A History of “Conventional Wastewater Treatment” in
Response to New Water Quality Standards
Scott Kyser, PEJoel Peck
MPCA
Why is a millennial, who is not a historian, presenting about history at
a water conference?
KIDS THESE DAYS….
I work at the MPCA as a permitting engineer in the effluent limits unit
New effluent permit limits often can require treatment plant upgrades
Upgrading a WWTP is very expensive
Detroit Lakes WWTP Upgrade
ProposedMembrane Bio-Reactor Plant
$30 Million in Capital Costs
CurrentRIBs, Spray Irrigation, Stabilizing & Aerated Ponds,
Trickling filters, Chemical Precipitation, Dual Media Filters
(Frankenstein plant, Not Meeting Effluent Limits)
0100200300400500600700800900
< 10 10 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 35 35 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 > 200
HouseholdCount
Annual Household Income ($1000)
Detroit Lakes Household Income Distribution
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
< 10 10 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 35 35 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 > 200
WW Costs as Percent
of Household
Income
Annual Household Income ($1000)
Current ($30/month)
Projected ($60/month)
You are sitting across from a Detroit Lakes elected official and you tell them DL has a new effluent limit.
They know it will cost about $30 million in wastewater upgrades to comply with that limit.
The DL elected official asks you:
• Where did these new effluent limits come from?• Why is the MPCA always moving the goalpost?
What MPCA typically brings up:
• Environmental improvements from WWTP upgrades• The legality of the water quality standard in question• What the effluent limit calculation entailed• The likely availability of state funding for wastewater
improvements• New regulatory certainty bill• Permitting and compliance time lines• Affordability indices and variance eligibility
What MPCA doesn’t bring up:
Why are wastewater treatment requirements always changing?
Why are wastewater treatment requirements
always changing?
WWTPs in 1858 Permitted Discharge Locations in 2017
What happened to WWTP between 1858
and 2017?
Over time the accepted definition of ‘conventional wastewater treatment’
has progressed
WWTP in 1937 Main Metro Plant, Today
The definition of ‘conventional wastewater treatment’ is:
• Dependent on who you ask • Cholera survivor• Professor of Environmental Engineering• Writers of 1972 version of Sec 304d of Clean Water Act• Residential wastewater rate payer
• Dependent on when you ask • 1858 • 1972• 2017
Progress (Verb): Development towards an improved or more advanced
condition
Over time the generally accepted definition of
‘conventional wastewater treatment’ has developed towards an improved and more advanced condition
To tell this story we need to explain….
• Wastewater Permit Effluent Limits• Surface Water Quality Standards• How Standards relate to permit limits• How Surface Water Quality Standards are developed• How Surface Water Quality Standards have progressed over time• How our understanding of surface water quality standards
ultimately defines “conventional wastewater treatment”
Effluent Limits Ultimately Dictate WWTP Design
Surface Water Quality
Standards
TechnologyBasedWWTP
Standards
WWTPPermit
EffluentLimits
Type &Complexity of WWTP
TBELWWTP
Cost
WWTP Has Reasonable Potential To Cause or
Contribute to an Exceedance of Surface
Water Quality Standards
WQBEL
Binding and Enforceable Legal Contract That Must*
Be Complied With
What are surface water quality standards?
A history of conventional wastewater treatment in MN: The Nitrogen story
Potential Types of Nitrogen in a Municipal WWTP Discharge
NitrificationDenitrification
3 Main Pathways WWTP Nitrogen Affects Receiving Waters
1. Ammonia (Nitrogenous) biochemical oxygen demand2. Ammonia Toxicity to aquatic life3. Nitrate Toxicity to aquatic life
#1 Ammonia (Nitrogenous) Biochemical Oxygen Demand
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Long PrairieRiver DO(mg/L)
