Enhancement of nutrient removal from anaerobically digested swine wastewater using hybrid constructed wetlands with foamed waste glass and external carbon source

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVESITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY PHAM THI KIEU CHINH ENHANCEMENT OF NUTRIENT REMOVAL FROM ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE WASTEWATER USING HYBRID CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH FOAMED WASTE GLASS AND EXTERNAL CARBON SOURCE MASTER’S THESIS VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVESITY, HANOI VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY PHAM THI KIEU CHINH ENHANCEMENT OF NUTRIENT REMOVAL FROM ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE WASTEWATER USING HYBRID CONSTRUCTED WETLANDS WITH FOAMED WASTE GLASS AND EXTERNAL CARBON SOURCE MAJOR: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CODE: 8520320.01 SUPERVISORS: Assoc Prof Dr SATO KEISUKE Dr NGUYEN THI AN HANG Hanoi, 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENT First of all, I would like to express my profound and sincere gratitude to my Principal Supervisor, Associate Professor Dr SATO Keisuke, JICA Expert, a lecture of Master’s Program in Environmental Engineering, VNU Vietnam Japan University for giving me excellent guidance and reviewed the dissertation of my thesis He always gives me various advisement to help me overcome many challenges and completes this dissertation I also would like to thank to Dr Nguyen Thi An Hang, my Co-supervisor for giving me deep insight in the field of constructed wetlands and profound comments on my experimental results I would like to express my warm and sincere thanks to Prof Jun Nakajima, Assoc Prof Dr Cao The Ha, Assoc Prof Dr Ikuro Kasuga and Dr Tran Thi Viet Ha and MEE staffs, Department Master’s Program in Environmental Engineering, VNU Vietnam Japan University for their teaching and their kind supporting during my studying, their wonderful guidance and valuable remarks to improve my knowledge related to my thesis I would like to express my warm and sincere thanks to Prof SODA Satoshi, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University for his wonderful guidance and valuable remarks to improve my knowledge related to my thesis during my internship I am warmly thankful Mrs Makiko Mishina and Ritsumeikan students for their enthusiasm, friendliness and kind help me during internship I would like to thanks to Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), VNU Vietnam Japan University (VJU) and Ritsumeikan University (RITs) and special the collaboration between Vietnam and Japan government for giving me valuable experiences as studying at international environment i The last but not least, I would like to express my whole-hearted to all of my family and my friends This thesis could not have been done without their supporting and encouragement Hanoi, 14th August, 2020 Pham Thi Kieu Chinh ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT i TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi LIST OF ABBREVIATION viii INTRODUCTION CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Swine wastewater in Vietnam 1.1.1 Characteristics of Swine Wastewater 1.1.2 Characteristics of the Anaerobically Digested Swine Wastewater 1.1.3 Treatment technologies of the AD SWW 1.2 Constructed Wetlands 1.2.1 Definition and classification of Constructed Wetlands 1.2.2 Nutrients removal by Hybrid Constructed Wetlands 1.2.3 The role of plant 13 1.3 Strategies for enhancing the nutrient removal of the AD SWW 14 1.3.1 Utilization of Foamed Waste Glass 14 1.3.2 Utilization of external carbon source 15 CHAPTER MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY 17 2.1 Material of Hybrid CWs components 17 2.1.1 Substrate 17 2.1.2 Plant 18 2.1.3 External carbon source 19 2.2 Experiment set-up 20 2.2.1 Elution tests of carbon and nutrients from CCF 20 2.2.2 Adsorption tests of phosphorus to filter materials 20 2.2.3 Wastewater treatment by Lab-scale Hybrid CWs 23 2.2.4 Filter materials and plants characteristic 27 2.3 Analytical methods 28 2.3.1 Characterization of filter materials 28 2.3.2 Apparatus 30 2.3.3 Analysis methods 31 2.4 Calculation and statistical analysis 31 CHAPTER RESUTLS AND DISSCUSION 36 3.1 Filter materials characterization and its adsorption