MicroPlex® AQL

Problem  A municipal wastewater treatment facility in Idaho uses a small, activated sludge system to treat 35,000 gallons per day (gpd); waste activated sludge (WAS) is removed from the system approximately every 2 to 3 weeks. The system frequently experienced intermittent foaming and settling issues, as well as seasonal impact from grease relating to the

Abstract  Bio Energizer® is frequently used to facilitate bioremediation of wastewater. A study was conducted by an independent laboratory to measure possible negative effects Bio Energizer® might have on a freshwater test species (rainbow trout).   Using EPA-approved methodology to evaluate Bio Energizer®, the lab administered the product at 10 ppm to a test tank and

Problem A paper mill wastewater facility was treating 940 tons of paper bags, recycled linerboard, and corrugating medium, daily. The mill was interested in improving wastewater operating efficiency and lowering operating expenses over their standard polymer usage. The plant was experiencing filamentous bacteria, solids, and bulking issues in the final clarifier. It was discharging 4,000

Problem  A municipal wastewater treatment facility in Arizona uses an activated sludge system with 4 oxidation ditches to treat approximately 9 million gallons per day. The system frequently experiences intermittent foaming and settling issues. The operator was looking for a solution to the foaming and settling issues that would also provide operational stability throughout the

Problem  The existing wastewater treatment system uses 600 kg/day of diammonium phosphate (DAP) to provide the needed phosphorus concentration to maintain a healthy microbial population to treat wastewater. These microorganisms break down the organic matter being discharged from the paper processing facility. Without the correct concentration of available phosphorus, the microorganisms are unable to grow

Summary In this study, a one-year bioremediation plan featuring Bio Energizer® was implemented for a municipal wastewater treatment facility with 2 primary lagoons in which sludge depths had reached 5–7 feet. The lagoons were at risk of upset and wastewater processing capacity was reduced. Sludge levels were measured at baseline and quarterly. Sludge depth was