WEFTEC® 2005

TERTIARY CLARIFIER DESIGN CONCEPTS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Roderick D. Reardon
CDM
2301 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 300
Maitland, Florida 32751

ABSTRACT

Tertiary clarification is a unit process that can be used after conventional biological treatment to
provide effluent water quality that is better than secondary standards. Common applications for
tertiary clarification are enhanced removal of phosphorus, suspended solids, metals, and
pathogens. Information is presented on the scientific basis for tertiary clarification processes
including characterization of suspended solids, settling velocities and overflow rates, chemical
coagulation, precipitation of metals, and chemical phosphorus removal. Material from a large
number of sources has been summarized and referenced to provide the practicing engineer
detailed information to support the design of tertiary clarification processes on a rational basis.
Clarifiers for two- and three-sludge processes are considered to be a form of secondary
sedimentation associated with an activated sludge process, and are not considered here.

KEYWORDS

Tertiary clarification, phosphorus removal, metals, particle size distribution, settling velocities

BASICS – THE SCIENCE OF DESIGN

Biological treatment processes are relied upon for the removal of the majority of soluble
pollutants in wastewater including biodegradable carbon, ammonia, and nitrate. In contrast
tertiary clarification processes are primarily intended to remove pollutants and pathogens
associated with suspended particles. This implies that the size and other physical characteristics
of the particles or floc in secondary effluent (such as electrokinetic surface potential, specific
gravity, shape) are important variables in selecting a treatment process that will be effective in
achieving the desired water quality objectives. Sedimentation is claimed to be an efficient
process for solids liquid separation when the suspended solids mass concentration is large (> 50
mg/L) and when the particle size exceeds about 30 – 100 micrometers (Kavanaugh, M. C. et al.,
1980). Even thought this is often not true with secondary effluents, sedimentation processes have
still proved practical for phosphorus removal and for the precipitation of silica, metals, and other
inorganic compounds.

Particle Characterization

Secondary effluent particles are composed of organic macromolecules including humic

substances, proteins, virus, bacteria, and algae (Adin, A., 1998). Humic substances have been

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4453
 WEFTEC® 2005

reported to constitute a significant fraction of the residual organics in secondary effluents

(Rebhun, M. and Manka, J., 1971; Manka, J. and Rebhun, M., 1982). A majority of the soluble
organic matter in effluent is of microbial origin, and is produced by microorganisms as they
degrade the organic substrate in the influent (Grady, C. P. L. Jr. et. al., 1999).

Particles in wastewater effluent are mostly colloidal in nature and negatively charged. Typical
floc sizes are in the range of 10 – 70 µm with floc densities of 1.015 – 1.034 g/cm3
(Andreadakis, A., 1993). Most particles have electrostatic charges in the range of -10 mV to -18
mV, and tend to be stable (Adin, A. and Elimelech, M., 1989). Adin (Adin, A. et al., 1989) by
SEM analysis of activated sludge effluent particles showed that the surface of effluent particles is
dominated by silica, chloride, and calcium.

A typical particle size distribution (PSD) for secondary effluent is 20,000, 14,000, and 1,000
particles/1 ml for particle size ranges of 5 – 10 µm, 10 – 15 µm, and 30 – 40 µm respectively.
Figure 1 contains three secondary effluent cumulative PSDs from one study (Roth, M., 1981)
while Figure 2 contains the cumulative particle number distribution.

Figure 1 – Particle Size Distribution in Secondary Effluent (from Roth, 1981)

Particle size distributions (PSDs) in secondary effluent can usually be mathematically described
by the following power law function (Adin, A., 1999), (Adin, A. et al., 1989), (Alon, G. and
Adin, A., 1994).

dN
= A(d p ) − β
d (d p )

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4454
 WEFTEC® 2005

where N = number of particles in size interval

dp = average particle size of interval
A = empirical constant related to total concentration of particulate matter
β = empirical constant

Figure 2 – Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Particle Numbers

In the power law distribution function the exponent provides an estimate of particulate
contribution by size to the total particulate number, the surface area, the volume, and the light
scattering coefficient. For β > 3 the smaller size fractions dominate, and for most particulates in
natural water and wastewater the power law coefficient is generally greater than 3. For β = 3 the
surface area concentration is equally distributed among all size intervals; the largest number of
particles are in the small sizes (< 3 µm); and the largest volume of particles is in particles
intervals larger than about 10 µm (Kavanaugh, M. C. et al., 1980). When β = 4 the volume of
solids is equally distributed in each size interval. If β > 3 the total surface area and number
concentrations of the particulate fraction are predominantly in the finer particles and treatment
should be directed at removing these fine particles. If β < 3 then removal of the larger particles
might be sufficient to obtain a significant reduction in the mass concentration of solids implying
that tertiary sedimentation will be most effective for secondary effluents with these PSDs.

