AD-A1AA 975 COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB HANOVER NH F/6 13/2WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY A PROTOTYPE SLOW RATE LAND TREATMENT SY--ETC(U)AUG ai T F JENKINS, A J PALAZZO

UNCLASSIFIED CRREL-81-14 NL

END

REPORT 81-1 EVEWastewater treatment by a prototypeslow rate land treatment system

DTI

Ahft ELETEi

D~iebin Unbntod i iI?

For conversion of SI metric units to U S., Britishcustomary units of measurement consult AS rM

Standard .180, Metric Practice Guide, published

by the American Society for Testing and Materi-

als, 1916 Race St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1910

( S ni oht)()i9 repretwfntdiit )o % /(Pl rafte If dtrt men~t'lftl) rm '.

CRREL Report 81-14

Wastewater treatment by a prototypeslow rate land treatment system

T F lenkins and A.l. Palazzo

August 1981

LAegaulon For

OTIS GRA&IDTIC TANUnatino-ined

DTICSTLECTE

(A)I It I )It I Oil t ill 1 0! MN( I I KSNOV 10 98

H%

1JNIIll) %1 11% AMM, q ( OP% () INc ,INIIR%

A( 1 ) IR I (,IW)N 1 %I AR( I AND I N(,N1 I RIN(, I AHRA I )RYSHAN0),% I I AMPSI'%ilf S A

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICAT',ON OF THIS PAGE (fha, Does Untod __________________

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSITRUCTIONS

I. REPORT NUMBER 12GOVT ACCESERN No 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

CRREL Report 81-14 '& TT~~g*&IS~ -S. TYPE OF REPORT &PERIO00 COVERED

,WASTEWATER jtREATMENT BY A ROTOTYPESLOW RATE LAN~DjJEATMENT SYSTEM ____________

P~.~b a.Jenkins oMA Palazzo

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADORES& - I . PROGRA EL T. PROJECT. TASK

U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering LaboratoryDArec472A86Hanoer, ew Hmpshre 0735Task Area *2, Work Unit 003

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME ANO ADDRESS IL NEWeRW flhX

Office of the Chief of Engineers AugFW'T'W8lWashington, D.C. 20314 5514 MOITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(II dfleiml 1mem ConlvolhW ffloo1.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of We. ,.peo)

* Unclassified

154IS. DE11CkDASSIFIC ATIONIDOWN GRADING

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIOUTION STATEMENT (of lMe 46008a6f 00lacod In 8100k ". it £Nmmfe 0 t600 R6pmV

141. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

so. KEy WORDS (Comltm.. an revre adds of accessoy od Identify by block nume)BOD Organic carbon Trace organicsColiforms Plant uptake Wastewater treatmentForage grasses Plant yields Water pollutionLand treatment Slow rate Water qualityNutrients Suspended solids Water volumesItAmINACTefoaea"e 401b in 1 Nnoweedd dud 11N~ 061,61"k mn

Six slow rate land treatment prototypes, three containing a Windsor sandy loam and three containing Chariton siltloam, were studied from June 1974-May 19S0. The systems were spray irrigated with either primary or secondarywastewater at application rates ranging from 2.5 cm/wk to IS cm/wk. Application schedules were also varied. Theperformance of forage grasses was studied to determine the yield and nutrient uptake under the various applicationregime%.

The results indicate that, on a mass basis, an average of 91 % of the ni trogen (N) applied could be attributed toeither plant uptake or percolation of soluble N, mainly nitrate. Nitrate concentrations in the percolate were found to

D,~", W3 mouo~ MS~ ill SLETEUnclassified ~,tS9CUIt CLASSIFICATION OF Toos POW~h. ~.3~om

