Soil BioTechnology

5,051 views
4,880 views

Published on

The presentation talks about the technology used at SBT

Published in: Design
2 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
5,051
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
185
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
168
Comments
2
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Soil BioTechnology

  1. 1. SOIL BIOTECHNOLOGY OF IIT, BOMBAY Prof H.S.Shankar - hss@iitb.ac.in Department of Chemical Engineering IIT-Bombay Tel No 91-22-25767239,25768239
  2. 2. CONTENTS • PRINCIPLES • WATER PURIFICATION • PROCESSING OF SOLID RESIDUES • AGRICULTURE • SUMMING UP
  3. 3. A natural water body A natural water body
  4. 4. A river system once a life line now in distress due A river system once a life line now in distress due to nutrient overload from agriculture to nutrient overload from agriculture
  5. 5. A natural water body in the process of decay A natural water body in the process of decay
  6. 6. A natural water body converted to land due to A natural water body converted to land due to nutrient overload nutrient overload
  7. 7. CO2 in the Atmosphere 90 6 750 110 (1 1 y) - 0 Photosynthesis Respiration 50 CO2 Dissolved Plants Animals 4,000 500 100-150 Live 1-5 (50 y) (2 y) (0.2 y) Dead Organics in Soil (1 y) 50 - 65 50 18 Fossil Dead Organics Fuels Reserve in Soil Quantities in 1015g 4,000 1,576 (300 y) Global Carbon Cycle (Meilli, 1995) Global Carbon Cycle (Meilli, 1995) Source: Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology, Vol.1, Academy press, 1995, pp.235-248 Source: Encyclopedia of Environmental Biology, Vol.1, Academy press, 1995, pp.235-248
  8. 8. ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN DIFFERENT HABITATS 1. Water 500 kJ/g live C. yr 2. Land 3 kJ/g live C. yr
  9. 9. SCHEMATIC OF WATER RENOVATION 1.Raw water Recycle (vr ) Feed (vf ) 2.Raw Water slurry 3. Air scrubbing 4. Leachates of solids 5. Waste water Reactor C1 Discharge (vf ) C2
  10. 10. SCHEMATIC OF MULTISTAGE PURIFICATION T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 R3 T4 R1 R2 R3 T1 T2 T3 T4
  11. 11. LARGE SCALE FACILITY FOR SEWAGE RENOVATION
  12. 12. MAJOR CHEMICAL REACTIONS AT WORK Respiration (CH2ONxPySzKyQ)n + nO2 + nH2O + Micro-organisms = nCO2 + 2nH2O + Mineral (N, P, S, K,Q) + Energy Photosynthesis nCO2 + 2nH2O + Minerals (N,P, S,K,Q) + Sunlight = [CH2ONxPySzKyQ]n + nO2 + nH2O Chemical Mineral weathering CO2 + H2O = HCO3 - + H+ Primary mineral + CO2 + H2O = M+n + n HCO3 - + soil/sand/clay
  13. 13. BIOMASS YIELD, MINERAL CONTENT, NITROGEN CONTENT, WATER CONSUMPTION FOR SOME CROPS Crop Mineral N Water Yield % DM % DM ton / ton DM ton DM / ha Subabul 0.5 – 0.8 Small 50 20 Sugarcane 1.5 – 2.0 Small 400 18 Corn 5.0 – 6.0 0.3 – 0.5 200 14 Wheat 9 – 11 0.3 – 0.5 600 12 paddy 18 - 20 0.3 – 0.5 1000 9 * * DM – Dry Matter Yield is total biomass-grain, straw etc.