Settling Velocities and Overflow Rates

From a rational perspective, the sizing of tertiary clarifiers should be done on the same basis as
clarifiers for other purposes. Tertiary clarifiers should also be based on the settling regime

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4455
 WEFTEC® 2005

expected and the range of expected settling velocities for the appropriate type of solids with an
allowance for deviations from ideal conditions. Expected settling regimes and settling velocities
are discussed for the two major types of solids experienced in tertiary clarifier applications –
effluent biological suspended solids that have escaped from secondary sedimentation tanks and
post secondary treatment chemical precipitates.

Relatively, little data is available on the settling properties of either secondary effluent suspended
solids or chemical precipitates, especially when compared to the significant body of work on the
settling properties of activated sludge mixed liquor. Settling velocities can be inferred from
available particle size information and published design clarifier overflow rates. However, direct
measurement of settling velocities is preferred and recommended to the extent practical.
Theoretically a settling tank designed with an overflow rate of 0.5 m/h should remove all
particles greater than about 90 µm, assuming a water temperature of 20 oC, the particles are
spherical, and a particle specific gravity of 1.30.

Dispersed Activated Sludge Effluent Suspended Solids

Secondary effluent suspended solids are those solids not removed in the activated sludge
sedimentation tanks because the particles are too small to settle under the extant conditions or
because hydraulic currents exist that are capable of transporting the solids to the effluent weirs. If
a tertiary clarifier is provided in series with a secondary clarifier, the settling will occur in
conformance with classical Type 2 flocculant settling, assuming that the particles can coalesce
during settling. Tertiary settling tank performance will be a function of the influent suspended
solids characteristics, the suspended solids concentration, and the hydraulic conditions in the
clarifier. Tertiary clarifiers used for suspended solids removal should have a significantly
different hydraulic regime from a typical secondary clarifier since density currents due to high
concentrations of solids should be absent. Under some conditions tertiary clarifiers, particularly
with chemical coagulation, could be an economical alternative to filters, secondary clarifier
modifications, or additional secondary clarifiers for meeting low effluent suspended solids
concentrations (< 5 mg/L).

A survey of 21 plants found that the average equilibrium concentration of suspended solids (after
batch flocculation and settling) was 6.8 mg/L, which is significantly less than the effluent
suspended solids of most municipal activated sludge plants (Ekama, G. A. et. al., 1997). Settling
can be improved by eliminating excessive shear, addition of flocculation facilities or by feeding
chemicals such as metal salts or polymers. Clarifier testing using the procedures detailed in
Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)/Clarifier Research Technical Committee
(CRTC) Protocols for Evaluating Secondary Clarifier Performance (Wahlberg, E. J., 2001) can
be used to determine the feasibility of improving the effluent suspended solids from secondary
clarifiers by improving flocculation or modifying clarifier hydraulics. Then the construction of
tertiary clarification facilities can be developed as an alternative concept on a rational basis, and
compared with other treatment options.

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4456
 WEFTEC® 2005

Chemical Precipitates

Chemical precipitates in tertiary clarification applications will exhibit either Type 2 (flocculant
settling) or Type 3 (hindered settling) depending on the quantity of floc produced. Lime
clarification applications will almost certainly experience hindered settling. For hindered settling,
the settling velocity can be modeled with the Vesilind formula, and the solids loading rate and
hydraulic loading rate predicted with a solids flux/state point type analysis. In water treatment
alum and iron floc are expected to have settling velocities on the order of 0.60 – 0.90 m/h while
lime softening floc will have velocities of 0.90 – 3.4 m/h (depending on the amount of
magnesium hydroxide precipitated) (Mazyck, D., Jan., 2003). Particle settling velocities for
common suspensions from Weber (Weber, W. J. Jr., 1972) are shown in Table 1. Higher
velocities are indicated for aluminum and iron hydroxide floc and a lower velocity for lime floc.
Prediction of settling velocities for Type 2 and Type 3 settling must consider the suspended
solids concentration and settling tests are the preferred method for determining design velocities
for tertiary applications as compared to the use of textbook settling velocities.

