Environmental Technology

ISSN: 0959-3330 (Print) 1479-487X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tent20

Wastewater management in small towns –

understanding the failure of small treatment
plants in Bolivia

Claudia Cossio , Jennifer McConville , Sebastien Rauch , Britt-Marie Wilén ,

Sahar Dalahmeh, Alvaro Mercado & Ana M. Romero

To cite this article: Claudia Cossio , Jennifer McConville , Sebastien Rauch , Britt-Marie Wilén ,
Sahar Dalahmeh, Alvaro Mercado & Ana M. Romero (2017): Wastewater management in small
towns – understanding the failure of small treatment plants in Bolivia, Environmental Technology,
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2017.1330364

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1330364

View supplementary material

Accepted author version posted online: 24

May 2017.
Published online: 05 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 113

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tent20

Download by: [University of Warwick] Date: 25 June 2017, At: 21:59

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1330364

Wastewater management in small towns – understanding the failure of small

treatment plants in Bolivia
Claudia Cossio a,c, Jennifer McConville b
, Sebastien Rauch a
, Britt-Marie Wilén a
, Sahar Dalahmehb,
Alvaro Mercadoc and Ana M. Romeroc
a
Water Environment Technology, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden;
b
Environmental Engineering, Department of Energy and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden;
c
Centro de Aguas y Saneamiento Ambiental, Universidad Mayor de San Simón, Cochabamba, Bolivia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Wastewater management in developing countries is a challenge, especially in small towns with Received 6 February 2017
rapid population growth. This study aims at assessing the performance and management of five Accepted 5 May 2017
treatment plants (TPs) in rural areas of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Pollutants’ concentrations,
KEYWORDS
wastewater flows, hydraulic and organic loads and hydraulic retention times were determined in Wastewater treatment; small
three small treatment plants (2000–10,000 population equivalent [p.e.]; flow > 432 m3/d) and two town; operation and
very small treatment plants (<2000 p.e.; flow < 432 m3/d). The performance assessment was maintenance; performance
based on operational parameters, treatment efficiency and effluent quality. Management data indicators; technical expertise
were collected through semi-structured interviews with managers of local water associations.
The results support that the poor performance of the TPs is due to lack of operational expertise
and financial resources for adequate operation and maintenance (O&M). Additionally, effective
treatment was affected by the type of technology used and whether the plant design included
plans for O&M with available resources. This study contributes to a better understanding of
actual operating conditions of wastewater TPs in small towns, thus providing needed
information regarding technology selection, design, implementation and operation.

1. Introduction
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were
launched by the United Nations in 2015 to stimulate
actions in areas of critical importance for humanity and
the environment. Access to safe water and wastewater
management are considered essential for sustainable
development and therefore, the SDGs include a goal
(SDG6) aiming at ensuring the availability and sustain-
able management of water and sanitation for all. Specific
targets to be reached by 2030 include halving the pro-
portion of untreated wastewater discharged into recipi-
ent waters and increasing recycling and safe reuse
globally [1]. Meeting these targets represents a signifi-
cant challenge, particularly in developing countries
where levels of service delivery are often inadequate.
The UN Environment Programme [2] estimates that
90% of wastewater produced in developing countries is
discharged without any treatment into recipient
waters. The percentage of wastewater treated is approxi-
mately 5% for South Asia, 13% for Sub-Saharan Africa
and 22% for Latin America and the Caribbean. In com-
parison, 79% of the wastewater produced in Europe is
treated before being discharged [3]. Wastewater man-
agement in developing countries faces compound chal-
lenges due to lack of technical expertise, weak
management and institutional structures and lack of
adequate policies to promote an integrated water man-
agement [4]. These challenges are even more apparent
in rural areas and in small towns that often lack the
resources needed to build, operate and maintain waste-
water treatment plants (TPs) [5]. Improving service in
these areas is critical to achieving the SDGs, particularly
since most of the population growth in developing
countries is expected to happen in small towns [6].
Latin America has a large number of wastewater TPs
serving small towns, which often present operational dif-
ficulties due to resource limitations. Poor performance
makes these plants a major source of environmental con-
tamination at the local and regional levels, especially if
wastewater flows from individual TPs are summed up
[7]. Despite the importance of small treatment plants
(STPs), information on such facilities is very limited, par-
ticularly in rural contexts [3]. Data on the characteristics
of wastewater produced by small towns and on the

CONTACT Claudia Cossio claudia.cossio@chalmers.se Water Environment Technology, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers
University of Technology, Sven Hultins gata 8, Gothenburg SE-412 96, Sweden
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/09593330.2017.1330364
© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. COSSIO ET AL.

