process of waste
water treatment, water quality analysis
1.INTRODUCTION

Wastewater may be defined as a combination of the liquid or water carried wastes removed from
residences, institutions, and commercial industrial establishments, together with such
groundwater, surface water, and storm water as may be present[1].Wastewater is the water whose
physical, chemical or biological properties have been changed as a result of the introduction of
certain substances which render it unsafe for some purposes such as drinking. The day to day
activities of man is mainly water dependent and therefore discharge ‘waste’ into water. Some of
the substances include body wastes (faeces and urine), hair shampoo, hair, food scraps, fat,
laundry powder, fabric conditioners, toilet paper, chemicals, detergent, household cleaners, dirt,
micro-organisms (germs) which can make people ill and damage the environment. It is known
that much of water supplied e Wastewater is water whose physical, chemical or biological
properties have been changed as a result of the introduction of certain substances which render it
unsafe for some purposes such as drinking.

The day to day activities of man is mainly water dependent and therefore discharge ‘waste’ into
water. Some of the substances include body wastes (faeces and urine), hair shampoo, hair, food
scraps, fat, laundry powder, fabric conditioners, toilet paper, chemicals, detergent, household
cleaners, dirt, micro-organisms (germs) which can make people ill and damage the environment.
It is known that much of water supplied ends up as wastewater which makes its treatment very
important. Wastewater treatment is the process and technology that is used to remove most of the
contaminants that are found in wastewater to ensure a sound environment and good public
health. Wastewater Management therefore means handling wastewater to protect the
environment ensure public health, economic, social and political soundness[2].

Due to massive worldwide increases in the human population, water will become one of the
scarcest resources in the 21st century (Day D., 1996). In the year 2015 the majority of the global
population (over 5 billion) will live in urban environments(UN, 1997). By the year 2015, there
will be 23 megacities with a population of over 10 million each, 18 of which will exist in the
developing world (Black, 1994). Central to the urbanization phenomena are the problems
associated with providing municipal services and water sector infrastructure, including the
provision of both fresh water resources and sanitation services. Currently, providing housing,
health care, social services, and access to basic human needs infrastructure, such as clean water

1
and the disposal of effluent, presents major challenges to engineers, planners and politicians
(Black, 1994; Giles and Brown, 1997[3]. Wastewater treatment is a fairly new practice although
drainage systems were built long before the nineteenth century. Before this time, “night soil” was
placed in buckets along streets and workers emptied them into “honey wagon” tanks. This was
sent to rural areas and disposed off over agricultural lands. In the nineteenth century, flush toilets
led to an increase in the volume of waste for these agricultural lands. Due to this transporting
challenge, cities began to use drainage and storm sewers to convey wastewater into waterbodies
against the recommendation of Edwin Chadwick in 1842 that “rain to the river and sewage to the
soil”. The discharge of waste into water courses led to gross pollution and health problems for
downstream users. In 1842, an English engineer named Lindley built the first “modern”
sewerage system for wastewater carriage in Hamburg, Germany. The improvement of the
Lindley system is basically in improved materials and the inclusion of manholes and sewer
appurtenances the Lindley principles are still upheld today. Treatment of wastewater became
apparent only after the assimilative capacity of the waterbodies was exceeded and health
problems became intolerable. Between the late 1800s and early 1900s, various options were tried
until in 1920, the processes we have today were tried. Its deigned was how ever empirical until
mid-century. Centralized wastewater systems were designed and encouraged. The cost of
wastewater treatment is borne by communities discharging into the plant[4- 5].

Water scarcity is a problem that is currently lived in every continent of the world. This is a
phenomenon that is caused by nature, as water is not evenly distributed in the planet,but also by
anthropogenic activities as its use has been managed very poorly (UN-Water, 2007).Water
resources are being overexploited and their use is being reduced due to bad quality problems
caused by discharges of contaminated water and runoff[6].Some of the major sources of water
pollution come from urban, industrial and agricultural discharges. Industries dump an estimate of
300-400 million of tons of polluted waste in water bodies every year and around 80% of the
sewage in developing countries is discharged directly without being treated (UN-Water, 2013).
Also, nitrogen and phosphorous present in agricultural runoff cause eutrophication problems in
rivers, lakes and coastal areas. Water contamination not only affects negatively the natural
ecosystems by decreasing its biodiversity but it also affects human health as the amount of
people dying or getting sick by its consumption increases with it. Wastewater from industries can
infiltrate into the ground and contaminate aquifers and wells which are normally used as a source

2
for drinking water. Also, economic activities that depend on water are strongly affected when
water quality and quantity values are below the minimum required; this could easily impact the
annual Gross Domestic Product of a country (UNEP, 2010). The level of water scarcity will be
different depending on the region of the world where one is located, and the amount and type of
contaminants found in water bodies will depend on the different industrial activities realized in
the area, the urban development, and the type of treatment facilities found around it [7].

2.LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 OBJECTIVES OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Wastewater treatment is very necessary for the above-mentioned reasons. It is more vital for the:
Reduction of biodegradable organic substances in the environment: organic substances such as
carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur in organic matter needs to be broken down by oxidation
into gases which is either released or remains in solution. Reduction of nutrient concentration in
the environment: nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous from wastewater in the
environment enrich water bodies or render it eutrophic leading to the growth of algae and other
aquatic plants.

These plants deplete oxygen in water bodies and this hampers aquatic life. Elimination of
pathogens: organisms that cause disease in plants, animals and humans are called pathogens.
They are also known as micro-organisms because they are very small to be seen with the naked
eye. Examples of micro-organisms include bacteria (e.g. vibro cholerae), viruses (e.g.
enterovirus, hepatitis A & E virus), fungi (e.g. candida albicans), protozoa (e.g entamoeba
hystolitica, giardia lamblia) and helminthes (e.g. schistosoma mansoni, asaris lumbricoides).
These micro-organisms are excreted in large quantities in faeces of infected animals and humans
(Awuah and Amankwaa-Kuffuor, 2002). Recycling and Reuse of water: Water is a scarce and
finite resource which is often taken for granted. In the last half of the 20th century, population
has increased resulting in pressure on the already scarce water resources. Urbanization has also
changed the agrarian nature of many areas. Population increase means more food has to be
cultivated for the growing population and agriculture as we know is by far the largest user of
available water which means that economic growth is placing new demands on available water
supplies. The temporal and spatial distribution of water is also a major challenge with

3
groundwater resources being overdrawn (National Academy, 2005). It is for these reasons that
recycling and reuse is crucial for sustainability[8].

