.4
.. .. id“.
Shirwiu
.521... a.

.... if:
12”.! .
71...”... £515... . 3..
s». .als.:n...u.3..o..u
1.. «.3 ‘ 1..
In.

.30.! a t
, a.
.. Juhmmflfih.‘
.a.

u... t!...1..l.:5..“fl.t

5; ‘ .. i:
. 5.? 5.
.34. 5:5»... ..
f1!!!

,1 I.

‘ ....

vI-Iu,

 

a.“ .u-fi-I u

a:

.

~ : A Pu» . ..

mqru

. 4;...“

31%.... km,

 

THESIS

2008

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Treatment and Reuse of Dairy Milking Facility Wash Water

 

presented by

Rebecca Anne Larson

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Universrty

 

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

 

Masters degree in Biosystems Engineering

 

Major Professldr’s Signature

rifle/2,00 -?
Date

MSU is an afiinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

- — -I-I-I-L‘-_P-.u-I-l-l-.-l-O-I-I-I-I-I-I-O-C-

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:lClRC/Date0ue.indd~p1

 

TREATMENT AND REUSE OF DAIRY MILKING FACILITY WASH WATER
By

Rebecca Anne Larson

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Biosystems Engineering

2007

ABSTRACT
TREATMENT AND REUSE OF DAIRY MILKING FACILITY WASH WATER
BY
Rebecca Anne Larson
Treatment and disposal of dairy milking facility wash water using lagoon storage
and land application poses serious potential environmental consequences if not
properly managed. Dairy wash water contains high liquid content increasing
overflows, spills and runoff which contaminate surface waterways due to large

concentrations of biochemical oxygen demand (BODS), chemical oxygen

demand (COD), total solids (TS) and total suspended solids (TSS). Two aerobic
suspended growth treatment units provided by Consolidated Treatment Systems

Inc., were proposed to treat high strength dairy wash water to be reused for first
. . .. . TM . . . . .
flush of the milking facrlrty. The Nayadlc had a gravrty driven solud/quurd
. . . TM . . .

separation and alternatively the MultI-Flo With a filtration mechanism for
separation. Average influent values were 5,761 mg/L BOD5, 36,528 mg/L COD,
. TM .
17,809 mg/L TS and 9,758 mg/L TSS. The Nayadrc treatment unit
performance at 50 gal/day ranged from 67 to 96%, 69 to 96%, (-48) to 92% and
. _ TM

(—106) to 96% percent reductions for BOD5, COD, TS and T38. The Multr-Flo
was capable reaching first flush reuse levels for one month. Treatment reduction

TM
percentages for the Multi-Flo unit at 50 gallons per day were 74 to 99%, 67 to

99%, 46 to 98%, and 63 to 99% for BOD5, COD, TS and T88, respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank:

>

V VVV

VVV V

My advisor, Dr. Steven Safferman for his confidence in me, which
supported my own.

My fellow graduate students for their camaraderie.

The Biosystems Engineering department for their continual assistance.
My committee members (Dr. Irene Xagoraraki and Dr. Timothy Ham'gan)
Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc, particularly Mark and Jeff for their
ongoing support and assistance.

Sara Christopherson for her guidance.

The MSU Dairy Farm and Land Management.

My family, without which I would not survive.

And my friends for their unconditional support.

-Becky

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1 Thesis Statement .................................................................................... 4
1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS ..................................................... 11
3.1 Michigan State University Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research
Facility .................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Treatment System Design .................................................................... 12
3.3 Treatment Units .................................................................................... 14
3.4 Ultraviolet Disinfection Unit ................................................................... 18
3.5 Wash Water Analysis ............................................................................ 19
3.6 Flow Rate Design ................................................................................. 22
3.7 Reuse ................................................................................................... 23
3.8 System Enhancements ......................................................................... 26
3.9 Monitoring ............................................................................................. 27
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..................................................... 28
4.1 Water Quality Analysis .......................................................................... 28
4..1 1 pH ..................................................................................................... 28
4.1.2 Alkalinity ............................................................................................ 31
4.1.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand ........................................................... 33
4.1.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand ............................................................... 36
4.1.4 Total Solids ....................................................................................... 38
4.1.5 Total Suspended Solids and Color .................................................... 41
4.1.5.1 Nitrogen ......................................................................................... 44
4.1..5 2 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen ............................................................... 44
4.1.5.3 Nitrate ........................................................................................ 47
4.1.5.4 Ammonia .................................................................................... 47
4.1.6 Total Phosphorus .............................................................................. 50
4.1.7 Bacteria ............................................................................................. 53

ii

4.1.9 Odor .................................................................................................. 54
4.1.10 Fats, Oils and Grease .................................................................... 54
4.1.11 Oxidation Reduction Potential and Dissolved Oxygen ................... 56

4.2 Maintenance ......................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS ............................ 60
5.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................... 60
5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................ 62
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................... 70
APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................... 73
REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 100

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Traditional On-Site Aerobic Treatment Unit Performance ....................... 5
Table 2: Previous literature for aerobic treatment units ......................................... 7
Table 3: Suggested water quality reuse values ................................................. 25
Table 4: System Enhancements ......................................................................... 26
Table 5: Average pH concentrations ................................................................... 29
Table 6: Average alkalinity concentrations reduction percentages ..................... 31
Table 7: Average BOD concentrations and reduction percentages .................... 33
Table 8: Average COD concentrations and reduction capabilities ...................... 36
Table 9: Average TS concentrations and treatment efficiency ............................ 39
Table 10: Average TSS concentrations and treatment efficiency ....................... 41
Table 11: Average TKN concentrations and treatment efficiency ....................... 45
Table 12: Average ammonia concentrations and treatment efficiency ................ 48
Table 13: Average total phosphorus and treatment efficiency ............................ 50
Table 14: Bacteria levels ..................................................................................... 53
Table 15: Odor .................................................................................................... 54
Table 16: Fats, oil and grease data for 50 gallons per day ................................. 55
Table 17: Average ORP and DO values ............................................................. 56
Table 18: Maintenance requirements .................................................................. 58
Table19: Treatment effectiveness (50 gallons per day) ...................................... 61
Table 20: Detailed parameter tests .................................................................... 66
Table 21: Quality assurance and quality control procedures for lab analysis ...... 68
Table 22: System operation ................................................................................ 71

iv

Table 23:
Table 24:
Table 25:
Table 26:
Table 27:
Table 28:
Table 29:
Table 30:
Table 31:
Table 32:
Table 33:
Table 34:

pH data ............................................................................................... 74
Alkalinity data ...................................................................................... 76
Biochemical oxygen demand data ...................................................... 78
Chemical oxygen demand data ........................................................... 80
Total Solids Data ................................................................................. 83
Total suspended solids data ............................................................... 86
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen data ................................................................ 89
Nitrate data ......................................................................................... 90
Ammonia data ..................................................................................... 92
Phosphorus data ................................................................................. 95
Odor panel data .................................................................................. 98
ORP and DO data ............................................................................... 99

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: NayadicTM schematic .......................................................................... 16
Figure 2: Multi-FloTM schematic ......................................................................... 18
Figure 3: Sampling Locations ............................................................................. 20
Figure 4: pH values throughout treatment ........................................................... 30
Figure 5: Alkalinity trends throughout treatment .................................................. 32
Figure 6: Biochemical oxygen demand throughout treatment ............................. 35
Figure 7: Chemical oxygen demand concentrations over testing span ............... 37
Figure 8: Total solids concentrations over time .................................................. 40
Figure 9: Total suspended solids concentration over testing span ..................... 42
Figure 10: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations over time ............................... 46
Figure 11: Ammonia concentrations over test span ............................................ 49
Figure 12: Phosphorus concentrations over testing span ................................... 52

vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Dairy milking facilities produce over 180,000 million pounds of milk in the United
States annually (USDA, 2006). Milking facilities milk each head of cattle multiple
times a day, everyday, throughout the year. In order to maintain sanitary
conditions and a safe product within the scope of government laws and
regulations, dairies must clean and disinfect the milking parlor and all equipment
after each milking event. Daily cleaning and operation of milking facilities
produces a large volume of liquid waste, also known as dairy parlor wash water.
This wash water is a result of the combination of fresh water, milk waste,
cleaning chemicals and animal waste. Herd size, cleaning practices, milking
parlor design and management of waste collection greatly influences the
characteristics and quantity of wash water. Wright and Graves (1998) estimated
a quantity of 3.5 to 11 gallons per day per cow. The National Agricultural
Statistics Service reports 320,000 head of cattle in Michigan alone, and over 9
million head of cattle in the United States (USDA, 2006). Consequently, the
volumes of milking facility wash water can be calculated at 400 million to 1.3
billion gallons annually in Michigan and a range of 11 billion to over 36 billion

gallons annually in the US.

Current practices for management of the milking parlor wash water include
manure storage lagoons, land application and use in alternative farming facilities,

such as composting. Manure storage lagoons provide little to no treatment.

Disposal actually occurs when the content is land applied at acceptable nutrient
agronomic rates. Wash water can account for 20-50% of lagoon storage volume
(Livestock Wastes Subcommittee, 1985). Greater liquid content results in larger
volumes of waste, increasing the likelihood of leaks, overflows, runoff and
migration of undesirable solids and nutrient into ground water. In addition, land
application requires extensive land management planning and is restricted by
land availability and climate. The use of wash water in alternate farming
facilities, such as composting, rarely requires the volume of water produced by
the milking facility. Further many farms do not operate these alternative facilities.
Because of the lack of options, it is reasonable to assume that farmers not using
proper disposal systems are discharging the parlor wash water without proper

treatment, resulting in potential negative environmental impacts.

Transport of wash water to various storage facilities and land application sites
can be very costly. The Michigan State University Dairy Teaching and Research
Facility (MSU dairy) spends over $10,000 a year to transport wash water to
storage and application sites, or a unit amount of $0.015 per gallon. Although
transportation costs vary greatly with location of storage and application sites,
Michigan spends an estimated $600,000 to $2 million in transport of wash water
waste annually. The lack of options for treatment and disposal can inevitably

lead to expensive management decisions or improper treatment.

Disposal of wash water poses environmental risks associated with runoff and
contamination of surface and ground waters due to the high concentrations of
environmental pollutants. This includes high levels of oxygen demand, nutrients,
solids, pathogens and fats, oils and grease (FOG). Large concentrations of
nutrients cause eutrophication in surface water. High oxygen demand results in
low dissolved oxygen levels, threatening the survival of aquatic species. Solids
result in a reduction of lake depth, more aquatic growth due to higher water
temperatures from an increase in thermal energy, resulting in eutrophication.
High oxygen demand leads to aquatic death due to a lack of dissolved oxygen,
increasing the solids content contributing to the eutrophication process described
above. Wash water contains large pathogen concentrations posing
contamination problems and presenting health risks to humans and animals.
Offensive odors and other non-aesthetically pleasing characteristics are also

features of dairy wash water that can lead to public dissent of dairy operations.

1.1 Thesis Statement

A systems approach is used to evaluate two typical aerobic suspended growth
units with different solid/liquid separation mechanisms at a local dairy to
determine their ability to treat high strength dairy milking facility wash water for

reuse.
1.2 Objectives

The specific objectives of the project follow.
1. Use a systems approach to determine if aerobic treatment units are
capable of treating high strength dairy wash water to an effluent quality

suitable for reuse.
. . . . TM . .
2. DetermIne thch of two treatment deSIgns, the NayadIc graVIty drIven

solid/liquid separation unit or the Multi-FloTM sock filtration unit, performs
more efficiently in a highly managed system

3. Determine possible reuse applications for the effluent quality reached.

4. Determine typical operation requirements and the man hours to maintain

effective treatment.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Aerobic treatment units (ATU’s) are typically used for on-site treatment of

domestic household wastewater, but are also used for treatment before drip

irrigation (USEPA, 2002). A premise of this research is this equipment may be

applicable to treat the wash water from a small dairy. Traditionally an ATU

replaces or supplements the use of a more traditional septic system. Table 1

provides pollutant removal data for various ATU systems.

Table 1: Traditional On-Site Aerobic Treatment Unit Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Treatment Unit Typical Values bioMax Multi-FIoTM NayadicTM
. Consolidated Treatment
Manufacturer n/a Durrant 8. WaIte Systems "1Q
Flow Rate (gpd) 400-1,500 (1) 338 (2) 634 (2) 500 (3) 500 (3)
'"fluent 3005 (mg/L) 100-300 (1) 554 (2) 356 (2) 150 (3) 150 (3)
lnfluent TSS (mg/L) 100-300 (1) 446 (2) 225 (2) 195 (3) 194 (3)
Effluent BOD5 (mg/L) < 25 (1) 3'2 (2) 1&1 5 (3) 6 (3)
Effluent TSS (mg/L) < 30(1) 2&9 1&3 5 (3) 7(3)
Cost 32.50039000 n/a n/a $4,905 (3) $4,825 (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 USEPA, 2002

2 lvery, 1995

3 Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc., 2002

Treatment mechanisms for ATU’s can include aeration, suspended growth or

fixed-film growth for BOD removal and clarification or filtration for TSS removal

5

(USEPA, 2002). Aeration provides oxygen for aerobic microorganisms to
establish a colony and achieve biological treatment through microbial digestion
and degradation. Additional components used to increase treatment
performance include settling tanks, sand filtration, disinfection units and
anaerobic treatment for denitrification (USEPA, 2002). Although many treatment
units perform adequately as described in table 1, Roeder et. al., 2006, sampled
1,200 ATU’s in the Florida Keys and determined 50% of the systems were

producing effluent values for TSS over USEPA guidelines and 25% over BOD5

guidelines. Performance of ATU’s relies greatly on operation and maintenance,
much more than traditional on-site treatment systems such as septic tanks

(USEPA, 2002).

Christopherson (2003) used ATU’s combining aeration, pretreatment settling
and suspended growth to treat dairy wash water with positive results. Hamoda
(1995) conducted a field experiment on dairy wash water treatment using
sedimentation and aeration. Dong (2003) proposed and tested a system for
dairy wash water reuse combining anaerobic and aerobic treatment. The design
values and general parameters of each study are described below with emphasis

on their relation to the treatment system used in this study, Table 2.

Table 2: Previous literature for aerobic treatment units

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Christopherson Hamoda Dong
Influent BOD5 (mg/L) 2220 n/a 1003
lnfluent COD (mjglL) 3360 3200 4997
Influent TSS (mg/L) 1030 n/a 4200
lnfluent FOG (mglL) 650 n/a n/a

Reduction of BOD5 (%) 44_94 nla n/a
Reduction of COD (%) 32-94 up to 94 70-75
Reduction of TSS (%) 61-82 up to 96 72-78
Reduction of FOG (%) 71-98% n/a n/a

 

Christopherson (2003) designed treatment for dairy farm wastewater ranging
from 40-130 cows, and treated a range of flow rates from 95-440 gallons per day.
Specifically, Christopherson used two aerobic treatment systems the FAST® and
the Nibbler®. The tested Bio-Microbic, lnc., FAST® unit (at a cost of $1 1,000) is
an aerobic fixed activated sludge unit with a honeycomb shaped media for
suspended bacteria growth. Aeration is provided by a blower and a 750 gallon
pretreatment settling tank is located inline. Removal rates are reported at 6

pounds of BOD5 per day. The second unit is the Nibbler® designed by Bill Stuth

and distributed by NCS Wastewater Solutions for a cost of $14,000. Floating
pods are located within the unit, the number of which is determined by loading
rates. The pods are plastic cages that provide housing for buoyant media with
large amounts of surface area. Each pod is aerated with an airlift pump in the
center. A 500 gallon septic tank and a 1000 gallon pump tank are located in
series before the treatment unit. The Nibbler® is designed to remove 0.81

lbs/day of BOD5 and rated to handle a maximum of 137.5 gallons per day.

