Jonathan Strickland
Innovation Technologist, Anglian Water Services, Henderson House, Lancaster Way, Ermine Business Park, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 6XQ
ABSTRACT
The current position with respect to phosphorus removal in a UK water company is discussed. The factors that would favour a change from the current practice of metal salt dosing to Biological removal are examined. The potential for therefore recovering phosphorus fixed biologically is considered and possible process routes presented.
KEYWORDS
Phosphorus, Nutrients, Activated Sludge, Biological Phosphorus Removal, Struvite
INTRODUCTION
Anglian Water is geographically the largest of the 10 Water Companies of England and Wales and also has the largest requirement for P removal under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. By the end of 1998 sewage works of one million population equivalent in Eastern England will be subject to phosphorus discharge standards, amounting to around 20% of the connected population.
The method used to achieve this phosphorus removal initially will be metal dosing usually with Ferrous (Fe II) salts. In 1999 the water industry England and Wales will enter its third five year regulatory period, and this is expected to include a further requirement for Phosphorus removal probably doubling the population served in Eastern England.
There is therefore now sufficient Phosphorus available for recovery at sewage works for this to be viable, but a number of obstacles exist before this potential can be realised.
CURRENT PRACTICES
A decision was made in the mid 1990s that the current requirement for phosphorus removal in Anglian Water would be met using metal salt dosing. This was based on a number of considerations.
BIOLOGICAL PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Research on Biological Phosphorus removal in Anglian Water has indicated the following :-
There remain therefore two problem areas which need to be overcome before Biological Phosphorus removal can be adopted widely. These are the need for a means of maintaining performance in winter months, and the need for a means of liquor treatment which breaks the loop of returned phosphorus from sludge thickening, digestion and dewatering back to the works inlet.
There are three ways in which winter performance can be maintained.
There are numerous possible techniques for avoiding the return of phosphorus with sludge liquors.
POTENTIAL FOR PHOSPHORUS RECOVERY
Phosphorus recovery is only possible if biological phosphorus removal is carried out. This is because Iron phosphates are not suitable for processing in the phosphate industry, and also the processes used result in phosphorus being dispersed in the total sludge production. Phosphorus recovery therefore depends on the adoption of Biological Phosphorus removal. Iron salt dosing has at present been chosen because of the ease of installation and operation, however, a number of issues could result in this option becoming less attractive. The advantages and disadvantages of metal salt dosing are listed below.
Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of Metal salt phosphorus removal
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
|
Ease of Installation |
EA discouragement of chemical dosing |
|
Inexpensive chemicals used |
Sludge production increased |
|
No liquor problems |
Rising demand may increase chemical price |
|
Reduced H2S formation in digesters |
Iron and other metals dispersed in the environment |
|
No struvite precipitation |
|
|
Otherwise waste materials recycled to useful purpose |
|
It is therefore possible to list those factors which may encourage a move to biological phosphorus removal.
Other factors that would encourage biological phosphorus removal are increasing ease of operation of such plants, and a value being placed on recovered phosphorus.
The potential for phosphorus recovery therefore depends in the UK and in Anglian Water particularly on the number and size of plants which are required to remove phosphate, and are potentially available for conversion to biological removal, without requiring the continuous use of iron dosing on site (i.e. without any element of trickling filters).
The list of current sites , size and process type are listed below.
Table 2 AW works requiring P removal
|
Site |
Process |
Population Equivalent |
Available for Biological conversion and P recovery |
|
Original AMPII commitment |
|||
|
Needham Market |
Trickling Filters |
11666 |
|
|
Stowmarket |
Trickling Filters |
19886 |
|
|
Stalham |
Trickling Filters |
10928 |
|
|
Halstead |
Activated Sludge |
11410 |
11410 |
|
Louth |
Trickling Filters |
22948 |
|
|
Brackley |
Activated Sludge |
20592 |
20592 |
|
Cotton Valley |
Activated Sludge |
244185 |
244185 |
|
Bedford |
Combined AS and TF |
196059 |
|
|
Chalton |
Combined AS and TF |
64732 |
|
|
Bocking |
Trickling Filters |
16767 |
|
|
Braintree |
Trickling Filters |
21263 |
|
|
Shenfield |
Activated Sludge |
46357 |
46357 |
|
Whilton |
Trickling Filters |
25513 |
|
|
Oakham |
Trickling Filters |
11177 |
|
|
Great Billing |
Combined AS and TF |
285959 |
285959 |
|
Broadholme |
Combined AS and TF |
209214 |
|
|
Corby |
Two stage Biofilm/AS |
133310 |
|
|
New commitments during AMP II |
|||
|
Bury St Edmunds |
Trickling Filters |
76471 |
|
|
Fakenham |
Trickling Filters |
18028 |
|
|
Dereham |
Trickling Filters |
13355 |
|
|
Totals |
20 |
1459820 |
322544 |
|
608503 |
|||
Great Billing is included as a plant that could potentially be used for Phosphorus recovery as the Trickling filters treat a relatively small proportion of the flow and extra Activated sludge capacity could be provided economically.
Therefore, of the 1.5 million p.e. requiring Phosphorus removal, only 300000 p.e. is potentially available for recovery immediately, with a further 300000 available relatively easily.
POTENTIAL PROCESS LAYOUTS FOR PHOSPHORUS RECOVERY
In order to recover Phosphorus from sewage it is necessary to identify a point in the process train where suitable conditions are likely to exist for recovery to be economic. Three likely points usually exist. These are :-
In order to select the most likely point for Phosphorus recovery, the advantages and disadvantages of each point need to be considered, and the possible yield of Phosphorus at each point considered. To assist with this an idealised sewage works treating 100000 p.e. is used. This works would have a phosphorus input of 300 kg/day. 20000 m3/day of sewage would be treated per day and the activated sludge plant would have a total volume of 13000m3. The RAS flow is assumed to be 20000m3/day.
This basic works is shown in figure 1. The influent Phosphorus load of 300 kg P is reduced to 20 kg in the effluent, equivalent to 1 mg/l. The remaining phosphorus is wasted at a rate of 280 kg/day.
Figure 1 P balance - Idealised Treatment works

