A History of “Conventional Wastewater Treatment” in

A History of “Conventional Wastewater Treatment” in

Response to New Water Quality Standards

Scott Kyser, PEJoel Peck

MPCA

Why is a millennial, who is not a historian, presenting about history at

a water conference?

KIDS THESE DAYS….

I work at the MPCA as a permitting engineer in the effluent limits unit

New effluent permit limits often can require treatment plant upgrades

Upgrading a WWTP is very expensive

Detroit Lakes WWTP Upgrade

ProposedMembrane Bio-Reactor Plant

$30 Million in Capital Costs

CurrentRIBs, Spray Irrigation, Stabilizing & Aerated Ponds,

Trickling filters, Chemical Precipitation, Dual Media Filters

(Frankenstein plant, Not Meeting Effluent Limits)

0100200300400500600700800900

< 10 10 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 35 35 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 > 200

HouseholdCount

Annual Household Income ($1000)

Detroit Lakes Household Income Distribution

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

< 10 10 to 15 15 to 25 25 to 35 35 to 50 50 to 75 75 to 100 100 to 150 150 to 200 > 200

WW Costs as Percent

of Household

Income

Annual Household Income ($1000)

Current ($30/month)

Projected ($60/month)

You are sitting across from a Detroit Lakes elected official and you tell them DL has a new effluent limit.

They know it will cost about $30 million in wastewater upgrades to comply with that limit.

The DL elected official asks you:

• Where did these new effluent limits come from?• Why is the MPCA always moving the goalpost?

What MPCA typically brings up:

• Environmental improvements from WWTP upgrades• The legality of the water quality standard in question• What the effluent limit calculation entailed• The likely availability of state funding for wastewater

improvements• New regulatory certainty bill• Permitting and compliance time lines• Affordability indices and variance eligibility

What MPCA doesn’t bring up:

Why are wastewater treatment requirements always changing?

Why are wastewater treatment requirements

always changing?

WWTPs in 1858 Permitted Discharge Locations in 2017

What happened to WWTP between 1858

and 2017?

Over time the accepted definition of ‘conventional wastewater treatment’

has progressed

WWTP in 1937 Main Metro Plant, Today

The definition of ‘conventional wastewater treatment’ is:

• Dependent on who you ask • Cholera survivor• Professor of Environmental Engineering• Writers of 1972 version of Sec 304d of Clean Water Act• Residential wastewater rate payer

• Dependent on when you ask • 1858 • 1972• 2017

Progress (Verb): Development towards an improved or more advanced

condition

Over time the generally accepted definition of

‘conventional wastewater treatment’ has developed towards an improved and more advanced condition

To tell this story we need to explain….

• Wastewater Permit Effluent Limits• Surface Water Quality Standards• How Standards relate to permit limits• How Surface Water Quality Standards are developed• How Surface Water Quality Standards have progressed over time• How our understanding of surface water quality standards

ultimately defines “conventional wastewater treatment”

Effluent Limits Ultimately Dictate WWTP Design

Surface Water Quality

Standards

TechnologyBasedWWTP

Standards

WWTPPermit

EffluentLimits

Type &Complexity of WWTP

TBELWWTP

Cost

WWTP Has Reasonable Potential To Cause or

Contribute to an Exceedance of Surface

Water Quality Standards

WQBEL

Binding and Enforceable Legal Contract That Must*

Be Complied With

What are surface water quality standards?

