Sabba, Fabrizio, Sabba

Dr. Fabrizio Sabba is currently a Process Engineer Associate at Black & Veatch. In 2016, he obtained his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering...

Joined:

About Sabba, Fabrizio

Dr. Fabrizio Sabba is currently a Process Engineer Associate at Black & Veatch. In 2016, he obtained his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Notre Dame. At BV, Fab applies his expertise through bench/full-scale applications, wastewater process modeling and engineering design. He is involved in 1) removal/destruction of PFAS in a pilot study at a municipality 2) implementation of low dissolved oxygen nitrogen removal for process intensification 3) designing and optimizing post aerobic digestion reactors and 4) implementation of sidestream biological phosphorus removal.

Sabba, Fabrizio

Titles from this speaker

Description: Bench Scale Tests Reveal Impact of Temperature on Nitrogen Removal in Post Aerobic...

Bench Scale Tests Reveal Impact of Temperature on Nitrogen Removal in Post Aerobic Digestion-Acclimated Biomass

Abstract

Background
Several processes are involved in the nitrogen cycle â€“ a key process for wastewater treatment is the nitrification process. Nitrification is a two-step process where ammonia oxidizing bacteria and archaea, AOB and AOA respectively, oxidize ammonium (NH4+) to nitrite (NO2-) while the final step is carried out by nitrite oxidizing bacteria (NOB) with the oxidation of NO2- to nitrate (NO3-). AOB and NOB are usually the main key players for NH4+ oxidation to NO2-. Different parameters have been proven to influence nitrification and these include pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, nitrification inhibitors and inorganic carbon concentration (Lin et al., 2009). Post-aerobic digestion (PAD) following anaerobic sludge digestion is an interesting and not well-explored process to achieve removal of nitrogen via nitrification and denitrification (Novak et al 2011). The Trinity River Authority (TRA) of Texas Central Regional Wastewater System (CRWS) Treatment Plant is currently developing the preliminary design for conversion of a Digested Sludge Storage Tank (DSST) to a PAD reactor. The proposed PAD reactor will follow mesophilic anaerobic digestion of a thermally hydrolyzed pretreated sludge. Currently, there are three PAD reactors in operation worldwide, reducing total inorganic nitrogen (TIN) recycle streams at all operating facilities. The three existing PAD reactors receive mesophilic anaerobically digested effluent, whereas the CRWS PAD reactor would potentially be the first to receive a THP mesophilic anaerobically digested influent. Limited information is available on the impacts of dissolved oxygen, temperature, and inorganic carbon limitations on nitrification and denitrification in PAD. While nitrification and denitrification are well-established processes, further studies at the bench scale level could help shed light on critical parameters such as for example temperature. This will help guide future proper design of PAD facilities.
Objectives
1) Determine critical impacts of temperature on nitrification
2) Evaluate bacterial rates under challenged conditions
3) Establish effects and quantify N removal in PAD systems under variable conditions
4) Explore possible alternative losses of inorganic N (modeling under development)
5) Provide guidelines and suggestions for operational key parameters
Methodology
The batch tests were carried out using PAD biomass from the Boulder Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF) and the Denver MWRD NTP. Biomass from both plants was preserved at 4Â°C and warmed up/acclimated to testing temperature in the water bath before beginning experimentation. The initial tests were carried out with undiluted PAD samples. Each biomass sample was discarded after the daily use to avoid large community composition changes over time. The first set of experiments focused on temperature impacts on nitrification. These tests were conducted in the water bath at the following temperatures: 24.5, 30, 40 and 50Â°C. The pH value was recorded on a 2-4minute interval. The lime spikes were initially based on the alkalinity required for 200 mg N/L of ammonia oxidation within a three-hour time frame.