Table 1 - Settling Velocities for Common Suspensions (Weber, W. J. Jr., 1972)

Specific Settling
Nature of Solids
Gravity Velocity (m/h)
Sand, silt, clay 2.650 0.25
Aluminum and iron floc 1.002 2.99
Calcium carbonate precipitates 1.200 1.51
Primary waste organics 1.001 1.51
Activated sludge organics 1.005 7.20
2
Note: m/h x 589 = gpd/ft

Typical recommended design hydraulic overflow rates for tertiary clarifiers are presented in
Table 2.

Coagulation and Flocculation

Examination of the available particle size data suggests that the most efficient use of tertiary
clarification is provided when the sedimentation tanks are preceded by coagulation and
flocculation to agglomerate the individual floc into large particles with higher settling velocities.
In this manner coagulants are used to enhance the removal of organic matter, increase settling
velocity, remove phosphorus, remove metals, and improve granular media filtration. A range of
chemicals and process configurations are available to optimize performance, and to minimize
sludge production and costs.

Several studies have shown that the use of rapid mixing and flocculation prior to tertiary
clarifiers, and the use of all three prior to filtration, provides better removal of turbidity, solids,
pathogens and phosphorus than chemical addition alone prior to filtration (Ghosh, M. et al.,
1994; Kirkpatrick, W. R. and Asano, T., 1986; Schimmoller, L. et al., 2000).

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4457
 WEFTEC® 2005

Coagulation has been defined as the overall process of particle aggregation, including both
particle destabilization and particle transport, with the term flocculation referring only to particle
transport for inter-particle contact (Letterman, R. D. et al., 1990; Weber, W. J. Jr., 1972).
Coagulation is used to de-stabilize the small particles in wastewater so that they will more
readily coalesce into larger size particles.

Table 2 - Published Design Overflow Rates for Tertiary Clarifiers

Design
Application Overflow rates Source
(m/h)
Alum and Iron
Alum coagulation - turbidity 2.0 (Sanks, R. L., 1979)
removal
Alum coagulation - color 1.5 - 1.7 (Sanks, R. L., 1979)
removal
Iron and alum – average 0.9 – 1.7 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975)
Aluminum and iron floc 2.99 (Weber, W. J. J., 1972)
Coagulation/flocculation & 1.4 – 1.7 (Asano, T., 1998)
sedimentation
Sedimentation 0.85 – 3.4 (Culp, R. R. et. al., 1978)
Lime
Lime softening - low 3.4 (Sanks, R. L., 1979)
magnesium
Lime softening - high 2.7 (Sanks, R. L., 1979)
magnesium
Calcium carbonate precipitates 1.5 (Weber, W. J. J., 1972)
Lime – solids contact, average 2.0 – 3.0 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1975)
Lime treatment, peak 2.5 – 3.4 (Asano, T., 1998)
Note: m/h x 589 = gpd/ft2

Current theory on coagulation and flocculation (Adin, A., 1998; Weber, W. J. J., 1972;
Letterman, R. D. et al., 1990; Odegaard, H., 1979) states that there are four basic mechanisms by
which particles are destabilized and agglomerated. These are double layer compression, surface
charge neutralization, adsorption and inter-particle bridging, and sweep coagulation. Of these
mechanisms for coagulation, it is believed that only two, charge neutralization and sweep
coagulation play an important role in wastewater coagulation. Double layer compression does
not apply because the coagulants used are not indifferent electrolytes and undergo other
reactions, and the ionic strength of wastewater is too low to have a significant effect.

Figure 3 contains pH – solubility diagrams for aluminum and iron hydroxides. Bench-scale
testing of secondary effluent can be used with such diagrams to identify the optimum design
conditions for destabilization of the particles in secondary effluent (Johnson, P. N. and
Amirtharajah, A., 1983).

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4458
 WEFTEC® 2005

Rapid mix and flocculation facilities are traditionally sized using the concepts of mean velocity
gradient (G) and detention time (t). Design parameters for rapid mixing facilities include the
velocity gradient, detention time, reactor configuration and mixing device. The time required for
particle destabilization is very fast, about 10-10 to 1.0 second. Jar testing is recommended to
establish the design hydraulic detention time and velocity gradients as the traditional rapid mix
detention time of 30 to 60 seconds may not be optimum, and excessive shear will break-up the
floc.