River Mile
With Ammonia TreatmentWithout Ammonia TreatmentDO Standard
Long Prairie WWTPs
#2 Ammonia Aquatic Life Toxicity
Freshwater Mussel, Villosa iris
#3 Nitrate Aquatic Life Toxicity
4.9 mg/L Chronic Aquatic Life Nitrate
Standard
1945
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
Minnesota Ammonia Surface Water Quality Standards
2 mg/L Ammonia –Warm Water Fisheries
National and Minnesota Ammonia Surface Water Quality Standards
1. Standards reflect the best available science at the time!!
2. No MN or national aquatic life nitrate criteria
MinnesotaAmmonia
Criteria
NationalAmmonia
Criteria
1945
WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT
1997#3
1976
NUMERIC CRITERIA
1999#4
1984#2
2013#5
1979#1
1972
CLEAN WATER
ACT
Primary Settling
Sewage
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
Secondary Settling
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
AnoxicZone
Secondary Settling
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
Secondary Settling
No Treatment No Treatment
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
Nitrifying Activated
Sludge
DenitrifyingActivated
Sludge
Pre-1945
1945 - 1973
1973 - 1981
1981 - Now
Future
cBOD5 100 mg/L
NH3 NANO3 NA
cBOD5 25 mg/L
NH3 NANO3 NA
cBOD5 5 mg/L
NH3 < 5 mg/LNO3 NA
cBOD5 5 mg/L
NH3 0 mg/LNO3 < 5mg/L
My Eras of Nitrogen Conventional WWTP in MN
Do the Nitrogen eras I defined make sense?
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
Secondary Settling
Nitrifying Activated
Sludge1981 - Now
My nitrifying era is in reference to the 1981 Minnesota ammonia standard update.
Engineers had a surprisingly advanced understanding of nitrifying activated sludge
design as far back as the 1910’s.
Source: Bartow and Mohlman (1917) adapted figure from Metcalf and Eddy, 1st Edition (1922)
What about future eras of nitrogen treatment?
Point: Denitrification is the future because MN doesn’t have a nitrate aquatic life standard and operating a denitrifying WWTP is difficult and costly.
Counterpoint: Denitrification is the present because engineers have known how to design WWTPs to treat nitrate using denitrification since the 1960’s and science knows nitrate is toxic to aquatic life.
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
AnoxicZone
Secondary Settling
DenitrifyingActivated
SludgeFuture
Why are wastewater treatment requirements
always changing?
Over time the generally accepted definition of
‘conventional wastewater treatment’ has developed towards an improved and more advanced condition
“Conventional Wastewater Treatment” has progressed
• Environmental Science has progressed• Water quality Protections have progressed• WWTP design has progressed• WWTP performance has progressed• Wastewater treatment is still very expensive
The storyline of WWTP and nitrogen is similar to:
• Suspended Solids • Pathogen Reduction• Disinfection Residual Control • Mercury• Phosphorus• cBOD5
• Estrogenic compounds• Antibiotic resistance genes• …..
Evidence for an end to progress?
Some pollutants possess unique chemistries that make them difficult and/or unaffordable to treat
Final Thoughts
• Did I convince you that wastewater treatment has progressed over time?
• Do you think we will see progress continue into the future?
• What would that progress look like?
Border Battle Bonus Bout:WWTP Policy TKO
Mercury Water Quality Standards
Mercury Permitting in Minnesota
• All 16 municipal facilities in Superior Basin will receive Hg limits
• Several municipal WWTPs have demonstrated* compliance with lake superior Hg water quality standard
Mercury in WWTP Effluent
Solid Particle
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Total Hg Dissolved Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
0.45 µM Filter
0.1
1
10
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Total Hg (ng/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
All Municipal Effluent Total Hg versus Grab TSS (n=514)
Unique Effluent Data Point
7052 Mo. Avg. Limit
Hg Removal Treatment Theory
Solid Particle
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Total Hg Dissolved Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Hg
Filtration or Coagulation & Flocculation
Technologies to minimize TSS
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
J-16 A-16 S-16 O-16 N-16 D-16 J-17 F-17 M-17 A-17 M-17 J-17 J-17
Hg(ng/L)
WLSSD Effluent Mercury
DissolvedParticulate
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
J-15 A-15 J-15 O-15 F-16 M-16 A-16 D-16 M-17 J-17
TSS (mg/L)
WLSSD Dual Media FiltersGolden Plump MBR
What is a variance?
A temporary modification of a water quality standard based on
substantial and widespread economic hardship
Mercury Policy in Minnesota
• Never adopted into statute rule saying that treating Hg would cause statewide substantial and widespread economic hardship
• Only one facility has applied and received a variance for mercury
Mercury Treatment in Wisconsin
Mercury Treatment in Wisconsin
Variances and Hg Treatment in WI
• Every facility with a mercury limit in WI presumptively receives a variance from their effluent limit
• No one is required to investigate current mercury treatment technologies*
• No one is required to spend money to upgrade their mercury treatment technologies*
*At this time
Minnesota• Hg Compliance possible with
particle control*
• Treatment affordable**
• Hg Variances granted individually by merit
• 2017 Engineering Technology
Wisconsin• Compliance with Hg limits not
possible for municipals
• Treatment unaffordable by statute
• Hg Variances granted presumptively statewide
• Pre-1997 Engineering Technology***
MN vs WI Mercury Policy
• Which state do you think has the right policy?