2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER

Depending on its source, wastewater has peculiar characteristics. Industrial wastewater with
characteristics of municipal or domestic wastewater can be discharged together. Industrial
wastewater may require some pre-treatment if it has to be discharged with domestic wastewater.
The characteristics of wastewater vary from industry to industry and therefore would have
different treatment processes—for example a cocoa processing company may have a skimming
tank in its preliminary treatment stage to handle for instance spilt cocoa butter while a beverage
plant may skip this in the design. In general, the contaminants in wastewater are categorized into
physical, chemical and biological. Some indicator measured to ascertain these contaminants
include (Peavy, Rowe and Tchobanoglous, 1985 & Obuobie et al., 2006) [9]:

⮚ Physical

•Electrical Conductivity (EC) indicates the salt content

•Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) comprise inorganic salts and small amounts of organic
matter dissolved in water
•Suspended solids (SS) comprises solid particles suspended (but not dissolved)in water

⮚ Chemical

•Dissolved Oxygen (DO) indicates the amount of oxygen in water

•Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) indicates the amount of oxygen required by aerobic
microorganisms to decompose the organic matter in a sample of water in a defined time period.

•Chemical oxygen demand (COD) indicates the oxygen equivalent of the organic matter content
of a sample that is susceptible to oxidation by a strong chemical oxidant

•Total Organic Compound (TOC)

•NH4-N and NO3-N show dissolved nitrogen (Ammonium and Nitrate, respectively).

4
•Total Kjeldhal Nitrogen is a measurement of organically-bound ammonia nitrogen.

•Total-P reflects the amount of all forms of phosphorous in a sample.

⮚ Biological

•Total coliforms (TC) is encompassing faecal coliforms as well as common soil microorganisms,
and is a broad indicator of possible water contamination.

•Faecal coliforms (FC) is an indicator of water contamination with faecal matter. The common
lead indicator is the bacteria Escherichia coli or E. coli.

•Helminth analysis looks for worm eggs in the water

2.3 TYPES OF WASTEWATER

Figure-1

2.4 STATUS OF WASTEWATER IN INDIA

5
The total wastewater generated by 299 class-1 cities is 16,652.5 MLD. Out of this, about 59% is
generated by 23 metro cities. The state of Maharashtra alone contributes about 23%, while the
Ganga river basin contributes about 31% of the total wastewater generated in class-1 cities. Only
72% of the total treated wastewater generated is collected. Out of 299 class-1 cities, 160 cities
have sewerage system for more than 75 percent of population and 92 cities have more than 50
percent of population coverage. On the whole 70% of total population of class-1 of cities is
provided with sewerage facility, compared to 48% in 1988[10] . The type of sewerage system is
either open or closed or piped. The main objective of this study was to perform a review of the
treatment of domestic sewage using the aerobic sludge to ensure effective discharge and/or
re-use/recycling.

2.5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Figure- 2

In 17th century ColonialAmerica, household sewage wastewater control consisted of a privy

(toilet) with an outlet built at floor degree that discharged outside to a cesspool.

In the early 1800s the development of sewers was beganin London. In 1843, the primary sewer
device, in Hamburg, Germany, was once formally designed by a British engineer (Lindley).

6
In the early 1900s, the primary trickling filter was built in Madison, Wisconsin, to offer organic
(secondary) treatment to wastewater. The Imhoff tank was once advanced through German
engineer Karl Imhoff in 1906 for solids separation and further remedy. The first activated sludge
procedure was once constructed in San Marcos, Texas[11].

An Evaluation of Five Lake George Septic Disposal Systems. 1981 Min Chen, of the New York
State Department of HealthDivision of Laboratories and Research evaluated wastewater
treatment of five septic disposal systems located on the western shore of Lake George. The study
included groundwater sampling between the septic systems and the lake, using ground water
samples “above” the system as control. Groundwater sampling did not occur at two of the five
sites. The sampling was conducted to determine the fate of fecal coliforms, phosphate, nitrogen
and other nutrients discharges from three septic systems. Three of the five systems were
constructed on the top of rocky hills while the remaining two were constructed on the beach.
Four of the systems included seepage pits and one was a tile field. Groundwater sampling
occurred at varying distances away from the systems and at varying depths of groundwater. The
study showed that in general, coliform bacteria and phosphate were found in high concentrations
near the discharge points of two of the systems, (while no fecal coliform and little phosphate was
found near the third system) but levels were reduced as distance was gained from the system.
The Author concludes that he believes in part of the basin, proper treatment of wastewater prior
to entry into the lake is prevented by the lack of adequate soil cover. Further, that in areas with
adequate soil cover, fecal coliforms and phosphate are removed if local conditions are
favourable, but nitrogen and chlorides reach the lake, and the effluent may be low in dissolved
oxygen [12].

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Ground Water and Toxics Monitoring Unit conducted
a study to determine the effects of septic systems on ground water quality in residential areas
where ground water has a direct connection with neighbouring lakes. The study consisted of
testing and monitoring at 52 wells for nitrate at varying depths. Additionally, ground water
plumes originating beneath individual septic systems were examined to better understand typical
septic plume composition and migration. Findings from well testing and monitoring showed that
median nitrate concentrations were significantly higher in areas with OWTS than in areas with
municipal sewers. All cases where nitrate exceeded drinking water standards were in areas with

7
OWTS. Additionally, total and dissolved carbon was greater in these areas. The monitoring of
septic plumes revealed that the average plume length is 82ft and ranged from approximately 33ft
to 328ft. Nitrate concentrations exceeded drinking water criteria were present throughout most of
the plumes and nitrate concentrations decreased slowly along the plume lengths. While aquifer
characteristics are unique and location dependent, the study found that OWTS in the study area
should result in approximately 7% of the shallow portion of the aquifer having nitrate
concentrations above the drinking standard[13].

A private environmental engineering firm, Stearns & Wheeler, LLC, conducted a study to update
the total phosphorus budget into Lake George by quantifying total phosphorus concentrations
and load associated with specific sources including runoff from forested and developed areas;
precipitation; and groundwater flow, including migration of total phosphorus from wastewater
treatment and septic systems. The study consisted of a literature review of existing water quality
and nutrient loading of Lake George paired with groundwater monitoring of septic systems at
four sites around the lakeshore (it is noted that the six sites were originally intended for
groundwater monitoring, but two did not produce enough data to ultimately be included).
Findings of the study showed that groundwater contributions, specifically in relation to septic
systems, are relatively inconsequential when compared to surface runoff contributions.
Developed areas account for 5% of the land area in the watershed yet produce 43% of all the
phosphorus that enters the lake as surface runoff. In all, developed areas account for almost 37%
of all the phosphorus that flows into the lake while the contribution of septic systems is estimated
to be approximately 1% of the annual phosphorus load.

