Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Decentralized Approaches To Wastewater Treatment
Decentralized Approaches To Wastewater Treatment
Department of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, P.O. Box 11-0236, Bliss Street, Beirut, Lebanon
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 15 August 2007
Received in revised form 31 May 2008
Accepted 2 July 2008
Available online 12 August 2008
Providing reliable and affordable wastewater treatment in rural areas is a challenge in many parts of the
world, particularly in developing countries. The problems and limitations of the centralized approaches
for wastewater treatment are progressively surfacing. Centralized wastewater collection and treatment
systems are costly to build and operate, especially in areas with low population densities and dispersed
households. Developing countries lack both the funding to construct centralized facilities and the
technical expertise to manage and operate them. Alternatively, the decentralized approach for wastewater treatment which employs a combination of onsite and/or cluster systems is gaining more attention. Such an approach allows for exibility in management, and simple as well as complex technologies
are available. The decentralized system is not only a long-term solution for small communities but is
more reliable and cost effective. This paper presents a review of the various decentralized approaches to
wastewater treatment and management. A discussion as to their applicability in developing countries,
primarily in rural areas, and challenges faced is emphasized all through the paper. While there are many
impediments and challenges towards wastewater management in developing countries, these can be
overcome by suitable planning and policy implementation. Understanding the receiving environment is
crucial for technology selection and should be accomplished by conducting a comprehensive site evaluation process. Centralized management of the decentralized wastewater treatment systems is essential
to ensure they are inspected and maintained regularly. Management strategies should be site specic
accounting for social, cultural, environmental and economic conditions in the target area.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Wastewater
Decentralized management
Applicability
Developing countries
1. Introduction
Globally, billions of people lack access to safe water and
adequate sanitation (WHO, 2002; Ho, 2003). About 40 percent of
the worlds population lacks basic sanitation and sanitation
coverage is commonly much lower in rural areas than in urban
areas (WHO, 2002). Estimates of the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council
indicate that 25 percent of the developing country urban dwellers
lack access to sanitation services with a much higher percentage for
the rural populations of developing countries reaching up to 82
percent (CNES, 2003). The lack of adequate sanitation services leads
to several diseases (Fig. 1). The WHO estimates that 2.1 million
people die annually from diarrheal diseases (WHO, 2002). Worldwide, signicant development has been made in wastewater
treatment for urban areas as compared to rural areas which lag far
behind. Wastewater treatment plants represent one of the major
Bilharzis
200
Trachoma
500
Hookworm
800
Diarrhea
875
Ascariasis
653
for the cluster systems, yet they are comparatively shorter than
those used for the conventional centralized systems. Cluster
systems are favorable in areas that are more densely populated or
that have poor soil conditions and adverse topography. Generally,
a cluster system may be considered as a centralized system if
compared to the onsite system. However, a central wastewater
treatment plant is more centralized than a cluster system (USEPA,
2004).
900
200
400
600
800
1000
Reducing pressure on
scarce water resources
Possibility of gradual
development and
investment
No use of water as a
transportation medium
654
Table 1
Summary of hypothetical EPA rural community technology costs (1995 US$)
(adapted from USEPA, 1997)
Technology
216,850342,500
55,500
54,500
Assumptions:
All technology options presented are assumed to have a 30-year life span.
All of the options considered are capable of achieving the secondary treatment level.
The rural community consists of 450 people in 135 homes.