  14. 14. CHEMISTRY OF SBT Respiration (CH2ONxPySzKy)n + nO2 + nH2O = nCO2 + 2nH2O + Mineral (N, P, S, K) + Energy (1) Photosynthesis nCO2 + 2nH2O + Minerals (N,P, S,K) + Sunlight = [CH2ONxPySzKy]n + nO2 + nH2O (Photosynthesis) (2) Nitrogen Fixation N2 + 2H2O + Energy = NH3 + O2 ( in soil) (3) N2 + 2H2O + Light = NH3 + O2 (in water) (4) Acidogenesis 4C3H7O2NS + 8H20 = 4CH3COOH + 4CO2 + 4NH3 + 4H2S + 8H+ + 8e- (5) Methanogenesis 8H+ + 8e- + 3CH3COOH + CO2 = 4CH4 + 3CO2 + 2H2O (6) Adding 5 and 6 give overall biomethanation chemistry 4C3H7O2NS + 6H20 = CH3COOH + 6CO2 + 4CH4 + 4NH3 + 4H2S (7) Mineral weathering CO2 + H2O = HCO3 - + H+ (8) Primary mineral + CO2 + H2O = M+n + n HCO3 - + soil/clay/sand (9) Nitrification NH3 + CO2 + 1.5O2 = Nitrosomonas + NO2- + H2O + H+ (10) NO2-+ CO2 + 0.5O2 = Nitrobacter + NO3- (11) Denitrification 4NO3- + 2H2O + energy = 2N2 + 5O2 + 4OH - (12a) NO2- + NH4+ = N2 + H2O + energy (12b)
  15. 15. The trinity – showing importance of combining The trinity – showing importance of combining organics, inorganics & suitable life forms to derive organics, inorganics & suitable life forms to derive value from wastes value from wastes
  16. 16. ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR FOOD CROPS Crop Energy Input Yield Output Efficiency M k cal / ha kg / ha M cal / ha (-) Fossil Labour Total Wheat 3.77 0.002 3.772 2284 7.5 2.2 (USA) Wheat 0.256 0.1845 0.4405 821 2.7 6.25 (India) Rice 15.536 0.009 15.545 5796 21.0 1.35 (USA) Rice 0.582 0.1728 0.754 1655 6.0 7.69 (Phil) Potato 8.90 0.018 8.92 26208 20.2 2.27 (USA) Cassava 0.016 0.385 0.401 5824 (Dry) 19.2 50.0 (Tanga) Source: Energy in agriculture, Lockeritz (ed.) International Congress energy in agriculture Missouri, 1975-76
  17. 17. 10 60 9 Direction of 50 8 Increasing biological potential 7 40 Energy efficiency Wheat,USA 6 Rice,USA Potato,USA 5 30 Wheat,India 4 Rice,Phillipines Cassava,Tanga 20 3 2 10 1 0 0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Yield , Ton/ha Yield -Efficiency correlation for some crops Yield -Efficiency correlation for some crops
  18. 18. Organics and rock Organics particles Gut residence Gut residence time: about 5 h time: about 1 h Refeeding Anaerobic Aerobic processing processing Residual Pump is Biosoil organism organics incubation as mobile bioreactor Single-pass Loop Bioreactor Bioreactor (Say Red worm) (Say Earthworm) Bioprocessing by the two types of organisms Bioprocessing by the two types of organisms Source: Bhawalkar (1996) Source: Bhawalkar (1996)
  19. 19. ECO-ENERGETICS OF AN EARTHWORM (Lavell, 1974) Fresh Weight mg/individual 1025 Ingestion (J/g.d) 1570 Assimilation (J/g.d) 140 Production (J/g.d) 10 Respiration (J/g.d) 130 Egestion (J/g.d) 1430 EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF BACTERIA IN EARTHWORM GUT (no. in million) (Parle, 1959) Forgut Midgut Hindgut All Bacteria 475 32900 440900 Actinomycetes 26 358 15000
  20. 20. 11 Optimum Fly Larvae 9 Optimum Earthworm 7 Mosquito Termite Cockroach Fly pH Redworm 5 Rats, ants 3 Potworm 1 20 40 60 80 100 Moisture (%) Niches of Earthworms and Pests (Bhawalkar, 1996)