performance of STPs are largely missing. In addition, 2.1. Study area

there is a need to better understand the underlying
This study is based on five treatment plants located in
factors that contribute to poor wastewater management
small towns in the department of Cochabamba, Bolivia.
in small towns.
Three of the treatment plants are categorized as STPs
Bolivia, which is one of Latin America’s poorest
serving 2000–10,000 population equivalent (p.e.) and
countries, is affected by poor wastewater management.
two as VSTPs serving <2000 p.e. This categorization
Municipalities in Bolivia have the responsibility to
also corresponds to the typology of treatment plants in
assure the provision of basic services, including water
Latin America developed by Noyola [7], in which treat-
and sanitation. In general, municipalities prioritize
ment plants with flows between 432 and 2160 m3/d
potable water production and distribution and waste-
are considered small and those with flows <432 m3/d
water collection systems over wastewater treatment.
are considered very small. STPs serve municipal capitals,
A study of 105 Bolivian towns found that 70% of the
whereas VSTPs serve communities located near the
wastewater collected is not treated [8]. The study
municipal capitals. The sewerage systems in four of the
reported that only 74% of the towns have wastewater
case studies (STP1: Tiraque capital, STP2: Colomi
treatment plants; 63% of existing plants are in oper-
capital, STP3: Tarata capital and VSTP1: Virvini) collect
ation and only 5% of these plants have chemical
mixed wastewater and stormwater and in one only dom-
oxygen demand (COD) removal efficiencies higher
estic wastewater (VSTP2: Chamoco). Wastewater at the
than 75%. Therefore, most treatment plants do not
VSTPs consists of domestic wastewater, whereas waste-
fulfil national regulations for wastewater discharge,
water at the STPs also includes wastewater from health
which should have total suspended solids (TSS) concen-
care centres, schools, markets and restaurants. The
trations below 60 mg/L and 5-day biochemical oxygen
towns are located in the Andes with altitudes between
demand (BOD5) concentrations below 80 mg/L [9].
2600 and 3200 m a.s.l. The area is characterized by a
The wastewater treatment plants are generally not
semi-arid and temperate climate, with a dry season
designed to remove nutrients, and wastewater dis-
from April to October and a wet season from November
charge is therefore a major cause of eutrophication
to March. Annual precipitation of ca. 480 mm occurs only
[10]. Safe recycling of nutrients through wastewater
during the wet season. The main economic activity is
use in agriculture is hampered by the presence of
agriculture in the smaller towns, whereas a range of
pathogens and other contaminants in the wastewater
business activities can be found in the larger towns.
[6]. Lack of operation and maintenance (O&M) (63%
The types of technologies included in this study are
of studied plants), inadequate treatment technology
considered representative of treatment systems
(23%), social issues (8%) and inadequate design and
implemented in Bolivia in the last decades, where stabil-
construction (6%) are believed to be responsible for
ization ponds (46%) and Imhoff tanks (16%) are the most
poor wastewater treatment in these towns, but the
common technologies. In the region where this study is
underlying reasons for these issues are unclear [8].
implemented, these two technologies represent 39%
The aim of the study presented here is to assess tech-
and 27%, respectively [8]. Table 1 provides the descrip-
nical functionality and management of treatment plants
tion of the studied treatment plants and the process
that serve small towns in Bolivia based on quantitative
units implemented. In addition, schematized treatment
performance indicators (PIs) and to identify the factors
processes are provided as supplementary information.
that affect the management of the treatment plants.
The Imhoff tank is a primary treatment technology
Specifically, the study aims to (i) characterize the waste-
designed to remove TSS. It includes a sedimentation
water produced by small towns (TSS, BOD5, COD and
chamber for the wastewater and a sludge digestion
faecal coliforms (FC)), (ii) assess the treatment plants
chamber in the bottom of the same infrastructure. The
based on the recognized PIs (treatment efficiency, efflu-
Imhoff tank became popular because it occupies little
ent quality and operational parameters) and (iii) identify
space and is a relatively inexpensive investment.
management issues that might affect the performance of
All five treatment plants were built with external
the treatment plants.
financial resources from governmental organizations.
Once the construction of the collection system and the
2. Materials and methods treatment plants were completed, they were transferred
This study uses a combination of quantitative and quali- as a fixed asset to the local Water Association in charge of
tative data in a case study approach to gain deeper the drinking water service in the town. Water Associ-
insight into the functioning of STPs and very small treat- ations are the entities in charge of the operation, main-
ment plants (VSTPs) in Bolivia. tenance and administration of the wastewater

