water

Article
Model of Suspended Solids Removal in the Primary
Sedimentation Tanks for the Treatment of
Urban Wastewater
Margarita Jover-Smet 1, *, Jaime Martín-Pascual 2 and Arturo Trapote 1
1 Institute of Water and Environmental Sciences, University of Alicante, San Vicente del Raspeig,
03080 Alicante, Spain; atj@ua.es
2 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; jmpascual@ugr.es
* Correspondence: mjs@ua.es; Tel.: +34-965-903400 (ext. 2472)

Received: 24 May 2017; Accepted: 14 June 2017; Published: 21 June 2017

Abstract: Primary settling tanks are used to remove solids at wastewater treatment plants and are
considered a fundamental part in their joint operation with the biological and sludge treatment
processes. The aim of this study was to obtain a greater understanding of the influence of operational
parameters, such as surface overflow rate, hydraulic retention time, and temperature, on the removal
efficiency of suspended solids and organic matter by the measurement of chemical oxygen demand
and biochemical oxygen demand in the primary sedimentation process. The research was carried
out in a semi-technical primary settling tank which was fed with real wastewater from a wastewater
treatment plant. The physical process was strictly controlled and without the intervention of chemical
additives. Three cycles of operation were tested in relation to the surface overflow rate, in order
to check their influence on the different final concentrations. The results obtained show that the
elimination efficiency can be increased by 11% for SS and 9% for chemical oxygen demand and
biochemical oxygen demand, for variations in the surface overflow rate of around ±0.6 m3 /m2 ·h
and variations in hydraulic retention time of around ±2 h. The results also show that current design
criteria are quite conservative. An empirical mathematical model was developed in this paper relating
SS removal efficiency to q, influent SS concentration, and sewage temperature.

Keywords: primary settling tank; surface overflow rate; hydraulic retention time; removal rate;
wastewater treatment

1. Introduction
Physical settling operations are widely used in the treatment of wastewater. Primary settling
tanks have been extensively used for the removal of suspended solids (SS) by gravitational settling that
are not removed by preliminary treatment [1], and are also used as an integral part of the biological
wastewater and sludge treatment process [2]. The removal of SS also results in a significant decrease of
organic load, usually expressed in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or chemical oxygen
demand (COD). PSTs are one of the controlling factors for the total construction costs of wastewater
treatment plants and are, nowadays, essential for wastewater treatment and also for the production
renewable energy in the form of biogas and electrical energy production in the wastewater treatment
plant (WWTP). The function and operation of PSTs has become more complex, especially since
biological nutrient removal is required and given that optimal performance is critical [3].
The physical phenomenon associated with the gravitational precipitation of solid particles in a
liquid has been a subject of research since Stokes, in 1851, formulated the equation describing the
velocity of sedimentation of spherical discrete particles under quiescent laminar flow conditions [4].
Kynch, in 1952, proposed a kinetic theory of sedimentation based on concentration changes valid

Water 2017, 9, 448; doi:10.3390/w9060448 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2017, 9, 448 2 of 12

for ideal suspensions, but not an appropriate model for flocculent suspensions forming compressible
sediments. In the 1970s a mathematical theory was developed which attempted to unify studies on
sedimentation of dispersed and flocculating suspensions [5]. The theory applied continuum mechanics
to particulate systems and the phenomenological framework has led to a variety of similar mathematical
models of spatially one-dimensional solid-liquid separation processes of flocculent suspensions [6].
When considering the process of sedimentation as applied to PSTs, discrete settling conditions
could be assumed for relatively low inlet concentrations. Work by Hazen, in 1904, saw the first analysis
of factors affecting the settling of solid particles form dilute suspensions and introduced the surface
loading concept [5]. However, sewage contains a considerable proportion of flocculent particles that do
not have constant settling characteristics and there is a number of published studies [7–9] developing
a variety of mathematical models of spatially one-dimensional soli-liquid separation processes of
flocculated suspensions. Flow conditions are also subject to a variety of disturbances due to hydraulic
conditions, density currents and wind action. A certain amount of work has been undertaken to study
the dynamic behavior [10–16] and hydraulic characteristics of reservoirs and PSTs. In recent years,
in order to consider the fluid dynamics of the tank, models based on computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) [6,17–24] have been used to predict flow patterns and suspended solid distributions within
sedimentation tanks.
For the design and calculation of the dimensions of PSTs, exhaustive experimental measurements
are required for the construction of solid-removal percentage curves. Several experiments are necessary
to obtain solid-removal contour plots at different heights and times, which are also required for
construct charts that describe the total solid-removal percentage in the tank at given time. This
procedure is laborious because it is necessary to have a large amount of experimental data to obtain
plots with an acceptable accuracy [6] and can be applied to laboratory studies, but is not practically
affordable for the design and operation of PSTs.
The design procedures of PSTs currently used are still based on the Sierp and Greely diagrams
considering surface overflow rate or surface hydraulic load (q = Q/A, where Q is the flowrate (m3 /s)
and A is the surface area (m2 ) of the sedimentation basin) and hydraulic retention time (HRT) [25–27].
PSTs are regarded as a black box and their geometry, operation, and other important features are poorly
addressed. Design and operation is still based on empirical relationships, whereas homogeneous
turbulence, flow pattern, and the direct way of describing the movement of SS and their interaction
mechanism with settling and removal are rarely considered [3].
Traditionally, the performance of full-scale WWTPs is measured based on influent and/or effluent,
waste sludge flows, and concentrations. WWTPs remain notorious for poor data quality. Sensor
reliability problems due to the hostile environment, missing data, and various other problems [28],
means that data typically have a high variance and often contain measurement errors. Comparative
full-scale evaluations seldom result in meaningful and/or distinguishable results [29], and there is a
considerable difference between the expected removal efficiency rates (50–70%) for SS and (25–40%)
for BDO5 when using the currently used values for the design, such as q and HRT, more frequently
the removal rate of different PSTs shows an increasingly strong fluctuating pattern even for the same
range of the HRTs [2]. Some research [30] shows the difference between real plant removal rates with
the recommendations of the ATV guideline and analyzing the design criteria applied to small systems
of wastewater treatment, the official HRT design criteria may be too conservative Q < 0.21 m3 /h, as
well as inadequate for Q > 0.83 m3 /h [31].
In order to optimize the design and assessment of PSTs, it is necessary to determine their pollutant
removal efficiency as a function of the geometric and operating characteristics of the settling tank and
the solids concentration of the fed suspension. Some surveys [1,3,6,18,32–35] showed the effects of SS
concentration in raw wastewater, temperature, and some operating characteristics, such as HRT or q,
on the performance of PSTs. These studies provided simplified the empirical mathematical models to
describe the average removal of wastewater pollutants that are helpful in the design of sedimentation
tanks or to predict the behavior of sedimentation tanks under certain operating conditions. Subsequent
Water 2017, 9, 448 3 of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 3 of 12