Figure 3 – Design and Operation Diagram for Alum Coagulation (from Johnson and
Amirtharajah, 1983)
Typical G values for rapid mixing are 1,500 to 5,000 sec-1 for inorganic coagulants, and 400 to

800 sec-1 for organic polymers with corresponding mixing times of 30 to 60 seconds (Young, J.
C. and Edwards, F. G., 2000). G values in conventional flocculation tanks are between 10 to 75
sec-1 and hydraulic retention times are in the range of 10 to 30 min, which gives Gt values of 104
to 105. In general the higher the velocity gradient and the higher the coagulant dose, the lower is
the required rapid mixing period. For plug flow rapid mix devices the optimum velocity
gradients should be about 1,200 to 2,500 sec-1 (Bratby, J., 1980).

Coagulation theory is not sufficiently advanced to enable the designer to predict particle removal
efficiencies from basic parameters and the designer and operator must rely on jar testing and full-
scale operations to establish the optimum coagulant, dose, pH, coagulation time and mixing
intensity. Jar testing procedures are provided in (Ghosh, M. et al., 1994; Wiechers, H. N. S. et al.,
1987; Wagner, E. G. and Phipps & Bird, Inc., Feb. 4, 2003; and Hudson, H. E. Jr., 1981).

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4459
 WEFTEC® 2005

Coagulants

Most particles in wastewater carry a negative charge and the commonly used coagulants provide
positively charged ions. Ferric chloride and aluminum sulfate (alum) are the most commonly
used coagulants but there are many others that can and have been used. These include lime, ferric
sulfate, ferrous sulfate, poly aluminum chloride (PACl), and organic polymers. Hydroxide floc
formed by the addition of metal salts to water will enmesh and adsorb smaller particles. These
mechanisms allow the colloidal particles to agglomerate or aggregate into larger particles that
will settle by gravity in a reasonable time. Increased numbers of particles and increased particle
size improve sedimentation performance by increasing settling velocity and the rate of
flocculation.

Polymers are commonly added in chemical coagulation processes to enhance flocculation and
settling. Guidelines have been proposed for the type of polymer to use under different pH
conditions (Wiechers, H. N. S. et al., 1987).

Metal Precipitation

Metals are commonly removed from wastewater by precipitation reactions and the separation of
the metal precipitates from water can be accomplished by tertiary clarifiers. Most commonly,
metal precipitation is done by the addition of lime and sometimes caustic soda to create metal
hydroxides. Caustic soda produces less sludge than lime under some conditions. Aluminum salts,
iron salts, lime, sulfides, and synthetic thiopolymers can also be used to precipitate metals. In
general iron hydroxides remove an equal or greater amount of a metal (Cu, Cd, Zn, Cr(III), Ni,
and Pb) than lime or caustic soda at all pH values (Droste, R. L., 1997). Sludge production with
alum and ferric chloride is typically much less than with lime precipitation. Metal sulfides are
typically several orders of magnitude less soluble than metal hydroxides and the sulfides are
better at achieving very low effluent metal concentrations.

While sulfide precipitation can produce lower effluent metal concentrations, odor problems and
effluent toxicity can be associated with the use of sulfides. Synthetic thiopolymers will
precipitate metals without odor and toxicity problems but are much more expensive. The lowest
metal concentration achievable with precipitation processes is about 0.05 mg/L. A number of
challenges are associated with precipitation reactions for the removal of metals. Metals may form
complexes, and in addition to increasing the overall solubility of the metal, individual complexes
can have significantly higher solubility than the other compounds. A common example of this is
the formation of metal ammonia compounds. Different metal salts have minimum solubility at
different pH values, thereby complicating attempts to removal multiple metals in one process.

As with all chemical reactions involving the formation of a solid phase, the performance of metal
removal processes is ultimately connected with the ability to separate the particles from the
water. Iron and alum floc should have settling characteristics similar to those experienced in
potable water treatment processes and other tertiary clarification applications with the same
coagulants; however, this should be verified by testing. In contrast to Table 2, a maximum
overflow rate of 0.85 m/h has been recommended for precipitation of metals (Eckenfelder, W.
W., 1980).