A history of conventional wastewater treatment in MN: The Nitrogen story

Potential Types of Nitrogen in a Municipal WWTP Discharge

NitrificationDenitrification

3 Main Pathways WWTP Nitrogen Affects Receiving Waters

1. Ammonia (Nitrogenous) biochemical oxygen demand2. Ammonia Toxicity to aquatic life3. Nitrate Toxicity to aquatic life

#1 Ammonia (Nitrogenous) Biochemical Oxygen Demand

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Long PrairieRiver DO(mg/L)

River Mile

With Ammonia TreatmentWithout Ammonia TreatmentDO Standard

Long Prairie WWTPs

#2 Ammonia Aquatic Life Toxicity

Freshwater Mussel, Villosa iris

#3 Nitrate Aquatic Life Toxicity

4.9 mg/L Chronic Aquatic Life Nitrate

Standard

1945

WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT

Minnesota Ammonia Surface Water Quality Standards

2 mg/L Ammonia –Warm Water Fisheries

National and Minnesota Ammonia Surface Water Quality Standards

1. Standards reflect the best available science at the time!!

2. No MN or national aquatic life nitrate criteria

MinnesotaAmmonia

Criteria

NationalAmmonia

Criteria

1945

WATER POLLUTION

CONTROL ACT

1997#3

1976

NUMERIC CRITERIA

1999#4

1984#2

2013#5

1979#1

1972

CLEAN WATER

ACT

Primary Settling

Sewage

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

Secondary Settling

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

AnoxicZone

Secondary Settling

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

Secondary Settling

No Treatment No Treatment

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

Nitrifying Activated

Sludge

DenitrifyingActivated

Sludge

Pre-1945

1945 - 1973

1973 - 1981

1981 - Now

Future

cBOD5 100 mg/L

NH3 NANO3 NA

cBOD5 25 mg/L

NH3 NANO3 NA

cBOD5 5 mg/L

NH3 < 5 mg/LNO3 NA

cBOD5 5 mg/L

NH3 0 mg/LNO3 < 5mg/L

My Eras of Nitrogen Conventional WWTP in MN

Do the Nitrogen eras I defined make sense?

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

Secondary Settling

Nitrifying Activated

Sludge1981 - Now

My nitrifying era is in reference to the 1981 Minnesota ammonia standard update.

Engineers had a surprisingly advanced understanding of nitrifying activated sludge

design as far back as the 1910’s.

Source: Bartow and Mohlman (1917) adapted figure from Metcalf and Eddy, 1st Edition (1922)

What about future eras of nitrogen treatment?

Point: Denitrification is the future because MN doesn’t have a nitrate aquatic life standard and operating a denitrifying WWTP is difficult and costly.

Counterpoint: Denitrification is the present because engineers have known how to design WWTPs to treat nitrate using denitrification since the 1960’s and science knows nitrate is toxic to aquatic life.

Primary Settling

Activated Sludge

AnoxicZone

Secondary Settling

DenitrifyingActivated

SludgeFuture

Why are wastewater treatment requirements

always changing?

Over time the generally accepted definition of

‘conventional wastewater treatment’ has developed towards an improved and more advanced condition

“Conventional Wastewater Treatment” has progressed

• Environmental Science has progressed• Water quality Protections have progressed• WWTP design has progressed• WWTP performance has progressed• Wastewater treatment is still very expensive

The storyline of WWTP and nitrogen is similar to:

• Suspended Solids • Pathogen Reduction• Disinfection Residual Control • Mercury• Phosphorus• cBOD5

• Estrogenic compounds• Antibiotic resistance genes• …..

Evidence for an end to progress?

Some pollutants possess unique chemistries that make them difficult and/or unaffordable to treat

Final Thoughts

• Did I convince you that wastewater treatment has progressed over time?

• Do you think we will see progress continue into the future?

• What would that progress look like?

Border Battle Bonus Bout:WWTP Policy TKO

Mercury Water Quality Standards

Mercury Permitting in Minnesota

• All 16 municipal facilities in Superior Basin will receive Hg limits

• Several municipal WWTPs have demonstrated* compliance with lake superior Hg water quality standard

Mercury in WWTP Effluent

Solid Particle

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Total Hg Dissolved Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

0.45 µM Filter

0.1

1

10

100

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Total Hg (ng/L)

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

All Municipal Effluent Total Hg versus Grab TSS (n=514)

Unique Effluent Data Point

7052 Mo. Avg. Limit

Hg Removal Treatment Theory

Solid Particle

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Total Hg Dissolved Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Hg

Filtration or Coagulation & Flocculation

Technologies to minimize TSS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

J-16 A-16 S-16 O-16 N-16 D-16 J-17 F-17 M-17 A-17 M-17 J-17 J-17

Hg(ng/L)

WLSSD Effluent Mercury

DissolvedParticulate

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

J-15 A-15 J-15 O-15 F-16 M-16 A-16 D-16 M-17 J-17

TSS (mg/L)

WLSSD Dual Media FiltersGolden Plump MBR

What is a variance?