Researchers at the State University of New York (SUNY) College at Oneonta conducted studies
to understand the unique characteristics of phosphorus migration from near-lake septic systems
and their impacts to Otsego Lake. A literature review of phosphorus migration and soil
suitability for septic systems was paired with field studies to examine phosphorus plume
migration and test existing treatment technologies near Otsego Lake. The research showed that
phosphorus derived from septic systems can migrate through soils at rates that make
contamination of nearby surface waters likely, even when conventional systems are located on
suitable sites and soils. While phosphorus loading into lakes from septic systems is generally a
small component of the total phosphorus load, impacts can be substantial because the phosphorus

8
is in a soluble form and readily available to algae. Additionally, because most near-lake septic
systems are seasonal, phosphorus is added to lakes at the height of the algal growing season.
Regulations requiring regular maintenance and inspections of septic systems in addition to site
specific design and treatment requirements can lead to water quality improvement.

Research from the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association examined ground-water
contaminants from septic systems using indicators other than nitrates to understand septic
impacts to anoxic aquifers. The study examined chloride and stable isotopes to geochemically
fingerprint the impacts of septic systems versus other sources of groundwater contamination.
Findings showed that nitrate is not a universal indicator of ground-water contamination by
sewage. Septic systems have caused regional nitrate contamination in many areas, but only in
toxic aquifers. In anoxic conditions, the ammonia in sewage may not undergo nitrification, and
ground-water nitrate contamination typically does not occur. Anoxic aquifers are also vulnerable
to chemical contamination from sewage. Microbial biodegradation of the organic matter added
by septic effluent can change the chemistry of the aquifer, and cause increased amounts of
manganese and iron to dissolve into the ground water from soil and rock. Chloride is a good
indicator parameter for sewage contamination because it is present in all sewage.[14]

A private environmental engineering firm, Lombardo Associates, Inc., conducted a study with
funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in collaboration with
Washington University to document the current understanding of phosphorus chemistry and
removal in septic tanks and soil absorption systems. The research included an extensive literature
review on phosphorus geochemistry principles, phosphorus removal in various wastewater
systems, groundwater, riparian zones, and receiving waterbodies. The study examines various
forms of phosphate removal noting soil characteristics, chemical characteristics of sewage and
site conditions greatly influence the effectiveness of removal and that septic systems located on
thin soils, as often occur in association with lakeside dwellings, are probably most at risk of
phosphate contamination.” The study noted that “studies performed as part of total maximum
daily load (TMDL) development and lake water quality suggest that septic systems can
contribute 4 to 55% of total phosphorus to lakes.”[15].

Researchersfrom the Colorado School of Mines Environmental Science and Engineering

Division conducted a study to examine the effectiveness of onsite wastewater treatment systems

9
in removing endocrine disrupting compounds and other trace organic compounds that have been
historically overlooked in groundwater contamination. The consisted of examination of
wastewater from an eightunit apartment complex using an array of engineered and soil-based
treatment units fitted with varied sampling and monitoring devices. Results of the study were
that trace organic compounds such as surfactant metabolites, metal-chelating agents,
antimicrobials, antibiotics, and stimulant occurs in onsite waste water treatment system
frequently and at concentrations that can be orders of magnitude higher than typical
concentrations reported in centralized treatment plant wastewaters. Assuming shallow
groundwater and no removal during groundwater transport, trace organic compound
concentrations at the point of exposure can exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s
toxicity-based water quality criteria. In areas with a deeper Vadose zone or removal during
groundwater transport, trace organic compound concentrations at the point of exposure would
not be expected to exceed the water quality criteria.

The New York State Department of Health Centre for Environmental Health, Bureau of Water
Supply Protection conducted a study to determine the effectiveness of NYS approved septic
system designs regarding nutrient, hydraulic, and organic loadings. The study consisted of
examination of 24 systems of various NYS approved system types (75-A conventional, 75-A
raised bed, aerobic treatment units, sand filters, peat filters). The results of the study were that
most systems, except for the conventional system with raised bed, removed vegetative
microorganisms reasonably well. Regarding E. Coli, when nutrient data and hydraulic and
organic loadings were taken into consideration the daily capacity of most systems could be
exceeded without long term negative impacts. The systems appear to have, by design, substantial
excess capacity.

The U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program examined the long-term
migration of phosphorus in subsurface plumes of treated sewage. The report represents summary
findings from multiple studies conducted at a research site in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The
study refutes previous assumptions that phosphorus migration in groundwater is minimal and not
of ecological concern. Years of monitoring data on phosphorus concentrations in plumes of
treated sewage on Cape Cod have shown that phosphorus does migrate in groundwater.
Additionally, past assumptions that phosphorus plumes would discharge into a water body over a

10
broad area were refuted. Monitoring data from the studies show that plumes typically rise steeply
upward and discharge in a narrow area within 100ft of shore. This finding suggests that treating
concentrated discharge areas is expected to be a cost-effective approach than treating larger
plumes up gradient of a waterbody[15].

Researchers from the University of Waterloo and Canadian Department of Environment and
Climate Change conducted a longitudinal study to better understand the extent to which properly
functioning septic systems represent a threat of phosphorus loading to nearby watercourses. The
study consisted of monitoring and evaluation of phosphorus concentrations in groundwater
plumes from 24 on-site wastewater treatment systems encompassing a variety of domestic
wastewater types and geological terrain over a 30-year period.The study’s findings showed that
capacity for phosphorus removal in properly functioning septic systems is robust. At 17 of 24
sites, phosphorus retention meets or exceeds removal that would normally be achieved during
conventional sewage treatment. Additionally, the study found that excavation or replacement of
septic drainage bed materials should be conducted with caution, especially near sensitivesurface
water bodies. These drainage beds have high phosphorus accumulation and redistribution of
these sediments on nearby surfaces during maintenance or replacement of tile bed materials can
lead to high phosphorus loading. The study concludes that the main threat of phosphorus loading
to surface waters from septic systems is likely to be from failing system.

