4. results & discussionsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/47598/12/12... ·...

4. RESULTS &

DISCUSSIONS

218

The present study has been aimed at the ability of

some selected bacteria to degrade the organic matter of

the effluent of domestic wastewater and to demonstrate

the usage of various kinds of materials as filter media for

treatment of wastewater. The basic principle in a

biofilter is the biodegradation of pollutants by

microorganisms. Inoculation of bacteria is essential for

bioremediation of sewage.

4.1.1 Standardization of physico-chemical parameters

Sewage sample was collected and analyzed for 10

successive days. The values of various physico –

219

chemical parameters were tabulated in Table 4, page

418. The physico-chemical parameters of the raw

sewage are as follows: pH ranged from 7.1 – 8.05,

electric conductivity ranged from 2300 – 2900

mMhos/cm2, temperature ranged from 22 – 29

0C, total

suspended solids ranged from 345 – 410 mg/lit, volatile

suspended solids ranged from 113 – 170 mg/lit,

chlorides ranged from 125 – 201 mg/lit, total hardness

ranged from 355 – 455 mg/lit, alkalinity ranged from

400 – 560 mg/lit, COD ranged from 460 – 550 mg/lit,

BOD ranged from 110 – 220 mg/lit, total nitrogen

ranged from 39.4 – 56.1 mg/lit, total phosphorus ranged

from 5.92 – 12.0 mg/lit, oil and grease ranged from 28 –

50.4 mg/lit and sludge volume index ranged from 110 –

140 ml/g SS.

220

The results were found to be similar with the

results obtained by Abdul et al. (2010). They analyzed

wastewater samples from Al-Rustamiyah WWTP, and

reported that pH ranged from 6.87 – 8.40 with mean of

7.70, electric conductivity ranged from 1910.0 – 2120.0

µS/cm with mean of 1949.78, TSS ranged from 10.0 –

112.0 mg/lit with mean of 49.30, chlorides ranged from

171.44 – 254.92 mg/lit with mean of 205.25, BOD

ranged from 12.0 – 66.0 mg/lit with mean of 26.36 and

COD ranged from 36.0 – 80.0 mg/lit with mean of 53.10.

4.1.2 Bacterial adaptation studies

Adaptation studies were carried out by growing

the bacteria in nutrient media supplemented with 5 %, 10

%, 20 %, 30 %, 40 % 50 % 60 %, 75 %, 90 % and 100 %

221

sterilized sewage. The objective of adaptation of a

microbial community to sewage is to compare the

degradation potential in the field before and after a

specific pollutant spill has occurred (Eva and Springaely,

2003).

Bacterial survival in at various sewage concentrations

Upon adaptation to various sewage

concentrations plate count was performed on nutrient

agar plates. 1ml of sample was taken from 90% sterilized

sewage fed culture broth. The sample was serially

diluted up to 10-8

. 1ml of the sample was taken form 10-8

dilution and it was subjected to plating by pour plate

method for the development of microbial colonies in

222

nutrient agar medium and incubated in an incubator at

37°C for 24 hours.

For isolating the bacteria from adapted nutrient

culture broth (fed with 90% sterilized sewage) the

nutrient agar plates were inoculated with 1ml inoculum

from 10-8

dilution by pour plate method. The samples

were observed for growth after 24 hours of incubation.

Bacterial colonies (viable count) were observed in

nutrient agar plates and results are tabulated in table 5

page 419. Nitrobacter sps., showed more colony

forming units i.e. 45 X 108 when compared to other

microorganisms in the present study. It was followed by

Nitrosomonas sps., Pseudomonas denitrificans, Bacillus

mucilaginosus, Chromatium sps., Bacillus licheniformis,

Bacillus megatherium, Rhodococcus terrae,

223

Lactobacillus acidophilus. But Thiobacillus ferrooxidans

has not shown any colony on agar plate. Thiobacillus

ferrooxidans grows at pH 2.5 and it might be the reason

for absence of growth on nutrient agar plates of near to

neutral pH.

The purpose of adaptation is to allow bacterial

community to rapidly adapt to their new environment

(Eva and Springaely, 2003). There are several

mechanisms, or combinations by which microbial

communities can adapt to their environment. Firstly,

there can be an increase in population size of those

organisms that tolerate or even degrade the compound by

induction of appropriate genes. Secondly, the cells can

adapt through mutations of various kinds, such as single

nucleotide changes or DNA rearrangements that result in

224

resistance to or degradation of the compound. Thirdly,

they may acquire genetic information from either related

or phylogenetically distinct populations in the

community.

In the present study various microorganisms with

their respective characteristics were studied for their

degree of pollutant elimination (or) bioremediation of

sewage. Sewage collected was transferred to plastic tub

which was called as system and was inoculated with

respective adapted culture of bacteria. After 24 hours of

incubation (or) reaction time, samples were collected

from each system and various physicochemical

parameters were analyzed. The results were tabulated.

225

Efficiency of individual microorganism was

calculated using BOD removal efficiency formula. BOD

of raw sewage sample and treated sewage sample were

determined. The efficiency was calculated using the

following formula.

BOD removal efficiency =

Influent BOD – Effluent BOD X 100

Influent BOD

4.1.3 Evaluation of microorganisms based on

bioremediation of sewage sample

(Performance of individual microbial species)

4.1.3.1 Bacillus megatherium

The studies on bioremediation capabilities of

Bacillus megatherium revealed that there was a

reduction of BOD by 41.67% and Phosphorus decreased

226

by 60.85%. The changes in the remaining parameters are

tabulated in table 6 page 420. The percentage of

reduction of BOD in the wastewater by Bacillus

megatherium reached more than 40%. The reduction of

phosphorus levels upto 60%, which implies that it will

be useful for bioremediation of sewage. Hence, it was

considered to be one of the microorganism of sewage

treatment consortium.

Role of Bacillus megatherium in bioremediation of

sewage

Bacillus megatherium is a gram positive,

endospore forming, rod shaped, aerobic bacterium. The

strain was collected from National Collection of

Industrial Microorganisms (NCIM-2104) and was used

in the present study. Min Jin et al. (2005) reported 90%

of COD removal efficiency using microorganism

227

Bacillus megatherium as candidate in the consortium for

bioremediation of sewage. Usharani et al. (2009),

observed the phosphate removal efficiency of 38-55% by

bacillus sps., from wastewater. Usharani et al. (2009),

further reported that there is a 92.5% of phosphate

removal by using a consortium which include Bacillus

sps., Pseudomonas sps., and Enterobacter sps., It was,

therefore, envisaged that Bacillus megatherium is

suitable candidate for the removal of phosphorus from

domestic wastewater.

Phosphorus is recognized as one of the major

nutrients required by living organisms, involved in vital

physiological process. At the same time it can also be

considered as a pollutant if the concentration are high

under specific environmental conditions. It contributes to

228

increase eutrophication process of lakes and natural

waters (Usharani et al., 2009). The possible entry of this

ion into aquatic environment is through household

sewage water. The main sources of phosphorus released

into the environment include fertilizers, detergents,

cleaning preparation and boiler waters to which

phosphates are added for treatment (Pradyot, 1997). Bio-

treatment is a cost effective method for wastewater

before being discharged into the streams and rivers. Van

Loosdrecht et al., (1997) reported that biological

phosphate removal from wastewater is accepted because

of less cost (economic) and alternative to chemical

phosphate removal. According to Ioana et al. (2010),

Bacillus megatherium has bio-accumulative properties of

some heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, cadmium which

are used for biosolubilization of phosphate, silica etc.,

229

4.1.3.2 Nitrosomonas sp.

The results of Nitrosomonas treatment @ 1%

inoculum revealed that BOD decreased 46.34%. Various

other parameter changes are tabulated in table 6 page

420. The reduction of BOD of wastewater by

nitrosomonas was more than 46%. Hence, it was

considered as one of the essential microorganism in the

consortium for the bioremediation of sewage.

Nitrosomonas is a gram negative, rod shaped

aerobic bacterium having chemo-lithoautotrophic

properties. The strain was collected from National

Collection of Industrial Microorganisms (NCIM -5071)

and was used in the present study.

230

4.1.3.3 Nitrobacter

The treatment of wastewater by the addition of

Nitrobacter @ 1% revealed various changes in physico-

chemical parameters. BOD decreased by 41.43%, total

nitrogen decreased by 30.88%, ammonical-nitrogen

decreased by 40.31%, kjeldhal nitrogen decreased by

14.81%.

The results of other parameters are tabulated in table 7

page 421. Nitrobacter efficiently removed BOD of

wastewater by 41%, which is also illustrated by the

changes in the nitrite and nitrate values. Hence, it was

considered as one of the essential microorganism in the

consortium for the bioremediation of sewage.

Nitrobacter is a gram negative, rod shaped aerobic

bacterium having a flagella. The strain was collected

231

from National Collection of Industrial Microorganisms

(NCIM -5062) and was used in the present study. In

wastewater treatment the role of Nitrosomonas sps., and

Nitrobacter sps., cannot be separated as they contribute

to major physicochemical changes combined with in the

wastewater.

Min Jin et al., (2005), reported that the

ammonical nitrogen was removed with the efficiency

rate of 99% by using the organism Nitrobacter europea

at the rate of 2.5 X 106 and Nitrobacter winogradskyi at

the rate of 4.5 X 105. In nitrification, nitrosofying-

bacteria (e.g. Nitrosomonas) oxidize ammonia to nitrite

and nitrofying-bacteria (e.g. Nitrobacter) oxidise the

nitrite to nitrate. Dempsey et al., 2005 reported that these

bacteria obtain biochemical energy from the oxidation

step, and some of this energy is used to reduce carbon

232

dioxide to organic carbon, for incorporation into

biomass. Aside from requiring a reduced nitrogen

species and CO2, they also require similar nutrients to

other organisms, including molecular oxygen.

Harremoes (1982), reported that, in wastewater

treatment, nitrifying bacteria normally have to compete

for oxygen with the heterotrophic microbes responsible

for BOD oxidation. For example, in fixed biofilm

systems such as trickling filters, when the BOD

concentration is > 20 g m-3

, nitrification is limited by

oxygen availability.

According to Bock et al., (1986), nitrifying

bacteria are slow growing (under optimum conditions Td

= 8 h for Nitrosomonas, 10 h for Nitrobacter and are

therefore easily washed out of conventional suspension

233

culture systems, such as activated sludge, where the

prevailing conditions often result in doubling times of 1-

3 days. Hence, to operate a high rate nitrification

process, some form of biomass retention is required.

Although biomass retention is the chief

operational characteristic of traditional trickling filters, a

high cell concentration cannot be achieved because of

the large, inactive volume occupied by the biomass

support material. If the Td (doubling time of

microorganisms) is more than 4hours or 8 hours then the

quality of the wastewater may not change significantly in

a stipulated time. Hence it is essential to add suitable

external micro flora to the reactor to achieve parameters

of desired levels.

234

4.1.3.4 Pseudomonas denitrificans

The addition of inoculum Pseudomonas

denitrificans @ 1% for domestic wastewater revealed the

decrease in 43.3% and total nitrogen by 34.02%. Results

are tabulated in table 7 page 421. The removal efficiency

of BOD from wastewater by Pseudomonas denitrificans

was more than 43% and it clearly showed that the

removal of total nitrogen was 34%, in particular

ammonical nitrogen decreased by 38.73% from the

treatment system. Hence, it was considered as essential

microorganism in the consortium for the bioremediation

of sewage.

Pseudomonas denitrificans is a gram negative,

rod shaped, facultative anaerobic bacterium. The strain

was collected from National Collection of Industrial

235

Microorganisms (NCIM - 2038) and was used in the

present study.

The denitrifying microorganisms reduce nitrite

and nitrate to molecular nitrogen. Margardia et al.,

(2003) achieved 72-84% of nitrogen removal from the

treatment reactor with the help of denitrifying

microorganisms. The rate of the denitrification process is

influenced by the nature of the carbon sources, i.e., the

more easily degradable they are the faster the process

(Margarida et al 2003). Jerônimo (1998), recorded

maximum N2O production rates, in g N/g VSS/day, of

0.41 (10mgNO3-- N/L), 0.18 (30mg NO3

--N/L) and 0.19

(50mg NO3--N/L), with the process stabilizing at 15

hours, 15 hours and 30 hours respectively.

236

4.1.3.5 Chromatium sps.


Chromatium sps., revealed that a decrease in BOD by

37.14%, hydrogen sulphide decreased by 34.38%. The

results of various other parameters are tabulated in table

8 page 422. The percentage reduction of BOD in the

wastewater by Chromatium sps., was more than 37% and

reduction of hydrogen sulphide levels upto 34% means

that it will be useful for bioremediation of sewage.

Hence, it was considered one of the microorganism of

sewage treatment consortium. Chromatium is a gram

negative, rod shaped, aerobic bacterium having

phototrophic properties. The strain was collected from

National Collection of Industrial Microorganisms

(NCIM - 2336) and was used in the present study.

Biebl and Pfenning (1979), observed the presence and

237

growth of purple sulphur bacteria in mero-mictic and

eutrophic lakes, sea water lagoons and oxidation ponds

treating sewage. Ptennig (1967), reported the appearance

of high populations of purple sulfur bacteria in a local

oxidation sewage lagoon receiving municipal and

industrial wastes. These organisms are capable of an

autotrophic mode of nutrition while utilizing sulfide and

certain other substrates as electron sources in the

photosynthetic process. Holm and Vennes (1970),

reported that 24.45 % decrease of BOD, 100% removal

of H2S from 2mg/litre concentration to zero in the

sewage treatment using purple sulfur bacterial

population. They also observed that acetate, an organic

substrate commonly utilized by purple sulfur bacteria, is

removed from the lagoon environment during

exponential increases in purple sulfur bacteria. Although

238

the test organisms have an optimum sulfide

concentration of 45 to 60 g/ml for growth, the organisms

will grow at lesser concentrations found in the lagoon.

Isachenko and Yegorova (1939); May and Stahl

(1967), reported that purple sulfur bacteria have long

been associated with anaerobic, sulfide containing zones

in lakes and more recently these organisms have been

associated with treatment facilities. These organisms

were shown to have the capabilities of utilizing certain

organic compounds as electron donors or as carbon

sources. However, the action of these organisms in the

lagoon environment has not previously been fully

explored.

239

4.1.3.6 Bacillus mucilaginosus

The studies on treatment efficiency of Bacillus

mucilaginosus revealed the reduction of BOD by 43.10%

and TSS decreased by 37.11%. Results of other

parameters are tabulated intable 8 page 422. The results

implies that it will be useful for bioremediation of

sewage. Hence, it was considered one of the

microorganism of sewage treatment consortium. Bacillus

mucilaginosus is a gram positive, aerobic, thick capsule

producing rod shaped bacterium with a flagellum (Deng

et al., 2003). The strain was collected from National Bio-

fertilizer Development centre (NBDC). It was renamed

as Paenibacillus mucilaginosus (Hu et al., 2010).

According to Deng et al., (2003) Bacillus

mucilaginosus produce heat stable polysachharide

240

biofloculant. Most bioflocculants are produced by

microorganisms during their growth periods (Kwon et

al., 1996; Nakata and Kurane, 1999; Shih et al., 2001).

Bacteria can utilize the nutrients in the culture medium

to synthesize high molecular weight polymers internally

within the cell under the action of specific enzymes and

these polymers can be excreted and exist in the medium

or on the surface of the bacteria as capsule. Hence, the

action of bacteria converts the simple substances in their

environment into complex polymers that can be used as

flocculant. In wastewater treatment, flocculation is an

easy and effective method of removing suspended solids

(SS). Many chemical flocculants, including aluminum

sulfate, ferric chloride and polyacrylamide (PAM), have

been widely used, although there are concerns about the

toxicity of these chemicals for recovering organics,

241

especially in the food and fermentation industries. Since

bioflocculants can be nontoxic, harmless and without

secondary pollution, they have a great potential for use

in those industries.

4.1.3.7 Lactobacillus acidophilus

The addition of inoculum Lactobacillus

acidophilus @ 1% for domestic wastewater treatment

revealed a decrease in BOD by 33.79%. The results of

other parameters are tabulated in table 9 page 423. The

removal efficiency of BOD from wastewater by

Lactobacillus acidophilus was more than 33% and it

clearly showed the formation of extracellular

polysaccharide (EPS). Hence, it was considered as

essential microorganism in the consortium for the

bioremediation of sewage. Lactobacillus acidophilus is

242

an aerobic, gram-positive, rod shaped bacterium. The

strain was collected from National Collection of

Industrial Microorganisms (NCIM - 2285) and was used

in the present study. The concept of effective

microorganisms (EM) containing yeasts, lactic acid

bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus), photosynthetic

bacteria, actinomycetes and other types of bacteria was

developed by Prof. Teruo (Higa, 1991). This concept of

beneficial microorganisms was extensively used for soil

& plant ecosystems to increase microbial diversity and

health of soil and plant. In the present study an attempt

was made to use the same concept of beneficial

microorganism for the bioremediation of sewage. Asha

and Sharma (2010), used Lactobacillus acidophilus for

the removal of As (III) from arsenic containing

wastewater.

243

4.1.3.8 Bacillus licheniformis


Bacillus licheniformis revealed the reduction of BOD by

36.41%. The results are tabulated in table 9 page 423.

The percentage of reduction of BOD in the sewage by

Bacillus licheniformis was more than 36% and a

remarkable decrease of oil & grease (4.55%) means that

it will be useful for bioremediation of sewage. Hence, it

was considered one of the microorganism of sewage

treatment consortium. Bacillus licheniformis is gram

positive, rod shaped, thermophilic and spore forming

bacterium. The strain was collected form Microbial Type

Culture Collection Center (MTCC – 2450) and was used

in the present study. According to Drouin and Tyagi

(2007), municipal wastewater sludge (a rich source of

244

carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and others nutrients

required for growth and production) can be use as a

substrate for Bacillus licheniformis. By applying this

concept to the present study, an attempt was made to use

Bacillus licheniformis. According to Shih et al. (2001),

Bacillus licheniformis can be used as bioflocculant.

Lipids (fats, oils and grease) are major organic matters in

municipal and some industrial wastewaters and can

cause severe environmental pollution.

High concentration of these compounds in

wastewater often causes major problems in biological

wastewater treatment process. Because of their nature

they form a layer of water surfaces and decrease oxygen

transfer rate in an aerobic process.

245

4.1.3.9 Rhodococcus terrae

The treatment of wastewater by the addition of

Rhodococcus terrae, @ 1% revealed the reduction in

BOD by 28.26% and an increase of H2S by 31.82%.

Results of other parameters are tabulated in table 10

page 424. The removal efficiency of BOD from

wastewater by Rhodococcus terrae., was 28% and it

showed that an increase of hydrogen sulphide (31.82%)

and low removal efficiency of COD (11.53%) may not

be helpful for wastewater treatment. Hence, it was not

considered as a candidate in the consortium for the

bioremediation of sewage. Rhodococcus terrae is a

gram-positive, aerobic, chemoorganotrophic bacterium.

The strain was collected from National Collection of

Industrial Microorganisms (NCIM -5126) and was used

in the present study. R. terrae were transferred to

246

Gordona genera and named as Gordonia terrae (Collins

et al., 1988; Stackebrandt et al., 1988). According to

Andrea et al. (2008), Gordonia strains are more useful as

biosurfectant. They are able to degrade n-heptadecane

completely in batch cultures.

Nocentini et al. (2000), reported that Gordonia

terrae shows a very appreciable capability of degrading

pristane and squalene, which, for their high degree of

branching, are considered extremely recalcitrant to

biodegradation and often remain in the environment as

residual contaminants after bioremediation. Ron and

Rosenberg (2001), reported that Gordonia sp. shows a

complex change in cell surface properties during growth

on hydrocarbons. These strains can use surface active

compounds to regulate their cell surface properties to

attach and detach from surfaces such as hydrocarbons.

247

By the presence of biosurfectant properties the

microorganisms Rhodococcus terrae was selected for the

study. But the results were not promising by using the

strain. Even though the strain is capable of degrading

aromatic compounds, its role is beyond the scope of the

present study. Hence it was not considered as candidate

for the bioremediation of domestic wastewater.

4.1.3.10 Thiobacillus ferrooxidans

The results of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans

treatment @ 1% inoculum revealed a slight decrease in

BOD by 5.23% whereas COD increased by 0.2%. The

results of various other parameters are tabulated in table

10 page 424. The removal efficiency of BOD from

wastewater by Thiobacillus ferrooxidans was absent and

it was increased by 5.23% and overall performance for

248

removal of pollutants from sewage was also not at an

acceptable mode. Hence, it was not considered as a

candidate of the consortium for the bioremediation of

sewage. Thiobacillus ferrooxidans is a gram-negative,

rod shaped, motile and aerobic bacterium and grows best

at pH range of 1.5 – 2.5. The strain which was collected

form Microbial Type Culture Collection Center (MTCC

- 2361) was used in the present study. According to

Karger (2005), Thiobacillus flourishes in mud, bogs,

sewage, brakish springs and acid mines. It derives

energy from oxidation of sulphur compounds such as

elemental suphur, sulphides and thiosulphate converting

the toxic compounds into non-toxic sulphate that are

useful to other microorganisms. Van langerhove et al.

(1986) and Kyeoung et al. (1992), stated that

Thiobacillus sps., are responsible for degradation activity

249

of sewage. As per the previous reports the organism

Thiobacillus ferrooxidans is capable of converting

various toxic compounds in the sewage, the overall

performance is not promising to continue the organism

in the consortium. The variation in the pH might be one

reason for performance failure in sewage bioremediation.

Significance of bacterial inoculation

According to Amit et al. (2003), the bacterial

inoculation from external source is essential. Without a

start up culture, requires a long period of time and may

therefore cause significant losses and environmental

harm due to discharge of nitrogen rich effluents. They

reported that an external start up nitrifying enrichment

culture performed similarly to the natural bacterial

population of an established pond biofilter and superior

250

to the performance of similar biofilters without a start up

culture (control) by demonstrating a laboratory scale

setup (7-l aquaria with shrimp and fish).

Preparation of Consortium

It is evident that the role of Nitrosomonas &

Nitrobacter sps in sewage degradation is more.

Moreover, the Td (doubling time) for these two

organisms are also more than 8 hours. Hence the

concentration of these two microorganisms were doubled

i.e., at the rate of 20% each and remaining six

microorganisms at the rate of 10% each. Experiments

were conducted using this ratio.

Significance of consortium

Biotreatment processes generally involve mixed

carbon energy substrates and multiple nutrients serving

251

each particular physiological requirement, clearly

emphasizing a need for concept expansion in order to

allow such processes to be evaluated. The ultimate

performance of mixed process cultures employed in

biotreatment process depends on both intra-consortium

and inter-consortia interactions within the overall

community. This comprises the process culture with

respect to imposed process operating and environmental

conditions. Two distinct situations occur when the

functioning of mixed cultures for specific pollutant

biodegradation under essentially aerobic conditions is

considered. These involve either the employment of a

culture in which a complementary sequence of catabolic

activities from several associated strains is harnessed in

order to generate a complete degradative pathway for the

pollutant under consideration or employment of a culture

252

in which the fastidiousness of the primary pollutant

degrading strain is diminished by the actions of several

associated ancillary strains. Both types of mixed culture

can result from enrichments but the former can also

result from constitution using independently isolated

strains from diverse sources. In the case of the latter,

reconstitution can only follow complete fractionation of

a mixed enrichment culture. In the case of the former

type of mixed culture, the number of strains necessary

for the constitution of the complete degradative pathway,

in laboratory situations, reduce as a result of plasmid

transfer (Hartmann et al., 1979). And such occurrences

during the biodegradation of strictly xenobiotic

compounds have encouraging proposals for the use of

genetically manipulated monocultures as process

cultures for waste treatment process (Fujita and Ike,

253

1994). However, the development of such concepts is

that the transfer of a characteristic, i.e., a portion of a

degradative pathway, allows neither the construction of

entirely novel pathways nor the development of novel

enzyme specificities. Furthermore, manipulation

enhances fastidiousness and reduces strain

competitiveness and performance under actual operating

conditions.

4.1.4 Reactor design

Open type reactors were designed to

accommodate the volume of 50 litres of sewage sample

and about 16 litres of air. 50 litres of sewage sample was

considered as working sample. Four reactors were

fabricated with pre determined size of 60 cm length, 30

cm breadth and 37 cm height. One reactor was used as

254

blank and remaining three were used for treatment as

triplicate for sewage sample. The experimental design

was batch type and work was done one after another for

each variable of the work. 50 litres volume of sewage

sample was transferred to reactor using rubber hose pipe

from sewage tank.

4.1.5 Optimization studies

The optimization studies revealed that the

percentage of removal efficiency was more at a

particular concentration of every parameter. For each

parameter the condition at maximum removal efficiency

obtained was taken into consideration as optimized

condition of that parameter for further experiments.

255

4.1.5.1 Optimization of concentration of inoculums

The results of removal efficiency of pollutant in

terms of BOD in the domestic wastewater at various

concentration of inoculum of consortium were tabulated.

It was observed that maximum BOD removal efficiency

(%) was obtained with 0.2 % inoculum concentration.


consortium inoculation in terms of BOD reduction was

56.12% at the concentration of 0.05% (or) 500 ppm,

61.55% at the concentration of 0.1%, 63.80% at the

concentration of 0.2%, 64.44% at the concentration of

0.3%, 65.13% at the concentration of 0.4% and 66.16%

at the concentration of 0.5%. Results of various other

physico-chemical parameters are tabulated (Table 11 –

13, pages 425-427).

256

As the quantity of wastewater is more, it is found

that using more than 0.5% inoculum is not feasible. It is

believed that instead of using high concentration of

inoculum we have to screen, isolate and enumerate high

efficiency strains of microorganisms. Nadirah et al.

(2008), reported a 61% removal of BOD, 97% COD,

86% removal of ammonia, 71% removal of total

suspended solids, 50% removal of nitrate and 53%

removal of oil and grease using Pseudomonas putida,

Pseudomonas fluorescence, Xanthobacter sps., and

Rhodoccus sps., for treatment of domestic wastewater.

Min Jin et al. (2005), reported a 91.7% COD removal

and 99% ammonical-nitrogen removal efficiency using

nitrosomonas europea, nitrobacteria windogradskyi,

Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus megatherium, Bacillus

sphaericus for the treatment of domestic sewage and

257

membrane bioreactors in 5 hours hydraulic retention

time. Balaji et al. (2005), reported a 71% of BOD

removal using cow dung as the source of

microorganisms with dosing of 3% and 18 hours HRT

during the experiments conducted for treatment of

tannary industry wastewater. According to Prasad and

Manjunath (2010), lipid content removal and 99% of

BOD removal can be obtained using 1% of bacterial

consortium. Deng et al.(2003), reported 85.5% of TSS

removal and 68.5% COD removal using 0.01% of

Bacillus mucilaginosus as inoculant for biofloculating

material for the treatment of starch wastewater.

Graphical representation (fig 1, page 510) is made for

various physico-chemical parameters like total

suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, biochemical

oxygen demand, nitrogen, phosphorus and hydrogen

258

sulphide, because they are major pollution parameters in

which decrease / increase is the index of treatment

process.

4.1.5.2 Optimization of hydraulic retention time

(HRT)

The maximum removal efficiency of BOD was

obtained with 12 hours HRT. The results of removal

efficiency of BOD at different HRT are tabulated (Table

14 – 16, pages 428 - 430). The treatment of wastewater

by the addition of 0.2% inoculum results in the decrease

of BOD by 32.11% for 4 hours HRT. It was observed

that 46.42% of BOD was decreased for 8 hours HRT.

60.87% of BOD was removed for 12 hours HRT. For 16

hours HRT BOD was decreased by 62.25%. For 20

hours HRT BOD decreased by 63.87% and BOD was

259

63.9% for 24 hours HRT. Results of various other

physico-chemical parameters are tabulated. Hashmi

Imran (2007), achieved the mean removal efficiency of

COD at the rate of 87% after 24 hours of treatment using

activated sludge. Chuang et al. (1997), reported that high

HRT may helps in the production of heterotrophic

biomass and finally results in readily biodegradable

COD from the sewage. Abbas et al. (2008), proved the

denitrification ability of the bioreactor using

immobilized methyl cellulose at a very low hydraulic

retention time i.e., 3 hours. Dempsey et al. (2005),

studied the performance of pilot scale expanded bed for

removal of ammonia, suspended solids and

carbonaceous COD using activated sludge for 42 days

operation with low loading rates. They obtained the

results of wastewater treatment i.e., 56% BOD removal

260

and 62% of TSS removal. Shanableh et al. (1997), stated

that high HRT helps the polyphosphate accumulating

biomass to dominate the bioreactor system. Total

nitrogen removal also increased with increase of HRT.

Practically wastewater treatment plants have to be

designed to meet a number of conditions that are

influenced by flow rates, wastewater characteristics and

combination of both. The development and forecasting

of average daily flow rates are necessary to determine

the design capacity as well as the hydraulic requirements

of the treatment system. In the present study, 0.2% (2000

ppm) inoculum rate and 12 hours HRT were considered

as optimized to use for further experimentations.

Graphical representation of HRT effect was illustrated in

fig 2, page 511.

261

4.2 Chapter II

Preparation of biofilter material

All the materials were washed with distilled

water and dried for 24 hours. Later materials were

subjected to autoclaving @ 121°C for 20 minutes. Nylon

threads and plastic balls were wiped with ethanol and

used in the present study. Experiments were conducted

using natural filter media as material. Granite stones of

size 2cm X 2cm X 0.3cm height of equal sized cube

shapes were used for present study (Image 3, page 503).

Volume of the stone was calculated using the

formula

V = l x b x h, and it was observed that each stone has a

volume of 1.2 cm3. Volume of the reactor was calculated

and it was observed that it has 66600 cm3

(or) 0.066 m3.

262

Based on the volume of the reactor, various volumes of

stones i.e., 4167 pieces (10% of working volume), 8333

pieces (20% of volume), 12500 pieces (30% of volume)

and 16667 pieces (40% of volume) were used in the

present study. Surface area of the stone was determined

and it was 10.4 cm2 for each stone.

The specific surface area of stone was determined

by dividing the surface area with volume of the stone

and converted to meter scale and it was 866.67 m2/m

3.

The concentration of inoculum (0.2%) and 12 hours of

hydraulic retention time were optimized for domestic

wastewater treatment in the previous chapter. They were

considered as standard to determine the effect of volume

of stone as biofilter material.