7

These aerobic treatment systems have been shown to effectively remove

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total

suspended solids (T SS) and FOG. Little to no removal of phosphorus and

nitrogen were found. Christopherson also noted that the main source of BOD5 is

milk waste. This component should be minimized in order to maximize treatment

performance.

Wash water from the milking parlor at a large dairy farm with 2500 milk cows was
used in a field experiment conducted by Hamoda (1995). The preexisting
treatment consisted of a two chamber sedimentation tank for each of the two
milking parlors. The first chamber was for initial settling and contained a scum
baffle on the surface. The second chamber received influent from the first
chamber, overflow from the groundwater reverse osmosis system and effluent
from the two chamber sedimentation tank from the other milking parlor. These
sedimentation tanks are in effect a solid-liquid separator (Hamoda, 1995). In this
study, aerobic activity was achieved using a sequencing batch reactor loaded
with the dairy wash water and activated sludge from a nearby wastewater
treatment plant. The sedimentation tank removed 31% COD and 53% TSS. The
most effective aeration time of 12 hours was capable of removing 87% COD and
89% TSS. Hamoda (1995) recommends a primary settling tank followed by

aerobic activity to achieve these effluent levels.

Hamoda (1995) recommended using the treated wash water for irrigation of
Lucerne grass. However, he noted that build-up of salts and high nitrogen
loading may be of concern over time. There is also a need for disinfection to
prevent the migration of pathogens. Therefore, land application for discharge of
the treated wash water was recommended provided storage was available during

periods when irrigation is not possible.

Dairy wash water was evaluated for reuse in research on a farm in Hawaii

(Dong’s 2003). The COD and BOD5 ranges were 2000 to 7000 mg/L and 500 to

1500 mglL respectively. Dong (2003) set reuse goals of COD, nitrogen (N),
phosphorus (P) and TSS concentrations at 650-700 mglL, 70-80 mg/L N, 6-10
mglL P and 5—8 mg/L, respectively. A small-scale system consisting of an
anaerobic bioreactor paired with an aerobic treatment system was evaluated to
determine if these goals were reachable. The combined system produced

effluent concentrations of COD, BOD5, N, P and TSS concentrations of 400 to

550 mg/L, 8 to 14 mglL, 30 to 40 mg/L N, 3 to 4 mg/L P and 4-7 mg”,
respectively (Dong, 2003). The two stage process was effective in producing

effluent capable of reuse.

The systems described above demonstrate that aerobic systems are capable of
pollutant removal to low levels for dairy wash water. Further, it is apparent that

the level of pollutants varies greatly from farm to farm.

10

CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS

The treatment system was tested at the Michigan State University Dairy Cattle

Teaching and Research Facility (MSU Dairy Farm). The treatment units included
. TM . . .
the NayadIc , a typIcal ATU that used suspended growth aeratIon and graVIty

solid/liquid separation, and the Multi-FIoTM, a comparable suspended growth
system paired with solid/liquid separation by filtration. Both are manufactured by
Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. of Franklin, Ohio. The dairy facility
treatment system design, sampling and laboratory procedures along with their

purpose/function are described in the subsections following.

3.1 Michigan State University Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research

Facility

The Michigan State University Dairy Cattle Teaching and Research Facility
actively milks between 140-160 dairy cattle twice per day, producing nearly
11,000 pounds of milk per day. The average daily accumulation of wash water is
almost 1,800 gallons (as determined by examining farm hauling records). A flush
system was used to clean the dairy facility during which the entire milking parlor
and all milking equipment were power washed. The effluent drained through
floor grates into an underground storage pit. Wash water is typically removed

biweekly and transported for land application or longer term storage.

11

3.2 Treatment System Design

Milking facility wash water is stored in large 60,000 gallon underground tanks.
For research, the wash water was transported from the underground pits via a
submersible sewage pump operated on a timer. The pump is positioned atop a
steel platform to maintain a distance of 1.5 feet from the bottom of the pit in order
to avoid large settled solids. Flow rates from the main submerged pump were
found by determining the time required to deliver five gallons. Due to variations
in the flow rate caused by changes in head due to the changing volume in the
underground tank, flow rates were measured a minimum of three times per week
and adjusted accordingly. With a known flow rate, the timer was set to provide

the specific daily volume desired for testing.

Wash water from the underground pits was first pumped into two 500 gallon
settling tanks positioned in series to provide primary settling. Flow was then
equally divided into two treatment lines using a Tuf-TiteT'“ distribution box. Equal
flows were achieved by leveling the platform holding the box. Each effluent line
from the distribution box entered a 500 gallon dose tank. Flow from the settling
tanks through the distribution box into the dose tanks was maintained by gravity.
A 0.5 horsepower pump activated by a level switch, at approximately 3 feet
below the inlet line, was positioned within the dose tank to provide a controlled
flow rate into each aeration system. Pumps were equipped with a blow-by and a

12

check valve to reduce pump strain. A throttle valve on the blow-by was adjusted
to allow treated effluent from the recirculation line to reenter the recirculation
tank, reducing the pressure and flow rate. A general layout of all equipment is

shown in Figure 3.

The pumps in the dose tanks provided the flow into the two aerobic treatment

units, the NayadicTM and the Multi-FloTM. Further details on the two units are
provided in the next section. Following the treatment units, recirculation tanks
diverted a portion of treated wash water back to the dosing tanks for dilution of
the primary effluent in an effort to reduce the organic loadings to the aeration
units. Pumps in the recirculation tanks had an identical setup to those in the
dose tanks, including level switches and flow control using a throttling valve on
the blow by system. The recirculation ratio is an important system design
characteristic. A 3:1 recirculation ratio of treated effluent for recirculation to that
exiting the system was maintained throughout treatment. Previous research
done by Safferman, 2004, on these treatment units used a 3:1 ratio for optimized
treatment efficiency. The ratio followed the concept of diminishing return where
an increase in the recirculation ratio did not provide a significant increase in
treatment efficiency. The final treatment segment was an ultraviolet (UV)

disinfection unit, provided by Salcor Inc., and detailed in a subsection below.

System components were installed on a level bed of gravel. Sampling valves

were installed before and after each treatment segment for evaluation of each
13

treatment segment’s performance and for measurement and adjustment of flows.
A series of drainage and overflow pipes connected the treated effluent line,
overflow ports and drainage spigots to a second underground tank to avoid
compromising the untreated wash water in the first underground pit. This drain
system was used for cleaning and drainage of tanks and lines, overflows,

transport and storage of treated effluent.
3.3 Treatment Units

Aerobic treatment systems were off the shelf designs for domestic household
effluent provided by Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. Both treatment units
are suspended growth, completely mixed, extended aeration units. Although
normally installed underground, the system was installed aboveground for
research purposes associated with sampling, maintenance, system access and

ease of removal after study completion.

The NayadicTM contains an inner reactor, a secondary clarifier surrounding the
circular inner chamber, and a compressor for continuous aeration (Figure 1).

The inner reactor functions as a completely mixed aeration basin. A diffuser, that
provided 4.6 lbs/day of oxygen, is located at the bottom of the tank and forced air
and wastewater through a center pipe up to the midsection of the reactor
(Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc., 2002b). The diffuser provided the

required aeration for biological processes and maintained a completely mixed
14

environment. The clarifier allowed for gravity solid/liquid separation and the
return of the microorganisms to the inner reactor. Floating material was kept
from exiting the system in the treated water using a scum baffle. Treated water

flows over a weir, ensuring even discharge.

15

AIR LINE
INNER TANK

OVERFLOW WEIR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TB"|-D
4,“ LID
f ~<<
1,. amp I, EXTENSION (OPTIONAL)
' COVER
.. SCUM BAFFLE
ZI I—OVERFLOW WEIR
7" f A P |_ I).
. ' ...— 1,_'
ll FLI
1" 37 "
80'2- 75_12_,, %
5‘?"
l
DIFFUSER
701-0-
82%”

 

 

 

(Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc., 2002b)

TM
Figure 1: Nayadic schematic

16

The Multi-FloTM was a continuously mixed, extended aeration filtration unit
(Figure 2). An aerator maintained completely mixed conditions while providing
3.6 lbs/day of oxygen required for biological processes (Consolidated Treatment
Systems Inc., 2002a). Solid/liquid separation is accomplished using 30 sock
filters submerged in the main basin which have a nominal rating of 100 microns.
Wastewater enters the center of the main basin where it is aerated, mixed and
forced to travel through the filtration socks where a weir maintains equal
discharge of treated effluent around the circumference of the unit. The socks
also provided additional treatment as a bio-mat developed on the outside of the

socks.

17

, CESS m'IlEI!

 

 

 
 
  

 

Ij it _ - URGE aoIII.
/‘\\_ ' FILTER HANGER PLATE
II— a“
I“ - - LTER EIIPANIJER
l I
FILTER TUBE
fr ransm
I_ L. (.— suaIII-znseu: mama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc., 2002a) -

TM
Figure 2: Multi-Flo schematic
3.4 Ultraviolet Disinfection Unit

The ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit was provided by Salcor Inc., and was
designed for small aerobic treatment plants. UV light is provided throughout the
length of the disinfection chamber through a sub-assembly which defines the
path for proper exposure time for typical secondary treated wastewater. A quartz
tube controls the lamp surface temperature while a Teflon film minimizes surface *

fouling. The UV system is capable of removing the fecal coli form bacteria to

18

levels below the acceptable standards set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) for drinking water providing the total suspended

solids is less than 30 mg/L.
3.5 Wash Water Analysis

Wash water treatment was characterized using water analysis parameters,

including pH, alkalinity, total solids (TS), TSS, B005, COD, FOG, total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (T KN), ammonia (NH3), nitrate (N03), TP, DO, oxidation reduction

potential (ORP), total coli forms, E. Coli and odor, which are typical for evaluation
of water quality. Table 20 in appendix A provides details on the laboratory tests
used their basis for analysis and associated reference method. USEPA

approved or accepted practices were used whenever available.

Samples for pH, alkalinity, TS, TSS, BOD5' COD, TKN, NH3, and N03 were

taken before and after each treatment segment to determine the effectiveness of
each treatment process, as shown in Figure 3. Testing locations included the

influent to the primary settling tank (baseline), effluent from the distribution box
. . . . TM . TM
(dIstrIbutIon box), effluent from the NayadIc and MultI-Flo dose tanks (dose
. TM . TM . .
tanks), NayadIc and MultI-Flo treatment unIt effluent (treatment unIts),

.TM . TM . . . . . .TM
Nayadrc and MuItI-Flo reCIrcuIatIon lInes (reCIrculatIon) and NayadIc and

19

TM
Multi-Flo disinfection unit effluent (disinfection). Figure 3 displays the location

of these sampling points as represented by solid black arrows.

 

 

 

 

11

, 11(2) @134 _ ,3
01 LI.
1 ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Underground Tank 1 8 Multi-Flo

2 Settling Tank 1 9 Nayadic Recirculation Tank
3 Settling Tank 2 10 Multi-Flo Recirculation Tank
4 Distribution Box 11 Nayadic Disinfection Unit

5 Dose Tank Nayadic 12 Multi-Flo Disinfection Unit

6 Dose Tank Multi-Flo 13 Underground Tank 2

7 Nayadic

Figure 3: Sampling Locations

FOG, odor, ORP and DO were evaluated for the baseline influent and the treated

TM TM
effluent from the Nayadic and MuIti-Flo only. Final FOG concentrations
were sufficient to determine potential use. Treatment problems associated with

high FOG concentrations could be evaluated visually. Final effluent odors were
20

the only relevant odor data required for analysis as the system would typically be
covered and buried eliminating any potential odor issues during treatment.

Odors were evaluated using an odor panel. Panelists were instructed to rank
samples on a scale of one to ten, ten being the most offensive. ORP and DO
were used to evaluate oxygen in the treatment units only as they were the only
treatment system segments to have an impact on oxygen levels. Baseline
values for FOG, odor, ORP and DO were taken to ascertain the characteristics of

the incoming wash water as a base for comparison.

Bacteria tests were completed for baseline samples, after treatment by the

NayadicTM and Multi-FloTM and after the disinfection units. These tests were
only necessary as the treatment units and UV disinfection units were the only
theorized systems designed to have an impact on bacteria populations. E. coli
will be tested specifically as it is an indicator species for bacteria. Total Coli form

will also be monitored for the total population present.

Sampling was conducted on a weekly basis. Due to the number of samples and
testing procedures requiring immediate analysis, not all parameters were
obtained every week, and weekly samples were often obtained on different days
within that week. Early nitrate tests indicated no nitrate concentrations within the
entire system, therefore testing frequency was reduced to bi-weekly. TKN was

run much more infrequently than other testing parameters due to the test time

21

and resources required. Near the end of testing, BOD5 samples were reduced in

frequency due to unavailability of the incubator which was used for bacteria
testing. A reduction in BOD testing was justified as a representative number of
samples had already been analyzed, and a COD to BOD relationship could be
established. Weekly samples for all other parameters and the more limited

parameter tests above were able to describe the basic data trends.
3.6 Flow Rate Design

The treatment systems were designed for a household flow of 750 gallons per
day. Household wastewater characteristics vary greatly from dairy milking facility
wash water consequently, the equivalent hydraulic loading was determined

based on the water parameters reported in previous research. The BOD5 was

determined to be 11 times higher in dairy wash water, as compared to household

wastewater. The increase in BOD5 resulted in 68 gallons per day of dairy wash

water being equivalent to 750 gallons per day of household wastewater. For
convenience, testing and data acquisition was conducted at 50 gallons per day of

dairy wash water.

Treatment units were initially filled with waste and run at 50 gallons per day until

TM
failure. Failure for the Multi-Flo occurred when the socks were thoroughly

22

TM
clogged, restricting all flow. Failure of the Nayadic was more variable as even

poorly treated water exited the system. When treatment levels dropped

TM
significantly as indicated by lab results or visual inspection, the Nayadic was
designated as in failure. Reaching failure resulted in the restart of each unit.

Restart entailed emptying the wash water and beginning with potable water

TM
within the treatment unit only. The Multi—Fl socks were removed and power
washed to remove all sediment and biomat build-up before reinstalling for a

system restart.

During the last three weeks of testing the flow was increased to 100 gallons to
determine the treatment capabilities at greater flows. The increase in flow was

determined to be applicable due to the high DO level of 5.99 mg/L in the Multi-

TM
Flo system after addition of the second aerator. DO levels were determined to
be the limiting factor in treatment, and with increased oxygen a greater flow rate

was applicable.
3.7 Reuse

Treated wash water can be reused in varying agricultural applications permitting
adequate treatment is achieved. The focus reuse application for this research
was the first floor flush before cleaning of the milking facility. Reuse potential

was determined by the values of the water quality parameters. Accepted
23

standards for agricultural first flush applications have not been determined by
government or regulatory agencies. Table 3 provides recommended reuse water

quality parameters for similar applications.

