1
AQUATIC MACROPHYTE BASED WASTE-WATER TREATMENT IN
TOWNS AND MUNICIPALITY

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• S.C.Santra
•  
•  
•  
• Department of Environmental Science
• University of Kalyani
• Kalyani 741 235, Nadia
• West Bengal, India.

2

• Background-
• Proper treatment, utilization and safe
  disposal of wastewater are the hallmarks of the
  modern civilization. Our environment is under
  constant threat from our own activities.
  Expanding population, industrialization and
  intensive agriculture are responsible for damage
  to our environment. However, technological
  development for treating wastewater has not kept
  pace with the changes in the complexity of
  effluents created through the growth of different
  industries and emerging of new complex problems
  owing to the addition of various toxic and
  hazardous substances to the water system.
• In India, most of the surface water bodies
  e.g. river lakes, pond are polluted due to
  discharge of untreated wastewater from
  municipalities, industries, surface run-off
  carrying insecticides, pesticides from
  agriculture field etc. However, every water body
  has a limit of pollution control capacity, beyond
  which if it is loaded then it will result in
  degradation of aquatic ecosystem resulting an
  adverse impact on the water management. In India,
  out of total wastewater generated in the metro
  cities hardly 30 is treated in the treatment
  plants before disposal.

3
Present Scenario of Wastewater Treatment in India
Plant Plant Capacity (in MLD) Unit Operation and Process Unit Operation and Process
Plant Plant Capacity (in MLD) Preliminary/PrimaryTreatment SecondaryTreatment
1 163.00 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
2 27.00 S, GR,PS TF, SS
3 90.00 - OP
4 27.00 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
5 5.70 S, GR, PSG TF,SS
6 9.10 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
7 45.5 S, GR, PS TF,SS
8 136.40 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
9 80.00 S, GR, PS TF,SS
10 34.00 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
11 23.00 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
12 20.00 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
13 11.40 S, GR, PS TF,SS
14 27.00 S, GR,PS TF, SS
15 22.50 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
16 10.90 S, GR, PS TF,SS
17 181.80 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
18 181.80 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
19 5.50 S, GR OP
20 8.0 S, GR, PS ASP, SS
S Screening, GR Grit Removal, OP
Oxidation Pond TF Trickling Filter SS -
Secondary Settling, PS Primary Settling
ASP Activated Sludge Process
4
(No Transcript)
5
(mld)
6
Performance of Selected Sewage Treatment Plants
of India
Plant Plant Capacity (MLD) BOD5, 200C (mg./L) BOD5, 200C (mg./L) Suspended Solids (mg/L) Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Plant Plant Capacity (MLD) Raw Sewage Effluent Raw Sewage Effluent
1 163.00 152 400 24 55 33 694 20 72
2 27.00 0 150 17 46 152 326 38 108
3 90.00 126 170 19 22 178 214 87 105
4 27.00 Not in working condition Not in working condition - -
5 5.70 148 264 32 68 380 580 72 130
6 9.10 150 182 12 24 338 470 36 66
7 45.5 150 166 14 21 14 21 30 37
8 136.40 175 215 30 56 372 387 68 96
9 80.00 270 475 70 156 306 934 36 196
10 34.00 260 490 27 151 160 764 42 108
11 23.00 350 590 23 132 334 1080 62 230
12 20.00 73 127 17 40 50 216 22 108
13 11.40 158 188 42 46 168 176 44 56
14 27.00 64 440 32 192 120 620 15 272
15 22.50 80 355 18 60 90 960 20 72
16 10.90 149 183 16 32 126 188 28 56
17 181.80 135 178 10 23 212 360 25 70
18 181.80 216 330 24 62 298 488 48 108
19 5.50 58 138 35 79 25 196 20 83
20 8.0 63 - 170 11 - 21 50 - 215 18 - 34
7
Status of Sewage Treatment plants of
India(Classification based upon Design Capacity
)
8
Status of Sewage Treatment plants of
India(Classification based upon Treatment Plant)
9
Status of Sewage Treatment plants of
India(Classification based upon O M Agency)
10
Probable causes of failure