Table 1. Description of studied TPs.
Range of measured flow and average flow
TPs Towns Construction year p.e.
STP1 Tiraque capital 2004 4660
STP2 Colomi capital 1983 6155
STP3 Tarata capital 1995 7000
VSTP1 Virvini 1995 765
VSTP2 Chamoco 2003 825
collection system and the TPs. For STPs, the Water
Association hires staff for the management of water
and wastewater service. In contrast, for VSTPs, the
board of the Water Association is directly in charge of
the management and the board members change
every two years according to local regulations. Therefore,
every user connected to a VSTP will in principle take
turns managing the plant.
2.2. Assessment of treatment performance
A total of six sampling campaigns were performed in
2014–2016, including three in rainy season (November–
March) and three in dry season (April–October), to
assess the performance of the five plants during these
two seasons. STP1 and VSTP1 were monitored during
the first campaign (2014–2015). Three additional treat-
ment plants (STP2, STP3 and VSTP2) were monitored
during further campaigns (2015–2016). Grab sampling
was conducted since the investigated facilities lacked
auto-samplers. The samples were collected, preserved
and analysed according to protocols and standard
methods [11]. The characterization of municipal waste-
water for VSTPs and STPs was based on analysis of TSS,
BOD5, COD and FC.
In order to assess operational parameters, wastewater
flow rates were estimated by measuring wastewater
volumes during a defined time or by measuring waste-
water velocity and flow area. Flow rates measurements
were taken on market days at STPs, when the
maximum weekly flows are expected and on weekdays
at VSTPs. In the case of STP1, STP2, STP3 and VSTP2,
hourly measurements of flow rate during the day were
taken to identify the range of flows (minimum and
maximum), the average flow rate and the standard
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 3
with standard deviation
m3/d Process units
Range: 380–795 . Grit chamber and screens
Average: 596 ± 138 . 1 Imhoff tank
. 2 bio-filters (only 1 is working)
. Stairs (natural aeration)
Range: 320–916 . 2 Imhoff tanks (in parallel)
Average: 544 ± 207
Range: 622–1927 . Grit chamber and screens
Average: 1227 ± 415 . 2 anaerobic ponds (in parallel)
. 2 facultative ponds (in parallel)
. 4 maturation ponds (in parallel)
Range: 86–104 . 1 Imhoff tank
Average: 104 ± 9
Range: 61–121 . Grit chambers and screens
Average: 78 ± 26 . 2 Imhoff tanks (in parallel)
deviation of the flow rate for each TP. For VSTP1,
hourly measurements during an entire day were not
possible. The flow rate taken for calculations in this
case is the mean and standard deviation value from
three measurements during three sampling campaigns
when the outlet of the Imhoff tank was accessible.
The assessment of treatment plant performance fol-
lowed the PIs framework for wastewater services
suggested by the International Water Association [12].
For the purpose of this study, two categories related to
treatment efficiency (removal of TSS, BOD5 [%] and FC
[log units]) and pollutant concentrations in the effluent
(TSS, BOD5 [mg/L] and FC [CFU/100 ml]) were selected,
according to the study context [13,14]. Operational par-
ameters (hydraulic retention time [HRT], hydraulic
loading rate [HLR] and organic volumetric load [OVL])
were added in order to assess the actual performance
against design capacity.
Dimensions of each process unit in the TPs were
obtained from either field measurements or in some
cases from plant designs. Some depths were approxi-
mated based on oral information from operators,
since it was impossible to introduce measuring
elements to the bottom due accumulation of sludge
and sand. The HRT was calculated using Equation (1),
the HLR using Equation (2) and the OVL using Equation
(3). These three parameters were calculated for the
empty volume of the chamber (designed volume),
and for the effective volume (volume in actual con-
ditions considering sludge or sand accumulation on
the bottom of the tank). Current HRT, HLR and OVL
were compared with design values to assess the
actual capacity of the treatment plants.
Vch
HRT = . (1)
Qav ×3600
4 C. COSSIO ET AL.
Qav
HLR = × 3600 × 24, (2)
Vch
COD × Qav
OVL = × 3600 × 24, (3)
Vch
where HRT is the hydraulic retention time (h); HLR,
hydraulic loading rate (m3/m3 d); OVL, organic volu-
metric load (COD kg/m3); Vch, volume of chamber
(m3); Qav, mean flow rate (m3/s)
In order to assess treatment efficiency of the TPs,
the influent and effluent were sampled, and analysed
for three main parameters: TSS, BOD5 and FC. Only in
STP3 it was possible to sample in intermediate points
since they had accessible and open outlets, that is,
the outlet of the grit chamber, outlets of the two
anaerobic ponds and outlets of the two facultative
ponds. However, outlets of the four maturation
ponds were not accessible; thus their assessment
was done with the final effluent quality of the TP.
In VSTP2, influent and effluent of the two Imhoff
tanks in parallel were sampled. Removal efficiencies
for each type of technology in the five TPs were
determined in order to compare with those from
literature.
Effluent quality refers to the compliance with dis-
charge regulations in Bolivia regarding TSS, BOD5 and
COD and World Health Organization (WHO) reuse stan-
dards for FC. Mean values and standard deviations
were calculated with the results from the four sampling
campaigns implemented in each TP.
2.3. Interviews with water associations
Semi-structured interviews with the managers of the
TPs were conducted to gather technical data and infor-
mation on management of the services. Managers
were either the president of the Water Association
board or hired staff, depending on the case study.
Managers were questioned regarding basic O&M prac-
tice and monitoring of the TPs – for example, whether
operators received training about wastewater treat-
ment during/or after the implementation of the
project, availability of written instructions for O&M,
personnel and working conditions (safety and tools
available), O&M activities, costs, tariffs and reuse
practices.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of municipal wastewater
Values of TSS, BOD5 and FC in the influent wastewater at
the five TPs are presented in Figure 1 with typical values
for low and high contaminants’ concentration [15]. The
results are characterized by high variability that could
be due to daily variations in contaminant inputs, seaso-
nal variations or grab sampling. No specific seasonal
differences in wastewater characteristics could be
observed, although four of the study sites use combined
sewers in which both domestic wastewater and storm-
water are transported to the TPs.
Municipal wastewater is characterized by high TSS con-
centrations at STP3, medium TSS concentrations at STP1
and VSTP1, and medium or low TSS concentrations at
STP2 and VSTP2. BOD5 was found to be high at STP3,
while it ranges from low to high at STP1 and VSTP1 and
between low and medium at VSTP2 and medium at STP2.
COD concentrations are low to high at STP1, low to
medium at STP2, VSTP1 and VSTP2 and medium at STP3.
FC units were of medium concentration at all treatment
plants. In general, STPs were found to receive more contami-
nated wastewaters than VSTPs, often having values typical
for medium or high contaminants’ concentrations. In par-
ticular, the wastewater at STP3 would be classified as with
high contaminants’ concentration, possibly due to waste-
water input from commercial activities (which are more
important in this town), while STP1 and STP2 receive
more low–medium contaminants’ concentration [15].
The wastewater at VSTP1 and VSTP2 would be con-
sidered as having low–medium contaminants’ concen-
tration; only FCs are consistently present at medium
concentrations. The estimated per capita production of
wastewater in these communities is 0.15 m3/capita. It is
speculated that contaminants’ concentration in the
wastewater at VSTPs is low due to dilution from higher
water consumption; since households do not have
water meters installed and they pay a fixed tariff for
the service. The slightly higher values at VSTP1 could
be explained by the health centre and small restaurants
that are connected to it.
3.2. Performance assessment
The performance of the TPs was assessed based on oper-
ational parameters, treatment efficiency and effluent
quality.
3.2.1. Operational parameters (HRT, HLR and OVL)
Operational parameters calculated for the process units
at the STPs and VSTPs are presented in Table 2. It is,
however, important to note that part of the flow
bypasses in the units, making the HRT even lower than
the nominal value calculated in the study. The results
should thus be read as best possible performance
under existing conditions.