I.............L

* ~~~ t& ~

UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(RMh Doga EaigoMt

20. Abstract (cont'd)

correlate with N loading rate. An N loading rate of 800 kg/ha resulted in a mean concentration of about 10 mg/ILof N03-N in the percolate. Plant uptake of N was linearly related to N loading rate at loading rates less than 800kg/ha. In this range, plant uptake accounted for about 60% of the N applied.

Mean phosphorus (P) concentrations in the percolate were found to range from 0.03 to 0.07 mg/L P and de-pended only slightly on application rate. Removal of P averaged greater than 99% for all application regimes.

Water balance measurements indicate that evapotranspiration exceeded pan evaporation by a factor ranging from0.86 to 1.17 over a 6-year period.

Treatment of biochemical oxygen demand (BODs), suspended solids, total organic carbon (TOC), and fecal coli-form were excellent. Residual levels of BODs, suspended solids, and TOC in the percolate averaged 1.3, 1.2 and 1.8mg/L, respectively \Fecal coliform bacteria in the percolate were reduced to detectiohlimits independent of whetherthe wastewater was pretreated or disinfected before application.

A significant reduction in chloroform and other volatile trace organics was also found. Mean concentrations ofchloroform were reduced from 9.6 jg/L in the chlorinated primary wastewater to about 0.2 /L in the test cellpercolates.

No significant downward movement of heavy metals was found 5 years after suspension of heavy metalapplication.

Potassium (K) fertilization was found to be necessary to balance the low K/N ratio of the wastewater.

ii UnclassifiedSECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(IMI, Date Rntor**E

PREFACE

This report was prepared by Thm F. Jenkins, Research Chemist, and AJLqnio1. Palazzo, Research Agronomist, Earth Sciences Branch, Research Division, U.S.

mrmy Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. This study was con-ducted under Civil Works Research and Investigation Project, Work Unit CWIS31281, Techniques for Land Treatment of Wastewater and under DA Project

4A762720A896, Environmental Quality for Construction and Operation of MilitaryFacilities, Task Area T2, Work Unit 003, Land Treatment of Wastewater.

The authors acknowledge a large number of present and former CRREL em-ployees who made significant contributions to this project over the last 6 years.

S.C. Reed is acknowledged for his role as Land Treatment Program Manager forthe first 2 years of the project and, together with Dr. R.P. Murrmann, for the expe-rimental design used in this study. Dr. H.L. McKim is acknowledged for his sup-

port during the last 4 years of the study in the role of Program Manager. T.D. Buz-zell, R.S. Sletten and C.I. Martel are acknowledged for supervising the pretreat-

ment facility; J.R. Bouzoun for consulting on water balance considerations; R.T.Atkins for designing of the composite samplers; D.C. Leggett for some initial

method development in the water chemistry laboratory; Dr. I.K. Iskandar for pro-viding some soils information used in the report as well as useful technical dis-cussions throughout the study; and R.E. Bates and the U.S. Army MeteorologicalTeam, Hanover, N.H., for providing climatic surveillance. A special acknowledge-

ment is due P.W. Schumacher, P.S. Ricard, and H.E. Hare for supervising the thou-sands of water analyses which were necessary to obtain the results presented andto P.W. Schumacher, H.E. Hare and E.S. Foley for assisting in the preparation ofthis manuscript. We also acknowledge J.M. Graham for maintaining the field siteand supervising the harvesting of the plants during this study and P.L. Butler forproviding analyses for BOD, suspended solids and fecal coliform. D.B. Keller, i.1,Bayer, A. Gidney, and C.J. Diener are cited for their operation of the sewage treat-ment plant and wastewater application system. R.K. Redfield is acknowledgedfor consultation on some statistical analyses used in the text. E.U. Huke isacknowledged for drawing the cover illustration.

This report was technically reviewed by S.C. Reed and Dr. H.L. McKim of

CRREL, and R.E. Thomas of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-ton, D.C. Useful comments were also provided by I.R. Bouzoun, C.I. Martel, andC. Merry of CRREL, Dr. A.P. Edwards, Senior Research Fellow, University of NewHampshire, and Dr. W.). Jewell, Agricultural Engineering Department, Cornell

University.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract i

Preface. iii

Summary. .... viIntroduction 1

General overview 1Nitrogen treatment 2Phosphorus treatment 3

Other considerations 4

Experimental objectives 5Methods 5

Preapplication treatment 5

Test cell design 7Wastewater application 7

Soil characteristics 9

Vegetation 9Climate 10Analytical methods 10

Results and discussion 14Wastewater composition 14Sprinkler application 17Soil water movement 18Water balance and evapotranspiration 20Mass balance of N 21Seasonal N variation in percolate 22Plant yields and N uptake 28

Plant uptake by harvest periods 29Phosphorus treatment 30Treatment of other major constituents 33Removal of volatile trace organics 34

Heavy metal mobility 35Potassium/nitrogen balance 36

Conclusions 36Literature cited 37Appendix A: Experimental data 41

ILLUSTRATION

Figure

1. Diagram of CRREL test cells 62. Photograph of test cells 83. Summary of water sample handling procedure 114. Average monthly total N and nitrate in secondary wastewater 155. Average monthly total N and nitrate in primary wastewater 16

ivA

t

.....

6. Chloride ion concentrations in soil solution at 45- and 152-cm depthsafter K C I fertilizatio n ................ ... ................ .. 19

7. Percolate nitrate concentration vs annual N loading rate, test cells 1a n d 6 . ..... . ...... ...... . .............. 2 2

8. Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 1a n d 6 . . . . .... .... ............... ......... ... 2 3

9. Average annual cycle of percolate nitrate in cells 1 and 6 ......... 2410. Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 3

a n d 4 . . . ...... ... .......... . . . . ......... . 2 511. Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 2

a n d 5 . . ... .... .. ... ..... ..... . . ......... 2 712. Plant uptake of N vs annual wastewater N loading rate . . 2913. Monthly average ortho-P concentrations in test cell 1 and 6 per-

c o la te s . ................. .... .. ......... .. 3 114. Soil P concentrations for test cells 1 and 6 3215. Soil analyses for Zn, Cu, Ni, and Cd 35

TABLES

Table

1. Wastewater loading rates (cm/wk) for CRREL test cells 72. Periods of test cell wastewater application 83 Initial soil characteristics at the 0- to 15-cm depth 94. Soil amendments applied to test cells 105 Climatic characteristics during study period 116. Summary of methods for water analysis 127. Results from analysis of EPA standard samples 138 Composition of applied wastewater during the period when both

primary- and secondary-treated wastewater were used 149' Composition of applied wastewater during the period when only

primary wastewater was used 1510. Ammonium and nitrate in applied wastewater before and

after sprinkler application 1711 Reduction of volatile organics concentrations during sprinkler appli-

cation 1812 Average retention time of water in test cell soil profile 1813 Test cell water balance 2014 Yield of plant material produced versus amount of "missing" water 2115 Total N mass balance 2116 Mean N content of percolates 2217 Test (ell 3 and 4 annual percolate N 2618 Test cell 2 and 5 annual percolate N 2619 Average plant uptake of N by harvest periods for cells 1 and 6 2920 Test cell P removal 3021 Total annual appliCation and plant uptake of P 3122 Mean plant removal of P under various mass loadings 3221 Mean ortho-P concentrations in soil solution at 45 cm and in the per

colate 3224 Performance of test cells for BOD, suspended solids, fecal coli-

form, fecal strepto(otc and organic carbon 3325 Removal of volatile toxic organics 3526 Potassium relationships 3l

v

SUMMARY

Municipal wastewater was applied to six large (152-cm-deep) outdoorlysimeters (test cells) in Hanover, New Hampshire, from June 1973 through May1980. Three of the test cells were filled with a Windsor sandy loam; three werefilled with a Charlton silt loam. Sprinklers applied primary or secondary waste-water at rates ranging from 5 to 15 cm/wk. The percolate was directed through awater meter and sampled with a composite sampler.

Water quality analyses were performed on the applied wastewater, on samplestaken by suction lysimeters at various depths, and on the test cell percolates.These analyses included the forms of N (Kjeldahl, nitrate, ammonium), total andortho-P, organic C, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total and volatilesuspended solids, fecal coliforms and fecal streptococci, chloride, major cations(calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium), pH, specific conductance, trace ele-ments, and trace volatile organics (chloroform and toluene).

The test cells were seeded with a mixture of forage grasses in 1973. The plantmaterial was harvested three times per year through May 1980. Plant yields wereobtained for each harvest and samples were analyzed for N, P, K and occasion-ally trace elements. Mass removals of N, P and K were derived from this informa-tion and related to the quantity of these elements applied in the wastewater.

Water volume measurements for the applied wastewater, precipitation, andpercolate indicate that the amount of "unaccounted for" water exceeded pan

evaporation by a factor ranging from 0.86 to 1.17. This missing water was mainlyattributed to evapotranspiration.

Water quality results indicated that N removal was the parameter that limitedthe rate of wastewater application. Nitrate was the predominant form of N foundin the percolate, forming in the soil by nitrification of ammonium and movingthrough the soil with the downward percolating water. The concentration ofnitrate in the test cell percolate correlated with the wastewater loading rate; an Nloading rate of 800 kg/ha resulted in a mean concentration of about 10 mg/L.

Plant uptake was the major renovative mechanism for N. At annual N loadingrates of 800 kg/ha or less, N uptake was linearly related to N loading rate and ac-counted for about 60% of the N applied. Mass balance information indicatedthat about 91 % of the N applied to the test cells could be found in the sum of theplant uptake and the N (mainly nitrate) in the test cell percolates. In this system,denitrification accounts for less than 9% of the N applied.

Phosphorus treatment was excellent at all wastewater loading rates tested (upto 15 cm/wk). The resulting concentrations of P in the test cell percolates rangefrom 0.03 to 0.07 mg/L, depending only slightly on wastewater application rate.The major mechanism for P removal was retention in the soil. Plant uptake wasless significant except at very low P loading rates. Mean plant uptake of P rangedfrom 20 to 54 kg/ha/yr.

vi

.9

------

Removal of organic C, BODS, suspended solids, and fecal coliform bacteriawas very effective and dependable. Mean concentrations of organic C, BODS, andsuspended solids in the percolate ranged between 1 and 2 mg/L, independent ofwastewater loading rate or whether primary or secondary wastewater was ap-plied. Fecal coliform bacteria were removed from both disinfected and undisin-fected wastewater to the limit of detection, one colony-forming unit per 100 mL.

We investigated the removal of ammonia and trace organic substances by vol-atilization during sprinkler application. This mechanism did not remove signifi-cant amounts of ammonia at the wastewater pH tested. Removal of volatile or-ganics, however, was significant and lessened the concentration of these sub-stances actually applied to the surface.

Following application, further removal of chloroform and toluene was ob-served. Mean percolate concentrations of chloroform w~re about 0.8 /AgIL; meanpercolate concentration of toluene was about 0.04 Ig/L. The mechanism for thisadditional removal was not investigated.

Heavy metals were added to the raw wastewater and applied to the test cellsfor a year and a half at the beginning of the project. Analyses conducted in 1980indicate that no significant downward movement of these metals has occurred 5years after suspending heavy metal application.

Potassium deficiencies were found in soils and plant material after severalyears of wastewater application. This deficiency resulted from an imbalance inthe K/N ratio in the wastewater. Application of K fertilizer corrected this problemand may have helped increase plant yields and N uptake as well.

vii

i A:

WASTEWATER TREATMENT BY A PROTOTYPESLOW RATE LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM

T.F. Jenkins and A.J. Palazzo

INTRODUCTION The use of land application to dispose of sew-age wastes was first documented in 1559 and its

General overview popularity increased through the middle of theThe human population of the earth has grown 19th century (Wierzbicki 1949). During this peri-

from 1.1 billion in 1850 to over 4.2 billion in od, sewage was extensively applied on land to1980. The production of waste materials has in- dispose of it or to fertilize agricultural cropscreased over this period to an even greater ex- While these land application systems were nottent. Disposing of this enormous amount of designed to treat sewage, they apparently func-waste material in an environmentally accept- tioned well and no serious problems resultingable manner has become one of mankind's fore- from this practice were reported except wheremost problems. Domestic sewage accounts for a raw wastewater was used to irrigate fresh vege-large part of the total waste produced. Methods tables (lewell, pers. comm.). Nuisance odorsto dispose of this material safely and economic- have been a problem for systems that were dras-ally are currently the subject of a large amount tically overloaded. In the last half of the 19thof research in the scientific and engineering century, land disposal was largely abandonedcommunities. because of the rapid growth of cities and the re-

Since human populations will inevitably pro- suiting demand for nearby land (Cooke 1978).duce sewage, man has only three options (Cillie From the late 19th century through the early1978): 1960's in the United States sewage was usually

1. Concentrate the material in such a way collected and treated by a centralized sewagethat physical barriers can prevent it from treatment plant and subsequently released intointeracting with the environment, surface waters. These treatment plants were de-

2. Disperse the material at concentrations too signed to reduce the amount of suspended mat-low to cause problems, ter and oxygen demanding substances prior to

3 Return the material to the natural cycles disposal in surface waters.from which it originated. In the late 1960's, environmentalists began to

In the case of wastewater, the volume of mate- question the practice of disposing of these par-rial prohibits the use of option 1 except for com- tially treated wastes into surface streams. Theyponents present at the trace level that can be ef- were concerned with substances such as N, P,ficiently segregated from the bulk material. Op- and trace elements that are not well treated bytion 2 is attractive in locations with populations conventional treatment processes.that produce sewage in quantities that are low in Two approaches were generally suggested torelation to natural flows of surface streams. Op- meet the more stringent treatment requirements:tion 3 is the direction in which mankind has been construction of new types of expensive ad-forced to turn as the quantity of this waste mate- vanced wastewater treatment plants specificallyrial continues to increase designed to treat N and P, and land application.

W'hile land application had been widely used on- WVhile tis I..iiiait '. to asslimilatti N is a nmajorIV a cenit,'-, v-ai er, little researc h had been con- strength ot lantd treatment, results at (RRI Iduc.ted to assess its ability to meet today's treat- I skantlar et al 1970) and] tlewheri' (Kardos andment objectives Soppier 11974, Hltook and Horton 1979) hajve mndi

I it,(i that the leat hing oit iitratti may he the Ii-Nitrogen treatment ilitilig tat tor inl teternining the wastewater

Nsitrogen is preisenti Wi siswige i ttits1 III I lO'itiiig ra.III Il'IFiN t 'IsI .1S I,. is h tist. thetS faiitgi (it ( Oilt inltro lldt in) svt-fll appliedi N, iatnlI inl the( aninionruni torm, trans

i hetmit altorins linlt 1liig orgaflln N fioiiur rmni to nitrate inl the( suirtat e soil arid translo-lint l ntratte i its ilownward with pert: olating water

,Nitrogen removal f rom w astewater is ot (on- Jot maximii/e fte N removal. researt h has toern tor the fol lowing reasons I Usetl fite ia tius flit hamnim that ha~ t been1 Ammonium and organic N can induce ain postiliattt to operate III thlese s" sterns Keseart hi

oxygen demand in surface streams. causing to assss fte re~lit is e important I, ot fltse me(- hunacceptably low dissolved oxygen levels anisors in flte tield has generalli, met wsit h signiti

2 Mineral N often stimulates the growth of I anlt pro blems ()nl t hi amount ot N remus ttldalgal cells and (an t ause eUtrophic ation III svgititronI his beenl will t1nt Urlitt~d [)eiIot surtat e waters t rit I(t itoll 11iti11011ii NsolatiliIatiloll and soil

I Ecessive nitrate concentration in drinking storage s hue( thtiogh t to he signiftl itat rtrnlo is aWater is a public health tion( ern, padrti ular- M14 11an11ins III sonic his e noit been nieasti retlIy for Infants I iretll uinder fieltd I tuntitions I heir iniptr

4 Ammonia may be a toxic substance to 1t11 1in t i largt'ls spt tilat is at presentmany organisms in surface wsaters sint v plant tiptake is generahls rt ogni/etl is

1 lit pretdtminant torms ot N inl trish lonivst i the nmtst srgrui ant pro(t vs tor N reivin al inIsesag rt, urea. 'iftl Jrotellnit eous mateniill slo" rate, sx inus sot tes tim O tailure %%ill tleiwnd

I hese orgini tornis ot Ns quit kis hi~trlru to heim 6l tin I rtrp strtrmiant It As a resutlt. svstrilammonia in sewage collection systems Am- st tdies h1a1%e been (otntltitted to nieasu re (trtipmonia is the predominant form of N in raw Uptake ot N trir s aritus plant sptes C- (aLpp et

wastewater when it arrives at sewage treatment atl 14781 ret( vriti rtsi,% t rrrost of tht(so. exf~iitplants (Metcalf and Eiddy 1972) Primary treat- ntt sint v plant spit. ies are, lis Ing organlims

ment (the removal Of large partic ulate matter by t h.-' risponti rat her cinpretlit tahk it) fI angesN inlsedimentation) removes some organic N but has apul ic. at inn rate, intl st, hetluli. spet itl it i balittle effect on mineral N levels because of the at teristit. s. andti e inmate

high solubil ity Of ammonium and the other Pailai ,o and MitK ini 11978) stutdietd plant Litfornms of mineral N Secondary treatment pi o- ake as% a1 ticl ton1 tOt the amiount tin N app) itt

cesses vary significantly in design, but have a I hes totint that plant uptake not N inc reases wsith

common purpose of further reducing the levels imt reasing aplit( ation ratts tof N but doves so atof oxygen demanding substances and suspended at tdet reasing rate ( Lapp et il k't178) also ttounedmatter Most secondary treatment processes do this nionlinevar relat ionship in) t rnrp uptakf, ot N*not significantly affect the total N content but ttor \.tritits plant spt its

can transform the N into a more oxidized form Although the amount of N applied appears tosuch as nitrate be a dominant factor in determining uptake,

