Yes! There is a monopoly via the patent and as your rightly mention it may seem duplicitous to you as what is obvious to you today was not obvious back in 2000 and from what you write is still not obvious to most experts and therefore eminently patentable. Our firm is currently set up as a profit making entity though there are reasons that may compel us to explore being a non profit in order to scale the technology worldwide.

Many workers have re-discovered what our group at IIT Bombay innovated and demonstrated in 1990s that you can have deep beds 4m+ which are engineered to be aerobic due to perforated aeration pipes inserted to allow Air to access deeper regions. Your variation of the plastic lamella works on a similar principle. We at IIT Bombay also initially tried out wood bark, coco peat, other other organic matter only to discover that the biological breakdown of this organic matter by redworms mediated biology causes TSS/Humus to show up in the treated water and not to mention that organic media needs constant replacement. On the other hand SBT media is one time and needs near zero replacement. As far as demonstrations are concerned there are many in India close to 100MLD of installations and more are coming up all the time. We found during our extensive trials that deep beds there is higher shear forces due to higher hydraulic velocity (Q/A). This washes out the bacterial film and hastens the breakup of the already degrading organic mulch.

It is precisely this novelty that other implementations of Vermifiltrations do not have. SBT is designed for reuse to higher standards (COD<50, BOD<10, TSS<10) and also has features to allow removal of N and P from the waste water. this is achieved partly by biology and partly by well known process chemistry.

The patent is only one aspect which you may be well aware is only enforceable in areas where the IP systems are strong. In India there are many who have copied what we have demonstrated over the years... we have no time to pursue such entities... the only issue we face is when other Vermifiltration entities fail to deliver the entire technology is considered a failure much to our detriment in the market.

VEC works on demonstrated guarantees to its clients that we will deliver what we promise in terms of outcomes. So we are ok with folks calling their systems Vermifiltration using Organic Media and we call ours Soil Bio Technology and / OR CAMUS-SBT (both terms are trademarked) to develop the technology brand differentiation.

To me this still comes across to me as a duplicitous scheme to monopolise the technology for profit. Nowhere in the patent does it specify sizing of the process units in the context of parameters relevant to sustainability. The patent sets the stage for marketing of special media and special preparations that are proprietary, but the buyer must rely on good faith that such preparations make the product better than alternatives. In reality, design of reactor capacity involves authentic variables such as quantity, quality and oxygen demand of the influent, along with ambient temperature. Such process kinetics cannot be patented, so perhaps the special preparations were included to elucidate the patent? As a vermifiltration researcher I have found that such preparations are totally unnecessary to effectively treat wastewater. 

Redworms do not like wet conditions and vermifiltration using redworm systems resulted in loss of hydraulics over time. This feature was understood and solved by using the geophagus worm cultures.

Loss of hydraulic conductivity simply means that unsuitable media was deployed in the first place. Earthworms add to the substrate by creating humus, but this humus inherently holds porosity and conductivity suitable for earthworm habitat. SBT "geophagus worm cultures" are not a magic bullet solution to poor quality media with a low hydraulic conductivity... Appropriate media is the solution. 
Show me impartial, replicated science showing the "special" "geophagus earthworm cultures" improve media hydraulic conductivity. "Geophagus earthworm" is certainly a novel term suitable for glossy promotional brochures, but can a patent monopolise the combination of white and red worms? I can't see that being upheld in court, any earthworm can be added to any vermifiltration system and whatever earthworm species or colour survive the competitive environment inside the reactor are the ones that go into the next reactor... this is hardly proprietary or patentable. Even just claiming that Pheretima elongata fills an ecological niche inside the reactor (i.e. consuming bacterial film) to me is hollow rhetoric. Redworms build up to large numbers consuming only bacterial slime ("soil bacteria") in the absence of any fecal solids. It's simple... if the wastewater has a high oxygen demand and the substrate is aerobic, bacteria soon colonise it and consume the organics. That is the process. Worms graze the bacterial slime (biofilm) and control its buildup, they are just the system "caretakers". By grazing the biofilm, worms prevent it from building up and sloughing, overcoming the chief problem with the vermifilter's predecessor, the "trickling filter". 

The novelty is the use of adsorbtive / absorbtive media wherein the organics in waste water are transfered to to solid surface where soil rather than aquatic bacteria provide the treatment action.

 
Actually the fundamentals of vermifiltration are that micro-organisms fix to the surface of the media, which is not actually submerged in water, but has water trickling through it. One could surmise that the fauna which attach to the media are therefore not aquatic, but could be described as "soil bacteria" for novel effect. However, suitable bacteria colonise any surface with wastewater trickling over it.
Show me impartial, replicated science showing the "special" SBT bacteria are superior to "ordinary" bacteria that naturally colonise the media surface. Show me impartial, replicated science showing the "special" SBT media is superior to "ordinary" vermifilter media such as composted bark, woodchips and sawdust. 