Figure 1. Concentrations of TSS (A), BOD5 (B), COD (C) and FC (D) in municipal wastewater at the studied TPs.
At STP1, the grit chamber is working at half of the HRT
design value, and the Imhoff tank reaches only 20% of
the designed HRT, exceeding by approximately four
times the design values for HLR and OVL. Subsequently,
the wastewater flows faster into the anaerobic filter
where the HRT was 76% of the designed HRT, meaning
that the current HLR and OVL are exceeding by 28%
and 31% the design capacity. The Imhoff tank and the
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 5
anaerobic filter are operated at only 20% and 76% of
their design capacities, respectively, due to lack of
general O&M, such as removal of solids from the grit
chambers and screens. The grit chamber was built with
a depth of 1.20 m, which makes it difficult to access for
the operator to perform frequent maintenance. Thus,
larger quantities of sediments and solid wastes are trans-
ported into the Imhoff tank from which sludge is not
6 C. COSSIO ET AL.

Table 2. Operational parameters for the treatment plant and COD in the influent.
Volume HRT HLR OVL
(m3) (h) m3/m3 day) (kg COD/m3 day)
Process and COD mean for influent [mg/L] Designed Estimated Designed Estimated Designed Estimated Designed Estimated
STP1; COD: 486 ± 420 [mg/L]
Grit chamber 1.0 0.6 0.04 0.02
Imhoff tank 332 66 13.4 2.7 1.8 8.9 0.87 4.34
Anaerobic filter 188 144 7.6 5.8 3.2 4.1 1.53 2.01
STP2; COD: 524 ± 253 [mg/L]
Imhoff tank (2) 600 96 26.3 4.2 0.9 5.7 0.48 2.99
STP3; COD: 820 ± 162 [mg/L]
Grit chamber 6 3 0.12 0.06
Anaerobic pond (2) 2588 1553 51 30 0.4 0.8 0.39 0.65
Facultative pond (2) 8000 5600 157 110 0.15 0.22 0.13 0.18
Maturation pond (2) 2400 1200 47 24 0.5 1.0 0.42 0.84
VSTP1; COD: 274 ± 145 [mg/L]
Imhoff tank 120 108 29 26 0.8 0.9 0.23 0.25
VSTP2; COD: 288 ± 225 [mg/L]
Grit chamber 0.8 0.8 0.24 0.24
Imhoff tank (2) 400 376 119 112 0.20 0.21 0.06 0.06