263

4.2.1 Effect of various volumes of granite chips as

biofilter material in the presence of 0.2%

inoculum and 12 hours HRT

Effect of various volumes of stone (granite chips)

as biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT were studied. It was observed that the

reduction of BOD was 62.14% in the presence of 10%

volume of filter material (granite chips). 57.3% of BOD

was decreased in 20% volume of filter material. 61.88%

of BOD was removed with 30% volume of filter material

and 62.14% of BOD was decreased in the presence of

40% volume of filter material. Results of various other


18, page 431-432).

After the completion of experiments with various

volumes of stones as biofilter material, it was noticed

264

that there was no significant variation in the removal

efficiency of pollutant. The results were more or less

similar to that of experiments without filter material.

Graphical representation is illustrated in fig 3 page 512 .

Further experimentation were continued by using 10%

volume of stones as optimized volume of biofilter

material, 0.2% inoculum at various hydraulic retention

times like 8 hours, 9 hours, 10 hours, 11 hours and 12

hours to determine the effect of hydraulic retention time

in the presence of stone as biofilter material.

4.2.2 Effect of various HRT’s in the presence of 10 %

volume of stones as biofilter material, 0.2%

inoculums


obtained at 12 hours of hydraulic retention time. The

results of removal efficiency of biochemical oxygen

265

demand at different HRTs are tabulated. The treatment

of wastewater by the addition of 0.2% inoculum and

10% volume of stones as biofilter material revealed that

the reduction of BOD by 46.19% for 8 hours HRT,

48.44% for 9 hours HRT, 51.98% for 10 hours HRT,

54.04% for 11 hours HRT and 60.94% for 12 hours

HRT. Results of various other physico-chemical

parameters are tabulated (Table 19 – 21, page 433 - 435).

After completion of experimentation with 10% volume

of stones as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum at various

HRTs, it was noticed that volume of filter material and

HRT did not show any significant changes during the

treatment process when compared to various HRTs in

the presence of 0.2 % inoculum without filter material.

Graphical illustration was made and is represented in fig

4 page 513. Further experimentation was conducted to

266

determine the viability and increase of performance of

filter material. Experiments were conducted for 60 days

and samples of wastewater before and after treatment

were analyzed at every 10 day interval.

4.2.3 Effect of Time period

The maximum removal efficiency of biochemical

oxygen demand (62.11%) was obtained after 40 days of

time period and continued thereafter onwards. The

results of removal efficiency of biochemical oxygen

demand at different time periods are tabulated. Effect of

10 days time period on 10% volume of stone as biofilter

material along with 0.2% consortium as inoculum & 12

hours HRT for domestic wastewater treatment in terms

of BOD removal revealed that the reduction of BOD by

61.39% for 10 days time period, 60.99% for 20 days

267

time period, 62.11% for 30 days time period, 61.73% for

40 days time period, 62.08% for 50 days time period and

62.11% for 60 days time period. Results of various other


24, page 436-438). After completion of experimentation

with 10% volume of stones as biofilter material, 0.2 %

inoculum and 12 hours hydraulic retention time at

various time periods, it was noticed that a slight increase

in the efficiency removal of pollutants increased after 40

days of operation, when compared to various HRTs in

the presence of 0.2 % inoculum without filter material.

Graphical illustration was made and it is represented in

fig 5 page 514.

In support of our findings, Metcalf and Eddy,

(1995), reported that the most commonly used filter

268

material for biofiltration is high quality granite stones

and furnace slag. They suggested that uniform size of

stone ranging from 3-4 inches or 75-100 mm is suitable

material for filtration process.

Valentine et al. (2010), reported that 98%

removal of total coliforms and fecal streptococci was

achieved after 14 days of hydraulic retention time for

pathogen reduction in rural water supply using granite

gravel of size 0.15 sq.mm as biofilter media. They

suggested that the pathogen removal was more in granite

gravel filter media when compared to sand bed filter and

zero valant iron (ZVI) filters. Valentine et al., (2010)

also reported that the biofilter made up of granite chips is

responsible for production of natural organic matter is

more at the time of 28 days. Sammaiah et al., (1991),

269

reported COD removal in the range of 62.8 - 91.3 %

with 51 % granite stone bed porosity as mobilizing

media in upflow anaerobic filter process. Tyrrel et al.

(2008), reported 7% removal efficiency of COD and

70% removal of ammonical nitrogen in the presence of

granite stone as filter material and stated that granite

chip shows resilient response i.e., efficiency initially dips

and then recovers after a period of time and gradually

improves. They studied the nature and removal

efficiency capabilities of granite stone extensively. They

used granite stone as biofilter material along with two

materials compost and over size for the bioremediation

of leachate. They suggested that chipped granite is a

traditional medium used in the construction of biofilters

for the treatment of urban wastewater. In the present

study, the overall performance of granite stone was very

270

low when compared with the experimentation without

the addition of filter materials. At 30 days time period,

the granite stone biofilter resulted in slight decrease (2-

3%) in removal efficiency. Later after 40 days time

period the removal efficiency gradually increased.

4.3 Chapter III

Clay balls as biofilter material

Experiments were conducted using natural

processed filter media as material. Clay balls and

sintered glass cylinders (air stone) were used in the

present study. Clay balls of radius 2 cm of equal sized

sphere shaped balls were used for present study (Image

4, page 504). Volume of the clay ball was calculated

using formula V = 4/3πr3, and it was observed that each

clay ball had a volume of 33.49 cm3. Volume of the

271

reactor was calculated and it was observed that it was

66600 cm3

(or) 0.066 m3. Based on the volume of the

reactor, various volumes of clay balls i.e., 149 pieces

(10% of working volume), 299 pieces (20% of volume),

448 pieces (30% of volume) and 597 pieces (40% of

volume) were used in the present study. Surface area of

the clay ball was determined and it was 50.24 cm2 for

each clay ball. The specific surface area of clay ball was

determined by dividing the surface area with volume of

the clay ball and converted to meter scale and it was

150.0 m2/m

3.

4.3.1 Effect of various volumes of clay balls as

biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium

and 12 hours hydraulic retention time

The concentration of inoculum (0.2%) and 12

hours of HRT were optimized for domestic wastewater

272

treatment in the previous chapter. They were considered

as standard to determine the effect of volume of clay

balls as biofilter material. Effect of various volumes of

clay balls as biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT were studied. The

reduction BOD was 64.11% in the presence of 10%

volume of filter material (clay balls), 67.82% BOD

removal was observed with 20% volume of filter

material. BOD was decreased by 71.79% with 30%

volume of filter material and it was 72.05% in the

presence of 40% volume of filter material. Results of

various other physico-chemical parameters are tabulated

(Table 25 – 26, page 439 - 440).

After the completion of experiments with various

volumes of clay balls as biofilter material, it was noticed

273

that there was a significant variation in the removal

efficiency of pollutant. The results were observed to be

useful for sewage treatment process. Graph was

illustrated and is represented in fig 6 page 515. Further

experimentation was continued by using 30% of clay

balls as optimized volume of biofilter material, 0.2%

inoculum at various HRT’s like 8 hours, 9 hours, 10

hours, 11 hours and 12 hours to determine the effect of

HRT in the presence of clay balls as biofilter material.


volume of clay balls as biofilter material, 0.2%

inoculum


obtained after 10 hours of hydraulic retention time. The

treatment of wastewater by the addition of 0.2%

inoculum and 30% volume of clay balls as biofilter

274

material revealed the reduction of BOD by 60.31% for 8

hours HRT, 65.35% for 9 hours HRT, 69.57% for 10

hours HRT, 69.93% for 11 hours HRT and 71.13% for

12 hours HRT. Results of various other physico-

chemical parameters are tabulated (Tables 27 – 29, page

441 - 443).

After completion of experimentation with 30%

volume of clay balls as biofilter material, 0.2 %

inoculum at various HRTs, it was noticed that 10 hours

HRT shows significant changes during the treatment

process. Hence, 10 hours was considered as optimized

HRT. Graphical representation was made and illustrated

in fig 7, page 516. Further experimentation was

conducted to determine the viability and increase of

performance of filter material. Experiments were

275

conducted for 60 days and samples of wastewater before

and after treatment were analyzed for every 10 day

interval.

4.3.3 Effect of Time period


obtained up to 30 days of time period. The results of

removal efficiency of BOD at different time periods are

tabulated. Effect of 10 days time period on 30% volume

of clay balls as biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium as inoculum & 10 hours HRT for domestic

wastewater treatment in terms of BOD removal revealed

that the reduction of BOD by 71.04% for 10 days time

period, 71.90% for 20 days time period, 72.92% for 30

days time period, 68.35% for 40 days time period,

62.04% for 50 days time period and 62.74% for 60 days

276

time period. Results of various other physico-chemical

parameters are tabulated (Table 30 – 32, page 444 - 446).


volume of clay balls as biofilter material, 0.2 %

inoculum and 10 hours hydraulic retention time at

various time periods, it was noticed that the efficiency

removal of BOD and other pollutants were increased

upto 30 days of operation. Later it was observed that a

decrease of efficiency removal of BOD and other

pollutants for 40 days, 50 days & 60 days. Graph was

illustrated and represented in fig 8 page 517. Hence, 30

days of time period can be consider as an optimized time

period for the treatment process of domestic wastewater.

Meyer et al. (2000), reported that 14.5% of

phosphorus removal efficiency, 28.85% COD removal

277

efficiency and increased concentration of suspended

solids from 0.62 gm/litre to 1.78 gm/litre using sewage

sludge mixed clay balls in 70:30 ratio as biofilter media

for sewage treatment. They used 65% volume of filter

material with 24 hours HRT.

Petter et al., (2010), used Filtralite®P a clay

aggregates as a biofilter material and achieved >80%

removal of organic matter measured as biochemical

oxygen demand (BOD), >94% of total phosphorus (TP)

and 32 to 66% total nitrogen (TN) and the ammonia

(NH4) removal ranged from 38 to 80%. They used the

biofilter which consisted of a 0.6m deep filter of light-

weight clay aggregates (Filtralite®P) in the size range of

2–10mm. In the present study, the BOD removal

278

efficiency ranged from 60-73% and it found to be

significant for usage as filter material.

Sintered glass as filter material


processed filter media as material. Sintered glass

cylinders of radius of radius 0.7 cm and height of 2.6 cm

of equal sized cylinder shaped sintered glass material

was used for present study (Image 5, page 505 ). Volume

of the sintered glass cylinder was calculated using

formula V = πr2h, and it was observed that each sintered

glass cylinder had a volume of 4.0 cm3. Based on the

volume of the reactor, various volumes of sintered glass

cylinders i.e., 1250 pieces (10% of working volume),

2500 pieces (20% of volume), 3750 pieces (30% of

volume) and 5000 pieces (40% of volume) were used in

279

the present study. Surface area of the sintered glass

cylinder was determined and it was 14.51 cm2 for each

sintered glass cylinder. The specific surface area of

sintered glass cylinder was determined by dividing the

surface area with volume of the sintered glass cylinder


3.

4.3.4 Effect of various volumes of sintered glass

cylinders as biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours hydraulic retention

time

Effect of various volumes of sintered glass

cylinders as biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT were studied. The

reduction of BOD was 64.85% in the presence of 10%

volume of filter material (sintered glass cylinders). It

was 68.57% with 20% volume of filter material. It was

280

observed that the removal of BOD was 72.65% with

30% volume of filter material and it was 72.55% in the

presence of 40% volume of filter material. Results of

various other physico- chemical parameters are tabulated

(Table 33 – 34, page 447 - 448). After the completion of

experiments with various volumes of sintered glass

cylinders as biofilter material, it was noted that there was

a significant variation in the removal efficiency of

pollutants. The results were observed to be useful for

sewage treatment process (fig 9, page 518). Further

experimentation was continued using 30% of sintered

glass cylinders as optimized volume of biofilter material,

0.2% inoculum at various hydraulic retention times like

8 hours, 9 hours, 10 hours, 11 hours and 12 hours to

determine the effect of hydraulic retention time in the

presence of sintered glass cylinders as biofilter material.

281


volume of sintered glass cylinders as biofilter

material, 0.2% inoculum


obtained after 10 hours of HRT. The results of removal

efficiency of BOD at different HRTs are tabulated. The

maximum removal efficiency of BOD was obtained after

10 hours of HRT. The treatment of wastewater by the

addition of 0.2% inoculum and 30% volume of sintered

glass cylinders as biofilter material revealed the

reduction of BOD by 60.42% for 8 hours HRT, 63.50%

for 9 hours HRT, 70.49% for 10 hours HRT, 71.08% for

11 hours HRT and 71.23% for 12 hours HRT. Results of

various other physico-chemical parameters are tabulated

(Table 35 – 37, page 449 - 451).

282

After completion of experimentation with 30% volume

of sintered glass cylinders as biofilter material, 0.2 %

inoculum at various HRTs, it was noticed that 10 hours

HRT shows significant changes during the treatment

process. Hence, it was considered that 10 hours HRT is

optimized HRT. Graphical representation is illustrated in

fig 10, page 519. Further experimentation was conducted

to determine the viability and increase of performance of



were analyzed at every 10 day interval.

4.3.6 Time period


obtained up to 30 days of time period. Effect of time

period on 30% volume of sintered glass cylinders as

biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium as

283

inoculum & 10 hours HRT for domestic wastewater

treatment in terms of BOD removal revealed that the

reduction of BOD by 71.61% for 10 days time period,



50 days time period and 63.13% for 60 days time period.

Results of various other physico-chemical parameters are

tabulated (Table 38 – 40, page 452 - 454).


volume of sintered glass cylinders as biofilter material,

0.2 % inoculum and 10 hours HRT at various time

periods, it was noticed that the efficiency removal of

BOD and other pollutants were increased up to 30 days

of operation. Later a decrease of efficiency removal of

BOD and other pollutants was observed for 40 days, 50

284

days & 60 days (fig 11, page 520). Hence, 30 days of

time period can be consider as optimized time period for

the treatment process of domestic wastewater.

4.4. Chapter IV


biogenic material as material. Corn cobs and wood chips

were used in the present study. Corn cobs were collected

from local maize fields and wood chips from the local

carpenter. Uneven tips of both the biogenic materials

were made to even using a saw machine.

Corn cobs as filter material

Corn cobs of outer radius 1.25 cm, inner radius

of 0.5 cm and height of various sizes ranging from 5 cm

285

to 10 cm of hollow cylindrical shaped material were

used in the present study (Image 6 & 7, page 506). The

mean height of cobs was measured and it was 7.6 cm.

Volume of the hollow cylindrical corn cobs was

calculated using formula V = π h (R2- r

2), and it was

observed that each hollow cylindrical corn cob had a

volume of 31.32 cm3. Based on the volume of the

reactor, various volumes of hollow cylindrical corn cobs

i.e., 160 pieces (10% of working volume), 319 pieces

(20% of volume), 479 pieces (30% of volume) and 639

pieces (40% of volume) were used in the present study.

Surface area of the corn cob was determined and it was

327.68 cm2 for corn cob having the outer diameter of 2.5

cm, inner diameter of 1cm and a mean height of 7.6 cm.

The specific surface area of corn cob was determined by

dividing the surface area with volume of the corn cob

286


3.

Prior to using hollow cylindrical corncobs, experiments

were conducted using cylindrical corn cobs without

removing central core material i.e., parenchyma. Results

were not promising using cylindrical cobs when

compared to hollow cylindrical corn cobs.

4.4.1. Effect of various volumes of corn cobs as

biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT were

determined.

The results showed the reduction of BOD by

58.08% in the presence of 10% volume of corn cobs and

51.98% in the presence of 20% volume of filter material

(Table 41, page 455). It was observed that the addition of

corn cobs at the rate of 10% & 20% volume to the

treatment system, the BOD and other parameters were

287

increased when compared to removal efficiency of

microorganisms @ 0.2% and 12 hours HRT. Hence,

further experimentation was continued by removing the

central medullary portion of the corn cob. It comprises of

soft parenchymatous tissue. After removal of medulla,

the corn cob becomes central hollow cylinder and

surface area was calculated and used in the present

study.

The results of various volumes of corn cobs

(hollow cylindrical) as biofilter material along with 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours hydraulic retention time for the

treatment of domestic wastewater treatment revealed that

a decrease in the BOD by 67.34% in the presence of 10

% volume of hollow cylindrical corn cobs. BOD was

removed by 74.9% with 20% volume of filter material.

288

Removal of BOD by 76.26% occurred with 30% of filter

material and 78.8% of BOD was removed in the

presence of 40% filter material (Table 42 – 43 page 456

& 457). After the completion of experiments with

various volumes of hollow cylindrical corn cobs as

biofilter material, it was noticed that there was a

significant variation in the removal efficiency of

pollutant. The results were observed to be useful for

sewage treatment process. Graph was illustrated and it is

represented in fig. 12 page 521. Further experimentation

was continued by using 20% of hollow cylindrical corn

cobs as optimized volume of biofilter material, 0.2%



HRT in the presence of hollow cylindrical corn cobs as

biofilter material.

289

4.4.2 Effect of various HRT’s in the presence of 20

% volume of hollow cylindrical corn cobs as

biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum


obtained after 9 hours of HRT. The results of removal

efficiency of BOD demand at different HRTs are

tabulated. The treatment of wastewater by the addition of

0.2% inoculum and 20% volume of hollow cylindrical

corn cobs as biofilter material for various HRT’s

revealed the reduction of BOD by 67.03% for 8 hours of

HRT, 78.14% for 9 hours HRT, 78.1% for 10 hours

HRT, 78.63% for 11 hours of HRT and 81.76% for 12

hours of HRT (Table 44 – 46, page 458 - 460).


volume of hollow cylindrical corn cobs as biofilter

material, 0.2 % inoculum at various HRTs, it was

290

noticed that 9 hours HRT showed significant changes

during the treatment process. Hence, 9 hours HRT was

considered as optimized HRT (fig 13, page 522). Further

experimentation was conducted to determine the

viability and increase of performance of filter material.

Experiments were conducted for 60 days and samples of

wastewater before and after treatment were analyzed for

every 10 day interval.

4.4.3 Time period




tabulated. Effect of time period on 20% volume of corn

cobs as biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium as

inoculum and 9 hours HRT for domestic wastewater

291

treatment in terms of BOD removal revealed the

reduction of BOD by 83.05% for 10 days time period. It

was observed that 83.15% BOD was removed in 20 days

time period, 84.52% in 30 days time period, 84.72% in

40 days time period, 81.38% in 50 days time period and

80.02% for 60 days time period. Results of various other


49, page 461 - 463). After completion of

experimentation with 20% volume of hollow cylindrical

corn cobs as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum and 9

hours HRT at various time periods, it was noted that the

efficiency removal of BOD and other pollutants

increased up to 40 days of operation. Later it was

observed that a decrease of efficiency removal of BOD

and other pollutants occurred for 50 days & 60 days.

Graphical representation was made and illustrated in fig

292

14, page 523. Hence, 40 days of time period can be

considered as optimized time period for the treatment

process of domestic wastewater. According to Jignesh et

al. (2008), about 10504 MT of maize is produced in

India annually and the cobs are thrown as a waste. Hence

cobs will be available free of cost and can be utilized in

domestic wastewater treatment.

Wood chip as biofilter material


biogenic filter media like wood chip as filter material.

Wood chips of size 8.4 cm X 0.8 cm X 0.7cm, (length X

breadth X height) of equal sized rectangular cube shaped

wood pieces were used for the present study (Image 8,

page 507). Volume of the wood chip was calculated

using formula V = l x b x h, and it was observed that

293

each wood chip had a volume of 4.7 cm3. Based on the

volume of the reactor, various volumes of wood chips


(20% of volume), 3189 pieces (30% of volume) and

4252 pieces (40% of volume) were used in the present

study. Surface area of the wood chip was determined and

it was 26.32 cm2 for each wood chip. The specific

surface area of wood chip was determined by dividing

the surface area with the volume of the wood chip and

converted to meter scale and it was 559.52 m2/m

3.

4.4.4 Effect of volume of wood chips

The results of various volumes of wood chips as

biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT for the treatment of domestic wastewater

treatment revealed a decrease in the BOD by 67.14% in

294

the presence of 10 % volume of filter material (wood

chips). 70.16% of BOD was removed with 20% volume

of filter material. 74.66% of BOD was removed in the

presence of 30% filter and 76.97% with 40% filter

material (Table 50 – 51, page 464 & 465). After the

completion of experiments with various volumes of

wood chips as biofilter material, it was noted that there

was a significant variation in the removal efficiency of


sewage treatment process (fig 15, page 524). Further

experimentation was continued by using 30% of wood

chips as optimized volume of biofilter material, 0.2%



hydraulic retention time in the presence of wood chips as

biofilter material.

295

4.4.5 Effect of various hydraulic retention times in

the presence of 30% volume of wood chips as

biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum at various

HRTs


obtained after 10 hours of hydraulic retention time. The

treatment of wastewater by the addition of 0.2%

inoculum and 30% volume of wood chips as biofilter

material for various HRT’s revealed the reduction of

BOD by 66.84% for 8 hours of HRT, 71.45% for 9 hours

HRT, 73.91% for 10 hours HRT, 78.38% for 11 hours of

HRT and 80.25% for 12 hours of HRT (Table 52 – 54,

page 466 - 468). After completion of experimentation

with 30% volume of wood chips as biofilter material, 0.2

% inoculum at various HRTs, it was noted that 10 hours

HRT showed significant changes during the treatment

process. Hence, 10 hours HRT was considered as

296

optimized HRT (fig 16, page 525). Further






4.4.6 Time period




tabulated. Effect of time period on 30% volume of wood

chips as biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium as

inoculum & 10 hours HRT for domestic wastewater



297





tabulated (Table 55 – 57, page 469 - 471). After

completion of experimentation with 30% volume of

wood chips as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum and 10


efficiency removal of BOD and other pollutants were

increased up to 50 days of operation. Later a decrease of

efficiency removal of BOD and other pollutants was

observed for 60 days (fig 17, page 526). Hence, 50 days

of time period can be considered as optimized time

period for the treatment process of domestic wastewater.

Miao et al. (2005), reported that 97% removal efficiency

of rapeseed oil smoke by pseudomonas sps., with the

298

help of platane wood chips as biofilter material. Saliling

et al. (2007), reported that the denitrification rate for

wood chips as biofilter media was 1.36kg NO3-N/m3/d.

In conformance with our observation, Wolverton et al.

(1983), compared various kinds of filter material which

are plant free including reeds, cattail, rush and bamboo.

They reported that bamboo filter is more efficient than

plant free system by reducing 49% of ammonical

nitrogen in 6 hours and 76% in 24 hours of hydraulic

retention time.

4.5 Chapter V

Experiments were conducted using artificial and

synthetic filter media as material. Nylon threads and

plastic ball were used in the present study. Nylon threads

were made up of poly amides which are thermo plastic

299

and silky in nature. Nylons are condensed

copolymers formed by reacting equal parts of

a diamine and a dicarboxylic acid, so that amides are

formed at both ends of each monomer in a process

analogous to polypeptide biopolymers. Plastic balls were

made up of poly propylene which is a thermo plastic and

light weight in nature.

Nylon material thread as biofilter

Nylon threads of 0.1 cm radius and 28 cm length

of equal sized threads were used for the present study

(Image 9, page 508). Volume of the nylon thread was

calculated using formula V = πr2h, and it was observed

that each thread had a volume of 0.88 cm3. Based on the

volume of the reactor, various volumes of nylon threads


300

(20% of volume), 17061pieces (30% of volume) and

22748 pieces (40% of volume) were used in the present

study. Surface area of the nylon thread was determined

and it was 17.65 cm2 for each nylon thread. The specific

surface area of nylon thread was determined by dividing

the surface area with volume of the nylon thread and

converted to meter scale and it was 2007.14 m2/m

3.

4.5.1. Effect of various volumes of nylon threads as


and 12 hours HRT

The results for the treatment of domestic

wastewater treatment with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT and nylon threads as biofilter material a

decrease in BOD by 67.42% in presence of 10% volume.

70.41% of BOD was reduced with 20% volume, 75.19%

in the presence of 30% volume and 75.79% with 40%

301

volume of material. Results of various other parameters

are tabulated (Table 58 – 59, page 472 & 473). After the


nylon threads as biofilter material, it was noted that there

was a significant variation in the removal efficiency of


sewage treatment process. Graph was drawn and

represented in fig 18, page 527. Further experimentation

was continued by using 30% of nylon threads as

optimized volume of biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum at

various HRT’s like 8 hours, 9 hours, 10 hours, 11 hours

and 12 hours to determine the effect of hydraulic

retention time in the presence of nylon threads as

biofilter material.

302

4.5.2 Effect of various HRT’s in the presence of 30%

volume of nylon threads as biofilter

material, 0.2% inoculum


obtained after 9 hours of HRT. The treatment of

wastewater by the addition of 0.2% inoculum and 30%

volume of nylon threads as biofilter material for various

HRT’s revealed the reduction of BOD by 67.06% for 8

hours of HRT, 74.9% for 9 hours HRT, 76.74% for 10

hours HRT, 77% for 11 hours of HRT and 80.47% for

12 hours of HRT. Results of other parameters are

tabulated (Tables 60 – 62, page 474 - 476). After


nylon threads as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum at

various HRTs, it was noted that 9 hours HRT showed

significant changes during the treatment process. Hence,

9 hours HRT was considered as optimized HRT (fig 19,

303

page 528). Further experimentation was conducted to

determine the viability and increase of performance of



were analyzed for every 10 day interval.

4.5.3 Time period




tabulated. Effect of time period on 30% volume of nylon

threads as biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium

as inoculum & 9 hours HRT for domestic wastewater




304






nylon threads as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum and 9


efficiency removal of BOD and other pollutants were

increased up to 60 days of operation (fig 20, page 529).

Hence, 60 days of time period can be considered as

optimized time period for the treatment process of

domestic wastewater.

Plastic ball as biofilter material

Experiments were conducted using artificial and

synthetic filter media as material. Plastic balls 1.8 cm

305

radius of equal sized sphere shaped balls were used for

the present study (Image 10, page 509). Volume of the

plastic ball was calculated using formula V = 4/3πr3, and

it was observed that each plastic ball had a volume of

24.42 cm3. Based on the volume of the reactor, various

volumes of plastic balls i.e., 205 pieces (10% of working

volume), 410 pieces (20% of volume), 614 pieces (30%

of volume) and 819 pieces (40% of volume) were used

in the present study. Surface area of the plastic ball was

determined and it was 40.69 cm2 for each plastic ball.

The specific surface area of plastic ball was determined

by dividing the surface area with volume of the plastic

ball and converted to meter scale and it was 166.67

m2/m

3.

306

4.5.4 Effect of various volumes of plastic balls as


and 12 hours HRT

The results of various volumes of plastic balls as

biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT for the treatment of domestic wastewater

treatment revealed that a decrease in the BOD by

60.84% in the presence of 10 % volume of plastic balls.

60.54% of BOD was removed in the presence of 20%

volume of filter material, 60.95% with 30% filter and

60.77% in the presence of 40% filter material. Results of

various other physico – chemical parameters are

tabulated (Table 66 – 67, page 480 & 481). After the


plastic balls as biofilter material, it was noticed that there

was no significant variation in the removal efficiency of

pollutant. The results were similar to that of experiments

307

without filter material as represented in fig 21, page

530). Further experimentation was continued by using

10% of plastic balls as optimized volume of biofilter

material, 0.2% inoculum at various HRT’s like 8 hours,

9 hours, 10 hours, 11 hours and 12 hours to determine

the effect of HRT in the presence of plastic balls as

biofilter material.

4.5.5 Effect of various HRT’s in the presence of 10%

volume of plastic balls as biofilter material,

0.2% inoculum


obtained after 12 hours of HRT. The treatment of

wastewater by the addition of 0.2% inoculum and 10%

volume of plastic balls as biofilter material for various

HRT’s revealed the reduction of BOD by 46.7% for 8

hours of HRT, 48.82% for 9 hours HRT, 51.11% for 10

308

hours HRT, 54.08% for 11 hours of HRT and 60.99%

for 12 hours of HRT. Various other parameter results are



plastic balls as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum at

various HRTs, it was noted that 12 hours HRT showed

significant changes during the treatment process, and

results were more or less similar when compared with

the treatment process without filter material. Hence, 12

hours HRT was considered as optimized HRT as

represented in fig 22 (page, 531). Further






309

4.5.6 Time period


not obtained during 60 days of time period. Effect of

time period on 10% volume of plastic balls as biofilter

material along with 0.2% consortium as inoculum & 12

hours HRT for domestic wastewater treatment in terms

of BOD removal revealed that the reduction of BOD

occurred by 60.02% for 10 days time period, 60.59% for

20 days time period, 61.23% for 30 days time period,


time period and 61.07% for 60 days time period. Results

of various other physico-chemical parameters are

tabulated (Tables 71-73, page 485 - 487). After


plastic balls as biofilter material, 0.2 % inoculum and 12

hours HRT at various time periods, the efficiency

310

removal of BOD and other pollutants were not

significant during the 60 days of operation (fig 23, page

532).

Savage and Tyrrel (2005), reported variations in

the removal percentages of pollutants for various types

of materials as biofilter media viz., polystyrene packing

material, wood mulch. They reported that BOD removal

efficiency by polystyrene material is 34% and

ammonical removal efficiency is 31% from the compost

litter waste. They further reported that 70% BOD

removal efficiency and 75% removal of ammonical

nitrogen can be achieved with wood mulch as biofilter

material. Amit et al. (2003), achieved 11 times more

removal efficiency of ammonical nitrogen concentration

when compared to control experiment. They

311

demonstrated nitrifying biofilter using plastic beads

(macaroni) and achieved the control of ammonical

concentration in the lab scale experiment. They isolated

microorganisms from local soil and obtained good

results by controlling the less than 2mg/litre. Anthony et

al. (1998), compared the polystyrene beads with

polyethylene packing material and reported that

polystyrene micro beads removes 3.2 times more

ammonical nitrogen per day/ unit volume of reactor.

In support of our observation, Andreottola et al.

(2000), reported 76% of COD removal efficiency in

moving bed biofilm reactor and 84% in activated sludge

reactor using plastic media of volume 70% with specific

surface area 160m2/m

3 for HRT 6.7 – 14hours. They also

obtained 92% ammonical nitrogen removal efficiency

312

using the same characteristics of biofilter media. Valsa

Ramony Manoj and Namasivayam Vasudevan (2012),

used coconut coir and Fujino spirals as biofilter materials

for the removal of nutrients in biological treatment of

aqua culture waste water and reported that average

removal percentage of nitrate nitrogen were 86% for

coconut coir and 80% for fujino spirals and the average

phosphorus removal rates were 49 and 47% for coconut

coir and fujino spirals respectively. According to them

the removal % of pollutants was more for organic filter

materials when compared to synthetic materials.

