SOUND SLUDGE

SOUND SLUDGE
Ultrasound treatment of return activated
sludge:
environmental and economical impacts
Deliverable DE4

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

Preface
The present report was established in the framework of the LIFE Environment project Upgrading of
wastewater treatment plants with ultrasound treatment for reducing the production of sludge) (SOUND
SLUDGE project, LIFE05 ENV/F/000067).
The started in October 2005 and is executed by Angers Loire Mtropole (Fr), IRH IC (Fr), Groupe IRH
Environnement (Fr), IPL Sant Environnement Durable Est (Fr), Fraunhofer Gesellschaft (Al)
represented by Fraunhofer Institute for Ceramic Technologies and Systems (IKTS) and TME (Nl).
Besides the subsidy of the LIFE Environment program, the project was partly subsidized by the local
water agency Agence de lEau Loire Bretagne).

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

Table of contents
1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.

Project outline and application........................................................................................................ 5

2.1.

The water treatment plant................................................................................................. 5

2.2.

The US unit: outline and operation ................................................................................... 6

2.3.

Sampling and follow-up .................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1. Sludge properties............................................................................................................8
2.3.2. Sludge production ...........................................................................................................8
2.3.3. Sludge quality (environmental and agricultural) ...........................................................10
2.3.4. Greenhouse gas emissions ..........................................................................................10
2.3.5. Water treatment performance.......................................................................................11
2.3.6. Economic related parameters.......................................................................................11

3.

Results .......................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.

Stability of WWTP input conditions................................................................................. 11

3.2.

Impact of US on return activated sludge properties ....................................................... 13

3.2.1. Direct impact disintegration performance ..................................................................13
3.2.2. Long term impact ..........................................................................................................13

3.3.

Sludge production........................................................................................................... 15

3.4.

Sludge quality (environmental and agricultural) ............................................................. 17

3.5.

Greenhouse Gas emissions ........................................................................................... 18

3.6.

Water treatment performance and emission to the surface water.................................. 18

3.7.

Economical performance under the conditions of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou. 19
3.7.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................19
3.7.2. Capital costs .................................................................................................................20
3.7.3. Operational costs ..........................................................................................................20
3.7.4. Operational savings ......................................................................................................20
3.7.5. Summary economic performance base situation with land spreading ......................21
3.7.6. Economic performance in case of incineration .............................................................21

4.

Extrapolation of results ................................................................................................................. 23

4.1.

Power requirement ......................................................................................................... 23

4.2.

Economics ...................................................................................................................... 25
4.2.1. WWTP of 100,000 p.e. and land spreading..................................................................25
4.2.2. WWTP of 100,000 p.e. and incineration .......................................................................26
4.2.3. Break even analysis: plant size and disposal costs......................................................27

5.

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 28

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

Abstract
Sludge reduction is a current topic. The study presented here evaluates sludge reduction by means of
a treatment by ultrasounds applied to recycling sludge in a waste water treatment plant of 6 300
population equivalents. Sludge reduction has been evaluated by comparing the measured amount of
sludge produced to the theoretical amount (according to the CIRSEE equation) for periods without and
periods with treatment. A sludge reduction of about 30 % has thus been demonstrated. This 30 %
value has to be considered with care because of the high level of incertitude of the measured amount
of sludge. The treatment by ultrasounds seems to have no impact on the water treatment
performance, on the quality of thickened sludge, neither on the direct emission of greenhouse gases.
The only exception is a decrease of the treatment performance of phosphorus. The economical
evaluation has shown that the treatment is not valuable from an economical point for this small waste
water treatment plant with low sludge handling costs (10 /ton). Extrapolation of the results show that
after some process modifications (treatment of thickened sludge and return of the treated sludge in the
aeration basins) the process could be economically feasible for waste water treatment plants with a
size 100 000 population equivalent and with final sludge elimination costs > 11 / ton (DM 20%). If
a digestor is present, it is preferable to apply ultrasounds to the sludge file in order to increase biogas
production. This final application has proved itself all over the world.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

1. Introduction
The overall aim of the project is to show the technical and economical feasibility of a method to reduce
the quantity of sludge (= waste activated sludge) produced in a biological water treatment plant without
a transfer of the environmental pressure, to promote the use of this method and to inform and train its
potential end-users.
In the light of this objective, three main working objectives have been defined. The first one consists of
a demonstration at full scale of the technical possibilities of a reduction of sludge mass production by
means of an ultrasound treatment of the return sludge stream in a water treatment plant. Besides, the
evaluation of the overall economical-environmental impact of the method and of the global technicaleconomical feasibility is a project aim. The final working objective is to integrate data obtained during
the project into an expert system allowing for the site specific comparison of different sludge reduction,
treatment and disposal scenarios (from a technical, economical and environmental point of view).
The present report deals with the following topics: sludge reduction, transfer of environmental pressure
and economical feasibility.

2. Project outline and application

2.1.

The water treatment plant

The wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) of St. Sylvain dAnjou has a capacity of 6300 population
equivalents (p.e.). The treatment principals are as follows:
- nutrient removal activated sludge process, with nitrogen removal realised by a primary anoxic
reactor,
- dephosphation through the injection of FeCl3 into the aerobic reactor,
- dehydration of the surplus sludge by mixing the sludge with a polyelectrolyte (the dehydrated
sludge is pumped up into a stocking tank before being spread out on agricultural land).
A scheme of the WWTP is given in Figure 1, the design rules are given in Erreur ! Source du renvoi
introuvable.. Actually, the WWTP turns at about 50 % of its nominal capacity.

Table1 : Design rules for the influent of the WWTP.

Parameters
Daily hydraulic flow
Maximum hydraulic hourly flow
BOD5
COD
SS
TKN
Phosphorus

Values
1150
100
378
630
560
105
28

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

Units
3 -1
m .d
3 -1
m .h
-1
kg.d
-1
kg.d
-1
kg.d
-1
kg.d
-1
kg.d

SOUND SLUDGE

combined
treatment grit and
grease removal

anoxic
reactor

clarifier

aerobic reactor
1-1 pumps
(155 m3/h)

with 2 surface
aerators

stripping
tank

1+1 pumps
100 m3/h

grit

influent

fine screening
aquaqard:6mm
screw
grease
concoyer
chamber
(7m3)

sludge return
1-1 pumps
(100 m3/h)

outlet
brook La
Veillire

extracted sludge

Figure 1 : Scheme of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou

2.2.

