IWA Publishing 2017 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1

240 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

Assessment of decentralized wastewater treatment systems in the

rural area of Cuenca, Ecuador

Andrs Alvaradoa,b,*, Josu Larrivac,d, Esteban Sncheza, Diego Idrovob,e

and Juan F. Cisnerosa,f

a
Departamento de Recursos Hdricos y Ciencias Ambientales, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de Abril, Cuenca, Ecuador

b
Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de Abril, Cuenca, Ecuador

* Corresponding author. E-mail: andres.alvarado@ucuenca.edu.ec

c
ETAPA, Empresa Pblica Municipal de Telecomunicaciones, Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento de Cuenca,
Panamericana Norte km. 5 1/2, Ucubamba, Cuenca, Ecuador

d
Facultad de Ciencia y Tecnologa, Universidad del Azuay, Av. 24 de Mayo 7-77, Cuenca, Ecuador

e
Departamento de Ingeniera Civil, Facultad de Ingeniera, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de Abril, Cuenca, Ecuador

f
Facultad de Ciencias Qumicas, Universidad de Cuenca, Av. 12 de Abril, Cuenca, Ecuador

Abstract

The rapid urbanization of Cuenca, Ecuador, since about 1990 has led to efforts to build and operate decentralized
domestic wastewater treatment systems in periurban and rural areas. The treatment efciency of some of these
is falling, however, and others are no longer working. ETAPA, the municipal institution in charge of water supply
and sanitation, is evaluating them fully to identify common operating and maintenance difculties, as well as
deciencies in design and/or construction. This paper presents an evaluation of the physical infrastructure
and characterization of the treatment processes performed historically. The objective is to overcome the tech-
nical deciencies and adopt a long-term, sustainable O&M plan.

Key words: decentralized, domestic, periurban, treatment, wastewater

INTRODUCTION

There is a global trend for an annual increase in the percentage of the population with access to
improved sanitation. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for basic sanitation set for 2015
(WHO/UNICEF 2015) have been missed, however, unlike the drinking water target, which was
achieved by 2010. Latin America missed the MDG for sanitation by a small amount, as a whole,
but Ecuador met it by 2015. Nevertheless, in rural Ecuador, 25% of the population still has no
access to improved sanitation facilities. Considering the limited nancial resources available in devel-
oping countries, there is increasing demand for environmentally and economically sustainable
wastewater treatment systems (WWTPs). Economically, the difference between centralized and
decentralized systems is highly relevant (Singh et al. 2015). Moreover, decentralized wastewater treat-
ment offers many other public health advantages, and brings the opportunity of resource recovery
from wastewater as well as water recycling for selected agricultural and industrial purposes (Tchoba-
nogious et al. 2004; Verstraete et al. 2009; Nansubuga et al. 2016), decreasing the demand for fresh
water (Bakir 2001).
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
241 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