• Hydraulic/organic over loading of the system
• Inadequate oxygenation due to frequent power
  failure and mechanical failure of the aerators.
• Poor F/M ratio and low MLSS concentration
• Uneven distribution of sewage over trickling
  filter
• Ponding in the trickling filter bed.
• Interrupted operation due to frequent power
  failure/non availability of sewage.
• Others
• Non-cooperation between the different wings of
  engineering department
• Untrained operators
• Electrical and mechanical fault
• Improper sewerage systems

11
Status Aquaric Macrophytes in Tropics

• Over 100 species viz floating from Submerges
  forms party submerged party emerged (Reeds)

12
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND (CW)Historical back ground

• Treating wastewater for about 90 years
• 1st initiated in the year 1950 at Max Plank
  Institution in Germany
• In 1973 full scale experiment developed by Robert
  Kablee, Principle of wetland Management
• Several research efforts initiated between 1970
  1980 in USA
• In the year 1993 EPA presented OM of
  sub-surface flow wetland
• In Europe at present there are 11,370 nos.
  officially registered wetland
• In Australia about 40CW have been installed in
  the last 10 years
• China, Korea, Pakistan also started to treat
  wastewater by CW
• In India demonstration project on community-based
  wastewater treatment started in the districts
  Roper Patiala at Punjab. Also in Delhi and
  Vellor CW system initiated

13
The Constructed Wetland System in Europe
14
Percentage of Constructed Wetland Uses In North
America
Surface water
15
Distribution of Wetlands According to Application
in North America
16
Different Types of Wetlands
17
Elements of Surface Flow Wetland
18
Processes Occurring in a Wetland
19
BIOTIC MECHANISMS TREATING ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
WETLAND
20
BIOTIC MECHANISMS TREATING INORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
WETLAND
21
Abiotic Mechanisms Treating Organic Compounds in
Wetland
22
Abiotic Mechanisms Treating Inorganic Compounds
in Wetland
23
Organic Compound Removal in Wetland
24
Mechanisms of Metal Removal in Wetland
25
Suspended Solids Pathways
26
BOD/ Carbon Pathways
Legend DM Dissolved Matter PM Particular
Matter Denotes dissolved
or in solution
Se Sedimentation
Re Resuspension of bed particulates Bu
Biofilm Uptake Rs
Respiration by algal biofilm and

Ao Aerobic decomposition
phytoplankton An
Anaerobic decomposition Fb Bio film fall and
deposition Fm Microphyte litter Di Dilution
of O at water/air interface
27
Carbon Transformations in Free Water Surface
Wetland
28
Pathogen Pathways
29
Phosphorus Pathways
30
Conceptual Model of Phosphorus cycling in Wetland
31
Nitrogen Pathways
32
Nitrogen Transformations in Free Water Surface
Wetland
PON Particulate
organic nitrogen DON Dissolved organic
nitrogen NH4 Associated ammonia
nitrogen NH3 Non associated ammonium gas

O2 Oxygen NO-2 Nitrite
nitrogen NO-3 Nitrate nitrogen
N2 Nitrogen
33
Why constructed wetland?

• Eco-friendly way of treatment
• Less area requirement
• Minimum power consumption
• Sun light does not affect in treatment unlike WSP
• More shelter to the birds and water animals
• Can be used at source or in centralized manner
• Less capital and OM cost
• Existing wetlands can be utilized after certain
  modification
• Already established in America, Europe,Australia
  and other advance countries.

