Impact of Microscreen Pretreatment and Biofilm
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IMPACT OF MICROSCREEN PRETREATMENT AND BIOFILM PHOTOBIOREACTOR DESIGN ON EFFICIENCY OF DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER TREATMENT by James Roberts B.A.Sc., The University of British Columbia, 2016 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF APPLIED SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Civil Engineering) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July 2019 © James Roberts, 2019 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: Impact of Microscreen Pretreatment and Biofilm Photobioreactor Design on Efficiency of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment submitted by James Roberts in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science in Civil Engineering Examining Committee: Ryan Ziels Supervisor Pierre Bérubé Additional Examiner ii Abstract Biofilm photobioreactors rely on cooperation between algae and bacteria within a single biofilm to treat wastewater. Algae growth produces oxygen, which can subsequently be utilized by aerobic bacteria to degrade organic matter and produce carbon dioxide, which is then utilized as a carbon source by algae. Due to their relatively low maintenance and energy inputs, biofilm photobioreactors could be amenable for decentralized wastewater treatment. However, the impact of biofilm photobioreactor design on treatment efficiency has received little attention. Here, it was hypothesized that open (i.e. unsealed) versus closed (i.e. sealed) photobioreactors could promote different nitrogen removal pathways by altering redox conditions throughout a diel cycle. This study explored the effect of open versus closed photobioreactor configurations on nitrogen removal and the microbial community structure in two parallel photobioreactors treating microscreened decentralized wastewater. The reactors were intermittently lit in a 16hr-8hr light- dark cycle, and operated at an HRT of 2 days and SRT of 9 days. The influent feed regime and alkalinity addition were varied over three successive 30-day experimental phases. Microscreening was an effective primary treatment step, removing 70 ± 6% (95% c.i.) of suspended solids and 39 ± 9% of COD. The photobioreactors removed 90 ± 6 % and 83 ± 3% of the remaining suspended solids and COD respectively, independent of operating conditions. Alternating oxic and anoxic conditions were observed in both reactors during the lit and unlit periods, respectively, resulting nitrification and denitrification. Optimal nitrogen removal conditions were observed under a sequencing batch feed regime with alkalinity addition. Under these conditions, TKN removal was significantly higher in the open reactor at 93 ± 5% compared to 78 ± 6% in the closed reactor due to higher rates of nitrification and N assimilation. TN removal iii was similar at 77 ± 9% and 76 ± 8% in the open and closed systems, respectively. The dominant bacterial genus in the reactors was Tychonema, a cyanobacteria which comprised up to 87% of 16S rRNA gene amplicon reads. Overall, this study demonstrated that nitrogen removal pathways differ significantly in open and closed photobioreactors when operated at the same COD loading rate. iv Lay Summary With climate variability and urban population growth threatening the capacity of fresh water supplies around the world, interest has grown for decentralized wastewater treatment to generate clean water that can be reused for landscape irrigation and other non-potable uses. However, treatment technologies that are implemented for centralized wastewater treatment are not easily scaled down, as per capita energy and maintenance demands dramatically increase. Thus, alternative technologies must be considered for small-scale decentralized wastewater treatment. One such technology is the biofilm photobioreactor. Although there have been a number of studies exploring their use for wastewater treatment, the impact of reactor design on treatment efficiency has received little attention. Here, a bench-scale study was conducted that compared the treatment efficacy of open (unsealed) and closed (sealed) photobioreactors. The results from the study can be used to provide evidence of feasibility for urban wastewater reuse and inform future research on sustainable decentralized treatment. v Preface This dissertation is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, James Roberts. vi Table of Contents Abstract ....................................................................................................................................iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................ v Preface ...................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... vii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. x List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xi List of Equations ..................................................................................................................... xx Nomenclature ......................................................................................................................... xxi Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................... xxv Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review................................................................................................... 3 2.1 Decentralized Wastewater Treatment and Reuse .......................................................... 3 2.2 Primary Treatment: Microscreening ............................................................................. 6 2.3 Biological Treatment: Biofilm Photobioreactor .......................................................... 10 Chapter 3: Thesis Objectives .................................................................................................. 15 Chapter 4: Materials and Methods ........................................................................................ 17 4.1 Raw Wastewater Collection ....................................................................................... 17 4.2 Raw and Microscreened Wastewater Characterization ............................................... 17 4.3 Biofilm Photobioreactors ........................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Set-up ................................................................................................................ 18 4.3.2 Irradiance Calculation ........................................................................................ 20 vii 4.3.3 Inoculation ......................................................................................................... 21 4.3.4 Biomass Wasting ............................................................................................... 22 4.3.5 Influent Loading Rate ........................................................................................ 23 4.3.6 Phases of Operation ........................................................................................... 23 4.3.6.1 Influent Feed Regimes ................................................................................... 24 4.3.7 Diel Cycle Monitoring Experiments ................................................................... 25 4.3.8 Characterization of the microbial community with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing ........................................................................................................................ 26 4.4 Sampling and Analytical Methods ............................................................................. 27 4.5 Calculations ............................................................................................................... 31 4.6 Significance Testing .................................................................................................. 34 Chapter 5: Results................................................................................................................... 36 5.1 Raw Wastewater Quality and Microscreen Performance ............................................ 36 5.2 Biofilm PBR Performance ......................................................................................... 37 5.2.1 Secondary Treatment Performance ..................................................................... 39 5.2.2 Nitrogen Removal Performance ......................................................................... 40 5.2.2.1 Phase A: Continuous Feed, No Alkalinity Addition ........................................ 41 5.2.2.2 Phase B: Continuous Feed, Alkalinity Addition.............................................. 47 5.2.2.3 Phase C: Batch Feed, Alkalinity Addition ...................................................... 52 5.2.2.4 Continuous and Batch Feed Regime Comparison ........................................... 56 5.2.3 Biomass Production ..........................................................................................