Cuenca, Ecuadors third largest city, leads in sanitation services in the country, operating the biggest
WWTP the Ucubamba waste stabilization pond system, 1.8 m3/s representing 90% urban area cover-
age. Nevertheless, since about 1990, the city has expanded hugely into the periurban areas,
representing a serious challenge for ETAPA, the municipal institution in charge of water supply, sani-
tation and telecommunication services, to maintain their high standards across the areas served.
The rural settlements surrounding the city, also served mostly by ETAPA, are facing similarly rapid
demographic growth and urbanization. Knowing the challenges of extending a sewerage network,
which could take between 80 and 90% of the capital costs in a centralized approach, ETAPA decided
to build 32 small, decentralized, wastewater treatment plants (DWWTPs). The many technical options
available were balanced and analyzed in terms of treatment objectives, cost, energy demand, oper-
ation and maintenance (O&M) costs, etc. Finally, anaerobic and natural systems were selected
with a view to their long-term sustainability. There were many difculties from the start, especially
with high overows and primary treatment units clogging. However, most of the DWWTPs are still
operating.
ETAPA acknowledges the systems decreasing efciencies and some plant assessments have been
performed. From both management experience and evaluation results, some constraints have been
identied as major factors inuencing the decline in efciency in some systems. They include: (1)
rapid population growth in the areas served, increasing ux-rates considerably, causing signicant
hydraulic retention time reductions as well as organic overloads in the systems; (2) limited economic
resources combined with low user organization capacity in maintaining the systems, which contribute
to system deterioration; (3) in some cases, the adoption of standard solutions applied successfully in
other countries but not appropriate for the particular environmental conditions at a specic site. In
this paper a full evaluation of the ETAPA systems is presented, their technical deciencies are dis-
cussed and long-term sustainable options recommended for improving their efciency and O&M.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A critical recompilation of the 32 DWWTP system evaluations was made. Past evaluations and
characterizations, particularly those since 2013, were highlighted to obtain an objective overview
of current system states. The recent evaluations have focused on a few systems with different technical
approaches. Important information from two general evaluations has also been analyzed. These were
performed in 2005 (six systems) (Neira 2005) and 20082009 (31 systems) (Ordez 2009). The evalu-
ations differed in every case, but all (past and recent) have veried the current state of the structure
and in many cases characterized the inuent/efuent waters. Interviews with ETAPA staff (engineers
and system operators), and system users were also carried out. The discussion is based on the quan-
titative and qualitative data obtained, and focuses on the systems technical aspects, their removal
efciencies for the main quality parameters, the treatment objectives, and the O&M problems. The
discussion also covers problems in the sewerage network inuencing system operation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Infrastructure, technology and systems conguration

Figure 1 is a schematic, but scaled, map of system locations. The urban area of Cuenca (450,000
inhabitants) is shown in gray, and the spread of the systems within Cuenca cantons rural areas is evi-
dent. Six systems (black circles) are located on the lowlands of Cuenca canton (around 30 m msl),
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
242 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

Figure 1 | DWWTPs in Cuenca canton, Ecuador.

around 150 km from ETAPA headquarters in Cuenca. The other 26 systems (blue triangles) are in
highlands, between 1,700 and 2,900 m msl, within about 50 km of Cuenca.
Table 1 is a summary of system technologies and includes some relevant information about them.
All but one of the systems have a septic tank (ST) as the primary treatment unit, and 20 out of 32 are
composed entirely of anaerobic units. The combination of ST and anaerobic lter, with vertical ow
(AF/VF) and constructed wetland (CW) is the commonest technology, despite the sites differing cli-
matic characteristics. It seems that the low construction and O&M costs were the selection relevant
factors. Table 1 includes the altitudes and average temperatures of the DWWTPs, the latter varying
from 11 to 18 C in the highlands and being around 22 C on the lowlands. The table shows that
some high altitude systems have higher temperatures, because of the local microclimates in the valleys
concerned. The areas served by the systems also differ signicantly. Despite these substantial vari-
ations, the dimensions and conguration of the main structures are much the same. This could
suggest some deciencies in design e.g., strict application of design-type guidelines without consider-
ation of the characteristics of the wastewater or the climatic conditions or that, in some cases,
existing systems were used as a model for new ones.
In the rural areas of Ecuador, especially in the south Andean region, the main objective of any sani-
tation program remains preventing the spread of diseases, which means that a WWTP must effectively
decrease the concentrations of pathogenic organisms in the efuent. However, small and compact
anaerobic reactors do not remove pathogenic organisms efciently (Chernicharo et al. 2015).
Table 1 shows that no post-treatment is included in any of the full anaerobic systems, which implies
that the disinfection objective, at least, was never met in any of them.
Table 1 also highlights the presence or absence of preliminary treatment in the systems. In most
cases, an overow structure, coarse screening and a small grit chamber are included in the congur-
ation. Like the reactors, the preliminary treatment units are almost identical in size and conguration
in all systems studied.
Finally, it is noted that almost 65% of the systems include a drying bed for excess sludge. However,
none is currently operating, and few operated for more than a short period after start up (Ordez
 243
Table 1 | Infrastructure and Technology of the Decentralized Wastewater Systems