24

Table 3: Suggested water quality reuse values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reuse Category Water Parameter Suggas‘tzlcil:euse
Dairy Milking Parlor Floor Flushing TCOD (mg/L) 650-700(1)
Nitrogen (mg/L as N) 70-80 ( 1)
Phosphorus (mg/L as P) 6-10 (1)
TSS (mg/L) 5-8 (1)
Agricultural Reuse - BOD pH lL 6'9 (2)
Food Crops Non-Commercially 5 (mg I s 10(2)
”messed Turbidity (NTU) s 2 (2)
Fecal COII :3 (per 100 None detectable (2)
Agricultural Reuse- BOD 9” L 6’9 (2)
Food Crops Commercially 5 (mg/ ) s 30 (2)
”messed TSS (mg/L) 5 30 (2)
Fecal coli form (per 100
mL) < 200(2)
pH 6-9 (2)
Agricultural Reuse - BOD (mg/L)
Non-Food Crops 5 S 30 (2)
TSS (mg/L) s 30 (2)
Fecal can form (per 100 < 200 (2)
mL)
BOD (mg/L)
Environmental Reuse 5 S 30 (2)
TSS (mg/L) 5 3O (2)
Fecal coli form (per 100
mL) < 200 (2)
. . . . H 7.3 (3)
D M lk P rl I p
3'” ' mg a °r C amng Conductivity (pS/cm) 242 (3)
Turbidity (NTU) 0.2 (3)
TDS (mg/L) 128(3)
Hardness (mgg/L) 88(3)
FOG (mg/L) Nil (3)
Chloride (mg/L) 58 (3)
COD (mg/L) 24.7 (3)

 

 

 

1 Dong et. al, 2003
2 USEPA, 2004
3 Sarkar et. al, 2006

The reuse parameters set by Dong, 2003, most closely represented the reuse

focus of this study. USEPA, 2004, suggested standards set for the most closely

related fields. In general, aesthetics and the lack of bacteria and pathogens are

25

among the most important factors for reuse in a first flush scenario. Ultimately,

due to lack of standards, reuse of treated wash water is at the discretion of those

farmers choosing to implement the technology.

3.8 System Enhancements

Throughout treatment various system enhancements were evaluated for their

treatment effectiveness, Table 4.

Table 4: System Enhancements

 

 

 

 

Enhancement Manufacturer Location
Brush Filter Sim/Tech Settling Tank
Pressure Filter Sim/Tech Recirculation Lines

. TM
Aerator Consolidated Treatment Multi-Flo Main
Systems Inc. Basin

 

 

 

Three inline filters were added to the system to remove excess solids. The brush
filter was inserted in a 4 inch pvc pipe located between the first and second 500
gallon settling tanks to reduce influent solids. Two pressure filters were installed
in the recirculation lines to remove solids from the treated effluent before

recycling to the dose tanks.

Once it was discovered that oxygen may be limiting treatment, an extra aerator

TM
was installed in the Multi-Flo providing a total of 7.2 pounds of oxygen per

day.
26

3.9 Monitoring

Visual inspection of the system was conducted several times per week. System
maintenance was the major focus of these inspections. Maintenance was
divided into two categories. The first was that seen in typical daily operation.
Second was a result of research related issues only, and would not be a factor in

typical implementation and operation.

27

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research on the operation of the treatment units continued for six months.
Details concerning runtime and related operation dates can be found in Appendix
B. Results for the water quality parameters, operating conditions and costs are

discussed in the subsections below.
4.1 Water Quality Analysis

Water quality was determined by evaluation of alkalinity, pH, BOD5, COD, TS,

TSS, N, P, bacteria, FOG, DO, ORP and odor. Observations, trends, average
values and reduction percentages were evaluated. All lab tests for alkalinity,
COD, TS, TSS, N and P were duplicated. The value reported is an average.
Detailed data tables are in Appendix C. The volume of data allowed for
calculation of confidence intervals. General trends and reduction percentages

provide proof of concept and evidence for reuse possibilities.
4.1.1 pH

An increase in pH was evident throughout the treatment process. Specifically,
pH was typically between 6 and 6.5 for the baseline and distribution box samples

indicating that the settling tanks had no effect. After division of the wash water

28

into the two system lines, average pH values increased to between 7 and 8 for

each treatment segment as a result of recirculated effluent (Table 5).

Table 5: Average pH concentrations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avera e 95% Confidence
Location pH 5?) Interval 50 1:38:23 d2:
gal/day gal/day (:I: pH)
Baseline 6.42 0.12 6.53
Distribution Box 6.24 0.37 6.39
Multi-FloTM
Dose Tank 7.30 0.21 7.39
Treatment Unit 7.81 0.30 7.70
Recirculation 7.80 0.14 7.73
Disinfection 7.79 0.26 7.67
TM
Nayadic
Dose Tank 7.59 0.34 7.49
Treatment Unit 7.97 0.09 7.59
Recirculation 7.98 0.06 7.62
Disinfection 8.03 0.07 7.57

 

 

 

 

Variation in samples was relatively low as indicated by the confidence levels.
Baseline pH was much more consistent than all other treatment segment

samples as represented by the low confidence interval and in Figure 4. The pH

TM
was more basic for the Nayadic treatment unit but not significant enough to
make any real distinction. Values for pH in the dose tanks took on the
characteristics of the treated effluent, as the averages are greater than the

influent values from the settling tanks. There was no significant variation in pH

29

for an increase in flow rate. Variation in pH generally followed the trends of the

baseline influent pH as can be seen in Figure 4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pH
8.5 p I! ._______
-- 7 -2 ,. I '+— Baseline I
8 _ I “T ._ \ x - 'T ‘ Ahrleév —_‘7‘* ~_~~‘\ .
x\ § ‘ ‘\'/1‘ X/ \ _ , I . . .
x - - \. T ‘ __ __ ,“ _\__f _ 2- t’ f“ O‘\:; —I— DlStrIDUthI'l
7.5 - - -' ' ’ ‘“ ‘ - 21, _ , -- '” x \V “75— Box
-4. \ A‘-__‘ ’
r \\\ ,/, 1 pt-DoseTank
7 ~ ; i Multi-Flo
2'; “I
6.5 ,__._ __ng ’ _. c ‘ fix» ~—>e —Dose Tank
“frat—:- —~~~ mix- xxx e... -5 Na adic
r— --\\.// Y.
6 \\ ,, .—I— MultI-Flo
/
5.5 \ \l t—w Nayadic
5 T j ' ' 7 V 1 1 “If I _ j—__ "__-W ———_;
A A A A A A A A A A A
5° «19° «0° «9° «0° «9° «9° 50° 0° «0° as“
N"\ '19 05¢ \°\ '9 "9 ,6 '9 a? \‘3 '3‘
5 5 e 5 o.\ e :5 .5 \ .5 A
Sample Date

 

Figure 4: pH values throughout treatment

Relative maximum and minimum in the baseline samples are generally reflected
throughout all treatment segments. The pH changes in the baseline influent are
reflected in the treatment systems within the same day, establishing a quick pH

response. There were no significant differences realized with the increased

TM
aeration in the Multi-Flo or with the addition of filters.

30

 

Nitrification requires pH values between 7.5 and 8.5 as those below 7.0 decrease

nitrification significantly.

The pH of the treated effluent is well with ranges for water reuse and poses no
problems concerning corrosion or toxicity to treatment systems, possible reuse

surfaces or the environment.

4.1.2 Alkalinity

A reduction in alkalinity was observed as wash water progressed through the

treatment system. Average alkalinity values and the range of reduction

percentages for each treatment segment are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Average alkalinity concentrations reduction percentages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o ,
Average Alkalinity 95 A: Confidence Percent
. Interval Reduction
LocatIon 50 gal/day (mg/L 50 l I d f th
as Cacos) 93 . ‘i‘y '°"‘ . e
(1 AlkalInIty) Baseline
Baseline 3165 1564
Distribution Box 1815 794 21-66%
TM
Multi-Flo
Dose Tank 1006 767 66-86%
Treatment Unit 596 47 62-90%
TM
Nayadic
Dose Tank 2038 756 10-62%
Treatment Unit 1853 335 3-65%

 

 

 

 

31

TM TM
The Nayadic treatment unit used less alkalinity the Multi-Flo . Alkalinity
values represent bicarbonate alkalinity (HCOg') as the phenolphthalein alkalinity
was zero in all samples. Variations in alkalinity throughout the treatment process

are directly related to the baseline wash water concentrations, as can be seen in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.
Alakallnlty
600° 0 w—Baseiine l
a 5000 , . —I— Eggnbufion I
8 .’ —e — Dose Tank 3
N I . .
" 0 MultI-Flo
a 4000 x rDose Tank i
3 , ' Nayadic I
E: 3000 . ,’ Q‘ —X— MultI-Flo -
‘5 ° 5“. +Nayadic i
3 200° 3; 41%» - .. __ ,.
2 , 1:__E:7—‘—~-'r----'-""."““~~_Lgm~ ‘ - s . ..
< 1000 .1" ‘ _ _ r r f
*" *T “W" “1:“ :F‘ :g:_"”
k” ' " ,2. T~~x
o ' Y I l l A
0 o e e e g Q Q
A0 «0’ 6 (50’ 030’ ‘30 230 ”git 09’
6% ’\\N Q} qg" g\\ \0\ N90! K.\\'\ ,0)
Sample Date

 

 

 

Figure 5: Alkalinity trends throughout treatment

The spikes and troughs vary similarly to the baseline throughout the treatment
unit segments and indicate that alkalinity changes are rapid throughout the

system. The high alkalinity concentrations in the baseline samples are reduced

.32

significantly throughout treatment due to the nitrification of ammonia to nitrate.
Large amounts of alkalinity are used in the nitrification process, and as treatment
occurs and ammonia is oxidized, alkalinity is used and concentrations fall as
indicated in the treated samples. Reuse ability is not affected by alkalinity as all

values fall within the acceptable ranges for any reuse possibilities.
4.1.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand

Untreated wash water values had an average of 5761 mg/L BOD5 with a range of
3353 to 7107 mg/L BOD5. These values were more than double those reported

in previous research. Reduction percentages, even at these levels, were high as

can be seen in Table 7.

Table 7: Average BOD concentrations and reduction percentages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Av er a e 95% Confidence Percent
Location BOD g Intervals (i R d t' f
(mg/L) BOD e uc Ion rom
5 5) Baseline
Baseline 5761 918
Distribution Box 4549 1473 0—43%
TM
Multi-Flo
Dose Tank 718 342 80-95%
Treatment Unit 270 261 74-99%
TM
Nayadic
Dose Tank 1318 551 70-90%
Treatment Unit 700 239 67-96%

 

 

 

 

33

3005 reduction percentages were consistent throughout the 6 month testing

TM
period. However, the Multi-Flo unit outperformed and proved to be more

TM
consistent than the Nayadic on a regular basis. It should be noted that lower
treatment percentages resulted from the initial operation startup in which the
treatment units were completely filled with untreated wash water. Treatment

systems restarted with potable water reduced the loading thereby improving
. TM .
treatment. The MultI-Flo unit regularly reached BOD5 values less than 20

mg/L during the month of August, 2007, and maintained greater than a 74%

reduction of 3005 throughout testing. For reference, the federal Clean Water
Act BOD5 surface discharge limit is 30 mg/L, unless discharging into more
environmentally sensitive waters. Greater values were reflected in the table

. TM . .
average for the Multi-Flo due to large variation at the start of treatment

TM
testing. Higher concentrations of BOD5 were present in the Nayadic , but

significant reduction was still achieved. Figure 6 displays the values of BOD

over a three month period. Significant differences among the incoming wash

water and the treatment lines were observed.

34

 

Blochemlcal Oxygen Demand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8000 i 19% Baseline
7000 . ‘x . ; ~+ Distribution Box.
, \y/ \ --—a— Dose Tank MUItl-FIO‘
5000 i“! ,/ X \ \ .——-><- — Dose Tank Nayadic l
000 A/ \\.\ -—X - Multi-Flo f
A 5 7 “In“. -\ . - e — Nayadic i
é i, .\ ""“‘\~\-__\;_ , ‘ '
.. 4000 / \.\ \ \
s . \ \
m 3000 a' * _ __ _ _
2000 x K _, .
e x” ' I A .
1000 ’ K . C ‘ ‘ ‘1’ _/_/: _.:\;\\\f X'" _fi _ — y:‘— _fi‘ j g“
0 XL =.¥a# -¥— 5:11 ##T ’ ’ _
A A A A A A A A A A
5° 5° 5° 5° 5° 5° 0° 5° 5° 5°
0‘ 5‘ '6‘ {0‘ 5‘ (0‘ \6‘ (5‘ A0 .195
b 6 A\ % ‘b\ 0} \Q \Q\ N" i\

 

Sample Date

 

 

Figure 6: Biochemical oxygen demand throughout treatment

TM
In terms of BOD5, the Multi-Flo was able to consistently produce very low

values that fall to concentrations suitable for reuse for flushing floors and other
. . . TM . . .
applications. Although the Nayadic achieved great reductions in 8005' the

sustained levels were never close to that which would be expected for treated

water.

35

4.1.4 Chemical Oxygen Demand

The average baseline value for COD, at 36,528 mg/L, was ten times higher than
any of those reported in literature. The great increase was due to the high level
of solids located within the wash water produced at the MSU dairy farm. Filtered
baseline samples, or soluble COD in the wash water influent, resulted in an 84%
reduction in COD values. Even with the high COD concentrations present in the
influent wash water, reduction in values was substantial, as can be seen in Table

8.

Table 8: Average COD concentrations and reduction capabilities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average 95% Percentage Average
. COD Confidence Reduction COD
Location (mg/L) l n t erv al (1 from (mg/L)
50 Baseline 1 00
COD value)
gal/day 50 gal/day gal/day
Baseline 36528 8606 10988
Distribution Box 17065 12894 (-55)-83% 9590
Multi-FloTM
Dose Tank 2451 1 150 65-72% 3400
Treatment Unit 1094 564 77-70% 2377
Recirculation 980 1 161 67-69% 3584
NayadicTM
Dose Tank 3847 1054 17-19% 7035
Treatment Unit 3091 634 7-8% 10163
Recirculation 2565 1 099 67-94% 1 0040

 

 

 

 

 

36

The confidence intervals show the large variability within the COD

concentrations. Baseline samples varied from 9,000—63,000 mg/L while the

TM TM
Multi-Flo and Nayadic samples had less variation with ranges of 85-3,500

mg/L and 1,700-9,100 mglL COD respectively. An increase in flow rate to 100

TM
gallons per day reduced the treatment efficiency. The Multi-Flo was capable

of producing lower numbers on a more consistent basis than those for the

TM
Nayadic . Unlike many other parameters, the relation of peaks and troughs for
treated and baseline influent COD values were not as apparent, as seen in

Figure 7 (note the log scale).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chemical Oxygen Demand

100000
2
O
.5.
a 10000
C
N
E
0
D
g 1000
3

X \ l’
g 100 x ‘xx xx
5 —o— Baseline —I- Distribution Box
—* - Dose Tank Multi-Flo — + - Dose Tank Nayadic
10 l — —x— — Multi-Flo —.— Nayadic i
’\ ’\ ’\ ’\ ’\ A ’\ ’\ ’\
O Q Q Q Q Q O O O O
O O Q O O O O O Q
“It 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(\\ q’} .(\ 19 if? .32 \°3 if; \bi is
P 6 A ‘b ‘25 e '9 NS (0 A
Sample Date

 

 

 

Figure 7: Chemical oxygen demand concentrations over testing span

37

TM
The Multi-Flo dose tank and treatment unit samples had similar variations,
which was attributed to dilution from recirculation of treated effluent. Reuse

values for COD as outlined by Dong et. al, 2003, for Cleaning milking parlor floors

TM
of 650 to 700 mg/L was reached by the Multi-Flo for over a month long period

during August, 2007. COD values were consistent for this period but varied
. . . . TM .
greatly for the remaining months of operation. Once again the Nayadic did not

TM
perform as well as the Multi-Flo ; therefore reuse is dependent on application
and user standards. For reuse in a first flush cleaning practice COD

concentrations are not as important as wash water cannot enter the environment.
4.1.4 Total Solids

Decreases in solids concentrations were realized throughout the treatment
process. Solids in the influent had a range of 1,448 to 35,188 mglL. Table 9
displays the average solids concentrations and confidence intervals for each
sampling location. The confidence intervals again indicate large variations of

total solids concentrations within the samples.