655
Table 2
Advantages and disadvantages of the most common secondary treatment methods (Brix, 1994; Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998; Reed et al., 1995; Burkhard et al., 2000; USEPA,
2002; Tchobanoglous and Crites, 2003)
Unit
Main advantages
Main disadvantages
Media lters: Intermittent Sand Filter (ISF) and Recirculating Sand Filter (RSF)
Minimum and easy operation and maintenance
Cost may increase if the media is not available locally
Regular maintenance required
High quality efuent especially for BOD and TSSa
Nitrogen can be completely transformed to nitrate if aerobic
Clogging is possible
conditions are present
No chemicals required
Electric power is needed
The land area required may be a limiting factor
Lagoons
Effective in removal of settleable solids, BOD, pathogens, and ammonia
Effective at removing disease causing organisms
High-nutrient and low pathogen content efuent
Anaerobic Lagoons
(AnL)
Sequencing Batch
Reactor (SBR)
Constructed Wetlands
(CW)
Aerobic treatment
Extended aeration plants produce a high degree of nitrication since
hydraulic and solid retention times are high
Extended aeration package plants are available on the market
Suitable for site conditions for which enhanced treatment, including
nitrogen removal, is necessary for protecting local ground and/or surface
water
The lower organic and suspended solids content of the efuent may
allow a reduction of land area requirements for subsurface disposal
systems
Better capturing of suspended solids than the suspended growth
Less complex than extended aeration systems
Very minimal operation is needed
The lower organic and suspen0wded solids content of the efuent may
allow a reduction of land area requirements for subsurface disposal
systems
Inexpensive to operate and construct
Reduced odors
Able to handle variable wastewater loadings
Reduces land area needed for wastewater treatment
Provide wildlife habitat
The area of a site occupied by the wetland would have very limited use
Require a continuous supply of water
Affected by seasonal variations in weather conditions
Can be destroyed by overloads of ammonia and solids levels
Remove nutrients for use of crops
stability and low cost. There are several types of subsurface soil
absorption systems (USEPA, 2002). Trenches and beds, seepage pits,
mounds, and lls are all covered excavations lled with porous
media with a means for introducing and distributing the wastewater throughout the system (USEPA, 2002). Subsurface wastewater inltration systems may be the best alternative for sites with
appropriate soil conditions, groundwater characteristics, slopes
and other features.
The trenches and beds can operate effectively in almost all
climates, do not need electricity for operation and are less costly
than the other systems of subsurface wastewater inltration.
However, they cant be used in areas with highly permeable soil.
656
Treatment/Disposal Methods
Treatment Methods
Simple Disposal
Land
Application
Constructed
Wetands
Subsurface
Infiltartion
Slow
Rate
System
Evaporation and
EvapoTranspiration
Disposal to
Surface Water or
Reuse
Rapid
Infilatration
System
Overland
Flow
System
Trenches
and Beds
Seepage
Pits
Mounds
Fills
The seepage pits can be used where the water table is too low and
the land is not readily available. While the mound system performs
well in areas with high water table, very shallow soils, and porous
or karstic bedrock, the ll system is effective with different types of
soil, bedrock and water table (Garcia et al., 2001; USEAP, 2002). The
land treatment systems utilize natural physical, chemical and biological processes within the plant-soil-water matrix to achieve
a designed degree of treatment (Crites and Tchobanoglous, 1998).
Such systems are simple, inexpensive and reliable. Their pollutant
removal level is high and the nutrients are maintained in the soil.
Dry sanitation systems that do not use water for the treatment
and transport of human excreta are new emerging technologies
which will increase with repeated successful experiences of the
system. Their main advantages are water resources conservation
and pollution prevention of water bodies. The most common type
of dry sanitation is referred to as the composting toilet. There is
substantial controversy with regard to the evidence of establishing
the safety and practicability of dry sanitation with reuse as an
everyday practice. As such, it is very crucial to identify under what
circumstances dry sanitation technologies are functioning safely
and effectively in communities on a long-term basis (Peasy, 2000).