A temporary modification of a water quality standard based on

substantial and widespread economic hardship

Mercury Policy in Minnesota

• Never adopted into statute rule saying that treating Hg would cause statewide substantial and widespread economic hardship

• Only one facility has applied and received a variance for mercury

Mercury Treatment in Wisconsin

Mercury Treatment in Wisconsin

Variances and Hg Treatment in WI

• Every facility with a mercury limit in WI presumptively receives a variance from their effluent limit

• No one is required to investigate current mercury treatment technologies*

• No one is required to spend money to upgrade their mercury treatment technologies*

*At this time

Minnesota• Hg Compliance possible with

particle control*

• Treatment affordable**

• Hg Variances granted individually by merit

• 2017 Engineering Technology

Wisconsin• Compliance with Hg limits not

possible for municipals

• Treatment unaffordable by statute

• Hg Variances granted presumptively statewide

• Pre-1997 Engineering Technology***

MN vs WI Mercury Policy

• Which state do you think has the right policy?

Clean Water Funding and Community Needs in Minnesota

Baishali Bakshi, Joel Peck, and Casey ScottMinnesota Pollution Control Agency

October 17, 20171

Wastewater in Minnesota: Lenses

Science: Basing water quality standards on best available science

Engineering: Design and innovation to achieve policy goals

Economics: Bridging the gaps between needs, goals, costs and benefits

2

Goals of Data Analysis Project• Funding Process

• Communities initiate application for funds• Projects are scored based on environmental criteria• Projects are funded based on a combination of factors

• Needs • Community need is surveyed every other year: Wastewater

Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS) survey

• Analysis will explore connections between funded projects and community characteristics

3

Outline of Talk• Key aspects of wastewater treatment: funding sources, costs• Public Facilities Authority (PFA) Funding Program• Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS)• Leveraging data to link funding and community needs• Analysis questions• Results• Inferences

4

5

Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Sources

6

Construction and Loan Era (1987)

State & Federal Ratepayer

10%

WWTP Funding Sources (2017)

State & Federal Ratepayer

67%

33%

90%

4.2 Billion in Wastewater

InfrastructureNeed

Statewide!!-2016 MPCA Wastewater Survey

$0

$300

$600

$900

$1,200

$1,500

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Annual SewerCharge

($)

Rank (n=703)

Variation in Residential Wastewater Costs in Minnesota

7

$0

$300

$600

$900

$1,200

$1,500

10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000

2016 Annual WW

Cost per Household

($)

Community Size (n=703)

