Constructed Wetland – June 2019

Contact the author

Contacter l'auteur

Lieu de l’étude de cas

Cox's Bazar - Bangladesh

Principaux objectifs de traitement

Pathogen reduction, Solid/liquid separation

Opex par flux d’entrée réel

2.85USD/m3

Espace requis

0.08USD/m3/jour

Description du processus de traitement

Put in practice measure and predispositions for eventual upgrade/decommissioning
Upgrade/decommissioning methodology (internal team or contractor, tender or employment procedure and challenges)
Upgrade/decommissioning methodology and resources
Resources temporally needed for upgrade/decommissioning (electricity, water, special vehicles, access permission, legal permission)
Needed remediation activities in case of decommissioning
Specific security and safeness during upgrade/decommissioning (type of PPE, specific rules, responsibilities, challenges)

Description du contexte d’urgence

Kutupalong camp has a natural terrain with hills and canals ﬂowing through the downhills. The forced Myanmar inhabitants have their shelters mostly at different levels of the hills, which makes it diﬃcult to desludge toilets pits.

Les indicateurs

Main treatment objectives

Pathogen reduction, Solid/liquid separation

Technologies employed

Design population

Design input flow

Design life

Source of sludge

Types of output

Required space

0.08USD/m3/day

Local constraints

Skills level

Opex per real input flow

2.85USD/m3

Le récit

Type of landscape of the community with a special focus on fecal sludge treatment/disposal site (hydrogeology, land use, security and safeness)
Main characteristics of the raw sludge
Type of anal cleansing, desludging, material and methodologies used locally
Local/humanitarian standards to apply
Main applied design formulas, principles and standards
Specific challenges

The sludge is transported to the intermediate transfer station located at the uphill side of the camp. Once the sludge is transported to an intermediate transfer station, it goes to the constructed wetland located at the downhill side by gravity. An underneath pipe connects the transfer station to the constructed wetland.

The constructed wetland is a biological treatment unit to treat faecal sludge and wastewater. The constructed wetland has been re-engineered here to achieve primarily as separator of solid and liquid fraction of the raw faecal sludge and then the separated liquid portion undergoes to filtration media for further treatment before discharging into the environment.

The design includes chlorination at the effluent leachate treatment unit. The chlorination dose is repeated once per week. This method is however not proven efficient.

The solid portion is treated biologically in mostly aerobic condition in presence of thermophilic bacteria. The presence of Cana Indica (or other available suitable plants) facilitates the nitrification and denitrification process and is responsible for NO3^– removal from faecal sludge. At present, final sludge is planned to be buried safely. However, it may have potential to be used as soil conditioner.

Through the process of active bacteria inside the porous media of constructed wetland and on the surface of hay, it stimulates BOD, COD removal. The filtration media facilitates PO4^– and TDS removal.

The CW is within an excavated bund, lined with clay. This doesn’t ensure proper watertighness and thus results in pollution hazards. Walls have been built up by 1m around the beds and are made of metal shuttering (recycled oil drums) and backfilled with earth. This design has been modified to increase resilience against flooding, and should be considered on a site specific basis. The sites is fully enclosed with fencing and a plastic roof. The infiltration pit is made of concrete manhole (MH) rings. Due to the terrain in the CXB camps, the site has extensive slope stability using sandbags and geotextiles.

Developing constructed wetland requires technical experts for siting, site preparation and analysis, construction, installation and most importantly operation. Appropriate plants selection for the constructed wetland also requires technical expertise on such system.

Faecal sludge needs to be dosed steadily (no shock load) in the constructed wetland to facilitate aerobic bacterial environment inside the porous media and to limit inhibition effect. At present, we are loading with 10m3/week to develop biological environment at the constructed wetland. Once the plants will survive and adapt in the local environment, the dosing of faecal sludge can be higher (15-20m3/week). Design can be re-engineered and scaled up for higher capacity.

Settled aerobically digested sludge accumulates until the wetlands are full (approximately after 6-8 months of average 15-20m3/day operation). When full, thickened digested solid sludge is buried/ disposed of or it may be used as soil conditioner.

Nine constructed wetlands are managed by a team of 10 people.

Workers involved in the emptying, collection, transport and safe disposal of excreta are provided with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) to protect their health and safety.

Plants need some time to adapt to the constructed wetland, they may need to be planted several times at the beginning period. In some cases, the filtration media of the constructed wetland might be clogged and manual turning and shifting may be required.

Forces

• The system can be implemented immediately
• Decentralised, simple, low-maintenance design
• Little land is required
• Non-permanent structure
• Enables immediate desludging of toilets
• Includes end-point sludge mineralization in planted bed of constructed wetland

Faiblesses

Leçons apprises

The treatment plant will be soon decommissioned as it is set up in a flood prone area.

Contexts where the technology is applicable:
• Decentralised approach 35m2 for each unit
• Mechanical collection and gravity-fed transportation of sludge is already designed and implemented
• Can be applicable for flat terrain also with intermediate transfer station connecting with chained collection system
• Where there is adequate technical capacity on the loading and operations of constructed wetlands

Contexts where the technology is not applicable:
• Not anticipated yet as system can be reengineered according to the context
• In flood-prone locations, or hillsides prone to landslide
• In locations where surface water runoff will enter the system
• Where there is inadequate technical capacity on the loading and operations of constructed wetlands

Fichiers

Lien du fichier : https://preprod.octopus.solidarites.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Schematics-CW.pdf

Lien du fichier : https://preprod.octopus.solidarites.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Layout-CW.pdf

Lien du fichier : https://preprod.octopus.solidarites.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Cross-section-CW.pdf

Galerie

Constructed Wetland external view - Feacal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief Technology Comparison Study, by Oxfam, UNHCR and Arup

Constructed Wetland internal view - Feacal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief Technology Comparison Study, by Oxfam, UNHCR and Arup

Sand filter - Feacal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief Technology Comparison Study, by Oxfam, UNHCR and Arup

Infiltration pit - Feacal Sludge Management for Disaster Relief Technology Comparison Study, by Oxfam, UNHCR and Arup

S’abonner

0 Commentaires

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Constructed Wetland – June 2019

Contact the author

Lieu de l’étude de cas

Principaux objectifs de traitement

Opex par flux d’entrée réel

Espace requis

Description du processus de traitement

Description du contexte d’urgence

Les indicateurs

Main treatment objectives

​Technologies employed

Design population

Design input flow

Design life

Source of sludge

Types of output

Required space

Local constraints

Skills level

Opex per real input flow

Le récit

Forces

Faiblesses

Leçons apprises

Fichiers

Galerie

Inscrivez-vous à notre lettre d’information

Location

Réduction de la DBO

Main treatment objectives

Objectifs de la solution

Capex per design input flow

Dépenses d’investissement par rapport au flux actuel (y compris les coûts de terrain)

Opex per real input flow

Required space

Surface nécessaire

Technologies employed

Dépenses d’investissement par rapport au flux actuel (hors coûts de terrain)

Design population

Population bénéficiaire considérée pour la conception

Design input flow

Flux entrant considéré pour la conception

Design life

Durée de vie et fiabilité

Source of sludge

Provenance des boues

Types of output

Type de produits issus du traitement

Local constraints

Risque d’inondation

Skills level

Time construction and commisionning

Utilisation de matériaux disponibles sur place

Real input flow

Flux entrant réel

Resources needed for operation

Niveau de compétences requis pour la construction

TS reduction

Réduction des MS

COD reduction

Réduction de la DCO

Faecal coliforms reduction

Réduction des coliformes fécaux

Objective

Gestion exclusive de l’exploitation par la communauté

Indicators notice

Technologies employed