one potential benefit of land treatment Is Its other variables have also been studied Clapp etability to remove and utilize N (Reed et al 1972) al (1978) studied the ability of Various plant spe-for slow rate (irrigation) systems, the incorpora- cies to remove N and found that perennial for-tion of N into plant matermai is undoubtedly the age grasses could remove more N than cornmechanism most responsible for its removal With increasing application rates, N removal byOther processes thought to remove N in these corn reached a maximum of about 180 kg/hasystems are immobilization within the soil bio- Reed canarygrass, on the other hand, removedmass (soil storage), loss Of ammonia to the at- about 400 kg/ha of N under similar applicationsmosphere by volatili/ation, microbiological de- Differences among various perennial grass spe-nitrification of nitrate, filXation Of ammonium in cies have also been reported by Larson (1974-clay minerals, adsorption Of ammonium on or- 1977), Sopper and Kardos (1974), Overman andganic materials, and chemodenitrification of ni- Ku (1976), Deese et al (1977), Bole and Belltrate (Lance 1975) (1978). and Marten et al (1979), with reed canary-

* 2

grass, tall fescue, and orchardgrass generally re- tion of ammonia in an operating system has yet

moving the most N. to be determined, although it has been postulat-

Palazzo and McKim (1978) studied plant up- ed to be a significant mechanism at the Werribee

take of N as a function of application schedule Sewage Farm in Melbourne, Australia (McPher-

No differences in crop removal of N were re- son 1978).

ported when 7 5 cm/wk of wastewater was ap- The incorporation of N from wastewater into

plied in one (ontinuous 24-hr application or in the soil biomass by immobilization can be an im-

three 8-hr periods on consecutive days (2 5 portant factor. Seabrook (1975) reported that at

(m;day) In addition, these investigators found the Werribee Farm the soil N has increased from

no differences in uptake of N by plants when pri- an average 0.61% to 1.1 % over the 48 years of

mary or secondary watewater was applied wastewater application. This amounts to an

Removal ot N in land treatment Systems by average accumulation of 204 kg/ha/yr. A similar

me(hanisms other than plant uptake has been study at Bakersfield, California (EPA 1977),

reported In overland tlow and rapid infiltration showed an average annual increase in soil N of

%stems. mim robhial denitritl altion has been iden- 230 kg/ha over 36 years when a field irrigated

titied as a signitm ant part ot the overall N re- with sewage was compared to a nonirrigated

moval (loutwer 1974. I homas et al 1974, Aulen- control area. On the other hand, observations at

bat h et al 10781 Wh I reliable (lata on slow the Pennsylvania State University experimental

rate %sterns are, la kinl:. denitrti( ation has been system (Richenderfer and Sopper 1978) indicated

eS1mate(l to renimoe trorm 11 to 25% ot the N a reduction of soil N in forest litter when waste-

applied (I PA 1977) In order to sustain signiht water was applied. This seems to imply that net

(ant denitri( ation in the soil, however, at least mineralization is occurring in this system.

three (ondht ions must simultaneously o((kr 1) Soil N auiimulation or depletion, however, is

the N most be present in the oxii/ed torm, 2) ox- hard to document in short term studies because

ygen levels ntist be los, and i) ,Llt te enl organ- of the relatively large amount of native N pres-1( ( must he available is an energy sour(e for ent in the soil relative to that applied annually in

(lenitrit', iig orgarnisn% (I an( eC 1975) I)ienitrific a wastewater, incl because of the high spatial vari-

lon ( in also o( ( ur in relo( ,(I i( r(iones with- ation of native N in the soil. Only a few systems

in an othvrs, isi aerated soil it the N and ( re- have been well documented. A change of onlyqjuirem-nts ar, tiltilled 0t)1% in total soil N in the top 1.5 m of soil

In typical slow rate land treatment systems, amounts to a change of over 1000 kg/ha in soil N

the soils are generally rather permeable and well fixation of ammonium in clay minerals is a

aerated The organic C content is generally low, process unlikely to be of major significance for

particularly when secondary wastewaters are most slow rate systems. The soils used for this

used, and the bulk of the organic C remains near mode of land treatment generally have a high

the surface where the macroenvironment re- permeability and a low clay content. Chemode-

mains aerobic These conditions do not favor nitrification is also unlikely to be significant as adenitrification N treatment mechanism. Wastewater N is gener-

Ammonia volatilization is another mechanism ally applied in the ammonium form and nitrifica-

that may account for some N removal. Ammonia tion requires a pH above 5. Chemodenitrifica-

stripping has been used in sewage treatment tion, on the other hand, only occurs at a pH be-

plants for N removal and could potentially oper- low 5 (Lance 1975) and can only take place after

ate in land treatment. For irrigation systems, the ammonium has been nitrified. Adsorption of

sprinkler application seems to have the highest ammonium on organic matter could be impor-

potential for substantial ammonia removal by tant in a few slow rate land treatment systems if

this mechanism. The pH of the wastewater is im- a large amount of soil organic matter was pre-

portant in this regard since the amount of N pres- sent in the soil profile.

ent as free ammonia increases as the pH increas-es. The droplet size in sprinkler systems deter- Phosphorus treatment

mines the surface-area-to-volume ratio and is im- Phosphorus is known to be a major stimulant

portant since ammonia loss occurs at this sur- for the growth of aquatic plants including algae

face. The pressure at the nozzle and the diam- (Schindler 1976). Since blue-green algae can fix

eter of the nozzle opening determine droplet N (the other major stimulant) from the atmo-

size. The actual amount of N lost by volatiliza- sphere, P is thought to be the limiting nutrient

t!am,3

for aquatic growth in many freshwater systems Several investigators have studied the abilityAlgal blooms in surface water have in many in- of P to leach to the groundwater Hook et alstances caused eutrophication, resulting in un- (1974), Dugan et al. (1975). and Deese et al (1977)desirable conditions for both aquatic life and among others found no evidence of P leachinghuman recreation, to groundwater. On the other hand, Murrmann

Phosphorus concentrations in domestic sew- and Iskandar (1976) and Iskandar et al (1977b),age generally range from 6 to 20 mg/L (Metcalf studying a Warren very fine loam soil, and Kar-and Eddy 1972). Sedimentation removes a por- len et al. (1976), studying a loam-textured soil,tion of this P, but most remains in the effluent. noted significant amounts of P leaching belowAdvanced waste treatment processes for P that the rooting zone The reason for these differ-

rely mainly on chemical precipitation using ad- ences is currently not well understoodditions of alum, lime, or Fe(lII) (Metcalf and Eddy Several investigators have been attempting to1972) are available but quite expensive. Their develop a method to accurately predict theability to meet phosphate discharge limits below length of fime a soil could be irrigated with1.0 mg/L is questionable. wastewater (or the amount of P that could be

Knowledge of the potential of land applica- added to a soil) before leaching of P would oc-tion for P removal was largely based on agricul- cur (Enfield 1977, Ryden et al., in prep.). Methods

tural research. Large numbers of agronomic that use sorption isotherms have generally great-studies have shown that most soils have an enor- Iy underestimated the amount of P a soil can as-mous assimilative capacity for P. Initially there similate because the soils can mineralize (pre-was some concern whether these reactions, oc- cipitate) P slowly from sorption sites and thuscurring at high concentrations near fertilizer free these sites for additional sorption. Modelsgranules (Reed et al. 1972), would occur at the based on solubility products of the variouslower P concentrations present with wastewater metal phosphates have also been attempted. Atirrigation. Recent studies have shown that these present, none of these techniques have been ad-reactions do occur in soils irrigated with waste- equately evaluated to determine how well theywater (Enfield and Bledsoe 1975). predict the longevity of a treatment site for P

When wastewater is applied to the soil, the P removal (Enfield 1978).that enters the system is either removed by plantuptake, lost by surface runoff, stored in the soil, Other considerationsor leached through the soil profile (Pratt et al. Slow rate land treatment systems, except1978) Except at very low loading rates, soil stor- when they are underdrained, have no equivalentage is thought to be the primary mechanism for of an "end of the pipe" available to assess treat-P removal in land treatment. This removal is ment efficiency, Researchers in the past haveprobably due to sorption and chemical precipi- generally been forced to make judgments ontation as iron or aluminum phosphates at a soil treatment performance based on the analysis ofpH below 6 and as calcium phosphates at higher soil solution samples collected at depth withpH (Reed et al. 1972). Since soils have a finite suction lysimeters or from samples obtainedability to retain P, the longevity of a land treat- from observation wells. It is now well recog-ment site may be determined by its assimilative nized that suction lysimeters do not collect acapacity for this element. At low loading rates, sample representative of the natural drainageplant uptake of P may be an important removal water (Quin 1978). The great horizontal variabil-mechanism, extending the life of a system. ity of soils even over short distances is also well

Forage grasses have been shown to remove known (Keeney and Walsh 1978). Unless a large

from 23 to 56 kg/ha of P annually when irrigated number of replicate samples are taken, the reli-with secondary wastewater (Clapp et al. 1978). ability of these data in assessing overall systemPalazzo and McKim (1978) found that at an an- performance is open to question. Since the ex-nual P loading rate of 100 kg/ha, 30% could be pense of taking and analyzing large numbers ofaccounted for in the crop. Similar results have samples overwhelms most research budgets,been reported by Sopper and Kardos (1974). Al- smaller numbers of samples are generally thethough the range of P taken up by crops is nar- rule.row compared to N, differences have been To obtain estimates of system performance onfound due to variations in P loading rate (Hook a mass basis, it is necessary to know not only theet al. 1974, Karlen et al. 1976, Overman and Ku concentration of the constituent of interest, but1976). also the volume element the sample represents.

4

-2- A, - - ..- ~ ------ . .

Sint e this volume wa% generally not measurable METHODSin previous studies. reseat hers had to estimatethe volume eath sample represented This is a Preaplcaiim treatmentmajor assumption, imph itly made in nearly all The sewage used for these experiments wasprevious studies where investigators have at- taken from a Hanover. New Hampshire. munit

tempted to determine the mass balance of pal sewer main that serves a small housingwastewater constituents The treatment efficien- development near CRREL The sewage was to-t v reported in these studies should therefore be tally domestic from the beginning of the exper-viewed only as an estimate With the exception ment, June 1971. through October 1977. when aof plant uptake, quantitative assessment of the new laboratory addition at CRREL was (on-various renovative mechanisms cannot be infer- nected upstream of the withdrawal point Thered trom their data raw sewage was found to have higher concentra-

t is of N than is typical for municipal wasteExperiment objectives (Metcalf and Eddy 1972) and was diluted with

The objective of this study was to obtain rei- tap water for the first 5 years of this experimentable pertormance criteria for a slow rate land Undiluted wastewater was used from 1978treatment system on a mass basis, thus determin- through 1980 The raw waste was pumped to aing its renovative capacity The experimental de- primary clarifier with a detention time of 4 hrsign of the study included application of both The primary wastewater then flowed into a split-primary and secondary wastewater at several ap- ter box that divided the flow approximately inplication rates and schedules to two different half One half was disinfected with ozone andsoil types Since these prototypes were totally stored in subsurface concrete tanks for use in ex-enclosed, all of the drainage water could be di- periments that required primary wastewater Therected through a water meter and sampled with second portion flowed to an extended-aeration

a composite sampler This design resulted in an activated-sludge package plant The detention"end of the pipe" from which samples could be time in this plant was approximately 28 hr Theobtained The water leaving this system was the outflow from this plant was also disinfected withdrainage water that would merge with natural ozone and passed to a second subsurface con-groundwater below the site it the design was a(- crete storage tank where it was used for experi-tualiy used in a tull-s( ale system Accurate mass ments requiring secondary wastewaterbalances were possible with this system since all During the period tune 1979 through Maywater applied to and draining from the system 1980. the wastewater was chlorinated before it

could be sampled and the actual volumes mea- was applied to cells 1 and 6 This was done bysured Some of the data obtained on the water adding 2 1 of aqueous sodium hypochlorite

quality and crops during this 6-year period have (blea h) to the primary holding tank (approxibeen reported elsewhere (Jenkins et al 1978. mately 5 100 L) The wastewater was mixed for 1

lenkins et al 1981) as have the soil and climatic hr before the onset of applicationmeasurements (Iskandar et al 1979) In the first year and a half of the experiment.

A second objective of this study was to obtain seven heavy metals. Cd, Ni, Pb. Zn. Cu. Hg andat curate numbers for plant yield and nutrient Cr. were injected into the raw wastewater beforeuptake to compare the relative importance of primary and secondary treatment The amountthis renovative mechanism with other renovative of each metal added was calculated to provide amechanisms This comparison was possible be- concentration of 1 mg/L in the wastewater and(ause the large size of the plots would closely to simulate an industrial component of other-simulate field conditions wise totally domestic wastewater In February

A third objective was to conduct the study 1975 the addition of these metals was stopped A

over a time period long enough to ensure that discussion of the fate of these trace elementsthe results obtained would be representative of has been presented elsewhere (Iskandar 1975)"steady state" conditions rather than an initial It should be emphasized that the commercialperformance period Long term changes in per- ozonator used for disinfection broke down fre-formance for substances such as P were also in- quently during the experiment, resulting in peri-vestigated ods when undisinfected wastewater was used for

A5

'5 , ., . - -.I-

(CL.

UF E

land application Mean fecal coliform levels, re- Wadtwati appokatl.ported later, are therefore not typical of waste- Wastewater applications began in the earlywaters disinfected with ozone or chlorine For a summer of 1973 and continued through Maymore detailed description of the preapplication 1960 Table 1 presents the application rates andtreatment used in these experiments, see Iskan- schedules used for each test cell over each year-dar et al (197b) IV cycle Test cells 1 and b received secondary

wastewater from lune 1973 through August 1978Teom ceil dWme at an application rate of 5 cm/wk From August

The six test cells used for these experiments 1978 through May 1980 primary wastewater wasare large (8 5 x 8 5 m) outdoor lysimeters Iskan- applied, but the application rate remained thedar et al (1976) present details of their construc- same The type of wastewater, the loading rate.tion They are constructed with reinforced con- and the loading schedule were variable for the(rete wall. and bottom (Fig 1) Celk 1- I were other four test cells over the b-year experimenttilled with Windsor -andv loam Soil, (elk 4-b (Table 1). depending on the research goals eachwere filled with Charlton silt loam Both soils year Cells 3 and 4 have received primary waste-were obtained locally from the Hanover, New water over the entire b-year period, although theHampshire, area. separated carefully into mdi- loading rate has varied on an annual basisvidual horizons, sieved to remove large stones. The period of the year when wastewater wasand carefully backfilled in the cells to simulate applied to the cells is presented in Table 2 Itin situ conditions The total soil profile was 152 should be noted that all six cells received waste-cm in depth The bases ,f the test cells were water throughout the winter of 1974-75 and testsloped toward sampling manholes that received cell 6 received wastewater throughout the win-all of the drainage water from each cell At the ter of 1975-76 as well Test cells 1 and 6 receivedtime of construction multiple suction cup lysi- wastewater until mid-lanuary during the wintermeters were placed in the soil at 15- and 45-cm of 1979-80 also The remainder of the time appli-depths to enable collection of soil solution cations were halted in late fall when the surfacesamples of the soils froze, application was resumed in the

Table 1. Wastewater loading rates (cmlwk) for CRREL test cells.All applications were conducted at a 0 62-cmthr rate during the spra, season Flooding rates in thewinters of 1974-75 and 1975-76 were somewhat higher

Test cellApplication Windsor soil Chariton soil

period 1 2 3 4 5 6

June 1973-MaV 1974 5-S5 10-S 5-Pt 5-P 10-S S-S(ld)* (2d) (2d) (2d) (2d) (1d)

June 1974-Mav 1975 S-S 15-S 7 S-P 7 5-P 7 5-P S-S(ld) (3d) (3d) (3d) (24h) (1d)

June 1975-May 1976 5-S 15-S 7 5-P 7 5-P 7 5-P S-S(1d) (3d) (3d) (3d) (241) (ld)

June 1976-May 1977 5-S 2 5-12-Ptt 2 5-11-P 2 5-11-P 2 5-11-P 5-S(ld) (1-4d) (1-4d) (1-4d) (1-4d) (ld)

June 1977-May 1978 5-S 7 5-P 7 S-P 7 5-P 7 S-P S-S(ld) (1 Sd) (1 Sd) (1 Sd) (1 Sd) (1d)

June 1978-Aug 1978 5-S, Pt$ ... . S-S. Pss

(1d) (1d)

Aug 1978-May 1980 5-P ... . S-P(1d) (1d

* 5-S, 5 cm of secondary wastewater applied per weekt 5-P, 5 cm of primary wastewater applied per weekS d is the number of 8-hr application periods per week* 24-hr application over one 24-hr period

tt Weekly applications varied between 2 5 and 12 cm/wk$$ Changed from secondary to primary wastewater in August 1978

7

07

Table 2. Periods of test cell wastewater application.

TestYear cell Applicateon eavons

June 1971-May 1974 1 13 June 7.-26 Nov 73 22 Apr 74-31 May 742 9 lune 73-2b Nov 71 17 Apr 74- 31 May 743 13 June 71-12 De( 71 22 Apr 74- 31 May 744 13 June 73-12 Dec 73 22 Apr 74-11 May 745 11 June 73-26 Nov73 17 Apr 74- 31 May 74b 13 June 73-2b Nov 73 22 Apr 74-31 May 74

June 1974-May 1975 1 2 June 74-31 May 7S2 2 June 74-31 May 753 2 June 74-31 May 754 Z June 74-31 May 755 2 June 74-31 May 75b 2 June 74- 31 May 75

June 1975-MaV 1976 1 16 June 75-25 Jan 76 26 Apr 76-311 May 7b2 lb June 75- 4 jan 76 17 May 7b-31 May 763 lb June 75-30 Nov 754 lb june 75-30 Nov 755 16 June 75-30 Nov 756 16 June 75-31 May 7h

June 197b-May 1977 1 1 lune 76- 3 Dec 76 21 Apr 77- 31 May 772 8 July 76-3 Dec 7b 21 Apr 77-31 May 773 8 July 7b-1 Dec 7b 21 Apr 77-31 May 774 8 July 7b-3 Dec 76 21 Apr 77-31 May 775 8 July 7b-3 Dec 76 7 Mar 77-31 May 776 1 June 76-3 Dec 76 21 Apr 77-31 May 77

June 1977-May 1978 1 14 June 77-6 Sept 77 10 Apr 78-24 May 782 14 June 77-6 Sept 77 16 May 78-23 May 783 14 June 77-6 Sept 77 16 May 78-22 May 784 15 tune 77-7 Sept 77 16 May 78-22 May 785 15 June 77-7 Sept 77 16 May 78-22 May 786 14 June 77-b Sept 77 10 Apr 78-24 May 78

June 1978-May 1979 1 15 June 78-16 Nov 78 30 Apr 79-31 May 796 15 June 78-16 Nov 78 30 Apr 79-31 May 79

June 1979-May 1980 1 1 tune 79-29 Jan 80 18 Apr 80-30 May 806 1 June 79-29 Jan 80 18 Apr 80-30 May 80