Findings
Nitrogen Removal Comparison The Denver and Boulder PAD sample batch tests were conducted in parallel reactors to compare nitrogen removals between the two reactors. The PAD reactors operate in a similar fashion with differences that may impact overall bacterial populations. The Boulder solids retention time (SRT), average of 5 days, is operated significantly lower than the average Denver PAD SRT of 20-30 days. A comparison of the ammonia biomass removal rates is summarized in Figure 2. Generally, the specific ammonia nitrogen removal rates are similar between each of the reactors except for the results at 50Â°C. A similar summary of nitrate and nitrite nitrogen was also observed. The highest ammonia specific rate was achieved at 40C for Boulder and between 40-50C for Denver. Review of the nitrate and nitrite nitrogen specific rates shows a similar comparison of the two PAD biomasses. The Denver 50Â°C ammonia nitrogen high removal rate was not associated with nitrate or nitrite accumulation suggesting ammonia nitrogen removal at the elevated temperature can be related to another mechanism such as ammonia stripping. Ammonia oxidation rates increase with increasing temperature through 50Â°C, with 40 and 50Â°C approximately equal (Figure 2). The Denver NTP PAD biomass did not indicate high levels of nitrite oxidation, suggesting absence of a significant NOB community or extremely low relative activity. Indicated nitrite oxidation rates are shown as not applicable with most rate tests indicating 0 or <1 mg N/L change. Nitrite accumulation rates are 20-40% that of observed ammonium oxidation rates. A TIN mass balance was tracked throughout each batch tests along with percent difference, the summary results are in Figure 2. Similarly to Denver, Boulder's biomass ammonia oxidation rates increase with increasing temperature through 40Â°C, 50Â°C indicating a significant reduction to nitrification rates (Figure 3). The Boulder WTF PAD biomass indicated low levels of nitrite oxidation, suggesting suppressed NOB community or very low relative activity. Nitrite accumulation rates are 20-40% that of observed ammonium oxidation rates. The TIN mass balance was tracked throughout each batch tests along with percent difference, the summary results are presented in Figure 3.
Microbial Ecology Analysis Relative bacterial abundance was also examined. One of the observed differences that indicate a difference in the AOB and NOB populations between Denver and Boulder is the nitrate specific rate. While both nitrate specific rates were low, the Denver biomass indicated a rate of zero or near zero suggesting a significant out selection or suppression of NOB activity (Figure 4). The comparison of AOB relative abundances between the Denver and Boulder biomasses indicate over 2x higher abundance for the Boulder biomass. This higher abundance could be driven by a lower SRT, requiring increased AOB populations for an equivalent specific rate. Whereas the Denver SRT is approximately 3X that of the Boulder PAD reactor which can decrease overall abundance. The anaerobic communities are also of note in the PAD reactors. The Denver PAD biomass is dominated by fermenting bacteria, with almost 20% of the overall biomass being fermenting bacteria (Figure 4). This is three times the fermenting bacteria population of the Boulder biomass and is likely a result of the long SRT in the Denver system. Both PAD systems also had a significant sulfate reducing population present.
Conclusions
Bench-scale testing indicates that biological ammonium oxidation accounts for the majority of ammonium removal in PAD systems. However, it appears that ammonia off gassing and nitrous oxide emissions (N2O) are also critical pathways. These gaseous emissions are currently being evaluated with process modeling. For the denitrification pathway and based on the 16S DNA analysis, the PAD reactors appear to be AOB dominated with few NOB present. This suggests the presence of shortcut nitrogen removal processes. Further research will shed light on gaps including the fate of ammonia and potential N2O production with a focus to capture dominant pathways and critical parameters affecting the emissions.