38

Table 9: Average TS concentrations and treatment efficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent Percent
Average 95% Reduction Average Reduction
. TS Confidence from TS from
L°°at'°" 50 Interval (4.- Baseline 100 Baseline
gal/day Total 50 gal/day 100
(mg/L) Solids) gal/day (mg/L) gal/day
Baseline 16750 5159 6407
Distribution Box 10331 6397 (-50)-77% 6316 (-37)-17%
TM
Multi-Flo
Dose Tank 2800 489 38-94% 3651 32-49%
figment 1617 545 38-98% 3268 32-63%
Recirculation 1938 1116 52-92%
TM
Nayadic
Dose Tank 4172 671 39-89% 7018 (-45)-7%
Lfiftmem 4173 1165 (%)-92% 7006 (-57)-11%
Recirculation 3373 1298 25-88%

 

 

 

 

 

 

TM
The Multi-Flo was capable of sustaining a total solids concentration near 1,000

TM
mg/L for the month of August, 2007. Percent reduction for the Multi-Flo was
maintained at over 80% for the majority of the study; only one outlying sampling

event lowered this range to 46% which was during the end of the treatment run

TM
(system was approaching failure). The Nayadic was more variable and

maintained a total solids concentration around 4,000 mg/L. Reduction

TM
percentages for the Nayadic were maintained on average above 70%, but had
spikes that indicated very poor treatment performance at times. Concentrations

within the dose tanks were diluted by the treated effluent recirculation. Dose

39

tanks somewhat mimicked the changes in the treatment units as can be seen in

Figure 8, but were more related to the baseline concentrations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Sollds
100000
3 F
E’ /W‘\ t
3% 10000 V J \ / ."1 A
E -4. . - '1’.
g + - - f, _ R ' .
8 " ‘
g 1000 urn-5r \ . k '5
'5 .l 4
(I)
g I 4+— Baseline —-I— Distribution BOX
" + Dose Tank Multi-Flo -O- Dose Tank Nayadic i
100 - —.— Multi-Flo —+ ~ Nayadic I *
A A A A A A A A
Q 0
«0° (“119° 619° 609° @1190 611° 609° @090
6‘L ’\\ 0 5‘" 5 5 N60 .45
Sample Date

 

 

Figure 8: Total solids concentrations over time

Variability within the samples was due to management practices at the farm.
Solids production varied with animal waste production, solids tracked into the
milking facility and cleaning practices. The MSU dairy washed all solids into the
underground tank, no solids separation resulted in very high TS and TSS relative
to values reported in the literature. In an effort to decrease the solids
concentrations an influent filter and recirculation filters were installed as

previously explained in the methods section. Filters were successful at removing
4O

solids but clogged on an hourly basis. Various filter sizes were examined but
none provided any treatment without clogging. This prevented any conclusive

data collection for treatment performance at reduced solids concentrations.

4.1.5 Total Suspended Solids and Color

TSS concentrations were reduced significantly after wash water was subjected to

the treatment process. Variability in the average concentration was large, as

shown by the confidence intervals in Table 10.

Table 10: Average TSS concentrations and treatment efficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95°/ Percent Percent
Average TSS C onfi d e0 n ce Reduction Average TSS Reduction
W“ 5:33:30 meg; <1 ”3338*"
50 gal/day 100 gal/day
Baseline 8725 3437 1350
Distribution Box 1 713 320 (-35)-92% 1 533 (-71)-39%
TM
Multi-Flo
Dose Tank 863 465 62-98% 1167 (-24)-35%
Treatment
Unit 238 308 63-99% 1083 83-90%
TM
NaMc
Dose Tank 1103 406 68-96% 1633 75-86%
Treatment
Unit 1253 1016 (-106)-96% 2033 64-89%

 

41

TM TM
The Multi-Flo and Nayadic units were capable of removing more than 90%

of TSS; however, these removal rates were not sustainable. TSS removal below

TM
30 mg/L was achieved inconsistently by the Multi-Flo treatment unit. Spikes in
each of the treatment units in Figure 9 were attributed to the rise of solids in the
settling tanks, which were then transferred into the wash water entering the

treatment system lines increasing the TSS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Suspended Solids
: 100000 1' + Baseline -x— Distribution Box i.
i J --a— Dose Tank Multi-Flo + Dose Tank Nayadic i
I 4 — Multi-Flo — e - Nayadic
5 Rk/K‘;
3 10000 - ~\ ,1: \
8 \:\’:‘ \ “I”!
g 3 x-\ \f,,./ *rx-Nx /; ., /.:/'/‘f{139 -
,9, 31000 - 4:41-24-.- ‘ 5.. ._ 5-
E O V, "' \‘I‘u _ ~--'-—'—_:_._ ‘» .. \ > ’ " , , 21’\
5 ,, ,5- ,/ \
g- 100 ,. , .- 2 -- _.
r3 / ‘AV, V 1‘
- U
3
l" 10 . l T .
A A A A A A A
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
‘ng \" ,15 ,9 ,9 we “9
<5 6 <6 c5 0} 0)
Sample Date

 

 

 

Figure 9: Total suspended solids concentration over testing span

TM
Removal of suspended solids in the Multi-Flo was due not only to solids

settling, but also the filter socks within the main basin. Suspended solids were

42

present in the effluent due to wear of the socks from power washing, enlarging
pore size. A small amount of build-up was present on the inside of the socks
which had potential to increase the suspended solids concentration as particles
were dislodged. A biomat built-up on the socks would theoretically reduce the

TSS concentrations over time.

Color was a good indicator of treatment performance concerning suspended

solids. Colors varied from a very light yellow for samples with little TSS, to a dark

TM
brown when there were large amounts of solids. The Multi-Flo was capable of

reducing the color to almost clear.

TSS content poses mostly aesthetic problems concerning reuse for a first flush
scenario. Solids in general can pose problems to equipment, specifically
corrosion issues when used in power washers for cleaning. High TSS inhibits
disinfection by the UV disinfection unit due to poor penetration. Salcor Inc.
reports a value of 30 mg/L or less TSS required for proper disinfection, these
values were reached infrequently. Reuse of treated wash water would require a

more consistent reduction in TS and TSS.

43

4.1.5.1 Nitrogen

Three lab tests were conducted to determine the chemical form and
concentration of nitrogen. Included was total Kjeldahl nitrogen, to determine the
total organic nitrogen compounds, ammonia and nitrate. This enabled monitoring

of nitrification and denitrification.

4.1.5.2 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

TKN is defined as the sum of nitrogen as organic nitrogen and ammonia,
however, for this research only organically bound nitrogen was determined.
Significant TKN reductions were observed. Confidence intervals for these
samples were much lower indicating less variability, Table 11. However, there
was a great reduction in the number of tests run for this parameter that could

account for this decrease in variation of samples.

44

Table 11: Average TKN concentrations and treatment efficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average TKN 0 Percent
Location (mg/L) iritfirgigqlggfii Reduction from
50 gal/day Baseline
Baseline 107 18
Distribution Box 1 36 54 (-17)-15%
TM
Multi-Flo
Dose Tank 56 16 34-65%
Treatment Unit 14 8 83-98%
TM
Nayadic
Dose Tank 90 10 14-31%
Treatment Unit 85 18 10-29%

 

 

 

 

Figure 10 shows the range of values for TKN and a general decrease in

concentrations throughout the treatment process. A greater decrease occurred

TM TM
in the Multi-Flo system as compared to the Nayadic because conversion of

organic nitrogen to ammonia is dependent on oxidizing conditions which was

TM
more characteristic of the Multi-Flo

45

 

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

250 - - -,
~4— Baseline ’
x —x— Distribution Box .
200 \ —x— Dose Tank Multi-Flo
\ -+ Dose Tank Nayadic _
do 150 \k + Multi-Flo l——
E \\x-_ -- a — Nayadic _ J
x 100 -‘——I.—G\fli _ g 5“" emu-44:514----
I- ./‘I" ~——-\.._._-__:_____ ~——e
,x in“ _ ‘ - — NK‘XX"
.1 x/ I - i
50 x
r/+— a. —-h~—__-_ a. R __ -__\‘H*
0 . . . . i _ T ““‘L
A A A A A A A A A A A
Q Q O O Q Q Q Q O O 0
«\q’ % N 9;" 9 \\ 90 Nb \Q\\ .90 \N
Sample Date

 

 

 

Figure 10: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen concentrations over time

Organic nitrogen accounts for around a third of the nitrogen present in the
system and is converted to ammonia through decomposition by microbes. This
process, known as ammonification, constantly provides more ammonia for
nitrification. Further evaluation of the nitrogen processes will be discussed in the

sections following.

46

4.1 .5.3 Nitrate

Nitrate was not present in any of the samples taken throughout testing. It should
be noted that due to large solid concentrations dilution was required increasing
the minimum detection concentration as high as 7.5 mg/L for baseline samples
and 3 mglL for all other samples. However, because of the high organic carbon
levels and low ORP, it is likely that denitrification did not allow the accumulation

of nitrate.

4.1 .5.4 Ammonia

Ammonia reductions were seen throughout testing with confidence intervals

suggesting some variability for samples, Table 12.

47

Table 12: Average ammonia concentrations and treatment efficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average 95% RZZIUCSIUH Average
Location Ammonia Confidence from Ammonia
(mg/L) 50 Interval (:I: Baseline 50 (mg/L)
gal/day Ammonia) gal I d ay 1009a|lday
Baseline 257 26 244
Distribution Box 245 28 (-12)-16% 251
Multi-FloTM
Dose Tank 56 23 48-94% 65
Treatment Unit 23 24 64-1 00% 42
Recirculation 19 21 72-100% 43
NayadicTM
Dose Tank 135 33 25-71% 218
Treatment Unit 128 28 23-73% 229
Recirculation 1 12 55 22-79% 242

 

 

 

 

 

TM
The Multi-Flo maintained a treatment system performance over 64% for the

entire data collection period. It was also capable of maintaining a consistent

ammonia level below 5 mglL for all of August, 2007. Ammonia levels in the dose

TM
tank and Nayadic treatment lines closely mimic the baseline, Figure 11.

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ammonia
350 :3” Baseline ——+ Distribution Box
[\A —I— Dose Tank Multi-Flo —+— Dose Tank Nayadic
Q 300 \- / ~—e— Multi-Flo —-a— Nayadic
a: \
~5- ‘ :1: J/\
g 250 E
'5 \\\e///\ /- 15w,
g 200 .
° ’ A 1K /
o . fl .
g 150 ,_ _,*-- -L’ a: ' / Mr
2 \\ I /‘/
"g- 100 K“ \ \ ,1 \ \
l , .

E , ’ I \ Tr \ .
E 50 a ‘ . it. ¥ ‘ I 4 '
< \.=&\ x \ \ \ i «M

O i i I i Ab— —“_ T

A A A A A 0A A A A

Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

Q Q Q Q Q Q
'17 “Iv ’Ir "L (I! W0 (I; ‘1’ 'I/
A\ A\ O 6 <25 <6\ 63 bi hi
6‘” A\" 5 5° 5" 5‘ .99 ,5" <0
Sample Date

 

 

 

 

Figure 1 1: Ammonia concentrations over test span

TM
The levels of ammonia in the Nayadic system indicated minimum nitrification.

TM
However, the low levels of ammonia in the Multi-Flo unit as seen in Figure 12,

indicate nitrification is occurring at a rapid rate. Greater nitrification rates could

TM
be attributed to more effective oxygenation within the Multi-Flo unit and the

lower BOD levels required before nitrification occurs.

49

4.1.6 Total Phosphorus

The phosphorus content in the wash water was high, indiwting large amounts of

manure or Cleaning products. Excess manure was previously discussed as a

solids waste management issue that requires a change in farm practices to

improve efficiency. Phosphorus removal was less effective in the Nayadic

TM
system than the Multi-Flo , Table 13.

Table 13: Average total phosphorus and treatment efficiency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avera e 95% Avera e
Totail Confidence RZEIiicrirrin TotaiJ
Location Phosphorus Intervals from Phosphorus
50 gal/day (:t Total Baseline 100 gal/day
(mg/L) Phosphorus) (mg/L)
Baseline 149 28 122
Distribution Box 133 24 (-10)-26% 118
Multi-FloTM
Dose Tank 49 13 - 27-81% 85
Treatment Unit 30 1 1 3-72% 58
Recirculation 39 20 33-83% 65
NayadicTM
Dose Tank 58 1 1 41 -69% 106
Treatment Unit 45 6 43-93% 93
Recirculation 46 7 49-69% 97

 

 

 

 

 

Confidence intervals once again suggested some variation within the samples

however, phosphorus content was more consistent in the influent wash water

and treatment was not typically as variable as many other parameters.

50

 

TM
Treatment performance for the Multi-Flo was in the 75-93% range throughout
testing other than one outlier on September 19, 2007 which was much lower due

to the system approaching failure. Failure produced a large volume of solids,
. . . . . TM
resulting in high phosphorus concentrations. The Nayadic produced

concentrations on average 1.5 times higher than the Multi-FloTM and resulted in
a greater performance inconsistency. An increase in the flow rate produced
reduced treatment performance in both units. However, inconsistent
performance and lack of data for flow rates of 100 gal/day require more testing
for conclusive evaluations. Trends in the baseline effluent were mimicked in the

distribution box, figure 12.