Figure 2. Photograph of test cells.

" 8

spring. The application of wastewater to cells Table 3 summarizes some of the most significant2-5 ceased for the purposes of this experiment in initial conditions. Table 4 presents the soilJune 1978 while application to cells 1 and 6 con- amendments applied to the cells and their appli-tinued through May 1980. Water balance meas- cation rates during the study. The soil amend-urements for cells 2-5 were continued through ments were applied to improve the balance of1980, however nutrients for plant growth and to increase soil

Wastewater was applied to the cells by sprin- pH.kler irrigation using a %-in. Fulljet nozzlemounted on a 26-in. riser (Fig. 2). The pressure Vegetationwas adjusted to cover a 7.6-m diameter spray cir- The test cells were seeded with a mixture ofcle within each test cell area (Fig. 1). The pres- reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea L.), tim-sure was estimated to be about 30 psi. Spraying othy (Phloem pratense L. var. 'Climax'), andwas discontinued when wind conditions caused smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis Leyss. var.the spray to land outside the cell area. Waste- 'Lincoln') on 21 May 1973 at rates of 12.1, 6.6,water was flooded into the cells during the win- and 5.5 kg/ha, respectively. The grass was al-ter application periods in 1974-75, 1975-76 by lowed to establish itself for about a month be-removing the spray nozzles and allowing the fore application of wastewater began in Junewastewater to flow beneath the snow cover. Dur- 1973.ing the winter application in 1979-80 the waste- In September 1974, a botanical analysis of thewater was sprayed upward against a flat plate vegetation within the area that received waste-that reflected it back to the surface in a manner water revealed that quackgrass (Agropyronsimilar to a device used for border strip irriga- repens L.) had become the dominant species intion (Fig. 5-11, EPA 1977). In either case the all six cells with lesser amounts of reed canary-water was retained within the desired area by grass, smooth bromegrass, Kentucky bluegrassmetal garden edging. (Poa pratensis L.), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium

perenne L.). To obtain a more desirable vegeta-Soil characteristics tive cover on the cells and to smooth out the un-

The soils used in the cells were Windsor sandy even soil surface that had developed because ofloam and Charlton silt loam. During construc- soil settling, test cells 2-5 were reseeded in Maytion, the A, B and C soil horizons were separated 1976. Cells 1 and 6 were not disturbed. Quack-in the field, transported to CRREL, and placed in grass has remained the dominant species in cellsthe cells. The soils were compacted to the origi- 1 and 6 with increasing amounts of Kentuckynal in situ bulk density to a 1.5-m depth. Iskan- bluegrass by the end of the study (June 1980).dar et al. (1979) and Palazzo (1976) have pre- During reseeding, the existing vegetation wassented in detail the initial characteristics of the killed with the herbicide glyphosate. Potassiumsoils before wastewater application and subse- chloride (300 kg/ha) was applied to the four cells.quent analyses over the course of the study. Dolomitic limestone was applied at the rate of

Table 3. Initial soil characteristics at the 0- to 15-cmdepth.

Windsor sandy loam Charlton silt loamParameter (cells 1-3) (cells 4-6)

pH 60 6.6Soluble salts (mmho/cm) 0.20 0.32Cation exchange capacity 7.0 135

(meq/100 g)Total N (%) 01SO 0.272Total P (peg) 200.0 2266Total C (%) 1 71 2,34Extractable P (pg/g) 26 2 23 1Exchangeable Ca (eig/g) 552 725Exchangeable Mg (p/jg) 26 45Exchangeable K (Mg/g) 49 35Exchangeable Na (M/ig ) 10 18C/N ratio 11 4 86

9

A

- - .t.. . - ---

Table 4. Soil amendments (kglha) applied to test cells (May 1973through May 1980).

Date oftreatment Cell I Cell 2 Cell I Cell 4 Cell 5 Cell 6

Lime: Lime applied as dolomitic limestone (CaMgCOJ

1973 . . . .. .

1974 . . . ...October 1975 504 1497 1129 1497 1497 166528-29 May 1976 - 4492 3988 4492 4492 -(during reseeding)2 May 1977 2200 2200 2200 2200 2200 22001978 - - - - - -1979 . . . . ..1980 . . . . ..Total 2704 8189 7517 8189 8189 3865

Potassium: K applied as potassium chloride fertilizer (KCI)

28-29 May 1976 - 300 300 300 300 -

2 May 1977 300 300 300 300 300 3004May 1978 137 - - 1374May 1979 136 - - 13b30 April 1980 140 - - 140Total 713 600 600 600 600 711

Phosphorus: P additions as superphosphate fertilizer (0-20-0)

9 August 1976 - 41 41 81 81 -

7308 kg/ha to cells 2, 4 and 5 and at a rate of and Bates 1978, Iskandar et al. 1979). Table 56488 kg/ha to cell 3. The soil surface was then presents some of the pertinent information.tilled and seeded with orchardgrass (Dactylisglomerata L. var. 'Pennlate') and reed canary- Analytical methodsgrass at rates of 33 and 22 kg/ha, respectively. Wastewater samples were obtained for analy-

The lime and K fertilizer were applied to in- sis in two ways: 1) by collecting grab samplescrease pH and exchangeable Ca, Mg and K in the from the primary and secondary storage tankssoil. Past analyses of soils had shown reductions and 2) by placing sampling cups on the surfaceof these soil constituents (Palazzo 1977). of the test cells and catching a composite sam-

Problems were encountered in establishing an pie of the spray. Samples collected with methodadequate grass cover after soil disturbance. 2 for each application were used to obtain massGreenhouse experiments revealed that the loadings for N, P and K. These samples were col-plants produced greater yields when both K and lected in narrow-mouthed brown bottles with aP fertilizers were applied (Palazzo, unpublished glass funnel in the neck to provide sufficientresults). As a result, P was applied to cells 2-5 on volume for the number of analyses required.9 August 1976 (Table 4). The grasses appeared to The percolate water from the test cells wasrespond well to the P application and a good collected several times per week over the 6-yeargrass cover was obtained by the end of the sea- period. In the first year (June 1973 through Mayson The botanical composition of the grasses in 1974) only grab samples were collected. Fromcells 2-5 at the end of the study (June 1978) con- June 1974 through May 1980, composite sam-sisted primarily of orchardgrass with lesser piers were used to allow calculation of accurateamounts of reed canarygrass. mass balances on and off the cells. The soil solu-

tion was sampled with multiple suction cups atClimate depths of 15 and 45 cm. During the first year, the

A detailed analysis of the climate at the Han- soil solution was sampled weekly. The secondover, New Hampshire, site as it pertains to land year it was sampled biweekly. In the followingtreatment has been presented elsewhere (Bilello years it was sampled irregularly. Winter freeze

* 10

Table S. Climatic characteristics during and thaw tended to crack the porous ceramicstudy period, Hanover, New Hampshire cups used to collect the soil solution; as the

(from Iskandar et al. 1979). experiment proceeded fewer and fewer were op-erable.

Latitude 43043'N Figure 3 shows the various methods used to

Prevailing winds northwest and south preserve or prepare samples prior to analysis.

Mean annual temperature 6.40C Five-day biochemical oxygen demand, sus-

Total annual precipitation 95 cm/Vr pended solids, fecal coliform bacteria, pH, and

Mean annual snowfall 185 cm/Vr conductivity were analyzed the same day the

Mean annual wind speed 6 km/hr sample was collected. Subsamples to be anal-

Evaporation yzed for organic C and major cations were acidi-1974-75" 6665 cm fied with a few drops of concentrated phosphor-1975-76 69 49 cm ic acid to a pH of less than 2 the day they were1976-77 54 62 cm collected, Another subsample was cooled to less1977-78 52.99 cm

1978-79 51 29 cm than 40C and kept cold until it could be anal-1979-80 50 37 cm yzed for NO,, NH., KIeldahl N, total P, and ortho-June 74-May 78 total 243 75 cm P. Analyses of NOI and NH* were generally con-lune 74-May 80 total 34541 cm ducted within 2 days of sample collection and

Monthly mean temperature and precipitation Kjeldahl N, total P, and ortho-P within 2 weeks

Temp Precip Iskandar et al. (1976) detail the methods used(0c) (cm) to analyze the various parameters (also see

Table 6) The accuracy of several of these meth-

januarv -89 69 ods has been periodically checked by analysesFebruary -7 2 47 of certified samples of known concentrationsMarch -01 61 supplied by the US Environmental ProtectionApril 6 0 (3 3

May 11 2 8 Agency Table 7 compares values obtained whenJune 178 11 0 these samples were analyzed as unknowns withJuly 200 74 the values provided by the EPA.August 194 82 Grab samples taken from the primary storageSeptember 136 91 tank and the test cell percolates were analyzedOctober 71 1 O5

November 1 8 78 occasionally during 1979-80 for trace volatileDecember -5 7 84 organics. The samples collected off the test cell

Total 949 surface after spraying were also analyzed to as-

From June-May sess the spraying process effect. Analyses were

SWATER SAMPLE I

Analyzid Fresh Subemple sampleSame Day Collected Acidified with H, PO, Kpt Cold I- 4C)

Immedietfly

P1 Ornic Carbon No Precaution

ConucivtyMa ainsFel Coliform MI++ Analyd Analyzd Analyad

BOD NO When Time Avlble Within 5 Des Within 2 Weeks

Figure 3. Summary of water sample handling procedure.

11

tw

--. .---.-- ~--

Table 6. Summary of emethed for *wa analysis.

NO, 19?3-74 Secific ion electrode---1974-80 Automated cadmium 0-50 melt 0 3 (36r TFaci AAII T IM

reduction mehd-- -No 2473(11974-00 Automated cadmium 0-1 mWL <0 (23 Tecluicon AAII I fllt

reduction mjodNo 271,3Wt

NH. 19734 Secific son electrode - -

1974.77 Automated phenata 0- 2S9 meNLt 017 (27) Tedltmicon AAII T I AtNo WYOW (1973

1975-U Salicylatelanraprussude 0-25110 meft 017 (M7 Technescou, AAII TI'MiPO 3274W/A

Kividahl 1971-77 Technscon continuous flow 0-2S/1 Mel 1 42 II Trichiscon AAII T tatidigestion (V.0,1 No 1467A (197219

1976-79 lascwwcon block dlespon 0-I316 mefI 070(81 Trichrucon All Ogartemr I I Mt No 376.?SWIS (Mach19771

Arselyu T I Mi No 329-74WaS (Marcil 1977

Total N 1979-U0 Persulfate digstions 0- 30 nogt 0401S) Autoclave Digmtan IaI I and Ayes

Technucon AAtI Analysts TI Ma No 32974W/a ~Mect 1977)9

Total P 1973.77 lachnscon continuous flow 0-10 uugi 020(7) Trichrcos AAII T t Aldhtletion (V.0. No 1116-71W (1907211f

1976- 79 TeCINIVcOn block digeti@on 0- 10 n01 013(71 Tedhiico., AAII Dieshonr I t At No 374-I molybdersum blue analyes) ?Swim (1977)9

Analtrus T I Mi No 329-74WI(March 1977)t

1979-80 Persuffate digestion 0-10 mi/l. 022 (2) Techuticon AAII DW..nutto. )fret.a[ (19M9(molybdenum blue analysis) Aftall,, T I at No 329.4W

M3 (atch 19773

Ortho-P 197S-79 Manual molybdenum blue 0-0 11 mevl 0003(7) Coleman of HACH Chemical Co. Wetoa weetewetler Procedures

1979-U0 Automated molybdenum blue 0-1 1 melt 001M 12 chnucon AAII T I aiNo 329-74W1S(MerchI97Ft

Oceanic C 1973-76 Comubustion. infrared 0- so WWI 20(12) Beekman 915S *eckman 91S Mwmal1978-U0 Persultate onsdateon. infrared 0-4 met. 02 0 1 C carbon 0 I C Manua

0-20 me0Lt analyser

amO. 1974-U0 DO. Winkler method with 0-200 mat I 1 3) Msanuel PAO Standard Metlhods. 14th td,asiode modification sitretios ps 47711

Total suspended 1974-U0 Filtration 0-200 MIAt 34(6! Analytical balance Atfillipet procedureslids.

Fecal coliforn, 1974-U0 membrane filter technique I10-1100O ml. 275(M Standard Methodf 14th Ed.Is 937ff

Fecal susiptococc. 1979-80 Membrane filter technique --- Standard Meto ds. lath Ed.

chloride 1971-14 Specific ion electrode - Is - ~1974-U0 Thoocyo-nate method 0-35 ngLt 14(b) lechnicon AAII TIMh

PH4 1973-UD Class (combination) electrode 5-9 007(4) Con% PH mtr Standard hiethods. 1tl Ed,Orion pH maer p 7ft

%pecfic 1971-77 Resistiuity bridge 100-10111 iauhos/cm 36112)1 V S I conductivity Standard Meho a.1th Ed.conductanrce, br~dg ps 41tt

1977-80 Resistmaty bidge 100-100 oauhoucm 2(3) Resitivity bridge

Ca- 1973-U0 Atomic absorption -014 (3) Ptrkin tlmer 303 end I Metho r Chemical703 Analysls of Water andf

Wastes (1974 ps 1438

1973-80 Atomic absorption -003(3) Pierkln tlmer 303 and MethdsI for Chemiscal703 Analysis of Wae. andl

Wastes (1974). pi 143S

Na. 1973-U0 Atomic absorption -06(3) Perkl I1mWrt 303 end Meth"ods for Chemical703 Analysis of Water end

Waes (I19 p, 143$

K* 1973-U0 Atomic absorpton -0323(0) Perin Elmer 303 end Methods for Chiemical703 Analysis of Wate and

Wasem (1974). p. 1436

Mumiters in parenthesis ane the mnber of tiee a standardl devrtion was obtainedt Teclvuiont Industrial Method Technscon Instrument Corporation. Tarrytown. New York** ACH Chemical Company, Ames. lowas

f Amican public Health Association. American Water Works Association. Water Pollutims Control Federation (1973I Invironmental Protection Agency, [PA42W/4403

12

Table 7. Results from analysis of EPA standard samples.All values expie-sved in mg/L

knob~n talues (RRI L results (cncn ajlue, 994 s, RRIL reslt R I ) 991 resut ~ eults kno~n salues C 9(9(4 I fewit

Anils- I in( I Conc (n( It ((nc 2 I (cn I (on( 2 1(on( It (on 213 (onl$n (oc 22 (001 (off(.2 (onc I (o( .' (on( I (on( 2

N,.fa.- (lowl oI 2)) 10 (01 20 0 4) 1 1 I 0ll 1 1 1 Il ) I 11 I o It 11

saa'h, hl l 1 I 11 1 1' is 11 1 1 in 18 1)1U It, o 12 11, A8 118 (18 1017 121)o

AnhnnontinIc,1) 0 44 44 011to 4 1 If 21 2 1 (I) 0 12 1 12 2 2 0 is 24 0114 19 1117 14

Ammniumn(hilihl 1 47 147 12 1,, l is 0 4 1 , 19 is' I I% 2 1 fill Ish1 11,1 2W 160 1 242 26 s

An'ldah)N ikm), 4) is s1 1)% 2'1. 4) 41 4 1 II61 2 4 .. 41y 4 1 147 . 1 57 .

kiedah N (h~ohl ;1l) S8 U1 40 421) (1 Si Is 1 it 287 1 S9 ('.4 141 14 2 4 12 27 5 421' 281

I ,t,gI P 11") 1)14 142 4 1 0 15 1 (1020 201 (12 21 2 17 . 2 % 0147 04 1 ) 041 01

()bdf, l o% iIo 41) 4% Sit It tI It I t If it II t 011 Il 0148 1 2

llmgann 1 h4chl l4s 141)1 I t I t I I t t I I I tI M)1 IN 14 1 14

RIOD) 0o% I I I I II f I t It It I41

II41D, Ih~whi this, IN,4 14t, II I t t I I 141

I 1ho P oiiiI t t I I I t If 105 1 00I(418 I (MAR1,0 0l% (1 (78 MII 1 ) 475

I )tho P Nght it It It it 1114 (17 0111 018 (f14 00179 1)77 7 7 (171 7 1,

(on~h 1.sU, S. I t It if II 1,41 . 72 . 612

Mohod.. 174, 224 It it It It 17(4 211, 1(0 2204 11 1 ,21

1086411 - tt It it it 9,- fif'II

iI i,t set (0 I PA SdinswI9, .494)45 to 1471, ,,S.,I)

ts-io %e of IPAjum 1 m ainp;, p dl t o 47 1 11 n9( d I l t1

Ii r)I II)))

I 1$,) enodiracn 2 is a. 14) loI higheiy on,) er))i, of th,- s.ont. %dincjie

tI I1,1,11 set ofI I PA a.~'l~' p leItpi,N to 148f1) 1)51(11 onl1I

conducted immediately after sampling on a gas in 1977; 13 June. 19 lull' and 26 September 1978;chromatograph/mass spectrometer (HP 5992) 4 June, 25 July, and 13 September 1979; and 5equipped with a purge and trap sampler (HP June 1980. Each harvest was collected and7675a). Sixty mililiters of the sample were weighed to obt-lin the total fresh weight per cell.purged for 20 min and the Tenax collection tube Random grab samples were dried at 700C andsubsequently heated to 2000 C during the 5-mmn dry weights per plot were calculated. The grabdesorption period. The analysis was conducted samples were commercially analyzed withon an 18- by '/,-in. Porapak QS column, pro- standard procedures for N, P and K (Black 1965).grammed from 90 to 200*C at 60/min. A 5-mmn The quantity of N, P and K removed at eachhold period at 900C was employed during de- harvest was obtained by multiplying the drysorption from the purge-trap. Initial identifica- weight of grass produced by the concentrationtion was obtained by matching mass spectra ob- of that element found by analysis.tained to known spectra. Running the system in Soils from all cells were sampled at the 0- tothe selective ion monitoring mode gave quanti- 15-, 15- to 30-. 30- to 45-, 45- to 75-. 75- to 105-.tative determinations with a detection limit of and 105- to 135-cm depths before the projectabout 10 ngIL. started and in the spring of 1974 and 1975. In

Harvesting the forage grass three times per spring 1976, only soils from test cells 1-3 wereseason gave plant yields and nutrient composi- sampled at the 0- to 15- and 15- to 30-cm depths.tion. The forage grass was cut to a height of 7.5 Soils were air-dried and passed through acm with a sickle bar mower. At each cutting 2-mm sieve and then chemically analyzed. Soilplant biomass produced was calculated for each properties analyzed were soil pH, with a glasscell. The harvest dates were 3 June, 28 July, and electrode pH meter; total P, by the acid diges-17 September in 1974; 12 June, 23 July. and 23 tion procedure; extractable P, by the Bray P,September in 1975; 8 June, 4 August. and 15 Sep- technique (Bray 1948); total C, by the wet oxida-tember in 1976; 1 June, 18 July. and 31 October tion method (Black 1965), and exchangeable cat-

13

ions, by atomic absorption spectrometry (Jack- amount of nitrate was higher during warmer pe-son 1958). riods of the year in the secondary wastewater

due to nitrification of ammonium in the aerationtank. This effect is shown in Figure 4, which pre-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION sents the monthly averages of total N and of ni-trate in the secondary wastewater. The total N

Wastewater composition ranged from 21 mgiL to 32 mg/L over this period,Wastewater was applied to the test cells from depending mainly on seasonal cycles and on the

June 1973 through May 1980. Normally waste- use of dilution water. The major N componentwater application began in mid-April and ex- throughout the year in both the primary and thetended through the end of November (Table 2). secondary wastewater is ammonium, whichDuring the winter of 1974-75, application was averaged 24 mg/L in the primary wastewater andcontinued year-round Wastewater was also ap- 18 mg/L in the secondary wastewater.plied through the winter to cell 6 in 1975-76 and The average organic N content, as determinedthrough January to cells 1 and 6 in 1978-80, Both by the difference between the Kjeldahl N andprimary and secondary wastewater were applied ammonium, was low, about 3.4 mg/L in the pri-through August 1978; after August 1978 only pri- mary wastewater and 1.7 mgL in the secondarymary wastewater was applied. The type of wastewater. The value of organic N obtained forwastewater and the application rate used each secondary wastewater compares well with theyear is given in Table 1. The average composi- range of 1 to 3 mg/L determined by McCarty andtion of the primary and the secondary waste- Haug (1971). The organic N content, as well aswater between June 1973 and May 1978 is given total N, increased substantially during 1978-in Table 8 The concentration of total N in the 1980 when fresh sewage from a laboratory addi-two types of wastewater from 1973-78 was very tion was added to the sewer line just upstream ofsimilar. 28 0 mg/L in the primary and 26.9 mg/L in the intake point for this experiment (Table 9).the secondary, demonstrating the lack of a signi- The total N content during this period was aboutficant mechanism for N removal in the secon- 38 mg/L.darV treatment plant (extended aeration). The On a seasonal basis, the nitrate composition

Table 8. Composition of applied wastewater during the period when both primary- and secondary-treatedwastewater were used (June 1973 through May 1978).All values expressed as mgil except as indicated

Primary Secondary

Mean ± Mean ±Parameter std. dev. N" Max Min. std. dev N. Max, Min.

Total N 28 Of 269tKleldahl N 274±84 232 71 5 2 5 21.0±11 1 138 505 1 5NitrateN 06±1.5 245 96 0.0 67±70 153 395 00Ammonium N 24 0 ± 8 7 233 770 00 18 3±9 5 139 400 00Total P 76±6 7 230 950 10 7 3±4 7 136 48.0 08BOD, 100±46 34 246 30 44±31 27 134 14Organic C 55±21 159 136 2 39±25 99 109 4Total suspended solids 85±177 69 1500 12 61 ±87 54 525 4Volatile suspended solids 67 ±173 69 1460 0 39 ± 73 54 521 2Fecal coliform bacteria 2 2x10'±2 7x101 37 9 2 x101 39x101 1 4x10'±4 8x10' 25 24x101 2

(no /100 mL)pH (pH units) 7 3±0 3 178 90 6.6 7.2±0.5 117 83 60Specific conductance 419 ±102 205 660 120 425±107 122 720 100