Lab-scale reactors seeded from full-scale post-aerobic digestion (PAD) reactors were operated and ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate were quantified over time at 24.5, 30, 40 and 50ËšC. Nitrite production rates were greater than nitrate production rates. This was supported by microbial community analysis that confirmed a high relative abundance of ammonium oxidizing bacteria. This study suggests that PAD is based on shortcut nitrogen removal and not complete simultaneous nitrification denitrification.

SpeakerSabba, Fabrizio

Presentation time

14:30:00

14:55:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

TopicIntermediate Level, Biosolids and Residuals, Facility Operations and Maintenance, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design

Author(s)

Sabba, Fabrizio

Author(s)Fabrizio Sabba1; Patrick McNamara1; Eric Redmond1; Caitlin Ruff1; Mike Young2; Leon Downing1

Author affiliation(s)Black & Veatch, Kansas1, Trinity River Authority, Dallas, TX2

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2022

DOI10.2175/193864718825158671

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count16

Comparing Four Innovative Technologies for Enhanced Leachate Treatment: An Evaluation of PFAS Foam Fractionation Efficacy

Abstract

Introduction: PFAS, a group of chemicals widely used in various applications due to their water and oil resistance, are persistent, toxic, and accumulate in the environment. Disposal of products containing PFAS in landfills can result in PFAS contamination in the landfill leachate that is discharged to water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) andwhich can lead to groundwater contamination (REF1). Foam fractionation (FF) is a process that utilizes the surfactant nature of PFASs to separate them into foam, which is collected as a concentrate for further treatment (REF2). FF significantly reduces the volume of PFAS-containing waste, making it an ideal first step in a PFAS treatment process. This study evaluates four different FF technologies and provides insights for their implementation based on bench scale comparison results. Materials and methods: In this study, four technologies were evaluated for PFAS removal. The technologies and their providers are listed as TechA, TechB, TechC, and TechD in Table 1. Equalized volume samples (55 liters) were collected from an anonymous facility's EQ-tank and distributed to different technology providers for testing. Leachate wet chemistry parameters samples were determined in accordance with APHA standard methods. Table 2 lists the analyzed parameters. A total of 40 PFAS compounds were quantified using the EPA 1633 method, the Total Oxidizable Precursor, and the Total Organic Fluorine assay. Table 3 provides a complete list of these compounds and their concentrations before FF. Results and discussion PFAS Removal Efficiency: The study evaluated the removal efficiency of different PFAS into the foam phase for the four FF technology providers. The findings, depicted in Figure 1, align with previous literature: longer fluorocarbon chains and the presence of a more surface-active sulfonic acid head group result in greater PFAS removal compared to its carboxylic counterpart. The study also shows that removal efficiency improves exponentially with longer fluorocarbon chains, and chains longer than six carbons resulted in undetected levels. This supports previous research that suggests chain length has a greater impact than head group. Longer fluorocarbon chains make PFAS less soluble and more hydrophobic, enhancing its ability to adsorb onto air-water interfaces due to their superior surface properties. Impact of Process Configuration: Technology providers employed different strategies in using FF as indicated in Table 1. A notable finding from comparing these technologies is the effectiveness of cationic co-surfactants in removing PFAS. The cationic headgroup of these co-surfactants allows for binding to PFAS at the water-air interface. TechA and TechB tested a wide range of co-surfactants at 100 mg/L and found that CTAB-based surfactants are favorable in reducing the short-chain compounds up to 50% removal. The consistent observation of the use of co-surfactants showed enhanced stability and density of the foam that helps accumulate more foam and minimize the extent of interstitial liquid drainage before the foam is harvested (REF4). However, TechC experiments showed no impact of using 8 mg/L co-surfactant compared to the absence of co-surfactant. This can be attributed to reduction of additive performance due to electrostatic uptake by competing contaminants in leachate, suggesting the need for a higher dose. For TechC it was found that a 45-minute contact time is sufficient to achieve non-detection levels of long-chain PFAS in a leachate primarily dominated by PFCAs. The study also assessed the impact of the number of FF units in series, with the consensus being that using two to three treatment units is adequate to achieve the desired removal. TechD's proprietary model approach showed that increasing the treatment stages from 3 to 5 resulted in a 10% increase in the removal of short-chain PFAS, while long-chains remained non-detectable in both cases. TechC's unique two-stage method involves de-foaming the leachate from the first fractionation unit and then re-foaming the primary foamate generated over repeated primary fractionation cycles (Figure 2). This approach significantly reduces generated foam volumes, condensing the volume of foam by up to 180 times in the secondary foamate, minimizing the capital and operating costs associated with downstream destruction technologies. Conclusions 1.Findings of this work are illustrated in Figure 3. 2.Long-chain PFAS have been effectively removed to below detection limit, while short-chain PFAS require a polishing step using adsorptive media due to their low removal rate. However, this poses challenges due to the high fouling potential of the media. Therefore, the implementation of FF and modifications to its configuration strongly depend on treatment objectives and upcoming regulations. 3.For the specific leachate that was tested, a 45-minute contact time of and up to three treatment stages in series were sufficient for removing long-chain PFAS. However, these factors may vary based on the quality of the leachate water being treated. 4.FF is a highly selective method for removing surfactants without altering effluent water quality. This results in an effluent with similar water quality to the influent but significantly reduced concentrations of PFAS, VOCs, total suspended solids, and iron.