removed every two months as recommended for the
average temperature in the area of the study, but
rather every two years. The Imhoff tank was built accord-
ing to standard design recommendations, but since the
pipes and chambers for sludge removal were initially
not used for several years, they have deteriorated to an
unusable condition. In addition, the ineffective removal
of solid wastes and TSS in the pre-treatment and
Imhoff tank has subsequently lead to clogging of the
pipes underneath the bio-filter, which are therefore not
working properly, with wastewater flow occurring
instead above the filter.
At STP2, the current HRT only reaches approximately
20% of the designed HRT. Thus, the current HLR and
OVL for the Imhoff tanks are four times greater than
designed. The situation in STP2 is critical since there is
neither pre-treatment nor regular sludge removal from
the tanks, which has led to an overload of the plant
and operation at only 20% of its design capacity.
At STP3, results show that the grit chamber is working
at 50% of total capacity. Results for the anaerobic ponds
indicate that current HRT reaches only 59% of the design
value. Sludge accumulation decreased the effective
volume of the pond, resulting in a decreased HRT. Conse-
quently, HLR and OVL on the working volume were
approximately twice the design values. In the case of
facultative pond, the current HRT was 70% of the
designed capacity and the HLR and OVL are exceeded
by 47% and 58% of the designed capacity, respectively.
Finally, the maturation ponds at STP3 are operating at
51% of their treatment capacity; therefore, HLR and
OVL are exceeded approximately twice the design
values. The plant was designed for easy O&M of the
grit chamber and screens. However, since the solids
and sand that accumulates in these chambers were not
removed regularly, the anaerobic ponds were not
working at full capacity. The situation improves for the
facultative ponds; however, lack of O&M on the matu-
ration ponds has also significantly reduced their
performance.
At VSTP1, the HRT was working at 90% of the total
designed capacity; thus HLR and OVL are only exceeded
by 13% and 11%, respectively. At VSTP2, the pre-treat-
ment is working at full capacity and the Imhoff tanks
operates at 94% of capacity, so that HLR and OVL are
only exceeded by 5% and 8%, respectively. According
to operational parameters, VSTPs are performing better
compared to STPs possibly due to community-based
management being more effective.
3.2.2. Treatment efficiency of studied plants
The performance of the TPs was found to vary greatly
(Table 3). STP3 is the TP with the highest removal rates
for TSS, BOD5 and FC despite estimated operational par-
ameters (Table 2). The comparatively good treatment
efficiency is attributed to the more advance treatment
and the dimension of the TP. STP3 includes a pre-treat-
ment step (grit chamber and screens) followed by sec-
ondary and tertiary levels of treatment. The presence
of a pre-treatment at STP3 is especially important
because of the relatively high TSS levels in influent
wastewater (Figure 1). Despite the comparatively good
performance, STP3 does not reach the theoretical
removal rate for which it was designed [5]. In addition,
one facultative pond and two maturation ponds at
STP3 were overgrown by Lemna minor, an aquatic
plant that can be used to remove nutrients and metals
if its growth rate and removal are controlled [16,17]. If
these control measures are not implemented, Lemna
minor can affect the quality of treated wastewater at
STP3 instead. Both TPs STP1 and STP2 perform poorly
 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 7

Table 3. Average removal efficiencies of the studied TPs. ripple effects on secondary treatment. For example, tech-
Treatment Level of TSS BOD5 FC (log nologies such as anaerobic filter need an acceptable
plants treatment (%) (%) units)
influent quality with relatively low TSS concentration to
STP1 Pre-treatment + primary 31 17 0
treatment (1 Imhoff tank) +
avoid clogging and more frequent maintenance.
secondary treatment (1 Based on the removal efficiencies of the studied TPs,
Anaerobic filter) the pond system provides the best performance, poss-
STP2 Primary treatment (2 Imhoff 14 3 0
tanks) ibly because of low maintenance requirements; such
STP3 Pre-treatment + primary 86 70 0.9 ponds are thus more appropriate in small towns with
treatment (2 Anaerobic ponds)
Secondary treatment (2 12 13 0.8 low management capacity.
Facultative ponds)
Tertiary treatment (4 Maturation 40 14 0
ponds) 3.2.3. Effluent quality
VSTP1 Primary treatment (Imhoff tank) 66 19 0 The characteristics of TP effluents are presented in
VSTP2 Pre-treatment + primary 27 12 0.4
treatment (2 Imhoff tanks)
Table 4. The results reveal that the Bolivian effluent
Expected Imhoff tank 40–50 25–35 n/a limits for TSS and BOD5 [9] were not met at any of the
removal Anaerobic filter 50–80 50–80 1–2 TPs. For COD, only the values for STP3 and VSTP2 were
efficiencies Anaerobic pond n/a 50–80 n/a
Facultative pond 90 75–95 2–3 under the limits [9]. Moreover, the concentrations of FC
Maturation pond 20–30 20–50 3–4 exceed the WHO limit for the reuse of wastewater in agri-
Note: Expected values for each type of technology [5] are provided for culture [18]. A large load of TSS and BOD5 into recipient
comparison.
waters can cause the deterioration of ecosystems,
depletion of dissolved oxygen and increase of sediments.
with low removal rates for TSS and BOD5 and no FC Moreover, the microbiological contamination of recipi-
removal. ent water represents a health risk. In the study area,
For VSTP1, there is a good removal of TSS, possibly surface waters downstream of the wastewater TPs are
because the absence of pre-treatment results in the commonly used for washing, bathing, watering
accumulation of solids at the inlet and these solids func- animals, fish breeding and irrigation. Residents down-
tion as a filter. However, the BOD5 removal does not stream STP2 and VSTP2 reported dermatological health
reach the values found in literature for this type of tech- issues after contact with contaminated water when
nology. In VSTP2, there is low removal for TSS and BOD5 washing clothes, as well as the poisoning and death of
compared to removal efficiencies found in the literature animals that had drunk surface water. Another major
review (Table 3). Even though VSTP2 has a pre-treatment issue is the direct reuse of treated wastewater for irriga-
step, the removal efficiencies do not reach theoretical tion, which is a common practice in Bolivia, especially in
values, possibly due to inefficient type of technology dry areas with low water availability such as the areas
concerning the Imhoff tank. Also it is important to note where STP3 and VSTP1 are located.
that low performance in this case might be because of
the wastewater with low contaminants concentration
3.3. Operation and management
that is entering into the TP, hence is not expected to
have high removal rates. Interviews with water associations and TP managers
None of the studied TPs provide an effective removal revealed important management issues that are, at
of FC (Table 3). Removal was only observed at STP3 and least partly, responsible for the low performance of
VSTP2. While ponds are expected to remove FC, removal wastewater TPs at the study sites. None of the five
was limited to 0.9 and 0.8 log units for the anaerobic water associations had access to design drawings,
ponds and the facultative ponds, respectively, instead manuals for O&M or other information related to the
of the expected 1–2 and 2–3 log units. The maturation implementation of the wastewater TPs. Only the
ponds were expected to remove 3–4 log units, but no manager of STP3 indicated that he had a manual for
removal was observed. Theoretical removal values are O&M, although it was considered too theoretical and
not reached possibly due to lack of frequent O&M in was therefore not used. He had received training from
the ponds. Removal of FC at VSTP2 was found to be the Ministry of Environment and Water and had a
0.4 log units. diagram explaining all the tasks and frequency for
Removal efficiencies at TPs with Imhoff tanks appear O&M of each process unit in the TP. There were no
to be independent of having a functioning pre-treat- records of flows and no monitoring of treatment effi-
ment. This result highlights the importance of good ciency at any of the TPs at the time of this study.
maintenance (e.g. desludging) of Imhoff tanks. In Additional information from the interviews is provided
addition, poor operation of the Imhoff tanks can have in Table 5.
8 C. COSSIO ET AL.