(gaskm)Chloride 359±131 186 122 75 359±133 118 116 85Calcium 9 3±9 1 12 287 27 11.8±11.1 17 47.6 50Magnesium 30±1 3 12 56 1 3 29±1 3 17 63 20Sodium 404±76 11 50.7 220 440±7 3 16 53.2 293Potassium 8 2 ± 50 76 218 00 10,0± 5 8 46 26.2 03

*The number of analysestObtained by adding Kieldahl and nitrate values

14

35

30

25NIT)

Z 20

E15

00

003

)9 F M A M J J A S 0 N D

Months

;figure 4, Average monthly total N and nitrate in secondarywastewater fJune 1971 through May 1978).

Table 9. Composition of applied wastewater during the periodwhen only primary wastewater was used (Aug 1978 through May1980).All values expressed as mg/L except as indicated

Primary wastewater

Mean ±Parameter std dev N Max Min.

Total N 380±162 46 1177 190Nitrate N 00±02 65 09 00Ammonium N 27 9± 12 7 65 831 64Total P 69±22 47 124 36Ortho-P 42±1 7 5 64 21BOD, 91 ±104 17 184 7Organic C 73 ± 42 25 225 32Total suspended solids 98 ± 105 16 290 8Volatile suspended solids 68 ± 67 12 204 1Fecal coliform bacteria 8 4x 101 14 4 2 x 10' 0

(no /100mLFecal streptococci 2 4 x 101 3 3 2' 10' 46 x10'

bacteria (no /100 ml)pH (pH units) 76 49 86 70Specific conductance 547 44 895 315

(mrmhos/cm)Chloride 2 9 ± 15 1 20 831 199

15

-x -

35,

30-

25Nl(T)

z 20

E

iO

N03

j F M A M j J A S 0 N D

Months

I q,,ure A- era g' flluflth total % ,a nd. ntrati' it) prlmar% o- ete%%iteIr f hint I- ? through \1la 19I81

of the secondary wastewater generally increased The mean suspended solids and BOD, of thethroughout the summer and finally peaked in primary wastewater between 1974 and 1978October before declining sharply as water tern- were 85 and 100 mg/L, respectively These valuesperature dropped in early winter (Fig 4) The ob- characterize this waste as being weak relative toserved cycle is consistent with an increasing the ranges found in normal wastewater (Metcalfpopulation of nitrifying organisms in the extend- and Eddy 1972) The secondary treatment pro-ed aeration plant during the warmer period of cess used (Iskandar et al 1976) reduced thethe year transforming a larger portion of the am- mean levels of total suspended solids and BOD,monium to nitrate to 61 and 44 mg/L, respectively, somewhat

The nitrate content of the primary wastewater higher than the 30 mg/L guidelines for secondaryremains quite low throughout the year(Fig 5), in- treatment The organic C level of the primary

dicating that there is no direct source of nitrate wastewater was only reduced from 55 to 39 mg/Lin the raw wastewater and that nitrification does by secondary treatment, a somewhat lower per-

not occur in the primary treatment process This cent reduction than that found for BOD. Thewastewater is medium strength with respect to BOD, and organic C levels from 1978-80 were 91total N content (Metcalf and Eddy 1972) and 73 mg/, respectively.

Tables 8 and 9 give the mean P content of the The pH of the primary wastewater was gener-wastewater Phosphorus concentrations aver- ally found to be between 6 and 8 with a medianaged over 13 mg/L between June 1973 and May value of 73. Secondary treatment did not sub-1974, but have been in the 6- to 7-mg/L range stantially modify the range of values and the

since this time Secondary treatment resulted in secondary wastewater had a median value of

only a fraction of a part per million reduction in 7.2 The specific conductance of the wastewaterP content This wastewater is medium to weak ranged from 120 to 660 u~s/cm for the primarywith respect to P content (Metcalf and Eddy and 100 to 720 hs/cm for the secondary, wth1972) Of the 7 mg/L total P found in the waste- mean values of 419 and 425. respectively Thewater, all but about 1 to 2 mg/I is in the soluble total salt content, as measured by the specificortho-P form conductance, and the chloride ion content did

16

not signiticantly change in the secondary treat- Sprinkler applicationment process. Ammonia stripping is a technique which has

The concentration of fecal coliform bacteria been used successfully with high pH wastewaterin the primary wastewater was generally found to remove N in conjunction with conventionalin the 10' to 106 organisms/i00 mL range, while treatment. It has also been mentioned as a possi-that in the secondary was from 101 to 101 organ- ble mechanism of removal when wastewater isisms/100 mL, a reduction of one to two orders of applied to the land by sprinkler irrigation (Lancemagnitude. The levels of fecal coliform organ- 1975), although little information is available toisms varied drastically due to the ozone disinfec- assess its significance.tion unit's large amount of down time, which re- We took samples of the wastewater applied tosuited in the lack of any disinfection during the CRREL test cells from the holding tanks be-parts of this study. The levels of fecal strepto- fore application and from the surface of the testcocci were measured in the primary wastewater cells after sprinkler application. Table 10 corn-in 1979-80 and found in the low 10 range. pares the concentration of ammonium in the

The mean concentrations of major cations, samples from these two. Nitrate values are in-Na* , Ca-, Mg** and K , in the secondary waste- cluded since some nitrification can occur whilewater were 44.0, 11.8, 2.9 and 10.0 mg/L. This cor- the sample is being collected on the cell surface;responds to a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of this conversion is not related to ammonia vola-about 3. This is much lower than the value of 15, tilization. By comparing the sum of ammoniumwhich is usually considered to be the critical lev- N and nitrate N before and after sprinkler appli-el for reducing soil permeability (Reed et al. cation, the extent of ammonia loss can be as-1972). sessed. The assessment, however, is relative to

The trace volatile organic composition of the water loss since spraying undoubtedly causeswastewater was studied during 1979-80. The some volume reduction. The mean pH of the pri-most significant components were generally mary wastewater was 7.3, that of the secondarychloroform and toluene. Their concentrations in wastewater was 7.2.chlorinated wastewater varied significantly from For primary wastewater, the mean value ofday to day, ranging from 9 to 13 /JgIL for chloro- the sum of ammonium N and nitrate N decreasedform and 4 to 93 /AgIL for toluene. With unchlor- slightly from 25.5 mg/L before spraying to 24.2inated wastewater, the chloroform and toluene mg/L after collection on the surface of the cellconcentrations were somewhat lower indicating (Table 10). For secondary wastewater, the meanthey were both produced in the chlorination pro- value decreased from 23.8 mg/L to 22.9 mg/L.cess. Several other components, including meth- While these values are consistent, they were notylene chloride, bromodichloromethane and te- found to be statistically different using thetrachloroethylene, were occasionally detected Students t-test. Thus no statistically significantat lower concentrations. loss of ammonia in excess of the water loss was

From November 1974 through May 1980, low found during sprinkler application of waste-concentrations of a series of volatile organic waters with pH values near neutrality.substances were added to the wastewater ap- We also analyzed the wastewater before andplied to the cells. after spraying for trace volatile organics on a

Table 10. Ammonium and nitrate in applied wastewater (mgL) before andafter sprinkler application (20 November 1974-19 March 1978).

Primary wastewater Secondary wastewater

Ammonium Before After Before After

and nitrate spraying spraying spraying spraying

NH4 25 3±8 2 (158)t 239± 7 4(168) 19 7±89 (154) 166±91 (102)

NO, 02±1 2 (160) 0 1±1 0(170) 4 ;±64(158) 63 ±67(108)

NH'+ NO, 255±83 242±75 240±110 229±11 3

*Standard deviationtNumbers in parentheses are the number of individual analyses over this period

17

-,. -

.......

Table 11. Reduction of volatile organics concen- tention time in the soil will generally not be con-

trations during sprinkler application. stant but will vary with the application rate, theamount of precipitation and evapotranspiration.

Mean concentrations and the initial soil moisture.(P*,L) To estimate retention time in the test cells, we

Before After Percent determined the chloride concentration of sam-Substance spraying spraying removal pies taken from the 45-cm suction lysimeters

and from the percolate at the bottom of theChloroform (6) 41 8 140 57 152-cm profile after potassium chloride fertilizerToluene (4) 57 3 24 4 57 4

Methylene chloride (4) 761 232 695 was applied in April 1977. Smith (1972) and1,1 dichloroethane (5) 302 9.88 67.3 Nakano and Iskandar (1978) have used chlorideBromodichloromethane (1) 11 1 3.98 64.1 to trace water movement in soils because it doesTetrachloroethvlene (4) 61 9 227 633 not significantly interact with soil materials. Fig-Acetone (3) 2 56t 1 39t" 456 ure 6 shows the results for test cells 1 and 6.Ethyl acetate (3) 1 97t 0.85t 568 These retention times are for an average applica-

Numbers in parentheses indicate nunber of times this tion rate of 4.8 cm/wk for cell 1 and 3.8 cm/wksubstance was studied for cell 6 over this period. In both cases, waste-water was applied once per week. The retention

time in the top 45 cm for cell 1 was about 35days, for cell 6 it was about 55 days (Table 12).

number of days from August 1979 through May The retention time in the entire 152-cm profile1980. Initially this was done with chlorinated was 67 days for cell 1 and 81 days for cell 6. Thewastewater and later with wastewater to which a retention time for cell 1 (Windsor soil) agreesnumber of volatile organics had been added. well with results reported by Nakano and Iskan-The results are presented in Table 11. dar (1978) from a lysimeter study using the same

In all cases the concentrations of volatile sub- soil and a similar application rate. The retentionstances were significantly reduced, ranging from times for the other cells and the average applica-45% for acetone to 69% for methylene chloride tion rate used over this period are given in Table(Table 11); chloroform removal averaged 66%. 12.Sprinkler application appears to be an important It should be emphasized that these retentionmechanism for reducing trace volatile organics time values depend on the time of year andduring the spraying process. would be somewhat different (generally shorter)

during other periods. Nevertheless, the informa-Soil water movement tion does point out that percolate concentra-

The treatment efficiency of a slow rate system tions of substances such as nitrate, which moveis more difficult to assess over the short term through the soil in a manner similar to chloride,than that of a conventional treatment plant be- stem from wastewater applied considerably be-cause the water arriving at any given point in the fore the percolate appears at the bottom of thesoil profile probably was applied to the system cell.at least several days previously. The travel or re-

Table 12. Average retention time of water in test cellsoil profile (April through September 1977).

Avg. application rateover test period Retention time Retention time in

Test (April-July) in top 45 cm 152-cm profilecell (cmlwk) (days) (days)

1 48 35 672 30 55 773 30 62 774 3 5 64 815 3 1 64 816 38 55 81

O18

200

Chloride mg 1) vs Time do0¥$

,6 0

120 / 45cr,

-,

/

- 80'.-

,,r - - 'Percolote 152 cm-

'10 128 0 0 ' 0 20 30 OT 0 I'll 3'U' 10 20 501 0 20 30

'0,I Jul Aug SeD1Q77

a. Test cell 1.

20 - 202 _

45cm

120 i A

Z 80 -

40

L I

2M iv 0uI 0 i 20 -C 30 0 20 3)

AJun Jul S&p

1917

b. Test cell 6.

Figure 6. Chloride ion concentrations in soil solution at 45- and 152-cm depths after KCI fertilization.

19

Fable 13. Test cell water balance (L), June 1974 through May 1980.

Test Wastewater Total Pan fw/f, ( x 100)cell applied Precipitation* applied Percolate Differencet evaporation- ° 1%)

1 435,723 392,627 828,350 539,657 288,693 251,538 1152tt 711.807 392,627 1,104,434 831,398 273,036 251.583 1093tt 458.463 392,627 851.090 633,591 217.499 251.583 864tt 440,346 392,627 832,973 597,972 235,001 251.583 93Stt 446,395 392,627 839,022 573.522 295.500 251.583 1176 453.504 392.627 846,131 570.486 275.645 251583 110

*Calculated on a cell surface area basis of 76 790 m', which included Vi area of concrete side wallst This value is the total applied minus the measured percolate* Calculated on a 72 836-ml cell surface area

tt June 74 through May 78

Water balance and evapotranspiration limation from the snowpack is also probablyThe design of the six test cells allows the small, but has not been measured. The forma-

water applied and the water leaving the test cell tion of aerosols undoubtedly occurs to some ex-to be precisely measured. Since June 1974, all of tent, but the pressure at the nozzle is low, sothe water applied to the cells and all of the mean droplet size is expected to be rather largewater percolating to the bottom of the 152-cm The measured differences are thus mainly due toprofile has been metered. The amount of preci- plant evapotranspiration, A ballpark figure ofpitation and pan evaporation has also been mon- 80% of pan evaporation is often used to esti-itored carefully over this period. A yearly water mate plant evapotranspiration (Linsley et al.balance for each cell is presented in Appendix 1958). The values obtained in this study rangeTables Al through A6. from 86 to 117% with a mean value of 105%. It

A summary of the 6-year water balance totals appears that the 80% value is too low for slowis presented in Table 13. The Difference column rate systems, at least in the northeast Unitedrepresents the total water applied including pre- States.cipitation minus the total water percolating If the "missing" water was mainly due to plantfrom the base of the cells. Soil water content evapotranspiration, we felt a correlation shouldover the 5-year period is assumed to be identical exist between the amount of missing water andat the beginning and end of the tabulation peri- the amount of plant material produced For cellsod. This assumption is probably valid because 1 and 6, both the water balances (Appendixwastewater had been applied for a year before Tables Al and Ab) and plant yields (Jenkins et althe start of the tabulation period. In addition, 1981) are available from June 1974 through Maythe start and end of the period were at the same 1980 For cells 2-5 the water balances are avail-date (1 June) so that seasonal variations in soil able throughout (Appendix Tables A2 throughmoisture would be minimized. AS), but yield measurements were only available

As can be seen in Table 13, the difference in from June 1974 through May 1978 (Jenkins et althe amount of water applied versus the amount 1981) These results have been tabulated inof water percolating to the bottom of the cells Table 14exceeded the measured pan evaporation in all The amount of missing water per kilogram ofcases. dry matter produced ranged from 979 to 1228

The difference between the amount of water L/kg with a mean value of 1049 L/kg. With the ex-applied to the cells and the amount of water per- ception of cell 2, this ratio for the other five cellscolating to the bottom of the cells is a result of was very similar. Thus slightly more than 1000 Lplant evapotranspiration, sublimation from the of water was lost from the test cells for every kil-snow pack during the winter, aerosolization and ogram of dry matter (forage grass) produced.evaporation during the spraying process, and This value is somewhat higher than those forspray blown off the cells on windy days. This last other crops such as lucerne (alfalfa), corn,contribution should be minimal since applica- wheat, rice and flax, which have been reportedtions were halted when wind conditions caused to use from 277 to 844 L of water/kg of dry mat-the spray to visibly impact outside the cell. Sub- ter produced (Mengel and Kirkby 1978).

20

Table 14. Yield of plant material pro. value agrees well with published results from theduced versus amount of "mising" Hubbard Brook Research Study (Eaton et al.water. 1978). These concentrations have been

multiplied by the rainfall volumes to calculateTest Yield Missing water Ratio the mass of N in the rainfall in kg/ha. Thesecell (kg dry wt) (L) (L/k values were added to the wastewater N to give

1" 27359 288.702 1055 the total N applied to the cells over the study2t 16637 204,251 1228 period (Table 15). Fixation of N by the test cell3t 151 51 153.744 1015 soils and plants has been assumed to be zero,4t 147 67 150,372 1018 primarily because of the highly mineral-rich en-5t 17581 176,060 1001 vironment and the types of plant species grown.6" 281 16 275,645 979 Plant uptake of N ranged from 1063 to 2050

*Data obtained from June 1974 through May kg/ha. The N that percolated through the soil1980 profile was mainly nitrate and ranged from 957t Data obtained from June 1974 through May to 2557 kg/ha. The amount that percolated from19781a specific test cell was a function of the average

application rate used.When the amount of N taken up in the grass

Mass balance of N and the amount that leached in the percolateThe design of the CRREL test cells is uniquely are subtracted from the total amount applied, 72

suited to provide information on the relative im- to 507 kg/ha remains unaccounted for (Table 15).portance of plant uptake, leaching of nitrate N, This amount is from 2.9 to 14.4% of the total Nand the sum of various other mechanisms that applied. By considering only plant uptake andremove N. The concentration of N applied to the leaching of N from the profile, an average ofand percolating from the test cells has been 91 % of the applied N has been accounted forcarefully monitored from June 1973 through over a 4- or 6-year period. The amount of N re-May 1980 for cells 1 and 6, and from Iune 1973 maining can be attributed to the sum of all otherthrough May 1978 for cells 2-5. We have mea- renovative mechanisms such as denitrification,sured the volume of water associated with each ammonia volatilization from the soil, and netanalysis since June 1974 and have also calcu- storage of N in the soil. The volatilization duringlated the amounts of N removed by the forage sprinkler application is not considered heregrasses. These results (Table 15) allow an accu- since the N applied is calculated from the sam-rate assessment of the fate of applied N. pIes taken at the soil surface.

The amount of N applied to test cells 1 and 6 Denitrification and removal mechanismsfrom June 1974 through May 1980 and to cells other than plant uptake and leaching account2-5 from June 1974 through May 1978 ranged for only about 9% of the N applied. This is sig-2440 to 4293 kg/ha. The mean N content of rain- nificantly lower than the 20% assumed by thefall in Hanover, New Hampshire, has been Process Design Manual for the Land Treatment ofstudied and found to be about 0.3 mg/L-N as Wastewater (EPA 1977). This result agrees withnitrate and 0.2 mg/L-N as ammonium (Dr. ).F. conclusions obtained by Brar et al. (1978) andHornig, Dartmouth College. pers. comm.). This Kissel et al. (1979). Brar's results, from the Penn-

Table IS. Total N mass balance (kglha), June 1974 through May 1980.

Test Plant Percentt Percentcell Applied Precipitation Total uptake Percolate removal Missing missing

1 3474 40 3514 2050 957 725 507 1442- 4293 30 4323 1359 2557 404 408 943- 2477 30 2507 1149 1148 537 210 8.44- 2443 30 2473 1063 1222 50.0 188 7 65 2440 30 2470 1232 1166 522 72 296 3550 40 3590 1991 1112 687 487 136

'Datea for these cells only available through May 1978t Removal efficiency for percolate vs applied wastewater

21

sylvania State University system, indicated a Table 16. Mean N content of percolates.lack of significant potential for denitrification,probably due to an insufficient source of organic Test N (mg/L)C for the denitrifying organisms. The CRREL test cell Nitrate* Ammonium Organic Totalcells are also low in organic C due to the lowlevels of C in the wastewater and the initial low it 6.4 (557) 0.1 (517) 0.8(219) 7.3levels in the soils (Table 3). Kissel's results, from 2'* 132 (540) 1.4 (504) 0.3 (243) 149