This article discusses how foam fractionation (FF) technology can effectively remove Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) from landfill leachate. The study found that FF is a highly selective method for removing surfactants without altering effluent water quality. These findings are crucial in addressing PFAS contamination in landfills and guiding the implementation of different FF configurations for PFAS removal.

SpeakerSabba, Fabrizio

Presentation time

13:30:00

13:50:00

Session time

13:30:00

15:00:00

SessionPFAS Removal and Destruction Using Novel Technologies

Session number605

Session locationRoom 244

TopicIndustrial Issues and Treatment Technologies, Intermediate Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation

Author(s)

Sabba, Fabrizio, Kassar, Christian, Hunter, Gary, Downing, Leon

Author(s)F. Sabba1, C. Kassar2, G.L. Hunter3, L.S. Downing4

Author affiliation(s)1Black & Veatch, NJ, 2Black & Veatch, AZ, 3Black & Veatch, SC, 4Black and Veatch, WI

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159515

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count16

Navigating Carbon Limits: Lessons Learned from Small and Full-scale S2EBPR Operation in a C-limited Facility

Abstract

Introduction Water reclamation facilities use enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) to prevent the release of phosphorus into aquatic environments. Phosphorus-accumulating organisms (PAO) drive EBPR by using rbCOD to perform phosphorus cycling. However, PAO may compete with other desirable heterotrophs and glycogen-accumulating organisms (GAO). Sidestream EBPR (S2EBPR) is designed to reduce upsets from low or unreliable rbCOD in influent wastewater. In this study, Calumet WRP conducted a small-scale and full-scale study of S2EBPR to achieve effluent P goals below 1 mgP/L. This study evaluated the performance of S2EBPR with and without external carbon dosing, compared small-scale findings to full-scale performance, and assessed the PAO and GAO community over time. Methods Small- and full-scale reactors (SSR and FSR) were operated at Calumet WRP for 1 year, in 2019 and 2021, respectively (Figure 1a and 1b; also see Sabba et al. 2023 and Farmer et al. 2023 for additional details about the FSR). The SSR was supplied with external C addition in 3 phases: 50, 25 and 0% C. The FSR was also operated with changing C dosing, 2 periods with C and 2 periods without. Composite samples of reactor effluent were collected on a daily and/or weekly basis for TP, OP NH3−N, NOx, TKN, BOD5, total and volatile suspended solids and VFA and measured with EPA and APHA standard methods. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed on samples collected from SSR and FSR, and metagenomic sequencing was performed on select samples from the FSR. Results SSR S2EBPR findings Batch testing was to measure P uptake on nitrate and oxygen in the SSR (Figure 2a). Oxygen-driven P uptake appeared to be the main contributor to P removal. However, the weekly average P removal observed in the reactor was significantly correlated with nitrate-driven rate, not the oxygen-driven rate, suggesting that nitrate-driven P uptake was important for overall performance (Figure 2b). Overall, these results suggest a higher proportion of PAO can denitrify than previously reported (Nielsen et al., 2019). Figure 3a and 3c shows the relative abundance of PAO and GAO population in the SSR during the three C phases. Despite the C reduction, overall, the S2EBPR shows stability of PAO population, including the canonical PAO Accumulibacter, with only a slight decrease in relative abundance of Tetrasphaera. Interestingly the decrease of C to 0% did not lead to exclusion of GAO but rather, a stable population of Ca. Competibacter and Micropruina was established. FSR S2EBPR findings Figure 3b displays the relative abundance of PAO and GAO in the FSR during the four C phases. Both PAO and GAO populations increased and established during the two phases where C was dosed. Notably, Ca. Competibacter increased during phase III (C on) and persisted during phase IV (C off). To further investigate the trends observed in the FSR with regards to PAO and GAO and connect them with denitrification-based P uptake observed in Figure 2, we next analyzed the denitrification pathway using metagenomic sequencing data with a focus on denitrifying PAO and GAO (known as DPAO and DGAO). We mapped our metagenomic reads to curated denitrifying genes from Ca. Accumulibacter, Dechloromonas, Tetraphaera, and Ca. Competibacter. We found that the complete denitrification pathway was encoded by DPAO and DGAO, but there were considerable differences in the gene abundances amongst the organisms. For example, most nitrate reductases mapped to narG from Ca. Accumulibacter, but the nitric oxide reductases mapped to nor genes from Ca. Competibacter, suggesting that the DPAO and DGAO may have been partial denitrifiers. Our metagenomic findings also point to the possibility of N2O accumulation due to incomplete denitrification, though further analysis of the denitrification pathway completeness considering other denitrifying bacteria is needed to increase our confidence. Comparison of SSR and FSR performance External C dosing had a substantial impact on P removal performance in both SSR and FSR. In the SSR, the median OP removal was 90% with the 50% C dose, compared to 83% with the 25% C dose and 50% without dosing. In the FSR, both the 50% and 25% C dosing conditions achieved less than 1mgP/L with a median effluent 0.49 and 0.40 mgP/L, respectively. The FSR exhibited similar trends; the median OP removal was 90% with C dosing (average of 3.3 L/min) compared to a median of 15% OP removal, as well as occasional net OP release, without C dosing. The median effluent OP from the FSR was 0.29 mgP/L under the high C dosing condition, also achieving the less than 1mgP/L goal. Overall, the performance was comparable between the SSR and the FSR, despite the differences in C dosing regimes and reactor configurations. Benefits and significance This presentation will highlight the successful scale-up of an S2EBPR process from a small lab-scale system to a full-scale demonstration, as well as the potential role of DPAO in combined P and N removal. For practitioners, this work will provide insights into optimizing EBPR systems at low carbon facilities, understanding how DPAO can contribute to P and N removal, and operating relevant pilot studies to inform full-scale work. For researchers, our findings on denitrification gene abundances are relevant for further study of truncated denitrification pathways in DPAO and DGAO.