Table 4. Effluent quality as the mean value with standard deviation.

Parameters Units STP1 STP2 STP3 VSTP1 VSTP2 Bolivian norm WHO guidelines
TSS mg/L 156 ± 109 156 ± 61 97 ± 48 151 ± 254 122 ± 44 60 –
BOD5 mg/L 304 ± 159 342 ± 191 167 ± 27 218 ± 181 121 ± 78 80 –
COD mg/L 368 ± 201 508 ± 193 210 ± 30 350 ± 179 179 ± 125 250 –
FC CFU/100 mL 2E7 ± 7E6 2E7 ± 2E7 1E6 ± 5E4 6E6 ± 2E6 6E6 ± 4E6 – ≤1E3
The values in bold are the limits for comparison.
Note: For comparison – Bolivian norm and WHO guidelines.

Table 5. Interview information on the conditions and resources for operation, maintenance and administration of the TPs.
Aspects STP1 STP2 STP3 VSTP1 VSTP2
Training on O&M during No No No No No
implementation of the
project
Training after the No No Yes No No
implementation of the
project
O&M manual No No Yes No No
Operators in charge of O&M of 1 (3 days/month in 1 (3 times a 1 (full time) None 1 (President of the WA board, 2
the TP and the sewerage dry season and full week/half times a week)
network time in rainy season) time)
Administrative staff 2 3 2 0 0
Users involved in monthly or No No No Yes Yes
annually cleaning campaigns
Operational tasks None None Remove solids from grit None Remove solids from grit chamber
chamber and the surface every 3 days
of the ponds on a daily
basis.
Maintenance tasks Fixing sewer problems Desludging None Desludging Flushing out the sewer, removing
every 3 months every 2 years every 2 years solids from the grit chamber
and the surface of the tanks
every month
Safety clothes Yes Yes Yes No No
Availability of tools Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Annually supply costs (US$) 0 0 0 0 0
Annually maintenance costs 0 0 0 694 0
(US$)
Monthly salary of the operator 287 143 301 0 0
(US$)
Monthly revenue from tariffs 270 886 196 0 0
allocated to wastewater
management (US$)
Annual tariff per capita 0.70 1.73 0.34 0.17 0.58
allocated to wastewater
management (US$/inh/year)
Records in place (flows, No No No No No
analysis)
Reuse practices (water or No No Yes Yes Yes
sludge)

Based on the performance assessment and infor-
mation from interviews, the main factor leading to the
low performance of the TPs is lack of O&M. The inter-
view study indicates that this may be due to lack of
financial resources to hire operators with the technical
capacity to implement these tasks. For example, the
cost of operation according to standard recommen-
dations is approximately $1.23 inhabitant/year for an
Imhoff tank and $0.82 for stabilization ponds [19].
Only STP2 reaches this standard with $1.73 inhabitant/
year (Table 5). This conclusion is consistent with other
studies which show that one of the main reasons for
TP problems in developing countries is lack of financial
resources for O&M [20]. However, even STP2 still lacks
adequate O&M due to lack of expertise and issues
related to the design of the Imhoff tank infrastructure.
No costs related to supplies and maintenance beyond
salaries for operators are allocated at any of the TPs.
The monthly amount collected from tariffs for waste-
water services covers operator’s salary only for STP2,
whereas costs for the other TPs are subsidized by
water tariffs.
Operational parameters at VSTPs were found to be
better since the O&M are implemented more fre-
quently by the board of the Water Associations in
charge of these tasks. Users of VSTPs are also more
involved in the O&M of the TP since they perform
these tasks themselves on a rotating basis. In addition,
this study found that the users of VSTPs were more
willing to pay extra fees in comparison with users
 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 9

