pathogen reduction rates in - wordpress.com · guidelines, field trials were considered necessary...

FIELD TESTING OF

PATHOGEN REDUCTION RATES IN

SEPTAGE STORAGE LAGOONS

Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Prepared by

A. Oosting and D. Joy

Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

University of Guelph

December 2, 2010

MOE Septage Storage Lagoon Study 2010 December 2010

Lime Stabilization i Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Septage management is an essential component of an overall wastewater management

program in rural parts of Ontario. While land application of untreated septage has been used in

the past, current trends are toward a higher level of treatment and a ban on land application of

untreated septage. In support of this the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has

sponsored a number of studies into various treatment options for septage that might be used prior

to land application.

The Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre was contracted by the MOE to investigate

possibilities for using the treatment that may occur during storage of septage in lagoons as a

viable means of treating septage. This included investigating the numbers, sizes and types of

lagoons used for septage across the province as well as lab trials to investigate the effectiveness

of the storage for treatment under different temperature conditions and different mixtures of

septage from septic and holding tanks.

Three field trials were carried out to examine the reductions in pathogens (i.e. E.coli) in

the fall, winter and summer periods. The trial periods lasted from 46 to 113 days and tried to

capture the dynamic and static phases of operation at a typical storage lagoon facility in Ontario.

The two lagoons used in the trials consisted of a circular concrete storage lagoon and a

rectangular earthen storage lagoon. The characteristics of both the raw and stored septage for all

trials were found to be consistent with previously reported values of typical septic and holding

tank septage in Ontario.

Results from field trials most closely resemble the lab trials conducted at 4oC which meant

to represent winter conditions. Modest to no reductions in bacterial concentrations were found in

the trials with only a dynamic phase while the winter trial with both static and dynamic phases

achieved a reduction in terms of CFU/g TS of 0.5 to 1 log. Most of this reduction occurred in the

later part of the trial during the static phase.

The trials with low to no reductions in E.coli concentrations were those which had shorter

durations (65 days or less), only a dynamic phase, conducted in warmer times of the year and

started with higher strength waste. Given the experience in the lab from the previous work, the

lack of reduction in bacterial concentrations is less likely due to strength of the incoming wastes


Lime Stabilization ii Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

and more likely due to the strictly dynamic nature of the trial, the duration of the trial and the

operational requirements of the particular lagoon.

While recognising the results here are for only three trials, septage storage has shown to be a

possible means of providing modest bacterial reductions in septage and meeting the proposed

target of 2x106 CFU/100 mL. However, operational practices (such as length of storage time and

the ability to incorporate both dynamic and static phases) need to considered and studied more in

depth before establishing this as an effective method to reduce bacterial levels in septage.


Lime Stabilization iii Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was carried out with the cooperation of members of the Ontario Association of

Sewage Industry Services (OASIS). In particular, help from Weber Septic Services and

Johnson’s Septic services who graciously offered up their lagoons for study is acknowledged.

Much of the field work and data analysis case carried out by Cody Kupferschmidt and his

contributions are also gratefully acknowledged.


Lime Stabilization iv Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1

2 Field Procedures .................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Field Test Locations ......................................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Weber Septic Services .............................................................................................. 3

2.1.2 Johnson’s Septic Services ......................................................................................... 4

2.2 Field Trial Dates ............................................................................................................... 4

2.3 Sampling Protocols .......................................................................................................... 5

2.3.1 Fall Trial.................................................................................................................... 5

2.3.2 Winter Trial ............................................................................................................... 7

2.3.3 Summer Trial ............................................................................................................ 9

2.4 Sample Analysis ............................................................................................................... 9

3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Fall Trial Results: Weber Septic Lagoon Field Testing ................................................. 10

3.2 Winter Trial Results: Johnson’s Septic Lagoon Field Testing ....................................... 12

3.3 Summer Trial Results: Weber Septic Lagoon Field Testing.......................................... 14

3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 16

4 Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 19

4.1 Comparison between Field Trials .................................................................................. 19

4.2 Changes in E.coli Concentrations over Time ................................................................. 22

4.3 Static and Dynamic Phases ............................................................................................ 25

4.4 Comparison to Lab Trials ............................................................................................... 26

4.5 Comparison to Proposed Standards................................................................................ 28

5 Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 30


Lime Stabilization v Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Weber Septic Lagoon and Mixer ..................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Johnson's Septage Lagoon, Harwood Ontario, December 2009 ..................................... 4

Figure 3: Device Used for Sample Collection ................................................................................ 7

Figure 4: Augering through the Ice Cover ...................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Tube Sampler with Septage Sample ................................................................................ 8

Figure 6 E.coli (CFU/100 mL) concentrations over Fall Trial, 2009 ........................................... 12

Figure 7 E.coli (CFU/100 mL) concentrations over Winter Trial ................................................ 14

Figure 8 E.coli (CFU/100 mL) Concentrations over Summer Trial, 2010 ................................... 16

Figure 9: Comparison of Changes in E.coli (CFU/100 mL) between Field Trials ....................... 23

Figure 10: Comparison of Changes in E.coli (CFU/g TS) between Field Trials .......................... 24

Figure 11 Comparison of Field Trials to Lab Trials (CFU/g TS) ................................................. 27

Figure 12 Comparison of Field Trials to Lab Trials (CFU/100 mL) ............................................ 28

Figure 13 E.coli concentrations (CFU/g TS) compared to standard ............................................. 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Field Trial Location and Dates ......................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Raw Septage Characteristics for Fall Trial, 2009 ........................................................... 11

Table 3: Stored Septage Characteristics for Fall Trial, 2010 ........................................................ 11

Table 4: Raw Septage Characteristics for Winter Trial, 2010 ...................................................... 13

Table 6: Raw Septage Characteristics for Summer Trial, 2010 .................................................... 15

Table 7: Stored Septage Characteristics for Summer Trial, 2010 ................................................ 15

Table 8: Fall Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage ....................................................... 17

Table 9 Winter Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage ................................................... 18

Table 10 Summer Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage ............................................... 18

Table 11: Mean Raw Septage Composition from all Trials ......................................................... 19

Table 12: Mean Stored Septage Composition from all Trials ...................................................... 19

Table 13: Summary of All Samples Collected from Field Trials in Comparison to Literature

Values (both stored lagoon septage and truck effluent) ........................................................ 21

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – SAMPLED E.COLI CONCENTRATION DATA

APPENDIX B – TOTAL SOLIDS AND TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS RELATIONSHIP

APPENDIX C – WATER QUALITY DATA FOR MOE


1

1 INTRODUCTION

This is the final report on a project supported by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment

(MOE) entitled: “Observation of Pathogen Reduction Rates in Septage Storage Lagoons through

Field Testing” being carried out the Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre, University of Guelph.

The objective of this project is to observe pathogen reduction rates in septage storage lagoons

and to assess the use of septage storage lagoons as an appropriate treatment method for septage

from septic tanks and holding tanks before land application.

The Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre (ORWC) has been investigating a number of

treatment options for septage, including lime stabilization, storage and the addition of hydrogen

peroxide. Field trials conducted for the lime stabilization and screening process successfully

demonstrated this process for septage treatment. In April 2007, the ORWC completed a

preliminary investigation of pathogen reduction in septage using storage lagoons as a viable

means of treatment septage. This included investigating the numbers, sizes and types of lagoons

used for septage across the province as well as lab trials to investigate the effectiveness of

storage for treatment under different temperature conditions and different mixtures of septage

from septic and holding tanks.

The study was conducted in two main phases. Phase 1 consisted of an industry survey of

septage haulers in Ontario to collect background information on storage lagoons in Ontario and

how they are operated. The survey of septage operators showed at least 25 operators have

storage facilities for septage across Ontario. Given the typical volumes of these facilities and the

volume estimates of their various operations, only a few would, with their current operation,

have sufficient volume to achieve the anticipated required 12-week storage time to affect

treatment.

Phase 2 consisted of a laboratory study to determine pathogen inactivation rates under

simulated storage conditions. Lab experiments were carried out to examine the reductions in

pathogens (E.coli and salmonella) over a 24-week period. This included runs for different

temperatures (4 and 25oC) and for different mixtures of wastes.


2

Although the lab trials showed that storage can affect treatment of septage to meet the

guidelines, field trials were considered necessary to confirm this as a viable option given the

inherently different conditions in the field compared to those in the laboratory. These field trials

encompassed a range of operation types, storage times and weather conditions to test its viability.

The objective of field trials is to confirm and observe pathogen reduction rates in septage

storage lagoons as suggested by the laboratory study described above. A Technical Steering

Committee (TSC) was formed which consisted of members of the ORWC, the Ministry of the

Environment (MOE) and sewage haulers to provide guidance on the selection of sites and other

experimental conditions.