The US unit: outline and operation

The design of the US unit has been based on field trials performed at the WWTP of St. Sylvain
dAnjou. In these field trials, the primary disintegration effects for different ultrasound powers applied
had been evaluated with the following parameters:
- increase in soluble chemical oxygen demand CODsoluble (the carbon source, which is available
to the micro-organisms in the aeration tank) ,
- the reduction of particle size distribution (increase of A0; improvement of mass transfer
towards the micro-organisms) ,
- increase in enzyme activity (EA) ,
- reduction of sludge volume (SV; improvement of settling) ,
- increase in turbidity.
The technical equipment for the ultrasound system consists of the following main components:
- suction tube with flushing valve (tube from sludge pit to feeding pump)
- feeding pump (with dry run protection and overpressure sensor)
- connection tube between feeding pump and ultrasound unit
- ultrasound unit (noise protection box with three flow-through vessel and ultrasound processor
with generator
- flow meter
- return tube with flushing valve from ultrasound unit to anoxic reactor
- switch cabinet for controlling and monitoring the ultrasound system.
The US unit contains three sonotrodes with a power of 2 kWh each. The sonotrodes are installed in a
three-door stainless steel cabinet (Figure 2).
Only 6% of the return sludge is being treated by the US unit, thus allowing to treat the whole amount of
sludge present within a period equivalent to the mean sludge age (24 days). This part stream return
sludge is taken from the return sludge pit after the clarifier. The feeding pump for the ultrasound unit is
placed besides this return pit. Ultrasound unit and switch cabinet will be placed besides the anoxic
tank. The connection between the feeding pump and the ultrasound unit is made by an underground
tube. After sonication the return sludge will be directly returned into the anoxic reactor (Figure 3).

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

Figure 2 : Sonotrodes in the stainless steel cabinet

Aerobic part

Anoxic part
SP 1

Disintegrated
partial flow

SP 3
SP 5

Inflow

agitator 1

Recycle flow

agitator 2
ultrasound
plant (6kW)

SP 4-2

RLS-Teilstrom
Surplus sludge

SP 2
Final sedimentation tank
Return-sludge

SP 4-1

effluent

Figure 3 : Implementation of the Ultrasound unit in the WWTP and sampling points (SP) for analysing
the sludge properties.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

2.3.

Sampling and follow-up

2.3.1.

Sludge properties

The sampling points for follow up of sludge properties are also shown in Figure 3. The sampling at the
points SP1, SP2, SP3 and SP 4 (SP4-1 was the sampling point for return sludge before installation of
ultrasound unit, SP4-2 after installation) and the analysis of the accordant suspensions have been
carried out:

during initial analysis before implementation of US (in addition to WWTP routine analysis),
during field test with pilot US device and
each time when disintegration performance of ultrasound unit was tested (SP4-2 before, SP5
after US).

In total 6 on-site measurements were done during the project period (duration of each 2-3 days, with at
least one sampling of all SP per day on site). The parameters that were measures at the different
sampling points are given in Table 2.
Table 2 : measured parameters for follow up of sludge properties
SP
1

Sample
Inlet

Parameters
+
Conductivity, SS, CODhom, CODsoluble, NH4 -N
Conductivity, SS, CODhom., CODsoluble, turbidity,
2
Effluent
+
NH4 -N, NO3-N Ptotal (hom.)
+
SS, VS, SVI, A0*, EA**, CODhom., CODsoluble, NH4 3
Mixed liquor
N, Ptotal (Filtr), Ptotal (sludge homogenized)
+
SS, VS, SVI, A0, EA, CODhom., CODsoluble, NH4 -N,
4
return activated sludge (RAS)
Ptotal (Filtr), Ptotal (sludge homogenized)
5
return activated sludge (RAS) after US A0, EA, CODsoluble
* A0... volume specific surface (integral parameter of particle size distribution)
** EA... enzyme activity
There were three main targets aimed to achieve by means of the onsite measurements:

additional control of WWTP conditions stability while duration of project (representativeness of

results),
control stability of disintegration performance,
recording WWTP-process data in order to determine possible impact of using ultrasound in a
configuration like shown in Figure 3.

2.3.2.

Sludge production

The evaluation of the sludge reduction by the US treatment was performed by comparing the
measured production with the calculated production according to a theoretical formula adjusted to the
period without treatment.
Measured production
The measured sludge production has been calculated by means of the parameters given in Table 3.
Sludge production in week X has then been calculated by using equation 1 :
Sludge produced week X = MS after

With :
MS after extraction
MS extracted

=
=
=

extraction week X+1 +

MB extracted week

X+1

- MB after extraction week

(kg MS)

equation 1

mass of sludge in the aeration tanks after extraction

3
V tanks (m ) x SS a.t. (g.l) / 1000
3
mass of sludge extracted = Vsludge-ex (m ) x SSsludge (g/l)

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 3 : Parameters followed-up and method of measurement

Parameter

Symbol

Method of measurement

Daily volume at the entrance

and the exit of the WWTP
Volume of extracted sludge

Vtreated

COD and SS content of the

water at the entrance of the
WWTP
SS content of thickened sludge

CODentrance
SSentrance

SS content of the aeration

tanks

SSa.t.

Venturi canal installed at the exit of the WWTP with an ultrasound

probe to measure water height, daily inegration of all data
Electromagnetic flow rate meter installed downstream of the
thickening table, integration of data
Mean daily sample taken by automated sampler at the entrance of
the WWTP, reconstitution of two mean samples per week and
analysis of COD (NF T 90-101) and SS (NF T90-105-2)
Mean sample of the thickened sludge by means of an electrovanne
installed at the bottom of a homogeinised tank (agitators) of 1 m3 by
which the thickened sludge flows before being rejected in the
stocking tank, analyses of SS (NF T90-105-2)
Sampling of 4 samples a week (2 just before juste and 2 just after
the extraction of sludge) of the sludge in the aeration tank, analysis
of SS (NF T90-105-2)

Vsludge-ex

SSsludge

and

The amount of sludge produced calculated according to equation 1 has been compared to the amount
extracted during the same period. A minor difference of 2.1 % has been observed. Equation 1 will be
used, given the fact that it takes into account an eventual change in the stock of sludge in the aeration
tanks. The hypotheses made are: (i) the stock of sludge in the final sedimentation tank does not
change over the whole experimental period and (ii) the two aeration tanks are perfectly homogenized.
Two observations allow to reinforce these first hypothesis. The application of US did not have an effect
on:
-

the height of the sludge vowel in the final sedimentation tank

the concentration at the bottom of the final sedimentation tank was as high as 17,0 0.7 g/l
and 14.8 2.9 g/l during periods with and without US treatment respectively.

Theoretical evolution of sludge production

The theoretical sludge production was calculated based on the entrance parameters of the WWTP
1
according to equation 2 .
Sludge production (kg/kg BOD5) = (SSentrance (1 VSentrance) + SSentranceVSentranceVSrefractory +
(0.82 + 0.21 log (MC)BOD5, entranceBOD5,treatment performance + 0.17 % TNKnitrifiedTNKentrance / BOD5

With :
Parameter
SSentrance
BOD5,entrance
VSentrance
VSrefractory
MC
BOD5 treatment performance
TNKnitrified
TNKentrance

Flux SS at the entrance of the WWTP

Flux BOD5 at the entrance of the WWTP
Volatile solids at the entrance of the WWTP
Refractory part of the volatile solids
Massif charge
Treatment performance of BOD5
Percentage of total N that is nitrified
Total nitrogen at the entrance of the WWTP

equation 2

Value
Variable
Variable
70 %
30 %
Variable
99 %
70 %
37 mg/l

Adjustment of the theoretical evolution of sludge production for the period without US
The theoretical sludge production calculated according to equation 2 underestimates the weekly
measured sludge production by a mean of 37 % for the period without US treatment. In order to
compare the effect of the US treatment, it is necessary that the theoretical evolution for the period
without treatment equals the measures production. An adjustment of the parameters has thus been
necessary.
A multiplication parameter has been added to equation 2, resulting in equation 3.
Sludge production (kg/kg BOD5) = ((SSentrance (1 VSentrance) + SSentranceVSentranceVSrefractory +
(0.82 + 0.21 log (MC)BOD5, entranceBOD5,treatment performance + 0.17 % TNKnitrifiedTNKentrance /
BOD5) * k

equation 3

Cornier J.C., Fayoux C., Lesouef A., Villesot D. (1994). Les nouvelles contraintes dexploitation des usines
dpuration. Techniques Sciences et Mthodes, n 7-8, pp 392-406.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