tests 36 3.1.1 Filter materials characterization 36 3.1.2 Adsorption experiment 38 3.2 CCF characterization and its elution tests 44 iii 3.3 Treatment performance by Hybrid CWs 46 3.3.1 pH 46 3.3.2 DO 47 3.3.3 COD treatment performance 48 3.3.4 TP treatment performance 50 3.3.5 PO43- treatment performance 51 3.3.6 Nitrogen concentration treatment performance 52 3.3.7 NH4+-N treatment performance 53 3.3.8 NO3 N treatment performance 55 3.3.9 NO2 N performance treatment 56 3.4 Nutrient mass balance 56 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 60 REFERENCES 62 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 The characteristics of anaerobically digested swine wastewater Table 1.2 The advantage and disadvantage of Hybrid CWs 10 Table 1.3 Comparison of treatment performance of different plant in CWs systems 14 Table 1.4 External carbon source using in constructed wetlands 16 Table 2.1 The Isotherm models using in batch studies 22 Table 2.2 Kinetic models used in batch studies 23 Table 2.3 The layer of lab-scale Hybrid CWs Systems 24 Table 2.4 The methods of water parameters analysis 31 Table 3.1 Comparison of the chemical composition between Super Sol, Porous Alpha, and Limestone in this study and other materials 37 Table 3.2 The Langmuir model and Freundlich model in P adsorption capacity of filter materials 43 Table 3.3 The kinetic model of Super Sol (SS) 43 Table 3.4 The elemental fraction of Coconut Fiber (CCF) 44 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Principle of anaerobic digestion Figure 1.2 The schematic of classification constructed wetlands Figure 1.3 Nitrogen removal mechanism in Constructed Wetlands 11 Figure 1.4 Phosphorus cycle of soluble and particulate phosphorus 12 Figure 1.5 Foamed Waste Glass (a Super Sol; b Porous Alpha) 15 Figure 2.1 The manufacturing process of Super Sol 17 Figure 2.2 The manufacturing process of Porous Alpha 18 Figure 2.3 Filter materials (a Super Sol (SS); b Porous Alpha (PA); and c Limestone (LS)) 18 Figure 2.4 Cyperus alternifolious 19 Figure 2.5 Coconut Fiber 19 Figure 2.6 Schematic diagram of experiment laboratory-scale hybrids constructed wetlands 25 Figure 2.7 Lab-scale Hybrid CWs 26 Figure 2.8 X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF) JSX 1000s, USA 28 Figure 2.9 Rigaku MiniFlex 600 Power X-ray diffractometer 29 Figure 2.10 NC-22F 29 Figure 3.1 X-ray diffraction patterns of filter materials: (a) Super Sol (SS), (b) Porous Alpha (PA), and (c) Limestone (LS) 37 Figure 3.2 The effect of adsorbent dosage on P adsorption capacity of Super Sol (SS), Porous Alpha (PA), and Limestone (LS) 39 Figure 3.3 The effect of pH on P removal efficiency of Super Sol (SS), Porous Alpha (PA), and Limestone (LS) 40 Figure 3.4 The effect of contact time on P adsorption capacity of Super Sol (SS), Porous Alpha (PA), and Limestone (LS) 41 Figure 3.5 The effect of initial concentration on P adsorption capacity of Super Sol (SS), Porous Alpha (PA), and Limestone (LS) 42 Figure 3.6 The COD, N, and P releasing in Coconut Fiber 46 Figure 3.7 pH value in hybrid CWs 47 Figure 3.8 DO concentration in the period operation 48 Figure 3.9 COD removal in hybrid CWs 49 Figure 3.10 TP concentration and removal efficiency in hybrid CWs 50 Figure 3.11 PO43- -P concentration and removal efficiency in hybrid CWs 52 Figure 3.12 NH4+ -N, NO3- -N and NO2- -N concentration variations of influent and effluent in Hybrid CWs 53 Figure 3.13 NH4+ -N concentration and removal efficiency in hybrid CWs 54 Figure 3.14 The concentration of NO3 N in Hybrid CWs 55 Figure 3.15 The concentration of NO2 N in Hybrid CWs 56 vi Figure 3.16 TP accumulated in plant 57 Figure 3.17 TP accumulated in filter materials 58 Figure 3.18 Phosphorus mass balance in whole Hybrid CWs 59 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATION AD SWW CCF CWs COD HF HRT HLR SWW TN TP FWG VF Anaerobically Digested Swine Wastewater Coconut Fiber Constructed wetlands Chemical Oxygen Demand Horizontal flow Hydraulic retention time Hydraulic loading rate Swine wastewater Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Foamed Waste Glass Vertical flow viii 100 HF VF PO43-P removal efficiency (%) 90 80 70 60 66 69 63 54 50 40 30 20 10 29 29 29 29 VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) 29 HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) Figure 3.11 