Household wastewater costs tend to decrease with community size

8

Affordability: Across years and communities

1.73

1.42

1.04

0.83 0.79

0.92 0.91

< $25,000 $25,000 TO $34,999

$35,000 TO $44,999

$45,000 TO $54,999

$55,000 TO $64,999

$65,000 TO $74,999

> 75,000

ANN

UAL

SEW

ER C

HARG

E AS

%M

HI

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ACROSS MN CITIES

SEWER CHARGE AS %MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2007-2017

2.02

1.04

0.70

0.30

< $30,000 $30,000 TO $49,999

$60,000 TO $74,999

>75000

SEW

ER C

HARG

E AS

%M

HI

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME ACROSS MN CITIES

SEWER CHARGE AS %MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME-2016

9

PFA and MPCA

The Public Facilities Authority

10

Collection and treatment projects vary in cost and scale

11

Types of Projects by Funding and Year

PFA and MPCA 12

PFA: Programs and Funding DetailsPFA Funding by Program-2016

Clean Water Legacy

Clean Water SRF

WIF

Others

27%

4%

6%

63%

13

PFA: Water Categories and Funding DetailsPFA Funding by Water Category-2016

Wastewater Stormwater

96%

4%

14

MN Wastewater Funding

68%

32%

2016 Water Funding

Metro Non-Metro

22

24

20

21

22

23

24

25

Metro Non-Metro

$s Per

Capita

2016 Funding Per Capita

15

Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Survey (WINS)

Facilities

• Number of facilities in 2013: 802

• Average age of facilities: 22 years

Sewer Lines

42%

29%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

<30 years 30-50 years >50 years

Age of Sewer Lines in Average Community

16

Links: Funding and Communities

• Economic factors: Population, Income, Wastewater costs

• Environmental factors: The Project Priority List• Infrastructure factors: Age of sewer systems, Miles of

sewer systems

17

Analysis Questions• How is allocation distributed across communities?

• Size: Population, Population Density, Number of households

• Wastewater facility features: Flow capacity, Miles of SS, age of sewer lines

• Ability to pay: Median household income, monthly sewer charges

18

Links Between Funding and Needs • PFA: Provides Clean Water Funding to MN wastewater

communities - funding data by community• WINS: Survey of Wastewater Plants - data on

community characteristics• We combine these two datasets and supplement it

with census variables to explore links between funding and community characteristics to provide information to decision-makers

19

Small communities and larger collection systems get more money

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) -182.09 44.24 -4.12 4.92e-05 ***Pop -3.17 0.97 -3.26 0.0013 ** Income -0.02 0.07 -0.29 0.77Density 0.13 0.14 0.95 0.34SS.miles 7.92 2.33 3.4 0.0008 ***Flow -5.71 15.07 -0.38 0.71MthSewerCharge 0.85 2.13 0.4 0.69SSover50 -0.1 0.27 -0.36 0.72SSless30 0.06 0.24 0.23 0.82FY 0.09 0.02 4.12 4.92e-05 ***

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Dependent variable: PFA Allocation by Recipient and Year for 2007-2017

Sample: All funded cities including those served by MCES, 2007-2017

Small communities and larger collection systems get more money

Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 29.93 26.39 1.13 0.26Pop -3.42 0.62 -5.56 6.60e-08 ***Income -0.01 0.03 -0.24 0.81Density 0.17 0.08 2.18 0.03 *SS.miles 5.94 1.43 4.16 4.38e-05 ***Flow 25.15 17.56 1.43 0.15 MthSewerCharge 0.81 1.17 0.69 0.49 SSover50 0.07 0.14 0.49 0.63SSless30 0.08 0.12 0.61 0.54 FY -0.02 0.01 -1.14 0.26

Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

Dependent variable: PFA Allocation by Recipient and Year for 2007-2017

Sample: All funded cities excluding those served by MCES, 2007-2017

22

Inferences From Analysis• More funding is going to large number of small

communities• More funding is going to dense communities and

areas with large amounts of sanitary sewer pipes• These trends are present in and out of the Metro area

23

Acknowledgments• Bill Cole, Bill Dunn, Jeff Freeman, Scott Kyser

For feedback, insights and support that added clarity and made this project more interesting.

24

Nanoselenium Sponge

Technology for Mercury

Removal from Water

John Brockgreitens, Snober Ahmed

Dr. Abdennour Abbas*

Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering

University of Minnesota Twin Cities

* [email protected]

Mercury in Minnesota

Up to 600,000 US children born/year with cord blood Hg > 5.8

μg Hg.L-1, (8% of newborns in northern MN)

Loss of IQ Lost of productivity: $8.7 billion/year

42% of water bodies on Minnesota’s “Impaired Waters List”

are impaired due to mercury

• Image obtained from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) (pca.state.mn.us), data from MPCA 2012 Impaired waters list• Trasande L et al., Environmental Health Perspectives (2005) 113 (5): 590 • McCann, Patricia. "Mercury levels in blood from newborns in the Lake Superior basin." Minnesota Department of Health, St. Paul (2011).