details
[24]. Forof thetank design
design are usually
of PSTs, the usebased on empirical
of CFD-based models experiences
has not been [24].common
For the due designto theof PSTs,
inherentthe
use of CFD-based
complexity models Navier-Stokes
of the corrected has not been common equationsdue to the inherent
for turbulent flow and complexity
the costs of the corrected
associated with
Navier-Stokes
the specialized equations
hardwarefor andturbulent
softwareflow and the
required [6].costs associated with the specialized hardware and
software
Primary required [6].
sedimentation accounts for an important part of the capital cost of a conventional plant,
Primary
comprising sedimentation
both primary andaccounts secondary for stages.
an importantDesigning part of the capital
PST needs cost theof asetting
conventional plant,
operational
comprisingq,both
parameter whichprimary and secondary
will involve variations stages.
on theDesigning
HRT and of the PST needs
efficiency the setting
removal. operational
An increase in
parametertime
retention q, which will involve
will mean a greater variations
volumeonofthe PST HRT andand alsoefficiency
a higherremoval.
performance; An increase in retention
this variation of
time will mean
performance a greater
will, in turn,volume
condition of PST and also
the design and a higher
volume performance;
of the secondary this variation
treatment. of performance
will,Previous
in turn, condition
works have the related
design and removalvolume of the secondary
efficiencies to surface treatment.
overflow rates [1–3,6,24,31,33,34];
some Previous works have
of them [2,3,24,33] related
focused removal
their research efficiencies
in a highto surface
value overflow
of surface rates [1–3,6,24,31,33,34];
overflow rate, in the range
of 4 mof
some 3 /mthem
2 ·h to[2,3,24,33]
13 m /m ·h,
3 2 whichtheir
focused are research
considerably higher
in a high thanofthose
value surface recommended
overflow rate, inin the
thedesign
range
of 4 m3 /m2Other
guidelines. m3 /m[1,32]
·h to 13works 2 ·h, which
researched the range of
are considerably q between
higher than those0.25 recommended
m3/m2·h and 6.25 in them3design
/m2·h,
closer to those
guidelines. recommended
Other works [1,32] in researched
the design guidelines.
the range ofThe range of0.25
q between HRTs m3obtained,
/m2 ·h and 6.25 m3values
included /m2 ·h,
of 0.33 to
closer h to 13 hrecommended
those [1–3,6,24,31,33,34]. in theAccording to Metcalf
design guidelines. Theand Eddy
range of[27],
HRTs inobtained,
cold climates,includedthe viscosity
values of
increases
0.33 h to of 13 water, slow the sedimentation
h [1–3,6,24,31,33,34]. According rate, establishing
to Metcalf and Eddya relation
[27],between the temperature
in cold climates, and
the viscosity
the increase
increases of the
of water, slowhydraulic retention rate,
the sedimentation time. Previous aresearch
establishing [1] explicitly
relation between included and
the temperature waterthe
temperature
increase of the in hydraulic
their work, with variations
retention between
time. Previous 18 °C and
research 26 °C. included water temperature in
[1] explicitly
theirAfter
work,a with previous investigation
variations betweento ◦ C and
18know the ◦ C.
26average value of surface overflow rate in the real
PSTs ofAfterthe aWWTP,previous which allowed totofixknow
investigation it in 1the
m /m3 ·h; thevalue
average
2 aim of ofthe present
surface investigation
overflow rate inofthe PSTs,
real
comprising
PSTs of the WWTP, in situ qwhich
measurements
allowed tobetween fix it in 10.8m3 m /m 3/m2 ·h;
2·hthe
and aim1.4ofm 3/m
the 2·h in conjunction
present investigation with the
of PSTs,
removal
comprising efficiency
in situanalysis,
q measurements is to contribute
between to a0.8 m3 /m
better 2 ·h and 1.4 mof
understanding 3 /mthe2 ·connection
h in conjunctionbetween withflow
the
and removal
removal processes
efficiency in PSTs
analysis, is toand to develop
contribute to a and
better approximate
understanding a feasible empirical mathematical
of the connection between flow
model that allows
and removal for theinprediction
processes PSTs andof toperformance
develop andremoval approximate rate based on surface
a feasible overflow
empirical rate and
mathematical
temperature
model that allows whichfor would, in turn, optimize
the prediction the design
of performance of the rate
removal treatment
based on plant.
surface overflow rate and
temperature which would, in turn, optimize the design of the treatment plant.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Semi-Technical PST
2.1. Semi-Technical PST
For the development of the research, a semi-technical PST was used, located at the pre-treatment
stage For
of the theWWTP
development
Rincón of dethe Leónresearch, a semi-technical
in Alicante, Spain. The selected PST wasWWTP used, located at the pre-treatment
is a conventional activated
stage ofplant
sludge the WWTP Rincón de digestion
with anaerobic León in Alicante,
for sludge Spain. The selected
treatment. The WWTP is a conventional
semi-technical PST wasactivated
located
sludge to
parallel plant the with anaerobic
full-scale primary digestion for sludge
sedimentation tanks treatment.
and prior The to thesemi-technical
existing biological PST was located
reactors in
parallel to the full-scale primary sedimentation
the treatment plant, as indicated in the process diagram of Figure 1. tanks and prior to the existing biological reactors in the
treatment plant, as indicated in the process diagram of Figure 1.

Figure 1. Semi-technical PST: schematic diagram of the process.

Figure 1. Semi-technical PST: schematic diagram of the process.