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4460
 WEFTEC® 2005

Chemical Phosphorus Removal Processes

Chemical phosphorus removal converts soluble orthophosphorus to a solid precipitate that can
then be removed from the liquid stream. Aluminum, iron, and calcium salts can be used to
precipitate phosphates. The minimum phosphorus concentration attainable by precipitation
reactions is complicated by the formation of multiple competing species and complexes. The
engineering design of facilities to provide chemical phosphorus removal requires that the
designer establish the desired effluent phosphorus concentration; select the type of chemical to
use, and estimate chemical doses, alkalinity consumption and sludge production. Factors to
consider with chemical phosphorus removal are the choice of precipitant, initial mixing
conditions, the surface charge of precipitated particles, flocculation conditions, and the method
of solids separation.

A number of studies have evaluated the ability to meet effluent total phosphorus limits less than
0.2 mg/L using various types of clarifiers and clarification in combination with filtration (Hunt,
K. S. et al., 2000; Mueller, P. et al., 1999; Karsen, O. J. M. D. and Brown, J., 2002) (Maldonado,
D., 2002; Sydney Water Corporation Plant Development Team, 1998; Clark, D. P. et al., 1999;
Holtz, D. F., 1999; Wiseman, L. P. et al., 1999; Ross, D. et al., 1994). Based on this work the
lowest phosphorus concentration attainable by chemical precipitation is in the range of 0.05 to
0.07 mg/L. Pilot testing and cost evaluations have indicated that the combination of rapid mix,
flocculation and sedimentation prior to filtration is more economical for phosphorus removal
than rapid mixing or rapid mixing and flocculation prior to filtration (Schimmoller, L. et al.,
2000).

Typical operating data from a two-stage lime clarification process shows that a two-stage lime
process can reach lower effluent total phosphorus concentrations (Sydney Water Corporation
Plant Development Team, 1998) than single stage lime clarification. First stage effluent total
phosphorus concentrations of about 0.16 mg/L and second stage concentrations of about 0.07
mg/L have been reported. However, performance varies with the lime dose and pH achieved.

Lime Clarification

Lime clarification is an established and proven tertiary clarification process. While more modern
technologies have effectively replaced lime clarification for many applications, the ability of
lime precipitation to remove specific inorganic pollutants can make it a viable tertiary treatment
alternative in special circumstances. Up until 1995, tertiary lime clarification was a key unit
process in nearly all water reclamation facilities producing reclaimed water for high-end uses
like industrial process water and indirect potable reuse. Lime treatment’s popularity was due to
its ability to remove phosphates, sulfates, organic matter, magnesium and calcium hardness, iron
and manganese, heavy metals, and to destroy or remove pathogens like bacteria and viruses. In
the case of membrane treatment, process recovery can be limited by the presence of sparingly
soluble salts of calcium, barium, strontium, and silica which are not removed by primary and
secondary treatment of wastewater. Lime clarification, used as a pretreatment process prior to
reverse osmosis membranes, removes such scale forming compounds from the feed water to the
membrane processes. Sludge production generated by lime can be minimized by stripping carbon

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4461
 WEFTEC® 2005

dioxide and by using acid. Wastewater composition plays a significant role in the overall
efficiency of the lime clarification process.

Metal Removal

In addition to precipitating a majority of the scale forming constituents from feed water, lime
clarification has been traditionally used to remove heavy metals as metal hydroxide precipitates
especially from industrial effluents. Literature data suggests that none of the pH values for
maximum precipitation of all metals coincide, hence an optimum pH range must be found,
typically ranging from pH of 7 to 10.5. However in the case of excess lime treatment, most of the
metals are removed to desirable levels for further treatment with reverse osmosis (RO)
membranes.

Silica

High silica concentrations are unacceptable in many cooling water applications as it causes a
silica scale precipitate on heat exchanger surfaces. One of the major advantages of lime
clarification is its ability to remove silica and dissolved metals from the secondary effluent.
Several methods are available for removal of silica including precipitation with aluminum and
iron hydroxides, zinc chloride, magnesium oxide, and ultra-high lime clarification. Alumina and
ferric hydroxide have been found to be very effective in removal of silica in the pH range of 8 to
9 by means of adsorption of silica onto the hydroxide precipitates. Ultra-high lime treatment (pH
of 11 to 12 and high calcium concentrations) was shown to be effective in precipitating silica
(Batchelor, B. and McDevitt, M., 1984). Both high pH and a high calcium concentration were
found to be necessary for silica removal. Hence lime clarification can be used to remove silica in
addition to other scale forming constituents for the feed water to the RO process.