Three trials were completed in three distinct seasons – winter, summer and fall, each with

the goal of having both dynamic and static phases. The dynamic phase is the time over which the

lagoon is filled while the static phase is after the lagoon has been filled until it is emptied.


3

2 FIELD PROCEDURES

2.1 Field Test Locations

Field trials were conducted at two operational septage lagoons with the cooperation of

OASIS members. These included Weber Septic Services in Breslau, Ontario and Johnson’s

Septic in Harwood, Ontario.

2.1.1 Weber Septic Services

The Weber Septic (WS) lagoon consists of a circular concrete storage tank (Figure 1)

originally designed and built for storing agricultural wastewater. This tank is used to store

septage collected on a daily basis and then is typically emptied over the course a few days when

it is nearly full by pumping the septage to a nearby MOE-approved field. When pumped it is first

agitated by a mechanical agitator (shown in Figure 1) so that a maximum amount of the solids

can be removed. It only accepts waste from septic tanks and holding tanks.

The agitator consists of a 1.5 m diameter propeller at the end of a tractor-driven shaft at

1750 rpm for several hours before any pumping of the tank begins. The tank itself has a 22 m

diameter and a maximum depth of septage of approximately 4.0 m providing a potential

maximum storage volume of 1,200,000 L.

Figure 1: Weber Septic Lagoon and Mixer


4

2.1.2 Johnson’s Septic Services

The Johnson’s Septic (JS) lagoon location consists of three rectangular earth lined pits with

this field trial using only one of these shown in Figure 2. Similar to WS, the operator uses this

lagoon to store septage collected on a daily basis and typically empties it over the course a few

days when it is nearly full by pumping it to a nearby MOE-approved field. When pumped it is

agitated by a mechanical agitator similar to the one used by WS so that a maximum amount of

the solids can be removed, with consideration of the earthen bottom of the lagoon. This lagoon

accepts waste from septic tanks, holding tanks, and portable toilet waste, and during the time of

the field trial primarily holding tank waste was accepted.

The lagoon itself has dimensions of 25 by 18 m. It had an approximate average depth of 2

m with a free board depth of 45 cm for a maximum storage volume of 900,000 L. The sides are

heavily vegetated and septage is only dumped into one location on the south eastern part of the

lagoon in the foreground of Figure 2.

Figure 2: Johnson’s Septage Lagoon, Harwood Ontario, December 2009

2.2 Field Trial Dates

Three field trial dates were conducted as part of this project to cover the seasonal operation

of a typical septage hauler. Trials were carried out in the fall, winter and summer at the two


5

locations with six sampling events per trial covering periods ranging from 6 to 10 weeks (see

Table 1 for a summary).

The first and third field trials were conducted in cooperation with Weber Septic Services of

Breslau, Ontario from August-October (2009) and May-August (2010). During the first trial the

sampling began at the beginning of the septage storage cycle, meaning that sampling started with

a nearly empty lagoon. The last trial the sampling began when the lagoon was approximately at

half of the design capacity of the lagoon.

The second trial was conducted in cooperation with Johnson’s Septic Services of Harwood

Ontario from January-May (2010). Sampling began near the beginning of the septage storage

cycle with the lagoon approximately 1/3 full.

Table 1: Field Trial Location and Dates

Trial

Season Dates Location

Sampling

Events

Fall August – October 2009 Weber Septic Services –

Breslau, Ontario 6

Winter January- May 2010 Johnson’s Septic Services –

Harwood, Ontario 6

Summer May- August 2010 Weber Septic Services –

Breslau, Ontario 6

2.3 Sampling Protocols

2.3.1 Fall Trial

The protocol for the sampling of the lagoons presented some special challenges given the

scale of the lagoons and the difficulty in getting a representative sample at each sampling event

with a reasonable effort. The first fall trial was used to develop the protocol. It was expected that

it would be used for all trials as closely as possible with occasionally deviations to account for

the particular conditions at each location, the operator’s business needs and the season.

Sampling at the WS location consisted of, at each sampling event, sampling from the

storage lagoon and sampling from incoming trucks arriving to deposit septage. For the storage

lagoon, the tank was mixed with the agitator shown in Figure 1 for at least 1 hr prior to sampling

to ensure a relatively homogeneous mixture of septage in the lagoon including any solids that


6

may have settled to the bottom over time. This same process is used when the lagoon is emptied

and thus represents the nature of the septage if it was to be spread at the time of sampling. At

each event three samples were taken from the lagoon 30 min apart from each other in an attempt

to ensure a representative sample set. For each sample, three 4-L volumes were removed from

the lagoon from approximately 0.5 m below the surface with the long-handled sampler shown in

Figure 2 and placed in a 25-L container. Smaller sample volumes were then taken from this

container with a 1-L sampler. Before each 1-L sample was taken, the entire contents of the 25-L

container were thoroughly mixed. The contents of the 1-L sampler were immediately poured into

sample jars. Typically a total of four sample jars were filled for various analyses.

Samples were obtained from the incoming septage haulage trucks by first agitating the

truck contents and then taking a 20-L sample volume from the truck outlet using the same 25-L

container used for the lagoon sample. Since these outlets are at the bottom of the trucks the

samples likely contained a higher than typical level of solids. Sample volumes were removed

from the 25-L container in the same manner as those taken from the lagoon.

All samples were transported on ice to the lab for analysis. Samples destined for

bacteriological analysis were dropped off at the lab within 2 hrs of being collected while all

others were couriered on the day of collection to the MOE lab for analysis and delivered to the

lab the following day.

Volumes in the lagoon were determined by the distance measured from the tank rim to

the septage level and the diameter. Distance to the septage surface was measured with a hand-

held sonic measuring device accurate to approximately 0.01 m. In all cases three readings were

taken and the mean used. No information was collected on the number of trucks coming to the

site between sampling events but information was collected on the dates that septage was

removed.


7

Figure 3: Device Used for Sample Collection

2.3.2 Winter Trial

Mixing for each sampling event was impractical in the second trial due to the septage

lagoon being frozen with ice that ranged in thickness from 0.3 to 0.5 m. Since the first trial

indicated that taking a sample from the “top-middle-bottom” gave a good representative sample,

this procedure was used in this trial.

Due to the presence of ice in the first three sampling events some modifications had to be

made in how the samples were obtained. When ice was present, and after testing the safety of the

ice cover, hand augers were used to drill through the up to 0.5 m thick ice cover to access the

septage below (Figure 4).

Septage was removed from the lagoon through the augered holes with a 50 mm diameter

tube sampler, and then the sampler was emptied into a pail. Approximately 2 L of septage was

taken out according to this method. Some of the ice that was removed through augering was also

added to the pail since this was essentially frozen septage. Septage in the pail was then mixed

thoroughly and divided into various sample bottles for laboratory analysis similar to the

approach used at WS. Samples were taken from various locations over the pond, generally in the

three corners away from the point of deposition.


8

Figure 4: Augering through the Ice Cover

Figure 5: Tube Sampler with Septage Sample


9

2.3.3 Summer Trial

The summer sampling in 2010 was conducted at WS and used a similar protocol to that

used earlier. This protocol involved visiting the storage lagoon periodically while it was being

filled with fresh septage and then for a period of time while it was not being filled and then

subsequently emptied. Changes in protocol from the first round included the elimination of

mixing of the lagoon while each sample was taken and secondly the reduced holding time when

it was full. The elimination of mixing was a cost savings measure by the operator and this was

considered acceptable since samples taken during the first round suggested that proper sampling

procedures over the depth of the septage gave adequately representative values. Instead of three

samples being taken over an hour, three samples were taken at various depths (“top-middle-

bottom” approach). The reduced holding time was again a function of the needs of the lagoon

operator as the scheduling of their business dictated the need for emptying.

2.4 Sample Analysis

Samples collected by the ORWC were sent to University of Guelph Laboratory Services at

the University of Guelph and were analysed for E.coli concentrations. Samples were couriered to

a MOE laboratory in Toronto to be tested for a wide range of parameters including metals,

solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, BOD and pH.


10

3 RESULTS

3.1 Fall Trial Results: Weber Septic Lagoon Field Testing

The fall trial began on August 31, 2009 when the lagoon had just been emptied (septage

level 3.2 m below the rim), and continued until October 16 when emptying of the lagoon began.

Due to weather conditions and the rate of lagoon filling, some septage had been removed earlier

in the week of October 8. Samples from incoming trucks were collected on six dates from

August 31 and samples were collected from the lagoon on five occasions beginning on

September 14.

Based on the depth readings, approximately 1,200,000 L of septage was added to the

storage tank over the course of the experiment. Approximately 200,000 L were removed the

week of October 8 and a small amount (less than 40,000L) was also removed on September 28

while the operators equipment was being checked.