As shown in Figure 2a,b, the semi-technical PST system consists of the following elements: (1)
GRP As shownvessel
circular in Figure
3 m2a,b,
deepthe(the
semi-technical PST system
same as full-scale PSTconsists of the following
of WWTP), elements:with
1 m in diameter, (1) GRP
an
circular vessel 3 m deep (the same as full-scale PST of WWTP), 1 m in diameter,
operating volume of 2.3562 m and an area of 0.7854 m ; (2) wastewater supply pipe from feed
3 2 with an operating
volume ofwith
pumping, 2.3562 m3 and an
cylindrical area
inlet of 0.7854
baffle m2 ; (2)the
to dissipate wastewater supply
kinetic energy of pipe from
the jet; (3) feed
outletpumping,
weir 1.5 mwith
in
cylindrical inlet baffle to dissipate the kinetic energy of the jet; (3) outlet weir 1.5 m in
exterior diameter; (4) control valves at different heights for water samplings of decanted water; (5) exterior diameter;
(4) control
bottom valves
slurry at different
purge; heights for water
and (6) communicating samplings
graduated of decanted
vessel water;out
for balancing (5) bottom slurry purge;
the levels.
and (6) communicating graduated vessel for balancing out the levels.
Water 2017, 9, 448 4 of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 4 of 12

(a) (b)
Figure 2. Semi-technical PST: (a) picture; (b) schematic diagram.
Figure 2. Semi-technical PST: (a) picture; (b) schematic diagram.

2.2. Experimental Procedure

2.2. Experimental Procedure
A data evaluation of full scale PST from the WWTP on the basis of annual continuous
A data evaluation of full scale PST from the WWTP on the basis of annual continuous
measurements, allowed us to know the average value of q at which the tanks worked, reaching a
measurements, allowed us to know the average value of q at which the tanks worked, reaching
value of around 1 m3/m2·h. The value of q has been calculated based on the flow rate and the surface
a value of around 1 m3 /m2 ·h. The value of q has been calculated based on the flow rate and the
of the PST during the measurement period. Over four months, the pilot plant was operated at three
surface of the PST during the measurement period. Over four months, the pilot plant was operated
different cycles, corresponding to three decreasing surface hydraulic loads (q) of 1.4, 1.0, 0.8 m3/m2·h,
at three different cycles, corresponding to three decreasing surface hydraulic loads (q) of 1.4, 1.0,
these low values were chosen to obtain relatively high removal efficiencies according to typical
0.8 m3 /m2 ·h, these low values were chosen to obtain relatively high removal efficiencies according
operating values for primary settling systems [26,27]. Samples of raw water of 0.5 L from the feed
to typical operating values for primary settling systems [26,27]. Samples of raw water of 0.5 L from
and of decanted water form the effluent of the pilot plant were taken three days/week in triplicate, to
the feed and of decanted water form the effluent of the pilot plant were taken three days/week in
determine the values of temperature, SS, COD, BOD5, pH, and conductivity. Sludge purge was
triplicate, to determine the values of temperature, SS, COD, BOD5 , pH, and conductivity. Sludge purge
performed daily to avoid affecting the operation of the decanter, even on days when no water
was performed daily to avoid affecting the operation of the decanter, even on days when no water
samples were taken from the decanter.
samples were taken from the decanter.
2.3. Analytical
2.3. Analytical Method
Method

2.3.1. Physical
2.3.1. Physical and
and Chemical
Chemical Determination
Determination
COD and
COD and BOD
BOD55 were
were determined
determined according
according to to the
the American
American Public
Public Health
Health Association,
Association, the
the
American Water
American Water Works
Works Association
Association and
and the
the Water
Water Environment
Environment Federation
Federation (APHA-AWWA-WEF)
(APHA-AWWA-WEF)
methods. The suspended solids (SS) were determined by gravimetric
methods. The suspended solids (SS) were determined by gravimetric methods [36].methods [36]. The
The pH
pH was
was
determinedusing
determined usinga pH
a pH meter
meter (Crison
(Crison pH CM pH35CM
® 35 ,Lange
, Hach ® Hach Lange
Spain Spain
S.L.U, S.L.U,and
BI, Spain) BI,conductivity
Spain) and
conductivity
was wasusing
determined determined using ameter
a conductivity conductivity
(Crison meter
CM 35(Crison
® ). CM 35®).

2.3.2. Statistical
2.3.2. Statistical Analysis
Analysis
The data
The data obtained
obtained throughout
throughout this
this study
study were
were analyzed
analyzed using
using aa computer-assisted
computer-assisted statistics
statistics
program,SPSS
program, SPSS20
20for
for Windows.
Windows. A A least
least significant
significant difference
differencetest
test(LSD
(LSD test)
test) was
was used
used to
to measure
measure the
the
differences between
differences between the
the different
different operational
operational conditions
conditions studied
studied (SHL
(SHL and
and HRT).
HRT). Normality
Normality tests
tests of
of
the data were performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, since the dataset was lower than 2000 elements.
Water 2017, 9, 448 5 of 12

the data were performed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, since the dataset was lower than 2000 elements.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess the homogeneity of variance, with a significance
level of 5% (p < 0.05).
Moreover, a multivariable statistical analysis using the software Canoco for Windows, version 4.5,
was used to quantify the influence of the variables on the parameters of the behavior of the
sedimentation tank and to obtain variables with the greatest influence on the working of the membrane.
A detrended correspondence analysis (DCA), the most appropriate ordination statistical analysis, was
carried out in order to obtain gradient lengths. DCA revealed that the longest ordination axis was
lower than three, which meant that the distribution of the model was linear. Redundancy analysis
(RDA) was used due to the fact that the distribution of the model was linear, as described by the
statistical method recommended by Lepš and Šmilauer [37]. Statistical significance was tested using a
Monte Carlo test with 499 permutations and a selected significance level of 0.05.

2.4. Mathematical Model

Considering the basic theory of sedimentation, removal efficiency is related to initial SS
concentrations and hydraulic factors such as surface overflow rate or hydraulic retention time
and existing performance relationships include these variables [6,34]. Flocculation and settling are
influenced by other factors such as the velocity field, particle size, and density and the density and
viscosity of the fluid; Flocculation is also affected by chemical characteristics of the particles and fluid.
Inlet conditions or environmental factors (wind action and heat flux) cause changes to the density and
velocity field [1].
The proposed model, based on the expected behavior of the system, is an exponential model
depending on surface overflow rate:
ESS = A · e−B·q (1)

where E is the removal efficiency; q is the surface overflow rate m3 /m2 ·h; and A and B are
unknown coefficients:
(S − Se )
E= i (2)
Si
and where Si and Se are influent and effluent concentrations.