SOUND SLUDGE

A value of k of 1.37 allows to minimize the moderated error over three weeks (period close to the
mean sludge age) between the measured production and the theoretical evolution.
The necessity to apply an adjustment parameter can be partly explained by the presence of a physicochemical treatment of phosphorus by FeCl3. On the WWTP, the amount of FeCl3 injected in the
reactor is however very small (molar ratio Fe/P = 0.24) which results in a production of physicochemical sludge in an amount representing only 4% of the produced sludge.
In order to explain the lasting 33 %, the hypothesis was made that the amount of sludge measured
overestimates the amount produced. This hypothesis is reinforced by the fact that the mean sludge
production measured during the period without US treatment equals 1.6 kg DM / kg BOD5, a value that
is unlikely for a mean massif charge of 0.04 an a mean ratio MES / DBO5 of the water to be treated of
1.2. However, the data and information obtained during the study have not allowed to determine other
sources of error that could explain the overestimation of the amount of sludge produced.
In the following, the theoretical sludge production is calculated according equation 3.

2.3.3.

Sludge quality (environmental and agricultural)

Thickened sludge is being sampled and analysed for organic and inorganic pollutants. These analyses
are done on sludge samples taken with and without the ultrasound treatment.

2.3.4.

Greenhouse gas emissions

The emission of CO2, CH4 and N2O to the air form the anoxic tank, the aeration tank and the sludge pit
have been measured. The method is given in the schematised in Figure 4.
A floating basin open at its base allows to cover a part of the surface of the basin from which
greenhouse gases are emitted. The air within the basin is continuously renewed with fresh air by
means of a pump. The air from the basin is extracted by a second pump. This air is analysed directly
for CH4, CO2 and N2O by means of gas chromatography and a catarometric detector.
Besides, water samples are taken during the air measurements in order to be able to express the
emission as a function of the water quality.
These measuring campaigns are being preformed during periods with and periods without the
ultrasound treatment.

Slacker
Low pressure

Computer
data
treatment
analyser

Air
Injection

Flow rate
meter

Air
200
bars

Gas chromatographie
Catarometric
detector

Inflatable basin posed on the

surface of the water

Figure 4 : Method used for measuring the emissions to the air.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

10

SOUND SLUDGE

2.3.5.

Water treatment performance

The inlet and outlet of the WWTP are analysed for organic and inorganic parameters. Measuring
campaigns last for one week. Measuring campaigns take place during periods with and periods
without the ultrasound unit being operated.

2.3.6.

Economic related parameters

Economic related parameters (energy consumption, polymer consumption, FeCl3 consumption) are
being followed-up.

3. Results
3.1. Stability of WWTP input conditions
Very important for sludge production its reduction was the main target parameter of the project is
WWTP input of suspended solids and COD. Both parameters correlate, as shown in Figure 5. Red
points are data of the continuous WWTP analysis in the period with ultrasound, green data points are
from the period without ultrasound treatment and mauve points are data from the IKTS on site
measurements (grab samples). Yellow marks stand for average values in each period.
Two conclusions can be drawn from Figure 5:
1. there were usual conditions during the onsite measurements of disintegration performance, so
obtained data can be seen as reliable,
2. there were relatively stable input conditions regarding suspended solids and COD in the
complete trial period, no extreme variations which would imply serious doubts about the
findings.
The values of ratios that constitute a reference for sludge production are given in table 4.
Also the other parameters like conductivity, pH, P-total and ammonia did not vary very much in the trial
period (Figure 6), only WWTP inlet-concentration of phosphorus seems to increase (additional P- and
ammonia measurements were started when US started also).
It can be claimed that there were stable inlet conditions within the test period, significant impacts from
external sources, which might have influenced the results in a negative way or which could have led to
inconclusiveness, were not observed.
On average the load of suspended solids and COD in the period without ultrasound was slightly lower
than in the period with ultrasound treatment.

Table 4: Value of different ratio at the entrance of the WWTP

Ratio

Period without US treatment

Period with US treatment

Mean

error

Max

Min

Mean

Error

Max

COD/SS

2.5

0.5

4.0

1.7

2.5

0.5

3.9

COD/BOD5

2.6

0.3

3.1

2.2

3.2

0.7

4.3

2.3

COD/TNK

9.7

1.8

12.9

7.2

9.4

1.3

11.2

7.5

COD/Ptot

57.6

10.0

74.6

40.7

66.8

9.0

86.2

56.8

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

Min
2.0

11

SOUND SLUDGE

Figure 5 : WWTP input data (Suspended Solids and COD in kg/d) and IKTS measurements

Inlet WWTP - Snap shot measurements

pH

P-total

NH4-N
10
9

Conductivity [mS/cm]

1200
8
1000

7
6

800

5
600

400

4
3

US on

200

US off
1

pH, P-total [mg/L], 0,1*NH4+-N [mg/L]

conductivity
1400

Figure 6 : WWTP input data (IKTS grab sample measurements) conductivity, pH, Ammonia and
Phosphorus

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

12

SOUND SLUDGE

3.2. Impact of US on return activated sludge properties

3.2.1.

Direct impact disintegration performance

The immediate effect of introducing ultrasound to sewage sludge on its properties (return activated
sludge (RAS) in this case) is named primary disintegration effect. Effects like sludge reduction, which
follow subsequently in the process are called secondary disintegration effects. The quantity and
stability of primary disintegration effects of the US unit in this trial was proven by analysis before and
after US-treatment (SP4-2 and SP5) of

turbidity in supernatant,
soluble COD,
enzyme activity,
particle size distribution (integrated parameter volume specific surface).

Accordingly Figure 7 shows 4 diagrams with these parameters depending on volume specific energy
input. Energy input was changed due to varying flow rate of US feeding pump. Measurements have
been carried out in March 2006 (pilot unit), January 2007, July 2007 and February 2008. The values of
the parameters with rising energy input varies in a small range because sludges disintegratabiliy
depends not only on equipment but also on external factors like temperature, sludge age and others
which cannot be taken into account in detail.
In February 2008 disintegration performance (regarding slope of the fit equations) was comparable to
the results achieved with the pilot plant in March 2006 and slightly better than in January and July
2007. It can be concluded that there was no measurable loss of performance from the equipment-side
caused by wearing or so (ultrasound equipment was operating 24/h at 7d/week from 18.07.07 until
7.4.2008).
Ao- and EA diagrams in Figure 7 also show the higher starting level of the parameters in February
2008 caused by the previous US-operation period (see 3.1.3).

3.2.2.