High-Rate Clarification

High rate clarification has also been successfully used for tertiary phosphorus removal. This
technology has demonstrated that it produces a lower phosphorus concentration in some
situations than other competing clarification methods (Holtz, D. F., 1999). By constructing high
rate clarification at the end of the treatment process, high rate clarification can be used to treat
secondary effluent for phosphorus removal during dry weather, but can still be available for the
treatment of infrequent peak storm flows diverted around the biological treatment process.

Clarifiers-in-Series

Most wastewater plants using clarifiers-in-series are small and appear to have been modified
from the original designs to allow operation in this mode. Virtually no data is available on the
performance of clarifiers-in-series other than the final effluent BOD5 and suspended solids
concentrations. Although the concept seems unusual at first, anecdotal information suggests that
clarifiers in series will result in suspended solids reductions that are only slightly worse than
many tertiary filters. Where the objective of tertiary treatment is incremental reductions in
effluent suspended solids (e.g. suspended solids less than 5.0 mg/L), tertiary clarification could
be a competitive alternative depending on the actual settling velocity distribution of the solids to

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4462
 WEFTEC® 2005

be removed and the required depth of the clarifiers. While the argument can be made that proper
design of secondary clarifiers including adequate flocculation should result in effluent quality
that is comparable to that obtained from existing clarifiers in series, full-scale experience
suggests that a more detailed evaluation of existing clarifiers-in-series is warranted.

SUMMARY

Table 3 contains excerpts of reported performance for nine tertiary clarifier facilities that are
used to provide phosphorus removal, reduce effluent suspended solids, help meet stringent water
quality limits for discharge to surface water, and remove organic and inorganic materials prior to
RO treatment. More complete data is available in the Water Environment Federation Manual of
Practice on Clarifier Design (WEF, 2005). Effluents from the four facilities that use tertiary
clarifiers for phosphorus removal have effluent TP concentrations between 0.03 and 0.60 mg/L.
Although phosphorus removal performance is depends on chemical dose, this data demonstrates
that tertiary clarification can be used to meet very low limits on total phosphorus. The one
facility that uses tertiary clarifiers to provide incremental removal of suspended solids is
averaging less than 5 mg/L TSS which is comparable to the performance of many tertiary sand
filters. Both plants using tertiary lime clarification to remove inorganic and organic materials
perform well with one averaging about 17 mg/L COD and the other 7 mg/L TOC before final
filtration.

As with all clarification applications the design of tertiary clarifiers should be approached from
an understanding of the underlying basic principles and mechanisms that effect process costs and
performance. Although the use of tertiary clarifiers is not common, substantial numbers are in
service. Tertiary clarifiers are mainly used for phosphorus removal, membrane pretreatment, and
to a more limited extent to remove or inactivate microbial contaminants. While no municipal
facilities were specifically identified that use tertiary clarifiers for metals removal, this is a
proven process in industrial applications. Coagulation is integral to the use of tertiary clarifiers
and the design of rapid and flocculation facilities should be based on jar testing. Even though
tertiary clarifiers have been used for many years, relatively little good data is published on the
settling velocities of coagulated secondary effluent solids and tertiary chemical precipitates or
the operating characteristics and performance of tertiary clarifiers. Hence the designer is left with
the choice of attempting to select an appropriate design velocity from literature that often does
not adequately address wastewater applications or conducting settling tests. Settling tests are
recommended. More engineering studies are needed that characterize secondary effluent solids
and the implications of these characteristics for optimizing the performance of tertiary clarifiers.
Potential exists to minimize the cost of tertiary treatment by careful evaluation of the
clarification alternatives. Such evaluations must include the judicious use of bench and pilot
testing coupled with critical performance evaluations of existing systems.