3. Results

3.1. Influent Characteristics

The average values of the influent characteristics for the three cycles of q and HRT, are shown in
Table 1.

Table 1. Influent characteristics: SSi, CODi, BOD5 i, pH, and conductivity.

Influent Characteristics Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

q (m3 /m2 ·h) 1.4 1.0 0.8
HRT (h) 2 3 4
tª (◦ C) 23.64 ± 2.00 23.10 ± 2.22 21.70 ± 2.00
SSi (mg/L) 382.14 ± 54.66 415.43 ± 40.99 418.57 ± 67.01
CODi (mg/L) 835.07 ± 102.91 862.29 ± 84.67 836.86 ± 91.01
BOD5 i (mg/L) 396.64 ± 42.46 428.16 ± 42.12 405.23 ± 40.11
pH 8.30 ± 0.24 8.13 ± 0.21 8.20 ± 0.17
Conductiv. (µS/cm) 2517.14 ± 465.48 2530.71 ± 260.87 2771.07 ± 246.69

There are no statistically significant differences in the values of the influent. Therefore, the data
obtained in each cycle are perfectly comparable.
Water 2017, 9, 448 6 of 12

All samples were taken on dry weather days. The raw water temperature varied between 20.5 ◦ C
and 25.0 ◦ C during stage 1, 18.9 ◦ C and 28.0 ◦ C during stage 2, and 17.9 ◦ C and 26.0 ◦ C during stage
3, as a consequence of fluctuations throughout the year when operating under real conditions. The
small differences in the values in temperature are due to the fact that the raw water samples came from
the pre-treatment entry channel, located inside the pre-treatment building. The SS, COD, and BOD5
loading showed little variation in the three cycles. The measured influent concentrations of SS are on
the average of the observed by Tebbutt [32] in a wider range of 200–800 mg/L, but higher than those
reported by Christoulas [1], the observed variations could be due to differences in population habits.

3.2. Removal Efficiency

The mean data obtained for the decanted water effluent for the three cycles of q and HRT,
are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Effluent characteristics: SSe, CODe, BOD5 e, pH, and conductivity.

Effluent Characteristics Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

q (m3 /m2 ·h) 1.4 1.0 0.8
HRT (h) 2 3 4
tª (◦ C) 25.00 ± 3.50 23.00 ± 3.60 20.60 ± 3.30
SSe (mg/L) 165.00 ± 26.53 a 155.00 ± 28.76 a,b 138.57 ± 20.33 b
CODe (mg/L) 521.57 ± 75.32 a 493.93 ± 45.19 a,b 449.07 ± 62.57 b
BOD5 e (mg/L) 283.92 ± 31.19 a,b 288.08 ± 24.51 a 256.80 ± 34.22 b
pH 7.93 ± 0.24 7.83 ± 0.32 7.83 ± 0.14
Conductiv. (µS/cm) 2424.21 ± 274.7 2747.14 ± 235.84 2650.79 ± 330.9
Note: a,b Statistically significant differences.

The study was completed by variance analysis to significance of an assigned confidence level.
If the values shown have the same superscript in the table, they do not present differences, only
statistically significant differences are shown for those cycles that do not share any superscript.
Statistically significant differences between the different cycles are observed; since they have not
been shown in the characteristics of the influent, they have to be as a consequence of the variation
of the process variables. The data of each cycle presents with the rest of the cycles, statistically
significant differences.
The decanted water temperature varied between 18.9 ◦ C and 31.0 ◦ C during stage 1, 15, and 26.5 ◦ C
during stage 2, and 16.0 ◦ C and 25.5 ◦ C during stage 3, as a consequence of the fluctuations throughout
the year when operating under real conditions. The greatest dispersion in the measured water
temperature values is due to the outdoor location of the decanter. The values of SS obtained are similar
to those reached by Patziger [2].
As a first step in analyzing the performance data it was decided to obtain an efficiency-overflow
rate relationship. The removal efficiency (E) of SS, COD and BOD5 , obtained in the process at different
surface overflow rates, is indicated in Figure 3.
Higher hydraulic flow rates generates higher turbulent kinetic energies affecting sedimentation
and lower efficiency removals [3]. Comparing with current values from the design guidelines the
data obtained is slightly higher. The increased removal in the pilot-plant tank is probably caused by
the combination of longer settling time and, almost certainly, to a degree of flocculation that does
not exist in the laboratory test [33]. Since the pilot plant was close to full-scale depth and operated
with real sewage, it is believed that the results are comparable to those that would be obtained in an
actual plant. The calculated results of ESS are also higher than the results obtained by other researchers
with ESS < 50% [18] or ESS < 57% [24].
 Water
Water 2017,
2017, 9, 448
9, 448 7 of7712
of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 of 12

Figure
Figure
Figure 3. Effect
3.
3. Effect of qof
Effect qq on
ofon on SS,
SS, COD
SS, COD
andand
COD BOD
and BOD 55 Efficiency.
5 Efficiency.
BOD Efficiency.

The The
Thesecond analysis,
second
second as shown
analysis, as
as shown
shownin Figure
in 4, was
inFigure
Figure performed
4,4,was
was performed
performed on on
the original
onthethe data
original
original grouped
data
datagroupedintointo
grouped SS SS
into
influent
influent
SS (SSi)
influent ranges
(SSi) ranges
(SSi) (300–400
(300–400
ranges mg/L
mg/L
(300–400 and 400–500
and
mg/L 400–500 mg/L).
and 400–500mg/L).Itmg/L).
isIt believed
It is that
is believed thethe
that
believed SSthat
range
SS theofSS200–600
range ofrange
200–600
of
mg/Lmg/Lis likely
200–600 is mg/Lto be
likely to more
be more
is likely representative
to representative of normal
of normal
be more representative sewage
ofsewage [32].
normal It can
[32]. also
It can
sewage be Itbe
also
[32]. observed alsothat
observed
can bethatthethe
SS SS
observed
concentration
concentration
that influent (SSi)
influent (SSi)
the SS concentration had an effect
had (SSi)
influent on
an effect
had an the removal
oneffect
the removal efficiency,
efficiency,
on the removal since flocculation
since flocculation
efficiency, is more
is more
since flocculation is
significant
significant
more at higher
significant atSS
at higher levels,
SS
higher SSdifferent
levels,levels, authors
different authors
different have
authors described
have described
have thethe
described samesame
the influence
influence
same [1,18,32,33,38].
influence [1,18,32,33,38].
[1,18,32,33,38].