34
Case Study-

• Evaluation of the existing treatment plants in
  KMA
• Study on the performance of conventional and low
  cost treatment system
• Cost evaluation of the different types of
  treatment plants
• Performance study of a Constructed Wetland
  through pilot-plant investigation
• Suitability study of different aquatic plants
  used in pilot-plant of Constructed Wetland.
• Designing of Constructed Wetland and evaluation
  of the cost
• Comparative study of the area requirement of
  Constructed Wetland with that of Waste
  Stabilization Pond (WSP) for treatment of equal
  quantity of wastewater is also contemplated

35
Study Procedure

? Analysis of samples of sewage treatment plants
operated by different agencies
? Analysis of samples of sewage treatment plants
operated by different agencies
? Sample analysis of three distinct types of
plants
? Pilot plant study on constructed wetland
Conclusion
36
Location of Sample Collection
LEGEND
ZONES
?
Kalyani STP(PHED)
KMA BOUNDARY
?
?
Jagaddal STP (KMDA)
LOCATION OF SAMPLE
COLLECTION
?
Chndannagar STP (KMDA)
?
Serampur STP(KMWSA)
Kona WSP(KMWSA)
?
Baranagar STP (KMDA)
?
Howrah STP(KMWSA)
KMA Sewerage Zones
?
(Area 1,785.00 Sq.Km., Municipal Bodies-41
Nos.)
N
37
Parameters analyzed

• pH,
• EC,
• NO3-,
• Cl-,
• PO4,
• BOD5
• COD

38
Characterization of Samples Collected from
Different Points of Three Types of Treatment
Plants Parameter Analyzed
39
Characteristics of Effluent from Different
Sewage Treatment Plants Pre-monsoon
Sl. No Name and Location of Plant Name and Location of Plant Sample Collection Point Date of Collection pH EC m mho/cm NO3- mg/l Cl - mg/l PO4 mg/l BOD5 mg/l COD mg/l
1 HSTP Howrah Trickling (45 MLD (a)Influent (b)Effluent 6-5-2003   7.36 8.31 0.87 0.80 1.94 0.96 120.96 114.96 0.48 0.41 82 58 140 98
2 KonaWSP Howrah WSP (30 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 6-5-2003 7.62 8.02 1.87 0.76 2.36 1.17 316.40 193.93 0.63 0.42 40 21 140 98
3 SSTP Serampur Trickling (18.9 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 6-5-2003   7.29 - 0.65 2.79 51.48 0.23 - 36 - 51 -
4 STP Chandannagar Trickling (18.16 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 6-5-2003 8.33 8.18 0.53 0.41 2.15 1.15 45.48 37.49 0.38 0.36 54 51 68 57
5 STP Kalyani Trickling (11 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent  27-5-2003 7.39 7.71 0.53 0.38 2.38 2.35 50.48 47.99 0.28 0.20 73 28 112 51
6 STP Jagaddal ASP (4.54 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 27-5-2003 7.27 7.89 1.01 0.81 2.37 1.61 68.97 66.98 0.58 0.51 93 46 138 72
7 STP Baranagar  Trickling (40 MLD) a)Influent (b)Effluent  27-5-2003 7.56 7.99 1.25 0.86 3.64 2.53 251.92 175.44 0.43 0.39 75 38 111 54
PLANT NOT IN WORKING CONDITION
40
Characteristics of Effluent from Different
Sewage Treatment Plants After-monsoon
Sl. No Name and Location of Plant Name and Location of Plant Sample Collection Point Date of Collection pH EC m mho/cm NO3- mg/l Cl - mg/l PO4 mg/l BOD5 mg/l COD mg/l
1 HSTP Howrah Trickling (45 MLD (a)Influent (b)Effluent 1-10-2003 6.11 6.86 0.63 0.88 2.01 1.20 103.68 87.08 0.39 0.25 31 28 42 41
2 KonaWSP Howrah WSP (30 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 1-10-2003 7.10 8.04 1.98 1.02 3.48 1.77 289.78 198.08 0.67 0.48 31 18 41 26
3 SSTP Serampu Trickling (18.9 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 1-10-2003 7.90 8.12 1.68 1.17 2.79 2.71 82.11 80.06 0.19 0.15 31 18 48 29
4 STP Chandannagar Trickling (18.16 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 1-10-2003 7.70 8.00 2.48 1.46 2.81 2.03 59.76 48.00 0.39 0.29 39 26 69 41
5 STP Kalyani Trickling (11 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 9-10-2003 7.13 7.68 1.85 0.98 2.90 1.89 42.23 38.7 0.44 0.32 33 22 52 33
6 STP Jagaddal ASP (4.54 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 9-10-2003 7.25 7.90 1.22 0.87 2.57 1.71 56.66 51.41 0.61 0.48 93 31 152 39
7 STP Baranagar  Trickling (40 MLD) a)Influent (b)Effluent 9-10-2003 8.20 8.51 0.98 0,73 3.77 2.12 159.61 123.37 0.38 0.29 69 37 111 49
41
Characteristics of Effluent from Different
Sewage Treatment Plants Winter
Sl. No Name and Location of Plant Name and Location of Plant Sample Collection Point Date of Collection pH EC m mho/cm NO3- mg/l Cl - mg/l PO4 mg/l BOD5 mg/l COD mg/l
1 HSTP Howrah Trickling (45 MLD (a)Influent (b)Effluent 23-1-2004 8.07 8.34 0.83 0.76 1.22 0.95 170.99 153.99 0.58 0.31 111 32 164 49
2 KonaWSP Howrah WSP (30 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 23-1-2004 6.33 8.85 0.90 0.39 3.30 2.11 276.87 257.99 0.71 0.52 52 20 71 31
3 SSTP Serampu Trickling (18.9 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 23-1-2004 8.22 7.15 0.40 0.37 2.98 2.05 127.99 89.89 0.33 0.21 78 28 111 42
4 STP Chandannagar Trickling (18.16 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 23-1-2004 7.74 7.76 0.67 0.40 87.33 76.21 40.79 30.33 0.59 0.49 66 33 91 52
5 STP Kalyani Trickling (11 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 29-1-2004 7.45 7.90 0.53 0.20 2.98 2.23 167.97 71.99 0.37 0.21 113 36 160 52
6 STP Jagaddal ASP (4.54 MLD) (a)Influent (b)Effluent 29-1-2004 7.55 7.70 0.30 0.28 2.67 1.8 101.69 61.88 0.37 0.21 123 41 182 59
7 STP Baranagar  Trickling (40 MLD) a)Influent (b)Effluent 29-1-2004 8.45 8.55 1.16 0.50 1.27 0.45 116.77 90.21 0.63 0.52 132 42 201 76
42
Characterization of Samples Collected from
Different Points of Three Types of Treatment
Plants MONSOON
 