  21. 21. A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in waste environment waste environment
  22. 22. EXPERIMENT SET -UP E(theta) vs theta 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 E(theta) 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 1 2 3 theta Concentration vs Time Plot
  23. 23. TWO CHANNEL MODEL α = fraction of holdup in the macrochannel β = fraction of tracer that enters the macrochannel
  24. 24. TWO CHANNEL MODEL ⎛ ⎛ βθ 1 ⎞ 2 ⎞ ⎛ ⎛ (1 − β )θ ⎞ 2 ⎞ ⎜ ⎜1 − ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜1 − 2 ⎟ ⎟ β2 1 ⎜ ⎝ α ⎠ ⎟ (1 − β ) 2 1 ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ (1 − α ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ E (θ ) = exp ⎜ − + ⎟ (1 − α ) exp ⎜ − ⎟ α πθ 1 4θ 1 πθ 2 4θ 2 2 ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ Pe1 ⎟ ⎜ Pe2 ⎟ Pe1 ⎝ ⎠ Pe2 ⎝ ⎠ τ1 = α τ τ2 = (1 − α ) τ θ1 = t θ2 = t β (1 − β ) τ1 τ2 β (1 − β ) Pe Pe1 = Pe Pe2 = α (1 − α )
  25. 25. THEORETICALLY CALCULATED PARAMETERS RT λio Diffusivity D= 2 = 1.9 * 10-5 cm/s2 F zi 3μ Q Film Thickness δ =3 = 0.1 mm ρgW uL Peclet Number Pe = = 6 - 14 D
  26. 26. C (th e ta ) ve rsu s th e ta 1 .4 Exp Mo d e l 1 .2 1 0 .8 C(theta) 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 0 0 .5 1 1 .5 2 2 .5 3 th e ta RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for 2m soil filter RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for 2m soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h) showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.67, β=0.9, Pe=9 with fitted parameters α=0.67, β=0.9, Pe=9
  27. 27. EXPERIMENT AND THEORETICAL PARAMETERS Run No Q τ α Pe (ml/min) (min) I 95 155 0.73 12.1 II 100 153 0.69 18.3 V 125 133 0.63 9.7 III 155 102 0.75 10.1 VI 182 91 0.68 12.3 IV 200 90 0.68 11.5 Run Q τ δ H A u Pe No (ml/min) (min) (mm) (lit) (m2) (m/s) I 95 155 0.06 14.72 245 6.46 ×10-9 6.1 II 100 153 0.06 15.3 255 6.53 ×10-9 6.2 V 125 133 0.07 16.62 237 8.79 ×10-9 8.4 III 155 102 0.07 15.81 226 11.4 ×10-9 10 VI 182 91 0.08 16.56 207 14.6 ×10-9 13.9 IV 200 90 0.08 18 225 14.8 ×10-9 14.1
  28. 28. RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for soil filter RTD Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h) showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 2a (22.3 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.25, β=0.68, Pe=0.83 with fitted parameters α=0.25, β=0.68, Pe=0.83
  29. 29. Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) and RTD function E (t) vs. Plot of normalized concentration (C/Co) and RTD function E (t) vs. Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Time for soil filter showing fit to Dispersion model equation (8) for Run 1a (7.2 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.09, β=0.40, Pe=0.89 Run 1a (7.2 cm/h) with fitted parameters α=0.09, β=0.40, Pe=0.89