Figure 4. Efficiency at Different SSi Ranges.

Figure 4. Efficiency
Figure at Different
4. Efficiency SSi SSi
at Different Ranges.
Ranges.
The effect of hydraulic retention time (HRT) on removal efficiency ESS and EBOD5 obtained from
TheThe
effect of hydraulic
effect of hydraulic retention time
retention (HRT)
time (HRT)on on
removal
removal efficiency ESS Eand
efficiency EBOD5
SS and obtained
EBOD5 from
obtained from
experimentation and its comparison with other previous plots [25,39], are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
experimentation and its comparison with other previous plots [25,39], are shown in Figures
experimentation and its comparison with other previous plots [25,39], are shown in Figures 5 and 6. 5 and 6.
Any settleable solids are removed quite rapidly and settlement times in excess of 2 h bring little
Any settleable
Any solids
settleable areare
solids removed
removedquite rapidly
quite andand
rapidly settlement
settlement times in excess
times of 2ofh2bring
in excess little
h bring little
increase in the removal rate and an increase in the volume in the PST.
increase in the
increase removal
in the removal raterate
andandan an
increase in the
increase volume
in the in the
volume PST.
in the PST.
Water 2017, 9,
Water 2017, 9, 448
448 8 of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 88 of
of 12
12

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Effect
Effect of
of HRT on SS
HRT on SS Efficiency.
Efficiency.
Efficiency.

Figure 6. Effect of HRT on BOD5 Efficiency.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Effect
Effect of
of HRT
HRT on
on BOD Efficiency.
BOD55 Efficiency.

3.3. Combined
3.3. Combined Multivariate
Combined Multivariate Analysis
Multivariate Analysis
Analysis
3.3.
As
As aaa consequence
consequence of of the
the temporary
temporary development
development of of the
the experiment,
experiment, the the
the evolution
evolution of of the
the
As consequence of the temporary development of the experiment, evolution of the
temperature
temperature was
was closely
closely linked
linked to
to the
the surface
surface overflow
overflow rate.
rate. In
In the
the different
different phases
phases the
the temperature
temperature
temperature was closely linked to the surface overflow rate. In the different phases the temperature
decreased
decreasedas asthethesurface
surface overflow
overflow raterate
decreased. As a As
decreased. consequence of this,ofin this,
orderinnot to de-virtualize
decreased as the surface overflow rate decreased. As aa consequence
consequence of this, order
in order not to
not to de-
de-
the multivariate
virtualize the analysis,
the multivariate the
multivariate analysis,temperature
analysis, the variable
the temperature was eliminated,
temperature variable
variable was and it was
was eliminated,
eliminated, and analyzed
and itit waslater in
was analyzedeach
analyzed
virtualize
one
laterofinthe cycles
each one of
of constant
the cycles q.of constant q.
later in each one of the cycles of constant q.
In
In all
all statistical
statistical analyses,
analyses, it it
it was
was observed
observed thatthat
that efficiency
efficiency removal
removal in in organic
organic matter
matter (COD(COD and and
In all statistical analyses, was observed efficiency removal in organic matter (COD and
BOD ) and
BOD555)) and suspended
and suspended
suspended solids solids was
solids was
was put put
put inin order
in order
order inin the
in the same
the same quadrant;
same quadrant; thus,
quadrant; thus,
thus, thethe effect
the effect
effect ofof the
the variables
of the variables
BOD variables
was
was the
the same
same in in all
all them.
them.
was the same in all them.
The analysis
The analysis
analysis of of
of all
all the
the data
data (Figure
(Figure 7) 7) revealed
revealed that,
that, the
the most
most influential
influential variable
variable in in the
the relation
relation
The all the data (Figure 7) revealed that, the most influential variable in the relation
of
of variance
variance between
between the
the results
results andandthethe variables
variables of of
the the process
process was was
the
of variance between the results and the variables of the process was the concentration of SS, which the concentration
concentration of SS, of SS,
which
which
presented
presented presented
aa strong
stronga strong
positive
positive positive correlation
correlation
correlation with with
with the efficiency
the efficiency
the efficiency of the
of of the
the process—the
process—the
process—the higher
higherhigher
the the
the SS
SS
SS concentration
concentration in
concentration in suspension,
in suspension,
suspension, the the greater
the greater
greater the the removal.
the removal.
removal. This This
This may may
may be be due
be due
due to to flocculation
to flocculation
flocculation beingbeing more
being more
more
significant
significant at
at high
high levels
levels of
of SS
SS concentration.
concentration.
significant at high levels of SS concentration.
Water 2017, 9, 448 9 of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 9 of 12

Water 2017, 9, 448 9 of 12

Water 2017, 9, 448 9 of 12
Water 2017, 9, 448 9 of 12

Figure 7. Efficiency combined multivariate analysis.