Table 2 gives the results of the septage samples collected from the incoming trucks over

the course of the trial period. Waste type was indicated by the operator as either holding tank or

septic tank waste and in some cases a combination of both. On most sampling days two inbound

trucks were sampled. Stored septage sample results collected from the lagoon over the course of

the trial period are given in Table 3.

Although there is some variation in the results, the geometric mean E.coli concentration of

1.0E+06 CFU/100 mL of the sampled raw septage is within the norms for septage. Geometric

mean E.coli concentration in the lagoon stored septage lower at 7.1E+05 CFU/100 mL. Raw

values and the stored values were found not to be statistically different from each other (T-test at

a 95% confidence interval). BOD values for the raw septage range between 380 and 13,200

mg/L with an overall mean of 2,890 mg/L while that for the lagoon has a much more limited

range of 330 to 2,280 mg/L and an overall mean of 1,460 mg/L, somewhat lower than that for

the inputs. Total suspended solids for the raw input ranges from 600 to 20,000 mg/L with an

overall mean of 11,120 mg/L while the lagoon had values between 520 and 11,900 mg/L and an

overall mean of 7,560 mg/L.


11

When compared with typical ranges of septage, compositions of both the raw septage from

incoming trucks and the stored septage in the lagoon were within typical recorded ranges (Table

13).

Table 2: Raw Septage Characteristics for Fall Trial, 2009

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

August 31, 2009 (n=2) 6.9E+05 1,830 9,840

September 14, 2009 (n=2) 9.9E+05 1,170 4,980

September 29, 2009 (n=2) 9.6E+05 1,440 7,510

October 9, 2009 (n=1) 8.4E+05 3,130 18,500

October 14, 2009 (n=2) 2.3E+06 6,860 14,760

Mean 1.0 E+06 2,890 11,120

Table 3: Stored Septage Characteristics for Fall Trial, 2010

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

August 31, 2009 (n=0) - - -

September 14, 2009 (n=3) 1.1E+06 1,460 10,390

September 29, 2009 (n=3) 3.3E+05 1,860 9,840

October 9, 2009 (n=3) 9.6E+05 2,170 9,500

October 14, 2009 (n=1) 7.1E+05 3,30 520

October 16, 2009 (n=3) 7.1E+05 - -

Mean 7.1 E+05 1,460 7,560

Detailed sampling results for other parameters such as metals, total phosphorus, and nitrogen can

be found in Appendix C.

Figure 6 shows the lagoon sample E.coli concentrations (in CFU/100 mL) over the 46-

day fall trial period. In Figure 6, Day 0 is August 31 where as the last day of sampling October

16, is Day 46. Note that there was no sampling of the stored septage on the first sampling date.


12

Figure 6: E.coli (CFU/100 mL) concentrations over Fall Trial, 2009

3.2 Winter Trial Results: Johnson’s Septic Lagoon Field Testing

The winter experimental trial began on January 26, 2010 when the lagoon 1/3 full (septage

level 1.2 m below the rim), and continued until May 19 when emptying began. The lagoon had

full ice cover over for the first three sampling events until March 9.

Based on the depth readings over the field trial period, approximately 390,000 L of septage

was added to the storage lagoon over the course of the experiment. Filling of the lagoon occurred

over the sampling period from January 26 to April 6, which characterised the dynamic phase.

The last two sampling events were taken when the lagoon was full, demonstrating the static

phase.

The number of samples from incoming trucks was limited due to the lack of pumping

activity during the sampling events. Only one sample from an incoming truck was collected on

March 9 while samples were collected from the lagoon on six separate occasions. Table 4 gives

the raw septage characteristics during the winter trial while Table 5 gives the results for the

stored septage.

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 10 20 30 40 50

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

(C

FU

/100m

L)

Storage time (days)


13

Table 4: Raw Septage Characteristics for Winter Trial, 2010

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

March 9, 2010 (n=1) 8.00E+03 110 90

Mean 8.0 E+03 110 90

On most sampling days three samples were taken in different areas of the lagoon to

obtain a representative sample across the lagoon. Sampling locations were located away from the

inlet.

The single E.coli concentration of 8.0E+03 CFU/100 mL of the raw septage was low in

comparison to the literature values found for septage. However, the geometric mean E.coli

concentration in the lagoon-stored septage was higher and more typical at 1.8+05 CFU/100 mL.

Due to the lack of samples of raw septage, it could not be determined if the incoming raw

septage and stored concentrations were statistically different. BOD values for the stored septage

range between 300 and 2,530 mg/L with an overall mean of 1,020 mg/L. Total suspended solids

for the stored septage range from 380 to 11,600 mg/L with an overall mean of 3,120 mg/L. These

are again within the reported ranges of septage which are summarised in Table 13.

Table 5: Stored Septage Characteristics for Winter Trial, 2010

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

January 26, 2010 (n=3) 6.5E+05 1,560 7,490 February 16, 2010 (n=3) 2.9E+05 1,330 3,120

March 9, 2010 (n=4) 5.0E+05 410 610 April 6, 2010 (n=3) 9.2E+04 680 1,990

April 26, 2010 (n=3) 8.9E+04 1,060 3,330 May 19, 2010 (n=4) 4.1E+04 1,050 2,190

Mean 1.8 E+05 1,020 3,120

Detailed sampling for other parameters including metals, total phosphorus, and nitrates are in

Appendix C.


14

Figure 7 shows the lagoon E.coli concentrations (in CFU/100 mL) over the 113-day

winter trial period. In the figure, Day 0 is January 26 where as the last day of sampling May 19,

is Day 113.

Figure 7: E.coli (CFU/100 mL) concentrations over Winter Trial

3.3 Summer Trial Results: Weber Septic Lagoon Field Testing

The summer experimental trial began on May 31, 2010 when the lagoon was about half

full (septage level 2.0 m below the rim), and continued until August 4. Samples from incoming

trucks were collected on three dates from May 31 and samples were collected from the lagoon on

six occasions beginning on May 31. Limited samples were obtained of raw septage coming into

the lagoon facility since the deliveries at this time of year were less predictable than previously

in the fall trial period.

Based on the depth readings, over 285,000 L of septage was added to the storage tank over

the course of the experiment. Minor amounts of septage were removed on two occasions over the

trial. During the July 21 sampling event septage was observed being removed and depth readings

indicated that some was also removed during the week of July 5.

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

tra

tio

n (

CF

U/1

00

mL

)

Storage time (days)


15

Raw septage samples results collected from the incoming trucks over the course of the trial

run are given in Table 6. On most sampling days only one inbound truck was sampled. Table 7

gives the results of the stored septage samples collected from the lagoon over the course of the

trial period.

As with the other trials, there is some variation in the results. In this case the geometric

mean E.coli concentration of 2.0E+06 CFU/100 mL for the raw septage is a little higher than the

norms for septage. Geometric mean E.coli concentration in the lagoon stored septage was

somewhat lower at 9.0E+05 CFU/100 mL. No statistically significant difference was found

between the raw and the stored E.coli concentrations. Raw septage had BOD values from 850 to

7,070 mg/L with an overall mean of 3,000 mg/L while that for the lagoon had a range of 270 to

8,030 mg/L and an overall mean of 1,770 mg/L, somewhat lower than that for the input raw

septage. Total suspended solids for the raw input ranges from 1,910 to 28,500 mg/L with an

overall mean of 12,000 mg/L while the lagoon had values between 1,010 and 43,130 mg/L and

an overall mean of 8,560 mg/L.

Table 6: Raw Septage Characteristics for Summer Trial, 2010

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

4 May 31, 2010

(n=1) 5 2.0E+06 6 7,070 7 28,500

June 8, 2010 (n=1) 5.1E+05 1,050 5,680

June 21, 2010 (n=1) 8.3E+06 850 1,910

Mean 2.0E+06 3,000 12,000

Table 7: Stored Septage Characteristics for Summer Trial, 2010

Date E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

May 31, 2010 (n=3) 3.4E+06 8,030 43,130

June 8, 2010 (n=3) 6.1E+05 700 1,770

June 21, 2010 (n=3) 7.3E+05 570 1,930

July 5, 2010 (n=3) 9.2E+05 270 1,010

July 21, 2010 (n=3) 4.2E+05 650 2,330

August 4, 2010 (n=3) 9.7E+05 380 1,190

Mean 9.0E+05 1,770 8,560


16

Detailed sampling for other parameters such as metals, total phosphorus and nitrates, are given

in Appendix C.

Figure 8 shows the lagoon sample E.coli concentrations (in CFU/100 mL) over the 65 day

summer trial period. In Figure 8, Day 0 is May 31 whereas the last day of sampling August 4, is

Day 65.