This paper assesses the performance of S2EBPR at Calumet WRP in achieving effluent P goals below 1 mgP/L. It compares small-scale findings to full-scale performance, including the impact of external carbon dosing on P removal. The study highlights the potential role of denitrifying phosphorus-accumulating organisms in combined P and N removal and provides insights for optimizing EBPR systems at low-carbon facilities and operating relevant pilot studies to inform full-scale work.

SpeakerSabba, Fabrizio

Presentation time

11:00:00

11:30:00

Session time

10:30:00

12:00:00

SessionUsing Side-Stream Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal to Improve EBPR Performance

Session number523

Session locationRoom 350

TopicFacility Operations and Maintenance, Intermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, Nutrients

Author(s)

Sabba, Fabrizio, Farmer, McKenna, Jia, Zhen, Wells, George, Downing, Leon

Author(s)F. Sabba1, M. Farmer2, Z. Jia2, G. Wells3, L.S. Downing4

Author affiliation(s)1Black & Veatch, NJ, 2Northwestern University, IL, 3, IL, 4Black and Veatch, WI

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159516

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count16

Understanding Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Impacts on Carbon Footprint When Considering the Full Footprint of Nutrient Removal

Abstract

Introduction Water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) have adopted low dissolved oxygen (DO) operation to reduce operating costs of activated sludge processes. However, the relationship between DO levels and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is complex and has attracted considerable interest. This modelling study investigated the impact of low DO conditions focusing on nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, energy consumption (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent, CO2-eq), and the beneficial nutrient removal, which includes reduced external carbon and chemical inputs. Although low DO operation in Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) processes may increase the risk of N2O production, the net environmental impact may be surprisingly positive. This presentation will shed light on the carbon footprint (CF) and trade-offs between N2O emissions, energy consumption, and system performance of low DO operation at WRRFs. Materials and methods: A process model was developed within SUMO v.22 simulation platform (Dynamita, France). The process model (Figure 1) was based on an existing WRRF in Texas (USA) and was calibrated and validated utilizing special sampling and historical influent as well as operational data (RAS, MLSS and WAS) obtained from the facility. Dynamic simulations were conducted over a 720-day period using historical data for low DO (0.5 mg/L) and conventional DO (2 mg/L) with two different influent characteristics (carbon rich, high C, and carbon-deficient, low C). The model outputs from the four scenarios were used to compute indirect GHG emissions stemming from electricity and chemicals. The aeration energy necessary to maintain the designated DO levels in the reactors was determined based on airflows derived from the model. Using a conversion factor of 25 scfm/hP, the total blower power requirement was estimated. This blower power was then converted to kWh and multiplied by the daily CO2-eq of consumed electricity. The chemical phosphorus removal process involved the use of alum, while methanol addition was presumed to reduce nitrates to a maximum concentration of 8 mg/L. Daily CO2-eq values for alum and methanol were employed to estimate carbon emissions from chemical consumption, contributing to the calculation of total indirect GHG emissions in a BNR system. Results and Discussion: The results presented in Figure 2 indicate that the cumulative indirect GHG emission rates were consistently lower for low DO operation across all four scenarios, regardless of the influent carbon content. The average emissions for low DO operation were 58% lower than high DO operation (red dashed lines in Figure 2). Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the total GHG emissions from non-N2O sources and reveal that high DO scenarios had a 28% higher average aeration energy, which posed denitrification challenges. To address these challenges, high DO operations required post-anoxic carbon dosing, which increased the CF. Conversely, low DO operations exhibited lower aeration energy and minimal chemical addition, with Case C requiring 98% less carbon dosing than Case A and D requiring 88% less than Case B. Based on blower energy use, external carbon, and chemical coagulant addition operating a BNR system at low DO setpoints results in a significant reduction in CF for the known emission sources. The key question the industry is facing is how much N2O is emitted from low DO setpoints, and if this N2O emission offsets the CF reduction from energy, carbon, and chemical addition. While there has been research investigating the impact of low DO operation on N2O production, the rate of N2O production for low DO system is far from an established metric. For low DO systems to have a net reduction in CF, the resulting N2O emissions would need to be less than the carbon reduction from the known parameters (energy use, chemical addition, carbon addition). If the CO2 reduction is converted to kg N2O, and related to kg N2O production per influent N, an estimation of how much N could be emitted as N2O can be made while maintaining a net CF benefit. As shown in Figure 5 an increase in the N converted to N2O of 0.4 to 0.8% would need to occur before low DO would result in a net increase in CF. Using IPCC guidelines, a typical activated sludge system emits 0.7% of the influent nitrogen as N2O. Therefore, a low DO system would only result in a net increase in CF if the N2O emissions doubled compared to a conventional DO system. Conclusions: Understanding N2O emissions is a major driver for WRRFs. While European and Australian facilities have advanced the understanding on the dynamics associated with N2O production in activated sludge, the impacts of low DO operation on the net CF of BNR facilities needs to be better understood. An important consideration when evaluating the net CF is not just the N2O emissions and energy impacts, but the potential reduction in carbon and chemical addition by moving to lower DO setpoints. The simulation work completed highlighted key aspects of N2O emissions:

*N2O emissions in a low DO system would need to double the N2O emissions from a conventional DO system to offset the carbon emissions savings from energy, carbon addition, and chemical addition savings from low DO operation

*The lower the influent COD, the larger the net carbon emission benefit of operating at low DO concentrations in a BNR basin

This paper was presented at the WEFTEC 2024 conference in New Orleans, LA October 5-9.

SpeakerDowning, Leon

Presentation time

15:30:00

15:40:00

Session time

15:30:00

17:00:00

SessionN2O Unmasked: Understanding and Taming Emissions

Session number426

Session locationRoom 253

TopicIntermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, Nutrients, Research and Innovation

Author(s)

Downing, Leon, Salekar, Prachi, Mallick, Synthia, Bhattarai, Bishav, Sabba, Fabrizio

Author(s)L.S. Downing1, P. Salekar2, S.P. Mallick3, B. Bhattarai4, F. Sabba5, L.S. Downing1

Author affiliation(s)1Black and Veatch, WI, 2Black and Veatch, TX, 3Black and Veatch, FL, 4Black & Veatch, CA, 5Black & Veatch, NJ

SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation

Document typeConference Paper

PublisherWater Environment Federation

Print publication date Oct 2024

DOI10.2175/193864718825159658

Volume / Issue

Content sourceWEFTEC

Word count17

Base text size -

Sabba, Fabrizio

About Sabba, Fabrizio

My Recent Activity