Long term impact

A very clear effect of US was observed on return activated sludges enzyme activity and volume
specific surface (integral parameter of particle size distribution). Although only a certain amount of
RAS was treated a significant increase of RAS enzyme activity and volume specific surface was found
in the period with US-operation. Both parameters become directly affected by ultrasound (see 3.1.2).
RAS is part of complete mass of activated sludge in the WWTP so it can be concluded, that
ultrasound split stream treatment took effect on the whole activated sludge in the system: fineness of
sludge increased slightly but enzyme activity at least doubled (activity of hydrolytic enzymes was
measured here). When ultrasound device was turned off parameters decreased again on former level
without ultrasound (Figure 8).

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

13

SOUND SLUDGE
300

0,41
On Site Test (March 2006)
Launch of pilot plant (January 2007)

0,38

Start of continuous operation (July 2007)

0,35
0,32
Ao [m/cm]

Turbidity [NTU]

February 2008
200

100

0,29
0,26
0,23
On Site Test (March 2006)

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

0,20

35

Launch of pilot plant (Januar 2007)

Espez [kWs/L]

start of continuous operation (Juli 2007)

0,17
0,9

180

On Site Test (March 2006)

Launch of pilot plant (Januar 2007)
start of continuous operation (July 2007)
February 2008

160
140

Launch of pilot plant (Januar 2007)

0,8

February 2008
0,7

start of continuous operation July 2007

0,6

EA [mol/L*min]

120

CODsol [mg/L]

On Site Test (March 2006)

100
80
60

0,5
0,4
0,3

40

0,2

20

0,1
0,0

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

Espez [kWs/L]

10

15

20

25

30

35

Espez [kWs/L]

Figure 7 : Disintegration performance (turbidity, enzyme activity, soluble COD, volume specific surface) depending on volume specific energy input

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

page 14

14

SOUND SLUDGE

Return activated sludge

Ao

EA

0,30

US0,16
off

]
m0,25
/c

m
[
o
A0,20
e
c
a
fr
u 0,15
s
ic
fi
c
e 0,10
p
s
e
m
u
l 0,05
o
v

0,14

US on

0,12
0,10
0,08
0,06
0,04
0,02

0,00

]
in
m
*
L
/l
o
m

[
A
E
y
ti
v
it
c
a
e
m
y
z
n
e

0,00
6
0
0
.2
3
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
4
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
5
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
6
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
7
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
8
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
9
.0
0
2

6
0
0
.2
0
.1
0
2

6
0
0
.2
1
.1
0
2

6
0
0
.2
2
.1
0
2

7
0
0
.2
1
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
2
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
3
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
4
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
5
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
6
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
7
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
8
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
9
.0
0
2

7
0
0
.2
0
.1
0
2

7
0
0
.2
1
.1
0
2

7
0
0
.2
2
.1
0
2

8
0
0
.2
1
.0
0
2

8
0
0
.2
2
.0
0
2

8
0
0
.2
3
.0
0
2

8
0
0
.2
4
.0
0
2

8
0
0
.2
5
.0
0
2

8
0
0
.2
6
.0
0
2

Figure 8 : Volume specific surface and enzyme activity of return activated sludge RAS with and
without US

3.3.

Sludge production

Figure 9 shows a good correlation between the weekly sludge production calculated according to
equation 3 and the measured production for the period without US treatment. The quality of the
adjustment validates the possibility to use equation 3 in order to evaluate the effect of the US
treatment on the sludge production.
It appears that for periods with US treatment, the measures sludge production is lower that the
theoretical one (Figure 10). At the scale of the period of US treatment a mean reduction of the sludge
production in the order of 30 % has been observed.
The incertitude of the measurement of the sludge production has been evaluated by considering the
four possible error sources of equation 1: volume of the sludge extracted (Vse), concentration of SS of
the thickekend extracted sludge (SSse), volume of the aeration tanks (Vat) and concentration of SS in
the aeration tanks after extraction in week X (SSafter) and after extraction of the precedent week
(SSbefore). The values of these error sources and the method of obtaining these values are given in
Table 5. By developing on these terms equation 1, we obtain equation 4. The incertitude for a period
can then be calculated based on equation 5.
Sludge produced (SP) (kg) = Vse (m3) * SSse (kg/m3)
+ Vat* (SSafter SSbefore)
n=d

s=n

n =1

s =1

SPweekly = Vsen * SSsen + Vat * ( SSafterd SSbefore1 )

equation 4

equation 5

The incertitude (on a 95% confidence interval) of the weekly measured sludge production during a
given period (period with or period without US) calculated on the basis of equation 5 equals 11%.
Because of this high incertitude, the sludge reduction of 30 % should be considered like a trend.
However, the coherent data (figure 10) show that sludge reduction is real on the studied WWTP.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

15

SOUND SLUDGE

measured production (kg)

30000

25000

20000

y = 1.04x
R2 = 0.994

15000

10000

5000

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

calculated production (kg)

Figure 9 : Correlation between the measured and the calculated sludge production during the period
without US treatment (cumulated production over 22 weeks).
30000

measured production (kg)

25000

y = 0.75 x
R2 = 0.994

20000

15000

y = 0.74 x
R2 = 0.957

10000

5000

0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

calculated production (kg)

period 1

period 2

Figure 10 : Correlation between the measured and the calculated sludge production during the two
periods with US treatment (cumulated production over 24 weeks for period 1 and over 12 weeks for
period 2).

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

16

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 5 : Sources of error for the measurement of sludge production, their values and method of
calculation.
Source
n

description

Title

Volume of thickened sludge

Vse

Relative
incertitude
u
0.5 %

Concentration of SS in the
thickened sludge

SSse

8.9 %

Volume of the aeration

tanks
Concentration of SS in the
aeration tanks (week before
and week of extraction)

Vat

0%

SSbefore
and
SSafter

5.5 %

3.4.

Method of calculation / source

Technical documentation of the

flow rate meter
A mean hourly sample was taken
during 24 hours. The samples
have been grouped to obtain 4
mean samples for each period of 6
hours. The samples have been
analyzed
for
their
SS
concentration. To the error thus
obtained has been added the error
made by the analysis on one and
unique sample (determined in
error source n 4).
The volume of the tanks is
constant
Sampling of 4 individual samples
and
analysis
of
the
SS
concentration on 4 fractions of
each sample.

Sludge quality (environmental and agricultural)

In order to determine an eventual concentration of pollutants in the sludge as a reason of the reduction
of the amount of dry matter produced, the concentration of organic pollutants and of metals has been
determined.
The concentration of DEPH, NPE and PCB in the sludge produced without US treatment was below
the detection limit. The concentration of PAH and PCDD/F was very low, 25 times lower to the
maximum concentration proposed (for sludge spread out on agricultural land) in the Working
Document on Sludge. Based on these facts, the analyses of organic pollutants has been excluded
from the following measuring campaigns.
Concerning the metals, the analyses of the sludge sampled during the US treatment is compared to
the sludge sampled during the period without US treatment (Table 6). The results show no evidence of
a significant impact of the US treatment on the sludge quality. However, this observation has to be
taken with care because eventual variations of the metal concentration at the inlet of the WWTP have
not been measured. Besides, we obtained only one analysis for the period with US treatment. The
comparison of the values of table 6 with the actual legislation and with the concentrations proposed in
the Working Document on Sludge show that the sludge of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou can be
valorised in agriculture.
Table 6: Concentration of pollutants in the thickened sludge.

parameter
Cu
Cd

mg/kg DM
mg/kg DM

Zn
Cr

mg/kg DM
mg/kg DM

Hg
Ni
Pb

without US
241.67 8.33
0.81 0.04

with US
230.00
0.62
220.00
19.00

mg/kg DM
mg/kg DM

341.67 41.67
21.83 1.17
5.47 3.67
19.67 3.33

mg/kg DM

19.67 0.33

21.00

3.30
17.00

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

17

SOUND SLUDGE

3.5.