  30. 30. 1000 Equipment : Pheretima Biofilter Intial loading on bed =24.4gmCOD/L Restoration rate constant I stage =0.2 /h Restoration rate constant II stage =0.11/h 500 ORP, milivolt ORP data (Probe 9, Depth:-2.5cm) Fit to model Eqn 3.6.13 & 3.6.14 0 -500 0 50 100 150 200 Time,h ORP (Reference calomel electrode+244 mV) restoration profile showing fit to model Pattanaik, B.R. (2000)
  31. 31. PHYSICAL MASS TRANSFER 7 6 5 Dissolved O2, mg/L. Pheretima biofilter 4 T = 30.2 C vs = 7.2 cm/h CI = 1.8mg/L 3 Ce = 6.8 mg/L Run : OTR 14 Experimental data 2 Fit to model 1 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Time, min Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time as per single cell model Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time as per single cell model Pattanaik.,(2000) Pattanaik.,(2000)
  32. 32. PHYSICAL MASS TRANSFER 8 6 DO (mg/L) 120 ml/min 4 250 ml/min 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time (Mins) Variation of outlet O2 concentration with time, Sathyamoorthy(2006)
  33. 33. COD REMOVAL 600 500 COD (m g/l) 400 300 150 ml/min 200 100 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (hr) COD concentration with Time Kadam.(2005)
  34. 34. COMPARISON OF AIR TO WATER OXYGEN TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS Agitated & sparged vessels 10-3 to 10-2 /sec This work 5 x 10-3/sec Quiescent fluids 10-5/sec
  35. 35. GOVERNING EQUATIONS ∂ρ 1. Continuity Equation + ∇ ⋅ (ρ v ) = 0 ∂t 2. Momentum balance ( ) ∂ ρv + ∇ ⋅ ( ρ v v ) = −∇ p + ρ g + F ∂t From Darcy’s Law μ F=− v α Rate equations for substrates Substrate Description Rate Equation 3. Species Transport Equation COD Mass Transfer Kac(C1-C1*) ∂Ci ∂t ( ) + ∇ ⋅ vCi + ∇.(Di ,m∇Ci ) − R i = 0 COD Oxidation KcCs NH4+-N Mass Transfer Kan(C2-C2*) 4. conc. balance in holding tank NH4+-N Nitrification KNN s dS2 τh = S1 (t) − S2 (t) dt
  36. 36. 1.2 C2/C20 fit to Eq.3.4.7, Run 2b Exptl data, C2/C20, Run 2b 1 C2/C20 fit to Eq. 3.4.7, Run 3b Exptl. Data, C2/C20, Run 3b 0.8 C2/C20 0.6 0.4 Run Hyd. Loading rate ka (m3/m2.hr ) (hr-1) 0.2 2b 0.6 0.22 3b 0.8 0.53 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Time,hr Effect of hydraulic loading on distribution of liquid on biofilter Effect of hydraulic loading on distribution of liquid on biofilter
  37. 37. CFD MODEL VALIDATION: COMPARISON WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA 200 6 6 180 5 5 160 NH −N conc. (mg/L) NH −N conc. (mg/L) 140 4 4 COD ( mg/L ) 120 3 3 100 2 + 4 80 2 + 4 60 1 1 40 0 20 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Time (h) Time (h) Time (h) Vb =13 L, Vl = 30 L, vr = 5x 10-5 m3/m2h kac = 2.7 h-1, kC = 0.05 h-1, kan = 11 h-1, kN =1.5 h-1,
  38. 38. Comparison between Dispersion model prediction and reactor performance data for sewage 8 90 90 8 80 80 7 7 Model Eq. 9 & 10 Model Eq. 9 & 10 Model Eq. 9 & 10 Model Eq. 9 & 10 70 70 Experimental 6 6 Experimental Experimental NH4+ N (mg/ L) Experimental NH4+ - -N (mg/ L) 60 60 5 5 CO D ( g / L ) 50 CO D ( g / L ) 50 4 4 40 40 3 3 30 30 2 2 20 20 1 10 10 1 0 00 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 00 22 44 66 88 Time ( h) Time (h) Time ( h) Time (h) Model Parameters: Vb =13 L, Vl = 30 L, vr = 5.1 m3/m2 h α = 0.32, β = 0.81, εd = 0.25, Pe = 0.18, kac = 1.5 h-1, kan = 11 h-1,
