Skip to content

RB-1000 Improved Sludge Pressing and Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs

Home
Case Studies
RB-1000 Improved Sludge Pressing and Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs

Summary:

The application of RB-1000 at a municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the sludge storage tanks resulted in notable enhancements in sludge yield and pressing efficiency, alongside reductions in solids content and odors. There was a marked improvement of 19% in solids within the sludge pressing process. Initial data indicated an average solids content of 10.8% before treatment, which increased to 12.4% during treatment. The time interval between pressing cycles extended from 17 to 28 days, attributed to a 25% decrease in solids. Furthermore, odor levels experienced a reduction of over 80% throughout the treatment duration.


Background:

The municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) was situated in the north-central region of the United States. With an average daily flow rate of 250,000 GPD, primarily from residential sources, the facility handled a substantial volume of wastewater. Waste activated sludge underwent aeration for 3-4 weeks in two holding tanks, each with a capacity of 22,500 gallons, before being processed through a single belt press for disposal. Historically, the pressed sludge exhibited low solids content (<10.5%), necessitating continuous adjustment and maintenance during pressing operations. Moreover, odors were consistently problematic during the pressing process.


Treatment Objective:

  • Reduce sludge disposed of
  • Reduce the sludge sent to the press
  • Improved operating capacity of sludge holding tanks
  • Improved dewater efficiency of pressing process
  • Reduced labor & maintenance cost of the pressingpores
  • Reduce the odors of the pressed sludge

Materials & Methods:

Treatment period of 90 day. Baseline data included:

  • Volume of waste activated sludge sent to holding tanks
  • % solids for sludge sent to press
  • % solids of pressed cake
  • tons of sludge hauled during presiding events

The sludge storage comprised two tanks, each with a capacity of 22,500 gallons. RB-1000 was administered weeklyat a rate of 0.5 kg (6ppm) into each storage tank


Results:

During the initial 60 days of treatment (see Figure 1), there was a 99% reduction in sludge volumes. However, in the first 30 days, volume reduction was minimal due to increased wasting from the aeration basin. In June, the facility decreased its mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the aeration basin from approximately 3400 to 2200 (a 33% reduction). The percentage of solids pressed rose from 10.8% to 12.4%, marking a 16% increase. Previously, operators had to make multiple adjustments during pressing cycles, leading to alarms and increased labor and maintenance costs. However, during the treatment period, the pressed solids exhibited excellent consistency, requiring minimal adjustments, likely due to improved sludge content uniformity from the sludge holding tank. Odor levels decreased by over 80% compared to previous pressing periods. Notably, odors were reduced by over 80% even during the final phase of pressing, when they typically peak. The operator noted that a reliable test for odor levels was his wife’s reaction upon returning home. During two separate pressing cycles, his wife made no comments, indicating a significant reduction in odors.


More Case Studies

RB-2750 Reduces Grease Cap, Sludge & Odors; Improving Lagoon Performance

RSB-7 Reduces H₂S and FOG in a Municipal Sewer System

EPA/DfE recognition does not constitute endorsement of our products. The Design for the Environment logo signifies that the formulas for our products, as we have represented to the EPA, contain ingredients with more positive health and environmental characteristics than conventional products. EPA/DfE relies solely on our integrity and good faith for information on the composition, ingredients, and attributes of our products. EPA/DfE has not independently identified, i.e., via chemical analysis, the ingredients in our products, nor evaluated any of the non-ingredient claims we have made. EPA/DfE expresses its judgment and professional opinion only as to the environmental and human health characteristics of our products, based on currently available information and scientific understanding.

Solterra™ is the only complete line of cleaning, remediation and odor elimination products to be recognized for safer chemistry by the EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) program. Solterra™ products were found worthy of recognition after passing a rigorous third party toxicology review and an EPA scientific review. For the DfE label, Solterra™ partners with the EPA to maintain the highest standards of product safety.

 

What is the Design for Environment Program?

 

Design for the Environment (DfE) works with environmental organizations and industry to protect human health and promote sustainable chemistry. DfE’s Safer Product Labeling Program helps to protect families and the environment by distinguishing household cleaning products, like soaps, detergents, and cleaners that are safer for people and the planet. The EPA’s scientific team rigorously evaluates each product for its impact on both human and environmental health.

 

What Does the DfE Label Mean?

 

EPA allows safe products to carry the Design for the Environment (DfE) label. When products carry the DfE label it means a scientific review team has screened each ingredient for potential human health and environmental effects and that—based on currently available information, EPA predictive models, and expert judgment—the product contains only those ingredients that pose the least concern among chemicals in their class.

Questions? Contact Tim Ross at 972-247-1556 or tross@rpsenvironmental.com