Greenhouse Gas emissions

The emissions of greenhouse gases are given in Table 7. From this table it can be concluded that
greenhouse gas emissions vary over time. The most stringent difference between the emission with
and the emissions without US is the increase in CO2 emission with the US treatment. This increase
would be mainly due to a higher CO2 emission form the aeration basin. In order to verify if this
increase in CO2 emission could be due to a higher COD load at the inlet of the WWTP, the CO2
emission has been calculated as a function of COD removed. The results for the aeration basin are as
follows:
-2
- 06/07 (no US treatment) :
4.82 *10 kg CO2/kg CODremoved
-2
- 09/07 (US treatment) :
6.04 *10 kg CO2/kg CODremoved
-2
- 06/08 (no US treatment) :
4.64 *10 kg CO2/kg CODremoved
Besides, the COD flux at the inlet of the WWTP has been quite equivalent for the three periods (mean
value of 306, 297 and 291 kg COD/day respectively).
The increased CO2-emmission is thus not due to a higher DCO load of the WWTP. If these results
would be confirmed by further measuring campaigns, the increase in CO2-emmission could be
explained by an accelerated catabolism and respiration ratio of active sludge microorganisms. This
complies with a decrease of total sludge production, because more CO2-production means less
sludge. Two hypotheses have been emitted to explain this observation:
- formerly inert particular organics have been transferred into a biodegradable status by the
ultrasounds
- microorganisms themselves get more degraded because of the more permanent presence of
active hydrolytic enzymes.
However, it has to be kept in mind that even if the CO2-emmission might be increased, the US
treatment does not induce any additional pressure on the environment as the total greenhouse gas
emission is not changed (Table 7).
3

Table 7: Emission in equivalent CO2 per m treated water (g/m ).

CH4
C02
N2O
US
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
date
06-07 09-07 06-08 06-07 09-07 06-08 06-07 09-07 06-08
anoxic
0.3 0.2
1.8 1.6
0.1 2.1
0.3
2.0
< dl
basin
aeration
4.4 0.5
1.8 1.1
2.9
30.4 41.4 17.6
16.3
basin
sludge
11.7 23.3
0.8 1.0
0.2 0.1
13.3
1.0
1.5
pit
total
16.5
33.4 44.0 20.2
17.8
16.4 24.0
2.1 3.3

3.6.

no
06-07

TOTAL
no
yes
09-07 06-08

2.3

2.2

3.9

49.5

47.5

19.3

15.8

12.7

24.5

67.6

62.4

47.7

Water treatment performance and emission to the surface water

The results obtained at the direct exit of the US unit show that that the US increased the concentration
of fine particles. This could harm the effluent quality.
The treatment performance of the WWTP without the US treatment (mean value for 4 to 5 days, error
for 3 campaigns) and with the US treatment (mean value for 5 days, 1 campaign so no error) are given
in Table 8.
Concerning MES, DCO and hard DCO, the US treatment has no impact on the treatment
performance.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

18

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 8: Treatment performance (%) of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou.

Parameter

without US treatment

MES
DCO
DCOhard
DBO5
NTK
PO4
Ptotal

98.04
92.91
31.49
96.86
94.67
93.02
91.59

with US treatment

0.44
1.98
4.22
0.61
1.22
3.73
3.87

98.03
92.92
35.71
98.11*
96.49**
88.32
86.38

* the treatment performance has been calculated on the basis of 2 values, the concentration of DBO5 in
the outlet being < 3 mg.O2/l in 3 out of the 5 samples
** the treatment performance performance has been calculated on the basis of 2 values, the concentration
of NTK being < 2 mg/l in 3 out of the 5 samples.

The treatment performance of phosphorus seems to decrease when the US unit is working. Table 9
shows that concentrations of the outlet of the WWTP are indeed increased during the US treatment. It
was verified that the injection of FeCL3 and the molar ratio Fe/P have not changed over the different
follow-up periods. A precise calculation of this ratio for the period without US 3 and for the period
with US has been possible. In both cases, the value equals 0.2 and can thus not explain the
difference observed.
Even if the higher phosphorus concentration at the outlet has to be confirmed, the result seems
coherent. In effect, at an unchanged concentration in the sludge, a lower sludge production decreases
the phosphorus flux that leaves the WWTP by the sludge file and increases the phosphorus flux at the
outlet of the WWTP. This phenomena has been observed in other studies concerning at source sludge
2
reduction, for example in the study on Biolysis O . Table 9 shows that sludge concentrations are
indeed increased during the US treatment. However, for the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou, the
discharged water still replies with the French legislation.
Table 9 : Concentration of Ptotal (mean values and error for 5 mean daily samples)
at the entrance and the outlet of the WWTP and the treatment performance (%).

Campaign

without US 1
without US 2
without US 3
with US

3.7.

Entrance
(mg/l)
0.24
0.18
0.30
0.82

0.10
0.04
0.20
0.21

Outlet
(mg/l)
0.72
0.50
0.46
1.15

0.30
0.00
0.12
0.13

Treatment
performance %
95.51
95.65
95.49
86/38

Economical performance under the conditions of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou
3.7.1.

Introduction

The economic performance of US treatment to reduce sludge at a WWTP can be analysed in an

integral way or in a partial/marginal way. Whereas an integral assessment would take on board all
relevant parameters of the performance of a WWTP, including the normal operation of the WWTP,
the partial/marginal analyses focuses on the differences between the initial state (without the
application of US) and the performance of a WWTP that uses US for sludge treatment.

Rewcastle M., Taylor T., Churchley J., Lebrun T., Perrin. (2004). Full-scale trial of Degremonts Biolysis O
sludge minimisation technology on an activated sludge plant in the UK. The 9th European Biosolids and
Biowastes Conference, November 14-17, Wakefield, UK. Session 06, paper 16, PP 1-14.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

19

SOUND SLUDGE

In this chapter, a partial/marginal economic performance analysis is performed, highlighting the

additional investments, costs and savings due to the application of US.
The economic performance of an US-unit therefore depends on:
- Additional capital costs of US: depreciation costs and interest;
- Additional operational costs of US: electricity, maintenance, replacement of sonotrodes;
- Additional operational savings (due to sludge reduction): savings on chemicals use, internal
sludge handling (electricity) and disposal costs (land spreading, land filling or incineration).
The calculations are based on a 30 % reduction in sludge production by the US treatment.

3.7.2.