  39. 39. DISTILLERY SPENT WASH Before SBT Processing After SBT Processing COD: 12,160mg/L COD: 64 mg/L
  40. 40. COLI FORM REMOVAL Coliform rem oval Total coliform fecal coliform 1.0E+09 1.0E+08 Coliform (CFU/100 ml) 1.0E+07 1.0E+06 1.0E+05 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 1.0E+02 1.0E+01 Inf luent E0 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 R e c y c l i n g ( hr ) Effect of recycling on micro-organism removal; E0: Effluent 0 hr, E1: Effluent 1 hr etc Kadam., (2005)
  41. 41. ARSENIC REMOVAL BY SOIL FILTER • As(III) oxidation and removal As(V) via precipitation as ion complex with Fe(III). • These results show that <10 ppb As are attained via natural oxidation and chemical precipitation revealing typically 0.3 mg As (III)/lit.hr. • These natural rates of removal sustain via the natural aeration of the
  42. 42. PROCESS DIAGRAM FOR ARSENIC REMOVAL FROM WATER As (III) water As (V) Precipitation Fe3++ As Soil Filter Filter Fe3+ + As As Sludge 30 % %Complex
  43. 43. ARSENIC REMOVAL IN SOIL FILTER SYSTEM Initial As(III)=500 μg/l; Filter bed volume=17 lit; Flow rate = 60ml/min, Total volume of water passed per day = 30 lit, which constitute one run. Expt. Run No Initial Arsenic Conc. Residual Arsenic μg/l μg/l 1 500 8 2 500 8 3 500 8 4 500 8 5 500 8 6 500 8 7 500 3 8 500 6 9 500 5 10 500 4 11 500 4 12 500 4 13 500 4
  44. 44. COMPARISON OF ARSENIC REMOVAL RATES • Zero Valent iron 0.85 mg As/lit.hr( Leupin et al., 2005) • Iron coated sand 0.75 mg As/lit.hr (Joshi and Chaudhari, 2004) • Activated Alumina 0.15 mg As/lit.hr (Pant and Singh, 2005) Soil filter process 0.30 mg As/lit.hr
  45. 45. LAY OUT OF SBT MEDIA
  46. 46. Effect of Feed Distribution arrangement on Fluid distribution Contours of Velocity Magnitude (m/s) Fig 4a: Feed From Top surface only Fig 4b: Feed From Top & Slopes vr = 0.15 m3/m2h
  47. 47. SBT PLANT TOP VIEW
  48. 48. PLANT ELEVATION 500 m3/day BPGC Plant for wastewater treatment
  49. 49. SBT PLANT 3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay
  50. 50. WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF SBT PLANT PARAMETERS INFLUENT EFFLUENT Temp. (0C) 31.4 31.3 pH 6.91 8.26 Conductivity (micro S/cm) 2160 987 DO (mg/l) 0.85 7.01 Turbidity (NTU) 145 5.32 COD (mg/L) 352 64 BOD 211 7.04 Ammonia (mg/L) 33.4 0.010 Phosphate-P (mg/L) 0.474 0.0016 SS(mg/l) 293.3 16 Alkalinity(mg/L) 212 148 Fecal coliform(cfu/100ml) 145*105 55 Total coliform(cfu/100ml) 150*108 110
  51. 51. PROCESS FEATURES • Very low energy use intensity due to high Natural oxygen transfer in process. (0.06 kWh/kL sewage). • Very low space intensity of 0.8-1.0 sqm/kL per day sewage. • An engineered evergreen natural process with no moving parts except for pumps. • No sludge due to ecology at work. • Very high bacteria, BOD, COD, suspended solids, colour, odour, ammonia removal. • Practically maintenance free.
