The presentation talks about the technology used at SBT

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. CONTENTS
• PRINCIPLES
• WATER PURIFICATION
• PROCESSING OF SOLID RESIDUES
• AGRICULTURE
• SUMMING UP

3. A natural water body
A natural water body

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. A natural water body in the process of decay
A natural water body in the process of decay

6. A natural water body converted to land due to
A natural water body converted to land due to
nutrient overload
nutrient overload

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. ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN DIFFERENT HABITATS
1. Water 500 kJ/g live C. yr
2. Land 3 kJ/g live C. yr

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. SCHEMATIC OF MULTISTAGE PURIFICATION
T1 R1 T2 R2 T3 R3 T4
R1 R2 R3
T1 T2 T3 T4

11. LARGE SCALE FACILITY FOR SEWAGE RENOVATION

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in
A picture of red worms – r selected organisms in
waste environment
waste environment

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. TWO CHANNEL MODEL
α = fraction of holdup in the macrochannel
β = fraction of tracer that enters the macrochannel

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. DISTILLERY SPENT WASH
Before SBT Processing After SBT Processing
COD: 12,160mg/L COD: 64 mg/L

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. LAY OUT OF SBT MEDIA

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. SBT PLANT
TOP VIEW

48. PLANT ELEVATION
500 m3/day BPGC Plant for wastewater treatment

49. SBT PLANT
3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

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. 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. SBT PLANT
3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

53. SBT PLANT
3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

54. SBT PLANT
3MLD Sewage purification in Corporation Of Bombay

55. SBT PLANT
Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports
Renovation of colony sewage for irrigation in sports
complex
complex

56. REUSABLE WATER FROM WASTEWATER
Wastewater Treated Wastewater

57. SBT PLANT
Colony sewage treatment
Colony sewage treatment
showing untreated &
showing untreated &
treated water
treated water

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. SBT PLANT
Retrofitting of idle activated sludge plant
Retrofitting of idle activated sludge plant

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. 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. SBT PLANT
Close up of solid waste processing
Close up of solid waste processing

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. Restoration of municipal dumping grounds
Restoration of municipal dumping grounds

65. Processing chicken offals
Processing chicken offals

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. Chickoo plant affected by fungal disease
Chickoo plant affected by fungal disease

68. Chickoo plant after restoration of soil
Chickoo plant after restoration of soil

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. 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. 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. SUMMING UP
Engineered natural oxygen supply
Evergreen Environment
No moving parts
No biosludge

73. THANK YOU !

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. XRD ANALYSIS
1000
800
Intensity
600
Black soil
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Artificially weathered Rock (Black soil)

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. 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. XRD ANALYSIS
1200
1000
800
Intensity
600 Redsoil
400
200
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Angle
Naturally weathered Rock (Red soil)

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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