Jechalke et al. (2010), studied biofilm

development on coconut fibers and polypropylene

textiles for enhancing biodegradation of low

concentration methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), benzene

and ammonium from groundwater in aerated treatment

313

ponds. Coconut fibers were more effective biofilm

support media than polypropylene textiles for

recruitment and development of biofilms for MTBE

degradation. It envisages that biogenic materials are

more favorable for the formation of biofilms and helpful

in elimination of pollutants.

4.6 Chapter VI

4.6.1 Process of treatment using optimized conditions

Experiments were conducted using optimized

conditions for parameters viz., volume, HRT and time

period for each biofilter material and compared their

removal efficiencies and changes during the processes of

treatment. The optimization of the various parameters in

the treatment process considerably enhanced the

pollutant removal efficiency. All results were tabulated,

314

graphs were plotted and results are discussed for each

parameter.

4.6.1.1 pH

pH decreased during the treatment process, when

stone was used as biofilter media. It was observed that

0.1unit was decreased in the treatment process followed

by wood chip, nylon thread and plastic ball. Using the

above filter media pH was decreased by 0.1unit, pH was

increased by 0.1unit in the presence of clay ball as filter

media. pH had no change during the process of treatment

when sintered glass cylinder and corn cobs were used

(Tables 74 – 80 pages 488 - 494; Fig. 24, page 533).

Biological metabolism is strongly dependent on pH.

Many microorganisms will only grow within a particular

pH range. Michael et al. (1999), reported that the usual

315

pH range for pollutant removal through biofilters is 6.0 –

8.0. Vaiškunait (2008) reported that hydrogen ion

concentration plays a significant role in the growth and

the reproduction of microorganisms in biofiltration

process. In the work of the scientist Aizpuru (2003), it

was determined, that the biodegradation is significantly

increased when the waste was saturated with water and

the pH adjusted above 6.5. Akao and Tsuno (2007),

reported that activities of the microorganisms inside the

biofilter will decrease if pH value is too low. In the

present study, the pH of sewage ranged from 7.0 – 8.2

before and after treatment. There was no significant

variation in pH range while using various filter

materials. Furthermore, the pH range was more suitable

for microorganisms used in the present study.

316

4.6.1.2 Electric conductivity

In the present study, decrease of electric

conductivity ranged from 12.09% - 22.22% during

treatment process using optimized conditions. The order

of electric conductivity removal by biofilter media was

more in treatment process using nylon threads as

biofilter media (decreased by 22.22%) and followed by

woodchips (diminished by 22.07%), corn cobs (reduced

by 22.21%), clay balls (minified by 20.04%), sintered

glass cylinders (lessened by 19.9%), stones (decreased

by 18.93%) and plastic balls (minimized by 12.09%).

Results are tabulated, (Tables 74 -80; Fig. 25, page 534).

Levlin (2007), reported a reduction of 21 – 28% of

electric conductivity during the treatment process using

activated sludge at Stockholm wastewater treatment

plant. In the present study, electric conductivity was

317

reduced from 12 – 22 % using various kinds of filter

media along with consortium.

4.6.1.3 Temperature

Temperature has no significant change during the

process of treatment. It neither increased nor decreased

in the treatment process. The organisms used in the

present study were mesophilic in nature and ambient

temperature was used in the experiment. Hence, this

might be the reason for the absence of variations in the

treatment process for minimal temperature changes

(Tables 74 – 80, page 488 - 494). According to Michael

et al. (1999), the optimal temperature range for

biofiltration process is 20°C - 40°C. Miao et al. (2005),

obtained best results in the temperature range of 25 -

35°C for rapeseed oil smoke removal with the 95%

318

removal efficiency. Von Bernuth et al. (1999) reported

that mesophilic bacteria are of most importance for

agricultural biofilters because they prefer temperatures

between 10 and 50°C. Fontenot et al. (2007), reported

that the temperature range of 22–37 °C gave best results

in terms of maximum nitrogen and carbon removal from

a shrimp aquaculture wastewater, but denitrification

processes will normally occur in the range 2–50 °C

(Brady and Weil, 2002) and possibly beyond, where

bacteria have evolved to cope with specific

environmental conditions. Various reports show that

high temperature of 28–38°C is favorable for nitrogen

removal via nitrite due to the fact that the specific

growth rate of AOB is higher than that of NOB

(Brouwer et al. 1996). In the present study, the

temperature ranges during operation of various

319

experiments ranged from 24 -28°C and was the most

suitable temperature for mesophilic organisms which

were used in the study. Similarly, the temperature had

not shown any effect and variation on type of biofilter

material.

4.6.1.4 Total suspended solids

In the present study, the removal efficiency of

TSS ranged from 59.12%-83.05% during treatment

process using optimized conditions. Total suspended

solids removal efficiency was observed to be more in the

treatment process using corn cobs as the biofilter media.

This value was followed by values of wood chips, nylon

thread, clay ball, sintered glass cylinder, plastic ball and

stone. The removal efficiency of total suspended solids

by stone as biofilter media was 59.12%, clay ball

320

71.96%, sintered glass cylinder 71.95%, corn cobs

83.05%, wood chips 82.53%, nylon thread 81.16% and

plastic ball 51.91%. Results are tabulated (Tables 74 –

80, Fig. 26, page 535). Ahmad (2010), reported the

removal efficiency of total suspended solids ranging

from 96 – 97% during the tertiary treatment of

wastewater. According to Al-Turki (2010), the reduction

of SS in filtering mass varied between 48 and 96%.

4.6.1.5 Volatile suspended solids

In the present study, VSS removal efficiency

ranged from 50.45%-71.97% during treatment process

using optimized conditions. Volatile suspended solids

decreased by 51.3% using stone as filter media, 59.15%

in the presence of clay balls, 59.18% in the presence of

sintered glass cylinders, 69.44% in the presence of corn

321

cobs, 67.82% in the presence of wood chips, 71.97% in

the presence of nylon threads and 50.45% in the

presence of plastic balls. The order of volatile suspended

solids removal efficiency by biofilter media was nylon

threads followed by corn cobs, wood chips, sintered

glass cylinders, clay balls, stones and plastic balls

(Tables 74 – 80; Fig. 27, page 536). Pongsak et al.

(2009), reported the removal efficiency of volatile

suspended solids as 72.8% by comparing 5 centralized

sewage treatment plants in Bangkok. In the present study

it was achieved in the treatment process using nylon

threads as filter material.

4.6.1.6 Chlorides

In the present study, the removal efficiency of

chlorides ranged from 53.97% - 73.06% during

322

treatment process using optimized conditions. Chloride

removal efficiency was more in the treatment process

using nylon threads as the biofilter media. It was

followed by corn cobs, clay balls, sintered glass

cylinders, wood chips, stones and plastic balls. The

removal efficiency of chlorides by stones as biofilter

media was 54.46%, clay ball 72.04%, sintered glass

cylinder 70.24%, corn cobs 72.22%, wood chips 68.9%,

nylon thread 73.06% and plastic ball 53.97%. Results

were tabulated (Tables 74 – 80; Fig. 28, page 537). Ali

et al. (2006), reported a reduction of 49.59 – 59.82% of

chloride, when ferric chloride was used as coagulant for

treatment of textile wastewater. According to Kumar

(1989) and Lalvo et al., (2000), chloride content can

serve as a pollutant indicator in wastewater, when

considered together with other parameters and high

323

chloride content in wastewater may harm for agricultural

crops, if it is used for irrigation purpose.

4.6.1.7 Hardness

In the present study, the removal of hardness

ranged from 31.08% - 66.11% during treatment process

using optimized conditions. Hardness decreased by

31.95% using stone as filter media, 49.52% of BOD was

reduced with clay balls, 50.94% of BOD minified with

sintered glass cylinders, 66.02% of BOD lessened with

corn cobs, 64.04% of BOD diminished with wood chips,

66.11% of BOD decreased with nylon threads and

31.08% of BOD reduced in the presence of plastic balls.

The order of hardness removal efficiency by biofilter

media was nylon threads followed by corn cobs, wood

chips, sintered glass cylinders, clay balls, stones and

324

plastic balls (Tables 74 – 80; Fig. 29, page 538).

Ali et al. (2006), obtained a reduction of

33.33 – 73.69% of hardness during treatment process of

textile wastewater using ferric chloride as coagulant.

4.6.1.8 Alkalinity

In the present study, the reduction of alkalinity

ranged from 40.98% - 67.02% during treatment process

using optimized conditions. Alkalinity reduced during

the treatment process by 40.98% using stones as biofilter

media, 56.57% using clay balls as biofilter media,

57.05% using sintered glass cylinder as biofilter media,

66.94% using corn cobs as biofilter media, 66.05% using

wood chips as biofilter media, 67.02% using nylon

threads as biofilter media and 41.08% using plastic balls

as biofilter media. The order of removal efficiency of

325

alkalinity by various biofilter media were nylon threads

followed by corn cobs, wood chips, sintered glass

cylinders, clay balls, plastic balls and stones (Tables 74 -

80; Fig. 30, page 539). Boon et al. (1997), used biofilter

for the treatment of high strength wastewater and

obtained 58.33% alkalinity removal.

4.6.1.9 Chemical oxygen demand (COD)

The removal efficiency of chemical oxygen

demand during the treatment process was more for corn

cobs using as biofilter media and the removal efficiency

was 82.48%. It was followed by wood chips and COD

decreased by 82.44%. Nylon threads as biofilter media

removed 81.88% of COD during the treatment process.

The removal efficiency of COD by clay balls was

72.82% and it was followed by sintered glass cylinders

326

by removing the COD by 71.87%. Stones as biofilter

media removed 64.05% of COD and it was followed by

plastic balls with the removal efficiency of 62.97%.

Results are furnished in the tables (Tables 74 - 80; Fig.

31, page 540).

Claudio et al. (2005), evaluated the performance

of periodic biofilter for treating municipal wastewater.

They obtained good results with the C.O.D concentration

of effluents was lower than 60mg/litre, 90 – 95% of

kjeldhal nitrogen removal by extensive denitrification

and high removal rate of suspended solids about 90%

and a negligible sludge production. Moosavi et al.

(2005), investigated the COD removal for high strength

organic wastewater in this reactor and found COD

removal efficiency to be about 95% under organic

327

loading of 0.8-7.6 kg CODm-3

/day. Pozo and Diez

(2003), studied the COD removal for organic matter

containing wastewater in aerobic-anaerobic packed bed

reactor and they found the efficiency to be 92% at

organic loading of 0.39 kg COD m-3day-1. Florante et

al. (2009), obtained 98% reduction in COD in aerobic

reactor, as supported by increasing concentration of

MLVS, with a hydraulic retention time (HRT) of 5 hours

after 11 days while 34% reduction in COD was obtained

in anaerobic reactor with the same HRT after 14 days. In

the present study, COD reduction ranged from 62-82%.

It is envisaged that filter materials are suitable for

removal of COD.

4.6.1.10 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)

Biochemical oxygen demand reduction during

the treatment process was 85.04% using corn cobs as

328

biofilter media. It was followed by nylon threads, wood

chips, sintered glass cylinders, clay balls, stones and

plastic balls. The biochemical oxygen demand removal

efficiency by stones as biofilter media was 61.29%,

73.02% using clay balls as biofilter media, 73.06% using

sintered glass cylinder as biofilter media, 83.53% using

wood chips as biofilter media, 85% using nylon threads

as biofilter media and 60.07% using plastic balls as

biofilter media. Results are tabulated (Tables 74 - 80;

Fig. 32, page 541). Nadirah et al. (2008), applied the

bioparticle onto biofilter system as a filtering media to

treat domestic wastewater and obtained results with the

removal efficiencies of BOD 61%, COD 97%,

ammonical nitrogen 86%, suspended solids 71%, oil &

grease 53%, nitrate 50%. Dempsey et al. (2005),

reported that 56 – 62% removal of BOD and suspended

329

solids can be achieved using glassy coke as the support

biofilter material. Nikolaus kaindl (2010), used moving

bed biofilm reactor (MBBR) for upgrading of an

activated sludge wastewater treatment plant of paper mill

effluent and achieved 98% reduction in BOD and 82%

reduction in COD along with pre-treatment and

ozonation.

4.6.1.11 Total nitrogen

The removal efficiency of total nitrogen by

stones as biofilter media was observed as 47.84%; in the

presence of clay balls the removal efficiency was

62.53%; in the presence of sintered glass cylinders as

biofilter media the removal efficiency of total nitrogen

62.69%; in the presence of corn cobs the total nitrogen

removal efficiency was 70.23%; with wood chips total

330

nitrogen reduced by 68.48%; with nylon threads the

removal efficiency was observed as 71.72% and in the

presence of plastic balls the removal efficiency was

46.47%. The removal efficiency of total nitrogen was

more in the presence of nylon thread when compared to

other filter media and it was followed by corn cobs,

wood chips, sintered glass cylinders, clay balls, stones

and plastic balls. Results are furnished in tables 74 – 80

and Fig. 33, page 542).

Ammonical nitrogen

The removal efficiency of ammonical nitrogen by

corn cobs as biofilter media was 73.19% and it was

followed by nylon threads (72.85%), wood chips

(71.05%), sintered glass cylinders (65.03%), clay balls

(64.85%), stones (50.1%) and plastic balls (48.03%).

331

Results are presented in tables 74 – 80 and Fig. 34, page

543)

Nitrite nitrogen

The concentration of nitrite nitrogen was

increased during the treatment process and it was more

in the presence of nylon threads with 400% increase

followed by corn cobs with 300% rise. The nitrite

nitrogen was enhanced by 200% with wood chips &

sintered glass cylinders, and followed by 133.33% with

clay balls. In the presence of stones, the nitrite nitrogen

was raised by 73.33% and 40% with plastic balls. The

increase of nitrite concentration during the process of

treatment might be due to the transformation of

332

ammonical nitrogen. Results are presented in tables 74 –

80 and Fig. 35, page 544).

Nitrate nitrogen

The nitrate nitrogen concentration was also

increased during the process of treatment and it was the

greatest in the presence of stones as biofilter media and

the increase was by 55.56%. this was followed by nylon

threads (50%), sintered glass cylinders (39.39%), corn

cobs (36.11%), clay balls (30.56%), plastic balls

(27.27%) and wood chips (22.22%). Results are

furnished in tables 74 – 80 and Fig. 36, page 545.

Kjeldhal nitrogen

Kjeldhal nitrogen removal efficiency was more in

the treatment process using nylon threads as the biofilter

333

media. It was followed by corn cobs, wood chips, clay

balls, sintered glass cylinders, stones and plastic balls.

Kjeldhal nitrogen removal efficiency by stones as

biofilter media was 50%, clay balls 67.35%, sintered

glass cylinders 66.34%, corn cobs 73.68%, wood chips

71.28%, nylon threads 73.74% and plastic balls 50%.

Results are presented in tables 74 – 80 and Fig. 37, page

546).

Pongsak et al. (2009), reported that the biological

nitrogen removal in a wastewater treatment plant ranged

from 14.9 - 56.3% during the process of treatment at

centralized systems in Bangkok. In the present study, the

removal of total nitrogen ranged from 46-72%. It

envisages that the microbes present in the consortium

might be useful for the removal of pollutants. According

to Asma et al. (2011), the nitrification efficiency is

334

represented by high levels of nitrate (NO3 --N) in treated

wastewater. Nitrogen removal is independent of

infiltration depth whereas NO3 –N concentrations

increased with depth. This effectiveness is maintained

when conditions are favorable: no clogging, neutral pH

to slightly alkaline and temperature ranged between 30

and 35°C. Koottatep (2004) reported that organic

nitrogen is mineralized to ammonia by hydrolysis and

bacterial degradation. Nitrates are then converted to

nitrogen gas (N2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) by

denitrifying bacteria in anoxic and anaerobic zones

which usually occur in limited oxygen supply. The major

portions of nitrogen compounds in municipal wastewater

are reduced nitrogen compounds such as ammonia, urea,

amines, amino acids, and proteins. The main organic

nitrogen compounds in municipal wastewater are

335

heterocyclic compounds e.g. nucleic acids and proteins.

Proteolysis and degradation of amino acids leads to

liberation of ammonia by the various mechanisms of

ammonification (Rheinheimer et al., 1988), including

hydrolytic, oxidative, reductive and desaturative

deamination. Bernet et al. (1996), estimated that bacteria

consist of roughly 50% protein and that the nitrogen

content of protein is about 16%. Thus, for synthesis of 1

g of bacterial biomass, about 0.08 g of ammonia-N is

required. Autotrophic nitrifiers are aerobic

microorganisms oxidizing ammonia via nitrite to nitrate.

Organisms catalyzing nitrification belong to the

genera Nitrosomonas, Nitrosococcus, Nitrosolobus,

Nitrosospira and Nitrosovibrio. Organisms catalyzing

nitration include members of the genera Nitrobacter,

336

Nitrococcus, and Nitrospira. George et al. (2001),

reported that chemolitho-autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing

bacteria are responsible for the rate limiting step of

nitrification in a wide variety of environments, making

them important in the global cycling of nitrogen. These

organisms are unique in their ability to use the

conversion of ammonia to nitrite as their sole energy

source. Foglar et al., (2005), reported that nitrate is a

common water contaminant that can cause health

problems in humans. Also, eutrophication or ground

water contaminations by nitrate, which cause serious

social and economical problems, are related to an

increase of nitrate concentration in the aquatic

environment. According to Balmelle et al., (1992), Yang

and Alleman, (1992) and Hao and Chen, (1994), when

nitrogen loading increases beyond a certain level, partial

337

nitrification may occur in the biological process under

aerobic condition. The partial nitrification can result into

nitrite build up in the biological process. Due to its

toxicity, nitrite build up can inhibit the microbial

phosphorus uptake in the biofilter under aerobic

condition. This nitrite build up can have a deleterious

influence on microbial phosphorus release as well as

microbial phosphorus uptake in this system (Ghekiere et

al., 1991).

Oh et al. (2001), evaluated the feasibility of the

treatment of concentrated nitrate wastewater with a

submerged biofilter, and found that the performance of

the submerged biofilter was satisfactory in treating

concentrated nitrate optimally within a limited space,

provided biofilter loading was less than 9 kg NO3–

338

N/m3/d. Instead of nitrate, many denitrifying bacteria can

use NO2–, NO, or N2O as terminal electron acceptors.

Alternatively, they may release these intermediates

during denitrification of nitrate under unfavorable

conditions as was observed in soil (Conrad, 1996). If

surplus nitrate is supplied and hydrogen donors are not

sufficiently available, NO and N2O can be formed

(Schön et al., 1994). Another condition for N2O

formation is a pH below 7.3, at which nitrogen

oxidoreductase is inhibited (Knowles, 1982).

Autotrophic ammonia oxidizers seem to be able

to produce NO, N2O, or N2 from nitrite if oxygen is

limited and ammonia as well as nitrite oxidizers can be

isolated from anaerobic reactors (Kuenen and Robertson,

1994). Nitrosomonas europaea can use nitrite as an

339

electron acceptor and pyruvate as an energy source under

anoxic, denitrifying growth conditions (Abeliovich and

Vonshak, 1992). In addition, several strains of

Nitrobacter sp. were reported to denitrify during anoxic,

heterotrophic growth (Bock et al., 1986). It is believed

that the role of Nitrobacter and Nitrosomonas sps is very

critical for the transformation of nitrogen to various

other forms and its removal. In the present study, the

concentration of both the organisms were also increased

in its consortium.

4.6.1.12 Total phosphorus

Phosphorus concentration was reduced during the

process of treatment by 52.88% using stones as biofilter

media, 67.65% applying clay balls as biofilter media,

67.3% with sintered glass cylinder as biofilter media,

340

74.51% employing corn cobs as biofilter media, 72.73%

utilizing wood chips as biofilter media, 74.07% with

nylon threads as biofilter media and 52.13% using

plastic balls as biofilter media. The order of removal

efficiency of phosphorus by various biofilter media were

corn cobs followed by nylon threads, wood chips, clay

balls, sintered glass cylinders, stones and plastic balls.

Results are tabulated (Tables 74 - 80; Fig. 38, page 547).

Henze (1996) and Metcalf and Eddy (1991)

report values of 10-25% for phosphorus removal during

secondary treatment of municipal wastewater. Sotirakou

et al. (1999), achieved 15% removal of total phosphorus

with extended aeration process in the municipal

wastewater treatment plant. In the present study,

341

utilization of external source of phosphate solubulizing

microbes resulted in achieving positive results.

4.6.1.13 Oil and grease

The order of oil and grease removal by biofilter

media was more in the treatment process using corn

cobs biofilter media (decreased by 6.25%) followed by

woodchips (decreased by 5.56%), nylon threads

(decreased by 4.9%), clay balls (decreased by 3.51%),

sintered glass cylinders (decreased by 3.13%), stones

(decreased by 2.94) and plastic balls (decreased by

0.93%). Results are tabulated (Tables 74 - 80; Fig. 39,

page 548). According to Young (1979), oils are

generally believed to be biodegradable and therefore

considered as part of the organic load that is treated.

However, oils have detrimental effects on oxygen

342

transfer In aerobic wastewater treatment systems. They

reduce the rates at which oxygen is transferred to

biofilms, thereby depriving the microorganisms of

oxygen (Chao and Yang, 1981). Young (1979), reported

that oxygen demand of influent dispersed polar oil

should be considered as part of the normal BOD load to

the treatment plant so that effluent BOD measurements

would include the oxygen demand of biodegradable oil

in the effluent samples.

Various microorganisms have the ability to

produce extra-cellular lipases that hydrolyse

triglycerides to fatty acids and glycerol (Wakelin and

Forster, 1997; Paparaskevas et al., 1992; Ratledge,

1992). Examples are the bacteria Pseudomonas

fluorescens, Chromobacterium vinosum and the fungi

343

Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus delemar (Tuter et al.,

1998). Oils in this case are used as substrates for

microbial growth, resulting in an increase in the

concentration of microorganisms in the treatment

system. Keenan and Sabelnikov (2000), studied the

biodegradation of corn, olive, sunflower and waste oils

by a variety of bacterial strains such as Acinetobacter

sps., Rhodococcus sps. and Caseobacter sp. that were

isolated from different environments based on their

ability to grow on vegetable and waste oils and by

commercial bacterial preparations specifically designed

for oil degradation.

In the present study, the microorganisms used for

bioremediation of sewage did not show any significant

removal efficiency of oil and grease. As per literature,

344

the microbial consortium required for oil and grease

degradation varied from the consortium used in the

present study. This might be one reason why there is no

significant change in the removal efficiency of oil and

grease.

4.6.1.14 Hydrogen sulphide

The removal efficiency of hydrogen sulphide

during the treatment process was more for corn cobs

when used as biofilter media and the removal efficiency

was 75.86%. It was followed by wood chips when the

hydrogen sulphide decreased by 71.43% and stones

when it decreased by 67.86%. Nylon threads, sintered

glass cylinders, clay balls were found to be similar in the

removal efficiency and it was 66.07%. Plastic balls

removed 53.57% during the treatment process. Results

345

are presented in tables 74 - 80; Fig. 40, page 549.

Rene et al. (2008), reported that 90% removal efficiency

was achieved using artificial neural networks (ANN)

biofilters to remove hydrogen sulphide vapors.

Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is used extensively as a

digesting agent in the pulp and paper industry. However,

the potential large emitters of hydrogen sulphide

includes electric power plants (burning coal or fuel oil

containing sulfur), oil and gas extraction operations, oil

refineries, pulp and paper mills, sewage treatment plants,

large pig farms, confined animal feeding operations and

aerobic composting of low C:N material.

Hydrogen sulfide is commonly found in coal and

petroleum deposits and may be mobilized by human

manipulation of these resources. Most hydrogen sulphide

releases are directly to the ambient atmosphere.

346

Inhalation is the major route of exposure to hydrogen

sulfide in the environment. Hydrogen sulfide is

disruptive to the mitochondrial electron transport system

and is thus expected to affect all systems. According to

Kuenen and Robertson (1992), a lower concentrations of

H2S results in depression (0.12 mg per m3),

conjunctivitis and visual problems (1.5 - 43 mg per m3)

and psychic changes, dizziness and vomiting (70 – 700

mg per m3) in humans. In the present study, the

concentration of H2S in untreated domestic wastewater is

ranged from 2.5 – 3.0 mg/lit. After treatment by

microbial consortium and various filter materials the

concentration of H2S decreased to 0.8-1.2 mg/lit.

4.6.1.15 Sludge volume index

The removal efficiency of sludge volume index

by stones as biofilter media was observed as 37.1%, in

347

the presence of clay balls the removal efficiency was

36.36%, in the presence of sintered glass cylinders as

biofilter media the removal efficiency was 35%, with

corn cobs removal efficiency was 55.71%, for wood

chips the removal efficiency was 49.23%, with nylon

threads the removal efficiency was observed as 53.13%

and in the presence of plastic balls the removal

efficiency was 47.69%. The removal efficiency of sludge

volume index was more in the presence of corn cobs and

nylon threads when compared to other filter media and it

was followed by woodchips, plastic balls, granite stones,

clay balls and sintered glass cylinders, (Tables 74 - 80;

Fig. 41, page 550). Kwannate et al. (2011), reported 40

to 60 ml/g of SS in the effluent of treated piggery

wastewater. SVI is an important parameter affecting the

performance of a wastewater treatment system. Low SVI

348

values (<100 ml/g of TSS) indicate good sedimentation

characteristics of the sludge yielding high biomass

concentrations in the aeration tank, whereas high SVI

values (>100 ml/g) reflect bulky sludge and low biomass

concentrations in the aeration tank (Kargi and Uygur,

2002). In the present study, the SVI ranged from 60-80

ml/g SS after the treatment process using various filter

materials and shows good settling properties which will

be useful for proper treatment of sewage.

4.6.2. Comparative analysis of filter media

4.6.2.1 Volume of filter media

The effect of biofilter media for the pollutant

removal efficiency not only depends upon their

elimination capacity but also on their economics. In the

current perspective, less volume of filter media, low

349

hydraulic retention time and the effect (in terms of

elimination efficiency of pollutants) for more time

period are set to be useful in economic point of view. To

evaluate this scenario, graphical illustration was made

for all the filter materials in terms of volume %,

hydraulic retention time in hours and time period in

days. As per the previous reports, it was found that 12 –

70% volume range of filter media were used for

biofiltration process. In the present study, an attempt was

made to use low quantity of filter media for effective

removal of pollutants. In this concern, 10%, 20%, 30%

and 40% volume of various filter media were used for

experimentation. Reduction of BOD was considered for

graphical representation to compare filter media and are

represented in fig 42, page 551. Out of 7 filter media,

corn cob showed more elimination capacity of

350

biochemical oxygen demand (74.9%) with 20% volume

and it was followed by 30% volume of nylon thread,

30% volume of wood chip, 30% volume of sintered glass

cylinder, 30% volume of clay ball, 10% volume of

plastic ball and 10% volume of stone.

Major constrains in the use of treated sewage are

related to the undefined and sometimes even hazardous

composition of the waste stream (including its

fluctuations) and the uncertainty at the user’s side that

the applied technology cannot adequately handle all

contaminants. Therefore, instead of the end-of-the-pipe

approach one could also choose to work upfront,

identifying the compounds that are limiting reuse. If

industries are forced to treat their own wastewater and

are excluded from the sewage network, than the

351

concentrations of micro pollutants, heavy metals,

xenobiotics, etc., will drop to a negligible level.

Considering the fact that decentralized systems are

merely treating effluents of domestic origin, it is much

easier to link decentralized sewage treatment to reuse

than the large scale applications. Moreover, the latter

ones require large infrastructural investments both at the

collection site and the distribution site and are therefore

more difficult to realize on the short term. Obviously this

particularly applies for those areas that, so far are not

connected to large sewerage networks (Lier et al., 2002).

Choosing appropriate filter material is a major constrain

in biofiltration process. The nature, applicability,

characteristics, type, availability and cost a the few

important parameters that are to be considered before

choosing a filter material. Biofilter is a material either

352

biogenic or abiogenic in nature, which facilitates the

formation of biofilm. The nature of the biofilter material

i.e., smooth texture or rough texture plays an important

role in the formation of biofilm onto the material.

In the present study, out of 7 filter materials

granite chips, nylon threads and plastic balls are smooth

surfaced objects and the remaining viz. clay balls,

sintered glass cylinders, corn cobs and wood chips are

rough textured objects. Except nylon threads, both

granite chip and plastic ball objects show primitive

results when compared to other objects. The surface area

of nylon thread used in the study is much more and that

might be the reason for promising results. The nature of

the filter materials also plays an important role in

treatment of pollutants. In the present study, corn cobs

353

and wood chips are biogenic in nature and the remaining

objects are non-biogenic in nature. The removal of

pollutants was more for biogenic filter materials when

compared to non-biogenic filter materials except for

nylon threads. The applicability of the filter material i.e.,

its size, shape and abundance plays a vital role in

selecting the material. in the present study, various sizes

and shapes of filter materials were used. Granite chip is a

square cuboid, clay balls and plastic balls are spheroid,

sintered glass cylinder and nylon threads are solid

cylindrical shape and corn cob is a hollow cylindrical

shaped structure with high crevices on the outer surface.

The removal efficiency of pollutants was more for corn

cobs and least for granite chips and plastic balls.

354

According to Leopoldo and Tom (1999), the

shape of the media also has an effect on reactor

performance. Irregular shapes have been found to

improve performance of biological aerated filters

compared to spherically shaped media, through variation

in the size of the void spaces. The roughness of the

media also has an effect on the performance of the

reactor. Rough space media provides more sites for

biofilm attachment than smooth media. According to

Leopoldo and Tom (1999), smooth media restricts

biofilm growth as microorganisms are unable to attach

properly to the surface. The solid surface may have

several characteristics that are important in the

attachment process. Characklis (1990), noted that the

extent of microbial colonization appears to increase as

the surface roughness increases. This is because shear

355

forces are diminished, and surface area is higher on

rougher surfaces. According to Fletcher and Loeb

(1979); Pringle and Fletcher (1983); & Bendinger et al.

(1993), the physicochemical properties of the surface

may also exert a strong influence on the rate and extent

of attachment.