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phosphorus
A _,_ Baseline + Distribution Box
A 200 r4--_./‘ \ - i- - Dose Tank Multi-Flo -—x— Dose Tank Nayadic
IL
d 7‘4\\X L 4x— — Multi-Flo —e— Nayadic
oi ,/ '5 " "“ "' ' ‘ ' T
E. 150 ’2
a / \
E i/ \\ \ \ -
_g {:x:~ / I f _-4- F -x
3- 100 . t
o y
as. X— xi“ 4 "X r / I .
— 1‘ x \ “~~x\ {K \ I 2‘
5 50 1, k T T.4 4 ’1’ \ x - “I F x.— (- ’ 1X4
3 t .‘ ‘./ ‘ \‘ E \ 9‘; .L '1‘! / : ’7“ _ f: _——:/’ “ z I
.\ “4W -- 4.- x
w“ -4-.. -
A A A A A A A A A
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q O 0
0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0° 0°
q’} (\ \‘9 115° NP \‘3 1133 Nb‘ I"
0 A\ ‘5 <8 0) ’9 NS (0 A
Sample Date

 

Figure 12: Phosphorus concentrations over testing span

TM
General trends in the influent data extend to the Nayadic

TM
these trends cannot be seen in the Multi-Flo

system however,

system. Uptake of phosphorus

by microorganisms results in biosolids with high phosphorus content, when

removed eliminates large concentrations of phosphorus. Neither system

achieved the reuse values for phosphorus recommended by Dong et. al (2003).

Reuse of wash water is still a potential as phosphorus is tied to solids content,

suggesting a management practice can reduce the concentrations.

52

 

4.1.7 Bacteria

Bacteria data for E. coli and total Coll forms were inconclusive. The few sets of

valid data collected were for a flow rate of 100 gallons a day and indicated a

great amount of bacteria were present throughout the system. Samples obtained

after the disinfection units had very high bacteria levels, indicating no treatment,

Table 14.

Table 14: Bacteria levels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total E. Coli Total Coli forms
Location Sample Date (colonies/100 (colonies/100
mL) mL)
Baseline 11l14/2007 13000 80000
Baseline 1 1/14/2007 136000 185000
Baseline 1 1l16/2007 207000 245000
Multi-FloTM
Treatment Unit 1 1/14/2007 5500 1 5500
Treatment Unit 1 1l14/2007 7500 21000
Treatment Unit 11/16/2007 52000 161000
Disinfection 1 1/14/2007 8000 16500
Disinfection 1 1/14/2007 6000 9500
Disinfection 1 1/16/2007 54000 21 3000
NayadicTM
Treatment Unit 1 1/14/2007 12000 69000
Treatment Unit 1 1/14/2007 1200 45400
Treatment Unit 1 1l16/2007 79000 284000
Disinfection 1 1/14/2007 27500 86500
Disinfection 1 1/14/2007 5000 48500
Disinfection 1 1I16/2007 21000 97000

 

The disinfection units required a total suspended solids level below 30 mg/L for

effective treatment, which were not reached in the final weeks during the 100

53

gallons a day flow rate. Unfortunately bacteria measurements could not be made
during the 50 gallon/gay test, but if so substantial improvements would be

realized.
4.1 .9 Odor

An odor panel quantitatively evaluated the treatment samples. Although odor

TM
removal was achieved in both treatment systems, The Multi-Flo produced

much lower numbers for odor indicating a more aesthetically pleasing smell,

 

 

 

 

Table 15.
Table 15: Odor
Location AversagfieOdor 95% Confidence Interval (:I: odor value)
Baseline 7.72 0.70
TM
Multi-Flo 3.31 1.04
TM
Nayadic 5.88 0.88

 

 

 

4.1.10 Fats, Oils and Grease

Fats, oils and grease pose problems during treatment, as well as environmental
degradation issues. Concentrations of FOG are high and variable in milking
facilities due to spillage, management practices, the milk wasting rate and

discharge due to quality standards. Treatment of FOG in the systems was

54

TM TM
observed, with the Multi-Flo removing over 90%. The Nayadic unit was

also capable of reductions in FOG concentrations but to a lesser degree than the

TM
Multi-Flo , Table 16.

Table 16: Fate, oil and grease data for 50 gallons per day

 

 

 

 

FOG FOG Percent Percent
Location 1 0/23/2007 1 0/30/2007 Reduction FOG Reduction FOG
(mg/L) (mg/L) 1 0/23/2007 1 0/30/2007

Baseline 120 270

TM
Multi-Flo 5 22 95.8% 91.9%

TM
Nayadic 30 190 75.0% 29.6%

 

 

 

 

 

TM
Although only two samples were tested, the Multi-Flo unit has great FOG

removal potential. Acceptable reuse concentrations will be dependent upon

application. Common problems with reuse are build-up and clogging in pipes

TM
and development of a film on Cleaning surfaces. The Multi-Flo has reduced

the concentrations to levels which negate theses issues.

55

4.1.11 Oxidation Reduction Potential and Dissolved Oxygen

ORP and D0 are indicators of the oxidizing potential of the waste water. Low

ORP values indicate waste water with great potential to reduce other compounds

within the treatment unit. The low ORP and DO values indicate an oxygen

limiting system, Table 17.

Table 17: Average ORP and DO values

 

Average

Average

 

 

 

. 95% Confidence 95% Confidence
L°°at'°" iinliii Interval (:I: ORP) (r2990 Interval (a DO)
Baseline -204.3 20.5 0.81 0.42
NayadiCTM -208.5 20.1 0.63 0.21
Mu.fi_F.OTM -93.8 158.7 3.25 2.19

 

 

 

 

 

The low values indicated the need for a second aerator, However, the oxygen

TM
deficiency was greater for the Nayadic

, which was consistent with the lower

removal values. On October 19, 2007, the second aerator was added to the

TM
Multi-Flo . The ORP and DO values were raised substantially to a maximum

value of 104 mV and 5.99 mglL, respectively.

56

4.2 Maintenance

Maintenance for operation of the treatment units required numerous man hours.
The main pump had electrical, clogging and other problems that required a
minimum of monthly removal and maintenance. Settling tanks required Cleaning

and removal of solids on a bi-weekly basis. Monthly removal and Cleaning of the
. . TM . . .
socks in the Multi-Flo was reqUIred for effective treatment. Foaming was also

an issue with the Multi-FloTM system, occurring on average after the basin was
off line or refilled with water. This was due to the reduction in desired aerobic
bacteria and an increase in foam producing bacteria, Nocardia. Easily installed
anti-foaming blocks, provided by Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc.,
produced immediate results. One block was capable of stopping foaming for
greater than a month at a cost of $5. Both treatment units need to be emptied
and refilled with fresh potable water on a monthly basis. System inspection and
minor leaks and repairs were required weekly. This system inspection would be
reduced for systems buried and operated over a period of time. Table 18 details

the average man hours required for each of the maintenance issues.

57

Table 18: Maintenance requirements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research or
Maintenance Issue Typical MS: 33:53 Frequency
Operation q
Main Pump Halt Typical 2.0 Monthly/As Needed
Clean Settling Tanks Typical 2.0 Biweekly
Remove and Clean
TM Typical 4.5 Monthly
Multi-Flo Socks
Foam Typical 0.5 Monthly/As Needed
Restart
Empty Typical 0.5 Monthly
Refill Typical 2.0 Monthly
System Inspection Typical 2.0 Weekly
. Minimum 3 Times per
System Inspection Research 4.0 Week
Flow Rate Calibration Research 1.0 Minimum 3 Times per
Week
Distribution Box Research 2.0 Implementation and
Monthly
. . . Implementation and
Recrrculation Ratios Research 2.0 Monthly
Leak Repair Research 1.0 Weekly/As Needed
Unclog Sampling Port Research 0.5 Weekly/As Needed

 

 

 

 

Maintenance for research purposes was much more involved. The flow rate had
to be calibrated three times a week. Establishing and maintaining even
distribution to the two systems and the recirculation ratios were time consuming

issues. Weekly maintenance included fixing leaks, dislodging clogs at sampling

58

ports and a more detailed system inspection. Upkeep for research purposes was

required daily and required numerous man hours.

59

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS

5.1

Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from the testing results.

Aerobic treatment units proved able to treat high strength dairy wash

water waste.

TM TM
The Multi-Flo consistently outperformed the Nayadic for all water

quality parameters.

The Multi-FloTM reached effluent water quality standards for reuse at a
flow rate of 50 gallons per day for a first flush cleaning of the dairy milking
facility for one month.

System maintenance was determined vital for proper treatment
performance and can consume 21.5 man hours per month.

An increase in water quality was realized by each of the two treatment
units at a flow rate of 50 gallons of wash water per day; average values for

the influent and effluent for each unit are below in Table 19.

6O

Table19: Treatment effectiveness (50 gallons per day)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . TM , TM

Treatment Parameter Blafisellnte Nayadic MU'tl-FIO
n uen Effluent Effluent

3H 6.42 7.81 7.97
Alkalinity (mg) 3165 5038 596
Ammonia (mg/L as N) 257 128 23
3005 (mg/L) 5761 700 270
COD (ml/I.) 36528 3091 1094
Total Phosphorus
(m g/L as P) 149 45 30
T8 (mg/L) 16750 4173 1617
TSS LITE/L) 8725 1253 238
Nitrate (mg/L as N) 0 0 0
TKN (mg/L as N) 107 85 14

 

A second aerator installed in the Multi-FloTM unit proved to increase the
ORP and DO levels within the tank substantially.

Treatment is reliant on the characteristics of the wash water produced by
the farm. Large amounts of solids were determined to be the main
detriment to system operation and treatment performance.

The volume of wash water treated, 50 gallons per day, does not meet
production of the wash water requiring disposal. Feasibility of the
treatment units will depend on improved efficiency.

The recirculation ratio was an important design factor for treatment

performance which was critical for dilution of the extremely high

concentrations compared to the typical reported values.

61

5.2 Recommendations

Proof that the concepts and processes involved in this treatment system are

capable of treating high strength dairy wash water was achieved. Further

TM
investigation of the Multi-Flo system is warranted as it was able to achieve the

reuse values for an entire month.

The Multi-FloTM system performance was based mainly on the ability of the
filtration socks to provide effective solid/liquid separation, indicating the
importance of solids removal on performance. A reduction in solids also has the
potential to increase the effectiveness of the disinfection unit, thereby reducing
bacteria levels. Further testing on the treatment units with an effective solid
pretreatment or a solids reduction achieved with management practices would
theoretically increase treatment performance and system life before clogging.
Solid pretreatment as a result of an increase in settling can be accomplished
using larger settling volumes, additional current farm sand separation technology,
baffle boxes or addition of polymers. Implementing a solid scrape technique as a
farm management practice prior to milking parlor cleaning has great potential to

reduce the solids concentrations within the dairy wash water.

Performance of treatment systems at increased flow rates would provide vital

efficiency data. Investigating a variety of flow rates would provide data for

62

optimization, particularly in combination with the solids reduction strategies
described previously. An effective increase in flow volumes would allow for

greater real world application.

A simultaneous decrease in the production of wash water in combination with an
increase in flow rates discussed above has the potential to be an effective
‘treatment option. A decrease in wash water production can result from a smaller
dairy (50-100 head) and more efficient cleaning practices. A decrease in water
use can be sustained with use of a pressure washer or a hose instead of a flush
with one large water volume. A reduction in the wasted milk and separation of
solids, discussed above, also have potential to reduce wash water volume. As

indicated, dairy management practices are a vital system component to reduce

wash water production.

Increasing aeration is another viable option for further testing as the treatment
units were oxygen limiting. Increasing the aeration to two or three aerators may
enable treatment units to effectively reach reuse values for extended periods. It
should be noted that an increase in aeration will not only increase performance
but also increase operational costs; therefore testing with additional aeration
should be supplemented with a feasibility study. An increase in effective oxygen
transfer could provide the required oxygen without additional aeration. Research

designed to find optimum treatment Characteristics, such as water temperature,

63

can provide operational practices to increase oxygen transfer and treatment

performance.

Alternative uses for the effluent would make the system more applicable for real
world implementation. For example, disposal in a leach field was viable for many
of the results obtained in this test. A study of possible agriculture reuses would
provide alternatives with varying reuse standards expanding not only possible

applications, but treatment performance requirements.

The research conducted in this study provides solid groundwork to be extended

upon in order to implement this practice and provide alternative treatment and

disposal method for dairy milking facilities.

64

APPENDIX A

65

Table 20: Detailed parameter tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hach
Method EPA
Parameter Test Basis # Range Approved Reference Method
pH pH Meter
Digital
Titrator
Alkalinity Titration, 10-4,000 . .
(mg/L Phenolphthal 8203 mg/L fifiu'va'e fiifigflegfgflus'spp‘
CACOa) ein and Total CaCO3 ‘
using Sulfuric
Acid Method
Gravimetric . .
TS (mg/L) Methods 8271 Dilution Yes USEPA 160.3
Gravimetric . .
TSS (mg/L) Methods 8158 Dilution Yes USEPA 160.2
EPA 405.1; Adapted from
Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and
BOD (mg/L) Dilution . . Wastewater and from
5 Method 8043 D"""°" Yes Klein, R.L.; Gibbs, C.
Journal of Water Pollution
Control Federation, 1979,
51(9), 2257.
EPA 410.4; Jirka, AM;
20 to Carter M.J. Analytical
Reactor .' ’
. . 1500 Chemistry, 1975, 47(8),
COD (mg/L) 32:13:30” 8000 mg/L Yes 1397 Federal Register,
COD April 21, 1980, 45(78),
26811-26812
FOG (mg/L) Will Be Sent To A&L Great Lakes Laboratories for Evaluation
EPA 351.1; Adapted from
Hach, et. al., Journal of
Association of Official
Analytical Chemists,
Nessler 70(5) 783-787 (1987);
Method 1-150 Hach, et. al., Journal of
TKN (mg/L) (Digestion 8075 mg/L Yes Agricultural and Food
Required) Chemistry, 33(6) 1 117-

1 123 (1985); Standard
Methods for the
Examination of Water and
Wastewater

 

66

 

 

Table 20 (cont’d)

Nessler

0.02-2.50

EPA 350.3; Adapted from
Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NH (mg/L)
3 Method 8038 mglL Yes Wastewater 4500-NH3 B
& C.

Cadmium

N03 ("‘9“) Reduction 8039 03:00 Yes EPA 353.2
Method 9
PhosVer® 3
with Acid 0.02 to

TP Persulfate 8190 1.10 mglL Yes USEPA
Digestion P
Method

Total Coli

form and E. Membrane

coli Filtration 10029 Yes USEPA

(colonies/100 Method

mL)

Qualitative

Odor of . .