Service
Area Altitude T Preliminary Treatment Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment

In Access O&M By- Grit Type- Filter Sludge Final

N System Name (Location) Operation Roads ha m msl C Plan Pass Screen Chamber Type Chamber L;W;D [m] number Media L;W;D [m] drying bed Disposal

1 Ricaurte (Flor de N/D

Camino)
2 Molleturo (Luz y N/D
Gua)
3 Abdn Caldern 72.2 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D FWSW-2 N/D Stream
(Molleturo)
4 Estero Piedra N/D 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D FWSW-2 N/D TL
(Molleturo)
5 Flor y Selva 55.8 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D FWSW-2 N/D TL
(Molleturo)
6 Jess del Gran Poder 417.5 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D FWSW-1 N/D Inl
(Molleturo)
7 La Suya (Molleturo) 43.5 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D HF/AF Gravel TL
8 Tamarindo N/D 30 22 OS ST 2 N/D FWSW-1 N/D Stream
(Molleturo)
9 San Antonio N/D 1,700 18 ST 2 N/D VF/AF Gravel Stream
(Chaucha)
10 San Gabriel Parte N/D 1,700 18 N/D ST N/D HF/AF N/D N/D
Baja (Chaucha)

Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1

11 San Gabriel 75.2 1,700 18 N/D ST N/D HF/AF N/D N/D
(Chaucha)
12 Cruz Verde 75.2 2,440 17 OS ST 2 N/D Stream
(Chiquintad)
13 La Isla (Chiquintad) 54.3 2,440 17 N/D ST N/D AF/ N/D N/D

doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027
14 Churuguzo (Victoria 226.5 2,500 11 ST 2 11,9;3,4;2,5 FWSW-2 34,5;20,2;1,8 Stream
del Portete)
15 Escaleras (Victoria 49.3 2,500 11 OS ST 2 N/D VF/AF Brick Stream
del Portete)
16 Cumbe (Victoria del 40.3 2,500 11 ST 2 N/D VF/AF Gravel Stream
Portete)

(Continued.)
Table 1 | Continued

244
Service
Area Altitude T Preliminary Treatment Primary Treatment Secondary Treatment

In Access O&M By- Grit Type- Filter Sludge Final

N System Name (Location) Operation Roads ha m msl C Plan Pass Screen Chamber Type Chamber L;W;D [m] number Media L;W;D [m] drying bed Disposal

17 Quillopungo (El 150.8 2,520 15 OS UASB 3 N/D HF/AF Gravel Stream

Valle)
18 Soldados (San N/D 2,550 17 OS ST 3 7,3;3,0;2,9 FWSW-1 31,7;18,7;2,5 Stream
Joaqun)
19 Acchayacu (Tarqui) 129.4 2,582 14 ST 2 N/D VF/AF Brick Stream
20 Tutupali (Tarqui) 41.5 2,582 14 OS ST 2 N/D VF/AF Brick Stream
21 El Chorro (Santa 47.9 2,600 17 ST 2 N/D VF/AF Brick Stream
Ana)
22 Guabo (Sidcay) 25.4 2,600 14 OS ST 2 9,4;3,1;1,5 VF/AF Brick Stream
23 Santa Ana Laureles 24.4 2,600 17 OS ST 2 9,4;3,0;1,5 VF/AF Gravel Stream
(Santa Ana)
24 San Pedro (Santa 71.0 2,600 17 OS ST 2 11,1;4,3;2,7 VF/AF Brick 2,5 Di 3,3 D Stream
Ana)
25 Santa Ana 32.9 2,600 17 OS ST 2 9,4;3,1;1,5 VF/AF Brick Stream
Cementerio (Santa
Ana)
26 Santa Brbara (Santa 8.6 2,600 17 ST 2 N/D HF/AF Gravel Stream
Ana)
27 Macas de Quingeo 11.1 2,792 15 ST 2 7,6;2,9;2,9 HF/AF Gravel 7,6;2,9;2,9 Stream
(Quingeo)

Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1

28 Quingeo Centro 103.6 2,792 15 ST 2 N/D VF/AF Gravel Stream
(Quingeo)
29 Octavio Cordero 38.4 2,820 17 N/D ST 4 4,8;4,7;1,5 Stream
Palacios

doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027
30 Tarqui Centro 605.1 2,852 11 OS ST 2 11,0;3,9;2,8 FWSW-2 N/D N/D
(Victoria del
Portete)
31 Bella Unin (Santa 76.5 2,900 12 OS ST 4 N/D VF/AF Brick Stream
Ana)
32 Pueblo Nuevo 55.8 3,500 5 ST 1 N/D HF/AF Gravel Stream
(Molleturo)

Legend: T: Temperature; OS: Overow Structure; VF/AF: Vertical Flow Anaerobic Filter; TL: Tidal land; L;W;D: Length;Width;Depth; ST: Septic Tank; HF/AF: Horizontal Flow Anaerobic Filter; Inl: Soil Inltration; m msl.: Meters above mean sea level;
UASB: Upow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor; Di: Diameter; : Available; O&M: Operation and Maintenance; FWSW: Free Water Surface Wetland; N/D: No Data; : Not available.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
245 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

2009). In a few cases the drying beds are used with minimal efciency as ltration chambers for efu-
ent polishing.

Technical and physical evaluation

Sewerage network

All DWWTPs are connected to sanitary systems, serving an average of 200 people (Neira 2005). The
networks underlie both public and private land, making them vulnerable to illicit discharge connec-
tions via pipes and manholes. Moreover, the domestic networks were constructed illegally in some
cases to allow rainfall drainage from yards and roofs.

Preliminary treatment

The system overows are controlled with bypass structures, consisting of a manhole containing a
small bafe/weir, in which excess wastewater, owing over the bafe, is discharged directly into
the receiving body through a bypass pipe. This conguration does not, unfortunately, guarantee
that particulate material goes through the system. After the rst general evaluations, screen bars
and settlers were added to many systems upstream of the STs, but these are insufcient to prevent
the STs clogging during major rainfall events.

Septic tanks

The STs commonly comprise a twin chamber reactor around 80 to 100 m3 volume (3.0 m deep and
L/B around 2.5). The STs are in good order structurally after 10 to 15 years, and all include ventilation
pipes, inspection manholes and inlet/outlet bafes, as recommended for good performance (Mara
1996).

Constructed wetlands

CWs are present as secondary treatment in 25% of the systems. All CWs are of Free Water Surface
Wetland (FWSW) conguration with inlet/outlet structures comprising perforated pipes to distri-
bute/collect the inuent/efuent from the reactor. The 8 secondary FWSWs use water hyacinths
(Eichhornia crassipes) as the main aquatic plant species.

Vertical ow anaerobic lters

Used as secondary treatment for ST efuents, all comprise circular covered chambers with granular
media (brick pieces and/or gravel) lling 70% of the reactor depth. There is no biogas recovery. The
inuent/efuent passes to perforated pipes at the bottoms and tops of the upow conguration reac-
tors. The one exception is at Bella Unin, where the VF/AF consists of a rectangular, open reactor.
Despite the acidic environments within them, these reactors are in good structural condition.