Clean Water Funding and Community Needs in Minnesota
Baishali Bakshi, Joel Peck, and Casey ScottMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
October 17, 20171
Wastewater in Minnesota: Lenses
Science: Basing water quality standards on best available science
Engineering: Design and innovation to achieve policy goals
Economics: Bridging the gaps between needs, goals, costs and benefits
2
Goals of Data Analysis Project• Funding Process
• Communities initiate application for funds• Projects are scored based on environmental criteria• Projects are funded based on a combination of factors
• Needs • Community need is surveyed every other year: Wastewater
Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS) survey
• Analysis will explore connections between funded projects and community characteristics
3
Outline of Talk• Key aspects of wastewater treatment: funding sources, costs• Public Facilities Authority (PFA) Funding Program• Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS)• Leveraging data to link funding and community needs• Analysis questions• Results• Inferences
4
5
Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Sources
6
Construction and Loan Era (1987)
State & Federal Ratepayer
10%
WWTP Funding Sources (2017)
State & Federal Ratepayer
67%
33%
90%
4.2 Billion in Wastewater
InfrastructureNeed
Statewide!!-2016 MPCA Wastewater Survey
$0
$300
$600
$900
$1,200
$1,500
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Annual SewerCharge
($)
Rank (n=703)
Variation in Residential Wastewater Costs in Minnesota
7
$0
$300
$600
$900
$1,200
$1,500
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
2016 Annual WW
Cost per Household
($)
Community Size (n=703)
Household wastewater costs tend to decrease with community size
8
Affordability: Across years and communities
1.73
1.42
1.04
0.83 0.79
0.92 0.91
< $25,000 $25,000 TO $34,999
$35,000 TO $44,999
$45,000 TO $54,999
$55,000 TO $64,999
$65,000 TO $74,999
> 75,000
ANN
UAL
SEW
ER C
HARG
E AS
%M
HI
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ACROSS MN CITIES
SEWER CHARGE AS %MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2007-2017
2.02
1.04
0.70
0.30
< $30,000 $30,000 TO $49,999
$60,000 TO $74,999
>75000
SEW
ER C
HARG
E AS
%M
HI
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ACROSS MN CITIES
SEWER CHARGE AS %MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME-2016
9
PFA and MPCA
The Public Facilities Authority
10
Collection and treatment projects vary in cost and scale
11
Types of Projects by Funding and Year
PFA and MPCA 12
PFA: Programs and Funding DetailsPFA Funding by Program-2016
Clean Water Legacy
Clean Water SRF
WIF
Others
27%
4%
6%
63%
13
PFA: Water Categories and Funding DetailsPFA Funding by Water Category-2016
Wastewater Stormwater
96%
4%
14
MN Wastewater Funding
68%
32%
2016 Water Funding
Metro Non-Metro
22
24
20
21
22
23
24
25
Metro Non-Metro
$s Per
Capita
2016 Funding Per Capita
15
Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS)
Facilities
• Number of facilities in 2013: 802
• Average age of facilities: 22 years
Sewer Lines
42%
29%
21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
<30 years 30-50 years >50 years
Age of Sewer Lines in Average Community
16
Links: Funding and Communities
• Economic factors: Population, Income, Wastewater costs
• Environmental factors: The Project Priority List• Infrastructure factors: Age of sewer systems, Miles of
sewer systems
17
Analysis Questions• How is allocation distributed across communities?
• Size: Population, Population Density, Number of households
• Wastewater facility features: Flow capacity, Miles of SS, age of sewer lines
• Ability to pay: Median household income, monthly sewer charges
18
Links Between Funding and Needs • PFA: Provides Clean Water Funding to MN wastewater
communities - funding data by community• WINS: Survey of Wastewater Plants - data on
community characteristics• We combine these two datasets and supplement it
with census variables to explore links between funding and community characteristics to provide information to decision-makers
19
Small communities and larger collection systems get more money
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -182.09 44.24 -4.12 4.92e-05 ***Pop -3.17 0.97 -3.26 0.0013 ** Income -0.02 0.07 -0.29 0.77Density 0.13 0.14 0.95 0.34SS.miles 7.92 2.33 3.4 0.0008 ***Flow -5.71 15.07 -0.38 0.71MthSewerCharge 0.85 2.13 0.4 0.69SSover50 -0.1 0.27 -0.36 0.72SSless30 0.06 0.24 0.23 0.82FY 0.09 0.02 4.12 4.92e-05 ***
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Dependent variable: PFA Allocation by Recipient and Year for 2007-2017
Sample: All funded cities including those served by MCES, 2007-2017
Small communities and larger collection systems get more money
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 29.93 26.39 1.13 0.26Pop -3.42 0.62 -5.56 6.60e-08 ***Income -0.01 0.03 -0.24 0.81Density 0.17 0.08 2.18 0.03 *SS.miles 5.94 1.43 4.16 4.38e-05 ***Flow 25.15 17.56 1.43 0.15 MthSewerCharge 0.81 1.17 0.69 0.49 SSover50 0.07 0.14 0.49 0.63SSless30 0.08 0.12 0.61 0.54 FY -0.02 0.01 -1.14 0.26
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Dependent variable: PFA Allocation by Recipient and Year for 2007-2017
Sample: All funded cities excluding those served by MCES, 2007-2017
22
Inferences From Analysis• More funding is going to large number of small
communities• More funding is going to dense communities and
areas with large amounts of sanitary sewer pipes• These trends are present in and out of the Metro area
23
Acknowledgments• Bill Cole, Bill Dunn, Jeff Freeman, Scott Kyser
For feedback, insights and support that added clarity and made this project more interesting.