Capital costs

Investment costs for the non-commercial ultrasound system used in Saint Sylvain were about
60,000, which is 10,000 per kW installed power. Non-commercial means that it was designed and
installed to demonstrate proof of principle with regard to sludge reduction by means of RAS-treatment
in a small WWTP under well controlled conditions. The US-device was designed to operate with
various settings for research purposes, thus it was not consequently constructed under commercial
aspects. Commercial systems normally require a lower level of adjustment opportunities. Also a preevaluation of economical feasibility is usual before setting up an ultrasound disintegration system.
Annualised for 10 years (lifetime) with an interest rate of 5%, the investment of - in the particular case
of the WWTP of Saint Sylvain - 60,000 leads to annual capital costs of 7,770.

3.7.3.

Operational costs

Operational costs consist of costs for energy consumption of the US-unit (20,260 kWh/year, based on
3,355 kWh/month), maintenance costs (1% of investment costs each year is assumed) and costs of
replacement of the sonotrodes.
The energy consumption of the US-unit at the WWTP of St Sylvain was measured monthly. The
consumption of the US treatment equals 3,355 kWh per month. This represents an increase in energy
consumption of 17% compared to the total energy consumption of the WWTP (agitators included). At
a price per kWh of 0.05, annual energy costs of one US-unit are calculated at 2.013 (= 3,355 kWh
x 12 x 0.05/kWh).
Maintenance is only required for wearing parts of the feeding pump. Other components are free from
maintenance. Costs are about 1% of the initial investment, which is calculated at 600 each year.
The US-unit at Saint Sylvain has three sonotrodes. Minimum operation time of each sonotrode is 3
years, and experiences show that on average 1 sonotrode has to be replaced each year. The
replacement costs of one sonotrode is about 5,000.

3.7.4.

Operational savings

Operational savings can be achieved if application of US results in less sludge production. At the
WWTP of St Sylvain sludge production is reduced by about 30 % due to US treatment (= 420 tonnes
of the amount of 1400 tons in 2005). Costs to dispose (wet) sludge (4% DS) are 10/ton (or 250 per
ton DS) for land spreading. As a result, sludge reduction of 420 tonnes (30% of 1400) results in
savings on (external) handling costs of 4,200 on a yearly basis.
The plant in St Sylvain has a sludge press for dewatering, but it was not used during US treatment (no
savings on electricity use). Content of dry solids (DS) in the sludge which is disposed is (only) 4%.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

20

SOUND SLUDGE

At the WWTP of St Sylvain FeCl3 and polymers are used to treat sludge. For both substances, no
significant change in the consumption is observed after the start up of the US treatment. Optimisation
and adjustment of chemicals use was not targeted within the trial, so it was only followed up but not
varied.

3.7.5.

Summary economic performance base situation with land spreading

The WWTP of Saint Sylvain is a small plant with a capacity of 6,300 population equivalents. In
combination with low disposal costs for land spreading ( 10 per ton), US treatment is not economic
feasible for the WWTP of Saint Sylvain. Additional annual costs are calculated at 15,383, annual
savings at 4,200. The net additional annual costs are thus 11,183 (capital costs, operational costs
and savings). The annual net operational costs of 3,413 cannot be paid back in this case (Table 10).
Table 10 : Economic performance of US treatment at the WWTP of Saint Sylvain base situation:
land spreading

WWTP St Sylvain
- 100% land spreading
- 30% reduction sludge
- electricity costs 0,05 / kWh
- disposal costs 10 / ton (DS 4%)
Investment in 1 US-unit
Capital costs, annuity 10 years, 5%
Electricity (sonotrodes)
Maintenance (1% inv costs)
Replacement of 1 sonotrode per year
Total operational costs
Total annual costs
Savings on sludge handling (land
spreading)
Total operational savings

6,300 p.e.
1,400 ton sludge (DS 4%)
56 ton dry sludge

60,000

40,260 kWh/y

420 ton/y

7,770
2,013
600
5,000
7,613
15,383

4,200
4,200

Annual net operational savings

- 3,413
Payback period*)
years
-17.6
*) Payback period is defined by investment divided by annual net operational savings (not taking into
account interest).

3.7.6.

Economic performance in case of incineration

Under current conditions, application of US treatment at the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou is not
economical feasible (see 3.7.5). The plant is small and disposal costs (for land spreading of WWTP
sludge) are low. Therefore, too little money can be saved to offset the additional costs of US
treatment.
The question is whether changes in the conditions could lead to an economical feasible application of
US in a WWTP (with comparable technical lay-out as the plant in Saint Sylvain dAnjou)?
To find an answer to this question, two different situations have been analysed:
- First, the base situation is differentiated. In stead of land spreading of the sludge, it is
assumed that the sludge is incinerated (as is the case in many EU member states);
- Next, the base situation will be extrapolated to a plant of 100,000 p.e. with either land
spreading or incineration of the disposed sludge.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

21

SOUND SLUDGE

In many European countries, a part of sludge is being incinerated. Incineration is far more expensive
3
than land spreading (about 450 per ton DS, with at least 20 % DS per ton ).
In Table 11, the base situation results are re-calculated in case the wet sludge is dewatered from 4%
DS to 20% DS and incinerated. Energy savings of dewatering (because less sludge needs to be
dewatered) is calculated as savings per ton sludge (not) dewatered.
Table 11 : Economic performance of US treatment at the WWTP of Saint Sylvain in case of sludge
incineration

WWTP St Sylvain
- 100% incineration
- 30% reduction sludge
- electricity costs 0,05 / kWh
- disposal costs 90 / ton (DS 20%)
4
- dewatering costs 10 / ton
Investment in 1 US-unit
Capital costs, annuity 10 years, 5%
Electricity (sonotrodes)
Maintenance (1% inv costs)
Replacement of 1 sonotrode per year
Total operational costs
Total annual costs
Savings on electricity (dewatering)
Savings on sludge handling (incineration)
Total operational savings

Annual net operational savings

Payback period

6,300
1,400
280
56

p.e.
ton sludge (DS 4%)
ton sludge (DS 20%)
ton dry sludge

60,000

40,260 kWh/y

420 ton/y
84 ton/y

years

7,770
2,013
600
5,000
7,613
15,383
4,200
7,568
11,768

4,155
14.4

The table shows that if the sludge has to be incinerated (and therefore, be dewatered), US treatment
is still not economic feasible for a plant like St Sylvain which is using aerobic sludge treatment. The
payback period of the investment is more than 14 years, which is larger than its technical lifetime of 10
years.
This can be explained as follows:
- To incinerate sludge, the DS content needs to be about 20%;
- The sludge produced at the St Sylvain plant has a DS content of about 4%;
- To enable incineration of such sludge, a dewatering step needs to be included, to increase the
DS content from 4% to 20%;
- As a consequence of the dewatering, the total amount of sludge to be incinerated is reduced
from 1400 ton/y to 280 ton/y. This additional dewatering step would cost annually 14,000;
- Application of ultrasound would reduce the amount of sludge to be dewatered by 30% = 420
tons (and thus would save dewatering costs of 420 x 10 = 4,200);
- Application of ultrasound would (also) reduce the amount of sludge to be incinerated by 30% =
84 tons.
Because processes on many small and very small WWTPs are similar to the one in Saint Sylvain
dAnjou and because sludge disposal routes and costs are comparable, it can be summarized that
ultrasound disintegration is not economic feasible for small plants with only aerobic sludge treatment,
despite a demonstrated significant sludge reduction of almost 30%. However, on the base of that
3

Source: DRSH, 2007, Jaarverslag 2007. (annual report of DRSH, a WWTP sludge processing/incineration
company in Dordrecht, the Netherlands, with an annual sludge processing of 400,000 ton (21.8% DS)).
4
Based on BAT document on WWTP sludge (Huybrechts, VITO, Belgium, 2000).