PO43- -P concentration and removal efficiency in hybrid CWs 3.3.6 Nitrogen concentration treatment performance In Hybrid CWs, the compete nitrogen removal could be mainly accomplished by nitrification-denitrification Nitrogen retention in CWs is firstly dependent on complete nitrification, and the nitrification N must be permanently removed via denitrification As shown in Figure 3.15, the accumulation of NO− stating after 24 days indicated that full denitrification in HF1, HF2 and HF4 As shown in Figure 3.12, the nitrogen removal efficiency of VF+HF1, VF+HF2, VF+HF3 and VF+HF4 reactors (foamed waste glass) were 6%, 17%, 53% and 43%, respectively 52 500 NO-2-N (mg.L-1) Nitrogen concentration (mg.L-1) 450 NO-3-N (mg.L-1) 400 NH+4-N (mg.L-1) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Influent VF HF2 FWG (PA) HF1 Gravel HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS)+(CCF) Figure 3.12 NH4+ -N, NO3- -N and NO2- -N concentration variations of influent and effluent in Hybrid CWs 3.3.7 NH4+-N treatment performance As shown in Figure 3.13., the concentration of NH4+ -N in the influent of Hybrid CWs was in the range of 256 – 457 mg.L-1 The results showed that the concentration of NH4+ -N in VF after treatment was in the range of 182 – 343 mg.L-1, corresponding to removal efficiency of VF was approximately 24% It can be concluded that ammonium concentration decreased because of ammonification which was then followed by nitrification As shown in Figure 3.13., the concentration of NH4+ -N in the effluent of VF + HF1, VF + HF2, VF + HF3, and VF + HF4 were in the range of 90 – 311 mg.L-1, 113 – 274 mg.L-1, 56.5 – 285 mg.L-1, and 89.5 – 379 mg.L-1, respectively Corresponding to removal efficiencies of VF + HF1, VF + HF2, VF + HF3, and VF + HF4 were 39.83%, 39.60%, 50.67%, and 41.95%, respectively VF + HF3 was the highest NH4+ -N removal capacity The finding can be explained the pH value will impact on the ammonium concentration The results are similar reported by Hussain et al., (2018) most ammonium is extracted at a higher pH by evaporation 53 Influent VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) 500 + NH4-N (mg/L) 400 300 200 100 Influent VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) 100 HF NH+4-N removal eficiency (%) 90 VF 80 70 60 50 40 27 30 16 16 24 24 18 20 10 24 24 24 VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) Figure 3.13 NH4+ -N concentration and removal efficiency in hybrid CWs 54 3.3.8 NO3 N treatment performance Figure 3.14 shows the concentration of NO− in the influent in HF1, HF2, HF3, and HF4 were in the range of – 200 mg.L-1, the average of the effluent of HF1, HF2, HF3, and HF4 were 97.68 mg.L-1, 17.73 mg.L-1, 0.24 mg.L-1 and 2.44 mg.L-1, respectively As shown in Figure 3.14., the concentration of NO− in the HF4 were slightly increased while the concentration of NO− in the HF3 were almost around mg.L-1 As mention above, DO concentration in HF3 is almost mg.L-1 It can be explained that pH of HF3 is higher than HF1, HF2, and HF4, resulting in the ammonium converts to nitrogen gas directly The concentration of NO− in the HF4 reached 0.24 mg.L-1 It can be explained that the process of denitrification occurs in the HF4 due to the carbon source release in the systems so the concentration of NO3- in the HF4 is lower than HF1 and HF2 This result is similar reported by Yu et al., (2019) Stage 500 st Stage nd VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) 400 NO-3-N (mg/L) 300 200 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 Time (days) Figure 3.14 The concentration of NO3 N in hybrid CWs 55 60 3.3.9 NO2 N performance treatment As shown in Figure 3.15., the concentration of NO− in the effluent of HF1 is the higher than HF2, HF3 and HF4 The concentration of NO− in the effluent of HF4 was increased up to 7.6 mg.L-1 while HF3 was less than mg.L-1 As mention above, DO concentration in HF3 is almost mg.L-1 It can be explained that pH of HF3 is higher than HF1, HF2, and HF4, resulting in the ammonium converts to nitrogen gas directly Stage st Stage nd 100 VF HF1 Gravel HF2 FWG (PA) HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) - -N (mg/L) NO2 80 60 40 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (days) Figure 3.15 The concentration of NO2 N in the Hybrid CWs 3.4 Nutrient mass balance Figure 3.16 shows the P content 