Figure 8: E.coli (CFU/100 mL) Concentrations over Summer Trial, 2010

7.1 Data Analysis

Regulations for the land application of treated septage are likely to focus on the E.coli

concentration based on a solid, dry weight basis (CFU/g TS). Sample analysis conducted by

MOE was intended to include total solids (TS) to determine concentrations on this basis. In many

cases due to the challenging nature of the samples, this was only done a total suspended solids

(TSS) basis. In fact only 30% of the samples were analysed for TS (19 out of 63 samples). To be

able to report the results on a solids basis, a method was needed to determine or estimate the

missing TS values. The approach used in this report was to estimate TS values based on TSS

values by developing a relationship between TS and TSS (see Appendix B). Ignoring one clearly

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

(C

FU

/10

0m

L)

Storage time (days)


17

anomalous result allowed a linear relationship between TS and TSS to be developed using the 18

samples for which both TS and TSS were determined and this was used to make an estimate of

the TS for all samples without the TS analysis.

To convert the measured E.coli concentration into an E.coli concentration based on the

total solids, the average E.coli concentration (CFU/100 mL) for a particular sample date was

divided by the average TS of the sampled stored septage. For the cases in which all the samples

had determined TS values, the actual TS values were used. In the case where the data for TS was

missing for some or all of the sampled septage values, the average TSS of the stored samples

were used to estimate TS values using the above mentioned relationship.

Through the above described methodology, the E.coli concentrations were converted into

terms of CFU/ g TS for the three field trials. The results are shown in Table 8 to 10 for all trials.

Table 8: Fall Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage

Storage time

(days)

E.coli

(CFU/100mL)

Total Solids

(mg/L)

E.coli

(CFU/g TS)

0 6.9E+05 10,980 6.3E+05

14 1.1E+06 11,510 9.9E+05

29 3.3E+05 10,980 3.0E+05

38 9.6E+05 11,170 8.6E+05

44 2.1E+06 2,340 3.0E+06

46 7.1E+05 9,210 7.7E+05

Mean 7.1E+05 9,360 8.5E+05


18

Table 9: Winter Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage

Storage time

(days)

E.coli

(CFU/100mL)

Total Solids

(mg/L)

E.coli

(CFU/g TS)

0 6.5E+05 8,690* 7.5E+05

21 2.9E+05 4,440* 6.5E+05

42 5.0E+05 2,010* 2.5E+06

70 9.2E+04 2,990 3.2E+05

90 8.9E+04 4,650* 1.9E+05

113 4.1E+04 3,540* 1.2E+05

Mean 1.8E+05 4,370 4.5E+05

Table 10: Summer Trial E.coli Concentrations for Stored Septage

Storage time

(days)

E.coli

(CFU/100mL)

Total Solids

(mg/L)

E.coli

(CFU/g TS)

0 3.4E+06 43,320* 7.9E+05

8 6.1E+05 3,140* 1.9E+06

21 7.3E+05 3,290* 2.2E+06

35 9.1E+05 3,000 3.0E+06

51 4.2E+05 3,680* 1.2E+06

65 9.6E+05 2,570* 3.7E+06

Mean 9.1E+05 9,830 1.9E+06

*estimated using TS/TSS relationship developed in Appendix B


19

8 DISCUSSION

8.1 Comparison between Field Trials

The mean composition of raw septage and the stored septage in the lagoon for both the fall

and summer trials at WS were very similar. This is seen in the raw septage values summarised in

Table 11. Concentrations of E.coli, TSS and BOD were similar for these two trials indicating that

the type of septage and the operational practices at WS are consistent across the year. The

composition of lagoon-stored septage was also similar for the fall and summer trials shown in

Table 12.

Although there were not many sampling periods for the raw septage coming into the JS

lagoon in the winter trial, the one sampling period does provide evidence that the strength of

waste being introduced into the lagoon in the winter trial was lower compared to the fall and

summer trials at WS. Stored septage samples from JS consistently had lower concentrations of

E.coli, BOD and TSS than at WS for both fall and summer trials.

Comparing the fall and summer trials in terms of raw and stored septage, it appears that

stored septage generally has a lower BOD than that of raw septage. This is shown in Tables 11

and 12 which show an approximate drop of 50% in the BOD values.

Table 11: Mean Raw Septage Composition from all Trials

Field Trial E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

Number of

Samples

Fall Trial 1.0 E+06 2,890 11,120 9

Winter Trial 8.0E+03 110 90 1

Summer Trial 2.0E+06 3,000 12,000 3

Table 12: Mean Stored Septage Composition from all Trials

Field Trial E.coli

CFU/100 mL

BOD

mg/L

TSS

mg/L

Number of

Samples

Fall Trial 7.1 E+05 1,460 7,560 10

Winter Trial 1.8 E+05 1,020 3,120 20

Summer Trial 9.0 E+05 1,770 8,560 18


20

The mean TSS value found in the raw septage for both fall and summer trials is also

much higher than the TSS values that were found in stored septage. There were insufficient

measurements in the winter period to draw conclusions and differences between stored and raw

septage.

Table 13 provides a comparison of raw and stored septage in each of the field trials to

typical values of septage derived from holding tanks and septic tanks in Ontario. In this table

values for both raw and stored septage have been pooled. Overall, the composition of the septage

found at the JS lagoon was more typical of weaker holding tank waste whereas at the WS lagoon

the septage composition was closer in strength to that of septic tank waste.

Both JS and WS are within the ranges of holding tank and septic tank septage in terms of

pH. In terms of TP it was found that WS has much higher values than JS, and also that the mean

value from WS is above the mean of the typical values. However, in both the fall and summer

sampling for WS the TP values fell within the range of values measured for septage across the

Province.

Overall, the characteristics of the lagoons used in the study fall within the range of

previous measurements across the province with the JS lagoon typical of one dominated by

holding tank septage while the WS lagoon is more typical of septic tank septage.


21

Table 13: Summary of All Samples Collected from Field Trials in Comparison to Literature Values (both stored lagoon

septage and truck effluent)

Parameter

Holding

Tank

Waste*

Septic

Tank

Waste*

Fall Trial

(August to October 2009)

Winter Trial

(January to May 2010)

Summer Trial

(May to August 2010)

Range

(Mean)

Sample

Count

Range

(Mean)

Sample

Count

Range

(Mean)

Sample

Count

BOD (mg/L) 30 - 5,100

(620)

10 - 20,000

(3,400)

326 – 13,200

(2237) 19

106 – 2530

(945) 21

257 – 8810

(1,685) 20

TSS (mg/L) 23 - 300,800

(3,900)

7 - 300,800

(1,600)

521 – 27,400

(9600) 19

95– 11,600

(2,812) 21

826 – 45,200

(8,084) 20

pH 5.0 - 8.5

(7.3)

6.1 - 8.9

(7.2)

7.3 - 7.8

(7.5) 19

6.7 - 7.7

(7.3) 6

7.2 - 7.5

(7) 20

TKN (mg/L) 5 - 2,180

(150)

11 - 5,020

(480)

0.125 – 1270

(343) 19

63.2 – 736

(221) 21

180 – 1840

(431) 20

TP (mg/L) 2 - 970

(42)

2 - 928

(140)

1.25 – 1830

(178) 19

10.5 – 490

(70) 21

11.8 – 1070

(146) 20

E.coli

(CFU/100

mL)

1.0E+0 –

4.8E+06

1.0E+06 –

1.5E+06

2.3E+05 – 1.8E+06

(8.4.E+05) 22

2.4E+03 - 7.4E+05

(1.5.E+05) 21

3.2E+05 - 8.3E+06

(1.6.E+06) 21

* Source: Reported values from Tony Ho, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, 2004


22

8.2 Changes in E.coli Concentrations

Changes in the concentrations of E.coli over time for all trials are shown in Figure 9 in

units of CFU/100 mL. Overall little reductions are seen in the summer and fall period trials

which were both less than 65 days in duration. The winter trial does show a decline in E.coli

concentrations over time. Most noticeably there is a drop in the concentrations after 40 days of

storage, which also is about the time the ice on the lagoon has melted. This could be an

indication of the role that UV plays in inactivating E.coli. Overall the change in concentration in

CFU/100 mL during the winter period is a 1 to 1.5 log reduction over the 120 day trial.

Since regulations are likely to be stated in terms of CFU/g TS, Figure 10 gives the changes

in E.coli concentrations over time in these units. Incorporating changes in the solids content over

time indicates a similar marginal reduction in concentrations for the summer and fall trials and a

moderating of the reduction for the winter trial to only a 0.5 to 1 log reduction in E.coli

concentrations. The proposed regulations have a maximum concentration of 2 x 106 CFU/g TS

target and all but five of the stored septage samples across all field trials had concentrations

below this target. For the raw septage samples in the field trials, all but four of the 13 samples

had concentrations above the proposed regulative target of 2 x 106 CFU/g TS.