In 1913 and 1914 Lockett and Ardern carried o treatment us lab-scale experiments at the
Manchester - Davyhulme wastewater plantGlass bottles were used to represent lab scale aeration
basins ‘fed’ by sewage from different districts of Manchester. Contrary to the experiments that
Fowler saw in Massachusetts, in the Manchester aeration tests the sediment that remained after
decantation was leftin the bottle and a new dose of sewage was added to thesediment for the next
batch. Lockett and Ardern soonfound that the amount of the sediment increased with
theincreasing number of batches.At the same time the aeration time necessary for ‘full oxidation’
of sewage(full oxidation was a term used to describe the removal of degradable organics and for
complete nitrification)was reduced. By using this technique of repeated batch aeration with the
sediment remaining in the bottle,Lockett and Ardern were able to shorten the required aeration
time for ‘full oxidation’ from a few weeks to less than one day, which made the process
technically feasible. The sediment formed during the aeration of sewage was called activated

11
sludge due to its appearance and activity. Lockett and Ardern published their results in a famous
series of three papers (Ardern and Lockett 1914a, 1914b, 1915). This was the ‘birth’ of activated
sludge, which is today the workhorse of wastewater treatment and the most widely applied
sewage treatment technology in the world [16].

3.RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

The modern solutions for wastewater treatment for small level treatment plants are constructed
based on block modular type systems. These treatment systems are made up of metal/plastic/
concrete. Such treatment constructions are suitable for low requirement places like cottage towns
or individual plants/alone institutions,colleges, school, centres etc. Such technologies develop
conditions for facilities in a “split” mode treatment. The wastewater comes to treatment plants
unevenly, the feed material present in the plant allows to save the organic mass and to initiate
biological process in the plant, very fast.The design of these reactors/ tanks are specific; so water
can move from one tank to another tank so that water can pass through many cycles of biological
process of wastewater treatment. Some common solutions of wastewater treatment apply for
larger level treatments are divided in 3 phases-Primary treatment process
sedimentation,coagulation,flocculation,equalization,neutralization.Secondarytreatment process-
sludge treatment and disposal anaerobic digestion. oxidation pond. oxidation ditch. activated
sludge process. Trickling Filters. Aerated Lagoons. Tertiary treatment process- reverse osmosis,
removal of phosphate and removal of nitrogen of ammonia, electrolytic recovery, adsorption,
ion-exchange.

3.1 PRELIMINARYTREATMENT:

The main objective of preliminary treatment is the removal of coarse solids and other large
materials often found in raw wastewater including grit, oil, grease, large floating and suspended
solid matter. Removal of gross solids from waste water generally accomplished by passing waste
water through mixed or moving screens. The common types of these screens are
availableincluding barscreens, drum screens and wire rope screens, mechanical raked screens,
hand raked screens etc. Maximum quantities of floating materials such as plastic cans, cloth,

12
wood and other larger synthetic and other objects present in wastewater are usually removed by
metal bars, acting like strainers as the wastewater moves beneath them in an open channel[16].

The common modem mechanical screens with filters include rotary, gravity type units,
self-cleaning and circular overhead fed vibratory units. These screens are costlier than the
conventional bar screens but these modern screens are very effective in reducing suspended
solids and BOD. Detritus is separated in the preliminary stages of treatment in tanks, grit or
detritus channels to safeguard pumps and other equipment/parts and to stop/reduce the amount of
grit settling in pipe channels and bends.Generally grit is heavier than organic solids. Grits can be
separated from polluted water contain inorganics solids pollutants through controlled flow of
water in the grit chambers. Separated debris/grit can be used in many purposes like road making,
land-filling. If wastewater effluent contains considerable quantities of oil and grease, then it is
very important to remove oil and grease as much as possible, in the preliminary stage to reduce
adverse effects of oil and grease on the rest of the plant. This can be achieved by passing the
polluted wastewaterfrom skimming tanks where oil and grease are skimmed off. This skimmed
off process can be rendered more efficient by chlorination,vacuum flotation, aeration etc.

13
Figure-3

3.2 PRIMARY TREATMENT

Figure-2

The main objective of the primary treatment process is to remove settle able organic pollutants
and inorganic solids particulate matters by sedimentation process, and the removal of floating
materials by (scum) by skimming. Approximately 30 to 50% of the incoming (BOD5)
biochemical oxygen demand and 50 to 70% of (TSS) total suspended solid sand 65%-70% of the
oil and grease are removed during primary treatment. Some organic nitrogen, organic
phosphorus, and heavy metals associated with solids are also removed during primary
sedimentation but colloidal anddissolved constituents are not affected. After the removal of the
maximum amountgross solids, grease, oil, gritty materials. This step reduces the pollution of the

wastewater and also improves secondarytreatment efficiency.

Figure-4

3.2.1 Sedimentation

14
Using the sedimentation process we can remove suspended solids efficiently and economically.
This process is particularly suitable for treatment of wastewater passing high amounts of settle
able solids. Sedimentation chambers designed specifically to enhance suspended particles to get
settled under earth gravity [17]. The common methods for settling sediments are
centre-feed-circular clarifiers tank and horizontal flow sedimentation chambers. A highly
efficient sedimentation chamber can settle about 80-85% of the suspended solids present in
wastewater and approximately 40-50% of organic matter .

Figure-4

Figure-5

3.2.2 Chemicalcoagulation:

Wastewater is treated with some chemicals such as Alum, Al2(SO4)3.18H2O, Hydrated lime,
Chlorinated copperas, FeSO4.Cl which induces processes of settling of suspended and colloidal
particles to develop flocculent precipitate. Some other common coagulants are mixtures of ferric
sulphate and chloride, Copper as FeSO4.7H2O,Ferric chloride etc. are most common coagulants
used for development of coagulation process. The most common economical and effective means
to remove finely divided suspended solid impurities is Coagulation.

3.2.3 Mechanical flocculation process:

Wastewater is passed through specially designed chambers, the detention time of water is 30-40
minutes with gentle stirring, the finely divided suspended solids coalesce into larger particles.
Equalization: Most industries produce different quality of wastewater, with different

15
characteristics at different hours of time. Hence,to apply a uniform treatment method is not
possible. Unit volume of wastewater is mixed with other unit volumes of different wastewater to
produce homogeneous mixture. Mechanically with paddles and with aeration usually enhance
mixing of effluents. Neutralization: Wastewater with highly acidity, highly alkaline should be
neutralized before discharge. Alkaline wastewater can be neutralized by sulphuric acid, CO2,
waste boiler flue gas. Acidic wastewater can be neutralized by limestone, lime-slurry, caustic
soda, depending upon the type and quantity of the wastewater.