Most investigators have found that the

microorganisms attach more rapidly to hydrophobic, non

polar surfaces such as teflon and other plastics than to

hydrophilic materials such as glass or metals. Other

characteristics of the aqueous medium, such as pH,

nutrient levels, ionic strength and temperature, may play

a role in the rate of microbial attachment to a substratum.

Several studies have shown a seasonal effect on bacterial

attachment and biofilm formation in different aqueous

356

systems (Fera et al., 1989; Donlan et al., 1994). This

effect may be due to water temperature or to other

unmeasured, seasonally affected parameters. Fletcher

(1988), found that an increase in the concentration of

several cations (sodium, calcium, lanthanum, ferric iron)

affected the attachment of Pseudomonas fluorescens to

glass surfaces, presumably by reducing the repulsive

forces between the negatively charged bacterial cells and

the glass surfaces. Cowan et al. (1991), showed in a

laboratory study that an increase in nutrient

concentration correlated with an increase in the number

of attached bacterial cells.

According to Watnick et al. (2000), the

bacterium first approaches the surface so closely that

motility is slowed. The bacterium may then form a

357

transient association with the surface and/or other

microbes previously attached to the surface. This

transient association allows it to search for a place to

settle down. When the bacterium forms a stable

association as a member of a micro colony, it has chosen

the neighborhood in which to live. Finally, the buildings

go up as a three dimensional biofilm is erected.

Occasionally, the biofilm associated bacteria detach

from the biofilm matrix. Thus, when the bathing medium

is rich in nutrients, a bacterium will attach to any

available surface, while in a nutrient poor environment

the bacterium will attach preferentially to a nutritive

surface. This adaptation ensures that the bacterium will

maximize access to nutrients in both nutrient poor and

nutrient rich aqueous environments. These interactions

are thought to be essential for successful plaque

358

formation (Klier et al., 1998; Kolenbrander et al. 1995;

Whittaker et al. 1996).

Acording to Xu et al. (1998) and Okabe et al.

(1999), the environment in a biofilm is not

homogeneous. Microelectrode measurements have

shown that the oxygen concentration and pH fall in a

biofilm as the substratum is approached. As the success

of a biofilter depends on the growth and maintenance of

microorganisms (biomass) on the surface of filter media,

it is necessary to understand the mechanisms of

attachment, growth and detachment on the surface of the

filter media. Van Loosdrecht (1990) described the

mechanisms by which microorganisms can attach and

colonize on the surface of the filter media of a biofilter

are (i) transportation, (ii) initial adhesion, (iii) firm

359

attachment and (iv) colonization. The transportation of

microorganisms to the surface of the filter media is

further controlled by four main processes, (a) diffusion

(Brownian motion), (b) convection, (c) sedimentation

due to gravity and (d) active mobility of the

microorganisms.

As soon as the microorganisms reach the surface,

initial adhesion occurs which can be reversible or

irreversible depending upon the total interaction energy,

which is the sum of van der walls force and electrostatic

force. The DLVO (Derjaguin-Landau-Verwey-

Overbeek) theory is often used to describe the adhesion

of the microorganisms on the surface of the filter media.

The processes of firm attachment and colonization of

microorganisms depend on influent characteristics such

as organic type and concentration and surface properties

360

of the filter media. The steric effects, hydrophobicity of

the microorganisms, contact angle and electrophoretic

mobility values are taken into consideration to estimate

the attachment of microorganisms on the surface of filter

media. The specific detachment rate coefficient

increased as inert particle concentration and particle

Reynolds number (i.e., turbulence) increased and the

turbulence and attrition of bed fluidization appeared to

be dominant detachment mechanisms.

The other parameters of filter materials include

volume, surface area and specific surface area which

play a vital role in performance of pollutants removal. In

the present study an attempt was made to utilize lower

volume of filter material to get maximum efficiency of

pollutant removal. In this context volume of the size

361

10% - 40% to the reactor volume were considered. Even

though constant volume rates were applied for

experimentation the volume of individual objects were

varied from each other. Filter material clay ball had

highest volume per unit and nylon thread had lowest

volume per unit. The size and shape of the filter material

is responsible for change in the volume. The volume

quantity is directly related to the economics of the filter

material in the treatment of waste water. The lower

volume quantity results in lesser cost of the filter

material. The increase of volume quantity is favourable

for increase of elimination capacity of the pollutants.

Hence, optimization of filter material is essential.

Significant and promising results were obtained for 20%

volume of corn cobs and 30% volume of nylon threads.

362

According to Ødegaard (1975), the standard

filling fraction (or) the volume of filter material is 67%.

He conducted experiments with the filter material having

specific surface area 465 m2/m

3. The smaller carrier

/filter material will need smaller reactor volume at a

given loading rate even though the filling fraction is

same. Dempsey et al. (2006), reported that 46 – 62% of

TSS removal efficiency and 41 – 56% of BOD removal

efficiency can be obtained using 30% volume of glassy

coke 1mm size particles as filter material. Pak and

Chang (2000), reported that removal of 12gms P/m3 of

total phosphorus and 60gms N/m3 of total nitrogen using

ceramic beads of volume 50% and size of 3 – 5mm

during the process of treatment. The removal efficiency

of pollutants is directly proportional to the surface area,

where the availability of more surface area is useful for

363

attachment of more number of microorganisms and

results in elimination of more pollutants. In the present

study, filter material corn cob had highest surface area

and granite chip had lowest surface area. The elimination

capacity of the pollutants was also same. It is evident

that elimination capacity directly depends on surface

area.

The filter material nylon thread has highest

specific surface area i.e., 2007.14 m2/m

3 followed by

corn cobs and least for plastic balls and clay balls. The

elimination capacity was also more for nylon thread and

corn cobs and least for plastic ball. Even though, the

specific surface area was more than sufficient for granite

chips the elimination capacity of pollutants was not

satisfactory. The non-biogenicity and smooth texture of

364

the material might be the reasons for lower elimination

efficiencies. According to Michael et al. (1999), packing

material with high specific surface area i.e., from 300 to

1,000 m2/m

3 provides favorable living conditions for the

resident microbial population (ensured by high retention

capacities of water and nutrients), and favorable

immobilization for the micro flora involved. Valentis

and Lesavre (1989), stated that high specific surface area

1000-1500 m2/m

3 of the granular media allows for a high

biomass concentration can be maintained within the

system. The removal of solids in the media negates the

need of secondary clarifiers. However, backwashing is

required to remove excess biomass and captured solids.

Anthony et al. (1998), reported that 3.2 times more

removal efficiency of total ammonical nitrogen by

weight per day per unit volume of the reactor was

365

obtained using polystyrene beads of volume 12% with

specific surface area of 3936 m2/m

3. The characteristics

that affect the choice of the packing medium include, its

availability in the region where the biofilter is built

(transport fees may turn a competitive medium into an

uncompetitive one), its abundance, and hence its

price/kg, its compaction (to minimize the pressure drop

across the bed to decrease running costs), its life

expectancy (to replace the bed involves extra

maintenance costs, an interruption of the treatment and a

re-adaptation period), its specific area to increase

adsorption. Swanson and Loehr (1997), emphases the

importance and choice of the appropriate packing

medium. The range of packing media is large and

includes compost, heather, coir, woodchips, synthetic

materials or granulated activated carbon (GAC).

366

In the present study, an attempt was made to

utilize various filter materials which were readily

available, low cost, effective and novel filter materials.

The cost of the filter material show enormous effect on

economics of treatment systems. The filter material i.e

corn cobs are available at free of cost, which cannot be

used for any kind of other purposes except combustion

process. The remaining filter materials viz. granite chips,

clay balls, sintered glass cylinders, wood chips are

available at lower cost comparatively. The filter

materials like nylon threads and plastic balls are

expensive when compared to the remaining filter

materials. Significant and promising results were

obtained for corn cobs and nylon threads only.

367

The significant quantity of biofilm formation had

taken place on filter materials like corn cobs followed by

nylon threads and wood chips. The biofilm formation on

remaining filter materials was not in significant quantity.

Various other physical characteristics like physical

nature, porosity, aberration and surface tension might be

the reasons for improper formation of biofilms on other

filter materials and explanation is beyond the scope of

present work. The cost of wastewater treatment is

dependent on local circumstances. In the big cities,

however, the space required for the plant is very

determining for the investment cost. Compact treatment

alternatives methods are consequently more and more

being favored. Biofilm systems are replacing activated

sludge systems and high-rate separation techniques are

replacing traditional settling tanks (Chaudhary et al.,

368

2003). There are several factors that have to be taken

into account when evaluating different treatment

methods for wastewater treatment such as (1) treatment

efficiency, (2) cost, (3) area requirement, (4) sludge

production and (5) sustainability (e.g. ecological impact

and energy use). Bacteria experience a certain degree of

shelter and homeostasis when residing within a biofilm.

Smith and Hardy (1992), reported that biofilters

require 3 time less aeration volume than activated sludge

units and 20 times less than trickling filters for a given

degree of treatment. In the present study, aeration was

not provided for treatment system. Hence, the

mechanical and electrical revenue can be economized.

According to Hozaiski and Bouwer (1998), biofilters are

different from conventional gravity filters and can be

369

used to treat water in a fine porous medium where the

purification occurs, and can not only filter suspended

solids, but also increase the degradation of organic

matter using the fixed film biomass. These two

mechanisms ultimately result in the progressive clogging

of the biofilter, which must then be washed clean.

According to Leopoldo and Tom (1999), when granular

media is used, the system is capable of removing organic

matter and suspended solids from the wastewater and

there is no need of solid separation stage and

sedimentation tanks.

4.6.2.2 Hydraulic retention time (HRT)

Hydraulic retention time (HRT) is a vital

parameter in sewage treatment process. The efficiency of

the pollutants removal increased with the increase of

370

HRT for all types of filter materials. However, low HRT

will be useful for treating the sewage because of heavy

quantity. In the present study various hydraulic retention

times i.e., 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 hours were studied for

obtaining optimum retention time. The highest removal

efficiency of biochemical oxygen demand (78.14%) with

less hydraulic retention time of 9 hours was obtained

using corn cobs as biofilter media (Fig 43, page 552). It

was preceded by nylon threads (10 hours), wood chips

(10 hours), sintered glass cylinders (10 hours), clay balls

(10 hours), plastic balls (12 hours) and granite stones (12

hours). Oh, et al. (2001), reported that the denitrification

rate of 67.26% for 2 hours HRT and 75% per 4 hours

HRT using plastic pall rings as filter media of 70%

volume and 340m2/m

3 specific surface area in the

presence of alkaline pH. According to Chen et al.,

371

(2000), the conventional treatment processes generally

require a long residence time to retain slow growing

organisms such as denitrifyers in the system. Moreover,

a relatively large volume of reaction is necessary to

obtain a high reactor capacity. The reactor capacity can

be improved by increasing the biomass retention time

using an immobilized cell system. In the present study,

an attempt was made to minimize the residence time or

hydraulic retention time. This may be helpful in trouble

shooting of various problems in operation of treatment

systems with respect to residence time.

According to Isaka et al. (2007), the application

of cell immobilization techniques to the wastewater

treatment process has recently gained much attention.

These techniques not only offer a high cell concentration

372

in the reactor tank for increasing efficiency, but also

facilitate the separation of liquids and solids in the

settling tank (Chen et al., 2000). Metcalf and Eddy

(1995), stated various variations in flow rates. Minimum

flow occurs during the early morning hours when water

consumption is lowest and when the base flow consists

of infiltration and small quantities of sanitary

wastewater. The first peak flow generally occurs in the

late morning when wastewater from the peak morning

water use reaches the treatment plant. A second peak

flow generally occurs in the early evening between 7 and

9 p.m but this varies with size of the community and

length of the sewer. The hydraulic design of both

collection and treatment facilities is affected by

variations in wastewater flow rates. In view of the above

situation it is essential to treat wastewater within 8 hours

373

of HRT. Out of 24 hours in a day, a 8 hours hydraulic

retention time treatment will be more useful in terms of

operations and two batches of 8 hours HRT can be

applied per day in which peak hour flow rates can be

managed. The remaining 8 hours per day can be used for

unit operations of treatment systems.

4.6.2.3 Time period

Time period also plays a significant role in terms

of economics of treatment system using biofilter media.

The longevity of filter media is much more helpful for

high removal efficiency of pollutants. It also has an

effect on quantity of filter media usage where repeated

replacements of fresh filter media are necessary. The

highest removal efficiency of biochemical oxygen

demand (85.19%) with maximum time period was

374

obtained using nylon thread as biofilter media for 60

days (Fig 44, page 553). It was followed by wood chip

(50 days), corn cob (40 days), sintered glass cylinder (30

days), clay ball (30 days), stone (60 days) and plastic

ball (60 days).

Even though stone and plastic balls are viable for

60 days their biochemical oxygen demand removal

efficiency were very much less when compared to other

filter media. In the present study, the effect of filter

media for removal efficiency of pollutant varied from 30

days to 60 days. Filter material like corn cob showed

best removal efficacy of pollutants up to 40 days and it

does not mean that after 40 days of operation there is no

need of neither replacing filter media nor damage of

filter media. A step of back wash is essential to clean the

375

filter material. The effect of back wash on the treatment

process and total life time (longitivity) of filter material

are beyond the scope of present study.

4.6.2.4 Food to microorganism ratio (F/M)

Food to microorganism ratio was calculated

using the formula F/M ratio = BOD (mg/L) / VSS

(mg/L). In the present study, low F/M ratio was obtained

for corn cob material and it was followed by wood chips,

nylon thread, clay balls, sintered glass cylinders, plastic

balls and stone material (Table – 81, page 495; Fig. 45,

page 554). The F/M ratio in Dempsey et al. (2006),

experimentation using 1mm glassy coke as filter media

with 30% volume was 0.001. According to Warith et al.

(1998), to improve the self-purification capacity, a low

F/M ratio is desirable. The food to microorganism ratio

is an empirical parameter frequently used for the design

376

of activated sludge processes. According to Metcalf and

Eddy (1991) and Nicolella et al., (2000), the typical

values for conventional systems range from 0.3 to 1.5 kg

COD/ kg SS/day.

Biofiltration is a pollution control technique

using living microorganisms for bioremediation process

of pollution. Biofiltration is an extending phenomena of

adsorption. Adsorption processes are widely applied for

separation and purification because of the high

reliability, energy efficiency, design flexibility,

technological maturity and the ability to regenerate the

exhausted adsorbent. Various kinds of natural and

synthetic packing materials are used in biofilters.

Biofilms are developed on biofilters. A biofilm is an

assemblage of microbial cells that is irreversibly

377

associated (not removed by gentle rinsing) with a surface

and enclosed in a matrix of primarily polysaccharide

material. According to Deibel (2001) and Kumar (1998),

biofilm can exist on all types of surfaces such as plastic,

metal, glass, soil particles, wood, medical implant

materials, tissue and food products. Bacterial attachment

is mediated by fimbriae, pilli, flagella and EPS that act to

form a bridge between bacteria and the conditioning

film. Biofilms, in nature, can have a high level of

organization and they may exist in single or multiple

species communities and form a single layer or 3-

dimensional structure.

Microorganisms can be present in biotreatment

processes as discretely dispersed cells, as flocs or as

biofilms. The latter two are by far the most common and

378

both flocs and films can be considered as matrices of

naturally immobilized cells. Since immobilized

microbial cells were first investigated, there have been

repeated claims that immobilization results in enhanced

performance; claims which will most probably be

explained on the basis of phenotypic responses to

environmental gradients at a future date. The bacterial

growth and activity is substantially enhanced by the

incorporation of surfaces to which microorganisms could

attach (Bottle effect). Cell surface hydrophobicity,

presence of fimbriae and flagella and production of EPS

all influence the rate and extent of attachment of

microbial cells. Fimbriae play a role in cell surface

hydrophobicity and attachment, probably by overcoming

the initial electrostatic repulsion barrier that exists

between the cell and substratum (Corpe, 1980). In light

379

of these findings, cell surface structures such as fimbriae,

other proteins, LPS, EPS and flagella all clearly play an

important role in the attachment process.

Metcalf and Eddy (1991), reported that biofilter

was first introduced in England in 1893 as a trickling

filter in wastewater treatment, and since then, it has been

successfully used for the treatment of domestic and

industrial wastewater. Originally, biofilter was

developed using rock or slag as filter media. However, at

present several types and shapes of plastic media are also

used. There are a number of small package treatment

plants with different brand names currently available in

the market in which different shaped plastic materials are

packed as filter media and are mainly used for treating

small amount of wastewater (e.g. from household or

380

hotel). Irrespective of its different names usually given

based on operational mode, the basic principle in a

biofilter is the same i.e., biodegradations of pollutants by

the microorganisms attached onto the filter media. The

idea behind a biofilter is to let microorganisms degrade

pollutants from the air and use these substances as their

primary carbon and energy source. The key to a

successful biofilter operation is to create a health

ecosystem in the filter, by controlling parameters like

moisture content, pH, temperature, access to oxygen and

nutrients. The choice of filter material is fundamental

and in recent years various synthetic packing materials

indeed do not contain microorganisms or nutrients,

which therefore must be added. According to Miao et al.,

(2005), wood seems to be a suitable biofilter medium

since it is cheap, develops low pressure-drops, has good

381

mechanical properties and offers a seemly habitat for

microorganisms. The pioneer in the investigation of the

behaviour of biofilters was Ottengraf (1983). He

assumed that the kinetics of the biodegradation which

takes place in the biolayer is zero order.

According to Chaudhary et al. (2003), any type

of filter with attached biomass on the filter media can be

defined as a biofilter. Bacterial masses attached onto the

filter media as biofilm oxidize most of the organics and

use it as an energy supply and carbon source. Biofilter

has been successfully used for air, water, and wastewater

treatment. Because of its wide range of application,

many studies have been done on biofiltration system in

the last few decades. However, theoretically it is still

difficult to explain the behavior of a biofilter. The

382

growth of different types of microorganisms in different

working conditions makes it impossible to generalize the

microbial activities in a biofilter. The biofilters operated

at different filtration rates and influent characteristics can

have diverse efficiency for different target pollutants. In

a biofiltration system, the pollutants are removed due to

biological degradation rather than physical straining as is

the case in normal filter.

With the progression of filtration process,

microorganisms (aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative

bacteria, fungi, algae and protozoa) are gradually

developed on the surface of the filter media and form a

biological film or slime layer known as biofilm.

Chaudhary et al., (2003) reported that the development

of biofilm may take few days or months depending on

383

the influent organic concentration. The crucial point for

the successful operation of a biofilter is to control and

maintain a healthy biomass on the surface of the filter.

Since the performance of the biofilter largely depends on

the microbial activities, a constant source of substrates

(organic substance and nutrients) is required for its

consistent and effective operation.

There are three main biological processes that

can occur in a biofilter viz., (i) attachment of

microorganism, (ii) growth of microorganism and (iii)

decay and detachment of microorganisms. As the

success of a biofilter depends on the growth and

maintenance of microorganisms (biomass) on the surface

of filter media, it is necessary to understand the

mechanisms of attachment, growth and detachment on

384

the surface of the filter media. According to Leson and

Smith (1997), biofiltration relies on phenomena which

occur in nature, but at slower rates. Microorganisms

release CO2 in the atmosphere. The accumulation of

other bye products in the filter medium is not significant.

After use, the packing medium is unlikely to be

classified as hazardous waste. Flemming and Winglinder

(2001), reported that the complexity of biofilms depends

on a variety of factors such as nature of both substrate

and support material and the diversity of microorganisms

involved in the treatment process.

According to Liu et al. (2001), biomass and

microbial activity in a biofilter are two critical

parameters, which determine the reactor’s performance

in water treatment and have become the focus of interest

in the scientific community due to the development of

385

modern analytical techniques. Boifilms are of two types

i.e., active biofilms and inactive ones. Different from

inactive biofilms, active ones have direct influence on

the substrate degradation rate, which is proportional to

the surface areas of supports (Liu and Capdeville, 1996).

Biofilm spatial structures can be studied by using a 3-D

image technology as a bridge between light microscopy

and electron microscopy (Lazarova and Manen, 1995).

Mary et al. (2000), reported that EPS plays

various roles in the structure and function of different

biofilm communities. Moreover, it is quite possible that

EPS plays a different role in similar microbial

communities under different environmental conditions.

According to Gilbert et al. (1997), the EPS matrix also

has the potential to physically prevent access of certain

386

antimicrobial agents into the biofilm by acting as an ion

exchanger, thereby restricting diffusion of compounds

from the surrounding milieu into the biofilm. According

to Flemming (1993), EPS has also been reported to

provide protection from a variety of environmental

stresses, such as UV radiation, pH shifts, osmotic shock

and desiccation. According to Flemming et al., (2000),

biofilms are composed primarily of microbial cells and

EPS. EPS may account for 50% to 90% of the total

organic carbon of biofilms and can be considered the

primary matrix material of the biofilm. EPS is also

highly hydrated because it can incorporate large amounts

of water into its structure by hydrogen bonding. EPS

may be hydrophobic, although most types of EPS are

both hydrophilic and hydrophobic (Sutherland, 2001).

EPS may also vary in its solubility. Sutherland (2001),

387

noted two important properties of EPS that may have a

marked effect on the biofilm. First, the composition and

structure of the polysaccharides determine their primary

conformation. Second, the EPS of biofilms is not

generally uniform but may vary spatially and temporally.

Leriche et al. (2000), used the binding specificity

of lectins to simple sugars to evaluate bacterial biofilm

development by different organisms. EPS production is

known to be affected by nutrient status of the growth

medium i.e., excess available carbon and limitation of

nitrogen, potassium or phosphate promote EPS synthesis

(Sutherland, 2001). Slow bacterial growth will also

enhance EPS production (Sutherland, 2001). Because

EPS is highly hydrated and it prevents desiccation in

some natural biofilms. EPS may also contribute to the

388

antimicrobial resistance properties of biofilms by

impeding the mass transport of antibiotics through the

biofilm, probably by binding directly to these agents

(Donlan, 2000). Shoji et al. (2008), reported that low

assimilable organic carbon hindered heterotrophic

bacteria and favored autotrophs and oligotrophs.

Roeselers et al. (2008), reported that a matrix of

substances secreted by phototrophs and heterotrophs

enhances the attachment of biofilm community.

Andersson et al. (2010), studied the influence of

microbial interactions and polysaccharide compositions

on nutrient removal activity in multi species biofilms,

formed by strains found in wastewater treatment

systems. In this report, relationship between biofilm

formation, denitrification activity, phosphorus removal

389

and the composition of EPS, exopolysaccharides and

bacterial community was investigated using biofilm of

denitrification and phosphorus removing strains of

microbes. Denitrification activity in biofilms increased

with the amount of biofilm, while phosphorus removal

depended on bacterial growth rate. Peitzsch et al. (2008),

investigated Escherichia coli biofilms using real time

analysis and reported that microbial communities grow

more stably when they are associated with surfaces or

organized in aggregates. This advantage of biofilms is

technically exploited for the degradation of xenobiotics

or in biocatalysis, where the fixed biomass has the added

advantage of easier separation of excreted products.

Appropriately treated domestic sewage can be

further used as ideal for irrigation and fertilization

390

purposes in particularly the semiarid climate region. In

addition to an increased availability of an additional

source of irrigation water, treated sewage contains

valuable plant nutrients (N, P, K), while non-controlled

environmental pollution is prevented. In fact, the

agricultural application can be considered as a tertiary

treatment step. In such approach, water pricing can be

included, distributing the costs of treatment both over the

community and farmers, as polluters and beneficiaries,

respectively (Lier et al., 2002). Bashan et al. (1993),

suggested that when considering inoculation with

microbes, the first objective is to find the best microbe

available. The second one is a study of the specific

inoculum formulation that determines the potential

success of the inoculum (Fages, 1992). Once a feasible

strain is chosen, it is optimized, tested and applied with

391

the help of a carrier material. According to Oh and

Bartha (1997), it is necessary to allow the biodegradation

of all components, sometimes to add new strains to the

packing medium, which already contains

microorganisms.

The acclimatization of microbial communities to

the bioreactor environment is a critical period which

influences the long-term functioning of bioreactors. As

such, it has been extensively studied in waste gas and

wastewater treatment systems (Tresse et al., 2002). In

the present study, an attempt was made to utilize

materials of no use and low cost materials as biofilter

materials, effective strains of microorganisms in limited

space and without high infrastructure and operational

maintenance like aeration etc., for the treatment of

392

domestic wastewater. The results were promising and the

microorganisms & filter materials used in the present

study are helpful in the bioremediation of sewage to

achieve effluents standards of pollution control board

and the concept may be useful to use at small scale

treatment systems with further research of various

aspects.

The nature of the packing material in biofilters is

an important factor for the success in the design and

operation of biofilters. The materials studied were

chosen according to performance studies conducted

earlier in the field of biofiltration. This study included

both organic and inorganic (or synthetic) materials along

with few other materials like corn cobs, sintered glass

cylinders. The novelty in using these materials includes

393

providing high specific surface area, durability and

economic feasibility.

In general, these studies concluded that high

removal efficiencies in biofilters are strongly related to

packing material properties irrespective of physical and

chemical properties of the materials. The nature of the

filter material, which may be organic, natural inorganic

or entirely synthetic, is a crucial factor for the successful

application of biofilters and biotrickling filters. The

performance of these materials affects the frequency at

which the medium is replaced and other key factors such

as bacterial activity (Prado et al., 2009). Among the

natural carriers reported, compost, peat, soil and wood

derivatives are the most extensively used, while

activated carbon (AC), perlite, glass beads, ceramic

394

rings, polyurethane foam, polystyrene and vermiculite

are some of the several synthetic or inert carriers which

have been studied (Kennes and Thalasso, 2001).

In the present work, 7 packing materials viz.,

granite stones, clay balls, sintered glass cylinders, corn

cobs, wood chips, nylon threads and plastic balls were

used as support media in biofiltration and were

compared to evaluate their suitability. For this purpose, a

comprehensive study of physical and chemical

parameters for common packing materials used in

biofiltration has been performed. In addition, a relative

classification of the packing materials is provided per

each parameter studied.

Specific surface area, particle size, density,

particle stability and adsorption are some of the most

395

important characteristics in relation to physical

characteristics of the filter media in biofiltration.

Volume, HRT and time period are the operational

parameters studied in evaluating biofilter media.

A high specific surface area is needed to achieve

high mass transfer velocities which is required to keep

an optimal activity of the immobilized microorganisms.

A high adsorption capacity is recommendable to buffer

intermittent loads, while a low purchase cost is directly

linked with biofilter economical viability. Packing

material particles vary in size, which affects important

media characteristics such as the resistance to liquid and

air flow and the effective biofilm surface area. If the size

of the particles is small large specific surface areas

essential for mass transfer are provided as it happens in

396

case of nylon threads. However, smaller particle sizes

also create a larger resistance to liquid flow and, thus,

larger operating costs due to the electrical power

consumption of the blower. Conversely, large size

particles favour liquid flows but reduce the number of

potential sites for the microbial activity as it happened in

the case of corn cobs. Adu and Otten (1996) have

reported that particle size is a parameter even more

influential to the performance than the gas flow rate.

Thus, the relative importance of packing material

properties can be different depending on the

characteristics of the system and its operation. In the

present study, nylon threads showed high specific

surface area and it was followed by corn cobs. The

pollution reduction efficacies of pollutants were also

high for these two materials when compared to others.

397

The physico-chemical parameters of wastewater

play an important role in the selection of biofilter

material. The characteristics of wastewater influence the

degradation of organic material. In the present study,

nylon threads are synthetic in nature and they are non

biodegradable. Corn cobs also showed good pollution

reducing capacities even though it is biodegradable in

nature. Further research is warranted in this context i.e.,

utilization of corn cobs in practical scale and their

relative purification efficiency in varied wastewater

compositions.

The surface area of biofilter material has a great

influence on the volume of the reactor. The smaller the

particle size, greater the surface area offered to microbial

attachment. Hence, HRT decreases. This has vast

398

influence on the investment on the size of the reactor

(treatment system), facilitating an economic waste

treatment system. In the present study, an attempt was

made to utilize filter materials with low volume,

minimum possible HRT and maximum time period for

domestic sewage treatment. Out of seven filter materials

corn cob with 20% volume, 9 hours HRT and 40 days

time period showed good elimination capacities of

pollutants along with nylon threads with 30% volume,

10 hours HRT and 60 days time period. As the primary

target is to achieve pollution control parameters set by

government), the time of treatment can be further

reduced. The results of the microbial treatment have

been assessed using equipment like electron microscopy,

LCMS, SDS PAGE etc., to achieve objective results.

399

Furthermore, since the economical viability is a

key aspect to choose a suitable material, the purchase

costs and operating costs related to pressure drop across

the packed bed were also considered. In addition to

operating costs, the purchase cost of packing materials

has a significant impact in overall costs, not only

because of the high volumes usually required for

biofilter construction but also because of packing

materials replacement due to limited durability.

However, the estimated durability of synthetic filter

materials is generally larger than organic packing

materials. This is due to superior mechanical and

chemical resistance offered by synthetic materials which

avoids degradation in short periods of time. Special

attention has to be paid to the packing materials selected,

as it is the main parameter influencing the medium

400

replacement cost, and one of the main factors affecting

investment costs (Prado et al., 2009).

In the present study, corn cobs and nylon threads

showed good purification capacities than the remaining

filter materials. Corn cobs were available free of cost and

all other materials along with nylon threads were more

costly than the cobs. The actual economics were not

studied in the present work and corn cobs may be the

best compared to the rest, in terms of its availability and

purification capacities of pollutants.

During the 1980s, intensive scientific research

was started on bioreactors, leading to a quick

improvement in the knowledge of the principles of

biofiltration and, concomitantly on the design and

401

development of innovative bioreactor designs. Now-a-

days bioreactors are a promising alternative to traditional

physical and chemical gas treatment technologies,

mainly due to their high efficiency and competitive cost

(Devinny et al., 1999). Several studies have pointed out

that one of the main advantages of bioreactors is the

reduction of the operating costs (Zuber et al., 1997; Jorio

and Heitz, 1999; Deshusses and Webster, 2000; Gao et

al., 2001; Gabriel and Deshusses, 2004). Only a few in-

depth studies aimed at assessing investment and

operating costs of biological treatment systems have

been published so far. Among them, Gerrard (1996)

developed a model which allows determining the total

costs of a biofilter as a function of its bed height and air

velocity. Also, Deshusses and Cox (1999) developed a

model which allows selecting the most cost-effective

402

bioreactor design and operating conditions for

biotrickling filters. However, none of them have been

extensively applied in full-scale operations. The present

work serves as a tool that allows to assess the

economical viability of a biological wastewater treating

system.