Two other points I would make are that:

1. Vermifiltration does not remove nitrogen and phosphorous from wastewater. Vermifiltration offers a low cost method for treating wastewater that retains the nutrients for application to land. Removal of nitrogen and phosphorous are appropriate where the water is discharged to waterways, because those nutrients can cause water bodies to become eutrophic. Removing nitrogen requires conventional sewage treatment processes such as anaerobic denitrification. Vermifiltration instead offers a method to close the nutrient cycle and recycle nutrients back onto the land for growing plants, whether irrigated to pasture, crops, trees or forests. If removal of N and P is required because the wastewater is to be discharged to a waterway, then another treatment process should be used.
2. To date vermifiltration has had limited uptake because the companies deploying it haven't yet discovered the huge potential for efficiency improvement from a simple innovation that overcomes anoxic conditions that manifest deeper in the media. Take a look at the Animated walkthrough video above, the Camus SBT vermifilter reactor is just like all the other first generation reactors being produced around the world, the deeper you go into the media, the more it becomes oxygen limited. Although ventilation is generally provided at the bottom,  oxygen-limited zones occur in the centre of the mass because of distance from oxygen source.

In contrast here is a second generation design . The method allows unlimited media depth without being oxygen limited, which vastly improves treatment efficiency (and I would argue cost efficiency) in both recirculating and single pass systems. The deeper the media, the greater the level of treatment, provided the media is well aerated throughout the column.

cheers
Dean

To answer the questions by Pawan:

pkjha wrote: Dear All

In addition to the queries raised by Dean I would like to know:
- Question: Land required for the treatment of wastewater from 25000 people :

Answer: 0.6 sqm/KLD assuming 100 LPCD sewage generation from a 135 LPCD water supply @75% collection efficiency

- Question: Total capital cost excluding land cost and including land cost for the treatment of influent,

Answer: CAPEX is Rs 1.3Cr- Rs1.6Cr / MLD excluding land cost (valid for 1 MLD or larger). But this estimate is very generalized... depending on the client the costs may vary especially if very high quality RCC construction is demanded by codes. It is cheaper when Soil Bund Construction is used however area required increases

- Question: Total capital cost for the treatment of settle sludge

Answer: Included in estimate above

- Question: Recurring costs ( Operation and maintenance cost) on monthly / yearly basis including manpower, materials etc.

Answer: Very dependent on number of operators... assuming 2 operators 1 MLD plant O&M cost is Rs 11 Lakhs / year inclusive of power

- Question: Econmic return from the whole system with some details

Answer: Assuming treated water to be sold at Rs 30/KL plant payback is ~2 years. Potentially construction bamboo can be harvested from the top of the BM but has not been commercially tried as yet. Commercial Flowers are another possibility (Marigold and Hibiscus). Fish especially catfish grow in the treated water.. not sure if they will pass any kind of food safety test

- Question: Physico-chemical and bacteriological anayses of influent and effluent of the treated wastewater.

Answer: Inlet: COD~450,BOD~200,TSS~250 and Outlet:COD<50,BOD<10,TSS<10

- Question: 1st sample in plastic bottle showing as raw sewage does not appear a typical sewage, as it is much clear than a typical sewage in India. It appears to be mixed with storm water drainage.

Answer: Many plants exist... inlet parameters varies... inlet of COD~1000 treated to COD<50 is also available. Connect with me on whatsapp and I will be happy to arrange site visits etc

At the request of Elisabeth von Muench I am clarifying a few aspects below.

goeco wrote: Hi cshankar,

In the videos and descriptions of the technology, plants are not trivialised as "added only for aesthetics". Please explain why your statement contradicts the information displayed, is this because the plants were later found to not improve the treatment process?

I note that you state that "The big advantage is the low operating expense and the high water quality at the outlet." Could you please also provide the capital cost for the 2019 SBT plant that treats wastewater generated by ~25000 people?
[...]

Could you please explain what was novel in this process? What, exactly, was being patented? Please clarify, my understanding is that this just describes the prior art, that being the vermifiltration process.

cheers
Dean

1)The Initial SBT Patent (US and India) were awarded in 2002 and 2005 (submitted I think late 2001) and were deemed novel by the patent granting authorities the research work itself was done in Late 1980s and continued in the 1990s.

