Performance Assessment of Rural Decentralized Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Foshan, China

• Published in: Water (Basel) Vol. 16; no. 13; p. 1901
• Main Authors: Liu, Minru, Lin, Zhenrong, Li, Jiajie, Zhu, Mingtian, Tang, Zhihua, Li, Kai
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.07.2024
• Subjects: anaerobic/anoxic/oxic process; anoxic/oxic process; Chemical oxygen demand; Correlation analysis; decentralized treatment facilities; Developing countries; Efficiency; Effluents; Investigations; LDCs; Pollutants; Quality standards; Regression analysis; removal efficiency; River networks; Rural areas; Sewage treatment plants; treatment performance; Water quality; Water treatment; China; Japan
• ISSN: 2073-4441; 2073-4441
• DOI: 10.3390/w16131901

Rural decentralized domestic wastewater treatment (DDWT) facilities, as an alternative to centralized sewage treatment plants, have been rapidly developed in rural areas worldwide. However, the lack of performance evaluations and operational status assessments of these facilities poses a significant obstacle to advancements in rural domestic wastewater treatment strategies. In the present study, 30 rural DDWT facilities with AO (anoxic/oxic) and AAO (anaerobic/anoxic/oxic) processes were investigated. The results revealed that only two facilities reached the first A-grade discharge standards of China, and twelve facilities met the first B-grade discharge standards for all ten wastewater quality indicators. Low standard-achieving ratios for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) (63.3%), total nitrogen (TN) (60.0%), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N) (63.3%), total phosphorus (TP) (30.0%), suspended solids (SS) (46.7%), and fecal coliforms (FC) (26.7%) were calculated. Thus, it is essential to improve the treatment efficiency for BOD5, TN, NH3-N, TP, SS, and FC for rural wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the AAO process had a median weighted average removal efficiency of 82.02%, which was better than that of the AO process (72.48%). Minor equipment failure rates, i.e., less than 20%, did not affect the operation of the rural DDWT facilities, since most equipment in the DDWT facilities was backed up. Notably, problems in several areas, e.g., process design, equipment selection, construction, and especially operations, influencing treatment performance should be investigated and proactively addressed. These findings provide specific suggestions for improvements that could benefit the long-term operation and management of rural DDWT facilities.