4.7 Chapter VII

4.7.1 Electron Microscopy studies

In the present study, samples of high pollutant

elimination capacities were subjected to electron

microscopic studies and observed for results. It was

observed that filter materials corn cob and nylon thread

showed maximum elimination capacity of pollutants. It

was observed that microbial cell adherence and

attachment was maximum for corn cob material when

403

compared to nylon thread (Fig 46 – 53, page 555 - 562),

when observed at various magnifications. It was also

evident that the matrix of corn cob is highly complex

when compared to surface of nylon thread (Figs. 54 and

55, page 563 & 564). It envisaged that, the nature of

filter material has an effect along with the surface area of

the filter material in the pollution elimination capacity.

In the present study, corn cob provides 1046.17 m2/m

3

specific surface area and nylon thread provides 2007.14

m2/m

3 specific surface area and both the materials

showed similar pollution elimination capacities. The

nature of the corn cob is biogenic which provides

suitable conditions for adherence of microorganisms.

Adherence of the microbial cell to the surface of the

filter material is the first and important factor for the

biofilm formation.

404

Prokaryotes in natural environments form

biofilms, which are benthic assemblages of a variety of

microorganisms embedded within their extracellular

mucilage. Biofilms are firmly attached to surfaces such

as aquatic sediments. Quorum sensing by the many

microbes in a biofilm is a collective decision making and

cooperation for responding to internal and external

parameters affecting the community. This

communication is based on chemical signaling affecting

gene expression of the microorganisms. Microorganisms

situated in a biofilm change behaviours and metabolic

activities to comply with the requirements of the entire

biofilm cooperative. Consequently, reconstruction of the

evolution of prokaryotes in Earth history must consider

the biofilm way of microbial life. Biogenic sedimentary

structures might not represent certain microbial groups,

405

but in fact may be relics of modified cooperative

microbial activities. Future research should focus on

detectable biosignatures caused by biofilm consortia as a

whole instead of on the appearance or extinction of

individual microbial groups. Such sedimentary structures

as stromatolites and microbially induced sedimentary

structures (MISS) are intrinsically controlled by

biofilms, but also affected by extrinsic (environmental)

conditions (Nora et al., 2013).

The physical properties of the biofilm are largely

determined by the EPS, while the physiological

properties are determined by the bacterial cells (Dirk and

Paul, 2013). Bacterial adhesion is generally recognized

as the first step in biofilm formation, Bacteria adhere to

virtually all natural and synthetic surfaces (Hall et al.,

406

2004). There are a number of different reasons for

bacteria adhering to a surface viz., “Adhesion to a

surface is a survival mechanism for bacteria”. Nutrients

in aqueous environments have the tendency to

accumulate at surfaces, giving adhering bacteria a

benefit over free floating, a link has been described

between strong adhesion forces between bacteria and

substratum surfaces yielding membrane stresses and the

percentage of dead cells on a surface for which the term

“stress de-activation” was coined (Liu et al., 2008).

Adhesion forces at the proposed transitions between the

different regimes are all approximate because adhesion

forces tend to strengthen considerably during the first

minutes after contact, yielding a switch from reversible

to irreversible adhesion. Microbiologically, this switch

has been associated with the production of EPS in

407

response to a surface (Hall et al., 2004), but EPS

production in response to adhesion likely occurs much

later on during growth, as completely inert polystyrene

particles also demonstrate this initial bond strengthening

(Busscher et al., 2010). Upon first approach of a

bacterium to a surface, it becomes attached to a layer of

highly viscous water adjacent to the surface that is

subsequently slowly penetrated to allow stronger contact

with the surface, after which protein structures on the

cell surface re-orient themselves to allow optimal

binding. Since it is unlikely that metabolic processes and

phenotypic changes occur within minutes, we envisage

that adhesion forces after physico-chemical

strengthening represent the transition forces between the

three adhesion force regimes. According to Busscher et

408

al., (2012), three adhesion forces are regimes dictating

the bacterial response to a substratum surface.

4.7.2 Electrophoresis of proteins

The objective of this study was to investigate the

proteins profiles in biofilm, raw sewage, treated sewage

and consortium using SDS-PAGE. Numerous distinct

protein bands were obtained, indicating that extracellular

proteins present in the samples were well separated by

SDS-PAGE. Protein profiles were different between the

four extracts viz., biofilm, consortium, raw sewage and

treated sewage indicating that extracellular proteins

were not the same that were released. Although there

were some common proteins present in all four extracts.

409

In the present study, molecular weight of proteins

was determined using known marker and compared each

other. It envisages that the type of proteins present in

consortium with molecular weights 140 kd, 36 kd, 27 kd,

24 kd were also present in biofilm, which was a strong

evidence that consortium used in the treatment process

was also a part of biofilm. Similarly, the proteins present

in raw sewage with molecular weights 247 kd and 25 kd

were also present in biofilm. Hence, it may possible that

biofilm formation is a complex phenomena which forms

with the help of various microorganisms present in the

treatment process. The type of proteins present in treated

sewage with 24 kd was a low molecular weight

substance which was also present in remaining samples

(Fig 56, page 565).

410

All profiles had a number of larger proteins in the

250 kDa range, and some distinct bands in the range

between 24 and 140 kDa. They also showed small bands

at around 24 kDa. These protein bands are visible in both

consortium and biofilm, signifying that the consortium is

the source of these proteins. Yet, the profiles between

biofilm and raw sewage are consistently different, with

some proteins only appearing in the consortium but not

in the raw sewage. This indicates that they are soluble

microbial products produced by microorganisms in

consortium.

There are enough protein bands in biofilm,

consortium and raw sewage to question the prevailing

assumption that most of the proteins in biofilm are

soluble microbial product (SMPs) and have origins in

411

consortium (Barker and Stuckey, 1999; Drewes and Fox,

2000; Drewes et al., 2001). It should be noted that SDS-

PAGE is not a method of measuring proteins. While it is

true that more concentrated proteins will have darker and

thicker bands, SDS-PAGE is unable to measure proteins.

It envisages that the protein profiles from biofilm,

consortium has a high diversity of proteins. These data

are unable to resolve that question, but the darkness of

the bands suggests that recalcitrant proteins constitute a

large percentage of the microbial proteins. No other

proteins were present in the treated sample and it may be

said that the treatment process is said to be proper. The

Rf values were calculated and tabulated (Table 82 – 83,

page 496 & 497) and graph was drawn for Rf values (Fig

57, page 566).

412

Some proteins in the 25 - 35 kDa range is clearly

visible in all the sources, is evidenced by the high degree

of similarity between the various sources. Other

researchers have similarly found that bioavailable, low

molecular weight, forms of dissolved organic nitrogen

(DON) were lost in secondary effluent (Pehlivanoglu

and Sedlak, 2004). The same research group asserts that

most treatment plants will not remove low molecular

weight, hydrophilic compounds, and that these low-

molecular weight wastewater effluents could act as

precursors during water reuse or reclamation. They

conclude that more research needs to be done to find

physical or chemical treatment processes to remove

bioavailable DON or that operating conditions may be

able to be altered to decrease the concentration

(Pehlivanoglu-Mantas and Sedlak, 2008).

413

Identifying these strongly expressed proteins and

understanding their biochemical roles in sewage

treatment may contribute to a better engineering

application. The success of SDS-PAGE might itself be a

meaningful result since the application of SDSPAGE

into complex environmental samples such as sewage,

biofilm is generally known as a difficult task. The

identification and characterization of SDS PAGE

proteins was beyond the scope of present study and it

can be carried out in further experimentation in future.

Further characterization of the low molecular weight

proteins that contribute to this low molecular weight

DON could provide clues as to how to reduce the release

of this fraction of material in wastewater effluent.

414

Park et al., (2008), stated that identification of

proteins from samples like field activated sludge is a

challenge, because the genomes of most of activated

sludge microorganisms have not yet been sequenced.

However, the development of metagenomic analysis and

mass spec technologies may bring meaningful protein

identification work in the near future.

4.7.3 LCMS studies

The LC/MS is used in many applications,

because of its ability to detect a wide range of

compounds with great sensitivity and specificity. One

fundamental application of LC/MS is the determination

of molecular weights. In the present study, four samples

viz., raw sewage, treated sewage, consortium and

biofilm were subjected to LC MS. The biofilm was taken

415

from corn cob surface. The m/z values ranging from 200

– 1000 m/z value in positive mode and 200 – 600 m/z

value in negative mode were considered. Based on the

results it was found that the molecular ion (M) had the

molecular weight of 288 in positive mode and 266 and

294 in negative mode for all the samples (Fig 58 – 65,

page 567 - 574). The identification and characterization

of proteins from the samples was beyond the scope of

present study and it can be done in further research.

The data reported by Park et al. (2008), from

LC/MS/MS studies of sewage sludge proteins that many

protein bands did not get any results and do not match

with the any database. They also reported that few of the

identified proteins contains less than 3 peptide bands.

This indicates that the origin of these proteins is most

416

likely from un-sequenced microorganisms in activated

sludge. Based on their investigations, Park et al. (2008),

categorized extracellular proteins of activated sludge into

five different groups by virtue of their origin viz.,

enzyme associated with bacterial defense, cell

appendage, outer membrane proteins, intracellular

materials and influent sewage. They also reported that

the presence of a foreign protease might induce a

response from the native activated sludge

microorganisms.

Further research is warranted in the fields of

usage of biofilters in continuous flow systems. High

efficiency in terms of removal of pollutants has to be

identified and enumerated to production scale. The

genome types have to be evaluated for high efficient

417

stains. Further, new and novel filter materials capable

high elimination capacity of pollutants has to be

identified and modified accordingly for usage in the

treatment of domestic wastewater treatment.

418

Table 4: Evaluation of raw sewage for various physico-chemical parameters for

10 successive days

Parameter (all

values are

expressed in

ppm except pH,

EC, Temp. &

SVI)

Raw sewage value (No. of days)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

pH 7.2 7.6 7.4 8.05 7.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.2 7.7

Electrical

conductivity

(mMhos/cm2)

2350 2330 2510 2420 2900 2760 2540 2800 2345 2300

Temperature

(°C) 29 28 25 24 22 24 25 24 28 27

TSS 360 400 410 380 375 350 380 400 360 395

VSS 140 168 163 145 160 170 150 113 135 170

Chlorides 143 155 125 179 162 201 172 184 176 152

Total Hardness 355 370 355 455 415 365 410 415 390 385

Alkalinity 510 530 535 525 400 415 485 423 532 514

C.O.D 460 510 550 520 480 490 500 520 470 470

B.O.D 192 215 220 218 198 200 150 135 110 140

Total Nitrogen

Ammonical N

Nitrate N

Nitrite N

Kjeldhal N

42.32

30.52

1.6

0.2

10

44.6

32.5

1.5

0.1

10.5

42.75

31

1.25

ND

10.5

49.2

35.6

1.5

0.1

12

48.2

35.5

1.6

0.1

11

42.0

30.5

1.0

ND

10.5

54.64

38.54

1.1

ND

15

54.35

39.0

1.25

0.1

14

54.5

38.1

1.3

0.1

15

56.1

40.1

1.0

ND

15

Total

Phosphorus

(as P)

8.5 8.40 6.37 5.92 6.68 9.0 8.6 6.75 6.0 9.5

Oil & grease 28 50.4 40.75 29 48 37.4 33 28.25 25.65 42.5

H2S 3.1 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.0

SVI (ml/g SS) 124 130 118 110 140 128 130 130 115 128

Table 5: Colony forming units produced by individual

microorganisms on nutrient agar medium after

adaptation to sterilized sewage.

S.No Organism C.F.U/ml

1 Bacillus megatherium 35 X 108

2 Nitrosomonas 42 X 108

3 Nitrobacter 45 X 108

4 Pseudomonas denitrificans 40 X 108

5 Chromatium sps., 38 X 108

6 Bacillus mucilaginosus 38 X 108

7 Lactobacillus acidophilus 28 X 108

8 Bacillus licheniformis 36 X 108

9 Rhodococcus terrae 32 X 108

10 Thiobacillus ferrooxidans -

420

Table 6: Effect of Bacillus megatherium and Nitrosomonas sps.,

as inoculum @ 1% in the domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Bacillus megatherium Nitrosomonas

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatme

nt

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in %

except pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatmen

t

time of

24 hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

1 pH 7.6 7.6 - 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 2360 2470 4.66 2380 2390 0.42

3 Temperature 27 27.5 0.5°C 28 28 -

4 TSS 360 290 19.44 345 270 21.74

5 VSS 145 125 13.79 118 89 24.58

6 Chlorides 180 185 2.78 158 170 7.59

7 Hardness 370 385 4.05 410 376 8.29

8 Alkalinity 469 465 0.85 415 400 3.61

9 C O D 510 380 25.49 480 355 26.04

10 B O D 180 105 41.67 205 110 46.34

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

50.8

38.3

0.1

1.8

10.6

45.9

34.5

0.1

1.6

9.8

9.65

9.92

-

11.11

7.55

49.5

35.8

N.D

1.6

12.1

33.8

21.6

1.1

1.9

9.2

31.72

39.66

1.10

18.75

23.97

12 Phosphorus (as

P)

9.4 3.68 60.85 8.6 7.9 8.14

13 Oil & grease 33 32 3.03 29 29 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 3.57 2.6 2.4 7.69

15 S V I 120 130 0.08 114 120 0.05

421

Table 7: Nitrobacter sps., and Pseudomonas denitrificans effect

as 1% inoculum in domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Nitrobacter sps., Pseudomonas denitrificans

Before

additio

n of

culture

After

treat

ment

time

of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatm

ent

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in %

except pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

1 pH 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 2540 2510 1.18 2300 2380 3.48

3 Temperature 27 28 1°C 27 27 -

4 TSS 380 260 31.58 312 243 22.12

5 VSS 154 115 25.32 128 94 26.56

6 Chlorides 177 130 26.55 162 149 8.02

7 Hardness 355 295 16.9 310 282 9.03

8 Alkalinity 390 372 4.62 419 395 5.73

9 C O D 530 395 25.47 460 325 29.35

10 B O D 210 123 41.43 194 110 43.3

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

50.2

38.2

0.1

1.1

10.8

34.7

22.8

0.6

2.1

9.2

30.88

40.31

500

90.91

14.81

48.65

34.6

0.05

1.7

12.3

32.1

21.2

0.1

1.9

8.9

34.02

38.73

100.00

11.76

27.64

12 Phosphorus (as P) 8.8 8.4 4.55 6.05 6.38 5.45

13 Oil & grease 34 33 2.94 28 28 -

14 H2 S 3.1 2.8 9.68 2.9 2.8 3.45

15 S V I 130 130 - 140 124 0.11

422

Table 8: 1% inoculum of Chromatium sps., and Bacillus

mucilaginosus effect in the treatment of domestic

sewage

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Chromatium sps., Bacillus mucilaginosus

Before

additio

n of

culture

After

treat

ment

time

of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in %

except pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

Before

additio

n of

culture

After

treatmen

t

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperatur

e & nitrite-

nitrogen

1 pH 7.8 7.7 0.1 7.9 8.0 0.1

2 E.C 2615 2620 0.19 2530 2580 1.98

3 Temperature 28 28 - 28 28.5 0.5°C

4 TSS 410 312 23.9 380 239 37.11

5 VSS 172 138 19.77 212 145 31.6

6 Chlorides 155 125 19.35 158 117 25.95

7 Hardness 355 340 4.23 410 370 9.76

8 Alkalinity 525 485 7.62 415 444 6.99

9 C O D 510 428 16.08 490 350 28.57

10 B O D 210 132 37.14 174 99 43.10

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

51.2

40.2

0.1

1.4

9.5

49.95

39.4

0.05

1.3

9.2

2.44

1.99

50

7.14

3.16

40.65

29.8

0.05

1.2

9.6

39.5

28.7

Not detected

1.3

9.5

2.83

3.69

-

8.33

1.04

12 Phosphorus (as

P)

7.2 7.1 1.39 9.4 8.1 13.83

13 Oil & grease 41 39 4.88 39 38 2.56

14 H2 S 3.2 2.1 34.38 2.9 2.7 6.90

15 S V I 120 110 0.08 130 120 0.76

423

Table 9: Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bacillus licheniformis

effect in the treatment of domestic sewage

S.

N

o

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Lactobacillus acidophilus Bacillus licheniformis

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatme

nt

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperatu

re &

nitrite-

nitrogen

Before

additio

n of

culture

After

treatm

ent

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperatu

re &

nitrite-

nitrogen

1 pH 7.6 7.5 0.1 8.1 8.2 0.1

2 E.C 2430 2450 0.82 2430 2420 0.41

3 Temperature 27.5 27.5 - 27 27 -

4 TSS 360 295 18.06 390 318 18.46

5 VSS 125 94 24.8 155 149 3.87

6 Chlorides 178 139 21.91 160 146 8.75

7 Hardness 395 385 2.53 375 360 4.0

8 Alkalinity 423 410 3.07 440 435 1.14

9 C O D 468 372 20.51 485 415 14.43

10 B O D 145 96 33.79 195 124 36.41

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

47.7

36.2

not detected

0.9

10.6

47.4

35.6

not detected

1.1

10.7

0.63

1.66

-

22.22

0.94

42.2

32.6

not

detected

1.1

8.5

40.25

30.8

0.05

1.2

8.2

4.62

5.52

-

9.09

3.53

12 Phosphorus (as

P)

10.5 10.4 0.95 8.1 8 1.23

13 Oil & grease 51 49 3.92 44 42 4.55

14 H2 S 2.9 2.85 1.72 2.6 2.5 3.85

15 S V I 130 140 0.76 120 108 0.1

424

Table 10: Effect of Rhodobacter terrae and Thiobacillus

ferrooxidans in domestic sewage treatment

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Rhodobacter terrae Thiobacillus ferrooxidans

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatme

nt

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

Before

addition

of

culture

After

treatm

ent

time of

24

hours

Difference

between

before and

after

treatment

process in

% except

pH,

temperature

& nitrite-

nitrogen

1 pH 7.8 7.8 - 7.3 7.1 0.2

2 E.C 2470 2462 0.32 2580 2570 0.39

3 Temperature 27 27.5 0.5°C 27 27 -

4 TSS 348 295 15.23 380 360 5.26

5 VSS 170 105 38.24 136 130 4.41

6 Chlorides 177 155 12.43 165 160 3.03

7 Hardness 395 396 0.25 400 405 1.25

8 Alkalinity 415 422 1.69 469 473 0.85

9 C O D 451 399 11.53 498 499 0.20

10 B O D 184 132 28.26 172 181 5.23

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

53.5

39.2

0.1

1.4

12.8

53.2

38.4

not detected

1.6

13.2

0.56

2.04

-

14.29

3.12

41.26

29.2

0.06

1

11

41.5

28.9

0.06

1.1

11.5

0.58

1.03

-

10

4.55

12 Phosphorus (as

P)

11 10.8 1.82 10.8 10.85 0.46

13 Oil & grease 33 33 - 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.2 2.9 31.82 1.9 1.9 -

15 S V I 120 120 - 120 120 -

425

Table 11: % of consortium effect in domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Inoculum @ 0.05% Inoculum @ 0.1%

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 - 7.9 7.9 7.9 -

2 E.C 1992 1998 2009.33 0.87 2460 2450 2380 3.25

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 318 316 141.66 55.45 343 339 141 58.89

5 VSS 135 136 68 49.63 161 160 72.67 54.87

6 Chlorides 155 152 79.66 48.61 172 175 89 48.26

7 Hardness 290 295 195 32.76 315 316 111 64.76

8 Alkalinity

402 410 277.67 30.93

432 429 279.3

3 35.34

9 C O D

480 473 210 56.25

465 459 190.3

3

59.07

10 B O D 218 216 95.67 56.12 215 213 82.67 61.55

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

53.25

41.8

0.05

1.6

9.8

54.9

43.2

ND

1.6

9.1

31.6

22.13

0.1

1.47

7.9

40.66

47.05

100.0

8.33

19.39

48.3

34.6

ND

1.4

12.3

49.6

5

36.5

0.05

1.5

11.6

28.42

17.13

0.05

1.5

9.73

41.17

50.48

-

7.14

20.87

12

Phosphorus (as

P) 10.8 10.8 5.6 48.15 9.6 9.5 4.7

51.04

13 Oil & grease 41 40 40 2.44 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 3.1 3.15 1.9 38.71 2.9 3 1.6 44.83

15 S V I 115 118 90 21.74 120 126 92 23.33

426

Table 12: Effect of 0.2 % and 0.3 % consortium in domestic

sewage treatment

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 8.2 8.2 8.2 - 7.9 7.8 8 0.1

2 E.C

2050 2060 2040.3

3

0.47 1680 1630 1480 11.9

3 Temperature 28.5 28 28 0.5°C 27 28 28 1.0°C

4 TSS 370 375 143.67 61.17 410 405 152 62.93

5 VSS 115 114 27.33 50.14 125 130 60.33 51.73

6 Chlorides 148 152 76 48.65 169 161 90 46.75

7 Hardness 395 390 233.67 40.84 400 410 232.67 41.83

8 Alkalinity 525 524 311 40.76 480 475 291.67 39.24

9 C O D 455 455 164 63.96 460 460 160 65.22

10 B O D 198 197 71.67 63.8 210 215 74.67 64.44

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

51.4

40.1

0.05

1.5

9.75

52.2

40.9

ND

1.5

9.8

24.43

19.3

0.1

0.6

4.43

52.46

51.87

100.0

60.0

54.53

41.26

29.4

0.06

0.9

10.9

41.75

30.2

0.05

1.0

10.5

19.02

13.5

0.05

1.0

4.47

53.9

54.08

11.11

11.11

59.02

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.2 11.3 4.67 58.33 9.8 9.7 4.23 56.8

13 Oil & grease 33 33 31.67 4.04 38 38 36.33 4.39

14 H2 S 3.2 3.2 1.3 59.38 2.9 2.9 1.15 60.34

15 S V I 115 118 91 20.87 130 130 99 23.85

427

Table 13: Effect of 0.4 % and 0.5% consortium in domestic

sewage treatment

S.

N

o

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.67 0.13 7.9 7.8 7.8 0.1

2 E.C 1690 1610 1318 22.01 1880 1890 1610 14.36

3 Temperature 28 27 27 1.0°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS

348 335 126 63.79 312 310 111.6

7 64.21

5 VSS 132 130 54.33 58.84 127 126 48 62.20

6 Chlorides 190 185 99.67 47.54 168 170 89.67 46.63

7 Hardness

335 340 218 34.93 315 340 234.6

7 25.50

8 Alkalinity

420 425 253.33 39.68 425 420 258.3

3 39.22

9 C O D

435 415 151.33 65.21 448 451 143.6

7 67.93

10 B O D 195 195 68 65.13 198 199 67 66.16

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

40.96

29.4

0.06

1.0

10.5

42.1

31.4

ND

1.0

10.7

18.73

13.97

0.1

0.77

3.9

54.26

52.49

66.67

23.33

62.86

48.85

34.8

0.05

1.6

12.4

50.6

34.6

0.1

1.5

12.3

21.03

15.77

0.10

1.03

4.13

56.64

54.69

100.0

35.42

66.67

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.8 9.9 3.95

59.69 10.4 10.6 4.03 61.22

13 Oil & grease 32 33 31 3.13 36 36 34 5.56

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 0.97 64.20 2.9 3 0.93 67.82

15 S V I 128 132 99 22.66 124 130 96 22.58

428

Table 14: 4 hours and 8 hours HRT effect in domestic sewage

treatment with 0.2% consortium

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

HRT @ 4 hours HRT @ 8 hours

Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 8.2 8.2 8.2 - 7.8 7.8 7.9 0.1

2 E.C 2390 2340 2150 10.04 2490 2495 2003.3 19.54

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 28 27.5 27.5 0.5°C

4 TSS 395 389 274.33 30.55 405 405 209.67 48.23

5 VSS 158 156 118.67 24.89 169 170 98 42.01

6 Chlorides 162 171 126 22.22 183 181 113.33 38.07

7 Hardness 390 395 317 18.72 339 344 265.33 21.73

8 Alkalinity 415 421 341.33 17.75 495 489 373 24.65

9 C O D 492 495 319.67 35.03 510 505 265.67 47.91

10 B O D 218 215 148 32.11 219 206 117.33 46.42

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

42.5

32.4

ND

1.1

9.0

44.85

34.1

0.05

1.5

9.2

31.95

24.13

0.05

1.0

6.77

24.82

25.51

-

9.09

24.81

51.35

40.4

0.05

1.3

9.6

54.85

43.1

0.05

0.9

10.8

35.77

28.17

0.07

1.40

6.13

30.35

30.28

33.33

7.69

36.11

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.2 9.3 6.5 29.35 8.2 8.4 5.23 36.18

13 Oil & grease 38 38 38 - 42 42 42 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 2.1 25 2.9 2.95 1.97 32.18

15 S V I 136 140 106 22.06 130 132 104 20.0

429

Table 15: 12 hours and 16 hours HRT effect in domestic sewage

treatment with 0.2% consortium

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.9 0.1

2 E.C 2380 2380 2166.6 8.96 2430 2440 2185 10.08

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 365 366 150 58.90 372 365 145.33 60.93

5 VSS 146 140 73 50.0 128 125 56.67 55.73

6 Chlorides 171 172 78.67 54.0 162 162 68 58.02

7 Hardness 390 405 272.67 30.09 395 405 256.67 35.02

8 Alkalinity 453 450 271 40.18 424 430 235 44.58

9 C O D 508 510 190.67 62.47 478 480 174.67 63.46

10 B O D 184 185 72 60.87 204 202 77 62.25

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

51.3

39.1

0.1

1.4

10.7

52.7

40.2

0.1

1.5

10.9

27.10

19.97

0.1

1.6

5.43

47.13

48.93

-

14.29

49.22

48.85

35.8

0.05

1.1

11.9

51.25

38.1

0.05

1.0

12.1

23.42

16.8

0.08

1.2

5.33

52.06

53.07

66.67

9.09

55.18

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.6 9.6 4.6

52.08 8.9 9 3.95 55.62

13 Oil & grease 38 38 36 5.26 31 30 29 6.45

14 H2 S 2.9 2.95 1.3 55.17 3.0 3.0 1.3 56.67

15 S V I 130 132 102 21.54 122 120 95 22.13

430

Table 16: Effect of 20 hours and 24 hours HRT with 0.2%

consortium in domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.5 7.6 7.6 0.1

2 E.C

1980 1960 1740 12.12

2540 2520 2246.

6 11.55

3 Temperature 27.5 27 28 0.5°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS

350 355 133.67 61.81

390 385 148.3

3 61.97

5 VSS 128 125 53 58.59 145 148 59.17 59.20

6 Chlorides 182 180 74.33 59.16 172 175 72 58.14

7 Hardness 398 395 238.67 40.03 410 405 242 40.98

8 Alkalinity 430 430 210.67 51.01 470 465 234 50.21

9 C O D

475 477 172.67 63.65

520 515 187.1

7 64.01

10 B O D 155 154 56 63.87 205 202 74 63.9

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

46.6

36.3

ND

0.5

9.8

48.72

35.1

0.02

0.7

9.9

20.79

15.93

0.06

0.87

3.93

55.39

56.11

-

73.33

59.86

42.65

30.6

0.05

1.1

10.9

44.35

32.1

0.05

1.2

11.0

18.92

13.17

0.09

1.27

4.4

55.64

56.97

73.33

15.15

59.63

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 10.2 10.3 4.1 59.8 10.6 10.7 4.13

61.01

13 Oil & grease 48 48 45 6.25 38 37 35 7.89

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.1 62.07 2.1 2.1 0.75 64.29

15 S V I 120 118 87 27.5 130 132 88 32.31

431

Table 17: Effect of stones as biofilter material in 10% and 20%

volumes along with 0.2% consortium and 12 hours

HRT in domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Volume – 10 % Volume – 20 %

Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 2160 2170 2076.6 3.86 2010 2020 1923.3 4.31

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 360 365 140.67 60.93 360 348 145 59.72

5 VSS 125 128 56 55.2 126 128 55 56.35

6 Chlorides 168 170 70.33 58.13 176 180 74 57.95

7 Hardness 385 390 247.3 35.76 390 385 250 35.9

8 Alkalinity

405 404 219 45.93

415 421 235.6

7 43.21

9 C O D 460 462 171 62.83 480 482 177 63.13

10 B O D 206 209 78 62.14 185 190 79 57.3

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

45.95

34.2

0.05

0.9

10.8

48.15

36.3

0.05

0.9

10.9

21.55

15.67

0.05

1.0

4.83

53.1

54.19

-

11.11

55.25

46.84

36.4

0.04

0.6

9.8

47.44

37.1

0.04

0.5

9.8

21.72

16.67

0.05

0.6

4.4

53.64

54.21

25.0

-

55.10

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.6 9.6 4.23

55.9 9.9 9.9 4.1

58.59

13 Oil & grease 34 34 34 - 44 44 44 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.2 57.14 2.8 2.9 1.2 57.14

15 S V I 118 116 87 26.27 124 127 90 27.42

432

Table 18: 30% volume and 40 % volume of stones as biofilter

material effect along with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT effect in domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Volume – 30 % Volume – 40 %

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C 2240 2190 2043.3 8.78 2320 2310 2210 4.74

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 345 344 139 59.71 340 345 139 59.12

5 VSS 128 124 56 56.25 118 116 50 57.63

6 Chlorides 154 157 65 57.79 145 144 62 57.24

7 Hardness 390 390 250 35.9 380 390 243 36.05

8 Alkalinity

470 473 263.6

7

43.9 460 465 258 43.91

9 C O D 510 509 190 62.75 480 475 177 63.13

10 B O D 202 203 77 61.88 206 208 78 62.14

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

43.25

31.7

0.05

1.1

10.4

43.65

32.1

0.05

1.1

10.4

20.42

14.57

0.05

1.2

4.6

52.79

54.05

-

9.09

55.77

44.25

33.4

0.05

1.0

9.8

45.55

34.6

0.05

1.0

9.9

20.6

15.37

0.06

1.1

4.4

53.45

53.99

26.67

10.0

55.10

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.5 4.4 57.69 8.6 8.7 3.7 56.98

13 Oil & grease 40 40 40 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.6 2.7 1.1 57.69 2.6 2.7 1.1 57.69

15 S V I 130 132 94 27.69 134 135 96 28.36

433

Table 19: Effect of 8 hours HRT, 9 HRT with 10% volume of

granite stones and 0.2% consortium in domestic

sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature & SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1

2 E.C

2090 2090 1870 10.53 2130 2140 1943

.3 8.76

3 Temperature 27 27.5 27.5 0.5°C 28 28 28 -

4 TSS

340 355 177.33 47.84 380 385 186.