3.3 SECONDARY TREATMENT

Secondary treatment of wastewater to remove colloidal organic matter by biological processes

including bacteria and other micro-organisms. These microbial processes may be aerobic
oranaerobic.

Figure-6

Underaerobicprocesses: Micro-organisms consume organic matter in the following sequential

changes-coagulation and flocculation, oxidation of dissolved organic matter, degradation of
nitrogenous organic matter to ammonia, which is then converted into its oxides like nitrite and
eventually to nitrate. Secondary treatment process reduces BOD.The effluent from primary
sedimentation tanks is first entered in an aerobic oxidation process such as trickling filters,
activated sludge units, aerated lagoons, oxidation ditches-oxidation ponds. Certain microbes,
utilise organic waste present in wastewater as their food, and convert into very simple

16
compounds. Maximum organic substances, except-hydrocarbons can be oxidised by aerobic
treatment [19].

Underanaerobicprocess: (absence of dissolved gaseous oxygen), certain groups of

microbes, like hydrolyte, methane forming microbes, can digest complex organic wastes to
simplest forms like CO2 etc. Anaerobic treatment can be carried out in small areas, it can take
place in enriched cultures. The anaerobic process can be used for most substrates except mineral
oil. The anaerobic process is less expensive but also less satisfactory, as compared to aerobic
process, due to dark colour, odour and higher residual BOD present in anaerobic treated
water.Anaerobic treatment is mainly employed for the digestion of sludge. However, organic
liquidwastes from dairy, slaughter houses etc., were treated by this method economically and
effectively. The efficiency of this process depends upon pH, temperature, waste loading,absence
of oxygen and toxic materials.

3.3.1 OxidationDitch:

This can be considered as a modified form of activated sludge process.Oxidation ditch process
usually consists of oval shaped continuous channels with 1 to 2 meter deep have plastic, tar or
butyl rubber line. Wastewater after screening in the primary treatment process is allowed into the
oxidation ditch. The mixed liquor of oxidation ditch containing the sludge solid in the channel
with the help of rotors. Most of the sludge developed is recycled for the next subsequent
wastewater treatment cycle.

3.3.2 OxidationPonds:

Wastewater treatment through this process is considered as an aerobic process, the purification is
performed by a combination of aerobic, anaerobic processes, and facultative. The wastewater in
the upper part of the pond undergoes the aerobic oxidation process and converts into CO2, and
H2O. Solids matter present in the wastewater, present as a layer at bottom of the pond, act as
anaerobic. At the bottom the organic matter present in wastewater is oxidised by anaerobic
bacteria to CO2, and NH3 etc. This process can be used for any types of wastewater. The most
heavy metal ions of wastewater can be precipitated as sludge in the form of their hydroxides due
to the high pH value in the oxidation pond. The wastewater effluent of oxidation ponds requires
disinfection in a separate pond before final discharge substances.

17
Figure-8

3.4 TERTIARY TREATMENT PROCESS

Tertiary treatment is also known as the final treatment of “polishing "of effluents of secondary
treatment processes, to improve quality further. The main objectives of tertiary treatment
areremoval of fine suspended solids of dissolved inorganic solids, removal of final traces of
organics, removal of bacteria and trace organic, if necessary. Evaporation: This is an expensive
process it is used when the concentrated solid or solutions are reused, e.g. electroplating wastes.
This process is also used for concentrating radio-active liquid wastes. It is used to separate or
concentrate some chemicals which cannot be separated or concentrated by any other methods[
21].

3.4.1 Ion-exchange:

The use of ion-exchange process for removal of ions from water is a well known process. The
Ion-exchange process is widely used for de-ionised water.Ion-exchange processes become
economical only when the recovered salts are reused like in the electroplating industry.This
method cannot be considered economical if used only for removal of dissolved solids
fromwastewater. Applications of ion exchange process-wastewater treatment, recovery of
phosphate, Cr, Ni, and H2SO4 ,Cu, Pb, Hg,removal of cyanides from wastewater streams etc.

18
Figure-9

3.4.2 Adsorption process:

Adsorption by activated carbon to remove small quantities of organic contaminants from
wastewater is considered an economical process. Large numbers of adsorbents are commercially
available for the removal of toxic heavy metal ions from water, industrial wastewater. Activated
carbon also found useful for the removal of pesticides and some insecticides. Large number of
adsorbents are available for treatment of water, removal of refractory organic matter, toxic
metals, colour etc. Some adsorbents are activated carbon, brown coal, peat moss and other
cellulose materials etc. are used for wastewater treatment. Japan developed ALM series of
adsorbents incorporating high polymers containing S- and N- functional groups. ALM series of
adsorbents have very good affinity for heavy metals and can reduce metal levels up to I ppb. Few
common membrane processes, which are used in wastewater treatment are: Electrodialysis
process, Electrolytic recovery, Reverse Osmosis Micro filtration, Ultrafiltration, Nan
filtration.other

3.4.3 Electrodialysis process:

Only selective colloidal/dissolved species are exchanged between two liquids through a selective
ion-exchange membrane. The semi permeable membrane allows the passage of certain charged
species and rejects the passage of oppositely charged species. Applications of Electrodialysis
process include- removal of Zn, Cu, Ni, fluoride and cyanide from water samples, recovery of Cr
from automobile plating rinse baths, recovery of radioactive elements and valuable metals,
concentration of rinse waters to the desired bath strength, control of Water pollution, desalination
of water, purification of plasma protein, pharmaceutical, medicinal and photographic industries,
demineralization of sugars.

3.4.4 Electrolyticrecovery:
The electro-chemical reduction of metal ions takes place and elemental metal forms. This
process is commonly used to recover Ag, Cu, Sn and some other metals. The efficiency of
electrolytic recovery tremendously increased by innovative electrolytic process designs such as
eco-cell involving rotating electrodes and extended surface electrolysis.

19
3.4.5 RO-Reverse Osmosis:

The semipermeable membrane allows only water molecules through and retains the dissolved
ions. The various designs of RO equipment are available like tubular, spiral, jelly roll and hollow

fibre types Applications of reverse osmosis processrecovery of valuable components, recovery of

water for reuse, recycling of wastewaters, removal of pollutants.

Figure-10
Figure-

● Removal of phosphate

Phosphates can be removed from wastewater with the use of a specific bio-reactor with some
selected feed material. The retention time of wastewater to be treated is 3-5 hours. The bioreactor
is linked with an aeration process without circulation. Treatment process in bio-reactor mainly
occurs due to coagulation of phosphate with ions of ferrous that generates from the metal a type
of electrochemical corrosion -physical and chemical processes.