from STPs. For example, even though users of VSTP1 4. Improving wastewater treatment small
do not pay monthly tariffs for the O&M, they contrib- towns
ute an extra fee every two years for the cleaning of
The study presented here supports that improving
the tank. The results of this study indicate that a com-
wastewater treatment in small town requires the selec-
munity-based maintenance approach is more appropri-
tion of adequate treatment technologies and sufficient
ate for STPs with relatively simple process technologies.
maintenance, as well as the education of users.
However, there is a lack of training and capacity devel-
The selection of the type of technology for waste-
opment in these small towns regarding complex O&M
water treatment which can meet treatment standards
tasks and monitoring, which may limit the performance
and allow for adequate O&M is one of the most impor-
of the TPs and/or the potential to convert Imhoff tanks
tant factors for a good performance in developing
to more efficient systems, such as upflow anaerobic
countries [21,22]. Stabilization ponds are often con-
sludge blanket (UASB) technology.
sidered the most suitable technologies for developing
Operators stated that cleaning blockages in the col-
countries [23], because the requirements for O&M are
lection system was their priority, especially in rainy
relatively low [24]. However, land requirement and
season, rather than O&M of the TPs. There is a lack of
smell issues for the surrounding population can be a
awareness in the towns regarding the solids discharged
constraint. Imhoff tanks, on the other hand, while
into the pipes. Water boards that manage VSTPs organize
being compact in size, also require regular desludging,
visits to the houses to supervise the household connec-
which makes them difficult to operate and maintain
tions and to request each house to implement grids in
[25]. This study confirms the difficulties in maintaining
the inspection boxes to avoid solids entering the collec-
proper functioning of Imhoff tanks. Problems operating
tion system. In the case of STPs, there is a lack of regu-
Imhoff tanks make them inefficient for the removal of
lations regarding connections of commercial places,
TSS and BOD5. Removal of the sludge from the digester
such as restaurants, markets and slaughterhouses, and
chamber is difficult to perform at the frequency speci-
implementation of source control for solids and oil and
fied in the design, especially with the resources avail-
grease.
able in situ (technical expertise and equipment). In
In general, operational tasks are not performed at
other parts of Central America, this has led to the con-
the frequency that is required for the treatment tech-
version of these infrastructures into UASB by inverting
nologies in the STPs. For instance, there is no frequent
the flow [26]. In addition, treatment would be
desludging of Imhoff tanks and stabilization ponds.
improved by a pre-treatment to remove solids owing
Solids and sands are not removed from the grit
to the characteristics of the wastewater. The design
chambers and screen bars or from the surface of
should also enable operators to perform maintenance
Imhoff tanks and stabilization ponds. As a result, the
tasks.
STPs have poor operational parameters. There is no
Wastewater management should be performed by a
monitoring of treatment efficiency and therefore the
local organization, which might be a part of the munici-
Water Associations and Municipalities do not know
pality or the local water association. The organization
that their TPs are performing poorly. Therefore, they
should include an economic framework to manage and
do not feel the need for improvement, such as
cover O&M costs, as well as to enable the employment
hiring skilled operators or even implementing deslud-
of personnel with sufficient technical capacity to
ging or cleaning. At the time of the study, only STP3
perform required tasks. Such an organization is essential
had hired a full-time operator for the TP. However,
to ensure that required O&M tasks are performed. The
budgeting for and implementing complex tasks such
organization should also provide user education to
as desludging of the ponds, maintaining the slopes
reduce the amount of solids in the pipes and at the
of the ponds and removing solids from the surface
TPs. Grease traps should be implemented, especially at
of the ponds were not performed.
restaurants and slaughterhouses. Education of users
Lack of technical expertise even at municipal level is
should also include the importance of wastewater treat-
one of the biggest limitations for the management of
ment in order to motivate the costs of the treatment.
wastewater TPs. Skilled staff and operators with knowl-
edge and expertise on O&M of the technologies
implemented in the TPs of the study are missing. Oper-
5. Conclusions
ators have experience with simple tasks or plumbing,
but not on how to monitor the efficiency of TPs in Wastewater treatment in small towns was found to be a
order to implement preventive maintenance or correc- challenge, resulting in poor operational performance and
tion action to achieve acceptable performance. the contamination of receiving waters. STP3, which uses
10 C. COSSIO ET AL.
a set of anaerobic, facultative and aerobic ponds, was
found to effectively remove both TSS and BOD5. Imhoff
tanks, which are used with or without pre-treatment at
the other TPs, were not found to be effective for the
removal of both TSS and BOD5. None of the TPs could
effectively remove FCs. As a result, TP effluents do not
meet the Bolivian discharge limits for TSS and BOD5,
and FC concentrations exceed the limit value established
by WHO for the reuse of wastewater in agriculture.
This study confirms that TPs in small towns are not per-
forming as designed, mainly due to lack of adequate and
frequent O&M performed by staff with technical expertise
on the management of the implemented technologies.
This is particularly apparent for the TPs with Imhoff
tanks, which are often poorly designed for desludging
and where corrective action often requires more technical
knowledge once the system functions inefficiently.
Design of wastewater TPs for small towns needs to con-
sider details for the capacity of the operators to perform
these tasks. In addition, low availability of financial
resources to cover operational and monitoring costs is a
major constraint for achieving improved performance.
Despite these constraints, community-based manage-
ment appears to be efficient with users of VSTPs
showing higher level of responsibility and awareness on
the need for an adequate wastewater treatment.
When assessing the management of TPs in small towns,
it is important to note that availability of information is one
of the biggest limitations in developing countries, particu-
larly in rural areas. Operators, planners and decision-
makers need more information regarding performance
of small systems in situ so that the implementation of
future systems can be adapted appropriately. Monitoring
of existing TPs also needs to be improved so that local
authorities can take appropriate actions to reduce risks
from underperforming treatment plants.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the Centro de
Aguas y Saneamiento Ambiental (CASA) at the Universidad
Mayor de San Simón in Bolivia, and also, the cooperation of
the Water Associations of Tiraque, Virvini, Tarata, Colomi and
Chamoco, as well as to the Municipalities of Tiraque, Tarata
and Colomi.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This study was funded by the Swedish International Develop-
ment Cooperation Agency (Styrelsen för Internationellt
Utvecklingssamarbete) (SIDA) as part of the bilateral research
cooperation on Integrated Water Resource Management.
ORCID
Claudia Cossio http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7653-4936
Jennifer McConville http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0373-685X
Sebastien Rauch http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3636-0684
Britt-Marie Wilén http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6155-7759
References
[1] UN. Sustainable Development Goal 6 [Internet]. New York
(NY): Sustainable development knowledge platform; 2016
[cited December 2016]. Available from: https://
sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6
[2] UNEP, UN Habitat. Sick Water? The central role of waste-
water management in sustainable development.
Norway: GRID-Arendal; 2010.
[3] Malik OA, Hsu A, Johnson LA, et al. A global indicator of
wastewater treatment to inform the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Environ Sci Policy.
2015;48:172–185 .
[4] Ujang Z, Buckley C. Water and wastewater in developing
countries: present reality and strategy for the future.
Water Sci Technol. 2002;46(9):1–9.
[5] Massoud MA, Tarhini A, Nasr JA. Decentralized approaches
to wastewater treatment and management: applicability
in developing countries. J Environ Manage. 2009;90:652–
659.
[6] Verbyla ME, Oakley SM, Mihelcic JR. Wastewater infrastruc-
ture for small cities in an urbanizing world: integrating
protection of human health and the environment with
resource recovery and food security. Environ Sci
Technol. 2013;47:3598–3605.
[7] Noyola A, Padilla-Rivera A, Morgan-Sagastume JM, et al.
Typology of municipal wastewater treatment technol-
ogies in Latin America. CLEAN Soil Air Water. 2012;40
(9):926–932.
[8] MMAyA. Sistematización sobre tratamiento y reúso de
aguas residuales [Sytematization on wastewater treat-
ment and reuse]. La Paz: GIZ. 2013. Spanish.
[9] MMAyA. Reglamento en materia de contaminación
hídrica [Regulation on water pollution]. La Paz; 1995.
Spanish.
[10] Cornejo P. Environmental sustainability of wastewater
treatment plants integrated with resource recovery: the
impact of context and scale [dissertation]. Tampa:
University of South Florida at Tampa; 2015.
[11] APHA, AWWA, WEF. Standard methods for the examin-
ation of water and wastewater. 20th ed. Washington
(DC): American Public Health Association; 1999.
[12] Matos R, Ashley R, Cardoso A, et al. Performance indicators
for wastewater services. Spain: IWA Publishing; 2003.
[13] Balmér P, Hellström D. Performance indicators for waste-
water treatment plants. Water Sci Technol. 2012;65
(7):1304–1310.
[14] Quadros S, Rosa MJ, Alegre H, et al. A performance indi-
cators system for urban wastewater treatment plants.
Water Sci Technol. 2010;62(10):2398–2407.