5. Choosing a technology
Choosing the Most Appropriate Technology is not an easy task
but it could reduce the risk of future problems and failures. The two
key issues in choosing a treatment technology are affordability and
appropriateness (Grau, 1996). Affordability relates to the economic
conditions of the community while appropriateness relates to the
environmental and social conditions. As such, the Most Appropriate Technology is the technology that is economically affordable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. The
different factors affecting the selection of the most appropriate
technology are described in Fig. 4. Environmentally sound development requires appreciation of local cultures, active participation
of local peoples in development projects, more equitable income
distribution, and the choice of appropriate technologies. Many
factors fall under the economic aspect and are used to decide on the
affordability of a system. The community should be able to nance
the implementation of the system, the operation and maintenance
including the capital improvement needed in the future, and the
necessary long-term repairs and replacements (Bradley et al., 2002;
Ho, 2005). Hence, population density and location and the efciency of the technology as compared to its cost should be
considered. Reasonably, in sparsely populated areas decentralized
systems may provide cost-effective solutions (Parkinson and Tayler,
2003). The affordability of centralized systems in such areas may be
doubtful due to the high cost of the conventional sewer lines.
Among the different components of a centralized wastewater
treatment system, collection, which is the least important in terms
of treatment, costs the most. An assessment of the cost effectiveness of the selected system should be undertaken taking into
consideration the capital cost for planning and construction the
costs of operation and maintenance and the value of the land used.
For a system to be environmentally sustainable, it should ensure
the protection of environmental quality, the conservation of
resources, and the reuse of water as well as the recycling of nutrients (Ho, 2005). Understanding the receiving environment is
crucial for technology selection and should be accomplished by
conducting a comprehensive site evaluation process (Jantrania,
1998). This evaluation determines the carrying capacity of the
receiving environment. Various environmental components should
be evaluated including but are not limited to: surface and
groundwater quality, aquatic and land-based ecosystems, soil
quality, air quality, and energy use. Correspondingly, the following
indicators should be assessed: biochemical oxygen demand,
Economically Affordable
Environmentally Sustainable
Socially Acceptable
Investment
Population density
Technology Efficiency
Operation and Maintenance
Residuals management
Environmental protection
Resources conservation
Water reuse
Nutrient recycling
657
Funding
Public involvement and awareness
Inappropriate system design and selection processes
Inadequate inspection, monitoring and program evaluation
components
Table 3
Removal rates of various decentralized wastewater treatment technologies (Bitton, 1994; Brix, 1994; USEPA, 2002)
Media lters
Lagoons
Aerobic treatment
Constructed wetlands
Subsurface inltration
systems
Land applicationb
a
b
BOD % [levels
achieved]a (mg/l)
TSS % [levels
achieved] (mg/l)
Nitrogen % [levels
achieved] (mg/l)
Phosphorous % [levels
achieved] (mg/l)
FC % [levels achieved]
(counts/100 ml)
ISF
RSF
FL
AoL
AL
AnL
SG
AG
Up to 98 [510]
High
[330]
8595 [10 or more]
7595
NA
7595 [35]
5080
7090 [2050]
[540]
Up to 98 [1020]
High
[540]
8595 [10 or more]
90
NA
90 [2060]
NA
7090 [722]
[540]
Up to 98
Limited
1850
5080
Up to 60
NA
1020 [30]
NA
NA
035
Up to 98
Removed
Limited
NA
Up to 50
NA
1520
NA
< 25
1015
NA
High
9999.99
NA
[23]
Effective
[12]
Effective
Highly variable
[12]
SRS
RIS
OFS
9099 [1]
[5]
[5]
9099 [1]
[1]
[5]
5090 [3]
[10]
[3]
8099
[2]
[5]
99.99
9099
90100
658
Acknowledgments
Special thanks are extended to the Lebanese National Council for
Scientic Research (LNCRS) and the American University of Beirut
Research Board for funding this research project.
References
Ahmed, W., Neller, R., Katouli, M., 2005. Evidence of septic system failure determined by a bacterial biochemical ngerprint method. Journal of Applied
Microbiology 98, 910920.
Anh, N.V., Ha, T.D., Nhue, T.H., Heinss, U., Morel, A., Moura, M., Schertenleib, R.,
2002. Decentralized wastewater treatmentdnew concept and technologies for
Vietnamese conditions. 5th Specialized Conference on Small Water and
Wastewater Treatment Systems Istanbul-Turkey, 2426 September.
