Proposal of a methodology for pre-selection of sewage treatment systems within watersheds

Fantin, Lucas Luiz Dall'Orto; Reis, José Antonio Tosta dos; Mendonça, Antonio Sérgio Ferreira

doi:10.1590/2318-0331.011716079

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific/Technical Article • RBRH 22 • 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-0331.011716079 copy

Proposal of a methodology for pre-selection of sewage treatment systems within watersheds

Proposta metodológica para pré-seleção de sistemas de tratamento de esgoto no âmbito de bacias hidrográficas

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The selection of sewage treatment plants within watersheds is a complex process when there are multiple outflows presenting different loads and watercourses presenting different assimilation capabilities. In this context, the present study aims to establish a methodology for pre-selection of wastewater treatment alternatives within watersheds. The methodology involves the combined use of water quality model, optimization technique and a set of technical and economic criteria associated with different wastewater treatment systems. To evaluate the proposed methodology there were considered different effluent disposal scenarios in the Pardo river watershed. Pardo is a major tributary of the Itapemirim river, watercourse located in the southern portion of Espírito Santo State, Brazil. The results indicated that the optimization model, that aimed to minimize wastewater treatment efficiencies within the watershed, considering watercourses self-purification capacities, selected treatment systems ranging from the combination of UASB and polishing lagoons systems to slow infiltration, treatment alternatives that presented the lowest net cost estimates. The incorporation of equity perspective between treatment systems increased the total present net cost associated with wastewater treatment within the watershed.

Keywords:
Water quality model; Optimization; Genetic algorithm; Wastewater treatment

Urban nucleus	Urban population (in habitants)	Urban outflow (L/s)
Ibatiba	18125	24.33
Irupi	4918	5.24
Iúna	14821	19.90
N. S^a das Graças	600	0.64
St^a. Trindade	301	0.32

Effluent disposal condition	SOLUTIONS	LOCALITY
Effluent disposal condition	SOLUTIONS	Ibatiba	Irupi	Nossa Senhora das Graças	Santíssima Trindade	Iúna
		Optimization Model 1					Sum
1	1	82	73	0	0	0	155
	2	82	74	0	0	0	156
	3	82	73	0	0	0	155
	4	82	73	0	0	0	155
	5	82	73	0	0	0	155
2	1	84	73	71	71	71	370
	2	82	73	70	70	70	365
	3	83	73	70	70	71	367
	4	84	73	71	70	71	368
	5	83	73	71	71	71	369
3	1	82	74	60	61	60	337
	2	82	74	61	61	62	340
	3	82	73	60	60	60	335
	4	82	73	60	61	62	338
	5	83	73	61	60	62	339
Optimization Model 2
1	1	95	73	(4) ^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	(2) ^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	94	264
	2	95	73	(4)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	(2)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	95	269
	3	95	73	(4)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	(2)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	95	269
	4	94	73	(4)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	(2)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	95	269
	5	95	73	(8)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	(3)^* * Notes: Treatment efficiencies generated by the optimization model. Von Sperling (2007) suggested that for secondary sewage treatment systems, the minimum efficiency of BOD removal should be approximately 25%.	95	274

Ibatiba (WWT 1)		Irupi (WWT 2)		Iúna (WWT 3)		Nossa Senhora das Graças (WWT 4)		Santíssima Trindade (WWT 5)
Treatment Systems	Ord.	Treatment Systems	Ord.	Treatment Systems	Ord.	Treatment Systems	Ord.	Treatment Systems	Ord.
Conventional activated sludge + tertiary filtration	1	Slow infiltration	1	Slow infiltration	1	Primary treatment (septic tanks)	1	Primary treatment (septic tanks)	1
		Fast infiltration	2	Septic tank + infiltration	2	Conventional primary treatment	1	Conventional primary treatment	1
		Anaerobic pond + facultative pond	3	Convencional activated sludge + tertiary filter	3	Slow infiltration	1	Slow infiltration	1
		UASB + polishing ponds	4			UASB Reactor	2	UASB Reactor	2
		UASB + filtro anaeróbio	5			Fast infiltration	3	Fast infiltration	3
		Facultative pond	6			Anaerobic pond + facultative pond	4	Anaerobic pond + facultative pond	4
		Surface runoff	6			UASB + polishing ponds	5	UASB + polishing ponds	5
		Wetlands	7			Advanced Primary Treatment	6	Advanced Primary Treatment	6
		UASB + aerated lagoon complWWT misture+ decantation pond	8			UASB + anaerobic filter	7	UASB + anaerobic filter	7
		Anaerobic lagoon + optional lagoon + lagoon high rate	9			Facultative pond	8	Facultative pond	8
		Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + algae removal	9			Surface runoff	8	Surface runoff	8
		UASB + Surface runoff	10			Wetlands	9	Wetlands	9
		Aerated facultative pond	11			UASB + aerated lagoon complWWT mixture+ decantation pond	10	UASB + aerated lagoon complWWT misture+ decantation pond	10
		ComplWWT mixture aerated lagoon + sedimentation pond	11			Anaerobic lagoon + optional lagoon + lagoon high rate	11	Anaerobic lagoon + optional lagoon + lagoon high rate	11
		Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + maturation lagoon	12			Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + algae removal	11	Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + algae removal	11
		UASB + high load biological filter	13			UASB + Surface runoff	12	UASB + Surface runoff	12
		UASB + Dissolved Air Flotation	14			Aerated facultative pond	13	Aerated facultative pond	13
		Septic tank + infiltration	15			ComplWWT mixture aerated lagoon + sedimentation pond	13	ComplWWT mixture aerated lagoon + sedimentation pond	13
		UASB + submerged aerated biofilter	16			Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + maturation lagoon	14	Anaerobic lagoon + facultative lagoon + maturation lagoon	14
		UASB + activated sludge	17			UASB + high load biological filter	15	UASB + high load biological filter	15
		Submerged aerated biofilter with nitrification	18			UASB + Dissolved Air Flotation	16	UASB + Dissolved Air Flotation	16
		Septic tank + anaerobic filter	19			Septic tank + infiltration	17	Septic tank + infiltration	17
		Submerged aerated biofilter with biological N removal	20			UASB + submerged aerated biofilter	18	UASB + submerged aerated biofilter	18
		Activated sludge prolonged aeration	21			UASB + activated sludge	19	UASB + activated sludge	19
		Batch activated sludge	21			Submerged aerated biofilter with nitrification	20	Submerged aerated biofilter with nitrification	20
		Convencional activated sludge	22			Septic tank + anaerobic filter	21	Septic tank + anaerobic filter	21
		Low load biological filter percolator	23			Submerged aerated biofilter with biological N removal	22	Submerged aerated biofilter with biological N removal	22
		High load biofilter percolator	23			Activated sludge prolonged aeration	23	Activated sludge prolonged aeration	23
		Septic tank + biodisc	23			Batch activated sludge	23	Batch activated sludge	23
		Conventional activated sludge with biological N removal	24			Conventional activated sludge	24	Conventional activated sludge	24
		Conventional activated sludge with biological N / P removal	25			Low load percolator biological filter	25	Low load percolator biological filter	24