2)The SBT Patent is a process patent that elucidates the sizing of the process units required to deploy earthworm ecology to sustainably treat waste water. Extensive research was done to understand process kinetics, selection of media, Use of the geophagus worm (Pheretima Elongata (which feeds mostly on bacterial colonies and not on the fecal waste directly) unlike previous usage of the Eisenia Fetida redworm (which constitutes the bulk of the Vermifiltration systems).

3) Redworms do not like wet conditions and vermifiltration using redworm systems resulted in loss of hydraulics over time. This feature was understood and solved by using the geophagus worm cultures.

4) The novelty is the use of adsorbtive / absorbtive media wherein the organics in waste water are transfered to to solid surface where soil rather than aquatic bacteria provide the treatment action.

5) The white worm / geophagus earthworm consumes the bacterial film and not the fecal solids as in conventional vermifilters

6) CAMUS-SBT the advanced version of the SBT process use both Redworm and Whiteworm Cultures

7) CAMUS-SBT integrates denitrification/dephosphorization in the process as required by many regulatory bodies

8 ) 25000 population plant costs will around Rs 3-5Crore in CAPEX in western India (Around $0.40-$0.70million @Rs70 to 1 USD). Plants costs are highly dependent on local costs. These are critically: Costs of construction, legal compliances, cost of the SBT media (which we certify for use in the plant, and post choice of media we formulate appropriate cultures and catalysts (micronutrients) required for the media. We provide the design, garantees, BOQs, specialty cultures and catalyst, deploy our staff to site to over see the construction typically done by a local civil contractor, provide commissioning services, AMC during Operation and Maintenance period if required.

9) Space required is around 0.6 sqm/KLD (Plant Plot) utilities (such as roads, buildings etc are extra).

10) This is assuming COD~450ppm, BOD~250ppm, TSS~300ppm, TKN~30ppm, Water Temperature of 20C-27C

11) Soil Bacteria being the primary bioremediators we do not need plants (they are nice to have, NOT a Need to have). Plants are only bioindicators and typically can be replaced with fish as bioindicators or even odor or color of water at a first pass. We typically also do regular water quality tests.

I am available on WhatsApp +91 9769605547 to answer any more queries. You may also get in touch with our team via our proposal request form for any projects that you may have. We are happy to work with local vermifiltration aficionados in deploying.

www.visionearthcare.com/Request--SoilBioTech/new-plant

Dear SuSanA Member,
Prof Pawan Jha has enquired on a few specific data on wwt plant and its commercial details.
This would give us the very basis of a 2500 cbm/ Kl per day plant.
Ideally the recycled water say 2400 cbm/ Kl and bio waste generated, is used at urban greens or for rural village agri farms.
As the re use water is available throughout year, the greens and or agri farms can be planned well.
The projects can be initiated on sustained mode, giving total confidence in communities.
Well wishes.

Dear All

In addition to the queries raised by Dean I would like to know:
- Land required for the treatment of wastewater from 25000 people
- Total capital cost excluding land cost and including land cost for the treatment of influent,
- Total capital cost for the treatment of settle sludge
- Recurring costs ( Operation and maintenance cost) on monthly / yearly basis including manpower, materials etc.
- Econmic return from the whole system with some details
- Physico-chemical and bacteriological anayses of influent and effluent of the treated wastewater.
- 1st sample in plastic bottle showing as raw sewage does not appear a typical sewage, as it is much clear than a typical sewage in India. It appears to be mixed with storm water drainage.
Regards

Pawan

Hi cshankar,

In the videos and descriptions of the technology, plants are not trivialised as "added only for aesthetics". Please explain why your statement contradicts the information displayed, is this because the plants were later found to not improve the treatment process?

I note that you state that "The big advantage is the low operating expense and the high water quality at the outlet." Could you please also provide the capital cost for the 2019 SBT plant that treats wastewater generated by ~25000 people?
I note that according to the SBT patent, the process is described as:

In accordance with the general process of this invention, the single stage SBT process basically involves: (i) preparation of the geophagus earthworms culture Pheretima elongata and preparation of bacterial culture; (ii) preparation of the soil media to contain the geophagus earthworms Pheretima elongata; (iii) construction of an under drain first tank and a collection tank herein referred to as second tank; (iv) layering of the media over the first tank; (v) percolation of the organic waste through the layered media; (vi) collection of the treated water in the second tank; (vii) recirculation of the treated water to achieve the desired quality; and (viii) using bioindicators to monitor the reformed water at various stages of the process.