23

Figure 9: Comparison of Changes in E.coli (CFU/100 mL) Concentrations between Field Trials

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

(C

FU

/100 m

L)

Storage time (Day)

FALL TRIAL 2009 SUMMER TRIAL 2010 WINTER TRIAL 2010


24

Figure 10: Comparison of Changes in E.coli (CFU/g TS) Concentrations between Field Trials

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

(C

FU

/g T

S)

Storage Time (Days)

FALL TRIAL 2009 SUMMER TRIAL 2010 WINTER TRIAL 2010


25

8.3 Static and Dynamic Phases

In Phase 1 of the project it was decided that storage lagoons would likely be best operated

with dynamic (filling) and static (full) phases for the purposes of treatment. This was established

in discussions with the Technical Steering Committee and members of OASIS. Lab experiments

were designed to focus on the static phase of operation and it was hoped that the field trials

would be able to include both dynamic and static phases as part of the experiments. In addition,

lab trials were run for 24-week (168 days) periods and it was also hoped to run the field trials for

similar durations.

The winter field trials at JS had a duration nearly equal to the lab trials and both dynamic

and static phases. During the first three sampling events the lagoon was being filled (the dynamic

phase) while over the last three sampling events the lagoon was full and was not actively being

filled, representing the static phase. This operation was possible since the operator had multiple

lagoons and could move on to subsequent lagoons once the lagoon under study was full and left

in the static phase. In addition, the timing of the trial (i.e. winter) precluded any land application

regardless of the amount of septage in storage.

Unfortunately it was not possible to achieve both the dynamic and static phases as the WS

lagoon for a variety of reasons. Firstly, relative to the volume available, WS had to accommodate

a much larger volume of septage than JS and thus the lagoon filled much faster and limited the

trials to periods of less than 65 days. Secondly, since WS only had one lagoon available,

efficiently using this volume was critical to their operation. Finally, since the trials were

generally done during times at which land application was allowed under their C of A, the

operator needed to spread whenever the lagoon neared capacity, resources (pumps, manpower)

were available and/or weather was suitable for spreading. While this was unfortunate, it became

clear that there were a number of septage handlers that would be in a similar situation and thus

valuable information was obtained on the effects of storage under principally dynamic

conditions.


26

8.4 Comparison to Lab Trials

Lab experiments were carried out to examine the reductions in pathogens (E.coli) over a

24-week period. This included runs for different temperatures (4 and 25oC) representing winter

and summer conditions and for different strength septage.

In the lab trials septage stored at typical summer temperatures (25oC) showed significant

reductions in E.coli. Within 2 weeks the wastes stored at 25oC were within the target levels for

E.coli (2.0E+06 CFU/g TS). Septage stored at 4oC also showed reductions in bacterial levels,

although not as substantial as at the higher temperature. Wastes stored at 4oC reached the target

E.coli concentration within 4 weeks of storage. Reductions to levels which were 2 logs below

the target were observed within 12 weeks of storage for the septage stored at 25oC. Septage

stored at 4oC took 24 weeks of storage to achieve the same goal. Similar reductions of E.coli

were found for all studied mixtures of wastes.

Figures 11 and 12 show time-wise comparisons between the field and lab trials in terms of

E.coli concentrations expressed as CFU/g TS and CFU/ 100 mL, respectively. Due to fact that

there were similar reductions regardless of strength in the lab trials, the geometric means was

taken for the concentrations in the lab trials at each sampling date for the different conditions

tested. These geometric means were then plotted against the geometric means of the

concentrations that were determined in the field trials.

The field trial results, regardless of season, most closely resemble the lab results at 4oC.

None of the field trials showed the dramatic decline in concentrations that was found in the 25oC

lab trials. The rates at which E.coli concentrations decreased in the field trials was much closer to

the rates that were achieved when winter conditions were simulated in the lab and this is

apparent when considering the results in terms of both CFU/g TS in or CFU/100 mL in Figures

11 and 12, respectively.

Given the limited number of trials it is difficult to determine the reasons for the differences

between the lab and field trials in the summer. Certainly the lack of a static phase in the summer

and fall field trials has likely contributed to the difference in the difference. The consistent 25oC

temperature in the lab trial, is also likely a factor in the differences seen since the septage in the


27

field lagoons are likely much lower than this, even in the summer. The size of the containers

used in the lab may also play a role as with the small sizes used (approximately 1.5 L) allows the

bacteria to be exposed to light (and UV) throughout the container whereas the size of lagoons are

such that the bacteria are much less exposed to UV. Finally, the continual inputs of septage, with

higher bacterial concentrations, helped to keep the concentrations high during the dynamic phase

of the field trials relative to the lab trials and this is consistent for all the field trials, regardless of

the season.

Figure 11: Comparison of Field and Lab Trials (CFU/g TS)

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

s (C

FU

/g T

S)

Storage Time (Days)

LAB TRIAL (WINTER) LAB TRIAL (SUMMER)

Winter Field Trial Summer Field Trial

Fall Field Trial


28

Figure 12: Comparison of Field and Lab Trials (CFU/100 mL)

Linear regression was used to attempt to determine if there was a statistically significant

decline in E.coli concentrations over time. This was applied to the logs of the concentrations for

the concentrations using both CFU/g TS and CFU/100 mL. Of these only the winter trial was

found to have a statistically significant decline in the concentrations over time.

8.5 Comparison to Proposed Standards

The proposed guidelines for septage application have set a target of 2.0E+06 CFU/g TS

E.coli for land application of septage. Figure 13 shows the standard in relation to the E.coli

concentrations found in the three field trials. The results at JS are generally well below the

standard, but WS, due in part to the higher strength waste, are generally close to this standard.

Overall a majority of all samples are below the proposed land application standard.

1.00E+02

1.00E+03

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

s (C

FU

/100 m

L)

Storage Time (Days)

LAB TRIAL (WINTER) LAB TRIAL (SUMMER)

Winter Field Trial Summer Field Trial

Fall Winter Trial


29

Figure 13: E.coli concentrations (CFU/g TS) compared to standard of 2.0E+06 CFU/g TS

1.00E+04

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

E.c

oli

Con

cen

trati

on

(C

FU

/g T

S)

Storage time (days)

FALL TRIAL 2009 SUMMER TRIAL 2010

WINTER TRIAL 2010 E.Coli Limit


30

9 CONCLUSIONS

Field trials of lagoon septage storage have been successfully carried out to determine the

effect of septage storage on E.coli concentrations over time under a range of operational

conditions and seasons. These trails have been conducted at existing lagoons undernormal

operating conditions for these two installations. Septage quality characteristics at each lagoon,

while different from each other, fall within the range of septage strengths measured at other sites

across the province and thus can be considered representative.

The proposed land application guidelines have set a standard of 2x106 CFU/g TS for the

land application of treated septage. Sample analysis of septage to determine this is usually based

on simultaneous measurements of bacteria in CFU/100 mL of liquid and TS in mg/L and these

are then used to determine CFU/g TS. Since many of the samples only had TSS measurements

due to challenges in the lab, TS values reported and used are largely derived from TSS values

and thus the values of bacterial concentration in CFU/g TS are not as accurate as would have

been preferred. However, since the relationship between TS and TSS was found to be strong and

since similar trends were seen regardless of the units used for bacterial concentration,

conclusions are not affected by this approach. Most of the samples collected as part of the study,

whether raw or stored septage, were below the standard of 2x106 CFU/g TS.

Results from field trials most closely resemble the lab trials conducted at 4oC meant to

represent winter conditions. Under these conditions modest to no reductions in bacterial

concentrations were found in the trials with only a dynamic phase while the winter trial with both

static and dynamic phases achieved a reduction in terms of CFU/g TS of 0.5 to 1 log. Most of

this reduction occurred in the later part of the trial during the static phase of the trial.

The trials with low to no reductions in E.coli concentrations were those which had shorter

durations (65 days or less), only a dynamic phase, were conducted in warmer times of the year

and started with higher strength waste. Given the experience in the lab from the previous work,

the lack of reduction in bacterial concentrations is less likely due to strength of the incoming

wastes and more likely due to the strictly dynamic nature of the trial, the duration of the trial and

the operational requirements of the particular lagoon.


31

While recognising the results here are for only three trials, the following recommendations can

be made with regard to using storage as a means of reducing bacterial levels in septage and

meeting the proposed target of 2x106 CFU/g TS.

1. Reductions in concentrations were not found to be different in lagoons under different

seasons and thus the need to differentiate between the season of storage is unnecessary

2. Little if any reductions were seen during the dynamic or fill stages of lagoons.

3. Significant reductions were only seen for lagoons with a significant period of static

storage.