● Removal of ammonia salt's nitrogen

20
The basic technological scheme, a biological treatment process of wastewater in an aeration tank,
divided into four successive aerobic and anoxic zones, contains some amount of active sludge
along with wastewater. The sludge containing wastewater mixture is transferred to a secondary
clarifier for separation. This bio-reactor based treatment method can be used for treatment of
organic compounds and suspended materials along with phosphates treatment.

3.5 A CASE STUDY ON SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT:

Five wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) were included in the analysis of this study:
Tulkarem, Al Bireh, West Nablus, HodHasharon, and Raanana. TulKarem WWTP was selected
as an example of primary sewage treatment because it is the only sewage facility in the West
Bank that has not progressed beyond primary treatment (aeration pond). he West Bank at present
has two fully functioning secondary level WWTPs Al - Bireh, and West Nablus. here are no
tertiary level treatment plants operated by the PA, so HodHasharon and Raanana WWTPs in
Israel were chosen to provide a comparison between the PA’s existing secondary treatment with
possible tertiary treatment. he Raanana treatment facility has a similar daily inflow to the
Palestinian West Nablus facility, and based on economies of scale, is, therefore, cost comparable.

Cost parameters and calculations:

This analysis chose to incorporate two different types of costs: the operational and maintenance
costs and the start-up costs of each WWTP. Operational costs were comprised of electricity,
maintenance and upkeep, and current employee wages. Establishment costs included payment
for land, building materials, municipal piping, electricity for the building, employee wages
(engineers, contractors, construction), permits, and financing the complete project (any interest
paid). Financial data were collected from the chief operator of each treatment plant.The daily
inflow of each facility differed, as did the start-up and operational costs. therefore, in order to
relate the costs of different WWTPs to one another, a comparable unit price was utilized across
technologies and plant size. his unit is the cost of treatment per cubic meter of water.In the
analysis, two varying financial scenarios were examined when computing the unit cost. In
Scenario One, the calculation neglected the initial start up costs and focused only on the yearly
operational costs. he reality is that in the past, and for the foreseeable future, international donors
have been willing to pay for the establishment costs of WWTPs in the PA. therefore, Scenario

21
One calculated the unit price from the Palestinian government’s perspective, in which
operational costs are the only salient expenses, and initial costs are excluded. Scenario Two
offers the full picture and is more applicable worldwide to stakeholders who have an interest in
assessing the entire cost of a project. he estimates in Scenario Two are relevant for contexts
where the WWTPs are financed by the local government and/or by taxpayers. In Scenario Two,
the initial costs were amortized using a basic equation calculating the present value start-up costs
for specific WWTPs.

Costpresentvalue= A) /i[1-1 /(1+i) T ------------(1)

Where: A is the payment Amount per period (New Israeli Shekel), i is the interest
rate(percent),and T is the total number of payments (years)[21]. The cost unit was calculated in
New Israeli Shekel (NIS) per cubic meter and then converted to United States Dollars (USD)
using the March 2016 value of 3.9 NIS to 1 USD. Using the start-up costs, an interest rate of 4%
and the life expectancy of the treatment plant as 25 years, the value of A was calculated for the
above equation.

Effectiveness parameters and calculations:

The efectiveness measure used in this study was EDC and nutrient removal. he EDCs referred to
in these results are natural estrogens, oestrone and estriol, and the other parameters are total
suspended solids (TSS), biological oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (TN), and total
phosphorous (TP). All secondary and tertiary WWTPs in this study were a part of a larger
Israeli-Palestinian research project, which monitored the presence and fate of EDCs throughout
wastewater treatment processes [22]. Estriol and estrone data from Dotan et al were used to
calculate removal percentages in the WWTPs. Data for removal percentages of TSS, BOD, TN,
and TP were taken from the monthly reports of the monitoring systems at the WWTPs. Odeh W
provided estriol data for the primary treatment facility, Tulkarem WWTP, but not for estrone and
the WWTP does not monitor its nutrient levels. therefore, data from the literature were taken for
estrone removal, and nutrient removal is not included in this study for primary treatment.

The following calculation was used to quantify removal efectiveness:

Removal percentage = C i- C f / Ci *100 …….…………..( 2 )

22
Where: Ci is the initial concentration of the contaminant and Cf is the final concentration of the
contaminant. Multiplying the number by 100% shows the percent removal.

Cost-efectiveness analysis:
In order to evaluate the wastewater treatment options for Palestinians in the West Bank, a CEA
was carried out. CEA is a technique that relates the costs of a program to its key outcomes of
benefits[23] .This study looks at the cost of wastewater treatment in relation to the efectiveness
of contaminant removal. he costs and the efectiveness values are brought together to make the
CE ratio. he cost of treatment (USD per cubic meter) is the numerator and the efectiveness
(removal amount, ranging from 0-1) is the denominator.

C/ E = Cost /Effectiveness……………….…(3)

Where C is the cost and E are the chosen measure of efectiveness.

The optimal solution is one even with low cost and high efectiveness. he best CE ratio is the
smallest number because it means the lowest price for the highest removal. After the CE ratio
was computed, a sensitivity analysis was performed in order to take the uncertainty of predicted
impacts and monetization into consideration for the overall recommendation. This study used the
extreme case sensitivity analysis to compute worst- and best- case scenarios [24].The cost per
treatment of cubic meter of water stays constant at each plant; so therefore, the extreme cases
were taken as the best and worst removal levels. Thus, the highest and lowest removal
percentages were selected for each plant, and then the CE ratio was recalculated for each
condition. he results show the CE ratios in best- and worst-case scenarios.

4. RESULTS
The differences between the two financing scenarios are highlighted in Table 1. In Scenario One,
start up costs were excluded, reflecting the current reality in the PA, where initial costs of
WWTPs are funded by foreign aid. In Scenario Two, start up costs were included, making the
study adaptable to other locals where funding for infrastructure is not supported by foreign aid,
in addition to representing the possible future of Palestinian WWTPs. In Scenario One, the
average prices for secondary and tertiary treatment were $0.21/m3 and $0.43/m3, respectively. In
Scenario Two, the price of secondary treatment averaged to $0.49/m3 and the one tertiary
treatment plant calculations amounted to $0.62/m3.EfectivenessTable 2 shows the results of the

23
removal efectiveness for the different WWTPs. As expected, the data show an increase in EDC
removal linked with an upgraded treatment level. For estrone, the difference in removal between
primary and secondary is quite significant, moving from 7% to 97%. he discrepancy between
secondary and tertiary is much smaller, increasing from 97% to 99%. he same benefits associated
with the more advanced treatment of EDCs proved true also for TSS, BOD, TN, and TP.