3"* 9.0 (515) 0.8 (479) 04(232) 102agricultural fertilization of coastal bermuda- 4- 9.7(512) <0.1 (479) 0.1 (235) 98grass over a 6-year period, indicate that N losses 5"* 94 (470) <0.1 (433) 0.1 (204) 9.5due to denitrifications were insignificant. 6t 6.6 (562) <0.1 (518) 0.7 (236) 7.3

Values in parentheses refer to the number of in-Seasonal N variation in percolate dividual analyses which are represented by the mean

The average concentration of percolate ni- value.trate ranged from 6.4 mg/L in cell 1 to 13.2 mg/L t lune 1973 through May 1980.

in cell 2 (Table 16). The annual mean concentra- I une 1973 through May 1978

tion of nitrate in the percolate was found to cor-relate well with the annual total N loading rate(Fig. 7). Long term application of wastewater at a a mean percolate nitrate limit of 10 mg/L is therate of 5 cm/wk resulted in mean percolate ni- performance criterion to be met.trate concentrations of 6.4 mg/L in the Windsor The nitrate concentrations in the percolate ofsoil and 6.6 mg/L in the Charlton soil. Waste- the six test cells varied on a seasonal basis. Fig-water was applied at a rate of 7.5 cm/wk from ure 8 presents monthly mean values for test cells1974-76, with average mass loadings of about 1 and 6 between June 1973 and May 1980. The800 kg/ha that resulted in percolate nitrates of concentrations of nitrate were generally lower inabout 9 mg/L. For these total N loading rates and these two cells than in the other four cells due tothe best fit line in Figure 7, a value of about 10 a lower wastewater application rate, 5 cm/wkmg/L would be predicted. An application rate of over the entire 6-year period. Cell 1 contains7.5 cm/wk thus seems feasible for a wastewater Windsor soil; cell 6 contains Charlton soil. Wewith a mean total N content of about 25 mg/L, if applied secondary wastewater to both through

12 1 1I I I

2

CoL6

z

..

2- a ,1 764b - I 002r2 "0 909

-1 I 1 I300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Total Nitrogen Loading Rate (kg/ho-yr)

Figure 7. Percolate nitrate concentration vs annualN loading rate, test cells 1 and 6, June 1974through May 1980.

22

20 29 2) ______(243)

6'

12-6 NO-3

II

J/1L973 177_ VK ; 9478 199 1980

-L31 a. Test cell 1.

6K I /2

E8

49

Oi NH: i

973 194 75 1976 I1977 1978 - 979 1980

b. Test cell 6.

Figure 8. Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 1 and 6, June 1973 through December 1980.

August 1978, then applied primary wastewater these levels in 6 subsequent years, although athrough 1980. peak of higher than normal concentrations did

We found high concentrations of nitrate in the occur nearly every summer for all six test cells.percolate from these cells in early summer 1974. The unusual intensity of the nitrate peak infollowing the first year of wastewater applica- 1974 may be characteristic of the first year oftion (Iskandar et al. 1976). The values averaged wastewater application. Reinholm and Avni-about 30 mg/L for both cells in July 1974. Nitrate melech (1974) and Cole and Scheiss (1978) foundconcentrations have never again approached similar behavior during the first year of waste-

21

L.

and the second in early winter. Because of thetravel time or detention time in the soil profile,estimated to be about 2 or 3 months (Fig. 6), thewater leaving the 152-cm profile during thesetwo periods passed through the plant rootingzone up to several months before emerging as

4 percolate These high nitrate concentrationscorrespond to periods of wastewater applicationbefore and after the major plant growing season

2- NO, Hence a substantial portion of the N applied(Te st Cell No 1) during these periods leached through the soil

___--_________________, _ ,A curious phenomenon was observed when

14 . wastewater was applied to cells 1 and 6 in thez (Test Cell No 6) winter of 1974-75 and to cell 6 in the winter ofLJ 1975-76 (Fig. B). Much of the ammonium applied;during these periods was not totally nitrified

since ammonium moved through the entire pro-t0 file in cell 1 and was found in the percolate at

low concentrations (Fig 8) (Iskandar et al 1976)a We observed this phenomenon to a much larger

extent in cell 2 during the winter of 1974-75 andwill discuss it letter Some nitrification did occurthroughout the winter, however, as shown by thecontinued presence of nitrate in concentrations

4- as high as 10 mgL in the percolate throughoutthese periods No large peak of nitrate was

2- found in the percolate in the spring or summerfollowing these winter applications The fate ofthe N stored in the soil during winter applica-

hi A M J J A S 0 N 0 J F M tions is unclear Ammonium that had slowlyMonths moved downward in the profile during winter

Figure 9, Average annual cycle of percolate may have nitrified at a slow rate thereafter TheFigre i. Aerae andl ce rnitrate formed would leach over long periodsnitrate in cells I and 6. and not show a large peak in concentration in

the months following winter applicationTest cells 3 and 4 were treated with primary

water application to soil Increased mineraliza- wastewater from June 1973 through May 1978.tion of native soil N presumably causes this phe- with annual variation in the wastewater applica-nomenon. tion rate of 5 to 11 cm/wk (Table 1) Cell 3 was

Since the first year, concentrations of nitrate filled with Windsor soil, cell 4 was filled within the percolate have generally remained below Charlton soil Both cells were treated in an iden-10 mgIL for these two cells. Occasionally, tical manner to assess variations in response duemonthly mean values have exceeded 10 mg/L to different soil types The mean percolate Nbut they always stayed above 10 mg/IL for less content from cell 3 was 10 2 mg/L, that from cell

than 2 months. It should be emphasized that the 4 was 9 8 mg/L In both cases, the percolate Nconcentrations measured are not diluted with was almost totally in the nitrate form (lable 16)natural groundwater as they would be in real sys- Figure 10 shows the seasonal behavior of ni-tems even before the water left the system boun- trate in the percolate from cells 3 and 4 As indary. In a real system, the concentrations would cells 1 and 6, a high peak of nitrate concentra-be diluted before the water was available for re- tions was generally found for cell 3 in early sum-use. mer each year This same peak was observed in

Figure 9 shows the average percolate values cell 4 as well, generally a little later because thefor each month (an average annual cycle). This Charlton soil retained wastewater longercycle shows two peaks in the nitrate concentra- In lune 1976 the surfaces of cells 2-5 were re-tion for both cells 1 and 6, one in early summer conditioned to level the irregularities in the sur-

24

10 20AI5) (2436) (21 ±L.04)03 i~~L ___-

I? N o;j12-N -

z

E

Sr 0

4r-

1973 1 974 ,975 1976 ,97,? 1NH 9797617

a. Test cell 3.

- -

I'I

N-+~

° 4

i' 9 i 4 I 9 - i<6 I ? i 9"

b. Test cell 4.

Figure 10 Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 3 and 4, June 1973 throughDecember 1978

25

Table 17. Test cell 3 and 4 annual percolate N. wastewater on test cells 3 and 4. Applicationrates of about 7.5 cm/wk resulted in average

Per(olate N percolate values of about 10 mg/L. the federalpphl: ation 1mg Li drinking water limit for nitrate.r.. le (tf4 The peaks of nitrate concentration exceeded.... 20 mg/Lo generally for short periods in the early

I.int 1471 Mj., 1,4 1, 41 7 4 summer. The dilution that occurs when thisline 11#74 Ma, 1471, 7 ° 88 1 leachate mixes with the natural groundwaterlune i7, M,, 147h 7 10(4 8 , would reduce the effect of these short term fluc-ul, 1476 .,a 1,477" 2 1 1 It 11 h 4 tuations in actual operating land treatment sys-

huin)" 77-Ma, 1q78 _7 _ q7 1(14 tems. A 7.5-cm/wk application rate may there-., fut onditioned in June h7i, fore be acceptable for these soils. No large dif-

t hw iappli at .n r, u, w *re (hange.d iperodi(all in an ferences in performance due to soil types wereattemui to nhath h ,a.,%onal plant Ultak.' observed.

The annual application rates and percolate Nconcentrations are given for test cells 2 and 5 in

face of the cells caused by soil settling after con- Table 18. These cells received various applica-struction At this time quackgrass was the domi- tion rates and types of wastewater. Test cell 2nant vegetation in the test cells, reconditioning contained a Windsor soil and received 15 cm/wkalso provided a good opportunity to establish a of secondary effluent at a rate of 5 cm/day, 3more desirable forage species such as orchard- days a week over a 2-year period from June 1974grass or reed canarygrass. Reconditioning in- through May 1976. The percolate N resultingcluded rototilling the surface soil to a depth of from this high wastewater loading rate exceeded15 cm and reseeding Wastewater irrigations 10 mg/L most of the time. This 15 cm/wk applica-were resumed in July 1976 and continued tion rate was used throughout the winter ofthrough the fall The percolate concentrations 1974-75 and resulted in the leaching of not onlyfrom cells 3 and 4 were high for a period of nitrate but also ammonium from the bottom ofabout a year following this reconditioning pro- the profile (Fig. 11). Iskandar et al. (1976) foundcess. roughly the same behavior found during monthly average concentrations of ammoniumthe first year wastewater was applied to the as high as 9.5 mg/L in March 1975. When the 15cells The growth of vegetation was slow during cm/wk application rate was continued inthis establishment period and plant uptake of N 1975-76, applications were suspended duringwas lower than usual Loading rates of waste- winter and no significant leaching of ammoniumwater should therefore be reduced during the wasfound. Themovementofammoniumthroughinitial year of wastewater application and after the profile in the Windsor soil (cells 1 and 2) pro-site reconditioning to maintain percolate N at bably resulted from the low cation exchange ca-acceptable levels pacity (7 meq/100 g) of this soil. Even after two

Table 17 presents the annual percolate N re- winter applications on cell 6, no leaching of am-sulting from various application rates of primary monium was found for this cell, which contains

Table 18. Test cell 2 and 5 annual percolate N.

Test cell 2 Test cell 5Application Percolate Application Percolate

rate N rate NPeriod (cm/wk) ( mgL) (cm/wk) (m5L)

lune 1973-May 1974 10St 109 10-S 93June 1974-May 1975 15-S lb4 7 S-P (24 hr) 120June 1975-May 1976 15-S 155 7 5-P (24 hr) 56July 1976-May 1977. 2 S-12-Pt 12 5 2 5-11-P 94June 1977-May 1978 7 S-P 1011 7 5-P 12 3

* Surface of cells reconditioned in lune 1976t S - secondarv wastewaterSP - primary wastewater

26

(2T.0) (22.7)2 0

F ( ) 8 9) 2 1 8 (22 .2 ) ( 2 4 6 )

6

E

8-

NOH 4

00

1973 1974 175 1976 19 17978a. Test cell 2.

20 21.7) (147.86) (23m) 121.4)

6

N 0

12z

6

F 8

4o

19... 97 t 197 7 - 1978

b. Test cell 5.

Figure 11. Monthly averaged nitrate and ammonium in percolate from cells 2 and 5, June 1973 throughDecember 1978.

27

Ant -X--

the Chariton silt loam soil. The cation exchange fective rooting zone of the plants with the nextcapacity for the Charlton soil is 13.5 meq/100 g, application, leaving less available for plant up-so this soil can retain considerably more ammo- take. If a large portion of the N applied in thenium than can the Windsor soil. wastewater was already in the nitrate form,

Table 18 gives the annual loading rates of three consecutive 8-hr applications would prob-wastewater applied to cell 5 along with the re- ably be superior to one 24-hr application.suiting percolate total N concentrations. Figure11 shows the seasonal behavior of percolate ni-trate during the period of wastewater applica-tion. In the other cells we found very high con- Plant yields and N uptakecentrations in the early summer following the As shown in Table 15, plant uptake was foundfirst year of application. Since that time we have to be the major mechanism for removal of N. Inobserved only one incident in which nitrate has order to determine the relationship between thereached 20 mg/L. That incident was in May-June amount of'N applied and the amount removed1977 after the surface reconditioning. by the grass, the mass of N applied after the last

From June 1974 through May 1976, cell 5 re- harvest period each year through the last harvestceived 7.5 cm of wastewater per week in one period the following year was plotted versus the24-hr application. This schedule compares with amount of N removed by the crop over this peri-cell 4 where the same weekly loading rate was od. The results are shown in Figure 12.used, but where the application was spread over For the most part a relatively linear relation-three 8-hr periods on consecutive days. We com- ship was obtained for loading rates of N up topared the mean percolate N concentrations re- about 800 kg/ha. In this range about 60% of thesuiting from these application schedules from applied N is taken by the grass. Above 800 kg/ha,September 1974 through May 1976. The results the curve breaks and there is very little increase

showed a mean percolate nitrate concentration in N uptake for large increases in N loading. Toof 8.9 mg/L for cell 5 and 10.6 for cell 4. The ap- obtain the best fit, the eight points obtained forplication of the wastewater in one 24-hr period 1975 and 1976 were neglected since analysis in-seems to have slightly improved the N treatment dicated that during these years the soils andrelative to the application of the same volume in plants were K deficient (Palazzo and Jenkinsthree 8-hr periods on three consecutive days. 1979) and hence these results are not typical ofThis conclusion differs somewhat from that pre- optimum growing conditions. During these yearssented by Palazzo and McKim (1978) for this plant K levels were found to average 2.16% withsame experiment. These investigators did not individual values as low as 1.45% as comparedconsider the travel time necessary for water ap- to an average of 3.05% found in other years.plied at the surface to percolate through the These plant uptake results agree well with the152-cm profile. Nitrogen concentrations from percolate nitrate relationship given in Figure 7June 1974 through August 1974 were included in This figure shows that above 800 kg/ha the per-their calculations although they are mainly a re- colate nitrate concentrations increase signifi-suit of the application schedule used on the cells cantly. This coincides with the breakpoint in thethe previous year. In the previous year, cell 5 re- plant uptake curve above which the plants areceived 10 cm of wastewater per week while cell unable to maintain the high percent removal4 received only 5 cm. Percolate nitrates were found below 800 kg/ha.therefore expected to be somewhat higher for Plant yields during the study were found tocell 5 during these 3 months and were found to range from 7.4 to 17.6 metric tons/ha with aaverage 23.8 mg/L, compared to 19.0 mg/L for mean value of 13.1 metric tons/ha. The yield wascell 4 during this time. found to be related to N loading rate in the same

The reason for improved performance when manner as shown for N uptake (Fig. 12). The aver-the water is applied in one continuous 24-hr ap- age yield was about three times as great as theplication period is uncertain. One possible ex- yield from a normal hayfield in this areaplanation is that the ammonium applied, when (N.E.C.L.R. 1978), indicating a very favorable re-applications are made in three 8-hr periods on sponse of the grass to the applied wastewater.consecutive days, nitrifies in the rest periods be- Periodic samples of the grass were analyzedtween applications The nitrate formed is much to determine its suitability as animal feed. Themore mobile in the soil than is ammonium A results indicated it was of excellent qualityportion of this nitrate could leach beyond the ef- (Barnes 1975). The grass was found to contain an

28

700

-= 600

500 0

0

Z 400-o

S300-

Z *-Uptake values with optimum K

a. 200

y-a* b/x

a-786100 ba-245492

r2=083

200 600 1860 1400Total Nitrogen Loading Rate (kg/ho-yr?

Figure 12. Plant uptake of N vs annual wastewater N loadingrate.

average of 20% crude protein and 63% total di- out this period. Information on plant uptake ofgestable nutrients. N for periods of less than a year is required bv

In terms of cost benefits to a land treatment some designers of land treatment sites. The Pro-system the value of the hay can be calculated on cess Design Manual for Land Treatment of Mu-a 15% moisture basis. The average hay yield was nicipal Wastewater (EPA 1977) requires system13.1 metric tons/ha on a dry weight basis or 15.1 design calculations on a monthly basis.metric tons/ha on a 15% moisture basis. When In this study the first harvest period was theconsidering 66 kg bales at $1.50/bale, the annual most active in terms of average daily uptake ofvalue of this hay is about $343/ha. N. Although the number of days in each succes-

sive period increased, total and mean daily plantPlant uptake by harvest periods uptake declined for each successive harvest peri-

Table 19 presents the average amount of N re- od. Of the total annual amount of N taken up bymoved by the plants in cells 1 and 6 during each plants, an average of 38% was removed duringharvest period from 1974 through 1980. Cells 1 the first harvest, 34% in the second harvest, andand 6 received 5 cm/wk of wastewater through- 28% in the third harvest. Palazzo and Graham

Table 19. Average plant uptake of N by harvest periods forcells 1 and 6 (1974 through 1980).

Mean Average no. of

Actual Percent of daily uptake days in

Cutting (kg ha) annual total (kg/ha) harvest period

First* 149 6± 48 6 38 404 37

Second 132 0 ± 51 1 34 281 47

Thirdl 107 8 ± 55 7 28 166 65

* The first cutting period was assumed to begin on 1 May

t The third period ended at the last cutting of the year. generally in mid-

September

29

(1981), who studied the seasonal growth of or- a much higher P loading rate. Because the con-chardgrass under similar conditions in Hanover, centration of P was below the detection limit ofalso reported a decline in daily plant uptake of the analytical method used for the first 2 years,nutrients for each successive harvest period, the percent of mass removed cannot be accu-

rately calculated. If we assume the average PPhosphorus treatment concentrations in the test cell percolates were

During the 7-year period, June 1973 through equal in the first 2 years to those measured sinceMay 1980, the total P applied to the test cells 1975, we can calculate mass removal percent-varied from 859 to 1531 kg/ha (Table 20). The ages (Table 20). When this was done, mass re-concentration of total P in the primary waste- movals ranged from 98.9 to 99.5% While thewater during the first 5 years averaged 7.6 mg/L; mass removal calculations are based on low lev-that in the secondary wastewater averaged 7.3 el ortho-P measurements on the percolate, or-mg/L (Table 8). The concentration of total P aver- ganic C and organic N measurements indicateaged 6.9 mg/L for the primary wastewater from that very little organic P could be leachingJune 1978 through May 1980 (Table 9). Figure 13 presents monthly averaged ortho-P

From the beginning of the experiment, June concentrations for cells 1 and 6 Percolate phos-1973, through May 1975, the percolate from the phate concentrations were not found to be sea-test cells was analyzed for total P with a diges- sonally dependent. Monthly values for test cellstion procedure. This method had a detection lim- 2-5 are similar.it of about 0.2 mg/L. In all cases the concentra- The removal of P from solution as the watertion of P in the percolate was found to be below percolates through the soil is due to soil reac-this detection limit. tions and plant uptake Table 21 presents the