4. Maximum reductions in concentrations (expressed as CFU/g TS) of 0.5 to 1 log were

found in the lagoons.

5. Storage times of at least 120 days are likely necessary to achieve significant reductions.


32

APPENDIX A – SAMPLED E.COLI CONCENTRATION DATA

The following tables summarise the E.coli data analysed at the Analytical Services Laboratory at

the University of Guelph.

Table A1: Raw Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Fall Trial 2009

Date E.coli Concentrations

(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

August 31, 2009 3.9E+05 1.2E+06 - 6.9E+05

September 14, 2009 1.6E+06 6.0E+05 - 9.9E+05

September 29, 2009 5.2E+05 1.8E+06 - 9.6E+05

October 9, 2009 8.4E+05 - - 8.4E+05

October 14, 2009 2.1E+06 2.6E+06 - 2.3E+06

October 16, 2009 - - - -

Overall Mean 1.0E+06

Table A2: Stored Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Fall Trial 2009


(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

August 31, 2009 - - - -

September 14, 2009 1.0E+06 1.3E+06 1.1E+06 1.1E+06

September 29, 2009 3.0E+05 2.3E+05 5.0E+05 3.3E+05

October 9, 2009 1.0E+06 1.1E+06 7.5E+05 9.6E+05

October 14, 2009 7.1E+05 - - 7.1E+05

October 16, 2009 6.9E+05 8.2E+05 6.4E+05 7.1E+05


Table A3: Raw Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Winter Trial 2010


(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

January 26, 2010 - - - -

February 16, 2010 - - - -

March 9, 2010 8.0E+03 - - 8.0E+03

April 6, 2010 - - - -

April 26, 2010 - - - -

May 19, 2010 - - - -



33

Table A4: Stored Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Winter Trial 2010


(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

January 26, 2010 7.8E+05 5.4E+05 6.6E+05 - 6.5E+05

February 16, 2010 2.4E+05 2.9E+05 3.4E+05 - 2.9E+05

March 9, 2010 7.4E+05 3.8E+05 5.2E+05 4.40E+05 5.0E+05

April 6, 2010 1.3E+05 9.0E+04 6.7E+04 - 9.2E+04

April 26, 2010 7.2E+04 3.4E+04 2.9E+05 - 8.9E+04

May 19, 2010 6.5E+04 3.9E+04 2.6E+04 4.20E+04 4.1E+04


Table A5: Raw Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Summer Trial 2010


(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

May 31, 2010 2.0E+06 - - 2.0E+06

June 8, 2010 5.1E+05 - - 5.1E+05

June 21, 2010 8.3E+06 - - 8.3E+06

July 5, 2010 - - - -

July 21, 2010 - - - -

August 4, 2010 - - - -


Table A6: Stored Septage E.Coli Concentrations for Summer Trial 2010


(CFU/100 mL)

Geometric

Mean

(CFU/100 mL)

May 31, 2010 4.9E+06 4.6E+06 1.8E+06 3.4E+06

June 8, 2010 5.9E+05 6.8E+05 5.6E+05 6.1E+05

June 21, 2010 7.4E+05 6.3E+05 8.2E+05 7.3E+05

July 5, 2010 7.7E+05 9.7E+05 1.0E+06 9.2E+05

July 21, 2010 5.1E+05 3.2E+05 4.6E+05 4.2E+05

August 4, 2010 1.0E+06 9.6E+05 9.2E+05 9.7E+05



34

APPENDIX B – TOTAL SOLIDS AND TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS RELATIONSHIP

To allow the expression of bacterial concentration in terms of CFU/g TS, TS values are required

for each sample. Since this was available for only 19 of the 63 total samples, TS values were

estimated by first determining a relationship between TS and TSS based on the 19 samples with

both TS and TSS results and then applying this to the remaining samples to estimate TS using

the measured TSS and the developed relationship.

Table B1 and Figure B1 below summarize the results of the analysis. Table 14 lists all the

common results for TS and TSS based on sample date and location. Figure 15 shows the

relationship between these two and the derived linear relationship. TS values are always higher

than TSS values in the graph, although the differences are small and get smaller at higher values.

Although other mathematical relationships were considered, the data clearly suggests a linear

relationship and the resulting fit is quite good and follows the data closely.

.

Table B1: Simultaneous Values of TS and TSS

Sample Date Field Test

Location

Total Solids

(mg/L)

Total Suspended Solids

(mg/L)

October 14, 2009 Weber 2340 521

August 31, 2009 Weber 3660 583

July 5, 2010 Weber 2810 828

July 5, 2010 Weber 3100 984

April 6, 2010 Johnson’s 1660 1050

July 5, 2010 Weber 3090 1220

September 29, 2010 Weber 2290 1420

April 6, 2010 Johnson’s 2810 2090

October 14, 2009 Weber 4060 2110

April 6, 2010 Johnson’s 2890 2150

April 27, 2010 Johnson’s 2910 2590

April 27, 2010 Johnson’s 3530 3450

April 27, 2010 Johnson’s 4150 3950

October 8, 2010 Weber 11,100 9240

October 8, 2010 Weber 11300 9440

October 8, 2010 Weber 11100 9830

October 8, 2010 Weber 20000 18500

August 31, 2009 Weber 19200 19100

October 14, 2009 Weber 16800 27400


35

Figure B1: Total Solids and Total Suspended Solids Relationship

y = 0.9715x + 1415.9

R² = 0.98

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

To

tal

So

lid

s , T

S (

mg

/L)

Total Suspended Solids,TSS (mg/L)


36

APPENDIX C – WATER QUALITY DATA FOR MOE

The following tables summarise the septage data analysed at the MOE labs in Toronto.


Lime Stabilization Ontario Rural Wastewater Centre

Table C1: Stored Septage Characteristics for Fall Trial

Sample Date SEPT 14 SEPT 29 OCT 9 OCT 14

Parameter S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1

BOD 1690 1600 1080 1730 1880 1960 2240 1990 2280 326

TSS 9950 11900 9330 9980 9990 9560 9240 9830 9440 521

TDS

TS 11100 11100 11300 2340

Conductivity 3130 3120 3150 3280 3320 3350 3670 3680 3640 3520

pH 7.42 7.53 7.41 7.56 7.49 7.5 7.5 7.51 7.54 7.67

Alkalinity 946 950 976 950 960 952 928 928 935 863

COD 10700 9500 11200

1030

0 10000 10100 7700 8400 9300 1100

Langeliers

index calculation 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.2

Saturation

pH Estimated 5.89 5.92 5.92 171 5.84 5.84 5.92 5.84 5.86 6.44

Nitrogen;

nitrite 0.26 0.3 0.27 29.3 161 133 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.05

Nitrogen;

nitrate+nitrite 0.5 0.5 0.5 543 28.3 31.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Nitrogen;

ammonia+ammoniu

m 126 128 128 196 486 474 114 118 114 102

Phosphorus;

phosphate 14.2 15.8 15.2 5.83 156 170 11.8 11.6 12.3 6.5

TKN 418 416 416 0.55 0.55 0.75 391 403 440 139

TP 153 145 163 1.25 1.25 1.25 141 158 161 15.4



Table C2: Stored Septage Characteristics for Winter Trial

Parameter JANUARY 26 2010 FEBRUARY 16

2010 MARCH 9 2010 APRIL 6 2010 APRIL 26 2010 MAY 19 2010

Parameter S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S4

BOD 2530 989 1150 1520 1470 1010 526 374 448 300 619 708 707 1100 1120 966 1630 919 791 863

TSS 11600 4780 6090 3750 3720 1880 814 523 732 383 2150 2090 1720 3950 3450 2590 4260 1680 1150 1650

TDS 742 723

TS 2980 2810 4150 3530 2910

Conductivity 1560 2120 2200 2350 2370 2290 1690 1680 1660 1750 1730 1670 1680 1730 1710 1730 1870 1880 1890 1880

pH 6.68 7.09 7.12 7.2 7.18 7.27 7.46 7.5 7.52 7.5 7.23 7.31 7.26 7.22 7.32 7.33 7.2 7.24 7.22 7.25

Alkalinity 577 819 901 846 888 838 613 605 601 620 592 584 584 594 592 598 659 664 666 659

COD 11700 4600 6100 4300 5100 2500 1320 1160 1350 930 1250 2150 1650 3750 2730 2300 4800 2400 2200 2800

Langeliers

index calculation 0.69 0.86 1 0.93 0.95 0.87 0.74 0.72 0.79 0.76 0.41 0.52 0.52 0.76 0.75 0.77 1 0.79 0.77 0.79

Saturation

pH Estimated 5.99 6.23 6.1 6.27 6.23 6.4 6.72 6.78 6.73 6.74 6.82 6.79 6.74 6.46 6.57 6.57 6.19 6.45 6.45 6.46