[15] Metcalf & Eddy, AECOM. Wastewater engineering: treat-
ment and resource recovery. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill Education; 2014.
[16] Priya A, Avishek K, Pathak G. Assessing the potentials of
Lemna minor in the treatment of domestic wastewater
at pilot scale. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184:4301–4307.
[17] Axtell NR, Sternberg SPK, Claussen K. Lead and nickel
removal using Microspora and Lemna minor. Bioresour
Technol. 2003;89:41–48.
[18] WHO. Guidelines for the safe use of wastewater, excreta
and greywater. Vol. 2, Wastewater use in agriculture.
France: WHO Press; 2006.
[19] Wagner W. Recomendaciones para la elección de plantas
de tratamiento de agua residual aptas en Bolivia
[Recommendations to select suitable wastewater treat-
ment plants in Bolivia]. La Paz: ANESAPA, GTZ; 2010.
Spanish.
[20] Ceric A, Vucijak B. Willingness to pay for wastewater col-
lection and treatment services in B&h. Materia Socio-
Medica. 2011:38–42.
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY 11
[21] Singhirunnusorn W, Stenstrom MK. Appropriate waste-
water treatment systems for developing countries: criteria
and indictor assessment in Thailand. Water Sci Technol.
2009;59:1873–1884.
[22] Brissaud F. Low technology systems for wastewater treat-
ment: perspectives. Water Sci Technol. 2007;55(7):1–9.
[23] Mara D. Domestic wastewater treatment in developing
countries. London: Earthscan; 2003.
[24] Verbyla ME, Iriarte MM, Mercado Guzmán A, et al.
Pathogens and fecal indicators in waste stabilization
pond systems with direct reuse for irrigation: fate and
transport in water, soil and crops. Sci Total Environ.
2016;551-552:429–437.
[25] Gutterer B, Sasse L, Panzerbieter T, et al. Decentralised
wastewater treatment systems (DEWATS) and sanitation
in developing countries. Berlin: WEDC; 2009.
[26] Oakley S, Salguero L. Tratamiento de aguas residuales
domésticas en centroamérica [Domestic wastewater treat-
ment in Central America]. USAID, CCAD: RIMISP; 2011.
Spanish.