  52. 52. SBT PLANT 3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay
  53. 53. SBT PLANT 3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay
  54. 54. SBT PLANT 3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay
  55. 55. SBT PLANT Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports complex complex
  56. 56. REUSABLE WATER FROM WASTEWATER Wastewater Treated Wastewater
  57. 57. SBT PLANT Colony sewage treatment Colony sewage treatment showing untreated & showing untreated & treated water treated water
  58. 58. SBT PLANT Renovation of septic tank waste water for irrigation in a Renovation of septic tank waste water for irrigation in a Research Center Research Center
  59. 59. SBT PLANT Retrofitting of idle activated sludge plant Retrofitting of idle activated sludge plant
  60. 60. SUMMARY OF SBT PROCESS FEATURES FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT Item Features Organic loading 150-200 g / sqm.d Oxygen transfer 150-200 g / sqm.d Heat generation 600-800 k.cal / sqm.d Conversion As required Hydraulic loading 0.05 - 0.25 cum/sqm.h Shear rate 0.01 – 0.1 per sec.
  61. 61. OPERATING FACILITIES • Bombay Presidency Golf Club • Naval Housing Colony, Bombay • Vazir Sultan Tobacco, Hyderabad • Jindal Steel, Delhi • Taj Kiran, Gwalior • IIT Bombay • Beru Ashram Badlapur • Delhi Travel Tourism Dev Corporation • Bombay Municipal Corporation (in progress) • University of Hyderabad (in progress).
  62. 62. SBT PLANT Close up of solid waste processing Close up of solid waste processing
  63. 63. 100 m ORGANIC ROAD 2 RESIDUE 10 m Loading Rows 4 PROCESSING 6 ROAD ROAD Raw organics 5m 300 m 1m Underdrain Semi-processed organics A 38 39 ROAD 10 m 5m Schematic of organic residue processing. Schematic of organic residue processing.
  64. 64. Restoration of municipal dumping grounds Restoration of municipal dumping grounds
  65. 65. Processing chicken offals Processing chicken offals
  66. 66. SUMMARY OF PROCESS FEATURES FOR ORGANIC SOLID CONVERSION Item Features Organic loading 150-200 g / sq.m.d Oxygen transfer 150-200 g / sq.m.d Heat generation 600-800 k.cal / sq.m.d Conversion 20-30% Product Yield 0.375 – 0.500 kg / kg Products fertilizer/culture/soil
  67. 67. Chickoo plant affected by fungal disease Chickoo plant affected by fungal disease
  68. 68. Chickoo plant after restoration of soil Chickoo plant after restoration of soil
  69. 69. ECONOMICS FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT Item Unit Capacity (m3 / d) 5 50 100 200 500 3,000 10,000 1. Space m2 40 250 400 600 1500 3500 10000 2.Civil, mech., Elec. Rs. Mil 0.10 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.5 12 25 3.Bioreactor Rs. Mil 015 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.5 17 50 Total (2 + 3) Rs. Mil 0.25 1.1 1.9 2.5 4.0 29 75 4. Power Rs./d 10 100 200 400 800 1200 4000 5. Additives Rs./d 20 100 250 500 1250 5000 15000 6. Staff Rs./d 250 250 500 500 1000 2500 5000 7. Miscellaneous Rs./d 10 50 50 150 200 300 500 Total (5 to 7) Rs./d 340 600 1000 1550 3250 9000 24500 US $ = Rs. 47.00; Power Rs. 4 per kWh ; Mil – Million; additives – Rs. 5 / kg
  70. 70. ECONOMICS FOR MUNICIPAL ORGANIC SOLIDS Item Unit Features Capacity Ton/day 1 10 20 100 Space Sq.m 2000 15000 20000 50000 Civil, mech., elec. Rs. mil 0.5 2.5 4.5 15 bioreactor Rs. mil 0.2 1.0 1.5 5.0 Total (3+4) Rs. mil 0.7 3.5 6.0 20 production Ton/year 150 1500 3000 15000 Labour Rs./day 450 3500 5000 10000 Power fuel Rs./day - - 1000 5000 Additives Rs./day 400 4000 8000 20000 Misc. Rs./day 50 200 500 1000 Total (6-8) Rs./day 850 7500 15500 36000 mil. – million mech. – mechanical elec. – electrical Rs. – Rupees (1US$ = Rs.47)
  71. 71. APPLICATIONS • Rain water harvesting via storm water conservation • Primary purification of drinking water • Primary purification of swimming pool water • Sewage treatment for reuse in construction, cleaning & gardening, ground water recharge, make up water for swimming pools & industries etc • Industrial wastewater treatment, • Industrial air purification • Organic solid waste conversion • Municipal solid waste processing • Commercial production of Soil • Animal House waste processing • Hospital waste disposal
  72. 72. SUMMING UP Engineered natural oxygen supply Evergreen Environment No moving parts No biosludge
  73. 73. THANK YOU !