If the case of adding a Phostrip system (Figure 2) is considered a side stream stripper tank is assumed to be added to the RAS return line taking 10% of the return sludge and stripping it. Rather idealistically it is assumed to be capable of reducing P in the stripped sludge to zero. Since sludge is recycled at 20000 m3/day, 2000m3/day of RAS will pass through the stripper each day. At twice the mixed liquor concentration this is equivalent to 31% of the sludge in the plant each day. Taking into account the other sink for phosphorus in the plant, that is sludge wastage (10% of the sludge per day), a maximum of 212 kg/day is potentially available for recovery.
Figure 2 Idealised P balance - Phostrip plant

The layout and balance for treating sludge liquor is shown in Figure 3. The waste activated sludge is thickened quickly to retain the phosphorus in the sludge and this passes through digestion. Partition of phosphorus in the sludge between the liquor and the solid phase is subject to very varied estimates. Some reports have indicated that a high proportion of the phosphorus becomes available in the liquid phase, however experiments at Anglian Water using trial digesters, and BNR sludges, have indicated that although elevated, sludge liquor phosphorus amounts to only 15% of the phosphorus output. The remainder is in the solid phase. This appears to indicate that insoluble products such as struvite are being formed in the digestion process. Struvite is found on AW digestion plants, typically downstream of dewatering equipment probably due to aeration stripping carbon dioxide. However there appears to be only minor problems with struvite accumulation in digesters and the quantities of solid struvite found do not amount to the total possible weight. One possible explantion for this is that under the conditions in the digester, saturation for struvite formation is reached and as cells undergo lysis, the released phosphate precipitates quickly as a sort of cell cast. These would be small enough to act as colloidal solids, probably being incorporated with organic solids.
Therefore, depending on what happens within the digester, sludge liquor treatment could yield between 40 to 240 kg of recoverable P in the effluent. Under AW conditions the lower estimate would appear to be most likely to be achieved in practice.
Figure 3 Idealised P balance - Sludge Liquor plant

The third option is to take the waste activated sludge, cause this to release P and thicken this prior to digestion, or further processes. This is possible in either anaerobic (as in Phostrip) conditions, or extended aerobic conditions. The degree of release possible will depend on the length of time that the sludge is retained for in the release tank, but could be very high.
Figure 4 Idealised P balance - Waste activated sludge plant

DISCUSSION
A number of obstacles exist to the implementation of P recovery on treatment works. These relate to the availability of suitable sites and the problem of operating a plant without a competitive process such as metal salt P removal locking up Phosphorus.
For a BNR plant concentrated streams of phosphorus liquor are available at three points. The digested liquor process would probably involve Struvite precipitation, and require a Magnesium feed to supplement high levels of Phosphorus and Ammonia normally present. For Anglian Water, this does not appear to be a good option as most of the phosphorus following digestion appears to be associated with the solid phase.
The two other options involve phosphorus recovery prior to digestion, and therefore in the relative absence of ammonia, so Calcium phosphate precipitation would be the preferred process. Both of these appear good options, but the WAS system is preferable purely for recovery. This is because assuming similar rates of P release are achieved in both cases, as this treats lower volumes of sludge daily, smaller tanks would be required, and existing dewatering equipment could be utilised for the liquor separation.
The Phostrip option would have other benefits in terms of stabilising the P removal process, by limiting phosphorus concentrations carried in the BNR sludge.
CONCLUSIONS
Practical possibilities for P recovery exist, but will depend for implementation on the economic value of the recovered material, and the need to achieve other objectives, such as widespread implementation of BNR, and possibly low phosphate sludges. All options require further investigation, and may be site specific. The process that becomes widely adopted will need to be simple, and require low manpower and maintenance.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author acknowledges the permission of Anglian Water to present the paper. Any views expressed are those of the author, and not necessarily those of Anglian Water