1

Bioaccumulation of Mercury

• Images obtained from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Minnesota Department of Health

Statewide fish consumption guidelines have been put in place in response to mercury accumulation in fish.

2

Current Technologies

• Limited removal rate (90%)

• Pre-treatment

• oxidation and pH

• Capital investment

• Reversible interaction

• Contact time

• >100 ppt

Sulfur Activated Carbon

3

There is no technology capable of

removing Hg at 10 ppt

Mercury toxicity

• http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1gp1• Image generated in Pymol

The Se-Hg interaction is one million times stronger than the S-Hg interaction

Selenoproteins

4

SeSe

Hg+2

http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1gp1

Why is the nanoscale (10-9 m) important?

At the nano-scale properties of materials depend on their size, morphology and distribution.

1 cm3 CubeTotal

surface area= 6 cm2

All 1nm cube Total surface

area= 6000 m2

(1 million times)

5

Mercury capturing spongeA polyurethane (PU) sponge was used as a

matrix for particle growth due to its chemical functionality, durability and availability.

6

NanoSe Sponge: Mercury Capture

US Patent Pending No. 62/240,764,

Ahmed et al., Advanced functional Materials, 2, 2017, 1-10

Nanoselenium (nSe) sponge water capable of removing 10 mg.L-1 of mercury down to

undetectable levels (< 0.2 ng.L-1).

7

CharacterizationSEM

EDX

• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-109

Characterization and Optimization


624 mg/g

Langmuir Isotherm: Loading Capacity

10

What does this mean?Lake Como, Saint Paul

11

If this lake was contaminated with the EPA limit of

mercury (2 ppb). A sponge the size of a basketball

would be needed to clean the lake.

Comparison with other Adsorbents

• Johnson et. Al., Environmental Science & Technology, 2008. 42, 5772-5778.

Unstabilized SeNPnSe sponge

11

Adsorption Kinetics


12• Ahmed et.al., Advanced Functional Materials, (2017), 2, 1-10

Contact time: 5 s - 5 min

PU

nSe


13


The nSe sponge does not retain major water nutrients.

-No background ion retention

-Limited impact on natural systems

Real World Samples-Lake Water


Zn 69%Fe 52% Cu 78%

Ag 96% Ni 90%Cr 43%Au 25%

Cd 73% Pb 57%As 23%

Real World Samples-Wastewater

Safety Evaluation of nSe sponge


Viability test on human fibroblast cells.

-Non-toxic at seleniumlevels below 0.14 mg.L-1

Disposal


MethodLeached [Hg]

(mg.L-1) Leached [Se]

(mg.L-1)

TCLP 0.00229Limit: 0.2

0.5Limit: 1

SPLP 0.00180Limit: 0.04

0.5Limit: 0.8

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)- Simulates leaching in a landfill

Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP)-Simulates leaching in a natural environment

18

Current work: Scaled Synthesis

1) Optimization of synthesis using minimal materials 2) Use of the large materials in conventional filter systems3) Further safety evaluation

-Avoid creating a new problem while solving an old one

19

Application for other nanomaterials

21

Thank You

Sponge SynthesisHypothetical mechanism for sponge-assisted growth of selenium nanoparticles

• Ahmed et.al., Nanotechnology 27 (2016) 465601 (10pp).• Kumar et.al., Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 416 (2014) 119–123 8

Antimicrobial Properties

16

Sponge antimicrobial testing with gram positive bacteria, gram negative bacteria, yeast and mold.