Bakir, H.A., 2001. Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in
the Middle East and North Africa. Journal of Environmental Management 61,
319328.
Bitton, G., 1994. Wastewater Microbiology. Wiley-Liss, New York.
Bradley, R.B., Daigger, G.T., Rubin, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 2002. Evaluation of onsite
wastewater treatment technologies using sustainable development criteria.
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 4, 8799.
Brix, H., 1994. Use of constructed wetlands in water pollution control: historical
development, present status and future perspectives. Water Science and
Technology 30 (8), 209223.
Burde, M., Rolf, F., Grabowski, F., 2001. Innovative low cost procedure for nutrient
removal as an integrated element of decentralized water management concept
for rural areas. Water Science and Technology 44, 105112.
Burkhard, R., Deletic, A., Graig, A., 2000. Techniques for water and wastewater
management: a review of techniques and their integration in planning. Urban
Water 2, 197221.
Butler, R., MacCormick, T., 1996. Opportunities for decentralized treatment, sewer
mining, and efuent reuse. Desalination 106, 273283.
Carroll, S., Goonetilleke, A., Thomas, E., Hargreaves, M., Frost, R., Dawes, L., 2006.
Integrated risk framework for onsite wastewater treatment systems. Environmental Management 38 (2), 286303, doi:10.1007/s00267-005-0280-5.
CEHA (WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Center for Environmental Health
Activities), 2004. Report on the WHO/AFESD Regional Consultation to Review
National Priorities and Action Plans for Wastewater Reuse and Management.
CNES (Citizen Network on Essential Services), 2003. Approaches to Sanitation
Services. Water Policy Series A. Water and Domestic Policy Issues A5, 12.
Crites, R., Tchobanoglous, G., 1998. Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. International Edition. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Engin, G., Demir, I., 2006. Cost analysis of alternative methods for wastewater
handling in small communities. Journal of Environmental Management 79,
357363.
FAO (Food Agriculture Organization), 2000. The Energy and Agriculture Nexus.
Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No. 4, Rome.
Fisher, M., 1995. The economics of water dispute resolution, project evaluation and
management: an application to the Middle East. International Journal of Water
Resources Development 11, 377390.
Garcia, J., Mujerjeiegoa, R., Obisb, J., Boub, J., 2001. Wastewater treatment for small
communities in Catalonia. (Mediterranean region). Water Policy 3, 341350.
Giri, R., Takeuchi, J., Ozaki, H., 2006. Biodegradation of domestic wastewater under
the stimulated conditions of Thailand. Water and Environment Journal 20 (3),
109202.
Go, E., Demir, I., 2006. Cost analysis of alternative methods for wastewater handling
in small communities. Journal of Environmental Management 79 (4), 357363.
Grau, P., 1996. Low cost wastewater treatment. Water Science and Technology
33 (8), 3946.
Hedberg, T., 1999. Attitudes to traditional and alternative sustainable sanitary
systems. Water Science and Technology 39 (5), 916.
659
Ho, G., 2003. Small water and wastewater systems: pathways to sustainable
development? Water Science and Technology 48 (11-12), 714.
Ho, G., 2005. Technology for sustainability: the role of onsite, small and community
scale technology. Water Science and Technology 51 (10), 1520.
Hoover, M. (1999). http://www.ces.ncsu.edu. Last accessed in May 2007.
Jantrania, A., 1998. Integrated planning using on-site wastewater systems. NC
website. The NC State University, Raleigh. http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/plymouth/
septic/98jantra.html Last accessed in December 2006.
Jones, D., Bauer, J., Wise, R., Dunn, A., 2001. Small Community Wastewater Cluster
Systems. Purdue University Cooperative Extension Services.
Kaplan, O.B., 1991. Septic Systems: Hand Book, second ed. CRC Press. Lewis
Publishers.