33 50.96

5 VSS

120 112 70 41.67 145 140 82.3

3 43.22

6 Chlorides 172 174 105 38.95 185 188 105 43.24

7 Hardness 380 370 295.33 22.28 345 340 261 24.35

8 Alkalinity

410 415 307 25.12

390 385 276.

67 29.06

9 C O D 460 465 244.67 46.81 430 432 213 50.47

10 B O D 210 212 113 46.19 192 194 99 48.44

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

42.25

313

0.05

1.0

9.9

43.45

32.4

0.05

1.0

10

29.67

22.13

0.04

1.1

6.4

29.77

29.29

20.0

10.0

35.35

43.6

34.2

ND

0.8

8.6

45.01

35.4

0.01

0.8

8.8

28.32

22.13

0.05

0.93

5.2

35.05

35.28

-

16.67

39.53

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.5 10.5 6.8 35.24 9.8 9.8 6.03 38.44

13 Oil & grease 38 37 37 2.63 42 43 42 -

14 H2 S 2.6 2.7 1.8 30.77 2.7 2.8 1.82 32.72

15 S V I 128 130 90 29.69 132 132 90 29.69

434

Table 20: 10 hours HRT and 11 hours HRT effect with 10%

volume of granite stones and 0.2% consortium in

domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 1890 1860 1713.3 9.35 1920 1930 1748.6 8.92

3 Temperature 28 27 27 1°C 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 390 392 179.33 54.02 355 360 153 56.9

5 VSS 145 140 78 46.21 140 138 80.33 42.62

6 Chlorides 160 162 85 46.88 174 175 87.33 49.81

7 Hardness 390 380 288.33 26.07 360 352 260.33 27.69

8 Alkalinity 430 410 290.33 32.48 435 430 278 36.09

9 C O D 485 480 220 54.64 490 492 198.67 59.46

10 B O D 202 203 97 51.98 198 200 91 54.04

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

47.95

38.2

0.05

1.1

8.6

49.35

39.4

0.05

1.2

8.7

29.27

23.03

0.07

1.27

4.9

38.96

39.7

33.33

15.15

43.02

45.25

36.4

0.05

1.0

7.8

47.06

38.1

0.06

1.0

7.9

25.62

20.40

0.05

1.03

4.13

43.39

43.96

-

3.33

47.01

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.7 9.7 5.37

44.67 9.6 9.6 5

47.92

13 Oil & grease 42 41 41 2.38 38 37 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.6 40.74 2.4 2.6 1.27 47.22

15 S V I 124 128 88 29.03 130 132 90 30.77

435

Table 21: 12 hours HRT effect with 10% volume of granite

stones and 0.2% consortium in domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in mg/litre

(ppm) except pH,

electric conductivity,

temperature & SVI)

HRT @ 12hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 2240 2260 2023.3 9.67

3 Temperature 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 360 364 147 59.17

5 VSS 138 130 67 51.45

6 Chlorides 182 176 84.33 53.66

7 Hardness 398 400 280 29.65

8 Alkalinity 460 465 275.67 40.07

9 C O D 490 493 180.67 63.13

10 B O D 192 194 75 60.94

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47.45

36.7

0.05

1.1

9.6

48.87

38.1

0.07

1.0

9.7

24.69

18.67

0.05

1.2

4.77

47.97

49.14

6.67

9.09

50.35

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.2 10.3 4.8 52.94

13 Oil & grease 36 36 36 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.23 55.95

15 S V I 140 138 94 32.86

436

Table 22: Time period of 10 days and 20 days effect in

sewage treatment along with 10% volume of

granite stones, 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT

S.

N

o

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Time period – 10 days Time period – 20 days

Befo

re

treat

men

t

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 0.1

2 E.C 1690 1690 1521.6 9.96 1930 1910 1646.6 14.68

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 320 322 130 59.38 375 379 154 58.93

5 VSS 116 112 57 50.86 140 138 69.67 50.24

6 Chlorides 138 142 63 54.35 178 176 82 53.93

7 Hardness 330 338 227.33 31.11 338 341 236 30.18

8 Alkalinity 380 390 228 40.0 385 390 230 40.26

9 C O D 410 415 154 62.44 425 428 160 62.35

10 B O D 158 159 61 61.39 188 189 73.3 60.99

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

40.9

30.8

ND

0.9

9.2

41.82

31.6

0.02

1.0

9.2

21.43

15.67

0.06

1.0

4.7

47.61

49.13

-

11.11

48.91

44.25

34.2

0.05

0.9

9.1

45.95

35.8

0.05

0.9

9.2

23.21

17.5

0.11

1.1

4.5

47.56

48.83

113.33

22.22

50.55

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 8.9 8.9 4.27

52.06 9.6 9.6 4.6 52.08

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 38 37 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.4 2.5 1.1 54.17 2.6 2.8 1.1 57.69

15 S V I 125 128 90 28.0 120 124 88 26.67

437

Table 23: Effect of 30 days time period and 40 days time

period in sewage treatment along with 10% volume

of stones, 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C 1860 1850 1583.

3 14.87 1890 1850 1523.3

19.4

3 Temperature 28 27 27 1°C 27.5 27 27 0.5°C

4 TSS 385 380 157 59.22 360 355 147 59.17

5 VSS 142 140 70.33 50.47 144 140 70.33 51.16

6 Chlorides 168 165 77 54.17 158 160 72 54.43

7 Hardness 395 400 272.6 30.97 370 375 251.33 32.07

8 Alkalinity 415 420 249.6 39.84 440 445 259.67 40.98

9 C O D 430 432 159 63.02 490 485 175.67 64.15

10 B O D 190 195 72 62.11 196 198 75 61.73

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

47.3

32.4

ND

1.0

7.9

43.25

34.1

0.05

1.2

7.9

22.07

16.5

0.1

1.53

3.93

46.57

49.07

-

53.33

50.21

43.45

34.3

0.05

1.0

8.1

44.96

35.8

0.06

1.1

8.0

22.87

17.13

0.1

1.57

4.07

47.37

50.05

100.0

56.67

49.79

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 8.8 8.8 4.2 52.27 9.4 9.4 4.4

53.19

13 Oil & grease 38 38 38 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.5 2.6 1.1 56.0 2.6 2.6 1.1 57.69

15 S V I 140 140 90 35.71 144 144 90 37.50

438

Table 24: 50 days time period and 60 days time period effect

in sewage treatment along with 10% volume of

stones, 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT

S.

N

o

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 2140 2100 1693.3 20.87 1990 1980 1595 19.85

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 380 375 154 59.47 370 360 150 59.46

5 VSS 148 141 71.67 51.58 144 140 69.33 51.85

6 Chlorides 176 178 79 55.11 172 174 77 55.23

7 Hardness 390 385 264.67 32.14 380 390 258 32.11

8 Alkalinity 450 460 260.67 42.07 460 450 267 41.96

9 C O D 510 512 183 64.12 510 505 182.67 64.18

10 B O D 218 216 82.67 62.08 212 210 80.33 62.11

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

49.69

38.2

0.09

1.6

9.8

51.3

39.8

0.1

1.6

9.8

25.7

19.0

0.13

1.7

4.87

48.28

50.26

48.15

6.25

50.34

47.2

36.8

0.1

1.4

8.9

48.3

37.9

0.1

1.4

8.9

24.38

18.33

0.15

1.53

4.4

48.35

50.18

46.67

9.52

50.56

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 10.4 10.5 4.9 52.88 9.8 9.8 4.53 53.74

13 Oil & grease 34 33 33 2.94 38 37 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.8 1.2 57.14 2.8 2.9 1.2 57.14

15 S V I 132 130 88 33.33 124 128 80 35.48

439

Table 25: Effect of clay balls as biofilter material in 10% and

20% volumes along with 0.2% consortium and 12

hours HRT in domestic sewage treatment

S.

N

o

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

Volume – 10% Volume – 20%

Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.87 0.07 8 8 8.03 0.03

2 E.C 2240 2210 1783.3 20.39 2360 2280 1893.3 19.77

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 27 28 28 1°C

4 TSS 340 345 132 61.18 390 395 132.67 65.98

5 VSS 116 110 57 50.86 158 150 73 53.8

6 Chlorides 162 164 70 56.79 172 178 67.33 60.85

7 Hardness 395 390 245 37.97 370 360 206.67 44.14

8 Alkalinity 410 415 216.33 47.24 445 450 209.33 52.96

9 C O D 490 494 164 66.53 490 494 152 68.98

10 B O D 209 212 75 64.11 202 208 65 67.82

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

47.7

34.8

ND

1.1

11.8

48.6

35.6

ND

1.1

11.9

22.84

16.13

0.04

1.57

5.1

52.12

53.64

-

42.42

56.78

41.73

31.6

0.03

1.2

8.9

42.94

32.8

0.04

1.2

8.9

17.09

12.03

0.09

1.67

3.3

59.05

61.92

188.89

38.89

62.92

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 8.6 8.7 3.87

55.04 9.1 9.2 3.5 61.54

13 Oil & grease 28 28 28 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.5 2.7 1.0 60.0 2.6 2.7 0.97 62.82

15 S V I 120 122 86 28.33 130 132 90 30.77

440

Table 26: 30% volume and 40 % volume of clay balls effect as

biofilter material along with 0.2% consortium and

12 hours HRT for domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.9 8 7.97 0.07

2 E.C 2330 2290 1843.3 20.89 2420 2410 1910 21.07

3 Temperature 27.5 28 28 0.5°C 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 380 384 110 71.05 340 348 93.5 72.5

5 VSS 128 120 56 56.25 184 174 81 55.98

6 Chlorides 166 164 54 67.47 168 166 52 69.05

7 Hardness 390 380 199 48.97 395 390 193.67 50.97

8 Alkalinity 421 420 177 57.96 430 430 167.67 61.01

9 C O D 482 488 131 72.82 490 490 130 73.47

10 B O D 153 154 43.17 71.79 192 194 53.67 72.05

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

46.55

35.2

0.05

1.1

10.2

48.35

36.8

0.05

1.2

10.3

17.63

12.4

0.1

1.6

3.53

62.13

64.77

93.33

45.45

65.36

42.15

31.2

0.05

1.1

9.8

44.25

33.1

0.05

1.2

9.9

15.63

10.63

0.09

1.7

3.2

62.93

65.92

86.67

54.55

67.35

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 9.8 9.8 3.3 66.33 9.6 9.6 3.1 67.71

13 Oil & grease 48 48 47 2.08 38 37 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.9 67.86 2.8 2.8 0.87 69.05

15 S V I 125 128 86 31.20 130 132 86 33.85

441

Table 27: 8 hours HRT and 9 hours HRT effect in domestic

sewage treatment in the presence of 30% volume of

clay balls and 0.2% consortium

S.

No

Physico-

chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

HRT@ 8 hours HRT @ 9hours

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 2320 2300 1996.6 13.94 2690 2420 2116.6 14.99

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 324 328 132.33 59.16 384 390 140 63.54

5 VSS 132 130 60 54.55 170 162 80 52.94

6 Chlorides 158 160 72 54.43 160 160 67.33 57.92

7 Hardness 304 309 203.67 33.0 360 355 223.33 37.96

8 Alkalinity 424 420 249 41.27 520 520 280.33 46.09

9 C O D 486 488 190 60.91 480 484 172.67 64.03

10 B O D 194 190 77 60.31 190 196 65.83 65.35

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal

Nitrogen

47.54

34.8

0.04

1.3

11.4

48.5

35.9

0.05

1.3

11.6

24.05

16.7

0.08

1.53

5.73

49.41

52.01

108.33

17.95

49.71

45.0

34.6

0.08

1.12

9.2

46.69

36.1

0.09

1.1

9.4

21.51

15.53

0.11

1.57

4.3

52.19

55.11

41.67

39.88

53.26

12 Phosphorus (as

P) 7.8 7.8 3.6 53.85 7.9 8.1 3.4 56.96

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 38 39 38 -

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56 2.9 2.9 1.13 60.92

15 S V I 122 120 90 26.23 128 130 90 29.69

442

Table 28: 10 hours HRT and 11 hours HRT effect in domestic

sewage treatment along with 30% volume of clay

balls and 0.2% consortium

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

HRT@ 10 hours HRT @ 11 hours

Befo

re

treat

men

t

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.9 0.1 7.4 7.5 7.6 0.2

2 E.C

1960 1910 1603.3 18.2

1680 1620 1366.

6 18.65

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 348 345 108 68.97 380 375 112 70.53

5 VSS 172 170 78 54.65 142 138 63.33 55.4

6 Chlorides 178 175 50.33 71.72 168 169 59 64.88

7 Hardness 396 400 221.6 44.02 400 400 218 45.5

8 Alkalinity 418 415 193 53.83 480 460 207 56.88

9 C O D 460 465 137.67 70.07 498 502 147 70.48

10 B O D 184 186 56 69.57 184 190 55.33 69.93

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

53.3

39.2

0.01

1.1

12.9

54.9

40.6

0.01

1.1

13.1

21.36

14.97

0.04

1.4

4.93

59.93

61.82

333.33

27.27

61.76

43.66

31.6

0.06

1.2

10.8

45.16

32.9

0.06

1.3

10.9

17.22

11.77

0.05

1.47

3.93

60.57

62.76

16.67

22.22

63.58

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.8 10.7 4.0 62.96 9.6 9.8 3.43 64.24

13 Oil & grease 36 36 36 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.4 2.5 0.9 62.5 2.6 2.7 0.9 65.38

15 S V I 116 118 80 31.03 110 112 78 29.09

443

Table 29: 12 hours HRT effect in presence of 30% volume of

clay balls and 0.2% consortium for domestic

sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT@ 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

%

Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.87 0.1

2 E.C 1980 1930 1560 21.21

3 Temperature 27 28 28 1°C

4 TSS 318 319 93 70.75

5 VSS 134 130 59 55.97

6 Chlorides 156 160 51.33 67.09

7 Hardness 280 284 143 48.93

8 Alkalinity 390 390 136.67 58.03

9 C O D 380 390 103.67 72.72

10 B O D 194 198 56 71.13

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

51.98

40.7

0.08

1.4

9.8

53.28

52.1

0.08

1.5

9.9

19.83

14.63

0.1

1.63

3.43

61.84

64.05

25.0

16.67

64.97

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.3 3.53 66.03

13 Oil & grease 42 42 42 -

14 H2 S 3.1 3.1 1.0 67.74

15 S V I 120 120 80 33.33

444

Table 30: Time period of 10 days and 20 days effect in domestic

sewage treatment along with 30% volume of clay

balls, 0.2% consortium and 10 hours HRT

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Removal

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 8.1 8.1 8.1 - 7.9 7.9 8 0.1

2 E.C 1960 1920 1590 18.88 1790 1750 1450 18.99

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 27 28 28 1°C

4 TSS 380 375 114.33 69.91 390 395 113 71.03

5 VSS 116 110 51 56.03 128 120 53.67 58.07

6 Chlorides 148 152 45.67 69.14 172 178 52 69.77

7 Hardness

390 380 214.67 44.96 400 410 210.6

7 47.33

8 Alkalinity 525 520 236 55.05 480 470 211 56.04

9 C O D 460 470 133 71.09 480 490 134 72.08

10 B O D 198 199 57.33 71.04 210 209 59 71.90

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

50.45

39.2

0.05

1.4

9.8

51.25

39.8

0.05

1.5

9.9

20.0

14.53

0.1

1.77

3.6

60.36

62.93

93.33

26.19

63.27

42.26

31.4

0.06

0.9

9.9

43.86

33.1

0.06

0.9

9.8

16.39

11.3

0.1

1.6

3.37

61.22

64.01

66.67

77.78

65.99

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.2 3.83 63.84 8.9 9.1 3.03 65.92

13 Oil & grease 32 32 31 3.13 36 36 35 2.78

14 H2 S 3.0 3.0 1.1 63.33 2.8 2.9 0.97 65.48

15 S V I 130 132 90 30.77 125 125 86 31.20

445

Table 31: 30days and 40 days time period effect along with 30%

volume of clay balls, 0.2% consortium and 10 hours

HRT for domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.87 0.17 7.8 7.8 7.87 0.08

2 E.C 1690 1620 1360 19.53 1910 1900 1530 19.90

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 348 345 99.33 71.46 324 328 94 70.99

5 VSS 136 130 56.67 58.33 128 120 54 57.81

6 Chlorides 184 184 55 70.11 168 168 51.67 69.25

7 Hardness 320 326 160 50.0 328 320 160.6

7 51.02

8 Alkalinity 410 415 176 57.07 418 415 178 57.42

9 C O D 460 460 125.67 72.68 448 456 145 67.63

10 B O D 192 198 52 72.92 198 202 62.67 68.35

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

41.26

29.6

0.06

1.2

10.4

43.16

31.3

0.06

1.3

10.5

15.63

10.37

0.1

1.67

3.5

62.11

64.98

66.67

38.89

66.35

48.35

34.8

0.05

1.4

12.1

49.85

36.1

0.05

1.5

12.2

20.8

14.07

0.1

1.83

4.8

56.98

59.58

100.0

30.95

60.33

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.4 3.4 67.31 10.4 10.5 4.0 61.54

13 Oil & grease 34 34 33 2.94 34 35 33.33 1.96

14 H2 S 2.8 2.8 0.97 65.48 2.9 2.9 1.1 62.07

15 S V I 134 132 90 32.84 140 140 92 34.29

446


volume of clay balls, 0.2% consortium and 10 hours


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1 7.6 7.7 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 2240 2190 1830 18.30 2420 2400 1980 18.12

3 Temperature 27 28 28 1°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS

340 345 105.33 69.02

370 374 114.6

7 69.01

5 VSS 138 132 62 55.07 152 144 68 55.26

6 Chlorides 178 184 58 67.42 178 182 60.33 66.1

7 Hardness

360 366 194.67 45.93

360 350 194.6

7 45.93

8 Alkalinity 460 450 207 55.0 390 380 178 54.36

9 C O D

510 512 172 66.27

490 498 166.3

3 66.05

10 B O D 144 148 54.67 62.04 212 214 79 62.74

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

49.8

38.3

0.1

1.6

9.8

51.4

39.8

0.1

1.7

9.8

21.7

15.7

0.14

1.8

4.07

56.42

59.01

36.67

12.5

58.5

50.1

38.2

0.1

1.1

10.7

52.1

39.8

0.1

1.8

10.4

21.81

15.83

0.14

1.4

4.43

56.47

58.55

40.0

27.27

58.57

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.2 10.4 4.43 56.54 9.6 9.8 4.2 56.25

13 Oil & grease 32 32 31 3.13 34 34 33 2.94

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.23 55.95 2.9 2.9 1.3 55.17

15 S V I 130 130 88 32.31 120 120 80 33.33

447

Table 33: 10% and 20% volume of sintered glass cylinders effect

as biofilter material in the presence of 0.2% consortium

and 12 hours HRT for domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.9 7.9 7.9 -

2 E.C 1890 1840 1530 19.05 2140 2180 1720 19.63

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 330 335 125.33 62.02 342 348 114.33 66.57

5 VSS 128 122 61.33 52.08 160 152 73.67 53.96

6 Chlorides 148 148 62 58.11 168 174 63.67 62.1

7 Hardness 295 300 180 38.98 310 300 170.33 45.05

8 Alkalinity 412 410 218 47.09 430 410 185 56.98

9 C O D 480 486 159 66.88 460 468 137.33 70.14

10 B O D 202 208 71 64.85 210 214 66 68.57

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

49.45

38.8

0.05

1.2

9.4

50.25

39.4

0.05

1.3

9.5

23.36

17.77

0.1

1.6

3.9

52.75

54.21

93.33

33.33

58.51

47.5

34.4

ND

1.5

11.6

49.41

36.2

0.01

1.5

11.7

18.83

12.73

0.06

1.9

4.13

60.36

62.98

26.67

64.37

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.6 4.53 56.41 9.4 9.5 3.53 62.41

13 Oil & grease 38 38 38 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.8 1.1 60.71 2.9 3.0 1.0 65.52

15 S V I 130 132 90 30.77 110 114 76 30.91

448

Table 34: 30% and 40% volume of sintered glass cylinders as

biofilter material effect along with 0.2% consortium


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befo

re

trea

tme

nt

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.9 7.9 7.9 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 204

0 2100 1614.6 20.85 1890 1910 1490 21.16

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 375 380 106.33 71.64 400 400 110 72.5

5 VSS 110 108 46 58.18 140 136 58 58.57

6 Chlorides 145 148 45 68.97 170 172 50.67 70.2

7 Hardness 390 380 187 52.05 410 400 192.67 53.01

8 Alkalinity 520 510 213 59.04 480 460 187.33 60.97

9 C O D 460 468 120.33 73.84 480 488 124 74.17

10 B O D 195 202 53.33 72.65 204 212 56 72.55

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

51.5

40.3

0.05

1.4

9.75

53.56

41.9

0.06

1.5

10.1

18.75

13.7

0.08

1.77

3.2

63.59

66.0

66.67

26.19

67.18

41.06

29.4

0.06

1.0

10.6

42.77

30.8

0.07

1.1

10.8

14.23

9.4

0.1

1.43

3.3

65.34

68.03

61.11

43.33

68.87

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.7 3.43 67.61 9.6 9.9 3.03 68.4

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 36 36 36 -

14 H2 S 3.1 3.1 1.0 67.74 2.9 3.0 1.0 65.52

15 S V I 124 124 85 31.45 124 122 84 32.26

449

Table 35: 8 hours and 9 hours HRT effect along with 30%

volume of sintered glass cylinders and 0.2%

consortium for domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

HRT – 8 hours HRT – 9 hours

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C

1890 1910 1615 14.55 1880 1890 1593.

3 15.25

3 Temperature 28 27 27 1°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 345 351 139 59.71 318 320 114.33 64.05

5 VSS 134 130 65.33 51.24 129 124 70 45.74

6 Chlorides 190 192 84.33 55.61 170 171 70.33 58.63

7 Hardness 332 330 216.67 34.74 318 316 195.33 38.57

8 Alkalinity 426 430 245 42.49 432 430 229 46.99

9 C O D 440 444 178 59.55 448 450 157 64.96

10 B O D 192 194 76 60.42 200 202 73 63.5

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.28

29.6

0.08

1.1

9.5

42.08

31.2

0.08

1.2

9.6

22.65

16.37

0.12

1.47

4.7

43.76

44.71

50.0

33.33

50.53

47.85

34.6

0.05

1.4

11.8

49.25

35.8

0.05

1.5

11.9

23.16

15.93

0.09

1.8

5.33

51.61

53.95

80.0

28.57

54.8

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.8 4.5 54.08 9.9 9.9 4.2 57.58

13 Oil & grease 33 33 33 - 36 36 36 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.2 57.14 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29

15 S V I 130 130 94 27.69 122 130 90 26.23

450

Table 36: 10 hours and 11hours HRT effect in presence of 30%

volume of sintered glass cylinders and 0.2%


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Bla

nk

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 2340 2320 1815 22.44 2240 2210 1725 22.99

3 Temperature 28 28 28 - 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 355 360 109 69.3 340 348 102.33 69.9

5 VSS 148 140 66 55.41 122 116 54 55.74

6 Chlorides 190 192 52.33 72.46 163 168 44 73.01

7 Hardness 360 355 199 44.72 415 415 228.33 44.98

8 Alkalinity 470 465 214 54.47 430 428 193.67 54.96

9 C O D 515 518 149.33 71.0 485 490 143.33 70.45

10 B O D 183 186 54 70.49 204 206 59 71.08

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

50.28

38.6

0.08

1.4

10.2

51.28

39.4

0.08

1.5

10.3

19.81

14.1

0.11

1.8

3.8

60.59

63.47

41.67

28.57

62.75

49.5

35.7

ND

1.4

12.4

50.4

36.4

ND

1.5

12.5

19.25

12.8

0.05

1.8

4.6

61.11

64.15

28.57

62.9

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.8 3.6 63.27 9.9 9.9 3.47 64.98

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 29 29 29 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29

15 S V I 136 140 92 32.35 140 140 90 35.71

451

Table 37: 12hours HRT, 30% volume of sintered glass cylinders

and 0.2% consortium effect in domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT – 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.8 0.1

2 E.C 2340 2300 1800 23.08


4 TSS 364 368 109.33 69.96

5 VSS 158 150 69.33 56.12

6 Chlorides 178 176 48 73.03

7 Hardness 360 350 198 45.0

8 Alkalinity 385 380 173 55.06

9 C O D 520 522 153.33 70.51

10 B O D 212 214 61 71.23

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

50.5

38.6

0.1

1.2

10.6

51.9

39.8

0.1

1.3

10.7

19.52

13.87

0.15

1.6

3.9

61.35

64.08

50.0

33.33

63.21

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.4 3.6 65.38

13 Oil & grease 34 34 34 -

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52

15 S V I 130 130 85 34.62

452


volume of sintered glass cylinders, 0.2% consortium


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)


Befo

re

treat

ment

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.6 7.6 7.6 -

2 E.C 2460 2410 1990 19.11 2260 2240 1830 19.03

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 370 374 109.33 70.45 340 345 98.67 70.98

5 VSS 190 182 82 56.84 128 122 47.67 62.76

6 Chlorides 216 218 65 69.91 172 174 51.67 69.96

7 Hardness

390 385 212.33 45.56 386 380 202.6

7 47.5

8 Alkalinity

420 410 189 55.0 422 416 185.6

7 56.0

9 C O D

490 494 139.33 71.56

478 422 131.3

3 72.52

10 B O D 182 184 51.67 71.61 155 162 43.33 72.04

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.55

29.6

0.05

1.1

9.8

42.35

31.2

0.05

1.2

9.9

16.13

11.00

0.09

1.43

3.6

60.23

62.84

86.67

30.3

63.27

48.1

36.4

ND

0.9

10.8

50.02

38.1

0.02

1.0

10.9

18.22

13.10

0.05

1.37

3.7

62.13

64.01

-

51.85

65.74

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.6 9.5 3.5 63.54 10.2 10.3 3.5 65.69

13 Oil & grease 39 40 38 2.56 42 42 42 -

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52

15 S V I 120 128 78 35.0 115 115 80 30.43

453




S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.7 7.7 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 2260 2240 1813.3 19.76 2410 2360 1830 19.92

3 Temperature 27 28 28 1°C 28 28 28 -

4 TSS 318 320 89 72.01 390 394 121 68.97

5 VSS 132 126 54.67 58.59 168 162 70.33 58.13

6 Chlorides 174 178 52 70.11 184 188 57 69.02

7 Hardness 306 312 151.33 50.54 340 330 170 50.0

8 Alkalinity 439 430 189 56.95 480 475 211 56.04

9 C O D 470 472 131.33 72.06 510 512 168 67.06

10 B O D 198 202 53.33 73.06 204 208 65.33 67.97

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

46.85

34.2

0.05

1.2

11.4

48.96

35.9

0.06

1.4

11.6

17.39

11.93

0.09

1.47

3.9

62.89

65.11

73.33

22.22

65.79

51.7

40.6

0.1

1.2

9.8

53.2

41.9

0.1

1.3

9.9

21.73

16.2

0.1

1.53

3.9

57.96

60.1

-

27.78

60.2

12 Phosphorus (as P) 8.9 9.0 2.97 66.67 10.4 10.7 4.0 61.54

13 Oil & grease 28 28 28 - 38 39 38 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.97 65.48 3.1 3.1 1.17 62.37

15 S V I 122 124 32.79 65.15 130 138 87 33.08

454




S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.6 7.6 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 1980 1920 1615 18.43 2160 2120 1770 18.06

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 318 322 98.33 69.08 370 375 115 68.92

5 VSS 148 142 66.33 55.18 138 132 62 55.07

6 Chlorides 162 164 51.33 58.31 168 172 57 66.07

7 Hardness 360 350 194.33 46.02 410 405 221 46.1

8 Alkalinity 410 400 184 55.12 470 470 216 54.04

9 C O D 465 470 158 66.02 510 512 173 66.08

10 B O D 184 188 70 61.96 198 204 73 63.13

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

51.28

38.2

0.08

1.2

11.8

53.08

39.8

0.08

1.3

11.9

22.14

15.6

0.11

1.53

4.9

56.82

59.16

37.5

27.78

58.47

42.1

30.4

0.1

1.2

10.4

43.8

31.9

0.1

1.3

10.5

18.78

12.73

0.14

1.53

4.37

55.4

55.11

43.33

27.78

58.01

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.2 10.2 4.37 57.19 10.8 10.9 4.3 60.19

13 Oil & grease 33 34 32.33 2.02 38 39 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56 2.8 2.9 1.1 60.71

15 S V I 122 130 80 34.43 118 120 75 36.44

455

Table 41: 10%and 20% volume of corn cobs effect as biofilter

material along with 0.2% consortium and 12 hours


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature & SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.4 7.4 7.4 -

2 E.C 2420 2380 2170 10.33 2520 2480 2270 9.92

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 400 410 168 58.0 390 396 179.67 53.93

5 VSS 128 122 65 49.22 142 128 78 45.07

6 Chlorides 168 174 75.33 55.16 172 178 87 49.42

7 Hardness 340 330 240 29.41 400 380 298.67 25.33

8 Alkalinity 430 415 243.67 43.33 440 420 272 38.18

9 C O D 510 518 205 59.8 490 496 240 51.02

10 B O D 198 204 83 58.08 168 178 80.67 51.98

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

41.45

30.6

0.05

1.0

9.8

42.95

38.9

0.05

1.1

9.9

21.66

15.33

0.1

1.33

4.9

47.74

49.89

93.33

33.33

50.0

49.5

38.1

0.1

1.2

10.1

51.1

39.6

0.1

1.2

10.2

27.92

21.3

0.12

1.33

5.6

43.6

44.09

16.67

11.11

44.55

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.8 5.3 50.0 11.6 11.8 6.5 43.97

13 Oil & grease 50.4 50 50 0.79 42.5 42.5 42 1.18

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.35 51.79 2.9 2.9 1.5 48.28

15 S V I 128 130 88 31.25 130 132 88 32.31

456

Table 42: Effect of 10% and 20% volume of hollow cylindrical

corn cobs as biofilter material in the presence of 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature & SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(excep

t pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.9 7.9 7.8 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.77 0.03

2 E.C 2180 2090 1736.6 20.34 1970 1920 1570 20.30

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 318 320 106 66.67 352 356 102 71.02

5 VSS 128 120 50.33 60.68 212 204 76.33 63.99

6 Chlorides 162 168 62 61.73 158 162 50.67 67.93

7 Hardness

370 360 188 49.19 360 350 165.6

7 53.98

8 Alkalinity

410 400 194 52.68 380 360 159.6

7 57.98

9 C O D

460 468 144.33 68.62

420 428 100.6

7 76.03

10 B O D 198 202 64.67 67.34 174 184 43.67 74.9

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.62

31.2

0.02

0.9

8.5

42.02

32.4

0.02

1.0

8.6

17.16

12.43

0.06

1.37

3.3

57.75

60.15

200.0

51.85

61.18

40.45

29.9

0.05

1.1

9.4

42.36

31.6

0.06

1.2

9.5

14.87

10.4

0.1

1.47

2.9

63.25

65.22

100.0

33.33

69.15

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.4 9.4 3.9 58.51 9.6 9.6 3.53 63.19

13 Oil & grease 44 43 42 4.55 39 38 36.67 5.98

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 0.96 64.32 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52

15 S V I 120 124 80 33.33 128 130 82 35.94

457

Table 43: Effect of 30% and 40% volume of hollow cylindrical

corn cobs as biofilter material in the presence of 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 2420 2380 1920 20.66 2220 1980 1760 20.72

3 Temperature 26.5 26 26 0.5°C 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 360 370 100.33 72.13 348 356 94.67 72.8

5 VSS 128 118 44.67 65.1 172 168 59 65.7

6 Chlorides 172 176 53.33 68.99 182 184 55 69.78

7 Hardness 395 390 170 56.96 395 390 166 57.97

8 Alkalinity 421 420 168.33 60.02 390 380 156 60.0

9 C O D 472 480 104 77.97 395 398 80 79.75

10 B O D 198 202 47 76.26 184 198 39 78.8

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47.74

36.2

0.04

0.9

10.6

49.55

37.8

0.05

1.0

10.7

16.63

11.97

0.1

1.37

3.2

65.17

66.94

141.67

51.85

69.81

51.48

38.6

0.08

1.2

11.6

52.58

39.36

0.08

1.2

11.7

17.31

12.3

0.11

1.57

3.33

66.37

68.13

41.67

30.56

71.26

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.2 11.2 4.03 63.99 10.8 10.8 3.8 64.81

13 Oil & grease 51 49 48 5.88 33 32 30 9.09

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.97 66.67 2.8 2.9 0.97 65.48

15 S V I 130 132 80 38.46 138 140 80 42.03

458


volume of hollow cylindrical corncobs and 0.2%


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Rem

oval

(exce

pt

pH &

temp.