24
Nanoselenium Sponge
Technology for Mercury
Removal from Water
John Brockgreitens, Snober Ahmed
Dr. Abdennour Abbas*
Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering
University of Minnesota Twin Cities
Mercury in Minnesota
Up to 600,000 US children born/year with cord blood Hg > 5.8
μg Hg.L-1, (8% of newborns in northern MN)
Loss of IQ Lost of productivity: $8.7 billion/year
42% of water bodies on Minnesota’s “Impaired Waters List”
are impaired due to mercury
• Image obtained from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (pca.state.mn.us), data from MPCA 2012 Impaired waters list• Trasande L et al., Environmental Health Perspectives (2005) 113 (5): 590 • McCann, Patricia. "Mercury levels in blood from newborns in the Lake Superior basin." Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul (2011).
1
Bioaccumulation of Mercury
• Images obtained from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Health
Statewide fish consumption guidelines have been put in place in response to mercury accumulation in fish.
2
Current Technologies
• Limited removal rate (90%)
• Pre-treatment
• oxidation and pH
• Capital investment
• Reversible interaction
• Contact time
• >100 ppt
Sulfur Activated Carbon
3
There is no technology capable of
removing Hg at 10 ppt
Mercury toxicity
• http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1gp1• Image generated in Pymol
The Se-Hg interaction is one million times stronger than the S-Hg interaction
Selenoproteins
4
SeSe
Hg+2
Why is the nanoscale (10-9 m) important?
At the nano-scale properties of materials depend on their size, morphology and distribution.
1 cm3 CubeTotal
surface area= 6 cm2
All 1nm cube Total surface
area= 6000 m2
(1 million times)
5
Mercury capturing spongeA polyurethane (PU) sponge was used as a
matrix for particle growth due to its chemical functionality, durability and availability.
6
NanoSe Sponge: Mercury Capture
US Patent Pending No. 62/240,764,
Ahmed et al., Advanced functional Materials, 2, 2017, 1-10
Nanoselenium (nSe) sponge water capable of removing 10 mg.L-1 of mercury down to
undetectable levels (< 0.2 ng.L-1).
7
CharacterizationSEM
EDX
• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-109
Characterization and Optimization
• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10
624 mg/g
Langmuir Isotherm: Loading Capacity
10
What does this mean?Lake Como, Saint Paul
11
If this lake was contaminated with the EPA limit of
mercury (2 ppb). A sponge the size of a basketball
would be needed to clean the lake.
Comparison with other Adsorbents
• Johnson et. Al., Environmental Science & Technology, 2008. 42, 5772-5778.
Unstabilized SeNPnSe sponge
11
Adsorption Kinetics
Characterization and Optimization
12• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10
Contact time: 5 s - 5 min
PU
nSe
Characterization and Optimization
13
14• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10
The nSe sponge does not retain major water nutrients.
-No background ion retention
-Limited impact on natural systems
Real World Samples-Lake Water
15• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10
Zn 69%Fe 52% Cu 78%
Ag 96% Ni 90%Cr 43%Au 25%
Cd 73% Pb 57%As 23%
Real World Samples-Wastewater
Safety Evaluation of nSe sponge
• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-1017
Viability test on human fibroblast cells.