Lens, P., Zeeman, G., Lettinga, G. (Eds.), 2001. Decentralized Sanitation and Reuse.
Concepts, Systems and Implementation. IWA Publishing, UK.
Les, D., Ashantha, G., 2003. An investigation into the role of site and soil characteristics in on-site sewage treatment. Environmental Geology 44 (4), 467477.
Mancl, K., 2002. Model for Success in On-site Wastewater Management. Journal of
Environmental Health 64, 2931.
Nhapi, I., Gijzen, H.J., 2004. Wastewater management in Zimbabwe in the context of
sustainability. Water Policy 6, 501517.
Otterpohl, R., Grottker, M., Lange, J., 1997. Sustainable water and waste management
in urban areas. Water Science and Technology 35 (9), 121133.
Paraskevas, P.A., Giokas, D.L., Lekkas, T.D., 2002. Wastewater management in coastal
urban areas: the case of Greece. Water Science and Technology 46 (8), 177186.
Parkinson, J., Tayler, K., 2003. Decentralized wastewater management in peri-urban
areas in low-income countries. Environment and Urbanization 15 (1), 7590.
Peasy, A., 2000. Health Aspects of Dry Sanitation with Waste Reuse. Water and
Environmental Health at London and Loughborough. London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine, London.
Reed, S.C., Crites, R.W. Joe Middlebrooks, E., 1995. Natural systems for waste
management and treatment, second ed. Mc GRAW-Hill.
Rocky Mountain Institute, 2004. Valuing Decentralized Wastewater Technologies A
Catalog of Benets, Costs, and Economic Analysis Techniques. prepared by Booz
Allen Hamilton and Rocky Mountain Institute for the USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
Seidenstat, P., Haarmeyer, D., Hakim, S., 2003. Reinventing Water and Wastewater
Systems: Global Lessons for Improving Water Management. Wiley, New York.
Tchobanoglous, G., Crites, R. (Eds.), 2003. Wastewater Engineering (Treatment
Disposal Reuse), fourth ed. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. McGraw-Hill, NY.
Tchobanoglous, G., Darby, J., Ruppe, L., Leverenz, H., 2004. Decentralized wastewater management: challenges and opportunities for the twenty-rst century.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 4 (1), 95102.
Tsagarakis, K.P., Mara, D.D., Angelakis, A.N., 2001. Wastewater management in
Greece: experience and lessons for developing countries. Water Science and
Technology 44 (6), 163172.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1997. Response to Congress on Use
of Onsite and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems. Ofce of Wastewater Management and Ofce of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2002. On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. Ofce of Water and Ofce of
Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. Primer for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Systems. Ofce of Wastewater Management and Ofce
of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Handbook for
Managing Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems, EPA/832-B-05-001. Ofce of Water, Washington, DC, 66 pp.
Van Lier, J., Seeman, G., Lettinga, G., 1998. Decentralized Urban Sanitation Concepts:
Perspectives for Reduced Water Consumption and Wastewater Reclamation for
Reuse, EP&RC Foundation, Wageningen. Sub-Department of Environmental
Technology. Agricultural University, The Netherlands.
West, S., 2001. The Key to Successful On-Site Sewerage Service. Sydney Water
Corporation On-site 01 Conference Armidale, September, 2001.
WHO (World Health Organization), 2002. Environmental Health. Eastern Mediterranean Regional Center for Environmental Health Activities (CEHA).
Wilderer, P.A., 2005. Sustainable water management in rural and peri-urban areas:
what technology do we need to meet the UN millennium development goals?
Water Science and Technology 51 (10), 16.
Wilderer, P.A., Schreff, D., 2000. Decentralized and centralized wastewater
management: a challenge for technology developers. Water Science and
Technology 41 (1), 18.
Wright, A., 1997. Toward a Strategic Sanitation Approach. Water and Sanitation
Program. The World Bank.