-Prevention of biofouling

Deployment

Industrial waste water

Applications

Flue gases

Surface water e.g. lakes

nSeFilter sponge

20

10-17-2017 1

Rapid Removal of Phosphorus from Water Using a NanoIron Sponge

Fatemeh Heidari, John Brockgreitens, and Dr. Abdennour Abbas

Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering

This presentation contains confidential and proprietary information that should not be disclosed to a third party or used without the formal consent of the

University of Minnesota

2

Phosphorus

Total tourism losses in the U.S.: nearly $47 million annually

200 dead zones in the U.S alone and nearly 500 dead zones globally.

In 2016, the U.S Centers for Disease Control and Prevention launched an initiative on harmful algal blooms focused on HABs’ reporting and prevention.

Global phosphate reserves are limited, up to 60 % of current resource base would be extracted by 2100

https://www.cdc.gov/habs/ohhabs.htmlGlobal Environmental Change 20 (2010) 428–439

Fishing industry losses in the U.S: more than $38 million a year

• Carbon

• Phosphorous

• Nitrogen

3ACS central science 2.5 (2016): 270.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Low level of Carbon


Low level of Carbon


Low level of Carbon

Cyanobacteria Control

• Carbon

• Phosphorous

• Nitrogen


Nitrogen and Carbon

Nitrogen and Carbon

Phosphorus

Nitrogen and Carbon

Phosphorus

Cyanobacteria Control

Phosphorus is the limiting nutrient

Phosphorous & Nitrogen Cycle


Phosphorus Limit in Water bodies

1.0 mg/L in streams or effluent0.1 mg/L within a lake or reservoir

Highly eutrophicLower than 10 ppb (0.010 mg/L): No algal bloom

6

Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data 2016, 62, (1), 226-235Journal of Macromolecular Science, Part A 2014, 51, (6), 538-545Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Water Quality #Impaired Waters #3.12 ,July 2007

Current Technologies


Chemical precipitationIon exchange Biological methodsAdsorption

No technology has reached to removal capacity <10 ppb (0.010 mg/mL)

Removal capacityInitial pH dependencyLow adsorption capacityLow desorption capacityHigh capital investment

Limitations2015: SolarBee, $1.7 million to clean the Lake Jordan (NC)

2017: ResMix (WEARS Australia), $4.87 million

8

DurabilityChemical and

thermal resistanceLow cost FlexibilityPorous structure

Polyurethane Sponge NanoIron Sponge

Phosphorus removal

10 mg/L P

Undetectable P Level (<0.002 mg/L)

NanoIron Sponge

Advanced Functional Materials 2017, 27, (17).Journal of applied polymer science 2005, 97, (1), 366-376.Angewandte Chemie International Edition 2013, 52, (36), 9422-9441.

EDX

9

10 µm

1 µm

SEM

Effect of Contact Time and Adsorption Kinetics

10

11

Effect of pH on P Adsorption

12

3 times higher than commercially available technologies

Loading Capacity: 120 mg/g

West Virginia ochre1 31.97

Shell sand2 0.8 - 8.0

Iron-coated sand3 27.4

Acid mine drainage flocs – Lime treated4 0.73

Zeolite5 1

Red Muds6 25

Nano-Iron Sponge 120

1. Water Research 42.13 (2008): 3275-3284.2. Ecological engineering 25.2 (2005): 168-182.3. Journal of environmental quality 41.3 (2012): 636-646.4. Journal of Soils and Sediments 13.2 (2013): 336-343.

5. Drizo, A. (1998) Phosphate and Ammonium Removal from Waste Water, Using Constructed Wetland Systems. PhD Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

6. Journal of Environmental Protection 7.12 (2016): 1835. 13

Adsorption Capacity (mgP/g)

14

Cyanobacteria (Anabaena variabilis)

Antimicrobial Activity

15

Industrial and Environmental Application

16Treated with NanoFe Sponge Untreated

Lake water spiked with 1.5 mg/L phosphorus

Recovery: over 90% of

phosphorus can be recovered

from the sponge

Lake Water Treatment

Thank You!

17

Any Questions?

Documents

A History of “Conventional Wastewater Treatment” in