)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.5 7.5 7.5 -

2 E.C 2350 2280 1865 20.64 2680 2580 2120 20.90

3 Temperature 25.5 25 25 0.5°C 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 385 356 124.33 64.98 380 370 80 78.95

5 VSS 148 140 65.33 55.86 148 140 50.67 65.77

6 Chlorides 184 188 75.67 58.88 180 184 57.33 68.15

7 Hardness 375 360 217 42.13 295 270 118 60.0

8 Alkalinity 415 400 216 47.95 375 360 146 61.07

9 C O D 490 500 156.67 68.03 440 450 97 77.95

10 B O D 182 186 60 67.03 186 194 40.67 78.14

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

45.89

34.6

0.09

1.4

9.8

47.3

35.9

0.1

1.4

9.9

20.94

14.8

0.14

1.8

4.2

54.36

57.23

59.26

29.57

57.14

40.16

29.2

0.06

1.0

9.9

42.77

31.6

0.07

1.1

10.0

14.13

9.3

0.1

1.43

3.3

64.81

68.15

66.67

43.33

66.67

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.2 11.1 4.7 58.04 10.8 1.9 3.4 68.52

13 Oil & grease 34 34 33 2.94 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24

15 S V I 118 124 70 40.68 120 124 70 41.67

459


volume of hollow cylindrical corncobs and 0.2%


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C

1890 1820 1503.3 20.46 2310 2260 1836.

6 20.49

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 25.5 25 25 0.5°C

4 TSS 345 348 62 82.03 318 320 56.67 82.18

5 VSS 128 122 42.67 66.67 124 120 41 66.94

6 Chlorides 158 162 49 68.99 168 172 51.67 69.25

7 Hardness

310 300 118 61.94 310 300 116.6

7 62.37

8 Alkalinity 315 300 116.67 62.96 406 390 149 63.3

9 C O D 420 426 88 79.05 460 463 94.33 79.49

10 B O D 204 208 44.67 78.1 198 202 42.33 78.63

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

45.82

32.8

0.02

1.4

11.6

47.13

34.1

0.3

1.4

11.6

16.96

11.4

0.06

1.7

3.8

62.98

65.24

216.67

21.43

67.24

45.36

34.2

0.06

1.2

9.9

47.17

36.1

0.07

1.2

9.8

16.63

11.8

0.09

1.53

3.2

63.35

65.50

55.56

27.78

67.68

12 Phosphorus (as P) 12.2 12.3 3.6 70.49 12.3 12.4 3.6 70.73

13 Oil & grease 29 28 28 3.45 28 28 27 3.57

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24 2.9 2.9 0.9 68.97

15 S V I 126 128 72 42.86 130 130 68 47.69

460

Table 46: 12 hours HRT effect in domestic sewage treatment

along with 20% volume of hollow cylindrical

corncobs and 0.2% consortium

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT – 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1

2 E.C 2420 2380 1920 20.66


4 TSS 372 378 65 82.53

5 VSS 154 144 50 67.53

6 Chlorides 178 178 52 70.79

7 Hardness 358 350 132.33 63.04

8 Alkalinity 390 350 138 64.62

9 C O D 490 494 95.67 80.48

10 B O D 212 212 38.67 81.76

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

51.19

39.2

0.09

1.1

10.8

53.49

41.4

0.09

1.1

10.9

18.48

13.37

0.14

1.57

3.4

63.91

65.9

59.26

42.42

68.52

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.9 9.9 2.7 72.73

13 Oil & grease 34 33 32 5.88

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.96 67.01

15 S V I 122 120 62 49.18

461

Table 47: 10 days and 20 days time period in domestic sewage

treatment along with 20% volume of hollow

cylindrical corncobs, 0.2% consortium and 9 hours

HRT

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(excep

t pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 8.1 8.1 8.0 0.1 7.9 7.9 7.9 -

2 E.C 2340 2320 1850 20.94 2260 2180 1785 21.02

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 355 348 67.33 81.03 345 354 59.33 82.8

5 VSS 140 130 44.33 68.33 148 141 45.67 69.14

6 Chlorides 188 189 58.67 68.79 158 164 45.67 71.1

7 Hardness 360 350 138.67 61.48 330 315 119 63.94

8 Alkalinity 410 400 156 61.95 390 365 136.5 65.0

9 C O D 460 466 91.33 80.14 436 442 82.67 81.04

10 B O D 174 182 29.5 83.05 178 184 30 83.15

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.08

29.5

0.08

0.9

9.6

43.59

32.8

0.09

1.0

9.7

13.18

8.77

0.14

1.47

2.8

67.12

70.28

79.17

62.96

70.83

41.95

31.6

0.05

1.1

9.2

43.46

33.1

0.06

1.1

9.3

13.06

8.8

0.09

1.53

2.63

68.87

72.15

86.67

39.39

71.38

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.9 10.9 3.1 71.56 10.4 10.6 2.8 73.08

13 Oil & grease 28 28 27 3.57 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.83 70.24 2.9 2.9 0.8 70.41

15 S V I 130 132 65 50.00 130 132 64 50.77

462

Table 48: 30 days and 40 days time period in domestic sewage

treatment along with 20% volume of hollow


HRT

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 2300 2260 1815 21.09 2180 2120 1720 21.1

3 Temperature 25.5 25 25 0.5°C 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 395 398 67 83.04 372 384 63.33 82.97

5 VSS 174 168 41.67 76.05 166 160 39.33 76.31

6 Chlorides 152 158 42.67 71.93 158 158 44.33 71.94

7 Hardness 385 380 131 65.97 375 360 127.17 66.09

8 Alkalinity 430 415 142 66.98 400 380 132 67.0

9 C O D 470 478 84 82.13 460 466 81.33 82.32

10 B O D 168 174 26 84.52 192 198 29.33 84.72

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

53.89

40.2

0.09

1.3

12.3

55.4

41.6

0.1

1.3

12.4

15.98

10.83

0.14

1.7

3.3

70.35

73.05

59.26

30.77

73.17

46

34.8

0.1

1.2

9.9

47.3

36.1

0.1

1.2

9.9

13.65

9.4

0.15

1.5

2.6

70.32

72.99

53.33

25.0

73.74

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.8 11.9 2.97 74.86 10.7 10.8 2.7 74.77

13 Oil & grease 42.5 43 41.33 2.75 42 42 40 4.76

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.7 75.86 2.9 2.9 0.7 75.86

15 S V I 140 138 66 52.86 132 130 58 56.06

463

Table 49: 50days and 60 days time period effect in domestic

sewage treatment along with 20% volume of hollow


HRT

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature & SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.4 7.4 7.4 - 7.5 7.5 7.5 -

2 E.C 2480 2290 1985 19.96 2360 2280 1890 19.92

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 355 362 71 80.0 350 356 69.67 80.1

5 VSS 140 142 40 71.43 142 136 45.33 68.08

6 Chlorides 190 194 64.33 66.14 178 182 64 64.04

7 Hardness 360 340 126 65.0 340 330 122.33 64.02

8 Alkalinity 470 420 160 65.96 415 390 149.33 64.02

9 C O D 510 512 101 80.2 490 496 108 77.96

10 B O D 188 198 35 81.38 194 198 38.77 80.02

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

39.59

28.6

0.09

1.0

9.9

41.99

30.9

0.09

1.1

9.9

12.58

8.3

0.11

1.43

2.83

68.22

70.98

25.93

43.33

71.38

42.12

31.2

0.05

1.1

9.8

43.95

32.9

0.05

1.1

9.9

14.6

9.6

0.09

1.43

3.03

66.41

69.23

80.0

30.3

69.05

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.8 10.9 3.1 71.3 10.2 10.3 3.2 68.63

13 Oil & grease 38 36 36 5.26 36 36 34.33 4.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.73 73.81 2.9 2.9 0.9 68.97

15 S V I 138 140 60 56.52 124 128 55 55.65

464

Table 50: 10% volume and 20% volume of wood chips effect in

domestic sewage treatment in presence of 0.2%

consortium and 12 hours HRT

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1 7.3 7.2 7.4 0.1

2 E.C 2340 2280 1920 17.97 2160 2120 1760 18.52

3 Temperature 28 27 27 1.0°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 400 410 144.67 63.83 380 388 132.3

3 65.18

5 VSS 164 156 69 57.93 152 146 62.33 58.99

6 Chlorides 158 154 63 60.13 172 178 63.67 62.98

7 Hardness 370 355 185 50.0 400 385 194 51.5

8 Alkalinity 460 445 211.33 54.06 480 460 212 55.83

9 C O D 480 488 158.67 66.94 510 518 153 70.0

10 B O D 210 214 69 67.14 162 174 48.33 70.16

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

44.05

32.5

0.05

1.1

10.4

45.56

33.9

0.06

1.1

10.5

18.93

13.3

0.1

1.43

4.1

57.02

59.08

100.0

30.3

60.58

50.5

37.5

ND

1.2

11.8

52.01

38.9

0.01

1.2

11.9

20.51

14.6

0.05

1.57

4.3

59.38

61.07

30.56

63.56

12 Phosphorus (as P) 8.9 9.1 3.7 58.43 9.8 10.1 3.9 60.2

13 Oil & grease 46.25 46 46 0.54 32 32 31 3.13

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52 2.8 2.9 0.95 66.07

15 S V I 118 120 88 25.42 124 128 90 27.42

465

Table 51: 30% volume and 40% volume of wood chips effect in

domestic sewage treatment in presence of 0.2%


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature & SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatme

nt

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.2 7.2 7.3 0.1 7.4 7.4 7.4 -

2 E.C 2190 2110 1750 20.09 2520 2460 2015 20.04

3 Temperature 29 27 27 2.0°C 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 355 360 103 70.99 410 410 117 71.46

5 VSS 140 132 51 63.57 168 160 60.33 64.09

6 Chlorides 143 144 45.67 68.07 138 130 43.67 68.36

7 Hardness 360 350 165.67 53.98 340 315 153 55.0

8 Alkalinity 430 410 176.33 58.99 460 450 184 60.0

9 C O D 460 468 110 76.09 520 526 120 76.92

10 B O D 198 202 50.17 74.66 220 222 50.67 76.97

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

41.92

30.62

0.1

1.2

10.0

43.4

31.9

0.1

1.3

10.1

15.53

10.7

0.14

1.57

3.07

62.96

65.06

43.33

30.56

69.33

44.05

31.2

ND

1.25

11.96

45.9

32.8

0.1

1.3

11.7

15.64

10.6

0.04

1.5

3.5

64.49

66.03

20.0

69.83

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.9 11.1 4.03 63.0 9.5 9.6 3.4 64.21

13 Oil & grease 28 28 27 3.57 42 42 40.67 3.17

14 H2 S 3.0 3.0 1.0 66.67 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24

15 S V I 128 130 92 28.13 130 130 92 29.23

466

Table 52: 8 hours and 9 hours HRT effect in presence of 30%

volume of wood chips and 0.2% consortium for


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.9 7.8 7.8 0.1 7.4 7.4 7.4 -

2 E.C 2800 2730 2270 18.93 2260 2210 1820 19.47

3 Temperature 24 24 24 - 25 25 25 -

4 TSS 380 388 137 63.95 350 360 103 70.57

5 VSS 164 156 74 54.88 170 160 69.67 59.02

6 Chlorides 168 169 70 58.33 204 209 76 62.75

7 Hardness 400 380 240 40.0 360 345 179 50.28

8 Alkalinity 420 400 229 45.48 415 400 199 52.05

9 C O D 480 488 156 67.5 490 498 137 72.04

10 B O D 198 204 65.67 66.84 202 208 57.67 71.45

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47

35.5

0.1

1.6

9.8

47.8

36.2

0.1

1.6

9.9

20.91

14.9

0.14

1.87

4.0

55.52

58.03

40.0

16.67

59.18

41.7

30.6

ND

1.0

10.1

43.11

31.9

0.01

1.0

10.2

15.91

11.6

0.05

1.47

2.8

61.84

62.09

46.67

72.28

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.2 11.3 4.97 55.67 9.8 9.9 4.0 59.18

13 Oil & grease 37.5 37 37 1.33 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.1 62.07 2.9 2.9 1.07 63.22

15 S V I 130 130 90 31.77 140 140 94 32.86

467

Table 53: 10 hours and 11 hours HRT effect in presence of 30%

volume of wood chips and 0.2% consortium for


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C 2340 2280 1810 22.65 2300 2280 1810 21.30

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 27 26 26 1°C

4 TSS 360 366 71.33 80.19 390 396 74.33 80.94

5 VSS 132 128 47.33 64.14 178 168 62 65.17

6 Chlorides 178 182 58.67 67.04 154 160 50 67.53

7 Hardness 384 376 151.33 60.59 380 355 144.33 62.02

8 Alkalinity 432 420 170.33 60.57 420 405 164 60.95

9 C O D 490 498 95.67 80.48 470 478 89.67 80.92

10 B O D 115 122 30 73.91 148 156 32 78.38

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

48.75

37.2

0.05

1.3

10.2

50.45

38.6

0.05

1.4

10.4

17.35

12.3

0.09

1.67

3.3

64.4

66.94

73.33

28.21

67.65

51.5

40.1

ND

1.0

10.4

53.12

41.6

0.02

1.1

10.4

17.91

13.2

0.04

1.37

3.3

65.23

67.08

36.67

68.27

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.9 11.0 3.6 66.97 9.5 9.6 3.1 67.37

13 Oil & grease 28 28 27.67 1.19 42.5 42 41.33 2.75

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24 2.8 2.8 0.9 67.86

15 S V I 132 130 88 33.33 118 120 76 35.59

468

Table 54: 12 hours HRT effect in presence of 30% volume of

wood chips and 0.2% consortium for domestic

sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT @ 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.5 7.5 7.5 -

2 E.C 1960 1890 1550 20.92


4 TSS 384 390 71 81.51

5 VSS 158 150 53.67 66.03

6 Chlorides 184 186 60 67.39

7 Hardness 384 370 142 63.02

8 Alkalinity 430 410 167.67 61.01

9 C O D 510 516 93 81.76

10 B O D 162 170 32 80.25

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.4

28.8

ND

1.1

10.5

42.92

31.1

0.02

1.2

10.6

13.81

9.2

0.04

1.37

3.2

65.82

68.06

24.24

69.52

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.2 11.3 3.6 67.86

13 Oil & grease 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.9 67.86

15 S V I 124 124 74 40.32

469

Table 55: 10 days and 20 days time period effect in presence of

30% volume of wood chips, 0.2% consortium and


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)


Before

treatme

nt

Blank After

treatme

nt

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remova

l

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.5 7.5 7.5 - 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1

2 E.C

2360 2280 1900 19.49 2480 2390 1986.

6 19.89

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 370 380 72 80.54 380 388 70.67 81.4

5 VSS 132 126 45 65.91 168 160 54 67.86

6 Chlorides 178 180 60 66.29 138 144 44 68.12

7 Hardness 360 340 137 61.94 340 325 126 62.94

8 Alkalinity 420 405 159.33 62.06 380 360 133.33 64.91

9 C O D 410 416 78 80.98 460 468 85 81.52

10 B O D 154 158 30.5 80.19 158 162 30 81.01

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

49.28

38.3

0.08

1.1

9.8

50.59

39.4

0.09

1.2

9.9

16.35

11.83

0.12

1.4

3.0

66.82

69.1

50.0

27.27

69.39

46.65

36.5

0.05

1.1

9.0

48.76

38.6

0.06

1.1

9.0

14.94

10.9

0.08

1.37

2.6

67.97

70.14

53.33

24.24

71.11

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.7 3.3 68.87 9.5 9.6 2.7 71.58

13 Oil & grease 22.5 22 22 2.22 36.75 37 36 2.04

14 H2 S 3.1 3.0 1.0 67.74 2.9 2.9 0.85 70.69

15 S V I 130 130 84 35.38 130 132 80 38.46

470




S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 8.1 8.1 8.0 0.1 7.9 7.9 7.8 0.1

2 E.C

2420 2380 1900 21.49

2350 2290 182

0 22.55

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 25 25 25 -

4 TSS 320 328 58 81.88 318 324 55.67 52.49

5 VSS 148 140 47.67 67.79 148 140 47.33 68.02

6 Chlorides 172 176 53.67 68.8 182 186 56.67 68.86

7 Hardness 432 420 157.67 63.5 315 300 113 64.13

8 Alkalinity 460 440 156 66.09 440 400 149 66.14

9 C O D 490 496 88 82.04 495 498 86 82.63

10 B O D 168 172 29 82.74 176 182 29 83.52

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

50.99

39.2

0.09

1.2

10.5

52.4

40.6

0.1

1.2

10.5

16.72

12.1

0.12

1.5

3.0

67.2

69.13

37.04

25.0

71.43

43.8

32.6

0.1

1.3

9.8

45.21

33.9

0.11

1.3

9.9

13.94

9.4

0.14

1.6

2.8

68.17

71.17

43.33

23.08

71.43

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.6 11.7 3.3 71.55 10.6 10.7 2.9 72.64

13 Oil & grease 40.25 41 38.67 3.93 33 33 32 3.03

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.85 70.69 2.9 3.0 0.8 72.41

15 S V I 126 130 72 42.86 128 130 68 46.88

471




S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are

expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blank After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 2300 2300 1780 22.61 2390 2210 1860 22.18

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 395 406 69.33 82.45 384 390 76.67 80.03

5 VSS 172 162 55 68.02 145 138 52 64.14

6 Chlorides 152 156 47.33 68.86 159 166 57.67 63.73

7 Hardness 355 360 138.33 64.07 390 365 156 60.0

8 Alkalinity 440 420 149 66.14 428 420 167 60.98

9 C O D 460 468 80 82.61 490 498 103 78.98

10 B O D 172 178 28.33 83.53 184 188 38.67 78.99

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

52.79

40.1

0.09

1.0

11.6

54.7

41.8

0.1

1.1

11.7

16.52

11.6

0.12

1.5

3.3

68.71

71.07

33.33

50.0

71.55

46.3

33.8

ND

1.1

11.4

46.91

34.2

0.01

1.2

11.5

16.38

11.1

0.05

1.53

3.7

64.61

67.16

39.39

67.54

12 Phosphorus (as P) 12.2 12.4 3.3 72.95 12.4 12.5 4.2 66.13

13 Oil & grease 42.5 42 41 3.53 31.9 32 31 2.82

14 H2 S 2.9 3.0 0.8 72.41 2.8 2.9 0.87 69.05

15 S V I 130 130 66 49.23 140 140 68 51.43

472

Table 58: 10% volume and 20% volume of nylon threads effect

in domestic sewage treatment with 0.2%


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C

2280 2190 1870 17.98 1980 1920 160

3.3 19.02

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 27 26 26 1°C

4 TSS 315 320 112 64.44 320 326 107 66.56

5 VSS 142 136 62.33 56.1 120 114 48 60.0

6 Chlorides 174 178 70.33 59.58 155 160 56 63.87

7 Hardness 360 345 198 45.0 310 290 150.67 51.4

8 Alkalinity 390 360 204.67 47.52 360 340 167.67 53.43

9 C O D 425 429 138 67.53 420 426 122 70.95

10 B O D 178 184 58 67.42 169 174 50 70.41

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47.34

36.4

0.05

1.1

9.8

46.45

35.3

0.05

1.2

9.9

20.27

14.9

0.07

1.4

3.9

57.18

59.07

46.67

27.27

60.2

47.32

35.8

0.02

1.2

10.3

48.23

36.7

0.03

1.2

10.3

18.52

13.2

0.05

1.47

3.8

60.86

63.16

166.67

22.22

63.11

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.6 4.3 58.65 9.9 10.1 4.0 59.6

13 Oil & grease 33 33 32 3.03 34 33 33 2.94

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.03 64.37 2.8 2.9 0.98 64.88

15 S V I 128 130 90 29.69 130 130 86 33.85

473

Table 59: 30% volume and 40% volume of nylon threads effect

in domestic sewage treatment with 0.2%


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C

1980 1920 1600 19.19 2140 2080 172

0 19.63

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 318 324 94 70.44 355 360 99.33 72.02

5 VSS 124 118 44.33 64.25 146 140 52.33 64.16

6 Chlorides 164 168 54 67.07 158 164 50.33 65.14

7 Hardness 330 315 156.33 52.63 345 330 158.3

3 54.11

8 Alkalinity 360 340 155 56.94 390 330 160 58.97

9 C O D 390 396 93.33 76.07 410 418 94.67 76.91

10 B O D 174 182 43.17 75.19 168 172 40.67 75.79

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47.01

35.4

0.01

1.2

10.4

48.12

36.4

0.02

1.2

10.5

16.88

11.9

0.05

1.53

3.4

64.09

66.38

366.67

27.78

67.31

49.35

38.6

0.05

1.2

9.5

50.55

39.6

0.05

1.3

9.6

16.85

12.3

0.09

1.47

3.0

65.85

68.13

73.33

22.22

68.42

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.9 3.6 63.27 9.8 9.9 3.5 64.29

13 Oil & grease 38 38 37 2.63 40 40 39 2.5

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24

15 S V I 130 132 82 36.92 120 120 74 38.33

474


volume of nylon threads and 0.2% consortium for


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1

2 E.C 2180 2080 1730 20.64 2160 2080 1710 20.83

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 340 346 124 63.53 345 348 91 73.62

5 VSS 142 136 65 54.23 172 168 66 61.63

6 Chlorides 178 182 77.33 56.55 198 200 69.33 64.98

7 Hardness 360 330 218 39.44 360 340 172.6

7 52.04

8 Alkalinity 380 340 209.33 44.91 390 350 177.3

3 54.53

9 C O D 410 410 132 67.8 420 426 97.33 76.83

10 B O D 168 170 55.33 67.06 174 174 43.67 74.9

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

45.61

34.6

0.01

1.2

9.8

46.22

35.2

0.02

1.2

9.8

20.52

14.87

0.05

1.5

4.1

55.02

57.03

400.0

25.0

58.16

45.5

34.6

ND

1.1

9.8

46.21

35.2

0.01

1.1

9.9

16.57

11.8

0.04

1.43

3.3

63.58

65.9

30.30

66.33

12 Phosphorus (as P) 11.1 11.2 4.9 58.86 10.2 10.3 3.7 63.73

13 Oil & grease 36 35 35 2.78 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29 2.8 2.9 1.0 64.29

15 S V I 110 118 68 38.18 118 120 66 44.07

475


volume of nylon threads and 0.2% consortium for


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.6 7.6 7.6 -

2 E.C 1920 1890 1523.3 20.66 2140 2080 1690 21.03

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 345 348 79.33 77.0 360 366 77.33 78.52

5 VSS 132 128 49 62.88 136 130 48.33 64.46

6 Chlorides 156 160 51.33 67.09 178 178 57.33 67.79

7 Hardness 310 300 133.33 56.99 340 330 136 60.0

8 Alkalinity 340 315 143 57.94 380 360 148 61.05

9 C O D 410 416 88 78.54 420 424 86 79.52

10 B O D 172 178 40 76.74 158 142 36.33 77.0

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

45.62

33.6

0.02

1.2

10.8

46.52

34.3

0.02

1.3

10.9

16.06

11.03

0.04

1.47

3.5

64.8

67.16

116.67

22.22

67.59

47.12

36.2

0.02

1.1

9.8

48.12

37.1

0.02

1.1

9.9

16.85

12.3

0.05

1.4

3.1

64.24

66.02

150.0

27.27

68.37

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.6 3.7 65.09 10.4 10.5 3.3 68.27

13 Oil & grease 32 32 31 3.13 30 30 29 3.33

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.0 65.52 2.9 2.9 0.95 67.24

15 S V I 120 120 64 46.67 120 120 60 50.00

476

Table 62: 12 hours HRT effect along with 30% volume of nylon

threads and 0.2% consortium for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT @ 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.9 7.9 7.9 -

2 E.C 2430 2360 1925 20.78


4 TSS 380 387 75.33 80.18

5 VSS 156 148 53 66.03

6 Chlorides 212 214 66.67 68.55

7 Hardness 380 360 142 62.63

8 Alkalinity 400 360 152 62.0

9 C O D 390 396 75.33 80.68

10 B O D 186 192 36.33 80.47

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

47.62

36.3

0.02

1.2

10.1

48.52

37.1

0.02

1.2

10.2

16.59

11.97

0.06

1.47

3.1

65.16

67.03

183.33

22.22

69.31

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.7 3.27 69.18

13 Oil & grease 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.9 67.86

15 S V I 130 132 62 52.31

477

Table 63: 10 days and 20 days time period effect in domestic

sewage treatment along with 30% volume of nylon

threads, 0.2% consortium and 9 hours HRT

S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Me

an)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.6 7.6 7.5 0.1

2 E.C 2160 2090 1680 22.22 2240 2140 1750 21.88

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 350 357 77 78.0 295 302 62 78.98

5 VSS 130 128 45 65.38 118 115 40 66.10

6 Chlorides 168 168 54.33 67.66 156 158 49.33 65.38

7 Hardness 360 340 151.33 51.96 330 315 132 60.0

8 Alkalinity 380 345 155 59.21 360 350 140.3

3 61.02

9 C O D 420 422 86.33 79.44 355 360 71.33 79.91

10 B O D 162 164 30 81.48 158 162 28.33 82.07

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

46.94

36.2

0.04

0.9

9.8

48.45

37.6

0.05

0.9

9.9

15.74

11.2

0.08

1.37

3.1

66.46

69.06

91.67

51.85

68.37

41.41

31.4

0.01

0.8

9.2

42.82

32.6

0.02

0.9

9.3

13.54

9.4

0.04

1.23

2.87

67.3

70.06

300.0

54.17

68.84

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.5 3.2 69.23 10.1 10.2 3.1 69.31

13 Oil & grease

34 34 33.33 1.96 30 30 29.6

7 1.11

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.9 67.86 2.8 2.9 0.9 67.86

15 S V I 120 120 64 46.67 118 120 62 47.46

478




S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 E.C 1860 1820 1410 24.19 1630 1620 1270 22.09

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 315 318 63.33 79.89 315 318 62.33 80.21

5 VSS 120 118 38 68.33 128 122 38 70.31

6 Chlorides 148 150 44.67 69.82 122 126 35.33 71.04

7 Hardness 340 330 127.67 62.45 360 340 131.3

3 63.52

8 Alkalinity 380 360 140.67 62.98 380 360 137 63.95

9 C O D 390 392 76 80.51 380 384 73 80.79

10 B O D 172 174 29 83.14 184 186 29 84.24

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

41.94

31.6

0.04

1.1

9.2

42.54

32.0

0.04

1.2

9.3

13.41

9.1

0.08

1.43

2.8

68.03

71.2

91.67

30.30

69.57

42.61

32.4

0.01

1.0

9.2

44.33

33.8

0.03

1.1

9.4

13.0

9.03

0.04

1.33

2.6

69.48

72.12

266.67

33.33

71.74

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.5 3.0 71.15 9.8 9.9 2.7 72.45

13 Oil & grease 34 34 33 2.94 40 40 39 2.5

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 0.87 67.9 2.8 2.8 0.9 67.86

15 S V I 124 124 62 50.00 130 130 62 52.31

479




S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.5 7.5 7.5 - 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C 2240 2190 1748.3 21.95 1980 1940 1540 22.22

3 Temperature 26 26 26 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 340 342 66.67 80.39 370 374 70 81.08

5 VSS 128 126 36.67 71.35 128 120 35 72.66

6 Chlorides 144 148 40.33 71.99 174 178 47 72.99

7 Hardness 360 330 129.33 64.07 395 360 133.67 66.16

8 Alkalinity 390 385 138.67 64.44 410 390 135.67 66.91

9 C O D 390 390 74 81.03 480 484 88 81.67

10 B O D 188 186 28.67 84.75 198 202 29.33 85.19

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

44.72

33.4

0.02

1.4

9.9

45.32

33.9

0.02

1.5

9.9

13.65

9.2

0.05

1.63

2.77

69.48

72.46

133.33

16.67

72.05

48.33

36.8

0.03

1.1

10.4

49.73

38.1

0.03

1.1

10.5

14.12

9.9

0.05

1.37

2.8

70.78

73.1

77.78

24.24

73.08

12 Phosphorus (as P) 8.8 8.9 2.4 72.73 11.7 11.8 3.03 74.07

13 Oil & grease 38 38 37 2.63 38 38 37 2.63

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 0.85 69.64 2.8 2.9 0.85 69.64

15 S V I 130 132 58 55.38 130 132 55 57.69

480

Table 66: 10% volume and 20% volume of plastic balls effect in

presence of 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT for


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)


Before

treatm

ent

Blan

k

After

treatm

ent

(Mean)

%

Remov

al

(excep

t pH &

temp.)

Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 2260 2180 2030 10.18 2120 2080 1900.3 10.22

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 355 360 145.33 59.06 345 348 142 58.84

5 VSS 132 134 66 50.0 128 120 62.67 51.04

6 Chlorides 168 178 77.33 53.97 176 182 81.33 53.79

7 Hardness 360 350 251.33 30.19 380 360 263.67 30.61

8 Alkalinity 410 390 245.33 40.16 420 405 250 40.48

9 C O D 440 444 165 62.5 460 466 174.33 62.1

10 B O D 206 209 80.67 60.84 185 190 73 60.54

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

44.91

34.3

0.01

0.8

9.8

46.61

35.8

0.01

0.9

9.9

23.42

17.5

0.02

1.0

4.9

47.85

48.98

100.0

25.0

50.0

45.81

35.4

0.01

0.6

9.8

46.52

36.0

0.02

0.7

9.8

23.89

18.03

0.03

0.93

4.9

47.84

49.06

166.67

55.56

50.0

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.8 10.9 5.1 52.78 9.6 9.8 4.6 52.08

13 Oil & grease 36 36 36 - 44 44 44 -

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56 2.8 2.9 1.2 57.14

15 S V I 115 120 85 26.09 112 120 80 28.57

481

Table 67: 30% volume and 40% volume of plastic balls effect in

presence of 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT for


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.7 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C 1980 1920 1780 10.10 2020 2000 1816.

6 10.07

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 340 344 140 58.82 315 321 129 59.05

5 VSS 138 130 87.67 36.47 128 160 64.33 49.74

6 Chlorides 145 148 67.33 53.56 146 152 65.67 55.02

7 Hardness 380 360 261 30.32 350 345 248.33 31.02

8 Alkalinity 430 415 258 40.0 410 390 246 40.0

9 C O D 510 516 191 62.55 460 466 172.33 62.54

10 B O D 204 208 79.67 60.95 198 199 77.67 60.77

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

43.22

32.4

0.02

1.2

9.6

43.93

33.1

0.03

1.2

9.6

23.07

16.8

0.04

1.43

4.8

46.62

48.15

83.33

19.44

50.0

43.82

33.6

0.02

1.0

9.2

44.72

34.3

0.02

1.1

9.3

23.07

17.1

0.04

1.33

4.6

47.35

49.11

100.0

33.33

50.0

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.7 5.0 52.83 9.8 9.9 4.7 52.04

13 Oil & grease 40 40 40 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56

15 S V I 118 120 80 32.20 112 118 76 32.14

482


volume of plastic balls and 0.2% consortium for


S.

N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)

HRT @ 8 hours HRT @ 9hours

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.6 7.6 7.6 -

2 E.C

2060 2020 1820 11.65 2030 2020 1823.

3 10.18

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 330 320 170 48.48 340 360 170 50.0

5 VSS 126 120 73 42.06 142 136 81 42.96

6 Chlorides 168 174 104 38.1 178 179 107 39.89

7 Hardness 360 350 280.33 22.13 345 330 265.33 23.09

8 Alkalinity 380 370 285 25.0 380 360 280.33 26.23

9 C O D 420 426 218.33 48.02 410 414 203 50.49

10 B O D 192 196 102.33 46.7 198 200 101.33 48.82

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

41.21

31.4

0.01

0.9

8.9

42.21

32.4

0.01

0.9

8.9

28.72

22.0

0.02

1.0

5.7

30.31

29.94

100.0

11.11

35.96

44.0

34.2

ND

0.9

8.9

45.01

35.0

0.01

1.0

9.0

29.35

22.57

0.02

1.07

5.7

33.29

34.02

18.52

35.96

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.1 10.2 6.5 35.64 9.9 10.0 6.03 39.06

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 38 38 38 -

14 H2 S 2.7 2.8 1.8 33.33 2.8 2.8 1.8 35.71

15 S V I 130 130 78 40.00 124 128 72 41.94

483


volume of plastic balls and 0.2% consortium for


S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Before

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

trea

tme

nt

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.7 7.7 7.7 -

2 E.C 2030 2000 1813.3 10.67 1990 1960 1800 9.55

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 320 326 153.3 52.08 330 336 152 53.94

5 VSS 142 136 78 45.07 152 142 80.33 47.15

6 Chlorides 180 186 102.33 43.15 160 164 83 48.13

7 Hardness 340 330 258 24.12 330 315 244 26.06

8 Alkalinity 360 340 255 29.17 370 345 248 32.97

9 C O D 390 392 183.33 52.99 405 408 178 56.05

10 B O D 180 184 88 51.11 188 194 86.33 54.08

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

43.61

33.2

0.01

0.8

9.6

44.31

33.9

0.01

0.8

9.6

26.87

20.25

0.02

0.9

5.7

38.39

39.01

100.0

12.5

40.63

47.82

37.2

0.02

1.0

9.6

48.62

38.0

0.02

1.0

9.6

27.77

21.2

0.04

1.17

5.37

41.94

43.01

100.0

16.67

44.10

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.9 5.7 41.84 9.7 9.8 5.3 45.36

13 Oil & grease 42 42 42 - 40 40 40 -

14 H2 S 2.8 2.9 1.7 39.29 2.8 2.9 1.5 46.43

15 S V I 130 130 76 41.54 130 132 74 43.08

484

Table 70: 12 hours HRT effect along with 10% volume of plastic

balls and 0.2% consortium for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

HRT @ 12 hours

Before

treatment

Blank After

treatment

(Mean)

% Removal

(except pH

& temp.)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.6 0.1

2 E.C 1920 1900 1703.3 11.28


4 TSS 345 352 142 58.84

5 VSS 128 136 64 50.0

6 Chlorides 168 172 75.33 55.16

7 Hardness 340 330 239 29.71

8 Alkalinity 430 410 259 39.77

9 C O D 460 464 172 62.61

10 B O D 168 192 73.33 60.99

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

45.22

35.4

0.02

1.0

8.8

46.12

36.2

0.02

1.0

8.9

23.71

18.07

0.04

1.2

4.4

47.57

48.96

100.0

20.0

50.0

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.6 9.7 4.6 52.08

13 Oil & grease 40 40 40 -

14 H2 S 2.6 2.7 1.2 53.85

15 S V I 128 130 72 43.75

485



plastic balls, 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH, electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Befo

re

treat

ment

Blan

k

Afte

r

treat

ment

(Me

an)

%

Remov

al

(except

pH &

temp.)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1 8.0 8.0 7.9 0.1

2 E.C 1820 1790 1640 9.89 1920 1900 1730 9.9

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 26 26 26 -

4 TSS 330 336 135.33 58.99 370 380 152 58.92

5 VSS 118 110 56.33 52.26 146 140 74.67 48.86

6 Chlorides 142 148 66.33 53.29 172 174 82.67 51.94

7 Hardness 340 330 238.67 29.8 340 330 238 30.0

8 Alkalinity 380 360 229.33 39.65 380 360 230 39.47

9 C O D 410 418 154 62.44 425 432 159.67 62.43

10 B O D 168 172 67.17 60.02 192 198 75.67 60.59

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

40.95

30.9

0.05

0.9

9.1

41.85

31.6

0.05

1.0

9.2

21.54

15.7

0.07

1.17

4.6

47.4

49.19

46.67

29.63

49.45

45.15

34.6

0.05

1.1

9.4

46.35

35.6

0.05

1.2

9.5

23.57

17.43

0.07

1.3

4.77

47.8

49.61

33.33

18.18

49.29

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.8 4.7 52.04 9.2 9.4 4.4 52.17

13 Oil & grease 32 32 32 - 36 36 36 -

14 H2 S 2.6 2.7 1.2 53.85 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56

15 S V I 128 130 70 45.31 130 134 70 46.15

486




S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(excep

t pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 7.7 7.7 7.63 0.07

2 E.C 1960 1910 1765 9.95 1900 1820 1710 10.0

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 385 392 158 58.96 360 366 148 58.89

5 VSS 140 130 70.67 49.52 148 140 74 50.0

6 Chlorides 172 178 77.33 55.04 158 162 71 55.06

7 Hardness 395 385 276 30.13 360 345 251.3

3 30.19

8 Alkalinity 410 390 245.67 40.08 410 400 247 39.76

9 C O D 430 434 161.33 62.48 480 484 180 62.5

10 B O D 184 188 71.33 61.23 196 198 74 62.24

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

4161

32.4

0.01

1.0

8.2

42.41

33.1

0.01

1.0

8.3

21.72

16.5

0.02

1.1

4.1

47.79

49.07

133.33

10.0

50.0

43.52

34.4

0.02

0.5

8.6

34.82

35.6

0.02

0.5

8.7

22.83

17.8

0.03

0.6

4.4

47.55

48.26

33.33

20.0

48.84

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.8 9.9 4.7 52.04 9.4 9.5 4.4 53.19

13 Oil & grease 38 38 37 2.63 36 36 35.33 1.85

14 H2 S 2.6 2.7 1.13 56.41 2.7 2.8 1.2 55.56

15 S V I 130 130 70 46.15 124 130 66 46.77

487




S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters

are expressed in

mg/litre (ppm)

except pH,

electric

conductivity,

temperature &

SVI)


Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mean

)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

Befor

e

treat

ment

Blan

k

After

treat

ment

(Mea

n)

%

Remo

val

(exce

pt pH

&

temp.

)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 - 7.8 7.8 7.8 -

2 E.C

2140 2100 1896.6 11.37 1920 1900 1706.

6 11.11

3 Temperature 27 27 27 - 27 27 27 -

4 TSS 320 324 131 59.06 370 380 148 60.0

5 VSS 140 130 70 50.0 148 143 74 50.0

6 Chlorides 178 182 80 55.06 168 168 77.33 53.97

7 Hardness 380 360 265 30.26 355 350 245 30.99

8 Alkalinity 420 400 250 40.08 460 440 271 41.09

9 C O D 490 496 183.33 62.59 490 496 183.33 62.59

10 B O D 202 204 81.67 59.57 202 202 80.67 61.07

11 T N

A N

Nitrite N (NO2-)

Nitrate N (NO3-)

Kjeldhal Nitrogen

49.22

38.3

0.02

1.1

9.8

50.12

39.1

0.02

1.1

9.9

25.73

19.5

0.03

1.2

5.0

47.72

49.09

50.0

9.09

48.98

46.65

36.3

0.05

1.4

8.9

47.55

37.1

0.05

1.4

9.0

24.93

18.87

0.06

1.5

4.5

46.57

48.03

20.0

7.14

49.44

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.3 10.5 5.0 51.46 9.8 9.9 4.7 52.04

13 Oil & grease 34 34 33.33 1.96 36 36 35 2.78

14 H2 S 2.9 2.9 1.3 55.17 2.8 2.9 1.3 53.57

15 S V I 140 138 72 48.57 130 130 66 49.23

488

Table 74: Effect of granite stones as biofilter material with 10%

volume, 0.2% consortium and 12 hours HRT for 60

days time period for domestic sewage treatment

S.N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH, electric

conductivity, temperature

& SVI)

Optimized study – Granite stones as biofilter

media

Before

treatment

Blank Mean % Removal

(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1

2 Electric conductivity 2060 2020 1670 18.93


4 Total suspended solids 340 346 139 59.12

5 Volatile suspended solids 128 122 62.33 51.30

6 Chlorides 172 172 78.33 54.46

7 Hardness 385 360 262 31.95

8 Alkalinity 410 370 242 40.98

9 Chemical oxygen demand 420 422 151 64.05

10 Biochemical oxygen

demand 186 188 72 61.29

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen

Nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-)

Nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-)

Kjeldhal nitrogen

45.35

34.2

0.05

0.9

10.2

46.36

35.1

0.06

1.0

10.2

23.65

17.07

0.09

1.4

5.1

47.84

50.1

73.33

55.56

50.0

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.4 10.5 4.9 52.88

13 Oil & grease 34 35 33 2.94

14 Hydrogen sulphide 2.8 2.8 0.9 67.86

15 Sludge volume index 124 128 78 37.10

489

Table 75: Effect of clay balls as biofilter material in domestic

sewage treatment with 30% volume, 0.2%

consortium and 10 hours HRT for 30 days time

period

S.N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are




& SVI)

Optimized study – Clay balls as biofilter media

Before

treatment


(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.7 7.7 7.8 0.1

2 Electric conductivity 1880 1830 1503.3 20.04


4 Total suspended solids 340 348 95.33 71.96

5 Volatile suspended solids 142 136 58 59.15

6 Chlorides 180 184 50.33 72.04

7 Hardness 315 303 159 49.52

8 Alkalinity 360 340 156.33 56.57



demand 168 172 45.33 73.02

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

42.24

31.2

0.04

1.2

9.8

43.55

32.4

0.05

1.2

9.9

15.83

10.97

0.09

1.57

3.2

62.53

64.85

133.33

30.56

67.35

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.2 10.3 3.3 67.65

13 Oil & grease 38 38 36.67 3.51



490

Table 76: Effect of sintered glass cylinders as biofilter material

with 30% volume, 0.2% consortium and 10 hours

HRT for 30 days time period for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are


(ppm) except pH,


temperature & SVI)

Optimized study – Sintered glass cylinders

as biofilter media

Before

treatment


(except pH

&

temperature

)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 -




5 Volatile suspended

solids 138 130 56.33 59.18

6 Chlorides 168 174 50 70.24

7 Hardness 318 300 156 50.94

8 Alkalinity 440 415 189 57.05

9 Chemical oxygen

demand 410 416

115.3

3 71.87


demand 172 178 46.33 73.06

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

45.82

34.6

0.02

1.1

10.1

47.02

35.6

0.02

1.2

10.2

17.09

12.10

0.06

1.53

3.4

62.69

65.03

200.0

39.39

66.34

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.6 10.8 3.47 67.30

13 Oil & grease 32 32 31 3.13



491

Table 77: Effect of corn cobs as biofilter material in domestic

sewage treatment with 20% volume, 0.2%

consortium and 9 hours HRT for 40 days time

period

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are




& SVI)

Optimized study – Corn cobs as biofilter media

Before

treatment


(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.8 -





6 Chlorides 174 178 48.33 72.22

7 Hardness 310 300 105.33 66.02

8 Alkalinity 360 330 119 66.94

9 Chemical oxygen demand 390 396 68.33 82.48


demand 176 182 26.33

85.04

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

43.91

33.2

0.01

1.2

9.5

45.02

34.2

0.02

1.2

9.6

13.07

8.9

0.04

1.63

2.5

70.23

73.19

300.0

36.11

73.68

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.2 10.4 2.6 74.51

13 Oil & grease 32 32 30 6.25



492

Table 78: Effect of wood chips as biofilter material with 30%

volume, 0.2% consortium and 10 hours HRT for

50 days time period for domestic sewage

treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are




& SVI)

Optimized study – Wood chips as biofilter

media

Before

treatment


(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1





6 Chlorides 164 168 51 68.9

7 Hardness 330 320 118.67 64.04

8 Alkalinity 380 360 129 66.05



demand 172 178 28.33 83.53

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

44.82

34.2

0.02

1.2

9.4

46.33

35.6

0.03

1.2

9.5

14.13

9.9

0.06

1.47

2.7

68.48

71.05

200.0

22.22

71.28

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.9 10.0 2.7 72.73

13 Oil & grease 36 36 34 5.56



493

Table 79: Effect of nylon threads as biofilter material in

domestic sewage treatment in presence of 30%


60 days time period

S.N

o

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are




& SVI)

Optimized study – Nylon threads as biofilter

media

Before

treatment


(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1





6 Chlorides 172 174 46.33 73.06

7 Hardness 360 350 122 66.11

8 Alkalinity 380 380 125.33 67.02



demand 180 182 27 85.0

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

44.11

33.4

0.01

0.8

9.9

44.72

33.9

0.02

0.9

9.9

12.92

9.07

0.05

1.2

2.6

70.72

72.85

400.0

50.0

73.74

12 Phosphorus (as P) 10.8 10.9 2.8 74.07

13 Oil & grease 34 34 32.33 4.9



494

Table 80: Effect of plastic balls as biofilter material with 10%


60 days time period for domestic sewage treatment

S.

No

Physico-chemical

parameters

(All parameters are




& SVI)

Optimized study – Plastic balls as biofilter

media

Before

treatment


(except pH &

temperature)

1 pH 7.8 7.8 7.7 0.1





6 Chlorides 168 168 77.33 53.97

7 Hardness 340 330 234.33 31.08

8 Alkalinity 370 350 218 41.08



demand 192 194 76.67 60.07

11 Total nitrogen

Ammonical nitrogen



Kjeldhal nitrogen

45.15

35.6

0.05

1.1

8.4

45.55

35.9

0.05

1.1

8.5

24.17

18.5

0.07

1.4

4.2

46.47

48.03

40.0

27.27

50.0

12 Phosphorus (as P) 9.4 9.5 4.5 52.13

13 Oil & grease 36 36 35.67 0.93



495

Table 81: Effect of various filter media on food to

microorganism (F/M) ratio during the treatment

of domestic sewage

S.No Filter

material

Physico-chemical parameter F/M ratio

BOD VSS Before After

Before After Before After

1 Granite

stone 186 72.0 128 62.33 1.45 1.16

2 Clay

ball 168 45.33 142 58.0 1.18 0.78

3

Sintered

glass

cylinder

172 46.33 138 56.33 1.25 0.82

4 Corn

cob 176 26.33 144 44.0 1.22 0.6

5 Wood

chip 172 28.33 145 46.67 1.19 0.61

6 Nylon

thread 180 27.0 132 37.0 1.36 0.73

7 Plastic

ball 192 76.67 148 73.33 1.30 1.05

496

Table 82: Rf values of proteins extracted from molecular

marker, biofilm, consortium, raw sewage and

treated sewage in SDS PAGE

Marker Biofilm Consortium Raw

sewage

Treated

sewage

Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5

0.178 0.103 0.097 0.103 0.838

0.232 0.157 0.157 0.173

0.308 0.346 0.227 0.243

0.427 0.47 0.346 0.368

0.595 0.53 0.465 0.481

0.908 0.643 0.514 0.551

0.692 0.632 0.589

0.854 0.827 0.708

0.978

0.746

0.816

0.865

0.968

497

Table 83: Molecular Weight values of samples

Marker

Biofilm Consortium

Raw

sewage

Treated

sewage

Lane 1 Lane 2 Lane 3 Lane 4 Lane 5

116 247 263 247 24

66 140 140 120

45 36 74 65

35 27 36 33

25 25 27 26

18 24 26 25

24 24 25

24 24 24

24

24

24

24

24

498

Image 1: Sample collection at sewage treatment plant, vijayawada

499

Image2 : Surface area calculation of corn cob

Surface area of Corncob cavity:

It is a inverted trapezoid having 4 sides (front, back and

two laterals) and 1 base.

Surface area of front side: A = (b1+b2) x h

2

8mm

6

mm

6mm

6 mm

2 mm

2 mm

mm

4 mm

6 mm

500

6+8/2 x 6 = 42 mm2

Backside = 42 mm2

Lateral side1 = 2+6/2 x 6 = 24 mm2

Lateral side2 = 24 mm2

Base: lx b = 2x4 = 8 mm2

Total surface area of each cavity = 42+42+24+24+8 =

140 mm2

Top surface area has to be deducted from hollow

cylindrical cone: 8mm x 6 mm (LxB) = 48 mm2

Cob sample

3 7

4 9

5 11

6 14

7 16

25/5=5 57/5=11.4

3 7

4 9

5 11

6 14

7 16

25/5=5 57/5=11.4

3 7

4 10

5 13

6 16

7 18

25/5=5 64/5=12.8

501

Std. deviation =0.954

Hence each centimeter of corn cob contains 2.416

cavities on length basis.

5 cm length was selected.

For 5 cm length and 2.5 cm OD cob contains 5 x 2.41

cavities and each row contains 14 cavities hence total =

168.7 cavities on average.

Hollow cylindrical cone:

2∏rh+ 2∏Rh+ 2(∏R2 - ∏r

2)

(2x3.14x5x50) + (2 x 3.14x 12.5x50)+2(3.14 (12.5) 2

–

3.14 (5) 2

)

= 1570 + 3925+824.24 = 6319.24 mm2 = 63.19cm

2

3 9

4 11

5 13

6 16

7 18

25/5=5 67/5=13.4

3 7

4 9

5 11

6 14

7 16

25/5=5 57/5=11.4

1 11.4

2 11.4

3 12.8

4 11.4

5 13.4

502

Total surface area of 5 cm x 2.5 dia corn cob =

(Surface area of no. of cavities + surface area of total

cob) - (Surface area of top of each cavity)

= 168.7 x 140 mm2 + 6319.24 – (48mm

2 x 168.7)

= 23618 mm2 + 6319.24 – 8097.6 mm

2

= 21839.64 mm2

= 218.39 cm2

If the length of the cob is 7.6 cm then surface area is

327.68 cm2.

503

Image 3: Unprocessed natural biofilter material – granite stones

504

Image 4: Processed natural biofilter material – clay balls

4 cm

505

2.6 cm

Image 5: Natural processed biofilter material – sintered glass cylinders

506

Image 6: Biogenic biofilter material – corn cobs

Image 7: Biofiltration system setup using corn cobs as biofilter

material

507

Image 8: Biogenic biofilter material – wood chips

0.8 cm (b)

8.4 cm (l) 0.7 cm (h)

508

Image 9: Synthetic biofilter material – nylon threads

509

Image 10: Synthetic biofilter material – plastic balls

3.6 cm

510

Fig.1: Concentration effect of microbial consortium

on pollutant removal efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

% o

f re

mo

va

l ef

fici

ency

of

po

llu

tan

ts

% of inoculum

Total suspended solids Chemical oxygen demand

Biochemical oxygen demand Total nitrogen

Phosphorus (as P) Hydrogen sulphide

511

Fig.2: Hydraulic retention time (HRT) effect on

pollutant removal efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

4 8 12 16 20 24% o

f re

mo

va

l ef

fici

ency

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours




512

Fig.3: Volume % effect on removal efficiency of

pollutants in presence of granite stones as

biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum and 12

hours HRT

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

10 20 30 40

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %

Total suspended solids Chemical oxygen demandBiochemical oxygen demand Total nitrogenPhosphorus (as P) Hydrogen sulphide

513

Fig.4: HRT effect on removal efficiency of pollutants

in presence of 10% volume of granite stones

as biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f re

mo

va

l ef

fici

ency

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours




514

Fig.5: Time period effect on removal efficiency of

pollutants in presence of 10% volume of

granite stones as biofilter material, 0.2%

inoculum & 12 hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 20 30 40 50 60

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days




515

Fig.6: Effect of % of volume on removal efficiency of

pollutants in presence of clay balls as biofilter

material, 0.2% inoculum & 12 hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %




516


in presence of 30% volume of clay balls as

biofilter material & 0.2% inoculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Hydraulic retention time in hours




517


pollutants in presence of 30% volume of clay

balls as biofilter material & 0.2% inoculum

and 10 hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days

Total suspended solids

Chemical oxygen demand

Biochemical oxygen demand

518

Fig.9: Effect of % of volume on removal efficiency of

pollutants in presence of sintered glass

cylinders as biofilter material & 0.2%

inoculum and 12 hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

% of volume


519


in presence of 30% volume of sintered glass

cylinders as biofilter material & 0.2%

inoculums

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8 9 10 11 12% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours


520



sintered glass cylinders as biofilter material,

0.2% inoculum & 10 hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

10 20 30 40 50 60% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days




521

Fig.12: Effect of % of volume on removal efficiency

of pollutants in presence of corn cobs as

biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum & 12 hours

HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %




522


in presence of 20% volume of corn cobs as


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours


523


pollutants in presence of 20% volume of corn

cobs as biofilter material, 0.2% inoculum & 9

hours HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days




524


of pollutants in presence of wood chips as


HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40% o

f ef

fici

ent

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %




525


in presence of 30% volume of wood chips as


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ent

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours




526



wood chips as biofilter material, 0.2%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60

% o

f ef

fici

ent

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days




527


of pollutants in presence of nylon threads as


HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %




528


in presence of 30% volume of nylon threads

as biofilter material & 0.2% inoculum

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours




529



nylon threads as biofilter material, 0.2%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Timer period in days


530


of pollutants in presence of plastic balls as


HRT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 20 30 40

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Volume in %


531


in presence of 10% volume of plastic balls as


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

HRT in hours




532



plastic balls as biofilter material, 0.2%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

10 20 30 40 50 60% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

po

llu

tan

ts

Time period in days




533

Fig.24: Variations in pH in the presences of various

filter media during the sewage treatment

process

-0.15

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

pH

Filter Media

534

Fig.25: Electric conductivity variations with various

filter media during the sewage treatment

process

0

5

10

15

20

25

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

Ele

ctri

c co

nd

uct

ivit

y i

n m

Mh

os/

cm2

Filter Media

535

Fig. 26: Effect of various filter media on removal

efficiency of total suspended solids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

tota

l su

spen

ded

soli

ds

Filter Media

536

Fig. 27: Filter media effect on removal efficiency of

volatile suspended solids

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball% o

f eff

icie

ncy

rem

ov

al

of

vo

lati

le s

usp

end

ed

soli

ds

Filter Media

537

Fig. 28: Removal efficiency of chlorides in presence of

various filter media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Stone Clay ball Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

chlo

rid

es

Filter Media

538

Fig. 29: Hardness removal efficiency with various

filter media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

ha

rdn

ess

Filter Media

539

Fig. 30: Alkalinity removal efficiency in presence of


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

alk

ali

nit

y

Filter Media

540

Fig. 31: Chemical oxygen demand elimination

efficiency of various filter media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

chem

ica

l

oxy

gen

dem

an

d

Filter Media

541


efficiency of biochemical oxygen demand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

Bio

-ch

emic

al

oxy

gen

dem

an

d

Filter Media

542

Fig. 33: Total nitrogen removal efficiency of various

filter media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

tota

l n

itro

gen

Filter media

543

Fig. 34: Ammonical nitrogen removal by various

filter media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball% o

f eff

icie

ncy

rem

ov

al

of

am

mo

nic

al

nit

ro

gen

Filter media

544

Fig. 35: Nitrite nitrogen removal by various filter

media

-450

-400

-350

-300

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

0

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f eff

icie

ncy

rem

ov

al

of

nit

rit

e n

itro

gen

Filter media

545

Fig. 36: Nitrate nitrogen removal by various filter

media

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f eff

icie

ncy

rem

ov

al

of

nit

ra

te-n

itro

gen

Filter media

546

Fig. 37: Kjeldhal nitrogen removal by various filter

media

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

kje

ldh

al-

nit

rog

en

Filter media

547


efficiency of phosphorus

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

ph

osp

ho

rus

Filter media

548

Fig. 39: Oil & grease removal efficiency of various

filter media

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

oil

& g

rea

se

Filter media

549

Fig.40: Hydrogen sulphide removal efficiency of


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

hy

dro

gen

su

lph

ide

Filter media

550

Fig.41: Sludge volume index removal efficiency of


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

slu

dg

e v

olu

me

ind

ex

Filter media

551

Fig.42: Effect of volume of biofilter materials on

removal efficiency of biochemical oxygen

demand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10% 20% 30% 40%

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

bio

chem

ica

l o

xy

gen

dem

an

d

% of filter material

Stone Clay ballSintered glass cylinder Corn cobWood chip Nylon threadplastic ball

552

Fig.43: Hydraulic retention time effect in presence of

biofilter materials on removal efficiency of

biochemical oxygen demand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

8 9 10 11 12

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

Bio

chem

ica

l O

xy

gen

Dem

an

d

HRT in hours

Stone Clay ballSintered glass cylinder Corn cobWood chip Nylon thread

553

Fig.44: Time period effect in removal efficiency of

biochemical oxygen demand along with

various biofilter materials

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 20 30 40 50 60

% o

f ef

fici

ency

rem

ov

al

of

Bio

chem

ica

l O

xy

gen

Dem

an

d

Time Period in days

Stone Clay ball

Sintered glass cylinder Corn cob

Wood chip Nylon thread

554

Fig.45: Effect of various filter media on food to

microbe ratio

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

Stone Clay

ball

Sintered

glass

cylinder

Corn

cob

Wood

chip

Nylon

thread

Plastic

ball

F/M

Ra

tio

Filter Media

Before After

555

Fig. 46: Surface of corn cob showing bacterial species

at 1000 X

556

Fig. 47: Bacterial species at 8000 X on the surface of

corn cob

557

Fig.48: Various species of bacteria on the surface of

corn cob at 10000 X

558

Fig.49: Bacterial species on the surface of nylon

thread at 3000 X

559

Fig.50: Surface of nylon thread showing bacterial

species at 6000 X

560

Fig.51: Bacterial species on the surface of nylon

thread at 10000 X

561

Fig.52: Biofilm on corn cobs

562

Fig.53: Biofilm formation on nylon threads

563

Fig.54: Matrix of corn cob

564

Fig.55: Surface of Nylon thread

565

Figure 56: SDS-PAGE of proteins from biofilm,

consortium, raw sewage and treated sewage

Lane 1: molecular weight markers,

Lane 2: proteins from biofilm,

Lane 3: proteins from consortium used for treatment,

Lane 4: proteins from raw/untreated sewage and

Lane 5: proteins from treated sewage

566

Fig.57: Rf values of proteins extracted from

molecular marker, biofilm, consortium, raw

sewage and treated sewage in SDS PAGE

567

Fig.58: Mass spectrum of protein sample from raw

sewage in positive mode

568

Fig.59: Mass spectrum of protein sample from raw

sewage in negative mode

569

Fig.60: Treated sewage sample mass spectrum in

positive mode

570

Fig.61: Treated sewage sample mass spectrum in

negative mode

571

Fig.62: Mass spectrum of protein sample from

consortium in positive mode

572


consortium in negative mode

573


biofilm in positive mode

574


biofilm in negative mode

4. results & discussionsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/47598/12/12... ·...

Documents