Nitrogen;

nitrite 0.18 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.3 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.38 0.29 0.33 0.29

Nitrogen;

nitrate+nitrite 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Nitrogen;

ammonia+ammonium 84.1 85.9 136 146 139 141 91.5 91.2 88.3 93.1 99.5 97.1 97.9 97.7 101 102 74.7 71.6 73.7 72.6

Phosphorus;

phosphate 15.3 15.6 18.7 20.5 19.3 17.7 10.3 9.9 9.8 9.9 11.8 11.3 11.9 13.8 13.1 13 12.4 10 10.8 10.6

TKN 736 283 313 281 317 214 143 130 132 125 175 157 183 220 212 169 268 175 169 180

TP 490 95.5 88 70.8 81.3 46.8 22.5 18.8 21 17.2 33 28.1 44.1 79.3 73.3 49.5 85 33.8 34 38.5



Table C3: Stored Septage Characteristics for Summer Trial

Sample Date MAY 31 JUNE 8 JUNE 21 JULY 5 AUGUST 4 JULY 21

Parameter S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

BOD 7570 7710 8810 580 610 900 722 406 594 258 257 301 303 545 1110 324 513 291

TSS 45200 40300 43900 1750 1570 1990 2230 1170 2390 984 828 1220 872 2260 3860 826 1570 1160

TDS

TS 3100 2810 3090

Conductivity 4200 4170 4360 4020 3970 3930 4120 4130 4080 4140 4130 4120 3770 3770 3780 4060 4060 4060

pH 7.24 7.25 7.23 7.27 7.28 7.28 7.3 7.25 7.25 7.27 7.26 7.28 7.26 7.23 7.23 7.29 7.29 7.29

Alkalinity 1240 1170 1240 1140 1110 1120 1110 1120 1110 1200 1190 1180 1150 1150 1150 1160 1160 1170

COD 37000 38700 52600 2350 2200 2650 3050 1600 2600 1300 1250 1700 1250 2500 6000 800 1650 1250

Langeliers

index calculation 0 0 0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.97 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2

Saturation

pH Estimated 0 0 0 6.18 6.21 6.2 6.22 6.28 6.19 6.17 6.18 6.21 6.13 6.11 6.1 6.2 6.15 6.13

Nitrogen;

nitrite 1.4 1.47 1.67 0.23 0.18 0.2 0.23 0.19 0.24 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.13 0.16 0.14

Nitrogen;

nitrate+nitrite 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Nitrogen;

ammonia+ammoniu

m

158 155 169 145 147 150 143 139 139 140 141 137 143 140 142 153 152 154

Phosphorus;

phosphate 29.9 28.6 34.8 7.8 8.5 9 9.6 8.6 9.3 8.3 7.9 7.7 11.6 11.6 16 9.8 9.8 9.9

TKN 1840 1120 1450 731 238 270 241 205 229 203 198 216 180 226 221 198 224 204

TP 1070 493 885 11.8 26.3 31.3 41 24.8 34.8 22 19 25.5 20.4 35.5 36.3 20.1 28.8 24.4



Table C4: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Fall Trial Storage Samples

Sample Date

SEPTEMBER 14

2009

SEPTEMBER 29

2009 OCTOBER 9 2009

OCTOBER

14 2009

Metal S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1

Mercury 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.12 0.18 0.015 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.065 0.08 0.005

Selenium 0.11 0.2 0.015 0.07 0.05 0.055 0.075 0.06 0.07 0.005

Antimony 0.04 0.065 0.005 0.025 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.005

Aluminum 231 216 221 238 228 237 220 258 232 7.7

Barium 6.43 5.93 5.93 6.13 6.03 6.08 5.4 7.35 6.33 0.275

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chromium 0.775 0.8 0.75 0.925 0.85 0.8 0.775 0.825 0.8 0.1

Copper 9.85 8.83 8.95 10.1 9.63 9.93 8.65 10.5 9.6 0.525

Iron 137 124 121 158 154 163 148 175 160 8.2

Lead 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.1

Magnesium 118 108 108 137 130 130 116 140 128 46.8

Manganese 3.83 3.65 3.65 4.1 3.9 4.08 3.4 4.03 3.73 0.5

Molybdenum 0.125 0.1 0.1 0.125 0.075 0.125 0.075 0.125 0.125 0.05

Nickel 1.44 0.72 0.66 0.66 0.6 0.6 0.54 0.66 0.66 0.1

Silver 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Strontium 6.08 5.83 5.93 5.9 5.75 5.93 5.53 6.45 5.88 2.05

Titanium 0.85 0.725 0.675 0.65 0.65 0.85 1.4 1.65 1.53 0.075

Vanadium 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.1 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.1 0.075 0.025

Zinc 16.7 15.5 16 16.8 16.3 16.6 15.2 17.2 16.5 1.03

Calcium 567 529 518 666 636 653 578 689 646 185

Sodium 353 346 345 415 403 417 477 555 525 483

Potassium 86.2 82.1 82.1 81.7 79.5 82 65.1 75.6 71.6 64.1



Table C5: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Winter Trial Storage Samples

Sample Date JANUARY 26 2010 FEBRUARY 16 2010 MARCH 9 2010 APRIL 6 2010 APRIL 26 2010

Metal S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S4 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

Mercury 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.035 0.015 0.015 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.005

Selenium 0.09 0.035 0.025 0.015 0.07 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

Antimony 0.3 0.22 0.28 0.03 0.21 0.03 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.035 0.035 0.02 0.065

Aluminum 366 138 98.5 87.3 86.5 50.6 11.5 6.2 10.8 4.5 17.4 19.1 36.9 74.3 52.2 42.9

Barium 5.8 1.65 2.38 1.68 2.78 0.8 0.325 0.15 0.25 0.125 0.35 0.425 0.45 1.21 0.925 0.6

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.005 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 585 261 324 238 250 177 105 94 105 100 88.6 95 105 202 154 156

Chromium 0.725 0.225 0.125 0.125 0.225 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.125 0.1 0.2 0.175 0.15

Copper 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Iron 9.53 3.23 2.45 1.88 2.55 1.5 0.525 0.3 0.45 0.225 0.55 0.7 1.23 2.45 1.9 1.53

Lead 127 41.2 30.9 20.7 24.4 10.5 6.5 3.95 4.1 2.85 5.55 7 8.55 22.6 14.4 12.9

Magnesium 1.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

Manganese 59.3 36.8 35 33.4 34.3 30.1 21.2 19.9 21.8 21.1 15.6 16.4 17.9 23.6 22.5 22.6

Molybdenum 4.45 1.98 2.15 1.53 1.13 0.675 0.275 0.2 0.25 0.2 0.3 0.95 0.5 0.775 0.6 0.625

Nickel 1.83 0.375 0.05 0.15 0.325 0.125 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.15 0.1

Silver 0.42 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.74 0.1 0.18 0.12 0.12

Strontium 58.4 66.4 69.3 70.5 68 65.7 51 44.9 48.6 48.6 56.8 58.3 63.7 67 67.1 67.1

Titanium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Vanadium 118 166 173 192 190 185 139 122 130 130 91.5 92.6 100 101 101 102

Zinc 2.18 1.33 1.95 1.98 1.48 1.1 0.475 0.425 0.475 0.45 0.45 0.55 0.675 1.03 0.9 0.8

Calcium 1.73 0.625 0.6 0.5 0.425 0.15 0.175 0.025 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.325 0.225 0.225

Sodium 0.075 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

Potassium 12 4.9 5.7 3.9 4.8 2.3 0.925 0.575 0.775 0.525 1 1.18 1.33 3.18 2.43 1.88



Table C5 cont’d: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Winter Trial Storage Samples

Sample Date MAY 19 2010

Metal S1 S2 S3 S4

Mercury 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.01 0.005 0.005 0.005

Selenium 0.035 0.01 0.01 0.01

Antimony 0.17 0.06 0.045 0.065

Aluminum 110 28.3 22 27.9

Barium 2.28 0.7 0.575 0.675

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 347 187 186 186

Chromium 0.25 0.1 0.1 0.1

Copper 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Iron 3.3 0.85 0.675 0.85

Lead 35.1 10.3 8.7 9.8

Magnesium 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

Manganese 33.3 23.5 24.3 23.4

Molybdenum 1.45 0.675 0.65 0.675

Nickel 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.05

Silver 0.12 0.1 0.12 0.1

Strontium 76.4 69.1 72.5 69.5

Titanium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Vanadium 122 113 119 113

Zinc 1.53 0.85 0.875 0.85

Calcium 0.575 0.175 0.15 0.175

Sodium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025

Potassium 5.13 1.8 1.65 1.83



Table C6: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Summer Trial Storage Samples