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

22

SOUND SLUDGE

positive process result, extrapolation can be made to estimate an economic break-even-point for this
technology (see 4.2.3).

4. Extrapolation of results
4.1.

Power requirement

Extrapolation of results to other processes and WWTP, especially in terms of exact calculation of
sludge reduction, energy use etc. is very difficult, caused by the complex relations and interactions
between those process variables which determine sludge production in each case.
But by means of the results this report bases on it seems possible to estimate the optimal operational
window for the US device in this particular case. Equation 6 was the base for the extrapolation
approach. For that purpose factor a it stands for fraction of inert organic material- in the equation
(equation 6) could become extended to aUS-Dis. with an additional term to describe impact of US
(equation 7). It is based on the assumption that, due to ultrasound, a certain part of these inert
organics becomes biodegradable in the water purification process. Previous theoretical simulations let
presume that main effect regarding sludge reduction by means of ultrasound is not mainly generated
by changed bio-kinetic parameters like biomass yield or decay rate or others. How much of inert
organic fraction is transformed that way must depend on disintegration performance of the
disintegration device (quality of primary disintegration effects expressed as conversion factor CF)
and the proportion between total treated amount and untreated amount of sludge within one sludge
age.
SSinlet aeration
Sludge production [kg / kg BOD5 ] = YH + a
BOD5,
inlet aeration

Parameters

(1 b) k Y SRT 1,072 (T 15)

D
H

1 + k D SRT 1,072 (T 15)

Unit

Value

Fraction of inert particular matter (inlet)

kg DS/kg DS

0,6

Heterotrophic Biomass Yield

YH

kg/kg BOD5

0,75

Natural decomposition rate

1/d

0,2

Decay rate/autolysis parameter

kD

1/d

0,17

T=18,8 C
aerobic
SRT=0,27*
real SRT

measured data; BOD5 0,5 COD

Source: ATV A131

V US SRT

aUS Dis. = a 1 CF
Vba sin, total

equation 6

treated amount
of sludge mass
within 1 SRT

equation 7

Conversion factor CF =f(disintegration performance)

CF = convers proportional to throughput,

CF is a function mainly of US-unit flow rate if there are no other possibilities to change primary
disintegration effects. In that concrete case a CF was figured out that resulted in a sludge reduction of
32.5 %. CF and US-flow rate are indirect proportional. If mathematical description for CF=f(flow rate
US unit) is known as function of volume flow (Figure 11) prediction of achievable effects depending on
flow rate of ultrasound unit is possible (Figure 12) by means of equation 6 extended by disintegration
factor according to equation 7.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

23

SOUND SLUDGE

Disintegration performance of 6 kW-System @ St. Sylvain

120

0,45
0,4

100

0,3

80

y = -0,2757x + 0,5875
R = 0,8312

y = -64,434x + 148,65
R = 0,7874

0,25

60
0,2

working point where CF

was 1,7

40

0,15

end point, CF=0

Enzyme activity EA [units]

Turbidity [NTU]

0,35

0,1
20

Turbidity NTU

0,05

EA

0,5

1,5

2,5

US throughput [m/h]
Figure 11 : deriving Conversion factor CF from correlation between throughput of US-system and
primary disintegration effects (measured as enzyme activity and turbidity).

specific Energy

Sludge reduction [%]

40

treated amount
80

optimum operational window

for installed system

35

70

30

60

25

50

20

40

15

30

10

20

10

0
0

0,5

1,5

2,5

specific Energy [kWs/L] & treated amount per SRT

[%]

Sludge reduction

Throughput US-Unit [m/h]

Figure 12 : Estimation of optimum operational window for 6 kW-US-unit in concrete trial configuration

A very rough estimation how to size a US unit for larger plants would be possible on a linear way if is
preconditioned that a certain CF is essential to achieve a certain sludge reduction, that more or less
exact this CF is generated at the same US-energy impact level with the sludge at the other WWTP.
The upper part of Table 12 shows the power needed for US-disintegration for WWTP of different sizes

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

24

SOUND SLUDGE

if return activated sludge with a dry solids (DS) content of 3 g/l is being treated. Because of the very
high power needed (270 kW in case of a 100 000 p.e.) this is a very expensive and not a realistic
scenario. In fact low concentrated RAS with about 3 g/L DS would not be treated because it is
inefficient. In larger plants normally continuous thickening machines are installed. So a part of
thickened surplus activated sludge would have to be taken, disintegrated and recycled to aeration.
The required ultrasound unit could become downsized dramatically: if the thickening ends up with
approximately with 70 g/L (e.g. with a centrifuge) there is a volume reduction factor of 3/70=0.043. The
lower part of Table 12 shows the power requirement in case the US treatment is applied to a
thickened sludge with a DS content of 7% (case 1) and 4% (case 2).

Table 12 : Rough linear estimation for sizing up an US-desintegration unit in order to treat retrun
activated sludge or thickened return activated sludge.

p.e. (x 1000)

100

80

60
40
WITHOUT THICKENING

10

CSB after dis.

11068

8853

6640

4427

1107

SS after dis.
Throughput

4500
54

3600
43

2700
32

1800
22

450
5,5

power

270

215

160

110

27,5

specific Energy
SRT
basin volume
CF
CF*treated
amount
a after dis.

18,0
12,0
51333
1,66*

18,0
12,0
41067
1,66*

18,0
12,0
30800
1,66*

18,0
12,0
20533
1,66*

18,0
12,0
5133
1,66*

0,50

0,50

0,50

0,51

0,51

0,30

0,30

0,30
WITH THICKENING

0,29

0,29

70

70

70

70

70

40

40

40

40

40

7% DS

11,6

9,2

6,9

4,7

1,2

4% DS

20,3

16,1

12,0

8,3

2,1

input WWTP in
kg/d
m/h
Installed power
[kW]
kWs/L
d
M
-

DS in g/L before
Thickening
DS in g/L after
Thickening case 1
DS in g/L after
Thickening case 2
Installed power
(kW) case 1
Installed power
(kW) case 2

*value found in Saint Sylvain trial

4.2.

Economics
4.2.1.