WWTP Treatment Scenario One($/m3) Scenario two($/m3)

Tulkarem Primary 0.0179 0.0385

Al Bireh Secondary 0.2205 0.4795

West Nablus Secondary 0.1897 0.5026

HodHasharon Tertiary 0.3795 0.6205

Treatment WWTP Estrone Estriol TSS BOD TN TP
level
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Primary Tulkarem 7 29 nd nd nd nd

Secondary Al bireh 97 98 96 92 90 72

Secondary West Nablus 97 100 98 98 81 63

Tertiary hodHasharon 98 94 99 99 90 84

Tertiary Raanana 100 100 98 100 60 nd

Cost efectiveness ratio :

Table-1 cost results for waste water treatment per cubic metre in scenario one and two

24
 TSS(mg/L) BOD(mg/L) TN(mg/L) TP(mg/L)

AI bierch second treatment 79 39.6 8 2.1

West Nabulus secondary treatment 12 14 32 1.8

Palestinian Standard 30 20 30 8

HodHasharon Tertiary Treatment 3 1.9 6 1.3

Israeli standards irrigation/streams 10/10 10/10 25/10 5/1

25
Table-2:Effectiveness results using percent removal for estrone, estriol, TSS, BOD,TN &TP

Treatment WWTP ESTRONE ESTIOL TSS BOD TN

level SC1 SC2 SC1 SC1 SC2 SC1 SC1 SC1 SC2
SC2

Primary Tulkatem 0.24 0.54 0.06 013 nd nd nd nd nd nd

Secondary Al Biteh 0.23 0.50 0.22 0.49 0.23 0.50 0.24 0.52 0.25 0.54

Secondary West Nabus 0.20 0.52 0.49 0.23 0.50 0.24 0.19 0.52 0.23 0.62

Tertiary HodHasharo 0.39 0.63 0.41 0.66 0.38 0.63 0.38 0.62 0.43 0.69

Tertiary Ranana 0.47 nd 0.47 nd 0.48 nd 0.47 nd 0.79 nd

Table-3: cost effectiveness ratio values for EDCs and nutrient parameters in scenario
one(SC1) and scenario two(SC2)

Table 3 shows the CE ratios calculated for (a) Scenario One and (b) Scenario Two for both EDCs
as well as for TSS, BOD, TN and TP. he lower the CE ratio value, the more attractive the option
is because it signifies a higher efectiveness for a lower cost. In Scenario One, the secondary
treatment facilities had significantly lower CE values in all categories in comparison to tertiary
treatment. In Scenario Two, there is less of a difference in CE ratios between secondary and
tertiary treatment, but the secondary numbers were still lower.

Treatment level comparison based on cost

It provides a strong visual depiction of the comparison of CE ratios for estrone. he designated
colours represent the added cost and added efectiveness when treatment is increased to each
higher level. In both Scenarios (a) One and (b) Two, there is clearly a significantly greater
efectiveness increase between primary and secondary levels in comparison to the cost of
treatment per unit. By way of contrast, when moving from secondary to tertiary technologies,
efectiveness hardly increases, while cost increases dramatically. To create this comparison figure,

26
the tertiary cost and efectiveness values were each separately deemed 100% and the primary and
secondary values were adjusted accordingly.

Sensitivity Analysis
In Scenario One, the extreme case scenario sensitivity analysis shows that best- and worst- case
secondary treatment result in CE averages of 0.19 and 0.23, respectively. For tertiary treatment,
the best-case scenario produces a 0.38 CE ratio, while the worst-case scenario has a 0.47 ratio.
The sensitivity analysis shows that even in a worst-case scenario for secondary level removal,
where the least favourable ratios from the sampling campaigns are used (0.23 CE ratios) and a
best-case scenario inserted for tertiary level removal (0.38 CE ratios), the CE ratio for secondary
treatment is still lower, and therefore remains more attractive. Scenario Two follows the same
pattern: the worst-case scenario for secondary treatment produces a 0.52 ratio, while the
best-case scenario in tertiary treatment yields a 0.62 ratio.

5. DISCUSSION:
Recommendation
The last step of a CEA is to recommend an action to take. he lower CE ratios point to an
optimal treatment level, but cannot determine whether or not the actual investment is
worthwhile. he CEA conducted for this study shows that secondary treatment is the most
cost-effective option for removal of EDCs during wastewater treatment in the PA. Although
tertiary treatment increases removal levels of EDCs by roughly 2 percent, the 200 percent
increase in costs does not make it an eicient investment for the PA. In this case, an important
factor to consider before choosing secondary treatment is the actual numerical level of the
contaminant concentrations in the eluent of the WWTP. Currently, both Israel and the PA have
legal parameters in place for nutrient concentrations in wastewater eluent, as exhibited in Table
4. he Godinger T data show that tertiary level treatment brought nutrient concentrations down to
levels that meet the Israeli reuse standards. For the Palestinian WWTPs, the West Nablus plant
produces eluent

water that is very close to meeting all of the PA standards for nutrient concentrations. he only
standard not met is TN at 32 mg/L for West Nablus, while the standard is set at 30mg/L. he TSS,
BOD, and TN standards listed in Table 4 offer the average values of the second and third tiers
from a recent report, and the TP is reported in a recent USAID approved project called Compete

27
[34,35]. Relying on secondary treatment alone, the West Nablus WWTP produces eluent water
that is extremely close to meeting all of the PA standards for nutrient concentrations. He same
comparison of eluent concentrations to standards should also be conducted for EDCs. Currently,
no country in the world has legal standards for EDCs in treated outlow. he state of California,
however, has put much effort into studying the risks associated with exposure to EDCs and has
proposed a set of general guidelines ranging from 1-10 ng/L, depending on the EDC and for
particular types of reuse [37]. Similarly, the European Union published recommended limits, also
in the 1ng/L range, based on studies conducted in Europe [38]. Using these recommended
standards, tertiary treatment would be the preferred treatment option. he results of the sampling
campaign [33] show inal eluent value concentrations of EDCs in tertiary treatment to be closer to
1 ng/L than those in secondary treatment. From a strict, precautionary and public health
perspective, tertiary treatment would be the best solution. Nonetheless, the PA and other nations
with extremely limited inancial resources may need to take economics and feasibility into
consideration. He economic situation in the West Bank is significantly different than in Israel. In
2014, per capital yearly income in the West Bank was $3,000, compared to $37,000 in Israel.
Typically, local citizens pay a tax to the municipality to cover the costs of building and operating
wastewater treatment plants. With a per capita income, roughly ten times lower than that of
Israel’s, a Palestinian choice to remain at secondary treatment levels might be the more Judicious
one.