Effluent Will be Evaluated With an Odor Panel

Wastewater“

 

67

 

Table 21: Quality assurance and quality control procedures for lab analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QAIQC Description Purpose Frequency
Take one sample volume and . .
separate into two separate 03:33.3?" Of
Duplicate samples which are then : ui m e nt and Each Sample
prepared and analyzed using 30 cgdu res
identical procedures p
Detection of error in Minimum 0f at least
. f
Blank or reagent water a zero reading or once per use 0
Blanks analyzed as a sample procedure equrpment and once
contamination every 10 samples
within each use
. . Minimum of at least
Known quantities of sample are 208:3:anan Of once per use of
Standards analyzed to determine e ui m eynt and equipment and once
accuracy of equipment gocgdur e s every 10 samples
p within each use
. . . . . Ensure accurate
giltigrrate pH agar: pH calibration With and precise Every use
readings
Calibrate Weigh appropriate range of Ensure accurate
Balance known standards for the test to and precise Every use
be run reading
. Use desiccate with proper Ensures adequate
De5lccate indicating color functioning Every use

 

 

 

 

 

68

 

Table 21 (cont’d)

 

Analysis Requiring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QAIQC Procedure Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action
Alkalinity, Ammonia, Relative percent Improve handling and
Du Ii cat e TKN, COD, Bacteria, difference less than precision, repeat procedure
p Nitrate, pH, TS, TSS, 20%, take average of to ensure acceptance
TP two values criteria is met
Ensure proper set-up and
. . . procedure, clean
#:(fimggbAmggga' Less than detection equipment, check all
Blanks ' 5' ' limit, should produce a reagents and chemicals,
Nitrate TP zero or neutral reading find the error in procedure
’ or equipment, reanalyze
until criteria met
Ensure proper set-up and
. . . procedure, Clean
AtfillrggbAménggla, Relative percent equipment, check all
Standards ' 5' ' difference less than reagents and chemicals,
TP Nitrate 20% find the error in procedure
’ or equipment, reanalyze
until criteria met
. . Clean probe, retest, replace
gaeltigate pH pH 33:; pH units for every if acceptance criteria
cannot be met
. . Ensure proper set-up, call
32:21:: TS, TSS dRiiafleartglgit-igintii a n 1% service technician for
repair/ recalibration
. Correct color (deep Replace or heat to proper
Desrccate TS, TSS blue) color

 

 

 

69

 

APPENDIX B

70

Operation and System Life

System operation ran for three months from June 3, 2007 to November 26, 2007.
June, 2007 was spent debugging the system and equalizing flow rates
throughout. Testing began at the end of June, 2007 and continued throughout
operation on a weekly basis. Table 22 provides the dates for system operation
and shutdown as well as common tasks that involved a temporary system shut-

down.

Table 22: System operation

 

 

 

 

 

Operation Dates
System Shut-down 25-Jul-07 3-Sep-07 9-Oct-07 31-Oct-07
System Restart 1-Aug-07 11-Sep-07 16-Oct-07 6-Nov-07
Settling Tank Cleanout 17-Jul-07 13-Aug-07 9-Sep-07 25-Sep-07
TM
Multi-Flo Socks 25-Jul-07 3-Sep-07 11-Oct-07
Cleaned

 

 

 

 

 

TM
Filters were installed on August 21, 2007 for the Nayadic recirculation and

TM
September 3, 2007 for the Multi-Flo recirculation line and the settling tank
brush filter. The ultraviolet disinfection unit was operational on September 24,
2007. The second aerator was functional on October 19, 2007 after establishing

the need for additional oxygen. An increase in flow rates from 50 gal/day to 100

TM
gal/day was achieved on November 6, 2007. System life for the Multi-Flo unit

was around one month, as can be seen in the Clogging dates above. The

71

TM
Nayadic could continue to treat wash water for a longer period because there
was no Clogging ability, but treatment performance reached failure levels after

less than two weeks of operation. Reduction in pollutant concentrations, namely

TM
solids, would extend the life of the Multi-Flo significantly.

72

APPENDIX C

73

Table 23: pH data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Sample Date pH
Baseline 8/15/2007 6.33
Baseline 9l14/2007 6.49
Baseline 9l19/2007 6.42
Baseline 10/2/2007 6.41
Baseline 10l23l2007 6.21
Baseline 10/30/2007 6.64
Baseline 11/12/2007 6.56
Baseline 1 1/16/2007 6.49
Distribution Box 8/15/2007 6.52
Distribution Box 9/14/2007 6.37
Distribution Box 9l19/2007 6.52
Distribution Box 10/2/2007 6.32
Distribution Box 10/23/2007 5.31
Distribution Box 10/30/2007 6.4
Distribution Box 11/12/2007 6.3
Distribution Box 11/16/2007 6.47
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/15/2007 7.5
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9114/2007 7.61
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9l19/2007 7.2
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10/2/2007 7.29
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10l23l2007 6.86
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10/30/2007 7.33
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11l12/2007 7.24
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11/16/2007 7.53
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/15/2007 7.79
Dose Tank Nayadic 9/14/2007 7.49
Dose Tank Nayadic 9/19/2007 7.74
Dose Tank Nayadic 10/2/2007 7.99
Dose Tank Nayadic 10/23/2007 6.79
Dose Tank Nayadic 10/30/2007 7.75
Dose Tank Nayadic 11l12/2007 7.49
Dose Tank Nayadic 11/16/2007 7.49
Multi-Flo 8/15/2007 8.06
Multi-Flo 9/14/2007 8.41
Multi-Flo 9/19/2007 7.37
Multi-Flo 10/2/2007 7.58
Multi-Flo 10/23/2007 7.68
Multi-Flo 10/30/2007 7.75

 

 

 

74

Table 23 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi-Flo 1 1/12/2007 7.58
Multi-Flo 1 1/16/2007 7.82
Multi-Flo Disinfection 10l23l2007 7.79
Multi-Flo Disinfection 10/30/2007 7.79
Multi-Flo Disinfection 11/12/2007 7.53
Multi-Flo Disinfection 11/16l2007 7.8
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/14/2007 7.95
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/19/2007 7.58
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012/2007 7.7
Multi-Flo Recirculation 10l23l2007 7.9
Multi-Flo Recirculation 10/30/2007 7.87
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1 1/12/2007 7.58
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1 1/16/2007 7.88
Nayadic 8/15/2007 8.17
Nayadic 9I14l2007 7.85
Nayadic 9/1 9/2007 7.95
Nayadic 10l2l2007 7.92
Nayadic 10l23l2007 7.99
Nayadic 10/30/2007 7.96
Nayadic 1 1/12/2007 7.5
Nayadic 1 1/16/2007 7.67
Nayadic Recirculation 9/14/2007 7.87
Nayadic Recirculation 9l19/2007 7.99
Nayadic Recirculation 10/2/2007 8
Nayadic Recirculation 10l23l2007 8.07
Nayadic Recirculation 10/30/2007 7.99
Nafidic Recirculation 1 1/12/2007 7.54
Nayadic Recirculation 1 1/16/2007 7.69
Nayadic Disinfection 10/23/2007 8.06
Nayadic Disinfection 10/30l2007 7.99
Nayadic Disinfection 11/12/2007 7.5
Nayadic Disinfection 11/16/2007 7.63

 

75

 

Table 24: Alkalinity data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Percent Percent
. Alkalinity Reduction for Reduction
Location Sample Date (mg/L as Treatment from the
CaCO3) Segment Baseline

Baseline 7/20/2007 2600

Baseline 8/15/2007 5800

Baseline 8/17/2007 4100

Baseline 8/20/2007 1450

Baseline 10/2l2007 1875

Baseline 1 1/12/2007 1375

Distribution Box 7/20/2007 2050 21.2% 21.2%
Distribution Box 8/15/2007 2000 65.5% 65.5%
Distribution Box 8/17/2007 3100 24.4% 24.4%
Distribution Box 8/20/2007 750 48.3% 48.3%
Distribution Box 10/2/2007 1175 37.3% 37.3%
Distribution Box 11/12/2007 1225 10.9% 10.9%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/15/2007 1900 5.0% 67.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/17/2007 1400 54.8% 65.9%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/20/2007 200 73.3% 86.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10/2/2007 525 55.3% 72.0%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11/12/2007 775 36.7% 43.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/15/2007 2200 -10.0% 62.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/17/2007 3050 1.6% 25.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/20/2007 1300 -73.3% 10.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 10l2l2007 1600 -36.2% 14.7%
Dose Tank Nayadic 11/12/2007 1300 -6.1% 5.5%
Multi-Flo 7/20/2007 550 78.8%
Multi-Flo 8/15/2007 61 1 67.8% 89.5%
Multi-Flo 8/17/2007 585 58.2% 85.7%
Multi—Flo 8/20/2007 552.5 -176.3% 61.9%
Multi-Flo 10l2l2007 680 -29.5% 63.7%
Multi-Flo 1 1/12/2007 230 70.3% 83.3%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 11/12/2007 300 -30.4% 78.2%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 10l2l2007 690 -1.5% 63.2%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 11/12/2007 300 -30.4% 78.2%
Nayadic 7/20/2007 1850

 

 

 

 

76

Table 24 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nayadic 8/15l2007 2050 6.8% 64.7%
Nayadic 8/17/2007 2375 22.1% 42.1%
Nayadic 8/20/2007 1400 -7.7% 3.4%
Nayadic 10l2l2007 1590 0.6% 15.2%
Nayadic 11/12/2007 1150 11.5% 16.4%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 1/12/2007 265 77.0% 80.7%
Nayadic Recirculation 10l2l2007 1560 1.9% 16.8%
Nayadic Recirculation 1 1/12/2007 340 70.4% 75.3%

 

 

 

 

 

77

Table 25: Biochemical oxygen demand data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent Percent
Treatment Location Sample Date 3005 (mg/L) Rgdélacttliggnftor Reggcrt‘ion

Segment Baseline
Baseline 6/27/2007 3353
Baseline 7l5/2007 5045
Baseline 7/1 3/2007 7064
Baseline 7/20/2007 7107
Baseline 8/2/2007 6460
Baseline 8/8/2007 6788
Baseline 8/23/2007 5397
Baseline 9l14l2007 4870
Baseline 1 1/21/2007 2804
Distribution Box 7/20/2007 4357 38.7% 38.7%
Distribution Box 8/2/2007 6445 0.2% 0.2%
Distribution Box 8/8/2007 4618 32.0% 32.0%
Distribution Box 9/14/2007 2778 43.0% 43.0%
Distribution Box 11/21/2007 2953 -5.3% -5.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/2/2007 792 87.7% 87.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/8/2007 729 84.2% 89.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/23/2007 1098 79.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9l14l2007 254 90.8% 94.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11/26/2007 567 80.8% 79.8%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/2/2007 1788 72.3% 72.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/8/2007 1393 69.8% 79.5%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/23/2007 1581 70.7%
Dose Tank NaLadic 9l14l2007 511 81.6% 89.5%
Dose Tank Nayadic 11/21l2007 1003 66.0% 64.2%
Multi-Flo 6/27/2007 886 73.6%
Multi-Flo 7/5/2007 838 83.4%
Multi-Flo 7/13l2007 279 96.0%
Multi-Flo 7/20/2007 97 98.6%
Multi-Flo 8l2/2007 16 98.0% 99.8%
Multi-Flo 8/8/2007 13 98.3% 99.8%
Multi-Flo 8/23/2007 26 97.6% 99.5%
Multi-Flo 9/14/2007 4 98.3% 99.9%
Multi-Flo 11/21/2007 ' 391 31.0% 86.0%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9l14l2007 30 -578.5% 99.4%

 

 

 

 

 

78

Table 25 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nayadic 6/27/2007 1 1 15 66.7%
Nayadic 7/5/2007 1 189 76.4%
Nayadic 7/13/2007 831 88.2%
Nayadic 7/20/2007 749 89.5%
Nayadic 8/2/2007 275 84.6% 95.7%
Nayadic 8/8/2007 588 57.8% 91.3%
Nayadic 8/23l2007 598 62.2% 88.9%
Nayadic 9/14/2007 252 50.7% 94.8%
Nayadic 11/21/2007 1722 -71.7% 38.6%
Nayadic Recirculation 8/23/2007 583 2.4% 89.2%
Nayadic Recirculation 9/14/2007 206 18.4% 95.8%

 

 

 

79

Table 26: Chemical oxygen demand data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent Percent
Treatment Unit Location Sample Date (fig/E) [9:33:2an Red;a°;§?nfer°m
Segment Values
Baseline 6l28/2007 36528
Baseline 6/29/2007 29240
Baseline 7/2/2007 13744
Baseline 7112/2007 25456
Baseline 7l20/2007 62997
Baseline 7l23/2007 62774
Baseline 7l24/2007 43633
Baseline 8/2/2007 57300
Baseline 8l9/2007 11430
Baseline 8/17/2007 52375
Baseline 8l20/2007 33700
Baseline 8l23/2007 12025
Baseline 9114/2007 9000
Baseline 9/19/2007 10750
Baseline 10l2l2007 49200
Baseline 10/2 3/2007 12300
Baseline 10/30/2007 18650
Baseline 1 1/12/2007 1 1150
Baseline 1 1/16/2007 10825
Distribution Box 7l12/2007 15088 40.7% 40.7%
Distribution Box 7l20/2007 15952 74.7% 74.7%
Distribution Box 8/2/2007 88830 -55.0% -55.0%
Distribution Box 8l9/2007 12300 -7.6% -7.6%
Distribution Box 8l17/2007 12140 76.8% 76.8%
Distribution Box 8l20/2007 7170 78.7% 78.7%
Distribution Box 8l23/2007 6360 47.1% 47.1%
Distribution Box 9l14l2007 9510 -5.7% -5.7%
Distribution Box 9l19/2007 8740 18.7% 18.7%
Distribution Box 10/2/2007 8190 83.4% 83.4%
Distribution Box 10l23l2007 10300 16.3% 16.3%
Distribution Box 10/30/2007 10200 45.3% 45.3%
Distribution Box 1 1/12/2007 9920 11.0% 1 1.0%
Distribution Box 1 1/16/2007 9260 14.5% 14.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/2/2007 2000 97.7% 96.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8/9/2007 2000 83.7% 82.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8l17/2007 2980 75.5% 94.3%

 

80

Table 26 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8l20l2007 1710 76.2% 94.9%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8l23/2007 1290 79.7% 89.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9l14l2007 1210 87.3% 86.6%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9l19/2007 7500 14.2% 30.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10/2/2007 1420 82.7% 97.1%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10l23l2007 2500 75.7% 79.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 10l30/2007 1900 81.4% 89.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11/12/2007 3810 61.6% 65.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 11/16/2007 2990 67.7% 72.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8l2/2007 6100 59.6% 89.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/9l2007 5020 68.5% 56.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/17/2007 5120 94.2% 90.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/20/2007 2290 81.4% 93.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8l23l2007 3710 69.4% 69.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 9/14/2007 1740 75.7% 80.7%
Dose Tank Nayadic 9/19/2007 1730 72.8% 83.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 10l2l2007 2260 76.2% 95.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 10l23l2007 5500 37.1% 55.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 10l30/2007 5000 38.9% 73.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 11l12/2007 9070 11.9% 18.7%
Dose Tank Nayadic 11/16/2007 9010 11.7% 16.8%
Multi-Flo 6l28l2007 1785 95.1%
Multi-Flo 6/29/2007 1441 95.1%
Multi-Flo 7l2/2007 1430 89.6%
Multi-Flo 7/12/2007 1872 92.6%
Multi-Flo 7/20/2007 2576 95.9%
Multi-Flo 8/2/2007 243 87.9% 99.6%
Multi-Flo 8/17/2007 191 93.6% 99.6%
Multi-Flo 8l20/2007 220 87.1% 99.3%
Multi-Flo 8/23/2007 294 77.2% 97.6%
Multi-Flo 9l14l2007 85 93.0% 99.1%
Multi-Flo 9/19/2007 3530 52.9% 67.2%
Multi-Flo 10/2/2007 1258 1 1.4% 97.4%
Multi-Flo 10/23/2007 221 91.2% 98.2%
Multi-Flo 10l30/2007 170 91.1% 99.1%
Multi-Flo 1 1/12/2007 2312 39.3% 79.3%
Multi-Flo 1 1/16/2007 2442 18.3% 77.4%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 10/23/2007 169 23.5% 98.6%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 10l30/2007 173 -1.8% 99.1%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 11/12/2007 3486 -50.8% 68.7%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 11/16/2007 4286 -75.5% 60.4%