Sample Date MAY 31 2010 JUNE 8 2010 JUNE 21 2010 JULY 5 2010 JULY 21 2010

Metal S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3 S1 S2 S3

Mercury 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0081 0.0061 0.021 0.01 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.08 0.14 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.012 0.0075 0.0095 0.005 0.015 0.01

Selenium 0.06 0.1 0.075 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.005 0.01 0.0075 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.015 0.015

Antimony 0.03 0.055 0.04 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.0065 0.0035 0.005 0.005 0.01 0.01

Aluminum 851 614 929 25.4 23.3 28.7 39.4 20.8 41.9 19.7 16.5 22.8 13.6 35.8 31.9

Barium 20.6 14.3 22.3 0.65 0.625 0.75 0.7 0.4 0.875 0.544 0.508 0.692 0.4 1.08 1.08

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.025 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 0.175 0.125 0.15 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.1 0.2 0.225

Chromium 3.2 1.95 2.88 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.032 0.056 0.1 0.1 0.125

Copper 41 26.9 41.1 1.15 1.1 1.38 1.23 0.7 1.55 0.932 0.796 1.19 0.85 1.95 2.45

Iron 614 358 564 16.8 15.5 17.9 17.4 10.5 20.6 12.8 10.6 14.2 8.55 21.3 21.9

Lead 2.8 1.7 2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.1 0.2 0.1

Magnesium 489 309 427 56.7 54.2 53.5 49 43.4 51.7 47.8 46.3 46.2 56 57 58.3

Manganese 13.9 8.93 12.5 0.9 0.825 0.875 0.825 0.65 0.9 0.68 0.644 0.684 0.625 0.85 0.825

Molybdenum 0.625 0.375 0.575 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.028 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05

Nickel 2.28 1.38 1.98 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.04 0.04 0.048 0.1 0.1 0.1

Silver 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1

Strontium 17.5 13.1 16.7 3.08 3 3.08 2.78 2.5 3.03 3.14 3.05 3.13 3.4 3.68 3.73

Titanium 5.28 4.1 5.35 0.2 0.2 0.225 0.2 0.125 0.225 0.124 0.12 0.148 0.125 0.225 0.25

Vanadium 0.375 0.225 0.35 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.025 0.025 0.025

Zinc 55.2 41.3 59.4 2.35 2.23 2.63 2.63 1.53 3.15 1.78 1.51 2.22 1.6 3.45 3.9

Calcium 2200 1410 1920 263 250 253 252 217 267 264 257 242 291 303 310

Sodium 465 421 481 410 412 383 397 369 378 431 401 402 364 339 356

Potassium 115 97.3 118 60.2 60.8 57.3 53.3 49.9 50.7 51.7 48 49 55.2 53.1 56.5



Table C6 cont’d: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Summer Trial Storage Samples

Sample Date AUGUST 4 2010

Metal S1 S2 S3

Mercury 0.01 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.005 0.01 0.01

Selenium 0.005 0.01 0.01

Antimony 0.005 0.005 0.005

Aluminum 12.2 26.9 20.8

Barium 0.325 0.625 0.55

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chromium 0.1 0.1 0.1

Copper 0.525 1.03 0.95

Iron 7.45 13.7 12.3

Lead 0.1 0.1 0.1

Magnesium 50.8 56 60.2

Manganese 0.675 1.25 0.85

Molybdenum 0.05 0.05 0.075

Nickel 0.1 0.1 0.1

Silver 0.1 0.1 0.1

Strontium 3.05 3.48 3.55

Titanium 0.075 0.125 0.175

Vanadium 0.025 0.025 0.025

Zinc 1.08 2.05 1.88

Calcium 247 283 291

Sodium 343 381 418

Potassium 53.1 57.1 62.5



Table C7: Raw Septage Characteristics in all Trials

Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Winter Summer Summer Summer

AUG

31

AUG

31

SEPT

14

SEPT

14

SEPT

29

SEPT

29

OCT

9

OCT

14

OCT

14

MAR

9

MAY

31

JUN 8 JUN

21

Parameter T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 T1

BOD 414 3240 766 1580 382 2490 3130 521 13200 106 7070 1050 1050

TSS 583 19100 5890 4060 1420 13600 18500 2110 27400 95.2 28500 5680 5680

TDS 877 707

TS 3660 19200 2290 20000 4060 16800 802

Conductivity 5020 1870 4930 2070 1560 7040 2200 3640 8000 1370 4980 2580 2580

pH 7.41 7.43 7.28 7.39 7.39 7.43 7.84 7.63 7.41 7.66 7.29 7.52 7.52

Alkalinity 794 855 641 688 490 944 1010 926 896 540 802 630 630

COD 1520 21800 6800 7300 960 14900 18100 1800 24600 350 31900 4150 4150

Langeliers

index calculation 0.84 1.4 0.8 0.97 0.78 1.4 2.2 1.3 1.8 0.78 0 1.4 1.4

Saturation

pH Estimated 6.57 5.99 6.48 6.42 36.1 396 5.65 6.29 5.66 6.88 0 6.17 6.17

Nitrogen;

nitrite 0.049 0.8 0.13 0.46 18 89 0.61 0.05 0.65 0.02 1.34 0.24 0.24

Nitrogen;

nitrate+nitrite 0.05 1 0.5 0.5 72.4 738 0.5 0.5 1.25 0.05 0.5 0.5 0.5

Nitrogen;

ammonia+ammonium 95.5 103 76.7 120 26.3 409 124 147 62 50.3 79.5 80.2 80.2

Phosphorus;

phosphate 13 16.8 9.9 22.4 6.61 6.02 29.9 14.5 17 8.33 30.6 13.7 13.7

TKN 121 723 353 275 0.125 1.1 925 231 1270 63.2 1200 238 238

TP 17.7 130 124 55 1.5 1.25 253 35 1830 10.5 585 27 27



Table C8: Metal Concentrations (mg/L) in Raw Septage Values of all Trials

Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Winter Summer Summer Summer

AUG

31

AUG

31

SEPT

14

SEPT

14

SEPT

29

SEPT

29

OCT

9

OCT

14

OCT

14

MAR

9

MAY

31

JUN

8

JUN

21

Metals T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T1 T2 T1 T1 T1 T1

Mercury 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

Arsenic 0.01 0.16 0.025 0.015 0.01 0.015 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.005 0.29 0.01 0.02

Selenium 0.005 0.025 0.005 0.01 0.005 0.015 0.1 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.11 0.005 0.005

Antimony 0.06 0.035 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.1 0.005 0.015 0.005 0.04 0.005 0.005

Aluminum 3.6 37 65.4 17.8 7.5 159 70 11 131 0.2 524 25.1 20

Barium 0.3 3.78 4.7 0.775 0.45 1.5 18.9 0.45 5.65 0.065 15.5 0.725 0.85

Beryllium 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.005 0.025 0.025 0.025

Cadmium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1

Cobalt 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 78.9 0.1 0.1 0.1

Chromium 0.1 0.775 0.45 0.15 0.1 0.25 0.225 0.1 0.4 0.02 0.775 0.1 0.1

Copper 0.5 17.4 6.83 2.5 2.65 9.18 13.7 2.38 5.58 0.02 11.4 1.6 0.75

Iron 8.4 224 153 25.9 17.5 47.8 143 42 324 0.045 222 41.3 41.9

Lead 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 1 0.1 0.1

Magnesium 56.5 72.7 58.7 45.6 48 118 113 68.4 197 0.02 252 135 27.7

Manganese 0.55 1.65 2.28 0.85 0.5 1.4 4 0.6 3.55 17.1 4.05 1.78 0.825

Molybdenum 0.05 0.175 0.375 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.175 0.05 0.05

Nickel 0.18 0.6 46 0.18 0.1 0.6 0.42 0.1 0.3 0.01 0.48 0.12 0.1

Silver 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.1 0.1

Strontium 0.975 0.95 2.63 0.825 0.75 4.65 1.98 4.85 3.48 55 40.9 1.28 0.8

Titanium 0.075 0.925 0.525 0.375 0.225 0.325 1.5 0.375 1.53 0.02 2.35 1 0.275

Vanadium 0.025 0.025 0.05 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.1 0.025 0.025 117 0.075 0.025 0.025

Zinc 0.825 24.2 9.78 9.2 1.55 12 31.3 4.78 16.7 0.365 29.6 3.65 3.55

Calcium 168 420 256 201 167 562 830 245 1420 0.01 1210 418 150

Sodium 556 151 144 167 253 1260 267 426 170 0.005 641 279 197

Potassium 307 33.6 857 67.2 30.2 72.6 47 67.6 1360 0.125 47.9 47.6 40.9

pathogen reduction rates in - wordpress.com · guidelines, field trials were considered necessary...

Documents