Horizontal Flow Anaerobic Filter

Also used as secondary treatment for the STs. The easier and more economic construction, compared to
the VF/AF, make this technology attractive for some sites. In this conguration, the ST and horizontal
ow anaerobic lter (HF/AF) are constructed in a single enclosed chamber with a dividing wall
between the two stages. The media used is gravel and typically lls 50% of the reactors depth. A per-
forated wall distributes the lter inuent. The physical infrastructure is in good condition in the systems
visited, but considerable clogging was observed in the perforated walls and on the media surface.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
246 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

Upow anaerobic sludge blanket

Only one system (Quillopungo), out of 32, uses a upow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor as
primary treatment. In the main reactors (3), the inuent enters at the bottom via a single pipe and the
efuent is collected by a perforated pipe. Biogas is not collected. The three-phase separator (De
Lemos Chernicharo 2007) was not working properly during the several visits to this system. There
were no bafes to prevent biogas entering the sedimentation chamber, which led to high suspended
solids concentrations in the efuent. This DWWTP is the only one that incorporates a disinfection
stage (chlorine contact chamber), although it was never used as such.

Treatment process evaluation

Table 2 presents the main characterization data for the systems. The very low concentrations of organic
matter and other constituents in some system inuents arise from the very high dilution of some waste-
water inuents, despite the exclusively domestic wastewater sources for the sewerage networks present
in all service areas. This problem is acknowledged by ETAPA and the recurrent entry of illicit waters is
identied as the cause. These illicit discharges cause the systems to overow and bypass ows are often
present in the receiving waters. They have several sources, the main ones are: (i) eld crop drainage
and excess irrigation water, which could incorporate high concentrations of pesticides and other farm-
ing products that could be toxic for some anaerobic biomass, thus inhibiting biological processes
(Crites & Tchobanoglous 1998; Von Sperling & de Lemos Chernicharo 2005); (ii) runoff from
roofs, courtyards, terraces, etc., and other household efuents, from which there is a high risk that
uncontrolled particulate material and very high rainfall discharges will enter the system; and, (iii)
runoff from roads and other public spaces, which usually enters the sewerage network via manholes.
ETAPA often receives reports of manholes having been opened to allow stagnant ows to drain easily
and quickly from unpaved roads, carrying large amounts of sand, clay and other particulate materials
to clog the pre-treatment and even the STs, during and after high rainfall events. It is very difcult to
solve these problems for various reasons described below.
Tables 2 and 3 shown the organic removal efciencies of some of the systems. These data corre-
spond in some cases to only a single characterization performed, typically, a few weeks after full
system maintenance. Such maintenance implies complete cleaning of the STs, and the removal, clean-
ing and reinstallation, or sometimes replacement, of the lter media in the anaerobic reactors.
Because of this it is anticipated that, after maintenance, a substantial proportion of the particulate
organic matter is retained in the STs and lter media during the rst days/weeks of operation.
Some removal efciencies reported, therefore, in Table 2 (characterizations performed in 2016)
should be treated cautiously, as they may not reect the quality of the bioprocesses in the reactors.
The almost negligible pathogenic organism removal in the fully anaerobic systems, should also be
noted in Table 2. This was expected due to the typical low efciencies of the anaerobic processes
in this regard. It is emphasized that none of the systems characterized in terms of FC, achieve the
Ecuadorian standards for either discharge to freshwater bodies or for water reuse in crop irrigation
(,1,000 MPN/100 mL). Because of this, these efuents would require obligatory disinfection for
any practical use downstream. Table 2 also shows the very high variability in the organic loads to
the systems, which was expected due to the clear differences in system sizes and populations
served. This could be also explained by the illicit discharges to the sewerage networks.

O&M evaluation

ETAPA, which has permanent and well trained personnel to operate Ucubamba WWTP, has evolved
with time in relation to the O&M needs of the decentralized systems. Initially, in the mid-1990s,
 247
Table 2 | Characterization of the DWWTPs

BOD5 COD TKN TP TSS TS TC ThC

Discharge
pH
mg/L MPN/100 mL

N System Name (Location) Date m3/day Inf Rem Inf Rem Inf Rem Inf Rem Inf Rem Inf Rem Inf Eff Inf Eff Inf