-Non-toxic at seleniumlevels below 0.14 mg.L-1
Disposal
• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10
MethodLeached [Hg]
(mg.L-1) Leached [Se]
(mg.L-1)
TCLP 0.00229Limit: 0.2
0.5Limit: 1
SPLP 0.00180Limit: 0.04
0.5Limit: 0.8
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)- Simulates leaching in a landfill
Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)-Simulates leaching in a natural environment
18
Current work: Scaled Synthesis
1) Optimization of synthesis using minimal materials 2) Use of the large materials in conventional filter systems3) Further safety evaluation
-Avoid creating a new problem while solving an old one
19
Application for other nanomaterials
21
Thank You
Sponge SynthesisHypothetical mechanism for sponge-assisted growth of selenium nanoparticles
• Ahmed et.al., Nanotechnology 27 (2016) 465601 (10pp).• Kumar et.al., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 416 (2014) 119–123 8
Antimicrobial Properties
16
Sponge antimicrobial testing with gram positive bacteria, gram negative bacteria, yeast and mold.
-Prevention of biofouling
Deployment
Industrial waste water
Applications
Flue gases
Surface water e.g. lakes
nSeFilter sponge
20
10-17-2017 1
Rapid Removal of Phosphorus from Water Using a NanoIron Sponge
Fatemeh Heidari, John Brockgreitens, and Dr. Abdennour Abbas
Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering
This presentation contains confidential and proprietary information that should not be disclosed to a third party or used without the formal consent of the
University of Minnesota
2
Phosphorus
Total tourism losses in the U.S.: nearly $47 million annually
200 dead zones in the U.S alone and nearly 500 dead zones globally.
In 2016, the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched an initiative on harmful algal blooms focused on HABs’ reporting and prevention.
Global phosphate reserves are limited, up to 60 % of current resource base would be extracted by 2100
https://www.cdc.gov/habs/ohhabs.htmlGlobal Environmental Change 20 (2010) 428–439
Fishing industry losses in the U.S: more than $38 million a year
• Carbon
• Phosphorous
• Nitrogen
3ACS central science 2.5 (2016): 270.
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Low level of Carbon
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Low level of Carbon
Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Low level of Carbon
Cyanobacteria Control
• Carbon
• Phosphorous
• Nitrogen
4ACS central science 2.5 (2016): 270.
Nitrogen and Carbon
Nitrogen and Carbon
Phosphorus
Nitrogen and Carbon
Phosphorus
Cyanobacteria Control
Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient
Phosphorous & Nitrogen Cycle
5ACS central science 2.5 (2016): 270.
Phosphorus Limit in Water bodies
1.0 mg/L in streams or effluent0.1 mg/L within a lake or reservoir
Highly eutrophicLower than 10 ppb (0.010 mg/L): No algal bloom
6
Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 2016, 62, (1), 226-235Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A 2014, 51, (6), 538-545Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water Quality #Impaired Waters #3.12 ,July 2007
Current Technologies
7ACS central science 2.5 (2016): 270.
Chemical precipitationIon exchange Biological methodsAdsorption
No technology has reached to removal capacity <10 ppb (0.010 mg/mL)
Removal capacityInitial pH dependencyLow adsorption capacityLow desorption capacityHigh capital investment
Limitations2015: SolarBee, $1.7 million to clean the Lake Jordan (NC)
2017: ResMix (WEARS Australia), $4.87 million
8
DurabilityChemical and
thermal resistanceLow cost FlexibilityPorous structure
Polyurethane Sponge NanoIron Sponge
Phosphorus removal
10 mg/L P
Undetectable P Level (<0.002 mg/L)
NanoIron Sponge
Advanced Functional Materials 2017, 27, (17).Journal of applied polymer science 2005, 97, (1), 366-376.Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2013, 52, (36), 9422-9441.
EDX
9
10 µm
1 µm
SEM
Effect of Contact Time and Adsorption Kinetics
10
11
Effect of pH on P Adsorption
12
3 times higher than commercially available technologies
Loading Capacity: 120 mg/g
West Virginia ochre1 31.97
Shell sand2 0.8 - 8.0
Iron-coated sand3 27.4
Acid mine drainage flocs – Lime treated4 0.73
Zeolite5 1
Red Muds6 25
Nano-Iron Sponge 120
1. Water Research 42.13 (2008): 3275-3284.2. Ecological engineering 25.2 (2005): 168-182.3. Journal of environmental quality 41.3 (2012): 636-646.4. Journal of Soils and Sediments 13.2 (2013): 336-343.
5. Drizo, A. (1998) Phosphate and Ammonium Removal from Waste Water, Using Constructed Wetland Systems. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.
6. Journal of Environmental Protection 7.12 (2016): 1835. 13
Adsorption Capacity (mgP/g)
14
Cyanobacteria (Anabaena variabilis)
Antimicrobial Activity
15
Industrial and Environmental Application
16Treated with NanoFe Sponge Untreated
Lake water spiked with 1.5 mg/L phosphorus
Recovery: over 90% of
phosphorus can be recovered
from the sponge
Lake Water Treatment
Thank You!
17
Any Questions?