From June 1975 through May 1980, the perco- amount of P taken up by the plants over thelate was also analyzed for ortho-P using a meth- 7-year study period The 7-year mean plant up-od with a much lower detection limit (about 0.01 take ranged from 18 to 30% of total P appliedmg/L). The mean percolate ortho-P concentra- over this period and the mass uptake rangedtions over this period ranged from 0.03 mg/L in from 29 to 39 kg/ha Plant uptake of P was not atest cell 6 to 0.07 mg/l in test cell 2. Only one function of application ratesingle monthly average value over this period for When mass loading rates of P were below 75any one cell ever exceeded 0.14 mg/L. The mean kg/ha, plants removed over 50% Similar resultspercolate concentrations were found to be have been reported by Clapp et al (1978) in a re-slightly higher in cells where higher average view paper covering forage grasses receivingloading rates of P were used, but the increase secondary wastewater at five sites in the U Swas small compared to the increased P loading and Canada Hook et al (1974) and Karlen et alThis is particularly evident for cell 2, which had (1976) have also found similar results

Table 20. Test cell P removal (June 1973 through May 1980).

A verageapplication P appliedt P in percolate

Test rate Conc Total Conc • Totalt Removal

cell (cmik) ImrgL) lg hal (mg;LI lAgha) 1%)

1 5 75 911 004 64 9912" 11 79 1541 007 152 990" 7 8 1 859 0O0 71 99 2

4" 8 77 878 006 85 9908 7 7 878 006 85 990

6 5 7 t 11(1 001 so 995

P 'er( olate ortho P on(entrationS reported are for the period June 1975through Ma,, 1tP(1 tor rell% 1 anti h and June 1975 through May 1978 for(ell 2 5

t A%,urning (on(entration of Pin percolate before June 1975 wasimilar tothat measured in the period 1975 through 1980[)ata reported (riers the period June 1975 through May 1978

i0

II

? 4Test Cell No I

E

19 T5 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 960

Test Cell No A04 PE

4.4

;02.

0L975 1 1976 1977 1 $78 t (979 1 980

Figure 73. Monthly average ortho-P concentrations in test cell 1 and 6 percolates.

Table 21. Total annual application and plant uptake of P (kglha), June 1973 through May 1980.

( llt ei '( ell 1 0,11l4 ( eN S ( e;(

PI..nl % -emde PII' Plnpt'( ((int %, fen-c(e Mi., %, remmed Plant, %, --- Plant 4.,.n,Apol uptAke h,_ p 1ants ' ppI u~ptrke. h lant, A ppl utlpake Iv pl~lnt App) up~tak,. 15 plants A.ppi uptake h, p.intr App, ulptake h , r

lun,'I m.,, '4 1#,8 24 17 446 14 W 8 174 25 14 181 i) 17 288 it 11 Il 1 1 2 .

lune 4 Ma, '- 208 40 14 ('24 4 1 8 12(1 42 1 1 1t )

40 1 4 247 4 1 14 I1 27 14

In., 7 1j ' tl , 108 11 11 144 42 12 111 2 1 21 1115 24 2 3 1 I/I 2 24 141) 1 14 .4

lurn, I , '1, 7 1(12 II 12 1(7 2, 24 (11 21 20 1112 2S 2S 124 81 24 1114 44 18

1,,n,'7

%M" 'A '8 $01 64 48l 11 it, 147 it, 24 M, 47 St, S; It, bs 71 ;1 'I

lune '8 %., '-4 112 2 44, 11 41 it,

Iunn 4 %1,,, PA) 118 U4 2s IM I- 1 2 1'

11 114 271 1() 141 1811 18 8118 l4t 17 771 4h4 2) 874 t

1'l 14 44'i 247 28

(ta, mn,.An Ii_ 14 1 111, If, (8 172 2 18 44 I 41 21 0 17b 4 14 1 14 4% 2,

A study conducted by Overman and Ku (1976) not tound in either the percolate or in plant ma-

indicates that forage grasses remove P more effi- terial, it has accumulated in the soil. For the six

ciently than do cereal crops and Kardos and Sop- cells this accumulation ranges from 600 to over

per (1974) found that forages are more efficient 1300 kg/ha. The soil was analyzed at depth for

than corn. Since the crops used in the test cells total P initially and periodically through 1980.

were forage grasses, a change to another type of The results for cells 1 and 6 are presented in Fig-

vegetation would probably not improve P re- ure 14.

moval If P loading rates are in excess of 75 For cell 1, a significant increase in soil P was

kg/ha/yr, the soil must be relied on to remove a found in the upper 30 cm of soil while little

major portion of the P and to do so for long per- change was found deeper in the profile This re-

iods While plant uptake at these higher loading suit is consistent with analyses of soil solution

rates accounts for only a small percentage of the and percolate which indicate very little down-

P applied (Table 22), it may extend the system's ward movement of P (Table 23). When tabulatedlifetime )v lessening the amount of P the soil on a mass basis, this change is roughly equiva-

must assimilate lent to the mass of P applied to cell 1, but not

Since the bulk of P applied to the test cell was found in percolate or plant analysis.

Concentration (,sg/g)

0 400 600 800 400 600 800 1000

20-

i40

S60 (0) Initial(1973)

(a) 1976

80 (0) 1980

Tst Cell TetCl6Windsor Chariton

Figure 14. Soil P concentrations for test cells I and 6.

Table 22. Mean plant removal of P under various massloadings.

Range of Mean Mean PlantP loading rate loading rate removal No. of uptake

lkg/ha/yr) (kglhalyr) (kg! halyr) determinations* (%

0-75 68 40 8 5975-150 107 41 11 38

Above 150 230 48 5 21

Number of determinations within the appropriate mass loading range forP

Table 23. Mean orf ho-P concentrations (mglL)in soil solution at 45 cm and in the percolate.

Test cell I (Windsor) Test cell 6 (Chariton)

45 cm Percolate* 45 cm Percolate*

1975 008 (7)t 0.07 (41) 0.08 (17) 0.05 (40)1977 0.15 (2) 0.05 (36) 0.05 (18) 0.04 (36)

1978 - 0 02 (22) - 0.02 (2211979 - 0.04 (30) - 0.04 (26)z1980 - 0,03 (32) - 0.03 (32)

Some values f or percolate (1 52-cm depth) were taken fromlenk ins et al. (1978).

t Numbers in parentheses are the number of individualanalyses.

32

The results for cell 6 show a similar increase in bacteria have been periodically measured. Fromsoil P in the upper 30 cm of the profile. The 1980 June 1979 through May 1980 measurements ofanalysis at 100 cm, however, indicates a signifi- fecal streptococci and low level total organic Ccant rise in soil P deeper in the profile. This re- were also obtained. These values are given insuit is not consistent with the 1976 result nor Table 24. A study of virus transport was con-with the analyses of soil solutions and percolate ducted in the fall of 1975 and 1976 by the U.S.(Table 23). When tabulated on a mass basis, a Army Medical Bioengineering Research and De-much larger increase in soil P than the mass of P velopment Laboratory and will be reported on inapplied over this period is indicated. Thus we Schaub and Bausum (in prep.).feel the 1980 result for 100 cm is not representa- The mean BOD5 concentrations in the perco-tive of the average P concentration at that late ranged between 0.9 and 1.7 mgL with thedepth. More analysis of soil samples will be re- values from cells 4-6, which had the finer tex-quired to resolve this inconsistency. However, tured Charlton soil, being slightly lower. On aafter 7 years of wastewater application, we mass basis, the system removed 96 to 98% of thefound no indication that treatment of P had de- applied BOD There was no correlation betweenclined or is likely to do so in the near future. the percolate BOD, and the wastewater loading

rate or the degree of preapplication treatment,Treatment of other major constituents indicating that for BOD, treatment, even at the

While much of our attention was focused on highest application rate of 15 cm/wk, the cellsthe effectiveness of N and P removal, a thorough were underloaded. Only in the final year of theunderstanding of slow rate irrigation systems al- study were precise total organic C measure-so requires a knowledge of the efficiencies with ments made for percolates from test cells 1 andwhich it removes other constituents. Some of the b. The values ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L withmore important are oxygen demanding sub- mean values of 1.9 and 1.8, respectively. Mea-stances such as BOD,, total organic C (TOC), surements of organic C in previous years weresuspended matter (TSS), bacterial indicator obtained by a much less precise method, butorganisms such as fecal coliform bacteria and there is some indication that levels have tendedfecal streptococci, viruses, heavy metals, and to decrease as applications have continued (le-trace organics. Since June 1974, BOD,, total and well and Bouzoun, in prep).volatile suspended solids, and fecal coliform The removal of suspended solids was found to

Table 24. Performance of test cells for BOD,, suspended solids, fecal coliform, fecal streptococci and organic carbon (June1974 through May 1980).

Total Volatile Fecal coldorm Fecal streptococci Total organicBOD, suspended solids suspended solids bacteria bacteria$ carbons

Test Im/L} lmgL) (mg/LI (no.1100 mL) (no.1100 mL (mg/Llcell Applied Percolate Applied Percolate Applied Percolate Applied Percolate Applied Percolate Applied Percolate

1 59 1 3 81 08 51 0.5 31 x10 0 24x101 1 101 19(97%)t (99%) (99%) (100%) (100%) (98%)

2" 40 1 5 70 1 5 50 03 1.2x101 0 - - - -(96%) (98%) (99%) (100%)

J." 92 1 7 96 09 75 04 22x101 1 - - - -(97%) (99%) (99%) (100%)

4" 91 14 85 10 62 06 22x101 0 - - - -(98%) (98%) (99%) (100%)

5** 86 1 1 58 2 2 39 1 1 2 4 x10 109" - - - -

(98%) (95%) (97%) (999%)

6 57 09 78 09 50 0 3 31 x101 0 20x10' 0 101 1 8(98%) 99%) (99%) (100%) (100%) (98%)

This high value is a result of poor soil compaction in the construction of this cellt Numbers in parentheses are percent removals by mass

* Data obtained from lune 1979 through May 1980 with primary undisinfected wastewaterData obtained from June 1974 through May 1978

.-- _ -_ ... ., . _ - " _ . -.. .. . , , ,, . . . ... , _ _ .. . .. .. ... V.

be as good as that for BODS. The residual con- BOD , and suspended solids) was not significant-centrations in the percolate ranged from 0.8 to Iv different than the other cells. This demon-2.2 mg/L for total suspended solids with a mass strates how little soil is required to treat many ofremoval of 95 to 99% and 0.3 to 1.1 mg/L for vol- these substances.atile suspended solids with a mass removal of 97 These results reinforce the view that waste-to 99%. As with BOD,, no correlation was found water need be given only minimal pretreatmentbetween suspended solids in the percolate ver- before land application. No improvement insus wastewater loading rate. treatment performance for fecal coliform.

These prototypes remove BOD s and sus- BOD, suspended solids, N or P was achieved bypended matter more effectively than any ad- giving the water conventional secondary treat-vanced wastewater treatment technique current- ment before application.Iy available. The use of a secondary treatmentstep prior to land application did not improve Removal of volatile trace organicsthe quality of the percolating water with respect During the last year of the project (1979-80), ato these parameters and is probably unneces- study was conducted to determine the removalsary. efficiency for volatile trace organic substances

The coliform group of bacteria has traditional- Initially the wastewater was analyzed to deter-Iy been used as the principal indicator of the mine which volatile organics were detectable'bacteriological suitability of waters for domestic and the constituents consistently found at theuse. While this method has been questioned, no highest concentrations (1 to 30 AlgIL) were chloro-alternative has been universally accepted. Fecal form and toluene. Chloroform and other halo-coliform measurements of the leachate from the forms were present even without chlorinatingtest cells have been taken periodically over the the wastewater, presumably due to chlorinationperiod June 1974 through May 1980. More than of the drinking water supply The presence of400 individual analyses were run over this period toluene in the wastewater was not explainedand, except for cell 5, the results were generally During August and September 1979. the pri-below detectable limits (Table 24). The waste- mary wastewater was chlorinated before appli-water applied was disinfected with ozone part of cation to test cells 1 and 6 This significantly in-the time. Frequently, however, undisinfected creased the chloroform concentration, as ex-wastewater was applied during periods when the pected, but also increased the toluene concen-ozonator was malfunctioning. The primary and tration as well (Jenkins et al 1980) For these twosecondary wastewater averaged 2x10' and substances, the concentrations in the applied1 x101 organisms per 100 mL over the first 5 wastewater over the entire year averaged 41 8years of the study (Table 8). The percolate qual- and 57 3 Mg/L for chloroform and toluene,ity was not improved by secondary treatment or respectivelydisinfection prior to application. As a result, we From October 1979 through May 1980, theapplied totally undisinfected primary waste- wastewater applied to cells 1 and 6 was spikedwater to test cells 1 and 6 from June 1978 with a group of volatile organics at the 7 to 60through May 1980. The average wastewater fe- /Ag/L level (Table 25) As discussed earlier, signifi-cal coliform and fecal streptococci levels aver- cant removal was observed during the sprayingage 8.4x10' and 2,4x10' (no./100 mL), respec- process due to volatilization. The concentra-tively, but no organisms were detected in the tions were further reduced to low levels in thepercolate test cell percolates (Table 25) For chloroform

The results obtained for cell 5 were quite dif- the levels were reduced to mean values of 0.9ferent (Table 24). Fecal coliform bacteria were and 0.7 jAgIL for test cells 1 and 6, respectivelyfound frequently in the percolate from this cell For toluene the removals were even better, within numbers as high as 4000 organisms per 100 residual concentrations averaging 0.06 and 0.02mL. The reason for this behavior was unclear un- lig/L, respectively (Table 25). For these two sub-til a small cavity was found just under the sur- stances, this removal efficiency should continueface that extended deep into the 1.5-m profile. since these substances were presumably appliedThis cavity was located while taking soil cores to the test cells for 7 years. For the other sub-for analysis and was apparently formed by poor stances spiked into the wastewater, the removalcompaction during construction. It should be re- efficiency was greater than 98% in all cases. In-called, however, that the performance of cell 5 vestigations will have to be continued, however,for parameters other than fecal coliform (N, P, to determine if these efficient removal charac-

34

t-

Table 25. Removal of volatile toxic organics (1979-1980).

Mean concentration (L /

Wastewater Wastewater rest cell I rest cell 6Substance belote spraying after spraying percolates percolates

Chloroform 41 8 140 086 9), 071111)Toluene 57 1 244 0 0b (10) 00212)Methylene chloride 7 61 2 12 0 Ob (5) 004 (b)

1.A dichloroethane 102 988 b d (bt 0 0 (b)Bromodichlorornethane 11 1 I 98 b d (2)t 002 IIletrachloroethvlene 61 9 22 7 008 (71 0 ;5 (7)

' Numbers in parentheses refer to total number of analVses for that substan(et Below a dete(tion limit of about 001 itl

teristics will continue since these substances quickly in the first several centimeters of soilwere only applied to the cells for several and did not seem to move deeper into the pro-months. file.

In June 1980, we collected additional soil sam-Heavy metal mobility pies with depth from test cells 1 and 6. These

During the first year and a half of this project, samples, along with initial Windsor and Charltonseven heavy metals were injected into the raw soils, were analyzed for total Zn, Cu, Ni and Cd.wastewater to simulate an industrial component The results are presented in Figure 15.to the waste. This addition was halted in Febru- For both cells, these metals have remainedary 1975 Iskandar (1975) presented a discussion near the surface. In no case has significantof the mobility of these heavy metals following downward movement occurred. Thus heavy me-the first several years of wastewater application. tal movement to groundwater in these soils isIn general, the metals were found to be removed very unlikely.

Pl Test CellI

0 1960 Windlor

40-

60-

110- Inio1 (1973) Zn . C Ni , .

IOoL .. ,. L I I

20-

/ Tel Cell 6 i40- Cihorlton

60.

s0-

100,)40 80 120 160 0 20 40 06 0 1O 12 0 04 08 2

Figure 15. Sotl analyses for Zn, Cu, Ni, and Cd.

-%

Table 26. Potassium relationships.

Plant K Soil exchangeable soil solution at(%) K (meo/lO00S) 45 cm (mg/L)

Date Cell I Cell 6 Cell I Cell 6 Cell 1 Cell 6

1973 265 240 012 009 68 201974 267 2 31 014 022 18 281975 210 222 006 007 10 1 11976 2.04 183 007 - 74 09

Application of 300 kg/ha of K as KCI

1977 339 342 035 044 - 1 5

Potassiumlnitrogen balance CONCLUSIONSWhile potassium (K) is not of concern as a pol-

lutant, it is an element required in large quanti- 1. Water balance measurements indicatedties by plants. Grasses require almost as much K that plant evapotranspiration and other lossesas N. For grasses to take up a maximum of N, suf- exceeded pan evaporation for all six test cells.ficient K must be in the soil to fulfill their nutri- The ratio Et/Ep ranged from 0.86 to 1.17 (Tabletional requirements. 13). An average of about 1000 L of water was lost

The wastewater was found to contain 8 to 10 per kg of dry weight of forage grass producedmg/L of K over the 6-year period. This compares (Table 14).with a total N content of between 25 and 30 2. The chemical and bacteriological quality ofmg/L. Thus the K/N ratio in the wastewater was percolating waters was excellent even when un-between 0.3 and 0.4 compared to an optimum of disinfected primary wastewater was applied.about 0.9 (Potash Institute of America 1973). Conventional secondary treatment or disinfec-

In 1975, following 2 years of applying this tion was not necessary prior to land applicationwastewater to our test cells, deficiencies in plant 3. An average of 91 % of the N applied over aK were observed (Table 26). This decline in the 6-year period could be accounted for in plantpercentage of K in the grass continued through uptake and leaching. A majority of the N1976. Soil K levels were also found to decline leached was in the nitrate form. The sum of allthroughout this period, since little K was found other removal mechanisms, including microbialin downward percolating waters (Table 26). denitrification, accounted for only about 9% of

To correct this situation, 300 kg/ha of K fertili- the total N applied (Tables 15 and 16).zer (as KCI) was added to all test cells in May 4. Overall N removal ranged from 40.4 to1977. Plant and soil levels of this element were 72.5% of the N applied in the wastewater (Tableincreased by this addition to more optimum 15) The concentration of nitrate in the percolat-levels ing water was found to correlate with the N load-

Following this application of K, crop yields ing rate. To average an application of 10 mg/L ofand N uptake improved significantly. While this nitrate, a loading rate of about 800 kg/ha was ac-improvement was coincident with the K addi- ceptable. For the concentrations of N in ourtion, the evidence is insufficient to say for cer- system, this amounted to about 7.5 cm/wk oftain that the direct cause was the availability of wastewater.sufficient K in the soil We do recommend, how- 5. Plant uptake of N was found to be linearlyever, that if the KIN ratio of the wastewater ap- related to the wastewater N loading rate forplied to other land treatment systems is well be- loading rates below 800 kg/ha. At loading rateslow 0.9. K fertilization be considered, For a more above 800 kg/ha, plant uptake of N increaseddetailed discussion on this topic, the reader is very little, resulting in rapidly increasing levelsasked to consult Palazzo and Jenkins (1979) of percolate nitrate,

* 16

6. High concentrations of percolate nitrate are 17. At P loading rates below 75 kg/ha, plantto be expected at times during the first year a uptake was found to account for over 50% ofnew site is irrigated with wastewater. High levels the P applied. At higher loadings, plant uptakeshould also be anticipated if the vegetation and accounted for lesser percentages of the P ap-surface soils are disturbed for any reason. Lower plied and soil retention of P accounted for theapplication rates during these periods should bulk of the P applied.minimize problems. 18. Most of the P accumulation in the soil has

7. Year-round applications of wastewater did occurred in the top 30 cm during 5 years ofnot result in a substantial increase in the concen- wastewater application.tration of N in percolating waters. 19. No significant downward movement of