1 Ricaurte (Flor de Feb, 2009 155 60% 347 47% 13.5 N/D 5.7 N/D 222 N/D 821 N/D 2.4E 07 2.4E 07 2.4E 07 2.4E 07 7.6
Camino)
2 Molleturo (Luz y Gua) Sep, 2009 58 81% 24 11% N/D N/D 23 35% 154 12% 2.2E 05 1.2E 04 N/D 6.7
14 Churuguzo (Victoria del June, 2014 30 60% 174 59% 6.0 25% 1.4 22% 74 88% 268 20% 1.1E 06 1.6E 06 1.1E 06 1.6E 06 6.7
Portete) Feb, 2016 170 90% 603 85% 12.5 52% 3.2 67% 496 98% 776 72% 4.90E 06 1.70E 06 4.9E 06 4.6E 05 6.8
15 Escaleras (Victoria del Feb, 2016 420 89% 1,744 95% 83 54% 4.6 13% 1,636 98% 1,984 79% 1.4E 06 3.5E 07 1.4E 06 1.7E 07 6.7
Portete)
17 Quillopungo (El Valle) Dec, 2015 100 60% 279 61% 53 41% 3.9 23% 156 85% 518 37% 7.0E 06 2.0E 06 7.0E 06 1.1E 06 7.2
May, 2016 126 47 79% 218 64% 23 35% 1.8 16% 114 95% 506 16% 1.7E 06 4.9E 05 1.7E 06 3.3E 05 7.0
18 Soldados (San Joaqun) June, 2014 33 70% 149 77% 3 32% 1.5 64% 53 45% 162 44% 7.9E 05 7.9E 04 2.7E 05 1.7E 04 7.0
22 Guabo (Sidcay) 2015 20 49 67% 113 53% N/D 3.3 48% 21 48% 169 8% 5.2E 07 1.3E 07 8.4E 06 4.9E 06
Apr, 2016 245 90% 977 97% 44 49% 3.4 28% 1,550 99% 1,842 87% 1.7E 06 7.9E 06 1.7E 06 4.9E 06 6.7
23 Santa Ana Laureles Oct, 2015 33 365 86% 839 70% 134 14% 7.5 0.2 436 95% 1,134 47% 1.30E 07 3.30E 06 1.30E 07 1.70E 06 7.3
(Santa Ana) Feb, 2016 170 48% 413 15% 51 67% 4.4 0.8 26 177% 557 2% 2.40E 07 2.30E 04 2.40E 07 2.30E 04 7.6
24 San Pedro (Santa Ana) June, 2014 580 96% 2,038 94% 229 98% N/D 229 91% 1,236 69% 1.6E 12 2.8E 07 3.5E 11 1.7E 07 9.2
25 Santa Ana Cementerio Dec, 2015 20 265 71% 684 62% 122 23% 11.9 23% 161 70% 815 37% 1.7E 07 1.7E 07 1.7E 07 1.7E 07 7.4
(Santa Ana) May, 2016 375 86% 818 77% 74 34% 7.0 41% 210 86% 930 46% 2.3E 07 4.9E 06 1.3E 07 4.9E 06 7.3
27 Macas de Quingeo Oct, 2015 223 92% 440 85% 53 72% 3.1 58% 72 93% 593 65% 4.9E 06 5.4E 06 4.9E 06 7.9E 05 7.1
(Quingeo) Mar, 2016 58 60% 142 68% 26 5% 3.3 34% 69 88% 298 24% 4.90E 06 4.9E 06 4.9E 06 3.3E 06 6.8

Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1

28 Quingeo Centro Jan, 2009 10 150% 32 128% 1.3 122% N/D 43 23% 283 46% 7.9E 05 2.4E 06 2.2E 05 1.3E 06 7.0
(Quingeo) Feb, 2015 46 59% 147 66% 26 5% 1.7 0.1 62 81% 344 19% 2.20E 06 9.40E 05 1.40E 06 9.40E 05 7.1
29 Octavio Cordero 2015 24 63 27% 142 29% 3.9 15% 62 85% 601 36% 1.3E 08 3.4E 07 7.7E 07 1.3E 07
Palacios
30 Tarqui Centro (Victoria Sep, 2010 133 81% 313 70% N/D 7.4 25% 95 80% 407 42% 7.7E 07 3.7E 07 3.4E 07 2.4E 07 7.3

doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027
del Portete) May, 2016 225 76% 841 70% 21.4 56% 18.9 92% 840 73% 1,376 56% 1.30E 06 2.30E 06 1.30E 06 2.30E 06 6.3
31 Bella Unin (Santa Mar, 2016 620 95% 2,488 94% 238 77% 22.4 75% 2,412 99% 2,742 86% 4.9E 07 7.9E 06 1.40E 07 4.90E 06 6.7
Ana)
32 Pueblo Nuevo 62 85%
(Molleturo)

Inf: Inuent; COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand; TS: Total Solids; Eff: Efuent; TKN: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen; TC: Total Coliforms; Rem: Removal; TP: Total Phosphorus; ThC: Total Thermotolerant Coliforms; BOD: Biochemical Oxygen Demand; TSS: Total
Suspended Solids; N/D: No data; : Not available.
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
248 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

Table 3 | Summary of removal efciencies and main problems related to each technology

# of
Technology systems Removal min; mean; max recurrent problems observed

ST HF/AF 7 COD: 61; 75; 85% (2); TC: ,0; ,1; Clogging of ST and AFs
2 log (2)
ST VF/AF 12 COD: 118; 54; 97% (7); TC: ,0; ,1; Clogging of ST and AFs; organic overload;
5 log (7)
ST FWSW 8 COD:59; 73; 85% (3); TC: ,0; ,1; Clogging of ST; Clogging of ST; short circuiting
1 log (3) in FWSW
ST FWSW Inl 1
UASB HF/AF 1 COD: 62% (1); TC: ,1 log (1) Organic overload; clogging of AFs
Only ST 2 COD: 28% (1); TC: ,1 log (1) Clogging of ST
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand; TC: Total coliforms; (N) Number of systems characterized; ST: Septic Tank; AF: Anaerobic Filter; HF: Horizontal Flow; VF: Vertical
Flow; FWSW: Free Water Surface Wetland; Inl: Soil Inltration; UASB: Upow anaerobic sludge blanket; OUT: Currently out of operation.

DWWTP maintenance was carried out by the staff in charge of the sewerage systems. The specic
needs for personnel trained in wastewater treatment, obliged ETAPA to create new maintenance
teams exclusively for the DWWTPs. This obviously implies permanent human and economic
resources, and demands great effort since the systems are remote see Figure 1.
A recurring O&M problem for the systems is the uncontrolled particulate material entering them
during heavy rainfall. The clogging of pre-treatment units has been reported in past evaluations and
still occurs now. The locations of and extensions to the sewerage networks have made it almost
impossible for ETAPA to prevent the illicit discharges, despite continuous monitoring. Huge amounts
of particulate material will continue to enter the sewers, if the communities served do not take care of
the infrastructure, especially the manholes. The unpaved roads and natural steep slopes will affect
system performance for many years to come, so efforts should also be made to educate the population
served about the direct public health benets, if wastewater is treated before discharge to streams.
It is also noted in Table 1 that 12 DWWTPs do not have access roads. This hinders maintenance,
demanding more human and economic resources in the long run. It is no surprise to nd that half the
systems without maintenance plans are also without vehicular access. The availability of land and
economic resources in the Andean region of Ecuador is certainly an important factor limiting the
location of DWWTPs; nevertheless, for remote systems, the need must be emphasized for building
capacity for O&M in local organizations and the related advantages of sustainable wastewater
treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The main conclusions are:

Despite having separate sanitary systems, signicant amounts of particulate material enter the
DWWTPs during heavy rainfall, causing pre-treatment units to collapse and occasionally clogging
the primary STs. Unfortunately, in some cases, the populations served by the systems contribute
to the problem by opening manholes to enhance drainage from roads and public spaces.
In some cases, when partial or full clogging of some units need urgent intervention, the remote
location of some systems/DWWTPs and their inaccessibility by car, contribute directly to lack of
maintenance, because only manual cleaning and minor activities are carried out. At times, this
has led directly to reduced system efciency and, occasionally, to system abandonment.
The communities served by the DWWTPs have never been involved in their O&M, so full respon-
sibility rests with ETAPA. On the basis of assessments of these and many other decentralized
 Water Practice & Technology Vol 12 No 1
249 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2017.027

systems, it is strongly recommended real capacities should be created in the local communities with
regard to system O&M. This can be done by providing education about the benets of wastewater
treatment.
The pathogen concentration in the DWWTP efuents restricts the potential for use downstream.
The anaerobic processes remove pathogenic organisms very inefciently, and, despite some
minor removal in the CWs, the FC concentrations remain very high, in those systems analyzed.
There is room for improvement e.g., by adding disinfection units although, this should be con-
sidered carefully because the high efuent suspended solids concentrations may hinder disinfection.
The frequent (and necessary) cleaning of the systems is causing the biomass to wash out and it grows
poorly in such operating conditions. Thus, there is low biological activity in the reactors, and phys-
ical processes sedimentation and ltration are almost the only BOD-removal mechanisms in
many of the systems studied. It is strongly recommended that the conditions for real growth of
anaerobic biomass are maintained for the several months sometimes required at the temperatures
of the Andean region. Characterizations of biomass activity over long periods should also be carried
out during regular operation of the systems.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by ETAPA (Empresa Pblica Municipal de Telecomunicaciones, Agua
Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento de Cuenca, Ecuador). The authors express their gratitude to
the personnel of ETAPAs Sanitation Department, especially Ing. Patricio Rodriguez and Ing. Paul
Torres. The authors also express their express gratitude to the personnel of the Sanitary Laboratory
of the Engineering Faculty of the Universidad de Cuenca.

REFERENCES

Bakir, H. A. 2001 Sustainable wastewater management for small communities in the Middle East and North Africa. J. Environ.
Manage. 61, 319328.
Chernicharo, C. A. L., van Lier, J. B., Noyola, A. & Bressani Ribeiro, T. 2015 Anaerobic sewage treatment: state of the art,
constraints and challenges. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 14, 649679.
Crites, R. W. & Tchobanoglous, G. 1998 Small and Decentralized Wastewater Management Systems. WCB/McGraw-Hill, USA.
De Lemos Chernicharo, C. A. 2007 Anaerobic Reactors. IWA Publishing, London.
Mara, D. 1996 Low Cost Urban Sanitation. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, UK.
Nansubuga, I., Banadda, N., Verstraete, W. & Rabaey, K. 2016 A review of sustainable sanitation systems in Africa. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol. 15, 465478.
Neira, A. 2005 Evaluacin de los Sistemas Urbano-Marginales y Rurales de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales del Cantn
Cuenca. ETAPA, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Ordez, G. 2009 Mantenimiento de los Sistemas Rurales de Alcantarillado. ETAPA, Cuenca, Ecuador.
Singh, N. K., Kazmi, A. A. & Starkl, M. 2015 A review on full-scale decentralized wastewater treatment systems: techno-
economical approach. Water Sci. Technol. 71, 468478.
Tchobanogious, G., Ruppe, L., Leverenz, H. & Darby, J. 2004 Decentralized wastewater management: challenges and
opportunities for the twenty-rst century. Water Sci. Technol. Water Supply 4, 95102.
Verstraete, W., Van de Caveye, P. & Diamantis, V. 2009 Maximum use of resources present in domestic used water. Bioresour.
Technol. 100, 55375545.
Von Sperling, M. & de Lemos Chernicharo, C. A. 2005 Biological Wastewater Treatment in Warm Climate Regions. IWA
Publishing.
WHO/UNICEF 2015 Update and MDG Assessment WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data [WWW Document]. World
Heal. Organ. URL http://www.who.int/about/licensing/copyright_form/en/index.html (accessed 17 July 2016).