  74. 74. XRD ANALYSIS 1400 1200 1000 Intensity 800 Murram 600 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Partially weathered Rock (Murram)
  75. 75. XRD ANALYSIS 1000 800 Intensity 600 Black soil 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Artificially weathered Rock (Black soil)
  76. 76. XRD ANALYSIS 1400 1200 1000 Intensity 800 Blacksoil 600 Murram 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Comparison of Artificially weathered Rock (Black soil) with Murram (partially weathered Rock)
  77. 77. XRD ANALYSIS 900 800 700 600 Intensity 500 Rock Powder 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Primary mineral (Rock powder)
  78. 78. XRD ANALYSIS 1200 1000 800 Intensity 600 Redsoil 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Naturally weathered Rock (Red soil)
  79. 79. XRD ANALYSIS 1400 1200 1000 Intensity 800 Rock-Powder 600 Murram 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Comparison of Primary Mineral (Rock powder) with Murram (Partially weathered Rock)
  80. 80. XRD ANALYSIS 1400 1200 1000 Intensity 800 REDSOIL 600 Murram 400 200 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Angle Comparison of Naturally weathered Rock (Red soil) with Murram (partially weathered Rock)
  81. 81. XRD ANALYSIS AW-1 1350 1250 1150 1050 Intensity 950 850 750 650 550 450 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Angle Artificially weathered Rock - 1
  82. 82. XRD ANALYSIS AW-2 1300 1200 1100 1000 In n ity 900 te s 800 700 600 500 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Angle Artificially Weathered Rock - 1
  83. 83. XRD ANALYSIS AW-3 1300 1200 1100 1000 In n ity te s 900 800 700 600 500 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Angle Artificially Weathered Rock - 2
  84. 84. XRD ANALYSIS AW-4 1200 1100 1000 In n ity 900 te s 800 700 600 500 25 35 45 55 65 Angle Artificially Weathered Rock - 2
  85. 85. XRD ANALYSIS Worli pad-5 1600 1400 1200 In n ity te s 1000 800 600 400 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Angle Artificially Weathered Rock
  86. 86. XRD ANALYSIS Garde n Soil 1500 1400 1300 1200 In n ity 1100 te s 1000 900 800 700 600 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Angle Artificially Weathered Rock
  87. 87. PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS 1. US Patent No: 6890438 " Process for treatment of organic wastes" H.S.Shankar, B.R.Patnaik, U.S.Bhawalkar, issued 10 May 2005 2. "Process for treatment of Organic residues" India Patent Application MUM/384/26 April 2002, H.S.Shankar, B.R.Patnaik,U.S.Bhawalkar 3. " Process for treatment of waste water" India Patent Application MUM/383/26 April 2002, H.S.Shankar,B.R.Patnaik,U.S.Bhawalkar 4. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, U.S., Gupta, A., Shankar, H.S., “Residence Time Distribution model for Soil Filters, Water Environment Research, 76(2), 168-174,2004 5. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, V.S., Shankar, H.S., “Waste Processing in Engineered Ecosystems”, 4th World Congress on Chemical Engineering, 23-27, September 2001, Melbourne, Australia 6. Patnaik, B.R., Bhawalkar, U.S., Kadam, A, Shankar, H.S., “Soil Biotechnology for Waste Water Treatment and utilization”, 13th ASPAC 2003, International Water Works Association Conference 13-18, October, 2003, Quezon City, Philippines