0.039 – 0.122 g in the whole plant of Cyperus alternifolious which was equivalent to the – 7% range This is consistent with the results by Van et al., (2015) TP accumulated in plant a range of 3.5 – 29.8% The P allocation in different parts of Cyperus alternifolious harvested from Hybrid CWs is 56 displayed in Figure 3.16 It is evident that the P mass accumulated in different parts of Cyperus alternifolious was contributed in the order: root > stem > leaf for each of unit It should be noted that the plant exhibited more P content than the most commonly used wetlands The results suggested that Cyperus alternifolious can be a talented plant for removing P in the Hybrid constructed wetland The rate of absorption of plant phosphorus of HF3 was highest 29.78% 0.140 0.120 TP (g) 0.100 0.080 0.060 0.040 0.020 0.000 VF HF1 Gravel Leaf HF2 FWG (PA) Stem HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) Root Figure 3.16 TP accumulated in plant As shown in figure 3.17, the P content 0.039 – 0.122 g in the whole filter materials in Hybrid CWs which was equivalent to the – 14% range Phosphorus in filter materials of VF, HF1, HF2, HF3 decreased during the experiment period but HF4 was opposite This result can be explained that CCF in the layer was the result of phosphorus uptake of CCF It can be observed that the P accumulated in filter materials of HF1 was higher than HF2, HF3, and HF4 It can be explained that the P accumulated on the surface of filter materials of HF1 was the highest therefore the P removal efficiency in the effluent of HF1 was the lowest At the side of that, P 57 accumulated on the surface of filter materials of HF3 was lowest so the P removal efficiency in the effluent of HF3 was the highest 0.250 TP (g) 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 VF Layer HF1 Gravel Layer HF2 FWG (PA) Layer Layer HF3 FWG (SS) HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) Layer Layer Figure 3.17 TP accumulated in filter materials The amount of P was 0.039 – 0.122 g in the whole plant of Cyperus alternifolious and 0.039 – 0.122 g in the whole filter materials in Hybrid CWs The amount of phosphorus output was 0.05 - 1.17 g the amount of phosphorus input The amount of phosphorus was 0.0 – 0.110 g in pore In addition, the amount of phosphorus in other was 1.15 – 2.63 g of the amount of phosphorus input It can be explained that the P other can be uptake by microbiota such as bacteria, fungi or algae and dead leaves loss It is similar reported by Wu et al., (2013) There is various P pathways which can be retained in the wetland environment such as uptake by plant roots or absorption through plant leaves, adsorption to soils and sediment, and uptake by microbiota (Vymazal, 2007) Plant uptake removed 0.04 – 2.74% of the total P input, while P removal by filter materials were 0.03 – 13.50% of the total P input Also, P retention rate in pore was – 6.47% while other P removal in the effluent removed approximately 27.15 – 88.07% of influent P P 58 removal pathway in plant, filter media, pore were different in each of columns The results can be concluded that P distribution was recorded pore and other functions HF4 FWG (SS) + (CCF) HF3 FWG (SS) HF2 FWG (PA) HF1 Gravel VF 0% Effluent 20% Plant 40% 60% Filter materials Pore 80% Other Figure 3.18 Phosphorus mass balance in whole Hybrid CWs 59 100% CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion Regarding to objectives in this study, it was concluded as the followings: 1) Evaluation of the effect of Foamed Waste Glass on phosphorus removal ➢ The result of adsorption tests, Foamed Waste Glass namely Super Sol was more effective adsorbent for phosphorus removal than other type of Foamed Waste Glass (Porous Alpha) The phosphorus adsorption capacity of Super Sol was evaluated 1.14 mg.g-1 at 50 mg.L-1 of initial liquid concentration, 7.0 of pH, 24 hours of contact time conditions ➢ The result of isotherm tests, the phosphorus adsorption capacity (qmax) of Limestone (qm = 4.11 mg.g-1) was higher than Super Sol (1.64 mg.g-1) and Porous Alpha (qm = 0.96 mg.g-1) 2) Evaluation of the denitrification process improvement by external carbon source in Hybrid CWs ➢ The results of the elution test showed that CCF was sufficiently effective to supply external carbon (>15mg.L-1.day-1) It was also confirmed that this supply was only a fraction (