8. Nitrogen treatment was not improved by heavy metals was observed 5 years after 3uspen-spreading applications over several days as op- sion of heavy metal application.posed to applying the same volume in one day. 20. The wastewaters used for irrigation inIn fact, slightly better treatment performance study had a K/N ratio of about 0.3. Due to thy.was achieved with one application period. imbalance and the low levels of K in these soi.

9. No significant difference in the effective- additional K fertilization was found to be desir-ness of treatment was observed for the two soil able.types tested, a sandy loam and a silt loam soil.

10. Water applied at the surface requiredroughly 2 to 3 months to percolate to the base of LITERATURE CITEDthe 152-cm soil profile

11. Percolate P concentrations were found to Aulenbach. D.. R.N. Harris, and N.C. Reach 11978) l'urigy Aaverage between 0.03 and 0.07 mg/L with only d tiwi of svt onddfV efftluenti a nalural sand tilter Joujrnal ofslight dependence on wastewater loading rates the' tiater Polluion (onrol fderation vol 5ii, p 86-94

uto15 cm/wk Overall P removals were equal Barnes, S.F. (19751 ltagei~ ii~tingi Aind it% appin ,iiofs Inup to forages (M Hl Heath. Id) Ames Iowa Iowa Univeisi4 Prvh"to or greater than 99% in all six cells (Table 20) 1)64 A

12 BOD, and suspended solids treatment Elello. M.A.and R.E. Sates (14781 ( limatit survev at ( RRILIwere excellent at all application rates tested (up in assoiation with the laind treaitment proie 1 1.1 S ArmNto 15 cm/wk) Percolating waters generally had o ild Regtions, Rvseaorh And I ngineering I aboiaiory. K(RRI I Iresidual levels of these substances below 2 mg/. p Bak C.Apo(t 782 iwoA'ii2ehoo %i n,18sAnriAand a percent removal Of >95% (Table 24), ( it1) ofAroo AgronomyV Series No 9 MadisonV Wison

1.3 Fecal coliform bac:teria were removed to Srthe limit of detectability before water perco- Sole, I.E. and R.0. Bell (1178) lanyd appli .ihon of munit ip.iilated through the 1 52-cm profile This removal si'wage wasiewdier vield and (hemita t oflpositiiin of ior

agie ( r01, loiucnail i I it nfli#'ntal Q11aliti, iii 7 1) 222-was independent of whether or not the waste- 226water was disinfected before application (Table Souwer, H. (1474) I)esign and operation of land treatment24), sy temns for miniluni (ointamina Ition of g~round water

14. Analysis of trace- volatile organics in- (,round I)Aafer vol 12. p) 144) 147

dicated that chloroform and toluene were the Scar, 5.5., R.H. Miller and T.I. Logan (1978) Some tatitors atmost igniican compnent in he chorinted et ling derniriic aitn in soil% irriglated wiih %aotiwali'r Inormostsigifiant ompnens i thechlrinted nail of the 1,4Atrm Pollution ( ontrol f ederation. vol 50i. tit 4 p)primary wastewater Significant reductions in 709-717

the concentrations of both of these substances Bray, R.H. (1948) ( ofrelaion (it soil iests with (rot) response,occurred during spraying, presumably by volati- to added teriili/ers andi with teriiliver requiremeni In Driag.lization Further reduction to sub-parts-per- noiti( fchnique% lot Soil% and ( tops i hapter 2 111 I kiit h

found ~ ~ ~ en in the tscel ntI Washingion, D ( Americ an P'oiash institutebillion concentrations were fon ntets el Ciffie. G.G. (1978) Sludge' treatment utilitation And disposalpercolates with overall removals of , 98% (Ta- In nternaitional ( onferenne on Oevelopments in tand oweth.ble 25). rid% of "Sasiew.,te, featmient and titilisation ( onlerene Ila.

15. Proper crop and soil management will pro- pties 21-27 0 loher Melbourne.. Australia. p) h 1-is 15long the persistence and extend the life of forage Clapp, C.E., A.I. Palazzo, W.F. Larson, G.C. Marten, and D.

grases a lad tratmnt stes Appoprate ar- Inden (1978) Utiake ofi nuitrie~nt% h, plants irrigted with mugrases t lnd reamen sies pprprite ar- nit pal wastewater efftluent in %tate of know /edge. in landvesting procedures, K fertilization, and liming treatment ofi Vteiwater vol 1, p) 44% -404 ( I)RI I. Hanover,are needed to increase the length of time re- "New liampshire AI)A167884,quired prior to site reconditioning Cole, O.W. and P. Scheiss 11978) Renovation (A wastewatr

16. The first harvest period of each year was and rr'sponsm' of Ioresi eo oYsiems the. Park I oreos stujds In%tatre of Aknow ledge inlIand freatement of V aste% ate. volIthe most active in terms of total and daily up- p. 412i (RRI I. l4inov'r. New Hamirpshire AI)Ih7W8

take of N

37

Cooke, G.W. 11,0781 1 reiiti tit is ,sti'ss .tir tit Itrilsain ilipl Juenn,. E.. A.5. Palazzo, P.W. Schumachesr, HA. Haire, P.1.at in lo ag .irii iiiliia I laind III Stie Wi k. imii /e'dge '1 ,Ia rd Buffer, C.I. Diener and j.M. Graham (19811 Seven-year pertof

litrtet iof t% .isteiaer ol I 1) 1 RIE I II,,riis., manc cof ( RRt I slow-rate land treatment prototypes ( RRI INeiw flanipshirs' AI)At67t11i Spec iaIi Report 81-12Dese, PA., ElF. Vaccaro, U.H. Ketchums, P.C. *osvker, and Jewell, W.I. and I.E. Bou.,oun [in preparationl Enrgineering deM.R. Dennett (111~77'I1 Iin it (list r ifisst iji iii i a sprjs lirriga t si sign relationships and procedures for land treatment systems*5 shill1 In I.,11d JI a t~~f .isinagi'nisnt A Ifirnat;% i' Pr ( IlR F ReportI etiin4s oi ths. 19-hi ( s~rneill Agri( iiltiirji/ vS .isf ti~liasrtKardos. LIT. and W.I.- Sopper (1174) Renovationr ot muni( opal( onterins i R ( 1. shr I if I Aom A rtm Ms, .\iiiia ii Aimi Ar wastewater through land disposal by spray irrigation In ( on

Join 'ii Pii Iblishirt, Ini ference on rec ycling treated municipal wvastewater throughDugan, G.L.. .H~f. Young, L.S. Law. P.C. 11.keorn, .9(. Loth forest and Icropland. p 1 11 -145, t PA-6W,,2 74-00 I(1975) Land disposal ot wastewater in Hawaii Journal of the karl,. D.L., M.L. S'itosh, and 1.. kuns. (1976) Irrigation oitW ater Pollution (Control I ederation. Vol 47. p 20b)'- 2087 torn with simulated municiopal sewage eftluent Journal otlInEaton. I.S.. G.E. Likens and F.M. Sormann (1978)1 Ihe inptut sit vsronmental Qualitv vol 5, p 269-27 1gaseous and partis UlatP Sulfur to a forest cc osytem fellus Keeney, D.N. and L.M. Walsh (1978) Design of ioil plant moniVol tO, p 546-Su1 tring; pricedures for land treatment systems In State ofEnfield, C.G. (1977) Wastewater phosphorus removal using k~nowledge in Land Treatment of Wiastewater vol 1. pland aliPtioon Civil Engineering -ASUi. June. p 58-bo 165- 175 ( RRI L, Hanover, New Hampshire ADA016788E,Enfield, C.G. (1978) F valuation of phosphorus models for pre- Kissel, D.E., L. Bartek and L.J. Zatoe& [1979) Apparent rcc cidiction of percolate water Quality in land treatment in State serv of frertilirer N by ( Oastaf bermuda gras of a swelling I lasof Knowledge in Land Treatment of WAastewater vol 1, p) soil Agronomo, Journal. vol 71, p 1111 184151-162 CRRIL. Hanover, New Hampshire ADA067886 Lance, I.C. (197S) tateot nitrogen in sewage effluent appliedEnfield, C.G. and 1I.. Bledsoe (1975) Fate of wastewater phos- to soil Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division -AS( Iphorus in soil journal of Irrigation and Drainage Divi- vol 1101 no) IRI 1 111t- 144sion-ASCf. vol 101, p 145-155 Larson, WEF. (974-77) Unpublished data Annual Reports. L) %Environmental Profection Agency (1977) Process design man- Department oit Agric ulture Sicienc e and F ducation Adual for land treatment of municipal wastewater EPA ministration. Agric ultural Researi h. St Paul62511V77-008. COE EM 1110l-1-50 Linsley. U.,M.A. Kohler and I.L. Paulbuts (1958) HydrologyHook, I.E. and T.M. Burton (1979) Nitrate leaching from for Engineers New York McGraw-Hill Incsewage- irrigatled perennials as affected by cutting manage- Marte,. G.C.. C.F. Clapp and W.F. Larson 119791 Effects otmen) journal of Environmental Quality. vol 8. p 4%6-502 municipal wastewater effluent And cutting management onHook. I.E.. LIT. Kardos, and W.E. Sopper 11974) Effects of land persistence and yield of eight perennial forages Agronomydisposal of wastewater on soil phosphorus relations In Con- Journal, vol 71, p 6%0-658ference on recycling treated municipal wastewater through McCarty, P.L. and RIT. Haug 11971) Nitrogen removal Itrnforest and cropland. E PA-66/2-74-003. p 179-195 wastewater by biological nitrifictation and deni - .on InIskandar, I.K. 11975) Urban wastes as a source of heavy metals Microbial aspects of pollution IC, Sykes and f A Skinner,in land treatment In International Conference on Heavy Ids ) New York Academic PressMetdls in the Environment Toronto. Ontario. Canada. 27-31 McPherson, 5.B. (1978) Land treatment of wastewater at WerOctober, p 417-432 'ribee. past, present and future In International Conference onIskandar, I.K., R.5. Steffen, D.C. Leggeft and I.F. Jenkins Developments in Land Methods of Wastewater Treatment and(1976) Wastewater renovation by a prototype slow infiltration Utilisation Conference Papers 2)-27 October. Melbourneland treatment system CRREL Report 76-19 ADA029744 Australia, p 211-2117Ishandar, I.K., R.S. Sletten, I.F. Jenkins and D.C. Leggett Mengel, K. and E.A. Kirkby (19781 Principles of plant nutrition(1977a) Wastewater treatment alternative needed Water and Bern. Switzerland International Potash InstituteWastes Engineering, November Metcalf and Eddy Inc. (1972) Wastewater Engineering NewIskandar, I.K., U.P. Murrmann and D.C. Leggett (1977b) Evalu- York McGraw Hll Incation of existing systems f or land treatment of wastewater at Murrmann, UP, and I.K. Iskandar (19771 Land treatment ofManteca, California. and Quincy. Washington CRRE IL Report wastewater, case studies of existing disposal systems at Quin-77-24 ADA045357 cv. Washington and Manteca. California In Land as a WasteIskandar, I.K.. I.E. Bales, 5.1. Quarry, F. Page and I.E. Inger. Management Alternative, Proceedings of the 1976 Cornellsoil (1979) Changes in soil characteristics and climatology Agricultural Waste Management Conference IR C Loehr,during five years of wastewater application to CRRIL test Ed) Ann Arbor, Michigan Ann Arbor Science Publishers;cells CRREL Special Report 79-2) ADA074712 Inc . p 467-488Jackson, MA. (19585 Soil Chemical Analysis Englewood Cliffs. Nakano, T. and I.K. landar (1978) Simulation of the move

New ersy Pentie Hll.Incment of conservative chemicals in soil solution In State oflefleries, D.S., F.P. Dieken and D.E. lones (1979) Performance Knowledge in Land Treatment of Wastewater. vol II. pof autoclave digestion method f or total phosphorous 371.380 CARI. Hanover, New Hampshire ADA01I7886analysis Water Research. vol 11. p 275-279 New England Crop and Livest~i RepotingoBe"(197) MilkJeroldis. I.F., A.I. Palazzo, P.W. Schumacher, 0.3. Keller. I.M. and feed Concord. New Hampshire. 1ts AugustGraham, SiT. Quarry, H.E. Hare, I.I. Bayer, and I.S. Foley Coveemian, A.M. anod N.C. Ku (1976) Effluent irrigation of rye(1978) Five-year performance of CRRtL land treatment test and ryegrais Journal of Enigineering Divsion-ASCI. volcells CRREL Special Report 78.26 ADA086172 102, p 475Jenkins, I.F.. D.C. Leggett and C.I. Martel (1980)1 Removal of Palazzo, A..(197b) The eftects of wastewater applications onvolatile trace organoics from wastewater by overland flow the growth and chemical composition of forages. CRUELJournal of Environmental Science and Health. vol Ali5. no I. Report 76-19 ADA0 12 774p 211-224

38

Palasto. A I 1114171 1 andti .iapliitiip t ih'wi I itigteirdsoin T and V Aovmaelech (1974) Nitrogen release asso-ilw tt n lilt,.. ti in it apitiied % 1' anid K III I aind is 1 4 itated with the dec rease in %os1 organic matter in newly ( Wit

1,% dsft %.fdidfet l ftfidt I, l fiti, e'tjil nts the f't, ti I vated soil jour~nal of I flv,olIlefltdl Quality vol 1, p 118anoi ttf1 0141fi/ I% 55 te 'itinagrenier ( It ereni i IR ( I It tihi 121

I I i IAnn Arbor, %ii himan im n Ai his 'si tit t 'uhl shins If' Richendwer. 1AL. and W.I. Sopper 119478) 1 flec I of spraor irri1t 1147t1 g alton of treated municipal sewage effluent on The at i umu

Palasso. A I. and Hllt McKim t ti1f71oi I ht- groth fi id nuliini latson and decomposition of the forest floor In Utl/iiin# M~u,jtakv Wl r Ii N .iot g isn w hen toi is 111 %.i r tis. piilii at iot nac ipal Sewage I ffluenf and Stludge on f orest and Disturbed,m, t i *aofie..ifii III 'fotit (It Irlttdge- .ti to l nan jrifw I and (W I Sopper I d I University Park, Penn IThe PennsyliW %oI 15 h it i

1 I f I, Iti ( H H I I Hf,ii s Na." vania State Universityt PressIliiipshnn Atl)Ati'fkllti lytoden. I.C., I.K. lamanar and I.K. So (in preparation!

Palazzo. A.1 and T.1 Jenkins t1147ij lan ati tlplititotin Ii I valuation of a simple model for predic ting phosphorus nreis slssa tn f itI tin '-I ii, i t fti arl pla tnt Ittam ittin. 0i i Il riMOVaI by soils during land treatment of wastewyater ( RRtI I

"eint ) .... r i tujt s iiil fI 1 1414 11" Spet tal Report

PlallA,,r. A.5 and 9.44 Graham 119ft %,'.iiI ... isv g th intd Schaub, S.A. and Hi. fauins (In prepdrartionftI ate of virus

tI)Iake oitituniil Its ir. Iiaiiioiri treaiteidi tooltt.sidi in treatedi wastewater applied to soils in a slow infiltration,KRf I Hipttiu Itt A land treatment system U S Army Medic al Bioengineering

Potash Insitiute (of Aimerica IC Ili Ii litil t itil ttiot./at-ii HPeitn h and Development I ahoratory ReportAtiiIt (A Schindler,. OW. (1976) 1 voluftion of phosphorus limitation in

Pratl. P.F.. I.L. *roadbe~nt and I.C. flydlefol'197111 Storage (capd lakes S renre vol 195 p 2460its and loading rates I or nitro~gen and phosphorus In State Seabrook, RI. (19751 land applit aton of wastewater in Aus

oft knovoledge in Land treatment of IA asesater vol I P tralia The Werrabee Farm system U 'S I nvironmental Prittet

405 416 I RRSIJ Hanover New Hampshire ADAOb788Ii lion AgentvQuint. B.F. (1978f Surfte irrigation with sewage effluent in SmithS.I. (1972) Reltive rate of ( hltrde movement in leaih

New Zealand a tcase study In Infernaftional ( onterene on ing of surfaie soils Soid Scitence vol 114 p) 259 26 1

Developments in land Methods of lAastewater treatment and Sopper W.I. and I.T. kardohlq74l Vegetation responses to in(ifilosation (onference Papers 21-27 October Melbourne rogatitort with treated municiopal wastewater In ( onterenr: ont

Australia p 7 1 -7 24 re( yr lnjf treated munir opal wastewafef through forest and

Raveh. A. and V. Avimelech (1979) Total nitrogen analysis in rropland p 242-26q IPA-bot).2 74-XIItWaler soil and plant material with persulfate oxidation Thomas, R.I.. K. Jackon, and L. Pewod (19741 Feasibility ot

1

Aver Research vol If p 411 -912 overland flow to treat raw domestic watersvafer Robert Is

leard. S.C. (Coordinator), 2.111 Murrmann. IF Rouls., W. Ric- Kerr k nvironmental Research Laboratorv I PA4,iOll 74-987

kard, P.Co Hunt, T.0. Russell, 5.. Carey, M.A. Bilella. S. Wierabichi. 1.(14941 Sewage farming at Ostron Wielkiopolski

111sda, K. Guter and C. Sorber (1972) Wastewater management (RR11 Draft Irransfafioii 64 4 Sept 1977 AL1A044746

by disposal on the land (UN[t Special Report 171AD7521 12

4

- - C t - 2 -. - - - 2 1. - -- . - C - 0 '- - 3 - C - -

-. - .4 - - C 4 -~ C C - C3 -- C * - C 3 4. C - C 3 - C

- CO 3 C C C 03 C C . C

* C 3 3 -~ 0~ 3 - 3 -' 3 ,-. - C t £ 3 -. -, C 3~ -, -

C , ~ -, - c £ 3 1 - -

- C .~- ~ ... C C -

- .. c 3 C - .r

-' - -~ - .~ - .r 0~3 -' - C 2 0 C 7 .4

* 2 I C t~ 04. CC ~ j- - - -' 3 £ 3 C -* £ - 4. - - £ - . 4 - C -. *-~ -

-; '~ ~ 2 23 -~ 0-. C C 3 -. -

--- C - C - 4.' C - I - 3 - --- - C C 3 - C C .4 4. C - ~* , zO 3 3 C C -, C C .C C 0 3 C C

4 C - -

4a - 4,- 3

4 - -, * -' C I £ C C £ x - 0

- - 2 - t 3 C 3 4 - C - 3 0 0 - C I --- - -. 2 C *~ * r, C .r = C C*- - -t - -, -, 4- - - - - ,. - C - - 1 3Z .~ 0 - *, -~ - 4,. - - - -C C C .4w - -. * .. C

* .. :*~

- ~. C C - .'- 3- C - 24 .'~ C C C z C C -~3 - -, ~ - £ £ II - , = - C'

4- C C C ~' ... . ' ' -,Z C

3

- - .. 4 - - . 4. 3 - - C4

..- - -' ... C .'~ -., C -P - .~ >- -' 4- .4- 4.- . - 3 = C -4- - ~ C C C' - ~ ~ =

C C3 -

-, ,. - *- 3 -~.--, C I 2-- 4 C C

4 .CC?3 - - 3 -.2 C C ' I £ 3 .44. C 3~~-4C~~4' I'

* ~ C C ' 4,' 4' 4-. 4. *~. c - CC C * .'~ C I C £ - 4 4. 4 .- C - 0 -I C. - - - 4 S.

4 *I

- - I 3 2 ~. , I C 0- .'- . C 3 0 *. C- - C 4 4 4

- - - - 4 - - C C, - I 1' 2~ 1~ 2 2~

C 3 3 C 1 J -

I - C I -- , 2 3 .4- 4. '0 *V-. *444~4. I C

* . . 4 - 4 4 . .. 4 4 4 4 4C C. C C C C ~ C C C C C C

41

N1 FiG U.MS.duW 3AJ~

0i

3' 3 - . -, ' ,

3' 3 '.) ' D 3 3' 0 3 0 '

-, 4 - 3 t -4 - .C ' -,-

4'7.'0 0 3 J'3'- 3' ' -

lahlb A7. Annual N balance, test cell 1.

Date N _(k ..a) Missing

Appi led Pr-,i p. Tota] aI lant Perc. Tota 1 Missing.. .. ap.. - take found

1974-75 769 6 775 455 227 682 93 12.0

1975-76 389 9 398 290 112 402 -4 -I.0

1976-77 451 8 459 244 94 38 121 26.4

1977-78 412 7 419 383 109 492 -73 -17.4

:978-79 619 6 625 387 140 527 98 15.7

1979-80 834 4 838 291 275 566 272 32.5

1974-80 3474 40 3514 2050 957 3007 507 14.4

ab v., .ll Annual N hilmc,-, t-st cl 2.

N ky k/h). MissingII i Id r.cip,. I til PI ant P.r,. Total lissing

- - -p q , take _ f.. found.

1;.-73 2 s14 t' 2 i.5 t,7 1 186 2083 262 11.2

17 410.1 4 971 277 7 38 1015 -42 -4. 3

376-77 08 8 '16 169 12h 495 21 4.1

7 2 7 489 215 107 22 167 14.2

, s .24) 3) 42 1159 2557 1915 .08 9.4

1 A1 4 A\. Annual N b.ilance, test ct-ll 1.

t,'It N (ks/ht)-------------------------' MissingA '1 i-d I'ri-c i p. Tota 1 1 1ant I'vrc. Total Missing

ap . ulptake ----- bound ...... . . .. ...... ..

I.74- 1218 6 1224 550 425 975 249 20.3

I' 73-7 451 '4 460 195 277 472 -12 -2.6

1I7-7, 47 8 505 199 288 487 18 3.6

.7 - 11 7 118 205 158 363 -45 -14.2

4>.- 78 2477 0 2507 1149 1148 2297 210 8.4

r,ible AIO. Annual N balance, test cell 4.

It.t . .. .N (kL/ha) . . .... _ % MissingApplied Precip. Total Plant Perc. Total Missing

_a H _ - _ __ - _ take .. .. ... . . ... found . . . . . .

1974-'5 1161 6 1167 498 523 1021 146 12.5

1175-'76 430 9 439 211 272 483 -44 -10.0

1976-77 510 8 518 156 220 376 142 27.4

397'- 142 7 )49 198 207 405 -56 -16.0

1 474=14 2441 0 2471 1061 1222 2285 188 7.6

43

Table All. Annual N balance, test cell 5.

Date' N (kg/ha) M MissingApplied Precip. Total Plant Pere. Total Missing

... .. ..... app. uptake found

1974-75 1111 6 1117 504 513 1017 100 9.0

1975-76 427 9 436 258 190 448 -12 -2.8

1976-77 614 8 622 194 237 431 191 30.7

1977-78 288 7 295 276 226 502 -207 -70.2

1974-78 2440 30 2470 1232 1166 2398 72 2.9

Table A12. Annual N balance, test cell 6.

Date N (kg/ha) % Missing

Applied Precip. Total Plant Perc. Total Missing

app. uptake found

1974-75 738 6 744 417 306 723 21 2.8

1975-76 518 9 527 327 192 519 8 1.5

1976-77 456 8 464 276 125 401 63 13.6

1977-78 376 7 383 323 114 437 -54 -14.1

1978-79 630 6 636 321 169 490 146 23.0

1979-80 832 4 836 327 206 533 303 36.2

1974-80 3550 40 3590 1991 1112 3103 487 13.6

44

----

A facsimile catalog card in Library of Congress MARCformat is reproduced below.

Jenkins, Thomas F.Wastewater treatment by a prototype slow rate land treat-

ment system / by Thomas F. Jenkins and A.J. Palazzo. Hanover,N.H.: U.S. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory;Springfield, Va.: available from National Technical Informa-tion Service, 1981.vii, 44 p., illus.; 28 cm. ( CRREL Report 81-14. )Prepared for Directorate of Civil Works - Office of the

Chief of Engineers / by Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army ColdRegions Research and Engineering Laboratory, under DA Project4A762720A896.

Bibliography: p. 37.1. BOD. 2. Coliforms. 3. Forage grasses. 4. Land treatment.

5. Nutrients. 6. Organic carbon. 7. Plant uptake. 8. Plantyields. 9. Slow rate. 10. Suspended solids. ii. Trace

Jenkins, Thomas F.Wastewater treatment by a prototype slow rate land treat-

ment... 1981.

organics. 12. Wastewater treatment. 13. Water pollution.14. Water quality. 15. Water volumes. I. Palazzo, A.J.II. United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. III. ArmyCold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,N.H. IV. Series: CRREL Report 81-14.

I' S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1981 701-832 145