Figure 7. Efficiency combined multivariate analysis.
The next variable with the greatest
Figure influence
7. Efficiency onmultivariate
combined the variability of the system was the surface
analysis.
The next variable withasthe Figure
Figure 7.7.Efficiency
greatestEfficiency combined
combined
influence onmultivariate
multivariate analysis.
analysis.
the[1–3,6,24,31,33,34]
variability of thehad system wasnegative
the surface
hydraulic load, which, many authors have studied a strong
hydraulic load,
The
correlation, which,
nexti.e.,variable
the aswith
lowermany the authors
the HRT
greatest in have
influence
the tankstudied
on the [1–3,6,24,31,33,34]
(higher variability
hydraulic of the system
loads), thehad a strong
was
more negative
the process
the surface
TheThe nextnext variablewith
variable withthe thegreatest
greatest influence
influence on on the
the variability
variabilityofofthe thesystem
systemwas was thethesurface
surface
hydraulic
performance
correlation, load,
i.e.,
hydraulic is
the which,
greatly
lower
load,which,
as
the
which,asasmany
many
reduced. HRTThe authors
manyauthors organic
in the
authors have
have
matter
tank studied
(higher
have studied
[1–3,6,24,31,33,34]
concentration,
hydraulicon
studied [1–3,6,24,31,33,34] the other
loads), had a
hand,
the strong
hardly
more negative
showed
the process
hydraulic load, [1–3,6,24,31,33,34]had hada astrong
strongnegative
negative
correlation,
any
performance correlation i.e.,
is greatly inthethe lower the
variability
reduced. TheHRT
of the in
organic the
system tank
(angle
thematter (higher
of the hydraulic
vector
concentration, near loads),
90°). the more the process
correlation,
correlation, i.e.,the
i.e., the lowerthe
lower the HRT
HRT inin the tank (higher
tank (higher hydraulicon
hydraulic the other
loads),
loads), the hand,
themore
morethethe hardly
process showed
process
performance
Regarding
performance
any correlation in isthe
greatly
isthegreatly reduced.
analyses
reduced.
variability ofThe
performed
The
the organic
at each
organic
system matter
of the
matter
(angle concentration,
cycles of
concentration,
of the vector onon
constant the
the
near q, other
as ◦can
other
90 hand,
be seen
hand,
). hardly
hardly theshowed
in showedFigure
performance3 is 2greatly reduced. The organic matter concentration, on the other hand, hardly showed
any
8 (q correlation
= 1.4 m /m ·h), ininthe thevariability
Figure of
9 (q = 1.0ofthem3/m system (angle
2·h) and Figureofthe
the vector
10vector
(q = 0.8 near
m390°).
/m90°).
q, ·h), the cycle most affected
2
any
Regarding correlation
the analyses variability
performed the system (angle of near
any correlation in the variability of theatsystemeach of(angle
the cycles
of the of constant
vector near 90°). as can be seen in the Figure 8
Regarding
by temperature
3 Regarding
2 the
wastheanalyses
the firstperformed
analyses one. This
performed3 at
at each
could
2 ofdue
eachbeof the cycles
the cycles
to theof of constant
fact that atq,3q,
constant asas
higher
can
2 can be
sewage
be seen
seen in
thethe Figure
intemperatures,
Figure
/m ·h),
(q = 1.4 mRegarding Figure
the 9 (q =performed
analyses 1.0 m /m at·h)
eachand Figure
of the cycles10of (qconstant
= 0.8 3m3 q,2/mas can·h),bethe
seencycle most
in the affected
Figure
8particle-settling
(q = 1.4
8 (q m3m
= 1.4 /m3/m2·h),
2·h), Figure
velocities
Figure 99(q(q==1.0
increase, 1.0 m
and
m 33/m22·h) and Figure 10 (q = 0.8 m
consequently
/m ·h) Figure the effect
10 (q = of
0.8 m /m /m·h),
2·h), the cycle most affected
flocculation the and SSi
cycle on
most SS removal
affected
8 (q = 1.4 m3/m
by temperature was 2·h), Figure 9 (q = 1.0 m3/m2·h) and Figure 10 (q = 0.8 m3/m2·h), the cycle most affected
the first one. This could be due to the fact that at higher sewage temperatures,
by temperature
by temperature
becoming was wasthe
less significant thefirst
firstone.
[1]. one.This
This could
could be due due to to the
thefact
factthat
thatatathigher
highersewage
sewage temperatures,
temperatures,
by temperature
particle-settling was theincrease,
velocities first one.and Thisconsequently
could be due to thetheeffect
fact thatflocculation
at higher sewage temperatures,
particle-settling
particle-settling velocities
velocitiesincrease,
increase,and and consequently
consequently the effectofofof
theeffect flocculation
flocculation andand and
SSi onSSi
SSi onSS SSonremoval
SS removal
removal
particle-settling
becoming less significant
becoming less velocities
significant increase,
[1].[1].
[1]. and consequently the effect of flocculation and SSi on SS removal
becoming less significant
becoming less significant [1].

Figure 8. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.4 m3/m2·h.

Figure 8. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.4 m3/m2·h.
3 /m 2
Figure 8. Combined
Figure multivariate
8. Combined multivariateanalysis q ==1.4
analysis q 1.4mm
3/m 2·h. ·h.
Figure 8. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.4 m3/m2·h.

Figure 9. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.0 m3/m2·h.

Figure 9. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.0 m3/m2·h.

Figure 9. Combined multivariate analysis q = 1.0 m3/m2·h.

3 2
Figure 9. Combined
Figure multivariate
9. Combined multivariate analysis
analysis qq==1.0
1.0mm 2·h. ·h.
3/m/m

Figure10.
Figure 10.Combined
Combined multivariate
multivariate analysis
analysisqq= =0.8
0.8mm
3/m 2·h.
3/m 2·h.

Figure 10. Combined multivariate analysis q = 0.8 m3/m2·h.

Figure 10. Combined multivariate analysis q = 0.8 m3/m
3 ·h. 2
2
Figure 10. Combined multivariate analysis q = 0.8 m /m ·h.
Water 2017, 9, 448 10 of 12

