Tratamento anaeróbio de esgoto doméstico para fertirrigação <span class="so-article-trans-title" dir="auto"> Translated title: Anaerobic treatment of the domestic sewer for fertirrigation </span>

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Resumo Utilizar esgoto tratado para as atividades agrícolas é proporcionar economia de fertilizante e de água de boa qualidade; podendo ser uma alternativa para convivência com a sua escassez. Diversas tecnologias de tratamento de esgotos já foram desenvolvidas na busca de produzir efluente adequado para fertirrigação evitando a contaminação do ambiente com bactérias, parasitas e vírus que criam graves problemas de saúde pública, propagando doenças bacterianas e virulentas, afetando trabalhadores e consumidores das culturas irrigadas. A presente pesquisa objetivou tratar esgotos domésticos utilizando reator UASB seguido de filtro biológico, visando à obtenção de efluente adequado ao reúso. O efluente do filtro continha macro e micronutrientes suficientes para o crescimento da maioria das culturas cultivadas na região semi-árida; no entanto, apresentou concentração de coliformes termotolerantes acima das recomendações da OMS, embora isento de ovos de helmintos. Desta forma, o efluente do filtro anaeróbio só deverá ser utilizado para fertirrigação de culturas restritas.

Translated abstract

Abstract The utilization of treated sewage for agricultural purposes means saving of fertilizer and water of good quality, therefore, it may seen as an alternative in its scarcity. Several treatment processes have been developed to produce an effluent with a suitable quality for fertirrigation, while avoiding contamination of the environment with pathogens that may cause serious public health problems and may affect workers consumers of and agricultural product. This research had as its objective to treat sewage in a UASB reactor followed by an anaerobic filter with the aim of obtaining an adequate effluent for agricultural reuse. The filter effluent contained suficiente macro and micro nutrients to grow most crops under the local conditions of the semi arid region. However the concentration of thermo tolerant Coliforms was above the recommend maximum by the WHO, while no helminth eggs were observed in the effluent. Hence the effluent could only be used for restricted irrigation.

Related collections

Most cited references 7

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Standard methods for the examination of water and waterwater

A.D. Eaton, L.S. Clesceri, A.E. GRENNBERG … (1995)

0 comments Cited 15 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Development of a risk assessment approach for evaluating wastewater reuse standards for agriculture

H. Shuval, Y. Lampert, B Fattal (1997)

A risk assessment approach was developed to arrive at a comparative risk analysis of the various recommended wastewater irrigation microbial health guidelines for unrestricted irrigation of vegetables normally eaten uncooked. The guidelines compared are those of the WHO and the USEPA/USAID. The laboratory phase of the study determined the degree of contamination of vegetables irrigated by wastewater. Based on these estimates of the risk of ingesting pathogens, it is possible to estimate the risk of infection/disease based on the risk of infection and disease model developed for drinking water by Haas et al. (1993). For example, the annual risk of infectious hepatitis from regularly eating vegetables irrigated with raw wastewater is shown to be as high as 10−3. The study indicates that the annual risk of succumbing to a virus disease from regularly eating vegetables irrigated with effluent meeting WHO guidelines (1,000 FC/100mL) is negligible and of the order of 10−6 to 10−7 The risk of the more infectious, but less serious, rotavirus is 10−5 to 10−6. The USEPA considers an annual risk of 10−4 to be acceptable for microbial contamination of drinking water. The additional health benefit that might result from a further reduction of risk gained by adhering to the USEPA/USAID Reuse Guidelines (1992), which require no detectable faecal coliforms/100mL, appears to be insignificant in relation to the major additional costs associated with the expensive technology required to treat effluent to such a rigorous standard. Our preliminary estimates show that meeting the USEPA Guidelines would result in an extra expenditure of $3–30millions/case of disease prevented.