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4463
 WEFTEC® 2005

Table 3 – Typical effluent water quality from selected wastewater treatment facilities using
tertiary clarifiers
Design flow Clarifier effluent Value
Facility 3 Type of clarifiers a
(m /d) parameter (mg/L)
Acheres, Paris 1,950,000 High-rate TP 0.62
Breckenridge, CO 5,700 High-rate TP 0.032
(w/ alum)
Davie, FL 1,900 Series BOD5 2.2
TSS 3.6
Herford, Germany 30,000 High-rate TP 0.13
Randolph, WI 3,400 Series BOD5 5.8
TSS 4.3
Rock Creek, OR 60,560 Solids-contact TSS 5.0
(w/ alum) TP 0.11
Rock Creek, OR 65,900 Conventional TSS 7.3
tertiary (w/ alum) TP 0.18
UOSA, VA 87,500 Two-stage lime COD 17
clarification TSS 10
(circular) TKN 1.2
TP 0.09
Water Factory 21, 56,800 One-state lime TOC 7.06
CA clarification Silica 11.0
(rectangular) Total Coliform <1
a
TP – total phosphorus; TSS – total suspended solids; TOC – Total organic carbon

REFERENCES

Adin, A. (1998) Chapter 5 Physicochemical mechanisms in treatment processes for water reuse.
In: Asano, T. (ed.), Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster.
Adin, A. (1999) Particle characteristics: a key factor in effluent treatment and reuse. Water
Science and Technology 40 (4-5), 67-74.
Adin, A. and Elimelech, M. (1989) Particle filtration in wastewater irrigation. Journal Irrigation
and Drainage Eng. ASCE 115 (3), 474-487.
Adin, A., Rubinstein, L., and Zilberman, A. (1989) Particle characterization in wastewater
effluents in relation to filtration and irrigation. Filtration & Separation 26 (4), 284-287 .
Alon, G. and Adin, A. (1994) Mathematical modeling of particle size distribution in secondary
effluent filtration. Water Environment Research 66 (6), 836-841.
Andreadakis, A. (1993) Physical and Chemical Properties of Activated Sludge Floc. Water
Research 27 (12), 1707-1714.
Asano, T. Wastewater reclamation and reuse. (1998) Lancaster, Technomic Publishing Co., Inc.
Batchelor, B. and McDevitt, M. (1984) An innovative process for treating recycled cooling
water. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation 56 (10), 1110-1112.
Bratby, J.(1980) Coagulation and flocculation. Uplands Press Ltd., Croydon, England.

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4464
 WEFTEC® 2005

Clark, D. P., Copp, R. S., and Nissen, J. A. (1999) Achieving 10 ppb, the state-of-the-art for
phosphorus removal. Water Environment Federation 72nd Annual Exhibition &
Technical Conference. 10 pgs. Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment Federation.
Culp, R. R., Wesner, G. M., and Culp, G. L. (1978) Handbook of advanced wastewater
treatment. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Droste, R. L. (1997) Theory and practice of water and wastewater treatment. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., New York.
Eckenfelder, W. W. (1980) Principles of water quality management. Krieger Publishing
Company, Malabar, Florida.
Ekama, G. A., Barnard, J. L., Gunthert, F. W., Krebs, P., McCorquodale, J. A., Parker, D. S., and
Wahlberg, E. J. (1997) Secondary settling tanks: theory, modelling, design and
operation. International Association on Water Quality, London, England.
Ghosh, M., Amirtharajah, A., and Adin, A. (1994) Particle destabilization for tertiary treatment
of municipal wastewater by filtration. Water Science Technology 30 (9), 209-218.
Grady, C. P. L. J., Daigger, G. T., and Lim, H. C. (1999) Biological wastewater treatment.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.
Holtz, D. F. West Palm Beach reclaimed water production facility process improvement
recommendations. 1999. West Palm Beach, Florida, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
Hudson, H. E. J.(1981) Water clarification processes. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Hunt, K. S., Maxwell, M., Morine, M., Neher, M., Okamura, K., Okazaka, J., Porter, D., Segler,
K., and Smith, T. Advanced wastewater treatment testing showdown in Henderson,
Nevada. Proceedings Water Environment Federation 73rd Annual Conference and
Exposition - WEFTEC 2000. CD ROM. 2000. Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment
Federation.
Johnson, P.N. and Amirtharajah, A. (1983) Ferric chloride and alum as single and dual
coagulants. Journal AWWA 75 (5), 232-239.
Karsen, O. J. M. D. and Brown, J. Implementation of Sydney Water's wastewater strategy at its
Hawkesbury-Nepean sewage treatment plants. Proceedings of 7th International River
Management Symposium - Riversymposium 2002. 2002. Brisbane, Australia, Brisbane
City Council and Queensland Government .
Kavanaugh, M.C., Tate, C.H., Trussell, A.R., and Treweek, G. (1980) Use of particle size
distribution measurement for selection and control of solid/liquid separation processes.
Particles in water. In: Kavanaugh, M.C. and Luckie, J.O. (eds), pp. 305-327, American
Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Kirkpatrick, W.R. and Asano, T. (1986) Evaluation of tertiary treatment systems for wastewater
reclamation and reuse. Water Science and Technology 18 (10), 83-95.
Letterman, R.D., Amirtharajah, A., and O’Melia, C.R. (1990) Coagulation and flocculation. In:
Letterman, R.D. (ed.), pp. 6.1-6..66, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Maldonado, D. Re: tertiary clarification. Reardon, Roderick. Tue 4/30/2002 3:20 AM.
Manka, J. and Rebhun, M. (1982) Organic groups and molecular weight distribution in tertiary
effluent sand renovated waters. Water Research 16 (4), 399-403.
Mazyck, D. EGN 1002: multidisciplinary design purification of water lecture slides.
Mueller, P., Danzer, J., Wable, M. V., Carlson, M., Daigger, G. T., and Poling, M. (1999)
Advanced chemical phosphorus removal by direct filtration without tertiary clarifiers.
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 72nd Annual Conference and
Exposition - WEFTEC '99. Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment Federation .