  88. 88. PATENTS AND PUBLICATIONS 7. Kadam,AM,Ojha,Goldie., Shankar,H.S Soil Biotechnology for Processing of waste waters, 9 th International conference, Indian Water Works Association, Bombay 26-27 Nov2005 8. Yeole,U.R., Patnaik,B.R.,Shankar,H.S.," Soil Biotechnology process simulation using computational fluid dynamics" Session Advanced Computations for Environmental Applications II" AIChE Annual Meeting, 7-12 Nov 2005,Austin Texas, USA 9. Pattanaik., B.R.(2000),” Processing of Wastewater in Soil Filters”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept of Chemical Engg., IIT Bombay 10. Yeole,Umesh Prabhakar"Soil Biotechnology Process Simulation using Computational Fluid dynamics" 2004 11. Bhuddhiraju,Sudheendra., "Soil Biotechnology Process simulation using Computational Fluid dynamics" 2005
  89. 89. MEDIA AND CULTURE US Patent: Process for treatment of organic wastes; US Patent no: 6890438, www.uspto.gov; Issue date: 10 May 2005 ; Underdrain:- Stone rubble of various sizes ranging upto Gravel (200.0-2.0 mm), Very coarse sand (1.0-2.0 mm), Coarse sand (0.5-1.0 mm), Medium sand (0.25-0.5 mm), Fine sand (0.1-0.25 mm) Media:- Formulated from soil as required and primary minerals of suitable particle size and composition Culture:- Geophagus (Soil living) worm Pheretima elongata and bacterial culture from natural sources containing bacteria capable of processing cellulose, lignin, starch, protein, also nitrifying and denitrifying organisms. Anaerobic organisms for methanogenesis. For industrial wastes, development of appropriate culture required Additives:- Formulated from natural materials of suitable particle size and composition to provide sites for respiration, CO2 capture Bioindicators:- Green plants particularly with tap root system
  90. 90. EXTRACT FROM VISION 21 DOCUMENT OF WHO EXTRACT FROM VISION 21 DOCUMENT OF WHO Current sanitation solutions contribute, either directly or indirectly, to many of the problems faced by society today: water pollution, scarcity of fresh water, food insecurity, destruction and loss of soil fertility, global warming, and poor man health as well as loss of life. In summary, we divert excreta away from land, consuming a limited resource – fresh water, into receiving water bodies causing water pollution. We then try to treat the water we drink. Both processes create health hazards. By diverting nutrients away from land, artificial fertilizers are added to land, creating even more water pollution, which is difficult and expensive to treat. We must find another way. We have to design and build new systems, which promote waste as a resource and envisage local solutions and cultural attitudes and contribute to the solving society’s most pressing problems. Source: Esrey, S. & Anderson, I., Vision 21- Environmental Sanitation Ecosystems Approach, report published by Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council ( WSSCC) World Health Organization, United Nations, 1993
  91. 91. AS (III) TO AS (V) CONVERSION IN SOIL FILTER SYSTEM As(III) =1000 µg/l As(III); Flow rate= 130 ml/minute; Filter bed volume = 17 lit; Precipitation with Fe(III); (FeCl3 ) dose as Fe added 55 mg/l. Time Total As As(III) conversion to As(V) in Precipitation minute µg/l Soil Filter of FeCl3 As(V) Residual Residual µg/l As(III) Total As µg/l µg/l 0 995.50 150.00 640.00 18.5 30 986.67 636.67 350.00 15.65 60 1020.00 783.33 236.67 13.34 90 1003.33 826.67 176.67 11.25 120 1000.00 926.67 73.33 7.75 150 1026.67 973.33 53.33 5.85 180 1016.67 983.33 33.33 7.00 210 1013.33 950.00 63.33 7.42 240 1016.67 933.33 83.33 7.40

×