43
Characterization of Samples Collected from
Different Points of Three Types of Treatment
Plants AFTER MONSOON
44
Characterization of Samples Collected from
Different Points of Three Types of Treatment
Plants WINTER
45
Characterization of Samples Collected from
Different Points of Three Types of Treatment
Plants SUMMER
46
Pilot plant
47
Pilot plant studySelection of plants

• Typha latifolia (Cattai) for pond A
• Salvinia Molesta (Water fern) for pond B

48
View of the pilot plant in different seasons
49
Parameters Analyzed in the Pilot Plant

• Chemical
• pH
• EC
• NO-3
• PO4
• BOD5
• COD
• Alkanity
• TSS
• TDS
• Bacteriological
• Total Coliform
• Faecal Coliform

50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
(No Transcript)
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
(No Transcript)
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
(No Transcript)
63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
(No Transcript)
66
(No Transcript)
67
(No Transcript)
68
(No Transcript)
69
Conclusion......From the present study it is
evaluated that none of the existing treatment
plants is functioning well, but WSP being
low-cost and easily manageable, is working
satisfactorily in most of the cases..Moreover,
the WSP is good from the view point of pond
ecologies. The application of primary treated
sewage in the pond takes advantages of the
complex ecologies of the meadow and underlying
soil. But in spite of many advantages, the main
stringency lies in the fact that WSP needs large
area, which is very scarce in the urban areas.
From the view point of efficiency and land
requirement constructed wetland treatment system
may be considered effective alternative of the
wastewater treatment.
70
(No Transcript)