Could you please explain what was novel in this process? What, exactly, was being patented? Please clarify, my understanding is that this just describes the prior art, that being the vermifiltration process.

cheers
Dean

Dear Chandrashekar,

I have moved and consolidated all the posts about this technology in the one thread (this one). Could you please scroll up (or down) and read the post by Dean in this thread from two years ago from 12 April 2017? It would be interesting to read your responses to the points that Dean made.
Thanks,
Elisabeth

I saw this post since I recently joined the group. Want to clarify that the Soil Bio Technology patent of IIT Bombay is a process patent which defines how you can use soil ecology to reliably create an ecosystem for treatment of waste waters it does not and cannot patent natural life as Bogdan rightly mentions . It also does not use plants to treat waste water (plants are added only for aesthetics).

I am also glad to report that since 2005 Soil BioTechnology has become an important tool in the arsenal in providing decentralized waste water treatment to many communities and has been extensively deployed by our team (www.visionearthcare.com) (VEC) all across India currently with an installed capacity of 100 MLD (~1 Million People equivalents). Objective of the SBT patent and trademark is to protect the designs from being copied and provide the market with a technologically guaranteed solution that meets the treatment objectives enforced by regulatory authorities.

Many innovators have great solutions (I have personally learnt quite a bit from esteemed posters here) that have shown results fantastic in their own backyards (Prof Shankar was one such backyard inventor in 1990-2000) and did many pilots to gain process sizing knowledge. Due to a great bit of luck and support VEC was able to scale out the solution as a commercial entity. VEC is deploying its expertise, knowledge and experience to create a scalable, dependable, reliable system that will be purchased by users who want a plug and play solution that has the requisite guarantees of performance. We typically provide design, process sizing engineering, local bio-materials selection and testing protocols, project management, commissioning and post commissioning maintenance support. Most of our customers are Municipal Authoriteis and Real Estate businesses who need the treated water for reuse purposes such as flushing, gardening, cooling towers, construction and aquaculture.

Once the knowhow is standardized the crux of the matter lies in how we scale to reach millions who don't know and desperately needs such solutions. The SBT and it's advanced variant called CAMUS-SBT are now technology brands that have the confidence and approval of many regulatory authorities who have operated such unit independently. It is however true that most of the science/knowhow behind is well known to experts in this forum who I believe will appreciate the beauty of the natural system at work given that they themselves have been successful in using the same in their own projects. All such projects make such natural system more acceptable to public.

Here is a 2019 walkthrough of plant handling waste waters generated by ~25000 people for a municipal authority in western India.


A 2005 video detailing the Development of the Technology at IITB and the first pilot at Mumbai city

Vermifiltration is my opinion a very powerful tool of sustainable sanitation.

We have used Soil Bio Technology type vermifiltration systems developed at IIT Bombay www.che.iitb.ac.in/faculty/hss/soilbiotech.pdf for community level (100-6000 people served) and at city level (10000-65000 people served) Waste Water Reclamation projects across India.

The big advantage is the low operating expense and the high water quality at the outlet. Some of this work has been indirectly supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation via their local partners such as Center for Science and Environment (www.cseindia.org) / (www.cseindia.org/soil-bio-technology-sbt-3774)

www.visionearthcare.com

www.visionearthcare.com/home/soil-bio-technology

Technical presentation for Sewage Treatment and Septage Treatment is below

www.visionearthcare.com/SBT-Presentation

Here are some more video links.

History of Development of Technology at IITB


ET NOW showcase of Vision Earthcare


Animated walkthrough


Technical site walkthrough

I have to say that I treat the IIT version of Soil Biotechnology (SBT) with some considerable scepticism. I have no issues with the concept and design, it's the patent and proprietary nature of their "additives" that smells like snake oil...Basically a special proprietary culture of soil, earthworms, bacteria and special additives. Starts with a septic tank, then to the bioreactor, with rubble in the bottom as drainage layer, then proprietary rock material, special additives and soil as the filter layers. Plants are grown over the top of the SBT beds on soil bunds and wastewater is trickled on top.

There is nothing proprietary about the SBT apart from specific materials that are used, such as minerals and bacterial cultures. Check out their patent, US Patent No: 6890438 " Process for treatment of organic wastes"
www.google.com/patents/US6890438

The patent is riddled with misinformation about vermifiltration that is then used to support their approach using special proprietary additives. It reads like a comic book... the goal being to disingenuously claim superiority to set up a monopoly.

Their bioreactors use vermifiltration combined with plants to purify primary treated wastewater. I'm okay with that, but am convinced this is not the best approach. By using plants to treat wastewater, you add to maintenance and costs. In my view the best method is to treat the wastewater to a level that is safe to use for irrigating productive crops, while retaining the plant nutrients. That is, treat for the plants rather than treat with the plants.

cheers
Dean

Thanks a lot.

Regards

Zlatko