SCENARIOS	TREATMENT CONDITIONS
	Condition 1		Condition 2	Condition 3
	Optimization Model 1	Optimization Model 2	Optimization Model 1	Optimization Model 1
Scenario 1	WWT 1 - Slow infiltration	WWT 1 - Conventional activated sludge + tertiary filtration	WWT 1 - Slow infiltration	WWT 1 - Slow infiltration
	WWT 2 - Slow infiltration	WWT 2 - Slow infiltration	WWT 2 - Slow infiltration	WWT 2 - Slow infiltration
	-	WWT 3 - Slow infiltration	WWT 3 - Slow infiltration	WWT 3 - Slow infiltration
	-	WWT 4 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 4 - Slow infiltration	WWT 4 - Slow infiltration
	-	WWT 5 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 5 - Slow infiltration	WWT 5 - Slow infiltration
Scenario 2	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds	Not selected	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds;	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds
	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond
	-	Not selected	WWT 3 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 3 - UASB Reactor
	-	WWT 4 - Primary treatment (septic tanks)	WWT 4 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 4 - UASB Reactor
	-	WWT 5 - Primary treatment (septic tanks)	WWT 5 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 5 - UASB Reactor
Scenario 3	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds	WWT 1 - Conventional activated sludge + tertiary filtration	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds;	WWT 1 - UASB + Polishing ponds
	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 2 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond
	-	WWT 3 - Conventional activated sludge + tertiary filtration	WWT 3 - Anaerobic pond+ Facultative pond	WWT 3 - UASB Reactor
	-	WWT 4 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 4 - Slow infiltration	WWT 4 - Slow infiltration
	-	WWT 5 - Primary treatment (septic tanks), Conventional primary treatment	WWT 5 - Slow infiltration	WWT 5 - Slow infiltration

SCENARIOS	TREATMENT CONDITIONS
	Condition 1		Condition 2	Condition 3
	Optimization Model 1	Optimization Model 2	Optimization Model 1	Optimization Model 1
Scenario 1	WWT 1 - R$ 1,861,512.99	WWT 1 - R$ 7,977,912.81	WWT 1 - R$ 1,861,512.99	WWT 1 - R$ 1,861,512.99
	WWT 2 - R$ 769,289.46	WWT 2 - R$ 769,289.46	WWT 2 - R$ 769,289.46	WWT 2 - R$ 769,289.46
	-	WWT 3 - R$ 1,233,304.30	WWT 3 - R$ 1,233,304.30	WWT 3 - R$ 1,233,304.30
	-	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83
	-	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19
	TOTAL = R$ 2,630,802.45	TOTAL = R$ 10,319,801.54	TOTAL = R$ 4,203,401.77	TOTAL = R$ 4,203,401.77
Scenario 2	WWT 1 – R$ 2,692,545.57	Not selected	WWT 1 - R$ 2,692,545.57	WWT 1 - R$ 2,692,545.57
	WWT 2 – R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28
	-	Not selected	WWT 3 - R$ 1,644,405.73	WWT 3 - R$ 1,262,668.68
	-	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 162,852.09
	-	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 184,521.39
	TOTAL = R$ 3,718,264.86	-	TOTAL = R$ 5,701,965.60	TOTAL = R$ 5,328,307.01
Scenario 3	WWT 1 - R$ 2,692,545.57	WWT 1 - R$ 7,977,912.81	WWT 1 - R$ 2,692,545.57	WWT 1 - R$ 2,692,545.57
	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28	WWT 2 - R$ 1,025,719.28
	-	WWT 3 - R$ 5,285,589.84	WWT 3 - R$ 1,644,405.73	WWT 3 - R$ 1,262,668.68
	-	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83	WWT 4 - R$ 159,064.83
	-	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19	WWT 5 - R$ 180,230.19
	TOTAL = R$ 3,718,264.86	TOTAL = R$ 14,628,516.95	TOTAL = R$ 5,701,965.60	TOTAL = R$ 5,320,228.56

Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, CEP: 91501-970, Tel: (51) 3493 2233, Fax: (51) 3308 6652 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: rbrh@abrh.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mails: lucas.fantin@hotmail.com (LLDOF), jatreis@gmail.com (JATR), anserfm@terra.com.br (ASFM)