WWTP of 100,000 p.e. and land spreading

The economic assessment is based on the scenario of a 100,000 p.e. with treatement of thickekend
sludge with a DS content of 7%. The installed power needed is equal to 11,6 kW (see Table 12), this
means that two US-units will be installed. Sludge production of a plant of 100,000 p.e. is calculated at
9,240 ton (33 x 280 tons with content DS 20%). The results are displayed in Table 13.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

25

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 13 shows that US treatment for a plant of 100,000 p.e. could be economic feasible under the
assumed circumstances (land spreading of dewatered sludge at low costs). The investment of 2 USunits can be paid back within 10 years. However, the calculation also shows that the economic
advantage of US treatment would be small (not even enough to finance interest payments over ten
years).
If external sludge handling costs are higher than 11.10 per ton (20% DS), or 55.50 per ton DS, the
application of US becomes economically interesting.
Table 13 : Economic performance of US treatment example WWTP with 100,000 p.e. and sludge
land spreading

Larger plant
- 100% land spreading
- 30% reduction sludge
- electricity costs 0,05 / kWh
- disposal costs 10 / ton (DS 20%)
- dewatering costs 10 / ton
Investment in 2 US-units
Capital costs, annuity 10 years, 5%
Electricity (sonotrodes)
Maintenance (1% inv costs)
Replacement of 2 sonotrodes per year
Total operational costs
Total annual costs
Savings on electricity (dewatering)
Savings on sludge handling (land spreading)
Total operational savings

100,000 p.e.
continuous thickening machines
9,240 ton sludge (DS 20%)
1,848 ton dry sludge

120,000

80,520 kWh/y

ton/y
2,772 ton/y

Annual net operational savings

Payback period

4.2.2.

years

15,541
4,026
1,200
10,000
15,226
30,767
0
27,720
27,720

12,494
9.6

WWTP of 100,000 p.e. and incineration

If sludge produced by a WWTP of 100,000 p.e. has to be incinerated in stead of applied on agricultural
land, savings on sludge handling can make the US treatment economically interesting. In

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

26

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 14, the economic performance of applying US treatment at a WWTP of 100,00 p.e. and
incineration of the disposed sludge is presented.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

27

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 14 shows that US treatment for a plant of 100,000 p.e. and sludge incineration will be
economically very interesting. The additional costs are more than covered by the savings on (external)
sludge handling. The investment of 2 US-units can be earned back in six months.
The large difference with the example presented in paragraph 3.3. is the difference in unit costs of
sludge handling. If these unit costs are high (as is the case with incineration compared to agricultural
use) the costs savings easily cover additional investment and operational costs.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

28

SOUND SLUDGE

Table 14 : Economic performance of US treatment example WWTP with 100,000 p.e. and sludge
incineration

Larger plant
- 100% land incineration
- 30% reduction sludge
- electricity costs 0,05 / kWh
- disposal costs 90 / ton (DS 20%)
- dewatering costs 10 / ton
Investment in 2 US-units
Capital costs, annuity 10 years, 5%
Electricity (sonotrodes)
Maintenance (1% inv costs)
Replacement of 2 sonotrodes per year
Total operational costs
Total annual costs
Savings on electricity (dewatering)
Savings on sludge handling (incineration)
Total operational savings

Annual net operational savings

Payback period

4.2.3.

100,000 p.e.
Continuous thickening machines
9,240 ton sludge (DS 20%)
1,848 ton dry sludge

120,000

80,520 kWh/y

ton/y
2,772 ton/y

years

15,541
4,026
1,200
10,000
15,226
30,767
0
249,757
249,757

234,531
0.5

Break even analysis: plant size and disposal costs

After analysis of the base situation for the WWTP of Saint Sylvain dAnjou and the different situations
(incineration in stead of agricultural use, larger scale) the question rises at what level of external
disposal costs and at what plant size will an investment in US treatment break even with cost
savings?
As the analysis in 4.2.1 shows, the break even point in terms of external disposal costs for a plant of
100,000 p.e. will be somewhat higher than 10. Calculated exactly, annual net operational savings
are nil if sludge disposal costs are 55,50 per ton DS.
At external sludge disposal costs lower than 55,50 per ton DS for a plant with only aerobic treatment
(no sludge digestion) and a capacity of 100,000 p.e., US treatment is not economic feasible under
5
considered conditions described before (and in report DE1) . Additional effects like prevention of foam
and bulking sludge another effect of ultrasound use - can have positive impact on suitability, not only
economically.
In Figure 13, a break even analysis is presented, showing for different plant sizes the costs of
application of US to reduce one ton of sludge (100% DS). These costs range from over 1,000 per
ton DS for very small plants, to about 50 per ton DS for large WWTPs.
Combinations in the green area are cost effective; combinations in the orange area are not cost
effective.
If external sludge disposal is cheap, 100 per ton DS ( 20 per ton 20% DS), the application of US is
only interesting at larger WWTPs. This is the case if the sludge is landfilled.
But in the case of incineration of the sludge, at costs of 450 per ton DS, the use of US for sludge
reduction is feasible at smaller WWTPs too!

Using ultrasound disintegration prior to digestion (which is the today main type of US-application at WWTPs)
to increase biogas production, as well as to reduce the amount of disposed sludge, is more likely to be costeffective on a lower level of sludge disposal costs.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

29

SOUND SLUDGE

1000

per ton Dry Matter disposed

900
800
700
600
500

incineration

400
300

base situation
St Sylvain

200

landfill

100
0
0

6 500

10 000

50 000

100 000

150 000

250 000

WWTP size (p.e.)

Figure 13 : Break even line of combinations WWTP size and disposal costs per ton dry matter

5. Conclusions
The main target of this project was to demonstrate the potential for sewage sludge reduction in
aerobic waste water treatment by means of ultrasound treatment under well defined conditions in a full
scale (size of WWTP: 6000 population equivalents). The results of the full test should allow drawing
conclusions regarding technical aspects of ultrasound treatment, about effects on waste water
treatment process and about the overall impact on the environment.
After a certain time needed for stabilising onsite sludge handling process and a number of pre-tests a
6 kW low amplitude (low wear) ultrasound system was installed to treat return activated sludge (RAS)
in a continuous way. The Ultrasound system was in operation for 264 days without any break and
showed a very stable disintegration performance.
During that time as well as at the periods without ultrasound treatment waste water parameters,
sludge properties and effluent quality were observed. It could be shown, that - WWTP-input conditions
were continuously analyzed and showed stability in all trial periods - a sludge reduction of about 30 %
was achieved due to using the ultrasound device. Proof of that finding was done by sludge mass
balance and comparison between theoretical and recorded sludge production, these data fitted very
well.
In terms of sludge properties a significant increase of enzyme activity in the RAS was found while
ultrasound was in operation as well as a slight increase of phosphorus concentration in the effluent.
Reason for last mentioned fact is not completely clear, because during operation of ultrasound dosage
of FeCl3 for phosphorus precipitation was lower than in times without ultrasound treatment. Dosage
adjustment is recommendable to guarantee compliance with legislation rules.
No environmental pressures have been observed.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

30

SOUND SLUDGE

On base of the findings a method for extrapolation of results was developed which can be used to
draw conclusions regarding design of ultrasound devices for other WWTP.
From an economical point of view US treatment at the scale of the St Sylvain plant (6,300 p.e.) is not
economical feasible. Even if sludge handling costs (costs for dewatering and incineration) would
increase from 10 to about 30 per ton sludge produced, US treatment would not save costs in that
particular case.
Nevertheless, using ultrasound in order to reduce aerobic sludge production at larger plants could lead
to cost savings which would generate short payback times. For example, the break-even-point of
sludge disposal costs for a 100,000 p.e. WWTP with US treatment of thickened return activated
sludge can be estimated at about 11 per ton sludge (sludge at 20% DS). In that case a detailed costbenefit-analysis is recommendable.
Using ultrasound disintegration prior digestion (if existing) is more likely to be cost efficient also with
lower sludge disposal costs.

Ultrasound treatment of return activated sludge: environmental and economical impacts

31