6. CONCLUSION:
1.From the above discussion it can be concluded that in the developed countries much work has
been done in the field of wastewater reuse system but we can’t say the same about developing
countries. In developing countries wastewater reuse is still in the beginning stage and much work
is needed in that field.

2. Wastewater treatment performance now a day big problem if we improve our methodology
definitely solved big problem.

3.There are plenty of emerging technology which are making increase performance of
wastewater in reused system. But we used only appropriate technology whom suitable.

28
4. In Indian conditions, sequential batch reactor process is more economical and more efficient.
It is a totally chemical process which is great for non-portable purpose. It needs less land but
requirement of external energy source for its aeration and equalization along with chemical costs
makes it costly.

These CEA indings are consistent with international indings in the field. Studies in Spain, for
example, show comparable operational costs for WWTPs to those found in this study [42]. Many
CBA studies evaluating the reuse of treated wastewater report positive Net Present Values
(NPVs), confirming sewage reclamation strategies. hese studies also suggest that the PA can
expect economic benefits by creating a market for treated wastewater. Thus far, CEA studies
particularly on EDC removal have not been conducted elsewhere. his study is unique in that it
brings CEA and EDCs together. As both factors are critical in making management decisions
about optimal infrastructure investment strategy, the results offer a clear direction to a
government with a commitment to environmental and public health, but with the narrow tax base
of a developing economy. Ultimately, the move from secondary treatment to tertiary treatment
must be a holistic, societal decision, in which myriad factors are taken into consideration. he
option to move up to tertiary treatment levels need to remain open for the future, and should
eventually be implemented. But in the interim, achieving a secondary level of treatment across
the entire West Bank would constitute meaningful progress for Palestinian public health and
sanitation. he same can be said for other nations in semi-arid areas with similar financial
capacity. Secondary level treatment represents an optimal solution because it attains reasonable
environmental results while maintaining economic deficiency in a society with extremely limited
financial resources.

29
7.REFERENCE :

.
1 Adu-Ahyiah, M. and Anku, R. E.(2003) “Small Scale Wastewater Treatment in Ghana

(aScenario)”Retrived 03-10 -2006vol= 1,3 page = 205 -208

2.Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (2003) “Waste-Water Treatment
Technologies: A General Review”United nation publication 6-3-2003.

3. Metcalf & Eddy, third edition (1995) “Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, Reuses”,
Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, 1995.

4.W.Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr, second edition, (1989)“Industrial Wate Pollution Control”, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

5.Bagajewicz, M., (2000 ) A review of recent desing procedures for water networks in
refineriesand process plants. Computers and chemical engineering, Volume 24, pp. 2093-2113.

6.Awuah, E. and Amankwaa-Kuffuor, R., (2002) “Characterisation of Wastewater, its sources

and its Environmental Effects” I-Learning Seminar on Urban Wastewater

Management

7.Foodand Agricultural Organisation (2006) Wastewater

Treatmenthttp://www.fao.org/docrep/t0551e/t0551e06.htm#TopOfPage

8. Muga HE, Mihelcic JR (2008) Sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies. Journal of

Environmental Management 88(3): 437-447.

30
9.Hendy, S. M. H. (2006) “Wastewater Management and Reuse in Egypt” Regional Workshop on
Health Aspects of Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture Amman, Jordan 30 October –3 November
2006

10.Kamala, A. and Kanth Rao, D. L., (1989) Environmental Engineering Tata MacGraw-Hill

Publishing 121-218

11.Kayombo S., Mbwette T.S.A. Katima J.H. Y, Ladegaard N., and Jorgensen S.E. (2000)
“WasteStabilisation Ponds and Constructed Wetlands Design Manual UNEP-IETC and DANIDA
Publication.

12.Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. (2003) “Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse,” Fourth
edition.: McGraw-Hill, New York.

13. Schultz, T. E. (2005) “Biotreating Process Wastewater: Airing the Options, Chemical

Engineering.

14.W.Wesley Eckenfelder, Jr, second edition (1989) “Industrial Wate Pollution Control”, Tata
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited.

15.Lawrence K. Wang (2006) by Taylor & Francis Group, “Treatment of Soap and Detergent
Industry Wastes”, The Cooper Union, New York, U.S.A.

16.Mark J Hammer Jr. fourth edition (2003)“Water and Wastewater Technology”, Prentic- Hall
of India Private Limited, New Delhi.

17.Belila, A. et al. (2013) Sulfur bacteria in wastewater stabilization ponds periodicaly affected
by the red-water phenomenon. Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 97(1), pp. 379-394.

17 EU council, 1991. Council directive concerning urban waste water treatment, sl: Official
Journal of the European Communities.

18. Kulkarni, S. &Kaware, j (2013) Review on research for removal of phenol from wastewater.

International journal of scientific and research publications, 3(4).

31
19. Ivanov V, Tay JH, Tay ST, Jiang HL (2004) Removal of micro-particles by microbial
granules used for aerobic wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology, IWA Publishing
50(12): 147-154.

20. 2. Hasan Z, Jeon J, Jhung SH (2012) Adsorptive removal of naproxen andclofibric acid from
water using metal-organic frameworks. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Elsevier 209-210:
151-157.

21.Becker B, Invashina V (2015) Reaching for Yield in the Bond Market. 70: 1863-1902.

22.Dotan P, Godinger T, Odeh W, Groisman L, Al-Khateeb N, et al. (2016) Occurrence and fate
of endocrine disrupting compounds in wastewater treatment plants in Israel and the Palestinian
West Bank. Chemosphere 155: 86-93.

23.Odeh W (2015) Occurrence and Fate of EDCs in Wastewater and their Receiving Aquatic
Environments in the West Bank of

Palestine.

24. Cellini SR., Kee JE (2010) Cost-efectiveness and cost-beneit analysis. HandbPractProgrEval
493-530.

25. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2011) Costbeneit analysis: Concepts
and practices. (4th Edition) Prentice Hall.

26. Fan Y, Li H, Miguez-Macho G (2013) Global Patterns of Groundwater Table Depth. Science
339: 940-943.

32
33