Temperature was positively strongly correlated with the removal rates (Figure 8), i.e., the higher
the temperature,
Water 2017, 9,the
448 higher the removal rates that were obtained. In the other cycles (Figures 910and of 1210),
no variables were correlated with the removal rates, so the most influential variable in the process is the
HRT, being Temperature was positively
that the temperature is anstrongly correlated
especially withvariable
influential the removal
whenrates
the(Figure
HRT 8), i.e., the
is high. higher
The effects
the differences
of density temperature,and the temperature
higher the removal ratescan
variation thatgive
weresignificantly
obtained. In different
the other flow-through
cycles (Figurestimes
9 and for
10), no variables were correlated with the removal rates, so the most influential variable in the process
the same hydraulic loading conditions [32].
is the HRT, being that the temperature is an especially influential variable when the HRT is high. The
effects of
3.4. Empirical density differences and temperature variation can give significantly different flow-through
Model
times for the same hydraulic loading conditions [32].
The general equation was selected as a simple mathematical model for a complex process:
3.4. Empirical Model
−B·q
asSSa =
The general equation was selected E A · emathematical model for a complex process:
simple (3)
-B⋅q
The mode of this form is similar to thatEused SS = Aby⋅ eTebbutt [33] and implies a linear relationship (1)
between q and log E, with B in a range of 0.0020 and 0.123 d/m, with no dependence of B on
The mode of this form is similar to that used by Tebbutt [33] and implies a linear relationship
the temperature
between q upon
and logcomparison.
E, with B in aConsidering
range of 0.0020lowanddifferences
0.123 d/m,between low q values,
with no dependence of Bdue to the
on the
exponential of Ess on ( −
temperature upon comparison. Considering low differences between low q values, due to the on
dependence q), the effect of influent SS concentration was considered
coefficient A as andependence
exponential increasingoflinear
Ess onfunction
(−q), the or SSi.ofTo
effect include
influent SS the influencewas
concentration of temperature
considered on(T),
an exponential
coefficientdependence, similar
A as an increasing to that
linear proposed
function or SSi.byToChristoulas
include the [1], was considered.
influence of temperature (T), an
Theexponential dependence, satisfactorily
general relationship similar to that fits (R2 = by
proposed Christoulas
0.7837) [1], wasdata
the obtained considered.
with:
The general relationship satisfactorily fits (R2 = 0.7837) the obtained data with:
A=
A 0.0004·⋅SS
= 0.0004 SS++0.6779
0.6779 (3) (4)
(0.006·T)
0.2287·e⋅ e ( 0.006⋅T )
BB==0.2287 (4) (5)
Therefore, the performance
Therefore, datadata
the performance fromfrom
the pilot plant
the pilot areare
plant suitable forforstudying
suitable studyingthe
theinfluence
influence of
of SS
and temperature on sedimentation.
SS and temperature Figure Figure
on sedimentation. 11 shows the experimental
11 shows values
the experimental andand
values the the
expected with
expected
with themodel.
the proposed proposed model.

Figure
Figure 11. Experimental
11. Experimental Dataand
Data andModel
Model Values.
Values.

With the aim of examining the validity in previously existing relationships, the experimental
With
datathe aimapplied
were of examining the validityor
to other correlations inmodels
previously existing
proposed relationships,
in the literature [33],the
butexperimental data
with a poor fit.
were applied to other
Differences correlations
in parameter or modelscould
temperature proposed in the
partially literature
explain [33], butresults
the different with agiven
poor fit. Differences
by different
in parameter
modelstemperature
[1]. could partially explain the different results given by different models [1].

4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions

In thisInresearch,
this research, the evaluation
the evaluation of surface
of surface overflowrate,
overflow rate,hydraulic
hydraulic retention
retentiontime, influent
time, influentSS SS
and temperature
and temperature and their
and their influence
influence on on
thethe removalefficiency
removal efficiency of
of SS,
SS, COD,
COD,and andBOD5,
BOD5, through
through
comprehensive
comprehensive in situ
in situ measurementprocedures
measurement procedures were
werepresented.
presented.Studies carriedcarried
Studies out at one
outsemi-
at one
technical PST with the same depth as full-scale PST from WWTP, and fed with real sewage water.
semi-technical PST with the same depth as full-scale PST from WWTP, and fed with real sewage water.
Water 2017, 9, 448 11 of 12

The variable that most affects the elimination of SS and organic matter, is the influent SS load;
the second most important variable was the surface overflow rate.
The results provide an effective approach for full-scale plant evaluation that can never be as well
planned or controlled, e.g., lab or pilot studies, and a useful account of how the surface overflow
loading affects efficiency removal, which may increase by 11% for SS and 9% for COD and BOD5 ,
for low q variations of ±0.6 m3 /m2 ·h and HRT of ±2 h.
The proposed empirical model describes the average removal of SS in terms of surface overflow
rate, influent suspended solids, and temperature and, therefore, the results can be deemed as helpful
in the design and operation assessment of PSTs with in similar environmental conditions, and
wastewater characteristics.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the Municipal Wastewater Company (AMAEM) for their
invaluable collaboration in carrying out this research.
Author Contributions: M. Jover-Smet and A. Trapote conceived and designed the experiments; M. Jover-Smet
performed the experiments; M. Jover-Smet and J. Martín-Pascual analyzed the data; M. Jover-Smet and
J. Martín-Pascual contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools; and M. Jover-Smet wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Christoulas, D.G.; Yannakopoulos, P.H.; Andreadakis, A.D. An empirical model for primary sedimentation
of sewage. Environ. Int. 1998, 24, 925–934. [CrossRef]
2. Patziger, M.; Günthert, F.W.; Jardin, N.; Kainz, H.; Londong, J. On the design and operation of primary
settling tanks in state of the art wastewater treatment and water resources recovery. Water Sci. Technol. 2016.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Patziger, M.; Kiss, K. Towards a hydrodynamically enhanced design and operation of primary settling tanks—Results
of a long term in situ measurement investigation program. Water Environ. J. 2015, 29, 338–345. [CrossRef]
4. Bustos, M.C.; Concha, F.; Bürger, R.; Tory, E.M. Sedimentation and thickening. In Phenomenological Foundation
and Mathematical Theory; Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1990; pp. 150–210.
5. Concha, F.; Bürger, R. A century of research in sedimentation and thickening. KONA Powder Part. J. 2002, 20,
38–70. [CrossRef]
6. Martínez-González, G.; Loría-Molina, H.; Taboada-López, D.; Ramírez-Rodríguez, F.; Navarrete-Bolaños, J.L.;
Jiménez-Islas, H. Approximate method for designing a primary settling tank for wastewater treatment.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2009, 48, 7842–7846. [CrossRef]
7. Diehl, S. Operating charts for continous sedimentation I: Control of steady states. J. Eng. Math. 2001, 41,
117–144. [CrossRef]
8. Je, C.H.; Chang, S. Simple approach to estimate flocculent settling velocity in a dilute suspension.
Environ. Geol. 2004, 45, 1002–1009. [CrossRef]
9. Mazzolani, C.; Pirozzi, F.; D’Antonoi, G. A generalized settling approach in the numerical modeling of
sedimentation tanks. Water Sci. Technol. 1998, 38, 95–102. [CrossRef]
10. Lindeborg, C.; Wiberg, N.; Seyf, A. Studies of the dynamic behaviour of a primary sedimentation tank.
Water Sci. Technol. 1996, 34, 213–222. [CrossRef]
11. Razmi, A.; Firoozabadi, B.; Ahmadi, G. Experimental and numerical approach to enlargement of performance
of primary settling tanks. J. Appl. Fluid Mech. 2009, 2, 1–12.
12. Camnasio, E.; Erpicum, S.; Orsi, E.; Pirotton, M.; Schleiss, A.J.; Dewals, B. Coupling between flow and
sediment deposition in rectangular shallow reservoirs. J. Hydraul. Res. 2013, 51, 535–547. [CrossRef]
13. Dufresne, M.; Dewals, B.; Erpicum, S.; Archambeau, P.; Pirotton, M. Flow patterns and sediment deposition
in rectangular shallow reservoirs. Water Environ. J. 2012, 26, 504–510. [CrossRef]
14. Dufresne, M.; Dewals, B.J.; Erpicum, S.; Archambeau, P.; Pirotton, M. Numerical investigation of flow
patterns in rectangular shallow reservoirs. Eng. Appl. Comput. Fluid Mech. 2011, 5, 247–258. [CrossRef]
15. Dufresne, M.; Dewals, B.J.; Erpicum, S.; Archambeau, P.; Pirotton, M. Experimental investigation of flow pattern
and sediment deposition in rectangular shallow reservoirs. Int. J. Sediment Res. 2010, 25, 258–270. [CrossRef]
Water 2017, 9, 448 12 of 12