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4465
 WEFTEC® 2005

Odegaard, H. (1979) Chemical floc formation in wastewater treatment - an introduction.

Progress Water Technology Supplement 1 103-110.
Rebhun, M. and Manka, J. (1971) Classification of organics in secondary effluents.
Environmental Science and Technology 5 606-609.
Ross, D., Nutt, S. G., Averill, D., and Murphy, K. (1994) Evaluation of cost-effective treatment
processes to achieve phosphorus levels <0.10 mg/l in municipal WWTP effluent.
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 67th Annual Conference &
Exposition. 37-48. Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment Federation.
Roth, M. (1981) Particle size distribution in secondary effluents. Effluent and Water Treatment
Journal 21 (1), 19, 21-25.
Sanks, R. L. Water treatment plant design. 1979. Ann Arbor Michigan, Ann Arbor Science.
Schimmoller, L., McEwen, B., Fisher, J., Bailey, B., and Criswell, M. Reuse pilot testing with
high rate filtration pays for clarification. Proceedings Water Reuse 2000 Conference.
2000. Denver, Colorado, Water Environment Federation and the American Water Works
Association.
Sydney Water Corporation Plant Development Team. (1998) St Marys Sewage Treatment Plant
tertiary clarification facilities needs specification.
Tiehm, A., Herwig, V., and Neis, U. (1999) Particle size analysis for improved sedimentation
and filtration in waste water treatment. Water Science and Technology 39 (8), 99-106.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process design manual: suspended solids removal.
(1975) Washington, D.C., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Technology
Transfer.
Wagner, E. G. and Phipps & Bird, Inc. Jar test instructions: conduct of jar tests and the important
information obtained.
Wahlberg, E. J. (2001) WERF/CRTC protocols for evaluating secondary clarifier performance.
Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment Research Foundation.
Weber, W. J. J.(1972) Physicochemical processes for water quality control. Wiley-Interscience,
New York.
Wiechers, H. N. S., Brodish, K. E. U., Louw, A. S., Basson, H. J., and Thirion, N. C. (1987)
Guidelines for chemical phosphate removal from municipal waste waters. Pretoria South
Africa, Water Research Commission, Republic of South Africa.
Wiseman, L. P., Schwartz, L. N., and Holtz, D. F. (1999) Preliminary design of the West Palm
Beach wetlands-based water reclamation project. Proceedings Water Environment
Federation 72nd Annual Conference and Exposition - WEFTEC '99. Alexandria,
Virginia, Water Environment Federation.
Young, J. C. and Edwards, F. G. (2000) Fundamentals of ballasted flocculation reactions.
Proceedings Water Environment Federation 73rd Annual Conference and Exposition -
WEFTEC 2000. CDROM. Alexandria, Virginia, Water Environment Federation.
Water Environment Federation (2005) Clarifier Design, 2nd ed.; Manual of Practice No. FD-8;
McGraw-Hill: New York.

Copyright ©2005 Water Environment Federation. All Rights Reserved.

4466