 

 

 

 

 

81

Table 26 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi-Flo Recirculation 911412007 371 -338.5% 95.9%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/1 912007 3290 6.8% 69.4%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 101212007 898 28.6% 98.2%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012312007 169 23.5% 98.6%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1013012007 175 -2.9% 99.1 %
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1 1/1 212007 3460 -49.7% 69.0%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1 111 612007 3707 -51.8% 65.8%
Nayadic 6128/2007 3941 89.2%
Nayadic 6129/2007 4006 86.3%
Nayadic 71212007 3108 77.4%
Nayadic 7112/2007 3888 84.7%
Nayadic 712012007 5200 91 .7%
Nayadic 81212007 2300 62.3% 96.0%
Nayadic 8/9/2007 3570 28.9% 68.8%
Nayadic 8/1 712007 3900 23.8% 92.6%
Nayadic 8120/2007 1820 20.5% 94.6%
Nayadic 8123/2007 1720 53.6% 85.7%
Nayadic 9114/2007 1352 22.3% 85.0%
Nayadic 911912007 834 51.8% 92.2%
Nayadic 101212007 2615 -15.7% 94.7%
Nayadic 1012 312007 3840 30.2% 68.8%
Nayadic 1013012007 4270 14.6% 77.1%
Nayadic 1111212007 10395 -14.6% 6.8%
Nayadic 1111612007 9930 -10.2% 8.3%
Nayadic Disinfection 1012312007 4190 -9.1% 65.9%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 0130/2007 4460 -4.4% 76.1%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 1/1 212007 9795 5.8% 12.2%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 1/1 612007 10510 -5.8% 2.9%
Nayadic Recirculation 812312007 2260 -31.4% 81.2%
Nayadic Recirculation 9114/2007 1 160 14.2% 87.1%
Nayadic Recirculation 9119/2007 850 -1.9% 92.1%
Nayadic Recirculation 101212007 3120 -19.3% 93.7%
Nayadic Recirculation 1012312007 4010 -4.4% 67.4%
Nayadic Recirculation 1013012007 3990 6.6% 78.6%
Nayadic Recirculation 1 1/1 212007 9945 4.3% 10.8%
Nayadic Recirculation 1111612007 10135 -2.1% 6.4%

 

82

Table 27: Total Solids Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. R2333. Percent
Location Sample Date Total Solids for Reduction
(mg/L) Treatment "°".‘
Segment Baseline

Baseline 71312007 12682
Baseline 712412007 26277
Baseline 81212007 35061
Baseline 81612007 27039
Baseline 81912007 7625
Baseline 8114/2007 15909
Baseline 8116/2007 30501
Baseline 812012007 16733
Baseline 8128/2007 7851
Baseline 9114/2007 6280
Baseline 911 912007 8064
Baseline 9129/2007 7537
Baseline 101212007 29953
Baseline 1012312007 7083
Baseline 1013012007 12661
Baseline 1 111212007 4929
Baseline 1 1/1 612007 7361
Baseline 1 1121/2007 6932
Distribution Box 7124/2007 8798 66.5% 66.5%
Distribution Box 81212007 52685 -50.3% -50.3%
Distribution Box 81612007 6991 74.1% 74.1%
Distribution Box 81912007 7623 0.0% 0.0%
Distribution Box 811412007 7001 56.0% 56.0%
Distribution Box 811612007 7334 76.0% 76.0%
Distribution Box 8120/2007 7884 52.9% 52.9%
Distribution Box 8128/2007 7476 4.8% 4.8%
Distribution Box 9/14/2007 6703 -6.7% —6.7%
Distribution Box 9/19/2007 6092 24.5% 24.5%
Distribution Box 912912007 6780 10.1% 10.1%
Distribution Box 101212007 6804 77.3% 77.3%
Distribution Box 1012312007 6156 13.1% 13.1%
Distribution Box 1013012007 6306 50.2% 50.2%
Distribution Box 1111212007 6753 -37.0% -37.0%
Distribution Box 1 1/1 612007 6407 13.0% 13.0%
Distribution Box 1112112007 5789 16.5% 16.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81212007 2126 96.0% 93.9%

 

83

Table 27 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81612007 1984 71.6% 92.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81912007 2229 70.8% 70.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811412007 2761 60.6% 82.6%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811612007 3953 46.1% 87.0%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8120/2007 3299 58.2% 80.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8128/2007 2535 66.1% 67.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9/14/2007 2574 61.6% 59.0%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9/19/2007 5024 17.5% 37.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 912912007 3388 50.0% 55.1%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 101212007 2417 64.5% 91.9%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1012312007 2018 67.2% 71.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1013012007 2096 66.8% 83.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111 212007 3353 50.3% 32.0%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111612007 3785 40.9% 48.6%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1112112007 3814 34.1% 45.0%
Dose Tank Nayadic 81212007 5567 89.4% 84.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 816/2007 4164 40.4% 84.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 81912007 4638 39.2% 39.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811412007 5022 28.3% 68.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811612007 5075 30.8% 83.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8120/2007 5699 27.7% 65.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8128/2007 3284 56.1% 58.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911412007 2193 67.3% 65.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911912007 1837 69.8% 77.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 912912007 3712 45.3% 50.8%
Dose Tank Nayadic 101212007 3382 50.3% 88.7%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1012312007 4387 28.7% 38.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1013012007 5279 16.3% 58.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111212007 7135 -5.7% -44.8%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111612007 7439 -16.1% -1.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1112112007 6481 -11.9% 6.5%

Multi-Flo 71312007 2591 79.6%
Multi-Flo 7124/2007 3500 86.7%
Multi-Flo 81212007 973 54.2% 97.2%
Multi-Flo 81612007 687 65.4% 97.5%
Multi-Flo 81912007 1042 53.3% 86.3%
Multi-Flo 8/14/2007 1 135 58.9% 92.9%
Multi-Flo 8/1 612007 1 134 71.3% 96.3%
Multi-Flo 8120/2007 1337 59.5% 92.0%
Multi-Flo 8128/2007 1566 38.2% 80.1%
Multi-Flo 911412007 503 80.5% 92.0%
Multi-Flo 911912007 4392 12.6% 45.5%

 

 

 

 

 

84

Table 27 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Multi-Flo 912912007 1344 60.3% 82.2%
Multi-Flo 101212007 1815 24.9% 93.9%
Multi-Flo 1012312007 1246 38.3% 82.4%
Multi-Flo 1013012007 984 53.0% 92.2%
Multi-Flo 1 111212007 3353 0.0% 32.0%
Multi-Flo 1 1/1 612007 2738 27.7% 62.8%
Multi-Flo 11/21/2007 3713 2.6% 46.4%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/1 412007 835 -66.1% 86.7%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/1 912007 3904 1 1 .1 % 51 .6%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 912912007 1595 -18.6% 78.8%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 10/2/2007 2438 -34.3% 91.9%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012312007 920 26.1% 87.0%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 10/23/2007 775 37.8% 89.1%
Nayadic 7/3/2007 3618 71 .5%
Nayadic 7’24/2007 4921 81 .3%
Nayadic 3/2/2007 2830 49.2% 91.9%
Nayadic 3/6/2007 3470 16.7% 87.2%
Nayadic 8/9/2007 3917 15.5% 48.6%
Nayadic 811412007 4198 16.4% 73.6%
Nayadic 811612007 4282 15.6% 86.0%
Nayadic 8120/2007 4934 13.4% 70.5%
Nayadic 8128/2007 1 1614 -253.6% -47.9%
Nayadic 911412007 1473 32.8% 76.6%
Nayadic 911912007 1589 13.5% 80.3%
Nayadic 912912007 3695 0.5% 51 .0%
Nayadic 101212007 3345 1 .1 % 88.8%
Nayadic 1012312007 4127 5.9% 41.7%
Nayadic 1013012007 4577 13.3% 63.9%
Nayadic 1 111212007 7746 -8.6% -57.2%
Nayadic 1 111 612007 7087 4.7% 3.7%

Nayadic 1112112007 6184 4.6% 10.8%
Nayadic Recirculation 812812007 5895 49.2% 24.9%
Nayadic Recirculation 9/14/2007 1519 -3.2% 75.8%
Nayadic Recirculation 911912007 1677 -5.6% 79.2%
Nayadic Recirculation 9/29/2007 3655 1.1% 51.5%
Nayadic Recirculation 101212007 3490 -4.3% 88.3%
Nayadic Recirculation 1012312007 4002 3.0% 43.5%
Nayadic Disinfection 1012312007 4107 0.5% 42.0%

 

 

 

 

 

85

Table 28: Total suspended solids data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total
. Suspended R 6:32:33"; of Percent
Location Sample date Solids . Treatment Reduction
Concentration Segment from Baseline
(mg/L)
Baseline 81612007 15420
Baseline 811 312007 12650
Baseline 811412007 9950
Baseline 811612007 19200
Baseline 812012007 12680
Baseline 812812007 3090
Baseline 9/ 1412007 1265
Baseline 911 912007 4790
Baseline 912912007 8780
Baseline 1012312007 2500
Baseline 1013012007 5650
Baseline 1111212007 1050
Baseline 1 111 612007 1300
Baseline 1 1121/2007 1700
Distribution Box 81612007 1900 87.7% 87.7%
Distribution Box 811 312007 960 92.4% 92.4%
Distribution Box 8/14/2007 1560 84.3% 84.3%
Distribution Box 811612007 1870 90.3% 90.3%
Distribution Box 812012007 2755 78.3% 78.3%
Distribution Box 8/28/2007 1885 39.0% 39.0%
Distribution Box 911412007 1705 -34.8% -34.8%
Distribution Box 911912007 1 100 77.0% 77.0%
Distribution Box 912912007 2410 72.6% 72.6%
Distribution Box 1012312007 1500 40.0% 40.0%
Distribution Box 1013012007 1200 78.8% 78.8%
Distribution Box 1 1/12/2007 1800 -71.4% -71.4%
Distribution Box 1 1/1 612007 800 38.5% 38.5%
Distribution Box 1112112007 2000 -17.6% -17.6%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81612007 340 82.1% 97.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8113/2007 595 38.0% 95.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811412007 260 83.3% 97.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811612007 695 62.8% 96.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 812012007 830 69.9% 93.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 812812007 642 66.0% 79.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 9/14/2007 485 71.6% 61.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 911912007 907 17.5% 81.1%

 

 

 

 

 

86

Table 28 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dose Tank Multi-Flo 912912007 3140 -30.3% 64.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1012312007 1000 33.3% 60.0%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1013012007 600 50.0% 89.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111212007 1300 27.8% -23.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111612007 1100 -37.5% 15.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1112112007 1100 45.0% 35.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 81612007 935 50.8% 93.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811312007 450 53.1% 96.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811412007 770 50.6% 92.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811612007 875 53.2% 95.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 812012007 1225 55.5% 90.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 812812007 647 65.6% 79.0%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911412007 410 76.0% 67.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911912007 518 52.9% 89.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 912912007 2100 12.9% 76.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1012312007 1900 -26.7% 78.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1013012007 2300 -91.7% 73.8%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1 111212007 1500 16.7% 82.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111612007 1200 -50.0% 86.3%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1112112007 2200 -10.0% 74.9%
Multi-Flo 8/6/2007 26 92.3% 99.8%
Multi-Flo 811 312007 55 90.8% 99.6%
Multi-Flo 811412007 54 79.4% 99.5%
Multi-Flo 811612007 27 96.1% 99.9%
Multi-Flo 812012007 57 93.2% 99.6%
IVlulti-Flo 812812007 158 75.4% 94.9%
Multi-Flo 9/14/2007 54 89.0% 95.8%
Multi-Flo 911912007 1780 -96.3% 62.8%
Multi-Flo 912912007 359 88.6% 95.9%
Multi-Flo 1012312007 44 95.6% 99.5%
Multi-Flo 1013012007 7 98.9% 99.9%
Multi-Flo 1 1/1 212007 850 34.6% 90.3%
Multi-Flo 1 1/1 612007 900 18.2% 89.7%
Multi-Flo 1 1121/2007 1500 -36.4% 82.9%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 912912007 1264 29.0% 73.6%
Nayadic 81612007 641 31 .4% 95.8%
Nayadic 811312007 653 -45.1% 94.8%
Nayadic 811412007 664 13.8% 93.3%
Nayadic 811612007 789 9.8% 95.9%
Nayadic 812012007 1323 -8.0% 89.6%

 

 

 

 

 

87

Table 28 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nayadic 812812007 6353 -881 .1% -105.6%
Nayadic 911412007 355 13.4% 71.9%
Nayadic 911 912007 363 30.0% 92.4%
Nayadic 912912007 948 54.9% 89.2%
Nayadic 1012312007 500 73.7% 94.3%
Nayadic 1013012007 1200 47.8% 86.3%
Nayadic 1 1/1 212007 1000 33.3% 88.6%
Nayadic 1 1116/2007 1900 -58.3% 78.4%
Nayadic 1 1121/2007 3200 -45.5% 63.6%
Nayadic Recirculation 812812007 3720 41 .4% -20.4%
Nayadic Recirculation 911412007 288 18.9% 77.2%
Nayadic Recirculation 911912007 349 3.7% 92.7%
Nayadic Recirculation 912912007 3927 -314.4% 55.3%

 

 

 

 

 

88

Table 29: Total Kjeldahl nitrogen data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent
. Reduction of Parcel“
Location Sample Date TKN (mg/L) Treatment Reduction
Segment from Baseline

Baseline 81812007 1 18
Baseline 811412007 123
Baseline 812112007 105.5
Baseline 1013012007 81
Distribution Box 81812007 204 -72.9% -72.9%
Distribution Box 811412007 143.5 -16.7% -16.7%
Distribution Box 812112007 128 -21.3% -21.3%
Distribution Box 1013012007 69 14.8% 14.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81812007 41.5 79.7% 64.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811412007 57.5 59.9% 53.3%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 812112007 69.5 45.7% 34.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 818/2007 81 60.3% 31.4%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811412007 99 31.0% 19.5%
Dose Tank Nayadic 812112007 91 28.9% 13.7%
Multi-Flo 81812007 13 68.7% 89.0%
Multi-Flo 811412007 20.5 64.3% 83.3%
Multi-Flo 812112007 18.5 73.4% 82.5%
Multi-Flo 1013012007 2 97.5%
Nayadic 81812007 98.5 -21 .6% 16.5%
Nayadic 811412007 88 11.1% 28.5%
Nayadic 812112007 94.5 -3.8% 10.4%
Nayadic 1013012007 58 28.4%

 

 

 

 

 