16. Patziger, M.; Kiss, K. Analysis of suspended solids transport processes in primary settling tanks. Water Sci.
Technol. 2015, 72, 1–9. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Gong, M.; Xanthos, S.; Ramalingam, K.; Fillos, J.; Beckmann, K.; Deur, A.; McCorquodale, J.A. Development
of a flocculation sub-model for a 3-D CFD model based on rectangular settling tanks. Water Sci. Technol.
2011, 63, 213–219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Liu, X.; Garcia, M.H. Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling for the Design of Large Primary Settling
Tanks. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2011, 137, 343–355. [CrossRef]
19. Rostami, F.; Shahrokhi, M.; Said, M.A.M.; Abdullah, R. Numerical modeling on inlet aperture effects on flow
pattern in primary settling tanks. Appl. Math. Model. 2011, 35, 3012–3020. [CrossRef]
20. Shahrokhi, M.; Rostami, F.; Said, M.A.M.; Yazdi, S.R.S.; Syafalni, S. Computational investigations of baffle configuration
effects on the performance of primary sedimentation tanks. Water Environ. J. 2013, 27, 484–494. [CrossRef]
21. Shahrokhi, M.; Rostami, F.; Said, M.A.M.; Yazdi, S.R.S.; Syafalni, S.; Abdullah, R. The effect of baffle angle on
primary sedimentation tank efficiency. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 39, 293–303. [CrossRef]
22. Shahrokhi, M.; Rostami, F.; Said, M.A.M.; Yazdi, S.R.S. The effect of number of baffles on the improvement
efficiency of primary sedimentation tanks. Appl. Math. Model. 2012, 36, 3725–3735. [CrossRef]
23. Shahrokhi, M.; Rostami, F.; Said, M.A.M.; Yazdi, S.R.S. Numerical modeling of baffle location effects on the
flow pattern of primary sedimentation tanks. Appl. Math. Model. 2013, 37, 4486–4496. [CrossRef]
24. Kiss, K.; Patziger, M. Novel measurements in primary settling tanks of large municipal wastewater treatment
plants. YBL J. Built Environ. 2013, 1. [CrossRef]
25. Fair, G.M.; Geyer, J.C.; Okun, D.A. Elements of Water Supply and Waste Water Disposal; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1971.
26. DWA (German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste). ATV-DVWK-A 131: Dimensioning of
Single-Stage Activated Sludge Plants; DWA: Hennef, Germany, 2000.
27. Metcalf & Eddy Inc.; Tchobanoglous, G.; Burton, F.L.; Stensel, H.D. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Resource Recovery; McGraw-Hill: London, UK, 2003.
28. Yoo, C.K.; Villez, K.; Van Hulle, S.W.H.; Vanrolleghem, P.A. Enhanced process monitoring for wastewater
treatment systems. Envirometrics 2008, 19, 602–617. [CrossRef]
29. Puig, S.; Van Loosdrecht, M.C.M.; Flameling, A.G.; Colprim, J.; Meijer, S.C.F. The effect of primary sedimentation
on full-scale WWTP nutrient removal performance. Water Res. 2010, 44, 3375–3384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Somlyódy, L.; Patziger, M. Urban wastewater development in Central and Eastern Europe. Water Sci. Technol.
2012, 66, 1081–1087. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Chiang, C.F.; Tsai, C.T.; Lo, H.M.; Chao, K.P.; Pai, T.Y. Analyzing the design criteria of primary settlers
of small sewage treatment systems: A national survey in Taiwan. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 175, 915–919.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Tebbutt, T.H.Y.; Christoulas, D.G. Performance relationships for primary sedimentation. Water Res. 1975, 9,
347–356. [CrossRef]
33. Tebbutt, T.H.Y. Primary Sedimentation of wastewater. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 1979, 51, 2858–2867.
34. Annesini, M.C.; Beccari, M.; Mininni, G. Solids removal efficiency of primary settling tanks in municipal
wastewater treatment plants. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1979, 12, 441–447. [CrossRef]
35. Huang, J.; Jin, Y.C. Numerical modeling of Type I circular sedimentation tank. J. Environ. Eng. 2011, 137,
196–204. [CrossRef]
36. Bridgewater, L.; American Public Health Association; American Water Works Association; Water
Environment Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Public
Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
37. Lepš, J.; Šmilauer, P. Multivariate Analysis of Ecological Data; Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of
South Bohemia: České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 1999.
38. Yetis, Ü.; Tarlan, E. improvement for primary settling performance with activated sludge. Environ. Technol.
2002, 23, 363–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Hernández, A. Depuración y Desinfección de Aguas Residuales; Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y
Puertos: Madrid, Spain, 2001.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).