89

Table 30: Nitrate data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Sample Date Amber Color Final Nitrate
Baseline 81612007 No 0
Baseline 811712007 No 0
Baseline 812112007 No 0
Baseline 1012312007 No 0
Baseline 1111212207 No 0
Distribution Box 81612007 No 0
Distribution Box 811 712007 No 0
Distribution Box 812112007 No 0
Distribution Box 1012312007 No 0
Distribution Box 1111212207 No 0
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81612007 No 0
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811712007 No 0
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 812112007 No 0
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1012312007 No 0
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111212207 No 0
No
Dose Tank Nayadic 81612007 No 0
Dose Tank Nayadic 8/17/2007 No 0
Dose Tank Nayadic 812112007 No 0
Dose Tank Nayadic 1012312007 No 0
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111212207 No 0
Multi-Flo 81612007 No 0
Multi-Flo 8/1 712007 No 0
Multi-Flo 812112007 No 0
Multi-Flo 1012312007 No 0 .
Multi-Flo 1111212207 No 0
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1111212207 No 0
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012312007 No 0
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1111212207 No 0
Nayadic 81612007 No 0
Nayadic 8117/2007 No 0
Nayadic 812112007 No 0
Nayadic 1012312007 No 0
Nayadic 1 111212207 No 0
Nayadic Disinfection 1111212207 No 0

 

 

 

 

90

Table 30 (cont’d)

Nayadic Recirculation

1 0/2 312007

No

0

 

Nayadic Recirculation

 

1 111212207

 

NO

 

 

91

Table 31: Ammonia data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percent
. . Percent
Location Sample Date Ammonia Reduction by Reduction
(mg/L) Treatment from Baseline
Segment

Baseline 711112007 287
Baseline 811012007 251
Baseline 811712007 339
Baseline 812012007 272
Baseline 911412007 214
Baseline 911912007 221
Baseline 101212007 276
Baseline 1012312007 224
Baseline 1013012007 233
Baseline 1111212007 233
Baseline 1 1/1 612007 254
Distribution Box 711 112007 320 -11.5% -11.5%
Distribution Box 811012007 262 -4.4% -4.4%
Distribution Box 811712007 286 15.6% 15.6%
Distribution Box 812012007 272 0.0% 0.0%
Distribution Box 911412007 192 10.3% 10.3%
Distribution Box 911912007 195 11.8% 11.8%
Distribution Box 101212007 240 13.0% 13.0%
Distribution Box 1012312007 230 -2.7% -2.7%
Distribution Box 1013012007 210 9.9% 9.9%
Distribution Box 1111212007 250 -7.3% -7.3%
Distribution Box 1111612007 251 1.2% 1.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8110/2007 51 80.5% 79.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 811712007 83 71.2% 75.7%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 812012007 70 74.4% 74.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 911412007 12 93.8% 94.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 911912007 116 40.5% 47.5%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 101212007 41 82.9% 85.1%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1012312007 52 77.4% 76.8%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1013012007 20 90.5% 91.4%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111212007 67 73.2% 71.2%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111612007 63 74.9% 75.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811012007 164 37.6% 34.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 811712007 195 32.0% 42.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 812012007 151 44.7% 44.7%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911412007 67 65.1% 68.7%

 

 

 

 

 

92

Table 31 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dose Tank Nayadic 911912007 65 66.7% 70.6%
Dose Tank Nayadic 101212007 1 19 50.4% 56.9%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1012312007 168 27.0% 25.0%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1013012007 149 29.0% 36.1%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111212007 221 11.6% 5.2%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111612007 215 14.3% 15.4%
Multi-Flo 7/1 112007 103 64.2%
Multi-Flo 8/1 012007 3 94.6% 98.9%
Multi-Flo 811712007 2 97.7% 99.4%
Multi-Flo 812012007 4 94.1% 98.5%
Multi-Flo 9/ 1412007 0 100.0% 100.0%
Multi-Flo 9/1 912007 66 43.1% 70.1%
Multi-Flo 101212007 15 63.4% 94.6%
Multi-Flo 1012 312007 8 84.6% 96.4%
Multi-Flo 1013012007 1 1 45.0% 95.3%
Multi-Flo 1 111212007 37 44.8% 84.1 %
Multi-Flo 1 1/1 612007 47 25.4% 81.5%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1012312007 6 25.0% 97.3%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1013012007 11 0.0% 95.3%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1111212007 38 -2.7% 83.7%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1111612007 55 -17.0% 78.3%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 911412007 0 0.0% 100.0%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 911912007 61 7.6% 72.4%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 101212007 16 -6.7% 94.2%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012312007 6 25.0% 97.3%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1013012007 1 1 0.0% 95.3%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1111212007 38 -2.7% 83.7%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1111612007 48 -2.1% 81.1%
Nayadic 7/1 112007 143 50.2%
Nayadic 8/1 012007 142 13.1% 43.4%
Nayadic 811712007 171 12.1% 49.6%
Nayadic 812012007 138 8.6% 49.4%
Nayadic 9/ 1412007 57 14.9% 73.4%
Nayadic 911912007 60 7.7% 72.9%
Nayadic 101212007 120 -0.8% 56.5%
Nayadic 1012312007 173 -3.0% 22.8%
Nayadic 1013012007 148 0.7% 36.5%
Nayadic 1 111212007 226 -2.3% 3.0%
Nayadic 1111612007 231 -7.4% 9.1%

 

 

 

 

 

93

Table 31 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nayadic Disinfection 1012312007 158 8.7% 29.5%
Nayadic Disinfection 1013012007 182 -23.0% 21.9%
Nayadic Disinfection 1111212007 232 -2.7% 0.4%

Nayadic Disinfection 1111612007 239 -3.5% 5.9%

Nayadic Recirculation 911412007 45 21.1% 79.0%
Nayadic Recirculation 911912007 54 10.0% 75.6%
Nayadic Recirculation 101212007 1 17 2.5% 57.6%
Nayadic Recirculation 1012312007 164 5.2% 26.8%
Nayadic Recirculation 1013012007 182 -23.0% 21.9%
Nayadic Recirculation 1 111212007 227 -0.4% 2.6%

Nayadic Recirculation 1111612007 256 -10.8% -0.8%

 

94

Table 32: Phosphorus data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daily Average RZZLCSEn Percent
Location Sample Date Total from Reduction for
Phosphorus Baseline Treatment
(mg/L P) Values Segment

Baseline 712012007 197

Baseline 81212 007 1 94

Baseline 81912007 216

Baseline 8124/2007 1 1 1

Baseline 911412007 106

Baseline 911912007 1 16

Baseline 101212007 156

Baseline 1012312007 122

Baseline 1013012007 127

Baseline 1 111212007 1 1 1

Baseline 1 111 612007 132

Distribution Box 712012007 122 38% 38%
Distribution Box 81212007 203 -5% -5%
Distribution Box 81912007 188 13% 13%
Distribution Box 812412007 123 -10% -10%
Distribution Box 911412007 107 -1% -1%
Distribution Box 911912007 100 14% 14%
Distribution Box 101212007 116 26% 26%
Distribution Box 1012312007 120 2% 2%
Distribution Box 1013012007 121 5% 5%
Distribution Box 1111212007 119 -7% -7%
Distribution Box 1 111 612007 1 17 1 1% 1 1%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81212007 36 81% 82%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 81912007 72 67% 62%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 8124/2007 41 63% 67%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 911412007 34 68% 68%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 911912007 85 27% 15%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 101212007 39 75% 66%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1012312007 40 67% 67%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1013012007 45 65% 63%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111212007 71 36% 40%
Dose Tank Multi-Flo 1111612007 99 25% 15%
Dose Tank Nayadic 81212007 79 59% 61%
Dose Tank Nayadic 81912007 78 64% 59%
Dose Tank Nayadic 8124/2007 66 41% 46%
Dose Tank Nayadic 911412007 38 64% 64%

 

 

 

 

 

95

Table 32 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dose Tank Nayadic 911912007 36 69% 64%
Dose Tank Nayadic 101212007 52 67% 55%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1012312007 57 53% 53%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1013012007 56 56% 54%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111212007 106 5% 11%
Dose Tank Nayadic 1111612007 106 20% 9%
Multi-Flo 712012007 38 81%

Multi-Flo 81212007 14 93% 63%
Multi-Flo 81912 007 20 91 % 72%
Multi-Flo 8124/2007 22 81% 47%
Multi-Flo 911412007 17 84% 50%
Multi-Flo 911912007 66 43% 22%
Multi—Flo 101212007 38 76% 3%
Multi-Flo 1012312007 22 82% 45%
Multi-Flo 1013012007 30 76% 33%
Multi-Flo 1 111212007 57 49% 20%
Multi-Flo 1 111 612007 58 56% 41%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1012312007 23 81 % -5%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1013012007 27 79% 10%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1 111212007 67 40% -18%
Multi-Flo Disinfection 1111612007 95 28% -64%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 9/ 1412007 35 67% -106%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 911912007 78 33% —18%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 101212007 37 76% 3%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1012312007 21 83% 5%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1013012007 24 81 % 20%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1111212007 57 49% 0%
Multi-Flo Recirculation 1111612007 72 45% -24%
Nayadic 712012007 44 75%

Nayadic 81212007 36 71 % -50%
Nayadic 81912007 55 50% -200°/o
Nayadic 812412007 52 31 % -48%
Nayadic 911412007 36 45% -2%
Nayadic 911912007 33 44% -16%
Nayadic 101212007 47 24% -1 1%
Nayadic 1012312007 49 15% 2%
Nayadic 1013012007 57 55% -49%
Nayadic 1 111212007 108 69% -152%
Nayadic 1 111 612007 77 71% -90%

 

 

 

96

Table 32 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nayadic Disinfection 1012312007 58 52% -18%
Nayadic Disinfection 1013012007 65 59% -14%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 111212007 1 18 7% -9%
Nayadic Disinfection 1 1/ 1612007 104 31% -35%
Nayadic Recirculation 8124/2007 57 49% -9%
Nayadic Recirculation 911412007 34 68% 6%
Nayadic Recirculation 911912007 38 67% -15%
Nayadic Recirculation 101212007 48 69% -2%
Nayadic Recirculation 1012312007 49 60% 0%
Nayadic Recirculation 1013012007 52 59% 9%
Nayadic Recirculation 1 111212007 103 7% 5%
Nayadic Recirculation 1 1/1 612007 91 31 % -18%

 

97

Table 33: Odor panel data

 

Panelist

Panelist

Panelist

Panelist

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Sample Date 1 2 3 4 Average
Baseline 911412007 8 10 6 7 7.75
Baseline 912912007 8 8 6 5 6.75
Baseline 101212007 9 9 9 10 9.25
Baseline 1012312007 7 10 6 10 8.25
Baseline 1013012007 6 10 1 7 6
Baseline 1111212007 9 9 7 5 7.5
Baseline 1111612007 9 9 9 7 8.5
Baseline 1 1121/2007 8 9 7 7 7.75
Multi-Flo 911412007 1 1 2 1 1.25
Multi-Flo 912912007 2 3 2 1 2
Multi-Flo 1 01212007 2 7 6 6 5.25
Multi-Flo 1012312007 1 3 4 1 2.25
Multi-Flo 1013012007 1 5 2 2 2.5
Multi-Flo 1 111212007 6 6 1 3 4
Multi-Flo 1 111612007 4 3 8 5 5
Multi-Flo 1112112007 4 5 1 7 4.25
Nayadic 911412007 2 3 6 6 4.25
Nayadic 912912007 3 7 4 8 5. 5
Nayadic 1 01212007 3 3 5 7 4.5
Nayadic 1012 312007 3 9 3 5 5
Nayadic 1013012007 4 10 9 8 7.75
Nayadic 1 111212007 5 10 1 9 6.25
Nayadic 1 111 612007 4 10 3 9 6.5
Nayadic 1 1121/2007 6 8 7 8 7.25

 

98

Table 34: ORP and DO data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Sample Date ORP (mV) DO (mg/L)
Baseline 912912007 -222 0.36
Baseline 101512007 -218 0.53
Baseline 1013012007 -201 1.08
Baseline 1 11912007 -176 1.26
Baseline 1 111212007 -196 1.03
Multi-Flo 912912007 -165 3.03
Multi-Flo 101512007 -272 0.52
Multi-Flo 1013012007 -42 5.99
Multi-Flo 1 11912007 104 3.44
Multi-Flo 1 111212007 -94 0.75
Nayadic 912912007 -221 0.69
Nayadic 101512007 -215 0.34
Nayadic 1013012007 -220 0.86
Nayadic 1 11912007 -178 0.64
Nayadic 1111212007 -142 0.9

 

 

 

 

99

REFERENCES

100

REFERENCES

Christopherson, S., D. Schmidt, K. Janni and J. Zhu. Evaluation and
Demonstration of Treatment Options for Dairy Parlor and Milk House
Wastewater. Technical Paper Number 034121. 2003 ASAE Annual
International Meeting. Las Vegas, Nevada. July 27-30, 2003.

Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. Multi-Flo Wastewater Treatment Systems
Design Manual. August 1, 2002a.
http://www.consolidatedtreatment.com/manuals/MuIti-

F lo_Design_Manual.PDF

Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. Nayadic Wastewater Treatment Systems
Design Manual. August 1, 2002b.
http:1/www.consolidatedtreatment.com/manuals/Nayadic_Design_ManuaI.pdf

Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. http:1/www.consolidatedtreatment.coml.
2000.

Crook, James and R. Y. Surampalli. 1996. Water Reclamation and Reuse
Criteria in the US. Water Science and Technology, 33(10-11), 452-462.

Dong, L., P. Y. Yang, P. S. Leung and C. N. Lee. October 12, 2003. Evaluation
of Potential Dairy Farm Wastewater Treatment and Reuse Systems in the
Tropics. Ninth Intemational Animal, Agricultural and Food Processing
Wastes Proceedings of the 12-15 October 2003 Symposium, 242-249.

Hamoda, M. F. and Al-Awadi. 1995. Wastewater Management in a Dairy Farm.
Water Science and Technology, 32(11), 1-11.

lvery, Graham. 1996. Aerobic treatment units (ATUs): Appropriate technology
for on-site wastewater treatment and re-use. 1996. Desalination 106: 296-
303.

Livestock Wastes Subcommittee, Midwest Plan Service, Livestock Waste
Facilities Handbook, MWPS - 18, Second Edition, Midwest Plan Service,
Ames, Iowa, 1985.

Reynolds, T.D., P.A. Richards. 1996. Unit operations and processes in

environmental engineering — 2"d edition. PWS Publishing Company. Boston,
MA.

101

Roeder, E. and W. Brookman. November 2006. Performance of Aerobic
Treatment Units: Monitoring Results from the Florida Keys.
Journal of Environmental Health. Vol. 69, Iss. 4; pg. 17.

Safferman, S.|., B.D. Burkes and RA. Parker. September/October 2004.
Carbon and Nutrient Removal from On-Site Wastewater Using Extended-
Aeration Activated Sludge and Ion Exchange. Water Environment
Research, Vol. 4, No. 5.

Sarkar, B., P. P. Chakrabarti, A. Vijaykumar, V. Kale. 2006. Wastewater
Treatment in Dairy Industries — Possibility of Reuse. Desalination, 195,
141-152.

USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006
(http://www.nass.usda.goleata_and_Statistics/Quick_Stats/).

USEPA Guidelines for Water Reuse. September 29, 2004. Technical paper no.
EPA/6251R-04/1 08

USEPA. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. February 2002.
Technical paper no. EPA/625/R-001008.

102

 

 

M

 

 

E s
i

i
/

S‘I‘YY EIBRARI
{Hill
1293 02956 4824

i

Ri.i[
E,
v.‘.‘
MI‘I
JI'ii
E

r

Al

T

S” .i
4 iii
rl'I
Ami I
w,
H

w.
M.I| .

V

i
i

3

v...
i...

 

n... I